HISTORY OF CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP F R O M T O
T
T H
H E E
E
B E G I N N I N G N
D
O
H E L L E N I S T I C
F A
T
H
G
E
R. PFEIFFER OXFORD
E
THIS volume is concerned with the foundations laid by Greek poets and scholars in the last three centuries RC. for the whole future of classical scholarship. It starts with a brief survey Of the pre-Hellenistic ages in Greece and a few hints ai the oriental background. T h e n the author makes full use of the available evidence, especially thai of the papyri, to demonstrate the fresh start m a d e by Hellenistic poets after 300 BC and to describe the essential achievements of five generations of creative scholars in Alexandria and of their cpigoni down to the age of Augustus. R u d o l f Pfeiffer (1889 1979) was Professor of Greek at H a m b u r g (1923) and Freiburg (1928) Universities, then Fellow of C o r p u s Christi College, Oxford from 1938 to 1951. Other publications include a complete edition of Callimachus.
O X F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS
1
.r. ."l
HISTORY CLASSICAL
OF
SCHOLARSHIP
H I S T O R Y
O F
CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP FROM T H E BEGINNINGS
TO
THE END OF THE HELLENISTIC
RUDOLF
AGE
PFEIFFER
O X F O R D A T
T H E C L A R E N D O N
PRESS
Oxford
University
Press,
Great
Clarendon
Oxford Athens Buenos
Auckland Aires
Delhi Kuala
Lumpur
Mexico
City
Taipei
All
rights
reserved.
without Within
the prior
the
purpose under
UK,
exceptions
issued
by the
sent
Designs
of Oxford
or review,
countries University
in Publication
0-10-814342-7
1 3 5 7 9
10
8 6 4 2
in Great
on acid-free Bookcraft Midsomer
Britain
paper {Bath)
dealing as
of the
by Ltd.,
Norton
for
Press,
Data
the
permitted of
licences
concerning should
above
available
means, Press.
or in the case
terms
Enquiries
in other
Oxford
Data
Printed
10S8, the
Agency.
Cataloguing
ISBN
Act, with
and
Department,
Library
University
of any fair
at the address British
reproduced,
or by any
in respect Patents
terms
be
or criticism
Licensing these
to the Rights
and
may
igo8
in any form
in accordance
Copyright outside
Ltd.,
of this publication
study,
York
IQ68
Books
in writing
VXORI CARISSIMAE SACRVM
Press
by
New
Press
or transmitted, are allowed
reproduction
reproduction
part
or private
Copyright,
reprographic
States
Inc.,
Sandpiper
permission
of research the
No system,
in
University
United Press
University for
Salaam Karachi
Warsaw
of Oxford
in the
es
Melbourne
Toronto
University
6DP
Singapore
Ibadan
edition
in a retrieval
Paris
Berlin
© Oxford
stored
Madrid
Nairobi
companies
Published
Special
Madras
mark
0X2
Bombay
Dar
Istanbul
associated
is a trade,
Oxford
Town
Kong
Tokyo
and
Oxford
Bogota
Cape
Hong
Street,
York
Bangkok
-Calcutta
Florence
Oxford
New
be
PREFACE A N enterprise like this
History
t h o u g h a d v e n t u r o u s a n d l e n g t h y needs
o n l y a b r i e f a n d m o d e s t p r o l o g u e . F o r t h e u n d e r t a k i n g as a w h o l e m u s t justify itself w i t h o u t i n t r o d u c t o r y recommendations and preparatory a r g u m e n t s ; apologies f o r i t s deficiencies w o u l d h a v e n o e n d . N o b o d y w i l l d e n y t o s c h o l a r s h i p , w h e t h e r i n its h i g h e s t o r i n its h u m blest f o r m , its o w n r i g h t , a n d as l o n g as o n e carries o n t h e d a i l y w o r k o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , o f t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m , o f historical reconstruction one m a y expect a p p r o v a l ; b u t to t u r n f r o m t h a t a c t i v i t y to reflection u p o n t h e p a s t o f s c h o l a r s h i p a n d u p o n t h e scholars o f b y g o n e d a y s m a y be d e e m e d i n o p p o r t u n e a n d unnecessary. Y e t , i f s u c h s c e p t i c i s m is b y a n y means t o be c o n v e r t e d , i t w i l l s u r e l y be b y c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h t h e v e r y facts o f h i s t o r y ; a n d t o m a k e t h e i m p o r t a n t facts v i s i b l e i n t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e is precisely o u r p u r p o s e . F o r i t was i n t h e course o f t i m e a n d t h e succession o f peoples a n d g e n e r a t i o n s t h a t t h e f u l l n a t u r e a n d t h e m a n y f o r m s o f s c h o l a r s h i p w e r e r e v e a l e d . T h e h i s t o r y o f classical s c h o l a r s h i p , t h e r e f o r e , is classical s c h o l a r s h i p i n t h e m a k i n g . A n d a b o o k r e c o n s t r u c t i n g its h i s t o r y u n d e r t h i s aspect c a n c l a i m t o be r e g a r d e d as a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f s c h o l a r s h i p itself. W e say ' i m p o r t a n t facts', because i t is o b v i o u s t h a t w e d o n o t w a n t t o k n o w w h a t is obsolete a n d past f o r ever, b u t w h a t is s t i l l e n d u r i n g ; w e w a n t t o e x p l o r e t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f knowledge, the
philologia perennis.
T h i s c o n t i n u i t y was m a i n t a i n e d n o t o n l y b y t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l p o w e r o f g r e a t scholars, b u t e q u a l l y b y t h e i r m o r a l p r i n c i p l e s o f a b s o l u t e h o n e s t y a n d u n r e m i t t i n g p a t i e n c e i n t h e p u r s u i t o f t r u t h . I n deference t o these p r i n c i p l e s I h a v e m a d e i t m y task t o c o l l e c t a n d i n t e r p r e t as f a r as possible a l l t h e p r i m a r y e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l sources; t h e m o s t r e l e v a n t passages w i l l be f o u n d i n t h e t e x t , n o t i n t h e notes. F o r t h a t a n d o t h e r reasons t h i s is h a r d l y a bedside b o o k a b o u t t h e lives a n d w o r k s o f scholars,
e n l i v e n e d w i t h anecdotes a n d j o k e s . B i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a ,
t h o u g h b y n o m e a n s d i s r e g a r d e d , are c o n f i n e d w i t h i n p r o p e r l i m i t s . I h a v e i n e v i t a b l y b e e n a b l e t o g i v e o n l y a s m a l l selection o f m o d e r n s e c o n d a r y l i t e r a t u r e , a n d I m a y o f t e n h a v e b e e n a t f a u l t i n selecting the w r o n g references; b u t I a m n o t q u i t e i g n o r a n t o f a l l t h e books w h i c h I h a v e n o t q u o t e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , I h a v e n o t a t t e m p t e d i n e v e r y case t o p i c t u r e w h a t dons c a l l t h e ' b a c k g r o u n d * , b u t o n l y w h e n t h e g e n e r a l
viii
Preface
Preface
ix
ideas a n d events o f t h e t i m e exercised a s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e o n scholars o r
w h o w a s a classical scholar, a p r o f o u n d p h i l o s o p h e r , a n d a f a r - s i g h t e d
even c h a n g e d t h e course o f s c h o l a r s h i p .
h i s t o r i a n as w e l l , g a v e a v e r y n o b l e sketch i n a f e w pages o f his En-
A history o f scholarship should d r a w a t t e n t i o n t o w h a t was n e w a n d
tyklopadie und Methodologie derphilologiscken Wissenschaften ( p u b l i s h e d a f t e r
f r u i t f u l , d i s t i n g u i s h e r r o r f r o m t r u t h , a n d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e passing
his d e a t h , second e d i t i o n 1886, p p . 3 0 0 - 9 ) . A q u i t e i n d i v i d u a l a n d b r i l -
d a y f r o m t h a t t r u e k n o w l e d g e w h i c h lasts f o r ever, t h a t is, as w e s a i d ,
l i a n t s u r v e y w a s c o n t r i b u t e d b y W i l a m o w i t z i n 1921 t o t h e
' p e r e n n i a l ' . B u t t h e d e a r t h o f p r e p a r a t o r y studies o f single p r o b l e m s ,
Einleitung in die Altertumswissensckqft, 'Geschichte d e r P h i l o l o g i e * ( t h i r d e d i t i o n 1927,
based o n f u l l d o c u m e n t a r y evidence, is a n obstacle t o t h e a c h i e v e m e n t
r e p r i n t e d i 9 6 0 ) ; i t is a v e r y subjective r e v i e w o f classical scholars m a d e
o f s u c h a n a m b i t i o u s g o a l . I s h a l l s o u n d a w a r n i n g w h e n e v e r I feel
b y a g r e a t m a s t e r w h o calls u p t h e d e a d heroes o f t h e past f r o m t h e
c o m p l e t e l y i n c o m p e t e n t ; a n d as I used t h e e p i t h e t A d v e n t u r o u s ' i n t h e
o t h e r w o r l d a n d praises o r b l a m e s t h e m . W i l a m o w i t z a c k n o w l e d g e d a
first sentence o f t h i s preface, I sincerely h o p e t h e b o o k w i l l b e u n d e r -
d e b t t o t h e lectures o f O t t o J a h n ; b u t h e seems t o h a v e w r i t t e n a g o o d
stood a n d a c c e p t e d i n t h i s l i g h t .
d e a l o f his
T h e r e h a v e , o f course, b e e n e a r l i e r a t t e m p t s i n t h i s field since t h e days o f H e n r i E t i e n n e w h o w r o t e i n 1587 De
criticis veteribus Graecis et
History f r o m m e m o r y , a s t u p e n d o u s b u t n o t u n f a i l i n g m e m o r y .
So s t i l l m o r e w e i g h t s h o u l d b e g i v e n t o t h e sections d e v o t e d t o a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n scholars i n h i s m a n y books o n G r e e k a u t h o r s t h a n t o t h i s
Latinis. B u t o n l y one r e a l l y c o m p r e h e n s i v e b o o k exists: J . E . S a n d y s , A History of Classical Scholarship, i n t h r e e v o l u m e s o f 1,629 pages. A d -
b r i e f g e n e r a l a c c o u n t o f e i g h t y pages.
m i r a t i o n is m i x e d w i t h e n v y w h e n o n e l e a r n s f r o m Sandys's b i o g r a p h e r
N i e t z s c h e , R i t s c h F s f a v o u r i t e p u p i l , i n t h i s c o n n e x i o n ; a t t h e age o f
1
I
c a n n o t refrain—pace
Wilamowitz—from mentioning Friedrich
History o n 1 J a n u a r y 1900, h a d t h e first
t w e n t y - f o u r h e seriously c o n s i d e r e d w r i t i n g ' E i n e G e s c h i c h t e d e r l i t e r a ¬
v o l u m e p u b l i s h e d b y t h e C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press i n 1903 (second
r i s c h e n S t u d i e n i m A l t e r t u m u n d i n d e r N e u z e i t ' . H e w a n t e d t o find
e d i t i o n 1906, t h i r d e d i t i o n 1921) a n d t h e second a n d t h i r d v o l u m e s i n
o u t t h e g e n e r a l ideas t h a t h a d i n f l u e n c e d t h e s t u d y o f a n t i q u i t y a n d t o
1 9 0 8 ; t h e t h r e e v o l u m e s w e r e r e p r i n t e d i n B o s t o n i n 1958. E v e n t h o u g h
d e m o n s t r a t e t h e l i n k s b e t w e e n classical s c h o l a r s h i p a n d t h e d o m i n a n t
that h e started t o write t h e
o u t o f d a t e i n m a n y respects, t h i s s t a n d a r d w o r k w i l l a l w a y s r e m a i n a n
p h i l o s o p h y o f e v e r y age. T h e r e a r e some r e m a r k a b l e notes o n t h i s s u b -
i n d i s p e n s a b l e reference b o o k , a n d n o subsequent w r i t e r o n t h e same sub-
ject
j e c t c a n f a i l t o b e g r a t e f u l f o r t h e r a n g e a n d t h o r o u g h n e s s o f its m a t e r i a l .
he d i d n o t w o r k i t o u t , b u t m a d e his w a y t o w a r d s h i s o w n f a t a l p h i l o -
B u t , as a w h o l e , Sandys's w o r k is r a t h e r a c a t a l o g u e o f classical scholars,
sophy. A b o u t t h e same t i m e a n E n g l i s h classical s c h o l a r w h o h a d h i s
century b y century, nation b y nation, a n d book b y book t h a n a real
o w n ideas a b o u t s c h o l a r s h i p a n d t h e f u n c t i o n s o f a u n i v e r s i t y , M a r k
1
i n h i s letters a n d p a p e r s b e t w e e n 1867 a n d 1 8 7 1 , b u t , o f course,
h i s t o r y o f s c h o l a r s h i p i t s e l f ; t h e r e is n o l e a d i n g i d e a , n o c o h e r e n t s t r u c -
Pattison, conceived the p l a n o f w r i t i n g the history o f l e a r n i n g f r o m t h e
t u r e , n o sober d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t r a n s i e n t a n d t h e p e r e n n i a l .
Renaissance o n w a r d s .
G . F u n a i o l i , ' L i n e a m e n t i d ' u n a s t o r i a d e l l a filología a t t r a v e r s o i s e c o l i ' ,
i n spite o f his w e l l - k n o w n r e l i g i o u s b i a s , these f r a g m e n t s , especially o n
is m u c h m o r e compressed
2
Short History, b u t t h e Outlines
e v e n t h a n Sandys's
2
I n the end he completed only fragments; but,
t h e g r e a t F r e n c h scholars o f t h e s i x t e e n t h a n d s e v e n t e e n t h
centuries,
m a t e r i a l is p r e s e n t e d i n a l i v e l y p e r s o n a l style. A . G u d e m a n ' s
are e x e m p l a r y , because h i s studies i n d e t a i l a r e a l w a y s i n f o r m e d b y
of the History of Classical Scholarship (last e d i t i o n B o s t o n 1 9 0 2 ) , m u c h e n l a r g e d i n t h e G e r m a n e d i t i o n Grundriss der Geschichte der klassischen Philologie (1909 2 n d e d i t i o n ) is o n l y b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l ; b r o u g h t u p t o d a t e a n d
a n awareness o f t h e h i s t o r y o f s c h o l a r s h i p as a w h o l e . I n o u r o w n days
p r u n e d o f its i n a c c u r a c i e s , i t c o u l d b e a useful t o o l f o r f u r t h e r research.
his emphasis is, o f course, o n t h e s t u d y o f a n c i e n t h i s t o r y a n d m o s t o f
Besides these f a c t u a l surveys t h e r e a r e a f e w sketches b y g r e a t scholars
his c o n t r i b u t i o n s d e a l w i t h scholars a n d w r i t i n g s o f m o d e r n t i m e s , t h e
w h i c h are strong j u s t where w e f o u n d Sandys w a n t i n g : they g e n e r a l ideas, a r e d i s c r i m i n a t i n g , suggestive,
convey
stimulating. A . Bôckh,
N. G. L. Hammond, Sir John E. Sandys (1844.-1922) Cambridge 1935, pp. 8 0 ff. Sandys compressed the subject-matter of his monumental work into one volume for the classical student and the general reader in his Short History of Classical Scholarskip 1915.
n o o n e has d e v o t e d a n d is d e v o t i n g m o r e t h o u g h t a n d l a b o u r t o h i s t o r i c a l p r o b l e m s o f classical studies t h a n A r n a l d o M o m i g l i a n o . T h o u g h
u n i v e r s a l r a n g e o f t h e a u t h o r ' s ideas a n d k n o w l e d g e j u s t i f i e s t h e t i t l e o f his c o l l e c t e d essays:
1
t
2
Studi di Letteratura
antica I (1948) 1 8 5 - 3 6 4 .
3
Contributo alia storia degli studi classici.
1 F.Nietzsche, Werke und Brief'e, Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe; Werke ( * 9 3 5 ) 3 1 9ff.)4 4 0 with references to manuscripts and earlier editions. Memoirs (i 8 8 5 ) 3 1 9ff.Essays (1889) on the Stephani, Scaliger, etc. 3 1 0955)) 1 1 ( I 9^°) i s c e raP-11 4 6 3 - 8 0 'L'eredita dellafilologiaantica e
3
r
(1934)
pp.cxxf.,
1
il metodo storico'
x
Preface
xi
Preface
T h i s is a p e r s o n a l selection o f b o o k s w h i c h I h a v e f o u n d n o t o n l y i n s t r u c t i v e , b u t i n s p i r i n g ; l e c t u r e s , speeches, a n d p a p e r s are e x c l u d e d .
references.
T h e Bayerische
Akademie
d e r Wissenschaften
and the
British A c a d e m y were k i n d enough to vote me a n n u a l grants towards
T h e p r e s e n t v o l u m e is c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e f o u n d a t i o n s l a i d b y G r e e k
t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e expenses a r i s i n g f r o m t h i s p e r m a n e n t assistance. T h r e e
poets a n d scholars i n t h e last t h r e e c e n t u r i e s B.C. f o r t h e w h o l e f u t u r e o f
M u n i c h l i b r a r i e s , t h e B a v a r i a n State L i b r a r y , t h e U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y ,
classical s c h o l a r s h i p . I t starts w i t h a b r i e f s u r v e y o f t h e p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c
a n d t h e L i b r a r y o f t h e S e m i n a r f u r klassische P h i l o l o g i e , as w e l l as t h e
ages i n Greece a n d a f e w h i n t s a t t h e o r i e n t a l b a c k g r o u n d . B u t t h e n
B o d l e i a n L i b r a r y d u r i n g m y a n n u a l visits t o O x f o r d , w e r e l i b e r a l i n
f u l l use is m a d e o f t h e a v a i l a b l e e v i d e n c e , especially t h a t o f t h e p a p y r i ,
g r a n t i n g m e e v e r y f a c i l i t y . I t is i m p o s s i b l e t o m e n t i o n b y n a m e t h e m a n y
t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e fresh s t a r t m a d e b y H e l l e n i s t i c poets after 3 0 0 B.C.
O x f o r d a n d M u n i c h f r i e n d s f r o m whose
a n d t o d e s c r i b e t h e essential a c h i e v e m e n t s o f five g e n e r a t i o n s o f c r e a t i v e
t h r o u g h a l l these y e a r s ; b u t t h e r e is o n e t o w h o m I o w e m o r e t h a n
discussions I h a v e
profited
scholars i n A l e x a n d r i a a n d o f t h e i r e p i g o n i d o w n t o t h e age o f A u g u s t u s .
c a n be expressed b y w o r d s , E d u a r d F r a e n k e l . E v e r y o n e w h o is f a m i l i a r
B y t h e s i n g u l a r c o u r t e s y o f M r . P. M . F r a s e r I w a s a l l o w e d t o r e a d
w i t h h i s b o o k s a n d reviews k n o w s h o w i n t i m a t e l y he is a c q u a i n t e d w i t h
parts o f his f o r t h c o m i n g comprehensive w o r k o n
Ptolemaic Alexandria i n
t y p e s c r i p t ; I t h a n k h i m m o s t w a r m l y f o r t h i s p r i v i l e g e w h i c h has saved m e f r o m a variety o f errors.
t h e s c h o l a r l y t r a d i t i o n ; generous w i t h a d v i c e w h e n e v e r asked f o r i t , h e was also a c o n s t a n t d r i v i n g f o r c e b e h i n d t h e scenes. T h e d r a f t o f e v e r y c h a p t e r was r e a d b y M r . J . K . C o r d y o f t h e C l a r e n -
T h e A l e x a n d r i a n s c h o l a r poets a r e o u r ancestors, a n d w e s h o u l d a t
d o n Press. W i t h u n f a i l i n g p a t i e n c e a n d c o u r t e s y h e s m o o t h e d o u t o r ,
least t r y n o t t o b e u n w o r t h y o f t h i s n o b l e a n c e s t r y . ' T h e h i s t o r i a n m u s t
m o r e o f t e n , r e s h a p e d m y E n g l i s h ; f o r t h i s c o m p e t e n t a n d generous h e l p
become o l d i n order t o develop his a r t t o the f u l l
is o n e o f R a n k e ' s
he deserves t h e p r o f o u n d g r a t i t u d e o f t h e a u t h o r a n d o f t h e r e a d e r . I a m
m a x i m s ; t h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e o f t h e h i s t o r i a n o f s c h o l a r s h i p . O n l y
i n d e b t e d t o t h e s k i l l a n d v i g i l a n c e o f t h e P r i n t e r s , especially o f t h e
o n e w h o has p r a c t i s e d s c h o l a r s h i p a l l h i s life s h o u l d d a r e t o w r i t e a b o u t
Reader, a n d i n the r e a d i n g o f the proofs I enjoyed the h e l p o f a n ex-
its h i s t o r y . A s soon as t h e second v o l u m e o f G a l l i m a c h u s was p u b l i s h e d
p e r i e n c e d s c h o l a r , m y c o l l e a g u e Professor M a x T r e u , a n d , d u r i n g his
i n 1953 b y t h e C l a r e n d o n Press, I s u b m i t t e d t o t h e Delegates a p r o p o s a l
absence i n Greece, o f m y p u p i l D r . R u d o l f F i i h r e r . I s t a r t e d t h i s sec-
for a History of Classical Scholarship.
tion
5
*De n o n i n t e r r u m p e n d o p e r a e t a t e m s t u d i o ' is t h e subject o f o n e o f
o f t h e preface w i t h m y t h a n k s t o t h e Delegates o f t h e C l a r e n d o n
Press; I
finish
i t w i t h m y p a r t i c u l a r thanks t o t h e Secretary
to the
P e t r a r c h ' s latest a n d m o s t s y m p a t h e t i c ' L e t t e r e s e n i l i ' . B o c c a c c i o w a s
Delegates, M r . C . H . R o b e r t s , f o r h i s e n c o u r a g i n g i n t e r e s t a n d persistent
w o r r i e d a b o u t Petrarch's c o n t i n u o u s l y w o r k i n g too m u c h for his age;
support.
1
b u t his o l d f r i e n d a n d m a s t e r r e p l i e d t h a t t h e r e is n o reason t o a b a n d o n
M y first p u b l i c a t i o n i n 1914 bears t h e d e d i c a t i o n ' U x o r i c a r i s s i m a e
s t u d y because o f o l d age, a n d r e m i n d e d h i m o f t h e s a y i n g o f Ecclesi-
s a c r u m ' . I renew the words o f the d e d i c a t i o n w i t h still deeper feeling
asticus 18. 6 : ' C u m c o n s u m m a v e r i t h o m o t u n c i n c i p i e t . ' I h a v e a t least
for a l l t h a t she has d o n e f o r m e i n t h e course o f m o r e t h a n h a l f a c e n t u r y .
a t t e m p t e d t o take this advice a n d shall always be deeply grateful t h a t the Delegates i m m e d i a t e l y a n d graciously responded to m y appeal. B u t I advanced o n l y 'testudíneo g r a d u ' , u n t i l I c o u l d retire t o w o r k i n a sort o f
clausura
a n d o b t a i n e d t h e necessary s e c r e t a r i a l h e l p . I w a s v e r y
f o r t u n a t e t o find t h e assistance o f a y o u n g classical s c h o l a r , M r . S, E . A r n o l d , w h o is n o w , w h i l e p r e p a r i n g his d o c t o r a t e , i n t h e service o f t h e B a v a r i a n State L i b r a r y ; i n d e f a t i g a b l e a n d efficient, h e h e l p e d m e i n m a n y w a y s : a r r a n g i n g t h e vast a m o u n t o f m a t e r i a l c o l l e c t e d t h r o u g h decades, m a k i n g a c a r e f u l t y p e s c r i p t , a n d c h e c k i n g t h e i n n u m e r a b l e (with bibliography). A third volume of the Contribute and the publication of the Sather of 1961 are in prospect. Rer. sen. libr. xvit 2 ; reprinted in Petrarca 'Prose', La Letteratura Italiana, Storia
Classical
Lectures 1
(1955) * 156.
e Tesii
7
CONTENTS PART ONE PREHISTORY OF GREEK I.
SCHOLARSHIP
POETS, RHAPSODES, PHILOSOPHERS F R O M T H E EIGHTH TO THE FIFTH CENTURIES Scholarship not a separate discipline before the third century B.C. Survey of preliminary stages. The epic poet as his own interpreter. The attempt of the rhapsodes at continuing this self-interpretation. Xenophanes, rhapsode and philosopher, and the beginning of moral criticism. Theagenes the defender of Homer by physical allegory. No grammatical system of'cases* behind the artistry of lyric poets in the seventh and sixth centuries. Poets as interpreters in the early Attic comedy.
II. T H E SOPHISTS, T H E I R C O N T E M P O R A R I E S , AND PUPILS IN T H E F I F T H AND F O U R T H C E N T U R I E S Intermediary position of the Sophists: heirs of the rhapsodes, teachers of the future generations. The Sophists and the book. Short retrospect on the oriental background: archives and libraries in Mesopotamia from the third millennium onwards. Technical devices for writing from the East to Greece. The earliest Minoan-Mycenaean script. The Phoenician script. The new Greek alphabet. From oral composition and tradition to the written word and the reader of books. The part of the Sophists in this process, and the Socratic-Pl atonic opposition. Individual achievements of the Sophists and their contemporaries: Protagoras, Prodicus; Democritus* Movaitcd, and Herodotus on literature and language; Gorgias, Hippias, Critias. III. T H E MASTERS O F PHILOSOPHY IN ATHENS: SOCRATES, PLATO, A R I S T O T L E A conscious new method opposed to the empirical approach of the Sophists. Plato's sceptical attitude to poetry itself, and to the efforts of interpretation and literary criticism. Problems of language the central theme of the Cratylus. Study of language not hrurT^^q. Plato and the Academy. First large private library. Aristotle not the 'creator* of classical scholarship. Teleology as central idea, prior to empirical research. Aristotle neither editor nor interpreter. The rational order in literary art; permanent control of philosophical concepts by the analysis of reality. Some new fundamental linguistic terms; no separate branch of grammar. Antiquarian research in the grand manner with the assistance of pupils.
XIV
Contents
Contents
PART TWO THE HELLENISTIC AGE I.
T H E RISE OF SCHOLARSHIP IN ALEXANDRIA
87
Aristotle belonged to the world of the Greek city-state with its cultural unity; its disintegration, the split-up of Alexander's empire, and the establishment of new monarchies. A new generation of poets conscious of a definitive break, making a fresh start. From the revival of poetry to the preservation of the ancient literary heritage. Philitas' historical position : the first scholar poet of artistic perfection, tutor to Ptolemy I I , teacher of Zenodotus, the grammarian. Alexandria the cultural centre; meeting-place of the new poetical movement with the Peripatetic tradition from Athens. The organizations in the new capital: the Ptolemies and their helpers; the Museum and the Libraries. The 'bookish' age and its problems. II.
ZENODOTUS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES
105
123
Cyrene and Egypt. The complete unity of creative poet and reflective scholar in Callimachus. His insistence on drawing from the original pure sources. The general TIivaKeç of the great library the model for all ages. The TToXviiaQir) of his prose books on antiquities, on language, and on anuVAristotelian literary criticism. Elements of interpretation in his poems and learned writings. Apollonius Rhodius, the poet of the Argonautiea, in his relation to Callimachus; as a scholar he provided the first example of Hellenistic /7ep£-literature, foreshadowing later commentaries. Rhianus* local epics and critical editions of Homer. Separation of scholarship from poetry in the second half of the third century : the poetical mannerism of Euphorion and the learned compilations of the Callimacheans, Hermippus, Istros, Philostephanus, and of the Peripatetic Satyrus.
ALEXANDRIAN SCHOLARSHIP AT ITS HEIGHT: ARISTOPHANES OF BYZANTIUM Aristophanes neither poet nor scientist. Critical text of Homer and Hesiod with critical signs, punctuation, accentuation. Edition of the lyric poets;
VII. PERGAMUM. SCHOLARSHIP AND PHILOSOPHY. A NEW ANTIQUARIANISM The Attalids and the cultural life of Pergamum; library, parchment. Crates of Mallos, Stoic allegorist and cosmologist; two monographs on Homer; opposition to Aristarchus. The definite place of linguistic studies in the system of Stoic philosophy; grammatical rules and terms strictly fixed. Crates' mission to Rome in 168 B.C. Writers on antiquities: Antigonus of Carystus, Polemo of Ilium, called aTT)\oKoira$, Demetrius of Scepsis.
*34
VIII. T H E EPIGONI: FROM ARISTARCHUS' PUPILS TO DIDYMUS 252 Dissemination and renewal of scholarship in the whole Greek world after the Alexandrian crisis of 145/4 - - Apollodorus of Athens: Chronicle in iambic verse, new system of dating; monograph on the Homeric Catalogue of Ships a description of heroic Greece with explication of local names; books 'On Gods' a study of Homeric religion with analysis of proper names; minor works on Attic and Doric comedy and on mimes. Dionysius Thrax, teacher at Rhodes; influence on Rome. Interpretation of Homer, other commentaries and treatises. The problem of the TVjfWJ ypaftfiartK-q under his name: its authenticity and its arrangement in the Byzantine manuscripts. Technical grammar the latest achievement of Hellenistic scholarship. Tyrannion of Amisos, Asclepiades of Myrlea, Philoxenus of Alexandria; their grammatical writings, their relations to Rome. Didymus of Alexandria compiler of commentaries on Greek poets, historians, and orators and of comic and tragic lexica; moved by love of learning to preserve the scholarly heritage of the Hellenistic age. B
IV. S C I E N C E A N D S C H O L A R S H I P : E R A T O S T H E N E S 152 The first union of science and scholarship in Eratosthenes; his friendship with Archimedes.
i\o\oyos the new term for his universality. Treatise on Attic comedy; critical chronology; mathematical geography; Homeric geography; catalogue of constellations. Poetry a parergon. V.
colometry and strophic structure. Hypotheses to his text of tragedies and comedies. Great lexicographical studies, based on his own editions, and formal grammatical inquiries, ancillary to his editorial work. Selective list of the foremost authors. VI. ARISTARCHUS: T H E A R T OF I N T E R P R E T A T I O N 210 Callistratus and otherftpioTotfxxvtuH.Aristarchus, the Ptolemies, the great crisis of 145/4 B.C. Running commentaries and monographs on Greek poetry from Homer to Aristophanes, also critical editions of the Homeric and Other poems; critical signs the link between text and commentary. The first commentary on prose writers, Herodotus and possibly Thucydides. No authentic maxim of Aristarchus on the principle of interpretation. General grammatical and metrical observations in the course of the exegetical work. Literary criticism.
Zenodotus the first Homeric scholar and librarian; the poets Lycophron and Alexander Aetolus as revisers of the comic and tragic texts. Zenodotus' text of Homer usually based on documentary evidence; the first critical symbol; no authentic tradition about the reasons for his alterations and omissions. Editions of Hesiod and of lyric poets. Glossary, but no commentary. The tragic Pleiad. Lycophron's Alexandra. Aratus, the poet of the Phaenomena, as Homeric scholar. III. C A L L I M A C H U S AND T H E G E N E R A T I O N O F H I S PUPILS
xv
c
EXCURSUSES
280
ADDENDA
287
171 INDEXES
291
ABBREVIATIONS AG
Anecdota
AGGW
Abhandlungen
(Bachmann, Bekker, Boissonade).
Graeca
der Göttinger
Gesellschaft
American
Journal
of
Archaeology.
AJP
American
Journal
of
Philology.
AUG)
Anthologia
APF
Archiv
Harwick,
Stoische
Sprachlehre
Lyrica
für
der
Wissenschaften.
ed. E . Diehl,
[Graeca),
1 9 2 5 ff.
Papyrusforschung.
K . Barwick, 'Probleme der stoischen Sprachlehre und Rhetorik', Abh. d. Säcks. Akad. d. Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil-hist.
Kl.
BCH
Bulletin
Bursian
Bursians
49. 3 (1957).
de Correspondance
Hellénique.
Jahresbericht
über die Fortschritte
der klass.
Altertums-
wissenschaft.
Callimachus I , I I , ed. R, Pfeiffer, 1 9 4 9 - 5 3 (repr. 1 9 6 5 / 6 ) . Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta I , ed. G . Kaibel, 1 8 9 g .
Call. GGF CL
Phil.
Ct.
Qu.
Classical
Philology.
Classical
Quarterly.
CUR.
Classical
CMG
Corpus
Review.
DLZ
Deutsche
DMG
Deutsche
Düring, 'Aristotle'
I. During, 'Aristotle in the ancient biographical tradition',
medicorum
Studio
Graecorum.
Literaturzeitung. Morgenländische Graeca
Gesellschaft.
et Latina
Fragmente
Gothoburgensia
FGrHist.
Die
der griechischen
FHG
Fragmenta
GGA
Göttingische
GGM
Geographi
GGN
Nachrichten
der Gesellschaft
GL
Grammatici
Latini,
GRF
Grammaticae
Historicorum
(1957).
von F . Jacoby, ed. C . Müller, 1841
Graecorum,
Gelehrte Graeci
v
Historiker,
1 9 2 3 ff. ff.
Anzeigen.
minores,
ed. C . Müller,
ed. H . Keil,
Romanae
1 8 5 5 ff.
der Wissenschaften
Fragmenta,
zu
Göttingen.
1 8 5 5 ff.
rec. H . Funaioli, I
(1907,
repr.
and
Rome,
1964). Gr.
Grammatici
Gr.
Journal
JUS
Kenyon,
Books
and
F. G . Kenyon, 2 n d ed.
Readers
Graeci,
1878-1910
of Hellenic
(repr.
1965).
Studies. Books
and Readers
in ancient
H . G . Liddell and R. Scott, Greek-English by H . Stuart Jones, 1 9 2 5 - 4 0 . H . - I . Marrou, A History of Education,
L-S Marrou
Greece
(1951). Lexicon.
New edition
translated by G . R.
Lamb ( 1 9 5 6 ) . Neue
NJb.
Pack
2
Pasquali,
Storia
Jahrbücher
für
das klass.
Altertum.
R. A. Pack, The Greek and Latin literary texts from Egypt, second revised and enlarged edition 1 9 6 5 . G . Pasquali, Storia delta tradizione e critica del testo I952)-
PLG*
Poetae
Lyrici
PMG
Poetae
Melici
P.Oxy.
Oxyrhynchus
Graeci, Graeci, Papyri.
quartum ed. T h . Bergk, ed. D . L . Page, 1 9 6 2 .
1882.
Greco-Roman (1934,
repr.
Abbreviations
XV111 PRIMI
Papiri
delta
R. Universüá
vol. I , ed. A. Vogliano,
di Milano,
1937.
PSI
Papiri
RE
delta
Societá
Italiana.
Real-Enzyklopädie
Paulys
der klassischen
Rh.M.
Rheinisches
Rutherford, 'Annotation Sandys i
Scholia
Schmidt, 'Piti^ » eS
3
Steinthal
111 ( 1 9 0 5 ) .
I . 3 , ed. 1 9 2 1 . etc.). F . Schmidt, 'Die Pinakes des Kallimachos', Klass.-philoL (Berl.
Studien
I (1922).
Sylloge
Inscriptionum
of Classical
Akad.,
H . Steinthal, 1890
Geschichte
der Sprachwissenschaft
mit besonderer
(repr.
Rücksicht
F . Susemihl, Geschickte
der griechischen
Stoicorum
Veterum
TAPA
Transactions
TGF
Tragicorum Die
auf die Logik,
bei den 2
vols.
Griechen 2.
Aufl.
1961).
SVF
Wendel, 'Bu^ beschreib^»
Akad.,
ed. W. Dittenberger, ed. tertia,
Graecarum,
2 vols., 1 8 9 1 / 2 .
Vors.
Scholarship,
Bayer.
1915-24.
drinerzeit,
2
PART ONE
Philologie.
A History
Sitzungsberichte
und Römern
Susemihl
für
Aristophanica,
J . E . Sandys,
SB
SIG
Museum
W. G . Rutherford, 'A Chapter in the History of Annotation',
3
W.St.
Altertumswissenschaft,
hg. v. Wissowa-Kroll-Mittelhaus, 1894 ff.
Fragmenta,
of the American Graecorum
Fragmente
Literatur
in der
Alexan-
ed. I . de Arnim, 1 9 0 5 ff. Philological
Fragmenta,
der Vorsokrattker,
Association.
ed. A . Nauck, 2 . ed., 1 8 8 9 .
von H . Diels.
6.
Aufl. hg. v.
W. Kranz, 1 9 5 1 - 2 .
C . Wendel, 'Die griechisch-römische Buchbeschreibung verglichen mit der des vorderen Orients', Hallische Monographien 3 (1949)Wiener
Studien.
PREHISTORY O F GREEK SCHOLARSHIP
I
POETS,
RHAPSODES, FROM
TO
PHILOSOPHERS
T H E EIGHTH
T H E FIFTH
CENTURIES
S C H O L A R S H I P is t h e a r t o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g , e x p l a i n i n g , a n d r e s t o r i n g t h e l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n . I t o r i g i n a t e d as a separate i n t e l l e c t u a l d i s c i p l i n e i n t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y before C h r i s t t h r o u g h t h e efforts o f poets t o preserve a n d to use t h e i r l i t e r a r y h e r i t a g e , t h e 'classics'. So s c h o l a r s h i p a c t u a l l y arose as 'classical' scholarship. A t least t h r e e centuries h a d p r e p a r e d t h e w a y , a n d t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s h o u l d n o t be m i n i m i z e d . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e h a d been v e r y i m p o r t a n t attempts at studying the language, collecting learned m a t e r i a l , a n d a p p l y i n g some f o r m o f l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . B u t a l l these efforts b e l o n g t o t h e h i s t o r y o f p o e t r y , h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , p h i l o s o p h y , o r p e d a g o g y . I t was o n l y w h e n t h e n e w H e l l e n i s t i c c i v i l i z a t i o n c h a n g e d t h e w h o l e perspect i v e i n t h i s field as i n others t h a t these v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s , f o r m e r l y disc o n n e c t e d , w e r e u n i t e d i n t o one selfconscious d i s c i p l i n e . I n t h i s sense t h e h i s t o r y o f classical s c h o l a r s h i p does n o t s t a r t before t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y .
1
T h e p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t I a m a t t e m p t i n g t o m a k e is t h i s : a n o v e l c o n c e p t i o n o f p o e t r y h e l d b y t h e poets themselves l e d t h e w a y t o t h e
scholarly
treatment o f the ancient texts; devotion to pure learning came later. Nevertheless, a s h o r t survey o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y stages is i n d i s p e n s a b l e ; t h e e a r l y G r e e k f o r e r u n n e r s o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c scholars m u s t b e c a r e f u l l y considered. T h e epic poets w e r e i n s p i r e d b y t h e Muses, a n d t h e p o e t w h o c r e a t e d the m a i n p a r t o f o u r
Iliad
is t h e greatest p o e t o f a l l t i m e . I t has o f t e n been
said t h a t H o m e r m u s t be his o w n i n t e r p r e t e r ; t h i s is t r u e also i n a q u i t e specific sense. H e n o t o n l y created b u t a g a i n a n d a g a i n ' i n t e r p r e t e d ' his o w n p o w e r f u l l a n g u a g e i n t h e course o f his p o e m . T h u s t h e earliest G r e e k p o e t r y t h a t w e k n o w i n c l u d e d a sort o f ' p h i l o l o g i c a l e l e m e n t ' ;
poetry
i t s e l f p a v e d t h e w a y t o i t s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . T h i s is o f s i g n a l i m p o r t a n c e for t h e o r i g i n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f scholarship (as w e s h a l l see l a t e r o n ) . 1
See below, pp. 8 8 ff.
* See below, pp. 140 and 149.
2
On
4
Poets, Rhapsodes, Philosophers
Self-interpretation of Epic Poets
'• 4>vmt,6ov yevos roSe aXvjBtos ' t h i s ( E p a p h u s ) is t h e o f f s p r i n g o f t h e l i f e - p r o d u c i n g t r u t h ' (Suppl. 5 8 4 ) , a n t i c i p a t i n g a l e a r n e d ' e t y m o l o g y ' w i d e
t h e o t h e r h a n d , one s h o u l d n o t speak o f ' H o m e r as a p h i l o l o g i s t ' . W h e n
d e r i v e d a n o t h e r f o r m o f Z e u s ' n a m e f r o m JfP
epic poets themselves a d d e l u c i d a t i n g w o r d s , h a l f - l i n e s , lines t o a m b i g u o u s
Zrjvos
1
expressions,
o r t o p r o p e r names, t h i s m a y be d u e t o a desire t o m a k e
spread i n t h e f o u r t h a n d t h i r d c e n t u r i e s .
i n s i m i l a r i t y o f s o u n d . I t is c e r t a i n l y a g e n u i n e p a r t o f t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l
Odyssey
Mavaa,
TTOMTOOTTOV
6V j u a A a T r o A A a /
My%H-
T h e attribute to
unique Arai-passage i n
aoı İimm, avBpa is so
o f m a n y m o v e s , 7roAAcW a m b i g u o u s sense o f
rpoiras e x
TTOXVTPOTTOS
iroXiifi-nrtv, -noXva-qx^vov)> ( v e r s a t u m , TroXv-nXayKrov).
D u t
ßmm4s o
The
(cf. K 3 3 0 ) is m u c h discussed i n a n c i e n t
Odyssey is d e p e n d e n t o n t h e u-ijuıv... ovXoii&qv is f o l l o w e d b y f) ııvpC
1502
ff. ; here w e h a v e n o s i m p l e p e r s o n i
n
e
T
Airat . . . A10? Kovpai u.eydXoto f ^iuAat re pvaal re irapao6a\u.oj. A n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n i n t e r p r e t e r s h a v e r i g h t l y seen
t h a t these epithets, a c t u a l l y p i c t u r i n g t h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e p e n i t e n t ,
atvos ;
s
this always means a fictitious
opening
i n t h e present circumstances, as i n
Iliad; t h e r e aXye ed-qKe ' t h e accursed
J4xaıotç
about the
lines o f t h e
w r a t h t h a t set countless woes o n t h e A c h a e a n s ' ,
a n d t h e e x a c t p a r a l l e l o f t h e w h o l e s t r u c t u r e shows t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e sentence is m e a n t t o b e a d e f i n i n g o n e i n t h e
Odyssey
as w e l l .
T h e s o u n d o f t h e a n c i e n t n a m e s o f gods a n d heroes n o t o n l y d e l i g h t e d
T h e m o s t f a m o u s e x a m p l e is 'Odysseus' i n w h i c h o n e c o u l d h e a r
(a
5 5 , etc.) as w e l l as
oBvaaofiai (a
6 2 , cf.
r
Airtd.
5
oBvpofiai
4 0 7 - 9 a n d S o p h . f r . 965 P.) ;
story w h i c h has its special significance Odyssey o 5 0 8 . B u t n o s t o r y is t o l d
O n e c a n h a r d l y d e n y t h a t i t is a g e n u i n e
allegory;
s i x t h c e n t u r y s t a r t e d t o detect ' h i d d e n m e a n i n g s ' i n m a n y p a r t s o f t h e 6
t h e y w e r e o n l y d e v e l o p i n g , i n t h i s as i n o t h e r fields,
s o m e t h i n g w h i c h t h e i m a g i n a t i o n o f a g r e a t p o e t h a d once c r e a t e d .
t h e ear o f t h e e p i c p o e t , b u t also r e m i n d e d h i m o f s i m i l a r sounds i n f a m i l i a r w o r d s : m a n y assonances a n d e v e n ' e t y m o l o g i e s ' w e r e t h e r e s u l t .
are
A r c h i l o c h u s a n d A l c a e u s f o l l o w e d i n this l i n e . W h e n rhapsodes o f t h e H o m e r i c poems,
4
4
t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e 'Prayers'. T h e /lirai-passage s h o u l d n o t be t e r m e d a n
a n d m o d e r n times. T h e p r o e m o f the 3
3
f i c a t i o n o f t h e 'Prayers', t h e d a u g h t e r s o f Zeus, as t h e epithets i n I 503
2
o v r a
Iliad
clearly show:
to speak ' e x p l a i n e d ' b y t h e f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i v e sentence : i t does n o t m e a n t h e m a n o f versatile m i n d ( v e r s u t u m ,
2
also a v e r y o l d ' a l l e g o r i c a l ' e l e m e n t i n epic p o e t r y . T h i s occurs i n t h e
asked t h e M u s e : ' O f t h e m a n t e l l m e , M u s e ,
o f t h e m a n m u c h t u r n e d t h a t r o v e d v e r y m a n y w a y s ' avSpa
B y t h e e n d o f t h e e i g h t h c e n t u r y B.C. t h e
Iliad
and
Odyssey
w e r e sub
stantially complete. T h e y were composed i n a c o m m o n Greek l a n g u a g e; a n d o n t h e basis, so to speak, o f t h i s epic p o e t r y as a priceless p o p u l a r possession t h e w h o l e G r e e k p e o p l e , t h e
IlaviXX-nvts,
b e g a n t o feel its
so t h e v e r y n a m e h i n t e d a t t h e l a m e n t a b l e f a t e o f t h e -noXurXas o r a t t h e
u n i t y i n spite o f a l l t h e differences o f race a n d class a n d i n spite o f t h e
' m a n o f w r a t h ' . L a t e r e p i c poets t o o k t h e same l i n e : H e s i o d i n t h e p r o e m
c h a n g i n g p o l i t i c a l a n d social c o n d i t i o n s . So w e m a y u n d e r s t a n d h o w
o f his
Works and Days p r a i s e d Zeus, Sefire âla ivvi-nere . . . ov r e Sea fipoTol avSpcs {Op. 2 f . ) , w h e r e t h e r e p e a t e d âl A i n t h e same p l a c e o f t h e h e x a
t h e rhapsodes w e r e a b l e to c o n t i n u e t h e i r successful a c t i v i t y t h r o u g h o u t
m e t e r s o u n d e d a p p a r e n t l y n o t p l a y f u l , b u t s o l e m n . H e s i o d was f o l l o w e d
d i f f i c u l t y w i t h o l d a n d r a r e single w o r d s o r strange c o m b i n a t i o n s o f t h e m ;
b y A e s c h y l u s i n a h i e r a t i c l y r i c passage, Ag.
1485 ff.:
t h e y , t h e r e f o r e , sometimes
iravanlov -navepyira- rl yap
reXetrai;
6
/SnoTofr
âv€v âıoç
tti foj, 6 W
âıos
A e s c h y l u s also
t h e G r e e k w o r l d also b e y o n d t h e 'epic age'. T h e y h a d , as before, some altered t h e i r o r i g i n a l f o r m a n d even gave
t h e m a new meaning. T h i s reshaping may appear to the m o d e r n m i n d q u i t e a r b i t r a r y o r e v e n m i s t a k e n ; y e t i t c a n be r e g a r d e d as a n e a r l y
! L . Ph. Rank, Etymotogiseerung en verwanU VerschijnseUn bij Homerus (Diss. Utrecht 1951) 'Homerus als philoloog'. (With bibliography; cf. esp. the very useful collection of evidence.) * See also Rank pp. 78 f. 3 From Antisthenes on (Schol. a 1, p. 9- ' 6 Dind.); see below, p. 37. * Similar 'epexegetical' clauses a 2 9 9 i., y 3 8 3 , A 4 9 0 and in the Iliad, passim. On other 'explanatory lines' see J . Forsdyke, Greece before Homer ( 1 9 5 6 ) 2 6 . s About fifty names in Iliad and Odyssey, see Rank 35 ff. A list of etymologies and puns from Homer to Aeschylus in O. Lendle, Die Pandorasage bet Hesiod (Diss. Marburg 1953, publ. 74-100
Wiirzburg 1957) Î İ 7 - 9 1 .
. . . .
E . Risch, 'Namensdeutungen und Worterklarungen beı den altesten grıechıschen Dichtern', Eumusia, Festgabe jîir E. Howald (Zürich 1947) 72 ff.: in Hesiod such 'etymologies' are not later additions, but genuine; p . 8 9 , differences between 'Homer' and Hesiod. 6
/
Besides such epexegetical a n d e t y m o l o g i c a l elements t h e r e seems t o be
poetical technique, not a c o m b i n a t i o n o f learning a n d poetry. T h e poet o f o u r
1
toTiv
Zeus i n
themselves clear, b u t n o less t o pleasure i n p l a y i n g o n w o r d s , t o d e l i g h t
5
Sitz. Ber. Bay. Mad. 1938, H . 2, p. 9. 2 ; cf. E . Fraenkel, Aesch. Ag. ( 1 9 5 0 ) on 1. 1485, and in general on 1. 687. Plat. Crat. 3 9 6 B St* ov t$v . . . xntapxet.—The Platonic Socrates seems to have been the first to get away from the traditional playing with similarities of sound; see C. J . Classen, 'Sprachliche Deutung als Triebkraft platonischen und somatischen Philosophierens', £etemala 22 ( 1 9 5 9 ) esp. 127 ff., cf. below, pp. 61 f. On the structure oi Iliad g and its position in the whole of our Iliad see BLZ 1935, 2129 ff. On its allegorical character see Leaf ad toe. and E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (iSSO« i - Reinhardt, 'Personifikation und Allegorie' in Vermächtnis der Antike ( i 9 6 0 ) 37 f. [Heraclit] Quaest. Homer, c. 37, ed. Bonn., p. 54. 7 = ed. Buffiere ( 1 9 6 2 ) p. 4 4 . Aa Reinhardt is inclined to do, loc. cit. See below, pp. 10 f. 1
a
3
6
4
s
6
K
Poets, Rhapsodes, Philosophers
Peisistratus Legend
a t t e m p t at i n t e r p r e t i n g the t r a d i t i o n a l t e x t . B u t there must have been
a b o u t some lines o f H o m e r w h i c h t h e y r e g a r d e d as i n t e r p o l a t i o n s i n -
a l i m i t b e y o n d w h i c h t h e rhapsodes w e r e n o l o n g e r free t o m a k e t h e i r
serted against M e g a r i a n interests b y A t h e n i a n s , e i t h e r S o l o n o r Peisistra-
6
1
7
tus. T h e r e is n o reference t o Peisistratus as a ' c o l l e c t o r ' i n D i e u c h i d a s
o w n a d d i t i o n s o r t o reshape t h e epic texts.
3
W e m a y assume t h a t Greeks l i v i n g i n t h e first h a l f o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y ,
n o r w o u l d t h e i n s e r t i o n o f a few lines i n t h e c a t a l o g u e p a r t s o f B (546)
i f n o t e a r l i e r , r e g a r d e d t h e c r e a t i v e p e r i o d o f e p i c p o e t r y as c o n c l u d e d .
a n d A (631) b e sufficient t o p r o v e t h e existence o f a n a u t h o r i t a t i v e s i x t h -
B u t t h e r e is n o r e l i a b l e t r a d i t i o n , let alone conclusive e v i d e n c e , o f a c o l -
c e n t u r y A t t i c t e x t o f H o m e r . Nevertheless, R i t s c h l ' s a r b i t r a r y s u p p l e m e n t
2
l e c t i o n o f e p i c poems, o r a b o u t a c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e t e x t o f t h e
Odyssey
Iliad
and
at t h a t t i m e i n a n y p a r t i c u l a r place. T h e endless discussion o f
o f 1838 a n d its d o u b t f u l consequences w e r e g l a d l y a c c e p t e d b y m a n y scholars,
1
as i f i t w e r e n e w e v i d e n c e from t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , t h e t i m e o f
possibilities a n d p r o b a b i l i t i e s belongs t o t h e h i s t o r y o f scholarship i n
the M e g a r i a n chronicle. Soon afterwards (1846), however, George Grote
post-classical a n t i q u i t y a n d s t i l l m o r e i n o u r m o d e r n age. W e s h a l l h a v e
p u b l i s h e d t h e first v o l u m e s o f h i s
t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f d e a l i n g w i t h these questions, w h e n w e c o m e t o those
w r i t e i n t h e t w e n t i e s ; t h e y c o n t a i n e d t h e first p e n e t r a t i n g c r i t i c i s m o f t h e
periods.
t r a d i t i o n a l b e l i e f i n t h e Peisistratus l e g e n d ( P a r t 1, c h . 2 1 ) . K a r l L e h r s ,
History of Greece w h i c h
he h a d begun to 2
H e r e w e h a v e o n l y t o state t h e w e l l - k n o w n f a c t t h a t t h e s t o r y t h a t
one o f t h e earliest G e r m a n a d m i r e r s o f t h e e m i n e n t h i s t o r i a n , c o n t i n u e d
Peisistratus 'assembled' t h e f o r m e r l y 'scattered' songs o f H o m e r c a n n o t
i n t h i s l i n e , u s i n g n e w a r g u m e n t s , a n d others f o l l o w e d ; b u t t o w a r d s t h e
be t r a c e d b a c k b e y o n d t h e first c e n t u r y B.c.
e n d o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y a r e a c t i o n set i n , a n d t h e c o n t r o v e r s y is
3
N o t o n l y i n the later
e m b r o i d e r i e s , b u t i n t h e w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n o f a p o w e r f u l statesman
as
3
4
5
still going on. I t is h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g t h a t Peisistratus, t o g e t h e r w i t h Polycrates
a c o l l e c t o r o f l i t e r a r y texts, as t h e earliest f o u n d e r o f a G r e e k ' l i b r a r y ' , as
of
h e a d o f a c o m m i t t e e o f scholars, w e seem t o h a v e a p r o j e c t i o n o f events o f
Samos, h e a d e d t h e l i s t o f G r e e k b o o k collectors w h i c h ends w i t h P t o l e m y
t h e P t o l e m a i c age i n t o t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y . Y e t i n m o d e r n t i m e s , f r o m
I I ; f o r t h e e x c e r p t i n t h e e p i t o m e o f A t h e n a e u s 1 3 a looks t o m e r a t h e r
d'Aubignac
l i k e s u c h lists o f f a m o u s founders a n d i n v e n t o r s as t h e so c a l l e d Laterculi
4
a n d B e n t l e y to L a c h m a n n , t h a t l a t e a n c i e n t t r a d i t i o n w a s
r e g a r d e d as t r u s t w o r t h y . I n 1838 R i t s c h l e v e n w e n t so f a r as t o i n t e r -
Alexandrine o r
polate
goes b a c k t o V a r r o ,
5
into
the obviously
defective
text o f the
Megarian historian
D i e u c h i d a s ( q u o t e d b y D i o g . L . 1 57) a phrase d e s c r i b i n g Peisistratus as ' c o m p i l e r o f t h e H o m e r i c poems'
(ßmrep
B u t the M e g a r i a n historians, Dieuchidas
6
avXXéÇas
rà
'Ofx-jpov
as w e l l as H e r e a s ,
7
«TA.).
spoke o n l y
' M. Leumann, 'Homerische Wörter', Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 3 esp. 157-261 and 3 2 3 ; see below, pp. 12 and 79. * See below, p. 25. * Gic. de or. ni 137 'qui primus Homeri libros confusos antea sic disposuisse dicitur, ut nunc habemus' ; Cicero's source was possibly Asclepiades of Myrlea JlepX ypapua-riKaiv, see G. Kaibel, 'Die Prolegomena Tîtpï KwpyUas, AGGW Phil.-hist. KJ. N.F. I I 4 ( 1 8 9 8 ) 2 6 and on Asclepiades see below, p. 2 7 3 . Adesp. AP xi 4 4 2 IJuaiorparov Ô$ TOV 'Opypov j riôpoiaa otropdS^v TO irplv àcibâpevov. The testimonia again printed by R. Merkelbach, Rh.M. 9 5 (1952) 23 ff-, and J . A. Davison, TAPA 8 6 ( 1 9 5 5 ) I ff. Cf. Dorothea Gray in John L . Myres, Homer and his Critics (1958) 2 9 0 ff. " Dissertation sur l'Riade, ed. V. Magnien (Paris 1925) 4 6 f. 'La composition de Pisistrate : elle est reçue parmi les savants comme certaine, et donne un grand poids à l'opinion que j'ai mise en avant.* W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur 1 1 (1929) 161, gives a wrong reference to d'Aubignac. (1950) passim,
s Die Alexandrinischen Bibliotheken unter den ersten PtoUmaeern und die Sammlung der homerischen Gedichte durch Pisistratus nach Anleitung eines Plautinischen Scholions (reprinted in Opuse. Philol. t (1866) 54) ; on the so-called 'Scholion Plautinum* see below, p. 100. Leaf's supplement is equally misleading (Homer, Iliad i 1 (1900) xviii, taken over with a slight alteration by
Merkelbach p. 29). * FGrHist
4 8 5 p 6 , vol.
* Ibid. 486.
m B p. 4 5 0 , Kommentar
1 3 9 2 , 11 2 3 2 .
P.Oxy. x 1241. I f G e l l i u s , N.A. v n 17, de bibliothecis, a n d I s i d o r . etym. v i 3 , 3 - 5 t o S u e t o n i u s ,
t h e catalogues i n
7
8
respectable g r a m m a r i a n s c r e d i t e d Peisistratus w i t h b e i n g t h e first f o u n d e r
'bibliothecam . . . deinceps ab Atheniensibus auctam Xerxes . . . evexit..., Seleucus jVicanor (sic; v . RE 11 A 1233) rursus in Graeciam rettulit. Ptolemaeus . . . cum studio bibliothecarum Pisistratum aemula retur* etc. ( I s i d o r . l o c . c i t . ) . I t has r e c e n t l y b e e n a r g u e d t h a t t h e d i s c o v e r y of a public library i n Athens:
9
o f o r i e n t a l l i b r a r i e s w h i c h i n c l u d e d extensive l i t e r a r y texts f r o m
the
second m i l l e n n i u m B.C., a n d o u r k n o w l e d g e o f t h e g e n e r a l c u l t u r a l p o l i c y Still by W. Schmid, Ceschichte der griech. Lit. i i (1929) 160. 6 . See L . Friedlander, Die homerische Kritik von Wolf bis Grote (Berlin 1853) 12 if.; the importance of Grate's attack had been rightly stressed by G. Finsler, Homer I i> (1924) 109. 1
1
3
Grate's Geschichte von Griechenland
(1852) — Populare
Aufsdtze
2
(1875) 4 4 7 ff.
* 'Zur homer. Interpolation' Rh.M. 17 (1862) 481 ff. •= De Aristarchi studiis Homericis (2. ed. 1865) 442 ff. (3. ed. 1882, 438 ff.); reference to Grote 440, n. 275. s O. Seeck, Die Quellen der Odyssee, 1887 (see Finsler, I 117 f.). H . Die's, Abh, Bert. Akad., 1904, Abh. 2. * H. Dahlmann, 'Terentius Varro', RE Suppl. vi ( 1 9 3 5 ) 1172 ff., esp. 1291. Sueton. de vir. ill. fr. 102, p. 130 R. Cf. Tertull. apol. 18. 5, and Hieronym. ep. 34. 1. C. Wendel, 'Buchbeschreibung' 19 f.; G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, Corpus Paulinum (London 1953) 270 and ^«iicAn/i d. DMG 101 (1951) 193 ff. considered the possibility that 'Babylonian methods, required to ensure the preservation of works of literature' had early connexions with archaic Greece as well as later influence on Alexandria; cf. below, pp. 103 and 126. 6
8 9
Poets, Rhapsodes, Philosophers
Attacks on Homer
o f m i g h t y G r e e k r u l e r s s u p p o r t t h i s slender t r a d i t i o n . B u t t h e r e is n o t y e t
s o u t h e r n I t a l y a n d S i c i l y . R e c i t i n g his o w n p o e m s (dAAà KO! aÙTos
8
a n y p r e - A l e x a n d r i a n e v i d e n c e , a n d w e m a y s t i l l suspect t h a t those e a r l y
ippajpi^Beiràêavrov,
b o o k collectors were inventions m o d e l l e d o n the Hellenistic kings.
t h e y ' h a d i m p u t e d t o t h e gods a l l t h a t is s h a m e a n d b l a m e f o r m e n '
1
s i d e r i n g t h e w h o l e a t t i t u d e o f e a r l y Greeks t o t h e b o o k ,
3
1
Con-
(Vors.
t h e existence o f
Vors.
9
21 A i ) , h e a t t a c k e d H o m e r a n d H e s i o d b e c a u s e
21 B 11), '. . . u n l a w f u l t h i n g s : s t e a l i n g , a d u l t e r y , d e c e i v i n g each
o t h e r ' (B 12, c f 1 0 ; 1 3 - 1 6 ) . T h e r e is n o c l e a r evidence t h a t X e n o p h a n e s
p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s i n t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y is u n l i k e l y . H o w e v e r , f r o m a l l these v a r i o u s a n d d o u b t f u l passages one c e r t a i n
r e c i t e d ' H o m e r ' , b u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y c a n h a r d l y be d e n i e d t h a t h e b e g a n
f a c t seems t o e m e r g e : t h e l i v e l y a c t i v i t y o f so-called pojpuiooi as reciters o f
his l o n g career as a n i t i n e r a n t poet a n d p h i l o s o p h e r b y r e c i t i n g ' H o m e r i c '
e p i c p o e m s i n t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y , o f t e n a t c o m p e t i t i v e performances. S o m e
p o e m s ; i n t h e course o f time he m a y h a v e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e i r w h o l e
s c a t t e r e d a n d c o n t r a d i c t o r y references agree i n one p o i n t : those contests
conception
4
o f the gods—the pluralism, the anthropomorphism,
the
w e r e i n s t i t u t e d f o r t h e festival o f t h e P a n a t h e n a e a ; a n d there was a r u l e
m o r a l i t y — w a s a dangerous error. E v e r y l i n e o f X e n o p h a n e s ' o w n poems
t h a t a r h a p s o d e s h o u l d b e g i n his r e c i t a t i o n w h e r e t h e p r e c e d i n g r e c i t e r
shows h o w d e e p l y he h a d b e e n i n l o v e w i t h t h e g r e a t p o e t r y o f t h e past
VTroßoXrjs
a n d h o w w e l l h e was a c q u a i n t e d w i t h its style a n d t h o u g h t . A s his o l d e r
D i o g . L . 1 5 7 ) . F o r o u r p u r p o s e , i t does n o t m a t t e r w h o l a i d d o w n s u c h
c o n t e m p o r a r y , t h e l y r i c p o e t Stesichorus o f H i m e r a , h a d ' r e c a n t e d ' his
a r u l e ; w h e r e t h e H o m e r i c p o e m s are c o n c e r n e d , t h e evidence p o i n t s t o
'Homeric' error about H e l e n ,
t h e t i m e o f t h e Peisistratids, w h i l e a P e r i c l e a n
Per.
v i g o r o u s l y a t t a c k e d his f o r m e r i d o l . I t is s o m e w h a t p a r a d o x i c a l t h a t t h e
a contest f o r a l l
p r o t e s t o f a self-conscious, r e l i g i o u s rhapsode s h o u l d b e t h e s t a r t i n g - p o i n t
sorts o f p o e t i c a l a n d m u s i c a l p e r f o r m a n c e s . I n t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y , t h e r e -
o f H o m e r i c criticism i n antiquity ; i t remained the privilege o f philo-
f o r e , a t r a d i t i o n a l t e x t m u s t h a v e b e e n a v a i l a b l e t o w h i c h t h e rhapsodes
sophers t o f o l l o w his l e a d a n d t o c r i t i c i z e t h e w a y i n w h i c h H o m e r p r e -
h a d left o f f ( I f
VTTOX^WS
ed*£i}s [ P l a t . ] Hipparch.
5
13. 4 ) seems t o refer t o a m u c h w i d e r fiovaiKrjs
228 B, e£
decree o f 442 ( P l u t . aywv,
1
2
so X e n o p h a n e s , r e v e r s i n g his a t t i t u d e , 3
4
5
w e r e c o m p e l l e d t o k e e p ; t h e y n o w b e c a m e t h e professional reciters o f
sented t h e gods, u n t i l P l a t o , f o r t h i s a n d o t h e r reasons e x p e l l e d h i m from
established l i t e r a r y w o r k s a s c r i b e d t o ' H o m e r ' . I n t h e n e w , t h e l y r i c , age
his i d e a l c i t y .
these e p i c p o e m s w e r e a c k n o w l e d g e d
as
' c l a s s i c a l ' ; a n d t h e persons
6
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e v e r y fact t h a t H o m e r , ' f r o m w h o m a l l m e n
apxfis KO.8 'Opvqpov
k n o w n t o h a v e n o t o n l y r e c i t e d b u t also e x p l a i n e d a n d c r i t i c i z e d t h e m
h a v e l e a r n e d since t h e b e g i n n i n g ' ( X e n o p h a n . B 1 0 1 |
f r o m t h e i r o w n p o i n t o f v i e w w e r e a g a i n rhapsodes. T h i s f a c t , t h o u g h
eVei
o f t e n o v e r l o o k e d , is p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t . F o r i t shows t h a t i t was
h a v e i n d u c e d o t h e r rhapsodes t o d e f e n d h i m a n d t o find m e a n s t o m a i n -
fi€fia8i]KaaL irdvres),
1
h a d b e e n rejected i n t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y m u s t
p o e t i c a l l y g i f t e d o r a t least p o e t i c a l l y m i n d e d p e o p l e , w h o m a d e t h e
t a i n his o l d a u t h o r i t y . I t is expressly stated t h a t t h e first o f these defenders
first a t t e m p t a t i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e h e r i t a g e o f t h e e p i c a g e ; o n e m a y e v e n
was T h e a g e n e s o f R h e g i u m , ' d u r i n g t h e l i f e t i m e o f X e n o p h a n e s h i m s e l f .
r e g a r d i t as a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e e a r l i e r s e l f - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e p o e t s .
6
I t was as a h i g h l y e s t i m a t e d r h a p s o d e t h a t X e n o p h a n e s o f C o l o p h o n ( b o r n i n 5 6 5 ? ) ' w a n d e r e d t h r o u g h t h e G r e e k w o r l d f r o m t h e east t o See below, p. 25. All the evidence is most carefully collected by F. Schmidt, 'Pinakes* 4 ff.: 'Zeugnisse über griechische Bibliotheken', cf. pp. 30 f.—'May be little more than mythical' is the verdict of Kenyon, Books and Readers 2 n d edition (Oxford 1951) 2 4 . — O n Greek and Roman libraries see C. Wendel and W. Gober, 'Das griechisch-römische Altertum' in Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft 2. ed. in 1 ( 1 9 5 5 ) 5 1 - 1 4 5 ; cf. Wendel'« shorter article 'Bibliothek' in RAC11 1
1
(1954) 2 3 1 - 7 4 . «P-
238-46.
J See below, p. 17. • See J . A. Davison, TAP A 8 6 (1955) 7 and JHS 7 8 (1958) 3 8 f. s H . T . Wade-Gery, The Poet of the Iliad (Cambridge 195a) 77, n. 77 to p. 3 0 . See above, pp. 3 f. * Vors. 21 B 8 , 411.; for Xenophanes as a rhapsode see K. Reinhardt, Parmenides (1916) 132 ff. H . Thesleff, On Dating Xenophanes, Helsinki 1957, tried to prove that Xenophanes was born about 540 or still later and left Colophon about 5 1 5 ; if this is correct, it lowers the date of Theagenes and others. But it will not be easy to accept Thesleff's arguments. 6
See Anth. Lyr. Gr. fasc. i i (1949) pp. 6 3 ff. annotation. P M G fr. 192 ff. = Stesich. 15 F. (two palinodes). I Timon fr. 6 0 . 1 D. called Xenophanes ' Opypoirdrns 'trampler on Homer*, cf, Zoilus 'Onypanâong below, p. 7 0 ; this parallel seems to support the variant reading 'Op-vporrarvs in Diog. L . ix 18 (-ajrarijir v.l.), though E . Vogt, Rh.M. N.F. 107 (1964) 2 9 5 ff, strongly pleads for the genitive ' O^pairar^s èniKoirr^v 'censor of the Homeric deceit' (cf. Vors. 21 35)- Timon, in his parodie style, exaggerated and disfigured Xenophanes' attacks on Homer. + 21 B 2. 12 : •ifp.erép-n ao/pin, that is, 'our knowledge and practice of poetry'. • Heraclit. Vors. 22 A 22, B 42, etc. ; on Pythagoras' so-called criticism see H. Schrader's references in Porphyr. Quaest. Horn, ad I I . (1880) 383 and in Od. (1890) 2 . 6 . W. Burkert, 'Weisheit und Wissenschaft, Studien zu Pythagoras, Philolaos und Platon', Erlanger Beitrâge air Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft 10 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , is perfectly right when he does not refer to any Pythagorean 'interpretation' of Homer, see also p. 258. 13 on the Odyssey. See below, p. 58. * Vors. 8 A I Kara Ka^uVijv 5 2 9 - 5 2 2 B.C. ; 8 A 2 irpâtros. Cf. F. Buffière, Les Mythes d'Homère et la pensée grecque (1956) 103 f., and H . J . Rose, JHS 78 (1958) 1 6 4 ^ P. Lévêque, 'Aurea catena Homeri, Une étude de l'allégorie grecque', Annales littér. de l'Université de Besançon 2 7 (i959)1
1
A
6
Poets, Rhapsodes, Philosophers
Defence of Homer
Porphyry's e x p l a n a t i o n o f the 'Battle o f the Gods' q u o t e d i n the Scholion
t h e l i s t o f t h e i n t e r p r e t e r s ; as i t c o n t i n u e d t o b e t h e d u t y o f t h e rhapsodes
Iliad Y 6 7 ' is o b v i o u s l y d e r i v e d f r o m a Stoic source a n d is t o be used w i t h t h e greatest c a u t i o n ; t e r m s l i k e TO anpe-rrds, m e a n i n g ' m y t h s a b o u t t h e gods w h i c h d o n o t b e f i t t h e i r d i v i n e n a t u r e ' (ov irperrovTas rovs vrrep rwv Oewv fivOovs), o r aAATjyopta, t h e ' h i d d e n m e a n i n g s ' (v-novoiw o f such
i n l a t e r t i m e s also (see P l a t .
I 0
to
II
Ion,passim; X e n o p h . Symp. 111 6) n o t o n l y t o
r e c i t e , b u t also t o e x p l a i n H o m e r , one c a n h a r d l y a v o i d t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t h e was a p r o m i n e n t m e m b e r o f t h a t a n c i e n t g u i l d .
1
Besides h i s
' a l l e g o r i c a l ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e B a t t l e o f t h e G o d s , T h e a g e n e s ' interest i n t h e t e x t i t s e l f is attested b y a v a r i a n t r e a d i n g i n A 381 f o r w h i c h h e is
m y t h s , are p r o b a b l y H e l l e n i s t i c ; b u t even so t h e r e m a y b e some k e r n e l
2
o f t r u t h i n t h e t r a d i t i o n t h a t t h i s k i n d o f ' a p o l o g y ' is v e r y o l d a n d b e g a n
c i t e d ; a n d g r a m m a t i c a l w r i t i n g a b o u t H o m e r ' s c o r r e c t usage o f t h e
w i t h T h e a g e n e s w h o first w r o t e o n H o m e r ' (a-n-d ©cayeVou? TOU 'Pyylvov,
G r e e k l a n g u a g e is s a i d t o h a v e s t a r t e d w i t h h i m (17
c
6?
TrpujTos eypaifse Trepl 'Oprjpov). A t least i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , l o n g
TOV
eXXrjvtofxov . . . ap^afiivr] . . . aim ©eayivovs 3
ypafiparucy ...-r) irepl Vors. 8. i a ) . F i n a l l y he is
before a l l e g o r i s m as a m e t h o d was f u l l y d e v e l o p e d b y S t o i c philosophers,
p l a c e d a t t h e h e a d o f t h e w r i t e r s ' w h o first searched o u t H o m e r ' s p o e t r y
interpretations o f the H o m e r i c 'Battle o f the Gods' b y 'hidden meanings'
a n d life a n d d a t e '
(-Kepi rijs 'Opvqpov -rroi-jo-eajs ydvovs T« CHJTOI? KOX xpovov KaB' ov T)Kfiaoev -npoTipevvnoav Trpea^vraroi (lev ©eayevrjs re 6 'Prjyivos,
6eoiia las a l t o g e t h e r either ev i W volats weiroMj/ieW o r avev VTTOVOLOJV {Rep. 11 378 D ) . T h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l source o f t h e l o n g S c h o l i o n t o Iliad Y 67 sees i n t h e p a i r i n g o f t h e gods b y t h e p o e t t h e a n t a g o n i s m o f t h r e e p a i r s o f n a t u r a l elements, TO fypov ray vyptp KOX TO Oepfiov TW foxP ? ^dxeoOai Kai TO Kovov TO> 0 a p e i ; f u r t h e r -
a b o u t his descent, b i r t h p l a c e , f a m i l y , a n d l i f e t i m e . T h i s t e s t i m o n i u m ,
m o r e i t identifies t h e divinities w i t h h u m a n faculties: A t h e n a
u s u a l l y n e g l e c t e d , is i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e r e s u l t o f m o d e r n i n v e s t i g a -
w e r e k n o w n t o P l a t o , w h o rejected
X
1
with
tfrpovnais, A r e s w i t h d^poavvn, A p h r o d i t e w i t h emOvfiia, a n d H e r m e s w i t h Xoyos. S u c h p h y s i c a l allegories w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n w i t h o u t p a r a l l e l i n
followed by Stesimbrotus a n d A n t i m a c h u s , w h a t is m e a n t b y
Vors. 8. 1). I t is h a r d t o say
ydvos a n d faep4 \ b u t t h i s m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n t h e first
a t t e m p t a t g i v i n g a s h o r t sketch o f H o m e r ' s l i f e , b y c o l l e c t i n g t r a d i t i o n s
plot 'Ofi-qpov a n d t h e Ayotv 'Optfpw teal
tions a b o u t t h e d a t e o f t h e
'HcnoSov. A s preserved t o u s , t h e y are p r o d u c t s o f l a t e a n t i q u i t y ; b u t t h e 4
t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y ; i n t h e few f r a g m e n t s o f Pherecydes o f Syros a n d i n t h e
earliest f o r m s o f those books, n a r r a t i n g t h e fife o f H o m e r a n d his contest
records a b o u t h i m t h e d i v i n i t i e s represent cosmic forces, a n d t h e r e is
w i t h Hesiod, g o back
a t r e n d t o conscious 'allegory*
(Vors. A 8. 9 ; B 4 a s o r t o f b a t t l e o f g o d s ) .
T h e r e is n o a g r e e m e n t a b o u t t h e exact d a t e o f Pherecydes e i t h e r a m o n g ancient chronographers
2
o r a m o n g m o d e r n scholars. I f i t is c o r r e c t t h a t
' h e c a n h a r d l y h a v e l i v e d m u c h before t h e end o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y '
3
Theagenes. T h e y
b e e n used
afterwards
c o n t a i n a c o l l e c t i o n o f r a t h e r a m u s i n g stories o f
t h e a d v e n t u r e s o f a n i t i n e r a n t p o e t ; i n this respect t h e y d i f f e r w i d e l y f r o m t h e m e r e l y genealogical
a n d c h r o n o l o g i c a l statements o f a d r y
yevo$.
a l l e g o r y m a y h a v e b e e n i n i t i a t e d b y rhapsodes l i k e Theagenes i n o r d e r t o d e f e n d offensive passages o f H o m e r against m o r a l i s t s , a n d i t m a y h a v e
t o t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y , * t h a t is, t o t h e t i m e o f
Both
yevos a n d
@LOL
are d o c u m e n t s o f t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e a c t i v i t y o f t h e
rhapsodes i n t h e H o m e r i c field. A g r o u p o f t h e m w e r e c a l l e d
' OfiriptSat
b
b y philosophical a n d theological writers like
a n d w e r e believed b y some t o be descendants o f H o m e r h i m s e l f ; f o r o u r
Pherecydes for t h e i r o w n purposes, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f offensive o r inoffensive
p u r p o s e i t is i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t t h e y w e r e n o t o n l y p e r f o r m e r s , b u t
4
passages. B u t i f he l i v e d a b o u t o r before t h e m i d d l e o f the c e n t u r y i t m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n t h e o t h e r w a y r o u n d ; o n l y n e w evidence c o u l d b r i n g a final d e c i s i o n .
5
7
Wilamowitz, Der Glaube der Hellenen 11 (1932) 215. 2 ; cf. F. Wehrli 91. Vors. 8. 3 Kai ©cayevij? ovrus rrpoavperai; cf. A. Ludwkh, Aristarchs homerische Textkntik 1 113 n. 128, about rrpotptperai. Sec R. Laqueur, Hellenismus (1925) 2 5 ; cf. below, p. 158. Homerus, ed. T . W. Allen, vol. v, and Wilamowitz, Vitae Homeri et Hesiodi, 1916. s Wilamowitz, Bias und Homer (1916) 3 6 7 , 4 3 9 ; cf. E . Vogt, RJi.M. 102 ( 1 9 5 9 ) 220 f. (see below, p. 50, n. 5 on Alcidamas). Blot of early lyric poets, Alcaeus and Sappho, also originated in the course of the sixth century B.C. W. Schadewaldt, Von Homers Welt und Werk* (1959) 55 f.; see also Die Legende von Homer, demfahrenden Sanger {1942) 101. 7 2 ; H. T . Wade-Gery, The Poet of the Iliad (195a) 19 ft, tried to argue that the Homeridai, members of a Chiot family, were the only performers of Homer's works in early times, until in the fifth century 'star' performers arose beside them. * Acusilaus FGrHist 2 F 2, Hellanic. 4 F 20 and Jacoby's Commentary. About families of poets in India see Steinthal, Geschichte der Spraehwissenscfiaft bei den Griechtn und Romem i (1890) 3 0 (but they were priests too). 1
3
1
T h e r e is n o d o u b t t h a t i n t h e H o m e r i c field T h e a g e n e s a l w a y s h e a d e d « Schol. B Y 67, H . Schrader, Porphyr. Quaest. Horn, ad It. 240, 14 = Vors. 8 A 2. * Wilamowitz, 'Pherekydes', Sitz. Bet. d. Preuss. Akad. ( 1 9 2 6 ) 126 f. = Kleine Schnfien V 2 ( 1 9 3 7 ) 128 f.; K. v. Fritz, RE xix ( 1 9 3 8 ) 2 0 2 5 3 " . 1 So emphatically W. Jaeger, The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers (Oxford 1947) 07. * This seems to be the opinion of F. Wehrli, Z" Geschichte der allegorischen Deutung Homers tm Altertum (Diss. Basel 1928) 89. s Diels-Kranz, Vors. 8 , were probably right in placing Theagenes immediately alter Pherecydes; the case for the priority of Pherecydes is put by J . Tate, Cl.R. 41 (1927) 2 1 4 ; cfCI. Qu. 2 8 ( 1 9 3 4 ) 1 0 5 - 1 4 'On the history of allegorism'. r
4
6
1
Poets, Rhapsodes, Philosophers
1 2
No System of Cases in Lyric Poetry
13
also i n t e r p r e t e r s o f t h e p o e m s . H o w f a r t h e y also p r o d u c e d p o e m s o f then-
H e r e t h e r e is n o t o n l y a n absolute p a r a l l e l i s m o f three sentences, t h e r e
o w n , o r w h e t h e r , f o r instance, t h e o r i g i n a l f o r m o f t h e so-called H o m e r i c
is also a t h r e e f o l d v a r i a t i o n o f t h e same t h e m e , a n d a sequence o f t h e
film w a s p o e t i c a l , r e m a i n o p e n q u e s t i o n s ; i t is b y n o m e a n s u n l i k e l y t h a t
n a m e C l e o b u l u s first i n t h e g e n i t i v e , t h e n i n t h e d a t i v e , a n d finally i n t h e
some o f t h e m w e r e m i n o r poets. I n I n d i a t h e reciters o f o l d p o e t r y
accusative. T h i s has b e e n t a k e n as clear evidence o f a three-case system,
g r a d u a l l y ceased t o w r i t e n e w p o e m s ; t h e y presented a n d e x p l a i n e d t h e
recognized b y I o n i a n g r a m m a r i a n s o f the sixth century a n d applied b y
o l d ones. I t is a t a n y r a t e clear t h a t w h a t Pherecydes a n d T h e a g e n e s
the poet.
w r o t e w a s i n prose.
Flcpl a rnxdrojv starts f r o m a d e f i n i t i o n o f orav -jjTOi ras (ß.vr^ovop.aaias r} TO. ovoptara etff rrdaas ras irrdtaets /j,€TaßdXXovT€s SiariÖio/ieöa rov Xoyov ws irapa KAeo^apet; C l e o -
1
2
3
T h e i n t e r e s t i n g passage i n
W e are n o t t o l d w h e t h e r t h e rhapsodes o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y h a d a n y used w r i t t e n c o l l e c t i o n s o f r a r e a n d obsolete e p i c w o r d s , were
called f r o m the
(14.59
a
fifth
century onwards ;
4
X
TTOXVTTTWTOV:
t e c h n i c a l resources f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e o l d epic p o e m s ; t h e y m a y h a v e
yX&auai as t h e y Poetics
1
1
chares is t h e n q u o t e d as h a v i n g used t h e n a m e o f D e m o s t h e n e s i n t h e u s u a l o r d e r o f t h e five cases o f G r e e k n o u n s , a n d t w o f u r t h e r e x a m p l e s are
A r i s t o t l e i n his
a d d e d , e o r i Se
9 f . ) expressly recognizes glosses as a f e a t u r e p e c u l i a r t o epic
Kai ÄvaKpeovri.
p o e t r y . O n e is t e m p t e d t o assume t h a t t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s o f H o m e r i c
®$jm f a t 7rapa nut, rcvv TToir\ri7>v WS nap* JfyvxApv/o irapa. pev oSv ÄpxiX6 oj . . . (fr. 70 D . ) ; i n t w o t r o c h a i c
TOLOVTOV
8
X
p r o p e r n a m e s a n d obscure w o r d s b y ' e t y m o l o g y ' w e r e f u r t h e r d e v e l o p e d ,
t e t r a m e t e r s o f A r c h i l o c h u s t h e n a m e o f a L e o p h i l u s is f o u r
collected,
the
p e a t e d ; i n spite o f t h e c o r r u p t i o n s a n d v a r i a n t r e a d i n g s i n t h e m a n u -
glosses. I t is therefore n o t s u r p r i s i n g t o find a m o n g t h e few prose
frag-
s c r i p t s t h e m o s t reasonable a s s u m p t i o n is t h a t t h e n a m e a p p e a r e d i n f o u r
Kpovos
o f the
a n d t r a n s m i t t e d b y rhapsodes,
perhaps
together w i t h
m e n t s o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y t h a t Pherecydes e x p l a i n e d t h e o l d theogonies i n e t y m o l o g i c a l t e r m s as
Xpovos {Vors.
d i f f e r e n t cases, possibly i n t h e o r d e r - 0 ? , -ov
t h e fifth c e n t u r y e t y m o l o g y p r o s p e r e d so v i g o r o u s l y : H e c a t a e u s o f M i l e t u s
o f h a v i n g f o u n d these t w o r a r e e x a m p l e s .
t r i e d t o i n f e r h i s t o r i c a l facts from t h e ' t r u e m e a n i n g s ' o f n a m e s o f persons
the
troXvTrTOJTov,
a
= fr. 14 PMG)
In
three
a r e q u o t e d as a n e x a m p l e o f
' t h e e m p l o y m e n t o f t h e same w o r d i n v a r i o u s cases':
KXevfiovXov fiev eywy* ipeat, KXevflovAa) 8' eirtuatvofiai, KXevfiovXov 8e StooKeto. 1
2
6
a b o v c
theoretical
o r d e r o f five cases o f t h e G r e e k n o u n
E . Sittig, 'Das Alter der Anordnung unserer Kasus', Tübinger Beiträge cur Altertumswissenschaft 13 (1931) 26- Against Sittig see K. Barwick, Gnomon 9 ( 1 9 3 3 ) 8 7 f . , 'Stoische Sprachlehre 4 6 ; Schwyzer did not take account of these important objections which were repeated and augmented by M. Pohlenz, NGGW, Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F. HI 6 (1939) = Kleine Schrifien 1 ( 1 9 6 5 ) 87 ff., and by R. Hiersche, 'Entstehung und Entwicklung des Terminus irr&aLs "Fall" *, Sitz. Ber. d. Deutschen Akad. d. Wiss. Bert. 1955, Nr. 3 , 5 ff. and finally by Barwick himself; without taking notice of these articles H . Koller, 'Die Anfänge der griechischen Grammatik', Glotta 37 (1958) 5. 2 and 3 4 ff., against Sittig. Still worse than Sittig G. H . Mahlow, Neue Wege durch die griechische Sprache und Dichtung ( 1 9 2 6 ) 2 1 2 : 'Die Grundlagen der Grammatik waren längst AUgemeinbesitz Anakreon . . . macht sich den Scherz zu deklinieren; der erste Vers mit dem Nominativ ist leider nicht erhalten.' No proof is given for this rather sweeping statement; the assumption that a line is missing before KXevßotäov /*ev eyiu/ *p4vp.tas, referring to Spengel in 34. 2 3 ; he could have referred also to in 139. 1 ; but perhaps dvrovoftaoias should be restored, which means 'pronoun' in Dionys. Hal. de comp. verb. 2 p. 7. 7 Us.-Rad. {Ivraivv^ only in cod. v), in Ap. Dysc. de pron. 4. 18, 5 . 10 Schn., where the grammarian rejects this form used by another grammarian, and in Pap. Yale 4 4 6 , first century A.D. (no. 2 1 3 8 Pack*) ed. Hubbell, CI. Phil. 2 8 (100^) 3
* Evidence for their 'learning in the article 'Homeridai' by Rzach, RE vm 2147 f.—The word fafa&os itself (which does not concern us here), its composition and meaning, is again discussed by H . Patzer, Herm. 8 0 (1952) 3 1 4 - 2 5 (fcM P- 5 ^ ' pp. 7 8 f.; cf. K. Latte, Philol. 8 0 ( 1 9 2 5 ) 147 ff. s Griechische Grammatik 1 ( i 9 3 9 ) *>• ¬ Rhet. Gr. vm 599 f- Walz = in 97. 20 Spengel. S e e
Äva-
obviously very p r o u d
1
h a r d l y be w o r t h w h i l e t o t a k e n o t i c e o f t h i s strange v i e w i f i t h a d n o t b e e n
lines o f A n a c r e o n ( f r . 3 D .
oxr)pidrwv was
5
o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y w i t h a g r a m m a t i c a l system o f 'cases'. I t w o u l d
6
T h e lines o f
1
B u t i t is a g r e a t m i s t a k e o f some m o d e r n l i n g u i s t s t o c r e d i t t h e I o n i a n s
Greek Grammar.*
T h e a u t h o r o f 77epi
c e n t u r y B.C. k n e w o f a
names (dvo/xara) i n o r d e r t o discover t h e n a t u r e o r essence o f t h i n g s .
(under the n a m e o f H e r o d i a n )
-ov.
I t m a y b e t h a t t h e r h e t o r i c i a n Cleochares i n t h e first h a l f o f t h e t h i r d
a n d places, a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s from H e r a c l i t u s o n w a r d s t h o u g h t h a r d a b o u t
Tlepl oxoadrmv
(sc. -eat), -w,
A n a c r e o n a l r e a d y q u o t e d are i n t r o d u c e d b y t h e w o r d s : irapa Se
7 A 9). O n l y by
Kpeovrt iirl rpuuv.
a rhetorical book
re-
3
t a k i n g account o f such forerunners can w e understand h o w i t was t h a t i n
a c c e p t e d w i t h o u t q u a l i f i c a t i o n b y E . S c h w y z e r i n his
times
b
e
l
o
w
a
189
ff.
v
y
3
;
W
E . Lobel, 'Questions without answers', CI. Qu. 22 ( 1 9 2 8 ) 115 f., gives the exact readings of the manuscnpts; these are correctly repeated in the critical apparatus by F. Lasserre, Archihque (Paris 1958) fr. 122, p. 4 0 (only partly in Dfehl, Anth. Lyr. Gr.*, fasc. 3 [ 1 9 5 2 J tofr! 70), but no editor so far seems to have accepted Lobel's suggestions as regards the text of the poet. 3
i
Poets, Rhapsodes, Philosophers
4
f i x e d b y Stoic g r a m m a r i a n s a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s ,
1
Early Attic Comedy
b u t t h i s is b y n o means
15
extremely i m p o r t a n t i n education. W e k n o w o f no t r a d i t i o n a b o u t the
c e r t a i n . H o w e v e r , i f one is b o l d e n o u g h to a t t r i b u t e t o A n a c r e o n the
'selected a u t h o r s t o b e r e a d i n s c h o o l ' a t A t h e n s o r a n y w h e r e else i n t h e
k n o w l e d g e o f a case-system i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y , i t
s i x t h a n d fifth c e n t u r i e s .
w o u l d be i n c o n s i s t e n t n o t t o assume a s i m i l a r k n o w l e d g e f o r A r c h i l o c h u s
A r i s t o p h a n e s ' earliest c o m e d y , t h e Jan-aA^s (427 B . C ) , t h e e x a m i n a t i o n
ilepl
o f t h e b a d b o y i n H o m e r i c glosses is p r e s e r v e d ( f r . 222 K . ) : Ae^or
i n t h e first h a l f o f t h e seventh c e n t u r y ; f o r a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w r i t e r
oxqu-aTuw
b o t h these poets e m p l o y e d a p r o p e r n a m e i n v a r i o u s cases,
'Ojxrqpov
yAaJTras"
1
B u t quite exceptionally, i n the fragments o f
TL KOXOVOL
KopvfijSa; ( /
241) . . . Tt KaAotJO"'
dp.evrjva.
A r c h i l o c h u s f o u r a n d A n a c r e o n t h r e e t i m e s . Y e t n o b o d y has g o n e as far
KapTjvo.; (K 5 2 1 ) . T h e b o y , i n t e r e s t e d i n m o d e r n r u b b i s h , has n o i d e a o f t h e
as t h a t . A n d n o b o d y seems t o h a v e s p o t t e d i n A r c h i l o c h u s a n o t h e r pos-
apxata 7rcu6Wa, d e l i g h t f u l l y p i c t u r e d i n A r i s t o p h a n e s ' Clouds 9 6 1 ff. b y t h e S t W o s Xoyos (first p r o d u c e d i n 423 B.C.). I t w a s t h e so-called S o p h i s t i c
sible e x a m p l e o f a ' p o l y p t o t o n ' , n o t o f t h e n o u n , b u t o f t h e p r o n o u n . T h i s occurs i n t h e h y m n i c style o f p r e d i c a t i o n i n t h e p r a y e r t o Z e u s .
3
2
So
we see t h a t i t is a p o e t i c a l figure i n I o n i c p o e t r y ; t h e earliest evidence, so f a r , is i n t h e t w o f r a g m e n t s o f A r c h i l o c h u s , f o l l o w e d b y
Anacreon's
G l e o b u l u s p o e m . S u c h figures arise f r o m t h e s p o n t a n e o u s pleasure o f t h e p o e t i n p l a y i n g o n t h e v a r i o u s f o r m s o f t h e same w o r d ; t h e b e s t - k n o w n e x a m p l e is t h e p r o e m o f H e s i o d ' s
Works and Days,
a n d i t has sometimes
been t h o u g h t because o f its a n a p h o r a s a n d antitheses t h a t t h e passage o f H e s i o d was i n f l u e n c e d b y ' r h e t o r i c * . B u t t h i s m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g has v a n i s h e d w i t h t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t the l i t e r a r y prose-style f r o m t h e fifth c e n t u r y o n t o o k u p f o r m s a n d figures o f speech f r o m e a r l y p o e t r y . I t is a s i m i l a r m i s t a k e t o assume a sort o f g r a m m a t i c a l t h e o r y b e h i n d t h e a r t i s t r y o f I o n i c verse. T h e fact is t h a t creative 4
p o e t r y f o r e s h a d o w e d t h e t e c h n i c a l devices o f f u t u r e c e n t u r i e s
5
and may
w e l l have influenced the development o f later theories. Poets c o n t i n u e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e ages t o ' i n t e r p r e t ' i n a c e r t a i n w a y expressions a n d ideas o f t h e i r o w n o r o f t h e i r predecessors. H o m e r always r e m a i n e d t h e p r i n c i p a l s u b j e c t , a n d w e m a y assume t h a t his poems w e r e 6
See below, p. 2 4 4 ; J . Wackernagel, VorUsungen iiber Syntax i ( 1 9 2 6 ) 312, speaks only of the possibility; F. Blass in Kuhner-BIass, Grieehische Grammatik 1 2. 363, K. Barwick, Gnomon 9 ( 9 3 3 ) 594> confident. In the various late excerpts Ilepl axop-iriov the so-called Herodian speaks about the 'polyptoton* of pronouns and nouns like Alexander Numenii fill. (111 34. 23 Sp.) and the Anonymous (in 139. 1 Sp.), but refers only to the three passages with proper names already quoted; the two other writers quote only examples of pronouns. Wilamowitz, Antigonos, 52, n. 12, is disposed to identify 'Herodian' with Alexander; see also REi 1456 Alexandros no. 96. Archilochus fr. 94 D . <5 ZtO, irarep ZeC, uov p.iv . . ,, av S' . . ., aoi Se . . . is the reading of all the manuscripts; I am inclined to suspect that Archilochus wrote in the first line the genitive of the personal pronoun aio (aev), followed by the nominative av and the dative aoi (for the predicative use of the genitive of the personal pronoun compare [Horn.] hy. Ap. Pyth. 8 9 ) ; but even the possessive pronoun would be sufficient for the form of a polyptoton. Archilochus also played upon the etymology of the name of Apollo, see below, p. 62, n, I . No 'canon' of selected writers did exist in the sixth century, see below, p. 15, n. 1. One may compare what has been said about 'etymologies' or allegory in epic poetry, above pp. 4 f. No details will be given here about lyric and tragic poetry (but see, for instance, E . Fraenkel in Aesch. Ag. 358 f., where Aeschylus apparently gives his interpretation of E 4 8 7 ff.). 1
2
a r c
1
ro0
z
3
4
s
6
J
movement
w h i c h — i n Aristophanes'
opinion—endangered
the
whole
structure o f the t r a d i t i o n a l Greek education. W. Schrnid, Geschichte der griechisehtn Literatur i 4 (1946) 2 1 2 : 'der Kanon der Schul¬ schriftsteller in der Grammatikerschule des 6. und 5. Jahrhunderts'; this remark without any further reference must be a slip of the pen.—The very scanty evidence for the early fifth century is discussed by Marrou 42 f. Literary education.—On Aristoph. fr. 222 see also the remarks of J . D. Beazley, AJA 5 4 ( 1 9 5 0 ) 319 and H . Erbse, Hem, 81 (1953) 170, 178. 2. 1
The Sophists and the Book
17
l e a r n . I n t h a t w a y t h e y b e c a m e t h e ancestors o f t h e v i r t u o s i i n t h e l i t e r a r y f i e l d . I f s c h o l a r s h i p w e r e a m e r e a r t i f i c e , t h e y w o u l d i n d e e d have been its p i o n e e r s ; f o r t h e y i n v e n t e d a n d t a u g h t a n u m b e r o f v e r y useful !
II
t r i c k s a n d b e l i e v e d t h a t s u c h t e c h n i c a l devices c o u l d d o e v e r y t h i n g . B u t for t h i s v e r y reason t h e y d o n o t deserve t h e n a m e o f
THE
SOPHISTS,
CONTEMPORARIES, IN
w o u l d n o t e v e n h a v e l i k e d i t . S t i l l less s h o u l d t h e y be t e r m e d ' h u m a n i s t s ' ;
THEIR A N D
T H E FIFTH AND F O U R T H
'scholars'—they
Sophists c o n c e r n e d
themselves n o t w i t h the values t h a t i m b u e
2
man's
c o n d u c t w i t h ' h u m a n i t a s ' , b u t w i t h t h e usefulness o f t h e i r d o c t r i n e o r
PUPILS
t e c h n i q u e f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l m a n , especially i n p o l i t i c a l l i f e .
CENTURIES
Some examples, d r a w n f r o m i n d i v i d u a l aspects o f t h e i r a c t i v i t y , w i l l be g i v e n l a t e r ; w e s h a l l l o o k a t t h e Sophistic p r a c t i c e o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ,
T H E Sophistic m o v e m e n t o f the fifth c e n t u r y holds a u n i q u e position i n t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d ; i t n e v e r r e p e a t e d itself, a n d , i n a hist o r i c a l sense, one s h o u l d n o t speak o f a 'second S o p h i s t i c ' i n R o m a n t i m e s . T h e p a r t i t p l a y e d i n t h e e a r l y h i s t o r y ( o r p r e h i s t o r y ) o f classical s c h o l a r s h i p was a n i n t e r m e d i a r y one. T h e Sophists w e r e l i n k e d w i t h t h e past i n so f a r as t h e y d e v e l o p e d t h e i r ideas o u t o f h i n t s i n e a r l i e r l i t e r a t u r e ; so w e h a v e a l w a y s t o l o o k b a c k t o p o e t r y as w e l l as t o p h i l o s o p h y a n d history'. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e y w e r e t h e first t o i n f l u e n c e b y t h e i r theories n o t o n l y prose w r i t i n g , r h e t o r i c , a n d d i a l e c t i c a b o v e a l l , b u t also c o n t e m p o r a r y a n d l a t e r p o e t r y ; so t h e y force us t o l o o k a h e a d . T h e Sophists c a n b e r e g a r d e d , i n a sense, as t h e heirs o f t h e rhapsodes. T h e y also c a m e f r o m e v e r y p a r t o f t h e H e l l e n i c w o r l d a n d w a n d e r e d t h r o u g h a l l t h e G r e e k - s p e a k i n g l a n d s ; b u t i n t h e age after t h e e x p u l s i o n o f t h e t y r a n t s a n d t h e defeat o f t h e Persian i n v a d e r t h e i r w a y s q u i t e n a t u r a l l y c o n v e r g e d o n A t h e n s , t h e l e a d i n g d e m o c r a t i c city-state, w h e r e t h e y c o u l d g a t h e r t h e i r best p u p i l s a r o u n d t h e m . T h e Sophists e x p l a i n e d epic a n d a r c h a i c p o e t r y , c o m b i n i n g t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w i t h l i n g u i s t i c observations, d e f i n i t i o n s , a n d classifications o n t h e lines l a i d d o w n b y
analysis o f l a n g u a g e , l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , a n t i q u a r i a n l o r e , a n d p o l y m a t h y . H o w e v e r , t h e r e is o n e o f t h e i r services t o f u t u r e s c h o l a r s h i p o n w h i c h we h a v e t o d w e l l a l i t t l e l o n g e r ; a n d f o r t h a t reason w e t a k e i t T h e v e r y existence o f s c h o l a r s h i p depends o n t h e b o o k ,
Prot. 317 B ( = Vors. 8 0 A irat&cikiv avdpwirous. T h e i r a i m was
ofioXoyto
Protagoras h i m s e l f s a i d i n P l a t .
5):
aod>urrr)s
not to interpret
l
e i r a i /ecu
p o e t r y f o r its o w n sake o r t o f i n d o u t g r a m m a t i c a l rules i n o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e s t r u c t u r e o f l a n g u a g e . T h e y a i m e d a t correctness o f d i c t i o n a n d at t h e correct p r o n u n c i a t i o n o f the r i g h t f o r m o f the r i g h t w o r d ; the g r e a t w r i t e r s o f t h e past w e r e t o be t h e m o d e l s f r o m w h i c h one h a d to The word iro^ionjs (see Vors, 79) is not used here in the general sense of a skilled or wise man (Aesch. Pr. 944. Hdt. 1 29, rv 9 5 ) ; Protagoras apparently is daiming to be a member of that modern professional group of teachers and educators called oo
first.
a n d books seem
t o h a v e c o m e i n t o c o m m o n use i n t h e course o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y , p a r t i c u l a r l y as t h e m e d i u m f o r S o p h i s t i c w r i t i n g s . E a r l y G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e h a d t o r e l y o n o r a l t r a d i t i o n , i t h a d t o be r e c i t e d a n d t o be h e a r d ; e v e n i n t h e fifth
a n d f o u r t h centuries t h e r e was a s t r o n g r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e i n -
e v i t a b l e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m t h e spoken to t h e w r i t t e n w o r d ; o n l y t h e c i v i l i z a t i o n o f t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y c a n be c a l l e d — a n d n o t w i t h o u t e x a g g e r a t i o n — a 'bookish' one.
4
T h i s m a y be the r i g h t m o m e n t for h a v i n g a look at 'the oriental b a c k g r o u n d ' against w h i c h t h e w h o l e o f G r e e k c u l t u r e h a d a r i s e n , i n so f a r as i t is r e l e v a n t f o r G r e e k s c h o l a r s h i p . W h i l e a w a r e o f this h i s t o r i c a l process, I a m , n a t u r a l l y e n o u g h , r a t h e r r e l u c t a n t t o speak o f i t as I h a v e n o t t h e slightest a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h t h e languages c o n c e r n e d ; so I a m f o r c e d t o r e l y o n t h e r e p o r t s a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f specialists a n d t o d r a w conclusions f r o m t h e m w i t h d u e reserve. Excavations i n M e s o p o t a m i a
p r e v i o u s p h i l o s o p h e r s ; b u t t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n H o m e r i c o r l y r i c p o e t r y as w e l l as i n l a n g u a g e a l w a y s h a d a p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e , ' t o e d u c a t e m e n ' , as
3
5
r e v e a l e d t h e e a r l y existence n o t o n l y o f
P. B. R. Forbes, 'Greek Pioneers in Philology and Grammar', CI.R. 4 7 ( 1 9 3 3 ) 105 ff., gives a useful short survey of some achievements of the Sophists; but they were not 'pioneers' •cholanhip in the strict sense of the word, as it is used here. VV. Jaeger, Paideia 1 (1934) 377, 380 f. * The elder Pliny went even further, when he said (A.n. xm 6 8 ) : 'cum chartae usu maxime humanitas vitae constet, certe memoria'; hardly any Greek would have gone as far as that (*ee below, p. 32). * See below, p. 102. Eduard Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums 1 2 ' (1936) 3 3 4 ff. (§§313 ff.) (in particular pp. 3 3 5 I 340» 342 f.). A more recent survey with a new chronology and extensive bibliography is &ven by A. Moortgat, 'Geschichte Vorderasiens bis zum Hellenismus', in A. Scharff und IT Moortgat, Ägypten und Vorderasien im Altertum (München 1950) 9 3 - 5 3 5 , esp. 3 1 5 ff., 471 ff— Hemdbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft*, hg. von G. Leyh, I I I 1 ( 1 9 5 5 ) 1 - 5 0 ; F. Milkau u. F . « h a w e , 'Der alte Vorderorient' on libraries in Egypt and in the Near East; on writing see 811342 1
m
3
1
R
i8
Oriental Background
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
19
a m e t h o d i c a l w r i t i n g o f history. George S a r t o n
l i t e r a r y texts. F r o m a b o u t 2800 B.C.,
r i g h t l y emphasizes t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f a c o n t r o l l e d l a n g u a g e f o r t h e rise o f
so w e a r e t o l d , t h e
Sumerian-
i n his
History of Science
a r c h i v e s w i t h d o c u m e n t s o n c l a y t a b l e t s , b u t also o f ' l i b r a r i e s ' w i t h
1
s p e a k i n g i n h a b i t a n t s m a i n t a i n e d r e c o r d offices as w e l l as l i b r a r i e s a n d
' B a b y l o n i a n science', w h i c h needed ' l i n g u i s t i c tools o f sufficient e x a c t i -
schools i n c o n n e x i o n w i t h t h e t e m p l e s o f t h e i r gods. T h e keepers o f t h e
t u d e ' . B u t i t seems t o be r a t h e r m i s l e a d i n g t o speak o f ' t h e b i r t h o f
c l a y t a b l e t s w h o h a d t o preserve t h e p r e c i o u s texts a t t a c h e d i m p o r t a n c e
p h i l o l o g y ' a t a b o u t 3000 B.C. S a r t o n , h o w e v e r , d i d n o t t r y t o trace a l i n e 2
t o t h e e x a c t w o r d i n g o f t h e o r i g i n a l s a n d t r i e d t o c o r r e c t mistakes o f t h e
o f descent f r o m t h i s o r i e n t a l ' p h i l o l o g y ' ( b y w h i c h h e a p p a r e n t l y m e a n t
c o p y i s t s ; f o r t h a t reason t h e y even c o m p i l e d 'glossaries' o f a sort. T o w a r d s
some sort o f l i n g u i s t i c studies) t o e a r l y Greece. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d
the end o f the t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m Semitic invaders f r o m the n o r t h (the
W e n d e l , i n c o n s i d e r i n g h o w t e c h n i c a l devices f o r w r i t i n g a n d f o r p r e -
B a b y l o n i a n s , as t h e y w e r e a f t e r w a r d s c a l l e d )
serving the w r i t t e n t r a d i t i o n m a y have reached
adopted the
Sumerian
C.
the Ionians i n Asia
m e t h o d s o f p r e s e r v a t i o n a n d also m a d e lists c o n t a i n i n g t h e S u m e r i a n
M i n o r , argues c o n v i n c i n g l y t h a t t h e y h a d c o m e from t h e east, n o t f r o m
w o r d s a n d t h e i r A c c a d i a n e q u i v a l e n t s . I n t h e course o f t h e second m i l -
Egypt;
l e n n i u m t h e H i t t i t e s c o n q u e r e d l a r g e p a r t s o f A n a t o l i a ; t h e r e are c u n e i -
h i n t a t possibilities o f c o n t a c t . I t is n o t u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e G r e e k i n h a b i t a n t s
f o r m tablets f o u n d i n their c a p i t a l Bogaskoy showing i n three p a r a l l e l
o f t h e west coast o f A s i a M i n o r a n d o f t h e islands h a d b e e n w r i t i n g o n
columns equivalent words i n H i t t i t e , Sumerian, a n d Accadian.
a n i m a l skins before t h e y used t h e E g y p t i a n p a p y r u s a n d c o n t i n u e d t o d o
1
Similar
b u t , i n t h e present state o f k n o w l e d g e , one c a n d o n o m o r e t h a n
3
discoveries, d a t i n g f r o m t h e second h a l f o f t h e second m i l l e n n i u m , w e r e
so o c c a s i o n a l l y .
m a d e d u r i n g the excavations o f U g a r i t (Ras-Shamra) i n n o r t h e r n Syria.
l e a t h e r - r o l l s b y o r i e n t a l , especially A r a m a i c , scribes n o t o n l y i n Persia,
I n t h e s e v e n t h c e n t u r y B.C. m u c h o f t h e e a r l i e r , especially t h e
b u t also i n M e s o p o t a m i a , P h o e n i c i a , a n d P a l e s t i n e ,
'Baby-
l o n i a n ' , t r a d i t i o n was c o p i e d f o r t h e p a l a c e - l i b r a r y o f t h e g r e a t A s s y r i a n
A l t h o u g h t h e r e was l i t e r a r y evidence
for t h e use
actual
4
of
specimens
were v e r y r a r e , u n t i l t h e A r a m a i c p a r c h m e n t s o f t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y B.C.
k i n g A s s u r b a n i p a l , w h o was n o less p r o u d o f his w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s t h a n o f
(now i n the Bodleian l i b r a r y ) were published i n i g 5 4 - T h e statement o f
h i s c o n q u e s t s ; t h e r e are m o r e t h a n 20,000 t a b l e t s a n d f r a g m e n t s i n t h e
H e r o d o t u s ( v 58) i n his much-discussed
s
even as a n ' i n t e r p o l a t i o n ' ) is t h u s f u l l y c o n f i r m e d i n so f a r as i t i m p l i e d t h a t
British Museum. H i s l e a r n e d scribes h a d i n h e r i t e d a t r u l y r e f i n e d t e c h n i q u e a n d t h e y d e v e l o p e d i t f u r t h e r i n t h e d e s c r i p t i v e notes a t t h e e n d o f e a c h t a b l e t . W i t h o u t r o m a n t i c exaggeration
w e c a n say
2
t h a t these scribes f e l t a
l e a t h e r - r o l l s h a d b e e n i n c o m m o n use i n ' b a r b a r i a n ' c o u n t r i e s ; conseq u e n t l y w e are n o t e n t i t l e d t o d o u b t t h e o t h e r p a r t o f his r e m a r k a b o u t t h e I o n i a n s ( v 5 8 . 3) :
' r e l i g i o u s ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e c o r r e c t p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e t e x t s , because
"IwveS)
a l l o f t h e m h a d t o be r e g a r d e d as sacred i n a c e r t a i n sense. T h e i r c o m -
en
3
m a t e r i a l , t h e c l a y t a b l e t s , a n d t h e lists o f w o r d s f r o m d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s were a p r o d u c t o f the singular historical conditions o f Mesopotamia a n d the s u r r o u n d i n g countries. B u t no
'scholarship' emerged
from
those
d e s c r i p t i v e notes a n d p a r a l l e l glossaries, w h i c h served o n l y t h e p r a c t i c a l needs o f t h e a r c h i v e s , l i b r a r i e s , a n d schools o f t e m p l e s . W e f i n d m u c h t h e fields:
t h e extensive
o r i e n t a l 'annals* d i d n o t l e a d t o
also vol. i (1952) 1 - 1 0 5 . For the use of writing in Mesopotamia see Kenyon Books and Readers 6 f.—On the early stimulating influence of Mesopotamian writing on Egypt see H. Frankfort, The Birth of Civilisation in the Near East (London 1951) 106 f. For recent excavations of clay tablets with important texts in Accadian and translation into Hittite see K. Bittel, 'Ausgrabungen in Bogazkoy' ( 1 9 5 2 - 7 ) in A * » deutsche Ausgrabungen im MitteUneergebiet and im vorderen Orient (Berlin 1959) 108. Full details are given by C . Wendel, 'Buchbeschreibung', 2 ff. 3 Cf. E . Meyer, loc. cit. 462 f., 583 ff., 597 f. (religion and literature); C. Wendel 11 (but the kings were not gods as in Egypt). l
1
a
on
Sc KO.1
KOT£
KO.L TCLS
(Hvj3AoVS 8ld)Qfpas KO.\4ovO'l
eV uirdvi fUvftAtov
TO / t a r '
<Èp,è
TTOXXOL
TÛJV
(rv^eojiTO
fîapfidpajv
6
Sidydéprjm is
O.TTO TOO
7TClA(XtOÛ OL
atyeneri TC KO.1 oiVnar
TOiavra?
SidjBepas ypdovai.
I n t h e f a m o u s p a r a g r a p h w h i c h precedes, H e r o d o t u s speaks a b o u t t h e
p l i c a t e d m e t h o d o f 'cataloguing' was i n v e n t e d for the p a r t i c u l a r w r i t i n g
same i n o t h e r
'excursus' ( r e g a r d e d sometimes
G. Sarton, A History of Science (1952) 1. Ancient science through the golden age of Greece 67, with numerous references to texts and modern books on Mésopotamie excavations ; sec also S. N. Kramer, From the Tablets ofSumer (Indian Hills, Colorado 1956), ch. 24, describing a 'library catalogue* (about 5 0 , 0 0 0 Sumerian tablets in the museum in Philadelphia). * W. von Soden, 'Leistung und Grenze sumerischer und babylonischer Wissenschaft', Weltals Geschichte 2 (1936) 411 ff. 5 0 9 if., stresses the limits of that Sumerian and Accadian Listenphilologie' in a very learned article; but in conformity with the fashion of the thirties he can see 'true scholarship' inaugurated only by 'the nordic race' ; cf. Site. Ber. d. Osterr. Akad. 235 ( i 9 6 0 ) 1. C. Wendel, loc. cit. 85 ff.—Kenyon 44 f. * See below, p. 20, n. 4. Abridged and revised edition by G. R. Driver, Aramaic Documents (1957) I ff.; cf. C. H . Roberts, 'The Codex', Proc. Brit. Acad. 4 0 {1954) 172, n. 1, 18a. Cf. Ctesias, 688 FGrHist 5 (vol. m c, 450. 17 Jacoby, 1958) in rm /WAtKÛy SupBtpÛv, èv «S ot Wpaat ràs jraAaiàs rrpâ£eis . . . tîxov ovvTtTayp.éi>as; however little credit Ctesias of Gnidos may deserve as a writer of Persian history, his reference to the èup9épat can no longer be disregarded; see also Driver, loc. cit. and H . Hunger in Geschickte der Textuberlieferung 1 I'iJbi) 30 (and 34 on the preparation of parchment, cf. below, pp. 235 f.). 1
(
3
s
4
20
Minoan-Mycenaean
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Script
21
' a l p h a b e t ' w h i c h t h e l o n i a n s received f r o m t h e Phoenicians a n d a d a p t e d
w i t h those o f t h e e a r l i e r a n d t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y o r i e n t a l ' l i b r a r i e s ' . I f
to t h e G r e e k l a n g u a g e ( v 58. 1, 2 ) :
oi Se 0OLVIK€S OSTOL ol ovv Kdhuu) ior/yayov , . . fccu ypau-fiara, OVK iovra rrplv "EXXrjot ws ifiol S o / c e e i v . . . "Iojveg, oi TrapaXafSovres SiSaxfj napd TOJV 0OIVIKOJV TO, ypdp./iara, pL€Tappvdp.Laavreg ad>etov oXiya ixpiosvro, x P i ^ iaTioav, atanep KO.1 TO St/catov etf>epe iaayayovrwv &OIVLKOJV is rrjv 'EXXdSa, &otviKt]ia.
M i c h a e l Ventris's ingenious theory o f the decipherment o f this syllabic
aTTiKofievoL . . .
s c r i p t is c o r r e c t ,
K€KXi]o8ai. Greeks, therefore, w e r e ' i l l i t e r a t e ' i n e a r l i e r times, as i t seemed t o H e r o d o t u s . B u t he m u s t h a v e k n o w n a n o t h e r t r a d i t i o n f r o m one o f his
some t r u t h i n t h e s t a t e m e n t o f H e r o d o t u s ' M i l e s i a n predecessors t h a t D a n a u s a n t i c i p a t e d C a d m u s . L o c a l w r i t e r s o f KprjTiKa v o i c e d t h e c l a i m
m a i n sources, H e c a t a e u s
of t h e i s l a n d o f C r e t e (against C a d m u s ) as t h e p l a c e w h e r e letters h a d
€ £ u
writers, A n a x i m a n d e r
2
1
a e v o t
o f Miletus, w i t h w h o m t w o other Milesian
a n d Dionysius,
3
agreed: namely that
'before
irpo KdSp.ov Aavaov fieTcucopiiaat
C a d m u s , D a n a u s b r o u g h t letters over'
1
w e are c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a strange a n d p r i m i t i v e p r e -
H o m e r i c ' G r e e k ' l a n g u a g e i n a s c r i p t t h a t entails countless a m b i g u i t i e s . I t is h a r d l y c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t t h i s c l u m s y s c r i p t c o u l d h a v e been used f o r a l i t e r a r y t e x t . H o w e v e r t h a t m a y t u r n o u t , w e k n o w n o w t h a t t h e r e is 2
3
been m o s t a n c i e n t l y i n v e n t e d , a n d a n t i q u a r i a n a u t h o r s
trepl
evprfpidTOJv*
registered o t h e r c l a i m a n t s ; b u t a l l these v a r i o u s stories p o i n t i n one
D a n a u s h a d sailed f r o m E g y p t { n o t f r o m Phoenicia)
d i r e c t i o n : they dispute the p r i o r i t y o f the 'Phoenician' alphabet a n d h i n t
t o t h e A r g o l i d ; t h e r i v a l r y b e t w e e n E g y p t a n d t h e N e a r East i n t h i s field is
at a n o t h e r e a r l i e r G r e e k s c r i p t ; a n d i n t h i s respect t h e y are o n l y n o w sur-
a p p a r e n t from t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d persistent u p t o t o d a y . Since h u n d r e d s
prisingly confirmed.
aura ( r a
oroixefa).
