Ancient Scholarship and Grammar: Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts (Trends in Classics - Supplementary Volumes - Volume 8)

=

=

34

Richard Hunter

sion of the Ion ha� sought to associate these with the 1iTr6voloI ('under­ meanings') of the Homeric text about which we hear in more than one other text of this period (Xenophon, Smp. 3.6, Plato, R. 2.378d6) .25 No doubt a rhapsode's or sophist's dianoia about Homer could take the form of elucidating an alleged huponoia, but there seems little rea�on to make the connection here. Whether or not it i� likely that Ion's dianoiai are to be imagined a� reaching any great level of intellectual sophi�tication or ingenuity may be debated; much might hang on how seriously we are to take Ion's claims to outdo such sophisticated interpreters as Metro­ doru.� and Stesimbrous (530c8-9) . In Xenophon's Symposium, which seems to have some intertextual relation to the 10n,26 Socrates explicitly associates rhapsodes and their stupidity with ignorance of the \11f6VOIOI (3 .6), and-with every allowance for the joking spirit of these ex­ changes-thi� at least does not encourage us to a�sociate Ion with this type of critici�m (whatever it was) .27 More importantly, however, the dialogue iuelf gives no reason either to think of Ion a� an 'allegorist' or to regard the matter a� important for the understanding of the text. We must, I think, content ourselves with the reflection that, although the poet's dianoia wa� almost universally held to be a single authorial 'mean­ ing' or 'intention', regardless of the extent to which critics might di�­ agree a� to what that wa�, the dianoiai of critics and performers about the poet very likely covered a very wide range of both mode and sophistica­ tion. 25 For such a cOlUlection cf., e.g., Oilier 1 955, 1 75 n. 3, Aashar t 958, 25; the use made of thi� alleged connection by Struck 2004, 43, 67 seem.� to me particu­ larly mi\leading. 26 Cf., e.g., Meridier 1 93 1 , 25-6; Hu'l.� 1 999, 2 1 5 . 2 7 Ford 2002, 70-1 suggests that Ion's 'stock o f observation� [ . . . ] conusted i n improving observation� o n the wi�dom t o b e found i n Homer's poetry' (cf. al­ ready Verdeniu� 1 943, 246-53), and Meridier 1 93 1 , 1 1 noteS that 'son com­ mentaire doit etre une paraphra.�e elogieuse' . Velardi 1 989, 31",(, makes the in­ teresting suggestion that Lycurgus, Against Ltocraks 1 02-4 i� an example of the kind of hralVos which a rhapsode might offer. Given the persistence of enco­ mia.�tic themes over the centuries, I would be looking not ju�t to Dio Or. 53 (cf. above p. 27), but al�o to Dio Or. 2, which, when set beside, e.g., the Hip­ pUu Minor, i� an excellent illu�tration of that con'li.�tency. The young Alexan­ der's fixation with Homer in fact mirro rs Ion's: 'Why on earth, my son,' Philip a.\lt.� him, 'are you so besotted with (�K1ThrArtal) Homer that you concern yourself (5Icrrp lj3EIS, cf. Ion 530bR) with him alone of the poets?' (D.Cbe. Or. 2.3) . It is likely al�o that the dialogue itself contain� some hints a.� to the sort of extra-textual conunentary which i� envi�d. One example may be 535c, where Ion's response to Socrates may be evidence that the language of poetic enargeia, and its link to the emotional effect of poetry (cf. esp. 'Longinu�', On tile Sublime 1 5. 1 -2), goes a very long way back.

Plato's Ion and the Origins of Scholar.;hip

35

Nevertheless, there is more to be said about Ion's claim at 530d2. The claim to speak 'many, fine dianoiai about Homer' i.� strikingly ex­ pressed and its oddity (which is often, [ think, under-rated) is clearly designed to call attention to itself A�, however, some scholars have seen, dianoiai i.� chosen to play off against Socrates' repeated (530b1 0, c4) stress upon the rhapsode's knowledge of the poet's dianoia; both the poet and his perfonners and critics have dianoiai. At one level, of course, Ion's smugness merely condemns itself: there is a clear implication that [on is more interested in hi.� own dianoiai than in Homer's.2I< Secondly, the plurality of Ion's dianoiai, when set against the singularity of the poet's dianoia, is something which will always set alarm-bells ringing in a Pla­ tonic context.2" Thirdly, and most inlportantly, the u�e of the same word points to a fundamental methodological problem: when someone speak.� a dianoia about Homer's dianoia, how are we to able to di.�tingui.�h the two? Elsewhere, Plato's Socrates seems to abandon the whole bu�i­ ness of poetic 'criticism' becau�e the poem cannot speak for it�elf and the poet i.� not present to be questioned;3<1 here the point i.� similar, but the complex u�e of dianoia allows u� to see how Plato has anticipated the debate which racked much of twentieth-century scholarship on classical literature and still occasionally surfaces in apologetic footnotes: i.� there in fact such a thing a.� 'authorial meaning' , or i.� meaning 'created at the point of receptionlinterpretation'? hinc illae lacrimae . . . The ba.�ic distinc­ tion in Socrates' opening gambit between the 'words' and the 'thought' introduces, though hardly for the first time,31 the principal distinction upon which all subsequent rhetorical and styli.�tic criticism is built: the Homeric scholia repeatedly di.�tingui.�h between, on the one hand, crwSecrlS or KCXTOcrKEV1l and, on the other, BlclVOIO or V01lj..lOTO, and Aristotle (no doubt like Ion) thought that the mad and the Odyssey 'sur­ pa.�sed all epics in lexis and dianoia' (Poetics 1 459b 1 6) . The discussion o f Simonides' poem for Scopas in th e Protagoras offers helpful confinnation of some of this analysi.� . Socrates introduces his long epideixis with the statement that he wishes to say 'what I think Si­ monides intend� (BlovoeicrSm) in this poem, if you want to test out

28 Cf Fla..har 1 958, 34. 29 Aristophanes u..es the plural to mean 'witty conceit.' (Clollds 944, Peaa 750, Wasps 1 044, Eal. 581) or 'thoughtslideas' (Frogs 1 059) . Ion's pride in the amou.nt of what he can say perhaps look.. forward to the misplaced pride of the Horatian 'boor' (qllis me scribere pluris / aut dtius possit umus?, Satires 1 .9.23-4) . 30 Cf Protagoras 347e, Hippias Minor 365c&-d 1 . 3 1 C f , e.g., Phaedrus 228dt-5. O n thi.. distinction i n pre-Helleni.tic texts c f , e.g., Halliwell 2000, 1 02.

Richard Hunter

36

how I stand, as you put it, in regard to verses (TIEp! E7roov) ' (341 e7-2a2) . Socrates is here picking up Protagoras' opening gambit: I think, Socrates, that the greatest part of a man's paideia is to be clever in

the matter of vers es

(TTEpl ETTWV OE1VOV ETvOl) .

This mean. to be able to un­

derstand

(avvlI�vOl)

(6p6wS)

and what not, and to know how to make distinctions and, when

what the poets say and what has been composed well

questioned, to give an account. Plato, Protagoras 33!!e6-9a3

Here it is indeed the poet's 'meaning/intention' which is at stake, but when Socrates begins his exposition, the language slides: 'I shall attempt to explain to you what I think about thi� poem' (342a6-7) . Thi� may be no more than shorthand for ' . . . what I think about Simonides' intention in thi� poem', for the fact that it is indeed Simonides' dianoia which is the object of the exposition is subsequently repeated (343c) and rounds off Socrates' speech (347a4-5) in a kind of simple ring-composition. Nevertheless, thi� speech, which in the terms of the Ion we could de­ scribe a� a 'dianoia concerning Simonides' or perhaps 'an epideixis con­ taining many fine dianoiai concerning Simonides', is an example of the potential split between the dianoia of a poet and the dianoia of the critic; when Socrates has Simonides arguing for idea� which we recognise as quintessentially Socratic, such a� that no one does wrong willingly (345d--e) , the opportunities and dangers which still litter the path of literary scholarship lie plainly before our eyes. The second description which Ion gives of hi� own activity points to a similar potential for confu�ion between poet and interpreter: It's certainly worth hearing, Socrates, how brilliandy I have embellished

(KEK6allllKa)

Homer; I think that the Homeridai should crown me with a

gold wreath. Plato, Ion 530d6-!!

Whatever reference there may be here to the actual conduct of rhap­ sodic contest�/2 KOO"lleiv i.� another ca�e where Ion's language picks up and re-directs that of Socrates (c( 530b6) . Ion's use of the verb has been variou.�ly interpreted,33 but one thing that i.� clear is that KOO"lleiv, 'em32 Victorious rhapsodes were no doubt crowned, but the image here may rather be of Homer as a victor in the games, or--perhaps rather--as a city which ha., been the subject of Ion's praises; the Homeridai thus play the role of the city's inhabitants who reward the encomiast. On the Homeridai cf. West 1 999, Gra­ ziosi 2002, 208-2 1 7 . 3 3 ef. esp. Velardi 1 989, 20-26. Boyd 1 994, 1 1 (,-1 2 1 offers an interesting ac­ cown, partly based on the practices of Slavic bard" but his account seem.' to

37

Plato's Ion and the Origins of Scholarship

bellish, prai�e', is-like hrolVeiv--a principal activity of poeu, whether it be Pindar (cC Nemean 6.46) or Homer himself, the av5poov 1'!poooov KOOIJ";TOOP, a� the epitaph cited at the end of the Certamen call� him.34 Ion's language here (for the first time in the dialogue) blurs the bound­ ary between poet and rhapsode, thus suggesting again that the closely related boundary between poetry and exposition is not an ea� one to draw. Between the poet and ourselves fall� the shadow of the interpreter (� PlJllvevs) . [s there in fact a way to the poet except through previous interpretation? We are all too farniliar with the fact that literary interpre­ tation (particularly of a text a� 'central' as Homer) is, almost inevitably, interpretation of the body of interpetative material which has built up around a text over the centuries; there is, for example, a lot of modem writing about (osten�ibly) Aeschylus' Agamemnon where one might justly wonder whether the subject is in fact the Agamemnon or rather Fraenkel or indeed Fraenkel's Agamemnon, and similar ca�es might easily be mul­ tiplied. Did Fraenkel 'embellish' Aeschylus? [on claims to offer u.� a richer 'Homeric' experience than we would get by listening to another reciter or interpreter or simply picking up the text and reading it for ourselves; again, the whole history of literary scholarship lies before us. One of the things which seU the Ion apart from other Platonic dis­ cus.�on� of poetry and iu performance is the focu.� on the person of the interpreter and his relation with the poet, to the exclu.�ion of more 'communal' concern�. Thus, for example, in Republic 10 Socrates pro­ scribes the Homeric poems from the ideal city in term� which may well make us think of [on: Thu�, Glaucon, when you come across admirers

(hrolvhc!I)

of Homer

who say that thi� poet educated Greece and that for the management and education of human affairs one should take up and learn

(IJOV6avElv)

hi�

poem� and lead the whole of one's life in accordance with thi� poet, you

mould be friendly and welcoming to these people a.� they are a.�

virtuous a.�

pos..uble, and you mould agree that Homer i� the best poet of all and first among the

tragedians; you mould, however, know that the only poetry

which i� to be received into the city are hymn� to the god� and encomia to good men. Plato, Republic 1 0.606e-7a

me to sit uncomfortably with the actual context in the Ion, where the act of kosmein i� closely connected to 'uttering dianoiai' . 3 4 For various expres.\ions o f thi� idea cf., e.g., Plato, Phaedrus 245a4-5, Isocrates, Panegyricus 1 59, Dio 33. 1 1 , 55.9 (Homer 'embelli�hed' his poetry with similes), [plutarchl , De Homero 2.216. ef. further Graziosi 2002, 36.

38

Richard Hunter

No doubt Ion would agree with these hroIVETol, a word which Socra­ tes also u.�es of Ion himself (536d2, 542b3),35 and Ion might well have said such things in hi� imagined epideixeis, but, for what it i.� worth, the Ion has ahnost nothing to say about the importance of Homeric poetry and its interpretation for the health of society or the education of indi­ vidual�, and certainly nothing to say, either in seriousnes.� or jest, about Homer's beneficial and/or educational effects on hi� fellow men. What is principally at stake in the Ion, at least from Ion's perspective i.�, if you like, what Ion can do for Homer (and vice versa) , not what Ion can do for those around him. Moreover, when Ion's effect on his audience i.� at issue, it is the non-rational, emotional effect of his performances, their \fJvXayc.>ylo, which is cited (535d8-e9) , not any educational effect they might have (their c.:,cpEAEIO) ; it wa�, of course, for the subsequent tradi­ tion (and perhaps already for Gorgia�) precisely to find a beneficial edu­ cational effect within thi� emotional respon�e. For Ion hinuelf, however, Homer fills the role of the beautiful in the Symposium; when Ion is in the presence of (discussion about) Homer he 'flood� and gives birth and procreates' (Symposium 206d4-5), wherea� when any other poet is at is.me 'he curls up and turn� away' and ha� nothing to say. The persistent language of elirro peiv and Qnopeiv throughout the Ion (536c7 etc) en­ courages thi� analogy. There is a great deal in the Ion, a� al�o, for example, in the Hippias Minor, which with hind�ight can be seen to foreshadow a�pects of later literary scholarship, but I will conclude with what i.� perhaps the most important of all. The second half of the dialogue explores the 'technical' qualification� of the rhapsode/interpreter; Socrates is concerned with who is the correct judge of whether material in the poems ha� been 'well' (6p6ooS or KW.OOS) made. From the point of view of later scholar­ ship, there are two important (and related) a�pects to this. First, Ion i.� made to admit that 'experts' in particular crafts are better judges of 'technical' material in Homer than are rhapsodes; the terunai from which Socrates draws his Homeric material are prophecy and seercrafi:, arith­ metic, medicine, charioteering, fishing, and generalship . The parallel and partly overlapping li.�t of arts imparted by a knowledge of Homer in a jokingly sympotic pa�sage at Xenophon, Symposium 4.6-7 (economics, public speaking, general�hip, kingship, charioteering and medicine) sug­ gests that claim� for such Homeric omniscience were nothing new. Be that a� it may, the arts li.�ted in the Ion, however unsurprising, recur time and again in scholia�tic and other discussion� of Homeric knowledge in the subsequent scholarly and educational traditions. In one speech, for 35 On this tenn c( Velardi 1 989, 31-36.

39

Plato's Ion and the Origins of Scholarship

example, Dio singles out Homer's guidance in matters of 'prudence and generabhip and seercraft' (55 . 1 9) and fPlutarch1 , De Homero ticks off (inter alia) Homeric arithmetic (2. 1 45-6) , generalship (2. 1 92-7), medi­ cine (2 .200-- 1 1) and seercraft (2.212).31" When Socrates a�ks 'whether it belongs to the halieutic or the rhapsodic art to judge whether rthe 6.�h­ ing simile at fliad 24.80--21 is well (KaAOOS) said or not' (538d4-5) , the an�wer seems, a� Ion admits, to be obvious. Nevertheles.�, the question of the 'rightnes.� ' of these verses was indeed soon to fall within the schol­ arly realm and attracted the attention of Ari.�tarchus, who did not (as far as we know) feel the need to ask a fisherman about the problem. 37 The work on Homeric culture on which Athenaeus draws exten�ively in Hook 1 claiJm that Homer's knowledge of the techn2 of fishing was more exact than that of the many authors of poems and treatises on the subject (1 . 1 3b) . Here again, the Ion obliquely points the path which later schol­ arship was to follow. Secondly, we must con�ider one of Ion's fall-back positions: Socrates: I have selected for you from both the Odyssey and the niad parts which belong to the prophet and the doctor and the fisherman ; since you are

more experienced in the Homeric poem� than I anI, you, Ion, must se­

lect what belongs to the rhapsode and the rhapsodic craft, i.e. what it i� fit­ ting for the rhapsode to examine and judge in front of all other men. Ion: Well , Socrates, the answer i� 'everything'. Plato, Ion 539d5-e6

Ion's answer should make most modem commentators on ancient texts squinn with embarras.�ment, but more important in the present context is the fact that Socrates' challenge was the defining one for the hi�tory of literary scholarship: the answer to the 1ust what is it you are expert in?' question developed slowly, but develop it did, and the an�wer is perhaps most clearly on view in the Homeric scholia. The expertise was ba�ically linguistic, but it abo depended on a sen�e, owed importantly to Aris­ totle, that the 6p66",s of poetry needed to be understood on its own tenn�: when a poem was 6p6ooS nEnOlllI.lEVOV, this did not neces.�y mean that it was 'technically accurate' in every detail, a� Socrates' cros.�­ examination of Ion might lead one to believe neces.� . When Prota­ goras gets Socrates to admit that a poem with internal inconsistency canno t be 'well (KaAOOS) made' (Protagoras 339b1 0-- 1 2) , we glimpse the possibility of a path forward to a mode of interpretation in which 'truth' 36 For generalwp cC al,o, e.g., Pbilodemus, On the C.ood King according to Homer col. xxv Dorandi. 37 CC Plutarch, Moralia 976f and the texts gathered by Erbse under the Homeric scholia to R. 24.81 .

40

Richard Hunter

and consistency may not be the highest criteria; so too, when in Republic 10 Socrates tells Glaucon that, until they have been offered a valid de­ fence of the value of poetry, they will not 'concern themselves seriously (cr'TT o uSacrre ov) with such poetry as though it had a share of truth and was a serious matter' (608a6-7), we can with hindsight see how the challenge to find the appropriately cr'TT o uSaiov in poetry was ultimately met. The discussion of 'technical knowledge' in the Ion is one further Platonic chall enge where the tenm of the argument were re-framed and the status of poetry thu.� re-affirmed. If it is, again, Strabo's discussion of Homer and his critics in Book 1 which offers perhaps our best compen­ dium of thi� new sense of poetic 6p66T11 S , then the view found in Philodemus that the Slo:vola of poetry lies between that of the crocpol and that of the xvSaiol (On Poems 5, col. xxvi Mangoni) seems not very tar in the future, when viewed from the perspective of the Ion. As critics have noted, Ion's desperate recourse at 540b to the notion of TO 'TT P E'TTOV in fact point� to a central theme of later literary scholarship, and this paragraph alone should have been sufficient to guarantee the Ion a place in the history of scholarship,311 but the Socrates of thi� dialogue chooses not to pursue the rhapsode's lead. Despite its apparent inconsequentiality, the Ion remains a founda­ tional text for the history of scholarship, for it maps the terrain where men such as Ion walked, direct� attention to the uncharted territory which ancient literary scholarship eventually colonised, and poses what should still be awkward questions for the commentator who takes his or her job seriously.39

38 Of particular interest here is the later view, attacked by PhilodemlL�, that dic­ tion appropriate to each character i� a distinguishing characteri�tic of good po­ etry, cf PhilodemlL�, On Poems 5, col. xxxv Mangoni, A.mli� 1 992, 4 1 0-4 1 2. 39 I am grateful to NichoIa� Denyer for his conmlents on an earlier version of thi� essay.

Scholarly Panic: TIOVIKOS
Adopting a debated variant, or a di�puted interpretation of a word or substantial passage of Homer or other ancient texts that are used as mod­ eL� for the proposition of new texts, was a well-establi�hed practice for Hellenistic and post-Hellenistic poetae docti. 1 What seem� to be the nor­ mal emulative modification of the model by a new text, in a binary relation one to one, in many cases appears to acknowledge a third ele­ ment: the model's actual reception. When utilizing this technique, poets transfomled the original text by inscribing in the new text the system of exegetical expectations that they met, and which they either endorsed or refu�ed. Not many examples of this technique exist before the Hellenis­ tic age. Maybe these examples are lacking because the available evidence of interpretive activity concerned with pre-classical texts i.� not abundant in the classical age, and it is thus difficult to track its relevance in the creation of classical texts. The inclination toward� this technique will al�o have increased, however, together with the poets' increased atten­ tion to philological doctrina as a vital ingredient of their worb, and as a substantial part of their audience's expectations. One of the oldest sus­ tained examples of this technique of which we know, if the reading which I suggest i.� correct, comes from a tragedy of uncertain paternity, which has been dated to ages as different as the youth of Euripides, the

*

Most valuable suggestion< have come to me from Christos T sagal.is. Augusto Guicla, and later from Giuseppe Mastromarco. Piero Totaro, and other col­ leagues of the University of Bari, where a shorter version of this text was pre­ sented in May 2009. The EngIi
42

Marco Fanruzzi

late Euripides, or the 4th cent., and i�, at least in its first part, a dramati­ zation of the first part of Riad 1 0, the Doloneia. The Rhesus a�cribed to Euripides i� a text characterized by an intense taste for description, in most ca�es technically and realistically very pre­ cise, of the military lifestyle. 2 Somewhat similar to many tragedies which are devoted to the description of the problem� of power, decision, and their management inside the polis, this tragedy thematizes the problem of right decision (or the wrong one) in military life. In fact, the presen­ tation of the atmosphere in the Trojan camp, which precedes the spy Dolon's departure, had no model in Riad 1 0 (where Homer focused on the Greek camp), but instead find� its major red thread in the reali�tic and almost technical construction of the panic's image. Technically termed navlKos 66puj3os (c£ Rh. 1 5) or cp6j30s (Rh. 88) or navelov/ navlKov Seillo by the historians, military panic wa� a dangerous turmoil inside ma'i.�es of people, especially mas.�es of soldiers, taking place most often during the nightJ and without evidence of real danger.4 Such panic often occured because of the spread of false news, which provoked dis­ oriented movements of the troops, and it wa� therefore hard to controJ.5 It became an event that frequently affected large hoplite armies of the Clas.�ical and Hellenistic period�, and it is often described (c£ Rh. 36£ ; see below pp . 44£) by historians from Herodotus onwards/' by writers 2

3

WiIamowitz 1 926, 286 defined the tragedy 'ein Soldaten\tiic k', not without some contempt, and according to a graphic definition of Sinko 1 934, 423, the image of the military life portrayed by the Rhesus 'hi\torici potios calamo, quam poetae penicillo depicta sermonem militarem redolet'. Sinko also cor­ recdy opposes the Rhesus' meticulou\ tr:IIl.\poytion of the real life dialogues be­ tween soldiers or military leaders to the sublime atmosphere 'Marri\ plena' of, e.g., Aeschylu\' Septem. A\ is remarked in two of the earliest references to panic a\ a military phenome­ non, found in Thuc. 4. 125.1 01 �v MaKe66ves Kal TO "TTAii60s TOOV IXIpj3clpoov

ell6vs cpol3'rl6�VTes, amp qllAei IlEYCtAa crrpaTo"TTelia aaacpOOs �K"TTA"yvvaSal;

7.80.3 Kal aliTois, oTov cplAei Kal "TTom crrPaTO"TT� liOIS, l-\aAlcrra Ii� Tois llEylcrro ls, �JXlI Kal liell-\aTa lyylyveaSal, moos Te Kal lv VUKTI Te Kal lila

"TT oAel-\las Kal 6:"TTo "TTOAel-\loov Oil "TTOAV 6:"TTexoVToov lovalv, ll-\"TTI"TTTE I TapaxfJ

4

5 6

(though, a\ it is evident from these two quotations, Thucydides did not know or use yet the term 'panic') . See later, e.g., D.S. 1 4.32.3, 1 5.24.3, 20.67.4 and 69. 1 ; Plut. Pomp. 68.2, reg. et imp. apophth. 1 92C, mul. vin. 2470, Is. et Osir. 356D; Jos. Flav. AJ 20.78.4, BJ 5.93 and 295; App. lib. 85.2 1 ; BC 2.68; Pau\. 1 0.23.7-10; Polyaen. SITat. 1 .2, 3.9.4. 6:"TTo ahlas ollliel-\lCis: Pau\. 1 0.23.7; cc. Comut. nat.deor. 27, Suid. "TT 201 Adler. A detailed di\cu\.\ion of military and non military panic in Borgeaud 1 988, 881 04 and Wheeler 1 988. £\pecially 4.203.3 or 7.43.2; al\O 7 . 1 Oe and 8.38

Scholarly Panic and the Begirming of the Rhesw

43

on military subjecu beginning with the 4th cent. Poliorcetics by Aenea� Tacticus (thi� treatise devotes a full chapter (27) to the military 1Tavela, and he thus gives the oldest certain testimony of the technicism 'panic' originating from the name of the god Pan) , or even by scholars of 'psy­ chology' like Clearchus of Soloi. Clearchus, a direct pupil of Ari.�totle living in the second half of the 4th cent., wrote a treatise nep\ TOO 1TavIKOO, of which only a fragment is left, concerned with mi�under­ standing reality in animal psychology." But Clearchus may also have been the author of a treatise of tactics, and therefore hi� specific interest in military panic i� very likely.9 The Rhesus begins when the chorus of Trojan watchmen leave their station and frantically (60pV�I, 1 5) approach the bivouac of Hector during the night, aOO.ng hinI to wake up and hear what they have to say (Kalpos yap aKoOaal , 1 0) . Hector's first reaction is to a�sume that the enemies are arranging a night ambush (MxoS �K VVKT(;)V , 1 7) again�t the sleeping Trojan� and that the watchmen are going to report on it. In­ deed this is the only situation of real extreme emergency that he could conceive of a� the reason for the watchmen's actions. When they deny that any ambush i� being set up, Hector states that they must have some­ thing very important to say, if they have abandoned their post and thrown the army into confusion: . . . TI aV yap ,vAaKas npOAI1TWV Klveis crrPaTICrv. el IJTJ Tlv' EXWV WKT1lyoplav; (1 7- 1 9). to

In fact, Hector continues, the watchmen should have been aware that the Trojans were sleeping under ann.�, as the Argive army wa� danger­ ously close (OUK oTa6a SopOS 1TO,as 7\pye1ov / vvXiav "r'IIlaS / KoiTflv 1Tav01TAovS KaTEXOVTas; 20-2) . The focus on the movement of the watchmen as provoking 'confu­ sion' in the army, and the specification that they mu.�t have had a really 7 It is probable, but not certain, that Ephor. F,G,Hist 70F208 and Epimen. FrG,Hist 457F1 8 also spoke about fear of panic. 8 Fr. 36 Wehrli, from Athen. 9.389f. A most thoughtful anaJysi.� of the little that i.� understandable from this fragment in Wheeler 1 988, 1 76-1 79. 9 Thi.� appealing hypothesi.� ha.� been elaborated by Wheeler 1 988, 1 79f. 10 Kovacs 2003, 1 46 has proposed changing �Xwv vvKT11yoplav of the mss . to �poov vvKT11ypealav 'announcing some stirring in the night'. which he find� ·sharper'. But there i.� no evidence that vvKTeyepala/vvKT11ypeala « �yelpelv) antedates the Helleni�tic age. And I have good rea.�ons to suppose that the ' Aristode' of the Homerika apomnata reaJIy read vvKT11yopla in hi.� text of the Rhesw: see below p. 52f.

44

Marco Fanruzzi

good reason to leave their post since the Trojan.� and Greeks were ex­ ceptionally close, introduces in the clearest and most effective way the characterization of Hector in the first part of the Rhesus: he i.� dominated by fear that the Trojan camp may be or may become affected by panic. By moving around the sleeping camp, the sentinel� could have pro­ voked or increa�ed the agitation of the soldiers (a� Hector poinu out explicidy) . Furthermore, by abandoning their posu they had skirted their responsibility to keep the soldiers' panic in check (a� Hector may be implying) . Indeed, preventing the movements of the soldiers inside the camp wa� one of the main precaution� that could be adopted in order to prevent panic. Aenea� Tacticu.� Pol. 27 reports inter alia that the strategem adopted by a Spartan harmost in utmost danger of panic wa� to order that 'no one should stand upright, and if anyone saw a man standing up, he gave orders in the hearing of all to treat him as an en­ emy' (27. 8) . On the other hand, the movements of the watchmen of the Rhesus are also a danger, becau.�e they have abandoned their duty of checking the first sign� of 66pvJ30s 1TavlK6s, since as Aeneas Tacticus recommend�, 'it i.� necessary . . . to station men in each watch of the night over every company or band, both on the flank.� and in the centre, to take special care that, if they should perceive any di.�turbance coming on because of sleep or anything else, whoever of them i.� at hand may check and stop it immediately' (27. 1 2) . None of this concern about the sentinels' movemenU can be found in mad 1 0. Quite differendy, the Greek leaders were al�o anxiou.� about the behaviour of the sentinels, but they were not concerned at all with the sentineL�' agitation and feared, instead, that the watchmen might fall adeep: 1 0 . 97 9 , 1 80-2. Furthermore, during hi.� dialogue with the watchmen before the ar­ rival of Aeneas, Hector is obses.� ed with the idea that they them.�elves are in panic or that their agitation i.� spreading panic among the other sol­ diers in the sleeping camp (36-40) : -

a1\).. ' 1'j Xpovlov navos TpollEpal 1J6UTnYl lJlol*\l. IJIVAaKaS SI; AI1TOOV Klveis OTPaT\(lV; TI 6poeiS; TI O'e q>W VEOV ayytAAe\V; no1\)..a yap elnoov ovSev TPav&)s anESel�as ·

Since the watchmen have urged him to be ready for the batde, but Hec­ tor's questioning has not yet prompted them to explain why, he starts to believe that they are not motivated by concrete and 'clear' news (refer­ ences to the absence of clarity open and close hi.� speech: 35 KOVS�V Ka6apoos and 40 ovSev Tpavoos) , but are instead wantonly spreading fear through the rank.� (c£ 34) . In fact, absence of any real new informa-

Scholarly Panic and the Beginning of the Rhesus

45

tion and acoustic hallucination was frequently cited by the historians as a spark for panic, 1 1 a� wa� iu progression from a few individual� to the mas.� of the army.12 Hector is not the only character in the Rhesus to fear that the watchmen are affected by panic and that they may spread it to the rest of the army. When Aenea� enters the stage, he knows nothing of Hector's fears, but his first phrase expres.�es precisely the same analysis of the situation and similar concerns. That he focuses on the risk of panic is proved by cp6j30s, which is one of the most common term.� used to de­ fine thi� phenomenon 13 (87-9) : "EKTOp, TI xpfilla wKTepol KaTCr cnPaTOV TCrS C7CrS lTPOS ewCrS q>vAaKes �A66VTes q>6�1 VVKTrJYOPOVC71 Kai KeKillTjTal cnpaT6S;

Hector answers, informing Aenea� of the watchmen's report about the many fires lit by the Creeks among the ships, together with his (wrong) conclusion that these fires prove that the Creeks are trying to flee. 14 A nocturnal debate follows, which resumes the issue of the preceding dis­ cus.�ion between Hector and the chorus (52--86), and Hector defends once again his idea of a nocturnal attack against the Creeks, so a� to prevent them from sailing from the Trojan shore unharmed. Later on, at 1 38--9 , this war council of Hector, Aenea�, and the watchmen concludes with a unanimous resolution: Hector is finally persuaded by Aenea�, with whom the chorus had agreed from the beginning, that before 1 1 ef. e.g. Apollod. FrGrHist 244F1 35, pertinently quoted by I Rh. 36. 12 A� we read in Pausanias (1 0.23.7-8) about the Gauls of BrennlL�: 'in the night the �jXls navIK6s fell on them (causeJes.� fears, they say, are in�pired by Pan), . . . at first only a few became mad, and these imagined that they heard the trampling of horses at a gallo p, and the attack of advancing enelnies; but after a little time the deJlL� ion spread to all ' (see also D.S. 1 5 .24.3, 20.69. 1 ) . 1 3 E.g. D . S . 1 5.24, 20.69; PalL� . 1 0.23.7; App. B C 4 . 1 3 . 1 04; Polyaen. Slrat. 1 .2, exc. 27; Sext.Jul. Cest. 1 . 17; Anon.Paradox. incred. 1 1 ; I E. Med. 1 1 72. Syn­ on)'lnic 'lTTo ITJ i� another definition of panic: Plut. Is. Osir. 356D8; Ona�. Slrat. 6.5 navlKCr Kai 'lTTolas; I Theocr. 5 . 1 4-6. 14 A� already noted by Goos.�ens 1 962, 299 n. 7 1 , Hector explains the fires in the Greek camp a� evidence of their intention to escape. Fleeing armies commonly employed the stratagem of lighting fires to sinlulate activity throughout the camp and thus divert the enemy from their true aim: cf. Hdt. 1 . 1 34f.; Thuc. 7.80. 1-4; Jos.Flav. A] 1 3 . 1 78 . 1 0. Differently e.g. Zanetto 1 998, 6 1 , who inter­ prets 97-8 a� 'hanno bisogno di luce per potem imbarcare e Ja�ciare la nostra terra', and Menzer 1 867, 1 5, who wrongly aCC\L�es the author of Rhesus of'im­ becillitas', because of Hector's interpretation of the Greek fires: 'nam si fugam paras.�nt, sine dubio obscuritate ILsi es.�ent'.

46

Marco Fanruzzi

launching an attack they need to be certain about the meaning of the fires and thus mu.�t send a spy. At this point, when the debate i� finally over, Hector once again expresses hi� fear that agitation may ari�e within the army if the soldiers realize that 'nocturnal a�semblies' are being held. Once he grudgingly yields to the opinion of his interlocutors about the spy mis.�ion (�yoo 6� 1TEIlIjlOO 1TOAellioov KOTaC71<01TOV, 1 40) , thinking of the 'nocturnal a�sembly' which ha� ju.�t finished, Hector a�b Aenea� to neutralize the dangerous effect of vUKTepol �KKAT)aiol on the troops, and recommend� to him (1 38£): crrE ixwv Se Koil.lo O'Vl.ll.laxovs · Tax' <Xv crr pCXTos KlvoiT' aKovaas vvKTepOVS �KKATlcrlas.

In conclu.� ion, up to the beginning of the section of narrative dedicated to Dolon at 1 54, the idea of VVKTT)yopto/vVKTT)yopeiv/vuKTepos �KKAT)aio, '(is.�ue/news for an) a�sembly in the night' i� repeated thrice in the Rhesus (19, 89, 1 39) , where it is presented a� an emergency (the only emergency) that can justify the sentinels' movemenu and the risk of arou.�ing panic. The nocturnal a��embly is thu.� a keyword in the first part of the tragedy, and i� a� pivotal for the action a� i� the fear of the spreading of panic which Hector and Aeneas connect to it. Differently, in the camp of the Greeb depicted in Homer's Riad 1 0 there was anxiety about the previous day's field defeat, and the book opened with an articulate description of the anxious Greek leaders wor­ ried about the concrete danger of a final debacle. Thi� Iliadic anxiety was by no means panic however, a� it relied on an objective difficulty of the Greeb. The author of the Rhesus may have been mimicking his objective anxiety of the defeated Greeb by presenting the unfounded panic, and the fear of thi� panic, a� a sort of parallel psychology of the winning Trojans. In particular, there was an explicit fear in Homer of the consequences of a nocturnal as.�embly, which could provoke panic. There was also no VVKTT)yOptO in Homer, which wa� called by this name. There i� however a nocturnal a�sembly of the Greeb in niad 10, a� well as in the Rhesus, which i� simply defined a� a [3oVA'; (10. 1 95) . This as.�embly, already prepared from the beginning of the book, takes place in no man's land, among the bodies of the soldiers killed in battle the day before (10.1 94-202) : ·Os EI1TOOV Taq>polo SleaaVTO ' Tol S' 0:1.1' hroVTO 1>.pyelwv J3aaIAfiES oaol KEKATtCXTO j30VATtV. Tois S' O:l.Ia MTlPI6VT)S Kal Necrro pos ayAaos vlos ii'iaav ' aUTol yap KCxAeOV 0'V1.Il.ITlTlaaa6al. Taq>pov S' �KSlaJ36VTES 6PVKTJiV tSPIOwVTO �v Ka6apooI, 061 S1'\ VEKVWV SIEq>aivETO xoopos

Scholarly Panic and the Beginning of the Rhesus

47

7Tl'TT"TOVTC >v · o6ev aVTlS CnTETp6:TrET' OI3Plllos "EKTWp oiJ..V S 1'.pye\OVS, oTe 5" mpi vV� EK6:AVljiev. £v6a Ka6e�ollevoI hre' aiJ..t'jAolal Tri<pavaKov. ..

The place chosen for the assembly, outside of the Greek camp and be­ yond the posts of the sentineL�, which are positioned in the space be­ tween the wall and the ditch (n. 9.87) , is strange. The £let that 1 0 . 1 99 repeat� the choice of the 'free space in the battlefield among the bodies,' which had already been chosen by Hector in n. 8.489-91 (Tpwc..>v aih'

6:YOPTJV lTOIT}aCrTO cpal511los "EKTc..> p / v6acpl VEWV 6:yaywv lTOTallWI ElTI 51v1'}EVTI, / EV Ka6apwl, 061 5" VEKVc..>V 51EcpalvETo xwpOS) lead� us to suppose that the assembly may have been arranged in thi� spot as a symbolic re-appropriation of the no-man's land. With this collocation of the assembly, the Greek leaders would have been confronted with how close Hector had come to them, how close he was to victory, and what they had to accomplish in the near future, nanlely the concrete re­ conquest of the positiom lost in their final retreat to the ships.1s Be that as it may, the reason why the Greeks of mad 1 0 decided to locate their as.�embly in the dangero\l.� no-man's land is left unexplained in Homer, and is difficult to discern. The semi-fonnulaic repetition in 1 0 . 1 99 of the precedent of 8.491 makes the topographical choice for the as.�embly of Book 1 0 not unparall eled, and both a.�semblies among the bodies suggest a taste for the horrid\(' which is in tune with the manneristic empha.�is on slaying and blood in the Rhesus. What remaim obscure, however, i.� the rationale according to which the Greek leaders run the great and real danger which is inherent in this location for their a.�sem­ bly. Differendy from Hector in Book 8, who as a winner fully controls the no man's land where the battle had taken place, and thus quite rea­ sonably organizes the assembly at some distance from the front line, which happened to coincide at this point with the ditch defending the ships of the Greeks, it wa.� quite dangerous for the Greeks of Book 10 to hold their assembly outside of that ditch. Our corp\l.� of the so call ed scholia vetera to the mad retlect� two slighdy different interpretations of this dangerous location of the a.�sem­ bly of n. HI. The exegetical L 1 0 . 1 94 from T stresses that the Greek leaders would have therefore avoided provoking 66pvJ3os, 'especially since' the soldiers were exhausted/di.�tressed from battle the day before: CC William.• 2000, 14. The verb SltaaUTo, which expres..es Nestor's crossing of the ditch, conveys the idea of aggres.o;ive eagemess (it comes a,. no surprise that in two of its five occurrences in Homer it is accompanied by the participle llalllOOWaa and is said of an arm: 5.66 1 , 1 5.542), and this idea is suitable to the possible act of symbolic redemption of the lost positiom. 16 CC Hainsworth 1 993, ad 1 94-200.

15

48

Marco Fantuzzi

510: TI 5e �r, �aAAOV eO"w TOO TElxovs aO"q>aAEo"TEpOV 130vAEvoVTal; aAA' �V T(;')1 O"TPaTEV�aTI VVKTOS O"vvI6VTES 66pv13ov &v eKIVT}O"av, Kat TaiiTa 1TpOTETaAalTTWprWEVWV ;;5fl TWV 'EAArlVWV, In this interpreta­ tion, there is no clear emphasis on the idea of, technically , military panic, and the readers could even simply suppose that the leaders' care not to make 'noise' or create 'disturbance' anlOng the soldiers was noth­ ing more than a semible concern for the exhausted soldiers in need of some good sleep. A� for the exegetical L to the same line from A, 51E13fl

510: TT1S TCxq>pOV, Iva �r, 66pv13os �v TWI O"TpaT01TE5wI ylvflTal, TT)V �ev crVv050v OpWVTWV, Tr,V 5e ahlav ayvoovVTwV, Iva �r, yvwo"lV chi KaTCxO"K01TOI 1TE�1TovTal, it involves an idea of 66pv[30s which is not overlapping with the 66pv13os of 'panic' . 17 A� it i� espe­ cially clear from the la�t specification Iva �r, yvwo"lv KTA., referring preci�ely to the leaders' intention to keep the spy mission hidden, the 66pv[30s that ignorance of the reasons for the assembly may create among the soldiers is slightly at variance with the endogenous and psy­ chological agitation of panic, as it comi�ts of the chaotic response of soldiers who recognize from the assembly that something new i� hap­ pening and would like to be informed, but cannot, becalL�e the leaders have decided to keep the spy mission top-secret. In other word�, it i� not that the soldiers fantasize, without any real motivation from actual facts, that something threatening is taking place (thi� would have been panic, technically speaking) . Rather, they lLllderstand that something is going on, and may riot because they want to know what that something IS.

An alternative interpretation, in hT, was not concerned at all with the ri�k of avoiding any kind of 66pv[30s anlOng the soldiers: the a.�sem­ bly would have been held in no-man's land in order to provide a good example and encornage the spy whom the Greeks were going to send to the Trojan camp: CxAAWS TE CxT01TOV tjv EiS KaTaO"Ko1Tr,v 6TpvvoVTas �r,

TOA�aV 1TP01EVal TWV 1TVAWV. ETI 5e Kal 1TpOS 1Tapa�v6[av TWV �EAA6vTWV �K1Te�1Tecr6al 1TpOS TO �r, 50KEiv 1TOAV 1TPOK61TTEIV TT1S q>CxAayyOS. Similarly the L A il EiS Ev6v�lav TWV KaTaO"K61TWV , Iva aq>oI3WTEpOV TVYXCxVWO"IV eyyvs OVTWV. Both of the last interpretations seem in tune with the perspective which also reflected in L D . l "

1 7 Though i t ha s been cOlmected t o the 'Aristotelian' inteIpretation o f the pa.�sage by Erose 1 969-1 988, III 38, app.----n ot appropriately enough, but .96pv�os is brought into focus from two slightly different points of view, in my opinion. 18 I D (ZYQX) van Thie! n. 10. 1 98 S\('x Tt st CPT)OlV, 01 ,;ye�oveS T';v Tacppov SlOj3aVTeS [:X>VAEVOVTOI; cpa�ev st, cm TOVTO TI010VmV els ev6VIllov

KOTOOK01TCuV, (vo <'xcpOI?>WTepOl ylVOVTOI eyyvs OVTOOV OVTWV.

Scholarly Panic and dle Beginning of the Rhesus

49

There was, however, another interpretive tradition, which was ei­ ther conceived of or was endorsed by Aristoteles' school and coincided with the emphatic caution of Hector and Aeneas in the Rhesus about the danger of the panic. According to Porphyrius' report from Aristode's Homerika aporemata, trammitted by L 1 0 . 1 98 in the m�s. (384 Gigon 1 59 Rose�, =

r,lTOpt)crEV 1\PICTTOTEAt)S, 51<'x Ti E�W TOU TElxovs imoit)crE TOUS aplcrTeas �OvAEvollevovs ev WKTt)yoplm, e�ov eVTos TOU TE1xovS ev ampaAei. Kai CPt)crl ' rrpwTov IlEV oOv OUK elKos i'iv 6:"IToKlv5vvevelV TOUS Tpwas OUT' e"IT\T16E0"6m vVKTWP ' ou yap TWV eUTvxoVVTWV i'iv 6:"IToKlv5vvevelv. emlTa EV ept)lllm Kai Ka6' T)C1VXlav J'ovAevEO"6m rrepl TWV T1)AIKOUTWV e60s. O:Torrov 5' c5:v 1'jv el ft�lovv IlEV rropev6iiva( T1vaS EIs TOUS Tpwas , aUTol 5E ou5E IlIKpOV rrpoEMEiv hOAIlWV. emlTa CTTpaTt)ywv c5:v Eit) TO cpvAo:crcrecr6al TOUS WKTEplVOUS 60pvJ'ovs, TO 5' ev TWI CTTpaTeVllaTI VVKTOS crvvloVTas f3ovMVEO"6al, vEWTEP1crllOU ll"ITOlfliav rrapaaxov, cp6J'ov EVErroiel .

A� remarked already by some of the editors of Aristode's fragments and by A.R. Sodano, l 'J the summary of Ari�tode's aporema and lysis probably stopped here, where the logical sequence lTp&lTOV IlEV . . . ElTElTa . . . ElTElTa i� also interrupted. Additionally, an auxiliary explanation of the location of the assembly as convenient place for controlling the watch­ men, and at the same time exploiting their protection, was likely added by Porphyrius, and is tellingly introduced by the sequence alla . . . Ka! alla which may reveal the additive character of these last remarks: alla

Se Kat 1'l lTp66Ecns flv TOUS q>vAaKas 6ECxcracr6a1, EV oTS flv 1'l crc.uTT)pia T&V Ka6Ev!56vTc.uV. YEv61lEVOl S' EV TOVTOIS Tas !'ovAas, 6Aiyov 1T6ppc.u TOVTc.uV CmOO"TCxVTES, EV 1)crvXial IlEV Kat EV cmopPfITc.u1 E1TOIOVVTO, 11" avallElllYIlEVOl ToiS q>vAa�v, EV Cxcrq>aAEi SE, lTAT)criov yap T&V q>VACxKc.uV. Kat alla TaxEc.us IJv E1T1TEAEcral Ta !56�avTa. A final explanation follows in Porphyrius' text describing the reason why the spot where the leaders convened was full of unburied bodies (the Greeks would have been too tired the night they retreated in defeat to collect the bodies2<�.

1 9 Ct: Sodano 1 966, 225. 20 Oilier explanations proposed on the topic by post-Arisrarchan philology: exeg.

061 5t) VEKVWV 51EcpaivETO xoopos: 51EcpalvETo ws tv crKOTWl ou Ka6apoos tcpalvETo. tK(VTlcrE 5� T)llooV TtlV !5U'xvOIav TOOl tvapyEi, TO Iltv rrEpl TtlV T6:cppOV arrav Xwp(ov cp1')cras lTAi'jPES ETval KE11lEVWV VEKPooV, 6Alyov O� TOV Ka6apov TOlTOV. b(BE3E4)T; 561 ot) VEKVWV olEcpalvETo xoopOS { lT11TTOVTWV\ } : Crrorrov, cpacrl, IlTl!5t TOUS rrpOS Tfj TO:CPPWI <6:v>EAEcr6al VEKpOVS. aJIA' OUK c5:v trrEyvwcrav VVKTOS TOUS �aVTOOv. ii !5u'x TtlV cpaVTacr(av . T

If we compare the HeUeni�tic interpretive tradition with the one of 'Aristotle', which reached us via Porphyrius, we can see a slightly differ­ ent focalization. The 'Aristotelian' lysis is grounded upon caution to avoid every form of agitation (e6pV�1) in an army camped over night, and in particular it empha�izes the apprehemion that an a�sembly held imide the camp would have awoken the soldiers and possibly generated the tl1Toljila of a riot (VEWTEP1
(Pol. 27.4), IlCx)(ll S SE yEvoll�V11S Kal V1Klle�VTWV WS Ta 1ToMa ylYVOVTa!
The situation figured in this exegesis is similar to the one introducing panic, which is described by D.S. 20.69. 1 : the tyrant Agathocles tried to run away from Afrio at the end of the unsuccesful Libyan expedition, but hi. intentions were di,covered by the soldiers, who mutinied, thm generating an agitation which led to panic: !
T�)v !5wCxCTTT)V Ka! !i,;aaVTES 1Tapt!iwKav EIs
22 See above n. 44. 23 The begitming of excerpt 27 from Polyaenus, entided 1TavlKoii <po�ov AvalS, refers to its subject as VVKTEpIVO!
Scholarly Panic and the Beginning of the Rhesus

51

believed that this could b e th e case, as he supported
27 Aristarchus must have beeu quite obses.�ive about this point: c( in p articular � n. 5.223, 6.41 , 1 1 .7 1 , 12.46, 1 3.47 1 ; Lehrs 1 B65, 75--7 (sympathetic with Aris­ tarchus) and, differently opting for q>6�os 'fear' at least in some of Homer's passages, Hecht 1 BBB, 438-44 ; Triimpy 1 950, 2 1 8-22; Harkemanne 1 967. 2B � n. 1 1 .71 quoted above n. 27, after restating cm q>6�ov n,v cpvYT)V, add� QV =

5HUll,is cp6�v, 5tos AtYE1.

29 As noted by Wheleer 1 9BB, l BO.

52

Marco Fantuzzi

panic: the soldiers' unfounded tl'IToqJla of the Homerica ap oremata (con­ gruous with the psychology of panic) would have been mufiled by the risk, perceived by the leaders in the Hellenistic exegesis, that the assem­ bly might give rise to e6pu�oS 'tumult' among the soldiers because of the fearful suspicion that a VEc..>T EPlcr�6S 'riot' was springing up. In con­ clusion, some of the Hellenistic explanatiom do involve the word 'agita­ tion' , e6pu�S, as well as the exegesi� of the Homerika aporemata, but the coincidence of the use of e6pu�S would not reduce the variance be­ tween the Helleni�tic tradition and the interpretation of 'Aristode' . On the contrary, if the former presupposed the latter, it i� most remarkable that the specific/technical idea of panic is never all owed to surface in the former. The same use of e6pu�S seems in fact to reveal a sort of gene­ rification undergone by the latter, so that the memory of the technical idea of panic e6pu�S, still most clear in 'Aristode', would have been watered down in the Hellenistic tradition]<'-though of course we can­ not rule out that thi� minor emphasis of the scholia on the idea of panic simply was the effect of the process of epitomizing simplification under­ gone by the Hellenistic commentaries. Thus it has become clear that the first part of the Rhesus i� not so much a 'dramatization' of the concrete narrative of fliad 10 concerning the a.�sembly in the batdefield, but probably a dramatization of the kind of exegesi� of thi� Iliadic epimde that we find in 'Aristode'---a kind of exegesis which at thi� point we are allowed to assume predates Aristode, and i� datable to the early or the mid-4th century, when in my opinion the Rhesus wa.� composed, or to an even earlier age, if we are willing to suppose that the Rhesus is by Euripides. I think that another detail makes my hypothesi� more than likely. We have seen that the connection of the location of the a.�sembly to checking the wakefulness of the watchmen or to encouraging the spies had been quite important in some of the Helleni�tic interpretation�. It therefore comes a.� no surpri�e that the tide a.�cribed not only to the first pm but to the whole of this book in the exegetical scholia reflecting the Ari�tarchean influence wa.�, according to the custom of entiding from the beginning, VUKTEYEpcrla. The first schol. to Iliad 10 infonn� us:

a\rrT) " paqJc..> I Bia hnypoq>ETal 'vuKTEyepcrla', E1ravacrTovTas TOUS 1Tpc;nous T&V 'EAA:r'iVc..>V KaTacrK61TouS 1Te�qJal yVWIlT)1 NecrTopos f1lo�"BT) Kai 'O Bucrcrea. Also � n. 8.91 adopts the sanle word as a tide to quote I. 1 64 from book 1 0: Kai EV Till 30 Montanari 2008 and Montanari (forthcoming) offer two case-studies of inter­ pretive problellL� posed by Aristode or his school, which continued to be ac­ tively debated, but developed in different directions, by Hellenistic scholars.

53

Scholarly Panic and the Beginning of the Rhesus

vUKTeyepaial, KTA. El�ewhere, the tenn aim occurs either as the title of It. 10 (at the end of the Hypothesis c Diggle to Rhesus and in Strabo 9. 5 . 1 8 (439), in a papyrus commentary to Hippon. lEG 1 29B6 De­ gani, and in Schol. Vat. GG 1 3 UhIig, 1 79.29-1 80.2) , or as the name of Odysseus' and Diomedes' nocturnal mi�sion (in [Plut.l vira Horn. 2(9); only the plural vUKTeyepaial occurs in isolation in a less specific sense, in Philon, Cher. 92, where it meam 'watches'. Through thi� title, what is emphasised about the action in the first part of Book 1 0 is its special =

feature as an action entertained by the leaders who 'wake up' one after the other in the night and arrange for an assembly, checking that other people, the sentinel�, are awake and do not sleep, and also arranging for the nocturnal action of other people, namely the future spies. The night usually is a span of time of inaction in epic, and thus the scholars who conceived of this title knowingly focu.�ed on the exceptional time set­ ting of the double spy mi�sions. Quite differently, and tellingly, Aristotle's school and its source(s) , anlOng which at thi� point [ would dare to include the Rhesus, pointed to a vUKTllyopla as the main theme of the action of book 10, or at least of its first episode. Their exegesis entertained an explanation of the 'noc­ turnal assembly' as intended to avoid the unwanted awakening of the soldiers, with its repercmsion of panic; consequentially, when entitling the episode, these pre-Aristarchean interpreters did not focus on the waking up of the leaders or on the necessity that the sentinel� are awoken, but on the anti-waking cautions of the peculiar assembly of the Creek leaders. In conclusion, it i� not implausible to conjecture that 'Ari�totle' or his forerunners learnt to entitle the first episode of mad 1 0 precisely from the Rhesus. Not only does the Rhesus enact the interpre­ tation which 'Ari�totle' fonnalizes at a scholarly level, but it is ai�o the only precedent for the use of vUKTllyopia: the word ha� a key role in the first part of thi� tragedy and seem� to belong to the sermo tragicus (and to have been adopted a� such by the Rhesus), since it i� most probably derived from Aesch. Sept. 29 vUKTllyopeioflal, also a hapax in the classi­ cal age, which had already designated a nocturnal assembly ( EV VUKTI ayopevea6al Kal �uAevea6al: so, vel sim. , the L ad loc.). The idea that the Rhesus adopts a pre-' Aristotelian' interpretation of the a�semb1y of mad 10 in term� of anti-panic caution, and/or that 'Ari�­ totle' i� perhaps induced to this reading by the Rhesus, i� a striking ca�e of the interaction of philological interpretation and the creation of new poetry, and it can hardly be paralleled before the age of the Hellenistic poetae dodi. It ha� become a common a�sumption of recent studies of Hellenistic poetry that many of the new trends traditionally a�cribed to the 3rd cent. are already operative in the 4th cent. , fully or in statu nas=

54

Marco Fantuzzi

centi. The Rhesus' philological re-use of the Homeric text is, in my opin­ ion, better understood in this pre-Hellenistic 4th cent. If the Rhesus is by Euripides, the atmosphere of panic at the begin­ ning of our tragedy would be evidence of a pre-Hellenistic attitude of Euripides, maybe the latest Euripides, as it anticipated (or shared the beginnings ot) the interpretation of the as.�embly in no-man's land in tenus of panic, which is later found in the Homerica aporemata. The dia­ chrony of a literary text stimulating the exegetical di�cussion of another text would be similar to the homosexual re-interpretation in Aeschylus' Mynnidons of the rdation�hip between the lliadic Achilles and Patroclus, which was probably the main foment triggering late 5th cent. discu.�­ sions of this issue.3! However, the very clear presentation of the military panic as generated by Pan, which we find in Rh. 36£ , makes a 4th cent. date preferable for this tragedy. In fact, this would be fully in tune with the 4th cent. interpretation and tenninology of Aenea� Tacticus, but it does not square with the way Herodotus, Thucydides or Euripides ap­ pear to connect the phenomenon of panic to no specific god or to Dio­ nysus (see above, pp. 42£) .

31

ef. my 'Nocturnal Warrio rs', in Fantuzzi (forthcoming).

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings of his ' Grammar' Definition Stephanos Matthaios

For Wolfram Ax on his 65'h birthday In the history of Hellenistic literature and science Eratosthenes has been considered as 'the great Alexandrian scholar' and 'the leading figure in Alexandria in the later third century' .l The enthusia.�tic reception of Eratosthenes' accompli�hments is confirmed by his wide-ranging inter­ ests and the scope of his writings, which are also compatible with hi� claim of the 'universality of knowledge' . This claim is reflected in the title
2

3

Praser 1 970, 176. For similar characterizations, see Bernhardy 1 1142, 221 : 'der vielseirigste der Alexanclrinischen Gelehrten', Susemihl 1 891-1 892, I 4 1 3 : '[ . . . ) er war in der That einer der vielseirigsten Wld dabei bedeutend
56

Stephano� Matthaio�

ers of change who led the sciences during the Hellenistic era to their acme and motivated their increa.�ing specialization and their growing independence from philosophy.4 At the same time however, he wa.� still part of the scientific tradition of the past a.� regards the variety of hi� research interests. Therefore, he is regarded a.� 'symbol of the unity of the sciences' ,' a characterization he shares with Aristode and the repre­ sentatives of the Peripatetic school. Eratosthenes must have achieved an outstanding scholarly profile during hi� lifetime; therefore he wa.� summoned to Alexandria by Ptolemy III Euergetes around 245 BC to follow Zenodotus and Apollo­ nius Rhodius in the renowned position of the head of the Alexandrian library." Contemporary scholarship believes that hi� appointment in Alexandria was due to his reputation a.� a poet. 7 Literature and scholar­ ship were privileged by the cultural and educational policy of the Ptolemies." It is not surprising that during his librarianship Eratosthenes, just like his predecessors, was al�o occupied with philological matters. This activity is reflected in a series of specialized writings. Unfortu­ nately, the article of the Suida.� ' lexicon on Eratosthenes refers only vaguely to his 'numerous grammatical studies' (ypallllaTlKO O"v)(IIa ) without providing a single tide of hi� philological treatises.· According to the preserved fragments and some additional testimonies, Eratosthe­ nes' philological work� comprised:1" three work� with predominandy lexicographical content-the nepl TfjS 6pxa!as KWIl'l'BiaS, the

4 An overview of the Helleni.tic hi.tory of science is provided by Lloyd 1 984; see also Lloyd 1 973. The question of the independence of the variom sciences from philosophy during the Helleni.tic era is examined by Dihle 1 986. 5 See Strasburger 1 990, 2 1 2; c( Geu. 2002, 338. 6 The historical detail. of Eratosthenes' appointment in Alexandria are explored by Gem 2002, 26-30; c( Fra..er 1 970, 1 78-1 86; Fraser 1972, I 308 and 330332, and Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 52-1 55. 7 See Fraser 1 970, 1 83-1 86; Gem 2002, 28-30. 8 See Erskine 1 995 and Kerkhecker 1 997 for the statu. of poetry and scholarship in the Ptolemaic court; see al.o the references in n. 1 03. 9 Suid. e 2898: 'EpClTOcr6tvTjS (FC.rHist 241 T 1 ) · [. . . ] �yp0l!'e 15� cpLMcrocpo KO!

lTOn'lIlClTo KO! !
c( Gem 2002, 51 n. 34 and 290 n. 5. 10 Gem 2002, 289-306 reviews the contents of Eratosthenes' philological work in detail; see al.o Knaack 1 907, 383-385; Fraser 1 972, I 457-458; Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 59-1 63, and Matthaios 2008, 620-624.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings ofhi\ 'Granunar' Definition

57

)t\PXITEKTOVIK6S and the IKEvoypacp1K6sl l-, a monograph on the Riad, whose topic is no nearer to be defined due to the incomplete transmis­ sion of its title Eis TOV �v Tij ' l�rl\l5I,12 and, finally, a work consisting of two books under the title rpalJlJaTIKa.13 Like the rest of his works, his philological writings have only been transmitted in fragments. The rpalJlJaTlKa of Eratosthenes and the definition of ypalJlJaTlK" (se. Te)(V1l) that most probably refers to this work are in the focus of the present article. Two testimonies are especially relevant within this con­ text: first, the testimony of Clement of Alexandria informing us about the existence of Erathosthenes' rpalJlJaTlKa, and second, a passage from 11

For the contents of Eratosthenes' lexicographical work.\, see Geu\ 2002, 291302; cf. Bagordo 1 998, 37-40. For the relationship of the )l\PXITeKTovIK6s and the IKevoypacp1K6s to the nep\ Tiis apxa1as KOOIlCt>5IaS, see Geu\ 2002, 290 with n. 7-8 and 301-302; cC Bagordo 1 998, 40 with n. 44-45. 12 The tide of this work L\ transmitted in an inventory li.\t in P. Turner 39 (begin­ ning of the 3rd century BC), fr. A, I. 2: 'EpaToae(�voVS) EIs TOV �v Tij '1� [la51; cC Otranto 2000, 73-77 (or. 1 4) . Poetbke 1 98 1 , 1 65 supposes that this work wa\ dedicated to the geography of the Riad. This opinion L\ endorsed by Uoyd­ Jones-Parsons 1 983, 1 86 and Otranto 2000, 75. Geu\ 2002, 302-303 supposes that in tbi\ work Eratosthenes could have explained diffi cult words and word fonnations--Geus 2002, 303 n. 1 05 tbink.\ of nomina agentis ending in -TVS ac­ cording to Sch. Hom. (bT) R. 19.233-4 (Eratosth. fr. 31 Powell). Geus 2002, 303 n. 1 05 al\O considers the pos.sibility that the subject of this work wa\ the Homeric u\e of the dual; according to Sch. Hom. (A) R. 10.364b and (A) R. 24.282 Eratosthenes (fr. 35 Strecker) accepted the use of the dual in the sense of plural. See Broggiato 1 998 and 2001 , 1 5 1 -1 52 and 1 99-200 about thi\ prob­ lem in ancient Homeric scholarship; cC Mattbaios 1 999, 378-382 and A\heri 2004. Geu\' second view remain.\ doubtful; see Matthaios 2008, 622....(,2 3. 13 Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 62 and Geu\ 2002, 304 n. 1 07 con\idered the work of A\cle­ piades of Myrlea as a parall el to Eratosthenes' r pallllaTlKa. This only applies to the a.'I.\umption that the statement )l\al s' 13113A1Ct> T(;W rpallllaTlK(;W in Suid. 0 657 (Asclep. Myrl. fr. VI Milller FGrHist 697 F 9) L\ to be interpreted a.\ the overall tide r pallllaTlKa of a two-part work of A\­ clepiades on 'granunar'; see Usener 1 9 1 2-1 9 1 3, 11 309 n. 1 25; Millle r 1 903, 46, and Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 58, 1 62 (with n. 8) and 273. According to tbi\ opinion the first part of tbi\ work under the tide nep\ ypallllaTlKi'iS (S.E. M. 1 .252 A\clep. Myrl. fr. III Milller) included 4 or 5 book.\ dealing with scholarship and its scope, the second however, under the tide nep\ ypallllaTlKOOV (Acbill . Vita A ra t. 76.4-5 Maa.'I.\ Asclep. MyrI. fr. VII Millle r FGrHist 697 F 1 1 ) , con­ tained a biographical collection of grammarian\. Whether both writings---ne p\ ypallllaTlKi'iS and nep\ ypallllaTlKoov-formed part of one work remains un­ clear. The form rpallllaTlKOOV in Suid. 0 657 should be rather understood a.\ the genitive of the JUa.\culine rpallllaTlKol and a.\ a variation of the tide nep\ ypallllaTlKOOV. Pagani 2007, 31-36 a5.\umes there were two separate mono­ grapb.\ of A\clepiades; cf. Blank 1 998, XLV-XLVII . =

=

=

=

58

Stephano� Matthaio�

the Scholia to the TEX"T) ypa��CXTIKi) ascribed to Dionysius Thrax which records the Cyrenean's definition of 'grammar' . 14 Clement's testimony is incorporated in a catalogue of the TTPWTOI evpETal, in which the author addresses the question of who was the first to introduce the term ypa��CXTIK6S with the seme 'scholar' that re­ placed the term previously used KplTlK6S (Strom. 1 . 1 6.79.3):

)\TTOAA6SwpoS (1. )\VTlSwpos)15 Se 6 Kv�aios TTPWTOS (add. Meier) TOU KplTlKOU elaT)yi)aCXTo Touvo�a Kat ypa��CXTIKOS TTpoaT)yopev6Th EVIOl Se 'EpCXTOa6evT) TOV KVPTlvai6v (FGrHist 241 T 8) cpamv , EmlS" E�eSwKev OUTOS f3lf3Ala SUo, rpa��aTlKa Emyp6:\jJas. c.;)Vo�6:aaTl Se ypa��CXTIK6s, WS vuv 6vo�6:�o�ev, TTPWTOS npa�lcpaVTlS tuovvaocpavovs M lTVATlVaios (fr. 10 Wehrli) . From Clement's point of view, Eratosthenes i� to be cred­ ited with the renewal of the terminology, given that he published two books entided r pa��aTIK6:. The sole evidence of how Eratosthenes defined 'grammar' comes from the Prolegomena of the Vatican corpus of the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax. The commentaries to the TExvT) ypa��CXTIKi) ascribed to Diony­ siu.� started in each one of the three large, anonymou.�ly trammitted cor­ pora--the Scholia Vaticana, Marciana and Londinensia1 r'-with a report on the ancient theory of science. Building on a general account of the an­ cient definitiom of TeXVT) and its differentiation from E�TTelpla and ETTlaTT)�T), this introductory report con..�iders the question whether scholarship is a TeXVT) and what is it� sign..ificance within the ancient system of science. Eratosthenes' 'grammar' definition i� integrated into a passage of the Vatican Scholia, which examines the purpose (TeAos) and the benefit (xpela) of the ypa��CXTIKi) TeXVT). In effect, this passage is praising the high educational function of scholarship as the latter pro­ vided comprehemive knowledge in all fields of hu.man life. 1 7 The word­ ing of Eratosthenes' definition is a� follows (Sch. D. T. fL'1 1 60. 1 O-1 1 ) : ypa��CXTIKi) ECJTIV E�IS TToVTeA"s E V ypa��am. According t o the scho­ liasts this definition corresponds to Eratosthenes' view of the inlportance of scholarship ([2:'1 1 60. 1 0: Mev OUK aTTo aKoTTou Kat 'EpCXTOa6eVT)S EcpT)) , thus reinforcing the validity of this view. Thereupon, the scholiast adds an explanation of the ternl ypa��aTa ([LV] 1 60. 1 1-1 2: ypa��CXTa KaAWV Ta (J"vyypa��aTa 'with ypa��aTa [Eratosthenes] meant the 14 The term 'granunar' is placed in quotation marks throughout thi, text, in order to be differentiated from the similar modern linguistic tenn. 1 5 On the various [ornl.' of Antidoru,' name in our te�timonies, see below, n. 22. 16 On the origins and hi,tory of the transmis.'iion of the conunentaries on the nXVTJ, see Hilgard 1 90 1 , V-XLIX; c( Wot 1 998, 32-36. 17 See Scll. D. T. (LV) 1 59. 1 1-160.23.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings of hi. 'Granullar' Definition

59

writings') , and further examples are given on the use of the term ypCxllllaTa with this very meaning (fL'1 1 60. 1 2-23) . Despite the lack of other evidence and the shortness of this Eratos­ thenes' fragment, the passage from the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax seems to contain a complete definition of 'granunar'; it includes both the de­ .finiendum-the ypallllaT1KTJ-and the definiens, in accordance with, as we will show, the pattern and structure of ancient definitiom of TEXVll and especially of the ypallllaT1KT} TEXVTJ. Tenninological annotations, such as the explanation of the term YPCxllllaTa recorded in this pa�sage, often accompany ancient definitions. The question whether thi� expla­ nation should al�o be attributed to Eratosthenes and belongs to the original wording of his definition will be addressed below. Although the rpallllaT1KCx i.� one of the earliest examples of special­ ized works dealing with scholarship, and although his 'granunar' defini­ tion illmtrates the earliest attempt-to our knowledge at least-to define philology, it is surprising that both references have fallen in oblivion by Eratosthenes' present day 'colleagues' . In modem hi.�tories of ancient scholarship and granunar we hardly find more than a simple footnote about them. 1 H The sole exception is the recent publication by Ceus on the entire oeuvre of Eratosthenes, who attempts to recon.�truct the con­ tent of the rpallllaT1KCx and the 'grammar' definition of the Cyrenean scholar. 1" Despite interesting observations, Ceus i.� however not totally successful in interpreting Eratosthenes' definition and placing it in its historical and theoretical context. The aim of thi.� article i.� to give a comprehensive interpretation of Eratosthenes' 'gratru11ar' definition by taking into consideration its his­ torical (1), theoretical (2) and ideological context (3) . These aspects fonn the background of the three readings of the definition that the article will provide in three successive steps. The hi.�torically oriented reading is dedicated to the definiendum, the ypallllaT1KT} TEXVTJ, and addresses the historical requirements that were a�sociated with the foundation and justification of an independent philological discipline. The two further readings apply to the definiens of 'grammar' ; empha�i.� here is placed on 18 The definition of Eratosthenes is mentioned by Lehrs 1 848b, 387 and Steinthal 1 890-1 891 , II 175 n. 2 only in connection with the meaning of the tenll ypa��QTIK'; and its relation.hip to the expression yp6c��QTa. Fuhrmann 1 960, 1 45 n. 4, simply mentions Eratosthenes' 'granunar' definition and the exi.tence of hi. r pa��QTIK6c and contents hitnself with the declaration that chi. work wa. not known even in outline. Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 62, quotes the 'granullar' definition without further conUllent; so also Knaack 1 907, 384; Schenkeveld 1 994, 263, and Dihle 1 998, 88. 19 See Gen. 2002, 304--3 06.

60

Stephanos Matthaios

the interpretation of the definition and its diction on the basi� of the ancient theory of science. Finally, the third reading will give us the op­ portunity to reconstruct the theoretical reflections on the nature and aim of scholarship during Eratosthenes' era and at the same time to illumi­ nate the definition from the point of view of the double identity of the Hellenistic poet-scholars. The latter aspect turns out to be especially important for the establishment of an independent philological disci­ pline.

1 . The Historical Preconditions for Eratosthenes' Definition

We begin our hi�torical interpretation with Clement's testimony on Eratosthenes' rpOllllCXTIKCI:, which is closely linked to the Cyrenean's definition of 'grammar' . Clement identified the work where the defini­ tion originates from and on the ba�s of hi� report the discussions on the name of the philological discipline during Eratosthenes' era can be re­ con�tructed with con�iderable accuracy. The question of the authority who introduced the term YPOllllCXTIK6s in the sen�e of 'scholar' and its u.�e instead of KPITIK6S presents a special problem in the ancient historiography of scholarship. Thi� can not only be seen from Clement's testimony, but al�o from a related discu.�sion recorded in several pa�sages in the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax.2tt According to our evidence, various solution� to thi� problem 20 See 8th. D. T. (Prol. Voss.) 3 . 1 9: EtpTJTal 5� ypallllaTlK'; �K TC:;W ypallIlGrrOOV,

o(} T06Toov Il�VTOI TOOV ypallIlGrrOOV, aMa TOOV avyypallllChoov · ti ypallllaTlK'; yap nep\ a6Ta KaTaylvE"Tal · 00T00 yap Ka\ KaMIIlCI)(os aVyypalllla j30VAOIlEVOS EhTEiv �xp,;aaTo ' aMa rTACtTOOVOS �V TO nep\ ,+,vxiis yPCtllll' avaAE�CtIlEVOS' (ep. 23 Pf.). TO 1TPClTEPOV 5� KPITIK'; �MYE"TO, Ka\ 01 Tau-n,v IlETIOVTES KPITIKOI · Jl\VTI500pos 5� TlS KVllaios avyypa'+'CtIlEvoS M�lv �1T�ypa'+'Ev 'JI\VT\500pov ypallllaTlKOV M�IS ', Ka\ �K To6Tov ti 1TOT� KPITIK'; ypallllaTlK'; MAeKTal Ka\ ypallllaTlKO\ 01 Tau-n,v IlETIOVTES. (Prol. Voss.) 7.23: rlvOOaKEIV 5� Xp'; OTI TO 1TaAaIOV ti ypallllaTlK'; KPITIK'; �KaAeiTO 1Tapa TO KplvEIV Ta 1TOI';llaTa · Jl\VT\500pos 5� TlS ypallllaTlKOs ypallllaTlK';V a6T,;v oovOllaaE 1Tapa Tf)V yvOOC1IV TOOV ypallIlGrrOOV. ypCtllllaTa 5� KaAoiiVTal Ka\ Ta avyypCtllllaTa Ka\ Ta anOIlVTJlloveVllaTa Ka\ 1TCtVTa Ta AOYIKa �1TITTJ5EVllaTa. �1TE\ Tolvw 5Ei TOV ypallllaTlKOV 1TaVTos c!nrn;a6al AOYIKOV �1TITTJ5EVllaTOS Ka\ 1TCtVTa �91YEia6al Tij avvTCt�I, o(} Il';V Tij 6EOOplC;C, To6Tov �VEKEV ypallllaTlK';V a6T,;v �KCtAeaEv. (IV) 1 64.23: tUTTf) 5� �aTIV ti ypallllaTlK'; ti Il�V yap nep\ TOUS xapaKTiipas Ka\ TaS TOOV aTOIXE1oov �Kcpoov,;aEIS KaTaylvE"Tal, liTiS Ka\ ypallllaTlK'; MYE"Tal 1TaAaICt, ovaa Ka\ 1TpO TOOV TPOOIKOOV, axE50v Ka\ &Ila Tij cpvaEI 1TpoEA60vaa · ti 5� nep\ TOV �MTJVlaIlOV, liTis Ka\ vEOOT�pa �aTIV, •

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings ofhis 'Granunar' Definition

61

were suggested i n antiquity. 21 Clement and the Scholia report that it wa.� Antidorus22 who created and was the first to use the term ypallllaTIK6S instead of KPITIK6S. The Scholia regard� as proof the fact that he added the author's indication l'\VTISWPOV ypallllaTlKOV to his work Ae�ls.23 According to 'some others' (�VIOI) , it wa.� Eratosthenes who should be credited with this terminological innovation. The evidence for the latter wa.� hi� work rpallllaTlKa. If it is not possible to choose between these two rivals, then Praxiphanes is, according to Clement, to be named ypallllaTIK6S in the new sense of 'scholar' (OOS vvv 6volla�ollev) . Thi� hypothesis is also adopted by the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax. Apart from Praxiphanes, the Scholia attribute to Ari.�totle the foundation of scholar­ ship.24 As it i� generally accepted, 25 the biographical collection of A�cle-

a�all�1ITl Il�V arro eeay�vov� ( V." 8 A l a), TEAea8eiaa 5� 1Tapa Tc'iW nepnrCXTTfT\ KooV npa9cp6:vov� Te (fr. 9 Weluli) Kal Jl\p1aTOT�AOV� (c£ Dialog; Test. p. 24 Rose/p. 4 Ros�; nepl 1T011lTOOV Test. p. 67 Ros� fr. 1 002 Gigon) · Kal Tii� Il�V ypallllaTlKii� T�AO� TO e� 6:vaylvWaKelV, Tii � 5� ypallllaTlKii� TO e� ypacpe\V; (1: m) 299.3(,...3. 7; (1: 1
=

•

21 For these testimonies and the position� represented, see Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 57-1 58. 22 For the fonn of the name 'AntidortL�' in variou� testimonies, see Immisch 1 890 and Miille r 1 9 1 8, 1 2 1 . For AntidortL�' life and work.�, see Immisch 1 890; Miiller 1 9 1 8; Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 57-1 58, and Montanari 1996. 23 Immisch 1 890, 696 and Cohn 1 9 1 3, 682 a'l.�wne that thi� work wa� a Homeric glO5.<wy; Miiller 1 9 1 8, 1 22-1 23 however believes that it wa� dealing with the theory of style. 24 See the quoted pa'l�ages from the Scholia in n. 20. The view that Aristode is the grounder of scholarship was-probably imparted by Asclepiades of Myrlea­ also shared by Dio Cluysostom; see D.Chr. 53. 1 : 1ToMol 5� Kal &AAol

yeypacpaalv 01 Il�V &vnKPV� �yKoollla�ovTE� TOV 1TOlllTtiv &Ila Kal 51lAOVvTe� �vla TOOV U1T' a\rrov AeYOIlWooV , 01 5� a\rro TOVTO Tt;V 51avolav �91youllevol, Oil 1l0VOV Jl\plaTapxo� Kal Kp6:T1]� Kal hepol 1TAelov� TOOV (iaTepov ypallllaTlKOOV KA1l8�VTOOV, 1TpoTepov 5� KpITIKOOV. Kal 5ti Kal a\rro� Jl\plaTOT�All� (Dia/og; T. p. 24 Rose, p. 4 Ross; nep\ 1TOlllTOOV T. p. 67 Ro5.� fr. 1 002 Gigon), acp' o� cpaal Tt;V KPITIKtiv Te Kal ypallllaTlKtiV apxtiv AaJ3eiv, �v 1ToMoi� 51aA6yOI� nep\ TOV 1TOlllTOV 51��elal, 8avlla�oov a\rrov 00<; TO 1ToM Kal TtIlOOV, hI 5� 'HpaKAeI51l� 0 nOVTIKO� (fr. 1 67 Wehrli) . On thi� tes­ =

timony, see Pfeiffer 1 968, 67 and 72-73. For Praxiphanes' philological work.�,

62

Stephanos Matthaios

piades nep\ ypallllaTlKOOV is the source from which Clement and the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax draw their information. Despite this evidence, the reliability of Clement's testimony about the exi.�tence of Eratosthenes' rpallllaTlKex ha.� been often questioned by previous scholarship.2Ii The main reason for these doubts is a contradic­ tion between Clement's information and that of Suetonius about the title chosen by Eratosthenes. According to this view, Clement's state­ ment that Eratosthenes called himself ypallllaTIK6S is not considered a.� valid; for Suetonius emphatically states that Eratosthenes claimed the name q)\MAOYOS for him�elf (sibi vindicavit) .:rI Therefore, Clement's evi­ dence for the existence of Eratosthenes' rpallllaTlKex would be due to a misunderstanding or it would be pure invention in his attempt to link the Cyrenean with the name ypallllaTIK6s.2H Thu.� , most scholars fol­ lowed Hemhardy (1 822, 208) who believed that the definition of 'grammar' originated from Eratosthenes' work nep\ Tiis expXa1as Kooll�5ias, and in particular from the beginning of the first or the third book. The confusion began to grow when a new fragment of Eratosthenes, still unknown to Hemhardy, came to attention. Thi� fragment seem� to have also originally come from the rpallllaTIKex.2'J A.� Ps.-Sergiu.� in the chapter De accentibus of his Expldnationes in alUm Donati states,3(' Eratos-

25

26

27 28

29 30

see Susemibl 1 891-92, I 1 4 5-146; Brink 1 946, and Wehrli 1 969, IX 1 08-1 1 5; cf. Podlecki 1 969 and Gomchalk 1 980, 128-1 39. See Kaibe1 1 898, 27-28; Heiuicke 1 904, 5-6, and Pfeiffer 1 968, 67 and 1 58; cf. Blank 1 998, 1 1 6 n. 68. For the significance and impact of the granuuaticaJ writings of AscJepiades, see the bibliography quoted in n. 44. See Bemhardy 1 822, X and XIV; Su�emibl 1 891-1 892, I 422 n. 68 and I 328 n. 6; cf. al�o Knaack 1 907, 384 and Gew 2002, 291 n. 1 1 and 12. On Gew' objection� (2002, 305) on the significance and tru.�tworthines.� of Clement's tes­ timony, see below, p. 63 with n. 3 1 . See Suet. Gramm. 10.4---the text of thi� passage is quoted in n . 2. Bernhardy 1 822, X a.��umes that there is confuotion between Eratosthenes and Ca\limachus on the ground of the ethnic name KVPTJvaio� which both scholars shared. He reIate.� Clement's account to Ca\limachu� and his 'YnOI!Vt;I!CXTa (Call . fr. 461-464 Pf.) . The addition of the attribute ypal!l!CXTIKCr to Ca\lima­ chu�' 'YnOI!Vt;I!CXTa cannot be accepted. For the content of this work of Ca\li­ machus, see Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 35 with n. 4; Blum 1 977, 1 95-1 98, and Matthaios 2008, 598 n. 1 50. Knaack 1 907, 385 a.��igns this fragment to EratO-�thenes' r paI!I!CXTIKCr ; so also Dragoni 1 979, 60 and Geu� 2002, 304 n. 1 1 0. The doctrine documented in the whole section (G.L. IV 529.1-533.20) seelU� to derive from Tyrannio (fr. 59 Haa.�; cf. test. 5 Haa.�) and wa.� tran�mitted to the Latin grammar through Varro (fr. 84 Goet2-Schoell fr. 282 Funaioli); cf. Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 80 with n. 6. =

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings ofhis 'Granunar' Definition

63

thenes explains the pronunciation of the circumflex a� follows (C.L. IV 530.24-25) : ex parte priore acuta in gravem posteriorem (sc. flecti putavit) . In view of thi� second fragment, Susemihl wa� now sceptical about his earlier doubts about the exi.�tence of Eratosthenes' rpOIlIlCXTIKex. His scepticism is reflected in an additional note in his Ceschichte (1 891-1 892, 11 672) : 'Stand die Ausserung des Eratrosthenes] iibrer] dren] Circumflrex] r . . . ] auch in seiner Schrift iibrer] drie] alte Komodie, oder hat es mit den ovo {31{3Aia rpalJlJaTlKCr r . . . ] doch seine Richtigkeit?' rmy empha�s] . On the strength of both these fragments-the 'grammar' definition and the statement about the circumflex-one may jusdy reconsider claims again�t Clement's reliability. Due to the character of the testi­ mony, Clement's account about the npwTos evpe-n;s of the term YPOllllCXTIK6S i� of relative value. A.� it is often the ca�e with doxographical texts, Clement's testimony is also not free from anachro­ ni�ms and inaccuracies. However, this does not allow us to dismiss it as completely worthles.�. If the wording is closely examined, it does not follow in any way that Eratosthenes him�elf-unlike Antidorur-made u.�e of the name ypo1l1lCXTIK6S. As Knaack 1 907, 384 already recognized, Clement presents here only the view of 'some others' who in the tide of the work rpollllCXTIKex found a clue in order to accept that Eratosthenes was the first to u.�e the tide YPOIlIlCXTIK6S.31 Clement him.�elf and most probably his source Asclepiades seemed to be critical of this view and argued that the terminological innovation should be rather attributed to Antidorus. If this position cannot be endorsed either, the term YPOllllCXTIK6S should be credited to Praxiphanes or, according to the Scholia to Dionysios Thrax, even to Aristode. Crucial for the reliability of Clement's testimony is the fact that the contradictions between the accounts of Clement and Suetonius on the tide chosen by Eratosthenes are only superficial and therefore unjusti­ fied. If the objection� of previous scholars are more closely examined, it 31

The objection� expres.�ed by Geu� 2002 , 305 again.�t Clement's teStimony are not convincing: 'Eratosthenes karm sicherlich nicht als der Begriinder der nor­ mativen Grammatik ge1ten. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser Ub erJegung verliert da.� oft angezweifeJte Zeugnis des Clemen�, wonach Eratosthenes ab erster den Namen "Grammatiker" (ypallllaTlKOS) gefiihrt hat, g2n2lich sein Gewicht'. As with the term cpl;\o;\oyia (cC Geus 2002 40) Geus equates the ancient tenn ypallllaTlK.... with grammar in its present day sen�e. However, grammar in an­ tiquity constituted only one part of ancient scholarship, the so-called Il�POS TEX"IKOV, which wa.� dealing with the description and analysis of language. For the contents and the parts of ancient 'grammar' , see Ax 200Od, 97-98 and 2000e, 1 28-1 29. ,

64

Stephanos Matthaios

seems that in thi� argumentation the ancient term q)\AoAoyia­ presumably because of the recent use of the term 'scholarship' or 'phi­ lology'-wa� wrongly equated with the ancient term ypallllaTIK". The term q)\MAoyoS in the sense of an educated person, when not confined to a specialized field, was not contrasted to ypallllaTIK6S in antiquity. The terms cplMAoyoS and ypallllaTIK6S were in no ways identical and therefore the one did not exclude the other.32 The name cplMAoyoS for somebody who--according to Suetonius---embodied a multiplex variaque doctrina matched Eratosthenes' ideal of the universality of knowledge. It i� used to characterize his overall activities, and not just hi� engagement with scholarship.33 Eratosthenes' entire scientific activity, a� a reflection of hi� claim for the universality of knowledge, abo includes his philol­ ogical work. Seen from thi� perspective, the use of the name cplMAoyoS does not contradict the fact that Eratosthenes saw him.�elf as a ypallllaTIK6S too. Ancient sources often attach the tide ypallllaTIK6S to Eratosthenes because of his philological studies. 34 Thi� i� however­ according to Ps.-Lucian and abo Strabo--just one of numerou.� charac32 The meaning of the tenn Cj)\;\OAOYOS and the question of its relationship to the tides ypallllCXTIKOS and Cj)\;\Oaocpos are examined by Dihle 1 998; eC Dihle 1 998, 90: 'Eine Besehriinkung der Wortbedeutung [se. of the tenD Cj)\;\OAOYOS] auf den Umgang mit literarischen Texten hat es aL\O in der Antike nicht gege­ ben'. On the meaning of the word Cj)\;\OAOYOS, see Lehrs 1 848b, 379-387, Steinthal 1 890-1 891 , II 14-16, Kueh 1 965, Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 56-1 59 and Mat­ thaios 2008, 558-560. 33 On Eratosthenes' title Cj)\;\OAOYOS, see Schwartz 1 943, 1 89; Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 581 59, and esp. Dihle 1 986, 200-201 and 204-209, Dihle 1998 and Geu\ 2002, 39-40; cC Matthaios 2008, 559-560 34 See [Lucianu\] Macr. 27: rpallIlCXTIKc.;W 5� 'EpCXToa8�VTJS IlW 0 Jl\YAaov KVPTJvaios (FGrHist 241 T 3), ov o(} IlOVOV ypaIlIlCXTIKOV, aMa Kal 'lTOITJ-nlV &v TlS ovollaaElEv Kal Cj)\;\Oaocpov Kal YEOOllhpTJv, 5vo Kal oy50tiKovra OVTOS il,;TJaEv iTTJ; Tatianus Ad ('"aecos 3 1 .2 (3 1 .22 Whittaker; cC Eus. PE X 1 1 .3 [570.9-1 1 Dindort]): i'ITElTa ypallllCXTIKOI (sc. mpl Tiis 'Olltipov

'lTOltiaEOOS y�vovs TE a6Tov Kal )(povov Ka8' ov 'ijKllaaE 'lTpOTJpEVVTJaav) ZTJV050TOS, Jl\PlaTOCPCxVTJS, KaMlaTpCXTOS (Wilamowit2: KaMIIlCX)(os Eu\., codd. Tatian.), Kp6:TTJs , 'EpCXToa8�VTJS, Jl\plaTapxos, JI\'lToMo500poS; An. Ox. III 4 1 3 . 1 9 : 01 5� mpl E(}5�90V (1. E05�ov) Kal "l'lT'lTapxov Kal tuo500pov Tc!W JI\Ae�5p�a lla8TJIlaTIKOI �'lTAEvaavro, oTov �'lTpayIlCXTEvaavro 'ldAaos (1. Kal Aaalos) , O(}K 0 'EPIlIOVEVS aM' hEPOS, Kal 'EpCXToa8�VTJS 0 ypallllCXTIKOt; Kal Mhoov 0 YEOO�TPTJS; Str. 1 7.3.22: KVPTJvaios 5' �aTI Kal KaMIIlCX)(os (test. 1 6 PC) Kal 'EpCXToa8�VTJS (FGrHist 241 T 2), allcpOTEpol TETIIlTJIl�VOI 'lTapa Tois AlyllTTTloov j3aaIAEvalv, 0 Il�V 'lTOITJ-nlS &Ila Kal 'lTEpl ypallIlCXTIK';V �anov5aKoos, 0 5� Kal TaiiTa Kal 'lTEp\ cplAoaocplav Kal Ta lla8tillCXTa, et TlS &Mos, 5Iacp�poov. On these testimonies, see Geus 2002, 305

n. 1 1 4.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings ofhis 'Granunar' Definition

65

terizations that could have been used for the Cyrenean. Whether Eratos­ thenes also claimed the tide ypallllaTIK6S for him.�elf or even u.�ed it, is impossible to find out. In any case the name ypallllaTIK6S would have been secondary to q)\MAOYOS according to his self-understanding. In the second part of this article we will come back to the question of how much the term q)\AOAoyia affected Eratosthenes' definition of 'gram­ mar'.3S The first reliable dated evidence for the use of the term ypallllaTIK6S in the new meaning of scholar, of an 'expert in the inter­ pretation of literature and in textual criticism' is a fragment going back to the poet Philicus of Corcyra dated to 275/4 BC.3li Philicus in the proem to his Hymn to Demeter (SH 677 : KalVoyPexcpov avv6eaeoos TTiS <J>IAiKOV , ypallllaTlKOi , / Soopa cpepoo npos V IlO: S) 37 addressed not the KPITIKOi, but the ypallllaTIKO\.3H Further evidence for the use of the term ypallllaTIK6S in this sen�e are the above mentioned testimonies of Clement and the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax about Antidorus of Kyme. 39 Antidorus' lifetime cannot be exacdy dated, and therefore it is abo diffi­ cult to decide on the question of the chronological priority between him and Philicu.�. According to the communis opinio, Antidorus belongs to the beginning or rather the 1 st half of the 3rd century BCln and therefore i� deemed an elder contemporary of Eratosthenes. Clement's ordering of the names Antidorus --> Eratosthenes is a further indication for this. Our evidence speaks for the introduction of the term ypallllaTIK6S and its use in place of KPITIK6s--as Philita� was still char­ acterized41-in the 1 st quarter of the 3rd century BC. The establishment 35 See below, p. 79. 36 On Philicu�, see Fra.�er 1 972, I 608--60 9 and 650--6 5 2. For his Hymn to IHme­ /er, see Latte 1 968. 37 For the position of these verses within the poem ofPhilicu�-according to Sch. Heph. ad 3 1 . 1 (140. 14 Con�bruch) they standed �v T 1TPOOII!ICj)-, see Uoyd­ Jones-Parsons 1 983, 321 (on SH 677). 38 CC Latte 1 968, 551 n. 1 4; Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 57; Dible 1 998, 88, and Mattbaios 2008, 561 n. 37. 39 See above, p. 60--6 1 and the quotation� in n. 20. 40 See Miiller 1 9 1 8, 1 2 1 ; cC Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 57-1 58 with n. 1 (p. 1 58) and Mon­ tanari 1 996, 747. 41 See Str. 14.2. 1 9 (test. 1 1 Spanoudakis) : cpI�lTa� TE 1TOlllTti� &I!a Kai KPITIK6�. For the u�e of the term KPITIK6� in tbi� sense see Lehrs 1 848b, 393-397; Stein­ thal 1 890-- 1 89 1 , 11 17; H. Usener in Su�emihl 1 981-1892, 11 663-665; Sieben­ bom 1 976, 1 3 1 -1 32; Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 57-1 59; Dible 1 998, 88�9, and Lallo t 1 999, 45; cC also Mattbaios 2008, 561 . Simia.� of Rhodes (ca. 300 BC) was caJIed ypal!l!aTlK6� in Suid. a 43 1 (test. a FriinkeJ) and Str. 14.2. 1 3 (test. b Friinkel); cC also Dible 1 998, 88 and Matthaios 2008, 559. On the u�e of

66

Stephano� Matthaim

of the name ypa��CXT1K6S meaning 'scholar' went along with the use of the tenn ypa��CXT1K" TeXVT) for the related discipline. The new usage of ypa��CXT1K6S and ypa��CXT1K" seem� to have been finnly establi�hed in Eratosthenes' era. So, in a way similar to Philicus who had addressed the ypa��CXT1Koi or Antidorus who had taken up ypa��CXT1K6S as his pro­ fessional name, Eratosthenes chose the title rpa��aT1K6: for his work and the tenn ypa��CXT1K" for the science yet to be defined. The hi�tory of the term� ypa��CXT1K6S and ypa��CXT1K" in antiquity is documented in several ancient doxographical testimonies; the most representative are those of Sextus Empiricu..�42 and the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax.43 Kaibel proved that their ultimate source wa� A�clepiades' work nepl ypa��CXT1Kiis. 44 Sextus Empiricus even cites Asclepiades by name in M. 1 .47 (Asclep. MyrL fr. 1I Miiller) .45 A�clepiades' work was proba­ bly known to the Scholia to Dionysios Thrax-through the Neoplatonist commentators-from Proclus' Chrestomathy.4<, Eratosthenes' definition of

ypa��crrtK6s in the meaning 'scholar' in the pre-eratmthenian era, see Dihle 1 998, 88 and Geus 2002, 305 n. 1 1 4. 42 See S.E. M. 1 .44--49 . 43 See Sch. D. T. (L") 1 1 4.23-34; (L") 1 20.35-1 21 .3. On the explanation of the llilme ypa��crrtK'" in connection with the tenn yp6��aTa, �ee Seh. D. T. (Prol. Voss.) 3. 1 9-23; (2") 1 60. 1 1-23; (L") 1 63.31-164.4; (21) 447.31-448 .5. On the development of the tenus ypa��crr tK6s and ypa��crr tK'" in the �ense 'granunar' and 'granunarian', �ee Lehrs 1 848b, 387-393; Steinthal 1 890-- 1 891 , II 1 6-17; H. U�ener in Smemihl 1 891-1 892, II 663-{,65; Schreiner 1 954, 81 1 ; Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 57-158; Siebenbom 1 976, 1 3 1 -1 32; Kaster 1 988, 447-454 and 1 995, 86-88; Blank 1 998, 1 1 0-- 1 1 1 and 1 1 3-1 1 5; Lallot 1 999, 43-44 , and Matthaios 2008, 560--562. 44 See Kaibel 1 898, 25-28, esp. 27-28; c£ Miiller 1 903, 35-40; Di Benedetto 1 958, 203-204, and Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 58 with n. 7. Blank 1 998, XLIV-L goe� into the question of the role of A�clepiades a, a source of SexM' Empiricu, npas ypa��crrtKoVS afresh; c£ al�o Blank 2000, 405 and 410; Pagani 2007, 3 1 -34, esp. 33 with n. 86; de Jonge 2008a., 30--3 1 and 1 1 1-1 12. A,clepiades is also con,idered to be the source for the granunatical chapter of Qu.illtili an'� In­ stitutin oratoril1 (1 .4-8); on this que�tion, see Heinicke 1 904; c£ Blank 1 998, XLVI, 1 1 4 and 2000, 410 a' well a' Pagani 2007, 33 with n. 88. On the ques­ tion of to what extent Dionysius of Hilicarnao;.,u, wa� fanliliar with A,cepiades' grammatical writings, a' Blank 1 998, XLVI and 2000, 410 a,sumes, see de Jonge 2008a, 1 1 1-1 1 2. 45 See the commentary of Blank 1 998, 1 1 4-1 1 5 on this pa,sage. 46 See Kaibel 1 898, 27-28; c£ Pagani 2007, 33 with n. 87. Di Benedetto 1 958, 1 7 1-178 accepts a dependence of the Vatican Sch<J/ia, in which Eratosthenes' definition i, recorded, on the Neoplatoni,t cOllllnenraries. Thi, source recon­ struction i, alluded to inter alia in a reference in Olympiodorm' epigranl (App. Anth. III 1 77 Cougny) against Calli lnachu,' '1'. 23 P£ by David Prol/. 1 0 , 3 1 .27-32.9; c £ Di Benedetto 1 958, 1 76-1 78 and B lank 1 998, 1 1 8 with n. 72.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings ofhi\ 'Granunar' Definition

67

'grammar' is significandy reported in the Vatican Scholia to Dionysius Thrax abo in connection with the meaning and devdopment of the term ypallIlOTO. A�clepiades of Myrlea tum.� out not only to be the source for Clem­ ent's account on the introduction of the name ypollllaTIK6S with the meaning 'scholar' and on the exi�tence of Eratosthenes' rpOllllaTlKa, but abo to represent the first source from which the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax apparendy drew their information about Eratosthenes' definition. The Scholia provided Eratosthenes' definition with an explanation of the meaning of ypalllloTO through the participle KcxAOOV. It is pos.�ible that Eratosthenes himself contributed to this explanation and, closing hi� definition, gave hi� view on the problem of naming the philological discipline. If our a�sumption is correct, then we can date the discu.�sion that Asclepiades conducted about the name of scholarship back to the era of Eratosthenes and his contemporaries. Eratosthenes had a predeces­ sor, namdy Antidoru.� of Kyme. In a passage from the Scholia to Diony­ sius Thrax that ha� up to now been overlooked, the following informa­ tion about Antidoru.� is given (Sch. D. T. rProl. Voss.l 7.24-25) :

l'\VTISoopos S� TIS YPOllllaTlKOS YPOllllaTIKr,V oliTllv oov61loae 1TOpO: Tr,V yvooaIV TOOV YPollllaToov. According to thi� testimony, Antidoru.� is not only the one who first hdd the tide YPOllllaTIK6S, but should abo be seen a� the authority who introduced the name of the related di�ci­ pline. He attempted to explain this word with the etymological connec­ tion between the term YPOllllaTIK" and the expression ypallllaTO. But, if we believe this testimony, Antidorus-unknowingly or even known­ ingly-went one step further. Beyond the etymological explanation, he defined the nature of the philological discipline as yvooalS of its content, the ypalllloTO, in the form of a 'nominal definition'47: according to Antidorus, 'grammar is the knowledge of the writings'. Eratosthenes could have u.�ed the definition of Antidoru.� a� the ba�s of hi� own. Thank.� to his philosophical education, the Cyrenean succeeded in giv­ ing hi� definition, with reference to the term ��IS , a philosophical back­ ground and in incorporating it into the theoretical context of the Helle­ ni�tic science.

Callimachus' 23rd epigram wa.\ mentioned many times by the Neoplatonist commentators; see Kotzia 2004, 1 85-186 n. 3. 47 That wa.\ according to Aristotle (APo. II 1 0, 93b29-32) the Myos TOU Tt OTIl.laivEI TO ovol.la or the AOYoS 6vol.laToo5TJs. On the nominal definitions in Aristotle see De Rijk 2002, 1 69(H;94.

68

Stephano� Matthaio�

2. The Theoretical Background ofEratosthenes' Definition It ha� already been pointed out that Antidorus' definition of 'granunar' was founded on the explanation of the tenn ypO��o::T \ K" , In compari­ son to Antidorus, Eratosthenes tried to define the essence and nature of this discipline. A� Aristotle had already a.�certained, a definition of thi� kind is based on the description of the characteristics of genus and species of the dtfiniendum.4H The Scholia to Dionysius Thrax states that a definition consists of three elements:4'J firstly, the yevoS of the defined i� given. After that, the crVO'TcrTlKO\ 5\ocpopo\ or the Ei5T}, thus the specific dif­ ferences which account for the character of the defined object are de­ noted; in general, these are expressed by a verbal adjective that syntacti­ cally functions as an attribute to yevoS . Thirdly, the i510v of the defined, the characteristic that can exclusively be attributed to it, is nanled. In ca.�e of a TeXVT} definition, thi� element specifies the function and subject area of the discipline under discussion; syntactically, it is expressed by a genitive, which i� governed by the adjective that pre­ cedes it.'"' If we exanline Eratosthenes' definition according to thi� model, then all three elements seem to be included in hi� statement: the tenn e�IS stand� for the yevoS of the ypO��o::T \ K" TeXVT}. The kind of e�ls, which represents scholarship, i� qualified through the adjective lTOVTE""S. Fi­ nally , the subject of the philological di�cipline is given by the preposi­ tional expression EV ypa��ocr\. Due to the particular connection of the individual elements with each other, the expression e�IS i�, as will be shown at the end of tllls section, placed in the foreground and turned into the central concept of Eratosthenes' definition. The theoretical rea.�oning for thi� concept will be examined more thoroughly below. The few researchers who have taken Eratosthenes' 'gra.mmar' defini­ tion into consideration have translated e�IS a.� 'skill ' and 'craft' .5 1 There48 See e.g. Arist. Top. I 8 . 1 03b15-16: 6 6pla�os tK ytvovS Kat filacpopwv tcrriv . On definition< by Aristotle see De Rijk 2002, I 653-7 1 4. An overview of the c1uracteri.
Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Reading; of hi. 'Granullar' Definition

69

fore, e�IS belongs to the lexical field 'experience' or 'skill' that in mod­ em lexicography is differentiated from the meaning 'habitus, condition, behavior' and is considered an equivalent of the Latin facultas or facili­ tas.52 The word e�IS in this sense, mosdy accompanied by a prepositional expression with ev plus dative, is often documented in the Hellenistic era.53 Eratosthenes may have lL�ed the term with this meaning; however, several doubts arise on this hypothesis. The problem� start, when we examine the lL�e of e�IS in the following pas.�ages in which modem lexi­ cography acknowledges the meaning 'skill' or 'ability': (1) PI. Phdr. 268e: ovBev �t'}v KWAVel �T1Be cr�IKpOV ap�ovlas E1Ta'ielv TOV Tt'}V crt'}v e�1V ExoVTa and (2) rArist.] Pr. XXX 2 .955bl : .6la TI KaT' evlas �ev

T&V hTlcrTT}�&v e�1V ExelV i\eyo�ev, KaT' evlas Be ov ; 11 Kae' ocras evpET1KOI ecr�ev, e�1V EXEIV i\Ey6�eea ; TO yap evplcrKElv (mo e�ews. In neither of these passages i� the meaning 'skill' , 'craft' or 'ability' obliga­ tory; on the contrary, the use of e�IS should be rather attributed to the super-ordinate term� 'habitlL�, condition, behavior'. Rowe assumes this more general sense in the quoted pas.�age from Phaedrus,S4 and the meantranslated. but otherwise translated �l;lS with T,-eschicklichkeit'; c( e.g. Stein­ thal 1 890-9 1 , II 1 63-1 64; c( also Schenkeveld 1 994, 263. Eratosthenes' defini­ tion is left without translation by Knaack 1 907, 384; Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 62; Fuhr­ manu 1 960, 145 n. 4, and Dihle 1 998. 88. 52 See L'!J s.v. II 3: 'trained. habit. skill ' , GI s.v. c: 'con.uetudine. esperienza. capacita, dote', Pass ow s.v. 2c: 'die zur Fertigkeit oder Gewohnheit gewordene Fahigkeit. Geschicklichkeit' and Pape s.v. 2: 'Geschicklichkeit. Erfuhrung'. In L'!J S.v ypO��ClT1K6S, III 1 b T! ypo��ClT1Kti. Eratosthenes' definition is [ran'­ lated a.. 'faculty of scholarship'. On the Latin equivalent jadIitds see Quint. Inst. 1 0. 1 . 1 : Sed haec eloquendi praecepta, sicut wgitationi sunt nell!ssan'a, ita nOli satis ad uitn dicendi ualmt nisi iWs firrna quaedatn jadIitds, quae apud Graecos hexis 1I0tninatur l1£ll!ssmt. 53 See Plb. 1 .54.4: �l;lV TWV 1Ti\'lpw�(hwv. 10.47.7: KCnrelTo 1To16aplov �l;lV

�xov. 1 2.25d.7: TO -nlV aA'lelvT,V 1Tpo(J(pep6�vov �l;lV �v �KaOTolS TWV �1T1TTJ6ev�aTwv. 21 .9. 1 : .tuocpav'lS 6 MeyOi\01TOi\iT'lS �eyai\'lv �l;lV eTxev �v Tois 1TOi\e�lKOis. C( Mauersberger 1 96 1 , 842 S.V. �l;lS (2) : 'prakt[iKhe] Erfahrung,

Versiehrtheit. ferner Geiibdleit. standige Obung. Befahigung in einer Sache'. 54 Rowe 1 988, 1 09 translates this passage from Phaedrus as follows: 'but there is nothing to prevent someone ill YOUT wllditioll from having not the slightest un­ derstanding of harmony'. See .lso Rowe's conUllentary (1988. 203) : '�xelv is here intransitive. "to be (in a certain condition) ". \vith -nlV . . . �l;lV (the corre­ sponding verbal noun) a.. internal accu..ative'. For an analogical construction and meaning of �l;lS in the Aristotelian Clltegones see Brague 1 980, 289-290. For the Platonic me of �l;lS see Ast[iu..] 1 835-1 838, I 742-743 S.v. : 'hiJbitus (tanl corpori. quam animi); status vel conditio; '!ifectio; etiam jam/tllS'. Funke 1 974b. 1 120 understand. the tenll �l;lS in the quoted passage from Phaedrus as 'zur Fahigkeit, ZWll Konnen ausgebildete Gewandtheit, Geschicklichkeit. Ge-

Stephano� Matthaio�

70

ing 'habitus, condition' turns out to be fundamental also in the passage from the Problemata physica; the focu� here lies on a preexisting cognitive condition, which is activated in a special situation. 55 In the light of the u�e of e�IS within these passages deriving from a philosophical context, the following question arises: did Eratosthenes understand e�IS in a general and more neutral sense, or did he refer to a differentiated, philosophically motivated theoretical concept for hi� defi­ nitional purposes? The fact that in the ancient theory of science e�IS is a fixed tenn which continually and unifomIly appears in different phi­ losophical traditions in connection with a definition of TEXVf), and that Eratosthenes, in contrast to his ancestors and contemporary 'poet­ scholars', was philosophically educated and had a wide-ranging philoso­ phical oeuvre is a good reason for us to search not only for the origin and the basic meaning of the tenn e�IS but also for the motivation for being u�ed in his 'grammar ' definition within a philosophical context. In doing this we come across evidence that testifies the philosophical origin of the tenn e�IS in the context of the theory of science. The asso­ ciation of the tenn e�IS with TEXVTl has already begun with Plato.s" The following passage from Cratylus (41 4b6--c 3) is interesting in thi� respect:

La. �Ov y' E(J"TIV EV Kat 'TEXVTlV' I5Eiv cm TrOTe �OVi\ETa\ ETval. n6:vv IJEV oOv. La. OVKOOV TOOT6 yE e�1V voO (H1IJaivEI , TO IJEV TaO a
ries of phonological changes, he traces the fonnation of the word back to a fonn *exov61l . Although Plato's etymology might be astoni�hing witztheit, Geiibtheit'. The translation by Heitsch 1 993, 55 (' doch nichts hin­ den, dall jemand, der so weit gekommm isl wie du, von Hannonik anch nicht da� Gering;te ver.;teht') includes both meaning;, 'condition' and 'skill ' or 'expe­ rience' as well. 55 A similar u.e oH�ls is to be found aim in Arist. APo. II 19.99b 1 7 : nEpl 5� TWV

apxwv, nws TE ylVOVTat yvwPl1101 Kal TIS T! yvc.upll;ovaa ��IS , !VTEU6EV �aTal 5i)AOV npoanopr,aaO"l npwTov, Top. VIII 1 . 1 56b35: ol1oic.us 5� Kal oaol oioVTal 5pll1l'iS ElVat !v T4> anoKpivEa6al · 6tVTES yap Ta npWTa !nl TtAOVS TEp6pEUOVTat WS ov
71

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Reading,; of hi. 'Granuuar' Definition

from a lingui�tic point of view, it hits the spot exactly with regard t o its content. If we take Plato's interpretation that TEXVT\ is 'possession' or 'condition of the intellect' seriously,57 then we recognize that the con­ nection of TEXVT\ and e�IS was fundamental for the future philosophical tradition and continued to resonate over centuries. The first regular definition of TEXVT} is provided by Aristotle: in the 6th book of his Ni­ comachean Ethics, TEXVT} is defined as e�IS �ETa Myov 6AT\6ovS TTOIT\TIK" (VI 4, 1 1 40a9-1 0) .5H Both element� of the Platonic concept of TEXVT}, the postulate of a rational structure and its definition as an e�IS, are in­ cluded here. Referring to the san\e tenn, shordy before (EN VI 3, 1 1 3%3 1-32) , Aristotle defined ETTlO'T1'j�T\ as e�IS 6TToBelKTIK". Even though Ari.�totle strives for a sharper differentiation between ETTI(rT"�T\ and TEXVT} in the Nieomachean Ethics,59 it is nonetheless clear that both types of knowledge share the notion e�IS as their super-ordinate genus. The elder Stoics also defined TEXVT\ as e�IS. According to Olympio­ darus, Cleanthes' TEXVT\ definition is as follows (Olymp. in Gtg. 1 2 . 1 S VF I 490 FDS 392 42A Long - Sedley) : lO.eclv6T\S Tolvvv AEyel cm 'TEXVT} EO-riV e�IS 6B4> TTclVTO 6vvovO'o" "'. Chrysippus attempts to complement Cleanthes' definition by adding the phrase �ETa CPOVTOO'IOOV: 'TEXVT} EO'Tiv e�IS M4> TTPO'iOVO'o �eTa CPOVTOO'IOOV'.',I The Scholia to Dionysius Thrax on the other hand ascribe the following TEXVT\ definition to Zeno, which is actually an alternative fonnulation to the one given by Cleanthes (Sch. D. T. rLV] 1 1 8. 1 4-1 6 S VF 1 72 FDS 410) : ooS BT\AOi Koi 6 Z"vU)v, MyU)v 'TEXVT} EO'Tiv e�IS MOTTOIT\TIK,,', =

=

=

=

=

57 LObI 2003, 1 04 tramlates the phrase ��tS vou with 'Zmtand. Verhalten des Gei�tes'. 58 See Dirlmeier 1 979, 1 26: 'da,. praktische Konnen list] identisch mit einem auf da,. Hervorbringen abzielenden. vom richtigen Reflektieren geleiteten Verhal­ ten'; Gauthier-Jolif 1 970, 460: 'un etat habituel raisonne de prossession du vrai que dirige la production'. On Aristotle's T�)(V'l definition, see Dirlmeier 1 979, 448 and Isnardi Parente 1 9 6 1 , 269-271 . On the meaning on�tS in chi. context, see Lobi 2003, 260. 59 On Aristotle's concept of T�)(V'l and its dissociation from �1Tt
72

Stephano� Matthaio�

TOUTEaTIV 51' 6500 Ka! IJE6650u TIOIOOO"Cx T1 .62 This definition became standard for the Stoics.'" Philodemus also links TEXVT) to e�IS. His TEXVT) definition runs as fol­ lows (PWd. Rh. 2, col. XXXV III, 1. 2-1 5, p. 123 Longo Auricchio) : vOEi- 1 :<:XI Toivuv Kat AEyETm I T1ExYT) TIapo: Toifsl "�T)- I
51Cx6fE10"Ifsl am:' I TIap falTT)p"fO"l Ewfs Tlvlwv I KOIVWV Ka! fO"lTolfxElwl ffvl1- l 5wv, Cl 510: TIAEI6vfwlv 51- I "KEI TWV ETI! IJEfpl o fusl , Ka- I TaAalJl36:vouO"Cx fT1 I Ka! 1 001uVTEAoOO"a TOIOVTOV, l olov 61J0iws TWV 1J1) I IJa66VTWV e fvloll , EaTT)- 1 �6TWS Kat �E f�llws fov- I 51e O"ToxaaTlfKwsl ·'" Apart from the TEXVT) definitions just cited, the term e�IS as YEVOS of scholarship i� documented in the two following 'grammar' definitions: The first i� attributed to Chares or, more correctly, Chaeris.65 It is tran.�mitted by both Sextus Empiricus (M. 1 .76) and the Scholia to Diony­ sius Thrax (fL'1 1 1 8. 1 0-1 2) . By comparing both testimonies, the word­ ing of the definition can be reconstructed as follows: ypaIJIJCXTIK" EaTIV e�IS aTIo TEXVT)S Kat laToplas (Ka! laToplas om. S.E.) 5IayvWo"TIK1)

TWV TIap' "EAAT)o"l AeKTWV Ka! VOT)TWV ETI! TO aKpl�Eo"TCXTOV, TIA1)V TWV \/1T' OAAms TEXvalS (Ka! VOT)TWV---TEXvmS om. Sch. D. TV'" The 62 Hiiher 1 987-1 988, II 437 tramlates the passage as follows: 'wie das auch schon Zenon klannacht, indem er sagt: 'Die Wissemchaft i�t ein Habims, der auf ei­ nem Weg [etwa.�) zu schaffen venllag", d.h. ein Habitus, der durch einen Weg und eine Merhode etwas zustandebringt'. 63 A.�cribing this definition to Zeno is misleading. On the author of this defini­ tion, see von Ami.tll 1 903-1 924, 1 20--2 1 (on SVF 1 72). Zeno's own TtXV'l definition is trammitted by Olympiodoru.� (Olymp. in Grg. 1 2. 1 SVF I 73 FDS 392) : ZTjV<.o.>v fit '!'Tlow em Tt)(llT1 tOT! aV
=

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings of hi. 'Granullar' Definition

73

second 'grammar' definition, al�o containing the tenn e�IS, is cited by the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax HProl. Voss.l 3 . 1 1-1 3; see also [L ml 299.35-36) : ypallllaTIKTJ Eern TEXVT) e�IS 6EOOPT)TIKf) Kal lTpaKTIKf)

TWV lTapa lTOIT)Tais TE Kal O'vyypa O[KE1'1J K60'1l'1J 6:lT05156vTES EVKaTaAlllTTOV E� 6:lTElpov KaTaO'KEva�ovO'IV. The origin of thi� definition is not known;

Steinthal 1 890-- 1 891 , II 178, thinks that it stems from the Byzantine era. A� our overview shows, TE)(VT) is always brought together with e�IS. It represents the super-ordinate genus under which TEXVT) as a whole and the various TEXVaJ must be subsumed. The continuous use of the e�IS tenn in ancient philosophy renders the question, whether Eratosthenes was following a certain philosophical tradition when using it in the con­ text of hi� 'grammar' definition, superfluous. Similarly, it is difficult to say which path he followed in hi� philosophical oeuvre. ('7 The defini­ tions of TEXVT) presented here also make it clear that by using e�IS Era­ tosthenes did not proceed from a neutral sense, but being an educated philosopher he took a� the basi� for his definition a teml universally valid in the philosophy of science. By u�ing thi� tenn, he granted schol­ arship the status of a TEXVT) and managed to integrate this discipline into the ancient system of sciences. The question is still open about the exact meaning of e�IS when used a� a difiniens of TEXYfl . e�IS, a verbal noun OHXEIV, is always translated in the TEXYfl definition.� mentioned with 'habitu�, condition, attitude' or 'behavior' . But, a� impreci�e a� this translation may sound from a mod­ em point of view, it strikes the core of the ancient definition. The verb EXEIV in its transitive u�e means inter alia 'to have' , 'to own'; in an in­ transitive use--in this ca�e accompanied by an adverb--it meam 'to be in a certain condition'. Benveni�te (1 966, 197) correcdy observed that the verb EXEIV was in principle a verb of state, which 'n'est rien autre

skill enabling one to do something. Such a usage may be seen where Ps.­ C..a!en's Introduction or P/lysicil1t1 1 4.677. 1 0 (= Deichgraber 1 930, p. 1 00. 1 4) talk.. about what the Empiricists and Methodics, who reject 'physiology', make the principles from which they acquire the I",xis of applying therapeutics'. TIle continuous IL.e of the term l�lS in the ancient theory of science attests however to the contrary. 67 See Gem 2002, %-97 and 338-339.

74

Stephano� Matthaio�

qu'un ftre-a inverse'.(.!! This i� al�o attested by Aristode who typifies the examples \J1T05e5ETal and �mAlo"Tal with the category EXEIV in the 4th chapter of hi� Categories.!',) In these examples, the ownership is regarded as a condition of the owner by the perfect tense marking thi� condition as instantaneous.7" Thus, E�IS describes 'an essential mode of being or behaving oneself (De Rijk 2002, I 470) , 'the haver's mode of being, which results from the very fact of "having" something, that i� to say the "thing had" substantially modifies the haver's being or behaving' (De Rijk 2002, I 4 1 6) . In the so-called lexicon of the 4th book of Metaphys­ ics (IV, 20, 1 022b4-14) Aristode mentions three basic meanings of E�IS: 1 . evepYE\(): TIS TOO EXOVTOS Kai exo�evov (,possession in a sense of being invested or endowed with') , 2. 51a6EO"IS ('state or disposition') and 3. �6plov 51a6eO"Ews TOlav-n,s (,portion of such a di�position') .7 1 Here al�o E�IS does not simply mean 'having', but 'a prominent way of being and acting or functioning in accordance with thi� "having'" (De Rijk 2002, I 468) .72 Also, the different types of 'to have' listed in the 1 5th chapter of Categories refer to the central meaning of 'having some ontically determinant feature' (De Rijk 2002, I 469) .73 According to the sample 'having [xl being [xl-ed', all these types of 'to have' can be changed into an intransitive construction; thus, as an example, the ex­ pression 'to have knowledge' is equivalent to the phrase 'to be knowl­ edgeable' .74 Putting it into more common wording, it can be under­ stood as: 'You are what you have' . Since E�IS i� seen in tenn.� of 'habitm' or 'behavior' in conjunction with the possessor, it is reasonable why Ari�tode subsumes E�IS together with 51a6EO"\S in the category TTOl6TllS and considers them as one of its =

68 CC ndefonse--Lallot 2002, 1 39-1 40 and De Rijk 2002, I 467-468 For a phi­ lo�ophical investigation of the notion �XEIV, see Stem 1 925, 7 1-1 06; cC Oehler 1 986, 350-35 1 and FWlke 1 974a. 69 See Arist. Cat. 4.2a3: �XEIV Be oTov ll1ToB�BETal, &mAICTTo l; cC Cat. 9. 1 1 b l 31 4. 70 CC Trendelenburg 1 846, 141-142; Benveniste 1 966, 69; Ildefonse--Lallot 2002, 1 40-1 4 1 , and De Rijk 2002, 1 470-471 . 71 Translations are from D e Rijk 2002, I 468. 72 CC Ildefonse--Lallot 2002, 1 43 with n. 2. On the active meaning OHXEIV in the sense oHV� pyE lo and its relationship to the tenn 'habitus', see Gillespie 1 925, 82-83. De Rijk 2002, I 41 5-416 derives this meaning OHXEIV from the super­ ordinate 'habitus' teml too. 73 See De Rijk 2002, I 467-471 and lldefonse--Lallot 2002, 1 4 1-1 42. 74 See De Rijk 2002, I 469-70 and Oehler 1986, 349-350 with reference to Arist. Metaph. IV 23. 1023a23-25, where "'in etwas sein" die korrespondieren­ de BedeutWlg von "haben" hat, das heillt, dall Aristoteles das In-etwas-Sein al.. Konverse der Relation des Habens versteht' (Oehler 1 986, 350).

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Reading,; of hi. 'Granullar' Definition

75

species in the 8th chapter of his Categories (8b26--9 a1 3) . e�IS and fi16:6eo"IS differ from one another due to the criteria of duration and variation: an attitude la�ts longer and varies little; in contra�t, conditions change rap­ idly and elapse . 75 A� examples for attitudes, Aristode offer.; types of knowledge (ETT1o"TT;llaJ) and virtues (6pETal) ; for conditions, wannth (6epIl6T1lS) , coldness (KaT6:IjiV�IS) etc. For Aristode the ETT1O"TT;llaJ con­ stitute next to the 6peTa[ the most privileged example of e�IS. Signifi­ candy, e�IS and 516:6eO"IS are regarded in the Topica as the superior genera of ETT10"-nl1l11. 7(, As a cognitive condition, ETT1O"-nlIl11 i� ba�ed in the soul. n It is understood a� e�IS, because by activating a cognitive ability it can give rise to a corresponding attitude in the soul. 7H At the beginning of hi� De partibus animalium, Aristode acknowledges that in relation to all studies there are two types of e�IS: the first one exists in the knowledge of an object (ETT1O"-nl 1111) , the second is an a�set that could be acquired through education (TTaI5ela) .7') From this derives the secondary meaning Jacultas resp. Jacilitas of the term e�IS. When in the Nicomachean Ethics (VI 3, 1 1 39b31 ) ETT1O"-nlIl11 is defined a� e�IS 6TTo5eIKTIKr" then a skill is meant; but this skill possesses an ontological dimension since---according to Dirlmeier (1 979, 1 2S)-it becomes a di�position. The di�cussion about e�IS and it� meaning in relation to the defini­ tion of a TEXV11 is most appropriately sununarized by Detel's conclusion to the explanation of the term in Arist. APo. II 1 9 .99b20--1 00bS. 75 See Oehler 1 9B6, 3 1 4-31 5; Ackrill l 963, 1 04-1 05, and lldefon.e-Lallot 2002, 1 42. In Arist. Metaph. IV 20. 1022b l 0 lSlS i. equated with 5106ealS. On the re­ lation.hip of the tenm lSlS and 5106eC"lS to each other, see Brague 1 9BO, 2B5290. 76 See Arist. Top IV 4. 1 24b39: ollolws 5� Kat �1Tt Tiis �1T1O""TTjIlT]S · T1VOS yap Kat CxV-nl Kat Ta ytVT], oTov T) TE 5106eC"lS Kat t') lSlS. Top . IV 2 . 1 2 1b34: aMa TO .

ye ll1T' aAAT]i\a ii ll1TO TalrrO CII.UpW ylyvea6al Ta TOO alrroO ytVT] TWV avayKalc..:>v 56SElEV &v eTvat, Ka6arre p Kat �1Tt Tiis apeTiis Kat Tiis �1T1O""TTjIlT]S crull�alvEl · CxIlCPW yap ll1TO TO alrrO ytvos �O""Tlv · �KOTEpOV yap alrrOOV lSlS Kat 51a6eals �Cl"T1V. 77 See An.t. APo. II 19.99b20-100b5; Top. VI 6.1 45a34: 1Taaa yap 5106EalS Kat 1Tav 1Ta60s �v �KetV'!l m\cpVKE ylvea6al ov �Cl"T1 5106EC"lS ii 1Ta60s, Ka6arre p Kat t') �1T1O""TTjIlT] �V '+'lI)(ij, 5106eC"lS ovaa ,+,II)(;;S. 7B This is the interpretation of lSlS in the quoted pa.'-.ages in n. 55; c( De Rijk 2002, I 740-744. 79 See Arist. PA I 1 .639al : nEpt 1Taaav 6ewplav TE Kat 1l�6050V, ollolws

T01TelvoT�pav TE Kat TIIlI(.()T�pav, 5uo cpalvoVTal TP01TOl Tiis lSEWS eTval, OOV n,v Il�V �1T1O""TTjIlT]V TOO 1TPOYIlCXTOS KaAoos lXEl 1TpoaayopeuElv, n,v 5' oTov 1Ta15etav TLVO. cr Lennox 200 1 , 1 20. The explanation on the lSlS term given

in the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax is interesting in thi. regard. According to them lSls is synonymom with yVOOC"lS; see Sch. D. T (L1ll) 29B.37: TI �Cl"T1V lSlS;

OloVEt yVOOC"lS.

76

Stephano� Matthaio�

According to Detel (1 993, 1I 857) , e�IS is '[. . . 1 weder nur eine Di�posi­ tion der Seele [ . . . 1, noch eine bloBe Fahigkeit der Seele, irgend etwas zu tun---sondem primar ein epistenll�cher [ . . .1 ZlL�tand, in welchem die Seele etwas besitzt oder beherrscht' . The reason that (practical) ability or knowledge is understood as a condition is related to the ancient concept of knowledge, according to which the latter primarily represents dispos­ able knowledge and thlL� i� understood as the sum of cognitive abilities, and in the sense of a capability in a special field of activity."" After the investigation of the term e�IS, we now return to the 'granunar' definition of Eratosthenes. According to Eratoshenes ypa��aTIKtl TExvrr-literally : 'the art of the writings'-i� an epi�temic condition that presupposes the acqui�ition of a particular knowledge. From thi� condition derives one's ability to master problems that belong to this di�cipline. The e�IS which represents the ypa��aTIK"; is qualified by two characteristics: the first is the attribute TIOVTEA";S, the second the prepositional expression EV yp6:��a(1\. In what follows I will attempt to establish the meaning of these two characteristics. First of all the expression TIOVTEA";S: A� already mentioned, the at­ tribute con.�titutes a fixed element of the structure of an ancient TEXVT} definition. From a fonnal point of view, thi� attribute i� mosdy a verbal adjective that indicates the species and thus the function of a TEXVT}; this adjective depend� in general on a genitive that serves to denominate the subject of the respective TEXVT} .Kl Yet, there is nothing similar in the case of Eratosthenes' definition. It indeed contains an attribute, the adjective TIOVTEA";S; but this i� used to qualify the term e�IS, the YEVOS of 'gram­ mar' . What Eratosthenes aims to do with the adjective TIOVTEA";S i� to inten.�ify the teml e�IS as the central characteri�tic of the ypa��aTIKtl TEXVT}. For scholarship and its representatives, the Cyrenean postulates the highest, most fully accomplished level of the epistelnic condition that comes from the acqui�ition of knowledge in the field of writings (EV

yp6:��aO"J) . But what is the sen.�e of the attribute TIOVTEA";S and the theoretical background with its implied demand for scholarship? To answer these question.�, one mmt juxtapose Eratosthenes' definition with two later ones, those of Dionysius Thrax and A�clepiades of Myrlea respectively. According to the evidence of the manmcript tradition, the definition of DionysilL� Thrax i� (D .T. 1 .5.2-3) : ypa��aTIK"; ECTTIV E�TTElpla TWV

TIapa: TIOIT}Tais TE Ka! crvyypa
Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Reading,; of hi. 'Granullar' Definition

77

ws hrl TO TTAEiO"TOV is placed after Ej..lTT Elpla (S.E . M. 1 .57) : ypaj..lj..lOT IKT) EaT1V Ej..lTT Elpla WS ETT\ TO TTAEiO"TOV TWV TTapa TTOIT)TaiS TE Ka! O"vyypacpEVo"l AEY0j..lEVU>V. On the other hand, A�clepiades de­ fines 'granunar' as follows (S.E. M. 1 .74

==

Asclep. Myrl. fr. I Miiller) :

ypaj..lj..lOT 1KT) EaTl TEXVT) TWV TTapa TTOIT)TaiS Ka\ o"VyypOV. Neither of these definition� contains an attributively used nomination of the species of 'granunar'. We may assume this from the predicates Ej..lTT Elpla and TEXVT) that define the methodological procedure followed by the scholars. 'G rammar' is, in Dionysius' opinion, the em­ pirical knowledge of what is being said by poet� and prose writers; in contrast, for A�clepiades this knowledge is founded on a theoretical ba­ sis, which demand� a system of rules and theorems. "2 Eratosthenes' characterization of scholarship with the attribute TTavTEAT)S and the inIplied claim of the highest possible acquisition of knowledge can be interpreted in view of A�clepiades' criticism on Dio­ nysius' Thrax definition. Asclepiades too expressed the same claim for 'granunar', although from a different starting point. He criticized Dio­ nysius due to the declaration WS ETT\ TO TTOAl) (or WS ETT\ TO TTAEiO"TOV) , which, according to his view, inIplied a limitation of the potential of scholarship. Contrary to Dionysius' understanding that 'grammar' i� mostly the lore of what i� said by poets and prose writers,"3 A�clepiades 82 Siebenborn 1 976, 129-1 39 showed that Dionysim Thr:!x's view that 'granU1lar' i. an hmElpla originated Wlder the influence of the empirical medical school and primarily referred to the methodological character of thi. discipline. Ac­ cording to Sextu. EmpiriclL' (M. 1 .6(}-(,5 Wld 72-75), Dionysim' succes..ors A.clepiades of Myrlea and Ptolemy the Peripatetic suggested the classification of 'granuuar' as a Tt)(VT), as a declaration of its epistemological value and rank of scholarship in the ancient system of science. On Sextu.' accoWlt, see Blank 1 998, 1 30- 1 32 and 1 35-1 39. The Seholia /() Dionysius Thrax often conullent on the position of 'granullar' in the hierarchical model �1Tla-rt1I1"'Tt)(V,., �111TElpla; see Sell. D. T. (Prol. Voss.) 9.23-1 0.19; (I') 1 62.22-1 63.30; 1 65. 1 51 66 . 1 2 ; (IV <Stephani» 1 67.5-25; (I m) 298.30-40; (Im
78

Stephano� Matthaio�

argued that 'granunar' is the knowledge of everything (S.E. M. 1 .73; cf. A�clep. Myrl. fr. I Miill er) : ..; Be ypO��aTIK'" 1TaVTCA>V eiBT}O'ls.1I4 Ac­ cording to Sextus Empiricm (M. 1 .72-73) , A�clepiades based hi� criti­ cism on the differentiation of TEXVOI due to their possible cognition level in 1TaYIOI and O'TOXOO'TIKOi. From his point of view, 'granunar' , unlike navigation or medicine, does not belong to the O'ToxoO'TIKol TEXVOI, but should be compared to music and philosophy. This differen­ tiation originates from PlatO"5 and was prevalent in the Hellenistic the­ ory of science. Following this classification, the 1TCryIOI TEXVaI possess a theoretical base that includes the associated field of knowledge in its entirety and without limit, and can be applied to all individual questions relating to the subject matter of these TEXVOI. In contrast to the O'ToxoO'TIKol TEXVOI , the 1TaYIOI achieve their objective without exter­ nal help and are not influenced by external circumstances or coincidence factors."" Although it may be risky to assume that Eratosthenes founded hi� view on the potential of 'grammar' with the same arguments as A�­ clepiades, the parallelism is hard to deny. On all accounts, what is sig­ nificant here i� that Eratosthenes had already postulated an absolute and exhaustive knowledge that refers to the entirety of writings and their contents for the philological di�cipline, as also A�clepiades did later. Apart from the intensification of the term e�IS with the attribute 1TaYTeA"S, a further enhancement of Eratosthenes' definition i� achieved by the expression EV ypa��oO'I. While Dionysius Thrax and A�clepiades put the empha.�is of philological activity onto the Aey6�evo of poets and prose writers, i.e. onto literary work.�, the subject area of thi� discipline is broadened by Eratosthenes so a.� to encompass writings in their entirety. The expression ypa��oTo covers all written works of any type and without further specification, everything that is written down and passed

in relation to the whole subject area of 'granunar'-'hnrelpla that mo�dy come from what is said by poet' and prose writers' they are always inlplied as a limi­ tation; see Di Benedetto 1 958, 1 97-1 98, Blank 1 998, 1 34-1 35 and Lallot 1 995b, 75 with n. 6. 84 cr Sch. D. T. (L l
Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings ofhis 'Granunar' Definition

79

on by writing.H7 Eratosthenes' use of ypalllloTO without the definite article empha�izes the broad fidd which the subject matter of 'grammar' encompa�ses. Through both characteristics of the term ��IS. Eratosthenes con­ nected the potential of the philological discipline with a demand for universal knowledge. Thi� demand is evidendy motivated by Eratosthe­ nes' understanding of q)\A-oA-oylo. According to Suetonius, Eratosthenes ba�ed his self-denomination as a «lIMA-oyoS on the claim to embody a multiplex variaque doctrina. His 'grammar' definition goes along with the universality of knowledge that Eratosthenes claimed for him.�elf with the tide «lIMA-oyoS. The phrase �v ypalllloal merdy serves to specialize the fidd of universal knowledge, which 'grammar' covers.

3. The Ideological and Cultural Background of Eratosthenes' Definition

This article now comes to its conclu.�ion with the most challenging 'reading' of Eratosthenes' definition, namdy the question of which par­ ticular function the Cyrenean a��igned to scholarship. The difficulty in answering this question lies in the fact that Eratosthenes does not openly say what actually this claimed knowledge qualifies the grammarian� for. The easiest solution to thi� problem would be to a�sume with Geus (2002, 304) : 'Mit der "umfassenden Fertigkeit in der Literatur" ist wohl in erster Linie ein enzyklopadisches Realienwissen und die interpretato­ rische Fahigkeit zur Analyse der kanonischen Autoren gemeint' . KM But it is indeed open to question if the wording of the definition allows for such an interpretation. Gem' proposal seem.� to be ba�ed more on 'grammar' definition� originating from later times, such a� those by Dio­ nysius Thrax or A�clepiades, and projected back onto the statement of Eratosthenes. There i� no mention of 'canonic authors'; the Cyrenean speaks of ypalllloTO a� universally a� pos.�ble. And whether the function

87 The view that schoIanhip i� rai�ed to the same level a� poetry, because it pre­ dominandy deal� with the poets (ypallfaTa were thought a� equitable with poetn�; see Sch. D. T. [IV] 1 64.2-4; [I ] 448.4 and An. Ox. III 3 1 0.24), represents a restriction of the term ypallllaTa, which could not be further from Eratosthenes' mind. On a broader meaning of the term ypallllaTa, see Sch. D. T. (Prol. Voss.) 7.25-29, S.E. M. 1 .59, Sch. D. T. (I") 1 67.26-28, Var. fr. 234 Funaioli and Quint. Inst. 1 .4.4; cf. Matthaios 2008, 563-564. 88 Geus' translation of the attribute 1TaVTEA';S as 'umfa,-�end' appears unjustifiable.

HO

Stephano� Matthaio�

of scholarship commit� itself to the interpretation of literature is not to be gleaned from Eratosthenes' wording. We want to approach this problem from the ideological and cultural background to which Eratosthenes' definition is indebted. From this perspective, the question arises whether the definition reflects only his personal scholarly demand� or, more probably, demand� that were prevalent in hi� environment. Thi� question can be an�wered by looking into the reasons that presupposed the formation of an independent 'di�­ cipline of writings', and furthermore, the importance that was ascribed to scholarship in Eratosthenes' era. Eratosthenes' 'granunar' definition and the demand for the con­ summate acquisition of knowledge in the field of writings blend well into the context of the 'bookish culture' which had the highest status in Alexandria. Following the establi.�hment of writing at the end of the 5th century BC,"" a major change took place in the Museum and Library of Alexandria. Thi� was not any more the foundation of a new medium, but consisted of the care for the written works and of the knowledge codified in them. This development i� one of the most fundanlental features of the Alexandrian epoch, which is therefore correcdy charac­ terized as the 'bookish age' ,'MO Care for writings i� not only li.mited to the collecting and editing of literary texts of the pa�t, but al�o lead� to a di�­ cussion about their content�. This new task fulally led to the theoretical justification for an area of expertise respon�ible for these writings. The expression ypalllloTO, a key word and leitmotiv in the Hellenistic po­ etic production; 1 was now significandy chosen a� the term for the phi­ lological di�cipline, the ypOllllaT1K'I'l TEXVT}, and al�o its representatives, the YPOllllaT1KOL Thi� temunological innovation suggests the signifi89 In addition to the bibliography quoted by Ring 1 988, 12 n. 6 on the impor­ tance of writing in the Greek intellectual and literary history see the articles published by Kullmann-Reichel 1 990 a.. well as Detienne 1 988; Harri.< 1 989; Thomas 1 992; Rowman-Woolf l 994, and Johnson-Parker 2009. 90 Pfeiffer 1 968, 102-104. On the importance of writing for the Hellenistic litera­ ture and the role of the Alexandrian Museum and Library as the competent in­ stitution for the transfer of knowledge, see Meyer 1 993, 3 1 7 n. 3; Si..takou 2005, 402 n. 10, and Thom.�on 1 994 with further bibliography. 91 Allusions to writing and booki..h culture are found nWllerolL< times in Hellenis­ tic poetry; Ring 1 988, 1 0-48 brings representative passages together. Several passages from Acatus' Pilaenomena also point to reflections on writing; see Faka.. 200 1 , 63-64, 75-76 und 99-1 00. Meyer 2007 ill mtrates similar reflections within the Hellenistic epigram. For an interpretation of Call. fr. 6 1 2 Pf (allapTvpov ooSh! aEISw) under this perspective, see Meyer 1 993. Kotzia 2004 interpreted Calli.m achus' ep. 23 Pf ( . . . aAAa nAaTwvos I �V TO lTEpl 'l'VXiiS ypallll' avaAE�aIlEVos) as an answer to Plato's 'Schriftkritik' .

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Reading,; of hi. 'Granuuar' Definition

H1

cance that ypal-ll-lOTO attached to this new medium of acquiring and transfering knowledge and consequently to the philological activity. As we saw in the first section of this article, Eratosthenes, like before him Antidorus, was engaged in the interpretation of the new terms and ac­ tively involved in their establishment. In the Alexandrian Museum of the 3rd century BC, texts were pre­ dominantly the domain of poets. It is well-known through the ancient biographic tradition of the Hellenistic poets that poetry and scholarship were strongly connected with one another. Philitas was described as TIOlflT"S OI-lO KoI KplT1K6S;2 Callima chlL� in turn as TIOlflT"S OI-lO KO! TIEpl T"V ypOI-lI-lCXTIK"V EOITouBoKWS. �3 This special unity of poetry and scholarship also placed demand� on poetic work�. Helleni�tic poetry, correctly described as the 'well-read mlL�e""'" regarded its function a� 'nicht nur dem momentanen Horvergniigen, sondern auch der lehrrei­ chen Vennittlung verschiedenster Arten des Wissens zu dienen' .')S In thi� way, poetry could al�o counteract the growing competition from phi­ losophy and scientific prose."" Its 'learned' character wa� expressed by Callimachus' identification of poetry as crOCP[fl (A et. I, fr. 1 . 1 7-1 8),'i7 in the term TIoA.u\Bpe[fl (Aet. Ill, fr. 75.8 P£) , and in the manifesto-style statement: <'xl-lapTUpOV ovBev <'xelBc.> (fr. 6 1 2 P£) . �H Recent research has meanwhile recognized the scientific value of the 'learned' content of Helleni�tic poetry and taken the poets' didactic claim seriously.')') In thi� 92 See Str. 1 4.2. 1 9 (philitas test. 1 1 Spanoudakis). 93 See Str. 1 7.3.22 (Call. test. 16 P£)o 94 Thi. characterization i. well known through the title of Bing's monograph ( 1 988) . 95 Meyer 1 993, 3 1 7 9 6 See Pfeiffer 1 968, 87-88; Bing 1 988, 46, and Meyer 1 993, 3 1 7-3 1 8 . 9 7 See Pfeiffer 1968, 88 and 1 37-1 38. On the u.e o f the tenu 00"'\1] t o identity poetry, see Maehler 1 963, 66-68 and 94-98; c( Murray 2006, 58-59 with n. 80. The fact that Callimachus' view of poetry as 00"'\1] empha..izes the intellec­ tual trait of the poetic activity is recognizable from the opposition to the ex­ pression T�)(V1] in Call. Aet. I, fr. 1 . 1 7-18 that indicates the rules of poetic art. For the opposition of both tenm in Callimachus' Iambi, see Fyntikoglou 2008, 21 1-2 1 4. On the inlportanee of Callimachus' Aetia a.. 'poem of knowledge', see Hutchinson 2003. 98 On the process of the transfonuation of scientific luaterial into poetry, see Rossi 1 995; Conte 1 986, 21-95, and Bonanno 1 990, 1 1-40; c( Papanghelis 1 994, 25-58; Sistakou 2005, 32-40, and Matthaios 2008, 556-557. 99 The profile of 'poeta scienziato', which is significantly broader and differenti­ ated to the tamiliar view of 'poeta doetus', is exantined by Bonanno 2004. Kerkhecker 1 977, 1 36-1 38 stresses that scientific activities of the scholar-poets represent the actual reason for their invitation to Alexandria. From tltis per-

82

Stephano� Matthaio�

respect, a parallelism can be seen between poetical practice and Eratos­ thenes' statement about the character of scholarship in connection with the demand for knowledge in the sphere of ypallllaTa claimed by both sides. The difference lies in a shift of contexts in which thi� knowledge is demanded. Callimachus---th e exponent of the 'complete unity of the , creative poet and the reflective scholar ml-claims this for poetry, Era­ tosthenes in contrast for scholarship. Eratosthenes' postulate is therefore particularly effective as it introduced the change that coincided with the theoretical jlL�tification for a new di�cipline. By changing the contexts, new respomibilities and functiom were chosen for poetry and scholar­ ship; in bct, knowledge gained from and about the writings is now em­ phatically put on the side of the philological discipline. That scholarship in Alexandria originated from the separation of its former unity with poetry is a well-known topOS . 1H I According to thi� traditional opinion, scholarship wa� not a separate discipline during the first period of its fOlLll dation, but wa� part of the competence of the poeta doctus; thi� period i� represented by Callimachus. The poeta doctus model wa� followed by the scholar who wa� secondarily also a poet; this model finds its representative in Eratosthenes. In hi� line of succession stood the scholar who was entirely occupied with philological matters and whose function wa� in no way connected with writing poetry; this model i� represented by Ari�tophanes of ByzantilLllI and Ari�tarchlL�. In Pfeiffer's opinion, the process of the independence of the philological discipline was initiated by Eratosthenes; according to Pfeiffer (1 968, 1 52) , the poetic work of the Cyrenean represents in contrast to hi� other work only a small TTapepyov.1H2 Schwartz (1 943, 1 87), even sees in Eratosthespective and without giving priority to poetry Matthaios 2008 tries to pre�ent the philological activities \vithin the scope of the Alexandrian Mu.eum. The scientific value of the philological activity of the Helleni�tic poets is researched on the example of their iHterpretatio Homerica by Rengakos 1 992 (on Callima­ chm), 1 994a and 2001 (on Apollonim Rhodiu.) and 1 994b (on Lycophron); see aim Rengako� 2002. The iHterprrtatio Homerica by epigram poets i. portrayed by Sistakou 2007. In addition to the philological activitie�, the connection of science and poetry on the example of the geography of Callimachus i� covered in detail by Sistakou 2005. 243-390. See aim the anal�is of Callimachm' po­ etry as evidence of a philosophical reflection by Andrew� 1 998 and Cuyper� 2004. 100 Pfeiffer 1 968. 1 24. 101 Thi. view is especially formed by Pfeiffer's History of Cklssical Scholarship (1 968); see esp. Pfeiffer op.cit. , 1 49. 1 52-1 53 und 1 70. 1 02 See Pfeiffer 1 968. 1 52: 'So fur schol=hip has been the domain of poets and their pupil.. Dut in the middle of the third centuty D.C. the union of poetry and schol=hip �plit up; learning was advancing, poetry in retreat'.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings ofhis 'Granunar' Definition

83

nes' avoidance of poetry the reason for the foundation of scholarship as a separate di.�cipline. As general as this view might be, ll 13 Eratosthenes still remains a central personality in the development of an independent philological discipline. Thi� is due to a reason different from what wa� previously a�sumed: while the removal of scholarship from the sphere of respon�ibility of poetry wa� so far ba�ed on external and quantitative criteria, it i� now possible on the basi� of Eratosthenes' 'grammar' defini­ tion to trace the theoretical background and to follow the reflection that prompted this development. From thi� point of view, the following aspect is of importance: the change of competencies between poetry and scholarship implied by Eratosthenes definition meant that the Cyrenean also had to reach con­ clu.�ions about the duties of poetry. According to Eratosthenes, the di­ dactic function on the one hand, and the aesthetic and entertainment claim of poetry on the other are not compatible with each other. The Cyrenean's verdict on the credibility of the geographical informations given in the Homeric epics is indicative. According to Strabo, Eratos­ thenes rejected the topographic information� of Homer a� worthless becau.�e 'the wanderings of Odysseus could be localized if one found the leather worker who produced the bag of the wind�'. 1 114 In Eratosthenes' opinion, Homer's geography cannot withstand scientific examination; it lacks any claim to be scientific and can only be judged as a creation of poetic fiction. llt5 Eratosthenes' view did not only lead him to break away

1 03 Several objections to the traditional view that poetry wa� of superior impor­ tance to the philological studies of the Hellenistic poets of the 3rd century are expres.�ed by Matthaios 2008, 554-555, 565-567 and 570-57 1 ; see also Kerk­ hecker 1 997, 1 36-1 37. 1 04 See Str. 1 .2. 1 5 (c£ Eu�t. 1 645, 64 ad Od. 1 0 . 1 9): O\lK hralVEi S� O\lS� -niy TOlalrrrlY TOU 'EpaTo0"8�yo� arrOq>ao"lY (fr. I A 1 6 Berger), SIOTI CP11O"I TOT' &v EOpEiY T1Ya 1TOU 'O SVO"O"EOS 1TE1TAaVTtTal, o-rav ElipIJ TOY O"KVT�a TOY avppa'llaYTa TOY Tc.;W 6:v�I-IOOY aO"KOy. The testimonies of Eratosthenes' criri­ ci�m on Homeric geography are collected by Berger 1 880, 1 9-40. On the background to Eratosthenes' attack on Homer, see C..eu� 2002, 264-268 and Trach.�eI 2008; cc. also Schenkeveld 1 976. 1 05 See Str. 1 .2. 1 7 (Eratosth. fr. I A 17 Berger) : TO S� 1TaVTa 1TAmEIY 0\1 "..8avby O\lS' '0 1-I11PIKOy · -niy yap �KelyOV 1Tol11O"IY CPIAOO"Oq>11l-1a 1TaVTas YOI-II�EIY, olix OOS 'EpaTo0"8�VTtS CP11O"I, KEAe\lOOY 1-1'; KplYEIY 1TpOS -niy Slavolav Ta 1TOn;l-IaTa, I-111S' lO"Toplav arr' a\iTc;,y �TtTEiY; 1 .2.3 (Eratosth. fr. I A 1 9 Berger) : TOVTO I-I�Y S ,; op8c;,s &v MyoIS, 00 'EpaTo0"8EYES · �KEiya S ' O\lK op8c;,s, atpalpO\ll-lEYOS a\iTOY [sc. ·OI-l11pOY] -niy TOO"alrrrlY 1ToAVI-\a8Elav Kal -niy 1TOI11TIK';Y ypaooS11 I-Iv80Aoylav arrocpalvooy, CP11O"ly, 0 &v a\iTij cpalVTtTal 'II vxayooylas OIKEioy.

fj

S�SoTal

1TAmEIY,

84

Stephano� Matrhaim

from the tradition that saw Homer a� source of all knowledge,H�' but also from views that were held by his contemporary poet�. The same material wa� accepted by Callimachus within his own poetry in it� his­ torical value and wa� interpreted in its pragmatic dimension. 1 4I7 Eratos­ thenes in contra�t, seems to have made a clear distinction between scien­ tific knowledge on the one hand, and literary material and its poetical composition on the other. On the ba�is of the Homeric geography, he demanded that poetry should be neither judged on meaning or validity of single thoughts and arguments, nor should one search for the hi�toric value of the poetic content. 1 "" These reflections led him to a new defini­ tion of poetry and it� aims: 'Every poet aims for \livxaywyla, not for , imtruction (515aaKaAla) . mJ Eratosthenes' use of the term \livxaywyla should be interpreted-because of its contrast to 'imtruction'--as an alllL�ion to the entertaining effect of poetry, 1 10 regarding this as it� exclu­ sive purpose. Thi� i� not the place to analyze the term \livxaywyla and the theoretical background to Eratosthenes' views in depth. 1 1 1 Although 1 06 On the ancient view of Homer a.� a unive�al teacher, �ee Hillgruber 1 994, 535; cf. Mehmel 1 954. 1 07 See Si..ukou 2002 on CallimachlL�' interpretation of Homeric place names; c( Si�ukou 2005, 243-265. 1 08 See Str. 1 .2 . 1 7 (Erato.th. fr. I A 17 Berger)-the text is cited in n. 1 05. 1 09 See Str. 1 . 1 . 1 0 (Eratosth. fr. I A 20 Berger; vgl. Str. 1 .2.3): 006� yap aAfl6ts �o-nv, 0 CPflotv 'Epcrroo6�vflS, OTt TIOtflTT]S TIas OToxa�nat 'I'vxaywytas, 00 6t6a01
'I'VXaywyEi " Tpay�6ta TOU �v60v Ta �tpfl, aY TE lTEpmhEtat Ka\ avayvWptOEtS) . Fuhnnann 1 992, 1 52 n. 25 (p. 2 1 4) al�o refe� to the term 'I'VXayWytKOV in An�t. Po. 6. 1 450b 1 6-1 8 (" 6� o'l'ts 'I'VXaywytKOV �tv, CtTEXVOTcrrOV 6� Ka\ 1)KtOTa OIKEiov Tiis TIOlflTtKiis) ; c( Fuhnnann 1 992, 2728. On An.tocie's use of 'l'VXaywyEiv in his Poetics, see Gudeman 1 934, 1 82-

1 83; Lucas 1 968, 1 04, and Halliwell 1 986, 64-65 with n. 24. Aho Neoptole­ mus of Parium used bes.ide� T�PTIEtV 'I'vxaywyta as a tenn for the pleasure pwpos� of poetry; see Phld. Po. V, col. XIII 9-28 Jemen (Neoptol. Par. fr. 6a Metre) and Metre 1 980, 1 7-1 9, A.�mi.. 1 992, 2 1 7-21 8 and Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 661 67. Neoptolemus' view is seen in connection with Horace's A . P. 333-334 (c( Neoptol. Par. fr. 6b Metre) : aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poetae, / aut simul et iucunda et idonea diate vitae; see Brink 1 963, 43-1 50. On Eratosthen�' use of the tenn 'l'vxaywyta, see Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 66 and ClL".et 2008, 1 25-- 1 28. 1 1 1 Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 67 a.�sociates Eratosthen� with the Platonic poetic theories; Fuhnnann 1 992, 1 52-1 53 reckons on Aristotelian influence. Hill gruber 1 994, 22 places Er:atosthen�' statement in the general context of the Hellenistic dis­ cussion on the pwpose of poetry. See Geus 2002, 264-268.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings ofhis 'Granunar' Definition

85

his statement shows that even if he did not turn out simply to be-­ according to Fuhrmann 1 992, 153-'a follower of a pure hedonistic estheticism', he clearly thought that the entertaining function of poetry stand� in stark contrast to the in�tructive one. According to Eratosthe­ nes, in order to draw knowledge from poetry, one should apparently rdy on the intermediate role of scholarship as the appropriate discipline that uses scientific criteria to examine the accuracy and validity of the rdated knowledge. 1 12 Through the spread of science and the theoretical ju.�tification of the individual scientific areas in the Hellenistic era, scholarship wa� abo clearly impelled to determine its own research fidd, its own methods and responsibilities, in order to define an independent scientific system and to differentiate it from other fidds. The scholar-poets' activity at the Alexandrian Museum stamped out their own path early on in the re­ search of texts and a�serted them.�dves in this area as a counterpart to philosophy that had until then claimed responsibility for scholarship and literary criticism. 1 1 3 With his 'grammar' definition, Eratosthenes marked the pas.Qge from the pre-theoretical to the scientific period of the phi­ lological di�cipline. As scholarship wa� moving away from the responsi­ bility of philosophy and from the profession of poets, Eratosthenes, an educated philosopher, bestowed it its epistemological clothes by defining its terminology and contents. The 'grammar' definition of Eratosthenes-the first recorded defini­ tion of this di�cipline--together with hi� work rPO llllCXT I Ka represents a stage in the theoretical justification of the Alexandrian scholarship wrongly neglected by current research. His statement builds the founda­ tion on which his succes.�ors could base their own definitional endeavors and the devdopment of the scholarship. In those six words that the Cyrenean's definition consists of-YPOIlIlCXTIK'; �tTT I V ��IS 1TCXVTEA1lS �v ypalllloal-, distinct parallds to problem.� that later theori�ts have dealt with in the advancement of the philological science become evident.

1 1 2 Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 66 wa� correct in hi� view that 'the scienti�t [i. e. Eratosthenes] wa.� con.�stent and fearles.� enough [ . . . ] to apply to poetry in general'. 1 1 3 Matthaios 2008, 637-643 describes the proces.� how scholarship became inde­ pendent from the domain of philosophy.

Ex Homero grammatica

*

Filippomaria Pontani

1 . Introduction Tcv 6eO"allE KOVTO: 0"'aiJT&. TOV TTOll 6vIlcrral iO"ws K'lKEi - O"X6")\Ia, KeiIlEVa, TE)(VOAOyia, ypacpes, Eis TEUXTl EMTlVIO"IlWV TToM" epllTlVEia. K. Kavafis,

Avcrlov ypallllaTlKOV T&.CPOS (19 1 4) , 4-61

We placed him near those things of his he

may

remember even there--ann otatioIl.' , texts, gr.nul11atical analyses, writings, tomes of ample commentary on Greek idioms.

Lysia., a fictitious granunarian living in 3rd--century Beirut, used to work with texts (KEI�evcx) and variants (ypCXcpES), with scholia (crX6AICX), granunatical rules (TEXVOAOylcx) and studies on lingui.tic correctness. The exact meaning of CavafY's line 6 i. not entirely clear, especially becalL.e of the word eAA"vlcr�&V: whether it should be taken with TEUX" or with ep�"ve[cx, we can interpret it as a generic reference to the lingui.tic variations of Greek speech and literary texts, or more precisely as a hint to the numerous writing; nepl 'EAA"Vlcr�OO of the early impe­ rial age. 2 Be that a. it may, I simply note that we have here a rare occur­ rence of the plural eAA"vlcr�ol, which i. not attested anywhere else ex­ cept for a passage of Sextus Empiricus dealing with the two 'ratios' of correct Greek, i. e.-by and large---analogy and crvv"eelcx:3 without *

My special thanh to David Blank for hi. conunents on a previom draft of thi. paper. Among the vanom translations I quote: F.M. Pontani 1 96 1 , 147: 'lezioni, testi un cumulo / di ;coli, e glosse elleniche in ampi tomi'; Blanken 1 977, 1 20: 'scholien, tek.
2

3

KexwplO"IlEVOS Tiis K01Vi'iS -rlIlWV cr\JVTj6elas Kal KaTO ypallllaT1K-rlV OvaAoylav

ss

Filipponuria Ponrani

positing Sextus as Cavafy's source, one might speculate that in his choice the Alexandrian poet was somehow indebted to the tenninology of the ancient grammatical tradition.

2. Homer

as

Foundational Text

Lysia.�' working tools are chiefly literary texts and grammatical treati�es. It is widely asswned today that the very birth of granunatical science during the Hellenistic age resulted from the blending of two distinct traditions, namely the philological activity of early Alexandrian schol­ ars-whose 'Granunatik im Kopf was already quite developed,4 even before the TEXVTl of Dionysius Thrax (whatever it contained)---and the theoretical approach deriving from the philosophical, especially from the Peripatetic and Stoic tradition.5 As for Alexandrian philologists, the first and main object of their studies wa.� the text of Homer, which explains inter alia why the greater part of Aristarchus' fragments on Wortartenlehre in S. Matthaios' collection (1 999) derive preci�ely from Homeric scho­ lia. This supremacy also appears prima facie upon reading later text� of granunar proper, such as Dionysius' Thrax Techne, ApoUonius' Dyscolus Syntax or even the treatise on adverbs and pronoun.� preserved in P. Lond. Lit. 1 82. " In all these cases the references to Homer by tar out­ nwnber those to any other author, which de facto credits the Wad and Odyssey with the statu� of foundational texts for Greek grammar . Thi� statu�, conspicuously evoked for our poet by Ps.-Plutarch's De Homero in the 2nd century AD, remained ba.�ically unchallenged throughout the

SOKEt 1TPOK01TTEIV, os SI; KCXTCx n,v �Ka
6

Probert, this volume. Erbse 1 980; Ax. 2000d; Ax. 2000e; Matthaios 1 999; Janko 2000, 1 86-1 87 (on PalL
Ex Homero grammatica

89

centuries.7 Two short passages from Apollonius' Dyscolus De pro­ nomine--the fonner explicitly quoting Aristarchus' doctrine--suffic e to show to what extent Homer's language was credited with a normative value, overshadowing even that of Attic prose writers such as Plato."

3. Homer and the Kuran

In an epi�temological perspective it i� not obvious that a grammatical tradition should be founded on one single text. Among the few other grammars that generated spontaneously (i. e. not by imitation of a for­ eign theoretical model), neither the Sanskrit nor the Chinese one began exactly in this way." The only really comparable case is that of Arabic, where the ideological relevance of the exegesi� of the Kuran entailed the need to eliminate wrong or dangerous variants, both by lending author­ ity to one specific textual version-the Medina text, going back to the prophet via the editions supposedly made by the caliph Abu Bakr or by hi� successor Uthman-and by establi�hing a grammatical norm that might discriminate correct linguistic fonm from corrupt ones. This op­ eration also had a cultural significance, in that it both influenced and proceeded from Kuranic exegesis, which thus appears to be the first place where to look for the original form of language study in Islam.tu 7 On Ps.-Plutarch see e. g. Hillgruber 1 994, 5-35; Keaney-Lamberton 1 996. More broadly on Homer's pivotal status in Greek culture, 'closer to the status of the Bible than to that of other work� of literature created in ancient Greece' see FinkeIberg 2003. 8 A.D. Pron. 7 1 .22-25: T'�lV I1�V oiN )\plcrrapxov hTlI1£I1q>ecr6al q>acn Ta

crx,;�aTa, Ka60 aq>' �vtKiiS crutrTa�OOS Tiis '�aVT6v' lTAT)6vVTtKT) �y£VETO ,; '�aVTOIJS', l1apTVpa TE �lTayEaeat TOV lTOl'lT';V, 'lTap' � Ta Toii 'EMT)VtO'I10ii ';Kplj3ooTat' (fr. 1 25A Matthaios); 72. 16: lTaVTI T� 5iiAOV ll1T�p aKplj3e1as ��ETaO'aVTl Tiis �v ToiS I1£PEO'l Toii Abyov, OOS ,; '01lT)ptKT) lTOI'lO'lS l1aMov TWV a:J.J..oov ';vV0'6'l. MEV ov l1aMov ,; nAchoovos xpiiO'IS a�t01TlcrroT£pa Tiis OVK oVO'T)S lTapa T4'> lTOlT)Tfj. C( A.D. 8ynt. II 1 5 1 - 1 52,

245.6-247.8. See Siebenbom 1 976, 31 ; Ax 2000e, 1 35; Matthaios 1 999, 459 and 479-480; Lallot 1 997, II 146-1 47. 9 Panini's canonical Sanskrit grammar wa.� ba.�ed essentially on the spoken lan­ guage of his time, even if its predecess ors probably abo contributed to the stan­ da.rdization of Vedic texts; see e.g. Kipa.rsky 1 995, 59. On autonomously gen­ erated granuna.rs see Versteegh 1 993, 21-22. 10 See Versteegh 1 993, 37-41 and 79-84; Versteegh 1 986, 425-426; Anwa.r 1 983. Suleiman 1 995, 29 stresses 'the importa.nce of granunar a.� an indispensable tool in the promotion of the full ra.nge of schola.rly activities which revolve around the Kuran, for example exegesis (tafsir) and jurisprudence (fiqh)' .

90

Filipponuria Ponrani

The paralleL� with the Greek tradition are interesting and hitherto largely neglected-a.� opposed to the long-standing line of research, initiated by F. A. Wolf, on the analogies between Homer and the Bible, the Alexandrians and the Masoretes. l 1 Not only-as Villoi�on already briefly remarked1 2-the hi�tory of the textual crystallisation of the Kuran, based on several 'poleis-editions', bears some resemblance to that of Homer's epics.13 What is perhaps even more striking i� that 8th- and 9th-century Iraq witnessed a 'Streit' between analogists and anomalists (the schooL� of Basra and Kufa respectively), whose main object con­ si�ted in the different assessment of variant readings in the Kuran (qira'at) : Basrans in.�sted that only 'regular' forms (to be chosen al�o with the help of other authoritative sources, such as early poetry) should serve a.� models for analogical derivation (qiyas), whereas Kufan.<;-keener on the study of the Kuran proper and of its semantics-replied that even the rarer features of Kuranic language could be productive and safely imitated. K. Versteegh ha.� shown that this development, as well a.� the whole origin of Arabic grammar, wa.� largely independent of the Greek 11

See Wolf 1 963 [1 795] , 10 (ch. 4) on Homer's m.,. Venetus A: 'Habemus nunc, si omnia undique excerpta componimus, Ma.,oram etiam Graecam quandam, turn vetustate, tum variae eruditionis copia multo praesrantiorem, multoque melim servatam. Atque hac utraque, et Graeca et Hebraica, brragine com­ paranda, nunc demum altiu, perspicere licebit, a quibus principlls olim onmi, emendatio librorum et critica ars profecra sit, cum aliis rebu, pluribus, quibu, litterarae antiquitatis cognitio continetur'. See aho ibid. 1 53 (ch. 42), and the wlfini,hed ch. 2 of the second part of the Prolegomefld, entirely devoted to the comparison between the textual transmission of Homer and the Bible, a fun­ damental source of in'pintion for Wolfs new approach to Greek philology. See Grafton-Most-Zetzel 1 985, 1 8-24; Stroumsa 1 998, 1 0; Weingreen 1 982, 1 1-24. 12 See Villoison, 1 788, xxill n. 1 : 'Eadem, quod mireris, fata habuerunt duo cele­ berrima et e1oquentissi.l1la totius Graeciae et Arabiae opera, Homeri scilicet poemata, quibus tota Ethnicorwn fabulosa Theologia comprehendebatur, et Alcoranus, Muhammedieae fidei regula, et Arabice loquendi norma. Nee ilia neque hie forta.,se a suis auetoribus scripto eon,ignati sunt'. The analogies re­ marked by Villoison involve primarily the existence and the role of texts 'of the cities'; Villoi,on derived hi, notiom of Arabic philology from the learned Ori­ entalist Si.mone Assemani, who taught in Padua and expressly wrote to Villoi­ son about the identity of Muha.l1lmad's wife to whom the originary fonn of the Kuratl was enrrmted (Ha.ph.'kl, not Ai,ha, as Villoison wrongly conjectured); see Biblioteea del Museo Correr, Episwlario lV/osmifli, busta A,semani Si.l1lone, letter no. XII (2.9. 1788); F. Pontani 2006, 2 1 3 and n. 55; A. Pontani 2007. 13 Different perspectives on the difficult issues concerning the transmission of the Kuran and the legends connected to it can be read in the collection edited by Warraq 1 998 (see esp. Jeffery 1 998) .

Ex HomlTo grammatic"

91

tradition, which became known i n Arabic quarters only some decades later1 '.

4. Homer's Role

as

a Foundational Text:

In Linguistic Terms?

One of the main differences with early Arabic scholarship on the Kuran is that Greek grammarians hardly ever seriously comidered or proposed their foundational text as a model for contemporary speakers (exceptiom will be discussed below in 4.2) : to put it bluntly with P. S. Alexander, who compares Homer's role with that of the Bible in rabbinic exegesis and Hebrew education, 'education based on Homer was not directly aimed at providing boys with skills which would enable them to earn their living. The Greek was archaic and obscure, and Homer was hardly a useful model for writing good clear contemporary prose' (1 998, 1 36) .15 Now, this implies a sort of paradox, as the text by tar most read and studied in Greek schooL� and cultural elites wa.� clad in a language that is very far removed not only from the contemporary (classic, hellenistic and imperial) linguistic nonn, but also from most of the remaining Greek literature. This paradox raises two closely interrelated questiom: first of all , why should Homer be used to such a large extent a.� the main text where to look for examples of lingui�tic correctness (in other words, why i.� Homer so constantly chosen a.� the source of examples)? And secondly, how did the teaching of Homer a.� a schooltext for the learning of good Greek actually work?

4. 1 . Was Homer

an

Athenian?

First of all, it mlL�t be borne in mind that, though it may seem strange to us today, many grammarians---starting with Ari.�tarchlL�, Demetrim Ix­ ion and Dionysius Thrax-believed on various ground�, including the

14 The reference work on the topic i. Versteegh 1 993, esp. 22-40 and 1 74-183 on Sibawayhi; see also Versteegh 2003. 15 See also Janko 1 995, 232: 'For the Greeks poetic diction, and especially that of Homeric verse, presented a problem in relation to lU?llenismo5. The Homeric fonn.• of the language were not in current me, and could not be restored to current use, yet how could one deny that the most canonical works of Greek literature were in correct Greek?'.

92

Filipponuria Ponrani

linguistic one, that Homer was an AthenianH,. As a matter of fact, Aris­ tarchus' follower Ptolemy Pindarion believed that Homer was both an Athenian and the oldest poet to write down hi� songs, which thus be­ came, in his view, the ultimate touchstones for the correctness of Greek language: Pindarion probably linked these elements with the hi�tory of the Greek alphabet, which had first been invented in Athens.17 Homer's Athenian descent enabled Ps.-Plutarch (De Horn . 2.8-1 4) to register several prominent linguistic features in the poems a� influenced by Attic, Attic continuing to represent the exclusive 'target language' of educated speakers throughout the hi�tory of Hellenistic and imperial Greek-with a special peak during the Atticist period, when an irreversible dichotomy wa� produced in the history of the Greek language. 1 H By thi� token, even the learned elite could consider Homeric language a� a peculiar variety of everyday cultured speech: a variety taking great advantage of poetic licence-this depended on the literary genre-, but a variety by no means separated or alien from current cultural tradition.1'

4.2. Is Homer

a

Good Model for speaking Greek?

Yet, bringing thi� view to the extreme consequences, one might assume that Homer could indeed be used as a model for everyday speech. This is precisely what Ptolemy Pindarion allegedly recommended, incurring the sharp criticism of Sextus Empiricus, who ridiculed hi� me of out­ dated and clumsy Homeric vocabulary (S.E. M. 1 .202-2(6) . In his strat­ egy of attack against analogy Sextus needed a polemical target, so we should probably refrain from believing him uncritically. It i.� more realis­ tic to think that Pindarion, in the wake of Aristarchm/" favoured a milder form of analogism than e.g. Dionysius Thrax, leaving some room

1 6 See e. g. D.T. fr. 47 Linke. Among the sources insi�ting on Homer's dialect as Attic are Seh. Hom. (A) n. 1 3 . 1 97, (DHX) Od. 1 8 . 1 7 and Arisrid. Panathen. 1 . 328 LellZ (the latter present> Homer as Smymaean, but speaking Attic). The Attic background of Homer's religion is considered by Sch. Hom. (T) n. 1 3.827 and D ad I/. 2.37 1 . On Homer's alleged Athenian origin see e.g. Pfeiffer 1 968, 228; Heath 1 998, 26-28; Schironi 2004, 73 n. 5. 17 For this argument, linked with Sch. D. T. 490.7-27 and 192.8-1 4, see Mon­ tanari 1 995, esp. 57; Doatti 2000, 272-273. 18 See Versteegh 1 986, 426-429; Dalimier 1 99 1 , 28-32; Ph. Probert, this volume. 19 See Versteegh 1 986, 438-441 , esp. 439: 'They [sc. the elite] regarded the lan­ guage of the Homeric poems as a variety of this standard and not as a model for everyday cultured speech'; more on thi� below (pp. 93-95) . 20 Ax 2000e, 1 35-136.

Ex HomlTo grammatic"

93

to the 6v6�olov and assigning Homer a place of honour in the judg­ ment about lingui�tic correctne��. 21 Yet apart from the dubiou� ca�e of Pindarion, [ know of ju�t one other literary character who really speak.� like Homer, nanlely the cook of Strato'� Phoenicides (fr. 1 K.-A.) . We owe to Athenaeu� (9.382c) the quotation of thi� long comic fragment, containing the humourou� dia­ logue between a hou�emaster and hi� new cook, who keeps referring to the most commonplace Realien by mean� of Homeric vocabulary. 22 Now, it is intere�ting for lL� to note that the tone used again�t the cook i� not too dissimilar form Sextu�' attack on Pindarion; secondly, and surprisingly enough, the same comic fragment aim appears among the few literary text� (the others being Euripides, Homer, two epigram� and two more comic monologue�) of the olde�t preserved syllabus of Greek school texts, the Livre d'ecolier put together by a schoolmaster at the end of the 3rd century HC. 2.1 Was thi� choice made by mere chance? 4.3 Matters of Identity

Thi� question lead� lL� to the role of Homer in schooL� throughout the Greek-speaking world. The most active contemporary scholars in the field of ancient education hold by and large two different views: on the one hand, R. Cribiore maintain� that in the late Helleni�tic and imperial age greater emphasis was laid on the interpretation of the poets than on any �ort of systematic grammar, and believe� that the large number of scholia, glossaries and hypomnemata testifY to the creation within the 21 Reitzenstein 1 897, 380; Versteegh 1 986, 439; Blank 1 998, 225-230, esp. 228; Montanari 1 995, 1 1 3-1 14; Boatti 2000 (with a di,cl1"o;ion of further fragments probably containing Pindarion's doctrine and of his tenllinology) . It can be demon,trated that Pindarion is the nToAEl-laios 6 avaAOYTlT1KOS mentioned by Apollonius Dyscolus in Coni. 241 . 1 3 (Kal OUK aAoyOS T! avayVWats nToAEl-lalov TOO avaAOYTlTIKOO [ . . . ]) , since the only occurrence of avaAoyov concerning a syntactical phenomenon in Apollonil1" extant oeuvre refers pre­ cisely to the use of the plural verb with a neuter subject (Sytlt. III 5 1 , 3 1 7 . 1 1 : Kal Si'jAov C>Tt TO 'cnrapTa AtAVVTat' avaAOYWTEPOV TOO 'SoOpa aEC1rl1TEv') the same use Sextus mocked in Pindarion's doctrine:21 in both pa.sages the same example is given. namely the Homeric cnrapTa AtAvVTat (c( n. 2. 1 35 ) . 22 For a literary analysis of the fragment see Dohm 1 964. 1 98-201 . There might subsi.t a link between this parody and the large use of epic vocabulary in the books of OljJapT\fT\Ka by authors such a.. Archestratu. of Ge\a, Matro of Pi­ tane etc. No mention i, made of Strato in Olson - Sens 1 999, 5-1 0. 23 See Gueraud-Jouguet 1 938, 34-43; CGFPR 2 1 9; Marrou 1 948, 21 1 . A full discussion of the conspicuous textual variants separating the papyrus and the quotation in Athenaeus is provided by Kassel l974. '

94

Filipponuria Pontani

classroom of an artificial bookish world with little contact to contempo­ rary hi�tory or ideology.24 On the other hand, T. Morgan takes the remarkable flourishing of granunatical texts and tables (all devoted to Attic, not to the Homeric or to any other literary dialect) as a proof that the study of language-and preci�ely of the Attic dialect, endowed with a high identitary bias-did not represent an aid to beginners for reading literature, but rather a basic tool in advanced rhetorical teaching, and thus in the education of Mace­ donian and then Roman elites. The elementary study of literary texts (and above all of Homer) did not require any special granunar: it re­ quired glossaries. Nor did granunar, according to Morgan's somewhat bold thesis, really serve as a step in gaining a primary competence in spoken Greek. In her view, the normative grammar of present-day lan­ guage and the descriptive granunar of literary text� merged into a di�ci­ pline that was first and foremost a philosophical way of ordering the world in a rational way. Attic (not necessarily pure Sth-century Attic, but a sort of standard literary prose based on that language) was thus chosen as the authoritative model, and the real purpose of reading Attic authors well (i.e., understanding all their linguistic peculiarities) wa� to refine an ethical instruction ba�ed on the canonised texts. 25 Now, Homer--together with a certain amount of the gnomologic tradition-had always been the core of the Greek syllabus. 2(, He served a� the repository of Greek myths, customs and values; his language, un­ fortunately, wa� not Attic, but ancient scholars and educators show 'a desire to a�sociate Homeric Ionic with Classical Attic a� closely a� possi­ ble'. 27 Glossing Homer in Attic, and showing how Homeric granunar 24 See Cribiore 200 1 , 205-215, esp. 21 1 : 'Tbl1' the g1o,,�es that translated unfa­ miliar teruL� in the poets consisted of more accessible words taken from the koine, good and approved u�'; 'in the grammatical treati�el>--technai--the constant connection with poetic usages i� evident in the occurrence of exam­ ples taken from Homer and other poel�'. 25 Morgan 1 998, 1 52-1 89, esp. 161-168. R. Cribiore's review of Morgan's book (BMCR 1 999.05.22) i� quite critical in this respect. See Morgan 1 995, esp. 7781 , arguing that grammatical texts were u�ed neither to learn the language nor to help children to read classical literary authors (which does account for the papyrological evidence, but leaves partly unexplained the purport of tbe very definition of grammar in Dionysiu�' nX"'l) and 81-90, insisting on the ethical dimension of literary studies on tbe basis of pa,,�ages by Quintilian, Seneca and Plutarcb, as well as on tbe analysL� of scholastic texl� (chiefly Homer and gnottla.) preserved in papyri and ostraka. 26 See Morgan 1 998, 7 1 (on the 'core model' including gnottlai and Homer), 7578 and 1 07-1 1 1 (on the selection of Homeric passages), 3 1 6 table 17. 27 Morgan 1 995, 90 n. 50.

Ex Homero grammatica

95

and syntax were in fact a mere variety of standard Greek, served as steps toward� the ultimate consecration of the epic poems as the sacred texts of Greek culture, in other word� toward� their establishment at the core of a cultural identity. 2H Thi� is why glossaries and advanced granunar (encompassing Ho­ meric fonus, indeed sometimes based on them) were indispensable when it came to tran�posing Homer's ideas into refined present-day Greek: those granunatical tool� were the means of connecting Homer's values and art with the most authoritative model of contemporary speech. Homer's language is evidendy no model for imitation on the part of orators or prose-writers, and its peculiarities need not be con­ demned as solecism�-the opposite is true for some peculiar features of Thucydides' style, all the more dangerous because they belong to one of the greatest Attic prose writers. 2') This i� al�o why, I believe, Strato's fragment was included in the Livre d'ecolier not only as a funny way to deal with some remote lexical item� of Homeric language341 , but al�o as a caveat agaimt the ridiculous and foolhardy idea of imitating Homer ad litterarn instead of tran�posing it into the standard Attic everyone expected. After all , thi� incorporation of Homer into the sphere of Attic was reflected in the parody of later centuries: when mocking a hyper-Atticist, Lucian's Demonax charges him of speaking 'as if it were the time of Agamemnon'. 31 Strato's mock­ ery of the Homeric cook is homogeneous with the mockery of 'Aga­ memnon"s Attic, the two parodies ultimately belonging to the same cultural and ideological horizon. 32

28 Morgan 1 998, 1 74-- 1 89, esp. 1 82 note 1 04 (,glossing Homer in Attic empha­ si2es the cultural status of the conlllentator [ .. . ]; it also connects Homer with the most authoritative fonn of the language and channels the reader's under­ standing of the most authoritative author of all through the authoritative fonn of the language'). Alexander 1 998, 1 36 calls this 'social engineering', 'instillin g into children a shared identity "-. Greeks'. 29 On this topic see the excellent discussion by C. de Jonge in this volume. 30 Thi. i. the explanation put forth by Gueraud-Jouguet 1 938, xxii; but were it exhaustive, one could wonder what w,,-. the use of the passages of Homer proper included in the syllabus. 31 Lucian. Demon. 26: Ka! �T)V KO:KeivwV KaTayE7Iav T)�lov TWV �v Tais 6�IAlaIS no:vv o:pXa1olS Ka! �tVOIS 6v6�acr\ xpw�tvwv ' �v! yoiiv �pWT1]6tvn un' oUTOO Myov TIVO: Ka! UlTEpaTTIKWS O:nOKp16tvn· '�yw �tv
Filipponuria Ponrani 5.

'EMT]V10"�6s

=

The Languag e of Homeric Heroes

Before returning to this point, I must mention a relevant theory about the correctness of Greek, somewhat buried in one of the final paragraphs of a treatise on solecism and barbarism that a handful of manuscripts carry under the name of Herodian (see Excursus rp. 1 02-103]): Ps.-Hdn. Sol. barb. 31 1 . 5-10 Nauck: EVIOI IlEV AEyoVcrlV EAAllvlcrllOV eTVat TOV TIOlllT"f]v, EVIOI 51; Ti)v KOlvT)V 51aAEKTov, r,T1S eyevETo crvvEMoVTc..>V TWV 'EAA1)Vc..>V EiS "IAIOV, aAAOl 5e Ti)v ETvlloAoyiav, r,T1S a)(pl TOcrOVTov < . . . > 1'jMEV Eis KOplVeOV, Ked TIpOS Tral5Evcrlv ypallllaT1Ki'iS EAa!'E TOUS Trai5as TWV TrOAITWV ' ETIEITa epc..>TlleEiS {TIS} Tt ecrTlv EAAllv1crllos, ecpTJ, TO TracralS Tais 51aAEKT01S bpews )(Pi'icr6al. Testes praecipui: B (Par. gr. 255 1 ) U (Vind. phi!. gr. 263) 1 TOV TrOlllT"f]v BU: T"V TIOlllTIK1)V susp. Bois.•. , TWV TrOlllTWV Nauck 3 post TOcroVTov lacunam indicavit Nauck, praeeunte Boiss. (vide Reitzenstein 1897, 379-38 1 ) : 11. 3-5 de Dionysio iuniore Syracusarum tyranno agunt, c£ praes. PIu. Tim. 1 4--1 5, ubi compluria dicta Dionysii invenies 5 T1S delevi TO . . . xPi'icreat B: 0 ... XPi'iTal U

Here, Hellenismos is equated first with Homer himself-much a.� in Pin­ darion and to a certain extent in Aristarchus33-, then with the common language of the heroes at Troy, finally with etymology, an idea discu�sed at length and refuted by S.E. M. 1 .241 -247. Studying the manuscript evidence with the help of K. Hajdu's stenuna for Ps.-Herodian's DeA,!uris34, I found out that this paragraph of De soloecismo et barbarismo does not appear in witnesses earlier than 1 430, which might point to a late date for its very redaction35• But the issue should be left open, all the more so a.� the word� immediately after the lacuna, clearly dealing with Dionysius 11 of Syracu�e, are not attested elsewhere, and may refer to one of the sayings attributed to the dis-

the dominant tendency, Homerizing to indicate the extreme archai.m of the words u..ed'; Dalimier 199 1 , 20-25. 33 See Versteegh 1 986, 439: 'the fVIOI who held that EAAT]VI0'1l0S is identical with 'the poet' [ ...] probably did not want to go to such extremes and advocate the use of Homeric language in everyday life, but only to emphasize the correct­ ness of Homeric Greek'; Siebenbom 1 976, 30-3 1 and 88; Boatti 2000, 269270. 34 See esp. Hajdu 1 998, 33-41 and 85, and the stennlU on p. 92. 35 Boissonade 1 83 1 , 260 n. 3 had already suspected: 'AIiu.. sunt, opinor, auctoris'.

Ex Homero grammatiea

97

graced tyrant during his stay in Corinth as a schoolteacher--others of the same kind are transmitted by Plutarch.3li What is most interesting for us now is that the idea expres.�ed in thi� paragraph of De Soloecismo et barbarismo seem� to address an is.me ne­ glected by other sources: the scholia---and indeed Homer him�elf in a couple of lines--do highlight that the Achaean heroes do not need in­ terpreters, a� opposed to the Trojan.� f3apf3ap6cpoov ol and 1ToM­ YMlaaol ;37 yet no exegete seems to addres.� the problem of which common dialect Greek heroes actually spoke--a question that could arise spontaneously in such a rationalist exegete as Aristonicus, who found it strange that Odys.�eus' Greek could be understood by the Cy­ clops (see Sch. Hom. fDHM1 Od. 3 . 7 1 a, most probably drawing on Aristarchus: SOT�OV S�-CPlld-T4> 1TOlllTij Ta TOlcriiTa' Kal yap vavv aliTov 1Tap6:yel elS6Ta, '6:"M6: 1.101 eicp', ()1T1J kXec Iwv evepy�a viia ' rl 2791 , Kal c vvill c lv 'E"MllviSa cpooV1iv) . Of course, thi� view about the language of heroes should not be confused with the otherwise widespread a�sumption that Homer as a 36 The story of DionysilL" di'grace in Corinth wa' quite popular, and al,o a sub­ ject for rhetorical progymllasmata: see V. Max. 6.9. ext. 6: 'propter inopiam lit­ teras puerulos Corinthi docuit'; Cic. Tusc. 3.27: 'Corinthi pueros docebat'; lust. 21 .5; Ph. De Jos. 1 32: ypallllaTlaTJis a ToaoVTos 1')YEIlc.:>v ylvETal; De­ metro Eloc. 241 : ".,.WXEVEI �v Koplv6Cj) 515a<11Cwv ypallllaTa; Lucian. C.all . 23 nal51a av},Aa�I�Elv 515a<11Cwv, and especially Piu. Tim. 1 4-15. who is the only source to devote an entire chapter to Dionysius' diaa in Corinth (which he probably inherited from an earlier source such a' TimaelL'). It might be of course that our anecdote-whose wit is tar from evident-was modelled after the much more juicy ones occurring in Plutarch. but if the opposite were true we might face here the remnants of an ancient tradition. 37 The key pa'-'3ges on the Trojan,' nOAVYAwaala are n. 2.804-805 (no},Aol yap KaTa O:O'T\J Iltya nplallov �nIKovpol. I 6:}J,.Tl 5' 6:}J,.wv yAiiJaaa nOAvanEp�wv av6p6mwv). n. 4.437-438 (0\1 yap naVTwv TjEV aliOS 6p60s 0\15' fa yi\pvs. I 6:}.Aa yAiiJaaa 1l�IlIKTO. nOAUKATJTOI 5' �aav 6:v5pEs), and the 8th. Hom. (bT) n. 4.437 (elKOTWS TO �plktpOV 60pvj3&5�s �aTIV' hEPO­ yAwaaov yap �aTIV' 0 5� O\lK �aTIV all6qlwvov. TOVTO 6:v6:yK1J 60pvj3&5ES) openly states the Greeb' superiority over the Trojans due to the hannonic uni­ fonnity of their language a' opposed to the noi.,y hEpocpwvla of their foes (see al,o 8th. Pi. P. 1 . 1 37b; 8th. Hom. [AbT] n. 7.346b; [bT] n. 4.400a) . See al,o n. 2.867 on the Iktplktp6CPWVOI Carian,� line that gave ri.,e to a huge debate in antiquity a' to the exact meaning and comprehensiveness of the tenn 'barbar­ ian' (see Th. 1 .3.3; Str. 8.6.6 [po 370.4-1 3 C.] and 1 4.2.28 [po 661 .28--663.7 C.]; 8th. Hom. [A] n. 2.867a; Hall 1 991 , 9-10 and 1 9: 'The archaic literary world of heroes remained Jargely untouched by interest even in foreign lan­ guages')-along with 8th. Hom. (b) and D ad n. 2.867; 8th. Hom. (T") n. 1 4. 5 1 2; (T) Od. 8.294. On the related i.,-,ue of the different linguistic flavour of Greek and Trojan speeches in Homer see Mackie 1 996, 1 5-2 1 .

98

Filipponuria Ponrani

poet (not his characters) blended different varieties of Greek in one conunon language.3lI Yet the same view could be fruitfully compared with the idea that Attic itself resulted from a mixture of various lan­ guages. But this would open the debated issue of the origin of both Attic and the KOlvf) in the views of ancient and less ancient grammari­ ans, a subject on which much has been written. 39 6. Ap ollonius Dyscolus: in grammatica Homerus

Much of what we have been talking about is speculation, drawing on limited evidence from distant periods. The only Greek grammarian we know in some depth and breadth i� of course Apollonius Dyscolus, and my final remarks will focm on him. For Apollonius, as for Dionysius Thrax, the highest goal of grammar is the study of the poet� and of their mode of expression: thi� makes grammar an ancilla of philology, a tool in the art of emendation.4<J But to what extent is this exactly true? For Apollonius, grammar is above all an essential tool in the study of the relation between word�,41 and for the solution of those problems which ari�e out of everyday mage42 (A.D. Synt. 11 77, 1 83 . 1 4- 1 84 . 1 43 is 38 See e.g. Ps.-Plu. De Horn. 2.8; D.Chr. 1 2.66. Blank 1 988, 1 41-1 42 point� out that thi. i. not a Stoic thesis, became Homer's language could not be presented a� the primeval unitarian language (the 'lingua degli eroi mescolara e di artico­ lara e di mura' mentioned by Vico 1 992, 1 87, § 446) . A� a matter of fact, R. Janko has shown that the idea went back to the Peripatetic philosopher An­ dromenides, and perhaps to Megaclides, and was fiercely countered by Philo­ demm: see Phld. Po. 1 . 1 87.21-24 and 1 . 1 63.2-4, with Janko 2000, 377 n. 4. 39 See e.g. Seh. Aristid. Patlathen. 98. 1 7 (30.33 Dindorf) etc. A good starting-point (with references and bibliography) is Versteegh 1 986, 432-434. See ai.o (esp. on the diverse Atticist responses to Homer) Swain 1 996, 51-56. 40 See D.T. 5 .2: ypa��ClT1K" fit t
Ex HomlTo grammatic"

99

an open statement of this) . A� stated in the crucial passage Synt. I 60-62, 5 1 . 1 -53. 1 1 , for grammar to be a science every lingui�tic phenomenon should not only be described, but al�o rationally explained; and so should every deviation from normal, 'regular' usage. This foundation of a new discipline on the ba�is of a sound belief in rational analysi� takes place in the same age during which Calen and Ptolemaeus give birth to new trend� in medicine and a�tronomy, both rooted in analogical thought.# The literary tradition represents for Apollonius the core of gram­ matical teaching, since according to him (and to AristarchlL�, as opposed to the empirici�ts later represented by Sextus) , usage (TPII3,,) is not sepa­ rable from TTap6:5o(J"\S and AOylK1) aKoAov6ia (analogy) : literary tradi­ tion is al�o more authoritative than the pure mechani�m of analogy. 45 A� a matter of fact, Homer ha� the lion's share in this TTap6:50cns: Apollonius draws over 90% of his poetic quotations from the niad and Odyssey.4f' Yet, as H. Erbse ha� brilliantly shown, while hi� son Herodian made lL�e of grammatical rules in order to defend AristarchlL�' text (pro Homero grammatica), Apollonius did not actually build hi� grammatical system on Homer, but rather strove to find everywhere in Homer's text the proof for his own grammatical rules, deduced from different sources. 47 Apollonius thus paid little attention to earlier exegesi�, and made few fresh contributions to the understanding or the textual criti­ cism of Homer him�elf: he rather chose a hoard of Homeric pa�sages a� examples of the syntactical rules he wa� positing for prosaic language: 4H no longer ex Homero grammatica, but rather in grammatica Homerus.

44 See Blank 1 982, 1 1-19 and 2 1 -39; Blank 1 994, 1 59-1 63; Blank 1 998, xxxiv­ xxxvi ; Lall ot 1 995a, 1 1 2-1 1 4; Lall o t 1 997, 11 38-40. On the complicated rela­ tion between 1Tap6:6oO'IS and avv.,eEla see aho Siebenbom 1 976, 27-31 and 85-89; Sluiter 1 990, 6CHi 1 (aho including an excellent survey of the genre and aims of ApollonillS' Syntax); Viljan1aa 1995. 45 See Blank 1 982, 6 1 n. 19 (with further bibliography) . 46 Lall ot 1 997, I 1 8 . 4 7 See Erbse 1960, 354-364, esp. 363: 'Herodian wendet anerkannte Regeln an , m u Aristarch. Stellungnahme in Fragen der Prosodie zu rechtfertigen, wenn nicht zu verteidigen. Apollonios dagegen zitiert Homer und seine Kritiker, UUl granmlatische Gesetze zu belegen und ihre bis in die Bezirke der Dichterspra­ che reichende Giiltigkeit zu demonstrieren'. See aho Blank 1 993, 718. 48 See Erbse 1 960, 360: 'Indem so von Fall zu Fall prosaische und poetische (meist homeri.che) Sprechweisen konfrontiert werden, ergibt sich ein doppel­ ter Nutzen: man erkennt, wa.. in der logischen Syntax statthaft i.t, und vermag das spezifisch poeti.che Sprechen davon abzuheben, gegebenfulls auf seine be­ sondere Funktion hin zu untersuchen'.

1 00

Filipponuria Ponrani

In this frame, Apolloniu� often explain� away unusual or aberrant fonns a� variants that rea�on-actually 'the oppositive force of rea�on', TO CxVTL1TapalTElT11YI.lEVOV TOO Myov-easily detects as relying on poetic licence. 4. The concrete mechani�m for jmtifying eccentric fonns consists in the complex system of pathology, by and large the same sys­ tem operating in the nonnali�ation of dialectal fonns. s" Apollonius openly praises Aristarchus because he does not correct eccentric Ho­ meric fonns, but rather attempts at justifYing them by showing that they are not i�olated in their irregularity, and deviate from an originary form by a lTCx60S that i� itself entirely rational (A.D. Synt. 1 07 . 1 8) . The origi­ nally Stoic concept of 1T<16oS provides Apollonius with the perfect tool for di�criminating between a correct, primordial norm (to be found in a rational compromise between common written prose and the literary lTap6:50cns with all it� tolerated phonological or syntactical variations, and all what is 'external' to this norm, i. e. morphological or syntactical barbarism� and solecism� (such as those detected by Dionysiu� of Hali­ carnassu� in some Thucyididean passages) . St

49 See A.D. Synt. [ 62, 52.R-1 0: ei lTOTE lTOI1lT1K" &5Ela l�alTOvlltVT] TO Ka\ lTAEoval;E1V Ka\ lAMilTEIV lTapaAEilTOl TI TWV TOIOl1TWV, TO avnlTapa­ lTElT1lYlltvov TOO Myov lTapao-Tlicm Ka\ TO AEilTOV Ka\ TO lTAEOVal;ov; Synt. [[ 1 57, 251 .7-1 0. 50 See Wackernagel 1 B76, 22; Siebenbom 1 976, 1 5O-1 S 1 ; Blank 1 9B2, 4D-49, esp. 45: 'To be sure, lTOI1lT1K" &5Ela ensures that there will be no lack of strange constructions in poetry, but Apollonius will in�ist (Synt. [[[ 1 66, 4 1 3 . 1 3) that there are lTElT0v60Ta in normal speech :1.� well'; Lallo t 1 995a. On the very tenn of lTOI1lT1K" 1'x5Ela see Lallot 1 997, [[ 40. Much can be learned on the mecha.nism� of pathology from Chr. Theodoridis' edition of Philoxenu� (1 976), :1.' well as from Ax 2000g, 1 96-1 9B. See a1.o Siebenbom 1 976, 1 OR109. Pathology i, rooted in the very practices of Alexandrian grammarians working on epic language. 51 Blank: 1 993, 714-7 1 B, esp. 7 1 6: 'He did not aim at changing the Homeric text any more than at changing the way people spoke'. Lall ot 1 995a, 1 1 4-1 1 B. See the excellent overview by Brucale 2003, 21-44, esp. 33: 'la patologia nell'uso apolloniano mira alia regolarizzazione delle irregolarici mostrando come le al­ terazioni constarate in una fonna 1) non sono i,olate, ma po",ono essere illu,­ trate in maniera anaIogica anche su altre fonne; 2) tendono a fonnare sistema tra loro; 3) possono generare fonne alterate che scambiano la loro originaria re­ golarita con una nuova aggregandosi ad un nuovo paradigma' and 34-39 on the ancient search for a normative parameter, to be found in Homer (Pin­ darion) , in u� (the empiricists), or in an analogical and rational Hellenism (Apollonius). Apollonius' sou had a similar strategy towards the KaTop600v through analogy of even totally isolated fonns-or their adjustment into a broader system: see Hdn . /lOV. Mf. 909. 1 2, and I. Sluiter's illuminating paper in

Ex HomlTo grammatic"

101

Apolloniu� does show an elementary awareness of the diachronic development of Greek when he tenn.� some Homeric fonn.� or uses apxalKwTEpa (A.D. Synt. 11 90, 1 93 . 1 7 and Pron. 44. 1 1-13); 52 and he knows another syntax is possible beyond the Homeric one, which is deeply marked by poetic licence (A.D. Synt. II 1 25, 223. 1 0 and II 49, 1 62.4-8).53 Yet precisely by recognising poetic licence and its mecha­ nism, Apolloniu� protects Homer from the charge of solecism, and makes him fit-be it with some eccentricities-into the big picture of good sound Greek. Therefore, the effective di.�tance between prose and poetry is reduced, as poetic constructions prove the deeper rationality of the standard linguistic system, and thm Homeric quotes are not super­ fluous to the grammarian's argument on prosaic di.�course, but rather essential and functional to it. S4 Though making occa�ional contributiom to Homeric criticism­ especially in the ca�e of pronouns, where the evolution of the system from Homeric to modem times is more distincdy acknowledgecl-, Apollonius is not mainly interested in the solution of textual or linguistic issues in the Homeric poems, to some extent contradicting his own programmatic statement at the beginning of his Syntax. His real goal is the creation of a new grammatical norm, to which Homer is the greatest contributor in tenn.� of authoritative examples, apparent deviations be­ ing perfecdy explained through pathology in view of the peculiar style of poetic diction. Apollonius' works were no schoolbooks, nor did they derive from classroom teaching. 55 Yet their approach to Homeric language was the winning one in the long run: they remained vital text� for late antique and Byzantine granllllar, and Homer---adapted into the victorious grammatical frame of Attic Hochsprache--made its way through the cen­ turies as the fundamental text in every syllabus, and the pillar of Greek identity even in the hand� of monks and bishops. To a certain extent,

52 53 54

55

tins volwne. On the Thucyididean passages di,cmsed by Dionysim of Halicar­ na",m see C. de Jonge, tins volume. See Drandenburg 2005, 205. More on tills and on Apollonim' so rarely surfacing sen,e of 1llstorical granmlar can be read in J. Lallot's paper in thi, volume. See A.D. Synt. 11 1 1 6, 2 16.5 Uhlig Eis yap YVl1vacrlav TOU Myov 1TapE6t­ I1E6a. Kat hi Eis f3Ef3aloTEpav 1T1O'TIV Tiis TIlpTjcrEOOS Kat �AEyxov TWV 1Tapa1TEI1'1'al1tvwv TO stov Tiis O'VVTCx9;wS. See Blank 1 9112. 67 n. 69, rotllr" Hou,eholder 1 9111. 3-17, see esp. 6: 'All these (and many more) seem to clearly evoke a classroom in which a teacher is trying to keep order and teach a group of boys to read poetry '" Whether or not Apollonim w,,-, poor, he was certainly a school-teacher'.

102

Filipponuria Ponrani

even the way Eustathius of Thessalonica deal� with Homer's language (by singling out TIa611, O"X'iIJCXTO and dialectal fonm) 5(, is inspired by Apollonius' example. It could be argued that Sextus Empiricus ultimately lost hi� batde against Pindarion, and that thanks to Apollonim the Homer canoni�ed by AristarchlL� and the granunarians won a pivotal statlL� not too dissimi­ lar from that enjoyed by Kuranic language in the Arabic tradition. But empirici�ts will never surrender: listen to the Syrian poet Nizar Qabbani (Damascus 1 923-London 1 998) :

Language When a man i� in love how can he use old word�? Should a woman desiring her lover lie down with granmurians and linguists? I said nothing to the woman I loved but gathered love's adjectives into a suitcase and fled from all languages. Excursus: On The tradition of Ps.-Herodian's De soloecismo et barbarismo

A new edition of this treati�e should start from the evident £act that it subsists in two different textualfacies: one i� represented by Voss. gr. 76 and Marc. gr. 5 1 2 (end of 1 3th century) , where the tide sound� TIEp! �p�oplO"lJoii and TIEp! O"OAOIKIO"lJoii KCXTO: TIAaTOS, there are number of di�crepancies from the text publi�hed by Boi�sonade and Nauck, and our pa�sage i� altogether omitted: this text wa� printed by Valckenaer in his 1 739 edition of AmmonilL� (= 1 8222 , 1 78-1 87; Villoison's 1 78 1 Anecdota emended Valckenaer's text preci�ely o n th e ba�i� o f the MarcianlL�) ; other--pardy incomplete--witnesses to thi� redaction are Par. gr. 2720, Par. gr. 1 270, Vind. phi!. gr. 1 99. The other version (the 56 I have recently given an example of an elementary Byzantine sclmnatologia Homerica--c1early functional to a work of paraphrase-in F. Ponuni 2005b, 48-6 1 . I should like to add here that the same work i� also preserved (under the SPUriolL' title 1TWS liei Tj,...'iS Tais
Ex HomlTo grammatica

1 03

one carrying our paragraph) is transmitted by several manuscripts, where the text appears divided in two sub-texts (TIepl O"OAOIKIO"�oii and TIepl �ap�apla�oii) and paired with other pseudo-Herodianic works (typi­ cally in the series: de .figuris I de soloecismo I de barbarismo I de impro­ prietate). Now, the stenunatic relations between these manuscripts have been clarified by K. Hajdu, and hold true for our treatise as well: from hyparchetype e descend two independent manuscripts, Vind. phi!. gr. 263 (ff. 96r-102v; written by Girard of Patras around 1 430) and Par. gr. 2551 (f. 1v: written by the monk Hilarion in 1 496, and marked B in Boissonade and Nauck) ; from the fonner were copied Ambr. C 69 sup . (f. 1 6r: this part is written by Manuel Moros in the third quarter of the 1 6th century) and it� apograph Ambr. A.S.II.28 (written by Nicasius Ellebodiu�, who died in 1 577) ; from Par. gr. 255 1 two manuscripts were copied in the mid-1 6th century: Par. gr. 2929 (ff. 23-29; written by Constantine Palaeocappa with his cu�tomary tendency to intervene on the text; marked D by Boissonade and Nauck) and Dresd. Landesbibl. Da. 49 (ff. 1 8-23; written by Nikolaos Malaxos, and subsequently it�elf the exemplar for Par. suppl. gr. 1091).

Aristarchus and Allegorical Interpretation

Rene Niinlist There is a widespread consenslL� among modem scholars, starting no later than with F. A. Wolf and hi� famous Prolegomena ad Homernm (1795) , that Aristarchus was opposed to allegorical interpretation. 1 In recent years, he has even been pictured, so to speak, as the spokesman of a decidedly anti-allegorical fraction among ancient critics. 2 It is the pur­ pose of this paper (a) to re-examine the textual evidence on which this consensus is nomully based, (b) to add some pieces that have not re­ ceived the attention they deserve and (c) to offer a concllL�ion that modifies the commonly held view. The evidence for AristarchlL�' views about allegorical interpretation is meager. Virtually all the scholars listed in n. 1 present as their primary (and, often, sole) witness a D-scholion on a passage from book 5 of the fliad.3 The Homeric passage in question comes from the speech in which Dione comforts her wounded daughter Aphrodite by telling her that she is not alone in being mi�treated by a mortal: Ares was bound by OtlL� and Ephialtes, Hera and Hades were each shot by Heracles. 4 The first sentence of the relevant scholion reads:

2

3 4

Wolf 1 795, CLXV (= 1 876, 1 00(1); Lehr.; 1 882, 1 62; Bachmann 1 902, 34; Roemer 1 924, 1 53-6; Pepin 1 976, 1 79-80; Montanari 1 987, 17; Dawson 1 992, 66 with n. 85 [po 267]; Broggiato 2001 , Ix; Ramelli 2004, 1 95; Struck 2004, esp. 21-2. The list makes no pretence to comprehensivenes.,. Struck. for instance, has Aristarchus engage in fictitiom debates with the author of the Derveni papyrm (2004, 36) and Porphyry (2004, 74, 76) . See aIso n. 25 below. An exception is Wolf 1 795, CLXV n. 27 (= 1 876, 1 01 n. 27), who only refers to EustathilL" treatment of the question, for which see below. fl. 5.385-404. Scholars regularly take it for granted that Ari.'tarchlL', .., quoted in the D-scholion, conunent, on the first of these three exemp/a only. It is, however, equally possible that all three are meant.

106

Rene Niinlist

Jro.plOTOPXOS lx90i "Ta TPal;61lEvo \mo TOO TTOI1lTOO llu81KWTEPOV �K5EXEaeol KQTa T";V TTOI1lT1K";V ��ouO'lav, 1l1l5ev g� TOOV TPal;oIlEIIWV UTTO TOO TTOI1lTOO TTepIEpyo�OIlEVOUS". 5

A literal translation of the scholion might

run

like this:

Ari.�tarchus demands 'that accept the things said by the poet in a more mythical way in accordance with his poetic licence, without busying themselves about anything outside of the things said by the poet'.

The passage is remarkable, in that it presents itself a� an actual quotation of Aristarchus' ipsissima verba on the issue, which is rare. The quotation, however, does not make it immediately clear what exacdy Ari.�tarchus' position is. Nor, in fact, is it a priori evident why thi� generali�ing state­ ment is made with reference to this particular Homeric passage (cC n. 4) . Scholars generally as.�ume that Aristarchus takes exception to allegorical interpretations of Ares' binding by Otus and Ephialtes, because, it ha� been argued, the scholion 'has no sense at all unIes.� it is directed again�t allegorizing interpretation� of the pa�age' (Porter 1 992, 70) . Support for this view seems to come from Eustathius' commentary on the same passage from mad 5: of) Se lxM1lyopla. El Koi 6 Jro.piOTOPXOS fJ�lou, wS TTpoeypaT1l , 1l1l5ev TI TOOV TTOpa Tij TTOI';O'EI llu81KOOV TTEplEpya�E0'8ol lxM1lYOPIKOOs g�tI) TOOV TPO�OIlEIIWV, KTA. Eu�t. 561.28f[ = 2.101.13f[ van der VaIk The allegorical interpretation , even if Aristarchu� de­ manded, a� ha� been written above, that one should not busy oneself with any of the poem's mythical stories in an allegorical way outside of the things that are said . . . (followed by the allegorical interpretation in ques­ tion) .

5

Schol. D R. 3.385. The remainder of the long scholion con'li.�ts of four parts: (i) it gives, similar to a mythographical handbook, a comprehensive sunuuary of the myth of Otus and EphiaJtes; it provides many story elements that are either presupposed in the short Homeric account or fall outside of its scope (lines 31 1 in van Thiel's edition); (ii) rationalises the myth in the style of PaJaephatu� (lines 1 1 -20); (iii) offers an a�tronomical allegory not unlike the interpretation� of Demo (lines 2 1 -8); (iv) offers an ethical allegory, equating Ares with eVl!6�, Otu� and Ephialtes with 'educational speeches' (01 �v TTol5el<;t MYOI), which i� then further explained in quite some detail (lines 29-52). Thi� la�t part (iv) is introduced with the remark that it i� 'better' (J3E�\TI0V) . While it is not clear whether this i� in contra�t to the a�tronomical allegory specifically or to every­ thing that precedes, the judgment should not be taken as an argument against Ari�tarchus' view specifically.

Aristarchus and Allegorical Interpretation

107

There can be no doubt that Eu�tathius is referring to the very same in­ struction by Aristarchus that the D-scholion quotes. The textual simi­ larities rule out any other explanation. It is, however, equally important to note the differences between the two witnesses. First and above all, Eustathius' text has the crucial word 6:AATlYOP1K&S, which is absent from the D-scholion. A decisive question will therefore be whether or not the insertion of 6:AATlYOP1K&S, if this is what it is, can be jmtified. Does 6:AATlYOP1K&S accurately convey the sen.�e that is apparendy im­ plied in the D-scholion? In order to amwer this question, we first need to look at the other differences between the two witnesses. The first part of the quotation in the D-scholion (down to e�ouO"{o:v) is clearly an attempt to defend the Homeric text against criti­ cism. Ari.�tarchm appears to argue that readers who encounter passages such as the one about Otus and Ephialtes binding the god Ares should not be bothered by it, as apparendy they were. Instead they should ac­ cept it as one of the poet's privileges that full under the rubric 'poetic licence' . Such passages mu�t not be taken at bce value, but should be taken �U61K(':lTEpOV, which is probably best understood as meaning something like 'with a higher proportion of fiction', 'in a more fictional way' or the like." Here and el�ewhere Ari.�tarchm advocates the view that a certain amount of fiction is part of the poet's freedom that i� often called 'poetic licence'. 7 None of thi� can be found in Eustathim' note on the passage. In his version, the scope of Ari.�tarchm' instruction is rather more limited. Here, Ari.�tarchus seem� to be demanding that readers waste no time interpreting any of the poem's mythical stories (note the noun TCx �UalK6 imtead of adverbial �UalKWTEpOV in the D-scholion) allegori­ cally, that i�, 'out�ide of (or beyond) the things that are said'. It seems clear that Eu�tathiu� amalganlates the two parts of the D-scholion, with the result that they appear as a single recommendation. In doing so, he completely drops the defen.�ive first part of Aristarchm' argunlent, which appeals to the principle of poetic licence in order to justifY the presence of fictional story elements. La.�t but not lea.�t, there is in Eustathiu�, as seen, an explicit focus on allegorising interpretation.� a.� the actual target of Aristarchu�' critici�m. Obviou�ly, the differences between Eu�tathiu� and the D-scholion are more than superficial.

6

7

It is possible that the comparative �V6IKWTePOV bears no panicular meaning, in which ca'e the suggested translations should be adapted accordingly. Aris­ tarchu,' actual argument remains Wlaffected by this. For 'superfluous' compara­ tives in the language of the grammarian.. see Schneider 1 9 1 0, 1 49. For examples see Niinli,t 2009, 1 74--84 .

tOil

Rene Niinlist

Thi� said, it still needs to be detennined whether or not Eustathius' focus on allegory specifically is an appropriate condensation of the meaning that underlies the second part of the scholion. In answering thi� question one might first observe that, taken in i�olation, the phra.�e ovSev ��Ct.) TOOV cppa�oll�VCt.>v U1fO TOU 1fOIT\TOU 1fEplepya�e(7eal im­ mediatdy remind� one of an Aristarchean principle that ha� no privi­ leged rdation to allegorical interpretation specifically. It nicdy catches the general principle that interpretation should be textimmanent, often referred to in the form of the maxim ·OIlT\POV �� 'O IlTJPOV (7acpT\vi�e\V (lit. 'to explain Homer out of Homer') . " This maxim applies, at least in principle, to every conceivable a�pect of a critic's ta�k (e.g. the analysis of a poet's habits in tenn� of verbal usage, semantics, syntax, style, and so forth) . 10 connection with Dione's three mythological exempla, in par­ ticular, it is worth remembering that Aristarchu.� scrutinised Greek po­ etry for mythographical stories and story dements that were known to later poets only but not to Homer hinuel£ He hdd the view that the Homeric text must be kept free of the story dements that were found in later sources only. Here again he made a sharp di�tinction between Homer and the veOOTepOI . This approach to Homer's mythographical stories notoriously includes the judgment of Paris, which Aristarchus thought unknown to Homer. 9 He therefore considered the rdevant pa�sage, n. 24.25-30, spuriou.�. SinIilarly, though less spectacularly, Homer did not give the dog in the Underworld a name, so the dog should not be called Cerberu.� with respect to the Homeric epics. lit Thi� list of examples could easily be added to. Aristarchu.�' treatment of Homer's myths i� rdevant to the present context becau.�e all three exem­ pia are dealt with very briefly in Dione's speech and together take up a mere 20 lines (n. 5 .385-404) . The underlying stories are more alluded to than actually narrated for their own sake. It i� conceivable that readers expanded the bare bones of the Homeric text by resorting to other, non-Homeric texts that gave a fuller version of the same stories. By 8 Cf. Cucchiarelli 1 997, 21 1-12. It L\ generally agreed that the maxim is in ac­ cordance with Ariswchu\' interpretative method, irre.\pective of the (disputed) question whether or not he bitu\eif actually used this phra.\e (transmitted by Porphyry, zet. 1 1 /12, p. 297 . 1 6 Schrader) . Even Pfeiffer, arguably the most de­ cided opponent of the phrase's authenticity, admits that 'it L\ not against hi.\ spirit' (1 9611, 227). 9 Cf. schol. All. 24.25-30 Ariston. and the test. coUected by Erose (ad schol. T R. 4.32a Arl.\ton.). An attempt to differentiate between mythical variants can al­ ready be found in PS.-Pl. Minos 31 8d-e. 10 Cf. schol. All. 11.368 Ariston. For a coUection of lliadic scholia that di.\CU'l.\ 'things unknown to Homer' see Erbse 1 969-1 988, VII 1 26.

Ariswchu� and Allegorical Interpretation

109

doing so they incurred the criticism of Aristarchus, who told them not to 1TEplepYeX�eaeal ��Ct.) TOOV cppa�oll�VCt.>v liTro Toii 1TOITlTOii. In conclusion, there i� no need to as.�ume that Aristarchus' critici�m in schol. D n. 5 .385 is directed specifically and uniquely against allegori­ cal interpretations. He does take exception to 'importing' stuff from outside, which, however, includes many phenomena other than alle­ gorical explanations of the pas.�ge under consideration. The broad and un�pecific fonnulation of the D-scholion should not be narrowed down by inserting with Eustathiu.� the word eXAATlYOPIKOOS. This position i�, in fact, not new and essentially Pfeiffer's, but it needed to be restated and argued at greater length because it is now generally ignored. 1t In addi­ tion, the fonner and, as has been argued, defensive part of the D­ scholion must be given its due and not simply be glos.�ed over or ig­ nored. Ari�tarchus is making several points in the quotation tran�tted by the D-scholion: readers should not be bothered by mythical stories that might test their sense of credibility, but accept them a� fiction and thu.� a� belonging to the arsenal that is typical of poets (i. e. poetic li­ cence) . Moreover, they should adhere to an interpretation that i� text­ immanent.12 Before turning to other evidence for Aristarchus' views about alle­ gorical interpretation, it may be worth asking the question why Eustathius inserted the crucial word eXAATlYOPIKOOS and thus reduced the scope of the D-scholion. 1 3 Con�iderations of terminology suggest the 11

ef. Pfeiffer 1 968, 227 n. 1 : 'Eu�tathius ... probably "interpolated" aAATlYOPIKOOS; according to Schol. D Ari�wchu�' sentence wa.� more general, not particularly again.�t allegory' (cf. van der VaIk 1 976, on Eust. 561 .30: 'Eust(athiu�) adi(ecit) aAATlYOPIKOOS '). Perhaps the most curious treatment of Pfeiffer's position i� the one by Dawson 1 992, 267 n. 85, who refers to the relevant footnote but fail� to mention Pfeiffer's reservation. 12 Two additional, minor observation�: (i) it might have been counter-productive to reject allegorical interpretation� in the name of 'poetic licence', becau�e the other side could ea.�ily use the same argument for their purposes, which rein­ forces the point that the two parts of the in.�truction better be kept separate; (ii) Iikewi�e, the phrase ��w TOOV cpp�o�vwv may not be ideal for an anti­ allegorical argument, becau�e tenn� such a.� vn6vola imply that the all egorical meaning i� so to speak stored up within the text itself, but concealed under­ neath the superficial meaning from which it mu�t be recovered. It is, in other word.�, not brought in from outside. 13 Even though Eu�tathius mention� Aristarchu�' allegedly anti-allegorical views three more rimes in his commentary (3.23 = 1 .4.22-3, 40.28-32 = 1 .65.22-7, 6 1 4.5-6 = 2.21 5.6-8), these other pa.,-'1age5 add little that is of importance. It is therefore unlikely that he had acces.� to substantially more evidence than what we can read today in schol. D R. 5.385.

1 10

Rene Niinlist

following al1.'iWer. For Eustathius and his contemporaries, the terms llu61KWS and 6AAllYOP1KWS are technical expressions that are diametri­ cally opposed. In hi� parlance llu61KWS essentially means 'non­ allegorically ' . 1 4 It i� therefore likely that the phrase llu61Kc.::lTe pOv EK5exea6m in the D-scholion imperceptibly called up the opposite term 6AAllYOP1KWS, which led him to insert it because he considered it the obvious, if implied, counterpart. Needless to say, this opposition of the tenus llu61KWS vs. 6AAllYOP1KWS dearly postdates Aristarchus and can­ not be what he had in mind. I S It has already been mentioned that schol. D n. 5.385 often acts as the sole witness for Aristarchus' alleged anti-allegorism. Other passages have, however, been quoted in support of this view and must therefore be examined in turn.H'

1 4 CC e.g. j..lV 6IKOOS j..l�V yap aK6Aov60v Tjv Tij avCil6ev pilflel TOU 'HcpaiCTTov TO Kat els y;;v lTOV ellTelv KCXTeve)(6;;VaI cx\rr6v ... Kat 0 j..l�V j..lU60S OVTCil 1TI6avooS lThrAaCTTal, t'l O� c'x(1)yopia . . . TOIaVTO: Tlva voel . . . (Emt. 1 57.2430 = 1 .242.21-7) : 'Mythically (i.e. non-allegorically), it wa.� consequent (sc. for Homer) also to say that Hephaestu.�, after he had been hurled down from above, wa.� borne to earth ... and the myth is thu.� mshioned in a plau.�ible way, but the allegory (i.e. an allegorical interpretation of the pa.�) ... meam some­ thing like this .. .'; cC the pas.�s listed by van der Valk 1 976, LXXVI n. 5.-J. Lall o t (p.c.) draws my attention to scho!. D n. 1 5. 1 8, where, surprisingly, j..lV6IKOOS seem� to refer to allegory (this and the D-scholion quoted above are the only attestatiom of the word in the D-scholia to the lliad) . Contrast scho!. D Od. 1 2.63b (ed. N. Ernst), where the adverb ha� the expected meaning. 1 5 In mct, it i� by no means certain that the word c'x(1)yopia (or cognates) itself was already in use in Aristarchus' time and, if it wa.�, what meaning it had. The earliest attestatiom (on which see Hahn 1 967, 1 5-20; Montanari 1 987) do not predate the first century B. C. and have a decidedly rhetorical background: c'x(1)yopia designates a trope that is comparable to metaphor, riddle and other forn}.� of 'saying one thing and meaning another' (cC e.g. the definition of Try­ pho 1 93.9-1 1 Spengel: c'x(1)yopia �?') . Even if we accept the explanation that 'Ari�tarchu.� suggests that either Hephaestu.� or Homer was speaking in a trope' (Struck 2004, 70), it is improbable that the 'proposed metaphorical meaning of cemure rules out the notion that a god might even bring up in anger the pos.�bility of actually binding another god', since in the Homeric scene Hephaestu.� just did bind Ares in chains.

111

Ariswchu� and Allegorical Interpretation

A case in point is the question whether or not Olympu.� can be equated with 'heaven' . A� is well known, Aristarchus rejected the equa­ tion and in�isted that Olympus is a mountain in Macedonia. 1 7 This insis­ tence ha� been interpreted in anti-allegorical tenus by Schmidt 1 976, 86, who quotes the following D-scholion in support: 'OAVj.l1\"la SOOj.laT IiXOVTES · 01 TOV ·OAVj.llTOV KaToIKoiivTES. ·OAVj.llTOS Se KOla j.ll;v ·OJ.lTlPOV opoS T;;S M aKeSovlas j.leYICTTov, lepov T�>V 6eoov, KOla SI; aAATlyoplav ·OAvj.llT6S �o-rlV 0 ovpav6S, lTapa TO OAOAaj.llT";s eTval. schol. D n. 1.18 'having Olympian homes': the inhabitants of Olympu�. According to Homer, Olympu� is a very high mountain in Macedonia, sacred to the gods; according to allegory, Olympu� i� the sky, becau�e it shines on every­ thing.

Schmidt 1 976, 86, interprets: 'Schon die Formulierung der D-Scholien mit ihrer Gegeniiberstellung der Bedeutung des Olymp Berg KaS' ·Olll1pOV (d.h. natiirlich KaT' )t\p{CTTapxov) und Olymp Himmel KaT' aAAl1YOp{av zeigt, wie die ari�tarchische Erklarung als Gegen�atz zu der allegorischen verstanden wird.' Even if we accept Schmidt's point that KaS' ·Olll1pOV actually mean� KaT' )t\p{CTTapxov, Porter 1 992, 84-5 n. 47, is right to object that the date of thi� note is impossible to deter­ mine, not least so becau.�e Schmidt's attempt to connect the etymologi­ cal explanation (lTapo: TO OAOAam:rr'l s eTval) with the Stoics in general and Chrysippu.� in particular is problematic. Consequently, it is far from certain that this D-scholion gives expression to an opposition that was already felt by Aristarchu.� him.�el£ The disputed equation of Olympus with heaven is relevant to an­ other example that ha� been adduced a� evidence for Ari�tarchu.�' anti­ allegorism. The Homeric passage in question comes from Hephaestus' speech to Hera, in which he warn� her of Zeu.�' exceptional powers (n. 1 .586--94) . He reminds her, among other things, of how Zeus had hurled him down alTO f3t1AOV Seoneo{olo (591 ) . The word f3t1A6s, accentuated a� an oxytone, wa� and is often understood as 'threshold' (cf. IfgrE s . v . ) . Conversely, Crates wanted to read alTO I31iAOV a� a par­ oxytone, referring it to an allegedly Chaldaean word f3iiAOs 'heaven'. I N =

=

1 7 The relevant pas.� are collected by Erbse (ad schol. A R . 1 .44a Ariston.) and discu'l.�ed by Lehrs 1 882, 1 63-72; Sclunidt 1 976, 81-7; Schironi 200 1 , 1 1-15; Nou�ia 2002. 18 Crates fr. 21 Droggiato = schol. *D R. 1 .591 D (printed by Erbse in the test. to schol. AbT R. 1 .591, ex.); cC al�o EM 13 1 29 Livadara.\-La.'I.�erre (and the test. collected by Droggiato, ad loc.) . The same source al�o transmits the views of the glos.�ographer Pannenio and Agathocles (FGrHist 472 F 9 = fr. 9 Montanari).

1 12

Rene Niinlist

By doing so, he implicitly di�agreed with Aristarchus' views about Olympus. Aristarchu.�' imistence that Olympus is not heaven ha� been understood as a rejection of allegori.�ing interpretations such as Crates'.'" It i�, however, important to note that there i� no hard evidence for an explicit and direct argument between the two critics on the correct in­ terpretation of the Homeric passage. The best one can come up with is the testimony of schol. D n. 1 . 591 (p. 63 van Thiel) . It lists variOu.� ex­ planations of the crucial word j3r)Ms, which includes the point that, according to 'the Aristarcheans' (01 :A.p\O'TapXElol), it means 'threshold'. Crates only appears implicitly and ex negativo, in that the scholion re­ ports that the Aristarcheans accentuated the word as an oxytone (or perispomenon in the genitive) . Thi� implicitly testifies to the existence of another reading, which, however, is neither mentioned nor glossed.2< ' Taken together with the bct that this D-scholion too ea.�ily postdates Aristarchus and Crates, it seems difficult to u.� e it a.� evidence for a delib­ erate polemic between the two critics on the i�sue. What is more, Schi­ roni 200 1 , 1 1-1 5, has recently added an important piece of evidence in the form of a parallel in the Derveni papyru.�, where the author explic­ itly reject� the view that Olympu.� heaven.21 In this connection, she reiterates the view that Ari.�tarchu.�' agenda is anti-Cratean and thus anti­ allegorical. To my mind, however, this important parallel lends itself to conclusions that run against the notion of Ari.�tarchu.� arguing with Crates specifically. Firstly, the rejection of Olympus heaven does not originate with Ari.�tarchu.� but predates him by almost two centuries. Schironi is, of course, well aware of thi� and, in addition, mentions Presocratic and other identifications of Olympu.� with heaven. 22 She then concludes that Aristarchu.� ' rejection of the equation wa.� the view of a minority. All this would, however, suggest to me that there must have been many more 'targets' for Aristarchus than just Crates. 2.1 Sec=

=

19 20 21

22

23

According to Pannenio, �TjA6s is the Achaean and Dryopian word for ovpav6S or 'OAU�l1TOS (the transmis.•ion is split: Helck 1 905, 8 n. 1 ) . For Agathocles �TjA6S designates the 'compass of :ill things' (i.e. the cosmos at large). Cf. Sclunidt 1 976, 86-7; sim. Noussia 2002, 490; on Schironi see below. The scholion does not transmit Crates' explanation without nanling him (pace Schmidt 1 976, 87 n. (4). Cf. Derveni papyrus, coL XII (Kouremenos et al. 2006, 84-5 ) . The positive side of the argument dllfers from Ari,.tarchus', in that the Derveni author iden­ tifies Olympus with Chronos (time). Cf. Schironi 200 1 , 15 with 1lD . 32-5: Pannenides VS 28 D 1 1 , Empedocles VS 31 D 44, Philolaus VS 44 A 16, Ps.-Plato, Epin. 977b. See aho Sclunidt 1 976, 86 n. 60. Schironi 2001 , 1 4, righdy emphasises the large number of Aristonicus' notes on the i..me of OlymplL'. Whether this L. indeed indicative of a polelnic (and one

113

Aristarchus and All egorical Interpretation

ondly, the Derveni author, who regularly resort� to allegorical interpre­ tation, sees no contradiction in rejecting the equation Olympus heaven, which therefore cannot be an imtance of anti-allegori�m specifi­ cally-neither for him nor for Aristarchus. The view of schol. 0 n. 1 . 1 8 (quoted above) that 'according to allegory, Olympus i s heaven' i s prob­ lematic in itself because it renders all the authors mentioned in n. 22 allegori�ts. Moreover, it would be a mi�take to resort to an a rgumentum e contrario. A rejection of the equation Olympus heaven is not automati­ cally anti-allegorical. 24 The search for evidence that helps clarifY Aristarchus' position on al­ legory produces a small number of scholia that have not sufficiently been taken into account. 2.� One is triggered by a difficult passage from fliad 1 3 that has been a source o f confusion among commentators-ancient and modem. It appears to describe a tug of war between Zeus and Poseidon: =

=

Toi S' eplSos Kpcrn;pr;s Kai ollOliov lTOA€Il010 mipap �lTaAA6:�CXVTES �lT' clIlCPOT€P010 l TCrvvOOav, apP11KT6v T' aAVT6v TE. TO lTOAAWV yovvaT' eAvoEv .

n. 1 3.358-60

Alternately. they (sc. Zeus and Poseidon) pulled taut the rope of violent strife and equal war over both sides-unbreakable. not to be undone. that undid the knees of many (tram. Janko) .

that is directed against a specific inruvidual) is another question. It could also testifY to the thoroughness of Ari,tarchlL" sturues on Homer. Cf. e.g., the fre­ quency of the note that "IAIOS i, always ferninine in Homer (scho!. A n. 3.305b Ariston. with the test. collected by Erbse) . 24 The conclusion that Aristarchus' view on Olympus is unlikely to be rurected against Crates specifically reduces the necessity to ruSClL.s in detail the thorny question whether Crates can actually be considered an alIegori.,t. The affinna­ tive aJL<;\ver. for a long time the communis op;n;o. has been challenged by Porter (1 992; cf Metre 1 936. 34 n. 1 , who already emphasised the differences be­ tween Crates' method and the other known fonn. of allegoresi,) . The latest erutor of Crates ruscusses Porter's argument with guarded scepticiilll (Broggiato 200 1 . Ix-lxiii , with lit.). The treatment by Ramelli 2004. 1 78--83. is not always reliable and must be lL,ed with caution. Whether a foml of allegory or not, it is worth remembering that Crates resort.' to such explanation., only rarely (Metre 1 936. 12, 34 n. 1 ; Broggiato 200 1 , Ixi. 1 43). 25 Conversely, Porter does not substantiate the claim., that Aristarchus had 're­ peated sqillnni.'hes with the alIegorist" (1 992, 84) and that "'allegorist" in the ancient sense of the teml . . . wa' most often put to use . . . . e.g by a Heraclitus or by an Aristarchus (in the sense of an exegete who practices nonliterary exe­ gesis)' ( 1 992. 100 n. 87). .•

1 14

Rene Niinlist

Like many others, Aristarchus struggled with the interpretation of this passage and, in addition, introduced a conjecture in line 359. 2(· Hi� diffi­ culties are well explained by van der Valk 1 964, 97: 'Aristarchu.�' interpretation ... shows that he did not understand the archaic ideas underlying the pa.�sage. His main failure wa.� cau.�ed by the fact that 7Teipap, which in this passage has the meaning of 'rope', was in his inter­ pretation rendered by 'end' . . . Aristarchus further thinks that Homer speaks of two end�-of the qu.arrel (ipIS) and of the war (7ToAeIlOS)-which were crossed over another. We can understand that for this rea.�on he wished to alter hr' allcpoTEpOIO"I into hr' a;';'';AoIO"I, which better suited hi� interpre­ tation.'

In the present context, the final part of the relevant scholion (at­ tribuable to Aristonicus) is of particular importance: 1) SmAf\, cm 7Tapa;';'1lyopei, Suo 7TEpaTa V7TOTI6EIlEVOS, ilTepov lleV epISos, ilTepov Se 7TOAEIlOV , ��7TToIlEva KaT' allcpOTEpWV Tc;)V schol. A n. 13.359a Ariston. The dipIC, becau.�e he (se. Homer) makes use of an aII��oria, in that he pre­ sents two ends, one of the quarrel, the other of the war, which are tied to both annie s.

In light of what has been said in n. 15 about the temporal distribution of

6AAllyopeiv, it is not very likely that Aristonicus' comment exacdy re­ produces Aristarchus' own wording. A� to the content of the note, Aris­ tonicus presumably mean� to say that Homer makes use of a chain of metaphors, which is one of the early definitions of 6AAllyoplo. 1:I Even though the term TTopai\Allyopei is unlikely to be Ari�tarchm' own, it remains highly revealing that AristOniClL� uses it to explain the presence of the marginal djpl�. On the one hand, this provides further proof that ElL�tathius' insertion of 6AAllYOPlKClS cannot be right. On the other, it appears that Aristarchus' relationship to 6AAllyoplo i� more complex than some would have it. 2H 26 CC schol. A n. 1 3.359a Did.!Ariston. 27 E.g. Cic. de Orat. 3.41 . 1 66 ( non est in uno uerho translato, sed ex pluriblls con­ tinualis coneailur, ut alilld dicatur, aliud intellegendl/m sit), cC Oral. 27.94 (see Hahn 1 967, 56--(1). The exact nuance of the prefix 7Tap- is difficult to detemune becau.�e the verb 7TapaM1)yopeiv is a /Japax legomerum. 28 Tellingly, 1 9th century scholars such a.� Wacbsmutb tried to get rid of an ap­ parendy troublesome piece of evidence by inserting a negative (see Erbse's app. cril.) . More recendy, Ramelli 2004, 179 curiou.�ly believes the scholion ex­ presses the views of Crates.

Arisrarchus and Allegorical Interpretation

1 15

The same hold� true, mutatis mutandis, for another note that can be attributed to Ari.�tonicus. In the Homeric pas.�age (11. 8 . 1 85-97) , Hector spurs on hi� team of horses, so that he might capture the golden shield of Nestor and the beautifully crafted breastplate of Diomedes. The rele­ vant scholion read�: cm . . . Ka! 6;rro TWV orrAWV �rr! TOV� avSpa� 6:vacpepETaI, Ka! OUK EcrTlV

CtAAl1yopla.

scho!. A n. 8 . 1 95a Ariston.

because . . . and because he (se. Hector rather than Homer) makes a transference from the weapons to the men (se. Nestor and Diome­ des), and it is not an al/egoria.

The first part of the quotation poses few problems and is well explained by Hahn 1 967, 43: 'wenn Hektor von der Wegnahme der Waffen spricht, meint er zugleich die Totung des Gegners, die damit ursachlich zusammenhangt' . This tran�ference i� then said to be not an instance of 6i\ATWOp!O, which term, again, i� unlikely to represent Aristarchus' own wording. A� to its meaning, Hahn compares Ps.-Demetrius (eloe. 991 02) , where the term describes a form of 'concealed speech' (as opposed to plain language) , especially in threats. Ari.�tonicus would thus argue that Hector does not conceal hi� message 'allegorically ', but-one might supplement the line of reasoning--resorts to a form of synecdoche, in that the mention of the weapons includes their bearers. In any case, it i� worth emphasi�ing how exacdy Aristonicus gives expression to Aris­ tarchus' interpretation. He says that thi� particular passage i� not an in­ stance of 6i\ATWOp!O (and not that one must not search for allegories in Homer) . The conclusion i� virtually the same as with the preceding scholion: Ari.�tarchus appears to have identified tropes in Homer which were called 6i\A1lyoplo from the first century H.C. onward�, if not ear­ lier?' It could be objected that thi� type of 'rhetorical allegory' differs from the allegories that, say, Heraclitus (the allegorist) recogni�es in Homer. True, but it is worth remembering that Heraclitus starts from a defini­ tion of 6i\A1lYop!o that comes straight out of rhetoric. 3<1 It appears that 29 Interestingly, Emtathim (4D.33-5 = 1 .65.27-9) seems to acknowledge thi� when he writes that Aristarchus (to whom �Keivos probably refers here) wa.� aware of what he himself call� 'rhetorical all egory' (aAATlyopla PTlTOPIKf), on which see van der Valk 1 976, LXXVI I n. 1 ; Cucchiarelli 1997, esp. 2 1 6-24) . The teml occurs, for instance, in his note (937. 1 G-- 1 7 = 3.485.8-- 1 8) on the ""ne tug of war (fl. 13.358--(0) that has been discussed above. 30 Hemel. All. 5.2: 6 yap l'iAAa I1�V ayopevCilv Tp6rroS, hepa 5� wv Myel OTJl1aIVCilV, �rrCilVVI1CilS aAATlyopla KaAeiTal (,For the trope which says one

1 16

Rene Niinlist

Heraclitus himself does not draw too sharp a line. Moreover, another consideration further blurs the picture of a decidedly anti-allegorical Ari.�tarchus. Heraclitus' treatise (All. 37) abo includes the Prayers (AITOI), which Phoenix mentions in his speech to Achilles (n. 9. 5021 2) and easily qualifY as personification�. Similarly, two notes on the Eileithuiai show, when taken together, that Aristarchu.� considered them personification�: ElAel6vlal: OTI lTOTe lleV �VIKOOS. lTOTe Se lTA,,6VVTIKOOs ElAel6vlas Atyel .

(. . . ) EIAel6vlal S e /110S Ka\ "Hpas 6vyaTepes.

schol. A n. 1 1 .270d Ari�ton.

Eileithuiai: because he (se. Homer) mentions the Eileithuiai both in the singular and the plural. . .. The Eileithuiai <are> daughters of Zeu� and Hera.

< EIAeI6vias : > OTI TCxS ooSivas ElAel6vlas gIP". schol. A n. 19.1 19b Ariston. Eileithuiai: becau�e he (se. Homer) called the throes of child­ birth 'Eileithuiai. '

Aristarchus identifies a personification in Homer, while a similar per­ sonification qualifies a� all egory for Heraclitus. The question thu.� arises what the exact target of Aristarchus' all eged anti-allegorism i.� . It seern� unlikely that he would have taken exception to Heraclitu.�' treatment of the Prayers. The preceding argument does not, of course, intend to suggest a complete revision of the communis opinio and advocate the view that Aristarchus is in fact a proponent of allegorical interpretation. Such a claim would plainly be absurd----and contrary to expectation. For Ari.�­ tarchus follows in the footsteps of Plato and Aristode, both of whom show little inclination to make use of allegorical interpretation. 31 It i.� therefore not surprising that Aristarchu.� normally interprets the text of Homer and other poets in non-allegorical terms. He is by no means alone in doing so. Moreover, one should take into account that hi.� 'dis­ agreement' with allegorical interpretations i.� mosdy implicit. In light of the fact that, elsewhere, Aristarchus is only too happy to engage in open polemic (e.g. with Zenodotus) , it is important to note that his alleged opposition to allegory is not voiced more often and more explicidy. Hi.� repeated polemics ebewhere should make us pause before we take the relative silence about allegory a� indicative of a particularly subde thing but signifies something other than what it says receives the name "alle­ gory" preci�ely from thi�·, trans. Russell-Kon�tan); cf. n. 1 5 . 31 C f. PI. R. 37Rc-e, for Aristode see next n . ; c f. al�o Plut. dud. poet. 1 ge.

Aristarchus and All egorical Interpretation

117

method, that is, to fight one's opponent� by deliberately ignoring them. It i.� equally possible that Ari.�tarchus simply did not con.�ider allegorical interpretation as urgent a problem a.� some scholars would have it. 32 At any rate, the preceding analysi.� will have shown that his attitude vi.�-a­ vis 6Mllyopla is multi-faceted and complex. To picture him as a fer­ vent and uncompromising opponent of allegory requires an inappropri­ ately narrow understanding of the relevant evidence that takes it� cue from Eu.�tathiu.�.

32 Incidentally, the same hold. true, in my view, for Aristotle, whose reservation about all egorical interpretation remains mostly implicit. The attempt by Struck to bring out what he calls Aristotle's 'decidedly anti-allegorical project' (2004, 1 3 , sim. 63-8) i.. not persuasive, not lea..t so because it is ba..ed (2004, 64--6) on a forced interpretation of the tenn afvly�a (and cognates) For if ' [t)he Der­ veni text does nor prove that all early enigmas are connected with allegorical reading' (2004, 39), it is difficult to see why the same tenn should have thi. specific connection in Aristotle (or any other author) On the (broad) applica­ tions of alvh'To�al in general see also Niinli.t 2009, 225-37. .

"

"

.

Portrait of an Unknown Scholiast *

Martin Schmidt After fourty years, I now attempt to answer the final question that Uvo Hoelscher a�ked in 1 969 in his assessment of my dissertation (published 1 976) : 'Is it possible to categorise groups of scholia and maybe even trace them back to specific commentaries through the systematic com­ parison of drift, temunology and principles?' ! All these years I have been hesitant to attempt to give an answer, but in the last years there have been some new impul�es. At the Genoa conference in 2000 I tried to define what i� specific and new in the bT-scholia to the fliad as ba�ed on the current state of the field2 and my own thoughts. I argued that this method of explana­ tion, oriented on the relation between poet and hearer, i� the real nov­ elty of late ancient philology against Aristarchus and all his friends and enemies. Martin West then told me: 'That is not the common tendency, that i� one person.' In 2006 Paul Draeger publi�hed the original transcript and his com­ mentary of a lecture on the fliad held by Wilamowitz in the faIl term of 1 887/88, to which I was able to contribute some footnotes on questions of lexicography and scholia. In doing thi� study I again encountered the author of the 'main body' of the scholia. There I once more noticed that Wilamowitz treats the 'main body' of the scholia as being the work of one and the same author, something which, thirty years ago, I had described as 'strange'3 . When the friendly hosts of this conference (to whom I wi�h to express my gratitude) invited me to present a topic of

2 3

I am grateful to my daughter, Or Alma Schmidt, for help with the EngIi�h tramlation of thi� text and to Kamran Monrocq for preparation of the final copy. KIam Nickau and Rene Niinlist have thankfully made u�eful annotation.. to the manmcript. 'Kann man durch VergIeichung nach Tendenz, Tenninologie und Prinzipien Scholiengruppen ZU'l:Ulmlenfassen und womoglich aufbestinunte Konnnentate zuriickfuhren?' . Especially Nannini 1 986 and Meijering 1 987. Schmidt 1 976, 67 n.6: 'Seltsanlerweise ,pricht Wilamowitz [ . . . ] von eitlem Verfa....�er' .

1 20

Martin Sclunidt

my own choosing, I, imprudently, decided to look for the author Wilamowitz had then imagined.

The Research Record In an 1 884 article which he wrote as part of his work on the T-scholia published in 1 887 /88, Em.�t Maass argued that the core of the bT­ scholia could be traced back to 'a group of rather old exegetical com­ mentaries' . He added: 'the subject matter is difficult and requires inten­ sive work' . 4 In the section 'Mehrere Quellen in T' ('multiple sources in the T­ scholia') of his 1 91 2 Auswahl aus den Diasscholien, Wilhem Deecke dis­ covered two purely exegetical commentaries in the bT-scholia and at various in�tances tried to demonstrate their divergent tendencies. s How­ ever, this did not gain acceptance.l, In 1953, during the preparation for hi� edition of the Diad-scholia, Hartmut Erbse looked at the usage of the chiffie &AAOOS in the Codex T. 7 He concluded that at least three exegetical commentaries were used in the compilation of the bT-scholia (beyond the VMK, the D-scholia, Porphyriu.� and other 'scholienfremde Bestandteile') . M. van der Valk concurred (van der Valk 1 963-- 1 964, 1 434) and this has since become the scholarly consen�u.�. I accepted this as well. However, in re-examining all in�tances of double &AAOOS (thi� is Erbse's indicator) , I did not find any case in which three scholia on the same section and subject matter had to be traced back to three separate exegetical commentaries." The third scholion is almost always from the VMK, sometimes from Porphyriu.� . We can therefore imagine that the production of the scholia manuscript c, the Mother of all b T-scholia manuscripts, wa� little ea�ier than previou.�ly thought: beyond the VMK, a copy of the D-scholia and Porphyriu.� , the 4 5

6 7 R

Maa.'l� l RR4, 564: 'Der Gegen�tand erfordert eine eingehende. nicht leichte Albeit'. Deecke 1 912. 5R-64, especially 59, n. to line 5: 'Dem einen kOllunenw (a) konunt es, wie A 1 3 und I 434 bewei.�en, vor aJIem darauf an, die befolgung der rhetori.�chen kun�tregeJn im Homer nachzuwei.�en. der andere (b) kon�ta­ tiere nur g1eicluam anhan�wei.�e am schllL'l�e seiner interpretation. da'l� Homer mit den gesetzen der rhetorik vercraut war' . Deecke's di.�tinction i.� not helpful, c( Howald 1 9 1 7 / 1 91R, 409; Erose 1 953. R. Erose 1 953, Rf[ Referring to Sch. n. 5.77R; 7.9; l R.20; l R .9R; 20.332 und 24.54 (Erh�e 1 953, 1 0) .

Portrait of an Unknown Scholi ...t

121

author(s) had to regularly consult not three, but only two continuous commentaries. Ulrich von Wilamowitz helped Emst Maa�s in 1 884/85, making multiple correctiom in the edition of the T -scholia that are signed 'W' . During the fall tenn of 1 887/88, Wilamowitz gave a lecture on the fliad in Gottingen. A transcript, made by the student Alfred Zuericher, was publi�hed in 2006. In this lecture Wilamowitz engages direcdy with the transmi�sion of the epos and the granunatical treatment in antiquity. He describes the bT-scholia as follows: 'the main part [of the scholial i� a commentary by somebody who wanted to explain Homer step by step both in its words and its content. He quotes a number of authors [ . . l It suggests a later period. This can only have been written after Saeculum Two .' " In an essay for the Homer scholia that appears in 1 888 and which was probably written during the same period, he makes explicit reference to only one exegetical commentary 'in its character clearly identifiable', an 'individual by it�elf . He al�o sticks to one author in his 1 900 review of the 2nd volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (with the Pap. 22 1 for the 2 1 st Hook of the fliacl) .lH This i� puzzling. After all , there are many Homeric verses to which there are two scholia which can either be very similar or can al�o conflict. Wilamowitz had surely read all these. And the di�tinction of the scholia according to their origin through OAA<J.)S was right before everybody's eyes. I believe that Wilamowitz would have acknowledged thi�. Rather, hi� insistence on a single author refers to the distinctive voice that can be heard in the bT­ scholia. Let lL� try to uncover it. I start with a long scholion, which appears to stem from a single author, and then draw connections from it� key arguments to identical or similar interpretatiom, mainly in the bT-scholia to Hooks 8, 1 1 , 12 and 13 of the fliad.1 1 WS q>lAEAAT)V 0 1TOIT)-nlS IJEXPI TWV VEWV TOIJS "EAAT)vaS avv EAO:cras Kai �1TavAI�OIJEVOVS TaiS vavcri 1Ton'lcras TOUS l3ap�povs OUK Eli6eoos TEIXOlJaxiav �1To'T)crev oUSE T1']V �1Ti TaiS vavcri lJaXT)v, (mep Ka\ KaTCx 9 Wilamowitz 2006 [200!f] , 1 34: 'Die Hauptmas.•e war aber ein Commentar von Jemandem, der Homer Schritt ftic Schritt in Wort und Inhalt erkIaren wollte [ . . . ) . R. deutet auf eine spatere Zeit. Er kann also erst nach Saeculwll Zwei geschrieben sein.' 10 See Wilamowitz 1 888, 1 45, n. 1 and id. 1 900, 39. 1 1 The text of the scholia follows Erbse; the scholia without the sign of the codex are bT- or T -scholia. Generally, the scholia will be quoted without the lem­ mata. The translation i. mine, unless I am able to use that of Rene Niinli.t, for which I wish to express my gratitude.

1 22

Martin Sclunidt

S6I;av fiv ToiS O:KPOWIlEVOIS, o:Ma lTPOTEPOV T1iv 1>.yallEllvoVOS o:plCTT elav SIEypaljlE Kal !lET' a\IT1'lv T1iv TOOV /!iM.wv O:PICTTEWV, ETTa �1TEISt'l TOUS o:pltTTovS �lTl TaS VcxVS 6:1TEtTTE IAe Tpw6eVTas , TOTe TOUS "EM1lvas �lTOI1lC7EV r,TTWIlEVOVS. �1TEl Se lTElTOV1lIlEVOVS TOUS "EM1lvas 6:1Ti6avov fiv lTapEIC7ayelV O:vSpaya60uVTas Ew6EV, EUAOYWS r, VU� lTapallv6eiTal al'JToov Tt'lV fiTTav, Kal TOC7oVTov O:vaAallJXtVEI WS C7vVf.t)6iiC7al lTCxAIV lleXPI TelXOVS TOUS TpOOaS, axplS chov lTCxAIV Tiis lTapa TOU t.IOS nixwC7lv �lTIKovplas' �lTISEh(WC71 yap OTI TuxalS, ou yvwllalS �AellTOVTO "ru1lveS. SIKalws Il£V 0011 1>.yaIlEIlVf.t)V O:PltTTEUEI 6appoUVTa lleV yap Tois lTpaYllaC7lv OUK eVAoyov fiv aVTOV lTPOlTETOOS �lTl TOUS KIVSUVOVS lJIepeC76al, o:Ma Sux T1iv r,YEllovlav O:C7lJ1aMtTTEpOV llaMov i\ IJIIAOKIVSWOTEPOV O:ywvll;Ea6al . �lTl �vpOU Se vVV, Kal TauTa SI' al'JTov, OVTWV 'EM,;vwv O:vayKalws KlvSVVEUel. yeyovE Se 6:VTitTTpolJla Ta lTpaYllaTa' t.IOIl';S 1lS yo:p UlT' 1>.yallEllvoVOS 6velSIC76eiS EUSOKlllEi, Kal lTaAIV 1>.yaIlEIlVf.t)V UlTO t.IOIl';SOVS· "EKTWp Se !lEyaAa VlTIO)(VoVllevos SlwKETal. Sch. n. 1 1 .0

As a friend of the Greeks the poet, in rounding up the Greeks at the ships and letting the barbarian� bivouac does not start with the battle over the wall and at the ships, which would have corresponded to the expectation� of the listeners. Instead he presents the aristeia of Agamemnon followed by those of the other leaders, and only after having sent the wounded leaders back to the ships does he all ow the Greeks to be defeated. It would have hardly been believable if the exhausted Greek.� had started the next morn­ ing to accompli�h heroic feats. The night plausibly alleviates the defeat and has them recover to the point that they can push the Trojan� back to the wall until the moment when they get once again help from Zeu.� . Homer shows that the Greek.� lacked fortune, not rational deliberation. Agamemnon righdy stand� out: he who approaches all thing! with courage would not plau.�bly have launched him�elf imprudendy into danger. Be­ cause he is a leader, he i� not reckless but fights with deliberation. How­ ever, when the fate of the Greek.� stand� on a knife's edge becau.�e of him, he will , by neces.�ty, endanger himself. Events reverse: Diomedes, ma­ ligned by Agamenmon, distinguished him�elf-and so does in turn, Aga­ menmon, maligned by Diomedes. Hector, however, who promi�ed great­ nes.�, has to flee.

I use the following points from this scholion: 1 . Homer i� a friend of the Greeks (CPIASAAl1V) . 2. The Trojan� are barbarian� ([3ap[3apol) . 3. Before the battle over the wall and the battle at the ships, all Greek leaders have to be injured to prepare Patroclus' aristeia. 4. The Greeks only loose when the Trojan� are helped by the gods. 5. The aristeia of Agamemnon takes place at the right moment.

123

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia,t

1 . Homer is

a

Friend of the Greeks (
That Homer favours the Greeks is factually correct 1 3 and seen as such by Aristarchu. on the example of Achilles . H But these bT-scholia say more: the philhellenic poet addresses a Hellenic audience and considers this while creating hi. poem. He does this, inter alia, [n the sequence of events:

(1) WS qUAEM1lV Se (moyel TOUS 6eOlis Kai e�ETaO"lV C.q.l
Sch. n.

6. 1 a

As a friend of the Greek.., h e lead. the gods away and creates a test [sc. of battle prowess] of both anrues [which the Greek.. win] .

(2) Cxvarravc..Jv Se 1'1l.lO:s Tfjs Sl1lYlicrec..JS TWV 'EM1lV1KWV 6:ruX1l1.l0Tc..J v rrapelcroyel Tav SlOAOYOV TWV 6ewv.

Sch. n. 8.209b

Relieving us from the report of the Greek los..es, he [sc. Homer] intro­ duces the conversation of the god. [sc. Hera and Poseidon] . (transl. Niinli.t

2009, 58) (3) llTrep avarravcrec..>s TOV CxKP0aTOV

Sch. n. 8.246a

This [that Zens sends an eagle] happens to provide an interlude for the li.,­ tener.15

(4) CxvapT9c rroAlv 1)I.IO:S Cxrra TWV rrapoVTc..Jv 1.11') Sl1lYOVI.IEVOS Tflv SucrTuxlav TWV 'EMtlvc..>v WS
$ch. n. 8.350

Again [see (2)] , a. a friend of the Greek.. , he lead. u. away from the imm e­ diate and does not recount the suffering of the Greeks.'6 1 2 See Weber 1 888, 119 n.; Bachmann 1 902, 40; Dittenberger 1905; von Franz 1 940, 31, 1 06ff.; von Franz 1 943, 36(; Buffi ere 1 956, 354-6; van der Valk 1 963, 474-6; Schmidt 1 976, 56(; Richardson 1 980, 274; Niinlist 2009, 1 3 n. 48, 37 n. 45 and 1 47 with llll . 49 and 50. 1 3 See Stoevesandt 2004. 14 Schenkeveld 1 970, 1 65ff. 1 5 Cp. Niinlist 2009, 1 53: 'distincdy pro-Greek'. 1 6 I do not interpret avapTav here a' 'keep the reader in suspense' (Niinlist 2009, 1 52 n. 70) , but only in the sense of 'elevate', '" when the Christian authors

124

Martin ScJunidt

By shortening scenes or shortening presentation:

(5)

Tt)v j!la'VCf>Siav tKWAovt IlQ)(1lV KaAOVO'I, 1 7 O'VVTEllvel yap -n;v Sl1iYTlO'IV O'vvax601lEV0� Toi� 7\xaloi� . Sch. n. 8.0 (c£ Sch. n. 8.487-8)

This book is called the 'the unfinished battle', becau�e the author, in sym­ pathizing with the Achaeans, shorten� his account. (6) ayooVIO'TIKOV TOV TTOAeIlOV Ti) OPllij TWV 6ewv TTolei, Ka\ SlavaTTavel TO OlloeISE�. c:,� q)\AeM'lV Se Ka\ TOV� TPEi� TOV� &TToAooA6Ta� TToMov� eTval SOKEi. Sch. n. 7 . 1 7-8 He depicts the war more competitively through the intervention of the gods and interrupts the monotony. As a friend of the Greeks the three dead [se. Greeks] seem many already [paris, Hector and Glaucos have each killed a Greek] .

(7)

-n;v lleV cpuyt)v TWV 'EM,;voov aTT,;yyelAev ov TToMa SIEAec:,V OVOllaTa, vVV Se eI� -n;v IlQX'lV tTTlO'Tpecpoov aVTOV� TWV TTAeiO'TOOV 'OO,;voov IlEIlVTjTal. Sch. n. 8.261-6 When he recounts the retreat of the Greeks, he mentions few names. But now that they are back into battle, he remembers most of them. (8) cplAEM'lv �v TOV� IlEV t� aVTwv tv Tij TTPW'lV ilTT1J TEAeI11'li O'aVTa� ov KaTaAEYEI VEKPOV�, TOV� Se TWV T pt:>oov aei apl61lei Kai vVv. Sch. n. 8.274-6a Because he is a friend of the Greeks, he doesn't list all of those that were kill ed in the previou� defeat by name. The Troyan� however are always counted and named-as they are now.

write: xeipas Ka\ vovv OcvapTO:v (e.g. in Athana�us, Epist. I, Epistulae CXV

47).

1 7 This tide for the 8th book is already u�ed by Ari.,tonicus (see Sch. n. 5.734-6; 1 1 . 1 1 a) .

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia..[

125

(9)

WS q)\AeAAT)V TTapaTpexel '" Ta Svaxepfj, �TT' 6Alya TTpOac...ma T'l'Jv i'jTTav
(10) KaAWS Se Tij EKAoyij TWV OVOIlOTINV XpfjTaI'
C£ aL�o Sch. n. 1 1 .300b and 1 1 .304-5 . Through pre-announcements: (12) KIVT)T1Ka19 IlEV TauTa TWV TTapallv6eiTaI TI')V oTvxlav.

OKOVOVTINV.

&AA '

opi�INV TO TTepas

Sch. n. 8.470�

That i. moving for the audience, but by determiuing the ending, he at­ tenuates the disaster. (1 3) els CrKPOV TOUS KIVSVVOVS eiIN6ev e�Cxyelv oei, Ka! EvayWVIOV TTOItlaas TOV OKpOaT'I'JV Tij TTpoaSoKic;r eMus T'l'Jv iaalv ETTI
126

Martin Schmidt

He [se. Homer] is always wont to maximise the danger, and having put the reader in a state of agony by means of the expectation, he at once adduces the remedy. (tran.\l. NUnlist 2009, 143)

(14) lTpOxap{�ETa\ oe Tt;':l aKpocrrfj, lTpoavacpwv6)v a\iT6)v T1'}v KaT6p6waw. Sch. n. 1O.274b1 He obliges the listener beforehand, by telling him of the success in advance.

(1 5)

aValTTEpoi TOV aKpoaT1'}v ,; ava<j>Wv"cllS �lTEly6IlEVOV lla6Eiv, T{ TO 'KaKOV' �V. lTpoaoX"V oe �pya�ETa\ OH): �paXE{as �voEi�EWS ' El yap lTAEOV �m�ElpyaaaTO 0IE
Sch.

n. 1 0.295

This [se. that Athena hearkens to the prayers of Diomedes and Odys..eus] is comforting.

(17)

elTei oe EiS TOV 6avaTov "EKTopoS IlE7lAE1 TEAEIITCIv ,; TTol"aJs, C)1TWS 11" ol,,6ij TIS �lTIKPaTEaTEpa YEyoVEval Ta T6)V TpC.OOlV, ETmv cm eTTop61'le", iva 11" AVlTWllE6a vvv Tas T6)V 'EM,;vwv aKovoVTES <7V1l<popas. Sch. n. 12.13-5 (similarly Sch. n. 17.453-5) So that no one shall think that because the poem shall end with Hector's death, the Trojans will keep the upper hand, he announces that Troy will be destroyed. So that we do not become sad when we hear of the Greeks' calamities now. 20 (18) eAlTloa lrrrO �a7lAE1 ToiS aKpoaTais OTI OUK �V TaVTa apEaTa 6EOiS, aAAa 01EVOOVVTO IlEV Ka\ aUTo! �o,,6Eiv, 1) O OVVTO oe ll.ia. Sch. n. 1 2 . 1 7<.H!0 He filL. the audience with hope that this does not please the gods, but that they plan to intervene and only shy away becau.e of Zeus. 21 20 CC Niinlist 2009, 1 47 n. 50. 21 CC Niinlist 2009, 1 50.

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia..[

1 27

(1 9) KuSalvwv :A.XIAfja: TOVTECTn TO f. IOS S' ETEAEIETO �OUATJ' [no 1 .5] . \mep TTapallu6ias Se TaiiTa TWV aKpoOT(;)v Su'x Il£aov CP1la1v' aXESov yap anoSEIKvualv allcpoTEpoVS ToiS °EAA1lal �1l6o(jVTas, TOV lleV �vi, TOV Se Tc;, TTATJ6EI. Sch. n. 1 3.348a That i. the meaning of the verse 'and Zeu" plan was concluded' [no 1 .5] . 22 '

This insertion provides solace for the audience and he ahnost reveal. that both [gods] support the Greeks, one the one, the other the many.

(20) 'ri)v ayavaKT1l0'IV Se TWV aKovoVTwV [(iTa\, OUK �TTi 7TOAV cpaaKwv cmoAavEIV TWV C)TrAWV TOV "EKTopa' SIO ImTJyayE TO OXESo6EV SE 01 f1ev OAe6poS. Sch. n. 1 6.800a He softens the anger of the audience by saying that Hector will not draw advantage from hi. weapons for long. Therefore he adds 'he is close to doom' .

(21) El Kai E IlEAAE T1S T(;)V aKOuoVTWV 6:yavaKT1')aElv �TTi Tc;, TOV °EKTopa xpfja6al ToiS :A.XIAAEWS ()TrAOIS, lla600v cm OUK Imi TTOAV, KW TJA£1lae TOV "EKTopa. Sch. n. 1 7.207-8a Even if the readers may take exception to Hector gerting Achilles ' armour, they may nevertheless pity Hector once they learn that he will not enjoy the armour for a long time. (tran..t. Niinlist 2009, 148 n. 55)

(22) ToiS lleV aKpoOTais EATTiS f1v E9;IAKva601 naTpoKAoV, 0 Se TTO:AIV �TT\Tap6:TTE I TT)V SIO:VOlav, iva �TTi TO CrKIlOlOTOTOV TTpoayayoov 'ri)v 6:ywviav TT\6av1')v TTOITJ01lTOI TT)V :A.XIAAEWS e�oSov. Sch. n. 1 8 . 1 51-2 The readers were hoping that Patroclus [se. hi. body] was recovered, but he [se. Homer] troubles their thinking yet again, so that, pu.hing the agony to the utmost, he motivates Achill e s' marching out. (traml. Niinlist 2009,

1 50) CC al.o Sch. n. 1 1 . 192b. By making Zeus the mouthpiece of their indignation:

22 Here the author follows Aristarch's view regarding the internal reference of v. l , 5 (see scho!. D to n. 1 .5; scho!. 1 .5-6 [Ari.ton. in A); c( Niinlist 2009, 40).

1 28

Martin Schmidt

(23) T1)V o yava KT1l 0"lV T&V OKP0aT&V opa, TT&S ovvEAci.>v T4> toll TTEPU;61lKEV. Sch. ll. 1 7.205a Watch the anger of the readers, how he has conci�e1y put it into Zeus' mouth. (trans!. Niinlist 2009, 1 46)

By an overall positive presentation of the Greeks, especially when they are in trouble: (24) OVVTO�c.uS &�a Ka! K Exaplo�evc.us T4> oK poaTfj TTEp! T&V �KSIK ov�evc.uv 'EAi."vc.uv. Sch. ll. 1 6.399-418 [The account of] the Greek revenge i.� preci.�e, and pleasant for the listener.

(25) aV�1 Se Ta 'EM"vc.uv 6 TTOI1lT"S, Ei yE Kai �K KA1lo las �Se1loE T4> toll EV TE ToiS ��ijs [ll. 8.1 33--5] Kai KEpavv&V TTpOS Tijv fiTTav aliT&v· Kai �v aMolS [ll. 4 . 1 ; 7.443; 20.4] , �ev yap TTolei eKKA1lola�OVTaS TOUS 6eous, OM· cmAouOTepov, �VTav6a Se Zeus ovvayel Kai TTpc.uToAoyei, TOTTOS TE CnroSeiKvvTal Tfj ayoP9: ci.>S Sr, mpi �eyaAc.uv Kat ovaYKalc.uv. S1lAoi Se Ka! 1'J ec.u6Ev ayopa TO TTaVVUXIOv aliTov TTEp! a\rri)s eOKEtp6al· aAi.c.us TE Ka! TTpOEiTTe· 'TTavvVXIOS Se OtplV KaKa IJ"Srro' [ll. 7.478] . IJEya oi'iv, el ev TOIOIiT� Kalp4> Kav OVTEOXOV "EM1lves. Sch. ll. 8.2a He increases the importance of the Greek.. when Zeus subsequently re­ quires an assembly of the gods and lightning for their defeat. He [Zeus or the poet?] has the gods assemble at other places, but in a simpler manner. Now he assembles them hinlself and speak.. first, and the location of the as­ sembly i.� marked as if great and deci.ive matters are at stake. The early morning assembly also shows that he has thought about it all night. Before­ hand he says: he contemplated evil [n. 7.478] ' It is greatnes. of the Greeks that they still resist in this situation. 23

(26) Kat �v Tij SVOTvxl<;! Se VIjIOVTal TO 'EM1lVI K OV.

Sch. n. 8.339-40

He elevates the Greek during misfortune.

(27) aV�1 Se Tijv oV �tpop av ci.>s tpIAEM1lv 1'J ETTa�IS yap fiv moovoa. Sch. ll. 1 4. 1 51 As a friend of the Greeks, he magnifies the bad incident. The parapet was

broken. 23 CC Niin1ist 2009, 270.

Portr.lit of an Unknown Scholia.\t

1 29

(28) hrel OVKETI iATTETO: Kal q>vyoVTas �yKwl.1I6:�el TOUS "EMTlvas.

Sm. n. 17.603-4a

He praises the Greek.\, aL\O when they flee.

(29) wS mOS, tva KW TOUT,!> a\i9;0"tJ TOV "EMTlva 1.11'1 �� laov aTTTlMaYIlEVOV, 6TrEp r,SU ToiS QJ
But the author avoid� open partiality: (30) aM' i'i TOI vlKTl !!EV apTl"iq>IAOV MeveMov: AeITrEI TO �O"Ti. SIEKplve SI; TO allq>IJ30Aov 6 Myos TOU /110S, 6TTWS Ilr, SOKi) ToiS :a.XaloiS xapl�ea6al 6 TTOITl-n;S. Sch. n. 4.13 The unclear situation i s decided b y the word o f Zeu.\, s o that i t doesn't ap­ pear a.� if the poet sided with the Greek.\ .25

(31) ov SVvaTal aq>IV / xpalaj.IEiv: Tva Ilr, SOKi) xapl�ea6al "OOTlal, AeATl60TWS Tij TTapaJ30Ai) TO ayevEs TOOV TPWwv ST)Aoi. Sch. n. 1 1 . 1 1 6-7 So that he does not seem to write to plea.� the Greeks, he imperceptibly shows the ignobility of the Trojans with the simile.26

CC also the almost identical wording in Sch. fl. 1 1 .304 and 1 6.569a.

2 . The Trojans are Barbarians (j36:pl3apoly7 In his book 'On rthe meaning of] Aristarchus' signs on the fliad (and the Odyssey?) ' Aristonicus2H refers so naturally to the Trojans in their en­ tirety, to their women and al�o to a single inhabitant of the Troas like

24 25 26 27 28

On this Piu.\ see below 6. 1 . C f. NiinIi\t 2009, 1 1 9 with n . 1 4. Cf. NiinIi\t 2009, 21 1 . See Dittenberger 1 905; von Franz 1 940; Erbse 1 969-1 988, VII, s.v. j36:pJ3aPOI. This is reconstructed using mosdy the A-scholia to the niad by L Friedlaender.

1 30

Martin Sclunidt

Chryses, as 'barbarians',2'J that we may safely assume that it represents the original tone of Aristarchus. According to Aristonicus in Sch. n. 2.867a, Aristarchus used the oc­ curence of the adjective f3apf3ap6cpoovoS ('speaking a foreign tongue') to conclude that Homer also knew the word f3Cxpf3apos, although he did not use it. 3< t At lea�t once Aristarchus describes Trojan habits and cir­ cumstances a� barbaric moeurs: 31

(32) OTl lktplktPIK6v f60s TO �K lI"Ae16vCA>V YVVCXIKWV lI"CXISoll"oleia6cxl.

Sch. n. 5.70

It is barbarian to have children with multiple women.

How far this is meant in a pejorative sense is debatable, but it certainly implies a clear demarcation from his own civilised Greek culture. 32 The bT-scholia include characterizations of the barbarians as raucous or a reference to flutes being barbaric in� truments. This is linked with the statement that the poet mocks the Trojan� as barbarians because, rather than sleeping and preparing themselves for the next day, they make mu.� c instead: (3 3)

eIK6TCA>S TO �plktpov 6opvj:lWSts �C7TIV'hep6yAWO"aov yap �C7TIV. a Si; OUK EC7TIV oll6cpwvov, TOOTo cXvayKIJ 6opvj:lWSes.

Sch. n. 4 .437

Of course, the barbarians are noisy: they speak various languages. And whatever doe.� not sound the 5an1e, is neces.�arily noisy. (34)

�lI"l Si; T pweS KeAcXSTlacxv: KexAWS �lI"l lleV 'EAA';Vc..>V qlTlalv ·1'.pyeiol Si; Ilty' icxxov, eXllqll Se vijes / alJEPSexAtov' [no 2.333-4] , �lI"l Se TWV Tpt:Jwv KeAaSTlaCXV Aeyel'60pvj:lWSes yap TO �cxplktpIK6v.

Sch. n. 8.542 With the Greeks, he puts it well: 'the Argives' battlecry wa� awesome, and the surrounding ships reverbarated with it' [no 2, 333-4] . For the Trojan� he says: 'They made noi�e'. For barbarians produce only noise. 29 �plktpOI: sch. n. 2, 1 22a; 2, 1 30-3; 2, 872a; 8, 562; 24, 2 1 5b; Chryses �p�pOS Kal l.lla�AATlv: sch. n. 1 , 454. 30 The comment i� directed against Thucydides who, in the scholiast's view, thought �p�pOS to be a post-Homeric word. But Thuc . 1 .3.3 only says that Homer doesn't lL�e the tenn 'the barbarians' to designate the Trojan�. 31 The comment on j3a6VKOAlI"OS which says that it i� only lL�ed as an attribute of barbarian women does not refer to moeurs. 32 Ari�tarchus already described the Trojans a� noisy: 8opvj300 5 elS (sch. n. 13.41a).

Portr.lit of an Unknown Scholia.\t

131

(35)

0Vx, 'EMllvlKOV SI; 01 cxVAol· oUTE yap aiaKES oCITE I.Ivllcrrii p Es oCITE EIs TOUS ycXl.IOVS 'Epl.llov"s oUTE nllVEAOlTllS �xpOOVTO TOVTOIS. TJ)V �p�pCtJv SI; ayvolav KCtJI.I,!>SEi �v TOIOVT,!> KalPctl 1.I0ValKEVOI.IEVCtJV �lTl ToaoVTCtJv lTTCtJl.lcXTCtJV Kai 1.1"; I.IcxMov Tctl KOII.ICXaeal lTopll;ol.lEVCtJV laxuv Eis TJ)V avplov

Sch. n. 10.13b

The flutes are not Greek: they were not used either by the Pbaeacians, nor by the suitors, and neither during Hennione's nor Pendope's weddings. He mocks the barbarian\ for their fooJi.�bness in making music when so many are dead, and to do so rather than rest and sleep to prepare for the next day.

The poet, according to the scholia, derides a number of character traits such a� : Cowardice: (36)

Kal TJ)V �IOI.I';SOVS aPET";V aV�1 Kal TJ)V �p�pCtJv SEIAlav KCtJI.I,!>SEi. El S"; TOU �IOS �lTaI.lVVOVTOS aliToiS Ka&Elpx6fival �KlvSlivEvaav lTpoj:lcXTCtJV TpOlTOV. Kai ovSI; TOVTCtJV TEAeiCtJv.

Sch. n. 8 . 1 33b

He both extols Diomedes' bravery and ridicules the barbarian�' cowardice. Despite Zeus' hdp, they find thernsdves enclosed like small livestock, not fully grown ones to boot. (37)

1Jl1AEMllV 6 lTOlllTilS. KaTaKCtJI.I'!>SooV TOV j:lcXp�pov Kai TJ)V TOU naTpOKAOV Slival.llv av�v.

Sch. n. 16.81 4-5

The poet is a philhellene: he mocks the barbarian� and extols Patroclu.�' power.

Shirking: (38)

6pa. Ti KaTaAal.lj:lcXVETal lTPcXTTCtJV 6 j:lcXp�poS' lO'TTJ K EV apyos �lTi TOOV apl.lcXTCtJv I.I';TE lTOAeI.lOOV I.I';TE �yKEAeVOI.IEVOS ToiS IJIEliyovalv. "rullv SI; OVK Qv �lTOiEI TOUTo.

Sch. n. 1 1 . 1 97-8 (cf. Sch. n. 1 1 .212)

Look by which activity the barbarian [se. Hector] is caught: he stands idly by the chariots, neither intervening in the battle, nor commanding those fleeing. A Greek would never act like this.

1 32

Martin ScJunidt

Fickleness: (39)

Ked 'll"W S 'll" p O oAlyov KaVO'al t'\6eAev a\/"Tlxs; Kooll'flSei Toivvv nlV jktpjktplKflV IJETa�oAflv 0 'll" OIT)nlS.

Sch. n. 8. 1 96-7 And how could he [se. Hector] have wanted to bum them [se . the ships] so shortly before? The poet ridicules the barbarian inconsistency.

Boastfulness: (40)

KEKAVTE IJEV, TpweS: VrrepT)'PWias lleO'Tos 6 MyoS' OV yap eOvovs 6EAel 'll"01";O'a0'6al TOUS aKpoooIlEVOVS, aAAa IlOVOV Kavxaa6al, 0\Jx ooS TO '00 IJIIAOI, t'\pooeS l1avaol' [no 2 . 1 1 0] . &h. n. 8.497

' Hear me, Trojan.�': His [se. Hector's] speech i� full of arrogance: for he [se. Hector] doesn't ask for his Ji.�tener's sympathies but only wants to praise himself; unlike 'Oh frjend�, heroes of the Danaans!' [no 2. 1 1 0] (4 1 ) opa TO ill'll"AT)KTOV TOU �apJ3
Sch. n. 16.833-4 Look the barbarian 's recklessness: put in the same situation, he proves his arrogance by failing to recogni�e the divine rea.�on for hi� victory, and in­ stead attributes it to hi� own strength. (42)

�eXpjktpos t'l aA�ovela �v V'll" EpjktAAovO'T)S VrrepT)'PWias.

TOIOVT'fl

KalpC;>

'll" p olJlepoIlEVT)

lle6'

&h. n. 1 1 . 432 3 -

Barbaric arrogance i� what is displayed in such a situation, with exaggerated conceit. (43)

O'TpaTT)yIKWs lleV nlV eVT)lleplav aVToiS ST)Aoi, olKElouTal SI; aVTt'lv V'll"E pO'll"TooS. 61l0looS Ka\ TO 'KTElvw SI; Ka\ aUTOVS' [no 8 . 1 82] . 6 Se "OOT)V aAA avSpas KTelvwllev' [no 6.70] IJIT)O'iv. '

'

&h. n. 8 . 1 75

Strategically, he [se. Hector] describes them the good situation, which he overconfidently a�cribes to his doing . Similarly: 'and I kille d them [se. the Argives] myself [no 8 . 1 82] . The Greek however says: 'but let's kill the men' [no 6.70] .

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia..[

133

(44)

1T(IA1V OiKE10ihal TO KCXTOp6wIla Kal �V ToiS �9'is 'SAlTOllal EIi)(OIlEVOS ' " t�EM:av tv6evSE KUVas Kl1pEaICpOpr,TOVS'. [no 8.526-7] Sch. n. 8.498-9a' Again he appropriates the success, a.. in the subsequent '1 hope and pray . . . t o chase away th e dogs, led here b y the goddesses o f death' [no 8 .526-7] .

CC al�o Seh. n. 8 . 1 80; 8.515b and 1 1 .288-9. Disobedience: (45)

I3ap�aplK" t'l CrnEI6Ela. hEpOS IlEV &v 1TOll1Tt'lS T0 nOAvSallaVTl �lToil1aE lTaVTas lTEI6oIlEVOVS, 0 SE 'Olll1poS 1l11l0UIlEVOS TTjv &/o.r,6Elav Eva yow TOV Cl1TEI60VVTa EiaayEI . SIC): Tf SE Eva TOVTOV; cm llaA1O"Ta ToiS ilTlT01S r,yaAAETo' 'IlEyaAol' [no 1 2.97] yap !'jaav' ols Kal 6appwv Cl1TOAAVTal. Seh. n. 12.1 l Oa' Disobedience is barbaric. A different poet would have them all follow Pou­ lydama•. Yet Homer, who imitates reality, presents only one who doesn't obey. Why this one? Because he put most faith in his horses: 'they were big' [n. 1 2.97] . Trusting them, he i.. kill e d.

The barbarian is also somebody who likes to complain and who exag­ gerates the natural love for his woman: (46)

qllAOlTEv6ES yap TO �ap�apov.

Seh. n. 24.664

For the barbarian likes to mourn.

(47)

lI1T EpE�aAETo T"V Tiis YVValKOS qIlAoaTopyfav' 1') IlEV yap aVTl TWV OUKETl OVTWV OiKElwv e6ETO aUTOV, 0 Se Kal TWV lTEP10VTWV aUTTjv lTpOT11l
SE �AEElvTj Ka! t'l 1')A1Kla Ka! t'l SovAefa. 1l1llEiTaI SE Kal I3ap�apov qllAOYUValOV !'j60S, oi lTEp! lTAeiO"Tov lT010VVTaI Tas yvvaiKas. Sch. n. 6.450-4b He exaggerate.. the love to his wife. For she puts him at the place of the decea..ed relatives, but he even prefers her to the survivors. At the same time, age and (impending) slavery provoke pity. He [s e. Homer] describes the barbarians as being very fond of their women whom they value above all el.e.

Contrasted with this are the Greeks, TO �AAl1V1K6v: The Greeks love each other, especially when they are brothers; they put their fuith in the god� and pray to them; they are careful and comfort each other; they

1 34

Martin Schmidt

share their victory and, ultimately, 'Greek' turns into a synonym for 'decent' (,morally good') : (48) OV)( wO"TrEP 01 T pwes 'mcpvl;oTes T)ihe ve�po!' [n. 22. 1] CPIACxAAllAOV yap Kol olSeO"lllOV TO 'EAAllVIKOv. eVXOVTOI yow 6eois KOt OAAT)AOVS lTOPOKaAOVO"lV. Sch. n. 8.345-7 Unlike the Trojans 'shooed like fawns' [no 22. 1 ] ; for the Greeks treat each other with love and are piou�. They pray to the god� and comfort each other.

C( also Sch. It. 3.506; 5. 542a; 5.7 1-2; 1 1 . 12 1 b; 3.350; 4. 1 58a r= (102)1 ; 4. 1 62; 7 . 1 94 and 1 1 .808.33 But such an idealised image is problematic for the scholiast(s) him.�elf/ them�elves: how is thi� reconcilable with Agamenmnon's behaviour toward� Adrestus and the sons of AntimachlL�, with the murder of 1)0Ion, the desecration by the little Aias and then Achill e s' desecration of Hector's corpse? Here the scholia are careful: the Hellenic ideal remains intact. Instead, exceptional cirum�tances frame the behaviour of the Greek heroes: (49) 'EAAllvlKwS 0 KOIV(.I)VT)O"oS cxVT4> CPIAov6pwlTOIS Myols ov cpovevel. &It. n. 1 0.446 It is Greek not to kill him who addres.�es oneself with friendly words.

(50) �lTel oVX 'EAAllvlKOV TOV IKETTl v CrvOlpeiv, lTpocpaO"elS Crvcxyxo{OS lTep1e611Kev. CxIlO Se KOt i'xTOlTOV flv lTaAlV \J1Too"TpecpelV els TaS VoUS &YOVTOS lloAwva, ii Seiv EV IlEO"\1 Tij 6S4>, lIT] KO! T1veS Sla ACxCPVpO �A6oVTes IlCx6wO"IV TO lTCxV lTOp' OVTOV. CxIlO Se KOt ws lTPOSOTllV ovolpei· \I1TO yap �Ke{vwv llell{O"!lTOl lTPWTOV, oTs TaUS olKelovs lTOpeSWKev &It. n. 1 0.449 Becau�e it i.m 't Greek to kill a supplicant, he [se. the poet] add� the neces­ sary extenuating circumstances. It was inappropriate to return to the ships with Dolon or to tie him up, in ca.�e somebody would pa.�s looking for loot and find out everything from him. Alm, they killed him as a traitor, be­ cau�e he is most hated by those in front of whom he betrayed his kin.

(5 1) WIlOV Se CPoO"l KO\ oVX 'EAAT]VIKOV T O epyov tWllovt, OAAa avyyvWO"TOV \J1TSp cp!AOV OyavOKTOVVTI·SIO �lTIcpwvei 6 lTOIT]Ti]S KexoAwllEVOS 33 further see Dittenherger 1 905, 460C and von Franz 1 940, 10SC

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia.\t

135

1>.IlIPIIlCrXOIO. cma� SE lTOV Toiho lTElTpaKTal SI' 6prTlv TOV 1>.XIAAEWS els "EKTopa. aM.a Ka\ 'llTlTOAOXOS aVXEVOS Ka\ xelpwv arr eK61T1) VlTO 1>.yaIlEIlVOVOS· 1>.VTIIlCrXOV yap lTais fjv, '5S lTOT' tvI Tpc.:x..,v ayopij' . [no 1 1 . 1 39] Sch. n. 1 3.203c (cf. Sch. n. 1 3.203b) His action is cruel and not Greek, but he who feels pain over a friend may

be forgiven. The poet therefore add\: 'furjOU\ about Amphimachos. ' This happen\ again with Achill es ' anger toward\ Hector, but al�o Hippolochos' neck and hand� are severed by Agamemnon, because the former wa.� a son of Antimachus, who in a Trojan gathering once proposed to kill the Greek envoy' [no 1 1 . 1 39] .

In the following scholion the 'EMllvIK6v as moral ideal is replaced by

av6poo'Tl'oS oov. (52)

IlI0000Ta Ka\ OVX apll6i;;oVTa �UIAIKC;> t'\6el Ta j!11; llaTa' Tp6lTOV yap M5elKvvuI 6T\PIOTT)Ta, 6 Se aKpoaT";S CXv6poolTos OOV Illuei ,.0 ayav lTIKPOV Ka\ arrCrv6poolTov. oeev Kav Tais Tpay'!>SlalS KPInTTOVUI TOUS SpWVTas Ta TOlaVTa �V Tais UKT\vaiS Ka\ ii q>Wvais TIUIV ��aKovoIlEvaIS ii SI' ayyeAoov \iaTepOV O'1)llalvovul Ta lTpax6EVTa, ovSev aM.0 ii q>O�V!!EVOI, Il"; aVToi UVllllI0'1)6wUI ToiS SpooIlEVOIS. AeKTEOV Se 5TI, et lleV �AEyETO TaVTa lTPO Tils �lTIopKlas, gYKAT\lla av i'iv' �1TEi Se !!ETa TOUS 5PKOVS Kai T1iv lTapCr�u\V, OUK �lTax6";S 1>.yaIlEIlVWV· uxeSov yap Kai 6 aKpoaT1is TOVTO �OVAeTal, TO IlT\Se yevos �lTIAllllTaVeaeal TWV �1TI6pKooV. uxeSov 0011 Vrrep TWV 6ewv 6pyi�eTal . &Moos Se lTP�OS IlEV �aTl lTPOS TOUS apxollevovs, �pUS Se Tois Ml1TaAOIS' TOVTO yap �UIAEoos aya60v Kai luxvpOV. Ka\ 'aVTIK' av ��ellTOI 1>.yaIlEIlVOVI' [no 24.654] · ' �ulAevs T' aya60s KPaTep6s T' aIXIlT\"';S'. [no 3 . 1 79] Sch. n. 6.5l!-9b The words are despicable and unfit for a royal character. They show an animal behaviour and the !i\tener a.\ a human being hates the overly harsh and inhuman element. In tragedies such events are therefore hidden imide the huts and depicted only through audible voices or subsequent reports. They [the poets] simply fear to be hated along with the events. It must be said that if it had been said before Trojan perjury, it would present a re­ proach. But since it happened after the oach\ and their breach, Agamem­ non remains unburdened. Maybe the listener does not want perjurers to remain untroubled. Maybe the !i\tener is already angry at the gods. Espe­ cially since he i\ a mild king to hi� subjects, and hard only towards enemies. This is the sign of a good and strong king, 'at once he will inform Agammnon [a.� the king] ' [no 24.654] , 'a good king and a strong warrior'. [n. 3.179] '

1 36

Martin Sehmidt

(53) iowS TO WIlOV allTOV EI8wS 0 lTCXT'1')p 1l0VOIK1)V cxV-rov e8i8agv. lTAeOV 8e av.ov r,ypiwoev 0 n
him mlL.ie for this reason. The death of Patroclus increased his fury, so that

he burned the dogs and the Trojan•. The poet therefore says reproachful 'and he prepared evil in hi. mind' [no 23 . 1 76] .

The scholia on the desecration of the dead Hector by Achilles lead even further, asking whether the Greek-friendly poet al�o evokes sympathy for Hector and other Trojan.. in the Greek audience. This is shown through the following: the reference to general human compassion when it comes to unexpected disaster. (54) eicu6e OUlllT6:6Elav eyelpElv 810: TOV.WV, hro:v 01 TO: lleYloTa 8vO'TUXoVvreS EV Cxyvoic;t TWV KaKwv eTev Kal ElT! CPIAav6pwlTOTepCUV cpepCUVTaI eAlTi8cuv, wS i\v8poll6:X11 Kal l:J.6AWV Ka! vVv i\XIAAEVS. Sch. n. 1 7.401-2 He [se. Homer] is wont to rouse sympathy by mean. of this, when the ones who are in the greatest disa..ter are unaware of the evil and carri ed toward. very tender hopes, such as Andtomache [se. unaware of Hector's death], Dolon [se. unaware of Odys..eus and Diomedes' ambush], and Achilles here. (trausl. Niinlist 2009, 1 4H)

The examples from daily life, in particular incidents that provoke pity, such as when a hlL�band retun'l to his home and his wife is absent: (55) T1)V alTiav Tt;S E�680v CP11ol, lTapallv60VIlEVOS TJllas avvax6ollevovs T4'> "EKTopl . !'k>vAETal 8e WO'lTEP IKETT)pIOV T4'> 1TCITp! lTpoTEivaI TOV lTai8a 810: TO fmjloKlv8wov. Sch. n. 6.373c" He [se. Homer] mention. the rea.on for her [se. Andtomaehe's] departure, thus comforting lL., who worry along with Hector. She wants to show her child to its father a. if seeking its protection from danger [sc. that it may be thrown over the wall] .

34 CC Niinlist 2009, 147 n. 49.

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia..[

137

The desecration of Hector: (56) 6:TTEIATjaas: Su'x SI; Tiis avacpwv"aec.us e6ep6:TTEvae TOV 6:KpO=iJV' 1\S" yap avvhraaxe Tij TOV "EKTOpOS alKlc,1. Sch. n. 23. 1 H4 Hy means of the narratorial comment, he [se. Homer] conciliated the reader. For he [se. the reader] had already felt sympathy for Hector being treated insultingly. (transl. Niinlist 2009, 1 47)

Or Iphidamas' sad fute: 35 (57) vuv SI; aVIlll'a6wv ,,,alv OTI anovS6:aas 11'epi 'T'1']v yvvaiKa OUK WVaTO av.iis. olKelOTaTa OVV EXel t') TOIlt') TOV SI"yTjllaTOS. Sdt. n. 1 1 .243c Full of compassion, he [sc.Homer] now says that he [se Iphidamas] made an effort for the woman and wa.. unable to acquire her. It is very good to have thi. interruption within the story. .

3. Before the TElxo �axia and the battle at the ships, all the Greek leaders have to be injured to prepare Patroclus' aristeia In the fliad Zeus' attempt to fulfill Thetis' plea only starts in Book 8. In the scholia thi� is taken up through the argument that the poet uses all means to prepare Patroclus' participation in the battle, and in doing so, that of Achilles too. This i� why the Greek leaders have to fight and be wounded, so that nobody eL�e remain� to fight the Trojan�. (5H) aTTEuSel yap e�ayayeiv n6:TpoKAoV Kai Tllliiaal l'\XlAAEa. Sch. n. H.9a (cC Sch. n. H.H) He [sc. Zeus] hurries to lead Patroclu. into battle to honour Achilles. (59) Zevs aUTovs 11'pOTPETTEI, 011'c.uS egA66VTc.uv Kai Tpc.u6EVTc.uV e�ay6:yol n6:TpoKAOV. Sch. n. 1 1 . 52-3

35 Sch. n. 22.274b: Klvei TaS lA1l'U5as TWV aKp0aTWV, WS Taxa av mplyelfTlO'O­ IlEVOV TOV "EKTOpOS, 'he disturbs the audience's hopes by intimating that Hec­ tor could suddenly gain the upper hand'. CC Niinli.t 2009, 1 50 n. 59.

1 38

Martin ScJunidt

Zeus hurries them [se. the Greek leaders] so that he can lead out Patroclu� once they have come out and have been wounded. (60) 6�iywv eUT Pavas TOV aKpo<XT1)V hrl Ta aweKTIKa lipxnal'SEi yap avvw8Eia8al TOUS 1>.XalouS Eis -n;v Ii�Sov naTPO�ov. &h. n. 1 1 . 1 8 1 -2 After having given the reader pleasure for a moment [se. by having Aga­ memnon succeed], he [se. Homer] makes a transition to the essentiaL� (of this story) . For the Greeks must be pushed back with a view to Patroclus' marching out. (traml. Niinlist 2009, 59) (61) lTp&hov TOV jXlalMa, 1i1TEITa TOUS aplC7Teis ��ayel, �IOI.I"Sl1, Maxaova, OlTWS avapxias EVEKev, OUK aa8eveias SOKoil1 TOOV VEOOV 1) KaValS yevEa8al. lTOOS Se ouSEva C7TPaTTlYOV ave' �aVToO KaTE�I1TEV; Tva 1.1'; lTpOTII.I1)aas liva ToiS �ol1ToiS alTEx811Tal' Kal 6 MEvE�aos lTap;;v jXlalMus OOV SellTEpos. liC7T1 Se Kal �vaywVIOV' OTE yap TOlX>s l.Iei�wv Sla -n;v alTovaiav TOOV aplC7TEwv, Kai 6 lTo8oS 1>.XI�EwS l.Iei�wv. &h. n. 1 1 .27336 First he [se. the poet] lead� the king away from battle, then the leaders Di­ omedes and Machaon. In this way it i� lack of leadership and not the weakness of the Greek.� that cau�s the fire by the ships. Why doesn't he [se. Agamemnon] leave another in command while he is away? Because he doesn't want to select one and will then be hated by the others. Also, Me­ nelaos remain.� as second king. And it i� full of suspense: a� the fear grows becau�e of the absence of the leaders, the desire for Achilles abo grows. (62) XPl1ail.lwS lTPOS -n;v OIKOVol.liav IiXEI Ta TOO �lTI�oYlal.loO T4'> 'OSvaaei' �1TEIS,; yap vavl.laxiav IX>vmal elaayElv 6 lTOll1n;S, lTpOTITpwaKEI TOUS apiC7Tovs' aTOlTOV yap fiV lTapOVTWV Kaiea8al TaS vaOs. &h. n. 1 1 .407-1 0 The deliberation scene o f Odys.�eus i� u�ful for the (subsequent) plot. The poet, intent on introducing the battle for the ships, first causes the wound­ ing of the best (fighters) , because it would have been absurd to set the ships on fire with them present. (transl. Niinlist 2009, 25) (63) OIKOVOl.IlKOOs Se � T ' apl.laTOS aliTov �lToil1aEv anloVTa, Tva Sla TO TOOV i1T1TWV TaXOS lTapaSpal.lIJ -n;v O'l'1V TOO 1>.XIMEwS, Kal 1.1'; SVV1J8EIs aKpl�S KaTal.la8eiv, ns �C7TI, TOV n
TOOV veoov. ef. Niinlist 2009, 28.

Portr.lit of an Unknown Scholia.\t

1 39

He [sc. the poet] deliberately lets them go on the chariots, so that the speed of the horses allows him to escape Achill es' view, who i� no longer able to find out what is going on and send\ Patroclus to find out, and thus Patto­ clu�' aristeia enters the poem.

(64) lTaet,TII<WS AiaVTa \'mo EvpvmiAov elaayel j:l01leOVllevov' viiv yap OVI< (xel I
1 40

Martin Schmidt

(67) TO IPIAOlT6AE�OV fl.X1AAEc..>S tV5EiKVVTat T0 6Ec..> pEiv Tijv �Ct)(1lv. &�cx 5e Kcxi ci>Kov6�1lo"E TCXVT1lV 0 lTOI1lTijS lTpOS Tijv e�o50v fl.XIAAec..>S . Sch. fl.

1 1 .600-1at

The observation of the battle shows Achilles' belligerance. At the same time the poet's composition prepares Achille s' sortie.

(68)

£5el�ev, 0 tK lTOAAOU f)6eAev. vuv vo�(�c..>, IP1lO"i, lTCtVTcxS TOUS fl.XCXIOUS IKETevO"Elv �e. fTi vuv �OI TI)V apXl)v tyxelpeis;t fi51l 5e lTpo�cxACX)(6eis i'jv tK T&V OIVIKOS Myc..>v . l3ovA6�EVOS oVv lTOAE�iiO"CXI nCtTpoKAOV lTe�lTEI lTpOS TOV l3ovA6�EVOV lTeiO"cxl. Sch. fl.

1 1 .609-10

He [sc. Achilles] reveals what he has wanted for a long time. I believe that now all Achaeans will ask me. Why do you try to convince me of the most fundanlentaI? He was alteady soothed by Phoenix' word•. With the inten­ tion to fight, he send. Patroclus to the one who tries to convince him .

(69)

cxi5"'�c..>v 0 nerrpoKAos· tlTEly61lEVOS yap aveXETcxl TOU yepoVTos �CXKpOAoyoiiVTos. OiKOVO�IK&S 5e lTElTACXO"TCXl T0 lTOI1lTij TJ IlCXKpa 51"'y,,0"IS, ivcx 0 EVPVlTVAOS tK Tiis Il6:X1lS IP60:O"CXS tAeeiv lTEP1TV)(1l nCXTp6KA�, Kcxi lTcxpa TOVT� tlll3pcx5vV1J lTEpi Tii s TE1XOIlCXXicxS· El yap TCXXEc..> S tlTcxviiAeE lTpOS fl.XIAAecx Kcxi tKlTEIl1P6iivCX1 �CXVTOV ElTE10"EV els Tijv �Ct)(1lv, aVlJpe61l Qv TJ TE1XO�cxXIcx, 51' T)v tlTAO:0"61l TO TEixos. Sch. fl.

1 1 .677-76138

Patroclu. was humble; although he was rushing, he bore the lengthy talk of the old man [sc. Nestor]. The poet structures this long narrative intention­ ally so that Eurypylos meets Patroclus perchance when returning from bat­ tle and stays with him some time. The reason behind it is the battle of the wall: if Patroclu. were to return quickly to Achilles and to convince him to return to battle, the battle of the wall would not take place--for which the wall was created.

(70) 1TI6cxv&S TO Ill) ev6us alTleVCXl lTpOS fl.X1AAecx· 6:v()P1lTO yap TJ EV �eO"� 51Ct6eO"lS KCX! TJ TE1XO�CXX(CX.

Sch. fl. 1 1 .809a 39

That he doesn't inImediately return to Achilles i. convincing: otherwise the intemuttent events and the battle of the wall would &.appear.

38 CC Niinlist 2009, 75 n. 20. 39 CC Niinlist 2009, 75 n. 20.

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia..[

141

(7 1 ) KaiTol � v �CT)(aToIS OVTOS TOU crt:>IlCXTOS. olKoVOlllKWS 6 e TOVTO iva yap eVcrTa6ws OlllAij naTpOKA':l, TOV vouv ·OIlTjPOS �cpVAa�ev aVT0 . Sch. fl. 1 1 .813a1 Even though his body [se. Eyryplylus'] is in a critical state, thi. is also care­ fully plann ed; Homer keeps his mind intact so he can talk properly with Patroclus.

(72) crvllcpcuva TauTa ToiS vrro NecrTopos elpTjIlEVOIS, iva CxllcpoTepcu6sv KI1IT]6ij o naTpOKAOS. ev 6e Ka\ TO liT] ovollacrT\ TOUS TETPCUIlEVOVS KCXTa7leyelv (OlTEp rrolei 0 NecrTCUp), alia lleV 61a TT]V TaVTOAoyiav, eha OTI Kai TpaVllaTias EcrTiv rroAv7Ioyeiv ov 6vva1lSVOS. Sch. fl. 1 1 .826a This correspond. to Nestor's words, so that Patroclu. is moved by both sides. It is also well done that he doesn't mention the wounded by name (a.. does Nestor), for once, to avoid a tautology, and then because being wounded, he [se. Eyrypylos] can't talk for very long. (73) ITjTpol lleV yap: CxvexyKaicus Ka\ TOUTO, iva 61a TT]V �pTjlliav TWV ICXTpWV rrapalleivll 0 nclTpoKAOS. Sw. fl. 1 1 .833--6 This is also neces..ary: Patroclus has to remain because of the absence of the doctors.

(74)

rraAlv lleTal3el3TjKev Erri TaS Ilaxas <'> rroITjTI')s· e6el yap Ta Tiis llaXT] S �lTIeval, orrcus 6eacrallevos naTpoK7IoS KlvTj6eiTj Ilcx7l7l0v els e7leov. el 6e �lTIllTjKecrTepa yeyovev 1') �lTIIlE7lela, liT] 6avllacrllS· 6 1 acpopovs yap rrpaglS EV �vi hlyelv KalP0 Cx6VVCXTOV. Sch. fl. 12. 1-2a The poet turns once again to the battle. For he had to move to the depic­ tion of battle so that Patroclus could witnes., them and feel even more pity. Do not be surprised if the treatment [se. of Eurypylu. by Patroclus] is of greater length. It is impossible to recount different action.. at one and the same time. (transl. partially Niinli.t 2009, 75)

(75) oTav Erri Ta &Kpa &Yll TT]V rroiTjcrlv, TOTe Tais lleTa!3CxcreC71 Xpt;TaI crvvexwS, TT]v rrpocro)(liv TWV CxKPOCXTWV crvvaycuv. lleTaflaivel ow Err! TOV naTpOKAOV vVv· Err! TOVT':l yap Ka! 61CXTpi13eIV aVTOV rrapa T0 EvpvrrvA':l C;>KovOIlTjcrev, orrcus EK Tii s oljJecus KlvTj6e1S �VTovt:>Tepov 7\XI7l7lECUS 6eTj6e 1Tj . rrws 6e ElTI7Ia6ollevos 7\xl7l7lecus TOcrOVTOV xpovov 6layel; " ov rroMs lleV xpOVOs, Ta 6e yeYOVOTa rrOIKiAa EV oAly':l KaIp0. Sch. fl . 1 5.390

1 42

Martin Schmidt

Whenever he [sc. Homer] brings his poem to a critical climax, he con­ stantly makes use of transitions, thereby focusing the readers' attention. Therefore, he now passes on to Patroc!lL'. To this end he has also created the meeting with him who, moved by the sight of EurypyllL', begs Achilles even more. Why is he [sc. Patroclus] , having forgotten Achill es, spending so much time? Or, the duration [sc. of hi, absence] is not actually long, but many different things happen in a short period of time. (transl. partially Niin1ist 2009, 58 and 75)

The next scholion sets the preparation of Patroclus' aristeia within the context of the Greek wall and its di�appearance. (76) TETPWIlEVWV TWV aplCTTEwv IlEVE1V EV Tfj lTE5101il "EAAT)VES OUK E5uvaVTo . avayKalws 00\1 TT)v m5105a 1l0XT)V ElTi TEIxollaxiav IlETaK0501lT)lleVOV, OUK av T0 alTTJllaTl TOVTctl ExpT}craTo cm aUTOS nocm5wv Tt avTo c . > ou5/; 6Eoicrl 66crav ;· [no 7.448-50] Sch. n. 1 2.3-35 Because their leaders are injured, the Greeks could no longer with,tand in open battle on the field. Consequently the poet wants to move the open field battle to a wall battle. Thi, is why the poet invent. the battle of the wall . This would have been impossible using the wall, around Troy itself, as they are built by the god,. In order not to omit this idea he makes the battle of the wall take place at a wall built by the Greek.. . And having built the wall himself, he lets it disappear again too, destroying all evidence. Thi, could aJ..o be used when inquiring into the period in which the poet lived, since he lived not long after the Trojan war. Because, had it been possible to imagine the wall just crumbling with time and thlL' disappear in the same way as it wa.., jlL,t like that, built, then the poet wouldn't have used the argument that Poseidon himself made it disappear, diverting all rivers

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia.<[

1 43

from the lda for nine days and pushing it himself while Zeus lets it rain in­ cessantly . . . This way no trace can be a
Book 7 already poses multiple times the question of the reason behind the wall 's disappearance. (77) iaws 61a TT)V lTol1la1V roiTou' 61a yap TalJT1lV TO TEixoS aoi611l6v taT1V, oil 601l1leeV ToiS "EAA1la1V, aAA' 'OIlTJP YEVOIlEVOV EVEKEV Tiis ElT' roiTci> llaX1lS, 61a 6e TOU 0CTTlv T' ElTlKI6vCXTal ilt:>s \I1TEP�OA1KWS Kai TT)v aoiK1lTOV lTEpleAa�Ev. Sch. n. 7.451a Maybe through his poetry. Through hi< poetry the wall became famous, not because it was built by the Greek.< but because it was created by Homer for the sake of the battle of the wall. Through the words 'a< far a< the morning twilight spreads' he hyperbolically includes the u.ninhabited earth.

C( al.o Sch. n. 7 .443--64c; 7.445 and 7.450.

4. The Greeks only loose when the Troj ans are helped

by the gods The fact that the Trojan. can never win without the support of the god. almost ressembles a leitmotif of the scholia.

(9) EKlJlalvEl yap TOV �OVAOIlEVOV KaKois [KaAoiS Wilam.] aywvi�Eaeal ElT1lpEa�OIlEvoV \I1TO TOU t.10S. Sch. n. H.7H He makes clear that he who wants to fight agaimt adversity will be hin­ dered by Zeus.

(7H) vuv a,;IlEPOV, OTl lTpOS 6Aiyov eaTal aiJTci> Tt xapa. Kai oil6e TOV "EKTopa lJIo�Ep6v, aAAa TOV t.la 1J11la1v. Sch. n. H.141-2a' He [sc. Nestor] says 'today' becau.<e joy will be with him shortly and he doesn't describe Hector but Zeus as fearsome.

t 44

Martin Schmidt

(19) Toiho TIpOS �eiwcrlv TOU 1ToAe�iou "EKTopoS.

&It. n.

H.21 6

He [se. the poet] says this [se. that Zeus has provided him with glory] to decrease Hector's glory.

(HO) 1T(IAIV Imi TOV t.ia TO aiTlov 6vacpepel Tfis ViK1lS, �1') 6SAWV �w�ficral "EM1lvas. Sch.

n. H.335 (c£ Sch. n. H.236)

Again he [se. Homer] ascribes the victory to Zeus, because he does not want to blame the Greeks.

(Ht) AITCxS �ev TT)v �a,¥�5iav KaAoucrlv. E1T£151') 5e 01 Tpc;,es EK TIapa5�ou VIKc;,crl �eAecrt t.10S, OUK olKeic:x 5uva�el, TICXIITi TIOV� TT)V TliX1lV CPUAclTToucrlV, TIape��oA1')v ETIi Tc;'> vaucrTa6�� TIOIOV�eV01. ToiS 5e "EM1lcrtv crnovTa 5vcrxepfi, TIpc;,Ta �ev EV Katpc;'> �1') TIapOVTOS aya60u cru��axou, eha Kal �eTCx TIap6:�acrlv TOcrOUTOV eliTuxoVvrwv
n. 9.0a

This book is called the Prayers. After the Trojans have unexpectedly won-not through their own strength but aided by the projectiles of Zeus----they try with all their might to save their fate and organize their forces at the ships. This is all bad for the Greeks: first, at that time they do not have good allies; then the Trojan.� have success even after breaking the oath�, and there i� Zen, lightning. (transl. partially Niinlist 2009, 60)

(H2) 6au�acrTc;,s TEWS IcroppoTIoucrlv "EAA1lveS, Kai TcxVTa Cx1T0 5ucrTVXiaS oVTes' �eT' ov TIOA\! 5e Kai TIeplscroVTaI Tc;,V T pt:>wv. &It. n.

l 1 .72c

The Greeks admirably manage to balance the Trojan.�, and this after their defeat. And they will shortly gain the upper hand.

(H3) oi 'EAA1lVIKOi, OT1, el �1') ETIeKOVpel Tpwcriv, EviK1lcrav av 01 "EM1lves

&It. n.

1 1 .78

The god� who supported the Greeks (se. were blaming Zeus) . For if Zeus had not helped the Trojans, the Greeks would have won.

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia..[

1 45

(84) npos TO a�IOlTlCTTOV' OU yap av ,;piCTTEVOV WTITaaaOllevov tuos. qIlAEAi..T)V 5e WV 0 Zevs TO npo6vllov roiTwv al5ea6els npos 6Aiyov �v5i5walv. ,; TOUTO 6EAEI e!miv wS laol3ap"s yeyovev aUTois EKeiVIJ Tfj 1'iIlEP<;l 1'i IlcIXT)' npwTa lleV 'iaas ualliVIJ Ke<paAaS exov' [no 1 1 .72] , vCTTe pov aplCTTevel )\yallellvwv, EnelTa ·EKTwp. eha oihol Kat TITpwaKOVTal' aAi..a Kat "EKTWp hpW6T). Sch. n. 1 1 .336a On the subject of credibility: If Zeus had counteracted, they [se. the Greeks] wouldn't have the aristeia. But, being a friend of the Greeks and ashamed by their courage Zeus relents a little. Or he [se. Homer] wants to say that the battle was even on tlris day; first 'their head. were kept even during battle' [no 1 1 .72], then Agamenmon ha.. an aristeia, then Hector. Then they are wounded, but Hector too is wounded. (85) 1'i napaJ3oA" npos Ttlv KCXTa
On Book 12 c( also Sch. n. 1 2. 1 73a; 1 2 . 1 79-80; 1 2 . 1 8 1 and 1 2.437. (87) teppel
1 46

Martin ScJunidt

obtained power yet, is met by Poseidon. Hut how would Poseidon have dared to step forwatd if Zeus wa� not di�tracted? (88) SICx TOVTWV axeSov JX>Cic 6 nOITJ-nis OVK iSlov T&")V TPWwv yeyeviiaeal TO KaTop6wlla, aJ\ACx TOU tuOS. mplTra600s S' ayav TO VTJvalv, olov OV TC;> Teixel 1l0VOV, aJ\ACx Kai Tais vavaiv, ;;mp hI 1l0VTJ TOOV 'EAA';VWV O nls. Sch. R. 1 3 . 1 a ..

Through these words the poet almost screams out that the Trojans' success is not of theit own making, but of Zeu�. It is aL�o very moving that he doesn't only speak of the wall [a� target of the Trojan attack] but also of the boats, which are the Greeks' la�t hope. (89) napaIPvAaKTeov OTl Tij 'EAATJVIKij IPvyij 6eov ael WTlTrapaTOTrel. &h. R . 1 5.326-7 One should note that he [sc. the poet] always puu a god close-by during the flight of the Greek.�. (90) 6 :a.noAAwv ii 6 Zevs. napaTilpel miAlv -niv npoa&,;KTJV OTI -niv �nl TCxS vaus napovalav "EKTOpOS 6eC;> avaIPepel. Sch. R. 1 5.41 8 Apollo or Zeus. Note again the addendum [cr. (9)] that he attributes Hec­ tor's appearance at the ships to a god. (91 ) �IYTJaev: o v TOV "EKTopa, aJ\ACx T Cx TOOV 6eoov �pya. Kai axeSov lleV VeViKTJTal, t'l Se VIKTJ ov TOU "EKTopos, aJ\ACx 6eoov. Sch. R. 1 6 . 1 1 9 H e [sc.Aias] shuddered: not before Hector, but before the deed� o f the gods. And he would have almost been defeated, but the victory wouldn't have been Hector's, but the god�'. (92) TaTrelVoi TOUS "EAATJVaS Tij napaJX>Aij npos aVyKplalv TOU nOAeIlOVvTOS l110S. -niv aVTJiv Se elKova Kal �ni TOOV �p�pwv �Aa�ev, OTe aVTOUS 6 na-rpOKAOS �SlwKev· 'ipTJKI �OIKWS / ooKei, os T' �q>6�ae KOAOIOVS Te 'V;;pas Te' [R. 1 6 .582-3] . aAA' �Keivol OVK �vavTlovllevov 6eou TaOTa naaxovalV, aJ\ACx SICx -niv apeTJiv TOU SIWKOVTOS' TOVTOIS Se 6 Zeus aiTlos Tiis Tanelv;;s elKovos. Sch. R. 17.755-7 (0. Sch. R. 1 5.690-5)40

40 ef. NiinIi�t 2009, 295

n.

52.

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia..t

1 47

In the simile, he [se. the poet] denigrates the Greeks in comparison to the warrin g Zeus. The same comparison i. also u.ed for the barbarian. who are cha..ed by Patroclus: 'like a fu\con, a fast one, shooing away jackdaws and starlings' [no 1 6.582-3]. Hut these don't suffer becau.e they encounter a god, but because of the bravery of the one who pursues them. Hut for these others, Zeus i. the cau'e of the denigrating simile.

5. The aristeia of Agamemnon takes place

at the right momenel Aristarchus points to the purpose of the anning scene of Agamemnon: the bT-scholion uses this and mentions in passing that the same scene has a different function in the case of Paris-Alexandros, where it serves to ridicule the barbarians. (93)

cm

hrcxvEiAllcpEV ��EpyaCTT IKwTEpOV Ta mpi TOV 07TAlcr�OV TOV ;A.ya�e�vovos, 7TpOE7TlTTJ5EUWV aVTOV Tijv apICTTE icxv. Sch. n. 1 1 .17a [Ariston.] 42

[H]ecause he ha.. taken up the anni ng scene of Agamemnon with more de­ aruteia. (traIlS!' Niinlist 2009, 309 n. 8)

tail, preparing for his

(94) 07TAi�El TOUS av5payaeitcroVTas, 7Tpo7TapacrKEv6:�wv TOV aKpoaTi)v. �7Ti 5e ;A.AE�6:v5pov [sc. n. 3.328-38], cmws 7TAEOV KaTaYEAacrTos cpaivoITo 1')TTw�EVOS Sch. n. 1 1 . 1 7b He an11.' those who will fight bravely into battle preparing the listeners. However, in the case of Alexandros this happen. so that he appears more ridiculou. in defeat.

Then, I want to recall the scholia that have been already presented in the analysis of the defen.e of the Greeks' behaviour, in particular: (95) �lcrllTa Kat OUX ap��OVTa j3acrlAIK4> 1)6EI Ta p"�aTa· Tp67TOV yap �v5EiKVVcrl 61lp16TllTa, 6 5e aKpoaT1')s &vepW7TOs OOV 1l1crEi TO ayav 7TlKpOV Kat a7T6:v6pWlTOV. Sch. n. 6.58-9b (c£ Sch. n. 6.62a) 41

C( von Franz 1 940, 73( and van der Valk 1 955, 35-39 (he refers to one author to whom [he characterization of Agamemnon in the scholia can be traced back). 42 C( Niinlist 2009, 1 76 n. 8.

1 4H

Martin Schmidt

The word. are despicable and unfit for a royal character. They show an animal behaviour and the human listener hates the exacerbated cruelty and inhuman element.

Another longer scholion defend� Agamemnon against the reproaches of Achilles:

(96) elc;,6ao"IV 01 aV6pWlTOl Ta lTAeOVeKnl�aTa lTOAAaK15 W5 EAaTTc;,�aTa lTpoayelV· 'c7TpelTT'li yap yAwaa' EaTI �pOTWV' [no 20.24H] ·E1TE1S'; yap Toi5 !3aalAeVal lTAeiov SElTa5 oivov lTapEKelTO a�Ic;,�aT05 xaplV, TOVTO el5 �E611V 6velSi�el T4) !3aalAei. TO Se Sla TO �,; mpuppoveia6al lTa�ov TWV !3aalMwv Kai SvalTapaKAl1Tov 6:vai6elav eTlTev. ElTei Se Kal lTPOK1VSvvevElv TT;5 cpaAayyos OUK olKeiov EaTl !3aalAei, TOVTO SelAlav EKaAeaev. OUK oll1TEOV Se T010UTOV eTvat TOV �ya�E�vova olov vuv AOISopei, OV "EAAl1veS EV Toi5 lTPWT01S TJpl6�ovv' '1\ AiavTa Aaxeiv 1\ Tv6EWS vlov, / 1\ aliTov !3aa1AT;a lTOAvxpvaolo < MvKijvl1S> ' [no 7 . 1 79-HO] . 0Ux OTl TpiTOS i'jv KaT' apeTilv �ya�E�vwv, TplTOV aUTOv apI6�oualv, aAA' WS fjTTOV Sla Tilv ap)(ilv KlvSvvevelv 6cpeiAOVTa. ei5 Te TO lTPOS "EKTopa �ovo�aXl0v 'c!>pTO lTOAl) lTPCJT05 �ev ava� 6:vSpwv �ya�E�vwv' [no 7. 1 62] . aAAa Ka! T';V aplaTeiav aUTov Tais aAAat5 lTapal'CxAAwv �el�ova evpol T15 enl" �10�ijS115 �ev yap TJpiaTevaev ETl TWV Tpwwv ayvoovVTwV Tilv �T;V1V �X1AAEW5 Kal 61a TO avvelSEval acpialv aliTois Tilv TWV OpKWV lTapa!3aalv KaTelTTT] XOTWV, TOV 6e AiaVTa 0 lTepi TWV vewv Klv6vvoS Kal '!'J TT;S aWTl1pias alToyvwalS Slijyelpe, Kal naTpoKA05 TJP{aTevaev �X1AAevs VO�I�o�evos, �X1AAeVS Se aliTois cpo�epos wcp611 Sla T';V TWV 6Elwv OlTAWV eUlTpElTelav. �ya�E�vovl Se '!'Jaaij611aav vlKwVTe5 T15 lTpOTEpa{\X Kai ElTaVA1�6�evol Tai5 vava! TWV lTOAe�{wv. 61a TOVTO "EKTWp AiaVTl �ev Kai naTpOKA'll Kai �X1AAei Kai �lo�ijSel 6appwv elS �aXl1v epXETat, �ya�E�vova Se EKKAive1 . aAAa Kai 6 ZevS aUT4) lTapatvei· 'ocppa �EV Kev oPC;XS �ya�E�vova lT01�EVa Aawv EV lTpO�aXOlal, TOCPP' UlTOelKe �aXl1S' &It. n. 1 .225c Hunlans tend to present good characteristics a. deficit.; 'pliant is the human tongue' (n. 20.24H). Because the Icing is honoured \vith a larger caraffe of wine, he [sc. Achilles] accused him [sc. Aganlemnon] of drunkenness. The decisivenes.. of lcings and their implacability is turned by him into shame­ lessnes.•. And since a Icing cann o t endanger himself in front of the phalanx, he calls this cowardice. One should not believe that Aganlemnon is as Achill es now describes him, he whom the Greek.. count among their best: 'May the lot till on Aia. or on the son of Tydeu.. or upon the king of rich Mykene him..elf: Agarnenmon does not appear third in thi< list because he is third in bravery. He cannot risk him..eIf because of his position. And when it came to the duel mth Hector 'foremost of all uprose King Aga­ memnon' . Even if one compares his aristri4 mth the others, his will seem bigger. Becau.<e Diomedes had his aristeia when the Trojans didn't yet

Portrait of an Unknown Scholi ...[

1 49

know the anger of Achilles, and while they were still fearful due to their bad conKience after breaking the oaths. Aia.. was driven by danger, becau..e of the boats and the desperation of the rescue. And Patroclus had hi. aristrill because he w... mistaken for Achill es. Achilles seemed awesome in the shine of his godly armour. But Agamemnon defeated those who had been victors the day before and who had bivouacked by their ennemies' fleet. Therefore Hector moves courageously against Aias, against Patroclu.., against Aehille.. and Diomedes, but evades Agamenmon. But Zeus al.o ad­ vises him: 'as long a.. you see Agamenmon, the shepard of men, in the midst of battle, avoid the fight.'

This line of argument can be traced throughout the whole bT-scholia. Only the explanations of the speech of Achill es in Book 9 could suggest that the criticism of Agamemnon is justified. But I believe that that case is more a representation of what Achilles says than a reflection of the opinion of the scholiast. Hi. behaviour towards Chryses is also accepted:

(97)

KcrT' 6Aiyov cxO�WV Ta Tf\s 51ao-raaEws AVlTEi TOV yepoVTa' Eo-rl yap, wS lTOV TO lTEpl aliTov ElTiypalllla 5T)AOi, 'flaO'lAEVS T' aya60S KpaTEpos T' aIXIlT)TflS' [no 3.179) ' 510 lTapa IlEV TWV VlTT)KOWV vflpi�ETa\, Tois 5E lTOAelliolS Aiav eaTlv alTT)vflS, WS )\5pao-rct' [c£ n. 6.53-65] Kal Tois )\VTlllaxov lTaIaiv. [cf. n. 1 1 . 1 37-47]

Sch. n. 1 .29d

Aggravating the conflict a little, he [se. Aganlemnon] offends the elder [se. Chryses]; he i., as the motto about him puts it 'a good King and a strong spearman ' [no 3.1 79] . For this hi. subjects reluctantly respect him, and he is cruel to hi. ennemies, including Adra..tus and Antirnaehu.' son•.

The scholia deal with the dignity of the royal office:

(98) lleyIo-ra 5E lTPOS j3aalAEiav TaiiTa, TflV TE TWV OIKEiwv Kal Tt)V TWV lTOAElliwv e\PflvT)V lTpaYllcrTEVOIlEva. TOIOiiTOS 5E )\yaIlEllvwV, VlTO IlEV '05vaaews Kal ll.lollfl50vS evioTE VI3PI�OIlEVOS, ll1TO 5e )\5pao-rov IKEaiav OV 5EXOIlEVOS. Sch.

n. 3. 1 79

The royal reign is great, if peace i< maintained anlOng ones own subjects and with the enemies. This i. the case of Agamenmon, whom Odysseus and Diomedes sometimes abu.<e, and who refuses the suppplieation of Adrastos.

1 50

Martin ScJunidt

(99) �v O:KlJij yap Ta Ti'i� O'VIJJ30Ai'i�· 'E?ecpl'lvwp yoOv lTapa Kalpov TOVTO lTOIWV o:valpeiTal [sc. R. 4.463-70] . a�eTal Se Kai TO o:�lwlJa TOO J3<xaIAEw� . &h. R. 5.48 [Soldiers rob the ennernies whom Agamernn on killed of their weapons.] For we are at the height of the battle: Elephenor however, who attempted thi� [robbing a dead ennemy of his weapons] at the wrong moment, i� killed. This simultaneously protects the dignity of the king.

(l IKI) KaTa TOV a\rrov Kalpov Tci> ;A.yaIJElJvovl. m' 6 lTOllln)� Tci> J3<xaIAIKwTEPC? lTpoac.;)1TC? O:lTEVelIJe n)v lTpOTEPav TO:�IV TOO Myov, wC7Te Kai TWV O:PIC7TEWV, oO� IJEV SIl'lyelpev 6 ;A.yaIJEIJVWV, O:KPI�� SIE�epXETal, TOV� SE lllTO TOO M eveAdcov �lTi KEcpaAalov Mye\. &h. R. 1 0.25a [Menelaos awakes] at the same time as Agamernno n. But the poet gives the more royal of the two the first place in the speech, and the heroes which he awakes are named one by one, whereas those awoken by Menelaos are only mentioned in brief.'3

Of the achievements of Agamemnon's leadership in battle: (10 1 ) aEIJVOV T O TOO J3<xatMw� E I � �lTlaKEIjIIV IT?.elova cpepOIJEVOV. alJa SE Kai 6 lTOllln)� avapT� TOV O:Kpoan)v. &h. R. 1 0.43a The king's mann er i� responsible when it comes to the consideration of further circwn�tance.�. SirnultaneouYy, the poet increa�es the suspen�e.44

(102) acpe?e TOV C7Tlxov, Kai ov j:lAaljlel� n)v aacpl'lvelav, 6:1ToMael� SE n)v �vapyelav, T\TI� �lJcpalvel n)v ;A.yalJelJvovo� aVIJlTa6elaV Kai n)v TWV avvaxeOIJEVWV halpwv Sla6Ealv. &h. R. 4. 1 54 Take away the line, and you will not destroy its clarity, but you will take away its graphic quality, which reveaL� Agamernn on's commiseration and the state of the companions who grieve with hiOL (tranu. Niinlin 2009, 1 97) (103) yevvalov C7TpaTllYOO TO IJ!) O'VlJlTElTTWKEVal Toi� Kalpoi�, avEXElv SE EI� 6eov� n)v �AlTISa, aMw� TE Kal hri lTOAelJlwv AaAei. &h. R. 4 . 1 58a 43 Cf. Niinlist 2009, 82. 44 Cf. Niinlist 2009, 143.

Portrait of an Unknown Scholiast

151

The mark o f the true leader is not to give up during diffi cult times, but to put his faith in the gods, especially when he speak.� about the enemy.

(104) crrPaT1lYIKOS 6pChal, OS T1)V alTlav ,;; s Cxevllias �).TriSa VIK1lS \JTreypa\jlEv. �v �pCX)(Ei SE TrpoOTpe\jle Suo TrPO�wv. 6EOV �";6Elav Kai ).aqlupf.t)v �).TrISa. &h.

n. 4.235-9 (cf. &h. n. 7.398)

He is shown to be fitted for command, because he turns the origin of de­ spondency into hope for victory. He soon urges them on with the two prospects of help of the god� and hope for bounty.

(105) TO TrPOV01lTIKOV alrro v Kai aTrOqlcXC7KOVTOS ToiS SElvoiS.

�V

Tais

ovllqlOpaiS

S�oiiTal &h.

1lt1

n. 10.17

His ability for foresight i s apparent even in adversity, when h e doesn't deny the mi.�fortune.

Who truly pushes the anny fOlward:

(106) Kai 'ISollEvea IlEV ,;; s TIIl;;S Kai TOV yepf.t)S UTrEIlVflaE. TOUS Se Tij qll).OTIIlIc;r TrP°lrrpE\jIaTO. &h. n. 4.286b He [se. Agamemnon] remind� Idomeneus of the gift of honour and urges the others by appealing to their ambition.

(107) apll6�ovaav Tctl y..;pc;r Trolei T1)v ev)(1iv. TIIl<;r o\'iv alrrov elJxij.

&h.

n. 4.313

His [sc. Agamemnon's] request matches the a ge [sc. Ne.�tor's] . And he honours him [se. Nestor] with his request.

(HI8)

o yap �TrITcXaaEI, TrOIWV Trpo6uIlovs lXEI TOUS VTr"K6ovS.

&h.

n. 1 1 . 1 6

For what h e [se. Agamemnon] orders h e himself does and thi� makes hi� subjects brave.

And

as

a fighter in single combat:

(109)

E\'i TO 1lt1 Tctl TpaUllaTl Crx6Ea6al KaiTol aq>6Spa 6SvvWIlEVOV. aM' cm TraVfllleplOS Tro).eIlI�EIV �Kf.t)M61l. &h.

n. 1 1 .278-9a

1 52

Martin Schmidt

It is good that he [sc. Agamemnon] doesn't complain about hi� very painful injury, but instead about being prevented to continue to fight the entire day. (1 1 0) OVK hrE�Epya�ETol Ta TOU TpOV�OTOS, aA).. ' EVrr p mws �vE5E1�OTO cm uno TOU 6EOU KWAV6E\S &ywviaocr6Ol 51' OAIlS ,;�epos WCX)(WPEi. Sch. fl. 1 1 .278-9b (cf: Sch. fl. 1 1 .90-8) The poet doesn't expand on the matter of the injury, but admirably point.� out that, prevented from fighting by the god, he [sc. Agamemnon] retires for the full day. (1 1 1 ) ;A.yO�hlVWV 5e lTE�OS �v hnreos WOlpEi, KO\ avv5vo.

Sch. fl. 1 1 . 1 5 1 a

O n foot, Agamemon kills some of those riding the chariot, and even tw o at a strike. (1 1 2) ov IlOVOV 6:PICTT£ VOVTO OIiTov nOlEi, &AAa KO! Tois AOllToiS oiTlov Ev50KIIli}aEws YlVOI-\EVOV. Sch. fl. 1 1 . 1 54 He [se. Homer] shows him [sc. Agamenmon] not just in his aristeia, but also as the creator of the glory of others. (1 1 3) 6:�lonlaTws, ivo Ill'} n<'.tvTo �mTvyxavovTo ElaaYll . CxIlO 5e Koi TO 6:v6p<.:Jmvov �v5EiKVVT01. EIS 5e Tl'}V 6:plaTEiov ;A.YOllellvovos aVVTEAEi TO �Il5e TOUTOV cpvYEiv, 6:Ma Tij 5EVTep\X nAIlyij 6:VOlpE6r;VOl. Sch. fl. 1 1 .233 Thi� [se. that Agamemon's throw misses the ennemy] is trustworthy insofar a.� not everything he does succeed.� . At the same time he [sc. the poet] shows the hwnan side. He concludes Agamenmon's aristeUJ when he [se. the enemy] cann ot escape, but is killed with the second hit.

C( al�o (61 ) There is even prai�e from the enemy: (1 1 4) iKcrvOS npos niaT1V 6 nopa TWV �X6pwv ov KOTa np6awnov ylvo�EVOS Enolvos· Sch. fl. 3. 1 82a Praise by an enemy who ha.m 't looked at the person beforehand is suitably credible.45 45 On (1 1 3) and (1 1 4) c( Niinlist 2009, 1 92 n. 22.

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia..[

153

Hi� brotherly love is also praised: (1 1 5)

T6Te [c£ fl. 4. 1 48-82] KClTCX1TEcrC.(lV Tij cplAoSeAcpl<;t vVv avolaTpeiTal Tij lTp09Vlll<;t, KO! T6Te aVlllTo9"S KO! VVV C1VlllTpaKTIK6s· �lTeIS" yap TO lTOp6:So�ov Tiis TIopol36:aews els a9VIliav aVTOVS �K6:AeI, Sleyeipel mhovs. lTpOaeKTIKov Se Alav els ""YOlleIlVOVO TOV aKpOCXTTj v lTolei. Sdt. fl. 4.223a

Wherea.. then he [se. Agamemnon] was acting in brotherly love, he i. now propelled by courage. Then he suffered in sympathy, now he takes action in solidarity. He admonishes them when the surprise of the peljury dis­ courages them. He [se. the poet] increases the suspense about Agamemnon.

There i. even sympathy for him: (1 1 6) ae! KClTOSPOlltlV TIVO evpiC1Kollev TOV ""YOIlEIlVOVOS EV ToiS TIpOS ""XlAAea TIelTpayllEvOlS. vVv Se TouvalfTiov. KO! ECTnv apll6Sl0V T4) Kalp4) TIOPOllv9iav Tlva lTpoaeAeeiv T4) ""YOIlEIlVOVI cm ou Sla T"V OUTOV allapTiav SVaTVxei TO 'EAAT)VIK6v, Ci»..a Sla TTjv :A.XlAAEwS acppoaVvT)V. Sdt. fl. 14.139-41 We always find some reproach of Agamemnon in his behaviour towards Achill es. But here the opposite is the case. And it suits the moment that he [se. Agamemnon] receives encouragement. The Greeks' misfortune is not due to hi. mistake but instead to Achilles' folly.

6. Thematic Extensions 6. 1 . Atheteses

I attempt a further step : it i. known that the b T-scholia contain many arguments agaimt AristarchlL�' atheteses. They are almost consistendy rejected. 4Ii The reasons for these rejections are manifold, but in impor­ tant sections they correspond to the principles that have been presented in the previous sections. (1 1 7) ageTOVlfTal WS lTeplaaoi eiKoal Svo aTiXOI, KO! OUK apeaToi "Hp<;t, Koi OUK ElllTiTT"ToVal Tais vava!v ""XlAAEWS. Ka! el EKplvev alT07lea9al LoplTT)S6va, Tl EKei oIKTi�eTal; Ka! Tt lTOAlwl;lS OUK 6p9wS· acp' 00 yap ""XlAAeVS E�iiAeev, OUK hp6:lTT)aav ""xaloi. Ka! TO ':A.9T)vaiT)S Sla �ov7I6:S·· 46 Collected by Hill er 1 869, 98-1 15, partially examined by Liihrs 1 992.

1 54

Martin Sclunidt

Sla TI yap 1.1'; SI' "Hpas, KaiTol lTapOVO'1lS; �1lTeOV OVV eTI O')(fil.lcX �OTIV 1') lTpoavaKEqlaAalCtJalS, OOS 'OSvaaEVS lTpoavaq>CtJvei TTJAel.lcXxC? T';V I.IV1lOT1lPOKTovlav, a:JV.' ovSl;v ftaaov Kai Sla TooV lTpaKTIKOOV aVTiKa SI1lYEiTal. eOTI Se Tij "Hpc;t, el Kai 1.1'; vVv TEplTVcX, aM' ovv yE xapas lTEPllTOI1lTIKa Ta AeYOlJEva. lTEaeiv SI; els Tas vaus 6.vTi TOU Se1l6iival 1>.XIMeCtJs, oos q>QI.IEV '�VelTEC7EV Eis Tas XEipcXs aov· . olKTIl;ETal SI; Ka\ TOV "EKTopa [T, IaplT1lSova b et Erbse] KplVCtJv avv Tij 'lAIC? alToAeia6al. lTo6ev SI; SiiAov, El l.IeTa 6cXvaTOV 1>.XIMeCtJS yey6vaal TpolTal; TO Te 1>.e"val1lS, �lTEi avv 'ElTElC;> TC)v T1T1TOV �lTOi1laE. lTPOS SI; TOVTOIS lTapal.lV6eiTal TOV aKp0CXT1'\v, Tftv aACtJalv Tpolas aKlaypaq>OOv aVTc;>· Tls yap av 1')vEC7)(eTo �l.IlTIlTpal.leVCtJv TooV 'EM1lVIKoov VEooV Ka\ AiavTOS qleVyoVTos, El 1.1'; aneKEITo Tais IfIvXaiS TooV WrV)'xav6VTCtJV eTI 01 TaVTa lTpcX�VTes KpaT1le,;aoVTal; &h.

n. 1 5.56b

22 lines are athetised a.� superfluous and becau.�e they necessarily displea.�e Hera and because it i� not true that the Trojan� raid the ships of Achille s. And if Zeus ha.� decided that Sarpedon should fall , why does he mourn? And the counterattack is not accurately portrayed: from the moment that Achilles turn.� to the battle, the Greeks do not turn back. And it is written 'through the thinking of Athena': why not 'of Hera', who is after all pre­ sent. The device is a proanakephalaiosis [proleptic summary]; similarly Odys­ seu.� gives Telemachus a prolepsis of the killing of the suitors, which is nev­ ertheless narrated immediately afterward� by means of a scenic presentation [sc. a.� opposed to Odysseus' narrative presentation] . Even if the speech i� not joyful for Hera at the moment, it does create joy. 'Falling into the ships' should be understood a.� begging Achilles, as when we say 'one fall.� in your hands'. He [Zeus] lamented Hector, ruling that he [ Hector] would perim together with Troy. Where can we then detect the turning point of the war after Achille s' death? By the mention of the deliberatiom of Athene, who built the wooden horse with Epeios. In addition, he [sc. Homer] comforts the reader by sketching for him the sack of Troy. For who could have borne it, with the Greek ships being burnt and Ajax fleeing, unless the fact would have been kept in store for the readers' souls that the people who had done it [sc. the Trojam] will be defeated. (transl. partially Niinlist 2009, 37) As

with the other bT -scholia on the atheteses, the author of this scholion47 first provides rea�on� which support the atheteses. Here he draws not ju.�t on the known Aristonicus and Didymu.� but ha� other sources at his disposal. Subsequendy the atheteses are refuted. Here too we may assume that there existed a philological tradition which he 47 On thi� scholion cp. Hill er 1 869, 1 02--4; Erbse, 1 953, 3; Nannini 1 986, 38; Liihrs 1 992, 1 29-3 1 ; Niinli�t 2009, 37-8.

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia..[

155

on. 4" It appears as if the author is presenting the transmitted counterargurnents and adopts them until he arrives at his own argument: the encouragement of the li�teners through the disputed verses. In an­ other scholion the author proceed� in a similar manner; at the end ap­ pears the poet's concern about the listener:

dra ws

(1 1 8) Kai li lTpoAlllll l S 5e O"Xii lla lTOlllTIKOV' lTpOOeKTIKOV 5e TaiiTa TOV aKpoaTliv Kai lTEpl1Ta6eaTepov alTEpyCx�ETal. Sch. n. 15.610-4b' And a prolepsis is a poetic device. It renders the reader attentive and emo­ tionally Dlore engaged. (tran sl. Niinli.t 2009, 37)

Thi� is valid in a similar way for two other scholia: ( 1 19) avaKeopaAaic.>olS cxVTll. KaKws OIN a6eTei fl.piaTapxoS·lTWS y6:p OUK OT01TOV T6: IlEV 1TEpi TOO YCxIlOV 1TaAalCx TE OVTa Kai 1TaOI 5ijAa Aeyelv, OIc.>lTav 5E 51' o 1'\Aeev; Sch. n. 1 8.444-56b This [is] a summary . And Aristarchus, therefore, atheti..es it with no rea.on. For how is it not absurd [for Theti..] to say the things about the marriage , which are old and known to all, but to pass over in silence why she ha.. come? (transl. Niinlist 2009, 46) (1 20) PllTOPIKOS WV 0 lTOlllTf)S Kai TPOlTOV avaKeopaAaloooEc.>S �ovA6llevos 516Cx�al lillas TaVTCx lTCxAIV E� apxijs 511lyeiTal. $ch. n. 1 .366a A rhethorical master, the poet aims to teach u. the rhetorical device of the recapitulation and tells us the same story from the beginning ."

Sch. n. 1 2 . 1 79-80 (see scho!. [191) probably al�o belongs to the refuta­ tion of the atheteses on 1 2 . Not all of the approximately 4 0 refutation.� o f the atheteses that appear in the scholia can be congruent. But their main-and common---thrust is ultimately against Aristarchus. A� already suggested by Hiller 1 869, 5<1 I want to attribute them to one author. 51 They often share the following 48 49 50 51

SeleucllS i. quoted in Sch. n. 24.476 On avaKecpcxAalc..)(Jl S see Niin1ist 2009, 45 n. 75 and 76. He proposes to identifY him a. . PillS (Hill er 1 869, 94ff.). Liilm opposes Hiller (1 992. 268ff.. esp. 269, n. 376. where I am unju.tly u.ed to provide King's evidence; cC Schmidt 1 976, 20). He wants to distinguish the content of four conunentaries which refer back to Aristarchu.' atheteses. This is

1 56

Martin Schmidt

two characteristics: first the interdependence between justification and contestation of the atheteses,52 second the argumentation i.� continued in the subsequent scholia which treat the atheti.�ed versesY The latter can only be explained by the fact that both originate from one commentary: the collected refutation of the atheseses in one scholion, and the scholia on the single verses. Another question remains whether this author is Pius. This is improbable on the basis of the manner of citation in the scholia. 54 But the issue of the author's identity has to be separate from the unity of these scholia. 55 Beyond this, the refutations of the atheteses also reveal a lively and polemic author, who describes the Aristarchean position as 'ridiculous' (YEi\OIOTaTOV : Sch. n. 1 2 . 1 75) or as held by somebody 'cuckoo' (E11!3POVTTJTOI : Sch. n. 24. 6-9b) . 6.2. Everyday Life

In these scholia the poet i.� repeatedly praised for the life-like nature of hi.� depictions. For instance, the author describes him as 111110Vl1EVOS T1)V 6i\"eElav in scholion (45) , or, in scholion (55) he creates a genre-scene that aims to engender empathy for the protagonist. It thus appears likely that a larger group of scholia which focus on Homer's realism belong to this author. Reference to the scholia on the encounter between Hector, Andrornache and the young Astyanax presents a paradigmatic case: Sch. n. 6.401 ; 6.405; 6.450-54b; 6.467; 6.474.

52

53

54

much too pedantic since we cannot expect of the other atheteses to be free of any contradictions In contrast to Hill er 1 B69, 96, Liihrs 1 992, 269 n. 376, disputes this conclu.�on which is based on the interdependency of the scholia: According to him only three reports in the scholia (Sch. fl. 1 .366, 1 5.56b und 1B.444-56b) can 'go back to the same author' (Liihrs 1 992, 1 3 1 ) . Thus the argunlent again.t the atheteses from Sch. fl . 1 5.56b i s continued in the scholia on fl. 1 5 .56-77: in Sch. fl. 1 5.56e, 5B, 63, 64e, 69-70a, 70, 7 1 e, 73 and 77b. Similarly, the argument against Aristarchm's atheteses of the verses fl. 1 2 . 1 75--81 which i. found in its main parts in Sch. fl. 1 2 . 1 75--8 1 b is continued in the scholia 177-7Ba, 177-7Bb, 1 79-BO (?) and 1 B 1 . The account of the counterarguments to the atheteses begins in Seh. fl. 1 2 . 1 75B 1 b with the sentence: TTios CrrroAOYOVIlEVOS 1rpOS Tas a6E-rrl <J E1S )\plaTO:pXOV Tav-ro: 'P11<J1V eTl . . . This does not suppon the argunlent that the compilation of the reasons for the atheteses in SelJ. 12.1 75--B 1 a i. aim from Pius. But the two scholia are from the same author who, as in other section., also quotes a conunentary by Pius. On this point also Hiller's argument is more convincing than both the DI'..'P and the LGGA (s.v. Pius) assen with reference to Liihrs. .

55

Portr.lit of an Unknown Scholia.\t

157

(1 21) (The young Astyanax is frightened by his father's helmet) TcriiTa Se Ta �1TT) OlrrOO S to'T\V tvapyelas I.IEO'Ta, C)Tt OV 1.16vov aKOVETal Ta 1TpaYl.laTa, l:iJ\Aa Ka\ 0pCXTal. �aj3Wv Se TOVTO tK Toii j3lov 0 1TOIT)-n;S CrKPOOS mplEyevETo Tij 1.I11.11lCJEI. &h. n. 6.467 These lines are so full of graphic quality that the events are not only heard [i.e. read] but al\O seen. Taking this from life, the poet succeeded brilli andy with his representation. (traosl. NiinIi\t 2009, 1 53 and 1 90)

(122)

(Hector removes his helmet, kisses his son and takes him in his arms) CrKPOOS Se mplEyevETo Tij 1.I11.11lCJEI ovSev TI �V1T1laas -n;v t')pOOIKT)V aEl.lv6TT)Ta. &h. n. 6.474 The poet succeeded brilliandy with the representation and does in no way diminish heroic dignity.

'It is remarkable that several of these notes involve divine characters.'56 6.3. Didactic Explanations;7

Many scholia contain a reference to the poet's didactic or pedagogical intentions. sH These are at times closely linked to those which are com­ piled in chapter one and two.

(123)

"EAAl1V WV Kal aya6a cppovoov Tiis els 6eous tAnlSos ovSenoTE acplOTaTal. nalSEVTIKol Se 01 Myol. &h. n. H.242a' As a Greek and with good thoughts, he [sc. Agan1emnon] never abandons

his faith in the god�. The word� are didactic.

CC sch. (1 1 9) .

(124)

TO cplA60T0pyov aVToO tvSelKVVTal' ov yap Vrre p �aVToO, aAA ' Vrre p TOOV haipwv SeSoIKE. nalSEVTIKOS Se 6 MyoS. &h. n. 1 2.334a

56 Niinli\t 2009, 1 90 n. 1 8. 57 I adopt thi\ tenninology from Liihn 1 992, 58, who rightly criticizes my cate­ gory 'moralische AusJegung' (ScJunidt 1 976, 57£). 58 C£ Dittenberger 1 905, 466£; von Franz 1 940, 1 10-17.

1 5H

Martin Schmidt

He portrays the affection [se. of Menestheu. toward. his people] . For he does not fear for him..elfbut for his comrades. Thm the word. are didactic.

7. The Scholiast or 'what's the point'? In my opinion, most of these scholia and hundred� more, stem from the same author, namely our scholiast. Hut certainly not all . Only rarely is there definite proof that two or more scholia belong to the same au­ tho r--as where he references himself (e.g. in sch. (41), or when the wording of two scholia is almost identical (e.g. in sch. [91 and [1 01 or in sch. [301 and (311). Is all this just a philological game? Of course, it i� also a game. Hut ideally this exploration al�o might produce some in�ight. If the different aspects of the ancient Homeric scholarship can be successfully attributed to one and the same individual, then we will be closer to the readers or listeners of Homer in late antiquity. We could then understand what was, after all, still so interesting about this poem, which was already 1 000 years old at the time. The search for concrete detail� about the scholiast's person is bound to fail. However, his texts allow us, at least, to produce an abstract, but imtructive portrait of him: He i� an early narratologi�t who is highly familiar with Homeric scholarship. He is still engaged with Aristarchus. He i� a pious man believing in the just order of a monarchy, even if he loves freedom of speech. 5') To him , to be Greek i� a measure of morality; this delimit� hi� ani­ mosity toward� barbarian�. Most likely he lived in the 3rd or 4th century AD, maybe in Rome or Athem; there is nothing to suggest Egypt-his commentary has left no trace in the scholia on papyri that are found in Egypt so far.

59 Sch. fl. 1 2.21 5a: Ta 6� 'EM1)V1Ka lTA1)alov 61)�OKpClTlas, Kal lTapp1)ala lToM" TOIS "ye�60"l (,Greek circumstances are close to democracy and there is much freedom of speech for the leaders').

Homeric Commentaries on Papyrus: A Survey

·

John Lundon If the nwnerous and sometimes extensive fragment� of secondary litera­ ture unearthed over the last few centuries are anything to go by, readers of Homer in the capital�, towns and villages of Graeco-Roman Egypt were well provided with books for the understanding and appreciation of the poet. Such texts, often referred to as Homerica, can be di�tin­ gui�hed into several types. ! There are sequential glossaries (scholia minora) and alphabetical lexica, continuous paraphrases and book summaries (hypotheseis) , commentaries (hypomnemata), both general and mytho­ graphic (Mythographus Homericus), as well as learned monographic trea­ ti�es (syngrammata) . Certain combinations are also attested, such as book swnmaries and glossaries/ and of course not everything that has been found can be conveniendy squeezed into one of these categories.3 Within the general types, moreover, there i� a degree of variation.4 In what follows, I shall be concerned with one of these types: the independent commentary.5 After a di�cussion of some general questions •

2

3

4

5

Papyrological abbreviation.• and sigIa are in accordance with Oates I Bagnall I Clackson I O'Brien I Sosin I Wilfong I Worp 2008. C( Montanari 1 984, 1 25-38 and 1 988, 337-44. Scholia minora with hypotheseis: P.Achm. 2, P. Oxy. XLIV 31 59, P. Oxy. XLIV 3 1 60 + P. Strasb. inv. Gr. 1401 , P. Oxy. LVI 3833. Whether the surrunaIj' of fl­ iad 1 in P. Oxy. LXXI 48 1 7 was followed by a glossary cannot be determined. Several of the texts di.cu'••ed by van Rossum-Steenbeek 1 997, 991-95 (P. Strasb. inv. Gr. 2374, P.Hamb. 11 1 36, PJena inv. 659r, P.Bry/l Mawr 2 and P.1Wich. inv. 4832c) present problem.. of classification, due, however, at least in part to their fragmentary state of preservation. The class of schoiw minora ranges from full-scale glossaries to one or more books of the poems (e.g. P.Amh. 11 1 8; P.Aphrod. Lit. II = Foumet 1 999, vo\. 1 , 871 73; P. Kiiin inv. 2281 = Henrich.. 1 97 1 , 229-52; P.Mich. inv. 2720 = Schwendner 1 988, 3 1 -98) to Ii.t of word. from a particular pa."uge such as some of the school texts catalogued by Cribiore 1 99-1 988, I, 253-258 (Nos. 323-343). In addition to fragments of independent conmlentaries, Erbse at.o included in his edition of the scholia to the flwd the marginal annotation. found in the fol-

1 60

JOM Lundon

and especially problem� of identification, I go on to con�ider a few of the most significant fragments in slightly more detail. (, Since the bulk of the critical and exegetical scholia transmitted in the margins of the me­ dieval manuscripts ultimately derives from such commentaries, these are apt, even in their incomplete state, to shed con�iderable light on the origins and development of the scholarly tradition. 7 The fragments of commentaries on Homer span six centuries, rang­ ing from the third century BC to the third or fourth century AD, or, in historico-political term�, from the early Ptolemaic age (305-30 BC) to the threshold of the Byzantine period (AD 284-641). There is an ex­ pected peak in the prosperous and literate second century AD. H As far a� their provenance is concerned, the metropolis Oxyrhynchus comes off best.9 That i� of course in part a matter of chance, but it is nonetheless strongly suggestive of a community of scholars in residence there with close ties to the Museum in Alexandria . llt When the fragments of uncertain attribution are left out of account, actual commentaries on Homer, though well represented, turn out to be

6 7

8 9 10

lowing papyri: P.Hawara (= Pap. I: Erbse 1 969-1 988, I, XXXIV-XXXV and 1 63), P. Oxy. III 445 (= Pap. IV: Erose 1 969-1 988, I, XXXVI I-XXXVI I I and 1 969-1 988, 11, 1 23), P.lO/n I 34 (= Pap. VIII": Erose 1 969-1 988, Ill, 555556), P. Oxy. IV 685 (= Pap. XI: Erose 1 969-1 988, I, XLI and 1 969-1 988, IV, 326) and P. Lond. Lit. 27 (= Pap. XIII: Erbse 1 969-1 988, I, XLII-XLIII and 1 969-1 988, V, 363-364). The marginalia in these and other Homeric papyri are now conveniently collected in McNamee 2007, 269-86. Though perhaps originally drawn from commentaries, these annotation� and those in other Homeric papyri do not constitute hypomnemata in the strict sense and will therefore not be dealt with here. On the two clas.�es of material, see van Thiel 1 989, 9-26, in part. 9-1 0 and 24-6, who sees in them the sources of distinct components of the scholia in the Riad manuscripu A and T. For an earlier survey and study of the technical terminology of conunentaries on the Riad, cf. Lamedica Nardi 1 977. The following publications attest a recent awakening of interest in commentar­ ies both ancient and modem: Most 1 999, Gouiet-Caze 2000 (cC. esp. the con­ tribution by Dorandi), Gibson-Krau� 2002, Andorlini 2003, Papathomas 2003, AvezzU-Scattolin 2006. CC. al�o the earlier discu�ions of the specifically papy­ rological material by Del Fabbro 1 979 and Turner 1 962 and 1 980, 97-126. Maehler 1 994 deal� with the relation of the scholia in the medieval manu�cripts to ancient commentaries and marginal annotation�. For the chronological di�tribution of Homeric commentaries on papyrus, see Chart 1 in the Appendix. For the provenance of Homeric commentaries on papyru�, see Chart 3 in the Appendix. Cc. Turner 1 952, 9 1 -3 and 1 956, 1 42-3; Bowman 2007, 1 77-9; Parson� 2007, 264; Obbink 2007, 273, 279-80; Epp 2007, 324-5.

Homeric Commentaries on Papyrus

161

fewer than the comprehensive lists might a t first suggest. l I Twenty-one have been publi�hed to date.12 Predictably commentaries on the mad outnumber those on the Odyssey,13 fourteen of the former, seven of the latter having seen the light. Nonetheless, commentaries on the Odyssey are all but lacking in importance. P. Oxy. LlII 37 1 0, for example, bears a substantial piece of a learned hypomnema on book twenty, and P. Lille inv. 83+ 1 34+93b+93a+ 1 1 4t+ 1 1 40+87, assigned to the third century BC and thus probably the earliest commentary on Homer preserved, al�o relates to the Odyssey. Thirteen or fourteen book� of the mad and eight or nine of the Odyssey are covered in stretches by the surviving commentaries, book 4 of the fliad by two: P. Daris inv. 1 1 8 (= Erbse Pap. Ha) and P. Ryl. I 24 ( = Erbse Pap. I I I).1 4 Incomplete state of preservation makes it at times extremely difficult, occasionally even impossible, to detennine whether a given fragment, or group of fragments, should be assigned to a commentary on Homer or not.15 Sometimes pieces have been considered Homer commentaries on the flimsiest of ground� and in the teeth of evidence to the contrary. A Berlin papyru.�, for example, published as P. Turner 1 2, was assigned by it� first editor to this class on the mere basis of a marginal sign presumed to stand for TTO(I'I1-niS) , or 6 TT(OI'l1-niS) , that i� the poet KaT' E�OX";V, Homer.l(' Thi� attribution was convincingly chall enged by Franco Mon­ tanari in a note publi�hed shortly after the appearance of the first edi­ tion.17 A� Montanari pointed out, the sign for the poet as speaker occurs

11

12

13 14

15

16 17

Lists: Del Fabbro 1 979, 1 29; Erbse 1 969-1 9BB, I, XXX IV-XLIV; and Lundon 2001 , B27 n. 5, from which Mes.seri Savorelli-Pintaudi 2002, 39 n. 1 derives. C[ also West 200 1 , 1 29-36. See the Table of Homeric conunentaries in the Appendix. This figure includes only published papyri which can be identified with certainty or near certainty as deriving from conunentaries on Homer. Papyri probably coming from the same conunentary (p' Oxy. LXV 4451 and VIII 1 0B6, PSI XV 1 464 and P. Oxy. LXXI 4B21) count as one. For the relative number and chronological distribution of mad and Odyssey conunentaries see Chart 2 in the Appendix. Book.s 1 , 2, 3/6, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 1 1 , 1 4, 17, 1 9, 2 1 of the mad; books 3, 4/17, 1 1 , 12, I S , 1 6, 17, 20, 21 of the Odyssey. Thi.s is, however, not always the case: P. Oxy. XXIV 2397 (= Erbse Pap. X), though fragmentary to the point of contributing almost nothing, seems clearly recognizable as a commentary on mad 17. The sign is placed opposite 1. 20 of col. 11. Montanari 1 9B3, 2 1 --4.

1 62

John Lundon

in the margins of Homeric papyri.1 H In conunentaries and other works on Homer, on the contrary, it is found within the explanation.� . l'J More­ over, the sign may not be a speaker indication at all, but a stichometrical letter recording the number of lines copied to that point.2<' At other times the reasons are slightly stronger, but certain identifi­ cation still fur out of reach. The first editor of a thin strip of papyru� now in Aberdeen (P.Aberd. 1 1 9) discerned the names of Odysseu.� in line 4 and Athena in line 7 and suggested it might be 'part of a com­ mentary on the Homeric poem�'. 21 The blank spaces of one line be­ tween lines 1 and 2 and of two lines between lines 10 and 1 1 perhaps al�o support the idea. These suggest that the text was articulated, and textual articulation i� a feature characteri�tic of commentaries.22 Again, in one of the Egypt Exploration Society's leftovers from the Fayum published by Revel Coles and known as P.Fay. Coles 2,2.1 possible references to an Ari�tarchus in two places (col. II 21 and 31), a 516p6CAJO"\S in two others (col. II 27 and 34)24 and Odysseu.�' visit to the underworld (col. II 38-41) in yet another, allowed a strong case to be

18

19

20

21 22

23 24

Spooner 2002, 1 7 1-178 (Appendix 3: 'Homeric Papyri with Speaker lndica­ tiom') , lists eleven papyri containing such speaker names in their margins. A thorough study of the subject has recently been made by Azzarello 2008. CC e.g. P. Daris inv. 1 18 III 18 (commentary on n. 4) and P. Oxy. XLIV 3206 (Homeric Lexicon). See further Del Fabbro 1 979, 90 and Turner-Parsons 1 987, No. 73. On stichometry in general, see Obly 1 928 and Tumer-Parson. 1 987, 16 with n. 93. On stichometrical letters in Homeric papyri, of which however P. Turner 1 2 is clearly not one, see now Azzarello 2007, esp. 1 09-- 1 1 . Cf. Wimtedt 1 907, 261 . I n the introduction to P.Aberd. 1 1 9 Tumer prudently leaves the question of identification open. Normally, however, the spaces are left within and not between the lines. There is also a blank space after the last line (I. 1 5 ) , but this may belong to the original lower margin. What at first sight resembles a dicolon in line 8 i. probably a damaged iota and is so transcribed by Tumer. Dicola are, however, sometimes med in commentaries a. separators; cf e.g. P. Oxy. VI 856 (= Tume.-Parsons 1 987, No. 73) and XXV 2429. Coles 1 970, 248-5 1 , with photographic reproduction in Plate XlI a. CC L'iJ s.v. III: 'recension, revi.ed edition of a work'. The tenn i. sometimes applied to Ari,tarchu.,' text of Homer in the scholia (cC A on n. 2.865 [Did.) and 17.21411 [Nic.)) and figures in the title of a work by Didymm referred to in the subscriptiom to the books of the lliad in the Venerm A manuscript (Ta t.1SV�OV n Epl Tii s Jl\P10'TapxEiov SlOpewaEws). For an attempt to detemline the exact meaning of the word in connection with Aristarchean scholarship, see Erbse 1 959, esp. 286-9.

Homeric COllunentaries on Papyru.'

1 63

made for a commentary on Homer25. Hut, a� the editor did not fail to observe, the Aristarchus referred to might just a� well be the astronomer from Samos and not the renowned Alexandrian scholar from Samothrace.2(, Curiously enough, Ari.�tarchus of Samos, the a�tronomer, does in fact turn up in a hypomnema on the twentieth book of the Odys­ sey as one of the authorities quoted in an 'astronomical disqui�ition',27 so not even his name here would suffic e to rule out the pos.�ibility of a commentary. In the scanty remains of these three papyri (P. Turner 1 2 , P.Aberd. 1 1 9 and P.Fay. Coles 2) , no Homeric forms occurred for certain. Hut even when word� and phrases are quoted from Homer, the exact nature of the work from which the fragments derive is not always immediately clear. In particular, there is sometimes no way of telling fragments of commentaries (hypomnemata) and fragments of treati�es (syngrammata) apart, since both classes share important features, and the differences between them are easily obscured by damage. Does a piece belonging to the collection of the Catholic University in Milan (P.Med. inv. 7 1 . 82) , for example, come from a commentary on Homer or a treatise on Mount Olympu�?2H Quotation of a series of epi­ thets applied in the Diad to Mount Olympus, together with technical tenn� of exegesi�, blank spaces and paragraphoi, would admit one or the other alternative.2'J The apparent absence of lemmata proper, however, 25 Further clues might include aKov!>JY meaning 'take a word in a particular seJue', 'intetpret' (col. II 3 1 ) , an (articulating?) blank space of one letter (col. II 36) and a paragraplws under I. 3 1 . For �ovoo in the meaning of 'intetpret, take, understand in a given sen,e' in another connnentary on Homer, c( �ov
1 64

JOM Lundon

and the monographic character of the subject matter" would seem to tip the balance in favour of a treati.�e. The Milan papyrus seems to preserve no actual lemmata: no words, phra.�es and verses drawn from the work commented on and keying the commentary to a separate copy of the text. But the survival of a lemma is in itself no sure sign of a commentary, either. Take an early Hamburg papyrus (P.Hamb. 11 1 36) , dated palaeographically to the first half of the third century BC and labelled by its first editor a 'Hypomnema zu Homer' (with a question mark) . Here verses 1 01-9 from the second book of the Riad, on Agamemnon's sceptre, are followed by a discussion in prose containing a verse quotation.31 Whether this fragment wa� part of a commentary or a treatise or some other kind of work, such as an anthology, cannot easily be determined.32 Again, when the lemma oc­ curs more than once in the Homeric poems, as in P. Berol. 9960 (n. 3.59 = 6.333) , it is impos.�ible to tell which of the boob may have been the subject of the commentary or discussion.33

1 983. 16 n. 1 2). EISIKloos (1. 10; cfr. Funghi 1 983. 16 n. 1 2) . hn6E.[T- (1. 1 6; cfr. Funghi 1 983. 16 n. 1 2) . nor.aEOOS (1. 22; c( n. 5...(, : [noTil l aEoos) . [a]wil!cpaalv (1. 26). [6:] 1 [n]oSEIKTIKOO[S] (11. 28-29) . Paragraphoi survive under n. 3. 17 and 26. These are accompanied by bJank.� in n. 3 and 26. The paragra­ phos in 1. 26 and the blanks were first noticed by Funghi 1 983, 16. 30 P.Bmx. Inv . E. 7 1 62 aL�o perhaps preserves part of a treati.�e on Mount Olym­ pus; c( Funghi 1 983 and Montanari 2001a. The question whether 'O;\vl!nOS i� the same as o\Jpavos i� already discussed in col. XII of the Derveni papyrus; c( Schironi 2001 . who mentions the Milan and Brussels pieces in n. 8 (p. 1 1) and n. 29 (p. 1 4) . Though the two papyri are later, it cannot be ruled out that they derive from now lost ancient sources. 31 P.Hamb. II 1 36 . 1 0-20 (c( Nachtergael 1 97 1 , 344-9): [± 1 2] EO'TIv �v TOI! � [aIMa? 1 [± 1 1 n]poTETayl!ivov UaTlv? 1 [± 1 2] �! TO\JTOIS EOpla�o�[v 1 [± 10 'OS] vafi<;l �n'E'1 O\JK 'QSvaaEIvs 1 [± 1 2] vos a\JyK;\Tl'Y Ka;\[ 1 15 [± 1 1 I!]� a(J[T] g KaTeX -niv 'Q� [vaaElav? 1 [± 1 2] � lacpopav �. � aXEv a[ 1 [± 1 2] T9VT9VTJTOvl;oo[ 1 [± 1 2] �'11] . . . VEI!"Y£ 1 [± 1 2]vnapaI 1 [± 1 5] . [. Further supplements hitherto proposed: 1 2 EOpla\
Homeric Commentaries on Papyrus

1 65

Where two or more lemmata survive, however, we are on finner ground and it i� nonnally possible to assign a fragnlent to one or the other class with a certain degree of confidence, though strictness of defi­ nition will aho come into play in such cases. An Oxyrhynchus papyrus publi�hed a few years ago (P. Oxy. LXV 4453) well illustrates the point. Of the three, or four, fragments composing the papyrus,"" fr. 1 discusses lines from the first book of the Odyssey, frr. 2 and 3 lines from the fourth.35 Such a di�tance between the pa�sages selected for analysis, in conjunction with the fact that the problem di�clL�sed appears to be the same or sinlllar in each instance,3/', points more towards a treatise than a commentary in the standard sense, a� the editor of the text is only too well aware.37 Deviation of the order of the lemmata from the sequence of the Homeric text too can provide a deci�ive clue in the same direction. Thi� i� one of the reasons why P.Med. inv. 2 1 0 should probably not be con­ sidered a commentary.3I< In the first column, verse 387 from book 1 1 of the Odyssey i� quoted in lines 2-3, verse 390 in lines 4-6 and verse 392 in lines 6-8, but then, in lines 1 0-1 2, the author sprang back to verses 90-91 apparently to begin a new section. Another Milan papyrus (P.Mii. Vogl. I 1 9 Erbse Pap . IX) preserves only the subscriptio of a =

34 Fr. 4 appears to be written in a different hand; cf. P. Oxy. LXV 4453 ad loco (p. 53). 35 P. Oxy. LXV 4453 fr. 1: Od. 1 . 1 03, 1 04, -1 06-1 07, 1 1 3-- 1 1 4 ; fr. 2: Od. 4.625; fr. 3: Od. 4.670-672. 36 Cf. fr. 1 . 1 If. n.: 'What appears to be at issue is the topography, or more pre­ cisely the relation between the characters' whereabouts and the components of Odysseus' house'. 37 Cf. P.Oxy. LXV 4453 Introd., 45 and Montanari 200ta, 973 n. 8. To judge from subject-matter, scope and arrangement of the topic.s discussed, P. Nic. inv. 72, P. Oxy. XXXIX 2RRR and P.Mich. XVIII 760, though apparently contain­ ing no actual lenunata, may also be fragments of treatises on specific aspects of the Homeric poems. Luppe 2002 draws attention to a certain affini ty between the la.st two and suggests (52) that they might come from different copies of the same work on the wanderings of Odys.seus. The first he defines a 'geographische Abhandlung iiber die Umgebung von Troja' (Luppe 2000, 238), whereas Trachsel-Schubert 1 999, 236-37 had referred it, in their re­ edition of the papyrus, to the Mythographus Homcricus. 3R First edition: Stra.ssi 1 97R; republished by Ba.stianini and Funghi a.s CPF I. 1 30 (Chrysippu.s) ST. Doubt as to Strassi's identification was expressed early on by Apthorp 1 9R 1 , 2 n. 6. In his survey of Odyssey commentaries in the introduc­ tion to P. Oxy. LIII 37 1 0 (p. 91), Haslam suggests that the fragment might come from a discussion of the soul and proposes reading XpV] I a[t] 1TTIo s At[yst at 11 12. P.Brnx. inv. E. 7 1 62 is also of interest as regards the sequence of the Homeric verses cited; cf. Funghi 1 9R3 and Montanari 200lb.