4
o f c l a y t a b l e t s , c o v e r e d w i t h w r i t i n g i n t h e so-called L i n e a r B S c r i p t
T h e P h o e n i c i a n o r i g i n o f t h e ' a l p h a b e t ' , h o w e v e r , as i t was used i n
( w h i c h h a d been k n o w n before o n l y f r o m Knossos) w e r e f o u n d n e a r
h i s t o r i c a l G r e e k t i m e s , has n e v e r b e e n seriously
Pylos b y C. W . B l e g e n (1939) a n d i n o t h e r places o f t h e G r e e k m a i n l a n d
H e r o d o t u s is b y n o means t h e earliest a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s ; some o f t h e
called i n question. s
( M y c e n a e , 1950, b y A l a n J . B. W a c e ) , i t has been o b v i o u s t h a t H e r o d o t u s
M i l e s i a n w r i t e r s a l r e a d y q u o t e d are h a l f a c e n t u r y e a r l i e r , t h e oldest
was w r o n g w h e n he expressed h i s o p i n i o n , a l t h o u g h v e r y c a u t i o u s l y (OJS
inscription o f Teos
ifiol
SOK€€IV),
t h a t Greece was i l l i t e r a t e before t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e
( o V av . . .
M y c a l e (479 B . C . ) , a n d e v e n Sophocles' 6
P h o e n i c i a n a l p h a b e t . T h e tablets are said t o h a v e been w r i t t e n b e t w e e n
p r o b a b i l i t y t o t h e sixties o f t h e
the
ypdu-u-aoC*
fifteenth
a n d t h e t w e l f t h centuries B.C., i n t h e late H e l l a d i c or, as
F u r t w a n g l e r h a d t e r m e d i t , t h e M y c e n a e a n e p o c h ( t h e fullest records for
fifth
iKKodjet)
was w r i t t e n soon after
Tloifxeves
c a n n o w be d a t e d w i t h
c e n t u r y (463 B . C . ? ) :
7
<2>oivifa'oic
£
T h e t r u t h o f t h i s l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h was, as w e see, n o t
U m i t e d t o H e r o d o t u s , b u t q u i t e c o m m o n i n t h e first h a l f o f t h e
fifth
Pylos are f r o m t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y ) . W e m a y c a l l i t t h e ' H e r o i c age', 5
s u p p o s i n g t h a t i t was t h e w o r l d o f t h e heroes whose stories w e r e a d i n t h e H o m e r i c poems. T h e s u r v i v i n g e x a m p l e s o f t h a t M y c e n a e a n w r i t i n g (at t h e m o m e n t m o r e t h a n 1,000 tablets) d o n o t g o b e y o n d 'lists o f c o m m o d i t i e s a n d p e r s o n n e l ' ; t h e r e are n o names o f scribes, n o check o r a l t e r a t i o n s b y a c o r r e c t o r as o n t h e A c c a d i a n o r U g a r i t tablets w e m e n t i o n e d . T h e contents as w e l l as t h e m e t h o d are v e r y p r i m i t i v e c o m p a r e d 1 FGrHist 2 0 ; see also Jacoby's notes n - 1 3 9 FGrHist 3. 3 6 8 7 FGrHist 1; the testimony of these three 244 FGrHist 165. 1
to the commentary on
4 8 9 FGrHist
(1955).
3
historians was put together by Apollodorus
* See above, p. 19, and about Egypt Siegfried Schott, 'Hieroglyphen, Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der Schrift', Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 1950, Nr. 24, pp. 6 3 , 8 6 , on the probable relation between hieroglyphs, Semitic scripts, and Greek alphabet; cf. p. 9. s I have not much confidence in the later dating of the Knossos Tablets by L . R. Palmer, Mycenaeans and Minoans (London 1961) and 'The Find-Places of the Knossos Tablets' in the book On the Knossos Tablets (Oxford 1 9 6 3 ) ; my doubts are strengthened by the convincing arguments put forward by J . Boardman in his part of the same book 'The Date of the Knossos Tablets', where he maintains against Palmer the correctness of the earlier dating by Evans (about 250 years).
'Evidence for Greek Dialect in the Mycenaean archives'. Even John Chadwick, Ventris's faithful collaborator, was rather reserved (The Decipherment of Linear B [Cambridge 1959] 130) in contrast to Alan Wace's overwhelming optimism (see Documents in Mycenaean Greek [Cambridge 1 9 5 6 ] , Foreword xxix). Dosiades, 4 5 8 FGrHist 6 and Diod. V 74. 1 — 4 6 8 FGrHist 1 (111B411. 13 ft .). Scamon of Mytilene (probably early fourth century) 476 FGrHist 3. Fuller testimonia are given by H. Erbse, Attizistische Lexica (1950) 2 1 8 . 2 8 ; cf. Andron of Halicarnassus, 1 o FGrHist 9 ; Ephorus 70 FGrHist 105 and 106 called Cadmus the actual inventor, not merely the importer as Herodotus v 5 8 , Aristotle fr. 501 R. or Zenon of Rhodes 523 FGrHist 1 vol. m B p. 498. 20 ff. (= Diod. v 58. 3 ) . * As Pearson says in his note to Soph. fr. 514. * SIG* 3 8 . 38 (W. Ruge, RE v A [1934] 5 4 5 . 6 0 ff.). P.Oxy. xx (1952) 2 2 5 6 , fr. 3. 4 , hypothesis of Aeschylus' Supplices; Sophocles had been >econd, and amongst the rather confused series of titles /Zoij/xeW is fairly certain. Hesych. v. '
JHS 73 (1953) 8 4 - 1 0 3 ,
2
1
4
7
1
0
Phoenician Script and Greek Alphabet
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
22
23
c e n t u r y , c a n be established b y a c o m p a r i s o n o f G r e e k i n s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e
the 'elements' o f t h e i r l a n g u a g e , w h i c h t h e y c a l l e d croix*"*, v o w e l s as
l a t e e i g h t h c e n t u r y B.C. w i t h S e m i t i c w r i t i n g o f t h i s a n d t h e p r e c e d i n g
well as consonants. N o w f o r t h e first t i m e t h e q u a n t i t y o f the syllables a n d
c e n t u r y : similarities o f letter forms show t h a t t h e Phoenician h a d been f o l l o w e d a n d was m o d i f i e d a b o u t t h a t t i m e .
1
model
F r o m t h e same
1
especially t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e q u a n t i t i v e verse c o u l d be d i s p l a y e d . A t r u e alphabet
2
h a d c o m e i n t o b e i n g . I t was one o f t h e g r e a t creations o f t h e
regions o f t h e N e a r East t h e l o n i a n s seem t o h a v e l e a r n e d t o p r e p a r e
Greek g e n i u s ; as i t c a n n o w be d a t e d t o t h e n i n t h o r e i g h t h c e n t u r y B.C.,
skins f o r w r i t i n g m a t e r i a l , a n d , as t h e E g y p t i a n p a p y r u s w a s c a l l e d
it belongs t o t h e epic age. F o r these t w o centuries t h e epic p o e m s w e r e
ßvßXos
representative; the
i n Greek,
2
after t h e c i t y o f B y b l o s , w e m a y assume t h a t i t was
i m p o r t e d f r o m t h e Phoenicians,
first
before t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f N a u k r a t i s
established d i r e c t c o n t a c t b e t w e e n E g y p t a n d Greece i n t h e seventh
Iliad
a n d the
genius b e c a m e conscious
Odyssey
s t i l l r e v e a l t o us h o w t h e G r e e k
o f itself a n d found its o w n nature i n that
p a r t i c u l a r m o m e n t o f its h i s t o r y . A n e w aspect o f t h e w o r l d arose, t h e
c e n t u r y . So e v e r y t h i n g leads u p t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n — i n t h e present state
true
o f o u r k n o w l e d g e — t h a t t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f letters a n d o f p a p y r u s dates
i m p o r t a n t fact t h a t t h e a d a p t a t i o n o f t h e P h o e n i c i a n c h a r a c t e r s
from
the final f o r m o f t h e g r e a t epic poems b e l o n g t o t h e same age.
the early e i g h t h o r the late n i n t h c e n t u r y ;
3
the r o u t e m a y have
been a l o n g t h e s o u t h coast o f A s i a M i n o r t o R h o d e s .
4
G r e e k aspect. I used t o emphasize i n m y lectures o n H o m e r t h e and That
the a l p h a b e t ' m i g h t h a v e been i n v e n t e d as a n o t a t i o n for G r e e k verse' is
5
A t t h e v e r y e n d o f a n t i q u i t y , N o n n u s was l o u d i n his praise o f C a d -
a r a t h e r a t t r a c t i v e i d e a , a n d one wishes i t c o u l d be p r o v e d ; o u r earliest 3
a l p h a b e t i c i n s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e e i g h t h c e n t u r y w h i c h are not a l l i n verse,
J 'EXXahi djcvvrjevra /cat eprfpova owpa can h a r d l y h e l p . B u t n o d o u b t t h e r e was a n e w b e g i n n i n g , n o t a s i m p l e KOU.it,utv J yXojcro~ns opyava revfjev op,68poa, crvpxfjveos Se / a.pu.ovir}s oroivijoov c o n t i n u i t y f r o m t h e h e r o i c t o t h e epic age. I t is p a r a d o x i c a l t o use a is at,vyo. (vowels) ovt,vya (consonants) /xet'la? / ypatrrov aoiyrjroio rit-nov h i s t o r i c a l e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e r e c e n t l y discovered M y c e n a e a n w r i t i n g as Topvuioa.ro o-iyijs. B u t t h i s so-called ' g i f t ' deserves t h e g r a t i t u d e n o t o n l y mus
1
gifts ( 4 . 2 5 9ff.):
0 Traar)
4
o f t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d b u t o f a g r e a t p a r t o f m a n k i n d i n a l l ages. T h e
a basis f o r conclusions a b o u t a g r a d u a l i n n e r d e v e l o p m e n t o f G r e e k
P h o e n i c i a n s c r i p t w a s n e i t h e r c u n e i f o r m n o r s t r i c t l y s y l l a b i c ; i t consisted
civilization f r o m the thirteenth t o the n i n t h century. For, o n the con5
b u t o n l y f o r t h e consonants. W h e n t h e Greeks
t r a r y , a c o m p a r i s o n o f t h a t s y l l a b i c s c r i p t o n t h e tablets w i t h t h e earliest
a d o p t e d those l e t t e r f o r m s t h e y t o o k t h e decisive step o f u s i n g t h e m f o r all
a l p h a b e t i c w r i t i n g i l l u s t r a t e s m o r e t h a n a n y t h i n g else a ' r e v o l u t i o n a r y '
o f single characters,
change, a c o m p l e t e l y n e w s t a r t . F r o m this n e w s t a r t TO reAos, t h e g o a l o f G. R. Driver, Semitic Writing { 1 9 4 8 ) 1 7 8 ; J . Forsdyke, Greece before Homer (1956) 2 0 f . ; T . J . Dunbabin, "The Greeks and their Eastern Neighbours', Society for the Promotion of Hellen. Studies, Suppl. Paper No. 8 (1957) 5 9ff.;Dorothea Gray in John L . Myres, Homer and kis Critics ( 1 9 5 8 ) 2 6 6ff.;A. G. Woodhead, The Study of Greek Inscriptions ( 1 9 5 9 ) I 3 - 'Criterion of close approach' between early Greek and Phoenician letter forms; G . Klaffenbach, Griechische Epigraphik {Göttingen 1957) 34 f. The complete evidence up to i 9 6 0 is presented by L . H. Jeffery, 'The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C.', Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology (1961) 12 ff., date of introduction of the alphabet, and Addenda, P- 374Hdt. v 5 8 . 3 (above, p. 19), cf. Aesch. Suppl. 9 4 6 f., see below, p. 2 6 , n. 4 . Wilamowitz in 1884 put the introduction of the new alphabet 'spätestens in das 10. Jahrhundert' {Homerische Untersuchungen 2 8 7 ) and he never changed his mind, see Geschickte der griechischen Sprache ( 1 9 2 8 ) 9 ; A. Rehm, Handbuch der Archäologie I { 1 9 3 9 ) 197, says even 'the eleventh century cannot be excluded'; cf. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik 1 (1939) 1
f
a 3
141.
Historians, archaeologists, and epigraphists are inclined to accept this hypothesis, see especially Miss Jeffery pp. 5 ff. (place of introduction), and Addenda p. 374. Perhaps the formidable God 'Kumarbi* of a Hurrian epic came the same way to influence Hesiod's Kronos story: see U . Hölscher, Hermes 81 ( 1 9 5 3 ) 4 0 5 f.; Dunbabin 56 f. * One should not overlook the ancient local tradition in 'PoBiaKa that Cadmus sailed from Phoenicia via the island of Rhodes to Greece: Zenon of Rhodes 523 FGrHisi 1 ( = Diod. V 5 8 . a, 3 ) KdBfio? o Äyrjvopos . • • KarcnXfoaev «'s T^V 'Poäi'ap . . . itaX rijv AwSlav ÄS^väv tTtprjoev a.vaS-fjp.aoiv, iv ols xaAxoSr AijSijs . . . OSTO? 8' «fx«v tinypatp^v &oivtKtKois ypdu,p.aatt>, £ tpaaiv rrptÖTQv i* $QIVIKT}S ei'y T»)V '.EAAaSa Kopnaßrjvat; cf. Polyzelus of Rhodes 521 FGrHist 1. 4
H. Diels, Elementum (Leipzig 1 8 9 9 ) ; ibid. p. 5 8 . 3 , the prophetic note that we shall find one day the 'old system' of writing. A. Evans had made the first announcement of its discovery in Oxford 1894.—On the term aroixeta see below, p. 6 0 and Excursus. * Plat. Crat. 431 E TO -re aX<pa KCU TO ftijra ncoi Ife&atov rtuc OTOIYCUUV; cf. Diels, loc. cit. 18 ff., 58ff.;Suet. Div. Iul. 56. 6 quarto elementorum littera 'the fourth letter of the alphabet'. Wade-Gery, The Poet of the Iliad (1952) 11 - 1 4 ; a different view on the date of a 'written copy' in D. L . Page, History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley 1959) 2 6 0 . * Epigrammaia, Greek Inscriptions in Verse from the Beginnings to the Persian War, by P, Friedlander and H. B. Hoffleit (Berkeley 1948) p. 7. Two important verse inscriptions of about 700 B.C. were published later: fragmentary hexameters painted on an oinochoe in Ithake, 43 (<948) ff->pl- 34» Jeffery pp. 2 3 0 , 2 3 3 , pi. 4 5 . 1. 2 : the unique verse graffito, three lines written in the Phoenician retrograde style, found in Ischia, Rend. Line. 1955, 2 1 5 ff., P *- l~4> Jeffery pp. 45, 235 f., 239, pi. 47. 1. . Alan J . B. Wace, Documents in Mycenaean Greek xxvii ff., strongly pleads for a slow evolution and speaks with scorn of the opposite 'classicistic' prejudice.—I totally disagree with the picture given by M. P. Nilsson, Homer and Mycenae (London 1933) 2 0 6 - 1 1 , who believes in the_origin of Greek epics in the 'glorious Mycenaean age' and a renascence of epics in Ionic ™ -—The new tablets, so far, do not contain any literary text or any hint at poetry; Nevertheless, they have provoked Professor T . B. L . Webster (with whom I agree in some details), into writing From Mycenae to Homer (London 1 9 5 8 ) , in which he tries—unsuccessfully, but with immense erudition and bold imagination—to reconstruct songs of Mycenaean Palaces. On the other hand, J . A. Notopoulos, Homer, Hesiod and the Achaean Heritage of °ral Poetry', Hesperia 29 ( i 9 6 0 ) 177ff.,argues for the existence of an 'Achaean' oral epic Poetry which survived in the mainland ('Hesiod', etc.) as well as in Ionia ('Homer', etc.). 1
3
8
1
5
nes
0
24
From Oral to Written
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Tradition
25
a d e f i n i t i v e a l p h a b e t i c system, m u s t h a v e b e e n r e a c h e d i n a f a i r l y short
j c r i p t w a s accessible t o e v e r y o n e , a n d i n t h e course o f t i m e i t b e c a m e
time.
the c o m m o n h e r i t a g e o f a l l citizens w h o w e r e a b l e t o use a p e n ( o r
T h e r e were m i n o r alterations a n d slight i m p r o v e m e n t s , b u t there
w a s n o 'pro-gress'
a n y m o r e either i n Greek o r i n post-Greek
times.
1
a brush) a n d t o r e a d ; the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f w r i t i n g materials i n early times
' vToO
has b e e n m e n t i o n e d a l r e a d y , a n d especially t h e i m p o r t o f p a p y r u s f r o m
rfwtv, i n t h e epic age. T h e same h a p p e n e d i n o t h e r p r o v i n c e s o f Greek
E g y p t , w h e r e i t h a d b e e n used as far b a c k as t h e t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m i n t h e
civilization, i n literature and art.
form o f s m a l l e r o r l a r g e r r o l l s f o r ritual a n d l i t e r a r y purposes. So a l l t h e
T h e a l p h a b e t w a s ' p e r f e c t ' , i t h a d f o u n d i t s o w n n a t u r e , eo"x V c 7
V
e
a
A n e w i n s t r u m e n t h a d been created, w h i c h was, o n t h e one hand,
necessary c o n d i t i o n s f o r p r o d u c i n g G r e e k books w e r e i n existence
from
i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e expression o f e x a c t nuances o f l a n g u a g e i n p o e t r y a n d
the e i g h t h o r seventh c e n t u r y o n w a r d s , i t seems. I f w e t r y t o a n s w e r t h e
philosophy a n d , o n the other h a n d , indispensable for scholarly interpreta-
t w o questions
i n t h e last p a r a g r a p h , w e a r e l e d t o d i s t i n g u i s h f o u r
t i o n a n d analysis. I n t h i s sense t h e a d a p t e d P h o e n i c i a n c h a r a c t e r s were
periods. T h e r e p r o b a b l y w a s first a t i m e o f m e r e l y o r a l c o m p o s i t i o n a n d
c a l l e d ' h e l p e r s t o w a r d s t h e Aoyos' b y G r i t i a s i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e
oral
fifth
proof, b e g a n w i t h t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a l p h a b e t i c w r i t i n g . E p i c
c e n t u r y i n a n elegiac p o e m a b o u t v a r i o u s i n v e n t i o n s o f peoples a n d
cities:
&oiviK€$
Phoenicians
S'
edpov ypdfip.ar
y
aAe££\oya
2
(Vors.
8 8 B 2. i o ) , ' t h e
i n v e n t e d letters w h i c h h e l p m e n t o t h i n k a n d t o speak'
(poTjdovvra els Xoyov
Eust. p . 1771. 4 4 ) . I n t h e a r c h a i c p e r i o d w h i c h f o l -
l o w e d t h e e p i c age t h e G r e e k s ' first a i m w a s a t b e a u t y o f s c r i p t ; f o r
t r a d i t i o n o f p o e t r y . T h e second stage, w e assume w i t h o u t f u r t h e r poets,
heirs o f a n a n c i e n t o r a l t r a d i t i o n , b e g a n t o p u t d o w n t h e i r g r e a t c o m positions i n this n e w s c r i p t w e s t i l l possess as t h e p r o d u c t o f t h a t c r e a t i v e epic age t h e t w o ' H o m e r i c ' p o e m s . T h e t r a n s m i s s i o n r e m a i n e d o r a l : t h e poets themselves a n d t h e rhapsodes t h a t f o l l o w e d t h e m r e c i t e d t h e i r
e v i d e n c e w e h a v e o n l y t o l o o k a t t h e e a r l y i n s c r i p t i o n s o n stone s t i l l p r e -
works t o a n a u d i e n c e ; a n d t h i s o r a l t r a d i t i o n w a s s e c u r e d b y t h e s c r i p t
served. T h i s t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s h a r m o n y a n d e v e n ' g e o m e t r i c ' n o r m s was
w h i c h m u s t h a v e b e e n t o a c e r t a i n degree u n d e r p r o p e r c o n t r o l . T h e r e
lTvdayopas avrwv (sc. TWV ypap-adroiv) rov KaXXovs €7T€p.eX-q9r), eV TTJS Kara. yeajpLerpiav ypap.p.r)s pvdpLicras . . . avra yojviats Kal irepttf>€peiais Kal evdeiais ( S c h o l . D i o n y s . T h r . Gr. Gr. i n
is, so f a r , n o e v i d e n c e f o r b o o k p r o d u c t i o n o n a l a r g e scale, f o r t h e c i r c u l a -
183. 3 2 ) . A r c h a i c Greece t o o k a p r i d e i n w r i t i n g as a w o r k o f a r t , t h e r e
sophy r e m a i n e d o r a l . F r o m t h e h i s t o r y o f s c r i p t a n d b o o k w e get n o
is a s t r i v i n g f o r TO
observed b y later w r i t e r s :
3
t i o n o f copies, o r f o r a r e a d i n g p u b l i c i n t h e l y r i c age. T h e p o w e r o f memory was unchallenged, a n d the t r a d i t i o n o f poetry a n d early p h i l o -
as i n s c r i p t i o n s s h o w , a n d i t c a n h a r d l y be
s u p p o r t e i t h e r for t h e l e g e n d o f t h e Peisistratean recension o f t h e H o m e r i c
d o u b t e d t h a t l i t e r a c y was f a i r l y w i d e s p r e a d ; b u t t h e i m p o r t a n t questions
poems o r f o r t h e b e l i e f t h a t Peisistratus a n d P o l y c r a t e s w e r e b o o k c o l -
are h o w f a r first p o e t r y a n d t h e n p h i l o s o p h y w e r e w r i t t e n d o w n a n d a t
lectors a n d founders o f p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s .
KOXOV,
w h a t t i m e some f o r m o f c o m m e r c i a l p u b l i c a t i o n finally c a m e i n t o b e i n g .
N o f u r t h e r c h a n g e is n o t i c e a b l e u n t i l t h e fifth c e n t u r y , w h e n t h e t h i r d 2
i n p r e h i s t o r i c G r e e c e becomes visible
p e r i o d b e g a n , o n e i n w h i c h n o t o n l y o r a l c o m p o s i t i o n , b u t also o r a l
o n l y against t h e o r i e n t a l b a c k g r o u n d ; so w e w e r e f o r c e d t o g o o u t o f o u r
t r a d i t i o n , b e g a n t o lose its i m p o r t a n c e . T h e first sign o f t h i s is t h e s u d d e n
w a y f o r a l i t t l e w h i l e . N o w i n G r e e c e w e find n o g u i l d o f scribes, n o caste
t p p e a r a n c e o f f r e q u e n t references t o w r i t i n g a n d r e a d i n g i n p o e t r y a n d
T h e pattern o f development
o f priests t o w h i c h k n o w l e d g e o f w r i t i n g was r e s t r i c t e d , n o sacred b o o k s
4
of
w h i c h t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n was t h e i r s p e c i a l p r i v i l e g e . T h e G r e e k a l p h a b e t i c
Art from t h e seventies o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y o n w a r d s ; t h e i m a g e o f scribe
lift The opposite view is taken by E . R. Dodds in the very lucid chapter 'Homer as Oral ioetry* in Fifty Tears of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1954) 1 3 - 1 7 ; be has been completely •convinced by Milman Parry's collection of formulaic material. But this only proves that Greek fS?C poems were the result of a long oral tradition and were destined for further oral transfrussion; there is no decisive argument against the composition of Iliad and Odyssey in writing. . " T y ' s so-called 'negative check' is entirely misleading: Apollonius Rhodius followed the Hellenistic theory of variation and consciously avoided formulae, repetitions, and the like. A n important part of M. Parry's priceless collection of Serbocroatian Songs has been published ( ' 9 5 3 - 4 ) 5 hut I wonder what help they may be for Homer, however contemptuously A. B. J*rd, 'The Singer of Tales', Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 2 4 ( i 9 6 0 ) , may dismiss ™°*e Homeric scholars who do not yet give full credit to Parry's revelations. 1
The best expert on 'grammatology' I. J . Gelb, A Study of Writing (London 1952) 239 (cf. 184) made the statement: 'In spite of the tremendous achievements of the Western civilization in so manyfieldsof human endeavour, writing has not progressed at all since the Greek period.. . . The complex causes for this conservative attitude may very well be beyond our capacity to comprehend.' But under the aspect of T4XOS and vats we may well be able to comprehend it (see below, p. 6 8 ) . This awaf Xcyofitvov is not only attested and explained by Eustathius, who gives a choice of three different meanings, but already quoted in the Evvaywyi) Ac'^ctuv xPV il - "' P* 74- ' Bachm. and in Phot. Berol. p. 73. 3 Reitzenstein; L - S should not list it as 'dubious'. J A. Rehm, 'Inschriften als Kunstwerke', Handbuchi\§. 3 ;JefTery, photographs of archaic inscriptions on 72 plates. * Except perhaps for small sects of mystics. 1
1
J
J
a
* E. G. Turner, ***>don 1 9 5 2 ) .
Athenian
Books
in the Fifth
and Fourth
Centuries
B.C.
(Inaugural Lecture,
26
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
and
Book Production and Reading
r e a d e r h a d a p p a r e n t l y c a u g h t p o e t i c i m a g i n a t i o n as w e l l as t h e
I f w e t u r n f r o m t h e l i t e r a r y field t o t h e A t t i c vase p a i n t e r s , w e d o n o t
i m a g i n a t i o n o f t h e vase p a i n t e r s f o r t h e first t i m e . I t c a n h a r d l y b e b y
flnd
chance
life o f t h e fidvavaoi w e r e t h e i r f a v o u r i t e subjects. Scenes o f t h e c u l t i v a t e d
written
t h a t a l l t h e g r e a t poets b e g a n t o use t h e n e w s y m b o l o f the w o r d for the mental activity o f 'recollection', o f
/unfrti};
t h i s is
life, i n w h i c h representations o f i n s c r i b e d r o l l s find a p l a c e , a p p e a r
p a r t i c u l a r l y r e m a r k a b l e , i f we r e m e m b e r t h e p a r t w h i c h physical m e m o r y had
first
i n t h e r e d - f i g u r e d style, t h e w o r k o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a r i e s o f t h e t r a g i c
Prometheus 4 6 0 f. t h e god w h o t o o k re ovvdeo-ets / iivrjysnv airdintnv, •nXdv-nv tf>pdaa> / rjv €yypdov ov p.vnp,o(nv
p l a y e d i n t h e past. I n Aeschylus'
a pride i n having invented
a n y p i c t u r e s o f ' b o o k s ' o n b l a c k - f i g u r e d vases; scenes o f t h e s i m p l e
poets, from a b o u t 4 9 0 t o 425 B.C. A t least t h r e e o f these p a i n t i n g s seem to be s l i g h t l y e a r l i e r t h a n t h e d a t e d plays o f A e s c h y l u s .
ypaap,drcov
1
O n h a l f a dozen
epydvTjv t o l d I o : (ftpevtiiv ( i b i d . 788 f.) Sophocles expressly r e p e a t e d this i m a g e i n his e a r l i e s t p l a y Triptolemus ( a b o u t 466 B.C. ?) . A e s c h y l u s was b o l d e n o u g h t o a t t r i b u t e even t o a g o d l i k e H a d e s a oe\roypdtf>os tj>p-qv, Eum. 273-5 pieyas yap ^ i S i j c e o r i v evdvvos ßporwv . . ., SeXroypdoj S e navr e V w n - a
vases, letters o r w o r d s o f e p i c o r l y r i c poems, w r i t t e n across t h e o p e n
pcvL W e find i n A e s c h y l u s n o t o n l y t h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f d i v i n e ' t a b l e t s o f
from
the
m i n d ' , b u t also t h e i d e a o f Z e u s ' t a b l e t s o n w h i c h m e n ' s crimes have
I believe, i n t a k i n g t h e c o i n c i d e n c e o f t h e l i t e r a r y passages a n d t h e vase-
b e e n n o t e d . T h i s i m a g e r e m i n d s o n e o f t h e g r e a t deities o f o r i e n t a l
p a i n t i n g s as evidence o f a c h a n g e i n t h e c o m m o n use o f b o o k s ; n o d o u b t
/XOUCTO/XTJTOO'
p a p y r u s r o l l , c a n s t i l l be d e c i p h e r e d . W e see y o u t h s a n d schoolmasters
SATCH?
2
r e a d i n g t h e t e x t ; i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y f a m o u s n a m e s l i k e
2
those o f S a p p h o , L i n o s , M u s a i o s are a d d e d t o these figures. O n a C a r n e o l Scarabaeus even a S p h i n x is represented as r e c i t i n g t h e f a m o u s r i d d l e
Alien a
rrdpeopos
[ypd<povoa\ ToWAa/oj/xaT*
w h e n a conscious m e t h o d o f
o f Zeus, a n d e n t r u s t e d h e r w i t h t h e
office o f h i s oe\roypdos, as we h a v e l e a r n e d q u i t e r e c e n t l y :
h> o4Xra> Aio$
(Aesch.
Aitnai
Kairetr* evAios S4Xrov Trrvxals
/
ypd€iv rw
avrd
W e are j u s t i f i e d ,
TrapdSoais,
o f l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n b y books,
W e a r e n o t able t o f o l l o w o u t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t i n this p e r i o d o f t r a n s i -
3
A b o u t h a l f a c e n t u r y l a t e r E u r i p i d e s also r e f e r r e d t o those r e c o r d s : raSi/c^avr' . . .
3
became established.
{Auaj) . . .
[ ? ] a b o u t 470 B.c.) .
o p e n b o o k i n h e r p a w s ( a b o u t 4 6 0 B.C,).
i t w a s a s l o w c h a n g e , l e a d i n g g r a d u a l l y t o t h e f o u r t h a n d final p e r i o d ,
r e l i g i o n s w r i t i n g t h e i r sacred books, b u t A e s c h y l u s f o l l o w e d the H e s i o d i c tradition that made
an
t i o n step b y step. T h e r e seems t o be n o n e w evidence, o n l y a f e w casual
(Melanippe,
allusions i n O l d C o m e d y
p r o b a b l y -r) ootp-q, f r . 506 N . ) . T h e t r a d i t i o n a l expression for w r i t i n g
a n d i n Platonic dialogues, w h i c h are w e l l
k n o w n b u t n e e d t o be c a r e f u l l y r e c o n s i d e r e d . E u p o l i s , A r i s t o p h a n e s ' c o n -
2
m a t e r i a l i n t r a g e d y r e m a i n e d SeAro?, e v e n w h e n o n e m i g h t suppose t h a t
t e m p o r a r y , m e n t i o n e d , p r o b a b l y i n t h e t w e n t i e s o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y , t h e
the
place o£
4
p o e t w a s a c t u a l l y s p e a k i n g a b o u t l i t e r a r y texts w r i t t e n o n p a p y r u s -
rolls.*
rd ftiflXi ojvia,
' w h e r e t h e books are o n sale'. Socrates was able 4
to get h o l d o f t h e books o f A n a x a g o r a s v e r y q u i c k l y , w h e n h e h a d h e a r d someone r e a d i n g a n i n t e r e s t i n g passage from o n e o f h i s w r i t i n g s , t h o u g h
I7g alvth (fivXa^at TCW** , eirij SeA-rowueWs (sc. filias). Pind. 0. x. a (about . ttoQi pei>os eiiä? yeypanrai. Soph. fr. 5 9 7 P. dov 0" ev (Pf.: ot>8' av A, ae 8 ' ev V) tppevos ÖCXTOLOL roOy e/xous Adyovs (60S cf. Call. fr. 75. 6 6 ö>«(JiJf«iTO SeArots); cf. Aesch. Cko. 450, Soph. Phil. 1 3 2 5 ; Eur. Tro. 6 6 3 a\va-nrv^a> tppwa 'unroll my mind' (like a book). s P.Oxy. xx (1952) 2 2 5 6 , fr. 9 a 21 ed. E . Lobel = Aesch. fr. 5 3 0 Mette; recognized by E. Fraenkel, Eranas 52 (1954) 6 4 if., as a fragment of the festival play for Hieron's foundation of the city Aetna; cf. F. Solmsen, The Tablets of Zeus, CI. Qu. 3 8 (1944) 2 7 - 3 0 . The only exception, so far, seems to be Aesch. Sappl. 946 f. raür' ov iriva&v earw eyytypap.p.€va / ovo' iv »JTWYGUS ßißXcup Ka.Ttu6epcu, Sarpaxa, see Babr. 127 and the many proverbs collected b y O . Grusius, De Babrii aetate (1876) 2 1 9 ; cf. F. Marx., Ind. lect. Greifswald (1892/3) vi. No conclusions about the actual use of writing material at certain times can be drawn from such passages. Eur. Erechtk. fr. 3 6 9 . 6 f. N . SCATWV anarrrvaaoi.^i y^pw, av aoot xAtWai; one may compare Socrates unrolling the treasures of the sages of old time in Xenoph. Mem. 16, 14: rovs Srfa-aupois rSiv irdXai aotpüivjivoptäv . . , iveXimov; see below, p. 28, n. 2. 1
474)
Cf. Aesch.
Suppl.
o.väyv
x
4
5
1
h e was m u c h disappointed b y t h e m .
Apology
the
6
as r e f e r r i n g t o
W h e n P l a t o represented h i m i n
5
AvatjayopavfitfiXLarod KXa&ueviov,
Socrates
m e n t i o n e d t h e v e r y cheap p r i c e o f a d r a c h m a , a t w h i c h copies c o u l d be b o u g h t b y anyone i n the market-place, w i t h irony, i f not w i t h contempt. 7
\ I F. Winter, 'Schulunterricht auf griechischen Vasenbildern', Bonner jfakrbiicher 123 |;
6
x
1
u t
s e e
t
ie e x a c t
Decisive Contribution of the Sophists
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
28
29
T h e r e f o r e t h e figure s h o u l d n o t b e t a k e n t o o seriously ; b u t t h e f a c t t h a t
c e r t a i n p l a y s , w h i c h w e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y s u i t a b l e f o r r e a d i n g , from those
books o f A n a x a g o r a s w e r e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c i n A t h e n s is
with a purely
f a i r l y c e r t a i n . T h e r e is n o c e r t a i n t y , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a b o u t t h e t r a d i -
as
t i o n , r e p o r t e d b y C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a i n h i s lists o f 'first i n v e n t o r s ' ,
w r o t e t h e i r plays o n l y f o r r e a d i n g . T h e r e h a v e n e v e r been such w r i t e r s ;
and
plays w e r e a l w a y s c o m p o s e d f o r a c t i n g i n t h e first p l a c e . E u r i p i d e s '
T
2
T h e plague o f b a d
3
fsifikia
i n Aristophanes' Cloud-cuckoo-town
and
imoKpiTiKr)
Ae^is,
a n d d e s c r i b e d t h e i r poets
B u t i t is a m i s t a k e t o t h i n k t h a t t h e r e w e r e poets w h o 1
often r e p e a t e d , t h a t A n a x a g o r a s w a s ' t h e first t o p u b l i s h a w r i t t e n
book'.
dyoivtortKi]
avayvaxjTLKoi.
b o o k - k n o w l e d g e is r i d i c u l e d b y A r i s t o p h a n e s , a n d h e is said t o h a v e been 2
4
is a satiric c o u n t e r p a r t t o c o n d i t i o n s i n A t h e n s t o w a r d s t h e e n d o f t h e
the
c e n t u r y ; a t a b o u t 4 0 0 B.C. b o o k s w e r e even e x p o r t e d t o c o u n t r i e s o n t h e
t h a t t h e texts o f the tragedies w e r e t h e first p r o p e r G r e e k ' b o o k s ' ,
owner o f a whole library.
B l a c k Sea.s S o m e t h i n g m u s t h a v e h a p p e n e d t o s t i m u l a t e b o o k p r o d u c -
for e a r l i e r w r i t i n g s h e used t h e t e r m vTropiv^piara. B u t vTrop.vrjp,a
t i o n t o such a degree; t h e influence o f the I o n i a n Anaxagoras,
even
m e a n t a n i n d e p e n d e n t finished w r i t i n g ; i t m a y r e f e r t o notes r e m i n d i n g
t h o u g h settled i n A t h e n s before t h e P e l o p o n n e s i a n w a r a n d e n j o y i n g
one o f facts h e a r d o r seen i n t h e past, o r t o notes j o t t e d d o w n a n d c o l -
Pericles' f r i e n d s h i p , c a n h a r d l y h a v e been sufficient.
l e c t e d as a r o u g h c o p y f o r a f u t u r e b o o k , o r t o e x p l a n a t o r y notes t o some
3
W i l a m o w i t z once t r i e d t o demonstrate 4
ßißXia; never
I n t h e course o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y t h e t r a g i c poets, t h e h i s t o r i a n s , a n d
o t h e r w r i t i n g , t h a t is, a c o m m e n t a r y . I t is q u i t e a r b i t r a r y t o c a l l t h e e a r l y
the Sophists b e c a m e t h e p r e d o m i n a n t figures i n t h e l i t e r a r y life o f A t h e n s .
I o n i c p r o s e - w r i t i n g s , such as those o f H e r a c l i t u s a n d H e c a t a e u s , ' r e -
Tragedies were composed for performance i n t h e theatre o f Dionysus, b u t
m i n d e r s ' ; t h e y w e r e m o r e o r less finished w o r k s , c o p i e d b y p u p i l s a n d
were
friends,
also
available
as ' b o o k s '
afterwards. T h e only unmistakable
evidence, h o w e v e r , is D i o n y s u s ' confession i n A r i s t o p h a n e s ' ( p r o d u c e d i n J a n u a r y 405 B.C.) : eVï
ftvSpofj.éo'av
TTpos
rrjç
veùs
Frogs
àvayiyvojOKOvri
' w h e n I was r e a d i n g ( E u r i p i d e s ' )
ipiavrov
5
( p r o d u c e d i n 4 1 3 B.C.) t o m y s e l f o n b o a r d ' .
or
d e p o s i t e d i n a t e m p l e , as i n t h e case o f H e r a c l i t u s .
6
We
should n o t underrate the influence o f tragedy o n the development o f the
52 f.
b o o k ; b u t so f a r i t is n o t p r o v e d t h a t t h e t r a g e d i a n s w e r e t h e first w r i t e r s
j TTjv Andromeda
ptoi
to h a v e t h e i r w o r k s m a d e a v a i l a b l e as
ßißXia
to a wider public.
H e r o d o t u s seems t o h a v e l e c t u r e d p u b l i c l y , r e c i t i n g h e r e a n d t h e r e
6
a single
W e m a y r e a s o n a b l y assume t h a t t h e A t h e n i a n s c o u l d n o t h a v e t a k e n
Xayos,
7
an
dyaivicrpia
e? TO
irapaxp^jfio, aKoveiv in
Thucydides
the p o i n t o f p a r o d y i n t h e m a n y p a r a t r a g e d i c passages o f A t t i c C o m e d y
phrase, a n d h e c e r t a i n l y was o p e n t o S o p h i s t i c ideas a n d stylistic d e -
unless t h e y h a d read t h e tragedies, as w e find t h e g o d o f t h e t h e a t r e r e a d -
vices.
ing
the
Andromeda.
o f the b o o k . B u t w h e n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a t i o n T h u c y d i d e s h o p e d t h a t
(1953) 3 6 . 4.
As Anaxagoras had been dead for nearly thirty years, the copies may have been 'second hand'. N. Lewis, L'Industrie du papyrus (Thèse Paris 1914) 62 f., and Turner, Athenian Books 21, were puzzled when they compared the real cost of papyrus and of copying at that time with Socrates' statement. Athenian Bi^XionC/Xn mentioned in old comedy: Ariatomenea fr. 9 K., Theopomp, ft. 77 K., Nicoph. fr. 19. 4 K. ; see also above, p. 26, n. 5. Clem. Al. Stromal. 1 7 8 (n pp. 50 f. St.) = Vors. 59 A 36 val u.ijv aihi ware els 'EXXnvas ij rtàv Xâyoïv irapfjXBc 8iSa$ . . . ot hi AvaÇayâpav . . . trpwav Stà ypatpfjs laropoSaiv. Clement seems to have understood ypaifrf 'writing', but the sense may have been 'drawing', if one compares Vors. 11 6. 23 and 11 11. 2 hiaypaarijs Diels ; the fact of the cichoais is emphasized by Th. Birt, Die Buchrolle in der Kunst {1907) 2 1 3 , and byStahlinin Vors. loc. cit. ;cf. E . Derenne, 'Lesprocèsd'impiété' (below, p. 3 1 , n . 5 ) 25. 3. Aristoph. A s , 974 ff., 1024 ff., 1288. Xenoph. Anab. vil 5. 14, in the cargoes of vessels wrecked near Salmydessos "nvplaKovro . . .
prose
only posthumously. I t can h a r d l y have h a d a n y influence o n the g r o w t h
2
of Athens
H i s ' h i s t o r y ' as a w h o l e , t h e first g r e a t w o r k o f G r e e k
l i t e r a t u r e , w a s finally w r i t t e n d o w n i n I t a l y a b o u t 4 3 0 B.C. a n d p u b l i s h e d
I n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y A r i s t o t i e even d i s t i n g u i s h e d
Kranz) KTX. ; opxtforpa does not refer to the theatre of Dionysus, but to a part of the àyopd, see W. Judeich, Topographie von Atken (1931) 3 4 2 . 2 ; A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals
8
his h i s t o r i c a l gvyypa
1
w o u l d be a KrfJ/xa e s del
(1 2 2 . 4 ) , h e w a s a l r e a d y
t h i n k i n g o f his f u t u r e readers. So g r e a t a n increase i n t h e s p r e a d i n g abroad o f the w r i t t e n w o r d h a d apparently taken place between the t w o generations. I t is n o surprise t o find t h a t i n t h e last d e c a d e o f t h e
1
fifth
c e n t u r y t h e l o c a l A t t i c t r a d i t i o n also, w h i c h h a d h i t h e r t o b e e n o r a l , was
1
fixed for t h e first t i m e i n a b o o k , t h e
Ämter) ivyypatf^ ( T h u c .
I 9 7 . 2) o f
3 4
4
s
iToXXat fsifiXoi
y€ypau,p,évat. Aristoph. Ran. 1114
Cf. fii^Aioe T* ÉYWV etaoros u-avBdvct rà htÇtd. From the whole context of the often discussed lines 1 1 0 9 - 1 8 it is obvious to me that Aristophanes meant to say there is no danger of àp.aBîa, of inexperience, or ignorance on the side of the Athenian audience ; the theatre-goers are military servicemen and enlightened (aatpoi) 'readers of books, able to understand the right points*. 6
The correct interpretation of Aristot. Rhet. in 12 p. 1 4 1 3 b 12 is given by O. Crusius, Festschrift für Th. Gomperz (1902) 381 ff., but the wrong interpretation is repeated every¬ !' where. Aristoph. Ran. 943, 1409. Athen. 1 3 A. 1
1
1
'>'•
* Einleitung
3
in die Tragödie (1889) 121 ff.
References in the article of F. Börner, 'Der Commentarius', Herrn. 81 (1953) 2 1 5 ff., but / he did not mention Wilamowitz's theory. I fully agree in this point with Turner, Athenian Books 17. ' Marcellin. Vita Thuc. 5 4 ; Paroemiogr. cod. Coisl, 157 = Append. 11 3 5 , ed. Gotting., f voL 1 4 0 0 «*s r^v 'HpoSorov oieiav. This late tradition, often rejected, was rightly accepted by i. F- Jacoby, RE, Suppl. 11 330, and John L . Myres, Herodotus, Father of History (1953) 5l F. Jacoby, Ä£,jSuppl. 11 500 f. s
6
1
1
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
30
Hellanicus o f Lesbos;
1
Socratic-Platonic Opposition
his c o n n e x i o n w i t h c o n t e m p o r a r y Sophists
is
clearly perceptible.
Vors.
11 1. 2 1 - 3 4 =
31
8 4 B 2 ) . X e n o p h o n also records a n i n t e r v i e w o f
Socrates w i t h a c e r t a i n E u t h y d e m u s , c a l l e d o KO.AÖ>
I t is a n o t a b l e c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t u n d e r t h e a r c h o n s h i p o f E u c l i d e s (403/2 B.C.) t h e I o n i c a l p h a b e t was o f f i c i a l l y a d o p t e d f o r p u b l i c d o c u m e n t s i n
(Mem.,
i v 2. 1 i f . ) ,
w h o h a d a r e m a r k a b l e c o l l e c t i o n o f books o f poets as w e l l as o f 'Sophists'
(iroiriTojv
re
xai oojuoTOJv Toiv €vSoKLfLioraTcov) .
T
A s professional teache
Protag.
Athens instead o f the local A t t i c script. I f the w r i t t e n t r a d i t i o n started
t h e Sophists h a d t o g i v e b o o k texts o f t h e g r e a t poets ( P l a t .
i n I o n i a , as w e assumed, i t is n a t u r a l t h a t I o n i c characters w e r e p r e -
t o t h e i r p u p i l s , b u t t h e y s t a r t e d also t o d i s t r i b u t e copies o f t h e i r o w n
d o m i n a n t l y i n use for l i t e r a r y purposes i n o t h e r p a r t s o f Greece as w e l l .
w r i t i n g s as 7Tapaoelypn.Ta.
2
3
y
models,
2
a n d to w r i t e p r a c t i c a l textbooks.
I n A t h e n s t h e i r increased p o p u l a r i t y i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y
O r a l instruction, t h o u g h still most i m p o r t a n t ,
m a y h a v e b e e n b r o u g h t a b o u t b y t h e i t i n e r a n t Sophists w h o m o s t l y
for t h e i r special p u r p o s e ( P l a t .
c a m e f r o m I o n i c c i t i e s ; t h e letters d e s c r i b e d i n E u r i p i d e s '
Theseus
382 N . , p r o d u c e d before 422 B.C.) are a p p a r e n t l y I o n i c .
Occasional
2
t r a n s c r i p t i o n s o f texts w e r e necessary ( a n d , n o d o u b t , some
(fr.
tradition
5
325 E)
Phaedr.
4
3
was n o l o n g e r sufficient
228 A ) . I f t h e r e is a n y t r u t h i n t h e
t h a t P r o t a g o r a s ' books w e r e c o l l e c t e d f r o m t h e i r o w n e r s a n d
b u r n e d o n t h e a g o r a w h e n he was accused o f a t h e i s m ( a b o u t 416/15
mistakes
B.C. ?), a n established t r a d e a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f books a m o n g t h e A t h e n i a n
o f earlier
p u b l i c a t t h a t t i m e m u s t be assumed. T h i s m a y s t i l l h a v e been o n a s m a l l
l i t e r a t u r e t o o k place. Q u i t e n a t u r a l l y , t h e I o n i c s c r i p t became, i n t h e
scale; t h e discussions a b o u t t h e p r o b l e m , e v e n a b o u t t h e d a n g e r , o f t h i s
course o f t i m e , t h e u n i v e r s a l l y accepted h a n d b o t h for l i t e r a r y t e x t s a n d
new h a b i t were m a i n l y concerned w i t h Sophistic w r i t i n g s . W e
for documents.
e x a m p l e o f this i n A r i s t o p h a n e s ' sneer at Prodicus ; his p o i n t of" v i e w was
w e r e m a d e i n t h e process); b u t n o g e n e r a l
pieTaxapaKTypiauos*
5
T h e r e r e m a i n s t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e Sophists t o h a v e p l a y e d t h e decisive p a r t i n t h i s c h a n g e .
6
can really c l a i m
One o f the leading
find
an
m e r e l y e t h i c a l . A m o r e g e n e r a l p h i l o s o p h i c a l o p p o s i t i o n arose f r o m t h e side o f Socrates
6
a n d P l a t o ; i t is v o i c e d a g a i n a n d a g a i n f r o m t h e e a r l y
Protagoras
dialogue
Tagenistas
cussed passages are r e l e v a n t t o o u r p u r p o s e . I n t h e first p l a c e t h e i m -
TOVTOV
( f r . 4 9 0 K . ) ' e i t h e r a b o o k o r P r o d i c u s has r u i n e d t h e m a n ' ,
TOV ctvSp' •f)
ßtßXtov SU4>6op€v I r/ TTpoStKos.
T h e a l t e r n a t i v e a t least
shows t h a t p u r e literariness was r e g a r d e d as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a S o p h i s t ; a t t h e same t i m e i t p o i n t s t o t h e d a n g e r o f S o p h i s t i c books, p e r h a p s o f b o o k s i n g e n e r a l . F r o m Plato's
Symposium
scene is staged i n 416 B.C., o n e c a n i n f e r
7
(117 B), o f w h i c h t h e w h o l e
t h a t Prodicus'
Horai
were i n
c i r c u l a t i o n as a ' b o o k ' a t t h a t t i m e ; l a t e r o n f r o m a c o p y o f this b o o k X e n o p h o n t o o k t h e f a m o u s p a r a b l e o f H e r c u l e s a t t h e crossroads F. Jacoby, AttHs (Oxford 1949) 216 f., Index p. 107, i n , 138, Hellanicus and the Sophists. 1
1
Theopomp. 115 FGrHist
431
oral tradition and
RE
vm
(Mem. (1913)
155.
3 Of. Schol. Dionys. The, Gr. Gr. in p. 183. 20 if. Hilg. * The theory of a universal and systematical transliteration is maintained by R. Herzog, 'Die Umschrift der älteren griechischen Literatur in das jonische Alphabet', Programm zur Rektoraisfeier der Universität Basel ( 1 9 1 2 ) , but he is not able to prove his point either by the valuable collection of so-called evidence or by his arguments. J . Irigoin, L'histoire du texte de Pindare (1952) 2 2 - 2 8 still tried to maintain the theory of u.traypap^p.aTiop.6s. Our earliest specimen seems to have been written in the third quarter of the fourth century B.C. See below, p. 1 0 2 ; cf. C. H . Roberts, Greek Literary Hands 350 B.C.-A.D, 400 1
(1955) fc
7
T w o p o i n t s i n these m u c h dis-
8
m e d i a t e t a r g e t for t h e attacks was t h e Sophists, t h e i r e x a g g e r a t e d Cf. Isoer. 2 (ad Nîcocl.) 13 /XJTC T<ÛC Ttonjrûiv Ttoy evBoKifiovvrtov [ir/Sevos oîov SetV à-neLptas «x*'" î both Xenophon and Isocrates refer to not to the ao<pol of old. 1
16-23. RE
xxin
86
(rightly against H. Diels's note to
Vors. 8 4
B
1),
firfre
respect
TÔ>V ao/piorâiv
contemporary writers,
Cf. Marrou 54. For references to such sample speeches put into writing see W. Steidle, 'Redekunst und Bildung bei Isokrates', Herrn. 8 0 (1952) 271. 5. On the preference for the written word by Isocrates in the line of the Sophists, ibid. 279, 292, 296. Plat. Phaedr. 266 D KO.1 fiâXa rrov avxvô. • .... TO. y' èv roîç ßißXiois rots irepï Xôytov TÉ^CTJS yeyp ap.p- évoi s ; cf. M. Fuhrmann, Das systematische Lehrbuch (1960) 123 f.; see also below, p. 76, n. 5. Protagoras and Prodicus used to read manuscripts to their pupils (Diog. L . rx 50, cf. 54 = Vors. 80 A 1). Hippias repeatedly read his TptutKos to the Spartans and Athenians (Plat. Hipp. mai. 286 BC = Vors. 86 A 9 ) . See also Diels, NJb 25 (1910) 11: 'Da die Sophistik . . . den mündlichen Unterricht durch eine Unzahl praktischer Handbücher und Broschüren eindringlicher und nachhaltiger gestaltete' (italics are mine) ; this may be a little exaggerated. 3
3
4
Vors. 80 A I TO ßtßXia aiiroû leareKavaav 4v rrj àyopq iura tc-qpuKt àvotXc£>ip.(voi Trap' eicdoTov TtSv KtKrf\yAv
n. 66, p. 201, who gives a correct interpretation of Plat. Men. 91 E about Protagoras and the whole background for 'prosecutions of intellectuals on religious grounds'. Cf. Xenoph. Mem. i v 2. 9. Plat. Prot. 3 2 9 A, esp. Phaedr. 2 7 4 B ff. ; cf. Epist. I i 314 c, V I I 341 B ff. On the attitude to books and on the problem of the spoken and the written word there is a lucid chapter in P. Friedländer, Platon, i* (1954) 114 ff. with bibliography p. 3 3 4 (English translation, New York 1958, bibliography pp. 356 f.) ; m ( i 9 6 0 ) 220 f. on the passage in Phaedr. with n. 33, p. 4 6 9 . See also the general remarks by E . R. Curtius, Europäische Kultur und lateinisches Mittelalter (Bern 1948) 304 ff., esp. 306 f. 'Das Buch als Symbol'. 6
E . Curtius, Wort und Sehriß { 1 8 5 9 ; reprinted in 'Alterthum und Gegenwart' r, 1875) 2 6 2 : 'Sophistik . . . da begann in Athen die Lese- und Bücherwut'. R. Harder, 'Bemerkungen zur griechischen SchrifUichkeit', Antike 1 9 ( 1 9 4 3 ) 1 0 7 = Kleine Schriften ( i 9 6 0 ) 79 'Thukydides und die Sophisten führen das Schreibwesen zum endgültigen Sieg'; Turner, Athenian Books 6
' K. v. Fritz,
to the late
Phaedrus.
Sophists, P r o d i c u s himself, is p u t o n a p a r w i t h a ' b o o k ' b y A r i s t o p h a n e s ,
7
8
!
32
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Individual Achievements: Protagoras
f o r t h e w r i t t e n w o r d , a n d t h e i r o w n preference f o r t h e use o f books. S u c h
a s o r t o f s p i r i t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n S i m o n i d e s a n d t h e e a r l y Sophists.
a n a t t i t u d e , i t w a s a r g u e d , p r o p a g a t e d b y i n f l u e n t i a l teachers, w a s b o u n d
I w a s r a t h e r sceptical a b o u t t h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f S i m o n i d e s as a ' p r o t o -
t o w e a k e n o r even t o d e s t r o y p h y s i c a l m e m o r y
(pLvrjfirj),
o n w h i c h the
o r a l t r a d i t i o n o f t h e past was based, a n d i n t h e e n d w o u l d b e a t h r e a t t o
33
S o p h i s t ' , as this f r a g m e n t seemed t o b e u n i q u e ; b u t t h e r e is n o w a close p a r a l l e l t o t h e Scopas p o e m i n a r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d S i m o n i d e a n f r a g -
alaxpou, apcra,
t r u e p h i l o s o p h y , w h i c h needs t h e p e r s o n a l i n t e r c o u r s e o f t h e d i a l e c t i c i a n
m e n t d e a l i n g w i t h fcaAöV,
t o p l a n t t h e l i v i n g w o r d i n t h e soul o f t h e listener. T h e second p o i n t m a y
passage w o u l d be o f l i t t l e o r n o v a l u e , i f i t c o n t a i n e d a m e r e c a r i c a t u r e
have been still m o r e i m p o r t a n t for the f u t u r e . T h e Socratic a n d Platonic
o f t h e Sophist's t e a c h i n g . A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , t h e r e is n o l a c k o f t h e u s u a l
a r g u m e n t s are t h e expression o f a g e n e r a l , d e e p l y r o o t e d G r e e k a v e r s i o n
S o c r a t i c i r o n y , b u t a t t h e same t i m e P l a t o , w h o always felt a g e n u i n e
eo-ÖAd?.' T h e w h o l e P l a t o n i c 1
against the w r i t t e n w o r d ; they strengthened this instinctive mistrust i n
respect f o r P r o t a g o r a s , d r a w s a n essentially a d e q u a t e p i c t u r e o f his p r o -
l a t e r ' l i t e r a r y ' ages also a n d t h u s h e l p e d t o p r o m o t e sober ' c r i t i c i s m ' .
c e d u r e . P r o t a g o r a s is s c r u t i n i z i n g a w e l l - k n o w n w o r k o f p r o b a b l y t h e
T h e Greek spirit never became i n c l i n e d t o accept a t r a d i t i o n simply
m o s t f a m o u s p o e t o f his g e n e r a t i o n ( S i m o n i d e s d i e d i n a b o u t 4 6 8 B.C.,
because i t w a s w r i t t e n d o w n i n books. T h e q u e s t i o n w a s asked w h e t h e r i t
P r o t a g o r a s was b o r n i n a b o u t 4 9 0 B.C.) ; h o w clever t o discover j u s t t h e r e
ivavrla
avros avTcp 6
w a s g e n u i n e o r false, a n d t h e desire r e m a i n e d a l i v e t o restore t h e o r i g i n a l
a n o b v i o u s c o n t r a d i c t i o n (339 B
' s p o k e n ' w o r d o f t h e a n c i e n t a u t h o r w h e n i t was o b s c u r e d o r c o r r u p t e d b y
T h i s k i n d o f c r i t i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e poet's single w o r d s a n d t h e i r
a l o n g l i t e r a r y t r a n s m i s s i o n . I f books w e r e a d a n g e r t o t h e h u m a n m i n d ,
p r o p e r m e a n i n g (for e x a m p l e i | i p a t a n d
t h e t h r e a t was a t least d i m i n i s h e d b y Plato's struggle against t h e m ; n o
v i e w t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t m e n t a l t r a i n i n g ; i t is necessary f o r a y o u n g m a n
r e a l ' t y r a n n y ' o f t h e b o o k ever established i t s e l f a m o n g t h e Greeks, as i t
t o b e t r a i n e d i n this w a y because i t helps h i m t o b e c o m e h i m s e l f
d i d i n the o r i e n t a l o r i n the medieval w o r l d .
hrtüv
1
I t remains true t h a t their c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the development o f the book
Aeyet
yeveadat) is
770177717?).
i n t h e Sophist's
-nepl
Setvov.
I n a s i m i l a r w a y P r o t a g o r a s d i s c o v e r e d a n i n c o r r e c t use o f t h e f o r m o f
achievements i n t h e field o f l e a r n i n g , a n d discuss a f e w r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
(iirjuiv aeio«, Bed) i n s t e a d o f t h e w i s h i n t h e first l i n e o f t h e Iliad (Vors. 8 0 A 2 9 ; also 8 0 A 30 o n H o m e r 0 240) ; t h e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d q u o t a t i o n o f t h i s b y A r i s t o t l e (Poet. 19. 1456 b 15) c o n f i r m s i n a w a y t h e
specimens. F o r o u r p u r p o s e , t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f t h e i r a c t i v i t y
a s s u m p t i o n t h a t P l a t o i n t h e passage a b o u t t h e S i m o n i d e a n p o e m does
ipfirjvela
n o t r i d i c u l e P r o t a g o r a s as l o n g as t h e g r e a t Sophist h i m s e l f is s p e a k i n g .
was o n e g e n e r a l service t h e Sophists d i d f o r G r e e k c i v i l i z a t i o n as a w h o l e a n d for future scholarship i n p a r t i c u l a r . W e n o w t u r n t o their i n d i v i d u a l
was t h e ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' o f e a r l y p o e t r y . B u t w a s t h i s r e a l l y a t r u e TOJV
TroLr)Tü~)v?
T h e o n l y s u b s t a n t i a l s p e c i m e n w h i c h s t i l l survives is t h e
explanation o f a monostrophic lyric p o e m o f Simonides b y Protagoras i n Plato's d i a l o g u e
{Prot.
339 A ff. =
Vors. 8 0
A 25) . T h e r e c a n h a r d l y be 2
a n y d o u b t t h a t t h e c h o i c e o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p o e m t o Scopas o n t h e i d e a o f the
avrjp ayaBos
3
was i n t e n t i o n a l , a n d i t is o f t e n said t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d
When Turner, Athenian Books 2 3 ,finisheshis excellent lecture with the flourish: 'By the first thirty years of the fourth century books have established themselves, and their tyranny lies ahead', I part company with him. E . Curtius was right when he stated in his festival speech Wort und Schriß ( 1 8 5 9 ) ( = Alter thum und Gegenwart 1 2 5 5 ) 'immer blieb... eine Stimmung zurück, welche sich gegen die Herrschaß des Buchstabens sträubte'. The custom of reciting poetry and artistic prose remained alive up to the end of antiquity, see E . Rohde, Der griechische Roman (1914) 327 ff.; see also Wilamowitz, Die hellenistische Dichtung 1 (1924) 9 8 . 118, about 'Buchpoesie', and 'Rezitationspoesie'. Cf. Themist. or. 2 3 , p. 3 5 0 . 2 0 Dind. ilptuTayopas.. .rd £ip.oivioov rt Kai SXXtap Tro«ff«tTa i^-nyo^u-evos; a reference to this passage of Themistius (which Schneidewin, Simonidis Cei fragmenta (1835) 16, rightly regards as derived from Plato's dialogue) is missing in Vors. 8 0 A and in M. Untersteiner, Sofisti, Testimonianze e Frammenti 1 ( 1 9 4 9 ) 2 A. We are concerned only with Protagoras' way of expounding the Simonidean text, not with the problems of this text itself; E . Diehl, Anth. lyr. Gr. n* ( 1 9 4 ) 77 ff- Simonid. fr. 4 ( = fr. 5 Bergk) with bibliography; D. L . Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford 1962) 2 8 2 f., 1
3
3
3
2
the c o m m a n d
3
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w h e n Socrates i n h i s extensive r e f u t a t i o n o f P r o t a g o r a s ' a r g u m e n t s gives a series o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i n d e t a i l a n d a n exp l a n a t i o n o f t h e w h o l e (341 E KO.1 TT)V
ßovXrjatv)
}
Siavo€ia8ai
t
344 B
TOV TVTTOV
avrov
T6V oAov
P l a t o i n d u l g e s i n a sort o f s p a r k l i n g p a r o d y o f t h e
Simonid. fr. 37 (an improved text). Further discussions are referred to by P. Friedländer, I i (1957) 1 8 - 2 1 ; 2 7 9 , n. 18. The only paper which concentrates on the interpretation of the poem in the Platonic dialogue by Protagoras and Socrates is that of H . Gundert, 'Die Simonides-Interpretation in Platons Protagoras', Festschriß 0. Regenbogen (Heidelberg 1952) 7 1 - 9 3 ; and only Gundert came to the astonishing conclusion that Plato seems to have been unable to grasp the 'archaic' style of the poem, and to have been unaware of the mistakes he made in its interpretation (p. 92. 3 4 'Die zentralen Mißverständnisse blieben ihm selbst verborgen', cf. p. 82). Simonid. fr. 3 6 Page ( = P.Oxy. 2 4 3 2 ) . I am tempted to conjecture that the lost subject to 1. 1 TO T]« KaXov Kptvtt T6 T* ataxpop was natpos; tcaipas very often occurs in discussions of such ethical notions in Sophistic writing and in later tragedy; see Fr. trag, adesp. 26, p. 844 N . i n Ataaoi X6yoi (Vors. 90. 2. 19) and Wilamowitz, Sappho und Simonides (1913) 178. 1 ; M. Untersteiner, The Sophists (1954) 367, Index v. xatpos. This expression is still used by J . W. H . Atkins, Literary criticism in Antiquity 1 ( 1 9 5 2 ) 4 2 . On Homeric studies in the fifth century B.C. see the useful collection of evidence in H. Sengebusch, Dissertatio Homerica, first printed in Homeri carmina, ed. Dindorf (1855/6) 111 ff. 81*3*2 D Platon
1
3
3 3
3
34
No Allegorical Interpretation
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils (Prot.
35
340 A i f . ) is represented as b o r r o w i n g
t o s h o w t h a t P i n d a r ' s vo/xo? is t h e same ' r i g h t o f t h e s t r o n g e r ' w h i c h h e ,
f r o m another p r o m i n e n t m e m b e r o f t h a t circle, Prodicus, w h o was
Callicles h i m s e l f , c h a m p i o n e d i n his l o n g pijots; a n d w h a t e v e r P i n d a r ' s
S o p h i s t i c ' m e t h o d ' . Socrates
a f e l l o w c o u n t r y m a n o f t h e C e a n p o e t S i m o n i d e s a n d t h e first a u t h o r i t y
v i e w was, h e c o u l d n e v e r h a v e agreed w i t h Callicles. H i p p i a s ( P l a t .
o n ' s y n o n y m s ' ; P r o d i c u s is a p p e a l e d t o f o r a s h a r p d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n w h i c h Protagoras h a d denied, a n d for
Protag. 337 vôfios i n a
tcaicov
163 B) used a h a l f - l i n e o f H e s i o d
the senses o f e/x/ierat a n d
yevdaOai
t h e a b s u r d i d e n t i t y o f xaAe7rdV a n d m a n like Simonides
from
(341 A ) . I n o r d e r t o save a wise
delvai iv
ra
aofian
TO
aXa64tas
t
t o Pindar's line, apparently took
q u i t e d i f f e r e n t w a y as ' c o n v e n t i o n ' .
Op.
311
Critias (Plat.
1
tpyov 8' ovSèv oveiSos
his a r g u m e n t , w h e n h e w a n t e d t o w o r k o u t t h e difference
s i n n i n g a g a i n s t reason, Socrates finally has
recourse t o t h e m o s t v i o l e n t transpositions o f a n a d v e r b
D ) , i n a s h o r t reference
ipydCcadat, irparreiv, a n d notelv i n
(vrrep^arov Set (ixt&v, 345 E,
343 E) a n d o f a n a d j e c t i v e
the manner o f Prodicus.
Charm.
to support between
3
O n e m i g h t suspect t h a t i n e x p l a i n i n g H o m e r t h e Sophists, as e d u c a -
346 E) ; l a t e r g r a m m a r i a n s a n d r h e t o r i c i a n s d e r i v e d t h e n a m e o f t h e
tionalists,
figure
b e g a n w i t h Theagenes i n t h e l a t e r s i x t h c e n t u r y . B u t t h e r e seems to h a v e
' h y p e r b a t o n ' from this passage.
w o u l d h a v e been i n c l i n e d t o f o l l o w t h e ' a l l e g o r i c a l ' l i n e , w h i c h
been o n l y one p h i l o s o p h e r i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y w h o m w e
I t w i l l h a r d l y be possible t o d i s c e r n t h e r e a l i m a g e o f S o p h i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h r o u g h these m a l i c i o u s a n d a m u s i n g S o c r a t i c d i s t o r t i o n s ; b u t
m a y l a b e l w i t h confidence a n allegorist, a p u p i l o f A n a x a g o r a s ,
i f w e c a t c h a likeness o f t h e ' h i s t o r i c ' P r o t a g o r a s a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f his
is r e g a r d e d as useful f o r t h e d i s c i p l i n e o f t h e m i n d o f his p u p i l s . I t is t h i s
(Vors. 6 1 ) . H e e x t e n d e d ' p h y s i c a l ' e x p l a n a t i o n from t h e gods t o t h e heroes Ayap.ip.vova. . . . a i W p a , AxùXèa rp\tov . . . "EKTOpa oeXrjvrjV KTX. (61 A 4 , cf. 2 a n d 3 navra ds dXknyopl pLerdyajv) ; t h e r e is also one reference t o a g r a m m a t i c a l q u e s t i o n (61 A 5 TO V A e i o f ' Suo crnaatvetv (prjot), e x a c t l y as i n t h e case o f Theagenes. I n
e d u c a t i o n a l v a l u e w h i c h t h e P l a t o n i c Socrates m o s t e m p h a t i c a l l y denies
Plato's Ion 530 c M e t r o d o r u s is associated w i t h S t e s i m b r o t u s o f Thasos
a t t h e e n d (347 c i f . ) . O n e c a n n o t q u e s t i o n t h e a n c i e n t p o e t h i m s e l f a n d
a n d a certain G l a u c o n , otherwise not k n o w n ; the 'rhapsode' I o n claims
was n o t a i m i n g a t t h e t r u e r e a d i n g a n d m e a n i n g o f t h e S i m o n i d e a n t e x t ;
4
t h e c r i t i c i s m o f w o r d i n g a n d sense i n w h i c h he displays his o w n s u p e r i o r i t y
Hipp. min.
not
a Sophist, M e t r o d o r u s o f Lampsacus
o w n discussion (339 A i f . ) , t h a t passage is q u i t e sufficient t o s h o w t h a t he
discuss his poems w i t h h i m (cf. also
3
' t o speak so b e a u t i f u l l y a b o u t H o m e r , as n e i t h e r M e t r o d o r u s n o r Stesim-
365 D ) , b u t o n l y t a l k a b o u t
(FGrHist
a g i v e n l i t e r a r y t e x t ; such a t t e m p t s d o n o t l e a d t o t h e t r u t h , b u t result i n
b r o t u s n o r G l a u c o n n o r a n y o n e else c o u l d d o '
a r b i t r a r y o p i n i o n s . B e h i n d t h i s sceptical a t t i t u d e t o t h e S o p h i s t i c i n t e r -
n o t h i n g is said a b o u t a l l e g o r y , w e m u s t n o t i n f e r from t h i s passage t h a t
preters o f t h e w r i t t e n w o r d , t h e r e is i n t h i s e a r l y d i a l o g u e t h e
first
S t e s i m b r o t u s used t h e same m e t h o d as M e t r o d o r u s ; i n t h e f r a g m e n t s o f
sign o f Plato's d i s t r u s t o f p o e t r y i t s e l f as a source o f t r u e w i s d o m o f w h i c h
his b o o k o n H o m e r (F 2 1 - 2 5 ) t h e r e is n o t t h e slightest t r a c e o f a l l e g o r i c a l
we shall hear more later o n .
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . H e is q u o t e d i n o u r S c h o l i a t o t h e
5
1
h i n t s i n Plato's
Protagoras
Theagenes a n d before A n t i m a c h u s o f C o l o p h o n , w h o is attested to h a v e
Gorg. 4 8 4 B ) i n his speech a b o u t ' t h e (vouov . . . rov rr\s 4>vo€w$ 4 8 3 E) refers t o a passage o f 4
a P i n d a r i c p o e m ( f r . 169 Sn.) he is b y n o m e a n s i n t e r e s t e d i n e x p l a i n i n g t h e t e x t . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , he quotes t h e s a y i n g a b o u t t h e
See also Hdt. 111 38. Vors. 84 A 18, registered under the name of Prodicus ; it should be said that Critias is the speaker. Cf. Charm. 163 D; Xenoph. Mem. 1 2, 5 6 . Diog. L . 11 11 (Vors. 5 9 A I and 61 A 2 ) . Even if we could trust Favorinus' statement about Anaxagoras (Sowrti Sè SiKaioavtrns), it would not mean that he explained Homeric poetry as moral allegory (as many people seem to believe including Sandys, Hist, i 3 0 ) , but that hefirstmade known its ethical tendency ; in that respect he would have been a predecessor of Aristophanes, see below, pp. 4 7 f. On new combinations and readings of Pap. Herculan. 1081 and 1676 see J . Heidmann, Der Pap. 1676 der Herculan. Bibliothek (Diss. Bonn 1937) 6 f. and F. Sbordone, 'Un nuovo libro della Poetica di Filodemo', Atti delVAccad. Pontaniana, N.S. rx ( i 9 6 0 ) 252 f. This traditional mistake is particularly stressed by W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur 12(1934) 6 7 8 , and worked out by F. Buffière, Les Mythes d'Homère et la pensée grecque (Paris 1956) 132-6 'L'exégèse allégorique avant les Stoiciens'. 1
2
3
vopLos fiaoiXevs
See below, pp. 58 f. * Basilios Tsirimbas, Die Stelhmg der Sophistik zur Poesie im V. und IV. Jahrhundert bis zu Isokrates (Diss. Miinchen 1936) 53 if. 3 Cf. Vors. 8 6 B dub. about 'prosody' in B 15, *F 328. 4 See E. R. Dodds, Plato: Gorgias (Oxford 1959) 270 S.—P.Oxy. 2450 (published 1961) fr. 1, col. 11 starts with 1. 6 of the Platonic quotation, but it may still be of some help; the numerous references to Pindar's lines are given in extenso by A. Turyn, Pindari Cam. (1948) fr. 187. • M. Gigante, Ndpws fiaotXcSs (1956) 146ff.Tppia e Callicle, interpreti di Pindaro*. 1
a b o u t Nestor's
K r o n o s ; f u r t h e r m o r e , h e is m e n t i o n e d as one w h o w r o t e , l a t e r t h a n
there are
as regards P r o d i c u s a n d H i p p i a s , * b u t n o clear
evidence. W h e n Gallicles ( P l a t . law of nature'
2
Iliad
c u p a n d a b o u t t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e universe b e t w e e n t h e t h r e e sons o f
I t is v e r y l i k e l y t h a t P r o t a g o r a s ' c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a n d f o l l o w e r s i n t h e next generation practised a similar k i n d o f interpretation ;
107 T 3 ) . A s
5
3
4
3
The Sophists^ their Contemporaries and Pupils
36
'Correctness of Diction*
b e e n h i s p u p i l , n o t o n l y o n H o m e r ' s p o e t r y b u t also o n h i s life a n d d a t e .
l i t e r a l sense. W h e n h e discussed
I f t h i s is c o r r e c t , S t e s i m b r o t u s leads us t o a v e r y r e m a r k a b l e figure i n t h e
n o t a t t e m p t i n g t o understand the p r o e m o f the
TroXvTpo-rros
(a
i)
37 1
a t some l e n g t h , h e was
Odyssey b u t t o define t h e
history o f poetry a n d learning, o f w h o m we shall hear later o n , A n t i -
g e n e r a l e t h i c a l m e a n i n g o f t h e c o m p o u n d b y w h i c h t h e figure o f Odysseus
machus o f Colophon.'
is c h a r a c t e r i z e d ; Odysseus' experience i n a l l m a n n e r (Tpo7roi) o f w o r d s is
A t t h e m o m e n t , h o w e v e r , w e h a v e t o l o o k b a c k t o t h e Sophists. I f i t were true that Antisthenes h a d taken over the allegorical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Homer from Metrodorus, allegorist. Antisthenes
3
2
w e s h o u l d a t last h a v e f o u n d a S o p h i s t i c
was a p u p i l o f G o r g i a s a n d i n f l u e n c e d also b y
P r o d i c u s , before h e j o i n e d t h e c i r c l e o f Socrates. W e h a v e a l o n g l i s t o f
t o h i m m u c h s u p e r i o r t o t h e b r u t a l s t r e n g t h o f A j a x (see also his
fictitious
'OSvaoevs). T h e m a i n p o i n t , h o w e v e r , is t h i s : ' t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f w o r d s is t h e b e g i n n i n g o f e d u c a t i o n ' , apxr) rraiSevaecos rj o r a t i o n s Atas
TOJV
oVo/idVaiv
and
2
imo-Ketfiis*
3
A s f a r as w e k n o w t h e l e a d i n g Sophists a n d t h e i r
i m m e d i a t e descendants l i k e A n t i s t h e n e s , n o n e o f t h e m m a y be c o u n t e d as
titles o f books b y h i m o n H o m e r i c subjects ( D i o g . L . v i 17. 1 8 ) , especially
a n a l l e g o r i s t . T h i s is s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h e w h o l e m o v e m e n t a n d n o t u n -
o n t h e Odysseyof w h i c h some q u o t a t i o n s are preserved i n o u r S c h o l i a ;
i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e f u t u r e . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e answer t o o u r q u e s t i o n a t t h e
t h e r e seems t o h a v e b e e n even o n e b o o k
Ileal ' Opvrjpov e^-nyr/rajv. So h e 4
w a s a p p a r e n t l y m u c h c o n c e r n e d w i t h H o m e r a n d his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; i f w e c a n t r u s t D i o C h r y s o s t o m (or. 5 3 . 5
TIcpl 'OpLrjpov), A n t i s t h e n e s w a s t h e
first to m a k e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n 'seeming' a n d ' t r u t h ' i n t h e H o m e r i c p o e m s ( o n TO. fikv
Sogy,
TO.
S*
b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s section m u s t be i n t h e n e g a t i v e : n o t r u e
epp.t]veia
TOJV
tTovnjtav d i d exist. T h e S o p h i s t i c e x p l a n a t i o n s o f p o e t r y f o r e s h a d o w t h e g r o w t h o f a special field o f i n q u i r y , t h e analysis o f l a n g u a g e ; t h e
final
o b j e c t is r h e t o r i c a l o r e d u c a t i o n a l , n o t l i t e r a r y .
aX-qdeta e i p n r a i rw Trotrjrij) w h i c h w a s l a t e r
N o w o n d e r , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e Sophists b e c a m e m o r e efficient i n t h i s
so o f t e n e m p l o y e d t o e x p l a i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n s . S u c h a n e x p l a n a t i o n was
sphere t h a n i n a n y o t h e r o n e . P r o t a g o r a s seems t o h a v e l e d t h e w a y w i t h
necessary, because H o m e r was t o A n t i s t h e n e s a n a u t h o r i t y f o r m o r a l
his c o n c e p t oiopdoeireia
doctrines; he p a i d n o a t t e n t i o n either t o h i d d e n meanings
his f a m o u s b o o k c a l l e d AX-qdeta ' T r u t h ' . H o m e r w a s c r i t i c i z e d f o r c o m -
5
o r to the
See below, pp. 93 f. Antimach, ed. B. Wyss (1936) test. 9 andfr. 1 2 9 ; cf. Callim. fr. 4 5 2 . F. Jacoby in his commentary on Stesimbrotus, 11 Dp. 343. 22, rightly accepts Suidas' testimony about Antimachus (rejected by Wyss, loc. cit., p. iv), and says about Stesimbrotus: 'Von Beruf Rhapsode und im Sinne der Zeit auch Homerphilologe' and p. 349. 17 'verwendet alle Mittel der damaligen Philologie'. We had better avoid the term 'Philologie' for this period. W. Schmid Geschichte d. griech. Lit. r t (1929) 1 %i, 1 2 ( 1 9 3 4 ) 6 7 9 ; Konrad Müller, 'Allegorische Dichtererklärung', RE, Suppl, iv (1924) 17; J . Geffcken, 'Entwicklung und Wesen des griechischen Kommentars', Herrn. 67 (1932) 399 'unerfreuliche Allegoristik'; he even attributes to Antisthenes 'the first real commentary on a writer', namely on Heraclitus, but the Antisthenes who commented on Heraclitus (Diog. L . rx 15 Vors. 22 A 1. 15) has been identified long ago as one of the other three AvnoBeveis mentioned by Diog. L . vi 19, the ' HpcucXeireios: Wissowa, RE 1 2537. 3 6 ; cf. F. Dümmler, Antisthenica (1882) 16 ff.; his acute observations in Gh. 2, *De Homeri sapientia', are partly misleading, esp. p. 24. The right line was taken by D. B. Monro, Homer's Odyssey xm-xxiv (1901) 4 1 2 in his survey of ancient Homeric criticism; J . Tate in two articles on allegorism (see above, p. 10, n. 5) and finally in his vigorous polemics against R. Hoistadt corroborated the statement that 'Antisthenes was not an allegorist' Eranos 51 (1953) 14-22 with detailed arguments. So F. Bumere (1956) did not repeat the old mistake, as he did in the case of Stesimbrotus (above, p. 3 5 , 1
2
5)J There is no recent collection of testimonia and fragmenta: Antisthenis Fragmenta, ed. Aug. Guil. Winckelmann, Zurich 1842, reprinted in Mullach's F. Philos. Gr. u ( I 8 8 I ) , 2 6 I ff.; rhetorical fragments in Art. script, ed. L. Radermacher (1951) B xrx; see also H . Sengebusch, Diss. Horn. (1855/6) 115 ff. about his Homeric studies. See Addenda. * Schol. a 1, « 211 =* j} 257, 1 106, 5 2 5 (critical text in Schräder, Porphyr. Quaest. Horn, in Od. 1 8 9 0 ) ; Diog. L. vi 17 rrepi iinynruiv, irepi 'Op.-qpov codd., corr. Krische, see Schräder, Porphyr. Quaest. Horn, ad 17. {1880) Proleg. p. 3 8 6 . * The ironical remark about vnovouu in the conversation of Antisthenes, Niceratus, and Socrates (Xenoph. Symp. in 6 ) is not made by Antisthenes, but by Socrates when he comments on the ignorance and folly of the rhapsodes who do not know the 'undersenses'.
; h e p o s s i b l y d e a l t w i t h 'correctness o f d i c t i o n ' i n 4
m a n d i n g t h e M u s e i n s t e a d o f p r a y i n g t o h e r , as w e h a v e seen i n t h e r e m a r k s a b o u t ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' . F o r P r o t a g o r a s h a d established t h e r u l e t h a t f o u r classes o f sentences a r e t o be d i s t i n g u i s h e d : ' W i s h ( p r a y e r ) , q u e s t i o n , answer, c o m m a n d ' ,
€vxu>Xrp>, ipcoT-naiv,
airotcpiaw,
SietXe re TOV Xoyov Trpojros els rerTapaivroXyv . . . ovs KOI Trvdp,eva$ eirre Xoyow,
' w h i c h h e c a l l e d also bases ( ' f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s ' L—S) o f speeches'. 1
See above, p. 4 ; cf. Hippias in Plat. Hipp.
min. 364
c,
365
5
B?
Art. script, BXIX 11. 12 Raderm. Antisthenes followed the vulgate version of the epic cycle (Bethe, Homer 11 pp. 165 f. and 170 f.) that Ajax carried the body of Achilles. But there 2
seems to have been another early version, preserved by Ov. met. xin 284 ff. and Schol. «310, in which Odysseus carried the body; this is not an 'error' of the scholiast, pace Bethe who omitted Ovid's testimony. The existence of a different version is confirmed by a fragment of early epic hexameters P.Oxy. xxx ed. E. Lobel (1964) 2510. 13 and 21 in which Odysseus does the carrying of the corpse. » Art. script, B xix 6 ; cf. C . J . Classen, 'Sprachliche Deutung' £ifem<Jfa 22 (1959) 1 7 3 - 6 , on Antisthenes' interpretation of ovo^aTo (with bibliography 173. 6 ) ; see also F. Mehmel, Antike und Abendland iv (1954) 34 f. + See Excursus.
Diog. L . rx 53 f. = Vors. 80 A I = Art. script, B I I I I O . I I . This division into four 'bases' is confirmed by Quintil. inst. in 4. 1 0 : Protagoran... qui interrogandi, respondendi, mandandi, precandi... partes solas putat ( = Art. script. B m 12 ; not in Vors.), olSe els errra in our text of Diog. L . rx 54 (Vors. 11 p. 254, I4f.) does not mean that others said that Protagoras made a division into seven classes; it means that others made an alternative division, and we know from the passage in Quintilian just quoted that Anaximenes did so (Art. script, B in 12 and xxxvi 9 ) . It is a rather disturbing 'Parenthesis' in the text of Diog. L.—Alcidamas (see below, pp. 50 f.) divided sentences into four classes, using other names (B XXII 8 and 9 ) . s
s
38
Prodicus
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
39
W h e n a p o e t is t h i n k i n g o f a p r a y e r t o t h e M u s e , he o u g h t t o e m p l o y t h e
g r a m m a t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , such as Sextus E m p i r i c u s , P.H.
a p p r o p r i a t e expression, a n d n o t t h e expression f o r t h e c o m m a n d : Mrjvtv
2 Mutschmann—Mau)
ctetSe,
Bed.
I n t h e p r o e m o f the
Iliad
to
t h e p o e t is g u i l t y also o f a n i n c o r r e c t
fiijvis ' w r a t h ' o r mJA-nf ' h e l m e t ' is Mrjvtv . . . ovXoptevnv, i n s t e a d o f ovXoptevov^ t h e r e f o r e
o
T« XPoVoff
Xeyerta rpipxpr)s
i n 144 (1, p . 173. ctVat, ' t i m e is said
b e d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e p a r t s ' , past, present, f u t u r e .
1
xpovos i n g e n e r a l ,
I f Protagoras
2
use o f g e n d e r . T h e sense o f w o r d s l i k e
a c t u a l l y reflected o n such a d i v i s i o n o f
clearly masculine;
l e d t o t h e l a t e r d i s t i n c t i o n o f t h e (seven) so-called tenses, j u s t as he poss i b l y p a v e d t h e w a y f o r t h e l a t e r d o c t r i n e o f f o u r m o o d s b y his f o u r
was r e g a r d e d b y P r o t a g o r a s as a n incorrectness o f c o n s t r u c t i o n ; ' h e was a p p a r e n t l y t h e first t o d i v i d e and
Things,
ra
appeva Kal dr]Xea
yev-o r&v ovofidratv
into Males,
this m i g h t have
Females,
species o f sentences.
/catCTKCUT?, a n d t o d e m a n d a s t r i c t o b -
F r o m t h e few i n c o h e r e n t f r a g m e n t s ,
2
some o f t h e m p e r h a p s n o t e v e n
3
servance o f t h i s d i v i s i o n i n t h e use o f g e n d e r a n d e n d i n g o f w o r d s . T h e
g e n u i n e , n o p l a u s i b l e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a t r u e ' t h e o r y ' o f o'pflocVeia is
c o m i c poets r e a d i l y m a d e f u n o f such a n o v e l d o c t r i n e o f t h e correctness
possible. W e h a d b e t t e r l o o k b a c k t o P l a t o ,
o f g e n d e r . T h e r e is n o d o u b t t h a t Socrates i n A r i s t o p h a n e s ' if.) the
3
Clouds ( 6 5 8
r e p r o d u c e s t h e essence o f P r o t a g o r a s ' t e a c h i n g , w h e n he starts w i t h
comprehensively termed
Set ae . . . fiavddvetv . . . drr eorlv opdcus dpp u p i l is i n s t r u c t e d n o t t o use dXetcrpvcov f o r t h e ' h e n ' ,
characteristic w o r d s :
peva. T h e p e r p l e x e d b u t dXeKTpvatva ( 6 6 6 ) ,
because t h i s w o u l d be t h e c o r r e c t f e m i n i n e f o r m
for a f e m a l e a n i m a l , a n d n o t t o say
rr)v KapSorrov,
but
rr)v
Kapbdir-nv
rpvaiva as Clouds 681
w e l l as
Kap8o7rn
are i n v e n t i o n s o f the comic poet
AXUK-
(cf. also
i f . a n d 847 i f . ) , b u t t h e r e are i m p o r t a n t n e w o b s e r v a t i o n s a n d
discussions b e h i n d these p l a y f u l l i n e s . first
339 A, f r o m w h i c h w e
I f o n e has l e a r n e d t o d i s t i n g u i s h w h i c h (opdais)
f o r m e d a n d w h i c h n o t , one
w i l l be a b l e t o a c q u i r e eloquence, w h i c h is t h e c h i e f p a r t o f e d u c a t i o n
(rraiBf-vaews
p-eyiarov
piepos).
N e a r l y a l l t h e b e t t e r - k n o w n Sophists after P r o t a g o r a s m a d e t h e i r o w n c o n t r i b u t i o n s i n t h e l i n g u i s t i c field. T h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
figure
became
P r o d i c u s o f C e o s ; he was t h e c o e v a l o f Socrates ( b o r n 4 6 9 B.C.) a n d a b o u t t w e n t y years y o u n g e r t h a n P r o t a g o r a s .
4
A p p a r e n t l y using the f o r m u l a o f
irpwrov ydp, OJ$ dyqm npo&ucos, nepl ovofMraiv opdorrjTos p.a$etv Bel ( P l a t . Euthyd. 277 E ) , a n d Socrates s a i d rrapd iTpooiKov etbevai rr)v dXrjQeiav nepl ovop^droiv opdornros (Crat.
his g r e a t predecessor, P r o d i c u s d e c l a r e d
W e c a n n o t go a n y f u r t h e r . T h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t P r o t a g o r a s was also the
eveneia.
w o r d s a n d sentences are c o r r e c t l y
(678),
as a w o r d c a n n o t h a v e a m a s c u l i n e t e r m i n a t i o n , i f i t is f e m i n i n e .
Prot.
s t a r t e d ; t h e r e w e a r e t o l d t h e r e a l a i m o f a l l these e n d e a v o u r s w h i c h are
t o d r a w a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e tenses o f t h e v e r b is a r a t h e r
s
u n f o r t u n a t e o n e ; w e h a v e n o special reference o r q u o t a t i o n as w e h a d i n
384 B) ; i t was f o r t h i s d e c l a m a t i o n o n ' t h e correctness o f w o r d s ' t h a t h e
a l l t h e p r e v i o u s cases, b e y o n d t h e s h o r t r e m a r k i n D i o g . L . IX 52
c h a r g e d his listeners t h e u n u s u a l fee o f fifty d r a c h m a i
rrpojTOs
p.ipr\ xpovou Siaipio-e 4
KaX
Katpov Svvap,tv e^edero,
'he
first
Kal dis-
t i n g u i s h e d a n d d e f i n e d ( ? ) p a r t s o f t i m e a n d set f o r t h t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f
xatpos.
W h a t e v e r these m y s t e r i o u s w o r d s m e a n , t h e y d o n o t speak e i t h e r
of the ' v e r b ' (never m e n t i o n e d i n the t r a d i t i o n a b o u t Protagoras) o r the 'tenses'. E v e n i n P l a t o xpovo? n e v e r m e a n s 'tense', b u t a l w a y s
'time'.
5
T h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e r e m a r k a p p e a r s is m o r e o r less c o n c e r n e d w i t h rhetoric,
6
and
natpos seems
t o p o i n t i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n . B u t a n o t h e r
p o s s i b i l i t y is suggested b y a f e w passages i n l a t e r p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d Aristot. Soph, El. 14 p. 173 b 17 aoXot.Kiap.6s (=> Vors. 80 A 28 = Art. script. B ill 7). Aristot. Rhet. in 5 p. 1407 b 6 ( = Vors. 80A 27 = Art. script, B 6). Vors. 80 c 3 = Art. script, B HI 8 with Radermacher's notes.—Aristoph. Nub. 658 ff. are delightfully explained in every detail by J . Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax 11 (1924) 1-5. + Vors. Bp A; 1. M. Untersteiner, I sofisti 1 (1949} 19 'tempi del verbo'; W. Schmid, Gr. Lit. Gesch. 1 3 (1940), 23. 11 'Tempora', etc.; G. P. Gunning, De Sophistis Graeciae pratceptoribus (Diss. Utrecht 1915) 112. 3, gives more bibliographical references; he himself proposes a rather trivial interpretation (a fixed time-table for his lectures) which is, strangely enough, mentioned by Diels-Kranz in their note ad loc. See below, p. 77, See Radermacher's note to Art. script. B in 24. 1 1
3
s
6
Spaxpos €7rt'Sei^ts) .
6
T h e same r a r e expression
opdorrjs
(1)
nevTOKovrd-
is used o n l y o n c e a n d
Cf. the passage about TO. xpovtKa 4mpp^p.ara Ap. Dysc. de adv. p. 123. 21 Schn. TO. ftevrot, Stpp»£ovra TOV xpwov, Koivrjv Se TtaparaaLv SijAomra TOV rravTos xP° (SC. vuv, r}8n) ; Schol. Dionys. Thr., Gr. Gr. m 59 and 97 Hilg. (to § 19 Uhlig), esp. 97. 12 ff. ra xpwa- t'wipp^aTa 1
ov
vov
KaSoXiKov Xpovov
xpovov BijXot fj p.fptKov
OTjXovvra
(orjftepov,
. . .
19 f. r a tcatpav
irapaarariKa,
rourtari
ra.
urrorop^v
avptov).
Diog. L . very liberally credited Protagoras with 'first inventions'; he or his source clearly changed Plato's Euthydem. 286 C, ol aa.j>\ Llptorayopav , . . KOX ol en nuAatOTepoi, into ovros rrpCtras SulXcicrai. So we should not take npuiros Sttuptac too seriously. It is of no use to apply a much later term (see below, p. 202) to his efforts and call him an 'analogist' or to say that, in the universal dispute between ttvais and vop.os, language was to Protagoras a product of human convention (Burnet), or of nature (Gunning); the clear antithesis does not seem to have been fixed before Hippias (below, pp. 53, 63) in the next generation (see also Excursus to p. 37),—There is a charmingly written paper by G. Murray, The Beginnings of Grammar (1931), repr. in Greek Studies (1946) 171-91, but not quite reliable in all its details. * K. v. Fritz, 'Prodikos', RE xxm (1957) 85 ff. The beautiful and enthusiastic paper of F. G. Welcker, 'Prodikos von Keos, Vorgangervon Sokrates', first published in Rh.M. 1832 and 1836, reprinted with Addenda in Kleine Schriflen 11 (1845) 393-541 is still worth reading; on Prodicus' study of language see esp. 452 fT. * Vors. 84 A 16 = Art. script, B VIII 10 with Radermacher's note. Vors. 84A 11 (cf. 12) = Art, script, B VIII 6; cf. below, p. 62, 1
3
6
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Distinction of Synonyms and Dialects
w i t h some emphasis b y A r i s t o p h a n e s , w h e n t h e l a n g u a g e o f E u r i p i d e s '
l i k e ; f o r a h u m o u r (mucus, ' p h l e g m ' s t i l l , i n spite o f Prodicus' protest,
40
p r o l o g u e s is b e i n g tested TOJV 1181).
1
aatv
rrpoXoytuv
T-ijs
rtov CTTWV (Ran. Antigone (fr. 157 i n t h e Frogs (1182 f f . ) as opdornTos
I n t h e t w o lines o f t h e p r o l o g u e o f E u r i p i d e s '
sq. N . ) t w o w o r d s a r e r e j e c t e d b y A e s c h y l u s 2
n o t p r o p e r l y d e s c r i b i n g O e d i p u s ' fate
r)v
. . .
evTuxr/s
2
a n d eZr*
iyevero
c u r r e n t i n E n g l i s h ) o n e s h o u l d say
ßXewa.
41
E v e n i f o n e finds s u c h c o n -
siderations r a t h e r p e d a n t i c , o n e has t o a d m i t t h a t t h e y h a v e n o l o n g e r t h e playful
character
o f previous centuries;
they are n o t philosophical
1
speculations e i t h e r , b u t sober a n d n e w reflections o n p r o b l e m s o f l a n g u a g e .
o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t h e was u n f o r t u n a t e f r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n -
B y d w e l l i n g o n precise d i s t i n c t i o n s o f m e a n i n g , P r o d i c u s w a s l e d t o a n
n i n g . T h e c r i t i c i s m h e r e is n o t o f theform o f w o r d s (as i n t h e ' P r o t a g o r e a n '
awareness o f t h e d i f f e r e n t usage i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f t h e c o u n t r y ; i n t h e
adXtcoroLTos,
Clouds 658
passage o f t h e
f f . ) , b u t o f t h e i r m e a n i n g . So i t is v e r y l i k e l y t h a t
w e get a glimpse o f Prodicus about
%v-iy4veTo
tinction o f
e v e n r e m i n d s us o f t h e h e a t e d d e b a t e a b o u t t h e dis-
and
etvai
i n these lines o f t h e Frogs; t h e r e m a r k
3
i n Plato's
ylyveodai
Protagoras ( 3 4 0 B f f . ) ,
where
course o f t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f S i m o n i d e s ' p o e m , h e u t t e r s t h e c u r i o u s Opinion t h a t Pittacus was n o t able Aeo-ßios
OJV Kal ev
ojvfj
ßapßdpui
ra
ovopLara
reBpapLpievos
. . . (Plat.
opBtüs Statpttv are Prot. 341 C, cf. 346 D ) ,
'as a L e s b i a n a n d g r o w n u p i n a f o r e i g n i d i o m h e c o u l d n o t c o r r e c t l y
Cratylus P l a t o
Socrates finally appeals t o P r o d i c u s . H e w a s t h e a c k n o w l e d g e d a u t h o r i t y
d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e w o r d s ' . I n his
o n t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f k i n d r e d t e r m s ; a l l t h e d i r e c t references i n P l a t o
s i m i l a r Sophistic discussions f r o m a source o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y a b o u t
(Vors. 8 4 A 13-19) i n t h e Frogs. E v e n i f
and Aristotle
are i n complete h a r m o n y w i t h A r i s t o -
%€vu<.d ovouara
phanes' h i n t
t h e r e is a s l i g h t i r o n i c a l e x a g g e r a t i o n i n
different f r o m t h e f a m i l i a r A t t i c f o r m .
2
seems t o b e r e p r o d u c i n g
w h e n he refers t o A e o l i c o r D o r i c w o r d s as ' a l i e n ' , t h a t is, 3
Herodotus, whether influenced 4
Plato's p i c t u r e o f P r o d i c u s ' t e a c h i n g , t h e r e c a n b e n o d o u b t t h a t h e i n
b y h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s l i k e P r o d i c u s o r n o t , w a s a b l e t o observe a c u t e l y
p a r t i c u l a r l i k e d t o d e a l w i t h t w o o r t h r e e d i f f e r e n t w o r d s w h i c h seemed
s u b t l e differences b e t w e e n t h e l a n g u a g e s o f f o u r I o n i c cities (1 142), a n d
t o h a v e t h e same sense ( n o t c a l l e d ' s y n o n y m s ' before A r i s t o t l e , b e l o w ,
t r a v e l l i n g t h r o u g h so m a n y f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s h e m a d e
p . 7 8 ) ; h i s a i m w a s t o s h o w t h e e r r o r i n t h i s a s s u m p t i o n . T h e precise
observations o n l a n g u a g e f o r h i s h i s t o r i c a l conclusions. B u t he a i m e d a t
meaning o f
dpupiaftriTeiv
and
and
iplt,eiv,
of
evtfrpaiveadai
loTopi-q,
n o t a t f o r m a l k n o w l e d g e a n d r h e t o r i c a l p r a c t i c e , as t h e Sophists
d i d . I t was t h e i r w o r k , a n d especially t h a t o f P r o d i c u s , w h i c h a p p a r e n t l y
t h e same t o P r o d i c u s ; b y a s u b t l e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m , c a l l e d
s t i m u l a t e d f u t u r e studies i n t h e field o f yXojooai, as t h e first glossaries w e r e
cWoeo-ts',
c a l l e d i n t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y . I t is h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g t h a t i n A r i s t o p h a n e s '
4
eTridvuetv,
rrotetv,
Trpdrreiv,
epydt,€a6ai
a n d ^Seo-ftu, o f
w a s b y n o means
fiovXeodai
of
use o f such
h e i n s t r u c t e d h i s p u p i l s ' a b o u t t h e c o r r e c t use o f t h e w o r d s ' ,
rrepl ovopbdrajv
opdorrjTos
( w h i c h s h o u l d n o t b e confused w i t h P r o t a g o r a s '
I t has been said
t h a t Prodicus i n t e n t i o n a l l y neglected
a r g u m e n t s f o r his task o f ouupeox?. B u t i n h i s b o o k quoted b y Galen,
6
h e o b j e c t e d t o t h e use o f
IJepl
etymological
vo-€a>$
dvOpatnov,
for 'mucus' (phlegm)
was a n essentially l i t e r a r y m a n , even i f w e c a n
t r u s t t h e t r a d i t i o n a b o u t his p o l i t i c a l m i s s i o n f r o m h i s n a t i v e i s l a n d t o A t h e n s ; i t w a s a l u c k y h i t o f P l u t a r c h ' s t o c o m b i n e t h i s a m i a b l e Sophist a n d t h e l e a d i n g scholar-poet
o f about
i n m e d i c a l l i t e r a t u r e precisely f r o m t h e e t y m o l o g i c a l p o i n t o f v i e w ; as i t is
v a l e t u d i n a r i a n s from t h e i r e a r l y y e a r s :
derived from
TOV
Xiya>
' b u r n , i n f l a m e ' , i t must m e a n ' i n f l a m m a t i o n ' a n d the
rroirjTtjV
. . . vcous" jU.eV, tcryvot)?
3 0 0 B.C., P h i l i t a s , as t y p i c a l
IJpoSiKov TOV oo<j>to-T7)v S e Kal voowBets Kal
1
1
3
6
rj
&iXlrav
TÄ TroAAa
There were also rather wild 'etymological' speculations current in the circle of the socalled Heracliteans, see K. Reinhardt, Parmenides (1916) 241 f. In pre-Hellenistic times 8vup,a}v see Schmid-Stählin, Gr. Lit. Gesch. I I 2 ( 1 9 2 4 ) 1080. Fr. 4 9 0 K. and for his *ilpai as a circulating 'book* Bee above, p. 30. 1
For metrical reasons he said eiriiiv instead of avapAruiv, which would hardlyfitinto the iambic trimeter together with the decisive term 6p86rnr°s and with itpoXoyuw. Modern editors keep the wrong variant reading, evoaiftuiv, in spite of the protest of Nauck, TGF ( 1 8 8 9 ) , Add. p. xxv, and Wilamowitz, Aischylos-Interpretationen ( 1 9 1 4 ) 8 t . r. L . Spengel, Ewwytuyri revvoiv ( 1 8 2 8 ) 4 1 , first compared Ran. 1181 with the references by Plato to Prodicus; but he confused the issue in so far as he identified the opOo-rns ovou.ara)v of Prodicus with Protagoras' opQoi-neia and was followed by others. + Vors. 8 4 A 1 7 - 1 9 ; see also Plat. Prot. 3 5 8 A n)c Si LTpootKov rovSe Staiptaiv TWV avopd-raiv •napa.i-rovu.ai, ibid. 341 c, and Radermacher's notes on Art. script, B VIII to and 11.—A complete list of Prodicus' synonyms is given by Hermann Mayer, Prodikos von Keas unddie Anjange der Synonymik (Diss. Munchen 1913) 2 2 ff. * W. Schmid, Gr. Lit. Gesch. 1 3 ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 4 6 . 8 . Vors. 8 4 B 4 ; Galen himself wrote three books IJepi ovoua.ra>v ipBdrrfros.
6
gibes i t is P r o d i c u s ' n a m e t h a t t u r n s u p as t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t o a b o o k : rj
ßtßXtov ., . rj ripoSiKos. H e
p u r e l y ' f o r m a l ' opBoerreia). 5
5
a
1
4
8
6
6
42
Democritus'' Universality
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
43
appajmiav ovras (an seni 15, p . 791 E } . T h e p i c t u r e o f P r o d i c u s as a w e a k l i n g seems t o b e t a k e n o v e r from P l a t o (Prot. 315 D ) ,
explanations.
b u t i t m i g h t have been o r i g i n a l l y derived f r o m a contemporary comic
p o e t r y a n d prose a n d a n o p e n m i n d also f o r g e n e r a l questions o f l a n g u a g e .
p o e t , as i t w a s c e r t a i n l y t h e n e w c o m e d y
T o j u d g e from o u r scanty e v i d e n c e , h e h a r d l y w e n t b e y o n d t h e steps m a d e
KAIVOTT€T€IS
SL
1
that made f u n o f Philitas'
1
Democritus was a n ingenious i n n o v a t o r o f philosophical 2
language himself; he must have h a d a n i n t i m a t e knowledge o f earlier
b y t h e g r e a t Sophists, a n d I a m i n c l i n e d t o suspect t h a t i n t h i s f i e l d t h e
frailty. O n e o f the foremost I o n i c philosophers i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e f i f t h
i m p u l s e c a m e f r o m t h e i r side. B u t w h i l e t h e Sophists used t o c o n c e n t r a t e
c e n t u r y , D e m o c r i t u s , w a s a n a t i v e o f A b d e r a l i k e Protagoras a n d a c o e v a l
on individual problems,
o f P r o d i c u s a n d Socrates ( a b o u t 4 6 5 - a b o u t 3 7 0 B . C . ) ; a g r e a t t r a v e l l e r ,
sidered a l l o f t h e m i n t u r n . H e w a s n o t r e a l l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h e i t h e r t h e
he said o f h i m s e l f : ' I c a m e t o A t h e n s — a n d n o o n e r e c o g n i z e d m e . '
2
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f H o m e r o r r h e t o r i c a l t r a i n i n g i n t h e service o f e d u c a t i o n ,
P l a t o never m e n t i o n s D e m o c r i t u s , t h o u g h h e tells us so m u c h a b o u t his
b u t w i t h his o w n p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s . So h e w a s pleased t o detect a n
c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . A m o n g s t his w r i t i n g s , w h i c h c o v e r e d n e a r l y e v e r y f i e l d
epic l i n e i n w h i c h his o w n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f vovs a n d
o f k n o w l e d g e , t h e r e w a s a s m a l l section c a l l e d catalogue,
3
after
rjdtKa,
d^at/ca,
MovatKa i n T h r a s y l l u s '
e t c . A r i s t o t l e a g a i n a n d a g a i n refers t o
D e m o c r i t u s ' v i e w s o n physics o r ethics, b u t never t o t h i s l i t e r a r y section. I t s t i t l e a n d those o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l w o r k s ,
ITtpi TtoL-qaios,
KTX,
IJepl pv8p.thv
are d e r i v e d f r o m t h e T J n w e ?
4
KOI
appovi-qs,
o f the A l e x a n d r i a n
Democritus' universal spirit apparently con-
3
4
fax ] 7
was
anticipated,
as A r i s t o t l e r e p o r t e d (68 A 1 0 1 ) ; his g e n e r a l l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y (68 B 2 6 , 5
a b a d l y c o r r u p t e d passage o f Proclus) m a y w e l l have b e e n
connected
w i t h his c o n c e p t o f t h e o r i g i n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f c i v i l i z a t i o n as expressed i n his p r i n c i p a l w o r k o n Physics, t h e
MiKp6$ cUafcocr/xo?. S u r e l y there is n o 6
reason t o say t h a t D e m o c r i t u s f o r e s h a d o w e d A l e x a n d r i a n scholarship o r
l i b r a r y a n d preserved o n l y i n D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s ; n o n e o f t h e f e w l a t e r
even t o p r o c l a i m h i m as t h e ' A l t m e i s t e r unserer Wissenschaft',
writers w h o quoted a D e m o c r i t e a n saying o n poetry, language, o r c r i t i -
most fervent a d m i r e r d i d .
as his
7
c i s m a t t r i b u t e d i t t o o n e o f these b o o k s ; t h e a t t r i b u t i o n s o f t h e respective
W h e n w e n o w t u r n t o questions o f l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , w e s h o u l d expect
f r a g m e n t s i n o u r m o d e r n collections are m a d e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e subjects
t o discover i n t h e Sophists a n e w a t t i t u d e t o epic p o e t r y . I n t h e s i x t h
o f t h e sayings a n d a r e therefore q u i t e a r b i t r a r y . W e c a n n o t e v e n be
c e n t u r y t h e a c t i v i t y o f t h e rhapsodes was v e r y l i v e l y , a n d i t c o n t i n u e d i n t o
c e r t a i n t h a t g e n u i n e D e m o c r i t e a n expressions w e r e used f o r t h e h e a d -
t h e fifth c e n t u r y .
ings. D e m o c r i t u s ' k n o w l e d g e o f t h e ' p h i l o s o p h y ' o f his f e l l o w t o w n s m a n
r e g a r d e d as t h e w o r k s o f one poet, c a l l e d H o m e r . T h e earliest w r i t e r o f
Protagoras is attested b y his p o l e m i c s against i t (68 A 114, B 1 5 6 ) ; so w e
elegiacs t h a t w e k n o w , C a l l i n u s o f Ephesus, i n t h e first h a l f o f t h e seventh
should very m u c h like t o k n o w i f Democritus borrowed f r o m h i m the
c e n t u r y ascribed t o h i m e v e n t h e epics o n t h e T h e b a n w a r s ;
i m p o r t a n t t e r m onfWn-eia
:
5
Ilepi 'Opvrjpov rj opBoeireirjs
/eat
yXtooacwv
8
I t looks as i f a l l o r m o s t o f t h e n a r r a t i v e epics were
9
i n the
p o p u l a r story-books o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y a b o u t t h e life o f H o m e r a n d
(68 A 3 3 , x i 1 = B 2 0 a ) . T h e w o r d i n g o f this t i t l e suggests a d i s t i n c t i o n
a b o u t his contest w i t h H e s i o d h e is t h e m a k e r o f a r e m a r k a b l e n u m b e r o f
b e t w e e n a ' s t r a i g h t ' epic d i c t i o n a n d t h e obsolete w o r d s n e e d i n g e x p l a n a -
poems, m a i n l y o n t h e T r o j a n w a r , b u t also o n The Afterborn, t h e 'EnLyovoi
t i o n ; this w o u l d b e n o s t a r t l i n g n o v e l t y , as t h e correctness o f H o m e r ' s use
i n t h e T h e b a n wars, a n d o n t h e
o f t h e G r e e k l a n g u a g e a n d t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f his r a r e vocables w e r e discussed a t least f r o m t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y o n . I n his a d m i r a t i o n o f H o m e r ' s 6
d i v i n e genius a n d i n s p i r e d p o e t r y h e is o n t h e side o f Theagenes a n d t h e rhapsodes against X e n o p h a n e s
a n d Heraclitus; but i n conformity with
his Sophistic c o n t e m p o r a r i e s h e seems t o h a v e a b s t a i n e d f r o m a l l e g o r i c a l 1
N o t m e n t i o n e d i n Vors. o r i n Art. script.;
cf. Pkiletae
Coi reliquiae,
ed. G . Kuchenmiiller
( D i s s . B e r l i n 1927) test. 14, cf. test. 15 a-b, t 6 a n d p . 2 2 ; see below, p . 9 1 . 2
Vors. 6 8 B 1 1 6 ; D e m e t r . P h a l . fr. 9 3 , W e h r l i , Die Sckule
des Aristoteles
D e m o c r i t u s and A t h e n s . O . R e g e n b o g e n , v . Hiva$,
RE x x (1950) 1441 f.
i S e e a b o v e , p . 3 7 , a n d Excursus 6
S e e a b o v e , p p . 11 f,
I n this p o i n t I agree w i t h R . P h i l i p p s o n , D e m o c r i t e a I . ' D . als H o m e r a u s l e g e r ' , Herm. 6 4 (1929) 166 ff. 1
2
K . v . F r i t z , Philosophic
on
op6o4w€ia,
und sprachlicher
Ausdruck
bei Demokrit,
Plato
und Aristoteles
(New York
1938) 2 4 ff. 3
O n P r o t a g o r a s see a b o v e , p . 4 2 , o n P r o d i c u s p . 4 1 , n . 5 , o n H i p p i a s p . 5 3 , n . 5 .
4
C f . A r i s t o t . de gen. et corr. 315 a 34
«foi«re . . . ncpl
5
C f . below, p . 5 9 , n . 2 ( P l a t . Crat.)
a n d p. 79, n . 2 (Aristotle).
6
68 B 4 c ff.; D i e l s s h o u l d not h a v e followed K . R e i n h a r d t i n p r i n t i n g the w h o l e o f D i o d .
andvTUiv
tppovriaai
(68
A
35).
1 7 a n d 1 8 as excerpts f r o m D e m o c r i t u s ; b u t w e c a n n o t go i n t o the details o f the endless 4 (1949} 6 4 , o n
dispute. O n t h e objections to R e i n h a r d t , ' H e k a t a i o s v o n A b d e r a u n d D e m o k r i t o s ' , Herm. 47 (1912)
» Vors. 6 8 A 3 3 , x a n d x i ; B 15 c - 2 6 a . ( ' P h i l o l o g i s c h e Schriftcn.*) 4
Taking of Oechalia. A t t h e same t i m e
4 9 2 ff. = Vermdchtnis
Poseidonios', Sits.
Ber. Osterr.
der Antike Akad.,
( 1 9 6 0 ) i i 4 f f . , s e c G . Pfligersdorffer, ' S t u d i e n zu
P h i l . - h i s t . K l . 2 3 2 ( 1 9 5 9 ) 5 . A b h . , 100 ff.
7
H . D i e l s , first i n t h e y e a r 1880, r e p e a t e d i n 1899 a n d 1910, see MJb 2 5 (1910) 9 .
8
S e e a b o v e , p p . n ff. a n d 3 5 .
• C a l l i n . fr. 6 B.« ( = P a u s . rx 9 . 5 ) , see E . B e t h e , Thebanische
Heldenlieder
(1891) 147.
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
44
T h e a g e n e s w r o t e a b o u t H o m e r ' s life a n d p o e t r y ,
1
Gorgias: Problems of Style
b u t we do not k n o w
from
t h e rest.
1
45
I n v a i n we look r o u n d for more. W i l a m o w i t z ' s
reference
2
h o w f a r h e c o n n e c t e d a l l these epics w i t h h i m . I n t h e g r e a t c o m p e t i t i o n s
t o S t e s i m b r o t u s a n d H i p p i a s o f Thasos, n o t r e p e a t e d i n this c o n n e x i o n
a t t h e P a n a t h e n a i c f e s t i v a l n o t o n l y o u r t w o preserved e p i c p o e m s w e r e
i n his l a t e r books, does n o t h e l p . W e h a d occasion t o m e n t i o n t h e f r a g -
r e c i t e d , b u t m a n y others i n p r o p e r o r d e r . S i m i l a r l y , i n t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y
m e n t s o f S t e s i m b r o t u s ' b o o k o n H o m e r w h e n w e spoke o f a l l e g o r i s m ;
A e s c h y l u s ' famous s a y i n g t h a t his tragedies are 'slices f r o m t h e
h e d i d n o t d e a l w i t h ' f o r m a l offences' i n d i f f e r e n t epic poems, b u t o n l y
banquets o f H o m e r '
2
great
refers t o t h e mass o f epic n a r r a t i v e p o e m s , a n d t h e
same is m e a n t b y t h e w r i t e r w h o d e s c r i b e d
w i t h t h e contents o f some passages o f t h e
Iliad.
Hippias
3
proposed
two
Sophocles, t h e ^tAop^poy, as
r e a d i n g s i n B 15 a n d i n W 328 as solutions ( A i W ? ) o f r a t h e r o d d t e x t u a l
' d e l i g h t i n g i n t h e epic c y c l e ' , from w h i c h he d e r i v e d m o s t o f his p l o t s , as
p r o b l e m s q u o t e d o n l y b y A r i s t o t l e ; t h e r e is n o reason w h y he s h o u l d be
3
4
E u r i p i d e s d i d after h i m . W h o finally s t a r t e d t o e x a m i n e t h a t e n o r m o u s l y
assigned t o t h e fifth c e n t u r y , a n d he o b v i o u s l y d i d n o t c o n c e r n h i m s e l f
r i c h epic p r o d u c t i o n a n d t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n t h e single p o e m s a n d
w i t h r e l a t i o n s o f epic p o e m s t o e a c h o t h e r .
t h e i r respective poets ?
A t first i t m a y be u n e x p e c t e d a n d s o m e h o w d i s a p p o i n t i n g t h a t i n t h e
I f w e consult W i l a m o w i t z , w h o m a d e the most p e n e t r a t i n g inquiries i n t o t h i s p r o b l e m as a w h o l e , w e m e e t a n u m b e r o f h i g h f l o w n c o n c e p t s : 4
' D a s fünfte J a h r h u n d e r t b e s c h r ä n k t w e s e n t l i c h
aus künstlerischem
Urteil
age o f t h e Sophists n o d i s t i n c t traces c a n be f o u n d o f t h a t
npiais rrot^d-
T w v , w h i c h was t o be r e g a r d e d as ' t h e finest flower o f s c h o l a r s h i p ' i n t h e 5
best H e l l e n i s t i c t i m e s . O n second t h o u g h t s , h o w e v e r , w e m a y f i n d t h i s
( t h e i t a l i c s are m i n e ) seinen [ H o m e r ' s ] N a c h l a s s a u f I l i a s , Odyssee u n d
result i n h a r m o n y w i t h t h e g e n e r a l l i n e w e t o o k t h a t t h e Sophists s h o u l d
M a r g i t e s . ' B u t , i n f a c t , t h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e t o b e f o u n d o f t h e ' h i g h e r
n o t be r e g a r d e d as 'pioneers o f s c h o l a r s h i p ' . T h e s t u d y o f epic p o e t r y
c r i t i c i s m ' t o w h i c h he refers, o r t h e ' e x a m i n a t i o n o f p o e t i c a l v a l u e ' , o r t h e
o n l y subserved t h e i r r h e t o r i c a l a n d e d u c a t i o n a l a s p i r a t i o n s .
'essentially a r t i s t i c j u d g e m e n t ' .
5
T h e o n l y a u t h o r whose c r i t i c a l observa-
T h e f o r e m o s t stylist was t h e S i c i l i a n G o r g i a s f r o m L e o n t i n i , a n d he
t i o n s w e c a n s t i l l r e a d is H e r o d o t u s , w h o s i m p l y n o t i c e d (11 116) t h e dis-
h a d also a n i n c l i n a t i o n t o t h e o r i z e o n stylistic p r o b l e m s .
crepancy between the account o f Paris' a n d Helen's route f r o m
Sparta
b e g i n n i n g o f t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y a n d t h u s c o e v a l o f P r o t a g o r a s , he is said t o
Iliad Cypria;
was p a i d o n l y i n 427 B.C., after P r o t a g o r a s a n d P r o d i c u s h a d s t a r t e d t h e i r
t o T r o y i n the
(Z
Cypria
( f r . 12 A l l e n — f r . 10 Bethe) a n d t h a t i n t h e
289 f f . ) a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y d e n i e d H o m e r ' s a u t h o r s h i p o f t h e
Epigonoi ( i v p o e m ' (Epig.
6
B o r n at the
h a v e r e a c h e d t h e age o f 105 o r e v e n 109 y e a r s ; b u t his first v i s i t t o A t h e n s
s p e a k i n g o f the H y p e r b o r e a n s i n H o m e r ' s
32) h e c a u t i o u s l y
a c t i v i t y t h e r e . T h e final object o f t h e i r t e a c h i n g was, as w e h a v e p o i n t e d
added ' i f Homer
fr. 3 Allen). T h e
o u t , t o e d u c a t e (•Trai.cWuai') each p u p i l b y m a k i n g h i m
6
r e a l l y m a d e t h i s epic
irepl ETTOJV cWöV whole emphasis o n t o t h e r h e t o r i c a l s t a t e m e n t (Meno 95 c Setvovs Aeyeiv, Gorg.
h i s t o r i a n asks i f t h e t r a d i t i o n o f epic p o e t r y is t r u s t w o r t h y ; a s t r i c t l y
(Prot.
l o g i c a l discussion o f H e l e n ' s s t o r y (11113-20) discovers c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a n d
t r a i n i n g , a c c o r d i n g t o Plato's
leads t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e I l i a d i c t a l e a b o u t H e l e n i n T r o y
H . Diels, NJb. 25 ( 1 9 1 0 ) 13, considerably over-estimated the merits of Herodotus ('der zuerst . . . mit Glück den echten und den unechten Homer abzugrenzen suchte . . . die höchste Stufe der philologischen Kritik . . . im V. Jahrhundert', etc.). Horn. Untersuch. 3 6 6 ; after mentioning Herodotus' passage on the disagreement of Iliad and Cypria in a point of subject-matter he continues: 'Formelle Anstöße muß selbst die kindliche Philologie der Thasier Stesimbrotus und Hippias genommen haben.* On Stesimbrotus see above, p. 35. F . A. Wolf, Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795) CLXVIII. 'Hippias, acumine artibus Loyolae digno' owes his modern fame to the whole page which F. A. Wolf dedicated to him in his small volume. + Aristot. Poet. 25 p. 1461 a 22 and Soph. El. 4 p. 166 b 1 ff.; on the details of these two passages see the commentaries on the Poetics; on AvWs and XVTIKOL see below, pp. 6 9 ff. Dionys. Thr. I p. 6 . 2 Uhl. tcptots rroir}p.aroiv, o Si) KIIXXIOTOP eon iravrojp -rdv iv rjj Ti*yV1J. Vors. 82 AB; Art. script, B VII. One would not expect to find a book of his entitled 'OvoHaoTiriv, though it is ascribed to ropytq. r$ oo^orfj by Poll, ix praef. and quoted 1 145 (iirtßoXos = ep.ßoXos 'peg', not in L - S under c°-nißoXos); cf. C. Wendel, RE xvm (1939) 507. There is no reference to this 'Ovo/ia<m*w by Diels-Kranz or Radermacher; it should have been mentioned under Dubia or Falsa. Gorgias the Athenian FGrHist 351 who wrote ilepi eratpaiv might be the author; see below, p. 2 0 8 , n. 6.
was
w r o n g a n d t h a t t h e E g y p t i a n s k n e w b e t t e r . T h e r e is n o c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e l i t e r a r y q u a l i t i e s o f d i f f e r e n t epics i n o r d e r t o separate t h e best p o e m s 1 2
Sec above, p. 11. Athen, vra 347 E = test.
47,
Aesch. ed. Wilamowitz
1914,
p.
16 rtp.dx"
T t 3 v
'Ou-ypov
p,eydXoiv Sevrrvtav.
Athen, vn
277
Homer, Origins and Transmission
2
3
E = test. adl. 9 4 Vitae, Soph. El. ed. Iahn-Michaelis (1882) 20 exaipe... TiS emKÜ KVKX
1
1
(1924) 51, 75.
* Die Ilias und Homer ( 1 9 1 6 ) 3 6 5 ; cf. Platon 1 (1919) 71 (about thefifthcentury): 'Auch die höhere Kritik, die Prüfung der Gedichte auf ihren Wert [italics are mine] und ihr Alter wagt sich hervor und hat den Erfolg, daß dem Homer alle heroischen Epen außer Ilias und Odyssee abgesprochen werden.' Cf. H . Diels, NJb 1910, 13. « Cf. Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi 15 p. 4 3 . 1 Wil. Vitae Horn. = Allen, Horn, v p. 2 3 5 , 1 . 2 6 0 'Emydvovs . . . <paoi yap rives' ical ravra 'Op.^pov clvat.
s
6
338 n ) ; i f G o r g i a s shifted t h e
46
Gorgias and Aristophanes
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
t o G o r g i a s o r t o o t h e r c o n t e m p o r a r y Sophists. B u t t h e r e s u l t o f l e a r n e d
4 5 9 c f f . ) , a n d d i d n o t expressly c l a i m t o b e a n e d u c a t i o n a l i s t , w e m a y
investigations
s t i l l r e g a r d h i m as b e l o n g i n g t o t h e w i d e r c i r c l e o f t h e S o p h i s t i c m o v e ment.
W e have noticed
2
from
a n e w prose-style,
Atrats
Kai ev)(CüÄ7) ireAev av8pojv' a.7retAai Kai ei^ai? olp-atyai (B 27 = T€
}
o n e o f h i s lost model-speeches. a descendant
o f Musaeus
4
Schol. T
Topylas' avepbiayovTo
B v i i 43), q u o t e d perhaps f r o m
Somewhere
h e r e f e r r e d t o H o m e r as
(B 2 5 ) , n o t o f O r p h e u s . T h e themes o f h i s
d e c l a m a t i o n s , o r i g i n a l l y epic subjects, h a d been r e c e n t l y t r e a t e d b y a l l t h e A t t i c t r a g e d i a n s , a n d G o r g i a s ' a r t i s t i c prose is m u c h m o r e i n d e b t e d t o t h e m t h a n t o e a r l i e r p o e t r y . B u t b e y o n d s t y l i s t i c devices G o r g i a s seems to have h a d a q u i t e n e w a n d personal interest i n t h e tragic d r a m a . N o p r o n o u n c e m e n t s e i t h e r o f t h e o t h e r Sophists o r o f H e r o d o t u s o r D e m o critus are extant about t h e great contemporary A t t i c G o r g i a s , s p e a k i n g a b o u t Aeschylus,
against Thebes
poetry; only
c a l l e d o n e o f his p l a y s , t h e
Seven
fiearov Äpea>s (B 2 4 ) . T h e same phrase occurs i n A r i s t o p h a n e s ' Frogs 1021 Spä/xa troi^aas Äpeojs p-eorov.—rrotov; —roils "ETTT* €TTL 0-rjßas, w h e r e i t is s p o k e n b y Aeschylus h i m s e l f t o 'full o f Ares',
5
D i o n y s u s . C h r o n o l o g i c a l l y , i t is j u s t possible t h a t G o r g i a s , w h o s u r v i v e d t h e e n d o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y b y a b o u t t e n years, t o o k t h e w o r d s o u t o f t h e comedy,
produced i n 405.
6
B u t apparently i n Plutarch's
Peripatetic
source o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y G o r g i a s w a s s a i d t o h a v e c o i n e d t h e felicitous p h r a s e ; i f w e a c c e p t t h i s t r a d i t i o n (as w e a r e b o u n d t o d o i n such cases), A r i s t o p h a n e s m u s t h a v e b o r r o w e d t h e expression f r o m G o r g i a s . I t is also m u c h m o r e p l a u s i b l e t h a t t h e A r i s t o p h a n i c Aeschylus
used a f a m o u s
phrase f a v o u r a b l e t o h i m s e l f t h a n t h a t G o r g i a s q u o t e d
Aristophanes
v e r b a t i m . I t is q u i t e l e g i t i m a t e t o raise t h e f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r A r i s t o p h a n e s owes a n y t h i n g else i n bis l i t e r a r y statements o r j u d g e m e n t s 1 1
und 3
4
On this question and the position of Gorgias see E . R. Dodds, Plato: Gorgias Gf. Gorgiae Helena, recogn. et interpretatus est O. Immisch (Kleine Texte für Übungen 158 [ 1 9 2 7 ] ) , with a very useful commentary. Vors. 31 A 1 § 5 8 ; see also above, p. 14. B 17 = B vn 19 and B 14 = BVU I .
* See
&-10. Vorlesungen
Excursus.
This view was vigorously championed by O. Immisch, 29 f.; but see Radermacher's review, Pkilol. Wochenschrift 1928, 5 ff. 6
Frogs
1021. A p a r t
b u t they have n o manifest parallels i n
(de glor. Ath. 5 , p . 348 c, cf. de aud. poet. p . 15 D) G o r g i a s is q u o t e d as s a y i n g : 7) TpaytvSla . . . napaoxovGa rots p.vdois Kai rots irddeaiv ditdrrnv, ws Popylas (Vors. 82 B 23) tjrnalv, fjv (i)v 15 n : ijv 34^ *-0 °* aTrarriaas oiKaioTepos TOV p.7] diraTrjo-avTos (cf. Aiaaol Aoyot 3 . 10, Vors. 9 0 , I I , p . 4 1 1 . 1) / c a t o ctTrar^öti? croojT€pos TOV pvr) aTTarqdevTos, ' t r a g e d y . . . b y ( t h e d i s p l a y o f ) m y t h s a n d passions has A r i s t o p h a n e s ' comedies. I n P l u t a r c h
f r o m a l i n e o f t h e Iliad a n d a m p l i f i e d i t b y a second o n e : A 450 evda S' dp? 1
o f contact w i t h Gorgias i n
a r t i s t i c prose a r e preserved,
T h e H o m e r i c Scholia
c o n t a i n a t least one e x a m p l e s h o w i n g h o w h e t o o k o v e r o n e antithesis
olfiwyr)
one p o i n t
t h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f a single t r a g e d y , some casual statements o f
Gorgias o n tragic a r t a n d o n poetic a r t i n general a n d its r e l a t i o n t o
r i v a l l i n g t h e p o e t r y o f t h e past, a n d t h u s show h i m s e l f a w o r t h y d i s c i p l e 3
a n d clever c o m b i n a t i o n s does n o t a m o u n t t o m o r e t h a n
Aeschylus a n d E u r i p i d e s a r e n o t e n t i r e l y A r i s t o p h a n e s ' o w n i n v e n t i o n s .
-naiyvia o f G o r g i a s preserved t o us, t h e Praise of Helen (Vors. 82 B 1 1 = Art script, B v n 39) a n d the Defence of Palamedes T h e t w o rhetorical
o f his f e l l o w c o u n t r y m a n , t h e p o e t E m p e d o c l e s .
1
t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e w o r d s a n d ideas i n t h e g i g a n t i c contest b e t w e e n
1
(B 11 a = B v i i 4 4 ) , r e v e a l h i s eagerness t o create
47
Se
T>
caused a deceit s u c h t h a t h e w h o deceives is j u s t e r t h a n h e w h o does n o t a n d t h e d e c e i v e d is wiser t h a n t h e o n e w h o is n o t d e c e i v e d ' . T h i s m a y b e a serious, n o t a n i r o n i c a l , r e m a r k o n a r t p r o d u c i n g ' i l l u s i o n s ' . W h e n
ws aAal&v KOI a£ OLOIS r e rovs Beards / Ran. 9 0 9 ) , h e s i m p l y means t h a t h i s a d v e r s a r y is a n
E u r i p i d e s charges Aeschylus,
e^ndra
(Aristoph.
i m p o s t o r a n d l i a r w h o cheats h i s a u d i e n c e ; such a r e p r o a c h ( o f ifievSos) is characteristic o f l i t e r a r y polemics a n d parodies f r o m early times, n o t a c o m i c d i s t o r t i o n o f a supposed S o p h i s t i c ' d o c t r i n e ' o f i l l u s i o n i s m . I n t h i s case, t h e r e is n o r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n G o r g i a s a n d A r i s t o p h a n e s . W e h a v e o b s e r v e d t h a t p o e t r y i t s e l f p a v e d t h e w a y t o its u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a n d poets n a t u r a l l y w e r e t h e c o m p e t e n t c r i t i c s o f p o e t r y ; t h i s p a r t i c u l a r l y applies t o d r a m a t i c c r i t i c i s m .
2
I t is o n e o f t h e i m p o r t a n t t o p i c s o f
O l d C o m e d y f r o m i t s b e g i n n i n g , a n d A r i s t o p h a n e s is t o b e r e g a r d e d as 3
t h e greatest h e i r o f t h i s t r a d i t i o n . W e h a v e b e e n able t o use some single lines o f A r i s t o p h a n e s i n o r d e r t o find o u t w i t h t h e i r h e l p h o w t h e Sophists s t a r t e d t o i n t e r p r e t e a r l y p o e t r y o r t o reflect o n l a n g u a g e ; i t is l i k e l y t h a t M. Pohlenz, 'Die Anfänge der griechischen Poetik', NGG 1920, Phü.-hist, Klasse, ff., tried to prove that Aristophanes used a theoretical book of Gorgias, which contained a syncrisis of Aeschylus and Euripides. Even if this conclusion cannot be accepted, the article offers a valuable collection of relevant passages from the fourth and fifth centuries and started a very lively discussion. Wilamowitz, Radermacher, W. Kranz, M. Untersteiner (The Sophists, Engl, transl. 1954, with a useful bibliography 192 f.), W. Schadewaldt, E . Fraenkel, and others took part in it; Pohlenz, Herrn. 8 4 (1956) 7a f. **= Kl. Sehr. I I 5 8 5 f., quite amiably retracted a good deal of his own overstatements. Regarding the judges who made the decision in dramatic contests, A. Pickard¬ Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (1953) 9 8 , dryly remarks: 'That there was any demand for critical capacity seems unlikely.' So these Kpna.1 do not concern us. A. E . Roggwiller, Dichter und Dichtung in der attischen Komödie (Diss. Zürich 1 9 2 6 ) , collected the material rather inadequately (see E . Wüst, Philol. Wochenschr. 1927, 1137ff.);W. Schmid, Gesch. d. griech. Lit. 1 4 (1946) 11, 13, 2 1 , 209, etc. 1
1 4 2 - 7 8 = Kleine Schriften 11 (1965) 4 3 6
1
3
48
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Gorgias' Pupils, Isocrates and Alcidamas
49
A r i s t o p h a n e s a d o p t e d m o r e t o p i c s f r o m c o n t e m p o r a r y discussions t h a n
d e c l a m a t i o n w i t h t h e s o l e m n p r o p o s i t i o n (Hel.
t h e single phrase o f G o r g i a s o n A e s c h y l u s , b u t w e s h o u l d n o t t a k e t h e r i s k
earlv,
o f t r a n s f e r r i n g his l i t e r a r y j u d g e m e n t s b y m e r e c o n j e c t u r e b a c k t o o n e o r
r e m o v e g r i e f a n d t o effect j o y a n d t o increase l a m e n t i n g ' , SuVarai yap
ov
o t h e r o f t h e Sophists. H e h a d his o w n ideas a n d his o w n c r e a t i v e l a n g u a g e ;
8) Xoyos owaorrjs
1
/icyas
'logos is a m i g h t y r u l e r . . . i t has t h e p o w e r t o stop fear a n d t o Travaai
adWAefi' /cat
/cat XVTFQV
/cat
xapav evepyaaaadai /cat ZXeov €7Tav£rjoat.
a n d i t is j u s t i n t h i s aesthetic field t h a t expressions a p p a r e n t l y c o i n e d b y
T h i s sounds l i k e a h y m n i n p r o s e o n a d i v i n e p o w e r ; i n d e e d t h e logos is
A r i s t o p h a n e s w e r e t a k e n u p b y t h e poets o f t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y .
said t o ' a c c o m p l i s h w o r k s m o s t d i v i n e ' ,
1
Funda-
2
Oeiorara epya
cWoTeAet.
Such
m e n t a l l y , his a t t i t u d e t o p o e t r y w a s o p p o s e d t o t h a t o f t h e S o p h i s t s ; h e
sentences are a t r u e s p e c i m e n o f G o r g i a s ' style, b u t t h e y c a n h a r d l y be
r e g a r d e d t h e e a r l i e r p o e t r y as t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f t h e apycua
r e g a r d e d as traces o f a d o c t r i n e o n poetics. S i n g l e s t r i k i n g f o r m u l a e , l i k e
•naiBeia, G r e e k
that of
p o e t r y was
quite naturally 'ethical'
from
epic
times
o n w a r d s ; i t w a s o n l y i n t h e g r e a t crisis t o w a r d s t h e e n d o f t h e
fifth
dtpUf]
llXeos, w e r e a d a p t e d t o l a t e r theories, as t h e Seven. I t w a s G o r g i a s ' m a i n a m b i t i o n
and
selected t h a t o n
Aristophanes t o t e a c h his
as
p u p i l s t h e t e c h n i c a l devices o f his g r a n d n e w s t y l e ; b u t t h e f o r m a l p e r -
a p r o b l e m . T h e d o c u m e n t a r y evidence f o r t h e n e w r e f l e c t i o n o n i t is
f e c t i o n o u g h t t o h a v e t h e e m o t i o n a l effects o n t h e hearers w h i c h he
c e n t u r y t h a t a consciousness arose o f t h i s i n n a t e e t h i c a l t e n d e n c y 2
Frogs,
g i v e n b y A r i s t o p h a n e s , especially i n t h e
w h e r e t h e g r e a t poets o f
described. Gorgias'
efforts h a v e
o f t e n been subjected
to ridicule i n
t h e past, represented b y Aeschylus, are a p p r o v e d as t h e m o r a l leaders o f
a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n t i m e s ; t h i s is easier t h a n t o t r y t o r e a c h a b a l a n c e d
t h e i r p e o p l e , w h i l e c o n t e m p o r a r y poets, represented b y E u r i p i d e s , o r
j u d g e m e n t o n t h e m . T h e a r t i f i c i a l i t i e s a n d e m p t y phrases o f t h e v i r t u o s o
' p h i l o s o p h e r s ' , l i k e Socrates a n d t h e Sophists, are c o n d e m n e d as de-
m a y be b o r i n g o r even r e p e l l e n t , p a r t i c u l a r l y t o t h e p h i l o s o p h i c m i n d ;
stroyers o f m o r a l s .
b u t w e s t i l l feel a g e n u i n e duAta, a l o v e f o r t h e
I n t h e course o f his d e c l a m a t i o n o n H e l e n G o r g i a s stresses a g a i n t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e aVdVr/, t h e ' d e c e p t i o n ' , w h i c h e v e r y w h e t h e r i n verse o r prose, is a b l e t o p r o d u c e (Hel. I i ) . T h e n h e calls p o e t r y i n g e n e r a l a airacrav
/cat
vofxi^oj
teal
ovo/id^a) Xoyov
Xoyos
(speech),
8 . 10 a n d p r o b a b l y
3
fierpov (Hel.
9 ) , w h i c h sounds
Xoyos,
as t h e m o v i n g p o w e r
b e h i n d t h e m . T h i s seems t o h a v e ' e n c h a n t e d ' his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a n d t o have exerted a lasting influence.
5
S u c h a s t i m u l u s c a n n o t be e n t i r e l y
d i s r e g a r d e d i n a h i s t o r y o f duAoAoyta.
'speech i n verse', TT)V Troir/o-tv
eyovra
4
O f G o r g i a s ' m a n y p u p i l s t h e m o s t d i s t i n g u i s h e d w e r e Isocrates a n d A l c i d a m a s , t w o d i f f e r e n t , even c o n t r a s t i n g
figures.
L i k e his m a s t e r ,
l i k e d e p r e c i a t i n g i t i n t h e interest o f r h e t o r i c ; b u t , o n t h e o d i e r h a n d , he
Isocrates ( 4 3 6 - 3 3 8 B.C.) has n o t been a f a v o u r i t e e i t h e r w i t h p h i l o s o p h e r s
goes o n t o describe t h e e x t r e m e l y p o w e r f u l effect o f t h i s ' m e t r i c a l c o m -
o r s c h o l a r s ; b u t n o b o d y c a n d e n y h i m his t r u e l o v e a n d m a s t e r y o f
aKovovras tlo-rjXOe Kai <£p«cr/ irepicpofios trodos ^tXoTTevdrjs KTX., ' s h u d d e r i n g i n g r e a t fear
p o s i t i o n ' o n t h e listeners,
eXeos
Kat
7ToXv8aKpvs
/cat
T)S TOVS
a n d t e a r f u l w a i l i n g a n d y e a r n i n g for g r i e f . O n e is, o f course, i n c l i n e d t o c o n f i n e these w o r d s t o t r a g e d y , as A r i s t o t l e d i d i n t h e
Poetics,
3
b u t Gorgias
c e r t a i n l y m e a n t t o i n c l u d e epic a n d l y r i c p o e t r y as w e l l , i f w e c a n t r u s t
6
l a n g u a g e . H e b r o u g h t his o w n o r a t o r i c a l s k i l l t o p e r f e c t i o n a n d succeeded i n t e a c h i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g generations o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y ; as a p e d a g o g i c a l genius he m a y be c o m p a r e d w i t h M e l a n c h t h o n . I n spite o f his p o l e m i c a l speech 'against t h e Sophists',
Kara
TÖJV
crocfucn-wv (or.
13), i n
w h i c h h e attacks t h e false c l a i m s o f his r i v a l s , he represents t h e ' l i t e r a r i -
t h e t e x t o f o u r t w o m a n u s c r i p t s . I a m n o t sure t h a t i t is n o t even i m p l i e d
ness' o f t h e w h o l e m o v e m e n t a t its h e i g h t . F o l l o w i n g G o r g i a s , he t o o
f o r t h e first t i m e t h a t o r a t o r y , t h e p u r e a n d s i m p l e w o r d w i t h o u t m u s i c
w r o t e a ' h y m n ' t o t h e Aoyo?. I n c o n t r a s t t o G o r g i a s , h o w e v e r , his Adyos-
o r m e t r e , c a n b e e q u a l l y effective. F o r G o r g i a s s t a r t e d t h i s p a r t o f his
Pohlenz, loc. cit. 174 ff., M. Untersteiner, The Sophists ( 1 9 5 4 ) , pp. Atkins, Literary Criticism in Antiquity I (1934, reprinted 1952) 18. About 2,000 years later in 1444 Lorenzo Valla opened his Elegantiae a similar fervent hymn on the Latin language.
1 a
See below, pp. 137 f. Cf. DLZ *-935> 2 1 3 4 and my whole review of W. Jaeger,
griechische
Dichtung und die griechische
Kultur
Paideia
1 (1934);
see also
Die
(1932} 18.
See Pohlenz, loc. cit. 167 ff., and especially W. Schadewaldt, 'Furcht und Mitleid?' 8 3 (1955) 129 ff., 144, 158, 165 «= Hellas und Hesperien ( i 9 6 0 ) 346 ff., who provides the most detailed and convincing interpretation of the relevant terms <poflos (tppUrj) and eXeos; cf. also H. Flashar, 'Die Lehre von der Wirkung der Dichtung in der griechischen Poetik', Herm. 8 4 (1956) 18 ff.: he scrutinized the Corpus Hippocraticum in order to show that 4>ofios and EACOS- with all the somatic symptoms mentioned by Gorgias have their origin in the literature on medical science. On Aristode see below, p. 75. 3
Herm.
7
1
107, 114.
2
Laiini
3
Auctor
nepl
vipovs 3. 2 TO otSovv,
u-eLpaiciwoes,
ifivxpov,
J . W. H .
Sermonis
with
KOKd^nXov KTX.
* J . D. Denniston, Greek Prose Style (1952) 10 ff., 'the influence was, I believe, wholly bad'. E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa I (1898) 6 3 - 7 9 , 'Gorgias und seine Schule'; pp. 15 ff. 'Die Begründung der attischen Kunstprosa'. Art. script, B XXIV Radermacher ( 1 9 5 1 ) . Marrou 7 9 - 9 1 ; I have always found W.Jaeger's judgement on Isocrates (Paideia in 1 9 9 - 2 2 5 , esp. 222 f.) well balanced, and disagree with Marrou on this point. W. Steidle, Herm. 8 0 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 257 ff., esp. 274 ff., 296. i Isocr. or. 3 , Nicocl. 5 - 9 = Art. script, B xxrv 4 1 . 3 , repeated almost verbatim in or. 15, Antidos. 2 5 3 - 7 . 814312 £ 3
6
50
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Hippias
d i d n o t a i m a t t h e e m o t i o n a l effects o f pLK-n a n d cAeo?, o f ' s h u d d e r i n g
references t o t h e
a n d w a i l i n g ' , b u t a t r a t i o n a l persuasion b y sober a r g u m e n t s
av8pa>7Tivov
(THAW,
ßiov
Odyssey; KaroTTTpov,
1
Study of Antiquities
he c a l l e d i t a ' f a i r m i r r o r o f h u m a n l i f e '
KOXOV
at t h a t t i m e a startling m e t a p h o r , w h i c h m e t
ireidovs S-qpuovpyov, ' p e r hrt^rrqpvnv Tretöoöff). S o m e Sophists u n f o r t u n a t e l y confused t h i s c r e a t i v e r e a s o n i n g , t h e Xoyos, w i t h sterile l e a r n i n g , ypdp.p,ara, as Isocrates c o m p l a i n e d (or. 13 K . oo<j>. 10 f f . ) ;
w i t h A r i s t o t l e ' s s h a r p d i s a p p r o v a l (Met.
f o r his p a r t n o d o u b t , he h i g h l y v a l u e d t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e k n o w l e d g e o f
agoras) h o n o u r e d b y c e r t a i n G r e e k cities. So i t is clear t h a t his b o o k was
mW«?);
h e is said t o h a v e c a l l e d r h e t o r i c
(Art script.
suadendi opificem'
B x x r v 18, cf. 19
l i t e r a t u r e , p o e t r y as w e l l as a r t i s t i c prose (or. 2
in Nicocl,
13, e t c . ) , b u t
o n l y i n so far as i t l e d t o t h e final i d e a l , t o e5 Aeyew ' g o o d s p e a k i n g ' . is n o t m e a n t i n a p u r e l y f o r m a l sense. ' T o use t h e
KaX&s xPV ^ h Panegyr. 4 9 ) ; a
a
i
s
m
e
D e s t
guarantee o f
rraßevciis,
Xoyos
1
This
Xoyat (or. 4 ,
well',
o f 'culture'
a n d 'those are c a l l e d Greeks r a t h e r w h o share i n o u r [ i . e .
fiaXXov rfjs Kotvrjs
i n 3 p . 1406 b 1 2 ) .
1
O t h e r short
sentences m a y p o i n t t o his d e f i n i t i o n o f t r a g i c p a t h o s , w h i c h p e r h a p s o w e d s o m e t h i n g t o t h a t o f his master G o r g i a s . A l c i d a m a s also m e n t i o n e d 2
l y r i c poets ( A r c h i l o c h u s , S a p p h o ) a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s ( P y t h a g o r a s ,
a c o m p i l a t i o n o f v a r i e d learned m a t e r i a l , a n d this links h i m w i t h the g r o u p o f Sophists t o w h o m w e n o w f i n a l l y c o m e , those w h o m a i n l y o r exclusively
collected
a n d described
'antiquities'.
ApxaioXoyLa
and military 'history';
antiquitates, V a r r o ' s
"EXX-qvas KaXetadai
depreciated o r overestimated w i t h equal injustice at later times.
7ratSeiicrecus' TTJS r)p,€T€pas
T)
TOU?
<j>vaea>$ /leTeyovrac ( i b i d . 5 0 , cf. 15. 2 9 3 ) . F o r t h e first t i m e t h e c u l t u r a l u n i t y o f t h e ' G r e e k s ' is q u i t e consciously p r o c l a i m e d i n t h i s m o s t f a m o u s sentence o f I s o c r a t e s ; i t p o i n t s f a r i n t o t h e f u t u r e .
2
F o r these g e n e r a l
reasons he deserves his p l a c e i n t h e h i s t o r y o f s c h o l a r s h i p . Alcidamas,
I t was H i p p i a s o f E l i s as represented i n Plato's d i a l o g u e 4
285 D =
Vors. 86
A 11) w h o used t h e w o r d
dpxaioXoyla
knowledge,
(Hipp. max.
f o r t h e first a n d
o n l y t i m e i n p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c l i t e r a t u r e ; 'people l i k e t o h e a r a b o u t t h e genealogies o f heroes a n d m e n , a b o u t t h e e a r l y f o u n d a t i o n s o f cities,
p e r h a p s s l i g h t l y o l d e r t h a n Isocrates, w a s i n f a v o u r o f t h e
3
the
L a t i n t r a n s l a t i o n o f dpxaioXoyla,
b e c a m e t h e f a m i l i a r expression for t h i s b r a n c h o f indispensable
rrjs
was
G r e e k t e r m f o r ' a n t i q u a r i a n l o r e ' as d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e g r e a t p o l i t i c a l
A t h e n i a n ] c u l t u r e t h a n those w h o share i n o u r c o m m o n r a c e ' /cat TOVS
Anax-
3
avXX-qßh-qv
rrdo-qs rrjs dpxaioXoylas,
5
Kai
a n d so he h a d ' t o l e a r n a n d t o t e a c h
i m p r o v i s a t i o n o f speeches i n p r a c t i c e a n d t h e o r y . H e r e g a r d e d t h e e p i c
a l l these t h i n g s m o s t c a r e f u l l y ' . P l a t o represents h i m as b o a s t i n g o f his
rhapsodes as i m p r o v i s a t o r s a n d h i m s e l f as c o n t i n u i n g t h e
u n i v e r s a l k n o w l e d g e as w e l l as o f his p r a c t i c a l s k i l l i n e v e r y t h i n g
rhapsodic
(Hipp,
t r a d i t i o n i n o r a t o r y ; i t m a y h a v e b e e n i n t h e same t r a d i t i o n t h a t h e t o o k
min.
u p a n d r e t o l d the o l d p o p u l a r story o f the 'Contest o f H o m e r a n d Hesiod'
H i p p i a s deserves p o s i t i v e c r e d i t f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g some special ' a n t i q u i t i e s ' .
avToax^Bid^eiv,
in
' i m p r o v i s i n g ' , o f w h i c h w e f o u n d t h e first traces i n t h e
s i x t h c e n t u r y . T h i s treatise o f A l c i d a m a s 4
book w i t h the title
Movaetov
5
was p r o b a b l y a p a r t o f a l a r g e r
( w h i c h o r i g i n a l l y means 'shrine o f the
368 B =
Vors.
86 A 12).
M a l i c i o u s t h o u g h this picture m a y
H i s register o f O l y m p i c w i n n e r s , ' OXVP-TTIOVIKUW
dvaypa<prj
(B 3) is p r o b -
a b l y t h e first a t t e m p t a t e s t a b l i s h i n g a basis f o r G r e e k c h r o n o l o g y . 6
title o f a
book
on
'Edvcov ovopiaalai
(B 2) p o i n t s t o
a n t i q u i t i e s f o r w h i c h t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f n a m e s was i m p o r t a n t ;
o f Alcidamas dealing w i t h poetry.
another book simply called
E p i c p o e t r y is m a i n l y r e p r e s e n t e d b y
Cf. Marrou 81. See 'Humanitas Erasmiana', Studien der Bibl. Warburg 22 (1931} 2, n. 2. Art. script, B XXII; other fragments in Orat. Alt. rec. Baiter-Sauppe I I ( 1 8 5 0 ) 1 5 4 - 6 ; see above, p. 37, n. 5. * See above, pp. 11 and 43 f.; F. Nietzsche, 'Der Florentinische Traktat über Homer und Hesiod, ihr Geschlecht und ihren Wettkampf', Rh.M. 25 (1870) 5 2 8 ff. and 2 8 (1873) 211 ff. =Phüologica 1 (1910) 2 1 5 - 7 6 ; he was only wrong in the assumption that the 'Contest' was an 'invention* of Alcidamas; otherwise his reconstruction of Alcidamas' Museum was confirmed by two recent papyri, see the following note. s On the Michigan Papyrus (first publ. 1925) and the Flinders Petrie Pap. (first publ. 1891) see E . Vogt, 'Die Schrift vom Wettkampf Homers und Hesiods', Rh.M. 102 ( 1 9 5 9 ) 193 ff., Gnom. 33 (1961) 6 9 7 , with bibliographical additions, and Antike und Abendland xi (1962) 103 ff. (The Flind. Petr. Pap. is now P. Lit. Lond. 191, revised by H. J . M. Milne,
Ewaywyq,
7
The
ethnographical
M u s e s ' ) ; i t is t e m p t i n g t o a t t r i b u t e t o t h e same b o o k t h e o t h e r f r a g m e n t s 6
be,
8
from
' C o l l e c t i o n ' , (B 4) comes t h e story
1
a
J
Catal.
of the Lit. Pap. of the Brit.
Mus. (1927) 157.) On the CI. Qu. 4 6 (1952) 188.
subscriptio LJepl 'Op-rjpov in
Michigan Pap. see E. R. Dodds, F. Solmsen, 'Drei Rekonstruktionen zur antiken Rhetorik und Poetik', Herrn. 6
133«-
the
67 (1932)
E . Fraenkel, Aesch. Ag. 11 385 f. On the great success of the metaphor {speculum vitae, etc.) in ancient and medieval Latin literature see E . R. Curtius, Europäische Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter (Bern 1948) 3 3 9 . 1. F. Solmsen (above, p. 50, n. 6) 140 ff. Art. script, B xxii 1 4 ; cf. Radermacher's note on 13. The title Museum was taken up by Callimachus, 1 339. * Vors. 8 6 ; selection of fragments with commentary FGrHist 6 (reprinted 1957 with Addenda) and Art. script, B XI. E. Norden, Agnostos Theos (1913) 372 f. apxcuoXoyla, in der älteren Sophistlk. On its reliability as a historical source see L. Ziehen, RE xvn (1937) 2527 ff. On similar publications of the last decades of the fifth century see F. Jacoby, Atthis (1949) 5 9 . The fundamental importance of the chronological system for co-ordinating the traditions about facts of the past was recognized by Hecataeus (about 500 B.C.), but he was completely misled by the fictitious lists of Spartan kings of which he actually tried to make use for that purpose. Cf. Hellanicus 4 FGrHist 6 7 and Damastes of Sigeion, 5 FGrHist. 1
2
3
3 6
7
8
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Hippias on Poetry, Rhythmics, and Metrics
o f a celebrated b e a u t y w h o was m a r r i e d t o f o u r t e e n m e n . T h e r e m u s t
f o u r o r t o seven subjects, a n d he was n o t t h e i n v e n t o r o f t h e seven
53
h a v e been t h e u t m o s t v a r i e t y i n s u b j e c t - m a t t e r i f w e t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t a l l
l i b e r a l arts. H e was n o t a serious p h i l o s o p h e r o r p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t , b u t as
t h e o t h e r s u r v i v i n g s h o r t references t o m y t h o l o g y , g e o g r a p h y , h i s t o r y ,
h e was a l w a y s eager t o startle his audience b y some n o v e l t y , h e m a n a g e d
a n d especially t o e a r l y poets a n d philosophers. H i p p i a s (B 8 ) o b s e r v e d
t o g i v e a n e w t u r n t o t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y discussion o f 'physis a n d n o m o s ' ;
t h a t t h e w o r d rvpawos
at least, i n Plato's
was n o t i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e G r e e k l a n g u a g e before
Protagoras i t was H i p p i a s w h o first used t h e a n t i t h e t i c 1
t h e t i m e o f A r c h i l o c h u s ; H o m e r c a l l e d even t h e w o r s t despot jSatrtAetis.
f o r m u l a uo-et—vopup i n t h e sense ' b y n a t u r e ' — ' b y c o n v e n t i o n ' , a f o r m u l a
H i p p i a s m a d e p a r a l l e l excerpts from t h e poets o f o l d (B 6 ) , O r p h e u s ,
w h i c h became almost classical. I n his studies o f l a n g u a g e he a c c e p t e d ,
M u s a e u s , H e s i o d , H o m e r ; i t is n o t e w o r t h y t h a t w e find e x a c t l y t h e same
l i k e others, Protagoras' c o n c e p t o f d p t f o e W a ; h e t o o k p a r t i n t h e l i v e l y
sequence i n A r i s t o p h a n e s
41 A ; w i t h o u t
d e b a t e s o n the epic poems (B 9 ) , o n H o m e r i c H e r o e s (A 9, B 5 ) , o n t h e
(fr. 7. 16 ff. P o w e l l ) . I t is
life o f t h e poet H o m e r (B 18). O n e field, so f a r a v o i d e d b y o t h e r Sophists,
q u i t e l i k e l y t h a t he a d d e d a s i m i l a r c o l l e c t i o n o f p a r a l l e l passages f r o m
was entered b y H i p p i a s alone. Q u e s t i o n s o f r h y t h m i c s a n d m e t r i c s h a d
t h e earliest philosophers, i n w h i c h T h a l e s c o n t i n u e d t h e l i n e o f t h e f o u r
been t h e concern
o f Lasus o f H e r m i o n e
3
poets j u s t m e n t i o n e d . T h e " OAvpimovLKcbv
towards the end o f the sixth century, certainly o f the A t h e n i a n D a m o n ,
4
(Ran. 1030 ff.), i n P l a t o (Apol.
H e s i o d Ion 536 a ) , a n d e v e n i n H e r m e s i a n a x 1
but
avaypatftrj was n o t a c h r o n i c l e
2
o f t h e musicians,
possibly
a list o f names w i t h o n l y a f e w necessary r e m a r k s ; so, I t h i n k , i t is
t h e teacher o f Pericles; H i p p i a s seems t o h a v e been t h e first ' l i t e r a r y '
h a r d l y c o r r e c t t o c a l l his l i t e r a r y c o l l e c t i o n s t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a ' h i s t o r y '
m a n , not a musician, t o treat language together w i t h music, distinguishing
of literature and philosophy.
2
Instead, the proper f o r m o f all the anti-
itept re ypap.pv8p,6jv /cat app.ovia)v. F r o m single
' t h e v a l u e o f letters a n d syllables a n d r h y t h m s a n d scales'
q u a r i a n w r i t i n g s o f H i p p i a s a n d his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s seems t o h a v e been
pLdrcov Swdp-cats /cat truAAajSaji'
t h e c a t a l o g u e , t h e list, t h e mVa£. T h e Sophist was i n n e e d o f t h i s k n o w -
sounds he w e n t o n t o several letters t a k e n t o g e t h e r , t h a t is t o syllables
l e d g e as o r a t o r a n d t e a c h e r ; as i n o t h e r fields, i t was n o t a s c h o l a r l y
a n d t h e i r q u a n t i t i e s , t h e n t o c e r t a i n sequences o f l o n g a n d s h o r t syllables,
interest i n t h e customs o f l i f e i n f o r m e r ages o r even i n t h e ' h i s t o r y o f
t o r h y t h m s , a n d finally t o ' h a r m o n i c s ' .
c u l t u r e ' , b u t t h e p r a c t i c a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f his c a l l i n g , t h a t i n s p i r e d his
w o r d a n d ' m u s i c ' was s t i l l m a i n t a i n e d , b u t t h e emphasis m a y h a v e been
efforts.
shifted f r o m ' m u s i c ' t o l a n g u a g e ; t h e e n d o f t h i s i m p o r t a n t d e v e l o p m e n t
3
4
K
s
7
6
T h e traditional Greek u n i t y of
8
W e h a v e p u t t h e s t u d y o f a n t i q u i t i e s first, because i t was p a r t i c u l a r l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f H i p p i a s ; b u t as a g e n u i n e p o l y m a t h
5
he incorporated
c a m e i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , w h e n w e diction and metre
9
find
poetical
treated i n complete isolation f r o m rhythmics. T h e
i n t o his e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m m e n o t o n l y a l l l i t e r a r y k n o w l e d g e , b u t also
p a r t p l a y e d b y H i p p i a s a n d perhaps o t h e r Sophists i n t h e p e r i o d o f
e l e m e n t a r y scientific subjects. I n d e p e n d e n t l y , i t seems, o f a n y
Pytha-
t r a n s i t i o n is h a r d l y n o t i c e d b y m o d e r n scholars. A versatile Sophist l i k e
gorean t r a d i t i o n , he listed together astronomy, geometry, a r i t h m e t i c , a n d
Plat. Prot. 337 c (= Vers. 8 6 c i), see above, pp. 3 5 , 3 9 , n. 3 . See above, pp. 36, 43 ff. W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, 1 1 (1929) 544 ff. Lasus is said to have caught Onomacritus at the court of the Pisistratides forging oracles of Musaeus (Hdt. vn
'music', until
6
a c o m b i n a t i o n o f sciences t h a t h a d a l o n g a n d v a r i e d h i s t o r y
finally
Boethius
7
gave i t t h e n a m e quadrivium,
nearly a thousand
years after H i p p i a s . H i p p i a s ' o w n interests w e r e b y n o means l i m i t e d t o 8
See B 7 and B. Snell, 'Die Nachrichten uber die Lehren des Thales und die Anfange der griechischen Philosophic- und Literaturgeschichte*, Philol. 9 6 (1944) 170 if.; cf. F. Jacoby, FGrHist i (1957) p. 542 Nachtrage zum Kommentar 6 F 4 and G. B. Kerferd, 'Plato and Hippias', Proceed. Class. Association 6 0 {1963) 35 f. See above, n. 1. O. Regenbogen, /Zivnf RE xx ( 1 9 5 0 ) 1412 f. * See above, pp. 17, 4 5 . Xenoph. Mem. rv 4 . 6 = Vers. 8 6 A 14 hid TO itoXvpaQijs tlvat; Cic. de or. ni 127 (not in Vers. 8 6 ) . On the changing reputation of the iroXvpaSfe see below, p. 138, n. 1. Plat. Hipp. mai. 285 BC ( = Vers. 8 6 A I I ) and Prot. 318 a with reference to Hippias. H. L Marrou, 371, n. 12, believes that pavo-uty means 'acoustics' in this passage. Boeth. Instit. arithm. p. 5. 6 Friedlein. < P. Merlan, From Platonism to Neoplatonism ( 1 9 5 3 ; 2 n d ed. 1961) 78 ff. 'The origin of the Quadrivium'; see also A. Cornel. Celsus ed. F. Marx, Corp. Medic. Lat. 1 ( 1 9 1 5 ) , VIH-XIH, on names, number, order of the artes from the Sophists to Boethius. Cf. below, p. 2 5 3 . 1
1
1
3
s
6
7
1
a 1
6 = Vors. 2 B 2 0 a ) . * Vors. 3 7 esp. B 9 ; Arisroph. Ntib. 6 3 8 ff.; Wilamowitz, Griechische Verskunst (1921) 59 ff., and Platan 1 {1919) 71 ; W. Schmid op. cit. 1 2 (1934) 731 f¬ * Plat. Hipp. mai. 2 8 5 D = Vors. 8 6 A I I , cf. above, p. 5 2 , n. 6. See also Plat. Hipp. min. 368 D = Vors. 8 6 A 12 KOX wept pvBpwv Kal appovioiv /cat ypappdrajv opBdrrjros; Cratyl. 4 2 4 c, Phileb. 18 B ff. Cf. Democr. above, pp. 4 2 f. 6 Cf. Aesch. Sept. 4 6 8 ypappdrutv iv fvAAa/3afs. r appovtat usually means the different 'tunings' (Plat. Rep. I l l 3 9 8 D ff,, and on this passage Isobel Henderson, 'Ancient Greek Music', New Oxford History of Music l (1957) 3 8 4 f . ) ; I can
see no reason why it should be understood in the passage on Hippias as 'melodic line', 'pitch-accents* (as it apparently has to be taken in Jtaaoi Xoyot 5 . 11 = Vors. n 4 1 3 . 14, see H. Gomperz, Sophistik und Rhetorik (1912) 71, 1 4 8 ) . It was about the same time towards the end of the fifth century that Glaucus of Rhegium wrote JTept row dpxaiajv irottiraiv Kal povaiKuiv (see F. Jacoby, RE vn 1417 ff.) without separating 'musicians' and 'poets' of old times, as it seems. » See below, p. 76 (Aristotle). 8
54
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Critias, Poet and Antiquarian
55
H i p p i a s was a l m o s t b o u n d to w r i t e verses o f his o w n a l s o : epics, tragedies,
H i p p i a s . I n his elegiacs h e p r o d u c e d a c a t a l o g u e o f i n v e n t o r s (B 2 =
d i t h y r a m b s (A 1 2 ) ; a l a m e n t i n elegiacs o n t h e d r o w n e d M e s s e n i a n b o y
1 D . ) , G r e e k as w e l l as f o r e i g n , f r o m w h i c h w e h a v e a l r e a d y q u o t e d t h e
c h o i r (B 1 eAeyefa . . . €TTOL7]<7€V) m a y r e m i n d us o f A r c h i l o c h u s ' elegy o n
i n v e n t i o n o f t h e a l p h a b e t b y t h e P h o e n i c i a n s , a n e p o c h - m a k i n g event i n
the
the
d r o w n e d Parians,
1
A s H i p p i a s c l a i m e d c o m p e t e n c e i n so m a n y fields, so d o t h e Satyrs i n
3
fr.
1
history o f m a n k i n d a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the history o f scholarship.
O t h e r elegiacs d e a l w i t h customs, i n v e n t i o n s , o r even c o n s t i t u t i o n s i n
a p l a y w h i c h S o p h o c l e s a p p a r e n t l y p r o d u c e d l a t e i n his l i f e ; i n t h e w e l l -
d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f Greece a n d s h o w his o p e n preference o f S p a r t a
preserved f r a g m e n t
a m o d e l (B 6 = f r . 4 D . ) H i s special i n t e r e s t i n i n v e n t i o n s a n d his taste
2
3
t h e y r e c o m m e n d themselves
to a k i n g
(Oineus?)
as
3
as suitors o f his d a u g h t e r because t h e y h a v e n o t o n l y a l l t h e d e s i r a b l e
for
a b i l i t i e s i n games a n d contests i n p o e t r y , m u s i c , a n d d a n c i n g , b u t also
S o p h i s t s ; so is his e d u c a t i o n a l a i m (see also B 9 = f r . 7 D . ) . A s w e k n o w
the
his c o n s i d e r a b l e p o e t i c a l faculties from t h e f r a g m e n t s o f his tragedies a n d
4
m o s t useful k n o w l e d g e i n v a r i o u s branches o f science a n d scholar-
c o l l e c t i n g l e a r n e d m a t e r i a l are c o m p l e t e l y i n t h e t r a d i t i o n o f t h e 3
s h i p . I t is a c h a r m i n g a n d h u m o r o u s p i c t u r e , n o t a m a l i c i o u s t r a v e s t y , o f
satyr-plays (B 1 0 - 2 9 ) ,
e x a c t l y t h a t u n i v e r s a l i s m w h i c h Sophists l i k e H i p p i a s used t o d i s p l a y .
w h o also p u t some o f his l e a r n e d m a t e r i a l i n t o verse, i n o r d e r t o m a k e i t
w
e
a
r
e
n
o
surprised t h a t he was t h e o n l y Sophist
t
t h e same c o m b i n a t i o n o f a n t i q u a r i a n l o r e w i t h p o e t r y i n
p e r h a p s m o r e a t t r a c t i v e f o r t h e reader. C r i t i a s , as w r i t e r o f ' a n t i q u a r i a n '
G r i t i a s ( a b o u t 4 6 0 - 4 0 3 B.C.), so t h a t w e m a y g r o u p h i m w i t h H i p p i a s . H e
elegiacs a n d ' l i t e r a r y ' epics, h o l d s a n i m p o r t a n t p o s i t i o n i n t h e m i d d l e
is said t o h a v e b e e n a p u p i l o f G o r g i a s (Vors. 88 A 17) a n d c e r t a i n l y was for
between the
We
find
5
some t i m e a n associate o f Socrates ( i b i d , A 4 ) ; b u t w h e n he to p u t S o p h i s t i c ideas o n t h e ' r i g h t o f t h e s t r o n g e r '
6
finally
tried
i n t o p r a c t i c e , he
poetae philosophi o f t h e past a n d t h e poetae docti o f t h e f u t u r e ,
b e i n g h i m s e l f n e i t h e r a p h i l o s o p h e r n o r a scholar. S o m e c o n t e m p o r a r y
(Art. script, B X X ) , L i c y m n i u s ( i b i d , B X V I ) , A g a t h o n
writers, Euenus
p . 763 N . ) , m o r e f a m i l i a r t o us as poets o f elegiacs, d i t h y r a m b s ,
m e t a n e a r l y d e a t h as ' t y r a n n o r u m d u x ' a t t h e b a t t l e o f M u n i c h i a (A 12).
(TGF
S t r o n g a r i s t o c r a t i c prejudices are p a t e n t i n his w r i t i n g s o n l i t e r a t u r e .
tragedies, w e r e i n close r e l a t i o n t o t h e S o p h i s t i c m o v e m e n t . W h a t is
In
left t o us o f G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e c o n f i r m s t h a t i t w e n t t h r o u g h a t i m e o f
a n u n k n o w n w o r k i n prose (B 44) h e u t t e r l y c o n d e m n e d t h e self-
r e v e l a t i o n s o f the l o w b o r n A r c h i l o c h u s , b u t h e c e l e b r a t e d i n a n epic p o e m the and
'sweet' A n a c r e o n , once a f r i e n d o f one o f G r i t i a s ' o w n n o b l e ancestors
2
uneasiness a n d crisis a t a b o u t 4 0 0 B.C.
2
7
W e said a b o v e ( p . 16) t h a t i n a c e r t a i n sense t h e Sophists c a n be
a ' w e a v e r o f songs' f o r t h e pleasures o f h i g h s o c i e t y ; t h e t e n h e x a -
r e g a r d e d as heirs o f t h e e a r l y rhapsodes. N o w t h e rhapsodes, s t i l l r e c i t i n g
meters (B 1 = f r . 8 D . ) m a y be a p a r t o f a l o n g e r p o e m o n t h e lives a n d
and
w o r k s o f a n u m b e r o f poets, s t a r t i n g p e r h a p s f r o m H o m e r as t h e son o f
s u r v i v e d t h e crisis. T h e y h a d q u i t e n a t u r a l l y b e c o m e p u p i l s o f t h e
a r i v e r g o d (B 5 0 ) . So w e r i g h t l y p l a c e C r i t i a s beside A l c i d a m a s
Sophists. Socrates i n Plato's Ion c o m p l a i n e d t h a t t h e clever, ' d i v i n e l y
3
and
i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e t r a d i t i o n a l p o e t r y a t t h e e n d o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y , 3
4
riyyu n o r eVto-TTj/xn, n e i t h e r ' a r t ' n o r ov yap Tiyyi] ovo* eVtaTTj/xrj rrept 'Opvqpov Aeyet? a
inspired' rhapsode h a d neither 1
Fr. 7 D .
3
and
P.Oxy.
'knowledge'
2356.
I confidently attribute P.Oxy. 1083, fr. 1 (reprinted in D. L . Page, Greek Literary Papyri 1 [ 1 9 4 2 ] , no. 31 and in Satyrographorum Graee. fragmenta, ed. V. Steffen (2nd ed. 1952) 2 5 8 ) to Sophocles, v. 13 i^teaap:4m occurs twice in Sophocles, O.R. 461 and fr. 577 P., but there is no perfect passive either in Aeschylus or Euripides. This is the decisive passage. Furthermore, the future e'^epul is found twelve times in Sophocles (nine times perfect and aorist) not in Aeschylus, and only twice in Euripides, but in different phrases. The anaphora v. 9 ff. was noticed as possibly Sophoclean by Hunt in P.Oxy. vm p. 6 1 ; cf. also P. Maas, Berlin. Philol. Wochensehrift 32 (1912) 1 4 2 7 - 9 . A number of new fragments, written by the same hand and published in P.Oxy. xxvii (1962) as no. 2453 by E . G. Turner, strengthen the case for Sophocles. The other more than thirty small fragments written by the same scribe may belong to other plays (and even to other poets). Cf. Soph. Amphiaraus fr. 121 P. satyrs dancing the letters. * Vors. 8 8 ; poetical fragments also in Antk. Lyr. Gr. ed. Diehl fasc. i (1949) 9 4 ff.; new complete edition with commentary by A. Battegazzore in Sqfisti, ed. M. Untersteiner rv 2
3
4
3
(1962) 2 1 4 - 3 6 3 .
See above p. 35. ' See A. E . Taylor, 6
A Commentary on Plato's Timaeus (1928) 23
ff.
(536
c
Aeyet?, cf. i b i d . 532 a ) . T h e same r e p r o a c h was m a d e against t h e Sophists i n g e n e r a l , a l t h o u g h f o r a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t reason. T h e i r v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e l i t e r a r y field w e r e based o n l y o n o b s e r v a t i o n a n d p r a c t i c a l experience. T h e r e c a n be n o d o u b t a b o u t t h e i r o w n efficiency a n d t h e i r k i n d l i n g o f sparks i n o t h e r m i n d s . T h e y m a d e a decisive c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the 1
145.
d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e b o o k o n w h i c h t h e rise a n d f u r t h e r existence o f See above, p.
24;
cf. A. Kleingunther,
IJPOITOS
Evp^rqs,
Philol.
Suppl. Bd.
2 6 . 1 (1933)
See also the new relation of Xoyos to pownicy above, p. 5 3 . Plat. Ion 530 G (TOV yap p'aipa>o6v r/»/iijvea Set rov ITOITJTOV TJJS St avoids ylyveoBai rots aKovovat); see also above, p. 35. * If I say 'Plato's Ion', I mean that the ideas and arguments of this much disputed dialogue are genuinely Platonic; a critical review of the dispute is given by H. Flashar, Der Dialog Ion als £eugnis platonischer Philosophie (Berlin 1958) 1-16. a 3
56
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
scholarship depended. T h e y awakened a n d m a i n t a i n e d a n e w interest i n e a r l y p o e t r y , even i f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n m e a n t n o m o r e t o t h e m t h a n
Ill
m e n t a l t r a i n i n g . R h e t o r i c a l virtuosity was the i m m e d i a t e result o f their analysis o f l a n g u a g e a n d t h e i r ' c r i t i c a l ' s t u d y o f l i t e r a t u r e . Nevertheless, their genuine love o f language was n o t w i t h o u t s t i m u l a t i n g influence o n generations w h o s t a r t e d m o r e serious researches. F i n a l l y , i f t h e y h a d to accumulate w i d e e r u d i t i o n for their o w n performances a n d t h e i n -
THE
MASTERS
O FPHILOSOPHY
SOCRATES,
s t r u c t i o n o f p u p i l s , such c o l l e c t i o n s t u r n e d o u t sometimes t o b e suggestive
PLATO,
I N ATHENS:
ARISTOTLE
for l a t e r studies. B u t a l l t h e i r endeavours, c o n s i d e r a b l e as t h e y w e r e , h a d a m o r e o r less casual a n d a r b i t r a r y c h a r a c t e r ; even t h e m a t h e m a t i c s they t a u g h t apparently remained o n a n e m p i r i c a l level.
THE
Sophists d i d n o t p r o c e e d f r o m t h e w a y o f
ifinetpia
t o a conscious
m e t h o d , t o a reyvrj, a n ' a r t ' w h i c h c o m b i n e d p r a c t i c a l s k i l l a n d t h e o r e t i c a l k n o w l e d g e . S c h o l a r s h i p , as w e stated a t t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g , is s u c h a Teyvn. T h e f a i l u r e o f t h e Sophists t o achieve t h i s a r o u s e d t h e S o c r a t i c Platonic criticism a n d o p p o s i t i o n . B u t i t was n o t t h e general polemics, 1
t h e v a r i o u s a r g u m e n t s against t h e Sophists, o r m i n o r r e a d j u s t m e n t s b y Plato t h a t were decisive; w h a t d i d m a t t e r was t h e completely n e w a p p r o a c h , n a m e l y t h e eager desire t o a c q u i r e
riyyn,
'art', t o gain 'genuine
(rrjs aX-rfielas... irexpav Prot. 348 A, cf. Pkaedr. 270 A f., Menopassim). T h i s w e n t
k n o w l e d g e based o n reason' (¿77-1(7777/177), t o t r y t o r e a c h t h e T r u t h
far b e y o n d Protagoras* v a g u e d o c t r i n e o f 'correctness', w h i c h w a s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e Sophistic m i n d . T h e rigorous P l a t o n i c d e m a n d f o r f u l l m a s t e r y o f t h e subject, f o r c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n s a n d sober proofs, m a d e i t possible f o r t h e first t i m e t o l a y a t r u l y scientific f o u n d a t i o n i n every
field
o f i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y ; i t d e t e r m i n e d t h e w h o l e f u t u r e o f s c h o l a r s h i p as w e l l as o f science. W e d o n o t h a v e t o d e a l w i t h science, a n d , as i n t h e s t r i c t P l a t o n i c sense
l-nia-rr\pvq
refers t o exact sciences, especially m a t h e m a t i c s ,
a n d t h e n t o ethics ( t h e k n o w l e d g e o f t h e a y a ö o V ) , w e c o n f i n e ourselves t o 2
Plat. Phaedr. 2 7 0 B fttf rpißrj pAvov KOX epireiplo., öAAa TCYVJJ, cf. Corg. 4 6 3 B, 4 6 5 A. An exact definition is given by Aristot. Metaphys. A 1 p. 981 a 5 ytyverai Se rlxrq, Srav «« iroW&r rijs tpireiplas €WO-qp,&TV op.ola>v vrrok-qtbts 'Art arises when from many notions of experience there comes a single universal judgement', W. D. Ross, Arist. Metaph. I (1924) 114, translation. On the Platonic character of this chapter and its relation to the treatment in the Protrepticus see W. Jaeger, Aristoteles (1923) 6 8ff.= Engl, translat. by R. Robinson ( 2 n d ed. 1948) 6 8 ff. (jixvn and htvrrqu.'n are not distinguished by Aristotle in this chapter, but see Anal. post. 100 a 9 ) . I . During, Aristotle's Protreptieus ( 1 9 6 1 ) 242 agrees with Jaeger and Ross. It cannot be proved and it is not likely that Plato used a sort o f 'formula' coined in Hippocratic circles, see K . Deichgräber, Die griechische Empirikerschule (1930) 2 7 3 . i . This negative statement is confirmed by F. Heinimann, 'Eine vorplatonische Theorie der T^YJ^J', MUS. Hein. 18 ( 1 9 6 t ) 105 ff., who thoroughly scrutinized early Sophistic and medical writings; the novelty of the Socratic-PIatonic differentiation between ipntipta and riyyv becomes quite evident. K . v . Fritz, 'Der Beginn universalwissenschaftlicher Bestrebungen und der Primat der Griechen*, Studium Generale xrv ( 1 9 6 1 ) 6 1 8 f., on this particular problem; on the meaning o f 1
1
a
hrioT^pvn 6lO ff.
58
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
réxvr}.
1
Problems of Language in Plato's C r a t y l u s
T h e r e is n o need t o g o i n t o t h e v e x e d q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r i t is
59
T h i s c u r s o r y survey a g a i n emphasizes t h e divergencies o f a p p r o a c h
possible t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e o r i g i n a l S o c r a t i c c o n t r i b u t i o n a n d t h e
a n d sounds r a t h e r d i s c o u r a g i n g ; b u t d i d P l a t o a t least a p p r e c i a t e t h e
P l a t o n i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f i t ; b u t i t is a l m o s t c e r t a i n t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r
efficiency o f t h e Sophists i n t h e l i n g u i s t i c sphere w h e r e t h e y seemed t o be
w h o i n d e f a t i g a b l y asks questions a b o u t TC^WJ i n t h e Apology a n d i n m a n y
a t t h e i r best? T h e Sophistic analysis o f l a n g u a g e was h a p h a z a r d a n d o f t e n
dialogues is m e a n t t o be t h e h i s t o r i c a l Socrates h i m s e l f .
p r e t e n t i o u s ; Socrates d e v e l o p e d i t i n a m o s t c o n s t r u c t i v e a n d m e t h o d i c a l
W h e n w e d e s c r i b e d t h e results o f t h e S o p h i s t i c m o v e m e n t i n o u r
w a y a n d created a new refined i n s t r u m e n t for dialectic. Plato i n his
p r o v i n c e o f l e a r n i n g , w e n o t e d Plato's r e a c t i o n i n some cases, a n d w e
Cratylus was t h e first t o p u t p r o b l e m s o f l a n g u a g e i n t h e c e n t r e o f a c o m -
s h a l l n o t r e p e a t w h a t w a s said t h e n . Socrates n e v e r w r o t e a b o o k , a n d
prehensive p h i l o s o p h i c a l d e b a t e ; t h e y r e m a i n e d present t o his m i n d , as
P l a t o h a d great d o u b t s a b o u t t h e v a l u e o f t h e w r i t t e n w o r d so m u c h
t h e y t u r n e d u p a g a i n a n d a g a i n i n l a t e r dialogues (Sophistes 252 A ff.,
f a v o u r e d b y t h e Sophists. H e b e l i e v e d t h e i r task o f i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e o l d
Philebus 18 B ff., occasionally also i n Symp. 198 B f., Rep. 462 c ff., Tkeaet.
poets t o be useless o r even i m p o s s i b l e . B e h i n d t h i s sceptical a t t i t u d e t o t h e
206 D , Tim. 4 9 E, cf. Bp. v i i 342 B f f . ) . Sophistic debates a n d t h e dis-
i n t e r p r e t e r s , w h e t h e r rhapsodes o r Sophists, t h e r e lies Plato's deep dis-
coveries o f c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w e r e , n o d o u b t , a sort o f s t i m u l u s f o r P l a t o ;
P o e t r y w a s t o h i m s o m e t h i n g dXoyov, ' n o t
b u t he w e n t b a c k also t o t h e H o m e r i c studies a n d t o t h e serious ' l i n g u i s t i c '
reasonable' o r even ' c o n t r a r y t o reason'. H e r e g a r d e d i t f r o m t h e b e g i n -
studies o f e a r l i e r p h i l o s o p h e r s . C r a t y l u s h i m s e l f , a so-called H e r a c l i t e a n ,
n i n g as ' i n s p i r e d ' (Apol. Q2 A - C , Ion 533 E e t c . ) , a n d l a t e r o n , a c c o r d i n g
n a t u r a l l y represents t h e ideas o f H e r a c l i t u s , b u t there are E l e a t i c elements
t r u s t o f t h e poets themselves.
2
3
1
t o t h e d o c t r i n e d e v e l o p e d i n Rep. x , also as ' m i m e t i c ' (esp. 595 ff.). T h i s
a d m i x e d b y t h e o t h e r i n t e r l o c u t o r H e r m o g e n e s , a n d possibly also D e m o -
was n o t i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o his g e n e r a l v i e w , w h i c h h e n e v e r gave u p ,
critean elements;
b u t a n a d d i t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n , based o n t h e f o l l o w i n g m e t a p h y s i c a l
P l a t o n i c d i a l o g u e deals exclusively w i t h ' w o r d s ' a n d t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o
a p h i l o s o p h y o f l a n g u a g e i n g e n e r a l emerges. T h e
2
takes o n l y t h e t h i r d place after t h e
' t h i n g s ' , a n d Plato's w h o l e interest is c o n c e n t r a t e d o n t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f
p r o t o t y p e s a n d t h e w o r l d o f objects ( i b i d . 597 E) a n d so H o m e r ' s p o e t r y
t h e k n o w l e d g e o f r a cVra, o f t h e ' w o r l d o f t h i n g s ' . I t is o n l y i f w e keep
argument: 'Imitation
(filfi7)ais)
as i m i t a t i o n is p l a y , n o t seriousness' (etvat 7rai8iav rivet
KOX
ov oirovSr/v
TT)V
t h i s m a i n t e n d e n c y i n o u r m i n d t h a t w e m a y be able t o grasp t h e m e a n i n g
i b i d . 602 B) ; s t i l l w o r s e , t h e r e are others, l i k e t h e t r a g e d i a n s ,
o f some o f his i n d i v i d u a l statements o n l a n g u a g e , p a r t i c u l a r l y o n e t y m o -
' w h o p r o d u c e a n e v i l p o l i t i c a l o r d e r i n t h e soul o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' ( i b i d .
logy, w h i c h otherwise sound rather s t a r t l i n g t o the m o d e r n m i n d , a n d
605 B). I n Plato's i d e a l c i t y as t h e r e a l m o f reason t h e citizens w o u l d be
are easily m i s u n d e r s t o o d .
IxifLrjaLv
3
e n d a n g e r e d b y t h e p o e t s ; therefore t h e y h a v e t o be e x p e l l e d ( w i t h v e r y
P r o t a g o r a s , i t seems, used b u t one expression f o r w o r d s , ovojiara; so
few exceptions, i b i d . 607 A ; cf. Leg. 8 1 7 B C ) . T h e ' a n c i e n t q u a r r e l * b e t w e e n
a p p a r e n t l y d i d A n t i s t h e n e s . P l a t o i n h i s Cratylus used t w o , avofiara a n d
p h i l o s o p h y a n d p o e t r y (iraXaià . . . Siatpopà
ia r e
KO1
4
i b i d . 607 B 5 ) , s t a r t e d b y X e n o p h a n e s , w a s r e n e w e d o n a h i g h e r l e v e l (see
prifxara (399 AB, 425 A, 4 3 1 B) ; t h e y w e r e m o r e c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d a n d d e f i n e d i n t h e Sophistes (262 A) : ovofiara are u n d e r s t o o d as ' n a m e s o f
also Rep. n , esp. 379 i f . o n poets a n d g o d s ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y there c o u l d be
t h i n g s ' a n d pSj^ara as ' t h i n g s said a b o u t t h e m ' .
n o place f o r l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m ; a n ' i n s p i r e d * p o e t r y is inaccessible t o i t ,
a t e c h n i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n i n t h e sense o f t h e l a t e r g r a m m a r ( ' n o u n ' a n d
a n d a ' p l a y f u l ' m i m e t i c a r t seemed t o be h a r d l y a w o r t h w h i l e subject f o r
' v e r b ' ) n o r a l o g i c a l one ('subject' a n d ' p r e d i c a t e ' i n t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n
7roir]TtKfj
5
This was neither
serious c r i t i c i s m . A s f o r t h e p o l y m a t h y , i n c l u d i n g t h e a n t i q u a r i a n studies, o f people like H i p p i a s , n o b o d y w o u l d expect Plato t o have p a r t i c u l a r l y v a l u e d t h a t , even i f h e h a d n o t expressed his o p i n i o n u n m i s t a k a b l y i n t h e H i p p i a s dialogues. On revvij, ipireipla, and imo-ryfi-n see H. Steinthal I I 1 6 2 - 7 9 ; see also below on Dionys. Thr. pp. 2 6 8 and 2 7 2 . E. R. Dodds, Plato: Gorgias (1959) 322 ; H. Flashar, Der Dialog Ion (1958) 106 ff.: 'Platon und die Dichter' with bibliography. * èvBovataofiés must imply 'divine' origin (Bciq. p-alpq, KO.1 KaroKcox^ Ion 5 3 6 c) ; but this poetical unconscious 'enthusiasm' is fundamentally different from the évBovalaais of the philosopher (Pkaedr. 24g CE) who is led by reasoning to knowledge and truth npos rip Bdip ytyvo/icvoj. 1
A
1
Vors. 6 5 (only testimonies, no fragments); J . Stenzel, RE xi 1660 ff. See above, p. 4 2 , and below, Excursus to p. 6 0 . Steinthal i 79 ff. The complete title of this great work deserves attention; it was first published in 1863, dedicated to A. Bockh, and its chapters on philosophy of language are not yet superseded. On Steinthal's own theories see J . Wach, Das Verstehen in (1933) 2 0 6 - 5 0 . — P. Friedlander, Platan 11 (1957) 181 ff. Kratylos; bibliography in notes i , 7, 8, 2 0 , pp. 310 ff.; cf. also Sandys l 9 2 - 9 6 ; G. Murray, Greek Studies 176—9 in a paper quoted above, p. 3 9 , n. 3, on Cratylus not very sympathetic and partly mistaken; R. H . Robins, Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory in Europe (1951) 12 ff.; Barwick, 'Stoische Sprachlehre' 7 0 - 7 9 (Platons Kratylos). * Protagoras: above, pp. 37 ff., Antisthenes pp. 36f. I borrow my translation from G. Murray's paper, loc. cit. 1
2
1
1
1
3
s
Primary Elements of Language
The Masters of Philosophy in A hens
6o
sense o f v7TOKelp,€vov a n d
Kavrnyopovp-fvov) ; i t was p r o p o s e d a n d e x p l a i n e d
i n t h e course o f t h e discussion o n t h e v a l u e o f w o r d s f o r t h e k n o w l e d g e o f t h i n g s (T<X c W a ) , w h i c h was Plato's m a i n c o n c e r n , as w e h a v e j u s t s a i d .
1
Ad cf>ÎXos (Crat. 399 B ) , duAos is a pfjp.a, because i t is s a i d a b o u t h i m ; AùfaXos, as t h e n a m e o f someone, is a n 6vop,a. B o t h are SrjXojfzaTa, ' m e a n s o f m a k i n g s o m e t h i n g k n o w n ' , as P l a t o s a i d i n t h e Sophistes (261 E ) , w h e r e 6vop.a refers t o t h e Trpdrrovres (doing the action) a n d prjtia t o t h e irpâl-is ( t h e a c t i o n ) ; b u t t h e y d o n o t m a k e a n y t h i n g k n o w n u n t i l t h e y are ' t w i n e d t o g e t h e r ' a n d p r o d u c e a Xoyos, a sentence : âvdpwiros pLavôàvet (262 c ) . I f someone is c a l l e d
I f w o r d s r e a l l y are ÔTiAio/xara, i t is w o r t h w h i l e t o i n q u i r e i n t o t h e 'elements' o u t o f w h i c h t h e y are m a d e . H i p p i a s t h e Sophist m a y h a v e e n t e r e d t h i s p r o v i n c e before P l a t o , d e a l i n g w i t h letters a n d
syllables
a n d r h y t h m s i n a different w a y , perhaps f o l l o w i n g D e m o c r i t u s .
2
Plato
d a y , as P l a t o f r e e l y a d o p t e d expressions c o i n e d b y others. A s h e h i m s e l f seems t o h a v e used aroix^ta a t first, i n t h e Cratylus, i n a l i t e r a r y sense
(<pojvrj$ o-Totyeia), one is t e m p t e d t o assume t h a t t h e t e r m o r i g i n a l l y m e a n t t h e letters t o b e d r a w n u p i n a r o w alphabet,
1
trrot^os), t h e
(OTOIXCOJ,
a n d was t h e n t r a n s f e r r e d t o science, t o physics, a n d m a t h e -
m a t i c s . O b j e c t i o n s h a v e b e e n raised against t h i s hypothesis a n d s t r o n g arguments advanced for the p r i o r i t y o f mathematics, o n the g r o u n d that 2
a y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Plato's, a p u p i l o f E u d o x u s ,
Menaechmus,
3
applied oroiycra to elementary m a t h e m a t i c a l demonstrations. Whatever m a y b e t h e o u t c o m e o f t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y , f o r o u r p u r p o s e Plato's statements
Cratylus are decisive, as t h e y a l o n e i n f l u e n c e d l a t e r t e r m i n o l o g y . (Crat. 424 c ) ; t h e first g r o u p are TQ (piovqevra ' t h e v o w e l s ' , t h e second g r o u p (rd erepa) are rd re aaSojvo. KOL dtpdoyya, ' t h e consonants a n d t h e m u t e s ' , t o i n the
So d i d t h e names o f t h e g r o u p s i n t o w h i c h h e d i v i d e d t h e aroixeta
c a l l e d t h e elements o f s o u n d ( w h i c h h e a p p a r e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h ' l e t t e r s '
use t h e m o d e r n t e r m s ; t h e consonants w h i c h are n o t ddoyya are c a l l e d
ypapLpiara, as t h e first c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e syllable) o r o i y e i a (Crat. 393 D ,
•qp,i(f>ojv(L b y A r i s t o t l e .
4 2 4 c , 4 2 6 D) ; i n t h e Sophistes (252 B) he used t h e same t e r m f o r t h e f i r s t
experts o n o r o i ^ e t a :
p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e p h y s i c a l w o r l d . A f e w decades l a t e r A r i s t o t l e ' s f a v o u r i t e
w h o m h e m a y h a v e m e a n t H i p p i a s o r o t h e r Sophists.
p u p i l , E u d e m u s o f R h o d e s , was n o t a b l e t o find a n y e a r l i e r evidence o f
q u e s t i o n was w h e t h e r a correspondence b e t w e e n s o u n d a n d m e a n i n g i n
3
t h i s u s a g e ; so h e a c k n o w l e d g e d Plato's p r i o r i t y ,
arotxeta irpwros avros
4
F o r his d i v i s i o n P l a t o expressly
ovrwal yap
TTOV
Xiyovaiv
01 Setvoi 7rept 5
refers t o t h e
rovrcov, b y
Plato's o w n n e w
these p r i m a r y elements c o u l d be f o u n d ; h e considers t h a t pa) m a y suggest
E u d e m u s w o u l d o n l y b e r e f i t t e d , i f a passage o f t h e P e r i p a t e t i c p h i l o -
(Crat. 426 c, 4 3 4 c ) a n d m a y b e a n ' i m i t a t i v e s o u n d ' as i n petv a n d po-r), o r t h a t Aa/SSa suggests s o m e t h i n g s m o o t h a n d soft (Xctov,
sopher A d r a s t u s o f A p h r o d i s i a s (second c e n t u r y A.D.) c o u l d be d a t e d b a c k
pLaXaKov),
œvofiao-e
ras roiavras dpxds ( f r . 31 W e h r l i ) . T h i s m a y w e l l be c o r r e c t . 4
i n t o the
fifth
a n d so o n .
t h e n P l a t o as w e l l as A r i s t o t l e w o u l d b e
I n t h e course o f t h e d i a l o g u e several s i m i l a r questions are raised, o f
d e p r i v e d o f t h e c l a i m t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f several i m p o r t a n t scientific
w h i c h w e c a n m e n t i o n o n l y one o r t w o . W h e n some oroiYeia, s i g n i f i c a n t
t e r m s , Such as
c e n t u r y B.C.;
rapid motion
5
ovopuxra a n d prqpLara, a>val irpwrai . . . oroiyciaiSciS' . . .
i n themselves, are p u t t o g e t h e r a n d f o r m e d i n t o w o r d s , s h o u l d i t n o t b e
(rd ervpLa) a n d so finally r e a c h irvpioXoyla,
aStatperot. So f a r , t h e r e has n o t b e e n t h e slightest p r o o f , n o r has a n y c l e a r
possible t o find o u t t h e i r ' t r u e ' m e a n i n g
p r e - P l a t o n i c evidence b e e n d e t e c t e d ; b u t , o f course, i t m a y t u r n u p o n e
t h e essence o f t h i n g s ? N o w , t h i s looks l i k e t h e o l d task o f
Plato speaks about the SiW/us of àvépara Crat. 3 9 4 BC. The source of Diog. L . in 2 5 (Favorinus as in HI 2 4 , F . Leo, Die griech.-rom. Biographie (1901) 5 5 ; cf. ibid. 4 6 ff., about evp^fiara) refers, I should think, to this passage or to similar ones when it calls attention to some fip^fiara of Plato's: KOX rrparros èBedtprjoe TT}S ypau-u-artKijs TOV ovvap.iv. Whatever Diog. L . meant by Swa/us, Plato never pretended to speculate on 'grammar', which did not yet exist in the later technical sense. The translations of the often-quoted remark of Diog. L . differ widely and are misleading: Sandys i 92 'the first to speculate on the nature of grammar', or R. H . Robins, loc. cit. 17 'first considered the potentialities of grammar'. In Strata's line oKoirtîv tKaorov r i Svvarai râ\v prjuAraiv (below, p. 9 1 ) Swarat simply refers to the proper 'meaning' of the rare vocables. * See above, p. 53. Cf. Theaet. 201 E , 202 E , 203 B, Phileb. 18 c oToiveîa, as letters; as first principles cf. Tim. 4 8 B, 5 4 i>. * Cf. Diog. L . in 24 ; in this case we can trace the statement of Diog. L to a reliable source (via Favorinus ?) ; on the other hand, see the sceptical remarks to p. 35, n. 3 and above, n. 1. 1
3
1
s
See
Excursus.
f a m i l i a r f r o m H o m e r i c t i m e s as a n i n n a t e s t r i v i n g o f t h e G r e e k m i n d t o understand and explain the
6vop.ara, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e a n c i e n t p r o p e r
n a m e s o f gods a n d m e n ; t h e poets w e r e f o l l o w e d b y t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s ( H e r a c l i t u s , D e m o c r i t u s ) , h i s t o r i a n s (Hecataeus, H e r o d o t u s ) , a n d Sophists (Prodicus, H i p p i a s ? ) , w h o occasionally a n d a r b i t r a r i l y t r i e d their h a n d On the origin of the Greek alphabet see above, pp. 20 ff. The masterly pamphlet of H. Diels, Elementum (Leipzig 1 8 9 9 ) , opened the debate on the origin of oToivefov; the complete history of the controversy is given by W. Burkert, 'Erotxciov. Erne semasiologische Studie' (see Excursus to p. 6 0 ) who himself strongly pleads for the mathematical origin; see also above, p. 2 3 , n. 1 and Jeffery, The Local Scripts 4 0 . Eudera. fr. 133, Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 8 (1955) 5 5 . 2 ; cf. Plat. Tim. (above, p. 6 0 , n. 3 ) . On 'semi-vowels' see Aristotle below, p. 76. ' Plat. Crat. 4 2 4 c and E, Hipp. min. 3 6 8 D, Phtleb. 18 BC ; Hippias, see above, pp. 5 3 , 6 0 ; cf. Eur. Palamed. fr. 5 7 8 . 2 N . (415 B.C.). 1
a
J
4
a
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
Origin of Words
a t t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l g a m e . T h e P l a t o n i c Socrates, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
ones o n t h e p a r t o f those w h o are n o t w i l l i n g t o give a c c o u n t o f h o w t h e
s t a r t e d a m e t h o d i c a l a n d consistent i n q u i r y i n t o t h e f u n d a m e n t a l p r o b -
p r i m a r y w o r d s are c o r r e c t l y g i v e n . N o t o n l y here b u t i n n e a r l y every
62
l e m ' w h e t h e r t h e names themselves w i l l b e a r witness t h a t t h e y a r e n o t a t
el dpa rip.lv drro rov avrop,drov ovrws e / c a o r a
a l l g i v e n a t h a p h a z a r d , b u t h a v e a c e r t a i n correctness':
e-nifxaprvpTfaei avrd rd ovop,ara pjrf irdw KetoOai, dXX e%€iv nvd opBoTora (Crat. 397 A ) . A w o r d has 'correctness', i f i t expresses t h e essence o f t h e t h i n g : ovop,aros, tf>ap,ev, opdomns iariv avrr) 17V1? evoel^erai 010V eon TO rrpdyp.a (428 E), cf. otjXovv otov enaorov eari TCOV OVTOiV (422 D ) . F o r P r o d i c u s t h e Sophist 77 r&v ovop.drmv opBoTns h a d m e a n t t h e
63
1
case, Socrates i m m e d i a t e l y r a i s e d d o u b t s a n d objections t o t h e a r g u m e n t s w h i c h he h i m s e l f h a d j u s t advanced at l e n g t h .
1
F r o m t h e so-called p r i m a r y w o r d s t h e r e is b u t a step t o t h e general q u e s t i o n o f t h e origin o f w o r d s : d o w o r d s exist as a p r o d u c t o f n a t u r e
(va€i) o r as t h e result o f c o n v e n t i o n (vdpLw) ? A s f a r as I a m a w a r e t h e (Xe£is, Aoyos), b u t a l w a y s ovop.ara; 2
d i a l o g u e does n o t say ' l a n g u a g e '
t h e q u e s t i o n is w h o first gave names t o t h i n g s . T h i s c o n t r o v e r s y i n t h e
Cratylus is o n l y p a r t o f t h e w h o l e g r e a t d i s p u t e b e t w e e n tpvms a n d vopios
p r o p e r d i s t i n c t i o n o f k i n d r e d t e r m s a n d t h e i r c o r r e c t use i n o r a t o r y ;
w h i c h b e g a n i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y B.C.
3
O n e o f Socrates'
Socrates gave t h e same expression a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t a n d p u r e l y p h i l o -
i n t e r l o c u t o r s p l e a d e d f o r ' n a t u r e ' i t s e l f as t h e g i v e r o f n a m e s , t h e o t h e r
s o p h i c a l m e a n i n g . H e l e t a t o r r e n t o f e x a m p l e s r u s h a t his p a r t n e r s i n t h e
f o r ' c o n v e n t i o n ' ; Socrates a r g u e d against b o t h o f t h e m , as he a r g u e d i n
d e b a t e , p a r d y i n g e n i o u s l y c o n t r i v e d ones, p a r t l y w i l d fancies. N o t c o n -
o t h e r cases e v e n against himself, pitilessly e x p o s i n g every o b s c u r i t y i n t h e
tent w i t h the o l d etymology o f
as t h e 'destroyer' ( 4 0 4 E a n d
a r g u m e n t s . T h e r e f o r e , a l l these n e g a t i v e p a r t s o f t h e Cratylus h a v e t h e i r
405 E ) , h e offers n o less t h a n f o u r n e w ervpia r e v e a l i n g t h e god's f o u r
special i m p o r t a n c e ; a t t h e e n d , w h e n t h e c l a i m s o f t w o k i n d s o f names t o
ATTOMWV
1
p o w e r s , as t h e a?rAo£>,
del
fidXAovros, aTroAou'ovroc,
SpLOTToXovvros
(406 A) . I t
be ' l i k e t h e t r u t h ' c o n f l i c t e d w i t h e a c h o t h e r , Socrates r e a c h e d t h e
final
is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e P l a t o n i c Socrates t h a t h e n o l o n g e r r e l i e d o n m e r e
negative c o n c l u s i o n : ' I t is p l a i n t h a t w e m u s t l o o k f o r s o m e t h i n g else,
similarities o f sound
W h e n he d e r i v e d t h e
n o t names, t h a t w i l l show us w i t h o u t names w h i c h o f these t w o k i n d s are
n a m e o f t h e M u s e s (Movaa, D o r i c Mwaa) f r o m p.wodat ' t o seek after, t o
t h e t r u e ones, w h i c h o f t h e m , t h a t is t o say, show t h e t r u t h o f t h i n g s ' ,
m e d i t a t e ' , he d i d n o worse t h a n m o d e r n l i n g u i s t s . G o i n g o n t o A p o l l o ' s
8T)XOV6TI
m o t h e r / b j r o j , h e r e f e r r e d t o m a n y £evoi w h o c a l l h e r A-nBa> because o f h e r
OTTorepa
' s m o o t h c h a r a c t e r ' , h e r XtTov •fjBos; so h e seriously l o o k e d t o n o n - A t t i c
(438 D) . A l i t t l e f u r t h e r o n , a s h o r t p o s i t i v e s t a t e m e n t is a d d e d a b o u t
f o r m s i n G r e e k dialects o r obsolete f o r m s used b y t h e e a r l y Greeks
ovra: ' t h a t t h e y are to be l e a r n e d a n d s o u g h t f o r n o t f r o m names, b u t
— aVoAAiW
(AITOXXOJV
KTX.)
.
Z
3
(ol
TTXTJV ovop^drcov, a rjpiiv epLaviei avev ovop-d earl TaA^Ö^, oet^avra 877A0VÖV1 rr/v a A r ; 6 V i a v TOJV CVTGJV
aAA' aVra £?jT7)Tea TOVTOJV
rd
"EXXyves ovop,ara . . . 7rapa TutvfiapfidpuivetXrjipaaiv, cf. 416 A) : rrvp, vBojp, a n d some others m i g h t
o n OVK ovopbdrajv ptaXXov avrd e£ avriov teat piadrjTeov KOI £TJT7]T4OV vj 4£ ovopt-drta (439 B ; cf. 438 E ret oVra . . . auTd, St* avrdiv). T h e phrases aAA* a n a . . . TrXr/v ovop\dToiv a n d r a ovra . . . a u r a e£ o r Si* OJUTWV seem t o i n d i c a t e
have been b o r r o w e d
a n o t h e r stage o f P l a t o n i c p h i l o s o p h y , w h i c h is r e a c h e d i n t h e S e v e n t h
TraAcuot 407 A o n A t h e n a , cf, 418 BC) f o r h e l p i n t r a c i n g etymologies.
m u c h b e t t e r t h r o u g h themselves t h a n f r o m names',
F i n a l l y w h e n t h e r e w a s n o h e l p from a n y G r e e k source, Socrates sus-
dXXa
p e c t e d ' f o r e i g n ' o r i g i n (409 D ff. o r i 7T0AA0 from
01
the Phrygians, although slightly modified
TTOXV
(410 A ) . B u t i n his best i r o n i c a l m o o d , h e r e g a r d e d such assumptions o f
L e t t e r (Ep. v n p p . 342 A f f . ) w h e r e w o r d a n d i m a g e (oVop-a a n d CISOJAOV)
b o r r o w i n g from t h e b a r b a r i a n s as 'evasions': a t f r a i yap dv iraoai eKovoeis
h a v e t h e i r p r o p e r p l a c e assigned i n t h e d i a l e c t i c a l process. M e a n w h i l e
elev KOX pidXa Kopuf/al rip pvi) eBeXovri Xoyov StSovai trepl rcov rrpioruiv ovopbd6JC dpBu>s /ceirat (426 A ) , ' a l l these m a y be evasions a n d v e r y clever
t o u s ; b u t t h i s is n o t t h e w h o l e story.
4
TOJV
The etymology {from arroWvfu) is at least as early as Archilochus fr. 3 0 D. , who played upon the name of the god as he played on the various forms of a single word, above, p. 14. Wilamowitz, Glauhe der Hellenen n 114. 4 , was not right in rejecting the idea of an etymological play by Archilochus, proposed already by Apollod. 3 4 4 FGrHist 9 5 . io, cf. Aesch. Ag. 1081, Eur. fr. 781. 12 N.». See above, p. 5, n. 2. O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte n ( i g o 6 ) 1076. 1; J . B. Hofmann, 1
3
z 1
Etymologisckes 4
Cf. pp.
Worterbuck 41
and
79.
des Griechischen
(1949) 206.
t h e v e r d i c t o n t h e ovop,ara i n t h e Cratylus m a y b e a n o t h e r d i s a p p o i n t m e n t O n t h e w a y t o his final c o n c l u s i o n Socrates expressed some n e w i d e a s ; these discoveries w e r e m o r e i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e f u t u r e t h a n those o f t h e ' John Ruskin's 'etymologies' of Shakespeare's names are at least as bizarre as many in the Cratylus; the difference is that Ruskin seems to have been quite in earnest when he derived Desdemona from Svo&atpwia or Ophelia from dxp^Xeia, etc. 'Munera Puiveris', 5 t h essay § 134, Works, a s
11 (1872)
143.
See above, p. 53 (Hippias), below, p. 79 (Aristotle). F. Heinimann, 'Nomos und Physis', Schweizerische Beiträge
('945);
o
n
language 4 6
ff.
zur
Altertumswissenschaft
1
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
64
Academy and Peripatos
Sophists a n d c a n b e r e g a r d e d as ' r u d i m e n t s ' o f l i n g u i s t i c k n o w l e d g e .
1
65
p o l e m i c s against t h e Sophists w a s t o b e c o m e f u n d a m e n t a l f o r g r a m -
' C h a n g e s o f s o u n d ' i n s o m e names a r e e x p l a i n e d b y t h e desire f o r
m a t i c a l t h e o r y , as w e s h a l l see. T h i s is m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e effect o f
evarop-la,
t h e i n d i v i d u a l discoveries w e f o u n d i n his Cratylus. I t was n o t t h e r h e t o r i -
&ep47Ta<pa t h e o r i g i n a l f o r m a c c o r d i n g t o t h e e t y m o l o g y , w a s c h a n g e d i n t o Oeppifarra ( 4 0 4 D ) , Oi£ i n t o M$ty§ (414 CD), o r even b o l d e r s t i l l , *H6ovorj i n t o A8-nvda (407 B irapayaywv . . . eVc TO KCLXXLOV ;^cf. 4 0 8 B, 4 0 9 c, 4 1 4 c, 417 E)« T h e s e i n d i 'goodness o f s o u n d ' ( e u p h o n y ) :
>
c a l e n t h u s i a s m , t h e passionate l o v e o f l a n g u a g e s h o w n b y teachers
from
P r o t a g o r a s t o Isocrates, t h a t w e r e decisive, b u t Plato's r i g o r o u s c r i t i c i s m o f l a n g u a g e a n d his sober proofs o f its l i m i t a t i o n s . T h e u n i q u e c o m p o u n d
v i d u a l e x a m p l e s m u s t _ n o t b e t a k e n t o o seriously ; b u t t h e same p h o n e t i c
o f his s p i r i t , a t once c r e a t i v e , c r i t i c a l , a n d a r t i s t i c , gave t h e strongest
principle,
impulse t o future generations.
a v o i d a n c e o f c a c o p h o n y , is s t i l l used b y m o d e r n l i n g u i s t s t o 2
explain the origin o f striking Greek word-forms. W e have already m e n tioned
t h a t Socrates, i n w o r k i n g o u t e t y m o l o g i e s , r e f e r r e d also t o e a r l i e r
f o r m s n o l o n g e r used i n h i s time; these references
a r e based o n t h e
T h e first decades o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y w e r e a p e r i o d f u l l o f d a n g e r ; after t h e p o l i t i c a l c a t a s t r o p h e o f A t h e n s i n 4 0 4 B.C., t h e crisis o f t h e c i t y state a n d t h e i n e v i t a b l e c h a n g e i n social c o n d i t i o n s h e r a l d e d t h e a p -
g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t f o r m a l changes h a p p e n i n t h e course o f t i m e f o r
p r o a c h o f a n e w age. I n these years, before t h e f i n a l t u r n i n g - p o i n t w a s
v a r i o u s reasons; t h e sense o f a w o r d m a y h a v e been o b s c u r e d b y these
r e a c h e d w i t h A l e x a n d e r ' s e m p i r e , t w o p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools o f t h e u t m o s t
changes, a n d w e m u s t t r y t o discover t h e o r i g i n a l f o r m (410 c ; cf. 418 c,
i m p o r t a n c e w e r e f o u n d e d i n A t h e n s . P l a t o succeeded i n s e t t i n g u p h i s
420 B). ' C h r o n o l o g i c a l ' (not y e t 'historical') considerations o f this k i n d
school (after 388 B.C.) i n a g r o v e sacred t o t h e M u s e s a n d t o t h e h e r o
w e r e s u p p l e m e n t e d b y c o m p a r i s o n o f G r e e k w i t h f o r e i g n w o r d s (409 D
A k a d e m o s ; this o r g a n i z a t i o n , a religious g u i l d called t h e A c a d e m i a ,
fT.), t h e first v e r y s l i g h t h i n t a t a c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y o f languages. Socrates'
l a s t e d f o r m o r e t h a n 9 0 0 years. A s P l a t o h a d p a v e d t h e w a y f o r scholar-
suggestion t h a t t h e r u d i m e n t a r y sounds o f t h e p r i m a r y w o r d s p o s s i b l y
s h i p , so also i n l a t e r r e v i v a l s o f w h a t w e c a l l ' h u m a n i s m ' P l a t o n i s m
h a v e a p a r t i c u l a r significance m a y g i v e h i m a c l a i m t o b e t h e ancestor
p l a y e d its p a r t , w h e t h e r w e t h i n k o f O r i g e n o r t h e F l o r e n t i n e A c a d e m y o r
o f a t h e o r y c a l l e d ' s o u n d - s y m b o l i s m ' , w h i c h is s t i l l a l i v e i n o u r o w n days.
Erasmus o r W i n c k e l m a n n a n d H u m b o l d t .
3
T h e interpretation o f the
Cratylus leaves n o
d o u b t t h a t from t h e P l a t o n i c
p o i n t o f v i e w t h e s t u d y o f l a n g u a g e c a n n e v e r b e r e g a r d e d as t h e r e is n o t a w o r d even a b o u t a
ypap,p,ariicq rexyn
imorqfjer} ;
i n t h e sense o f ' g r a m -
T h e greatest p u p i l o f t h e P l a t o n i c A c a d e m y
from
1
t h e y e a r 368 B.C.
u n t i l Plato's d e a t h i n 348 B.C. w a s a f o r e i g n e r o f I o n i a n stock, A r i s t o t l e , w h o f i n a l l y established his o w n school a t t h e o t h e r e n d o f A t h e n s (335¬
m a r ' . A classical s c h o l a r l i k e W i l a m o w i t z c o u l d n o t q u i t e suppress h i s
323 B.C.) ; t h i s s c h o o l b o r e t h e n a m e P e r i p a t o s , a t least from t h e t i m e o f
i n d i g n a t i o n a b o u t Plato's a t t i t u d e ; h e regretted t h a t Plato
Theophrastus, w h o a p p a r e n t l y was able t o occupy a large grove o f the
4
5
'fur die
2
G r a m m a t i k nichts übrig h a t t e ' ; otherwise h e w o u l d have understood
Muses n e a r t h e t e m p l e o f A p o l l o L y c e u s . T h e P e r i p a t o s was d e s t i n e d t o
t h a t f o r l o g i c a l t x a i r i i n g i t c o u l d d o t h e same as t h e m a t h e m a t i c s o n w h i c h
r e m a i n i n p r o d u c t i v e r i v a l r y w i t h Plato's f o u n d a t i o n u n t i l the m i d d l e o f
h e e x c l u s i v e l y i n s i s t e d , o r sometimes even b e t t e r . B u t , as w e h a v e seen,
t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y A . D . I t is m a i n l y d u e t o these t w o
' g r a m m a r ' as a m e t h o d i c a l
re^yv
established
A t h e n i a n o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t r e l a t i v e l y m a n y w o r k s o f t h e i r founders a r e
been a p p l i e d t o logical t r a i n i n g ; mathematics, o n the other h a n d , h a d
w e l l preserved; they were better able t o collect, copy, distribute, a n d h a n d
b e e n d e v e l o p e d f o r c e n t u r i e s a n d w a s r e g a r d e d b y P l a t o as t r u e ememj/Liij.
t h e m o n t o p o s t e r i t y t h a n a n y p r e v i o u s p h i l o s o p h i c a l circles i n t h e east o r
T h i s leads us b a c k t o t h e g e n e r a l r e m a r k s w i t h w h i c h w e b e g a n t h i s
west. T h e r e is n o evidence a b o u t t h e e a r l y f o r t u n e s o f P l a t o ' s d i a l o g u e s ;
s h o r t c h a p t e r . T h e ch^tinction o f
o
t
y
firmly
exist a n d c o u l d n o t h a v e
n
e
t
kpmtipia. a n d re^vr)
m a d e b y P l a t o i n his
See Friedländer, Plaion I I igof.; Barwick 76 fr. influence on the Stoics and on the Alexandrians; cf. also below, p. 243. W. Schulze, KZ 4 3 ( 1 9 1 0 ) 1 8 5 - 9 Kieme Schriften ( 1 9 3 3 ) 3 0 4 - 8 'Kakophonie'. E . Cassirer, Philosophie der symbolischen Formen 1 Die Sprache ( 1 9 2 3 ) 139 fr., refers to Leibniz, W. v. Humboldt, Jacob Grimm, Hermann Paul; E . Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik 1 ( 1 9 3 9 ) 3 7 , mentions the revival of this theory by A. Meillet and his school. * On «rtonj>*ij see above, p. 5 7 ; ypau-u-artKr} T. means no more than the fitting or non fitting together of ypdu.ft.aTa single letters (Soph. 2 5 3 A). See also below, p. 76 on Aristotle. s Wilamowitz, Platan 1 ( 1 9 1 9 ) 5 6 1 . 3 (a very characteristic note with reference to his own schooldays). 1
a
3
3
=
b u t i t is a f a i r guess t h a t t h e first g e n e r a t i o n o f his p u p i l s t r i e d t o c o l l e c t , to arrange, a n d t o copy t h e autographs o f the master, Platans Akademie 2 n d
ed.
a n d t h a t this
with bibliography 2 5 fr.; P. B o y a n c 6 , Le ff. The first to try to reconstruct a history of the Academy as the model of scientific organization was H . Usener, 'Organisation der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit', Preuss. Jahrb. 53 (1884) 1 ff. = Vorträge u. Aufsätze ( 1 9 0 7 ) 67 ff. K. O. Brink, 'Peripatos', RE, Suppl. 7 { 1 9 4 0 ) 8 9 9 ff. (offprint 1 9 3 6 ) ; cf. the testimonia for n*ptiraros, etc., in Düring Aristotle 4 0 4 - 1 1 . Wilamowitz, Piaton 11 (1920) 3 2 4 ; against the assumption of a fundamental edition made by the Academy after Plato's death G. Jachmann, 'Der Platontext', Nachr. der Göttinger 81*848 F 1
H . Herter,
3
(1952)
Culte des Muses chez les philosophes grecs (1937) 262
1
3
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
Aristotle not the Creator of Philology
' A c a d e m y E d i t i o n ' b e c a m e t h e basis o f a l l t h e l a t e r ones. O n t h e o t h e r
h i s t o r y o f t h e ' b o o k ' ; t h e y used b o o k s , so o f t e n m a l i g n e d , especially b y
66
67
1
h a n d , w e h a v e n o c e r t a i n k n o w l e d g e o f a n y o r a l 'esoteric' i n s t r u c t i o n ( i n
P l a t o , i n o r d e r t o save t h e f u n d a m e n t a l w o r k o f t h e i r o w n
t h e l i n e o f P y t h a g o r a s ) b e i n g g i v e n b y P l a t o h i m s e l f t o a selected i n n e r
A r i s t o t l e a n d his f o l l o w e r s c o u l d n o t h a v e a c h i e v e d t h e i r i m m e n s e l y
c i r c l e o f disciples. I n A r i s t o t l e , h o w e v e r , w e h a v e t o m a k e a d i s t i n c t i o n
l e a r n e d c o m p i l a t i o n s i f t h e y h a d n o t a c c u m u l a t e d as m a n y w r i t i n g s o f t h e
1
b e t w e e n those o f his books c a l l e d earlier A c a d e m i c '
Dialogues, w r i t t e n
d o w n p r o b a b l y i n his
p e r i o d for a w i d e r reading p u b l i c , a n d the works 2
past
masters.
as t h e y c o u l d get h o l d o f ; after t h e occasional allusions t o m o d e s t
2
earlier collections
i t is w e l l attested t h a t t h e first l a r g e p r i v a t e l i b r a r y
3
p r o d u c e d i n c o n n e x i o n w i t h his t e a c h i n g , n o t o n l y as t h e h e a d o f his o w n
was f o u n d e d b y A r i s t o t l e a n d passed o n t o his successors, w h o p r o b a b l y
s c h o o l i n his second A t h e n i a n p e r i o d , b u t also e a r l i e r b e t w e e n 348 a n d
transferred i t to the L y c e u m .
4
e a r l i e r s m a l l e r essays; b u t t h e y w e r e g e n u i n e ' w r i t i n g s ' , ypdp^iara, r e a d
'Opvqpov or. 36. 1, m or. 53 I I 2 7 4 Reiske) : ApioToreX-qs ad>* ot? <paai rrjv KpniKTfv re Kai ypap.fLaTiKr)v apxqv Xaßetv, ' A r i s t o t l e , f r o m w h o m , as t h e y
t o t h e a u d i e n c e i n his s c h o o l . L a t e r o n t h e y m a y h a v e been
say,
335 B.C., w h e n h e w a s s t a y i n g i n t h e T r o a s , i n Lesbos, a n d i n M a c e d o n i a a t t h e r o y a l c o u r t . These seem t o h a v e o r i g i n a t e d f r o m lectures a n d
rearranged and
finally
sometimes
m a d e p u b l i c b y members o f the Peripatos ; they
D i o C h r y s o s t o m says i n his speech o n H o m e r (77epi
vol. II, p . n o A r n .
criticism a n d g r a m m a r made a beginning'. This view o f Dio's
a n o n y m o u s source
5
is shared b y m a n y m o d e r n scholars, f o r instance
Upay^aretat,
L . U r l i c h s ( ' Z u e i n e r Wissenschaft d e r P h i l o l o g i e h a t Aristoteles d e n
B e t w e e n these t w o g r o u p s t h e r e is a t h i r d o n e , ' M e m o r a n d a
G r u n d gelegt'), o r W . Jaeger ('Aristoteles. . . Schöpfer der Philologie')
a n d C o l l e c t i o n s ' , p u t d o w n f o r lectures a n d b o o k s , a n d p u b l i s h e d post-
or F. M e h m e l ( ' A r i s t o t e l e s . . . der eigentliche A h n h e r r . . . der Philologie
f o r m t h e b u l k o f t h e e x t a n t w o r k s a n d are o f t e n c a l l e d 'Treatises'.
3
6
7
8
h u m o u s l y , b u t lost t o us as a w h o l e , l i k e t h e Dialogues ; o n l y f r a g m e n t s
ü b e r h a u p t ' ) . W r i t e r s , w h e t h e r o n t h e h i s t o r y o f classical s c h o l a r s h i p , o n
are
A r i s t o t l e , o r o n H o m e r i c c r i t i c i s m , agree i n r e g a r d i n g A r i s t o t l e as ' f o u n -
preserved,
writings.
a n d m a n y t i t l e s i n t h e a m a z i n g lists o f A r i s t o t e l i a n
der*, ' c r e a t o r ' , o r a t least 'ancestor', u n c o n s c i o u s l y , as i t seems, r e v i v i n g
4
W e h a v e w a t c h e d t h e s l o w progress o f t h e ' w r i t t e n ' w o r d f r o m t h e
a n o p i n i o n o f l a t e a n t i q u i t y . I f t h i s c o m m o n c o n v i c t i o n w e r e c o r r e c t , one
t o t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y a n d t h e p a r t t h e e a r l y Sophists a n d t h e i r
w o u l d h a v e t o suppose t h a t t h e earliest H e l l e n i s t i c poets a n d scholars
younger pupils played i n i t . I t m a y appear rather paradoxical t h a t
after 300 B.C., P h i l i t a s a n d his f o l l o w e r s , s i m p l y c o n t i n u e d t h e w o r k o f
Academy
A r i s t o t l e a n d his P e r i p a t e t i c school. W e h a v e p u t f o r w a r d a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t
fifth
5
a n d P e r i p a t o s , t h e schools o f t h e i r o p p o n e n t s , s h o u l d h a v e
m a d e a decisive n e w step t o w a r d s t h e e n d o f o u r t h i r d p e r i o d i n t h e
view,
9
a n d w e s h a l l h a v e t o d e a l w i t h this q u e s t i o n t h o r o u g h l y l a t e r o n ,
w h e n we trace the line f r o m the f o u r t h to the t h i r d century a n d examine Nr. 7. 334,who arguesformefirstediüon'shavingbeen made by Aristophanes of Byzantium (see below, pp. 196 f.). Against Jachmann H . Erbse, 'Überlieferungsgeschichte der griechischen klassischen und hellenistischen Literatur' in Geschichte der Textüberlieferung I (Zürich 1961) 219 fr. F. Wehrli, 'Aristoteles in der Sicht seiner Schule, Platonisches und Vorplatonisches' in Aristote et les problèmes de Méthode (Louvain i 9 6 0 ) 336, with reference to H . J . Kramer, 'Arete bei Platon und Aristoteles', Abhandlungen d. Heidelberger Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl. (1959) 6 , pp. 3 8 0 - 4 8 6 ; in an impressive but not very convincing manner Kramer revived the idea of an 'esoteric' Plato who revealed the essence of his philosophy not in his written dialogues, but only in the oral instruction of the inner circle of his pupils. Akademie (1941)
1
ed. V . Rose (1886) no. i - m ; Fragm. selecta ed. W. D. Ross (1955) pp. 1 - 9 9 ; testimonia for the term èÇojrepiKol \6yoi During, Aristotle 4 2 6 - 4 3 . 3 W.Jaeger, Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Metaphysik des Aristoteles (1912) 1 3 1 - 4 8 , 1
Fragm.
first explained the complicated process of 'publication'. F. Dirlmeier, 'Merkwürdige Zitate in der eudem. Ethik des Ar.', Sitz. Ber. Heidelberger Akad., Philos.-hist. kl., 78. 1962, 2. Abh., collecting the evidence for cross-references in Aristotle's books, stresses the Adyos-character also of the written work more strongly. There are many improvements on Jaeger's theory; as regards Plato, Dirlmeier unfortunately agrees with Kramer. Text of the ancient lists in V. Rose (above, n. 2 ) , pp. 3 - 2 2 ; cf. P. Moraux, Les Listes anciennes des ouvrages d'Aristote (Louvain 1951). New critical edition and commentary by During, Aristotle; cf. M. Plezia, Gnom. 3 4 (1962) 126 ff. * See above, pp. 2 5 - 3 2 , 5 8 . 4
the r e l a t i o n o f the Alexandrians t o the Peripatos i n d e t a i l . As the mistaken views o n Aristotie's position w h i c h w e have cited were d e r i v e d from his w o r k o n H o m e r , i t w i l l be c o n v e n i e n t t o l o o k first a t his book on
Homeric problems
a n d t o consider his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . W e s h a l l g o
o n t o t h e l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m o n H o m e r a n d o n t r a g e d y i n his
Poetics,
then
t o his studies o f l a n g u a g e , a n d finally t o his a n t i q u a r i a n collections, c o n t i n u e d i n t h e g r a n d style b y his p u p i l s . T h i s d i v i s i o n i n t o f o u r g r o u p s is Reading of plays became quite common, see Aristot. Poet. 1462 a 12, 17. Aristot. Top. 105 b 12 «VAey«»' XPV ' <° yeypa-pp-&>u>v X6yu>v. See above, pp. yf. Strab. XIII 608 ÄpiororiX-ns . . . nptxiTOS
1
K a
T
v
3 4
7
and
s
6
7
1
der
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
Idea of Teleology prior to Empirical Research
precisely t h e same as i n t h e c h a p t e r s o n t h e Sophists a n d o n P l a t o , e x c e p t
w h i c h t h e r e was n o progress a n y m o r e . T h e r e f o r e , i t was n o t t o o d i f f i c u l t
t h a t t h e o r d e r varies i n e a c h case; a scheme o f t h i s sort m a y l o o k r a t h e r
f o r A r i s t o t l e t o a p p l y his n o v e l c o n c e p t i o n o f teleology t o this u n i q u e
68
p e d a n t i c , b u t i t is p e r h a p s j u s t i f i e d , i f i t makes access t o l a r g e
and
a c h i e v e m e n t . H i s v a r i o u s tasks o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , p o e t i c a l t h e o r y , l i n g u i s t i c a n d a n t i q u a r i a n study were guided b y this general philosophical con-
scattered m a t e r i a l a l i t t l e easier. A r i s t o t l e accepted
69
the Platonic notions o f
epvnetpla
and
rexyn,
'ex-
ception. Nevertheless, t h e e m p i r i c a l research was d o n e w i t h g r e a t c a r e ; A r i s -
p e r i e n c e ' a n d ' a r t ' , d e f i n i n g t h e m a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f his Metaphysics; h e d i d n o t r e m a i n o n t h e o l d e m p i r i c a l l e v e l o f t h e Sophists, b u t t r i e d , l i k e
t o t l e seems t o h a v e t a k e n i m m e n s e t r o u b l e t o solve n u m e r o u s p r o b l e m s
P l a t o , t o find a n e w m e t h o d i c a l a p p r o a c h t o t h e o r e t i c a l k n o w l e d g e .
o f t h e H o m e r i c poems, some o f w h i c h h a d been discussed f o r t w o cen-
1
On
t h e o t h e r h a n d , he t o o k u p m a n y l i t e r a r y subjects t r e a t e d b y t h e Sophists
turies. Since X e n o p h a n e s h a d s t a r t e d his attacks o n m o r a l g r o u n d s a n d
o r I o n i a n p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d o t h e r questions raised b y t h e m w h i c h h a d n o
Theagenes h a d r e p l i e d w i t h a l l e g o r i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s , t h e H o m e r i c b a t t l e
interest for P l a t o . S o m e years ago i n a festival speech o n p h i l h e l l e n i s m
h a d h a r d l y ever s t o p p e d . A r i s t o t l e j o i n e d t h e c o m p a n y o f t h e defenders
2
1
I h i n t e d at a n e w a n d central idea o f Aristotle's w h o l e p h i l o s o p h y a n d its
o f H o m e r . W i t h o u t ever m e n t i o n i n g Plato's n a m e i n this c o n n e x i o n , he
i m p o r t a n c e for the u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the great l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n . A c c o r d -
m a d e t h e first effort t o restore t h e f u l l a u t h o r i t y o f t h e epic p o e t against
i n g to Aristotle a l l living organisms—plants, animals, m e n — m o v e and
P l a t o as w e l l as against m i n o r d e t r a c t o r s .
3
c h a n g e i n o r d e r t o a p p r o a c h t h e i r final ' f o r m '
(reXos
' e n d ' ) a n d so t o
P r o b a b l y o v e r a l o n g p e r i o d o f time A r i s t o t l e h a d d r a w n u p f o r his
a t t a i n t h e i r o w n ' n a t u r e ' ( d w W ) ; so h e c o u l d expressly say t h a t ' t h e
lectures a list o f ' d i f f i c u l t i e s ' o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n H o m e r w i t h t h e i r respec-
n a t u r e is t h e e n d ' ,
Pol.
I 2, p . 1252 b 32
r)
Se
Between
a l i v i n g o r g a n i s m a n d a l i t e r a r y w h o l e t h e r e is a n a n a l o g y , as A r i s t o t l e e m p h a s i z e d i n his
Poetics
(1458 a 2 0 ) . T h e stories i n n a r r a t i v e p o e t r y
' s h o u l d be based o n a single a c t i o n , one t h a t is a c o m p l e t e w h o l e i n itself
(oX-nv Kal reXelav),
w i t h a b e g i n n i n g , m i d d l e , a n d e n d , so as t o
t&ov ev oXov) t o (ri)v oUeiav rjSovrjvy. W e m u s t , o f
enable i t , l i k e a l i v i n g creature o f complete u n i t y p r o d u c e i t s o w n p r o p e r pleasure
(oWep
5
course, keep i n o u r m i n d a n essential difference. T h e l i v i n g o r g a n i s m s have their
reXos ( ' e n d ' ) ,
so t o speak, i n s i d e t h e m f r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g ,
tive 'solutions'; this custom o f
trj-rqaara TrpoßdXXeiv
m a y have prospered
a t t h e symposia o f i n t e l l e c t u a l circles. A r i s t o t l e ' s c o l l e c t i o n was
Airop-q^ara ' O / x - n p t / c a
4
t i o n o f gods a n d heroes, h a d d e c l a r e d t h a t i t c a n n o t be t r u e t h a t A c h i l l e s
f r o m outside, b y a 'maker', a
ov dyr)oop,ev dX-nd-r) elprjadai);
t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t t h e r e a f t e r is
t,wov.
6
T h e greatest G r e e k poets o f
t h e past h a d i n d e e d c r e a t e d w o r k s o f p e r f e c t i o n , w o r k s w h i c h h a d f o u n d their o w n 'nature'
(
T h e y actually h a d reached their 'end' beyond
or
5
dragged Hector's b o d y a r o u n d the t o m b o f Patroclus
TrotrjTfjs;
2
1
b u t t h e l i t e r a r y f o r m a t i o n s ( a n d a l l t h e o t h e r a r t i f i c i a l ones) are o r i g i n a t e d supposed t o be ' a n a l o g o u s ' t o t h a t o f a
after-
rd 'Opvqpov •npoßX-qp.ara o f w h i c h t h i r t y - e i g h t q u o t a t i o n s are p r e s e r v e d , m o s t l y i n P o r p h y r y ' s Homeric Questions. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h a t , n e a r l y t h e w h o l e o f c h a p t e r 25 o f t h e Poetics, w r i t t e n / J e p i npoßXr} fidr oiv Kal Xvaeatv, deals w i t h censures (imrtp,rjp,ara) o f H o m e r a n d w i t h answers t o t h e m (Xvaets). P l a t o , a m o n g s t his m a n y c o m p l a i n t s a b o u t H o m e r ' s representaw a r d s p u b l i s h e d , as i t seems, i n six books,
(Rep.
319 B
ravra
b u t Aristotle justified i t by referring to the
T h e s s a l i a n c u s t o m ( w h i c h s t i l l existed i n his o w n t i m e ) o f d r a g g i n g m e n ' s bodies a r o u n d t h e t o m b s o f those t h e y h a d m u r d e r e d ( f r . 166
Rose).
6
See above, pp. 9 ff., 36, 38, 44, 50, 58 ff. Diog. L . v 21 — Aristot. fragm. p. 7, no. 118 Rose = During p. 4 8 , no. 1 1 8 ; only fr. 179 R. is quoted with this title. Vitavulg. 3 p. 76. 22 Rose = During p. 1 3 2 ; VitaHesyck. 106 ft-nop. *Op.r\p. sue books p. 14 R. = Düring p. 8 6 , Vita Hesych. 147 LTpoßX. 'Oft. ten books p. 16 R. = Düring p. 8 7 ; Ptolemy el-Garib, Catalogue 98 'On recondite problems in Homer, in ten parts', Düring p. 2 3 0 , cf. p. 22 Rose, Vita Mardana 4 p. 76. 16 Rose = Düring p. 97 'Ofi-qptKa £171-17^0™. If these three different titles refer to the same writing of Aristotle, the title ^op^aTa quoted by Phrynichus and the Antiatticista fr. 179 R. may be 'original', and the figure six in Diog. L . and Hesych. 106 may be correct. * Fr. 1 4 2 - 7 9 Rose pp. 120 ff. Porphyrius Quaest. Homer, adltiadem, coll. H. Schräder (1880) 4 1 5 ff. and id. ad Odysseam (1890) 180 ff. on Aristotle's Homeric Problems. See Bywater's Commentary (above, p. 68, n. 5) p. 323. Schol. B Q 15 = Porphyr, pp. 267 f. Schräder 1
2
Aristot. Metaphys. A i , see above, p. 5 7 , n. 1 ; Aristot. Soph. El. 33 p. 184 a 2 - 8 against the ravefa . . . arexi-os • • . SiSaoxaAia 'the rapid unscientific teaching' of the Sophists; ou yap rexvriv, aXXa TO OTTO rijs Te'vvijs- SLOOVT€S iratoeveiv vneXafiov 'they fancied they were educating when they were imparting not the art itself but only the results'. 'Von der Liebe zu den Griechen', Munchener Universitdtsreden, N.F. 2 0 ( 1 9 5 8 ) 14 = Aus1
2
gewahlte Schriften { i 9 6 0 ) 2 8 2 . 3
K. v. Fritz,
4
p.