1 66

John Lundon

work by Apollodorus of Athens on Iliad 14, but the title �1rn'UJCXTa ypa�I.ICXT1K6 better suits a treatise than a commentary ?! Finally, there is a Michigan Papyrus (P.Mich. inv. 3688 Erose Pap. XIV), first published by Henrichs in 1 969, that is worthy of note in connection with problems of identification. Here it was uncertain whether the piece preserved part of a commentary on Homer, in which Callimachus was cited, or part of a commentary on Callimachus plain and simple. 4<> While the name of Callimachus is twice mentioned in the papyrm and verses from Aetia I are paraphrased and quoted, 41 most of the explanations given of the word under discussion, 6�lXeaA6ecrcrav, seemed at first to fit the lliadic context of an island (n. 24.753) better than the Callimachean one of the air (fr. 1 8.8 pf).42 Moreover, the Homeric scholia cite none other than Callimachus in a note on the meanings of the wordY The question, however, has since been decided in favour of a commentary on Callimachus, and a revi�ed edition of the papyrm has appeared as Supplementum Hellenisticum 25 1 .44 Turning now to Homer commentaries proper, the category reveal� itself to some extent a mixed bag, its members exhibiting at times con­ siderable differences. While many are penned in more or less rapid =

39 The text as reconstructed in the first edition runs a.� follows: )'\noM05w.e[ ov] I l'\6T]valov I ypa��crr l K [O(j] I ZTrn\�aT[a] I ytXl�I;l(XTl\<[c'x] I [ells T["V] � I Tiis 'I lA] tc'x5[oS] I aooavov. The last word of the subscription may stand for Ioocrlov and be the name of one of the boobellers alluded to by Horace at Eputles 1 .20.2 and 2.3.345 (A� poetical; ef. Bickennan 1 944, 34Cl-41 with n. 8, Turner 1 968, 51 and Erbse 1 969-1 988, Ill, 558, who had earlier ( 1 969-1988, I, XL) suggested that it might refer to the scribe or owner of the work. For the possi­ bility that Iooavov L� the nanle of the scribe or owner, cf. also P.Mil. VogI. 1 9 ad loc. 40 Cf. Henrich� 1 969, 24: 'Ob der Text des Michigan-Papyru.� ein Konunentar zu 11. 24.753 ist, in dem wie im Scho\. AT Kallimachos :zitiert wird, oder ob er ein regelrechter KOItilllentar zu Kallimachos i�t, l"st sieh nicht entscheiden'. 41 In 11. 9 ( KaMq �axos) and 29, Callimachus is mentioned; in 11. 1-4, fr. 18.(,-8 Pf. paraphrased; and in 11. 1 3-16, fr. 1 7.8-1 0 quoted. 42 fl. 24.753: �S Ic'x�ov �S T' '1�!3pov Kal l\fjuvov c'xUlx6aMeaaav; Call . fr. 18.8 Pf.: et Kev clluxllaMeaaav cm' W VTjOS �Ac'xaa1JS. Explanations: 5vcnrpoa6p�la[TOv (3) , 5vcnr[poaop�laTov (6 ) , TTjv] �" npoa!3I!3[aaTov, 5va!3c'xToos (23) , 5vcnrpoa[6p�laTOS (24) , 5va�ly"S (25) , but 6�lXAIW5T] (27) . The word evidently under discu...�ion il�elf occurs in 11. 9 (illilllediately after the mention of Callimachus: KaMl]�axos c'x�lx[6aA6eaaav), 22 (Cx�lxl6aA6eaaa) and 26 (Cx�1[x6aMeaaav) . 43 Sell . T on fl. 24.753a. For the employment of Calli machu� as a parallel in the Homeric scholia, cf. Montanan 1 979, 1 6 1 -1 62 and n. 1 6. 44 Cf. Erbse 1 969-1988, I, XLIII; 1 969-1 988, 11, 547; 1 969-1 988, V, 509; and Uoyd-Jones-Parsoll.� 1 983, 95-97.

Homeric COllunentaries on Papyru.'

1 67

semicunives, 4S more fonnal scripts abo make an appearance. A couple of instances come inunediately to mind. One is a papyrus now in Gies.\en (P. land. 1 2 = P. Ciss. Lit. 2 . 8 = Erbse Pap. Vlll) , which contains a frag­ ment of a commentary on the eleventh book of the mad written in a medium-sized, upright, decorated, late first-century-BC bookhand akin to the so-called 'epsilon-theta' style. 46 The other is the substantial piece of a commentary on the twentieth book of the Odyssey (P. OX)'. Llll 3710) , copied in a second-to-third-cenrury-AD libraria by the same pro­ fes.\ional scribe responsible for a number of other literary texts found at Oxyrhynchus (Scribe #A5) . 47 In both cases, the distribution of the text is appropriately generous, and it may be that these commentaries were meant to achieve a less provi.\ional status. 4H Completeness of coverage and depth of analysi\ likewise vary some­ what from commentary to commentary. At one end of the spectrum there are fairly systematic, though never exhaustive, treatments of the text under discus.\ion. 49 At the other, there are sets of notes on word\, phrases or pas.\3ges separated by a number, and sometimes a great num­ ber, of verses. PSI XV 1464,5<' for instance, skips in one case from Odys­ sey 1 2 . 1 24 to 1 78, though there is plenty of material for comment in 45 46

47

48

49

P.Daris inv. 1 1 8 provides an example of a conunentary on Homer traced in an especially rapid hand. On this style of handwriting see Cavallo 1 974 and 1 991 , 1 5-16, 29. The com­ mentary continues on the ,,"so in a much les., fonnal hand. Perhaps the end of the roll had been reached and for some rea'on a person different from the original scribe wrote the remaining part of the work on the other side. Or per­ haps the final section of the roll had broken off and the owner decided to copy the teXt of the detached part on the back of the main piece. Another Homer conunentary continuing on the verso is P.LilIe inv. 83+ 1 34+93b+93a+ 1 1 4t+ 1 1 40+87 di,cu\Sed below. Four damaged lines on the back of BKT # seem to contain an additional note to the conunentary on niad 5 written on its front. For the teXt, copied by thi, scribe cf. Turner 1 956, 1 44, 1 46; Kriiger 1 990, 1 93; Funghi-Messeri Savorelli 1 992, 75-79; Johnson 2004, 20-2 1 , 6 1 ; Parsons 2007, 265. BKT #, P. Oxy. LXV 4452, PSI XV 1 464, P. Oxy. LXXI 4821 and P.Fay. 3 1 2 (fully publimed in HaWn-Montanari 1 983) are al,o written in literary hand,. On the fonnal characteristics of stable conunentaries cf. Messeri-Pintaudi 2002, 42-43. Examples: P. Oxy. 11 221 and VIII 1 086. On the more or les., exhau,tive cover­ age of surviving (Homeric) conunentaries cf. McNamee 1 995, 400 n. 3 and 405 n. 1 5 : ·P. Oxy. VIII 1 086 . . . though detailed and learned, i, not a full treatment of the text .. . . In an article to appear in ZPE I attempt to show that P. Oxy. LXXI 4821 and PSI XV 1 464 come from the same commentary and, on this basi" to recon­ struct the latter. '

50

1 68

JOM Lundon

between. Examples of the same phenomenon could be multiplied. Sometimes, on the other hand, a lemma seems merdy to serve as a con­ venient hook on which to hang an erudite disqui�ition of dubious rde­ vance to the text in question. The phrase hTl IlOpTVPOS �O'TOO in Riad 7.76, for example, triggers a forty-one-line note in P. Oxy. VlIl 1 087 ( Erbse Pap . VI) on napoovvlla, of which IlOPTVPOS was considered to be one.St This is the sort of variance we should expect from the genre. Unlike literary texts, commentaries were typically exposed to continual modifi­ cation in the course of their fluid transmission, with entries being added, removed and combined in accordance with the particular and momen­ tary needs and interesu of the compiler. The second-century fragment of the Aorentine commentary on the Odyssey just mentioned (PSI XV 1 464) seems, incidentally, to constitute early evidence for the process of reduction that resulted in the sparsenes.� of the scholia on that poem as preserved in the medieval manuscripuS2• More often than not, however, papyrus commentaries are fuller than the scholia�tic corpora of the me­ dieval manuscripts. P. Oxy. LXV 4452, for example, not only provides a good deal of information missing in the scholia, but also lemmatizes five verses unknown to the rest of the tradition (fr. 1 . 1 1-1 7) , but said to be present in the Marseilles text (fr. 1 . 1 7-8: �v Tfill Maaaa�.I.oo.T.I.Kfil)S3. As the first of my specimen� I have chosen the earliest commentary' on Homer to survive: P. Lille inv. 83+ 1 34+93b+93a+ 1 1 4t+ 1 1 4o+87.S4 It was extracted from the cartonnage of a mummy unearthed near ancient =

•

P. Oxy. VIII 1 087 i 21 ii 28 on n. 7.76: hri l!apTVpOS Icm.., · I [TO 6AOV hr]�C1Too . TO S� l!apTVpos lTapOOWl!ov I [Tij Y] EVIKij TOU lTpooTcmirro v avl! l [lT�]1TTOOKEV, OOS TO Tpo!l;Tlvos, Iv6Ev I [TpO] �tiVOlo .. CC A.D. Fragm., GG 11 3, 47. 1 5ff. (Steph. Byz. 325 . 1 ff. Meineke): Kai ll\lTOAAOOVIOS I!�V lV TOis lTapOOVVI!OIS cp11alv' 'ano YEVIKci'>v Ev6Eial lTapayoVTal . . .' lTapoowl!a are, in other word.\, second-declen\ion nouns whose nominative wa\ thought to de­ rive from the genitive of a corresponding third-declen\ion noun. According to Schironi 2004, 462-4, the fact that 0 cpvAaKos, from cpvAa�, does not figure among the examples of lTapoovvl!a retailed in the papyru.\ entry might indicate the Arisrarchean origin of the note. Not only is tbi\ inference, a\ Schironi ad­ mits, dangerously ex silentio, but it al\O srand\ in contra\t with the overaJI char­ acter of the commentary, on which see P. Oxy. VIII 1087 Inttod., 1 00. 52 CC Bartoletti 1 966, 2 and Pontani 2oo5a, 1 35. 53 Of the five new verses, the first four word\ of the first and the la\t two word\ of the fifth are together identical with n. 1 9.35 1 . For further con\iderations on this commentary, cC Montanari 2001b, 974-8 1 . 5 4 Bd. pr. : Meillier 1 985. 51

-

.

Homeric Commentaries on Papyrus

1 69

Magdola, a village in the Fayfun. 55 The commentary is assigned to the third century BC on the basis of the handwriting and the document� coming from the same cartonnage."" Seven fragment� in all from the end of a papyrus roll preserve parts of four columns of writing. The first three of these colunUls are traced on the recto along fibres, but the fourth and last is penned against the fibres on the other side. The first preserved entry is on Odyssey 1 6. 1 48 and the la�t on 1 7.77-!d3. Between these two points the commentary proceed� sequentially. 57 The lemmata, made to project to the left by around two letters' width and in this way distin­ guished from the explanatory material, 5H seem usually to have consisted of a single whole verse. 5• One lemma , however, embraced two verses and another apparendy a block of seven.'" ' There are al�o several cases where only a part of the verse or verses wa� or seem� to have been lem­ matized.r.I The commentary itself offered anything but a systematic treatment of the Homeric text, sometimes leaving a number of verses undi�cussed between entries. " 2 Moreover, to judge from what remain�, it confined itself excllL�ively, or almost excllL�ively, to gloss and paraphra�e. (.1 Yet two technical phra�es typical of later scholarship do seem to make a 55 These fragments belong to the same lot of papyrus as those of the Lille com­ mentary on Callimachus' Victoria Bere"ices (Meillier 1 985, 230) . Like them, they come from the excavations conducted by Pierre Jouguet and Gustave Lefebvre in the vicinity of ancient Magdola in 1 901-2 (parsom 1 977, 4) and were ex­ tracted from a mummy kept in the In,titut de Papyrologie et d'Egyptologie de Lille by Anton Fackehllann in 1974 (Meillier 1 985, 229) . On the excavatiom, see Jouguet 1 901 and Preisendanz 1 933, 2 1 3-4. 56 For the date of the fragmenll;, c[ Meilli er 1 985, 229. But Cavallo-Maehler 2008 now assign the hand of the Calli machus commentary to the first half of the 2nd century BC. 57 Od. 5.2 1 1 turns up in Col. 0 18, but, given the early date of the papyrus, it may be a plus-verse, a., Montanari in Meillier 1 985, 238 ad loc. suggest,;. 58 This device is known a.s 'ecthesis', on which see e.g. Tumer-Parson, 1 987, 8. 59 Od. 1 6 . 1 48 (Col. A 1), 1 69 (A 1 3), 1 73 (A 1 7), 1 92 (A 24) , 197 (A 28) , 202 (A 32), 304 (B 2) , 3 1 3 (B 4) , 3 1 6 (B 6), 332 (B 8), 340 (B 1 0), 386 (C 1), 387 (C 3), 401 (C 7), 428 (C 1 1 ) , 431 (CB), 433 (C 1 6), 468 (C 24), 47 1 (C 26), 473 (C 29), 1 7.53 (D 1 ) . Owing to material loss, some of these are la, than certain. 60 Od. 1 6. 1 60-- 1 (Col. A 5-6) and 1 7.77-83 (Col. 0 6-12) . 61 Od. 1 6 . 1 7 1 (Col. A 1 6) , 1 94-5 ( A 26) , 199 ( A 30), 425 ( C 9), 448 ( C 1 8), 459 (C 22). 62 hl Col. C, for example, the commentator jumps from a note on Od. 1 6.401 in ll. 7-8 to one on Od. 1 6.425 in ll. 9-- 1 0. 63 The notes may also occasionally have repeated forms from the Homeric text of the lenunata like m'xvTEO"crl in Col. A 9 from Od. 1 6 . 1 6 1 , lenullatized in A 6. CC Meilli er 1985, 233 ad loc. and Ponrani 2005a, 1 34.

1 70

John Lundon

timid appearance. The first, an abbreviated 6V(TI TOO) , occur.; at the end of a line in column B."" Thi� fonnula is regularly used in ancient exege­ sis to introduce an equivalent.',5 The second phrase comists of the in­ definite pronoun TIVeS, then presumably the elided fonn of the particle Be and after that either the negation ov or the first two letters of the adverb oilTw(S) . In either case, it appears likely that the opiniom of anonymous scholars on a particular issue are here being reported and contrasted. 'M' But whether the i�sue was text-critical (an omission or a variant) or exegetical mlL�t remain uncertain.',7 All in all, this commentary comes rather as a disappointment. In as­ sessing it, however, two comideratiom should be borne in mind. On the one hand, paraphrase does inlply an analysis of text and context. On the other, thi� particular work may represent just one of the types and leveL� current at the time. It i� at least clear from other literary sources that more sophisticated interpretational procedures did exi�t and were applied in the elucidation of texts. 'oll 64 The presumed compendium, consi�ting of Ihe letters alpha and flU followed by a long curving abbreviation stroke, now s\and� in the left-hand margin of fr. 87' opposite 11. 1 8-9 of Col. C. 65 CC Meillier 1 985, 236 ad loc. On thi� fonnula, see Tumer 1 976, 5 n. 9a, Slater 1 989, 53-4, who distinguishes three kind� of ffirTt TOO, and Dickey 2007, 224 (referring to Slater). P. Oxy. VIII 1 086 ii 52-53 on n. 2.784 (WS opa T�:lV \rrrO lToO"O"I I.l�ya O"TEvaXIl,;ETO ya'ia) , where it occurs three times in two lines, pro­ vides a good example of its use to introduce an interpretation (rather than a variant or what i� unexpected) : I.l�ya mITt TOO I.lEyaAoos. O"TEvaxll,;ETO avTt TOO �O"TEVEV, TWl lTa&r,TIKWI aVTI TOO !VEPYTJTIKOO. 66 Meillier 1 985 ad loc. mention� two supplements: TIV�S S' ov [ypacpovo"l and TIV�S 6' OO[TOO ypacpovO"I, the latter proposed by Turner. TIle first occurs in Ihe context of textual criticism only once in Simplicius, In Aristotelis physicornm libros commentaria, CAG IX 589.33: TIV�S S' ov ypacpovo"lv {via aMb. ra ot avw Kai Karw. The second is unattested. However, Ihe con�tituent tenus of bolh are connnon enough in scholiastic literature, where TIV�S (and �VIOI) as the subject of such verbs as ypacpovO"I refer to scholars or a scholar the com­ mentator can or will not name. 67 On the ambivalence of Ihe verb ypacpElv in the language of Ihe scholiasts (vari­ ant or interpretation), see the salutary con
Homeric COllunentaries on Papyru.'

171

M y second example i s a piece from Oxyrhynchus that ha� found its way into the Special Collections Division of the J. M. Olin Library of Wa�hington University in St. Louis, Missouri (P. Wash. Univ. 1I 63 Erbse Pap. YHa) . It bears parts of two columns of a hypomnema on the ninth book of the fliad penned along the fibres on the redo of a papyrus roll. Lemmata survive from verses 133 (col. I 6) , 141 (I 1 1 -2) and 1 47 (ll 6) , certainly, and from verse 1 28 or 1 29 (I 1-2) , possibly. m To set these lemmata off from the explanations, the scribe has resorted to a system attested elsewhere: if the lemma begins on a fresh line, that line starts around two letters further to the left (i� written �v �K6eael) ; if, on the other hand, the lemma begins in mid line and runs over onto the following line, it is the following line that projects and a paragraphos is placed under that in which the lemma begin�. 711 Blank spaces may also have separated lemma from comment and comment from lemma, but none have survived from within the line71 and the apparent ones at the end of lines 5 (comment-lemma) and 12 (lemma-comment) in the first column are perhaps due to con�traints of column width. At the end of col. I 6 (lemma-comment) , at lea�t, no blank was left. The first editor assigned the papyrus to the second century AlJ, 72 =

but a� Alfons Wouters wa� quick to point out, the hand in which the commentary is written, an unmistakable Ptolemaic semicursive, should be dated around three hundred years earlier, to the middle of the second century BC. n To Wouters' single paralleF4 Michael Haslam later added 69 Wherea., Ha.�am 1 985, 98 ad loc., think., he can detect in I. 1 letters from the beginning of verse 129 (Aea�ISp'S as D, Gronewald, in P. Wash. llniv. 11 63, 6 ad loc., believes he can identify a sequence from the middle of verse 1 28 (yvvaiK]q:s al,l[v] I [I!ova) . Wouters 1 976, 272, who adopted the reading of the ed.pr. O . a[. ]), had already suggested that the first five lines of the papyru.' con­ tained a connnent on 1 28 or 1 3 1 . 7 0 Th e practice o f th e scribe c an b e inferred from col. I I 5-6 and the recon­ structed length.' of col. I 6 and 1 2, which suggest that these line., must have stood in ecthesis. Whether a paragraphos was also added when the lennna began on a fresh line, a., supposed by Erose 1 988, 301 and the editor of P. Wash. Univ. II 63 at col. I 6, is uncertain. Example., of this system in other commentaries are P. Oxy. XXV 2429 and UII 3710. On method, of distinguishing lennnata in commentaries, cf. Del Fabbro 1 979, 87-9 and Fa.'lMO 1 996. 71 Wouters 1 976, 272, suggests that there may originally have been a mtall blank space between connnent and lennna in col. I 1 1 . 72 Cf. Packman 1 973, 53. 73 Cf. Wouters 1 976, 27 1 , who draws attention in particular to presence of the imaginary upper line and the linking of eta to the right. In Wouters' view (n. 3) , 'The copyi.,t of thi, text connnanded only the docwnentary style, but still tried to write his vnol!VT]l!a in a literary hand'.

1 72

John Lundon

a whole series, putting the date of the script beyond all reasonable doubt. 75 This mean�, as Ha.�am ha.� stressed, that the work 'wa.� probably written within the lifetime of AristarchlL� him.�elf (ca. 21 6- 144 BC) . Despite its early date, the commentary does in fact seem to reflect the celebrated Alexandrian scholar's work. In the only entry that admits of recomtruction (I 6-1 1 on n. 9 . 1 33) , both the underlying granunatical doctrine (that the article in Homer is mi�sing) and the tenninology (vvv in the technical seme of 'here', 'in thi� context') are distinctly Aris­ tarchean in flavour.7r, So is the procedure whereby paraphra.�e, intro­ duced by formulaic expressions such as OVTW i\eyel, is lL�ed to clarify the point at issue. n Close correspondence in thought, expression and struc­ ture with the Aristonicus scholium on this line in the VenetlL� A manu­ script, which ultimately derives from AristarchlL�, point unambiguolL�ly in the same direction. 7" The commentary thus provides clear evidence for the existence of cultural ties between Oxyrhynchus and the MlL�eum in Alexandria at an early stage. My next example likewise comes from Oxyrhynchus, but was writ­ ten a hundred years later, around the middle of the first century BC. Until quite recently it wa.� uncertain whether this large piece of a com­ mentary on the second book of the Diad first published by Arthur Hunt in 1 9 1 1 (p. Oxy. VIII 1 086 Pap. n Erbse) belonged to a more ambi=

74 P. Lotld. I 24' pp. 3 1 -3 = UPZ I 2, reproduced in P.Lmd. I Plate 1 8 and Seider 1 967, Tafel 5 (No. 9) . The papyrus is dated to 1 63 DC (I. 1 7) . 75 C C Haslam 1985, 97, who ah o speak.� of ' smallish Ptolemaic han d ... which may in fact be dated with some confidence around the middle of the second century D.C.'. 76 On Aristarchus' treatment of the article in Homer, see Friedlander 1 853, 30 and Matthaios 1 999, 436-3, in part. 437-8. 77 P. Wash. Univ. II 63, Col. I 6-1 1 on n. 9. 1 33 (text of n. 7-1 0 restored by Gronewald): [11'; TIOTE T;;S] �w;;S hrl!3';I1Eval' 1 [OUK ap6pov xl wpav �XEI vVy TO 1 [Tijs TIpO EUvfj] S aAA' OUTW AtyEI' I " [11';TIOTE Tijs Tal V TTlS T;;S TIpOBE I [BrjAwl1tv'll s BpIOTJ\BoS �1TI!3;; 1 [Vat EUviis. Correspondence between the Homeric text and the paraphrase in n. 8-10: 11'; TIOTE - I1';TIOTE, 0 - Tijs, Tijs - TalrTTlS Tijs TIpOBEBTlAWl1tVTlS BpICJTl\Bos, EUvii s - euviis, �lTI!3';I1EVal �lTI!3;;Vat. 78 Sch. Horn. (A) n. 9 . 1 33a.' (Ariston.) : I1';TIOTE Tijs EW;;S bn!3';l1evol: chI �g..,6EV Bel Aa!3Eiv TO ap6pov' TO yap Tijs vVv avTl TOO TaVTT) S TIOpE\ATl1TTO I, Kat �CITIV 6 MyoS 'I1';TIOTE Tijs TalrTTlS EW;;S hrII3f]I1EVat'. Correspondence be­ tween the Homeric text and the paraphra.�e: I1';TIOTE - I1';TIOTE, " - Tijs, Tijs TalrTTls, euvii s - euvii s, �lTI!3';I1EVOI - �lTI!3';I1EVal. Correspondence in expres­ sion between the papyrus and the scholium: vVv. TO 1 [Tijs - TO yap Tijs vVv, aAA' OUTW MyEI - Kat �CJTIV 6 Myos. In light of the clear relation between the papyrus and the AristoniC\l.� scholium, then, HasI:un's (1985, 1 00) view of the conmlentary's possible independence seems unlikely.

Homeric Conunentaries on Papyru.'

1 73

tious project. 7') However, the publication by Michael Ha�am in 1 998 of a scrap from a commentary on the first book of the mad (P. Oxy. LXV 445 1 ) , which Ha�lam acutely recognized as being written in the same hand and sharing all of the other features of the text published by Hunt, .. t showed that the commentary originally covered at lea�t books one and two of the mad and probably consi�ted of at lea�t two roll�, one for each book. In light of this discovery, it cannot be ruled out, I think, that we have here remnants of a large-scale multi-volume Kommentar on the whole of the poem. Ht Penned along the fibres on the recto in a small , rapid late Ptolemaic semicursive in columns of forty or so lines and lines of an average of sixty letters with narrow margin� and intercolumniations, the work was likely written or cornmis.�oned by a scholar for his own use, an impres­ sion moreover confinned by the content. H2 Although neither the earliest, nor the most exten�ive, nor the most erudite of Homeric commentaries preserved in the papyri, HJ this com­ mentary i� at once early, extensive and learned. Hut what makes it so important is that it is a witness to the philological activity of Aristarchus of Samothrace earlier than, and so independent of, our other main sources for the Alexandrian scholar's thought: the fragments of Aristoni­ cus and Didymus transmitted above all in the scholia of the famous Ve­ netus A codex. H4 Not only do several of its entries explicitly mention the name of Ari�tarchu�, but these and others refer to Aristarchean critical signs, which have abo been prefixed to the lemmata. H5 Even where the 79 Subsequent editions: Erbse 1 969-1 988, I, XXXV-XXXVI , 1 64-1 74 and Lun­ don 2002. The main piece mea.,ures 41 .0 x 23.2 cm and covers Riad 2.75 1 827. There are in addition tw o unplaced scraps. 80 The scrap mea.'ures 5 .3 x 4.0 cm and covers Riad 56-58. For a detailed analysis and compari.,on of the scripu of the two papyri, see Lundon 1 998-1 999. 81 Cf. Lundon 1 998-- 1 999, 32 82 On the editorial features of papyrus commentaries, see Del Fabbro 1 979, 81-92 and Messeri-Pintaudi 2002. 83 P.Lille and P. Wash. Uttiv. 11 63 are older; P. Oxy. 11 22 1 more extensive; P.Oxy. 11 221 (again) , P. Oxy. VIII 1 087, P. Oxy. UII 3710, P.Oxy. LXV 4452 more learned. 84 Edited by Erhse 1 969-1 988, I-V. 85 Ari.,wchu,' nante i, mentioned at I 1 2, 16 and 11 63, a., it may have been at I 26 and almost certain1y wa.' at III 88 before the papyrus suffered damage. Of the dip/a; referred to in the commentary, once with the term 5\"TT�i'j (11 55), otherwise with OTIl.IEiov (I (1 1], 28, 11 47, III 83, 98, 1 07, 1 1 4), four have sur­ vived (I 27, 11 54, III 97, 1 1 4) , one appears to have been accidentally omitted (11 44) and three have been lost (1 1 1 , III 82, 1 06) . There are abo three obe/oi (11 6 1 -2), but it i, likely that two others have been mi.,takeniy left out, one of

1 74

John Lundon

name of Aristarchus or a reference to a critical sign is missing, typically Aristarchean procedures are all over in evidence. Method� applied in­ clude the glossing of words, the paraphrasing of whole verses and the reconstruction of Homer's linguistic usage and world based on a detailed reading of text. The proportion of annotations exhibiting unmistakable traces of Aristarchus i� a� a matter of fact so great, and the absence of anything demonstrably non-Aristarchean so absolute, that I wonder whether thi� conunentary might not derive from a single source and further whether that single source might not ultimately have been the hypomnemata, or even the lectures, of Aristarchus themselves."" My fourth and final illustration, P. Oxy. II 221 (= Erbse Pap. XII), like P. Oxy. VIII 1 086 from Oxyrhynchus and now kept in the Hriti�h Library, is the papyrus conunentary on Homer of which the most sur­ vives. Portions of more than seventeen columns of writing on numerous fragments and scraps remain. Penned against the fibres on the verso of a metrical treatise (P. Oxy. II 220) in an informal second-century-AD hand, the work originally contained a detailed hypomnema on the twenty-first book of the mad and, as with so many of our other surviv­ ing fragments, ha� all the appearances of being a scholar's copy. Who that scholar was is of course uncertain, but written between columns X and XI, from top to bottom and perpendicular to the text of the conllllentary, in a hand different from and apparendy later than that of the main text are the following mysteriou.� word�: )\1l1l00VIOS )\Illlu>vlov ypallllCXTIKOS E01)IlEIu>crallllv. Unfortunately neither the exact identity of this grammarian Anunonius nor the preci�e meaning of the verb here are clear, and it may even be doubted whether this 'signa­ ture' i� connected with the commentary at all.K7

them along with the ver,;e (n. 2.794) it was attached to. Critical sign.� or refer­ ences thereto are al�o present in P. Daris inv. 1 1 8.5; P. Cairo JE 60566 ( = Erbse Pap. V) Fr. a II 10, Fr. b I 3; 4, 5, 6; P.Mich. inv. 1 206.3 and 9; P.Pi.ra Ut. 8.3 and 14. 86 C( Howard 1 9 1 7-18, 41 9-20 and Lundon 200 1 . Given the numerou� explicit references to Aristarchus in tbi� conunentary, it i.� not unreasonable to a�sume that what is typically, though perhaps not exclusively, Aristarchean in the unat­ tributed notes al�o goes back to this scholar. Ha�lam (in Lundon 2001 , 839 n. 46) objects that the mentions of Aristarchus in the third per,;on open up the possibility of compilation from several sources. While not wi.dung to deny thi.� altogether, I point out that they would al�o be fully consi.�tent with composi­ tion by a follower of Aristarchu� who chose to report on that scholar's views alone. 87 On the problem see P. Oxy. II 221 Inttod., 53-55; Milll er 1 913, 49--{, 1 ; Erbse 1 969-1 988, I, XLII; 1 969-1988, V, 78 and 97; McNamee 2007, 286.

Homeric Commentaries on Papyrus

175

The first preserved entry is on line 1 , the last on line 5 1 3 (Fr. i) . In view of the length of what survives, it seems likely that the commentary on the book fille d an entire roll. The lemmata range from single words to phrases to whole groups of verses and evidendy served to stake out the subject of the individual explanations. In this they differ from those in the three preceding commentaries examined, where the unit tended to be the verse, and their main function wa.� rather that of guiding the reader to the relevant place in the Homeric text."" Articulation i� en­ trusted to the paragraphos and the dipll! obelismene. The commentary i� conspicuous for its erudition and i� in fact among the most learned, if not the most learned, of the surviving frag­ ments. Its learning can be gauged by the sheer number and concentra­ tion of scholars referred to and poets quoted. A partial list includes Ze­ nodotus, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Aristarchus, Dionysiu� Thrax, Aristonicus and Didymu�, among scholars; Hesiod, Solon, Panya.�sis, Pindar, Sophocles and Callimachus, among poets. K') Moreover, P. Oxy. II 221 seem� to provide some early evidence for the formation of the scholia.�tic cla.�ses present in the medieval manu­ scripts. ')( ' In fact, the points of contact both in wording and substance 88 C( van Thie! 1 989, 9-26, esp. 9-1 0 ('Lenmuta, oft in ganzen Ver.;en oder ein.,chlieBlich des Ver.;an£mgs, die offenbar das Auffinden in einem eigenen Text leicht nuchen sollten') and 25-26 (,reinen Verweischarakter der Lemma­ ta') . 89 Zenodotus (P. Oxy. II 221 , XVI 3 1 -2), Aristophanes of Byzantiwll (I 1 8, [IV 6] , [1 5], X 36, XIII 20-1), Aristarchus (IV 7, 22, IX 6, X 3 1 , XI 15, [XII 38] , XIV 1 6-7, XVII 20) , Dionysiu., Thrax (Ill 22, XIV 20), Aristonicu., (Ill 30), Didymu., (X 1 2, XVII 27-8) ; Hesiod (XVI 35-6), Solon (XIV 1 2-6), Panyassi, (IX 8-1 1 , quoted by Se!eucus), Pindar (IX 1 4-6, 1 7) , Sophocles (XI 1 3), Cal­ limachus (XV 3�). For a fuller list, c( Lu.ndon 2001 , 828 n. 1 1 . 90 To simplifY a very complex situation, the notes in the margins of our medieval nlalluscripts of the iliad, among which the main ones are A (cod. Ven. Graec. 822, s. X), B (cod. Ven. Graec. 821 , s. XI), C (cod. £.aur. plut. 32,3, s. XIIXII), E ' (cod. Escor. Graec. 29 1 , s. XI), E ' (cod. Escor. Graec. 509, s. XI), Ge (cod. ('..enav. Graec. 44, s. XIII) and T (cod. Townl. (Brit. Mus. Burney 86], a.D. 1 0 1 4/ 1 059), can be assigned to c1as.,es which in turn go back to lost imperial or late antique compilations. These classes reflect the interests of the author.; of the compilations, whose aim apparently it was to collect and hand down material related in kind. Three main c1a." es can be distinguished: the scholia of the so-called ViermiintllTkommetltar (the presumed combination in a single 'conunentary' of four works by the four scholars Ari.,tonicus, Didymu.s, Herodianus and Nicanor), the exegetical scholia and the D scholia (prevalently glosses and paraphrase) . Furthermore, the paths of the traditions must sometime have crossed, since scholia belonging to different c1a.sses occur together in sur­ viving witnes.ses. In the Venetus A manu.script, for exanlple, which contains

1 76

JOM Lundon

between this papyrus conunentary and the so-called exegetical scholia, especially those to verses 1 65--49 9 of book 21 in the Geneva manu­ script, 91 are too nwnerous and too close to be merely fortuitous.'12 In all probability, the conunentary fragmentarily preserved in P. Oxy. II 221 represents one of the worb that found its way into that corpus. In its close relation to one of the later clas.�es of scholia, however, the papyrus is exceptional. Only P. Oxy. VIII 1 086 appears to exhibit a similar con­ nection with the Ari.�tarchean tradition as known primarily from the Venetus A manuscript. 93 It would probably be worth considering some further examples of Homer conunentaries on papyrus, since most hold something of inter­ est. But that would exceed the limits of my paper, which aims to pro­ vide a general overview of the subject. The future publication of new fragments of conunentaries on Homer should confinn rather than radi­ cally alter this picture, though with papyri it is perhaps risky to make such confident prediction�.9oI

91 92 93

94

material deriving from the Viennanneriwmmtntar, exegetical scholia aL\O make an appearance. On the other hand, notes a.\.oUgnabJe to the Four Men turn up in manu\Cripts of the exegetical scholia. On the cJa.\ses and tran\mis.oUon of the R­ iad scholia, see Erbse 1 960 and 1 969-1 988, I, XI-LXVI. CC aL\O Snipes 1 988, 1 96-204 for 'a brief account of the modern clas.'lification of the scholia and of some of their sources' and, more recendy, Dickey 2007, 1 8-28. On the scholia in this manuscript, see Erbse 1 952 and 1 969-1 988, I, XXI­ XXII and UX. On the relation of tbi\ conunentary to the Riad scholia, see P. Oxy. 11 221 Introd., 55-7; MillI er 1 9 1 3, 23-48; Erose 1 969-1 988, 1, XLII and LIX. To a certain degree, then, and pace HasJam 1 994, 44-5 with n. 1 62, these two conunentaries do seem, to reflect the di\tinction between 'Ari.\tarchan' or 'VMJ{', on the one hand, and 'exegetical', on the other, as u\ed specifically to designate cJa.\.\es of scholia in medieval manu\cripts of the Riad deriving from particular compilations which can in part be reconstructed (the Viermiinneriwm­ mtntar and c, the archetype of the bT scholia). Another papyru\ on the Odyssey, P. Oxy. XXXIX 2888, is di\tincdy Pergamene in character, but ha.\ more the scope of a treatise than a conunentary, as the first editor points out in the intro­ duction; cC aL\O P. Oxy. UII 37 1 0 Introd., 90 ('Pergamene monograph') and 91 ('Homeric Questions or the like'). I had the opportunity to read versions of tbi\ paper at the University of Michi­ gan at Ann Arbor on 1 April 2006 (Books about Book.\ Conference), at the University of Toronto on 3 April 2006, at the Universita degli Studi di Parma on 14 May 2008, at the Universitat zu Koln on 3 and 10 July 2008 (Doktoran­ den-Kolloquium), at the Universica degli Studi di Totino on 8 October 2008, at JOMS Hopkins University in Baltimore on 14 November 2008 (Ancient Studies Colloquium), at the Aristode University of Thes.woniki on 5 Decem­ ber 2008 (Ancient Scholarship and Granuuar Conference) and at the Univer-

1 77

Homeric Conunentarie.. on Papyru..

Appendix Table of Homeric Commentaries on Papyrus Conten�

Publication

Provenance

Date

LDAB,

R. 1 .56-8

P. Oxy. LXV 445 1

Oxyrhynchus

1 st

R. 2.751827 R. 3.59 6.333 R. 4. 1 6470 R. 4.30616 R. 5.85, 1 48-52? R. 6.23685 R. 7.7583

P.Oxy. VIII 1 086

Oxyrhynchus

P.Bfflll. 9960 (APF 44 [1 998] 2 1 3-4)

Unknown

2297, 1 161.13 2287, 1 1 73 1 428, 1 1 74 1 7 18, 1 1 74. 1 1 386, 1 1 75 0000, 0000.000 1 545, 1 1 84 2264, 1 1 86 2356, 1 1 87.2

MP'"

R. 9. 1 28/947 R. 10.561-11 R. 1 1 .677754 R. 14.3 1 648 R. 17.4700 R. 19.347-

BC 1 st

BC 2nd AD

P.DdrU inv. 1 1 8 (Studi SWlld, Trieste 1 975, 463-70) P.Ryl. 1 24

2nd

Unknown

AD

Oxyrhynchus

1 st AD

BKT #

Abusir

e1-

Melek?

P. Ciur. JE 60566 (Mfldnges MllSptro IT, Cairo 1 934, 1 48-5 1 ) P.Oxy. VIII 1 087 P. Wl1$h. Univ. 11 63 P. Bfflll. 1 7 1 5 1 (APF 44 [1 998] 2 1 58) P.ldnJ. 1 2 = P. Giss.U1. 2.8 P.Mich . inv. 1206 (ZPE 93 [ 1 992] 1 63-5) P. Oxy. XXIV 2397

Oxyrhynchus

1 st

BC 2nd AD

Oxyrhynchus

1 st AD

Oxyrhynchus

Unknown

2 nd

BC

BC

7 1 34, 1 1 90. 1 1 2273, 1 1 94

3rd4th

2078, 1 1 98.01

2nd AD

Unknown

Unknown

1 st

AD

Oxyrhynchus

1 st AD

P. Oxy. LXV 4452

Oxyrhynchus

2nd AD

1 397, 1 20 1 1 692, 1 203. 1

siteit Leiden on 1 3 February 2009. ) am very grateful to the organizers of the variOll' evento; (Jake MacPhail and Ruth Scodel; Brad )nwood and Michael Dewar; )sabella Andorlini; Rudolf Ka....e1 and Jiirgen Hammerstaedt; Rosa Maria Piccione; Dimitrios Yatromanolakis and Richard Jamow; Stephanos Matthaios and Antonios Rengakos; Ca.per de Jonge) for their invitatiom and to them and the audiences for their questiom and commento;. ) have al.o greatly benefited from the suggestiom of Michael Apthorp, Rene Niinlist and Helmut van Thiel, who were kind enough to read earliers drafrs of this survey.

1 78

John Lundon

416

n.

21 .1-

P. Oxy.

11

Oxyrhynchus

221

5 1 6? Od. 3 . 1 -

Oxyrhynchus

P.Oxy. LXXI 4820

4 Od.

Unknown

P. Yale tI I28

4.335-45

2nd

1 63 1 ,

AD

1 205

2nd

1 1 2372,

AD

1 208.01

2nd

1 732,

AD

1 209.2

1 st AD

1 2 1 0.3

=

1 7 . 1 2636 Od.

P.Pisa

Lit.

Theadelphia

8

1 1 .475-6 Od.

Oxyrhynchus

PSI XV 1 464

1 2 . 1 2296 Oxyrhynchus

P.Oxy. LXXI 4821

Od. 1 5 . 78-91 Od.

P.Iille

1 6. 1 48-

inv. 83+1 34+93b+93a+ l 1 41+1 1 40+87

471 ,

(Milanges Vl'1rOuller, Paris

1 7. 53-1!3

238)

Od.

P. Oxy. UII 37 1 0

Magdola

Oxyrhynchus

251 Od.

P.FiJ}'. 3 1 2 descr. (BASP 20 [ 1 983]

2 1 .2 1 7-

1 1 3-22)

34

233-

2nd

1 578,

AD

1 2 1 0.4

2nd

1 1 2373,

AD

1 2 1 1 .00 1

3rd

1 956,

BC

1 2 1 1 .0 1

2nd

1 690,

AD

1 2 1 2.01

2nd

1 549,

AD

1213

1 985, 229-

20. 1 05-

31,

1 327,

Fayum

179

Homeric Commentaries on Papyrus

Charts Chart 1 . Chronological Distribution of Homeric Commentaries on Papyrus

12 10 8 6 4 2

i

0

•

3rd cent. BC

i

I

•

2nd cent. BC

I

i

I si cent. BC

I

Efl

I si cent. AD

Chart 2. Chronological Distribution and Relative

i

•

2nd cent AD 3�th cent. AD

Number of Commentaries

on the Ri4d and Odyssey

12 10 8 6 4 2 o

�

+----------� ------� 3rd cent. BC

2nd cent. BC

I si cent. BC

I si cent. AD

2nd cent AD 3�th cent. AD

D Diad .Odyssey Chart 3. Provenance of Homer Commentaries on Papyrus 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

......

).�

)o(��

�,,� �"

"

......

�

�'I>�

n

......

�.;So

11>�:�

�..�

��

\5'"

M

......

�� 1I>�q

..�

�

",<:Q�

��<;<

Didymus on Pindar

Bruce Karl Braswell Although no ancient commentary on Pindar ha� been tranmlitted in the manuscript tradition, the scholia vetera on the epinicia have preserved some sixty-seven fragmenu of the commentary by Didymus of Alexan­ dria and an equal number from the Pindar commentary of hi� predeces­ sor Aristarchus. The numerical correspondence is not by chance, since we owe to Didymus the preservation of Ari.�tarchus' interpretation� which he often mentions either in agreement or more often in dissent. 1 It wa� Didymus' commentary which in the Antonine period served a� the ba�s of the scholia. 2 Con�idering the very different general a�ses.�­ menu of the two scholars, it is not surprising that the work of Ari.�­ tarchus on Pindar has received more attention than that of Didymus. 3 For an edition of Didymus' commentary we are still dependent on that of Moritz Schmidt in his 1 854 edition of all the fragmenu of the gram­ marian known to him. 4 Admirable a� it was in iu day, Schmidt's text of the fragmentary Pindar commentary wa� based on the edition of the scholia in Hoeckh's edition of 1 8 1 9 and now badly in need of replace­ ment. s With a view to such an undertaking I have prepared a 'War1 2 3

4 5

lrigoin 1 952, 56. lrigoin 1 952, 67, 1 02-1 04. For Aristarchu� see Horn 1 883, Feine 1 883 and Va��iJakj 2009 as well a� lrigoin 1 952, 5 1 -56 and for Didymu� see Irigoin 1 952, 67-75, whose chapter on the granunarian remains the best account of hi� scholarship on Pindar. Still useful are the accounts in Cohn 1 903, 450-5 1 and Dea� 1 93 1 , 1 9-27. The privately printed pamphlet of CarnevaIi 1 980 ( 1 6 pages) is limited to a di�cu,-� on of five fiagments. On Didymu�' scholarship more generally the brief discus.�ion in Pfeiffer 1 968, 274-279 remain� u�eful, but i� to be supplemented by Montanari 1 997, 550-552 and Montana 2006, 1-6, and need� revision in the light of the negative a,-�es.�ment of the grammarian by West 1 970, 288--9 6, Harris 1 989, 36--44 and the more favourable one by Harding 2006, on which see n. 26 be­ low. Schmidt 1 854, 21 4-240. Boeckh 1 81 1-2 1 , 11 1 . Cohn 1 903, 446, while fair, is perhaps too severe in hi� criticism of Schmidt's performance considering the state of the text available to him in Boeckh's edition.

1 82

Bruee Karl Bra.'lWeU

tetext' with an English translation of all the fragments which mention lJidymu.� by name including eight which Schmidt mi�sed. In the space available to me here, I should like to discuss a few examples of Didy­ mu.�' Pindaric criticism. The enumeration of the fragments refers to my edition; the text of the Pindaric scholia quoted throughout my paper is ba.�ed on the edition ofDrachmann (1903-27) .

1 . Citation of Historians Fr. 1 (2 Schmidt) Sch. Pi. O. 1 .35c: r . . . 1 TOV yap 'Itpoova OUK eTval �VpaKOVGIOV, CITE �v1Ka' KT1GavTa yap aliTov T";V KaTo\l1lv Kal lTpOGayopeVGavTa AiT\l1lv lnr' a\mis AlTvaiov aUTov AtYOVGIV. eu,;6elS St CPllG1 11 1 S v 11 0 S TOVTOVS' TOTe yap 6 'Itpoov ""v �VpaKOVGIOS Kal ouSe ""v AlTvaios, OOS CPllG1V 1\lToMoSoopoS (FGrHist 244 F 69) . 6 Se 1\PlaTOVIKOS (fr. 51 Razzetti) 6:�I01T1aToos AlTvaiov oVTa �VpaKOVGIOV 6VOIlO�eG6al.

A prominent feature of Didymu.�' exegesi� is hi� use of historians to ex­ plain references in the text and settle points of dispute. For example, in fr. 1 Didymu.� criticizes the notion a.� silly that Hieron of Syracu.�e could have called him�elf an Aetnaean after his victory at Olympia in the char­ iot race of 476 cdebrated in the first Olympian ode. A.� evidence he cites Apollodoru.� of Athens in his Chronika. Unwisdy so, a.� the inscrip­ tion to the ode(' suggests and fr. 36 seem� to prove. In the latter frag­ ment, which reports that Hieron had himself proclaimed as an Aetnaean, Didymu.� is quoted a.� saying that 'It is likdy that the same thing hap­ pened in the ca.�e of Chromius who wa.� hi� as.�ociate'. 7 Here we can see why Didymu.� in antiquity wa.� called a !31!3AloAo6as," since he appar­ ently forgot what he had written about Olympian One. Fr. 2

6 7

8

(b) (3 Schmidt)

Sch. Pi. O. 1. inser. a: vlK,;aas (se. Hieron) 5� Ta 'OAVllnla aveK';pv�v �aVTOV IvpaKovalov Kal AITVaiov. Fr. 36 (33 Selunidt) Sch. Pi. N. 1 , ins". a: y�ypanTal 0 lnlvlKos Xpolll'll AITVal'll . 'I�pwv yap OIKlaTais 6:vT1 TVpawov j30VAOIlEVOS eTval, KaTlXvT]V l�eAOOV ATTVTJV IlETc..WOllaae Tf)V nOAIV, lavTOV OIKlaTf)V npoaayopevaas, Kal lv Tais avapp,;aealv Cv T1al TOOV ayooVc..>V AlTvaiov laVTov aveine. TaVTOV 5�, cp11alv 0 �15vIlOS, elKOS na6eiv Kal TOV XpOlllOV halp'll Kexp,,�vov alrrcj) . So Demetrius ofTroezen in Atb. 4 . 1 3ge; eC Quint. Inst. 1 .8.20. Sen. Ep. 88.37.

DidYllllL\ on Pindar

1 83

Sch. Pi. o. 2. 29d: �llTeiTal, lil' i'\v ahiav ev�cq.leVOS TCi> e';pc.>VI Ta KaMICTTa, KaTa1TaValV TOOV 1Tpax6eVTc.>v SeIVoov alTeiTal TOV illa. Kai 6 l.leV 1\plCTTapx6s (fr. 2 Feine) CPllal, Sla TO KeKl.lllKeVal TOUS TOU e,;pc.>VOS 1TaTepas KaTa ,.,;v 'P6Sov, TOOV 1TPayI.lOTc.>V CTTaala�Ol.leVc.>v, Kai OVTc.> "';v l.leTOIKlav els ,.,;v �IKeAlav CTTeIAal.levc.>v. 6 Se il l S v I.l 0 S TO 6:Kplf3eCTTe pov ,;; s ICTTo plas �KTl6eTal, l.lapTVpa Tll.lalov TOV aVVTa�aVTa Ta 1Tepi TTiS � IKeAlas (FGrHist 556 F 93b) 1Tpocpep6I.levos. 1'l Se ICTTopla OVTc.>S EXer e,;pc.>v 6 TOOV 1\KpayaVTlvc.>v f3aal).eus rEAc.>vl TCi> 'Iepc.>vos 6:SeAcpCi> �lTIKllSeVaas yal.l'i> avva1TTel "';v �avTou 6vyaTepa illll.lapeTT}v, 6:cp' �S Kai TO illll.laptTelov v61.llal.la �V �IKeAlc;t. TOU Se rEAc.>vos Te).eVTav TOV f3lov l.leMOVTOS, noM�llAoS 6 6:SeAcpos "';v CTTPaTTlylav Kai "';v yal.le"';v TOU 6:SeAcpou SlaSexeTal KaTa Tas rEAc.>vos 1TpoCTTa�eIS, ooaTe TO e,;pc.>VOS els rEAc.>va KTiSOS els TOV noM�llAov l.leTaTe6eiaeal. Aal.l1TPCi> Se aliTCi> Kai mplf3Ae1TT'i> TV¥XavOVTI KaTa "';v � IKeAlav 'Iepc.>v cp60viJaas 6 6:SeAcpos Kai 1Tp6cpaalv aKll'Val.leVos TOV 1TPOS �vf3aphas 1T6).el.lov 6:mAavvel ,;; S 1TaTplSos. 6:Ma Kai TOVTOV KaToop6c.>ae TOV 1T6).el.lOV 6 noM�llAos. 6 Se I.l'; cpepc.>v YVl.lV6TEPOV aUTou KaTllyopeiv �1TelpCiTo vec.>TeplaI.lOu. Kai OVTc.> TOV e';pc.>va vmpayavaKTiJaaVTa 6vyaTpos al.la Kai yal.lf3pou, avppTi�al 1TpOS 'Iepc.>va 1T6Ael.lov 1Tapa rEAc;t TCi> � IKeAIc.>TIKCi> 1TOTal.lCi>, o� KaMll.laxos (fr. 43.46 Pfeiffer) l.lel.lVT}Tal· 'oTSa rEAa (01 Se rEAc;t codd.) 1TOTal.lCi> �lTIKell.levov aaTV'. I.l'; ye I.l';V els f3Mf3llV, 1.l1lSe els TeAos 1TpOXc.>pTiaal TOV 1T6).el.lov· cpaai yap T6Te �11.lc.>vlSllV TOV AVPIKOV (test. 19 Campbell = T 61 Poltera) mpITVx6VTa SIa),uaal Tois f3aal).eual "';v Ex6pav. TOVTOIS olKelc.>S ToiS cp6aaaalv eOxea6al TCi> illt CPllal TOV nlvSapov 6 illSVI.loS, ooCTTe AOl1Tov aliTois elpllvaiov eTval TOV f3lov. In fr. 2 the scholia report a di�cussion on why Pindar in the second Olympian prays to Zeu.� for a happy conclusion of the deed� of Theron of Acraga�. Ari.�tarchu.� saw in it an allusion to the stasis on Rhodes which caused Theron's ancestors to migrate to Sicily. The scholia prefer the explanation of Didymus that it alludes to the dyna�tic conflicts be­ tween Theron and Hieron. As evidence of his interpretation Didymus quotes a long pa�sage from Timaeu.� ' History of Sicily in which the hi�to­ rian explain� how Theron first gave his daughter Demarete in marriage to Hieron's brother Gdon on whose death she was given to another brother, the gifted and popular Polyzdu.�. Hieron's jealou.� led him to plot against Polyzdu.� with the result that his father-in-law Theron was prepared to go to war again�t Hieron. According to Timaeus a battle wa� joined beside the river Gda�, but soon ended when the poet Si­ monides reconciled the two tyrants. While we may be grateful to the

1 84

Bruce Karl Bra.well

grammarian for having preserved thi� historical extract, " we need not accept his explanation any more than that of Aristarchus. The invoca­ tion of ZelL� in O. 2 . 1 2-1 5 is too general to contain any specific allu­ sion. Like many of their modern counterparts ancient scholars were eager to discover a relevance in passages which in fact serve other func­ tiom. In the present case a prayer to Zeus i� entirely in keeping with a celebration of a victory in the Olympian games which were held in honour of the god. Fr. 11 (l Ob Schmidt) Sch. Pi. O. 6.1 58b-c: crKCnTT'tI' )\plCTTapxos (fr. 21 Feine)" ToiS KaTO: TOV xopov ehTeiv, bTlKeAeUel T&V Te LvpaKovcr&v llellvficr6al Ka! Tli s 'O pTvylas. aVTll Be ECTT l lTpocrexr,s Tais LvpaKoucralS vli cros Kal axWllaTOS. 1 58c 6 Be i d 8 v 11 0 s · B10: TOV 'Iepwva, Eml Cxvw6ev EK lTpoy6vwv \epoIAICTTO V (FGrHist 556 F 49) Kal TO: Tlllalov (FGrHist 566 F 96) .

DidymlL�' overeagerness to find a relevance and his attempt to lL�e histo­ rians to prove it i� nicely illlL�trated in fr. 1 1 by his comment on O. 6.92-93 where Pindar in the ode for the Syracusan Hagesias bid� the chorus to remember 'SyraclL�e and Ortygia, which Hieron rules with unsullied sceptre'. Here Aristarchus saw no more than a topical refer­ ence, and rightly so [ think:. DidymlL� however seems to have taken the epithet 'unsullied' (Ka6ap6s) not as a general notion of Hieron's sup­ posedly just rule but to his religiolL� function as hierophant of the two local goddesses Demeter and Persephone. A� evidence the scholia report that he cited the two Sicilian historians Philistus and Timaeus, whose information, if the scholia had trammitted it, could hardly have been relevant to the point he wished to make. HO Fr. 24 (22 Schmidt) Sch. Pi. O. 1 3.29a-b: 11 6e&v vaoicrlv olwv&v j3acrlAea 818V1lOV· TOV aleT6v'
9 Since D.S. 1 1 .4B.5-B plau..ibly explains the reconciliation as a result of a con­ spiracy by the Himerans which would have been in the interest of neither party and makes no reference to Simonides, the role of the poet as mediator in Ti­ maeus' account presumably belongs to legend rather than hi.tory; on the diver­ gent opinion. see Molyneux 1 992, 224-26. 10 Carnevali 1 9BO, 16 is prepared to defend Didymus' interpretation on the ground. that Pindar's mention of Ortygia could be a reference either to Hieron's residence there or to his priesdy function in it. temples.

DidYllllL\ on Pindar

1 85

lepoov TI6�lJevos. T1VeS Se TO O�TOOlJa A�yovcnv, OOs q>l1cn 11 i S v IJ 0 S 1TapaTI6�lJevos TilJalov (FGrHist 566 F 1 45) A�yoVTa' 'Ka\ TOVTO �v Tais OIKOSolJialS aliToov (se. TOOV KOplv6(oov) eVpl1lJa', TaVT1lV 6TTo SouS ",V ��Yl1alv TOOV 1TpOKellJ�Voov. In his catalogue of Corinthian invention� in O. 1 3 . 1 8-22 Pindar asks rhetorically who added the twin kings of birds to the temples. Didymu.� , thi� time appropriately, cites in fr. 24 a statement of Tirnaeu.� that the placing of the figure of eagles on the gables of temples was an invention of the Corinthians. Fr. 28 (deest apud Schmidt) Sch. Pi. P. 5.34: q>IAeiv Se KappOOTOv' r . . . l 01 Se TOV 1'lvloxov TOVTOV, ()V q>l1a1v 0 11 1 S v Il 0 s Tiis nV61Kiis vlKl1S aiTlov yev�a6al T4"> l'\pKeaIAa�, KaTayelv Se aliT4"> Ka\ aTPaTlOOTIKOV onO Tiis 'EAAaSos o6poiaaVTa. TaiiTa Se nlaTOVTal napaTl6�llevos TO: geOTIIlOV �K TOO npOOTOV nep\ KvP';V1lS (FGrHist 470 F 1) �xoVTa OVTOOS' 'SlaninTovaav Se Tr,v npO:�lv ala66/lEvos l'\pKealAaos Ka\ [3ovMllevoS SI' �CXVTOO TO:S 'EanepiSas olKiaal n�llnel lleV els TO:S nOVlly VpelS fnnovs 06A,;aOVTas Evq>1lIl0V aYOVTa, VIK,;aas Se TO: nV61a Ka\ Tr,V �CXVTOO naTpiSa �aTeq>avooae Ka\ �nolKovs els TO:S 'EanepiSas avv�Aeyev. EVq>1lIl0S lleV oOv heAeVTa' KappOOTOS Se Tiis l'\pKeaIAaOV yvvalKos oSeAcpOS SleS��aTO Tr,V TOOV �nolKoov 1'lyellovlav' . 0 Toivvv OIvSapos TOUS haipovs Ka6olllAOOV TO KaTanpaX6ev T4"> Evq>';Il� T4"> KappOOT� npoaii\fJe' 1l6vov yo:p KaTop6ooaal q>l1a1v aliTov oyay6VTa TO aTpaTIOOTIK6v. S�E1E S' QV TOVTOIS avvGtSelV Ka\ TO /lEt�oalV i'l Ka6' 1'lvloxov ToiS nep\ aliToO My01S TOV OIvSapov Kexpiia6al' haipov yap q>l1a1 Ka\ evepYETl1v TOO [3aalMoos, 5nep QV elK6Toos �n\ Kl1SeaTOO A�yOITO i'l �n\ 1'lvI6xov' q>l1a\ yap, '�K6VTI Toivvv np�nel v6� TOV evepY�Tl1v oVTlaaal' (vv. 43-44) < > (lac. ind. Drachmann) aliTovpy6v Tlva TOV KappooTov yev6/lEvov 1'lvloxiiaal TO aplla, SIO: TO �nleIKOOS TOUS Kvpl1valovs apllOTTlAaTaS eTval Ka\ InnlKovs, ooaTe ollcp6Tepa T4"> l'\pKeaIAa� aliTov KaTelpyaa6al, 1'lvloxiiaat Te Ka\ aTpaToAoyiiaal. • • • • • •

Happily Didymus' u.�e of historians has, as with fr. 2 on O. 2 . 1 2-1 5, el�ewhere preserved valuable hi�torical information which would oth­ erwi�e be lost. A good example of this is the extract from Theotimus' hi�tory of Cyrene quoted in the scholion on P. 5.26 where Didymus in fr. 28 uses it to explain the reference to Carrhotu.�, the brother-in-law of

1 86

Bruce Karl Bra.well

Arcesilaus, who, according to Pindar,1 1 drove the winning chariot for the king of Cyrene in the spectacular Pythian race of 462, memorably celebrated in both the P. 4 and 5. Fr. 53 (47 Schmidt) Sch. Pi. N. 6.53a: BacrcrlomC1lv a T' OV crrravi�Er 6 6. l 0 v J.l 6 S
A t times however Didymus' wide reading i n the historians could lead him astray as in fr. 53. N. 6 celebrates a victory by an Aeginetan from a family long distingui�hed for its athletic success. Pindar nanles them in v. 31 where the paradosis leaves no doubt that they were the Bacrcrloal, but Didymus, evidendy never having heard of them, found in the Aeginetica of the local hi�torian Pythaenetm mention of one Boudion and con­ cluded without further evidence that one should write Bovolom in�tead of Bacrcrlom. Fr. 59 (52 Schmidt) Sch. Pi. N. 9.95a: �6VKpf)J.lVOlcrl 0' 0J.l rEAWWV Tvpavv� rrpos LvpaKovcriovS rr6AEJ.lOS· 6 oe rEAWV, OUTOS haipos, IrrrrapXE1 T6TE 'IrrrroKpaTEI. EV 0" TOUT� rrOAEJ.l� Xp6J.lloV EllIOEl�acr6al rroAACx epya KCITCx T"V J.laXTlv. rrEp! oe TOUTOV TOU rrOAEJ.lOV TIJ.lmoS EV Tij I' (FGrHist 566 F 1 8 , 6ff.) OEOf)AWKE. 'Ka6arra� yap', XpOJ.ll� Tvpavvwv, cm J.l" crw 'IrrrrOKpaTEI TOU rEAWVOS rrpos LvpaKovcrlovS. cm J.leV oVv rEAwva IrrrrapXEiv KCITEcrTflcrEV 'IrrrrOKpaTTlS, craOIS xaplcracr6a\ �OVA6J.lEVOS, J.lETarrEJ.ll.I'aJ.lEVOS aVTov Ka!

11

The lacuna in the scholia after the quotation of vv. 43-44 ha. added to the diffi culty of establishing DidYlllus' opinion of Carrhorus' role in the expedition to Delphi. DidYlllus quotes Theotimus to explain why he deserves to be re­ garded as a benefactor of the king, namely that he successfully completed the lllis..ion of bringing mercenaries to Cyrene. Didynm. does not deny that Car­ rhorus drove the winning chariot, pace Wilamowitz 1 922, 376, n. 1 .

Didymu,

on

Pindar

1 87

napaKaA�aas En\ TOS npa�elS, anaVTWV TWV Inn�wv T"V EnlfdAelaV EKeiv,!> nap�BWKev' . cm Be Ka\ 6 r�AWV T<';) Xpo�[,!> EXPllTO haip,!>, BllAOV naAIV E� 6)v cp1)al Ti�mos EV Tij <1>W ypacpwv OVTWS (FCrHist 566 F 2 1 , 6ff.) · 'EnlTp6nous Be TOO nal!50s �ET" EKeivov KQT�O"T1)aeV 1\plaT6vouv Ka\ Xp6)J10V TOUS KT)BeO"Tas· TOUT01S yop 6 rEAWV B�BwKe TOS aBeAcpas' . Fortunately, a� we have seen, Didymus usually makes better use o f his historical sources. Fr. 59 i� a good example where the grammarian draws on two different books of Timaeus' Sicilian hi�tory to explain the role of Chromius at the deci�ive battle of the Helorus which Pindar mentions in N. 9.40. There, the poet says, Chromius achieved fume in his early years. Since Didymus could not find mention of any other battle around the Helorus of tyrant� who were contemporary with Chromius except that of Gelon and Hippokrates against the Syracusan�, he infers that thi� is the battle described by Tinlaeus in the tenth book of hi� hi�tory. He then concludes that Chromius mu�t have been a comrade of the cavalry co mmander Gelon since he later became his brother-in-law and subse­ quently one of the guardian� of his son. Fr. 68 (59 Schmidt) Ammo n. DttJ. gl. 23 1 : 8T)l3aiOl Ka\ 81)l3ayeveis Blacp�poualV, Ka6c.:,s t d !5 u � 0 S EV 'Yno)JvT,)JaTl T<';) npwT,!> TWV nmavwv nlV!5apou (fr. 66 Maehler = F3 Rutherford) cp1)a[v· 'Ka\ TOV Tpino!5a ano TOUTOU

8T)l3ayeveis n��noual TOV xpuaeov els 'la)JtlVIOV npWTOV' . Tis 15' EO"Ti !51acpopo 8T)l3ayevwv npos 8T)l3aiouS, "EcpopoS EV Tij !5eUT�p<;x cpT)aiv (FCrHist 70 F 21) 'OinOl �ev oOv auvETax6T)aav els T"V B01WTiav. TOUS !5e ToiS 1\6T)Va[oIS 6�6pouS npoaOlKoOVTas l!5i<;x 8T)l3ai01 npoaT)yaYOVTO nOAAois healV VO"TepOV, oi aU)J)J1KTOl �ev i'jaav nOAAax66ev, EV�)JOVTO !5e T"V uno TOV Kl6mpwva (v.l.) xwpav Ka\ T"V anevavTiov (v.l.) TllS Evl3oias· EKaAOVVTO !5e 8T)l3ayeveis, cm npoaey�voVTo Tois CxAA01S B01WTOis 1510 8T)l3aiwv' . Fr. 6 8 i s a particularly interesting example o f Didymus' use o f historian� to explain a text in that the fragment comes from his conunentary on the Paeans of Pindar. In fr. 66 Maehler Pindar mentions a golden tripod which the 8T)l3
1 88

Bruce Karl Bra.'lWeU

2. Citation of Earlier Poets A common exegetical aid found in the scholia on Pindar is the citation of earlier poets to explain linguistic usage a� well as other matters requir­ ing exegesis. Although the scholar who i� respon.�ible for these citation.� is generally not mentioned by name, there are a few in.�tances which identify Uidymus a� their author. Fr. 51 (45 Schmidt) Sch. Pi. N. 5 . 1 0a: oVrre.> yevvc7I cpalvoov Tepelvav· aAAllyopei (3ovM­ Ilevos cJ1l1liival TOV ayevelov arro Tiis KV1T PI�O V TOV Kalpov TOU yevelaaKelv EXe.>V. olvav6llv yap KaTa lleTaCPOpaV TOV iOVAOV eiPllKe, TOVTec:rr1 TT,v 1I'pOOTTlV TWV yevelaSe.>v avacpvalv· Il"TTlP Se TOU yevelaaKelv ylveTal r, oopa. .

In fr. 5 1 Uidymus quotes for the use of 611'oopa at N. 5.6 in the original sen.�e of 'early autumn' Od. 1 4.384 ('and he said he would come either in high sununer or early autumn') and goes on to observe correcdy that Pindar uses 0lvav61l ('bloom on the grape') metaphorically for the down, i.e. the first growth of the beard, on a youth's cheek. As we would expect from Uidymus who devoted much of his study to Homer there are other references to the Homeric epics in his Pindar commentary, although fewer than one might suppose. The paucity of identifiable Homeric references presumably reflects the tendency of the compilers of the scholia to omit the names of authors where they were not con.�idered important. For that reason, a� Jean Irigoin thought, the scholia vetera contain much more material from Uidymus than is identi­ fied a� such. Many of the forty or so pa�sages in which he recognized typically Uidymean argumentation may well come from the Pindar commentary. 12 In any ca�e, we may note here a few other identifiable uses of Homer by lJidymu.�.

12 lrigoin 1 952, 72-74.

Didymu, on Pindar

1 89

Fr. 60 (52bis Schmidt) Sch. Pi. N. I0.49b: [MoIO"oIO"I T' eOc.uK' apoO"a I] " 6 oe voOS' Kcd TTOp�O"XS TTpO.opoO"TOS. Eml oOv Kol oliTos T&V EV i>.pyEI ETTI.OP1)O"TOS TTp&T' EIl�O"IAevO"sv' . hl6ETO oe TTaAaI EV Tfj LIKV&VI Ta N�llea' ov yap av 0"T11l0lVOI Ta nu610 Ta EV LIKV&VI ayollsvo· ov yap EO"TIV EKSivos TTSPIOOIKOS 6 O"T�
In fr. 60 on N. 1 0.25-28 where Pindar mentions, among the places from which the victor attained hi� crowns, 'the hallowed ground in accordance with Adrastus' foundation' , Didymus conmlent� that the hallowed ground refers to the Nemean ganIes, for Nemea i� near Sicyon and quotes fl. 2.572 (' [Sicyon1 where first Adrastus wa.� king') . He is concerned here to make it clear that the victories mentioned were gained at the major games in Nemea and not in the local Pythian games held in Sicyon. This is understandable, since the preceding ode in the collection, N. 9, wa.� written to celebrate a victory in the Pythian games at Sicyon, the foundation of which Pindar by a 'poetic licence', a.� the scholia call it, ascribes to Adra.�tuS. 13 Fr. 57 (50 Schmidt) Sch. Pi. N. 7 . 89b: ovosls IlE \jI�yEl, cm ETTalV& TOVS AIYIV-rlTOS· ov yap TTOAhos OVTOS EIlOVTOO Ola TOOTO ETTalV&' [ . 1 t:. I 0 v 11 0 S o�, ovo�vo \jIt�c.u,
.

13 Sch. Pi. N. 9.20: avCXTI6flcn (se. Pindar) yap Ti)v TWV nvelcuv 6talv tv IIKV­ WVI Jil.Spacrrcp , 1TOlflTIKT]V CXycuv C'xSElav.

1 90

Bruce Karl Bra.well

In fr. 57 on N. 7.6 1-63 where Pindar compares hi� encomium of the victor to the bringing of strea.m� of water, Didymus in his paraphrase alludes to the Homeric simile in n. 2 1 .257-58 without mentioning its source. Fr. 21 (20 Schmidt) Sch. Pi. O. 1 0.83a: Cl !5e t d !5 v ll o s OVTW Ka61O"T11Cl"1 TC)v Myov. ,."v MavTlvEav CP11Cl"iv ETvaI tEpaV nOCl"EIB&voS, Kai TTapaTI6ETal TOV BaKxvAIB11V AEyoVTa OVTW (2 1 . 1-3 Maehler)' 'nOCl"EIBaVlov ooS / MaVTIVEES Tpl6BoVTa xaAKOBalBaAOICl"lV EV / aCl"TT lCl"lv CPOpEOVTES ' . ETTICl"111l0V yap ETVaI T&V aCl"TT IBwv TOV nOCl"EIB&voS Tpl6!5oVTa, cm TTap' aliTois llaAIO"Ta TlllO:TaI Cl 6E6S. ECl"TaI OVv TO Cl"acpes OVTW, Ka6' miTov E�w6EV TTapaAalll3avollEvov TOO 6v6llaTos' av' iTTTTO ICl"1 Be TETpaCl"IV i)pws Cl aTTo MaVTlveas EvIKa' Kal EO"TIV ..; MaVTlvEa {Cl"Tl IlEiov Kai} tEpa TOO nOCl"EI!5&VOS' �Alpp6610V yap ETTl6ETIK&S TOV nOCl"EIB&va CP11Cl"1 Kai TTapaTI6ETal TO 'O IlTl PIK6v (Od. 5 .292-93)' 'TTaCl"as B' 6p66vvEV aEAAas / TTaVTOlwv avEllwv'. TTapaTI6ETaI Be Kai TOV ypacpoVTa T"V e11Cl"11I!5a (DiphillL�, lEG II 6 1-62) llaPTVpOOVTa T4'> i)pWl T"V TOO apllaTos ";VIOXEVTIK"V apET"v' 'Cl"TPWCP.;xS Be TTWAOVS ooS Cl MaVTIVEVS i)pws (CDEQ: LiillOS B) '.

Homer is not the only poet whom DidymlL� cites in his explmations of the Pindaric text. In fr. 21 Didymus, adopting the wrong reading Cl"O:Il(a) �Alppo.910v (reete LO:Il0S Cl I\Alppo.910v) in O. 10.70, tries to expla.in why the hero from Ma.ntinea with the device of HalirrhothilL�, i.e. Poseidon, on his shield won the very first four-horse chariot race held in Olympia. In support of the mistaken interpretation he cites the 2 1 " ode of Bacchylides. The cult of Poseidon in Ma.ntinea was well known a.� was hi� special relation to horses. 1 4 Fr. 16 (deest apud Schmidt) Sch. Pi. O. 8.41a: TOV TTais Cl AaToOs' IBlws CP11Cl"iv Cl .6. 1 B v 11 0 S Kal TOVTOIS xp"Cl"aCl"6al TOV nlvBapov' TOV yap nOCl"EIB&va Kai I\TT6AAwva EIs ,."V TOO TElxovS KaTaCl"KEVf}V CP11Cl"1 TOV AlaKov TTpOCl"AaI3Eiv. Kai TOV Myov aTToBI!5wCl"l, CP11Cl"IV, iva Bla TOIJTOV TOO IlEpOVS (mo AlaKoO 0IKoBoll116EVToS aAWCl"IIlOS yEVT)Tal ..; "IAloS. TTap' ovBEvl Be TTpECl"I3VTep� nlv!56:pov ..; to"Topla' Cl Be Evcpoplwv CP11Cl"lv (fr. 54 Powell = 78 Lightfoot)· "H yap 15" oi[36s TE

14 On the cult of Poseidon in Manrinea see Meyer 1 902-09, 2839, on Halir­ rhothim as an epithet of Poseidon see Stoll 1 886-90, 1 82 1 , and on Pmeidon Hippim see Meyer 1 902-09, 2822-26.

Didymu, on Pindar

191

nocl"EI60:oov 7' EKaAECl"Cl"aV I AlaKOV OVK (430T]6i (Lobeck: a�OTJ6T]7a cod.) TTEpi KpTJ5EIlVa 5�IlOV7ES' . Finally we may mention an example o f Didymus' diligence in searching for parallel� in other authors. Commenting on O. 8.30-33 where Pindar prai�es the Aeginetans by saying that Poseidon and Apollo took their local hero Aeacus as a helper when they built the wall of Troy, Didymu� notes in fr. 1 6 that the story i.� not found in any other author earlier than Pindar. The later use of the detail by Euphorion is then mentioned.

3. Relevance of the Myth to the Victor celebrated More interesting for many modem readers of Pindar i.� Didymus' at­ tempt to explain the relevance of a myth recounted in an ode to the victor celebrated in it. Since A.B. Drachmann's di�sertation on modem Pindar interpretation (1891) the topic has been a 'Dauerbrenner' in Pin­ daric critici.� m. Fr. 40 (deest apud Schmidt) Sch. Pi. N. 1 .49c: ai\i\ooS" EYci> 5' 'I-IpaKAeos· 5\(xrropEi-raL 7!VI acpOPllfj EiS 70VS TTEpl 'I-IpaKAeovs A6yovS 1Tapl'lA6E· 1lT]5EIl!av yap eXEIV Eis 7a 1Tap6v7a 'HpaKA�a OIKE!OOCl"IV· 6 IlEV ovv )\pia7apx6s
1 92

Bruce Karl Bra.well

6ywvex Kexl hrl TOlrr'll 51') TOV hrlVIKOV' 5\(1 TE TO N EIJEexiov ETvCX\ TOV A�OVTex, To:V-r1J TOV 'HpexKA�ex ToiS TOU VEVIKT}K6TOS hrexivolS EYKCXTexIlEllixeCXI. 6VTI1TpaTTEI 5e Kexl TOlrr'll TO 1JT}5' C>TIOUV TOV mv5expov [EhTEiv] mpl TOU A�OVTOS, omp ex!T\(:'::lTexTOV Tfis TIexpEK[3ao"EWS epT}O"IV 6 XpUo"l1TTIOS ETvexl . 130lTlov 5� epT}O"IV 6 t:. i 5 v IJ 0 S EKEivo A�yEIV, OTI 0 mpl Tiis AiTVT}S eepT}, TOOTo Kexl vuv [30UAETCXI 5T}AOOv 6 mvSexpos (P. 1 .3�34)· ' vexVO"\epOpf)TOIS 5' 6vSpaO"I TIPWTT} xaplS ES TIi\6ov EPXOIJ�VOIS TIOIlTIexiov Ei\6Eiv oi'ipov' . TOIOUTO AEyOI av TI Kexl ETII TOU XpolJiov' eml vuv tjPKTexl 6ywvi�EO"eexl Kexl 6p�aIJEVOS EVeUS eViKflO"EV, eATIiS eaTlV exVTOV Kexl TWV (f)..i\wv TEU�EO"eexl o"TEepavwv. TIp oS Ti oi'iv TO mpl lipexKi\�ovs VTI65ElYlJex; OTI Kexl 6 lipexKi\iis [3p�epOS ETI WV IJETexXElplO"alJEVOS TOUS 5paKoVTexs, Kexl TOUS exi'i6IS a6Aovs KCXTE1Tpa�exTo' Kexl wO"mp TOUTOV mpl TOV lipexKAeex yEyEVTlIJ�VOV 6 :A.lJepITpUWV efll3exiov OVTex TOV TElpEO"iexv TIpoexveKplvE TIEp! TOU TICXl56S, 6 5e TIPOEIJCXVTEUO"CXTO TOUS EO"OlJeVOvs ex04'> &eAOVS, oi'rrw S ex00S 6 mv5expoS ano Tfis TIPWTT}S TOU XpolJiov V!KflS TIPOIlCXVTEUETCXI, OTI Kexl TWV AOI1TWV aTEepavwv TEU�ETCXI. In fr. 40 the scholion on N. 1 .33 recount� four explanation� of the rele­ vance of the Heracles myth to the career of the old general and states­ man ChromilL�. First, we have the opinion of Aristarchus who could find no parallels between the two, but after rejecting the suggestion that the mention of the god Heracles had simply been given Pindar as a sub­ ject, he goes on to diKlL�S two other explanations only to reject both. Secondly, the explanation of Chaeris, probably a pupil of AristarchlL�, is given. According to him, the many toils early undertaken by Chromius in the service of Hieron eventually found their reward in the form of material prosperity and is thus paralleled by the career of Heracles who having endured much hard�hip was rewarded with inunortality and marriage to the goddess Hebe. Thirdly, Chrysippus, the Pindar com­ mentator, not the Stoic, rather lamely explained that the Heracles myth had been introduced on account of the Nemean lion, which, as the scholia add, i� not mentioned by Pindar. Finally , the scholia give the explanation of Didymus who preswnably i� responsible for the preserva­ tion of the other opinion�. According to him, the early achievement of the infant Heracles in strangling the serpents sent to kill him and the prophecy of Teiresias that he would go on to further labours and success are meant to be paralIeled by Pindar's prophesying from Chromim' first victory that he will go on to win more crown�. Unfortunately for Di­ dymlL�' interpretation Pindar nowhere suggests that Chromius will win further victories. In fact the success at Nemea was almost certainly not hi� first, since the one in the minor Pythian games at Sicyon celebrated in the N. ') wa.�, on the evidence, earlier. Of the four ancient explana-

1 93

Didymu, on Pindar

tions that of Chaeris where. 1 5

IS

the most convincing

as

I have argued el�e­

4. Textual Criticism - Conjectures 4. 1 . Conjectures Fr. 17 (16 Schmidt) Sch. Pi. O. 9.34c: r�aAepaisJ' 6 oe 1::.10 v � 0 s aVT\ TOO �aAaKais' Ka\ yap hepw61 (1. 2.8) �aAaKoepwvoVS TaS 4>o6:S ep"(J'IV.

In fro 17 the scholia report that Didymus wished to read �aAaKais ('gen­ tle') instead of �aAEpais (,glowing') at O. 9.22 on the ground� that Pin­ dar calls odes �aAaKoepwvoVS (,gentle-voiced') el�ewhere (1. 2.8) . Obvi­ ously Pindar's striking imagery was too much for the grarnmarian's imagination. Fr. 19 ( 1 8 Sdunidt) Sch. Pi. O. 1 0 . 1 7a, c: ve�EI yap a TpaXEia TTOAIS·[ ...] 1 7c 1i oihwS'1) aTpeKEla ve�EI -n;v TTOAIV T&V AOKp&V [ . .. ] 6 oe I::. 10 v � 0 S ep"alv EXEIV Myov Ka\ -n;v hepav ypaep"v' ve�EI yap a TpaXEia TTOAIS AOKp&V, Em\ mp\ X6:pITOS EaTIV 6 MyoS' 6TTove�EI 1) TpaXEia TTOAIS Tt)V X6:plv, TovTeaTlv OTOEV 6VTIxap�Eaeal 1) T&V AOKp&V TTOAIS TTpOS EyKw�la' 010 ep"alv' �eAEI Te aepl KaAAloTTa.

Didymus fared no better when in fro 19 he wi�hed at O. 1 0 . 1 3 to read ve�EI .. . a TpaXEia TTOAIS ('the harsh city') for ve�EI ... )\TpeKEla TTOAIV, so that in�tead of having the abstraction Strictness ruling the city, he would have me harsh city ruling-hardly a compliment to the Western Locrians whom Pindar was prai�ing. 1 1, 4.2 Defence of Manuscript Readings Fr. 20 (19 Schmidt) Sch. Pi. O. 1 0.55c: )\plaToo,,�oS (FGrHist 383 F *1 1) yp6:epEI avT\ TOO 1\AIV f\ATIV' oOTw yap TOV TTEp\ 'OAv�TTlav TOTTOV KaAEia6al, Ka\ TOV I::.la E� ETTl6ETOV f\ATIOV. �t) yap Myov eXEIV Tt)V tlTT' aUTOO TTETTOp61Wev,.,v 'HAIV IEpaV Ka\ Ka6apav TTOliiaal. aAAa �"oe IEpOV 15 Braswell 1992, 56 16 On Didymus' argument for the (wunetrical) change see Camevali 19BO, 7.

194

Bruce Karl Bra.well

eTvm 810S �v "HAIEiI, ai\i\' �v mcrll. aTT'1lKlcr6m Be TT)V mcrav Tils 'OAv�.lTTlas vAer· lepav Be TT)V "'HAIV aVTI TOO mcrav. Kal TOV �V mcrll Be 81a 'Hi\eiov eTTTe Kai\i\l�axos (fr. 1 96.1 Pfeiffer) ';A.i\eioS 6 Zeus'. If conjectural critici�m was not a strong point of l)idymu�, neither were hi� efforts at defending a weak reading that he found in his text of Pin­ dar. In fro 20 we are told that he wanted to keep 'AAIV at O. 1 0.45 where Aristarchu�' pupil Ari�todemus in hi� Pindar commentary intelli­ gendy corrected the text to read i\ATIV. Even jf Pindar could have called Pisa, i.e. Olympia 'Elis', what Heracles is supposed to have fenced in was the precinct, the temenos which, as Pausanias mentiom quoting Pindar, was called Altis from old.17

5. Misplaced Ingenuity in Exegesis Fr. 23 (21 Schmidt) Sch. Pi. O. 1 3. 27a, c-d: Tis yap ITTTTeiOiS �V EVTEO"I �ETpa· TOVTeV KCXTacrKevas �"Te TOV XaAlVOV Bla TOUTc..>V Bl1AOOcr6m, ai\i\a TOV Kepa�elKov TpoX6v, EK �eTa<popo:s BIx66ev IlETeVl1Vey�evl1s" TOOTO �ev chi iTTTTO IS o!Keios 6 TpoX6S, TOOTO Be em EKaTepc..>6ev �AaVveTm VTTO TToMs TTTepVTlS. Kai\i\i�axos (fr. 670 Pfeiffer)' 'TTTepvll 6' iTTTTO S �Aaw6�evos' . [ ... 1 27c Kal ge6V (v. Regenbogen 1940, 1 535 .8-43) 'YTTep1310v TOV Kop[v616v crlv oihc..>S exovcrav· TT)V EV TTp66e(J"\v, aVTI Tils e!s KeIIlEVTlV, crwaTTTE ov TTpOS Ta �ETpa' Tis yap Tois e!s Ta �ETpa ITTTTeiolS eVTEO"IV �xp"craTo TTPWTTl II cru, & K6p1V6e; iTTTTEla Be EVTEa aKOVelBwvela 6.yyeia' EVTea yap <"xv eil1 Tas xolvlKas Kal TOUS �eBi�vovs AEyc..>V, Bla TT)V KOIi\6Tl1Ta. Kai ·O�l1POS (Od. 7.232)' 'a�
17 Pam. 5.1 0 . 1 : To st &Aoos TO lepov TOU ll.IOS lTapalTOlTloavTes TO QVOlla i\)mv lK lTaAalOU KaAOUOI ' Ka\ S" Ka\ nIVSc'xP'll lTOITjOavTI ls &vSpa OAVIl1TlOvIK1"JV {lolla i\ATIS llTCilVOllaOTai TO XCilplov.

Didymu, on Pindar

1 95

EVTea Sa1T6s' . TOlhc.uv oOv TWV els TO: �.uhpa �VTec.uV evpeTCxS eiBc.uv 6 TTPWTOS K6ljJas KOPIV610ls TO �hpov :A.pyeios ljv' TO Se 7\pyoS iTTTTelov AeyoVO'lV 01 TTOIT}Tal. EvpITTIST}S (IT 7(0)' '(hay els 'EAMS' iTTTTel6v T' 7\pyoS �6A1JS' . W e could g o on adding examples o f Didymus' waywardness as a critic, but surely the prime example of his mi�placed ingenuity is found in another scholion on O. 13.20-22. In fro 24 he correctly attributed the device of placing eagles on the gables of temples to an invention of the Corinthians,lH but in fro 23 on the same passage he first argues that the �Ihpa which were added to the horse-gear are not the bridle but the potter's wheel and then goes on to say it could refer to measuring pots. The argumentation in both ca�es shows a certain method in hi� madness, but that is not the place to pursue this diversion further.-1 'J

6. Aesthetic Criticism Fr. 35 (32 Schmidt) (a) 5th. Pi. P. 1 0 . 5 1 a-b: KAelTO:S ovc.uv �KaT6��aS' TO O'T}�eiov, cm 01 'YTTEp�6pelol OVOVS 6vovO'I TCil :A.TT6AAc.uVI. 51 b TaiiTa,
Finally, as one example of Didymus' frequent critici�m of passages on moral or aesthetic grounds, we may mention hi� comment in fro 35 on that notoriolL� verse P. 1 0.36 where Apollo is said to laugh at the O�PIV 6p61av of the a�ses which the Hyperboreans sacrifice in hi� honour. He finds thi� 'ludicrous and un�eemly' and a�ks: 'What reason would there be for Apollo to take pleasure in ToiS 6p6lCxZ;;ovenv OVOIS?'. Just as mod­ em critics such a� William Race in his Loeb edition remain uncertain

1 8 See above, p. 1 84-185. 1 9 Deas 1 93 1 , 24 ha., conveniently set out the curious sequence of Didymu,' argumentation.

1 96

Bruce Karl Bra.well

what amuses Apollo in the asses' behaviour, 2< 1 so too they are not sure what annoys Didymu.� in Pindar's description. Although some Pindarists, for example A. Kohnken,21 continue to take it a� a reference to the asses' braying, 6pwv, which Sch. Pi. P. 1 0.55a paraphmes with 6ecupwv, can hardly imply anything other than sight. Other critics, for example L. R. Famell,22 think that Apollo laughs when he sees the ithyphallic exuber­ ance of the beast�. There i� however another explanation given in Sch. Pi. P. 10.55b, which wa� accepted by A. Boeckh,2-' that the reference i� to the O"KlpTT)lJ.aTa, the 'leaps', i.e. the rearing up, of the restive animal� a� they are led to the slaughter. This would account for the use of a verb of sight. While it is just possible that Pindar might have understood it in thi� way, though I doubt it, we can be sure that Didymu.� wa� not ob­ jecting to the use of 0I3Plv 6p61av in that sense. Although the verb 6p61C:xl;elv can be used of a shrill cry a� in Aeschylus' Persians,24 it is unlikely that he wa� shocked at Apollo's amusement at the braying of asses. Rather, he must have u.�ed 6p6lal;eIV in the sense of arrigere a� in the late medical writers Oribasius and Paul of Aegina.2.' A� the more tolerant Sch. Pi. P. 10. 56a remarks, Pindar wa� jesting.

7. Conclusion

The examples I have chosen give a general notion of Didymus' exegesis of Pindar. Notably absent from the evidence preserved in the scholia is any di�cmsion of metre. Although metrical problem� presumably did not interest Didymm a� did hi�torical references, we cannot be sure in the Race 1 997, I 362--63. Kohnken 1971, 161 . Farnell 1 932, 2 1 8. Boeckh 1 8 1 1-2 1 , II 2, 335. Wilamowitz 1 922, 1 27, combines the two expla­ nariolL' in that he thinks that Apollo 'sich an den Spriingen der ithyphallischen Ese! freut, die ihm geopfert werden'. 24 A. Pm. 686-88: vlJI'iS oE 6pTJveh' �yyVS �aT&>TES TC«POV, / Kai \jJV)(ayooyois Op6l(\c�oVTes y601S / OIKTPWS KaAeia6t 11'. 25 Orib. Syn. 5 . 1 9.2: xplelv oei Ahm avvexei TO: alooia l1iYl1a �XOVTl Tiis TOV vapKlaaov pll;TJS I1tpoS �paxv ... op6la�ETal oE Kai OaTIS OTIOV KVPTJVaYKov KtyxpOV I1tye6os �VT16eTal, Paul. Aeg. 6.70. 1 : vmpl1eyt6TJS �vlatS ylvETal vVl1CPTJ Kai e!S wptmlav a1axvVTJS WaVT<;t· Ka600s ot Tlves laTopovO"IV, �vlal 010: TOV I1tpovS Kai op6la�ovalv avopaalv ol1oloos Kai TIpOS avvovalav 0Pl1wO"Iv. And, for the compound ��-, c( a1.o Plu. De Iside et Osiride 51 (37 1 f): TIaVTOXOV oE Kai av6pwTI6110pcpov 'Oalploos CryaAl1a oelKvvovalv ��op6Ial;ov TCil aloolcr 010: TO y6vII1ov Kai TO TPOcp1l10V, as well as the u..e of Op61ClV in Cyratlides 1 .5 . 1 3 and 1 . 1 0.64 (44.65 Kaimakis) . 20 21 22 23

Didymu, on Pindar

1 97

light of the fragmentary state of the evidence that he did not at times treat them. That he did not edit the text of Pindar seems certain. Al­ though some recent critics, notably Ph. Harding in his excellent edition of Didymu�' On Demosthenes, claim more originality for the grammarian than is usually conceded, u. in summing up Didymu�' achievement as a Pindar commentator I can do no better at this stage than to quote Wilamowitz' general a�sessment of him: "Didymos hat zwar keine ep­ ochemachende, aber doch eine eminente geschichtliche Bedeutung. Er hat die Ergebni�se der alteren kritisch exegeti�chen Arbeit zusammenge­ faBt und auf die Nachwelt gebracht".27

26 Harding 2006, esp. 3 1 -39, 4 1 . 2 7 Wilamowitz 1 889, 1 6 1 .

Afterlives of a Tragic Poet: The Hypothesis in the Hellenistic Reception of Euripides Peter Bing

Hennippus of Smyrna, the 3M century B.c. biographer and student of Callimachus, wrote a life of Euripides in which he recounts the follow­ ing story that goes to the heart of this poet's reception: 1 MyEl 5E Kai ·Ep�l1Trros .6.IOVVcrJOV TOV LIKEAias Tvpavvov �ETa T1'lV TEAEVT'I')V TOU Evpl1Ti50v TaAavTov ToiS KA1lPOVOIlOIS aVTou rre�,+,aVTa Aa�Eiv TO ,+,aATI'\PIOV Kai T1'lV 5EATOV Kai TO ypacpEiov, enTEp i50vTa KEAEuaal TOUS cpepoVTas �v T0 Movawv lEP0 avaeEivat �1Tlypa,+,avTa ToiS aVTou Evpl1Ti50v 6vo�aoT 510 Kai �EVOCPIAWTaTOV KEKA;;aeai cpaO"I 51a TO �aAIO'Ta \I1TO �evwv cpIAEia6at· vrro yap ;r..e1lvaiwv �cpeOvEiTO.

Vita Euripidis p.

5

Schwartz I

=

T A t III 4 (Kannicht)

Hennippos sa� . .. that following Euripides' death, Dionysius [the t"], tyrant of Sicily [from ca. 405-367, and notoriom as author of both tragedy and comedy himself], sent Euripide, heirs the sum of one talent and got the poet's harp, his writing tablet and his stylm. After he had seen the instru­ ments, he ordered those who brought them to set them up as a votive gift in the temple of the Mmes and he had an inscription made in his own and Euripides' name. It is for this reason that he [scil. Euripides] was called "most beloved by strangers", because he was particularly loved by foreign­ ers, whereas the Athenians bore him ill-will. Thi� anecdote, which concerns the tramfer of a poet's instruments-the emblems of his art-from their native setting to a distant land, is very much a product of its age. It recall� other Hellenistic texts, both in verse and prose, that describe how clL�tody of the poetic heritage shifts to a new place--to a setting in which that legacy is better appreciated, more lovingly safeguarded. No longer for sale to the highest bidder, the em-

C( BolIamee 1 999, 98-1 00 and 223.

200

Peter Bing

blem� of the poet's craft are sanctified within a shrine of the Muses. 2 A comparable tale was told of how the Ptolemies' unscrupulously acquired from Athens the official Lycurgan copy of the three great tragedian�, the so-called "Staat�exemplar"; they offered to give the Athenians a deposit of fifteen talents if only they could borrow the originals to make cop­ ies---o r so they said. The Ptolemies, however, gladly forfeited the huge sum so as to keep the prototype.3 A� with the instruments of Euripides in Hermippus' tale, these precious literary objects were deposited in a shrine of the MlL�es, the Alexandrian Mmeum of which the great library likely fonned a part. Another example--this time a poem, epigram 37 AB of the Milan PosidipplL� papyrus---similarly traces a poetic object's journey to a new land. It describes how a lyre, carrie d by "Arion's dol­ phin", was washed ashore in Egypt and deposited in the temple of Arsi­ noe PhiladelphlL�. The poem plalL�ibly reflects Ptolemaic claims to be the new clL�todians of the literary heritage, here in particular of the Les­ bic tradition of lyric verse, embodied by Arion. 4 For HermipplL�, the fate of Euripides' poetic implements-hi� lyre, writing tablet, and stylus--exemplifies this tragedian's special popularity beyond his native Athens. Though unappreciated at home, foreigners adore him; hence he i� xenophilotatos. Previous studies have had nothing to say about this tenn. Yet it i� worth noting how peculiar it i�, together with its underlying concept. The related adjective philoxeinos is, of course, well-attested already in the Odyssey in the sen�e of "loving strangers", "hospitable" (6 . 1 2 1 , 8.576, 9. 176, 1 3 .202) , and not infre­ quent thereafter in poetry (especially Pindar and tragedy) and in prose. But while the actively cordial philoxeinos makes perfect sense within the norms of ancient Greek hospitality, the passive xenophilos, "beloved by strangers", is a cultural oddity. It i� not surprising, therefore that Her­ mippus' expression, xenophilos, i� a hapax---a unique term to designate a 2

3 4

See abo the later, more scurrilous tradition at Lucian Adv. indoct. 1 5 (= TrGF

I, 76 TIl), concerning Dionysius' reaction when his tragedies were mocked:

ov-rOS Tolvw 1TV66�EVOS WS �yyEA(ha\, TO AICl")(VAOV 1TV�tOV E1s 0 �1<EivoS �ypacpE a&v lTOAAi) O"1Tov5i) 1 �1<e1vcp �a1 YEAOloTEpa �ypacpEv, "When he discovered that he was being laughed at, he took great pains to procure the wax-tablets on which Aeschylus used to write, thinking that he too would be inspired and possessed with divine frenzy in virtue of the tablets. But for all that, what he wrote on those very tablet, was fur more ri­ diculous than what he had written before." (Loeb trans!.) Galen, Comm. in Hipp. Epidem. (CMG V 1 0, 2, 1 p.79) . C( Fraser (1 972) 325 with n. 1 47. See Bing 2005, 1 27-1 3 1 .

Afterlives of a Tragic Poet: The Hypothesis of Euripides

201

unique playwrite; it i�, moreover, not even recorded in LSJ.s Indeed, the word i� a pointed and witty inversion of the conventional virtue embodied in the more common philoxeinos. For while philoxeinos reflecu the idealized attitude of a host toward any given stranger, xenophilos regard� the anomalous quality of a stranger bdoved abroad by every imaginable host-even a� he i� unappreciated in his native land. In the ca�e of Euripides, that popularity abroad is borne out by vari­ ous types of evidence. Didascalic notices, for instance, suggest that throughout the Greek world restaging; of Euripides were all the rage. That impression is confinned by the visual evidence from South Italy, where drama was a favored subject in vase-painting, and where the number of depiction� of Euripidean tragedies gready exceed those of the other tragedians.(' Finally, papyri show that texts of thi� tragedian far outnumber those of Aeschylus and Sophocles, and indeed that he was the most widdy read Greek poet after Homer--at lea�t in Greco­ Roman Egypt, where most of the papyri were found. Yet one form of Helleni�tic Euripides reception ha� been thought unrelated to the popularity of this tragedian's work, namdy the narrative hypotheses, or plot-summaries, of Euripides' plays. These texts-which are to be distingui�hed from the learned dida�calic hypotheses that circu­ lated under the name of Aristophanes of Byzantium, or from daborate Byzantine synopses-have been found in a wide array of papyri, ranging in date from the 1 " through the 3'" cent. A.D.7 For the most part, they exhibit such formal con�istency that they have plausibly been thought to derive from a single original collection, whose date--judging by the style--was likdy between the 2nd cent. B.C and 1 " cent. A.D." As the

S 6

7

8

It does occa.�ionally appear a� a name. Thi� is true generally , and not just in S. Italy, for post-Soh cent. B.C. va�e paint­ ing. See Kuch 1978, 1 96 n.46, citing Trendall-Webster 1971. Now see espe­ cially Taplin 2007, 1 09: "compared with Aeschylus and Sophocles, Euripides made a tar greater impact on mythological pictures. Surely this must go hand in hand with hi� being more frequently performed, and with hi� making a greater impres.�ion on audiences." Hi� section on Euripides runs from p. 108 to 219. For the performance of Euripides in the Greek West, cf. Allan 2001, 67-86. For Euripides reception genera1Jy, cf. Funke 1965-1 966, 233-279. The earliest i� P. Mil. Vogl. 2, 44. For the most recent, detailed treatment of these hypotheses, cf. van Ros.�um-Steenbeek 1998. For general character, style and date, ZUOt2'S treatment ( 1 9SS, 134-139) remain.� es.�entiaJ. See also now Diggie 2OOS, 6:.-67. Thi� i� the concllL�on of Diggle 200S, 66, who find� that "the types of clausu­ be he [scll. the author of the hypotheses1 favours and hi� perva�ive lL�e of them, allied to the rhetorical nature of hi� prose and the rhyt1un� with which he em-

202

Peter Bing

papyri show, this collection wa� available independent of the plays themsdves and arranged in alphabetical order according to title. Build­ ing on a comparison made already by Wilamowitz, Giinther Zuntz dubbed it Talesfrom Euripides, after Lamb's Talesfrom Shakespeare.9 Zuntz also had a strong opinion about the function of this text. With typical bluntness, he as.�erted that these hypotheses' "sole purpose is to sununa­ rize the action of the play . . . [TheYl are not designed to introduce the reader to the plays. They are meant as a substitute for the plays. This is to say . . . the 'Tales of Euripides' were retold for the use of readers in­ terested in mythology rather than in poetry . ..lit This a�sessment, which sees these text.� as mythography operating mostly apart the plays, has become the dominant view among scholars. lI Yet I believe the text.� them�dves suggest something different. And I want to illustrate that difference by reference to the hypothesis of the lost play, Melanippe the WISe. related versions in works by 1 2th cent. authors, John Logothetes and Gregory of Corinth, in their commentaries on a rhetorical treatise of Hermogenes, Concerning the Pursuit of Intensity. Substantial portions have also emerged in the 2nd cent. A.D. Oxyrhychus papyrus 2455, part of an alphabetic edition of Euripidean hypotheses, whose fragments start with belli�hes it, all mark him a.� an adherent of the Auatic school of rhetoric, whose origin� are as.IDciated with Hegesia.� of Magnesia in the 3 01 century." 9 WiJamowitz 1 907, 1 34 n. 1 9 and 1 70, made the compari.�on with Lamb. See Zuntz 1 955, 1 35- 1 39. 1 0 Zuntz 1 955, 1 35. 11 It i� echoed e.g. by E.G. Turner, "clearly a work of popularization retelling the story of the plays in digest form, so that the reader could skip the original if he felt so inclined," 1 9MI, 1 0 1 ; J. RIL�ten, "the narratives were meant solely to summarize the plot, and contained no critical conunenu or dida.�caJic informa­ tion; they were thlL� designed for readers who wi�hed to be familiar with Eu­ ripidean plots without reading the plays them�elves, and belonged not to schol­ arship but to mythography," 1 982, 358; or more recently R. Kannicht, "Tales From Euripides, die die vieJfach kanoui�ch gewordene I!V601TO\la der euripide­ i�chen StUcke in schlichter Prosa so venuitteln, dass sie deren Lektiire unter stoftlicher R iicksicht gegebenenfaU.� ersetzen konnten," 1 997, 68; tending in thi� direction, though occa.�ionally contradicting herself, see van Ros.�um­ Steenbeek 1 998, 1 59: "The narrative hypotheses consi�t of independent retel­ Jins'I of tragedies . . . ; they may ea.Uly be read without the text of the plays, or even in�tead of them . . . ; the author and/or other readers and lL�ers of the col­ lection did not have to read or con�ult the tragedies to obtain the infonnation they needed for some rea.�on or another". Yet on p. 1 6 1 , she says "Most of our subliterary papyri seem to have helped the readers to acquire information on or form a picture of the literature they were reading or about to read. These papy­ r\L� teXt� have an auxiliary or introductory character".

203

Afterlives of a Tragic Poet: The Hypothesis of Euripides

Mu and run, with interruptions, to the end of the alphabet. 12 Further, fragment<; of several lines survive in a Leiden papyrus probably of the 1 " cent. (P. Lugd. Bat. 25.2) .13 These papyrus texts are nearly identical to the medieval versions.1 4 Kannicht's text in TrCP 5, which I reproduce, is thus a composite of these various sources: ME[Aavhnrll of) IOql1), -fis apxTl 'ZEUS 5.[.... lof) Se \11T6 6EO'IS·J l"EAAllVOS TOU flloS AioAOS TEI<1If.t)6EIS �JI< IJ/;v ElVJPVlSII<11S �yeW11 O'E Kp116ea Iepov-J O'av MeAavI"Trnlllv. aUTOS !leV oOv q>6vovJ lTlol1)O'as �JlT' �vlalVTOV alTijA6E qlvy �O'IAEi lTlPoaflveyKav. 0 Se Tij TOU lTaTpOS "EAJAllVOS yvw!llJ llTEla6EIS OAOKavTOVv TCx �peqlll Kpl-J vas MeAavl1T1T11 1 Tij l 6vyaTpi lTpOO'ET�EV �VTaqllolS aUTCx KOO'!lijO'aI.J of) Se Klai TOV K60'!loV aUTois �lTe611I<E Kal Myov EIS lTapalT1lO'lv ��e611KE qlIMT1!lov.J TrGF 5 . 1 ,

4

8

12

16

20

24 (44) i Kannicht

Melanippe the Wise, whose first line is "Zeus [ . . . The plot is this: Aeolu� wa.� begotten by Zeu�'s son Hellen. By Eurydice he fathered Cre­ theu�, Salmoneu� and Sisyphu�, and by Cheiron's daughter Hippe the ex­ traordinarily beautiful Melanippe. Now after committing a murder, he "

12 Editio princeps by E .G. Turner in The OxyrhytIChus Papyri XXVII (London 1962). 13 Editio princeps by Daniel 199 1 , 3-4. Cf. Luppe 1991, 15-17. 1 4 A, Luppe has stres.,ed, "soweit der Oxyrhychu,-Papyrus erhalten ist, hat er gezeigt, da.'5 die mittelalterliche Oberlieferung fa.,t wortlich den urspriinglichen Text bewahrt hat 199 1 , 15. ,"

204

Peter Bing

himself went into exile for a year, and Melanippe was impregnated by Po­ seidon with twin sons. Anticipating her £ather's return she gave the infants when she had borne them to her nune to place in the ox-stable, in accor­ dance with their father's instruction. Upon the ruler's homecoming, some of the ox-herd, saw the infant, being guarded by the bull and suckled by one of the cows. Taking them to be cow-born monsters, they brought them to the king who, following his father Hellen's opinion, decided to bum up the infants and instructed hi, daughter Melanippe to furni,h them with funeral apparel. Melanippe put the apparel on them, and also inter­ ceded for them with an ambitious speech. First of all, it is worth saying again that, a., P. Oxy . 2455 makes clear, this text was part of an alphabetic collection of Euripidean hypotheses, and that hypotheses preserved in other papyri point to the same sort of collection. Thus, although scholars starting with Wilamowitz have noted the sometimes verbatim similarity between parts of these hy­ potheses and more general works of mythography such a. , the Library of Ps.-Apollodorus or Hyginus' Fabulae, 1 5 and have argued from thi, that the hypotheses served a similarly independent mythographic function, it is noteworthy that our collection wa. , not made to fonn a coherent mythological narrative, whether organized genealogically and chrono­ logically like Ps.-Apollodorus, or thematically like Hyginus or Parthenius' TTEpi fpC.;ITIKWV rro.9T]pCrTWV. Rather, the hypotheses' raison d'hre are the tragedies of Euripides: They appear together in the collec­ tion for no other reason than that they refer to hi, works. Their rela­ tively large number in the papyri vis-ii-vis synopses of the other tragedi­ am suggests the popularity of Eu ripides not of the prose hypothesi , as independent genre. Further, E.G. Turner noted how the alphabetic organization of the hypotheses "clearly looks back to a complete and [alphabeticallyl or­ dered edition of Euripides . . . ". Each hypothesis, moreover, i, intro­ duced-as in the ca. ,e of our Melanippe the Wise-by title and opening verse, tenn.. which "are themselves derived from a definitive edition or catalogue . . . This is how works were entered in Callimachus' Pinakes" . 1 1. That i. to say, the collection of hypotheses wa.. keyed to a standard text of Euripides, and designed so a.. to facilitate its use in conjunction with such a text. What, after all , would be the point of including a drama's first line if not to allow readers to find the scroll containing, for exam­ ple, Melanippe the Wise, when they look for it in the book-bucket of hi , tragedies with titles i n "Mu"? Clearly, the hypothesis lead , to the text. -

1 5 See Wilamowitz 1 875, 1 83-1 84; Zuntz 1 955, 1 36, and Ruste n 1 982, 357 n.2. 1 6 Tumer, op.at. (n. 1 2) 1 0 1-1 02.

Afterlives of a Tragic Poet: The Hypothesis of Euripides

205

In addition, as Zuntz points out,17 John Logothetes probably found this hypothesis, and that to the Sthenoboia, in an earlier source that had extracted them from a complete edition of Euripides, "for he was able to add to the arguments quotations from each of these plays". In other word�, that source had linked the hypothesis to the play, precisely as the hypothesis itself invites its readers to do. A concrete link: to the play may aho be apparent when, in line 24 of the hypothesis, Gregory of Corinth add� to the words Kal A6yov the article T6v, so as to produce Kal TOV Myov. Kannicht rightly glosses this change (ad loc.) as meaning "illam orationem", that is, "that well-known A6yoS". And he add� in a recent letter (9/20/08), "a hint at the fame of Melanippe's speech?" That seems to be suggested, too, in the further qualification that A6yoS receives here. Although hypotheses certainly omit elements that are present in the tragedies, or add others that help fill in the back­ ground, they often highlight particular moments in the drama. In the case of Melanippe, we observe how at the critical point when she has already dressed her children in funeral garb in preparation for their fiery death, the hypothesis tells us she delivered an "ambitious speech", MyoS
17 1 955, 137. 18 1 998, 12. 19 The early 1 9'" cent. milieu conditions that work's expectation that its Tales will

serve the education of "very young children", and young ladies in particular, "because boys being generally pennitted the use of their father.;' libraries at a much earlier age than girls are, they frequently have the best scenes of Shake­ speare by heart, before their sister.; are pennitted to look into thi. manly book" (preface, Everyman's Library edition, New York 1 906) . 20 See Cribiore 1996, 1 92, 301 . C( van Rosswn-Steenbeek 1 998, 31.

206

Peter Bing

Poet. 1 4d) . 21 lDamtuch, then, as they help introduce the reader to a given play or facilitate his experience thereof, these texts must be seen as feeding ultimately into the public's avid consumption and keen enjoy­ ment of Euripidean tragedy. In this sense, hypotheses such as that for Melanippe the WISe are one more indicator of Euripides' status as xeno­ philotatos in the Hellenistic Age.

21 Thus Marrou 1 956, 165. Note, however, van Ros.�um-Steenbeek's caution about what preci�ely Plutarch might have meant by lTOITJT1KaS &rroe�(JElS, and whether these might refer to verse-hypotheses, 1998, 73 n.50.

Re-writing the Personal Joke : Some Aspects in the Interpretation of 6voIJocrTi Kc.vIJ�8ETv in Ancient Scholarship Stelios Chronopoulos

Ancient scholarship saw the 6volloCTTI KWIl� 5eTv, the personal jokes against historical person.� in comedies, as a crucial dement bdonging to the first phase of Attic comedy, the so called "Old Comedy". The roots of comedy and the historical devdopment of the genre are repeatedly explained with reference to the dement of personal ridicule. In the scholia on Dionysios Thrax the roots of the genre are traced back to songs of abuse which pea�ants chanted under the cover of night before the houses of city-dwellers who had wronged them. A� this proved an effective method for exposing injustice, the polis detennined to institutionalise such songs, offering the city-theatre to peasants for such perfonnances. Later it charged poets with the task of fredy ridicul­ ing whomever they wi�hed. On this reading, 'Old Comedy' is consid­ ered a consequence of this particular freedom of speech. ! Secondly, a discernible trend in ancient scholarship explains the de­ vdopment of Attic comedy with reference to the social role of the 6VOllOCTTI KWIl� 5eTv and the reactions of the persons abused. Thus, according to some Prolegomena de Comoedia, a� a reaction to unquaIified freedom of speech in the 'Old Comedy', more indirect, implicit meth­ od� of Kwll� 5eTv were adopted in 'Middle Comedy', eventually leading to the abolition of personal abuse against prominent members of the polis in 'New Comedy' . 2

2

The scholion on Dionysios to which is referred to in XVIIIa, 2-1 8, p . 70 Kos­ ter; c( al.o ProlegomelUl de Comoedia IV, 2-1 1 , p. 1 1 Koster. For the relatiomhip between these Prolegomena and the scholia on Dionysios, see Nes..elrath 1990, 38-44. For a contemporary eIi.cmsion of songs of abme (Rjjgenliede� as a possi­ ble source for Attic comedy, see Stark 2004, 1 09-1 1 6. Prolegomena de Comoedia XVlIIa, 26-39, p. 71 Koster (= Sch. D. T.); c( alm Prolegomena de Comoedia IV, 10-15, p. 1 1 ( Koster and Platon. Diff. Com. (= Prolegomena de Comoedia I, p. 3-6 Koster) .

20H

Stelio� Chronopoulos

These approaches to the origins and the development of the comedy give priority to comedy's moral functions. They view comedy primarily as a political institution and the Kc..> �<{JSEiv as exercising a corrective function.3 The ancient scholia to Aristophanes are characterised by thi� same tendency. 4 Personal ridicule is harnessed to provide as much in­ formation on the ridiculed persons as possible, thus pennitting a recon­ struction of the hi�torical person behind each komodoumenos. Although thi� moralizing and biographical approach i� indeed prominent, there are a number of indications that aesthetic critique and the presentation of a personal joke in its textual context are not absent from the scholia. In thi� paper I shall attempt to follow up some of these features. In the first part of this essay I will develop the moraliz­ inglbiographical approach a.� a means toward� understanding the func­ tion of ancient comedy. In the second part I will however propose that the process through which the comment� on personal jokes in the scho­ lia on Aristophanes are produced can also be viewed a.� a process of re­ writing these personal jokes in the critical idiom of a philological survey or commentary. A crucial feature of this process will be commented upon: the characterisation of a personal joke through the verbal form used to introduce its transcribed version. In the third part I will examine some particular ca.�es which indicate that, besides the moralizing and biographical approach, the ancient scholia preserve vestiges of ap­ proaches which con�ider the function of the personal jokes in the framework of their textual contexts and thus to a certain extent al�o examine the 6vo�a � <{JSEiv from an aesthetic point of view.

1. The Comic Poet as Censor, the komodoumenoi as Historical Personalities

The scholia to Aristophanes, which are transmitted in the margin� to Byzantine manuscript� of the plays, were composed at the earliest in the 1 0m century CEo The material that they draw from may be traced back

3 4

Nesselrath 1990, 54. A clear fonnulation of the Ill orali�ing function of K(.()�cp5Eiv may be found in Sch. Ar. Nu. 542 b a, �.

Re-writing the Personal Joke

209

to the Hellenistic liTrollvTlI.lQTa, which were copied, compiled, and paraphrased up until the 6th century CE.5 Besides these Helleni�tic commentaries an important role in ancient research of 6vollacrrl KCt.)Il� Seiv wa� played by the separate treatises on komodoumenoi which had, it may plausibly be assumed, the form of lists of the person� ridiculed and also of those pa�sages in which they were mentioned. These komodoumenoi treatises reveal the prosopographic interest of ancient philological research on comedy. The scholia to Ari.�­ tophanes contain several references both to the Helleni�tic \l1rOllvTJllQTa and to the komodoumenoi treati.�es. (, In their approaches to the komodoumenoi ancient scholars primarily endeavoured to solve the problem set out by Plutarch (Mor. 712 A 411), who had argued that personal jokes, an important element in the humour of many Attic comedies of the 5th and the 4th centuries BCE, were incomprehen�ble to a public not acquainted with the actuality in which these comedies were embedded. The general method employed by ancient scholars in their approach to personal jokes in the comedies may be reconstructed a� follows: jokes about each specific person are removed from their contexts and juxta­ posed, thu.� providing a picture of the komodoumenos, a picture which wa� supposed to be as consi�tent a� possible. A certain historical and therefore interpretative value was then a�cribed to thi� general portrait. In most cases the material for this portrait came from the jokes them­ selves. The circularity of this approach is apparent. Nevertheless, the lack of historical information about several komodoumenoi, in combination with the a�sumption that this information is indispen�ble for the understand­ ing of the personal jokes in comedy, explains why even contemporary research often overlooks this circularity. To cite one example, Eleanor Dickey remarb in her valuable guide to Ancient Greek Scholarship: 'The scholia to Aristophanes are among the most important sets of scholia, in part because they provide historical background without which many of the jokes and allu.�ion� in the comedies would be incomprehensible. ' 7 5 6

7

See Maehler 1 994 and Maehler 2000, 34-36; see a1.,0 Dickey 2007, 29. On the definition and the variou, categories of HeIleni,tic VlTOI!Y1lI!ClTa, see Del Fab­ bro 1 979, 69. The main approach to the komodoumenoi-Ji,rs remain, Steinhausen 1 910; to the scholars listed there we should add Hypsikrates, whose komodoumenoi-treari.,e consisted of at lea.,t 7 books (P.Oxy. 18, 2192, dated ca. 170 eEl; on the work and the identity of Hypsikrates, see Nes.,elrath 1 990, 75 n. 32 and Perrone 2006. On the komodoumenoi-treatises, see also Wibon 2007, 43f. Dickey 2007, 28.

210

Stelio� Chronopoulos

In his article entitled 'Ancient Interpretations of 6vollacTTt KU>llcp5eiv in Aristophanes' , Stephen Halliwell exposes the circularity of this approach." His remark� may be swrun arised a.� follows: in the scholia 'satirical humour is consistently translated into objective truth' (1 984, 84) ; for the most part however it i� only a paraphra.�i� of the comic pa.�­ sages that is presented as the hi�toricaJ portrait of the person. Still 'in their eagerness to re-create the assumed factual background of Ari�to­ phanic jokes the Scholia frequently draw unsound or unnecessary infer­ ences from the text' (p. 85) , and they have the tendency 'to a.�similate the unknown, or indetenninated to the known' (p. 86) . Thi� approach i� based upon their 'moraJi�tic motivation'; the comic poet i� right to ridicule the komodoumt'l1oi because they were, in point of fact, just as presented in the jokes against themY Thus, Halliwell continues, the scholia do not take account of the mechani�m� which comedy uses to create personal jokes.

2. Re-writing Personal Jokes Halliwell's critici�m focuses on the way in which the scholia construct the basic qua.�i-'biographical' infonnation they offer us about the komo­ doumenoi. Thi� would seem however to have been only a part of the aim of the scholars who made notes on personal jokes; crucially, these notes sought to make the personal joke comprehen.�ible. To achieve this aim the joke wa.� written anew in more or less abstract diction, including necessary prosopographic 'infonnation' a.� part of this reworking. This does not mean that Halliwell's critical remark� are not accurate--rather the opposite. I would nevertheless suggest that we might deepen our understanding of the scholiastic notes on personal jokes if we approach them as attempts to explain the jokes them�elves through rewriting. If we consider the remark� in the scholia on personal jokes in this way, we discern that they consist of certain more or less fixed compo­ nents. The scholion on the joke against Sttaton in Aristophanes' Achamians 122 might serve a.� an example: 8 9

Halliwell 1984. A very clear fonnulation of thi� approach to comic ridicule can be found in Cic. Rep. 4. 1(}-1 1 , where the �ocial function of the comic poet as guardian of public morality i� parall eled to the function of the wlSores. Augustinu.� (De dvi­ tate dei II 9) who cites this passage, adopts a totally different perspective, consid­ ering comic ridicule against historical persons to be an element in the cultic play of Attic comedy. See Buchner 1 9B4, 275-277 and Holtennann 2004, 4(}42.

Re-writing the Per.;onal Joke

21 1

Sch. Ar. Ach. 1 22 (vet Tr) ou 6r)1Tov LTp
'not Straton': he is al�o ridiculed as mutilating [i.e. shaving or depilating] his beard and depilating hi� body, as Kleisthenes had done, as again Aristo­ phanes says in the Holkades: beardless boys, Kleisthene.� and Straton. 'O The note i� introduced with a verbal fonn (Kwllcp5ehatpD, which i� followed by the reason for the comic ridicule r21; at the end, a number of parallel� where the same person i� ridiculed are mentioned, in this case for preci�ely the same reason r31, an important addition, since the joke agaimt Straton is elliptical and hence not easy to decipher. 11 In a briefer scholion about Klei�thenes (Ach . 1 1 8) an additional ele­ ment appears; though causally interconnected, the reason for the ridicule and the way thi� is realised in dramatic perfonnance are here treated di�tincdy. Thu� the scholion aim comments on the way Klei�thenes is portrayed in the scene: Sch. Ar. Ach. 1 1 8 (vet Tr) [ ... ] oi'iToS 6e 0 KAEIC16EV1)S aE\ TO yevElov ��pci:To 1TpOS TO aE\ cpalvecr6al veos. 610: TOVTO EVvOUX'll aUTOv EIKO:l;El .

RErLh

[. .. ] This Klei�thenes shaved his beard in order always to appear young at all times. That is why he (Sc. Aristophanes) portrays him a.� a eunuch. At the very lea.�t it should be pointed out that at times the scholia ex­ plicidy comment on the connection between the reasons for the ridicule and the image of the komodoumenos portrayed. Thu� an important di�­ tinction is introduced, indicating the possibility of a differentiation be­ tween the attitudes of the ridiculed person and his presentation in the comic text. In this case the portrait of Kleisthenes a.� eVvolixos is not interpreted biographically but rather through an inference, that explains the reason for this portrait. The acknowledgement of the fact that not all satirical images can be interpreted literally, that a satirical image 'tram­ lates' hi�torical reality in a certain fornI, i� already a first step toward�

1 0 The citation.� of the Aristophanic scholia are from Koster and Holwerda (ed.), Scholia in Aristophanem, Groningen 1 975-2007. The translations into English are of my own. 1 1 The fact that this schohon about Straton mention� the passage from Holkades (= Ar. fro 422 peG) to illustrate the meaning of the joke in Acharnians 1 22 but does not refer to a very sin:Lilar joke against Kleisthenes and Straton in Knights 1 373( may be of interest for the hi�tory of the composition of ancient scholia.

212

Stelios Chronopoulos

questioning the linear connection between the properties of the histori­ cal persons ridiculed and the komodoumenoi. The verbal forms which are u.� ed to introduce the comments on personal jokes are a prominent feature in the process of rewriting such jokes, a feature that may be considered of some importance for the way the scholia conceive of the connection between historical personalities and their satirical image. Concerning these verbal fonn.� three categories may be discerned:

(I) the verb elll! either in indicative ("'V/�CTTi ) or in potentialis: eill av . . . , or verbs denoting that the ridiculed person i� acting in a certain way; �S6Kel . . . elval; 01 Se A�yoval. . . , cpaaiv, A�YETal.12 (II) eipllTa1, KaMi aVT6v (0 lTOlllTr,S) 'arroTeiveTal I arroTe(VEl lTp6S, 1l�IlV1lTal OOS· elaayEl OOS·1 3 �ovAeTal arroSe�al OOS. 1 4 (III) Slej3aAAeTO �lTl I OOS . . . . KoollCt>SeiTal (OOS) . . . , KoollCt>Sei KOOIlCt>S(;)V . . . lTap(aTTla lv' SlaaVpel, A�yel SlaaVpoov' KoollCt>Sei Kal Slaavpel' aKOOlTTel, KoollCt>Sei . . . aKOOlTTOOV, SlaaKOOlTTE I' XAEva�el' 6velSi�el. . . . •

A di�tinction between the expres.�ion� that comment upon the personal joke through a mere statement of the person's properties thus provoking the comic abuse, and those that re-write the joke, considering it to be a perlocutionary act of the comic poet, is discernible. With regard to the 'statements of properties' , there i� a further distinction between (1) scho­ lia�tic remarks in which the indicative of the verb elll( or alternative verbs denoting certain acts or properties are used or implied, and (2) remarks which use verbal forms that imply a certain distance between the real person� and their satirical images. Such remarks indicate that the properties of the comic portrait are the product of rumour. I S 1 2 E.g. Sch. AT. Alh. 6 1 4. 1 3 The verb elaaYEIV i� normally u�ed a� tenninu� technicu� denoting that the dramati�t ha� brought a person, a chorus or, les.� often, a dramatic element on stage. To the best of my knowledge, the term i� used only once in the corpu� of the Ari�tophanic srooJia with reference to a komodoumenos who doe.� not ap­ pear on stage (Sclr. AT. Ra. 7 1 0a: 0 VME 1T01l11 p6"rcrro5 VE j3aAavEV5 VME: Toihov 005 j3aAav�a ElaaYEI VMESnarb). 1 4 E.g. Sch. AT. Ra. 967. 1 5 For a good example of the equation of the properties attributed to a komo­ doumenos and the properties of the hi�toricaJ person, see Sm. AT. Ach. 702b; see al�o Sclr. AT. Nu. 349c; Sch. AT. Eq. 253 cam however doubt on the equation.

Re-writing the Personal Joke

213

While in the first ca�e the commenl'i clearly denote that the komo­ doumenos is a hi�torical person exactly as portrayed in the comedy, in the second ca�e the personal joke i� presented as one more instance of public or private discu.�sion� about the person ridiculed. Such nuances are not sufficient to suppose that in these commenl'i the principles of the bio­ graphical approach are questioned; they do however indicate a slight change of perspective. In formulation� which denote that the properties attributed to the ridiculed person stem from the text created by the comic poet thi� dif­ ferent perspective becomes more apparent. These commenl'i no longer describe the komodoumenos per se but rather the manner of hi� presenta­ tion in the comedy. The formulations u.�ed in such cases are actually neutral ways to denote that the comic poet is referring to a particular person. The formulation OOS . .. �ovAeTal (sc. 0 1T01T\T';S) a'JTov arro 6e�1 which occurs only once in the corpus of the scholia, in Sch. Ar. Ra. 967a, represenl'i a border ca�e, a� it explicitly ascribes to the comic poet the intention of demon�trating that the komodoumenos ha� certain properties. In the third category of introductory verbal fonns the di�tance be­ tween the real hi�torical person and the komodoumenos is even greater, a� the verbs point to the fact that the features attributed to the komo­ doumenos are elemenl'i of a particular speech act, the act of ridicule. 1 6 That does not necessarily mean that such scholia ca�t doubt on the 'bio­ graphical approach'. It does however suggest that in such cases, through the process of re-narrating the personal joke to make it comprehensible, the scholia focus on the role of the comic poet in presenting a particular

16 It should be noted that these verbal forms evoke or allude to three different contexts: KoollCj>5eiv points to the comedy itself, 5Ia�\V and 51aaVpelv evoke the context of the rhetorical agon and aKc.:m.elv i, often used to denote personal abuse in a playful context; for aKc.:m.elv see Halliwell 200R, 1 R n. 41 ; for 5la�elv see L.'!J s.v. V, for 51aaVpelv L.'!J s.v. I. I wa.' not able to dis­

cern any systematic connection between the u'e of each verb and the way the scholia a,-'es.' the personal jokes in each ca.'e. Nevertheles., it is interesting to note that sometimes the scholia use complex expres.'lion, as KoollCj>5ei . . . aKc.:m.oov (Seh. Ar. V. 34 col. 1 : KoollCj>5ei 5� 1TavrCI)(OV Tc!)V KA�oova aKc.:m.oov VAld, reduced in the scholia of the Triclinian edition to 1TavrCI)(OV TOV KA�oova aKc.:m.el Lh); the qualification of the verb through the participle indicates that the scholion may be defining the character of the jokes again't Kleon more preci,ely, a' playful attacks.

214

Stelios Chronopoulos

satirical image of the komodoumenos; in such cases the scholia are there­ fore commenting on the comedy rather than on the person ridiculed. 1 7

3. Beyond the Biographical Approach: Personal Jokes seen in their Textual Context

There are also further indications that in a number of notes on personal jokes the focus is on the text of the comedy and not on the historical personality of the person ridiculed. If not exactly frequent, comment� or remarks of an aesthetic charac­ ter in scholia about komodoumenoi are not such a rarity a� to justify their oversight. Though Halliwell's argument that scholia�tic notes on per­ sonal jokes do not account for the comic mechanisms is thus correct in general terms, there are nevertheless a sufficient number of examples where the aesthetic form of a personal joke is commented upon. De­ rivatives of the substantive XexP1S, the adjective xaplelS, the verb xapleVTll;ea6al, the adverb xapl�VTc.>s and the substantive xapl�VTlalJa, are often used by the Aristophanic scholia in order to comment upon diction peculiar to comedy, specifically on distorted word-forms, pun� and comic coinages.1 M The scholia�tic note on the verbs with which 17 See at\O the note in Niinlist 2009, 2 1 4 concerning the verbs (hn)KEpTOllEiv, I!VKT11 P�EIV, aKc.:mTEIV, xapIEVTI�a6al and XAeVal;EIV which put greater em­ pha'li.� 'on the tact that the speaker "mocb" or 'ridicules' his addres.�ee'. 18 xaplS i� a� important a literary tmninus technicus a.� it is difficult to define. It i� interesting to note that in the Captive Me/anippe of Euripides (dated c. 412) in fro 492 the phra.�e xaplTas KEpT61!0vS refers to the speech of men who, per­ forming before a public, try to win their audience by provoking its laughter through insults against others; similarly in Demosthenes' speech On the Crown (D. 1 8. 1 38) xaplS i� connected with A0160pla: the rhetors' mutual abu�e de­ lighu and entertains the public, thu� distracting attention from the debate about the problems of the city. In this context the term XaPIS, paired with the term 1')60vti, refers to the reception of the mutual personal attack.�; for the quite rare coupling of the term.� xaplS and 1')60vti in cla'loUcal Greek rhetoric see the comment in Wankel 1 976, ad 1 38. Demetrios in hi� treatise On Style presents a similar interconnection between xaplS and wittici�m or personal jokes, placed this time on the level of the poetic.� of the text. Analysing the 'elegant style', he defines it a� XaPIEVTI<1I!OS Kat IAapos Myos (Demetr. E/oc. 1 28; Grube 1 961 translates this a�: 'The elegant manne r has a certain bright playfulnes.� of expres­ sion'; more analytical and accurate i� the trarulation by Innes 1 995: '[...] the elegant style, which is speech with charm and a graceful lightnes.�') and u�es xaplS as a key notion thereafter. He notes the distinction between a 'high' fonn of xaplS (1lE1l;oVES Kat <1EI!v6TEPES [XaplTES]) peculiar to the poetry, and a

Re-writing the Personal Joke

215

Dikaiopolis describes his dangerous adventure before the court where he was brought by Kleon is a telling example, Ar. Ach. 379-382: l11K. a\rro s T' �lJa\lTOV
hriOTalJal SICx Tl)v lTEPVOW KWIJct>Siav. EluEAKvuas yap IJ' Eis TO �OVAeVT'liPIOV SIE� Ka\ 'VEVS;; KaTeyAWTTI�E IJOV KCxKVKAO�PEI KCrnAVVEV, WUT' 6Aiyov lTavv CxlTWAOIJT'lV IJOAVVOlTpaYlJovovlJEVoS.

And I know about myself, what I suffered at Clean's hand� becau.�e of la.�t year's comedy. He dragged me into the council chan1ber and began slan­ dering me, telling gilb-mouthed lies about me, roaring at me like Cyclobo­ ru.�, bathing me in abu.�e, so that I very nearly perished in a sewer of troubles. 19 A,. Ach. 3Mla. (vet Tr) KCxKVKAO�PEI: �VTcxV6a KaTEIJI�E Tl)v KWIJct>SlaKflv xaplv Kai TCx SIKaOTIKCx il1;lJaTa· TO iJEv ycxp Sla�aMelv Ka\ AtyElv 'VEUS;; Ka\ lTAVVelV dlTOI TIS av TWV mpl TCx SIKaO'T'lipla TcxVTa AtyEIV SElvWV, TO Se KUKAo�opeiv Kal KaTayAwTTi �eIV XaPIEVTiuIJaTa �OTI KWIJct>SiaS . REr2Lh

Sc h.

KCxKVKAO�PEI: here [the poet] combined the xaplS of comedy and some court terms. For you may use Sla�6cAAelV and AEyelV 'VEVS;; and lTAVVelV if 'low' form (EIITEAeis I!CXAAOV Ka\ KWI!IKOOTEpal) which is similar to aKool!l!aTa; (Demetr. Bloc. 1 28) Grube 1 961 , 31 correcdy remarks mat the term xaplS in Demeaios refers to two very different idea.�: charm and wit. These 'have noth­ ing in common with each other except a certain clevemess in the handling of word�'. It is important to add that exacdy thi� 'cleverness in handling' word� would seem to be the decisive characteristic of those pa.,-�ages the scholia regard a.� expression� of the comic xaplS. It has been a.,-�umed mat the main sources for Demeaios' analysis of xaplS were Peripatetic treatises lTEp\ XaPITOS and es­ pecially the work of Theophra.�tos nEpl XaPITOS a': see Arndt 1 904, 1 5 und 1 7 and Leeman-Pink.�ter - Rabbie 1 989, 1 90. Platoniu.� (DiIf. Com. [Proltg. de Com. II 6£ Koster]) differentiates the three canonical comic poets of the 'Old Comedy', Kratinos, Eupoli� and Aristophanes, using a.� criteria the way they shape the plots of their comedies and the form each of them gives to the per­ sonal ridicule. Whereas Kratinos satiri.�es direcdy, vehemendy and violendy, the KOOI!Cj>SEiv of Eupoli� is characterised primarily by its xaplS. In thi� bipolar sys­ tem Ari.�tophanes occupies the middle position: hi� ridicule, though 'hard', is not without XaPIS, which mitigates the bitterness of the attack.�. It is significant that Platonios interconnects the political-moralizing effect of the personal ridicule and its lingui�tic form. Sommerstein 2009, 273£ argues convincingly for a date slight earlier than 300 CE; his sources mu.�t be much earlier: see Wendel 1 950, 2544; for a di�cu.,-�on of this is.�ue, see also Peru.�no 1 989, 13. For the Peripatetic influence whicl1 i� discernible in Platonios see Melone 1 996. 19 All translation� of the Aristophanic pa.,-�ages are from Sommerstein.

you refer to what a person may suffer at court, but the words KVI
TTape61lKEV Ttlliv' ovolla S ' 1'jv al'rrC;> 'Peva�. 111K. TaiiT' exp' �'PEvaKU;;E S au SVO SpaXIlCxS 'Pepwv. Ar.

Ach. 118-90

AMB. And al�o, I swear it, he served U� a bird three times the size of Cleo­ nymu�; it wa� called a fooler. DIC. So that's why you were making fools of u�, and drawing two drach­ ma� a day for it. sm. Ar. Ach. 1111 (vet Tr) TplTTAaalOV JO.EWvVIlOV: OTI OOS Ileya ixwv aWlla Kal SEIAOS SIE�MeTO 6 KAEOOWIlOS. hepw61 Se Kal aS1l'Payos eiP1lTal. vOv Se Kai 'PEVaKlaTftV aVTov KaAEi XaPIEVTIi;6IlEvos. RErLh

'thrice a� big a� K1eonymos': becau�e K1eonymos was slandered a� having a big body and a� a coward. In other passage.� he ha� been refered upon a� gluttonous. Now he calls him in a playful way (XapIEVTU;;6IlEvoS) al�o 'PEVaKl aTft s.

The characteri�ation xaplEVTI�6llevos refers obviou.�ly to the double­ sou.nd pu.n with the real bird-name cpoivl� and the substantive cpeva� and to the manner in which a connection i� establi�hed between Kleonymos and the property of cpEvaKI�EIV. A difference between the direct joke against Kleonymos due to his body-size, a joke which has no peculiar comic features, and his derision a� cpEvaKIcrn;s, which is expres.�ed in a more complicated (and for that reason more amusing?) form, i� implied. On certain occa�ions, the scholia even a�sume that the comic poet lied or had a�cribed fictive properties to the abused person in order to make a succes.�ful joke. The scholion to Ar. Ach. 649a comments upon the claim of the choru.� in the parabasis that the king of Persia had told the Spartans that the war would be won by whatever polis which was then ridiculed by Aristophanes: Toiho 5e xaplEVTI�6llEvoS IfJEv5wS MYEl. I fou.nd no example of such a direct confrontation between truth and comic play in notes of the ancient scholia concerning personal

Re-writing the Per.;onal Joke

217

jokes.2<1 There are nevertheless notes which would seem to point to such a confrontation, albeit indirectly. In Knights 1 080-1 085 the Sausage-seller recites an oracle which warns Demos about the danger of being deceived by a KVAA1')VTl . He explain� that KVAA1')VTl alludes to the crooked hand of Paphiagon/Kleon, who is always looking for a bribe. Paphlagon retort� that the allusion i� aimed at the hand of Diopeithes. The scholia on these verses explain that the crooked hand is connected with a demand to receive presents. Although it seems clear that for Kleon the image should be understood metaphorically, there is no such certainty concerning Diopeithes. The scholia vetera claim that Diopeithes really did have crooked hand�, but at the same time that the image i� a joke against Diopeithes, who i� thus simultaneously accused of being 'a thief . It would seem that thi� matter wa� debated by ancient scholars a� the scholia of the Triclinian edition assure us that Diopeithes' hand� were absolutely healthy:

20 In the scholia recentiora and Tzetzes' scholia on the Clouds (Seh. rec. N. 1 1 2b, commetltarium in nubes v. 1 1 0) and in Tzetzes' Hypothesi� to the Birds we find a direct connection between 'l'Ev50S and O"KOOl.ll.la; the comic poet is virtually ac­ cused of slandering Sokrates and Kleon. In the ancient scholia the verb 'l'Ev5o>'at i� u�ed in Sm. Ar Aeh. 1 53 to denote that Ari�tophanes employs the adjective >,aXl>'OOTCX"TOl to speak ironically of the Odomanteis; also in Sch. Ar. Eq. 84b where the judgement of Symmachos is reported to denote that Ari�to­ phanes is lying ('l'Ev5ETal) when he says that Themistokles comrnited suicide drinking bull's blood. The use of the verb in Sell. AT. Av. 575a is more interest­ ing: in Birds 575 Peisetairos says that Homer presents Iris 'a.� a timid pigeon' ; th e scholion remarks that thi� i� a 'playful lie' ('l'Ev5ETat naU;c..>v), a.� Homer presents Athena and Hera but never Iri� in such a way; see also the remark in Dunbar 1 995, ad 575. It seems plausible that 'l'Ev50S has quite different mean­ ings in Sell. ree. I'll. 1 1 2b in contra�t to Scll. AT. Av. 575a, denoting in the first case a 'lie' obviously told in order to deceive an audience and to hann an op­ ponent, and in the second 'a fiction' constructed by the poet in order to amuse his spectators. 'l'Ev50s i� cOlmected closely with the activity of the poet already in Hesiod (Th. 2(,-28) and Solon (fr. 29 West, citing the proverb nOAAa 'l'Ev5ov-ral a0150!) ; for an interpretation of 'l'Ev50S in the Hesiodic passage a.� meaning 'fiction', see Dowie 1 993, 2(}-23. A crucial element in the a...�ociation of 'l'Ev50S with the positive meaning 'fiction' and poetry is the discussion on mimesis in Aristotle's Poetic (24, 1 4('Oa5-b2) where Ta 'l'Ev5fi are considered in relation.�hip to the 6av>,aO"T6v, a feature of poetry, which contributes to its ';511; see Halliwell 1987, 72 and 1 7 1 £ Plutarch (Mor. 1('A9), commenting upon the 'lies' that poets tell consciously, remark.< that they win over the audience becau�e of the ,;50vi) aKofi s and xaplS which they produce. Plutarch employs the notions 'l'Ev50S, TO My,!> nAaTT6>,EvoV and EV nEnAEy>,�V1"J 51a6EO"lS >,V6oAoy!as as almost equivalent variations in thi� pa...�age, used to denote the fictive poetic construction. .

21 H

Stelio� Chronopoulos 8ch Ar. Eq. l 0H5a (vet) OEoivWTO TO:S XEipoS 0 ll.10lTEi01lS Koi i'jv KVAA6S . . . . KaTO: KatpOV oi'iv 510�6:AAel o\'rrO V c:,S KAf1TT1lV . i'jv 51; Koi N 1K(OV hoipos. VEr9M

' [the hand] of Diopeithes': Diopeithes' hand. were injured and he was crippled2 1 so he calunmiates him fittingly as a thie£ He was also a friend of Nikias. • • •

Eq. l 0H5c (Tr) KcxAOS YO:p i'jv 0 ll.IOlTEie1lS TO:S XEipos. KaTO: K01POV ow 510�6:AAel miTov c:,s KAElTT1lV. fly 51; Koi N1Kiov £Toipos. Lh

Sch Ar.

For Diopeithes' hand. were sane. So he calumniates him fittingly as a thie£ He was also a friend of Nikias. Would the Aristophanic joke have been better, had Diopeithes really suffered from a problem with his hand�? In tact, in pursuing such a ques­ tion, we find ourselves in the same position as the ancient scholars, since we would have to deal with the problems posed by the recomtruction of the reality behind the j oke, while using the joke as the basi� for our interpretation.22 It is clear that scholia in general favour linear interpretation and di­ rect reconstruction. It should also, however, be clear that this is not the only way to interpret the 6vollaa-r1 KWIlCflBeiv; the supposition that there may be some distance between the fictitious satirical image and the real person is not totally alien to the scholia. A vivid moment bears witness to such a di�cussion and it seem� to have been a matter of discussion among ancient scholars: in the scholion to Ar. Av. 1378-9, Kinesias, the dithyrambic poet, arrives at the newly founded town and Pei�etairos welcomes him: ne. aCT1To�6IlEa6o Ql1MplVOV K1V1loiov. T( 5evpo lT650 ou KVAAOV avO: KUKAOV KVKAEis;

AI.

Av.

1 37H-9

PE. We welcome Cine..ia.., the man of linden-bark. Why have you come here circling in circles with halting foot?

21 KvM6s can refer either to feet: 'club-footed'; or to arm.. and hand.: 'crippled', 'with a crooked hand'; it can even have the general meaning 'defonned', vgI. L.� s.v. 22 Tbe text of tbe Triclinian scbolion i. problematic: if the reading KcxAOS is sound then the particle yap makes no sense, unless we suppose that the tran�mitted scholion abbreviates sen.elessly a more extensive note that explained why the a.sumption tbat Diopeitbes bad a crippled band wa� fahe. In mct it seems much simpler to asswne that KcxAOS in Sch. Ar. Eq. 1085 c is a corruption of KvM6s. In that case the argument presented in that paragraph i. invalid.

Re-writing the Per.;onal Joke

219

Although based on v. 1 379 a nwnber important ancient philologi�ts were willing to suppose that Kinesias was a cripple, there were others who recognised that the verse alludes to and parodies the peculiarities of dithyrambic diction: &!t. Ar. Av. 1 37% (vet) .Il.ISv�oS �ev KUKAOV, hrEi KVKAlwv �cr�aTWV ;rOITlT1')s �crTl, R VErM 'KVAAOV' Se, �mi xwMS 1'\v. VEM eipTlTaL Se mpi aUTov �v Bcrrp axolS. 0 Se i\PlcrTOTEATlS �v Tais .Il.lSacrKaAlaLS Suo <JlTlcri YEYOVEVaL. Lu��axos OVTWS EU<JlpOVIOS · hTElS,; KVAAOS 1'\v 0 KIVT]crlas. TOVTO Se OUK £C7TIV evpeiv. OAA' �;reI5,; ;rOAl! ;rap ' aUTois �C7T1 TO ';roS! AeVKci>', Ka! ';roS! KOU<Jl'll ' , Ka! ';roSa TI6els', r, Tl TOIOVTOV, TO 'KVAAOV' ;rpocre6T)KEV. VE r

Didymos [says that the word] KUKAOV [is used] because he is a dithyrambic poet, and [the word] 'KVAAOV' because he was a cripple. It ha.. been talked about him in the Frogs. Aristoteles in the Didaskaliai says that there were two with this name. Symruachos says: Euphronios says: 'becau.e Kinesia. was a cripple' . Such an information can not be found el.ewhere. [It is not for that rea.on that he is call ed a "cripple] but because they use very often ';roS! AeVKci> , and ';roS! KOU<Jl'll ' and ';roSa Tl6eis' or other expre."ions like that, [that] he added 'KVAAOV'. It i� interesting to note that Euphroruos' claim i� contested by Sym­ machos with the argument that there i� no other comic passage in which Kinesias is presented as a cripple. Though thi� kind of approach can be most misleading due to the assimilation of the unknown to the known, something that Halliwell critici�es, it can al�o be very effective, as this case shows. What makes it effective here is the mct that the scholion is willing to accept that the comic poet may at times draw a satirical image of the komodoumenos using fictive element�. These elements may of course be decoded as allusions to mcts of real life or of comic fiction, which however cannot be understood as biographical in a strict sense. 2.1 Not only the assimilation of the known to the unknown but al�o an overall approach which does not take account of the textual context of the personal jokes are actually to be expected in the scholia. The impact of the komodoumenoi-treati�es which were preswnably based on the de­ contextuali�ation of personal jokes must have been deci�ive at least for the later \/1TOIJVTlI..lCXTa , and therefore al�o for the material reproduced in the scholia.

23 Dunbar 1 995, ad 1 379 a"umes that the adjective KUAAOS may allude to the scenic presence of Cinesias, either to the dancing steps with which he enter.;, or to the irregular metrical feet in hi. song, or indeed to the circular dithyrambic choruses.

220

Stelio� Chronopoulos

Nevertheless it i� not accurate to assume that the scholia always ig­ nore the textual context of the personal jokes, that i� the syntagmatic axi�, in favour of the paradigmatic. The scholion to Ar. Pac. 1 008 i� an interesting example of what happens when the scholia leave their famil­ iar paradigmatic axis. In Ar. Pac. 987-1 0 1 6 Trygaios sings hi� invocation to Eirene. Among other things he wishes for a market full of goods in which he locates a comic episode: Morychos, Teleas Glauketes and other gourmand� have already vi�ited the fish-market, as, when he ar­ rives there sometime later, Melanthios 6nd� no eel to buy and laments tL�ing verses from a monody of the Medeia (1 006--1 01 5) .24 The scholion on v. 1 008 notes that the comic poet always tries to keep Morychos and Teleas, who are al�o ridiculed as 'gluttonous' (ya<7Tpi�apyol) in the Achamians, fur away from the agora. Hut the context of the joke in Peace does not fit with thi� parall el; instead of being content with a remark about the ridicule of Morychos and Telea.� in the usual way, the scholion point� to the inconsi�tency which emerges as soon a.� attention shifts from the parallels to the specific joke and its context. The first reaction to thi� inconsistency i� in fact perplex­ ity: Sch. AT. Pac. 1 008a. MopVXIfl TeAE<;>:: Kal TOVTOVS ae! a1Teivaa �OVAeTal TOOV Oljiwv SIO: TOVTOV aVTovs KOM:�WV WS yaOTp 1>lapyovs, WS q>'1a1v �V ToiS :A.xapvevalv. vVv S' OUK olSa, crrrws TO �vaVTlov q>'1aiv. iaws oOv Tij 1Tapoval<;>: TOVTWV M eAav610v AV1Ti\aaa �OVAeTa\ OVTa Kal aUTov AiXVov. i'jv Se TpaY'l>S\as 1TOI'1-n;S, wS 1Tpoelp'1TaI.25

MopvXIfl TeAE<;>:: he always wishes for these persons to be kept away from

the

market-place,

thtL, reproving them, for being gluttonous he says in the Acharnians. I do not know, the reason., why he now state.. the opposite. Perhaps he wants through their presence to distres., Melanthios, who wa. al.o a gluttonous (AixvoS) . He was a trage­ dian, a. has been said before. (yaOTp!llapyol),

a.

We have no evidence for the first claim in the scholion, nanlely that the comic poet 'always' (aeQu, wanted to keep Teleas and Morychos away from the agora. In the Achamians Morychos i� ridiculed a.� a 'fish-eater' 24 Por the discussion concerning the authorship of thi� Medeia vgl. Olson 1 998, ad 1009-1 015. 25 See aho Sch. AT. N . 361 a on the parody and ridicule of Sokrates, a further scholion that connects the function of OvolJacnl KOO>lcpSEiv with a considera­ tion of the personal joke in its syntagmatic axis. 26 As Lelm (apud Niinlist 2009, 329 n. 15) notes, in Ari.tarchus aEI often has a somewhat relative meaning; it can not be excluded that here too aEI is used in the sen..e of ' most of the time' or 'usually' .

Re-writing the Per.;onal Joke

22 1

(6\jJoq>ayos) in v. 887, but he is not excluded from the private market of Dikaiopolis. Actually none of the extant comic pas.�ages in which Teleas and Morychos are ridiculed match the claim of the scholion. Although it is diffi cult to be certain whether there were in fact any comic pa�sages which might support the claim, or whether on the con­ trary this wa� simply a fal�e assertion, we may suppose that the generali­ sation i� not justified. That an inaccurate generali�ation i� made in a scholion on a personal joke i� not in fact surpri�ing. What i� peculiar i� that this generalisation is used not to explain the passage at hand but to question it. The short moment of perplexity i� followed by a tentative an�er, that the exceptional treatment of Morychos and Telea� contrib­ utes to the intensity of the comic point against Melanthios. What we actually observe is a direct confrontation between the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic axis, the detection of an inconsi�tency becalL�e of thi� confrontation, and the solution of the 'problem' within the syntagmatic axIS.

Though the scholia take the textual context of a personal joke into account only rarely, the above example i� by no means unique. The interpretation of Achamians 604, where the scholion a�sumes that the geographical name Xaoves is al�o used as a satirical point against Ceres and Theodoros, serves as an example of the biographical approach and the attempt to take account of the context of the personal joke working in a complementary fa�hion. Sch. AT. Ach. 60S (vet) XaovES �ev eaVOS 'HlTEIPWTIK6v. IT£lTOlKTOl 5s lTapa TO �v 'llTlTEVClIV '6 lTPWKT6S �CTT IV a\iT6XpT)�' �v Xaocnv'. �lTEI5" Ka\ els �aAaKlav 5Ie�aAAeTO r£pT)S Kat 9E65wpoS, Kat em �K 50VAWV. REr

'the..e in Chaones': Chaones was a nation in Epirus. There is a comic play similar ;1.' in the Knights ' hi. arse is right in Chaones'. 27 Because Geres and Theodoros were attacked as being 'soft' and of slave birth. Ceres is otherwise unknown and Theodoros cannot be identified. 2M The scholion cites no evidence for the claim that they were ridiculed els IJcxAOKlov and that they descended from slaves. Olson supposes that these comic acclL�ations indicate that these persons were active politi­ cians. 2') Although this can not be excluded, these assumptions rely upon comic passages which are sinlply not cited in our scholia; we thlL� have to consider the possibility that the scholion i� an autoschedia�m. It i� 27 Sonuner.;tein 1 981 render.; the wordplay effectively with his translation: 'his arse is right in Chasmos'. 28 Geres (1) LGPNund Theodoros (9) LGPN. See Ot,on 2002, ad 605. 29 Olson 2002, ad 605.

222

Stelim Chronopoulm

crucial that the scholion incorporates the (alleged) comic accusations against Ceres and Theodoros in an argument ba.�ed on the connection between the two komodoumrnoi and the place name X6:oves. The parallel between Achamians 604 and Knights 78 with its apparent word-play between Kleons' TIPWKT6S and the verb XOO"KW, with which the politi­ cian is ridiculed as eVp\l1TpWKTOS, remains to be proven. The scholion treats it a.� given that the personal joke against Ceres and Theodoros in the next verse (605) has to be related to the mention of Chaones in particular, while contributing information on the treatment of the two komodoumrnoi in comedy more generally. If the statement on the satiric portraits of Ceres and Theodoros i� an autoschedia.�m from this very passage of the Achamians, then it is ba.�ed on the deci�ion to connect Ceres and Theodoros with Chaones. If, on the other hand, it i� not an autoschediasm, then it represents a not en­ tirely self-evident statement on the immediate context in which the joke against Ceres and Theodoros should be understood. In both ca.�es the biographical approach is combined with a closer look at the textual con­ text of the satirical image, with the scholion conunenting on thi� textual context. The previously cited personal joke again�t Kleonymos from Achamians 88-90 i� an example which takes us a step further in the same direction: what i� defined a.� context of a joke matters and the scholia show sometinles that they are aware of it. With the exception of Rogers most modern commentators do not con�ider the bird-name
(Sonune"'teim transl.) are connected to previou� jibes agaimt K1eisthenes and Straton ( 1 373f). In contrary Neils conunent (Neil 1 901, ad 1 375) indicates clearly that he regards the two jibes as independent from one another.

Re-writing the Personal Joke

223

nes.� to draw historical infonnation about the komodoumenoi from per­ sonal jokes. That having been said, we may perhaps enrich our knowl­ edge of the way the scholia interpret the 6volloa-ri Kooll� Seiv by taking into account a number of examples in the corpus of the scholia, which reveal that: i. comic techniques and the peculiar language codes of comedy are not always ignored, ii. the 'tran�ation' of elements of the jokes into reality does not necessary take place in a linear and indeed thoughtless way, and iii . on occasions the scholia might even show a certain awareness of the fact that the interpretation of a joke is partially dependent on the context (as selected for the purpose of explanation). Viewing the scholia on personal jokes not merely a� an attempt to offer biographical information about the abused persons, but also a� part of an effort to re-write personal jokes in a comprehensible form, may permit to a partial re-evaluation of the ways ancient scholarship discusses 6volloa-ri KoolJ� Seiv. 32

32 I would like to thank Stephen Halliwell, R ene Niinli't and N.G. Wilson for

precious advice and criticism and lanDis Carra" who revised thoroughly the English text.

Ancient Scholia and Lost Identities : The Case of Simichidas

*

Konstantinos Spanoudakis

1. Simichidas of Orchomenos The names and identities of the two protagoni�ts in Theocritus' seventh poem have been a subject of lingering debate.1 With regard to Simichi­ das' identity, it has been so difficult to reach a conclusion that to the editors of the Lexicon of Creek Personal Names it has seemed semible to enrol him both as a possibly fictitiou� Orchomenian (1I1B, 2000, 378: 'fict. ') and a.� a doubtful Syracu�an (IlIA, 1 997, 395 : 'Syracuse?') . Names such as �1�IX" or �1�IXOS are attested on contemporary Rhodes and Telos (LCPN I, 406) and on archaic Sicily (a 6th cent. Be tyrant ap. Porph. Vito Pyth. 21) respectively, and a �l�lxlas (��lxlas codd.) i� re­ corded among Tarentine pupil� of Pythagoras (Iamb\. Vito Pyth . 267) but the name �1�lx!5as is known only from Theocritu� and its subsequent occurrences in literature and scholia depend on it, the last being a 7th century ETnO"TOATJ aypolK1KTj (Epist. 1 1) by Theophylactu� Simocatta. 2 *

2

All translation.. are by the author, unless otherwise stated.

Lycidas has been identified with Leonida, of Tarentum by Ph. Legrand, REG 7 (1 894) , 1 92 C, revived by van Groningen 1 959, 50 C; with ApoUo by F. Wil­ liams, CQ 21 (1971), 1 37-145 recendy foUowed by A. H. Griffi th.., 30CD, 1 498 and, with additional argument" by E. Livrea, Eikasmos 15 (2004), 1611 67; ,vith a figure taken up from Hesiod by E. R. Schwinge, Philologus 1 1 8 (1 974), 40 C ; with Pan by E . L. Brown, HSCPh 8 5 (1981), 59-99, c( J . J. Clau"" , HSCPh 101 (2003), 289-302; with a figure in bucolic poetry of Philita., set on Lesbos by Bowie 1 985, 67410. I have elsewhere argued (Spanoudakis 2002, 227 C, 249 () that Lycidas embodies features of a heavily metapoeic De­ meter from Philita.,' celebrated eponymou. poem. For older proposals includ­ ing Araru., Callimachus, Dosiada. and Rhianus, see Gow 1952, II, 1 30. Segal 1981, 1 1 0 f. treats both Lycidas and Simichida. not a,. specific persons, but as symbols of poetic credos. SilUichida, set, fire to sterile trees in his land but hi. neighbour's trees flare up too, 6 !iE niv !ilcp6tpav acpels Kat TT]V !i{KEAAav rrpos acnv Xu>pEi pf}TOpa h"1jI6�voS mJ��axov, Kat Tii> �l�lx{!i� !ilKaa-rf}pIOV crvyKEKp6TTJTai.

226

Kon�tantinos Spanoudakis

The condition� in which the name first appears are by all mean� sig­ nificant. 'Simichida�' appears not before verse 21 in Lycidas' address, tinged by piercing irony and made in jesting mood, and then, in a friendly talk, in v. 50. The address first containing the name i� preceded by a description of Lycida�' benevolently mocking posture, 1 9--20 Kal Il' chpellas eTm ae aapoos I OllllaTl llelSI6ooVTI, yeAoos S� 01 eiXETo Xe1AevS, and it i� quite plausible, as ha� been suggested, that the name 'is held back to cau.�e surprise and amazement in the reader' after the �yoov in v. 1 .3 Even so, the narrator does not appear offended but, instead, perhaps as a compliment to his rival, takes up the tease since he employs the name him�elf at the very beginning of his song (96) , although he i� soon to create some di�tance by u.�ing a couple of verses later the third person, 98 Qvepi T1iv� , indicating, in a reading at face value, that this Simichidas i� 'a different man'. In the poem the narrator Simichida� is sketched out a� relatively young (44 �pvOS) , indeed a� a young poet (37-41) and a 'bucolic' one (30--3 1 , 91-95), manifestly familiar with Coan things and apparently resident in the town of Cos (2 etp1Tolles �K 1T6AIOS) . There is indeed sufficient ground to make us think that Simichida� is designed to be a Theocritus.4 He mentions hi� friend� Aratos (98, 1 02, 1 22) and Ari�tis (99-- 1 01), whose names are very common on contemporary Cos, which at least implies that Simichida� enjoys some kind of 'real' existence. In addition, Aratos 0 TO 1TCxVTa q)\AalTaTOS Qvepl T1iv� (7.98) may well be--and probably i�e same person a� the addressee of Idyll 6. Simichida� is abo an ambitious young poet, who receives much prai�e from 'everybody' and indirectly dares to compare him�elf with Philita� and Asclepiades (7.37-4 1 ) who were reputed 'real' poets of the previou.� generation. From Lycida�' statement about futile emulation of Homer (7 .43-48) it appears that Simichida� is a poet espou.�ing the principles we are used to calling 'Callimachean' but which may in this particular pas­ sage reflect views already declared and practi�ed by Philita� and A�cle­ piades.5 Lastly, his name wa� somehow brought to the attention of Ptolemy Philadelphu.� (93 ZllVOS �1T1 6p6vov) , which would fit Theocritus and would not be surpri�ing for a proficient poet active on Cos. Simichida� may then be conceived to partly represent the young

3

4

Thi� wa.� pointed out by Bowie 1 985, 68; cf. aL� Hunter 1 999, 1 46. The rea�n� for thi� are systematically expounded in Dover 1 97 1 , 1 46-148. Cf. aL�o M. Fanruzzi in id. -Hunter 2004, 1 34- 1 35 and id. 2006, 252-253, 254255.

5

Kohnken 2001 argues for Theocritus' priority over CaJ1imachus, cf. esp. 75-76 on Lycida�' statement.

Ancient Scholia and Lost Identities

227

Theocritus of the early years on Cos, feeling self-assured but beset with practical uncertainties and still making efforts for artistic perfection. (, Modem literary critici.�m declines to credit the identification of a (fictitious) poet's I with the 'real' poet's U Ancient scholiasts had no such inhibition. There is a clear tendency in the Theocritean scholia to identify figures of the Idylls with Theocritus himself and to accordingly extract infonnation about issues such as his physical appearance or hi.� social circle." With regard to Simichidas, for the ancient sources there is no question: alI of them (including scholium 7.21a to which I shall re­ vert shortly) invariably identify Simichidas with Theocritus: already in Syrinx 1 2 the eywv-narrator of Theoc. 7 becomes naplS [= ge6KplTosl . . . LII..llX1!5oS, i.e. plainly Theocritus." However, as Simon Goldhill 1 991 , 1 30, succincdy remarked, 'even if the assumption i.� made that Simichidas represents Theocritus, the question must be re­ framed a� to why the poet represents hiImelf through another name' . The question about the motivation o f Theocritus for adopting a differ­ ent name ha� seemed unan�erable. In the scholia it i.� only the provenance of the name that becanle a subject of speculation, with the theory of a patronymic holding by far the first place. By inference, in some scholia the exi.�tence of a Simichos father of Theocritu� i.� postulated, Schol. 3 .8/9a; 7.21a and, by conjec­ ture, vita Theoc. A, 1 .5 W. TTOTpOS LI�.uX150 (: LI�lxov Ahrens) . To put things right (and tacidy make room for Praxagoras as Theocritu�' father), scholium PT 7.21b, 85.4 W. advances the alternative explanation that Simichidas was the patronymic of Theocritus' father, subsequendy be­ queathed o\rrWS aTTopaMaKTws to his son Theocritus. Ad hoc explana­ tions like these, however, run contrary to reliable infoffilation naming Theocritu�' father Praxagoras: Anon. AP 9.434.3 = [Theoc.l 27.3 Gow;l U vita Theoc. A, 1 . 8 W.; Suida� e 1 66 s . v. ge6KpITOS.

6 C£ van Groningen 1 959, 38-39; T. Choitz - J. Latacz, H:]A 7 ( 1 981), 92 n. 6. 7 See, for example, GoidlUll 1 991 , 1 29£; Korenjak 2003, S8£ 8 Such in.tances are Ii.ted in Korenjak 2003, 68 who then explores the same phenomenon with Vergil's conunentators. 9 See Palumbo Srracca 2007, esp. 1 25-1 26. C[ al.o the scholia on SyritlX 12, 339. 1 9 W., as well a.. Schol. Theoc. 3.8-9a, 1 1 9.10 W.; 7.96-97c, 1 02. 1 7 W. P. Oxy. 3548 fro 28c.i preserving marginalia on Theoc. 7 . 1 57 - 3 . 1 which ap­ parendy inclnded a "general discussion of places and person." in Theoc. 7 (p. J. Parsons, P. Oxy. L, 1 983, 1 1 3) is too fragmentary to be of much use. 10 Tbi. epigram i. certainly of an early date, c£ Gutzwiller 1 996, 1 33-1 37. H. Lloyd-Jones on Suppl. SH 738 even ascribes it straight to Theocritus.

22H

Komrantinos Spanoudakis

However, some di�concerting information about Simichidas is provided in the scholium KGLUEA 7.21a, 84. 1 7 Wendel, whose apparatus on the corrupt part of line 3 is al�o cited here: LI�.nXi6cx: 01 �ev CXliT6v KCXt ov 8e6KplToV 6Ul TO 'LI�lxi6<;! �ev "EpWTES hTlhTTCX pOV' (v. 96).
3

Simichidas: some say he is Theocritus because he wa.� son of Simichos or because he wa.� snub-nosed (simos) . Others say he is someone else of hi� friends and not Theocritus because of ' for Simichidas the Loves sneezed' (v. 96). They a.� well claim that such a person was called after hi� tunclet, after Simichidas son of Pericles, one of the Orchomeruam who were granted citizenship by the Coam. The scholium in question, in its present form, seem� to be a summary concocted from earlier conmlents. It epitomizes two different kinds of explanations about the name of Simichidas: a. Simichidas is Theocritus either because he is 'a son of L{�.uXOS' or because he i� 0"l1l6S, or b. Simichidas has adopted, for unspecified reasons, the name of one of Theocritus' friend�, a member of hi� inImediate circle (hep6v TlVa TWV crVv aVT4':» . The former possibilities are substantiated by two ad hoc in­ ferences, which regularly come up in the scholiastic explanation of the name. The latter possibility i� unique and, in the present form of the scholium, it appears founded on v. 96 which is cited on the spot. But the citation of v. 96 was perhaps not part of the original argument but rather look� like an a posteriori addition to an independendy made claim, because the third person used in that line can not by it�elf account for the contrivance of a scenario featuring an Orchomenian Simichidas, although the citation of v. 96 at least implies that the comment about the Orchomenian Simichidas was taken seriously at a later time and internal evidence was sought to explain or support it. The epitomi�er's way of thinking in advancing this possibility is explained by Nickau 2002, 389 n. 5: the epitotniser still thinks that the narrator i� Theocritus but at the same time hold� that the name Simichidas is by error attached to him by Lycidas on the flimsy ground that the narrator distances him­ self from Simichidas in v. 96. TWV allv aVT4':> is problematic and, stricdy taken, it would imply that the epitomi�er think� that this wa� in fact the

Ancient Scholia and Lost Identities

229

name of one of the person� escorting Theocritus on his walle This is factually impossible and his wording may be influenced by 2 aVv KO\ TplTOS CxIlIlIV 1\IlVvroS/. Scholarly reaction to the scholia�tic note in question, here sdectivdy presented, i� widdy conflicting. One way to look at it i� F. Diibner's who in the Adnotatio critica to his edition of the Theocritean scholia (1 849, 1 43) recogni�ed the importance a.� well as the obscurity of thi� scholium and deferred its explanation to the indefinite future: 'locus valde memorabilis, quem alii explicabunt'! But most commonly, its va­ lidity is denied in modem literature because the note is hdd either ir­ rdevant or pure improvi�tion. The first view carries with it the auc­ toritas of Wilamowitz, l 1 expressed in his usual concise and categorical fashion: 'Die Kombination mit einem hundert Jahre alteren, nach Kos eingewanderten Simichidas aus Orchomenos hat keine Wahrscheinlich­ keit' . The second view i� represented by H.-J . Kiihn (1 958, 44 n. 4: 'eine offen�chtlich ad hoc erfundene' tale), Weingarth (1 967, 50: 'pure Konstruktion') and Meillier (1 993, 1 02 n. 3) : as a result of the "observa­ tion absurde" that Simichida.� i� not Theocritus the scholiast contrives that 'c'est alors (<(loa\ Se) un Simichidas fils de Pericles' . One wonders, however, on what basi�, other than absurdity, such information could be devised. Other reaction� were less categorical and more nuanced. Cow 1 952, II, 1 28, in hi� balanced discussion, remarked that 'Simichida.�, a son of Pericles of Orchomenos, a settler in Cos, is probably a historical character derived from some well-informed source' and correctly denied him a place in Theocritu.�' pedigree. Hutchin�on 1 988, 203-205, also noted that the information on historical Simichida.� i� 'clearly ba.�ed on evidence for a Coan family of the period' (204) and that the scholium involving Orchomenos 'places us under some obligation to suppose . . . that Simichida.� bdongs to the family i t mentions' (204) , but then went on to di�a.�sociate Theocritu.� from Simichida.� by postulating three 'hi�­ torical' poets, Simichidas, Lycida.� and Theocritu.� . On the other hand, in a contribution of major importance, Ewan Bowie12 appeared 'rductant . . . to credit the scholiast's Simichida.� of Orchomenos' and doubted that Theocritus' contemporaries were familiar with the name Simichida.� or that Theocritus would be recognised on Cos under such a name, con­ cluding that the poem's Simichidas "both is and is not Theocritos". More recent attempts to account for the name adopt method� which up to now u.�ed to be employed in the quest for Lycidas' 'true' identity. 1 1 Wilamowitz 1 906, 1 5 1 ; id. 1 924, II, 1 37 n. 1 , whence the quotation. 12 Dowie 1 985, 68 with n. 1 . Cf., similarly, G. D. Walsh, CPh 80 (1985), 1 1 -19; Hunter 1 999, 1 46.

230

Komrantinos Spanoudakis

Kossaifi 2002, 359-361 , hold� Simichidas' name as fabricated to evoke associations with poetic acrvxla (7 . 1 26) and derives it from :nIlOS, a \L�ual name of satyrs, to effect 'humour poetique' . Nickau 2002 associ­ ates the name with Simi as, the 3rd century grammarian and poet from Rhodes, thus postulating a poetic (and geographic) triangle consisting of Philitas, A�clepiades and Simias in di�gui�e. The obvio\L� diffi culty that the scholia keep silent about Simias, who neither appears anywhere eL�e in the corpus of the Theocritean scholia, can be explained 'weil danlals die lnteressierten noch W\L�sten, was gemeint war' (400 n. 39) .

2. 'Simichidas' and Theocritus A printary concl\L�ion resulting from a straightforward reading of scholium 7.21 3 would be that Theocritus' poetic I adopts the name of one of hi� friend�. We may call thi� man historical Simichidas to di�tin­ gui�h him from his namesake in the poem. The scholium says that the hi�torical Simichidas i.� a Coan citizen whose ancestors were in the pa.�t evicted from Orchomenos and setded on Cos where they enjoyed the rights of full citizenship ever since their arrival. Thi� note, preci.�e and well infomled, can not come out of thin air. The hi�torical background which it presupposes has to do with the animosity between Thebes and Orchomenos, the two old rivals in Boeotia. The Thebans destroyed Orchomenos in 364 BC with ferocio\L� brutality: many men were put to death, women and children were sold into slavery, the land wa.� SlLrren­ dered to pro-Theban seWers, refugees had to seek for help, c( Paus. 9. 1 5 . 3 'OpXOIlEV(OVS 8'lj3aiol TT010VcriV ava
Ancient Scholia :md Lost Identities

23 1

settlers may be an effort to revive the society and boost the economy of the newly established town of Cos by increasing the body of it� citizens. The method would not be novel, since in Athens Themi�tocles per­ suaded the d2mos TOUS fJeTolKovS . . . eheAeIS TIOlfjcral, OTICAlS oXAOS TIOAVS TIcxvTax6eev els TTJV TI6AIV KaTEAe1J Kat TIAelovs TExvas KaTacrKevacrwcrlv evxepws (Diod. Sic. 1 1 .43 .3) .15 One might as well imagine that the decision of the Coans may have been partly motivated by their conunon ancestry from Thessaly: the Minyans of Orchomenos, as their very name demonstrates, bear strong connection.� with Thessaly like the Coans did. Such memories held strong on ancient Cos.1" It has been sensibly suggested17 that the ultimate probable source of this infor­ mation is Nicanor, the Coan commentator of Philitas (Schol. KGLEAT Theoc. 7. 5-9k, 80. 1 W.) and supplier of information about Coan per­ son.� and localities to the scholia on Theoc . 7 which was then perpetu­ ated through Theon. Now, Theocritus by conunon consensus lived for some time on Cos. He would not be a �EVOS, a temporary resident without right�, but a TIap01KOS, a permanent foreign resident, one of the apparendy nu­ merou� foreign men of letters and physicians attracted by the congenial ambience of Cos. I . A� a paroikos Theocritus would be obliged by law to adopt a citizen as patron (TIP0crTcrn,S) . That such was the practice on Cos, as in so many other places, is evidenced in Herond. Mim. 2. 1 0-1 1 TIpOcrTcrn,V [exle1 Mewfiv, / eyl4> � ' )\plcrToq>wVTa, 1 5 yvwcre' ( qr� TIpOcrTO:T[1J Tleewp 1JYJ.lUl. Significandy, since the choice was left with the paroikos, patron and dependent were usually con.�idered as person.� of the same stock. I') So the prostates of Theocritu� would logically be a man friendly to letters. Should he be, as it will be presendy argued, Simichi­ das the Orchomenian (the 'hi�torical' Simichidas) , his interest in letters would be associated with hi� place of origin, the ancestral home of the 15 See Whitehead 1 977. 1 48( On the general demand for metic.s in Athens c( [Xen.] Athen. "'sp. 1 . 1 2, id. De vect. 2.1 . 16 For Orchomenians :md The.saly cf. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 2 . 1 1 86. 208 . 1 6 Wendel 01 'OPXO��Vl01 CrrrO lKoi den 8ecrcraAwv, vice versa in Straho 9.2.40, see A. Schachter in 'OCD, 988-989. For Coans and Thes.saly see L. and K. Hallof-Chr. Habicht. Chiron 28 (1 998), 1 08-1 09. 17 Cf. Paton-Hicks 1891, 356 and Sherwin-White 1 978, 65. 18 Cf. Sherwin-White 1 978. 1 73. On the tenn.s 1TapoIKos/�hoIKOS. interch:mge­ able on 3rd century Cos, see Ph. Gauthier, REG 1 08 (1 995). 503. Meleager HE 3.4 Ka�e 6eTiw Mep61TC.ov acrT6v cam himself as a naturalised Coan citi­ zen. 19 C( Isocr. 8.53 TOUS �ev �EToiKOVS TOIOlhovs elval vo�l�o�ev oiovO"1Tep /Xv TOUS 1TpOO"TaTas V��OOcrIV. Headlam on Herond. l\llim . 2. 1 0.

232

Komrantinos Spanoudakis

Graces (c£ Pind. 01. 1 4.3-4, Euph. CA 87, Adesp. Pap. Eleg. SH 959 . 1 6-17). Thus the infonnation in scholium 7.21a that the Orchome­ nian settlers were granted citizenship on Cos, which at first sight might seem superfluous, would come out as providing a very specific explana­ tion about how an offipring of Orchomenian refugees can act as a pros­ tates. In Athens, where the evidence about !.UhOIKOI and TTpOO'TCrra l is better, there were resident foreigners registered with the polemarchos as early a� the battle of Salamis and 'it seems plausible that the mid-fifth century saw significant development . . . such a� the requirement of regis­ tration with a deme' .2<1 A metoikos nonnally had to forfeit a IlEToiKIOV and live ETT! TTpOO'TCrrTJ (Lys. 3 1 .9) or else face ypa
20 Patterson 198 1 , 1 34. C£ also Whitehead 1 977, 75-97; Niku 2007. 21 Lipsius 1 905, 370. On 1TPOCM'chIlS see H. Schaefer, RE Suppl. IX (1 962) , 1 297-1 300. On the registration of a metie in Athens see Rhodes 1 993, 497. On the continuing relation.dup between metie and prostatis see Harriso n 1 968, 1 89-1 99; Whitehead 1 977, 90-91 .

Ancient S cholia and Lost Identities

233

by all indicatiom started sometime in the late 280's. Theocritus, who is conunonly sunni�ed to have left Sicily at au early age,22 seeking for a patron, wrote Idyll 1 6 at ca 275 , when Hieron of Syracuse rose to power. 23 Thi� entail� a gap of some ninety years between the seventh Idyll's dramatic tinle aud the destruction of Orchomenos. So the hi�tori­ cal SinIichidas, the friend or, as I suggest, the prostates of Theocritm, must be a third generation settler. He would conceivably be older thau Theocritus himself, as a prostates u.�ually was aud as a man cast as a 'fu­ ther' is likely to have been. Therefore in the corrupt point in scholium 7.21a, it might be worth considering OTTO TTC!TTTT OV KA1l6iivaI, OTTO Lll-.lIXISov KTA. Thi� would conform to the habit of nauIing male chil­ dren after their paternal graudfuther,24 aud it would accord with the dates put forward in the preceding discussion. )\TTO TTCnrTTOV can be used in explaining personal names, c£ Diog. Laert. 3.4 (Alex. Polyhist. FCrH 273 F 88; Plato) TTp6TEpOV )\plEISITTTT I511V) WS OTTO EISwvos TOO TTaTTTTOV, John Chrys. De mut. nom. PC 5 1 . 1 48d. The corrupt OTTO tTTaTplov in the scholia might be due to an attempt to explain the name of the Orchomenian Simichidas as bequeathed aTTapaAil.aKTWS to him by his futher (*aTTO TTaTp6S , c£, in modem times, Wendel's conjecture cited in the apparatus) , by nIisapplication of an explauation accounting for the naule of Theocritus 'SinIichidas' . The argumentum to Theoe. 7.76. 1 6 W. ETTlSllllT)CJas yap 6 9E6KP1TOS Tfj vT)CJCP, Ka6' QV Xp6vov EIS )\Ae�aVSpElav TTpOS nTOAEllaiov ETTOPEUETO KTA. implies a short stay en route to Egypt. This may be a mere inference from the geography of Theocritus' poems aud the fictional biography set out in the vitae. And yet, it may perhaps be not fur from hi� estimated 'real' biography, in the seme that Theocritus may have left Sicily for Cos for some temporary shelter in au interim phase before he end� up in Alexaudria. Hi� choice would not be absurd, first because Cos was au island with which Sicily had strong historical, political aud cultural ties. Epicharmus, for instance, supposedly following me oilier way round, is some times designated as originally a Coau TC:>V IlETa KaSllov EIS LIKEAlav IlEToIKllCJavTwv. 2.� Secondly, because on Cos mere was establi�hed a literary 'school' led by Phi!itas with whom (or becau.�e of whom) Theocritus shared fundamental poetic credos aud to 22 Cow 1 952, I, xix; Hwlter 1 999, 2. 23 See Hwlter 1 996, 82-87. 24 ce, e.g., TIme. 6.54.6, PI. Lull. 1 79a2, Dem. C. Borot. 27. See J. Garcia­ Ramon, Dt-,'P 9 (2000) , 623 s . v. Personennamen. 25 Suid. E 2766 s. 'E1T{XapIlOS Epichann. PCG test. 1 .4 with n.; Cow an Theoe. Epigr. 1 8.5; Willi 2008, 1 20. =

234

Kon
whom Idyll 7 is probably homage, and thirdly because Theocritus could be motivated by the hope that hi� sojourn on Cos would bring hi� work closer to the attention of the Ptolemaic Court, as it apparently happened (7.93) . The immediate repercussions of the proposal raised here may now be explored. In the first place, 'Simichidas' in Theocritus' poem does not appear to be a Coan citizen since he i� said to be a �EivoS of Aratos (1 1 9 TOV �Eivov . . . �EV, c£ , of Nicia.� of Miletus, 28.6-7 �EWOV e�ov . . . / N IKlav) . Theocritus' designation implies that 'Simichidas' and Aratos are not compatriots, which in its tum lead� to the ex silentio conclusion that Simichida.� was not a Coan citizen a.� Aratos most probably wa.�. Moreover, 24-25 1'\ TIVOS aO"TcJv / Aavov E1n 6pcilO"KEls; employs lan­ guage which further suggests that Simichidas is not a Coan citizen (the lines may further suggest that the young poet Simichidas is involved in symposia where recitation of poetry wa.� habitual) . Jll. 0"T6S is the technic­ al tenn emphasizing someone's citizen birth2r. and denoting the full right citizen that can act a.� a prostates, c( Suida.� a 3546 . 1 2 ( Photo a 2640.4) TWV �ETOIKc..>V EKaCl"TOS TTpOO"TV EKacrTos �ETa TTpOO"TCrrO V TWV aO"Twv TIVOS Ta TTpaYllaTa aUToO 5IcilKEI, and in general it i� the appropriate tenn to describe a citizen as against a foreigner or metic. In Theocritus one may approach the technical language in Epigr. 1 4 . 1 Gow aO"Tois Ka\ �ElvOlcrlV on a banker's trade sign,27 and, in general, the conventional polarity between acrT6s and �hOIKOS (e.g. , [Xen.1 Athen. resp. 1 . 1 2, id. De vect. 2.2, PI. Rep. 563al) which all but certainly appears in Herondas Mim. 2.7-8 1 . ITJcro�aO"ToOTllacrr . . . / . . . . 1 . cr�e . . I.. . (prob. KOOT1os �h.o.I.K.oS) EO"T\ Tfis rTT61Alos KTJycb,211 33-34 KTJ�e TOV �Eivov / ov5e\s TToAiTTJS TJA6TJcrEV, in pa.�sages coming a.� close as possible to the realities of Co an society. Next, it is probably in this self-referential contexf" that the see­ mingly malicious remark.� of Lycida.� in 7.21-26 are to be understood. Lycidas' initial address to Simichida.� may rehash the superior detach=

26 See, e.g. , M. H. Hansen in Hansen-NieL.en 2004, 47. 27 See Rossi 2001 , 251 . The banker is in fact alleged to be a male prostitute, cf. A. H. Griffiths, BICS 17 (1 970) , 35-6. 28 �h9!�
Ancient Scholia and Lost Identities

235

ment and humour known from similar poetic 'on the road' encounters 3l 1 such a� Hesiod's (Theog. 24-28) or Archilochus' (Mnesiepes inscription SEC l S .5 1 7 . 30--32 Archil. test. 3.30-32 Gerber) encounters with the Muses. But metics often had to cope with the prejudices of the local population and with reactiom ranging from open hostility to a more subtle and vicious irony. As Aeschylus puts it in a gnome, everyone keeps an evil tongue ready for insulting a metic, Aesch. Suppl. 994-995 TTas 5' EV IlETOIK,!> YAwacrav e\rru Kov cpepEi / KaK"v. This could be especially true, if a not very wealthy prostates, in conunon with a nexus of private patrons, who might include the offipring of noble Lycopeus,31 enthusia�tically supported a young and ambitious foreign poet. In his ca�e such a standpoint could conceivably represent the attitude of some members of the local intelligentsia, and Lycidas' reproduction of such criticism ha� the look of a serene parody of it. Lycidas alleges that 'Simichida�', even if weary (21 TT65as EAKeIS/) , is at work when all others rest. The question in 2 4 i'i lleTCx 5aiT' ['in search of a banquet'l OKAT)TOS ETTelyem, where mss and scholia record a provocative variant reading IlETCx 5aiTa KAT)T6S, can be taken to allude, in a sarca�tic manner, to hi� keen search for a patron: Theocritus' agony in thi� matter is salient in Idyll 1 6 (5--6 TiS . . . / . . . \1TT0 5S�eTm, 1 8-19 TiS . . . Tis . . . ; / OUK oI5', 68 51l;T)llm) . At the same time, by attributing to hinl a very unpoetic (cf. Hes. Theog. 26) , but so closely associated with literary patronage, interest in food,32 Lycida� shrewdly raises the charge of the parasitic life of a Tpexe5ElTTVOS or an CxAAoTplocpayos which, quite interestingly, at lea�t inIplicitly weighs on the residents of the MlL�eunl in the stark language of TinlOn Phlia�ilL� Silloi SH 786. Then OKAT)TOS is another unfair all egation: it prompts the inlage of the beggar poet and seems to be a deliberate caustic allegation countering Theocritus' declared intentiom: OKAT)TOS IlEV eyc.>ye Ilevoilli KEV (1 6 . 1 06) . It is emphatically stated in Idyll 1 6 that Theocritus i� only interested in an open-hearted invitation, 6-7 (TiS) ";IlETSpas XapLTas TTETacras vTT05e�eTm OiK,!> / CxCJTTa crlc.>S, 68 KExaplcrllevos eAac.>. But an ill-disposed observer would treat such statement� as belonging to the rhetoric of patronage-seeking and as harbouring a selfi.�h ploy. In the ensuing question in 24-25 i'i TLVOS CxaTWV / AavOV em 6pciJcrKE1S ; the malevolent 6pciJaKE1S 'waste, devour' implies aggression to men or property, here indeed directed against a Coan citizen (TLVOS CxaTwv) . So =

30 For this motif see Segal 1 98 1 , 1 27--1 28. For detached and hwnoresque encoun­ ters with Muses see Hunter 2003a; Fanruzzi in id. -- Hunter 2004, 1 34. 31 See Kiihn 1 958, 6 1 ; Hunter 2003, 29-32. 32 C( Pind. ;Vem. 1 . 1 9-23 (21--22 �vea 1101 apl16BIOv I BEiTIVOV KEK6oI1TJTaI) and see Hunter 2003, 32(, 43(

236

Kon�tantinos Spanoudakis

Lycida�' address may contain features of a nuanced abuse not just again�t a poet but again�t a metic-poet, all the more so if Lycida� is purported to be a proud Coan, if; that i�, 1 2 KVSC.':WIKOV . . QvSpa refers to a locality on Cos. Then, to draw Lycida� out, Simichida� has to concede, if by design (42 hTiTaSes) and in ambiguous language (39 lToo) but much to Lycida.�' gratification (42£), hi� inferiority to revered local poets, a ma­ noeuvring further suggesting hi� diverse civic status. Through this stratagem Theocritus playfully distances himself from his Coan pastJ3 and 'Simichida�' may represent the image that Theocri­ tus later in life had of himself for the time he spent on Cos. At any rate, Theocritus by a.�suming this name for his poetic I elevates the historical Simichidas in loco patris. Moreover, Theocritu� adopts that man's name, with the history of his family looming in the background, because he saw in him a partial reflection of his earlier 'Coan' sel£ The two of them, in a way, share a common patria, a place neither of them ha.� ever been: a.� an Orchomenian historical Simichida� is as.�ociated with the Graces, like the poet Theocritus. Once Theocritu� too wa.� not only a resident alien but, unsupported by a royal patron, he also had to carry hi� 'exiled' Graces with him (16.5-12) , like the family of historical Simi­ chida.� in the past had to do. So the poem's 'Simichida.�'---p erhaps like the poem in its entirety--as a man di�guised under a name that was probably never hi� own, is in the end, in Lycida.�' own word�, an off­ shoot fashioned to look true, a lTav �lT' QAa6elq: lTelTAaallEVov . . . �pVOS (44) . Then it is Theocritus' sympathy with the case of Orchomenos, de­ stroyed twice by Thebes in the 4th cent. BC before being itself razed to the ground by Alexander in 335, which shows in 1 6 . 1 04-1 09: l OS

w 'ETeOKAeIOI XaplTES 6ea!, w M nllielov 'OPXOIlEVOV IJIlAEolaal tnTEx6ollEVOV nOTE e,;�aIS, aKATTTOS IlEV (yooye lleVOIIl! Kev, �S 51; KaAEVVTOOV 6apa,;aas Moiaalal aVv &IlETepalalv iOlll' avo KaMeilfioo 5' ouS' VIlIlE· Ti yap XapiToov ayQ1TT)TOV av6poonoiS anwEv6ev; aEi XapiTEaalv all' eiT)V.

o

goddes.� Graces, loved by Eteocles, and dear to to ; Minyan Orchomenous, once the enemy of Thebes: ; if no one s ummOIL� me I shall stay at home, but I shall ; gladly go to the hou� of the man who calls me, taking my Mu�es ; with me. Nor shall I forget you, my Graces-what joy is there ; for men without you? May I always live in the Graces' company (trans!. A. Verity) . 33 Cf., already, the 'progranuuati c' exordium in v. 1 Tis xpOVOS wilc' with Dover 1 97 1 , 1 50-1 5 1 ; Goldhill 1 991 , 226, 230.