Studium generate
1252 b 32 otov yap tKaarov
xrv
(1961) 6 2 0
€<m
ff.
rijs yeveoeats
TtXeoBflovs,
ravrnv
tf>ap.h> rrjv tpvaiv
etvat
oiVias; cf. Pkys. I l l 6 p. 2 0 7 a 8, V 4 p. 2 2 8 b 13. * Bywater's translation (Aristotle, On the Art of Poetry, 1 9 0 9 ) , except for wa-rtep-oXov; on rfiovr) see below, p. 7 5 ; cf. ibid. 1450 b 3 4 £o>ov. The conception of an analogy between a Aoyos and a {,&ov is Platonic, Phaedr. 2 6 4 D ; but Aristotle draws quite new consequences. eKaorov
6
wonep avdptonov, tmrov,
3
s
6
Taov TOV narpdicXov
ToiavTa T}V, €7rei
. . . tort
Sc Xvois, <pr)otv ßpiorOTeXys, Kat els TO inapxovra
KOI VVV ev T% QerraXta
rrepUXKovai
irepi
TOVS Taovs
(sc.
dviymv
tdt], 5TI
ra>v $ovev8evraiv
rois
7o
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
T h e f o r m o f t h e q u o t a t i o n hid rt. is t a k e n o u t o f t h e w o r k o n
. . eon
Aristotle neither Editor nor Interpreter
Be Xvm$ leaves n o d o u b t t h a t i t
71
i n t h e g r a n d style, i n w h i c h h e v e r y p r o b a b l y s t i l l used A r i s t o t l e ' s o r i g i n a l
Homeric Problems; b u t A r i s t o t l e m a y h a v e
work.
m e n t i o n e d t h e T h e s s a l i a n c u s t o m also i n his ©eaoaXtov -noXtreia ( f r . 4 9 5 ¬
1
O f t h e v a r i o u s N e o p l a t o n i c lives o f A r i s t o t l e o n l y one m e n t i o n s a n 2
500 R o s e ) . I n a n y case, i t is a n e x a m p l e o f the w a y he used t h e s t u p e n d o u s
' e d i t i o n o f t h e I l i a d ' ; after t h e Homeric
treasures o f his collections for t h e c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e epic p o e t
the w o r d s : Kai
against less l e a r n e d predecessors w h o h a d raised subjective m o r a l a r g u -
to t h e f a m o u s s t o r y o f t h e so-called ' I l i a d o f t h e Gasket', b y some dis-
m e n t s w i t h o u t b e i n g a w a r e o f h i s t o r i c a l facts. A s i m i l a r d i f f i c u l t y (K
missed 'as a p i c t u r e s q u e l e g e n d ' ,
152)
was solved b y reference t o a p r i m i t i v e c u s t o m s t i l l s u r v i v i n g a m o n g t h e
fact.
Poetics c. 25 p . 1461 a 3 ) . ' O t h e r s one m u s t
I l l y r i a n s (fr. 160 Rose a n d
Questions i n t h e list o f w o r k s c o m e
r) rrjs 'IXidSos eteMams fjv 3
SeSwce
rm AXe^dvBpco. T h i s refers
b y others accepted
as a h i s t o r i c a l
So i t m a y be w o r t h w h i l e t o reconsider t h e w h o l e evidence.
4
cording to Plutarch, Onesicritus,
5
Ac-
t h e steersman o f t h e r o y a l s h i p a n d
(BiaXvetv) b y c o n s i d e r i n g t h e d i c t i o n ( A e f i ? ) ' , as f o r instance b y t h e (yXcarrn) ' b y ovprjas fmv -npGirov (A 5 0 ) , for e x a m p l e , ' p e r h a p s h e does n o t m e a n m u l e s , b u t g u a r d s ' (01) roi>s ypudvovs Xeyet, dXXd rovs (fyvXaxas p . 1461 a 10). W e d o n o t k n o w w h e t h e r the much-discussed q u e s t i o n w h y A p o l l o i n t h i s passage o f t h e Iliad strikes first t h e m u l e s a n d d o g s was also i n t h e l i s t o f A r i s t o t l e ' s Homeric
o f H o m e r is m e n t i o n e d b y S t r a b o ( x m 5 9 4 ) , n o t as e d i t e d o r revised b y
Problems, b u t w e d o k n o w b y c h a n c e t h a t t h e m o s t i n f a m o u s a n d m a l i c i o u s
Aristotle, but
d e t r a c t o r o f H o m e r , Z o i l u s o f A m p h i p o l i s , h a d i n c l u d e d i t i n his n i n e
vdpdrjKos
solve
a s s u m p t i o n o f a n obsolete w o r d
s
2
books K a r a
rrjs
'OpL-qpov
a n o t always u n r e l i a b l e h i s t o r i a n , r e p o r t e d : ' A l e x a n d e r always k e p t w i t h his d a g g e r u n d e r his p i l l o w a c o p y o f the
rjv
ifc TOV
an a
vdpdrjKos
e/cSoo-t?,
KaXovo-Lv.'
6
Iliad AptaroreXovs Siopdojoavros Life o f A r i s t o t l e speaks o f
W h i l e the late
a n ' e d i t i o n ' o f t h e Iliad,
P l u t a r c h (Onesicritus?)
calls i t
hiop&toais, a t e x t 'revised' o r ' e m e n d e d ' b y A r i s t o t l e . A l e x a n d e r ' s c o p y 7
8
tfaiperm yovv rts SiopÖiuo-t? rfjs 'Opirjpov Trovr]aeaig, 17 e«r TOV rov AXe^dvBpov p,erd rtov irepl KaXXiadevrj «rat Ävd£apxov erreXÖovTos /cat ur)p,eiojoapi€vov nvd: ' t h e r e is a r u m o u r a b o u t some r e -
iroirjoctas ( f r . 6 F r i e d l a e n d e r ) . So A r i s t o t l e ' s
XeyopLevrj,
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n this case (as also i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r w a r d s , Poet. 1461 a
vised t e x t o f t h e H o m e r i c poems . . . w h e n A l e x a n d e r w i t h
14) m a y h a v e been d i r e c t e d against t h a t s p i t e f u l c o n t e m p o r a r y , t h e ' Opujpo-
a n d A n a x a r c h u s w e n t o v e r i t a n d m a d e some m a r k s o n i t . ' O u r sources
Callisthenes
9
fidori$, 'Scourge o f H o m e r ' . A t t h e same t i m e H e r a c l i d e s P o n t i c u s , o n e o f
agree a b o u t t h e fact t h a t A l e x a n d e r used t o h a v e a t e x t o f H o m e r o r a t
Plato's f a v o u r i t e p u p i l s , w h o l a t e r was closely r e l a t e d w i t h A r i s t o t l e , w r o t e
least o f t h e Iliadwith
3
4
t w o books o n ' H o m e r i c S o l u t i o n s '
(Avoewv 'Op,rjpiKOJv aß'),
5
apparently
w a s a t r u e (f>iXour)pos a n d h o n o u r e d his ancestral h e r o A c h i l l e s as his
w i t h t h e same a p o l o g e t i c c h a r a c t e r . A l t h o u g h c e r t a i n circles o f the A l e x a n d r i n e M u s e u m seem t o h a v e a d o p t e d t h i s ' m e t h o d ' o f
l i f e l o n g m o d e l . I t is also possible t h a t he w a s g i v e n t h a t c o p y b y A r i s t o t l e ,
l^rr\\iara, w h i c h
a m u s e d P t o l e m a i c k i n g s a n d R o m a n e m p e r o r s , as i t h a d a m u s e d A t h e n i a n 6
P e r i p a t e t i c s , Stoics, N e o p l a t o n i s t s , a n d b y a m a t e u r s , u n t i l P o r p h y r y ( w h o
'Opsqptxd t,r)Trjp,ara
7
1
3
p. 4 5 , and
n. 4 . Soph. El. 4 . * F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 7 (1953) 59 f. Kai vorepov yKovaev ÄptaroriXovs * Fr. 1 7 1 - 5 Wehrli; cf. Dicaearch. Wehrli, Schule des Arist. 1 (1944) fr. 9 0 - 9 3 and Phaler. ibid. 4 (1949) fr. 1 9 0 - 3 . 6 Lehrs, De Aristarchi Studiis Homericis (1882) 2 0 6 .
on fr. 3 . Demetr.
3
I have always felt rather uneasy about H . Schrader's bold reconstruction (see above, p. 6 9 , n. 4 and Excursus to p. 7 0 ) ; it is a relief to learn from a thorough re-examination of the attested fragments of Porphyry and of the 'exegetic* Scholia (6) to the Iliad that the bulk of 7
a
2
1
less f r i v o l o u s g a m e . I t was m a i n l y c o n t i n u e d b y t h e p h i l o s o p h i c schools,
4>ovias vcl sim.); detailed references are given in my note on Callimachus fr, 588, who may have used Aristode as a source for his Aetia. See below, p. 78. * Schol. A ad loc. S«i rt. . . AiWres; see Excursus. Suid. s.v. ZatiXos; cf. above, p. 9, n. 3 ; U . Friedlaender, De Zoilo aliisque Homeri obtrectatoribus, Diss. Königsberg 1895. On Hippias of Thasos {Poet. 1461 a 22) see above,
these Scholia with ^r^^ara cannot be regarded as excerpted from Porphyry, see H. Erbse, 'Beiträge zur Überlieferung der Iliasscholien*, Z l 4 ( i 9 6 0 ) 17-77. The assumption that Porphyry had Aristotle's AiropTiu-ara in its original form at hand is confirmed by Erbse, loc. cit. pp. 61 ff. * 'Vita Marciana' in Aristot./ra^m. p. 427. 5 Rose; cf. 'Vita Latina' ibid. p. 443. 6 'Yhadis dictamen quod dedit Alexandra' = Düring, 'Aristotle' 97 (4) and 151 (4). A sceptical 'non liquet' was the result of the acute re-examination of the tradition by O. Gigon in his commentary on the 'Vita Marciana*, Kleine Texteför Vorlesungen und Übungen 181 (1962) 36 f. 3 D. B. Monro, Homer's Odyssey Books xni-xxiv (1901) 4 1 8 ; see also W. Leaf, Strabo on the e t e m a
symposiasts, t h e g r e a t a n d serious g r a m m a r i a n s d i s l i k e d i t as a m o r e o r
d i e d a b o u t A . D . 305) a r r a n g e d his final c o l l e c t i o n o f
h i m i n a precious b o x ; t h i s is q u i t e c r e d i b l e , as h e
Troad
(1923) 150.
W. Schmid, Geschichte der griech. Lit. 1 1 (1929) 163. 4 ; W. D. Ross, Aristotle (5Ü1 ed. 1949) 4 ; W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great I (1948) 2. ' 38 FGrHist 134 in Plut. Alex. 8 ; it is not a verbatim quotation. Plut. Alex. 26 tells of this valuable box (laßdinov) of Darius, in which Alexander put the Iliad, adding that 'not a few of the trustworthy attest it* OVK oXlyot r&v dfio7Tiartuv u.cp.aprvptfKaaiv; cf. Plut. de Alex. fort. 1 4 p. 327 v; Plin. n.h. vir 2 9 ( 3 0 ) . On ÖCSOCTI? and oiopdaiats see H. Erbse, Herrn. 87 (1959) 286 ff. and A. Ludwich, Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik 11 (1885) 431 f. and below, p. 9 4 . At the beginning of this chapter xin 1. 27 Demetrius of Skepsis is quoted, but he cannot be the source o f the later part. Callisthenes, FGrHist 124 T 10. On Anaxarchus see F. Wehrli, Schule des Aristoteles 3 (1948) 67 on Clearchus fr. 6 0 ; cf. W. Leaf, Strabo on the Troad (1923) 150. 4
0
7
8
9
7a
Homer the Poet of Iliad, Odyssey, Margites
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
73
his t u t o r f o r three years, w h o c e r t a i n l y r e a d H o m e r w i t h h i m . B u t o u r
m e m o r y i n t h e u s u a l w a y a n d scattered t h r o u g h his v a r i o u s w r i t i n g s ,
sources b y n o m e a n s agree a b o u t A r i s t o t l e ' s h a v i n g m a d e a recension o f
show t h a t h e was n o t m e t i c u l o u s a b o u t t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e t e x t .
1
'Homer' n o w meant definitively
t h e t e x t for his p u p i l . I n fact, i t is v e r y i m p r o b a b l e t h a t h e d i d . I f s u c h a n A r i s t o t e l i a n eKooor? h a d ever existed, w h y is i t n e v e r m e n t i o n e d b y
the
t h e A l e x a n d r i a n g r a m m a r i a n s i n o u r S c h o l i a , w h i c h o t h e r w i s e refer t o
Iliad
2
apYafa
dvrtypa<pa o r
q u o t a t i o n s f r o m his
e/cSocrei? /car' áVSpa a n d
Homeric Problems.
Kara, iroXeis ?
They drew their
T h e r e is a second e v e n stronger
expressly said t h a t t h e y surpassed a l l t h e o t h e r epic poems a n d gave his
Iliad and Odyssey a l o n e
preconception
o f perfect
s t r u c t u r e o f each p o e m
poet Antimachus.
statement :
A r i s t o t l e , w e c o n c l u d e , m a d e n o recension o f t h e H o m e r i c o r a n y o t h e r
w e r e ' l i k e a l i v i n g o r g a n i s m ' , satisfying his
p o e t r y ; after c h a r a c t e r i z i n g
the exemplary
(rwv TToirjp,drojv eKarepov) h e makes t h e final rrpos ydp rovrots M§ti /cat Stavoia navra vTrepfiefsX-nKe, i n
appears i n these lists. T h e o n l y p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c e d i t o r o f H o m e r was t h e 5
w i t h the a d d i t i o n o f
p o e m s as H o m e r i c ; b u t A r i s t o t l e seems t o h a v e b e e n t h e first w h o reasons.
4
Odyssey,
2
t h e titles o f A r i s t o t l e ' s lost w o r k s ,
b u t n o t a single e d i t i o n o f a t e x t
and
Margites. I t looks as i f all Plato's e p i c q u o t a t i o n s w e r e t a k e n f r o m a n d Odyssey a n d w e m a y guess t h a t h e r e g a r d e d o n l y these t w o
a r g u m e n t against t h i s v e r y d o u b t f u l t r a d i t i o n . W e are w e l l i n f o r m e d o n 3
Iliad
1
3
a d d i t i o n , t h e y (sc. these t w o poems)
surpass a l l (sc. o t h e r poems) i n
t e x t ; n e i t h e r was h e a n ' i n t e r p r e t e r ' o f t h e H o m e r i c p o e m s . W h a t h e
d i c t i o n a n d t h o u g h t . T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e o f such a clear
a c t u a l l y d i d was t o answer a l o n g series o f attacks b y censorious c r i t i c s ;
evaluation of
a c c o r d i n g t o his t h e o r y , these p o e m s w e r e a b o v e such censure, a n d he h a d
f o u r t h c e n t u r y t h e ' E r i s t i c s ' s t i l l r e g a r d e d t h e c o m p l e t e 'cycle' o f epics
to p r o v e t h e i r absolute s u p e r i o r i t y . T h i s p o i n t is stressed b y D i o C h r y s o -
as H o m e r ' s p o e t r y , as w e h a v e t o c o n c l u d e f r o m A r i s t o t l e ' s o w n r e -
Iliad
and
Odyssey
aesthetic
i n e a r l i e r t i m e s , as w e saw ; e v e n i n t h e 4
s t o m a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f his praise o f H o m e r , a l r e a d y q u o t e d : KO.1
ferences i n h i s l o g i c a l w r i t i n g s . ' I n t h e s y l l o g i s m H o m e r ' s p o e t r y is
AptaroréXrjs
a figure because o f its b e i n g a c i r c l e ' ,
avrds 6avp.dZ,ojv avrov 6
TO
ws
TTOXV
. . . ev rroXXots /cat
nptatv.
StaÁóyoi?
rrepi Troir/rov
Ste^eicrt
O f t h e ' m a n y dialogues' ( i f t h i s is n o t a r h e t o r i c a l
KVKXOV
ev rw avXXoyiapitp (Soph. El.
on
77
'Op,r)pov Troinais
cr^rùxa Stà
Topics ; h e Analyt. Post, (A 12 p . 77 b 32) ypdiprj, drjXov. rl Se; rd eirr] KVKXOÇ; avepov
e x a g g e r a t i o n ) i n w h i c h 'he goes t h r o u g h H o m e r i n d e t a i l ( ? ) ' , w e possess
Sophistic fallacies t o be r e f u t e d i n A r i s t o t l e ' s a p p e n d i x t o his
o n l y a few f r a g m e n t s o f t h e d i a l o g u e /7ept
quoted a slight v a r i a t i o n later o n i n the
TTOVOTÓJV?
w h e r e h e displays
âv
his p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n t h e a n c i e n t I o n i a n t r a d i t i o n s o n t h e ' L i f e ' o f
ctpa 7rcEs" KVKXOS
cryi^a;
H o m e r . T h e q u o t a t i o n s o f single H o m e r i c lines o r passages, d r a w n f r o m
on ovKeanv.
T h i s fallacy
8
9
" Dio Chrys.
(Alexandrum) StSátrfcet (Aristóteles) rrept re ¿px^S erre aÁÁov rponov. F. A. Wolf, Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795) cLxxxm, had already noticed that, but did not draw the consequences; A. Ludwich, Aristarcos Homerische Textkritik 11 (1885) 4 3 2 f. was on the right lines. See above, p. 66, n. 4 . * At least as long as the edition of one Euripides remains a shadow. Suid. 3694 Adler s.v. EvpiTTtSns, TpaytKÓs, rov npo-répov ¿SeA^iSoSs (a nephew of an Euripides who was older than the famous tragedian) tus Atovvatos ev rots XpoviKols (= Dionys. Hal. 4 FGrHist 2 5 1 , but Jacoby says it might be a confusion with Dionys. o ¡ÍOVOIKOS). eypatfic Sí 'Ou.-npuci¡v exoooiv el per¡ apa érépov earív. In P.Oxy. 2 2 1 , col. VI 17 (Schol. 0 155 f.) F. Blass suppl. év T¡¡ xar' E[vpi-lrríb~i}v (fat] ev rtaiv óAAotj referring to Eust. p. 3 6 6 . 13 (ad B 8 6 5 ) r¡ he K a r ' Evpirríavv (se. étfSoffi?) ¿tero rov rplrov <m'vov (B 866) . . . ypáfi réraprov rovrov . . . Tp,á>Áu> viro VMpóevri , . . ( = Y 385), oí Si) OTÍXOV xai o yeatypáipos u-vyoBels finatv (Strab. XIII 6 2 6 ) . See below pp. 9 4 f. Above, p. 6 7 ; Aristot. Fragm. ed. Ross pp. 4 and 67. Aristot. fr. 7 0 - 7 7 Rose; pp. 6 7 - 7 2 Ross. An imaginative reconstruction of the Dialogue is given by A. Rostagni, TI dialogo Aristotélico LJepl trot-qreav', Riv. fil. cl. 4 (1926) 4 3 3 - 7 0 d 5 (1927) 1 4 5 - 7 3 , reprinted in Scritti minori 1 ( 1 9 5 5 ) 2 5 5 - 3 2 6 with bibliographical additions; see especially F. Sbordone, 'II primo libro di Ar. intorno ai poeti', Atti Accad. f¡aoi\etas
or.
II
eíre 'Ofiypov
79 el roiavrá oe
K
a
t
e£r¡yovp.€vos
s
6 7
a n
Pontaniana,
N.S. 4 ( 1 9 5 4 ) 2 1 7 - 2 5 . .
Fr. 76 Rose = LJepl rroi-qr. 8 Ross. Homer mentioned also in fr. 70, 7 5 ; see also Alcidamas, above, p. 50. A. Romer, 'Die Homercitate und die homerischen Fragen des Aristóteles', Sitz. Ber. der 8
B
Sè
(KVKXOS
= ' c i r c l e ' a n d = epic cycle = H o m e r i c
poems) is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e o n l y i f t h e o l d v u l g a t e o p i n i o n was s t i l l a l i v e t h a t H o m e r was t h e m a k e r o f t h e w h o l e o f epic p o e t r y .
1
3
5
rov
I 10 p . 171 a 10), is a n e x a m p l e o f t h e
A f t e r A r i s t o t l e there is n o trace o f t h i s v u l g a t e a n y m o r e ; his d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between H o m e r , the poet o f
Iliad
and
Odyssey,
a n d t h e rest o f t h e
e a r l y epic poets, o f w h o m h e displays i n t i m a t e k n o w l e d g e i n c h a p t e r 23 o f und hist. Classe der Bayer. Akad. (1884) 2 6 4 - 3 1 4 ; G. E . Howes, 'Homeric Quotations in Plato and Aristotle', Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 6 (1895) 2 1 0 - 3 7 . See below, p. 74. * J . Labarbe, 'L'Homère de Platon" Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philos, et Lettres de l'Université de Liège, Fasc. 117 ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 4 1 0 ; cf. below, p. 74, n. 5 . Poetics 1459 b 16 navra is the reading of the Parisinus A (saec. x fin.) and of most of its apographa, also of the copy (saec. vi) used by the Arabic translator, according to GudemanTkatsch ; -navras Riccardianus 4 6 , called B or R (saec. xin/xrv) and apographa (e.g. the copy used by Aldus). Not only the manuscript-tradition, but the text of the whole passage which deals with the two rroirip.aTa, proves that -navra is the correct reading ; -navras would mean that he, "Ou.r)pos, surpasses all the other poets. This was, at least in later times, often stated, but it does not fit into the context of chapter 2 4 of the Poetics. * Above, pp. 43 ff. Cf. Philopon. ad loc., Commentaria in Aristot. Graeca xni 3 ed. Wallies (1909) 156 f., see E. Kapp in E . Schwartz, Die Odyssée ( 1 9 2 4 ) 154 and Wilamowitz, 'Lesefruchte', Hermes 6 0 (1925) 2 8 0 = Kleine Schriften rv (1962) 3 6 8 (where the text of Soph. El. has to be corrected : T) 'Opripov TToi-qais, not rà '0. ërr-n) ; E . Schwartz, Herm. 75 (1940) 5 f.
philos.-philolog. 1
3
1
74
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
the
Poetics,
Rational Order in Literary Art
seems t o h a v e b e e n final. T h e a r g u m e n t s h e used w e r e i d e n t i -
75
p o e t r y was t o p r o m o t e m o r a l d i s c i p l i n e , n o t t o effect 'pleasure' (T/OOITJ) ;
c a l w i t h those i n t h e analysis o f t r a g e d y w h i c h f o r m s t h e c e n t r e o f t h e
' m o d e r n ' a r t o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y w i t h its t e n d e n c y t o d i s r u p t o r t o m i x
w h o l e treatise. T h i s is n o t s u r p r i s i n g , w h e n w e r e m e m b e r t h a t his m e t h o d
u p t h e t r a d i t i o n a l forms, a i m i n g o n l y a t pleasure, e n c o u r a g e d lawlessness
is t o subsume e v e r y single p h e n o m e n o n u n d e r his g e n e r a l d o c t r i n e , i n
a n d b e c a m e therefore a p o l i t i c a l d a n g e r .
p o e t r y as e v e r y w h e r e else. A s i n A t t i c t r a g e d y , t h e r e is u n i t y , c o m p l e t e -
a l t h o u g h s u b o r d i n a t i n g a l l t h e o t h e r arts t o TroAtn/cTj i n his
ness, a n d greatness (ev, oAov,
p,eye6os) i n
H o m e r ' s t w o genuine poems
Ethics,
made a distinction i n the
1
A r i s t o t l e , i n his sober w a y ,
Poetics (1460
Mcomachean opdorrjs:
b 13) as regards
(1450 b 27 f f . - i 4 5 9 a 24 i f . ) . T h i s ' i n n e r ' u n i t y was n o t a t t a i n e d i n a n y
' t h e r e is n o t t h e same k i n d o f correctness i n p o e t r y as i n p o l i t i c s , o r i n d e e d
o f t h e o t h e r epics (1451 a 19 f f . ) ; t r a g e d y , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h a d a s t i l l
a n y o t h e r a r t . ' H e h a d also n o o b j e c t i o n t o its p r o d u c i n g p l e a s u r e ; o n t h e
h i g h e r degree o f u n i t y a n d was t o t h a t e x t e n t even ' b e t t e r ' t h a n epic
c o n t r a r y , pleasure s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d o f p o e t r y , t h a t is o f every species—
( c h . 2 6 ) . T h e e x e m p l a r y t r a g e d y was t h e
Oedipus Tyrannus o f
Sophocles.
epic, c o m e d y , t r a g e d y — i t s p r o p e r pleasure,
17
oUeia r)Sovrj
(1453 b 11).
P l a t o h a d d e n i e d t h e 'seriousness' o f epic p o e t r y , d e n o u n c i n g i t as ' p l a y '
T h e e m o t i o n a l effect o f t r a g e d y h a d b e e n discussed before b y G o r g i a s
(rratSta); b u t A r i s t o t l e n o t o n l y d e f i n e d t r a g e d y
a n d b y P l a t o ; a c c e p t i n g , as i t seems, G o r g i a s ' f o r m u l a o f ' h o r r o r a n d
(p.lpvnais vpdieojs orrovSalas
serious a c t i o n '
as a n ' i m i t a t i o n o f
1449 b 14), b u t also said o f
H o m e r 'as regards serious subjects, i n t h e highest degree a p o e t '
(ra arrov-
3
w a i l i n g ' , A r i s t o t l e c a m e t o a c o n c l u s i o n opposed t o t h a t o f P l a t o . H e c o n c l u d e d t h a t i t d i d n o t h a v e a n e v i l i n f l u e n c e o n t h e soul o f t h e i n -
TTotrjTTys 1448 b 3 4 ) . H o m e r e v e n a n t i c i p a t e d t h e ' d r a m a t i c ' i m i t a t i o n s (puprjaeis Spauart/cas- i b i d , b 3 5 ) , a n d as Iliad a n d Odyssey w e r e r e g a r d e d as a n a l o g o u s t o t r a g e d y , so was his Margites t o A t t i c c o m e d y .
d i v i d u a l , b u t p r o d u c e d pleasure b y t h e catharsis o f those e m o t i o n s j u s t
This poem
t o t h a t e x t e n t also t h e h i g h e r f o r m o f a r t (1462 b 12
Sata juaAio-ra
1
2
r i d i c u l i n g one o f t h e f a m o u s n i n n i e s o f o l d m u s t h a v e b e e n
m e n t i o n e d ( 1 4 5 3 b n o n tragic pleasure); tragedy, superior i n other respects, a t t a i n s t h a t p o e t i c k i n d o f pleasure b e t t e r t h a n t h e epics a n d is
v e r y p o p u l a r i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , as o r a t o r s a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s q u i t e s u r p r i s i n g l y r e f e r r e d t o i t o r q u o t e d i t several t i m e s . B u t t h e second b o o k o f the
Poetics,
i n w h i c h c o m e d y w a s discussed, is m i s s i n g , a n d t h e t w e n t y
half-lines o f a r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d p a p y r u s quality o f the
Margites;* w e
d o n o t reveal t h e poetic
3
ff.),
4
A f t e r t h e occasional l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m o f e a r l y poets a n d Sophists, after Plato's p e r t i n e n t questions a n d d e m a n d s , t h e
Poetics
o f A r i s t o t l e was t h e
first a t t e m p t a t d i s c o v e r i n g a r a t i o n a l o r d e r i n t h e p r o v i n c e o f l i t e r a r y a r t , as w a s his o b j e c t i n a l l t h e o t h e r branches o f k n o w l e d g e . W e s t a r t e d f r o m
fitted
t h e g e n e r a l c o n c e p t o f his ' t e l e o l o g y ' ; b u t w e saw t h a t t h i s speculative
i n t o t h e t h e o r y o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r a n d w h y i t was d e e m e d w o r t h y t o b e
c o n c e p t is r e g u l a r l y c o n t r o l l e d b y t h e analysis o f r e a l i t y a n d ' t h e m a n y
p l a c e d close t o t h e
Iliad
and
are s t i l l a t a loss t o see h o w t h e p o e m
Odyssey
aesthetic s u b t i l i s t l i k e C a l l i m a c h u s . The
t e r m dpÖoVn?,
'correctness',
3
a n d l a t e r o n a d m i r e d even b y a n
6
quite frequently occurred i n t h e 7
a d m i t t e d a t least t h e p r a c t i c e o f c h o r a l l y r i c , w h i c h i n c l u d e d s i n g i n g a n d 8
d a n c i n g , i n t o t h e second best i d e a l c i t y o f t h e
Laws.
The
opdoros
d e m a n d e d f o r this p o e t r y h a d a s t r i c t l y e t h i c a l m e a n i n g . T h e Kal r a rrjs
Ka)(iaihias
ax^fiara
irptöros iweSeifev ov tfioyov,
b 36. Homeri Opera ed. T . W. Allen, vol. v (1912) P.Oxy. xxii ( 1 9 5 4 ) 2 3 0 9 ed. E . Lobel.
oAAa TO
yeXotov
he
'correct' Spap.aroirot'noas
1448 1 3
152
ff. testimonia and fragmenta.
* The bold combinations of H. Langerbeck, 'Margites', Harvard Studies in Classical ( 9 5 ) 33~^3! I
ö
a
r
e
u
6
7
See above, p. 39, and
1
See
Excursus.
passim.
Poetics
is a
rexvrj
i n t h e t r u e sense o f t h a t
m
I f w e l o o k a t his studies o f l a n g u a g e a n d a n t i q u i t i e s , w e find this statem e n t f u l l y c o n f i r m e d . F r o m t h e final lines o f t h e first c h a p t e r o f his l i t t l e book
Plepl ipfirjvelas,
' O n t h e expression o f t h o u g h t s i n speech', w e m i g h t
d i s t i n c t i o n (Siaipeois) prjpia a n d his d e f i n i t i o n o f sentence (Aoyos) m o r e f u l l y i n this l o g i c a l t r e a t i s e : rrpdirov SeT 6eo8ai T I 6vop.a /cat rl prjfio., eVeiTa ri icrrtv arrodtacrt? /cat Kardtpaois /cat aTrotpavois /cat Xoyos (de interpr. I p . 16 e x p e c t t h a t A r i s t o t l e is g o i n g t o t r e a t Plato's between
6vop.a
and
a i ) , 'first w e m u s t define t h e t e r m s " n o u n " a n d " v e r b " , t h e n t h e Philology
hardly helpful. M. Forderer, Z homerischen Margites (Amsterdam i 9 6 0 ) 5 ff. argues against the attribution of the papyrus to the Homeric Margites. * The Ps.-Platonic Ale. 11 147 B quotes the Margites as Homeric (fr. 3 Allen), cf. above, p. 73, n. 2 ; Aristotle might have learnt to appreciate the poem as a member of the Academy. Callim. fr. 397. °3
n o t i o n s o f experience'. So t h e
t e r m w h i c h Aristotle took over f r o m Plato.
Sophistic a n d P l a t o n i c t r e a t m e n t o f l i t e r a r y m a t t e r . P l a t o i n his o l d age
1
2
Plat. Leg. 6 5 5 ff., 6 6 8 B, 700 BD about opBorns and ijSonJ. J . Stroux, 'Die Anschauungen vom Klassischen im Altertum" in: Das Problem des Klassischen und die Antike, ed. by W . Jaeger (1931) 2 ff., derived from these passages the idea of classicism (Klassik), but he apparently misunderstood the Platonic opBorns. On Kplais •notfnp.arutv and ciassicus see below, pp. 2 0 4 ff. Cf. 1453 a 35, 1462 b 13 and above, p. 68. Gorgias, above, p. 48, Plato, p. 58. * Cf. above p. 7 4 ; Bywater's translation freely used. 1
1
3
76
New Fundamental Linguistic Terms
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
terms " d e n i a l " a n d " a f f i r m a t i o n " a n d " p r o p o s i t i o n " a n d "sentence".'
1
B u t he confines his d e t a i l e d i n q u i r i e s t o t h e t e r m s b e l o n g i n g t o t h e subject o f syllogistic, especially t o ' a p o p h a n s i s ' ; i n t h r e e v e r y s h o r t chapters h e says o n l y a f e w w o r d s o n ovofia ( c h . 2 ) , o n pfjp-o. ( c h . 3 ) , a n d o n Xoyos
Sophistes
(ch.
4).
T h e i r r e l a t i o n t o Plato's
( q u o t e d a b o v e , p . 59) is o b v i o u s ,
but
t h e r e is a n e w A r i s t o t e l i a n p s y c h o l o g i c a l e l e m e n t ( c h . 1) i n t h a t h e
Hipp. 199 peXcuiv avv?>€cjp.a, 'sinews'), a n d so does t h e o t h e r t e r m , dpdpov, ' j o i n t ' (cf. S o p h . Tr. 769 airav KOT' dpdpov), w h i c h h e i n t r o d u c e s i n c h a p t e r 2 0 o f t h e Poetics this sounds r a t h e r a n a t o m i c a l
(cf. E u r .
(1457 a 6 ) . T h e y b o t h h a v e a f u n c t i o n o n l y i n c o n n e x i o n w i t h ovouara o r prjp.aTa; as t e r m s t h e y h a v e a w i d e r a n d less d i s t i n c t sense t h a n t h e socalled 'conjunctions' a n d the 'article' i n later strictly g r a m m a t i c a l w r i t -
Xoyos
assumes 'likenesses o f r e a l t h i n g s i n t h e s o u l ; w o r d s a n d sentences a r e
ings. T h e i d e a o f t h e
s y m b o l s o f these likenesses a n d t h r o u g h t h e m s y m b o l s o f t h e t h i n g s ' .
use o f such expressions.
2
T h e r e is n o n e e d f o r us t o go i n t o these p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d l o g i c a l subtleties,
On
ovop.ara
and
as a n ' o r g a n i s m ' suggested, I s h o u l d t h i n k , t h e
pr/para
A r i s t o t l e n o w h a d m u c h m o r e t o say t h a n i n
as A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f c o n t i n u e s b y s a y i n g t h a t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f w o r d s a n d
his l o g i c a l w r i t i n g s . I n t h e same c h a p t e r o f his
sentences 'belongs r a t h e r t o t h e s t u d y o f r h e t o r i c o r o f poetics'
quoted
yap r) TroirjTtKrjs oUeioTepa
(prjTopiKrjs
77
Protagoras'
Rhetoric
(1407 b 7) h e
t h r e e genders w o r d f o r w o r d , b u t i n h i s
Poetics
r) ovc^ts i b i d . 4 p . 17 a 6 ) . So w e realize a g a i n ,
(1458 a 8 ) , w h i l e s t i l l a c c e p t i n g the categories o f males a n d females, h e
as i n o u r o b s e r v a t i o n o n P l a t o , t h a t e v e n i n A r i s t o t l e ' s t i m e , i n t h e l a t e r
d r o p p e d t h e t h i r d t e r m (names o f ' t h i n g s ' ) as i n a d e q u a t e a n d s u b s t i t u t e d
f o u r t h c e n t u r y , n o separate b r a n c h o f ' g r a m m a r ' w a s y e t e s t a b l i s h e d ;
TA
questions o f l a n g u a g e , as f a r as t h e y w e r e n o t o f a m e r e l o g i c a l n a t u r e ,
t h e i r respective ' t e r m i n a t i o n s ' , t h i s t h i r d g r o u p a c t u a l l y occupies a posi-
h a d t o b e r e l e g a t e d t o r h e t o r i c o r poetics. A n d i t w a s i n d e e d i n his b o o k s
t i o n ' b e t w e e n ' t h e t w o others, i n so f a r as i n t h e i r ' t e r m i n a t i o n s ' ( t h a t
on
m e a n s i n t h e i r c o n c l u d i n g l e t t e r ) some o f these w o r d s r e s e m b l e t h e
these t w o subjects t h a t A r i s t o t l e u n d e r t o o k t o i m p r o v e u p o n h i s
predecessors. I n his
Poetics,
'the intermediaries'.
1
c h a p t e r 2 0 , h e first g a v e a c o m p l e t e list o f t h e p a r t s o f 3
. . . r a /idprj 1456 b 20 f f . ) f r o m t h e ' p r i m a r y
(o-Toiyeta) u p t o t h e 'sentence' (\oyos).
F o r t h e single ' i n -
ovopLara
A s he b e g a n t o classify t h e
m a s c u l i n e a n d others t h e f e m i n i n e n o u n s . T h i s r o u g h d i v i s i o n
' d i c t i o n ' (TT}S Ae'^oj? arrdorjs elements'
pLeragv
2
by
according
to g e n d e r a n d t e r m i n a t i o n h a d t o b e r e f i n e d , b u t its p r i n c i p l e was k e p t for a l l t i m e s . A s t h e w i d e sense o f prj^ara, ' t h i n g s said a b o u t oVop.ara', was t a k e n o v e r f r o m P l a t o , A r i s t o t l e t r e a t e d a ' p r e d i c a t i v e a d j e c t i v e ' also as
pjjp,a:
dvdpto-rros
(De interpr.
a
t h e 'vowels* a n d ' c o n s o n a n t s ' h e b r o u g h t i n t h e 'semi-vowels S a n d P '
a b o v e p . 6 0 ) . T h e r e was some d i f f i c u l t y w h e n h e t r i e d t o d e f i n e t h e V e r b * ;
(r)pLLva). P r o b a b l y
prjp,a is interpr.
f o l l o w i n g H i p p i a s t h e Sophist,
he only slightly
t o u c h e d o n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e syllables, t h e i r q u a n t i t y a n d p r o s o d y , a n d left a l l t h e t h e o r e t i c a l d e t a i l s t o t h e m e t r i c i a n s
4
and their metrics;
as a special b r a n c h o f l e a r n i n g , separated f r o m r h y t h m i c s a n d
'music',
i t a p p e a r s f o r t h e first t i m e i n A r i s t o t l e . I n t h e t h i r d b o o k o f t h e
Rhetoric,
eoriv
XevKos
t h a t w h i c h 'also i n d i c a t e s t i m e ' , TO 16 b 6 ff.). I n P r o t a g o r a s
xp° $ vo
20 b 1, cf. P l a t .
Cratyl. 399
d i v i s i b l e sounds' he used P l a t o ' s t e r m a n d his d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , b u t b e t w e e n
irpooornpLatvov xP
ovov
{De
c o u l d n e v e r h a v e m e a n t 'tense'
3
a n d P l a t o d i d n o t m e n t i o n i t ; so i n this case A r i s t o t l e seems t o h a v e b e e n t h e first t o p o i n t o u t t h a t d i f f e r e n t f o r m s o f t h e
pi\ao,
express d i f f e r e n t
t e m p o r a l r e l a t i o n s . A g a i n h e enlarges u p o n this n o t a b l e c o n c e p t i o n i n t h e
also d e a l i n g w i t h d i c t i o n , h e calls a l l o t h e r w o r d s w h i c h a r e n e i t h e r
Poetics,
ovofLara
fect tenses (1457 a 1 8 ) ; i n De interpretation (16 b 16) h e c a l l e d t h e f u t u r e
n o r p-t]p.a.ra
' l i g a m e n t s ' , avvoeop.01
5
(1407 a 20, cf. 1413 b 3 3 ) ;
E . Kapp, 'Greek Foundations of Traditional Logic', Columbia Studies in Philosophy 5 I use his translation. My paraphrase, which gives the essence of the difficult text 16 a 3 - 8 , is based on Kapp's translation (loc. cit. p. 4 9 ) . ' I take this chapter as genuinely Aristotelian in substance; on the heated dispute see the commentaries on the Poetics; see also recently A. Pagliaro, 'II capitolo linguistico della 1
(1942) 4 7 ; a
Poetica' in Nuovi saggi di eritica semantica ( 1 9 5 6 ) 7 7 - 1 5 1 .
b 3 4 I read with Bernhardy and Spengel rots perpiieois (not ev r. ¡1.), cf. Part, a 8 napa ru>v u,erptKtuv; Poet. ibid, b 3 8 rijs p.erptKijs (sc. TC'YMJS)-—On the former unity of word and 'music' see above, p. 53. This may be in the line of an earlier Sophistic tradition, cf. Isocr. (Art. script, B xxrv 2 2 ) rovs avvheap.ovs rois aiirovf ^17 crweyyvs nBevai tcr\. (see also Radermacher's note on fr. 2 4 ) ; as soon as we enter the field of rhetoric, the priority of Sophistic textbooks (above, p. 31, n. 3) completely lost to us, is always possible.
c h . 20, w h e n he recognizes as verbs p r o p e r t h e present a n d p e r -
a n d i m p e r f e c t tenses
majoeis
prjp,aros,
'modifications o f the v e r b ' , using
t h e same t e r m w h i c h covers t h e ' o b l i q u e cases' o f a n o u n a n d a l l sorts o f d e r i v a t i o n s f r o m i t , such as adjectives o r a d v e r b s
(De interpr.
Poetics
cannot go into the very
1457
a
I
9 irrwots
ovopLaros rj pj)pM.Tos). W e
16 b 1 a n d
c o m p l i c a t e d d e t a i l s ; t h e few w o r d s said m a y be sufficient t o s h o w t h a t
« Poet. 1456
an.
660
3
Cf. Soph. El. 14 p. 173 b 28 ff., ibid, b 4 0 rwv Xeyoficvatv . . . OKCVCOV, after referring to Protagoras' criticism of Homer's 'incorrect' use of the gender, Aristotle, of course, proved that Protagoras, not Homer, was wrong; on Protagoras see above, p. 38. * Cf. D. Fehling, 'Varro und die grammatische Lehre von der Analogie und der Flexion', Ghtta 3 5 ( 1 9 5 6 ) 261 f. See above, pp. 38 f. 1
3
B,
78
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
in-aioT? (the L a t i n
casus
A r i s t o t l e , was c o i n e d as
nomen), a p p l i e d a logical t e r m ; i t was t o o f the
Antiquarian
Research
to n o u n a n d verb alike b y
p . 7 0 ) ; t h e s t a t e m e n t was r e p e a t e d i n his
cause m a n y headaches t o
en-oTTowH?, cf. 1404 b 23 w i t h reference t o
79
Rhetoric (1406 b 3 yAwi-rat reust h e Poetics). A s glosses are c o n -
a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n g r a m m a r i a n s a n d l i n g u i s t s . T h e last i t e m i n t h e list
t r a s t e d w i t h t h e ' c u r r e n t ' w o r d s (/ciipta), t h e r e are d i a l e c t i c a l as w e l l as
is t h e Adyo?, w h i c h c e r t a i n l y m e a n s 'sentence'. T h e d e f i n i t i o n (1457 a
foreign words,
1
23) p a r t l y repeats w h a t was said i n d>oivT7 o-n/iavrtfcr)
Kara, ovvdrjxrjv
De interpretation
c h . 4 (Aoyoc . . .
KTA. 16 b 2 6 ) ; b u t n o w , r e f e r r i n g t o t h e
p a r t s o f t h e sentence d e f i n e d before, i t r u n s l i k e t h i s : Aoyos- Se
avvderr)
OTJfx&vTiKTJ
TJ? evict p.4pi)
tcad* avrd orffxalvei
ri,
(f>a>vr)
'a sentence is a c o m -
T O .
geviKa
1
(Poet.
1457 b 3 ) , i n c l u d e d i n t h i s g r o u p ; i n
prose t h e y s h o u l d be used s p a r i n g l y . A r i s t o t l e ' s r e m a r k s o n glosses c o n tinue a n earlier t r a d i t i o n , certainly o f the
'Op.-qpov yXiuTras LJepi 'Ofirjpov . . . yXcooaecuv.
used t h e expression a book
2
fifth
century:
Aristophanes
a n d possibly D e m o c r i t u s
wrote
B u t l o n g before t h a t e p i c poets a n d
posite i n d i c a t i v e s o u n d , some o f t h e p a r t s o f w h i c h i n d i c a t e s o m e t h i n g
rhapsodes h a d f a v o u r e d such obscure expressions a n d m a y have m a d e
b y themselves.' T h i s , o f course, means t h a t n o t o n l y c o m p o s i t e sentences,
collections for t h e i r o w n professional use. A f t e r A r i s t o t l e , a t a b o u t 300
but
also n o u n s o r verbs i n i s o l a t i o n c a n i n d i c a t e s o m e t h i n g , whereas
' l i g a m e n t s ' a n d ' j o i n t s ' c a n n o t . W e r e m e m b e r Plato's w o r d s i n his
Sophistes
3
B.C.,
a c o m p l e t e l y n e w i m p u l s e was g i v e n t o these studies, w h e n t w o
poets m a d e
t h e first c o m p r e h e n s i v e
learned collections o f epic a n d
262 A-C, t h a t n o u n s a n d verbs c a n n o t m a k e a n y t h i n g k n o w n , unless t h e y
d i a l e c t i c a l glosses, P h i l i t a s o f Cos a n d S i m i a s o f R h o d e s . W e c a n n o t t e l l
are t w i n e d t o g e t h e r a n d p r o d u c e a sentence. A r i s t o t l e ' s c r i t i c i s m is a g a i n
a t w h a t t i m e t h e so-called yXiooaoypd^oi, o f t e n q u o t e d i n o u r S c h o l i a t o
based o n his f o r m a l l o g i c .
Homer,
2
T h e list o f t h e e i g h t c o n s t i t u e n t s o f ' d i c t i o n ' was n e v e r m e a n t t o be
4
5
s t a r t e d t h e i r w o r k , b u t i t was surely n o t before t h e l a t e r t h i r d
century.
a n y t h i n g l i k e a l i n g u i s t i c system, b u t i t s t i l l w a s a f a i r l y c o h e r e n t analysis o f
I n the o l d d i s p u t e o n t h e o r i g i n o f w o r d s A r i s t o t l e w a s q u i t e d e f i n i t e :
tpvoei TOJV ovopdroiv
(De interpr.
some f u n d a m e n t a l t e r m s . T h e r e are some o t h e r r e m a r k s o n l a n g u a g e ,
' n o w o r d is b y n a t u r e ' ,
scattered t h r o u g h v a r i o u s w r i t i n g s , w h e r e A r i s t o t l e c o i n e d t h e t e r m s o r
p . 16 a 2 7 ) ; his answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n o f w o r d s t o t i l i n g s
t o o k t h e m f r o m sources u n k n o w n to u s ; w e select o n l y a few as r e l e v a n t t o
( w h i c h w o r r i e d P l a t o so m u c h ) has a l r e a d y b e e n q u o t e d .
our
p u r p o s e . P r o d i c u s h a d t a u g h t his p u p i l s t h e p r o p e r use o f w o r d s
h a v i n g d i f f e r e n t f o r m s b u t m o r e o r less t h e same sense; A r i s t o t l e c a l l e d
ovvojwfia,
such w o r d s ' s y n o n y m s ' (Top.
ouSeV iariv 6
T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f Platonic a n d earlier I o n i a n - S o p h i s t i c
elements
was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f A r i s t o t l e ' s studies o f l a n g u a g e . T h e r e c o u l d n o t b e
p r o b a b l y first i n his l o g i c a l w r i t i n g s
a n y t h i n g P l a t o n i c i n his a n t i q u a r i a n r e s e a r c h ; i t h a d t o b e i n t h e o t h e r
158 b 3 8 , 163 a 2 4 , c f Cat. 1 a 6 ) , t h e n i n t h e lost p a r t o f his
t r a d i t i o n . T h e r e w e f o u n d H i p p i a s o f E l i s as t h e l e a d i n g ' a r c h a e o l o g i s t ' o r
Poetics (fr.
1 Bywater,
3
cf.
Rhet.
i l l 2 p . 1404 b 39 f f . ) , w h e r e h e r e c o m -
' a n t i q u a r i a n ' , u s i n g his l e a r n e d collections f o r e p i d e i c t i c purposes. A r i s -
m e n d e d t h e use o f s y n o n y m s t o t h e p o e t . H e t r e a t e d also as essentially
totle
p o e t i c a l t h e ' c o m p o u n d s ' , t h e cWAa, w h i c h i n his s u b d i v i s i o n o f ovop.ara
c o n t r a s t t o t h e Sophists he was able t o p u t a vast q u a n t i t y o f m a t e r i a l i n
(De interpr.
o r d e r a c c o r d i n g t o his o w n p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s a n d b y o r g a n i z i n g t h e
h e h a d a l r e a d y separated f r o m t h e an-Aa, t h e ' s i m p l e ' w o r d s
16 a 23, 16 b 3 2 ) ; t h e y w e r e considered as t h e h i g h l i g h t s o f t h e d i t h y r a m b i c style
(Poet. 1459
a 9,
Rhet.
1406 b 1, cf. 1405 b 3 5 ) . M u c h m o r e
i m p o r t a n t t h a n compounds a n d synonyms was another g r o u p , the rare and
2
obsolete w o r d s , t h e glosses,
yXwouat.
A r i s t o t l e expressly s t a t e d t h a t
s u c h w o r d s are m o s t i n p l a c e i n h e r o i c p o e t r y 10, w h e r e b y assuming a gloss,
ovpijas is
(Poet.
1459 a 9 f., cf. 1461 a
t a k e n t o m e a n ' g u a r d s ' , see a b o v e ,
' A 'case'-system of Ionian grammarians in the sixth century is a very poor modern invention ; see above, pp. 12 ft with notes and bibliography on m-awts. See above, p. 60, cf. 77. Simplic. in Aristot. Cat. (Comment, in Ar. Gr. vin ed. Kalbfleisch) 36. 13 ev rat /fepi TTOtijTiifiji ovvdivvfia tlrrev etvai <5v irAeito fth> TO, ovo/j-ara, Adyoj Se o avros; on Prodicus see above, pp. 3 9 f. Fragments of a treatise, possibly Theophr. Ileal Ae£ea>?, dealing with awiLw/ia, onrXa, etc. in the manner of Aristot. Poet. c. 2 0 - 2 2 , were published by B . Snell in 1
3
Gneckische Papyri der Hamburger Stoats- u. Unioersitatsbibtiotkek ( 1 9 5 4 ) no. 198, pp. 3 6 ff.
7
surpassed a l l h i s predecessors i n u n i v e r s a l i t y o f k n o w l e d g e ; i n
c o - o p e r a t i o n o f his p u p i l s . A s a consequence o f his basic
teleological
p o i n t o f v i e w the d i f f e r e n t stages t h r o u g h w h i c h t h i n g s reached t h e i r ' e n d ' h a d t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d ; so c h r o n o l o g y , as a h e l p t o w a r d s r e c o g n i z i n g t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e past, a c q u i r e d a n e w i m p o r t a n c e . W e c a n u n d e r s t a n d t h e reason w h y h e t o o k so m u c h p a i n s t o establish r e l i a b l e Cf. above, p. 41 and p. 62. On Aristophanes see above, p. 15, on Democritus pp. 42 f. See above, p. 1 2 ; on their occasional mistakes and the consequences of their wrong explanations see above, pp. 5 f. and p. 6 , n. l . See below, pp. 90 f. * K. Lehrs, De Aristarchi studiis Homeruis, 3 r d ed. (1882) 37 f., collected the evidence, but he was wrong in assuming that those yXwoooypitpoi were schoolmasters of the fourth century; see K. Latte, 'Glossographika', Philol. 8 0 (1925) 148. 2 6 . See p. 63 on the origin of words, p. 76 on their relation to things. * W. Jaeger, Aristoteles 346 ff. 'Die Organisation der Forschung* ( = Engl, transl. 324 ff.). 1
1
s
4
6
Records of Performances of Plays in Athens
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
8o
81
lists o f t h e v i c t o r s i n t h e g r e a t n a t i o n a l games. T h e catalogues o f A r i s t o t l e ' s
W h e n A r i s t o t l e r e t u r n e d t o A t h e n s after A l e x a n d e r ' s a n d Callisthenes'
w r i t i n g s m e n t i o n a series o f t i t l e s r e f e r r i n g n o t o n l y t o t h e O l y m p i a n
d e p a r t u r e , he b e g a n t o search t h e o f f i c i a l records k e p t b y t h e a r c h o n s f o r
g a m e s , w h i c h h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y t r e a t e d b y H i p p i a s , b u t also i n p a r -
the performances
t i c u l a r t o t h e P y t h i a n g a m e s . T h i s w o r k , u n d e r t a k e n i n t h e archives o f
m e n t i o n e d i n t h e lists o f his w r i t i n g s . N o t h i n g f u r t h e r is k n o w n o f a b o o k
t h e D e l p h i c priests t o g e t h e r w i t h his r e l a t i v e Callisthenes, w h o w r o t e
entitled
a history o f the Sacred W a r ,
ao-TLKtuv Kal Arjvaiojv i n H e s y c h i u s ) w e r e possibly used b y t h e a u t h o r o f
1
2
3
4
m e t w i t h e n o r m o u s success; a c c o r d i n g t o
o f plays a n d d i t h y r a m b s .
1
T h r e e r e l e v a n t titles are
2
IJepl
t h e iVt/cai
TpaywSttov;
AiovvaiaKat
(or
NLKÜJV
AiovvataKiov
a n i n s c r i p t i o n f o u n d i n 1896 t h e a u t h o r s w e r e ' p r a i s e d a n d c r o w n e d ' b y
t h e r e c o r d o f v i c t o r s i n s c r i b e d o n t h e I o n i c epistyles o f a b u i l d i n g e a r l y
t h e D e l p h i a n s ; a n d t h e p a y m e n t o f p u b l i c m o n e y t o a w e l l k n o w n stone-
i n t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y B.C. ( n o w IG.
s
lTv&iaviKüjv
c u t t e r , f o r t h e l a b o r i o u s c a r v i n g o n t o stone o f t h e c o m p l e t e amypadViJ, is registered i n a n i n s c r i p t i o n o f t h e y e a r 331 B.C.
6
Even i f i t
u
2
2325). V e r b a l quotations remain 3
o n l y f r o m t h e t h i r d w o r k , t h e surpassingly i m p o r t a n t
(fr.
A iBaaKaXlai
6 1 8 - 3 0 R o s e ) , a n d t h e r e is some l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e i n s c r i p t i o n e n g r a v e d
h a d o n l y t h e f o r m o f a mvag (see 1. 10), l i k e e a r l i e r Sophistic a n t i q u a r i a n
o n t h e w a l l o f t h e b u i l d i n g j u s t m e n t i o n e d was based o n i t (I.G.
w r i t i n g s , w i t h a n i n t r o d u c t i o n o n t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e P y t h i a n games
2 3 ) / T h e poets w e r e t h e ' p r o d u c e r s ' , t h e SiSaovcaAot, o f t h e i r d r a m a s , a n d
a n d a r e f u t a t i o n o f l e g e n d a r y r e p o r t s , a n e n g r a v e d prose w o r k o f s u c h
t h e catalogues o f t h e p r o d u c t i o n s w e r e
called
BioaaKaXtac:
n
2
on
2319stone
a c o n s i d e r a b l e l e n g t h , d e d i c a t e d n o d o u b t t o t h e g o d h i m s e l f , has f e w
t h e r e w e r e e n t e r e d first t h e a r c h o n ' s n a m e , t h e n t h e n a m e s o f t h e c o m -
p a r a l l e l s ; i t m i g h t b e r e g a r d e d as a n o t h e r t e s t i m o n y o f A r i s t o t l e ' s p e r -
p e t i n g poets w i t h t h e t i t l e s o f t h e i r respective p l a y s i n o r d e r o f success a n d
sonal attachment t o A p o l l i n i s m
the names o f the protagonists w i t h the victorious actor at the
7
8
t h a t h e was g r a n t e d t h i s e x c e p t i o n a l
h o n o u r . I t is a f a i r guess t h a t t h e l a t e r registers o f v i c t o r s i n t h e h e l l e n i c contests
9
Pan-
w e r e u l t i m a t e l y based u p o n t h i s w o r k o f A r i s t o t l e .
Aristotle's book
5
end.
was based o n t h e a r c h o n ' s archives a n d m a y h a v e c o n -
t a i n e d m o r e l i t e r a r y m a t e r i a l t h a n t h e i n s c r i p t i o n s , w h i c h w e r e based o n excerpts f r o m t h e b o o k a n d w e r e k e p t u p t o d a t e a f t e r w a r d s i n t h e same
1 3 0 - 4 ; Fragm. ed. Rose p. 8. See Moraux, Les Ustes aneiennes des ouvrages d'Aristote (1951) 1 2 3 - 6 and 1 9 9 ; During, Aristotle 4 9 . 3 3 9 f . ; see also Jacoby in FGrHist in B 4 1 5 , Kommentar (1955) p. 2 1 5 and n. 24. 1
Diog. L. v 21, no.
It is possible that Aristotle mentioned in this list of Olympian victors the victory of Empedocles in 496 B.C. and that Eratosthenes took it over from this book, not from the dialogue IJepl rro^rtuv to which the passage (fr. 71 Rose) is generally attributed; so we would gain at least one short fragment, see A. Rostagni, Scritti minori 1 (1955) 257 f. Fr. 6 1 5 - 1 7 Rose. FGrHist 124 T 23 and F t. Published by T . Homolle, BCH 22 (1898) 260 ff. and 6 3 2 ; reprinted with supplements and notes in Syll. (1915) no. 2 7 5 . The final edition by E . Bourguet in Fouilles de Delphes m 1 (1929) no. 4 0 0 (unfortunately often overlooked) is reprinted with commentary and bibliography by M. N. Tod, A selection of Greek historical inscriptions 11 (1948) no. 187. Published by E . Bourguet, BCH 24 (1900) 4 6 4 ff., and Fouilles de Delphes in 5, no. 58. 4 2 ; cf. Syll. 2 5 2 . 4 2 . It gives the only certain date. In spring 3 3 4 Callisthenes went with Alexander to Asia Minor; this is the terminus ante quern for the composition of the list, We should, of course, very much like to learn the exact length of the lost work of Aristotle; but Bourguet loc. cit. m 1, p. 240 has conclusively demonstrated that this is impossible. The cost of 'two minas' in 331 may be only an instalment for the work done in this year, and the prices paid in the fourth century were quite different from those paid in the third century on which the calculations of Homolle and others were based. The figure of ' 6 0 , 0 0 0 words' given by W. Jaeger, Aristoteles (1923) 348 with particular emphasis and repeated in all the later editions and translations is a slip of the pen; Homolle's estimate to which Jaeger refers was 6 0 , 0 0 0 letters, Pomtow, Syll. 275 and 252 calculated only about 2 0 , 0 0 0 letters. O. Regenbogen, 'nivaf', RE xx (1950) 1414, 20 ff. followed Pomtow (21,000 letters), but we had better not accept any of these figures. 1
3
style. T h e p a r a l l e l t o t h e p r o c e d u r e i n D e l p h i is o b v i o u s . T h e
A l e x a n d r i n e scholars, w h o h a d n o access t o t h e A t h e n i a n archives
3
6
3
7
3
* See 'The Image of the Delian Apollo and Apolline Ethics', Ausgewählte Schriften ( i 9 6 0 ) 7 0 . * The most important is the list of Olympian victors, P.Oxy. 222 (vol. 11, 1899, with the commentary of Grenfell and Hunt); it is reprinted in FGrHist in B (1950) no. 4 1 5 in the chapter xvni 'Elis und Olympia' pp. 3 0 1 - 1 4 , with introduction, commentary and notes in separate volumes to all the historical fragments referring to this part of Greece and to the Olympian games. Chapter xvn deals with Delphi pp. 297 ff. and the Pythian games p. 301.
or
i n s c r i p t i o n s , h a d t o use A r i s t o t l e ' s c o m p i l a t i o n s ; i n t h a t w a y a few relics o f t h e o r i g i n a l w o r k are s t i l l preserved i n t h e B y z a n t i n e S c h o l i a t p t h e Attic
dramatists, b u t
4
s
great
SiSao-zcaAiai
i t is q u e s t i o n a b l e
whether
every reference
to
w i t h o u t his n a m e s h o u l d be c o u n t e d as a g e n u i n e A r i s t o t e l i a n
f r a g m e n t (as b y R o s e ) . I n A r i s t o t l e ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h e o r y t h e highest p l a c e o f p o e t i c a l p e r f e c t i o n was assigned t o A t t i c t r a g e d y ; n o w o n d e r t h e r e f o r e t h a t t o h i m t h e dates a n d details o f e v e r y single p l a y
were
r e l e v a n t f o r his p u r p o s e o f r e c o g n i z i n g t h e a c t u a l h i s t o r i c a l process o f t h e development o f tragic art. A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (1953) 68 ff.—A. Wilhelm, 'Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen', Sonderschriften des österr. Archaeolog. Instituts in Wien vi (Wien 1906, reprinted 1965) remains the classic work on this subject. Ar. fragm. pp. 8 and 15 Rose; cf. Regenbogen, 'J7tVaf RE xx 1415 ff. Reprinted by Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. 1 1 4 - 1 8 , cf. p. 105. 2 and Moraux, Les listes aneiennes 127.—The inscription of VIKCU IG. 11 2 3 1 8 , which was given the name Fasti by Wilamowitz (GGA 1906 6 1 4 Kleine Schriften vi [1937] 378) seems to have no relation to Aristotle, Pickard-Cambridge 69 f., 105 (106 ff. text), Moraux, loc. cit. 127. 24. Reprinted by Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. no—13, cf. 71 and Moraux, loc. cit. 127 f. G. Jachmann's reconstruction in his dissertation De Aristotelis didascalUs (Gottingen 1909) is not yet superseded; but see above, n. 3 on the Fasti, which he was inclined to use for his reconstruction. 8143*2 O 1
2
1
2
4
5
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
82
Constitution of Athens, Proverbs
83
A t a b o u t t h e same t i m e (after 334 B.C.) as A r i s t o t l e was c o m p i l i n g t h e
o f his elegiac a n d i a m b i c p o e t r y . H e was, o f course, f a r f r o m i n t e r p r e t i n g
records o f p e r f o r m a n c e s o f p l a y s f r o m t h e A t h e n i a n a r c h i v e s , his f r i e n d
t h e poems, b u t selected those passages w h i c h seemed t o c o n t a i n a c t u a l
a n d fellow student Lycurgus, w h o was i n charge o f the p u b l i c
e v i d e n c e for S o l o n ' s s t r u g g l e a n d f a i l u r e a n d success, a n d c o u l d b e used
finances
1
f r o m 338 t o 326 B.C., h a d a n o f f i c i a l c o p y m a d e o f t h e w o r k s o f t h e t h r e e
as a h i s t o r i c a l source f o r his p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e . T h a n k s t o t h e p a p y r u s
g r e a t t r a g e d i a n s ; t h i s w a s d e p o s i t e d i n t h e p u b l i c a r c h i v e s , a n d t h e actors
w e are a b l e t o see t h e p u r p o s e a n d t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e
w e r e c o m p e l l e d b y l a w t o keep t o t h i s a u t h o r i z e d t e x t . " T h e g r o w i n g
relation to the
Politics m o r e
clearly. I n the
Politeiai a n d t h e i r Constitution of Athens t w o p a r t s
c o r r u p t i o n o f t h e t r a g i c texts b y actors i n t e r p o l a t i o n s since t h e b e g i n n i n g
c a n be d i s t i n g u i s h e d ( a n d i t m a y h a v e b e e n t h e same i n others o f A r i s -
o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y was t h u s t o be c h e c k e d ; b u t i t is u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r
tode's m a n y
t h i s r e g u l a t i o n h a d a n y p r a c t i c a l effect. W e a r e t o l d t h a t P t o l e m y I I I
t i o n as i t existed i n h i s o w n days is d e s c r i b e d ; t h e first, i n t r o d u c t o r y ,
( 2 4 7 - 2 2 1 B.C.) b o r r o w e d t h i s o f f i c i a l c o p y f r o m t h e A t h e n i a n s , b u t n e v e r
p a r t shows h o w t h e A t h e n i a n state a r r i v e d a t t h i s final f o r m d e s c r i b i n g
r e t u r n e d i t ; so i t m a y h a v e b e e n o f some use i n t h e A l e x a n d r i a n l i b r a r y ,
t h e d i f f e r e n t stages, i n this case eleven, t h r o u g h w h i c h i t r e a c h e d i t s
1
2
a l t h o u g h w e s h o u l d n o t o v e r e s t i m a t e its c r i t i c a l v a l u e . h a v e h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l w o r k /loAmfcá, o n t h e o t h e r h i s extensive
c o l l e c t i o n o f JTOAÍTCUU ( f r . 3 8 1 - 6 0 3 R o s e ) ,
I n t h e second p a r t t h e d e m o c r a t i c c o n s t i t u -
' n a t u r e ' . I n this d e v e l o p m e n t t h e S o l o n i a n r e f o r m gave t h e decisive t u r n
A r i s t o t l e ' s w r i t i n g s o n p o l i t i c s offer a close a n a l o g y . O n t h e one h a n d we
Constitutions).
to radical democracy. Aristotle i n w r i t i n g 'history' too remained the p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h e r , t r u e t o his g e n e r a l t e l e o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t .
w h i c h b r o u g h t together t h e
T h e latest d a t e m e n t i o n e d i n t h e p a p y r u s is t h e y e a r 329/8 B.C. ( c h .
histories o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n s o f 158 cities a n d t r i b e s , m o s t o f t h e m G r e e k .
5 4 . 7 ) ; b u t t h e r e r e m a i n several o p e n questions, n a m e l y a t w h a t t i m e
I t w a s one o f t h e g r e a t days i n t h e h i s t o r y o f s c h o l a r s h i p w h e n t h e B r i t i s h
A r i s t o t l e s t a r t e d t o c o l l e c t t h e vast m a t e r i a l f o r t h e
M u s e u m a c q u i r e d i n 1889 f o u r p a p y r u s r o l l s c o n t a i n i n g t h i r t y c o l u m n s
h a v e c o - o p e r a t e d w i t h h i m , a n d w h e t h e r he ever i n t e n d e d t o p u b l i s h i t .
o f a n e a r l y c o m p l e t e t e x t o f A r i s t o t l e ' s A9r¡va¿ojv
T h e same applies t o t h e
3
4
iroXireía
w h i c h was
first
AiKaiwp,ara,
z
Politeiai,
who
may
w h i c h i n c l u d e a passage o n t h e
p u b l i s h e d b y F . G . K e n y o n a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f 1891. T h e w e a l t h o f n e w
d e a t h o f A l e x a n d e r Molossus i n t h e y e a r 331/30 B.C.; b u t i f t h e y w e r e
information and many
used b y P h i l i p o f M a c e d o n for his p o l i c y o f
n e w p r o b l e m s w e r e i m m e d i a t e l y set f o r t h b y
W i l a t n o w i t z w i t h i n c o m p a r a b l e c o u r a g e a n d quickness o f m i n d i n h i s t w o volumes entitled controversies
Aristóteles
und Athen (1893,
o n questions o f A r i s t o t l e ' s sources, o f his r e l a t i o n s t o t h e
A t t i c h i s t o r i a n s , t h e so-called A t t h i d o g r a p h e r s , the
a b o u t 800 pages). T h e
Constitution are
5
o f the literary type o f
s t i l l i n f u l l s w i n g . T w o p o i n t s m a y be m e n t i o n e d h e r e . 6
KOLVT)
dpr/vr],
a great deal o f
t h e c o l l e c t i o n m u s t h a v e b e e n a v a i l a b l e b e t w e e n 338 a n d 3 3 6 B.C. T O A r i s t o t l e ' s a n t i q u a r i a n studies b e l o n g also t h e
Greek Customs
Nofitfxa
ßapßaptKa,
Non-
(fr. 6 0 4 - 1 0 R o s e ) ; i n c o l l e c t i n g such e t h n o g r a p h i c a l m a t e r i a l
he a g a i n h a d a predecessor i n H i p p i a s , a n d m a n y f o l l o w e r s i n H e l l e n i s t i c t i m e s . T h e r e is n o d o u b t a b o u t h i s l i v e l y i n t e r e s t i n p r o v e r b s , b u t t h e
W e m u s t b e v e r y g r a t e f u l t h a t A r i s t o t l e q u o t e d S o l o n ' s o w n verses for t h e
existence o f a m o n o g r a p h o n
h i s t o r y o f t h e S o l o n i a n r e f o r m , t h u s p r e s e n t i n g us w i t h precious n e w lines
m i s t a k e n l y , I b e l i e v e — s i n c e Uapoip.io.1 a p p e a r i n t h e list o f A r i s t o t l e ' s works,
[Plut.] Decern oratorum vitac vn p. 841 F m Schmidt, Pinakes test. 6 a; cf. Pickard¬ Cambridge, op. cit. toz, 153. > Galen, comment. 11 4 in Hippocr. Epidem. Ill, CMG v 1 0 . 2 . 1 (1936) p. 79. 8 ; see below, P* ' 9 J A new fragment of the AlvUav m>Aw«'a to which we had no reference, will have to be added between fr. 472 (Alyt^rwv) and 4 7 3 (AlrmXüv) from P.Qxy. xxx ed. E. Lobel ( 1 9 6 4 ) 1
2
2527. 5 .
* P. Lit. Lond.
108 (Pack* no. 1 6 3 ) ; H . J . (1927) 84, with bibliography
M. Milne, Catalogue of the Literary Papyri in the British Museum of editions.—Fragments of two small leaves of a papyrus codex (Pack no. 164) acquired in 1880 by the Egyptian Museum of Berlin and identified by the singular acumen of Th. Bergk in the last month of his life 1881, Rh.M. 36 (1881) 87 ff. = Opuscula 11 (1886) 5 0 5 - 3 3 . * F. Jacoby, Atthis (1949) passim; cf. FGrHist ni b 11 (1954) 459ff¬ * See the survey and balanced judgement in the Introduction to Aristotle's Constitution of Athens and Related Texts, translated with an Introduction and Notes by K. v. Fritz and E . Kapp (New York 1950). 1
3
ilapoifilai
has b e e n subject t o d i s c u s s i o n —
a n d h e is expressly b l a m e d b y Isocrates' p u p i l C e p h i s o d o r u s f o r
h a v i n g collected
proverbs
( A t h . 11 6 0 D
rrapotp.ia
S
s o u n d e v i d e n c e . I n his first a n t i - P l a t o n i c d i a l o g u e ,
^tAoo-orfuar, h e
r e g a r d e d p r o v e r b s as 'survivals o f a p r e - l i t e r a r y p h i l o s o p h y ' t h e m i n a survey Delphic maxims 1
4
and treated
o f early wisdom, together w i t h t h e 'Orphics', t h e
(yvädi
aavröv,
etc.) a n d t h e precepts o f t h e Seven W i s e
One should not disregard Wilamowitz's commentary in
band (1902) 20 ff.
w h i c h is
adpotaai),
Tlepl
Griechisches Lesebuch
n i . Halb-
Fr. 6 1 2 - 1 4 Rose. Perhaps 'Pleas of right' or 'Legal decisions between different Greek states', as the (not very reliable) Vita Marciana 4 p. 97 Düring, says: AiKajidip. ara 'EXXrjyiotDii woAewv e£ &» Qihrrnos ras tpiXoveiKtas re5e 'EXX^aiv SUXvoev; cf. Gigon's commentary p. 3 9 . Two new references, see Moraux, Les Ostes anciennes 122 f. and During 140 f. Diog. L. v 22 no. 137, Hesychius no. 127 {npooifiloiv cod.). W. Jaeger, Aristoteles 131 f. = Engl, translat. 1 3 0 ; cf. fr. 13 Rose = fr. 8 Ross (p. 7 5 ) . 1
3
4
84
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
Men.
H e liked t o embellish his later writings o n rhetoric and polities'
PART
w i t h p r o v e r b i a l q u o t a t i o n s . O n e o f his p u p i l s , C l e a r c h u s o f S o l o i , e n l a r g e d his master's c o l l e c t i o n b y w r i t i n g t w o books o f
TIapoip.taL
z
TWO
which
for t h e a m u s e m e n t o f his readers h e cast i n a l i t e r a r y n a r r a t i v e f o r m ; m a n y o t h e r s f o l l o w e d , w h o w e r e c o n t e n t t o a r r a n g e d r y lists. B u t i t w a s
THE
HELLENISTIC
3
A r i s t o t l e w h o first f r o m his p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o i n t o f v i e w c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o those t r a d i t i o n a l sayings a n d t h e i r p e c u l i a r f o r m o f ' b r e v i t y a n d p r e g nancy'
(uvvTouia teal 8e£tQT7)s).
F i n a l l y , there is a n o t h e r t y p e o f c o l l e c t i o n a t least as c o n s e q u e n t i a l as Didaskaliai o r Politeiai, t o w h i c h Aristotle led the way, the collection o f d o c t r i n e s o f p h i l o s o p h e r s a c c o r d i n g t o special topics, c a l l e d Sd^ox. W e h a v e m e n t i o n e d a p r e v i o u s c o l l e c t i o n m a d e b y H i p p i a s o f p a r a l l e l passages, n o t o n l y f r o m t h e oldest poets, b u t also f r o m t h e earliest p h i l o sophers. N o w A r i s t o t l e o p e n e d his great systematic w o r k s , f o r instance t h e Metaphysics, w i t h a r e v i e w o f his predecessors a n d g u i d e d his listeners a n d readers t h r o u g h those e a r l i e r views t o t h e final d o c t r i n e o f his o w n , w h i c h presented i t s e l f as t h e e n d , t h e re'Aoy, o f a n a t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t .
4
B u t i t was o n l y b y t h e c o m b i n e d efforts o f his school t h a t t h e m o n u m e n t a l w o r k c o u l d be continued a n d accomplished. Theophrastus missioned t o m a k e a collection o f the
was com-
Opinions of the Physicists, &vviK
Sd£cu, f r o m T h a i e s d o w n t o his o w n age i n sixteen ( o r eighteen)
books;
s
o t h e r p u p i l s l i k e E u d e m u s d i d t h e same f o r special sciences. I n m o d e r n t i m e s a l l these w r i t e r s h a v e c o m e t o b e c a l l e d ' D o x o g r a p h e r s ' .
6
Their
'ancestor', A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f , c o u l d n o t b u t see t h e e a r l i e r d o c t r i n e s i n t h e l i g h t o f his o w n t e l e o l o g i c a l p h i l o s o p h y . Bonitz, Index s.v. uapoifiia. Fr. 6 3 - 8 3 , F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 3 (1948) with commentary; see also Theophrastus, Dicaearchus. K. Rupprecht, 'Paroimiographoi', RE xvni (1949) 1735ff.,with reference to the fundamental researches of O. Crusius. * Cf. Jaeger Aristoteles 358 ff. = Engl, translat. 334 ff. O. Regenbogen, RE, Suppl. 7 (1940) 1535 ff. Doxographi Graeci, ed. H. Diels ( 1 8 7 9 ) ; I do not know whether Diels coined the new term or his great teacher in Bonn, Hermann Usener; E . Schwartz, Rede auf H. Usener { 1 9 0 6 ) 11 — Gesammelte Schriften 1 (1938) 311 'Usener hat den Begriff der doxographischen Überlieferung geschaffen'. The compound rrapaoogoy pd$os is ta be found in Tietz. Hist. 11 151. 1 1
3
s
6
AGE
I THE
RISE IN
OF
SCHOLARSHIP
ALEXANDRIA
I N t h e s t u p e n d o u s w o r k o f A r i s t o t l e t h e rdXos
o f t h e classical age
was
r e a c h e d , t h e e n d o f t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e A t t i c as w e l l as o f t h e I o n i a n p e r i o d . A r i s t o t l e d i e d i n 322 B.C., one y e a r after his p u p i l A l e x a n d e r , w h o h a d o p e n e d t h e doors to a n e w w o r l d . H e h i m s e l f b e l o n g e d t o t h e w o r l d o f t h e o l d G r e e k city-state w i t h its c u l t u r a l u n i t y ; i t was w i t h t h e g r e a t w r i t e r s o f t h e past t h a t he was i n t i m a t e l y c o n n e c t e d . The
' r e t r o s p e c t i v e ' c h a r a c t e r o f his w r i t i n g s o n l i t e r a t u r e is a q u i t e
n a t u r a l result o f his p h i l o s o p h y . T h e f o r m e r u n i t y o f t h e G r e e k w o r l d , t h r e a t e n e d b y p o l i t i c a l a n d social changes t h r o u g h o u t t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y ,
1
r a p i d l y disintegrated i n its
c o n c l u d i n g decades. A l e x a n d e r ' s e m p i r e , s h o r t - l i v e d as i t was a n d a p p a r e n t l y o f n o deeper i n f l u e n c e o n A r i s t o t l e ' s t h o u g h t , s p l i t u p after t h e d e a t h o f t h e c o n q u e r o r ; t h e t u r m o i l o f t h e w a r s o f succession was f o l l o w e d b y a sort o f s t a b i l i t y once n e w states h a d been f i r m l y established a b o u t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y . T h e m e m b e r s o f these states 2
w e r e subject t o t h e r u l e o f a sovereign a n d his officials. T h e free p o l i t i c a l life, once i n p e r p e t u a l m o t i o n i n the o l d city-state, was b r o u g h t t o a s t a n d s t i l l . T h i s , n o d o u b t , h a d its disadvantages, b u t n o t i n e v e r y respect, as w e s h a l l see p r e s e n t l y . N o w f o r t h e first t i m e t h e Greeks w e r e c o n v i n c e d t h a t t h e o l d o r d e r o f t h i n g s i n t h e p o l i t i c a l as w e l l as i n t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t h e i r w h o l e w a y o f life i n d e e d , was g o n e f o r ever. T h e y
field,
became
conscious o f a d e f i n i t i v e b r e a k b e t w e e n t h e m i g h t y past a n d a s t i l l u n c e r t a i n present. O f t h i s d i v i d i n g l i n e A r i s t o t l e a n d his p e r s o n a l p u p i l s Were y e t u n a w a r e . T h e n e w g e n e r a t i o n o f a b o u t 300 B . C . l i v i n g u n d e r a n e w m o n a r c h y ' See above, p. 65. * The Cambridge Ancient History vu ( 1 9 2 8 ) ; M. Rostovtzeff, Social and economic history of the Hellenistic world, 3 vols. (Oxford 1 9 4 1 ) ; H. Bengtson, 'Griechische Geschichte* 2. Aufi., Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft in 4 ( i 9 6 0 ) 285 ff. Zeitalter des Hellenismus; 3 5 4 ff. and 4I5n"- Quellen und Darstellungen. W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilisation, 3 r d ed. ( 1 9 5 2 ) . The
historical background and the transition from the fourth to the third century is described also by U . von Wilamowitz, Die hellenistische Dichtung in der ^eii des Kallimachos, vol. 1 (1924), cf. 1 9 2 5 1 2 1 3 4 ff.
The Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria
88
Philitas of Cos, the First Scholar Poet
89
r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e g r e a t o l d p o e t i c a l f o r m s also b e l o n g e d t o ages g o n e f o r
l i v e d i n t h e last t h i r d o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y a n d p r o b a b l y i n t h e
e v e r . P o e t r y h a d s h o w n signs o f e x h a u s t i o n a n d even d i s s o l u t i o n t h r o u g h -
two
out the f o u r t h c e n t u r y . B u t there was still something left o f the creative
a p p l i e d t o h i m t h a n t h a t preserved b y S t r a b o x r v 657 ( = test. 13 K . ) i n
resourcefulness
his list o f f a m o u s C o a n s :
1
o f the Greek genius; i t manifested itself again under the
decades o f t h e t h i r d .
1
first
T h e r e c o u l d have been n o better designation
7701171-17?
dua
KOI
K P I T I K O S ,
'poet as w e l l as s c h o l a r ' .
2
c h a n g e d c o n d i t i o n s . A s t r o n g desire t o r e b u i l d was s l o w l y g r o w i n g u p i n
T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f these t w o w o r d s , n e v e r a p p l i e d t o a n y o n e
t h e field o f p o e t r y as i n others t o o . P o e t r y h a d t o be rescued f r o m t h e
e x a c t l y describes t h e k e y p o s i t i o n o f P h i l i t a s a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a n e w
dangerous
e r a . T h e stress is l a i d o n 7701771-179; he was, first o f a l l , a w r i t e r o f s u b t l e
situation i n w h i c h i t lay, and the w r i t i n g o f poetry h a d to
b e c o m e a p a r t i c u l a r l y serious w o r k o f d i s c i p l i n e a n d w i d e rexvrj
before,
knowledge,
v e r s e : elegiacs, s h o r t epics, e p i g r a m s . T h e t w o greatest poets o f t h e n e x t
a n d aotpty- T h e n e w w r i t e r s h a d t o l o o k b a c k t o t h e o l d masters,
g e n e r a t i o n , T h e o c r i t u s a n d C a l l i m a c h u s , p r a i s e d h i m i n p r o m i n e n t pas-
especially
o f I o n i c p o e t r y , n o t t o i m i t a t e t h e m — t h i s was r e g a r d e d
as
sages o f t h e i r c h i e f p o e m s : T h e o c r i t u s i n t h e
Thalysia, a
harvest festival
i m p o s s i b l e o r a t least as u n d e s i r a b l e — b u t i n o r d e r t o be t r a i n e d b y t h e m
i n P h i l i t a s ' n a t i v e i s l a n d o f Cos ( v n 4 0 ) , a n d C a l l i m a c h u s i n t h e p r o -
i n their o w n n e w poetical technique. T h e i r i n c o m p a r a b l y precious heri-
g r a m m a t i c elegy against his adversaries w i t h w h i c h he o p e n e d t h e
t a g e h a d t o be saved a n d s t u d i e d . T h i s was felt t o be, first o f a l l , a neces-
book o f the
sity f o r t h e r e b i r t h a n d f u t u r e l i f e o f p o e t r y , a n d secondly a n o b l i g a t i o n t o
the papyrus,
t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s o f past ages w h i c h h a d g i v e n b i r t h t o t h e masterpieces
shorter poems o f Philitas a n d M i m n e r m u s were c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e i r
o f H e l l e n i c l i t e r a t u r e . T h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e n e w g e n e r a t i o n t o t h e past was
l o n g e r ones a n d preference was g i v e n t o t h e
e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t o f A r i s t o t l e , t h e w h o l e perspective o f l i t e r a r y
a few lines.
c r i t i c i s m was
e x q u i s i t e w o r k m a n s h i p , t h e reyvr;; n o d o u b t P h i l i t a s was r e g a r d e d as t h e
changed.
2
T h u s a n o v e l c o n c e p t i o n o f p o e t r y , h e l d b y t h e poets themselves, l e d t h e
first
Aitia
3
first
( f r . 1. 9 - 1 2 ) ; t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f t h e lines are m i s s i n g i n
but f r o m the Florentine Scholia we
conclude
oXiyoorixlrj,
that the
t h e pieces o f
T h e m a i n p o i n t was, o f course, n o t t h e l e n g t h , b u t t h e
o f t h e n e w poets t o a i m a t a r t i s t i c p e r f e c t i o n i n a l i m i t e d space.
w a y t o t h e r e v i v a l o f p o e t r y as w e l l as t o a n e w t r e a t m e n t o f t h e a n c i e n t
C a l l i m a c h u s ' praise is f r e q u e n t l y echoed b y R o m a n poets, especially
p o e t i c a l texts a n d t h e n o f a l l t h e o t h e r l i t e r a r y m o n u m e n t s .
Propertius and O v i d .
3
I a m here
repeating the general statement w i t h w h i c h I started this book, a n d I shall
by
H e r m e s i a n a x o f C o l o p h o n , h i m s e l f a m i n o r p o e t , is said t o h a v e b e e n
n o w t r y t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e h i s t o r i c a l process f r o m t h e scanty e v i d e n c e
a p u p i l a n d friend o f Philitas ;
s t i l l a v a i l a b l e t o u s ; i t is j u s t sufficient t o g i v e us a g l i m p s e o f classical
c a t a l o g u e o f love-affairs
scholarship i n the m a k i n g .
h o n o u r e d b y a statue i n his n a t i v e i s l a n d . H e was t h e o n l y post-classical
T h e first o f these n e w poets was P h i l i t a s f r o m t h e i s l a n d o f Cos, w h o 4
4
he p r a i s e d his master i n h i s elegiac
o f poets a n d
poet f o u n d w o r t h y b y Hermesianax
philosophers
5
of being added
as h a v i n g
been
t o t h e series o f
i l l u s t r i o u s e a r l i e r poets s t a r t i n g w i t h O r p h e u s . So i n t h e l a t e r l i s t s o f t h e 6
In this whole chapter I make free use of my paper 'The Future of Studies in the Field of Hellenistic Poetry', JHS 75 (1955) 71 ff. = Ausgewählte Schriften ( i 9 6 0 ) 154 ff. I had tentatively stated the same opinion on the relation of poetry and scholarship in a sketch 'Von den geschichtlichen Begegnungen der kritischen Philologie mit dem Humanismus', Archiv fur 1
Kulturgeschichte
2 8 (1938) 192 ff.
= Ausgewählte Schriften
160 ff.
See
also Philologia
Perennis,
Festrede (München 1961, Bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften) 4 fr. The agreement expressed by H . Haffter in his lecture 'Geschichte der klassischen Philologie', Das Erbe der Antike (Erasmus-Bibliothek, Zürich 1963) 1 3 - 3 0 , was gratifying and encouraging to me. I have made this point in various papers just quoted and in my lectures; see also below, pp. 135 f. I was highly pleased to find the same view expressed by H. W. Garrod in his stimulating Gray Lectures, Scholarship, its Meaning and Value (Cambridge 1946) 16 f. F . Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit, is still an invaluable storehouse of information on the whole literature of the age; see also W. Schmid-O. Stählin in W, von Christ, Geschickted. griech. Lit. 11 i ( 1 9 2 0 ) ; A. Lesky, Geschichte d. griech. Lit. (2. Aufl. 1963) 690 ff., esp. 744 ff. A competent survey of research in the first half of the twentieth century is given by E . A. Barber, 'Hellenistic Poetry' in Fifty Tears of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1954) 2 1 4 - 3 2 . •* J . Ü. Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina (1925) 9 0 - 9 6 and Anth. Lyr. Graeca ed. E . Diehl 11 ( 1 9 4 2 ) , fasc. 6. 4 9 - 5 5 , contain the poetical fragments only; complete edition, including the 2
3
6
1
f o r e m o s t G r e e k elegists he alone figures t o g e t h e r w i t h C a l l i m a c h u s after t h e g r e a t I o n i a n elegiac poets. L i t t l e is k n o w n a b o u t P h i l i t a s ' c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . Simias o f R h o d e s m a y h a v e h a d s i m i l a r aims, as he w r o t e v a r i o u s p o e m s as w e l l as
glosses u n d e r
prose fragments, with prolegomena and commentary, by G. Kuchenmuller, Philefac Coi reliquiae, Diss. Berlin (1928). The problems of dates are discussed by A. von Blumenthal, RE xrx (1938) 2165 f. On Kpi-ruios and ypaptu-artKos see below, pp. 157 ff. See my explanatory notes to the passage, Call. 1 (1949) 2 ; the lively discussion oil it is going on, see for instance W. Wimmel, 'Kallimachos in Rom', Hermes-Einzelschriften 16 ( i 9 6 0 ) 87 ff. with bibliography 87. 1 ; his own supplement on 1. 9 is not convincing, see also G. Luck, Gnomon 33 (1961) 370.—Other references of Callimachus to Philitas see Gall. 11 (1953) Index p. 137. Schol. Nic. Ther. 3 ( = test. 20 Kuch.). * Fr. 7. 77 Powell. Test. 8 a. b. 12 Kuch. 1
2
3
4
6
Philitas* Glossaries
The Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria
90
the reign o f Ptolemy I .
1
Besides some f r a g m e n t s o f epics a n d l y r i c s , a f e w
e p i g r a m s are preserved a n d t h r e e
carminafigurata;
2
these p o e t i c a l artifices
w e r e i n t e n d e d t o r e p r o d u c e b y t h e d i f f e r i n g l e n g t h s o f t h e i r lines t h e shapes o f c e r t a i n objects. T h e
Egg,
the
Axe,
and the
Wings
were Simias'
P h i l i t a s ' c o m p i l a t i o n o f r a r e d i a l e c t i c a l expressions, t e c h n i c a l t e r m s , a n d H o m e r i c vocables i m m e d i a t e l y b e c a m e f a m o u s a l l o v e r t h e G r e e k w o r l d . I n a n A t t i c comedy o f the t h i r d century, the cook
uses a r c h a i c
Phoenicides
H o m e r i c w o r d s for c o m m o n p l a c e
o f Strato, the
t h i n g s , a n d his
creations, a n d he m a y be r e g a r d e d as t h e ' i n v e n t o r ' o f t h i s g e n r e ; he was
desperate m a s t e r is o b l i g e d ' t o t a k e t h e books o f P h i l i t a s a n d l o o k each
Syrinx
w o r d u p t o f i n d its m e a n i n g ' , t S a r * e ê e i / rd rov <£iAiVa A a / j . / S d V o v r a
i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w e d b y n o lesser a p o e t t h a n T h e o c r i t u s i n t h e a n d b y Dosiades o f C r e t e
3
i n the
c o m p o s e d r e a l r i d d l e s (ypttpot)
Altar,
w h o b o t h i n contrast to Simias
4
i n t h a t p l a y f u l f o r m . I n t h e course o f t i m e
/3u/3Àia
I
e/cao-rov
OKO7T€LV
Tt Su'vaTcu TOJV p-npidrcov;
t h i s passage
figures
a l r e a d y i n a verse a n t h o l o g y for schools w r i t t e n as e a r l y as t h e l a t e r
these poems aroused c u r i o s i t y a n d a d m i r a t i o n o r anger a n d c o n t e m p t
t h i r d c e n t u r y B.C.
i n t h e m i n d s o f t h e i r r e a d e r s ; t h e y s h o w us t h a t f r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g
k n o w n b o o k s ; i t j o k e d a t his f r a i l t y as a v a l e t u d i n a r i a n , so t h a t his p e r -
t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f p o e t i c a l t a l e n t a n d w i d e l e a r n i n g c o u l d easily l e a d t o
son m u s t s o m e h o w h a v e b e e n f a m i l i a r t o t h e A t h e n i a n a u d i e n c e .
1
Attic comedy d i d more t h a n quote Philitas' well-
2
d e l i b e r a t e a n d p r o v o c a t i v e o b s c u r i t y . B u t n o such t e n d e n c y is v i s i b l e i n
H o w m u c h P h i l i t a s ' glosses w e r e used b y t h e g r e a t A l e x a n d r i a n poets
t h e w r i t i n g s o f P h i l i t a s , a n d t h e r e is n o reason t o t r a c e t h e o r i g i n o f t h e
w e c a n n o t t e l l , as t o o f e w v e r b a l excerpts are preserved ; b u t n e a r l y o n e
Technopaegnia
a n d a h a l f centuries l a t e r A r i s t a r c h u s f o u n d i t necessary t o w r i t e a g a i n s t
t o his ' s c h o o l ' .
5
T h e w o r k o f P h i l i t a s t h e p o e t was i n s e p a r a b l y a l l i e d t o t h e w o r k o f P h i l i t a s t h e scholar, t h e KpiriKos. be successfully
For the new poetical technique c o u l d n o t
p r a c t i s e d w i t h o u t t h e c o n s t a n t h e l p o f t h e o l d masters.
Philitas, tive.
TTpos 0tXlrav,
3
as his H o m e r i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w e r e s t i l l a u t h o r i t a -
A m a r g i n a l n o t e t o S t r a b o 111 168, w h i c h l a t e r c r e p t i n t o S t r a b o ' s
t e x t , quotes t h e t i t l e < P i A i r a s iv Epp.rjveia, r
t h e sense o f w h i c h is u n c e r t a i n ;
4
Glossaries, i n v a l u a b l e i n t h e first place f o r the c h o i c e o f w o r d s , h e l p e d
b u t i n t h i s b o o k he is said t o h a v e e x p l a i n e d t h e gloss pLeXayKpdvtvov
also t o g i v e a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e g r e a t p o e t r y o f t h e past. T h e G r e e k
' p l a i t e d o f b l a c k rushes', c i t i n g a n a n o n y m o u s d i s t i c h o n ; b y a s t a r t l i n g
i n t e r e s t i n r a r e w o r d s was v e r y o l d : w e h a v e seen h o w o c c a s i o n a l collec-
coincidence
t i o n s w e r e m a d e a n d h o w A r i s t o t l e p a i d p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o glosses.
begins w i t h c o l o u r - c o m p o u n d s f o r m e d f r o m t h e same p r e f i x j i t e A a - .
6
as
5
a recently published poetical onomasticon
(PMibeh
172) 6
It
B u t i t was a n e w t h i n g for a l e a d i n g p o e t t o w r i t e a n extensive w o r k o n
w o u l d be a n e n o r m o u s increase o f P h i l i t a s ' scanty f r a g m e n t s , i f w e w e r e
t h e subject. P h i l i t a s ' b o o k , since i t was r e f e r r e d t o as AraKrot
e n t i t l e d t o a t t r i b u t e t h i s list o f a b o u t 125 w o r d s t o his y A o W a t ; i t is v e r y
yXwooai,
not
t e m p t i n g t o d o so, a n d i t was q u i t e n a t u r a l t h a t t h e first e d i t o r r a i s e d t h i s
systematically arranged like the later collections m a d e b y g r a m m a r i a n s ;
q u e s t i o n v e r y seriously. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , he d i d n o t suppress t h e
o r rXcovaai
ATaKTa,
(fr. 2 9 - 5 9
we m a y compare the name various
learned
K u c h e n m i i l l e r ) , was
Miscellanea
apparently
g i v e n b y t h e p o e t P o l i t i a n t o his
w r i t i n g s p u t together
without
proper
arrangement.
H. Frankel, De Simla Rkodio, Diss. Gottingen ( 1 9 1 5 ) ; cf. P. Maas. RE m A (1927) 155 ff. It may be significant that he is never called Troi-nr-qs, but only ypap.p.a.nKos: see Strab. xiv 6 5 5 (among the famous Rhodians) and Suid. s.v. £tp.[p.]ias; but we have from his three books of yXwaaai only four words quoted by Athenaeus and from his four books of noi-jp-ara about thirty quotations, some of them complete poems. See Theocritus, ed. A. S. F. Gow 11 (1950) 552 ff. with references. Ausonius, Opusc. xn ed. Peiper (1886) 155 ff., coined the word Technopaegnion for his verse playing with monosyllables or single letters of the alphabet; I have not been able to find out who transferred the name to the entirely different Greek poems for which no ancient comprehensive term exists, A. Hecker's identification of the poet with the writer of Kp-qriKa (Comment, crit. de Anlh. Gr. 1 [1852] 127) has not yet been refuted, see FGrHist 458 (1955) Commentary 3 3 1 . The result of Merkelbach's conjectures on the text of the 'Egg' (Mus. Helv. 10 [1953] 6 8 f.) is in so far improbable as the poem would be a rather hard riddle. W. Schmid, Geschkhte dergriechischen Literaturn i 125, unfortunately did so, and Kuchenmiiller (p. 21) agreed; but he rightly rejected (p. 24) the incredible fancies of R. Herzog, Philol. 79 (1924) 4 2 6 ff., who detected in Philitas the central and celebrated figure in Heron1
2
3
4
5
das' 6
6
Dream.
See above, p. 78. On Antimachus see below, p. 9 4 .
obvious objection to this hypothesis, n a m e l y the fact t h a t the w o r d s i n t h e p a p y r u s are l i s t e d w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n , w h i l e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e passage i n S t r a t o ' s c o m e d y t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e r a r e w o r d s c o u l d be f o u n d i n P h i l i t a s ' ' d i c t i o n a r y ' ; m o s t o f t h e t h i r t y attested q u o t a t i o n s f r o m t h e AraKra
s h o w t h e same a r r a n g e m e n t . T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n d e e d i n t h e
1 Strato in Athen. i x 382 c = CAF i n 361 f. Kock. O. Guéraud-P. Jouguet, Un Livre d'Écolier du I I I Siècle avant J.-C. (Le Caire 1938) 34, reprinted in D. L . Page, Greek Literary Papyri (1942) n o . 57. 4 2 - 4 4 , p. 2 6 6 . 1 quote the papyrus text together with Page's translation ; e
i
see also above, p. 60, n. 1. See above, pp. 41 f, Fr. 54, 55 K. 'Epp.-nvela. is a quite unusual title whether it means 'expression' (cf. above, p. 75) o r 'interpretation'; three variant readings in the text of the Iliad may have been discussed in 1
3
4
s u c h a book (fr.
56-58
K.).
Fr. 53 K. ; cf. fr. 17 Pow. The Hibeh Papyri 11 e d . E . G. Turner (1955) 1-7, written between 2 7 0 and 2 3 0 B.c. I should guess that in P.Hib. 172 1. 5 it was not the Homeric [*rtAat]ve^s t h a t followed the four r a r e compounds with p.i\as, b u t t h a t a n e w compound \p.e\av\i>e£ijs or [u-eXai]ve
92
The Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria
n e w ' OvofiaoTtKov
Alexandria as Cultural Centre
93
o f c o m p o u n d adjectives w h i c h c l e a r l y p o i n t s t o P h i l i t a s
p o e t a n d scholar, t h a t t h e t r u e scholar c a m e i n t o b e i n g , a n d this scholar
as i t s a u t h o r ; b u t i t m a y be d u e t o his i n f l u e n c e t h a t s u c h c o m p r e h e n s i v e
was t h e p e r s o n a l p u p i l o f the poet. A l e x a n d r i a , p e r h a p s since a b o u t 320
1
lists as t h a t i n c e n t u r y B.C.
P.Hibeh
172 w e r e c o m p i l e d i n t h e course o f t h e
third
B.C. P t o l e m y ' s c a p i t a l i n E g y p t , b y a t t r a c t i n g t h e l e a d i n g spirits f r o m t h e 1
islands a n d f r o m t h e g r e a t eastern cities, b e c a m e t h e c u l t u r a l centre t o o .
2
T h e C o a n p o e t a n d scholar was chosen b y P t o l e m y I as t u t o r t o his
T h e impetus to the new movement apparently came f r o m the south-
son b o r n i n t h e s p r i n g o f 308 B.C. i n t h e i s l a n d o f C o s . P t o l e m y , t h e son o f
eastern c o r n e r o f t h e G r e e k w o r l d ; w e s h o u l d also r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e
Berenice, was c r o w n e d as co-regent w i t h his f a t h e r i n 285 a n d f o l l o w e d
f o r e m o s t e p i g r a m m a t i s t o f t h e t i m e , Asclepiades,
h i m as k i n g o f E g y p t f r o m 28 3 t o 247 B.C., b e i n g m a r r i e d i n t h e seventies
i s l a n d o f Samos, a n d t h a t H e d y l u s was his f e l l o w c o u n t r y m a n . T w o poets
t o his sister A r s i n o e . T h e y s h o w e d themselves m o s t l i b e r a l i n p r o m o t i n g
o f t h e same g e n e r a t i o n w e r e b o r n i n C o l o p h o n , H e r m e s i a n a x , m e n t i o n e d
t h a t p o e t r y a n d s c h o l a r s h i p o f w h i c h P h i l i t a s h a d b e e n t h e first representa-
as a f r i e n d o f P h i l i t a s , a n d P h o e n i x , w h o w r o t e a d i r g e o n his n a t i v e c i t y
t i v e . T h e y o u n g P t o l e m y ' s l i t e r a r y e d u c a t i o n was c o m p l e t e d b y his second
after its d e s t r u c t i o n b y L y s i m a c h u s a n d perhaps f o l l o w e d his c o m p a t r i o t s
t u t o r , Z e n o d o t u s o f Ephesus, h i m s e l f a p u p i l o f P h i l i t a s ; f o r i n s t r u c t i o n
t o Ephesus t o compose c h o l i a m b i c poems. F r o m s t i l l f u r t h e r t o t h e s o u t h -
3
4
s
i n science S t r a t o
6 voiKos
6
was c a l l e d b y t h e wise f a t h e r t o A l e x a n d r i a
was a n a t i v e o f t h e
east, f r o m S o l o i i n C i l i c i a , c a m e A r a t u s , t h e p o e t o f t h e
Phaenomena,
f r o m A r i s t o t l e ' s school, t o w h i c h h e r e t u r n e d as T h e o p h r a s t u s ' successor
whom—as
i n 287 B.C. W h e t h e r P h i h t a s t a u g h t t h e son i n Cos o r i n A l e x a n d r i a w e
d e v o t e d verses f u l l o f love a n d praise. A r a t u s b e c a m e a p u p i l o f t h e p o e t
cannot tell, n o r where or w h e n Zenodotus took over the t u t o r s h i p o f the
and
c h i l d r e n ; Z e n o d o t u s a n d S t r a t o m a y h a v e been teachers o f A r s i n o e t o o . But
one fact emerges q u i t e c l e a r l y f r o m t h e r e l i a b l e t r a d i t i o n . Z e n o d o t u s ,
w h o is said t o h a v e w r i t t e n epic verse h i m s e l f o f w h i c h n o t h i n g is k n o w n ,
7
to Philitas a n d Asclepiades—Callimachus
(Ep.
to
27, f r . 460)
scholar M e n e c r a t e s a t Ephesus, t h e h o m e o f Z e n o d o t u s .
2
I f a n y o n e c a n be r e g a r d e d as a p r e c u r s o r o f t h e poets a n d scholars o f the
years o f t r a n s i t i o n t o t h e A l e x a n d r i a n age, i t is A n t i m a c h u s o f
C o l o p h o n . A n I o n i a n f r o m t h e same eastern r e g i o n , he was a sort o f l i n k 3
i n i t i a t e d H o m e r i c studies o n a g r a n d scale a n d i n a m e t h o d i c a l w a y b o t h
between earlier a n d Hellenistic literature (living at the end o f the
as e d i t o r a n d l e x i c o g r a p h e r . So, w e see, i t was o n l y after P h i l i t a s , t h e
c e n t u r y he has been m e n t i o n e d a b o v e m o r e t h a n once) . T h e q u a l i t y o f
The new text does not contain yXmaaat in the proper sense of the word, dialectical or rare poetical vocables, but only such 'compounds' as Aristotle had called BnrXa 6v6p.ara and treated as essentially poetical and as characteristic of the dithyrambic style, quite separate from the glosses (above, p. 78). The editor has observed that 'the author of this list. . . was drawing on the whole body of choral and tragic lyric as well as the epic . , . more than thirty are unknown to our lexica'. I have tried to supply an 'unknown' compound in P.Hib. 172. 5 . The best suggestion for the corrupt aAiTecryijs in 1. 5 6 seems to be aXtreyy^s cf. areyy^? (= äreyKTos) in the epigram published in Mnemosynon, Th. Wiegand dargebracht ( 1 9 3 8 )
t h r o u g h o u t t h e f o u r t h a n d t h e t h i r d centuries. I n a p o e t i c a l contest a t t h e
his poems, t h e epic 1
32
=
Griechische Versinschrißen 1, hg. von
W.
Peek ( 1 9 5 5 ) , no.
1913. 7.
In Philitas* own lifetime a fellow countryman of his, Xenocritus of Cos, was the first to write a Hippocratic glossary (Deichgräber p. 221. 2 4 ) ; among his many followers another Coan in the next generation, Philinus, the founder of the Empirical School of Medicine, became the most influential medical glossographer, see Susemihl 1 (1891) 3 4 6 and 8 1 8 ; RE viii 1851, xix 2 1 9 3 . Testimonies and fragments in K. Deichgräber, Die griechische Empirikerschule ( 1 9 3 0 ) 221 f. 'Zur empirischen Lexikographie', cf. 254 ff. Suid. v. itAtVas . . . BiSdoKaXos TOV oevrcpov /TVoAe/xaiou. On chronological and biographical details of the Ptolemies see RE xxm (1959) 1603 ff. 'Ptolemaios' and cf. A. E . Samuel, 'Ptolemaic Chronology', Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung 4 3 ( 1 9 6 2 ) ; on the date of the birth of Ptolemy n cf. T . C. Skeat, 'The Reigns of the Ptolemies', Mizraim 6 ( 1 9 3 7 ) 7 ff.; on Cos see Call. hy. rv 165 ff. and Scholia; cf. Theocr. xvn 58 and Scholia. * The year of the marriage is still uncertain, see on Call. fr. 392 and Add. I and I I . Suid. v. Zr/voSoros (test. 22 K..) . . . piaOr/rijs TOV &iXtra . . . Kat rovs JicuSas riroXep.atov eVat'Scuirev. F. Wehrli, 'Straton von Lampsakos', Die Schule des Aristoteles 5 ( 1 9 5 0 ) fr. 2, with commentary. Only in Suid. (above, n. 5) is Zenodotus called fironotis Kai ypau-nartKos. 2
3
s
6
7
fifth
4
Thebaid a n d
t h e elegiac
festival o f t h e L y s a n d r e i a i n S a m o s
5
Lyde,
was o p e n t o c o n t r o v e r s y
A n t i m a c h u s w a s defeated b y a n
obscure epic p o e t N i c e r a t u s ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e y o u n g P l a t o t o o k 6
a f a n c y t o h i m — p o s s i b l y because o f t h e m o r a l a n d e d u c a t i o n a l t e n d e n c y o f his poems, o f w h i c h w e are t o l d b u t h a v e n o evidence i n t h e f r a g m e n t s . 7
P l a t o , o f a l l people, c o u l d s t a n d a c o m p l e t e r e c i t a l o f A n t i m a c h u s ' verses f r o m w h i c h t h e rest o f the a u d i e n c e fled i n d e s p a i r . W h a t e v e r t r u t h t h e r e 8
P. M. Fraser (see p. 102, n. 1) 2 f. n. 1; objections were raised by C. Bradford Welles, "The Discovery of Sarapis and the Foundation of Alexandria', Historia 11 (1962) 273 f. On Menecrates of Ephesus and his pupil Aratus see below, p. 120. Antimachi Colophonn reliquiae. Collegit B. Wyss 1936. A number of new small hexametric fragments published by E. Lobel in P.Oxy. xxx (1964) 2516, 2 5 1 8 , and 2 5 1 9 , can be attributed to Antimachus. * See pp. 36, 7 2 ; cf. p. 58, Antimachus belonged to the 'very few exceptions . Test. 2 W. The Samians called their ancient 'Hpaia at that time AvadvSpeia, in honour of Lysander, Duris 76 FGrHist 71. Konrat Ziegler, Das hellenistische Epos ( 1 9 3 4 ) I3> eager to find as many 'historical' epic poems as possible, made the mistake of regarding AvodvBpeia as the title of an Antimachean epic: 'Antimachos mit seinen Avodvopeia'; cf. Antim. fr. [171] W. p. 75. As eirorroios mentioned by Praxiphanes fr. 18, Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 9 (1957) 9 8 , together with a number of more famous contemporaries. * Test. 16 W. ; cf. p. XLI. » Test. 3 W. = Cic. Brut. 191. 1
a 3
1
1
6
94
New
The Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria Ponticus
to Colophon
o n purpose
t o collect
Antimachus'
95
A n t i m a c h u s as a p o e t a n d 'scholar' r e m a i n e d a s o l i t a r y figure i n his
m a y be i n this a n e c d o t e , i t is w e i l attested t h a t P l a t o sent his p u p i l Heraclides
Poetical Movement and Peripatetic Tradition
t i m e ( a b o u t 400 B . C . ) . I t w a s n e a r l y a c e n t u r y — a n e v e n t f u l c e n t u r y İn
p o e m s . P l a t o ' s p a r t i a l i t y roused t h e a n g e r o f C a l l i m a c h u s , w h o detested
philosophy
A n t i m a c h u s ' verses as 'fat a n d i n e l e g a n t
a n d denied Plato any c r i t i c a l
started w i t h Philitas; this t h e n continued f r o m generation to generation
I n c o n t r a s t t o h i m , Asclepiades a n d Posi-
w i t h o u t a serious b r e a k . I t r e a c h e d its c l i m a x s h o r t l y after P h i l i t a s İn
1
f a c u l t y i n t h e field o f p o e t r y .
2
5
d i p p u s a p p r e c i a t e d t h e ' s e n t i m e n t a l ' elegy o n Hermesianax ;
3
Lyde,
a n d so a p p a r e n t l y d i d
i t is h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g t h a t C a l l i m a c h u s '
ponent, A p o l l o n i u s Rhodius, a d m i r e d the
Thebaid as
stoutest
op
Lyde,
w e l l as the
i m i t a t e d t h e m i n his e p i c p o e m o n t h e A r g o n a u t s , a n d also q u o t e d a l i n e w i t h a gloss.
4
The
h e a t e d c o n t r o v e r s y reveals t h e n o v e l t y
and
T h i s p o e t is also t h e o n l y p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c a u t h o r o f a n ' e d i t i o n ' o f H o m e r o f w h i c h w e c a n be c e r t a i n , as i t is f r e q u e n t l y r e f e r r e d t o i n o u r 5
i) AvTiuaypv,
i)
oratory—before
Alexandria, where
Avrifiáx^tos,
7} K a r a
AvrLpiaxov,
sc. ¿'KSOCTIC. L a t e r
the g r e a t
what
we
called
a
'new
movement'
masters o f p o e t r y a n d t h e i n i t i a t o r s o f
scholarship w e r e his f o l l o w e r s , as w e h a v e t r i e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e . T h e y w e r e not
Peripatetics. W h e n C a l l i m a c h u s i n the p r o g r a m m a t i c i n t r o d u c t i o n
to his
Aitia,
i n w h i c h he p r a i s e d P h i l i t a s , p i c t u r e d h i m s e l f as a y o u n g p o e t
1
r e c e i v i n g t h e a d v i c e o f A p o l l o , t h e r e was n o t h i n g P e r i p a t e t i c i n t h e god's gracious c o u n s e l .
importance o f Antimachus' poetry.
Scholia:
and
Praxiphanes
was
2
I n t h e S c h o l i a t o this e l e g y counted
among
3
the famous
Peripatetic
t h e poet's adversaries, a n d İt
was
against h i m t h a t C a l l i m a c h u s p u b l i s h e d a p a m p h l e t . T h e l i n e P h i l i t a s — 4
Zenodotus—Callimachus,
o f w h i c h w e h a v e stressed t h e n o n - A r i s t o t e l i a n
i n t h e second c e n t u r y , A r i s t a r c h u s h a d before h i m a n u m b e r o f e a r l i e r
character,
e d i t i o n s ; t w o classes w e r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d , one o f w h i c h t h e n a m e o f t h e
A t h e n s ; t h i s was the second stage o f t h e w h o l e process, n o t its b e g i n n i n g .
e d i t o r was h a n d e d d o w n , at fear*
dvhpa,
o f o r i g i n w a s k n o w n , at «-ara TCW TTOXCIS
a n d one o f w h i c h o n l y t h e p l a c e
{ o r at
drro
TWV
n-aAcwv) sc.
A n t i m a c h u s is t h e earliest o f t h e first g r o u p , f o l l o w e d b y
ekboOtis,
Zenodotus,
met i n Alexandria
with
a genuine
Peripatetic
line
from 5
T h e p u p i l s o f A r i s t o t l e w e r e a b l e t o b r i n g priceless h e l p t o the 770177x01 Kat KpiTLKoi
w h o a l r e a d y existed i n A l e x a n d r i a ; t h e y t r a n s f e r r e d collections
of learned material f r o m their A t h e n i a n home to t h e m , they instigated
a f u l l c e n t u r y l a t e r . W e h a v e n o reason t o assume t h a t A n t i m a c h u s m a d e
further
a ' r e c e n s i o n ' o f t h e H o m e r i c poems, c o l l a t i n g m a n u s c r i p t s a n d e m e n d i n g
often opposed t o t h e i r master's views, a n d t h e y t a u g h t t h e m t o o r g a n i z e
t h e t e x t ; his w o r k is n e v e r c a l l e d a 'Siopfltuai?'.
institutions for the p r o m o t i o n o f scholarship.
6
O n the other h a n d ,
Z e n o d o t u s is expressly a n d r i g h t l y , as w e s h a l l see, described as -n-pój-ro? TOJV
'OpWipov
StopdcoTTjs
they stimulated new
literary criticism,
W e shall f i n d not a few
A r i s t o t e l i a n elements e v e n i n C a l l i m a c h u s ' p r o s e - w r i t i n g s .
6
P t o l e m y , t h e son o f L a g u s , n o w t h e first k i n g i n A l e x a n d e r ' s
( S u i d . s.v. ZTJVÓSOTOS). T h i s is t h e decisive d i f
ference b e t w e e n A n t i m a c h u s a n d Z e n o d o t u s . F o l l o w i n g t h e e a r l y I o n i a n
a n t i q u a r i a n research,
city,
A l e x a n d r i a , h a d been one o f his ablest generals a n d truest f r i e n d s ; t u r n i n g
t r a d i t i o n , A n t i m a c h u s w r o t e o n H o m e r ' s life, a n d r e g a r d e d h i m q u i t e n a t u r a l l y as a C o l o p h o n i a n ,
7
p e r h a p s i n a sort o f i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e
t e x t . H i s i n t e n s i v e s t u d y o f H o m e r i c l a n g u a g e is s h o w n b y t h e
many
glosses w i t h w h i c h he a d o r n e d his o w n verses. 8
'cable of a ship' in Od. 21. 390 which he used in his Lyde, fr. 57 W. It is preserved only on an ostracon of the third century B.C, while our manuscripts have orrXov veos, the usual epic and Ionic expression for 'rope', which recent editors of the Odyssey unfortunately are anxious to keep in the text. See above, p. 89. Call, fr. !. 2 1 - 2 8 . I emphasized this point in Herm. 6 3 ( 1 9 2 8 ) 520 f. against Rostagni oSaov ve6s
1
Test. 1 W. = HeracHd. Pont. fr. 6 , Wehrli, DieSchule des Aristóteles 7 (1953) 9 ; on Hera clides see above, p. 70. Call. fr. 398 and 589. Even if we can trust Proclus and if Callimachus' harsh criticism was anticipated by the historian Duris, a pupil of Theophrastus (76 FGrtiist 8 3 ) , it is by no means likely that a general Peripatetic opinion was uttered by Duris and taken up by Calli machus, as E . Schwartz, REv ( 1 9 0 5 ) 1854 assumed ; in that case a Peripatetic of the second century B.C., Agatharchides of Cnidus, would hardly have composed an Epitome of the Lyde (test. 21 W. cf. praefationem p. XLII). See above, p. 8 9 . * Antimach. ed. Wyss pp. XLVIII ff. and below, p. [ 4 6 , n. 4. See above, p. 72. Fr. 131-48, 178, 190 and pp. xxixf. VV. * On the terminus see above, p. 71, n. 7 ; see also A. Ludwich, Die Homeruulgata alt voralexandrinisch erwiesen ( 1 8 9 8 ) 155 f. on Antimachus. H.-I. Marrou, Saint Augustin etlafin de la Culture antique (Paris 1938) 2 0 - 2 3 . Fr. 129 f. W. Lists of 'glosses' Wyss p. 101, cf. pp. 67 f. The most remarkable example is his reading 1
1
3
s
7
8
2
(=
Ausgew.
Schrifien
1 1 4 ) ; cf. Archiv fiir Kulturgeschichte
2 8 (1938) 192 = Ausgew.
Schriften
160.
> Schoî. Flor. 7 to Call. fr. 1. * Fr. 460 with annotations. See also below, p. 125 n. 1 and p. 136. The problem was thoroughly and eloquently treated by K. O. Brink, 'Callimachus and Aristotle: an inquiry into Callimachus LTpos npaÇttpdvrjv, CI. Qu. 4 0 (1946) 11—26; but Rostagni was not to be per suaded to change his mind, see his review of Callimachus I , Riv. fil. el. N.S. 28 (1950) 72 f.; cf. also Sentti minori n ( 1 9 5 6 ) 2 7 8 f., 319 and 1 (1955) 321, where, unfortunately, old mistakes are still repeated ('Callimaco fu certamente ad Atene alla scuola di Prassifane'). The correct view is taken by Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 9 (1957) in his commentary on Praxiphanes fr. 1 5 - 1 7 ; ibid, on fr. 8 - 1 0 about his disputed claim to have been the first ypapparticos see below, p. 158. * As far as I can see, only E. Schwartz, Charakterköpfe aus der antiken Literatür n ( 1 9 1 9 ) 4 8 , has laid the necessary stress on this historical sequence. J
6
Fr. 4 0 3 - 6 6 ; see below, pp. 127 ff.
The Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria
The Members of the Alexandrian Museum
h i s t o r i a n i n t h e l a t e r years o f his r e i g n , h e was t o give t h e m o s t r e l i a b l e
f a c i l i t y b y t h e sovereigns f o r f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r duties t o t h e Muses. O n c e t h e
96 1
97
a c c o u n t o f A l e x a n d e r ' s deeds. H e w e l l k n e w w h a t A r i s t o t l e h a d m e a n t t o
epic poet h a d been i n s p i r e d b y t h e goddess, a n d p o e t r y i t s e l f began t o
A l e x a n d e r a n d was a n x i o u s t o get o n e o f his p u p i l s a n d successors o v e r t o
o p e n t h e w a y t o its o w n u n d e r s t a n d i n g ; i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y t h e t w o
E g y p t . B u t T h e o p h r a s t u s refused t o leave A t h e n s ; S t r a t o c a m e , b u t r e -
g r e a t p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools, A c a d e m y
t u r n e d soon t o t h e L y c e u m as i t s h e a d . O n l y D e m e t r i u s o f P h a l e r o n ,
places i n groves sacred t o t h e M u s e s .
2
1
2
a n d Peripatos, h a d t h e i r p r o p e r N o w the rebirth o f poetry a n d the
o n e o f T h e o p h r a s t u s ' p r o m i n e n t p u p i l s , s t a y e d ; h a v i n g fled after 2 9 7
r e c o v e r y o f t h e o l d masterpieces
B.C. t o A l e x a n d r i a , h e h a d t o r e m a i n t h e r e as a p o l i t i c a l refugee, h i g h l y
M e m o r y . T h e n e w M u s e u m was a v e r y p e c u l i a r m e t a m o r p h o s i s o f t h e
esteemed b y his r o y a l h o s t . H e was a p r o l i f i c w r i t e r o n v a r i o u s subjects,
Mono-eta o f t h e m o t h e r c o u n t r y , n o t a b r a n c h o f t h e A t h e n i a n i n s t i t u -
3
4
were protected b y the daughters o f
3
a n d a statesman, u n d e r whose t e n years o f 'strategia* A t h e n s h a d e n j o y e d
tions t r a n s f e r r e d t o E g y p t b y some P e r i p a t e t i c s . T h e c o m m u n i t y d i d n o t
a peaceful
i n c l u d e p h i l o s o p h e r s , b u t m e n o f letters a n d a g r e a t m a n y scientists, a n d
a n d prosperous
breathing-space.
H a v i n g been
an
active
4
p o l i t i c i a n f o r so l o n g , h e c o u l d n o t h e l p m e d d l i n g i n h i g h p o l i t i c s even i n
w e s h a l l h a v e t o consider t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a m u t u a l i n f l u e n c e l a t e r o n .
E g y p t . I n his counsels t o t h e k i n g h e f a v o u r e d t h e son o f A n t i p a t e r ' s
T h e y h a d a carefree l i f e : free meals, h i g h salaries, n o taxes t o p a y , v e r y
d a u g h t e r E u r y d i c e , P t o l e m y ' s t h i r d w i f e , as successor t o t h e t h r o n e ; b u t
pleasant s u r r o u n d i n g s , g o o d l o d g i n g s a n d servants. T h e r e was p l e n t y o f
b y t h e k i n g ' s d e c i s i o n , t h e son o f his f o u r t h w i f e , Berenice, f o l l o w e d h i m
o p p o r t u n i t y f o r q u a r r e l l i n g w i t h each o t h e r . R e c e n t l y a n e w witness has
5
i n 283 B.C. as P t o l e m y I I , w h e r e u p o n D e m e t r i u s fell i n t o d i s f a v o u r a n d
t u r n e d u p , a t r u s t w o r t h y one i n so f a r as h e was a m e m b e r o f t h e M u s e u m
m e t his d o o m . T h i s , a t least, is t h e story t o l d b y t h e m u c h - m a l i g n e d
himself. C a l l i m a c h u s i n his first I a m b u s , p u t t i n g o n t h e guise o f t h e o l d
H e r m i p p u s , w h o is expressly q u o t e d b y t h e source o r sources o f D i o g e n e s
H i p p o n a x c o m i n g f r o m the dead, admonished the
L a e r t i u s f o r his lives o f t h e P e r i p a t e t i c s .
b
n o t t o be
T h e r e is n o t o n e w o r d a b o u t
so j e a l o u s o f o n e a n o t h e r , b u t t o f o l l o w t h e e x a m p l e g i v e n b y t h e Seven
D e m e t r i u s ' assistance t o P t o l e m y I i n c u l t u r a l m a t t e r s e i t h e r i n this o r
Sages i n t h e story o f the c u p o f Bathycles, w h i c h h e tells i n a l l its a m u s i n g
i n t h e o t h e r a m p l e b i o g r a p h i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h i s , t h e r e is
d e t a i l s . W e a l r e a d y h a d t h e evidence o f a n o t h e r , v e r y m a l i c i o u s witness
c o m p l e t e silence a b o u t D e m e t r i u s i n t h e scanty, b u t a p p a r e n t l y r e l i a b l e ,
f r o m a b r o a d , t h e d e v o t e d p u p i l o f P y r r h o n t h e sceptic, T i m o n o f P h l i u s
t r a d i t i o n o n t h e k i n g ' s greatest f o u n d a t i o n s f o r s c h o l a r s h i p . W e s h a l l
( a b o u t 3 2 0 - 2 3 0 B.C.), w h o i n his h e x a m e t r i c l a m p o o n s , his
speak first o f t h e M u s e u m a n d t h e n o f t h e l i b r a r y ( o r l i b r a r i e s ) .
n o t o n l y c o n t e m p o r a r y Stoic a n d E p i c u r e a n p h i l o s o p h e r s , b u t also t h e
The
' M u s e u m * was i n s t i t u t e d b y P t o l e m y I , TO
avvayayaiv
a
5
avvooos,
7
povcretov,
6
ilToXefxaLos
ó
-n-páros
' w h o b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r t h e M u s e u m ' ; i t is c a l l e d
a n 'assembly', a ' c o m m u n i t y ' , a n d i t s r e l i g i o u s c h a r a c t e r is
s h o w n b y t h e f a c t t h a t i t s h e a d was a p r i e s t n o m i n a t e d b y t h e k i n g , Upevs
TOU
Movaeiav.
8
T h e m e m b e r s , d e v o t e d t o t h e service o f t h e Muses,
h a d t h e i r seat i n t h e p r e c i n c t s o f t h e r o y a l p a l a c e , a n d w e r e g i v e n e v e r y 9
FGrHist 138 with Jacoby's commentary ( 1 9 3 0 ) , cf. H . Strasburger, Ptolemaios und Alexander, Leipzig 1934 and RE xxm (1959) 2471 ff. 1 F. Wehrlt, Die Schule des Aristoteles 4 ( 1 9 4 9 ) ; selection in FGrHist 2 2 8 . 3 Flut, de exil. 7 p. 601 F = fr. 61 W. npCrros mv r
refers to the years between 297 and 283 B.C., it is earlier than all the others he collected. On Homer, on Aesop, etc., in the spirit of Aristotle see fr. 112, 1 8 8 - 9 3 W.J ntpl TJJS ScKaeTta; Diog. L . V 81. * Diog. L . V 78 = fr. 69 W. Plut. Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 13, p. 1095 D. Strab. xvll 794, who visited the place in Augustan times and gave a detailed description. W. Otto, Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Ägypten 1 (1905) Griechische Kultvereine 166 ff, and 197 ff., list of the Upets and Addenda = ri 3 2 1 , 3 2 6 . * Strab. xvll 793 T&V ßaoiXclatv ¡¡.épos (sc. TO Movaetov); cf. Tzetz. below, p. 101. 4
6
7
8
inmates o f the M u s e u m
Silloi,
attacked
( f r . 12 D i e l s = 60 W a c h s m u t h ) : ' M a n y are
f e e d i n g i n p o p u l o u s E g y p t , scribblers o n p a p y r u s , ceaselessly w r a n g l i n g i n t h e b i r d - c a g e o f t h e M u s e s ' , /?t/3Aiafcot ^apa/arai
7
drretpiTa
8r}pioa>VT€s
I
See above, pp. i f. * See above, p. 65. Was Ashmoie's Museum in Oxford (opened in 1683 and mentioned in the same year as 'Mr. Ashmole's Musaeum' [sic]) the first to be-called 'Museum' in the modern sense? Cf. H. M. Vernon, A History of the Oxford Museum (igog) 15 and Handbook to the University of 1
3
Oxford (1948) 2 3 1 .
* In Plutarch's sentence p.ovaeiov, dependent on the verb avvdynv, can only mean the assembly of all the members; and this fits also the whole context of Plutarch's chapter. C. Wendel (above p. 8, n. 2 ) , in Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft in i ( 1 9 5 5 ) 6 5 , tried to interpret it as 'having gathered the books into the Museum' and used it as evidence for the foundation of the library; he was misled by expressions which quite clearly state the fact of book-collecting: awayaywv fiifiXia Strab. xin 6 0 8 (see above, p. 6 7 , n. 4 and below, p. 9 9 , n. 2 ) , or Ath. V 2 0 3 E nepl SefilfiXowwAiJifous . . . KOX T^S its TO Movaetov cvvaywyijf. Arist. ep. 9, below, p. 100. Wendel missed the unique evidence given by Irenaeus-Eusebius, see below, p. 9 8 . See below, p. 156. Fr. 191. Dieg. VI 2 ff. ovyxaXovvra TOWS &ovtiv. va/ '" <" seems to be an arbitrary new formation by Timon ; from the context and from the attribute flifsXiaKoi one should guess that he meant 'writers' and formed it from the verb Xapaaaeiv, I know that linguists regard the nouns of -ITTJS as denominatives and understand 814342 H 2
5 6
7
>a
T
98
The Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria
Movaéiov
êv
The Royal Library, Demetrius of Phaleron
T h e i m a g e o f t h e b i r d c a g e stuck : scholars as beings,
TaXdpw.
99
L a g u s h a v i n g t h e a m b i t i o n t o e q u i p t h e l i b r a r y , established b y h i m i n
l i k e r a r e b i r d s , c u t o f f f r o m life. T i m o n ' s c o n t e m p t f o r t h e n e w scholar-
A l e x a n d r i a , w i t h t h e w r i t i n g s o f a l l m e n as f a r as t h e y w e r e w o r t h serious
ship is i l l u s t r a t e d b y t h e a n e c d o t e
t h a t h e t o l d his ' p u p i l ' , t h e p o e t
a t t e n t i o n ' , etc. ; t h e n t h e s t o r y o f t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h i n t o
dvrlypa^a)
G r e e k f o r t h e n e w l i b r a r y is t o l d . C u r i o u s l y e n o u g h , t h i s is o u r o n l y
1
A r a t u s , h e s h o u l d use t h e ' o l d copies' o f H o m e r ( r à a p v m a n o t those TJST/
'already corrected', a l l u d i n g n o d o u b t t o t h e
ëiojpôcofiéva
evidence f o r t h e establishment o f t h e l i b r a r y b y P t o l e m y I ,
1
W e have
e d i t o r i a l w o r k o f Z e n o d o t u s . Satire a n d anecdotes a c c o m p a n y t h e w h o l e
already q u o t e d
h i s t o r y o f classical scholarship f r o m i t s v e r y b e g i n n i n g ; w e n e e d o n l y
Aristotle's l i b r a r y ,
r e m e m b e r P h i l i t a s o r t h i n k o f Scaliger, B e n t l e y , M o m m s e n , o r H o u s m a n .
w h i c h w e h a v e n o w t o a d d t h e second h a l f ( x n i 608) : Kai StSâ^a? TOÙÇ èv
2
B u t i t has n e v e r d i s t u r b e d scholars e i t h e r t o b e c o m p a r e d i n a n t i q u i t y w i t h r a r e b i r d s i n a cage o r t o b e c a l l e d ' m u m m i e s ' i n o u r o w n d a y . I once m i l d l y p r o t e s t e d
4
against t h e a t t e m p t
scholar poets as c o n f i n e d t o a n ' I v o r y T o w e r ' ,
6
connoisseurs,
b u t even
rrpwros (sc. AptOTOTeXrjs)
cttv tap.ev avvayaythv ßißXla, t o
arrangement o f a l i b r a r y ' . T h i s points t o Peripatetic influence o n the organization o f the library.
w h i c h has b e c o m e so
s t r a n g e l y fashionable i n r e c e n t years. C e r t a i n l y t h e y h a d t o w r i t e t h e i r books f o r s m a l l circles o f w e l l - e d u c a t e d
h a l f a sentence f r o m S t r a b o ' s r e p o r t o n t h e fate o f
Alyumo) ßaaiXeas ßißXiodrjKrjs avvragiv, ' a n d t a u g h t t h e k i n g s o f E g y p t t h e 3
t o regard the Hellenistic
5
2
Immediately the name because t h i s P e r i p a t e t i c
3
o f D e m e t r i u s o f P h a l e r o n comes t o m i n d ,
o f t h e m o s t v a r i e d e r u d i t i o n b e l o n g e d after 297
such
B.c. t o t h e e n t o u r a g e o f t h e k i n g . H e m u s t h a v e been a sort o f l i n k between
a l e a d i n g f i g u r e as C a l l i m a c h u s was d e e p l y a t t a c h e d t o his n a t i v e c o u n t r y
Athens a n d Alexandria ; b u t h o w far c a n w e prove that the k i n g carried
Cyrene, t o t h e worship o f the Cyrenean A p o l l o , a n d t o one o f the strong
o u t t h e ideas o f his d i s t i n g u i s h e d guest? D e m e t r i u s w a s always a great
forces o f t h e age, r u l e r - w o r s h i p ; first P h i l i t a s a n d t h e n t h e successive
f a v o u r i t e w i t h W i l a m o w i t z , w h o represented h i m as h a v i n g 'das universale
heads o f t h e l i b r a r y a c t e d as t u t o r s o f t h e heirs t o t h e t h r o n e a n d w e r e
M u s e i o n i n A l e x a n d r i a gestiftet' a n d even as t h e first h e a d o f t h e l i b r a r y .
exposed t o t h e h a z a r d s o f p o l i t i c a l s t r i f e .
T h e sources w h i c h w e h a v e e x a m i n e d so f a r are silent a b o u t D e m e t r i u s .
7
4
T h e k i n g , as w e h a v e h e a r d , b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e M u s e u m . W e d o n o t hear o f their o b l i g a t i o n t o lecture; b u t i n nearly a l l the
Lives o f t h e poets a n d scholars 'teachers' as w e l l as ' p u p i l s ' a r e m e n -
t i o n e d . E v e n i f w e h a v e t o b e c a r e f u l i n a c c e p t i n g t h e details o f t h i s b i o g r a p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n , u l t i m a t e l y preserved i n Suidas'
Lexicon, w e m a y
assume t h e g r a d u a l g r o w t h o f a free f e l l o w s h i p o f masters a n d disciples. O f t h e m a n y institutions inside t h e M u s e u m t h e l i b r a r y was the most
hist. eccl. v 8, 1 1 ( a n e x c e r p t f r o m I r e n . adv. haer. i n 2 1 . 2 Massuet) : IlroXefiatos o Adyov cpiXortp^vfievos VTT' avrov KaT€OK€vaou€V7jv ßißXiodrjKrjv €v AXe^avopela Koup.rjo-ai r o t s Trdvrwv dvdpatavyypdfXfLaaiv 5
m e m o r a b l e o n e : Euseb. 8
TT)V
TTCOV
(from vapaf 'pale') as 'cloisterlirujs' (so also L - S s.v.), see E . Redard, 'Les Noms grecs en -njs, -TLS, princip. -trns, -Criî , Études et Commentaires V ( 1 9 4 9 ) 27 J but the invention of a satirist may not be subject to this grammatical rule. Casaubon on Athen. 1 22 D was probably right, although Wachsmuth appealed against him to the 'leges grammaticae' xapatctrat
1
(Corpusc.
poes. epicae Gr. ludibundae
u 183).
3
4
1
JHS 75 (1955) 73 — Ausgewählte Schriften 158. E . A. Barber in Fifty Tears of Classical Scholarship
(1881) 22.
(1954) 230.
See Excursus. See below, p. 211, Ptolemy V I I I and Aristarchus, possibly also Ptolemy I I I and Apollonius Rhodius, p. 141. Cf. W. W. Harvey's edition III 24, vol. II pp. 111 ff. with Grabe'a note. 6
7
8
W e h a v e o n l y t w o r a t h e r strange references t o t h e p a r t D e m e t r i u s is said t o h a v e p l a y e d
i n organizing t h e l i b r a r y or libraries ( n o t the
M u s e u m ) . O n e is c o n t a i n e d i n t h e so-called
Letter of Aristeas, a 6
fictitious
7
Schmidt, Pinakes, did not print the text of Eusebius in his collection of testimonia 4—28 ; so it escaped Wendel also, see above, p. 9 7 , n. 4. Clem. Al. Strom. 1 2 2 . 1 vol. II p. g2 St. combines Iren. loc. cit. (cnl ßaoiX4ois LTroXenaCov roC Adyov) with Aristeas below, p. loo (^ J>s 1
r i v e s ènl TOO 'PiXaSéXipov
èmxXrjdévros).
Strab. xiii 608 and above, p. 67, n. 4; on the whole chapter see Düring, 'Aristotle', pp. 382 and 393 f. See above, pp. 96 f. 'Antigonos von Karystos' 291. This statement was taken over by Susemihl I 7 f. ('ohne Zweifel . . . das gelehrte Studium der Peripatetiker, hinübergetragen durch Demetrios und Straton'). It was repeated word for word by Müller-Graupa in his very useful and comprehensive article 'Museion', RE xvi ( 1 9 3 3 ) 801 f. and became a commonplace in almost every modern book. The very reserved and critical judgement of E. Martini, 'Demetrios', RE iv (1901) 2837 f., was hardly noticed or rejected; see E, Bayer, 'Demetrius Phalereus', Tübinger 1
3
4
Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft Die hellenistische Dichtung
3 6 (1942) 105 ff. 1 2 2 , 'erster Vorstand'
in contradiction to his own correct remark p. 165 on Zenodotus; pp. 160 f. Museum. Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula, ed. P. Wendland (Leipzig 1900) 9 ; revised edition of H. St. J . Thackeray (Cambridge 1900) as appendix to H. B. Swete's Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Later editions and translations are based on this text of Thackeray's, who used Wendland's edition. Amongst them the edition by M. Hadas (New York 1951 ) is useful because of its introduction, short commentary, and especially its bibliography; he only missed Jacoby's pertinent remarks on Hecataeus Abd. 2 6 4 FGrHist 2 1 - 2 4 = III a (1943) 6 1 - 7 5 , P - 6 5 f- New Edition in Sources Chrétiennes vol. 8 9 (1962) by A. Pelletier. Ludovicus Vives, the Spanish humanist, seems to have been the first lo challenge the authenticity of the Epistle in his notes to Augustin. De Cio. D . xvm 4 which he edited in 1522 with Erasmus, 'Letter to the Reader' (ep. [309 Allen). s
6
z
Diog. L . ix 1 1 3 ; cf. Wilamowitz, 'Antigonos von Karystos', PkiloL Untersuch. 4 43. On Timon and Aratus see below, p. 121. * See above, p. 91. Pkilologia Perennis (1961) 1
5
es
7
100
The Second Library in the Serapeum
The Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria
101
n a r r a t i v e o f the o r i g i n o f t h e G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n o f the P e n t a t e u c h , t o be
sequence o f t h e l i b r a r i a n s . Tzetzes, c o m p i l i n g t h e Prolegomena t o h i s
d a t e d p r o b a b l y i n t o t h e l a t e r second c e n t u r y B.G. ; t h e o t h e r is preserved
c o m m e n t a r y o n t h r e e comedies o f A r i s t o p h a n e s , m e n t i o n e d first t h e
i n Tzetzes' Prolegomena to Aristophanes* c o m p i l e d i n t h e t w e l f t h c e n t u r y
scholar poets w h o h a d t o d e a l w i t h t h e scenic poets u n d e r t h e r e i g n o f
A.D. a n d p a r t l y t r a n s l a t e d i n t o L a t i n b y a n u n k n o w n I t a l i a n h u m a n i s t
rod 0iXa8éXdjov) a n d t h e n w e n t o n : o ydp Bid AyjpLrp-piov TOO &aXrjp€OJÇ Kal érepojv éXXoylpiœv (yepovolujv M b 8 ) dvopmv Sarrdvats j S a c r i A i / c a t s drravraxodev r à ç jUifiXovs els AXeÇdvSpeiav avvrjdpoLOev KOI ovalfttftXioSrjKatsravras diréOeTo ' (bv rrjs eKroç p.èv àpidp.oç rerpaKiupivpiai o t a ^ t ' A i a t o V r a / c o c r t a t , rijç 8è TÔJV dvatCTopaiv ivToç ovpipnycZv p.èv fiîfUXurV dpSpiOS reaaapaKovra p.vpid$es, a / x t y â V 8è Kal drrXôjv p-vpidSes èwéa . , . r à S e crvvrjdpoicrpié'va p't/SAta oi>x 'E/Wrjvojv piôvov, àAAà fcat TOJV dXXwv drravTcov iOvtov rjaav Kal 8r) Kal 'Efipatwv avTtàv . . . o r e Si) Kal Ta? TÔJV 'Efipatojv 8id rdiv éfîoopLrjKovra (4f38op.rjKovra
o f t h e f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y A.D. i n a n a n n o t a t i o n t o P l a u t u s .
T h e r e l e v a n t passages m u s t be q u o t e d v e r b a t i m ; paraphrases are o f n o use. A r i s t e a e ep. 9 - 1 0 ( = E u s e b . ^ . f . v m 2. 1-4) Karao-roBels
em TTJ? TOO
fiaoiXews f$if3\ioBrjK7]S Ar)p,rjTpios o 'PaXypevs expr)p.aTla$rj rroXXd oidopa irpos TO avvayayetv, el ovvarov, drravra TOL KOTO. TT)V oiKoup.ewnv j8t/3Ata, Kal iroiovpievos dyopaopiovs Kal pLeraypafyds e m reXos rjyayev, ooov ifi eavTw, rr)v rod p V c r i A e i o s TTpodeaiv. IJapovrojv ovv r)uu)V ipa)TT)Oels rrocrai rivh piupidSes rvyxdvovai fiif$Xia>v, etrrev vrrep rag sitcom, jUaoiXev- orrovodaai S* ev oXtya) XP® P ^P^ trXi]pa>0'i)vai TrevTi)KOVTa pLvpidSas rd Xoiira. rjpoorjyyeXrai 8e p.01 Kal rd TOJV 'lovoaiatv vop,ip.a p,€Taypa
i
V<
T
Ptolemy I I
(VTTO
ilroXepiaiov
1
ITToXepLaîos
2
O
S e p t u a g i n t , w i t h p a r t i c u l a r emphasis o n t h e association o f D e m e t r i u s w i t h
-
ovo
M b 24) éppvnvevdrivai rreTiolnKev.
T h e I t a l i a n h u m a n i s t left o u t t h e
references t o t h e H e b r e w s a n d the S e p t u a g i n t , b u t k e p t t h e passage o n D e m e t r i u s ' assistance t o P h i l a d e l p h u s a n d o n t h e t w o l i b r a r i e s , a n d , b y a p a r t i c u l a r l y b a d slip i n t r a n s l a t i n g , C a l l i m a c h u s b e c a m e 'aulicus regius
t h e great enterprise. T h i s association was t h e o n l y reason w h y t h e a u t h o r
b i b l i o t h e c a r i u s ' . I f w e consider t h e e n o r m o u s success Aristeas' letter h a d
m e n t i o n e d D e m e t r i u s a n d t h e k i n g ' s l i b r a r y . T h e k i n g is P t o l e m y I I ,
i n t h e C h r i s t i a n e r a , w e a r e n o t surprised t o find traces o f i t s t i l l i n
3
2
as A r i s t . ep. 3 5 refers t o a w e l l k n o w n deed o f P t o l e m y I as o n e o f
T z e t z e s , m i x e d u p w i t h g r a m m a t i c a l excerpts
' m y father's' a n d ep. 4 1 t o t h e 'queen A r s i n o e , t h e sister', a n d D e m e t r i u s
phanes a n d t o D i o n y s i u s T h r a x . W e n o t i c e t w o p o i n t s i n w h i c h Tzetzes
is i n c h a r g e o f t h e r o y a l l i b r a r y . These t w o s u r p r i s i n g statements
flatly
c o n t r a d i c t t h e t r a d i t i o n s o n D e m e t r i u s ' l i f e t i m e as w e l l as o n t h e 4
3
from
Scholia t o Aristo-
4
differs f r o m Aristeas : D e m e t r i u s is n o t c a l l e d ' h e a d ' o f t h e r o y a l l i b r a r y , a n d — m o r e i m p o r t a n t f o r o u r p u r p o s e — t w o l i b r a r i e s a r e m e n t i o n e d as e x i s t i n g u n d e r P t o l e m y I I , w i t h t h e n u m b e r o f books i n each. A second
I say Tzetzes' Prolegomena, because I follow G. Kaibel w h o (after Consbruch) attributed also the anonymous treatises to Tzetzes: 'Die Prolegomena IJepi Ktauip&las', AGGW, philos.hist. Kl., N.F. 11 4 (1898) 4 ; cf, the detailed arguments in Wendel's masterly article 'Tzetzes', RE VII A (1948) 1973 ff. Against the attribution R. Cantarella, Aristophanis comoediae i (1949) Prolegomena p. 38 a n d A. Plebe, 'La teoria d e l comico da Aristotele a Plutarco', Uniaersitd di Torino, Pubblicazioni della Facolla di Lettere e Filosofiaw 1 (1952) 1 1 5 - 2 1 , written without taking regard of Wendel's article. I always refer to Kaibel's edition in CGF1 ( 1 8 9 9 ) , see below, p. IOI, A n e w edition of Tzetzes' Prolegomena w i l l be published together with all the Prolegomena de comoedia in a volume of the Scholia in Aristophanem, ed. edendave curavit W. J . W. Koster, see v o l . i v 1 (Tzetz. in Aristoph. Pint.) Groningen i 9 6 0 , p. xx. * It was called 'Scholium Plautinum' by F. Osann, w h o discovered it in a Plautine codex of the Cotlegio Romano in 18 tg but left the piecemeal publication to others. They bear very illustrious names: Meineke ( 1 8 3 0 ) , Welcker (1835) w h o was terribly misled by it, Ritschl ( 1 8 3 8 ) , cf. above p. 6 ; it should n o t be forgotten that it was W. Dindorfwho told Welcker the identification of the mysterious 'Caecius' as Tzetzes, Rk.M. 4 (1836) 2 3 2 . The manuscript itself was rediscovered by E . Breccia as Vat. Lat. 11469 for E. A. Parsons, The Alexandrian Library. Glory of the Hellenic World (London 1952). This American bibliophile treated his subject with moving enthusiasm a n d e v e n a d d e d two facsimiles of the relevant page to his long chapter on the Plautine Scholium. W. J . W. Koster, 'Scholium Plautinum plene editum', 1
n -
Mnemosyne, ser. rv, v o l . x i v (1961) 23 if. J The king is n e v e r called 0iAc£SeA^oi; this might be the composition of the Epistula into the second century
used as a further argument for dating B.C., not later. For towards the e n d of the century the title 'Philadelphos', applied before only to his wife Arsinoe, became quite common for the king himself (see H. Volkmann, RE xxm 1645, 50 ff.)¬ * See above, p. 96, and below, p. 154.
l i b r a r y 'outside t h e p a l a c e ' was, as w e l e a r n f r o m o t h e r sources, c o n n e c t e d w i t h a S e r a p e u m a n d became f a m o u s i n R o m a n times. P t o l e m y I h a d i n t r o d u c e d t h e g o d Serapis i n t o A l e x a n d r i a
5
a n d built a temple
for his w o r s h i p i n t h e d i s t r i c t o f R h a k o t i s . Tzetzes' w o r d s h a d a l w a y s 6
been unreservedly
a c c e p t e d as a t e s t i m o n y f o r t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f a
second l i b r a r y b y P t o l e m y I I ; as t h a t l i b r a r y was said to h a v e been b u i l t
iv
T(3
Separreitij l a t e r t h a n t h e M u s e u m l i b r a r y , P t o l e m y I I was also 7
' C G F 1 ( 1 8 9 9 ) ed. G. Kaibel p. 19. Pb 4Îf.; cf. p. 3 ! , Mb 8 ff., the later version with variations, additions, corrections which do not concern us here. See the testimonia collected by Wendland, loc. cit. pp. 8 7 - 1 6 6 . Possibly via Epiphanius ; Wendland pp. 89 f. and 139 ff. « G. Wendel, RE VIIA 1975 f. Tac. hist, iv 83 f. in his well-informed digression o n the god Serapis. Demetrius of Phaleron is said to have been inspired to write poetry, at least once in his \ïîe, paeans cm the new god: fr. aooWehrli and his very sceptical comments p. 87. As a 'hymnographe inspiré et dévot de Sarapis' Demetrius had his statue erected next to Pindar in Memphis according to J.-Ph. Lauer et Ch. Picard, 'Les Statues Ptolémaïques du Sarapieion de Memphis', Publications de l'Institut d'Art et d'Archéologie de l'Université de Paris m (1955) 69 ff. Epiphan. 77e/>i uirpmv Kal ora&u-wv 168 c 15. 16 ff. Dind. — test. 27 b Schmidt pp. 11 f. 1
3
s
6
7
tv 17} -npdi-rn fit£JAtûÔijitiy TÎJ cv Bpov\(la» oluohou-nBeiorj- tri Se vorepav Kal iripa èyévera jSi^Ato6ijicrj (v Tt3 Scpanctai fiucporépa rtfs rrpurrns, ryrts KOL dvyârnp wvopà'a&T] avrrjs.
A Bookish Age
The Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria
102
regarded as the founder o f a new temple o f Serapis. But the foundation tablets o f the Serapeum, excavated i n 1945 on the very h i l l o f Rhakotis where Ptolemy I had built a sanctuary before, bear the name o f his grandson, Ptolemy I I I ( 2 4 6 - 2 2 1 B . C . ) ; Tzetzes' report thus becomes questionable. The person, the wealth, and the activity o f Ptolemy I I so much fascinated posterity that he was easily credited w i t h some o f the merits o f his father as well as o f his son. This son, called Euergetes, the p u p i l o f the poet o f the Argonautica and very keen on acquiring ancient texts, is now attested as founder o f the new temple; this does not i m p l y that he added a library to its precincts, b u t i t does not exclude i t either. T h e question which o f the Ptolemies set up the 'smaller' or 'daughter' library and at which place i t was situated, looks to be insoluble at the moment. Figures i n our manuscript tradition are very often unreliable; as regards the number o f books i n the Alexandrian libraries, there are also contradictions between Aristeas and Tzetzes, mistakes made b y the L a t i n translation, and different figures i n the other sources. They agree, however, i n one point, that hundreds o f thousands o f papyrus rolls were stored there during the first half o f the t h i r d century B . C . 1
2
3
4
I t is obvious that we have reached the age which we called—hesitatingly—a 'bookish' one; the book is one of the characteristic signs o f the new, the Hellenistic, w o r l d . T h e whole literary past, the heritage o f centuries, was i n danger o f slipping away i n spite o f the learned labours of Aristotle's pupils; the imaginative enthusiasm o f the generation living towards the end o f the fourth and the beginning o f the t h i r d century d i d everything to keep i t alive. The first task was to collect and to store the literary treasures i n order to save them for ever. I t is precisely to this period, the later decades of the fourth century B . C . , that we can assign the earliest o f the p a p y r i which have come to light i n Egypt and provide us Callimachus n (1953) xxxix. 6 with references to A. Wace, JHS 6 5 (1945) 106 if., and A. Rowe, 'The Discovery of the famous Temple and Enclosure of Sarapis at Alexandria', Suppl. aux Annates du Service des AntiquiUs de VEgypte, Cahier No. 2 ( i 9 4 ) - ° discoveries and discussions see P. M. Eraser, 'Two Studies on the Cult of Sarapis in the Hellenistic World', Opuscula Atheniensia in (Lund i 9 6 0 ) 11. 6 , Shifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, ser. i in 4°, vol. V I I . Welles, Historia 1962, 2 7 1 - 9 8 (see above, p. 9 3 , n. 1) tries to persuade us that the cult of Serapis in Rhakotis was instituted by Alexander himself, when he founded Alexandria on his return from Siwah in 331 B . C . ; but as far as he prefers the stories of Callisthenes and Ps.-Callisth. to the report of Ptolemy-Arrian, it is very hard to believe in his reconstruction. Not only Parsons, The Alexandrian Library 3 4 7 if., but also serious works like the Handbuch 1
6
n
l a t e r
2
der Bibliothekswissenschaft
in 1 ( 2 n d ed.
1953) 55 or the Geschichte der Textuberlieferung
63 failed to take notice of the excavations. Schmidt, Pinakes, test. 6 b. * See above, pp. 100 f.; cf. test. 2 4 a, Schmidt, figures p. 37.
1 (1961)
3
Pinakes
pp. gf., and the explanation of the
103
1
w i t h actual specimens o f Greek books. W e can even guess that the significant change i n the nature o f Greek w r i t i n g w h i c h took place i n the first half o f the t h i r d century B . C . may have been due to the aesthetic sense o f the great scholar poets. These books were the necessary means for the regeneration o f poetry as well as for the b i r t h and growth o f scholarship. W e see how very important the gradual progress o f book production i n earlier centuries was. 2
3
Starting from the oriental background, we have followed its development by the Greeks themselves, which now appears as the preparation for the new era. I f there was a revival o f oriental or Egyptian influence, probably i n some technical devices, i t should not be over-estimated. The alphabet was one o f the decisive creations o f the Greek genius which opened a new era of cultural life; i n contrast to the Orient and to Egypt, w i t h their guilds o f scribes and castes o f priests, the Greek alphabetic script was accessible to everyone. I t was also a revolutionary change that free public access was had to the immense written treasures o f the Alexandrian libraries; they were not temple- or palace-libraries to which a privileged minority was admitted, but they were open to everyone who was able and willing to read and to learn. There was a free w o r l d o f the spirit even i n the hew monarchies, and the preconditions for such a development existed only where Greek civilization prevailed. The unprecedented interest i n books was kindled by the new scholar poets, who were i n desperate need o f texts; by a notable coincidence the royal patrons and their advisers immediately fulfilled these imperative demands i n a princely way. W e shall find a similar sequence of events when i n the Italian renaissance the ardent zeal o f the poets and humanists from Petrarch to Politian led to the recovery o f the Classics and the setting-up of great libraries. 4
5
6
I n the course of this chapter the question of Demetrius' contribution to scholarship i n Alexandria has been discussed. O f the only two sources, On the recentfindof a papyrus (Commentary on the Orphic Theogony) near Salónica sec S. G. Kapsomenos, 'Der Papyrus von Dervéni', Gnom. 35 (1963) 222 f., and Apxa.iuXoytKo¡> AeXrlov 19 (1964, published 1965) 1 7 - 2 5 (with plates 1 2 - 1 5 ) , who is inclined to assign the handwriting to the middle of the fourth century B . C . (C. H. Roberts thinks of about 300 B.c. and P. M. Fraser of 280 B.c.). Cf. below, p. 139, n. 7 and p. 237. See C. H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands 350 B . C - A . D . 4 0 0 (Oxford 1956) xv and plates 1—5 with commentary, See above, pp. 19, 2 5 - 2 7 , 29, 6 6 f. Cf. above, p. 18 and especially the references to Wendel and Zuntz, p. 7, n. 9. A. Thibaudet, La Campagne avec Thucydide ( 7 t h ed. 1922) 58 ff., and K. Kerényi, Apollan. Studien über antike Religion und Humanität (Wien 1937) 186, may be quoted as typical examples of exaggerating the influence of the ancient Egyptian tradition on the new course in Alexandria. See above, pp. 24 ff. 1
2
3
4
s
6
104
Th Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria e
Aristeas and Tzetzes, Tzetzes turned out to be partly, although indirectly, dependent o n Aristeas, and chronological confusions i n both of them were obvious. The necessary conclusion is that the vulgate version of Demetrius' key position rests on very poor evidence. Nevertheless, on general grounds we may believe i n the probability that, by his advice to the king, he furthered the new scholarship and brought to i t the influence o f his great master Aristotle. We have argued that this new scholarship originated from the ideas o f Philitas and Zenodotus i n Alexandria; we must now try to get away from those uncertain modern reconstructions and grapple w i t h a serious new historical p r o b l e m : the relation between this new scholarship and the Peripatetic tradition, not only at the beginning of the t h i r d century but throughout the Hellenistic age.
II ZENODOTUS
CONTEMPORARIES
1
2
See above, pp. 95 f. * In my earlier short papers (above, p. 88, n. 1) there was no space for working out this relation; the Aristotelian line, therefore, remained too much in the dark. 1
A N D HIS
I N the previous chapter on the rise of scholarship i n Alexandria one name occurred again and again, that o f Zenodotus o f Ephesus. H e was the first of a series o f great personalities i n an age i n which the supremacy o f the individual was being everywhere asserted. The individual, conscious o f having entered a new sphere of intellectual activity, easily inclined to a slightly exaggerated subjectiveness. There was no tradition o f scholarship yet that Zenodotus could have inherited. H e had to find his own way. We should therefore not be surprised i f sometimes he stumbled. I t is u n just to measure h i m b y the standard o f his followers i n the t h i r d and second centuries, who tried i n the course o f time to build up a regular technique o f editing and expounding texts; compared w i t h them he is bound to appear somewhat unequal or arbitrary i n his textual criticism. Radically opposed theories are held by modern scholars concerning Zenodotus' Homeric criticism, because our so-called evidence, coming from the polemics o f his adversaries, has often been misunderstood. 1
We have mentioned the collecting and storing o f books i n Alexandria; Zenodotus presumably took part i n this formidable enterprise, as the king chose h i m to be his first librarian. Tzetzes' late excerpts from Scholia on Aristophanes and Dionysius T h r a x are our only source for those parts o f the early history of the Museum library on which the Letter of Aristeas is silent. The first sentence o f Tzetzes' Prolegomena contains one o f these unique pieces o f information: 'ICTTCOV on AXe£av8pos o ALTOJXOS KO.1 2
AvKopa>v p,ev rds rijs KOjpupSias, AXelja Se rds Trjs TpayoiSias-, dXXd ST) Kai rds oarvptKas. T h e n comes the passage on Demetrius o f Phaleron and on the translation o f the Hebrew books quoted i n the last chapter, before Tzetzes takes up his first sentence and 3
See especially above, pp. 92, 94, 104. He, if anyone, would deserve a new monograph. Meanwhile see H. Duntzer, De Zenodoti studiis Homericis, Gdttingen 1848, and A. Romer, 'Uber die Homerrecension des Zenodot', Abkandlungen der Bayer. Akad. der Wissenschaftm, I. Classe, 17. Bd., 3. Abh. 1885. See Addenda. Suid. v. Z-nvoooTos. j Cf. pp. 101 ff.; CGF 1 1 (1899) ed. G. Kaibel pp. 19 f, Pb 1 ff. and 2 0 ff. The beginning of version Ma pp. 24 f. is almost identical with Pb; but Mb pp. 31 f. has a slightly different 1
z
106
Alexander Aetolus and Lycophron
£enodotus and his Contemporaries
goes o n : ras Se cncqvueas AXigavSpos re, cos OLOjpdmaavTO, ras Se 7Toinrt«:ac ZT)V68OTO5 TT 6JTOV P
elrrajv, «rat AvKocppojv /cat varepov AplaTapxos
1
OltDpdaHTClVTO. 1
T h e stumbling-block i n this remarkable paragraph is the expression Stopdovv, repeated again and again. As regards Zenodotus, i t is i n conformity w i t h the wording o f a l l the other grammatical sources and the references i n our Scholia on H o m e r ; he was indeed the first StopflorrTjs of the Homeric and other poems, revising and emending the text, and oio 8ovv was the proper technical term. The reference to Aristarchus proves conclusively that this is what the Prolegomena mean; they do not refer to the collecting or arranging of books i n the library. N o distinction is made between Zenodotus' work and that o f Alexander Aetolus and L y c o p h r o n ; they are said to have done the same for the scenic poets as he had done for the epic (and lyric) poets, oiwpBmuav (or BitopOojcravTo), that is, they made critical editions. M o d e r n scholars have been generally startled by this remark, and that is quite understandable; the 'logical' procedure would have been to p u t the mass o f collected books i n order, to sort them out, classify and catalogue them, and then to compare the manuscripts and revise the text, not to start immediately w i t h a treatment of the difficult tragic and comic texts. A stronger objection is the lack o f any reference to Alexander and Lycophron i n our Scholia on the tragedians and on Aristophanes, i n contrast to the many references to Zenodotus i n our Homeric Scholia. For such reasons some have tried to give SiopOovv a non-committal sense ('to make straight', that is, 'to p u t i n the right order') or to charge the not always trustworthy Tzetzes w i t h a mistake. T h e I t a l i a n humanist who translated part of the Prolegomena on the margin o f a Plautine manuscript boldly changed ounpocovav into the 2
P
3
4
5
wording:
AXe^avSpos 6 AinoXos K XaodX< u> TlToXepaiaj auvu>e^Bevr€s (i.e. compulsi, cf. Tzetz. in Hes. Op. p. 12. 4 Gaisf. awMnaav = compulerunt and Tzetz. episL ed. Pressel p. 56 Beep aw^Bils) fiaoiXiKus 0 p.h> ras riji rpayaihlas, AvKo-ppaiv be T O ? rrjs KiitftiuSt'as fiifiXovs biu>p9mcrav, ZyvoSoros be ras 'Op^Tfpflovs KOX TOIV Xantiov TTO^TISV and pp. 32. I ff. rwv 'EXXrjvtoiDV be fiipXuv . . . T O ; Tpayixag piv aiiupBaioe (sc. Ptolemaeus rex) bi AX^avbpov TOV AITOXOQ KTX. on Lycophron, Zenodotus, l
P
Aristarchus, etc. It is reprinted by Schmidt, Pinakes test. 24 a, b, c, and fully discussed pp. 39 f, but 1 cannot accept his conclusions. The text of Tzetzes and the Schol. Plautin. was much better dealt with thirty years earlier by H . Pusch, 'Quaestiones Zenodoteae', Dissertationes 1
Philological
Hatenses xi (1890) 2 0 3 - 7 .
See above, p. 9 4 . 3 On Lycophron see also below, p. 1 1 9 ; it is unlikely that no one attempted an edition of the scenic poets before Aristophanes of Byzantium about 200 B . C . ; but his work, of course, cast every earlier effort into the shade. * Cf. Sandys i 121 'responsible for the classification'; 'preliminary sorting out' E . A. Barber, Oxf. Class. Diet. s.v. Alexander Aetolus and Lycophron, and so many others. s See above, p. 102. 1
3
phrase 'poeticos libros i n u n u m collcgerunt et i n ordinem redegerunt', and he has even been praised for being the only one to find the correct meaning. But this is an arbitrary assumption, based on a modern prejudice. I f we replace our meagre evidence by a fictitious story, the picture of the decisive first decades of the t h i r d century B . C and of their poets and scholars is i n danger o f being falsified. This is the reason w h y we have taken some trouble to re-examine the tradition. I t does not tell us anything about the administrative work i n the royal library and the handling of its books, as we might expect from other passages of the Prolegomena, but about the three earliest Siopdcural, the revisers o f the most important poetical texts i n the possession o f the king. Scholarly co-operation o f this k i n d between two distinguished poets and the p u p i l o f Philitas is quite characteristic o f these years. T h e king i n whose reign this happened, or even to whose 'impulse' i t was due, is said to have been Ptolemy I I ( 2 8 8 - 2 4 7 - - ) ; there is no reason so far to reject this tradition, as i n some other cases, i n which there has been a confusion w i t h Ptolemy I or Ptolemy I I I . W i t h the chronology of Hellenistic poets and scholars we are on particularly treacherous ground, but we must not let overscepticism deprive us of the few more or less reliable dates. Zenodotus may have started to prepare his principal work on the Homeric poems before his royal p u p i l came to the throne; his a.Kp.-t] was put i n the time o f Ptolemy I , that is, before 2 8 8 B . C . , by ancient chronographers. But i t is quite likely that he finished and published his edition and his glossary under the young king i n the first decade of his reign. T h e t w o experts i n scenic poetry seem to have arrived i n Alexandria some time after 285 B . C . ; but how much later we are not able to guess, I t is fairly certain that Lycophron was no longer i n Eretria after 273 B . C , but that does not help very much. Alexander Aetolus belonged to the literary circle o f Antigonus Gonatas at Pella (after 276 B . C . ? ) , so d i d Aratus. Aratus went to Syria for a few years and then returned to Macedonia. I n the same way Alexander may have interrupted B
c
2
3
4
5
See Schmidt, Pinakes 4 0 . On the so-called Scholium Plaulinum see above, pp. 100 ff.; its author hardly knew that 'in ordinem redigere' did not mean 'put into the right order", but that it was the Latin equivalent of the Greek iy plve»>, cf. Quintil. inst. or. 1 4 . 3 'auctores alios in ordinem redegerint, alios omnino exemerint numero', that is 'to put them on the list of the classics'. On otopdow ~ dirigere in the Schol. Arat. see below, p . 121, n. 4 . See above, p. 102. Suid. v. ZTJVOSOTO? 'ErhtaiQs . . . hri nroX(u,alov yeyovws TOV rrptarov; E . Rohde, /Vyoft, Kleine Schriften 1 (1901) 127 f., believed that Philitas as well as his pupils Zenodotus and Theocritus were all dated too early. The real difficulty lies only in the tradition that Aristophanes of Byzantium was his 'pupil'. This is hardly compatible with such an early date for Zenodotus, but see below, p. 172. • See below, pp. 119 ff. i _ 1
K
1
1
s
S e e
b e
o w >
p
1 2 0 t
108
Zjmodolus and his Contemporaries
Zenodotus' Text of Homer
his stay at Pella for several years i n order to w o r k for Ptolemy I I i n Alexandria and then gone back afterwards. I have scanned the chronological combinations o f ancient and modern times anew; b u t I shall not trouble the reader w i t h the separate items. The negative result as a whole is o f some importance to us: there is no reliable tradition or convincing argument to be found against the priority o f Zenodotus. 1
The principal 'Zenodotean question is, of course, another one: what was the character and value o f his critical work? W e shall see that Zenodotus published a new text o f epic and lyric poetry and a glossary, but he d i d not publish any commentary or monograph. So his successors had no opportunity o f learning at first hand the reasons for his decisions. We must assume, though no evidence exists, that they could use an oral tradition o f Zenodotus' viva voce exegesis, noted down by his pupils and handed on to later generations, or, failing this, that they hazarded their o w n opinions about the ground o f his constitution o f the Homeric text. I n our Scholia which are only excerpts from the ancient Hypomnemata some cautious remarks o f Aristarchus or o f the Aristarcheans are occasionally preserved: p ^ o x e . . . vtrelhjtpev 'perhaps . . . he took . . . to mean' ; but we may be sure that they are omitted i n most cases. Later ancient and modern scholars accepted pure guesses and dubious oral tradition as evidence of Zenodotus' scholarship; no wonder a bewildering divergence o f modern opinions on Zenodotus has arisen out o f such mistakes. W e should be conscious o f the fact that we are on treacherous ground whenever Zenodotus' reasons are praised or blamed. I n a case like A 88 he was blamed for having altered the text 'because he believed i t is out o f character for a goddess to endeavour to find the object o f her search'. But this is mere guesswork; an early Ptolemaic papyrus, published i n 1906, agrees w i t h the text Zenodotus had accepted (not invented) for reasons we do not know. There was no authentic written tradition o f Zenodotus' arguments for his alterations or omissions o f Homeric lines; b u t his successors were i n a position to compare Zenodotus' text w i t h that o f other manuscripts, as they had even more copies at their disposal than Zenodotus himself, and so they could see the differences i n the number o f lines and i n the readings. I n this respect their statements deserve credit. There is even 1
2
3
4
109
a chance o f inquiring into the nature o f the earlier and contemporary copies o f the Homeric text that Zenodotus might have been able to use. We have had to touch on the history o f this text several times. I t is very likely that from the sixth century B . C . onwards a traditional text o f the epic poems existed to which the professional reciters, the rhapsodes, had to keep; but that i t was a sixth-century Attic text which became authoritative everywhere cannot be proved. The poet Antimachus of Colophon, who regarded Homer as a Colophonian, produced the earliest edition o f which we know at the end o f the fifth century. The frequent quotations by writers of the fourth century, especially Plato and Aristotle, show considerable variants. I t is difficult to use them for conclusions about a fourth-century text o f Homer, as philosophers, orators, and historians often quote from memory, but i t can happen that their readings agree w i t h early papyri. 1
2
3
4
Actual fragments o f ancient books w i t h Homeric lines are extant from the beginning o f the Ptolemaic era onwards. Since J . P. Mahaffy started to publish the Flinders Petrie Papyri i n 1891,5 fragments o f such early copies have continued to t u r n up from time to time. Compared w i t h the enormous quantity o f Homeric papyri from the third century B . C . to the seventh century A . D . known to us at present, their number (about twenty) is very small, but their importance for our purpose is relatively great. They surprisingly differ not only from our medieval manuscript tradition, but also from the papyri later than 150 B . C . ; quite a number o f new lines ('plus verses') and o f new readings occur besides a few omissions. I t would be too much to say that these early Ptolemaic texts give 6
7
Homer ( 1 9 2 5 ) , The Athelized Lines of the Iliad ( 1 9 4 4 ) , Bias Atheniensium ( 1 9 5 0 ) , did not give any
credit to the various utterances of the later grammarians, and did not admit internal reasons for athetizing, but oversimplified the case, in so far as he assumed that every line suspected or omitted by Zenodotus (and his great successors) was unattested or very badly attested in early copies (cf. below, p. 1 1 4 ) ; nevertheless, his Ilias of 1950 gives a complete and useful survey of Zenodotus' atheteses and omissions. See above, pp. 5 - 7 ; Ritschl's arguments in which he made some good points are spoiled by his general theory of the 'Peisistratus-recension', which is wrong. See above, p. 94. See above, pp. 73 f.; on the so-called Xvmeot see pp. 69 ff. and Excursus. « See Aeschin. 1 149 = Pap. Heidelberg p. 46, 87 Gerhard, 'Ptolemaische Homerfrag¬ mente', below, n. 7. * Royal Irish Academy: Cunningham Memoirs, no. 8 ft (Dublin); this publication provoked A. Ludwich to write his controversial book Die Homervulgata als voralexandrinivh erwiesen 1
1
(1898).
The term in later grammatical literature was awo tbaivijs, Choerob. in Theodos. Gr. Gr. iv 1. 103. 3 and rv 2. 1. 3 Hilg. j cf. Rutherford, 'Annotation' 31 ff. and the references given by Diels-Schubart and Zuntz, p. 212, n. 7, below. * Schol. A A 63, B 553, cf. tarn B 641. A 548. P 134 (see below, p. 118, n. 2 ) . J See below, p. 114. * G. M. Boiling in his careful and valuable studies The External Evidence for Interpolation in 1
Pack* lists 680 Homeric papyri in a total of 3026 literary papyri. See Addenda. Grenfell and Hunt, The Hibek Papyri 1 (1906) 6 7 - 7 5 , opened the discussion of the problem in the introduction to P.Hib. 1 9 - 2 3 (Pap. of Iliad and Odyssey about 2 8 5 - 2 5 0 B . C . ) ; these few outstanding pages are fundamental and not yet superseded. G. A. Gerhard, 'Ptolemaische Homerfragmente', Verogentluhungen aus der Heidetberger Papyrussammlung rv ( 1 9 1 1 ) , with important new texts and useful explanations. Cf. Homeri Bias ed. T . W. Allen 1 (1931) 6
_ 1
the impression o f a 'chaos'; b u t we can appreciate Zenodotus' problem when we realize that he was confronted w i t h such a great number o f more or less differing copies. W e may assume that he ignored carelessly written private copies circulating i n Egypt, of w h i c h a few specimens are extant, and was eager to look for better ones. There is a temptation to think i n this connexion o f the official Athenian copy of the tragic poets which was 'acquired' for the Alexandrian library and helped to constitute the text o f the tragedies. Indeed I should guess that i t is the recollection o f this attested fact that lies behind the modern inventions o f an ' A t t i c ' more or less official copy o f Homer for the Panathenaic festivals. There is no hint o f the existence of such a copy anywhere i n ancient literature; i t has even been argued that the Alexandrian scholars kept silence just because they used i t as the main source o f their editions. But i t must be emphasized that there is not the slightest evidence so far t o show either that there was an authoritative sixth-century Attic text or that a fourth-century one arrived i n Alexandria; i t remains one of several vague possibilities. M a n y copies from cities a l l over the Greek world were assembled i n the royal library, even from the periphery, from Massilia i n the west and Sinope i n the north-east. I t is not i m probable that Zenodotus, examining manuscripts i n the library, selected one text o f Homer, which seemed to h i m to be superior to any other one, as his main guide; its deficiencies he may have corrected from better readings i n other manuscripts as well as b y his own conjectures. Aiópdwois can be the term for either kind o f correction. I t is hard to imagine any other way. T h e I t a l i a n humanists h a d to face a similar situation when numerous manuscripts o f L a t i n classics were recovered and they had to prepare their editions; they used to pick out one 'codex pervetustus' which they followed and occasionally emended by comparison w i t h other codices as well as by their own conjectures. But there was no 'central library like that i n Alexandria i n the Renaissance; and i n any case, o f course, an analogy can do no more than indicate what may or perhaps was likely to have happened. 1
2
1
This is the result, a meagre result, we have to confess, o f our prel i m i n a r y inquiry into the nature o f the texts o f the Homeric poems accessible to Zenodotus for his SiópíWt?. Let us now turn to that 'principal Prolegomena
FT., 194ff.,P. Gollart, 'Les Papyrus de l'lliade' in P. Mazon, Introduction á l'lliade (1942, repr. 1948) 3 7 - 7 4 , chronological table pp. 6 3 ff.—G. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione e critica del testo ( 1 9 3 4 , reprinted 1952) 220ff.,and H. Erbse, 'Uber Aristarchs Iliasausgaben', Herm. 87 (1959) 2 7 5ff.,are most helpful and also give further bibliographical references. On Boiling's book, see p. 108, n. 4. See above, p. 82. See the etcSoWs Kara TTOXCLS above, p. 9 4 . 1
2
The Proem of the Iliad
Zenodotus and his Contemporaries
i io
57
I I I
1
question' w h i c h w e p u t above: what use d i d he make o f those copies ? D i d he carefully consider their lines and variant readings and constitute his text o n this 'documentary' evidence, or d i d he suspect or even delete lines and change the wording according to his o w n arbitrary judgement? The best way w i l l be to select a few typical examples and to examine them as thoroughly as possible. We can start w i t h the text o f two lines (A 4 - 5 ) o f the proem o f the Iliad; the interpretation o f this one short Homeric sentence w i l l reveal nearly a l l the difficulties o f Zenodotus' new enterprise, w h i c h he undertook w i t h the boldness o f a well equipped pioneer. I t is a lucky chance that the fifth-century reading o f A 5 is quite certain from a rare concord o f the three tragedians: Aesch. Suppl. 800 f. KValv 8* en-eifJ' eAojpa /cam^topíoi? / opvioi OÍLTTVOV, Soph. Ant. 29—30 (V4KW , . .) eáV 5* a/cAauTOv, ara^ov, olatvois /3opaV, Eur. Ion 5 0 4 f. TTTOLVOIS . , , $olvav Brjpul T€ (foivíav Safra, Hec. 1078 Kvoiv re oivíav Safra. They all must have had before them a text avrovs Se éXcópia rcú^e Kvveacriv / olojvotol re Safra, not the vulgate text oiwvotul re miox. A n d Safra is exactly what Zenodotus wrote i n his edition, though i t is attested only by Athenaeus (epit. 112 F ) . This line is not preserved i n any extant Ptolemaic papyrus, and there is no trace o f this variant left i n our manuscripts and Scholia, where only the reading olmvoiol re jrao-t is preserved without further comment. W h a t we still read there is the remark o f Aristonicus i n Schol. V e n . A , that Zenodotus athetized the two lines 4 and 5. H e kept them i n his text, as we have seen, but he must have marked them w i t h a marginal 'obelus'. The reason for obelizing A 4 - 5 may have been that they were omitted i n a copy o f his o r that the context o f the poem i n the opinion of the editor runs more smoothly when ¿g oS 8rj immediately follows upon prjviv . . . 7) . . . rrpotaipe, not upon A LOS S' éreXeíero fiovX-q. Thanks to 2
3
4
5
6
Gf. the most valuable discussion by Pasquali, Storia 2 2 4 - 3 0 . For that reason I dare to choose it in spite of its text having been subjected to vehement discussion for ages. I should like to refer to A. Nauck, Melanges Gréco-Romains 111 (1874) 9 - 1 4 and rv {1880) 4 6 3 ; E. Schwartz, Adversaria (Index Gottingae 1908) 7 f., Pasquali, Storia 236 f.; cf. Leaf, Boiling, Von der Mühll ad loe. A. Pagliaro, 'Nuovi saggi di critica semántica', Biblioteca di cultura contemporánea 51 (1956) 8, 21, 35ff.On Apollonius Rhodius' reading of A3 see below, p. 147. Restored by E. Fraenkel, Mus. Helv. 17 ( i 9 6 0 } 2 3 8 ; the interpolation of the Sophoclean Une into [Eur.] Phoe. 1634 was recognized by Valckenaer. Soph. Ai. 8 3 0 , Phil. 957 are not to the point. ciri póvatv TWV av&pdynuiv Batra (Eust, p. 19. 4 5 : Safras Ath.) Xéyei ó noi-or/jS, ¿rrl hi Qnptatv OÓK ért. ayvoátv Sé raines TÍJS
2
3
4
Ypatíer 'avrovs-Batra', TT¡V TWV yvrraiv Kal rátv áXXcov oituvtov rpotfir¡v ovrat KaXójv, p,óvov avdpd*na» xaypovvTos <efe> TO taov ¿K TÍJS TrpáaBevfilas,Sio «ai fióvov rovrov i¡ T/ÍO^T) Sais Ka! u-otpa T ¿ tKáartp StSóftcvov (Suid. v. Sairos eio-ns ii p. 14. 5 Adler ex Athenaeo). The author of the Epitome, Eustathius, quoted this passage twice in his commentary on the Iliad p. 19. 4 5 [A 5 ) and 256. 8 (B 4 6 7 ) . s
But see Eust. below, p. 113.
6
On the critical tnuttia sec below, p. 115.
Zenodotus and his Contemporaries
Documentary Evidence for Zenodotus' Readings
Athenaeus' testimony we know i n this case that Zenodotus read a peculiar text o f the t w o lines i n ancient copies ; on the other hand, his predilection for a clear syntactical structure and for as concise a text as possible may have made h i m suspicious o f their genuineness.
antiquarian lore together w i t h interpretations b y Alexandrian grammarians. I n our case, the grammarian who disapproved o f a reading i n the text ( S a i r a ) , and o f the explanation o f another w o r d i n a Homeric glossary (eto-r/?), used a Peripatetic doctrine for his arguments; this is a very welcome example o f the relation o f the new scholarship, which was eager to restore the correct wording and to find out its true meaning, to the Aristotelian tradition o f interest i n the antiquarian lore o f ancient customs and their evolution.
112
1
T h e arguments o f his critics also can teach us yet a little more about Zenodotus. T h e critical sign ÖWATJ Trepiecmy/iéVn) on the margin o f the codex V e n . A at line A 5 indicates that Aristarchus disapproved o f the reading o f Zenodotus. Furthermore, i t is Aristarchean to observe the poet's usage, to reject Safra i n the sense o f animal food as non-Homeric, and t o charge Zenodotus w i t h âyvoia (as i n Schol. A to â 8 8 , 27 247, Q 528) ; i n another case where again the epitome o f Athenaeus is our only source, this time for a much-disputed passage on the use o f lamps i n the Homeric age, i t has been proved that i t goes back to Aristarchus' opinion on Homer's Ati^ro?. But i f we look at the whole chapter i n Athenaeus (epit. 1 12 C - F ) , o f which we have quoted only the end, the polemics against Zenodotus' reading i n A 5, i t w i l l take us still further. Its m a i n subject is a detailed explanation o f the Homeric oairos itarjs (6 98 and I 225 are quoted), also directed against Zenodotus, who understood i t (apparently i n his glossary) as Satros ayadrjs.* T h e objection made is that the true sense must be 'a meal i n equal portions'. Civilized men, i n contrast to p r i m i tive people, cared for equally shared meals, and even the noun Sais itself, to be derived from Baretadat, points to a deliberate 'distribution' ; therefore i t cannot be used either for uncivilized men or for animals. These sentences o n early civilization have a Peripatetic r i n g ; they echo the spirit i n w h i c h Dicaearchus traced the 'Life o f Greece' from the d a w n o f history to later ages. T h e passage from Athenaeus is only a p a r t o f a long excerpt flepl rov rœv r j p o W «aÖ' "Op.r)pov ßiov where we meet Peripatetic 2
3
5
6
7
It seems to be a strange mistake for G. M. Boiling to deprive his Ilias Atheniensium of the sixth century B . C . (1950) of these two lines for the sake of his mechanical theory ; in this case ylverai Si T O wpoolfuov K6XOV, as the Schol. A warned. I fully agree with P. Von der Mühll, Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias (1952) 14 n. 5 in this point and I very much regret that we disagree on Satra. If Apollonius' copies read KCipaXds in L 3,11. 4 - 5 must have been left out, see below, p. 147. See above, p. 111, n. 4. What he thought of Q 4 3 , where Sais is the meal of the lion, we do not know, as the Scholia on Q are very poor; he may not have had the simile in his text or he may have constructed ßporwu tva Satra. 1
1
3 Stud. It. 2 7 - 2 8 (1956) 4 2 7
s
6
7
See below, p.
Ausgewählte Schriften 2 f.
; cf. Hesych. lïaav àyaBôv, Schol. T i~i 6 9 êicwjï] . . . rj rrjs àyaBrjs, dis 'itai 0iv Saîr' ayaBrfv' ( V 8 1 0 ) . See also Eust. 1401. 5 6 ff. (a 138) who quotes Athenaeus. Apollon. Soph. p. 6 4 . 31 ètorjs- mpès îaov eKaarip StSotieVijs, giving Aristarchus' interpretation. Fr. 5 9 Wehrli {Die Schule des Aristoteles 1, 1944) in Zenob. Ath. H I 6 2 Miller, Mélanges p. 372 and [Plut.] proverb, cod. Laur. no. 18 Crusius (Wehrli quotes only the vulgate tradition) . Athen. 1 8 E ff. = chapters 15-24 and later. 4
115
11$
1
3
I hesitate t o go any further. Aristarchus, no doubt, is responsible for o i W o t c a r e rrao-t having replaced i n a l l our manuscripts the fifth-century and Zenodotean reading Satra. But there is, as we said, no comment i n our Scholia. O n l y Eustathius expressly mentioned the variant -naai: S a t r a ; he even defended rraat a n d rejected Satra. Zenodotus h a d not understood, so he argued, that naai was said /catT vjrepfloArjv (like p,vpioi i n B 4 6 8 ) ; therefore he 'ejected (e£«jo-e)' rraat a n d 'wrote instead o f i t (avreypaipey Satra. I t is w o r t h mentioning this mistake of Eustathius or o f his source, because i t was typical to invent some reason for Zenodotus 'conjectures' and to charge h i m w i t h arbitrarily changing the traditional correct text. For Eustathius rrao-t was the original reading. We, however, do not know anything about its o r i g i n : whether i t is an old variant, or an alteration o f the fourth century B . C due to a Peripatetic doctrine a n d etymology, or a later conjecture. But even i f this last question is left unanswered, we should be satisfied w i t h the wealth o f information o n Zenodotus we have gained from the discussion o f two lines o f the Iliad. 3
4
1
5
6
I n A 5 Zenodotus followed a fifth-century reading still preserved i n the text o f three tragedies. W h e n he athetized A 2 2 5 - 3 3 (Schol. A i)8€n)K€), he was influenced by a fourth-century copy which had omitted these lines because o f Plato's criticism (Rep. 389 E ) ; II432-58/ severely reprehended * Cf. Robert Weber, 'De Dioscuridis LJepi rwv Trap' 'Op.ripai vouatv libello', Leipziger xi ( 1 8 8 8 } 8 7 ff., esp. 112 f. — Dioscor. fr. 3 4 , 130 f. on Aristarchus, 131 f. on Peripatetics. E. Schwartz, Adversaria (1908) 8 . See above, p. 104. See above, p. 111. Eust. p. 256. 8 on B 467, not on A 5 p. 19. 4 5 ; the unique passage seems to have been overlooked in the extensive literature on A 5, because it was not connected with this line, but with B 467. Even if it is a personal remark of the archbishop, it is in the line of the ancient polemics against Zenodotus. E . Schwartz, Adversaria 8 , believed in such recensions 'in quibus propter illud veriloquium San-a in rrdat mutatum erat' and was followed by Pasquali, Storia 2 3 7 . As a matter of fact, naat is a rather suspect expletive, as iras and 'omnis' are in many places, see G. Jachmann, 'Vom friihalexandrinischen Homertext', jVGG 1949, Phil.-hist. Kl. N. 7, pp. 173 f., with further references. In Catullus' translation of Call. fr. 110. 77 the 'suspectum' word 'omnibus' may be an expletive of the translator, not a corruption. Schol. A I I 432 Z. KadoXov weptypatpei ryv ojukiav rou AIOS Kai r^s "Hpas. Schol. T wapa Z. OVK -iff o SidXoyos T ^ S 'Hpas Kal rov Atos. On ircptypdtpciv see G. N. Boiling, The External Studien zur class. Philologie a
3
4
s
6
7
SI4812
I
114
Z °d° en
tus
an
d his Contemporaries
The First Critical Symbol
by Plato {Rep. 388 C D ) , had probably been left out i n several of Zenodotus' 1
copies, and so he cancelled them altogether. A t least, i t is more likely that there was such an intermediary source than that Plato's m o r a l criticism had this immediate effect on Zenodotus. Finally, he has been found to agree w i t h the early third-century Hibeh-papyrus 20 i n the omission o f A 8 9 . I n our Schol. A to J 8 8 a deliberate reason was invented for Zenodotus alteration o f 88 and omission o f 89, and he was blamed for his 5
but we now realize that there were copies o f the Iliad in. his time
"5
I n the discussion o f the many problems connected w i t h the text and explanation o f A 5 Zenodotus' glossary was mentioned. Although our material has much increased since F. A . Wolf's days, his assertion (Prolegomena, p. ccxv) that there is no sign o f a scholarly commentary written b y Zenodotus still stands. The few instances o f epic vocables said to have been explained by Zenodotus may occasionally come from the lecture-notes o f his pupils, otherwise they must come from the Dicocjuai, o f which not only the title is attested, but also the alphabetical arrangement ; i n scope his glossary was more limited than the AraKTa o f his master Philitas, as the few quotations refer to epic and perhaps lyric poets only, b u t its contents may have been easier to look up because o f its new order. I t was a model for the future; so was the invention o f the d/3eA6> as a critical sign, which we also came across i n dealing w i t h the proem o f the Iliad* The appearance o f this first arjueitov, which was followed b y many others, should not be regarded just as the introduction o f a useful technical device. This was the first time that an editor h a d provided the serious reader and scholar w i t h an opportunity o f appraising his critical judgement. Zenodotus did not suppress the lines o f which he doubted the genuineness, but left them i n the context, marking them, however, o n the m a r g i n w i t h the obelus; he disclosed his o w n opinion and enabled the reader to check i t . The early Ptolemaic p a p y r i w i t h their bewildering quantity o f 'plus verses', the TroAiio-rtxoi, revealed more clearly than any previous considerations how urgently necessary i t was to distinguish the insertions from the original text. 1
2
3
without this line. These three examples from the fifth to the t h i r d centuries, i n w h i c h Zenodotus' text is shown to be based o n documentary evidence, show how unjustly he was charged by ancient critics, and b y those modern scholars who followed them, w i t h making arbitrary changes for wrong internal reasons. O n the other hand, the fact that such examples could be multiplied should not tempt us into the dangerous generalization that he never altered the traditional text without external evidence. Indeed we have already assumed that two lines o f the proem o f the Iliad which must have been i n earlier copies were athetized b y Zenodotus for internal reasons; there are a number o f other cases, i n w h i c h a similar ground is equally probable. I refer to A 7 8 - 8 3 , M 1 7 5 - 8 1 , P I 3 4 " - Y impression is that changes o f this sort are incomparably less frequent t h a n the others; b u t beyond a certain probability we cannot go. I t would be an intolerable contradiction o f the spirit o f the new scholarship, i f Zenodotus, 'himself an epic poet, had occasionally inserted verses o f his o w n to complete the sense'; this surprising statement o f Sandys is unfounded. I t would be farcical for the first oiopdwrrjs o f the genuine Homeric text to play the part o f the disreputable oiaoKcvaorai, as they were called. 4
5
6
6
M
7
8
3
M u c h less important is the question whether the division o f each o f two Homeric poems into twenty-four books and the use o f one o f twenty-four letters o f the Ionic alphabet for each book are due Zenodotus. I n the fifth and fourth centuries individual episodes
See above, p. 112. H . Pusch, 'Quaestiones Zenodoteae', Dissertationes Philologicae HalensesTii (1890) 188 ff.; 11 fragments pp. 191 f. Fr. 1 = Schol. MHQR y 444 Zyvohoros oe iv rats arro rov S yXd>ooai$ Ti'flijo-t TVV X4$iv (Sapvlov, not aaviov), cf. Hesych. v. hauvia {sic)- 9vp.ara odyia; cf. H. Erbse, 'Homerscholien und hellenistische Glossare bei Apollonios Rhodios', Herm. 81 (1953) 1 8 0 . — The treatise preserved with the title ZifvoSoTov ^lAcracpov /7ep! Sta^opas o€ais. On the other crnpttTa see below, pp. 178 ff. If it is a fact—as we must assume so far—that Zenodotus and Aristophanes of Byzantium did mark certain lines of the text with critical signs, but did not write any commentary, this is a strong argument against E . G. Turner's new theory {Chronique d'Eigypte 37 [ 1 9 6 2 ] 149 ff.) that the existence of critical signs to a text always implies the existence of a corresponding commentary. 1
4 -; /A«-aypiiv below, p. 118, n. 1. For terminology, which is anything but consistent in antiquity, consult J . Baar, Index zu den lltas-
Evidence for Interpolation in Homer (1925)
8
FF
O
N
s e e
Scholien ( 1 9 6 1 ) .
1
s
Pasquali, Storia 228 f.
G. Jachmann loc. cit. 174 f. « i* 120 without any reference; it seems to repeat a sentence of H . Düntzer, De Zenod. stud. Horn. (1848) 157, 'versus . . . quosdam, quos ipse finxit, mseruit', followed by a few very poor arguments, which have been ably refuted by N. Wecklein, 'Über Zusätze und Auslassung von Versen im Homerischen Texte', Sitz- Ber. Bayer. Akad., Philos.-plulol. Kl. Jg. 1918, 7. Abh. S. 72 f. See K . Lehrs, De Aristarchi stud. Horn. 3 2 9 f. 6
8
1
s
In this case I follow E . Schwartz, Adversaria (1908) 6, who was the first to do justice to Zenodotus; see also Boiling, loc. cit. 32 f., R. Merkelbach, Gnom. 2 3 (1951) 376- 4* See above, p. 112 on dyvoia. 3 Hibeh Papyri 1 (see above, p. 109, n. 7) pp. 75 and 87. * See above, pp. 111 f. 1
3
the the to are
6
II6
Z
e n o
^
o t u s
Editions of Hesiod and Lyric Poets
d his Contemporaries
an
quoted w i t h special titles : A iour)oovs àpioreia (Herodotus), o-Krj-rrrpov rrapaSooxç, veujv KdToXoyos (Thucydides), Anal, T€tx°/£a#t
2
3
Zenodotus' Homeric studies may have included a treatise on the 1
K. Lachmann, 'Über Zenodots Tagberecbnung der Ilias',
der Akademie der Wissenschaften
Berichte über die Verhandlungen ( 1 8 4 6 ) 3 0 = Betrachtungen über Homers Ilias (1874) 9 3 , 'es ist 1
sicher falsch, erst ihnen (sc. Aristophanes oder Aristarch) und nicht etwa Zenodot oder einem früheren die kindische Einteilung beider Werke nach den Buchstaben des Alphabets zuzuschreiben, da die gereiftere Kritik die Odyssee bei $ 296 schloß.' This imperious utterance immediately impressed Düntzer (1848) and many others. Against the sceptics Wilamowitz, Horn. Untersuch. (1884) 3 6 9 , used the same argument (without mentioning Lachmann's name), vigorouslyfightingthe cause of Zenodotus ; see also Die Ilias und Homer (1916) 32 'ohne Frage Zenodot'. So his authorship became almost an established fact for the handbooks (Susemihl, Christ-Schmid, Sandys, etc.). See below, pp. 175 f. [Plut.] Vita Horn. I I 4 p. 2 5 . 22 ff. Wil. troirjaets Siio, 'IXiàs Kaï 'OSiWita, Siflpij/xeVtt 1
3
(Karipa els TOV àptduÀv T£IV araixeiatv, oi\ ùrr' avrov TOV rrot-nroS, ÔAA' vrro TOIV ypapip,artKÔ>v rôtv wept Aplorapxov. Eust. p. 5 . 29 (after telling the Peisistratus-legend) ypanp-anitol. . .
I owe the reference to Mrs. West, who re-examined the early Ptolemaic papyri, see Addenda to p. 109.6.
117
number o f days i n the Iliad and a Life o f H o m e r ; as i n the case o f Antimachus i t was perhaps published at the front o f his text. Homer's poems were to h i m the Iliad and Odyssey, i t was of the utmost importance for the whole future that the first o f the great scholars followed the lead of Aristotle and accepted the differentiation between these two poems as Homeric and the rest o f epic narrative poetry as non-Homeric. I n this case the « p t W had already been made i n the fourth century; i n other cases, as we shall see, the new KpniKol had to perform the Kpiois Troinftaraiv as their highest and finest task. 2
1
3
4
O f Zenodotus' edition o f Hesiod's Theogony only one slight trace is left, his reading Tepixrjooto instead o f ilepp-rjaaolo; his interpretation o f x
6
T w o short notes i n the Scholia to Pindar's Olympian odes point to two variant readings o f Zenodotus: 11 4 oKpoOLvta instead o f a/cpo6Va, and v i 55 where the w o r d he read instead o ffiefSpeyfievosis missing (Byzantine scholars supplied i t ) . I n our Scholia to Pind. 0 . 111 29 xp OKepojv ekaov etav a parallel from Anacreon is quoted (fr. 63 Page) vefipov . . . oar' iv V(T
See above, p. 116, n. 1, Lachmann. In the long list of writers on Homer's Life in Tatian ad Graecos c. 31 (p. 31. 24 Schwartz) which starts from Theagenes (see above, p. 11) Zenodotus is after the Peripatetics the first of the ypau-nariKol (see also Call. fr. 4 5 2 ) . See above, p. 94. * See above, pp. 73 f. Schol. Hes. Th. 5 (Flach) iv Se Tats Z-nvahoreiots ypdtbeTai Teppvqaoio (sic); cf. Hes. Th. ed. F. Jacoby ( 1 9 3 0 ) , pp-46f. and 74 f. and Gall. fr. 2 a, 20 (Add. 11) and fr. 6 9 6 . To ev Tots' (not TOii) Z-nvohoTeiots compare Apollon. Dysc. pron. p. 1 ro. 12 Schn. iv rats ZijvoSaTciois &top8d>aeai sc. Homeri; but as it is unlikely in the case of Homer that Zenodotus produced more than one edition (see A. Ludwich, Aristarch l 5 , and Apollon. Dysc, vol. 111 ( 1 9 1 0 ) , Index p. 288 s.v. Zenodotus), it is still less likely in the case of Hesiod. See Hes. Th. ed. Jacoby, Praef. pp. 45 f. with references to the testimonia; see also J . Schwartz, Pseudo-Hesiodea ( i 9 6 0 ) 6 1 4 (cf. 6 1 0 ) , who wrongly speaks of a commentary of Zenodotus on the Theogony, and F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 10 (1959) 134 s.v. Hesiod. 1
1
3 s
6
118
The Tragic Pleiad.
Jtynodotus and his Contemporaries
Lycophron
"9
v\rj KtpoéaoTjs vrroXeuftBeis VTTO fir)Tpos w i t h the remark: Z^VOSOTOS Sè p-eTtTroirjo-ev 'epoeWn?' ; the unnatural i m p l i c a t i o n o f a doe having horns
them a generation o f illustrious poets and scholars had worked incessantly for the recovery and understanding o f their literary heritage.
was removed by deleting one letter. Aristophanes o f Byzantium strongly objected to the conjecture {dVrxAeyei Kara Kpdros Ael. h.a. VII 3 9 ) . I n the great papyrus P.Oxy. 8 4 1 which contains substantial fragments o f ten Paeans w i t h scholia between the columns, the editors recognized i n the abbreviations £ or Z77 the name o f Zenodotus o f Ephesus; as far as the Scholia can be deciphered, i t is only to variant readings that these letters were six times added, just as i n six other cases the abbreviations o f the names o f Aristophanes a n d Aristarchus indicated variants due to them. T w o more such marginal notes have quite recendy come to light i n P.Oxy. 2442 w i t h new fragments o f the Paeans; Zrj again introduces a variant reading i n one case ; i n the other the papyrus is broken after the t w o letters. W e realize from this h o w many references to the earliest textual criticism must have perished on the long way from these ancient copies to our medieval manuscripts ; and we need no longer doubt that Zenodotus made the first critical edition o f Pindar's text, and possibly o f Anacreon, as he d i d o f H o m e r and o f Hesiod. Perhaps he d i d not m i n d that è.Kpo6Lvia spoiled the responsion or that uAn èpoévo-ns produced an intolerable hiatus ; there seems to have been no real expert i n the metre and prosody o f early lyric poetry before Aristophanes o f Byzantium, Zenodotus' true successor, whose editions far surpassed his. But between
Zenodotus' two collaborators, who dealt w i t h the scenic poets, were mentioned above i n connexion w i t h the scholarly work o f the library and problems of chronology. Alexander the Aetolian and Lycophron the Chalcidian are always counted as two members o f the brilliant group o f seven tragedians, the Pleiad, w h o outshone the numerous tragic poets of the age. Once only i n the later history o f classical scholarship was the Alexandrian name, ilAeta?, intentionally revived and applied again to a circle o f poets and scholars by the French poet Ronsard, the p u p i l o f Dorat, i n 1563, after Bude had called the newly founded College royal a new Movaetov. Alexander as Trornrrj? wrote epic, elegiacs, epigrams, and mimes, besides his plays, o f which only one title is preserved; as ypap> pLartKos he concerned himself w i t h tragedies and satyr-plays. O f Lycophron, the 7Toi7)Tr)s rpayojoLwv, Suidas enumerates twenty titles, and Tzetzes i n his introduction to the Alexandra is undecided between the figures 6 4 and 4 6 ; the subjects were partly mythical, partly historical. H e seems to have written a unique piece i n his satyr-play Menedemus, i n which he amusingly described the modest living and high thinking o f that Eretrian philosopher; Lycophron, himself a native o f the island o f Euboea, apparently had met h i m there, before Menedemus was forced to leave Eretria i n the year 273 B . C . A S a ypap.p.artKos Lycophron specialized i n comedy. His Menedemus shows his acquaintance w i t h the O l d A t t i c comedy, and his treatise TJepi Ka>p,a>8ia$ i n at least nine books seems to
f
1
1
3
4
5
6
pcerairoietv = peraypafatv is a common term for proposing a conjectural reading ; cf. above, p. 113, n. 7. * One had better not compare the omission of P 134-6 in Zenodotus' text, as H. Frankel, Die komerischen Gleiehnisse ( 1921 ) 119 and GGA 1926, 240 f, did ; cf. Pasquali Storia, 2 2 9 . The same lines were missing in the edition of Chios, as the Schol. A says ; so Zenodotus probably followed his copies, and only the Scholia (Aristonicus ?) say that he deleted these lines because of a difficulty of natural history. But as in all the other cases, this is no more than a guess, as the Schol. honestly confess : ICTOIS, tpaclv mot, . . . /AIJTTOTC K T A . P.Oxy. v (1908) ed. Grenfell and Hunt, pp. 15, 92 (to pae. rv 5 8 ) , for re-examination of the papyrus see the editions of Pindar by Tuxyn (1948) and Snell (1953 and 1 9 6 4 ) . See also J . Irigoin, 'Histoire du texte de Pindare', Études et Commentaires x m (1952) 32 f. Zénodote, 77 ff. Les Papyrus. P.Oxy. xxvi (1961) ed. E. Lobel, no. 2 4 4 0 , fr. 1 and 2 4 4 2 , fr. 14, pp. 12 and 42 with the commentary on £ij : 'I am doubtful of its interpretation as Zenodotus. I should say it always means t,r)ret, irrntra* or some other part of this verb." ÇTJ can certainly mean £TJT«, etc. (cf. e.g. P.Oxy. 2 4 3 0 , fr. 79 marg. of 11. 1, 4, 6 and P.Oxy. 2 4 2 9 , fr. 1, col. n 2 1 ) , but as far as my knowledge goes, it is never set in front of a simple variant reading. It usually introduces a question about the subject-matter : Stà ri or irôrepov . . .y, often followed by a Mats. And in this papyrus similar abbreviations of the names of other grammarians are added to other variants. Therefore I am pretty sure that Grenfell and Hunt gave the correct interpretation. Pind. Pae. vi 5 5 Ke\atvcet or p.]eAa[we
3
4
9
6
H e r m . 8 7 (1959) 3 f-
1
2
3
4
5
b
Strab. XtV 6 7 5 TTOIIJTTJS' he rpayutSlas aptaros r£iv TTJS ilXeiaoos KaTapt6p.ovp.evv is our earliest and best testimony for the term Pleiad; some names of the poets belonging to the group, varte, cf. F . Schramm, Tragicorum Graecorum hellenisticae . . . aetatis Jragmenta, Diss. Münster (1929) 4 - 6 ; a survey of all the Hellenistic tragedians in RE vi A (1937) ' 9 6 9 - 7 9 by K. Ziegler. See 'Dichter und Philologen im französischen Humanismus', Antike und Abendland vn 1
2
( ' 9 5 8 ) 79¬
I. U. Powell, Collect. Alexandr. (1925) 1 2 1 - 3 0 ; F. Schramm loc. cit. 4 0 - 4 2 testimonia; see also below, nn. 5, 6. F. Schramm loc. cit. 2 5 - 4 0 . Sylt* 4 0 6 . 7 note: The Eretrian Menedemus appears in the list of the lepop.vqp.oves in Delphi in the year 274/3 - > hut no longer in 2 7 3 / 2 B . C . , when his adversary Aeschylus took his place, Syll. 4 1 6 . 3. This is the only evidence for the date of Menedemus' banishment from Eretria. If it is reliable (see K. v. Fritz, RE xv [ 1 9 3 1 ] 7go), Lycophron must have met him there before 273 B . C . ; but when this meeting took place and when Lycophron left his native island of Euboea for Alexandria we cannot tell. It ¡3 not known whether Lycophron stayed with Menedemus and Aratus at the court of Antigonus Gonatas in Pella. Wilamowitz, HD 1 166, by mistake refers to Commentariorum in Aratum rel. ed. E. Maass (1898) 1 4 8 ; in Theon's Life of Aratus, which quotes an otherwise unknown writing of Antigonus Gonatas himself to or on Hieronymus of Cardia (6 '4vriyovos ev rots rsepi t 'Itpdivvpav FGrHist 154 T 9 ) , Alexander Aetolus is mentioned together with Aratus, Antagoras, and Persaeus, but neither Lycophron nor Menedemus. 3
4 5
BG
3
6
G. Strecker,
De Lycophrone,
Euphronio,
Eratostkene comkorum interpretibus,
Diss. Greifswald
Zenodotus and his Contemporaries
iao
Aratus as Homeric Scholar
have been based on knowledge of Cratinus, Eupolis, and Aristophanes. I t tried to explain the rare words so frequently used i n comedy, thus continuing the glossographic work o f Philitas i n a new field. Quite naturally Lycophron's bold enterprise was heavily attacked by his better-equipped successors, especially by Eratosthenes; they probably picked up his worst blunders (for instance on Aristoph. Av. 14 or Vesp. 2 3 9 ) , and the whole work may not have been as bad as these examples. Like his contemporary, Zenodotus, who was no doubt a much greater scholar, he had to suffer the fate o f an explorer o f a new literary province. As a connoisseur o f the comic poets, he made a recension o f the text too, i f the w o r d hiopQovv in the Prolegomena has to be accepted. 1
Certainly a text must have been available when Euphronius i n the following generation composed a commentary on individual plays o f Aristophanes. There is a passionate dispute about the genuineness o f an iambic poem unanimously ascribed to Lycophron by the ancient t r a d i t i o n , the Alexandra, i n which Cassandra's prophecies o f the future sufferings of Trojans and Greeks are related i n 1,474 trimeters. T h e language o f this poem is full o f rare and strange vocables, especially epic and tragic glosses; comic ones w o u l d hardly fit the sombre subject. This penchant for glosses is characteristic also o f the treatise IJepl Kwpupolas, and the inclination to enigmatical obscurity would be i n harmony w i t h a tendency we observed i n the Technopaegnia o f the early t h i r d century B . C . I am therefore disposed, after examining Lycophron's scholarly work, to accept the traditional date of Alexandra as correct, a conclusion I reached independently when some time ago I had to consider the relation o f the poem to Callimachus. Another poet o f the same generation, Aratus from the Cilician Soloi, never associated w i t h the scholar poets at Alexandria, but after his formative years i n Ephesus (?) and Athens stayed at the court o f A n t i gonus Gonatas i n Macedonia and for a few years also i n Syria at the court o f Antiochus. His first teacher was Menecrates of Ephesus, a grammarian as well as a poet i n the Hesiodic manner on agriculture and bee2
3
4
5
(1884) 2 - 6
and
23-78;
W. G. Rutherford, 'Annotation*
417;
cf. K. Ziegler,
RE
xni
{1927)
2323 ff.
See above, p. go. * See below, p. 161. 1
' Schol. Lye.
however, made a conjecture about a second Lycophron. XLllt; a full bibliography of the discussion is given by A. contribute alia storia degli studi classici (Roma i 9 6 0 ) 4 3 7 . 2 2 . Cf. Rio. star.
1226,
* Callimachus 11 Momigliano, Secondo itat. 71 (1959) 5 5 i f¬
(1953)
* See above, p. 107 and p. ug, n. 5.
121
1
keeping; in Athens he was imbued w i t h philosophy, particularly Stoic doctrines, and became the friend o f Antigonus. He then celebrated the king's marriage to Antiochus* half-sister Phila (276 B . C . ) i n one or t w o hymns at Pella, where he met Alexander Aetolus and possibly T i m o n . Antigonus is said to have encouraged h i m to put Eudoxus' star catalogue into verse ; the result was the epic Phaenomena, the most successful o f his many poems, highly appreciated even i n the literary circles of Alexandria, not to speak o f its surprising and age-long popularity as a practical schoolbook on astronomy. A scientific subject was here treated w i t h Stoic religious and philosophic feeling i n a style derived from Hesiod. Aratus had learned these things i n Ephesus and Athens, but the polished simple form was his own and could not have earned any better praise than the epithet Xerrrov, 'subtle', bestowed on i t by Callimachus. Intimate knowledge o f the Homeric language is obvious i n every line. W e have referred to the anecdote that he asked T i m o n for the best text of H o m e r he could get and was told to use the ' o l d copies', not the 'corrected* ones. T h e tradition i n the different versions o f the Life o f Aratus that he produced a critical edition o f the Odyssey is fairly reliable ; i n Syria later on he was induced by Antiochus to 'correct the Iliad, as i t was corrupted by many*. W h e n and w h y he went to Syria we do not know. I t is no more than a modern assumption that he fled from Pella to Antioch when Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia i n 2 7 4 - 2 7 2 B . C . , and turned to editing H o m e r ; but he may have gone there later and for a longer time before Antiochus I 2
3
4
Suid. v. Uparos • . . &KOvarr}s Se èyévero ypappariKoS fiev rov 'Eipealov MeveKpdrovç, Sè Tip,
tpiXooôtpov a
3
menta (1929)
i6f.,6i.
* Theo Alex., Vita Arati p. 148. 14 Maass (Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae, 1898) Stoipdoiae Sè Kal TWV ' Ohvaatiav—cS. ibid, the Latin version with its addition : didicit (dicit cod. K : didicit cett. codd. : fort, dirigit Pf. coll. Isagog. ill p. 140. 16 et 17 dirigere = Siopdovv et directio = SiépOotais) quidem et Odysseam, et Gecraustius inquit... et Iliadem (Heliadam codd.) scripsisse seu Homerum dirigere ; vitiatum enira ilium a compluribus . . . Dositheus autem Pelusinus . . . venire inquit et apud Antiochum Seleucium.' Vita Arati in Achill. comment, fragm. p. 78. 7 Maass icai T ^ V 'OSvooeiav Sè SidipBaiae teat KaXetratrts 5t.6p8a>ois ovru>s Apâreios dts J^piardpxetos
/cat Apiarotfraveios.
T t v è ç Sè avrov els Evplav èXnXvOévai tf>aoi (cat yeyovivai
nap'
wore rqv '/AiaSa SiopBdiaaoBai, Stà TO VTTO noXXâ>v XeXvp.âv9ai and ibid. p. 78. 32 ëypaipt Sè »cat âAAa rrovquaTa "f irept re 'Ou.-qpov Kai '/AtriSos* ov fiôvov rà 0aivêu.eva. E . Maass, 'Aratea*, Philologische Untersuchungen 12 (1892) 243 ff., and J . Martin, Histoire du texte des Phénomènes d'Aratos', Études et Commentaires 22 (1956) 151 ff., treated these confused and corrupted texts. The sources, on the other hand, Dositheus of Pelusium and Carystius of Pergamum(?), are quite reliable. No one who is at all acquainted with Theon's commentaries on the great Hellenistic poets will believe in the reconstruction of his edition of Aratus attempted by Martin pp. 195 ff. Avri6x
Zenodotus and his Contemporaries
122
died i n 262 B . C . T h e existence of a library i n the capital is attested for the reign o f Antiochus the Great (224/3-188/7 B.C.), who installed the poet Euphorion o f Ghalcis as his l i b r a r i a n . So Aratus could probably have found i n Antioch the necessary books for his scholarly work at an earlier date. Even i f this was i n the seventies, Zenodotus' edition may well have been finished before 274 B . C . , a n d i f there is any sense i n the T i m o n story, avTtypa<pa oicopdojpieva must have been i n existence when he answered Aratus' question. Aratus, himself a prominent writer who took part i n the revival o f poetry, was also eager to work for the preservation of the masterpieces o f the past; this is a particularly striking example o f the general historical process that we tried t o describe i n the preceding chapter.
Ill
1
There is no reference i n our Homeric Scholia to the §iop9ojo-is Apdrtios, as i t is expressly called i n a Life o f Aratus; but readings o f another epic poet, the Cretan Rhianus w h o published an edition o f Homer, are frequently quoted. I n his poems, however, he seems to be dependent on Callimachus ; this apparently agrees w i t h the ancient biographical tradition, w h i c h calls h i m a contemporary (avyxpovos) o f Eratosthenes. Therefore we had better place h i m w i t h the younger generation o f poets and scholars, not w i t h Zenodotus and Aratus. 2
3
4
5
1
Suid. v. Evtf>opla>v
.
. . iJASe
rrpos
ftvrloxQv
TOV Meyav
. . . ical Trpoearq vrr' avrov
rijs efcef
Sij/iotri'ar /3i 8Aio(iijK'ijs; cf. below, p. 150. )
* List of Rhianus' readings J . La Roche, Die Homerische Texlkritik im Altertum ( 1 8 6 6 ) 4 5 ff., and W. Aly, RE 1 A ( 1 9 2 0 ) 788 f.; cf. G. Mayhoff, De Rhiani Cretensis studiis Homericis 1870. Callimachus n, p. X L I I I on Rhianus; F. Jacoby, FGrHist m a ( 1 9 4 3 ) 8 9 if. (commentary on no. 265) and in B p. 754 (Addenda), strongly pleads for an earlier date. But even if in a single case, Hy. n 4 7 ff., Callimachus took over an erotic motif from Rhianus, it would not affect the issue, as this poem in my opinion was written at the beginning of the second half of the third century; passages of the Hecale and of the Aitia were certainly imitated by Rhianus, see Hecal. fr. 2 6 6 . If Rhianus is the author of the new epic fragment P.Oxy. xxx ( 1 9 6 4 ) 2522 A , B according to Lobel's 'reasonable hypothesis', it is even possible that a line of Callimachus* second hymn was his model (1. 17—Call. hy. 11 1 5 ? ) . 3
*
FGrHist
8
See below, pp. 148 f.
2 6 5 T 1.
CALLIMACHUS A N D THE
GENERATIONO F HIS
PUPILS
was no distinguished textual critic i n the generation after Zenodotus ; only Aristophanes o f Byzantium at the end o f the t h i r d century was his equal i f not his superior i n this field. The outstanding representatives o f scholarship between Zenodotus and Aristophanes were two men from Cyrene, Callimachus and Eratosthenes. After Alexander's death Ptolemy I ruled over the old D o r i a n colony o f Cyrene as the western part o f his Egyptian kingdom (perhaps 322 B . C ) ; then his stepson Magas was given a kind o f independent regency (about 300 B . C . ? ) , and there was a time o f considerable trouble between Egypt and Cyrene i n the seventies. But at length the only daughter o f Magas and Apame, Berenice, was betrothed to the son o f Ptolemy I I , and o n their marriage and accession i n 247/6 B . C . Cyrene was finally united w i t h Egypt. Although we cannot fix a precise date for the arrival o f the two Cyreneans i n Alexandria, there is no doubt that i t was after the Ionians h a d started the 'new movement'. For literary men were attracted, not a l l at once—but i n the course of several generations—by the splendour of the new capital and the patronage of its kings. Callimachus' Encomion on Sosibius (fr. 384) may have been one o f his earliest elegiac T H E R E
1
2
3
4
5
See above, p. 118, and below, pp. 171 ff. F . Chamoux, 'Le Roi Magas', Revue historique 2 1 6 ( 1 9 5 6 ) 18 ff.; cf. below, p. 124, n. 4 . It worried Niebuhr, Kleine historische una* philologische Schriften 1 ( 1 8 2 8 ) 2 2 9 . 4 0 , and still confused Geyer, RE xiv ( 1 9 3 0 ) 2 9 6 . 6 0 ff. s.v. 'Magas', that Iustin. xxvi 3 . 3 (and Hygin. astr. 11 2 4 ) called Berenice's mother not Apame, but Arsinoe. This mistake can now be traced back to Call. fr. 110. 4 5 , where Berenice is addressed and mount Athos is called fioviropos Apoivo-qs ^ . i j T p o ; aeo; the Scholion to this line correctly explains: KOTO. nu,ty etrrev, errei dvya-r-qp Anap.as KOX Maya. As a matter of fact, Ptolemy I I I and his wife, the foot Evepyerai, were officially honoured as the children of the Beol ASeX^ol (see my note on Call. fr. 110. 4 5 ) . The expression lXn Teicdeooi straightway with 'lieb den Eltern', as we read in the Arttmis-Bibliothek der alien Welt, 'Die Dichtungen des Kallimachos' ( 1 9 5 5 ) 2 9 1 . See above, pp. 9 3 and 95. See Callimachus vol. 11, pp. xxxvui ff. 'Quaestiones chronologicae selectae'; see also H . Herter, RE Suppl. v (1931) 3 8 6 ff. 1
1
3
4
s
124
Callimachus and the Generation of his
Creative Poet and Reflective Scholar
Pupils
poems, written under Ptolemy I i n Alexandria; the only well-attested facts are that he celebrated the marriage o f Ptolemy I I to his sister Arsinoe (between 278 and 273, perhaps 276/5 B . C . ) by an epic, and the apotheosis o f the queen (shortly after J u l y 270 B . C . ) by a lyric poem. This was apparendy i n the prime of his life ; towards its end he composed the Lock of Berenice (246/5 B . c . ) i n honour o f the Cyrenean princess recently married to Ptolemy I I I . I t was this k i n g who sent for the other native o f Cyrene, Eratosthenes, called a ' p u p i l ' o f Callimachus, to be librarian and probably tutor to his son. Both the Cyreneans, very different from each other i n age and spirit, seem to have been peculiar favourites o f the young royal pair. 1
2
There is a complete unity o f the creative poet and the reflective scholar i n Callimachus. W e found this combination first i n Philitas. Between h i m and Callimachus, however, Zenodotus had made a cont r i b u t i o n o f a new kind to scholarship, and institutions for its promotion had been founded by the kings and especially favoured by a king who was the p u p i l o f Philitas and Zenodotus ; so the younger generation started from a better position and was enabled to reach a higher degree of that unity than the older one. There is every reason to believe that Callimachus began to write poetry i n his early years i n Cyrene. W e read on Cyrenean coins of the end o f the fourth and the beginning o f the t h i r d century the same names o f members o f a noble family as i n one o f his epigrams i n which he mourned their misfortunes. H e was apparently still i n his mother country when, as he tells us himself, he first p u t a w r i t i n g tablet on his knees, and the Lycian A p o l l o addressed h i m as 'poet' and 'dear friend' and advised h i m on the art of poetry. A few lines later he implies that he is one o f those 'on w h o m the Muses have not looked askance i n their childhood'. I n the proem to his greatest poetical achievement, the four books o f the Aitia, he pictures himself transferred in dream from ' L i b y a ' to M o u n t Helicon 'when his beard was just sprouting' ; a n d 'Libya'—supposing that the anonymous epigram quotes 3
4
5
6
7
Suid. v. 'EparoaBévns = Call, n test. 15. * WÛaiûowitz, 'Ein Weihgeschenk des Eratosthenes', NGG, Phil.-hist. K l . 1894. 31 = Kleine Schrifien 11 ( 1 9 4 1 ) 65 ; Der Gtaube der Hellenen n ( 1 9 3 2 ) 3 1 8 . I . See also above, p. 9 8 . Strab. X V I I 838 KaXXlp-ax^S . • • WDIIJTIJS âp-a Kaï irepl ypau-piariKriv èairovSaKcûs = Call, test. t 6 ; see also below, p. 136. * Call. Ep. 20 with my notes. F . Chamoux, 'Epigramme de Cyrene en l'honneur du roi Magas*, BCH 82 ( 1 9 5 8 ) 587. 3 , listed the poems which he regards as 'Cyrenean' and promised to deal with them in another article. The new epigram found in Apollonia has no particular Callimachean flavour. * Call. fr. 1. 21 f., see above, p. 9 5 . Call. fr. 1. 3 7 iraî&as. Schol. Flor. 18 to Call. fr. 2 àpnytvetos ; epigr. adesp. AP vit 42 ôvttaa . . . /uw etc Aifivys àvatîpas fis 'EXLKCOVO, (see notes on fr. 2 ) . 1
3
6
1
125
him exactly—can mean Cyrene more easily than Alexandria. W h e n and w h y he left Cyrene for Alexandria we do not k n o w ; we are only told that he started modestly as a schoolmaster i n a suburb o f the Egyptian capital called Eleusis. This may have been under Ptolemy I ; since i n the seventies, d u r i n g the reign o f Ptolemy I I and his sister Arsinoe, Callimachus already moved i n the court circle, celebrating royalty i n the two poems we have mentioned, and he was probably still a 'young man' o f the court when he was given a responsible commission i n the royal l i b r a r y . T h i s swift career seems to have been due entirely to the extraordinary gifts o f a masterful personality. 1
2
3
4
Callimachus* poems, i n spite o f their novelty, were informed by an exact and wide knowledge o f the earlier poetry from which he drew his models. Practising his craft and reflecting on i t went together. This reflection quite naturally extended to the literature o f the past, to a l l the various forms o f metre and language, and to the recondite sources o f its subject-matter. O n l y the most passionate study could result i n exquisite poetical workmanship, and only boundless curiosity could open the untrodden ways (fr. 1. 28) to new fields o f learning. Ironically the poet hints at the danger o f 'much knowledge (^ TroXviSptl-n xaXerrov KO,KOV) i n certain cases; on the other hand, the mere pleasure o f listening and learning is to h i m the least perishable o f pleasures i n human life. 1
5
Two points should be kept i n m i n d . I f his verse very often sounds like charming word-play, the poet is never tired o f reminding us that everything he is going to tell is true because i t is well attested {dfiaprvpov ovBev aet6a>) ; the Muses, who once taught Hesiod and now answer Callimachus' questions, always utter the truth. I n another case he refers to a local writer by name (fr. 75. 54) as his reliable source. I n speaking o f 'recondite sources', 'reliable source', we apply this word, which originally means the fountain of a stream or a river, figuratively to literature. I n the beautiful finale o f Callimachus' h y m n to Apollo {hy. 11 108-12) the god contrasts the filthy water o f a great river w i t h the clear droplets the bees 6
A visit to Athens and an apprenticeship with Praxiphanes must be dismissed as modern inventions, see above, p. 95, n. 4. Suid. v. KaX\tp,ax°s = Call. test. 1. 8 ; his fifth Iambus (fr. 195) deals with a ypapsfiaroSiSoo-KaAos who taught children aXa fSrjTa.. See above, p. 123, on the elegiac poem Sosibius. veavloKos rijs avXrjs Tzetz. Proleg. Mb p. 31. 13 Kaib. = Call. test. 14 c. 17, cf. Ma 1, p. 2 5 , 3 K. = Call. test. 14 b. 14 veavlai fyaav KaX\tu,axos (sscr. y p . auxrrparas cod. A) KOX 'EpaToa&hrns. Whatever these expressions mean, they can hardly refer to a man beyond his twenties. H-OAVESO€(JJ fr. 75- 8 ' Strab. rx 438 iroXvttrratp . . . Kai irdvra TOV fiiov , . . 'ovara u.v8eta8ai 1
2
3 4
S
fsouXopevfas 6
Call. fr.
O W Y W ] ' = fr. 178. 3 0 ; fr. 2 8 2 aieavrj | iiSuAt's. 612;
cf. test. 7 9
voXvlaropos
avSpis
*al afwMrwmw.
ia6
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
The Pinakes of the Entire Body of Greek Literature 1
carry to Demeter from the pure and undefiled fountain-head. I n these metaphorical lines spoken b y Apollo the poet condemns the lengthy traditional poem w i t h its conventional formulae, b u t praises brevity and novelty i n verse. This meaning is quite obvious. But there seems to be implied another piece o f advice, hardly recognized by modern interpreters of the h y m n : poets should draw from the original pure source, not from its polluted derivatives. Callimachus was, as far as I can see, the first to use this image i n a literary sense. This demand o f the scholar poet applies equally to poetry and to scholarship. I t became a favourite image i n the age o f humanism and a fundamental concept of scholarship i n the modern world. 2
3
I f we consider Callimachus' general attitude, occasionally revealed i n some lines o f his poems, the remarkable feat o f scholarship that he achieved i n the l i b r a r y is perhaps not quite incomprehensible. His task was to find a system for arranging the texts o f all the writers collected for the first time i n the royal library (or libraries). W h e n we glanced at the prehistory and early history o f script and book i n Greece, we observed the oriental background and commented cautiously on the relations between the orient and Greece. N o w i n Alexandria a Greek library was founded on a grand scale ; and this reminds us o f the enormous Babylonian and Assyrian libraries o f old. I t is natural to inquire whether there may have been direct influence, since the door o f the east had been opened by Alexander m u c h wider than before, and recent research has at least p u t this question more urgently; but the answer so far is not very definite. T h e layout o f the papyrus-rolls i n the Alexandrian library seems to have resembled that o f the clay tablets i n the oriental libraries i n one or perhaps two significant points. The title o f a w o r k was regularly placed at the end of the r o l l and o f the tablet ( i n contrast for instance to the practice i n the Egyptian papyri ), and i n 'catalogues' not only this title, but also the 'incipit' was cited. O n tablets and rolls the number o f lines was occasionally counted, and these 'stichometrical' figures were p u t at the end and sometimes as running figures i n the margins; they 4
5
6
7
See Excursus. Cf. below, p. 137. rnjyq = ¿pvij in Pind., Plat., etc., is totally different; the Callimachean metaphor has also nothing to do with the so-called 'source-research' that seeks to find out what was not invented by the author but taken over from an earlier 'source', see for instance 'Les sources de Plotin', Entretiens sur l'anüquité classique v (1960) and esp. the discussion by R. Harder, 'Quelle und Tradition', pp. 325 ff. * Above, pp. 17 ff. On the Lyceum see above, pp. 66 f. See Zuntz's and Wendel's publications, p. 7, n. 9, above. Cf. above, p. 1 8 ; Wendel, loc. cit. 2 4 ff, 76, and passim; 'Incipit', 2 9 ff.; stichometry, 34ff.,4 4 ; on titulature see R. P. Oliver, 'The First Medicean MS of Tacitus and the Titulature of Ancient Books', TAPA 82 (1951) 232 ff, with examples from the papyri. 1
1
J
s
6 7
127
appear again i n library-catalogues. T h e earliest example o f title and number o f lines placed at the end of a r o l l turned up i n a recent publication of Menander's Sicyonius; the date o f the papyrus seems to be the last t h i r d o f the t h i r d century B . C . , very near to Callimachus' lifetime. Even a personal remark o f the scribe i n verse is added, and these notes altogether may be properly called a 'colophon'. There is very scanty evidence for libraries i n the Ionic and A t t i c periods; b u t the same technical devices as i n the east, or similar ones, may have been used i n Greek private houses or i n philosophical schools. 1
Whatever may have been achieved before the t h i r d century B.C., Callimachus had no real model for his immense undertaking. T h o u g h his task was probably not so much to create as to develop an appropriate method, he d i d i t so successfully that his 'fists', called IHvaKts, were generally acknowledged as a model for the future. Besides the Pinakes, he assembled a variety o f learned material helpful for the understanding o f the ancient texts and invaluable for the w r i t i n g o f poetry i n the new style; i n these books he resumed the labours o f the younger Sophists and the Peripatos w i t h a new purpose. For the IJlvaKes Tzetzes is again our authority; after giving the number o f books i n the two libraries he goes o n to say: wv TOVS rrlvaKas vorepov KaXXlp,axos d,Treypdqjaro. This sentence is slightly enlarged i n another later version ; v rrjs avXrjs vorepojs pLera i~i)v dvopOwotv TOVS TTLVO.KO.S avriov aTreypdiparo; then a reference to Eratosthenes follows and finally the remark: aAAa rd ifaAAi/xayou 2
3
KOA
TOV 'Eparoadevovs
p.erd
TOJV
fUlfiXoJV, (hs ^fjv,
Kal Siopdojueojs
&i\aoe\<pov.
fipaxvv
TWO. xpovov KOV
CTT'
eyevero avrov
TOV
rrjs
crvvayojyrjs
IJroXepLatov
TOV
Obviously i t is the sequence o f events that is stressed i n both
versions o f the Prolegomena:
vorepov—varepws
p.erd r. a.—p,€rd
ftpaxvv
Therefore the change o f vorepcos to ioropel os, proposed by Dziatzko and accepted b y most modern editors, is not justified. This TWO,
xpovov.
4
1
Menand.
Sicyonius
edd. A. Blanchard et A. Bataille, Recherches
de Papyrologie
in
(1964)
1 6 1 : Pap. Sorb. 2 2 7 2 , col. xxi, pi. xni. Colophon, although a Greek word, is not an ancient
term, but a modern one (not before the eighteenth century?) for the device at the end of early printed books, 'containing the tide, the printer's name and the date and place of printing 1774', see The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. colophon. The word is frequently applied to mere titles at the end of a roll, as if synonymous with 'subscription*; I think it had better be reserved for the cases in which more personal remarks of the scribe were added (as with the printer in modern times); there is no occurrence so far of the name of a scribe in Greek antiquity. * Cf. above, p. 101, where the full text of the version Pb is quoted (cf. Ma p. 25. 2 K.). See below, p. 153, n. 5. Call. test. 14 c. I kept vareptas with reference to the parallel vorepov in 14 a. Cantarella who reprinted Tzetz. and all the other testimonia (above, p. 100, n. 1), p. 5 9 . 1 4 did not even mention the manuscript reading in his app. crit. J
4
i28
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
Arrangement of the General Pinakes
conjecture w o u l d enormously enhance the authority o f Tzetzes' report, as i t makes Callimachus himself the ultimate source o f at least a part o f the Prolegomena. T h e unfortunate I t a l i a n humanist h a d no scruples about producing the following 'translation' on the m a r g i n of his Plautine codex: 'sicuti refert Callimacus aulicus regius bibliothecarius q u i etiam singulis voluminibus titulos inscripsit.' Hinc Ulae laerimae. Here we have Callimachus not only quoted as a literary authority, b u t also elevated t o the official rank o f court-librarian; there is no evidence that he held this position except this slip of the 'translator', and there is not even r o o m for h i m i n the well-known series o f librarians. 1
2
Tzetzes apparently h a d i n m i n d a sort o f catalogue o f books extant i n the library. Hesychius-Suidas' biographical article KaXXlp.axos, once probably the introduction to an edition o f Callimachus' collected poems (of w h i c h therefore very few titles were mentioned i n the biography) points t o a comprehensive ' b i b l i o g r a p h y ' : TIivttK€s riov ev irdoj) rraiSela StaXapupavTajv /cat <&v ovvdypaifjav, iv jSt/JAtot? K /cat p', 'Tables o f all those who were eminent i n any k i n d o f literature and o f their writings i n 120 books'. T h e previous generation h a d done some quite respectable scholarly work i n the l i b r a r y at least o n the foremost poets, w i t h o u t w a i t i n g for catalogues and bibliographies, and this m a y have been very helpful now i n the completion o f the Pinakes. I t is Suidas' description—as we should expect from his m u c h better sources—not Tzetzes' that is correct; this is confirmed b y the fragments still preserved. T h e distinction between a mere library catalogue and a critical inventory o f Greek literature is sometimes obscured i n modern literature o n Callimachus' great w o r k ; i t was certainly based o n his knowledge of the books available i n the library, b u t he also h a d regard to works only mentioned i n earlier literature and to questions o f authenticity. 3
4
5
6
T h e entire body o f Greek literature, the rraoa Tratoeta, was divided into several classes: only three are attested by verbal quotations: p-qropiKd (fr. 430—2, Cf. 443—8), vopLOL (fr. 4 3 3 ) , TravToSaTTa ovyypdp.p.ara (fr. 4 3 4 / 5 ) . F r o m references to epic (fr. 452/3), lyric (fr. 4 4 1 , 4 5 0 ) , tragic (fr. 4 4 9 ? , 4 5 1 ) , comic poets (fr. 439/40), to philosophers (fr. 4 3 8 ? , 4 4 2 ) , historians Cf. above, p. 101. See below, p. 142. Suid. v. KaXXiu.axos = Call. test, i ; translation by A. W. Mair. See above, p. 1 0 6 ; Tzetzes Prolegomena to Comedy and other sources mention poetry only, and this was no doubt the starting-point, but some work on the prose writers cannot be excluded. Fr. 4 2 9 - 5 3 and Addenda; conclusions and references after fr. 4 5 3 , p. 3 4 9 . Next to the monograph of Schmidt, Pinakes, Wendel, Buehbeschreibung 69ff.,and O. Regenbogen, RE X X ( 1 9 5 0 ) v. IILvo.% 1 4 2 0 - 6 , are to be consulted. P. Moraux, Les listes ancietmes des ouvrages d'Aristote, 1951, 221ff.For the only new fragment see below, p. 130, n. 5 . Seefr.442, 445, 446, 4 4 9 ; on fr. 456 see below, p. 132, n. 6. 1
3
4
s
6
a
129
(fr. 4 3 7 ) , and medical writers (fr. 4 2 9 ? ) registered i n the Pinakes we may conclude that seven further classes existed; there were probably many more a n d a number o f subdivisions. I t is now fairly certain that the individual authors o f every class were arranged i n alphabetical order; each name was accompanied by a few biographical details, a n d later writers were sometimes disappointed by what they considered deficiencies (fr. 4 4 7 ) . Less conscientious, even sensational, the vast biographical work of Hermippus o f Smyrna, who is called 'peripateticus' as well as KaA\ip,ax* $> a y be regarded as a more popular supplement to the esoteric Pinakes. But we may doubt i f his master Callimachus liked i t ; he h a d confined himself to the reliable evidence for the lives and works of literary men. T h e list o f their writings which followed the biography cannot always have been arranged i n the same way, b u t the alphabetical system seems to have prevailed. T h e little we know o f some minor epics and a l l we know o f the dramatic poems leads to this assumption, i f indeed the order i n the lists o f later antiquity is derived from the Pinakes.' T h e best example is the famous /caraAoyo? TCOV AloxyXov Spapidrajv which was once obviously an appendix t o the life o f the poet and still presents to us the titles o f seventy-three plays, tragedies, and satyr-plays, i n strictly alphabetical order. For Euripides there were only fragments o f two inscriptional catalogues, u n t i l recently published papyri brought very welcome new evidence for titles o f his plays arranged i n order o f the initial letter. I n the most important o f these p a p y r i , which gives summaries o f the plots, the title is followed by the formula ou (T)S, &V) ap^rj and the citation o f the first line. This 'incipit' h a d been introduced b y Callimachus i n his Pinakes, for instance: irriKov Se T O 7rot7jp.a, ov 7) dpxj, followed b y the opening verse o f the poem (fr. 4 3 6 ) . A mere title m i g h t have been ambiguous, particularly i n the case o f prose writings; the 'incipit' made the identification easier. A list similar to that o f Aeschylus' plays is preserved i n t w o manuscripts o f Aristophanes, where brief details o f his life are followed by an alphabetical catalogue o f his comedies. Menander 1
L0
m
1
3
4
5
6
7
1
F . Leo, Die griechisch-römische Biographie
nach ihrer literarischen Form
(1901)
1 3 0 f . ; on
Hermippus ibid. 124ff.On Hermippus see also Moraux loc. cit. 221 ff. and below, p. 150. * On Callimachus' special chronological table of the dramatic poets see below, p. 132^ Aesch, ed. Wilamowitz, ed. mai. (1914) 7 f.; ed. G. Murray, ed. n (1955) 3 7 5 . The catalogue is preserved in two codices, M and V. 3
4
IG xrv 1152 and IG n/m P.Oxy.