Ancient Scholia and Lost Identities

23 7

Theocritu.�' G) 'ETe6KAel01 X6:pITes 6eal , G) M lVvelov / 'OpxolJevov <j)\AEoIO'al may well be another recollection of Pindar's 1 4th Olympian ode written for the victory of A�opichus the Orchomenian, which looms large especially at the coda of the poem, 01. 14.3--4 G) . . . / X6:pITes 'EpxolJevov, 1TaAaly6voov M lVvav �1TIO'K01TOI; but it may as well hint at a parameter of the conflict between Orchomenos and Thebes in 364 BC in which the mythological pa.�t with the Minyan dominion over Thebes played its part, since, as Diodoru.� of Sicily relat­ ing the events leading to Orchomenos' destruction explains, 1 5 .79.5 �K 1TaAalOOV yap xp6voov 01 91li3aiol 1TPOS TOVTOVS aMoTploos SIEKelVTo, SaO'lJocpopovVTes IJEV Tois M lVvalS �v Tois ""pooIKois xp6VOIS, vO'Tepov S' vcp' 1-IpaKAoEovs �Aev6epoo6EVTes. Theocritu.� chooses the side of Orchomenos. [s thi� due only to the Graces, with which he is allied and whose cult wa.� ancient and important in Or­ chomenos? And did sympathy for Orchomenos have to be combined with a feeling of detestation for Thebes? 'The manner of mentioning the ancient enmity between Orchomenos and Thebes . . . leaves us with the impression that the Graces are enemies of Thebes. Theokritos's rea.�on for saying this is that in the end Orchomenos-thanks, he implies to the divine protection of the Graces-triumphed; for Thebes wa.� utterly destroyed by Alexander in 335, and Orchomenos lent a vengeful hand' rea.�oned Dover 1971 , 228. Alex Hardie 1 983, 33-35, on the other hand, in order to explain Theocritu.�' special interest in Orchomenos, a.�sumed that the poem was conuni�sioned by Orchomenian patrons and was actually delivered in a competition at the Charitesia Games in Or­ chomenos. Theocritu.�' stance, a.� [ suggest, may be influenced by his a.�sociation with Cos, and perhaps hi� personal liai�on with Simichida.� the Orchomenian. The Graces-motif i� interwoven with hi� personal link to that city: a.� he will never distance himself from the Graces, thu� he will never abandon 'Orchomenos' . Such a hypothesis essentially as­ sumes that Theocritus wrote Idyll 1 6 while on Cos. Last but not lea.�t, the scenario proposed here may have enjoyed a Roman Nachleben. Virgil, who in the Eclogues u�ed the exile theme for his own self-referential and literary aims, in Eel. 5.55 introduces a shep­ herd with the name Stimichon, unattested before him, but sounding very much like IllJIXoS (Wendel 1 920, 58) . Stimichon ha.� the authority to pass judgment on Menalca's poem� on Daphnis and hi� praise i� respect­ fully heeded by Mopsu�. [t i� a striking coincidence (if it is a coincidence at all) that, in parallel to speculation� about Simichida.�, scholia DServ. identify Stimichon either as the Roman patron par excellence or a.� Theocritus' father, quidam per Stimichonem Maecenatem accipiunt; nonnuli Stimichonem patrem Theocriti dicunt.

III. The Ancient Grammarians on the Greek Language and Linguistic Correctness

Did the Alexandrian Grammarians have a Sense of History?

*

Jean Lallot

1. Introduction The question I am rai�ing within this paper, 'Did the Alexandrian grammariam have a seme of history?', i� one that must itself be located hi�torically . It implies in fact at least two other questions, each of which relates to three periods: the pre-Alexandrian, the archaic and the cla.�si­ cal: 1) Did the Greeks have a sense of history? 2) Did the Greeks think that their own language had a history? The reply to the first questi(m is obviously 'yes'. Here i� not the place to argue about that: no-one would think of challenging the fact that He­ rodotu.� , Thucydides, Diodorus Siculus and so many others had a sense of history, if by that one means the idea that event� which affect human society have a temporal location, that custom� and institutiom, fur from being immutable, evolve and are transformed over the years and centu­ nes. Without dwelling on what can here be taken to be a truism, let me none the less make one point. A 'sense of history' is not the perquisite either primarily or exclusively of historians: the idea that the pa.�sage of time brings with it changes in human affairs, apart from being something that can arise unbidden in the consciousness of anybody at all from his or her own personal experience, is already present in the Greek myths. It i� aho to be found and has been elaborated in detail in philosophical thought. We have the theories of flux, of which the best known i� that of Heraclitu.�, to prove thi�. But in order to clarify the notion of the 'sense of history', rather than citing the Heraclitean formula 1TCxVTa pei, I would like to draw *

Thi� text has been tran..uted from the French by Sir John Lyons. I am greatly indebted to him for generously agreeing to do thi� and, more generally, deeply appreciate the quality of his work and our mutual friendship.

242

Jean Lillot

attention to an exanlple from Plato, which is also well known. When Plato presents hi� theory of the succession of political regimes, in the third book of The Republic, he does indeed base thi� on the idea that institutions have a history, each regime having its origin and its decline, but he is not 'doing' history as such---at any rate not in the sense in which a hi�torian would have described the way in which in Athens tyr=y became democracy or the way in which democracy it�elf had undergone various transformations during the classical period. I am at this point 'pushing at an open door', but I am doing so in preparation for what is coming later: as we shall see, when we are considering 'the hi�tory of the language', we shall have to be sensitive to the distinction between diachronic speculations and empirically documented history. My second question, 'Did the Greeks think that their1 language had a his­ tory?', calls for an appropriately qualified answer, especially in the light of the preceding observations. For the philosophers, their language has an origin and its primitive form i� not identical with its present fonn. In his Letter to Herodotus, Epicurus speculates as to what can have been it� first developments starting from rudimentary and impul�ive vocal utter­ ances. 2 In the Cratylus, Plato imagines that in a pa�t that is more mythi­ cal than historical there existed a corporation he calls 'the first inventors of word�' (ol 1TpwTol TO 6v61-laTO TI6el-lEVOI, 401 b) , he speculates about an ancient layer of 1TPWTO 6v61-l0TO disguised in his time by later changes (41 4c) , and he puts in the mouth of Socrates remarks that we could call 'historical phonetics', contra�ting for example very ancient (01 apxm6ToTol) and contemporary (01 vVv) pronunciations of the " of

I say 'their' language deliberately, given the fact that, except for very special

2

imtances (e.g. the origin of language-'Which was the primitive language?'­ or expressiom recognized as being non-Greek, in for exanlple the investiga­ tions of Herodotus, and so on), the Greek..' interest in language and languages was restricted to the Greek language. This tact is especially clear in the case of the granunarians, basically philologis\l; working on a Greek COrplL., who had little opportwuty of encountering any languages other than their own. Epicur. Ep. Hdt. 75-76: [ . . . J Ta ovollCXTa �� expxiis 11'; !MaEI yEvta6al, aM' a\rra s Tas cpvaEIS Taw <'xv6p&>1Toov Ka6' �KaO'Ta �6vT] i61a 1Taaxovaas 1TCx6T) Ka\ i61a Aall�avovaas cpaVT6:allCXTa 16100s T<'W extpa �K1Ttll1TEIV O'TEAAOIlEVOV vcp' lKCxO'TooV TWV 1Ta6wv Ka\ TWV cpaVTaall<XTooV, OOS &II 1TOTE Ka\ ,; 1Tapa TaUS T01TOVS TWV �6vwv 61acpopa efT] [ . . . ].

Did th e Alexandrian Granunariam have a Sen.e of History?

243

TU..lE pa (41 8c) .3 Even if we are surprised by what he says about the rela­ tive chronology (the iotacizing pronunciation is presented as earlier than the [e:1 pronunciation), we must note, and take due account of as highly significant, the care with which Socrates is said to distinguish suaessive pronunciations of Greek. At this point let us draw, succinctly, from this preliminary survey the following conclu.�ion: the idea that the Greek language has undergone variations over time and therefore has a history, fur from being foreign to Greek thought, is present in key works which, like those of Plato, have been the very bedrock of Greek culture. This being so, it is only to be expected that, when in Alexandria the corporation of ypal..l I..lCXT IKO{ makes it� appearance, committed to the study of a literary heritage which they know stretches back over at least half a millennium, these scholars should have been led to observe, and to mention in their writ­ ing; details of the evolution of the Greek language. My aim here is to examine what is in fuct the case and to put forward some reflections on what I may claim to have ascertained. I will be referring to two witnesses, who are rightly thought of as representative of what was Alexandrian granunar in its 'technical' ver­ sion: the Techne attributed to Dionysius Thrax and what survives of the worh of Apolloniu.� Dyscolus. This technical grammar i� a grammar of maturity, which we know is based upon and often refers explicitly to the works of earlier or contemporary philologists. I shall naturally be led to make incursions into this territory al�o when my proposals prompt me to do so.

2. The Techne: not History Let me say immediately what everyone knows: the little manual attrib­ uted to Dionysiu.� i� not a treatise on historical granunar. There i� how­ ever one passage, in Chapter 14 ('On conjugation') , where in presenting the conjugations in -1..l1 as coming from the conjugations in -CI.) the au­ thor seem� to be interested in the history of the langu.age.4 For each of

3

4

PI. era. 401h: Klv6vveuoval yow [ . . . ] of rrpwTo/ Ta 6voj.JaTa TdJij.JEVO/ OU q>aVAOI eTval Cr:J\Aa �eTewpoA6yol Kal &6oMcrxat TlvtS: 414c: OUK oTcr6 ' em

Ta rrpwTa 6voj.JaTa TE6tVTa KaTaKtxwcrTal T\6TJ Uno TWV 130VAO�tVWV Tpaycp6eiv a\rrCx [ . . . ]: 4 1 8c: of j.JEV aPXa/OTaTOI 'I�tp av' TI)V it�tpav lKClAOVV. ol 15� '��tpav· . ol 15� viiv 'it�tpav·. D.T. 59.3: Twv 6� els �I ATJYOVTWV PTJ�CxTWV ov�vylal elcrl Ttcrcrapes. wv < 1 > it � v 1T pc:m, t tK
244

Jean Lillot

the four paradigms in -�.l1 (TI61'II.II , 1(""1'}I..II, 5[8W�I, 1T"'yvV�l) the expres­ sion used looks typically genetic: (mo TOO TI600 yfyoVE "16"�I, (mo TOO la-roo yfYOVEV 1(J"""�1, etc. From the point of view that [ have adopted here, this example i� precious, but it is al�o troublesome. We must choose in fact between two interpretations: (1) either yeyovE cm6 must be taken in the sense of historical granunar, meaning 'has evolved from' or 'has replaced historically ', in which case the Alexandrian grammarian is 'doing' history and is wrong; (2) or yeyovE cm6 means something el�e, and we mu.�t say what that i�. My own feeling i� that the first interpretation is hazardou.� and improbable. Can we inlagine that the Alexandrians-expert philologists that they were and well aware of the chronological priority of the ar­ chaic and classical texts (where the fonTIS in -CA) existed only in their na�­ cent state) by comparison with Helleni�tic usage (in which the fonTIS in -�I had become obsolete)-could have a�serted despite all the evidence that the fonner had come historically from the latter? We must therefore adopt the alternative interpretation: yeyovE (�X1T6 does not mean 'comes hi�torically from' . 'Comes from', perhaps (one can hardly avoid translating yeyovE cm6 in this way) , but certainly not 'hi�torically' . [ can see no other possible interpretation than the follow­ ing: yeyovE cm6 mmt be understood as meaning 'is obtained from' . What we have is a fornlula of synchronic morphology, and one whose purpose is pedagogical,' indicating a derivational relationship that is not ordered chronologically." There is no question of hi�tory here. T/8w yiyov£ TI&llI.II · <2> [ . . . j Cmo TOU laToo ytyOVEV TOT1]IlI ' <3> [ . . . j OOS Cmo TOU 51500 ytyoVE 51500111 ' <4> [ . . . j Cmo TOU 1TT1yvVW ytyOVE miYWIlI.

5

6

That these pedagogical comideratiom weighed heavily for setting out the pres­ entation of grammar i. something for which we have abWldant proof Is thi. not what Apollonius appeal. to (Synt. III 62, 328 . 1 3) in order to justifY the po­ sition of the indicative in the list of mood5? We find the same concern in Charax (Sophronius) in G. G. IV 2, 418.38, who, with reference to listing the plural before the dual in the Canons of Theodosiu�, justifies thi� in the follow­ ing tern,,: 'ATIopoucrl 5t, TI 5f)1TOTE Ta TrpWTa it< TWV VD7ipwv Kavovi(EI, V EUKOAwf 5VvaTOV TO pf//Ja KAiVEU8aJ, 1Tats 11,,5' OAWS YlvwO'1<Ecr6al [ . . . j. Of course, the 1TpooTa and the vaTepa have nothing to do with a chronological ordering here, but there is every reamn to believe that, even if this had been the ca.�e, the principle of giving greater weighting to the 'pedagogical' than to the 'natu­ ral' would have applied. Thi� is obvioudy how it has been traditionally Wlderstood: see the dossier brought together by G. Uhlig in hi. apparatus criticus to the Tech"", D.T. 59.4.

Did the Alexandrian Granunarians have a Sen<e of History?

245

Furthennore, what are we promi�ed in Chapter 1 of the Techne, which lists the six parts of the grammar?7 Despite certain appearances, misleading for the modem reader, there i� nothing that implies a histo­ rian's viewpoint. A� to these mi�leading appearances: Part 3 of the ypa��CXTIK" TEXV'll is defined as yAc.uaawv Kal laT0plwV ITp6XE1pOS cm680aiS (D .T. 6 . 1 ) , 'the ready explanation of obscure word� and hi�­ torical references' (transL Kemp); despite the presence here of the word laTopia, it mmt be obvious that the grammarian is not claiming to be doing history. Taking the text a.� it is, and without regard to its age, he is content to make it semantically clearer by translating or paraphrasing the rare word� and explaining the allusions to traditional 'stories' that are present in the text. If thi� practice means de facto 'modernizing' the text in order to make it comprehensible, it does thi� without classifYing a.� such the hi�torical change which might have made the word� unclear. The granunarian does not say, a.� our dictionaries do, that a word or a meaning comes from an ancient state of the language, but simply that there i� in the hic-et-nunc experience of the reader, semantic equivalence, for example, between the Homeric word Evvii�ap and the phrase EIT! EvvEa 1'!��pas (e.g., Sch. Hom. [bTl n. 1 .53-5). Even etymology (the fourth part of grammar)---a tenn which by it­ self evokes for a modem reader the process of going back to older stages and in fine bringing to light the historical origins of the word being stud­ ied-, in no way betokens the hi�torical perspective for the Alexandri­ ans. Defined by the scholia a.� 6v61TTV� IS TWV M�Ec.uV the 'analysis of word�' which reveal� their 'truth' (hV�oAoyia = CxA'Il6IVoAoyia), ety­ mological practice a I'ancienne consi�ted in submitting a meaningful foml to a rigorously synchronic analysis which makes apparent its segments and clarifies and justifies its meaning. To take one example among thou­ sand� which fill the etymological lexica, the very example in bct which the scholiasts of the Techne give to illustrate etymological practice: �Ae<papov, 'eyelid', is analysed as lIpov Kal �A�1TE, which does indeed

7

Uhlig's CIlIX (t) before �Kq>£PETai in the fo nnula TWV els /.II ATly6VTooV PTlI.l(XTOOV [ . . . ] Ti I1�V lTPWTT] �Kq>£pETat <'nrc Tiis lTPWTT]S TWV mptcnTOOI1£VOOV can be explained by the diversity of the verbs used in the citation< or para­ phrases of the pa..sage in question in the conmlentaries (yivecr6at, <'nroTEAeicr6a1, lTapayecr6a1) . But in itself this verb (which appears in certain scholia) yields an excellent interpretation: it i< regularly employed by Apollo­ nius with reference to a process of 'formation', in the morphological--and syn­ chronic--sen<e of !hi. tenn. D.T. 5.2: rpal1l1aTtK'; �O'TtV [ . . . J. M £PTl B� cx\rrii s �O'Ttv l� ' [ . . . ] Tphov yAOOcrcrwv Te Kat IcrTOptWV lTp6XetpOS <'nr6BoO'lS, ThapTov �TVl1oAoyias evpecrts [ . . . ].

246

Jean Lallot

express very well what the eyelid is: what one raises in order to see." Hut is the grammari an, as an Alexandrian, here saying, or at least suggesting, that he is paying attention, specifically, to what we call 'the history of the Greek language'? Evidently not: Alexandrian etymological analysis is an operation in which any diachronic dimension is completely ignored. So much for the Techne. The picture of the ypallllaTIK6S that emerges from this little handbook (and from the scholia a�sociated with it) i� for u.� somewhat paradoxical: philological grammarians , who knew that the texts they were studying stretched back over at least a half­ millennium, never take note of---o r at any rate do not think it relevant to mention9-the fact that the passage of time, with the changes that it brings about in human in�titutions, which is a matter of common knowledge, is in large part responsible for the lingui�tic differences that they observe between the texts. Perhaps we should not be surpri�ed, given the kind of work that the Techne i�: after all , two centuries after the invention of historical grammar we would look in vain for consid­ erations relating to the hi�tory of the language in our elementary text­ books of grammar. It is therefore interesting to tum now to the works of Apollonius Dyscolus that have come down to us and which, a� everyone knows, are very different in character: do we discern in them, albeit sporadically, any con�iderations that indicate on the part of the Alexandrian master an interest in, specifically, what we call the history of the Greek language?

R

9

Sch. D. T. 1 4.30: Sla TOVTO MYETal I3Mcpapov, SIOTI alpoll�vOV aVroii hrl Ta &vw I3M"TTo lJE1/, oloveI I3M"TT�apOV, apov KaI I3M"TTe . With one pos.�ible exception, which had escaped me: I am indebted to A. Wouters for having drawn it to my attention. In Chapter 1 2 of the Techne (D.T. 26.5) , we read that 'Homer does not form any patronymic.� from the mother's name (5ic), but [that] the recent (poets?) (01 veOOTepol) do'. One can but wonder, however, whether the granunarian i� here indicating a change in the language. Anyway, this i� not the point of view that i� apparent in the Vati­ can scholion, (Sch. D. T. 223.4) : 'The poet (sc. Homer) is the only one not to make use (oliK �xp"aaTo) ofparronymics fonned from the mother's name: he con�idered it to be absurd (&TO"TT OV 1')y,;aaTo), he who was recounting the ex­ ploits of the heroes, to derive such fonn� from a mother's name. The veOOTepol, on the other hand, do make lL�e of such derived fonn�'. What is to be under­ stood here i� that these derived matronymic.� were potentially available to Homer, but the poet judged it to be inappropriate (indecent?) to call one of the heroes of the Diad by a name referring to a woman.

Did the Alexandrian Granunarians have a Sen.e of History?

247

3. Apollonius: A Historian by Accident Let us first of all set on one side some apparent, but spurious, counter­ examples. To assert that the noun 'is prior (lTpoOq>ecrTws) to the other parts of speech' (AD. Synt. I 1 8 , 1 9 .4) , that 'the pronoun has been es­ tablished later (lJeTayevecnepav 6ecrIV olJOAoyei) than the article' (Synt. I 24, 25.6), 'that the preposition comes before the word� that preexist it (lTpOOlT6VTc.lV)' (Synt. I 26, 26. 1 2) i� not to be taken as expressing the point of view of a historian of the language, in the sense in which hi�to­ rians base their argument� on empirical facts whose chronological strati­ fication they are considering. Such assertions are to be understood rather as logical, not to say metaphysical, constructs, deriving, like the lTpC:;'na 6v6IJaTa of Plato, from a mythological view of the origins of language. It would be a serious error to see here the proof that Apollonius was 'doing hi�tory' in the sense that we give to this expression nowadays. On the other hand, it would be perverse to deny him some kind of sense of hi�tory when, in Synt. I 60, Apollonius talks of 'the tradition of Hellenism which makes it possible to di�cem the meaning of word� used by the ancients'. HI Even if the complex notion of lTap 6:5 0 crlS is far from being simply diachronic and referring to the tran�mi�sion of the lan­ guage across the generation�, to talk of the meaning of word� as used by the ancients is indeed to take note of the impact of history on lexical semantics, which manifests it�elf in the characteristic obscurity of at least some of the YAoocrcral-these strange word� whose elucidation is, ac­ cording to the Techne, one of the tasks of the grammarian. Here then Apollonius mentions explicitly, in passing, what remains implicit in the text of the Techne, a temporal dimension in the Greek language. Granted that thi� is so, he does not dwell on this, and he does not give any ex­ amples. It would be rash to suppose that the wording that we have here implies a 'program' for the investigation of the hi�tory of word�: what we have, it seetn� to me, is the recognition of a specific difficulty which the antiquity of certain texts creates for the grammarian-a difficulty which he does not seek to study for it� own sake a� a problem that is diachronic in nature, but which it i� his ta�k to overcome by substituting for the form that ha� become obscure one that i� equivalent and syn­ chronically clear. Without being completely ignored, hi�tory i� here no sooner glimpsed than it is evaded. This is al�o the case when ApollonilL� mentions el�ewhere an 'an­ cient usage'. Thus in Synt. III 42, oihos lL�ed with the function of a 1 0 A.D. Sy"t. I 60, 5 1 .7: [ . . . ] -.) evxpf1
24H

Jean Lallot

vocative is called Tt TWV apXa1c.uv xp;;als. l 1 Indeed, one might well wonder whether in this case one is dealing with an archaism classified as such or whether this way of referring to it reveal� a strategy for empha­ sizing what, in .fine, one will treat, in synchronic temls, as a figure, the figure nominativus pro vocativo. We find in Synt. III 34 the same evasion, in my view, where the same interchange (or 'hypallage') of case, first described as aPXa"iK" XP;;Cl"lS is finally registered as an 'Attic figure' (;A."TTI KClV ax;;j.1a),12 with 'grammatical geography' replacing hi�tory. However, there i� one instance-at least one, but I have not found any others-where Apollonius does indeed seem to be talking to us more definitely about the hi�tory of Greek. This is in Synt. II 90, where he i� dealing with the Homeric use of the simple pronoun� with the function of reflexives. Thi� is what he says: TCx TijS TOlauT1lS Xp"crews apxa"iKwTepa oVTa 1Tapecp66:p1l �eTa­ yevECTTe pov tmvo1l6eiC1T)S Ti\s aVT' aliTwv crvv6hov �eTai\l'l\jJews, els iiv Kat �eTaAa��6:vo�ev TCxS 1TpoKel�evas crVVT6:gIS A.D. Synt. II 90, 1 93 . 1 7

This particular usage i s rather archaic, and went out o f use when com­ pound [reflexives] were invented to replace them, and now all such phra.�es require the use of a compound. (transl. Hou..eholder) 13 To talk of an 'archaic u.�age' (apXa"iKWTEpa xp;;aIS) which 'went out of use' (TTapEtp6apfl) as a result of the later invention (j.1ETayEvEaTEpov ETTIVOfl6ElaflS) of a replacement which changes irreversibly the syntax of Greek, i� this not expressing oneself as hi�torian of the language? It is diffi cult to deny that this is so.

4. Conclusion

It is time to come to a conclu.�ion. But what conclusion? The near­ absence of considerations relating to the hi�tory of the Greek language expressed in their writings by the Alexandrian TEXV1KO{ mmt not be attributed to some kind of epistemological blindness on their part: the single, and possibly unique, example from Apollonius that we have 1 1 A.D. Sy,,'. III 42, 308.4: " yow oliTos [ . . . ] 5eoVTws Kai hi KAl1TIKfi s Ti6ETal. 51' 0 Kai �aTTJv KaTE�e�\jJaVTo njv TWV t!rPXaiwv xpfjO'IV. 12 A.D. Sy"t. III 34, 300.12: ouX v1To1TI1TTovcra yap apxaii<1] xprjUEI [ . . . ] ',;eAl0S e', os 1TaVT' �cpopc;xs' In. 3.277] , ' 50s, cplAos' rOd. 17.415], '00 cplATaT' Alas' [So Ai. 97 7 et 996] , cXTrElpa Ta TOVTOIS o�ola, <&> TO 'A TTIKOV uxfjlla 1TapaCTTTtcrel. 1 3 For an exact parallel to thi. text, see A.D. Pro". 44.9-1 8.

Did the Alexandrian Granunarians have a Sen.e of History?

249

noted is there to prove this. Why then are they so sparing of exemplifi­ cation when it comes to questions of diachrony? The only explanation, as far as I can see, i� that the facts of evolution, in them�elves, did not interest them. Subordinated, as we know it was, to the philological mas­ tery of the texts, that i� to say to the 5 1 6 peWC1l S of each of them, what­ ever the period of its composition, Alexandrian grammatical theory must enable them to amwe r such question� a.� 'Did Homer, Pindar, Plato write thi� or that?' , 'Does such-and-such a Homeric hapax mean thi� or that?', 'Which synchronic etymology explains the spelling of such-and­ such a word and account� best for its meaning?', etc.-but never such questions a.� 'What details of evolution, what diachronic rules account for the fact that Plato's usage differed from Homer's?', or 'Is the Alexan­ drian Koine the result of dynamic processes which cau�ed the transfor­ mation of earlier states of the language?', etc. For the Alexandrian granunarian, even though, like Apollonius, he might be passionately committed to producing rational explanations, granunar i� always applied to concrete objects-written texts, with their norm and their deviations from it (analogy and pathology)-, never to a history of the language which would account for the differences which separate the various states. Basically, Alexandrian grammar i� useful g rammar, whose ainl i� the practical mastery (EIlTTElplo) of the styles each of which is conceived a.� one of the pieces put together in a huge patchwork whose variegated pattern is looked at as a synchonical datum. Useful graIllrnar, I have said, whether its u�efulness is that of the ypOIlIlOTIK6s-editor or that of the YPOIlIlOTIK6s-teacher. What is the point of being concerned with the flow of the change which ha.� brought about the replacement of TieT)1l1 with TIe&>, when it suffi ces to know the practical rule that enables one to restore TieT)1l1 in Plato, if by chance a copyist ha.� absentmindedly written Tle&>? Even when the in­ tellectual franlework of grammar is strengthened by the genius of a great TEXVIK6S, the purpose of the discipline ha.� not been fundamentally re­ newed. Does not Apolloniu� tell u�, at the very beginning of his Syntax (I 1 , 2 . 1 ) , in order to justify hi� project of developing the study of the syntax of the sentence, that this work is 'absolutely necessary for the explana­ tion of poetic texts'? And if, observing on the way that in this or that respect Greek ha.� changed since Homer, he mention� in passing this evolutionary detail, this encounter with history ha.� no follow-up and the diachronic study of Greek continues to be nonetheless completely

250

Jean Lallot

outside his concerns. The times were clearly not ripe, in Alexandria, for the emergence of hi�torical grammar. 14

1 4 In the disclL,sion that followed the present talk, A.C. Cassio suggested a com­ parison which I find ben trovato (I am quoting it perhaps inexacdy from mem­ ory): the Greek granunarians douhdess looked upon their language as if it were a building with many storeys ( chronological strates), but they did not have the idea that an elevator could let them pas.' from one to the other. M. Schmidt, for his part, has written to me (and I an} very grateful to him for do­ ing so) to draw my attention to the fact that in me Homeric scholia, Aris­ tarchus notes, in several places, a difference of lL'age, especially lexical, between that of Homer and that of the veWTepol (sc. 1ToITJTal) and mat he therefore dif­ ferentiates 'verschiedene Stufen der griechischen Sprache'. M. Sclunidt is right, and I must duly qualifY my thesis. That said, it i, even more remarkable that taking account of the 'Zeitstufen' was alien to Apollonius' modus opl'Tatldi. =

Apollonius between Homeric and Hellenistic Greek: The Case of the 'Pre-positive Article' Louis Basset

The author of a Hellenistic Tekhne grammatike aims at explaining old poetic, mainly Homeric, text� to his contemporaries. In doing so, he tries to give a reasoned description of the poetic, and mainly epic, lan­ guage. Such a description is made with reference to Hellenistic Greek. The tekhnikos has therefore to exert a double linguistic ability, which often lead� him, whenever he find� a linguistic discrepancy, to give a Hellenistic paraphrase of the epic text. Particularly interesting is the case of the Greek word 6, 1'\, T6, which the tekhnikos ApollonilL� caIl� 'pre­ positive article' . In Attic and Hellenistic Greek, this word was used as what we call a definite article. The tekhnikos expect� to meet it in epic texts in the same syntactical contexts as in his usage. Yet this expectation i� often, but not always, di�appointed. A modern grammarian would perhaps conclude that Homeric texts have no consistency, 1 and, above all , that they do not lL�e, at least not always, the word 6, 1'\, T6 as a defi­ nite article. 2 Thi� is not the posture of Apollonim who views iliad and Odyssey as the work.� of one and only poet, and, in the case of the 'pre­ positive article', tries to cast on them the syntax of Helleni�tic Greek, in spite of obviolL� di�crepancies. As a result, the theories he adopts to de­ scribe the 'pre-positive article' in his own language may be somehow di�torted by the different uses he find� in Homer. Such a twist may arise either when he defines the general meaning of that article, or when he analyses the phrases that contain it. So we will study his behaviour start­ ing from his practice (his reading of Homeric texts) and moving up to his theories (i .e. the meaning he ascribes to the 'pre-positive article' and his syntactical analysi� of nominal phrases where it occurs) .

2

Chantraine 1 963, 245. But uses that seem to differ may appear in one and the same context, which would prevent any explication by referring to different states of language. Chanrraine 1 963, t 60 (§ 239) .

Loui� Bas.�et

252

1 . Apollonius' Reading of the Word 6, 'Ii, TO in Homeric Texts 1 . 1 . 'Article Ellipsis'

In most cases of discrepancy, the word 0, 1'\, T6 is absent in epic texts where Apolloniu.� expects a 'pre-positive article' (i.e. a definite article) . He then gives a paraphrase that consists in adding it to the epic wording: (1)

lTpoO'l<eiO'ETC!I yap TC;> '&Mol llEv yap mXVTes, 60'01 6eol elO" tv 'OAVlllTCf>' (n. 5 . 877) I oVrCtJS' 'OI IlEV yap &Mol 6eo\ lTO!vns, 60'01 elO" tv ' OAVlllTCf> [ . . J ' .

A.D.

Synt. 1 64. 55 . 1 7-20

The pre-positive article will be added to: 'For all � others. a� many god� they are in Olympu�' (n. 5 . 877) . which means: 'For all the other gods. a� many they are in Olympus [ ... J " Such a paraphrase translates correcdy the epic text into Hellenistic Creek. But what may seem less accurate is Apollonius' way of explain­ ing that discrepancy between the epic wording and its Hellenistic para­ phra.�e: for him it is the result of a 'poetic licence' (Synt. I 62, 52.8: 1TOlllT1K'; &SEIO:) , a 'figure' (axiiIJO:) , which con�sts in 'article ellipsis' (I 6: 1'\ TOU &p6pov �A).EI\f.IIS) . [n order to be accepted a� such by the tekhnikos, a 'poetic licence' must not be too exceptional. To prove a deliberate use of the Poet, an irregular wording must have a minimum of regularity: a too exceptional anomaly would be explained a� an acci­ dental mistake. But it ought not either to be too frequent: it would then become a flaw (KO:Klo:). s Moreover, in order to be well accepted, the 'figure' must not make the text too hard to understand (aawETov) , for example when combined with another anomaly, which may make it incongruous (aaVO'TCXTov) . (2)

ou !l6vov 0011 tlT' tKelVCt.>v t'l lTTOO O'IS tVT)AAeXYT'l, 'NeO'Topl5cxl 5' 6 lleV oVrcxO" :A.TvllvIOV' (n. 1 6 . 3 1 7), [ ... 1. ciAAa lTpocpo:veS 6T1 IOOS, 6TI TO axTlllCX t�yt'lO'CXTO TO aaVO'TCXTOV TOO A6yov' yevll
A.D.

3

4 5

Synt. 1 57, 49. 1 0 - 1 5

We shall make u�e of this sign whenever we expect a definite article. and the epic text has not the word 6. fl. T6. All transJation� of Greek texts are mine. Cf. A.D. Pron. 7.20. and hereunder quotation n° 12.

Apollonius between H omeri c and Hellenistic Greek

253

Therefore not only the ca.e ha. been modified in these word.: '0 Nes­ torides [plu ral nominative without article] , the one hurtled Atymnios' (n. 1 6. 317), [. . . ], but it is obvious that the article also i. missing and surely the figure ha. explained the incongruence of the sentence: for if there had been a genitive, the article would have not been mis..mg. Apollonius find. it hard to accept NecrTopl6m where he would expect TWV NeO'TOp16wv (c£ Synt. I 1 56) . The case mal/age ('nominative in­ stead of genitive') is a figure that increases the incongruousness of the sentence, but in the same time it lessens the shocking appearance that would have a partitive genitive without article." The case enallage seems to be for hinI a milder figure that hides another figure harder to accept (the article ellipsis with a partitive genitive) . Requiring moderation in usage, the 'article ellipsis' must above all not become a rule, so as to remain a 'poetic licence'. Therefore, the tekhnikos had to quote epic examples where the word 6, ..;, T6 is used, and where the epic text seem. to him to be confonn to the Hellenistic usage of the 'pre-positive arti­ cle' . A. a matter of fact, such examples are quoted several times by Apollonius in hi. Syntax. He thus confront. examples he con..iders simi­ lar, except that some do not have the word 6, ..;, T6, while the others have it.7 Such opposition.. made him feel that the Poet had a choice. The examples with the word 6, ..;, T6 made him believe that Homer had the s.ame regular u.age as himself and Hellenistic Greek. Then he could interpret the other examples as token.. of 'poetic licence', i.e. as contra­ vening the regular u.age (but not taking into account that they are much more numerous) . He could al.o feel that the Poet, like him.elf, supplied in hi. mind the mi.sing word." This attitude is quite different from the one he takes when explaining the use of reflexive VS. non­ reflexive pronoun.•. A. he find. in Homer a u.e of these word. that is always (6el) different from the one in HeUeni.tic Greek, he concludes that it i. the indication of an older language (6pxalKwTEpa) ." It is no longer a matter of 'poetic licence'.'Article ellipsi.' is therefore a breaking of the rule, of theory, of reason (MyoS), but a breaking wanted a.. such by the Poet. Although Apollonius was an analogist and generally held i\6yoS as criterion for the correctness of a wording, 1 1 1 he yielded to the Poet's authority whose usages he enforced above all. 6 Lallo t 1 997, II 38 (n. 1 54). 7 C[ Synl. I 57: n. 16.317 (,vithout the word 6, Ti, TO) and Od. 1 2.73 (with); I 65 and I 1 2 1 : n. 1 2.349 (without) and II. 1 6.358 (with); I 1 05 : Od. 9.550 (without) and Od. 1 1 .35 (with) . 8 Lallot 1 997, II 32 (n. 1 26) . 9 Pron. 5 5 . 1 1 . 1 0 Synt. I 60.

(3) Kai KaTIl TO TOIOVTOV expa TO 'lTOOS Sal TOOV exMoov Tpwoov' (n. 10.40!!) exp6pov avvE�EI. "Mil <palvETal 6TI TOV "plC7Tapxov tKlvEI TO 1i611lov TOO lTOI1lTOO, OOS avv,;6oos IlEV tMellTEl ToiS exp6pOIS, C7VValTTEI SE IlETIl Til miallaTa TOV Sal O'\iv S Ea llov [. . . ] . A.D. Synt. I 1 27-12!!, 107.7-1 1

And therefore for the same reason: 'How then of the other Trojans <0 guardmten>' (n. 1 0.40!!), shall have an article. But it i� obviou� that what moved Aristarchu� was the Poet's habit, who habitually, on the one hand, makes an article ellipsi�, and, on the other hand, adds to questioning word� the particle 'then'. Here it is only the Poet's habit that prevents Apolloniu.�, as well as Aris­ tarchus, from seeing an article in the particle Sal (as it were S' aQ, al­ though reason and theory require it. The Poet's habit prompts him also, contrary to Zenodotus, not to alter the epic text whenever it is all owed by metrics. Reason and theory help him to supply only mentally the article when neces.�. (4)

0Vx,1 00" E(iXP1lC7TOS

6 Myos, avalTA1lpOOV IlEV TO MilTOV, Oll lTMOva�wv Se tv T41 IlTj SEOIlEVC?; it tKEivo lx1T6SEI�S tC7TI, TO avallEival TTjv Z1lVOS6TOV ypaq>Tjv tV T41 'wMoI IlEV �a 6EOi TE' (n. 2 . 1 ) ; A.D. Synt. I 62, 53.9-1 3

The theory is helpful, isn't it, supplying what i� rnis.IDlg, but avoiding a pleonamt whenever nothing is wanted. Or is this not a proof, the mainte­ nance of Zenodot's reading in: 'and the other Gods . . .' (n. 2.1)? For Apollonius, there cannot be a divergence in meaning between the two readings, the one transmitted (oMol without article) and Zenodot's one (G'>Mol with a contracted article) . What is phonetically missing is semantically and 'virtually' present, as Apolloniu.� says eL�ewhere. (5) SwallEI Til tMellTOVTa lTapaKEITal, tll<pav�6IlEVa Sux TOO tlT�1lTOOVTOS allTll Myov. A.D. Synt. I 42, 3!!.�

What is rnis.IDlg i� virtually present, revealed by the rea�on that requires it. Apollonius never tries to explain why the Poet often resorts to an article ellipsis and sometimes does not: it is for him only a matter of arbitrary choice. Hence we can guess that his understanding of the phrases where the word 0, ,." T6 does appear is not wholly accurate.

Apollonius between Homeric and Hellenistic Greek

255

1 .2 . Article Anastrophe

Sometimes the epic text does contain the word 6, -ri, T6, but in a place that does not comply with theory. It may be so when the nominal phrase contains a noun or an adjective that is attribute to the main noun (ETn6eT1K6v) . Then, according to the canonical word order of Attic and Hellenistic Greek, thi� attribute takes place between the article and the main noun. It canno t follow the main noun without being preceded by the article. It is nevertheless the ca.�e in II. 1 . 1 1 , where we read: TC>V XpucrTlV . . . apTlTf\pa. As there i� no predicative verb in the sentence, the word apTlTf\pa cannot be a predicate, but is an attribute. So Apol­ lonius thought it wa.� a ca.�e of anastrophe, a shift in order of word�, an­ other kind of figure, and a scholiast gave the paraphrase 'TC>V apllTf\pa XpucrllV ' , which restores what is expected in Hellenistic Greek.1 1 (6)

Kat O"Oq>ES em TO: pr,llaTO KCXTT]yOpOUVTO TOU ElTIeETIKOU EvMyws T1lV TOU apepou cnivTo�\V rropEIAETO, EVeEV 51; TO: Tr;s aVOO"Tpoq>r;s 5fiAo, 'OVvEKO TOV XpvO"IlV ';TiIlOO"EV aPIlTfipo'. (n. 1 . 1 1 ) A.D. Synl. I 108, 91 .7-92.3

Obviously only verbs that predicate the adjective may exclude logically the article syntax. Hence the evidence of anastrophe (in): [lit.] 'because be bad insulted the Khryses 0 priest' . (n. 1 . 1 1) Therefore, both ApollonilL� and the scholia.�t understood 'the priest Khryses' . We may think that this paraphrase, in this ca.� e, is not thor­ oughly accurate. According to the epic usage, T6v, preceding the proper noun, cannot bear on the attribute, and cannot be a plain definite arti­ cle. 12 We should understand 'him, Khryses, the priest', or ' That Khryses, the priest', or more probably 'the famous Khryses, the priest' , with a value that Apollonim knows a.� well in his usage a.� in Homer. But a.� he felt that the article was lacking before the attribute, in�tead of supplying it a.� in the previom examples, he could in thi� case find it eL�ewhere in the sentence, which suggests that, like ca.�e enal/age, anastrophe was for him a poetic licence easier to accept than article ellipsis. But by doing so, he lost a nuance that wa.� in the epic text. 1 3

1 1 See Lallot 1 997, II 59 (n. 243) . 1 2 Chantraine 1963, 1 60-1 62 (§ 239--241). 1 3 See the analysis of another example (fl. 1 .340) of that apparently irregular word order in Basset 2006, 1 12.

256

Louis Bas.<et 1 .3 . Missi ng Article explained accordin g to the Theory

When there i� no word

6, -ri, T6,

the

tekhnikos

may explain thi� absence

a� regular. A� he gives the 'pre-positive article' an anaphoric meaning, he then argues that there i� no such anaphoric meaning Exceptionally , this attitude may appear

ill

in

the phrase.

founded.

(7)

OIiK hTl�"T1')O"el ow TO 'Cxv6pcx . . . lTOAVTPOlTOV' (Od. 1 . 1 ) lTOOrrc..>S Cxp6pov, Xc..> p iS el l.lf} TOV KCXT' e�oXf}v 6tllo ll.le v 6lcxO"TeiAcxl.

A.D. Synt. 1 1 1 7, 99.4-6

Therefore there will be no need at all of an article in: '0 man . . . full of tricks' (Od. 1 . 1 ) , unIe<s we would single out the pre-eminent man .

Apparently, two motivations prompted Apollonim to consider that no article is needed here. But both may appear words are the first ones of the

Odyssey.

ill

grounded. First, these

So no anaphoric meaning to

what precedes seem� possible.14 But another kind of

anaphora,

that to

what i� well known, would be available, a� ApoUonius himself recog­ nizes. Secondly, a� the attribute adj ective follows the appellative noun, Apollonius seem� to find it unea�y to add an article in the phra�e. Surely he could not put forward *TClV avSpa . . . 1TOAVTp01TOV. But he seem� to

avSpa . . . TOV lTOAlITP01TOV, which in hi� usage (I 65) too. It i� true that this latter word order is much more unusual in the Hellenistic Greek.15 And besides three words occur in the verse between the noun

forget the possibility of the sequence he accep ts in Homer (Synt. I

121)

and

and the adj ective that i� its attribute. For these two rea�ons, Apollonius is reluctant to see here a 'poetic licence' , but he could have done so. A� a matter of fact, we have a very similar ca�e in the first word� of the Here also, the noun cedes it

is

I.ITlVIV has

iliad.

no article, and no anaphora to what pre­

at hand. However Apolloniu.� does not hesitate to see here an

'article ellipsis' .

(H)

npo6T}1Ic..>s oOv KOKeivo lIellTEl o:p6p� ' l.IiiVIV Cxel6e 6ea' (n. 1 . 1), Ti}v :A.XllItc..>S ovllol.ltV1lv l.liiVlv· ev yap TO lTMos.

A.D.

Synt.

I 1 1 11, 1 00.9-1 2

It is obvious that there is ai.o an article ellipsi.. in that phra.<e: 'Sing 0 wrath, Goddess' (n. 1 . 1 ) . It is Achilles' deadly wrath, because it i.. a unique passion. 14 See Lallot 1 997, II 63 (n. 259) . 1 5 The construction is already rare in Attic, where it gives to the attribute a special di.
Apollonius between Homeric and Hellenistic Greek

257

So it is uniqueness that makes the article needed here. But the 'man full of trick.�' is likewise unique and unparalleled. So Apolloniu.� exhibit� two divergent attitudes when explaining two very similar examples of mi�s­ ing article. The only difference between them is that the word IlfivlV is not followed by an attribute, but by the genitive )\XIAE <J.>S , and the phrase T"V IlfivlV )\XIAE<J.>S would be correct in Hellenistic Greek, con­ trary to the phrase *TOV avBpa . . . TIOAtrrPOTIOV. It is therefore likely that what made Apollonius reluctant to add mentally an article in the fir.;t verse of the Odyssey is rather a question of word order. 1 .4 . The Use of the Word 6, """ T6 explained as

'Pre-positive Article'

When the word 6, """ T6 appears, in a noun phrase of the epic text, in a place that is regular for the 'pre-positive article' in Hellenistic Greek, then Apollonius interprets it as a 'pre-positive article'. (9) TO IlEVTOI '01 fie Mo crK61TEAOI' (OJ. 1 2.7 3) cxv-ro 1l6vov T'lJv lTT&crlv hl1'lAACX�EV. A.D. Synt. 1 57, 49. 1 5-50.2

On the other hand, in: 'and the two rock.. [nominative instead of genitive ca..e] . . . ' (OJ. 1 2.73), the poet changed only the case. Apollonius think.� this example similar to the one of n. 1 6.317 studied by him in our quotation (2) . But he thinks that the regular 'pre-positive article' is here med, while in n. 1 6.317, it i� lacking due to a 'poetic licence' . We would think on the contrary that there i� a semantic nu­ ance and that here the true meaning is: 'As to them, the two rock.� . . . ' . A� a matter of fact, in Homer, when used before the particle BE, the word 6, """ T6 has the particular effect of introducing a new topic.H' 1 . 5 . When the Word 6, """ T6 becomes

a

Pronoun

When the word 6, """ T6 i� used alone, i.e. not followed by a noun phrase, Apollonim says it is the result of a tramposition (IlETaAl1Ij.1 IS, IlETaTIT<J.>O'IS) of the article into a pronoun.

16 C[ Basset 2006. See al.o A.D. -"yilt. I 105, where TCx !it I1;;ACX (Od. 9.444) should be understood: 'But as to thenl. the two sheep . . . '.

25H

Louis Bas..et

(10) miTo: yoOv TO: op6pa Tiis lTpeS TO: ev61laTa auvapTi)aEws CnrOO"TaVTa EIS TI)V lIlTOTETayll£VT]V OOnwvulllav IlETalTilTTEI, WS EV ToiS T010VTOlS, '0 yo:p i'jA6E 6oo:s elTt viias r>..Xalwv'. (n. 1 . 1 2)

A.D. Synt. 1 25, 26. 1-4 Moreover, the articles thenuelves that are no longer articulated to nouns are transposed into the following [part of speech], the pronoun, a. in these word.: 'For that one had gone to Achaeans' swift ships'. (n. 1 . 1 2) We could at first think that this is only a new ca.e of ellipsi., thi. time not of the article, but of the noun. A quotation from the second book of the

Syntax,

which is devoted to the pronoun, although corroborating

that very idea, in fact makes a distinction.

(1 1 )

Kat aacpES em £AAEIIjIIS TOO 6v61laTos T 0 op6p'l' lTapa5waEI T O: Tiis avvragws, Kat OUK OAAO TI YEvr,aETal TO op6pov Tj OOnwvullla. A.D. Synt. II 31, 1 49.2-4

It i. obviou< that the noun ellipsi. shall transfer the noun syntax to the arti­ cle, and that the article shall be nothing but a pronoun. A. the syntax of the missing noun i. transferred to the article, this latter gets a new syntax, namely that of a pronoun. Nothing similar happened

as a result of the 'article ellipsi.': the syntax of the article was not

trans

­

ferred to the noun. Apolloniu.. i. here aware of a dis.
the fact that the noun i. the head of the noun phrase. Therefore, the ' noun ellipsis' ha. heavier syntactic consequences than the 'article ellip-

. , 17 SIS .

Moreover, Apolloniu.. hinl..elf seems to have hesitated to view that use of the word

(7.20) ,

6, 'I'j, T6

he says that, when

as a figure, i.e. a 'poetic licence ' . In

thi.

Pronoun

word is not articulated to a noun, it i. a

plain pronoun. It is no longer for him the result of the traIl..position of the article into a pronoun, but a true pronoun homonymou.. to the article. What motivates thi. new attitude is that the pronominal Ilse i. too common in Homer to arise from a 'poetic Iicence' . I H

(12) lleyaAllV aa6Eveiav 510: T1)v [51av alTElplav TOU lTOlllTOU KaTaYEAAoual, cpaaKoVTES ToaauTa axfIllaTa op6pwv OOni aVTwvulllWV lTapaAall!3avelv. Te yap Ill) Tais KaTO: cpvalv A£�Eal KExpiia6al KaKla. 'EAeAr,6el oOv aliTovs Tj Ollocpwvta TWV op6pwv Kai TWV OOnwvuIlIWV.

A.D. Pron. 7.20-24 1 7 Por these two kind. of ellipsis, see Lall o t 1 997, II 94 (n. 58). 18 See Lall ot 1 997, II 38-39 (end of n. 1 54) . See .1<0 Schironi 2002, 1 45--1 60.

Apollonius between Homeric and Hellenistic Greek

259

They [i.e. the Stoics] mock 'the Poet's great weakness' in consequence of their own ignorance. They say that he u.es too often the figure consisting in articles instead of pronouns. For it is a flaw to have not u.ed word. ac­ cording to their nature. They had therefore failed to eIi.cern the ho­ monymy between articles and pronouns. The pronominal use of the word 6, 1'), T6 is in fact widely prevailing in Homer. It is on the contrary exceptional in Attic and Hellenistic Creek. So the di.tinction in Pronoun between two homonyms, the 'pre-positive article' and the anaphoric pronoun, does not rest upon Helleni.tic usage, but upon Homeric text.•. We may regret that Apollonius has no such reasoning based upon frequency when he speaks of article ellipsis, which is aho widely prevailing in Homeric texts. He would perhaps not have considered it a 'poetic licen..e' .

2. Theory: The Meaning of the 'Pre-p ositive Article' 2 . 1 . Anaphora to what is previously known or mentioned

Apollonius defines the article, particularly the 'pre-positive article' , by its proper meaning, which is the 'anaphoric' one, i.e. the mention of what has been 'introduced before'. (1 3) "EGT1V ovv, Ka60 Kai EV &MOIS cnTecp"valle6a, iS10V ap6pou 1') avacpopa, 1'\ EGTl rrpOKaTeIA"IlIlEVOU rrpoGc.imou rrapaGTaT1K';. A.D. Synl. 1 43, 38. 1 1-12

The property of the article, as I have already said eL.ewhere. is the QlUlphora. which sets forth a character introduced before. What has been 'introduced before' is often to be understood a. what ha. been 'mentioned in the previous context'. It is this meaning that is specified in the variant TTpOKQTeli\eyl.l�Vov, 'aforesaid' , instead of TTpOKQTeli\rll.lI.l�VoV. Conversely, Apollonius is prone to explain an ab­ sence of article by setting forth a 'first mention' (Synt. I 96: TTP(;:)TQI Eq>o501; I 1 4, 7 1 : TTpc.:yrTl aq>11YTlcns) . (1 4) evSev ouS/; EGTI npoG6eivat lleTa Tt')v TOU Suo GVvTa�lv npo TOU 'av6p",nOl' TO ap6pov, 'Suo 01 O:v6pwrrol TpeXOUG1' (npWT" yap 1'1 acp,;y"G1S, 1'1 Se rrp6G6eGlS TOU ap6pou eSelx6" avalTOAOUGa Ta rrpoSeS"AWIlEva). A.D. Synl. 1 71 . 6 1 . 8-1 0

260

Louis Bas..et

Hence it is not possible to add the article before men in a phrase with two: '*two the men are running' (for it is then a first mention; and the adding of an article ha.< been shown pointing back to what ha.. been previously men­ tioned) . A.

we have already seen above, in quotation (7) , this strictest sense of the word anaphora may partly explain why Apollonius does not want an article in the first verse of the Odyssey. But Apollonius makes aL.o use of a wider meaning. In the same passage of his Syntax, he opposes a 'first knowing' and an 'old knowing' in order to explain absence vs. presence of the article. He i. then perhaps not aware of a shift in meaning. But the first type of anaphora he mentions to illustrate hi. definition is the anaphora to what is well known. It obviously has a very wide meaning. (15) 1\vacp�pETa\ 5e Ta 6v6�aTa i\TOI KaT' E�OX"V' [ . . . ] Tij5E yap Kat ws oVAAa�1)V TO ap6pov o:rr1lvEYKaTo '6 rrol1lT1'!s', CmEveYKo:�evos Kat T1)V CX1TOVTC >v E�OX1)V KCXt T1)V rrpos CIlTOVTWV rrporrE1Tepcxo�EVTJV yvwOlV. ..

A.D.

Synt.

[ 43, 38. 1 2-39.3

And nouns are anaphoric when applying pre-eminently [ . . . J . For it is with that meaning that 'the Poet' added the article to itself a.. a syllable, adding to the Poet both the pre-eminence above all and the idea of being previ­ ously known to all. Thi. wider meaning was possible at the beginni ng of the Odyssey, and Apollonius i. aware of it. He is aL.o aware that this wider kind of anaph­ ora is different from the strict one. (16)

"H KCXt KaT' CXliTo �6vov CmAiiv 6:vcxcpopov, (hE cpa�ev [ ] '0 ypcx��CXT1K6S oe E�"Tel', vuv OUX oihwS O:KOVO�EVOV TOU '0 ypCX��CXTIK6S', Kcx6wS . . .

rrpOKEITCXI.

A.D.

Synt.

[ 43, 39.6-9

There is aim the straightforward and plain anaphora: when we say: ' . . . the granmurian was searching you'. Here 'the granmurian' is not to be under­ stood a.. before. Thi. straightforward anaphora i. to the aforesaid, without any second meaning. 1 'J It is the anaphora in its strictest sense. But, before he men­ tions it, Apollonius has singled out a third kind of anaphora.

t 9 See Lallot t 997, II 32 (n. t 28) .

Apollonius between Homeric and Hellenistic Greek

26 1

2 . 2 . So-called Anaphora implying 'Unique Possession'

When a noun phrase contains a possessive genitive, the article is said to imply a 'unique possession' . (1 7)

"H Kat KaTO: !lOVa61Kr,v KTiiC"lV OVTWS cnro,p<XIVO!lEVOS '60uAoS aov TauTa hrol1)aE' lTAii60S VlTayopEVEI 60vAwv' 0 61; !lETO: TOU ap6pov '0 60uMS

aov TauTa hrol1)aE' !lOVa61Kr,v KTi'jalv Vn ayOpEVEl.

A.D. Sy"t. [ 43, 39.3--6

Another kind [of anaphora] concerns a unique possession, thus exemplified: '(a) .!ave of yours did it' implies several .!aves, but if we add the article: 'your slave [lit. the slave of you'] did it', it implie.. a unique pos..ession. '

Of course , this somewhat awkward wording does not take into account the plural 01 SOUAO! O'ov 'your slaves' (lit. 'the slaves of you') , which means 'the totality of your slaves'. Rather than uniqueness, what is meant is therefore totality. It would be better to speak here of the totalizing value of the article. But does such a value always involve an anaphora? For example, the phrase 'Apollonius' futher' (in Greek with a definite article) does not imply that the speaker knows Apollonius' fu­ ther. He knows only that ApollonilL� had one and only one futher. We don't always know what is so possessed. Nevertheless, the idea of 'unique possession' is Apollonius' main ar­ gument to jlL�tifY the use of the article before a noun phrase with posses­ sive genitive. It even becomes a rule for him. (1 11) Mova61Kai YO:P oOaal al KTTtaEIS TO ap6pov OOraiTOVatV, ou Tij6E 61; exovaai Kat xwpis ap6pwv MYOVTaI.

A.D. Sy"t. [ 1 1 11, 99.9-1 1 For pos..essions, when they are unique, want the article, but when they are not so, they are said without article. We have seen, for instance, that supplying an article before IlfjV1V i n iliad's fir.;t verse, he gives as argument that Achill e s' wrath is unique, not that it i� well known. In such examples, a true anaphoric meaning seem� to be less conclusive to him, as well as in some other kind� of examples. 2 . 3 . ' Side Meaning of Plurality'

When the noun phrase contains an attribute (adjective or participial form) , the article i� said to introduce a 'side meaning of plurality' .

262

Loui� Bas.�et

(19) EI 5E al lJEToxal ll"poO'Aa�lev Ta ap6pa, lI"Ael6vf.t)v nToAelJaif.t)v �lJqxlVIO'IS VOEiTaI, OOO'TE OUK arn6aVf.t)S 1i0'T1V cpaval wS Ta �VIKa exp6pa lI"apElJcpaivEIV Kal lI"Aii60S. EI yap Tij5E TIS QlI"OcpaiVOITO '0 YVlJvaO'lap)(liO'as nTOAelJaios hllJ1)6T)' oUX Eva 5T)AooO'el nToAelJaiov, lI"Ae\ovaS 5E, �� OOV 0 eTs TllJiiS lJeTEAa�Ev.

A.D. Synt. I 1 10, 93. 1 0-94.4 But if participial attributes take the article, we understand an implication that there are several Ptolemy. Therefore, it i� not beyond belief to say that singular articles imply plurality a� side meaning. For if someone states so: 'the Ptolemy having been gymnauarch wa� honoured', he will not only give evidence of one Ptolemy, but of several ones, an10ng whicl1 the one (mentioned) received honour. Apparendy, what Apollonius wants to tell us when speaking of 'side meaning of plurality' is that the article then allows to single out a sub­ group among a larger group. Sub-group and group are to be understood as totalities. We have therefore once more a totalizing value of the arti­ cle. Apollonius detects this same value when the attribute i� aMos, 'other', and then he even takes such a value a� a test for the accuracy of the article. (20) navroTE OOV TO 'O:MOI' O'VVE�I TO exp6pov, 1')viKa TOO KaTTlYOPOVIJEVOV lI"A1)60vs OAOV �O'Tlv �1J1I"EPIAT)1\"TIKOV T1)V Te 51aipEO'IV lI"aAIV IlEPIK1)V lI"olEiTar ou yap Tij5E (XOV ou lI"aVTf.t)S e�el Kai TO exp60v lI"apaAalJ�6IJevov.

A.D. Synt. 1 63, 53. 1 8-54.1 Therefore the word 'other' shall always take with itself the article when it is inclusive of the whole mentioned plurality, while on the other band it makes separation of a part. If it i� not so, this word shall never take with it­ self the article. The idea of totality i� thus what justifies, in this case also, the use of the article. It is no longer an anaphoric meaning, which may be even lack­ ing. (21 ) 'EKeiv6 y E lJ1)v lI"aAIV �AAei1l"E1, ' 1') 5' O:MovS IJ£V liaae, 9EIJIO'T1 5E KaAAmap1jct' 5EKTO 5ElI"as' (n. 1 5 .87)' �1J1I"EPIEKTIKOV yap �O'TIV arraVTf.t)V TOOV O'vveVf.t)XOVIJEVf.t)V 6EOOV.

A.D. Synt. 1 64, 55.7-1 1 There i� on the contrary an article ellipsis in that example: 'A.� for her, she left apart 0 others, but for weD-cheeked Thenris' sake, she took her cup'

263

Apollonius between Homeric and Hellenistic Greek

(fl. 1 5.87-88). For ' 0 other.;' cover.; the whole assembly of the god� par­ taking (with Themi�) in the feast. Obviously 'the other god�' are a sub-group in god�' assembly, i.e. 'all god� except Themi�'. Such a sub-group has never been mentioned be­ fore, and there cannot be any anaphoric meaning. Then the need for an article is due only to the totalizing meaning of the phrase. Thi� is another case where the anaphoric meaning of the article i.� far from being con�is­ tent, and where it may di.�appear, apparently without Apollonius know­ ing it. Yet, there is still another case where he hirmelf recognizes that there is no true anaphor. 2.4. Pre-positive Article 'sending forth to what is unknown'

Apollonius i.� aware, that sometimes, imtead of sending back to what is already known or mentioned, the article send� forth to what i.� un­ known. (22) "E0'6' OTE 5e Kai lTPOA1llTTIKWTEPOV lTp0O'WlTOV avacpepEl, OTE 51') Kai aoplO'Tw5Es cpaiVETaI, OTE oiiTwS cpallEV, '6 TvpavvoK-nlO'as Tllla0'6w'.

A.D.

Sy"t.

[ 44, 39.9-1 1

It happens also that the article send� forth to some character by anticipation, and then it seems to have an indefinite meaning, when we say: 'Let the ty­ rant's murderer (whoever he will be) be honoured'. Being unable to unify this use with an anaphoric one, Apollonius simply makes us know that Stoics considered it an indefinite word (Synt. I 1 1 1 ) . Besides, h e adopts the same attitude with regard t o what h e call� the 'post-positive article' (i.e. a relative pronoun; see Pron. 8.4) . In Synt. II 32 he even speak� of 'indefinite transposition of articles' (66pICTTOV IJET6ATJ'Y1V T&V ap6poov) . But, in thi� particular case, he does not ven­ ture to di.�tingui�h two homonymic word�. 2 . 5 . The Pronominal Use as Prototypical

To sum up, the anaphoric meaning i.� rarely set forth by ApoUonius to justifY the need for an article in complex noun phrases of Hellenistic Greek. We therefore may a.�k ourselves why he chose a so often useless definition, which is even inconsi.�tent with many meso I think that the prevalence of the pronominaI use of the word 6, ,; T6 in Homer is what prompted him. For in this lL�e, it has commonly a meaning that i.� ana­ phoric in the strictest sen�e: it generally points to what ha.� already been ,

264

Louis Bas..et

mentioned, which corresponds to a 'deixis of the mind' (Synt. II 1 2) . Apollonius may have viewed such a use as prototypical. And as for him the anaphoric pronoun was a substitute of the noun phrase article + noun, he was prone to ascribe to the article the same meaning as to the ana­ phoric pronoun. Modern grammarians derive the definite article from an anaphoric pronoun with a loss in meaning. On the contrary, Apollo­ nius viewed the anaphoric pronoun as a substitute for the phrase article + noun. Therefore he concluded that the anaphoric meaning of the pro­ noun was already in the article. For instance, in our quotation (10) here above (Il. 1 . 12) , the phrase 6 yap tiMe, 'for this one had gone', contain� the anaphoric pronoun 6, 'this one', which points to the afore­ mentioned Khryses, as we can see in our example (6) . Apollonius takes 6, 'thi� one', a� a substitute for (6) XpV<7TlS. (23) "E<7TVJ yap TI TOIOUTOV, 'XpvCTT] � yap i')Aee 6oa� hrl vfja� i\Xa1wv' (n. 1 . 1 2) , Kal hi IlETa ap6pou '0 yap Xpvall� i')AeEV 6oa� hri vfja� Jt\Xalwv" Kai <7a

As for instance, let it be such a sentence: 'For Khryses had gone to Achaeans' swift ships (cf n. 1 . 1 2) , and then with the article: 'For the Khry­ ses had gone to Achaean, swift ships'. It i. clear that the noun ellipsis will give its syntax to the article. Therefore Apollonius considers that XPV<7TlS, 6 XpV<7TlS and the ana­ phorie pronoun 6, are alike in meaning. Hut in Attic or Hellenistic Greek, 6 XPV<7TlS, a� well as XPV<7TlS, would have no true anaphorie meaning,2" which would be 'this Khryses'. It is only in Homer that 6 XpV<7TlS may mean 'this Khryses' with a straightforward anaphoric meaning (a 'deixi� of the mind') . To obtain such a meaning in Attic or Helleni�tic Greek we should say oihoS 6 XpV<7TlS. It is therefore be­ calL�e of its epic use a� a pronoun that ApollonilL� could ascribe an ana­ phoric meaning to the word 6, -ri, T6. Hut he mi�takenly transferred it to its use a� an article in Attic or Helleni�tic Greek.

20 Apoll onim does not seem to have tried to find any shift in meaning between XPVOTlS and 0 XpVOTlS. Modern grammari an.. sometimes try to go further and for instance ascribe to the article before a proper noun a co n tra.. tive and elU­ pha.o;izing value (Rijskbaron 2006. 243--2 57) .

Apollonius between Homeric and Hellenistic Greek

265

3. Theory: How Apollonius analyses Complex Noun Phrases, with Article and Attribute

When he analyses complex noun phrases with an article and two words, an attribute and a noun, Apollonius tries to answer the question on which of these two word� the article bears. However, in doing so, he goes so far a� to contradict himself For instance, in Synt. I 1 33, 1 1 0.2, he says that in " SouAOS " �1l6S, (lit.) 'the slave the mine', the two articles convey two different anaphora�, the first one of the slave and the second one of the ma�ter. 21 So the first article is viewed a� coupled with the noun, and the second a� coupled with the possessive attribute. On the other hand, in Synt. I 1 1 3, he says that " AEuKOS hTTT O S, 'the white horse', is equivalent to " hTTTO S " AEuK6s, (lit.) 'the horse the white' (although the first wording is for him more congruous) . This implies apparently that, when there are two articles, the sanle article is repeated, with only one meaning. Such an analysis is implied even when the attribute i� a possessive adjective. (24)

OUK apo �v T0 '6 lToTI'jp 6 �1l6S' KCXT'lVaYKOCTTO I TO ETEpOV TWV ap6pc.>v �lTl T"V aVTc.>vvlliav cpepEa601.

A.D.

Synt.

[ 1 02, 85. 1 7-1 8

Therefore in [lit.] 'the father the mine' the second article i. not compelled to bear on the pronoun [i.e. the possessive adjective] . Thi� i� in confonnity with Apollonius' thesis that no article can bear on a 'pronoun', since a 'pronoun' either excludes anaphora or expresses it itself. Hut it i� contrary to what i� said in Synt. I 1 33. It is true that this contradiction may be only apparent, due to an awkward wording in I 1 33. For, according to binI, it i� on what i� possessed, not on the owner that bears the article before a possessive adjective. (25) tjv 61; 1'J aVVTo�IS ou TOU aVTc.>vvIlIKOU lTpoawlTov, AEyc.> TOU KOTO: TOV KT1'jTOpo, TOU 61; IilrOKovOIlEVOV KOTO: TO KTiiIlO.

A.D.

Sytlt.

[ 1 00, 83. 1 5-H4. 1

But here [the article] was not COIl..tructed with the pronominal person, that is to say with the owner, hut with the possessed thing which is understood. Therefore in such noun phrases, according to Apollonius, the article bears rather on the noun (the possessed thing), than on the possessive adjective (the owner) . Hut according to other analyses, there i� a special 21

See Lallot 1 997, II 69 (n. 1 84).

266

Louis Bas..et

link between the article and the adjective attribute. For instance, in Synt. I 65, he says that in order to remove the ambiguity of a proper noun, one must add an attribute, and that then, in order to remove the ambi­ guity of the attribute itself, one must add to it the article with its value of 'anaphora to the unique one' (�ovaB1K1')v 6:vacpopav) , that i� to say, in our tenm, its totalizing value. More clearly, in Synt. I 1 35, he explains the impossibility of the wording *6 aya60S 6 av6pc:..mos, (/it.) 'the good the man', by saying that the anaphora bears first on the attribute and from there on the noun. So it must not be repeated. (26)

OVlllXxivEI Kat TT)V avvovaav &va<jlopcrv �V TCil '0 MylOs' oVIl<jlepEo6m �rri TO 'ov6p(,)rros'.

A.D.

Synt.

I 1 35, 1 1 1 . 1 2-1 3

It follows that (in 'the wise man' ) the anaphora that is in 'the wi.e' is trans­ ferred at.o to 'man'. Such an analysis entails that there is a closer link between article and attribute and seems to contradict what is said in quotations (24) and (25) . Here again, the contradiction may be not real, because Apolloniu� is inclined to confound syntax and semantics, word� and things. But what matters for u� i� that thi� latter analysis that establishes a closer link be­ tween article and attribute is grounded on an epic example. (27) <jlaIlEVOV yap TlVOS 'Aias', &v6V1TCxx6 1'joETal 'orr6TEpos'; 610: Ti}v rrpOElpllllEVT)V OIl(,)vvlllav· 4l rraAlv 6:v6vrrax6liaETal TO 16i"" rrapaKoAov6fjaav TCil hEPCP, Ka6wS rrpoEirrOIlEV, IlETO: O"VVTa�E(')S 6:p6pIKfjs, TO '0 IlEyas' ii '0 TEAallwVIOS'· 'Aias 6' 0 IlEyas alev �<jl' "EKTOpl' .

(fl. 1 6.358)

A.D.

Synt.

I 121 , 102. 1 1-15

If

indeed someone says 'Ajax', it will be retorted 'which of the two (Ajax)?', because of the aforesaid homonymy. And again to that question it will be retorted (by saying) the quality linked to one of the two (Ajax) , as we have said before, with the article syntax: 'the great (one)' or 'the (son) of Telamon': 'Ajax, the great (one), always again..t Hector . . .'. (fl. 1 6.358) It i� indeed in Homer that we may best observe this discriminating use of the phrase article + attribute postponed to the noun. The whole phrase is to be understood 'Ajax---th e one--(which i�) great', that i� to say 'Among the two Ajax, the great one'. Therefore we have not here a real article, but a semi-pronoun 'the one', which bears on a predicative phrase or word.22 In Attic or Hellenistic Greek, the umal sequence is: article + 22 See Ba<set 2006, 1 1 3 and 1 1 9.

Apollonius between Homeric and Hellenistic Greek

267

attribute + noun. 2.' So Apollonius find� this sequence more congruous (Synt. I 1 1 3 KaTaAA1)MTEpa) : it i� for him the natural sequence (I 132 TO �ifIS) . In Attic prose, the sequence with postposition of the attribute, like in Mas 6 �eyas, i� already uncommon. It has been generally re­ placed by the sequence with two articles (a sequence unknown in Homer), which has the same di�criminative value. 24 It is therefore likely that Apollonius went to hi� idea of a closer link between article and attribute on account of epic examples like Aias 6 �eyas, where the postponed attribute has a di�criminative value, and the word 6 i� not a true article. Then he may have extended thi� analysis to Hellenistic Greek, even when there i� no discriminative value.2.i

4. Conclusion

A� we have seen, the reasoned description of Homeric texts intended by the tekhnikos tails sometimes to be thoroughly accurate, because a syn­ tactical or semantic discrepancy between Homeric and Hellenistic Greek is too weak to be detected by the tekhnikos. This is the case with the word 6, ,;, T6. The reasoned description of its u.�age in Homer may be somehow incomi�tent because two states of language are mingled. For one part, the tekhnikos ascribes to Homeric Greek a feature that belongs to Hellenistic Greek (for in�tance, the u.� e of a true definite article) . For another part, he defines a Helleni�tic usage in a way that i� more suitable to epic phrases (for instance defining the definite article as anaphoric, or establishing a special link between article and attribute) . Thu.� the tekhnikos may be compelled to contradict himself and his own theory: he is or is not aware that some u.�es of the 'pre-positive article' have no anaphoric meaning; when analysing a complex noun phrase, he associ­ ates the article either with the noun or with the attribute.

23 See Biraud 1 99 1 , 39. 24 See Biraud 1 99 1 , 40. 25 See Lallot 1 997, 11 42 (n. 172).

Attic Irregularities : Their Reinterpretation in the Light of Atticism* Philomen Probert

1 . Introduction

The linguistic Atticist movement of the second and third centuries AD, an extraordinary revival of the cla�sical Attic dialect for elegant Greek writing and speech, has been much di�cus.�ed in connection with its origins, social and literary uses, and somewhat variable lingui�tic mani­ festations. l This paper argues for one con�equence of linguistic Atticism: that following the peak of linguistic Atticism it became difficult to label a form as 'wrong' if it wa� also labelled 'Attic' . It will be argued that this change can be seen through later misinterpretations of earlier authors, who treated Attic as a dialect that could be wrong as well as right. We begin, very briefly, with the crucial elements of background on linguis­ tic correctness before lingui�tic Atticism, and on linguistic Atticism itsel£

*

The subject of tbi� paper i.� one that Eleanor Dickey and I have been di.�CIL'l.ilitg between IL� for some time. The paper given at the conference from which tbi� volume results wa� Eleanor's; we had originally planned to craft the written version together, but in the proces.� of crafting it turned into my paper primar­ ily, so that we decided it should appear under my name only. However, Elea­ nor's in�piration ha� been iuunense, and she ha� helped to polish a fina) draft so carefu))y that she claims joint responubiJity for any shortcoming<; that remain. We are most grateful, furthermore, to Ineke Sluiter, for extremely knowledge­ able and perceptive comments on an earlier draft; to George Xenis, for incisive comments on a later draft; and to Francesca Schironi, for invaluable di.�cus.�ion of pa.'I.'lages 1 and 2. See e.g. Swain 1 996, 17-64; Horrocks 1 997, 78--8 6 . Much of the literature on the origin� of Attici.� i.� concerned with pos.uble hi.�torical connections be­ tween Jingui.�tic Atrici.�m and the earlier rise of ' Atricism' in both Latin and Greek rhetorical style. Thi.� paper i.� concerned only with Jingui.�tic Atticism; it leaves a.�ide entirely the vexed question of connection� between Jinguistic and rhetorical Atticism.

2. Linguistic Correctness before Linguistic Atticism Hellenistic and Roman grammar was practised with different goal� in different situations. Two of the major goals were textual critici�m or B16p6wO"lS (the establishment of the correct text of literary work�) , and the provision of principles for correct Greek (sometimes called EAAT\VI0"�6S) . It has been observed that similar criteria for correctness were used for these two goal�, but that they were applied in rather different ways. 2 In what follows we shall focus on criteria for EAAT\VI0"1l6S, but with the proviso that a somewhat parallel set of criteria wa.� applied to B16p6wo"lS. The notion that there was educated and uneducated Greek wa.� not new to the second century AD and it has been well empha.�i�ed that educated Helleni�tic Greek fonned a continuum. At one end of this continuum wa.� a literary variety close to the lL�age of classical Attic au­ thors, but differing in certain accepted ways. 3 Before as well as after the height of lingui�tic Attici�m, several different lingui�tic criteria could be used to an.�wer the question whether a foml or expression wa.� correct or incorrect.4 One of these criteria was literary tradition, the usage of 'good' authors. Another was avaAoyla 'analogy', in other word� regu­ larity or the application of the idea that similar fonm behave in similar ways. In its origin�, aVaAoyta consisted of the empirical establi�hment of a contested foml either by a simple comparison with a known fonn (fonn A i� similar in certain respects to B, and so should be similar in other re­ spect� too) , or by mean� of a four-tenn proportion (A : B : : C : D). By the early Roman period, however, aVaAoyta more often (but not always) meant the establi�hment of a contested fonn with reference to an accepted set of rules.5 But at any period the application of aVaAoyla involved a.�­ ing whether a fonn or expression 'behaved regularly'. Did it behave like simiIar fonm or expression�; or, did it 'follow the rules'? The appeal to both literary tradition and regularity before the lin­ gui�tic Atticist movement may be illlL�trated by the following passages of Apollonius Dyscolm, in which he reports on a debate between Aris­ tarchlL� and Habron (a granunarian of the first century AD not named in the first passage) a.� to the correctness or incorrectness of the plural fonTIS ECXVTOVS, ECXVTWV, and (implicidy) EaVTois: ,

,

2 3 4 5

Siebenborn 1 976, 27-3 1 ; Sluiter 1 990, 60. See Horrocks 1 997, 48-49; c( Versteegb 1986, 428-429, 432 and Swain 1 996, 20. See especially Siebenborn 1 976. See Siebenbom 1 976, 62-84; c( Schenkeveld 1 994, 283--2 85; Schironi 2007.

Attic Irregularities

27 1

(1 ) TOV �ev 0011 i\piCTTapxOV (fr. 125 A.' Matthaios) hTl�e� TO TOU 'EAAIlVla�ou 1'jKpiI3wTal, EV oiS naVTOTE EV SlaAVaEI ECTTl Ta Tpha, 6�oiws ToiS rrpc:,T01S Kal SEVTepOlS, 'a
They say that Aristarchus find. fault with the fonm, becau.e out of a singular compositional form �OVT6v a plural �OVTOVS has been made, and that he adduces as a witness the poet (Homer) , 'in whose work.. matters of good Greek are perfect, (and) in which (works) the third person (plural reflexive pronouns) are always separated, like the first and second persons: a
TOV �ev 0011 i\piCTTapxov (fr. 1 25 A. 2 Matthaios)
The text i. that of Brandenburg 2005, 422-424.

o yE I.ITtV ';6.�pwv lTElpihal TOUS TOIOVTOVS Myovs avaO'KEVa�EIV Tliv

xpfiO'lv hTCxYWV Kal TcxV-n,V lTIO'TOVIJEVOS �K lTapaeEO'EWV nAO'TWVIKWV' Ked OOS gVI5EKTOV Elval CxlTO �vlKfis O'VV6EO'EWS ytVEaeal lTA116VVTIKov apl6l.1ov, OlTOV ye Kal TO �VI5EKO'TOV O'VVTE 6ev alTOTEAEi TO �VI5EKCxTOVS lTA116VVTIKov. 'ou I.ITtv', 'Pl1O'lv, 'avayKl1 TO �V TpITCf> yeVOl.leVOV lTCxVTWS Kal �V lTPOOTCf> Kai �V I5EVTepCf> [lTpOO'OOrrCf>J ', TOVTEO'TI TO I.ITt lTaVTWS ��aKOAov6 fi O'al T4'> �aVTWV i\ �avTOVS TO �l.IaVTWV i\ �l.IaVTOVS, 'dye Kai TCx �v ToiS lTPOOTOIS Kal I5EVTepolS YIVOI.IEVa ou lTCxvTwS Kal �v Tp!TOIS' E\O'iv yow lTPOOTOV Kai I5EVTepov lTpoO'OOlTOV I5v'iKai op6fis lTTooO'ews, ou I.ITtv TpITOV'.

A.D.

Synt.

II I SO-l S I , 244 . 1 2-246.5

They say that Ari.�tarchus didn't recogni�e the occurring (plural) compound� of the third person (pronoun�) a� correct, because it is impos.�ble for the (third) person (form) compounded a.� a singular to be transferred to the plural, a� happen� in �aVTOV and �aVTOVS, and that he adduced in addition the u.�ge of the first and second person�, the non­ occurrence of which (in the plural) exposed the composition occurring in the third person a� incorrect. And (they say) that thirdly he cited Homeric u.�age. For in agreement with 1'II.Ieas aVTOVS and ul.leas aVTovs, the form of the third person wa� O''Peas aUTovs. But Habron tries to refute such arguments, adducing usage and corroborating thi� through Platonic examples. And (he argues) that it is permi'lsible for a plural to be made from a singular compound, in so far a� the compound �vl5eKO'TOV produces the plural �vl5eKCxTovs. 'It is truly not nece5.Qry', he says, 'for what happens in the third person to happen in the first and second person too on every occasion',-that is to say, �l.IaVTWV or �l.IaVTOVS does not absolutely need to follow from �aVTOOV or �avTOVS­ 'seeing that what happens in first and second persons does not on every occa�on happen also in third persons. Thu.�, there are nominative duaL� of the first and second person (pronoun�) , but not of the third'. 'Good' authors are adduced on both sides of thi� debate: Homer on one side, and Plato on the other. But arguments from analogy appear too: Aristarchus adduces the behaviour of first- and second-person pronoun� to establish the regular behaviour of third-person pronouns, while Hab­ ron counters that first- and second-person pronouns are not analogous to third-person pronoun�, since they behave differently from third­ person pronoun� in other respects too. In addition to attestation and analogy, various other criteria for linguistic correctness existed. In the second pa.�age Habron is credited with invoking one of these, Xpt;O'IS 'u.�ge' , alongside attestation and analogy, while in both pa.�sages Aris­ tarchu.�' view that a singular should not be compounded with a plural reflects a principle of syntactic congruity. 7 7

See Siebenbom 1 976, 30; Ax 2002e, 1 36.

Attic Irregularities

273

Aristarchus is better known for his interest in textual cntlcism (!'i16p6wo"IS) than for prescribing good Greek (eAAT\VI0"1J.6S) , and it is debated to what extent he concerned himself with the latter." For Sie­ benborn 1 976, 30-31 , and Ax 2002e, 1 34-1 35, 1 37-1 38, the passages jlL�t quoted provide evidence for Aristarchus' interest in prescriptive granunar, as does the portrayal of AristarchlL� in books 8-1 0 of Varro's De Lingua LAtina (especially 9 . 1 ) . For Schenkeveld, the passages show only that 'Aristarchus ha� some interest in correct Greek, like so many other Greek� before him, but nothing more'," and the testimony of Varro should be viewed with slL�picion.lu However, even if one does not take Aristarchus' arguments about eoVTovs etc. a� showing a seriom interest in prescriptive granunar (in principle the argument� may even have been transferred from an original di�clL�sion of Homeric textual critici�m to a later di�cus.�ion of prescriptive granunar) , the important point for m i� that predecessors of ApollonilL� DyscollL�, such a� Habron and perhaps already Aristarchm, debated the correctness of forms such a� eoVTovs with reference both to literary tradition and to analogy (and alm to other criteria, with which we shall be less concerned in this paper) .

3. Linguistic Atticism A� we have noted, the lingui�tic Atticism of the second and third centu­ ries AD did not represent the first time that the usage of good authors was taken into account in judgements about correct and incorrect Greek. The Atticist�, however, revived features of the classical Attic dialect that had dropped out of use even at high levels of koine Greek.l ! Furthermore, one of the most striking respects in which the linguistic Atticist movement outstripped the pre-existing idea that the practice of good authors wa� relevant to judgements about good Greek was in its preoccupation with the vocabulary of canonical authors. For Attici�ts, both the word� used and their meanings should be those of approved authors. Thi� preoccupation with vocabulary explaim the predominance of lexica among prescriptive Atticist worb. It al�o helps to explain the importance of attestation in the prescriptive movement of this period. In morphology, accentuation, and syntax, 'analogy' by thi� period meant 8 9 10 11

See Ax 2002e. Schenkeveld 1 994, 286. Schenkeveld 1 994, 287. For examples see Horrocks 1 997, 83-84.

the application of paradigms and rules establi�hed for educated language. Although paradigms and rules had been established with educated usage in mind (and a completely different set could have produced perfecdy uneducated forms and constructions1 2) , the existence of establi�hed para­ digm� and rules meant that educated usage did not always need to be appealed to direcdy. Instead, one could simply appeal to the relevant paradigm or the relevant rule. In vocabulary, however, paradigm� and rules are comparatively use­ less: one can in some cases establi�h a rule for the derivation of one word from another, but even

if,

for example, a rule can be established to

derive a word for 'nautical' from a word for 'ship ' , this will not gener­ ally reveal whether the basic word for 'ship ' should be vaOs or TIAoiov. Once vocabulary came to loom large in the desire to write elegant Greek, it inevitably became important to know which word� were used,

in

which meanings, by 'good' authors, and relevant to debate which

specific authors should be imitated. A further novelty of the lingui�tic Attici�t movement wa.� that canonical authors were regularly called 'Attic' authors, even by those Attici�ts who included Homer

in

the canonY The exi�tence of a con­

cept of the superiority of the Attic dialect can be seen a.� early a.� the third century He in a fragment of the comic poet Posidippus

(peG 30) ,

which a non-Athenian character critici�es an Athenian for thinking that to speak Attic is to speak Greek.a The prescriptive lL�e of i\TTIK6S

in

and related tenn�

in

relation to features of language (a.� opposed to rhe­

torical style) i�, however, very difficult to demonstrate before the second century

AD;

it may have existed,15 but the use of

i\TTIK6S

to label a

criterion for linguistic correctness i� tLnlikely to have been widespread

until the peak of lingui�tic Atticism. A� i\TTIK6S in influential Atticist works to

I shall argue, the regular use of denote what was ' canonical' or

'approved' had consequences for the later understanding of text� in which

i\TTIK6S and related tenn� were

med differendy.

12 c( the similar point made (polemically) by Sextm Empiricm, M. 1 . 1 99. 1 3 See Dihle 1 977, 1 69, and for the variom version.� of the Atticist canon, see Swain 1 996, 53-56. 14 See Colvin 1 999, 28-29; Broggiato 2000, 367. 15 See Broggiato 2000, 366-368 for a survey of Hellenistic works interested in Attic vocabulary, with the evidence that some of them may have raken part in a debate as to how broad or narrow a view of Attic should be raken. A� Brog­ giato 2000, 366-367 emphasises, such a debate need not imply an early dating for the exi.�tence of Ii.ngui
4. Attic before, and outside, Linguistic Atticism

Before the second century AD the tenn 'Attic' did not neces.�y im­ ply linguistically 'correct' . Rather, Attic was a dialect of Greek whose u...age could be wrong a� well a� right. In particular, where analogy was u.�ed a� a criterion of correctness, an Attic expression might be found irregular, and thi� irregularity might be negatively evaluated, as in the following fragments from authors of the first century Be: ,

(3)

�xet� i'1 Xee� �TJTeOV; TpVcpc.t)v cpTJalv �v Tci> mpl hnpPTJl.lc(T(A)V TO �xee� �vTEAtaTepOV elval TOO xee� �TTIKOO, lTapaTletl.\EVO� "",V �v Toi� 1.I0voavMa�c)\� �lTIpp1)l.IaalV QvaAoylav, Ws eiTJ �v l.IaKpai� avMa�ai� �KaaTOTe, val, 1.11), lToO, lTOO�, 00, Kal Ta TOlaVTa' I.ITJKWOI.\EVa I5la TOO I5I1TAOO, yW� 1TV�. lTIaTOVTal l5e Ka\ �VTEOeev 1.Ir, WTEAfj elval TO TE 151� Kal Tpl�, �K 15£ TOO I5vaKI� Kal TplaKI� aVyKEKOcpeal, �mll5r, Ta EI� I A1)yoVTa I.IETa �axEla� �KcpOpa� �aTIV vlTep I.Ilav avMa�1)v, e1KO�, �yyV�, �VTO�, &AI�, CXxPI�, lTapo� · �� 00 lTaAIV avviiyE TO �xeE� QvaAOyOOTEpoV, acplJPfjaeal l5e lTPO� Tfi� �TTIKfj� xp1)aEOO� TO E.

Trypho in A.D. Adv. 1 46. 1 5-23 Should one say �Xee� or Xee�? Trypho says in his work about adverbs that �xet� is more ba�ic than the Attic Xee�, bringing to bear the analogy of the monosyllabic adverbs, that in every ca�e they consist of long syUables, as val, 1.11), lToO, lT�, OV, and such words. And with lengthening by a double con­ sonant, yW� lTV�. And he thereupon shows that 151� and Tpl� are not ba�c forms, but have been syncopated from I5vaKI� and TplaKI�, since (adverbs)

ending in S and having a short final syllable are more than one syllable in length: EIKO�, �yyV�, �VTO�, &AI�, axpl�, lTapo�. And from this he again concluded that �Xee� wa� the more regular form, and that the E had been dropped in accordance with Attic usage. (4) �I5EI 15£ Kai lTapa TO KAt1TTTJ� Kal IfIEvl51)� I.ITJI50AOO� aXTJl.laTll;;E aeal avyKPITIK6v, 01 15£ �TTIKOI KAelTTiaTaTOV Kal IfIEVl5iaTaTOV EllT6VTE� Ta avyKplTIKa ill.lapTov· ml yap TOO KAelTTEaTaTOV Kal lflevl5eaTaTOv. Et. Gen. a

900 La�serre-Livadara�, quoting Philoxenus, fro 339 Theodoridis

And one shouldn't have fom1ed superlatives to KAE1TTTJ� and IfIEVI5,;� at all . But the �TTIKOI, who said KAelTTiaTaTov and IfIEVl5iaTaTOV for the super­ lative.�, were wrong. For they should have been KAelTTEaTaTOV and IfIEVl5taTaTOv.

Furthennore, even in the second century AD not every granunarian wa� Attici�t. Apollonius Dyscolus and Herodian, in particular, had differ-

an

276

Philomen Probert

ent goal� from the Atticists1r. and continued the tradition that Attic was a dialect that could be wrong as well as right: 1 7 (5) TO: E1S A'2 ATJYOVTCX 6�VVOVTCXI . . . O\ITc.>S EXEI KCXt TO �VTVlTO:S, EKO:S, aVeKO:S (omp i\TTIKOt ou 6E6VTc.>S aVCXI'II'O:�OVaIV, ws KCXt �V ETEpOiS hnpPTJIlCXal, XO:plEV cpcxal KCXt w..1lSES, KCXSWS 6eiKvvIlev Kcxl �lTt TOU acp66pcx).­ a1llle1c.>TEOv oov TO lTEACXS . A.D. Adv. 1 60. 1 9-23

Word.. ending in -cxS are oxytone . . . thu.. also �VTVlTO:S, EKO:S, and aVeKO:S (o n which the i\TTIKOi incorrectly retract the accent, as they also do in other adverbs, for they say xo:plev and O:A1lSeS, a.. I show also in my di.cu..­ sion of acp66pcx) ; so lTEACXS has to be taken as an exception. (6)

TO: els BO'2 KUPICX 11 lTPOO1lYOPIKO: \J1TEP 6uo avAACX�O:S lTpOlTCXp�VveTCXI' O:pcxl'os K6vcxl'0S icxlll'0s KO:pCX�OS ao:pcxl'os 6:TT eAcx�os, omp 01 i\TTIKOt lTcxpcxMyc.>S 6�vvoval. [Arcadius] 5 1 . 1--4

Proper and common nouns in -I'os with more than two syllables are proparoxytone: O:pcxl'0s, K6vcx�oS, iCXIlI'0S, KO:pCX�OS, aO:pcxl'os. And aTTeACX�OS, which the i\TTlKO\ irregularly make oxytone. (7) lT1lp6v { Seacxv } : ws XP1laT6v KCXT' 6l;eicxv To:atV lTCXpO: T0 lTOI1lTij. lTCXpO: 61; ToiS i\TTlKoiS Tri\pov ws Ai'lpOV. VYlEaTEpCX 61; Ii lTCXpO: T0 lTOI1lTij 6:vO:yvc.>atS, �ml TO: els 0'2 ATJYOVTCX 6laVMcxl'cx, EI EXOI Tliv lTPWT1lV avAACX�"V Exovacxv TO n KCXt TO H, 6�VVOVTCXI, olov lT1l6S, lT1lMS. OVTc.>S Kcx1 lT1lp6S. Sch. n. [A ] 2.S99b lT1lp6v { Seacxv } : oxytone like XPTJaT6v, in the poet (Homer). But among the i\TTIKO\ it is lTiipov, like Aiipov. But the poet's reading is sounder, since disyllables ending in -os, if they have IT and 11 in the first syllable, are oxytone, like lT1l6S, lT1lMS. So too lT1lp6s.

The next section shows how the same series of fonns could be nega­ tively evaluated by Herodian (because they were irregular) and posi16 Most obviously, mey were much less preoccupied with vocabulary and much more interested in other area.. of me granuuar. But mey were aha not inter­ ested in prescriptive grammar alone, but in systematic granunatical description that could contribute to both 616p6cucns and prescriptive grammar; cf. Sluiter 1 990, 60--6 1 on Apollonius Dyscolu.•. 17 Cf. Swain 1 996, 19: ' [The Hellenistic literary standard] remained, however, the main province of research by granuuarians like Apolloniu.. Dyscolus and his son Aelius Herodian for whom Attic wa.. a dialect'.

277

Attic Irregularities

tively evaluated by the Atticist<; (because they were Attic) . In this in­ stance, a� we shall see, the shift towards a positive evaluation of Attic forms appears to have brought these particular Attic forms back into general use at some stage in the Roman or late antique period.

5. nOAEoov and Similar Genitive Plural Forms: Atticist Re-evaluation of Attic Forms as Correct Theodosius'

1TpoC7� Stas

Canones

and the epitome of Herodian's

nep\ Ka6oAIK;;S

attributed to Iohann es Philoponus of Alexandria (probably

an abbreviated version of the epitome Philoponus produced) contain

parallel statemenu (in similar contexts) on the accentuation of genitive plurals such as

1T6Aeoov;

both passages are likely to derive ultimately

from the same pa�age of Herodian:1 H

(8) TO 1TOAEf.t)V Ae�f.t)V Kal TO: ollola Toivvv ocpEIAeI lTPO Il\(X S (XEIV TOV TOVOV, J&.IlIlWVIOS SE CPllo'IV aUTO: lTapo: J&.TTIKOis lTpolTap�E0'6al.

Theodos. Can. 41 . 1 4-16 lTOAEf.t)V, Ae�f.t)V, and similar word� ought to have the accent on the penultimate syllable, but Ammoniu� says that they are proparoxytone among the J&.TTIKol.

(9)

al EIS EI \nrep Svo avMaj:lo:s Ev6Eiai j:lapVvOUO'I TO:S YEVIK
1 9 . 4-12

Nominatives of more than two syUable.� ending in -ES make their genitive.� reces.�ve: AiavTES AI
18 c( Blau 1 883, 12; Colm 1 894, 1 865.

27H

Philomen Probert

In both passages, the proparoxytone fonm such as lT6AEWV are attributed to )\'TT1 KOi either by a named source (AnunoniusI '! ) or by unspecified people ('they say'), and these fonns are given a negative evaluation compared to the expected fonns such as lTOAEWV. Philoponus' fonnula­ tion, with counterfactual eSEI (,ought to have been') , would seem to suggest that paroxytone fonm such as lTOAEWV were not actually in use. Two other passages of Philoponu� treat proparoxytone accentuation as simply the nonnal accentuation of these fonns, with no mention of the possibility of paroxytone fonm (10. AI. 5 . 1 0-1 1 ;2<1 1 9.20-22) . Philo­ ponu�' treatment of the proparoxytone accentuation of these genitive plurals as the only accentuation in use suggests that at least by hi� time (or by the time of hi� abbreviator at the latest) , lT6AEWV and similar fonns were in general use; this suggestion gain� some support from the fact that the modem Greek genitive plural of lT6A1S (for example) is likewi�e lT6AEWV.21 However, the suggestion that fonns such a� lTOAEWV were purely hypothetical is absent from the pa�sage of Theodosius (pa�sage 8) , and it al�o appears contradicted by the following entry in Moeris' Atticistic lexicon: (10) �avTEwv -n;v lTPWT'lV �6vwS ;t>.TT1KOi · -n;v 6EVTEpav 6�6vwS "EAA'lVES. M o eri� � 12 Hamen an acute on the first syllable (in the u.�ge of the) ;t>.TTIKOi. acute on the second syllable (in the usage of the) "EAA'lVES.22

�avTEwv with

With

an

19 The Ammonim referred to here i� likely to be the pupil and successor of Aris­ tarchus and therefore couId have been referred to by Herodian. Further obser­ vations on prosody are attributed to an Anmloniu� in codex n of the Iwaywyi] M�EWV xpTlal�wv (8 a 2 5 1 9 Cunningham) and in the Ety­ mowgicum l\1agnum (714. 1 7- 1 8); these pa...�ages are al�o likely to derive from Herodian and the second refers to another observation on Attic prosody in par­ ticuIar. See Dlau 1 883, 1 2-13; Cohn 1 894. 20 In thi. pa."'age the forms them.elves are labelled Attic', but there is no sugges­ tion that their proparoxytone accentuation is peculiar to Attic speakers. 21 I am very grateful to Anthi Revithiadou for pointing thi� out to me. 22 EL.ewhere, Moeris and other Attici�tic lexicographers contrast the tri�yllabic fonn miXEWV, labelled Attic or correct, with disyllabic lTTlXWV, labelled un­ Attic or incorrect: lTTJXEWV ;t>.TTIKOI, lTTlXWV "EilATlVES (Moeri� IT 77 Hansen); c( Phrynichm, Ecloga 217 Fi,cher; Philemon 395.34 Reitzenstein; [Herodian), Phiktaerus 3 17; Photius s . v . 429.7 Porson. However, in these entries the accent i� not explicitly mentioned, and the purpose of the entries is only to condemn the disyllabic fonn as non-Attic. Papyri regularly have genitive plural.� in -wv for u-stem nouns such a.� lTiixvs (Mayser 1 938, 25; Gignac 1 9 8 1 , 81), but not •

Attic IrreguIarities

279

Written in the third century AD, much closer in time to Herodian (2nd century AD) than either Philoponus (6th century AD) or Theodosius (4th/5th centuries AD) , Moeris' entry suggests that in Herodian's day proparoxytone fonus such a� 1T6Aec.>v (or 1l00vTEc.>V) were specifically Attic, and therefore that Theodosius' statement in pas.�age 8 is closer to its Herodianic original than Philoponus' statement in pa�sage 9 (with its counterfactual �SEI, giving the impres.�ion that fonn� such a� 1ToMc.>v are purely hypothetical). We may conclude that Herodian attributed fonn� such as 1T6AEc.>V to l'\TTIKOi in particular (citing a Hellenistic source for the Attic character of these fonns), and evaluated these fonn� negatively, a� irregular fonn�, in comparison with their koine counterparts such a� 1ToMc.>v. Moeris, by contra�t, puts a different spin on the infonnation that the l'\TTIKOi u.�e proparoxytone fonn� such a� 1T6Aec.>v or 1l00vTEc.>V. While for Herodian the l'\TTIKOI are said to accent the antepenultimate syllable, but one ought to accent the penultimate, in the context of Moeris' lexicon it is clear that the correct fonn is 1l00vTEc.>V, simply because this is the Attic fonn. The shift between Herodian and Moeris in the evaluation of fonn� such as 1T6Aec.>v allows us to see how these fonn� might have come to be in general use by Philoponus' day, and to survive into modem Greek. Although in Herodian's day 1ToMc.>v (for example) wa� in use in the koine, the Attici�t view that the Attic fonn 1T6Aec.>v wa� 'correct' opened the door to the ou.�ting of 1ToMc.>v by the more learned 1T6AEc.>V. 23 In the centuries following the peak of lingui�tic Atticism, Attic fonn� did not, of course, always ou.�t their koine counterparts. However, the use of the tenn l'\TTIK6s in relation to the Attici�ts' main criterion for linguistic correctnes.� appears to have made it difficult to understand the earlier (and e.g. Herodianic) use of the teno l'\TTIK6s, in which the labelling of a fonn or expres.�ion as 'Attic' did not amount to a claim that it was 'right'. The next section� aim to demonstrate this point by uncovering some places in which Herodian wa� mi�interpreted by later authors a� a result of thi� shift in the u.�e of the tenn 'Attic' and in the evaluation of Attic fonns.

for i-stem nouns such a.� ".6AI5. Thu�. the Attici�ts' claim.� that (a) for an i-stem, I!O:VTI5, both Attic and koine speakers u�e a trisyllabic genitive plural but accent it differendy, and (b) for a u-stem, "';;)(\1 5, the Attic genitive plural is trisyllabic while there is a di�yllabic fonn in u�e in koine, are con��tent with one another and with the papyrological evidence for koine u�. 23 For other in�tances of learned revival� in the post-Helleni�tic hi�tory of Greek accentuation, see Probert 2006, 5 1 -52.

280

Philomen Probert

6. Herodian and Later Grammarians on the Accent of TPI"PWV

Compound s-stem�, such as EVyEvr,S 'well-born' and EVIJ."K11S 'tall', nonnally had a perispomenon genitive plucal, irrespective of the accentuation of the other form� in the paradigm. But for a small number of compound s-stem� the accent of the genitive plucal was disputed in antiquity. These word� included TPI"P11S 'trireme'. The genitive plural of TpnlP11S 'trireme' is mentioned in rArcadius'] epitome of Herodian's nepi Ka6oA1KfjS TIpoO"'ll S ias as accented differ­ endy by different people; no mention is made here of )\TT1KOi: (1 1) al IJ.EVTOI Eis EI� eV6Eial Ka\ E E�24 KaTCx �ilaipEalv YIVOIJ.EVal TIEpiaTIOOal TiJv aUV1JP'lIJ.EVT)V YEV1K1'jV TIA'l6UVT1K';V' 01 t.'lIJ.Oa6eVEES Ka\ t.'lIJ.Oa6eVEIS TOOV t.lllJ.oa6Evewv Ka\ t.lllJ.oa6evoov, EvaE�eES EvaE!3Eis evae�ewv evaE�OOV. TO 6e 6uaw6wv napoAoyws t�pVv611. Ka\ TO TPI';PWV 01 lJ.eV !3apuvoualv 01 6e nepl(J"11"OOO"IV, wanep Ka\ aVTopKwV Ka\ TO auv,;6wv Ka\ KaKo,;6wv !3apuveTal, &o-rr E p Ka\ TCx aVToov tmpp';lJ.aTa. [Arcadiu.�] 1 56. 1 6-24

But nominatives ending in -eIS, and -eES by separation of one vowel into two, have a circumflex on the final syllable of their contracted genitive plurals: nominatives t.lllJ.oa6evEES and t.llIJ.0a6evE1S, genitives t.lllJ.oa6Evewv and t.lllJ.oa6Evoov; nominatives evaE�eES (and) EvaE�Eis, genitives evaE�ewv (and) EvaE!3oov. But 6uaw6wv i� recessive, contrary to the rule. And some make TPI';PWV recessive while some make it peri�pomenon, a.� al�o aVTopKwV, auv,;6wv, and KaKo,;6wv are recessive, together \vith their adverbs. According to Theodosius, however, some say the )\TT1KOi make TPI"PWV recessive: (12)

al EIS ElL EveEial auv1JPlllJ.EVal (>TOV EXWOI TCxS YEVIKCxS auvalpe6eiaas nepl(J"11"OO OlV mnos, eVYEvoov t.'lIJ.Oa6EVOOV· TO 6uaw6wv 1>.piaTapxos oMyws t�OpUVE, Ka\ TPI';PWV cpaal T1VES 1>.TTIKOVS �pUTOVWS AeyelV. Theodos. Can. 4 1 . 1 1-1 3

Contracted nominatives in -eiS make their genitives peri�pomenon when they contract them: eVYEvoov, t.lllJ.oa6evoov. But Aristarchu.� made 6uaw6wv recessive, contrary to the rule, and some say the 1>.TTIKOi pronounce TPI';PWV recessively. 24 [ am very grateful to Ineke Sluiter for pointing out that e1s ElL ev6eial Ka\ EEL need, to be read here, not els EEL eV6eial Ka\ ElL a.� in Schmidt's text.

Yet in Choeroboscus' conunentary on this passage of Theodosius, we are told that Athenians make TplT)pWV perispomenon, according to the rule, but that some read the word recessively in their works: (1 3) TO TPll1PWV lTEPIO'lTc..> I..U§Vc..> S 01 )\611vaiol KaTO: aK07l0v6iav avaYIVWO'KOVO'I, TIVeS 5e Kat TOVTO lTap aVTois �PVTOVc..>S avayIVWO'KOVO'IV, olov TWV TPIr,pc..>V " Kat TO aliTapKwv 5e lTapo: Tois )\611vaioIS j3apUVETal KaTO: T1)V aKpij3Elav, olov aliTc'xpKc..>V, Kat TO /mlppl1�a 5e TO E� aUTOO ylv6�EVOV aUTc'xpKc..>S l3apVT6vc..> S avaYIVWO'KETm" Kat 7IEYOVO'I TIVES TWV TEXVIKWV lTEPIO'lTc..> � EVc..>s aUTO avayIVWO'KE0'6m' Kat TO O'vvr,6c..>v 5e Kat KaKor,6c..>v �pVT6vc..>S ElTEKp6:TT)O'EV avaYIVWO'KE0"6m' wO'aUTc..>S 5e Kat TO: elTlppr,�aTa TO: e� aVTWV ylv6�Eva �pVT6vc..>S ElTEKpc'xTT)O'EV avaYIVWO'KE0"6m, olov O'vvr,6c..>S Kat KaKor,6c..>S .

Choerob.

In TIleod.

1 .41 1 .22-3 1

Athenians read TPll1pwV perispomenon according to regularity, but some read this word too recessively in their (the Athenian�') work.�, as: TWV TPIr,pc..>V . And the word aUTapKwv is accurately recessive in the works of the Athenians, as: aliTc'xpKc..>v . And the adverb aUTc'xpKc..>S derived from it i� also read recessively. And some of the grammarians say that it i� read perispomenon. And reading O'vvr,6c..>v and KaKor,6c..>v recessively has prevailed. And similarly reading the adverbs derived from the.�e recessively ha.� prevailed, a.�: O'vvr,6c..>S and KaKor,6c..>S. The conunent on TplT)pWVITPI11pc.uV here, as well as saying something rather different from Theodosius, fits uneasily in it� context in Cho­ erobosclL�. Choeroboscus appears to move seamlessly from TplT)pwVITPI11pc.uV to alh6pKc.uv and other genitive plural fonm for which he takes the genuine Attic accentuation to be reces.�ive, whereas one would expect the contrast between his view of TplT)pwvITpl"Pc.uV and that of alh6pKc.uv to be signaIled. What has happened is, [ suggest, the following. The association of recessive TPI"pc.uV with )\"ITIKOi, without any approval of the fonn, is likely to derive from Herodian.25 Theodosim understood Herodian and paraphrased him fairly. ChoerobosclL�, however, confused by the 25 Compare the phrase Ka\ TPI.,pc..>V cpaO'( TIVES )\TT1KOVS l3apvTovc..>S AtyElv with the similar expres.�ion (on genitive plural fonm such a.� lTOAec..>v) in passage 9, whose ultimately Herodianic origins are clear (6:AA' )\TTlKOUS cpacn lTpolTapO�VE1V TaiiTa, &rrE p ... ) and the more specific citation in the parall el pa...�age 8 ()\j.1j.1CilV10S Be 'PTJOW a\/TC'x lTapa )\TT1KOis lTpolTap�vEcr6at) . It is well possible that on TpttlPc..>v as well as on fonm such as lTOAeWV, Herodian mentioned a specific source and that the vaguer expressions cpacr( T1VES and cpaO'l are due to later abbreviation. ,

282

Philomen Probert

labelling of an Attic form (or a form that some attribute to l'\iTIKOI) a.� contrary to rule, decided that the genuine Attic form must be the 'correct' TPlllPOOV , and then attempted to accommodate Theodosius' apparendy contrary statement by attributing TPI';PWV to the incorrect reading of Athenian text'; by some people. Choeroboscu.� here re-evaluates TPlllPOOV as Attic because it wa.� considered correct, and downgrades the negativdy evaluated TPI';PWV from genuine Attic status, in the light of an expectation that 'Attic' entails 'correct' and 'correct' entail� 'Attic'.

7. Herodian and the Etymologicum Magnum on the Accentuation of cpooplo:�6s 'box'

rArcadius'l epitome of Herodian's nep\ KOOO�IKiis npoact>5los includes the following rule for the accentuation of a subset of noun� and adjectives ending in -OIJOS: (14) Ta Sia TOO AMOI, el gXOI "';v lTPWTl1V SeaEI lloKpav, el IlEV KVPIO eiTj, lTPOlTOpo!;livETOI· nvpolloS Ilaollos· EI Se Il";, �ETOI· OVAOll6s Xl1 POll6S (t') KCrTaSvaIS) 'PWploll6s (TO KIj:lWTIOV). [Arcadius] 68.21-69.2

Word� ending in -OIlOS, if they have their first syllable long by position, are proparoxytone if they are proper names: nvpolloS, Ilaollos. If they are not proper names, they are oxytone: OVAOll6S, )(1lpoll6S (,hole') , 'PWpIOIl6S ('small box') . In the form in which it is transmitted, this rule is introduced as applying to word� in -OIJOS whose first syllable i� long 'by position' (Le. a closed syllable) , yet the examples all have a first syllable long 'by nature' (Le. a syllable containing a long vowd or diphthong), not long 'by position' . Schmidt (1 860, 68, apparatu.� ad loc.) and Lentz (1 867-1 870 I, 1 70-1 7 1 , apparatus) suggest that Oeael 'by position' should b e emended to
Attic Irregularities

283

(1 5) Koi EXOIlEV TWV 610: TOU AMO� nop"YIlEVWV 6VOIl(lTc..>V KavOVOS TOlova6E, npwTov lleV WS TO: Tplj3paXEa, liT) OVTO E1Tl6ET1KO: j30pVVEa6at 6eAE1, KaAOIlOS, npiollOS· TO nOTOIlOS EyevETo nopo: TO nOToallos, Ko6· ucpoipEalv TOU �. TO 6e iTolloS E1Tl6ETIKOV EaT\ . 6EVTEpOV 6e WS TO: EXOVTO TT)V apxovaav 1l0KPav, EI lleV 6eaEI �, J30pVvET01, 0PXOIlOS, TVPTOIlOS, nepyollOS· EI 6E cpvaEl, KVP10 OVTO J30pVVETOI naA1V, WS EXEl TO nvpOIlOS TEVTOIlOS, OVX oihc..> 6e EXOVTO �ET01, WS EXEI TO OVAOIlOS, X1l POIlOS. TOVT<+> OOV Tct> MyCf>, EhE nopo: TO TOUS cpwpOS CIlTEipyEIV 1'i CIlTO TOU TO: cpap" cpVAaaaE1V " npOKEIIlEVTj Ae�IS nopijKTat, EaTOI KaT· 6I;Eiov Tamv, P OlloS KO\ nAEovoallct> TOU I cpc..> PIOIlOS.

Sch. fl. [A] 24.228a27

And we have the following rules for nouns and adjectives formed with AMO�. firstly, that the tribrachic ones, if they are not adjectives, are u�uaUy recessive: KaAollos, npiollOS. The word nOTollOS comes from nOToallos, by deletion of a. And iTolloS is an adjective. Secondly, that those which have a long first syllable, if it i� long by position, are recessive: 0PXOIlOS, TVPTOIlOS, nEpyollOS. But if it is long by nature, if they are proper names they are again reces.�ive, as nVpOIlOS, TEVTOIlOS, and if they are not proper nanles they are m,ytone, as OVAOIlOS, X"POIlOS. So by this reasoning, whether the word at hand comes from holding off thieves (cpwpOS) or from looking after clothes (cpap,,), it ,vill be oxytone: POIlOS, and by the addition of 1 P IOIlOS. A rule similar (though not identical) to the one given here for tribracruc words ending in -exIlOS is preserved by [Arcadiusl inlmediately before passage 1 4 ([Arcadiusl 68. 1 6-20), while a confused version of a rule sinlllar to the one given here for word� with a first syllable long 'by position' is preserved by [Arcadiusl inmlediately after passage 1 4 ([Arcadiusl 69.3-7) . It i� clear from the inclusion of the example !5lexs 'On Attic prosody', prescribed a recessive accent for S o ov Koi CPc..> POIlOS27 C( Et. Gud. 560. 13-1 6 Stun; Eu.�t. 1 347 . 1 0-14.

Ked lTAeOVOO'IlCil TOO I, 'PWP10IlOS. 'IA\(XSoS 00'. 'HpooSlavOS nepi 1>.TTIKWV lTpOO'ctlSIWV, TplTIJ arro TOO TEAOVS 1'1 �io' OIlX Ws avaAOYOV, aM' OOS 1>.TTIKOV. 1'1 IlEVTOI O'VV1'l6EIO �v6IlEVOV iXEI. EM 804 . 1 7-23

Trisyllabic word. ending in -OIlOS which have the syllable before the ter­ mination long by nature are all oxytone: XllPOIlOS, OIlAOIlOS. So abo 'PWPOIlOS, and 'PWPIOIlOS by the addition of I: n. 24. Herodian (in) 'On Attic Prosody' (says that) the acute accent f.ill.. on the antepenultimate syllable: not because thi. (accentuation) is regular, but becau..e it is Attic. But the avvf)6Elo makes the word oxytone. It would be curiously inconsi�tent of Herodian to have prescribed oxytone accentuation for plaIl6s in the nep\ Ka6oA1K;;S 1Tpoa� 5ias, apparently without further ado, but to have said in the nep\ )\TTIK;;S 1Tpoa� 5ias that the word should be accented recessively 'not because this accentuation is regular, but because it i� Attic'. The statement appearing in the Etymologicum Magnum becomes explicable, however, if Herodian said in the nep\ )\TTIK;;S 1Tpoa� 5tas that the )\TTIKOi make plaIl6S/piaIlOS recessive, contrary to analogy, whereas koine usage makes the word oxytone. At a later stage the statement that the )\TTIKOi make the word recessive wa� interpreted a� a statement that recessive accentuation was correct; the observation that this accentuation wa� irregular was then accommodated by mean� of the comment oUX OOS avaAOYOV, aM' oos )\TT1K6v--a relative evaluation of analogy and Atti­ ci�m in which Atticism comes out on top and which is contrary to Herodian's un-Atticist approach. Differently from Choeroboscus, who re-evaluated TPlllPWV as Attic because it wa� considered correct, the Etymologicum Magnum (or an intermediate source) re-evaluates the form piallOS as correct becau.�e it is Attic. But the underlying cause of both re-evaluations is the same: 'Attic' and 'correct' had come to entail one another, so that it was difficult either to label an incorrect form a� Attic or an Attic form as incorrect.

8. [Arcadius] on the Accentuation Of 1TOyeToS 'frost' ,

1T01TOi, and ch(T)aToi Discussion� of accentuation deriving from Herodian or his Hellenistic predeces.� ors give the impression, for the most part, of describing not the accentuation of a particular variety of Greek but simply 'normal' Greek accentuation. Every so often, as in pas.�ages 5 and 6 above, a particular

Attic Irregularities

285

dialect (here Attic) is mentioned as having an accentuation deviating from the 'normal'. I have argued eL�ewhere211 that the standard of normality with which other varieties may be contrasted is educated koine lL�age. Sometimes where a particular dialect is mentioned there is an explicit contrast with the O"VV"eela (educated koine usage2'� or 'our lan­ guage', as in passage 1 6 above (but usually without the suggestion that an Attic variant is automatically correct) . But the standard of normality with which the accentuation of Attic or another dialect is contrasted is often left implicit, as in passages 5 and 6. A point in favour of the conclmion that the accentuation considered 'normal' i� that of educated koine usage is that the O"vvTjeEla or 'our language' i� almost never men­ tioned in the context of a particular accentuation unless there is an ex­ plicit contrast with some other variety: a koine accentuation is almost never mentioned a.� if it were the oddity a.� compared with some other, implicit, standard of normality. This generali�ation is broken in two passages of fArcadilL�l (17)

Tel els ETOL TplCYVMaj3a lTapaAl1yollEva Tc;l E Kupla OVTa Kai lTP0s· apyeTos apeTos avETOS (o:veTos 6e TO Imi6ETOv) lTaYETos, (mep o�uvel TJ C1V1I1')6ela. ETI O�UVeTai Kai TO VltpeTOS liETOS Kai TO aIETOS.

[Arcadius] 93.1-8 Tri.�yllabic word. encling in -eTOS and with e in the syllable before the termination, if they are proper nanles or common noun.�, are proparoxytone: M eYICTTos, neAETos [ . .] And likewise those with a (in the syllable before the termination): apyeTos, apETos, aveTos (but the adjective is o:veTOS), and lTayeTos, which the crVll1'] 6 ela makes oxytone. The words VltpETOS, liETOS, and alETos are also oxytone. .

(18)

Tel els 01 Kai EIS AI crxeTAlaCTTl Kel lTapaMyc.>s lTEPlcr1TWVTat· 6TTOTOi evoT lTalTai O:TaTai, lTA1)V TOU ai ovai flaj3ai. lTap�uvETat 61; TO oillOI WIlO1. TJ 61; crvv,;6ela �lIVEI TO lTCrrr a l Kai O:TaTai.

[Arcadius] 208.16-1 9 Expressions of suffering ending in -01 and in -al are perispomenon, contrary to analogy: 6TTOTOi, evoT, lTalTai, O:TaTai, apart fro111 ai, oval, and flaj3ai. But oillOI and WIlOI are paroxytone. And the crvv,;6ela makes lTalTai and maTai oxytone. In 1 7 the 'normal' accentuation of 1TOYETOS is presented as recessive, while in 18 the 'normal' accentuation of 1TalTai and (XTaTai is presented 28 Probert 2006, 74-79. 29 See Stephan 1 889, 89-1 05.

286

Philomen Probert

as perispomenon. The O"VV"eEla is said to have a divergent accent for all three word� (TTayET6S, TTaTTa l, (haTal) , but [Arcadiusl leaves us guessing a� to what sort of Greek had the 'normal' accents for these words. These pa�sages are so unusual that I suggested earlier1" that [Ar­ cadiml may not preserve Herodian's wording very well, noting that the last sentence of passage 1 7 shows manifest signs of corruption.31 There are in fact two problems with this sentence. The first problem is that the examples VI
TO: 510: TOO ETOL TplcrVt.Aa�a lTpOC"T)yOplKO: i\ E1Tl6ETIKO: �ETal, Ef 11" lTapwvvl1WS TETVlTWTai' KOlTET6S lTVPET6S TOKET6s crvp
TrisyUabic conmlOn noum and adjectives ending in -ETOS are oxytone, if they are not created by a change of form: KOlTET6S, lTvpET6S, TOKET6S, crVP
30 Probert 2006, 76 n. 46. 31 See Scbmidt 1 860, 93, apparatus ad loc. ; Lentz 1 867-1 870, 1 219, apparatus to lines 3 and 5. 32 A\ a word with four syllables, Cx
287

Attic Irregularities

tramItlon here may be explained, however, if the original behind passage 17 took a fonn closer to the following: (20) 'Trisyllabic word� ending in -ETOS and with E in the syllable before the temlination, if they are proper names or comnlOn nouns, are proparoxytone: MeylO'"TOS nEt.ETOS .. . And likewise those with a (in the syllable before the tennination): apYETos, apETos, aVETos (but the adjective is O:VET6S) . And m'.!yETos among the :A.TTIKOi, but the word i� oxytone in the crVV1']6Ela. alET6s is also oxytone' (or. 'O:ET6S and alET6s are also oxytone ''') . If so, the fonn in which the rule appears in rArcadiu�l is due, once again, to the mi�conception that the tenn 'Attic' labeL� the 'correct' or non-deviant fonn, and therefore that the oddity that really need� to be labelled is the form found in the O"vv,,6s1a. A� we have noted, passage 1 R is similar to passage 1 7 in that the O"vv,,6sla is, very unusually , treated as having a deviant accentuation (TTCl'rral and !haTal) , without it being made clear what variety of Greek the accentuation treated as normal (TTcrrrai, aTaTai) belongs to. However, parallel pa�sages of Philoponus' epitome of Herodian's nepl Ka6oAIKt;S TTpoO"cp51as and of the Herodianic nepl �OvtlpoVS Ae�ews 'On anomalous word�' make it fairly clear that in this instance Herodian really did treat the perispomenon fonm TTcrrrai and aTaTai (or its variant aTTaTai) as normal: (21)

Ta Se C1)(ETAlaO'"TIKa TWV EIS 01 Kal EIS AI aAoyov EXEl TOV T6vov. ex �ev yap a,iTwv lTEpICTITO:TOI, WS TO 6TToi EXOV crv�.\1TapaKEiIlEvOV Kal TO O:TTaTai, Kat TO oloi Kal alai cra[3oi TE, Kai TO alf30i, Kat TO cra�ai lTap' EV1T6A1SI EV �TTTa lS· TO Sf Eva! lTapa T0 aVT0 �ETOI, Eva! cra!'aP· [3apvvETOI Ss TO oillO!. TO Ss c!i lT6lTOI Svcrl T6v01S xpiiTOI' SSEI Ss miTo Svo lTEplCTITc.>IlEvas EXEIV, ElTEI Kat lTapaKEITOI aliT0 TO O:lTlTalTai· Kai TO O:TTaTai Se lTEplCTITO:Tal Kal TO lTOlTai. 10. AI.

36. 1 2-2037

Those of the adverbs ending in -01 and -01 that expres.� suffering have an irrational accent. For some of them are perispomenon, as 6TTOi, which has 35 So Lentz 1 867-1 870 I, 2 1 9, line 3, following a suggestion of Sclunidt 1 860, 93, apparatus to line 8. 36 craf3ai is Lentz's correction for craf3al (Lentz 1 867-1 870, I 502, line 22). 37 There are many textual problem� in thi� passage, which do not, however, bear on the question at hand. With the exception of craf3ai in line 17 (see the previous note) I si.mply print Dindorfs text; on the textual problems see Din­ dorf 1 825, xvi; Lentz 1 867-1 870, I 502, lines 1 8-22 with apparatu.�.

2HH

Philomen Probert

existing beside it CxTTCXTai, and oloi, alai, and oajX>i, and alj30i, and oa�i in Eupolis' 'Bather.;' (but eva! in the same author is oxytone: evai oa�i). But oi�ol is recessive. And w n6nol uses two accent.•. But it ought to have had two circumflexes, since Cxnnanai exists beside it. And CxTTCXTai is perispomenon, as is nanai. (22)

xa�al. ov5ev els AI Ai'Jyov 1!1TlpPTJ�a ll1Tep �Iav oVAAal'1')v 6�vveTa!, AEye.> 5e �1') oxeTAlaO'TlK6v. Ta 5e TOIaV-ra neplO'1TiXTal, CxTCXTai, alai, ncrrr ai. Heroman, nepi �oV11POVS AE�e.>S 933 . 1 8-2039

xa�al: No adverb ending in -a! and having more than one syllable i. oxytone, I mean unIe'5 it is an expression of suffering. Such words are both oxytone (oval , �I'al) and peri.pomenon (CxTCXTai, alai, nanai).

Given the paralle1i�m between pa�sage 1 8 and pa�sage 1 7, it i� tempting to see passage 1 8 as another passage in which corruption has resulted from the mi�conception that Attic fonns are simply the correct forms. Thi� time, however, the chain of events cannot be a� sinlple as suggested for pa�sage 17, because Herodian i� wilikely to have singled out the fonns mnrai and CxTaTai as 'Attic' if (as pa�sages 21 and 22 suggest) he regarded them a� the nonna! fonns. The following passage of Theognostus, however, attributes considerably more discussion of the accentuation of exclamations ending in -01 and -01 to Herodian in the nEpl Ka60AIKfis TIpoa'tl 5las than the surviving epitomes suggest: (23) Aeyo�ev 5e l'apvveo6a! aVT6, WS TO w cpiAal, EK TOV ll1TOAal'eiv ovo�a elval TO TIOnOl' LKV6a! yap Ta nap' atrrois CxyaA�CxTla nonovs KaAOVOIV, Ka6ws 'Hpe.>5Iavos EV Tij Ka6oAOV' Kai av61S 6 mhos TIEpi Tc:;)V aVTc:;)v CPTJolv, WS ov 5ei Ta v [eVKTIKCx' , OIOVEi l'aKXIKa oVTa, uno Tf}v EVTEXVOV CxKoAov6eiav OyEIV, eiye ov5e �epll Myov T1VES elva! TaVTa evo�loav' naoxov<11lS yap III vXi'Js, ii 61aKopov uno oivov oV<11l S, OAOYOI 5i'JAov em Kai al EKcpc..> V1)OEIS aVTii s '

38 I read oval here, with Lehrs 1 848a, 96, line 2, rather than Lentz's Eva! (Lentz 1 867-1 870 II, 933, line 1 9), becau.e I am not confident that the exclamation Eva! mentioned at 10. AI. 36. 1 6 should replace the oval of [Arcadiu'l 208.1 8. But Kai �vETal ... Ka{ is in any case an uncertain conjectural addition. 39 According to Lentz's apparatus ad loco (Lentz 1 867-1 870, II 933), the manuscript read. xa�al. ov5Ev els AI Ai'Jyov en{pPTJ�a ll1T E p �!av avAAa�v �\II;Ta� AEyw 5i) TO xa�al. TO: 5E TOIaOTa nEplCT1TciTal, mOTai, alai, nanai. 40 For the deletion of eVKTIKCx, due to Lehrs, see Lentz 1 867-1 870, I 503, apparatus to line 1 5 .

Attic Irregularities

289

filo Kal hr' O\lTWV ealloTE TO 5aall 1TVEVlla &A6ywS tv Tij AllYOV01J aVAAal'ij OPCITOI, wS eXEI TO Evoi, EVav' Evai·" . . . T a E I S AI AtlyovTa tlTlPPtlllOTa liTrep Iliav aVAAal'"v a, v Ka\ Ta aXETAlaaTlKa Ta 1TAEiw taT!, 51a Tii s AI 5up66yyov ypacpETOI ' olov, alai· clTTaTal· 1TOlTal· 0 5e 1TEp\ TaVTa T6voS allcpll'0AOs ' Oi lleV yap 6�vvovalv aliTa, 01 5e 1TEplCTTTw alv' aAOYOl yap aliTwv AV1TOVIlEVWV f\ IlE6v6vTWV cpwva� Ka6wS EiPllTal. Theognostus 158. 1 1-30 But we say that it (the word 1T61TOl) i� recessive, like a, cpIAOI, as a result of 1T61TOl being taken to be a noun. For the Scythi ans call their divine images 1T61T0� as Herodian says in the nEp\ KaeOAlKfis 1Tpoacp6ias. And the same scholar again says about the sanle words, that one need not reduce those of the adverbs that express suffering, which are as it were bacchic, to a techni­ cal discipline's rules, given that some people have not even thought these word� to be parts of speech. For it is clear that when the soul is suffering, or saturated with wine, it. utterances too are irrational. For that rea.�on the rough breathing too is sometimes irregularly seen on their final syllables, as in EVOr, Everv, Evai. ' " Adverbs ending i n -al and having more t han one syllable, o f which most are expressions of suffering, are written with the diphthong -01: so alai, aTTOTa� 1Ta1Tai. And concerning these words the accent is uncertain. For some make them oxytone, some make them peri�pomenon. For their utterances are illogical when they are suffering or drunk, as ha.� been said. 42 It is difficult to be sure how much of this discussion derives from Herodian, but if Herodian in tact treated clT(T)clToi and lTOTToi (and perhaps al.o oloi) as usually perispomenon, but all owed that CtTTOTO{ and lTOTTO{ were also heard, and that such illogical variation was to be expected of word. uttered by those suffering or drunk, the statement we find in rArcadiusl may be an inept attempt to abbreviate till. di.cussion. If so, rArcadiu.'l retains CtT(T)aTOi and lTOTToi as the u..ual forms, but attributes the deviant forms to the O'vv,,6elo instead of to what can happen when one is suffering or drunk. The negative use of the term O'vv"eelo here, for what is abnormal or incorrect, is not mual for Herodian, but it is found in Attici.t teXI5, in which O'vv"eelo becomes the negative term in an opposition between O'vv"eelo and )\TTIKI0'1l6S. 43 At this point we have reached highly speculative ground, so it i. time to stop. We have at lea..t seen, however, that the interpretation of I print here Ellor· eOav· EvoT (for eM I' ev&1r EIl�v) , following Lentz 1 867-1 870, I 503, line 1 3. 42 Sluiter's (1 990, 222-244) discussion of the treatment of inteljections in the Greek granunatical tradition provides helpful context for passages 1 8, 2 1 , 22, and 23; on pa...�age 23 more particularly, see Sluiter 1 990, 236-237. 43 See e.g. Ael. Dion. 5 34, a 22, a 39 Erbse.

41

290

Philomen Probert

Herodian in the light of Atticism is likely to have some bearing on the unusual (and I would venture, un-Herodianic) point in passage 1 8, that Herodian is apparendy made to attribute a deviant accentuation to the crvv,,6ela without making clear what variety of Greek provides the 'normal' accentuation. A final point may be made in connection with passages 17 and 1 8. In other context� we have been treating [Arcadiusl as providing rather good evidence for the original form of Herodian's views, but if the suggestions made here about passages 17 and 1 8 are correct, then even the longer and in many ways fuller of the two epitomes of the nepl Ka6oA1Kfis TTpocr� Slas is guilty of occasionally nusmterpreting Herodian in the light of Atticism. Since we must rely on the sources we have for the nepi Ka6oA1Kfis TTpocr� Slas, and not least on [Arcadiusl , even the possibility of such misinterpretatiom provides a serious chall enge for the recomtruction of Herodian's thought. In other words, scholars working on Herodian will need to decide when such misinterpretatiom should be assumed and when not, without any source for Herodian's VIews being guaranteed to be free of such mi�interpretation�.

9. Conclusions The rise of Atticism did not banish other criteria for linguistic correctness. However, the influence of Atticism did result in a situation in which the labelling of an expression a.� 'Attic' wa.� liable to be taken automatically as a claim that the expression wa.� 'correct'. Conversely, the labelling of an expression a.� deviant could also be taken a.� a claim that it was un-Attic or belonged to the crvv,,6ela. Some scholars became unaware (or perhaps liable to forget) that the term �TT1K6S had ever been used differendy, or that an 'Attic' expression could ever have been considered wrong because it was irregular.# Futther work will be required to show how pervasive were misinterpretatiom of the sort we have seen, but I hope to have shown that the shift in the understanding of the tenn �TT1K6S should be added to the exciting challenges facing scholars working on Herodian, along with ApollonilL� Dyscolm and Herodian's other predecessors.

44 Not surprisingly, scholars were sometimes more perceptive; c( DihIe's (1976, 1 34-5) discussion of Helladius' comment on the gender of the word TaplXos , preserved by Photius (Bibl. 533a 38--4 1 ) .

A Champion of Analogy: Herodian's On Lexical Singularity* Ineke Sluiter

1 . Introduction In several respects, the work

ity)

nepl llov,;povS AE�WS (On lexical singular­

i� unique in the large corpus of work left by the Greek grammarian

Herodian (2nd century

AD) .

Unlike

all

of his other numerous work�,

we have this short treatise more or less in the fonn in which Herodian wrote it, wherea� everything el�e has come down to

us

a�

membra disiecta,

pieced together from collections of scholia and ancient lexica and recon­ stituted a� Herodian's oeuvre by Lentz.! This short treatise, however, has been transmitted separately, and a� such. It is also the only work featur­ ing a substantial bit of theory at the beginning and the end of each of its two book�. Again, this i� probably a function of the tran.�mi�sion of Herodian's work: the other work� we have were excerpted for their observation.� on single word�, with regard to their accent�, spelling or other features. No doubt, they

will

al�o have had theoretical introduc­

tions or sections, which, however, were lost in the process of excerpting because of the local interests of the excerptor. It falls to the single work

nepl 1l0V';POVS AE�ews

to show us what a grammatical treatise by

Herodian actually loob like.

A

third unique feature, striking to anyone

with even a slight familiarity with Lentz's version of the body of Herodian's work, i� the style: no dry listing of Kov6ves or rnles-at least not in the introduction-but a fluent argument in a most remarkable style, addressed to 'my dear philologist' *

(aplCTTe qllMAoye, 935 . 5) .

The author would like to thank Stephanos Matthaios and Antonios Rengakos for an inspiring conference; the editors for their help in bringing this paper to publication; and Aikaterini Papazeti, who generously offered me a preview of her di<sertation, which contains a new critical edition of Herodian's nEpi �OvtlpoVS M�EWS. The text given here is quoted according to Lentz's edition, but has been checked agaimt Aikaterini Papazeti's text everywhere. Variatiom have been duly noted where relevant. Lentz 1 867-1 870 ( G G III. I-2).

292

Ineke Sluiter

The content of the work has been largely ignored: in the 1 9th cen­ tury, scholarship focused on the textual criticism of the text, and the only scholar who took notice of its content, Steinthal, only granted it a very brief disclL�sion, or rather, dismissal; 2 he thought that Herodian was thoroughly confused about the true nature and workings of analogy, and from Steinthal's 1 9th-century point of view, that is no doubt correct: Herodian is no 'J unggrammatiker', but hi� text deserves study precisely for what it can tell us about the views on the nature of granunar and the proper job of a grammarian, from the point of view of one of the most influential grammarians from classical Antiquity. nepl �ov"poVS Ae�ews deal� with that perennial cause of grammati­ cal headaches: the exception. It discusses lexical features, which, to all appearances, cannot be fitted comfortably into an all-encompassing sys­ tem of rules. A� we will see, Herodian confronts the challenge posed by this material head-on. In the end, we will witness a remarkable trans­ formation of the concept of the 'exception' (although the 'exception' never quite goes away) , a� we are confronted with the invention of the 'rule with only one instantiation': these rules apply to the special type of 'exceptions' that Herodian studies in thi� short work, word� that look normal enough and are in frequent use, but that do not conform to the rules that would most obviously seem to apply. In what follows, I propose to diSClL�S nepl �ov"pOVs Ae�ews with particular attention to its style and rhetoric. We will discuss what �Ovr,PllS Ae�lS is, the role of analogy, the relation between analogy and the grammarian, which we will see i� very important for the self-styling of the grammarian, the role of other traditional criteria of linguistic cor­ rectness, and finally, the way in which Herodian solves the problem of the singularity and catches it in hi� 'net of regularity' .

2

Steinthal 1 890-1 891 , II 357/[ ; Hiller 1 866, 6 1 f. agt"ees with Steinthal's verdict. Critical work on the text in Egenolff 1 880; id. 1901; Hiller 1 87 1 ; Lehrs 1 848a; Ludwich 1 883. for a very brief modern asses..ment, see Dyck 1 993, 790-1 .

A Champion of Analogy

293

The opening of the work nepl l.lovT,povS AE�ec.>s di�tingui�hes two kind� ofA��ElS: Toov M�oov al !lev lTA,;eOVO'I Kae' 6!l016Tl1Ta, al 5e 00. Kal TOOV !lEV lTAl1eOVO'oov ... Hdn. II 90M.3

Of the word�, some resemble each other a.� a group ['are numerous accord­ ing to a similarity'] , others do not. And of the ones that fonn groups ['the numerous ones'] . . .

A� Herodian points out i n his opening statement, some word� form groups con�isting of more than one item (this is my paraphrase for lTA,;6ovO'I (or lTAT)6voVO'I , as it is put in other places in the text) . 4 The criterion for group-identity is some similarity (ol.loI6TT)S) between the members of the group. Other lexical itern�, however, do not form such multi-member groups: they are a 'group of one', a singularity (1.l0vT,PT)S) . It is worth noticing straightaway that the term 1.l0vT,PT)S does not mean 'exception', although words designated by this term could well be ex­ ception�. Rather than indicating by itself that the word designated by it somehow does not fall under a certain rule, 1.l0vT,PT)S matter-of-factly states that, rather than bdonging to a group, the word� designated by it stand alone: they are 'solitary'. It is important to note that this is how Herodian frames the topic of his work both initially, and with some frequency throughout the work, even if other te rrn� with different im­ plication� are also used in the treatise.s There are some precedents and 3

4 5

The lL�e of the singular M�ls in the tide is a trace of the Stoic use of the word, to designate not an individual word, but articulate sound (irrespective of mean­ ing), cf. D.L. 7.57. Hence it function� here a.� a collective noun for all word� (considered under their formal a.�pect) that are I!Ov,;Pl1S, 'solitary', 'singular'. Herodian also reguIarly uses M�eIS 'word�' (a.�, for example, in the opening lines of the work). lTATl6Voo, e.g. 909.26; 910.17. Apart from I!Ov,;Pl1S, the groups of one are abo designated by the verb I!oval;elv (e.g. 913.11). Later in the treatise Herodian al�o uses teml.� that do suggest 'exceptionality', such a.� lTapaAoyos (934.30f.); t�Q\PE"TOS (934.35); vlTeCJTaAl!ivoS, vlTOCJTiMol!QI (e.g. 932.8f.); other term.� refer to 'remarltabil­ ity', word� that are 'notable': 0TI1!E1oo5Tls/0TI1!E1oo5es (e.g. 912.16; 923.4; 936.26 etc.); cf. OTII!EIc..YTiov (921.16) aeOTll!e\ooTQI (940.21). The fact that lToS6S is a genitive, rather than, a.� the accent would lead IL� to expect,nomina­ tive, is o(} 501CII!OS (921.19: could this mean 'unexpected'?). Stepping it up, the use of AVaIS (e.g. 916.12; 924.18f.; 927.2f.) acknowledges that the word� in question are 'problematic'; and an even stronger similar implication follows

294

Ineke Sluiter

paralleL� to his usage: Sextus Empiricus talks about nature producing some items KaTer llovoe lSelav 'in a unique, singular form', and in the same context, when talking about language opposes ava�oyov to KaTer iSlov TlI1TOV, 'as a peculiar type', a form unique to a certain OVOIlO.(' The first one to u.� e the terminology of the singularity in a linguistic context seem.� to have been Varro.7 We should be similarly careful about the term 1T�1'l6oo:H n�1'l600 or 1T�T\6voo does not refer to the frequency of a word, to the question how often we may encounter it or if it i� in regular u.�e; it just comments on the flexion-type, the question of whether there are many oj its kind. A word either fits a certain pattern of similarity (with other word�) or not, irrespective of the question how common a word may be. It i� the third term encountered here, 61l016TT\S, which obviou.�ly directs u.� immediately to the concept of analogy, after all ,., TOOV 61loloov 1Topa6eals. 9 Pinpointing sintilarities is a matter of observation

6 7

8

9

from the u�e of the term 'lTElTAOOn,Tal vel sim., e.g. 908.20; 918.14; 921.8£, 922.16£ (where the implication is rejected), 943.29, suggesting that something i.� 'wrong' with these word�. C£ al�o the u�e of the comparative avaAoyC:mpov (924.27(; 925.25; 927.9) , and ol/x Vylalvel (925. 1) . Hiller 1866, 37( points out that Herodian never u�es the term avwl!aAov. He gives a fuJI and very u�eful li.�t of all the word� Herodian uses in this and other work.� to indicate that a linguistic feature contradicts the rules or general usage, but he does not discus.� the differences between these tenn�. I will return to this point later (see below, section 7). S.E. M. 1.226 and 227; the context here, too, i.� the validity of uuiversai rules and the respective domain� of analogy and u�. Varro (L. 10.82) describing the ca�es in which one should not look for analogy: tertio, si � est vocabuli series neque habet cum qua comparari possit, ut esse pu­ tallt caput capiti capitis capite 'third, [analogy mu�t not be looked for], if the series of forms which the noun has is uuique and ha� nothing with which it can be compared, a� they consider true of caput 'head', dat. capiti, gen. capitis, abl. capite' (tran�. Roland Kent, adapted); c£ 9.37 (criteria for analogy to be a useful concept); 9.53 quod dicullt esse quaedam wrba quae habeallt declillatus, ut caput , quorum par reperiri quod ""II possit, 11011 esse allalogias, rrspDlldettdum sille dubio, si quod est sillgu/arr verbum, id lion habere allalogias: minimum duo esse de­ bent wrba, in quibus sit similitudo. See also Fehling 1956-1957, II 67. This u�e of 'lTA,;600 'to occur in groups' is not recognized by V,]. Its direct relation with 'lTA;;6os i.� made explicit in e.g. 935. 17 and 943. 1, see at n. 42 and n. 43 below. E.g. Sch. D. T. 309.9(, see below n. 30; Theodos. n. ypapp. 57.31 Gottling: TI icmv avaAoyla; " Tciw ol!oloov 'lTap6:6ecns. ol!oloov 'lTap6:6eaIS i.� u�ed for analogy (not in a definition) by Herodian hinueJf (KAiO'. av., G.G. 111.2.2, 768.35( j, and by bi.� contemporary Alexander of Aphrodisia�, III Top., C.AG II 2 122.26 and 176.9: OTI 5� eO'l'II)(OS 0 ei:i Tflv'l'lI)(11v ixoov, 5e�ol!Ev Tij TOOV ol!oloov 'lTapa6�ael' Kat yap eO eA'ITIS 0 ei:i tA'lTI�oov. c£ further TO OI!OIOV tv

A Champion of Analogy

295

(Herodian speaks of TTCXpatpVAOTTOIlEV, 'we observe', II 908 .4) . After hi� opening statement, Herodian continues by stating what kinds of simi­ larities are relevant, i. e. what the criteria for similarity are: ending, num­ ber of syllables, accentuation, penultimate and antepenultimate syllables. For this list, he can fall back on by now traditional material, although the criteria li�ted here are not exhaustive.1U He then proceeds to discuss an example: the word� ending in -ClAEOS. Most of these are paroxytona (so these word� TTA1')6ovO"\ Kcx6' OIl0 16T11TCX) . Hut 5m50AEos and KovlaoAEos are proparoxytona, and thi� has an effect on avcxAoylcx-it is here that we are first struck by the styli�tic level of this text: ,., 6:voAoyio 6:vlwllEVIl TC:;> T010\lT� SIOcp6pOV KlvTiaews lTopiaTllal Tas AE�elS [.. . ] Hdn. 909. 1 1-12

since analogy is hurt by such a thing, it makes the word. part of a different flexion [...]

Analogy i� hurt, aV1WIlEVT), and it takes action to ensure that there is a different classification of these words that will work: it makes them part of a 51aq>opos KIVT)O"\S, a different flexion-pattern, namely that of the Ionic possessives, word� such as 'EKT6pEOS and NECJT6pEOS, alternatives for the fonm in -E10S, which indicate possession. In this way, even 5m50AEos and KovlaexAeOS may be considered TTA1')6ovam AE� lS. Anal­ ogy ju�t had to make sure where they belonged. This makes the capacity to observe language and actually spot the relevant similarity of para­ mount importance. One i� reminded of Aristode's observations on who will be best at u!>ing metaphor: the person with the best eye for similari­ ties;1I the same competence is a job requirement for the expert dream interpreter.1 2 Hut here, the relevant action seems to be perfonned by analogy herself. ToiS ovollaGlv, Hdn. Ki1fO'. 6v., GoG III.2.2, 634.6. S.E. M. 1.236: .,; avcxAoyla oj.lolov nap06EcrIS. The singular aho e. g. Sch. D. T. 169.26; 303.22£ (6:vcxAoyla Be tCTT1 Myos CrrrOBE1KT1KOS Ka6' oj.lolov lTapa6EGlV Tiis tv �KaOT� IlEpEI Myov
296

Ineke Sluiter

3. What is Analo gy?t3 The phrase 6vaAoyi a 6V1CIJI.lEVT} should give us pause, and make us realize how flexible the use of the term 6vaAoyi a (and cognates) has become since its coinage as a technical term (probably in the context of geometry and mathematics) .14 By the time of Herodian, there are differ­ ent applicatious of the term---and even more so, of the concept, which are often compatible and partially overlapping. 1 5 (a) Fir.;t of all , analogy has a heuristic junction, and it is invoked to solve a practical problem. Used as either a two-part or a four-part proportion, it may help establish a doubtful form ('x goes like a'; 'a is to b, as c is to x'; where x i.� the form that need� establishing and a, b, and c are known entities) . Similar to thi.� application of analogy i.� the one through which a doubtful form i.� established by reference to, or compari.�on with, a rule, a Kavwv, a linguistic (morphological) norm. In these cases, analogy is part of a procedure, a form of reasoning.1r. (b) Analogy i.� al�o a state:17 it is that state of language in which a form is found to be in rational order. One i.� able to give an account of it. If

13 14

15

16

17

1TCXp6:eEcrlS, cf. 2.12 (p. 126.3-7 Pack); the phra.�e OIlO!OV 1Tapa6e<J1S in Ar­ temidorus is interesting, since it is elsewhere used either in the definition of the rhetorical figures 1Tapa�i\", OIlO!OOa\S, or 1Tapa6elYllo, or in the defini­ tion or paraphrase of analogy: see e.g. Ps.-Herodian nepl OXT)llaTOOV 104. 1 and 104.4 Spengel (parable, homoeosis); Polybius, De figuris (paradeigma); and S.E., quoted at n. 7. On analogy, see at�o the papers by Philomen Probert and by Filippomaria Pontani in thi� volwlle. On analogy as one of the 'Kriterien der Sprachrichtigkeit', see Siebenborn 1976, 56ff; on its earliest grammatical application in Ari.�tophanes of Byzan­ tiwn, see Callanan 1987, 107-122. On Aristarchu�, cf. Matthaios 1999, 400ff Obvioudy, in phra.�es such as X ws A, where A i� used to establi�h, for exam­ ple, spelling or prosody of X, we are dealing with analogical reasoning, even though the tenn is not used. Analogy a.� a procedure, "vith its three sub-fonTIS of the two-part, four-part, and rule-related proportion is the focu� of Siebenbom's di�cu<;.�ion (1976, 637). He at.o correctly points out that in the Homeric scholia, analogy u�ually serves a heuristic purpose (1976,71). Quintilian's description makes this proce­ dural aspect very clear; see e.g. Inst. 1.6.4: dus [sc. atla/�iae] haec vis est, III id quod dubium est ad aliquid simile de quo tlOtl quaeritur "1eral, en itlcerta eertis probet. Note especially the cognitive activities implied by riferat and probet. In the fol­ lowing di.cu<;.o;ion, Quinrilian uses a whole series of verbs and tenn� denoting logical heuristic processes (e.g. comparatio, deprendil, detegil, oslmdil [I,ISt. 1.6.56], itlvmitu r [Inst. 1.6.9]). Cf. the geometrical proportion,which may aho be considered a state; Sieben­ born 1976, 57ff

A Champion of Analogy

297

analogy is 'hurt', as in our text, that i� because thi� state of order has been di�turbed. In this usage, 6vexi\oy\ex is rather similar to KCXTexi\i\TJi\6TTlS, as u.�ed by Herodian's father, Apolloniu.� Dyscolu.� : a state in which elements of language are syntactically congruent and se­ mantically compatible: in perfect rational order.1 " (c) Thirdly, analogy may be conceived o f as a process in stories about the origin or development of language, a language-imm anent feature. This active force within language itself will either from the very beginning or in language's development exerci�e a normalizing influence that will make language increasingly regular.19 Obviously, it will depend on one's view of the natural original condition of language (either 'wild' or 'in perfect order') how much room there is for thi� process. (d) But there is aho a fourth use, which is related to all three other ones, to the heuristic problem-solving procedure, the (natural) state of order, and the process, which is a language-immanent force. That fourth me is the ordering activity exercised by the (technical) grammarian himself. This activity exceed� the merely locally heuri�tic, it is the global activity of looking for (if not inlposing) states of order, and it is an activity that imitates the presumed natural process of analogy, or even the natural regularizing activity of the ordinary language user (who will not be able to account for what he i� doing) . It i� this particular interpretation of 6vexi\oylex as the work of a techni­ cian that Quintilian is off-setting against a presumed divinely imposed state of order, when he says: Non enim, aIm primum fingerentur homitles, atlalogia demissa (aclo formam 10quetldi dedit, sed inventa est postquam loquebantur, et notatum in sermotll� quo quidque modo caderet. Quint. Itlst. 1 . 6 . 1 6 For analogy was not sent down from heaven, when human beings were first created, to give our speech it.. form, but it wa.. invented when they were already speaking, and it wa.. noticed how each word was inflected in spoken Ianguage?O 18 Siebenborn 1976, 84, call. attention to the more concrete way in which analogy denotes a sta te of morphological 'regularity': '[man] nennt .. . niche nur die Erschliessungsmethode selbst avaAoyla, sondern auch die granunatische Gleichheit von Wortern, besonders die Aexionsgleichheit'. See further Blank 1982, 28(; Sluiter 1990, 51 n. 45. 19 C( Siebenborn 1976, 84: analogy also get:<; the new function 'eines Ordnungs­ laktors der Sprache', quoting our pa,sage and Varro apud Chari.,im 62.20 Bar­ wick: atla/og;" sermon;s a natura proditi ordinatio est. 20 Caderrt preswnably refers primarily to word-endings.

29H

Ineke Sluiter

Thi� text opposes two conceptions of analogy: on the one hand, there is Analogy personified, as a divine agent responsible for the imposition of the (obviomly perfectly regular) language, that would have come into being at the very time when humans were divinely created (fingerentur); and on the other hand, there i� anal o gy as a human invention, a matter of linguistic observation when language was already in use. Although there i� no reason why thi� invention and observation could not have been the work of regular language users, the language here seem� to suggest the work of a speciali�t, someone who would have been the first to di�cover (inventa) the phenomenon of regularity, and who marked (notatum) lingui�tic features:2! we have here the origin of granunar. Interestingly, the rejected form of analogy i� al�o the avatar of a par­ ticular form of normative grammar, and the divine role model for a particular kind of granunarian, the 'guardian of language, who imposes and guards rules of correctness. But of the two conception.� of analogy opposed in Quintilian's text, the divine conception is clearly false, says Quintilian, since we can often see that for a given problem, two form� of 'analogy' may be set up that are in conflict with one another­ obviomly this should be impossible if there i� one form of divine Regu­ larity (cf. 1.6.12). For Quintilian, then, this i� a reason to separate anal­ ogy from ratio: Itaque non ratione nititur sed exemplo, nec lex est loquendi sed observatio, ut ipsam analogiam nulla res alia fecmt quam consuetudo. Quint. Inst. 1 . 6 .16 Therefore, it (sc. analogy) does not rest on rea.,on, but on example, and it is not the law of speaking, but its observation. So analogy itself is produced by nothing but linguistic mage.

Thi� statement combines the heuri�tic function of analogy (reduced to a procedure based on precedent rexemplol) , analogy a� a state (the regular­ ity that happen.� to be produced in normal language use) ,22 and analogy a� a process (the production of that regularity itself through mage) . But most importantly, its status is here dramatically diminished, as analogy is 21 Notice the difference with the me of notare in Lucretiu." where the humanum genus is emphatically subject,and the object i, not language it,elf or specific lin­ guistic phenomena, but the things that hW1l3.11S would want to mark with vocal expressions: DR.\i 5.1057-B: si genus human 11m .. .1 pro vario sensu varia res voce notaret; c£ 5.1OB9-90: mortalis . .1dissimilis alia atque alia res v(l(e nolare. 22 C£ PindariO.11 aplld S.E. M. 1.202 6:vaAoylo ... OIlOAOyovll�vwS �K Tiis ovvTj6eioS oPllliTO! (tbi. looks like the state of regularity). �OT! yap olloiov Te Kot 6:volloiov 6ewpia (this is the procedure), TO !it Oll010V Kat 6:vOllolov �K Tiis !ie!ioKlIl00IltVT]S Aall�6:veTal ovvTj6eias (procedure again). .

A Champion of Analogy

299

now completely subsumed under usage. A� we will see, rather than re­ stricting the validity of analogy, Herodian will choose the opposite strat­ egy of drastically expanding its sphere of influence and finding a differ­ ent function for awileelo. 23

4. Analo gy personified Quintilian gave us a view of a personified analogy (which he rejected), that anticipates not only Herodian's personified avoAoy lo aVIOOI.l�VT'l, but several in�tantiations of this conceptualization, all concentrated in the time of Herodian. There are more parallels from the 2nd century AD , not just of such personification�, but also for Herodian's conception of analogy a� an essentially natural phenomenon, that is at the same time clearly the concern of a craftsman or technician.24 Galen, for instance, combines the same elements in his presentation of personified Nature, concerned with equality and analogy (she exercises pronoia for these things) , outdoing any craftsman (611l.llovPy6S) in that respect: aM' EilTEP lI'OTE TIS Kai aAAOS 5111.l10VPYOS 10'6T1lT6S TE Kai avw.oylas lI'oM,;v �lI'OI1)O'aTO lI'p6volav, Kai 'fJ TCr O'ool.laTa TOOV �c:t>wV 51all'ACrTTovO'a cpVO'IS. Galenus, De usu partium 3.1 58.9 Kiihn

But if ever any other craftsman exercised great forethought and care (to produce) equality and analogy, so too did nature, which formed the bodies of the living beillg'l.

It is time to return to nepl l.lovflpovs A��eoos and consider how the initial personification is worked out. A� we have seen, it wa� introduced as follows: 23 Rather than just thinking in tenn.\ of 'Quellen', there i\ a lot to be said for an approach to ancient grammar that i\ ba\ed on discourse analysi\ and intertextu­ allry: intellectuals such as Varro, Quintilian, JuIi\L\ Roman\L\, Sextus Empiric\L\ and Herodian are clearly all thinking about the relation\hip between 'analogy' and 'usage'; they are familiar with personification\ of nature and analogy; and they come up with their own ultimate versions of a solution, couched in very similar, often colorful, language. 24 See, for example, Julius Romanus apud Charisi\L\, Ars grammatica 1.15 (61.1663.20 Barwick = GL 1.50.59-51.20) in the chapter De extmtritatibus nominum et diversis quaestionibus. C£ Schenkeveld 1996; 1998. Tbi\ text i\ an important comparandum for the Herodian text (and for Quintilian) beca\L\e of its colorful language, its extended personification, and its very similar topic. Julius Ro­ man\L\ also ha\ his own version of iMYXOS (convineitur, 62.19£ Barwick, here a\ 'being refuted', c£ A.D. [Adv.] 205. 12ft:); Sluiter 1990, 52-4.

300

Ineke Sluiter

1'1 waAoy!a CxV1WIlEV1l T0 T010IlTCfl �ilacp6pov KlvTtOeWS lTapiOTllal Tas AE�elS . . . Hdn. 909. 1 1 ff.

since analogy i� hurt by such a thing, it makes the word� part of a different flexion . . .

W e can now see very clearly that i t i s the state o f order (analogy rcl) that gets hurt, and the ordering activity of an again personified analogy (analogy rdl) that springs into action. The personification of analogy continues in the following text: Toov IlEVTOl Il" lTA1l6ovooov AE�ewv, CxAM olTaviws 0pWIlEVWV [... ] EAeYXOV Cxmpyo:l;eTal 1'1 CxvaAoyla, OUK CxlT060Klll0:l;ovaa T025 Xpi)o6al, CxMa 0lllleloVIlEVT] TO OlTO:V10V' ei ye eiOeTal Tas lTapa Tois "EM1l01 AE�elS mi" lleV Ka6' 0lloI6TT]Ta lv lTA,,6el lKcpepOIlEvaS lT01KlAas Ka6eOTwoas Ti olTaviovs 1'1 lTO:OT]S AE�ews 'EMIlVlKi)S lTp6VOlaV lTOlOVOa CxvaAoyla Kat WOlTep e[ lv 5lKTVCfl OVVExovoa TO lTOAVOX15eS TT)S TOOV Cxv6pWlTWV YAWOOIlS cp6EYlla Tij TE)(V1l, KaTop60VV l1T1XE1povaa Tas TOOV Ally6VTWV OTOlXe!WV cpuoelS Kat TOOV lTapaA1ly6VTWV Ti CxPXOIlEVWV TO: Te OlTO:Vla Kat 5a1j11Ai) lv OVVT6llCfllTapa5l50voa. Hdn. 909 . 1 2ff.

However, those word� which are not part of a group but are a rare sight [ . . . ] analogy tests, without disqualifYing their u�e, but (siruply) marking the rarenes.�. For analogy, which exercises forethough�7 over all Greek word� and with her art (Tij TE)(V1l) keeps together as if in a net the utterances of hWllan speech, split in many ways a.� they are (lTOAVoXI5ES), will be well aware that the great variety of word� in u�e with the Greek.. sometirues be­ long in groups that are ba.�ed on similarities or they are rare. Analogy tries to straighten out the nature of letters in word-final position, the penulti­ mate ones or the ones at the beginning, and it gives a conci�e overview of what i� rare and what is plentiful.

The lTA"eOVO"Ol AE�eIS are here contrasted with the O"lTavi oos 6pOO�EVOOV;2H again, it is important to note that thi� is not about infre25 TO omitted in Lentz's edition. 26 lTij MSS, Lentz, Papazeti; lT1J ego. The construction is: 'analogy will know' followed by an accusative with participle construction, that is divided into two halves: 'that Greek word� in some places (lT1J IlEV) belong in groups or (ii) they are rare'. It does not seem pos..ible to combine the accusative with participle construction with a dependent question (she will know 'where' they belong in groups). Hence lTij mmt be emended. 27 'Forethought' rather than, a.� Blank 1994, 158 ha.� it, 'predictive value'; see below. 28 c( the opposition between TO: TE 0lT0:V10 Kat 6CX\f'lAi;,'the rare and the abun­ dant',in the same sen.�e at the end of the quotation.

A Champion of Analogy

301

quent word�. In fact, Herodian will explicidy exclude phenomena such as hapax legomena, foreign words and word� for which one need� lerr o pla (research into Realien) : his concern i.� with quite ordinary and normal words, in regular usage (avv,,6Ela), which nevertheless do not seem to fit any rule, or rather: seem to be a rule unto themselves; words such as avolla, Zeus, or 5IKTl. 2') A� we can see, Herodian continues the personification of analogy. Analogy tests and diagnoses (eAEYXov cXTT epYCx�ETm), but does not forbid the use of these word� (OUK cmo50KlllCx�ovaa TO xpfja6m) . Thu.�, arlalogy does not detennine u.�age, it just 'puts a mark on it' (aTlIlE10VIl€VTl) . Analogy takes on an almost divine appearance here: TTp 6vOl av TTOlEia6m i.� what a Stoic or Christian god would do, exerci.�­ ing forethought, thinking ahead. But what analogy does here, al�o re­ sembles to a quite uncanny extent the activities of a good gramm arian: for one thing, she registers and marks TO aTTCxV10V or the absence of ollo16TTlS-although importandy, she does not do so in tenns of 'cor­ rect' or 'incorrect'. Secondly, she deal� with all of Greek lexis. Third, she has a T€XVrr--thi.� i.� her instrument that she uses as a hunter uses hi.� net to keep all the many forms of human language together, i.e. she tries to be all-encompassing.3<1 Fourth, she tries (STT1XElpoOaa) to make things come out right. There is an ineluctably nonnative ring to KCXTOp6oiiv, but it would seem that the word does not here refer to 'correcting' what i.� wrong, but maybe rather to the kind of regular ordering activity that cla�sified 5m5CxAEos among the Ionic possessives rather than with the word� in -oAEOS. And finally, analogy also transmits (TTapa51500aa) in concise form what it knows about frequent and infrequent paradigms. Thi.� resembles the theory of Kav6vES, and the paradosis of the written grammatical tradition.

29 C( III 2 91O.111f. (foreign word,; Rea/ien) ; 910.27 (Ze\1,); 920.18 (S{KT)); 935.12 (ovolJa). Note a' a curiosity that the part on 'unique' adverbs start, off with the work Crrra�, 931.21If. (in part probably because Herodian orders the word, alphabetically by ending (i.c. -a� 30 On T�)(VT) and its claims to universality, see the chapter by Stephanos Matthaios in this volwne. The striking image in the Herodian text i, reduced to the sec­ ond half of the definition of analogy in the Sch. D. T. 309.9: T{ �
302

Ineke Sluiter

5. Analo gy and the Granunarian If one look.� at this list of activities of Analogy, the relation with the work of the granunarian is obvious, but Herodian's self-presentation in the preface of nep ! �OtnlPOVS i\e�ws al�o spells out the connection. For the text continues with Herodian's statement of purpose, and hence switches from the third-person description of the activities of analogy to first-person statement� about the granunarian him.�elf OIISe oOv lTpOKelTcxl 1'illiv lTep! lTCxC1T)S AE�ews Aeyelv, ai\i\a lTEp! Tr;s �K4j)VyOVC1T)S TO lTAr;60S, KCX! OIISe TCXVT"S Kcx60AIKWS, ai\i\' �lT! lTOO"OV' OIISe Ko:TTlyopeiv TWV AE�ewv e! O"lT<XVIOI dey' �lTEl Tol ye e! TO 1lT) lTA,,6vov lTCXVTCXXOV WS 1'iIlCXPTTJIlEVOV �AEyxeIV �1T1xelpr,O"cxllev, OUK av ��CXpKEO"cxlllev Ilvplov apl61lov euSoKlllWTCxTWV AE�ewv WS lTCXpO: TOUS Tr;s 4j)vO"ews VOIlOVS ��evex6elo"Wv KcxKI�oVTes' ai\i\' OO"lTEP �yewTJO"CXTO 1'i 4j)Vo"IS 1'illiv TCXVTCXS lTCXp' cxuTi'js eUllevws lTpoO"SEXe0"6CXl, ai\i\cxxov lleV IIIcxv e!C1T)Y1lO"cxIlEV"S, hEpw6131 Se Svo, KCX! VT) illcx ai\i\cxxov Tpeis, ElTElTCX TEO"O"CXPCXS, IlEXPIS e!s OlTElpOV xwpr,O"el lTAr;60S . . . (910.1 7f.) OlTWS SIO: TOV lTA,,6vOVTOS TO lTCXp"i\i\CXYIlEVOV KCX! O"lTCxVIOV �AEYXWllev . Hdn. 909. 22ff.

What we have in mind is not to speak: about all word�, but only those which resist grouping, and not even about those in general, but up to a point. Nor do we wish to blame words for being rare. For note this: if we were to try and expose as mistakes word. that cannot be grouped wherever we find them, we would not be content if we vitiated an uncountable number of most reputable word. as being used contrary to the laws of na­ ture. No: all the words nature brought into being for u. we should receive from her with good grace. At one point she may introduce one, some­ where el.e two, some place el.e again three, by Zem, then four, until she will arrive at an infinite number [ . . . ] (91O . 1 7f.) so that we may test and ex­ pose what i. deviant and rare through what is numerom ['fonm groups'] .

The resemblance between Herodian's purpose in thi� work and what we have seen so far of the workings of analogy is striking. I mention five point�: (a) 'We' (c£ TTp6KeLTCXl -rilliv) plan to deal with the word� that have es­ caped from the mass (i.e. from belonging to a group)-the escaping word� (another strikingly personified image) strongly evoke the net (wCTTT e p el �v 51KTV�, 909.20) with which analogy constrains and con­ tain.� the lingui�tic material;

31 So rightly Papazeti; Lentz p rin ted hEp06t.

A Champion of Analogy

303

(b) 'We' wish to 'test and expose' (eA�yXWIJEV, 910. 1 7£) rare and fre­ quent phenomena---analogy does precisely the same thing (909 . 1 2 EAEYXOV cXTTEpya�ETOI ,; avaAoyia) . (c) 'We' do not want to KCXT11Y OpEiv-this resembles analogy's similar refu�al: OUK aTToBoKllJa�ovcra TO xp;;creOi (909. 1 6-7); (d) 'We' should not regard such phenomena as (WS) mi�takes: the use of WS ascribes thi� judgment to the grammarian without taking responsibil­ ity for the question of whether or not such things really aTe wrong. This is an elaboration of the issue of IJ" KCXT11y opEiv / OUK aTToBoKllJa�ovcra; (e) 'We' graciously accept whatever nature (
6. 'What is a Singularity' revisited:

The Criterion of Frequent Usage The result of the structural echoes described above is that Herodian presents himself as the embodiment of analogy. He strongly identifies with thi� aspect of language. But what about the other factors that con­ stitute language, especially nature and mage. Nature, as we saw, was accommodated as the provider of the ba.�ic tnaterial that analogy will work with without trying to 'correct' it. That leaves crvv"eeta or com­ mon u�age (usus, consuetudo) . For Quintilian, usus was the dominant factor that defined what did or did not constitute regularity, and in view of the context of his remark he was clearly thinking in tenm of para­ digm-fonnation (i. e. the fomIing of series in which comparative analogy could help establish the correct fonn) . Herodian gives a slightly different twist to the relationship between analogy and usage in thi� particular work. Usage, both everyday u�age and the use of language found in the

304

Ineke Sluiter

auctores, i� turned into the criterion, not for general lingui�tic correctness, but for allowing words into the class rif singularities, 'flexion groups con­ sisting of one member only'. 32 And this i� where frequency does become an issue. Isolated word� are not the ones Herodian is looking for,33 they do not count as 'lexical singularity'. 'Groups of one' should at least be finnly anchored in a familiar lexicon:34 Kpi(lIS 5e EaTw Tfis npoKEIIlEVT}S AE�EWS llov1')povs TJ noM" xpfjalS nopa Tois nOAOlois Koi TJ avv1')6Elo Ea6' CITE ollolws ToiS nOAOlois "EM1lalv {1T1aTOIlEVT} xpfjalv. [example: nvp] Hdn. 91 0.6if.

And let the criterion for our concept of lexical singul a rity be frequency of u.�e by the ancient.� and everyday usage, which sometimes knows a use of words just like the ancient Greeks. [example: nvp 'fire']

(Frequent) usage therefore determines whether a word can be consid­ ered to form a group of one, and thus be under the purview of anal­ ogy--as we will see, this means they fall under a mle. Usage serves anal­ ogy.35 Interestingly, precisely because the word� studied in thi� treatise are so common, one could have easily failed to notice anything out of the ordinary about them. The paradox leaps to the eye in phra.�es such as the following: a1lIlElw5Es ow TO avv1l6ES 1T<xal TO Kpa�w. Hdn. 929. 1 2£

32 Herodian concentrates primarily on word� that have flexion or that are derived in a regular way (nouns, verbs, adverbs), since in these ca.�es group- or para­ digm-fonnation i� the default (91 0 . 1 5ff, c( 933 . 1 5-935.3 for a defense of hi� choices). 33 'Mere exi�tence' does not do the trick, c( ou Ka6' UnOaTaalV, 923.23. 34 C( 910.21( (announcement of topic of first book) Tas 1l0vfJpE1S M�E1S Tas YlvwaKollEvas ll1TO TE Tfis C"UV1l6E1aS Kat TWV naAalWV . . (second book) Kat TaS �V ayvolq: Tij C"UV1)6E1c,1. C( the beginning of the second book, 935.8(, where he announces that in thi� book he will also include some words that were known to the ancients, but that are no longer in use. In this book, he will al.�o discu." some prepositions, since some of those also exhibit O1l010TT)S (952.9-10). Por the exclu.'iion of foreign or obscure word�, see 91 0. 1 2ff, and see above. 35 Note that the idea that groups-of-one follow a rule of their own, and may therefore considered part of analogy goes directly again�t the point made by Varro (and Sextus) that a miuimwn of two cases i� required to have a similitudo or par to warrant analogy. Herodian does manage to get such cases on board. See above, n. (, and 7. .

So the word Kp6:�W, in conmlOn u.�age with everyone, stand. out.

The word i, O"W1l6eS, in conunon use not just with a large group, but even 'with all', and yet it is 0"1lllelW5es, remarkable. This recall s the claim, of Herodian's father, ApollonilL' Dyscolus, that one need, his kind of granunar to pinpoint even problem. that are not at all obvious, and not jlL.t in dealing with literatlLre, but also in everyday language. Such problem. are called 'hidden', (TO) AeA1l66Ta, and Apollonius first identifies them as a (seelning) irregularity, only to then demonstrate how they can be brought back into the realm of the regular (6 aK6Aov60S MyoS. KaTaAAllMTT}S) by providing a logical explanation for the de­ viation: 31, e!s yap TO TOIOUTO Ta Tiis crvVT6:�ews cnTe6e1x6T), ivcx KCX\ Ta AEAT)6oTCX TWV VlTEpj3aTWV, OVTCX KCX\ KaTa TO crvv1l6es, £XT)TCXI TOU CrKOAov60v Myov, Kcxi �1'J �ovov Ta lTcxpa lTOI1lTCXiS t.:>s ��CXlpET6: TIS VlTOACX�j3CrV01. A.D. Syllt. III 77

For the syntax has been explained in order that hidden hyperbata, too, which also occur in everyday speech, conform to regularity, and so that one does not suppose that only poetic speech i.� exceptional.

A. David Blank has shown, a concern with hidden phenomena is char­ acteristic of the epistemological interests of the time, and one that we can now see is shared by Herodian.37 Herodian uses the criterion of frequent lL.e to isolate hi. 'groups of one' from the kind of exceptional phenomena that he will not be inter­ ested in here. That i., frequency becomes a shared (regular) characteri,­ tic of lexical singularity, and 'usage' has a support function to 'analogy' . But that does not exhaust Herodian's possibilities to impose some form of regularity on these groups of one. He has two other strategies, the first a very specific 'rhetoric of the singularity'; the other, submmed within it, is to offer rational explanations for the observed divergence.

7. The Rhetoric of the Singularity Lexical singularity i. not the same a.. hopeless deviation. A. we have seen, thi, treatise limits itself to a specific group of words that are in frequent use, and are therefore regarded, not as odd hapax legomena, but as groups of one. The 'rhetoric of singularity' brought to bear by 36 C( A.D. Synt. 160: without knowledge of the 'system', one will be incapable of correcting any mistakes. 37 Blank t 982, t 1ff.; Sluiter t 990, 54-6.

30 6

Ineke Sluiter

Herodian fits this conception of these word�: their description is itself framed in tenm of Kav6vES. At the end of the introduction Herodian announces (91 0.23) : apKTEov Se T(;JV Kav6vwv eVTEv6Ev, 'now we must begin with the rules', and indeed, every observation about these lexical singularities is phrased as a rule.3l! Nonnally , when Herodian gives rules, they are fonnulated in the foml 'all word� confomting to specifics x, y, z, will behave in P way' , for exanlple, (mlvTa) TCt X �ETal / lTO:V ovolla X 6�UVETa\/ oaa x 6�uvETal: 'all word� x/every noun x/all word�-that-x have an acute accent'. If there are exceptions to these general rules, they are added as such to the rule itself by means of, for example, XCAlpi S or lTAT)V or simi­ lar expressions. A slightly longer example from nEpl KAiaECAlS 6vOllCxTCAlV may ill ustrate thi�:3'J Ta els wp ouShEpa Sia TOU pos KAIVETai Kat
The neuter words in -or are inflected in -ros and they preserve the omega in the genitive, e.g. tekmor, tekmoros ('sign') . . . (34) except for h u dor, hudatos [water] , for that is inflected through -tos, and it is heteroclitic . . . (39) Hudor, hudatos became heteroclitic for the following reason. There is a rule that says that every neuter word of more than one syllable that has not un­ dergone change u�ually has a short vowel in the last syllable, except for the word� deriving from pous [foot] and the word� ending in -or . . . (77 1 . 1 1 ) 'Except for the words deriving from pous' was added because o f dipous and tripous: for those word. end in a syllable with a long vowel [diphthong] . 'except for the words ending in -Or' wa.� added on account of tekmor and hudor, for those word� end in a syllable with a long vowel. So because that ending is irregular, I mean the ending in -or (because it i. long), therefore 38 The tenn recurs, e.g. 934.27; 937.2. 39 Obviously, there is always the problem of the rrammission of Herodian's work: the following quotation comes from Choerob. 382.36£[, but the doctrine i.� rea.�onably attributed to Herodian.

A Champion of Analogy

307

hud�r i. not inflected, but its flexion work.. from the ending in -as. For just as kreas krcatos, . so hud�r hudatos. .

.

Rules are supposed to cover everything, the exceptions are noted as such. However, in TIEpl �ov"pOUS i\e�ws, this rhetoric i. inverted: the rule is about the singularity. An example will illustrate this: nat�c.>· ov6ev Els (w Aiiyov piilla EXEl TIpO TEAOVS TTJv at 61cp60yyov EKcpc.>VOVIlEV1lV, aAAa 1l0VOV TO rraf(w. Hdn.929.6£ Paizo ('to play') : I1Q verb ending in -zo has the diphthong -ai fully pro­ nounced in the penultimate syllable, but only paizo does.

Rather than stating that 'all ' word. behave in a certain way, Herodian rules that no word with x characteri.tics behaves in P way, but only [the example under di.cussion1: ouSevl&XAa �6vov. 4<' The 'exception' is the focus of the message and it is integrated into the formulation of the rule in a positive way. ThlL. we end up with a rule to which only one and no other instance will conform: a group of one. The singularity i. there­ fore regarded, not so much as the exception to a rule, but rather as fol­ lowing a rule that no other word follows. This i. the subtext of the term �ovr,p"s, picked up by the frequent occurrence of�6vov in the rules. Herodian sticks with this model of singularity in large parts of his treati.e, but the habit of thinking in tenns of wide-ranging rules with exceptions does show through at times, 41 as in the following example: ·Ovolla· ov6ev Els Ila Aiiyov oV6hepov ClTIAOVV EV Tois TIpO TEAOVS 6vo crvAAa�ais 61crcrOV EXEl 0, <.:>s 6iiAOV EK TWV T010VTc.>V· [examples] . . . Kai aAAo IlVptov TIAii60S T010VTc.>V 6vOIlV a61cIlTTc.>TOV TI01Ei TOV Kov6va. 6iiAOV <.:>S TO OVOlla 1l0ViiPES ECTT l.42 Hdn.935.14-19 Onoma (name): no uncompounded neuter word in -ma has two omikrons in the two syllables before the la.t one, a.. is clear from the following exam­ ples . . . and a vast other ma." of such word. makes the rule infullib le. Clearly onoma is unique.

The rule i. here formulated in temlS of the rhetoric of the singularity: NO word. behave in x fashion. But imtead of continuing with 'but ONLY' the singularity in question, Herodian interjects that this rule 40 Many instances throughout the work, c£ e.g. 920.4-6; 920, 1 5-1 6, 928. lloVc.>S. e.g. 920.6. 41 C£ aI.o the discussion oftenninology in n. 5. 42 C£ e.g. 943 . 1 £ Kat l!iAAo TIAfj60s TWV TOlOVTWV 6voll<XTWV a6ICTIrTWTOV. aMb. 1l0VOV TO AOUTpOV �ETa\.