2455
in
1
2363. 3 8 ff.
xxvii ed. E . G. Turner and others ( 1 9 6 2 ) , see also and 2462 (Menander); they are all assigned to the second century A . D . See below, p. 195, n. 4. Cf. fr. 4 4 3 , 4 4 4 , 4 4 9 ; see also Wendel, Buchbeschreibung,pp. 3 2 - 3 4 and n, 198, and below, p. 1 3 0 . A critical edition based on a new collation of the Milan and Vatican codices by R. Cantarella, Aristof. Com. I (1949) no. 231, pp. 142 ff. 3
Oxyrhynchus Papyri
2 4 5 6 , 2457, 6
7
814342
K
130
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
Two Special Pinakes
may have found a place i n the Pinakes, like Alexis (fr. 439) and Diphilus (fr. 4 4 0 ) ; for the beginning o f an alphabetical list o f his plays (titles only) is preserved i n a papyrus. 1
Cataloguing the lyric poetry ( r a fieAuco) must have presented thorny problems. Callimachus divided the great triadic poems (which we usually call 'choral', although we often cannot tell whether they were actually sung by a c h o i r ) into special groups (eiorj). Simonides' songs o f victory, for instance, were called M u c o » and subdivided according to the type o f contest (foot-race, pentathlon, etc.) ; for we know that Callimachus (fr. 4 4 1 ) had described a part o f the Epinicia as tkt§ffim &pofic
3
4
:
f
5
6
7
8
P.Oxy. 2462 (cf. 2456 Euripides), see above, p. 129, n. 5 . See Excursus. J PMG 5 0 6 - 1 7 Page, parüy in AL n», Simonid. fr. 1 4 - 2 3 Diehl. On the arrangement in Aristophanes' edition see below, p. 183. Cf. E . Lobel on P.Oxy. xxv (1959) 2 4 3 1 , fr. 1. 5 P.Oxy. xxni ed. E. Lobel (1956) 2 3 6 8 . 16; Bacchyl. 2 3 ed.B.Snell (1961) 73 and 5 0 * ; cf. below, p. 222. H. Färber, Die Lyrik in der Kunsttheorie der Antike, 1 9 3 6 ; A. E. Harvey, 'The Classification of Greek Lyric Poetry', CI. Qu. N . S . V (1955) 5 7 Schmidt p. 77 was quite right against Regenbogen's doubts col. 1421. See above, p. 129. 1
2
4
8
6
r
7
B
ff
131
Callimachus lavished his efforts also upon the classification o f the prose writers; the different classes, as far as we can make out their names, have been noted above. I n principle the arrangement followed the same lines as i n the poetical section ; but the difficulties were greater than i n the Pinakes o f the poets, as the case of Prodicus shows ; Callimachus listed h i m w i t h the orators (quite correctly, I should say), but others objected that he belonged to the philosophers (fr. 4 3 1 ) . The names o f writers i n every class were given i n the usual alphabetical order (fr. 4 3 5 ) . T h e works o f each author may have been subdivided into several groups, such as public and private speeches ; subdivision was unavoidable i n the case o f rroXvelBeia (fr. 4 4 9 ; 4 2 9 ? ) . Individual speeches that had titles, for i n stance IJçpï AXowqaov (fr. 4 4 3 ) , Ilepl TOJV avpL/jLopiœv (fr. 432) o f Demosthenes, or IJepi 0€p€vÎKov (fr.448) ofLysias, could be listed alphabetically, though the 'incipit' was usually added (fr. 443, 4 4 4 ) . But i n cases where there was no title, or where the authorship o f speeches (fr. 4 4 4 - 7 ) or whole books (fr. 437) was a matter o f dispute, we have n o clue t o the arrangement. I t seems to be over-optimistic to see i n the famous complete list o f Theophrastus' writings (Diog. L . v 4 2 - 5 0 ) a sort o f enlarged copy o f Callimachus' Pinakes; the very complicated tradition does not recommend this simple solution. Neither can we trace the list of Aristotle's writings (Diog. L . v 2 2 - 2 7 ) k to Callimachus as the ultimate source. As regards the philosophers i n the Pinakes our knowledge is deplorably poor. O u r information is much more precise o n the 'Miscellanea' (iravroSaTrà
2
3
D a c
4
5
6
Besides the general Pinakes t w o special ones are known that differ totally from the m a i n work i n being one chronological, one linguistic. See above, p. i a 8 . See above, pp. 39 ff. * Against the optimism of Schmidt, 1
1
Pinakes 8 6 , See O. Regenbogen, RE Suppl. vu (1940) 1363 ff. and xx (1950) 1422 and 1441 ff. 4 P. Moraux, Les listes anciennes des ouvrages d'Aristole (1951) 233, and Düring, Aristotle 67 f.,
agree with this negative statement; their own theories differ from each other. On Democritus see below, p. 132. On stichometrics see above, pp, 126 f., and Schmidt, Pinakes 6 9 f. s
6
Lasting Effect of the Pinakes
Callimackus and the Generation of his Pupils
132
Both titles are extant only i n Suidas* article. T h e first is Tliva£ #ccu dvaypaipT) TOJV Kara. xp^ s * ö^ "' ^•PXV'* y&opievaiv SioaatcdXajv 'Table and register o f the dramatic poets i n chronological order and from the beginning'. T h i s Pinax must have been based on Aristotle's oioao-KaXiat taken from the documents i n the archon's archives. Alexander Aetolus and Lycophron had busied themselves w i t h the tragic and comic texts i n the Alexandrian library i n the early t h i r d century; i n its second h a l f Eratosthenes and Aristophanes devoted major works to the A t t i c drama. Between them Callimachus compiled his record, the great scale o f which we can still guess from fragments o f three inscriptions found i n Rome, where they had probably occupied a w a l l i n a great l i b r a r y . K ö r t e ' s suggestion that the inscriptions are a more or less exact apographon o f the Callimachean Pinax has been universally accepted. T h e parts preserved enumerate the Dionysiac and Lenaian victories o f comic poets from 440 to 352 E . G . ; b u t i f the title given by Suidas is correct the Pinax extended back t o the dpxr), that is, t o the introduction o f comedy i n t o each o f the t w o festivals, the C i t y Dionysia i n 486 B . C . and the Lenaia i n 442 B . C . T h e second special Pinax was apparently a list o f glosses, and i t is not surprising to find Callimachus following Philitas and Zenodotus as glossographer; w h a t surprises is the wording i n Suidas: IJiva$ r&v Ar) pottparous y\u>aaojv /cat uwrayp,draiv(?) . Whatever is meant b y ovvrdypLara (probably 'writings'), its connexion w i t h yAtuacrai is strange, as 'a list o f writings' should belong to the great general Pinakes. I t is, o f course, easy t o change the proper name to Arjpiotcpirou. Democritus was a bold innovator i n the language o f philosophy, but i t can hardly be said that his o w n language is distinguished by obsolete words. W e must also remember that he wrote something himself on Homer's language and his glosses, although only the title remains, as i n the case o f Callimachus' Democritean Pinax. 1
vov
Ka
77
L
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Gall. 11 test, 1, cf. above, p. 1 2 8 ; fr. 4 5 4 - 6 Call. 1 pp. 3 4 9 f. Regenbogen, nivag, xx ( 1 9 5 0 ) 1423. 3 8 tried to change the odd sequence of words. It is worth while to stress again the correct view of the young Nietzsche, see note on fr. 456 and cf. above, p. 50, n. 4. See above, p. 8 1 , on Aristotle's work in the archives and on the term BtSdaKaXos. See above, pp. 105 f. IG siv 1098 a, 1 0 9 7 , 1098 (A. Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen [ 1 9 0 6 ] 195 ff., 2 5 5 ) ; for further references see my note on Call. fr. 4 5 6 ; the texts are now reprinted with notes by A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (Oxford 1953) 1 2 1 - 3 , cf. p. 72. See above, pp. 90 and 115. Call. 11 test. 1 and 1 p. 350 after fr. 456 (where the reading of the manuscripts is omitted; see also Corrigenda u p . 1 2 2 ) . Vors. 6 8 A 32 the conjecture of Demetrius Chalkondylas (1499) AIIIJ.OKPLTOU is printed without any reference to A-np-oKparovs in the codices; but D.-Kr. mention the frequent form -Kparovs for -tcpvrov in the notes to B 3 5 , 160, 161, 178. Cf. Apollon. Dysc. Pron. 6 5 . 17 Schn. and Synt. 7 8 . 4 Uhl. awray/iara 'prose books'. See above, pp. 42 f. Democritus' language and his books on literature. • Callimachus' critical acumen should no longer be credited with having unmasked the 1
RE
1
3 4
5
6
7 8
133
We have taken pains to call attention to many d r y and sometimes baffling titles. Inconspicuous as the individual headings may look, the impression o f the whole is overwhelming. T o amass hundreds of thousands o f rolls i n the library would have been o f little use without a sensible classification that enabled the prospective reader to find the books he needed. For the first time i n history the Pinakes o f Callimachus made the greatest treasures o f literature accessible b y dividing poetry and prose books into appropriate classes and by listing the authors i n alphabetical order. O n l y the most passionate desire to save the complete literary heritage o f the past from oblivion and to make i t a permanent and fruitful possession for a l l ages could have provided strength and patience for this immense effort. Querulous critics o f the scholar poets, Philitas, Callimachus, and their followers i n ancient and modern times, may carp at the excessive learning of their poetry and at the amateurish deficiencies o f their scholarship. But they should not undervalue the fervent devotion to learning that sprang from the enthusiasm o f a great poet. No doubt the 120 books o f the Pinakes gave plenty o f scope for additions and corrections ; even our short quotations have revealed this again and again. Aristophanes o f Byzantium published a whole book TIpos rovs KaXkipidxov irlvaKas. IIpos is ambiguous and often means 'against* i n titles, b u t there is n o t the slightest reason to assume that Aristophanes ever wrote 'Against Callimachus' Pinakes* ; his book was meant t o be a supplement, which certainly was very welcome about fifty years afterwards, and he made use o f Callimachus' chronological tables of the A t t i c dramatists for the summaries o f plays i n his editions. This was the immediate effect; b u t everyone w h o needed biographical material, who undertook editions o f texts, who wrote o n any literary subject had to consult the great work ; i t has never been superseded by a better one. The anonymous r/iVa/cej o f the rival library i n Pergamum, very rarely quoted, once for a comic poet and twice for orators, d i d n o t compare 1
2
3
4
Democritean forgeries of Bolos (Suid. s.v. BûXos A-nu.oKplretos) ; this strange fellow lived towards the end of the third century B . C . or even later, as the best expert on pseudo-scientific ancient literature finally found out, Max Wellmann, 'Marcellus von Side', Philol. Suppl. xxvn 2 ( 1 9 3 4 ) 1 ff., with further references; see also Vors. 11 6 8 B 3 0 0 and A. J . Festugière, La Révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste 1 (1950) 196 ff., 222 ff. and Add. 4 3 2 . F. Schmidt, Pinakes 97 f., and Rehm-Voge\,ExaktelVissenschaften* ( 1 9 3 3 ) 57 and 6 3 , relied on earlier publications of Wellmann. See my notes after Call. fr. 453, and below on Praxiphanes p. 135 and on Polemon, p. 2 4 8 , n. 1. Call. fr. 456. See above, p. 129. Schmidt, Pinakes, p. 28 fr. 3 èv rots nepyap-nvois rrivagi (fr. 4 has to be cancelled) ; cf. ibid p. 104 and the whole chapter V on the after-effect of the Pinakes 9 9 ff. See also Regenbogen, Pinax col. 1424 ff. s
1
1
3 4
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
Books on Antiquities and Language
i n importance w i t h the Alexandrian Pinakes o f Callimachus upon w h i c h
paradoxography as a distinct literary genre. Like Philitas and Zenodotus he was not scientifically minded, as this work reveals better than any other; there is no recognizable intercourse between science and scholarship i n Alexandria before Eratosthenes.
134
they were probably modelled. A number o f titles, some o f them found only i n Suidas' article, and some short quotations give an idea o f the variety o f learned books published under Callimachus' name; i n preparing them he may have been assisted b y friends a n d pupils. A throng o f students was drawn to Alexandria by the new longing for unlimited knowledge and the fact that incomparably richer material was now offered there than ever before i n Athens or elsewhere. T h e Sophists had had epideictic-oratorical aims i n their treatment o f literary, especially poetical, subjects, and the great A t t i c philosophers and their schools had had their philosophical purposes. N o w for the first time we find wide literary knowledge being acquired for the sake o f the literary tradition itself, that is, for the works to be written i n the present age and for the preservation and understanding o f the works written i n past ages. This is the new separate discipline o f scholarship. The books o f Callimachus the scholar {ypafipuiTLKos) are often regarded as mechanical compilations of antiquities. As a matter o f fact they are not restricted at all to antiquarian matter; we can apply our old scheme to them, though perhaps i n a different sequence, briefly reviewing his books on antiquities, on language, and on literary criticism, and finally considering how far he may be regarded as an interpreter o f earlier Greek poetry. T h e Nofiiua fiapfiapifca were an antiquarian collection o f 'Non-Greek Customs', possibly supplementing Aristotle's book w i t h the same title. A general book IJepl dyd)vu>v probably belongs to the same group, since some o f the Sophists and Aristotle and his school frequently compiled material ' O n games'. The forty-four excerpts i n Antigonus o f Carystus, Hist, mirab. 1 2 9 - 7 3 , from Callimachus' Ilapdooga show h i m as a writer on marvels; his keen curiosity for 'Incredibilities' led h i m to make this Collection of marvels in all the earth according to localities from historical, geographical, and antiquarian sources. There is no earlier example o f 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fr. 4 0 3 - 2 8 , 4 5 7 - 9 , 4 6 1 - 6 , 6 9 3 ; fr. 4 0 3ff.are arranged according to the alphabetical order of the titles. See above, pp. 125 ff. See above, p. 3. Call. fr. 405 with notes; on Aristotle see above, p. 83. Call. fr. 4 0 3 ; on Hippias the Sophist see above, pp. 5 ff, on Aristotle pp. 79 ff., on Duris, the Peripatetic historian, and others see notes to fr. 401. * Thomas Stanley was the first to discover these substantial excerpts, not Bentley, see Call. 11, p. X L V , i and Addenda p. 122. Qavp.droiV r£iv els drraaav ri\v yrjv Kara rairovs ovroiv avvayuiyr} is the title in Suidas' table ;
135
From a book entitled 'EBVLKOI ovop-aalat, that is, Local nomenclature, special names for fishes i n different cities (Chalcedon, T h u r i i , Athens) are quoted; as there was a chapter on fishes, the arrangement o f the whole must have been by subjects. Though unproven, i t is not impossible that the titles i7ept dvepicov (fr. 4 0 4 ) , IJepl opvciov (fr. 4 1 4 - 2 8 ) , Mrjvtav TrpoaTjyoplai Kara HBvos teal TTOAEI? (p. 3 3 9 , Local Month-names) are only the sub-titles o f other chapters i n the same comprehensive Onomastikon. This vocabulary was certainly not arranged i n alphabetical order like Zenodotus' Glossai. T h e relation o f names to things was a philosophical problem, discussed at length i n Plato's Cratylus and also by Aristotle. But Callimachus listed and disposed all the names he could find for the purely literary reasons w h i c h we have just stated; i t was the first vocabulary of its kind, as far as we know, and was eagerly used by Aristophanes o f Byzantium and later generations. I t can hardly be decided whether works entitled Kriaeus vrjawv nat TtoXtuxv KO\ p.erovop,aalat (p. 339) and Ilepi TOJV ev Tjj otKovp-evQ rroTapLtuv (fr. 457—9) belong to the books on antiquities or to the books on language; 'changes o f name' rather point to the second group. There remain a few headings and fragments for which we are completely at a loss to find a place, or even to understand the titles. But the important fact is that we are able to find traces o f nearly a l l the learned collections o f Callimachus i n his poems : fairsounding names o f rivers and islands, o f winds and nymphs and birds were picked out o f them t o embellish the verses, and a number o f fine local stories was found i n them and saved from oblivion. 1
2
3
4
5
One book has been left out o f this cursory survey, Callimachus' Against Praxipkanes, IJpos npa£t (fr. 4 6 0 ) ; we mentioned i t earlier, when we were pointing out non-Aristotelian features i n the whole new movement i n Alexandria. The only fragment quoted from this book is clear evidence 6
1
2 3 4
s
7
see fr. 4 0 7 , I - X L I V , 4 0 8 - 1 1 .
Call. fr. 4 0 6 ; in the notes I should have referred also to C. Wendel, 'Onomastikon', RE xviii (1939) 5 0 8 . See above, p. 115. On Plato Cratylus see above, pp. 5 9ff.,on Aristotle pp. 76 and 79, Democritus' so-called ' OvofiaortKa or Gorgias' ' OvofiaariKov (p. 4 5 , n. 6) are of dubious authenticity. * Ileal XoyaBcov (fr. 4 1 2 ) , Movaeiov (Call, i p. 339, see above, p. 5 0 , on Alcidamas), ileal wu-
2
3
3 6
136
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
Anti-Aristotelian Literary Criticism
o f literary criticism i n so far as i t asserts the h i g h poetical qualities o f the work o f his contemporary A r a t u s : p^pm^m. yovv avrov (sc. A r a t i ) fcai KaXXlfiaxos ais Ttpeaf&VTepov ov p,6vov ev rots E7nypdp.p.aaiv (Ep. 2 7 ) , 1
,
aXXd teal €V rots IIpos TTpa^i<j}dvrjv, Trdw €7rawa)v avrov OJ$ rroXvpLaOrj KOI dpiorov TTO ityrTfv. As we k n o w o f no other similar book b y Callimachus, the polemics against the Peripatetic Praxiphanes may have included both his judgement on Plato's incompetence as a literary critic (the more so as Praxiphanes' Ilepl T T O I T J T W V was a dialogue between Plato and Isocrates), and also his famous m a x i m : T O pJya jSijSAwv laov TUJ p,eya\u> xaKtp. Whatever {SifiXlov here means, p.eya KaKov, a 'great evil', is a sort o f old formula ( 0 134, i 4 2 3 ) , and p,4yas w i t h reference to literature is always vituperative; w e may compare the filthy pceyas poos i n contrast t o the pure oXlyrj Xtfids (hy. 11 1 0 8 ) , or the a^ydXn yvv-q o f a poem contrasted w i t h subtle small-scale ones, Kara Xemov (fr. 1. 12). As i n the case o f Aratus the statement i n the prose book has its exact parallel i n an epi gram, so also there are obvious parallels i n the poems to the t w o other passages tentatively ascribed t o the same prose w r i t i n g . Plato was deemed an incompetent critic, as we have just seen; the reason was that he ap preciated the poetry o f Antimachus, whose Lyde Callimachus condemned i n an epigram (fr. 398) as ' a fat and not lucid book'. T h e general disap proval o f the fieya fiifiXlov uttered i n the prose m a x i m is a common topic i n Callimachus' poems and is the particular theme o f his introductory elegy t o the Aitia against his adversaries, w h o m he calls 'Telchines*. 2
3
4
5
6
7
A list o f these adversaries compiled by a learned scholiast includes the name o f Praxiphanes the M y t i l e n e a n ; this is invaluable evidence for the opposition between the poet and a leading Peripatetic and shows that the ambiguous ilpos i n the title means 'against Praxiphanes'. There is no tradition that Praxiphanes h a d personally attacked Callimachus i n his writings. T h e learned collections and also the Pinakes may give the i m pression o f being rather Aristotelian i n subject-matter, despite their new purpose ; b u t i n literary criticism Aristotie's theory and Callimachus' views are plainly incompatible. As the one relevant prose book is almost lost, we have to rely m a i n l y on the poems. A g a i n and again, charmingly as well as firmly, he p u t forward his clear and consistent opinions. H e is never pedantic, b u t rather humorous and ironical or even o f a lively 8
137
aggressive spirit. Aristotle, we remember, i n the severest o f styles demanded organic unity o f every artistic w o r k : ¿V, oAov, réXos, p-éycdos were the decisive terms. A l l parts must have a definite relation t o the whole work, which itself is distinguished by completeness and magnitude. T h e Iliad and Odyssey, b u t not the other epics, are living organisms o f this k i n d ; they and the masterpieces o f A t t i c tragedy alone fulfil these requirements. I f it were possible for any further poetical works to be produced at a l l , they must somehow conform to this standard prescribed by Aristotle. N o w Callimachus regarded Homer w i t h the same devotion and affection as Aristotle had done, i n contrast to everything 'cyclic' (Ep. 2 8 ) , which lacked organic unity, b u t abounded i n traditional formulae. For that very reason he esteemed H o m e r inimitable, even unapproachable. I t would be a vain ambition to vie w i t h h i m and the other great poets of the past; i f poetry lived on, i t was bound t o follow principles quite different from those inferred by Aristotle from the ancient poems ( T ¿ dpxata). For years poetical criticism had been i n the hands o f Sophists and theorizing philosophers; the time had come for a r e t u r n to its originators, the practising poets. 1
2
3
The new poetical school o f Callimachus and his followers was osten tatiously anti-Aristotelian. Rejecting unity, completeness, and magnitude, it consciously aimed at a discontinuous form (fr. 1. 3 oı>x ev aetata 8ir¡víK£s) i n a more or less loose series o f pieces o f a few lines (fr. 1. 9 oXiyoarixos). T h e proper quality o f a poem was t o be Aem-óV 'subtle'. I t has been rightly noticed that this key term and a few other ones had already occurred i n Aristophanes' comedies, especially i n the critical passages o f the Frogs: réxrn / [KpiW¿r¡v (Call. fr. 1. 17 f.) is almost a verbal quotation. But the truth of this observation was overlaid by two hypotheses: namely that Aristophanes borrowed his phrases from a Sophistic source, probably Gorgias, a n d that Callimachus used a rhetorical source on the genera dicendi. N o proof o f these hypotheses has yet been produced ; they remain a strange b u t typical example o f the 4
5
6
9
» Cf. above, pp. 120 f. Praxiphan. fr. 2 Brink = fr. 11 Wehrli. On its various meanings see Wendel, Buchbeschreibung Cf. above, p. 126. « Call. fr. 1. 1 Schol. Florennha tofr.1,1. 7, p. 3 . " Cf. above, p. 88.
a
See above, p. 94.
3 4
56
See above, p. 7 4 . * Aristot. Poet. ch. 23 f., esp. p. 1459 b 22. Also the Margİtes is Homeric to him as to Aristotle, see fr. 3 9 7 . * E . Reitzenstein, 'Zur Stiltheorie des Kallimachos', Festuhrifi fur R. Reitzenstein { 1 9 3 1 ) 2 5 - 4 0 on AÍTTTO'Í, ibid. p. 2 9 . 2 M. Pohlenz on Aristoph. Ran. 8 2 8 , 8 7 6 , 9 5 6 , 1108, m l . A great deal of the evidence in Aristophanes had already been better collected and interpreted by J . D. Denniston, 'Technical Terms in Aristophanes', CI. Qu. 21 (1927) ngf.; see also Axistoph. fr. nov. 33 a Demiañczuk (~ Satyr, vit. Eurip. p. 3 . 20 von Arnim, Suppl. Eur.) râ 1
3
A[eir]T¿ pr¡¡j.o.r' [e£eo]p,rjxfTO.
ff.
1
3
Therefore one can risk putting Housman's supplement into the text; Aristoph. Ran. 766,
7 7 9 . 785¬
' S e e above, p. 134.
* On Aristophanes see above, pp. 47 f.; on Callimachus* supposed rhetorical model see E . Reitzenstein (above, n. 4) 37 ff.
138
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
Elements of Interpretation in Poetry and Prose
modern quest for hidden sources. T h e natural assumption is that the Hellenistic poets derived their critical terminology directly from the poets o f the fifth century, w h o m they knew so well. Substantial parts o f Callimachus' Iambi are indebted to A t t i c comedy; there is no need to invent intermediate handbooks. T h e meaning o f the word Aem-os underwent a characteristic change; while i t was once used disapprovingly o f over-refinement o f spirit or diction, for instance, that o f Euripides i n contrast t o the vigour that Aeschylus achieved through the magnitude (¡idyedos) o f his words, the Alexandrians, Callimachus, Hedylus, L e ó nidas, employed i t as a t e r m o f the highest praise to describe the style they were eager to achieve i n their poems. W e find another significant epithet i n the Praxiphanes pamphlet, where Aratus was praised as a poet o f die highest r a n k : rroXvaad-qs. ' M u c h learning' was i n archaic times a reproach against those who had no true wisdom; b u t this word also came to have the opposite connotation i n the Hellenistic age; unlimited knowledge o f subject-matter and language was now deemed an indispensable requisite for the new poetry called ao<j>¿r¡ (Call. fr. 1. 18). 1
L o o k i n g back on Callimachus' o w n noXvpiaBir) amassed i n his prose works, we may ask whether they can be assigned to a particular epoch o f his life. W h e n the epilogue o f the Aitia came to light, the first editor saw i n the concluding line Callimachus' 'formal farewell to poetry' and a declaration 'that he w i l l n o w devote himself to prose'; indeed his appointment at the Alexandrian library was regarded as the point i n his career at which he turned from poetry to prose. But avrap ¿ya> Movaéwv TTtlov \e\rrciui vofióv indicates the Musa pedestris o f the Iambi which followed the Aitia i n the final edition arranged b y the poet himself; the pentameter gives no answer to this or any other question o f chronology. W h e n we divided Callimachus' prose works i n t o three groups, o n antiquities, o n language, and on literary criticism, we asked whether there was not a fourth one on interpretation. As far as we know, he never edited a text or wrote a commentary; the few fragments o f his 'Y7Topvr¡fiara seem to indicate a collection o f mythological, linguistic, and geographical material. But i n many passages of his poems he discloses his 2
3
4
1
Heraclit. Vors. 2 2 B 4 0 ; cf. Plat. Leg. 811 A B , 8 1 9 A against iroXvuaSta. and against the TioXvyvaiu-oves. On Hippias as iroXviiaB^s see p. 52, n. 5 . Oxyrhynchus Papyri V I I (igio) ed. A. S. Hunt, p. 18 on Fol. 2 verso of P.Oxy. 1011,
TToXviLaBír,
Phaedr. 2 7 5 A 1
1.
The
89.
On text and interpretation see Call. fr. 112. 9 and the discussion in Philol. 87 (1932) 226 f. and Call, ti p. xxxvi; the correct reading -rret,6v, not velos (confirmed by E. Lobel's revision of the papyrus) and interpretation were found by R. Herzog, Bed. Philol. Wochenschr. 1911, p. 29. Various opinions are registered by H. Herter, Bursian 255 (1937) 1 4 4 1 Above, p. 135, n. 4. 3
4
139
acquaintance w i t h the Iliad and Odyssey and occasionally allows us to guess not only what text he chose but also how he understood its meaning. I n this sense only he may w i t h reserve be called an 'interpreter' of Homer. 1
First o f a l l we should like to know how far Callimachus used Zenodotus' new critical edition o f Homer and how far he relied on pre-critical texts, ret ctpxafa a.vriypa<pa, such as T i m o n recommended to Aratus. Several Callimachean readings o f the Homeric text seem to agree w i t h those known to us only as Zenodotean. The beautiful Naxian girl, Cydippe, took part i n 'the dance o f sleeping Ariede, Apnj&ri$ \ [i x\°P ev8ova-r)s, Callimachus tells us (fr. 6 7 . 1 3 ) ; i n the famous Homeric passage to which he alludes, xopov . . . otov . . . AatSaXos -rjuKijaev . . . ApidSvrf (2 5 9 ) i Y Zenodotus read Api-qhr). This certainly is a most remarkable coincidence; but as Zenodotus constituted his text on earlier manuscripts that he found reliable, the same sources may have been accessible to Callimachus. Although i t is possible or even very probable that he followed Zenodotus, the coincidence i n this and about ten similar cases is not conclusive proof. A t least one example proves that Callimachus also consulted other texts older than the Zenodotean e d i t i o n : only the 'cityeditions' had the unique variant reading vrjo-utv em (fyXurepauiv (0 454 and X 4 5 ) , from which he transferred the epithet to another noun, 0nAurarov rreSlov (fr. 5 4 8 ) , 'the most fertile p l a i n ' . By connecting B-qXvrarov w i t h rreolov Callimachus gave his 'interpretation' o f the Homeric phrase: i t does not mean 'island where females reign', like Lemnos and Imbros, but 'island that is euyeto?', w i t h good soil, fertile. I t is possible that he consulted the elementary explanatory notes that must have accompanied the Homeric text for a long t i m e and finally became a substantial part o f our so-called D-Scholia, i n which they were mixed u p w i t h more learned grammatical comments. When he took over TOLOS from / / 2 3 1 i n
2
ov
s
2
o n I
3
4
5
6
7
F. de Ian, De Callimacho Homeri interprete, Diss. Strassburg 1 8 9 3 ; H. Erbse, 'Homer¬ scholien und hellenistische Glossare bei Apollonios Rhodios', Herm. 81 (1953) 163 ff., esp. 173 ff. on Callimachus; see also Call. 11 p. 133 Index s.v. 'Homerus'. See above, p. g8. See above, pp. 111 ff. Zenodotus had athetized, but not left out, the whole description of Achilles' shield (E 483-617). I collected in the note to fr. 12. 6 (see also Addenda) the passages where Callimachus' Homeric text agrees with Zenodotus and other editions mentioned in our Scholia; see now Erbse's critical remarks, Herm. 8 1 , 179. at airo row noXtaiv €Ko6o€t,s, cf. above, pp. 9 4 , 110. _ See Schol. AT on
1
3
4
1
if
7
i40
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
Apollonius Rhodius
the sense of ayaBos (fr. 6 2 7 ) , his interpretation possibly was i n accordance w i t h Aeschylus, certainly w i t h the glossographers; when he called a messenger anovaros (fr. 315), he was induced b y whatever source not to read d V ovaros i n Z 272, b u t a compound meaning 'bringing the tidings'. These may be rather o d d examples o f Homeric epithets; b u t there are more common epic words too that have been puzzling i n a l l ages. W e can still distinguish how Callimachus understood some of these adjectives (oSXos, rrrjyos, afiaXrj, fyoiji), nouns (SetcAov), or verbs ( a r « t ) , or controversial etymologies o f proper names (AnaKrjaLos, rXavKwrnov). 1
2
3
W e started from the fact that the creative epic poets were their o w n interpreters and that the rhapsodes continued the self-interpretation of the poets. T h e Sophists can be regarded as the heirs o f the rhapsodes i n so far as they tried to explain poetry for their new purpose, and the great A t t i c philosophers and their schools completed tins development. N o w once again poets became active i n this field; there were no commentaries produced i n the first generations o f the Hellenistic age, b u t these poets were the immediate forerunners o f the writers o f continuous interpretations (vTTOfLvqfj.aTa). I t is from Callimachus and his pupils that a line runs to the true cppvqvda rtuv TTOIVTOJV by the Alexandrian ypap-uartKol of the following generations. I n contrast to them, Crates a n d his pupils i n Pergamum renewed i n a way the ancient allegorical method and forced their o w n philosophical, particularly Stoic, views upon the Homeric and other poems. But the not infrequent quotations from Callimachean verses i n o u r Scholia t o H o m e r show how helpful they were for the other, the scholarly way o f interpreting old epic poetry. 4
5
T h e most gifted poet among the many people who were styled Callimachus' 'pupils', Apollonius Rhodius, also truly deserves a place i n this decisive period of early Greek scholarship. W e have to deal here w i t h the few fragments of his scholarly w o r k and w i t h the Argonautica* i n so far as this great epic poem reveals the scholar. 6
7
' See my note onfr.6 2 7 , but also Lehrs, Aristarck* p. 3 7 , Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften 1 on the y\maooypd<poi see above, p. 7 9 . The best codex of the b-SchoI. (C = Laur. 32. 3) reads rotov acl (Erbse, Byz. Zeitschr. 50 [ 1 9 5 7 ] 1 3 3 ) . See M. Leumann, Homerische Wörter (1950) 213 f. » Fr. 634, ky. in 90, fr. 502, 277. 2 ;fr-238. 2 0 ; fr. 6 3 3 ; hy. 111 143.fr. 238. 11. « See above, p. 3 and p. 6. * See above, pp. 10ff.,and below, pp. 2 3 7 ff. * See Call. test. 11 a-19 a (fiaflrjTiJff, yvutpipos, KaXXip-dx^os). ' Sandys i* 114, 116, 122 mentions only the general literary position of Apollonius. Editions of Merkel and Mooney see below, p. 147, n- I ; Scholia in Ap. Rh. vetera rec. C. Wendel, Berlin 1935. Apollonii Rhodii Argonautica recogn. brevique adn. crit. instruxit H . Frankel, OCT 1961. Herter's critical bibliographical report up to the year 1955 in Bursian vol. 2 8 5 .
(1953) 7 °"» 7 3 0 ; 2
a
9
141
There are strange contradictions i n the tradition o f Apollonius' fife and work. H e was Zenodotus' successor as head o f the l i b r a r y ; b u t to Zenodotus' edition o f the Homeric text he had so many objections that he p u t them down i n a book Tipos Z-qvóBorov, As librarian he was also tutor to the crown prince, who became Ptolemy I I I Euergetes (in 247/6 B.C.), b u t i t is very likely that this royal pupil, married to the Cyrenean princess Berenice, appointed the Cyrenean Eratosthenes,' and that his former tutor then went to Rhodes. T h e first filos says i n one paragraph that Apollonius started to write poetry late i n his life (otpé oe em T O TTOHLV TTotr¡p,aTa irpáTrero); and i n the next paragraph i t reports a rumour that while still i n his adolescence he gave the first recitation o f the Argonautica and met w i t h a hostile reception (XíytTai &rt €#n/?oi> ovra cmoeífao-6'at r a ApyovavTiKa «rat Kareyvdfadai); because o f this failure, the story goes on, he left his native Alexandria for Rhodes and lived there as a highly esteemed citizen and as a successful poet and teacher (as ypap.piaTiKos, no doubt). T h e Scholia to Argonautica Book I declare i n six cases that the variant readings which they quote originate from a •npotKooois, 'a previous edition' ; so they presume two 'editions' of the poem by the author himself. Apollonius was a faithful follower o f Callimachus, as many individual passages o f the Argonautica prove; i n principle, however, he was opposed to certain of his master's new doctrines, as we shall see. This master abused h i m , according to a n ancient biographical t r a d i t i o n , i n a poem entitled Ibis, full o f 'dirt and poison'. I t is easy to combine this literary attack w i t h the failure o f his recitation and the emigration. T h e second filos concludes w i t h the statement that some people tell ( r t v h M tpao-iv) of his rehabilitation i n his native city Alexandria and his reconciliation w i t h his hostile teacher, at least i n the grave. But the first filos ends w i t h a l l his honours i n Rhodes. 2
3
4
This is a l a b y r i n t h o f self-contradictory statements, and no thread o f Ariadne leads out o f the darkness. But discussion w i l l t h r o w some light on one or two points i m p o r t a n t for our special purpose. T h e sentence about Apollonius' rehabilitation that is introduced at the end o f the second filos w i t h the cautious words Ttvcs 84 <pamv contains the phrase feat rójv fiifiXio6r¡KÓJv TOV Movoelav d^Lcodijvai; this phrase has caused See above, p. 124. Scholia in Ap. Rh. ed. Wendel pp. 1. 8ff.;cf. Call. 11 test. 11 a and 11 b. > See G. W. Mooney, The Argonautica of Ap. Rh. (1912) Appendix I pp. 4 0 3ff.,and Herter, Bursian 285, 230 ff. ^ •* Suid. v. KaXXl/taxos = Call. I I test. I . 13 VjSts (cari, hi rrolr¡p.a . . . ets nva *Ifiiv, ycvópxvov ¿X&pov TOV KaXÁijíáxov. 4¡v Se ovros ArroXXúivios ó ypátpas T ¿ A p y o v a v r i K a ) ; Epigr. adesp. = test 2 3 . 8 OKÚWTUÍ 5 ' ¿rrapats tfiv AnoXXüjvtov; Schol. Ov. Ib. 4 4 7 (prob. fifteenth century Í » . D . ) De Callimacho . . . qui scripsit in ApoUonium Rhodium. 1
a
14a
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
The Argonautica and Callimachus'' New Principle
considerable trouble, because i t was universally interpreted as meaning that Apollonius was reappointed to his former Hbrarianship, and this can hardly be reconciled w i t h the other tradition about the sequence o f librarians. But this interpretation was wrong, for Eusebius i n his Historia ecclesiastica and his Praeparatio evangelica used exactly the same expression, TOJV Kara, T T J V AXe^dvBpeiavfiifiXioOrjKujvrjgitudrj, not about a librarian, b u t about authors and books 'having been deemed worthy o f the Alexandrian libraries'. Consequently there is no ancient tradition at a l l that Apollonius was twice l i b r a r i a n ; i f he was head o f the Museum library only once, the proper place available for h i m is between Zenodotus and Eratosthenes. Indeed the whole story o f 'the return o f the native' has to be rejected. The other dubious story introduced by Myerat. that the young poet, not yet twenty years o f age, after the i l l success o f his first public recitation withdrew i n shame to Rhodes, is incompatible w i t h his hbrarianship after Zenodotus, which we have accepted; so this story too has to be dismissed. 1
2
T h e second point is the meaning o f 7rpoe'/cSoai?. I t is the usual assumption that the word exSoats involves formal publication; but this is not necessary. W h e n an author has arranged a text o f his own or o f another writer, i t can be called an eVooate, editio, edition, whether i t is subsequently published or not, i n both ancient and modern languages. The serious ypafifiartKot i n their v7ro/j.vrjfxara on the Argonautica, not the rather unreliable biographers, repeatedly quote variant readings o f a text called the TTpotKooots; the obvious conclusion is that the people who issued the Argonautica had two differing texts of which one was believed to be a preliminary and the other consequently the final or vulgate text of the poem. Everything else can only be speculation. Such a definite reference to a preliminary edition is rare; i t confirms the interpretation o f tKOoois i n special cases where i t is often misunderstood, and i t is welcome evidence for a possible process o f book publication, which may encourage us to postulate a similar process i n certain cases, when there is no trace i n our tradition. Discussion o f librarianships and editions belongs only to the external and technical side o f scholarship. But Apollonius' relation to Callimachus 3
4
5
See Excursus. The sequence is correct in P.Oxy. 1241, wrong in Suidas s.v. AiraXXannos, see Call, it test. 12 and 13; see also below, p. 154, n. 2. H. Frankcl in the preface of his edition p. vi and in 'Einleitung zur kritischen Ausgabe der Argonautika des Apollonios', Abh. d. Akad. d. Wiss. Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse 111 Folge, Nr. 55 ( 1 9 6 4 ) 7-11. See above, pp. 71 and 9 4 . E. Eichgrun, Kaliimachos und Apollonios Rhodios, Diss. Berlin 1961 (279 S.), restates the evidence and discusses all the problems in a sensible way. 1
1
3
4
s
143
also involves questions o f principle. The venerable members o f the Museum were, from the beginning, not a very peaceful c o m m u n i t y ; Callimachus alludes to quarrels i n three of his Iambi,' i n the often-quoted reply given to his adversaries i n the introduction to the Aitia, at the end of his Hymn to Apollo, and i n Epigram 2 1 . But there is no ancient reference at all to Apollonius as the principal enemy except i n the case o f the Ibis, where i t is apparently derived from the biographical tradition. I n addition to this we have a late epigram hitting at Callimachus, the writer of which is called ATTOXXWVLOS ypafifiariKos i n the heading o f the Palatine Anthology, but 'PoSios only by the lemmatist o f the other epigrams; i n Planudes and Eustathius i t is anonymous. This is extremely poor evidence. Apollonius' views on poetical aims and criticism can be reconstructed only from the Argonautica; no theoretical or polemical utterances o f his in prose or verse are known to us. The true difference between h i m and Callimachus was that Apollonius adhered more closely to t r a d i t i o n ; the day of the long heroic epic poem was not yet over for h i m . He dared to write a poem which was St^vcfe? and formed a ev; i t had unity and continuity from Jason's and his companions' departure to their return, telling the complete voyage o f the Argo i n four books. Each book, of some 1,400-1,700 lines, was about the length o f a tragedy. I n that respect Apollonius' work conformed to Aristotle's demands, but ran counter to fundamental doctrines o f Callimachus; he d i d not attempt the same scrupulous precision and discipline o f language and metre, and he could never have attained that Callimachean subtlety and graciousness combined w i t h nervous virility. A t that crucial time o f Greek cultural history Apollonius' attitude could not help to rescue poetry from the dangerous situation i n which i t lay, but might aggravate the danger. This at least was the view o f the Callimachean circle. Yet even i f we stress this decisive point, i t is very hard to believe that Apollonius' heretical mode o f 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Call. fr. 191, 194, 203. From the days of Salvagnius (ed. Ov. Ib. 1633) and Isaac Vossius (Catull. 1684 p. 342) people have believed that Callimachus in hy. 11 105 ff. attacked Ap. Rh. I expressed my doubts Herm. 6 3 (1928) 341 = Ausgtw. Schriften ( i 9 6 0 ) 1 3 2 ; see also H. Erbse, Herm. 8 3 1
1
(1955) 4 2 4 ff
See above, p. 141, n. 4. Call. test. 25 = AP xi 2 7 5 ; all the details of the tradition and modern discussion in M. Gabathuler, Hellenistische Epigramrne auf Dichter (Diss. Basel 1937) 64 f. G. W. Mooney, The Argonautica of Ap. Rh. ( i g i 2 ) , quotes with a certain pomposity the saying Avayvwais -rpotpv Ae'fitus as characteristic of our Apollonius; but the rhetor Theo progymn. (Hhet. Gr. 11 61. 28 Spengel) who quoted it with the remark tus rdv Trpeafivrfpaiv TIS e#ij, AiroWdivtoi Sonet u-oi o 'PoSios, did not mean the poet, but the rhetor, who was born in Alabanda and lived as a teacher of rhetoric in Rhodes from the second to thefirstcentury B . C , see W. Schmid, RE u 140. 64 ff. Aristot. Poet. 1459 b 19 ff. See above, pp. 8 7 f. 3 4
s
6
7
i44
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
Apollonius' Monograph on Archilochus
thinking and w r i t i n g could have had such fateful consequences for his life. There seems to be no parallel i n the history o f scholarship. W e may think o f the infuriated Poggio, who almost hired an assassin to murder Lorenzo V a l l a because he had found some very malicious critical notes of a p u p i l o f Valla's i n the margin o f his collected letters ; but o n second thoughts he contented himself w i t h the weapon o f a violent invective, which led to a spirited literary duel without doing any h a r m to the rest o f Valla's life. As to Apollonius, we must honestly confess that we are at a loss to discover what checked his career i n A l e x a n d r i a ; fiction is no substitute for evidence. 1
T h e few fragments o f Apollonius' minor poems on various cities, their local legends and their foundations (fcnWy fr. 4 - 1 2 ) , abound, like the Argonautica, i n antiquarian and geographical rarities; they may have been intended as a revival o f the hexametric Ktisis-poetry o f earlier ages, almost completely lost to us. Apollonius also wrote o n Homer and on several other poets. Hesiodic questions (aTroprJ/xara) had troubled Aristode and his school; i n Alexandria Zenodotus had started to publish a critical text, and nearly all the grammarians followed suit. I n a work of at least three books, o f which the title is not quoted, Apollonius maintained the Hesiodic origin o f the Aoms ; i t was perhaps i n the same work that he athetized the ' Opvtdouavreia and suspected that something was missing i n the speech o f the Muses i n the Theogony (after 1. 2 6 ) . Athenaeus says that ATTOXXOJVIOS O ' P O S I O S èv rip Ilepl ApxiXoxpv by referring to a Laconian custom satisfactorily interpreted the muchdisputed phrase axyvp^evn oKvraAr} as meaning 'grievous message' ; so he apparently published a monograph o n Archilochus. Archilochus, the Ionian poet o f the middle o f the seventh century B . C . , was o f an eruptive m i n d and revolutionized the whole realm o f Greek poetry ; he is properly ranked next to the great epic poets, as is implied even i n Socrates' ironical question to the rhapsode I o n : irôrepov nepl 'Opvqpov piovov Seivoç d rj Kai TTt-pl 'Hoiooov KOX ApxiXâxov; (Plat. Io 531 A ) . A S Archilochus 2
3
4
5
6
Collectanea Alexandrins ed. I. U . Powell (1925) 4 - 8 ; cf. H . Herter, Bursian 2 8 5 (1955) 409 f., with short references to the fragments of the prose-books. From the àpxaioXoyla rùtv 2ap,iu>v of Semonides Arnorg. to the 'Itavucâ of Panyassis ; cf. F. Jacoby, CL Ou. 41 (1947) 4 f. = Abhandlungen zur griechischen Gesckichtschreibung (1956) 1 4 9 ; on lost epic KTiaets as sources of Pindar see P, Von der Mûhll, Mus. Helo. 20 (1963) 201 f. See also above, Callimachus on Kriaeis p. 135. * J . Michaelis, De Apollon. Rhod. fragmentis (Diss. Halle 1875) 1 6 - 5 6 . * See above, p. 117. * Hes. Th. ed. Jacoby p. 46. 3. The reference to Schol. lies. Op. 5 8 has to be deleted ; ol irepi AitoW<âvi.ov does not mean the Rhodian, but Ap. Dyscolus, see de pron. p. 112. 23 Schn. ; cf. also J . Schwartz, Pseudo-Hesiodea ( i 9 6 0 ) 6 t 4 f . Athen. x 451 D = fr. xxii Michaelis. 1
a
6
145
introduced new rhythmical elements into recitative poetry, the 'unlike measures' o f iambics and trochees, and founded a special style o f music for their recitation, the writers on music took a particular interest i n his work and concluded that his innovations followed those o f Terpander, who had still kept to the dactylic r h y t h m . O f Aristotle's book no more than the title is preserved i n the lists: Airopr¡piara. ApxiX¿xov Evpnríoov XoiplXov ¿v fiifíXíois y after the A-nop-qp-wro. 'Hoiooov. Plato's and Aristotle's pupil, Heraclides Ponticus, published two books Ilepl ApxiXóxov KOX 'Op.r¡pov, listed by Diogenes Laertius together w i t h two books ilepl TT)S 'Op.r¡pov Kai 'Haióoov rjXiKtas. A Ptolemaic papyrus, dated about 270¬ 240 B . C . , which is precisely the time o f Apollonius Rhodius, recently presented us w i t h a small fragment i n which three iambic trimeters o f Archilochus are quoted after their obvious epic models without further comment. I t is highly improbable that this simple list preserves a p a r t o f Heraclides' work, as the first editor suggested, for the remains o f his other books o n literature suggest that he was mainly interested i n the life and chronology o f the poets and i n the subject-matter o f their poems. As the few extant lines are o f gnomic character, they may be parts o f a gnomol o g i u m ; its a i m may have been educational, not only i n a moral but also i n a rhetorical sense, i n so far as i t presents examples o f the art o f pieraiftpd^eiv. T h e papyrus is a welcome example o f Archilochus' popularity i n the t h i r d century, but has hardly anything to do w i t h scholarship. Such gnomological anthologies would suit the educational and rhetorical aims o f the Sophists, and they may have started to arrange them. 1
1
3
4
5
6
Glauc. Rheg. fr. 2, FHG11 23 ap. [Plut.] demus. 4 IJepi T&V apxalutv noi-nrCiv kai p.ovatKwv; tee above, p. 53, n. 8. On the Airop-qaafa 'Op.-nptKa see above, p. 6 9 ; cf. P. Moraux, Les listes andennes (1951) [ 14 ff. Diog. L . v 87 = Heracl. Pont. fr. 1 7 6 - 8 F. Wehrli, Schule des Aristóteles 7 (1953) 54 and 122 f.; cf. above, p. 70. The Hibeh Papyri n (1955) ed, E. G. Turner, no. 173, reprinted by F. Lasserre, Archiloque (Paris 1958, Les Belles Lettres) pp. 19 f., and by M. Treu, Archilochus (Miinchen 1959) 6 and 174 ff. Accepting that in 1. 10 the Homeric hexameter E 130 [p,r¡ T I av y'] ¿Bavároiat 6eo[ts AvTutpv p.áxea8at is correctly supplied, I assumed a tmesis in the corresponding trimeter of Archilochus in 1. 12 and tentatively supplied KOVQCI? 8' éireiTa ai>v 0€of[(rtv ^ i r e - r o ] ; avv^vrero in hostile sense O 34, cf. P 134 and Pind. 0. 11 3 9 ; or avv 8eot[o' €p.iayero\; cf. ovu-u.ioya> in hostile sense Hdt. 1 127, etc. The tmesis is surprisingly frequent in Archilochus, fr. 3. 1 D . ; 7. 3 and 6, 68. 2, 112. 2, etc.; also fr. 9 4 . 2 eV . . . epya . . . ¿p&s has to be understood as ¿ipopffs 'thou watchest over' (not 'thou lookest at the deeds'), the Zeiis 'Eirái/ttos being addressed by the wronged fox. See Heraclid. Pont. fr. 1 5 7 - 8 0 with Wehrli's commentary. Cf. also below, p. 191, on parallel passages from Menander and his models. * The editioprinceps refers to a similar gnomologium used by Clem. Al. Strom, vi 5 . 1 0 - 7 . 4, vol, 11 pp. 425 f. Stahlin; such comparisons of Homer and Archilochus are quoted also in rhetorical school books, see Theo progymn. Rhet. Gr. 11 62. 2 4 ff. 'Op.-npov p.tra
1
3
4
3
s
n
i4
Apollonius as Interpreter of Homer
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
6
I n the first half o f the t h i r d century B . C . Theocritus composed an enthusiastic epigram (no. 21) for a statue o f Archilochus; the aristocratic Callimachus (fr. 380, 5 4 4 ) , on the other hand, could not restrain his deep aversion to the 'winestricken' m a n and the 'venom' o f his verse, w h i c h earlier aristocrats, Pindar and Critias, had equally resented. But no one could seriously diminish the fivpiov KX4OS of the Parian poet, who was still immensely popular when Apollonius published the first scholarly w r i t i n g on h i m o f w h i c h we know. A m o n g the various publications on Archilochus by the preceding generations there was no new critical edition of the text, no commentary. Apollonius, i n starting to interpret Archilochus' powerful and original language, was the forerunner o f the future editors and v-n-ofivquaTiarai o f the lambographi i n Alexandria, ilepl Apx^oxov was an i m p o r t a n t link w i t h the Peripatetics, who perhaps inaugurated that branch o f literature TJepl rov oetva which anticipated and later accompanied complete commentaries on individual authors; i n this connexion also Apollonius seems to have followed a more traditional line than Zenodotus and Callimachus. 1
2
I n his appreciation o f Antimachus Apollonius was equally at variance w i t h Callimachus. I t has long been obvious how freely he borrowed from Antimachus i n his Argonautica ; now we find i n one o f his scholarly books a hexametric line o f Antimachus quoted because o f the word TTIUQJ (the woodpecker), which he then explained. But the assumption that there was a whole book iJepl Avripdxpv is based merely on a supplement o f the first editor o f the Berlin papyrus which can hardly be maintained. W h e n we t u r n to Apollonius as an interpreter o f Homer our position is better t h a n i n the case o f Callimachus, i n which we could take our clues only from his poems. N o t only d i d the Argonautica as a mythological narrative epic quite naturally take up more Homeric words, phrases, and passages t h a n Callimachus' hymns, Aitia, and Hecale; but Apollonius also J
4
5
6
treated problems of wording and interpretation i n his monograph Against Zenodotus. N o doubt, therefore, he knew Zenodotus' e d i t i o n ; but painstaking recent research has proved that he d i d not always accept Zenodotus' text, as had been generally assumed. He followed older pre-critical texts w i t h elementary explanations to a greater extent than Callimachus did. This is quite convincing; for i t agrees w i t h what we called A p o l lonius' more 'conservative' general attitude. We shall not discuss any o f the details o f the Argonautica where the USC of the KOivaX efiSotret? o f the Iliad and Odyssey and their short commentaries is implied, but only two examples where his readings of the Homeric text are cited i n the Scholia, probably from his monograph np6s ZrfvoSoTov. Looking again at the problematical lines o f the proem o f the Iliad, we remember how Zenodotus dealt w i t h A 4 - 5 ; now we see that Apollonius i n A 3 read TTOXXCLS S' ldlftov$ Kedyakas Ai'Bi Trpatatfttv, not td>8if£ovs ^i/ras. There is no objection to the epic phrase itself, which occurs i n A 55 TroAAay l6Blixovs KetpaXds Aioi TrpoidipEiv and i n [Hesiod] Catal. fr. 9 6 . 80 R z . 7r]oAAa? MOT/ Ki^aAai cWd xaAitoV Idijietv, where the 'heads' mean the whole person. But KecpaXds is not acceptable i n A 3 i f i t is followed i n A 4 - 5 by avrods Se cAcupta dr}K<- Kvveaotv / oicovotol re SaCra; avrov$ can only be said i n contrast to djuxds, 'he sent their ghosts [or shades] to Hades, but made them [that is their bodies] a prey to the beasts'. W h e n Apollonius preferred the variant reading K€aXds, he must have left out lines 4 - 5 , the genuineness 1
2
3
4
5
2
oBivovs,
-NGG 1904 p. 257 = Ausgewählte kleine Schriften 11 ( i 9 6 0 ) 390 ff.
Antimachus ed. B. Wyss pp. X L V I I I f. Bert. Klass. Texte Eft ( 1 9 0 5 ) Pap. 8 4 3 9 . 5 ff. bcarb. von H . Schöne, cf. Powell, Coli. Alex p. 2 5 0 , and Antim. fr. 158 Wyss; but the revision of the papyrus by F. Delia Corte, Riv.jticlass. 6 4 ( 1 9 3 6 ) 3 9 5 ff., showed that Schöne's supplement [ev r$ irepi A]vnpdxov cannot be maintained, see also Herter, Bursian 285 p. 410. Cf. above, p. 94. See above, pp. 139 f. * Gertrud Marxer, Die Sprache des Apollonias Rhodiits in ihren Beziehungen zu Homer, Diss. Zürich 1 9 3 5 ; it is to be regretted that this useful thesis compared Apollonius only with Homer, without regard to the considerable literature in the intervening period; so Apollonius is often credited with making innovations to the Homeric language when he was simply using other poets as his source. 1
4
5
3
H. Erbse, Herm. 81. 163 ff. He refuted the arguments of R. Merkel, Apollomi Argonautica Prolegomena pp. lxxi ff.; see also G. W. Mooney, The Argonautica of Ap. Rh. ( 1 9 1 2 ) , who gives a well balanced judgement on the relation of Apollonius to Zenodotus. For the extensive modern literature on Apollonius' language cf. H . Herter, Bursian 285, pp. 315 ff. When Erbse (IQC. cit. 167) supposes that Apollonius 'sich gegen die zahlreichen GewaltmaBnahmen seines dichtenden Zekgenossen [i.e. Zenodotus] wandte', I part company with him. The title is given only in Schol. A N 657, but we can assume that this book is the source of the other quotations. Cf. above, pp. i n ff. Schol. BT A 3 Air. 6 'Pohtos xefivxai, the 'ghosts' of the dead heroes which are like shades or like a dream, he called tv), but the adjective is assimilated' 10 ipvxds (A 55 i^Bljiovs KabaXas A. rrp. has no genitive ijpwwv). This assimilation, jjot infrequent in lyric and tragic poetry—see my article in Corolla Linguistica, Festschrift F. Sommer (1955) 179 f.—-is very rare in Homer. But cf. $ 197 ip.d *cijS
(1854)
1
3
At least, as long as wc do not know when and what the Cyrenean grammarian Lysanias wrote rrepl Taußonot&v, of which Athen, xrv 6 2 0 c quotes from the first book; cf. ibid. V M 304 B ; in Suid. v. 'EparoaB^s one of Eratosthenes' teachers is probably the same Lysanias. This genre was, so to speak, discovered by F. Leo in his review of Didymus IJfpl 1
'47
4
tTal
1
148
Rhianus Epic Poet and Editor of Homer
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
o f which Zenodotus h a d already suspected. Zenodotus probably knew copies i n w h i c h the t w o lines were omitted and therefore marked them i n his o w n edition w i t h the obelus, choosing the reading foxds i n line 3 and baira i n line 5 ; Apollonius decided for KecpaXds i n line 3 and condemned lines 4 and 5. H e may well have been misled by one o f the old Kotval €Koocrei$ w h i c h were disregarded by all the following generations o f grammarians. O f course only the statement that Apollonius read KeaXds can be accepted as evidence, and our further conjecture that he omitted lines 4 - 5 must be regarded w i t h due reserve. But there is a striking parallel i n A 9 7 - 9 8 , where Apollonius read at the end o f line 97 iyKetpaXovoe instead o f eyKe^aXos oe and 'athetized' line 9 8 w h i c h is incompatible w i t h his reading. T h a t is the extent of the evidence; b u t we may speculate that Apollonius there again, as i n the proem o f the first book, found i n one o f the o l d copies o f the Iliad i n the l i b r a r y a rare variant, w h i c h Zenodotus perhaps d i d not know and the later grammarians d i d not like, and which somebody therefore registered i n a virouvripia as Apollonian. Apollonius* quite reasonable text i n A 9 7 , Si' avrrjs rjXde (sc. Sopv) KO.1 oareov iyicecpaXovoe, has not been confirmed so far b y any papyrus, and we cannot compare his text o f the whole passage w i t h the vulgate. T h e significance o f his o w n and his master's Homeric studies lies i n the fact that they were the first serious interpreters and thus stimulated the research o f the later commentators. 1
2
3
4
5
Another poet, the Cretan Rhianus, should perhaps be given a place beside Apollonius, although we cannot be certain that he ever j o i n e d the circle o f the great Alexandrians ; he wrote one lengthy mythological epic poem i n four books on Heracles, 'HpdicXeia, and a few other epics on local legends and tribal history: ©eaaaXiaKa, Axa'Cxd, 'HXiaxd, Mea0-nvio.Ka. I n subject-matter the first three o f these may be compared w i t h 6
7
Cf. H 330 and Schol. AT, Eust. 'Misled' because the proem really becomes KOXOV, see p. 112, n. 1. rives in Schol, A (see above, p. 147, n. 4 ) probably does not mean anyone else. Schol. A A 9 7 . G. Jachmann, 'Vom friihalexandrinischen Homertext', NGG 1949, 176 f., 191 f., went wrong in his interpretation of and supplements to P.Lit, Lond, No. 251 (p. 210 Milne 1 9 2 7 ) ; I was sure of this before the objections of K. Reinhardt, Die Ilias und ihr Dichter (Gdttingen 1961) 522 ff. were published (see also Holscher's notes, p. 527). But Jachmann, without being dogmatic, has shown Apollonius not as emendator but as critical preserver of variant readings, otherwise lost, see also above on Zenodotus, pp. 113 f. and below, p. 149, n. 4 on Rhianus; this is the permanent value of his paper. See above, p. 122. Jacoby follows Et. M. p. 153. 4 v. AoeXyva . . . ev ra>i tS 'HpanXelas (FGrHist 6 5 F 4 8 ) and changes Suid. v. 'Piavds . . . 'HpaxXetdBa . . . h> ftifiXlois (1)6 (ibid, T 1) ;the blottedfigurein P.Oxy. 2 4 6 3 . 7 'Piavos 8 ' e'v [rij]/. rijs 'HpaxXelas was 'possibly 1 but probably y' (J. Rea, 1 1
3
4 s
6 7
P.Oxy. vol. xxvit, 1962, p. 108).
149
Apollonius' m i n o r epics on the foundation-stories o f various cities, as his Heraclea may be considered a parallel to the Argonautica. T h e Messeniaca seems to have treated the history of the Messenian wars i n a more Iliadic style, laying the accent on stories o f revolt and emigration drawn from unfamiliar sources. H i s language is simpler and his verse is smoother than those o f Apollonius, and the influence o f Callimachus can hardly be discounted. This remarkable eVoTroioV also produced an edition o f the Iliad and Odyssey, and more than forty o f his readings are mentioned i n our Homeric Scholia, curiously enough twice as many from the Odyssey as from the Iliad. H e preserved the evidently correct b u t rare epithet Tpwtnv €V7j(p€V€cw W 8 i [ev-qyeveasv vulg.) only recently attested by a papyrus and by an inscription and therefore accepted by some editors (cf. A 4 2 7 ) . They might also have noted Rhianus' description o f Ate (fr. 1. 17 f. Pow.), modelled on the famous Iliadic passage i n T 9 1 f f . ; w i t h its help the corrupt text o f our Homeric manuscripts can be emended. H o m e r : Art] . . . rij p.ev 6' drraXoi noSes' oi> yap err ovoei j rrlXvarai, aXX dpa "J17 ye fear' dvSpiov Kpdara ßalvei; Rhianus: 7) S' Arrj aTTaXotat. p-erarpajx^aa iroSeuaiv j afcpr^o' ev KecpaXijaiv; so his copy o f the Iliad had the correct text aAA' &Kp(a) -r) ye /car' dvop&v Kpdara w i t h o u t the hiatus 'illicitus' disfiguring the line. Rhianus and Apollonius d i d not invent such readings; they selected them from the copies they were able to inspect. I n the same way their poems were distinguished not by creative invention, but by the conscious choice o f words and style and by delicate allusions. 1
2
3
4
-
5
We may conclude that i n the generations, after Philitas and his i m mediate followers had started the 'new movement', even the more conservative poets were to be found i n the ranks o f the scholars. But i n the second half o f the t h i r d century B . C . this unity began to dissolve. ' See F. Kiechle, Messenische Studien (1959) 82 ff., 123 f. See above, p. 122. Schol. Au. ey rjj 'Piavov Kai ÄpiaTO
3
Evijjievns
IG X I I 8 . 376. 14.
G, Kaibel, Herrn. 28 (1893) 5 9 ; approved by E . Schwartz, 'Homerica', Antidoron, Festschrift für J . Wackernagel (1923) 71. 1, and in his edition of the Iliad (München, Bremer Presse 1 9 2 3 ) ; Rhianus text of the Odyssey is several times accepted by E . Schwartz, Die Odyssee (1924) 301 ff. 'Textkritische Bemerkungen'. I agree with Jachmann, 'Vom frühalexandrinischen Homertext' (1949) 207. I , that these special readings are not conjectures of Rhianus, but part of a better paradosis. See Leaf in his commentary ad loc. who tries to excuse the hiatus. The difficulty of Rhianus' reading, not considered by Kaibel, Schwartz, and Jachmann, lies in the fact that Z 257 aKprjs iroXios is the only other instance in which the syllable axp is not in the 'longum' of the dactyl. For axpa . . . Kpdara cf. [Horn.] hy. Ap. 33 and for the position cf. Y 227 axpov In' av6eplKU>v Kap-ndv. See Addenda. 4
1
s
i o 5
Compilations of Callimacheans and Peripatetics
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils 1
O n the one side there is the epic poet Euphorion of Chalcis i n Euboea, appointed later i n life (about 220 B . C . ) librarian at Antioch i n S y r i a ; he apparently had no direct connexion w i t h Alexandria and the Ptolemies. H e was a chilly virtuoso whose style i n studied obscurity of subject, composition, and language is much the same as that o f his fellow countryman Lycophron. H e used the treasures o f earlier poetry, to which access had been made easy by new editions, glossaries, and occasional explanations, and he was equally well versed i n Callimachean stylistic devices, which he often perverted. Cicero (Tusc. i n 19. 45) disapprovingly called the circle o f the Roman poetae novi 'cantores Euphorionis', and i t is always surprising to observe how far the influence o f his poetical mannerism reached i n Greek and Roman literature. His limited scholarly activity was confined to the collecting o f antiquarian material ; there is no indication that he ever edited or interpreted texts, except perhaps his own poems. 2
3
4
5
O n the other side are three younger pupils o f Callimachus, who are mainly known, even though two o f them occasionally composed poems, as writers o f learned prose works : Hermippus o f Smyrna, Istros, and Philostephanus, Istros possibly, Philostephanus certainly born at Cyrene, as their master and their contemporary Eratosthenes. Hermippus' biographical w o r k has already been mentioned as a continuation o f the biographical parts o f Callimachus' IJivaKes ; written i n a more novelistic vein, i t became w i t h all its anecdotes a source o f doubtful reliability for Diogenes Laertius and for Plutarch. T h a t Hermippus could be called TTepLTTOLTTjTiKos as well as KaXXtpidxetos suggests that this term had no longer any philosophical flavour b u t could be used o f any writer on 6
7
8
A. Mcineke, Analecta Alexandrina (1843) 3 - 1 6 8 ; F. Scheidweiler, Euphorionis fragmenta, Diss. Bonn 1908. Powell, Coll. Alex, (above, p. 144, n. 1) 2 9 - 5 8 . For papyrus-fragments published after 1925 see D. L. Page, Greek Lit. Papyri 1 (1942) no. 121, pp. 4 8 8 - 9 8 , and Pack no. 3 7 1 - 4 ; PSIxiv (1957) no. 1390 ed. V. Bartoletti, P.Oxy. xxx (1964) 2 5 2 5 - 8 ed. E . Lobcl. Cf. above, p. r22, n. 1. See Call. 11 p. 131 f. v. Euphorio. + The enthusiasm of B. A. van Groningen, 'La Poesie verbale Grecque', Mededeelingen d. kon. Nederl. Akad. van Wetensch. Afd. Letterk. N . R . 1 6 . 4 (Amsterdam 1953) 1 8 9 - 2 1 7 , will, I am afraid, not convert many readers to acknowledge Euphorion as the perfect representative of 'Poésie verbale' in the Hellenistic age. Even one of his modern admirers seems to be affected by this mannerism of style, P. Treves, Euforione e la storia ellenistica ( 1 9 5 5 ) , who enlarges the few biographical and historical data by his personal inventions ; I can do no better than refer to the detailed review by P. M. Fraser, Gnom. 28 (1956) 5 7 8 - 8 6 . Fr. 4 8 - 5 8 and perhaps fr. 1 4 8 - 5 2 Scheidweiler ; cf. F. Skutsch, REvi (1909) 1189 f.—It is highly improbable that he was the Euphorion who wrote a XéÇts 'IirrroKpaTovs in six books (fr. 51, 52 Scheidw.). In P.Oxy. 2528 Euphorion apparently is the interpreter of his own poems. I am not aware of any ancient parallel, but in modern times from the late Renaissance to Romanticism it was not unusual that a learned poet commented on his own work, see W. Rehm, Späte Studien (1964) 7 ff. Cf. Suidas v. "larpos . . . ëypaiùe Bè noXXà xal KaraXoydB-nv Kai TTOI-OTIKIÙS ; Philosteph. fr. fr. 17 comes from a poem, cf. fr. 14. FHG ni 3 5 - 5 4 . See above, p. 129, with references. 1
2
2
3
5
6
7
8
151 1
literature and antiquities, i n particular the biographer. Istros is n o t described as a ypo.p.jji.o.TLKos, b u t as o KaXXipax^tos crvyypa<j>evs, which means that he brought together historical material by making excerpts from the earlier literature i n the library. His work on Athens, ArrtKa, or more fully Zvvaymyr) TWU ArdlSov, was the focal point o f his various collectanea, which included also 'HXiatcd, ApyoXixd, and ÄraKra. T o judge from the fragments, his interest was limited to the early, 'mythical' period, though i t extended from myths to cults and to epic and lyric poetry. The third of the company, Philostephanus, was a geographer i n the same sense as Istros was a historian; his antiquarian material was arranged according to countries and cities: Tlepl TOJV lv Aula. iroXeatv, 'Islands' (Sicily, Thasus, Cyprus), and 'Rivers'. As a true Callimachean he reported aetiologies, paradoxa, rare customs, and cults o f the various localities. A l l three had Peripatetic inclinations; but working i n Alexandria they were among the first to profit by Callimachus' exhaustive library catalogues and were able to supplement certain parts of his learned work i n their different spheres o f biography, history, and geography. 2
3
A contemporary o f these Callimacheans was Satyrus from Callatis, termed Ilepnrarr/TiKos i n the same vague sense as Hermippus; he may be just mentioned here, as he belongs to the same category o f writers. Since a substantial fragment o f his Life o f Euripides, cast i n dialogue form like Aristotle's 77ept TTOITJTWV, was recovered, modern readers have sometimes been surprised and disappointed that Satyrus made his i n ferences about the life and character o f his hero from passages i n the poet's own tragedies and i n the comedies o f Aristophanes. But i f we realize how even Aristarchus used arbitrarily selected lines o f Alcman's poems as a biographical source, we must have mercy o n Satyrus. W h e n documentary evidence was at hand, he used i t ; for instance, he looked u p and quoted ^(/n'a^ara for details o f cult and constitutional history i n his local treatise ' O n the Demes of Alexandria', probably written under the reign o f Ptolemy V and Cleopatra I between 193 and 180 B . C . 4
5
6
FGrHist 334 T 6 ; cf. T 1 and 4 ; the introduction in b (supplement) vol. gives invaluable information on this genre of literature as a whole. 1
1 (1954) 6 1 8 - 2 7
F 58 (Homer), F 56 fpeXonoioi). FHG in 2 8 - 3 4 (incomplete); F. Gisinger, RE xx (1941) 1 0 4 - 1 8 ; cf. above, p. 134, n. 7, Callimachus' Hapdoo£a arranged Kara ?6irov$. P.Oxy. ix (1911) 1176, reprinted in Supplementum Euripideum, ed. H. v. Arnim (1913) 1 ff.; cf. F. Leo, NGG 1912, 273 ff. = Ausgewählte kleine Schriften 11 ( i 9 6 0 ) 365 ff., A. Dihle, 'Studien zur griechischen Biographie', Abh. Gött. Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. KI. in no. 37 (1956) 104 ff. 2
3
4
See below, p. 220. xxvii (1962) 2465, with the commentary of E. G. Turner. Cf. F. Jacoby FGrHist 631 (vol. in c, 1958, pp. 180 f.); the date given there in the annotation to the only old fragment ( 2 2 2 - 2 0 5 B . C . ) must probably be altered on account of the new papyrus. 5
6
P.Oxy.
Life of Eratosthenes
IV SCIENCE
whether the scientific spirit or method now began to influence scholarship and its future development. Eratosthenes, b o r n i n Cyrene, was said, like so many others, to have been a ' p u p i l ' o f the Cyrenean Callimachus. But the difficulties o f verifying the scanty biographical data and reconstructing the contents o f his books are nearly unsurmountable. Nothing is left to us but hundreds of scattered scraps; and there is not even a reliable modern collection o f his fragments. But who is courageous enough to measure himself even as editor against the universality o f Eratosthenes, philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, chronographer, geographer, grammarian, and poet? F. A . Wolf's extremely learned pupil G. Bernhardy had the courage i n his early youth to put together a l l the Eratosthenka he was able to find out, and to publish them i n 1822. But no one has tried since, and after a century and a half an attempt at a complete new critical edition would be worthwhile indeed. According to the biographical tradition preserved i n Suidas' article, his teachers i n Cyrene were Lysanias the grammarian and Callimachus the poet, and i n Athens the Stoic philosopher Aristón o f Chios and Arcesilaus, the Platonist; called from Athens to Alexandria by Ptolemy I I I (after 246 B . C . ) , he lived there u n t i l the reign o f Ptolemy V (205/4-181/0 B . C . ) . Born i n the 1 2 6 t h O l y m p i a d (276/3 B . C . ) , he died at the age o f eighty. This account seems quite consistent enough ; but actually there are a few troublesome inconsistencies. Callimachus had left his native city a long time before Eratosthenes was b o r n ; when Eratosthenes was called to Alexandria, Callimachus had nearly reached the end o f his life. So we have either to take the statement that Eratosthenes was his p-ad-qT-qs i n a more general,n ot i n a personal way, or to 'interpolate' a sojourn o f the young Eratosthenes i n Alexandria between Cyrene and Athens for which there is no evidence. But the crucial point 1
A N D SCHOLARSHIP:
ERATOSTHENES
S C H O L A R S H I P grew up i n Alexandria as a creation o f the new age, b u t science descended by a long tradition from the I o n i a n and A t t i c past. Strato 6 fpvatKos under Ptolemy I and others were the links between the Athenian school o f Aristotle and the Alexandrian M u s e u m ; an efflorescence o f mathematics and the natural sciences was the result. The ranging curiosity o f the scholar poets had extended occasionally to scientific matters; they were fond o f a l l sorts o f marvels, 0avp.daia. T h e Greek spirit had always been struck by the wonders o f nature; the poet o f our Odyssey depicted how even the messenger o f the gods, Hermes, stood and wondered at the sight o f the incredible beauty o f Calypso's island. T h e scholar poets, however, were not only collectors o f geographical, ethnographical, and zoological paradoxa, they also displayed some exact scientific knowledge. Writers on medicine were included i n the Pinakes o f Callimachus (fr. 4 2 9 ) , and he and Apollonius showed themselves familiar w i t h medical technicalities. Perhaps Aratus too dealt w i t h Varpwca; he certainly must have made a careful study o f astronomy before transforming Eudoxus' learned star catalogue into the fluent epic lines o f his Phaenomena. But there is an essential difference between a l l o f these and Eratosthenes. H e seems to have been the first scholar and poet who was primarily and truly a scientist; for his poetry was, i f we compare i t w i t h the bewildering w i d t h and variety o f his other works, no more than a small Trdpcpyov, though one not without grace and simplicity. So far scholarship had been the domain o f poets and their pupils. But i n the middle o f the t h i r d century B . C . the union o f poetry and scholarship split u p ; learning was advancing, poetry i n retreat. We can hardly avoid asking 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
See above, p. 9 2 . * See above, pp. 134 f. Erbse, Herm. 8 1 , 186 ff., esp. 190. 2 ; see also H. Oppermann, 'Fferophilos bei Kallimachos', Herm, 6 0 (1925) 14 ff. * E . Maass, Aratea (1892) 2 2 3 ff. See above, p. 121. * Auct. nepl vibaus xxxill 5 called Eratosthenes' Erigone S i a wdvrav a^tu^ijToy rroi-npaTtov. See above, pp. 149 f. 1
3
s
7
153
2
3
4
5
1 Call, ir, test. 15 and 1 6 ; the best collection and discussion of the testimonia is in FGrHist 241 ( 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 ) , followed by an edition of the historical fragments; cf. G. Knaack, RE vi {1907) 3 5 8 ff. A masterly picture of the personality as a whole is given in the essay of E . Schwartz, 'Eratosthenes' in Charakterkbpfe aus der ardiken Literatur 11. Reihe, first published in
1909 and often reprinted. * The fragments of works on particular subjects have been collected: H . Berger, Die
geographischen Fragmente des Eratosthenes, 1 8 8 0 ; K. Strecker, De Lycophr., Euphron., Eratosth. comicorum interpretibus (1884) 2 2 - 7 8 ; Powell, Collectan. Alex. 5 8 - 6 8 poetical fragments; historical fragments with an appendix of various other important fragments FGrHist 241.
See above, p. 146, n. 1, on his book 77epi iap.fiorroid>v. In our Scholia on the Iliad he is three times quoted, in Schol. B / 378 before Aristophanes and Aristarchus. Cf. FGrHist 241 P 1 7 ; M. Pohlenz, Die Stoa (1948) 1 27 f., I I 16 f. The disordered account in Tzetz. Proleg. p. 2 5 . 8, in which, together with Alex. Aet. and Lycophr., Callimachus and Eratosthenes are mentioned—vtaviat -Ijoav KaXXÍfiaxoí "al EparoaOivn?—(see above, p. 127), cannot be regarded as evidence. Furthermore, Eratosthenes* very lively dialogue entided 'Arsinoe' (Athen. vn 276 A = FGrHist 241 P 16) should not have been used as an argument by Susemihl I 410. 6 ; no doubt it refers to Arsinoe I I I , the J
4 s
i54
Science and Scholarship
Eratosthenes Mathematician and Poet
1
is this: according to a Stoic source o f Strabo's Eratosthenes encountered the reproach that he, TOV Z-qvwvos TOV KLTUOJS yvojpifios Ädrjvqm, 'an acquaintance o f Zeno i n Athens', mentioned none o f Zeno's successors, but only his opponents from different points o f view, Ariston and Arcesilaus. I f yvdipifios is correct i n a literal sense a n d Eratosthenes was acquainted w i t h or a pupil o f Zeno, who died i n 262/1 B . C . , he must have been born ten or even twenty years earlier than 276 B . C . I n this case, i f the date o f his b i r t h is about 296 B . C . , the tradition that Eratosthenes was an o l d m a n o f eighty under Ptolemy V (after 205/4 B . C . ) has to be rejected, and yet his b i r t h would still not be early enough for h i m to have become Callimachus' p u p i l i n Gyrene. These chronological contradictions cannot be ignored. But Strabo, a Stoic 'convert', was always ready to quote censorious hits at Eratosthenes, w h o m he regarded as a sort o f heretic; considering the whole context, therefore, I should not place too much reliance o n the isolated remark about the ungrateful Zrjvtovos yvojpiuos and reject the vulgate tradition. 2
3
Perhaps new evidence w i l l t u r n u p one day to throw some light o n these problems, as a papyrus d i d i n the case o f his librarianship. T h e sequence o f the librarians i n Alexandria was disarranged i n the biographical tradition where Eratosthenes was said to have been succeeded by Apollonius and then by Aristophanes ; b u t one o f the lists i n the socalled Chrestomathy, P.Oxy. 1 2 4 1 , restored the correct order: Eratosthenes succeeded Apollonius and was followed by Aristophanes. I n this list Apollonius and later Aristarchus are expressly called StodoKaAoi o f the royal princes; this position is attested also for the first librarian, Zenodotus, w h o taught (eVcuoeuo-ei/) the children o f Ptolemy I , and before h i m for the poet Philitas. So i t is reasonable to assume a similar tutorship for the two other heads o f the library, Eratosthenes and Aristophanes. 4
5
6
7
8
9
wife of Philopator, the founder of Dionysiac festivals like the Lagynophoria, not to Arsinoe I I Philadelphos. Strab. 1 15 = FGrHist 241 T 10. Wilamowitz was the first to notice the problem, see Susemihl 1 410. 4 ; the most vigorous champion of the early date was F. Jacoby FGrHist 11 D pp. 704 f. I gladly refer to the greatest specialist of this branch of tradition, M. Pohlenz, Stoa n 16 'Strabos Angabe 1 15, er sei Zenons Schüler gewesen, ist nicht buchstäblich zu nehmen'; cf. also G. A. Keller, Eratosthenes und die alexandrinische Sterndichtung (Diss. Zürich 1946) 134 ffBeilage zur Chronologie. Suid. v. ÄnoXXdtvios {— Call. Ii test. 12) and v. Äpiorotpav-ns (— test. 1 7 ) ; on the confusion in Tzetz. see above, p. 153, n. 5. Col. II 5 f. ToOrof (sc. Ap. Rh.) SteSt£ See above, p. 9 2 , n. 5. See above, p. 92, n. 3. 1
2
3
4
5
7
9
l
55
Eratosthenes placed at the end o f a letter to his king o n the duplication 1
o f the cube an epigram o f which the closing distichs reveal his devotion to the royal family: evalmv IlToXepaTe, TjaTr)p OTL iratSl avvrjfiojv / rrdvd'
oaa Kal Movcrcus KOX fHaaiXtvoi (plXa / avros ioajptfoco' 0 § ' e? vorepov, ovpavi€ Zev, J Kal UKrprrpuiV 4K aijs dvrtdueie ^epos. / Kal rd fiev d)s TeAeotro* Aeyoi Se dvOepa XevaacDv j Kvprjvalov T O U T ' 'Eparoadeveos. Ptolemy TLS
TOV
is addressed b y Eratosthenes as eutuW; Callimachus had s i m i l a r l / addressed the queen as evaiojv , . . BepevUa [Ep. 5 1 . 3 ) and p u t ovpdvie Zev at the end o f a hexameter [Ep. 5 2 . 3 ) . I n the line rravd'' oaa KOI Movaais Kal fiaaiXtvoi lXa the allusion to a famous passage o f Hesiod (Th. 80 i f . ) , the favourite poet o f the Callimachean circle, is quite obvious. I f the later voluptuous and even criminal life o f the crown prince as Ptolemy I V Philopator ( 2 2 1 - 2 0 4 - - ) d i d no particular credit to Eratosthenes' tutoring, one cannot deny that a l l the things beloved by the Muses were beloved by the king, who reorganized the Movoeta on M o u n t Helicon, wrote a tragedy 'Aou>vi$ built a temple to Homer i n Alexandria, and was a patron o f scientists and scholars i n the Alexandrian museum. I n any case, the lines o f the epigram about the young Ptolemy support the assumption that Eratosthenes was his oiodoKaXos. T h a t he passed on to his royal p u p i l a true love of Homer is only natural i n one whose Cyrenean teacher was probably a Homeric scholar and who spent a long life i n the capital o f Homeric studies. B
c
2
3
4
The whole epigram shows a rare combination o f the mathematician and the poet. I t is significant that the greatest mathematical genius o f antiquity, Archimedes, about ten years his senior, d i d Eratosthenes the honour o f dedicating to h i m the one book i n which he explained his Method^ o f which he never spoke elsewhere; the introduction addressed Eutoc. comment, in libr. Archimed. de sphaera et cylindro, Archimedes Opera ed. J . L. Heiberg, vol. in* (1915) 96 = Powell, Collect. Alex. p. 6 6 . The genuineness of Eratosthenes' epigram has been proved by Wilamowitz, 'Ein Weihgeschenk des Eratosthenes', GGN 1894, 23 if. = Kleine Schriften 11 (1941) 56ff.He strongly protested against Powell's note 'dubium', Glaube der Hellenen 11 (1932) 3 1 8 . 1 and maintained his earlier conjecture of the year 1894, loc. cit. p. 31 that Eratosthenes was Philopator's tutor: 'Jetzt wird es kein Kenner der Geschichte mehr bezweifeln.' F. Jacoby, however, doubted it, see FGrHist 11 D (1930) 7 0 5 . 10 ff. H. Volkmann RE xxm (1959) 1678-91 with further references. Schol. Aristoph. Thesm. 1059 = Nauck, TGF p. 8 2 4 ; F. Schramm, Tragicorum Grace. 1
1
3
heUenisticae aetatis fragm.
2
(1929) 8 3 f.
On the mathematical problem of 'The duplication of the cube' see B. L . Van der Waerden, Science Awakening (Groningen 1954) 1 5 9 - 1 6 5 . nepl Ttov p.r)xaviK<x>v 9ea>pnpaTtt>v npos 'Epa.TQo8evnv e^oSos, discovered in 1906 by J . L . Heiberg in a palimpsest of the tenth century andfirstpublished in Herm. 4 2 (1907) 235 ff.; cf. Archim. Opera ed. Heiberg 11 (1913) 4 2 5 ff.; T . L. Heath, The Method of Archimedes, Cambridge 1912. A probable date, ca. 2 3 8 B . C , Eichgrun, Kallimachos und Apollonios ( 1 9 6 1 ) , Exkurs 11, p. 220. 4
s
2
Science and Scholarship
156
to Eratosthenes is full o f admiration and o f a slight humour. There is even a poem i n twenty-two distichs which Archimedes is said to have composed and dedicated to Eratosthenes, his only w r i t i n g i n verse, called the Cattle problem; its formal quality is far below the faultless and gracious lines o f the Eratosthenic epigram. I t is not quite certain that the ingenious Sicilian mathematician, about whose life and sayings countless stories circulated throughout the Mediterranean w o r l d , ever came to Alexandria to use its library, as we m i g h t have expected; but intercourse w i t h his Alexandrian colleague d i d tempt h i m to intrude into the sphere o f the Homeric scholars and to state i n poetical form a preposterous mathematical problem, the number o f the cattle o f Helios i n the Odyssey, divided into four herds o f different colours. I n the first half of the t h i r d century B . C . we hear o f no contact between science, represented above a l l by Euclid's Elernenta, and scholarship. T h a t a lively exchange seems to have started i n the forties, was mainly due to Eratosthenes. I t is also i n this period, after the succession o f Euergetes and Berenice to the throne, that we first learn o f Callimachus' relations w i t h the mathematician and astronomer Conon. Gonon was highly praised by Archimedes i n the preface to his Spirals and by other scientists, but his name survives because he had named a constellation BepevU-qs fTXoKapios i n honour o f the young queen and this astronomical discovery inspired Callimachus to write one o f his most delicate elegiac poems, the Lock of Berenice, which was translated by Catullus into L a t i n . 1
2
I t would be hard to find a comprehensive term for Eratosthenes' manifold spheres of learned activity, i f he had not coined one for himself: tptXoXoyos. Because o f his universality o f knowledge Eratosthenes has been compared w i t h Aristotle; but i n Aristotle every special branch was subordinated to the general principle of his o w n teleological philosophy. Eratosthenes, n o t interested as i t seems i n the philosophical school of his native country, the Cyrenean hedonism of Aristippus, found his teachers 3
4
Archimed. Op. 1 1 (1913) 527 ff.; see R. C. Archibald, Americ. Math. Monthly 25 ( 1 9 1 8 ) 4 1 1 - 1 4 with bibliography and Van der Waerden, Science Awakening (1954) 2 0 8 ; more bibliographical references in A. Lesky, Gesch. d. griech. Lit. ( 1 9 6 3 ) 844. Call. fr. no and Addenda in vol. ir. Herodiani scripta tria ed. K. LehrS (1848) 3 7 9 - 4 0 1 'De vocabulis t\oXoyo$, ypap.p.ari.K6s, KpwiKos'; Sandys i 4 - 1 1 ; cf. also the articles in RE s.w. Grammatik, col. 1808 ff., Kritikos, Philologos, and A. Böckh, Enzyklopädie und Methodologie der philologischen Wissenschaften* (1886) 12 ff. on ^tAoAoyof and ypapuarixos. Gabriel R. F. M. Nuchelmans, Studien über iX6\oyos, ^lAoAoyia, ^lAoAoyefy, Diss. Nymegen 1950. H. Kuch, '&t\6Xoyos. Untersuchung eines Wortes von seinem ersten Auftreten in der Tradition bis zur ersten überlieferten lexikalischen Festlegung', Schriften der Sektion för Alteitumsicissenschaß 48, Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1965) 30ff. on Eratosthenes; but see below, p. 158, n. 9. See above, pp. 79, 8 4 . 1
2
1
2 3
3
4
157
&i\6\oyos, KptTLKos, ypafifiaTiKos
i n philosophy i n Athens w h i c h i n the Hellenistic w o r l d still remained the centre o f philosophical studies. I n Athens i t was not the Aristotelian Peripatos that attracted h i m , but the Academy, revivified by Arcesilaus, and a new branch o f the Stoa, represented by Zeno's unfaithful pupil Ariston of Chios. But the influence of Stoic moralism is confined to a few, probably early, writings. T h a t of Platonic cosmological concepts, especially of the Timaeus, is much more evident not only i n his Platonicus, b u t also i n his mathematical and geographical works and even i n his poems. A l l this, however, d i d not make h i m a iA6oocpos i n principle, like Aristotle or later Posidonius. 1
2
3
Strabo, speaking o f the famous Goans, applied the w o r d KpiriKos to Philitas, the scholar. But Philicus o f Corcyra, who led the Dionysiac T C X V I T C U i n the famous procession o f 275/4 * - ) addressed i n the proem to his Hymn to Demeter not the Kpnixol, but the y p a ^ e m f c o t ; they were the scholars, especially the metrical experts w h o m he proudly presented w i t h his invention o f a whole poem i n stichic choriambic hexameters. This precious testimony of the early t h i r d century B . C confirms that the later biographical tradition i n which Zenodotus and the scholars o f his and the following generations were called ypap,y.
B
c
5
6
7
Sk KpVTLKT} eAcyCTO, KCU Ot TaVTTjV fl€TlOVT€$ KpLTLKol' AvrtSojpOS §| T19 Kvp.aios avyypa.ipdp.evos "Ac^ir" iirdypatpev "Avrioojpov ypapLpLariKov Ac'^tj", K C U €K TOVTOV T) 7TOT€ KpiTLKTj ypapLpLaTlKT] AfAeKTCU K C U ypCLpLpLOTlKo •UpOTtpOV
ot Tavrrjv
fieriovrts. The date of this otherwise unknown Antidorus o f K y m e , whose name is disfigured i n some o f the manuscripts, may be the ' W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic * See above, p. 153. Suld. v. 'EpaToodevTjs . .
Civilisation
325 ff.
3 . Sevrepov ^ viov HXaraivo.; cf. A. Schmekel, Die positive Philosophic in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung 1 (1938) 6 0 - 8 6 ; W. W. Tarn, AJP 60 (1939) 53 ; F. Solmsen, 'Eratosthenes as Platonist and Poet', TAPA 73 (1942) 192 ff., cf. ibid. 78 (1947) 252 ff.
above, p. 8 9 , Kpluis p. Hephaest. 9 ( / J . x°P l fi »)
* xpiriKos
117, xplvew
in Callimachus p.
137,
and below, p.
159.
4 PhiUc. fr. 1 B , AL n z fasc. 6 (1942) 158 xa-ivoypdrfrov avvQ4o«DS rffi (PiAtVow, ypap-ptariKoi, Stopa •bipta npos Cpas; new fragments oica. 60 lines of the hymn in PSI xn (1951) 1282, pp. 140 ff. ed. C. Gallavotti (first publ. in 1 9 2 7 ) . 1
ia
l
LK0
As it was omitted by Lehrs, Herodiani Scripta tria ( [ 8 4 8 ) , it found no place in the extensive modern discussion on y p a ^ i a T i K o ; , as far as I can see. Schol. Dionys. Thr., Gr. Gr. i n ed. Hllgard p. 3 . 24, cf. p. 7. 2 4 ; ibid. p. 448. 6 $aoi Bi 6
7
¡\vrlbiapov rov Kvnatov rrpwTov emy€ypa
Hept
i6o
Euphronius and Eratosthenes on Attic Comedy
Science and Scholarship 1
Lycophron had started to revise the text o f the comic poets and to add a glossographic treatise, and Alexander Aetolus had dealt w i t h tragedies and satyr-plays. Gallimachus, of course, included a l l the tragic and comic poets i n his general alphabetical TlivaKes and his special chronological fflvai; of the dramatists. But we know o f no successor t o Alexander Aetolus before Aristophanes o f Byzantium at the end o f the century; on the other hand, Lycophron's work was immediately continued by Euphronius, Dionysiades, and Eratosthenes. There again chronology is problematical. I f we may rightly infer from the very confused and Iacunose biographical article i n Suidas v. ApioTotpav-ns that Aristophanes of Byzantium was Euphronius* p u p i l , and i f the source o f the Byzantine commentary o f Georgius Choeroboscus on Hephaestio's metrical handbook correctly places h i m w i t h the tragic Pleiad under Ptolemy I I , we may tentatively p u t Euphronius between Lycophron and Eratosthenes. The other member of this exclusive circle of poets, Dionysiades of M a l l o s is said b y Suidas t o have been the author o f a work XapaKTrjpes i} &1X0Kojp.ü)Soi, ' i n which he describes (ct7rayyeAAei) the characters of the poets'; whatever is meant by the unique 0i\oKwptpoot this looks like the first effort to distinguish the style o f the A t t i c comic poets and may have been the source o f later treatises such as those o f Platonius TJepl Siaipopd? KOJfxcootojv and especially Ilepl 8ta
3
4
5
6
7 )
8
9
grammarians; Bk. xi is quoted in fr. 25, and probably Bk. xn in fr. 47. A new fragment of this work may be the proverb 'EparooBev^s' 'My avco rrjs irrepv-ns' in Cod. Laur. L V I I I 24, publ. by L. Cohn, Zjx den Paroemiographen (1887) 25, 4 1 . See above, pp. 1 1 9 f. See above, pp. 129 f. and 131 f. See A. Adler's references ad loc. Hephaest. ed. M. Consbruch (1906) 236. 14 AiovvaidZ-nv nal Eip6vtov rf} LJXeidSi owrdrrovoiv (ibid. 236. 5 eirt rS>v xpdvaiv IJroXepiaiov rov o6s coni. Meineke FCG 1 (1839) 12 in his priceless 'Historia critica comicorum Graecorum'. CGF 1 6 ; cf. Kaibel's note on p. 3. Athen, vi 241 F T W V Kara, Kwp.tph'ia.v piepiöv, cf. Körte, RE xi 1209. 5 and below, p. 1 8 9 . 1
lexicographical source: Evpovios o ypapLpariKos ev 'Y7T0p.vrjp.aTi TIXovTOO Apiorocpdvovs. W e have already noted that a series o f poets from Philitas to Apollonius contributed to the exegesis o f early epic, lyric, dramatic poetry; but this is the first attestation o f a xmouvriu,a, a commentary, written by a member o f the tragic Pleiad. Aristophanes' latest comedy (388 B . C . ) , fabulous and moralistic and ironical, seems to have been the favourite o f posterity from the early Hellenistic to the latest Byzantine times and again i n the Italian Renaissance, when i t was the first to be translated into L a t i n and made known to the Western world. F r o m the only two quotations that we had before Ev
2
3
ot
5
6
Eratosthenes' interest was perhaps stimulated by performances o f comedies and by Peripatetic, Academic, and Atthidographic books on comedy that he had seen i n Athens; later i n Alexandria the treasures o f the library were at his disposal including the new writings on this subject just mentioned (although i t must be noted that so far no references o f his to Euphronius have been attested). W e cannot tell either whether he propounded a special theory on the origin o f comedy despite an apparent allusion i n his elegiac poem Erigone. T h e only comic poets Eratosthenes quoted by name are Aristophanes, Cratinus, Eupolis, Pherecrates, the foremost representatives o f O l d Comedy. I n our scanty fragments glosses are elucidated (KVTTapov, atavpa, pioXyos,
2
J
Lexicon Messanense (a part of Orus' Orthography, see R. Reitzenstein, Geschichte der (1897) 289 ff.) ed. H. Rabe, Rh.M. 4 7 (1892) 4 1 1 : Aristoph. PI. 138, 1115 iptfaroir . . . eierelvooat TO 5 . . . ypdtf>erat avv rtp I. * See above, pp. 140, 146. * For the first Plutos, produced twenty years earlier, the only quotation with ev nXovrut irpojTtp expressly added seems to go back to Euphronius fr. 6 4 Str. = Schol. (v) Aristoph. 1
4
griechischen Etymologika
s
Ran. 1093.
6
8
9
161
* Schol. (v) Aristoph. Av. 1403 = 77 Str. and Athen. xi 495 c — fr. 107 Str. So in RE vi {1907) 1221. 10 ff. by L. Cohn. Flis name most frequently occurs in the Scholia to the Birds and to the Wasps; on Pint. and Ran. see above n. 3 and in general The Scholia on the Aves of Aristophanes ed. J . W. White (1914) x v i i . See below, p. 169. s
6
7
811342
M
I
Science and Scholarship H i s knowledge o f the
Founder of Critical Chronology
as w e l l as o f t h e copies i n t h e l i b r a r y
StoaoxaAt'cu
l e d h i m t o i n q u i r e i n t o questions o f t h e p e r f o r m a n c e s o f tragedies comedies,
f o r instance
Aristophanes'
Eirene
whether
t h e r e was
Hieron.
1
a second p e r f o r m a n c e
o r even a second p l a y w i t h t h e same n a m e
w h e t h e r a n o t h e r v e r s i o n o f Aeschylus'
and
Persai
of
Eratosthenes w a s p r i m a r i l y a scientist as w e stated a t t h e b e g i n n i n g . I n his w r i t i n g s o n O l d C o m e d y a n d r e l a t e d subjects t h e r e is n a t u r a l l y n o e v i d e n c e o f this. B u t i n his f u n d a m e n t a l books
g e o g r a p h y w e c a n c l e a r l y see t h e scientist i n h i m , especially t h e m a t h e m a t i c i a n a n d a s t r o n o m e r , i n f o r m i n g t h e w o r k o f t h e scholar. I t is this t h a t
wide literary horizon 2
distinguishes t h e m f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s a t t e m p t s o f Sophists, p h i l o s o p h e r s , a n d historians.
a p o p u l a r a n c i e n t h y m n addressed t o A t h e n a , t o w h i c h A r i s t o p h a n e s a n d icaAAiWe"
4
and he
c h r o n o l o g y i n a n t i q u i t y . ( I t is, o f course, n o a c c i d e n t t h a t t h e r e v i v a l o f
was n o t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a n e p i n i c i o n
these studies a t t h e e n d o f t h e s i x t e e n t h a n d t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e seven-
VIKOIOV
3
recognized
C a l l i m a c h u s also h a d
rightly
(fr. 3 8 4 . 3 9 ) .
¿
1
t e e n t h c e n t u r y A . D . b y J . J . Scaliger c o i n c i d e d w i t h t h e f o u n d i n g o f m o d e r n science i n t h e l a t e r Renaissance.) T h e m o s t r e l i a b l e a u t h e n t i c
A t t i c comedy a n d Hellenistic poetry liked to p l a y w i t h the technical t e r m s o f t h e c r a f t s m a n , especially t h e c a r p e n t e r . Eratosthenes a n d explained t h e m under the title
Eratosthenes f u l l y deserves t o be h o n o u r e d as t h e f o u n d e r o f c r i t i c a l
that A r c h i -
b u t the refrain o f a h y m n to Heracles; called i t a
APXITCKTOVIKOS
5
collected
' M a s t e r - b u i l d e r ' ; the
d o c u m e n t s o n w h i c h Eratosthenes
c o u l d base t h e dates o f h i s t o r i c a l
events were t h e fists o f t h e w i n n e r s i n t h e O l y m p i c g a m e s ; since H i p p i a s h a d started to reconstruct the ' OAu/imovwcojv
dvaypa^rj
few f r a g m e n t s t h a t s u r v i v e d e a l w i t h t h e p a r t s o f t h e c a r r i a g e , t h e b o a t ,
others l i k e T i m a e u s h a d f o l l o w e d h i m ,
a n d the p l o u g h . A n o t h e r book w i t h the title
u p o n these e a r l i e r efforts i n his o w n register o f '
f r a g m e n t s are preserved,
and
was p r o d u c e d i n S i c i l y for
a f e w i m p o r t a n t c r i t i c a l c o m m e n t s o n l y r i c s . H e assigned t o L a m p r o c l e s
l o c h u s ' famous 'V^vcAAa
on chronology
and
F u r t h e r m o r e w e o w e t o Eratosthenes'
P h r y n i c h u s h a d a l l u d e d i n comedies,
163
ZKevoypacpiKosf
m a y have expounded
of which no
i n a similar way
the
2
and Aristotle and
Eratosthenes was able t o b u i l d
OXvpimoviKai, Xpovoypa<j>iai*
a t least t w o books. I n his g r e a t e r w o r k , t h e
3
a work of he
first
ex-
w o r d s for d o m e s t i c utensils. T h e r e r e m a i n t h e t w o books w h i c h he is said
p o u n d e d t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f scientific c h r o n o l o g y a n d t h e n w o r k e d o u t
t o h a v e ' p u b l i s h e d after e n t i t l i n g t h e m
a rather unusual
a c o m p l e t e c h r o n o l o g i c a l t a b l e o n t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e O l y m p i c lists.
a n d n o n - c o m m i t t a l t i t l e , t h e o n l y p a r a l l e l t o w h i c h is p e r h a p s t h e I~pa/x-
T h e first k n o w n ' OXvp.movlK7]s was K o r o i b o s o f E l i s i n t h e y e a r 776/5
7
o f A s c l e p i a d e s o f M y r l e a . F r o m this w o r k m a y c o m e t h e g e n e r a l
ItaTiKa
8
definition, p.acri,
,
PpapfiaTLKa
'EpaToadevrjS
ypdp.p,a.Ta
KaXHjv
etpj]
ra
OTL ypapLfiariK-q
avyypdp.p.aTaf
eanv
e ^ i y 7ravTeXr)s
iy
ypdp.-
a n d some g r a m m a t i c a l f r a g m e n t s
w h i c h h a r d l y fit i n t o a n y o f t h e o t h e r k n o w n b o o k s .
1
3
s
s
6 7
8
«HE.
Schol. Dionys. Thr., Gr. Gr. in p. 160. 10. The Scholiast emphasizes the same use of for auyypdptpMta by Call. Ep. 6 and 2 3 ; cf. the passage of Asclepiades in Sext. Emp., just quoted. See G. Knaack REvi 384 f. and below, p. 180, on accents. 9
ypdpipLara 1 0
1
first
OXvpymds. T h e fact t h a t Eratosthenes m a d e this ch oice was decisive f o r
t h e d a t i n g b y O l y m p i a d s i n l a t e r a n t i q u i t y a n d even b e y o n d i t . B u t t h e r e w e r e h i s t o r i c a l events before t h e first O l y m p i a d , a n d for
Arg, Aristoph. Pax 11 and Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 1028. * PMG fr. 735 Page = AL n p. 152 Diehl with many references to which Chamaeleo fr. 2 8 - 2 9 with Wehrli's commentary (Schule des Aristoteles g, 1957) has to be added; see esp. Wilamowitz, Textgesckichte der griechischen Lyriker 8 4 f. Calf. ky. v 43 is also an allusion to the same archaic hymn. Schol. Pind. O. ix 1 k; cf. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1764 = fr. 136 Str. = FGrHist 241 F 4 4 ; Wilamowitz, Griech. Verskunst 2 8 6 . 4. * Archil, fr. 120 D . == fr. 298 Lasserre. Erat. fr. 39, 60, 17 Strecker; there is no reason to regard it as a part of the work on comedy. Poll. X 1, who was very much disappointed when he finally got a copy. See above, p. 158, n. 2. Suid. v. ' Opd>evs, KpoTatviarvs fTrowoios, Sv TleLQiorpaTtp ovvttvat rd> -rvpdvvtp AoKX-nmd&rfs ev TW s' /Jt/JAia) ru>v rpap,p.a.Tt,Ku>v; if this is the correct general title of the large work, it was divided into two parts, a systematic 77epi ypap.p.ariK^s (Sext. Emp. Adv. math. 1 2 5 2 , vol. in p. 6 2 . 22 Mau) and a biographical fltpl ypap.p.o.TiKv~>i> {Comment, in Aral, reliqu. ed. E . Maass, p. 76. 5 ) ; on Asclepiades see above, p. 158, and on his Ppap-p-artKa H. Usener, Kleine Schriften ( l 9 ' 3 > 3»9-
B . C ( a c c o r d i n g t o o u r era) a n d this was fixed as t h e first y e a r o f t h e
10
1
"
5
d a t i n g t h e m h e h a d t o use one o f t h e l o c a l systems; i t is n o w g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d t h a t this was n o t Ctesias* A s s y r i a n list, b u t t h e list o f t h e S p a r t a n k i n g s preserved i n Eusebius' Xpovimd. T h e b e g i n n i n g o f this list takes us 6
b a c k t o t h e y e a r 1104/3 - - > w h i c h is t h a t o f t h e B
c
'HpaKXeio&v tcddooos;
t h e I o n i c m i g r a t i o n was p u t s i x t y years l a t e r , a n d t h e t a k i n g o f T r o y ,
Tpolas dXuiais,
e i g h t y years e a r l i e r , 1184/3 - - T h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n this B
c
earliest date a n d t h e latest, t h a t o f A l e x a n d e r ' s d e a t h (324/3 B.C.), w a s d i v i d e d i n t o t e n epochs. A t this p o i n t t h e m o d e r n scientist m a y be i n 7
c l i n e d t o m o d e r a t e his a p p r e c i a t i o n o f Eratosthenes' m e r i t s , n o t i c i n g w i t h 1 2 3
Van der Waerden, Science awakening (1954) 228 ff. See above, pp. 51 and 8 0 f.; on Timaeus see FGrHist FGrHist
241 F 4 - 8 .
566 T 1, 1 0 ; F 1 2 5 - 8 . * FGrHist
2 4 I F 1-3.
On 'Zeittafeln' see Regenbogen, /Jtvaf RE xx 1462. 60 ff. E . Schwartz, 'Die Konigslisten des Eratosthenes und Kastor', AGGW40 (1894/5) 6 0 ff.; the excerpt from Diodorus in Euseb. Chron. 1 2 2 1 . 31 ff. See also W. Kubitschek, 'Kdnigsverzeichnissc', RE xi (1922) 1015 tf. s
6
7
FGrHist
241 F 1.
Science
and
Scholarship
Founder
His knowledge o f the SioacncaXUu as well as o f the copies i n the libraryled h i m to inquire into questions o f the performances o f tragedies and comedies, for instance whether there was a second performance o f Aristophanes' Eirene or even a second play w i t h the same name and whether another version o f Aeschylus' Persai was produced i n Sicily for H i e r o n . Furthermore we owe to Eratosthenes' wide literary horizon a few important critical comments o n lyrics. He assigned to Lamprocles a popular ancient h y m n addressed to Athena, to which Aristophanes and Phrynichus had alluded i n comedies, and he recognized that A r c h i lochus' famous "rrJi-eAAa KaAAtWc ' was not the beginning o f an epinicion but the refrain o f a h y m n to Heracles; Callimachus also had rightly called i t a vucaiov e
2
3
1
4
A t t i c comedy and Hellenistic poetry liked to play w i t h the technical terms o f the craftsman, especially the carpenter. Eratosthenes collected and explained them under the title APXLT*KTOVLKOS 'Master-builder'; the few fragments that survive deal w i t h the parts o f the carriage, the boat, and the plough. Another book w i t h the title XKevoypadWd?, o f which no fragments are preserved, may have expounded i n a similar way the words for domestic utensils. There remain the t w o books which he is said to have 'published after entitling t h e m Ppap-fiariKd'a rather unusual and non-committal title, the only parallel to which is perhaps the rpap/xan/ca of Asclepiades o f M y r l e a . F r o m this work may come the general S
6
8
ianv t^ts TTavTeXrjs eV ypdp.and some grammatical fragments which hardly fit into any o f the other known books.
definition,
'EpaTOoOevTjs
p.ao-i, ypdp.p,ara
/caAcov rd
etp-n on
ypa.p.pLariKTj
avyypdpp-ara,
9
10
Arg. Aristoph. Pax 11 and Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 1028. PMG fr. 735 Page = AL 11* p. 152 Diehl with many references to which Chamaeieo fr. 2 8 - 2 9 with Wchrli's commentary {Schule des Aristoteles 9, 1957) has to be added; see esp. Wiiamowitz, Textgeschickte der grieckisehen Lyriker 8 4 f. Call. hy. v 43 is also an allusion to the same archaic hymn. s Schol. Pind. O. ix 1 k; cf. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1764 = fr. 136 Str. = FGrHist 241 F44; Wiiamowitz, Griech. Verskunst 2 8 6 . 4. * Archil, fr. 120 D.* — fr. 298 Lasserre. s Erat. fr. 39, 6 0 , 17 Strecker; there is no reason to regard it as a part of the work on comedy. Poll, x 1, who was very much disappointed when he finally got a copy. See above, p. 158, n. 2 . Suid. V. '0/>$«u'i, KpoTcavidrrfi eiron-otoj, ov /7«owrpaTu> wvdvai riu rvpavvut AaxXviridovs ev no ?' pVfJAiw TOW rpap.p.a.Ti.Ktau; if this is the correct general title of the large work, it was divided into two parts, a systematic Jlepl ypapip.ariKijs (Sext. Emp. Adv. math. 1 2 5 2 , vol. in p. 6 2 . 22 Mau) and a biographical [Jtpl ypap.p,miKu>v (Comment, in Arai. reliqu. ed. E. Maass, p. 7 6 . 5 ) ; on Asclepiades see above, p. 158, and on his rpa^ariKa H. Usener, Kleine Schri/ten 1
1
6
7 8
* Schol. Dionys. Thr., Gr. Gr. in p. 160. 10. The Scholiast emphasi2.es the same use of ypap.p^ara for ovyypap.p.ara. by Call. Ep. 6 and 2 3 ; cf. the passage of Asclepiades in Sext. Emp., just quoted. See G. Knaack RE vi 384 f. and below, p. i 8 o on accents. 1 0
:
Chronology
163
Eratosthenes was primarily a scientist as we stated at the beginning. I n his writings on O l d Comedy and related subjects there is naturally no evidence o f this. But i n his fundamental books o n chronology and geography we can clearly see the scientist i n h i m , especially the mathematician and astronomer, informing the work of the scholar. I t is this that distinguishes them from the previous attempts o f Sophists, philosophers, and historians. Eratosthenes fully deserves to be honoured as the founder o f critical chronology i n antiquity. ( I t is, o f course, no accident that the revival o f these studies at the end o f the sixteenth and the beginning o f the seventeenth century A . D . by J . J . Scaliger coincided w i t h the founding o f modern science i n the later Renaissance.) The most reliable authentic documents on which Eratosthenes could base the dates of historical events were the lists o f the winners i n the O l y m p i c games; since Hippias had started to reconstruct the ' OXvpmovLKojv dvaypatp-q and Aristotle and others like Timaeus had followed h i m , Eratosthenes was able to build upon these earlier efforts i n his own register of* OXvpnriavtKat, a work o f at least t w o books. I n his greater work, the Xpovoypa
2
3
5
9
But there were historical events before the first O l y m p i a d , and for dating them he had to use one o f the local systems; i t is now generally accepted that this was not Ctesias' Assyrian list, but the list of the Spartan kings preserved i n Eusebius' Xpovucd. The beginning o f this list takes us back to the year 1104/3 - - ' which is that o f the 'HpaKXeiSwv Ka8ooos; the Ionic migration was p u t sixty years later, and the taking o f Troy, Tpolas aAcucrt?, eighty years earlier, 1184/3 B.C. The period between this earliest date and the latest, that o f Alexander's death (324/3 B.C.), was divided into ten epochs. A t this point the modern scientist may be i n clined to moderate his appreciation o f Eratosthenes' merits, noticing w i t h 6
B
c
7
Van der Waerden, Science awakening (1954) 228 ff. * See above, pp. 51 and 8 0 f.; on Timaeus see FGrHist 1
1 FGrHist
241 F 4 - 8 .
566
125-8. * FGrHist 241 F 1-3.
T I , I O ; F
On 'Zeittafeln' see Regenbogen, /7iVof RE xx 1462. 6 0 ff. E. Schwartz, 'Die Konigslisten des Eratosthenes und Kastor', AGGW40 (1894/5) 6 0 ff.; the excerpt from Diodorus in Euseb, Chron. 1 221. 31 ff. See also W. Kubitschek, 'Kbnigsverzeichnisse', RE xi (1922) 1015 ff. s
" (1913) 309¬
of Critical
6
7
FGrHist
241 F 1.
Science
164
and
Scholarship
Mathematical
regret 'that, i n connection w i t h the T r o j a n war, he could not avoid deviating from his principle' o f eliminating ' a l l unverifiable legends'. For the Greek mind, however, the siege and taking of T r o y was no legend, but a momentous fact of history for which any chronological system must provide a date. H o m e r too, as the poet o f the Iliad, i n which he transmitted and gave form to the heroic deeds o f the great war, and o f the post-war poem, the Odyssey, was a historical person to every Greek; from the sixth century onwards innumerable conjectures were made about this date and its relation to Hesiod's. I n the historical part o f his Geography where he dealt seriously w i t h Homeric problems, Eratosthenes fixed Homer's floruit a hundred years after the T r o j a n war, but before the Ionic migration, and put Hesiod later than Homer. T h e lives and works of post-epic writers he could date according to Olympiads, thus applying a systematic approach to literary chronology i n place o f the earlier rather arbitrary efforts. A b o u t a century later Apollodorus o f Athens built his XpoviKa on the foundations laid by Eratosthenes, although w i t h some alterations; this more popular work superseded the esoteric Xpovoypa.
2
3
4
5
6
His greatest achievement, his geography, —the compound yeatypatftia was possibly coined by him—runs parallel i n some respects to his work i n chronology. T h e book Ilepl rrjs a.vo.iteTpT]aeois -rr}s yr}s ' O n the measurement o f the earth', as a sort o f T H W £ , corresponds to the O l y m p i c lists, w i t h the help o f which he had determined the sequence o f historical dates; here using a l l his mathematical and astronomical training and 7
s
Van der Waerden, Science awakening 230. See above, pp. n , 4 3 , etc. P 9 and Jacoby's commentary. p 7. 1 0 - 1 3 ; Empedocles, Pherecydes of Syros, Pythagoras, Hippocrates. See below, p. 255. Gemin. hag. 8. 2 4 p. 110 Manitius and Commentariorum in Aral. tel. ed. E . Maass (1898) 4 7 . 2 3 ; since the text is restored by E . Maass, 'Aratea', Philol. Untersuchungen 12 ( 1 8 9 2 ) 14 f., there is no longer any reason for the scepticism mistakenly expressed by Christ-Schmid,
Geography
165
w i t h the help o f new instruments, he tried to determine the distance o f localities from each other, their latitude and longitude, and even the perimeter o f the earth. As i n the chronology he cautiously and conscientiously adapted, corrected, and supplemented the researches o f his predecessors Eudoxus and Dicaearchus. Although the results could only be approximate, modern scientists are always amazed how near he came to the t r u t h . 1
His m a i n work, roughly corresponding to the Xpovoypaiai i n the other field, was the Atoypcu/Wd i n three books. The first of these reveals how well he had used the l i b r a r y and made himself familiar w i t h the complete earlier history of geography. The second book is based on his own special research recorded i n ' O n measurement', and the t h i r d on the new maps he had sketched himself. H e concluded his systematic work w i t h a descriptive section i n which he defined the characteristics o f individual countries, and for this he drew heavily on the results o f the exploration that had continued from Alexander's time to his own. T h e Featypatpttca met w i t h no lack either o f admiration or o f severe criticism, the latter especially at the hand o f Hipparchus, w r i t i n g from the astronomical point o f view i n the middle o f the second century B . C . , and o f Polybius as an adversary o f mathematical geography; but unlike the Xpovoypaiai i t was not absorbed by any later work. Eratosthenes' most distinguished successor i n the geographical field corresponding to Apollodorus i n the chronological, was Posidonius, i n the first half o f the first century B . C ; but though he arranged his work Ilepl 'Qfieavov KCLL TOJV KO.T atrroV after the example o f the r€(oypad>iKd, he was a Stoic philosopher and physicist o f some originality, not an eclectic writer from whose excerpts possible models and sources could be reconstructed. Strabo, on the other hand, at the end o f the first century B . C , incorporated extracts from Eratosthenes and Posidonius into the first two books o f his FewypatpiKa; i t is to h i m that we owe our entire knowledge o f Eratosthenes' Homeric geography and 2
3
4
5
1
a
J
4
s
6
Griech. Lit. 11 i
6
(1920} 2 4 9 f.
Collections of fragments see above, p. 153, n. 2 ; cf. H . Berger, Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen* (1903) 384 ff., A. Rehm-K. Vogel, Exakte Wissenschaften* (1933) 42 ff., and especially F. Gisinger's comprehensive article 'Geographie', RE Suppl. 4 (1924) 7
5 2 1 - 6 8 5 ; on yttaypatpla 5 2 3 f., on Eratosthenes 6 0 4 - 1 4 . 1
Heron, 'Dioptr.' c.
3 5 , Opera
m
(1903)
ed. H . Schöne, p.
302. 16.
F. Gisinger loc. cit. 605 f. Strab. 1 29, a init., xv 6 8 8 ; Schol. Ap. Rh. iv 284, $10passim, v. Index p. 333 give this apparently correct form of the title; occasionally less reliable quotations are reu>ypa<j>ovp.tva, reuiypa^ia, 'YTTQp.vqp.aTa, see Bernhardy, Eratosthenica 26 f.; H. Berger, Erdkunde der Griecheri* 1
1
387. 2.
* Hipparch., quoted by Strab. emropu
graphischen Fragmente des Hipparch
D. R. Dicks, 4
11 6 9 'EparoaBtvns
pn^XioB-qK-qv txaiv TrjXtKavrrjv
FGrHist
(1869) 96.
, . . evreruxnicais
inrop^p.aat
JTOAAOIS
wv
cf. H . Berger, Die geo¬ 'The geographical fragments of Hipparchus' ed.
TjXtiirjv avras
'Imrapxos
Univ. of London Class. Studies 1 (1959) 123. 87 P 74-105.
K. Reinhardt, 'Poseidonios', RE xxn (1953) 6 6 4 ; cf. 6 2 4 fT. 'Gesamtcharakteristik, Stil'. On this most extraordinary retractatio of the complex Posidonian problem (278 cob.) see s
Jahrbuch
der Bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften 1959, p. 149.