30H

Ineke Sluiter

works without fail. )\lilcXiTTw70v 'infallible, unerring' vaguely suggest� that ovolJa makes the rule fail, rather than that it completes the rule and comtitutes its own groUp.43 Nevertheles.� the conclusion i� phrased in tenns of being 1J0vfjpes, singular or unique, rather than in tenns of an exception. Another example of traces of the model of rule-and-exception, rather than singularity-a.�-rule-to-itself i� the way in which Herodian explaim the existence of the phenomenon: he tries to provide a rational explanation for the seeming deviance, just like he offered explanatiom for exceptiom such a.� O!5wp in hi� disclL�sion of noum ending in --(,Jp. The explanation is mually couched in tenns of pathology, which ex­ plain� why at the surface level O1J0167T}S ha.� been disturbed, while in fact it originally wa.� there.44 In this respect, Herodian again resembles his father. So, for instance, on the entry EKei6ev: 45 'EKEi6EV' ouSev EIS 6EV Afiyov hripPlllJa TOlTlKOV Tfj EI S\(p66yycp 7TapaA"YETal, aMa IJOVOV TO �KEi6EV. aiTlov Se TO 7T<x6os. Hdn.933.1 3£

Ekeithetl 'from there' : No adverb of place ending in -then ha� the diph­ th o ng --ei- in the penultimate syllable, but only ekeithm. The cau�e of t hi s is pathos [being affected by change] .

Deviance ('exceptiom') and singularity can very easily be seen a.� a nega­ tive and positive way to describe the same phenomenon, and thi� may al�o explain why Herodian's rhetoric is not completely consistent within nEpi IJOV';POVS i\��ews. On the other hand, the concept of 'lexical sin­ gularity' (IJOV'; Pl1S i\E�IS) also offers the granunarian the opportunity of formulating positive knowledge about language in different, but equally positive ways. Two exanlples will illustrate the difference: As we saw above, 7�KIJWP i� an example of a universal canon about word� ending in -wp, but we also find it in TIEpl IJOV';POVS i\E�ews. In thi� ca.�e the phrasing combines the rhetoric of the singularity ('no word x behaves in , P way [but only] ) with that of the exception (x is
of pathology takes dIe edge off dIe unique statu�. C£ Blank 1 982, 41-9. 45 Cf. e.g. 921 . 1 1 ; 939, 1 2; 18; 31; 940.9; c( aiTLos 51; 6 7TAeovaO"l1os, 943 . 1 2. On dIe other hand, sometimes a seenung parall el for a 110vr,P1)S tenn does not count, becau.e it ha.� undergone 7T
A Champion of Analogy

309

TEKI.lWp· ov6ev E[S -c.>p AfjyOV ov6hEpOV v1TEP I.ltcxv aUAAa!3TJV EXEl aUI.l1TAOKTJV 6uo aUI.lq>c.:,Vc.:lv 1TpO TaU W ... alll.lE1W6es 0011 TO TEKI.lWP ... TaU 6E alll.lE10Ua60l TO TEKI.lWP aiTlov 6 1TAEOVaaI.lOs TaU I.l. Hdn.93 8.1 ff. Tekmor. n o neuter word o f more than one syllable ending i n -or has a combination of two consonant.. before the omega ... Tekmor then is note­ worthy ... the call.e of the noteworthiness of tekmOr i. the pleona..m of the mu.

Note that this canon of exceptionality deal. with another feature of tek­ mor than the canon of regularity quoted above. An example of two posi­ tive assertions concerns the word 1TOp, cited early on in 910.9f to illus­ trate the kind of very conunon, yet unique words that Herodian is interested in in thi. treatise. In Herodian's Ka6oA1K" 1TpoO"'l'S{a we find the word as an example of a universal rule: nov OVOl.la I.lOvoaliAAa!30V ov6hEpOV l.laKpOKCXTO:A1lKTOV ... 1TEplO"1TOTal . . . 1TUp. Hdn., G G. lII. l , 394.1 8-24

Every monosyllabic neuter word ending in a long last syllable gets the cir­ cumflex accent ... pur 'fire'.

In nepl iJoV1')povs M�e CA)S , the word has its own entry and is the subject of an equally positive statement: nup· ov6ev E[S up Afjyov ov6hEpOV 1.l0voaliAAa!3ov, 6.AAa 1.l6vov TO 1TUp. Hdn.919.1 2£ Pur. no neuter word ending in -ur is monosyllabic, only pur.

Clearly, there i. no conflict between pur as part of the regular system of the rules for accentuation, and its status as a iJovfjpes word. In both cases, the word i. 'under control'.

8. The Triumph of Analogy The new in.ight that is offered by the theoretical and more florid pas­ sages of n epl iJOV"POVS Ae�ECA)S is first and last Herodian's self­ presentation. He sees the granunarian a. the embodiment of the principle of analogy. In addition, Herodian present. his own version of a sophisti­ cated discourse on the nature of language and the criteria operative in the linguistic domain. In particular, hi. particular way of introducing and framing the notion of lexical singularity entail. that the field of action of analogy itself i. expanded dramatically against that of other criteria of linguistic correctness. The main points may be s ununed up as follows:

310

Ineke Sluiter

(a) The grammarian completely identifies with analogy and becomes its embodiment. (b) Analogy keeps as many cases as possible in her net by being creative with o\JoI6TTlS: if the obvious category does not work, another one will as the case of 50l56:Aeos demonstrates. This brings more apparendy exceptional word� within the range of the normal and the regular, of word� that share a paradigm and thu� form groups (TTAi}6ouO'Ol Ae�elS) . (c) Analogy works with what nature gives her; she will count a� an 'O\JoI6TTl s-of-one' those word� that do not come in flexion groups, but which are amply attested in common usage and the literary tradition. The criterion of (frequent) usage becomes subservient to analogy in that it helps establi�h the validity and legitimacy of word� that form a regular 'group of one': the \JoV1')peIS AE�elS, exponents of lexical singularity. (d) These word� that have fled the TTAii60S can be caught by the gram­ marian and he can formulate Kav6ves about them. (e) But, a� Herodian's alternative formulations make clear, there is also an underlying idea that some word� are 'ju�t' deviant, and even wrong. They defeat rules that are otherwise 'without fail' (adiapt8ton) . A� i� the case with the groups-of-one, such phenomena can often be explained through pathology. (f) The new balance between analogy and usage, and the epistemological status of grammar is not razor-sharp and it canno t be. While analogy catches language in her net with the help of her TeXVT] of all­ encompa�sing rules, the grammarian, although theoretically fully identi­ fYing with her, mmt rely on empirical criteria also---and thi� shows through in Herodian's tell-tale (almost) final word�, in which a whole di�course about the empirical statu� of grammar resonates (952.8) : ToO'aiiTa TIEpl lloV1')pwv Ae�ewv ws bTl TO TTAeiO'Tov 'Thi� is what I , have to say about unique word� as fur as possible .4(, ,

Most importandy, however, TTepl lloV1')pous AE�ews shows u� a different picture of Herodian, the picture of a confident intellectual with a good pen, who sees hi� own activities a� being on a par with that of Analogy hersel£ 46 005 �1T\ TO 1TAEiO'TOV was part of the definition of granunar as an empirical science by Dionysius of Thrax. according to Sextu.< Empiricu.< (M 1 .57; 1 .250); the Tekhni itself uses 005 �1T\ TO 1ToAV. It i< not clear whether those expres.
IV. Ancient Grammar in Historical Context

New Papyri and the History of Ancient Grammar: The e,riPPTllJa Chapter in P. Berol. 99 1 7

Alfons Wouters - Pierre Swiggers 1 . Introduction The historiography of ancient linguistics has, since its beginnings in the 1 9th century, witnessed a tremendous increase of it� documentary base. The most important enrichment has come from the papyTlL� texts with grammatical content which con.�titute a preciolL� addition to the corpus of our source materials. At the same time, the enrichment of our documentation has forced us to abandon the fornler, simplified ('static'I'non-dynamic') view of 'grammar in Antiquity', a field that now appears to be much more di­ versified and much more complex than it seemed to be a century ago. One can even say, without exaggeration, that the newly added docu­ mentation forces m to raise again basic questions to which no simple answer can be given, such as (a) what can be called a 'gramm atical text' in Antiquity? (b) how should we approach the problem of the 'authorship' of ancient granmutical texts ? (c) how were granllllatical texts used in the classroom, or, put in more general terms, how was grammar taught in 'real life' conditiom ? Our purpose is, obviomly, not to try to amwer each of these questions. In tact, this contribution will be relevant mainly with respect to the last question, and it will provide elements for an answer to that question. More precisely, we will be discussing (part of) the contents of an inter­ esting (still unpubli�hed) granlillatical papyrus, one which belongs to the genre of the TEXV'll . a genre most notoriously illlL�trated by the Techn� Grammatik� ascribed to Dionysim Thrax and a genre for which the Egyptian soil has tran.mutted about a dozen specimen.�.

4

Alfons Wouters - Pierre Swiggers

P. Herot. 99 1 7, p. 1 2

New Papyri and the History of Ancient Grammar

315

2. A Case-study: P. Berol. 99 17 The importance o f (grammatical and other) papyrus texts lies i n the fact that they are primary documents, and that they direcdy reflect, without interposition or transformation, the practice of teachers and students in Hellenistic Egypt; the genre of the T�)(VTI-papyru.� corresponds to the function of a teacher's handbook, synopsis, or check-list (aide-memoire) , written down either by the teacher himself, or by students who copied a model or wrote under dictation. The papyru.� text that we will di�cus.� here, the P.Berol. 9917, is a 'profes.�ional', rather large notebook, with page numbers, in a trained handwriting, and with corrections, apparendy by the first hand. On the ba�is of palaeographical and codicological criteria (the mea�urements of the codex) , it should be dated to around 300 A.D. (a� usual in papyrol­ ogy with a margin of 50 years before and after) . The only double leaf that has survived contain� 27 lines on the awSeallos (page 23 rKy1), 33 (page 1 1 rIal), and 24 (page 25 rK61) lines on the CxvTCt.>vwta, and 32 lines (page 12 rl�l) on the hrtpPlllla. In earlier papers (Wouters 1 997; Wouters - Swiggers 2007) we have paid attention to the material char­ acteristics of the papyru.� and to the contents of the awSeallos and the aVTCt.>vvllta chapters. To have kept the hrtpPlllla chapter for later turned out to be a wise decision. Since recendy we have the excellent di�cussion of Creek theories on the adverb by Stephanos Matthaios 2007; this thorough survey ha� been most helpful for our comments. We hope to show that our papyrus text provides new in�ights not only concerning the treatment of the adverb by the ancient grammari­ ans, but abo about the genre of the grammatical manual in Antiquity.

316

Alfons Wouters - Pierre Swiggers

3. The Adverb in the P. Berol. 99 1 7 Transcript:

1 . hTtp< p>t'lI.lO �aTIV AE9S OOS hTl TO 2. 1TAeiaTov KaTa I.liav �Kcpopav 3. AeY0I.lEV1l. 1TpOTaKTIK"; 1'\ V1TO4. TaKTIKr, Pl1l.lOTOOV aaw6EToos. 5. �v dSl1al . . . . . . eV1l . �1Ttp6. Pl1l.la Sla . . . . . . a TO xoopls 7. PTJl.laTOS I.lr, ralvI.lTiSea6al TOV 8. Myov �K 1.l6voov �1TIPPl1I.lOTOOV. 9. olov KaAOOS ypocpoo . �Kei KeiTal. 1 0. TaXEooS 1,A6ov. dSl1 rSel TOOV �lTIP1 1 . I.lOTOOV I.lS. ToSe (I)

1 2 . 1TOI6T1lS: (1) 1 3 . l.lea6Tl1S (2) 1 4. T61TOS (3) 1 5. xp6voS (4) 1 6 . 1Tapal3oATJ (5) 1 7. rOI.l] oiooalS (6) 1 8 . Kal OvTo1T6Sooa1S 19. �1TtTaaIS (7) 20. TO�IS (8) 21 . SlaaTOATJ (9) 22. aliAAl11.l\f.llS (10) 23. aVyKpelaelS (1 1 ) 24. Ii1TEp6ealS (12) 25. [av] acp[op] o

(II)

30. �1TIKEAeVaIS: (18) 3 1 . aTEPl1alS: (19) 32. 1Toa6T1lS: (20) 33. OOplaI.lEV1l: 34. 1Toa6T1lS (21) 35. aoptaTov: 36. T61TOS: (22) 37. Kal xp6voS: 38. apV1laIS: (23) 39. 1'\ a[� ]6cpaaIS 40. awKaTo6ealS (24) 41 . &1T rool l.loaIS: (25) 42. KaTOOI.lOaIS: (26) 43. KOIVOV &1Too-

(lll) 48. 1.l6aeoos (27) 49. Kal KaTCr.>50. 1.l6aeoos 5 1 . 1TapaKEAevO'Is (28) 52. &1Tay6pevalS (29) 53. SlaTayl.lOS (30) 54. 1'\ eiKaal.l6s 55. eVXTJ (31 ) '1 \. 56. avoTaalS 1'\ 'If (32) 57. �ev�IS 58. axeTAI a­ (33) 59. 1.l6[s] 60. 6aVl.l[aa-] (34) 6 1 . 1.l6s

New Papyri and the History of Ancient Grammar

(13) 26. [ . . ? ] . plOl ] S (14) ] epe 27. [ (1 5) ] . IS 28. [ (16) 29 . [6:] V [O] 1T[A] 1')pc.>e n s (17)

5 t.

(27)

44. l-.\eTa �o(nS e1Ti­

(42) 45. �o(ns 46. em .. oPPllS (43) 47· 1TPOcrcpOOVllcrIS (44)

3 17

62. epwTTJ [ens]

(35) 63. 1TllIKO(?) [ ] (36) 64. Xc.>p l[cr 1-.\6S] (37) 65 . �OI�ic.>[ ens] (38) 66. cr��Ocr[IS ? ] (39) 67. 5e�[IS] (40) 68. 1TOpO. [ (41)

ev ei5ecrl 6ec.>poVll� Vll? 7 rcrlVI-.\TI5ecr601 : I . crvVTI6ecr601 22 CJlJAAllI-.\IjJIS: I. crvAAllljJlS 6:VTo1T65c.>ens: I. 6:VT01T650ens 23 crvYKpelcrelS: I. crvYKple ns 35 6:opICJTOV : I. 6:6p1CJToS 65 �ol�ic.>rensl: I. �e�o lc.>rensl 18

318

Alfons Wouters - Pierre Swiggers

3 . 1 . First a few words are in order concerning the history of the adverb as a part of speech.· The system of eight parts of speech which became canonical from the end of the pre-Christian era, was the result of a cu­ mulative process, starting with Plato and leading, through Aristotle and the Stoics, to the eight parts-of-speech system of the Alexandrian phi­ lologists. The 'adverb' received its autonomous statu.� in the first half of the second century BC. In his scholia on Homer Aristarchu.� called this part of speech llea6T1'\S ('middle/mean part'; 'Mittelding' in Matthaios' German translation) . The term seem� to have referred either to the fact that the adverb was 'in the middle' between the noun and the verb, or that it wa� 'in the middle' between the fully significant parts, such as the noun and the verb, and the parts of speech without lexical meaning, such a� the preposition and the conjunction.2 It was added around 1 50 BC by the Stoic Antipater of Tarsus to the five parts until then accepted by the Stoics, viz. proper name, appellation, verb, conjunction and 'arti­ cle'. The term hripPl'Illa seem� to have been introduced by the Alexan­ drian grammarian Trypho in the first century BC. It is found in the Techn2 Grammatikl ascribed to lJionysiu.� Thrax, but the definition of the manual3, in its transmitted formulation and structure, might be of a later date (than the grammarian). 4 The chapter on the adverb in P. Berol. 991 7 is structured a� follows: Definition of the adverb (ll . 1-5) (Etymological) account of the term hripPl'Illa (ll . 5-1 0) Determination of the number of semantic classes (ll . 1 0-1 1), fol­ lowed by (iv) The li�ting of these cla�ses (ll. 12-68) .

3.2. (i) (ii) (iii)

2 3

4

For a detailed history, see Matthaios 2007 (for the Greek tradition) and Wou­ ters - Swiggers 2007 (for the Latin gr:unmari an�). The complex history of the term l!Ea6TT1� ha� been traced recendy in a very in�tructive way by Matthaios 2007, 21-24. D.T. 1 9, 72.4-73.2: 'E".lpPTllla �(TT1 Il�PO� AbyoV aKAITOV, KClTO: P';IlClTO�

My6l!EvoV 1"1 �lTIMy61!EvOV P';IlClT1. Toov 5� �"'lpPTlllaTc..>v TO: Il�V �aTlV clnA&, TO: 5� cruvana' clnAa IlW oo� '".aAal', cruvana 5� oo� ' ".p6".a;>.al' ('An ad­ verb is an uninflected part of speech which is uttered with respect to the verb

or is added to a verb. Some of the adverbs are simple, some compound; simple ones such a.� ".aAal ['formerly'] , compound ones, such a.� ".p6".a;>.al ['a long time ago'] '). About similarities with the definition which Apollonius Dyscolu� proposed in the 2nd cent. A.D., see Matthaios 2007, 38.

New Papyri and the History of Ancient Granunar

3 19

3.3. The adverb is defined as follows: 'An adverb is a word that mostly is used in one fextemall form, (and) which is placed before or after verbs non-compositionallys, and which is classifiable into species. It is called (?) 'ad-verb' because of the fact that the sentence canno t consi�t of adverbs only, e.g. KcxAWS ypa<jlw ('I write beautifully') , EKei KeiTel:! ('he/shelit i� lying there') , TaXEws i'jAeov ('they went away quickly') . The species of the adverbs are 44 in number. They are the following f .. l " In order to compare this definition of the adverb with those found in other TEXV11-papyri and in the Techn� ascribed to Dionysius Thrax, the following table" will be useful:

5

6

Viz. not fonning a compound word with tbe word before or after which it is placed; thi. specification helps to distinguish the adverb from the np66eo"IS ('preposition/prefix'), which fonm a construct (in modem tenninology, a syn­ tagm) or a compound with its complement. The definitions in the first four papyri have recently been studied in great detail by Matthaios 2007, 29-35.

3 20

Alfons Womer.; - Pierre Swigger.;

Woni(cw.)

Unindccted

����nn

J', y",1t L2.� 7 P.H�:id.S�1 p J7R 1'.&oI. '}'J17 X X x X x

Figure Non-colllpotition (:.omt:ruction/Function SeIIWIDc lpeci� Etymology: non-pmpo:ticon2l?

� X X

'/wmil

�

X

X X X X

X xt2 X

X

x

X

x

J',H4ft.

,li99

X

x

X x x x

x

"

x

7 C( Womer.; 1 979, no. 1 (1" cent. AD), n. 37-53: hrl

pfllla 0' �
without being compounded with the latter, designating quantity or quality or time or [ . . .] '). 8 C( Womer.; 1 979, no. 6 (ca. 50-100 AD) , n. 42-58: �lTl

Pfl [lla 0' �crTlv A£�IS lTpoTa-]/KT1KT] ii lI1TOTaKT1KT] lTaVTOS Ptl-]/llaToS [aKAhoos crf1llalvovcra lTocro-]/TTJ[Ta] ii [lT010TTJTa Kat IlEcrOTflTa] ii [. . j . ('An adverb .

i� a word that can be placed before or after each verb and that signifies, without being declinable, quantity or quality and mediety together, or [. . . J ') . 9 Cf. Womer.; 1 979, no. 1 1 (end 2nd cent. AD), n. 31-56: [�lTlpPfllla o £ �
ii lI1TOTaKTlKj T] lTaV-/[ToS PflllaTOS 6:KAhoos ii lT010TTJTa ii Tj OlTOV [ . .j . ('An adverb i� a word .

that can be placed before or after each verb and that indicates, without being declinable, quantity or quality and mediety together, or [ . J'). 1 0 C( Wouter.; 1 979, no. 2 (ca. 300 AD), n. 80-105: �lTlpPfllla T! �crT1V; M�IS ..

Ka6' �va I crxflllCITlcrllov �K ElOEal 6EOOPOVIl£VTJ. TWV ot �1T1p-1 Pfllla-rOOV & Iltv �crTtV IlEcrOTflTOS Kat lT010TTJTOS 0"AOOT1KCx, I olov KaAWS [ . ]. ('What i� an ..

adverb? A word used only in one fonn, that i� placed before or after a verb, not compounded with the latter, and of which many kind� can be di�tinguished. Of the adverbs some indicate mediety and quality, such as KaAWS (,well') [. . J '). 11 See supra, n. 3. 1 2 The expression KaTCx PtlllaTOS AEYOIlEVOV in the Tee/lUI definition points to the syntactic function of the adverb, while the lemma �1T1AEyoIlEVOV PtlllaTl ap­ pear.; to be an etymological note on the tenn �lTlpPfllla. C( Lallot 1 998, 222 and Matthaios 2007, 38. 13 In the final sentence (D. 102-1 0) of the �lTlpPfllla chapter the granunarian, at the moment of providing an etymological explanation for the tenn, stresses the syntactic link between the adverb and the verb: 'ElTlpPfllla ot ElpflTal 01a TO .

Ka6' laVTO Iltv AEYOIlEVOV I Il" anoTEAElv 01Cxvolav �yypCxllllaTOV, lTpocrTacr-/croll£V ot PtlllaTOS [[ . . jj, �EVYvVIlEVOV Ptllla-/Tl KaTCx TO lTAelcrTov. In Womer.; 1 979, 85 the (da.maged) text passage wa.� tentatively

translated: 'The adverb i� so called, because, pronounced alone, it does not constitute a 'written meaning'(?), but when a verb is added, it is mosdy com­ bined (semantically?) with the verb'. We now prefer the translation given by Matthaios 2007, 37: 'E.� \vird deswegen Adverb genannt, wei] es, wenn <es> alle in gesagt wird, keine Bedeutung hat, [es bekonunt aber eine], wenn ein Verb hinzugefugt wird, da es meist mit einem Verb kombiniert wird'.

New Papyri and the History of Ancient Grammar

321

What does this comparison show? First, we see that, just as there i� a model for the overall treatment of the parts of speech (listed in a fixed sequenceH), there is also a general frame, at the level of the micro­ structure, for the treatment of a single part of speech, in the present case the adverb. However, we see that the frame was used (or was elabo­ rated) in a flexible way, with some characteristics being added or omit­ ted, or approached in a different way (e.g. 'uninflected' and 'appearing in a single form') 1 5. We can aho note some variability or flexibility in the wording of the manual� 1 (" next to the presence of more stereotyped phrasings. Three specific facts must be pointed out with reference to our text:

(1) The Berlin papyrus includes the term eiBT) (I. 5) 17 in the definition of the adverb, thus making it an 'accident' (although no mention i� made of the meta-term TTapETT6IlEVOV); this is only paralleled by (the contem­ porary) P.Lond.Iit. 1 82, n. 82-831" . (2) Puzzling i� the presence of the limiting phrase ETTt TO TTAEiO'TOV ('mosdy'), which apparendy must be understood in relation to the fea­ ture KaTO: Illav EKCPOpO:V AEyoll�VT) (II . 2-3) . The (morphological) m1 4 On variation in the order. see Wouters 1 979. 42 and 52. 15 Brocquet 2005. 1 29 stresses that O:KAITOS and KaS' �va O')(T)�aT1 cr ��lV �K ElSeal SEWpoV�tVT). In view of P. &rol. 9917. I. 5 (�v ElST)crl [I. ElSEcrl]) thi.< hypothesis should now be dis­ '

carded.

322

Alfons Womer.; - Pierre Swigger.;

variability of the adverb had already been used as an argument in the status determination of certain word� by the Alexandrian philologists1 '! of the 3rd-2nd century Be, and there can be no question of doubts that could have been raised by the author of P. Berol. 99 1 7 concerning the 'undeclinable' nature of the adverb. The restriction mentioned here must rather refer to occasional variation of adverbial fonus, and one can think of various possibilities: (a) the exi�tence of morphological variant� for some adverbs at least, such a� Taxv and Taxews, to which perhaps also Apollonius Dyscolus (Adv. 1 20.4-1 4)2<1 alludes. (b) the existence of phonically conditioned variants (e.g. for the ne­ gation: au, aUK, oUx, or ali and oiJxpt) ; (c) the existence, at least for some cla�ses of adverbs,22 of degrees of comparison. (3) A� to the etymological account of the tenn hripprll.la , here again our papyrus offers an interesting element which is only paralleled by P. Lond. Lit. 1 82, ll. 1 02-1 052.\ however, the London papyrus presents the etymological explanation as a kind of after-thought following the 19 A� it appears from fr.136 in Matthaios 1999, Ari..tarchus and his disciples stood in opposition to e.g. the philologi..o; who cOIl..idered aveCfl in Od. 24.93 ('Ii 5' aveCfl 5t)v TiO'TO 'but she sat in silence') a noun. They reacted with three argu­ meno; to the contrary: (a) the word is used only in one form (Ka6' �va crxTl�aTla�ov �K �E\paK\OV' (laov yap �an Tcil 'Taxtoos lTEpl1TaTEi TO �lpaKlov'), Kal Ka6' �va crxTl�aTla�ov �K �ElpaKlov ['the boy walks around quickly'] , it is called an adverb (for it is synonymou. with TaXtooS lTEpl1TaTEi TO �lpaKlov) and then it is u.ed in one form only (and one says) [in the genitive absolute]) TayY lTEPl1TaTOWTOS TOV �E\paKlov ['while the boy is walking around quickly'] and [in the dative] TayY lTEpl1TaTOWTI Tcil �lpaKICfl ['to the boy while he is walking around qnickly'] ') . 21 The Technl (D.T. 19, 78.1) mentions for the adverbs of negation: 00 and ouXI (besides ou5iiTa and ou5a�oos) . 22 Especially for the local adverbs (e.g. �yyVS ['nearl, �yyvTtpoo ['nearer'], �yyvTaToo ['nearest'] ; avoo ['up'], avooTtpoo ['upper'] , avooTCxToo ['upmost']) ; c [ A.D. Adv. 168.10-2t . 23 See SUP''', n. t o.

New Papyri and the History of Ancient Grammar

323

semantic categories, whereas our papyrus presents the etymology (or pseudo-etymology) of the Greek meta-term for the adverb bifore dis­ cmsing the semantic classes. 3.4. We now come to the most extemive portion of the treatment of the adverb. In 11. 1 0--1 1 , our grammarian categorically fixes the number of semantic s1511: he posits 44 (1J5) of these. Two facts are striking: (a) the grammarian explicidy mentions the number of classes at the outset; (b) the number of 44 cla�ses largely exceed� the number we find in the other granunatical papyri:24 1 2 in P. Yale 1 .25; 1 1 in P.Heid. Siegmann 197; 14 in P. Lond. Lit. 1 82; (the list of P.Harr. 59 has not been com­ pletely preserved) . In Matthaios 1 999, 533-548, we see that the found­ ing-father of Homeric philology di�tingui�hed at least 7 cla�ses, and we find 26 cla�ses in the Techne (c£ D.T. 1 9, 73.3-86 . 1 ) . One will al�o note that the classes are li�ted i n the nominative form of the semantic eidos in question, not in the genitive-as in the Techn�'-, nor-as in the other TEXVT}- papyriu'-in the accusative gov­ erned by a participle form such as crlllJalvovcra / 51lAovcra, e.g. TTocr6TT}Ta 1) TT016TT}Ta i) . . . . ('a word signifying/indicating e.g. quantity or quality, or .. .'). Here we also want to draw attention-a� a brief di­ gression-to a material a�pect of the papyrus which illlL�trates well the character of 'primary' source which we referred to earlier. The gram­ marian first wrote the full column I, then he wrote column II, but after line 43 (K01VOV aTT<:..>-) he started a third column (beginning with lJocrsoos on 1. 48) . Then he probably noticed that he could finish the text of the adverb chapter--or at least his inventory of the species-on this page of his notebook, if only he managed to add some of these classes to column II. And, as a matter of fact, he added four lines (here numbered a� 44-47, containing cla�ses 42, 43 and 44, in our interpretation27) to this second column. Since our papyrus has been damaged, we do not have all the names of the 44 cla�ses. More specifically, we do not know what was originally written in lines 26, 27, 28, 46 and in line 68. In line 63 we can think of sVKoAia (,adverbs of contentedness'?) and in line 66 of d�acrts ('ad­ verbs of reverence'?), although we found no parallel� for such species in other sources.

24 25 26 27

Matthaios 2007, 39-52 offer.; a detailed comment on these li..ts. E.g. TO S£ )(povov STjAWT1KCx (see supra, n. 17). See supra, n. 7-1 0. In our tramcript (see p. 3 1 6-31 7) we have put the nWllber of the class between parentheses Wlder the Greek term.'.

324

Alfons Wouter.; - Pierre Swigger.;

On I. 44 (and 45) it is not clear whether hr\�(ns ('of approach / attack'?) is just an alternative tenn for �eTCx�aaIS ('of positional change'?) or a different category. We tend to consider it a synonym (of �eTCx�aaIS) became there is no dio;junction (with 11) , nor a mention of KOIV6v ('common to' ; cf. ll. 43 + 48-50) , and al�o because (at least part of) the word has been written on the same line. The inventory of the granunarian would deserve a detailed comment, from at least three point� of view: (1) the possibility or, perhaps, impossibility of discovering a principle of ordering. Although we were not able to di�cover an overall 'logical' organization, one could indicate some semantically related classes: T61TOS and Xp6voS (3 and 4) ; 1Tapa�oi\" and 6�olwals Kal {xVTa1T6BoalS (5 and 6); and classes related by their fonnal designation: {xmillloalS (25) , K<XTW�OaIS (26) and the KOIVOV lx1Tw�6aews Kal KaTwll6aews (27) . (2) a careful comparison with the listings of classes in the already known TEXVT}-papyri, in the Techne of Dionysius Thrax, in Apollonius' Dyscolus treatise De adverbio, and in the Latin artes grammaticae (where these eiBT} are called significationes 2H); (3) th e content t o b e assigned t o (and, as a consequence, the translation to be given of) each of the classes. All this need� to be done in the final edition of the papyrus. Here we will limit ourselves to some general observations and to a few more detailed comments. Let us first note that the grammarian u.�es at least fourformal types if labels (or dtjiniens, although the dtjinienda, i.e. the lingui�tic forms, are not given) : (1) A single label tenn-by far his most frequendy used procedure­ such a� 1T0\6TT}S (1. 1 2) , 'quality' , or 1Toa6TT}S c:,plaIlEVT} (11 . 32-33) , 'definite quantity' (2) A label constituted by two tenns in disjunctive relation (e.g. ll. 5354 B1O"Tay�OS il eIKaa�6s, 'doubt or surprise' / 'doubt or guess' ; ll. 56--5 7 {xvCxTaalS il E1TI�ev�ls, 'intensity or joining'?) (3) A label constituted by two tenus in conjunction (11 . 1 7-1 8: 6�olwalS Kai {xVTa1T6BoalS, 'similarity and reciprocity' ; ll. 36-37: T61TOS Kal Xp6voS, 'place and time'). (4) A label constituted by the intersection of the contents of two tenus (11 . 43 + 48-49: K01VOV {x1TwIl6aews Kal K<XTw�6aews, 'conunon to denial under oath and assertion under oath').

28 See Wouter.;-Swigger.; 2007, 97-105.

325

New Papyri and the History of Ancient Grammar

said, a full comparison of the classes of adverbs in this new papyrus with the already existing lists must be reserved for later. We will limit oursdves to a few observations concerning the following comparative table:

&

P.&,.,J. 9917

(I) 11"016"1'11S

(2) l-I,a6"1'11S (3) T611"oS (4) ](p6vos (5) 11"apatlo�t1 (6) 61-10\",aIS Ka\ WTa11"6lioalS (7) t11"\TaaIS (8) Ta/;IS (9) lilaaToM (to) aV�11Ij1IS (1 1 ) aVYKPlalS (12) {mipS,aIS ( 1 3) avacpop6 (?) ( 1 4) ? (1 5) ?

T«IIH�

11"016T1J.S l-\Ea6"1'11S T011"IKa )(p6vos (join. 5 and 6)

10

P. y.l. 1 .25

P. Lond. Iit. 182

11"OI61-'1S

P. Hrid. Si'.emmrn 1 97 (join. I and 2J..

T611"os )(p6vos 11"apa tlo�t1

T611"OS ](p6vos 11"ap atlo�t1

T011"IKa J
WTatT6lioC71 s1 hriTaalS Ta/;IS

(joins 1 and 2J..

T6�s

cru�11Ij1 IS cruYKplalS

(16) ?

(17) ava.".�t'}pc.lC71S

m

(1 8) t'lrIKllivalS (19) rnp11pla!!Wri (2 1 ) 11"oa6"1'11S a6PlaTo� (22) T611"OS Ka\ ](p6vos (23) &pv11aIS f\ (rn6cpaalS (24) avyKaTae.al� (25) (rnwl-loalS (26) KaTG>I-IOaIS (27) KOIVOV (rn"'l-Ioo,,,,s Ka\ KaTc.l1-l6
t'lrIKiAfvaIS

t11"IKiAfvalS

t'lrIKEAfVaTIKa

11"oa6-rI1S

11"oa6"1'11S

11"oa61-I1S

11"oa6"1'11S

f\ (XPV11a IS (rn6cpaalS avYKaTtIS,aIS

&pvllalS [01

6pV11a lS [0j


avYKaTae,alS

(rn"'I-IOTIKa KaT"'I-IOTtKa

aVYKaT6e,alS KaTc.lI-lOTIK6 t KOIVOV Tfis (rn"'l-Ioo,,,,s TE Ka\ (rnapl'l'Ia''''S 11"apaKllivalS

11"apaKiAfvalS (rnay6 pwalS

(rnay6pwalS

t'may6pwaIS

(rnay6pwalS

10j EiKaal-l6s

IilaTayl-l6S

lilaTayl!6s

101 EiKaal-l6s

.{rXl'i

Nxt1

.{rXl'i

.{rXl'i

326 (32) avoT0C7.S i'I hTiz;E�'S (33) OXETA.OOIl6s (34) 6owooil0s (35) �PWTTJ01S (36) ..:rKoAlo (?) (37) x"'o.o,,6� (38) �I'lol"'o.s (39) oel'lao.s (?) (40) 6Ei�.s (4 1 ) ? (42) IlEToJ3ao.sl hTlBao.� (43) 1 (44) TTPOOCPWVTjO'S

Alfons Wouters - Pierre Swiggers

axETA.OaTI KO 6avIlOCTT . KO �PWTTJo,s

OXETA.OOllO I t �PWTTJo ,s

�PWTTJo ,s

I'lEl'lalwo.s

(rll po.o.S op.61l6s 6E.ooll6s 6ET.KO

- The correspondences do not take into account the difference between a sub­ stantival and an adjectival designation, nor the difference between a noun used in the genitive or used in the nominative (we foUow Matthaios 2007 in listing the substantive noum in their nominative form) . - [0] indicates absence of a member in a designation that can occur junctive binominal.

as

a clio;­

- t indicates subspecies or variant cli�position of a class. (1) In comparison with the second largest li�t, viz. that of Dionysius's Techn�, we lack here the hnppTU.lcrra 66potcrewS (of 'aggregation', such a� ap6TJV ['totally'] , a�a ['together'] , iiAI6a ['exceedingly']), the hnpp,,�crra 6ETIK6 2'.l ('adverbs introducing a debate', i. e. the adiectiva verbalia on -TEOV, such a� ya�T)TEOV, ["one should marry"]) and the hnpp,,�aTa 6E1acr�oO ('of religious ecstasy', such as elioT, evav [ritual cries]). We al�o mi�s the hnpp,,�crra 6ple�oO ('of number') , but, of course, one or the other of these cla.�ses might have been mentioned in the lacunae, or some rearrangement might have taken place, a� we will see. (2) The most striking fact is, of course, that the papyrus has thrice the number of cla.�ses mentioned in other papyri, and also exceed� by 1 8 the number of classes in Dionysius's Techn�. Let lL� take a closer look at thi� 'enlargement' .

29 On the rea.,on� (viz. indeclinability and construction with a verb, i.e. a form of elva.) and the origin (viz. in rhetorics) of the term 6eT'KOc, see Sluiter 1 992.

New Papyri and the History of Ancient Grammar

3 27

We first note that our grammarian made lL�e of 'modifYing strategies' with respect to earlier lists. His principal strategies are those of splitting and merging (or 'recombination') .

Splitting (a) (1) + (2) lTol6TT)S ('quality') next to J,lE0'6T1lS ('mediety') : in P.Heid. Siegmann 1 97 and P. Lond. Lit. 1 82 we have a 'conjunct' class J,lE0'6T1lS Koi lTo16T1lS. P. Yale 1 .25 has lT0l6TT)S, but does not mention J,lE0'6T1lS. (b) (5) + (6) lTOpo�oi\" ('comparison') and OJ,lOiWO'IS Koi avrOlT6S00'IS ('likeness and correlation') : P. Yale 1 .25 and P. Heid. Siegmann 1 97 have lTOpo�oi\", but do not mention oJ,loiwO'lS Koi avrOlT6S00'1S; in P. Lond. Lit. 1 82 and in the Techn2 (D . T . 19, 79.2-3) there is a class « 12» labelled lTOpo�oi\'" 1) oJ,loiwO'ls. (c) We also have an interesting case of splitting with lTo0'6TT)S WP10'J,lEVT) (20) ('definite quantity') and lTo0'6TT)S 06plO'TOS (21 ) ('indefinite quan­ tity') ; in the other papyri we find a single class labelled lTo0'6TT)S. The two classes in P. Berot. 991 7 certainly constitute a split of an undifferenti­ ated lTo0'6TT)s-clas.� ; it may be that the class lTo0'6TT)S WP 10' J,lE V1l corre­ spond� to DionysilL�'s cla�s of hnpp"J,lCITo op16J,l00 ('of number') . Merging (or recombination) The granunarian has con�tituted new cla�ses, which are obtained by merging two separately counted classes; this hold� for: (a) T6lToS Koi )(p6voS (22) (compare the cla�ses of T6lTos [ 31 and of Xp6vos r4l ) ; (b) KOIVOV OlTWJ,l60'EWS Koi KOTWJ,l60'EWS (27) ('common to denial un­ der oath and to assertion under oath') (compare the cla�ses of OlTWJ,lOO'lS and of KClTWJ,lOO'IS). At thi� stage we have to point to the pos.�ibility, or likeliness, of the impact exerted on our granmIarian by a type of methodological reflec­ tion of which we find echoes in the scholia on the Techn� of Dionysius Thrax. A� a matter of bct, these scholia testifY to the exi�tence of pro­ posah to combine some semantic categories under one label; see e.g. for T6lToS Koi )(p6voS, Sch. D. T. 279.7-8: rVWO'TEOV Se em lTOi\i\OK1S O'VVEJ,l1T'TWO'E1S yiYVOVT01, Koi O'1lJ,lOiVOVO'I TO: TOIOOTO ElTl PP"J,lCITO Koi T6lTOV E0'6 ' {hE Koi Xp6vov (,One should know that fornlal sinlll ari­ ties occur regularly and that such adverbs ras Ev60, 'there' / 'then'l sig­ nifY sometimes place and also time') . And, for KOIVOV 6:TIWJ,l60'EWS Koi KOTWJ,l60'EWS, one could compare Sch. D. T. 1 01 .20-25: )\lTWJ,lOTIK6v EO'TI TO J,lE6 ' OpKOV OPVT)TIK6v, olov ' J,lO: Tov 'AlT6i\i\wvo'. lTOi\i\OK1S Se oni TOO KClTWJ,lOTIKOO KEXP1lVTOl OIiTctJ Ol lTai\OlO� WS Koi 0 1TOl1lTfJS

32H

Alfons Wouter.; - Pierre Swigger.;

(followed by a quotation) (,The aTTwIloT1K6v is (the adverb) of negation under oath, such as 'no, by Apollo' . Hut very often the authors of the pa�t use it (i.e. the adverb IlOc) instead of the adverb of as.�ertion on oath, and so did also Homer f . . .] ') . Interestingly, th e Techn2-scholia als o contain proposal� for some of the 'new' terms in our papyrus; a ca�e in point is the term XWplCl"1l6S (37) . Cf. Sch. D. T. 1 00.9-10: TO 51: aVEu aVEu6Ev Ka\ aTEp aTE p 6Ev v6Cl"q>l xw p l S XWP1Cl"1l00 EICl"lV Ka\ ou T01TlKOc E1Tlpp1)llaTa ('avEu f'without'] , aVEu6Ev f'without'] , etc. are adverbs of separation and not adverbs of place') . We would hypothesize that this clas.� xwplCl"1l6S in our papyrus correspond� to the Latin adverbia separandilseparantis /separa­ tionis (cf. Wouters - Swiggers 2007, 1 00, 1 04, 1 10) . We can safely a�sume that our Herlin papyru� preserves traces of re­ flections and afterthoughts made by teachers of grammar, and renders explicit a number of classificatory decision.� or suggestiom that lingered on for centuries in grammar teaching and philological work since Aris­ tarchus's times. Unfortun.ately, we can only speculate concerning the lines of evolution, and the degree of terminological (and doctrinal) in­ novation and variation in Antiquity. All we can definitely state is that some of the tenns for semantic cla�ses of adverbs in our Herlin text are unparalleled in the presently available COrplL� of ancient Creek gram­ matical texts and that we can only make guesses a� to what their preci�e content (and their specific exemplification) was. Thi� i� the ca�e of the following cla�ses:

- 51ao-roA1) (9) (adverbs of 'di.�tinction'?) - \ITTE p6ECl"lS (1 2) (adverbs of 'superimposing'/'excess')

- aVaTTA1)pWCl"lS (?) ( 1 7) (adverbs of 'satisfaction/filling-up '?) - Cl"TEPllCl"lS (1 9) (adverbs of 'loss/privation'?) - aVOcTaCl"lS 1i ETTI�EU�IS (32) (adverbs of 'intensity or joining'?) - 5E�lS (40) (adverbs of 'demonstration') - IlETOc[3aCl"lS/ETTIj3aCl"lS (42a) (adverbs of 'positional change/transition'?) / (42b) (adverbs of 'approaching' /attacking?) , unless, as we conjec­ tured above, both terms are synonyms. For the 'deictic' adverbs we can refer to the well-established category of adverbia demonstrandilmonstrandi in the Latin artes grammaticae (c£ Wou­ ters-Swiggers 2007, 98, 99, 1 00, 1 01 , 1 1 0) .

New Papyri and the History of Ancient Grammar

3 29

A� to the class of \J7TEp6ecns (12) one may venture the hypothesis that it comprised adverbs such as �6:A\(na, with superlative meanini" (whereas the comparative �CxAAOV would represent the O"Vy K p 1c ns-class, no. 1 1) .

4. Conclusion By way of conclusion, what generalizing observatiom can be made on the basis of our analysi� of the 'adverb chapter' of P. Berol. 991 7? (1) The first conclusion should be that we have here an interesting tes­ timony on the ancient treatment of the adverb, in which we find: (a) a hitherto unattested definition of the adverb (which comes close to, but is not identical with that of P.Lond. Lit. 1 82) , (b) th e eiST] as a feature (and not a s the specification o f a semantic cate­ gory) included in the definition, and (c) a numerical 'fixation' of the semantic subclas.� es.

(2) A second summarizing observation i� that this new source text pro­ vides m with the largest extant list of semantic eiST] of the adverb that we have till now. The sequence of the semantic subcla.�ses does not show much systematization (neither from modern, nor from ancient 'logical' standard�) , but seems to reflect the primary purpose of an ex­ haustive listing of cla.�ses. (3) Thi� brings us to our third observation, concerning the status of our papyrus text a.� a granunatical manual. Our text shows that grammar, and gran1ill ar teaching, was not a proces.� of urllform trammi�sion of a set of codified doctrines. Taken together with the other TE)(V11-papyri, our text shows that gran1ill ariam proceeded through adoption, adapta­ tion and tramformation, and through 'retouching' definitiom, technical temlS, and li�ts of examples. This approach 'par bricola�,!e' explains the differences in formulation, in exemplification, and in organization of the textual testimonies for the TEXVTJ-genre (although we should con�ider the hypothesis that in the inunediately following section-which has been lost-the gran1illarian provided examples for each of the clas.�es) . (4) Finally, we should ask the ba.�ic question: for what purpose(s) were these text� conceived? We can agree on the fact that no student was able to learn Greek on the basis of a TE XVT] . In the present case, we do not 30 It is not surprising that in the Latin tradition Pri..cian----.-a the unique granullar­ ian of the Latin tradition!--posited a cla.... labelled adveroium superlativum (illus­ trated by maxime) ; c( Wouters-Swiggers 2007, 100, 1 04. 1 1 1 .

3 30

Alfons Wouters - Pierre Swiggers

even find infonnation on single linguistic fonn.�. let alone illustrative examples. The treatment of the adverb in P. Berol. 9917 provides us with a definition (useful to be memorized?) and a long list of semantic clas.� es. without examples illu.�trating these cla��es. It seems a� if the grammarian wa� only interested in the labels for the s emantic eiST). and not in the adverbs them�elves. A� such. our text seem� to have fulfilled the purpose of aide-memoire for both students and teachers of grammar.

Quintilian's ' Grammar'

(Inst. 1 .4-8)

and its

Imp ortance for the History of Roman Grammar*

Wolfram Ax It i� well known that Quintilian's 'granunar' i� a short survey of the Roman ars grammatica, for the purposes of this paper called grammatice in its shortened Greek form, a term Quintilian uses almost exclu�ively in the chapters 4 through 8 of the first book of his Institutio oratoria, wrirten between 93 and 96 AD . l This grammatirl consists, as the author informs u� in 1 .4.2 and 1 .9. 1 , of two parts: the recte loquendi scientia or ratio 10quendi, i.e. a systematically proceeding and normative model of language teaching, aiming to let pupils learn proper Latin, and the poetarum enarra­ tio or enarratio auctorum, an unsystematic way of reading predominantly poetical texts in class in order to explain and annotate difficult passages along the text. Quintilian places his 'granunar'2 first and foremost in the curriculum of rhetorical education. This means that he arranges the material of the whole Institutio so as to match the various educational steps from earliest childhood and school days to the professional work as orator and on to the activities of retirement (see Table 1 ) . 3 In this order, which represent� the three main levels of Hellenistic education, grammar belongs in the second position between the elementary school and the scientific study of rhetoric. In Book 1 , after some remarks upon elementary lessons in school ( 1 . 1-3) , Quintilian describes the education in grammatirl (1 . 4-8) and then the progymnasmata taught by the grammaticus and other teachers *

2

3

I would like to thank very much one of my assistants Volker Schaper, Cologne, for preparing the Engli'h version of this paper. [nst. 1 .9 deal, with certain types of rhetorical progymnasmata taught by the grammaticus. Therefore, the chapter describes granullatical Ies.,on" bur not the field of ar5 grammatica in the teclmical sense. We should always keep in mind that the modem tenn 'granullar', restricted to the meaning 'a nonnative model of language teaching', is much narrower than the ancient equivalent which alm includes 'reading and interpreting poetical texts' . The tables can be found at the end of thi, paper.

Wolfram Ax

33 2

(1 . 9-12) (Table 2) . The real study of rhetoric under the supervi�ion of a rhetor does not start before Inst. 2. 1 . Despite being subordinate to the governing structure of the curricu­ lwn, the framework the Institutio mainly foclL�es on is that of the five �cia oratoris: inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria and actio (Table 1 ) . In this system, the right place for granunar would be the third C?ffidum, the elocutio, which is divided into the four Theophrastian virtues of style (virtutes elocutionis), and more preci�ely the first virtus of latinitas. Thi� is exactly the structure QuintiIian chooses at the beginning of his descrip­ tion of the elocutio (Inst. 8. 1 ) . However, since grammar has already been discussed in detail at it� position in the curriculum (1 .4-8) , he now con­ tents himselfwith making a few additional remarks, referring back to the grammatical chapters of Book 1 .4 Quintilian is well aware that hi� survey does not explain granunar as such. Instead, he describes it from the perspective of a teacher of rheto­ ric and presents a kind of secondary report based on the technical litera­ ture about gramm ar, so to speak from the out�ide of the mentioned discipline 'granunar' . He only wants to hint at the basic pre-educational relevance of grammar without using too many examples or going into detail. He himself does not want to teach, but instead give advice to future teachers of granunar (non enim doceo, sed admoneo docturos).5 Nevertheless, QuintiIian i� deeply convinced of the high educational and scientific values of granunar, in contrast to many other people who have regarded granunar a.� a banal and trivial di�cipline, which--as a matter of fact-ha.� only supplied children at school with the ability of speaking Latin properly and, therefore, cannot be the subject of a rhe­ torical handbook at such a highly sophi�ticated level. QuintiIian vehe­ mently defend� granunar against any objections like this, arguing that it be taken seriolL�ly, a.� it is a topic more challenging than the first impres­ sion might suggest. In his opinion, grammar demands from its teachers a very high competence in many scientific areas (1 .4.2-5) and has a very high pre-educational value a.� an indispensable fundament of future rhe­ torical skill�. Although, for educational purposes, the grammaticus will have to condescend to banal and trivial subjects in class--QuintiIian admits this frankly several times-, even then there remain enough diffi­ culties (subtilitates) and cases of doubt (dubia) to confuse pupil� and de­ mand anlple knowledge from the teacher. Therefore, one could distin­ gui�h between two types of grammar on the level of school granlnIar, an elementary, banal and trivial one and a more demanding one for ad4 5

See Insl. 8.1 .2. See Insl. 1 .4.17.

Quintilian's 'Gr:munar' (ltlSt. l .4-8)

33 3

vanced students and, in accordance with these, two types of teachers, each with a different competence in grammar. (, In any case, Quintilian believes that the grammatice, if taken seriously as a subject of scientific studies, may prove difficult even for adults when dealing with subtle and highly demanding problem�, but can be prac­ ticed without any loss of reputation, rather with pleasure and benefit, until one's old age. This becomes apparent through the examples of important orators such as Cicero, Caesar and Messalla. In order to dem­ omtrate this academic quality of grammatice, Quintilian purposely does not choose simple, standardized examples in his survey, but imtead fo­ cuses mainly on diffic ult cases which are so tricky that most of them are still debated in modem linguistic handbooks of Latin. 7 After having introduced Quintilian's grammatical chapters, his in­ tentiom and hi� method� of integrating these chapters into the Institutio as a whole, I will now proceed to the main question of this paper: Which importance and value do the grammatical chapters of the Institu­ tio have for the hi�tory of Roman grammar? This question can only be answered in a complicated manner and with a great amount of docu­ mentation. Due to lack of space, however, I have to restrict myself to main theses and disclL�s only a few examples within this paper. What makes the amwer even more difficult is the fact that although there are good editiom, several annotated translatiom and a scientific commen­ tary, the inlportance of Quintilian's grammatical chapters for the hi�tory of ancient lingui�tics and grammar has by no meam been fully revealed." It i� thi� deficit that mainly prompted me to undertake a new edition of Inst. 1 .4-8 with commentary and, in the long run, a new commentary on the entire first Book. " Now, what about the main question I have rai�ed? Quintilian's chapters are certainly of great value, if one merely regard� the textual transmi�sion of Roman grammatical texts. The Institutio represent� the first relevant text in the tradition of the Roman ars grammatica that has survived intact and that, at the same time, fully covers the ancient 6 7

See Inst. 1 .4.23-24; 27; 1 .5.6 sq.; 1 .7. 1 . I will show this in detail in my forrhcoming commentary on Quintilian's

8

A very shorr and incomplete selection: the standard Latin text is provided by Winterbottom 1 970; for an edition of the Latin text of the chapters 1 .4-8 see Niedenllanll 1 947; important editions with annotated translations: Rabn 2006/ 1 995, COll.in 1 975-1 980 and Russell 2001 ; a conllllentary of Book 1 is provided by Colson 1 924. My commentary on Inst. 1 .4--8 has already been accepted by the editors S. Dopp et alii for publication in the series Texte u"d Kommentare (de Gruyter) .

9

granunar.

grammatical di.�cipline, i.e. not only the technical part of language teach­ ing, but abo the philological interpretation of poetical texts. l i t The oldest extant Iingui�tic text from before Quintilian, Varro 's De lingua LAtina, unfortunately has only been preserved in a large fragment (Books 5-1 0) and does not directly fit into the tradition of the ars grammatica. In addi­ tion, since the rest of the surviving technical texts on grammar-i- .e. specialized treati.�es on orthography written at the time of emperor Ha­ drian (Terentiu.� Scaurus, Velius Longus) and the first ars tran�mitted in its entirety, the artes grammaticae of Mariu.� Plotius Sacerdos, published as late a� the end of the third century AD l l---are to be dated clearly after Quintilian, it becomes obvious that Quintilian's grammar represents the first and most important source of the status of grammatical science in Rome during the first century AD . Due to this extraordinary coincidence, Quintilian's survey can, of course, be very helpful with the dating of the history of Roman gram­ mar. Before I examine this point in detail, I would first like to show that Quintilian's account offers substantial information with respect to defini­ tion, structure and individual topics of Roman grammatice (Table 3) , a� can be seen through a compari.�on with Roman 'standard grammar' . 1 2 As mentioned above, Inst. 1 .4-8 i� the only text that covers the en­ tire ars grammatica in full, on one hand reflecting the whole structure of the di.�cipline and on the other giving account of the systematic position of each single topic within the ars. Therefore, the text accompli�hes a highly integrating work, merging all a�pects of grammatid which can usually be found in individual, specialized monographs into a single synopsis. Quintilian's survey comprises the two central parts of grammar : (1) language teaching, subdivided into A, the ars grammatica in its nar­ rower sen�e with its three-part structure of e1ementa, partes and virtutes et vitia orationis (Inst. 1 .4 and 1 .5), and B, the complex of de latinitate, and (2) the explanation of poets. Section 1A fonm the separate subject of numerous artes grammaticae in late antiquity and later on, the Ars minor and the Ars maior by Aelius Donatu.� being the most common examples. Among the artes that were written before Quintilian but did not survive, 10 See Schreiner 1 954, 5-6. 1 1 Q. Terentii Scauri De orthographia. G.L VI 3-35, Velii Longi Liber de orthogra­ phia, G.L VII 1-8 1 ; Marti Plotii Sacerdotis libi tres, G.L VII 412-546. 12 Roman 'standard granunar' is an abstract idea, coined in order to be able to compare it with Quintilian's system. It includes topics of the whole /echne grammatice. including ma"atio poetarum and rrae loquendi scimtia, and then again topics of rrae loquendi scimtia. including the artes type and the latinitas type (or­ thoepeia and orthographia), a� we can find them in grammati cal literature before and after Quintilian.

Quintilian's 'Grammar' (Inst. I .4-8)

335

one would surely have to mention the widely known ars grammatica of Quintilian's teacher Remmius Palaemon. Part B ha� been treated in monographs like de iatinitate, i.e. handboob for good Latinity, which, after an initial presentation of criteria for Iingui�tic accuracy, tried to standardize doubtful linguistic cases following the guidelines of the Ro­ man word class system. Although we know of several, even relatively famous authors of such worb, such a� Caesar, Varro or Pliny the Elder, no texts have been pa�sed on to us, instead they can only be accessed through later grammatical texts, and especially through Quintilian's lnst. 1 .6-7. 1 3 Therefore, Part B represents a source of a very high value. With regard to part 2, i.e. the duties of teachers of grammar and reading les­ sons, no detailed publication exists, a� Suetonius' De grammatids et rhetoribus is no match for Quintilian's lnst. 1 .4. 1-5 and 1 .8 . 1 4 Regarding the structure of his report, Quintilian only follows the focal points of the grammatical literature he knows, and a lot of useless analyses would have been avoidable, if this peculiarity of the text, which wa� not di�covered until Schreiner, had been noticed from the very beginning. IS In any ca�e, Quintilian's survey i� a complete synopsis of the subject of gram­ matice, in accordance with the accustomed system, and therefore of high value. So much for the inner structure of the account. A.� it is almost im­ possible to demonstrate here in full length which elements Quintilian, in compari�on with the standard grammatical publications, leaves out, judges differently or leaves untouched, some examples have to suffice. Quintilian's phonetics (4.6-1 7) , for instance, only deab en passant with the phonetic system a� a whole and i� restricted to challenging exemplary problem�. The syllable, which covers a whole chapter within the ar.s, i� deliberately left out of 4. 1 7 . Abo no attention is paid to metri­ cal jeet, accents and punctuation marks, in opposition to the practice of the standard ar.s, in which special empha�i� is put on these a�pects. The sec­ tion about word classes (4. 1 7-21 ) only contains a doxographical account of the history of the development of word cla�ses with respect to their type and number. Word clao;.�es them�elves are not presented systemati­ cally, again in contrast to the ars. Instead, problematic i�sues of nominal and verbal flexion are raised (4.22-29) . There i� no doubt that we would only know little about the main part of the ar.s, if we solely had Quintilian's report. For him, however, general observations are merely 1 3 See Siebenbom 1 976. 14 For the different type.� and subtyp e.� of Roman granunatical literature see Ax 2006b, 244-262. 1 5 See Schreiner 1 954, 5-6 and, before him, Barwick 1 922, 250-268, esp. 266 (analysi.� of Quintilian's sources for 1 .4-8).

336

Wolfram Ax

scholastic banalities which do not need to be repeated in his rhetorical handbook. In the same way, the latinitas part B 1 (orthoepeia) only picks up the introduction to the treatises de latinitate, in which latinitas is defined and the (usually four) criteria of correct language are explained. For lack of space, the dubia, which, arranged according to word classes, fonned the centre of Caesar's, Varro's or Pliny's treati�es, do not find much room in Quintilian's account. A� sparsely placed examples they are more likely to be found in the criteria (esp. analogy and etymology) for the proper use of Latin. Here, again, Quintilian's text falls short of the relevant schol­ arly literature. Despite all of this, we would be wrong if we thought that Quintil­ ian's exclusive selection of a�pects from the ars in Inst. 1 .4-8 and their explicit treatment are redundant due to their parallel transmission in the artes. In fact, there are several pa�sages within his report which present more sufficient infonnation than the 'standard grammar' . Although I cannot demonstrate thi� in detail, three facts will make the point clear:

1 . I am not aware of a more compact and exhaustive account of the virtutes et vitia orationis ba�ed on Theophrastus than section 1 . A 3 (1 .5.17 1 ) , and i n particular th e chapters about barbarism (1 .5.5-33) and sole­ cism (1 .5.34-54) . Similar texts by grammarians of late antiquity, such as Sacerdos, Charisius, Diomedes and Donatus, can only be considered as a weak substitute--perhaps with one exeption: the ars de barbarismis et metaplasmis of Consentius (5
Quintilian's 'Gr:munar' (ltlSt. l .4-8)

33 7

expanded by a chapter on the linguistic origin of the compound� as it can be found in Quintilian. 1 H 3. Quintilian's comments on the teacher's grammatical duties and com­ petence in 1 .4.1-5 and UU3-21 stand for them�elves, as I have already mentioned. Therefore, I hope that the importance of his granunatical chapters as a valuable source for the contents and method� of ancient Roman grammar has become clear. However, at the same time, the historical value of Quintilian's chapters on grammar must not be underestimated. This is especially true for the question of their role in the process of dating the history of Roman grammar. When comparing Quintilian's treatise with the granunatical texts from late antiquity, it seem� as if the linguistic part of Roman grammar, the rede loquendi scientia of part 1 , did not develop gradually from its beginning in the 2nd century Be to its te/os in late antiquity. Instead, the scholastic concept of the ars currently ascribed to late antiq­ uity appears to have already been completed in Quintilian's time, despite either partially lacking in detail or being highly selective. Thi� would provide a tenninus ante quem, meaning that the Roman linguistic ars had already reached its climax in form and content by the time Quintilian began his work. Thi� is, of course, a quite audaciou.� argument which has never been raised thi� way before and which remains to be proven. In the current state of research, I can only bring forward a few argu­ ments. A� I have already pointed out, the theories of barbarism and soleci�m had been fully established and had reached their final levels some time before Quintilian. For him , as he explains in 1 . 5.7, the theory of barba­ rism belonged to the trivial standard� of elementary language teaching and had already been treated in several short manuals for teachers.1'J A better informed teacher with an increased awareness of grammatical 18 The four groups of compowld, of 1 .5.68, for instance. are treated by Donatus (GL IV 877.3-1 4). For more evidence see Jeep 1 893, 1 3 1 £ and Schreiner 1 954. 55-58. Barwick 1 922, 1 53 and 268 attributed Quintilian's expanded sys­ tem to Remmiu, Palemon; following his example. Schreiner 1 954 58: 'boden­ sf.indige Erweiterung durch Remmim Palaemon'. The verba propria/lratlSlata and the verba usitatalficta (1 .5.7 1 f) did initially not belong to grammar. bur to the rhetorical omalus, where Quintilian mentions them: ItlSt. 8.3.24£ (propria) . 8.30£ (fo:ta). 8.3.38£ (tratlSlata). Quintilian is well aware of this, c£ 8.3.30 with reference to 1 .5.72 and 8.3.38 with reference to 1 .5.3. 1 9 Inst. 1 .5.7: Sed ut parva sint haec, pueri docmtur adhuc et grammaticos offidi sui rom­ monemus. Ex quibus si quis erit plane it/polilus et vestibulum modo artis huius ingres­ sus, itllra haec, quae profitmtur commmtariolis vu(gata SUtlt, cotlSistet; doctio",s multa adiidetlt [ . ] . .

.

33H

Wolfram Ax

problems, however, need� to go beyond the limits of such elementary rules, as Quintilian demand� in hi� explanations on 'barbarism for ad­ vanced learners' ( 1 . 5 .8ff.). Similar considerations apply to the linguistically systematic parts of the ars grammatica, the system� of the elementa and partes oration is. Despite intentionally leaving great gaps in chapter 4, in chapters 5 and 6 Quintil­ ian gives proof of his excellent knowledge of those parts he has only mentioned marginally or even previously left out completely: Although the standard� of phonology are not explained in 1 .4.6-1 7, the variety of deliberately chosen examples shows a profound knowledge of those issues of the di�cipline that can be found in nearly all modem handbooks with a reference to Quintilian. Furthermore, while the syllable is not mentioned in 1 .4.17, other paragraphs, such as 1 .5.22-3 1 (about barba­ ri�ms with regard to the accentuation), 1 .7.9 (about syllabification) or 9.4.45-48 (about prose rhythm) prove that Quintilian is familiar with the subject.2H The same is true for the topic of word aaents, which has been left out of 1 .4. Quintilian elaborate treatment of the rules of accen­ tuation, can be seen in 1 . 5 .22-3 1 , where not only for the first time after Cicero (Orat. 58) the rule of the three syllables i� mentioned, but aim the rule of the paenultima i� explained for the first time. Hi� following guide to the pronunciation of Latin word� is kept in such a short and demanding form that editors and commentators, both then and now, have had problem� in handling thi� passage. Metrical feet are also not un­ known to Quintilian, even though he does not mention them in 1 .4. In 1 . 8 . 1 3, however, he stresses their importance for the studying of a proper prose rhythm; in 9.4.45-57, he discusses their meaning for prose rhythm itsel£ As stated before, individual word classes, which form the major part of the ars, are not mentioned in 1 .4. Nevertheless, Quintilian knows all of them in depth, and aim their aaidentia (genus, casus, numerus etc) , which provide the structure of the chapters about the word class system in the ars. Chapter 1 .4.27 covers the four accidentia of the verb (without tempora), however, with a dismissive remark about the triviality of thi� subject. In 1 .5 .41 , at the beginning of the di�cussion of soleci�m� within the accidentia, Quintilian completes the subject of the aaidentia with ref­ erence to the academic discussion (until 1 .5.44) and, afterward�, talks about the mistakes in connection with the accidentia of nouns, participles and pronouns (1 .5.45-47) . Similarly, the following paragraphs about 20 For Quintilian, however, the standard theory of the syllaba is trivial knowledge for scboolboys, a.� becomes clear from 9.4.47: lotigam (syllabam) eJJe duorum tem ­ porum, brevfflI utlill£ etiam pueri saunt [ . . . J .

Quintilian's 'Gr:munar' (Inst. l .4-8)

339

solecisms per partes orationis (48) and per partes orationis eiusdem generis (495 1 ) prove a profound and complete knowledge of the subject of word classes. In connection with thi� I would like to mention three a�pects of Quintilian's theory of the noun which show that the entire conceptual and structural system had already been available at his time.

1 . The first a�pect concerns the genera of nouns (1 .4.23) . Here, the gen­ era are differentiated between according to their type and order, in one case even supported by the same example (Clycerium) a� presented by Donat in his ars maior (C.L. IV 375. 1 3-377.2) . 21 In spite of its reappear­ ance in later times, the standard system of the genera of nouns is not a product of late antiquity, but of the time before Quintilian, presumably the time of RemmilL� Palaemon.22 2. A second example is Quintilian's extended system of nominal com­ pound� in 1 .5.68, which was reused in late antiquity. Nevertheless, the original i� by £ar superior to these later treati�es. 2.1 3. The third aspect concerns the accent on the final syllable of certain words, such as prepositions (circum) and pronous (quale) . They were of­ ten employed by later grammarians in order to avoid ambiguities, e.g. the confusion of circUm with the adverb circum or the acclL�ative of the noun circus and of the relative pronoun quaM with the interrogative pro­ noun quale (1 .5 .25-27) . Thi� theory is still extant in all detail� in Pris­ cianus (G.L. 1II 27.9-1 3; 33.22-27; 1 27. 1 0-1 4) . It wa�, however, al­ ready fully developed before Quintilian. There can be no doubt that the complete terminological and systemati­ cal apparatus of the standard ars wa� already known to Quintilian in the first century AD . However, how can thi� be reconciled with the dates of the hi�tory of professional literature on grammar that are available today? Thi� essay tries to prove the existence of one or more grammari ans before QuintilInst. 1 .4.23: At si quis [... ) vo/umt dome, quae dididt, ..on erit contentus tradere in nominibus tria genera ft, quae sunt duobus omnibusve commutlia. Nec statim di/igentfm putabo, qui promiscua, quae epicoena dimntur, ostmderit, in quibus sexus uterque per alterum apparet, aut, quae feminina positiotU' mares aut neutrali feminas significant, qualia sUtlt ',Hurma' et 'Glycerium '. Don., G.L. IV 375 . 1 3-377.2, repeats Quin­ tilian's gmera in the same order: tria genera ( m asculin um, femininum, ..eutrale) , duobus communia ( hie et haec sacerdos) , om ..ib,lSve eommunia (= hie, haec, hocfelix), promiscualepicofna ( hie passer) , femi..ina positione mares (= .'vfurena. Donatus's ex­ ample was Aquila orator), neutralifeminas ( = Glycmum, same example a.� Quintil­ ian's) . 22 See Schreiner 1 954, 53-55. 23 See p. 337, n. 18.

21

=

=

=

340

Wolfram Ax

ian who brought technical grammar-or at lea�t iu systematic and ter­ minological features---to a final levd which served a� standard template for grammarian� up to the fourth century. But who could that be? When we retrace the two central idea� of grammatical literature in the technical part of the grammatid before Quintilian, we are faced with the following situation: both types of handboob-on one hand the 'lJonatus type' with iu tripartite structure of elementa, partes and virtutes et vitia orationis, which in Quintilian are represented in chapters 4 and 5, and, on the other hand, the 'de latinitate type', represented in chapters 6 and 7-were establi�hed quite a bit earlier than Quintilian, but have not been handed down to us. A first concrete trace of a Roman ars with the virtutes et vitia can be found in the Audor ad Herennium 4. 1 7 , where such an ars is announced.24 Another trace lead� us to the first book of Varro's Disdplinae, of which only one certain fragment still exists (Varro fro 49 GRE) . This book, however, surdy cannot have been the great predeces­ sor of Quintilian's ars that we are looking for, a� the fragmenu of Varro's remaining texts point to a rather short grammatical overview, though already with the tripartite structure of the Roman ars: dements, word classes and style (Varro fro 237 GRE) .25 About the Republican ars we hardly know anything. However, even from the early Principate under Augustus and Ti­ berius no exceptional artes are known. It wa� Claudius (AD 4 1-54) , under whom the first great Ars grammatica--that of Quintilian's teacher Remmiu.� Palaemon (AD 5(?)--80)-was published, which was still famed in Juvenal's time. In 1 922, Barwick argued that Remmiu.� Palae­ mon, closdy revising the Republican Roman grammar, had been the first to write an exhau.�tive profes.� onal handbook. :/Ii According to my observations, it seems most likdy that Quintilian bases hi� study mainly on Palaemon's ars, even though he mentions his mentor only once ( 1 . 4.20) .27 If this i� academically accepted, Palaemon's ars must have been seen a� the ideal for grammatical texts before Quintilian. 24 Latini14S est, quae sennonem purum cotlSeNat ab omni vitio remotum. Vitia in semtotU!, quo minus is Latinus sit, duo POSSUllt esse: soloecismus et barbari.smus. Soloecismus est, cum ill verbis pluribus rotlSequetlS verbum superiori non auomodatur. Barbarismus est, cum verbum aliquod vitiose eJfertur. Haec qua ratione vitare possimus, ill ane grammatica diludde dicemus. 25 See Barwick's reCOIl.\truction of the Disdplinae (1 922, 230-237). 26 See Barwick 1 922, 238--9 and Schreiner 1 954, 4-5. 27 Barwick 1 922, 268 tries to prove that many detail\ in the Quintilian's text go back to Palaemon's ars; the same ta.\k i\ undertaken by Schreiner 1 954, 4( , 33, 37, 38, 42, 43, 5 1 , 57£, 69, 70, 7 1 , 72, 86, 87, 96, 1 00. In connection with RemmilL\' drS, Schreiner 1 954, 4-5 speak.\ of 'einer neuen Epoche in der Ge-

Quintilian's 'Gr:munar' (ltlSt. l .4-8)

341

Within the complex of De latinitate, many other granunarians can be identified in the first century BC: during the Roman Republic Antonius Gnipho, Caesar's teacher, with his two books De sermone Latino, fol­ lowed by Straberios Eros, teacher of Brutus and Cassius, with De propor­ tione, and Caesar himself with two books De analogia. The republican grammatical literature reached its peak with Varro 's five books De ser­ mone Latino. No equally comprehensive account of latinitas can be found before the last years of Nero's reign, when Pliny the Elder published his likewise famom Dub;; sermon is libri octo (ca. AD 65-68) .21< Earlier, there had only been professional literature about orthography, established in the Augustan era by Verrius Flaccm (ca. AD 60/50-22) with his multi­ volume edition De orthographia, a work which Quintilian certainly used for his chapter 1 .7 on ortho graphy.2'i Therefore, the second main source for Quintilian seem� to have been Pliny, whom he, however, does not name in this context.311 Thm, we have to assume that Remmius Palaemon and Pliny the Elder had already fully established the Roman ars with its systematical structure and its tenninology, which later was merely extended (espe­ cially in the field� of metrics and poetics) and supplemented by Quintil­ ian and his successors, however, done without crucial alterations. Of course, this audacious concllL�ion needs to be proven right through fur­ ther research. After all, we should take into account that, for reasons of transmi�sion, we are restricted to these two 'highlights', although Quin­ tilian apparently relies on a much larger number of granunatical sources.31 Finally, I would like to point out Quintilian's personal competence as grammarian . It i� fascinating how well he succeed� in presenting thi� often dull and dry subject in elegant prose, full of vivid and appealing description.�. Thi� positive impression is supported by his critical and di�tanced view of all exaggerations, subtleties, eccentricities and rigOrolL� statement�. In.�tead, he favours a balanced and focussed style, although not always holding back with criticism. For an impres.�ion of this, one should read the excellent presentation of analogy (1.6.4-27) , where Quintilian first lists it� array of possibilities (4-1 1 ) , before merciles.�ly giving account of all it� 1imitation.� (1 2-27) . In 1 .6 . 1 7, ana1ogist� being

28 29 30 31

schichte der romischen Grammatik' and of ' der groBten Nachwirkung auf die folgenden Jahrhunderte'. For the 'de latinitate type' see Ax 2000c, 1 73, n. 15 and Ax 2006b, 250, 259. See Ax 2006b, 25 1 . Verrius as source of Inst. 1 .7 is claimed by Barwick 1 922, 267. See Barwick 1 922, 266-7. See Barwick 1 922, 267.

342

Wolfram Ax

subjects to the rules of certain schoob are attested a molestissima diligentiae peroersitas ('an extremely annoying and foolish pedantry') and in 1 . 6.20, an insolentia quaedam et frivolae in parois iaaantiae ('a liability to extrava­ gance and, in little, an absurd blatancy') . This scorcher culminates in the wonderful punchline: Quare mihi non invenuste dici videtur aliud esse LAtine, aliud grammatice loqui (1 .6.27) . The same can be observed in the paragraph on etymology, which has a distinct purpose (1 .6.29--3 1 ) , whose absurdities and exaggeration�, however, must not b e tolerated, even if they originate from Varro himself (1 .6.32-38) . People who are too involved in thi� subject run the risk of 'being diverted into the most abhorrent absurdities because of their mi�guided talent' (1 .6.32: Inde pravis ingeniis adfoedissima usque ludibria labuntur) . Quintilian even explic­ itly warns of useles.� accumulation� of explanatory material which could inflate all philological description� (the historiae, 1 . 8 . 1 8-21 ) . He remarb: Ex quo mihi inter virtutes grammatici habebitur aliqua nescire (Therefore, not knowing everything must be seen a� one of the virtues of grammar teachers') . For Quintilian it i� natural to expres.� his personal opinion several times and he a�ks every other grammarian to do the same (1.7 .30) : Iudicium autem suum grammaticus interponat his omnibus: nam hoc valere plurimum debet ('Concerning all these things, the grammarian need� to advance hi� opinion, for it is of great importance. ) . In doing this, he often displays high competence, despite not being a professional gram­ marian. For example, infringements against genus and numerus of single word� (scala statt scalae) are no barbarisms, but simply a wrong use of word form.� (1 . 5 . 1 6) . The much-discu.�sed solecism in one word is no real solecism, a� the deixis and the situation function a� context and, therefore, form a second syntactical element (1 .5.36--3 8) . Lucilius' ftrvere cannot withstand closer examination, it can only be jeroere (1 .6.7-9) . On the other hand, the pepigi used by Quintilian can be defended by means of literary authority and analogy (1 .6. 1 0-1 1 ) . In 1 .6.24, analogical change in nominal flexion is rejected a� misunderstanding of the pho­ netic relation within the flexion system, and in 1 .4. 1 8, even a new translation for the word clas.� syndesmos i� proposed: convictio instead of coniunaio. The high lingui�tic standard of Quintilian's presentation becomes particularly apparent in the following two a�pects: The doxographical account of the word clas.� system in 1 .8 . 1 8-21 perfectly matches the results of modem research, especially the one conducted by Matthaios into the word cla...�es in antiquity. Especially the frequently challenged allocation of eight word cla�ses to Aristarchus and Remmius Palaemon '

Quintilian's 'Gr:munar' (Inst. 1 .4-8)

3 43

(1 .4.20) was fully rehabilitated by MatthaioS . 32 The other testimony concern� analogy a� a whole (1 .6. 1 6) , in particular its limiting effect a� linguistic standard: Non enim, cum primum fingerentur homines, Analogia demissa est eaelo formam loquendi dedit, sed inventa est, postquam loquebantur, et notatum in sermone, quid quoque modo eaderet. ltaque non ratione nititur, sed exemplo, nee lex est loquendi, sed observatio, ut ipsam analogian nulla res alia Jeeerit quam consuetudo ('For analogy did not come instantly down from heaven, when mankind wa� created, to represent a lingui�tic standard, but, imtead, was found after men had begun to speak and when they observed during talking which word ended in which ending. Thu�, analogy is not based on theory, but on examples; and it i..� no lingui�tic rule, but ba�ed on linguistic observation, so that the use of language itself produced analogy. ') . Even though this statement does not contain anything new in substance,l3 it would still be the pride of every modem linguistic handbook. Therefore, it is not surprising that Quintilian i..� one of the most frequently cited ancient gramma tical authors in modem academic literature. In conclu�ion: Quintilian's grammatical chapters (1 .4-8) rank among the most elegant, the most sophi..�ticated and, with respect to content and dating of the Roman ars, the most important texts on Roman grammar.

32 See Matthaios 1 999 und 2002. 33 Rhetorical theory comes after oratoria! practice, see Cic. de Orat. 1 . 1 46; and anawgia is subordinate to wnsuetudo, see Var. L 8.27; 9.2 and 9.8.

344

Wolfram Ax

Table 1 :

Quintilian, Institutio orarori4, prooem. 21-22:

12

books, sCructure according to

in.".

orat. 1 ,

2

4

3

ante officium

prima

rhetoric

apud rhetorem

5

6

8

7

inventio. dispositio

12

9 10 1 1

orator

elocutio. memoria. acriD

elementa, de ip�a rhetorices substantia

Quint.

imt. Drat. 12

prep !lchooLc;/fint lesmm in rhetoric

(2. 1-10)

(1)

•

books

(ol'2l:or at work)

retirement

(2. 1 1-12. 1 0)

(12. 1 1 )

,Mt pkm: .

rhetorice

______ I � (2. 1 1-11)

nature and aims of metorie

(2. 1 1-2 1)

ba.lI\ic notiom

(3. 1-5)

invenrio

(3.6-6)

cllll\positio

(J)

artifex

opus

(12. 1-9)

(12 . 1 0)

elocutio

(8-1 1 . 1 )

memoria

(11.2)

3 genera orationi, (3.6-1 1 ) g . demomtt'., deliberat. • iudiciale

�

exordiulll

narration

argumentarlo

perorario

(oJ)

(oJ)

(5)

(6)

actio

(11.3)

Quintilian's 'Grammar' (Inst. 1 .4-8)

345

Table 2:

Quintilian, lnstitrltio oratoria Book 1 ( 1 2 chapters) Chapter 1-3: From infancy to primary school: 1 . Training in earliest childhood 2. Question between school and private tuition 3. Different talents of pupils Chapter 4-8: Education in grammatice: 4. Elementa grammatices (tasb of grammati ce. elementa et partes ora­ tionis) 5. Correctnes.� of language (virtutes et vitia orationis: barbarism/ soloecism.�) 6. Rules of spoken language (Orthoepeia) 7. Rules of written language (Orthography) 8. Reading Qectio and enarratio poetarum) Chapter 9--1 2: Other topics of rhetorical pre-education: 9. Rhetorical progymnasmata taught already by the grammaticus 10. Other discipline beside grammatice (musice. geometria)? 1 1 . Preparatory training of voice and gesture (actio) 12. Several disciplines at the same time and already on this level of edu­ cation?

346

Wolfram Ax

Table 3:

Quint. Inst. 1 .4-8: Education i n grammatid 1 . recre loq"endi scientia (1.4-7) A: ars grammatica (1 .4-5) 1. Nature and tasks ofgrammatice 2. elementa oration is 1 . letters 2. word classes 3. virtutes et vitia orationis 1 . Introduction 2. Barbarism� 3. Soloeci�ms 4. Foreign word� (grecisms) 5. verba composita 6. verba propria, translata usitata, nova

1 .4. 1-5 1 . 4.6-29 6-1 7 1 7-29 1 .5 . 1-72 1-4 5-33 34-54 55--{)4 65-70 71-72

B:

de Latinitare (1.6-7) 1 .6. 1-45 1 . Orthoepeia (spoken language) 1 . Four criteria of lingui�tic correctness: 1-3 ratio, vetustas, auctoritas, consuetude 4-27 2. analogia 3 . etymologia 28-38 39-41 4. vetustas 42 5. auctoritas 6. consuetudo 43-45

2. Orthography (written language) 2.

1 .7. 1-35

enarratio auctorum (1.8) 1 . 8 . 1-4 1 . Rules of correct lectio 1 .8 . 5-12 2. Reading. Which authors and genres? 1 . 8 . 1 3-21 3. Tasks of the grammaticus in reading lessons

Syntax before Syntax: Uses of the Tenn O'VV'Ta�lS in Greek Grammarians before Apollonius Dyscolus

Frederic Lambert 1 . Introduction Thi� paper i� the result of a very limited survey about the uses of the term aVvra�IS and the verb aVVTaaaeLVlavVTaaaea6al in Greek granunarian.� between the Hellenistic period, after Ari�tode, until the century preceeding Apolloniu.� Dyscolu.�. I mu.�t confes.� that at the be­ ginning I felt frustated to find myself in a chronological space including neither the great syntactician with whom I am familiar nor the philoso­ pher whose place of birth and childhood i� so close to the place of the conference. Anyway, I wa� engros.�ed in thi� lime survey carried out 'off the tracks', so to speak, with real pleasure. I made up my corpus by con�ulting the texts cla�sified a� 'grammati­ cal' by the nG. Then I eliminated everything that did not fall within the period concerned. It is obviou.� that the literature scanne d in this way is very sketchy. It consists mainly of quotation�, more particularly of quotations by Apollonius Dyscolus (who, in a strange way, thus made hi� way back into the corpu.�) and of the grammarian whom Matthaios 2003 had the great merit to bring out of obscurity, Trypho and who appears very often in Apollonius' examples. The review produced 90 occurrences of terms belonging to the family of aVvra�IS. Without going into the question of interpretation, it is worth comparing this number with the approximately 800 occur­ rences the TLG gives for Apolloniu.�. If we look at these data, the au­ thor of TTEpi (7vvrafEfNf might seem obsessed by this concept compared to his predecessors, even if hi� tran�mitted work is decidedly larger. But it can be noticed that in the whole corpu.� of Ari�tode, even larger yet, only about 20 occurrences of word� of this lexical family can be found. The quantitative jump can be legitimately interpreted as a qualitative jump, a� such a mas.� of occurrences for only one author implies that the term and the correlative concept play an utmost role in his lingui�tic idea�. Even if we suppose that Apolloniu.� wa� not the creator of the

concept of syntax, he must have granted it an importance that presuma­ bly had not before. Nevertheless, Apollonius did not start out from nothing. A look at the uses of the words of the family of O"vvTa�IS by hi� predecessors can confiml this. Even though many occurrences have a meaning which is different from the technical sense of 'syntactic construction', a large number of occurrences, comes very close to it, in particular in the case of some authors. My purpose here will be to review the different uses of the word o"VvTa�IS (and similar tenm) , in order to suggest element� which might facilitate the understanding of the emergence of Apollo­ nius' syntactic theory and of its place in relation with his predecessors.

2. Non-grammatical Uses of o"VVTCX�IS Some of the occurrences found suggest a meaning completely unfantiliar to philology, referring to u�es found in cited text�. This is the case, for example, for the meaning of 'contribution' , 'tax', which can be found in fragments by the granunarian Sosibiu� (3rd-2nd c. BC) or Harpocration, in his Lexicon if the Ten Attic Orators (1st 12nd c. AD). Another use outside this field is that of 'convention' or 'treatise' (but with the meaning of 'convention between belligerents') , notably evoked by Harpocration about Demosthenes' texts. A common meaning of o"VvTa�IS in our corpus can be also found in Apollonius, in a more spo­ radic way however: the verb and the noun refer then to the composi­ tion of a written work or to the result of thi� work, i.e. to what is called 'a treatise' . Hemlippus of Smyrna (3rd c. BC) , biographer and successor of Callinlachus, speaks of those who composed works about the poet Aratus and u�es only the verb. Aristophanes of Byzantiunl (257-1 80 BC), ma�ter of Aristarchus, uses o"VvTa�IS, O"vvTaYlla and the related verb once, still with the sanle meaning. This fact is worth noticing, in­ som as he wa� one of the earliest recognized grammarian.�. Dionysiu� Scytobrachion, an Alexandrian grammarian of the 2nd or 1st c. BC, uses the verb four times in the aorist nliddle with the meaning of 'to com­ pose a work'. Erotian (1st c. AD), author of a medical glossary, uses only these meanings, both for the nouns and for the verb. At this stage of our review, we are left with no more than fourty oc­ currences. The fact that in the works of grammar literature such few occurrences of a technical meaning for the words of the family of o"VvTa�IS can be found is obviously a confinnation of a significant break after Apollonius.

Syntax before Syntax

3 49

Out of the remaining occurrences, a large amount falls within a use which i� very close to Apollonius' use. This particular use can be found in the texts listed under the name of Trypho, who worked in Rome in the second half of the 1 st century Be. The problem that arises with these texts is that they are known by the quotations made by Apollonius himself, a fact that, of course, could throw a doubt onto the authenticity of the uses they provide.

3. The Tenn (n)VTa:�lS in Trypho TLC indicates 15 occurrences of the family of o"VvTa�IS in the texts attributed to Trypho, all taken from quotations by Apolloniu.� Dyscolu.�. Only one seems to be able to be interpreted with the meaning of 'trea­ ti�e', 'work'. The others, at first sight, are in keeping with Apolloniu.�' uses and refer to the notion of syntactic construction. The fact that Try­ pho's treatises tackle syntactic i�sues surely explains the numerou.� and fairly long quotations made by Apolloniu.� . This may also be related to the numerous examples in which the proper name 'Trypho' i� used. Of course, on the ground of these few fragments, it is very diffi cult to re­ construct Trypho's syntactic theory. Nevertheless, a few hypotheses can be suggested. As in many cases in Apolloniu.�' works, it can be noticed that Trypho con�iders o"VvTa�IS as a combination of word� in keeping with morphological sub-categories, such as part of speech, person, ca.�e or number. The O"vvTa�IS correspond� to all the various possible combi­ nations between such and such word including at least one of these morphological sub-categories. However, it i� not certain that Trypho and Apollonius share the same point of view on these combinations. Everybody knows that Apol­ lonius constantly insi�ts upon the semantic basis of the syntactic combi­ nations. It is what he calh, at the beginning of hi� treati�e, the o"VvTa�IS TWV VOTrrwv, the 'combination of concepts'. I believe that thi� semantic facet allowed Apollonius to take into account distant syntactic relations. On the contrary, in Trypho, the syntactic combination apparently keeps a morphological aspect, in the sense that the construction implied ba.�i­ cally relies on an extension of the morphological a.�sembly, and indeed the instances supposed to illustrate the syntactic combinations in Trypho are generally made of adjacent sequences. The assembly seem� to be conceived on the pattern of morphology, in the sense that the joined elements are nothing but lexical units instead of being infra-lexical units. Here are some examples:

(1) a[. ..] al KAl1TIKa\ 5evTepoiS lTPOUOOlTOIS UVVTcXuuoVTal, '"EKTop -fiMes', 'IOOKPaTeS 5IeM� '· TOIOVTOV ow Ka\ TO 'uV AEye' Kal 'uV UKcXlTTe'. OUK �1TE15,; eu6e1a UVVTcXUUeTal �V Tci> 'uV 6 AEyoov', lTcXVTOOS Ka\ eu6e1as· 150u yap Ka\ �lT\ 6VOl.lcXTOOV, ')/\plo-rapxe aUTOS yeypalJlas '. Trypho fro 3 8 de Velsen (= A.D. Pron. 5 1 .23-27)

The vocatives combine with second persons, 'Hector! You came', 'Socra­ tes! You discus.�ed', and therefore in the same way 'You! speak' and 'You! dig'. It is not becau.�e it combines with a nominative, a� in 'you! the (nomin.) speaking', that it i� always in the nominative; it i� enough to look at what happens with the names 'Ari�tarchus! Itis yourself who wrote it'. (2) l1U\ TpvlJlOOv TOV 6TI uw5eullov Ka\ lTTOOTIKOiS Ka\ alTTOOTOIS uvVTcXuueu6al· '6TI 6 ;;AIOS \l1Tep yiiv �o-riv, 1'Illepa �o-riv'· '6TI lTepllTaTW, KlvoOllal '. Trypho fro 49 de Velsen (= A.D. C.onj. 23 5 .1 1-1 4)

According to Tryphon, 'the conjunction 6TI combines both with casual fonus and with non-casual fOrm�: 'because th!:....mn is above the earth, it is daylight; because I am going for a walk, I am moving'. (3) [. . ] Ta yap I<1TJTIKais aVToovvuialS uvVTauuoueva 6v6uaTcX �o-rl :rfu amS lTTOOUeOOS TVXOVTa Ka\ TOO aUTOO apl6uoO, '�1l0V auAOv', '�Il';V olKlav', '�Il';V XcXpIV'. Trypho fro 56 de Vel�en (= A.D. Conj. 247.4-6) .

Word� combinin\t with possessive pronouns in the same ca�e and the same nwnbs:r are noUDs indeed: 'my flute, my hou.�e, my favour'.

In these three examples, the elements Tryphon says are in combination are at the same time adjacent. The principle of adjacency is not completely abandoned in Apollo­ nius, since, in the pas.�e about (!m,l he shows that this conjunction is always con�tructed with a verb in the indicative, so that it forces him to use hyperbaton when there is no adjacency. It can indeed be noticed that the fact that Apolloniu� appeal� to hyperbaton is a confinnation that Trypho's aVvra�IS is a combination between adjacent elements. The use of ellipsis may also fall within this type of procedure. It would probably be worth studying the question of adjacency in Apollonius to be sure of thk Besides, the metaphor of the syllable at the beginning of Apolloniu�' treatise on the SyntdX is presumably based on an adjacencist

See A.D. Synt. II 1 74.6.

Syntax before Syntax

35 1

conception of the syntactic construction, except for the fact that the words replace phonetical units in order to build up syntactic syllables.

4. LVVTa�IS by Other Grammarians and by Dionysius Thrax: From Combination to Prose 4. 1 . Combination and Condition of Adjacency Trypho i� not the earliest granunarian who has used the tenns belonging to the family of o"VvTO:�IS to speak about the combination of linguistic units, and particularly about the words in the sentence. Before we tum to the document supposed to be the oldest, i.e. Dionysius' Thrax TixvT] ypa{.J{.JaTIKt], I would like to mention briefly the grammarians who make me of this tenninology before or after Trypho. The meaning of 'combination', 'combine', can be found for exam­ ple in Comanus of Naucratis, a grammarian of the 2nd century BC, when he refers to an adjacent sequence dative + verb: (4) T6 Te crvvepx6�evov pfj�a TIA1l6VVTIK6v tcrTlV, £Xov T1)v crvVTa�lv TOlaVT1lv, ipoi iyivoJITo, t70i iyivovTO, of iyivoVTO. Comanus, fro 3 Dyck

And the verb which goes with it i� in the plural, with the foUowing com­ bination: 'they belonged to me, they belonged to you, they belonged to them'

In a fragment attributed to Tyrannion, a grammarian of the 1" century, O"VVTCxO"O"E0"6CX1 refers to the combination between a preposition and a verb, yielding a composed verb: (5) aAAol 5e T1)v TIapo: Kvplws Keicr6a1, iva YEV1lTaI TIap ' aAa VKOr iEhEl/av. �eTO: youv Tfjs 510: ovo-a 1'1 £� OU TpElTEl TO � '§Jj{ t7wATjvor fir ayyof (Archil. fro 46 w.) . Tyrannio , fro 1 Haas

Other granunarians think that TIapa is taken in its literal meaning, because the fucu� is near the sea, and aho becau�e t� combines with £Xevav, which is even better: they spread the fucus near the sea. But with the preposition 510:, �� doem't turn out the �: 'out of (51£1;) the pipe into the container'

In Philoxenus of Alexandria (1st c. Be) the combination i� made 'by meaning' :

352

Frederic Lambert

(6) <601VUT6 TE A06S> (fl. 24.665) [. . . ] OU6EV 6e 6avIl0O"T6v, Ei nA116VVTIK6v eO"T1 TO 601VUTO KO! TO AOOS �vIK6v· TOO ya� crUI.IOIVOI.IEVoo n crVVTO�IS eYEvETo olloioos Tci> 'ayp61lEVOI nos 6iillOs ' (fl. 20. 1 66) . Philox. Gramm . fr o 41 1 Theodoridis ( . . .) Nothing surpriilltg if 601VUTO (shall feast) is in the plural and AOOS (the folk) in the singular, for the combination is made by the signified, a� in 'a whole folk (singular) that be gathered (Plural) to­ gether'.

We notice here that the condition of adjacency is somewhat less strict, the intennediate element, which has a parapleromatikon status, providing further evidence. It is time to return to Dionysius Thrax now. There are 3 occurrences of word� of the (J"VvTa�IS family in the TiXV17 and one in a quotation:

(l)

LVlltpooVO 6e Ta AOI1TO: hrrO Koi6EKO· 13 Y 6 � 6 K A 11 v � n p cr T tp X 1.jJ . CLVlltpooVO 6 e t AeyoVTaI, em oliTa IlEV K06' �avTa tpwvf)v OUK EXEI, crvVTocrcr61.1EVO 6e IlETO: TooV tpwv11evToov tpoovf)v anoTEMi. D .T. 6. 1 1 .1-4 The 1 7 others are consonants: 13 y 6 � 6 K A 11 V � n p cr T tp X 1.jJ. They are called consonants becau�e by themselves they do not produce any vocal sound, but they produce a vocal sound when they combine with vowels.

(8) I\E�IS eO"Ti Ilepos eM:XlcrTov TOU KaTO: crliVToElv Myov. 1\6yos 6e eO"T1 m4iis Ae�Eoos crW6EcriS 61ovOiov OUTOTeAii 611AoucrO. D.T. 1 1 .22.4-5

The word 0e�IS) i� the smaller part of the organised (KaTO: crVVTO�IV) ut­ terance. The utterance (A6yoS) is a whole composed in prose which ex­ pre.'5es a complete thought. (9) n p66mis eO"T1 Ae�IS npoTl6ElleVT] noVToov TooV TOU Myov IlEpooV EV TE crvv6ecrEI KO! crVVTO&l. D.T. 1 8.70.2-3

The preposition i� a word placed in front of all the parts of the utterance both by composition and by combination (ev crVVTOgl).

(1 0) Suid. 5 . 11 . lllovVcrloS 1>.AE�ov6pEVS · epol� 6e ano TOU nOTpos TiJpov TOVVOIlO Ki.116EiS, 1>.PIO"TOpXOV 1l0611Ti)S, ypollllaTlK6S, 05 ecrotplO"TEVcrEv ev 'Pc;,I1111 en! nOlln1110v TOU IlEYOAOV Koi e�Y1icroTo TvpowiooVI TOOl

Syntax before Syntax

35 3

7TpOTepWI. O'vvhaCE SE 7TAEiO'Ta ypallllaT1KO: TE Kat O'VVTaYllaT1Ka Kat V7TOllvTJllaTa.

Dionysius of Alexandria: called Thrax after his father, nicknamed Teros, pupil of Aristarchus, granunarian, he wa.. a sophist in Rome under Pom­ peius the great and guided Tyrannion the Elder. He composed very nu­ merous treatises and notes of granunar.

The last quotation correspond. to the use of the verb in the meaning of 'compose' a treatise. There are still 3 grammatical uses remaining. The first passage correspond. to the combining adjacent phonetic elements. The other two passages contra..t the nominal form O"uvTa�IS with crVv6eO"IS: the definition of the preposition contrasts the prefixal use to make up compounded word. (O"w6eO"IS) with the prepositional use it­ self, where the preposition and the word which follows it remain di.­ tinct, and it i. at this moment that Dionysim speaks about O"wTa�IS. But the definitions of both 7I.e�IS and MyoS raise some problems. The defini­ tion of 7I.e�IS seems to be consi.tent with the idea that O"uvTa�IS is a combination of word•. But the definition of the MyoS surprisingly sup­ poses that the O"UV6EO"1S is a procedure of unification similar to those that can be found in the composed word• .

4.2. LUVTa�IS and O"uv6eO"1S Arguably, tbi. contrast between crUvTa�IS and crVv6eO"IS can again be encountered in various glos..aries, dating from (unfortunately) uncertain periods, but with a rather high frequency, and with a very different sense. In the Lexicon attributed to Ptolemy, the di.tinction consist. in a contrast between prose and poetry: (1 1 ) Kai SlmpepEI . O'VveEO'IS IlEV yap 0 Myos 0 EIlIlETPOS, TaC1S Se 0 Myos 0 7TE�OS. Pto!.Gramm . Diff. 0" 1 42

Composition differs from combination. Composition is a
We read in the same lexicon: (12) TOU <evEKa> SlacpepEl XP"O'EI Kai O'VVTo:CE1, em 0 lleV oVvEKa 7T01TJT1KOS, 0 Se eVEKa O'vv,,6TJs. Pto!' Gramm. Diff. 0 1 1 7 OVvEKa differs fro111 eVEKa by its use and by the combination, for oVvEKa is poetical and EVEKa i. usual.

3 54

Frederic Lambert

Thi� second quotation could be interpreted without taking into account the first one; xpr,ael would then refer to the difference between prose and poetry, avvT6:�el to a difference in the construction. However, the two prepositions (conjunctions for the Ancients) can have the same construction. And the definition does not look complete. We could then consider that avvT6:�el refers to the type of composition, in prose or in verse, while xpr,ael concem� an author's particular use, but thi� poses a problem since the first term in this way receives a sense partially in conflict with the general definition of the aVvTa�IS. On the other hand, in another lexicon, attributed to Anunonius, several passages confirm the contrast between aVvTa�IS and avv6ealS, while giving some additional information: (13) <Myos 1TOl1)C1ews> lilacpepel. MyoS �ev yap EC1TIV n 6(Xa UETpOV crvVTa�IS, 1To(1)C1IS 6e n C1vv6eC1lS n �eTpw Kocr�ovf.1I1V1). Anmlon. gl. 303

Discoune differs from poetry. It mean. that discoune is a combination without verse and poetry is a composition embellished with verse. (14) Koi 610cpepel. crvyypauuo �EV yap EC1TIV 6 6iXa ueTpov Myos, 6 1TpoC1ayopev6�evos 1Te�6s· crvvTayua 6e 1ToAe�IK6v TI crVCTTTj ua, acp' 00 Kai C1vVTay�aTapXTlS 6 TOU crVcrTt;UaToS cx\nou apxwv. Anmlon. gl. 453 LVyypauua (written work) differs from crvVToyua (disposition). LVvToYUa (written work) is a di�coune without verse, which is called prose; a crvvTayuo (disposition) i� a military body, from which ha� been also created crvVTaYUaTapXTlS, the one who comman d� the body itsel£ (1 5) 61acpepel. cr\iv6EC1IS uev yap EcrTIV 6 Myos 6 EUUETPOS, crvvTa�IS 6E 6 Myos 6 1TE�6S. Anmlon. gl. 453 LVv6eC1lS differs from crvvTa�IS. Lvv6ecriS crVv6eC1lS the discoune in prose.

IS

the discoune in verse,

Of course, there i� a certain degree of confu.�ion in such texts, but it can be noticed that the generic lL�e of aVvTa�IS referring to a type of di�­ course is confinned in passage 13. The sanle applies to the more specific lL�e of aVvTo�IS and aVv6eCJlS referring respectively to composition in prose and to composition in verse. Finally A6yoS can also refer either to

Syntax before Syntax

355

every type of discourse, or more specifically to the discourse in prose, as in passage 1 3 , where it i� opposed to TToiT)O"lS. Turning back to the definitions of Dionysios, things are rather un­ clear, but what we can do all the sanle is consider that the expression IJEpOS eACxXICTTOV TOO KCXTO: o"VVTCX�lV Myov should refer to a type of discourse rather than to the syntactic construction, in Apollonius' sense. However it seems difficult to restrict the definition of AE�lS to prose. A� for the definition of MyoS, it add� many discrepancies, since it i� re­ stricted to prose while referring to the poetic composition par excellence, that is to say the O"Vv6EO"lS. I think it could be a trace of a deeply cor­ rupted text.

5. The Philosophical Origins of crvVTa�IS: Chrysippus The grammatical and philological tradition is not enough to understand the development of the concept of O"VvTCX�lS. Everybody knows that Dionysius Thrax and Apollonius Dyscolus are deeply indebted to the Stoics. ApollonilL� often refers to the Stoic philosophers, and this fact prompts us to examine the texts attributed to the Stoics. Considering the small number of the available texts, the amount of occurrences i� fairly interesting and revealing. Most of the Stoic texts or fragments which include word� of the o"VvTCX�lS fanllly are attributed to Chrysip­ pus, which brings lL� back to the 3rd cent. BC. It seems that Chrysippus, in order to elaborate on his logic theory, appealed to the concept of O"VvTCX�lS. He looks on the side of what is called 'sayable' (AEKTCx) rather than on the side of granmlatical unit�. Here are some of the lL�es picked out: (16)

eCTTI 5e TO KCXTTJ YOP'llJa TO KaTa TIVOS ayopEVO�EVOV' Ti lTpo:y�a

crvvTaKTOV lTEpi TIVOS Ti TlvWV, WS 01 lTEpi 1\lToMo5wpov cpacrlv, Ti AEKTOV �Ml1Tes crvvTaKTov op6ij lTTWcrEI lTPOS aElw�aTos yevEC7Iv. D.L. 7 .63 ( = Chrysipp. fro 1 83)

The predicate is what is said about something, or: something conjuncted (crvvTaKTov) to one or several others (according to Apollodoros), or that way: an incomplete sayable (AeKTOV) conjuncted to a direct case to generate a proposition. (17) Ka\ Ta �ev �crTI TWV KCXTTJ yop,,�aTwv opea, 0: 5' VlTTla, 0: 5' ov5ETEpa. opea �ev ow �crTl Ta crvVTacrcro�Eva �IC;X TWV lTAayiwv lTTWcrEWV lTpOS

356

Frederic Lambert KcrmyopDuCXTOS YEVEO'IV , olov 'aKovEI' 'op�' '51cU.eYETal'. (/lrna 51! �CTT I Ta C7VVTaaa6UEva Tci> lTa6T)TIKci> 1J0piC? , olov 'aKOVOlJal' ' opwlJal'. D.L. 7.64 ( = Chrysipp. fro 183)

Among predicates some are active, other.; passive, others neither of the two. Those which are con�tructed with an oblique ca�e are active, for imtance 'hears, sees, talks' to generate a predicate. Those which are constructed with a pa\.�ive ending are passive, for imtance 'I am heard, 1 am seen'. (18) TO lJev yap 'IJETalJEAeiTal' aVlJ�lJa Elval, TO 51; 'IJETaIJEAeI' lTapaaVlJ�lJa ou 5WOcIJEVOV 6v6IJCXTI C7VVTax.6sv alT6!J!avalv �pyOcaaa6al, olov 'IwKPavoIS) aM' OUTE KAlalv �1TI5E�aeal 5WOcIJEVOV, WS TO 'mpllTCXTW, lTEpl1TaTEis, lTEpl1TaTEi'. Porphyrius apud Amm . in Int., CAG IV.5, 44. 1 9 (= Chrysipp. fro 184) ' Fed repentence' is indeed an event (aVlJ�lJa), while 'it repents' is a qua�i-event (lTapaaVlJ�lJa) for, combined with a noun, it cannot per­ fom1 a statement, like 'Socrates it repents' (this is not at all a statement) nei­ ther can it receive a flexion, like 'I walk, you walk, he walles ' .

It can be noted that these texts actually mention sayables, and the dabo­ ration of logical propositions, a� it can be shown by the underlined pa�­ sages. At the same time, they consist of a combination, seemingly very close to the grammatical texts we examined first: direct cases, oblique ca�es, noun, pas.�ive 'particle' (i.e. morpheme) . But as a matter of fact, they are grammatical components considered according to the dabora­ tion of a semantic whole, i.e. the logical proposition (1TpOS O�IOOIlCXTOS yevealv) or one of its components, predicate (1TpOS KCXTllYOP";IlCXTOS yevealv) or even its overall value, here the aflinnative value (o1T6cpavalv) are involved here. This philosophical, not to say scientific, aint is clearly expressed in the following pas.�age of Dionysius of Halicama�sus: (19) "Eyooy' 00" OTE 51EYVOOV C7VVTOcTTEaeal TaVTT)V T1)V ulT66EalV, ��"'TOW ei TI ToiS lTp6TEPOV eipT)Tal mpi a\'rrii s. Kai 1J00�ICTTa Tois alTO Ti\s ITOO:S 1J)\�oa6TOIS EI5wS TOUS av5pas ou IJIKpaV TPoVTI5a TOO �EKTIKOO T6lTOV mlTOIT)IJEVOVS. 5Ei yap aVTois T�T)6ii lJapTVpEiv. ou5aIJii 5' ou5ev UlT' OU5Ev6S EUpWV TWV 6v6IJCXTOS 1')�IOOIJEVOOV OUTE IJEi�ov OUT' (�aTTov C7VVaxeSV EIS flv �yw lTpotlPT)lJal lTpaYIJCXTelav, as 51; Xpval1TlTOS KCXTaM�olm aVVTOcglS 51TTOcS , �lTIypaT1)V �xovaas 'nEpi TijS C7VVTOcgooS TWV TOO Myov UEpWV' ou �nTOpIKnV 6Eooplav �xovaas. aMa 51cU.EKTIK1'!V, WS iaaaiv 01 TaS �1��ovS aveyvooK6TES, UlTSP aElwUOcTOOV aVVTOcgws. a�n6wv TE Kai 'VEv5wv Kai 5WCXTWV Kai a5wOcToov. �V5EXOUEVOOV TE Kai UETanl1TT6VTWV Kai aU!J!I��wv Kai

Syntax before Syntax

357

&Moov TIVWV TOIOVTOTpOnWV, ovSelllav OUTe xpelav OUT' W'PEAelaV Toi� nOAITIKOi� A6yol� aVIl�aAAOIlEVWV, el� YOUV 'I'ISOV1)V i\ KaMo� �PIlTJveia�, WV Sei C7ToxCxl;;e a6al Tl)v aVveeanl"TaVTTJ� lleV Tt;� npaYllaTela� anEC7TTJV. D.H. Compo 4.31

Anyway, when I decided to deal with this subject, I tried to find out whether preceding writers had already talked about it, particularly the Stoic philosophers, for those people, as far as I knew, paid great attention to the problems of style: we mu�t do them ju�tice. I realized then that nothing had been said anywhere by any of the renowned authors, broaching in no way upon the work I intended to write; I realized also that the two � left by Chrysippus entitled The 0nmnisation of the Parts of Lani'AA� gives u� a dialectical and not rhetorical point of view (those who have read this book know this) ; th!:¥ deal with the onmnisation of the propositions ac­ cordinW; to whether th!:¥ are true or false. possible or impos.uble. still ac­ CI;pted or obsolete or even ambilWoU�. and so on, all things which are not at all u�eful, of no use for public eloquence, at lea�t from the point of view of plea�tt1ess or beauty of expression, which i� preci�ely the aim of the stylistic composition. So I gave up thi� investigation.

One can be surprised at the discrepancy between the tide of Chrysippus' treatises and their interpretation in this passage, but, in the light of the preceding pa�sages, the main point appears to be the aim of the study of the organization of the parts of the utterance. In the ca�e of Chrysippus, it seem.� that it i� a logical aim: on which condition� can an utterance be said to be well formed to play a role in scientific argumentation? At the same time he i� the first philosopher to be so closdy interested in the organization of the parts of the utterance, using the term O'VvTa�IS for this.

However, hi� work goes far beyond the simple utterance since he is interested in the complex utterance, still with the aim of showing the different forms of reasoning. And he also uses the notion of O'VvTa�lS to describe the organization of the parts of the complex utterance, as is revealed by the following pa�sages, extracted from Diogenes Laertius' summary: (20) SlaaalJlouv Se TO uo:Mov aElwua �C7Tl TO aVVTaTTouevov uno TOU Slaaa'P0UVTO� TO 1l00Mov avvSEallov Kal TOU ('i\ '> IlEaov TWV a�lwllaTwv TaaaOUEVov, olov 'llo:Mov 'I'IllEpa �C7Tlv i\ vV� �C7TIV'. D.L. 7.72 (= Chrysipp. fro 2(7)

The comparative (proposition) is the proposition con�tructed with the con­ junction 'more' and the word 'than' placed between the two propositions: 'It is more day than night'.

35H

Frederic Lambert (21 ) lTell1T"TOS 6e £O'TIV CrvCXTT6 6EIKTOS, £V <;> lTas i.6yoS CTVVTaO"O"ETal £K 6IE�evYIIEVOV Kal EVOS TWV £V Tt;':> 6IE�EvYllev CrvTIKEIIIEVOV Kal £lTUpEPEI TO i.OI1T6V, olov 'liTO I 1'iIlEpa £O'Tlv ft vV� £O'TIV' ouXI 6e vv� EO"Tlv' 1'iIlEpa expa EO'T1v·. D.L. 7.H1 ( Chrysipp. fro 241 ) =

The fift h Wlprovable is the rea.�oning in which the whole chain (A6yoS) i� constructed (O"vVTaO"O"ETal) with a di�Wlctive (proposition) , the opposite of one of the members and concludes with the remaining one, as in: 'either it is daylight or it i� dark; it is not dark; therefore it is daylight'.

LVvra�IS here is the mode of organization which includes in the whole i\6yoS conceived as a discursive unit the various propositions which cannot be interpreted if not linked to the others. This extension of the process of (J"VvTa�IS is again the argumentative aim of the i\6yoS. We can therefore suppose that Chrysippus and the Stoics are actually at the origin of a technical u�e of the terms related to the concept of (J"vvTa�IS, but from the viewpoint of a theory of argumentation and thm in the domain of philosophical dialectic.

5. Conclusion: Apollonius' Dyscolus Synthesis At the end of thi� survey we come to a sort of dichotomy in the u�e of the family of (J"VvTa�IS between the 3rd C. BC and the 1 st C. AD . On the one hand, a fairly general form of organization or assembling, which combines some elements by integrating them into a whole of variable size and in variou� field�: organization of an army corps, of a treatise or a scholarly work (prose, as opposed to poetry) , of a grammatical whole or an argumentative discourse. In this meaning, (J"VvTa�IS definitely consti­ tutes a general pattern for thinking different types of organization, much more than a technical concept restricted to one type of autonomi�ed discourse. This is perhaps the reason why the terminological family of (J"VvTa�lS i� not very frequent and in any ca�e not very systematic in the pre-apollonian period. To illustrate the philosophical u�e of this concept of organization supplied by the family of (J"VvTa�IS, I will quote two pa�sages supposedly refering to Chrysippus' philosophy: (22) 'YlToKEIIIEva IIEV yap lTpWTa TaEavTES Kal T1)V iJi."v EVTav6a TWV t!iJlAwv lTpoTaEaVTES, T1)V lTPWT"V a\nois 60KovO"av apxTlv O"VVTaTTOVO"I Tois IIETa Tf)V apx,;v a\nWv. Plot. 6.1 .25 ( Chrysipp. fro 373) =

Syntax before Syntax

359

Putting the subjects (vlToKeillEva) in the fint rank, and putting the matter hl:fun: every other thing, they Imt what is, for them, the first principle Qll the same plane a.� what follows this principle. (23) In libra lTepl lTpovoias quarto e!�ap�e1l11v es'e dicit <jlvaIK"v Tlva avvTaClv TWV OAWV E� ciiS lov TWV hepwv ToiS hepOiS ElTaKOAov6oVvrwv Kai IlETaTT OAOV�evwv 61rapa�clTov oua11S Tii s TOlavT11S ElTIlTAOKi'iS. Gell. 7.2. ( = Chrysipp. fro 10(0) In Book IV of the treatise About the Providence he says .that ute is an or­ der estab!i�hed by nature of all the events that come one after each other and have been transmitting the movement for ages, while their dependence cannot be infringed.

In other words, the philosophical vocabulary of the Stoics was likely to accomodate the avvTa�IS but it could 31.0 concern the organization of nature and the elaboration of thought. On the other hand, the philolo­ gist.-gramma rian.. started to restrict the use of this pattern to the internal organization of the sentence. We come then, as we have seen, to a very limited combination of adjacent linguistic elements, elementary sound., word components or lexical units, but this combination of adjacent ele­ ment. cannot yield results likely to elaborate a real syntactic theory. ThlL. the focal point of this hi.torical survey can be found in ApollonilL', whose work is a trial of synthesis between the granunatical tradition of the philologists, to whom avvTa�s is a very elementary combination, and the Stoic tradition, which succeeded in giving aVVTa�IS an un­ matched extent, but within the limits of the theory of the AEKTa and of scientific argumentation. This synthesi. owes as much to the Alexan­ drian philology as to the Stoics, but when ApollonilL' extended the granunatical aVVTa�IS to the aVVTa�IS TWV VOllTWV, he actually intro­ duced syntax into Alexandrian grammar . The well-known text at the beginning of the Syntax intending to demonstrate that the exten.ion of the syntactic process i. well-founded and justified, can be read as a trace of that double origin. One may 31.0 wonder whether the strange definitions of Ae�lS and A6yoS in DionysilL" Thrax treati.e do not constitute a trace of the diffi ­ cult convergence between granunatical tradition and philosophical thought. It does not mean that the rhetorical tradition mlL.t be put a.ide, for it certainly played an important role in the development of the con­ cept of aVvTa�lS, a. Dionysius of Halicarnas..m proves.

Syntagms in the Artigraphic Latin Grammars

Guillaume Bonnet In the school of the West, grammarian� are concerned with word� as speech units embodying meanings in a sensible form. In order to explain pa.�sages of famous poems and other pieces of literary works, single word� are considered for themselves, as shown by a text like Priscian's Partitiones XII uersuum Aeneidos prindpalium, for in�tance, which is a specimen of the right treatment (here limited to the twelve first verses of the Aeneid cantos) by students of the knowledge they received at school. It is thu.� possible to understand why grammarians as.�ert that sedes can be seen both as nominative singular and plural, that pita may as well be a feminine singular or a neutral plural noun. These examples are taken from orthographists. 1 whose purpose deals explicidy with single lexical item.�. That could be said also for artigraphs, who study words in a serial way, con�idering the language a.� a corpus of word� gathered into units of which they give the characteri.�tics. In that sense, one could as.�ert that artigraphs are orthographists who systematically use the first level of the Varronian analogy. In that particular context, it is not irrelevant to a.�k whether word� in context are abo taken into account. We do not intend to locate the ques­ tion at the syntactic level-it is well know that Apolloniu.� lJyscolus and Priscian a few centuries later have examined the mechanism of sense production through language. But a.� the purpose of ancient grammari ­ an�, including Priscian, was to study mainly words in theirs morphologi­ cal behaviour, I shall limit myself to what will be thereafter call ed 'syn­ tagm.�', the close a.�sociations of autonomous words the meaning of which is obviously more than an addition of the different meanings involved in it, such as res publica.

For sedes, see Velius Longus, De ortlwgraphia, G.L. VII 56. 1 5-1 8, or [Caper] De ortlwgraphia, G.L. VII 1 05 . 1 ; for pi/a, see Scauru." De orthographia 19.2ft: Bid­ dau.

362

Guillaume Bonnet

1 . Syntagms used in Grammati cal Analysis Despite what we have said about word� as single units for the grammati­ cal purpose, their context is also taken into account in front of student�. Two levels are to be considered. Definition of partes orationis

Syntax itself i� part of the definition of two partes orationis: aduerbium and praepositio. The classical definition given by Donatus (Mai. 640.2-3 Holtz) makes it very clear: 'A duerbium est pars orationis quae adiecta uerbo significationem eius explanat atque inplet', 'adverb is a part of speech which, when added to verb, explains and completes its meaning' . Adverb exist� only through its relation with a verb: in other word�, no adverb without a verb (except, of course, special situations which will be further dealt with by the teacher). More evident is the case ofpraepositio; according to Donatu.� (Mai. 648, 4-5 Holtz) , 'Praepositio est pars orationis quae praeposita aliis partibus orationis significationem earum aut conplet aut mutat aut minuit', 'preposition i� a part of speech which, when put before other parts of speech either completes or changes or dinIini�hes their meaning' . It has been a problem, for Apollonius,2 to determine whether Greek 1TpOeSo"EIS were to be considered as prepositions (in the modern sense) or as prefixes. For Latin grammarians, such a question i� no more a problem because the scarcity of case constructions (only accusative and ablative; both only with in, sub and super, subter) allows one to state pre­ ci�ely where they are to be considered as compound�, where as affixes, and also because there are in fact prepositions wruch never take part in compound� (apud, penes) , something that may help to di�tinguish thi� pars orationis at a lexical level. These very word� are to be found only in syntagms. Mter his definition for praepositio, Donatu.� goes on stating explicitly thi� dependence at both the semantic and the morphologic level (Mai. 648, 10-1 1 Holtz) : 'Praepositiones aut casibus seruiunt aut loquel­ lis aut et casibus et loquellis. Aeque aut coniunguntur aut separantur aut et coni­ unguntur et separantur' 'prepositions go with cases or with word� or with both ca�es and word�. They are equally either joined or put apart or joined and put apart' . More generally, conjunction is aim looked at in its connective function, as it bind� up (adnectere) and arranges (ordinare) sententiam ('sentence' in both the intellectual and the linguistic sense!).

2

See the general purpose of Synt. IV.

Syntagm.. in the Artigraphic Latin Granm=s

363

1 .2. Identification of Single Words Not only in definitions do grammarians consider the syntagmatic level, but also in order to classify word� the nature of which is not clear at first sight, especially adverbs. So does Priscian (Inst. gramm. 1 7 , G.L. III 1 97 . 1 6-20) : 'Proprie autem illae sunt praepositiones aaipiendae quae sine casu­ alibus priferri non possunt separate, ut in ilIum, per ilIum, pro ilIo, sub ilIo, de ilIo, ab ilIo, ex ilIo. Nam pone et coram possunt etiam sine casualibus priferri, qui aduerbia sunt, ut Virgi/ius in II Aeneidos : Pone subit con­ iunx . . . . In the case of pone and coram, student� are requested to widen the franle of the analysis up to a minimal construction in order to determine to what pars orationis do belong these word�. By their nature, communia uerba , 'ambiguous verbs', fluctuating between deponent and passive value, such as criminor, 'accuse' or 'be accused', need such a widening within the text they appear in: do they depend upon an agent (criminor a te) or support an object (criminor te)? Among many other examples, we can quote a pa.�sage drawn out from the beginning of the fifth Book of Charisius' Grammar, whose content gave rise to nUlllerous reflexion�:3 '

Participia igitllr, ut supra diximm, casus recipiullt suorum lIerbomm, uelut amo uxorem, amans uxorem, seruo domurn, seruans domum, metuo pattern, rnetuens patrem. Nomilla uero participialia quae lIomilla jiullt ex participiis prae­ sentis temporis genetiullm admittullt, lIelUt antal1S amicorum, seman.. aequi, rnetuens periculi, metuens deorum, fidens animi, egens pecuniarum, scien. bonorum. Charisius, AT.< grammatica 379.24-380. 1 Barwick

Therefore participles, as aforesaid, need the case of their corresponding verb, as amo uxorem, amam IIxorem, seruo domum, seruam domllm, metuo patrem, metllens patrem. But participial nouns, which are nouns made from present participles accept genitive, a. amam amieorum, seruam aequi, metllem periculi, metllens deorum, jidetls allimi, egem peculliarum, scicm bOllorum.

We will notice that the passage is located in a chapter De idiomatibus (,Idiomatic expression�') : actually, the possible confusion between noun� and participles is typical of Latin, and need� a clear statement.

3

K. Barwick, responsible for the Teubner edition (1925), gathered together in the 5th Book different tracts following the ruined end of the AT.< in the main nlaDuscript, Neap. Lat. IV A S. A closer investigation ntakes clear that Bar­ wick's text is not exactly fitted to what is announced in the preserved Sum­ mary. One Dlay conjecture that the wa.ted antigTaph ha. been made up in a scriptorillm (in Bobbio, where the lllaDuscript comes from?) with more or less relevant sruff COIning from other granmtatical texts, now lost.

We have already seen a passage of Priscian Institutiones grammaticae. In the 'syntactic' books 17 and 1 8, he employs syntax (note the use of the word) as an heuristic device for students, as he clearly asserts after a detailed exposition of ambiguolL� forms: 'Omnis enim constrndio, quam Graeci 17vvTaflv uocant, ad intellegendum uocis est', 'every construction, which Greeks call syntaxis, is connected to the meaning of what is pro­ nounced' (Inst. gramm. 1 7 , G. L. III 201 . 1 1-12). On a larger scale interjections can also be distingui�hed from ex­ clamatory adverbs. It i� well known that this eighth part of speech be­ longs specifically to Latin grammar. Nevertheless, the category of ex­ clamatory adverbs, which are in Greek grammar the equivalent of Latin interjectiom, has not been suppressed. Though through a 'Greek' treat­ ment of interjections (to which are devoted, instead of a single book, a few lines at the end of Book 1 5 on adverbs) , Priscian gives a very acute analysis of the status of interjection in Latin: ... si dicam papae, quid uideo?, lid pN s" papae, "tiamsi non addalllr miror, hab"t in s" ipsills uerbi signijication"m. Quae res maxim" fecit Romanarum artium scriptores separatim hanc partem ab aduerbiis accipere, quia uidetur q/fectllm habN" in se uNbi et plenam mollls animi significationem, eliamsi non addatur uerbum, demonstrare. Priscianus, Institutiones grammaticae 1 5 , G.L. III 90.7-1 2

If I say 'What the hell am I seeing', we can consider that even if 'I wonder' is not added, the heII has in itself the very meaning of this verb. Mainly for this reason the authors of Latin gramm ars conceived this part of speech apart from adverbs, for it seem., that it involves in itself the mood expressed by the verb and fully voices a motion of the soul without adding any verb.

'It seems that it (the interjection papae) involves in itself the mood ex­ pressed by the verb and fully voices a motion of the soul without adding any verb': this is, in all probability, the reason-a syntactical rea�on­ why Latin grammarians decided to remove some exclamative words from the category of adverbs: who did it? And when? We may only conjecture that it may have arisen from the grammatical conuuents on plays, when students could often meet cues reduced to one single inter­ jection, and for which the slL�picion of aposiopesi� was not relevant. La�tly, the syntactic training, as we can call the chria exerci�e, is based on word� put into particular, suggestive context, whose complexity could improve students intellectual agility, such a� thi� one, taken from Diomedes' Ars (G.L. I 3 1 0. 1 ff) , shaped for detecting Alzheimer syn­ drome: 'Nominatiuo casu, numero singulari: Marcus Porcius Cato dixit litterarum radices amaras es.� e, fructus iocundiores; genetiuo casu: Marci Porci Catoni� dictum fertur litterarum radices amara� esse, fructus

Syntagm.. in the Artigraphic Latin Granm=s

365

iocundiores . . . ' , 'nominative singular: "Marcus Porcius Cato said the roots of literature are bitter, but more pleasant its fruit�"; genitive singu­ lar : one reports a sentence of Marcus PorcilL� Cato that the roots of literature are bitter, but more pleasant its fruit� . . . '.

1 .3 . Syntagm and Standard

In spite of the chria exercise, Latin Artes grammatical' never give the im­ pression of being handbooks for elementary Latin teaching, even when they clearly have been written for Greek speaking student� (such as DosithelL�', or the so called Grammatica anonymi Bobiensis) . In order to learn rudiments of Latin language, another kind of handbooks has been developed: hermeneumata. 4 Oral ma.�tering of every day Latin is implicit. Nevertheless, for grammatical purposes, students are facing list� of Latin peculiarities with respect to Greek. In that sense, we may consider that, in front of a bilingual audience, contrast is an efficient pedagogical de­ vice. A minimal context is required to set up the idiomata roU�. Dio­ medes (G.L. I 3 1 1 , 3-7) introduces verbs with genitive object, then with dative, etc., in a more general frame dealing with the origin� of Latin language: Verba diuersis (asibus apud Romanos hoc modo iunguntur. Nam cum ab omni ser­ mone Graeco Latina loquella pendere uidealur, quaedam inueniuntur uel licentia ab antiquis uel proprietate Latinae linguae dicta praeter consuetudinem Graecorum, quae 'idiomata ' appellantur. Agnoscuntur autem ex (asibus ... Diomede., G.L. [ 31 1 .3-7.

'Thus word. are combined in Latin with different cases. As a matter of fact, de.pite the fuct that Latin words seem to depend on every kind of Greek speech, some can be found which are u..ed without any regard for the Greek custom; we call them idiomata. They are di.tinguished by cases . . . . '

By using 'micro-context' and involving that the contrast will be found out by the students, one can put forward theoretical, more abstract mat­ ter: syntactic relationships for instance, as they exist between ca.�es and persons, or persons and verbal mood�, etc. The link between two acci­ dentia which are characteri.�tic of the ba.�ic categories of noun� and verbs is held a.� essential, and we find a great deal of such observations in anonymous tracts following Dositheus' Ars (G. L. VII 426.4-7) : 'Casus nominatiuus trahit uerbum tertiae personae, ut Pompeim in litore Aegypti dicitur occidi�se, nominatur inter auctores Caelius, Vergilius Aeneida fecit. Vocatiuus secundam personam accipit, ut Vergili scribe, Cicero re4

C( Rochette 1 997.

366

Guillaume Bonnet

sponde', 'nominative calls for the verb at the third person, as Pompeius in litore Aegypti dicitur occidisse, nominatur inter auctores Caeiius, Vergilius Ae­ neida fecit. Vocative receives the second person, a.� Vergili scribe, Cicero responde'. A second example, from Priscian (Inst. gramm. 8, G.L. II 449.7-1 1 ) , echoes well known observations by Apollonius Dyscolus (Synt 358.1 5ff.) : 'In imperatiuis prima persona singularis non potest esse, quod naturaliter imperans ab eo cui imperat diuiditur. Cum ergo prima persona est quae loquitur, ipsa sibi imperare non potest. Vnde hie modus et uocatiuum as­ ciscit qui in secunda tantum persona inuenitur, ut doce grammati ce! ', 'at the imperative mood, there can not be any first person singular, for it is nonna! for who is giving an order to be different from the one who receives it. Therefore, when a first person is speaking, it cannot give an order to itsel£ Hence i.� thi.� mood calling for vocative, which i.� found only in the second person, as doce grammatice! ' . Under the generic name of locutio, the second Appendix Probi (G.L. IV 1 96. 1 3--197.6) gathered such syntagms classified by cases.

2. Syntagms and Word Composition Locutio does not express a third ca.�e in which the frame of single words is overstepped. Thi.� time, we do not mean a device made up to remove ambiguity, nor a speech fragment worth quoting for it� contra.�tive effi­ ciency, or any syntactic interest, but we deal with an element that mor­ phological theory-the ground of grammatical handbooks-must re­ port. 2 . 1 . An Orthographic Problem?

A� a matter of fact, some lexical syntagm.� develop a unique, specific meaning, just like single word� are supposed to do. But in this ca.�e, grammarian.� are dealing with two separate item�. Such are, for instance, iusiurandum, praifectus Vrbis, huiusmodi or maior natu. 5 Modem editors sometimes write these syntagms a.� units, sometimes print two separate

5

From a no n exhau.�tive list of such syntag.m, let u.� draw these, not mentioned in our text (references are to Keil's Grammatici Latim): fidei rommissum rv 349.21), iuris cotlSultus (II 441 . 1 1) , iuris peritus (II 1 84.6 and 441 . 1 1 ) , pateifamilias (II 1 79. 1 2; V 43.21), plebis scitum (III 1 75.8 and 1 85.21), praefectus fobnlm (II 441 . 1 2), promilite (IV 543.20), selUltus decretum (II 179. 1 3 and 441 . 1 1) .

Syntagm.. in the Artigraphic Latin Granm=s

367

words, being influenced by tradition more than by precise rules. " More­ over, it seems that ancient writer had no rules on thi� subject; they may have not been insensitive to a rather strange criterion, as we may think , which could be calle d 'semantic weight': let U� consider the Q of the funom Latin device SPQR: by no mean a single word to be written apart, as granunarians perfectly knew, but a full meaning element, as it expresses the funous balance of the Roman republican constitution. Ancient granunarian.�' perplexity about writing syntagm� i� witnessed by Quintilian (Inst. 1 .5.68) , whose interest on grammar devoted 1 .4 of his Course of rhetoric to the matter treated by artigraphs. Regarding the morphology of compounds he notes: 'Compound� are made in Latin, first, of two complete parts (but we may wonder whether they still are compound� of entire parts, or syntagm�), secondly . . . ' .7 The question i� whether syntagms like praifedus Vrbis or iusiurandum, a.�sociating more than one (virtually) autonomou� lexical units, are to be con.�idered a.� compounds, or free a.�sociations. 2 . 2 . Syntagms and Morphological Analysis

It is well known that in ancient grammar four main types of compound� exist, according to a perfectly ma.�tered analysi�: compound� made of two entire word�, compounds made of two corrupted word�, and two kinds of mixed compound�: Figurae tlominibus accidutlt duae, simplex et conposita: simplex, ut doctu.., po­ tens; conposita, lIt indoctus, inpotens. Cotlpotluntur autem tlomina modis quat­ tuor: ex duobus integris, ut suburbanus; ex dl/Obus corruptis, ut efficax, muni­ ceps; ex in tegro et corrupto, ut ineptus, insul.us; ex corrupto et itltegro, ut pennipotens, nugigerulus. Conponutltur cham de conpluribus, ut inexpugnabi­ lis, inperterritu.•. Donatus, Ma i. 624. 1-5 Holtz

'There are for nouns two shapes : simple or composed ; simple as docltls, as indoctus, inpotens . There are four ways of composing nouns : from two complete nouns, as sub-urbanus; from two corrupted ones, a. ef-ficax, muni-ceps; from a complete one and a shortened one, a. in­ "Ptus, in-sulsus; from a corrupted one and a complete one, as penni-potens, nugi-gerulus. Even from more are some composed, a. itl-ex-pugnabilis, in-per­

potens, composed

terriltls' 6 7

.

It wo ul d be of some interest to investigate the practice of modern editors from the Renai.sance onward•. 'Iutlgutllur a u tem aut ex duobus LAtinis itllegris, ut superfui supterfugi , quamquam ex jtltegris an composita sint quaeritur, au t . . . '. Translation is mine. ,

Guillaume Bonnet

36H

Let us pass over the three types including corrupted part�, for syntagms are not supposed to involve corrupted word�. The cla.�sical example of the entire + entire compound before Donatm is infelix (c£ Pseudo­ Probus / Palladim, Instituta artium, G.L. IV 54.3, etc.) . After Donatm, it will last in artigraphic tradition to illustrate compound� in general (which is significant a short cut) , offering thus an interesting parallel with verbal compounds, which too involve prefix, while suburbanus has taken it� place. Donatus goes on underlining that, throughout the decli­ nation, only nominative elements vary, and there he at least quotes true (for us) syntagms: In declinatiolW conpositornm nominum, animadumere debemus ea, quae ex duobus nominatiuis conposita fomnt, ex utraque parte per omnes casus declinari, ut eques Romanus, praetor urbanu�; quae ex nominatiuo et quolibet alio casu conposita foeri"t, ea parte dec/inari tantum qua foerit nominatiuus casus, ut

praefectus equitum, senatus consultum. Donatu�, Mai. 624.5-9 Holtz When we decline compound�, we must notice that those which are composed from two nominatives decline within their two parts through all cases, like . . . Those which are composed from a nominative and any other case decline only in their nominative part, like praifectus equitum, senatus cO/lsultum.

In the same list, we read only one example of what we would spontane­ ously qualify a syntagm (the la.�t one) , and three other which seem to be more ca.mal sequences of names and determinative adjectives. By doing so, Donatus is not an exception; Cousentius, who drew from an author­ ity which might be al�o Donatus, quotes suburban us (G.L. V 349.25), but al�o Liber Pater and eques Romanus! Later on, Priscian will give a.� example of entire word + entire compound� tribunusplebis ( tribunus plebis?) and iusiurandum, without mentioning any prefixed form (Inst. gramm. 5, G.L. II 178. 1 7) . Moreover, in the same section of his Institu­ tiones, Priscian sketches out a absolute typology of nominal syntagms (1 83.9-1 2) : 'Et singularia cum pluralibus componuntur, ut orbisterrae et or­ bisterrarum, paterfamilias et paterfamiliarum, annipotens et armorumpo­ tens, magistermilitum, a.�ecreti�, acalculi�, arespousis, abacti�', 'singular nouus are composed with plural nouns, as orbisterrae et orbisterrarum, pater­ familias et pateifamiliarum, annipotens et annorumpotens, magistennilitum, asecretis, acalculis, aresponsis, abactis'. Doubtless, these syntagm.� are cousid­ ered a.� compound�. Do granlluarians reveal their criteria for doing so? Modem scholars would answer after checking at least three criteria: is there a unique accent? Are the sequence and order of elements fixed? =

Syntagm.. in the Artigraphic Latin Granm=s

369

Does the meaning of the whole exceed the combination of the meaning of each part? 2.2. 1 . How to acccentnate Syntagms? The Greek grammatical tradition leaves no doubt about the accentna­ tion of syntagms: To yap tolOS KOpOS 1Tapo�o�EVOS �ev Tf)V yEVIKf)V £XEl 181<;1 voov�Evllv,

O�OIOV QV T0 tolOS vlos, 1Tpo1Tap�o�EvOV 8e o�O\ov laT1V T0 tolOYVllTOS, tolo8oTOS [ . . . ] . TcriiT a yap Kat Ta TOUT01S O�Ola CX1TElpa OVTa O'vVeA60VTa �ev KaTa TOV Myov Tr;S O'vveEO'ECA>S EXEl Kat TOV TOVOV O'VVi1Pll�EVOV, oux OUTCA>S 8e EXOVTa Kat Ta TOU TOVOV EXEl QO'VVEAeVO'Ta, Ka6CnrEp 8e Ei1TO�EV, ev Tij Ka6' £KaaTOV �OplOV �Ovfj TOU TOVOV TO KaTa 1Tapa6EO'lV 6�oAOyEi. ApoUonius DYl'colu., Sy"t. 434.19-435.4 Dios koros [Zeu, young boy] , when bearing the acute on the penultimate syllable, has a genitive with a proper signification, like Dios hyios [son of Zeus] , but when bearing the stress on the antepenultimate syllable, it i. very like DioJ(twtos, Diodotos . . These, and those alike, who are countiess, if they go together according to the law of compound., have also a drawn stres." but if they do not behave that way and if the stresses remain apart, as we have said, by maintaining a stress on each part it is to be recognized as words put a..ide. .

Event if the attention paid to Apollonius by Latin grammarian i� not perceptible until Priscian, we can be almost sure (Apollonius does not present it as new) that the above mentioned doctrine was widespread among artigraphs. In the western tradition too, the uniqueness of the accent i� underlined, e.g. by Donatus (Mai. 610.8-9 Holtz) : 'In conpositis dictionibus unus accentus est non minus quam in una parte orationis, ut malesa­ nus, interealoci', 'in compounds, there is only one stress, no less than in one part of speech, like ma/esanus, interealoci'. The examples given by Donatus may puzzle us, for malesanus i� no­ where attested. Perhaps it i� a reshaped, or a modern 'translation' of a dated uesanus. Interealoci written as a compound i� well known, and Do­ natu� himself fixed on it in his Commentary of Terentiu.�' plays, confirm­ ing what he implies in hi� Grammar. K Afterward� his analysi� prevailed, but a few centuries before, as Charisius testifies in a part of hi� handbook taken from Juliu.� Romanu.� (end of the 2nd century AD) , the status of thi� syntagm was absolutely not sorted out (Charisius, 26 1 . 6-8 Barwick) : 8

Ad Eun. 255: 'Interealoci: duae partes oratio"is cum cotliutUtae unam feeeru"t mutaflt aaentllm'.

370

Guillaume Bonnet

' Terentius in Eunucho: interea loci, ubi ACTon 'quaeritur, inquit, quo accentu dici debeat', 'Terentius in The Eunuch <wrote> interea loci : here is Acron wondering with what stress it i� to be pronounced'. By asking with what accent i� supposed to be pronounced interea loci, Acron alluded to the fact that unstressed syllables received, according to ancient theory, a grave accent, not an acute or a circwnflex one. Acron was not sure at all about the right accentuation, that is, about the fact that loci should be analysed as the second part of a compound. " If it was firmly asserted that compound� had one accent, the position of this acute / circwnflex accent was still to be detennined. Was it, as with enclitics, on the last syllable of the stressed first part?l41 Or did the compound follow the nonna! rules of Latin accentuation? Did Latin speakers pronounce, if not tis publica, r2spublica, or respublica? And what about eques Romt3nus, or praif&tus equitum? No clear answer is given, and the example of interea loci prevent� us, it seem�, from considering it so obvious that no explanation was required. 2.2.2. Separablity of Syntagms? The second one of the modem criteria, the order of the elements, i� never explicitly touched on in grammatical literature. We can ju�t find remarks about the possible dislocation of such compound�, preci�ely about stress. Only Priscian i� frank to assert that the consequence of the division of compounds is that each part takes back its own stress: A lIU:esimo et supra maiori llunorem addunt numero pierumque, ante decem uero mmorem ponunt, quando composita accipiuntur et sub uno accentu proferuntur. Nam licet di.soiuta compositione ruuersis accentibus ea profe­ rentes mutare orrunem, quomodo et apud Graecos, et dicere dedmllS et sep­ timlls pro septimllSdecimlls, et tertillS et uicesimllS pro uicesimustertius, sic et smn­ lia Priscianm, Fig. num., G.L. III 413.1 1-1 7 From lIU:esimo [twentieth) onward., the little number i. generally added to the big one. but we put the little one before decem [ten) when are understood as compound. and pronounced with one stress. We may untie the compounds and pronounce them with different stres..es and a different order, as Greeks also do. and say decimus et septimus [tenth and seventh] instead of septimllsdedmllS [seventeenth] . and tertills et uicesimllS [third and twentieth] instead of lIi(l'simustertius [twenty third] . and so on.

9 What makes the analysis of interea loci particularly difficult is the fact that the semantic value of the genitive is far from clear. 10 C( Audax. Excerpta de Scauro et Palladio. G. L. VII 361 .2-9.

Syntagm.. in the Artigraphic Latin Granmurs

37 1

He is dealing with ordinal� from 'twenty-first' onward�, for which di�lo­ cation i� a regular alternative, but even in the Institutiones, he dealt with this problem about other, 'nonnal' compounds (G.L. II 183. 1 2-14) : ' Possunt tamen haec eadem etiam separata esse s i diuersos accentus his dederis ue/ interponas coniunctiones, ut resque publica, populusque Romanus, tribun­ usque plebis', 'yet these very ones can aim be detached if you give to each a different stress, or if you put between them a conjunction, as resque publica, populusque Romanus, tribunusque plebis' . If so, compound� cease to be compound� (separata esse ; above, dissoluta compositione) , for each stress means one single word. Are we then allowed to speak about sole word�? And what kind of word� are they, which can be freely em­ bodied in one lexem or two? Is it conceivable that one word, with no etymological background, nor any diachronic purpose, can be divided in two separate lexical item� without any semantic alteration of the previ­ OlL�, compound meaning? 2.2.3. Tmesis and Syntagm� In fact, one can find, in the store of theoretical explanations kept by granunarian�, a key to this problematic morphological behaviour: tmesis. Thi� trope is lL�Ually exemplified with the same line from Vergil's Geor­ gica (3.381) : ' Talis Hyperboreo Septem subieda Trioni', adding sometimes the most improbable EnnilL�' phrase 'saxo cere comminuit brum' (Ann. 6(9) and even Lucilius' 'conque tubemalem' (1 1 37 Marx) . At best, discontinu­ OlL� lexems fit effects strengthening the impression given to readers; in­ deed, more often (if 'often' is relevant in the case of this very rare trope) tmesi� i� asserted metri necessitate, as would say a practical-minded gram­ marian following 'Marius-Victorinus' / Aphthonius (G.L. VI 56.6) . Nevertheless, we d o not find, and certainly Roman students did not, eques Romanus, nor senatus consultum in contexts requiring such a jlL�tifi­ cation. Moreover, if grammarians admitted that di�continuous com­ pounds exist, they would be leaded to pedagogical difficulties: when dealing with single word� in literary commentary, how can students be sure that they are not in front of separate pieces of di�continuous com­ pound�? In fact, neither cere, nor tubemalis do exist, and this i� the mark of the trope. In the case of septemtrio, both components exist as free words (event if trio i� rare), but Vergil's line i� preci�ely the example of tmesi�, and when found elsewhere (Ov. Met. 2.528, for instance) septem . . . trio i� ea�y to recognize. l I Tmesis i� in no way an explanatory princi­ ple of compound�. 1 1 Inverted order is used by Pliny the Elder (Nat. 2. 1 72), but this is not a school program author.

2 . 3 . Semantic Combination and Frequency of Syntagms

It i� certain that the combination of the two word�, on a semantic level, produces in some cases a specific meaning, surpa�sing the result of the mere combination: populus Romanus i� a descriptive sequence, a� the people involved i� not the one of Athens, for instance, nor the Roman here mentioned do belong to the globe of nobility; it points at the peo­ ple of Rome dealing with Romana maiestas and imperium. More clearly, eques Romanus i� not the designation of a Roman citizen usually riding horses, but a social, political description of a Roman citizen through census, etc . What actually causes the sequences of word� to become syn­ tagms i� their own history, that is, the frequency of occurre nces. Vsus is therefore to be taken into account. It di�tinguishes the sequence populus Romanus, especially frequent in the acronymic description of the Roman state--frequent enough to allow an enclitic to be inserted between the two elements without breaking off the idiomatic link. 2.3 . 1 . Vsus and Grammar Normally, usus calls for universal recognition, a� it reflect� a general, conunon use of Latin language. But times change, and so do speeches. What has been admitted a� a syntagm by some, may be considered a casual association by others. The scholastic literary COrplL�, fixed centu­ ries ago by teachers, fortunately prevents from doubting about so called 'ca�ual a�sociations', but we can sometimes catch grammarians obviously abming of general agreement on syntagm statm. When going into de­ tail� about the word res, which is to be found in the first line of Aeneid III, Priscian (Partitiones, G.L. III 475.28) states that the only compound� built with res are respubliw and . resuxoria. The association of res and the adjective uxoria is admittedly found in Latin literature, with this order (Ter. An. 829) or in reverse order (in Emancipatus, a play by Afranius (84 R3) , according to JulilL� Romanus, in Charisius 284.2 Barwick) , but it is not frequent in literature. Lawyers in fact use this word so often as to make a syntagm of it, a� we can conclude from Codex Iustinianus V 13, which deals with wife property under the title De rei uxoriae actione, etc. Moreover, the compilation activity of Jmtinian's lawyers took place at the very sanle time as Pri�cian was teaching in Constantinople. We may therefore a�sert that law speech provided Priscian with a compound he then introduced somewhat excessively in grammar . . .

Syntagm.. in the Artigraphic Latin Granmurs

373

2.3.2. Vsus and Paedagogical Necessity At the school of the granunarian, what student� need more i.� preci.�ely the knowledge of literary usus! That i.� why they again and again study classics: to get a personal impression of what literature is made of Iden­ tification without any context is problematic, and need� a previous no­ tion; but also in context, i.e. in everyday classroom work, identification is a problem. In the Ars of Diomedes (G.L. I 436.28-29) , we find a reading method which i� evidently built up in order to make sensitive syntagms not appearing as such: wntinuatio. It i�, as he says, ' rerum (on­ texta dictio, ut Scythiam septemque triones rOv. Met. 1 .64] ' . We would have most probably read about thi� legato reading in the Ars of Charisiu�, if the pa�sage heralded in the summary of his handbook (Chari.�ius 3.37 Barwick) wa� preserved, which would mean that thi� knack wa� not a personal creation of Diomedes. Beyond the problem of vi�ual identifica­ tion, it aims to demonstrate that compound� were not inunediately sen­ sitive to Roman ears, and we remember the rather evasive treatment of syntagm accentuation. If we put aside the ca�e of prefixed words, Roman grammarians are confused about nomina (et alia) wmposita ab duobus integris. The polymor­ phism of syntagtns i.� ruinous for structured explanation as well a� for the capacity of picking them out of a literal text. It seem� that, for this rea­ son, some granunarians have tried to deny syntagms any morphological reality: Gellim, evoking a friendly controversy about thi� problem, says (2.21 . 6-7) : ' Tum quispiam ex his qui se ad litteras memoriasque ueteres dedid­ erat ' Vulgus, inquit, grammatiwrum Septentriones a solo numero stellarum dictum putat. Triones enim per sese nihil significare aiunt, sed uocabuli esse supplementum "' , 'then someone anlOng them, devoted to literature and memory of old time said 'The conunon run of grammarians thinks we say Septemtriones in reference only to the number of stars rseptem sevenl ; they say that triones rploughing oxenl by itself does not mean anything, and i.� just a fonnal extension of the designation'. In fact, if trio means nothing, 12 i.e. if it is just a morpheme, there is no more clearly discontinuous sequences to be considered syntagms, and we are back to a plain morphological level of both material and semantic units. On the other side, if only semantic considerations are able to give a good account of the phenomenon, beside eventual abmes, a� we have seen with Priscian, the morphological frame of Latinitas i.� about to ex=

1 2 About morphologi cal items without any sense, cf Baratin 1 999. A semantically empty element is often called epectasis.

374

Guillaume Bonnet

plode. How is it possible to analyse such strange compound� as ab actis,1 3 where we recognize a prefixed preposition and a set plural ablative? A way of bypa.�sing the difficulty i� to think of such compound� as dictiones, a word which might be translated as 'sensitive frames' . This level i� not yet the one of the ultimate division of speech, partes orationis, with their definitions and accidentia. So did cautiolL�y, at closer examination, most of Latin grammarians. 1 4 In that way free usus can be taken into account by grammati cal theory.

13 A word frequent at the time of Pri�cian (the only grammari ans mentioning it) a.� a fimction in imperial administration: c£ Lyd., Mag. 20. 1 et 2, etc. In Greek, the possibility of using the article clears up the situation: so does Johannes Ly­ dus in the second (but uot the first) occurrence. 14 For instance Charisius 1 5.5-6 Barwick and, comequently, Diomedes, G. L. I 436. 17, etc. Pseudo-Augu.�tine (Regulae, G L. V 506.30) sets out 'nomif14 sub duplid enunti4tiotle', 'double pronounciation', etc.

Latin Grammatical Manuals in the Early Middle Ages: Tradition and Adaptation in the Participle Chapter*

Louise Visser Introduction For teaching Latin in early medieval Western Europe, teachers u�ed grarnmars from Late Antiquity. In the third and fourth centuries AD , several grammarians wrote a grammar text in the traditional way of the ars grammatica, in which the description of the partes oration is, 'parts of speech' or word classes, was the main part. Each of these grammaria ns dealt with the legacy of grammatical writings available to him in his own way. Sacerdos and Ps.-Probus provide relatively early accounts: Sacerdos is to be placed in the third century, whereas Ps.-Probu�' grammar Insti­ tuta artium is nowadays often identified as a fourth-century summary of the granunar of the late-third-, early-fourth-century Palladius. 1 Charisius and Diomedes, both in the first half of the fourth century probably working for Greeks,2 each assembled a number of existing accounts of Latin grammar in their artes grammaticae. Donatus, in the middle of the fourth century, wrote a succinct summary of the grammatical theory of the day. He did this on two levels: in the elementary Ars minor and the (more) advanced Ars maior. Both the older granunars and the gramm ars supposedly intended for Greeks contain more details primarily of formal nature than the grammars of Don atm. On the verge of the fifth century, a new genre has been inaugurated by Servius: the grammatical conunentary. Serviu� wrote a commentary *

2

The research for this article has been conducted as part of the project 'Hi.�tory of the Participle in the Early Medieval Latin Granullaticography', subsidized by the Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk O/1derzoek- V/a"nderen (G.0545.07) . I would like to expres.� my gratitude to Prof Alfons Wouters and Prof Pierre Swiggers for conullenting on drafu of this article. See Schmidt 1 989, 1 1 2; 1 1 6-1 1 9. Dionisotti 1 984, 204--205.

376

Louise Vi��er

on both grammars of Donatus, who had by that time acquired a lot of authority. In Late Antiquity it was very common to write a commentary on authoritative text.� rather than an entirely 'new' text, and Serviu.� applied this method to Latin grammar .3 Servius wa� soon followed by other grammarians. During the fifth through ninth centuries, many Do­ natu.� commentaries saw the light. 4 Hut also new grammars were written, in order to meet the changed and changing need� of the students. I call these grammars which are not commentaries 'autonomou.� grammars' . Obviously, the commentaries follow the order of Donatu.�' texts. Hut most of the autonomou.� grammars , on their part, abo rely heavily on Donatus. They generally follow Donatus' Ar.f minor a� to contents and the order in which the information i� presented, but they add supple­ mentary information from the Ar.f maior and from other sources. The new cultural and lingui�tic context of the Early Middle Ages accounts for the changing needs of the students I alluded to. Christianity invaded most a�pects of life, including education on all levels. At the same time, 'barbarians' invaded the territory of the Western Roman Empire. As groups of 'barbarians' took over Roman bureaucracy and accepted the Christian Church with its in�titution� and writings, they needed to learn Latin. In thi� way, a new function for gramm ar texts slowly emerged: they were more and more u.�ed for the teaching of Latin as a second language in�tead of (only) a� manuals for those whose mother tongue wa� Latin. The question is, now, whether thi� changed context and new func­ tion led to any kind of adaptation of the ar.f grammatica a� a genre and if so, how the Late-Antique manuals were adapted in the Early Middle Ages. We must also try to account for all other changes that occur in the early medieval grammars . The following table gives an overview of the corpus studied for this arti­ cle.

3 4

Greek grammati cal commentaries existed already for some time (plezia 1 949, 45-46; 68-69, and c( Mariotti 1 967, 1 00- 1 22) . The early COllunentaries of the fifth century show strong featnres of interde­ pendence, most recendy investigated by Cbri�tian Stock in hi� 2005 edition of the grammar by Sergius (formerly know a.� Ps.-Ca.'-'liodoru.�).

Latin Grammati cal Manuals in the Early Middle Ages CC1IIUJV 5 5 5

5

""" P..-AugwGnw. uI Ru•• Audas. &mp•• lit &duro et PtallaJio Sergius (Pt..C'....aodorus). C'..ommmtdriu", dt oratI'OIIt tf tit ado ".,nbus .,.,;...is Scrriw., C""'Pllmtari.... m .mem Donati m;lIomn

Scrriw., C""'Pllmtari.... in .mem Donati

5

maiCftfll

Pri.... dt ",;...'b1U 0"'.�

Sergi".,

5

txpolitl'"ntJ

5

lixpldrwtionu in

0......... 1

5

lixpld,...tionu in

5

0......... 1 1 Pompciw. CAfllmetI--

5

a.doni"., An I

5

a.doni"., An n

tum 4ffiJ Donati

AlporiUl. An

6

.........Iito Iww.w Tolctonu•• An gro.....
7

Iww.w Tolctonu•• 0. _b.. •m1ionis A". A ..brori"nd

7 7

Annnvmw :ul

7

kind of """

Iluconomow.

refcn:ncc •.maple chop... G.L V 520.1-30

Iluconomow.

G.L

comm. Don. Mlli.

S
conun. Don. Min. conun. Don. Mai.. conun. Don. Min. conun. Don. Min. + Mai. 1 conun. Don. Mai.. II + m conun. Don. Mai.. comm. Don. Min. conun. Don. Mai.

Iluconomow.

comm. Don. Min.

377

VII 348. 3 1 -349.8

G.L

IV 416.2&-41 8.30

G.L

IV 440.1 1>-44 1 .27

G.L

vm 155. 28-1 56.24

G.L

IV 5 1 3.8-5 1 5. 34

G.L

IV 560. 1 3- 1 7

G.L

V 256.8-264. 1 5

G.L

V 22.27-23.35

G.L G.L M

V 70. 1 1 -73.5 vm 55.23-57. 1 3

...... y""",

1 973. 89-93

comm. Don. Mlli.

Muozi 1983. 214. 2 1 - 2 1 8.4

conun. Don. Mai.. conun. Don. Mai..

C. C. S.L 1330.

XXI (1 42-146)

Muozi 2004. 29

(§ 32)

C. C.S. t. 133C 1 44-155

Cuimrumum,

&oos.Q1i. Lati.itath

7

Qlf4l! JIlfIt qwat

8

C'-M

8

8

.'WIDmi

flUi d. .. A". A ..bianmsis

autonomous

tomedo: 1 965. 258. 1 1 -260.21

autonomous

Bnnifuiw. An

Iluconomow.

C'Ald. Sang. ffT7. pp. 4S1H154 (= M•. G). c:muuJtcd online: Stifbbiblio
.........Iito TaaDnw. All'

8

conun. Don. Min.

Iluconomow.

C. C.S. t. 133B. 78-79 C. C.S. t. 133.

V (110-83)

INmIMtita

�

1 : Corpus of grammar texts used for the present article

consists of the grammar texts from the period 400-780 AD . that I include the grammars which appeared right after Do­ although they technically still belong to Late Antiquity (nrs. 1-1 1 lble 1), because this is the period in which Donatus started to be corpus

m eans

378

Louise Vi��er

taken a� the authority par excellence on grammar. For the early medieval period, I will limit myself to the grammars before Alcuin. Alcuin, active at the court of Charlemagne in the last decades of the eighth century, is the conventional 'turning point-figure' in the history of early medieval linguistic thinking. Until then, Latin grammars were largdy ba�ed on the manuals of Donatus. Alcuin is said to have introduced in Latin grammar the viewpoints and descriptions of the extensive lnstitutiones grammaticae written by Priscian in Constantinopd at the beginning of the sixth century. s Priscian's grammar differed from the earlier Latin artes grammaticae in that he introduced many dements of Greek linguistic thinking into his account of the Latin language, which before had not been heeded by Latin grammarian�. Thi� corpus of grammars between 400 and 780 AD contain.� two types of text.�: commentaries on one or both of Donatus' grammars and autonomous texts. The fact that they come in two types does not im­ pede that these grammars are studied together, since they are very much rooted in the same tradition. They all deal with Donatu.� and they gen­ erally use the same sources.f, I will here conduct a case-study of the chapters dealing with the par­ ticiple in the indicated corpus of grammar texts. In our sources for grammatical thought in Antiquity, mainly in Greek ones, the status of the particiciple as an autonomous word cla�s had been under discussion.7 The Latin sources from the third century AD onward� do not question the autonomy of the participle, although it stands somewhere 'in be­ tween' the noun and the verb, displaying features of both. A� ha� been said, Donatus is the principle source for the grammars from 400 AD onward�. The chapters on the participle in Donatus have the following structure. They con.�st mainly of a definition with an etymology (Par­ tidpium est pars orationis, dicta quod partem capiat nominis partemque uerbi [Don. Mai. II 1 4, 644.2 Holtzl), the grammatical categories or aaidentia (genus, casus, tempus, significatio, numerus, figura r644.4-5l), and some 'additional observations' (Min. 598.9-599. 1 1 ; Mai. 645 . 1 3--64 6. 1 2) ." All text.� in my corpus treat the participle as an autonomous word class in a separate chapter. The question can be rai�ed, however, 5 6

7 8

Cf. Kneepken.� 1 995, 241 with references; Gibson 1 992, 1 7-18; Holtz 2000a; Holtz 2000b, 526-527 and 531 ; Swiggers 2004, 153-156, 1 60. For this study, I left a.�ide the grammar text\ by Virgiliu� Maro Granunaticus (probably 7'" century) . They are quite untypical and I have not yet studied them, and their context, sufficiently. See Law 1 995 for this grammari an . See Swiggers-Wouters 2007a and 2008. The fuJI text with tran'llation of both chapters on the participle of Donatu� are included in the appendix.

Latin Granullatical Manual. in the Early Middle Ages

379

whether or not the very nature of the participle as 'in between noun and verb' caused any wavering in the way in which the participle was con­ sidered by the granunarians after 400 AD. In order to fonnulate an an­ swer to this question, I shall investigate passages concerning the status and the 'boundaries' of the word class 'participle' and try to identifY any shifts occurring in them. At the same time, the period under discussion saw the first phases of the slow transition from the teaching of Latin as a mother tongue to the teaching of Latin as a second language. An aspect prone to change in such a transition to a different function of granunatical manuals is of course morphology. In the second part of this article, I will examine morphological information on participles provided by our grammarians and see whether any adaptations occur with respect to Donatus, and what such adaptations might tell us about the way in which the partici­ ple was viewed.

1 . The Status of the Participle: Definition and Demarcation Even though the participle is in the whole corpus listed as a word class and treated in a separate chapter, pa..sages in the chapter itself can reveal (aspects of) the view that the grammarians between 400 and 780 AD had of the participle and its status. In this section, we will look at a number of such passages, first of all the definition of the participle.

1 . 1 . Definition of the Participle In the artes grammaticae of Late Antiquity, the participle is defined by its etymology: partem capere. It 'takes part' in the noun and in the verb. " Donatm defines the participle in the traditional way by indicating that it i.. a pars orationis, a word class, before mentioning its specific feature­ viz. taking part in the noun and in the verb---in a subordinate clause: see hi.. definition cited above. The early Donatus commentaries and Audax (nrs . 2-1 1 of the corpus) apparendy did not see the need to point out that the participle is a word cla.. s: they only provide the etymology. HI An example is the definition of Sergiu... (nr. 6) : 9 When I tramlate IIomen with 'noun', I mean substantive noun and adjective noun, just as is meant in the ancient word class IIomell. 10 For the role of etymology in grammatical definitiom, see Amsler 1 989 and Luhtala 2002.

380

Louise Visser Partidpium dictum est quasi particapium, quod partes capito

Sergius, G. L. VIII t 55 .29 The participle is called by this name like 'particapium' ('part-taker'), were, becau.�e it takes parts.

as

it

In this way, they constitute a break with the consistency of the tradi­ tional definition of word cla�ses. l 1 The medieval grammars (nrs . �21 ; conunentaries on Donatus and autonomous grammars alike) , on their part, often cite Donatu.� and therefore include 'est pars orationis' again. 'Partem capere' i� part of most of the etymologies in the second- to fourth-century artes grammaticae. It might be significant that from the fifth century onward�, al�o partes capere appears. With partem capere, the grammarians probably meant something like 'takes a part [of its essence] from the noun . . . ', wherea� those who use partes, seem to refer to the accidentia the participle 'takes' from noun and verb. Most definitions subsequently contain some sort of explaining phra�e in which it i� made clear what is actually meant by partem /partes capere. Mostly the gram­ marians relate the accidentia to the word classes from which the participle 'takes' or 'gets' them. In this they closely follow Donatus. The reader now indeed comes to the conclusion that partem capere means partes capere or even aaidentia capere. The relation between the acddentia of the parti­ ciple and the word cla�ses they originate from is a� follows (Don. Mai. 644.3-4 Holtz) :

a nomine: a uerbo: ab utroque:

genus casus tempus / tempora significatio(nes) numerus .figura

[gender] [case] [tense(s)] [voice (s)] [nunlber] [(compositional) form]

These two changes with respect to the older tradition make us wonder how strong the position of the participle as a separate word class actually was in the period from 400 AD onward�: the omi�sion of the label 'word class' in the fifth century and the change from seeing the partici­ ple as having an essence of its own which comes in part from the noun and in part from the verb, to seeing the participle as existing merely by the grace of 'borrowed' features or accidents.

tt

It mu.�t be noted that Servius left out the characterization '[ . . . J is a word class' (i.e. the genus of the dtftnietldum) in nearly all definition.� of the word cla.��es.

Latin Granullatical Manual, in the Early Middle Ages

381

1 .2 . Demarcation of the Participle

Ideally, for the grammarians in Late Antiquity one word fonn in Latin belonged only to one word cla�s. Unfortunately for them, there are many Latin word forms belonging to more than one word class at the same time. Similarly, certain linguistic processes such as composition can cause the transfer of the result of the process, for example the com­ pound, to another word cla�s than the ba�e fonn belongs to. This i� the kind of 'problems' Donatus dealt with in the 'additional obersvations' in hi� Ars maior. The 'additional observations' in the chapter De partidpio of the Ars maior, of which the text and translation can be found in the ap­ pendix (p. 401-404) , are brief notes of a line or two each. They refer to phenomena involving participles in one way or another with which native speakers of Latin were probably already familiar. The notes mainly concern a number of 'participle-like nouns' and word fonns which can be either participle or noun: word� like tunicatus (clothed with a tunic) , which is a noun and not a participle, passus (having en­ dured / step) , which can be both noun and participle, and innocens (harmless, innocent), which again is only a noun. 12 A change in the presentation of the different groups of word fonn.�, which are either participle-like nouns or 'double fonn.�' shared by the noun and the participle, can be observed in the early Donatus commen­ taries (ors . 3-1 1 of the corpus) . The early commentators need clear de­ marcation� between the word classes and they need to know how to a�sign word fonn.� to one word cla�s or another. So the types of word fonn.� referred to in Donatus' 'additional observations' receive more attention. We also see appear criteria to be u�ed for detennining whether any such fonn is a participle or a noun, or, if it i� both, when it is a participle and when a noun. Now, where did the early Donatu� commentators find the detail� to supplement Donatus with? It appears that their source wa� the grammar of Ps.-Probm. Ps.-Probus wa� the first granunarian to work out a com­ plete and well structured paragraph on all the fonnal interferences be­ tween noun and participle, from present(lik:e) to future(lik:e) fonn.�.13 Although Donatu� briefly mentions some examples of 'double fonns' (or homonyms) and other interferences between noun and participle, he does not approach these 'double fonns' starting from their concrete 12 Don. Mai. 645 . 13--6 46. 1 2 Holtz. 13 Ps.-Probu,. C.L. IV 1 42. 1 2-1 43.2 1 : SUtlt praesetltis lemporis partidpia, quae in dubium umiant exinde, quod el figuram ,wminum oslmdunl, ut puta amans sapiens el cetera talia. sed qua ratio'le /wee imellegi possinl, quando sinl nomina et quando partici­ pia, btwiter sllbiciamus praeapla [ . . . j .

382

Louise Visser

fonnal similarity, as Ps.-Probus does. In fact, in hi� sunnnary Donatus seems to have deviated from older granunatical manuals in omitting detailed description.� of homonyms. The commentators of Donatus had to revert to sources prior to Donatus to reintroduce the rules and crite­ ria. Our commentators vary in the use they make of Ps.-Probus. An example is this passage from Explanationes in artem Donati I: sunt etiam nomina quae habent similitudinem partidpii temporis praesentis, cum nomina sint tan tum, ut amens demens; et discernuntur a participiis, quod conl'ara­ tionem habent, quia conparatio participiis non accidit. sunt quaedam partidpia ea­ dem et nomina, ut est amans et diligens. ista non solum conparatione discernuntur, sed etiam casu. nam si accusatiuum his iunxeris casum, partidpia erunt; si gene­ tiuum, nomina. quando dids amans il/um, partidpium est, skut legens ilium; si dixeris amans illius, nomen est, sicut parens il/ius. item nomen est, quod praeterito partidpio simile sit, ut est passus uisus dilectus cultus. quae si secundae sunt dedina­ tionis, partidpia sunt, huius passi uisi di/ecti culti; si quartae, nomina erunt, huius passus huius uisus huius cultus huius dilectus. aliud enim est esse nomen tantum simile participii, aliud est idem et nomen esse et partidpium. quando nomen est tan­ tum simile participii, suffidt tibi sola conparatio ad disCTl'tionem; quando autem idem et nomen est et participium, diffidle discernitur. inuenies enim illic et tempus, quod tantum participii est, et conparationem, quae nominis tanlUm est, ut est amans. nam et participium praesentis temporis est ab eo quod est amo, et habet gradus conpara­ tionis, cum nomen est, amans amantior amantissimus. ista ergo non per conparatio­ II£m tantum, sed et per casum discernuntur, ut supra diximus. de his uero nomini­ bus, quae partidpiis praeteriti temporis similia sunt, alia dec/inationis regula di(ferentiam fadt. nam quando secundae declinationis sunt, partidpia sunt; quando quartae, nomina. deinde et sensus fadt discretionem, ut si dicas uisi sunt mihi ho­ mines deambulare in joro, uisi partidpium est; si autem dicas occurri uisibus lUis, in­ tel/egis nomen esse. Explanationes in artem Donatum I, G L. IV 51 4.38-5 1 5.24; the underlining is mine There are also nouns which have a likeness to the present participle, while they are nouns only, like 'amens', 'demens'; and these are distinguished from participles, because they have degrees of comparison, for degrees of com­ pari,on do not belong to participles. There are some participles which are the same a" nouns, such a" 'amans' and 'diligens'. These are not only di,tin­ guished by degrees of comparison, but also by case form. For if you join an accu.,ative case fonn to them, they are participles; if a genitive, (they are) nouns. When you say 'amans ilium' ('loving him'), it i, a participle, just like 'legens ilium' ('reading that') ; when you say 'amans ilIius' ('hi, lover'), it i, a noun, just like 'parens illius' ('his parent'). Likewi,e, there i, a noun which i, similar to the pa" t participle, such a" 'passus', 'uisus', 'dileetus', 'cu/tus'. And if these are of the second declension, they are participles, 'huius passi, uisi, di­ lecti, culti' (gen. sg.) ; if (they are) of the fourth, the are nouns, 'huius passus, huius uisus, huius cullUs, huius di/teetus' (gen. sg.). For it is one thing that a

Latin Granunatical Manual. in the Early Middle Ages

383

noun i. only similar to a participle, but another that a noun is the same a.. a participle. When a noun is only similar to a participle, (the di.tinguishing criterion) degrees of comparison will suffi ce for you for the distinction; but when a noun is the same a.. a participle, it is di.tinguished with difficulty. For you will al.o find tense there, which is only a feature of the participle, and degrees of comparison, which is only a feature of the noun, such as 'amans'. For it (sc. amam) is al.o a present participle from (the verb) 'amo' ('to love'), and it ha.. degrees of comparison when it is a noun, 'amans amantior amantissimus'. These, now, are di.tinguished not only by means of degrees of compari.on, but al.o by means of case foml, as we said above. With regard to those noun.. , however, which are similar to past participles, another rule, (the one) of declen..ion, establishes the difference. For when they are of the second declension, they are participles; when (they are) of the fourth, they are nouns. FurthemlOre, also the meaning establiilies a dis­ tinction, such as when you say 'uisi sunt mihi homines deambulare in foro' ('I have seen people walking on the forum'), ' uisi' is a participle; but if you say 'oaurri uisibus tuis' ('I have appeared before your eyes'), you understand it is a noun.

The criteria used to di�tingui�h noum from participles are: 1 . The possibility of degrees of comparison (which participles lack) : nomina . . . discernuntur a participiis, quod conparationem habent, quia conpara­ tio participiis non accidit. 2. The valence of the word fomI (taking an accusative or another case, usually a genitive) : discernuntur . . . etiam casu. nam si accusatiuum his iunx­ em casum, participia ernnt; si genetiuum, nomina. 3. The paradigm the word fonn belongs to: one of the second or one of the fourth declension: si secundae sunt declinationis, participia sunt, . . . ; si quartae, nomina ernnt . . . . 4. The presence of 'time' in the semantics of the word fonn (i.e. tense) : tempus, quod tantum participii est. 5. The meaning of the word fonn, or: it� use in the sentence: deinde et sensus foot discretionem. One notes an interesting change in the presentation here: compared to Ps.-Probus and Donatus, the Donatu� commentaries of the fifth century insist more on the criteria which have to be put to u�e in order to assign confusing word fonm and homonyms to the right word class, and they try to offer a streanilined account of them. Ps.-Probu� starts from con­ crete types of confu�ing word foml.� and homonyms and offers some criteria in an ad hoc manner, wherea.� Donatus only mentiom briefly the existence of these types and offers very few distinctive criteria. Thi� is a structural and didactic improvement in the early Donatu� commentaries on the one hand, and shows on the other hand that the students could

384

Louise Visser

count less on their 'feeling' for the Latin language than before and needed a set of tooL� in order to determine the status of a word fonn which belongs to two word cla�ses simultaneously. Many granunarians in the Early Middle Ages (nrs. 1 2-21 ) take over this empha�is on the demarcation between participle and noun. For their reflections on this demarcation, they may aL�o have found useful the short manuals by Priscian, which were fur more influenced by Donatus and the early Donatus commentaries than hi� lnstitutiones, but neverthe­ less contained valuable additions to the material found in Donatus: The lnstitutio de nomine et pronomine et uerbo and the Partitiones duodedm uer­ suum Aeneidos principalium. In the Partitiones, Priscian sums up criteria to distinguish homonymou� participles and nouns when discussing the word omnipotens (1 1 6. 1-1 2 Passalacqua) . 1 . 3 . Participles and Verbs

In general, we can detect in many grammars of the early medieval pe­ riod a greater awareness than before of the verbal origin of the participle and of the presence of inherent features of the verb in participles. This development started in the early Donatu� commentaries in which the criterion of verbal origin, which played an important part in determin­ ing the word cla�s of a number of participle-like word forms, wa� more often referred to and more extensively explained than in Donatus him­ self The commentary Ars Ambrosiana (nr. 1 5) , for example, follows Do­ natu�' text of the 'additional obervations' closely. It introduces the dis­ tinctive criteria, which are absent in Donatu�, under the lemma on the homonymous like passus and uisus, not in the one on participle-like nouns like tunicatus. Hut the Ars Ambrosiana not only lists the criteria to be used in order to distinguish both uses of these word fonns, but also the a�pects in which they correspond: Sm,T PA RTlClPlA EA DE,W ET NOMINA , hoc est in sono, ut sunt haec exempla: de praesentibus, ' indulgens', et de praeteritis, 'ut uisus '. Sed praesentis partidpia distant a nominibus eiusdem nuntiationis significatiolle et tempore et conparatione, cowrdant 'IUntiatione et genere et dedinatiolle. Ars A mbrosiana, c. C. S. L. 1 33C, 1 54.325-329; the underlining i� mine

THERE ARE PARTICIPLES (WHICH ARE) THE SAME AS NOUNS, that i�, in form, as are the following examples: of the present participles, ' in­ dulgens', and of the past participles, 'like uisus'. But the participles of present (ten.e) differ from nouns with the same foml in meaning, in (the presence of) tense, and in (the impos.�bility of having) degrees of comparison, they

Latin Granunatical Manual. in the Early Middle Ages

385

correspond (with nouns) in fonn, in (the presence of) gender, and in de­ clen.ion paradigm.

It i� likewi�e significant how the author explicitly draws attention to the physical shape and sound of the word fonn.� (nuntiatio) 1 4 . Both nuntiatio and declinatio seem for him to be features on the same level as the acci­ dents significatio (voice), tempus (tense) , comparatio (degTees of compari­ son) , and genus (gender) . Each word form possesses a set of features, and in the case of homonymous participles and nouns, only some of these features correspond: nuntiatio, genus, and dedinatio. This i� stmcturalizing matters even further than the early commentators had done. The grammar Congregatio Salcani filii de ueroo (nr. 1 8) 1 5 al�o add� his criteria under the lemma on passus etc. But then the author fits in a gen­ eral observation on thi� kind of similitudo: In hac similitudine scire debes, quod fit participium purum, ut legens dOWIS, et fit nomen purum, ut potens, et fit utrumque continens, ut amans cupiens et similia. Congregatio Salcanifilii de uerbo 260.10-12 LofStedt

Regarding t/ri. similarity you must know, that there is (a category) pure participle, like 'legens', 'docens', and there is (a category) pure noun, like 'po­ tms', and there is (a category) containing both, like 'amans', 'cupiens' and similar word fonus.

Thi� cla�sification of the word fonn.� on -ns is inspired by the fifth­ century Donatus commentator Pompeius, who discmses participle-like nouns in his chapter De nomine (G.L. V 1 49. 1 9-1 50. 1 2) . Pompeius names the categories 'nomina penitus', 'participia penitus', and 'media' . Pompeius made progTess on the theoretical level by abstracting the indi­ vidual participle-like fon11$ and homonym' into these cla.�ses. Both the label 'media' (Pomp.) and the label 'not purum but utrumque continens' for the homonym' suggest that the participle wa.� not felt as being entirely on the same level a., the other word cla.�ses, that i� wa.� somewhat am­ biguous in its status. Tatuinus (nr. 2 1 ) is innovative in that he uses a combination of the presence or absence of tempus (tense) and the presence of verbal voice 14 Nuntiatio in the Ars Ambrosiana i. probably an Irish fonn for enuntiatio (Holtz 1 9 8 1 , 294 n. 63) . According to Schad 2007, 1 50 S . V . , enuntiatio means either 'pronunciation' or ' fonn ' (a.. opposed to sense, content). With in sono, the au­ thor of the AI' Ambrosiana here first emphasizes the pronunciation or sowld pattern of the word fonm which are similar, but I think that he refers to the whole of their physical existence with Tluntiatio. C( fumIer 1 989, 21 1 , 2 1 421 5. 15 I follow Law 1 982, 90-92, who argued that rbi. text does not belong to the granunar of Mal.achanus.

386

Louise Visser

(sign!ficatio uerbornm) to detennine whether homonymou� word fonus are u�ed as participle or as noun: Notandum est, quod plernmque participia possunt esse et nomina, ut 'uisus', 'pas­ sus ', 'cultus', 'hortatus ', 'quesoo ', J!exus ': nam aliud est nomen cuiuslibet rei sine temvore ostendere, ut 'hie uisus' i.e. uisio, 'passus: gressus ', 'cultus: cultura' (. . .);

praeteriti tem poris aut praesentis aut patientis siue nrutram ut est 'uisus ' aut 'passus 'uisus' aut 'passus ' participia sunt praeteriti temporis uenientia a 'patior' et sunt passiuae sign!ficationis; similiter et cetera inteIligen­

aliud significationem uerbornm per partidpium monstrare, i.e. agentis personam ille homo ': eca uerbo 'uideor' et

da sunt. Item praesentis temporis, ut 'uidens ', 'patiens ', 'sapiens ', 'amans'; 'ui­ dem' enim quasi propheta, nam prophetas ueteres dixernnt uidentes; sic et 'patiens' qui patientiam habet, 'sapiens'

qui

sapientiam, 'amans ' quasi amator.

Cetera,

si

participia sunt, ueniunt a suis uerbis et actiuae sign!ficationis sunt.

Tatuinus, Ars grammatica, C. C. S. L. 1 33, 82.10()--8 3 . 1 17 It must be noted that most participles can also be nouns, like ' uisus', 'pas­ sus', 'cultus ' , 'hortatus', 'questus', 'flexus' : for it is one thing to display the name of no nutter what thing without tense, like 'hie uisus' (, the sight') i . e . 'uisio' ( ' sigh t '), 'passus gressus' ('step, stride'), 'cultus cultura' (,cultivation, culture') ( . . . ) ; it i� another thing to display verbal voice by means of a past or a present participle, that is the subject of acting (voice) or of undergoing (voice) , or neither, such a.� 'uisus / passus ille homo' (, that man having been seen / having suffered'): look, ' uisus' or 'passus' are pa.�t participles coming from the verbs ' uideor' and 'patior' and are of pa.�sive voice; the other in­ stances have to be understood in the same way. Likewise (the participles) of present ten..�e, like ' uidem ' , 'patiens ' , 'sapiens' , 'amans'; for 'uidem' l11eans a� it were 'propheta' (,prophet, see-er'), because the old writers calle d prophet� 'uidentes'; thus also 'patiem' means someone who ha.� 'patientia' ('patience') , 'sapiens' SOD1.eOne who ha.\ 'sapientia' ('wisdom'), 'amans' means a.\ it were 'amator' ('lover') . The other ones, if they are participles, come from their respective verbs and are of active voice. =

=

The qualification 'sine tempore' of the noum i� taken directly from a ver­ sion of the definition of the nomen present in the grammarians of the fourth-century Chari�iu� (193 . 1 � 1 3 Barwick) and Diomedes (G.L. I 320. 1 1 -1 2) , in the grammar Ars breviata attributed to Augustine (II,2 p.3 Weber]), and al�o in numerou� passages on logic in the translation and commentary that Boethius made of Aristoteles' Peri hermeneias (e.g. Boeth. Herm. II [4.6 Meiser 6.5 Minio-Paluello]) . l I, That Tatuinus =

16 See for example the definition of Charisius, 193. 1(}-13 Barwick:

Nomen est pars

orationis mm cas .. sine tempore sign!ficans rem corporalem aut incorporalem muniter ue, proprie, ut Roma Tiberis, commutliter, ul urbs civitas jlumen.

proprie com­ [The noun

is a word cla�s with case, ,vithout tense, indicating a corporeal or incorporeal

thlng either individually or conunonly, individually, like 'Romd' , commonly, like 'urbs' ('ciry'), 'duitas' ('conununiry'), 'jIumen' ('river').]

' Tiberis',

387

Latin Granunatical Manual. in the Early Middle Ages

here uses this criterion from treatments of the noun in a passage on the participle, i� probably just a result of a wish to contrast the noun and the participle: if 'having teme' is a distinctive feature of the participle, then the negation of it, 'not having teme', is a di�tinctive feature of the noun. In formulating the contrast, Tatuinus may have been helped by the available definitiom of the noun containing the element ' sine tempore' . The growing awareness of the ties between verb and participle can be illustrated by other examples as well. The grammar of the Anonymus ad Cuimnanum (nr. 1 6) comments on the three temes said to belong to the participle, whereas to the verb belong five tenses: TEMPORA

PAR TlCIP18

A CCEDUl'.:T

TREA :

PRAE8El'lS

PRAETERm,TM

Requiri poscit res, cur ,.on participia actiua primo protutit, sed deponentia. Hoc est, quod ipsa tantum pos­ sunt habere trea tempora. "Tria " dicuntur; non enim V; neque enim inpeifeaum plusquamue peifectllm dicimus, nisi quando ea declinatio trachit uNbi. Anonymu. ad Cuimnanum, Expositio LAtinitatis, c. C. S. L. 1 33D, 142. 1 6-22 FUTI.'R llM, lIT EST LllCTAl-.'S LlICTA TIJS LlJCTA IVR l JS .

To

THE

PARTICIPLE.�

DELONG

TH

REE

TENSES:

PRESENT, PAST,

AND

This situation demands the question, why he (sc. Donatu.) has not mentioned the active participles lint, but the deponents. Thi.. is the case, because just these (sc. the deponents) can only have three tenses. They are said to be "three"; not five; for we do not mention the imperfect or the pluperfect, except when the verb conjugation brings them along (sc. in periphra..tic verb fonns) . FUTURE, SUCH AS ' LlJCTA NS' , ' LlJCTA TI JS', 'LlJCTA TI JR FS ' .

The grammarian explaim that Donatus chose the deponent participles luctans etc. on purpose, becalL�e only deponent participles exist in three tenses. He then anticipates a possible confusion on the part of his read­ ers, explaining that, true, the verb has five temes in total, but two of these, past imperfect and past pluperfect, can only be brought along (trachit, i.e. trahit) by an inflected form of a verb and not in any other case. It is significant that although the anonymous author thus displays an awareness of the ties between verbal temes and participial tenses in a more explicit way than had been done ever before, he speaks about active participles and deponent participles and not about participles from active verbs and from deponent verbs: the participle is for him a separate word class after all . The Anonymous ad Cuimnanum clearly knew that of the three verbal past tenses, imperfect, perfect, and pluperfect, the participle only had the perfect one. The grammar Congregatio (nr. 1 8) , for its part, is the first Western Latin grammar to explicidy attach the specification 'peifectum' to the teme praeteritum in the paragraph on tempora in the participle chapter, when li.ting the temes which can be used in every verbal voice:

388

Louise Visser

actiua dec/inatio II tempora: praesens et futurum; passiua similiter II tempora: � tentum vcrfectum et futurum; communis dec/inatio actiua et passiua: IIlI; dryonens dec/inatio III: praesens et � etfuturum. Congregatio Sakanifilii de verbo 260 . 1 5-1 8 LofStedt; the underlining is mine The active conjugation has two tenses: present and future; the passive like­ wise has two tenses: pa..t perfect and future; the conmlOn active and pa..sive conjugation: four; the deponent one three: present and perfect and future.

others li.t the past tense simply as praeteritum. The Anonymous ad Cuimnanum and the author of the Congregatio made explicit the notion that was present rather implicitly in some of their sources. Charisius (fourth century) tell. us that pa..t participles always have the meaning of 'something completed' (peifectat' rei significatio) (23 1 . 1 2-14 Barwick), and Servius (nr. 5) that inchoative verbs do not have future active participles, since these derive from the past perfect tense of verbs, and inchoative verbs cannot have a past perfect tense, and therefore neither future ac­ tive participles ( G L. IV 440.21-25) . A. yet it cannot be determined which source(s) was or were used by our early medieval granunarians. The fact that they made thi. notion explicit suggests that their readers needed the information. The AI! Ambianensis (nr . 19), finally, shows very clearly influence from Pri.. cian's Institutiones in reporting Priscian's statement that partici­ ples do not become compound. themselves, but derive from compound verbs (pri.. c. Inst. gramm . , G L. II 568 . 1 6--1 7) : All

Sed Priscianus dicit quod non componitur participium per se nisi componitur uerbium [sic] unde nascitur. Cod. Sang. 877, p. 453 in my own transcription But Priscian says that the participle itself is not compoWlded, unless the verb from which it is derived is compounded.

The nature and grammatical behaviour of the participle are of course for an important part detennined by its verbal origin. Nonetheless, the au­ thors of grammatical manuals from Late Antiquity stress that the partici­ ple takes its features from the noun and the verb, as we have seen in the definitions of the participle. In a negative statement they agree upon the fact that a word form without verbal origin cannot be a participle17 , and that participles in such tenses and voices derive from such and such verbs. However, none of them explicitly makes the general positive statement 'participles originate from verbs' except for Charisius: scire . . . debemus, quia participium per sefieri non potest sed ex uabo (379. 1 3-- 1 5 Bar­ wick) . None of the early Donatus commentators (nrs. 3--1 1) says some17 C( Do natus ' exp res..ion " unbo nOI1 ueniu"t (645 . 1 3-14 Holtz) .

Latin Granullatical Manual. in the Early Middle Ages

389

thing similar either. Therefore it is surprising to find such a posluve statement in the seventh-century Ars Ambrosiana (nr. 1 5) and in eighth­ century Tatuinus (nr. 2 1 ) : (. . .J participia precul dubio a uerbis nascuntur, quamuis Jonnas nominum ultimis syl/abis habeant. Ars Ambrosiana, c. C. S.L. 1 33C, 1 44.27-29

( . . . ) participles are without any doubt born from verbs, although they have the fonns of nouns in their final syllables. Omnia partidpia a uerbis oriuntur. Tatuinu., Ars grammatica, c. C.S. L. 1 33, 80.5 All participles descend from verbs.

It is not easy to trace the origin of this statement attested in the AI! Am­ brosiana and in Tatuinus' granunar. It might be a case of making explicit a notion that was already present implicitly in the older grammars , just as with the passages above which illustrated the growing awareness of the ties between verb and participle, and tlut was present sometimes as a negative statement. I have not found any literal parallel for it. Priscian (early sixth century) is the first Latin grammarian who stresses tlut participles derive from verbs, and not from noum and verbs. The phrase ex uerbo / uerbis naseuntur which we find in the state­ ment of the Ars Ambrosiana is used several times by Priscian, once in his Partitiones and repeatedly in the Institutiones. But since the author of the AI! Ambrosiana does not cite Priscian literally, we cannot know whether 1) he used him at all (nasei wa.� a quite conventional term for derivations) or 2) if he used him, whether it was the Partitiones or the Institutiones. Tatuinus shows overall far more influence from Priscian than the AI! Ambrosiana. His general statement might therefore have beeen imp ired by Pri.�cian's stress on the verbal origin in the Institutiones, although Tatuinus uses the term oriri which is used more in Ps.-Probus and the early Donatus commentaries. All in all we see in the seventh and eighth centuries the first impact of the use of parts of Priscian's minor granunar texts, and even once or twice of his Institutiones, but his theories do not yet influence granunar in a consistent way in this period. Priscian's greatest influence as regard� the participle lies in the fact tlut his imi�tence on the verbal origin of participles seem.� to have been picked up by early medieval granunarians and combined with implicit notions present in third- and fourth-century granunars. The main reason why early medieval grammarians have done this, seem.� to be the diminishing of the familiarity with the Latin lan­ guage: someone who learns Latin as an (almost) foreign language, need�

390

Louise Visser

to know exactly what a participle is and how it i� anchored in the sys­ tem of the language. A� a result of this theoretical improvement forced by didactic need�, the position of the participle as a separate word cla�s seem� to have weakened slightly.

2. The Fonnal Description of the Participle:

Endings, Paradigms, and Rules In the grammars of Donatus, we do not find much of a fonnal descrip­ tion of the participle. In bct, it comes down to the paradigm� of the participles ofjust one verb: legere. They figure at the end of the participle chapter in the Ars minor. For native speakers, this wa� enough, at lea�t in the judgement of Donatu.� . Mter all, they needed the theoretical frame­ work with which to describe the elements of the Latin language, not the elements them�elves. Although Donatu.� had provided a full set of paradigm� at the end of the participle chapter of his A� minor, the granunarians after him very often added morphological details in the main body of the participle chapter which we do not find in Donatu.�. Sometimes they even omit Donatu.� ' paradigtns: this happens in the early commentaries in particu­ lar. Again, other sources than Donatus have often been used to supply the details. In the first place, the endings of the different types of participles are indicated, most often in or jmt after the paragraph on tempora. Thi� in itself is not new: in older grammars such as the ones by Sacerdos and Ps.-Probus, endings are already included in the information on the tenses. 1 M The temlinology used by these older grammarians is 'duabus formis dtifiniuntur, id est . . ' (are being defined by two [word] form�, namely . . . ) 'exit/exeunt in fformas / syllabam / . . } (end[s] in [the form�/the syllable/ . . . ]), 'terminantur' (end in) , 'mutatio extremae syllabae' (a tran.�formation of the la�t syllable [from . . . to . . . ]). Servius (nr. 4) , integrating a passage on the endings of participles in hi� Donatus commentary, does something remarkable. .

,

.

'

Tempora in participiis LAtinis tria SUtlt, praescm practeritum el .fUtumm; regulae lamen quattuor sunt. Nam praesens unam IMbet, quam diximlls, m, ul legem; praeterilurn unam, us, III ledus;.fUlumrn uero tempus duas habel regulas, rns el dus, lit ledurns legendlls. Servim in Don. Min. , G. L. IV 417.9-12

1 8 Sacerdos, G L. VI 444.7-1 5; Ps.-Probus, G. L. IV 1 39.6-36.

Latin Granunatical ManuaL\ in the Early Middle Ages

391

In Latin participles there are three tenses, present, past, and future; yet there are four paradigm types. For the present ha.\ one, which we mentioned, (with nominative) on -ns, like 'legl'ns'; the past ha.� one, (with nominative) on -us, like 'll'ctus'; but the future ha.� two paradigm types, (with nomina­ tive) on -rus and (with nominative) on -dus, like 'lecturus', 'legl'ndus'.

First he introduces the tempora, and then he continues with the state­ ment that Latin participles have four regulae. At first sight, one would translate 'regula' here with 'ending' . That is what Samantha Schad does in her Lexicon of LAtin Grammatical Terminology (2007) : Servius' use of the teon is listed a� 'inflectional foon, ending' 1 9. But in my view this tran�a­ tion does not do justice to the value of the teon, becau.�e the notion of 'pattern' , 'regularity' gets lost. I would suggest 'paradigm type' a� tran�a­ tion of the teon when applied to inflected word classes. It refers to the ending with the paradigm of the word forms in all ca�es belonging to it.lI t The use of the teon reguld as we see it here in Servius' chapter on the participle is typical for the early Donatus conunentaries: early me­ dieval texts adopt the mention of the endings, but without referring to them as ' regulae' . The Ars Ambianensis (nr. 1 9) in the eighth century shows a different approach to the foonal characteristics of the participle. Its author u.�ed treatises on declensions and conjugations which circulated from the late sixth century onward. 21 These treatises were in tum for a large part ba�ed on the Institutio de nomine et pronomine et verno written by Priscian. 19 S.v. regula 3 (p. 346) . 20 Schad mention\ for the interpretation of regula a.\ 'inflected form, ending' aL\O some instances in grammars of Late Antiquity, namely under 'further colloca­ tions' (sc. of regula in thi\ meaning) : e.g. regula uemi Donatus 595.23 Holtz = Diomedes, G.L. I 354. 19; comparationis Donatus 640 . 1 3 Holtz = Diomedes, G.L. I 406. 1 6; dedinationis Diomedes, G.L. I 302.3. I think, however, that in these instances regula rather means 'the rational system with a paradigm a.\ con­ crete result' or even simply 'paradigm' . Some of the citation\ given by Schad under 'inflectional form, ending' do not even belong to thi\ heading, but to the heading 'specific lingui\tic rule', e.g. regula ablatiui: regula L\ u\ed for indicating a substitution rule based on abl. sg., for the ending itself tmninare is u\ed. So I do not think regula means simply 'inflectional fonn, ending', neither in Late­ Antique granunars nor really in the early Donatu\ conunentaries. What Servius ha.\ done, is a.\ it were to 'concreticize' the use of regula from 'rational system resulting in paradigm' toward 'ending-with (mentally) associated paradigm' where paradigm.\ are present, and 'ending' tout court where they are absent, a.\ in adverbs. It L\ important to realize that for the granunarians of thi.\ period, a paradigm did not consist of a stem combined with a pattern of endings, but of a pattern of entire word fonn\. 2 1 See Law 1 982, 56-64 and 1 997, 132.

392

Louise Visser

The Ars Ambianensis not only applied the method of one or more of such treatises22 to the morphology of nouns and verbs, but al�o to that of participles. In order to demon.�trate what thi� granunarian does, I give here a rather substantial excerpt of the text: Quot litteras finales et quot terminationes et quot genera habet prima declinatio in participio? Unam litteram finalem habet id est a, et unam habet terminationem, id est in a, et unum genus habet, id est jemininum, ut amata, amalura, amanda; doe­ ta, doetura, docenda; lecta, leetura, legenda; audita, auditura, audienda. Quomodo intelleguntur casus prime declinationis in participio in ultimis syllabis? Ita intelleguntur. Nominatiuus et uocatiuus singulares in a exeunt et breues sunt in ul­ timis syllabis. Genitiuus et datiuus singulares in ae diptongon exeunt et /Qttg! .HI.t!1 (1) et accusatiuus singularis in am exiit et breuis est. Ablatiuus singularis in a exiit et longus est. Nominatiuus et uocatiuus plurales in ae diptongon exeunt et longi sunt. Genitiuus plura/is in rum, breuis est. Datiuus et ablatiuus plurales in is exeunt et longi sunt. Aausatiuus plura/is in as productus est. Quomodo dedinatur participium jemininum in a in prima declinatione in partidpio? Ita declinatur: (. ) haec amata, genitiuo huius amatae, (. . ) . . .

.

Cod. Sang. 877, pp. 453-454 in my own tramcription How many final letters and how many endings and how many genders does the first declension have in the participle? It ha.. one final letter, namely -a, and it has one ending, namely on -a, and it has one gender, namely feminine, like 'amata', 'amatura', 'amanda'; 'docta', 'dodura', 'docenda';

'Ieeta' , 'Iectura', 'Iegenda'; 'audita', 'auditura', 'audienda'. In which way are the ca..e fonn. of the first declension in the participle in the final letters understood? They are understood in the following way: The nominative and vocative singular end on -a and are short in the final syllables. The genitive and dative singular end on the diphthong -ae and are long, and the accusative singular end.. in -am and is short. The ablative sin­ gular end.. in -a and is long. The nominative and vocative plural end in the diphthong -ae and are long. The genitive plural on -rum i. short. The da­ tive and ablative plural end on -is and are long. The accusative plural on -as is lengthened. In which way is a feminine participle on -a in the first declension in the participle inflected? It is inflected in the following way: ( . . ) 'haec amata' , in the geni tive 'huius amatae', ( . . ) [etc.]. .

.

First the text indicates the declinationes present in participles, then for every declension the final letters and endings (litterae finales and termina­ tiones), then the casus in ultimis syllabis (= the cases visible in the final 22 He did probably not use Priscian direcdy, or at least not excllLoilvely, because of the change in the wording that can be observed. There is at least one parallel for this method in the treatise Quomodo intelleguntur in ultimis syllabis, Paris BN lat. 7560, f 45r/v, which antedates the AT.< Ambianensis (Law t 982, 70) . So the author of the Ars Ambianensis is probably not the (sole) inventor of the method.

Latin Granunatical ManuaL\ in the Early Middle Ages

393

syllables), and finally the paradigms of all participles belonging to the said declension. The application to the participle of this method typical for noun treatises is significant. It shows that students of Latin were loosing ground. In the fifth century, the indication of a 'paradigm type' by means of the ending of the nominative singular (-tIS, -us, etc.) was still enough to remind the student of the inflection of the type of particple concerned, a� we have seen in the passage of Servius. The student of Servius' grammar must have been able to realize that the 'paradigm types' for noun� on -tIS etc. which he knew already were also present in the participle. In the eighth century, the student need� the whole para­ digm to be spelled out. The formulas with which this wa� done are identical to those used for noun�, so that the students would be able to recognize the similarity between noun inflection and participle inflec­ tion and not be confu.�ed.23 A consequence of the fact that the author literally copied the method of the noun chapter is that the participles are now approached and grouped together according to their declension and not according to their ten�e and then gender: all feminines come first in thi� pa�sage, instead of all present participles first. The author thus not only recog­ nizes the inflectional features of the participle, but switches entirely to 'noun-mode' when discussing nominal features of the participle. Another eighth-century grammar, the Ars of Tatuinus (nr. 21), blends morphological information from Pri.�cian's ItlStitutio and Partitio­ nes, from Pompeiu.� , and maybe also from a treatise on declensions and possibly from other sources into one coherent pas.�age which is woven into the paragraph� on genera and casus. Omnia t'nim praesentis temporis participia, cuiuscumque signijicationis aut dec/ina­ tionis sint, communia sum trium Ilt'nmlm sub rzemina litteratura: quae in 'ans ' et in 'ens ' desinunt, ut 'hie' et 'haec' et 'hoc amans ', 'docens ', '/egens '. Cetera uero mo­ bilia sum per genera et quinque terminationibus in masculino genere et praeterito tempore et futuro inuenimus terminata: tribus utique in praeterito: aut in 'tus' ut 'Qmtltus', aut in 'sus' ut 'passus ', 'ussus', aut in 'xus' ut Jlexus ', 'amplexus ', et 23 Something which can have played a pan in the repetition in the participle chapter of paradigms which had already been written down in the noun chap­ ter, may be what Law caJIed 'compartmentalization': granunars tended to be ever more regarded a. \ collections of separate entities or book.\ and less a\ a whole (c£ Law 2000, 8s-f16). A\ a result of this, information of one chapter must be repeated in another chapter while Donatus and his colleagues could still a\.\wne that students would remember it acros.\ the different chapters. I do not think , however, that 'compartmentalization' i\ the only cause of tbi\ exten­ sive pa\.\age in the Ars Ambianmsis on the morphology of participles: the effecu of the obligation to learn Latin a\ a second language carry more weight.

394

Louise Vi�er

duobus in jHJwp: aut in '!w' ut 'amaturus', aut in '.dw' ut 'amandus'. Hae autem quinque fonnae supra scriptae, id est in 'tus', in 'sus', , in 'rus', in 'dus ', (qciunt ex Sf feminintJ '4' tmtIilUltltiq, ut 'amata ', 'passa', tamplexa ', 'ama­ tura ', 'amanda' neutra: 'amatum ', 'passum ', 'amplexum ', 'amaturum', 'aman­ dum '. CAsvs participi-orum sunt sex, ut nominum, per quos omnium generum participia declinantur, et sunt duarum dedinationum, uide/icet secundae et ter­ tiae. Nam quae in 'ans ' et in 'ens ' terminantur tertiae sunt, ut 'hie' et 'haec' et 'hoc amans, docens, legens', 'huius amantis, doantis, legentis'. Reliqua uero secundae sunt, ut 'hie amatus, passus, amplexus, amaturus, amandus', 'huius amati, passi, amplexi, amaturi, amandi'. Tatuinus, An grammatica, C. C. S.L. 133, 80.25-81 .52; the underlining is mine For all present participles, of whatever voice or conjugation they are, are common to three genders with a double spelling: those which end in -ans and in -ens, like 'hie' (masculine) and 'haec' (feminine) and 'hoc' (neutral) 'amans', 'docens', 'legens'. The other (participles) however, can move from one gender to another and we find them with five ending'! in the ma.�culine gender and in the pa.�t and future tenses: with three in the pa.�t ten�e at any rate: either on -tus like 'amatus', or on -sus like 'passus', 'ussus', or on -xus like 'jIexus', 'amplexus', and two in the future: either on -1IIS like 'amaturus', or in -dus like 'amandus'. However, these five forms written down above, i.e. -tus, -sus, <-xus>, -rus, -dus, make feminines out of them�elves which end on -a, like 'amata', 'passa', 'amplexa', 'amatura', 'amanda'; and neutral ones: 'amatum', 'passum', 'amplexum', 'amaturum', 'amandum'. There are six CASE FORMS of the participles, as of the nouns, for which the participles of all genders are inflected, and they are of two declensions, viz. the second and the third. For the ones which end in -ans and -ens are of the third, like 'hie, haec, hoc amans', 'docens', 'legens' (nominative), 'huisus amantis', 'docentis', 'legentis' (genitive) . The other ones, however, are of the second, like 'hie amatus', 'passus', 'amplexus', 'amaturus', 'amandus' (nominative), 'huius amati', 'pass", 'ampleXl·, 'amatun·, 'amandr" (genitive) .

Tatuinus divides the participles into those communia trium generum, of three genders, namdy the present participles, which exist 'with a double spelling' (sub gemina Iitteratura) : -ans and -ens, and on the other hand those mobilia per genera et quinque tenninationibus . . . tenninata: -tus, -sus, -xus, -rus, -dus (which can 'move' from one gender to another and end in -tus etc.). The use of the term mobilia with regard to participles had been introduced by Priscian and has also been picked up by Bonifatius (nr. 20) . It indicates word� with different forms for each gender.24 This 24 Diomedes, Donatus, and Consentius designated only noWl.� with different forms for each gender or the genders them�elves a.� mobilia (Diomedes G.L. I 328.25-28; Donatu� Mai., 621.3-7 Holtz; Consentiu� G.L. V 346. 1 4- 1 8). They are followed by Servius and the other early Donatu� commentators. Pris-

Latin Granunatical ManuaL\ in the Early Middle Ages

395

divi�ion of the participles lead� Tatuinus to the statement that participles have two declension�, third and second. He reasons that participles of the second declension are mobilia, and thus show feminine and neuter fonn�. Tatuinus tries to move forward on the theoretical level, using a relatively 'new' granunar together with the traditional sources. And he does make progress: without entirely switching to 'noun-mode' and loosing sight of the tenses of the participles, he brings the inflectional 'groups' of participles down to two instead of three (the ten�es) in tradi­ tional granunar with their subgroups of several endings. He also avoid� taking every declension separately, as the author of the Ars Ambianensis does. Tatuinus only goes a little too far when he brings the number of declension� down to two as well. From endings we move to rules for creating participles. Not only did Servius introduce endings with their paradigm.� by means of the term 'regulae', he al�o devoted a paragraph to regu14e participiorum.25 Only this time he indicates morphological 'substitution rules' by mean� of which one participle can be formed on the basis of another and vice versa. The paragraph is again based on Ps.-Probus a� regard� contents2li, but here also the particular use of 'regula' is Servius' contribution, which thi� time has not been copied by the other commentators. As a technical term for the relation between the participles that can be ba�ed upon one another, Servius uses regere. This word was used by Ps.-Probus only incidently and receives a fuller technical meaning and use from Servius. It is probably no coincidence that it has the same lexical ba�e as regu14. The technique is the following: regardless of any underlying abstract pattern, letters or syllables of a word form are replaced by other letters or syllables to create another word form. See the example from Explanatio­ nes I : Nam praesens tempus a b aaiuo regit Juturum a passiuo, e t praetnitum tempus a passiuo /Tgit Juturum ab aaiuo. Nam detrahe participio prMsentis temporis s et adde dus, fads participium Juturi temporis a passiuo: legens, toile s litteram et adde dus, fads legendus. (. . .J Explanationes in artem Donatum I, G. L. IV 5 1 3 .28-32

cian L\ the first to u\e mobilia for word\ of all word cla\.\es which have ca.\e fonn\, noun, pronoun, and participle, e.g. Institutio de nomine . . . 23. 1 -2, 7 Passalacqua; Inst. gramm., G.L. II 564. 1 2-18; III 6 . 1 2; Partitiones . . 66. 1 9-24 Pa.\salacqua. 25 Servius, G.L. IV 417.28-41 8.2. I take the tenn 'substitution rule' fonn Law 1 990, 62 and 2000, 82. 26 Ps.-Probu\, G.L. IV 140.7-38. .

396

Louise Visser

For the present active ten.e rules the future passive one, and the past pa.­ sive one rules the future active one. For take the -s off a present participle and add -dus, and you make a future pa.sive participle: 'legms', take the let­ ter -s off and add -dus, and you make 'legendus'. ( . . . )

Several early medieval granunars likewise provide morphological rules like these, namely Iulianus Toletanus (nr. 1 3) , A� Ambrosiana (nr. 1 5), Anonymus ad Cuimnanum (nr. 1 6) , and Congregatio Salcani .filii (nr. 1 8). The la.t three, however, adopt the rule they found in Pri..cian's lnstitutio de nomine et pronomine et uerbo (39. 14-1 7 Passalacqua) and Partitiones (64.2(�5 .9 Passalacqua) for the fonnation of present participles: with verbs of the first and second conjugations one takes the second person singular, amas, doces, and one puts an 'n' 'in between', i.e. before the -s: amans, docens. With verbs of the third and fourth conjugation one changes the -0 of the first person singular, lego, audio, into -ens, legens, audiens. This is the adaptation of the pa..sage of Priscian by the author of the Ars Ambrosiana (nr. 1 5) : Praesentis quidem temporis i n prima quidem e t secunda amiugatione fit secundaI' persotUlc n interposita ut amas amans, doees docens. In tertia uero et quarta a prima persotUl fit eonuersa 0 in ens, ut lege legens. Ars Ambrosiana, c.C.S.L. 1 33C, 1 4!l. 1 39- 1 42 Of the present ten.e in the first and second conjugations it i. made from the second person by mean. of an -n- put in between, like 'amas' (2nd. sg.) 'amans' (pres. part.) , 'doces', 'docens'. In the third and fourth, however, it i. made from the first person by means of the -0 being changed into -ens, like 'lego' (ht. sg.) 'Iegens' (pre.•. part.) .

Theoretical improvement can be observed once more: for the first time morphological rules are given for the fonnation of participles out of verb fonn.. Pri..cian not only asserted on the abstract level of the word classes that participles derive from verbs, he also demonstrates it on the fonnal level, although still without the notions of 'stem' etc. The merit of our early medieval grammarians is that they realized that Priscian's insight was an improvement upon the traditional substitution rules of Ps.-Probus and Servius in that now, at lea..t for the present participles, a verb fonn could be taken a.. a fixed starting point for the fonnation of participles and one no longer had to juggle with 'internal evidence', a.. it were: substitute participles with one another without a fixed starting point while actually studying the participle. Since Pri..cian does not write down any such substitution rule for the pa..t and future participles, our grammarians revert to either Ps.­ Probus or one of the early Donatus-commentaries for the rules they provided, which only go from one participle to another. At this point

Latin Granullatical Manual. in the Early Middle Ages

397

they could have found valuable infonnation in Priscian's Institutiones, who build� past and future participles out of the supine. Again we see that the use of what Priscian had to offer was still hesitant in the seventh and eighth centuries.

3. Conclusions The grammars in our corpus treat the participle a.� a separate word cla.�s. The definitions they provide, however, suggest that the participle wa.� counted among the 'more labile' word classes. We get the same impres­ sion when the grammarians treat the demarcation between the participle and other word classes, primarily the noun. On the one hand, the parti­ ciple i� tied to the verb in a more explicit way than before and the early medieval granllnarians learn from Pri�cian to put more empha.�is on the verbal origin of participles. On the other hand, the features shared with the noun prompt some grammarians to approach the participle as a real noun when they di�cuss one of it� nominal features. Thi� gives us the impression of rocking to and fro between 'verbness' and 'nounness' in stead of standing on finn ground with an autonomous word class. Yet all this wa.� not sufficient to stimulate questions about the 'right.' the parti­ ciple had to the label pars orationis. Our grammarians looked for everything they could hold on to in order to demarcate the word class 'participle', especially when di�cussing 'similar forms' shared by noun and participle. Morphological detail� and rules for the participle were taken from grammars older than Donatus and from Pri�cian, and then further in�titutionalised. The theoretical system inherited from Donatus, Sac erdos, Ps.-Probus, and others wa.� not taken for granted but continued to receive adjustments and addi­ tion�. A word used incidently by one could become a technical tenn in the work of another. The gradually growing influence of Pri�cian is clear. From the AI! Ambrosiana onward�, all granmlars show the use of the short Institutio and the Partitiones, whereas the Ars Ambianensis and Tatuinus are the first granilllars to clearly use the Institutiones in the par­ ticiple chapter. They do not yet, however, exploit the Institutiones in full.

G rammarian� aimed at structural and didactic improvement and also at theoretical inlprovement. In thi� development we see most of all early pha.�es of the shift in function toward manuals for the teaching of Latin as a second language, but lnaybe also the awareness that 'grammar' can be more than jlL�t the contents of a school manual: namely a science.

Louise Visser

398

Appendix DONATUS, ARs MINOR

6 (597.4-599.11 Holtz)

De participio Participium quid est? Pars orationis partem capiens nominis, partem uerbi: nomi­ nis genera et casus, ueroi tempora et significationes, utriusque numerum et figu­ ram. Participio quot accidunt? Sex. Quae? Genera, casus, tempora, significa­ tiones, numerus,figura. Genera participiorum quot sunt? Quattuor. Quae? Masculinum, ut hie lectus; jemininum, ut haec lecta; neutrum, ut hoc lectum; commune tribus generibus, ut hie et haec et hoc legens. Casus participiorum quot sunt? Sex. Qui? Nominatiuus, ut hie legens; gene­ tiuus, ut huius legentis; datiuus, ut huic legenti; accusatiuus, ut hune legentem; uocatiuus, ut 0 legens; ablatiuus, ut ab hoc legente. Tempora participiorum quot sunt? Tria. Quae? Praesens, ut legem; praeteritum, ut lectus;Juturum, ut legendus. Significationes participiorum in quo sunt? Quia ab adiuo uerbo duo participia ueniunt, praesens et Juturum, ut legens, leeturus; a passiuo duo, praeteritum et Juturum, ut lectus, legendus; a neutro duo, sicut ab adiuo, praesens et Juturum, ut stans, staturus; a deponenti tria, praesens, praeteritum etJuturum, ut loquens, locutus, locuturus; a communi quattuor, praesens, praeteritum et duo Jutura, ut criminans, criminatus, criminaturus, criminandus. Numeri participiorum quot sunt? Duo. Qui? Singularis, ut hie legens; pluralis, 14 t hi Iegentes . Figurae participiorum quot sunt? Duae. Quae? Simplex, ut legens; conposita, ut neglegens. Da declinationem partidpii. Legens partidpium ueniens a uerbo adiuo temporis praesentis generis omnis numeri singularis figurae simplicis casus nominatiui accusatiui et uocatiui, quod declinabitur sie: nominatiuo hie et haec et hoc legens, genetiuo huius legentis, datiuo huic legenti, accusatiuo hunc et hane legentem et hoc legens, uocatiuo 0 legens, ablatiuo ab hoc et ab hac et ab hoc legente uel le­ genti; et pluraliter nominatiuo hi et hae legentes et haec legentia, genetiuo horum et harum et horum legentium, datiuo his legentibus, accusatiuo hos et has legentes et haec legentia, uocatiuo 0 legentes et 0 legentia, ablatiuo ab his legentibus. Ledurus ledura lecturum participia uenientia a uerbo actiuo temporis Juturi gene­ ris masculini feminini et neutri numeri singularis figurae simplicis casus nomina­ tiui et uocatiui, quae declinabuntur sic: nominatiuo lecturus ledura ledurum, genetiuo lecturi ledurae lecturi, datiuo leduro lecturae lecturo, accusatiuo lecturum leduram lecturum, uocatiuo lecture lectura lecturum, ablatiuo ab hoc lecturo ab hac ledura ab hoc leduro; et pluraliter nominatiuo lecturi lecturae lectura, genetiuo

Latin Granullatical Manual. in the Early Middle Ages

399

ledurornm leeturarnm leeturornm, datiuo leeturis, aausatiuo lecturos leeturas ledura, uocatiuo lecturi leeturae ledura, ablatiuo ab his leduris. Ledus leeta lectum participia uenientia a uerbo passiuo temporis praeteriti generis masculini feminini et neutri numeri singularis jigurae simplids easus nominatiui et uocatiui, quae declinabuntur sie: nominatiuo ledus lecta ledum, genitiuo ledi ledae ledi, datiuo ledo leetae ledo, aceusatiuo ledum lectam leetum, uoeatiuo lede leda leetum, ablatiuo ab hoe lecto ab hae leeta ab hoe ledo; et pluraliter nomina­ tiuo leeti ledae leda, genetiuo lectornm leetarnm ledornm, datiuo leetis, aausatiuo ledos lectas leda, uoeatiuo lecti ledae leda, ablatiuo ab his lectk Legendus legenda legendum participia uenientia a uemo passiuo temporis futuri generis masculini ftminini et neutri numeri singularis jigurae simplicis casus no­ minatiui et uocatiui, quae dec1inabuntur sic: nominatiuo legendus legenda legen­ dum, genetiuo legendi legendae legendi, datiuo legendo legendae legendo, aausa­ tiuo legendum legendam legendum, uoeatiuo legende legenda legendum, ablatiuo ab hoc legendo ab hac legenda ab hoe legendo; et pluraliter, nominatiuo legendi legendae legenda, genetiuo legendornm legendarnm legendornm, datiuo legendis, aausatiuo legendos legendas legenda, uocatiuo legendi legendae legenda, ablatiuo ab his legendis. On the participle What is the participle? A word class taking a part of the noun, a part of the verb: from the noun the genders and cases, from the verb the tenses and voices, from both number and form. How many accidents belong to the participle? Six. Which ones? Genders, ca�es, tenses, voices, num­ ber, and (compositional) form. How many genders of the participle are there? Four. Which ones? Ma�­ culine, like hic ledus; feminine, like haee lecta; neutral, like hoe leetum; common to the three genders, like hie and haec and hoe legem. rlegere: to read] How many cases of the participle are there? Six. Which ones? The nominative, like hie legens; the genitive, like huius legentis; the dative, like huie legenti; the acclL�ative, like hune legentem; the vocative, like 0 legem; the ablative, like ab hoe legente. How many tenses of the participle are there? Three. Which ones? The present tense, like legens; the past tense, like lectus; the future tense, like legendus. Wherein lie the voices of the participles? In that two participles come from the active verb, the present one and a future one, like legem, lectu­ rns; two from the passive, the past one and a future one, like lectus, legen­ dus; two from the neutral, just a� from the active, the present one and a future one, like stam, staturus, three from the deponent, the present, the pa�t, and a future one, like loquens, locutus, locuturns; four from the com-

400

Louise Visser

mon, the present, the pa�t, and two future ones, like criminans, criminatus, criminaturns, and criminandus. [stare: to stand; Ioqui: to speak; criminare: to acclL�el How many nlLmbers of the participles are there? Two. Which ones? The singular, like hic legem; the plural, like hi Iegentes. How many (compositional) fonm of the participles are there? Two. Which ones? Simple fonn, like legem; compound form, like neglegens. [neglegens: heedles.�, indifferentl Give the declension of the participle. Legens i� a participle coming from an active verb of present tense, [and it ha�l common gender, singular number, simple fonn, nominative, acclL�ative, and vocative ca�e, and it will be inflected in the following way: in the nominative hic and haec and hoc legens, in the genitive huius legentis, in the dative huic legenti, in the acclL�ative hune and hane legentem and hoc legens, in the vocative 0 legem, in the ablative ab hoc and ab hac and ab hoc legente or legenti; and in the plural, in the nominative hi and hae legentes and haec legentia, in the genitive hornm and harnm and hornm legentium, in the dative his legentibus, in the accusative hos and has Iegentes and haec legentia, in the vocative 0 legentes and 0 legentia, in the ablative ab his legentibus. Lecturns, lectura, lecturnm are participles coming from an active verb of future teme, [and they havel masculine, feminine, and neutral gender, singular number, simple fonn, and nominative and vocative ca�e, and they will be inflected in the following way: in the nominative lecturus lectura lecturnm, in the genitive lecturi lecturae lecturi, in the dative lecturo lecturae lecturo, in the accusative lecturnm lecturam lecturum, in the vocative lecture lectura lecturnm, in the ablative ab hoc lecturo ab hac lectura ab hoc lec­ turo; and in the pltLral, in the nominative lecturi lecturae lectura, in the genitive lecturornm lecturarum lecturornm, in the dative lecturis, in the accu­ sative lecturos lecturas lectura, in the vocative lecturi lecturae lectura, in the ablative ab his lecturis. Lectus lecta lectum are participles coming from a pa�sive verb of past tense, [and they have] masculine, feminine, and neutral gender, singular num­ ber, simple fonn, and nominative and vocative ca�e, and they will be inflected in the following way: in the nominative lectus lecta lectum, in the genitive lecti lectae lecti, in the dative lecto leetae lecto, in the accusative lectum lectam lectum, in the vocative lecre lecta lectum, in the ablative ab hoc lecto ab hac lecta ab hoc lecto; and in the plural, in the nominative lecti lectae lecta, in the genitive lectornm lectarnm lectornm, in the dative lectis, in the accmative lectos lectas lecta, in the vocative leeti lectae lecta, in the ablative ab his lectis. Legendus legenda legendum are participles coming from a pa�sive verb of future teme, [and they havel masculine, feminine, and neutral gender,

Latin Granunatical ManuaL\ in the Early Middle Ages

401

singular number, simple fonn, and nominative and vocative ca�e, which will be inflected in the following way: in the nominative legendus legenda legendum, in the genitive legendi legendae legendi, in the dative legendo leg­ endae legendo, in the accusative legendum legendam legendum, in the voca­ tive legende legenda legendum, in the ablative ab hoc legendo ab hac legenda ab hoc legendo; and in the plural in the nominative legendi legendae legenda, in the genitive legendorum legendarum legendorum, in the dative legendis, in the accusative legendos legendas legenda, in the vocative legendi legendae legenda, in the ablative ab his legendis. DONATUS, ARS MAIOR

11,14 (644.1-646.12 Holtz)

De participio Participium est pars orationis, dicta quod partem capiat nominis partemque uerbi. Recipit enim a nomine genera et casus, a uerbo tempora et significationes, ab utroque numerum et figuram. Participiis accidunt sex, genus, casus, tempus, significatio, numerus,figura. Genera participiis accidunt quattuor: masculinum, ut lectus;femininum, ut lecta; neutrum, ut leetum; commune, ut legens. Nam omnia praesentis temporis parti­ cipia generis sunt communis. Casus totidem sunt participiorum, quot et nominum: nam per omnes casus etiam participia declinantur. Tempora partidpiis acddunt tria, praesens praeteritum et .fUturum, ut luctans luetatus luctaturus. Significationes participiorum a generibus uerborum sumuntur. Veniunt enim participia a uerbo actiuo duo, praesentis temporis et .fUturi, ut legens leeturus: a passiuo duo, praeteriti temporis et .fUturi, ut leetus legendus; a neutro duo, [sicut ab actiuo] praesentis temporis et .fUturi, ut stans staturus; a deponenti tria, prae­ sentis praeteriti et .fUturi, ut luetans luetatus luetaturus; a communi quattuor, praesentis praeteriti et duo .fUtura, ut criminans criminatus criminaturus criminan­ dus. lnchoatiua partidpia praesentis temporis sunt tantum, ut horrescens, tepescens, calescens. Difectiua interdum alicuius sunt temporis, ut soleo solens solitus, inter­ dum nullius, ut ab eo quod est memini nullum participium reperitur; interdum a non defectiuo uerbo participia defectiua sunt, ut ab eo quod est studeo studens .fUturum tempus non habet. Ab inpersonali uerbo participia nisi usutpata non ueniunt. Numerus partidpiis accidit uterque: singu/aris, ut hic legens, pluralis, ut hi le­ gentes.

402

Louise Vi��er

Figura item participiorum duplex est. aut enim simplicia sunt participia, ut scri­ bens, aut conposita, ut describens. Conponi etiam participia quattuor modis pos­ sunt. Sunt nomina speciem participiorum habentia, ut tunicatus, galeatus, quae, quia a uemo non ueniunt, non sunt participiis adplicanda. ex quibus sunt etiam ilia, quae, cum participia uideantur, uemorum tamen significatione priuata sunt, ut pransus, cenatus, placita, nupta, triumphata, regnata: nam prandeor, cenor, placeor, nubor, triumphor, regnor non dicitur. Sunt item alia participia, quae aaepta praepositione et a uemis et a participiis recedunt, ut nocens innocens: nam noceo dicitur, innoceo non dicitur. Sunt ueluti participia, quae a uerbo ueniunt, et, quia tempus non habent, nomi­ na magis quam participia iudicantur, utforibundus, moribundus. Sunt multa participia eadem et nomina, ut passus, uisus, cultus, quae tamen et in casibus discrepant et de temporibus dinoscuntur. Sunt participia difectiua, quae per omnia tempora ire non possunt, ut caeptus, urguendus. Sunt participia, quae aaepta conparatione fiunt nomina, ut aaeptus incensus, aaeptior incensior. Aduemia de participiis fieri posse nonnulli negant; sed hos plurimae lectionis reuincit audoritas. On the participle The participle i� a word clas.�, which is called (by this name) because it takes a part from the noun and a part from the verb. For it receives gen­ ders and cases from the noun, tenses and voices from the verb, and number and form from both. The participle has six accidenu, gender, ca�e, ten�e, voice, number, and (compositional) form. There are four genders which bdong to the participle: ma�culine, like ledus; feminine, like leda; neutral, like lectum; common, like legens. For all present participles are of common gender. There are just a� many ca�es of the participles a� there are of nouns: since participles as well have inflections for all ca�es. Three ten�es bdong to the participles, present, past, and future, like luctans, ludatus, ludaturus. r/uctari: to wrestle] The voices rsignificationes] of the participles are taken from the voices jienera] of the verbs. For two participles come from the active verb, the one of present ten�e and one of future ten�e, like legens redurus; two from the passive, the one of pa�t tense and one of future ten�e, like redus reg­ endus; two from the neutral, the one of the present tense and one of future ten�e, like stans staturus; three from the deponent, the one of pre­ sent ten�e, the one of past ten�e, and one of future tense, like luctans luctatus luctaturus; four of the common, the one of present tense, the one

Latin Granullatical Manual. in the Early Middle Ages

403

of past tense and the two future tenses, like crimilUlns crimilUltus crimilUltu­ rns criminandus. Inchoative participles are only of present ten�e, like horrescens [becoming frightened], tepescens [becoming lukewarml, calescens [growing warml . Defective ones are sometimes of one tense or another, like soleo solens solitus, sometimes of none, as no participle deriving from the verb memini i� found; sometimes there are defective participles (derived) from a non-defective verb, as studens from studeo does not have a future tense. From an inpersonal verb do not come participles, unless they are forged [contrary to the rulesl [solere: to be accustomed; memini: to remember; studere: to be diligent inl Both numbers belong to the participles: singular, like hie legens, plural, like hi Iegentes. The form of the participles is likewi�e twofold. For the participles are either simple (fonns) , like scribens, or compound�, like describens. Partici­ ples as well can be compound in four ways [sc. jmt like nounsl [scribere: to write; describere: to describel There are noun� which have the appearance of participles, like tunicatus [clothed with a tunic], galeatus fhelmedl ; these are not to be added to the participles, because they do not come from a verb. Yet amongst them there are those (word fonns) , which are deprived of verbal voice, although they seem to be participles, like pransus [fed with breakfast,l, cenatus fhaving dinedl, placita [opinions, determination�, principlesl, nupta [bridel, triumphata fhaving held a triumph], regnata fhaving been ruled, neutr. pI. / fem. sgl for we do not say prandeor, cenor, placeor, nubor, triumphor, or regnor [i.e. these passives do not exist, the verbs are neutrall· Similarly, there are other participles which recede both from verbs and from participles after having received a preposition, like nocens innocens: for noceo is being said, innoceo i� not being said. [noceo: to harm; innocens: hannless, innocentl There are "participles", as it were, which do not come from a verb, and which are judged more noun� than participles, because they do not have ten�e, like foribundus [raging, furious 1, moribundus [dyingl There are many participles (which are) the same a.� nouns, like passus, uisus, cultus, which however both differ in their case fonn.� and are rec­ ognized on the basis of (the presence of) tenses. [passus: having endured (part. patr), step (noun); uisus: having been seen (part. uidere), a look, vi�ion (noun)l There are defective participles, which cannot go through all the ten�es, like coeptus fhaving been begun-pres. part. does not existl, urguendus fhaving to be pressed, urged-pa.�t part. does not existl .

404

Louise Visser

There are participles, which become nouns when they receive compari­ son, like acceptus [having been received, accepted1 incensus [having been kindled, set on fire1, acceptiOT [more welcome, more agreeable1, incemioT [hotter] . Several people deny that adverbs can be fonned from participles; but the authority of many a reading refutes them.

Theodosius and his Byzantine Successors on the Participle: A Didactic Approach Valerie Van Elst

It i.� well known that for the teaching of Greek grammar the Byzantines heavily relied on the ancient grammatical tradition. To their most influ­ ential Greek predecessors belong not only Dionysiu� Thrax (c. 1 7
2

It should be noted, though, that Dion�ius' authorship of the influential gram­ matical manual traditionally attributed to him, i.e., the Techn2 ('.rammatik�, has recently been the object of comiderable discussion. While some scholars con­ sider the Techn2 to be a compilation of the 3rd-4th century AD, others defend Dion�ius' authorship, either by maintaining that the manual is fully authentic or by arguing that it originally goes back to Dion�ius, but underwent several changes during the following centuries. For a status quaestionis of this authentic­ ity problem, c( Law - Sluiter 1 995. Noteworthy in this respect is the absence of his name in several historiographi­ cal outlines of ancient linguistics, such as Pinhorg 1 975, Law 2003 and Allan 2007. A brief discuss ion of Theodosiu. and hi. works can be found in Hunger 1978, II 1 1-1 2; Kaster 1 988, 366-367 (no. 1 52) ; Wouters 1 988, 30-3 1 ,n. 33; Robins 1 993,1 1 1-1 1 6; Stanunerjohann et al. 1 996, 913,s.v. 'Theodosius AJ­ exandrinus' (D. Gambarara); Wilson 1 996, 42-43 and Dickey 2007, 83-84.

Valerie Van El,t

406

tion and, second, concisely describe the contents of Theodosius' Kav6vE).

1. The Participle in the Ancient Greek Grammatical Tradition

The earliest traces of the identification of the participle in Antiquity go back to Aristarchus of Samothrace, who lived in the 3rd-2nd century Be. As convincingly shown by Matthaios 1 999, 420-431 , Aristarchus is likely to have been familiar both with the concept of the participle as a separate word class and with it, designation IJETOXTJ. According to the etymological explanation of the tenn IJETOXTJ, at­ tested in several grammatical sources, the participle owes its designation to its property of participating in the characteristics of both the noun and the verb. The papyrus P. Yale 1 .25 (no. 1 Wouters 1 979, 47-60) of the 1 st century AD , for instance, add, to its definition of the participle3 the following comment (11. 1 6-1 8) : IJ[EJTO- I [X"; AeYETa! 5la TJO IJET­ eX <E> IV I [Kal 6v6IJCXTOS KJ al PTJlJaTOS ('it is called "part-taker" because it takes part in both the noun and the verb') . This twofold nature gives the participle a somewhat problematic status within the parts-of-speech system, because, in contrast with the other parts of speech, it has no specific features of its own. In fact, the participle exist, by virtue of being a combination of the noun and the verb,4 which i, why, from the very beginning, its statu., as an independ­ ent part of speech became an object of discmsion and di,agreement among grammarians and especially between the Alexandrian gramrnari­ am and the Stoic philosophers of the 2nd - 1 st century Be. Whereas the fonner--in line with Ari,tarchus-comidered the participle a sepa­ rate part of speech on the basi, of its being a hybrid verbal-nominal cla.,s, the latter refused to recognize its autonomous status by arguing that, unlike the other parts of speech, it has no 'basic fonn' as it i, always

3

4

P. Yale 1 .25, 11. 1 3-16: l1]nOXT! 5' lO'Tlv M�ts a

6pa I [Kal lTTWCrElS hT1]5E-X0I1�V'T1 Kal )(povw I [5tacpopas �xo]v(Ja, oTov A�ywv, cppo- I [VOVI1EVOS ('a participle i, a word [type] accepting articles and ca.,es and having

the di,tinction of tenses, e.g., 'saying', 'thinking"). Its typical nominal features are ca.,e and gender, while it' typical verbal features include voice and tense. Compare, e.g., D.T. 60.3-4; P. Yale 1 .25 (cf supra, n. 3); A.D. Synt. 23. 10--2 4. 1 ; 292.9-16; Sch. D. T. 254.33-255.3; 255.25-256.7 and Choerob. in Theod. II 296.27-297. 1 3.

Theodosiu, and his Byzantine Successor.; on the Participle

407

derived from a verb. Instead, they seem to have classified the participle under either the noun or the verb.5 According to Priscian (Sth-6th century AD) , if we correcdy inter­ pret his word"", Tryphon was the first to investigate thoroughly the autonomous status of the participle as proposed by Aristarchus. What this granunarian of the 1 st century Be apparendy aimed at was to de­ fend the participle's independent status with persuasive arguments against the Stoics. While doing so, he probably played a major or even decisive role in the discussion between the Alexandrians and the Stoics, because from the 1 st-2nd century AD on, the presence of the participle as a separate word class within the parts-of-speech system seem. to have met with general approval among the Greek grammarians. During the first centuries AD, progress was al.o made in the gram­ matical description or categorization of the participle. [n this respect, special mention should be made of Apollonim Dyscolus, who, in the 2nd century, accurately described it. syntactic functioning in hi. large study on syntax (TTEpi avvTafECAJf). In addition, both he and hi. son Herodian were probably the first to devote a full monograph to the participle, but, unfortunately, of these works only fragments7 have been preserved. Besides literary source material, which, apart from a few treatises such as the grammatical manual attributed to Dionysius Thrax and Apolloniu... Dyscolu... ' Syntax, primarily includes scattered testimonies of later authors, we al.o have at our di.posal several papyrological textsK that infonn u... about the position of the participle in the ancient Greek 5

6

7 8

Por more infonnation on the discu,",ion between the Alexandrian., and the Stoics on the participle, c( Matthaios 1 999, 426--429; id. 2002, 1 85-1 87; Gar­ cea-Giavatto 2004, 50(; Swiggers-Wouter.; 2007, 56( and id. 2008, 1 05( Prisco in G.L. II 548.4-7: quaesitum est tamen, an bene separaverint id ab aliis partibus grammatici et primus Trypho, quem Apollonius quoque sequitur, maximus a./C­ tor art;s grammaticae ('The question has been raised, however, if the granunarians have set off the participle from the other parts of speech accurately, and the first to do so [i.e., to provide accurate argument, or a finn theoretical basis for set­ ting off the participle from the other part, of speech] was Tryphon, who wa, al,o followed by Apolloniu" the most competent author in granunatical sci­ ence') . C( Matthaios 1 999, 420--42 1 ; 430; id. 2002, 1 96, n. 1 43; Swiggers­ Wouters 2007, 54; 56; 62-63 and id. 2008, 1 08-1 09. C( A.D. Fragm. in G. G. II 3, 1 22-1 29 and Hdn. flEp! /JETOXWV in G. G. III 2, 784-785, respectively. Por a survey of the gramma tical papyri that have come down to u" c( Wouters 1 979 (grammatical manual, and scholarly treatises); id. 1 988, 33-34 (conjuga­ tion tables); Swigger.;-Wouters 1 995, 92-95 (grammatical manual,); Cribiore 1 996 (school papyri) and Fournet 1999, I 21 9-220 (conjugation tables).

408

Valerie Van Elst

granunatical tradition. Among the scholarly treatises transmitted to us on papyrus, particular attention should be given in this regard to P. Rain. 1 . 19 (no. 20 Wouters 1979, 237-240) , a small fragment of the 1 st cen­ tury Be or AD , containing a few rules for the inflection of participle fonm. A� for the other extant papyrus text� that provide infonnation on the participle, deriving mainly from a school context, two categories can be generally di�tingui�hed. The first category contaim some fragment� of granunatical manuals, such as P. Yale 1 .25 (c£ supra , p. 406 and n. 4) . These fragment�, both in structure and content comparable to the man­ ual attributed to Dionysius Thrax, contain a series of definitiom, classifi­ catiom and examples of the part� of speech, including the participle. To the second category belong a number of more or less fragmentary pre­ served conjugation tables for verbs� that include, but always at the end, an inflection of the participle through its different ten�es and numbers. In Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 375 1 6, dated to the 3rd century AD , for in­ stance, the optative fonm (EvKTIKa) of the verb vlKaw are--from line 25 of the 4th column onward�-followed by their corresponding parti­ ciple fonns (IJETOxal) :l!1

9 Por a synthetic discussion of these verbal paradigm�, cf. Wonters 1 988, 64-8 1 and Pournet 1 999, I 21 9-232. 10 Partial tramcription of Kenyon 1 909, 3 1 . Within the inflection of botb the EUKTIKCx and the IlEToXaL first, all the active fonns are listed and, second, all the passive(lmiddle) fonns, introduced by the Iabel lTa6T]TIKCx (col. 2, 1. 1 7 and col. 5, 1. 1 8). Then, within each of these voices, first, all the singular fonm are in­ flected through the different tenses, second, all the dual fornI.' (5V"iKCx: col. 1 , 1. 17; col. 3, 1. 9 and col. 5, 1. 2) and, finally, all the plural fonm (IT/\'116 vVTlKCx: col. 2, 1. 1; col. 4, 1. 1 and col. 5, 1. 1 0). The labeL. of the different tenses--apart from the present tense, which is not indicated by a label---have been abbrevi­ ated, representing, respectively, the tenses lTapaKell-lEVa (peifect), aoplO"Ta (ao­ rist) and I-l�MOVTa (fUture). Since, unlike in the other extant verbal paradigtlL�, only the masculine participle fonns are included, there is no subdivision ac­ cording to gender in the inflection of the I-lETOXal.

409

Theodosius and his B}'2antine Successors on the Participle Col.I

Col. 2

EVKTlKO: v1KOIIJI v1KOIS viKOl 5 mpaK­ VEVlKTJKOIJJ, \IE\/IXTp
1r1.'levvTlxa vixo'\I&V viXO'TE viXO'E11 1rapCIK\IE\IIxl\xo.\I&V \IE\IIXI\XO.TE \IE\IIXI\XO.E11 \IE\IIXI\XO.E11 ao\/Ix';aaI\I&V \/IK1jaal"re \/IK1jacnEII \1IA­ \/Ix';oo.\I&V \/IK1jaO'TE \/IXT)aO.E11 1ra6trr.xa \/Ixoill'lv vixo.o viXO'TO 1rapCIK\IE\IIx'lxol\1'1v \IE\IIxl\xo.o \IE\IIXI\XO.TO ao\/IK1J6.ilJV \/Ix'l6.i'lS \/IK1J6Ei'l \11-ao­ \/IXlJOaill'lV \/IXT)acno \/IXT)acnTO

30 CoL I:

Col. 4

Col. 3

\1IA­ \/IK1J6'lool\1'1v \/IK1J6';oo.o \/IX'l6';OO.TO \11-\111.­ \/IK1JC7olll'lv \/IK1jao.o \/IK1jaO.TO VlKTpOITO Sulxa \/Ixoi\ll6ov vixou.8ov \/IxoialllJv 1rapCIK\IE\IIK'lKOIJ1E6ov \IE\IIKI\KO.aeOV \IE\IIK'lKOlae'lv ao\/Ix'l6.ilJTOv \/IK1J6.II'rnw \II-ao­ \/IxlJOai\ll6ov \/IXT)acnaeov \/IK1JC7aialllJv \1IA­ \/IK1J6'lcroiJ1E6ov \/IK1J6';oo.aeov \/Ix'l6'looiae'lv \11-\111.­ \/IxlJOOi\ll6ov \/Ix';oo.aeov \/IK1JC7olcr6IJV

1r1.'l8vvnKa \/Ixoi\ll6a v!Ko.ae. viKOIVTO 1rapCIK\IE\/Ix'lKol\ll6a \IE\/IX';KO.ae. VEVlK';KOIVTO VEVlK';KOIVTO aov.x.,e.i'l\llv v.x.,&.iTJTE \/IK1J6.ilJOav \11 -aov,x1JC7<Xi\ll6a \/IK1jcra.ae. \/IXT)aa' VTO \111.\/Ix'l6lJ
2-3-4 IIIKO'Il' - vlKOIS - viKO' : I. II.Kc;)I1' - II.KC;;S - II.Kc;)

IIIKOITIJV: L II.KC;;TOII - IIIKcj>T1JII IIIKC;;TE - II.KC;;EII

Col.S

V'KI\crc.>V Sulxa viKOVTE 1rapaK­ VE\I.X'lXOTE ao­ \/IKl\crOVTE VlVIK';KOIVTO \1IA­ \/IKl\crO\ITE 1T1.'l6VVT1Xa viKOVT.S 1rapaK­ VE\I.K'lXOTES ao­ \/IKl\crOVTES \1IA­ \/IKl\croVTES 1Tcxe.,nxa \/IKOJI&VQS 1rapaK­ vEII'KlJllivoS ao\/IK'l8dS \11- ao­ \/IK'lcraJI&VQS \1IA­ \/IK'le.,cr6JI&Vos \11- \1IA­ V'K'lcrO\l&VOS

18-1911IKO'TOII­

3.--4 II(KOI\llIl- vlKO�T. - viKO.EII:

CoL 2: 2-

..•

I. "'KC;;I1EII­

18-19-20 I.KO(I1'l"- IIIKOIO - viKO.TO: I. IIIKcj>I1'lIl- IIIKC;;O - IIIKcj>TO

CoL 3: 10-11-12 IIIKO(\II8011 - IIIKOIcr8011 - IIIKOIcr8'lIl: L 1I1Kcj>\II8ov - II.KC;;a8ov - IIIKcj>a8'l1l

CoL 4: 2-3-4 IIIKo(\IISa - IIIKOIcr8. - IIIKOIIITO: I. IIIKcj>\IISa - IIIKC;;cr8. - IIIKC;;1ITO 3-11-19 II(KOIITE - vlKOIlTES - II.K6\1&11OS: I. "'K�. - "'K�.S - II.KW\IIIIOS"

Col. 5:

2. The Contents of Theodosius' Kav6vEf To this same framework of inflectional morphology descriptions belong the EiuaYI:AJYIKoi KavDv£f 7T£pi KAfu£l:AJf OVOJJeXTI:AJV Kai P'1JJeXTI:AJV ('In­ troductory canons for declension and conjugation') of the 4th/Sth­ century grammarian Theodosius. These Kavav£f served as a didactic tool intended to complement the grammatical manual attributed to Dionysius Thrax in the language teaching process. In addition, they 1 1 When constructing the present opt:ltive and participle fonns of vlKaw, the author of this conjug:ation table seems to have forgotten or failed to apply the required vowel contraction a + 01/0 > wl/w.

Valerie Van El,t

4 10

constituted the basi� of one of the four supplements added to thi� man­ ual in the course of its long trammission, viz. the so-called Tabula (G. G. I 1 , 1 25-1 32) , an extensive conjugation table that illu.�trates Theodosius' verbal canons by means of inflecting the verb TlI1TTCA) through all it� theoretically possible forms. The Tabula was not the first of its kind. Similar verbal paradigms al­ ready occur in papyri dating from the 1st - 2nd century AD , and P.Rain. 1 . 1 9, which contains, a.� mentioned earlier, a few rules for the inflection of participle forms, may even go back to the 1st century Be. Hence, Theodosiu.� wa.� not the first to construct inflectional rules. On the contrary, he could rely on the scholarly studies of several predeces­ sors, and most probably on those of Apollonius Dyscolu.� and his son Herodian. In order to get a more precise idea of the concept of a KavWV, we turn to the Byzantine granmlarian Choeroboscus (9th century) , who defines it a.� follows (Choerob. in Theod. I 1 1 8 . 1 8-20) : 12 KavWV Tolvuv to'Ti MyoS EVTE)(VOS cmEu9wCA)v 6�016TT)Tl TIpOS TO Koe6AoU TO B1E(J'1'pO��evov TWV AE�ECA)V (,well then, a canon i� a "technical" rule that corrects the di�tortion of word� by means of resemblance to what i� general') . A� such, canons were general theoretical rules for the inflec­ tion of morphologically comparable word�, establi�hed with the aim not only to detect as much regularity a.� possible among the various Greek nouns and verbs, but also to correct a wrongly inflected form by refer­ ence to the general rule from which it (incorrecdy) deviates. With an eye to serving the principles of uniformity (6voAoylo) and correct speech (EAAT)V10'�6S) to the greatest extent, even the smallest details had to be handled in a general rule, with the result that a fairly great amount of canon� had to be set up before thi� aim of regularizing could be more or less fulfill e d. In the ca.� e of Theodosius, the process of grouping vari­ ous sinIilar noun� under one general rule led to positing 56 different nominal canons, classified according to the ma.�culine, the feminine and the neuter nouns, and further subdivided by the nominative and geni­ tive endings of these nouns. The 24th canon of the masculine nouns, for instance, reads as follows: KaVWV KS·. 'EVIKCx . "0 gewv TOO 9 EWVOS, 6 awuwv TOO a w tp p o v o s , 6 A E W V T O O A E O V T O S : T�JV els wv apaeVIKOOV l3apVTovwV TC! !leV lTapWVV!la SIC! TOO W KAIVeTOl, 9EWVOS "Iepwvos l!.lwvos, TC! Se KOIVC! TC;> YEvel SIC! TOO 6, olov yeiTovos aWq>povos, TC! Se ExoVTa 6T)AVKOV SIC! TOO CiiVcl SIC! TOO VT, olov Sp6:Kwv Sp6:KOVTOS OTl 12 C( Wouters 1 988, 78,

n.

62.

Theodosiu_ and his Byzantine Successor.; on the Participle

41 1

5PO:K01VO, 6Ep6:rrwv 6Ep6:rroVTos em 6Ep6:rrOlvo. T 0 6 e W V I , T 0 cr W q> p O V 1 , T 0 A e O V T I . T O V 6 e w v o , T O V cr w q> p o v o , T O V A e O V T O . w g e w v , w cr w q> p O V , W A e o v . llUIK6:. T W 9 e W v E , T W cr W q> P 0 V E , T W A e 0 v T E . T O i v 9 E W V O I V , T o i v cr W q> P O V 0 1 V , T o i v A E O V T O I V . W g e w v E , W cr W q> p O V E , W A e o v T E . nAT}6. 0 I 9 e w v E S , 0 I cr W q> P O V E S , 0 I A e O V T E S . T W V 9 E W V W V , T W V cr w q> p o v w v , T W V A E O V T W V . T o i S 6 e w cr l , T 0 i s cr w q> p 0 cr I , T O i S A e 0 U cr I : cm KOTcl -niv rropoA';YOucrov IcrOXPOVEiv 6eAEI ToiS &i\i\OlS rrAoyiOlS TWV rrAT}6uVT1KWV 1) 50TIKf} TWV rrAT}6uVT1KWV, �ViOTE 51: KO! �EU;OVO )(povov EXEIV, ov5erroTE 51: eA6:TTOVO' �EI�ovo ovv )(povov EXEl WS err! TOO Tois NecrTopcrl. T O U S 9 e W v 0 S , TOUS cr w q> p O V O S , T O U S A e o v T o s . W gewvES, W cr W q> P O V E S , W A e o v T E S . Theodos. Can. 1 9.20-20 . 1 4 Canon 24. Singular. (nom.) '0 gewv (gen.) TOO gewvos . (nom.) 0 crwq>pWV (gen.) TOU crwq>pOVOS. (nom.) 0 AEWV (gen.) TOO AeovTos: of the masculine nouns ending in -wv that have no accent on the final syllable, those which are derived from (other) noun.. are inflected with -(.V-. such as gewvos. 'Iepwvos. lllwvos, those which are common in gender (i.e those which can be masculine [6] or feminine [1)]) with -0-. such as YEhovoS, crwq>pOVOS. and those which have a (corresponding) feminine fonn in OlVO with -VT-. such a._ 5p6:KWV 5p6:KoVTOS. because (the feminine fonn i_) 5PO:K01Va, and 6EpO:1TWV 6Ep6:1TOVTOS, because (the feminine form is) 6Ep6:1TOIVO. (the other fonm are) (dat.) T0 gewvl, T0 crWq>pOVI, T0 AEOVT!. (ace.) TOV gewvo, TOV crwq>povo, TOV AEOVTO. (voc.) W gewv, W crwq>pov, W Aeov. Dual. (nom. lacc.) Tw gewvE, TW crWq>pOVE, TW AeoVTE. (gen.ldat.) Toiv 9EWVOIV, Toiv crWq>POVOIV, Toiv AEOVTOIV. (voc.) W 6tWVE, W crWq>pOVE, W AEOVTE. Plural. (nom.) 01 gewvES, 01 crWq>POVES, 01 AEOVTES. (gen.) TWV 6EWVWV, TWV crwq>povwv, TWV AEOVTWV. (dat.) ToiS 6ewcrl, ToiS crWq>pocrl, ToiS AEOUcrl : (note) that. in the penultimate syllable, the dative of the plural fonm wishes to have the same length a._ the other oblique cases of the plu­ ral fonns; sometimes it aim wimes to have a greater length, but never a small er one; it has a greater length in, for example. the form ToiS NecrT0pC1l. (the other fonns are) (ace.) TOUS 6ewvos, TOUS crwq>pOVOS, TOUS AeoVTos. (voc.) W 6ewvES, W crWq>POVES, W AEOVTES. .•

A. for the verbal inflection, on the other hand, Theodosius provides us with canom for all possible tense fonns within all voices and moods of two model verbs, viz. TlllTTCIJ and TleT}�I, representing the thematic verbs ending in -
412

Valerie V an E1.�t

A� an example, [ quote the canon for the fonnation of the present opta­ tive pas.�ive of TV1TTOO: EVI<TII TplTC? lTpoaWlTC? ixel I lTapaA1'!yoITO, els 5aav aUTo TpelTel. T V IT T 0 I V T O : lTaV TplTOV lTp6awlTov ixov TO T KAITIITov lTpoaWlTOv. Theodos. Gan. 70. 1-18 The optative pas.�ve fonn�. Of the present and imperfect tense. Singular. TVlTTolll11v: every (indicative) pas.�ve or middle fonn with inflec­ tional (cf. infta, n. 32) -Il- at the end becomes an optative fonn when it turn.� it� final syllable into -1l11v, receives the letter -1- before the letter -Il-, and has shortened its initial inflectional extension (i.e., its augment) , TVlTTOllal TVlTTO IIl11v, �TVIjIOIl11V TVljlalll11v, TVT61'!aollal TVT611aolll11v. TVlTTOIO: the optative fonus with inflectional -T- in the third person fonn the second person by dropping this letter -T-, TVTrTOITO TVTrTOIO, TVljlalTo TVljlalo. TVlTTOITO: the third person ha� been constructed out of the first person by turning the (final) syllable -1l11v into -TO. Dual. TVlTTollle6ov, TVlTTOla6ov, TVlTTola611v. Plural. TVlTTollle6a: every first person with inflectional -Il- combined with a long syllable (i.e., -1l11v or -Ilal a� opposed to -Ill) fornu the plural by turning the final syllable into -1JE6a. TVlTTOla6e: we have told that every third person singular fonn with inflectional -T- con�tructs the second per13 The present ten�e fonn� are announced by the morphological label )(povov �v!;OT6rrO� I
Theodosiu. and his Byzantine Successor.; on the Participle

413

son plural fonn by tuming its final syllable into -6E ; and if the letter -T- is preceded by a vowel, then this second person plural form additionally re­ ceives the letter -(1-, but if it has an una.pirated consonant in its penultimate syllable, then it turns thi. una.pirated consonant into an a.pirated one. TlrrrTolVTo: every third per.;on with inflectional -T- becomes the third per­ son plural by receiving before the letter -T- the letter v while keeping the penultimate syllable of the first person. -

-

It should be kept in mind that the study object of the KavDvE) was not the everyday spoken language of the 4th - 5th century AD. Dual fonus (BUlKa), for instance, were no longer used in daily spoken Greek already from the 5th century HC on, and, similarly, the optative mood14 had almost completely disappeared by Theodosiu.� ' time. 1 5 Instead, the KavDvE), as well as the inflection tables available to us, clearly aimed at a better comprehension of classical literary Greek and especially of classical Attic. Such learning tools were needed since the spoken language wa.� departing more and more from the cla.�sical Greek of the 5th - 4th cen­ tury HC, while, on the other hand, classical Attic wa.� increasingly con­ sidered the ideal cultural language.H• In this light, the cla.�sical Greek displayed within the canon� and the tables fulfilled both a descriptive and a nonnative purpose: a.� a literary language it provided access to the great authors of the pa.�t; as a 'regularized' language, it provided students with a nonn by mean� of which they were able to improve their linguis­ tic u.�age in view of the EAATlVI(11.16S . However, this twofold aim does not explain the occasional presence of unusual or even nonexistent, purely artificial constructions, such a.�, in the nominal canon quoted above, the dual and plural fonn.� of the proper name 'Theon' or, in P.Rain. 3.3313, the future imperative fonns. The KavDvE) and the inflec­ tion tables indeed include a number of grammatically possible fonna­ tion� that were only very rarely found in the texts of the (post-)cla.�sical authors or that had never occurred in literary or spoken u.�age at all. 17 The reason for this peculiar, at least from our point of view, phenome­ non has to be sought in the desire for absolute regularity or O:vcxAoyla. 14 C( Man dilaras 1 973, 271 -273. 15 C(, in addition to the dual and optative forms in the canon.. ju.t quoted, also those listed in the verbal paradigm of vlKaw. 16 C( Wouters 1 988, 80. 17 The conjugation table of vlKaw also contain.. a number of very rare fonnatiom (i.e., the perfect optative active fornlS and the medio-pa..o;ive dual fonm ending in -I.IE6ov [c( Harry 1 905, 351-352; id. 1 906, 55-58 and Weem.. 1 9 8 1 , 1 69) and purely artificial comtructiom (i.e., the non-periphrastic perfect optative pa..o;ive fonn.•, artificially ba.ed on the stem VEVIK1lK- of the corresponding ac­ tive fonm [c( Fournet 1 999, I 231-232]).

414

Valerie Van El
In constructing morphological canons or tables, grammarians apparently aimed at completeness and unifonnity, rather than at lingui�tic reality or contextual plalL�ibility, and, accordingly, what mattered to students wa� to learn the ideal system in its entirety.l"

3. Theodosius and his Byzantine Successors on the Participle We will now foclL� on the place of the participle within the verbal mor­ phology of, firstly, Theodosius and, secondly, his Byzantine successors.

3.1. Theodosius Let lL� start with the place occupied, within Theodosius' KallollE" by the canons for the inflection of the participle through its different tenses and voices. The first of these canons, for example, di�playing the inflec­ tion rules for the present participle active of the model verb TllTT"TOO, read� as follows: nEpi �ETOXWV. M EToxai EVEpY'lTIKal. Xp6vov EVEO"TWTOS Ka\ lTapaTaTIKOO. 19 'EVIKex. Tv IT T W v : lTClv �ii�a OPIO"TIKOV EIS W Aiiyov lTpOa6EaEi TOO II lTOIEi TT)V �ETOxilv, Aeyw Aeywv, TVlTTW TVlTTWV, TVlflw TVIfIWV. T V IT T 0 V a a : lTOcaa �EToX"l liia TOO VT KAIVO�EVT), TpElTOVaa TO TEAOS Tiis YEV1Kiis EIS aa Kai TT)V lTapaA"yovaav nepa1J TW nEpaa· oihw Tfj TVlTTOva1J Ta TVlTTOvaa. nAT)6. T v IT T 0 V T E S : lTOcaa ev6Eia SV·iKWV eis E A"yovaa lTpoa6eaEI TOO S TO lTAT)6vVTIKOV lTOIEi, epWTE epWTES, TVlTTOVTE TVlTTOVTES. TV IT T 0 V a a I : lTOcaa Ev6Eia SV1KWV EIS ex A"yovaa lTpOa6eaEI TOO i TO lTAT)6vVTIKOV lTOIEi, TW Aiveia 01 AiVEial, Ta AEyovaa al Myovaal. 1 8 A more extensive discussion ou the content and context of the inflection para­ diglm and other didactic tool< for language instruction can be found in Weems 1 98 1 , passim; Morgan 1 998, 1 52-1 89; Wouters 1 999, and Cribiore 2001, 210215. 1 9 C( supra, n. 13.

Theodosiu. and his Byzantine Successor.; on the Parti c iple

415

TV IT T 0 V T a : lTav lTA1l6VVT1KOV OVShEpOV EIS ex ATtYEI' TO yap I'SA1l TEiX1l (mo C1VVa lpSaEWS YSYOVE TOU I'sAEa TEiXEa. Theodos. Can. 77. 1-20 On (the) participles. The active participles. Of the present and imperfect tense.

Singular. TVlTTwv: every indicative verb ending in -W fomlS the participle by adding the letter -v, for instance, Myw ASywv, TIJ1TTW TInrrWV, TVIVw TVIVwv. TVlTTOvaa: every participle that i. inflected with -VT- COllStruCt. the feminine fonn by tuming the genitive ending into -aa and by making the penultimate syllable long by nature, for instance, MyOVTOS Asyovaa, 6eVTos 6Eiaa, �EvyVVVTOS �Evyvuaa. TVlTTOV: every participle that i. in­ flected with -VT- constructs the neuter form by dropping the (final) syllable -TOS, for example, MyOVTOS ASYOV, lTOIOUVTOS lTOIOUV. Dual. TVlTTOVTE: every dative singular fonn ending in a pronounced -I (i.e., no 1 subscriptum) constructs the dual form by turning the letter -I into E, for instance, AiaVTl AiaVTE. TVlTTOvaa: every dative singular form end­ ing in -11 constructs the dual form by turning the letter -11 into -a, for in­ stance, T0 nsp
When taking a closer look at the place of thi, and the subsequent canons for the participle, we immediately notice that, for both the model verb TlJ1TTW and the model verb Tl6rll.ll , they are listed at the end, behind those for the other verbal mood,. In relation with the conjugation tables available to us, this comes as no surprise, since, as mentioned above, in these paradigm.', the inflection of the participle al,o always occupies the final place. Nor is it, from our point of view, surprising that the inflec­ tion of participle fonus is included in the inflection of the verb. How­ ever, from the point of view of ancient Greek grammar, it should be a cause of surpri,e, because, as we have seen, from the 1 st - 2nd century AD onwards, the participle was a separate part of speech. A, such, it did not belong to the mood, of the verb and was not treated at the same level a, the indicative, the optative, the subjunctive, the imperative and the infinitive, but as a word cia.., in its own right. From this perspective, its inflection wa, presumably always relegated to the end of the canons and conjugation lists in order to preserve some distinction between the

416

Valerie Van El,t

mood, proper and the participle?' With regard to the canons, rbi, rea­ son seems to find confirmation in the following statement of Cho­ eroboscus (in Theod. II 296.23-24) :21 TTAflpwaas 6 TEXV1KOS TCx EIS w A"yoVTa p"llaTa, epXETOI (.xKOAOVeCAlS Kal 51aAall13ovEI TIEpl TWV IlETOXWV TWV EIS w Afly6VTCAlV PflllOTCAlV ('after completely dealing with the verbs ending in -CAl, the granunarian [i. e., Theodosius] goes on to treat the participle fom�, of the verbs ending in -<.0.>' ) . In addition, the keeping of a certain di,tance between the mood, proper and the partici­ ple is also reflected in Choeroboscus' occasional use of the formula al IlEToxal Kal al AOlTTal eyKAIaE1S ('the participles and the rest of the ver­ bal mood" i.e., the four moods besides the one which is dealt with at that moment') . A, for the conjugation tables, on the other hand, an additional element that might point to the participle being distinguished to some extent from the mood, proper, apart from its final position, is its clas.,ification system. If we compare the way in which the participle form, and the mood, proper are arranged, the inflection system of the participle clearly varies more from table to table than that of the mood, proper and is thus less stable.22 While in the table of the verb VIKOCAl presented above, the participle form, are classified, respectively, by voice, number and teme (c£ supra, n. HI) , other tables present an ar­ rangement according to gender, voice, teme and number, etc?] In short, the picture arising from the conjugation tables and from Theodosi�,' canom for the participle is one of partial incl�,ion and par­ tial independence: as derived from the verb, the participle is included within the inflectional verbal system; as a separate part of speech, its forms are always li,ted at the end and its classification system shows less uniformity than that of the mood, proper. This picture, already briefly described in earlier studies, such as those of Fournet (1 999, I 226; 228) and Wouters (1988, 67-68), is certainly not incorrect. However, it is incomplete, and it is exactly at rbi, point that Theodosius can add to our knowledge of the ancient grammatical tradition, beca�,e, when taking a look at hi, canom for the inflection of the mood. proper, we notice that the participle, and in particular its nominative and genitive singular form, often plays a key role in them. More specifically, the participle appears to be involved in the canons for the mood. proper in a twofold way. Accordingly, in what follows, I 20 21 22 23

C( Wouters 1 988, 67--68. C( Wouters 1 988, 67, n. 17. C( Fournet 1 999, I 226. In accordance with Theodosius' canons (c( the canon for the participle quoted above), in the Tabu/a, the participle fonns are arranged according to voice, tense, number and gender.

Theodosiu. and his Byzantine Successor.; on the Participle

417

distinguish two groups of participle rules,24 though it must be said that a strict separation canno t always be made.2.� The first group contains rules in which a given verb form i� in a practical way derived from the genitive masculine/neuter singular of the corresponding participle. While the participle forms themselves are de­ rived from the corresponding indicative fonm,2" conversely, the partici­ ple alm serves as the basi� or starting point for the construction of several indicative and optative fonn�, viz. the first person plural present or fu­ ture indicative active fonn (TVTrTO�eV, TVlj.lo�ev, Tlee�ev and 6"ao�ev), the first person singular imperfect indicative active foml (huTrTov) and all the first person singular optative active fonn� (TVTTT01�1, TVlj.lal�l, Tl6ei1lV etc.) , as well as the first person singular aorist optative passive (Tucp6el"v, TUTTel"v and Te6el"v) . For illustration, I quote the rules for the fonnation of TVTrTO�eV (Tvlj.lo�ev), hUTrTOV and TVTrT01�1 (Tvlj.lal�l etc.), respectively: (1)

nAT}6vVT1Kcl. Til TT T 0 � E v : tVEC1TWTWV Kai �EAA6vTWV (i.e., TU'fl0�EV: Theodos. Can. 53. 1 5l2.iis TEAeVTalas avAAa�iis Tii s yEV1K�Tii s �EToxiis alTo�aAAo�evT}S Tiis TOS lTp6 TE TOO ii Aa��avo�evov TOO �E TO lTPWTOV lTp6crWlTOV TWV lTAT}6VVT1KWV yiVETaL, MyOVTOs Aeyov Myo�ev, lT010VvTOS lT0100V lTOIOO�EV, M�OVTOS Ae�ov M�o�ev' Theodos. Can. 44 . 1 4-1 827 Plural. TU1TTO �EV: wben in the present and in the future tense the final syl­ lable -TOS of the genitive of the participle is deleted and before the letter -v the letters -�e- are iIL.erted, the first person plural is formed, for instance, MyOVTOS Myov Myo�ev, lTOIOVvTOS lTOIOOV lT0100�ev, Ae�oVTos Ae�ov M�o�ev.

(2) 'EV1Kcl . "E T v IT T 0 v : TJ YEVIKT) Tiis �eToxiis TOO tveCFTWTOS OOrO�clAAovcra TTJV tcrxclTT}V crvAAaJ3Tlv Kai TTJV apxovcrav av�ovcra XPOV1KWS T'I crvAAa�lKWS TOV lTapaTaT1KOV lTOIEi' Tbeodos. Can. 45.7-9 24 To my knowledge, Matthews (1 99 1 , 1 95-1 97; 1 994, 1 06-1 07) is the only scholar who briefly refer.; to a few of these participle rules, while di.cu...,ing an­ cient treatments of inflection. 25 Within the confines of this paper, it is not possible (nor desirable) to quote or cite all rnles of the two groups involved, but, since these rnles generally reveal a similar pattern, those quoted or cited can be .....mmed to be representative of the whole body of rnles. 26 C(, for instance, the canon for the participle quoted above, where the nomina­ tive masculine singular fonn TVTITWV is derived from the corresponding indica­ tive fonn ruTITW by adding the letter -v. 27 C( also Theodos. Can. 83. 1 9-22: T!eE�EV (e,;cro�EV: ibid. 86. 1 0).

418

Valerie Van E1.�t

Singular. "ETVlTTOV: when the genitive of the present participle drops its 6naI syllable and provides its initial syllable with a temporal or syllabic aug­ ment, it forms the imperfect tense. (3) 'EvllccX. T v IT..!.0 1 1.1 1 : lTaaa I.lETO)(1) �VEPYTITIK1), ,.0 TEAO� Tii� yEvIK;;� TpElflaaa e\� 1.11 Kal lTPO TOU jj SE�aI.lEVT) TO i lTapalTTJaal.lEVT) TE TO: I.ITt SWcXl.IEva aVv aVrii> aKova6;;val O"ToIXEia, TO EUI<TIKOV �VEPYTITIKOV lTOIEi, TUnTf.t)V TUnTOVTO� TUnTOII.II, TETV�� TETV�TO� TETVq>Oll.Il· Theodos. Can. 68.4-728

Singular. TVlTTOII.II: every active participle forms the active optative after having turned the genitive ending into -1.11, received before the letter -1.1the letter -1-, and rejected the letters that are phonetically incompatible with this -1.1-, 29 TUnTf.t)V TUnTOVTO� TUnTOII.II, TETV�� TETVql6TO� TETVqlOII.II.

To the second group belong rules in which the participle plays a "struc­ tural" role in the foonation of a given verb form in that it serves a� an indicator or reference point for how thi� given verb form has to be de­ rived from another one. As such, these rules do not simply describe the construction of a form out of another form, but provide an additional structural element, viz. the participle, that theoretically underpin� this construction and, a� such, points to a deeper insight into the structure and coherence of the verbal system. Furthermore, these rules, contrary to those of the previou.� group, include all mood� proper. In most of them, it is the nominative ma�culine singular form of the participle that serves as reference point, and more specifically the issue whether or not it ends in -�, whether it has an acute accent on the final syllable and whether it i� inflected by means of-VT-, e.g. : (4)

_

_

_

T V IT T E T E : TO: EI� I.IEV lTAT)6VVTIKO: TpOlTij Tii� I.IEV e\� TE TO SEUTEPOV lTOIOUaIV, T1iv SE lTapaAf)yovaav ou TpElTOVal I.IEV 6TE e\� S Af)yEI r, I.lETOxfl, w� �lTi lTapaKEll.IEVOV VnEPO"VVTEAIKOV aoplO"Tov lTPWTOV,

28 Cf. also Theodos. Can. 69.2-3: TeTvcpoll.Il; 93.21-22: n6elKOII.II etc. Compare with 93. 1 4-1 7 : T\6e1T)v. 29 I.e., as Choeroboscus explain.� (in Theod. II 262.6-7), the letter -v-, which after the substitution of the ending -1.11 for -TOS canno t precede the letter -1.1-. As also mentioned by thi� author (in Theod. II 262.27-263. 1 0; 266.26-3 1), the con­ tracted present and future participle fornu in -omos addi tion ally drop the let­ ter -V-, since three vowels (i.e. 0, v and I) cannot form part of the same syllable

(lTOIOII.II, )(pvaOII.lI, TUlTOII.II).

Theodosiu. and his Byzantine Successors on the Participle

419

TphTOVOI 6e (hE OVK Eis S, ws Imi �VEo-r&TOS TrOpcrrcrrlKOU I..U!Af..OVTOS Koi aoplo-rov 6EVTEpOV .. Theodos .. Can. 44. 19-2Yo TVTrTETe: the plural fOMu. ending in -�ev fonn the second person by turn­ ing the final syllable -�ev into -TE; as for the penultimate syllable, they do not change it when the participle end. in -s, like in the perfect, the pa..t perfect and the /ir.;t aori..t tense; but they do change it when the participle does not end in -s, like in the present, imperfect, future and second aorist tense. (5)

T V Tr T lJ : Trav Trp&TOV Trp60WTrOV EXOV TO 11 KAITIKOV TOU TpiTOV TrPOOWTrOV TO T liTOI TpETrOV els a Trolei TO 6eliTepov, WS TO TreTrohwOl TreTrOIT}OOl TreTrOIT}TOI, Ii VTrOo-rEAf..OV TO T TOV TpiTOV Koi KpaolV TrOIOVIlEVOV T&V cp
30 C( 31.0 Theodos. Can. 46. 14: lTVTrTETE; 83.22--24: Tl6ETE etc. Compare with 54. 1 9--2 1 : TVTrTETa!, for which c£ also 55.20--22: lTIiTrTETO; 87.3-5: TI6ETOI etc. 31 C( also Theodos. Can. 56. 1 9--2 1 : Thvljla!; 86.21-S7.3: Tl6mol; 88.21--25: �60v and �60v etc. Compare with 46. 1 4--47 .5: hVTrTOV (3rd plural). 32 I.e., pertaining to the inflectional part of a given word, a.. opposed to the tenn 6ellOTIKOS ('primary', 'belonging to the base form') . 33 C( also Theodos. Can. 69.2--4: TETVCPOIIlI; 7 1 .6--9 : TVcp6Ell1v etc.

420

Valerie Van E1.�t

Singular. TlnrTollll: [ . . . ] Yet, if the participle ends in -S, ha.� an acute ac­ cent on its final syllable and is inflected with -VT-, the genitive ending is not turned into -Ill, but into -"v, for instance, Soeets SOeeVTos Soed"v, Olas OleXVTOS OTaI"v.

A� for the infinitive, the imperative and the subjunctive, the foons of these moods are reported to end, respectively, in -val, -el and -iJJ provided that the participle end� in Os, ha� an acute accent on its final syllable and i� inflected with -VT- . The rule for the imperative, for example, read� as follows: r)

_

.E.vllca. T v q> e " T I : TTaaa IJETO)(1i els S �TOVOS SIIX TOU VT KAIVOlleV11 els el TTOlei TO TTpOOlaKTIKOV, SISOVS SISoel, IOlas iOlaer oVr(.o)S oov TVq>eetS TVq>e"el eSel elval, aAAa Sia TO KaKOq>OOVOV Tiis baAA"Alas Tc;)V Saae(.o)v TVq>&"TI tpalleV S 10. TOU i'. Theodos. Can. 66. 1 8-213' Singular. TVq>e"TI: every participle ending in -s, having an acute accent on its final syllable and being inflected with -VT- fonn.� the imperative in -el, such as SISOVS SISoel, IOlas iOlae!. And in thi� same way it ought to be TVq>eetS TVq>e"el, but because of the ill-sounding sequence of a�pirated con�onants we say TVq>e"TI with -T-.

Secondly, apart from this main subgroup pertaining to the nominative ma�culine singular form of the participle, there is the rule according to which the infinitive form.� of different tenses are the same if the corre­ sponding participle forms are likewise the same: (8)

T V 'l' a l : 0 [ . . . ] a6PIOlOS [ . . . ]. ou avve�evxe" Se TC;> lleAAOVTI, �TTEIS1) Il"Se 1'1 lleTo)(1i· ci)v yap al lleToxai avvellTTITTTovalV, TOVT(.o)V Kai TO. anapellq>aTa. Theodos. Can. 62.10-13 TV'l'al: the aori.�t ten�e ha� not been coupled together with the future tense since tbi.� i� not the ca�e for the participle either. For, of the ten�es of which the participles coincide in form, of those ten�es also the infinitives coincide.

Finally, I also classify under the second group a rule that takes the dative ma�culine/neuter plural form of the participle a� reference point, saying that in the present and future indicative active the third person plural ha�

34 Cf. also Theodos. Can. 67.4--6 : TIIrr'lel; 86.3--4 and 92.5-7: 66� 6e� i�; 9 1 . 1 012: Tl6eTl etc. For the infinitive, cf. 89.23-25: Tl6eval; 90.8-9 an d 24-25: 6eival and TE6iival. For the subjunctive, cf. 75.21-23: lay TVq>6w; 76.2-5: lay TVlTW; 95.27-28: lav T16w.

Theodosiu. and his Byzantine Successor.; on the Participle

42 1

the same sound as the dative plural of the corresponding participle (TlITTTOVC7I, TU\jJOVCJI, TI6eiCJI and 6"CJOVCJI). 35 Needless to say on the basis of all these rules that the participle con­ tributes to the construction of the canons for the moods proper, and in particular of those for the indicative and optative, since within these two mood� both groups of participle rules are represented.

3.2. Theodosius' Byzantine Successors Let U� now take a look at Theodosiu�' Byzantine successors, in order to see how they have dealt with hi� participle rules in their commentaries or grammatical works. ,\(, 3.2. 1. Ioannes Charax The first grammarian who is known to have written a commentary on Theodosiu�' Kav6vE) i� Ioannes Charax.37 Although hi� period of activ­ ity cannot be dated with certainty, thi� Chri�tian grammarian must have lived between the 6th and the 9th century AD. Part of his commentary has come down to us in the form of excerpts made by the ninth-century Alexandrian patriarch Sophronius. These excerpts suggest that Charax was a teacher and that, accordingly, his commentary originated as a se­ ries of lectures or as a syllabus on the Kav6vE). As pertains to the participle rules, Charax in general seems to agree with Theodosiu�. While reading through the excerpts, I found only one critical remark on a participle rule, viz. on the one which concerns the infinitive ten.�e forms. Whereas Theodosius, as we have seen, states that, if the participle fonns for different temes are the same, then al�o the corresponding infinitive forms are the same (c£ supra, rule 8), Charax

35 See Theodos. Can. 44.23-45.4: 'T1l1ITOVO'I (53 . 1 5 : 'T1l\l'0VO'IV) . C( .1.. 0 83.2426: TI6eiO'l (6,;0'0vO'I: 86. 1 0) Theodo,aus' adoption of the present indic.tive fonn T16eiO'l, which occasionally occur.; in epic and Ionic Greek, is likely to be in.pired by the principle of avcxi\oylo (c( supra, p. 4 1 0). A. for the correspond­ ing Attic fonn T16toO'I. this is explained as an Ionic fonnation resulting from .

the addition of the letter -0- and the shortening of the penultimate (84. 1-2) . C( aho Choerob. in Theod. II 334 . 9-- 1 4 (TI6eiO't, laTom, fil50vO'l, �evyvVO'I) and 23-26 (TI6toO'I, 515600'1, �evyvVoO'I). who. however. identifies the fonns ending in -00'1 as typical Attic comtructiom. 36 Again. it i.. not possible to treat all rules involved. 37 A brief presentation of this author and his writings can be found in Wilson 1 996. 68--69; Kaster 1 988. 391-392 (no. 1 99) and Buchwald e/ al. 1991. 1 78.

422

Valerie Van Elst

argues for the other way round, since the infinitive i� the root of the verb:3li (9)

:A.O p i O" T O V lT P C;)T o v . T U \jJ cx l . [ . . .] 01 ow ;\iyoVTes 61a Ta cX1Tcxpi�cpCXTCX 611O"Tcxcr6cxl Tas �eToxas cpvO"IKwTepc,x 6ei�el KEXP1lVTCX1' apxT1 yap Kcxi �i�cx Ta alTcxpi�qxrrcx, TfjS 61; apxf\s 6lcxlpe6eiCTT] S Ti TfjS �1�1lS, 6lCX1pe61)O"eTcxl euMyws Kcxi Ta �� cxVrWV' 01 6e TO aAAO ;\iYOVTeS, TeK�1lpIW6el. Charax in GG IV 2, 430 . 1 5-33 Fint aorist tense. Tulj'cxl. [ . . . ] Thus, those who state that the participles dif­ fer from each other because of the infinitives make use of a more natural mode of proof For, the infinitives are the beginning and the root, and when the beginning or the root has been distingui�hed, then al�o the fonns deriving from it will be rea.�onably distinguished. Those, on the other hand, who state the other thing [i.e., that, conversely, the infinitives differ from each other becau�e of the particip les] make u�e o f an artificial mode of proof.

In addition, I al�o encountered one new participle rule, in which the accentuation of the active participle serves as an indicator for the accen­ tuation of the medio-passive infinitive (G. G. IV 2, 431.4-8) , as well as two participle rules to which Charax add� an extra comment. After re­ ferring to Theodosius' participle rule for the construction of the second person singular present indicative medio-passive form TlIlTT1J (cf. supra, rule 5), for instance, he goes on to state: (10)

'IO"TEOV 61; em �lTi TfjS 6evTEpcxs Kcxi Tph1ls TWV lTEPIO"lTW�EVWV aAAws Kcxvovl�OVTCXI TroiTCX Ta 6euTepcx' Ta yap Tphcx �vepY1lTIKa 6eUTepc'x EO"TI lTcxe"TIKa Kcxi cpwvij Kcxi ypc'x��CXTI, olov J30w 1'0�5 130� J30W�CXI J30�, XpvO"w xpvO"ois xpvO"oi xpVO"O(j�CXI xpvO"oi' Charax in G G IV 2, 425.27-3039 38 Unlike the other mood�, the infinitive does not show persons, numbers and what Charax call� a J30UAllO"IS Ij'lIJ(fjs ('intention of the sonI'}----se e Charax in G. G. IV 2, 410. 1-2, 37-38--, such as exp ress ing a wi�h (optative) or giving an order (imperative) . A.� such, it is con�idered to be the most simple or elemen­ tary mood, from which the four other ones originate and into which they equally resolve, ju�t as bodies (o"WIlCXTO) resolve into the elements (O"TOIXeio) out of which they have been composed (41 0.38-41 1 . 1 1 ) . In accordance with its stams of verbal root, the infinitive should occupy the first place within the series of the mood�, but, since some grammarians doubt whether the infinitive i� really to be treated as a mood, it is accorded the second place after the indica­ tive mood (41 1 . 1 1 -1 5). C( al�o Choerob. in Inead. II 5 . 1 0-30, 209. 1 0-33, 2 1 1 .20-30). Both Byzantine grammarians seem to be indebted to Apollonius Dyscolus at thi� point; see A.D. Synt. 324. 1 0-328.6; Fragm. 85.27-86.32 and Lallo t 1 997, II 1 89, n. 1 34; 1 93-194, n. 1 49 and 1998, 165-166.

TheodosilL' and his Byzantine Successor.; on the Participle

423

But one has to know that in the second and the third conjugation of the contract verbs, these second person fonn� are con'tructed otherwise. For, the active third person fonns are (identical with) the pa,-�ive second person fonn� both in sound and in written foml, such a� �ooo �o�s �� �ooolJal �o�, XPVClOO xpvCloiS xpvCloi xpvClOVlJal XPVCloi.

3.2.2. Choeroboscus Of the granunarian Ceorgius Choeroboscus, "" who was a teacher in 9th­ century Constantinople, a very exten�ive commentary on the KavOllEf survives, which, just like Charax' one, originated a� a series of lectures. As Choeroboscus indicates in the Prolegomena to this commentary (in Theod. I 1 03.7-9 and II 1 .8-1 5) , knowledge of the nominal and verbal inflection is u�eful for preventing both 'barbari.�ms' (errors in individual word�) and 'solecisrn�' (syntactic errors). Out of his concern for �MT\VI0"1.l6S, what Choeroboscus aimed at wa� to teach his students cor­ rect (cla�sical) literary Creek, either a� a second language or as a fonn of Creek different from the everyday spoken language.41 With regard to Choeroboscus' treatment of Theodosius' participle rules,42 we obtain a sinlilar picture as for Charax: Choeroboscus in gen­ eral agrees with Theodosius, add� to the rule for the infinitive tense forms the SaDIe critical remark as Charax (c£ supra, rule 9)43 and presents in a few ca�es either an additional comment to a rule44 or a new rule. 39 For the second rule to which Cbarax ha, added a COllunent, c( Charax in G. G. IV 2, 432.38-433. 1 : -rucp6t]TI (= addition to TheodosilL" rule for the im­ perative ending in -61 Ic( supra, rule 7]). 40 A presentation of Choeroboscus and his granunatical works is provided by, e.g., Hunger 1 978, 11 1 1 -23 (passim) and 50; J{a.'ter 1 988, 394-396 (no. 201 ) ; Buchwald it a/. 1 99 1 , 1 81-1 82; Stammerjobann et al. 1 996, 1 85-1 86, s.v. 'ChoerobosclL', GeorgilL" (D. Gambarara); Wibon 1 996, 69-74 and Dickey 2007, 80-8 1 . 4 1 C ( Robin, 1 993, 1 1 2. 42 A few participle rules can 31'0 be found in Choeroboscus' Epimerismi in Psa/mos, a set of parsing exercises providing granunatical explanation, of word, selected from the Psalm., (c( Robin, 1 993, 1 30-1 38 for a brief presentation of tbi, work). Similarly, the Epimtrismi Homerici occasionally display a participle rule, but whether these anonymously transmitted grammatical explanations of Ho­ meric words have likewise been composed by Choeroboscus i, not certain. 43 Choerob. in Theod. II 2 1 6.3-9. Compare with 223.9-1 7; 21 9.26-28; 222.2023; 223.30-32; 224.34-225.3; 230.31-34. 44 C( Choerob. in Thtod. II 260.3-1 2 (fo nn� of whicb the participle end, in I!EVOS have the optative in -I!TJv Ic( supra, rules 3 and 6]) ; 237.21-238. 1 5 (im­ perative in -61 Ic( supra, rule 7] : some granunarian, remove the condition 'be­ ing inflected with -VT-' and, accordingly, 31'0 construct the second singular

424

Valerie Van Elst

One of these new rules, for instance, takes the genitive plural of the participle as reference point, saying that, in Attic, the third person plural present imperative active ha� the same sound (oIl6
La.�dy, in three ca.�es, Choeroboscus also offers an alternative rule in addition to Theodosius' one, such a.� in in Theod. II 34. 1 4-35.3, where he proposes to derive TUTITOIlEV from the corresponding first person

person perfect imperative active fonn with -al [Thvcp61 instead of ThvcpE]) (compare with 240. 1 1-241 .2 and 251 .2-5) etc. 45 Choerob. in Theod. II 236 . 1 2-17. C( aho 189. 1 4-2 1 ; Gaisford 1 842, III 34. 1 9-24 (penultimate of the first person singular indicative pa....ive); 229. 1 2230.2 (accentuation of the medio-passive infinitive - Charax [c( supra, p. 422]) ; 84.31-33; 1 32.33-1 33.6; 1 34.7-15; 1 37.28-3 1 ; 1 42.36-143.5; 283. 1 114; 340.22-24 (accentuation of the participle in -wv as indicator for the tense [Le., inlperfect or second aorist] of the corresponding indicative fonn) and Gaisford 1 842, III 92.26-32 (participle [whether or not ending in -5 and having an acute accent on its final syllable] as indicator for the accentuation of certain compound verb fonn.). 46 For the second correction, c( Choerob. in Theod. II 220.7-1 1 ; 230. 1 9-24; 357.30-358.6 and 360.27-29: infinitive in -val: removal of the condition 'be­ ing inflected with -VT-' (c( supra, n. 34) .

TheodosilL' and his Byzantine Successors on the Participle

425

singular fonn Tll1TToo while simultaneously referring to Theodosius' derivation out of the participle TV1TTOVTOS (c£ supra , rule 1).47 3.2.3. Theodorus Prodromus (?) Finally, I would like to present a grammatical manual of the 1 2th cen­ tury, dedicated to the wife or the daughter of the Byzantine emperor Manuel I Comnenus (1 1 1 8-1 1 80) .4H This manual is interesting in that its author--probably Theodorus Prodromus49-on several points disagrees with Theodosius.5<' For, after referring to the participle rule for the con­ struction of the indicative fonn TV1TTOIlEV (c£ supra , rule 1), he adds the following comment: (12) �lJol 51; OVK o:peo"KEI o�iTo� 6 A6yo�' Ka).Alov 5e IJOI cpalvETal (mo TOU lTPWTOV TOOV �VIKOOV TOU "'"'00 TO lTPOOTOV TOOV lTA"eVVTIKOOV ytVEa6al TO ",",OIlEV' [Theodos.Gr.] 1 54.23-26 GoettlingS1

As for me, I am not pleased with thi.� rule. It seem.� better to me to form the first person plural T\J1TTOIJEV out of the corresponding first person sin ­ gular TVlTTW.

Subsequently, he abo criticizes Theodosiu.�' participle rule for the corre­ sponding third person plural fonn TV1TTOVC71 (c£ supra , p. 420£) : (1 3) �lJol 51; ov51; TOVTO o:peO"KEI' TI yap eVAoy6v �O"TI Ta 6plO"TIKa, a-rlva lTpOOTa TOOV �v Eloiv, (mo TOOV VO"Tepwv TOOV IJETOXOOV, Kavovil;ea6al' 47 For the other two cases, c( Choerob. in Theod. II 39. 14-37: �Tv1TTov and II 333. 1-334.2: T!6eIJEV. 48 C( Goettling 1 822, XVII. 49 C( Goettling 1 822, XVI-XVII and Hilgard 1 894, CXXVII. Theodorus Pro­ dromus w.I.' a versatile Byzantine writer, closely connected with the court cir­ cles during the reigns of Manuel I ( 1 1 43-1 1 80) and his predeces.,or. For more information on this author and the many prose and poetical works attributed to him, c(, e.g., Krumbacher [1 897] 1 970, II 749-760 and 804-806; Hunger 1 978, II 1 1 3-1 1 4 and pass im ; Buchwald et al. 1 99 1 , 720-724; ODB III 1 7261 727, s.u. 'Prodromos, Theodore' (A. Kazhdan). 50 Drawing on internal evidence, Hilgard 1 894, CXXVIII-CXXIX states that the author did not have at his di,posal Theodosius' original KavOllEf, but a gram­ matical manual comparable to the preserved Guelferbytana erotemata (9th-12th century; see Hilgard 1 894, XX-XXXVII) . Nonetheless, for the is.�ue at stake it is not crucially important whether he had direct or indirect access to Theodo­ sius' rules. 51 Compare with Choeroboscus' alternative rule cited above, p. 424(

426

Valerie Van Eht

SOKei Se �Ol K6:i.A10V eTvOl (nro TOU TIPWTOV TC:lV TIA,,6VVT1KWV, TOU TUTITO�eV, TO TpiTOV aVTWV Kavovi�E1V TO TVlTTOVOW' [Theodos.Gr.] 1 55.6-1 1 Goettling A� for me, I am not pleased with this (rule) either. Why is it rea.�onable to construct the indicative fonns, which come before the fomu of the other mood., out of the participle fomu, which come last? It seeUlS better to me to fonn the third person plural TUTITovcrl out of the corresponding first person plural TUTITO�ev. & for the imperfect fonn ETV1TTO V, on the other hand, Theodorus Pro­ dromus does agree with Theodosius (cf. supra, rule 2) in deriving it from the participle (155.17-20; 1 58 . 1 0-1 1 Goettling) .52 However, further on,53 again a participle rule is questioned, viz. that for the construction of the active optative fonus (cf supra, rule 3), although in thi� case TheodosilL�' lL�e of it is eventually justified with the argument that there i� no alternative rule available: 54

(14)

Ka\ &TIopou�ev EVTaV6a' SlaTi TOUTO yiveTOl Ka\ SlaT! &TIo TWV �ETOXWV VcrTepWV ovcrwv TO eVKT1KO TIpWTa OVTa KaVOV�OVTal, �aAAOV Se, BlaTt TJ �ETOX1) aAAOV �epOVS A6yov li1T6:pxovcra TIap6:yel TO pfj�a, ai.Ao �epos A6yov VTI6:pxov ; [Theodos.Gr.] 1 71 . 1 9-23 Goettling

And here we raise the question: why does thi� happen?; why are the opta­ tive fomu, which come first, constructed out of the participle forms, which come last? Or rather, why does the participle, which belongs to one part of speech, construct the verb, being another part of speech?

To my knowledge, TheodortL� ProdromlL� is the only grammarian who explicitly criticizes or questions several of Theodosius' participle rules, not only by arguing that the participle comes after the indicative or the optative mood, but also by rea.�oning that the participle is a part of speech different from the verb. A� for Charax and ChoerobosclL�, the only passage of their commentaries which possibly shows a little affinity 52 Thi� may seem somewhat surpri�ing, since, as shown by Choeroboscus (cf supra, n. 47) , it was not impos.�ible to adopt an alternative construction out of the first person singular indicative active fonn TVTITW . 53 Cf aho 1 70.5- t 1 Goettling, where the author prefers to construct the impera­ tives TUcpS"TI and TW"SI out of the corresponding indicative fonns. 54 As the author explain.� (171 .23-1 72.24 Goettling), the participle rule is neces­ sarily u�ed because, apart from hV1TTO V and �Tv1Tov, the (first person singular) indicative active forms do not contain in the penultimate the letter -0- needed to construct, after the addition of the letter -1-, the diphthong -01- typical for the optative.

Theodosiu. and his Byzantine Successor.; on the Participle

427

with the passages at stake here i� the one in which they add, as seen above, a critical remark to the participle rule for the infinitive fonTIS on the ground that the infinitive i� the root (p!l;a) of the verb and, thus, precedes the participle. In addition, another passage of their COlllll1entar­ ies may be worth mentioning in this respect, as it possibly shed� some light on the question of why Charax and Choeroboscus, unlike Theo­ doms Prodromus, did not put in doubt the position of the participle within the rules for the mood� proper. More specifically, it is a passage in which Charax and ChoerobosclL� seek to justify why Theodosius comtruct� in the present indicative the dual fonns out of the corre­ sponding plural fonTIS in�tead of out of the corresponding singular fonus, a construction that, interestingly, is also criticized by Theodorus ProdromlL�: 55 (1 5) oTTopoval S�, TI StiTTon Ta TTpwTa EK TWV VaT�PWV Kavovl�El,
(Some) raise the question why Theodosiu. constructs what comes first out of what comes last, I mean the dual forms out of the plural forms. To those we say that the canon. are not "natural" (rules) so that they (would have to) respect the order, but observations by means of which the verb can be easily inflected, and hence they are ea.ruy understood. Well then, wherea. the plural fonns are clear and manifest for everyone, the dual forms are so difficult that even the citizens do not understand them at all . Therefore, Theodosiu. ha. con.tructeci the diffi cult (dual) form., unknown to most people, out of the very clear plural form., known to everyone.

Although this justification i� attested only here, it is possible that Charax and ChoerobosclL�, if necessary, would have likewise defended the role of the participle within the rules for the mood. proper, i.e., by arguing that the canons are didactic rules created for the sake of clarity and ea..e, rather than for the sake of highlighting the natural sequence of the mood.. In any case, the criticism of Theodorus Prodromus seems to be isolated within the Byzantine granunatical tradition, becalL�e in the fol55 1 53.32-1 54.3 Goettling. 56 C[ Choerob. in Theod. II 33.30-34.4 for Choeroboscus' similar conunent.

42H

Valerie Van El
lowing centuries, Theodosius' participle rules continued to meet with general approval among grammarians, such as Manuel Moschopulus in the 12th-1 3th century57 and Demetrius Chalcondyles in the 15th-16th century.'· Furthennore, they are occasionally also attested in a varied corpus of Byzantine lexicographical and scholiastic material.

4. Conclusion I hope to have shown that Theodosius merits our attention within the field of ancient and Byzantine linguistics. More specifically, his Kav6vEf appear to be the only ancient Greek work trammitted to us that testifies to the central position of the participle within the morphological system of the verb. Contrary to what we might expect on the basis of the pre­ served conjugation tables alone, viz. that the participle a.� a separate part of speech merely occupied a marginal place within the verbal system, Theodosius' canons indicate that the participle played a key role in the inflection rules for the mood� proper. Likewise, I hope to have demonstrated that the participle rules con­ cerned were in general fully adopted by Theodosius' Byzantine succes­ sors. We may wonder whether these rules always served their function of didactic tool� effectively. In any ca.� e, they were continuously re­ peated during the Byzantine period in order to teach students correcdy the verbal inflection of cla.�sical literary Greek. Moreover, as general rules with a wide applicability, they not only fitted within the gram­ marians' striving for uniformity, but were also found to be so attractive that, accordingly, the TEXVll ypallllaTIKtl gradually departed from its initial philological function of describing the lingui�tic elements in a literary text to become a "grammatical" science ba.�ed on a coherent system of fixed rules and paradigm�.

57 ce, e.g., Krumbacher [1 897] 1 970, I 546-548; Hunger 1 978, II 14; 70--71 and passim; Buchwald rt al. 1 991 , 583-585; ODB II 1414, S . v. 'Moschopoulos, Manuel' (A.-M. Talbot) and Wil
The Orus Fragments in the Ethnica of Stephanus of Byzantium* Margarethe Billerbeck

For Klaus Alpers on his

75'h

birthday

'Wohl aber ist es die erste und dringend�te Aufgabe aller Quellenfor­ schung am Stephanos, zunlich�t Oros au.�zusondem'. So admonished the authoritative voice of Richard Reitzenstein who, in a learned chapter 'Oros und seine Zeit' in hi� Geschichte der griechischen Etymologika, laid the foundation for the modem study of one of the most important sources of the lexicon of Stephanus of Byzantium. 1 His date of Orus to the mid­ dle of the 5th century can now be regarded as certain, and that the na­ tive Alexandrian exercised his profession as grammarian in Con�tantin­ ople i� attested by the vita of Hesychiu.� of Miletus tran�mitted in the Suda (00 201) : TO pOS, )t\��avSPEVS, YPOllllQTIK6S, 1TolSEvaos �v KooVOICXVTlvov 1T6AEI. 2 lf he wa� indeed a professor there at the imperial university, a� is generally as.�umed, we can see in him a predecessor of Stephanus who could have had direct acces.� to his works. Stephanus is in fact the first known author who cites Orus. 3 A mere thirteen articles mention him by name, a very small number in the light of the great influence which has been ascribed to Orus as a source of Stephanus. We should not forget however that the Ethnica of Stephanus for the most part ha� been transmitted in a greatly shortened fonn and that the name *

1 2

3

Tbi\ edition began from a di\cu\.\ion of probletn\ dealt with in my paper 'Stephanos von Byzanz al\ Granunatiker'. Subsequently the exerci\e of editing the Orus fragments in the Ethnica served as an introduction for students to the study of ancient Greek granunarian s. For their engaged contribution\ I thank Anne-Angelique Andenmatten and Vincent Roch. The final version owes much to the criticislU\ and suggestiOll.\ of Bruce Karl Bra.\weU. For the sigla of the Stephan\L\ man\L\cripts see Billemeck 2006, 5. Reitzenstein 1 897, 287-350, here 332. For a general account of Or\L\ and his writings the account of Wendel 1 939, 1 1 77-1 1 83 remains fundantental; see further Alpers 1981, 87-1 0 1 ; Ka\ter 1 988, 325-327 (no. 1 1 1); Ippolito 2008. Alpers 1 98 1 , 9 1 .

430

Margarethe Bill erbeck

of Orus as source has probably been often omitted through the rework­ ing of the epitomizer. In hi� detailed study of glosses of similar content that are ascribed to Orm in the Etymologicum Genuinum Reitzen�tein noted much more material which he claims Stephanus could have in­ corporated in his Ethnica from his predecessor.4 In the following collec­ tion of the fragment� deriving from Stephanus we have however for­ gone an attempt at recomtmction and included only those fragments which are expressly assigned to Orus. Carl Wendel identified some dozen tides of works by Orus,5 from which StephanlL� cites two: the nepl e6vlKwv, presumably the main source of the lexicographer, and the nepl 6p60ypaq>tas. In most cases the exact source is not indicated, for which reason the as.�ignment to the one or other work ha.� been made on the ba.�is of an analysis of content. nepl eevlKwv (F 2) was probably the original tide of Orus' work on the names of peoples, which was also cited in shortened fonn as 'EeviKa (F1 and F3) . As Reitzemtein righdy observed, the tide a.� given in the Suda (00 201) : ·OirCuS TO: e6V1KO: AeKTEov ('How one should call the nanles of peoples') is a description of the purpose of Orus' work rather than an exact tide. (, This as.mmption is neady continned by F 4. That it con�isted of at lea.�t two books i� clear from the articles N 1Ktov (book a'; cf. F 1) and Tava (book 13'; cf. F 2) . From thi� an alphabetical order of the place-names wa.� assumed. However, it is shown e.g. by the detailed discussion of the double radical words (F 3) and of the fonnation of ethnica in -v6S (F 4) that the work had a mixed fonn consisting of sys­ tematic sectiom arranged according to grammatical a.�pects and a (fol­ lowing in each case?) lexicographical part arranged alphabetically. We must assume a similar structure for the work nepl 6p6oypaq>tas which Stephanus cites once by name with the short tide 'Op6oypaq>ta (F 9) . A� Wendel noted, 'innerhalb jedes Abschnittes schloss en sich an die allgemeinen Regeln [. . 1 die Hei�piele in alphabeti�cher Folge an' .7 The attribution of the two following fragments (F 10 and F 1 1 ) to the Ortho­ graphia i� ba.�ed in the first instance on Orn�' discussion of the alternative .

4

5 6 7

Reirzenstein 1 897, 327-33 1 ; in our new edition of Stephanm (cf. Bill erbeck 2006) the Oms citations he asswlled for the Etimica are noted in the Similia by 'ex Oro', e.g. a 4 ('Af3apVOS), a 7 6 (BoTTECxTIlS), a 1 47 CEKali�IlEla) , a 253 (Jll. llavna), � 55 (BaTIEla) and � 1 1 9 (BOAlvll) . Wendel 1 939, 1 1 78-1 1 82. Reirzenstein 1 897, 3 1 6. Wendel 1 939, 1 1 80. For a detailed accoWlt of the Orthographia of Orm see Alper.; 1 98 1 , 8{}--8 3, and especially for the arrangement of the work Alper.; 2004, 47-50.

The Oms Fragmenn; in the EthniC4 of Stephanu. of Byzantium

43 1

spelling of names with a single vowel or diphthong (F 1 0 Al6oAio/ A16aAElo, F 1 1 'OpEcJTio/'OpeCJTElOv) ; according to th e Suda such questions were treated by Oms in hi� treatise nEpl Tiis El 51
1 N1Klov' KW�'ll Aly\nnov Berkel : post KW�'ll di�t. QPNAld., non dist. R I I 2 V1K1WT1lS (ex V'll-) R I I &IS E
Similia: Str. 17. 1 . 1 4 (C 799 . 1 8) ET6' ,; nAIV6lv'll Koi N 1KIov KW�'ll Koi XEpp6V'lluoS
9

Reitzenstein 1 1197, 332; Wendel 1 939, 1 1 11 l . The repeated reference of Stephanm to the Katlwlike Prosodia and the Orthographia of Herodian is clearly seen from the fact that in the epitome of the Ethnita they are mentioned some eighty times; whether in any given case we have a direct quotation or an indi­ rect report e.g. through Oms i. impossible to detenlline. Alpers 2004, 35.

432

Margarethe Billerbeck

1TPOS T4'> M eyoA� 1ToTall4'> N IKlov, Suid. v 390 N IKlov: KOOllll nep\ AiyvnTov, TaVTllS 0 OIK"TOOP N IKIOOT1lS, c£ etiam Inscr. Mus. Alex. no. 371 (saec. III vel IV) Iapa1Tioov Iapa1Tl6vos YVllvaalapxTlaas TC;)V �v Tij N IKiov YVllvaaioov. Nikiou, vill age in Egypt. Aristagoras <mentions it> in the second book of hi� Aigyptiaca. The inhabitant 'Nikiote', a� Orus says in the first book of hi� Ethnica. Commentary A� Berkel saw, the lemma con.�ists only of N IKiov, while KOOllll is to be regarded as the determinative. This is shown by St.Byz. a 397 Biller­ beck: l'\pyeov· vii aos r . . . l AIYVlTTla r .. l 01 OIK"Topes l'\pyeooTal, OOS Tiis N IKiov N IKlooTal Ka\ Tiis Xalpeov XalpeOOTal. Ka\ aOTal yap AlylinTov 1T6AeIS, as well a� by the analogy of place-names, whose second member KOOllll is u.�ed to form the ethnicon, e.g. 810aKovpOKOOIl"T1lS from 810aKovpoov KOOllll (233.20 Meineke), 9pc;rKOKOOIl"T1lS from 9pc;rKOOV KOOllll (317.3 Meineke) , '11T1ToKooIlTiTal from "11T1TOV KOOllll (336 . 1 2 Meineke) and M eyaAoKOOIl"TllS from M eyoAll KOOllll (348.6--7 Meineke) . The entries in Ptolemaeu.� (4.5.49) and in the Suda (v 390) point in the same direction. A village called N IKiov i� abo mentioned by Strabo (17. 1 . 1 4) , who locates it west of Alexandria. Whether in the original article the lexico­ grapher dealt with this spot or the metropolis N IKiov in the Delta of Lower Egypt or with both, remain.� uncertain; confusion in the epitome can certainly not be excluded. In forming the ethnicon N IKIOOT1lS Oru.� has at any rate followed the canon typical for Egyptian compound place-names such as N IKiov 1T6AIS, where the second member can be suppressed, c£ St. Byz. 677. 1 8 Meineke Xalpeov· 1T6AIS AlyvrrT la, KaT' �AAeI"'IV TOV 1T6AIS. TO �6vIKOV XalpeOOT1lS, OOS N IKIOOT1lS.11t Book

two

Tava· 1T6AIS AlylinTov. �6vIKOOV.

F 2 (607.6 Meineke) 0 1TOAiT1lS TaviTllS,

OOS

'"0

p o S �v [3' nep\

10 For similar compound toponylU� see Bill erbeck 2006, 31 n.36; on both places and their distinction see Fornam 1 994, 29.

The Oms Fragments in the Ethnica of StephanlL\ ofDyzantiwn

433

Similia: Hierocl. 725.4 Taua, Ptol. Geog. 4.5.50 (4.5.21) <J>6eIlCPOVTl (favavIT1'\S add. cod. X) VOIlOS Kal ll1'\Tp6nOAIS Taova, P. Lond. 3.92 1 , I . 6 rTiisl TavaelToov n6Aec.>S, c£ etiam X.Eph. 4. 1 .4 61eA66VTes lleV 6'; Taua (Hem�terhui� : TauTa cod.) �nl AeoVToo �pxoVTal n6AIV. Taua, city in Egypt. The citizen 'Tauite', a� Orus <says> in the second book of his On Ethnica. Commentdry The ethnicon TavlT1'\S is not attested eL�ewhere, nor can an exacdy analogical stem be found. Lentz in hi� edition of Herodian (Kath Pros. 303.23) indeed cites the Arcadian town EOa (283 . 1 2 Meineke = e 1 45 Billerbeck - Zubler) , but the accent remains di�puted (Eoa RQP, Eva N) 1 t and the ethnicon Eliaios is formed differendy. A.� in the ca�e of F l it i� an Egyptian place-name which i� in question, and everything suggests that Orus, contrary to the epichoric ethnica formation� TaVaVIT1'\S and TavaelT1'\S (c£ Similia) , follows the canon; c£ St. Byz. 640.7 Meineke: Tvava, n6AIS IltaT) KIAIKlas Kal Ka1T1Ta60Klas r .. l 01 nOAiTal Tvaveis r .. l AtyeTal Kal TvavIT1'\S Kal TvaviTlS 61'\AVK6v. r. . . l �O'TI Kal Tvava n6AIS AlylinTov, {I llaAAov avaAoyei TO TvavlT1'\S 61a T';V AIYVlTTIc.>v xoopav, further a 322 Billerbeck ('lw6vAAa) and [3 1 29 Billerbeck (Boaipapa) . .

Without book number

5

F 3 (256. 1 4 Meineke = 6 1 5 1 Billerbeck-Zubler, cod. S) 800TIOV' r. . . l �KA1;e1'\ 6e 800TIOV ano 800TOV TOU neAaayou nal66s, OOS lipc.>6lavoS �v 1'\' (Kath. Pros. 214.19-20) '800TOS 0 neAaayoO, acp' 00 TO 800TIOV m610v' . �K neplTTOO Tolvvv '"0 p O S �v Tois 'E6v1KOis Tfj6e ypacpEI' 'Kal Ta mpl 9allVPIV �v 8c.>pl� naplO'TOpOUVTOS TOO nOI1'\TOO (n. 2.594-600) , naAIV lial060s (fr. 65 Merkelbach - West) 8c.>TI� �v m61� cpaaKel aVTov TeTvcpAooa6al'. aVVTaaaEI yap TOUTO Tois 61xoypacpovlltvOIS npc.>ToTUnolS TOOV �6vIKOOV. �nayel youv' 'oli yap OOS ,., KaAX1'\6oov Kal KapX1'\6oov Kal Ta TOlaVTa AtyeTal. ,., lleV yap 61a TOO A mpl TOV n6VTOV, '" 6e 61a TOO p { npo} TTiS AI[3v1'\S'.

11

In the Acta of the ecwnenical councils of EpheslL\ (anno 431) and Chalcedon (anno 45 1) we find a certain Isaac mentioned as bi.mop of Tova (I 1 .2, p. 64. 1 and I 1 .7, p. 1 1 6. 1 Schwartz) and again a.\ bi.\hop of TaVa (II 1 . 1 , p. 59.36, p. 81 .30, p. 1 85.40, p. 1 94.34 Schwartz).

434

10

Margarethe Bill erbeck

'I'llleiS 6 � 1TPOVcp61lIleV 6et�es 610: 1TO}.Aoov IlOPTVPIOOV hepov 610: TOV P 8ooplov Kol hepov TO 610: TOV T 800TIOV. y' oOv S I I 8 KcxAX1l6oov (x1l supra scr. alt. m.) S I I 9 1TPO secl. Hill er­ beck : 1TPOS (sc. Tij AI[3v"lJ) Meineke in app. I I 10 1TPOVcp61lIleV S : 1Tpov6ellev Tennulius I I TO add. Ri�chl 7

Dotion, r . . .1 the Dotian Plain was named after Dotus, the son of Pela�­ gu.�, a� Herodian <says> in the eighth : 'Dotus, the son of Pela.�gus, after whom the Dotian plain '. It is therefore superf1uou.�, when Orus writes in the EthniCd as follows: 'While the poet (i.e. Homer) mentions in passing the story of Thamyris in Dorion, Hesiod maintains on the contrary that he wa� blinded in the Dotian plain' . For cla�sifies this
name> among the ethnica whose radical are written in two different ways. At any rate, he adds : 'For such (sc. as Dotion and DOrion) are not formed in the same way as Kalchedon and Karchedon; for the former <written> with A on the Pontus, while the latter <written> with p in Libya (i.e. Africa)'. We have in fact anticipated this and shown by numerous proofs that Dorion <written> with p is different from Dotion <written> with T. Commentary Stephanu.� here refers implicitly to the article 8ooplov (25 1.6 Meineke 6 149 Billerbeck Zubler) and his di�cussion there of the Homeric zetetna concerning the scene of the Thamyri.� legend. Whereas the lexicogra­ pher accep� the tradition which placed it in Dorion in the territory ruled by Nestor, Orus evidently adopted the objection, which had been rai�ed earlier, that the Thracian singer could hardly have competed against the Muses in far-away Mes.�enia (Dorion) , but that the sacrilege and the subsequent blinding occurred in the Dotian Plain in Thessaly. In support of his argument Orus cites Hesiod who placed it there and ex­ plain� the disagreement of the Homeric critics from the varying fonns of the name Dorion/Dotion. Stephanus decidedly rejec� this attempt to harmonize the two explanation� and con�equently trea� Dorion and Dotion a� two separate entries in his lexicon. From the citation of Oru.� about the varying fonns of the names Reitzenstein drew the conclusion =

-

The Om. Fragments in the Ethnica of Stephanu. of Byzantium

435

that his work nEpl e6vlKwv was a mixture consisting of a systematic part and a lexicographical part which was not consistently followed.12 Without book title

5

10

15

20

F 4 (15.9 Meineke = a 33 Billerbeck) 1>.YKVPO r. . . 1 TO e6VlKOV Y\yKvpov6S. Tel EIS vos e6vIKa, eelV {nro Tiis YEVIKiiS TOO TTPWTOT\I1TOV yeVOITO K060pEVOVO"l1S, T4) a TTOPcxA"YEI 1l0Kp4) KO! 1l1<;X O"vMo[3fj Tiis yEVIKfjS mplT7EVEI, OVK aVOO"Tpeq>OVTOS TOO Myov. OV yelp 00"0 TO a KOTel T"V TTOpoA"yoVO"ov eXEI, TOIiTO eK YEVIKWV TTpoiiKTOI. TOO IlEV TTpOTepov TTop05EiYllOTOS Y\0"10v6S Kop510v6S 'OA[3IOV6S . ¢l00"10v6S aTTO Tiis ¢lamos TT6AEWS, TpaMIOS TpoMIOV6S, Lap510s Lop510v6S. r . . . 1 "lillaPTl)TOI TO BOTPVl1V6s , eCxv aTTO TOO B6TpVOS yeyovEV. EvTE06EV 5e 6 TVTTOS 1l1<;X mplT7EvEI, O"TToviws 5e 5vO"iv, wS TO Tovplov6S KO\ LKOPTTlov6s KO\ ZVYlov6S, amp aTTO TOO LK6pTTWV KO\ Tovpwv KO\ Zvywv TTopayea60l eOIKE, 5vvailEVO KO\ oliTel aTTO TTpOTepwv TTOpayE0"60l TOTTIKWV, Zvyiwv LKOpTTlwv Tovplwv . TTp60"KElTOI OVK aVOO"Tpeq>OVTOS TOO Myov, 5lel TO 'IO"TTov6s KOPllov6s KOllTTOV6s rEPllOV6s BpETTOV6s 'OpllTov6S Y\q>PI Kov6s Y\A[3ov6s 'YpKov6s. ov5ev yelp TO\/TWV aTTO YEVIKfjS K060pEVOVO"l1S. 6 5 e TO p 6 S q>110"1" 'Tel lleVTOI Il" K060PEVOVTO T4) 11 6eAeI TTOPcxA"YE0"60l xwp\S EI Il" T4) P TTOpE5pEV61lEVO 51q>OPOiTO, K06amp eTT\ TOO Y\yKvpov6s KO! 8VOTElPl1V6S { rEPIlOV6S} KO! rayy Pl1v6S. 6)v Tel IlEV TTOpel T"V 1>.yKVpOV O"vvE�e5pOIlEV T4) Lwpov6S BOO"Tpov6s, Tel 5e aTTO TOO Tel 8vaTEIpo KO\ Tel rayypo TTOpfjKTOI . aMel KO! 611AVKWS AeYETol "li rayypo' .

eCxv RQPN : EI mavult Meineke I I 2 yevolTo Berkel : -OIVTO RQPN I I K060pEVOVO"l1S PN : K060p1EV- RQ I I 5 YEVIKWV Schneider 1 849, 543: 611AVKWV RQPN I I TOOTO ante Y\0"10v6S expo Q, om. RPN I I 9 O"KOPTTIOVOS PN : O"KOTTIOVOS RQ I I 10 LK6pTTWV Salmasius : O"KOPTTiwv RQP, O"KOPTTiov N I I TTopayE0"60l eo IKE Jacoby : TTopayEIV eO{KOO"I RQPN, TTopaYE0"60l 50KOOO"l Draco (16.26 Hermann) I I 1 1 TWV TTpOTEPWV R I I 13 'IO"TTov6S Berkel : hnTOvos RQPN I I BpET7ov6S Meineke : spatium 3 !itt. T7ov6s R, spatium 4 1

12

Reitzenstei.l1 1 897, 3 1 6: 'Oros hatte in einem zusammenha.l1genden Abschnitt iiber diejenigen Ethnika, welche von einem doppelten Wurzelwort, npc.,)To-runov odeI' 6�l-Ia, abgeleitet sind, d.h. also mit anderen Worten iiber Smdte, deren Namensfonn zu schwanken schien, gehandelt. Das Werk war, wie die Buchangaben zeigen, jedenfall. nicht durchgehend. lexikalisch, sondeen in seinem einen Hauptteil nach grammatischen Gesichtspunkten geordnet.' On this see al.o below F 4.

436

Margarethe Bill erbeck

litt. Tcxv6s Q, I3pITTav6s PP'(in spatio alt. m.)N I I 'OpTlTav6s Holste : PTlTcxv6S RQPN I I 14 1\AJ3av6s Berkel : 6i\l3avos RQPN I I 15 CPTlO"I (per comp.) TCx �eVTOI Q : aliTCx �eVTOI R, spatium aliTCx �eVTOI P, TCx �eVTOI N I I �tl RQPN : del. Berkel I I TCil Tl Casaubonus : TO Tl RQPN I I 16 TW p PN : TO p RQ I I 51cpOpOiTO Lobeck (1 843, 1 98) : 51acpopoiTo RQPN I I 17 rEp�cxv6S sed. Billerbeck I I 1 9 TOO PN : TOIlTOV RQP(in marg.) I I TCx om. P(add. in margo alt. m.)N I I post 8vaTElpa lac. 6 litt. indic. R Ankyra, [ . . l The ethnic on 'Ankyranos' (Ankyran) . The ethnica ending in -y�s, if formed from the genitive of a radical containing a vowel before the ending, have a long a in the penultimate syllable and are a syllable longer than the genitive , whereby this granunatical rule does not apply in the reverse ca�e. For not all <eth­ nica> which have an a in the penultimate syllable are derived from the genitive. To the first pattern 'A�ianos' (A�ian), 'Kardianos' (Kardian) , 'Olbianos' (Olbian) . <Moreover there is> 'Pha�ianos' (Pha­ sian) , from aO"los the city ; Tpai\i\los 'Tralliano s' (Trallian) , Lap510S 'Sardianos' (Sardian) . [. . .1 The form 'Bot­ ryenos' (Botryen) is incorrect, if it is derived B6TpVOS. Accordingly this type of derivation has a syllable more , seldom however two syllables more a� in the forms 'Taurianos' (Taurian) , 'Skorpianos' (Scorpian) and 'Zygianos' (Zygian), which appear to be derived from the 'Skorpoi', 'Tauroi' and 'Zygoi', al­ though they too can be derived from original topica, 'Zygios', 'Skorpios' and 'Taurios' . is relevant: 'thi� grammatical rule does not apply in the reverse ca�e', on account of the <ethnica> 'Hispanos', 'Karman os', 'Karnpanos', 'Ger­ lnanos', 'Brettanos', 'Oretanos', 'Afrikanos', 'Albanos', 'Hyrkanos'. For none of these from the genitive which ha� a vowel before the ending. Oms says namely: 'the <ethnica> , the radical of which does not end in a vowel, require an Tl in the penultima except for those with a p in the penultima which are spelled in two ways (i.e. with either a or Tl), a� in the case of 'Ankyranos' and 'Thyateirenos' as well a� 'Gangrenos' . Of these <ethnica> some <which are derived> from a feminine <such a�> 'Ankyra' have the same ending a� 'Soranos' and 'Bostranos', while some are derived from 'Thyateira' and 'Gangra'. But 'Gangra' i� aim u�ed a� a feminine'.

The Om. Fragments in the Ethnica of Stephanu. of Byzantium

437

Commentary The fragment nicely illustrates why the Suda lists the work of Orus, in view of it� content and leading aspect, under the 'title' ·OiTWS TO: eSVIKO: i\EKTeov ('How one should call the names of peoples'). The grammarians

were evidently not in agreement according to which rule the atticizing form -cxv6s of the suffix -"v6S, common in Asia Minor, was to be formed." The ethnica TO:VPICXV6S, LKOpiT\CXv6s and ZVylcxv6S are stan­ dard examples, the canon of which was discussed by Herodian, as Stepha­ nus shows : 577.8 Meineke : LKopmo:v6s' eavos. 'HpwBlcxvoS ,,' 'Zvylo:v6S To:vplcxv6S LKopmo:v6s', similarly 628. 14 Meineke: T�O\ Ko:l TO�lo:voi' eSvos TO:VpIK6v. 'HpwBlo:v6s ,, '. Derivation from tribal names by addition of iota, the first explanation given by our lexicogra­ p he r, is mentioned again at 608 . 1 9 Meineke : TO eSVIKOV To:vplcxvoS iTi\Eovo:a�4'> TOU I, WS ZVylcxv6S. If, however, the ethnica in -o:v6S were derived from an original topicon, given here in the plural forms (aiTo . . . TOiTIK&V, Zvyiwv etc.) because of association with the previous enumera­ tion (CIIT E P &iTo TOU LK6piTWV Ko:t To:vpwv Ko:l Zvy&v), then they fol­ low the usual canon of topica, e.g. 0: 92 Billerbeck : Alya [ . . . ] TO TOiTIKOV Alyo:ioS, 424.6 Meineke : Mayo:paos [ . . . ] TO TomKOV Mo:yapalos, 506. 1 5 Meineke : napV1lS, napv"Sos [ . . . ] TO TOiTIKOV no:pv"slOS i\eYETO:I. In the controversy over the relevant canon Ritschl saw the traces of a heated di�p ute such as Orus was s upp o sed to have had with Herodian his 'acerrimo adversario'.1 4 On the systematic character of the fragment see n. 12 above.

5

10

F 5 (33.17 Meineke = 0: 80 Hillerbeck = H 4 b Alpers) )\SiivO:I' iT6i\EIS KCXTO: �EV 7 n p 0 V E', KCXTO: Be li\wvo: (FGrRist 790 F 21) s ' . r . . . 1 6 iToi\h"s )\S"vo:ioS Ko:l S"i\VKOV )\S"vo:io:. 'Ii Be SEOS )\S"vo:lo: i\eyETCXl �ovoyEV&S. MyETO:I Be Ko:l eiTl YVVCXlK6S, WS Cxi\i\OI �ev iToi\i\oi, 1i\,,�WV Be oilTws ev nTEpvylcp (fr. 69 Kassel - Austin rPCG VII 262]) vvvi B' (ho:v A6f31J TIS EIS TT}V OIKicxv TO:S 'liTiTovlKO:S TaaBE Ko:l No:valO"TpaTO:S Ko:t No:valViKO:S, TO:S )\S"vo:io:S i\eyw. �IBv�oS (p . 35 1 �1 Schmidt) Be q>"alv cm )\S"vo:io:s MyovO"\v ani TOU )\TTIKas. 6 B e pVvIXOS (fr. H Horries) avaTTIK6v q>"alv ETvCXl TT}V q>WVT}V Ko:t So:v�asEI iT&S 6 EpEKpaT1lS (test. 10 et fro 39 Kassel - Aus­ tin rpCG VI I 1 04 et 1 22]) aTTIKc.:,TO:TOS wv XPiiTO:l. aO"TO:S Be TO:S

1 3 On the type see Dittenberger 1907, 230-234; Schwyzer 1 939, 490; Risch 1 957, 63. 14 Ritschl 1 834, 5 1 .

43H

Margarethe Bill erbeck

yuvaiKas EAeyov OU Sit): TO �1'} S&Vacr6a1 AfyelV )\6Tlva[as, 0;\;\' ETTE1S1'} Kal TOUS avSpas OcrTOUS EKO:AOUV. 06Tlvaia Q : 06Tlvaia RPN I I Westennan n : -KCxS RQPN

2

4

TITepvy[wv R I I

7

'ITITIOv[Kas

Athen�, according to Oru.� five cities , but six according to Philon. r . . .1 The citizen 'Athenaios' (Athe­ nian), and the feminine 'Athenaia' . The goddess is simply call ed 'Athenaia'. is u.�ed also for a woman as many <do> including Philemon in the Pterygion as follows: 'But now, whenever someone takes into his house these 'Hipponicai', 'Nau.�i�tratai' and 'Nausinicai', the 'Athenaiai', I mean. ' Didymus says that they call 'Athenaiai' imtead of 'Atticai' . Phrynichu.� however says that the word <'Athenaia'> is foreign to Attic and wonders how Pherecrates could use it when he is stricdy Attic. They used to call the women astai (,towns­ women') not because they could not call them 'Athenaiai', but becau.�e they referred to the men as astoi ('towmmen') . Commentary Stephanu.�' main rea�on for citing Orus was hardly, as Ritschl already remarked, ls for the number of cities with the name Athem, but rather for his position in the well-known controversy about the use of )\6TlvaiOl and )\'TTI Kal. On the basis of a detailed analysis of the sources and influence Alpers attributes the entire extract to Orus who in hi� nepl E6vIKc;)V, the direct source of Stephanus, made use of material from his attici�tic lexicon. 1(, F 6 (250 . 1 4 Meineke = S 1 48 Bill erbeck-Zubler, cod. S) �c;)pa' viicros EV T4'> nepcrlK4'> K6ATIC,p r . . . 1 6 VT)cr\WTTlS �wphTlS, OOS TOU ho:yeipa hayelp[TT\S, 7\!3STlpa )\!3STlplTT\S. oihw Kal TO p o S . el Se T4'> Tfis xwpas TllTI'I' xapaKTTlplcr6fivai Sei, �U>PTlv6S OOS LU>CPTlv6S )\pa�v6s N 1cr\I3Tlv6S.

15 Ritschl 1 834, 57-58. 16 Alpers 1 98 1 , 57 and 1 96-1 97; K.assel - AIL,titl 1 989, 1 22.

The Om. Fragments in the EthniC4 of Stephanu. of Byzantium

439

flwpo Tennulius : flwpo S I I 3 flwP11V6S . . . LWCP11V6S i\pa�v6s N 10"11311v6S Berkel (coll. St.Byz. 477.3 et 5) : -fIVOS quater S

1

Dora, island in the Persian Gulf; f. . . ] the islander 'Dorite', as 'Stagirite' from Stageira and 'Abderite' from Abdera. So al�o Oms. If however one should fonn according to the pattern of the country, 'Dorenos', like 'Sophenos', 'Araxenos', 'Nisibenos' . Commentary The forutation of the ethnicon in -h11S, as Stephanus s . v . flwpoS (5 1 50) prescribes for flwpov (256.4 Meineke) , follows the analogy with place-names in the neuter plural, of which LTayElpa (beside LTaYElpos) and i\13511pa (beside i\13511pOS) and ral3aAa are prime examples; cf. a 6 Billerbeck: i\13511pa· f . . . ] 6 TIOAh11S i\13511ph11S. Ka\ yap TOO flioAKOS f . . ] . Ka\ 6TIO TWV EIS a ov5eT�pwv eupiO"KETaI, WS ral3aAa ral3aAiTTlS. This canon was al�o adopted by Oru.� . That the local fonm, as they are li�ted here, were fanllliar and discussed by the granunarians is shown by St.Byz. 476 . 1 7 Meineke: N to"II3IS· TI6AIS ev Tij nepai<;x Tij TIpOS Tc;l TiYP11TI TIOTollc;l . f . . .] TO e6VIKOV N I0"11311V6S. e5el N IO"ll3iTTlS, 6",, ' 6 TlllT O S AlyVirnos Ka\ Ail3vs, 6 5e 51a TOO 11VOS TIapa TOV EvcppaTTlv Ka\ TT}V EW, WS LWCP11V6S Tal311V6s KOIlI3VO"11V6S. .

F 7 (486. 1 Meineke) OiV11· TI6AIS i\pyovS, 'EKaTaios 'lO"ToplwV 0' (FGrHist 1 F 4) . TO eevlKov Olvaios Olvala Olvaiov. TO p o S 5e Olvw11V aVT"v CP11O"IV, tis TO e6VIKOv OlvwaT11S Ka\ 611AVKOV OIVWOTIS i\PTeIlIS, ,; ev Olvw1J TfjS i\pyeios 15pvll�V11 UTIO npohov.

Olvoia Olvaiov Xylander : olvevla olvalwv RQPN I I &pOS N : opOS RQP I I 3 OIVWOTIS PN : -waTIS RQ I I ,; am. R I I ev olvw11 P: ev olv611 RQ, ev v611 N I I 6pyeias RN : 6pyias QP 2

Similia: E . HF 378-79 611pOcp6vov 6eav / OIVWOTIV (H. Stephanus, olv6o Tiv' cod. L); Hsch. 0 316 OIVOTIS· i\pT�1l150S TfjS ev Olv61J TfjS i\pyeios <eTIwVVllov> , cf. etiam Hsch. 0 2634 6KPOVXei" OKpOV eXel. i\KpOV 5e opOS TfjS i\pyEias, ecp' ou i\pT�1l150S lepov 15pvO"aTo M eAaIlTIOVS Ka6apas Tas npo1T150S, et Hsch. p 348 piov t01v"volovt" Olv611< S> TfjS i\pyelos opOS XOAE1T6v (SH 1 1 05 ploY

440

Margarethe Bill erbeck

OlvT\vexiov) , Paus. 2.25.2-3 Olv6T\, TO OVOllex eXovo-ex, WS )\pyeioi in the first book of his Historiae. The ethnicon 'Oinaios, Oinaia, Oinaion' . Orus calls the city Oinoe, the ethnic on of which 'Oinoates' and for the feminine 'Oinoatis Artemi�', who was honoured by Proetus in Argive Oinoe. Commentary A city called OivT\ i� not mentioned anywhere else in the literary sources. On the other hand, Meyer 1 937, 2239. 1 5-41 , following Robert 1 933, 428-429 (= 1 969, 554-555) , noted that the variation in the fonn of the name, OivT\ (the usual fonn in imcriptions) and Olv6T\ (the usual literary fonn) , is not at all unusual and is found in the case of all the places of this name. The same applies to the ethnicon OlvexioS as well as the demotic on OlvexioS which occurs frequendy in the Athenian tribute li�ts. The Argolid locality, which is called a polis here, together with its sanctuary of Artemi� OlvwaTIS i� well attested in the literary sources, though in the fonn Olv6T\; Jacoby ad loco (Conun. p. 3 1 9) righdy observed that the quotation from Hecataeu� cannot be relied on. Whether the toponym OivT\, which is guaranteed here by the alphabeti­ cal order, is to be attributed to Stephanus or hi� epitomist i� uncertain. There are in fact other inconsistencies which indicate that the article has been disturbed either in the trammission of the text or through the abridgement. First, there follows as the next but one lemma Olv6T\, though only in reference to a city on the island Icarus in the eastern Aegean. It is also referred to by Strabo who mentions a sanctuary of Artemi� there: 1 4. 1 . 1 9 (C 639 . 1 0) )\PTEIl150S lep6v, KexAOVIlEVOV Texvpo1T671.10v. According to Stephanus the corresponding ethnic on i� OlvoexioS, which i� confinned by the analogy with 'Oyx6T\ (483.10 Meineke) : WS Tt;S Olv6T\S OlvoexioS. Secondly, it i� striking that, in the article OivT\ in the transmitted order of the ethnica, the manuscripts RQPN as well a� the Aldina punctuate after OlvexioS. Thi� strongly suggests that the epitomist or else the scribe of the archetype failed to understand the two following fonns Olveviex Olvexiwv. Wherea� Xylander corrected them to the feminine (Olvexiex) and the neuter (Olvexiov) , Ernst Grumach in hi� notes placed them in cruces. Agaimt thi� correction and the resultant

The Oms Fragments in the EthniC4 of Stephanu. of Byzantium

441

asyndetic ordering of feminine and neuter, which has been generally accepted, it must however be objected that it does not correspond to the lingnistic usage of Stephanus who regularly links names in different gen­ ders with Kat, e.g. 598. 1 1 Meineke (see below F 9) : AE yETa i Kat TaiVaplOS Kal TalVapta Kal TalVaplov. Accordingly, everything seems to indicate that our lexicographer not only discussed the widely distrib­ uted toponym Olv6T) (on which see Meyer 1 937, 2236-2244) but also the form of the name OivT) which survived in the epitome as a foil un­ related to the Orus quotation. F 8 (693 .3 Meineke) XTlcnov· '(wvias 1TOAiXVIOV, WS )\1ToM6BwpoS EV XpOVIK(;W a (FGrHist 244 F 2) . 0 1TOAiTTlS XT)cnEvS, WS "(AIOV '(AlEVS, LOVVIOV LOUVIEVS. "'0 P 0 S B' apcrEvlKwS aVTTlV q>T)cn , Kat ouBe 1T6AIV, aMa T61TOV.

5imilia: St.Byz. 191 .5 Meineke am) Toii XTlcnos TO XT)crIEVS, sed 256. 10 Meineke Toii XTlcnov TO XT)crIEVS, Sch. Call. Dian. 228 XT)cnas: <XTlcnov > aKpWTf}plOV Tiis Lapou, Sch. Nie. Alex. 1 5 1 XT)cnEis Be 1TPWTOV �KT)crav EV Lapct' , et Eutecnii paraphr. ibid. (p. 64 Papatho­ mopoulos) XTlcnov Be 0 T61TOS KEKAT)Tar . . . TO Be opOS, EV c;:, TO XTlcnOV. Chesion, small town in Ionia, as Apollodorus <says> in the first book of his Chronica. The citizen 'Chesieus', a.� 'Ilieus' Ilion, 'Souniem' Sounion. Orus however treats it a.� ma.�culine (i.e. XTlcnoS) and <says> that it is not a city but a place. Commentary The controversy here i� not about the formation of the ethnic on which is attested exclusively in the fonn XT)crlEVS, but rather about the varying gender of the place-name. It appears quite likely that Orus drew his conclusion from the scholion on Call . Dian. 228, where XTlcnov is mi�s­ ing in our manuscripts, but according to Pfeiffer (ad loc.) it wa.� restored 'prob. recte' by J. Laskaris.17 The explanation of the scholion XTlcrlOV aKpWTf}pIOV supports not only the detemunation of the locality as 'place' (T61TOS) , but could have induced Orus to take XTlcnos a.� an ad­ jective; c£ EM 1 60.22 s.v. )\crTU1TaAaia, where according to Thenusta17

On J. Laskaris and hi. knowledge of the Ethtlica of Stephanu. of Byzantiwn see Billerbeck 2006, 23*.

442

Margarethe Billerbeck

gom of Ephesus (FGH IV 5 1 2 . 1) there was a Samian phyle call ed (L)Xllala. 1 H nEPI OP80rpA
5

10

F 9 (598.6 Meineke) Ta{vapos' TT6AIS, aTTo Talv6:pov TOO rEpalO"TOO �ev aBEAq>OO, .610s Be TTal!56s. OS TTAEc.JV aVv KaA6:�pct> Tc";> aBEAq>c";> Kal T6TTOV Tiis nEAOTTovv,;aov KaTaAa�WV Tiva noaEIBwvoS IEpov IBpvaaTo, 0 KaAEiTal Ta{vapov. EO"TI Kal Ta{vapos 6 'IKaplov vl6s aq>' ov KaAEiTai ..; TT6AIS Kal ..; OKpa Kai 6 AI�';V. AEyETai Be apaEvlKws Kai 611AVKWs. AEYETal Kal TalV6:plOS Kal Talvap{a Kai TalV6:plov. Etal Be Kal TalV6:plOI 6iiKaI, WS X6:pa� EV 'EAAllVIKWV W (FGrHist 1 03 F 2) . AEYETal Kal Talvap{l;Elv, WS ·Ep�ITT1TOS 8EOiS (fr. 32 Kassel - Au�tin rpeG V 5761) 'Kal ae TI XPtl TTapaTa\vapll;Elv; ' . TO pOS BE q>11alv EV Tij 'O p60ypaq>i<;x Ta{vapov TTE5{ov Tiis l\aKc.JvIKiis, Kal TalVaplO"Tal 01 EV av-rc";>.

TT6AIS Meineke in app. I I yEPalO"TOO RQPN : rEpa{O"TOV Meineke (sed cf 203.6) I I 3 TTEAoTTovv,;aov R : TTEAoTTov,;aov QPN I I 4 Talvapos 6 <'EA6:Tov TOO > Meineke in app. (ex Sch. A.R. 1 . 1(2) I I 5 ..; TT6AIS Kal ..; OKpa R, Sch. A.R. 1 . 1 02 : ..; OKpa Kal "; TT6AIS QPN I I 7 6iiKai Meineke in app. : 6ii�aI RQPN I I EV om. PN I I 8 WS om. RQ I I 9 ae T{ RQPN : aE TI Meineke I I 10 TTE5{ov (ex TTaI-) P I I TaivaplaTal F. Bolte (RE IV A2 [1 9321 2045.6, mono Berkel, ex Hsch. T 33) : TaiVapiTai RQP, -iTai N 1

Fons: Sch. A.R. 1 . 1 02 Talvapillv: EPEKv511S EV Tij 6 ' (FGrHist 3 F 39) q>11a1v (hi "EAaToS 6 'IKaplov ya�Ei 'Epl�,;511V TtlV .6a�aaIKAov· TWV Be ylvETai Talvapos, aq>' ov Talvapov KaAeiTai ..; TT6AIS Kai ..; OKpa Kai 6 AII-l';V. Similia: Pto!' Geog. 3.1 6.9 (3. 1 4.32) l\aKc.JvIKiis· . . . Talvapla OKpa Kal EV Tc";> l\aKc.JVIKc";> K6ATTct>' Talv6:plov (sc. TT6AIS) , Pam. 3 . 1 2 . 5 TE�EVOS noaEIBwvoS Talvap{ov-Talv6:plov Be E1TOVOI-l6:�ovalV, Hsch. T 33 TalV6:pla O. Pearson, -plas cod.) TTapa l\aKEBaI�ovlolS EOPTtl noaEIBwvoS Kai EV a\JTij TaiVaplaTal. Talvapov yap TTE510v l\aKc.JvIKiis, Suid. T 205 TalV6:plov KaK6v� TO �Eya Kal TTapavOI-lOV�EVOV Els IKETas' 01 yap l\aKE5a11-l6V101 KaTaq>vy6VTas 18 On 'Chesion' / 'Chesios' and the varying orthography of the toponym see Biirchner 1 899, 2272-2273.

The Oms Fragments in the EthniC4 of Stephanu. of Byzantium

443

TOUS EiAc.rras els Ta{vapov {XTT EKTelvav. Ka\ TalVapiTT')S 6 1TOAiTT')S. Cf. etiam IG V 1 .2 1 0. 1 ; 21 1 . 1 ; 2 1 2 . 1 TalVaplol (de celebrantiblL�) . Tainaros, a city, after Taenams, the brother of Geraestus and son of Zeus. When he sailed with his brother CalabrlL�, he took posses­ sion of a place on the Peloponnese and founded a temple of Poseidon which is called Taenarum. There is al�o Taenaru�, the son of learius, after whom the city, the cape and the harbour are named. is used both as masculine and feminine. 1 Y One al�o says 'Tainarios, Tainaria, Tainarion' . 2<1 There are al�o the tombs of TaenarlL�, as Charax <mentiom> in the second book of his Hellenica. Moreover there is the expression Ta\vaplSelv ('to celebrate the Tainaria'), as Hermippus <writes> in his The Gods: 'Why must you celebrate the Tainaria so ridiculously?' Oms says in hi� Orthography that Tainaron is a plain in Laconia and that Tainarist� <are> those who there. Commentary In light of F 5 it i� probable that Oms borrowed the quotation of the comic poet from his atticistic lexicon for the Orthography; for the verb (1Tapa)TaIVaplselV supplies the key to the proper understanding of the

quotation which follows, as can be seen from the explanation in Hesychius (T 33). It is not a question here of the ethnicon (TmvapiTm) of the inhabi­ tants of Taenarus, but rather of the name of the participants and their asso­ ciation (TalVapICITal) at the festival of the Taenaria which was celebrated (TmvaplsEIV) in the sanctuary of Poseidon at Taenarum.21 The corruption of the original Tmvaplo-ral to TmvapiTm may well be the source of the otherwise unattested TalVaphT')S 6 1TOAhT')S in Suid. T 205 . Without book title F 10 (46.6 Meineke = a 1 20 Hillerbeck) AI6aAT')' vfjcros TupcrT')v(;w , 'EKaTaios Evpc';m'!J (FGrHist 1 F 59) . eOIKE Be KEKAi;cr6m B\(): TO crlBllpov eXElv TOV ev al6aA'!J TTJV epyacrlav

19 On the gender see Braswell 1 988, 1 25 (comm. on Pi. P. 4.44[c]l. 20 In addition, Orph. A . 205 call. Euphemus TatVaptEvs. 21 On verbs in -U;EIV meaning 'to celebrate a festival' and the fonllation of the name of associations derived from that of the festival see Debrunner 1 917, §§ 269-270; on the 'Tainaria' see the detailed discussion in Nil... on 1 995 ' , 67-{)9.

444

5

Margarethe Bill erbeck

SXOVTCX.
3

Similia: AleCXAicx apud Ps.-Scyl. 6, A.R. 4.654 (AleCXAill) , Str. 2 . 5 . 1 9 (C 123.4) et 5.2.6 (C 223.26) , vel AleCxAelcx vel AleCXAicx in codd. D.S. 4.56.5; 5 . 13. 1 ; 1 1 .88.4 Aithale (Elba) , island of the Tyrrheniam; Hecataeus <mentiom it> in the Europe. It seems to have received its name from its having iron ore which i.� processed amid soot (cxle6All) . Phili�tus however in the fifth book of the Sicelica calls it Aethaleia, so too Herodian and Orm. fo o .1 The ethnicon <derived> from 'Aithaleia' 'Aithalei:te', like 'Zelei:te', but from 'Aithale' 'Athalite', like 'Sinopite' and 'lopite'. The <ethnicon> 'Aithalite' can be used for Chian, for Chios used to be called thus. And the citizem <are called> Aithalians. Commentary

The form Aleo:i\icx, which is well attested (v. SimiIia) , i.� notably mi.�sing­ presumably as a result of the abbreviation of the original text; neverthe­ less it can be inferred from the variant Ale6Aelcx which Orus may well have discussed in the section on the diphthong el. A trace of a gramma tical discussion of the fonnations or derivations of the radical cxle6All (,soot') can be seen from Et. Sym. cx 257 Lasserre-Livadaras ( cx 260 Sell) s. v. cxle6AElOS' Ta aTro TWV els AOS �cxpvT6vwv (mep SUo O'vi\i\cx�as OVTWV �.I1'l eeVIKa sla TT;S EI slcpe6yyov yp6cpOVTCXI' cxI6AOS, 6 KCXT6tITIKTOS, cxI6AEIOS, 6 TrOIKiAOS' CXieCXAOS cxle6Aelos, O'llPCXiVel se TOV KCXTrV6v. =

F 11 (495.9 Meineke) 'OpeO'Ticx' Tr6AIS ev 'OPEO'TCX1S, ev opel \mepKElpEV'!> TT;S MCXKesOVIKT;S yT;S, e� tis nToAepcxios 6 A6yov TrPWTOS �(nAeuO'cxs Aly\nrro v. 6 TroAhllS 'O peO'TlcxioS. StITl KCX\ ai\i\ll ev :A.pKcxsiCf 'O pEO'Ticx, ;;v

The Oms Fragments in the Ethnica of Stephanu. of Byzantium

5

445

E v 6 0 i IJwv K o i TO p O S 6 1 0 T ii s S I 6 1

Similia: Str. 7.7.8 (C 326.8) 01 umpKeilJsVOI Koi O"vva7TToVTss ToiS '(i\i\vpIKoiS OpSO"l, Tpoxsiav olKoOvTES xwpav, r . . . 1 'OpEo"Tai r . . . 1 , 01 IJEV TTi\llo"la�oVTes ToiS MOKe66O"l lJoi\i\ov, 01 6e Tit> '(ovi� K6i\TT� cf. etiam Str. 9.5. 1 1 (C 434.24) et 7. fro 3.7 'Ii 6' 'Opeo"Tis TTOi\i\", Koi opOS exel IJEYO IJExpl TOV K6pOKOS Tiis Ahwi\!oS Ko6iiKOV Koi TOV nopvoO"aov' mplolKoval 6' OUTO! TS 'O pEo"Tai r. . . 1 . Orestia, city in the territory of the Orestae in the mountain range lying above the land of Macedonia; from it Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, the first to rule Egypt. The citizen Orestiaean. There is al�o another Orestia, in Arcadia, which Eudaemon 22 and Oms write with the diphthong SI, 'Oresteion'. Commentary Only here i� the fonn of the name Orestia attested. Doubtless it con­ cerns Orestha.�ion to which Stephanm has dedicated a separate article (494.23 Meineke) . There his authority is PalL�anias who mentions the place several times in hi� description of Arcadia and notes the change of the name to Oresteion: 8.3.2 lyai\io 6e Koi 'Opea6aalov {ev} Xp6v� IJSTO!36:i\i\OVO"l TO 6v6lJaTo , 'O PEO"TEI6v TE aTTO 'O PEO"TOV Ki\1l6eiO"o TOV 1I.yOIJEIJVOVOS Koi lai\io aTTO r.. . 1 lai\ov. This fonn of the nanle is in fact well attested, first by Pherecydes in the scholion on E. Or. 1 645 (= FGrHist 3 F 1 35) , where the poet explains 'OPEO"TEIOV by the eponym Orestes, further Plu. Arist. 1 0.9, as well as StephanlL� him.�elf (s. v. 'OPEo"Tal) 495.4 Meineke: xwp{ov TfjS 1I.pKo6!oS, TO i\sy6lJsvov 'O PEO"TSIOV, where Orestes' son of the same nanle died; cf. al�o Suid. 0 536 'OPEO"TEIOV' OVOIJO T6TTOV . Reitzenstein concluded from Et. Gen. S . V. 'OpEaTai' e6vos MOKe60vios, em 'OPEO"TllS 6 1I.yOIJEIJVOVOS sis MOKe60viov TTopeyEveTo , 6'1" ov Koi TO TWV 'OpeaTWV e6vos wv6lJoO"Tai. 01 6e 22 On Eudaemon see l{a.ter 1 9BB, 279 (no . 55); Meliado 2005.

446

Margarethe Bill erbeck

cm

OVK elS lJaKpo:v i'jA6ev, oAi.. ' elS )\pKaBiav, cmov Kal oTT�6avev Kal OTT' aliToO TT6AIS 'Op�aTElov KaAeiTa! . TOUS Be EV MaKeBovic;x 'Op�aTas 01 IJEV oTT6 TIVOS h�pov, 01 Be OTTO TOVTOV oovoIJaa6al , that StephanlL� drew his reference from OrtL�' work nepl E6vIK6:w.2.l If that was in uct the case, we would have another instance (see F 5 and F 9 above) of OrtL� transposing material from one work, here the Orthographia, to hi� Ethnica. FRAGMENT FROM UNCERTAIN CONTEXT F 12 (547.7 Meineke) ·PoiTelov. "0 p 0 S OKpav elvai
2

0

'POITT}"iS Lobeck (1 837, 24) : pOlTiS RQPN

Similia: Str. 1 3 . 1 .30 (C 595.22) ETTa 'POheIOV, TT6AIS ETTI M in the Troad. The citizen 'Rhoiteieus', and 'Rhoteias' and 'Rhote"is' <writ­ ten> with I. Commentary The feminine form� are attested only as adjectives and always in con­ junction with OKTT]. From A.R. 1 .929 'PolTelaBos . . . OKTfiS the scholion ad 10e. constructs a mistaken genealogy with an otherwi�e un­ known eponym: OTTO 'PolTeias TfjS npc..nE WS 6vyaTp6S, similarly Sch. 23 Reitzenstein 1 897, 323.

The Orus Fragments in the Ethnica of StephanlL' ofDyzantiwn

447

Lye. 583a Leone; see further Herter 1 957, 944.33. It cannot be deter­ mined with certainty from which work Stephanu.� drew the Oru.� cita­ tion; the discussion in Eu.�tathius (v. Similia) about the spelling of the name with the diphthong el could point to an orthographical context. Orus' geographical definition of Rhoiteion as a promontory indicates the scholion on A.R. 1 .929 as hi� probable source.24 lJUBIUM F 13 (607.3 Meineke) Tapxoovlov, 1T6�IS TvpPllv1aS, a1To Tll�ecpov 1Tal50s Tapxoovos. 0 1To�ITllS TapxoovivoS, OOS CO p o S �v [3' nep\ �6vIK&V} l'\aaooplov l'\aaoopivos, ,., Tapxoovlevs OOS '11T1Toovlevs. 1 Tapxoovos (ex Tapcp-) RP" I I 2 &pOS �v [3' nep\ �6vIK&V post TapxoovivoS OOS add. R (cancell. R1 ?), secl. Meineke 'videntur e sequen­ tibu.� rs.v. Tava, c( supra F 21 repetita esse' I I 3 OOS QPN : ,., R I I '11T1Toovlevs Xylander : I1T1TO- RQPN

Similia: Str. 5.2.2 (C 2 1 9.20) �Moov (sc. TvpPllv6S) Se -niv Te xoopav acp' �a\fToij TVPPllv{av �Ka�ae Ka\ SooSeKa 1T6�eIS �KTlaev OIKlaT";V �1TIa-niaas TapKoova (acp' 00 TapKuv(a ,., 1T6�IS), cf. St. Byz. S . v . TapKuvla (603 .21 Meinene) Sch. Lye. 1 242b Leone SUo 1TaiSes Tll�ecpov Tapxoov Ka\ Tvp01lVOS OIKTJaOVal TT)V Tvpallvlav Tarchonion, city in Tyrrhenia, after Tarchon, the son of Telephus. The citizen 'Tarchonine', as {Orus <says> in the second book On Ethnica} 'As.�orion A��orine', or 'Tarchonieus' like ' Hipponieus'. Commentary

That Stephanus, as in article Tava (F 2), also drew here on the Ethnica of Oru.� can by no means be excluded. But from the fact that the source is given only in R (and then pos.�ibly deleted by the scribe) Meineke un­ derstandably concluded that it was an interpolation. 24 Reitzenstein 1 897, 325: 'AIL' Oros stanunt bei Stephanos nieht nur aIles. W3.' auf die Scholien zu Apollonios und Lykophron zuriiekgeht. sondem aueh aile Seholien zu Kallimaehos und wenigsten., ein Hauptteil der Seholien zu Ho­ mer.'

v. Ancient Grammar in Interdisciplinary Context

Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Scholia on Thucydides' Syntax Casper C. de J onge

1. Introduction Euap,e�"TOI yap T1VES eicnv 0101 1TaVTa TO: 90VKVSISov Cl"�l3cxAEiv, Kat ouS' oihol xwpts �91Y1'lCl"EWS ypa��aT1Kiis EVla. Dionysius of Halicama....ms, On Thucydjdes 51 (41 0. 1 5- 1 7)

For the men who can understand the whole of Thucydides can ea.ily l be counted, and even these cannot understand certain passages without a linguistic explanation. 1 Thucydides ha.� never been an easy read. If we may believe Dionysius of Halicama.�sus, even native speakers at the end of the first century Be experienced serious problems in understanding parts of the historian's work. The famous word� of Dionysius, the scholar and historian who wa.� active in Rome in the period of Augustus, are consolatory for mod­ em students struggling with the syntax of Pericles' funeral oration.2 But DionysilL�' observation i� aho highly interesting for the history of an­ cient scholarship. His reference to the necessity of a 'lingUistic explana­ tion' (��Y"o"Eu)S ypa��CX'T1Kiis) in his treatise On Thucydides 51 can be combined with another pa.�sage from the same work, in which he tells

2

References to the work. of Dionysius of Hali carnassus are to the chapter, page and line number in the edition by Usener-Radermacher 1 899 and 1 904-1 929. T ran.dations of pa�sages from Dionysill� are adapted from Usher 1 974 and 1 985. I wish to thank Stephanos Matthaios for his valuable comments on an earlier version of this article. On Dionysiu. of Halicarnassus and his significance for the history of linguistics, see De Jonge 2008a. Dionysius' rhetorical work. inform ll� on the close con­ nections between different language disciplines in antiquity, including philoso­ phy, rhetoric, philology, technical granunar and music studies. The current ar­ ticle build� on my discll,sion of Dionysius' criticism of Thucydides: De Jonge 2008a, 2 1 3-248.

452

Ca�per C. de Jonge

hi� readers that they should not imitate 'those pas.�ages rof Thucydidesl that are allusive and difficult to follow and require linguistic explanations' (ypallllaTlKOOV �91Y1iaeCr.)v) : TCxS 5e alvlYl.laToo5elS Kai 5VaKaTal.la61iTovs Kai ypal.ll.laTlKWV �91Y'iaec.>v 5eOl.lEVas Kai lTOAV TO j:lEjXxaaVlaI.lEVOV Kai TO aOAOIKOq><XVeS �V ToiS aXlll.lanal.lois �xovaas I.l";n 6aVl.la�EIV I.l';TE I.lII.lEia6al. Dionysius of Halicama.'I.�us, On Thucydides 55 (41 7.22-25) Those pa�sages that are allu�ve and difficult to follow and require linguistic explanatiom, and those pa'l.�ages which contain much that is unnatural and makes the impression of soleci� in the comtructions deserve neither to be admired nor to be imitated.

From these two pa.�sages scholars have righdy drawn the conclusion that Dionysius was acquainted with linguistic annotations on Thucydides, which he used for hi� critical discussions of the hi�torian's style. Con­ cerning the precise nature of this ��YllaIS ypallllaTIK" (singular, Th. 51) or the �91y"aeIS ypallllaTlKa{ (plural, Th. 55) . different views have been put forward. Usener believed not only that Didymus (the scholar who was active under Augustu.� and roughly contemporary with Diony­ sius) wrote a commentary on Thucydides, but he abo suggested that the Alexandrian scholars had already produced annotations on the historian in an earlier period.3 He concluded that Dionysius had an edition of Thucydides with critical sign.� a.� well a.� scholia, which he consulted for hi� analysis of the historian's linguistic characteristics.4 Luschnat specified that the 'linguistic interpretations' that Dionysius mentions could in fact be v1follvilllaTa ('commentaries') : s Diese Exegesen :zu Thukydides diirften wohl Kommentare (VlTol.lv..; l.laTa) gewesen sein und miis.�en aus einer Zeit stanunen, die vor Dionys, also auch vor dem etwa gleichzeitigen Didyrnos, dem NachlaBverwalter der al­ teren Alexandriner, Iiegt.

In reaction to Lu.�chnat's thesis, Pfeiffer righdy emphasized that the term �91y"aeIS i� not a synonym of V1fOllvilllaTa (,commentaries') but pri3

Usener 1 889, 72-73. In the same year, Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1 889, 1 63 expres.�d the contrary view: (. . ) Exege.�e des Demosthenes oder Thukydides hane man in Alexandreia nicht getrieben. ' The latter view ha� now proved to be untenable. Usener 1 889, 74: 'Utebatur exemplo Thucydidis notis cririds et scholii� in­ structo.' See also Radermacher 1 905, 969: 'Wahrscheinlich hat er [i.e. Diony­ siu�l eine Thukydidesau�gabe au�geschrieben, die mit kriti�chen Zeichen und Scholien ausgestattet war. ' Luschnat 1 954, 23. '

4

5

.

Dionysiu. of Halicarn .....us on Thucydides' Syntax

453

marily refers to 'individual interpretations' . " O n the other hand, e�y"aeIS could well be explanations of specific passages 'in the course of a commentary'. 7 Pfeiffer accepted the idea that a commentary on Thucydides was available in the Augustan period, and he concluded that thi� commentary was probably based on the work of earlier Alexandrian scholars: in his view, 'it could not be very surprising if Aristarchus had also written the first commentary on Thucydides.'" 2. Dionysius and Ancient Scholarship on Thucydides Apart from Dionysius' remarks on the indi�pensability of 'grammatical explanations', there is more evidence for the existence of early scholar­ ship on Thucydides. Since Usener, scholars have observed that there are striking similarities between the grammatical observations in Dionysius' Second Letter to Ammaeus (which illustrates the criticism� that he pre­ sented in his treatise On Thucydides) and the scholia on Thucydides. " The Thucydides scholia constitute a collection of diverse material, which dates from different periods.1u Part of that material, however, is clearly ba�ed on very ancient sources. The parallels between Dionysius' letter and the Thucydides scholia, which will be further explored in this paper, become more significant when we notice that Dionysius' linguis­ tic terminology in the Second Letter to Ammaeus differs from that in his other work.� .1 1 When we combine these facts, the obvious conclusion 6 7 8 9

Pfeiffer 1 968, 223 and 225 n. 4. Pfeiffer 1 968, 223. Pfeiffer 1 968, 225. On the parallels between Dionysius' Second Letter Ii> Ammaeus and the Thucy­ dides scholia, see Usener 1 889, 99-1 09, Radenuacher 1 905, 968-969, Lusch­ nat 1 954, 22-25, and Ros 1 968, 49-68. 10 The Thucydides scholia have been edited by Hnde 1 927. The study of Lusch­ nat 1 954 is important for our understanding of these scholia. See further Dover 1 955, Kleinloge1 1 964, and Luschuat 1 970. Dickey 2007, 55 gives a brief cha.r­ acterization of this corpus. 1 1 The following differences in terminology (between Amm. 2 and Dionysius' other work..) a.re rema.rkable: (1) The tenu lTpoOTJyopia (appellative) occurs in Amm. 2 only (twice in Amm. 2.1 1). Elsewhere, Dionysius uses the term lTPOOTJYOPIK6v (fifteen times in Th. , Camp., and Amm. 2.2, where it i. re­ peated from Th. 24) . (2) In Amm. 2 he refers to the voices as �VEP)'TITIK6v and lTOITlTIK6v (active) and lT06TlTlK6v (passive). In Th. 24 (the point of depa.rture for Amm. 11), however, he employs the term.. fipacrT11 p loV and lTa6TlTIK6v, while in Camp. 6 he mentions 6p66v and UlTTIOV. See De Jonge 2008a, 1 591 60.

454

must be that Dionysius, who thinks that one need� 'granunatical expla­ nations' for understanding Thucydides, composed his Second Letter to Ammaeus with the help of certain lingui�tic notes, which he probably found in a commentary.12 Some of these annotations were al�o transmit­ ted in the philological tradition, so that they survive separately in the scholia on Thucydides. Apart from the scholia and Dionysius' letter, there are two papyri that infonn U� about the ancient scholarship on Thucydides.13 P. Oxy. 6.853 conserves parts of a commentary on the second book of Thucy­ dides. It is a polemical 'Reply to Dionysius', which demonstrates that there was a lively debate on Thucydides in the first century AD. 1 4 The parallels between the papyrus commentary and the Thucydides scholia suggest that they made use of the same source, possibly an Alexandrian commentary.15 P. Vindob. Cr. 29247 preserves the remains of another commentary on the historian, which can be dated to the third century 12 Usener 1 889, 73-74 concluded that both Dionysim' letter and the Thucydides scholia could be traced back to one conunon source, namely earlier 'scholia', which existed before both Dionysim and Didymus: ( . . . ) multo profecto plura exstant Dionysio scholii sque commurua quonun consen.mm nisi ex communi fonte, scholii< Dionysio Didymoque antiquioriblL<, explicare nequas.' 1 3 Luschnat 1 954, 22-31 . 1 4 P. Oxy. 6.853 (= Pack' 1 536) belong; to the late second century AD , but the editors Grenfell - Hunt 1 908, 1 09 argue that the conunentary itself was written 'soon after the beginning of the Chri.
DionysilL' of Halicama.,-,us on Thucydides' SyntaX

455

AD.lfo On the basi� of the similarities between Dionysius, the scholia and the papyri, Lu.�chnat ha� argued that all these texts were ultimately ba�ed on Alexandrian scholarly works, in particular commentaries of the type that we know from the two papyri.17 Rhetoricians, grammarians and lexicographers made use of these Al­ exandrian commentaries for their different purposes, but the es.�ential contents of Hellenistic scholarship on Thucydides were transmitted in further commentaries, until they found a place in ancient collection� of scholia (of the third and fourth centuries AD) . We know two such col­ lection�, which preserve scholia separated from the text of Thucydides: the so-calle d 'Patmos scholia' and the so-called 'Marcellinus scholia' . I M These scholia, which originally formed separate collection� without the Thucydides text, were finally copied in the margin� of our Thucydides manu.�cripts: the manuscript-scholia that we know are dated between the 1 0th and the 14th century. Since scholars have detected the connection between Dionysius and the Thucydides scholia, they have mainly used it for con�iderations con­ cerning the antiquity and authority of the scholia and their usefulness for the constitution of the Thucydides text. 19 However, the importance of these texts for the history of linguistics ha� not received the attention that it deserves. This article will explore the significance of Dionysius' critici�m and the Thucydides scholia for the history of syntax in the period before Apollonius Dyscolu.�. Dionysius' analysis of Thucydides' syntax is important for two rea�on�. First, it ca�ts light on the technical terminology in which syntactic problems were di�cu.�sed at the end of the first century Be, a period from which we have only fragments of technical grammar . Second, it demon�trates the strong connection� be­ tween the ancient language disciplines: in antiquity, syntax wa� studied in variOu.� language disciplines, which include not only Alexandrian philology and Stoic philosophy-Dionysius mention� the Stoic idea� on 16 P. VitJdob. Gr. 29247 (= Pack ' 1 535) wa.' edited by Gerstinger 1 925. See also LIL"hnat 1 954, 29-3 1 . 1 7 Luschnat 1 954, 47-50. His reconstruction reveals that the ancient tran,mis.�on of Thucydides annotations wa., extremely complex, a., it involved granunarian." phii ologL'ts, lexicographers and rhetoricians, who influenced and lL,ed each other's works. His presentation of the exact lines between these di,cipline., (in the diagram on p. 48) remains hypothetical. Cf. Maurer 1 995, 58 n. 1 . 1 8 On the 'Patlnos schoJia', see LIL,chnat 1 954, 31-35 and Dover 1 955. O n the 'MarcellinlL' schoJia', see Luschnat 1 954, 42-47: the MarcellinlL" Life oj Thucy­ dides wa.' the introduction of a collection of schoJia. 1 9 Maurer 1 995, 58 n. 3 demonstrates that DionysilL' had an 'abnormaJly good text' ofThucydides.

456

syntax that he found in Chrysippus-but also rhetorical theory?' Rhe­ torical treatises are not u.mally taken into account in histories of ancient scholarship. However, just like philologists, rhetoricians studied linguis­ tic problem� in the context of their criticism of literary works, and thereby contributed to the understanding of granunar.

3. Thucydides in Rome: Cicero and Dionysius Dionysiu.� ' criticism of Thucydides should be understood in the context of the 'Thucydidism' that had emerged during the first century in Rome. In that period, Thucydides becanle a popular model for the writing of both hi�tory and oratory.21 The Athenian library of Apellicon of Teos, which Sulla brought to Rome in 83 BC, included ancient cop­ ies of Thucydides' work, which in Rome became available for intellec­ tuah like Cicero. 22 Both Lucretiu.� and Nepos translated passages from the Greek historian.2.; In Orator (46 BC) Cicero tell� us that recently a new group of writers had become active who called them�elves 'Thucy­ didean�': Ecce autcm aliqui se Thucydidios esse pr#tentur, novum quoddal1l imperitoTUI1I et inauditul1l genus. Cicero, Orator 30 And here come some who take the title "Thucydideans,"-a new and un­ heard-of group of ignorant men. (transl. Hubbell)

Among the followers of Thucydides was of course the Roman historian Sallust (86--3 4 BC), who died a few years before Dionysius arrived in Rome?' Another important figure in this context was the historian and 20 D.H. Compo 4 (22.12-17) tell. iliat Chrysippus' treati�es On the Syntax of the Parts of Speech were not useful for his own work on stylistic composition, since they adopted a dialectical approach. Nevertheles.�, it seem� that his own discus­ sion of natural word order (Comp. 5) wa� influenced by Stoic idea�; c( De Jonge 2008a, 1 08--1 09. 21 On the reception of Thucydides in Rome and late antiquity, see Canfora 2006. The influence of Thucydides on later historiography is already evident in the work ofPolybius. 22 Cic. Alt. 4.10.1 mentions that he is 'fea�ting' on the library of Faustu.� Corne­ lius Sulla: hie pascor bibliotheca FaInt;' Faustus inherited the library from hi� fa­ ther. Cf. Canfora 2006, 729. 23 Lucr. 6. 1 1 38-- 1 286; Nep. Them. 9.2-4 and Paus. 2.3-4. 24 On Sall lL,t as an emulator of Thucydides, see Canfora 2006, 735-740. Quintil­ ian (10. 1 . 1 01) regard� Thucydides and Sallust a, one pair: nee opponere Thucydidi

Dionysiu, of Halicarn ....'us on Thucydides' Syntax

457

lawyer Quintus Aelius Tubero, whose father Lucius wa� a relative of Cicero.Z.' Cicero mentions both Tuberos (father and son) in his speech Pro Ligario.2(, The younger Tubero, whose bulky Annales dealt with the hi�tory of Rome, wa� aho the recipient of Dionysius' treatise On TIlUcy­ dides. n DionysilL� claiIus that he composed that work 'for the special benefit of those who would wish to imitate Thucydides', so it is plalL�i­ ble that his addressee Quintus AelilL� Tubero was one of those imita­ tors.2I< It seems, then, that the Greek DionysilL� helped his Roman pa­ tron (and his colleague in the writing of hi�tory) by providing him with a detailed account of Thucydides' qualities and shortcomings, in order to facilitate the process of imitation (�{�"crIS)?) Cicero disapproved of the Thucydideans: in his view, the historian could only be a model for writing history, but not for oratory: a� he points out, 'those famous speeches rin Thucydidesl contain so many dark and obscure sentences a� to be scarcely intelligible (vix ut intellegan­ tur) , : (. . . ) Thucydides autem res Jlestas et bella narrat et proeiia, JlTaviter sane et probe, sed nihil ab eo tramierri potest ad forensem usum et publicum. Ipsae illae contiones ita multas habetlt obscuras abditasque sententias vix ut intelleJlantur; quod est in ora­ tione civili vitium vel maximum. Cicero, Orator 30 (. . . ) Th ucydides , on the other hand, gives us hi,tory , wars and battles-fine and dignified, I grant, but nothing in him can be applied to the court or to public life. Those famous sp eec h es contain so many dark and obs cu re sen-

25 26

27

28 29

Sal/ustium verear ('I should have no hesitation in matching Sallust with Thucy­ dides' [tram!. Russell]). See Bower.;ock 1 965, 1 30 and oeD S.v. 'Aelius'. Cicero (Lig. 1) calls Quintu, Aelius Tubero hi, 'kinsman' (propinquus meus). Quintus Aelius Tubero submitted the charge against Quintus Ligariu" who had been the legatus of Africa in 50 BC. Ligarius surrendered the province in 49 BC to the Pompeians and refused Lucius Aelius Tuhero (who had been appointed governor by the senate) and h.is son Quintu, to land in Africa. Some year.; later, Q. Aeliu, Tubero accused Ligarius before Caesar, but Ligarius wa" restored af­ ter Cicero's defen,e in 46 BC. In his Roman Antiquities (1 .80. 1 ) Dionysius refer.; to the work of Quintus Aelius Tuhero, 'a shrewd man and careful in collecting his hi,torica! data' (ToV�EpooV AiAl0S BE1VOS Cnl11P Kat 1TEpl Ti)v crvvayooyi]v Tiis lenopias �1Tl�E7I"S) . His an­ cestor and namesake Quintus Aelius Tubero is mentioned by Cicero in Brut. 1 17 .., a Stoic philosopher, whose oratory w.., famous for it, harsh and rough language. D.H. 17/. 25 (364, 1 4-16) : TWV �ov7I"ero�Evoov �1�Eia6al TOV &II B pa. C£ Usher 1 974, 456: Dionysiu, was 'a historian criticising another historian for the benefit of a third'.