166
Science
and
Scholarship
Homeric
1
o f his general remarks o n literary criticism. Strabo's not uncritical compilation is typical o f the Augustan age which, no longer productive itself, preserved i n its collections some priceless treasures o f Hellenistic scholarship and science. Eratosthenes opened his review o f earlier writers o n geography w i t h Homer, a natural parallel to the position assigned to h i m and to the Trojan war i n the Xpovoypaj>lai. But though he regarded that expedition as the earliest known event i n Greek history, he by no means accepted the poet either as a historian, or as a geographer. T o the scientific rationalistic m i n d o f Eratosthenes the unrealities i n Homeric geography were obvious. H e d i d not blame the poet; the fault was i n the interpreters who made the fundamental mistake o f identifying epic localities w i t h certain places i n the Mediterranean and supposing that Homer made i t his business to teach people geography or anything else such as theology, ethics, or m i l i t a r y tactics. Homer's geographical passages, for instance the wanderings o f Odysseus, were to be regarded as purely imaginary; the a i m o f the poet was there and elsewhere not to instruct but to give pleasure. 2
W h a t no scholar had dared to say the scientist was consistent and fearless enough not only to state i n Homer's case, but to apply to poetry i n general: TTOLT]TT]V yap e<prj rravra o-Toxd^eaOai ipvxayajyias, ov StSacf/caAtW (Strab. 1 1 5 ) . I n contrast to StcW/coAta, 'instruction', i/wxaycoyla can only mean 'entertainment'. Eratosthenes' categorical statement that every poet aimed at i t was a highly provocative declaration. Strabo, o f course, when he had quoted i t , immediately contradicted i t w i t h his o w n opinion w h i c h he may have derived from earlier Stoics like Posidonius. But even i n Eratosthenes' o w n time or shortly afterwards Neoptolemus o f Parium had corrected his predecessor, consciously i t seems, as he used the rather uncommon expression tfjvxayaryla i n the same connexion and i n the same sense: /cat rrpos dpe[ri)v Setv T\CO reActa* 7Totrj\rfj {xerd r j i j ? >ftvxayoj[yi\a[s 3
4
rov
TOVS]
aKOuWrfa?] oj[d>eAei]v /cat X P ? 7
CTL
[ j ] A [ y ' ] ' Kai rov "Oprj[pov U0
0
£
1
rJcpTmv [re /cat uxpeAetv] TO [irAefjoi'. This was the compromise, a very 5
On Strabo's attitude to Eratosthenes see above, p. 154, on Eratosthenes and Homer cf. above, pp. 163 f. Cf. K . Lehrs, De Aristarchi studiis Homericis (1882, 3 r d ed.) 240 ft". Cf. 1 6 and 25 — Erat. Geogr. Fragm. pp. 36 f. with Berger's notes. About a century after Eratosthenes Agatharchides (GGM p. 117. 16) changing othaoKaXlas into dXrjdetas said: on 1
3 3
was TTOHJTJJS livxayaiytas
(sc. ftaXXov) 7) aXijdfias
aroxaards.
* Neoptolemus is quoted by Aristophanes of Byzantium, Eust. p. 1817. 19-22 (on o 219 fioXoftpos); there is no reason to remove this clear testimony by changing ifrnoi into aoi, as Nauck, Aristoph. Byz. fragm. p. 119. 70 tried to do. Neoptolemus is correctly characterized and dated by C. O. Brink, Horace on Poetry (1963) 43 ff., see esp. 4 5 . 2. Philodem. /Tepi irotr]p.dTUiv V ed. C. Jensen (1923) col. xm 8 - 1 5 p. 3 3 , cf. pp. 108 f., 123, 152 f.; see Brink 55. 5
Geography
effective one, that finally led to Horace's famous formula: H o r . A.P. 333 'et prodesse volunt et delectare poetae . . . simul et iucunda et idonea dicere vitae', a n d 11. 99 ff. 'poemata . . . quocumque volent a n i m u m auditoris agunto', a translation o f ijjvxaywytiv. T h e reaction against Eratosthenes was quite natural i n view o f the general Greek belief that all men had learned 'from Homer since the beginning', and given the innate ethical and educational tendency i n Greek poetry from epic times onwards. I n Attic comedy, especially i n Aristophanes' Frogs, the problem of the moral leadership of the poets and the usefulness (cudW'Aeia) and the danger o f their teaching (SiSdV/ceti') was openly debated. Plato, for various reasons, was inclined to deny poetry real seriousness and usefulness and to take i t as 'play' effecting only 'pleasure' (TratSia, rjSovrj)* As a Platonist Eratosthenes could feel himself i n agreement w i t h this theory of rjSovr]. His arguments, however, were quite different, since they were those o f the scientist who refused to take the geographical ideas and descriptions o f the epic poet literally. Still less was he prepared to assume 'hidden meanings' as his Stoic predecessors and contemporaries d i d , i n revival o f the ancient practice o f allegorical interpretation. 1
2
4
5
6
Eratosthenes was successful i n so far as the greatest Alexandrian scholars of the following generations considered his opinions w i t h an open m i n d , although they d i d not fully accept his radical doctrine; and this seems to be the only point where we have to acknowledge the influence o f science on scholarship, an important but very limited influence. O n the other hand, learned men and eager amateurs o f all ages have ignored Eratosthenes' sober arguments and tried indefatigably to find places exactly corresponding to the indication i n the poems, not only historical places like Ithaca or Pylos or the cities i n the 'catalogue of ships', but also the localities o f Odysseus' wanderings—which are quite a different matter. I n the first case the epics became as i t were textbooks of geography, i n spite o f well-grounded protests ; i n the second case absurdities beyond measure were suggested, by which Odysseus emerged as an explorer of the 7
8
See above, p. 9. See above, p. 48. See above, pp. 58 and 75, on Plato and Aristotle. * Erat. Geogr. Fragmente 22 ff. and H. Berger, Erdkunde der Griechen 386 ff. References to the fragments of Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus relative to allegory Pohlenz, 1
2
3
21
s
Stoa 11 5 5 .
See above, pp. 10 f. This is the answer to our question on p. 1 5 3 ; Wilamowitz, Horn. Untersuchungen (1884) 385 'die exakten Wissenschaften haben auf die alexandrinische Philologie den bedeutendsten Einfluß ausgeübt', this general assertion is supported only by a vague reference to Eratosthenes. See also the general remarks on the relation of science (inch medicine) to scholarship by H. J . Mette, Parateresis (1952) 63 f. G. Jachmann, Der homerische Schiffskatalog (1958) 10, 6 7
8
168
Science
and
Scholarship
Poetry
arctic zone or, i f you please, as a traveller through Africa, or Calypso, her name derived from teutonic ' h e r , was placed i n Heligoland. As a matter of fact, the epic poets display a remarkable indifference towards both time and space i n their narratives. This is not the place to follow up these difficulties o f interpretation o n w h i c h Eratosthenes had touched ; but i n this connexion we may be allowed to cite his well-known quip Tore àV eôpeîv riva Aéyet TTOV 'OcWo-eùs 7re7rAai^Tai, orav evprj TOV OKvrea TOV ovppddjaVTa TOV TOJV avepuvv àoKOV. T h a t a7rod>acris', of which PolybiuS strongly disapproved, is a good example o f Eratosthenes' ironical style, and w i t h so very few complete sentences preserved we probably have t o regret the loss o f other shrewd witticisms. W e have seen how Eratosthenes' inquiries ranged over the whole o f the earth's surface and into the periods o f mankind's past; he is also said to have given a picture o f the sky b y producing the first complete Greek catalogue o f the constellations. The title and contents o f the so-called KaTaorepio-noi are hotly disputed, b u t i t is at least probable that our manuscripts preserve an epitome and later adaptation o f Eratosthenes' original monograph. I t apparently contained not very much astronomy but a large collection o f mythical or popular stories about the origin o f the constellations. Because o f its contribution to this important part o f Greek mythography the Catasterismi remained a useful textbook for centuries and underwent considerable alterations i n the course o f time. But there is no reason to doubt that the Alexandrian scientist was the original a u t h o r ; we have realized again and again how easily he moved from science t o literature i n various branches o f learning, and his own poems attest his peculiar interest i n the heavenly bodies and the beautiful star-myths. The mathematician was recognizable i n a formally perfect epigram addressed to his k i n g . The epic poem Hermes drew old mythical tales about the b i r t h and precocious cleverness o f the god from the Homeric 3
2
4
5
6
1
6
169
h y m n to Hermes and combined them i n a unique way w i t h the cosmology o f Plato's Timaeus a n d Eratosthenes' o w n geography; when the god ascended t o the heavenly spheres o f the planets, where he became one o f them himself, he perceived not only their harmony and their identity w i t h the dppxtvla of his o w n lyre but also the five zones into which the earth was divided according to Eratosthenes' geographical theory. I n his elegiac poem Erigone a local A t t i c legend o f the village Icaria, i n which he may have alluded to a post-Aristotelian Hellenistic theory o f the origin o f tragedy a n d comedy, ends w i t h a catasterismus o f the peasant Icarius, his daughter Erigone and their dog M a i r a . I n contrast to the Hermes, there are no traces o f science visible i n our fragments o f the elegy, which have a strongly Callimachean flavour. H o w far was Eratosthenes' poetical practice i n harmony w i t h his literary theory? D i d he intend not to teach anything but simply to Taire plaisir' ? The eighteen hexameters o n the 'zones', nearly half of them spondaici, sound rather didactic, a n d i n Callimachus' oo
2
3
4
5
1 Fr. 2 2 - 2 7 Powell; cf. Erat. carm. reliquiae ed. E . Hiller (1872) 9 4 - 1 1 4 and E . Maass, Analecta Erat, (1883) 5 6 - 1 3 8 . See also Kallimachos-Studien (1922) 1 0 2 - 1 2 and F. Solmsen, TAPA 78 (1947) 254 ff. It came as a total surprise to discover that the Sta Travrwv a/xto/iijTov rroL-qfiartov was a bulky Greco-Egyptian conglomerate of every detail that every Greek and
Latin writer after Eratosthenes ever mentions about this story. Detailed reconstructions of Greek poems, based on supposed imitators, mythographers, lexicographers, etc., have invariably been discredited as soon as substantial parts of these poems have turned up in papyri. This warning was not heeded by R. Merkelbach, although he is so well acquainted with literary papyri ('Die Erigone des Eratosthenes', Miscellanea di Studi Alessandrini in memoria di A. Rostagni,
1963, pp. 469—526).
Ff. 22 Powell; see above, p. 161. I regard it as probable that Eratosthenes' hexameter iKaptot, TO'OI rrpdiTa irept rpayov u>pxrjoavro refers to the origin of tragedy, because the line Eratosthenes-Neoptolemus-Horace seems to be the same as in the general theory of poetry above, pp. 166 f. The readings of the manuscripts of Hygin. de astr. 11 4 in Killer's edition of the Erigone p. 1 0 6 ; he correctly took ciKaptot as the locative 'Iicaptoi: (Steph. Byz. v. V/capia; cf. also KtKvvva~KiKvwoi Lys. or, 17. 5, 8 ) followed by ro9t as relative. The same text is given by Powell, but Maass, Diehl (AL n fasc. 6, 1942, p. 85, fr. 5 ) , Pickard-Cambridge, Solmsen, Merkelbach, et al. print 'Uapwi with or without a reference to 'iKapioi. But 'Udptot. is the Si)p.OTtKov of the island of 'Itcdpa; the inhabitants of the Attic village of 'Iicapia are always called 'Iicapieis (see Steph. Byz. and the inscriptions). To 'IKapioi TO9( rrpiZra compare now Call. fr. 229. 10 h- UATJ ro8t irpurrov co
a
Fr. i A 16 Berger p. 36 = Strab. r 24 (Bust. p. 1645.64 on K 19). This title is a conjecture of John Fell in his editio princeps, Oxford 1672. J G. Knaack RE vi 378 if. gives a concise critical report of this dispute ; Keller, Eratosthenes (1946) (above, p. 154, n. 3) 1 8 - 2 8 re-examined the modern literature in detail; cf. Solmsen, TAPA 73 (1942) 204 f. The reconstructions of C. Robert, Eratosthenis catasterismorum reliquiae (1878, reprinted 1963) and especially A. Rehm, Herm. 3 4 (1899) 2 5 1 - 7 9 are still fundamental. J . Martin, Histoire du texte des Phénomènes d'Aratos (1956, above, p. 121, n. 4) 58 ff. 'Le Problème des Catastérismes' published (p. 99) from the codex Scorialensis S nr 3 a new reference to Eratosthenes, in which the star of the Virgin is identified with Erigone, the daughter of Icarius. •* I confess I am still sceptical—pace Solmsen—about the supposition that Eratosthenes in the Catasterismi, as a faithful Platonist, saw human souls in the stars. * Above, p. 155. Fr. 1-16 Powell; cf. above, p. 157. 1
a Parergon
3
170
Science
and
Scholarship
chronology o f individual poems and their relation to the prose-writings. This short survey confirms the impression that his poetry was only a parergon, though a characteristic one which links h i m w i t h the scholar poets from Philitas to Callimachus. T h e lack o f material surviving from his books i n his own pointed style has already been deplored. The anecdotes about h i m preserved i n the biographical tradition are a poor substitute. But as they are repeated everywhere, sometimes w i t h a wrong emphasis, they should not be entirely ignored here. I f we remember that Philitas was ridiculed, that T i m o n sneered at the fellows o f the Museum, and that much mockery o f the (piXoXoyoi is contained i n Callimachus' Iambi, we can hardly doubt the origin o f Eratosthenes' nicknames. I t was a clever h i t to call h i m Brjra implying that he was i n a great diversity of fields the second best, b u t not the first i n any special branch o f learning; another nickname ilevradkos 'the five-sports athlete' points i n the same direction. But why should one take seriously the malicious gossip o f a learned society ? I t should never be allowed to do any h a r m to the memory o f one o f the greatest scholars of all times. The complexity and interrelation o f Eratosthenes' numerous writings calls strongly for a new complete collection o f his fragments.
ALEXANDRIAN
1
ITS
2
3
History rarely repeats itself. But we shall find i n modern times a sequence o f three stages analogous, on a grand scale, to that i n the t h i r d century B . C . First came the revival o f scholarship i n the Italian Renaissance during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries A . D . , led by great poets from Petrarch to Politian. T h e n an encyclopedic expansion followed i n France and i n the Netherlands i n the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, i n which science played its p a r t ; 'philologia' acquired once more the Eratosthenian meaning, and Salmasius was expressly praised as the Eratosthenes of his time. But finally, when Bentley's genius appeared, creative concentration on textual and literary criticism won the day, as i t had when Aristophanes o f Byzantium came after Eratosthenes i n about 4
200
B.C.
See above, p. 168. See above, pp.41 f., 91, 9 Marcian. 'Epit. Peripl. Menipp.' 2 {GGM I p. 5 6 5 . 2 6 ) 'E. ov Bi)ra exaXeoav oi rov MovoelovTTpooTavTes. Suid. V . 'EparoaBivns • . .^ra (jSij^oTO codd., em. Meursius) eVeicAijiii;. . . aAAot TlivraBXov eicdXcaav, irduraXos depreciatingly used in [Plat.] amat. 135 E ff. • T . P. Blount, Ceruura celebriorum autorum (1690) 719. 1
3
2
s
SCHOLARSHIP
AT
HEIGHT:
ARISTOPHANES
O F
BYZANTIUM
I N the biographical literature Aristophanes o f Byzantium is described as the p u p i l o f Zenodotus, Callimachus, and Eratosthenes, that is, o f all the leading scholars o f the three generations o f the third century B . C . ; he is said to have studied also w i t h Dionysius Iambus, Euphronius, and Machon. I f this perhaps is not literally true i n every case, i t is still perfectly true i n the sense that he inherited the scholarly tradition o f a whole century. Standing on the threshold of the second century, he dominated i t completely; for his own work was continued by his great p u p i l Aristarchus and the Aristarchean 'school', Apollodorus o f Athens and Dionysius Thrax. So scholarship i n Alexandria was able to face the dangers o f the internal crisis o f 146/5 B . C . , and to stand up to the growing rivalry of Pergamum, and the city remained, i n spite o f many setbacks, the centre of studies u n t i l the very end o f antiquity. 1
W i t h the reign o f Ptolemy I V Philopator ( 2 2 1 - 2 0 4 B . C . ) and Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204-180 B . C . ) a gradual political, social, and economic decline began i n Egypt. But scholarship was not involved i n this; on the contrary, i t now displayed its utmost power and reached its highest level, a historical fact that should serve as a warning against the modern sociologists' tendency to exaggerate the influence o f the 'social' factor on science and scholarship. For i t was precisely the end o f the t h i r d century that saw the rise o f 'pure' scholarship, no longer united w i t h poetry, but an autonomous selfconscious discipline whose representatives claimed the distinctive title of ypafifxartKol, Aristophanes' father Apelles, a commander o f mercenaries (j]youp.€vos 2
3
See the general remark on p. 98. See the relevant chapters in the books quoted above, p. 87, n. 2, and RE xxm (1959) H. Volkmann, 'Die Dynastie der Ptolemaier in Ägypten' 1 6 0 0 - 1 7 6 2 , esp. 1678 ff. Aristophanis Byzantii Ftagmenta coll. et dispos. A. Nauck (1848, reprinted 1 9 6 3 ) ; it was extraordinarily fortunate that one of the great scholars of the last century made this comprehensive collection; cf. Susemihl 1 4 2 8 - 4 8 ; L. Cohn, RE 11 (1895) 9 9 4 - 1 0 0 5 . 1
2
3
172
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Aristophanes
Height
arpaTitoriuv), seems to have gone from Byzantium to Alexandria when Aristophanes was still a boy. As a mus he is said to have listened to Zenodotus, and as a Wo? to Callimachus; at the age o f sixty-two he was installed as head o f the royal l i b r a r y ; and he died when he was seventyseven years o l d . W e may accept these dates w i t h reserve, but the rest o f the biographical article is hopelessly confused. I t is usually assumed that Aristophanes became librarian when Eratosthenes died, between 196 and 193 B . C . , and that he was born therefore between 258 and 255 B.c. and died about 180 B . C . But i t is nowhere attested that Eratosthenes remained i n office u n t i l his death at eighty. I f he retired earlier and Aristophanes succeeded h i m about or before the year 200 B . C . , the chronology breaks down and the possibility o f his having been Zenodotus' p u p i l grows stronger. T w o events i n Aristophanes' life are recorded i n our sources; when he planned for some reason to flee to king Eumenes I I o f Pergamum, he was imprisoned for a t i m e ; this must have happened after 197 B . C . , the first year of Eumenes' reign, and would be reconcilable w i t h the traditional dates. I n this story the name o f Alexandria's future r i v a l , Pergamum, appears for the first time i n the history of scholarship and this is the point relevant to our purpose. The other story may have grown out of one o f the jokes made by the fellows o f the Museum of which we have already had several examples, though none so absurd. T h e respectable scholar, so i t runs, fell i n love w i t h a flower g i r l i n Alexandria and his rival was an elephant. There were various tales o f elephants being at tracted b y the scent o f flowers and making love to girls binding and sell ing wreaths, and Aristophanes himself might have included one i n his 1
2
3
4
5
1 Suid. V . Aptarotiavns, Bvljavrios- ypap-ptartKOS . . . pady-njs KaXXtp&x Ä t " ZnvoaoTOV aXXa. roß pikv veos, TOV Öe rraîs rjKovoe . . . KOX npofanj TT)S TOV ßaoiXecos ßtßXiodyKys . . . eros ayoıv fß' . . . reXevrq., &n ßeßiuiKojs o£' (see A. Adler's note ad loc.). ov
We do not accept the much earlier date that has been conjectured, see above, pp. 153 f. A. Rostagni, ' I Bibliotecari Alessandrini', Şeritti minori 11 1 (1956) 185 ff., tried in vain to place Apollonius the Eidographos between Eratosthenes and Aristophanes against the sequence attested by P.Oxy. x (1914) 1241, col. n 6 ff. By a curious slip İn Wilamowitz's report about the newly discovered papyrus, Neue Jahrbücher 3 3 ( r g i 4 ) 2 4 6 ( = Kl. Sehr. 1 4 1 2 ; cf. Pindaros 108) the Eidographos appears after Eratosthenes, not after Aristophanes, as the papyrus and the editors assisted by Wilamowitz correctly stated. See below, p. 2 1 0 ; cf. also the discussion by H. Herter, Rh.M. 91 (1942) 317 ff. Suid. (above, n. 1) StaoKcvaoOeis Se d>s ßovXevöuevos (Codd. A V, ßovX6p.cvos cett.) npos Evpevy tpvyeîv, €^t>A<xv0i? KTX. ; this text is hardly sound, and perhaps we should read otaoKetbBels 'observed as planning to fly, he was imprisoned*. But it is just a modern embellishment that 'Eumenes tried to steal Ptolemy's librarian' (so for instance Kenyon, Books and Readers, p. 8 9 ) . * Plin. n.h. vin 13, Plut. de soll. an. 972 D , Aelian. n.a. 1 38, probably from a common source; see F. Jacoby FGrHist 275 Juba von Mauretanien (vol. I I I A , Kommentar, 1943, p. 319 and on F 5 4 ) . * Aelian. n.a. v n 43, x i t i 8.
the Perfect
Scholar
173
1
comprehensive book ' O n animals' (i7ept ^ o W ) , but i t is hard to detect any w i t i n the idea o f scholar and elephant being avrepaaral. Aristophanes' compilation J7epi £ o W based on Aristotle, Theophrastus, and the paradoxographers is the only contribution he is known to have made to that particular Peripatetic and Alexandrine tradition o f natural history and paradoxography which we have distinguished from genuine science. But i f he is correctly listed i n one o f Aratus' biographies w i t h many other writers on Phaenomena* this work would belong to the same category; there is no reason to assume that i t was a poem. H e was neither a scientist nor a poet; he was the perfect scholar. 2
3
5
The scheme under which we classified the occasional scholarly efforts of prc-Hellenistic times can now be applied to the fully developed scholarship o f Aristophanes; we shall survey his immense output under the same four heads: texts, language, literary criticism, and andquities. Three men began the Siopdojots o f epic, lyric, and dramatic poetry at the beginning of the third century B . C . ; but i t was Aristophanes alone who towards its end made the fundamental recensions o f the texts i n all these fields. Zenodotus' pre-eminence as the first Stopdwrqs o f the epic poems was not seriously challenged i n his own day. Can we tell how far Aristophanes and his pupils made a fresh start? Zenodotus had been a pioneer; his successors were i n a different position, as they could always compare the new manuscripts coming into the library w i t h his revised text. Timon's sarcastic h i t at a 'revised' text o f Homer where the 7raAata ypadjr} had been altered shows a characteristic attitude of the Greek spirit; distrust o f a hypothetical 'genuine' text, and an inclination to save the 'old text' hallowed by tradition. Aristophanes apparently shared this attitude. Reluctant to delete lines or to put conjectures into the text, he and his 6
7
8
2
3
Aristoph. 'Hist. an. epitome', ed. S. P. Lambros, Suppl. Aristotelicum t i ( 1 8 8 5 ) ; cf. L. de Stefani, Studi it. dijil. class. 20 (1913) 189 ff. The authentically Aristophanic part of the late Byzantine excerpts contains no version of the elephant-tale; 11 119 p. 64 L . is taken from Aelian n.a. vn 43. The anecdote should certainly not have been treated as one of the Griechische Mdrchen von dankbaren Tieren by A. Marx (1889) 93 f.—It would hardly be an improvement to assume that the elephant-story had its origin in 'EXetpas as proper name (IG v 1, no. 6 9 9 ) , or surname (Polyb. xvni 24. 2 ) , or nickname of a human rival and was then transferred to the animal. See above, p. 152; his arrangement seems to have been a model for the many later writers on the same subject, see M. Wellmann, Herm. 51 (1916) 63 f. Comment, in Aral. rel. ed. E . Maass 79. 6, cf. E. Maass, Aratea (1892) 151. See above, p. 6 7 ; cf. also p. 134. Cf. above, pp. 118 and 123. See above, pp. 98 and 122. Zenodotus had omitted A 7 8 - 8 3 and M 1 7 5 - 8 1 , probably for internal reasons (see above, p. 114), but Aristophanes kept these passages in his text, obelizing them as not genuine. 1
2
3
4
s
7 8
6
174
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Critical
Height
pupils preferred to express their opinions by signs i n the m a r g i n ; Aristarchus resorted to separate commentaries or monographs.
Zenodotus
may have been by no means as bold and arbitrary i n his textual criticism as many believe, b u t Aristophanes and Aristarchus became more conservative still. I n Aristophanes' case i t is easier t o assess the technical improvements in his editions, of which we have special information, than to reconstruct his actual text, for which we have to rely on occasional remarks i n the late Scholia. These are sparse, because from the next generation onwards the Homeric work o f his p u p i l Aristarchus was regarded as the authority on Homer and the agreement or disagreement w i t h his master was not often expressly stated by himself or registered by Aristonicus and Didymus. Similarly we may recall that the success o f Apollodorus' XpoviKd made i t almost impossible to reconstruct the chronography o f Eratosthenes. Even when readings had been originally marked as Aristophanic, some o f the later compilers o f our Scholia left his name out, keeping only those of Zenodotus or Rhianus (Schol. T B 53, H 443, O 3 3 ) , although others preserved i t (Schol. A to these lines); vice versa, at E 10 Schol. T has the name, but Schol. A omits i t . T h e hypomnema to Book 21 o f the Iliad, preserved i n P.Oxy. 221 o f the second century A . D . agrees w i t h the medieval manuscripts o f our Scholia i n giving the readings i n lines 1 and 249 under the name o f Aristophanes; but i t also contains the words vrapa Apioroipdvei to the variant reading i n line 217 TreAaaa? for y iXduas which are no longer extant i n the manuscripts. So i n assessing the nature of Aristophanes' edition we must be conscious that our knowledge of i t depends on mere chance. 1
3
3
4
Some of his well-attested readings, rejected by Aristarchus, sound very sensible and plausible. I n Zeus' teasing speech to Hera at the beginning of Book 4 o f the Iliad Aristophanes wrote (A 17) el 8 ' avrojs root -nam (ptXov teal r)ov ytvono ' i f this [the second alternative, namely to make peace] would equally please a l l [the gods]'; the adverb a t ! ™ ? (explained by oLtoiois i n Schol. T ad loc.) is exactly what we should expect i n this 5
See below, p. 178. The number of Aristophanic readings in each of the 2 4 books of the Iliad is given by T. W. Allen, Horn. //. 1 ( 1 9 3 1 ) 2 0 2 ; it is about afifthof the Zenodotean and atenthofthe Aristarchean readings, ibid. 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 . See above, p. [64. 4 A list of all the readings, complete for its time, was compiled by A. Nauck; the text has to be checked against such new editions as are available, and the list supplemented from the P PY * . , . r s Aristarchus' aS ira>s (Schol. A) would express uncertainty, and ovro>j in a tew manuscripts is a frequent false reading for aSrw. Cf. Hes. Th. 402 avrojs rrdvrtaai, Theocr. xxn 78 ovTii>s . . . travras. 1
1
1
a
ri
Text
of Homer
175
context before rräoi and i t can even help to restore a corrupt and sorely tried line o f the Odyssey. 1
As the most striking example o f Aristophanes' 'acuteness' modern critics frequently emphasize his assumption that line 296 o f Book 23 was the i i m i t ' o f the Odyssey. T h e reunion o f Odysseus and Penelope, tp 296 01 fiev eirevra / darrdmot Xitcrpovo iraXatov OeapLov LKOVTO, is commented on in the Scholia: ApLOTo
3
4
5
6
6 167 ovrais (codd.) ov rrdvreaai Beol x pl*vr<* ot&ovatv: read avrais 'not equally do the gods give gracious gifts to all men'. Schol. MV Vind.; TOVTO TC'AOS T.'O. rprjalv Äplarapxos Kal ApiaTorpdvys (Schol. H M Q J ; Eust. p. 1948. 49 Kara 7-r)v rßv rraXaiibv iaroplav Äpiorapxos Kai ÄptaTotpdvns, ot KOpvtbaloi TSIV TOTC ypap.paTLKu>v, els TO . . . "do-ndauu—IKOVTO" rrepaTovaiv -rr)v 'OSvWetcw, ra n^jf^je eats TeXovs TOV ßiß\iov voBevovTts. ol he TOiovrot TTOXXO. TWV KaipiaiTaTuw irepiKOitTovoiv . . . etmn 8' 1
a
2
T I E ÖTI. ApLarapxos
avow
raiiTTjs
Kal HpioTocpdvys ol p-qBevres ov TO ßißXiov TTJS ' Ohvaaelas,
aXXa. touts TO
Cf. Eust. p. 1393. 5 7 (on a 88 ff.) airy (sc. ij uvnornpoipovia) yap eon TO uKOjrtpdtTaTov re'Aoj TTJS iroirjaeias ravTTjs. A grammarian Euclides (L. Cohn, RE vi 1003. 27) in Schol. BT A 5 Strep «rri TeXos TT}S 'IXidSos seems to have used Te'Aoff in the same sense of OKQTTQS as Eust., but Aristoph. and Aristarch. by saying rrepas meant the 'limit'. It sounds to me like Eustathius' own arguing; but Wilamowitz, DU Heimkehr des Odysseus (1927) 72 f. supposed that he had 'vollständigere Scholien' as his source. * See especially £. Bethe, 'Odyssee-Probleme* 1. reAos rfjs 'OSvooetas. Herrn. 6n ( 1 0 2 8 ) Kalpia
evravBa
awreTeXeaSat
<paolv.
3
81-85. s
See above, pp. 173 f.
* The conventional form in the rare case of longer passages was: Z-qv6t% os r/der-nKev dno TovTou Tau or&ov TÄ W d Schol. A E 4 8 3 - 6 0 8 (shield of Achilles). Aristarchus athetized only a few lines of the o'jxAojrotia. Schol. $ 3 1 0 - 4 3 yBernoev Apiarapxas TOVS rpets Kal rptdtcovra (ov KaXd>s OV, *aA<Si Vind. 133) Schol. MV a 1 - 2 0 4 Aplarapxos dBertt rhv N4 av, with arguments and counter-arguments. Thus although he accepted Aristophanes' view of iu 296 as the 'limit' of the poem, he continued to obelize individual passages of the following part; it was therefore not 'athetized' as a whole. QT
KVi
176
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Hesiodic
Height
1
line w i t h one of his symbols? I f so, d i d Aristarchus correctly interpret i t as reXos or -nepas ? Does our Scholion preserve his interpretation ? Given all the hazards o f the tradition we can only hope that the answer w i l l be i n the affirmative; there is no chance o f proving i t . But w h y d i d Aristophanes raise the problem at all? I t has been suggested that Apollonius Rhodius, i n the last line of his Argonautica (rv 1781 oWacnöJs• a/cra? Hayao-ntSas d<jair€ßy]re) was already deliberately alluding to iji 296, i n order to demonstrate to his learned audience his belief that H o m e r had concluded the Odyssey at this point. But there is no resemblance at a l l between the two lines beyond the three syllables at the beginning. So obscure an allusion would have been intelligible only i f the notion that this line was the ' l i m i t ' of the Homeric poem was already familiar to the connoisseurs o f his generation, either from copies o f the Odyssey ending there or from the discussions o f Homeric scholars. T h e text o f the Argonautica by no means proves that Apollonius held this notion and that Aristophanes was influenced by him. I t is not impossible, though unlikely, that Aristophanes came across good copies o f the Odyssey ending at *fi 296, copies w h i c h so strongly impressed h i m that he marked this line as the irepas o f the poem i n his o w n edition. Could he have believed that a sentence starting w i t h ol p.kv eVe-tra brought a great epic poem to a satisfactory close? W e should suppose that i t was followed by at least one adversative sentence w i t h avrdp or 84, w h i c h had to be deleted when the longer version preserved i n all our manuscripts, avrap Trp\ep.axos KT\. was added. But whether Aristophanes had documentary evidence or not, his assumption o f the ' l i m i t ' at that place must have corresponded w i t h his own feelings. D i d he perhaps feel the difference between the poetical quality o f the preceding part and that o f the following 600 lines ? W i t h o u t doubt a change does take place here. The poetical power gripping the m i n d o f the listener throughout Books 3
3
4
5
S
He could have put a lectional sign like the Kopatvis after tf> 296 marking the end. For the coronis see the lists and drawings by W. Lameere, Les publications de Scriptorium rv ( i 9 6 0 ) 1 9 0 - 2 0 4 . On the symbols introduced by Aristophanes see below, p. 179. The codex Harleianus (H, saec. xm) added after IKOVTO a colon and a paragraphos (:—). It wasfirstput forward by L. Adam, Die aristotelische Theorie vom Epos nach ihrer Entwicklung bei Griechen und Römern (1889) 92, but hardly noticed, until Eduard Meyer, Herrn. 29 (1894) 478 f., championed it, see H . Herter, Bursian 285. 400, with bibliography; I agree with D. L . Page, The Homeric Odyssey (1955) 130, n. 1. 3 On Ap. Rh. as epic poet and Homeric scholar see above, pp. 146 if. * Ap. Rh. five times began a hexameter with aavaaUas and he may have had ip 296 in mind when he wrote 11 728 aartaaltas . . . opp,ov TKOVTO ; the Homeric model for rv 1781 might 1
1
have been if> 238 aorraaiot 5 ' etreßtw yat-ns.
* This might be a possible solution of the grammatical difficulties discussed by P. Friedlaender, Herrn. 6 4 (1929) 376. See also above, p. 116, on the traditional division into twentyfour books.
Criticism
21 to 23, i n which the contest of the bow, the killing of the suitors, and the reunion o f Odysseus and Penelope are told, suddenly crumbles away. I n a rapid sequence of short scenes, lacking vigour of language, every motif, every action is quickly, even impatiently, brought to a happy end. W e cannot know whether Aristophanes' m i n d was really struck by the i n feriority of the whole complex as unworthy o f the great poet of the R e t u r n and the Vengeance. But we can say that the hint given i n our Scholia under his name had enormous effect; i t has been unanimously welcomed by modern critics o f every denomination, unitarians and analysts alike. As Zenodotus had done i n the proem o f the Iliad, so i n the finale o f the Odyssey Aristophanes posed a crucial problem which has been a subject for continuous dispute up to the present day. 1
2
3
4
The scholar poets of the t h i r d century were remarkably fond of Hesiod, as we have observed, and their interest stimulated the activity o f the grammarians. As Aristophanes is said to have p u t a critical tjijpeim at Hes. Th. 6 8 , he must have followed Zenodotus i n editing Hesiod. W e saw how he raised a special problem o f authenticity i n the Homeric Odyssey; similarly i n Hesiod he continued the discussion o f the PseudoHesiodea, which had apparentiy been started by Apollonius Rhodius. Aristophanes denied the Hesiodic origin o f the Xlpojvos 'YiroOrjicai* and doubted that o f the Shield of Heracles, which Apollonius had maintained. The 'Shield of Achilles' i n the eighteenth book of our Iliad, which Zenodotus had athetized was the model for this later poem; according to the hypothesis o f the Scutum the first fifty-six fines o n Heracles' mother 6
5
7
9
They have used it, of course, in quite different ways. See above, pp. 111 ff. On Aristophanes Byz. and the Odyssey see also below, p. 191. If we carefully consider the style as well as the purpose of the whole finale, we are strongly reminded of the style and aim of the first book. The quality of the poetry is essentially the same: it lacks vigour of language and power of intuition, it displays an anxious accumulation of motifs, carried out more quietly in the first book for the exposition, but more quickly in the concluding book. This is not an addition to an already finished poem, a 'continuation' or 'epilogue', but the work of the poet who finally built up our Odyssey and by his intentional references from Book 24 to Book 1 constructed something like an arch over the whole vast composition for which he had used a number of older powerful epic poems. Even the most scrupulous re-examination by Page 1 0 1 - 3 6 (see above, p. 176, n. 2) has not convinced me that tf/ 297 ff. is 'a later appendix, loosely attached to a poem already substantially complete'; in his notes he refers to earlier literature. Page's view is shared by G. S. Kirk, The Songs of Homer (1962) 248 ff. As regards the relation of at to a I agree in general with P. Von der Muhll, 'Odyssee', /?£ Suppl. vn (1940) 764ff. On Homeric etScoAoTrou'a see Excursus. 1
1 J
4
Schol. Hes. Th. 68 irrea-qp-rivaTo; Schol. Hes. Th. 126 is hopelessly corrupt and we had better wait for a new edition. See above, p. 117. See above, p. 144. Quintil. 1 1 , 15 ( = Hes. test. 57 Jacoby) nam is primus (sc. Aristoph. Byz.) 'YrrodijKas . . . negavit esse huius poetae; cf. Schol. Pind. P. vi 22. » See above, p. 175, n. 6. s
6
7
8
814842
N
1 8
Alexandrian
7
Scholarship
at its
Height
Punctuation
Alcmene were identical w i t h a part o f the fourth book o f the KardXoyos (ywatKcvv) and 'therefore Aristophanes suspected' its non-Hesiodic provenance. This shows that he gave reasons for his suspicion; perhaps he did so i n his supplement to the Pinakes o f Callimachus. Yet, despite his doubts, the Scutum remained w i t h the Theogony and Erga i n every ancient text o f Hesiod, just as the end o f our Odyssey also survived his verdict. 1
2
3
4
We have no information about Aristophanes' views on orthography or methods o f marking variant readings i n the margin, but we have several times referred to the use o f critical signs as an integral part o f Aristophanes' extensive editorial work. Since the presence o f such signs i n a few very early p a p y r i is not proven, we may fairly see i n Zenodotus the originator o f the first critical symbol, the obelus, w h i c h meant more than the introduction o f a mere technical device. Aristophanes then seems to have improved the whole editorial technique by increasing the number o f critical ar}p.eta. By the acrreplo-Kos he marked the lines repeated from another place i n w h i c h they appeared to be more appropriate (Schol. y 71-73 = t 2 5 3 - 5 ) , o-iyfia and fonimyfux (>) two consecutive lines having the same contents and being therefore interchangeable (e 247 ff., w i t h Schol. cf. Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 1 5 3 ) . The choice and critical decision he left to the reader or future editor, following the example o f Zenodotus. 5
6
7
8
D
V
t
n
e
9
10
Lectional signs, one might say, are not i n the strict sense the business of the scholar, but of the scribe and corrector; punctuation and accentuation therefore are part o f the general history o f the script. But as we paid some attention to the early development o f the script, to books and to libraries, we may now say a few words about the growing importance o f P.Oxy. xxni (1956) 2355 ( = Hes. fr. P Merkelbach), in which Scut. 1-5 are preceded by the ends of six other hexameters, may belong to this part of the fourth book; see Lobel's introduction. Argum. Hes. Scut. 1 (— Hes. test. 52 Jac.) rrjs AorriBos r) apxr) & T<5 Teraproj KaraXoyai 1
3
ibiperai u*XP ortxaiv v tcai S . Sto Kai vrrtLrrrevKev ApurroavT}S tus ovie ovaav avr-qv 'HaioSov, iAA' erepov TWOS TTfv ' Opvnpuciiv aairi&a p,ip.r)aa<jdaL rrpaaipavpxrov. Hes. Scut. ed. G. F. Russo (1950) 67, cf. 3 6 ; J . Schwartz, Ps.-Hesiodeia (i960) 458. l
See above, p. 1 3 3 ; cf. Nauck 247 f. * Hes. Th. ed. F. Jacoby, Proleg. pp. 48 f. Jachmann, 'Vom fruhalexandrinischen Homertext', NGG 1949, 223 is inclined to believe in a sort of pre-Alexandrian oypelaiats. See above, pp. 115, 173 f. and p. 176, n. 1. ? Nauck 16-18. Anecd. Parisin. Schol. II. 1 p. xlvii 2 9 Aristophanes, etc. (text confused). Aristarchus used avrlaiyp-a and oriypvq in such cases, see below, p. 218. The Ktpnwiov is mentioned only once in the Homeric Scholia, when Penelope drew gifts from the suitors, rrapeXKiro Schol. a 282 avrl rov etpeXiceTo- evrtXcs TOVTO, Sto Kai Ktpawiov wape'fijtcec ApiOTa<pavqs. This might mean that he condemned this line or the whole passage because of its cvrchcia, its 'meanness' (?); cf. Isid. Etym. 1 21. 21 ceraunium . . . quotiens multi versus improbantur', and Anted, Soman. Schol. II. 1 p. xliii 27 Dind. (rather vague). 3
s
6 8
5
1 0
and
Accentuation
punctuation for critical texts and about the w r i t i n g o f accents. We must be careful to separate these two things, w h i c h are unfortunately mixed up i n our only literary source on this subject, chapter 20 o f Ps.-Arcadius' epitome o f Herodian's KaOoXiKrj Tlpooipola. This chapter bears the title Hepl rfk Tciv Tovatv tvpeo-ews KTX. only i n one Paris manuscript, Par. gr. 2 1 0 2 , which was written by a disreputable forger o f the sixteenth century, Jacobus Diassorinus. H e put together bits o f treatises on the subject i n Theodosius and i n the Scholia to Dionysius T h r a x , adding the misleading tide nepl. . . €vpeo€
2
3
4
5
6
7
' This manuscript was known to Montfaucon, Palaeographia Graeca (1708) 31, and its text was first published as ApKaBlov LXepi ravatv e cod. Paris, primum ed. E . H. Barker, 1820 (repr. by Nauck, Aristoph. Byz. 72 ff.); K. E . A. Schmidt. Beiträge zur Geschickte der Gram-, matik des Griechischen und Lateinischen (1859, pp. 5 7 1 - 6 0 1 'Die Erfindungen des Aristophanes v. B. und das Buch des Arkadios'), advanced decisive arguments against the authorship of Arcadius of Antioch; [Arcad.] 'Errnoiin r% KadoXiK-rjs rrpoatpBlas 'Hpaiaiavov rec. M. Schmidt ( i 8 6 0 ) was based un more and better manuscripts (reprinted by A. Lentz, Herodian. rell. I 1867 xxxviii ff., who denied its derivation from Herodian). L. Cohn proved that Par. 2102 was written by Jacobus Diassorinus, Philol. Abhandlungen/. Martin Hertz (1888) 141 ff. A 'critical' text of chapter 20 is printed by Laum (below, p. 180, n. 4) who unfortunately mixed up the text of Par. gr. 2603 with the forgery of Diassorinus in 2102. See also the following note. The few relevant sentences on punctuation from the two Paris manuscripts were separately printed by W. Lameere, Lespublications de Scriptorium iv ( i 9 6 0 ) 91, who added an exhaustive bibliography. Cf. the still useful thesis by G. Fluck, De Graecorum interpunctionibus (Greifswald 1908) esp. pp. 4 ff. on Aristophanes. s See above, p. 24, n. 4 ; references to chronological and technical details of punctuation are given by Miss Jeffery p. 50. + See above, p. 103, n. 2 ; cf. W. Schubart, Einführung in die Pafryruskunde (1918) 6 0 ; Das 2
Buch bei den Griechen und Römern, 8 0 f. and
Isoer. or. xv 59. Rhet. in 5 p. 1407 b 18 = Vors. papyri is known. Rhet. m 8 p. 1409 a 2 1 ; on the
181; Griechische Palaeographie
(1925) 173.
s
6
7
22
A
4.
But so far no instance of a
irapd.ypa
oriypy
as metrical sign see below, p.
in
the earliest
186.
i8o
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Aristophanes'
Height
from 'inventing' punctuation, continued a long tradition. N o reference to Zenodotus is preserved, and there is only one testimony left i n our Homeric Scholia (Schol. H Q v 9 6 ) , i n which Aristophanes is blamed for a wrong artyfi-q i n a 72. This is sufficient to prove that he d i d punctuate the text; perhaps he used no more than two different stops, the reAeia oTiyurj and the uVoorty^?/, as Dionysius T h r a x d i d two generations later. The more elaborate system finally developed i n the Hadrianic age by Nicanor should not be dated back to Aristophanes. 1
I f we now t u r n to the question o f accents i n our papyri, we see that none were written i n the early Ptolemaic p a p y r i ; Aristotle and his pupils apparently read their texts without them. I n the first century B . C . prosodic signs were occasionally inserted, and slowly they became more frequent i n the time o f the empire. Aristophanes is the first grammarian whose accentuation is quoted (Schol. (P) 77 317 ApLoro
4
5
There is an isolated remark o f Eratosthenes quoted i n the chapter 'De Accentibus' by Sergius, Explanationes in Artem Donati: he is said to have explained the pronunciation o f the circumflex 'ex parte priore acuta i n gravem posteriorem (sc. flecti p u t a v i t ) ' , while others gave different explanations. But this paragraph, like the whole chapter, deals w i t h the question o f the spoken accents, which probably had been discussed i n musical, rhetorical, and metrical books for a long time. Granted that the reading 'Eratosthenes' is correct, the passage still does not show that he anticipated Aristophanes i n devising and using written signs i n the 6
Editions
of Lyric
Poetry
181
editions o f texts. This is the only aspect o f accents, as a help to the reader •n-pos SiauToXrjv rijs dut[}o\ov Ae£eoj?, that concerns us i n this chapter. I n this case we are indeed entitled to regard Aristophanes as the first to accentuate the Homeric and other texts. But he was not the first to punctuate them, and this distinction should not be disregarded any longer. 1
Momentous as Aristophanes' achievement i n Homeric studies was, his edition o f lyric poetry (including the lyrical parts o f the drama) was an epoch-making event. W h e n we say 'lyrics' we mean language and metre; although they presumably understood the symbols or script by which the classical melopoeia was expressed and handed down from the Ionic and A t t i c ages to the t h i r d century, the grammarians who spent so much labour on saving literature and language d i d nothing for the 'music', b u t let i t perish. I n the histories o f ancient music this i n difference of the scholars is not duly recorded as far as I can see; they can hardly be quite without blame for the total loss o f the musical notation. We should not forget, however, that in the course o f the fourth century the original unity o f words and music was breaking down and that certain groups o f Sophists and philosophers cared only for the language when they treated the old poetry ; i t may be regrettable, but i t is understandable, that the Alexandrian grammarians followed their lead. 3
3
4
Zenodotus took the first steps i n editing Pindar and Anacreon and perhaps others, and one o f his conjectures i n Anacreon's text provoked a sharp rejoinder from Aristophanes. Callimachus i n his Pinakes took pains to classify the various lyric poems, a preparatory work invaluable for every future editor and critic, especially for Aristophanes. Eratosthenes agreed w i t h Ghamaeleo i n ascribing an archaic h y m n to a certain author and a lyric poem o f Archilochus to a special class. Apollonius Rhodius seems to have devoted a book to Archilochus i n which he gave a new explanation of the dxvv\iiv-r\ O-KVTO.XT] ; on the same phrase—which occurred i n an epodic, not i n a lyric poem—Aristophanes wrote a whole treatise. This seems to have contained polemics against Dicaearchus 5
6
7
See below, p. 269. Schubart, Das Buck 81 ff. and 181. See also the following note Laum 116 ff. giving a few more uncertain references. * B. Laum, 'Das alexandrinische Akzentuationssystem', Studien zur Geschickte und Kultur des Altertums, 4. Erg. Bd. (published 1928, but written before 1914) 9 9 - 1 2 4 and 4 5 2 . 1 ; cf. E . Schwyzer, Griech. Grammatik (1939) 371 ff. and especially H . Erbse, 'Beiträge zur Uberlieferung der Iliasscholien', getemata 24 ( i 9 6 0 ) 3 7 1 - 4 0 6 . For accents in lyric texts see J . Gießler, Prosodische Reichen in den antiken Handschriften griechischer Lyriker, Diss. Gießen 1923. GL. ed. H. Keil rv (1864) 530. 2 4 ; the author of this treatise is called Sergius (or Seregius) in the manuscripts, not Servius, see Keil, Praef. pp. xlix and liv. The doctrine seems to be derived through Varro ('Reliquorum de grammatica librorum fragmenta no. 84 in Varr. De lingua Lot. rec. Goetz-Schoell, 1910, p. 215. 23) from Tyrannio, see G. Wendel, 'Tyrannion', REvu A (1948) 1816 and 1818. As far as I can see, the Eratosthenes fragment is mentioned only by Knaack, REvi 385 as a possible part of the rpanfiariKa (cf. above, p. 162). 1
2
3
5
6
1
8
Even Laum and Schwyzer are incorrect in this point. Nauck pp. 6 0 - 6 2 . 3 See Isobel Henderson, 'Ancient Greek Music', New Oxford History of Music 1 (1957) 336 fT. + See above, p. 53 on Hippias and p. 76 on Aristotle; see furthermore Aristoxenus fr. 92, Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 2 ( 1 9 4 5 ) , Heraclid. Pont. fr. 157, ibid. 7 ( 1 9 5 3 ) , Chamaeleo fr. 28/29, ibid- 9 i ^ ) * See above, pp. 117 f. See above, p. 162. See above, p. 144. Nauck p. 274 Apioroipavns 6 ypapifiariitos ev Tip 77e/>l rijs ayyu/aeVijs aKvraXns uvyypo.fi1
2
1
6
7
8
182
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Classification
Height 1
about the meaning o f a word i n the lyric text o f Alcaeus. Aristophanes, we see, had the benefit of several predecessors i n the lyric field; but i t was he, through his more extensive and much more penetrating labour, who dominated the future. I n modern times a l l non-epic a n d non-dramatic poetry is usually called lyric. But the ancient theorists and editors distinguished between elegiac and iambic poems on the one hand, and melic poems o n the other. The stichic or distichic poems i n dactylic or iambic rhythms, falling into well demarcated recurrent 'lines', were regarded as special kinds o f «rn, recited poetry like the hexametric epic poems a n d hymns, a n d their makers were termed iXeyeioiroiot and iapßonoLot. Although there were sometimes instrumental preludes and interludes, the delivery of elegy and iambus was declamatory or perhaps melodramatic, as opposed to singing w i t h obligatory instrumental accompaniment. Verse that was sung to music and very often also to dancing and was composed o f elements o f varying r h y t h m and length was called peXiKrj or XvptK-r) novq<jt$. I t may seem surprising, i n view o f the statement that the grammarians concentrated o n the text and allowed the music to perish, that this firm distinction was based on the relation o f text and music. T h e metrical form, however, remained and was the feature w h i c h chiefly distinguished the lyric text from all the rest. A lyric poem was a ¡J.4XOS i n early Greek literature, the poet a UCXOTTOIOS, a maker of songs, or UZXLKÓS ( S C . TroL-qrrjs), and the whole genre (xtXtfcr) 7701170-1?; and these remained the normal terms i n later disquisitions about poetical theory and the classification o f poetry. But i n references to editions o f texts and i n lists o f the 'makers' the authors are called XvptKol; J7ept XvptKcöv TTOI^TUJV was the title D i d y mus gave to the book he wrote under Augustus, based o n the research of the entire Hellenistic age. T h e foremost poets were always spoken o f as the e W a XvptKoi, and from the first century B . C . onwards their work began to be termed XvpiKj¡ Trewjots;, that is, 'poetry sung to the lyre' (as the lyre h a d once been the most important o f the accompanying instruments). L a t i n writers occasionally used 'melicus', as Cicero does when he borrows from Greek theoretical literature, b u t 'lyricus' became the usual L a t i n term i n Augustan times and later. Horace hopes t o be included among the 'Iyrici vates' (not the ' m e l i c i ' ) ; O v i d always says 'lyricus', 2
3
4
Dicaearch. fr. 9 9 Wehrli, Schule des Aristoteles 1 ( 1 9 4 4 ) . On Alcaeus fr. 3 5 9 L.-P. = fr. 103 D. see below, p. 185. Cf. Lysanias (Eratosthenes' teacher?) IJepl lafißairotcbv above, p. 153, n. 3 . Aristoph, Ran, 1250, Plat. Ion 5 3 3 E al., Heraclid. Pont. fr. 157, Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 7 ( 1 9 5 3 ) , [Aristot.] Probl. 920 a 11. H . Färber, Die Lyrik in der Kunsttheorie der Antike (1936) 7 ff. 'Der Name der Lyrik'; on the nine poets see below, pp. 205 f. 1
2 3
4
of Lyric
Poetry
183
and so do Quintilian, Pliny, and Seneca. Even i n the L a t i n theorists 'melicus' was displaced by 'lyricus', and the derivations from i t became more and more purely musical terms. The modern use of the term 'lyric', from which we started i n this paragraph, comes from L a t i n literature since Quintilian as well as O v i d and Horace were favourite reading i n the Italian Renaissance. O n the basis o f this survey I venture to suggest that Aristophanes' influence was decisive for the change o f terminology. Both Istros, the Callimachean, a n d the poet Euphorion, who were a few years senior to h i m , gave their books the title iTepi ^eAoTrotcùv ; after his editions no such title seems to occur. But indeed the whole classification o f lyric poems was determined by the needs o f the editor, not by any older tradition of poetical theory or artistic practice. T h e Indexes o f Callimachus were the only work o n which Aristophanes could have built ; they at least pointed the way to the arrangements o f poets and poems in several classes and subdivisions. There never was a general system; authors were given individual treatment according to the contents or the form o f their poems. 1
2
3
4
Pindar is the only great lyric poet o f whose works four complete books (the Epinida) were preserved and commented o n i n later ancient and medieval times. O f the lost poems a great number o f quotations and recently discovered papyrus fragments are now available to us, and many references i n the biographical tradition and i n the Scholia supplement our knowledge. One o f our most precious testimonies tells us that i n Aristophanes' arrangement Apimov p,h> v8a>p headed the Epinicia {irpoTeTaKTai VTTO Aptcrrorfidvovs rod avvrd^avros Ta. nwhapiKd) . T h e word ovvTaTTeiv confirms that he was not the first collector o f the Pindaric poems, but that he put them into proper order. Something similar may have been said i n the recently published Life of Pindar, i f we are justified i n supplying : SJoJpTjTCu Se O . I Ï T [ O ] 0 r [ à Troi'qp.ara VTT' ApLOTO(pdv]ovs et? p\/ïAia i£. The songs o f victory were divided into four books according t o the four places o f the national games, O l y m p i a , Delphi, Isthmus, and Nemea, a principle taken over from Callimachus, though not applied to Simonides and Bacchylides. T h e «VtVt/cot were the concluding group o f seventeen 5
6
7
334 F 56, a biographical anecdote about Phrynis. Euphor. fr. 58 Scheidweiler, about the mythical inventors of the ovptyÇ. See above, p. 130; on a modern mistake of a 'Platonic' classification see Excursus on p. 74. Names of choral songs occur in Plat. Leg. 700 G D (above p. 75, n. 1). Cf. J . Irigoin, Histoire du texte de Pindare (1952) 3 5 - 5 0 'L'édition d'Aristophane de Byzance'. » Pind. ed. B. Snell n' { 1 9 6 4 ) . Schol. Pind. 1 (1903) 01. ed. Drachmann p. 7. ? Above, p. 130. 1
a 3
4
6
FGrHist
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Pindar,
Height
books: yêypadje Bè fkfft\îa eVrctKcuSefca' vp.vovs> iratâvas, BtOvpdfifian' irpoooatwv jS', -napQevLttiv p ', éperat Se mal y' o e-TTtypd
1
)
2
3
4
5
6
V e r y few references to Aristophanes' text o f the lyric poets are left to us ; for, as i n the case o f Homer, his plain text w i t h critical signs was superseded by Aristarchus' commentary. A few remarks on prosody are attested as Aristophanic, b u t none about dialect or orthography. W e do • Schol. Pind. r p. 3. 6 (Vita Ambrosiana), cf. p. 6. 3 (Vita Thomana) and Suid. v. P.Oxy. xxvi (1961) no. 2 4 3 8 , 11 35 ff. with E . Lobel's supplements and commentary. Part of the sequence is different in P.Oxy. 2438 (late second or third century A . D . ) ; but a supplement vp-Jyaiv between èyK<ûu.ia and iiropxripo-TO. is very unlikely, 3 Prod, in Phot. Bibl. 3 1 9 b 33 ff. Bekker. * Wilamowitz, Pindaros (1922) 1 0 8 ; unfortunately the conjecture was accepted by H . Farber, Die Lyrik in der Kunsttheorie der Antike (1936) 19. s On the papyrus-list of the librarians see above, p. 172, n. 2 ; Schol. Pind. P. 11 inscr. (n p. 31 Drachmann) evtoi IJvBucqv, dis AiroXXdivios 0 tlSoypaipos. Et. gen. B = Et. M. p. 295. 52 v. ei8oypdV epowv (? Sylburg: etowv codd.) Auipiov p,é\os *X ' avrè avvi)ye, Kal fPpvyias Kal Avhias, JLU£OAUS«7TI «cal iaort. On nivoapos. a
6
elv
the
Stà traaûiv c'Bn see
i>ir
T
Musici
0
Scriptores Graeci ed.
G. von
Ian
(1895) 308 f. and
passim.
A.
Bôckh made the perfectly correct statement: 'Apollonius . . . carmina secundum genera harmoniae, Dorium, Phrygium etc. . . . distinxit et consociavit.' Pindari Opera 11 1 (1819) xxxi. We shall not ask how the clSoypdtpos was able to make this distinction, if musical notation was already lost, see above, p. 181.
Alcaeus,
Anacreon
185
not even k n o w how many of the lyric poets Aristophanes edited. Pindar was certainly one o f t h e m ; to the single quotation i n the Scholia to the Epinicia can now be added three of his variant readings i n the marginal notes of the great papyrus of the Paeans {P.Oxy. 841) 1175 («V Se, not h> Se), 1
8 9 (00-0-a, not 00-a), and v i 181 (unintelligible). T o Alcman's great
vi
Parthenion the Louvre papyrus notes on the margin opposite col. 1, 32 (= PMG p. 6 Page) Aristophanes' reading AiSas (not AiSas); i t is likely that at col. i l l , 27 ( = PMG p. 6) Api[ to the reading vai (instead o f vai) means Aristophanes, not Aristarchus, since i t is proposed like the other Aristophanic variants, for prosodic reasons. T h e quotation o f the lines 64 ff. o f the Parthenion for the meaning o f dpivvao-Bat may belong to his Ae£eis; P.Oxy. 2390, fr. 50. 7, begins w i t h the name Apurroipa.v[ but i t is uncertain whether this fragment belongs to a commentary on Alcman, as the other forty-nine fragments apparendy do. W e know by chance that Aristophanes defended a traditional reading i n Anacreon against Zenodotus' conjecture; but Aelian's phrase avriXeyet Kara Kpdros, points rather to an article on Kepoets-ipoets i n the /le^ety, or even to a passage on the 'horned doe' i n i7ept ^OJOJV, than to an edition of Anacreon's text. O n the other hand, i n Hephaestio's metrical handbook the strophe o f Anacreon's first poem is said to be divided into eight cola Kara TT)I> VVV CKSOO-IV, that is, according to the edition o f Aristarchus; b u t i t could be divided i n another way, eis re rpidSa Kal irevrdSa. T h . Bergk convincingly argued that the phrase 'present edition' implies the existence of an earlier edition w i t h differing «-aiAa, which could only be that o f Aristophanes; and i n fact i n the chapter on the metrical or}p.eta Hephaestio contrasted 2
t
3
4
5
6
Apiaro<j>dv€iov eKSoaiv of Alcaeus w i t h TT)V VVV ri)v Apiordpxeiov. So i t is very likely that there was an Aristophanic edition of Anacreon and certain that there was one of Alcaeus; there is a reference to a reading i n the latter (x&vs instead o f XeTras) i n his treatise on the axyvp>evy] CTKUTOATJ. Aristophanes' lyric texts were distinguished from a l l the previous ones by a prominent new feature; they were not written i n continuous lines like prose, but divided into shorter metrical /c<3Aa. W e do not know anything about pre-Aristophanic division of lyric poetry into cola. But poets of the time o f Philitas and especially o f Callimachus' circle used 'members' o f old lyric strophes for new recitative poems Kara ori^ov ; this TTfv
7
8
See below, p. 187. Schol. L E 266 (Eust. 546. 29) = Nauck p. 213, fr. inc. sed. 61. See above, pp. 117 and 181. • Hephaest. ed. M. Gonsbruch (1906) 68. 18 ff. * Anacr. ed. Th. Bergk (1835) 2 6 . Hephaest. 74. 12. See above, p. 182, n. 1. * Cf. P. Mass, Greek Metre, translated by H . Lloyd-Jones ( 1 9 6 2 ) § 1 5 ; on Callimachus* lyric metres see Call. II p. 135 Index: 'metrica* and the metrical notes to^fr. 201 and 202. 1
2
J
6
7
186
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Height
Colonie try and Strophic
implies a certain consciousness of individual cola i n the text of early lyric and dramatic poetry. I t is not unlikely that i n this field also the poets paved the way for the scholars, as so often i n the t h i r d century B.C. Aristophanes also observed the repetition o f given sequences of these metrical units and marked the beginning o f the corresponding parts by a 7rapdypar), a stanza, used for these corresponding parts, was probably a traditional musical term. Sappho, Alcaeus, and Anacreon composed 'monostrophic' songs i n which the same stanza, built up from a fixed number o f KaiAa, was repeated as often as the poet l i k e d ; the end of the last stanza was marked by a xopcuvis. But Aristophanes used the aoreptWos- instead o f the Koptovts i n those cases where a poem i n a different metre followed; this is especially noticeable i n his edition o f Alcaeus. The second principal form o f song is ' t r i a d i c ' : a strophe, often very complicated, and a corresponding dvriarpodjos is followed by a t h i r d part different i n metre and length from the two corresponding parts, an eVajSoff. The triad may be repeated, as i n Pindar and already, on a much smaller scale, as I believe, i n Alcman's Parthenion. The ends o f the two corresponding strophes are marked b y paragraphi and the end o f each epodos by the coronis, for w h i c h the asteriscus is substituted at the conclusion o f the poem. Hephaestio's handbook is i n general agreement w i t h the practice o f the p a p y r i . The Persae o f Timotheus and the socalled Scolia o f Elephantine are still written like prose, as they belong to the fourth and early t h i r d centuries. But the Alcman papyrus o f the first century B.C. [P.Oxy. 2387) shows the text divided into short «ojAa and each triadic structure subdivided by two paragraphi and a coronis; the often-quoted great papyrus o f Pindar's Paeans (P.Oxy. 841) is a splendid example of the editorial technique introduced by Aristophanes, and so to a lesser degree are the Bacchylides papyri. There is o f course no pedantic consistency i n the p a p y r i and the acrrepiuKos became relatively rare i n the course o f t i m e ; b u t the concluding epode of Paean v was denoted by coronis and obelus and the commencement o f Paean v i by a 'separate sign' which must be acknowledged as an asteriscus. 1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
1
Cf, above, p. 179.
3
Hephaest. p.
dorepioKOS
74. 11 ff. imi
i i f t ercpop-erpias
Se
irldcro
rod AXxalov
ISitas
Kara.
fj.ev
Apiaroipdvfiav
TT/V
eKOooiv
p.ovT)s.
E . Lobel, P.Oxy. xxrv (1957) 8 regards them as monostrophic compositions. * Hephaest. p. 74. 1 ff. Cf. above, p. 179. See W. Schubart, Einfuhrung in die Papyruskunde (1918) 5 9 (Zur metrischen Gliederung) and Das Buch 8 6 and 181 f. with many references, and especially the facsimiles in Papyri 3
s
6
Graecae Btrolinenses
(1911) pi. 1 and
3.
Cf. Snell, Bacchyl. praefaL p. 13+. • See P.Oxy. v p. 1 4 ; Pind. ed. Snell ( 1 9 6 4 ) p. 2 4 and ibid. p. xrv/xv); cf. the asteriscus in Bacchyl. after c. vi and c. vn. 7
5 6 = P.Oxy.
2441 (Pae.
Structure
187
W h e n Aristophanes tried to determine the metrically corresponding parts, he detected i n Pindar 0. r i 27 between <£iAeî Se' aiv TJaAAcW a?et and Kal Zeiss îrarîjp the bold interpolation of the words duAeWri Moiaai, which were without responsion i n the other stanzas : Schol. (A) T O KOJXOV TOVTO
Ttepvneveiv
dôeTet Aptaro
yàp aùrô (prjoLV irpos
dvriarpoipovs.
<(TCW)'
1
He condemned this obvious interpolation by an obelus i n the margin, but i t remained i n the text o f the Byzantine manuscripts, u n t i l the conscientious metrician Demetrius Triclinius omitted i t i n the early fourteenth century. O n l y once i n our metrical scholia on Pindar d i d the responsion remain unnoticed, namely i n 0. x r v , and once three corresponding stanzas were assumed without recognizing the triadic structure, 0. v ; these very rare mistakes must have already been made by Aristophanes and faithfully preserved by his successors. 2
3
Aristophanes was always regarded i n later antiquity as the originator of KcoXi&Lv ; when Dionysius o f Halicarnassus contrasts the nâjXa o f lyric poets {Pindar, Simonides) w i t h those of artistic prose, he says : KÛiXa Se p,e Se'£cu Xéyetv ov% ois ApioTO
TTaîSeç ràç Trepiob'ovç hiaipovoi
and rd 2Jtp.oj-
viheia ravra- yeyparrrai Se Kara ràç StaoToAcW où_vj wv Aptorocpdvrjs 77 aAAos
ctAA* tov 6 Tre^os Xdyos aWraiTCi. His Colometry was copied through late antiquity and through the Byzantine age w i t h occasional modifications, especially by Triclinius. I t underwent a fundamental change only when A . B ô c k h discovered that the stanza is built up from a number o f metrical rrepioooi o f which the ends are marked by a 'pause' and that the periods usually consist o f several cola or sometimes o f one colon only. T h e occurrence o f a pause means that i n corresponding syllables o f the stanzas a full word-end is strictly observed and hiatus and syllaba anceps are permitted. N o such external distinctive mark exists for the 'members' o f the period, the KÛsXa ; metrical analysis is needed to find out their elements and length. For the understanding o f Aristophanes' colometry Hephaestio's handbook can still be helpful, as i t is i n the case o f the crqp,eîa ; a colon is TIÇ
/cctTeo-Ketiaae
KOJAOJP,
4
5
6
In Schol. BEQ.the name of the grammarian is left out as so often in the Homeric Scholia ; cf. above, p. ] 74. Cf. the general remarks, above, p. 173. 3 Irigoin, Histoire du texte 346. * Dionys. Hal., de comp. verb. 22, p. 102. 1ff.and 26, p. 140. 18 ff. Us.-Rad. 'De metris Pindari libri très' in Pindari Opera 1 2 (1811) 1 - 3 4 0 . Hephaest. p. 6 3 . 2 Consbr. (f7ept iroi-np.druv I 1) TO Sè ZXarrov 5v rpiàiv av^vyi&v . . . KaXeîrat KWXOV; cf. F. Leo, 'Die beiden metrischen Système des Altertums', Herm. 2 4 (1889) 292. 1 ; Irigoin, Histoire au texte 4 5 ff. and especially 'Les Scholies métriques de Pindare', Bibliothèque de l'École des Hautes Études 3 1 0 ( 1 9 5 8 ) 1 7 - 3 4 'f^ colométrie Alexandrine'. The description of the metrical schemes of every colon in our Scholia to Pindar is based on 1
2
5 6
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Textual
Height
defined as a metrical unit 'containing fewer than three dipodies {ovfryitu) without catalexis'. T h e practice o f the p a p y r i generally is i n conformity w i t h this theory. T h e Louvre papyrus o f Alcman's Parthenion (fr. i Page = fr. i D . ) shows the stanza written i n fourteen cola; i n this very simple and lucid structure each colon contains only one rhythmical element, trochees or enhoplia or dactyls, which are a l l known to us from Archilochus. N o other division is practicable; modern colometry can only state that cola i - i o actually are ten periods, separated by word-end and hiatus or syllaba anceps, while the two cola 11-12 are parts o f one period, and so are the cola 1 3 - 1 4 . Most of Bacchylides' stanzas also have a relatively simple structure; so the colometry o f the British Museum and other p a p y r i can be kept w i t h only minor changes i n our editions. A typical instance when correction is needed is neglect o f the hiatus i n the papyrus Bacchyl. c. x 15-16 NUas e W r i dvdeatv a n d at the same place twice i n the second t r i a d , 33 ff. a n d 4 3 ff., where the correct end of a period can be restored w i t h certainty. I n Pindar's complex and extensive stanzas the modern editor has to alter the ancient or Byzantine cola more often ; o n the other hand, there are nearly always sufficient criteria for the distinction o f periods, as the triads are so often repeated. I n the strophic lyrics o f the drama, where usually only one antistrophos responds to one strophe, external marks o f the end of the period are often lacking. a
1
2
3
4
This lengthy section o n Aristophanes' edition o f the lyric poets has ranged over a wide space o f t i m e ; i t was no exaggeration to call his innovations i n this field 'epoch-making'. W e t u r n now to his work on dramatic poetry. Its dialogue was, as far as we can guess, always written i n separate 'lines', i n arlxot o f equal length, usually trimeters or sometimes tetrameters, like the hexametric lines of the epics; b u t no one before Aristophanes seems to have divided the choral passages into metrical a compilation of the second century A . D . ; a critical text of the ancient metrical Scholia is printed by Irigoin pp. 131-77¬ Lines 12 (the second trochaic dimeter) and 14 (the second dactylic dimeter) should be indented; by this simple arrangement the reader is able to recognize at once the intentions of the editor and to get a clear picture of the metrical structure. It is hard to understand why this opportunity is so frequently missed by editors. * Afirmlyestablished ancient tradition of colometry is now proved by the almost complete agreement of the two papyri of Bacchyl. c. 17; see Snell, praef. pp. 15+ f., 35 f-> p. 57, and on colometry in general p. 31+. Bockh did not break up his periods into cola in his big Quarto edition of 1811, but the following editors (except A. Turyn 1948) tried to do so; they are naturally often at variance with each other and with the Byzantine manuscripts of the Epinicia. On the colometry of the papyri and the unavoidable adjustments sec Snell, Pind. n pp. 17, 26, 73, 88. On Pindar's periodic t^hnique and on the difficulties in respect of the choral passages of the drama see P. Maas, Greek Metre (196a) § 66. 1
+
3
3
4
t e x t
Criticism
and Colometry
in Old Attic
Comedy
189
units o f varying length and movement. T h e question is how far his colometry is preserved i n our manuscripts. I f we look first at A t t i c Comedy, we find that i n the foremost codex o f the Aristophanic comedies, the Venetus, the Clouds is followed by the subscription: /ce/auAiorat eVc TOJV 'HXiooojpov. Heliodorus, a metrist i n the middle o f the first century A . D . , maintained the principles o f the Alexandrian tradition as his younger contemporary Hephaestio d i d ; but he h a d various dvrlypacpa o f the comedies at his disposal, applied a developed system of colometrical signs and accompanied his SteSoms o f the text w i t h a running metrical commentary. As a result, i t is almost impossible t o reconstruct the details o f Aristophanes' colometry i n the text o f the scenic poets as we could w i t h that o f Pindar; and this must be taken as characteristic o f the situation i n general. There was a continuous and lively scholarly activity i n the field of drama throughout the later centuries which has obscured its beginnings i n Alexandria. 1
2
3
W e have described how the previous generations o f scholars tried t o cope w i t h the difficulties o f language and subject i n A t t i c comedy. Aristophanes o f Byzantium was doubtless influenced b y the w o r k o f his teachers Euphronius and Eratosthenes o n old comedy, a n d i t is specifically attested that he was an eager p u p i l of the comic writer M a c h o n , from w h o m he learned 'the parts of comedy' i n his youth. T h e Scholia to Aristophanes' comedies, like those to Homer and Pindar, preserve a few references to Aristophanes o f B y z a n t i u m ; they are just sufficient t o reveal the m a i n lines of his textual criticism. H e emended (fxeraypdifias) a corrupt proper name i n Thesm. 162 (AXKOIOS for A^OMS) ; he marked consecutive interchangeable lines by the same 0-np.efa as i n his edition o f the Odyssey (Ran. 152 ff.) ; he felt that after Av. 1342 something is missing 4
5
6
7
8
P. Boudreaux, Le cf. 138 ff. on Heliodorus, pp. 2 5 - 4 7 on Aristophanes of Byzantium and esp. on his colometry 35 ff. For a balanced review of this rare book (written in 1914) see P. GeiBler, Gnom. 2 (1926) 213 ft 1
Cf. the subscription after the
Texte d'Aristophane
1
Peace:
K£Ka>Xio~rai wpos r a 'HXioBcapov.
et ses commentateurs (1919) 1 7 9 ;
F . Leo, Herm. 2 4 (1889) 2 8 4 .
O. Hense, REwiu (1913) 31 f.; the StirX-ij was introduced to mark antistrophic responsion and lyric lines were separated from the dialogue by eZaOeats 'indenting'; the aarepio-Kos was no longer used. 3
4
Cf. above, pp. ugf., 159-162.
s
See Athen. xrv
664 A O ypau-partKos
V I 241 F S i S i W a A o s yevofitvos
Apioroipdtrns
rajv K a r a Kotuipotav
Machon, 'The Fragments' ed. by A. S.
F.
Gow,
eoirovSaa-c avo"xp\acraL
p.tpS>v Apiaro
avr
TOV ypau.p.ariKov.
and See
Texts and Commentaries 1
(1965) 6 f.
Nauck pp. 6 3 - 6 6 . In this case I am not inclined to regard p.tTaypa<pas as an error of the Scholiasts on Aristoph. Thesm. 162 and to assume a better manuscript as source of Aristophanes' correct reading, as Pasquali, Storia 190, did, See above, p. 1 7 8 ; cf. H. Erbse, Gnom. 2 8 (1956) 2 7 5 . 6 7
8
igo
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Height
Aristophanes*
(SidXetfifxa), though the awkward stopgap (?rA-r/poj/ia) attributed to h i m by the Scholia can hardly be his manufacture. Unfortunately his name never occurs i n the Scholia when they are explaining the distribution o f speakers, although we might expect that as a master of editorial technique he w o u l d have p a i d particular attention to m a r k i n g the change o f speakers i n the dialogue of scenic poetry. I n ancient papyri and medieval manuscripts i t is usually indicated by paragraphus and double point, later also by abbreviated names, perhaps i n accordance w i t h a preAlexandrian t r a d i t i o n . None o f the great grammarians, however, seems to have attached much weight to these indications and this is the cause of a rather i r r i t a t i n g instability i n a l l our manuscripts. 1
2
We saw no reason to assume that Aristophanes wrote any wofiWjfiaTa on epic or lyric poetry; he d i d not produce any commentary on the scenic poets either; a few explanations of comic or tragic expressions attributed to h i m may be part o f his Aegeis or preserved i n the inropv-qpora. o f his p u p i l Gallistratus. But he certainly wrote introductions to individual plays, perhaps to a l l o f them, his famous vnoödo-eis, which we shall be discussing i n connexion w i t h his work on tragedy. 3
4
5
A p a r t from his editing the Aristophanic plays, i t is a plausible guess, no more, that he published the text of other representatives of Old Comedy, Cratinus, and Eupolis, as Lycophron had tried to do before h i m , but nobody has supposed that he made an edition o f his beloved Menander. T h a t he admired Menander is well attested. T h o u g h not one o f the scholar poets, he was nevertheless inspired by his boundless enthusiasm for h i m to compose a few comic trimeters i n his honour, and a later epigram affirms that he placed h i m second only to Homer. A probably Peripatetic theory had defined comedy as 'imitation o f life' ; alluding to 6
7
8
9
Cf. M. Haupt, Opuscula m 2 (1876) 524, and Coulon in his edition ( 1 9 2 8 ) ad loc. One may furthermore compare the short remarks in Schol. Nub. 958, Thesm. 917, Ran. 1206. J . C. B. Lowe, 'The Manuscript Evidence for Changes of Sneaker in Aristophanes', 1
2
University of London Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin no. 9 ( 1 9 6 2 ) .
Cf. above, p. 185, and below, pp. 197 if. * R.Schmidt, Commentatio de Callistrato Aristophaneo in Nauck's Aristoph. Byz. (1848) 307 fr.; cf. Boudreaux, Le texte d'Aristophane 4 8 - 5 1 ; A. Gudeman, RE x (191g) i 7 3 ~ 4 s See below, pp. 191 ff. See above, pp. 107, 119. Syrian, comment, in Hermog. n 23. 6 Rabe = Men. test. 3 2 Körte; "<£ Mevavope KOX ßU, 3
8
8
6
7
rrorepos ap" vpÄtv irorepov arrep.tp.-^oaTO IG X I V 1183 c — Men. test. 61 C Körte Scvrjepa
eragc . . . / I S T ' htetpov (sc. Homerum). Cic. ap. Donat- de com. v 1 comoediam esse . . . imitationem vitae (p. 22. 19 Wessner == Kalbel, CGF 1 p. 67,1, 1 4 7 ; the attribution to de rep. rv 11 Ziegler is questionable). A Greek Peripatetic source was suspected by Wilamowitz, Einleitung in die Tragödie 56. 1 3 ; cf. also A. Rostagni, Scritti minori t (1955) 230 and 339. 5. In the debate about Cicero's source and its author a literal testimony has been overlooked which may be of some help for further research. Schol. A Heph. p. 115. 13 Consbr. napa rots Ka>p,iKots • • • rov yap ßiov OVTOL /xipoiJ8
9
Enthusiasm
for
Menander
191
this and also ingeniously reversing i t , Aristophanes asked 'whether the comic poet Menander imitated life or life imitated Menander's comedy'. Homer's Odyssey had been called 'a fair mirror o f life' by Alcidamas i n the fourth century B . C . ; ' d i d Aristophanes put Homer and Menander i n the same class because o f their poetry being so near to fsios? The quotations i n our Scholia suggest that Aristophanes and his p u p i l Callistratus had a particular interest i n the Odyssey. Whatever is meant by pYo? (hardly the social life o f the epoch), we get a glimpse here o f one o f Aristophanes' general views o n poetry, and we can appreciate his clear and correct discernment o f the most accomplished poet among the various post-classical writers. As regards his <£iAi'a of Menander, Porphyry i n his iPiAoAoyoy aKpoao-is attests that Aristophanes, d r a w i n g u p a list o f parallel passages from Menander and his models, 'gently' (ripepa) proved him to have borrowed from others. W e know of no earlier book on what is less gently called plagiarism ; but we may recall what we said about the pre-Aristophanic Hibeh papyrus w i t h a list o f Archilochean lines and their Homeric models, and we may think o f a typical story told by Vitruvius (De architect, v n praef. 5 f f . ) : how Aristophanes by his amazing memory immediately detected the 'furta' (KAOTTCIL) o f the contestants i n a public literary competition and proved their plagiarism afterwards by unrolling innumerable volumes i n the library. 2
3
4
5
Now, however, the papyrus Bodmer o f the late t h i r d century A . D . , which contains the almost complete Dyscolus o f Menander, strongly suggests that Aristophanes d i d i n fact publish a text o f the comic poet so near to his own lifetime. The text of the Dyscolus is preceded by a versified summary o f the plot, which is ascribed to Aristophanes the grammarian, like the metrical summaries i n our manuscripts o f the Aristophanic comedies and o f all the tragedians; this hypothesis is accompanied by the StSacf/caAta, which informs us about the festival, the archon, the victory, the principal actor, and an alternative title, and by a list o f dramatis personae. We shall not credit Aristophanes personally w i t h the bad and 6
See above, p. 51. See above, pp. 175 f. Long excerpts in Euseb. Praep. ev. x 3, on Menander § 12, 1 p. 563. 20 ff. Mras { = test. 51 Kdrte, where the necessary reference to Porphyry is missing) ApiaroiidmjS o ypap,u.ariKos e'v rais iiapaXX-qXois aurov re nai a
1
3
4
s
6
192
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Height
Hypotheses
corrupt lines o f the iambic vnoOecns, and we may doubt whether he p u t together the list of characters, but the learned didascalia i n prose displays his style, and even the description o f the plot may be i n substance his work, as is usual i n the many hypotheses t o comedies and tragedies. Whether or how he managed to treat the total o f more t h a n a hundred Menandrean comedies i n the same way as is implied b y the Dyscolus papyrus, we had better not ask. 1
2
3
I n contrast to comedy, tragedy seems t o have been neglected by the scholars of the t h i r d century. A p a r t from Tzetzes' reference to Alexander Aetolus' Siopdcjms, we have no information at a l l ; other members o f the UXeids imitated the tragic poems, b u t preferred comedy i n their learned work. T h e official Athenian copy o f the three great tragedians made at the instigation o f Aristotle's friend Lycurgus had been secured for the Alexandrian library, i f we can trust Galen's story, d u r i n g Eratosthenes' Iibrarianship and was therefore at Aristophanes' disposal from the beginn i n g o f his career. I n our medieval manuscript tradition the only traces of his editing are i n the Scholia to Euripides—a few, probably three, o f his variant readings and two references to his critical crn/xcia. T h e p a p y r i bear witness to his text of Sophocles. O n the m a r g i n of the great r o l l of the Ichneutai his name is four times added to variants, and probably also i n the p a p y r i o f two other plays, the Trachiniai and Theseus ; exactly the same sort o f marginal notes occur i n the papyrus o f Pindar's Paeans. O f his work o n Aeschylus' text there is still no evidence. 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
We come now to speak of Aristophanes' so-called hypotheses. W i l a m o witz was perfectly right to stress their importance. They are indeed the most substantial remains of Aristophanes' editions of the tragedies and i n a lesser degree of the comedies. But fresh discoveries and recent researches into the old and new evidence have altered and clarified the picture. 11
I emended a few blunders of the scribe; see the Oxford text p. 3 and the TusculumBücfierei by M. Treu who edited the Greek text with German translation and short commentary (München i 9 6 0 ) p. 6. In 1. 10 I prefer (y~>epa>v to the many published proposals I happen to know, although we should expect an article. Of. below, p. 193. 3 H . Erbse, 'Uberlieferungsgeschichte der klassischen und hellenistischen Literatur' in Geschickte der Textüberlieferung 1 (1961) 223, drew from the publication of the Dyscolus the same conclusion, but no one else, as far as I can see. See Addenda. * See above, pp. 105 f.; cf. p. 160. See above, p. 8 2 . Nauck, pp. 62 f.; cf. Schol. Eur. ed. E . Schwartz 11 p. 380 Index: Aristophanes grammaticus. Schwartz's text has always to be consulted. 1
a
s
6
7
P.Oxy.
rx {1912) 1174, col. in 20, vi 5. 8, rx 6 ( ? ) ; see also Hunt p. 31.
8
P.Oxy.
xv (1922)
1805,
see Turner's note p. 3. * See above, p. 185. 1 1
Einleitung
Soph.
Tra. 7 4 4 ; P.Oxy.
xxvn
in die Tragödie pp. 145 f.; cf. 133. 19.
(1962) 2 4 5 2 10
fr.
2. 16,
Soph.
Theseus,
See above, p. 190.
to the Text
of the
Dramatists
193
T h e word imodeois has various meanings; i t may have been used i n Peripatetic circles for the plots o f plays: A tKaidpxov nvas vrrodecreis rtuv Evpmloov KOX HocpoKXeovs p-vdcov. The summaries prefixed to the plays i n our manuscripts also refer several times to this p u p i l of Aristotle; he seems to have dealt w i t h the contents of tragedies and comedies and w i t h questions o f scenic poetry i n writings on festivals w i t h poetical competitions, of which one was entitled TTept Atovvo-iaKujv dyojvojv. Aristophanes made use o f this Peripatetic source o f about 300 B.C., as the fragments prove. O n the other hand, his a i m was not to produce learned collections i n the ' r i c h ' style o f Dicaearchus ( T e r i p a t e t i c i magni et copiosi'), b u t to write simple and correct introductions to the text o f individual plays; and the obvious basis o f these was, as is attested, Gallimachus' chronological Pinax of the dramatic poets. The making of the hypotheses is thus typical of the interrelation between the Peripatetic tradition and Alexandrian scholarship. As Aristotle's and his pupil's didascalic works and Gallimachus' Pinakes are lost, i t is only through Aristophanes' hypotheses that a great deal o f priceless information has reached us. 1
2
3
I f we exclude for the present the late Byzantine elaborations, there are two groups o f introductions, both labelled viroddaeis, extant i n p a p y r i and medieval manuscripts. O f the one group only a few are explicitly attributed to Aristophanes; b u t there is a large number o f anonymous hypotheses built o n the same formal plan. They treated the subjectmatter of the play (a u7ro/ceiTat T O } opdp,ari) very briefly, touching on the treatment o f the same theme by other dramatists; then they mentioned the scene, and the identity o f the chorus and of the prologist; finally they gave the date of the first performance, the titles of the other plays produced simultaneously b y the author, the names o f the competitors w i t h the 4
Sext. Emp. Adv. Math, m 3 = Dicaearch. fr. 78 Wehrli. * F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 1 (1944) Dikaiarchos, fr. 7 3 - 8 9 , esp. fr. 7 9 - 8 4 , title fr. 7 5 ; cf. fr. 63 from the Bios 'EWahos. On his style Gic. de off. 11 5. 16 =fr.24 W. See above, pp. 132 and 133; Et. gen. B v. -nival; . . . irivaKas . . . ols ivrvx&v o ypap.iJ.aTi.Kos erroi-qaaro ras v-nodeoeis ru>v hpap.dra>v, see my notes on Gall. fr. 4 5 6 . As regards Aristophanes' urroOeaecs Nauck's otherwise sound scepticism was exaggerated (pp. 2 5 2 - 6 3 ) : he reluctantly admitted the authority of three of them as possible: Aesch. Eum., Soph. Ant., Eur. Med., but refused to acknowledge Eur. Or., Phoen., Bacch. and [Eur.] Rhes. (pp. 256 ff.). The way for their understanding was prepared by F. G. Schneidewin, 'De hypothesibus tragoediarum Graecarum Aristophani Byzantio vindicandis', Abhandlungen der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Hist.-phil. KJ. V I (1856) 3 - 3 8 . T h . O. H . Achelis, 'De Aristophanis Byz. argumentis fabularum', Philol. 72 (1913) 4 1 4 ff. and 5 1 8 ff. and 73 ( 1 9 1 4 - 1 6 ) 122 ff., provided a very useful collection and discussion of all the material known at that time ; G. Zuntz, The Political Plays of Euripides (1955) 1 2 9 - 5 2 'on the tragic Hypotheseis', with bibliography p. 130. 3 made the best critical inquiry into the main types of the tragic, esp. Euripidean, hypotheses. Compare also the commentators of the Oxford Euripides, esp. of Med., Ale, Hipp. Too little attention had been paid to the Aeschylean hypotheses, see below, p. 194. On the hypotheses to comedies see below, p. 196. 1
3
4
814342
O
i94
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
result o f the competition, occasionally the number the play had i n the chronological register o f the author's works, and a critical judgement. I f a virdQtoLs contains some o f these items i n a simple, condensed style its Aristophanic origin is at least highly probable; he meant them to be a necessary help for the scholarly reader. M o d e r n research has naturally concentrated o n the r i c h material preserved i n our tradition o f Euripides ; as far as we can reconstruct Aristophanes' edition, we cannot recognize any difference between his prefaces to the plays w h i c h now have no scholia, the so-called nine 'alphabetic' plays, and those to the ten 'selected' plays w i t h ample commentaries. 1
Recently discovered hypotheses have provided important new evidence for Aeschylus. The sequence o f the plays i n his Theban tetralogy, previously much debated, was established when the didascalian part o f the hypothesis to the Septem, missing i n the minor manuscripts, was published from the codex Mediceus; its complete and exact wording has been confirmed as ancient by a papyrus o f the second century A . D . Another fragment o f the same papyrus surprisingly revealed that Sophocles was Aeschylus' competitor when he performed the Danaides tetralogy, and so made the conclusion inevitable that the Supplices were performed after 468 B.c., not i n the early fifth century B.c. ; no hypothesis is preserved i n the codex unicus Mediceus. A hypothesis which, w i t h good reason, is believed to be that o f Aeschylus' Sicilian festival play AlrvaZai (or Alrvat)* brought unexpected news not about the date, b u t about the place represented i n the play. This play, whatever its title, to w h i c h the preface belongs, was divided into five fiép-q, 'acts', and for each o f them a change o f scene was mentioned; the fifth scene seems to have been the same quarter o f Syracuse i n which the theatre was situated and the plays were performed, namely the Temenites. I n these examples we catch a glimpse o f the many data once supplied to the reader by Aristophanes, but often lost i n the slow process o f epitomizing through the centuries. 2
3
T h e arguments o f the second group are o f a quite different type, b u t Wilamowitz, Einleitung 139 (cf. 145), called Aristophanes 'Gesamtausgaben der Klas¬ siker . . . in erster Linie ein buchhandleriscbes Unternehmen'; he repeated this assertion in later books and succeeded in persuading others (see E . Schwartz, Ethik der Griechen, 1951, p. 136). But I have never found any proof for this enterprise of an Alexandrian book-trading. P.Oxy, X X (1952) 2256, fr. 2 = Fragmente des Aischylos, hg. von H. J . Mette (1959) fr. 169. P.Oxy. 2 2 5 6 , fr. 3 = fr. 122 Mette; it is to be regretted that G. Murray in his muchimproved second edition of Aeschylus (OCT" 1955) desperately tried to stick to the early date, p. vi and p. 2. See now H . Lloyd-Jones, L'Antiquité Classique 33 (1964) 356 ff. + P.Oxy. X X (1952) 2 2 5 7 , fr. 1, with E . Lobel's commentary = fr. 2 6 Mette. I cannot ihink of any better supplement in 1. 13 than [hi r<û Tt^ivQ-rv which I once proposed to Lobel. On the play itself see E , Fraenkel, Eranos 52 (1954) 6 1 - 7 5 . 1
1
3
Popular
Height
Summaries
of
Plays
195
bear the same name, uWofleo-ic, not only i n the medieval manuscripts, b u t also i n the ancient papyri. This easily leads to confusion. I n this group vTTÔÔeo-is means a description o f the contents o f a play without any details of erudition ; a complete, b u t relatively short summary i n a clear and rather d r y style is the rule. Jnjyno-iç would be a more appropriate term ; i t is used for the summaries o f Callimachus' poems i n the M i l a n papyrus and for a summary o f a part o f the Odyssey. Hypotheses o f this sort were even cast into verse and honoured by the great name o f Aristophanes. T w o papyri have preserved parts of a collection of viroOeo-tLs* to the complete works o f Euripides i n alphabetical order according to the first letter of the title. The title is followed by the formula ov è.px>) and the first line o f the p l a y ; then 7) 5* vnôOeo-is introduces the summary o f the plot. T h e alphabetical order and the whole form o f the 'incipit' are derived from the Callimachean PinakesJ> So even i n books which were certainly destined for the general reader, we find traces o f Alexandrian scholarship, and that is w h y they are mentioned here. I t is hardly possible to fix the age which produced these collected summaries o f epic and scenic poetry, probably for a developed book-trade ; but i f the Tabulae Iliacae reproduced them on stone i n the time o f Augustus, i t must have been the later H e l lenistic age. W h e n afterwards each popular hypothesis from the collection was transferred to its individual play, i t was often placed side by side w i t h another one derived from Aristophanes' scholarly work. Later still Byzantine scholars and schoolmasters o f the thirteenth and fourteenth 1
2
3
6
1
Wilamowitz, followed by others, repeatedly compared the Tales from Shakespeare by Charles and Mary Lamb (first publ. 1807) ; but these 'Tales', far from giving only a skeleton story, retell the plots of the tragedies and comedies in lively and gracious prose and have taken their place as an English classic. P.Med. 18 (publ, 1934), v. Call. vol. u, p. xn, xxvm with bibliography ; cf. also Jnjyijcns eis ràs KaO' "Ofiijpov rrXcvas TOO 'OSvaoetus, Mythographi Graect ed. Westermann (1843) 329. * See above, p. 191. * PSI xn ( i g 5 t ) 1286,firstpublished by C. Gallavotti, Riv. fil. cl. N . S . X I (1933) 177 ff.; P.Oxy. xxvn (1962) 2455 (cf. above, p. 12g, n. 5) ; cf. E. G. Turner, L'érudition alexandrine et les papyrus', Chronique d'Égypte 37 (1962) 136 f., on this papyrus. 'Un Argument sur papyrus de la Médée d'Euripide' published by M. Papathomopoulos in Recherches de la Papyrologie in (1964) 3 7 - 4 7 (with a list of dramatic hypotheses on papyrus) clearly belongs to this type, though the number 2 (B) points to a different arrangement, in which possibly Medea took the second place in a selection.—See also R. A. Coles and J . VV. B. Barns, 'Fragments of dramatic hypotheses from Oxyrhynchus', CI. Qu. N.s. xv (1965) 52 ff., with references to smaller papyrus fragments which may be parts of larger or even complete collections. The new fragment of Eur. Phoen. finally published in P.Oxy. xxxi ( 1966) as no. 2544 is treated by W. S. Barrett, 'The epitome of Eur. Phoen.: ancient and medieval versions', ibid. 58 ff. who identified three fragments of the hypothesis of the Phoen. in P.Oxy. 2455 and showed that Moschopulos's version of the hypothesis is fairly close to the version in the papyrus. 1
x
5 6 7
See above, pp. 129 f. Pack no. 1185, prose summary of//, vi (third century B.c.), 1190, 1208. O. Jahn-A. Michaelis, Griechische Bilderchroniken (1873) 79ff-;« p . 8 6 f. 2
196
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at ils
Height
No new Edition
centuries A . D . felt the need to add for their pupils much more extensive prefaces, which are preserved as a t h i r d group i n many manuscripts o f the scenic poets. 1
2
T h e hypotheses to comedies r u n parallel to those to tragedies ; they have a similar structure, and nine out o f eleven introductions to Aristophanes' comedies preserved i n our manuscripts contain SicWKaAicu. There is good reason to trace them back to Aristophanes o f Byzantium although his name appears only once i n a title, and although Symmachus may have recast them when he wrote his commentary at the beginning o f the second century A . D . , just as Heliodorus rehandled the colometry. Beside these short scholarly prefaces we find a second, more popular, k i n d o f hypothesis i n prose and verse. The arrangement i n the Dyscolus papyrus shows a close affinity, which we have already used to support the view that a text o f Menander should be added to the previously known editions of Aristophanes. The p a p y r i have also yielded an alphabetical collection o f summaries o f Menandrean comedies; but u n like those o f Euripides' tragedies, they follow the 'incipit' w i t h didascalic information, and the account o f the plot w i t h a critical appreciation of the play. Nowhere else is the influence o f Aristophanes so constant as i n the variations o f his vTroOeo-eis to the tragic and comic plays. 3
4
5
A l l the scholars of the t h i r d century devoted their critical labours to the poetry o f the past—quite naturally, as they were the pupils o f poets and mostly poets themselves. I t has been argued that Aristophanes also produced an edition o f Plato. But Diogenes Laertius, after speaking about the arrangement o f Plato's dialogues i n tetralogies, then gives us only the dry remark: eviot Se, wv i&rt /ecu ApiOTCxjidvns o ypaauariKos, els TpiXoyias ZXKOVO-I TOVS SiaXoyovs, and adds the list o f fifteen dialogues grouped into trilogies; perhaps IXKOVOI, 'they drag', implies a notion o f force i n this arrangement o f Plato's philosophic work. A list o f the vo&oi concludes the chapter. T h e most probable interpretation o f the passage is that some scholars, including Aristophanes i n his supplement to the Pinakes, 6
7
On Moschopulos see above, p. 195, n. 4. See above, pp. 192 f.; cf. P. Boudreaux, Le Texte d'Aristophane ( i 9 i g ) 3 1 - 3 5 . * A . Koerte, RE xi (1921) 1211 f.; cf. the hypothesis to Cratinus' AiovvoaXdgavopos P.Oxy, iv (1904) 6 6 3 = Suppl. Comicum ed. I. Demianczuk (1912) 31 ff. See above, pp. 191 f. P.Oxy. x { 1 9 1 4 ) 1235 = Menander ed. A. Koerte 1 (1938) 146 ff. They may be identical with the TleptoxaX roiv Mcvdvopou apap.aTU>v of a certain ieAAioy or ZlXXios, see Koerte p. lxiv. See also CI. Qu. N . S . xv (1965) 55 ff. a new fragment published in P.Oxy. xxxi (1966) as no. 2534, possibly from the hypothesis of Menander Aiirov rificupovpevas. Diog. L . in 61 f. So very sensibly Nauck p. 250, fr. v i ; Pasquali, Storia 2 6 4 ; Erbse in Geschichte der Text1
1
4
5
6 7
ubtrliefenmg
(1961} 2 2 t .
of
Plato
Ï97
criticized the tetralogies o f an edition, perhaps o f the Academy, and put forward the case for trilogies. Nothing i n this sentence points to an edition made i n Alexandria. O n the other hand, a later chapter deals w i t h critical o-npeîa i n what was possibly an Alexandrian edition; b u t this system o f or\pLelujais is totally different from that o f Aristophanes. So, o n our present evidence, there is no reason to regard Aristophanes as the first to have included a prose author i n the series o f his editions. 1
2
His great lexicographical work, the Aé£eis, ranged over a l l fields o f literature, prose as well as poetry; there are references to Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Isocrates, Demosthenes. We have already mentioned i t several times when the question arose whether certain exegetical notes to epic, lyric, and dramatic expressions originated from a commentary or from the Lexeis, and we decided i n each case that i t was u n necessary to assume the existence o f a commentary. As i n his editions, Aristophanes had the labours o f the whole t h i r d century at his disposal; he was the true successor b o t h o f Zenodotus as a glossographer and o f Callimachus as a compiler o f various onomastica arranged according to subjects or localities. But i n this case we ought to look much further back i n order to get the right perspective for his historical position. 3
4
F r o m the very beginning poetry had itself paved the way to its understanding; i t was part o f the poetical technique i n the epic age to elucidate difficult and ambiguous expressions by exegetical or etymological 5
Wilamowitz, Aniigonos von Karystos ( 1881) 2 8 6 'Ar. hätte keinen so zuverlässigen Text konstituieren können' ; but Platon 11 (1919) 324 correctly 'an eine Ausgabe (sc. by Aristoph. Byz.) ist nicht zu denken'. On Jachmann, Der Piatontext (1942) 3 3 4 , see above, p. 6 5 , n. 4 . On the various attempts at arranging Plato's writings from the fourth to the first centuries B . C . see A.-H. Chroust, 'The Organization of the Corpus Platonicum in Antiquity', Herrn. 9 3 1
('9«5)34 f f
Diog. L. m 65 f. A small, but very interesting Florentine papyrus of the second century A . D . is perhaps a part of the source of Diog. L . ; the arrangement of the text is better and the critical signs themselves, missing in our manuscripts, are inserted. See V . Bartoletti in 'Mélanges Eugène Tisserant 1, Studi e Testi 231 {1964) 2 5 - 3 0 . * In Nauck's book of the year 1848 the whole of the fragments fills 274 pages, out of which 165 are dedicated to the Ai£ns, that is three-fifths of the space. But in a codex Athous (now cod. Par. suppl. Gr. 1164, 13th/14th century) E. Miller discovered more substantial excerpts from different sections of the AéÇets, published in Mélanges de littérature grecque (1868) 4 2 7 - 3 4 ; their importance was immediately recognized by Nauck, Bulletin de Y Acad, de St. Pêtersbourg 1869, 3 4 4 ff. = Mélanges Gréco-Romains in (1874) 166 ff.; in connexion with other excerpts from a Florentine codex they were treated by A. Fresenius, De AéÇeaiv Aristophanearum et Suetoniarum excerptis Byzantinis (1875) and by L . Cohn, 'De Aristoph. Byz. et Suetonio Eustatbi auctoribus' Jahrbücher fiir class. Philologie, Suppl. Bd. 12 ( 1 8 8 1 ) 2 8 3 ff. ; see also above, p. 171, n. 3, and Latte, 'Glossographika', Philol. 8 0 (1925) 164 ff. On Eustachius' excerpts from the /le'|ets H. Erbse, 'Untersuchungen zu den atttïistischen Lexika', Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie d. Wiss. zu Berlin, Phil.-hist. Kl-, Jg. 1949, Nr. 2 (1950) 5 send passim. + See above, pp. 115 and 134 f. ; also Callimachus' poems were one of his sources, see the notes on Call. fr. 224, 487, 543, 587. See above, p. 3. 3
1
s
198
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Height
Lexicographical
additions. There was hardly any following age i n which the Greek m i n d was not attracted by this problem o f explaining A#€*s. Their origin and their changes, the differentiation o f kindred words, the comparison between Greek dialects or between Greek and foreign words were discussed b y the Sophists, b y Democritus, and b y the great Attic philosophers.' I n the new era the poets revived these studies w i t h fervour, not only Philitas a n d Simias, b u t also Callimachus and Apollonius; they composed scholarly works themselves or stimulated scholars like Zenodotus, Eratosthenes, or Neoptolemus to enter this vast field o f research. Whatever had been undertaken piecemeal here and there i n the course o f time, was a l l now united into one great enterprise, the Aegets o f Aristophanes. A collection o f yAajo-am was usually limited to obsolete and obscure terms; but under the neutral title /le'£et? every word which was peculiar i n form or significance a n d therefore i n need o f explanation could be listed, whether i t was out o f date or still i n use. T h e fragments quoted from Aristophanes' lexicographical work allow us to estimate its wide range, its systematic arrangement i n sections, and the method o f exegesis. I t was, above all, this method which became the model for later Greek and R o m a n antiquity. V i e w i n g the past and the future, we can clearly recognize Aristophanes' central position. 2
3
4
T h e first t h i n g a lexicographer needs is a reliable text based o n the best manuscripts; i n this respect Aristophanes had the advantage o v e r a l l his predecessors, as his o w n editions o f the Greek poets from Homer t o Menander were w i t h i n his reach. I t was, o f course, a m u t u a l benefit: the lexicographer's detailed research into the proper form and meaning o f a w o r d at a given time and i n a special dialect helped the SioptW-ry? to take his choice between variant readings o f the manuscripts o f his text. As regards method the most interesting section of the Aegeis was entitled 77epi rtjjv v7T07Trevo[i€VWv pyr) €tprjo8ai rot? TraXaiois, 'words supposed to be unknown to the ancients', a fact first learned from the Athos manuscript discovered b y M i l l e r . I n that manuscript the first item o f this first chapter is aaVra?, explained as 6 u.copos, 'the fool'. I t was well known 5
' See above, pp. 3 9 - 4 2 , 4 3 , 6 2 - 6 4 , 78 f. See above, pp. 90 f., 115, 135, 139 f., 148. * Ilcpi Xtfciav in the 'Fragmentum Parisinum', first published by Boissonadc in 1819, repr. by Nauck pp. 79 ff. * It has been convincingly argued that Aristophanes was a main source of the Antiatticista (K. Latte, Herm. 5 0 (1915) 374- 379, 2. 384 f., 392) and also of Helladius, Cbrestomath. (K. Strecker, Herm. 2 6 (1891) 276 f.). s Miller, Melanges 427 f., Cohn, Jahrbucher f. class. Phtlologie, Suppl. Bd. 12 (1881) 2 8 8 - 9 8 . Cf. Wilamowitz, Einleitung 163. 8 8 , who regards it together with the so-called ArriKal Ai|eis as criticism of pseudo-Attic forgeries of the third century, but our fragments do not point in that direction. 1
Studies
199
from a large excerpt i n Eustathius that Aristophanes had dealt w i t h this rare word, its various forms and derivations as well as its possible meanings. But Nauck and everyone else went wrong i n the quite natural assumption that i t was classed as one o f the many expressions o f blasphemy. Before the discovery o f Miller's codex i t was impossible to guess the existence o f a chapter which treated Ae^et? under the chronological, not to say historical aspect. T w o classes o f words were distinguished: those Af'let? said to be used b y the TraAaioi and those said to have been unknown to them, the /eatvorepat Ae'fet?. Aristophanes probably discussed the opinions o f earlier scholars and confirmed or rejected them. If—to return to our example—odwas had been regarded as a w o r d o f later origin, we can conclude w i t h some probability from Eustathius' excerpt that Aristophanes referred to its use i n O l d Comedy b y Cratinus. There is even a slight chance that he went further back to the sixth century B . C . and quoted an epodic poem o f H i p p o n a x , who addressed someone w i t h the nickname a> Edw\ which implied his 'foolish' character ; the fragmentary very learned commentary on this poem i n a papyrus o f the second century B . C . contains the name o f Aristophanes besides those o f his older contemporary Hermippus and o f his younger one Polemo. T h o u g h i t is still impossible t o say t o what line o r word that fragment o f the commentary belongs, there can be little doubt the reference is made to Aristophanes the grammarian, not the comic poet. A t the very least the text confirms his view that the word adwas was k n o w n 1
2
3
4
5
to the TraAatot.
I n the same first section o f the Aegeis we find the strange verbal forms €(f}€vyoorav teal iXdyoaav dvrl rov €<j>evyov /cat eXeyov. Eustathius has preserved a longer excerpt w i t h references: 7rapa8l8ojm Se (Aptaro^dv^s) KOI art T O •'eaxdl,oaav" rrapd AvKOpov>. (21) /ecu Trap' aAAotjro 4X4yoaav" /eat T O "ot Se vXr/alov yevop-evatv (l)<^€vyoaav <pa>vrjs XaXKi8ea>v tSta etVtv. T h e main point seems to be that there was no literary authority amongst the 7raAatot for the ending i n -oaav, as Aristophanes correctly observed; b u t he found i t i n one o f the new poets and perhaps conjectured that this poet, 6
c<
,
7
There was no section /7epi fSXanip-qtuiov in Aristoph. Ae^us, see below, p. 201, n. 6. waXatol are, if the few fragments are not misleading, pre-Alexandrian writers; Eust. P- 7 9 - 3 8 , "epi Katvoreptov Ac'ftwv and p. 1761. 2 4 xaivoipuyvovs Ae£«s seems to refer to postAttic authors. 3 Cratin. fr. 337 K . * P.Oxy. xvrn (1941) 2176, fr. 1. 1 = Hipponax ed. O. Masson (1962) fr. 118. 1 with commentary. 1
z
2
s P.Oxy. 2176, fr. 8. 2 1 ; see Masson pp. 86 and 162. 1.
Miller, Melanges p. 428. 1, cf. Eust. p. 1761. 3 0 (cf. 1759. 3 5 ) ; Tzetz. in Lyc. 21 and 253. Nauck p. 204, Presenilis p. 115. Nauck p. 204 'fortasse'; he believed there was one pre-Alexandrian example, Eur. Hec. 574, where Choer. n 64. 25 Hilg., in discussing the endings in -0001', read S' eirX-npovoav 6
7
aoo
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Height
The
1
L y c o p h r o n of Chalcis, borrowed i t from the dialect o f his native country, and that others followed h i m . I doubt i f this was meant to be a critical h i t at L y c o p h r o n . W e know Aristophanes h a d a peculiar interest i n dialects ; b u t when he took -oaav i n the praeteritum o f the verbs i n -a> as a Chacidian local dialectal form, he made a mistake. I t was a quite common ending i n the mivr] throughout the late ancient and Byzantine times from the t h i r d century B.c. onwards, and therefore certainly a Kaivc4oivoç Xd&s. I n both these very different examples, adwas a n d iaxd&aav, we see Aristophanes t r y i n g t o solve the same problem : the chronological distinction between ancient a n d modern usage, and possibly the local origin of the latter. This was priceless preparatory work for the study o f the development o f the Greek language. 2
3
4
5
T h e following chapters h a d the character o f ovopaariKa, that is, o f vocabularies arranged according t o subjects. T h e most copious o f them, entitled Ov6para i)Xucuw or I7epl ôvouao-las •qXiKitov, denoted the different times o f life o f men and women, o f animals l i v i n g i n herds, and o f w i l d beasts. Even i n our rather poor excerpts an intimate knowledge o f the poetical language and o f all the dialects is displayed. As i n the case of rawaj and ivxd&oav, many more literal quotations or references are preserved i n Eustathius and i n other writers and onomastica than i n the Athos manuscript. One o f its extracts about the young o f w i l d animals, for instance, gives various names of deer and adds only the short remark ; r i Sè via Tovruiv, op>a KOi ofspUaXa} But the longer excerpts mention 6
y
7
9
Eur. codd.). From Nauck our grammars and the critical apparatus of the Eur. editions took it over ; but this vulgarism is not a varia lectio, but a bad conjecture of late antiquity trying to 'correct' the inconcmnitas temporum in the Euripidean line. On Lycophron see above, pp. nof. If we consider all the excerpts of Eustathius from Aristophanes which far exceed the short extracts in the Athos manuscript, there is not the slightest probability that he interpolated just this one reference to Lycophron, as P. Maas, Gnom. 3 (1927) 3 2 0 , suspected. * Wilamowitz (who had always taken Nauck's conjecture as a proven fact) Hell. Dicht. it (1924) 147. 1 'dem Lycophron zum Tort*. 3 On similar mistakes see Latte, 'Glossographika', Philol. 8 0 (1925) 174. « E . Mayser, Grammatik dtr griechiscken Papyri aw der PtolemSerzeU 1 z (1938) 83 f., with bibliography. s See below, pp. 201 f. * See above, p. 197. ? Miller, Mélanges 4 2 8 - 3 1 ; Fresenius 8 2 - 8 9 and 1 1 6 - 2 2 ; Cohn 2 9 8 - 3 1 1 . Miller, Mélanges p. 4 3 1 . 9 ; Fresenius p. 2 6 . Ael. n.a. vu 4 7 , Phot. lex. n 2, 10 Nab., Eust. 1395. 4 6 ff. and 1625. 47 : Sfipia. (Eur. fr. 616) and ofoUaka (Aesch. Ag. 143) ; Hesych. v. 'oppatdXots' ; Poll, v 15 irâvrwv té? àypimv T€Kva àppUaXa at jroiijTai KaXoGai Kal 6f}pucd (sic the common ancestor of codd. SF, written before the twelfth century A . D . ) . I S op>i«£ a slight corruption of ôfatva? H . Frisk, Grieck. etymol. WSrterbuch, fasc. 14 (1963) 345, is inclined to take ifipl^tnoi in P.Oxy. 2161. 8 0 9 as dat. plur. neut. and refers to similar formations ; perhaps the surprising form in the Dictyulci papyrus was not new after all, but only hidden in a variant reading of Pollux, who depends on Aristophanes, as Cohn p. 3 1 1 had pointed out. (aè ir\i}povotv
1
2
1
s
Sections
of Aristophanes'
Lexeis
201
more names o f animals and refer for these t w o forms t o Aeschylus' Agamemnon (ößpUaXa)
and Dictyulci and t o Euripides' Peliades (probably
oßpta) ; i n the Dictyulci an Oxyrhynchus papyrus has brought a t h i r d form to light, oßpixpun* T h i s shows h o w difficult i t is to reconstruct Aristophanes' original wording, as special forms o f ovopaalat dropped out rather early ; on the other hand, this example and many others prove that additions i n Eustathius are b y no means his interpolations, b u t derived from Aristophanes. T h e same is true o f the next chapters, ' O n terms o f relationship', tltpl avyyevtKujv ovopdrojv, and ' O n terms o f civic life', n$pl 7ToXiTiKÔjv ovofxdrœv. Every effort was made not only to distinguish the usage i n epic, lyric, and dramatic poetry, and i n the local dialects, b u t t o p o i n t out changes o f form and meaning and even to trace words to their origin. 1
2
Aristophanes seems to have actually initiated the methodical scholarly treatment o f the -n-dd-r] and é r i ^ a o f words; i t is true that the term rrdd-q Trjs Aeffoj? for the modifications i n form o f words h a d been used b y Aristotle, but V a r r o expressly refers to their treatment by Aristophanes,and the forms ößpia, oßpixa, SßpUaXa, quoted above, are as good an example as Varro's ' i n turdo turdario et turdelice'. The ancient game o f tTVfioXoyfîv, that is, analysing a w o r d and finding its origin, was sparingly and soberly played by h i m , i n contrast to his Stoic contemporaries, o f w h o m Chrysippus was the first to write several books entitled TJepi 1
4
irvpoXoy
LKOJV.
5
T h e excerpts from the AéÇeis i n the Athos manuscript and i n Eustathius stop after the crvyyevifcd a n d TroXniKa ovofiara. Four more sections were added by conjecture i n Nauck's edition; b u t the author o f one o f them, TJepi ßXaaa)vtfo-eiov ('Forms o f salutation'), Amical M i m , and AaKwviKal yXwaaat,.* Aristophanes certainly spoke o f some Trpoadjat^aeis like â W a , iraTTTTa, p-dapa, etc., but there is no evidence for a whole chapter o f 6
J i
7
P.Oxy. xvin (1941) 2161 Aesch. Dktyulc. 8 0 9 vorplxojv oßpixoto[t] =fr.4 7 4 . 8 0 9 Mette. Miller, Mélanges 4 3 1 . 1 3 - 4 3 2 . 22 and 4 3 2 . 2 3 - 4 3 4 without separate headings ; the heading naXmkà àv6p.ara was proposed by Fresenius pp. 12 f. and pp. 1 2 3 - 7 . Varro, L.L. vi 2 ; Nauck p. 269. * Nauck pp. 268 f.; cf. R. Schröter, 'Studien zur varronischen Etymologie', Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur in Mainz, Abh. der geistes- u. so2ialwissenschafd. Kl. Jg. 1959, Nr. '
2
3
12, 53 ff., esp. 6 0 - 6 3 .
p. 9. 13, 1 4 ; cf. fr. 1 4 6 ^ . 4 4 . 4 2 ; cf. below, p. 2 4 1 . Nauck's chapter pp. 1 6 3 - 8 0 has to be cancelled, see Miller, ' Nauck pp. 1 5 1 - 6 2 ; cf. Cohn 321 ff. Nauck pp. 1 8 1 - 9 0 ; cf. Cohn pp. 288. 6 and 3 2 2 ff. s
6
8
SVFxi
Mélanges 4 1 3 - 2 6
Suétone.