458

Ca.per C. de Jonge

tences a. to be scarcely intelligible, which is a prime fault in a public ora­ tion. (trans!. Hubbell)

Cicero believes that Thucydides cannot teach us how to write successful speeches. The imitation of this Greek author should be restricted to historiography: Quis porro unquam Graerorum rhetorum a Thucydide qu�uam duxit? At laudatus est ab omnibus. Fateor; sed ita ut rerum explicator prudens, severns, gravis, non ut in iudidis versaret causas, sed ut in historiis bella narraret. Cicero, Orator 3 1

Furthennore, what Greek rhetorician ever took any examples from Thu­ cydides? Everyone praises him, I grant, but a. an intelligent, serious and dignified C011unentator on events-one to describe wars in history, not to handle cases in law courts. (tran.�. Hubbell)

In his Brutus Cicero expresses similar views, when he defends him�elf against the attacks of Caius Licinius Calvus and hi� fellow Attici. These representatives of Atticism thought that Roman orators should follow the example of Lysias and Hyperides with their pure language and plain style, but Cicero points out that Attica produced orators of variOu.� dif­ ferent types, including his own preferred model Demosthenes.3<1 Thucy­ dides, who al,o came from Attica, could provide historians with good examples, but hi, speeches are meless: 'Thucydidem, ' inquit, 'imitamur. ' Optime, si historiam scribere, non si causas di­ cere cogitatis. Thucydides enim rerum gestarum pronuntiator sincerns et grandis etiam foit; hoc forense roncertatorium iudiciale non tradavit genus. Orationes autem quas interposuit--multas enim sunt-eas ego laudare soleo; imitari neque possim si ve­ lim, nee veiimf0rtasse si possim. Cicero, Brutus 287 'Thucydides,' you say, 'we strive to imitate.' Very good, if you are thinking of writing history, but not if you contemplate pleading ca..es. Thucydides was a herald of deeds, faithful and even grand, but our foren..ic speech with its wrangling, its atmosphere of the court-room he never used. As for the speeches which he introduced (and they are numerou.) I have always prai.ed them; but imitate them?-I could not if I wished, 110r should I wish to, I imagine, if I could. (trans!' Hendrichon)

In hi� treatment of the hi,torian's style, Dionysiu., goes one step further than Cicero. According to the Greek critic, Thucydides could not serve as a stylistic model at all : neither orators nor hi,toriam could profit from 30 The literature on Atticism i. vast. Wisse 1 995 gives an instructive di.cussion of the connection between the Roman Attid on the one hand and the Greek Atticism of Dionysiu.. and Caeciliu.. on the other.

Dionysiu. of Halicarn .....us on Thucydides' Syntax

459

adopting his language and expression. When DionysilL� disagrees with 'certain reputable critics' (TIVES OUK Cx50�ol crOq>ICiTOQ who think that Thucydides' style could be imitated by hi�torians (even if it i� unsuitable for oratory), it i� possible that he i� thinking of Cicero:31 hnXElpOVO"l 6e TIVES OUK 6:6o�0I O"oq>lO"Tai MyEIV, em Tois IJEV "lTpOS TCtS 6XAIKCtS �VTEV�EIS "lTapEO"KEvaO"lJeVOIS Kai TCt 61Kala AeyoVO"lV OUK EO"TIV hnTi)6Elos oOToS 6 xapaKTi)p, Tois 6E TCtS iO"TOPIKCtS "lTpaYlJaTElas tKcpepOVO"lv, aTs IJEyaAO"ITPE"lTEiaS TE 6Ei Kai O"EIJVOAoyias Kai KaTa"ITAi)�Ews, "lTaVTos IJOAIO"Ta "lTpOaT)KEI TavT1lv CtO"KEiv TlJv CPPOO"IV TlJv yAWT"TTJ lJaTIKi)V TE Kal Ct"IT1lPxaIWIJEv"v Kai TpOlTlK';V Kal t�AAayIJEV1lV TWV �v eeEI ax1lIJOTWV t"IT1 TO �evov Kal 7TEpITT6v. Dionysius of Halicarna...ms, On Thucydides 50 (409. 1 3-2 1 ) But certain quite reputable critics try t o argue that, although this style i s not suitable for an orator intending to address a popular audience, or for a liti­ gant, those who are producing a work of history, which requires an im­ pressive, dignified and striking style, should find Thucydides' recondite, ar­ chaic, figurative language, which diverges from normality toward. the novel and the extravagant, eminently appropriate to employ."

In this passage we find some of Dionysius' most important objectiom against Thucydides.33 Hi� criticism of the historian's style especially con­ cerns the poetic diction, the variety of figures, the di�sonance of compo­ sition and the speed with which ideas are expressed. ""' According to DionysilL�, Thucydides' writing i� far removed from everyday language. We will see that he describes many passages from Thucydides as 'un­ natural' and as 'departing' from nonnal linguistic usage. In particular, he point� out that the historian's style does not preserve 'logical order' (aKoAov6Io), that it makes the impression of soleci�m (croAoIKlcrIl6S) , and that i t i s 'granunatically incongruent' (aKaTaAAllAos) . 31

De Jonge 200Ba, 2 1 4-2 1 5 against Pavano 1 95B, 1 96 and Goudriaan 1 9B9, 266 n. 3. Leeman 1 956, 1 9B and Aujac 1 991 , 1 61 suppose that Dionysius refers to the views of Caeciliu. of Caleacte. 32 Dionysiu. proceeds to explain that, according to these 'reputable critics', Thu­ cydides did not write for the man in the street bur rather for the well-educated elite. We do not find this particular argument in Cicero, but his critici.m of Thucydides' 'dark and obscure sentences' (Orat. 30: obscuras abditasqlle senten­ lias), which wuosr nobody understand., is clearly related to Dionysius' view. Both Dionysius and Cicero emph..oilze that a public speech should be clear and understandable. 33 On Dionysius' critici.'1ll of Thucydides ' style and subject matter, see especially Pavano 1 936 and Grube 1 950. 34 D.H. 17/. 24 (363.10-1 2): TO "lTOI1lTlKOV TWV 6VOIJOTOOV. TO "lTOAVE15�S TWV

ax1llJ,hoov. TO TpCX)(V Tiis apIJovlas. TO TaXOS TWV O"1lIJaO"lWV.

460

4. Dionysius' Second Letter to Ammaeus: Thucydides' 'Variations'

Dionysius' treatise On Thucydides warned the historian Quintm Aelius Tubero a� well a� other readers against the dangers of Thucydides' treatment of both subject matter and style. Dionysius' criticism is at times rather severe, so it is not surpri.�ing that hi� stylistic observations provoked the reaction of at lea�t one of hi� readers: 35 a certain Am­ maeus, who is al�o the dedicatee of Dionysius' On the Ancient Orators, expressed hi� disappointment in the treatise On Thucydides, becau�e the stylistic observations were not illustrated with citations from the hi�to­ rian's work. 3(, In his response, the Second Letter to Ammaeus, Dionysius reluctantly agrees to fulfill Amma eu�' wish to add more examples, 'adopting,' as he says, 'the didactic instead of the epideictic method'. 37 Thi� letter can thus be regarded a� an appendix to the treatise On Thucy­ dides, focusing on the characteri.�tics of Thucydides' language and gram­ mar. Having repeated the stylistic criticism� that he presented in On Thu­ cydides, Dionysius proceed� to discuss a number of characteri.�tics for which he adduces illu�trative citation� from Thucydides (Amm. 2.31 7). 3M His discu�sion includes examples of the historian's archaic and unu�ual vocabulary (Amm. 2.3), his syntax or 'versatile constructions' (Amm. 2.4-1 4) , hi� composition of enthymemes and period� (Amm. 2. 1 5) and hi� figures of antithesis and parallelism (Amm. 2. 1 6-17) . I will 35 The Serond Lettl'T to Ammaeus i, [htL, important evidence of the lively scholarly debates between Greek and Roman intellectual. in the Augustan Period. A similar document is Dionysim' Letter to Pompeius, which responds to another reader's objections against the views that he expressed in On Demmthenes. 36 D.H. Amm. 2. 1 . See aho D.H. Orat. Vett. 1 (3.6). Hidber 1 996, 96-97 point<; out that Ammaeus i, a Roman nomen get/tile. AnunaetL' wa., thus either a Ro­ man (who may have acted a., Dionysius' patron) or a freed slave. 37 D.H. Amm. 2 . 1 (422.6) : TO 515acrKa7l1Kov C1)(ii�a 71al3Wv Corrl TOU

6:rr05E1KT1KOU. 38 D.H. Amm. 2.2 (422.21 -424.7) loosely announces the structure of his disCtL,­ sion of Thucydides by repeating the views that he expressed in 771. 24 (361 . 1 2362. 1 8) . On the differences between this pIan and the actual contents of the letter, see Warren 1 899, who thinks that some irreguIarities should be solved by assuming lacunas in the text, while others are caused by Dionysim' 'ha.,tiness or careles.mes.,' (1899, 3 1 9) . In fact, we should not believe that DionysitL. aim.. to illustrate each of the point<; in his sUllUnary successively: the repetition of his observations from Th. 24 (36 1 . 1 2-362 . 1 8) Amm. 2.2 (422.21-424.7) is not a precise 'plan' of the illustrations that follow, but rather a general introduction that remind. the readers of his idea., on Thucydides' style. =

DionysilL' of Halicama.,-,us on Thucydides' SyntaX

461

concentrate on the second of these items, the treatment of Thucydides' syntax. The following scheme gives an overview of Dionysius' analysis, dealing with (A) Thucydides' treatment of word� and phrases, (lJ) his u.�e of the parts of speech (noun� and verbs in particular), (C) his use of the aaidentia of the parts of speech (voice, number, gender, ca�e, tense) and (0) his treatment of thing; and person�: lJionysius on Thucydides' syntax (Amm. 2.4-1 4) : A. Words and Phrases 1 . The interchange of word� and phra�es: a) Thucydides expres.� es one noun or verb in more noun� or verbs (pe­ riphrasis) : (hov lJeV oOv IJlov AE�IV eiTe 6VOIlCXTIKr,V eiTe PllIJOT1Kr,V tv 1T�eloalv 6v6IJoaiv 1') P1'llJoalv tKcpepll (Amm. 2.4) b) Thucydides expresses a phrase in a single word (Amm. 2.4) B. Parts of Speech: Nouns and Verbs 2. The interchange of nouns and verbs: a) Thucydides casts the verbal parts of speech in the form of noun�: TO: PllIJCXT1KO: Tiis AE�eoos 6VOllCXTIKOOS C1)(1lIJCXTI�el (Amm. 2.5) b) Thucydides turns nouns into verbs: (hov . . . TO: 6v6IJCXTO 1TOI'ij p1'lIJCXTO (Amm. 2.6) C. Accidentia of the Parts of Speech (voice, number, gender, case, tense) 3. Voice: the interchange of active and pa�sive: a) Thucydides employs the active instead of the pas.�ive: T6 . . . piilJo tvePYllTIK6v . . . aVTl TOU 1To61lTIKOU (Amm. 2.7) b) Thucydides u.�es the pa��ive in�tead of the active: (hoy Se ml TOU 1TOlllTIKOU TO 1To61lTIKOV 1TOp�OIJJ36V1J (Amm. 2.8) 4. Number: the interchange of singular and plural: a) Thucydides uses the singular in�tead of the plural: �VIKO: lJeV ml 1T�1l6uVTIKOOV (Amm. 2.9) b) Thucydides uses the plural instead of the singular: aVTl Se TOU �VIKOU TO 1T�1l6UVTIK6v (Amm. 2.9) 5. Gender: the interchange of ma�culine, feminine and neuter (a-b); and the con�truction of two congruent word� with different genders (c) : a) Thucydides gives a feminine word a ma�culine form: TO 61l�UKOV tKcpepoov appeVIKOOS (Amm. 2 . 1 0) b) Thucydides makes the feminine neuter: oVShepov 1TE1TOlllKev TO 61l�UK6v (Amm. 2.1 0)39 39 Most examples in this chapter concern word, with an unusual gender (TapCX)(os for TapaxTI, TO j30VA6I!EVOV for -niv j30vA11alV), but the final exam-

462

c) Thucydides constructs masculines with feminines: TO: appEV1KO: ToiS 6T)AVKOiS crVVTclTTOVTES (Amm. 2 . 1 1)4<1 6. Case: the interchange of genitives, datives and accusatives, resulting in unusual constructions (syntax that makes the impression of solecism) (a­ b) ; and the combination of two congruent words with different cases (c) : a) Thucydides uses a genitive instead of an acclL�ative (which i� required by the verb) : TO:S YEVIKO:S aVTI TWV ahlaT1KWV TTTOOcrEWV (Amm. 2 . 1 1 ) b) Thucydides lL�es a dative instead o f an accusative (which i� required by the verb) (Amm. 2.1 1) c) Thucydides combines a dative participle (instead of a genitive) with a genitive pronoun and a genitive participle (Amm. 2 . 1 2) 7. Ten.�e: the combination of verbs in different ten.�es (present and fu­ ture) : Thucydides combines a future tense with a present tense (Amm. 2.12, two examples) 8. The syntax of collective noun.� (the interchange of 'the signifying' and 'the signified') : a) Thucydides combines a singular collective noun with a plural verb (constmctio ad sensum); i.e. he changes from the signifying (the form, which is singular) to the signified (the meaning, which i� plural) : ETTI TO crT)Ilalv61lEVOV TTpaYlla TTAT)6VVT1K6v (Amm. 2 . 1 3) b) Thucydides refers to one subject first with a plural, then with a singu­ lar collective noun (Amm. 2 . 1 3) D. Things and Persons 9. The interchange of things and persons: a) Thucydides treats things as person.� (Amm. 2. 1 4) b) Thucydides treats persons as things (Amm. 2. 1 4) . The idea o f 'alteration' o r 'interchange' i� clearly a guiding principle in l)ionysilL�' treatment: Thucydides i� constandy said to aTTOO"Tpeq>Elv ('to tum away') , aAAclTTElv, EVaAAclTTE1V, E�aAAcl'TT E 1V (to change') and pie (Th. 4.78.3) concerns the construction of an adjective with a feminine noun (lcrovo�l<;! Tt;l �lTIXc.:>plcp instead of Icrovo�l<;! Tij hnXc.:>plcp) . In this case, Dionysiu.,' criticism clearly involves a syntactic observation. The Thucydides MSS have TO �YXOOpl0V (not Tt;l hnxc.:>plcp), which Hude (in hi, Teubner edi­ tion) changes into [TO] �yxc.:>plcp. 40 My scheme follows the order of Dionysius' discussion, but I have brought together his observations on gender (from Amm. 2 . 1 0 and 2. 1 1 ) and on cases (from Amm. 2. 1 1 and 2. 1 2) .

Dionysiu. of Halicarn .....u. on Thucydides' Syntax

463

6VTIKOT1lYOPEiv ('to substitute') . More precisely, Thucydides departs from that which is usual and 'natural' : he is said to 6VTICJTpe
464

Casper C. de Jonge

(the 'signifying' and the 'signified') and that of subject matter (things and persons) . Dionysius' treatment of Thucydides' variations of the parts of speech and their accidentia (voice, number, gender, ca�e and tense) re­ mind� us of the substitutions or interchanges that Aristarchus mention� in his comments on Homer.43 Many of these changes are also discus.�ed in the ancient rhetorical treatises on figures, for instance in Caeciliu� of Caleacte On Figures and in Longinus On the Sublime.44 It is clear that the concept of Qinguistic or stylistic) 'variation' fonned an important subject in the common ground between the disciplines of philology and rhe­ torical theory. The focus on variation in ancient styli�tic analysis was so fruitful that it survived in modern times: scholars still consider variatio (or l.leTaj30Aru to be characteristic of Thucydides' style.45 Not all of Dionysiu�' observation� mentioned above belong to 'syn­ tax' in a strict sen�e, but several of his idea� are clearly concerned with the construction (aw6eaIS. aVvTa�IS) of the parts of speech. 46 His analy­ ses of pas.�ages from Thucydides reveal a strong awarenes.� of the condi­ tions of grammati cal agreement. According to Dionysiu�, a feminine noun should be combined with a feminine article and adjective (Amm. 2. 1 0: laovol.llq: "rij hTlxoopl� , not laovol.llq: T4l hTlxoopl� would be correct in Th. 4.78.3) ; the verb 1TPOTII.lCXv governs the accusative, not 43 See e.g. Ari�tarchu� fro 55-57 Matthaios, with Matthaios 1 999, 309-3 1 8 : Aris­ tarchus argues that Homer sometimes u�es the active in�tead of the pawve, and the passive in�tead of the active. He employs this principle in order to establish the correct Homeric text. For timher examples of Homeric interchanges ac­ cording to Ari�tarchus, see Matthaios 1 999, 331-340 (the interchange of verbal tenses), 589-592 (the interchange of adverbs and prepositions) and 592-597 (the interchange of preposition�). 44 Caecil. Cal. fro 75 Ofenloch deals with 'alteration (aMolooaIS) in relation to a noun, ca�es, numbers, person� and ten�es' : the interchange of gender (feminine, ma�cuJine, neuter), the interchange of nwnber (singu1ar and plural) and the in­ terchange of tense (present and pa�t). Long. 23-27 treats the 'changes of ca�e, ten�e, person, number and gender' (al Tc.;W 1TTwaeoov )(p6voov 1Tpoaw1Toov apl61lCA>v yevWv �vaMa9;IS) . He gives examples of the variation of number (23-24), ten�e (25) and person (26-27). His next topic i� periphrasi� (28-29), which we can compare with Dionysiu�' treannent of periphra�i� in Amm. 2.4. Longinu�' chapter on the variation of tense (25) presents an intetpretation of the so-calle d hi�torical present: see De Jonge 2008b, 8-13. 45 See especially Ros 1 968. 46 Dionysius uses both a\J\1T16�val (aWeeaIS) and a\JVTlxTTe lv (aVvra9S) for the process of 'combining' word�. The art of composition includes both grammati­ cal con�truction (,syntax' in a more narrow sense) and euphonic combination (rhyt1un, melody). For a\JVTlxTTeIV, see e.g. Amm. 2. 1 1 : 01 5� TO: appeVlKO: Tois 6TJAVKOis a\JVTlxTTOVTES ('those authors who con�truct ma�cuJines with feminines.).

Dionysiu. of Halicarn .....us on Thucydides' Syntax

465

the genitive (Amm. 2. 1 1 on Th. 8.64.5) , and the feminine noun 1T6AEIS should be combined with a feminine participle, hence 1TpoT1ll"crocrol rather than 1TpoT1ll"crOITTE S (ibidem) ; the participle KaT01TAOYEITTE S (,fearing') should be combined with an accusative, not a dative (Amm. 2. 1 1 on Th. 4. 1 0.2) ; finally , a collective noun in the singular should be combined with a verb in the singular rather than the plural (Amm. 2 . 1 3 o n Th. 6.35. 1 ) . When we consider the relevance o f these syntactic observations for the history of syntax, it is important to empha.�ize that they are part of a critical evaluation of Thucydides' style. Similar di�cussions of syntactic problems in the context of the anaJysi� of literary texts can be found in the philological tradition, already in the fragments of Aristarchus. We will see that the Thucydides scholia contain observations on Thucy­ dides' syntax that correspond to Dionysius' annotations. Unlike the rhetoricians and philologists, ApollonilL� DyscollL� (second century AD) will study syntax in it� own right, independent from the literary context and style of specific authors. However, both the rhetorical and the phi­ lological tradition are relevant for the development of ancient syntactic theory: the anaJysi� of specific granunatical constructions in a concrete literary text doubtlessly stimulated the grammarians to develop a system­ atic framework that could not only describe but also analyze syntax on a more abstract level.

5 . Dionysius and the Scho/ia on Thucydides' Syntax From their own perspectives, both rhetoricians and philologists are in­ terested in the calL�es of (apparent) grammatical irregularity and in syn­ tactic con�tructions that can be regarded as 'variations' or 'changes' from normal lL�age. Let lL� now look more closely at some of Dionysius' ob­ servations on Thucydides' syntax, comparing his views with the corre­ sponding notes of the scholia.�t.

5.1. Noum and Verbs One of the feautures of Thucydides' syntax i� hi� reversal of the natural use of noun� (6v611aTO) and verbs (P"llaTO) : ·OTav 51; <'wTlcrTplhjloS �KCXTepov TOIJTc.uV T1)v CPUcrlV TCr 6v6�oTa lTOlij p';�CXTa, TOVTOV TOV Tp6lTOV �KcpepEI 'ri)v Ae�IV, t:>s �v Tij lTpt:>T1] J3uJ3A'l> mpi Tf\S a1Tias TOV lTOAe�OV ypO:q>EI'

466 [Th. 1 .23.6] 'T'l'jv �ev oOY aA"eeaTO:T"v alTlav, My<+> 5e acpaveaTO:T"v, TOVS J!l.e"vaiovs oio�at �EyO:AOVS ylvo�evovs avaYKo:aal els TO lTOAe�Eiv .'<7 �OVAETat yap 5UAOW, em IlEy6:Aol Y1YVOllEVOI 01 J!l.euvaiol av6:yKUV lTapeaxov TOU lTOAeIlOV' lTElTol"KeV 5e aVT\ Tii s aVO:YK"S Kat TOU lTOAe�OV 6VO�CXTIKWV OVTWV p"�CXTIKa T6 TE avaYK6:aat Kat TO lTOAe�Eiv. Dionysius of Halicarnas.ms, Second Letter to Ammaeus 6 (427.7-1 6) But when he reverses the natnral use of both of these parts of speech and turns nouns into verbs, he produces the following kind of expres.�on, as he writes in the first book concerning the cau'e of the war: 'Now the most genuine cau,e, though given least publicity, I consider to have been the tact that growing Athenian power made it neces.,ary for them to go to war. ' For he want.' to signify that growing Athenian power imposed upon them the neces.,ity of war. But for the nouns 'necessity' and 'war' he has substi­ tuted the verbs 'made it necessary' and 'to go to war' .

The example that illustrates the substitution of verbs for nouns i� Th. 1 .23.6, the final word� of which are 6VaYKaaal EIS TO TTOAEIJEiv. Ac­ cording to Dionysius, 'Thucydides wants to make clear @oVAeTai yap 511AOOv) that growing Athenian power imposed upon them the neces­ sity of war (6vayKl1v . . . TOO TTOAEIJOV) . ' But, he points out, for the nouns 6vaYKl1 and TT6AEIJOS Thucydides has substituted the verbs 6VaYKaaal and TTOAEIJEiv. The first part of Dionysius' explanation is identical with the interpretation that we find in the scholia: TOVS J!l.e"valovs . . . avaYK6:aal ES TO lToAe�Eiv' Ta 6v6�CXTa pf)�aTa ElTol"aEv. 130VAeTat yap S"AOW, em IJEy6:Aol Y1VOllEVOl 01 J!l.e"vaiol aVO:yKUv lTapeO)(ov TOU lTOAellov. Scholia on Thucydides 1 .23.6 He ha., turned the nouns into verbs. For he wants to make clear that grow­ ing Athenian power imposed upon them the necessity of war.

DionysilL� and the scholiast use the same words: [3oVAeTai yap 511AOOv, IJEyaAOI yl (y)v6IJEVOI 01 �el1vaiol 6vayKl1v TTapEOXov TOO TTOAEIJOV. 4H In the scholia, this explanation i� preceded by the words Ta em

47 Dionysiu,' citation i. a short adaptation of the actual text in Thucydides. The complete sentence (Th. 1 .23.6) is as follows: T'l'jv Il� yap O:Al1eEcrrO:TT]V

lTp6cpacnv. acpavEcrrc'xT'lV 5e My'll , TOUS J!l.e'lvaiovs -rlyovllal llEyc'xAoVS Ylyvollevovs Ka\ cp6J3ov lTapeXOVTas T01S J\aKE5allloviOlS avayKc'xaal !S TO lToAeIlE1V. 48 There is a small difference here between Ylyv61lEVOl (Dionysim) and YlV61lEVOl (scholia) . Thucydides ( 1 . 23.6) wrote YIYVOIlEvOVS. in correspondence with cla.sicai Attic usage (ylyvollal became y1vollal in Attic after 300 BC) . Accord-

Dionysiu. of Halicarn .....us on Thucydides' Syntax

467

6v6�CXTa p"�CXTa ETrol"O"Ev 'he has turned the nouns into verbs' . How should we explain the fact that the scholiast gives the verbatim text that we find in Dionysius? It i� possible that the latter copied these word� from a commentary, but we canno t exclude the possibility on the other hand that this particular scholion was based on the work of Dionysius. The phrase 130UAETOI S"AOOV looks like an expression that we typically find in the explanation� of scholia. 4" But we should notice that the com­ bination of the word� 130UAETOI S"AOOV ('he wants to make clear') is rather frequent in Dionysius, whereas in the Thucydides scholia it oc­ curs only at this pa�sage.5H When introducing paraphrases, the scholia on Thucydides normally me the words 130UAETOI elireiv ('he wants to say') or 130UAETOI SE�OI ('he wants to demonstrate') . If it is true that the scholia are not independent from Dionysius' rhetorical works, this im­ plies that the connections between rhetoric and philology are even stronger than commentators have realized. It seems plausible that, ju.�t a� Dionysius u.�ed granunatical annotations for hi� rhetorical work, philolo­ gists likewi�e made use of the observations that they found in treatises of rhetoric and criticiml. We have already encountered another instance of the influence of rhetorical criticism on philology in P. Oxy. 6.853 (sec­ ond century AD), a commentary that replies to Dionysius' views on Thucydides. The exact relationship between the two traditions remain� uncer­ tain, but it is in fact more interesting to observe how a specific gram­ matical idea (the substitution of verbs for noun�) , i� employed in rheto­ ric on the one hand and philology on the other. The scholia point to the grantmatical variation in order to explain the text and to make it understandable. Dionysius, on the other hand, uses thi� example to demon�trate the shortcomings of Thucydides' style, which he find� un­ suitable for imitation. He does not want hi� students (nor his colleague Quintm Aelius Tubero) to u.�e verbs where nouns are more natural. His

ing to the MSS, Dionysius' quotation of Thucydides has YIV61lEVOVS (the later foml) , where... hi. own paraphra..e h... Ylyv61lEVOI (the cl.....ical fonn). The identical paraphrase in the scholia, on the other hand, has Ylv61lEVOI (the later fonn) . However, it seems illlpos..ible to draw conclu.ions from this variation, which we find in the transmission of many ancient texK 49 The phra..e �ov"ETal 5TjAoiiv does occur in some scholia on Homer, e.g. Sch. n. 8 . 1 85b and in the scholia on Pindar, e.g. Sell. Pindar, O. 7, 24c. 50 For �OV"ETa\ 5TjAoiiv, see D.H. Til. 29 (374.22) , 111 . 30 (375.25-376,1), 111 . 31 (378.5), Amm. 2.4 (426. 1 2) , Amm. 2.8 (42B. 1 2-13), Amm. 2 . 1 4 (433 . 1 7). The scholia on Thucydides do have the expression with the aorist infinitive, �OV"ETa\ 51)"w(Ja\: see Sell. 111 . 3.45.4.

468

Ca..per C. de Jonge

grammatical analysis thus supports his position in the debate on Thucy­ dides as a model for imitation.

5.2. The Syntax of Gender and Case: Thucydides' Solecism The difference between the approaches of rhetoric and philology can be further demon.�trated by another example, which concerns Thucydides' use of cases: �V oIS 5e TaS lTTWO"E1S TWV OVO�OTc..>V Kat TWV lTpOO"T)yOplWV Kat TWV �ETOXWV Kat O"vvarrTo�evc..>v TOVTOIS i'xp6pc..>v ��a7IAOTTEl TOO O"vv-r,60vs, OIITc..>S O")(Il�CXTi�EI [Tij V �XWPT)O"av �lTt T1)V i'xVT1KPVS �Mv6Ep(av, Ifis (mo TWV 1>.6T)vaic..>v VlTOVAOV EVvo�(as ov lTPOTIL11'lO"aVTES.' 01 �EV yap OKOAov6c..>S Tij KOlvij 0"VVT)6E(C;X O"XT)�CXTi�ovrES T1)V TE 6T)AVKel> YEVEI Tfjs lTpOO"T)yop(as TO 6T)AVKOV av e�Ev�av �OpIOV, Kat T1)V lTTWO"lV [Tfjs �ETOxiis] T1)V aIT1CXTIK1)V avrt Tfjs YEV1Kf'iS ha�av TOV TPOlTOV Tov5E· 'O"c..>v �xwpT)O"av �lTt T1)V i'xVT1KPVS �Mv6Ep(av tin! alTO TWV 1>.6T)vaic..>v VlTOVAOV EVvo�(av ov lTpOT1bl1)O"aO"al.' 01 5e Ta aPPEV1Ka ToiS 6T)AVKOiS O"VVTOTTOVTES, WalTEP oOTos lTElTO(T)KEV, TaS YEVIKCxS avrt TWV alT1CXTIKWV lTTWO"Ec..>V lTapaAall�OVOVTES 0"0AOIKi�E1V av v and would have placed the accusa­ tive instead of the genitive case, as follows: [paraphrase] " But those authors who construct masculines with feminines, as Thucydides has done, and u.e genitives in..tead of accu.atives, could be said by u. to be committing solecism.

51

Here Dionysius presents a paraphra..e of Th. 8.64.5, by 'correcting' the gram­ matical construction of the original. On this method of rewriting (metathesis), see De Jonge 2005.

Dionysiu. of Halicarn .....u. on Thucydides' Syntax

469

In this passage, Dionysiu� tell� us that Thucydides does not write as 'those who construct the expression in conformity with conunon u�age' (aKoAov6wS Tfj KOlvfj crvvTj6elc;x crXTj".l(rr l�OVTes Tt1V cppacrIV) . The hi�torian could even be said to be conunitting solecism (croAoIKI�elv) . Concerning the example that he quotes (Th. 8.64.5), Dionysiu� has two objections: first, Thucydides has combined the noun lT6AEIS (feminine) with the participle lTPOTlj..l"crOVTES (masculine) ; second, he has com­ bined oli lTPOTlj..l"croVTES ('taking no heed of) with a genitive (Tils . . . VlTOVAOV eVvoj..l l os) in�tead of an accusative. Dionysius corrects both 'mistakes' and rewrites the sentence with the words Tt1V alTO TWV )\6Tjvo{wv VlTOVAOV eVvoj..l {av oli lTPOTlj..l"crOcral. The construction of lTPOTlj..l"crOVTES ('honour', 'take heed of) with a genitive (eVvoj..l { os) has apparendy also worried the scholiast: he ex­ plains the passage as follows: O'c..>q>poO'VV'lV yap Aex�OVO'at exi lTOAEIS [. . J: EufXlVAOTEpat yap yEVO�EVexl �XWPT)O'exv hri Tr,V c5:VT1KPVS �Aev6epio:v, TfjS VlTO TWV ;A.6'lvexic..>v VlTOVAOV eVvo�iexs ouBev
'For having become more prudent, the states moved toward. downright independence, showing no regard for the hollow pretence of bw and order offered by the Athenians. ' For that is what lTpOT1�"O'exvTes means.

We observe that where the scholia merely explain the con�truction by offering a different verb (cppoVTll;elv) that govern� the genitive, Diony­ siu� objects to the construction and reproaches Thucydides for hi� un­ grammatical Greek. In other word�, Dionysiu� seems to borrow the lingui�tic explanations from philologists; but instead of sanctioning the unusual constructions a� characteristic of Thucydides' style and language, he object� to them and regard� them a� bad modeL� for the production of new texts. Although he u�es the teml croAOIK{�E1V (,to commit solecism'), Dio­ nysius i.� careful to present this verdict on Thucydides in a general and cautious way: 'those authors [plurall who construct ma�cuIines with femines, as he ha� done, could be said by us to be committing solecism (croAolKI�EIV &v vcp' flj..lwV AEyOIVTO) . ' With thi� rather periphmtic for­ mulation it seem� that Dionysius tries to mitigate his tone, possibly thinking of his audience, which included Anunaeus, but perhaps also Quintus Aelius Tubero (the addressee of his On Thucydides) and other enthu�ia�tic supporters of Thucydides.

470

5.3. A Syntactic Analogy A further example of Thucydides' unlLmal comtructiom is illuminated by an interesting analogy: Kai ETI Ta TOlaVTa' [Th. 4.1 0.2] 'Kai �r, T0 7TAfj6EI allTWV KaTCX7TAayevTES" ov yap hri TfjS 60TIKfjS 7TTwaEws �CT)(ll�aTia6al TT,V AE�IV ';p�OTTEV, 0.",,' hri TfjS alTlaTIKfjs' 'Kai �r, TO 7TAfj6os TWV 7TOAE�lwv KaTCX7TAayevTES.' ov6e yap 'Tij 7Tapa TWV 6EWV 6pyfj q>o�Eia6al' AeyoIT' av TIS, o.""a 'Tr,V TWV 6EWV 6pY11v .' Dionysim of Halicarnas.ms, Seamd Letter to Ammaeus 1 1 (43 1 .9-1 5) The following word. also have this fault: 'not frightened by their nwnber'. This word should not have been constructed in the dative case but in the accusative: 'not fearing the nWllber of the enemies'. So, too, no one would be said 'to fear through the anger of the god, but rather 'to fear the anger of the gods'.

In Th. 4. 10.2: Kai �1) T4) TTAfj6EI aVTwv KaTaTTAayeVTES ('not fright­ ened by their number') , Dionysius would prefer an accusative instead of the dative: Kai �1) TO TTAfj60s TWV TTOAE�iwv KaTaTTAayeVTES. Interest­ ingly, he explains hi� objection to the construction of KaTaTTAayeVTES by comparing the usage of the verb <po�Ei0"6a\ ('to fear') , which nor­ mally takes the accusative and not the dative. Thi� i� a remarkable piece of syntactic analysi�, which we may compare with the Alexandrian pro­ cedure of analogy. DionysilL' argues that KaTaTTATtTTO�a\ takes the accusative and he tries to prove thi� by comparing this verb to another verb (<po�o(j�a\), which can be used with the same meaning. According to Dionysius, one would not say Tfj TTapa TWV 6EWV 6pyfj <po�Ei0"6al, but rather T1)V TWV 6EWV 6pyTtv (accusative) . It i� possible to draw a comparison between DionysilL" comments on thi� particular Thucydidean comtruction and the ideas of the syntac­ tician ApollonilL' Dyscolus. Of course, the difference between these two scholars should be taken into account: Dionysius' argument fonm part of the analysis of a given sentence from Thucydides, whereas the syntac­ tician Apollonius DyscollL� develops a theory of syntax independent from the literary context. Nevertheles.. , the two scholars use similar types of argument, in particular concerning the construction of the verb <po�Ei0"6a\ ('to fear'). According to Apollonius, thi� is one of those verbs that do not indicate an activity (evepyEla) but still require the accusative. He explains this con�truction by assuming an ellipsis of the preposition 51eX (which requires the accusative) in the construction of verbs like <po�o(j�a\, Tpe�w,
DionysilL' of Halicama.",us on Thucydides ' Syntax

47 1

Kai �veKa TOO TOIOVTOV hTiOTaO'eoo� a�la T il TOlaVTa, T"euoo O'e. fEVYoo O'E. 1J!"IO'O'oo O'E. TOVTOV 1J!0f>00ual, w� OIlSEIl\(l� OVTa �VE pye ia� �IlTaTIKIl Te peTal hr' alTlaTIK';V.

ApollonilL� Dyscolus, Syntax III 166, 413.5-7

I n this connection we mlL�t not overlook verbs of fe aring--Tp elloo O'E ('I frightened of you') , q>EVyoo O'E ('I run away from you') , TplO'O'oo O'E ('I am horrified of you') , TOVTOV To�oOllal ('I am afraid of bim')-because they govern the accusative even though there is no action [to pa.,,� over from subject to object] . (traml. Householder) am

Dionysius' analogy between KaTaTTA"TTOIlOI and CPO�OVIlOI (by which he intends to prove that the former verb requires an accusative, ju�t like the latter) i� paralleled by another pa��age in Apolloniu� Dyscolu�, where the grammarian argues that the verb Seollol takes the genitive because it signifies something sinlilar as Aei1Tollol with the genitive:S2 Ka\ SfiAOV OTI TO Seoual 0'00 Oil KaTll Tfi� TOlaVTT)� �wola� napaAall�VETal' TOIOOTO yap TI O'T)llaivE I ' Tfi� O'fi� �OT)ee ia� AelnOllal . Apollonius Dyscolus, Syntax III 1 67, 4 1 5 . 1 1-1 2 Obviously Seollal 0'00 ('I beg you', genitive) is not ba.�ed on the same un­ derlying meaning, but means, approximately, 'I am in want of your as.q,­ tance' (Tfi� O'fi� �oT)e e la� Mlnollal) . (tranu. Householder)

Both Dionysiu� and Apolloniu� Dyscolu� argue for a certain grammatical construction on the basi� of the meaning of the verb that i� to be con­ structed. The passages mentioned thus illu�trate the close connection that exists between ancient syntax and semantics. Ju�t like Aristarchu� before him, Dionysius establi�hes the correctrless of a construction on the basi� of semantic considerations. S3 Where the philologist and the rhetorician employ their syntactic arguments in the context of textual and literary criticism, Apollonius Dyscolu� will develop an autonomou� and systematic theory that explains the correctrless of grammatical con­ structions in general, irrespective of the style or literary context of a specific author.SoI

52 In Sylft. III 76, 340.2-1 0 Apollonius ha.� already argued that the synonymy (or rather the similar semantic value) of the active verbs Sei and heine. resuIlS in the same con'truction of the two verbs. Cf. LaIlot t 997, II 259 n. 406. 53 For Ari,tarchlL' already the meaning of words is a decisive factor in detennining the correctnes., of a syntactic co n'truction . See e.g. hi, views on the axi'illa npos TO v01)T6v (constructio ad sensum): AriswchlL' fro 82 Matthaios (= sm. n. 2.278a), with Matthaios t 999, 384. 54 On syntax and semantic., in Apollonius Dyscolus, see Sluiter t 990, 50-54.

472

5.4. Grammatical Agreement: TO KCX"TOMTlAOV When di�cussing Thucydides' use of ten.�es, Dionysius explicitly states that the hi�torian's style deviates from syntactic agreement: 'H 5e 7Tapa TOUS XPOVOVS TWV �TjllaTwv �K�E�TjKVia TO KCITaAADAov
Dionysius' discussion of Thucydides' use of ten.�es i� especially interest­ ing for the tenninology of TO KCXTOAATlAOV. Thi� tenn typically refers to the grammatical agreement between different words. 55 When the parts of speech are 'in agreement with each other' (KCXTOAATlAO) , the com­ plete con.�truction will be correct. We find thi� tenninology not only in Dionysius of Ha1icama.�sus, but aho in the Homeric scholia.S(' Specific words or phra.�es can be qualified as 'in agreement' (KCXTOAATlAOS) or 'lacking agreement' (OKCXTOAATlAOS), but Dionysius al�o knows the more general concept of 'consistency' or 'syntactic regularity': Thucydides' 55 Blank 1 9l12, 2B argues that KCITaAAflMTT)S (,correct construction') is the repre­ sentative of CtvaAoyla in ApollonilL" Syntax. 56 Blank 1 9B2, 55-57 discusses various examples from both the scholia and Dio­ nysius. It can be one word, a combination of word. or a complete sentence that is said to be KcrraAAflAos or CtKoTaAAflAos. The neuter adjective TO KcrraAAflAov can designate a proper 'relation in Iingui.tic accidence', more generally 'that which i. proper or allowed', or 'tbe sense [ . . .] or the intent of an utterance.' The tenn b3o' a Stoic background: according to D.L 7.59, the Stoics defined solecism a. Myos CtKaTaAA"Aoos cruvTETaYIlEvos.

Dionysiu. of Halicarn .....us on Thucydides' Syntax

473

style depart<; from TO KCrrc:XAATlAOV. Such observatiom imply that there i� a regular and grammatically correct expression underlying the syntacti­ cally incorrect version of Thucydides. We should note that there is still a difference between TO KCrTclAATlAOV, which plays a role in the rhetorical and philological analysis of literary texts, and the abstract concept of KCrTOMTJA6TT\S, which Apollonius Dyscolus places in the center of hi� theory of syntax: the latter term marks the tramition to the study of syntax in its own rightY Another term that will acquire an important status in Apollonius' Syntax i� 6:KOAov6Io, originally a Stoic term that designates logical order and comi�tency. 5. According to Dionysius, Thucydides' use of temes in the example cited above (2.39.4) is not regular (6:K6Aov6ov) , because TTEplylYVETOI indicates the present, whereas 'the future verb' e6eAoillEv (in fact a present potential optative in a conditional clause) indicates the future.5" The latter view may surprise modem students, but we should realize that ancient scholars like Aristarchus and Apollonius Dyscolus relate the optative mood to wi�hes, which they closely associate with the future.'"' A final example of bad syntax is di�cussed in the subsequent passage: [Th. 4 . 1 0.3] 'Tou Te yap xwplov TO 5vC1ell�CXTOV 1'!IlETepov vOIlI�w, 0 lleVOVTwv lleV 1'!IlWV C1IJllllaxOV y{VETal· lI1TOxwpTtC1aC11 5e Kahrep xaAe"TTOV OV el'l1Topov fC1Tal.' TO lleV yap yivETal TOU "TTapOVTOS �C1TI, TO 5e fC1Tal TOU lleMoVTOS Xpovov 5TjAWTIK6v. yeyovev 5e Kat "TTa pa TaS "TTTc.;,C1eIS (1)(1lIlCXTIC11l0S oKCXTaMnAos· �TT\ lleV yap TI)S yevlKiis "TTTc.;,C1EWS ��evTtVOXEV T6 Te IlETOXIKOV ovolla TO lleVOVTWV Ka\ OVTOVOllaC1TIKOV TO 1'!llwv, hr\ 5e TI)S 50TIKiis TO tI1TOXWpTtC1aC1IV· OiKEIOTEPOV 5' tjv Ka\ TOUTO KCXTa Tl')v avTl')v ��EV1JVexeal "TTT&C1IV. Dionysiu. ofHalicarnassus, Second Letter to Ammaeus 12 (432.3-13) 57 Sluiter 1 990, 50 point. out that 'K
474 'I consider the inaccessibility of the spot to be in our favour, but thi� helps only if we stand our ground: if we withdraw, the position, though diffi­ cult in illielf, will be easily occupied by the enemy.' Now yfyveTOI refers to the present, but EC'TOI indicates the future. There i� also an irregular construction with regard to the cases: for he has put the participle �ev6VTwv and the pronoun 1'i�wv in the genitive ca�e, but lIlTOxwpi}crac7\v in the dative; whereas the latter would more properly have been expressed in the same case as the two fonner. us

The second example of the variation of tenses (Th. 4 . 1 0.3) contain� two mi�takes. First, the verb Y{VETai (in the first part of the sentence) refers to the present, whereas eO"Tai (in the second part) points to the future. Second, there i� an incongruent construction (crX'1 I.lCXT1crI.lOS aKCXToAAllAOS) : Thucydides has expressed the participle I.lEv6vTWV and the pronoun -riI.lWV in the genitive ca�e, but ll1TOxwp"craO"l in the da­ tive. According to DionysilL�, it would be more appropriate to put ll1TOxwp"cracrl in the genitive as well. Indeed, some modern scholars think that the dative in Thucydides' text is corrupt: Hude prints a crux in hi� Thucydides edition, and Ros thinks that the form is only ex­ plained by Thucydides' preference for variation and di�continuity. f>1 It i� interesting that a scholion gives a paraphra�e of the pa�sage, in which ll1TOxwp"cracrl IS indeed changed into the genitive lrrroxwpllcroVTwV: lllTOxwpi}cracrl 5e [ .. .] : lllTOxwpncravTwv 5E, Kailrep 5vcrE�f3crro v OV, EVElTil3crro v yevi}creTOI ToiS l\aKE501�ovfOlS. Scholia on Thucydides 4 . 1 0.3 But when we have withdrawn, the position, though difficult in itself, will be easily crossed by the Lacedaemonians.

Again, it i� clear that DionysilL� and the scholia�t agree in their interpre­ tation of the syntactic construction. But wherea� the scholiast only para­ phrases the text in order to explain it, Dionysius label� the comtruction as incongruent, thereby making clear that hi� students should not imitate this style: in hi� view, both orators and historiographers should primarily aim at clarity (crmp"vEla) and purity of language, while avoiding thi� kind of grammatical irregularity.

61

Ros 1 968, 62: 'Nur die Vorliebe des Thuk[idides] fur Inkonzinnitat kann uns den Dat[iv] an dieser oft besprochenen Stelle einigemtallen erklarlich und an­ nehmbar machen.'

Dionysiu. of Halicarn .....u. on Thucydides' Syntax

475

6. Dionysius, Trypho and the History of Syntax Dionysius' analysis of Thucydides' syntax, with it� paralleL� in the scho­ lia, fonns an interesting chapter in the history of syntax before Apollo­ niu� Dyscolus. Analyzing many examples of granunatical irregularity, Dionysiu� reveaL� a clear interest in syntactic correctness. The differences between Dionysius and Apollonius should of course not be overlooked. The rhetorician analyzes the comtructions in a given text of a specific author, ju�t as Aristarchus had done in his commentaries on Homer and other authors. Similar syntactic observatiom may also have been part of a Hellenistic commentary on Thucydides (perhaps by Aristarchm him­ self) , which seems to have guided Dionysiu� and later scholars. Apollo­ niu� Dyscolus, on the other hand, disengages hinlself from the literary context and develops an independent theory of syntax, which aim� not only to describe but aL�o to explain the correctness or incorrectness of granunatical comtructiom in general. When we comider Dionysius' relevance for the history of syntax, it is useful to compare his work with that of the contemporary granunar­ ian Trypho, who was one of Apollonius Dyscolu�' most important predeces.�ors in technical grammar. Just like Dionysius, Trypho was ac­ tive in Rome in the Augu�tan period. (,}. He wrote numerous treatises, including works devoted to separate parts of speech (On Articles, On ConjulUtions, On Adverbs) . The references in Apolloniu� Dyscolu�' Syn­ tax indicate that Trypho was certainly interested in syntactic problem�, which he di�cmsed in the context of his word cla.�s theories. On the one hand, Trypho differs from philologists and rhetoriciam (like Aristarchm and Dionysius) because he separated granunatical phenomena from the literary context in which they were traditionally studied. (., On the other hand, he did not grant syntax the autonomou� status that it acquired in the work of Apollonius Dyscolm, became Trypho's syntactic observa­ tiom were still subordinated to his treatment of separate word cla.�ses. There i� no evidence that he wrote a special treati�e on syntax, as schol­ ars have claimed in the pa.�t."" However, as a technical grammarian, he 62 Both Trypho and Dionysius came to Rome in 30 Be. 63 Matthaios 2003, 1 27: 'Tryphon hat aber offensichtlich einen hoheren Abstrak­ tions- nnd Systematisierungsgrad als die alexandrinischen Philologen erreicht, indem er seine Di.ku...ion au. dem durch die Untersuchung der literari.chen Sprache bedingten Kontext heramlOste und sie in eine theoreti..che Ref1exion iiber Sprache allgemein einbaute.' 64 Barwick 1 957. 26 believed that Trypho wrote a work nEpl O\JVT6:�c.>s, but Matthaios 2003 convincingly demon.trates that the fragments of T rypho do not support this claim: in tact, Apollonius Dyscolm makes clear that the syntactic

476

played an important role in the transmission and development of gram­ matical ideas between the Alexandrian philologists and the syntactician Apollonim Dyscolus. Unfortunately, we possess only a few fragment� in which Trypho has something to say on the syntax of the parts of speech, so that it is difficult for us to gain a complete notion of his tenninology.65 It is in this respect that Dionysius' work is especially helpful and informative. Since we have only fragments from Trypho (and other grammarians of this period) , the Second Letter to Ammaeus fonTIS important evidence for the di�course in which syntactic problem� were discussed in the Augus­ tan age. A� we have seen, Dionysiu� employs two technical term� that will later be of crucial importance in Apolloniu�' Syntax: OKoAov61a ('regular order') and TO KcrrOAA11Aov ('grammatical agreementV'" Dio­ nysius' letter is thus an indispensable document for our knowledge of syntactic tenninology in the second half of the first century Be. What eL�e does our examination of Dionysim and the scholia add to our knowledge of the history of ancient syntax? In the development of syntactic theory, various ancient language disciplines played their parts. Traditionally, scholars point especially to philosophy and philology, 'the two sources' of technical granunar.67 We should now add rhetoric as a third relevant discipline for the history of syntax. The contribution of rhetoric should be seen in the same light as that of philology. It was in the context of the detailed criticism of given literary texts (be it by Homer, Thucydides or other classical authors) that the analysis of diffi­ cult granunatical constructions took place in the first instance. Philolo­ gists like Aristarchus and rhetoricians like Dionysiu� developed an inter­ est in the grammatical correctness of the texts that they studied, and they

observation. of Trypho that he mention. were part of his works on specific part. of speech. 65 See the di.cussion of the relevant fragments in Matthaios 2003. 66 Of these tenns, only CxKoAov6fa is found in the extant fragments of Trypho, nanlely in fro 33 von Vel.en. However, in thi. pa..sage (Apollonius Dyscolus, Syntax I I 1 33, 230. 1 8) , Uhlig righdy accepts Schneider's emendation CxIl
Dionysiu. of Halicarn .....u. on Thucydides' Syntax

477

generated or refined the tenninology that enabled them to describe the correctness of a given con�truction. The activities of the philologists primarily aimed at establishing the correct text of the author disclL�sed and at explaining its diffi culties. Rhetorician� on the other hand concentrated on the practical use of a classical text as a model for the production of new texts. Although the focus of philologists and rhetorician� was thus slighdy different, it is not possible or desirable to separate these disciplines entirely (we should note that the Alexandrian scholars, too, regarded their ancient texts as modeL� for new literary works) . Dionysius' discussion of Thucydides' syntax illustrates that the work of philologist� and rhetoricians is extremely interrelated, and in some respects it might be more sen�ible to treat both groups as one category of 'scholars'. (011 From their different perspectives, Aristarchus and Dionysius drew similar concllL�iom about the langwge, syntax and style of specific authors. And, as a by-product of their careful and detailed analysis of exemplary texts, these scholars also contributed to the understanding of grammatical phenomena, and thus prepared the way for the emancipation of syntax theory in its own right.

7. Conclusion The parallels between Dionysius' Second Letter to Ammaeus and the Thu­ cydides scholia show us how important it is to recognize the strong connection� between grammar, philology and rhetorical analysi�. As a rhetorician, Dionysim knew and lL�ed the theories from many disci­ plines, including philosophy, music theory, poetic critici�m and philol­ ogy. For the illustration� of his critici�m of Thucydides he used the grammatical notes of earlier philologists, which he may have found in an Alexandrian commentary. Conversely, Dionysim' works were available to later philologists, who an�wered hi� views on Thucydides' subject matter (P. Oxy. 6. 853) . It i� possible, as we have seen, that the surviving Thucydides scholia are not independent of Dionysius' Second Letter to Ammaeus: later scholiasts seem to have known the rhetorician's works, just as he had employed the notes of their predecessors. Both DionysilL� and the scholia point to grammatical particularities in Thucydides' style, but they do so for different purposes. The scholia explain difficult passages in order to make them understandable, but for 68 It is regrettable that rhetoricians are usually ignored in modern treannents of 'ancient scholarship': for example, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demetrius, Lon gi nu. are not mentioned in Dickey 2007.

47H

DionysilL� these passages support hi� view that Thucydides' style i� un­ suitable for imitation by either historians or orators. Hi� ana1ysi� of the hi�torian's syntax was an important argument for hi� position in the first century BC debate on Thucydides as a model. In a period during which so-called 'Thucydideans' had presented them�elves as imitators of the Greek historian, DionysilL� chose to emphasize the dangers of Thucy­ dides' style, became it does not always preserve the inIportant quality of clarity. While Cicero had argued that Thucydides could be a model for the writing of history only, Dionysius claim� that even for that purpose the Greek historian's style should not be imitated. It remains doubtful that Dionysius really convinced hi� friend and colleague Quintus Aelius Tubero, who seem� to have regarded Thucydides as a lL�eful and inspir­ ing guide. 'The men who can understand the whole of Thucydides can easily be counted, and even these cannot understand certain passages without a linguistic explanation. ' Dionysius' fanlom remark proves to be instruc­ tive for more than one reason: not only does this observation remind us of the fact that even an ancient Greek rhetorician found the historian's syntax at times rather difficult, but alm--and more importandy-it opens fascinating perspectives on the strong and complex connections between ancient philology and technical granunar, rhetorical theory and literary criticism.

Imposition of Names in Ancient Grammar and Philosophy Ann eli Luhtala

1. Introduction

The imposition of names was, it appear.;, a topic that belonged to the domain of philosophy rather than granunar in Antiquity. Thi� topic puzzled philosophers from Plato through to hi� Late Antique conunen­ tators, but [ am not aware that this problem was disclL�sed in detail in any grammar that is preserved to lL� from Antiquity, apart from Varro's De lingua latina. Etymological method continued to be lL�ed fairly regu­ larly in granunars, but its use was almost exclusively restricted to the definitions of the parts of speech and grammatical terms. In the absence of a theoretical discussion, it is not immediately obvious what position the grammarian.� took in the debate set out as signification by nature and by convention. In this paper I will show that in Apollonius Dyscolus' grammatical works the imposition of names (6e(JlS 6VOl-lcXTWV) involved a more complex set of question.� concerning the relationship between language and reality than the mere correctness of the names. It primarily concerns the assign.ment of ontological categories to things in the external world. ApollonilL�' framework of description depend� heavily on Stoic logic, in which the parts of speech were explicitly related to ontological catego­ ries; in earlier philosophical contexts, the relationship between linguistic and ontological categories had been only implicit. ThlL�, there were, as a matter of tact, two ways in which language wa.� related to reality by ancient philosophical schook The first of these discussions wa.� initiated in Plato's Cratylus, when the parts of speech system had not yet evolved, and the linguistic di�cussion focused almost exclmively on nouns. The second di�cussion originated in the Sophist, where two different parts of speech were recognized, the noun and the verb, which were implicitly related to ontological categories. The noun and the verb came to be regarded as the parts of speech that were relevant for the philosophers' propositional analysis.

480

Anneli Luhtala

When language study became the province of philologists and gram­ marians, the number of parts of speech gradually increased, adding up to eight, nine or even eleven during the first centuries Be and AD . Then the philosophers rai�ed the question, of whether all of them were enti­ tled to be called 'parts of speech'. Apolloniu� Dyscolu� seem.� to have provided the most salient an�wer to this question by recognizing the noun and the verb a� the principal parts of speech, and by providing a raison d'2tre for all the (eight) parts of speech. Here the term 'imposition' as.�umes the meaning 'imposition of the parts of speech' alongside the traditional 'imposition of names' to things.

2. From Etymologies to the Parts of Speech System

2.1. Plato: the Cratylus and the Sophist I will start by giving a brief survey of the two ways in which language wa� related to reality in ancient philosophy. The first con�i.�ts of the study of etymologies---a topic discussed exten�ively in Plato's Cratylus. Thi.� dialogue focu�es on the ability of individual word� to convey reli­ able knowledge about reality, and the question often takes the form, of whether word� are capable of separating being. In this dialogue, the question� of meaning and truth were inextricably linked to each other, and the difference between being meaningful and being true was not yet gra�ped; thi.� i.� the achievement of a later dialogue, the Sophist, which marks the beginning of dialectic. Here it i.� established that truth and falsehood are a property of a statement, which consists of two parts of speech, a noun and a verb, e.g. 'Man learn�'.l Hence a shift takes place in the development of lingui.�tic analysi.�, from individual words and their names to different parts of speech and their function� in a sentence. In the Cratylus, no di.�tinction is drawn between variou� parts of speech, and etymological analysis involves mainly proper and common noun� as well a� adjectives.2 A theory of the first or primary words is put forward, which are no longer analyzable into their con�tituent parts. Only these words are said to be representation� of things (422a-c, 433d) , and they convey the natures of things by imitation. A name i.� defined a� 'a vocal imitation of what it imitates; and that someone who imitates something with hi.� voice names what he imitates' (423b) . All other 1 2

Denyer 1 99 1 , 1 28, 1 48-1 82; Bonche 1 991 , 1 55. Barney 2001 , 5 notes the presence of vems in the infinitive fonn (41 4aR-bl), and participles (421c5).

Imposition of Names in Ancient Granunar and Philosophy

481

word� are composed of them, and the correctness of all names, whether primary or derivative, consists of displaying the nature of the thing it names (422d, 428e) .3 These are the es.�ential ingredients of the theory of meaning ba�ed on nature. The linguistic discus.�ion of the Sophist involves two different part� of speech (or linguistic functions), names and verbs, which are said to be two kind� of vocal sound� expressing being (oval a, Sophist 261 d-262a) . The part� of speech are now described semantically rather than etymol­ ogically: the verb is a vocal form which signifies actions and the name signifies those who perform the actions (261 d-262a) .4 Moreover, the parts of speech are now understood as parts of a statement, a minimal expression, which can be true or false. Plato calls these parts of speech the 'first' or 'primary' (npwTal). The di�cussion on the parts of speech of the Sophist is implicitly re­ lated to ontological categories. The linguistic section 261 d-262a is pre­ ceded by a long di�cus.�ion on ontological categories, known a� 'the five genera of being' ,5 and the two discu.�sion� are obviously related to each other. Although a clear correspondence cannot be confirmed between the two topics in the Sophist, the presence of linguistic and ontological discu.�sion in the same text is hardly accidental. The same tacit parallel­ i�m is also present in Aristotle's early works, which were heavily influ­ enced by the themes of the Sophist, namely the Categories and the Peri hermeneias.('

2.2. Aristode: the Categories and the Peri Hermeneias In the Categories, Aristotle puts forward an ontological theory that is thought to be related to the theory of the 'five genera' of the Sophist. The ten categories, according to Aristotle, are a cla�sification of things (TO: oVTa) said 'without combination', and include substance, quantity, 3 4

5 6

The correcmes., of every name wa' intended to con.�st in its expres.�ng the nature of one of the things that are (422c-d). The temu avol1a and P;;l1a are ambiguous between word cla.'I.,es and predica­ tionaJ functions until the Stoics differentiated the tenninology, avol1a and P;;l1a being word cia'l.'l.es (and corporeal item.,), and 'ca,e' and 'predicate' being functions (and incorporeal MKTa) . For the sake of convenience, I will u'e the teon, 'name' and 'verb' here, because the P;;l1a i, defined a' signifying action; in the Peri hermmeias, I will ttanslate P;;l1a as predicate, as it i, defined a., that which i, said of something el,e. This ontological theory did not influence later semantic di,cus.,ions and will therefore be ignored here. Kneale-Kneale t 962, 45, 76; Pinborg t 975. 76.

4H2

Anneli Luhtala

quality, relation, place, time, situation, state, action, and being-acted­ upon. Overlaps with lingui�tic categories are obvious, and commenta­ tors from late Antiquity onward� have wondered whether Aristode wa� classifying words or things.7 The contents of this treatise remains am­ biguou�, and 'the true resolution of the ambiguity seems to be given by Porphyry when he states that, a� things are, so are the expressions which primarily express them' ." In the first four chapters of the Peri hemreneias Aristode sets out a simple theory of meaning, which was enormously influential on later semantic diKussions. This theory recognizes three items: (1) things in the real world, (2) thought� or affections in the human soul and (3) word�, which are symbols of the affections in the soul. According to this semantic triad, the affections in the soul are likenesses of things, whereas word� are symbols of the affection.�. The introduction of the term crvll�oAoV into this di�cussion i� important, since word� are no longer regarded a� images or likenesses of anything. The lingui�tic discussion at the beginning of the Peri henneneias in­ volves two parts of speech (or two predicational functions), the name and the predicate, which can form a minimal statement or a proposition. Both are defined as 'spoken sounds significant by convention' (1 6a1 9) and the predicate is said to be that which con-signifies time and i� always a sign of what i� said of something else. Here a clear di�tinction is drawn between the ways in which the name and the predicate signify: the predicate says something about the referent of the name. In these definition.� we are not told what each part of speech signi­ fies, but this does not mean that semantics is ignored altogether. In the Categories, it is claimed that every simple expres.�ion signifies either a substance or quality or one of the other categories (Cat. 4.1 b25-2a4) . Thus, it would seem to follow that the combined expression.� discussed 7

8

'Although it (the Categories) has been extremely influential, it is very difficult to interpret with any confidence. On the face of it, it is a classification of types of predicate (kategorial) . [ ... ] Two major ambiguities are especially noteworthy. In the first place it is Wlclear whether Aristotle is cla.�sifying symbols or what they symbolize, word., or, in a very wide seme, things. Thi� is a questi on which has exercised commentators since ancient tim es . Secondly , it is not clear whether Ari..totle is concerned with predicates only or with ternlS in gen eral, including subj ects [ . . . ] Aristotle wa� ahllost certainly wuware of the ambi gui ty that puz­ zles hi. conunentators. [ . . . ] It: however, he Iud been able to ask th e question, Ari..totle would ahllost certainly have amwered tl:tat h e wa.. dealing with things and not with word•. ' (Kneale-Kneale 1 962, 23, 25) . See Kneale-Kneale 1 962, 27. According to the conclmion of Kneale/Kneale, ibid., 'Aristotle is classifying types of being (ta onta) , but he mes the linguistic expressi ons a. a clue to the differences between types of b eing' .

Imposition of Names in Ancient Granunar and Philosophy

483

in the Peri hermeneias also signify the Categories; these two texts are re­ lated to each other and are meant to be studied together. The tacit par­ allelism between the ontological and linguistic categories implied in the Sophist continues in the Categories and Peri hermeneias, and permits us to conclude that Aristotle did not dismi'i.� language as a tool for separating being.9 It is generally thought that because Aristotle adhered to the conven­ tionali�t position, he regarded the relationship between language and reality to be wholly arbitrary. Thi� reading results from the failure to study the Peri hermeneias together with the Categories. Ari.�totle certainly dismissed at least the strongest version of the naturalist thesis, according to which all word� are based on the first word�, which imitate the nature of things; however, there is hardly any rea�on to think that Ari.�totle would have ignored the existence of a certain number of onomatopoetic word� in the Greek language. Moreover, he occasionally resorted to the etymological method in this own worb.11t What was only implicit in the worb of Plato and Ari.�totle was made explicit in Stoic logic, where the nominal parts of speech are di­ rectly related to ontological categories. The Stoics defined proper and common nouns as signifying substance and quality, and the pronoun as signifying pure substance (D.L. 7.58) . Substance and quality are the first two of the four Stoic categories; quality wa� further divided into com­ mon and peculiar.l l

3. The Philosophers' versus Grammarians' Parts of Speech The status of the grammarian� ' eight parts of speech a� opposed to the philosophers' two part� wa� discussed in several philosophical and grammati cal worb, starting with the Middle Platonist Plutarch (46-1 20 AD) . Inspired by the Sophist, he raised the question of why Plato should have recognized only two parts of speech, the noun and the verb, and dismissed all other parts of speech, if Homer had included them all in a 9 I do not have a clear idea what Ari�tode mean� by saying 'not a.� an instru­ ment'. According to Sluiter, 1 997, 1 92, ' ( Crat. 388b12) lurks in the back­ ground, and its tenets are rejected quite apodictica11y . The rea.�n why "being significant as an instrument" is opposed to "being significant by convention" appears to be that the "in.�trument theory" stem.� from that part of the Crarylus where Socrate.� convinces Hermogenes, that Cratylus i� at lea.�t partia1Iy right'. 10 Sedley 2003, 37 and n. 20. 1 1 For the Stoic categorie.�, see Long-Sedley 1 987, I 1 66-176 and II 1 69-1 78; for the Stoic definitions of the parts of speech, see Luhtala 2000, 78-85.

484

Anneli Luhtala

single verse (Quaest. Plat. 1 009c) . He drew a di�tinction between two kind� of word�, (1) those which foml significant expressions with one another, namely nouns and verbs, and (2) those which signify nothing either by them�elves nor in association with one another. Such are con­ junction�, articles and prepositions. He defend� the view that only the noun and the verb are parts of speech, because they can signify and fOml a proposition without the other parts. According to him, the other parts of speech do contribute to speech, but in a different way, just a� salt contributes to a dish of food and water to a barley-cake (1010c) .12 A different metaphor is lL�ed by Ps.-ApuleilL�, who compares the two kind� of word� with the structure of a ship, where not all parts are of equal importance. He claims that 'adverbs, pronoun�, participles, conjunctions and other such things which granIillarian� li�t are no more parts of speech than ornanlented curved stems are parts of ships and hair of men; or at lea�t they are fit to be classed in the general structure of speech like naih, pitch and glue' (tran�l. Londey-Johan�on 1 987, 85) . 1 3 The earliest surviving answer to this question by a granIillari an i� the one given by Apolloruus Dyscolus, who established the noun and the verb as the principal parts, and related the meanings of all the other part.� to these two. His position is reflected both in Pri�cian's work and the Smolia on Dionysius Thrax' Tekhne. I will now proceed to analyze it in detail in order to show in which way hi� parts of speech system wa� thought of a� being based on nature.

4. Apollonius on the Ordering of the Parts of Speech The most relevant context, in which Apolloruus reflect� upon thi� is.m e, is the order of the part.� of speech, which is, he says, based on nature.14 It 12 In accordance with the Sophist, he maintain.. that the noun and the verb were first invented in order to signify agents and patients as well as action and under­ going action (1 009d). 13 The same metaphor i.. u.ed by Pri..dan and Ammonius. For the development of this theme in ancient granllllar and philosophy, see Luhtala 2005, 1 29-1 37. 1 4 There i.. aI.o a discussion which is explicitly related to the debate with the philosophers concerning the pans of speech, preserved by the Scholia..rs on Dionysiu. Thrax' Tekhne (5 1 5 . 1 9-52 1 .37), and attributed to Apolloni.an by Schneider (G. G. II 3, 3 1 .23-25): 'Quare non dubito totam illam egregiam dis­ putationem, quae in scholiis Londinen..ibus ad Dion. Thr. 5 1 5, 1 9-521 ,37 Hilg. servata est, ut deswnptam ex Apollonii de merismo libra, tanscribere'. Since the philosophical doctrine in this di..cllSsion i.. largely Platoni..t rather than Stoic (plato and Aristotle being mentioned by name), I have argued that thi.. passage

Imposition of Names in Ancient Granunar and Philosophy

485

is part of a wider di�cus.�ion that illustrates hi� view of the orderliness of grammar' s subject matter. 1S The order of the parts of speech is, accord­ ing to him, comparable to the ordering of the letters in the alphabet, that of the ca�es of the noun and that of the ten�es of the verb, because all these orderings are determined by nature. It is important for the grammarian to justify such orderings, he points out, since some gram­ marian� have argued that such matters have been arranged arbitrarily. If there is order in some i...�ues, it must be granted in all is.mes, he con­ cludes (Synt. I 13, 1 5 .6f) . In thi� context Apollonius' use of the term imposition (6eaIS) is ambiguou.�, referring simultaneously to the place­ ment of the parts of speech in their ordering and to the imposition of the parts of speech or their names, and the question ari�es whether they amount to the same thing. Apollonius starts by rdating the order of the parts of speech to the minimal statement, which con�i�ts of a noun and a verb, just like the philosopher's logical proposition. This i� because the ordering of the parts of speech is, according to Apollonius, an imitation of a sentence (I 1 4, 1 6 . 1 2f) . They are the primary parts of speech, to which the order­ ing and the meanings of all the other parts are related. Apollonius com­ pares the difference between the primary and the others parts with the distinction between voweb and con�onants a� follows: the principal parts of speech are like voweL� which are complete even in i�olation wherea� the others parts require the presence of the principal parts just a� con�o­ nants require the presence of voweL�. The non-principal parts of speech include prepositions, articles and conjunctions, which are said to co­ signify with the principal parts (I 1 2, 1 3 . 1 f) . Apollonius proceeds t o posit a mutual order for the noun an d the verb, claiming that the noun necessarily precedes the verb because dis­ posing (SIa"T16eval) and being di�posed (SlaTI6ea6al) are properties of bodies and name-giving pertains to bodies, on which depend� the prop­ erty of the verb, namdy action and the undergoing of action (I 16, 1 8. 5-8). This pa�sage is remarkable in at lea�t two respects: £irsdy, it as.�ociates name-giving with bodies, which reflects, a� far a� I can see, the tenets of Stoic materialism. 1(, Secondly, the noun names the objects and L\ not genuinely Apollonian, but conWn.\ reworking by later commentators (Luhtala 2003, 21 8-222). Priscian discu\Sed this topic in this treati.\e on the par­ ticiple (G.L. II 55 1 . 1 8-552 . 1 7) . 1 5 Blank 1 982, 1 1 -19. 1 6 In the corre.\ponding pa'i.'I3ge Priscian ha.\ replaced bodies with substance (Inst. gramm. 17. 14, G.L. III 1 1 6.25-27), which probably reflecu influence from contemporary Platonism, which had incorporated the Ari.\totelian categories into iu framework. See Luhtala 2005, 85�7.

the verb signifies something that pertains to these object�; thus, the verb has no referent of its own. This description suggests that the noun and the verb signifY differendy, a� they do in the philosopher's propositional analysis a� well. The meaning of the verb is to dispose (!5\(rn6evOI) and to be disposed (!51crd6ea601); these verbs in all likelihood reflect the Stoic idea that the leading part of the soul is in a certain disposition (!51Cx6eaIS), when a person acts or is acted upon.1 7 According to Apollonius, the imposition of names (positio nominum) involves bodies. He moreover defined the noun as assigning a common or peculiar quality to bodies (or things) ; this definition i� preserved by Priscian and the Scholiasts . 1 H Hence the imposition o f names o r nouns amount� to a�signing ontological categories to external objects, whereby they are named and identified. The verb signifies action and the under­ going of action which is the crucial property of bodies. According to Stoic physics, only bodies properly exist and bodies are defined in tenm of their being capable of acting and undergoing action. 1 ') Thus, the prin­ cipal parts of speech, the noun and the verb, are ba�ed on nature, in that they are related to the physical world, described by Apollonius in tenm of Stoic physics. No etymological justifications for their names are pro­ vided in arguing for the nature and the order of the noun and the verb?' Their mutual ordering is based on logical considerations; action and the undergoing of action cannot exist without the prior existence of bodies. Moreover, they are capable of fonning a complete statement on 17 The Greek technical tenn /5Hx6e<JIS of the verb, covering the active-pa.�sive distinction, retains its physical and psychological connotations nnlike its Latin eqnivalent, genus verbi. Priscian uses tins term, which wa.� standard practice among the Latin grammari aJL<, hut he also gives the Latin equivalent '!!feetus for the Greek /5Hx6ealS: Sig"ificatio vel genus, quod Graea affictum vocallt verbi, ill actu est proprie, ul dictum est; vel ill passio,w (GL. II 373.1 0-- 1 2). See Luhtala 2000, 1 68-173. 1 8 Pri
Imposition of Names in Ancient Granunar and Philosophy

487

their own-a description which i� based on one of the definitions of the proposition in Stoic logic. 21 The above di�cussion suggests that the noun and the verb were in­ vented for the sake of their syntactical roles, as constituents of a minimal statement. Thi� implies that their invention involved at least some granunatical features; the noun and the verb must be in the third person and the noun in the nominative case. 22 The syntactical orientation of Apollonius' argument al�o becomes evident in the placement of the pronoun. ApollonilL� goes on to argue that a complete statement can also consi�t of a verb and pronoun, and more precisely, a pronoun in the first or second person, e.g. 'I walk', 'you walk'. He further rai�es the question as to why the pronoun should not follow the noun in the order of the parts of speech, even if the pronoun can replace the noun (in a sentence) .2] Apollonius explains that the pronoun wa� invented for the sake of the verb and therefore the pronoun must necessarily come after the verb. Nouns are always in the third person, whereas verbs exhibit three different persons, he explains, and pronouns were invented in three persons in order to complete the construction of the verb. More­ over, when they are overtly expressed, they are emphatic; in an un­ marked ca�e, the first and second person pronouns are understood in the verb (Synt. I 1 5, 1 7 . 1 5-1 8.4) . This view of the raison d'hre of the pronoun is peculiar to Apollo­ nius and was adopted only by Priscian among the Latin grammarians, who generally define the pronoun a� that which can replace the noun. They regularly support this view with an etymological analysis of its name.24 ApollonilL� fail� to resort to etymological justification when arguing for the raison d'hre and the ordering of the pronoun and this is clearly because he did not think that the pronoun wa� invented in order to substitute for the noun. 2.� It was invented because of the three person� of the verb, as ha� been explained above. In what sense then is the pronoun ba�ed on nature? The word na­ ture is not mentioned in Apollonius' discussion at all , nor i� the term 21 'A judgment is [ . ] a thing complete in itself (1TpaYlia a\n-OTEAES)', D.L. 7.65. 22 Priscian makes it explicit that the first imposition of nantes takes place in the tlll rd person: ipsa positio prima nominum not! ad aliquem sed de aliqllo habet locu­ tionem (G.L. II 585.21-22) . 23 This wa' the nonnal ordering of the parts of speech in Latin grammar before Priscian: the pronoun comes after the noun and i.< followed by the verb. 24 E.g. Pompeim in G.L. V 1 99.2 1 : Pronomen dictum est, quoniam .fUngitur oJfido nominis. 25 However, Apollonim mentions thi.< property of the pronoun in his definition of the pronoun (Protl. 9. 1 1 -1 3). .

.

488

Anneli Luhtala

imposition; he merely talks about the invention of the pronoun and its placement in the ordering. Thu.�, neither Apollonius nor Pri.�cian makes it explicit, but the following interpretation� suggest them�elves. There is nothing in the physical world, consisting of bodies, that necessitates the invention of pronoun, since the noun names and identifies the bodies, and the verb says what they are doing and what is happening to them. However, it can be inferred that the bodies involved in action and the undergoing of action are generally human beings, and pronouns are needed in their speech acts, which involve the first and the second per­ son�. Moreover, the prior invention of the verb in three persons necessi­ tated the invention of the pronouns. Thu.�, the pronoun i� needed in order that a speech act can take place between two human beings; na­ ture now has to do with human speech. A� to the status of the pronoun in terms of its imposition, nothing emerges from the present context. However, Apollonius distinguishes between two statuses of the pronoun in his treatise on the pronoun, primitive (1TpOOT6TV1T01, primitiva) and derived (1Topayooyol, derivativa) .2Ii I interpret these term� so that the primitive pronouns have come into existence by an imposition and the others through derivation.27 The participle is ordered immediately after the principal parts be­ cause it owes its properties to both the noun and the verb, which is borne out by its name. It is derived, Apolloniu.� argues, from the verb because verbs show no ca�e inflection, and canno t be joined to other verbs without a conjunction, (that is, within one and the same sen­ tence), and therefore, the participle was invented to serve a� the noun of the verb, so to speak (Synt. I 2 1 , 23.8(). It is noteworthy that the ety­ mological argument is now used for the first time: the participle is duly placed after the verb, from which it originates, as i� shown by its name. Moreover, the participle derives from the verb, and has no intrinsic meaning of its own. According to Pri.� cian, its derivation from the verb is by nature. 2M

26 Cf. Pri.\Cian in G.L II 577.6-9: Species prolWminum bipertita est, alia enim sunt primitiva, alia derivativa. Primitiva: ego, mei, tu, tui, sui; derivativa: meus tuus suus. Et primae quidem personae primitivum est ego et rel;qui casus sequentes. 27 Apolloniu� u�es the term 8EI-\a'T1KO{ when talking about the primitive pro­ nouns. This correspond�, I think, Pri.�cian's positivae. I do not know why Bran­ denburg 2005, 221 should have translated Apolloniu�' n fl(o)T6TV'TT O I 'irregular' ('unregehna.�\ig') (Brandenburg 2005, 221). 28 Participium est igitur pars orationis, quae pro verbo aaipitur, ex quo et derivatur lIlHlI.M: liter, genus et casum habens ad similitudinem IWminis' (G.L. II 552. 1 8-20). Unfor­ tunately, Apollonius' treati�e on the participle ha� not been preserved to us. •

Imposition of Names in Ancient Granunar and Philosophy

489

It would seem fair to assume that since the participle was invented by derivation, its invention did not take place by an imposition, and this is, in fact, what we learn from Priscian. When explaining why the Stoics did not establish the participle as a distinct part of speech, Priscian point� out that it is the only part which is always derived and has no imposition of it� own (in primitivis et in sua positione), whereas the other parts of speech were invented by a first imposition?' Yet the participle has un­ dergone an imposition of some kind. Apollonim argues that through its imposition the participle received its name, which is in accordance with its origin in the verb and the noun; it derives its meaning and tense from the verb, and case and gender from the noun (Synt. 1 22, 1-10) . Its or­ dering after the verb and noun is in accordance with the imposition of its name (6Ecns TOO 6v6IJCXTOS) . Now a shift takes place in the meaning of imposition. Neither Apollonius nor Priscian talk: about the imposition of the participle (positio participil) but rather about the imposition of it� name (positio nominationis, i.e. participil) .3<1 Now the question arises by which process the participle received it� properties from the noun, i.e. ca�e and gender, by its derivation from the verb or by the imposition of its name. Neither grammarian provides an answer to this question. In his book dedicated to the participle Priscian argues that all the non-principal parts of speech receive their names from their affi nity with the principal parts of speech rather than from some intrinsic meaning of their own. He goes on to quote the etymological definitions of all the non-principal parts. 31 At thi� point Priscian al�o reveal� that the parts of speech, or at lea�t some of them, have been named by the grammarians' 29 'Ideo autem partidpium separatim non tradebatJt [sc. Stoia] partem orationis, quod nulla alia pars orationis semper in derivatione est nu/lam propriam positionem habetlS, nisi par­ tidpium. Ceterae enim partes primo in positiotlf inventae sunt, ad quam etiam derivativa aptantur (GL. II 549.3-6). My interpretation is based on Lipsiu..' emendation: prima in positione. ' Quantum ergo ad hoc, id est quod in primitivis et in sua positione non inveniu"tur partiapia, videntur stoici bmeJeasse' (GL. II 549. 1 9-21). 30 C( Pri.-cian in G L. II 1 1 9. 1 2-21 : manifestum autem, quod ipsius qlloque positio nominationis, (thesis tOil onomatos) qua partidpium nominatum est, non bene servaretur, nisi post nome" et verbum poneretur partiapium, cum ex eis utrisque per conjirmationem pendens ea pars acapiebatur, quomodo post masculinum et Jeminitlum eorum abnegati­ vum neutrum. 31 'Nec solum partidpium non ab aliqua propria vi, sed ab '!IJinitate nominis et verbi nomi­ natum est, sed aliae quoque quinque partes orationis no" a Slla vi, sed ab adiunctione, qllam habent ad nomen veri verb11m, vocabulum accepenmt: pronomen enim didtur, quod pro nomine ponitur, et adverbium, quod verba adiungitur, et praepositio, quae tam nomini quam verbo praeponitur, et cotliunctio, quae coniungit ea, et intmectio, quae his interiacel. Utlde est diandum, quod, si nOtl sit nomen et verbum, nee alia pars orationis constare poterit' (GL II 551 . 1 0-- 1 8) .

conscious act. Since the participle has received some of its properties from the noun and others from the verb, it i� so to speak between the noun and the verb. Therefore, the grammari ans have rationally (ration­ abiliter) given the name 'participle' to thi� part of speech.32 Here the grammarian acts as the agent of the rationalist grammar. The article i� placed after the noun and the participle because it is joined to them both; however, it cannot be joined to pronouns, which are thus placed after the article (Synt. I 23, 24. 1 1-25.2) . Then comes the pronoun for the aforementioned rea�ons (I 24, 25.4£), given by Apollo­ nius. Apolloniu� goes on to argue that the preposition ha� not undergone a first inlposition, nor does it derive its name from any characteri�tic meaning of its own. Its name, 'placed in front of', i� ba�ed on the syn­ tactic position of the preposition in front of the noun and the participle. Moreover, its existence i� not prior to the other parts, to which it is attached; on the contrary, their existence is prior: if they did not exist, the preposition could not exist. Thus, the preposition takes its name from its syntactic position as preceding the declinable parts, but accord­ ing to nature it comes after them (Synt. I 26, 26. 1 0-27. 5) .33 Nature re­ quires the placing of the preposition in the sixth position among the parts; here, too, it is in all likelihood the rationalist grammarian that acts on behalf of Nature. In hi� treatise on the adverb, Pri�cian argues that the prepositions are always positivae rather than derived.34 This would seem to imply that, although the preposition did not undergo a first imposition, it nevertheless did undergo an imposition of some sort. When arguing for the placing of the adverb, Apollonius again resorts to the etymological argument: its name, hrlpPTll.la, suggests that it i� joined to verbs. A� the nanle of the adverb moreover reveals that it i� the adjective of the verb, Apollonius proceed� to posit an analogy with 32 '11<1que cum et verbi quaedam sua prohibent hoc esse nomen, id est tempora et significa­ tiones, et nominis propria prohibent esse verbum, id est genera et casus--quaecumque enim pars orationis habet genera apud Graecos vel Utinos, habet et casus, et quae­ cumque habet casus, habet et genna, exceptis pauas indedinabiUbus, mansit patticipium medium inter nomen et verbum . •mde rationabiliter hoc nomen est ei a grammaticis indi­ tum per mtifirmationnn duarnm partium orationis principaUum' ( G. L. II 551 .4-1 8) . 3 3 C ( Priscian in G. L. I I I 1 20. 16-121 .2: Apparet autem etiam, quod praepositio non primam habens positionem neque antiquiorem aliis dictionibus post supra dicUis ponitur, unde neque nominationem a propria aliqua significatione aceepit, sed quia supra dictis praeponitur partibus, quae si non ante sint, neque ea mnstare possi�uod etiam de par­ ticipio diximus-, c"x quib.lS etiam ordinatiotlC"m ar:cepit [. . . J ergo natura qllidC"m posterior est, mnstructione vero principalis. 34 'Bt adverbia qllidnn derivativa possunt ese, praepositiones vero positivae sunt omnes, si sequimur Graecornm auctoritatem' (G.L. III 25.27-28).

Imposition of Names in Ancient Granunar and Philosophy

491

the adjective or epithet. The rdation between the adjective and the noun i� similar to that between the verb and the adverb, he claim� (Synt. 1 27, 27.6-9) . The placement of the adverb after the preposition follows from the fact that the verb comes after the noun; hence, that which is joined to verbs (i.e., the adverb) comes after that which is joined to noum (i.e., the preposition) . A.� to the status of the adverb, it i� either derived or originates in iuelf; the latter kind of adverbs are called 1TpOOT6Tv1Ta (Adv. 1 46.2).35 Finally, the conjunction conjoin� the other pam of speech and ha�, according to Apollonius, no meaning of iu own without the material support (VAll, materia) of other word�, just as physical bonds are no u.�e if there are no physical objecu to connect (Synt. I 28, 27. 1 0-13). No ety­ mological argument is presented to explain iu name, but this absence is probably accidental. I will now briefly summarize what 'imposition' and 'nature' mean in the ordering of the parts of speech. The noun names objecu in the ex­ ternal world and identifies them by a�signing them substance and qual­ ity. In this context nature refers to the physical world. The verb says something about this object, viz. that it is acting or undergoing action. Both physical and logical argumenu are involved a� to the mutual order­ ing of the noun and the verb, wherea� etymological argumenu are ig­ nored. The term imposition amounU to the imposition of the paru of speech. The pronoun represenu the grey area between the principal and the non-principal pam of speech. As Apollonius admiu, it can form a complete sentence with the verb, without any other part. (Thus, it satis­ fies the criterium of a principal part) . It refers to external objecu, in�ofar as they are human beings, the raison d'2tre of the pronoun being to make a speech act between human beings pos.�ible. lu invention is abo neces­ sitated by the verb which had already been invented in three persons. Apollonius does not offer a convincing argument for placing the partici­ ple rather than the pronoun immediatdy after the principal pam. With the participle, there i� a shift in argumentation, in that refer­ ence is no longer made to objecu in the physical world; the subsequent parts are imtead related to the principal parts of speech. Thu.�, we are totally in the realm of human speech. Now the etymological argument i� used to show that the names of the pam of speech are in accordance with their ordering. However, etymological analysis is always a secon­ dary argument; the pam of speech have their primary justification in the 35 Cf. Pri.\Cian in G. L III 63.7-9: Species primitiva et derivativa. Primitiva quidem , quae a se nascitur, ut 'non, ita, eeu, saepe'; derivativa wro, quae ab aliis nascitur, ut 'c/ancu/um, saepius saepissime, dOCIe' a docta, [ . . . ].

492

Anneli Luhtala

various aspects of human speech. A� to the status of the participle, it is always derived from the verb and we are told that it was not invented by a first imposition. However, it nevertheless did undergo an imposition, which seems to amount to the imposition of it� name, but it i� not clear by which process, by derivation from the verb or by the imposition of its name, it received its grammatical features from the noun, case and gender. When di�cussing the name of the participle, Priscian makes it explicit that it results from the rationalist grammarians ' conscious act.J(, The preposition has neither undergone a first imposition, nor is its name derived from any intrinsic meaning of its own. It� name is based on its syntactical position in front of the noun. This time the name of the part of speech is not in accordance with its nature; that is with the natural ordering of the part in question. A� to the status of the preposi­ tion, we do not learn what kind of imposition it underwent but we are told that the prepositions were always positival' rather than derived. A� for the adverb, the etymological argument is used to show that it was invented in order to be associated with the verb. Its status as a part of speech is either derived or primitive. The primitive word� must have come into existence by means of imposition, though not by a first im­ position. Finally , we are not told what kind of imposition the conjunc­ tion underwent, but it was ordered last becalL�e it has no meaning of its own and serves to join the other parts. The etymological argument is not used, although it i� certainly relevant; it� absence i� probably acci­ dental.

5. Other Natural Orders I concluded above that nouns and verbs were invented for the sake of the minimal statement in ApollonilL�' di�cussion on the order of the part� of speech. Thi� implies that the noun was invented in the third 36 In the first book of hl. treatise on syntax, Apolloniu. remarks that 'the collected research on Hellenism is extremely useful, serving to correct readings in poetry and everyday language as well and even judging the imposition (thesin) of word. by the ancients (para tois arkllaiois) [ ] (Sytlt. 5 1 .7-10; trans\. Blank 1 982, 1 5) . However, he must have been aware of the fact that at least some of the grammatical temlS must have come into existence by a con.cious act of one or more grammarian s . Apollonius explores the various grammatical tenm for the pronoWl used by various granullariam and their definition. in great detail at the beginning of his treatise on the pronoun (e.g. O"T]�Efc.OO"1 S, 1Tapovo�aa{a, avTWVV�OV, lac.ovv�'a) without once raising the question, by what kind of im­ position these various temlS had emerged. . . .

Imposition of Names in Ancient Granunar and Philosophy

493

person and in the nominative case and the verb in the third person and in the indicative mood. However, two other discu.o;sions on the orderly nature of language preserved by Priscian are incono;istent with this posi­ tion. 37 The discussion on the cao;e inflection of the noun suggests that the noun was invented without any cao;e at all, and the first imposition of verbs io; regarded as taking place in the first person rather than the third. This inconsistency is tantalizing ao; all these dio;cussions are likely to derive from Apolloniu.o;. To what extent they all go back to Stoic logic is a matter that cannot be explored within the limits of thio; article. Priscian introduces the notion of cao;e ao; follows: 'Case io; a declina­ tion of the noun or other cao;e-inflecting word, which takes place pri­ marily at the end of the word. The nominative or direct cao;e,---as some scholars prefer to call it-is calle d 'case' becau.o;e it falls from the generic noun to the specific' .3M Here we come across the rare notion of ' generic noun', which is almost certainly inspired by the Stoics.39 The Peripatet­ ics explained the origin of the term 'cao;e' so that all the oblique cases fell from the ba'iic form, the nominative, which was not regarded ao; a cao;e by them. The Stoics had to ju.o;tify their use of the term 'cao;e,' which includes even the nominative. The Stoics ano;wered, according to Am­ monius, that all cases, including the nominative, fall from the mind (Amm . in Int. 42.20-43.24) . Priscian's view wao; in all likelihood adopted from Apollonius, ao; it is abo quoted by the Scholiao;ts, who propose a slighdy different interpretation of it: 'It is a cao;e because it falls from the generic noun (yevlKov avolla) and it to; calle d direct because it shows direcdy the substance of states of affairs and is construed with direct verbs, that io; active' (Sch. D. T. 548.27-30) . Furthermore, the Scholiasts attribute the following view to Apolloniu.o; and Herodian: 'The generic noun comprises everything covered by the expression of noun, ju.o;t ao; the genus man does; the nominative cao;e falls from the generic onto me, onto you, and onto every state of affairs'. In the discu.o;sion above on the ordering of the parts of speech, the noun and the verb are described ao; syntactic units, whereas the present account presupposes that the generic noun io; an abstract entity of some 37 Since Apolloniu\' trean\es on the noun, verb and participle have not been preserved to us, I will largely rely on Pri\cian's work. 38 ' Casus est declinatio nominis vel aliarum casua/ium dictionum, quae fit maxime infine. Nominativus tamen sive mtus, velut quibusdam placet, quod a generali nomine in spe­ cialia cadit, casus appellatur-ut stilum quoque manu cadentem rectum cecidissse possu­ mus dicere [vel abusive dicitur casus, quod ex ipso nascuntur omnes alii] -, vel quod ca­ dens a sua terminatione in alias/adt obliquos casus' (G. L. II 1 83.20-1 84.5) . 39 Pri\cian generally uses thi\ tenn in another sense, as referring to genus words, such a\ 'animal' (G.L. II 61 .28).

494

Anneli Luhtala

sort, which does not bear the feature 'case' at all . According to this in­ terpretation, the noun was not in the first place a syntactic unit but re­ ceives ca�e (and the other accidents) only afterwards, by an imposition of some kind. The idea of two impositions reminds us of the theory of two imposition�, put forward by Porphyry, to which Stoic origin has been proposed by Sten Ebbesen.... ' It is worth noting that in Stoic logic 'ca�e' bdonged to the component of meaning whereas the parts of speech bdonged to the component of corporeal expression�, which is compati­ ble with the idea of two imposition�.41 Priscian goes on to discus.� the nature and order of cases, holding the view that the cases have different meanings or functions, and that they

40 'To my mind, a Hellenistic, and more specifically a Stoic, origin of the notion of the double imposition remains a plau�ible hypothesis. On the Stoic theory the first imposition will have created the prototypa of words for real things (onta = somata), wherea� it took a separate step to ina-oduce word� for quasi­ things ('sayable', for instance), and genera11y to ina-oduce the vocabulary of dia­ lectic' (Ebbesen 2005, 300-301). 41 Boethiu� expound� Porphyry's theory of two impositions as follows: Having discu�d variou� names, Aristode turns to the properties of words them.�e\ves, and he called word� showing ca�e inflection nouns and those showing ten�e verbs. (Omnibus veTO nominibus ordinatis, ad ipsorum rul'$US vocabulorum proprietates figurasqlU! revmus est, et huiusmodi vocabuli formam, quae injlecti f45ibus ponit, nomen vocavit; quae vero temporibus distribui, verbum.) The first imposition of names wa� at issue when things are subjected to understanding and senses; for instance, when we say that a certain thing is a hwnan being, homo. (Prima igitur ilia fuit nominum positio, per quam vel intel/ecrui subjecta vel stn$ibus designaret [. . .J primum nomen sit ipsum rei vocabulum: ut, verbi gratia, cum quaelibet res homo dicatur.) The second imposition considers the individual properties and fonu� of nouns. For instance, when homo i� called a noun, whereby the meaning of the word is not at i�ue but the form, that is, that it shows case inflection. (Secunda coruideratio, qua singulas proprietates nominum figurasque perspicerent [. . .J Quod autem ipsum vo­ cabulum, id est homo, nomen vocatur, non ad significationem nominis ipsius refrurt r, se ad figuram, idcirco quod ponit casibus i'!flecti.) Thu�, the first imposition of names i� ba�ed on the meaning of the word, and the second on fonn. The first imposi­ tion a�igns names to things, whereas the second imposition a,-'lign.� names to names. (Ergo prima positio nominis secundum significationem vocabulifacta est, secunda vero secundum figuram: et est prima positio, ut nomina rebus imponerentur, secunda vero ut aliis nominibus ipsa nomina designarentur.). Since homo is the name of a sub­ jected substance, it is a name of the hwnan being. (Nam cum homo vocabulum sit subiectae substantiae, id quod dicitur homo, nomen est hominis, quod ipsius nominis ap­ pellatio est.) For we say: what kind of word is homo? And we can correcdy an­ swer, 'noun'. (Dicimus enim, quale vocabulum est homo? et proprie respondetur, no­ men.) (Boethiu� Cat. 1 59a-c; Porph. in Cat. 57-58) .

Imposition of Names in Ancient Granunar and Philosophy

495

have been named according to their most important meanings.42 (There are good reamns for thinking that it is the rationalist grammarian� that have named them.) The nominative is the first ca�e, which fulls from the generic to the individual. It is by means of the nominative, which is also called the direct ca�e, that naming (nominatio) takes place. It is called direct, becalL�e it originates first by nature or by imposition, and the oblique ca�es originate from it.43 Yet another di�cussion is devoted by Priscian to the order of ca�es, which is said to be ba�ed on nature: the nominative i.� placed first, since this case wa� first put forth by nature, and it defend� its first place in that it inheres in verbs as if the most pre­ eminent case.44 This di�clL�sion i.� almost certainly derived from Apollo­ nius: the idea that the nominative inheres in the verb i.� definitely Apol­ lonian, appearing only in Apollonius and Pri.�cian. In the above di�cussion on the ordering of the verb, we concluded that the verb was invented in the third person. From Priscian's di�cus­ sion on mood we learn that the first imposition of verbs is in the first person and in the indicative mood, and this is, according to Pri.�cian, based on nature. There are good rea�ons for thi.nking that the context i.� Apollonian, since no other Latin grammarian di�clL�ses thi.�. This is in all likelihood part of the same di�cussion on the orderliness of the subject matter of grammar a� the ordering of the parts of speech. Mood� are, according to Pri.�cian, various inclinations of the mind, showing its varying dispositions. There are five mood�, of which the indicative is the first, being al�o called definitive. The indicative mood i.� that by mean� of which we indicate or define, what we or other people do and it is placed first because it is perfect in all persons and because all the other mood� derive from it. It is also from this mood that nouns, verbs and participles are derived, e.g. duro dJlCens duxi ductus dux.45 Fi42 Having discu,-,ed the names of the ca..es, Priscian states: Alultas !amen alias quo­ que et divmas unusquisque casus habet significationes sed a nOlioribus et ftequmtioribus accepmmt nominatiotlem, [ . . . ] (C.L. II 1 86.4-5). 43 'Est autem reclIls, qui et tlomitlauvus dicitur. Per ipsum enim l1ominatio fit, ut nomitle­ tur iste Homerus, ille Virgilius. Rectus autern dicitur, quod ipse primus natura nascilur vel positione et ab eo facta flexione tlascutltur obliq ui casus' (C.L. II 1 85 . 1 1-1 4) . 4 4 ' Ordo quoque tlaturalis cis datus est: quippe nominalivus, quem primum natura protulit, ipse primum sibi locum defendit, u"de verbis quoque intransitive isle quasi egregius ad­ haerel' (G. L. II 1 86. 1 3-1 5). 45 '}Wodi sutll diversae itIClinationes animi, varios ri.1S affectus demonstratltes . Sunt autem quinque: indialtiv.1S sive difinitivus, imperativus, optativus, subiutICtivus, infinitus. In­ dicativus, quo indicamus vel difitlimus, quid agitur a tlobis vel ab aliis, qui ideo primus ponitur, quia perfectus est in omnibus tam pmonis quam lemporibus et quia ex ipso omnes modi accipiunt regulam el derivativa twmina sive verba vel participia ex hoc tJas­ cuntur, ul duro ducens duxi ductus dux' (G. L. II 421 . 1 7-24). ,

496

Ann eli Luhtala

nally , it is the first mood because the first imposition of the verb, which appears to be put forth by nature, takes place in thi� mood, as the nomi­ native case in the noun; or else, this is the first mood, becalL�e it signifies the substance or essence of the state of affuirs , which i� not the case in the other mood�. That i� why the authority of the most learned (schol­ ars) have placed it as the first mood. 4(. Priscian goes to mention that some other scholars have preferred to place the infinitive as the first mood, but they erred, in hi� opinion, as one should not start from something that i� imperfect and indefinite.47 Furthermore, the imposi­ tion of the indicative takes place in the present tense.4H Finally, it is ar­ gued that the first person i� the first among the persom, and it is the cause of the other persom.4'J Among numbers, the singular is naturally the first'"' and among genera verbi, the active. 51 A� a final point, I will return to the verb. In his disclL�sion on the rai­ son d'hre of the parts of speech, ApollonilL� failed to talk about the im­ position of the verb. He rather described its signification in tenm of action and undergoing of action. Thus, the verb would seem to have 51(16E(71S rather than 6e(JlS, and the verb would seem to signify difI'er­ endy from the noun. The discussion on the pronoun confirms thi� idea, when Apollonius claims that 'the imposition of nouns entails that nouns are in the third person, as opposed to the pronouns, which were in­ vented in three persom, like the verb, in order that the pronoun should indicate both the imposition of name (6ecnS 6v6IlOTOS) and the ordering of the verb (T6:�IS PTJIlOTOS) ' (Synt. I 1 9, 2 1 .6) . Here, too, Apollonius seem� to avoid saying that the verb has undergone a 6ealS. 46 ' [ . . . ] et quia prima positio verbi, quae videtur ab ipsa natura esse prolata, in hoc est mode, quemadmodum in nominibus est casus nominativus, et quia substantiam sive es­ sentiam rei signifieat, quod in aliis modis non est. Neque enim qui imperat neque qui optat neque qui dubitat in subiunctivo substantiam actus vel passionis significat, sed tan­ tummodo varias animi volutltates de Tl' caTl'tlte substantia. Deinde hutlc primum auctori­ las doctissimornm tradidit modum in declinatitme verbornm' ( G L. II 421 .26--422.6) . 4 7 'Sdendum tamen, quod quidam aI<si sum infinita ponere prima, sed male; rlOtl enim oportet statim a re impeifecta aut dubia itUipere' (C. L. III 422.6-7). 48 ' [ . . . ] positio indicativi verbi db ipso [sc. praesenti tempore] indpif (C.L. II 422.2627). 49 'Similiter prima persona praeponitur aliis, quia ipsa loquitur et per eam ostenditur et secunda, ad quam loquitur [ . . . ]' ( G L. II 423.8-10); '[ . . . ] causa tlaturaliter atlte cau­ sativa esse solet. [ . . . ] cal<sa autem fit secutldae et tertiac personae prima persona; iure igi­ tur ilIis praeponitur, quae sunt causativae' ( G L. II 423 . 1 3-1 5) . 5 0 ' A sitlgulari quoque indpimus, quod hic naturaliter primus est numerorum, qui duplica­ tus vel multiplicatus facit numernm pluTalem' (GL. II 423 . 1 5-17). 5 1 'Bt activa ideo prima proferuntur, quod naturaliter proeeedit actus ante passionem, quae esse non potest, nisi sit actm' ( G L. III 423 . 1 7-19).

Imposition of Names in Ancient Granunar and Philosophy

497

However, in his treati.�e on the verb Priscian says that the verb ha� indeed undergone a first imposition. Moreover, this imposition involves grammatical features, i.e., the first person of the verb in the indicative mood, from which the other mood� are derived. Now the verb is said to be invented in the first person. It i� difficult to know to what extent Pri�cian is guided here by the general vocabulary pertaining to word formation, which uses the tenn.� prima positio vs derivatio.52 There is some evidence to suggest that the verb wa� not invented by the Stoics as a syntactical unit, but rather as a generic verb comparable to the generic noun; the generic verb would be the infinitive, which lacks every reference to a speech act. According to Apollonius, Tryphon has claimed in hi� On Articles that infinitives are sometimes verbal noun�, and sometimes verbs. Apolloniu.� refutes thi� idea by saying that "it is possible to establish once and for all that every infinitive is a kind of verbal noun, though the Stoics call only the infinitive 'verb', but indica­ tives like nepl1Tcrrei, or ypacpel they call KaTT)y6plll.la or aVI.I�al.la, and so likewise with the other mood�' (Synt. I 50, 43. 1 4-44. 1 , tran�l. Householder 1981, 37) . However, Stoic logic must be inconsistent at this point, since verbs are regularly exemplified in the first person singu­ lar in Stoic logic (D.L. 7.58) . Apolloniu.� maintains that the verb wa� invented in the indicative rather than the infinitive mood; it is the in­ finitive that is, according to him, derived from the indicative mood. 6. Conclusions To conclude, the invention of the parts of speech and their subsequent ordering is part of Apollonius' di.� cus.�ion on the orderly nature of lan­ guage. In this discu.�sion language is related to nature in two different ways. The noun and the verb are direcdy related to objecu in the exter­ nal world, whereas all the other parts of speech are related to these two parts of speech, that i�, to the realm of hutnan speech. The noun and the verb are therefore called the principal pam of speech; the position of the pronoun remain� ambivalent in this division. Apollonius justifies the grammarian ' s use of eight parts of speech, but he nevertheles.� shares the philosophers' position, according to which only the noun and the verb are direcdy related to ontology.

52

Species sunt verborum duae, primitiva et derivativa, quae inveniunturJere in omnibus par/ibus orationis. Est igitur primitiva, quae primam positionem ab ipsa natura acapit, ut 'lego, Jerveo, domo, jacio " (G. L. II 427. 1 1 -1 3). •

49H

Atmeli Luhtala

Although Apollonius' theory is sophisticated, it nevertheless involves many uncertainties. It is not quite clear, to what extent grammatical features were involved in the imposition or invention of the parts of speech. For instance, the noun was invented as a syntactical unit in the ordering of the parts of speech, but there is also evidence to suggest that the noun was created as an abstract unit, to which case was assigned only later. In the latter case, the noun would seem to have undergone two imposition�, one in which it was assigned its ontological meaning, and the other in which it was assigned grammatical features, such a.� ca.� e. Thi� remind� us of the theory of the first and the second impositions, put forward by Porphyry. (However, it wa.� not possible to pursue this argument within the linIit� of thi� paper.) Moreover, Apollonius' (and Priscian's) tenninology is occa.�ionally inadequate. Priscian makes it ex­ plicit that the preposition and the participle have not undergone a first imposition, but these types of word� are nevertheless called positiva or primitiva; thus, they must have undergone some kind of an imposition, for which no na.me i� provided by these granunarians. These infelicities are to some extent due to the fact that Apollonius depended heavily on Stoic logic, but could not always adhere to its tenets. Moreover, some of the inconsi�tencies were already present in the Stoic theory itsel£

Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristode: · The 'Arbitrariness of the Linguistic Sign' Maria Chriti

For a long time after Plotinus, the practice of philosophy wa� synonymou.� with writing conunentaries on the worb of Plato and Aristode. One of the main virtues of these conunentators' work is their creative a'i.�imilation and 'incorporation' of philosophical principles ranging from the Presocratic, Platonic and Aristotelian through to those of their contempo­ raries, an achievement which renders them philosophers in their own right. 1 The Neoplatonic conunentaries in particular are very informative about the curricula of the Athenian and Alexandrian School�, and al�o about the teacher-student relationwps which existed between most of the conunentators/ explaining certain similarities between their writings,3 a� it is obvious in the small sample of their texts quoted in this paper. In thi� paper I would like to focus on what the Neoplatonic com­ mentators had to say about a specific aspect of language. Ju.�t as in the writings of Aristode which they conunentate on, these scholars never gathered all their thoughts on language in one place, but rather set them down here and there in their more or less extensive conunentaries on Ari.�tode's treati.�es of Organon, on Physics, Metaphysics, On the Soul, and On Memory. Although hi�torians of linguistics and cla�sici�ts are generally in agreement as to the main principles of 'Aristotelian linguistics',4 there still i� a lot to be inquired concerning these principles' 'reception' by •

1 2 3 4

I am most grateful to S. Matthaios and P. Korzia for their remark.� on tbi� article. See Sorabji 1 990, 24-25. Sorabji 1 990, 5-7. Sorabji ibid.; Kotzia 1 992 also illustrates the relations among commentaries on Ari.�tode's Categories. See for example the chapter 'Greece' in Robins 1 988, 463; see al�o Weide­ mann 1 99 1 ; A�her-Simpson 1 994, 214-215; Robins 1 997, 1 9-20; Ax 2006a, 1 97ff:; Ax 2000b, 1 9-39; Arens 2000, 367ff:; Formigari 2001 , 1 5-38; Farago 2004, 1 9-20; Chapman-Roudedge 2005, 2-5.

500

Maria ehriti

later philosophers. One of the issues which fascinated Aristode wa� how language relates to thought and to reality. In the 'nature us convention' debate, one of the great controversies of ancient Greek thought, Aris­ tode's position wa� that language is the product of convention: this means that word� are used a� 'symbob' for things, in order to facilitate human communication.s The commentators stressed the role of con­ cept� as 'intermediates' between objects and word�, using for them the terms �wolal or voTII.una ." In this paper I will examine the way in which the Neoplatonic commentators Porphyry, Ammonius, Simplicius, Philoponus and Boethius devdoped the Aristotelian idea that there is no natural, inher­ ent connection between spoken sound� and concepts, a view which itself bdongs to the language-as-convention approach. It i� worth draw­ ing attention to the ideas of these philosophers on what i� for linguists perhaps the most ba�c aspect of language: the 'arbitrary' relation be­ tween spoken sound� and concepts, explicidy formulated by the 'father' of modem linguistics, F. de Saussure. Saus.�ure proposed the following basic principle regarding the 'lin­ guistic sign': the connection between sequence of sounds and concept is 'arbitrary' and, generally, the linguistic sign itself is 'arbitrary'. A� an example he used the 'idea' of 'sister', which has no inherent connection with the rdevant sound sequence in French s-o-r (s-o-e-u-r) : (1) [ . . . ] Ie signe Iingui�tique est arbitraire. Ainsi I'idee de 'soeur' n'est Iiec par aucune rapport inteneur avec la suite de sons s-o-r qui lui sert de significant; iI pourrait �tre aussi bien represente par n'importe queUe autre: a preuve les differences entre les langues et I'existance meme de langues differentes: Ie signifie 'bref a pour significant b-of d'un cote de la frontier, et o-k-s (000) de I 'autre. F. de Saus.rure, Cours de linguistique grnerale (1 916] 1 995, toO 5

6

See Int. 1 633-4: "EOTI I!�V ow TO: �V Tij cpoovij TcAW �v Tij 'I'1I)(ij na6TJI!aTOOV aVl!jXlAa; 1 6316-28: TO 5� KaTO: avv6';KTJV, OTI cpvaEI TOOV 6vol!clToov 01i5�v �OTIV, clcAA' OTav Y�V1JTal aVl!jXlAOV; see al�o Int. 24b1-2. Aristode expres.� the same idea in Soph. rif. 1 65a6: 6v6l!aal clvTI TOOV npayl!clToov XPOOl!E6a OOS avl!j36AOIS; see Ax 2000a, 32-33; Ax 2000b, 51-53. The tenn aVl!jXlAOV i� generally used by Ari�tode to highlight the conventional relation between what is denoted and the means it is denoted by: Rh. 1 4 1 6b l -2; EN 1 1 33a29-3 1 , Pol. 1 274al0, 1 280a36-38, 1294a34-35, 1 280a39; See Fattal 1 995 and, specifically on the terms aVl!�OAa, OI!OIOOl!aTa, aTJl!Eia, see Pepin 1 985. These terms were also lL�ed by Ari�tode: de An. 430316-3 1 , 431b(,...9 , 432al 41 6; EN 1 1 77aI5, 1 1 79b 15; Metaph. 1073b12 etc .; for the conunentators' lL�e see for example Amm . in Int. 17.20ff, 18.30-35, 2 1 . 1 9-21 , 34.4-8, 36.1 5-1 8; Simp. in ('A t. 9.31-32, 1 0 . 1 9, 1 1 .31-32, 1 2.3, 1 2 . 1 5-1 8, 42.3-6, 69. 1 1-17.

Neoplatonic Coounentators on Aristode

SOl

[ ... J the linguistic sign is arbitrary. There is no internal connexion, for ex­ ample, between the idea 'sister' and the French sequence of sounds 's-o-r' which acts a.� its signal. The same idea might a.� well be represented by any other sequence of sound�. This is demomtrated by differences between lan­ guages and even by the exi.�tence of different languages. The signification 'ox' has as its signal b-o-f on one side of the frontier, but 'o-k-s' (Ochs) on the other side. (transl. Bally)

According to thi� view, there is no natural connection between spoken sound� and concepts. As evidence for this, Saussure cited the existence of different languages: the same 'idea' is represented by different sound patterns from language to language and there is no reason why any one of these sound patterns rather than others should be united with this concept; and this, in fact, is one of the main arguments Aristotle gives for the conventional nature of language in the famous 'semantic pas.�age' in On Interpretation,7 the philosopher Aristotle explicitly states that spo­ ken sounds are not the same for all : " (2) "EaTl IJEV oOV TO: tv Til qlWvij T�>V tv Til 'l'v)(ij nex6,,1J0rrf.t)V aVlJJ30Ao:, I<exi TO: ypexlJl6lJEVex T�)v tv Til qlWvij. K ex l oo u n E p o u S i; Y P O: lJ lJ ex T ex n a u l T O: ex U T O: , o u S i; lJI f.t) v ex i ex l ex u T ex l ' wv IJI\VTol TexiiTex UIllJeiex npWTf.t)V, Tex\iTex naul nex6';IJCXTex T;;S 'l'v)(ii s, I<exl WV To:\hex OIJ01WIJCXTo:, n p O: Y lJ ex T ex 1'; S " T ex U T O: . Ari�totle, On Interpretation 16a4-9 Now spoken sounds are symboL� of affections in the soul, and written marks symbols of spoken sound�. A n d j u s t a s w r i t t e n m a r k s a r e n o t t h e s a m e fo r a l l m e n , n e i t h e r a r e s p o k e n s o u n d s . But what these are in the first place signs o�ection� of the soul--are the same for all ; and what these affections are likenes.�es of--a c t u a l t h i n gs - a r e a l s o t h e s a m e (transl. Ackrill)

Ammonius devdoped Aristotle's argument that spoken sounds are not the same for all in his commentary on On Interpretation, extending it, like Saussure, to the existence of different languages, and referring to a line

7

8

Contemporary scholarship traces in this pa.�� the very first attempt for a 'semantic' approach of language: See for example Irwin 1 982; Weidemann 1 982, 241 ; Manetti 1 996; Sedley 1 996; Verbeke 1 996; Givon 2001 , 4; Weide­ mann 1 99 1 , esp. 170-173 and 1 76 ff.; Ax 2000a, 28-34; Ax 2000b, 59-60; Modrak 2001 , 1 . I will not coounent on <1II 1lJ30Aa and naEh;IlCXTa Tfis 'I'lI)(ii s since they are not relevant to the di�cu�\ion here.

Maria ehriti

502

in the Iliad in which Homer tongues:"

talles

about peoples who speak different

(3) [ . . . ] (1TaVTaxov yap TO aliTo av6pcimov EISos, Kai i1T1TOV Kat AEOVTOS, Kai v611lla wualiTws TO aliTo 1Tapa 1Tom 1TEpi TE &vepW1TOV Kat Ai60v Kai Tc;)V aAAwv 1TpayllclTwv tKclaTOV), O{VIKES, AlyvTT"nO I Se OAAalS xpc;)VTar 'OAAl1 yap OAAwv yAooua' (cf . fl. 2.804) CP1luiv 1'J 1To{l1uIS. AnmlOnius, On Aristotle's 'On Interpretation', CA G IV 5, 1 9 . 1 (}-1 5 Busse Now, since things and thoughts are the same among all peoples (for every­ where the species of man or horse or lion is the same, and similarly the thought concerned with man or stone or any other thing i� the same) , while vocal sounds and letters are not the same among all peoples (for Greeks use different vocal sound� from Phoenicians, as do Egyptians) (tran.l. Blank)

Having started by looking at On Intetpretation, with its brief description of the language-as-convention approach, let us move on to look at Cate­ gories, since it was Aristotle's characterization of language as a quantity which prompted the observations of Porphyry and Simplicius regarding the non-natural connection between spoken sounds and concepts: (4)

Tou Se 1TOUOU TO IlEV �aTl SIWPIUIlEVOV, TO SE UVVEXES' Kai TO IlEV �K 6EUlV ex6VTwv 1TpOS OAA"Aa Tc;)V �v aliTois 1l0ptwv O"VveuTl1KE, TO SE OUK �� ex6VTwv 6eulV. EaTl Se SIWPIUIlEVOV IlEV olov apl61los Kai Myos, UVVEXeS Se ypallll!l, EmcpWEIa, uc;)llo, [ . . . J OOaTE 0 !leV apl61los Tc;)V SIWPIUIlEVWV eCTTiv . W U a ll T W S S e K a i 0 A O Y O S T c;) V S I W P I U Il E V W V e U T t v ' (em lleV yap 1Tou6v �aTIV 0 Myos
fl.

2.804: aAAf"J S' aAAwv yAiJ:Jaua 1ToAvumpewv av6p<.:mwv; see aho Od. 1 8. 1 75--7 : aAAf"J S' aAAwv yAc;)uua IJEIlIYI1EVf")· lv I1EV )\Xalol, / lv Ii' 'ETEOKPT)TeS I1EyaAliTopES. lv lie KvliwVES / ll.wP1EES TE TplXaYKES liiol TE nE7Iaayol.

Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle

503

(that language is a quantity is evident, since it is measured by long and short syllables; I mean here language that i� spoken). F o r i t s p a r t s d o n o t j o i n t o g e t h e r a t a n y c o m m o n b o u n d a ry . F o r t h e r e i s n o c o m m o n b o u n d a ry a t w h i c h t h e s y l l a b l e s j o i n t o g e t h e r , b u t e a c h i s s e p a r a t e i n i t s e l f (trans!. AckriIl) .

The category 'quantity', which gave rise to much discmsion concerning the different types of quantity, 111-'lines', 'surface', for instance­ includes i\6yov. According to Ackrill , 1 1 i\6yoS is considered a.� 'quantity' in the sense that spoken sound is produced in real time, which is meas­ urable: the length of syllables-long or short-is a matter of 'length' of time. Ildefonse-Lallo tl2 note that A6yoS is composed of mea.mrable part.� and that two new criteria are introduced concerning the specific cate­ gory: a) the common limit between parts and b) the position of each part, the one in relation to the others. A6yoS, which is considered a.� BIUlPlal.leVOV 1Toa6v, is divided into syllables that are not connected at a 'common point'. Time and speech, Ildefonse-Lallot13 continue, are constituted of parts which have no SeaLV the one in relation to the other, with SealS having a stricdy spatial meaning. Let m focm on the Aristotelian pa.�sage, where the first interesting point i� that Ari�tode takes the syllable to be the minimal phonetic unit, not in general, but with the potential to be combined with other such units in order to yield meaning. The philosopher defines minor element� ofi\6yoS, a.� well as 'syllable' in hi� Poetics: (5) Tf\s Se M�EWS cnracr'lS TaS' �O"Tt TO: llepT). O"T01XEiov crvMal3ft crlivSecrlloS QVOlla �f\lla ap6pov lTTW crlS A6yoS. O"T01XEiov lleV ow �O"TIV cpwvft aSlalpeTos, ou rracra Se aM' �� tis rrecpvKE cruv6eTft ylyvecr6aa cpwvi) TaVT'lS Se IlEP'l T6 Te cpwvfjev Kat TO t'\lllcpwvov Kat acpwvov. ecrT1v Se Taiha CPWVf\EV lleV avEV rrpocrl3oAf\s EXOV cpwvf)v aKovcrTijv, t'\llicpwvov Se TO IlETO: rrpocrJ30Af\S exov cpwvt'\v aKovcrTijv, olov TO L Kat TO P, acpwvov Se TO IlETO: rrpocrl30Af\s KaS' miTo lleV ouSElliav EXOV CPWVTtV, IlETO: Se TWV �X6VTWV T1VO: cpwvf)v Y1v61lEVOV aKov0"T6v, olov TO r Kat TO b. . . . crvMal3ft SE �O"T1V cpwvft acr'lIlOS cruvSETij �� acpc.:>vov Kat cpwvf)v exoVTOS' Ka\ YO:p TO rp avev TOU A tcrvMal3ft Kalt IlETO: TOU A, olov TO . . .

1 0 See for example AckriII 1968, 91 -92; lallot-I1defome 2002, 266-267 stress the fact iliat Aristotle's choice of an adjective right after ouala, reveal� iliat we have to deal with categories wh.ich no longer exi.t per se, but presuppose a sub­ stratwn. They also highlight that examples of quantity are adjectives, while quantity subdivisions are given by nouns such a. ap161l6s, Myos, ypallllTt. 11 1 968, 92. 12 2002, 267. 13 2002, ibid.

504

Maria ehriti

rPA . . . aVvSeullos Se �O'TIV CPWV1) aOTJllos f) oliTe KtI>AVel oem lfolei CPWV1)V IIIcxv OTJIlCXVTIK1'\V �K lfMIOVc..>V CPWVWV mq>vKvia avvri6eaeal [ . . . J .ap6pov S' �O'TI CPWV1) aOTJ llos i\ A6yov ap)(l'\v i\ TEAOS i\ SIOPIUIlOV Sl1AOi. Ari.�tode, Poetics 1 456b20-1457a6 Verbal style in general can be analyzed into the following categories: ele­ ment, syllable, connective, noun, verb, conjunction, inflection, proposi­ tion. An element is an indivi�ble sound-not of any kind, but one from which a composite sound can naturally arise [ . . . J . A syllable i� a non signifi­ cant articulate sound combining a stop and a vowel [ . . . ]. A connective i� a non-significant sound which neither prevents nor produces a single, seman­ tic utterance from a combination of several sound� [ . . . ] . An article is a non­ significant sound marking the beginning, end, or dividing-point of a se­ mantic utterance, its natural place being either at the extremities or in the middle (trans!. Halliwell) .

Minimal elements are cpooV1i eVTa (vowel�) , "'j.llcpoova, actually semivowels, i.e., consonants that have some kind of sound (which for him are frica­ tives) and acpoova, consonants that are mute (i.e., stopS) . 14 Aristode de­ fines 'syllable' as the minimal complex sound con�isting of a stop plus a vowel, or a stop plus a fricative. 15 The other interesting thing that Aris­ tode says with regard to language as a quantity is that, there is no conned­ ing element which fulfill� the role of a common boundary for syllables; rather each one is defined on its own. Porphyry, Ammonius and Simpliciu.� analyze Aristode's remark here and add that 'it is not the signified which connects the syllables of a word in a specific way', which mean� that 'it is not the ca�e that each syllable reveal� one aspect of the es.�ential nature of the signified'. Let us start with Porphyry's commentary on Categories:

1 4 See also [Ari.�t.l A ud. 804b8-- 1 1 ; on the elementary distinctions conceming con�onants and made before the granunarian�, see Allen 1 987, 1-1 2; Lallo t 1 998, 99-1 0 1 ; Ax 1 986, l Ot[ and 42t[; Weidemann 1 99 1 , 1 74; see also Ax 2000a, 25-26 and 36. 15 Porphyry, Ammonius, Simpliciu�, Philoponu�, are aL�o interested in 'elements' of speech and syllables. These Neo platonic commentators subscribe to the Aris­ totelian view that syllable itself i� a 'non significant spoken sound' (aC11J I!OS q>c..>V1i) con�sted of 'elements'. but they con�der it (and not the elements) a.� the minimal unit of any C11J 1!CX\ITIK'; q>c..>VI') : Porph. in Cat. 1 0 1 . 30-34. 102.2-8, 1 04.2(,...3. 0; Anon. in Cat. 5.25-26. 1 1 .3-7, 22.21-23.1 . 23.8--1 1 . 57. 1 3-1 5; Amm. in Int. 60. 1 1 . 25.(,...9. . 3 1 .(.....8 . 32.28--3 3, 33.27-28. 38.7-8. 40.23-25, 6 1 . 1 4-62.7; Simp. in Cat. 1 24.9-1 2; 1(,.... 1 8. 1 32.8-- 1 4; 21-24, 1 33. 1-3, 1 39.(,.... 1 0; Philop . in Cat. 25.1 9-20. 26.33-36, 54.32-34, 89.7-10; Philop. in Ph. 20. 1 0-19. 90. 1-3. 247. 1 -3.

NeopJatonic Coounentatolll on Aristode

50S

(6) pq EI yap 5IoopI0'1.u!vov �O'Tiv noO'ov �I<eivo, 00 1.1'; fO'T1 KOlvOV opov AaJ3Eiv TOOV 1.I0pioov Ka\ 00 ou51;v fO'TIV Aaj:leiv KOIVOV, /) avv5ei Ta I.IOPIa, o u 5 1; v 5 1; g O' T ! A a j:l e i v , /) O' v v 5 e i T a � O' v A A a j:l a � n p o � a A A f) A a � , 51oopI0'I.IEVOV apa noO'ov elev av al O'vMaj:la\ Ka\ 6 A6yo�. olov �O'TIV ovol.la IOOKpaTT'I�' T I 5 f) � O' T I TO O' V V OIlT T O V T '; V 0' 00 O' V A A a j:l ,; v n p o � T '; V K p a ii T '; V K p a n p o � T '; V T T'I � , O U K a v f x o l l.l e v e l n e iv . o u y a p T O O' T'l l.I a l v o l.l e v o v . K a i y a p of) j:l A I T V P I IJI OO v ,; (�.m A OO � f X E I T a � T p e i � O' v A A a j:l a � K e l I.l E v a � K a \ o u O' v v a n T O I.I E V a � o p et' o Porphyrius, 0" Aristotle's 'Categories ', CA G IV 1 , 1 02.2-9 Bu\.�e If a di.�crete quantity i� one where there is no common boundary of its constituent parts and where there i� nothing common to the parts which join� them together, and it i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o fi n d a n y t h i n g w h i c h j o i n s s y l l a b l e s t o o n e a n o t h e r , then syllables an d speech will be a sort of discrete quantity. For example, Socrates i� a noun: w e cannot say what j oins the syllable '50-' with the syllable ' - c ra - ' o r t h e syll a b l e ' - cra- ' with t h e syll a b l e ' -tes ' . F o r i t i s n o t w h a t i s s i g n i fi e d t h a t d o e s s o , since th e word b l i t u r i merely ha.� three syllables adjacent t o one another, not connected b y any boundary, for it does not signify anything (trans!. Strange)

To Aristode's ' ou yap �CTTI KOIVOS opOS npos OV at avA).a[3a\ O'WCX1TTOVO'IV' (Cat. 4b36-37; see r4]) Porphyry add� 'ou yap TO O'11l.1al­ VOI.IEVOV', taking a proper name as an example: he explains that the syl­ lables of a proper name assigned to some individual are not joined to­ gether on the basis of anything. He invokes the exi.�tence of non­ significant sounds as evidence. A� it i� obvious in r51 , Aristode defines in his Poetics as non-significant sound� the syllables, the 'conjunction�', the 'articles' and everything which is uttered but is not a 'name', 'names' being nouns and adjectives,16 a verb or a 'logos'. Porphyry's 'non-significant' word blitu,; (f3AITVpl) is one of the Sto­ ics' typical examples of word� devoid of meaning, along with skindapsos (O'KlvSa",os) and knax (Kva� .17 For the commentators, the existence of these 'non-significant sound�' con�tituted proof that the contribution of syllables is limited to the phonetic realization, once we grant that the absence of a signified does not prevent us from breaking down a non­ significant word into syllables.

16 See Ari�t. Po. 1 4S6b37-1457a9 for the tenn 0:0'T)1.I01 cpCt.>val and 1 457al O-- 1 8 for 'names' a.� nouns an d adjectives. 17 On the L\.me of whether these three 'word�' are non-significant sound� or not see Kotzia 1 994. See also Ax 1 986, 1 00, 1 36 and 2000a, 32.

506

Maria ehriti

Simplicius makes the same point in his commentary on Categories, giving the same example with the proper name Socrates: (7)

K a \ y a p � V T O V T C? o u S e v � o" T I K O I V O V A a j:l ei v , 0 O" V V CtlTT E I a U T O O T a ll e p l1 , olov �v TC;> IWKPa-n,� ouSev �O"TI KOIVOV T�>V O"vAAaj:IWv Aaj:leiv, 0 O"VVcnT"TEI aUTa� rrpo� aM.TjAa�. o u S e y a p T O O" l1 ll a l V O ll e v o v � o" T l V e l rr e iv O T I O" v v o m T e I a U T a � ' Ka\ yap a l aO"TJIlOI cp
This view is reiterated in Philoponus' commentary on Physics A, 1 84a23-b 14, where Aristotle discus.�es the relationship between 'name' and 'definition': a name expres.�es a whole, whereas a definition 'ana­ lyzes' this whole into its particular sen�es:1 H (8) [ . . .J rrErrovSe Se TaVTo TOUTO Tporrov TWa Kai Ta 6VOllaTa rrpo� TOV

A6yov' O A O V yap T I K a i a S l o p l o"T W � O" l1 ll a i v E I , o l o v 6 K V K A O � , 6 S e 6 p 1 0" 1l o � a U T o O S i a l p e i e l � T a K a 6 ' h a O" T a . Ari�tode, Physics A , 1 84a23-b14 Much the same thing happens in the relation of the name to the fom1ula. A name, e.g. 'round', means vaguely a sort of whole: i t s d e fi n i t i o n a n a ­ l y z e s t h i s i n t o i t s p a r t i c u l a r s e n s e s (trans!. Hardie - Gaye).

Philoponus says on the matter: (9) SIOTI oUX WO"lTEP TO OAOV aUTo SlalpeiTal el� Ta llepTJ, OUTW S"; Ka\ TO OVOlla �O"TI TO Vrro TOO 6pI0"1l0u SlalpOVIlEVOV, a A A a TO u rr o T O U 6 V O ll a T O � O" l1 ll a l V O ll e v o v S i a l p ei 6 6 P I 0" Il O � , [ . ..J o u y a p 1'1 a v ll e V e l T V X O I O" v A A a j:l "; T O U a V 6 p w rr o v S l1 A o i T O l,; C;> O V , a A A l1 S e T O A O Y I K O V , el ll"; apa KaTa TO O"TJllalvOllevov' TOU yap O"TJllalVOllevov urro TOU 6v6llaTO� llepl1 �O"Ti Ta llepl1 TOU 6pI0"1l0u [ . . . ] . Philoponu�, On Aristotle's 'Physics', CA G XVI I , 20. 10.... 1 9 Vitelli [ . . . ] for it i� not the name which is analyzed by the definition, in the way that a whole is divided into its parts, rather a definition analyzes what i� 1 8 See aI.�o Arist. Top. A, 1 0 1 b39.

N eoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle

507

signified by the name, [ . . ] t h u s it is n o t t h e c a s e t h a t t h e s y l l a ­ b l e ' h u ' i n ' h u m a n ' s i g n i fi e s ' a n i m a l ' , a n d t h e o t h e r , ' r a ­ t i o n a l ' ; o n the contrary, it is the signified that i s analyzed, because the parts of a definition are parts of that which is signified by the name [ . . . ] . (my tramlation) .

A� it can be seen, Philoponus explains further that 'what is analyzed is not the name itself but that which it signifies'; it is not the case that each syllable of the name expresses a characteri�tic of the signified which cor­ respond� to some part of the definition. Thm the syllables of the name do not them�elves have meaning; which contribute to the meaning of the name. A� an example, the conunentator uses the definition of 'man' which already occurs in a fragment of the Stoic Poseidonius (1 " c. Be) as '�c!>ov AOYIKOV 6VT\TOV, vou Kal hncnrU.J.T\S 5eKTIK6v' (fr. 309a) and is used with minor variations by second-century authors such as Sextus Empiricus,l" Galen/" Clement of Alexandria,21 and Nemesius.22 All these writers explain that a definition comprises a thing's various attributes. 2.; Alexander of Aphrodisia.� in his conunentary on Aristotle's Metaphys­ ics mentions the definition of man' noting that 'every separate meaning of what i.� signified by a name ha.� its own place in the relevant defini­ tion'.z-� Philoponus conunents on the same idea stres.�ing that meanings can be analyzed but names cannot: there can be no one-to-one corre­ spondence between each syllable of a name and some part of the rele­ vant definition. We may replace a name with a definition, but its seg­ mentation into syllables does not correspond to the structure of the ,

19 S.E. P. 2.26. 1-3: &MOl �cpacrKov &v6pumov elval �iilov AOY1KOV 6VTlTOV, VOU Kat hncrTtl�TlS BEKT1KOV; M. 7.269.4-6: TOlrrWV B� 01 ��v oOTws

Cm�Bocrav 'av6pwlToS �crTl �iilov AOYIKOV 6VTlTOV, VOU Kat �1TlcrTtl�TlS BEKTIKov'. 20 Gal. De meth. med. 1 5 1 . 1 1-14: Ka6CmEp, oT�al, Kat 0 &v6pWlToS alrrOS, [va �r, A�YTlTat �WOV AOY1KOV 6VTlTOV, �VEKa mJ\ITo�las &v6pwlTOS wvo�acr6Tl, Abyov TIVO: BVva�IV �xouaTlS Tiis &v6pwlToS lTpoCJTjyoplas; see aho Gal. De 21

Diff. Pul. 8.739.12. Clem. Al. Strom. 8.6.21 .2-3: Tiil yow TOU av6pwlTOV op'll TO yeAacrT1KOV

lTpOcrTE6�v lTOIEi TO oAOV �iilov AOYIKOV, 6VTlTOV, XEpaaiov, lTE�OV, yeAacrTlKov. 22 Nemes. De Hat. hom. 294.94-95: 1510 Kat TOV &v6pwlTOV Opl�OVTal, �iilov AOY1KOV, 6VTlTOV, VOU Kat �lTlcrTtl�TlS BEKTIKov. 23 Clem. Al. Strom. 8.6.21 .6. 24 Alex. Aphr. in Metaph., (,..A G I 1 6 1 .3-5 Hayduck: ou yap �
&v6pwlTOS Kat �iilov AoylKOV 6VTlTOV. h a cr T o v B � o p l a T O V 6 v o � a T O S xw p a v lT p O S T O V a lT o B I B o � e v o v a ll T O U o p l a � o v �XEI.

SOH

Maria ehriti

definition, precisely because syllable structure reveal� nothing about the structure of meaning. Let us now return to On Interpretation, where Aristotle, again talking about the contribution of syllables to meaning, stresses, from a different point of view this time, that this contribution has to do with sound alone: (10) Aoyos SE ECYTI tpWvf) ClT]IlCIVT1Kf) tis TWV IlEPWV TI CYT)llaVTIKOV eaTl KEXWPICYIlEVOV . . . O A A ' o u X i T O V 6: v 6 p w lT O V cy v AA a l3 f) il i a . o u S /; y a p e v T q, Il V S T O v s CY 1l ll a V T I K O V , 6: A A a CP W V '; e CY T I V V V 1l 0 V O V . Ari.totle, On Interpretation 1 6b27-32 A sentence i. a significant spoken sound., some part of which is significant in separation, . . . t h e s i n gl e s y l l a b l e s o f ' a n i m a l ' , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , s i g n i fy n o t h i n g . N o r i s t h e ' i c e ' i n ' m i c e ' s i g n i fi ­ c a n t ; h e r e i t i s s i m p l y a s p o k e n s o u n d (trans!. Ackrill) .

In this extract, the philosopher gives an example of a name which con­ taim a part with a meaning of its own: US, which means 'wild boar' in ancient Greek, is contained within the word IlVS 'mouse'; but he stresses that while US i� a 'significant sound' on its own, it is non-significant in its capacity as part of the word IlVS: it i� simply a sound in the word which contains it. As Ammo nius notes, Aristotle clarifies the fundamental difference between names and verbs on the one hand, which are significant in their own right, and all other spoken sound�, the latter including conjunc­ tions, prepositions, and the syllables which constitute nanles and verbs; this difference lies in their signifying function (see the passage cited in [ 1 1 ] where Ammoniu.� explains the non-significant function of 'sound�' which are not names or verbs), the same function which Aristotle refers to in Poetics, and which al�o characterizes syllables. Syllables are only parts of names and verbs in the sense that they are part of their lingui�tic realization, since they make no contribution to the meaning of the word� to which they belong, continues Ammonius, likening names and verbs to the basic parts of a ship: 2.'

25 Blank 1 996, 1 40, n. 64, notes that 'this i.. a common simile, known already to Apollonius Dyscolus in me early second century as Peripatetic'. Lill ot 1 998, 23 1 , refers to Sch. D. T. 5 1 5 . 1 9, in which it is stated that 'for me Peripatetics, only name and verb are parts of speech and me rest are used lVEKa crvv5eCYEoos'. A. Luhtala 2005, 1 30 notes, me ship metaphor, according to which 'the struc­ ture of language is compared to me structure of a ship. where not all parts are

Neoplatonic Conunentators on Aristotle

509

(1 1 ) wernep yop Tr,S vews 0:1 IJEV cro:vI6es elcri TO KuplwS lJep1l, y6IJtpol 6E Ko:i Alvov Ko:i nlTTO: cruv6ecrews mlTWV Ko:t Tr,S TOU OAOV �vwcrews EVEKO: no:pO:AO:IJ!3aVOVTo:l, TOV o:V-rOV Tp6nov KCrv TC;> My'tl cruv6ecrIJoI Ko:i ap6po: Ko:i np06ecrelS Ko:i mlTO TO E1TlpPTJlJo:TO: y61J
Any spoken sound which is not a noun or a verb i� obviously not con­ sidered to be bearer of meaning in it� own right; syllables are treated on a par with these parts of speech: their role is to contribute to spoken sound�. 2(, Later in the same conunentary Ammonius aim stresses that syllables are not significant, but only contribute to pronunciation:27 (12) aMws TE TO IJ E P 1l T W V 6 V O IJ
The crucial point which Ammoniu.� i� making here is that one cannot decompose the meaning of a name on the ba.�i� of ill; decomposition into syllables, becau.�e the parts which comprise the name are joined together in a random way and do not themselves signify anything, unlike names and verbs.

of equal weight', occur.; in the nEpi IpJl1]vEfaf of Pseudo-Apuleius, in Prise ian's grammar, and in Ammonius' commentary. 26 The Stoic background of tbi. approach i� evident: According to Diogenes Laertiu. (7.57-58), Chcysippus claimed that connectives' role is j u.t to join the other 'parts of speech' and not to signify or indicate anything. More comments on this subject would not be relevant to the di.cu,".ion here. 27 See Ax 2000b, 5 1 .

510

Mari a ehriti

A� for Aristode's mouse example, Anunonius explains that by vuv ('now'; see r13, line 2]) , he means 'in the event that vs is part of !lUs ' . Without the !l , v s does not mean 'mouse'-nor even a part o f the ani­ mal in question-but 'wild boar', absolutely by chance (see r131 , line 6: KaTa TVXTlV) : (1 3)

o \i S E y a p � V T ct> Il O S , 'PIlal, T O v S a T) Il CX V T I K O V , a A A a 'P c..> v r, � a T l v O v Il O V O V , TOVTO S e �aTl o n TO v s Kcx6' �CXVTO IlEV AeYOllevov aT)llcxivel TOV xoipov, O T CX V S e w S Il E P O S CX \i T O T O O Il O S 6 V O ll CX T O S A o: j:l ll S , rr cx v T o: rr cx a l v � a T l v a a T) Il O v , K cx i v O v , o rr e p � a T l v � v T ct> 6 E c..> p E ia 6 cx l W S Il E P O S , 'P c..> v r, � a T I Il O V O V , o \i S /;V S I CX 'P E p o v a cx Il l a S T &")V a a r, ll c..> v . [ ] a A A a K cx T a T 1i X T) v a v v T) v e X 6 T) T ct> a T) ll cx l v o v T I T O V xo i p o v 6 V O Il CX T I , Siorrep WS llepOS arrAoO 6VOllCXTOS TOO IlOs ACXllj:lo:vOIlEVOV o\iSEv o\iSe KCXTa 'PcxVTcxalexv aT)llcxlvEI' o \i S e l s y a p TO Il O s a K o \i a cx s O V O Il CX E I S I!v v o l CX V i P X E T CX I T O O \l O S , Kcx60:rrep 6 T O K O: A A I 1T O S a K o \i a cx s i\ T O T P CX Y E A CX 'P 0 S o\iK aVEWOT)TOS IlEVEI TOO trrrrov i\ TOO �AO:'P0V' Anm1onius, On Aristotle's 'On Interpretation', CAG IV 5, 61 .28-33 Bus.�e . . .

' F o r n e i t h e r i s t h e u s i n m u s ( ' m o u s e ' ) s i gn i fi c a n t ' , h e s a y s , ' b u t i t i s n o w s i m p l y a v o c a l s o u n d ' : that i s t o say, that the ' u s ' s a i d b y i t s e l f, s i g n i fi e s ' s w i n e ' , b u t w h e n y o u take it as part of the name 'mus' ('mous e ' ) , i t i s totally m e aningless, and 'now ' , i . e . in its b eing seen as a part, i t i s m e r e l y a v o c a l s o u n d , i n n o w a y d i ffe r e n t fr o m a n y m e a n i n g l e s s v o c a l s o u n d [ . . .] b u t c o i n c i d e d b y c h a n c e w i t h t h e n a m e s i g n i fy i n g s w i n e , and hence, taken as part of the simple nan1e 'mu�', signifies nothing, not even in one's imagination. F o r n o o n e w h o h e ars the name ' m u s ' c o m e s to think of a s w i n e in the way that one who hears Kallipos ('fair-horsed') or 'trage­ laphos' ('goat-stag') does not remain unreminded of a horse or stag (tranu. Blank).

At the end of this pa�sage Anunonius refers to compound word�. Aris­ tode notes that in compound words, the parts do call to mind their meanings (see [141 : !30VAETcxl !lEv) , in contra\t with the case of !lUS and �S; an ancient Greek hearing, say, the word KOAAI1I"TTO S or TpayEAcxcpOS would have been reminded of a horse and a stag respectively. Neverthe­ less, even in compound words we must not think that the contribution of the constituent parts of such words is SignijiCtIHt:2" (14)

28 See Weidemann 1 99 1 , 1 80ft:

Neoplatonic Commentators on Ari stotle

511

'E v y a p T 0 K 6: A A l Tr Tr O S T O i Tr Tr O S o u 6 e v CX U T O K CX S ' e CX V T O cr 1l � CX i V E l , W cr Tr E p E V T 0 A 6 y � T 0 K CX A O S i Tr Tr O S . o u �T)V ou6' wcrTrEP EV ToiS CITrAoiS 6v6�cxcrlV, oiiTwS EXEl Kcxi EV ToiS TrETrAEy�evolS' E v E K E i V O l S � e v y a p o u 6 cx � w s T O � E p O S cr 1l � CX V T l K 6 v , E V 6 e T O V T O l S � O V A E T CX l � e v , 6: A A ' o u 6 E v o S K E XW P l cr � E V O V , olov EV T0 E Tr CX K T P O K E A 1l S T O K E A 1l S . Ari,.totie, On Interpretation 1 6a 1 H-22 F o r i n ' W h i t fi e l d ' t h e ' fi e l d ' d o e s n o t s i gn i fy a n y t h i n g i n i t s o w n ri g h t , a s i t d o e s i n t h e p h r a s e ' w h i t e fi e l d ' . Not that it i. the same with complex names as with simple ones: in t h e l a t t e r t h e p a rt i s i n n o way s i g n i fi c a n t , in t h e fo rmer i t h a s s o m e fo r c e b u t i s n o t s i g n i fi c a n t of a n y t h i n g in s e p aratio n , for ex­ ample the 'boat' in 'pirate-boat' (trans!. Ackrill) .

Aristotle's example with hrcxKTpoKEA11S becomes more interesting if we think that KEA11S i.� a 'riding horse' and its combination within the 'pi­ rate-boat' ill ustrates Aristotle's '!30UAeTCXl �EV' in a more intriguing way. It i.� like 'space-ship' where 'ship' i.� not a regular one, although !30UAETCXI !lEV. Let us go back to KaAA\TrOS: For Aristotle the hnros part of the word K6AAI1nros is merely a sound and does not function in the same way as it does in the phrase Kai\OS hnTos, where we have two word�?J The philosopher makes the same point in Poetics using a differ­ ent example: (1 5) ovo�cx 6e EaTl cpwvTj crvv6eTl) C11l IlCXVTlKT) avev )(p6vov 1'j S Il E P 0 S O U 6 e v E cr T ! K cx 6 ' CX I1T O cr 1l Il CX V T l K 6 v ' EV yap Tois 6mAois ou )(pw�e6cx WS KCX\ cxliTo Kcx6' CXUTO TO cr1l�cxivov, o l o v E V T 0 8 e 6 6 w p o s T O 6 w p o s o u cr 1l � cx i v e l . Ari,.totie, Poetics 1 457al0-1 4 A noun is a non-temporal compound semantic sound, w h o s e p a r t s d o n o t c a rry t h e i r o w n m e a n i n g : fo r i n s t a n c e , i n t h e n a m e ' T h e o d o r u s ' t h e ' - d o ru s ' e l e m e n t l a c k s m e a n i n g (trans!. Hal­ liwell).

Though in the case of the name ge6Swpos, SwpOS i.� not a word in it� own right like hrnos in K6AAITrnos, his point in both examples is that there are cases where a part of spoken sound has meaning if articulated

29 In his article 'L'invention du nom propre dans la tradition grecque ancienne' (2007, 238) which is a survey on the levels of the couple's 'proper name­ conunon name' invention by the philosophers and the Greek grammarians, Lallot notes that Aristotle's purpose i. obviously to &.tingui.h a 'double name' from a composite A6yos in which we can recognize the same cOIL,tiruents.

or written separately, but that this meaning is not part of the meaning of the name which contains it (in combination with something else) . Ammonius takes this one step further, stating that one word invariably ha� one meaning, even if it i� a compound word and refers indirectly to its constituents. When these compounds are broken up, Ammonius con­ tinues, it is a� if they become 'dead things' in tenns of signifiying; just like syllables generally and syllables like the vs in IlVS, so the con�tituents of a (compound) word are 'non-significant sounds', even though they bring their meanings to mind; as far as signifying is concerned, they 'die' when severed from the word to which they belong: (16) a lT A OO V y a p E I O" I V O T) ll a T OO V O" T) ll a V T I K a T a T O l a ii T a 6 v O ll a T a , KaV 50Kij Twa KaTa "rilv AE�IV oVveEO"IV fXEIV, Wo-rrE P 01 A6yol TOOV avv6hoov EIO"l 5T)hooT IKOl VOT)llaTOOV KaTa Ta lTpOTEPOV lTEp\ TOVTOOV 5100pIO"IlEva. Kal �lTi TOO KaAAI1T1TOS Tolvvv, eilTEP �O"T\V CrnAOO 5T)hooT IKOV Vor,llaTOS TOO av6poolTov, c!> KEiTal TOOTO TO OVOIla. 5i)Aov OTI TO i1T1TOS OTav 00s IlEPOS alhoO AallJ36:VT)Tal, OUK fXEI "rilv aUT1)V 5vvallw T4J Ka6' �avTO AeYOIlEV'Il· K a 6 ' � a V T O ll e V y a p oo S o v o ll a � T) 6 e v T O i lT lT o s O" T) ll a i v E I T O T O l o v 5 E l; 4J o v , o T a v 5 e oo S Il E P O S TOO K a A A l 1T lT O S A T) q> 6 ij , l:m o O" lT a 0" 6 e v T t; S o l K E l a s O A O T T) T O S , V E K P O V T I K a T a T O O" T) ll a l v E i v y l v E T a l . Ammoni us, On Aristotle's 'On Interpretation', CA G IV 5 , 33. 1 8-31 Bus.�e For s u c h n a m e s s i gn i fy s i m p l e t h o u g h t s , even if some seem to have composition in their word-structure, ju.�t a.� sentences signify com­ pound thought�, according to what wa.� previou.'Ily defined about them. Al�o in the ca.�e of 'Kallippos', therefore, since it indicates the simple thought of the man whose name this i�, it is clear that ' (h)ippos', when taken a.� a part of it, does not have the same force as when it is said by itsel£ S a i d b y i t s e l f a s a n a m e , ' ( h ) i p p o s ' s i g n i fi e s t h i s s o rt o f a n i m a l . B u t w h e n it i s t a k e n as a p art of 'Kallip p os ' , t h e n , b r o k e n o ff fro m i t s p r o p e r w h o l e , i t b e c o m e s a d e a d t h i n g as fa r a s s i g n i fy i n g i s c o n c e rn e d (trans!. Blank) .

Aristotle's and Ammonius' moderate stance regarding the ca�e of com­ pound word�, which do call to mind the meanings of their constituents recall� what Saus.mre says about the semantic 'transparency' of several words in which the absolute arbitrarines.� of the linguistic sign is moder­ ated.3(' However, Ammonius seems more uncompromising when talking about 'dead con�tituents'. I would like to end my di�cussion of the di�connection between concepts and spoken sound� by looking at the way in which it wa� treated by the Roman Neoplatonist Hoethiu.�, who studied philosophy 30 SalL,"�ure [191 6] 1 995, 1 02-1 03.

Neoplatonic Coounentatolll on Aristode

513

in Greece but is widely acknowledged to have been independent from his clearly Greek sources to a significant degree.3! The relevant pas.\age from his commentary on Aristode's On Interpretation is the following: (17) Nee in eo quod est s o rex rex ( IAVS, VS) significat, sed v o x es t n u n c s o la ( qKo)vf) �O'TI vVv 1A6vov) . in duplicibus vero sjgnificat quidem, sed n o n s e c u n ­ d u m s e ( Ka6' �CX\ITo) , quaemadmodum diaum est. In eo, quod est sorex, rex videtur quidem aliquid significare, s e d c u m t o t o n o m i n e c o n s ig n ijica t po­ tius quam quidquam per se ipsum designat [. . .J id est i n e o q u o d es t s o re x rex p e r s e n i h i l s ig n ijic a t ( Ka6' �aVTo [ ] lTavTcnraaiv to'TIV O:OTJIAOV), s e d t a n t u m q u i d d a m c o n s ig n iji ca t [ . . . ] Boethiu\, On Aristotle's ' On Interpretation ', 1 69.8-1 9 Meiser • • .

F o r n e i t h e r i s t h e r e x in s o r e x ( ' m o u s e ' ) s i g n i fi c a n t , b u t i t i s n o w s i m p l y a v o c a l s o u n d : I n complex names it signifies something, but not in its own right when it is said in combination. In the ca.�e of sorex, rex seems indeed to signify something, but it i� significant in combination with the rest of the name and is n o t signifi c ant of any­ t h i n g in s e p a rati o n [ . . . ] and this means that in the vocal sound sorex, rex does not signify anything in its own right, but rather in combination . . . (my tran\lation).

A\ well a\ rendering the Greek tenn.\ accurately in Latin, Boethius gives an example equivalent to Aristode's IlOS; the Greek example leads us from a mouse to a wild boar, the Latin from a mou.\e to a king. To recap: Porphyry, Anunoniu.\, Simplicius, Philoponu.\ and Boethius emphasize and develop the idea that there i\ nothing fixed or inevitable about the connection between spoken sounds and concepts; the particular sequence of sounds is a matter of chance; syllables contrib­ ute only to what is uttered, not to the formation of the meaning ex­ pressed, and we must therefore consider a word as a whole, even if we recognize that it contains another word within it. What triggered these ideas in the Neoplatonic commentators was Aristode's characterization of language as a quantity in Categories, his description of the function of syllables in On Interpretation, his thoughts on compound words both in the latter work and in Poetics and m\ distinction between name and defi­ nition in Physics, while they incorporate tenn\ and idea\ from the Stoics, writers of Late Antiquity, and also older commentators. This drawing is indicative of the typical way in which these philosophers worked, as noted in the opening remarks of this paper. 31

On Boethius' sources see among other.l Magee 1 989, 1-7 and 49-63. See also Marenbon's 'Introduction' (2009, 1-10) in hi� late work The Cambridge Com­ panion on Boethius (2009) and especially Cameron's article (2009) about Boethiu�' philosophy ofJanguage.

514

Mari a ehriri

Independently of the extent to which Samsure's example with the sound sequence s-o-r may resemble the formulations of Porphyry, Am­ monius, Simplicius, Philoponus, or indeed Boethius, the writings of these commentators on Aristotle show above all that they were inter­ ested in the 'arbitrary' connection between spoken sound� and concepts: in agTeement with modem linguistics they explicitly denied that there was any inherent relation between spoken sound� and meaning, al­ though they diverge from modem linguistics in that for them, as for Aristotle, only names and verbs signify. The dissociation between spoken sound� and meaning is just one of the issues which can be traced in the commentators' densely-written text�; this specific approach is connected with their approach of 'voice' as 'phonetic material', for the production of which certain organs of the body should cooperate, whether it comes to human, or non human beings. Their distinction.� among different types of 'voices' lead them to the conclusion that human language is not the only system of signs which exists, but that it is the most highly-developed of such systems, encompassing all others. Their interpretations concerning the connec­ tion of language and reality through thinking, show that we have to deal with interesting linguistic approaches which may trigger scholars to re­ evaluate these commentators' writings from this specific perspective and to realize that they deserve to be taken more seriously by philosophers oflanguage, and by historians of linguistics.

List of Contributors WOLFRAM Ax is Professor of Clas.�ics at the University of Cologne. Hi� research interests include ancient grammar and rhetoric, Latin grammar and stylistics of the Renaissance, parody, comics on Antiquity, Varro, Quintilian, Donatus and Pri.K ian. His main publications are: Laut, Stim­ me und Sprache, Studien zu drei Grundbegriffen der antiken Sprachtheorie (Gottingen 1 986) , Lexis und Lngos. Studien zur antiken Grammatik und Rhetorik (ed. F. Grewing; Stuttgart 2000), Von Eleganz und Barbarei. L:zteinische Grammatik und Stilistik in Renaissance und Barock, (Wiesbaden 2()(11), L:zteinische Lehrer Europas. Fiinjzehn Portraits von Varro bis Erasmus von Rotterdam (Cologne 2005) and Text und Stil. Studien zur antiken Lite­ ratur und deren Rezeption (ed. Crn. Schwarz; Stuttgart 2(06) . is Professor Emeritus at the University Lumiere Lyon 2. research interests include syntax of ancient Greek and ancient granlluar. He i� the author of Les emplois periphrastiques du verbe grec, Lyon 1 979, and of L:z syntaxe de l'imaginaire. Etude des modes et des negations dans I'fliade et l'Odyssee, Lyon 1 989. Many of hi� articles have been gath­ ered in L'imaginer et Ie dire, Scripta Minora (ed. I. Boehm ), Lyon 2004. He hi� co-editor inter alia of Bilinguisme et terminologie grammaticale greco­ latine, Orbi�/Supplementa 27, 2007. LoUIS BASSET

His

MARGARETHE BILLERBECK i� Professor of Cla�sics at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) . Her research interests include Greek and Ro­ man popular philosophy, Seneca's Tragedies, and more recendy Greek grammar and lexicography. She is the author (with B.K. Bra�ell) of The Grammarian Epaphroditus (2007) and is currendy editing the Ethnika of Stephan us of Byzantium (vol. I, 2006; vol. II, 201 0) .

i� Professor o f Cla�sics a t Emory University. Hi s research interests include ancient poetty and drama, especially of the Hellenistic period. He is the author of The Scroll & the Marble: Studies in Reading and Reception in Hellenistic Poetry (Ann Arbor 2(09) and Area Editor for Greek Literature of The Oiford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome (Oxford 2010) .

PETER BING

516

List o f Contributor.>

GUILLAUME BONNET is Professor of Ancient Linguistics at the Univer­ sity of Burgundy (France) . His research interests include Latin ancient granunar praxis and tenninology. He i.� the author of an edition of Dositheus' Ars grammatica for the bilingual cla�sics 'Guillaume Bud£:' collection, and yet collaborating to the first modem (French) translation of Pri.�cian's Institutio grammatica (in press) .

BRUCE KARL BRASWELL is Senior Research Fellow in Classics at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) . His research interests include early Greek poetry, especially Pindar, Greek lexicography, and the Hi.�tory of Cla�sical scholarship. He is the author (with Margarethe Billerbeck) of The Grammarian Epaphroditus (2007) and is currendy editing the frag­ ments of the conunentary on Pindar by Didymus of Alexandria.

CHRITI is Researcher at the Centrefor the Greek LAnguage (Thes­ saloniki) . Her research interests include Ari.�tode's lingui.�tic approaches and their perception by his commentators. She has participated in all the projects of the Lingui.�tic Devision in CGL, and also in its 'Electronic Portal for the Greek language' . She is co-editor (with A.-F. Christidis & M. Arapopoulou) of A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to LAte Antiquity (Cambridge 2007) and also of LAnguage, Society, History: The Balkans (Thessaloniki 2007) .

MARIA

STELIOS CHRONOPOULOS i.� 'Wi.�senscafilicher Mitarbeiter' at the Seminar of Classical Philology of the University of Freiburg, Gennany. He finished hi.� diesseration on the dramatic function of personal ridicule in Ari.�tophanes in 2009. Hi.� research interests include laughter in an­ cient literature and the relatiomhip between dranla and rhetoric. He has published papers on prosopography and comedy.

MARco FANTUZZI i.� Vi.�iting Professor of Greek Literature at Colum­ bia University, New York, and Professor of the sanle discipline at the University of Macerata in Italy. His research interest� include Greek tragedy and New Comedy, Helleni.�tic poetry, Greek verse-inscriptions, Greek and Latin poetry of the 1st cent. BC, Greek and Latin metrics. Among his publication� are: Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry (with R. Hunter), Cambridge 2004; Ricerche su Apollonio Rodio: diacronie della dizione epica, Rome 1 988; Bionis Smymaei Adonidis epitaphium, Liv­ erpool 1 985. He is working on a large scale conullentary of the Rhesus ascribed to Euripides and the monograph Achilles in Love. He has edited A Companion to Greek and LAtin Pastoral (with Th. Papanghelis), Leiden

2006, and Struttura e storia dell'esametro greco (with R. Pretagostini) , Rome 1 995-1 996. RICHARD HUNTER is Regim Professor of Greek at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Trinity College. Hi� research interests in­ clude Helleni�tic poetry and its reception in Rome, ancient literary criticism, and the ancient novel. His most recent books are The Hesiodic Catalogue if Women: Constructions and Reconstructions (Cambridge 2005), The Shadow of Callimachus (Cambridge 2(06), (with [an Rutherford) Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture (Canlbridge 2(09) and Critical Moments in Classical Literature (Cambridge 2(09) . Many of hi� essays have been collected in On Coming �fier: Studies in Post-Classical Greek Litera­ ture and its Reception (Berlin 2008) . CASPER C. DE JONGE i� Assistant Professor in Ancient Greek Language and Literature at Leiden University. His research interest� include the hi�tory of ancient granmlar, rhetoric, and literary critici�m. He i� the author of Between Grammar and Rhetoric. Dionysius if Halicarnassus on Lan­ guage, Linguistics and Literature (Leiden - Boston 2008) . JEAN LALLOT, formerly Professor of ancient Greek linguistics at the Ecole Normale Superieure (pari�) , is now retired. A� a speciali�t of Alex­ andrian granmIar, he has published French translations (with commen­ tary) of the Techne of Dionysius Thrax (2nd ed. , Pari� 1998) and of the Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus (Pari� 1997) . He is al�o the author (in collaboration) of translations of Aristode (Poetics, Categories) . FREDERIC LAMBERT is Professor of Lingui�tics at the University of Bordeaux 3. His research interests include the hi�tory of grammatical theories in Greek antiquity, especially Apollonius Dyscolm, syntax and semantics of ancient Greek (a.�pect, coordination) and syntax and seman­ tics of contemporary French (coordination, di�course particles) . He i� the author of Apol/onios Dyscole: la syntaxe et ['esprit, in: P. Swiggers-A. Wouters (eds) , Syntax in Antiquity (Leuven 2003, 1 33-1 52), "Les nom� des langues chez les grecs" , in: Histoire Epistemologie Langage 3 1 /2 (2009) : La nomination des langues dans I'histoire (1 5-28) , "Le participe a valeur coordinative en grec ancien", in: Lesformes nonjinies du verbe - 1 - Travaux linguistiques du Cerlico, 19 (2006), 1 3-31 , and "Pourquoi met-on une virgule devant et?", Cahiers de grammaire 30 (2006), 205-2 1 8 . ANNELI LUHTALA i s University Lecturer in the Department o f Cla.�sics at the University of Hel�inki. Her interest� include ancient and early

5 1 !!

List o f Contributor.>

medieval granunar, especially syntactical theory and philosophy of lan­ guage. She is the author of On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic (Miinster 20(0) and Grammar and Philosophy in Late Antiquity (Am­ sterdam 20(5) , and of several articles on the development of early me­ dieval granunatical theory. JOHN LUND ON i� Researcher and Teacher (Wi�sen�chaftlicher Mitar­ beiter) at the Institut fur Altertum�kunde in the University of Cologne. Hi� research interest� include literary and subliterary papyri and the hi�­ tory of ancient scholarship . He is the author of '11 nuovo testo lirico nel nuovo papiro di Saffo', in: G. Bastianini / A. Casanova (ed�.), I papiri di SaIfo e Alceo, Florence 2007, 1 49-66; 'Die fehlende Silbe im neuen KaI­ ner Sappho-Papyrus', in: ZPE 1 60 (2007), 1-3; and the The Scholia Mi­ nora in Homernm: An Alphabetical Ust, Version 2.0 (10/09/2008) . STEPHANOS MATTHAIOS is A�sistant Professor of Ancient Greek Litera­ ture at the Aristode University of Thessaloniki. Hi� research interests include ancient linguistics, ancient Greek and Byzantine lexicography, Homeric scholarship in Antiquity and the hi�tory of the Greek Lan­ guage. He is the author of Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte und Interpretation zur Wortartenlehre (Gattingen 1 999) and co-editor of the volumes Unguistische und epistemologische Konzepte--diachron (with P. Schmitter; Miinster 20(7) and Das Adverb in der Grammatikographie (with A. Kama; Miinster 2007-20(8) . He has cooperated with H. van Thiel on the edition of the D-Scholia on the Iliad (D-Scholia in Riadem, ed. H . van Thiel, Cologne 20(0). FRANCO MONTANARI i� Professor of Ancient Greek Literature at the University of Genova (Italy) . He i� a member of international research centers and associations (Federation Intemationale des A�sociations des E tudes Classiques-FIEC, International Council for Philosophy and Hu­ mani�tic Studies-ICPHS, Societe Internationale de Bibliographie Clas­ sique-SIBC, Fondation Hardt pour l' Etude de I' Antiquite Classique, Centro Studi sui papiri e i documenti antichi 'G. Vitelli' of Florence) , Director of the 'Centro Italiano dell' Anne e Philologique' and of the 'Aristarchus' project (www . ari.�tarchus.unige.it) . He published the new Ancient Greek-Italian Dictionary ' GI- Vocabolario della lingua greca' and numerous scientific works. RENE NONLIST i� Professor of Classics at the University of Cologne. His research interests include early Greek poetry, literary criticism (an­ cient and modem) and papyrology (esp. Menander) . He is a co-founder

Li.t of Contributor.<

519

of the Basel commentary on the mad (2000-) and the author of Poetolo­ gische Bildersprache in der frii hgriechischen Dichtung (1 998) and The Ancient Critic at Work: Tenns and Concepts i!f Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia (2009) . FILIPPOMARIA PO NTANI is A�sociate Professor of Classical Philology at the Universici di Venezia 'Ca' Foscari'. Hi� research interests include Homeric exegesis, Classical and Hellenistic poetry, ancient grammar, mythography and allegory, Byzantine manuscripts and Humanistic Greek. He is the editor of the Scholia in Homeri Odysseam (vol. 1 , Rome 2007; vol. 2, Rome 2010), and the author of a book on the history of Greek exegesis on the Odyssey (Sguardi su U/isse, Rome 2005), of an annotated edition of Heraclitus' Homeric Questions (Pisa 2005) , and of several contributions on the Homeric studies of Petronius, Emtathius, Isaac Porphyrogenitus, Guillaume Bud6 etc. PHILOMEN PR OBERT is University Lecturer in Classical Philology and Linguistics at the University of Oxford. Her research interests include ancient Greek accentuation, Herodian, and Greek hi�torical syntax. She i� the author of A New Short Guide to the Accentuation oj Ancient Greek (Bristol Cla�sical Press 2003) and Ancient Greek Accentuation: Synchronic Patterns, Frequency Effects, and Prehistory (Oxford 2(06) .

MARTIN SCH M I DT has been a member of the staff of the Lexikon des frii hgriechischen Epos (IfgrE) in Hamburg since 1 974. From 1991 to 2001 he wa� a member of the Parlianlent of the state of Hamburg (for the Greens) . Hi� research focmes on Homer and ancient and modern Ho­ meric scholarship. He is the author of Die Erkliirungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur mas (Zetemata 62, Munich 1 (76); some 600 contributions to the LfgrE (that wa� com­ pleted in 201 0) , including articles on basileus, demos, dike, Zeus, laos, hieros, horkos, Olympos, Ouranos, polis, phylon, phretre, Okeanos; contribu­ tions to the HAS (Handworterbuch der antiken Sklaverei) on slaves and slavery in Homer and Hesiod; as well as various articles and reviews, in journal� and proceedings, mainly on Homerica and on ancient scholar­ ship

INEKE SLUITER is Professor of Greek at Leiden University. Her research interests include ancient and medieval ideas on language and their socio­ cultural contexts. Her most recent book (with Rita Copeland) is Medie­ val Grammar and Rhetoric. LAnguage, Arts and Literary Theory, AD 3001 4 75 (Oxford 2009, 972 pages) .

520

List of Contributor.>

S PANOUDAKIS i� Assistant Professor at the University of Crete. Hi� research interest� include HeUeni�tic, Imperial and Late antique poetry. He i� the author of Philitas of Cos (Leiden 2002) , of nu­ merous articles on Hellenistic and Late antique poetry, and co-editor with Flora Manakidou of Alexandrine Muse. Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry (Athem, 2008) . KONSTANTINOS

P I ERRE SWIGGERS is Professor (Linguistics; Romance Languages) at the University of Leuven (KULeuven) and the University of Liege (ULiege), Belgium. He is also Senior Research Director at the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research (F.W.O.-Vlaanderen) . His research inter­ ests include: hi�toriography of linguistics (from Antiquity to Modern Times) , theoretical linguistics, philosophy of language, hi�torical and descriptive linguistics (Indo-European; Selnitic), logic and the method­ ology of science. He i� the author of Histoire de fa pensee Iinguistique (Paris, 1 997) , and editor (with A. Wouters) of several volumes on an­ cient grammar and philosophy of language. VALER J E V AN ELST is a PhD student at the Centre for the Historiography 1' Linguistics at K. U . Leuven (Research Unit of Greek Studies) under the supervision of Professor Pierre Swiggers and Professor Alfons Wouters. Her research interests include Greek and Latin grammaticography, an­ cient and Byzantine grammatical instruction, and the question of how the participle as a part of speech emerged and developed throughout Greco-Roman tradition. She is co-author (with A. Wouters) of 'Quin­ tilian on the K/\ILIL XPE IAL. A Visit to the Cla.�s of the grammaticus' (in: Hyperboreus 1 1 .2 [20051 , 247-274) and author of 'Grieks (aan)leren in de Oudheid. Het getuigenis van de papyri' (in: Handelingen der KDninkliike Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappii voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Ceschiedenis 62 [20091 , 1 1 9-146) . LOUISE VISSER i� Researcher at the Centre for the Historiography of Lin­ guistics of the Faculty of Arts, Catholic University of Leuven. Her re­ search interests include: cultural, educational and scientific history of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, and especially Latin gram­ matical texts 300-1 000 AD . She is the author of: 'The Status of the Adverb and the Analysi� of Adverbs of Place in Latin Granmlars of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages', in S. Matthaios - P. Schmitter (ed�.), Linguistische und epistemologische Konzepte-diachron. Miinster 2007, 61-76, and 'The description of the Adverb in the Early Middle Ages', in Beitriige zur Ceschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 17 (2007) : Das 'Adverb' in der Crammaticographie (ed. by A. Kama - S. Matthaios) , 1 1 9-1 58.

Li.t of Contributor.<

521

ALFONS WOUTERS i� Professor for Greek at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Belgium. Hi� research interests include the ancient Greek and Latin granunarians, and especially, the granunatical papyri. He is the author of The Grammatical Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt. Contributions to the Study of the 'AI! Grammatica ' in Antiquity (Brussels 1 979) .

Abbreviations ANR W

Haase, W. - Temporini, H. (ed�.), Atifstieg und Niedergang der Riimischen We/to Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschun�, Berlin - New Yark 1 972ff.

BNJ

Brill's New Jacoby:

CAG

Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, 23 vok , 3 suppl. vok, Berlin 1 882-1909. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, Turnhout 1 953ff. AlL�tin, C. (ed.), Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta in papyris reperta, Berlin - New York 1 973. Bastianini, G . - Haslam M. - Maehler, H . - Montanari, F . Romer, C.E. (ed�.) , Commentaria et lexica Graeca in papyris reperta, Berlin - New York 2004ff. Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, Leipzig - Berlin 1908ff.

CCSL CGFPR CLGP

www

. brill.nl.

-

CMG DNP

Cancik, H. - Schneider, H. (ed�.), Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklo­ padie der Antike, 16 vok , 5 suppl. vols., Stuttgart - Weimar 1 996-2008.

FDS

Hiil�er, K., Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker. Neue Sammlung der Texte mit deutscher Obersetzung und Kommenta­ ren, 4 vols. , Stuttgart 1 987-1 988. Miiller C. (ed.), Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 5 vok, Pari.� 1 841-1 870. Jacoby, F. (ed.), Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, Berlin ­ Leiden 1 923-1 958; Schepen.�, G. et al. (ed�.), FGrHist Continued, Leiden 1 998ff.

FGH FGrHist

G. G.

Grammatid Graeci, Leipzig 1 867-1 910 (Reprint: Hildesheim 1 965). G. G. 1.1 G. G. 1.3

Dionysii Thrads Ars grammatica, ed. G. Uhlig, Leipzig 1 883. Scholia in Dionysii Thrads Artem grammaticam, ed. A. Hilgard, Leipzig 1 90 1 .

Abbreviations

524

G. G. 11.1 G. G. 11.2 G. G. 11.3 G. G. III, 1 . 1 . G. G. III, 11. 1 G. G. III, 11.2 G. G. IV.1

G. G. IV.2

Gl G.L.

Apollonii scripta minora, ed. R. Schneider, Leipzig 1 878. Apollonii Dyscoli De constructione Iibri quattuor, rec. G. Uhlig, Leipzig 1 91 0. Librorum Apollonii deperditorum fragmenta, rec. R. Schneider, Leipzig 1910. Praefatio. Herodiani Prosodia catholica, ed. A. Lentz, Leipzig 1 867. Reliqua scripta prosodiaca pathologia orthographica, ed. A. Lentz, Leipzig 1 868. Scripta de nominibus verbis pronominibus adverbiis et Iiber monadicorum, ed. A. Lentz, Leipzig 1 870. Prolegomena. Theodosii Alexandrini Canones, Georgii Choerobosd scholia, Sophronii Patriarchae Alexandrini excerpta, ed. A. Hilgard, Leipzig 1 889. Choerobosd scholia in Canones verbales et Sophro­ nii exerpta e Charads commentario, ed. A. Hil­ gard, Leipzig 1 894.

Montanari, F . , Vocabolario della lingua greca, Torino 20042• Grammatid Latini ex recensione H. Keilii, 7 vok , 1 suppl. vol., Leipzig 1 855-1 880 (Reprint: Hildesheim 1961) . G. L. I

G. L. II

G. L. III

G. L. IV G. L. V

Plavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis grammaticae libri V, Diomedis Artis grammaticae Iibri lll, ex Charisii Arte grammatica excerpta, ex rec. H. Keilii, Leipzig 1 857. Prisdani Grammatid Caesariensis Institutionum grammaticarum libri XVllI, ex rec. M. Hertzii, vol. I Iibros I-XII continen�, Leip­ zig 1 855. Prisdani Grammatid Caesariensis Institutionum grammaticarum libri XVllI, ex rec. M. Hertzii, vol. II Iibros XIII-XVIII continen�, Leipzig 1 859. Probi, Donati, Servii qui Jeruntur de Arte grammatica libri. Notarum Laterculi, ex rec. T. Momms eni, Leipzig 1 864. Artium scriptores minores. Cledonius, Pompeius, }ulianus, Excerpta ex commentariis in Donatum,

Abbreviations

G. L. VI

G. L. VII

G.L. VIII

525

Consentius, Phocas, Eutyches, Augustinus, Paiaemon, Asper, De nomine et pronomine, De dubiis nominibus, Macrobii excerpta, Leipzig 1 868. Scriptores artis metricae: Marius VlCtorinus, Maximus Victorinus, Caesius Bassus, Atilius Fortunatianus, Terentianus Maurus, Marius Plotius Sacerdos, R�finus, Mallius Theodorus, fra�menta et excerpta metrica, Leipzig 1 874. Scriptores de orthographia: Teren/ius Scaurus, Velius Longus, Caper, Agroecius, Cassiodorus, Martyrius, Beda, Albinus. Audads Excerpta, Dosithei Ars grammatica, Arusiani Messii ex­ empla elocutionum, Cornelii Frontonis Liber de dffferentiis, fragmenta grammatica, Leipzig 1 880. Anecdota Helvetica quae ad grammaticam LAti­ nam spectant ex bibliothecis Turicensi Einsidlensi Bernensi, ed. H. Hagen, Leipzig 1 870.

GRF

Funaioli, H. (ed.), Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta, Leipzig 1 907 (Reprint: Stuttgart 1 969) .

lEG

Schmidt, M.L. (ed.) , Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, 2 vok , Oxford 1 989-1 9922• Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin 1873ff.

IG IfgrE LSJ

OCD ODB

PCG

Lexikon des frUhgriechischen Epos, begr. v. B. Snell, hrsg. v. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Gottingen 1 955-201 0. Liddell H.G. - Scott, R., A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised and augmented by Sir H.S. Jones with the Assistance of R. McKenzie, Oxford 1 940'); with a Revised Supplement, Oxford 1 996. Hornblower, S. - Spawforth, A. (ed�.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Revi�ed Edition, Oxford 200Y. Kazhdan, A.P. - Talbot, A.-M. - Cutler, A. et al. (ed�.), The Oxford Dictionary if Byzantium, 3 vols. , New York - Oxford 1 99 1 . Ka.�sel, R. - Austin, C. (eds.), Poetae Comici Graeci, Berlin New York 1 983ff.

526

Abbreviations

RE

Paulys Realencyclopiidie der classischen Altertumswissenschqfi. Neue Hearbeitung, begonnen von C . Wi.�sowa, fortgefii hrt von W. Kroll und K. Mittelham, herausgegeben von K. Ziegler und W. John, Munich 1 893-1 978.

SCLC

Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Crammatiker, Herlin New York 1 974ff. Pleket, H.W. - Stoud, R.S. et al. (ed�.), Supplementum Epi­ �raphicum Craecum. New Series, Amsterdam 1976/77fI. Lloyd-Jones, H. - Parsom, H.-P. (ed�.), Supplementum Hel­ lenisticum, Herlin - New York 1 983. Arnim I . von (ed.), Stoicorum veterumfragmenta, 4 vok , Leip­ zig 1 903-1 924 (Reprint: Stuttgart 1 979) .

SEC SH S VF TrCF 1LC VS

Snell, 13. - Kannicht, R. - Radt, S. (ed�.), Tragicorum Craeco­ rum fra�menta, 5 vols. , Gottingen 1 97 1-2004. Thesaurus Linguae Craecae: www . tlg.uci.edu Diel�, H. - Kranz, C. (eds.), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vok, Herlin 1951-1 9521>.

Bibliography Ackrill , J.L. 1963. Aristotle, Categories and De interpretatione, translated with Notes and Glossary, Oxford. Alexander, P.S. 1 998. '''Homer the Prophet of All' and 'Moses our Teacher': Late Antique Exegesis of the Homeric Epics and of the Torah of Moses", in: Rutgers et al. 1 998, 1 27-1 42. Allan K. 2007. The Western Classical Tradition in linguistics, London - Oakville . Allan W. 200 1 . "Euripides in Megale HeUa,: Some A'pects of the Early Reception of Tragedy", G&R 48, 67-86. Allen, S.W. 1987. Vox Graeca. The Pronunciation rif Classical Greek, Cambridge. Alpers, K. 1 981 . Das attizistische Lexikon des Oros , Berlin - New York. - 2004. "Die griechischen Orthographien aus Spatantike und byzantinischer Zeit", BZ 97, 1-50. AnlSler, M. 1 989. Etymology and Grammatical Discourse in ute Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Amsterdam. Andorlini, I. 2003. "L'esegesi del Iibro tecnico: papiri di medicina con scoli e conmlenti", in: Papirifilosofici. Miscellanea di Studi I V, Florence, 9-29. Andrews, N. 1998. "Philosophical Satire in the Aetia Prologue", in: M.A. Harder - R.F. Regtuit - G.C. Wakker (ed,.) , Genre in Hellenistic Poetry, Groningen, 1-19. Anwar, M.S. 1 983. "The Legitimate Fathers of Speech Errors", in: C.H.M. Versteegh - K. Koerner - H. J. Niederehe (ed,.) 1 983, History rif linguistics in the Near East, Amsterdam, 1 3-29. Apthorp, M. J. 1 981 . " Odyssey 1 1 .90-4: Scholia, Text, Interpretation", Antich­ thon 1 5, 1-7. Arens, H . 2000. "Sprache und Denken bei Aristoteles", in: S. Auroux et al. 2000, 367-374. Arndt, E. 1 904. De ridiculi doctrina rhetorim, lli...,. Bonn. Arnim , H. von (ed.). 1 903-1 924. Stoicorum veterumftagmenta, 4 vot.., Leipzig. Ascheri, P. 2004. "Demetrio Issione, Aristarco e il duale omerico", in: Pretagostini - Dettori 2004, 335-351 . Asher, R. E. - J. M. Y. Simpson. 1 994. The Encyclopedia of unguage and linguistics, vol. I. Oxford - New York. Asmis, E. 1 984. Epicurus ' Scientific Method, Ithaca - London. - 1 992. "Neoptolemus and the Classification of Poetry", CPh 87, 206-231 . - 1 992. "An Epicurean Survey of Poetic Theories (Philodemus, On Poems 5, cot.. 26-36) ", CQ 42, 395-41 5. ,

,

528

Bibliography

A.tius, Fr. 1 835-1 838. Lexicon Platonicum sive Vocum Platonicarum index, 3 vok , Leipzig. Aujac, G. 1991 . Denys d'Halicarnasse, Opuscules Rhhoriques, vol. rv, Paris. Auroux, S. - Koerner, E. F. K. - Niederehe, H.-J. - Versteegh, K. (eds.) 2000. History of the LAnguage Scienus. An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of LAnguage from the &ginnings to the Present, vol. 1 , Berlin - New York. AvezziI, G. - Scattolin, P. (eds.) 2006. I classici greci e i loro commentatori. Dai papiri ai marginalia rinasdmentali. Atti del convegno di Rovereto, 20 ottobre 2006, Rovereto. Ax, W. 1 986. LAut, Stimme und Sprache: Studien zu drei Grundbegriffen der antiken Sprachtheorie, Gottingen. - 2000. Lexis und Logos. Studkn zur antiken Grammatik und Rhetorik, ed. by F. Grewing, Stuttgart. - 2000a. '''1'6cpos, cpc..lvT) und 51aAEKTOS als Grundbegriffe ari.totelischer Sprachreflexion". in: Ax 20(Xl. 1 9-39. - 20(Xlb. "Aristoteles (384-322) ", in: Ax 2(XlO, 48-72. - 20(XJc. "Der EinfluB des Peripatos auf e1ie Sprachtheorie der Stoa" . in: Ax 2000, 73-94. - 20(Xld. "Sprache a1s Gegenstand der a1exandrini.chen und pergamenischen Philologie", in: Ax 2000, 95-1 1 5 . - 20(Xle. "Aristarch un d e1ie 'Granmutik· . . . in: Ax 20(Xl, 1 28--1 39. - 20(Xl( "Pragmatic Argwnents in Morphology. Varro 's Defence of Analogy in Book 9 of his De lingua LAtina" in: Ax 2(XlO, 164-175. - 20(Xlg. " Quadripertita Ratio: Bemerkungen zur Geschichte eines aktuellen Kategoriensystems (adiedio - detradio - transmutatio - immutalio) ", in: Ax 2000. 1 90-208. - 2006. Text und Slil. Studien zur antiken Literatur und deren Rezeption, ed. by Chr. Schwarz, Stuttgart. - 2006a. "Zum De voce-Kapitel der romi.chen Grammatik. Eine Antwort auf Dirk M. Schenkeveld und Wilfried Stroh", in: Ax 2(Xl6, 1 97-2 1 3 . - 2006b. "Typen antiker granmutischer Fachliteratur am Beispiel der r6rni­ .. schen Grammatik , in: Ax 2006. 244-262. Azzarello . G. 2(Xl7. "P.B.U.G. inv. 213: Un nuovo franmlento del rotolo omerico eli Londra. Manchester, Washington e New York (= Mertens­ Pack' 643) nella collezione eli Giessen", APF 53, 97-1 43. - 2(Xl8. "Sprecherhinweise in homerischen Papyri", in: S. Lippert - M. Schentuleit (ed•. ) , Graeco-Roman Fayum - Texts and Arrhaeology. Proceedings of the Third International Fayum Symposion, Freudenstadt. May 29-June 1 , 20(n. Wiesbaden, 27-44.

Bibliography

529

Baclunann, W. 1 902. Die iisthetischen Amchauungen Aristarchs in der Exegese und Kritik der homerischen Gedichte, part 1 , Niimberg. Bagordo, A. 1 998. Die antiken Traktate ubcr das Drama, Stuttgart - Leipzig. Bally, Ch. 2006 [t 983] . Course in General Linguistics: F. de Saussure, London. Bantin, M. 1 999. "Rernarque.. ..ur I'ab..ence de signification chez les gr:nrunairiem latin.... , in: M . Bantin - Cl. Mous.'Y (eds.), Corueptions latines du sens et de la signification, Pari" 1 1 7-126. Barchiesi, A. 1 984. fA traccia del modello: Effetti omeria nella narrazione virgiliana, Pisa. Barney, R. 2(Xl t . Names and Nature in Plato's Cratylus, London - New York. Bartels, K. 1 965. "Der Begriff Techne bei Aristoteles", in: H. Flashar K. Gai,er (ed,.), Synusia. Festgabefii r Woljgang Schadewaldt zum 1 5. Miirz 1 965, pfiUJingen, 275-287. Bartoletti, V. 1 966. "Nuovi papiri fiorentini", in: ASNP s. II 35, 1--4. Barwick, K. 1 922. Remmius Palaemon und die romische AT.. grammatica, Leipzig. - 1925. Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis grammaticae libri V, Leipzig. - 1 957. Probleme der stoischen Sprachlehre und Rhetorik, Berlin. Basset, L. 2006. "La prefiguration dan., I' epopee homerique de I'article defini du grec clas..ique", in: E. Crespo - J. de la Villa - A. Revuelta (ew.), Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1 05-120. Benveniste, E. 1 966. ''' Etre' et 'avoir' dam leur fonctions linguistiques", in: id., Problemes de linguistique generaie, Paris, 1 87-207. Berger, H. 1 880. Die geographischen Fragmente des Eratosthenes, Leipzig. Berkelius, A. 1 688. LTEqxillOU Bu?allTfou 'EOII/KG: KaT ' ErTlTOj.l1jll [. . .), Lugduni Batavorum. Berndt, R. 1 902. De Charete, Chaeride, Alexione grammaticis eorumque reliquiis. Pars prior: Charetis Chaeridisqueftagmenta, quae supersunt, Diss. Konigsberg. Bemhardy, G. 1 822. Eratosthenica, Berlin. - 1 842. "Eratosthenes", in: Al1gemeine Encydopiidie dcr Wissenschtiften und Kum­ te, 1 . Section: A-G, Part 36, Leipzig, 221-233. Bickennan, E. J. 1 944. "The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther", JBL 63, 339-362. Biddau, Fr. 2(Xl8. Q. Terentii Seauri De orthographia. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e com mento, Hildesheim. Billerbeck, M. 2006. Stephani Byzantii Ethnica, vol. 1 : A-r, Berlin - New York. Billerbeck, M. - Zubler, Chr. (forthcoming) . Stephani Byzantii Ethnica, vol. 2: 11-1, Berlin - New York. Bing, P. 1 988. The Wel1-Read Muse. Present and Past in Callimachus and the Hel­ lenistic Poets, Gottingen. - 2005. "The Politics and Poetics of Geography in the Milan Posidippll.' '', in: K. Gutzwill er (ed.), The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book, Oxford, 1 1 9-1 40. -

530

Bibliography

Bing, P. - Brus." J.S. (ed•. ) 2007. BriIl's Companion to Hellenistic Epigram, Leiden - Boston. Biraud, M. 1 99 1 . La dbermination du nom en grec classique, Nice. Bischoff, B. - LofStedt, B. (ed•. ) 1992. AlIOnymus ad Cuimnanum. Expossitio Latinitatis, Turnhout. Blank, D. 1982. Andent Philosophy and Grammar. The Syntax of Apol/onius DyscoIus, Chico, Ca. - 1988. Lesbonax flop; crXT]l-liiTc.J IJ, Berlin - New York. - 1 993. "Apollonius Dyscolus", in: ANR W II 34. 1 , 70B-730. - 1 994. "Analogy, Anomaly and Ap o ll onius Dyscolus", in: S. Everson (ed.), Language, Cambridge, 1 49-165. - 1 996. Ammonius on Aristotle's "On Interpretation " 1-8, Cornell. - 1 9911. Sextus Empiricus. Against the Grammarians. Translated with an Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. - 2000. "The Organization of Grammar in Ancient Greece", in: S. Auroux et al. 2(X10, 400-417. Blanken, G.H. 1 977. K. P. Kilvafis. Verzamelde gedichten, Amsterdam. Blau, A. 1 883. De Aristarchi disdpulis, Dis., . Jena. Blomfield, Ch. J. 1 826. "Tryphonis gramrnatici opuscula quaedam", Museum Criticum Cantabrigiense I , 32-59. Blum, R. 1 977. Kallimachos und die Uteraturver:zeichnung bei den Griechen. Unter­ suchungen zur Geschichte der Biobibliographie, Frankfurt am Main. Boatti, A. 2000. "II grammatico Tolemeo Pindarione e l'analogia", in: G. Arri ghetti - M . Tulli (ed,.), Letteratura e rif/essione sulla letteratura neIla cuttura classica, Pi,a, 265-279. Boeckhius, A. 1 8 1 1-1 82 1 . Pindari opera quae supersunt, Leipzig. Boi..onade, J . Fr. 11131 . Anecdota Graeca e codidbus Regiis, vol. 3, Paris. Bollansee, J. 1 999. Hermippos of Smyrna and his Biographical Writings, Leuven. Bonann o , M.G. 1 990. L'aIlusione necessaria: ricerche intertestuati mIla poesia greca e latina, Rome. - 2(X14. "II poeta scienziato eli eta elleni,tica. Appunti per una ridefinizione del poeta doctus alessandrino", in: Pretagostini - Dettori 2004, 451-477. Borgeaud, P. 1 9118. The Cult of Pan in Ancient Greece, Chicago. Borsche, T. 1 991 . "Platon", in: Sclunitter 1 99 1 , 140-1 69. Bowersock, G.W. 1 965. Augustus and the Greek World, Oxford. Bowie, E.L. 1 985. "Theocritu.' Seventh Idyll, Philetas and Longu.''', CQ 35, 67-91 . - 1 993. "Lies, Fiction and Slander in Early Greek Elegy", in: C. Gill - T.P. Wi seman (eds .) , Lies and Fiction in the Andent World, Exeter, 1-37. Bowman, A.K. 2007. "Roman Oxyrhynchus: City and People", in: Bowman et at. 2007, 1 71-1 8 1 .

Bibliography

531

Bowman A.K. - Coles, R.A. - Gonis, N. - Obbink, D. -P;mons, PJ. (ed�.) 2007. Oxyrnynchus. A City and its Texts, London. Bowman , A.K. - Woolf, G. (ed�.) 1 994. Literacy and POIW1 in the Andent World, Cambridge. Boyd, T. 1 994. "Where Ion stood, what Ion sang", HSCPh 96, 1 09-1 2 1 . Brague, R . 1 980. "De Ia disposition. A propos d e diathesis chez Aristote", in: P . Aubenque (ed.) , Concepts e t catigories dans la penseI' an tiq ue, Paris, 285-307. Brandenburg, Ph. 2005. ApoIlonios Dyskolos, Ober das Pronomen. Einfohrung, Text, Obersetzung und Erliiuterungen, Munich - Leipzig. Braswell, B.K. 1 988. A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode if Pindar, Berlin New York. - 1992. A Commentary on Pindar, Nl'tnean One, Fribourg. Brink, C.O. 1 946. "Callimachn. and Aristotle: An Inquiry into Callimachu�' npOS npa�Hpav"v", CQ 40, 1 1-26. - 1 963. Horace on Poetry, vol. 1: Prolegomena to the Literary Epistles , Cambridge. Brocquet, S. 2005. "Apolloniu. Dyscole et I'adverbe", Histoire Episternologie umgage 27, 121-140. Broggiato, M. 1998. "Cratete di Mall o negli scholl. A ad fl. 24.282 e ad fl. 9 . 1 69", SI'tnRom 1 , 1 37-1 43. - 2000. "Athenaeu�, Crates and Attic Glosses: A Problem of Attribution", in: D. Braund - J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Cul­ ture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 364-371 ; 578-580. - 200 1 . Cratete di "vIallo : Iftammenti. Edizione, introduzione I' note, Rome. Brucale, L. 2003. Norma I' deviazione. LA "teoria patologica" nel nepi aVVTa�ec..>s di Apollonio Discolo, Palenno. Buchwald, W. - Hohlweg, A. - Prinz, O. (eds.) 1 991 . Dictionnaire des auteurs grecs et latins de I' Antiquite et du Moyen Age, Turuhout. Biichner, K. 1984. M. TuIlius Cicero, De Re Publica, Heidelberg. Biirchner, L. 1 899. "Chesion" and "Chesios" , in: RE III.2, 2272-2273. Bufbere, F. 1 956. us mythl'S d'Homere et la penseI' grecque, Paris. Callanan, Chr. K. 1 987. Die Sprachbeschreibung bei Aristophanes von Byzanz, G8t­ tingen. Cameron, M. 2009. "Boethin. on utterances, understanding and reality", in: Marenbon 2009, 85-104. Canfora, L. 2006. "Thucydides in Rome and Late Antiquity", in: A. Rengakos - A. Tsakmakis (eds.), Brill's Companion to Thucydides , Leiden - Boston, 721-753. Capuccino, C. 2005. Filosl!fi I' rapsodi, Bologna. Caruevali, P. 1 980. Didimo I' Pindaro, Rome.

532

Bibliography

Cavallo, G. 1974. "Lo stile eli scrittura 'epsilon-theta' nei papiri letterari: dall 'Egitto ad Ercolano", CrotuJChe Ereolanesi 4, 33-36. (= Cavallo 2005, 123-1 28) . - 1 991 . "La scrittura greca libraria tra i secoli I a.C.-I d.C. Materiali, tipologie, momenti " , in: D. Harlfinger - G. Prato (ed�.), Paleogrl!fia e codicologia greca. Atti del II Colloquio intemazionale, Berlino- Wolfenbuttel, 1 7-2 1 ottobre 1 983, Alessandria, 1 1-29 (=Cavallo 2005, 107-1 22) . - 2005. n calamo e i/ papiro. LA scrittura greca dall'eta ellenistica ai primi secoli di Bisanzio, Florence 2005. Cavallo, G. - Maehler, H. 2008. Hellenistic Bookhands, Berlin - New York. Chapman, S. - Routledge, Chr. 2005 . Kry Thinkers in Linguistics and the Philosophy of LAnguage, Edinburgh. Chantraine, P. 1963. Grammaire Homhique, vol. II: Syntaxe, Paris. Cohn, L. 1 894. "Anunonios (16)", in: RE I.2, 1 865-1 866. - 1 903. "Didymos (8)", in: RE V.l, 445-472. - 1 9 1 3. "Griecrusche Lexikograprue", in: K. Brugmann , Griechische Grammatik. LAutlehre, Stammbildungs- und F1�xionslehre, 4. vennehrte Auflage bear­ beitet von A. Thwnb, Munich, 679-730. Coles, R. 1 970. "New Literary and Sub-Literary Fragments from the Fayum", ZPE 6, 247-266. CoL�on, F.H. 1 924. Marcus Fabius Quintilianus. Institutionis oratorMe tiber I, Cam­ bridge. Colvin, St. 1999. Dialect in Aristophanes and the Politics of LAnguage in Ancient Greek Literature, Oxford. Conte, G . B . 1986. The Rhetoric of Imitation. Genre and Poetic Memory in f/il}li/ and other LAtin Poets, Ithaca - London. Cousin, J. 1 975-1980. Instill/tion oratoire / Qllintilil'lr, Paris. Cribiore, R. 1 996. Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeeo-Roman Egypt, At­ lanta. - 20(H . Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Princeton. Cuccruarelli, A. 1997. "'Allegoria retorica' e filologia alessandrina", SFIC 1 5, 2 1 0-230. Cus.�et, ehr. 2008. "Science et poesie selon Eratosthene", in: Cusset - Fran­ gouli� 2008, 123-135. Cus.�et, Chr. - Frangouli�, H. (ed• . ) 2008. Eratosthen�: Un athlete du savoir, Saint­ Etienne. Cuypers, M. 2004. "Prince and Principle: The Philosophy of Callimachus' Hymn to Zeus", in: M.A. Harder - R.F. Regtuit - G.c. Wakker (ed•. ) , Callimachus II, Groningen, 95-1 1 5 .

Bibliography

533

Dalimier, C. 1 991 . "Sextus EmpiriCll�. Contre les grammairiens: Ce que parler grec veut dire", in: S. Siid (ed.) . 1 99 1 . Hellenismos: Quelques jalons pour une histoire de I'identite grecque, Leiden, 1 7-32. - 20(H . Apollonius Dyscole, Traite des Conjondions, Paris. Daniel, R .W. 1991 . Papyri, Ostraca, Parchments and Waxed Tablets in the Leiden Papyrological Institute, Leiden. Daris, S. 1 972. "Papiri letterari dell'Universici Cattolica di Milano", Aegyptus 52, 67-1 1 8 . Dawson, D. 1 992. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision i n Atuient Alexandria, Berkeley. D eas, H. Th. 1 93 1 . "The Scho/ia Vetera to Pindar", HSCPh 42, 1-78. Debrunner, A. 1917. Griechische Wortbildungslehre, Heidelberg . D eecke , W. 1 912. Auswahl aus den fliasscholien. Zur Einfohrung in die antike Ho­ merphilologie, Bonn. Del Fabbro, M. 1 979, "II conmlentario nella ttadizione papiracea", SP 1 11, 691 32. De Marco, M. (ed. ) 1 968. Tatuini Opera omnia: Ars Tatuini, Tumhout. Denyer, N. 1 991 . LAnguage, Thought and Falsehood in Andent Greek Philosophy. Issues in Atuient Philosophy, London - New York. Detel W. 1 993. Aristoteles, Analytica posteriora, 2 vol.., Berlin. Detienne, M. (ed.) 1 9811. Les savoirs de I'ecriture en Greee atuienne, Lille. Di Benedetto, V. 1 958-1 959. "Dionisio Trace e la techne a lui attribuita", ASNP s. II 27 ( 1 958) , 1 69-21 0; 28 ( 1959) , 117-1 18. D ickey, E. 2007. Ancient Greek Scholarship. A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from their &ginnings to the Byzantine Period, Oxford. Diggle, J. 2005. "Rhythmical Prose in the Euripidean Hypotheses", in: G. Bastianini - A. Casanova (eds.), Euripide e i papyri. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Firenze, 1 {)- 1 1 giugno 2004, Florence, 27-67. Dihle , A. 1 976. "Randbemerhmgen zu griechischen Szenikem", RhM 1 1 9, 1 34-1 48. - 1 977. "Der B egion des Attizismus", A&A 23, 162-1 77. - 1 986. "Philosophie - Fachwi"enschafi: - Allgemeinbildung", in: H. Flashar - O. Gigon (ed�.), Aspects de la philosophie hellenistique, Vandoeuvres Geneve, 1 85--2 31 . - 1 9911. "Eratosthenes und andere Philologen", in: M. Baunlbach - H. Kohler - A.M. Ritter (ed�.) , Mousopolos Stephanos. Festschriftfor Herwig Giilxemanns, Heidelberg, 86-93. Diller, H. 1 955. "Probleme des platonischen Ion", Hermes 113, 171-1 87. Dindorf, W. (ed.) 1 825. '!wavvov AAE(avopiw) TOVIKO 7Tapayyill/.tam: AlAiov 'Hpwolavou nEpi crXT}f.JaTWV, Leipzig. Dirlmeier, F. 1979. Aristoteles, Nikomachische Ethik, Berlin.

534

Bibliography

Dittenberger, W. 1 907. "Ethnika und Verwandtes", Hermes 42, 1 61-234. Dionisotti, A.C. 1 984. "Latin G rammar for Greeks and Goths", jRS 74, 202208. Dohm, H. 1 964. Mageiros, Munich. Dover, K. 1955. "The Pattnos Scholia and the Text of Thucydides", CR 5, 1 34-1 37. - 1 97 1 . Theoaitus. Selea Poems, London. Drachmann, A.B. 1891. Modrnlf' Pindaifortolkning. Kritiske og positive Bidrag, Copenhagen. - 1 903-1 927. &holia vetera in Pindari connina, Leipzig. Dragoni, G. 1 979. Eratostene e l'apogeo della scienza greco, Bologna. Diibner, Fr. 1 849. &holia in Theoaitum, Paris. Dunbar, N. 1 995. Aristophanes, Birds, Oxford. Dyck, A.R. 1 988. The Fragments of C.omanus of Naucratis, Berlin - New York (= SGLG 7, 2 1 7-265) . - 1 993. "Aelius Herodian: Recent Studies and Prospects for Future Re­ search", in: ANR W II 34. 1 , 772-794. Ebbesen, S. 2005. "Theories of Language in the Hellenistic Age and in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries", in: D. Frede - B. Inwood (eds.), Lan­ guage and Learning. Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge, 299-319. Egenolff, P. 1 880. "Critica in Herodianum technicum", RhM 35, 98-104; 564-568. - 1 901 . "Zu Herodianos technicos nepi IlOvr,POVS M�eCol)S", RhM 56, 284303. Egli, U. 1 986. "Stoic Syntax and Semantics", in: Taylor 1 986, 28 1-306. Epp, EJ. 2007. "New Testament Papyri and the Transrnis.Y on of the New Testament", in: Bowman et. al. 2007, 3 1 5-331 . Erose, H . 1 952. "Die Genfer Ilia'lScholien", RhM 95, 1 70-1 9 1 . - 1 953. "Zur hand�chrifi:ljchen Ub erlieferung der Ilias-Scholien", Mnemosyne 4, 1-38. - 1 959. "Uber Aristarch� llia�ausgaben", Hermes 87, 275-303. - 1 960. Beitriige zur Oberliiferung der niasscholien, Munich. - (ed.) 1 969-1988. &holia Graeca in Homen niadem (&holia vetera), 7 vols., Berlin. - 1 980. "Zur normativen Grammatik der Alexandriner", Glotta 58, 236-258. Erler, M. 1 994. "Epikur - Die Schule Epikurs - Lukrez", in: H. Flashar (ed.), Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 411 : Die hellenistische Philosophie, Ba�, 29490.

Bibliography

535

Erskine, A. 1 995. "Culture and Power in Prolemaic Egypt: The Musewn and Library in Alexandria", G&R 42, 38-48. fakas, Chr. 200 1 . Der hellenistische Hesiod. Arats Phainomena und die Tradition der antiken Lehrepik, Wiesbaden. fantuzzi, M. 2006. "Theocritu, Constructive Interpreters and the Creation of a Bucolic Reader", in: M. fantuzzi - Th. Papanghelis (ed•. ) , Brill's Com­ panion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden, 235-262. - forthcoming. Achilles in Lave. Oxford 201 2 fantuzzi, M . - Hunter, R .L. 2004. Tradition and Innovation i n Hellenistic Poetry, Cambridge. farago, f. 2004/1 999. Le langage, Paris. farnell, L. R. 1 932. The Works cif Pindar, vol. 2: Critical Commentary, London. fas..mo, M. 1 996. "Contributi alla riconstruzione del commentario a1caico P.Oxy. 2306 e del fro 208A V", ZPE 1 1 3, 7-1 3. fattal, M. 1 995. "La composition des concepts dans Ie De anima (III, 6) d'Ari.tote. Coltunentaires gree.. et arabes", REG 1 08, 371-387. fehling, 0. 1 956-1957. "Varro und me gr.unmatische Lehre von der Analogie und der flexion", Glotta 35 (1 956), 2 1 4-270; 36 (1 957), 48-1 00. feine, P. 1 883. "De Aristarcho Pindari interprete", in: Commentationes Philolo­ gae Ienenses 2, 253-327. ferrari, G. 2003. "Plato and poetry", in: G.A. Kennedy (ed.) , The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, vol. I: Classical Criticism, Cambridge, 92-1 48. finkelberg, M. 2003. "Homer as a foundation Text", in: M. finkelberg G.G. Stroum.a (eds.), Homer, the Bible and Beyond, Leiden, 75-96. flamar, H. 1 958. Der Dialog Ion als Zeugnis platonischer Philosophic, Berlin. ford, A. 2002. The Origins cif Criticism, Princeton. formigari, L. 2001 . A History cif Language Philosophies, Atmterdam. fornara, Ch. W. 1 994. Die Fragmente der gnechischen Historiker (FGrHist) von FelixJaroby. Teil 3C, Usc. 1 : Commentary on Nos. 60Sa-60S, Leiden. fournet, J.-L. 1 999. Hellenisme dans l'Egypte du VIe siee/e. La bibliotheque et I'lFuvre de Dioscore d'Aphrodite, 2 vols., Cairo. frankel, H. 1 915. De Simia Rhodio, GOttingen. franz, M.L. von 1 940. Die aesthetischen Anschauungen der niasscholien (im Cod. Ven. B und Townleianus), Diss. Zurich. - 1 943. Die aesthetischen Anschauungen der fliasscholien (im Cod. Ven. B und Townleianus), Erlenbach (only part 3 of M.L. von Fritz 1 940) . fraser, P.M. 1 970. "Eratosthenes of Cyrene", PBA 56, 1 75-207. - 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vol.., Oxford. Frede, 0. 1 997. Platon, Philebos. Obersetzung und Kommentar, Gottingen. frede, M. 1 987. Essays on Ancient Philosophy, Oxford.

536

Bibliography

Friedlaender, L. 1853. Aristonid nepl <TIl1.le!wv 'IAl0:50c reliquiae emendatiores, Gottingen (Reprint: Amsterdam 1 965) . Frye, N. 1 957. Anatomy if Criticism, Princeton. Fuhrmann, M. 1960. Das systematische Lehrbuch. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wissenschtifien in der Antike, Gottingen. - 1 992. Die Dichtungstheorie der Antike. Aristoteles - Horaz - ·Longin ·. Eine Einfohrung, Danmtadt. Funghi . M.S. 1 983. "P. Brux. inv. E. 7 1 62 e P. Med. inv. 71 .82: due di�cussioni su ·Olimpo· . . PP 38. 1 1-1 9. - 1 997. "The Derveni Papyrm". in: A. Laks - G.W. Most (eds.), Studies on the Derveni Papyrus, Oxford, 25--3 7. Funghi . M.S. - Messeri Savorelli. G. 1 992. "Note papirologiche e paleogra­ fiche". Tyehl' 7. 75-88. Ftmke. G. 1 974a. "Habe und Haben". in: Historisches WOrterbuch der Philosophie 3. 98 1-983. - 1 974b. "Hexi.� (habitu�) ", in: Historisehl's Wiirterbuch der Philosophie 3 . 1 1 201 1 23. Funke. H. 1 965-- 1 966. "Euripides")bA C 8--9 . 233-279. Fyntikoglou, V. 2008. "A1TO:TT)Ta 1.l0Vo1TO:Tla: 01 51a5pol.lEs TOU KaAAil.laxou a1T6 TT)V Kup';vT)". in: Manakidou - Spanoudakis 2008. 1 83-219. .

Gaisford, Th. 1 842. Georgii Choerobosd Dictata in Theodosii Canones, necnon Epimerismi in Psalmos . 3 vols Oxford. Garcea. A. - Giavatto . A. 2004. "Redprocus - Antanaklastos. Pronomi e participi tra granunatici e filosofi". Voces 1 5 . 43-58. Gauthier, R.A. - Jolif, j.Y. 1 970. L'Ethique a Nicomaque. Introduction, traduction et commentaire, vol. II: Commentaire, Deuxieme partie: Livres V1-X, Louvain - Pari.�. Geanakoplos. DJ. 1973. Byzantium and the Renaissance: Greek Scholars in Venice. Studies in the Dissemination if Greek Learning from Byzantium to Western Europe. Hamden. Gebauer, GJ. - L06tedt . B. (eds.) 1 980. Bonifatii An gramrnatica; An metrica, Tumhout. Gerstinger. H. 1 925. Bruchstjjcke cines antiken Kommentars zur Archiiologie des Thukydides im Papyr. gr. Vindob. 292 4 7. Vienna. Gell.�. K.. 2002. Eratosthenes von Kyrene. Studien zur hellenistischen Kultur- und Wissenschqftsgeschichte. Munich. Gibson. M. 1 992. "Milestones in the Study of Priscian. circa 800-circa 1 200", Viator 23. 17-33. Gibson. R.K. - Kram. ehr. Shuttleworth (ed• . ) (2002). The Classical Commen­ tary: Histories, Practices, Theory. Leiden. .•

Bibliography

537

Gignac, F. T. 1 98 1 . A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, vol. 2: Morphology, Milan. Gillespie, C.M. 1 925. "The Ari.�totelian Categories", CQ 19, 75-84. Givon, T. 2001 . Syntax, vol. 1, Amsterdam. Goettling, K.W. 1 822. Theodosii Alexandrini grammatica, Leipzig. Goldhill, S. 199 1 . The Poet's Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature, Cambridge. Goossens, R. 1 962. Euripide et Athenes, Brussels. Gottschalk, H.B. 1980. Heraclides of Pontus, Oxford. Goudriaan , K. 1 989. Over Classicisme. Dionysius van Halimrnassus en zijn program van welsprekendheid, cultuur en politiek, Diss. Amsterdam. Goulet-Caze, M.-O. (ed . ) 20(XI. Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Aaes du Colloque International de l'Institut des Traditions Textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1 999, Paris. Gow, A.S.F. 1952. Theocritus, 2 vols., Cambridge. Grafton, A. - Most, G.W. - Zetzel, j.E.G. (ed�.) 1985. F. A. Wolf. Prolegomena ad Homerum, Princeton. Graziosi, B. 2002. Inventing Homer, Cambridge. Grenfell, B. P. - Hunt, A.S. 1908. "853. Commentary on Thucydides II", in: The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 6, London, 1 07-1 49. Griesinger, R. 1907. Die iisthetischen Anschauungen der alten Homererkliirer darge­ stellt nach den Homerscholien. Tiibingen. Grube, G.M.A. 1950. "Dionysius of Halicama�us on Thucydides", Phoenix 4, 95-1 10. - 1961 . A Greek Critic: Demetrius on Style, Toronto. Gudeman, A. 1934. Aristoteles nEPI nOIHTIKHI, Berlin - Leipzig. Gueraud, O. - Jouguet, P. 1 938. Un livre d'erolier du Ille siecle avant Jesus- Christ, Cairo. Gutzwiller, K.J. 1996. "The Evidence for Theocritean Poetry Boob", in: A. Harder - R.F. Regtuit - G.C. Waller (eds.), Theocritus, Groningen, 1 1 91 48. Haas, W. (ed .) 1 977. Die Fragmente der Grammatiker Tyrannion und Diokles, Ber­ lin - New York ( = SGLG 3, 79-1 84) . Hahn, R. 1967. Die Allegorie in der antiken Rhetorik, Tiibingen. Haj du, K. 1 998. Ps. Herodian De figuris: Oberligerungsgeschichte und kritische Ausgabe, Berlin - New York. Hainsworth, B. 1 993. The niad. A c.ommentary, vol. 3: Books 9- 12, Cambridge. Hall , E. 1991 . Inventing the Barbarian, Oxford. Halliwell, S. 1 984. "Ancient Interpretations of 6voilaOTi Kooll,?Seiv in Aristophanes", CQ 34, 8�8.

538

Bibliography

- 1 986. Aristotle's Poetics, London. - 1 987. The Poetics ifAristotle. Translation and Commentary, Chapel Hill . - 2000. "The Subjection of Muthos to Logos: Plato's Citations of the Poets", CQ 50, 94-1 1 2 . - 2008. Greek LAughter: A study i n Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity, Cambridge. Hansen, M.H. - Nielsen, Th. H. 2004. An Inventory if Archaic and Classical Polds, Oxford. Hardie, A. 1 983. Statius and the Silvae: Poets, Patrons and Epiddxis in the Graeco­ Roman World, Liverpool. Hardie, P.R. - Gaye, R.K. 2006. Aristotle's Physics, Digiread�.com Harding, Ph. 2006. Didymos on Demosthelres. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary, Oxford. Hardy, J. 2004. "Wissen (I) ", in: Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie, 1 2, 855868. Harkemanne, J. 1 967. "OBOL dans la poesie homerique", in: M. Hofinger ­ A. Maill et - J. Mogenet (ed�.) , Recherches de philologie et de linguistique, vol. I , Louvain, 47-94. Harri s , E.M. 1 989. "More ChaIcenteric Negligence", CPh 84, 36-44. Harris , W. 1 989. Atuietlt Literacy, Cambridge, MA. Harrison, A.R.W. 1 968. The LAw if Athens, vol. 1 , Oxford. Harry , J.E. 1 905. "The Perfect Subjunctive, Optative and Imperative in Greek", CR 1 9, 347-354. - 1 906. "The Perfect FornlS in Later Greek from Aristotle to Justinian", TA­ PhA 37, 53-72. Ha...iam, M.W. 1 985. "P. Wash. Univ. inv. 217: Commentary on lliad 9", BASP 22, 97-100. - 1 994. "The Homer Lexicon of Apolloniu� Sophista: I. Composition and Constituents", CPh 89, 1-45. Ha...ian1, M.W. - Montanari, F. 1983. "Commentary on Odys.�ey 2 1 ", BASP 20, 1 1 3-- 1 22. Heath, M. 1 998, "Was Homer a Roman?", Papers if the Leeds International Latin Seminar 10, 23--5 6. Hecht, M. 1 888. "Zu Aristarchs Erkllirun g Homerischer Wortbedeutungen", Philologus 46, 434-444. Heinicke, B. 1 904. De Quintiliani Sexti Asc1epiadis arte grammatica, Diss. Stra�s­ burg. Heinin1ann , F. 1 96 1 . "Eine vorplatoni�che Theorie der Techne", MH 1 8, 1 05130. Heitsch, E. 1 993. Platon, Phaidros. Obersetzung und Kommentar, Gottingen. Heick, 1. 1 905. De Cratetis Mal/otae studiis critios quae ad lliadem spectant, Leipzig.

Bibliography

539

Hendrickson, G.L. 1 952. Ciaro, Brutus. With an English translation, London Cambridge, Ma. Henrichs, A. 1 969. "KaIlimachos Fr. 17, ll-1O und 1 8, 8 P£ (p. Mich. inv. 3688)", ZPE 4, 23-30. - 1971 . "Scholia minora zu Homer II", ZPE 7, 229-260. Herter, H. 1 957. "Proteus", in: RE XXIII. 1 , 940-975. Hidber, Th. 1 996. Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass. Die Praifatio zu De oratoribus veteribu�. Einleitung, Obersetzung, Kommentar, Stuttgart - Leipzig. Hilgard, A. 1 894. Prolegomena in Theodosii Alexandrini Canones, Georgii Choerobosd scholia et Sophronii Patriarchae Akxandrini excerpta (G. G. IV 1), Leipzig. - 1901 . Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem grammaticam (G. G. I 3), Leipzig. Hiller, E. 1 866. Quaestiones Herodianeae, Bonn. - 1869. "Der Grammatiker Pius und die cnroAoy\m lTp6S &6e"';aeIS 1\pICTTapxov", Philologus 28, 86-1 1 5 . - 1 87 1 . " Anz . v . Herodiani technici reliquiae ed. Lentz", Jahrbiicher for c1assische Philolologie 17, 505-532. Hillgruber, M. 1994. Die pseudoplutarchische Schrift De Homero, part 1: Einlcitung und Kommentar zu den Kapitein 1-73, Stuttgart - Leipzig. Holtermann, M. 2004. Der deutsche Aristophanes. Die Rezeption cines politischen Dichters im 1 9. Jahrhundert, Gottingen. Holtz, L. 1 981 . Donat et la tradition de I'enscignement grammatical: Etude sur l'Ars Donati et sa diffusion (IVe-IXe siecle) et edition critUJue, Pari.�. - 2000a. "Priscien dans la pedagogie d'Alcuin", in: M. De Nonno - P. De Paolis - L. Holtz (ed•. ) , Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Cassino, 289-326. - 2000b. "Alcuin et la redecouverte de Priscien a I'epoque carolingienne", in: Auroux et al. 2000, 525-532. Hom, E. 1 883. De Aristarchi studiis Pindaricis, Diss. Grei£o;wald. Horrocks, G. 1 997. Greek: A History of the LAnguage and its Speakers, London ­ New York. Householder, F.W. 1 981 . The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus, translated and with a Commentary, Amsterdam. Howald, E. 1 917/1 9 1 8. "Zu den Ilia..-Scholien", RhM 72, 403-425. Hubbell, H.M. 1952. Cicero, Orator. With an English Translation, London Cambridge, Ma. Hude, K. 1913-191 5. Thucydidis Historiae, 2 vols., Leipzig. - 1 927. Sclwlia in Thucydidem, Leipzig. Hiilser, K. 1 987-1988. Die Fragmente zur Diakktik der Stoiker. Neue Sammlung der Texte mit deutscher Obersetzung und Kommentaren, 4 vol.., Stuttgart.

540

Bibliography

Hunger, H. 1978. Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2 vok, Munich. Hunter, R.L. 1 996. Theomtus and the ArrMeology
Ildefonse, F. 1 997. Ll naissance de la grammaire dans I'Antiquite grecque, Pari�. Ildefonse, F. - LalIot, J. 2002. Aristote, Categories. Presentation, tradudion et com­ mentaires, Pari�. Inmu.�ch, O. 1 890. "De grammaticorum principe", Jahrbiicherfor c1assische Philo­ logie 36, 695-696. Innes, D.C. 1995. Demetrius, On Style. Edited and Translated, Cambridge Ma. Ippolito, A. 2008. Lessico dd Grammatici Greci Antichi, s.v. Orus. (www .ari�tarchus.unige.it/lgga) . Irigoin, J. 1 952. Histoire du texte de Pindare, Paris. Irwin, T.H. 1 982. "Aristotle's Concept of Signification", in: M. Schofield - M. Nmsbaum (eds.) , Llnguage and Logos, Cambridge, 241-266. Isnardi Parente, M. 196 1 . "Techne", PP 16, 257-296. - 1 966. Techne. A10menti del pensiero greco da Platone ad Epicuro, Florence. Jacob, Chr. 2008. "Postface et perspectives", in: Cu�set - Frangoulis 2008, 1 67-1 75 . James, M. R . 1 902. The Western Mss. i n the Library
Bibliography

541

Jeep, L. 1 893. Zur Gcschichte der uhrc von den Redetheilen bei den Iateinischcn Grammatikern, Leipzig. Jeffery, A. 1998. "Materials for the Hi�tory of the Text of the Koran", in: War­ raq 1 998, 1 14-1 34. Jeffre, F. 1 922. Dcr BegriJf Techne bei Platon, Diss. Kiel. Johnson, W.A. 2004. &okrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus, Toronto - Buffalo London. Johnson, W.A. - Parker, H.N. (eds.) 2009. Ancient Litcrades. The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome, Oxford. Jonge, C.C. de. 2005. "Dionysius of Halicamassus and the Method of Metathe­ sis", CQ 55, 463-480. - 2008a. Between Grammar and Rhetoric. Dionysius of Halicarnassus on LAnguage, Linguistics and Litcrature, Leiden - Boston. - 2008b. "Sublieme taalkunde", in: L. van Driel - Th. Jan.�sen (eds.) , Onthevm aan de tijd. Lingulstisch-historische studies voor Jan Noordegratif, Amsterdam Miin�ter, 5-1 4. Jougnet, P. 1 90 1 . "Rapport sur les Fouilles de Moomet-Ma'di et Medinet­ Ghoran", BCH 25, 380-41 1 . Kaibel, Georg 1 89H. Die Prolegomma nepi Kc.>I..l'1' 6IaS, Berlin. Kannicht, R. 1 997. " TrGF V Euripides", in: G.W. Most (ed.) , Colleding Frag­ mmts, Gottingen, 67-77. Kassel, R. 1 974. "Arger rnit dem Koch", ZPE 1 4, 1 21-1 27. Ka.�ter, R.A. 1988. Guardians of LAnguage. The Grammarian and Society in LAte Antiquity, Berkeley - Los Angeles - London. - (ed.) 1 995. C. Suetonius Tranquil/us, De Grammaticis et Rhetoribu.�, Oxford. Keaney, J.J. - Lamberton, R. 1 996. [plutarch], Essay on the Life and Poetry of Homer, Atlanta. Keil, H. (ed.) 1 855-1870. Grammatid LAtini, 7 vols., Leipzig. Kemp, A. 1 986. "The Tekhne Grammatike of Dionysiu.� Thrax. Tran.Uated into English", in: Taylor 1986, 343-363. Kenyon, Fr. G. 1 909. "Two Greek School-Tablets" , JHS 29, 29-40. Kerkhecker, A. 1 997. "MovO'�c.>v �v TaAap'1' - Dichter und Dichtung am Ptolenuerhof', A&A 43, 1 24-144. Kiparsky, P. 1 995. "Paninian Lingui�tics", in: Koerner - Asher 1995, 59-65. Kleinlogel, A. 1 964. "Beobachtungen zu den Thukydidesscholien I", Philologus H)8, 233-246. Knaack, G. 1 907. "Eratosthenes (4) von Kyrene", in: RE VI. l , 35&-388. Kneale, W.e. - Kneale, M. 1962. The Development of Logic, Oxford. Kneepkens, C.H. 1995. "The Priscianic Tradition", in: S. Ebbesen (ed.), Sprachtheorien in Spiitantike und Mittelalter, Tiibingen, 239-264.

542

Bibliography

Kohnken, A. 1 971 . Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar, Berlin - New York. - 200 1 . "Hellenistic Chronology: Theocritus, Callimachus and Apolloniu. Rhodius", in: Papanghelis - Rengakos 2001, 73-92. Koerner, E.F. - Asher, R.E. (ed•. ). 1 995. Concise History ojthe LAnguage &iences, New York. Korte, A. 1903. "Chrysippos" ( 1 4a), in: RE Suppl. 1 298-299. Korenjak, M. 2003. "Tityri sub persona. Der antike Biographismus und die bukolische Tradition", A &A 49, 49-79. Kossam, ehr. 2002. "L'onoma..tique bucolique dans les IdyUes de Theocrite. Un poete face aux nomes", REA 1 04, 349-361 . Koster, W.J.W. - Holwerda, D . (ed• .) 1 969-2007. Scholia in Aristophanem, 4 parts, Groningen. Kotzia, P. 1992. "0 'crKolT6S ' TWV KaTTJyoplwv TOU AplcrToTEAT1", Thes..alo­ niki. - 1 994. " BJtiTUpl, aKIVOGlf/o), Kva(: aaT]tJol tpwva!;" HeIIenica 44, 7-29. - 2004. " To 7TEpi y.;uxij) ypatJtJ ' avaAEfatJEvos: 'Evas UlTalVlYl.l6S crT'1V lTAaTWVIKTJ KplTlKTJ TOU ypalT"Tov Myou;", in: A. Va..ileiadis - P. Kotzia - A. Mauroudi. - D. Christidi. (eds.) , ,tj T]tJT]Tp!f1J aTitpavo). TitJT]TIKO) TOf.JO) yla TOV Ka{JTJYTJTT/ ,tj TJtJt/TpTJ II U7TOUpA t/, Thessaloniki, 185-2 1 6 . Kouremenos, T h . - Pacissoglou G.M. - Tsantsanoglou, K. (ed•. ). 2006. The Derveni Papyrus. Edited with Introduction and ComllU'ntary, Florence. Kovacs, D. 2003. Euripidea tertia, Leiden. Kriiger, J. 1 990. Oxyrhynchos in der Kaiserzeit. Studien zur Topographie und Litera­ turrezeption, Frankfurt am Main - Bern - New York - Paris. Krumbacher, K. 1 897/ 1 970. Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian his zum Ende des Ostriimischen Reichl'S (52 7- 1 453), 2 vol.., Munich. Kube, J. 1 969. TE)(II1l und 6:peTl'). Sophistisches und platonisches Tugendwissen, Berlin. Kuch, H. 1 965. 1/\o/\oro� . Untersuchungen eines Wortes von seinem mten Auftreten in der Tradition bis zur ersten uberliiferten lexikalischen Festlegung, Ber­ lin. - 1978. "Zur Euripides-Rezeption im Hellenismus," Klio 60, 1 91-202. Kiihn, H.-J. 1 958. "Die Thalysien Theokrit. (id. 7) ", Hermes 86, 40-79. KuUmann, W. - Reichel, M. (ed•. ) 1 990. Der Obergang von der Mundlichkeit zur Literatur bei den Griechen, T iibingen. Lallot, J. 1995a. "Analogie et pathologie dans la granllTIme alexandrine", LAUES 15, 109-1 23. - 1995b. "Qu'est-ce que la granunaire?", LALIES 1 5, 73-82. - 1 997. ApoIIonius Dyscole, De la construction. Texte grec accompagne de notes critiques, introduction, traduction, notes exegetiques et index, 2 vols., Paris.

Bibliography

543

- 1998. LA grammaire de Denys Ie Thrace traduite et annoue, Pans (2nd revi�ed edition). - 1999. "Philologie et granmuire a Alexandrie", in: L. Ba.�set - F. Biville (eds.), Actes du XXXIe Congres International de l'Association des Prifesseurs de LAngues anciennes de l'Enseignement Suprneur, Lyon 5-7 Juin 1 998, Lyon, 4149. - 2003. "Considerations intempestives sur la nature des rapport.� syntaxiques selon ApoUonius Dyscole", in: Swiggers -Wouters 2003, 153-1 60. - 2007. "L'invention du nom propre dans la tradition grecque ancienne", in: LALIES 27, 233-246. Lambert, F. 2003. "ApoUoniu. Dyscole: la syntaxe et l'esprit", in: Swiggers Wouters 2003, 1 33-1 52. Lamedica Nardi, A. 1 977. "Commenti a Omero made", SCO 26, 1 33-155. Latte, K. (ed.) 1 953-1 966. Hesychii Alexandrini lexiam, vol. 1: A-L!, vol. 2: E0, Kopenhagen. - 1 968. "Der Demeterhymnos des Philikos", in: K. Latte, Kleine Schriften zu Religion, Recht, Literatur und Sprache der Griechen und Romer, Munich, 539561 . Law, V . 1 982. The Insular LAtin Grammarians, Woodbridge. - 1 990. "The History of Morphology: Expression of a Change in Conscious­ nes." , in: W. Hiillen (ed.), Undmtanding the Historiography if Linguistics. Problems and Projects, Miinster, 61-74. - 1 995. Wisdom, Authority and Grammar in the Seventh Century: Decoding Virgil­ ius lWaro Grammaticus, Cambridge. - 1 997. Grammar and Grammarians in the Early l\1iddle Ages, London - New York. - 2000. "The Middle Ages", in: G. Booij - Chr. Lehmann - J. Mugdan (eds.), Morphologie - Morphology. Bin internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung - An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Berlin - New York, 76-90. - 2003. The History if Linguistics in Europe. From Plato to 1 600, Cambridge. Law, V. - Sluiter, I. (eds.) 1 995. Dionysius Thrax and the Techne Grammatike, Miinster. Leeman, A.D. 1 956. "Le genre et Ie style historique :l. Rome: theorie et pra­ tique", REL 33, 183-208. Leeman, A.D. - Pinhter, H. - Rabbie, E. 1 989. M. Tullius Cicero De oratore !ibri tres: Kommentar, vol. 3, Heidelberg. Lehrs, K. 1 833/1865/1 882. De Amtarchi studiis Hommcs, Leipzig. - 1 843. "Zu Herodian und ApoUonius", R/uW 2, 1 1 8-130. - 1 848. Herodiani scripta tria emendatiora, Konigsberg. (2nd edition: Berlin 1 857) - 1 848a. "Herodiani nepl l.loV1')povs Ae�ews", in: Lehrs 1 848, 1-1 89.

544

Bibliography

- 1 848b. "De vocabuli, 'l)\A6AOYOS, ypOIlIlCXTLK6S, KplT1K6S", in: Lehrs 1 848, 379-401 . Lennox, J.G. 200 1 . Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals. Translated with a Commen­ tary, Oxford. Lentz, A. (ed.) 1 867-1870. Herodiani Technici Reliquiae, Tomus 1 praifationem et Herodiani Prosodiam Catholicam continens, Lip,iae 1867; Tomi II Fasciculus prior reliqua scripta prosodiaca pathologiam orthographica contitwns, Lipsiae 1 868; T omi II Fasciculu, posterior, scripta de nominibus verbis pronominibus adverbiis et librum monadicorum continens; accedunt indices ab A. Ludwich confecti (G. G. III 1-2) , Lipsiae 1 870 (Reprint: Hildesheim 1 965) . Lip,ius, J.H. 1 905. Das attische Recht und Rechtsveifahren, Leipzig. Lloyd, G.E.R. 1 973. Greek Science tifter Aristotle, London. - 1 984. "Hellenistic Science", in: The Cambridge Ancient History, voL 7: The Hellenistic World, Cambridge, 321-352. Lloyd-Jones, H. - Parsons P.J. 1 983. Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin - New York. Lobeck, C.A. 1 837. Paralipomena grammaticae Graecae, Leipzig (Reprint: Hilde­ sheim 1 967) . - 1 843 . Pathologiae sermonis Graeci prolegomena, Leipzig. LObi, R. 2003. TE)(V1l - Techne. Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung dieses Worts in der Zeit von Homer bis Aristoteles, voL 2: Von den Sophisten bis zu Aristoteles, Wiirzburg. LOfStedt, B. 1 965. Der hibernolateinische Grammatiker Malsachanus, Uppsala. - 1982. Ars Ambrosiana. Commentum Anonymum in Donati Partes Maiores, Turnhout. Londey, D. - Johamon , C. 1 987. The Logic of Apuleius including a Complete Lotin Text and English Translation, Leiden. Long, A.A. - SeeDey, D.N. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers, voL 1 : Translations of the Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary, voL 2: Greek and Lotin Texts with Notes and Bibliography, Cambridge. Lucas, D.W. 1 968. Aristotle, Poetics. Introduction, Commentary and Appendices, Oxford. Ludwich, A. 1 883. "Zu Herodian's Schriften nepi 6vOIl(lTc.>V und nepi Ilovi)povs AE�ec.>s", Rm\1 38, 370-383. Liihrs, D. 1 992. Untersuchungen zu den Athetesen Aristarchs in der llias und zu ihrer Behandlung im Corpus der exegetischen Scholien, Hilde,heim, Zurich - New York. Luhtala, A. 2000. On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, Miinster. - 2002. "On Definitions in Ancient Grammar" , in: Swiggers -Wouters 2002, 257-285. - 2003. "Syntax and Dialectic in Late Antiquity", in: Swiggers - Wouters 2003, 205-225.

Bibliography

545

- 2005. Grammar and Philosophy in LIte Antiquity. A Study of Prisdan's Sources, Amsterdam. Lundon, J. 1 998-1999. "La scrittura di P.Oxy. VIII 1086 e P.Oxy. LXV 445 1 ", APapyroI 1 0-1 1 , 1 7-32. - 2001 . "POxy 1086 e Aristarco", in: I. Andorlini - G. Bastianini - M. Man­ fredi - G. Menci (ed• . ), Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia. Firenze, 2�29 agosto 1 998, vol. 2, Florence, 827-839. - 2002. Un commentario aristarcheo al seamdo libro de/l'lliade: POxy VIII 1 086 (ProecJosis), Florence. Luppe, W. 1 991 . "Das neue Fragment aus der Hypothesi. zu Euripides' 'Mela­ nippe Sophe''', ZPE 89, 1 5-1 7 . - 2002. "Zur Geographie der Irrfuhrten d es Odysseus. P. Mich. Inv. 1 59 1 " , ZPE 1 39, 47-53. Luschnat, O. 1 954. "Die Thukydidesscholien: zu ihrer hand.chriftlichen Grundlage, Herkunft und Geschichte", Philologus 98, 1 4-58. - 1970. "Thnkyclides der Hi.toriker", in: RE Suppl. XII, 1 085-1 354. - 2000. "Ein Nachtrag zum Genfer Topographie-Papyrus Pack2 1 204", MH 57, 237-239. Maass, E. 1 884. "Die I1ia..scholien des Codex Leidensis", Hennes 19, 534-564. Magee, J. 1 989. Boethius on Signification and Mind, Leiden. Mackie, H.S. 1996. Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Riad, Lanham, Ma. Maehler, H. 1 963. Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frii h en Griechentum bis zur Zeit Pindars, Gottingen. - 1994. "Die Scholien der Papyri in ihrem VerhaItnis zu den Scholiencorpora der Hand.chrifren", in: Montanari 1 994, 95-1 41 . - 20()O. "L'evo\ution materielle de \'hypomnema ju.qu'i la hasse epoque. Le cas du POxy. 865 (Aristophane) et PWiirzhurg 1 (Euripide)", in: M.-O. Goulet-Caze - T. Dorandi - R. Goulet et at. (eds.), Le Commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'Institut des Traditiones Textuelles, Paris et Villjuif, 22-25 septembre 1 999, Pari., 29-36. - 2007. "Das Thnkydides-Hypomnema P. Oxy. 853 und clie Scholien", in: J. Frosen - T. Purola - E. Sahnenkivi (ed•. ), Proceedings of the 2'" International Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki, 1-7 August, 2004, vol. 2, Helsinki, 587593. Maestre Yenes, M.A.H. (ed.) 1 973. AI'S Iuliani Toletani episcopi: una gramatica latina de la Espana visigoda, Toledo. Maillard , J.-Fr. - Kecskemeti, J. - Portalier, M. (ed•. ) 1995. L'Europe des huma­ nistes (XIV-XVIl' siCc/es), Turnhout. Manakidou, F. - Spanoudakis, K. (eds.) 2008. Akfav8ptvr) Mouua. LvviX£la Kal V£(,)T£PIU/Jof O"TT] v £MTJVIUTIKr) TroiTJuTJ, Athens.

546

Bibliography

Mandilaras, B.G. 1973. The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri, Athens. Manetti, G. 1 996. "The Concept of the Sign from Ancient to Modern Semiot­ ics", in: G. Manetti, Knowledge through Signs. Ancient Semiotic Theories and Practices, Bologna 1 1-40. Marenbon, J . (ed.) 2(X)9. The Cambridge Companion on Boethim, Cambridge. Mariotti, I. (ed.) 1967. Marii Vidorini 1m granmutica. Introduzione, testo entico e commento, Florence. Marrou, H. - I. 1 948/ 1 956. Histoire de I'education dans I'antiquite, Paris ( = A His­ tory of Education in Antiquity, New York) . Matthaios, S. 1 999. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte und Interpreta­ tion zur Wortartenlehre, Gottingen. - 2002. "Neue Perspektiven fur die Historiographie der antiken Gral1unatik: Das Wortartensystem der Alexandriner" , in: Swiggers - Wouters 2002, 1 61-220. - 2003. "Tryphon au.� Alexandria: der erste Syntaxtheoretiker vor Apollonios Dyskolos?", in: Swiggers - Wouten 2(X)3, 97-1 32. - 2007. "Das Adverb in der Grammatikographie der griechi�chen Antike", in: A. Kama - S. Matthaios (eels.), Das Adverb in der Grammatikographie, vol. 1 , Miinster, 1 3-58. - 2008. " TlOII]TIj'i apa Kai KPITIKO,. " CP1AOAOY1K'; TOVT6TTjTO TWV EM"Vl­ OT1KWV lT01"TWV Kal " lT01"T1K'; KaTayWy,; T"S cplAOAOylos", in: Manakidou - Spanoudakis 2008, 545-643. Matthews, P .H. 1 991 . Morphology, Cambridge - New York - Port Chester Melbourne - Sydney (2nd Edition). - 1 994. "Greek and Latin Linguistics", in: G. Lepschy (ed.) , History of Linguistics, vol. 2: Classical and Medieval Linguistics, London - New York, 1-133. Mauersberger, A. 1 961 . Polybios-Lexikon, vol. 1, part 2: 5--4. Berlin. Maurer, K. 1995. Interpolation in Thucydides, Leiden - New York - Koln. Mayser, E. 1 938. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemiierzeit, vol. 1 , p art 2 : Flexionslehre, Berlin - Leipzig. McNamee, K. 1 995. "Missing Links in the Development of Scholia", GRBS 36, 399-414. - 2007. Annotations in Greek and LAtin Textsfrom Egypt, Oakville , Conn. Mehmel, F. 1 954. "Homer und die Griechen", A&A 4, 16-4 1 . Meijering, R. 1 985. "Aristophanes of Byzantium and scholia o n th e composi­ tion of the dranutic choru.�", in: W J. Aerts et a/. (eels.) , LXOI\IA: Studia ad enticam interpretationemque textuum Graecorum et ad historiam iuris Graeco­ Romani pertinentia viro dOdissimo D. Holwerda ob/ata, Groningen, 91-102. - 1 987. Literary in Rhetorical Theories in Greek Scholia, Groningen. Meillier, C. 1 985. "Extraits comrnentes d'Homere, Odyssee, 16 et 17: P. LiIIe inv. 83 + 1 34 + 93 b + 93 a + 1 1 4 t + 1 1 4 0 + 87", in: F. Gem - F. Thill (ed�.), Melanges I?fferts aJean Vercoutter, Paris, 229-238.

Bibliography

547

- 1993. "Theocrite, Idylle VII et autour de l'ldylle VII: ambigu'ites et contra­ dictions de I'autobiographique", in: G. Arrigh etti - F. Montanari (ed�.), LA componente autobiogrtifica nella poesia greaJ e latina fra realta e artificio letterario, Pisa, 1 01-1 28. Meineke, A. 1 849. Stephani Byzantii Ethnialrum quae supersunt, Berlin (Reprint: Graz 1 958, Chicago 1 992) . Meliado, C. 2005. Lessico dd Grammatici Greci Antichi, s.v. Eudaemon (www .aristarchm.unige.it/lgga) . Melone, A. 1996. "Note al 1TEpl 6lacpopc5:s xapaKT1')pwv di Platonio", Lexis 1 4, 1 99-203. Menzer, O. 1 867. De Rheso tragoedia, Diss. Berlin. Meridier, L. 1931 . Platon. Oeuvres completes V. l , Paris. Messeri Savorelli, G. - Pintaudi, R. 2002. "I lettori dei papm: dal commento autonomo agli scolli", in: V. Fera - G. Ferrau - S. Rizzo (ed�.), Talking to the Text: Marginalia from Papyri to Print. Proceedings of a Coriference held at Erice, 26 September-3 Oaober 1 998, Messina, 37-57. Mette, H.J. 1936. Sphairopoiia: Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Krates von Pergamon, Munich. - 1 980. "Neoptolemos von Parion", RlrM 1 23, 1-24. Meyer, D. 1 993. "'Nichts Unbezeugtes singe ich' : Die fiktive Darstellung der Wis.�enstradierung bei Kallimachos", in: W. Kullmann - J. Althoff (eds.), Vermittlung und Tradierung von WlSsen in der griechischen Kultur, Tiibingen, 3 1 7-336. - 2007. "The Act of Reading and the Act of Wriring in Hellenistic Epigram", in: Bing - Bm." 2007, 187-210. Meyer, E. 1937. "Oinoe (8-1 0) ", in: RE XVII .2, 2236-2244. Meyer, E. H. 1902-1 909. Lexikon der gricchischen und romischen Mythologie III 2, s.v. Poseidon, Leipzig. Modrak, D.K.W. 200 1 . Aristotle's Theory of LAnguage and Meaning, Cambridge. Moggi, M. 1 976. I sinecismi interstatali grea, Pi.�a. Molyneux, J.H. 1 992. Simonides. A Historical Study, Wauconda, Illi nois. Montana, F. 2006. "DidynlUs ( 1 ) ", in: Lessico dei Grammatid Grea Antichi (www .aristarchus.unige.it/lgga) . Montanari, F. 1 979. "Aristarco ad Odissea II 136-7. Appunti di filologia omeri­ ca antica", lV1D 3, 1 57-170 (= F. Montanari, Studi difilologia ommca antica II, Pi.�a 1995, 27-40) . - 1 983. "Nota al P.Turner 1 2", ZPE 50, 21-24. - 1 984. "Gli Homerica su papiro: per una disrinzione di generi", in: G. Arrighetti (ed.), Ricerche di filologia classica II. Filologia e critica letteraria della gre­ ata, Pisa, 1 25-1 38 ( = F. Montanari, Studi di filologia omerica antica II, Pis.a 1 995, 69-85) .

548

Bibliography

- 1 987. "Hyponoia e allegoria: piccole comiderazioni preliminari", in: Studi qfferti ad Anna Maria Quartiroli e Domenico Magnino, Como 1 987, 1 1-19. - 1 988. "Filologia omerica antica nei papiri", in: B.G. Mandilaras (ed.), Pro­ ceedings of the XVIII International Congress of Papyrology, Athens 25-3 1 May 1 986, vol. 1 , Athens, 337-344 (= F. Montanari, Studi difilologia ommca an­ tica II, Pisa 1995, 69-85 ) . - (ed.) 1 994. LA philologie grecque a l'epoque helltinistique et romaine, Vand­ oeuvres-Geneva. - 1 995. "II granunatico Tolomeo Pindarione, i poemi omerici e la scrittura", in: F. Montanari, Studi difilologia omerica antica II, Pisa, 41-58. - 1 996. "Antidoros", in: DNP 1 , 747. - 1 997. "Didymos ( 1 ) aus Alexandreia", in: DNP 3, 550-552. - 2001a. "Discu�sioni su 'Olimpo' nella filologia omerica antica e il grammatico Leogoras", in: S. Bianchetti et al. (eds.) , nOI KII\MA. Studi in onore di Michele R. Cataudella in occasione del 60° compleanno, La Spezia, 937-941 . - 2001b. "Conmlentari antichi s u papiro. n progetto Commentaria et lexica graeca in papyris reperta (CLGP)", in: I . Andorlini - G. Ba.,tianini - M. Man­ fredi - G. Menci (eds.) , Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia. Firenze, 2�29 agosto 1 998, vol. 2, Florence, 969-981 . - 2008. "Aristotele, Zenodoto, Aristarco e il serpente pietrificato di lliade II 3 1 9", in: Studi qfferti ad A. Perute/Ii, Rome, 237-244. - 2009. "Preface", in: F. Montanari - S. Perrone (eds.) , Fragments if the Past. Ancient Scholarship and Greek Papyri (TC 1 .2) , Berlin - New York, 1 731 76. - forthcoming, "The Peripatos on Literature: Interpretation, Use and Abu�e', Proceedings of the Conference: Filosofi della smola di Aristotele. Came/eonte e Prassifane (Rome, Istituto Svizzero, Sept. 5-7, 2(07) . Morgan, T. 1 995. "Dionysius Thrax and the Educational Uses of Granunar", in: Law - Sluiter 1 995, 73-94. - 1 998. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds, Cambridge. Most, G.W. 1986. "Pindar, 0. 2.83-90", CQ 36, 304-3 1 6 . - (ed.) 1999. Commentaries - Kommentare, Gottingen. MiiIler, B.A. 1 903. De Asclepiade Myrleano, Diss. Leipzig. - 19 1 8. "Antidoros ( 1 0) von Kyme", in: RE Suppl. III, 121-123. MiiIler, O. 1 9 1 3. Ober den Papyruskommentar zum der nias (O,e.-Pap. II 52ff), Diss. Munich. Munzi, L. 1 980-1 981 . "n 'De partibus orationis' de Giuliano di Toledo", in: AION(filol) 2-3, 153-228 (Reprint: Rome 1983) . - 2004. Multiplex LAtinitas. Testi grammaticali latini dell' Alto Medioevo, Naples. Murray, P. 1996. Plato, On Poetry, Cambridge. - 2006. "Poetic Inspiration in Early Greek", in: A. Laird (ed.), Ancient Literary Criticism, Oxford, 37-61 .

Bibliography

549

Nachtergael, G. 197 1 . "Fragments d'anthologies homeriques (p. Stra.�b. mv. 2374; P. Graec. Vindob. 26740; P. Hamb. II, 1 36) ", CE 46, 344-35 1 . Nagy, G . 2002. Plato'J Rhapsody and Homer's Music, Wa.�hington DC. Nannin i, S. 1 986. Omero e il suo pubblico nel pemiero dei rommentatori antichi, Rome. Nauck, A. 1 867. Lexicon Vindoboneme. Petropoli (Reprint: Hildesheim 1 965). Neil, R.A. 1 901 . The Knights if Aristophanes, Cambridge. Nesselrath, H.-G. 1 985. Luciam Parasitendialog. Untersuchungen und Kommentar, Berlin - New York. - 1990. Die attisehe mittlere Komodie. Jhre Ste/Iung in der antiken Literaturkritik und Literaturgeschichte, Berlin. Nickau, K. 2002. "Der Name Simichida.� bei Theokrit", Hermes 130, 389-403. Niedem13llIl, M. 1 947. M.Fabii Quintiliani institutioniJ oratoriae libri primi capita de grammatica (I 4-8), Neuchatel. Nifudopoulos, C. 2003. "Recon.�tructing Herodian's Pathology: In Defence of the Principles of Ancient Etymology", in: C. Nifadopoulos (ed.), Etymolo­ gia. StudieJ in Ancient Etymology. Proceedings if the Cambridge Conference on Ancient Etymology 25-27 September 2000, Miinster, 89-102. - 2005. "Herodian on the Nature of 'Lingui�tic 1T
550

Bibliography

OL�on, D.S. 1 998. Aristophanes, Peace. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. - 2002. Aristophanes, Achamians. Edited with Introduction and (.ommentary, Oxford. OL�on, D. - Sens, A. 1999. Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century BC, Oxford. Otranto, R. 2000. Antiche liste di libri su papiro, Rome. Pack, R.A. 1 965. The GlTl'k and Latin Uterary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt, Ann Arbor. Packman, Z.M. 1973. "Commentary on niad 9, 133-147", BA SP 10, 53-56. Pagani, L. 2007. AsclepiadI' di Mirlea. Iframmenti degli scritti Omerici. Introduzione, edizione I' rommento, Rome. Palumbo Stracca, B.M. 2007. "La dedica di 'Paride Simichida' (Syrinx, A.P. XV 21 = XLVII Gallavotti) : Aspetti metaletterari di un carmen figuratum", in: G. Lozza - S. Martinelli Tempesta (eds.), L'epigramma greco. Problemi I' prospettiVl', Milan, 1 13-136. P3mia.�, J. - Geu�, K. 2007. Eratosthenes. Sternsagen (Catasterismi). Editian, Ober­ setzung und Kommentar, Oberbaid. Papanghelis, Th. D. 1 994. 'H "OI'lTIKr, TCii v PW/Jaiwv . NEWTEpwV : "pOV7TO()EUElf Kai 7TPOEKTCrUElf, Athens. Papanghelis, Th. - Rengakos, A. (eds.) 200 1 . A Companion to Apollonius Rho­ dius, Leiden. Papathomas, A. 2003. "Scholien auf Iiterarischen Papyri als Zeugnis.� fUr philo­ logische Tatigkeit in der Peripherie der griechisch-romischen Welt", C&M 54, 255-286. Papneti, A. 2008. Kp/TIKr7 EK60UTJ Kal uxoAlau/JOr TOV ipyov nepl l.lov,;pOVS M�ews TOV ypa/J/JaTIKOV /-fx.J6lavov, Di\.�. Thessaloniki. Pape, W. 1914. Griechisch-Deutsches Handwiirterbuch, 2 voL�., bearbeitet v. M. Sengebusch, Braunschweig (Reprint: Gra2 1954) . Parsons, PJ. 1977. "Callimachus: Victoria Berenices", ZPE 25, I-50. - 2002. "New Texts and Old Theories", in: T.P. Wiseman (ed.) , Classics in Progress. Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome, Oxford, 39-57. - 2007. "Copyi�ts of Oxyrhynchus", in: Bowman et al. 2007, 262-270. Pasquali, G. 1 920. Filolagia e storia, Florence (Reprint 1998) . Passalacqua, M. (ed.) 1 999. Prisciani Caesariensis Opuscula, Rome. Passow, F. 1841-1 857. Handwiirterbuch der griechischen Sprache. Neu bearbeitet und zeitgemaB umgestaltet von V. Chr. F. Rost et al., 4 vols. , Leipzig (Reprint: Darmstadt 1 970). Paton, W.R. - Hicks, E.L. 1891 . The Inscriptions of (.os, Oxford. Patterson, C. 1 98 1 . Pericles ' Citizenship Law of 45 1-450 BC, New York.

Bibliography

55 1

Pavano, G. 1936. "Dionisio d'A!icamasso critico di Tucidide", in: Memorie della Reale Aaademia delle &ienze di Torino (parte seconda, Cla'lSe di Scienze di morali, storiche e filologiche) 68, 1-43 [251-293] . - 1958. Saggio su Tucidide. lntroduzione, testo, traduzione, commento, appendice e indici, Palenno. Pepin, J. 1 976. Mythe et allegorie: Les origines grecques et les contestations judeo­ chlitiennes, Paris. - 1985. "IYM BOAA, IHMEIA, OMOIQMATA. A propos de De interpretatione I, 1 6a3-8 et Politique VIII 5, 1 340a�39", in: P. Moraux (ed.), Aristoteles Werk und Wirkung, Berlin - New York, 22-44. Peppas Delmousou, D. - Rizzo, M.A. (eds.) 1 993. lscrizioni di Cos, Rome. Perrone, S. 2006. "Hypsicrates", in: Lessico dei Grammatici Greci Antichi, s.v. www .aristarchu�.unige.it/lgga. Perusino, F. 1 989. Platonio, La Commedia Greca, Urbino. pfeiffer, R. 1968. History of Classical Scholarship. From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford. Pinhorg, J. 1 975. "Classical Antiquity: Greece", in: Th. A. Seheok (ed.), Cur­ rent Trends in Linguistics, vol. 1 3 : Historiography of Linguistics, The Hague Paris, 69-126. Plezia, M. 1 949. De commentariis isagogicis, Cracow. Podlecki, AJ. 1 969. "The Peripatetic.� a� Literary Critics", Phoenix 23, 1 1 4137. Poethke, G. 1 98 1 . "39. Inventarli�te", in: Papyri Greek and Egyptian edited by Various Hands in Honour of Eric Gardner Turner, Oxford, 1 63-1 66. Pontani, A. 2007. "DaIJ'archivio di Simone Assemani (1752-1 821 ) : documenti e carteggi", Quademi per la storia dell' Universita di Padova 40, 3-66. Pontani, F. 2005a. Sguardi su [!lisse. La tradizione esegetica greca all' Odissea, Rome. - 2005h. "0 mito, Ia lingua, la morale: tre piccole introduzioni a Omero", RFIC 1 33, 23-74. - 2006. "Gli scoli omerici e iI senso del mondo: storie e progetti da Faesch a Villoison, da Tychsen ai giorni nostri", in: G. AveuU - P. Scattolin (eds.) , I classici greci e i taro commentatori, Rovereto, 201-234. - 2007-2010. Scholia Graeca in Odysseam, vol. 1 : Scholia ad libros a-f3, vol. 2: &holia ad libros y-S, Rome. Pontani, F.M. 1 961 . C. Kavtifjs, Poesie, Milan . Porter, J.I. 1 992. "Henneneutic lines and circles: Aristarchus and Crates on the exegesis of Homer", in: R. Lamherton - J.J. Keaney (ed�.) , Homer's Ancient Readers: The Hmneneutics of Greek Epic's Earliest Exegetes, Princeton, 671 1 4. Powell, J.U. 1 925. Collraanea Alexandrina, Oxford. Preisendanz, K. 1 933. Papyru.!/imde und Papyruiforschung, Leipzig.

552

Bibliography

Pretagostini, R. - Dettori, E. (ed�.), La cultura ellenistica. L'opera letteraria e I'esegesi antica. Atti del Convegno COFIN 200 1, Universita di Roma "Tor Ver­ gata", 22-24 settembre 2003, Rome. Pritchett, W.K. 1 975. Dionysius of Halicarnassus: On Thucydides. English Transla­ tion based on the Greek Text if Usener-Radermacher, with Commentary, Berke­ ley - Los Angeles - London. - 1 979. The Greek State at War, part 3: Religion, Berkeley - Los Angeles London. Probert, Ph. 2006. Ancient Greek Accentuation: Synchronic Patterns, Frequency Effects, and Prehistory, Oxford. Race, W.H. 1 997. Pindar, vol. 1: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes. Cambridge, Mas.�. - London. Radermacher, L. 1 905. "Dionysios von Halikarnassos", in: RE V . l , 961-97 1 . Rahn, H. 2006/ 1 995. Marcus Fabius Quintilianus. Ausbildung des Redners, 2 vok, Darmstadt. Ramelli, I. 2004. Allegoria, vol. 1 : L'eta classica, Milan. Razzetti, F. 2003. "Aristonicus", in: Lessico dd Grammatid Gred Antichi, s.v. www .aristarchu�.unige.it/lgga. Regenbogen, O. 1 940. "Theophrastos (3) ", in: RE Suppl. VII, 1 354-1 562. Reitzenstein, R. 1 897. Geschichte der griechischen Etymologika. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Philologje in Alexandria und Byzanz, Leipzig (Reprint: Amster­ dam 1 964) . Rengakos, A. 1 992. "Homerische Worter bei Kallimac hos", ZPE 94, 21-47. - 1 993. Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter, Stuttgart. - 1 994a. Apollonios Rhodios und die antike Homererkliirung, Munich. - 1 994b. "Lykophron al� Homererllirer", ZPE 102, 1 1 1-130. - 200 1 . "Apollonius Rhodius as a Homeric Scholar", in: Papangheli.� - Rengakos 200 1 , 1 93-216. - 2002. "The Helleni�tic Poets as Homeric Critics", in: F. Montanari (ed.), ()mero tremila anni dopo, Rome, 1 43-1 57. Rhodes, P J. 1 993. A Commentary if the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, Oxford. Richardson, N. 1 975. "Homeric Professors in the Age of the Sophi�ts", PCPhS 2 1 , 65-8 1 . - 1 980. "Literary Criticism i n th e Exegetical Scholia to th e Rliad: A Sketch", CQ 30, 265-287. Rijk, L.M. de 2002. Aristotle: Semantics and Ontology, vol. I: General Introduction. T h e Works on Logic, vol. II: The Metaphysics. Semantics in Aristotle's Strategy if Argument, Leiden - Boston - Cologne. Rijksbaron, A. 2006. "Sur l'article avec nom propre", in: J.-L. Breuil - Chr. Cus.�et - F. Garambois - N. Palmieri - E. Perrin-Salminadayar (ed�.) , 'Ev

Bibliography

553

KOllKAJvit;r 7Tliua qJlAia. Melanges cfferts a Bernard Jacquinod, Saint-Etienne, 243-257. - 2(X)7. Plato, Ion or: On the niad, Leiden. Risch, E. 1 957. "Zur Geschichte der griechischen Ethnika", MH 14, 63-74. RitschI, Fr. W. 1 834. De Oro et Orione commentatio, Breslau. Robert, 1. 1 933. "Les AskIepieis de J'Archipel", REG 46, 423-442 ( 1. Robert, Opera minora selecta, vol. 1 , Amsterdam 1 969, 549-568). Robins, R.H. 1 988. "Appendix. History of Linguistics", in: FJ. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics, The Cambridge Sun-cr, vol. 1: Linguistic Theory: Foundations, Cambridge, 462-482. - 1 993. The Byzantine Grammarians: Their Place in History, Berlin - New York. - 1 997. A Short History of Linguistics, London. Rochette, B. 1997. Le latin dans Ie monde grec : recherches sur Ia d!fIUsion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellenophones de l'Empire romain, Bruxelles. Roemer, A. 1 924. Die Homerexegese Aristarchs in ihren Grundzjjgen, beam. und hrsg. v. E. Belmer, Paderbom. Rogers, B.B. 1 915. The Wasps, London. Ros, J.G.A. 1 968. Die M ETABOAH (Variatio) als Stilprinzip des Thukydides, Oiss . Nijmegen. Rossi, L.E. 1 995. "Letteratura di 6lo1ogi e 6lo1ogia di letterati", Aevum(ant} 8, 9-32. - 2(X)1. The Epigrams Ascribed to Theocritus: A Method ofApproach, Leuven. Rowe, CJ. 1 988. Plato, Phaedrus. With Translation and Commentary, Wannin­ ster, Wiltshire. Russell, O .A. 2001-2002. Quintilian. The Orator's Education, 5 vols., Cam­ bridge, Ma. - London Ru.�ten, J. 1 982. "Dicaearchus and the Tales From Euripides", GRBS 23, 357367. Rutgers, L.V. - Horst, P.W. van der - Havelaar , H.W. - Teuges, L (eds.). 1998. The Use of Sacred Books in the Andent World, Leuven. =

Sandys, J.E. 1 908. A History of Classical &holarship. Vol. 2: From the Revival of Learning to the End of the Eighteenth Century (in Italy, France, England, and the Netherlands), Cambridge. Saussure, F. de. 1916/ 1 995. LOUrs de linguistique generale, Paris. Schad, S. 2(X)7. A Lexicon of Latin Grammatical Terminology, Pi� - Rome. Schaefer, J. 2(X)3. K. K4vafis. Das Hauptwerk, Heidelberg. Schaerer, R. 1 930. 'ETTlCTT'I) I1TJ et TE )(V11 . Etudes sur les notions de connaissance et d'art d'Homere a Platon, Ois.�. Lausanne . Schenkeveld, O.M. 1964. Studies in Demetrius on Style, Amsterdam.

554

Bibliography

1 970. "Aristarchus and ·OIJ1lPOS
=

Bibliography

555

Schwendner, G. W. 1 988. Literary and Non-Literary Papyri from the University of Michigan Co/Iedion, Di.s. Michigan. Schwyzer, E. 1 939. Griechische Grammatik, vol. 1 , Munich. Sedley, D. 1 996. "Aristotle's De Interpretatiotle and Ancient Semantics", m: Manetti 1 996, 86-1 08. - 2003. Plato's Cratylus, Cambridge. Segal, Ch. 1 98 1 . Poetry and Myth in Andent Pastoral: Essays on 7'heocritus and Virgil, Princeton. Seider, R. 1967. Paliiographie dergnechischen Papyri, vol. 1 , Stuttgart. Sherwin-White, S. 1 978. Ancient Cos. A Historical Survey from the Dorian Settle­ ment to the Imperial Period, GotUngen. Siebenbom, E. 1 976. Die Lehre von der Sprachrichtigkeit und ihren Kriterien. Studien zur antiken normativen Grammatik, Amsterdam. Sinko, Th. 1 934. "De causae Rhesi novis..ima defensione", AC 3, 223-229; 41 1-429. Sistakou, E. 2002. "Kallimachos als Homererklarer: Das Beispiel der geographi­ schen Namen", WS 1 1 5, 1 45-1 73. - 2005. H yewyparpfa TOV KaMt.uaxov Kat " VeWTeptK1 Trof"u" TWV eM"vtaTtKt:JV XPOIIWV, Athens. - 2007. "Glossing Homer: Homeric Exegesis in Early Third Century Epi­ gram", in: Bing - Bruss 2007, 391-408. Slater, W J. 1989. "Problem. in Interpreting Scholia on Greek Texts", in: J. N. Grant (ed.), Editing Greek and LAtin Texts. Papers Given at the Twenty- Third Annual Conference on Editorial Problems. University of Toronto. 6-7 November, 1 98 7, New York, 37-61 . Sluiter, I. 1 990. Andent Grammar in Context. Contributions to the Study of Andent Linguistic Thought, Anuterdam. - 1 992. "Tzetzes on a Mini-thesi. in Homer: The hnpP1lIlCXTa 6ETIK6:", Mne­ mosyne 45, 526-528. - 1 997. "The Greek Tradition", in: W. van Bekkum - J. Houben - I . Sluiter - K. Versteegh (eds.), The Emergence of Semantics in Four Linguistic Traditions. Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic, Amsterdam, 147-224. Snipes, K. 1 988. "Literary Interpretation in the Homeric Scholia: The Similes of the iliad" , AJPh 1 09, 1 96-222. Sodano, A.R. 1 966. "Gli O:Aoya omerici neU'esegesi di Portirio", AAP 1 5, 205-239. Sonmlerstein, A.H. 1 980. Aristop/umes Acharnians, Warminster. - 1 981 . Aristophanes Knights, Warminster. - 1 987. Aristophanes Birds, Warminster. - 2009. "Platonios Diff. Com. 29-31 and 46-52 Koster: Aristophanes' Aiolosikon, Kratinos' Odysses, and Middle Comedy", in: A.H. Sommerstein, Talking about LAughter and Other Studies in Greek Comedy, Oxford, 272-288.

556

Bibliography

Sorabji, R. 1990. "The Ancient Conmlentators on Aristotle", in: R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle Transformed, London, 1-30. Spanoudakis, K. 2002. Philitas of Cos, Leiden - Boston - Cologne. Spooner, J. (ed.) 2002. Nine Homeric Papyrifrom Oxyrhynchos, Florence. St:urunerjohann, H. - Auroux, S. - Cherubinl, D. et al. (eds.) 1996. Lexicon grammatirornm. U'ho 's U'ho in the History of World Linguistics, Tiibingen. Stark, I. 2004. Die hiimische Muse. Spott ais soziale und mentale Kontrolle in der griechischen Komodie, Munich. Steinhausen, I. 1910. KOMOIDOUMENOI. De grammaticornm veternm studiis ad homines in comoedia Attica irrisos pertinentibus, Diss. Bonn. Steinilial, H. 1 890-1891 . Geschichte der Sprachwissenschtift bei den Griechen und Romern. Mit besonderer Ruooicht auf die Logik, 2 vols . , Berlin (Reprint: Hil­ desheinl 1 971). Stephan, H. 1889. De Herodiani Technid dialectologia, Strasbourg. Stem, G. 1925. Ober das Haben. Sieben Kapitel zur Ontologie der Erkenntnis, Bonn. Stock, ehr. 2005. Sergius (ps. - Cassiodorns), COnmlentarium de oratione et de octo partibus orationis artis secundae Donati. Oberligernng, Text und Kom­ mentar, Munich - Leipzig. Stoevesandt, M. 2004. Feinde - Gegner - Opfer. Zur Darstellung der Troianer in den Kampjszenen der Rias, Basel. Stoll, H.W. 1 886-1 890. Lexikon der gnechischen und romischen Mythologie, Leip­ zig. Strange, S. 1 992. Porphyry, on Aristotle's Categories, London. Stra.�burger, H. 1 990. "Umblick inl Triinmlerfeld der griechischen Geschichts­ schreibung", in: H. Stra.�burger, Studien zur Alten Geschichte vol. 3, Hildes­ heinl - New York, 1 60-218. Stra.�si, S. 1978. "Due franmlenti di conmlentari omerici", Aegyptus 58, 1 1 01 1 6. Strecker, C. 1884. De Lycophrone Euphronio Eratosthene comicorum interpretibus, Diss. GreifSwald. Stroumsa, G.G. 1998. "The Chri�tian Hermeneutical Revolution and its Dou­ ble Helix", in: Rutgers et al. 1998, 9-28. Struck, P. 2004. Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of their Texts, Princeton. Stuart Jones, H. - Powell, J.E. 1 942. Thucydidis Historiae, Oxford. Suleinlan, Y. 1 995. "Arabic Lingui�tic Tradition", in: Koerner - A.�er 1 995, 28-38. Susemilil, F. 1 891-1892. Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandriner­ zeit, 2 vols., Leipzig. Swain, S. 1 996. Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World AD 5(}-250, Oxford.

Bibliography

557

Swiggers, P. 2004. "Alcuill et les doctrines granunaticales", Annales de Bretagne et des pays de l' Ouest 1 1 1 .3, 1 47-1 6 1 . Swiggers, P. - Wouters, A. 1 995. " Techne e t empeiria: la dynamique d e la gram­ maire grecque dam l'Antiquite a la lum.iere des papyrus granunaticaux", LAUES 15, 83-1 00. - (ed�.) 2002. Grammatical Theory and Philcsophy of LAnguage in Antiquity, Leu­ yen - Paris - Sterling, Virginia. - (ed�.) 2003. Syntax in Antiquity, Leuven - Paris - Dudley, Ma. - 2007a. "On the Origins of the Participle as a Part of Speech", in: D.A. Kibbee (ed.) , History if Linguistics 2005. Selected Papmfrom the 10th Intmlational Conference on the History if the LAnguage Sciences (ICHoLS X), 1-5 Srytember 2005, Urbana- Champaign, Rlinois, Amsterdam - Philadelphia, 50--6 6 . - 2007b. "El gramitico en acci6n: una aproxiInaci6n a la labor didictica del ypallllaTlKOS, a partir de un testimonio inedito (P. Berol. inv. 9917) ", in: J.A. Fernindez Delgado - F. Pordomingo - A. Str:nnaglia (eds.), Escuela y literatura en Grecia antigua. Aetas del Simposio Internacional, Univmidad de Sa­ lamanca 1 7- 1 9 noviembre de 2004, Cas.� o, 191-206. - 2008. "Le participe: unite 'concrete', (etymologiquement) vraie et proble­ matique", Incontri Linguistici 3 1 , Hl1-1 1O. Taplin, O. 2007. Pots & Plays: Interactions between Tragedy and Greek Vase­ painting if the Fourth Century B. C., Los Angeles. Taylor, DJ. (ed.) 1986. The History if Linguistics in the Classical Period (Histo­ riographia Linguistica 13.2-3) . Amsterdam - Philadelphia. - 1986a. "Rethinking the History of Language Science in Classical Antiq­ uity", in: Taylor 1986, 175-1 90. Theodoridis, Chr. 1 976. Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Philoxenos, Berlin New York. Thoma., R. 1 992. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece, Cambridge. Thomson, D. J. 1994. "Literacy and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt", in: Bowman - Woolf 1994, 67-83. Trachsel, A. 2008. "Le geographe Eratosthene contte Homere: un choix de Strabon?", in: Cmset - Frangoulis 2008, 105-1 19. Trachsel, A. - Schubert, P. 1 999. "Une description de la topographie de Troie dam un papyrus de Geneve (pac P 1 2(4): Re-edition", 1\1H 56, 222-237. Trendall, A.D. - Webster, T .B.L. 197 1 . nIustrations if Greek Drama, London. Trendelenburg, F.A., Geschichte der Kategorienlehre. Zwei Abhandlungen, Berlin 1 846 (Reprint: Hildesheim 1963) . Triimpy, H. 1950. Kriegerische Fachausdrncke im griechischen Epos, Basel. Turner, E.G. 1952. "Roman Oxyrhynchm", JEA 38, 7B-93 (Reprint m: Bowman et al. 2007, 1 41-1 54) .

558

Bibliography

- 1 956. "Scribes and SchoIan of Oxyrhynchu." , in: Akten des VIII. Intematio­ tullen Kongresses for Papyrologie Wien 1 955, Vienna, 141-146 (Reprint in: Bowman et al. 2007, 256-261). - 1 962. "L'erudition alexandrine et les papyrus", CE 37, 1 35-1 52. - 1 968. Greek Papyri, Oxford. - 1 976. "Papyru' Bodmer XXVIII: A Satyr-Play on the Confrontation of Heracles and Atla." , l'vlH 33, 1-23. Turner, E.G. - Parsons, P.J. (ed• .) 1 987. Greek Manuscripts � the Andent World, London. Usener, H. 1 889. Dionysii Halicamassensis librorum de imitatione reliquae epistu­ laeque criticae duae, Bonn. - 1 9 1 2-1 913. "Ein altes Lehrgebaude der Philologie", in: Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-phiIologischen und historischen Klasse der Kiiniglichen und Kaiserli­ chen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissensch'!ften, Heft IV, 582--648. Usener, H. - Radermacher, L. 1 899, 1 904-1 929. Dionysii Halicamasei quae ex­ stant, vol. V-VI, Stuttgart - Leipzig. Usher, S. 1 974-1 985. Dionysius of Halicamassus. Critical Essays. With an English Translation, 2 voL•. , Cambridge, Ma. - London. Valckenaer, L.c. 1 739. Ammonius, De a4finium vocabulorum d!fferentia, Lugduni Batavorum (Reprint: Leipzig 1 8222). van der Valk, M. 1949. Textual Criticism � the Odyssey, Leiden. - 1 955. "ji\ya�e�vwv", in: IfrGE 1 , 34-42. - 1963-1964. Researches on the Text and Scholia � the niad, 2 vok , Leiden. - 1 976. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri lliadem pertinentes, vol. 2, Leiden. van Groningen, B.A. 1 959. "Quelques problemes de la poe..i e bucolique grecque", Nlnemosyne 12, 24-53. van Ophuijsen, J. 2003, "Parts of what speech? Stoic Notion. of Statement and Sentence, or: How the Dialectician Knew Voice and Begat Syntax", in: Swiggers - Wouters 2003, 77-94. van Rossum-Steenbeek, M. 1 997. "The so-called 'Homeric Anthologies"', in: B. Kramer - W. Luppe - H. Maehler - G. Poethke (eds.) , Akten des 2 1 . In­ tematiotullen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin, 13.- 1 9. 8. 1 995, vol. 2, Stuttgart ­ Leipzig, 991-995. - 1 998. Greek Readers' Digests? Studies on a Selection � Subliterary Papyri, Lei­ den. van Thiel, H. 1 989. "Die Lemmata der lliasscholien. Zur Systematik und Ge­ schichte", ZPE 79, 9--2 6. Va..silaki, E. 2009. "Aristarque interprete des odes siciliennes de Pindare: expli­ cation interne et explication externe", DHA supplement 2, 1 21-145.

Bibliography

559

Velardi, R. 1 989. Enthousiasmos. Possessione rituale e teoria della communicazione poetica in Platone, Rome. Velsen, A. von. 1 853. Tryphonis Grammatid Alexandrini Fragmmta, Berlin. Verbeke, G. 1 996. "Meaning and Role of the Expressible (AEKT6v) in Stoic Logic", in: Manetti 1996, 133-1 53. Verdenius, Wl- 1 943. "L'Ion de Platon", Mnemosyne 1 1 , 233-262 Versteegh, K. 1 986. "Latinita.., HeUenismos, 'Arabiyya"', in: Taylor 1 986, 425448. - 1 993. Arabic Grammar and Qur'anic Exegesis in Early Islam, Leiden - New York - Cologne. - 2003. "Zayd Ibn 'Ali's Commentary on the Qur'an", in: Y. Suleiman (ed.), Arabic Grammar and Linguistics, London, 9-30. Vico, G. B. 1 992. Prindpi di sdmza nuova, ed. F. Nicolini, Milan . Viljamaa, T. 1 995. "Paradosis and synetheia. Language Study in C1as..ical Antiq­ uity", AAntHung 36, 1 67-1 74. Villoison, J.B.C. d' A. 1 788. VtJrjpov 'Il l/a, C7liv TOi) C7X0/!fol, / Homeri mas ad veteris codicis Vmeti fidem recensita, Venice. Wackernagel, J. 1 876. De pathologiae veterum initiis, Di.. s. Basel. Wankel, H. 1 976. Demosthenes, Redefor Ktesiphon uber den Kranz, Heidelberg. Warraq, 1. (ed.). 1 998. The Origins if the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam 's Holy Book, Amherst, NY. Warren, W. 1 899. "The Structure of Dionysii Halicama..sensis Epistula II ad Ammaeum", AJPh 20, 316-3 1 9 . Weber, C.F. 1 86 1 . "S. Augustini a rs grammatica cum prolegomeni.. ", in: C.F. Weber, Indices lectionum et publicarum et privatarum quae in Academia Marbur­ gensi per semestre aestivum . . . habmdae proponuntur, Marburg, 1-3 1 . Weber, R. 1 888. " D e Dioscuridis nepi TC:>v 1Tap' 'O�t)PCP v6�c.>v libeUo", Leip­ ziger Studim 1 1 , 87-197. Weem.., S. 1 98 1 . Greek Grammatical Papyri: The School Texts, Diss. Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia. Wehrli, F. 1 969. Die Schule des Aristoteles, vol. 9: Herakleides Pontikos, Phainias von Eresos, Praxiphanes, Ba..el - Stuttgart. Weidemann, H. 1 991 . "Griindziige der aristotelischen Sprachtheorie", in: Schmit­ ter 1 99 1 , 170-1 92. Weingreen, J. 1 982. Introduction to the Critical Study if the Text if the Hebrew Bible, Oxford. Weingarth, G. 1967. Zu Theokrits Idyll VII, Freiburg. Wendel, C. 1 9 1 4. Scholia in Theocritum vetera, Leipzig. - 1 920. Uberliejerung und EnL�tehung der TheokrjL�ch olien, Berlin. - 1 939. "Oros (4) ", in: RE XVIII. 1 , 1 1 77-1 183.

560

Bibliography

- 1 950. "Platonios", in: RE XX.2, 2544. West, M.L. 1997. "Hocu..-Pocm in Ea.t and West: Theogony, Ritual, and the Tradition of Esoteric Commentary", in: A. Lak.. - G.W. Most (ed•. ), Stud­ ies on the Dervmi Papyrus, Oxford, 8 1 -90. - 1 999. "The invention of Homer", CQ 49, 364-382. - 2001 . Studies in the Text and Transmission of tlw iliad, Munich - Leipzig. West, St. 1 967. The Ptolemaic Papyri ofHomer, Cologne - Opladen. - 1 970. "Chalcenteric Negligence", CQ 20, 288-296. Wheeler, E.L. 1988. "nOMA KENA TOY nOAEMOY", GRBS 29, 1 53-1 84. Whitehead, D. 1 977. The Ideology if the Athmian Metic, Cambridge. Wil:nnowitz-Moellendorf( V. von. 1 875. Analecta Euripidea, Berlin. - 1 888. "Zu den Homerscholien", Hermes 23, 142-1 47. - 1 889/1 907. Euripides Herakles, vol. 1 : Einleitung in die attische Tragodie. Berlin. - 1 900. "Rez. der Pap. Ox. II (Nr. 221)", GGA 162, 29-58. - 1 906. Die Textgeschichte der gnechischen Bukoliker, Berlin. - 1 922. Pindaros, Berlin. - 1 924. Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos, Berlin. - 1 926. "Lesefiiichte", Hermes 61 , 277-303. - 2006. "Homers nias (Voriesung WS 1 887/ 1 888 Gottingen/" ed. P. Drager, Hildesheim - Zurich - NewYork (Revised edition 2(08) . Willi , A. 2008. Sikelismos. Spraclw, Literatur und Gesellsch4t im griechischen Sizilim (8.-5. jh. v. Chr.), Ba.el. Willi:nns , M.F. 2000. "Crossing into Enemy Lines: Military Intelligence in iliad 10 and 24", Electronic Antiquity 5.3. Wilson, N.G. 1 996. &hoLm if Byzantium. Revised Edition, London - Cam­ bridge, Ma. - 2007. "Scholiasts and Commentators", GRBS 47, 39-70. Winstedt, E.O. 1 907. "Some Greek and Latin Papyri in Aberdeen Museum", CQ 1, 257-267. Winterbottom, M. 1 970. M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis oratoriae libri duodedm, 2 vok , Oxford. Wi"e, J. 1 995. "Greeks, Romans and the Rise of Attici'lln ", in: J.GJ. Abbenes - I. Sluiter - S.R. Slings (eds.), Greek Literary Theory after Aristotle. A Collec­ tion if Papers in Honour if D.M. Schenkeve1d, Amsterdanl, 65-82. Wolf, F.A. 1795/ 1 876. Prolegomma ad Homerum, Halle/Saale - Berlin - Hildes­ hellll. Wouters, A. 1 976. "A Note on the Homer Commentary P.W.V. Inv. 217", ZPE 2 1 , 271-273. - 1 979. The Grammatical Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt. Contributions to the Study if the 'Ars Grammatica ' in Antiquity, Bru."els.

Bibliography

561

- 1 988. The Chester Beatty Codex Ac 1 499. A Graero-IAtin Lexicon on the Pauline Epistles and a Greek Grammar, Leuven - Paris. - 1997. "The Granunatical Papyru.� P. Berol. inv. 9917", in: Akten des 2 1 . Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin 1 995, Stuttgart, 1 021-1 033. - 1 999. "La granunaire grecque dans l'ecole antique, d'apres les papyru.�", in: L. Basset - Fr. Biville (ed�.), Actes du XXXIe Congres International de I'A . P.L.A.E. S. , Universites Lumii're-Lyon 2 etJean Moulin-Lyon 3, Lyon 5, 6 et 7 juin 1 998, Lyon, 5 1-68. Wouters, A. - Swiggers, P. 2007. "L'adverbe chez les gramm airiens latin� de l'Antiquite tardive", in: A. Kama - S. Matthaios (eds.), Das Adverb in der Grammatikographie, vol. 1 , Miinster, 75-1 1 8 . Yunis, H. 2003.

"Writing for Reading: Thucydides, Plato, an d the Emergence

in: H. Yw:ri.� (ed.), Written Texts and the Rise of Lit­ erate Culture in Ancient Greece, Cambridge, 1 89-212. of the Critical Reader",

1 998. Euripide. Cidope, Reso, Milan. 1955. The Political Plays of Euripides, Manchester.

Zanetto, G. Zuntz, G.

General Index 335; 338; 339; 422; 424 n. 45 accidentia: 338; 378; 380; 385 actio: 332; 346 action: 481-482; 484 n. 12; 486; 491 adjacency: 350; 351; 357 adjacent: 349; 350; 3 5 1 ; 353; 359 adjective: 482; 491 ; 507 adverb: 318; 339; 362; 364; 4(�; 484; 490-492 - cla.\Ses of adverbs: 323-329 - adverbia demonstrandi: 328 - adverbia separandi: 328 Aelius Tubero, Q.: 457; 460; 467; 469; 478 tU(OVW, "take in a given sense": 1 63 n. 25 Alcaeus: 1 9 Alexander of Aphrodisia�: 499 accent / accentuation:

Alexandrian scholars/grammari ans:

1 2; 1 6; 1 8; 2 1 ; 55-85

Alexandrian scholarship/ gram­ mar:

1 1 ; 20; 21 ; 22; 55-85

allegory / allegorical interpreta­

17; 18; 1 9; 20; 2 1 ; 34; 1 05-1 17; 1 70 n. 68

tion:

Ammonius (pupil of Aris­ tarchus) :

277-278

500; 501 ; 504; 508; 509; 5 1 0; 5 1 1 ; 512; 513 analogy: 87-88; 99-102; 270-273; 291-3 10 ; 341 ; 342; 343; 410; 414; 421 n . 35; 470-47 1 ; 472 n. 55 anaphora: 256; 259; 260; 261 ; 264; 265-266 Ammonius (Henneiou):

anastrophe:

254-255

63-67 318 aVTi TOV : 1 70; 1 70 n . 6 5 ApeUicon of Teos: 456 Apollodoru.� of Athens: 182 Apollonius Dyscolus: 1 1 ; 27{� 273; 275-279; 290; 322; 347; 348; 349; 350; 355; 358; 359; 455; 465; 47(�7 1 ; 473; 476483 - his view of grammar and Ho­ meric language: 98-102 [Arcadius): 285-290 Aristarchus: 1 1 ; 12; 17; 18; 20; 21; 24; 39; 88; 92; 96-97; 99; 1 051 17; 270-273; 280; 3 1 8; 453; 464-465; 471 ; 475; 477 - on Pindar: 1 8 1 ; 1 83; 184; 1 92 Aristodemu�: 194 Aristonicus: 1 1 2 n. 23; 1 1 4; 1 1 5 Aristophanes: 24; 207-223 Aristophanes of Byzantium: 1 1 ; 24; 348 Aristode: 1 4; 1 5; 1 9; 28; 35; 39; 1 1 6; 1 1 7 n. 32; 318; 347; 499; 500; 501 ; 502; 503; 50S; 506; 511; 512 - Categories: 599; 502; 505; 5 1 3 - On Interpretation: 499; SOl ; 502; 507; 508; 5 1 3 - On Memory: 499 - Metaphysics: 499; 507 - Organon: 499 - Physics: 499; 513 - Poetics: 1 2; 14; 503; 508; 5 1 1 ; 513 - Politics: 14 Antidorus of Cyme:

Antipater of Tarsus:

General Index

564

- On the Soul: 499 - and Hellenistic scholanhip: 47-52

ars grammatica / artes grammaticae: 55-85;

324; 328;

3 3 1 ; 333; 334; 335; 375; 376; 378

article: 484; 485, 490 - article ellipsis: 252-254 articulation: 504; 509; 5 1 1 CXT(T)OTOi, accent of: 284-290 Attici,m:

9 1-95; 269-290; 458

attribute: aucroritas:

402

255; 265-269

barbari.m (barbansmus):

9&-97;

1 0 1 -1 03; 336; 337; 338; 342; 423

Bible: 1 5 biography: 1 2 ; 1 3 Boethius: 500; 5 1 2; 5 1 3 bookhand.: 1 67; 1 67 n. 48 book sunmuries: 1 59

394;

399; 402; 403; 461-464; 468-

n.

1 8;

488-489, 492-495 380; 382; 392; 393; 394;

398; 40 1 ; 402

Catenae: 1 5; 1 6 Chaeris: 1 92 Christian homilies: 1 5 ; 16 ChoerobosclL': 28 1 -282 364-365

ChrysipplL': 456; 476

1 1 1 ; 355; 357; 358;

n.

67; 509

- commentaries VS. mono­ graphs: 1 63-1 66; 1 76 n. 93 - coverage of commentary: 1 67 - mythographic conmlentaries: 1 59 - on the Odyssey: 1 6 1 - relation to scholia in medieval manuscripts: 1 60; 1 60 n. 7; - spacing as articulation in com­ mentaries: 1 62; 1 62 n. 22; 1 63; 1 63 n. 29; 1 7 1 ; 1 7 1 n. 71 comparatio: 382; 384; 385; 402 comparison: 382; 383; 384; 385; 404 393 n.23 339; 367-

374; 388; 5 1 0; 5 1 1 ; 5 1 2 ; 5 1 3

47 1 ; 474; 48 1 ; 485; 486

chna:

1 3; 1 4; 1 5 ;

1 6; 2 0 ; 2 1 ; 1 59; 421 ; 423; 427; 452-455; 467 ; 475; 477

compartmentalization: compound.: 336; 337;

42 1 ; 427; 428

casus:

353; 354; 356; 359

- of concepts: 349 comedy: 207-223 commentary/-ies: 1 1 ;

1 68; 1 76

Caecilius of Caleacte: 454 n. 1 4; 458 n. 30; 458 n. 3 1 ; 464 canon(s): 410; 4 1 1 ; 4 1 3 n. 1 5 ; 4 1 4; 4 1 5 ; 4 1 6 n. 2 3 ; 4 1 7 n. 26; - morphological: 4 1 4 - nominal: 4 1 0; 4 1 3 - verbal: 4 1 0 c�e: 382; 383; 391 ; 392;

ChrysipPIL' (the Pindar commentator) : 1 92 Cicero: 456-459, 478 clarity (aoq>"veto): 463; 474 Clement of Alexandria: 507 Comanus of Naucratis: 3 51 combination: 349; 3 50 ; 3 51 ; 352;

- compound order: concept/meaning (ewolo/v611llo):

370 500; 501 ; 502;

503; 507; 508; 509; 5 1 1 ; 5 1 2; 513

coniundio: 342 conjugation: 388;

39 1 ; 394; 405;

4 1 0; 423

- lists : 4 1 6 - table(s) : 407 n. 8; 1 1 ; 4 1 0 ; 4 12 n. 1 3 ;

408; 409 414

n.

n.

17;

416; 428

conjunction:

484-485; 488; 49 1-

492; 505; 508

continuatio:

373

565

General Index

convidio: 342 Corinthian inventions: 1 85; 1 95 Corpus Hippocraticum: 1 5 Cos: see Theocritus - Orchomenian refugees in-: 225--230

Crates: 1 1 1-1 1 3 ; 1 1 4 n. 28 critical sign..: 1 73-1 74; 1 73 n.

382; 383; 39 1 ; 392;

393; 394; 395; 399; 405; 4 1 0

declinatio:

3 8 2 ; 384; 3 8 5 ; 3 8 8 ; 392;

393; 394; 398

defective verb / participle: 403 defence: 1 07, 1 09 deixis of the mind: 263; 264 Demo: 1 06 n. 5 Democriru.: 1 1 ; 28 Demosthenes: 458 derivation: 389; 488-490; 492; 497

Derveni Papyrus: 1 1 2-1 1 3 ; 1 1 7

1 5 ; 1 05

n.

n.

1 99-

200

Dionysius of Halicamassus:

356;

359; 451-478

Dionysius Scytobrachion: 348 Dionysius Thrax: 35 1 ; 352; 353; 355; 359

85;

452

declension:

Dionysius (Sicilian tyrant) :

2;

32

deviance: 308 iliachrony: 244-245; 247-248 ilialects (Greek) : 97-98 dicola (as separators) in commentar­ ies: 1 62 n. 22 Didymus: 1 8 1 -1 82; 1 96-1 97; 452; 454 n. 12, n. 1 4 - aesthetic criticism: 1 95-1 96 - citation of earlier poets: 1 87191

- citation of historians: 1 82-1 87 - on Demosthenes: 1 4 - misplaced ingennity: 1 94-195 - relevance of the myth: 1 9 1 1 92

- on Pindar: 1 8 1 - 1 97 - textual criticism - conjectures: 1 93 - textual criticism - defence of manuscript reailings: 1 93-1 94 Diogenes Laertiu..: 357; 509

- Techne grammatike: 313; 3 1 8 diorthosis: 1 62; 1 62 n . 24; 1 63 n. 26; 270; 273; 276 n. 1 6 diple: 1 73 n . 85 diple obelismene: 1 75 iliscrirninating value: 266 ilisposition: 485-486; 495-496 Donatus commentary: 375; 376; 378; 381 ; 382; 383; 384; 388; 390; 3 9 1 ; 395

edhesis: 1 69; 1 69 n. 58; 1 7 1 ; 1 7 1 n. 70 elementa orationis: 326; 338; 340 elementary school: 3 3 1 elomtio: 332; 346 enallage: 253 enarratio poetarum sive audo­ rum: 3 3 1 ; 334 eniling: 390; 391 ; 392; 394; 395 -£WV, accent of genitive plural. in: 277-279 epsilon-theta style: 1 67; 1 67 n. 46 Eratosthenes: 1 9 ; 29; 30; 55-85 - definition of scholarship/grammar:

55-85

- Grammatika: 57-85 Erbse, H.: 22 Erotian: 348 Etymologicum Magnum: 282-284 etymology: 245; 342; 379; 380; 479-48 1 ; 483; 486-487; 489; 491-492

Euripides: 4 1 -53; 1 99-206 - Hypotheses to plays of -:

201-

206

- Me1anippe the Wise: 202-206 - HeUeni.tic reception of : 1 99-

206

566

General Index

- xenophilotatos: 2(X)-201 Eu�tathius: 21; 1 05-1 10; 1 14; 1 1 5 n . 23; 1 1 7 exception: 292; 293; 307; 308 explanation (��YTJO'IS) : 451-454 fiction: 1 07; 109 figura (O'XTllla): 252; 253; 255; 380; 398; 402 fluid transmission: 1 68 qi>J30S. meaning in Homer accord­ ing to Aristarchus: 5()-5 1 IJIGI'plall6s. accent of: 282-284 fonn (compositonal) : 380; 399; 403 Frye. N.: 20 Galen: 15; 507 gender: 385; 392; 393; 394; 399; 402; 406 n. 4; 408 n. 10; 4 1 6; 416 n. 23; 461-465; 468-469; 489; 492 - feminine: 418 - masculine: 408 n. 10; 410; 417; 4 1 7 n. 26; 41 8; 420; 421 - neuter: 408; 417; 421 genus, genera: 380; 384; 385; 392; 393; 394; 398; 401 glos.'kIries: 1 59 yp<XlJIGI': 1 70; 1 70 n. 66; 170 n. 67 �: 1-4; 13; 22; 23; 55-85; 416 - ancient definitions: 68-79 - teaching: 3 1 3; 405 - types of �: 332-333; 335; 340 �(s) : 405; 406; 410; 414; 421 ; 423; 422 n. 38; 424 n. 44; 427; 428 - Alexandrian: 1-4; 406 - Byzantine: 410; 422 n. 38 - Greek: 407 - rhetoric of -: 292 - self-styling of -: 292; 302f[ ; 309-310

grammatical agreement: 459; 472474; 476 grammatical manual: 405 n. 1 ; 407; 407 n . 8; 408; 425; 425 n. 50 grammatical papyri: 313; 406; 407 n. 8; 408; 410 grammatical science: 1-4; 55-85; 407 n. 6; 429 grammatical tradition - ancient Greek: 1-4; 405-406; 407-408; 417 - Byzantine: 428 grammatice: 331 ; 333; 336; 337; 340 grammaticus. teacher of gram­ �: 33 1 ; 332; 337; 338; 342 Habron: 27()-273 Harpocration: 348 Hector in the Rhesus: 43-45 hellenismos: 87; 270; 273; 276 n. 1 6; 408; 410; 4 1 3; 423 Heraclitus (allegorist) : 1 1 3 n. 25; 1 1 5-1 17 - Homeric problems: 1 8 heTllU'neumata: 365 Hemrippus of Smyma: 1 99-201 ; 348 Herodian: 1 1 ; 269-290 - his view of Homeric lan­ guage: 99 - Ps.-Herodian . On solecism and barbarism: 96-97; 102-103 Hesychius: 22 hexis: 68-78 hidden problems: 305 historiography: 452; 456-460; 463; 478 Homer: 1 7 ; 19; 20; 2 1 ; 24; 27-40; 1 05-1 17; 1 19-158; 271-273; 274; 276 - a� an Athenian: 91-92 - as foundational text: 88-89 Homeric commentaries: 1 61-1 66 Homeric heroes: 1 1 9-1 58

567

General Index - language of -:

97

Homeric scholarship/criticism:

15;

17; 1 8 ; 20; 2 1 ; 1 1 9-1 58 Homeric scholia:

472-474; 476

88; 9 1 ; 97; 1 1 9-

1 58 - fonnation of Homeric lia:

Kav6vES: 291 ; 296; 30 1 ; 306; 3 10 KCXTaAATJMTTJS: 297; 305; 459;

smo-

Kavafis, K.:

87

komodoumenoi: 207-223 Kuran and Arabic language:

89-91

1 75-1 76

Homrnca: 1 59 Homrnca aporemata:

Lamb, C . ,

speare:

48-52

Talesfrom Shake202; 205

Homeridai:

36

language

homonyms:

3 8 1 ; 382; 383; 384;

- and reality:

homonymy: Horace:

500; 5 1 4

- an d thought:

385; 386 33

Hyperides:

5IX); 50 1 ;

502 - as-by nature:

458

hypomnemata: 1 1 ; - VS. syggrammata:

1 4; 1 5 ; 1 6; 1 59 1 63-166; 1 76

n. 93 1 59

Hypsicrates:

501

- as quantity: 502; 503; 504; 5 1 3 - human -: 5 1 3 - instruction:

hypotheseis:

51X)

- as-by convention:

258

4 1 4 n. 1 8

- teaching process:

latinitas:

209 n. 7

410

332; 334; 3 3 5 ; 336;

340;341 identity as Greek.� :

idiomata: imitation

93-95

Latte,

365

(1JIIJTJaIS):

457-458; 463;

403

40 1

lexica:

489; 492;

496-497

1 59

Ae�IS:

1 1 ; 13; 1 5

352; 353; 355; 359

linguistics:

494; 498 388;

403

- Arabic:

405 n . 2 ; 428 89-91

- Aristotelian:

(aoplO"TOOSES) :

inflection:

263

393; 408; 408 n.

10;

4 1 0; 412; 4 1 4; 4 1 5 ; 417 n. 24; 423 ; 428 - paradigms:

4 1 4 n. 1 8

- system:

41 6

- Hebrew linguistic.� and Greek:

90-91

- hi�tory of linguistics:

514

(aKoAov6Ia):

logical proposition:

A6yoS:

459;

38-40

356

352; 353; 354; 355; 356;

357; 358; 359

365

interpretation of poetry:

499 428

473; 476

413

interjection:

- Byzantine:

logical order

4 1 4; 428

292

1 1 ; 13

- ancient:

inchoative verb / participle:

- rules:

291-295; 303-

305

linguistic correctness:

- theory of two imposi­

- tables:

1 64-1 66; 1 69; 1 7 1 ; 1 7 1

lexicography:

n. 22; 488-492; 494-498

indefinite

1 67

355; 359

lexical singularity:

479-480; 485-486; 487

- first imposition:

tions:

22

n . 70; 1 75

imposition of names/namegiving:

AEI
lemmata:

467; 477-478; 480; 485 impersonal verb:

impersonalia:

K.:

layout of text:

Longinus:

464

568

General Index

Lucretius: Lysia�:

noun:

456

378; 379; 380; 38 1 ; 382;

384; 385; 386; 387; 388; 389;

458; 463

392; 393; 394; 397; 399; 402; meaning:

35 1 ; 353; 358; 480-48 1 ;

465-468; 479-480; 484-498;

482; 485; 489; 495

lJEa6T11 S :

404; 406; 407; 410; 461-463; - common

318

-

:

480; 483

metalepsis:

257

- definition of - :

metaphor:

1 1 0 n. 1 5; 1 1 4

- generic - :

IlU'taplasmus:

- proper - :

336

metrical feets:

- specific

335; 338

Metrodorus ofLampsacus:

llovTtP TJS Ae�IS: 291-3 1 0 monographs (syggrammata) :

28; 29 1 59;

mood:

420; 42 1 ; 422 n . 3 8 ; 427; 428; 493; 495-497 - imperative:

493 52-53

380; 399; 403; 408; 4 1 6; 408 n. 1 0; 4 1 3 ; 4 1 3 n.

1 5 ; 4 1 4 n. 17; 427 - plural:

408 n.

HI;

4 1 7 ; 4 1 9 n.

3 1 ; 421 ; 424; 426; 427 4 1 3 ; 4 1 6; 420; 422

n. 38; 423 n. 39; 424; 424 n. 44; 426 n. 53 - indicative:

:

4 1 6 n. 23; 422 n. 38; 461-464 - dual:

412; 4 1 5 ; 4 1 6 ; 4 1 7 ; 4 1 8 ;

480; 483; 486 n. 1 8

-

vvKTrJyopla/vvl
16 5 n. 37

486

493-494

4 1 6 ; 4 1 7; 421 ; 423;

- singular:

408 n. HI; 4 1 7 ; 4 1 8 ;

420; 423; 425; 427

numerus: nuntiatio:

380; 398; 401 384; 385

427 - infinitive:

4 1 6; 420; 420 n. 34;

422; 422 n . 38; 424; 424 n. 45,

173 n. 85

Olympus:

1 1 1-1 1 3 ; 1 63-1 64; 1 64

n. 30

n. 46; 427 - optative:

obelos:

408; 409 n. 1 1 ; 4 1 2 ;

4 1 3 ; 41 6 ; 4 1 7 ; 421 ; 426; 427 - subjunctive:

4 1 6 ; 420; 420 n.

34

'OPTJPOV if OPt7pov uatpTJvi(EW. 1 08

ollol6TIJS :

293; 294£ ; 303; 308;

310

morphology:

379; 390; 392; 393;

- inflectional: - verbal:

ovopaO'Ti KCAJpCAJliEiv. opisthographs:

396; 397 405; 4 1 0

Museum (in Alexandria) :

55-85;

5; HI8 mythological exempla:

1 59 1 0 5 n. 4;

1 08

Oms:

- anomaly/ analogy:

43 1

- Atticistic lexicon:

43 1 ; 438;

443 - canons:

505; 506; 507; 508; 5 1 3

nature:

479-498

Nepos:

456

nomen:

379; 382; 384; 385; 386;

389; 394; 398; 401 ; 402

361

429-447

432-433; 437, 439

- On Ethnica: name:

334;

34 1 ; 366 orthographists:

1 2 ; 1 3 ; 1 7 ; 106 n.

Mythographus Homericus:

207-223

1 67 n. 46; 1 69

orthoepeia: 334; 336 orthographia, orthography:

414

1 60; 1 72 mythography:

.

430--4 3 4; 438;

446; 447

- On Orthography:

430-43 1 ;

442-443, 446 Oxyrhynchus:

1 60; 1 72

569

General Index

'TT<xyeTos, accent of: 284-290 paideia: 1 2; 21 Palaephatm: 1 06 n. 5 rrovlKos
406-407; 4 1 6; 428 - : 415; 4 1 6 23; 4 1 7 n. 26 - definition of the - : 406 - canon(s) for the

n.

- grammatical description of the

-: 407 - inflection of the

- : 408; 414;

415 405-428 4 1 7-418 p arts o f speech (partes orationis) : 334; 338; 339; 340; 378; 397; 398; 401 ; 461 ; 463-478; 479-498 - definitions of the - : 479; 483 - invention of the - : 488--489; 491; 493; 498 - order of the -: 484-487; 491492; 493-494 - principal -: 484-486; 489; 49 1; 498 Pasquali, G.: 22 pathology: 1 00-1 0 1 ; 308; 3 1 0 - fonns:

- rule(s) :

Peripatetic scholarship and rheto­

336 422 n. 38; 487; 492; 495-

ric: person:

496 424 n. 45; 425; 426 n. 52; 54 - second: 422-423; 424 n. 44 - third: 421 ; 424; 426 personal joke: 207-223 personification: 1 1 6 - in grammatical theory: 299 pfeiffer, R . : 1 2; 22 Philistus of Syracuse: 1 84 Philitas: 33 - first:

426

n.

Philodemus:

40

Philoponm:

500; 504; 506; 507;

513 Philoxenus:

35 1

514 335; 338 - phonetic realization: 503; 505; 508; 509; 5 10 ; 51 1 ; 5 1 3 Pindar: 24; 32-33 Pindarion, Ptolemy: 92-93; 96; 102 Plato: 1 5; 16; 27-40; 1 1 6; 242; 271-272; 3 1 8; 463; 499 - Hippias Minor: 29 - Ion: 27-40 - origin of language: 242 - Protagoras: 29; 35-36 Plotinm: 499 'poet-scholar': 79-85 poetic licence: 1 00-1 0 1 ; 106-1 08; 109; 252-253; 256; 258-259 Porphyry: 1 05 n. 2; 1 08 n . 8; 500; 504; 505; 5 1 3 praepositio: 402 predicate: 355; 356 predication: 481 n. 4; 482; 482 n. 7 prepoSlt:J.on: 362-363; 403; 484485; 490-492; 498; 508 pre-positive article: 251-252; 257-263 Presocratics: 499 philosophy of language:

phonetic..

/

phonology:

570

General Index

progymnasmata: 331 pronoun (avTC":lVvllla): 257-258; 339; 483; 487-488; 490--49 1 ; 497 proposition: 479; 482; 484; 485; 486; 487 prose: 35 1 ; 352; 353; 354; 355; 358 - prose rhythm: 338 Protagora.�: 1 6; 30; 31 punctuation marks: 335 Pythaenetus (historian of Aegina): 186 quality: 482-483; 491 - common and peculiar -: 483; 486 quantity: 481 ; 503

rede loquenJi sdentia: 33 1 ; 334; 337 regula: 390; 391 ; 395 rhapsodes: 27-40 Rhesus ascribed to Euripides - chronology: 53-54 - and niaJ 10: 52 rhetoric: 12; 13; 1 1 0 n. 1 5; 1 1 5; 45 1-478 - study of -: 331 ; 332 Rome: 456-459 rules: 291 ; 292; 294; 296; 301 ; 304; 306; 307; 390; 396 - didactic -: 428 - didactic tool(s): 410; 4 1 4 n. 1 8; 428 - inflectional -: 408 Saussure, F. de: SIX); SOl ; 512; 513 scholia: 1 4; 22; 23; 1 05-1 1 7 - classes i n the medieval manu­ scripts: 175; 175 n. 90; 1 76 - on Aristophanes: 207-223 - on Homer: 88; 9 1 ; 97; 1 1 9158 - exegetical scho/ia on Hom­ er: 1 1 9-158

- smolia minora: 159 - on Thucydides: 45 1-478 scribe #A5 (Oxyrhynchus): 1 67; 167 n. 47 0'T]1JE16c..> : 174-1 75 semi-pronoun: 266 sense of history: 241-250 Sextus Empiricu�: 92-93; 96; 98102; 507 side meaning of plurality: 261-262 sign for (6) lTOll1-n;S: 1 6 1 -162 significatio Wenus uerborum): 380; 384; 385; 386; 393; 398; 401 ; 402 signification - significant sounds: 508; 511); 513 - non significant sounds: 50S; 508; 5 1 0; 5 1 1 - signified (O'T]llalv6llevov) : 504; 505; 506; 507 - signifier: 504; 513 significationes: 324 Simichidas: 225-237 Simonides: 1 6; 35-36; 1 84-185 Simplicius: SIX); 504; 50S; 506; 513 singular, rhetoric of the: 305-309 Socrates: 16; 27-40 solecism (soloedsmus) : 96-97; 1 011 03; 336; 337; 338; 339; 342; 423; 459; 463; 468-469 Sophists: 16 Sosibius: 348 sound: 481-482 - spoken sounds: SIX); 501 ; 502; 503; 5 1 2; 5 1 3 speaker indications: 161-1 62 statement: 480--4 82; 485-486; 493 Stesirnbrotus of Thasos: 29 stichometry: 1 62; 162 n. 20 Stoics: 1 1 1 ; 355; 357; 358; 359; 406; 407 n. 5; 455-456; 457 n. 27; 472 n. 56; 476 n. 67 Strabo: 29; 40

57 1

General Index

Strato, parody of Homeric lan­ guage: 93; 95 style: 451-452; 456-460; 463465; 467 ; 477-478

subscriptio: substance:

1 65-1 67 48 1 ; 483; 483

n.

1 6;

491 ; 493; 496

syggrammata:

1 1 ; 1 5 ; 16 ; 1 59; 1 65

n. 37

- vs. hypomnNHata:

1 63-1 66; 1 76

n. 93

syllable:

418

n.

29; 503; 504; 505;

- final: 4 1 9 ; 420; 424 n. 45 - penultimate: 42 1 n. 35; 424 n. 45; 426 n. 54 symbol: 482 avvr,6ela: 284; 285-290; 298; 299; 301 ; 303; 304

avv6ealS: 352; 353; 354; 355; 357 syntagm: 361-374 - vs. camaI sequence: 368 avvTaaaelv/avvraaaea6al: 347; 350; 352; 356; 358 348; 349; 45 1 ; 455-456;

461-462; 464-465; 468-478

aVVTa�IS:

n. 10; 4 1 2 n. 1 3 ; n. 2 9 ; 421 - imperfect: 412 n. 13; 4 1 7 ; 424 n. 45; 426 - past perfect/pluperfect: 412 n. 408

417; 418

13

- perfect: 408 n. 1 0 ; 412 n. 1 3; 4 14 n. 17; 424 n. 44 - present: 408 n. 10; 4 1 2 ; 4 1 4 ; 417; 421 ; 423; 424; 427

terminatio: 392; 393 tenninology of exegesis:

1 63 ; 163

n. 29; 1 69-1 70; 172

507; 508; 509; 5 1 1 ; 5 1 3

syntax:

- future:

347; 348; 349; 350;

35 1 ; 352; 353; 354; 355; 356;

Theocritus: 225-237 - and Cos: 231-234 - and Orchomenos: 236-237 Theotimu�: 1 85 Thessaloniki: 1 5 ; 21 Thucydides: 451-478 Timaeus of Tauromenium: 1 83; 1 84

T1VES : 1 70; 1 70 n. 66 tmesi�: 371 TPI"PWV, accent of: 280-282 truth and fahehood: 480-481 Trypho: 3 1 8; 347; 349; 350; 3 5 1 ; 475-477

Tyrannion:

35 1 ; 353

357; 358; 359

- TWV V01lT&V:

349; 359

wll quenes.� (totalizing value):

259-

261

teaching Greek: 406; 421 ; 423 - granunatical (and rhetori­ cal) : 9 1 -95; 3 1 3 tempus: 380; 382; 384; 385; 386; 387; 388; 390; 39 1 ; 393; 398; 4()1 ; 402

tense:

382; 383; 385; 386; 387;

388; 390; 391 ; 393; 394; 395; 399; 402; 403; 406 41 2; 416; 416

n.

n.

4; 408;

- aorist:

n.

41

408

n.

n.

45

4 1 7 ; 424

-

-

usus:

467

372-374

utterance:

352; 357

23; 420; 422;

424; 461-464; 472-474; 485; 489; 494

usage: 270-274 - frequent : 303-305 - Homeric : 1 74 - linguistic: 4 1 3 - literary: 4 1 3 - natural: 452; 459; 463; - spoken: 4 1 3

10; 4 1 2

n.

13;

variation: 460--46 5 Varro : 273 verb: 378; 379; 380;

384; 387;

388; 389; 390; 392; 396; 397; 399; 402; 403; 406; 407; 408;

General Index

572

4 1 0; 4 1 2 ; 4 1 5 ; 4 1 6 ; 427; 428;

voice (diathesis) :

385; 386; 387;

n. n.

461-463; 465-468; 472-474;

388; 394; 399; 402; 403; 406

48 1 ; 482; 483; 484-487; 49 1 -

4; 408

492; 493; 497; 505; 508; 509 - athematic

-:

- fonn(s): - model:

417; 4 1 8; 424

n.

45

412

vaba Latina/peregrina, foreign words: 336 vaba propria translata, transferred word: 336; 337 vaba usitata/ficta, neologisms: 336; 337

vabum: 388; 389; 398; 401 ; 402 verse: 353; 354 Villoison, J.-B.-C. d'A.: 90 virlutes elocutionis: 332 virlutes et vitia orationis: 334; 336; 340

10; 412; 416; 416

23; 461 ; 463-464

- active:

412

4 1 2; 4 1 4; 4 1 5

- thematic:

n.

408

n.

10; 4 1 4; 4 1 4 n.

1 7; 417; 421 ; 422; 424; 426

- medio-passive: 4 1 4 n. 1 7 ; 422; 423; 427 n. 45 - passive: 408 n. 10; 4 1 2 ; 414 n. 1 7; 417; 424 n. 45 Wolf, F.A. : 22 word class(es): 335;

338; 339; 340;

342; 378; 379; 380; 3 8 1 ; 383; 387; 389; 396; 397; 399; 402

Xenophon, Symposium: Zenodotus:

22; 24

34; 38

Passages Index Anecdota Oxoniensia 3.41 3 . 1 9 : 64 n. 34 3.310.24: 79 n. 87

Aelius Dionysius (Erbse) 5 34: 289 n. 43 a 22: 289 n. 43 a 39: 289 n. 43

Anonymus ad Cuimnanwn Expositio Latinitatis (CCSL 133D) 142. 1 6-22: 387

Aenea� Tacticus 27: 43-45, 50 Aeschylu� Pmae 686-8:

Antipater Sidonius AP 7 . 1 46: 446 Apollodorus Atheniensis (FGrHist 244) F 2: 441 F 69: 1 82

1 96 n. 24

Agathocles (FGrHist 472) F 9 ( = fro 9 Montanari): n. 18

113

Alexander Aphrodi�ien� In Aristotelis Metaphysica commentaria (GAG I) 161 .3-5 : 507 In Aristotelis Topicorum libros octo commentaria (GAG 11 .2) 122.26: 294 176.9: 294 Ammonius Grammaticus (Nickau) g1. 231 : 1 87 g1. 303: 354 g1. 453: 354 Ammonius Philosophu� In Aristotelis de Interpretatione commentarius (CA G IV.5) 12.20-1 3.6: 50&-509 19. 1 0-1 5: 502 33. 1 &-3 1 : 5 1 1-512 42.20-43.24: 493 60. 1 9-22: 509 6 1 .2&-33: 509-510

Apollonius Dyscolus De adverbiis (G. G. 11.1) 120.9-14: 322 n. 20 160. 1 9-23: 276; 284-285 168.10-2 1 : 322 n. 22 De conjunctionibus (G. G. 1 1 . 1) 235 . 1 1-14: 350 241 . 1 3 : 92-93 n. 21 247.4-6: 350 Fragmenta (G. G. 11.3) 3 1 .23-25: 484 47. 1 5ff.: 1 68 n. 5 1 85.27-86.32: 422 n. 38 122-1 29: 407 n. 7 De pronominibus (G. G. 1 1 . 1 ) 7.20-24: 25&-259 9 . 1 1-13: 487 44. 1 1-13: 101 5 1 .23-27: 350 7 1 .22-25: 89 n. 8 71 .22-72.4: 270-273 72. 1 6: 89 n. 8 De syntaxi (G. G. 11.2) I 1 , 1 .2-2.2: 98 n. 4()

574

Passages Index

I 1 , 2. 1 : 249 I 1 8, 1 9.4: 247 1 2 1 , 23. 1 0-24. 1 : 406 n. 4 I 24, 25.6: 247 1 25, 26. 1-4: 258 1 26, 26. 1 2: 247 I 42, 38.5-6: 254 1 43, 38. 1 1-12: 259 1 43, 38. 1 2-39.3: 260 1 43, 39.3-6: 261 I 43, 39.6-9: 260 1 44, 39.9-1 1 : 263 1 57, 49. 1 0-1 5: 252-253 1 57, 49. 1 5-50.2: 257 I 60: 305 n. 36 1 60, 5 1 .7: 247; 247 n. 1 0 I 60--6 2 , 5 1 . 1-53. 1 1 : 99 1 62, 52.8-1 0: 1 00 n. 49 1 62, 53.9-1 3: 254 1 63, 53. 1 8-54. 1 : 262 1 64, 55.7-1 1 : 262-263 1 64, 5 5 . 1 7-20: 252 1 71 , 61 .8-10: 259-260 1 100, 83. 1 5-84. 1 : 265 1 102, 85. 17-18: 265 I 108, 91 .7-92.3: 255 1 1 1 0, 93. 1 0-94.4: 262 I 1 17, 99.4-6: 256 I 1 1 8, 99.9-1 1 : 261 I 1 1 8, HX).9-12: 256 I 1 2 1 , 1 02. 1 1-1 5: 266 I 1 27-1 28, 1 07.7-1 1 : 254 I 1 33, 1 10 .2: 265 1 1 35, 1 1 1 . 1 2-13: 266 II 3 1 , 1 48 . 1 6-149.3: 264 11 3 1 , 1 49.2-4: 258 II 49, 1 62.4-8: 1 0 1 II 77, 1 83 . 1 4-184. 1 : 98 11 90, 1 93. 1 7 : 1 0 1 ; 248 II 1 16, 21 6.5: 101 n. 54 II 125, 223 . 1 0 : 10 1 II 1 33, 230. 1 8: 476 n. 66 II 1 50-1 5 1 , 244. 1 2246.5: 270-273 II 1 57, 251 .7-10: HX) n. 49

II 1 5 1-152, 245.6-247.8: 89 n. 8 III 25-26, 292.9-16: 406 n. 4 III 34, 3(X). 1 2: 248 n. 1 2 I I I 42, 308.4: 247-248 III 5 1 , 3 1 7 . 1 3: 92-93 n. 21 III 59-62, 324. 1 0-328.6: 422 n. 38 III 62, 328. 1 3: 244 n. 5 III 76, 340.2-10: 471 n. 52 III 77: 305 III 1 66, 41 3 .5-7: 471 III 1 66, 4 1 3 . 1 3 : HX) n. 50 III 1 67, 4 1 5 . 1 1-1 2: 471 Apollonius Rhodius 1 .929: 446 4.654: 444

Appendix Probi (GL IV) 196. 13-197.6: 366 [Arcadius] 5 1 . 1-4: 276; 284-285 68. 1 6-20: 283 68.21�9.2: 282-284 69.3-7: 283 93. 1 -8: 285-289 93.9-1 3: 286 1 56. 1 6-24: 280 208 . 1 6-19: 285-290 Aristagoras Historicus (FGrHist 6(8) F 3: 431 Aristarchus Feine: fr. 2: 1 82 fr. 2 1 : 1 84 fr. 42: 1 9 1 Matthaios: fro 55-57: 464 n . 43 fro 82: 471 n. 53 fro 125A: 89 n. 8; 270-273 Aristodemus (FGrHist 383) F * 1 1 : 1 93

Passages Index Aristonicus (Razzetti) fr. 5 1 : 1 82 Aristophanes Achamensl's 88-90: 2 16; 222 379-82: 2 1 5 605: 221 887: 220 Aves 1 378-9: 2 1 8 Equites 78: 221-222 1 080-5: 2 1 7 1 373£ : 2 1 1 n. 1 2 Pax 987-1 01 6 : 220 Fragmenta fro 422 K. - A.: 2 1 1 n. 1 2 Aristoteles Analytial posteriora 2.10.93b29-32: 67 n. 47 2.19.99b17: 70 n. 55 2.1 8.99b20-1 00b5: 75; 75 n. 77 Categoriae 4.1b25-2a4: 482 4.2a3: 74 n. 69 6.4b20-37: 502-503 9. 1 1 b l3-14: 74 n. 69 De divinatione per somniis 2.464b5-7: 295 Ethica Nicomachea 6.3. 1 139b3 1-32: 7 1 ; 75 6.4. 1 140a9-1O: 7 1 De interpretatione 1 . 1 6a3-4: 500 1 . 16a4-9: 501 1-2 . 1 6a 1 8-22: 5 1 0 2. 1 6a19: 482 2.1 6a26-28: 5 1 0 4.16b27-32: 507-508 Metaphysica 4.20. 1022b 1O: 75 n. 75 4.23. 1 023a23-25: 74 n. 74

575

De partibus animalium 1 . 1 .639al : 70 n. 55; 75 n. 79 Poetica 6 . 1 450b l 6-1 8: 84 n. 1 10 6. 1 450a33-35: !14 n. 1 1 0 20. 1 456b20-1457a6: 503-504 20. 1 457al lH4: 5 1 1 22. 1 459a8: 295 24. 1 460a5-b2: 217 n. 21 Physim 1 84a23-b 1 4: 506 Sophistici elenchi 1 65a6: 5(MI Topial 1 .8 . 1 03bl 5-16: 68 n. 48 4.2.121 b34: 75 n. 76 4.4.1 24b39: 75 n. 76 6.6.145a34: 75 n. 77 8. 1 . 1 56b35: 70 n. 55 Fragml'nta nepl lTOll1TWV (Gigon) fro l IM12: 60-61 n. 20; 61 n. 24 [Aristoteles] Aporemata Homerim (Gigon) fr. 383: 5 1 fro 384: 49-50 Problernata 30.2.955bl : 69

AlI Ambianensis (Cod. Sang. 877) p. 453: 388 p. 453-544: 392 AlI Ambrosiana (CCSL 1 33C) 1 44.27-29: 389 1 48.1 39-142: 396 1 54.325-329: 384-385 Artemidorus Oneirocritica 2.25 (145.1 1-12 Pack): 295 Asclepiades Myrleanus Miille r: fro I: 77; 78

576

Passages Index

fr. lI: 66 fro III: 57 n. 1 3 fr o VI: 5 7 n . 13 fr o VI I : 5 7 n. 1 3 FGrRist: F 9: 57 n. 1 3 F 11: 57 n. 13 Athenaeus 4. 1 39c: 1 82 n. 8 9.382c: 93

Epigrammata ep. 23: 60 n . 20; 66-67 80 n. 9 1 Fragmenta fro 461-464: 62 n. 28 fro 612: 80 n. 9 1 ; 8 1

n.

46;

[Caper] (G.L. VII ) 105 . 1 : 361 n.l

Auctor ad Raennium 4. 17: 340

Chaeris (Berndt) fr. 20:

Audax (G.L. VI I) 361 .2-9: 370 n.l0

C harax Historicus (FGrRist 1 (3) F 2: 442

Augustinus De ci"itate dd 2.9: 21 0 n. 1 0

Charax loanne.� (G. G. IV.2) 4 1 0. 1 -2: 422 n. 38 410.37-38: 422 n. 38 410.38-41 1 . 1 1 : 422 n. 38 41 1 . 1 1-1 5: 422 n. 38 41 8.38: 244 n. 5 4 1 8.38-419.7: 427 425.27-30: 422-423 430 . 1 5-33: 422 431 .4-8: 422 432.38-433. 1 : 422-423 n. 39

[Augustinus] Regulae (G. L. V) 506.30: 374 n. 1 4 Bacchylides 2 1 : 1 90 21 . 1-3: 1 90 Boethius In Aristotelis De Interpretatione com­ mentaria (Meiser) 1 69.8-1 9: 5 1 2-51 3 CalJimachus (pfeiffer) test. 1 6: 64 n . 34; 8 1 n. 93 Aeria fro 1 . 1 7-1 8: 8 1 ; 81 n. 97 fro 17.8-10: 1 66 fro 18.6-8: 1 66; 1 66 n. 42 fr. 43: 1 83 fr. 46: 1 83 fr. 77: 1 94 fro 75.8: 8 1 fr o 1 96. 1 : 1 94

191

Charisius AlI grammatica (Barwick) 3.37: 373 15.5-6: 374 n. 1 4 193.lIH3: 386; 386 n . 1 6 231 . 1 2-14: 388 284.2: 372 379. 13-15: 388 379.24-380. 1 : 363 Choeroboscus Epimerismi in Psalmos (Gaisford) 34. 1 9-24: 424 n. 45 92.26-32: 424 n. 45 Scholia in Theodosii Canones I (G. G. IV. l) 1 03.7-9: 423 1 1 8 . 1 8-20: 410

577

Passages Index

Sclwlia In Theodosii Canones II (G. G. IV.2) 1.11 -1 5 : 423 5. 10-30: 422 D. 38 33.3(�34.4: 427 D. 56 34. 1 4-35.3: 424 39. 14-37: 425 D. 47 84.31-33: 424 D. 45 1 32.33-1 33.6: 424 D. 45 1 34.7-1 5: 424 D. 45 1 37.28-3 1 : 424 D. 45 1 42.36-143.5: 424 D. 45 1 84.6-10: 424-425 1 89.14-2 1 : 424 D. 45 209. 1I�33: 422 D. 38 2 1 1 .2(�30: 422 D. 38 21 6.3-9: 423-424 D. 43 21 9.26-28: 423-424 D. 43 220.7-1 1 : 424 D. 46 222.2(�23: 423-424 D. 4 223.9-1 7: 423-424 D. 43 223.3(�32: 423-424 D. 43 224.34-225.3: 423-424 D. 43 229. 1 2-230. 2: 424 D. 45 230. 1 9-24: 424 D. 46 230.31-34: 423-424 D. 43 236.12-17: 424 D. 45 237.21-238. 1 5: 423-424 D. 44 240.1 1-241 .2: 423-424 D. 44 251 .2-5: 423-424 D. 44 260.3-1 2: 423-424 D. 44 262.6-7: 418 D. 29 262.27-263. 10 : 418 D. 29 266.26-3 1 : 428 D. 29 283.1 1-14: 424 D. 45 296.23-24: 416 296.27-297. 1 3: 406 D. 4 333.1-334.2: 425 D. 47 334.9-1 4: 421 D. 35 334.23-26: 421 D. 35 340.22-24: 424 D. 45 357.3(�358.6: 424 D. 46 360.27-29: 424 n. 46 Chrysippus Stoicus fro 1 83: 355

fr. fr. fr. fr. fro

1 84: 207: 241 : 373: 1 0(M):

356 357 358 358 359

Cicero Brutus 1 1 7: 457 287: 458 Epistulae ad Atticum 4. 1 0. 1 : 466 n. 22 Pro Ligario 1 : 457 D. 25 Orator 27.94: 1 14 D. 27 30: 456-458; 459 D. 32 3 1 : 458 De Oratore 3.41 . 1 66: 1 1 4 n. 27 De Republica 4.lIH 1 : 2 1 0 n. 10 Tusculanae Disputationes 3.27: 97 n. 36 Cledonius (GL V) 43.2 1 : 366 D. 5 ClemeDs Alexandrinus Stromateis 1 . 1 6.79.3: 58 8.6.21 .2-3: 507 Comanus (Dyck) fr. 3: 351

Gongregatio Sa/canifilii de uerbo (LOlStedt) 260. l IH2: 385 260. 1 5-18: 388 ConseDtius (G.L. IV) 349.21 : 366 349.25: 368 Crates (Broggiato)

578

Passages Index

fr. 2 1 : 1 1 1 n. 1 8 David Prolegomena Philosophiae (CA G XVIII.2) 10.31 .27-32.9: 66-67 n. 46 Demetrius De elocutione 99-1 02: 1 1 5 1 28: 2 1 4 n . 1 9 241 : 9 7 n . 36 Didymus Grarnmaticus (Schmidt) p. 35 1 (b): 437 Dio Cbrysostomus 1 2.66: 98 n. 38 53. 1 : 27-28; 30; 61 n. 24 Diodoms Siculus 4.56.5: 444 5 . 1 3. 1 : 444 1 1 .48.5-8: 184 n. 9 1 1 .88.4: 444 Diogenes Laertiu� 7.58: 483; 497 7.59: 472 n. 56 7.63: 355 7.64: 355 7.65: 487 7.72: 357 7.81 : 358 Diomedes Ars grammatica (G.L. I ) 3 1 0 . 1 ff. : 364 3 1 1 .3-7: 365 320. 1 1-12: 386 328.25-28: 394-395 n. 24 436.28-29: 373 436.17: 376 n. 1 4 Dionysius Hali cama.�sensis Antiquitiltes Romanae 1 .80. 1 : 457 De compositione verborum 4: 476 n. 67 4.22. 12-1 7: 456 n. 20

4.3 1 : 357 5: 456 n. 20 6: 453 n. 1 1 De Dinarrho 8.308.3: 463 n. 42 Epistula ad Ammaeum 2 1 : 460 n. 36 1 .422.6: 460 n. 37 2: 453 n. 1 1 2.422.21-424.7: 460 n. 38 2. 424.�: 463 n. 42 3-1 7: 460 3: 460 4-14: 460-462 4: 461 ; 462 n. 44 4.426.12: 467 n. 50 5: 461 6: 461 6.427.7-1 6: 466 7: 461 8: 461 8.428 . 1 2-13: 467 n. 50 1 0: 46 1-462; 464 1 1 : 453 n. 1 1 ; 462; 464-465 1 1 .430 . 1 2-43 1 .9: 468-469 1 1 .431 .9-1 5: 470 1 2 : 462 1 2.431 . 1 6-432.3: 472 1 2.432.3-1 3: 473-474 1 3: 462; 465 1 4: 462 1 4.433 . 1 7: 467 n. 50 1 5: 460 1 6-17: 460 Epistula ad Pompeium 3: 454 n. 1 4 De oratoribus veteribus 1 .3.6: 460 n. 36 De Thucydide 9: 454 n. 1 4 9-20: 454 n. 1 4 1 0-1 1 : 454 n. 1 4 1 3-19: 454 n. 14 24: 453 n. 1 1 24.36 1 . 1 2-362.18: 460 n . 38 24.363. 1 0-12: 459 n. 34

579

Passages Index

25.364. 1 4-16: 457 n. 28 29.373.23: 463 n. 42 29.374.22: 467 n. 50 30.375.25-376. 1 : 467 n. 50 31 .378.5: 467 n. 50 50.409. 1 3-2 1 : 459 5 1 .410. 1 5-17: 451 53.413.2-4: 463 n. 42 55.417.22-25: 452 55.417.24: 463 n. 42 Dionysius Thrax Ars gramma/ica (G. G. 1 . 1 ) 5.2-3: 76; 98 n. 40; 245; 245 n. 7 6. 1 : 245 1 1 . 1-4: 352 22.4-5: 352 26.5: 246 n. 9 59.3: 243-244 59.4: 244 n. 6 60.3-4: 406 n. 4 72.4-73.2: 3 1 8 n. 3 73.2-74.2: 321 n. 1 7 73.3-86. 1 : 323 78. 1 : 322 n. 2 1 79.2-3: 327 70.2-3: 352 1 25-1 32: 4 1 0 Fragmenta (Linke) fro 47: 92 n. 1 6 Donatus Ars maior (Holtz) 6 10 .8-9: 369 621 . 3-7: 394-395 n. 24 624. 1-5 : 367 624.5-9: 368 640.2-3: 362 644.2: 378 644.3-4: 380 644.4-5: 378 645 . 1 3-1 4: 388 n. 1 7 645 . 1 3-646. 1 2: 3 8 1 n. 1 2 648.4-5: 362 648. 1 I�1 1 : 362

[DositheusJ (G.L VII) 426.4-7: 365 Empedocles VS 31 B 44: Ennius Annaks 609:

1 1 2 n. 22

371

Ephorus (FGrHist 70) F 2 1 : 1 87 Eratosthenes Berger: fro I A 1 6: 83 n. fro I A 17: 83 n. 108 fro I A 1 9: 83 n. fro I A 20: 84 n. fro I A 2 1 : 84 n. FGrHist 241 : T 1 : 56 n. 9 T 2: 64 n. 34 T 3: 64 n. 34 T 8: 58 T 9: 55 n. 2 Powell: fr. 3 1 : 57 n. 1 2 Strecker: fro 35: 57 n. 1 2

1 04 1 05; 84 n. 1 05 1 09 1 09

Etymologicum Genuinum a 9(K) Lasserre-Livadaras: 275 S.V. 'OpeOTal: 445 Etymologicum Magnum Gaisford: 160.22: 441 7 1 4 . 1 7-18: 278 n. 1 9 804 . 1 7-23: 283-284; 285 � 1 29 Livadaras-Lasserre: 1 1 1 n. 18 Etymologicum SYlfU'onis a 257 Lasserre-Livadaras ( 260 Sell) : 444

=

a

580

Passages Index

EuphorioD fro 54 Powell ( = fro 78 Lightfoot): 1 90 Euripides Bacchae 302-305: 50 Hercules forms 378-9: 439 Iphigenia Taurica 700: 195 [Euripides] Rhesus 1 5 : 42 1 7-22: 43 36-40: 44; 54 87-89: 42; 45 1 38-1 39: 45-46 Eusebius CaesarieDsis Praeparatio EvangeUm 1 0. 1 1 .3: 64 D. 34 Eustathius 3.23: 109 D. 1 3 40.28-32: 1 09 D. 1 3 40.33-35: 1 1 5 D. 1 9 1 57.24-30: 1 1 0 D . 1 4 561 .28fL : 1 06-109 6 1 4.�: 1 09 D. 1 3 937 . 1 0-17: 1 1 5 D . 29 1 645.64: 83 D. 104 Gellius 2.21 .6-7: 373 7.2: 359 Hecataeus (FGrHist 1 ) F 4: 439 F 59: 443 Heraclides PODtiCUS (Wehrli) fro 1 67: 6 1 D. 24 Heraclitus Allegoriae 5.2: 1 1 5

D.

30

37:

1 16

Hennippus Comicus fro 32 K. - A.: 442 Herodianus (G. G. III ) Prosodia catho/ica (G. G. III, 1 . 1 ) 214. 1 9-20: 433 275.31 : 443 303.23: 433 394 . 1 8-24: 309 "£pi Klt/u£wf OVOJ,IIl-TW V (G. G. III, 11.2) 634.5-24: 295 770.29-771 .25: 305 "£pi J,loVTjpovf Ai(£wf (G. G. III,II.2) 908fL: 291-3 10 909. 12: 1 00 D. 51 933 . 1 8-20: 287-288; 289 D . 42 [Herodianus] Philetaerus 3 1 7 : 278 D. 22 De soloecismo et barbarismo (Nauck) 3 1 1 . 5-10: 96 Hesiodus fro 65 M. - W.: 433 Hesychius a 2634: 439 0 31 6 : 439 p 348: 439 T 33: 442 Homerus Dias 1 .586-94: 1 1 1 2. 1 35: 93 D . 2 1 2.572: 1 89 2.594-600: 433 2.804: 502 2.804-5: 97 D. 37 2.867: 97 D. 37 4.437-438: 97 D. 37 5.385: 1 7 5.385-404: 105 D . 4 ; 108 7.76: 1 68

581

Passages Index 8 . 1 85-197: 1 1 5 8.489-491 : 47 9.502-512: 1 1 6 10.10: 5 1 10.1 94-202: 46--48 1 3.358-60: 1 1 3; 1 14; 1 1 5 n. 29 1 7.247: 5 1 21 .257-8: 1 90 24.25-30: 1 08 24.753: 1 66; 1 66 n. 42 Odyssea 5.292-3: 190 7.232: 194 14.384: 1 88 1 8 . 1 75-7: 502 Horatius Ar.s poetica 345: 1 66 n. 39 Episrulae 1 .20.2: 1 66 n. 39

Hypothesis ad Eur. Melanippen TrGF 5 . 1 , (44) i Kannicht: 202-206 Ioann es Alexandrinus 5 . 1 0.... 1 1 : 278 19.4-1 2: 277-279; 281 n. 25 19.20-22: 278 36. 1 2-20: 287-288; 289 n. 42 Isocrates Panathenaicus 18: 30 [Longinus] 23-27: 464 n. 44 28-29: 464 n. 44 Lucianu. Demon ax 26: 95 n. 31 Gal1ius 23: 97 n. 36 Adver.sus Indoctum 15 : 200 n. 2

[Lucianus) Macrobii 27: 64 n. 34 Lucretius 5 . 1 057--8: 298 5 . 1089-90: 298 6. 1 1 38-1 286: 456 n. 23 Marius Victorinus

(GL VI) 56.6:

371

Moeri. (Hansen) � 12: 278-279 1T 77: 278 n. 22 Nemesius De natura hominum 294.94-95: 507 Neoptolemus Parianus (Mette) fro 6a-b: 84 n. 1 10 Nepos Pausanias 2.3--4 : 456 n. 23 Themistoc1es 9.2--4: 456 n. 23

Oribasius Synopsis 5 . 1 9.2: Oro.. (Alpers) B 4 b:

196 n. 25

437

Oviruus ,Wetamorphoses 1 . 64: 373 2.528: 37 1 Parmenides VS 28 B 1 1 :

1 1 2 n. 22

582

Passages Index

Papyri Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 375 1 6: 408-409 Dc",cniPapyrus, col. XlI: 1 1 2 P. Beroi. 9780: 1 4 P. BeroI. 9917: 313 P. Hamb. II 1 36.10-20: 1 64 n. 3 1 P. Harr. 59: 320; 323 P.Heid. Siegmann 1 97: 320; 323, 327 P.Lond.Lit. 1 82: 88; 320; 321 ; 322; 323; 327 P.Mich. mv. 3688: 1 66 n. 42 P.Mii. Vogi. I 19: 1 66 n. 39 P. Oxy. 853: 454; 467; 477 P. Oxy. 1 086, ii 52-53: 1 70 n. 65 P. Oxy. 1 087, i 21-ii 28: 1 68 n. 51 P. Oxy. 2192: 209 n . 7 P. Oxy. 2455: 202-204 P. Oxy. 4452, fro 1 . 1 7-8: 168 P.Rain. 1 . 19: 408; 410 P.Rain. 3.33B: 4 1 3 P. Turner 39, fr o A , I. 2 : 5 7 n . 1 2 P . Vindob. Gr. 29247: 454-455 P. Wash. Univ. II 63, i 6-1 1 : 1 72 n . 77 P. Yale 1 .25: 320; 323; 327; 406 n. 4; 408 P. Yale 1 .25, 11. 13-16: 406 n. 3 P. Yale 1 .25. 11. 16-18: 406 Pausanias 2.25.2-3: 439 3.12.5: 442 5 . 1 0. 1 : 194 n. 1 7 8.3.2: 445 Pherecrates test. 10 K. - A.: 437 fro 39 K. - A.: 437 Pherecydes (FGrHist 3) F 39: 442 F 1 35: 445

Philemo Comicus fro 69 K. - A.: 437 Philemon (Reitzenstein) 395.34: 278 n. 22 Philicus SH 677: 65 PhiIi.tus (FGrHist 566) F 2 1 : 443 F 96: 1 84 Philitas (Spanoudakis) test. 1 1 : 65 n. 4 1 ; 81 n. 92 Philo Byblius (FGrHist 790) F 2 1 : 437 Philodemus De poematis 1 . 1 63.2-4 Janko: 98 n. 38 1 . 1 87.21-24 Janko: 98 n. 38 5, 13.9-28 Jensen: 84 n. 1 1 0 Volumina rhetorica 2, 38.2-15 Longo Auricchio: 72 Philolaus VS 44 A 16:

1 1 2 n. 22

Philoponus loannes In Aristotelis Physica commentaria (CAG XVI.1) 20. 1 0-1 9: 506 Philoxenus (Theodoridi.) fr. 339: 275 fr. 4 1 1 : 352 Photiu.. Bibliot/tem 533a38-41 : 290 n. 44 Leximn 429.7 Porson, S.V. IT''Xeoov: 278 n. 22

Passages Index

Phrynichus Ecloga (Fi�cher): g1. 217: 278

n.

22

Pindarus Isthmia 2.8: 195 l\'emea 1 .33: 1 9 1 5. 6 : 18 8 6: 1 86 6.3 1 : 1 86 7.61-63: 189 9: 1 89; 1 92 9.40: 1 87 9.48: 1 88 1O.25-ll : 1 89 Olympia 1 : 1 82 2: 1 83 2. 1 2-5: 1 84; 1 85 2.83-8: 32-33 6.92-3: 1 84 8.30-3: 1 90 9.22: 1 93 10. 1 3: 1 93 10.70: 1 90 13. 1 !!-22: 1 85 13.20-2: 1 95 Pythia 1 .33-4: 191 4: 1 86 5: 1 86 5.26: 1 85 5.43-4: 185 10.36: 1 95 Fragmenta 68 Sn. - M.: 1 87 Plato Akibiades 2 1 47b5-1 0: 20 n. 3 Cratylus 388b12: 483 401 b: 242; 242 n. 3 41 4a8-b 1 : 480 41 4b6-c3: 70

414c: 242 n. 3 41 8c: 242; 242 n. 3 421 c5-422a-c: 480 422c-d: 48 1 428e: 481 423b: 480 433d: 480 Ion 530b-c: 27; 31-33 530c-d: 28-30; 34-37 532b-c: 30 535c: 34 n. 27 538d: 39 539d-e: 39-40 Phaedrus 268e: 69 Philebus 55e-56d: 78 n. 85 Protagoras 338e-9a: 35-36 339a ff. : 1 6 339b: 3 9 Respuh/ica 378c-e: 1 1 6 n. 31 606e-7a: 37 608a: 40 Sophistes 261d-262a: 481 [Plato] Epinomis 977b: 1 1 2 n. 22 Minos 3 1 8d-e: 108 n. 9 Plinius Natura/is Historia 2.172: 371 n.l l Plotinm 6.1 .25: 358 Plutarchm De audirndis poctis 1 4d: 205-206 1 ge: 1 1 6 n. 31 19e-f: 1 1 0 n. 15

583

Passages Index

584 De Iside et Osiride 51 (37 1 £ ) : 1 96 D. 25 Quaestiones Platonicae 1 009c-d: 484 1 01Oc: 484 Timoleon 1 4-1 5: 96; 97 D. 36 [plutarchus] De Homero 2.8: 98 D. 38 2.8-14: 92 Pompei1L� (G.L. V) 1 97.24: 295 Gommentum artis Donati (G. L. V) 1 49 . 1 9-1 50. 12: 385 Porphyrins In Aristotelis Gategorias commentarium (GAG IV. l) 1 02.2-9: 504-505 Praxiphanes (Wehrli) fro 8: 6(}-61 fro 9: 6(}-61 fro 10: 58

D. D.

20 20

Pri.�cianns Institutio de nomine et pronomine et uerbo (passalacqua) 23. 1-7: 394-395 n. 24 Institutiones grammaticae (G.L. 11III) II 56.29-57. 1 : 486 II 61 .28: 493 II 1 19 . 1 2-21 : 489 II 178.17: 368 II 1 79.12: 366 II 183.9-1 2: 368 II 1 83 . 1 2-1 4: 371 II 1 83.2(}-1 84.5: 493 II 1 86.4-5: 495 II 1 86.6: 366 II 1 86.13-1 5 : 495

II 373 . 1 I�12: 486 II 423.8-10: 496 II 423.13-1 5: 496 II 423 . 1 5-17: 496 II 427.1 1-13: 497 II 441 . 1 1 : 366 II 449.7-1 1 : 366; 366 D.5 II 548.4-7: 407 D. 6 II 549.3-6: 489 II 549.19-2 1 : 489 II 551 .4-1 8: 490 II 551 . 1 (H8: 490 II 55 1 . 18-552. 1 7: 485 II 552. 18-20: 489 II 564. 1 2-18: 394-395 D. 24 II 568 . 1 6-1 7: 388 II 577.6-9: 488 II 585.21-22: 487 111 6 . 1 2 : 394-395 n. 24 III 25.27-28: 490 III 63.7-9: 491 III 90.7-12: 364 111 1 1 6.25-27: 485 111 1 20.16-121 .2: 490 111 1 52. 15: 486 III 175.8: 366 III 1 85.21 : 366 111 1 97. 1 6-20: 363 111 201 . 1 1-12: 364 111 423.17-1 9: 496 III 48 1 .2-4: 486 Partitiones duodecim umuum Aenei­ dos principalium (G. L. III) 475.28: 361 , 372 Partitiones (passalacqua) 66. 1 9-24: 394-395 D. 24 1 1 6. 1-12: 384 [prob1L�] Instituta artium (G. L. IV) 54.3: 368 139.6-36: 390 D. 1 8 140.7-38: 395 D. 26 142.12-143.21 : 381 n. 13 Ptolemaens Grammaticus 0 1 17: 353

585

Passages Index a

1 42: 353

Pythenaeus (FGrHist 299) F 2: 186 Quintilianus Institutio oratoria 1 .4-8: 331-346 1 .4.4: 79 n. 87 1 .5.68: 367 1 .6.4-9: 296 1 .6.16: 297; 298 1 .8.20: 182 n. 8 2.17.41 : 71 n. 60 10. 1 . 1 0 1 : 456 n. 24 Saeerdos AlS grammatica (G.L. VI) 444.7-1 5: 390 n. 18 Seaurus (Biddau) 19.2: 361 n.l

&holia in Apollonium Rhodium 1 . 1 02: 442 1 .929: 431 ; 447 &holia in Aristophanem Achamenses 88: 216 1 1 8: 21 1 122: 21 1 1 53: 2 1 7 n. 21 381a: 2 1 5 604f: 221-222 649a: 2 1 6 702b: 2 1 3 n . 1 6 Aves 575a: 2 1 7 n. 21 1379b: 218-219 Equites 84b: 2 1 7 n. 21 253: 213 n. 16 1085a, e: 217-218 1381 a , e: 222

Nubes 1 1 2b: 34ge: 542b: Pax lO08a: Ranae 7 lOa: 967a: VespaI' 34 col.

2 1 7 n. 21 213 n. 16 208 n. 5 21 9-220 2 1 2 n. 14 213 1 : 213 n. 1 7

&holia i n Dionysii Thracis Artem grammaticam (G. G. 1.3) 3.1 1-13: 73 3 . 1 9ff. : 60 n. 20; 66 n. 43 7.23ff.: 60 n. 20; 67 7.25-29: 79 n. 87 8.32-9.22: 68 n. 49; 68 n. 50 9.23-10.19: 77 n. 82 1 1 .9-14: 77 n. 83 14.30: 245-246; 246 n. 8 100.9-10: 328 101 .9-1 0: 327 107. 1-108. 1 1 : 68 n. 49 1 1 4.23-24: 66 n. 43 1 1 5.20.... 1 1 9.39: 68 n. 49 1 1 8. 10.... 12: 72 120.35-121 .3: 66 n. 43 1 57. 1 8-27: 68 n. 50 1 59.1 1-1 60.23: 58 n. 1 7 160. 1 0.... 12: 58-59 160.1 1-23: 59; 66 n. 43 162.2-4: 79 n. 87 162.22-1 63.30: 77 n. 82 163.31-1 64.4: 66 n. 43 164.5-8: 73 164.23ff. : 60 n. 20 165 . 1 5- 1 66.12: 77 n. 82 167.5-25: 77 n. 82 167.26-28: 79 n. 87 168. 14-1 8: 77 n. 83 169.26: 295 192.8-1 4: 92 n. 17 223.4: 246 n. 9 229.35-36: 73 229.36-37: 60--6 1 n. 20

586

Passages Index 254.33-255.3: 406 n. 4 255.25-256.7: 406 n. 4 279.7--8: 327 289.37: 75 n. 79 298.30--40 : 77 n. 82 301 . 1 0-22: 77 n. 83 301 . 1 6-2 1 : 3 10 303.22£ : 295 309.9: 294; 301 447.31-448 .5: 66 n. 43 448.6ff. : 60-61 n. 20 448 . 1 9-3 1 : 77 n. 82 452.30ff. : 78 n. 84 490.7-27: 92 n. 1 7 5 1 5. 1 9-521 .37: 484 524.9-1 0: 486 548.27-30: 493

&!folia in Euripidl'tl1 (Schwartz) Orestes 1 645: 445 &holia in Homernm flias 1 .5 (D) : 1 27 n.21 1 .5-6: 1 27 n.21 1 . 1 8 (D): 1 1 1 ; 1 1 3 1 .29d: 1 49 1 .44a: 1 1 1 n. 1 7 1 .53-5: 245 1 .225c: 1 48 1 .366a: 1 55; 156 n.45 1 .454: 1 30 n.25 1 .591 c: 1 1 1 n. 1 8 1 .591 (D) : 1 1 2 2.122a: 1 30 n.25 2.130-3: 1 30 n.25 2.278a: 471 n. 53 2.37 1 (D): 92 n. 1 6 2.599b: 276 2.865: 1 62 n. 24 2.867a: 97 n. 37; 1 30 2.867 (D): 97 n. 37 2.872a: 1 30 n.25 3.179: 1 49 3 . 1 82a: 1 52

3.305: 1 1 3 n. 23 3.350: 1 34 3.506: 1 34 4.13: 1 29 4.32a: 1 08 n. 9 4. 1 40b: 1 25 4.1 54: 1 50 4. 1 58a: 1 34; 150 4. 162: 1 34 4.223a: 1 53 4.235-9 : 1 51 4.286b: 1 5 1 4.3 1 3 : 1 5 1 4.400: 9 7 n. 37 4.437: 97 n. 37; 1 30 5.48: I SO 5.70: 1 30 5.71-2: 134 5.385 (D) : 1 8 n. 2; 1 05-l t O 5.542a: 1 34 5.734-6: 1 24 n . 1 7 6 . 1 a : 1 23 6.58-9b: 1 35; 1 47 6.62a: 1 47 6.234: 1 29 6.373: 1 36 6.401 : 156 6.405: 1 56 6.450--4 b: 133; 1 56 6.467: 1 56; 1 57 6.474: 1 56; 1 57 7.17-8: 124 7.194: 134 7.346b: 97 n. 37 7.398: 1 5 1 7.443-64c: 1 43 7.445: 1 43 7.450: 1 43 7.45 1 a: 1 43 8.0: 124 8.2a: 1 28 8.9a: 1 37 8.78: 1 43 8.9 1 : 52-53 8.1 33b: 1 3 1 8 . 1 41-2a: 1 43

587

Passages Index 8. 1 75: 132 8. 1 80: 133 8 . 1 85b: 467 n. 49 8 . 1 95a: 1 1 5 8 . 1 96-7: 1 32 8.209b: 1 23 8.216: 1 44 8 . 2 1 7a: 1 25 8.236: 1 44 8.242a: 157 8.246a: 1 23 8.261-6: 1 24 8.274-6a: 1 24 8.335: 1 44 8.339-40: 1 28 8.345-7: 1 34 8.350: 123 8.368: 1 08 n. 10 8.470-6: 1 25 8.497: 132 8.49H-9a: 1 33 8.51 5b: 1 33 8.542: 130 8.562: 130 n.25 9.0a: 144 9 . 1 33a: 1 72 n. 78 1 0. 1 : 52 1 O. 1 3b: 1 3 1 1 0. 1 4-6: 1 25 10.17: 151 1 O.25a: 150 1O.43a: 1 4 1 1 0. 1 94: 47-48 1 O.274b: 126 1 0.295: 1 26 10 364b: 57 n. 1 2 1 0.446: 1 34 1 0.449: 1 34 1 1 .0: 1 2 1 1 1 . 1 1 a: 1 24 n. 1 7 1 1 .16: 151 1 1 . 1 7a: 1 47 1 1 . 1 7b: 1 47 1 1 .52-3: 1 37 1 1 .72c: 144 1 1 .78: 1 44

1 1 .90-8: 1 52 1 1 . 1 1 6-7: 1 29 1 1 . 1 2 1 b: 1 34 1 1 . 1 5 1 a: 1 52 1 1 . 1 54: 1 52 1 1 . 1 8 1 -2: 1 40 1 1 . 1 92b: 1 27 1 1 . 1 97-8: 1 3 1 1 1 .233: 1 52 1 1 .243: 1 37 1 1 .270d: 1 1 6 1 1 .273: 1 38 1 1 .278-9a: 1 5 1 1 1 .278-%: 1 52 1 1 .288-9: 133 1 1 .300b: 1 25 1 1 .304: 1 29 1 1 .304-5 : 125 1 1 .336a: 1 45 1 1 .407-10: 1 38 1 1 .432-3: 132 1 1 .512-3: 139 1 1 .558-62: 1 45 1 1 .575-7: 139 1 1 .599: 1 39 1 1 .600-1 a: 1 40 1 1 .604c: 1 26 1 1 .677-76 1 : 1 40 1 1 .808: 1 34 1 1 .809a/c: 1 40 1 1 .813a: 1 41 1 1 .826a: 141 1 1 .833-6: 141 1 2 . 1 -2a: 141 1 2 . 1 3-5: 1 26 12.3-35: 1 42 1 2.37a: 1 45 1 2 . 1 1 0a: 1 33 1 2 . 1 73a: 1 45 1 2 . 1 79-80: 1 26; 1 45; 1 55 1 2 . 1 8 1 : 1 45 1 2.334a: 1 57 1 2.437: 1 45 1 3 . 1 a: 1 46 1 3 .41a: 1 30 n. 28 1 3 . 1 97: 92 n. 16

51111

Passages Index

1 3.203c: 1 35 1 3.34I1a: 1 27 1 3.359a: 1 1 4 13.1127: 92 n. 1 6 1 4. 1 39-41 : 1 5 3 14. 1 5 1 : 1211 14.512: 97 n . 37 1 5. 1 11 (D) : 1 10 n. 1 4 1 5.326-7: 146 1 5.390: 141-1 42 1 5.4111: 1 46 15.6to-- 4b: 1 55 15.690-5: 146 16.1 01-t 1 : 125 16. 1 19: 1 46 16.399-4111: 1 211 16.569a: 1 29 16.1I00a: 1 27 16.11 1 4-5: 1 3 1 16.1133--4 : 1 32 17.205a: 1 211 17.207--1!a: 1 27 17.214a: 1 62 n. 24 17.401-2: 1 36 17.453-5: 126 17.603--4 a: 1 29 17.755-7: 1 46 111.1 51-2: 1 27 111.444-56b: 155; 1 56 n.45 19.233--4 : 57 n. 12 19. 1 t 9b: 1 1 6 23. 1 74-6: 1 36 23. 1 114: 137 24.6-9b: 1 56 24.25-30: toll n. 9 24.21 5b: 1 30 n 25 24.22I1a: 2112-2113 24.2112: 57 n. 1 2 24.664: 133 Odyssea 3.7la: 97 11.294: 97 n. 37 11.352: 1 1 0 n . 1 6 12.63b (D [Ernst]): 1 to n . 1 4 1 11 . 1 7: 9 2 n. 1 6

Scholia in Lycophronem 5113a: 446 1242b: 447 Scholia in Nicandrum Alex. 1 5 1 : 441 Scholia in Pindarum Nemea 1 , inscr. a: 1112 n. 7 1 .4ge: 1 9 1 5 . 1 0a: 1 1111 6.53a: 1 116 7.119b: 1 119 9.95a: 1 116 1 0.49b: 1 1111 1, inser. a: 1112 n. 6 1 .35e: 1 112 2.29d: 1 112 6.1511b-c: 1 114 7.24e: 467 n. 49 IIAla: 1 90 9.34e: 1 93 1 0. 1 7a, e: 1 93 1 0.55e: 1 93 1 0.113a: 1 90 13.27a: 1 94 13.29a-b: 1 114 Pythia t .t37b: 97 n. 37 5 .34: 1 115 10.5 1 a-b: 195 1 0.55a-b: 1 95 10.55a: 1 95 1 0.56a, b: 1 95; 1 96 Scholia in Theocritum Arg. 7, 76.16: 233-234 7.2la, 114. 1 7 : 2211-231 Scholia in Thucydidem 1 .23.6: 466 4.10.3: 474 3.45.4: 467 n. 50 11.64.5 : 469 Semonides test. 19 Campbell (= test. 61 Poltera): 1 113

Passages Index

Seneca Epistulae 88: 20 88.37: 1 82 n. 8 Sergius Primae expositiones de prioribus Do­ nati (G.L. VIII) 1 55.29: 380 [Sergius] Explanationes in arlem Donati (G.L.

IV)

5 1 3.28-32: 395-396 5 1 4.38-51 5.24: 382-383 529. 1-533.20: 62 n. 30 530.24-25: 63 543.20: 366 n. 5 Servius Commentarius in arlern Donati (G.L. IV) 4 1 7.9-1 2: 390-391 4 1 7.28-4 1 8 .2: 395 n. 25 440.21-25: 388 Sextus Empiricus Adversus mathematicos 1 .44-49: 66 n. 42 1 .47: 66 1 . 57: 77; 98 n. 40; 310 1 . 59: 79 n. 87 1 . 60-65: 77 n. 82 1 . 66-7 1 : 77 n. 83 1 .72-73: 78 1 .72-75: 77 n. 82 1 .73: 78 1 .74: 77 1 .76: 72 1 . 1 76-1 77: 87 n. 3 1 . 1 99: 274 n. 12 1 .202-206: 92-93 1 .226: 294 1 .227: 294 1 .236: 295 1 .241-247: 96 1 .250: 98 n . 40; 3 10 1 .252: 57 n. 1 3

589

7.269.4-6: 507 nVppcbVEIOI VTTOTVTTcbuElf 2.26. 1-3: 507 Simia� Rhodius (Frankel) test. a: 65 n. 41 test. b: 65 n. 41 Simplicius In Aristotelis Caregorias commenta­ riu rn (CAG VIII) 1 24. 14-19: 505-506 In Aristotelis Physica commentaria (CAG IX) 589.33: 170 n. 66 Stephanus Byzantius (Meineke: M., Billerbeck: B., BiI­ lerbeck - Zubler: B.-Z.) 4. 1 6 M. = a 4 B.: 430 n. 4 5 . 1 4 M. = a 6 B.: 439 15.9 M. = a 33 B . : 435 33. 1 M. = a 76 B . : 430 n. 4 33. 1 7 M. = a 80 B.: 437 38. 1 M. = a 92 B . : 437 46.6 M. = a 1 20 B.: 443 56. 1 M. = a 1 47 B.: 430 n . 4 82.23 M. = a 253 B.: 430 n. 4 97.5 M. = a 322 B.: 433 1 1 2.7 M. = a 397 B.: 432 160. 17 M. = � 55 B.: 430 n. 4 1 74. 1 4 M. = � 1 1 9 B.: 430 n . 4 177.5 M. = � 1 29 B.: 433 1 9 1 . 5 M. = � 199 B.: 441 233.20 M. = 5 9 4 B.-Z.: 432 250. 1 4 M. = 5 1 48 B.-Z . : 438 251.6 M. = 5 1 49 B.-Z.: 434 256.4 M. = 5 1 50 B.-Z.: 439 256. 10 M.= 5 1 50 B.-Z . : 441 256. 1 4 M. = 5 1 5 1 B.-Z . : 433 283.12 M. = E 1 45 B.­ Z.: 433 317.3 M. = e 57 B.-Z.: 432

590

Passages Index

325. Uf. M.: 168 n. 5 1 336. 12 M. 1 89 B.-Z.: 432 348.6-7 M.: 432 424.6 M.: 437 475 . 1 3 M.: 431 476 . 17 M.: 439 483 . 1 0 M.: 440 486. 1 M.: 439 494.23 M.: 445 495.4 M.: 445 495.9 M.: 444 506. 1 5 M.: 437 547.7 M.: 446 577.8 M.: 437 598.6 M.: 442 598. 1 1 M.: 441 603.21 M.: 447 607.3 M.: 447 607.6 M.: 432 608 . 1 9 M.: 437 628.14 M.: 437 640.7 M.: 433 677 . 1 8 M.: 432 693.3 M.: 441 =

Strabo 1 . 1 .10: 84 n. 1 09 1 .2.3: 83 n. lOS; 84 n. 109 1 .2 . 1 5 : 83 n. 1 04 1 .2.17: 83 n. l OS; 84 n. 1 08 2.5.19: 444 5.2.2: 437 5.2.6: 444 7.7.8: 445 7. fro 3.7: 445 8.6.6: 97 n. 37 9.5. 1 1 : 445 1 3 . 1 .30: 446 1 4. 1 . 19: 440 1 4.2.19: 65 n. 4 1 ; 81 n. 92 1 4.2.28: 97 n. 37 1 4. 1 2. 1 3: 65 n. 41 1 7.3.22: 64 n. 34; 81 n. 92 1 7. 1 . 1 4: 431 Strato Comicus fro 1 K.-A . : 93; 95

Suetonius De grammaticis 1 0.4: 55 n. 2; 62 n. 27 Suidas (Alder) E 2898: 56 n. 9 v 390: 432 0 536: 445 0 657: 57 n. 1 3 1T 3038: 8 7 n . 2 (1 43 1 : 65 n. 41 T 205 : 442; 443 Col) 201 : 429; 430

Synagoge lekseon chlTsimon (Cunningham) a 251 9 (I�: 278 n. 1 9 Tatuinus Ars grammatica (CCSL 1 33) 80.5: 389 80.25-81 .52: 393-394 82. UKHB. 1 1 7: 386 Terentiu� Andria 829: 372 Theagenes VS 8

A

1a: 60--61 n. 20

Theocritus 7.24-25: 235-236 16. 104-109: 236-237 Theodorus Prodromus (?) [Theodos.Gr.] (Goetding) 1 53.32-1 54.3: 427 n. 55 1 54.23-26: 425 1 55.6-1 1 : 426 1 5 5 . 1 7-20: 426 1 58.UH l : 426 170.5-1 1 : 426, n. 53 171 . 1 9-23: 426-427 171 .23-1 72.24: 426 n. 54 Theodosius Canones (G. G. IV 1) 19.20-20.14: 41 1-412

591

Passages Index 41 . 1 1-13: 280-282 41 . 14-1 6: 277-279283; 281 ll.25 44. 1 4-1 8: 4 1 7-4 1 8 44 . 1 9-23: 4 1 9 44.23-45.4: 421 ll . 3 5 45.7-9: 4 1 8 46. 1 4: 4 1 8 ll . 30 46. 1 4-47.5: 419 n. 3 1 53. 1 5: 4 1 7 ; 421 n . 3 5 54.6-12: 419 54. 1 9-21 : 4 1 8 n. 30 55.20-22: 4 1 8 n. 30 56. 1 9-2 1 : 4 1 9 n. 31 62. 1 0-13: 420-421 66. 1 8-21 : 420 67.4-6: 420 ll. 34 68.4-7: 419 68.4-10: 420 69.2-3: 4 1 8 ll. 28 69.2-4: 419 ll. 33 70. 1-18: 412-4 1 3 71 .6-9: 4 1 9 ll. 33 75.21-23: 420 n. 34 76.2-5: 420 ll. 34 77. 1-20: 414-4 1 5 83. 1 9-22: 4 1 7 n. 27 83.22-24: 4 1 8-4 1 9 ll. 30 83.24-26: 421 n. 35 84.1-2: 421 ll. 35 86.3-4: 420 ll. 34 86. 10: 4 1 7 ll. 27; 421 n. 35 86.21-87.3: 419 n. 3 1 87.3-5 : 4 1 9 ll . 30 88.21-25: 4 1 9 n. 31 89.23-25: 420 n. 34 90.8-9: 420 ll. 34 90.24-25: 420 n. 34 9 1 . 1 0-12: 420 n. 34 92.5-7: 420 ll. 34 93. 1 4-1 7: 4 1 8 n. 28 93.21-22: 4 1 8 n. 28 95.27-28: 4 1 8 n. 34 Theognostu. 1 58 . 1 1-30: 288-289

Theotimus (FGrHist 470) F 1 : 185 Thucydides 1 .3.3: 1 .23.6: 2.39.4: 4.10.2: 4.10.3: 4.78.3: 6.35 . 1 : 8.64.5:

97 n. 37 466 472 465; 470 473-474 461-462 n . 39; 464 465 464; 468

Timaeus (FGrHist 566) F 1 8 .6ff. : 1 86 F 1 8 . 1 0ff. : 1 86 F 2 1 .6ff. : 1 86 F 49: 1 84 F 93b: 1 83 F 96: 1 84 F 1 45: 1 85 Trypho Fragm enta (de Vel.en) fro 33: 476 n. 66 fr. 38: 350 fr. 49: 350 fr. 56: 350 fr. 65: 275 De tropis (Spengel) 193.9-1 1 : 1 1 0 n. 1 5 Tyrarurio (Baa.) test. 5: 62 ll. 30 fro 1 : 351 fro 59: 62 ll. 30 Varro De lingua Latina 5-10: 334 9. 1 : 273 10. 1 0: 295 10.82: 294 Goetz - Schoen: fro 84: 62 ll. 30

Passages Index

592 Funaioli: fr. 49: fro 234: fr. 237: fro 2H2:

340 79 n. H7 340 62 n. 30

Velius Longus (G.L. VII) 56. 1 5: 361 n. 1

Vergilius Georgica 3.3H 1 : 37 1 Vita Euripidis p. 5 Schwartz I ( T A 1 III 4 Kannicht): 1 99 =

Xenophon Ephesius 4.1 .4: 433