202
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Height
Formal
the A&m w i t h this special title and contents; on the other hand, o f the few dialectal quotations we have, four are labelled h> ArrutaZs XQtow and perhaps five iv AaKwviKais yXoiaaais. O f whatever larger work they may be subdivisions, they bear witness again not only to Aristophanes' knowledge of dialectal forms i n literature, but also to his special interest i n the spoken language o f his own day. Though books o f his teacher Dionysius Iambus Uept S I O A C K T C U V and o f Sosibius Laco ' O n Lacedaemonian cults' w i t h a collection o f Laconic glosses may have given some k i n d of impulse and help, i t seems to have been as the fruit o f his own observations that he recorded the sound o f Laconic words, as for instance aSSa for Ionic ä£i}. Aristophanes was, as far as we know at present, the first who, besides his immense reading, listened to the vernacular and so went beyond the sphere o f mere bookishness. 1
2
3
4
The multifarious studies that went into the building o f this rich lexical treasure-house must have been accompanied by theoretical inquiries o f which Aristophanes may have talked more fully to his pupils. W e are only once told o f his reflection upon a formal grammatical problem. H e discovered recurrent patterns i n the Greek declension ( K - A I W ) and stated general rules of regular inflexion; this principle o f 'regularity* was called avoAoyta. Beyond this short statement no clear and reliable information can be elicited from our sources, V a r r o and Donatian-Charisius ; b u t the door was opened for endless speculation. I t cannot be proved that Aristophanes coined the grammatical term dvaXoyia or wrote a 5
6
Eust. pp. 877. 4 9ff.in a long excerpt in which Aristophanes first says that in Homer can mean also the atyes, and then goes on: "kail^fuisSe",$Tj<Ti (sc. Äpiorotpai"ri$}, "p,T)XaiT7)v uaXoöucv Kai T^V alyelav Sopav"; cf. ibid. pp. 1828. 56fr. (Nauck pp. 1 9 7 - 9 ) ; above, p. 200. On Dionysius see above, p. 171 ; cf. L . Weber, Quaest. Lacon., Diss. Göttingen (1887) 5 5 - 6 4 who gives a list of Sosibius' glosses, perhapsfirsthalf of the third century B.c. Nauck p. 189, fr. 33 ; cf. F. Bechtel, Griech. Dialekte 11 (1923) 3 2 3 . * On this delicate problem see J . Wackernagel, Bed. philol. Wochenschr. (1896) 1399 = Kleine Schriften r (1953) 5 3 8 , and WÜamowitz, Geschickte der griechischen Sprache (1928) 3 6 f. Nauck 2 6 4 - 7 1 . Varro, L . L . x 6 8 'tertium genus (sc. analogiae) . . . in quo et res et voces similiter proportione dicuntur ut bonus malus, boni mal!, de quorum analogia et Aristophanes et alii scripserunt'; cf. ibid. rx 12 'Aristophanes improbandus, qui potius in quibusdam veritatem quam consuetudinem secutus?'—Charisius, Ars grammatica (ed. C. Barwick, ig 5) p. 14g. 26 'huic (sc. analogiae) Aristophanes quinque rationes deditvel, ut alii putant, sex; primo ut eiusdem sint generis . . . dein casus, tum exitus, quarto numeri syllabarum, item soni. sextum Aristarchus, discipulus eius, illud addidit ne unquam simplicia compositis aptemus'; cf. Donatiani fragm. GL vi 276. 5 ff. H . Dahlmann, 'Varro und die hellenistische Sprachtheorie', Problemata 5 (1932) 5 H . J . Mette, Parateresis (1952) 11ff.,who included a critical text of Varro L . L . VH 109-x 8 4 . D. Fehling, 'Varro und die grammatische Lehre von der Analogie und der Flexion*, Glotta 3 5 (>95*5) 2 1 4ff.,36 (1957) 4 8ff-with bibliography p. 4 8 . 1, 2, to which has to be added A. Dihle, 'Analogie und Attizismus', Herrn. 8 5 (1957) 170 ff.; a postscript^pp. 203 ff. modifies Fehling's overstatements about Varro's incompetence, confusions, and inventions. Entretiens sur VantiquiUclassique rx (1962) Varron',see F. Collart, 'Analogie et anomalie',pp. 117^-40. 1
p.rjXa
s
e
e
a
l
s
o
1
1
s
2
6
2
t
ff
Grammatical
Inquiries
203
monograph i l e p l avoAoyia?, and i t is unbelievable that he intended to refute Chrysippus' three or four books 77epi T T ) ? Kara. d ? Aefet? dvcvpaAta?. Chrysippus of Soloi, who had declined a call to Alexandria and died as an Athenian citizen and head o f the Stoic school between 208 and 204 B . C , developed as part of his formal logic the theory that words are not i n harmony w i t h things they express and called i t dvwfiaXia; i t is illogical i f a plural signifies a singular subject (as the plural Ofjftai for one city), a masculine form a feminine idea, and so on. H e was thus renewing under a new aspect an o l d philosophical dispute upon the relation o f words to things well known to us from Plato's and Aristotle's writings. Aristophanes, on the other hand, never entered the arena where the philosophers were fighting; he confined himself i n this case, as i n others, to a scholarly problem o f grammar. T h e term 'grammar', so far consciously avoided, can now indeed be used; we can see that as part o f scholarship i n general a separate discipline was being built up which reached its height i n the second generation after Aristophanes, i n the rexvn ypafifiartK-q o f Dionysius T h r a x , the p u p i l o f Aristarchus. W e are i n the dark about the way the rules of inflexion were shaped i n the meantime. T h e concept o f analogy was apparently extended by Aristarchus to the interpretation o f texts. T h e n i n the fields o f grammar and exegesis a dispute must have arisen between analogists and anomalists, which is known to us from L a t i n sources o n l y ; Aristophanes had nothing to do w i t h i t . I f we take a broad view of his lexical and of his formal linguistic studies, i t becomes clear that they were auxiliary to his editorial work. 1
T
2
3
4
5
6
Aristophanes' editions were confined to a certain number o f poets and even the references i n the Lexers rarely go beyond a limited group of poets and prose writers. This cannot have happened by chance. A sort of sifting o f the whole literature, as stored i n the library and registered i n It is hardly derived from the mathematical and philosophical term avaXoyta { = proportion) used by Eratosthenes, the Pfatonist, in his Plalonictis, see above, p. 137. SVF 11 p. 6. 1 0 ; cf. ibid. Chrysipp. fr. 151, p. 4 5 . 2 3 and 2 6 ; cf. Barwick, Stoischc 1
1
Sprachlehre 53 ff.
See above, pp. 59 ff. (Plato), 75 ff. (Aristotle). * Sext. Emp. adv. math. 1 4 4 ed. Mau, vol. 111, p. 12. Myrlea) ypapuartKri rolvvv Xeyerai . . . 1; hrrtXhi teal 3
Apiaroipavvv
TC Kal Aplarapxov
17 ff. (perhaps from Asclepiades of rots irepi Kparnra TOV MaXXdirtjv
cKrrovrjBftaa.
To Aristophanes' five rules Aristarchus added a sixth negative one (above, p. 202, n. 5 ) . L . Lersch, Die Sprachphilosophie der Allen, dargestellt an dem Streite uber Analogie und Anomalie derSprache (Bonn 1 8 3 8 ) , actually based the whole history of ancient philosophy of language on this dispute opened by Aristophanes. It is still worth while to read Nauck's ironical devastating criticism (p. 270) written more than a century before Fehling Glotta 3 5 (1956) and 36 (>957) who now rejects the possibility of reconstructing the quarrel from the Latin sources, particularly from Varro. His paper is a typical example of the reaction against the excesses of source-research, but not wholly successful. s
6
ao4
Selective Lists of Authors
Alexandrian Scholarship at its Height
Gallimachus'
Pinakes, m u s t h a v e t a k e n p l a c e . I n t h i s process A r i s t o p h a n e s
205
places w h i c h A r i s t o t i e a n d his school, f o l l o w e d b y Z e n o d o t u s a n d his
p l a y e d a decisive p a r t , i f Q u i n t i l i a n ( x i . 54) was r i g h t i n s a y i n g : A p o l ¬
pupils,
lonius i n o r d i n e m a grammadcis d a t u m n o n venit, quia Aristarchus
Halicarnassus a n d Q u i n t i l i a n ( x i . 53 f f . ) a n d o f l a t e r lists seems to h a v e
atque Aristophanes, p o e t a r u m iudices, n e m i n e m sui temporis i n n u m e r u m
g i v e n f o u r o r five n a m e s o f p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c epic p o e t s .
1
r e d e g e r u n t . ' A b o u t a c e n t u r y e a r l i e r C i c e r o h a d w r i t t e n i n t h e same sense
1
h a d assigned t o t h e m ; b u t t h e c o m m o n source o f D i o n y s i u s o f
T h e n u m b e r o f t h e n i n e l y r i c poets was
firmly
2
established. A s t h e
t o A t t i c u s ( x v i 11. 2 ) : ' c u i u t A r i s t o p h a n i A r c h i l o c h i i a m b u s sic epistola
i a m b i c poets w e r e l e d b y A r c h i l o c h u s , a n d t h e epic b y H o m e r , so o f t h e
l o n g i s s i m a q u a e q u e o p t i m a v i d e t u r . ' These L a t i n t e x t s ,
l y r i c poets P i n d a r was a l w a y s t h e
2
3
o f w h i c h the
first,
'novem l y r i c o r u m longe . . .
G r e e k sources are u n k n o w n , c l e a r l y state t h a t some a u t h o r s w e r e r e c e i v e d
p r i n c e p s ' , as w e find i n t h e a n o n y m o u s H e l l e n i s t i c e p i g r a m ,
i n a n d others e x c l u d e d f r o m a n ordo established b y l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m
c o m p o s e d a b o u t a c e n t u r y after A r i s t o p h a n e s , w h i c h is o u r earliest testi-
indicium). T h e t e n d e n c y t o select t h e best w r i t e r s f o r v a r i o u s
m o n y f o r t h e N i n e : P i n d a r , Bacchylides, S a p p h o , A n a c r e o n , Stesichorus,
(if/ttms,
reasons is a v e r y o l d o n e ;
perhaps
pre-eminence
S i m o n i d e s , I b y c u s , Alcaeus, a n d A l c m a n . T h i s r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e n u m b e r ,
Frogs, m u s t
c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e s m a l l c i r c l e o f t h e epic, i a m b i c , a n d scenic poets, is
have been settled b y t h e m i d d l e o r second h a l f o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y
p u z z l i n g . I t m a y l e a d , a n d has i n d e e d l e d , t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e
4
t h e passionate debate a b o u t
3
a m o n g the A t d c tragedians, still going o n i n Aristophanes' B.C. w h e n H e r a c l i d e s P o n t i c u s w r o t e
LJepl
rpiwv TpaywBoTroiatv.
The
N i n e w e r e a l l t h e l y r i c poets whose w o r k s h a d s u r v i v e d f r o m t h e p r e -
same n u m b e r is i m p l i e d b y A r i s t o p h a n e s i n t h e H y p o t h e s i s t o E u r i p i d e s '
H e l l e n i s t i c era a n d w e r e s t o r e d i n t h e A l e x a n d r i a n l i b r a r y . E v e n i f t h a t
TOJV
6
Medea, Trap* ovStrepcp Ketrai r) pvdoiroda, w h i c h c a n o n l y m e a n ' n e i t h e r i n
w e r e c o r r e c t i n this one case, i t w o u l d be r a s h t o e x t e n d i t t o a l l t h e o t h e r
Aeschylus n o r i n Sophocles', a n d i t r e m a i n e d a u t h o r i t a t i v e f o r t h e l a t e r
g r o u p s o f poets w e h a v e j u s t s u r v e y e d , a n d t o d e n y
ages. I t is i n t h e hypotheses t o tragedies a n d comedies t h a t w e s t i l l
selective lists alongside t h e c o m p l e t e
precious traces o f his i n d i v i d u a l j u d g e m e n t s o n poems a n d p o e t s .
find
6
4
t h e existence
of
Pinakes. A r i s t o p h a n e s ' m o s t effective
w o r k was, as w e h a v e seen, t h a t o n t h e l y r i c poets. T h o u g h his n a m e is
T h r e e iambographers were received i n t o the ranks b y Aristarchus, a n d
n o t expressly m e n t i o n e d i n t h e p o o r evidence, w e m a y c o n j e c t u r e t h a t
A r c h i l o c h u s was a c k n o w l e d g e d as t h e best b o t h b y h i m a n d b y A r i s t o -
his e d i t i o n c o m p r i s e d t h e n i n e poets a n d t h a t t h e r e f o r e this n u m b e r
phanes.
b e c a m e a u t h o r i t a t i v e i n t h e same w a y as his t e r m i n o l o g y , classification,
7
T h e r e is n o f u r t h e r evidence
for t h e j u d g e m e n t o f t h e t w o
A l e x a n d r i a n g r a m m a r i a n s . As the foremost ('praecipui',
atjioXoyoi) o f the
a n d c o l o m e t r y . T h e o r d e r m i g h t d i f f e r , b u t t h e a c t u a l names w e r e t h e 5
m a n y e a r l y c o m i c poets Q u i n t i l i a n ( x 1 . 66) enumerates t h e t h r e e whose
same i n a l l the H e l l e n i s t i c e p i g r a m s
n a m e s H o r a c e h a d used t o b u i l d u p t h e h a r m o n i o u s first l i n e o f his
Byzantine times. M o r e o v e r , a fair n u m b e r o f names a n d small fragments
a n d prose lists u n t i l t h e latest
f o u r t h satire, ' E u p o l i s a t q u e C r a t i n u s A r i s t o p h a n e s q u e poetae / a t q u e a l i i
o f o t h e r e a r l y l y r i c poets is k n o w n t o u s . W r i t e r s a b o u t h i s t o r y a n d t h e o r y
q u o r u m comoedia prisca v i r o r u m s t ' . T h i s famous t r i a d reappeared q u i t e
o f m u s i c i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y B.C., such as A r i s t o x e n u s a n d H e r a c l i d e s
6
accepted;
P o n t i c u s , q u o t e t h e m v e r y freely, b u t t h e y o c c u r also i n t h e m e t r i s t s a n d
Eratosthenes a n d A r i s t o p h a n e s r e g a r d e d Pherecrates, f o r i n s t a n c e , as its
encyclopedists. T h e r e w a s even a n a d d i t i o n m a d e t o t h e N i n e — w e c a n n o t
often i n l i t e r a t u r e o n O l d C o m e d y , b u t was n o t exclusively e q u a l . I n t h e field o f epic p o e t r y H o m e r as t h e a u t h o r 8
a n d H e s i o d as t h e a u t h o r o f
of Iliad a n d Odyssey
Theogony a n d Erga always o c c u p i e d t h e first
t e l l a t w h a t t i m e — a B o e o t i a n poetess, ScKdVn Koplwa; o f h e r p o e m s , 1 1
Cf. QuintU. 1 4. 3 'quo (sc. iudicio) . . . ita severe sunt usi veteres gramrnatici ut . . . auctores in ordinem redegerint, alios omnino exemerint numero.* Quintilian x 1. 59 'ex tribus receptis Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus iamborum ad e£w maxime pertinebit unus Archilochus.' Nauck pp. 6 7 and 2 4 9 ; L. Radermacher, 'Kanon', REx (1919) 1873 ff. on Quintil. and Dionys. Hal. and their common source. • See above, pp. 4 3 ff. (cf. p. 14, n. 4 ) , 73 ff, 135 f.; on icplois p. 117. * Fr. 179 Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 7 (1953) with commentary p. 123. A. Trendelenburg, Grammaiicorum Graecorum de arte tragica iudieiorum reliquiae (Bonn 1867) 23 ff. Cf. above, pp. 144 ff. See CGFi pp. 3. 3, 58. 165, 81 ad test. 10 Kaibel; on Eratosthenes see above, p. 161. 1
1
3
6
1 1
J
See above, p. 117. Regenbogen, 'Pinax', RE xx 1455 ff. A.P. ix 184. The evidence is assembled by H. Färber,
Antike (1936) 11 22 ff.; cf.
Die Lyrik
in der Kunsttheorie der
r 2 5 f.
Wilamowitz, 'Die Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyriker', AGGW, N . F . rv 3 (1900) 6 3 ¬ 71 Der Alexandrinische Kanon; unstinted approval was expressed by D. L . Page, 'Corinna'. The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper No. 6 (1953) 6 8 ff. Well-founded objections were raised by Radermacher RE x 1873 if., Regenbogen RE xx 1455 ff- and especially by J . Stroux, who was wrong only in so far as he brought in Plato's concept oi öpBoTTjs (see above, p. 75, n. 1 ) ; see also Färber, loc. cit. and W. Döring, 'Zur pädagogischen Problematik des Begriffes des Klassischen', Göttinger Studien zur Pädagogik 24 (1934) 2 0 ff-, who gives a sensible survey of the problem with bibliography although from his own pedagogical point of view. Sec above, pp. 182 ff. PMG p. 3 6 0 : 'Poetae melici minores'. 4
1
6
206
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Height
Ruhnken s J
novel i n language and style, some fragments have turned up o n papyri. I t is very hard to believe that the works o f a l l these people were lost temporarily or for ever by the t h i r d and second centuries B . C . when the critical editions were made a n d the lists arranged. I t is much more natural to suppose that by the severe judgement o f the great grammarians they were regarded as minor poets—which they actually were—and not admitted t o the higher ranks. I f therefore the existence o f selective lists cannot be denied i n the case o f the lyric poets, i t is still less deniable for the other groups. This assumption is i n full agreement w i t h an unprejudiced interpretation o f the passages from Q u i n t i l i a n Books i a n d 10 quoted above, i n which he called the great grammarians 'poetarum iudices'. I f we consider the origin and development o f scholarship i n Alexandria and Aristophanes' personal activity i n particular, i t is not surprising that i n this field also the poets were the first t o be treated. But lists o f the foremost orators, historians, and philosophers followed i n the course o f time ; though only the list o f the orators could rival that o f the poets i n significance, a n d besides Alexandria other places like Pergamum, Rhodes, Athens, a n d Rome began to play their parts. 1
The Greek expression for selecting authors and registering their names i n the selective list was iyxplveiv ; they were then called iyxptOevres. A t least, we have direct evidence o f this only for the orators, but it must also have been applied to the poets. For when Horace concluded the first ode o f the first book w i t h the flourish, 'quodsi me lyricis vatibus i n s è r e s . . . ' , he was surely alluding to this term and cherishing the hope that Maecenas would iyxpivt-iv h i m to the group o f the 'novem lyrici'. Q u i n tilian's term, 'ordo', transferred from the terms o f social ranks into the literary sphere, was not favoured by later authors. But i n Cicero we find a distinction of'classes', as when he assigned some Stoic philosophers, i n 2
3
Every section has its special problems of chronology and locality. In the late Byzantine lists the confusion of indexes and selective lists makes reconstruction almost impossible; H . Usener could not succeed in his bold and acute attempt: Dion. Hal. De imitatione (1889) 110 ff. Most of the evidence is assembled by O. Kroehnert, Canonesne poetarum, scriptorum, artifiaim per antiquitatem fuerunt? Diss. Königsberg r8g7.—-J. Cousin, Études sur Quintüien 1 ( 9 3 ° ) 546 ff. esp. 5 6 5 - 7 2 , discusses Quintilian's sources and the origin and codification of the lists at great length ; he stresses the activity of Pergamum in the second century B . C . as far as the orators are concerned. But see A. E . Douglas, Mnemosyne rv 9 (1956) 30 ff. and below, p. 208, n. 2 ; cf. also below, p. 242. 1
1
Aeivapxps . . . pr/Tatp rdv p,€rà Arjp.oa6évovs iyKpiQivrwv eis; ibid. v. Tlvdias . . . OVK (iv^iKpißt) (recte suppl. Toup) fieri T<ÛV XOLIT&V p-nröpiuv ü>s Bpaaiis Kai èieowaouévos ; Phot. bibl. 20 b 25 Aloxivyjv . . . Kai (PyJwiyos . . . tts TOVS àpiarovs iyKplvet,, Kavàva p-erd ye TOVS npojTovs ÄrrtKov Xayou TOVS eVetVou diro(f>aLv6p,ci>os Xâyouî.—Diodor. I X fr. 6 tKKptvetv = 1
Suid. v.
'numéro eximere'. Cic. Acad. 11 73 'qui mihi cum illo collati quintae classis videntur'. 3
'cañones
9
comparison w i t h Democritus, to the fifth class; and i t became the Roman way to call the iyKptdévrts 'classíci', which means writers o f the first class, 'primae classis' i n the political and military language. W e shall, later on, hear more about this term, familiar to us through its adoption b y the scholars o f the Renaissance. T h e complete repertories were called irivaKes (indexes); b u t there was no corresponding Greek or L a t i n w o r d for the selective lists. I n the year A . D . 1768 the term 'canon' was coined for them by D a v i d Ruhnken, when he w r o t e : 'Ex magna o r a t o i u m copia tamquam i n canonem decern dumtaxat rettulerunt' (sc. Aristarchus et Aristophanes Byzantius). Then Ruhnken dropped the cautious 'tamquam' and went on calling all the selective lists ' c a ñ o n e s ' . His coinage met w i t h worldwide and lasting success, as the term was found to be so convenient; one has the impression that most people who use i t believe that this usage is o f Greek origin. But Kdvüjv was never used i n this sense, nor would this have been possible. From its frequent use i n ethics KOVOJV always retained the meaning of rule or model. Aristophanes' grammatical observations about analogy i n declension could be called Kavóves, rules, or a certain author and his style could be described as naviúv, a model or exemplar. So i t was not by the ancient, b u t i t could have been b y the Biblical, tradition that the catachrestic use of canon was suggested to Ruhnken. T h o u g h the Biblical canon does not mean a list o f writers, i t does mean a list o f books o f the Bible accepted b y the Christian church as genuine and inspired ; and this usage was and is current i n a l l the modern languages. The w o r d 'canon' has been intentionally avoided i n this chapter on Aristophanes; nevertheless, everyone is at liberty t o speak o f the Alexandrian canon o f the nine lyric poets or the ten orators, since die expression is sanctioned by its age and convenience, and w i l l , I a m afraid, never disappear. But i f one calls such lists 'canons', one should be aware that this is not the proper significance o f the Greek xavióv but a modern catachresis that originated i n the eighteenth century. 1
2
3
4
D. Ruhnken, 'Historia critica oratorum Graecorum' in his edition of Rutilius Lupus and often reprinted: Opuscula t (1823) 386¬ H. Oppel, 'Kavd>v. Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte des Wortes und seiner lateinischen Ent¬ sprechungen (regula-norma)' Philologus, Suppl. x x x 4 (1937) passim; on Ruhnken see p. 4 7 . Cf. the review by K. v. Fritz, AJP 6 0 (1939) 112 ff. See above, p. 202 (declension) and p. 206, n. 2 (Aeschines' Áóyot as Kavuw). Euseb. hist. eccl. V I 25. 3 TQI> eKKÁr¡oiaaTiKÓv tpoXaTTOtv navóva, p.óva réaaapa eiSeWi euayyéXia uaprúperai (se. Origen) seems to be the earliest evidence of the word for the canon of scripture; Oppel Kavdiv 70 f. and others refer to a passage of Athanasius, written about A . D . 350, at least twenty-five years after Euseb. hist, eccl., Athanas. *de deer. Mic. syn.' 18 {Werke, hg. von der PreuB. Akad. d. W'iss. 11 ! , 1935, p. 15. 20) p.r¡ Sv ix TOV KOVOVOS (SC. Hermas). 1
1768 2
3 4
2
ao8
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Height
Various
T h e €yKpL$€vres became the TTparropievoi'* they were 'treated', that is, commented o n b y the grammarians, and the vast activity o f Aristarchus i n the next generation was dedicated to this 'treating' of the eyKptdevres. T h e i r writings or at least a great number o f them were copied again and again to be read i n schools and b y the educated p u b l i c ; so they were saved for eternity, while the eKKpidivTts were left to perish. I t is difficult enough to establish the fact o f iyKplveiv and the contents o f the lists; much as we should like to know Aristophanes' o w n criteria, the attempt to reconstruct them from the late sources would be quite chimerical. I f he ever published such lists, the additions to Callimachus' Pinakes would have been an appropriate place. 2
A short final w o r d about the few titles and fragments o f Aristophanes' monographs ; they were supplementary to his great literary works and seldom merely antiquarian. W e have seen that i t is very doubtful whether he wrote a book TTepl alyloos about Athena's shield (which would have belonged to his Homeric studies), or a separate grammatical work on analogy. H i s treatise on the phrase Axyvp.€W) GKVTOXT] i n an epode o f Archilochus has been referred to i n connexion w i t h his treatment o f lyric poetry, and ' T h e Parallels to Menander and other writers' regarded as p a r t o f his w o r k o n the comic poets. W e have not yet mentioned two rather antiquarian collections nepl -npoauiTTUiv* ' O n masks', and ITepl TU>J> AQi]V7]atv eraipt'cW, ' O n Athenian courtesans', a continuation o f his labours devoted to A t t i c Comedy. T w o further monographs were i n the Peripatetic tradition. Aristotle had regarded the proverbs as survivals o f early wisdom and encouraged his pupils to collect them. B u t Aristophanes, while not disregarding the popular origin o f the irapat/iiat, seems to have been interested i n their complete and proper wording a n d their different meanings, and to have searched for them i n the literary texts, especially o f the comic poets. U n d e r this aspect he arranged the first scholarly collection o f Merpucal irapotpiiat i n two books a n d o f Ap.*Tpoi 3
2
I f we now look back over all Aristophanes' accomplishments, two outstanding features catch our eye: an impressive series o f 'firsts' i n many fields, and the central position held by his other works i n a long historical development. Nauck pp. 2 3 5 - 4 2 ; fr. 9 is to be cancelled (see Excursus to p. 177) and fr. 13 belongs to the Ae£cts.—O. Crusius, Analects ad paroemiographos Graecos (1883) 75 ff., discovered a series of proverbs in the Athos MS. (Miller, Milanges 3 4 9 ff.) as excerpts from Aristophanes; cf, K . Rupprecht, 'Paroemiographi', RE xvm (1949) 1742 ff.; this important article confirms Crusius' discovery and makes further additions. See above, p. 173. 1
2
6
7
8
1
dpdfiara
TOUTS A\apvtts
Trpa-nojievoi p.&'.
dn-ep
ewia;
cf. Schol. Nic.
Th.
Si iT€TTpa.)(ap.cv Aptaro<pavovs
KTA.
See Marrou 161 ff., who has too much confidence in Cousin's arguments (above, p. 2 0 6 , n. 1 ) . 1
* Nauck, pp. 2 6 4 - 8 3 .
* See above, pp. 181 f., 191. * The only fragment deals with the comic character Maioutv, CGF1 p. 76 Kaibel; Poll, iv 1 3 3 - 5 4 is supposed to have derived some material from Aristophanes, see C. Robert, 2 5 . Hallisches
Winckelmamsprogr.
(1911) 6 0 ff.
* Aristoph. Byz., FGrHist 3 4 7 F I, cf. subject Sec above, pp. 83 f. * Cf. Eratosth. above, p. 139, n. 8.
T 1
1
i n four books; i t was a great enterprise that well befitted the writer o n Aefcts a n d o n comedy. Aristophanes' two books 77ept £ O J O J V , based on Peripatetic sources o f natural history and paradoxography, w h i c h we lightly touched on at the beginning of this chapter, remained, as we see, an isolated compilation. TrapoipLiai
4
Schol. Dionys. Thr. p. 21. 17 Hilg. Xvptxoi ol KOL 11, Suid. v, Apta?o$avns (com.) . . . opapara 8' avrou
209
Monographs
with references to four other writers on the same
7
814342
Life
of Aristarchus
211
Euergetes I I , then to the king's eldest son Eupator, who was born i n 163 and died as king o f Cyprus in 150 B.C., finally to the younger son, born probably i n 162/1 B.C., who succeeded his father i n 145 as Ptolemy V I I Neos Philopator and was murdered i n the following year o n the wedding day o f his widowed mother and his father's younger brother. The latter usurped the throne as Ptolemy V I I I and styled himself Euergetes I I , but was called KaKepyerrj? by the Alexandrians and &VGKOJV 'pot-belly' by his learned enemies, no doubt i n allusion to the nickname given by Alcaeus to the hated tyrant Pittacus. A l l the friends o f his murdered nephew, the 'fautores pueri', were persecuted, including Aristarchus although he had been the usurper's own t u t o r ; he escaped to Cyprus where he is assumed to have died shortly afterwards. T h e two sons he left were, unlike their father, o f feeble m i n d . 1
VI ARISTARCHUS:
2
T H EA R T O F
4
3
INTERPRETATION
5
exerted his influence not only by his u n r e m i t t i n g productiveness, b u t also through his followers. T h e earliest o f his personal pupils seems to have been Callistratus, who perhaps made his teacher's oral interpretations, i n p a r t at any rate, k n o w n to a wider public and tried to refute atheteses of his schoolfellow Aristarchus; but as late as the first century B.C. Artemidorus, the collector o f the bucolic poems, and D i o dorus o f Tarsus were styled Apiarotpdvetoi. T h e greatest figure among them was Aristarchus.
A R I S T O P H A N E S
1
H e was a native o f the island o f Samothrace (tpvtret or dvwOev Uaao-
9pd£), but became a citizen of Alexandria (AXegavopevs Secret), where he lived under Ptolemy V I Philometor ( 1 8 0 - 1 4 5 B . C . ) ; no precise dates are given i n the biographical tradition. I f Aristarchus reached the age o f seventy-two, as Suidas says, and i f it is correctly conjectured that he died about 144 B.C., he was born about 216 B.C. W h e n the post o f librarian became vacant before or after Aristophanes' death i n 180 B.C., Apol¬ lonius o eiSoypdtpos* succeeded, and i t was only after h i m that Aristarchus was appointed, the fifth head of the library after Zenodotus. L i k e most or perhaps all o f his predecessors, Aristarchus also had to act as tutor i n the royal family, first to Philometor's younger brother, later 2
3
5
6
There were hardly any anecdotes or jokes current about Aristarchus' life and habits, except perhaps Callistratus' indignant remark that he was negligent in appearance, eVt -<£ u?) eupvdpcos d/iTre^eo-fat. The reason might be a lack o f humour i n the fellows o f the Museum at that time or the absence o f any eccentricity i n the simple and serious behaviour o f the hard-working man himself. According to Suidas he had as many as forty pupils. O n l y one poet was a member o f this large and, as we shall see, illustrious learned circle, Moschus of Syracuse, best known as the writer o f the graceful epic poem Europa. N o t the slightest vestige exists of any verse composed by Aristarchus himself. I f he had been asked w h y he, who found fault even w i t h Homer, d i d not t r y his hand at w r i t i n g poems, he m i g h t have said i n reply: 'ea re poemata non facio quia cuiusmodi volo non possum, cuiusmodi possum nolo.' This saying, anonymously quoted i n the Rhetorica ad Herennium, is attributed to Aristarchus by the scholiasts to 7
8
9
1
Athen. n
71 B
/JroAe/Aafof
o EvpytTvs
. . . «fs
a>v raiv Apiarapxov
ua$r)-raiv =
FGrHist
234T I . P.Oxy. xix (1948) 2222. 1 f. provided the solution that he has to be counted as king (see C. H. Roberts, ad loc.); therefore Euergetes I I was correctly described as the eighth Ptolemy: Script. Hist. Aug. Caracalla 6. Andron FGrHist 246 F 1 ; cf. Posidon. FGrHist 8 7 F 6. Strab. xvn 795, Plut. Coriolan. it. 2
See above, p. 190, n. 4. Suid. v. ApLarapxoS • • • eVl /TroAejUai'ou TOV 0iAo/*ijTopos J P.Oxy. 1241 I I 15 <J>iAoTraropo$ is one of the many clerical errors of the papyrus. On the Ptolemies V I to I X often referred to in this chapter see H. Volkmann, RE xxm (1959) 1 7 0 2 - 4 3 , whose article 'Ptolemaios' is based on the careful studies of W. Otto and H. Bengtson. On Aristarchus' life and writings L. Gohn, RE 11 (1896) 8 6 2 - 7 3 , is still useful. Suid. v. Aptarapxos . . . reXevrif h* ev Kvirpat . . . en) S' avrov rijs ^uijs oj8'; but in ydyove 5e Kara TTJV pvs' 'OXvfimaSa { 1 5 6 - 1 5 2 B . C . ) the figure must be corrupt as he was at that time in his sixties. See above, p. 172, n. 2. Tzetz. Proleg. Ma pp. 2 5 , 9 if. Kaib. nparepos 5e ZijvdSo-roi, e' i) 8' per' avrov Aptorapxos, cf. Mb p. 32. 37 Kaib. The Schol. Plaut. (above, p. 100, n. 2) produced nonsense, as usual, 'Aristarchus autem quattuor annis minor fuerit . . . Zenodoto', etc.—If one Apollonlus were counted, Aristarchus would be the fourth from Zenodotus, if two Apollonii, the fifth; the second alternative is correct. 1
2
3
4
5
3
4
3
Ale.
fr.
129. 21 L . - P .
(<j>voyoiv pap.)
and
429
(v).
Iustin. xxxvni 8. 2 'fautores pueri'; cf. Andron FGrHist 2 4 6 QVK oXlyovs ipvyabevaas, Suid. v. Aplarapxos. It is surprising that he chose Cyprus, which was firmly in Ptolemy's hand, as asylum. Rostagni's suggestion that Aristarchus went together with the king to Cyprus in 131/30 B . C . is not acceptable, Scritti minori 11 1, pp. 211 f. Athen. 1 2 1 c . Suid. v. AptaTapXQS • • • p-ad-qraX Si avrov ypapp.ar^KOi wepl rov$ p.' iyivovro . . . 7rof8ay . . . 6
7
8
ap.^01 eiJijflets. Moox°S, EvpaKOvaios. ypap,u.arucos, Aptorapxov yvwpiuos (on yvmpep-os cf. p. 154) Scvrepos TTOITJT^S pera QeoKpirav KTX. ; his poems including the fragments in Bucolici Graeci rec. A. S. F. Gow (1952) 132 if.; W. Biihler, 'Die Europa des Moschos', Hermes, 9
.
Suid. v.
. . 0
Einzelschriften 13 ( i 9 6 0 ) .
212
Aristarchus:
the Art of
Commentaries
Interpretation
Horace who saw an allusion to i t i n a line o f the Letter to Augustus. Even i f not authentic, i t is well invented.
1
Aristarchus' best pupils and many other scholars o f the younger generation fled to various places not under Egyptian rule, Rhodes, Pergamum, Athens. F r o m this secessio doctorum the first crisis ensued i n the history o f scholarship. T h a t the chief-librarianship fell to an obscure m i l i t a r y officer, called Gydas, eV TÛJV Xoyxov, speaks for itself. 2
Ptolemy V I I I , dissolute and violent, was a repellent figure, b u t he was not unintelligent and not uninterested i n learning, as the fragments of the twenty-four books o f his Memoirs on a strange variety o f subjects disclose and as Plutarch asserts {^iXopaBelv SOKOVVTL), A S Aristarchus' disciple, he even ventured to conjecture Xeipwves paXaKol alov (for tow) r)Sè o-eXivov (e 72) because the water-parsnip, not the violet, seemed to suit Calypso's watery meadows. Under h i m and his successors the institutions were carried on, the Museum and the two libraries; papyrusdocuments and inscriptions give some names o f later privileged members and administrators. 3
4
5
T u r n i n g from Aristarchus' place i n the troubled history o f the second century B . C . to his literary work, we immediately realize that he filled a gap left by his predecessors; they had, w i t h very few exceptions, abstained from w r i t i n g commentaries on the texts they edited. N o doubt they had explained them to their personal pupils ; b u t we cannot judge how far the listeners wrote these lectures down and used them for their o w n publications, as no reference is preserved, though a monograph o f Apollonius Rhodius, for instance, foreshadowed the vTroixv^uara. Aristarchus was ready to w o r k out r u n n i n g commentaries w i t h great courage 6
7
3
Rhet. adHerenn. rv 28. 3 9 ; Porphyrio ad Hor, epist. 11 1. 257 si, quantum cuperem, possem quoque'; cf. Schol. Pseudacr. ad loc. 'iuxta Aristarchum'. P.Oxy. 1241 11 16. M . Launcy, 'Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques', Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 169 (1949/50) 2 7 3 and 1163, lists Cydas because of his name as Cretan, unfortunately accepting Rostagni's date; see also other \oyxQ6poi pp. 3 1 6 , 5 6 5 and rrpwrot, ^t'Aot «ai viAtapvpi Xoyxotbôpai p. 1279 (Index). There seems to be no clear definition of the military rank of this group and of its relation to the royal court. 3 Ptolem. Euerg. 11: FGrHist 234 F n = Eustathius' epitome of Athen. 11 61 c and repeated in his commentary on « 72 p. 1524- 52 (cf. 1. 4 0 otov . . . d)s ical woXXoîs àpéoicet râtv ma Attirât). * Cf. Muller-Graupa, 'Museion', RE xvi (1933) 8 1 5 f., and Schmidt, Pinakes 15, on the libraries. ' On the four ypapp-ariKot, said to have lived under Ptolemy I X see below, p. 2 5 4 . See above, pp. 140, 146 ( ? ) , 161, 175 ; we disregard in this connexion colloquial explanations in schools, preserved in the vulgate scholia. î Cf. above, p. 1 0 8 ; on lectures of scholars and copies made by pupils see H . Diels in 'Didymos Kommentar zu Demosthenes' bearb. von H . Diels u. W. Schubart, Berliner Klassikertexte 1 (1904) xxx ff., and G. Zuntz, Byzantion xrv (1939) 560 ff. On the word v-n6p.vnp.a see above, p. 2 9 . 1
s
6
8
and Monographs
213
and success. Aeyerai o£ ypddjai vrrkp o / ßißXla vTroavrjaarajv povojv, we read i n Suidas, who mentions no other writings by h i m . The sentence can hardly mean, as F. A . W o l f supposed, that Aristarchus wrote nothing but commentaries; this would probably have been a>' ßißXla vrropvTipdrcov fiova, not fiovcov. T h e Greek words, as they stand, say that he wrote more than 800 books o f commentaries alone (that is, i f one only counts the commentaries), leaving i t open what other books there might have been not included i n this figure—about which one certainly feels a little uneasy. Even i f the commentary o n Homer had forty-eight books, i f every commentary on an individual play was regarded as a separate unit and so on, i t would still be difficult to account for 8 0 0 vTrouvr)paTa. 1
2
I n the traditional line, at least from Apollonius Rhodius on, Aristarchus wrote a number o f monographs called avyypdppara, as distinguished from the continuous vnop.vrjp.cLTa by Didymus, who thought them o f more value than the latter. They were mostly polemics: Jlpos 3
0iXirav* (Schol. A A 524, B i n ) , LTpos Ktopavov [A 97, B 798, Q 110), LTpos TO Slvoivos rrapddo^ov (M 435) (that is against Xenon's assumption that two poets had composed Iliad and Odyssey); two o f them dealt w i t h specific questions of subject-matter: Llepl '/AtaSo? teal 'Oovoaeias (I 349) and LJepl TOO vavardOpov (K 53, M 258, 0 449, cf. A 166, 8 0 7 ) . These avyypdppara were also interpretations, though i n a form different from that o f the vTropv^para, and F. A . W o l f could easily have regarded ovyypdppara and v-nopvrjpara together as 'commentarios'. So when he said that Aristarchus wrote nothing but commentaries, ' n i h i l aliud' can only mean 'no separate editions o f the Homeric text' (like those o f Zenodotus, Aristophanes, and some others). Wolf's simple sentence implies an interpretation w h i c h is still questionable today. By a unique stroke o f good fortune large excerpts from Aristarchus' are preserved i n a Venetian codex o f the Iliad w i t h text and copious marginal and interlinear scholia, the most precious parts o f vTropvrjpara
5
F. A. Wolf, Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795) ccxxrx 'dicitur A. . . . conscripsisse . . . si Suidam recte intelligo, nihil aliud quam Commentarios'; cf. ibid. n. 8 and p. C C X L I V n. 30. In Suidas' life of Callimaehus precisely the same conventional figure appears for his whole output: Call. 11, test. 1. 6 ßtßXla imcp ri oKraKooia. On the inconsistency in the relation of the cases of fiovos to the respective nouns see Kühner-Gerth, Grammatik der griech. Sprache 11 i 'Satzlehre' {1898) 2 7 5 . 3 . Schol. A ß I I I et . . . avyypdp.pa.Ta. rwv vrrop,vi)p.6.Tviv TrporaTTOUtv. Cf. above, p. gi. Codex Venet. Marc. 454 ( A ) ; cf. H. Erbse, 'Beiträge zur Uberlieferung der Iliasscholien', Zetemata 2 4 (1960) esp. 78 ff. and 123 ff. Erbse is preparing a new edition of all the Scholia on the Iliad; meanwhile we have to use the editions of Schol. A and B by Dindorf and of T by E . Maass, and to consult the facsimile of cod. Ven. A in Codices Graeci et Latini photo¬ graphice depicti vi ed. D. Comparetti (Leiden 1 9 0 1 ) . 1
2
3
4
5
214
Aristarchus:
the Art of
Aristarchus
Interpretation
which are based on the labours o f four men, Didymus, Aristonicus, Herodian, and Nicanor, who had made excerpts from Hellenistic sources in the time of Augustus and o f the early Roman empire. T o two o f them we owe substantial passages o f authentic Aristarchean material: to Didymus IJepi rfjs Aptarapx^ov 8iop0aWw? and to Aristonicus LJepl rrnpettuv ('/AiaSo? Kai ' OSuacreta?). 1
Editor
of the Homeric
Text
215
interpretations o f the relevant passages i n the Scholia and i n the whole grammatical literature were nevertheless penetrating; they were augmented and corrected i n two later editions, and his pupils continued research i n this field. One o f the first things Lehrs d i d was to object to Wolf's assertion that Aristarchus had produced vTrofj.vripio.Ta only, and to his refusal to believe that there had been more than one edition o f them by Aristarchus himself. Lehrs concluded that Didymus had had at his disposal two Aristarchean editions o f the Homeric text preceded by two editions o f the commentary; and this conclusion met w i t h universal approval u n t i l i t was challenged by Erbse. H e took great pains to reinterpret the references to Aristarchus' writings as exMatig, oiopddxjtis, vTTopLvrjuaTa i n our Scholia and to extricate the proper meaning o f these terms as used by Didymus. These investigations led to the following conclusion : Aristarchus d i d write v7r0p.vrjp.ara, w i t h many references to the previous recensions, but probably only once; they contained, o f course, lemmata from the Homeric text and ample textual criticism besides the main exegetical part. O n the other hand, he d i d not make new separate editions o f the text, but accepted the 'vulgate' text (the Kotval iKSoaeis) for general use. A l l this would fit very nicely into our picture of Homeric scholarship i n the t h i r d and second centuries B.C. Towards the middle o f the second century the imperative demand was not for editing the text anew, but for explaining i t i n its entirety; the absence o f a more or less authoritative text arranged by the ypap.p,aTt,Ka>TaTos would make i t easier to understand w h y the textual criticism o f the Alexandrian grammarians had relatively little influence on the Homeric text itself, as i t is preserved i n papyri and manuscripts. I t looks to me as i f by a sort o f unconscious counter-revolution W o l f has now been p u t back o n the throne from which Lehrs had driven h i m ; the details and still more the arguments differ, but the two essential points are the same: there was no separate edition o f the text, but just a commentary i n only one edition by Aristarchus himself. 1
2
3
I t was the special interest o f the French i n manuscripts and palaeography awakened by Montfaucon that led J.-B. de Villoison i n 1781 to the discovery o f the two foremost manuscripts o f the Iliad i n Venice, w h i c h he published i n 1788; and this discovery made possible the modern reconstructions of Aristarchus' Homeric studies. F. A . W o l f acknowledged the 'insigne m e r i t u m Villoisonii' when he made the first attempt at a history o f the Homeric text. His chapter on its treatment by the Alexandrian grammarians, especially by Aristarchus, became a model for future writers on the history o f any ancient text; i t is therefore o f lasting value. But this, o f course, was not the part o f Wolf's Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795) which stirred the emotions o f the whole literary world. I n tracing the history o f the transmission o f the Homeric text from the Hellenistic age back to the age o f the epic poets for the first time, he had to raise the question o f the origin of the epic poems, of their unity and genuineness. W o l f opened the eyes of his contemporaries and o f posterity to the unique historical position o f the Homeric poetry. One should always keep i n m i n d his starting-point from the wealth o f new material i n the Venetian codex and the new spirit o f bold historical inquiry, even i f one sees h i m taking the wrong way i n individual arguments and conclusions. After the general prelude i n Wolf's Prolegomena the foundation for special Aristarchean studies was laid i n 1833 by the monograph o f K . Lehrs, De Aristarchi studiis Homencis. I t was Lehrs, not Wolf, who discovered the importance o f the subscriptions which give the names o f the 'four m e n ' ; no wonder that he overestimated the value o f codex A and neglected the scholia i n the other manuscripts. They were a l l (A B D L V ) printed together i n I . Bekker's edition o f 1825, and unfortunately arranged i n one continuous text; Lehrs's reconstruction o f Aristarchus' work was handicapped by being based on this sometimes delusive text. His 1 Didymi Fragmenta coll. M. Schmidt (1854, reprinted 1964) 112 ff.; A. Ludwich, Aristarchs homerische Textkritik nach den Fragmenten des Didymos 1 (1884) H ( 1 8 8 5 ) . Aristonicus, 77epi orjpteiwv '/AiaSo? reliquiae, ed. L . Friedlaender (1853) 39 ff., LTepl a-np-ctotv 'OSvaoeias, ed. O. Carnuth { 1 8 6 9 ) . M. Van der Valk, Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, part 1 {1963) 536 ff. 'The critics transmitting the text and views of Aristarchus' (cf. H . Erbse, Gnom. 3 6 [1964] 5 4 9 ff., esp. 5 5 5 ) .
4
5
6
Second edition 1865, third edition 1 8 8 2 ; see especially above, p. 214, n. I Ludwich on Didymus, Friedlaender on Aristonicus, Lentz on Herodian. Lehrs Ar. 22 was unjust in believing that Wolf did 'not remember' the monographs; he actually mentioned them Proleg. C C X L I V n. 30 as VTrop.vrip.aTa. Wolf p. ccxxxvn and Lehrs Ar. 23 ff. * H . Erbse, 'Ober Aristarchs Iliasausgaben', Herm. 87 (1959) 2 7 5 - 3 0 3 (see also above, p. 213, n. 5 ) ; but J . A. Davison, 'Homeric Criticism' in A Companion to Homer (1963) 224, correctly speaks of Aristarchus' commentary as having been prepared to accompany his text. Ammonius may have supplemented his master's ¿TToy.vrip.aTa. in a sort of second edition 1
1
3
3
3
5
(ejreic8o£7tf).
See above, p. tog, n. 7, the reference to The Hibeh Pap. r, in which pp. of the vulgate post-Aristarchean text also is discussed. 6
70
ff. the problem
2i6
Aristarchus:
the Art of
Interpretation
The
The meaning of the words EKOOOIS and SiopBaxns and the rather vague use o f grammatical terms i n general has caused us some difficulty already. W h e n Schol. A o n A 522 pf\ ae vof)ori comments oi>xi pr] ae'',cUAa "¿177 T I " at Aptrndpxov Kal at dXXai axeoov rrdaaL oiopdojueis, i t is very hard to suppose that anything was meant b u t 'the recensions o f Aristarchus and nearly a l l the other ones'. I t is almost impossible not to supply eKoooeis or oiopdwatis i n the traditional sense o f (critical) editions i n Schol. A f 126 1
iC
Kal al
Aptordpxov
Kal r) Zr/vooorov Kal
r)ApUJTO(pdvovs ' TTOp
,i
p.appap€Tjv"; for Zenodotus and Aristophanes were authors o f editions, and only SioptWac b y Aristarchus could be p u t on a par w i t h them, not commentaries. I n the phrase KOV rats oiopBwaeui Kal iv rots vrropvrjpaai (Schol. A B 192) the recensions o f the text and the commentaries stand side b y side neatly distinguished; so the reference must be t o t w o different works. O n the other hand, I cannot detect i n Didymus' fragments any unmistakable evidence for the use o f the term CK&OCTIS as 'interpretat i o n ' . I t may be that Apollonius Dyscolus meant 'exposition, treatise' by eKooois,* and i n Christian literature i t seems to have been actually used i n the sense o f 'interpretation', b u t this does not prove that Didymus applied i t t o Aristarchus commentary. I t is also difficult to suppose that the sum o f the lemmata i n the vTropvrjpara represented Aristarchus' recension of the Homeric text, as i t ought to have done i f he left no separate edition. (C
2
Sequence
of Editions
and Commentaries
217
is also said to have written LTepl rrjs eireK8o$eicn)s Siopdojoeais, perhaps i n the same treatise. I f he was not contradicting himself, the 're-issued recension' must have been a revised text drawn up not by Aristarchus himself, b u t by a pupil like Ammonius from material left by the master. 1
As to the viropvrjpara, a commentary based o n Aristophanes' text, and therefore written earlier than Aristarchus' own recension, is implied by Schol. A S 133 ev rots Kar ApiOTodvr)v vrropVTjpaatv. But one of the most learned extracts i n Schol. A B m suggests the existence o f more than one commentary when i t quotes what Didymus had found ev rwi ru>v rjKpifiwpevaiv vrropvrjpdrwv o f Aristarchus; this commentary 'made accurate' appears to be the one which is called 'closely revised' i n Schol. H 130: ev rots eirjraap4voLs Apiurdpxov, So i t is a reasonable assumption that the earlier commentary was regarded as less accurate, and that i t was followed by a revised one after Aristarchus had finished his recension o f the text. The sequence seems to have been: Aristarchus' first vrropvqpara based on Aristophanes' text, Aristarchus' oiop6a>ots, his second vrropvr]para using his own text, the revised recension made by others. 2
2
4
1
O n the question o f the number o f Aristarchus' recensions and commentaries, we find that Didymus usually speaks o f two recensions, and quotes the divergent readings, o r simply notes otx&s. B u t Ammonius, Aristarchus' personal p u p i l and 'his successor i n the school' (Sta&c£apevos rr)v crxoX.r}v), wrote IJepl rod prj yeyovivai rrXeiovas e/cSdaeiy rr)s Apiarapxeiov oiopdcbaews. O n the natural interpretation, this heading means that i n the opinion o f A m m o n i u s there was only one edition, not more, and no context o f the Scholion suggests otherwise. Yet Ammonius 5
6
See above, pp. 71, 94, 110; 1 cannot accept that the term Stopflwms is correctly applied in the case of Antimachus and Aristotle, as Erbse loc. cit. p. 289 does. On 'terminology' and its dangers see above, p. 159. Schol. A B 355 ovrios Aplorapxos Sta TOC e (that is, irep not nap) KOX ra virap.vrip.aTa is convincingly emended into Kara, rd vTTop.vrjp.ara ( = in commentariis) by Erbse p. 2 8 4 . Apollon. Dysc., SytlL ed. G. Uhlig (1910) p. 5 1 3 Index s.v. CKSOOH and Fragmenta ed. R. Schneider (1910) p. 195 Index s.v. cxSoms; I think one could argue against Uhlig's explanation of IKSOCTIS on pp. 1 f. of his edition of the Syntax. * A Patristic Greek Lexicon ed. Lampe fasc. 2 (1962) s.v. Shoots 2. 'interpretation' and eVSiStuut 2. 'interpret.' * Schol. A K 3 9 7 - 9 . Lehrs, De Aristarchi stud. Horn. 24, took wAtt'ovae here as irXeiovas TU>V Svo (because of the constant references to two editions by Didymus); but by this insertion of rd>v Svo he exerted a hardly legitimate strain on the simple text. Recent scholars followed Lehrs (see above, 1
2
3
6
3
Whether Didymus was able to w o r k on copies o f these original Siop0a>and VTropvqpara of Aristarchus and of his monographs, the avyypdppara, is an insoluble problem. F . A . Wolf's doubts have been repeated and expressed even more strongly, b u t no proof has been forthcoming. Didymus was confronted w i t h several books o f Aristarchus, as we have seen, and i t is understandable that he was sometimes embarrassed and doubtful about what Aristarchus' Homeric text had been and how he had interpreted i t ; but he never complains that he had no access to copies of the originals and had to p u t up w i t h revisions or w i t h defective dvrtypa(f>a. I t is hardly correct to regard Didymus' w r i t i n g Llepl rijs Apiurapxeiov Siopdwoeojs as an effort to reconstruct the original oioptW crt? no longer available; its title and its fragments assign i t to that special aeis
4
p. 2 1 5 ) with the exception of Monro, Homer's Odyssey It ( 1 9 0 1 ) , Appendix p. 441. See now Erbse's article above, p. 215, n. 4 . Schol. A X 3 6 5 ; cf. above, p. 2 1 5 , n. 5 . * Compendium in A ; but Kar' Apioro
3
4
2i8
Aristarchus:
the Art of
Corpora
Interpretation
branch o f i7ep/-Iiterature o f w h i c h the earliest known representative i n 1
Alexandria was Apollonius Rhodius. Didymus also composed 'YTropvrjfiara VAtaSo? KOL' Oovoaelas ; and LTepl rr)s Apiarapxetov 8iop8ojO€a>s may have been related to them i n the same way as his book LJepl XvptKwv TTOLr/rojv was to his vTropv-qparra on a number of lyric poets. R u n n i n g commentaries had to follow the text o f the author line by line, while the 77ept'-literature was at liberty to select aspects and problems o f text, language, and subject; i t seems that Didymus made a sensible selection. Supposing that he and his younger contemporary Aristonicus had the benefit o f copies o f the originals, we should still like to know how far they were faithful and intelligent excerptors and compilers. This delicate subject can be discussed only later on when we come to speak about the so-called principle o f Aristarchus' scholarship. 2
The marginal sigla i n Aristarchus' e V S c W i s were the link to his vTropvY)para. H e used the o-nptia introduced by Zenodotus and Aristophanes w i t h a few alterations and supplements: disagreements w i t h Zenodotus he marked by the binXr} Trepieariypevr), his own notable observations against other editions and explanations by the simple onrXrj; i n the frequent cases o f repetitions o f lines i n Homer, he added the oßeXös to the aarepio-Kos when the repeated lines seemed to be out o f place; when the order o f lines was disturbed, he put instead o f Aristo3
phanes' aiypa
and
dvrLcnypa the dvriaiypux and ariypr);
a simple dot
indicated that he suspected the spuriousness o f a line which he was reluctant to obelize. T h e exposition o f these critical signs was no longer left to oral tradition or to guesswork; Aristarchus himself provided it now i n a specific part o f his viropv^para, preserved i n the excerpts o f Aristonicus. As long as papyrus volumes were used so that text and commentary had to be written on separate rolls, the symbols marked the lines o f the critical text and were repeated w i t h the lemmata i n the roll of the commentary, though short notes were occasionally j o t t e d down i n the margins and between the columns o f the text. The situation changed only when the codex was introduced and its margins provided space for notes. 4
So far we have considered only two o f the four men mentioned i n codex Venetus A . O f the other two the subscriptions to most of the books of the Itiad say: rivd ok Kai e*e rrjs 'IXiaKrjs Trpoaipoias 'Hpoioiavov KOX CK ' See above, p. 146 and esp. n, 2, on the 'discovery' of Leo; he refers p. 393 to Didymus TJepl TTJ£ Apiarapxeiov
&iop9d>
Scholia
and
Papyri
219
TOW NiKavopo? /7epi oriypr¡s (sc. napaKstTai), Both lived about 200 years after Didymus, Nicanor under H a d r i a n , and Herodian under Marcus Aurelius. W h i l e not dealing exclusively w i t h the accentuation and punctuation o f Aristarchus, they referred to h i m as their authority more often than to other grammarians. Aristophanes had apparently been the first to introduce accents into the texts o f the poets he edited; the novelty i n Aristarchus' editions was that he was able i n his commentaries to give the specific reasons for his accentuation. O u r evidence is limited t o Homer, and we may doubt whether even there Aristarchus went far beyond the SiaaroXr) rijs dpj¡>if$¿Xou Ae'|ea>?. The same probably applies to his punctuation. There was no change o f practice between his teacher Aristophanes and his p u p i l Dionysius T h r a x , both using only two stops ; but Aristarchus could justify his punctuation, whenever necessary, i n 1
2
3
4
his VTTopvrjpara.
Compared w i t h the uncommonly rich tradition i n the corpora o f the Homeric Scholia, to w h i c h Eustathius (so often quoted above) has to be added, the papyri have yielded little new material. The earliest substantial fragment o f a vTT¿pvr¡pa on B 7 5 1 - 8 2 7 , written about the middle o f the first century B . C probably before Didymus and Aristonicus, provides a significant example o f the prefixing o f the Aristarchean critical signs to the lemmata. I t includes some signs as well as explanations not recorded i n the medieval codex Venetus A ; that is what we should have expected i n the usual process o f eclecticism. I n two other fragments o f commentaries to be dated to the second century A . D . , the time o f Nicanor and Herodian, the Aristarchean strain seems to be smaller, but more miscellaneous learned material is accumulated. 5
6
Aristarchus was certainly entitled to be called ¿ 'Opr¡piKÓs; but i t would be unjust to disregard the merits of his w o r k on other texts. For he also interpreted non-Homeric epics, lyrics, and drama, and was the first 7
Herodian! Reliquiae ed. A. Lentz 11 1 (1868) 2 4 - 1 6 5 Llepl ' Op.i¡píKi)s npoauioías; cf. 1, pp. lxxivff.—Nicanor, IJtpl '/Atofrijf anypfj? ed. L . Friedlaender 1 8 5 0 ; ílepi 'Oovaattaxjjs «my/i^sed. O . Carnuth 1 8 7 5 ; cf. C. Wendel, RE xvn (1936) 2 7 4 if. See above, pp. 180 f. Lehrs, Ar. pp. 2 4 7 - 3 0 0 'de accentibus'. Laum (above, p. 180, n. 4 ) tried in vain to refute Lehrs's arguments and to deny that Aristarchus showed any interest in accentuation. Erbse, strongly criticizing Laum'smany mistakes in the interpretation of the Homeric Scholia, deferred judgement on Aristarchus' treatment of prosodic problems. A new inquiry could indeed be helpful; meanwhile I see no reason for disagreeing with Lehrs. * See above, pp. 17g f. > P.Óxy. vin (1911) 1086 ( = P. Lit, Land. 176) with A. Hunt's introduction and notes. Papa. Hawara (Pack no. 616) and P.Oxy. n 2 2 1 ; O. Müller, Über den Papyruskommentar zum 0 der Ilias (Diss. München 1913), successfully identified lemmata and joined small scraps; I cannot find his merits anywhere acknowledged. Schol. cod. Vindob. r 125 (Bekker p. 102) . 1
3
3
6
* M. Schmidt, Didym. Fragm. pp. 1 7 9 - 2 1 1 . See above, p. 1 7 8 ; cf. p. 175. * See above, p, 2 1 4 ; some are better preserved in Suidas than in cod. Vcn. A (cf. Erbse, Beiträge 174 ff.).
of Homeric
7
1
2
Aristarchus: the Art of Interpretation
220
Interpretation of Lyric Poetry
221
to c o m m e n t o n a prose a u t h o r . I n H e s i o d i c c r i t i c i s m A r i s t a r c h u s v i g o r o u s l y
a L y d i a n . T h a t t h e r e was a n A r i s t a r c h e a n
c o n t i n u e d the w o r k o f the t h i r d century. H e athetized the p r o e m o f the
f o r e , c a n n o l o n g e r be d o u b t e d , a n d i t m a y be w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t A r i s t o n i -
Erga w h i c h was m i s s i n g i n a c o p y f o u n d b y P r a x i p h a n e s , a n d t h e
1
vTropvrjpa
o n A l c m a n , there-
u-npzla
cus, w h o t r e a t e d o f A r i s t a r c h u s ' c r i t i c a l signs o n H o m e r a n d H e s i o d , also
b y w h i c h H e s i o d i c lines w e r e m a r k e d w e r e e x p l a i n e d b y A r i s t o n i c u s w h o
c o n c e r n e d h i m s e l f w i t h A l c m a n ' s poems. O n e o f his t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s was
w r o t e o n t h e sigla i n H o m e r . Specimens o f A r i s t a r c h u s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
noted o n the m a r g i n o f the Louvre papyrus.
Theogony a n d Erga are preserved b y o u r S c h o l i a ; a n d as he, u n l i k e his predecessors, d i d n o t w r i t e rXwoaai o r At&is, t h e y m u s t be r e m a i n s o f
A n a c r e o n are m e n t i o n e d i n H e p h a e s t i o ' s
'YTropirqaara.
A n a c r e o n t i c p o e m [i^-nyovpevos
2
the
3
H e d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h e c a t a l o g u e style o f t h e H e s i o d i c poems
1
Athenaeus
f r o m H o m e r ' s epic n a r r a t i v e style, a n d w h e n he c a m e across passages o f
'HmoSeios x P VP
I$&d a n d Odyssey, h e c o n d e m n e d t h e m as u n H o m e r i c . T h e existence o f his ApxiXox^o, 'Yrropvrjpara, w h i c h is expressly attested, is i m p o r t a n t evidence f o r t h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m m o n o g r a p h s IJepi ApxiXoxov t o a r u n n i n g c o m m e n t a r y . I t m a y be a t least suggested t h a t t h e reference i n t h e S c h o l i a t o P i n d a r , -rrepl Se TT}$ o-Korak-qs
a
aKT
m
4
5
But
2
'EKOOCTCLS
o f Alcaeus a n d
metrical handbook, and i n
A r i s t a r c h u s appears as a n i n t e r p r e t e r o f a passage i n a n TO voip/ov).
3
i t is o n l y f r o m t h e S c h o l i a t o P i n d a r ' s
Epinicia i n o u r m e d i e v a l
m a n u s c r i p t s a n d f r o m t h e m a r g i n a l notes i n t h e g r e a t p a p y r u s o f t h e
Paeans t h a t w e g a i n f u l l e r i n f o r m a t i o n . T h o u g h A r i s t a r c h u s ' n a m e t u r n s 4
u p a b o u t seventy t i m e s a l t o g e t h e r , a n d w e c a n b e sure t h a t a n u m b e r o f excerpts u n d e r D i d y m u s ' n a m e are A r i s t a r c h e a n i n substance, t h e r e is n o reference e i t h e r t o a n tKooois
o r t o a v-nopv-qpa.
I f a n y o n e says t h a t a l l t h e
e x a m p l e s o f his v e r b a l c r i t i c i s m w e r e p a r t o f a c o m m e n t a r y , h e c a n n o t b e 5
r e f u t e d ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a defender o f t h e t h e o r y o f ' c o m m e n t a r y
k n o w n ; i t m i g h t even d e r i v e f r o m a reference b y A r i s t a r c h u s h i m s e l f i n
o n l y ' w i l l n o t be able t o p r o v e t h a t A r i s t a r c h u s d i d n o t p r o d u c e a n e w
his c o m m e n t a r y o n P i n d a r t o a n o t h e r o f his o w n books.
recension o f P i n d a r ' s t e x t . I t was d i f f i c u l t e n o u g h t o r e a c h a decision i n
6
I t was A r i s t o p h a n e s o f B y z a n t i u m w h o i n his c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s o f t h e
t h e case o f H o m e r w h e r e t h e t r a d i t i o n is a h u n d r e d t i m e s
richer;
with
l y r i c texts h a d p r o v i d e d t h e f u n d a m e n t a l t e r m i n o l o g y , classification,
r e g a r d t o P i n d a r w e c a n o n l y state t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t A r i s t a r c h u s re-
c o l o m e t r y , a n d m e t r i c a l analysis f o r a l l l a t e r a n c i e n t t i m e s . N o t m u c h is
t a i n e d t h e t e x t established s h o r t l y before b y his master A r i s t o p h a n e s , a n d
k n o w n a b o u t Aristarchus' alterations, adjustments, o r v a r i a n t readings.
o c c a s i o n a l l y m a r k e d his disagreement. A s a m a t t e r o f fact, t h e A r i s t o -
B u t i n a c o m m e n t a r y o n A l c m a n , w r i t t e n i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e
p h a n e a n t e x t o f P i n d a r c o n t i n u e d t o e n j o y a degree o f a u t h o r i t y t h a t n o
7
century A . D . ,
first
A r i s t a r c h u s ' n o t e o f t h e G o l a x a e a n a n d I b i n e a n horses i n
t e x t o f H o m e r ever a c h i e v e d . C a l l i s t r a t u s h a d p r o b a b l y b e e n t h e first t o
t h e L o u v r e P a r t h e n i o n is q u o t e d v e r b a t i m , a n d t h e passage t h a t i m -
c o m m e n t o n some o f t h e P i n d a r i c p o e m s , a n d h i s t o r i a n s l i k e T i m a e u s or
8
m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w s m a y be A r i s t a r c h e a n t o o , i n w h i c h i t is i n f e r r e d ( i n
Peripatetics l i k e C h a m a e l e o c o u l d offer h e l p f u l m a t e r i a l . B u t to c o m -
o p p o s i t i o n t o Sosibius L a c o , b u t a p p a r e n t l y i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h A r i s t o t l e )
pose a c o m p l e t e c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e w h o l e o f P i n d a r ' s p o e t r y was s t i l l
f r o m t h e n a m e o f t h e I b e n i as a p e o p l e o f L y d i a t h a t t h e p o e t h i m s e l f was
a
6
highly ambitious undertaking. Aristarchus, though
familiar
with
v o c a b u l a r y a n d t o a lesser degree w i t h m e t r e , h a d n o t a t his c o m m a n d See above, p. 144. * Proleg. Ac in Hes. Op. p. 2. 8 Pertusi (Schol. vet. in Hes. Op. 1955) — test. 47 a in Hes. Th. ed. F. Jacoby, pp. 124 f.; Praxiphan. fr. 5 Brink; cf. F. Leo, 'Hesiodea', Index Scholarum, Gottingae 1894 = Ausgew. Kleine Schrifien 11 ( i 9 6 0 ) 343 ff., esp. 346, 354. Suid. V . ApictTovtKOs . . . eypatpe Tlepl T i u v orjpeiaiv rcav ev tr} Qeoyoviq. 'Hai6k)ov; Schol. Hes. Th. 79, Op. 9 7 ; cf. Rzach, RE vm 1226. * Schol. A £ 39, G 6 1 4 , Schol. HQ,o 7 4 ; cf. Lehrs p. 337. * Clem. Al. Strom. 1 117. 2 , n p. 73. 2 5 Stahlin = Archiloque ed. F. Lasserre (1958) test. 2 d, p. civ; cf. above, pp. 146 and 2 1 7 f. on TIcpl TOW Seiva. Schol. Pind. 0. vi 154 a. When Didymus or Aristonicus cite anonymous vwofiv^ara in our Scholia to Homer, they always mean Aristarchus, see Ludwich, Artst. Horn. Textkritik 1 3 5 f. See above, pp. 181 ff. P.Oxy. xxrv ed. E . Lobel (1957) 2389 fr. 6, col. 1 7 = PMG ed. Page (1962) p. 7 Schol. B 7 on Alcm. fr. 1. 5 9 ; on Sosibius see above, p. 202, on Aristotle P.Oxy. 2389, fr. 9, col. 1 12, on Crates in this case agreeing with Aristarchus see below, p. 242. 1
the full knowledge o f the historical b a c k g r o u n d a n d the acquaintance w i t h l o c a l h i s t o r y t h a t was indispensable f o r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f P i n d a r . I t has been easy f o r a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n c r i t i c s t o c a r p a t his o b v i o u s
3
3
6
7 8
xxiv 2387, fr. i marg. with Lobel's commentary. Alcm. Schol. A on fr. i , 38 p. 6 Page. On Ale. see above, p. 1 8 5 , n. 6 , on Anacr. n. 4 and Athen. xv 671 r; on egnyovpevos see below, pp. 222 f. * Schol. Pind. ed. Drachmann, vol. in pp. 313 f. v. Apiarapxos and v. Alavftos and P.Oxy. 1
P.Oxy.
1
1
V p. 322 V .
Xpiarapxos.
J . Irigoin, Histoire du texte de Pindare 51 ff, R. Schmidt, Commentatio de CalUstrato Aristophaneo pone Aristoph. Byz. Fragm. ed. Nauck (1848) p. 3 2 3 ; Timaeus 566 FGrHist m B (1955) Kommentar b (Noten) p. 313, n. 2 9 ; Chamael. fr. 31 f. IJepl LTtvodpov, Wehrli, Schutt des Aristot. 9 (1957) 5 6 and 82. 3 6
222
Aristarchus:
the Art of
Interpretation
Works
1
deficiencies; b u t there is more reason to respect the courageous efforts of the great Homeric scholar i n a quite different field. A commentary o n Bacchylides' Dithyrambs preserved i n a papyrus of the second century A . D . states that Aristarchus, i n disagreement w i t h Callimachus, assigned the Cassandra to this group. But the author o f the commentary, possibly Didymus iv uiropvyjpaTi BCLKXVMOOV emvUwv, does not give the title o f the book concerned; so i t may have been a casual remark. Aristarchus' name, but no more, occurs also i n a very large but fragmentary papyrus of the first or early second century A . D . dealing w i t h A l c m a n , Stesichorus, Sappho, and Alcaeus. I t is certainly not a VTTOpv-qpa i n the proper sense o f a 'commentary', as i t is labelled i n the editio princeps; I a m pretty confident that i t should be regarded as a fresh specimen o f that earlier literary form ile.pl ro€ Sefva which continued to be used besides the developed vrrdpi^npa. T h e interweaving of biographical material and problems w i t h the interpretation of selected passages o f texts, often starting from long lemmata, is typical o f this f o r m ; typical also are the references to Peripatetic authorities i n the first place (Aristotle, Dicaearchus, and especially Chamaeleo) and then to Alexandrian grammarians, o f whose names only ApLurapxos is legible (probably i n two .places). So our knowledge o f Aristarchus' work o n lyric poetry is being slowly improved by the trickle of fresh papyrus finds. 2
3
4
5
6
This cannot be said o f his work on dramatic poetry. For Aeschylus we have still to rely on Schol. Theocr. x 18 e. Apia-rapxos imopvrjaei AvKovpyov AlaxvXov* (with reference to the pdvns KaXapala i n the satyrplay Lycurgus). T h e explanation o f a few Sophoclean expressions is attributed to Aristarchus. T h e Sepprjarrfs was usually supposed t o be a ' w o r m eating skin or leather'; but Apiarapxos ro HodjoKXaav (jViobe fr. 449 P-) iiijyovpevos took i t to mean a 'snake'. T h e word l^rfyxZadai 7
on the Scenic
Poets
223 1
itself and i n isolation does not suggest the w r i t i n g o f a commentary; it is used properly o f individual interpretations. But i t can mean the interpretation o f a particular passage or w o r d i n the course o f a commentary, and as Aristarchus' interpretations o f passages from no less than three p l a y s — e A c u o v r a i (Troilus fr. 624 P.), tepeas (Chryses fr. 728 P.), XVKOKTOVOV deov (El. 6)—are cited by lexicographers and scholiasts, we may reasonably infer that he did write a commentary o n Sophocles. I t w o u l d be more hazardous to draw the same conclusion from the only reference to Ion's Omphate; Aristarchus is said to have explained the pdyaSis as a sort o f flute, but this could have been just a reference to the special sense o f pdyaSis i n Ion's iambic line (TO Lapfietov eijrjyovptvos) inserted for contrast i n one o f his commentaries on lyric poets where pdyaots occurs as a stringed instrument. There is also one quotation i n our copious Scholia to Euripides; i n the passage on the night-watches i n the Ps.-Euripidean Rhesus 5 3 9 ff. Aristarchus is said t o have disagreed w i t h other (anonymous) grammarians, i n taking Coroebus as the leader of the Paeones. This hardly justifies the conclusion that he wrote a complete commentary on Euripides, as Priam's belated ally and Cassandra's unhappy suitor, Coroebus, was a heroic figure i n an epic poem o f the ved)T€poL to whose works Aristarchus often referred i n his vrfopvfjpara on the epics. There are, however, parts of the Scholia to Euripides that were almost identical w i t h Aristarchean explanations i n the Homeric Scholia; but they may be borrowings from there by Didymus, not self-quotations of Aristarchus. Yet one o f the grammarians o f the second century B . C must have laid the foundation for all the later comments on Euripides' tragedies; and though this could have been one of his pupils or his coeval Callistratus, Aristarchus himself is still the likeliest candidate. I t is bitter 2
3
4
5
6
9
Cf. Irigoin loc. cit. 54 ff. See above, p. 130. J Bacchyl. ed. Snell, test. 10 p. 122. * P.Oxy. xxix ed. D. Page (1963) 2 5 0 6 , fr. 6 a 6 and fr. 79. 7 (?); preface p. v 'an ancient commentary on Greek Lyric Poets'. See above, esp. pp. 217 f. with the reference to F. Leo. & The label Eiu*tv\h*Lu>v vu{op.vr pa) P.Oxy. xxv (1959) 2433 of the second century A . D . hardly means a commentary on Simonides' poems by one of the grammarians (Aristarch., Didym., etc.), but a popular exposition of his famous 'Sayings'. ? This is the reading of codd. U E A ; A. ev \>TtopvT)p.aTi Avxovpyov codd. GPT; but our best manuscript, Ambrosianus K reads Apiorotpdv-oi instead of Aplorapxos and omits the following words. We have to accept the longer version; see also G. Wendel, 'Uberlieferung und Entstehung der Theokrit-Scholien', AGGW, Phil.-hist. Kl. N . P . X V I I 2 (1921) 145, and compare p. 151. TGF p. 4 0 N . — fr. 100 Mette, from the AuxoSpyas Zarvpixos; cf. Mette, Der verlorerie 1
1
8
s
i
8
1
Aischylos (1963) 141.
• Harpocr. p. p. at.
55. 2
Bekker, Hesych., Suid. s.v., al,; cf. Didym.
Fragm.
ed. M. Schmidt
The most notable mistake of this kind was made by those who inferred from Sext. Emp., math, vn 93 o IJoaeiouiviOS TOP ilXdrmvos Tlpaiov e£rjyovp.evo$ that Posidonius wrote a whole 'commentary' on the Timaeus; this and all its consequences were completely refuted by K. Reinhardt, Poseidonios (1921) 4 1 6 ff. and R E xxn (1953) 569. The evidence referred to in the two following notes confirms his interpretation of cgyyovptvos, See Schol. A B i n (Didym.) xdv rats Airats eiijyovuwo? "airap efreir* Aias" ( I 169) . . . ec Tivt Tp.evQjv vnofivnyAroiv ypdfai Tavra, sc. ApiQTapxos; cf. above, p. 2 2 1 . In the Scholia to Pindar (above, p. 2 2 1 , n. 4 ) the individual t^iff^am of Aristarchus were part of his vnopv-npa (cf. e.g. Schol. Pind. 0. 11 102 b al.). Io fr. 2 3 N . -- fr. 66 Blumenthal (1939) with an impossible conjecture. Schol. [Eur.] Rhes. 539 f, ot piv TOIS? KiXixas Kal TDVS Mvoovs rois arrows tficovaav Apiorapxps Be Kopotfiov Haiovtov rrycpdva xal Ttjv <j>vAaKvv wore fiiv dno TOV •qytfiovos, jrore Se dvoT&v vTrrfKoatv (on the text seethe app. crit. of E . Schwartz); A. seems not to have taken part in the astronomical debate, cf. Wilamowitz, De Rhesi Scholiis (1877) = Kl. Sehr. 1 (1935) to, 1
Ado.
2
3
4
2
s
Einleitung
i. d. Trag.
(1889) 155. 6g.
W. Elspergcr, 'Reste und Spuren antiker Kritik gegen Euripides', Phitol. Suppl. Bd. xi 1 (1908) 98 ff., gives no more than some hints at possibly Aristarchean passages. 6
224
Aristarchus:
the Art of
First
Interpretation
to have t o confess our ignorance, the more so as Aristarchus had the reputation o f having been able 'to recite the whole o f tragedy by heart'; at least his p u p i l Dionysius T h r a x , who combined a talent for painting w i t h a knowledge o f grammar, depicted h i m w i t h the tragic Muse on his breast oid TO a7roaTTj0i£eiv avrov rrdaav rr)v Tpaywotav.
on a Prose
I t can hardly be a caprice o f Fortune that our sources tell us more about Aristarchus' study o f comedy. F r o m the early t h i r d century onwards it was not tragedy, b u t A t t i c comedy and particularly Aristophanes, that interested the Alexandrian grammarians; even vTTopvr)pa.Ta o n a few plays b y Euphronius and b y Callistratus are attested as having been written before those o f Aristarchus. H e himself commented o n eight Aristophanic comedies at least, perhaps on a l l o f them and not only on the eleven plays w h i c h have survived entire w i t h Scholia i n our medieval manuscripts. Again, as i n the case o f Pindar, the question whether he worked out a new recension o f the text cannot be definitely answered; readings divergent from the edition o f Aristophanes o f Byzantium or references to obelized lines, preserved i n our Scholia under Aristarchus' name, may only have been drawn from his commentary. This commentary suffered the same fate as that on Pindar; i t was censured again and again because o f its occasional inadequacy i n the treatment o f historical and antiquarian matter. Nevertheless throughout later ancient and Byzantine times i t provided a firm basis for unceasing efforts to master the difficulties o f the Aristophanic text. 2
3
4
commentary. T o the lemma avtmroi (Herod. 1 215. 1) Aristarchus noted w i t h his explanation and approval the variant ¿/umrot, which is missing in the manuscripts of Herodotus' Histories, just as so many of Aristarchus' readings are absent from the manuscript text o f Homer. I t is characteristic o f the Homeric scholar that he should immediately compare the horse-riding o f the Massagetae w i t h the use o f the chariot by the Greek heroes. I n the next paragraph also there is a parallel from poetry: Herodotus' sentence, 'iron and silver they use not at a l l , is compared w i t h Sophocles' notpéves (fr. 500 P.). I t is remarkable to find Aristarchus' vtrópvripa, though abbreviated, still copied w i t h the original title four centuries later; as there is a varia lectio introduced a n d discussed in the course o f the commentary, we see again that no separate critical edition o f the text can be inferred from occasional quotations o f variant readings. I t could not be very surprising i f Aristarchus had also written the first commentary on Thucydides, because i t cannot be doubted any longer that Didymus was able to use earlier scholarly Alexandrian work ; but there is as yet no reason to assume that he d i d the same for Xenophon and for the A t t i c orators. However, from the evidence we have one fact emerges clearly and becomes understandable: the vnop^paro. o n prose writers were bound to follow the patterns o f those o n the poets, Homer above all. 3
2
3
4
Having surveyed the extent o f Aristarchus' efforts as editor and interpreter (it hardly needs saying that i t d i d not go beyond the 'selected authors') we come now to describe the tendency o f his interpretation. Explaining a literary work was to h i m at least as w o r t h while an endeavour as the editing o f the text, i f not more w o r t h while. I t has become a common conviction that Aristarchus expressed a firm principle himself. From the end o f the last century up to the present day nearly every book on Alexandrian scholarship, when i t gets t o Aristarchus, fastens upon h i m the general m a x i m that 'each author is his o w n
6
W . Crönert in his new edition of Passow's Wörterbuch d. griech. Sprache (1913) 375 gives the best collection of the evidence for 5.p.imros; cf. H. Erbse, Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika (1950) 159. But only the gloss in Bekker's first rhetorical lexicon, AG 1 205. 5 has a clear affinity with Aristarchus' discussion of ávimros and a/xtjutos; cf. Pasquali, Storia 314. No reason why Aristarchus quoted Sophocles is preserved; as the date of the Poimenes is now fairly well established in the year 464/3 B . C . (above, p. 2 1 ) , the Sophoclean line cannot be used as fresh evidence for Sophocles' dependence on Herodotus, as Paap 4 9 would like. Cf. above, p. 2 2 1 ; F. Jacoby, 'Herodotos', RE Suppl. 2 (1913) 515, means that it is 'very likely' that Aristarchus also made an edition of the text; but the papyrus is no basis for this hypothesis. * See O. Luschnat, 'Die Thukydtdesscholien', Philal, 9 8 (1954) 2 2 ff.; he is only wrong in identifying trf>jyjJo-tts and wro/ivjj/iaTa, see above, p. 223. Cf. also R . Stark, Annates Universitatis Saraviensis, Serie Philosophie 8 (1959) 41 f. and 47, 9 - 1 1 . Cf. above, p. 208. 1
2
Schol. Dionys. Thr. ed. Hilgard, Gr. Gr. in 160. 32 (from there Et. gen. B = Et. M . p . 277. 5 4 ) ; cf. Eust. p. 974. 10 r&v TLS iraXaiojv ypap.uariKÜ>v €Kcm)ßl£uv ra rpaytrca. See above, p. 190, n. 4 . Above, p. aai, + Boudreaux, Le texte d Aristophane (1919) 5 2 - 5 5 , denied its existence; the 26 (or perhaps 28) verbatim quotations from Aristarchus are collected by Rutherford, 'Annotation' 4 2 3 - 2 6 . Pap. Amherst 11 (1901) ed. Grenfell and Hunt, no. 12 (third century A . D . from Hermupolis); reprinted with bibliography by A. H. R. E . Paap, De Herodoti reliquOs in papyris et membranis Aegyptiis servatis. Diss. Utrecht (1948) 3 7 ff. W. Bühler, Beiträge zur Erklärung der Schrift vom Erhabenen (1964) 93 f. on LJ. vtp. 13. 2 - 3 . a
5
6
3
225
5
5
1
Writer
1
1
T h e founders o f scholarship i n Alexandria were poets and they had concentrated quite naturally o n the poetry o f the past. But someone had to t u r n to the prose writers—though i t was learnt only from a papyrus published at the beginning o f the twentieth century that this was Aristarchus. H e , having no poetical ambitions himself, was the first to comment o n Herodotus, w h o perhaps appealed to h i m as * Opj^pucoyrwros. I t is just good luck that i n this papyrus-fragment the end o f Herodotus' first book is preserved w i t h the subscription Apiardpxov / 'Hpooorov / ä / vTropvripa. As chapters 1 9 3 - 4 are followed b y chapter 215, the scribe must have used a defective copy or an arbitrary excerpt o f Aristarchus'
Commentary
3
s
8U342
o
Aristarckus: the Art of Interpretation
226
best i n t e r p r e t e r ' ; o t h e r versions say ' H o m e r ' i n s t e a d o f ' e a c h a u t h o r ' o r p u t i t d o w n i n Greek ference is g i v e n .
"Op-qpov
e£
"Op-qpov
oad^-qvl^iv;
1
usually no re-
A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , t h e r e is n o r e a l e v i d e n c e t h a t
2
A r i s t a r c h u s ever u t t e r e d such a sentence. T h e a l l t o o f a m o u s
has
TOKOS
i^ovolav,
prjbkv
jVb Authentic Maxim on Interpretation
227
TroirjTov
rrepiepyalopdvovs,
€^co TOW
cppai^opevwv
VTTO
TOO
w h e r e i n t e r p r e t e r s o f t h e m y t h o f O t u s a n d E p h i a l t e s are a d m o n i s h e d t o t a k e i t as a l e g e n d a r y t a l e a c c o r d i n g t o p o e t i c licence, n o t w a s t i n g t h e i r t i m e o n a n y t h i n g n o t said b y t h e p o e t . F u r t h e r m o r e , as t h e e t y m o l o g y o f 1
iytb (sc. P o r p h y r i u s ) "Op-qpov i£ 'Oprjpov aatprjvl^eiv avTov i^rjyovpevov iavrov vrreoelKwov, TTork plv TrapaKeipevcos, aAAore S' ec dXXots; a l o n g series o f H o m e r i c passages f o l l o w s i n w h i c h t h e p o e t ' i m m e d i a t e l y ' , TrapaKzipeva>s, i n t e r p r e t s
AXrfiov
himself.
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s l i n e . A l l this m i g h t seem t o s u p p o r t t h e guess t h a t
its o r i g i n i n the f o l l o w i n g words o f P o r p h y r y :
4
I t was
as a y o u n g
i\o\oyos a n d KpirtKos a n d sober 'Op-qpiKa
philosopher,
3
a£uov Se
an A t h e n i a n p u p i l o f the
Cassius L o n g i n u s , t h a t P o r p h y r y w r o t e his l e a r n e d
£rfnfrtaTa;
s
l a t e r , i n his R o m a n days after A . D . 263
Homeric
(Z 2 0 1 )
rreSlov
Question,
from
dXda8ai,
f r o m Aristarchus Schol. A Z 201,
<j>ovrov TrXdvrjs,
given b y P o r p h y r y i n the eleventh
essentially corresponds t o t h a t i n A r i s t o n i c u s ' e x c e r p t duo Trjs yevoptvqs
ev avrip
rov
BeXXepo-
i t is v e r y l i k e l y t h a t P o r p h y r y also preserved A r i s t a r c h u s '
2
A r i s t a r c h u s c o u l d h a v e g i v e n t h e m a x i m o f oadyr/vl^Lv rov w h e r e ; b u t c o u l d he r e a l l y ?
TtovqTrjv
Scholars are n o t i n c l i n e d t o
some-
pronounce
u n d e r t h e s p e l l o f P l o t i n u s , t h o u g h h e n e v e r lost his l o v e o f H o m e r , he
g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , b u t p h i l o s o p h e r s are, a n d P o r p h y r y was a l w a y s , e v e n
a p p r o a c h e d h i m as a N e o p l a t o n i c a l l e g o r i s t a n d t r e a t e d f o r instance t h e
i n his e a r l y g r a m m a t i c a l studies, o f a p h i l o s o p h i c a l b e n t . T h e c o n c l u s i o n
Cave of nymphs
is t w o f o l d : t h a t t h e f o r m u l a " Op-qpov
i n the
Odyssey (v
1 0 2 - 1 2 ) as a n a l l e g o r y o f t h e u n i v e r s e , i n
' Op-qpov aady-qvl^iv was c o i n e d 3
a m o n o g r a p h w h i c h , i n s h a r p c o n t r a s t t o his e a r l i e r studies, n o l o n g e r
b y P o r p h y r y a n d s h o u l d n o t be t a k e n as a n a u t h e n t i c r e m a r k o f A r i s t a r -
e x p l a i n s t h e p o e t ' o u t o f h i m s e l f ' . T h e r e is n o h i n t t h a t P o r p h y r y h a d
chus, t h o u g h i t is n o t against his s p i r i t ; a n d t h a t one m u s t be a l i t t l e
Homeric Question j u s t i n his d e d i c a t o r y l e t t e r t o A n a t o l i u s w h e r e he s a i d : ipov ireipcopevov OJS avros pev iavrov TO. rroAAa "Oprjpos i^r/yeirai
c a u t i o u s a b o u t a t t r i b u t i n g a w i n g e d w o r d t o a special a u t h o r .
Aristarchus i n m i n d either i n the eleventh
quoted or Seiwpwcu
;
6
i n this
A r i s t a r c h u s ' m a i n o b j e c t was t o discover t h e H o m e r i c usage; f o r t h e e x p l i c a t i o n o f w o r d s a n d facts he collected a l l t h e p a r a l l e l s i n t h e Iliad
and
second passage he was s i m p l y r e s t a t i n g his p e r s o n a l e n d e a v o u r as a n
Odyssey, t r e a t i n g a n y w i t h o u t p a r a l l e l s as a V a f Xeyopeva
i n t e r p r e t e r o f H o m e r w i t h o u t r e p e a t i n g t h e f o r m u l a w i t h aatfr/vlleiv.
Yet
w h e n he e n c o u n t e r e d s o m e t h i n g w h i c h seemed n o t t o fit a t a l l i n t o t h e
t h e sense o f his f o r m u l a does n o t disagree w i t h A r i s t a r c h u s ' o p i n i o n ; one
p a t t e r n o f t h e H o m e r i c l a n g u a g e o r t h e H o m e r i c l i f e , he t e r m e d i t
may compare (f>pa{,Op€Va
the unique Scholion D o n
VTTO TOO 7TOn)TOV pvdlKOJTtpOV
E
385:
€KO€X^Crdai
Aplarapxos KO.T&
Tr)v
d£ioi
TO,
TTOirjTLKrjV
W. Christ, Geschichte der griech. Lit. (1889) 4 5 3 'in der Exegese ging er . . . von dem Grundsatz aus, daß man jeden Autor zunächst aus sich selbst erklären müsse' (repeated verbatim in the later editions by W. Schmid). L . Cohn (see above, p. 210, n. 2) RE 11 (1896) 8 6 8 . 62 (Aristarch) 'war der Ansicht, daß Homer nur aus sich selbst erklärt werden müsse'. Sandys 1 (1903) 131 A. 'insisted that each author was his own best interpreter', repeated in the 2 n d and 3 r d editions. E . Heitsch, Antike und Abendland ix ( i 9 6 0 ) 21 'Die von A. für die methodische Erklärung aufgestellte Maxime lautet: 'Ou.-rjpov e £ 'Opr/pov aa
KVKXtKtorepov
i n c o n t r a s t t o 'Op-qpiKtuTtpov,
w e n t far beyond q u a r i a n studies
4
o f the poet. B u t
the genuinely H o m e r i c . H e
t h e e a r l i e r glossographic,
lexicographic,
and
anti-
a n d c r i t i c i z e d t h e i r deficiencies, h a v i n g a w i d e r v i e w
1
1
:
3
3 6
o v e r t h e w h o l e epic p e r i o d . W e e a r l i e r discussed a t some l e n g t h t h e t e x t o f t h e p r o e m o f t h e 5
Iliad
a n d m e n t i o n e d t h a t A r i s t a r c h u s rejected Z e n o d o t u s ' r e a d i n g i n l i n e A 5 olcovoicrt r e S a f r a , because h e was n o t a b l e t o find a p a r a l l e l i n H o m e r f o r Sat?
m e a n i n g ' a n i m a l f o o d ' , a n d because t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f t h e w o r d i t s e l f
(from
8aT€to-9ai
' d i s t r i b u t e a m o n g themselves') seemed t o j u s t i f y its use
o n l y f o r t h e meals o f c i v i l i z e d h u m a n beings. So A r i s t a r c h u s p u t t h e n o n committal
ottoi'ofo'i'
re nao-L i n his t e x t a n d a c h i e v e d a c o m p l e t e
triumph
Eust. ad loc. p. 561. 2 9 Aplarapxos T)£IOV . . . pr)Zev n TCIV trapa. 77) Ttot^uet U.V8IKCOV Trepicpya^eaQai aAAijyopiKili? e£a> raiv ibpa^opevuiv, probably 'interpolated' aXXrjyopiKcos; according to Schol. D Aristarchus' sentence was more general, not particularly against allegory. See esp. Schrader's note on p. 298. 1 7 - 2 0 . In our Scholia, as far as they represent the Alexandrian tradition, the rare word aatp-nviCeiv is not used for the activity of the interpreter; but if the poet makes something clear, it is said o n-otijTTjs aar}vit,ei. In the philosophical and rhetorical literature of the Roman empire it is a quite common expression, see for instance Clem. Al. vol. rv 699 St. * See above, p. 197. See above, p. 112. 1
2 3
3
228
Aristarchus:
the Art of
Interpretation
Grammatical
in so far as Safra disappeared from a l l the manuscripts o f the Iliad and survived only i n a quotation by Athenaeus. Even i f one is convinced that Satxa not Trao-i is the original reading, and the one known to a l l the tragedians, this example aptly illustrates the processes of thought behind Aristarchus' decisions. I n innumerable other cases there has never been any doubt that the result o f his acute observations was correct: he chose the right variants, he detected i n the explanations o f glosses errors that had been traditional for centuries, he much improved the distinction o f synonyms, following the earlier efforts o f Prodicus a n d Aristotle, and, continuing the research o f Aristophanes of Byzantium, he saw how many more words, often quite common ones, had changed their meaning i n the interval between the epic age or even the A t t i c and his own time. As Aristarchus pointed out the use o f some 'Attic* forms and words i n the epic language, i t has become one o f the commonplaces of modern literature o n Homer that Aristarchus for this reason regarded h i m as an Athenian by b i r t h . I f one looks for proof o f this assumption i n the Scholia, one finds nothing more substantial than one oWA-rj on N 1 9 7 which according to Aristonicus, draws, attention t o the dual Aiavre pepdore; the scholiast adds a sentence that its use has some reference t o the mother country (of the poet?), as i t is peculiar to the Athenians. This rather implies that the Athenian b i r t h was known from other sources and is only confirmed by the use o f the dual. Certainly, the long list o f b i r t h places i n the popular pMoi o f Homer includes the statement that he was an Athenian according to Aristarchus and Dionysius T h r a x . I n his commentary on Archilochus, that is, i n the serious grammatical literature, Aristarchus dated Homer t o the time o f the I o n i a n m i g r a t i o n ; these Ionian colonizers came, as a widely accepted ancient version says, from Athens. So i t is not improbable that Aristarchus was referring here not only to the time, but also to the home o f Homer, namely Athens. I n one of the pVot the two things are actually combined. I n the course o f his tireless exegetical work Aristarchus also discovered 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
See, e.g., J . Wackernagel, SpTachliche Untersuchmgen zu Homer ( i g i 6 ) 156. Wilamowitz, Horn. [Inters. 258 f., //. und Horn. 9 , 507. Schol. A N 197 SurAij) on owex&s K^XPV™ ' SVIKOIS' r) Si ava<popa rrpos ra irepl rrjs TrarpiSos- M-qvalutv yap tSiov. G. W. Nitzsch, De historia Homeri, Fasc. posterior (1837) 8 9 , was reluctant to draw strict consequences from this dubious sentence, but correctly referred to the connexion of Homer's life with Ionian migration in the biographical tradition; cf. Aristonic. ed. L . Friedlaender p. 15. 2 and Jacoby below, n. 6. Homeri Opera ed. T . W. Allen, v (ign) p. 247. 8 = Vitae Horn, et Hes. ed. Wilamowitz (1916) p. 29. 9 ; cf. Allen p. 244. 13 = Wil. p. 25. 8. See above, p. 220, n. 5 . Cf. F. Jacoby, FGrHist m Suppl. (A Commentary on the ancient historians of Athens) 1577, " 474 f¬ * Allen, Homeri Opera V p. 2 4 4 . 18 (and 13) = Wil. Vitae Homeri p. 2 5 . 13 (and 8 ) . 1
2
3
T 0
?
4
1
6
and Metrical
Observations
229
a few general grammatical and metrical rules. W e are told that he added a sixth rule o f inflexion to the five stated by Aristophanes a n d recognized eight parts o f speech. He obviously observed that ending a word w i t h the 'fourth trochee' o f the hexameter is avoided, since he at / 394 instead o f the vulgate reading yvvatKa / yapAaaerai suggested reading yvvatKa ye / pdaaerai, though he d i d not alter the text. 1
2
3
The concept o f grammatical analogy is first attested for Aristophanes i n the limited sphere o f declension; i t seems t o have become a sort o f guiding principle of Aristarchus' interpretation and to have involved h i m in heated disputes w i t h an opposition that defended anomaly. But he was no pedant i n his search for parallels. Unlike any o f his predecessors, Aristarchus, by surveying the epic usage i n its entirety, was able to pick out those words w h i c h occurred only once i n H o m e r ; Aristonicus preserved the Aristarchean sentence i n Schol. A r 5 4 -n-oAAa S e eonv arratj A e y d ^ c r a 7rapa rtp Trotrjrfj. Dealing w i t h the problems o f these many singularities was an integral part o f his interpretation, as we can recognize not only from the Scholia, but also from the lexicon of Apollonius Sophista, w h o used Aristonicus and perhaps earlier writings o f the Aristarchean tradition. 4
We must observe the distinction between the drra^ Xeyopeva acknowledged as Homeric a n d the expressions or passages marked w i t h the obelus as ovx 'OprjpiKcos or KVKXIKOJS for various reasons. Even when one disagrees w i t h Aristarchus' decisions, one must appreciate his sober arguments based on carefully collected evidence; as they are preserved in excerpts from his own commentaries, we are much better informed about him than about his predecessors. H e was reluctant to alter the TrapaSoo^c, that is the agreement of most manuscripts, by conjectures or by omission of lines. His caution is criticized as excessive i n the (Didymus-) Schol. A / 222 dpetvov ovv efyev dv, r)criv 6 Aplarapxos, <et> (add. Bekker) eydyparrr . . . ciAA'
opojs
VTTO
rrepirrrjs evXafieias ovoev peredrjKzv, ev rroXXais ovrtos
evpoiv cpepopevnv rr)v ypad>r]v. Aristarchus marked repeated lines w i t h the asteriscus; when, as often happened, he found them not only empty, but inappropriate i n certain places, especially i n speeches, he added obeli to See above, pp. 202 f. * Quint. Inst. 14. ao OCtO partes {6vop,a, prjfta, neroxq, avratvapUa, ap&pov, enippnua, irpodeoti, avi>Seau,os). This list is different from the parts of diction distinguished by Aristotle, see above, pp. 7 6 - 7 8 ; o n the Stoics and o n Dionysius Thrax see below, p. 2 6 9 . * 3 9 4 HrjXevs Qrjv pot iireira yvvatKa yaueaoerat avros i n all the ancient (Schol. T ad loc.) and medieval manuscripts; yvvatKa. ye p.dooerai Aristarch. Schol. A intermarg. ad loc. Both readings are objectionable, see P. Maas, Greek Metre § 87. * F. Martinazzoli, Hapax Legomenon, pt. i i ( 1 9 5 3 ) , pt. 1 2 { 1 9 5 7 ) 'Lexicon Homericum di Apollonio Sofista'; cf. H . Erbse, Gnom. 27 (1955) 52 ff. and 31 (1959) 2 1 6 ff. 1
3
2
Literary Criticism
Aristarchus: the Art of Interpretation
3°
the asterisci. H e d i d so, for example, i n Hera's speech (B 160-2 and 164)
1
on OLK€iOTepov ivra> Tr)s AQrjvas Xoyw eijrjs curt reraypevoL (176-8 and 180), vvv Be KVK\IKWT€POV Xtyovrai (Aristonic. Schol. A S 1 6 0 ) . But he disagreed w i t h Zenodotus' omission o f the whole speech, j u d g i n g i t t o be 'Opr/piKiLs ex > provided that the few lines just referred to were athetized, since they were suitable i n Athena's admonition o f Odysseus to go round to the individual Greek heroes, b u t not i n Hera's address to Athena. z
ovTa
T h e use o f the term KVKXIKtorepov or KVKXIKWS* reflects the distinction first drawn by Aristode between the great poet o f the Iliad and Odyssey and the makers o f the other early epics, the KVKXIKOL* Originally this w o r d referred t o the subject o f the poems, especially to the T r o j a n cycle from the causes o f the w a r t o the death o f Odysseus, the latest homecomer; but after Aristotle, compared w i t h the t w o selected poems o f Homer, everything 'cyclic' was regarded as inferior, which meant at least conventional, and often trivial. I n that respect Zenodotus, C a l l i machus, and a l l the Alexandrian poets and scholars—so often i n opposition to the Peripatos—accepted the Aristotelian doctrine. Calhmachus' angry pronunciamento, exBalpia T O Trotrjpa TO KVKXIKOV (Ep. 2 8 ) , was widely acclaimed and frequently repeated; there is also an obvious allusion to it by Horace i n his famous lines A.P. 132 ' n o n circa vilem patulumque moraberis orbem' and 136 ' u t scriptor cyclicus o l i m ' . 5
6
O n the other hand, i f the Iliad and Odyssey were t o be esteemed as creations o f perfect workmanship by one poet, not a few difficulties and discrepancies presented themselves to the scrutinizing scholarly m i n d . I t was relatively easy to recognize and to remove lines missing i n some o f the manuscripts as post-Homeric insertions. But there were many lines or even passages i n a l l the manuscripts w h i c h seemed hardly reconcilable w i t h the idea o f perfection a n d u n i t y , and had therefore t o be carefully 7
231
considered and, i f necessary, marked as un-Homeric or, i n special cases, as 'cyclic'. T h e only solution was not to delete them, b u t t o mark them as spurious, as 'interpolations' (TO aBereiv); athetesis, invented b y his predecessors, was practised b y Aristarchus w i t h the utmost skill and continued to be practised by his followers i n the field of Homeric criticism through two millennia. 1
No change i n method was possible u n t i l a new concept o f history dawned i n the eighteenth century a n d oral, popular poetry was discovered as the product o f an early age, essentially different from the later ones. Aristarchus h a d been able t o distinguish certain traces o f the Homeric language from the Attic and Hellenistic usage and to pick out differences i n civilization; but the new concept demanded an attempt to understand the specific character o f epic poetry as a whole, its origin, development, and final form. M a n y passages that h a d startled the Alexandrian and later scholars were no longer deemed interpolations but were acknowledged as signs o f different strata i n the structure o f the great poems. F . A . Wolf, starting from the newly discovered Venetian Scholia, tried to give proofs for the new historical research step by step, i n contrast to the vague generalities o f the Homeric enthusiasts; he a t least paved the w a y for the analytical efforts o f the following generations o f scholars who were eager t o unveil the mysteries o f epic stratification. 2
I t is quite natural that the negative aspect o f Aristarchus' Homeric criticism prevails i n this chapter; our sources say almost nothing i n praise of the positive values he admired and loved i n the greatest o f all poets. Like Eratosthenes he saw i n Homer an imaginative and creative poet whose a i m was to give pleasure, not to instruct. T h e scattered aesthetic and rhetorical terms that have come down to us do not suggest that Aristarchus followed the principles o f a theory o f poetics. Occasional phrases like Bid. -rravrog (Schol. A & 562, A 217 K T X . ) otKovopiKÖis ( f 6 1 6 , Schol. p 103, v 356), eW/ca TT}S avTLKaraoTdo-ttDs ('balance'? Ö 212) call 3
4
}
Zenodotus had a different text in B 156 followed by B 169, completely omitting Hera's speech. Since that time ancient and modern critics have never stopped discussing the whole passage, see F. Von der Muhll, Arc/. Hypomnema zur Ilias (1952) 4 0 . I read Kvp.iKo>Tep(ov) in the facsimile of cod. Ven. A p. 2 7 last line, which is, I should think, a slightly corrupt KUKXtKajrepov. Villoison's Koivo-repov was accepted by Dindorf; Bekker read (?) Ko>p.tKa>T€pov, Lehrs conjectured avoiKetorcpov (Herodiani scripta tria, Epi¬ metrum, 1848, p. 4 5 9 ) , followed by Friedlaender, Aristonic. p. 62. Aristarchus in Schol. A (Aristonicus) 0 610 said offivelines KVKXIKU>S TtuJi-oAoyetVat and athetized them while Zenodotus had left them out. Cf. Schol. A Z 325 KVKXIK&S KaraK4xPV h I 222 Kv/cXtKaiTtpov; Schol. T Q 628 KVKXIK&S (Wilamowitz: Ihlois cod.); Schol. BEP 1/115 ou KVKXIKUS . . . dAA' . . . TO iSt'wfxa with the annotation of the editors. « Seeabove,pp. 7 3 . Above, p. 117. Above, p. 137. Aristarchus rejected the view of the separators (XCU/M£OIT€S) who assumed two poets for Iliad and Odyssey, as a 'paradox' (see above, p. 2 1 3 ) . He gave references from the Iliad to the Odyssey; cf. Schol. A 354, A 147, etc. 1
2
r
3
Ta
r
7
5
6
Cf. his commentary on to 2 9 6 as the WAoy of the Odyssey, where he agrees with Aristophanes, above, p. 175. Perhaps his most striking athetesis is that of Q 2 5 - 3 0 , the worst patchwork in our Homeric text. See above, pp. 213 f. Didymus had hardly an opportunity of mentioning aesthetic judgements of Aristarchus, but Aristonicus had. The exegetical Scholia in b T contain little Aristarchean material. W. Bachmann, 'Die ästhetischen Anschauungen Aristarchs in der Exegese und Kritik der Homerischen Gedichte', Beilage zum Jahresbericht des Alten Gymnasiums Nürnberg 1 (1901/2) 11 (1903/4) gives a partly useful collection of evidence. Less helpful is Atkins, Literary Criticism 1 ( 1 9 3 4 ) 188 if.; on the art of composition see also R. Griesinger, Die ästhetischen Anschauungen der alten Homererklärer, Diss. Tübingen ( 1 9 0 7 ) 9 ff, See above, pp. 166 f. 1
% 3
4
232
Aristarchus: the Art of Interpretation
Aristarchus' Authority
233
a t t e n t i o n t o t h e a r t o f c o m p o s i t i o n i n t h e epic n a r r a t i v e ; o t h e r phrases
s t u p i d e x c e r p t o r s , first D i d y m u s ,
e m p h a s i z e t h e h a r m o n y b e t w e e n t h e speech a n d t h e c h a r a c t e r o f a n e p i c
h a v i n g m i s u n d e r s t o o d t h e o r i g i n a l . O n t h e o t h e r side t h e r e w e r e
h e r o , eV
rjOa Xeyerat
117
(A
specific f u n c t i o n o f m e t a p h o r s 2
20J
efKfiariKws, I
TO atajTTiofievov
14
els
KTA.). S t y l i s t i c o b s e r v a t i o n s
(npos ipnf>acnv
B
explain
670) o r o f similes
av^Tjatv) o r o f ' n o t m e n t i o n i n g a t h i n g
Z 337, 17 432 KTX.),
sort, censorious epithets arrpe77eV,
the (S
16,
(Kara
1
I n c o n t r a s t t o a p p r e c i a t i o n s o f this
evreXes,
Treptaoov,
crop u p again and
1
then Aristonicus
2
were b l a m e d for the
a n t i - A r i s t a r c h e a n s w h o d i d n o t h i g h l y respect e i t h e r his t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m o r h i s e x e g e t i c a l w o r k . O n e t h i n g is q u i t e c e r t a i n : o n t h e e t e r n a l H o m e r i c 3
battlefield Aristarchus remains an outstanding controversial
figure.
We
h a v e t r i e d here o n l y t o p u t h i m a n d his predecessors i n t o t h e i r p r o p e r h i s t o r i c a l place.
a g a i n ; b u t his deep a f f e c t i o n is a l w a y s present even i f i t r e m a i n s i n t h e
A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s c h a p t e r w e d e s c r i b e d t h e crisis o f t h e y e a r
b a c k g r o u n d . H e q u i t e h o n e s t l y a c c e p t e d , as m a n y o f his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
145/4 B . C , w h i c h b r o k e t h e l i v i n g c h a i n o f e m i n e n t p e r s o n a l i t i e s t h a t h a d
c o n f i r m , the Aristotelian a n d Callimachean distinction between H o m e r i c
s t r e t c h e d f r o m P h i l i t a s a n d Z e n o d o t u s t o A r i s t a r c h u s . T h e y w e r e , as w e
s u p e r i o r i t y a n d c y c l i c i n s u f f i c i e n c y a n d he used c r i t i c a l signs a n d w o r d s
h a v e seen, c o n n e c t e d b y p e r s o n a l l i n k s , as t h e y o u n g e r scholars w e r e t h e
t o m a k e i t c l e a r i n t h e interests o f t r u e p o e t r y .
pupils o f the previous generations; b u t there were n o
A r i s t a r c h u s a c h i e v e d s u p r e m e a u t h o r i t y as c r i t i c a n d i n t e r p r e t e r . I n t h e second h a l f o f t h e second c e n t u r y B . C Panaetius, b o r n i n R h o d e s a n d
p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools w i t h t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r
So£ai.
StaSo^at,
as i n t h e
T h e great Alexandrians
w e r e u n i t e d , n o t b y d o c t r i n e , b u t b y t h e c o m m o n l o v e o f letters, a n d e v e r y
t h e n t h e l e a d i n g f i g u r e a m o n g s t t h e Stoics i n A t h e n s a n d R o m e , so a d -
one o f t h e m was a n i n d e p e n d e n t i n d i v i d u a l i t y . W e s h a l l find o n l y
m i r e d t h e ease w i t h w h i c h A r i s t a r c h u s d i v i n e d t h e sense o f t h e d i f f i c u l t
p a r a l l e l i n t h e I t a l i a n Renaissance o f t h e f o u r t e e n t h a n d fifteenth c e n t u r i e s
pAyruv . . . Stavoias.' I n t h e first
paStws
a n c i e n t p o e t r y t h a t h e c a l l e d h i m a 'seer':
Sid.
Karap-avreveadaL
century
TT]S
TUJV
Trot^arcui'
TO
B.C.
C i c e r o a n d H o r a c e attest t h a t his n a m e was a l m o s t p r o v e r b i a l as t h a t o f 2
t h e serious a n d sincere c r i t i c . I n d e e d t h e l e g e n d o f his i n f a l l i b i l i t y h a d its dangers i n t h e u n c r i t i c a l days o f l a t e r a n t i q u i t y , a n d he w o u l d h a r d l y h a v e a p p r o v e d o f those n a i v e a d m i r e r s w h o f o l l o w e d h i m b l i n d l y even against t h e i r b e t t e r k n o w l e d g e .
i n t h e y e a r 1848 N a u c k p r o t e s t e d against w h a t he c a l l e d ' A r i s t a r c h o I f the image o f the g r a m m a r i a n reconstructed
from
the com-
m e n t a r y o f t h e f o u r m e n i n t h e V e n e t i a n c o d e x A a p p e a r e d i n t h e eyes o f t h e m o d e r n A r i s t a r c h e a n s t o be d i s f i g u r e d b y some i m p u r i t i e s , t h e Ath.cn. xrv 6 3 4 c = Panaet. Rhod. Fragrrunta ed. M. Van Straaten ( 1 9 6 2 ) fr. 9 3 . Bentley alluded to this saying in the preface to his Horace ( 1 7 1 1 ) XX 'opus . . . est, ut de Aristarcho olim praedicabant, divinandi quadam peritia et pavriKT).' Cic. ad Ait. 1 14. 3 'quarum (orationum) tu Aristarchus es' (cf. in Pison. 73 more jokingly, Jam. in 11. 5, ix 10. 1). Hor. A.P. 450 'fiet Aristarchus". The remarks on Aristarchus' accentuation at the end of Schol. A E> 316 -mepvyos (against the Kavuiv the Schol. adds Trei$6p f9a avrcp d>$ rravv aplarip ypappaTtK£vo4ooi (paXXov Treiareov ApLarapxo~ia, but later additions (see Herodian. I p. lxxix n. Lentz, cf. Lehrs 297). One is reminded of an amusingly simple sentence of Boccaccio in his very learned compilation De montium, sytvarum, fontium... nominibus (printed after 'Iltpl yeveaAoyiW deorum' in ed. Basil. 1 5 3 2 ^ . 5 0 3 ) 'ut mallem potius eorum autoritati quam oculis credere meis', when what he read in the beloved books of the ancients did not agree with what he saw with his own eyes. * Aristoph. Byz. Fragm. p. 56, n. 75. He seems to have coined 'Aristarchomania*. 1
1
3
r
J
five
generations
f r o m P e t r a r c h t o P o l i t i a n , whose c o m m o n l o v e
and
l a b o u r restored s c h o l a r s h i p f r o m dangerous d e c l i n e t o life a n d d i g n i t y . A. Roemer relentlessly attacked Didymus in his numerous books and articles, see especially Aristarchs Athetesen in der Homerkritik ( 1 9 1 2 ) ; bibliography in A. Roemer and E . Belzner, 'Die Homerexegese Aristarchs in ihren Grundziigen', Studien zur Geschichte und 1
1
based o n i t A r i s t a r c h u s ' a u t h o r i t y rose a g a i n t o a n o v e r w h e l m i n g h e i g h t ;
4
A . D . : t h e l i v i n g c h a i n o f f r e e l y associated masters a n d disciples t h r o u g h
Kultur des Altertums 13 (1924) 267.
3
A f t e r V i l l o i s o n ' s d i s c o v e r y o f t h e V e n e t i a n codices a n d Lehrs's studies
mania'.
one
M. Van der Valk,
Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad 1 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 5 5 3
ff. tried to
discredit Aristonicus.
Van der Valk in this and in his earlier book on the Odyssey takes a very Alexandrian grammarians, particularly of Aristarchus. See Addenda to p . J
poor
view o f the
105.1.
Invitation
VII
of Stoics
by the
Attalids
235
The Attalids had first invited distinguished members o f the Peripatos, Lacydes, and Lycon, who politely refused to emigrate to the new Hellespontic kingdom. Aristophanes o f Byzantium, although for an u n known reason he had seriously considered fleeing to Eumenes I I , was prevented from leaving Egypt. But this enterprising k i n g ( 1 9 7 - 1 5 8 B.C.) finally succeeded i n attracting a Stoic philosopher from the south o f Asia M i n o r to his capital, Crates from Mallos i n C i l i c i a . I t was not the intention o f the kings to set up a sort of Pergamene school i n opposition to the Alexandrians; it just happened that earlier invitations were declined, and then the Stoics came. T h e 'Stoics' mean Crates and a few personal pupils; one should not speak o f a 'school' o f Pergamum at a l l , as is so often done. There was no sequence o f teachers and disciples like that i n Alexandria, where we saw five generations following one another. Quite independendy, as i t seems, a new k i n d o f antiquarian research was started i n Pergamum towards the end o f the t h i r d century B.C. under the reign o f Eumenes' predecessor, Attalus I (241-197 B.C.) and continued throughout the second century. 1
PERGAMUM:
SCHOLARSHIP A N D
2
PHILOSOPHY A
NEW
ANTIQUAR1ANISM
G R E E K scholarship i n Alexandria suffered heavy losses, as we have seen, in the first great crisis o f its history; nevertheless i t was able to continue its existence' u n t i l Egypt, after a thousand years o f Greek civilization, finally returned to the orient. I n the course o f the second century B.C., when the political and economic power o f the Ptolemies declined, other places i n the Aegean w o r l d grew mightier and rose to importance as seats o f learning also, Pergamum above a l l .
3
2
Even i f we take into account a l l the energy, a m b i t i o n , and skill o f the family o f the Attalids, i t still seems a miraculous feat that Pergamum was brought into such prominence by them for a century and a half. Philetaerus, the son o f Attalus, governor o f the h i l l fortress o f Pergamum, having i n 282 B.C. betrayed and deserted Lysimachus, at that time lord o f Macedonia, Thrace, and Asia M i n o r , left a more or less independent principality to his nephews Eumenes and Attalus and their heirs. They consolidated and enlarged i t i n t o a k i n g d o m , defeating the violent Celtic invaders and w i t h Rome's help i n 190 B.C. even the Seleucids; they made their capital a new centre o f cultural life, and i n its magnificent setting the arts, philosophy, science, and scholarship flourished u n t i l the country was 'legally' inherited by Rome i n 133 B.C. But no Pergamene literary monument could equal the splendour of the colossal marble altar erected to Zeus Soter b y Eumenes I I to commemorate his final victory over the barbarians. There were no poets at any time i n Pergamum comparable to those i n Alexandria, nor can Pergamene scholarship i n its origin and development be compared w i t h t h a t o f Alexandria. 3
4
' Gf. also above, p. 171. See the references to the history of the Hellenistic age above, p. 87, n. 2 . Strab. xttl 623 f. + Altertümer von Pergamon, by A. Conze and others, vol. l-x ( 1 8 8 5 - 1 9 3 7 ) . H . Kahler, Der große Fries von Pergamon ( 1 9 4 8 ) , see esp. Pt. I I I 'Der große Fries und die Geschichte Pergamons', pp. 131 ff., the date of the altar 142 f., the question of allegory 149. 1
3
4
Books are the indispensable tools of scholars; the Ptolemies, stimulated by the scholar poets, had collected and stored hundreds o f thousands o f papyrus rolls i n Alexandria, and appointed the leading scholars i n succession as librarians. I n Pergamum only Eumenes I I is attested as founder of the library (Strabo x m 6 2 4 ) . This seems to be confirmed by the excavations. For according to a dedicatory inscription i t was Eumenes I I who added to the great temple o f Athena on the Acropolis the dignified building that housed his l i b r a r y . Grates may have helped his king i n organizing and administering the l i b r a r y ; this is suggested by the fact that he is said to have played a part i n devising a finer method o f preparing sheepskin for w r i t i n g material and advising its export to Rome. 5
6
7
See above, p. 172. Wendel, Buchbesehreibung 60 ff., tried in vain to prove that Aristophanes' pupil Callistratus moved to Pergamum and there wrote against Aristarchus. Sueton. Degrammaticiset rhetoribus 2 (p. 4. 4 Brugnoli 1963) 'Crates. . . missus ad senatum ab Attalo rege . . . sub ipsam Ennii mortem' (169 B . C . ) ; Attalus (II) became king in 159/8 B . C . , and cannot have sent off Crates to Rome in 168 B.C., it was Eumenes I I . The same confusion of Attalus and Eumenes in Lyd. de mens. 1 28 who depends on Sueton. Varro correctly mentions Eumenes; Sandys i i n (who overlooked Lydus' testimony) by a further confusion understood Eumenes I ( 2 6 3 - 2 4 1 B . C . ) . Sandys 1 163. 'The school of Pergamum' contrasted with 'the school of Alexandria'. See above, pp. 98 ff. Schmidt, Pinakes test. 4 5 - 5 4 , p. 16, on the Pergamene library, p. 28 on the Pergamene IJivajces; cf. pp. 4 3 f. See also Kenyon, Books and Readers 68 ff., and Wendel, Buchbeschreibung 1
1
3
3
3
4 s
go, and Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft 6
in i* (1955) 8 2 ff.
Altertümer van Pergamon 11 and RE xix (1937) 1258 f.
Lydus, De mensibus ed. R. Wuensch (1898) 1 28 = Mette, Sphairopoiia (1936) 105, test. 7 ; the often-quoted sentence in F. Boissonade, Anecd. Graec. 1 (1829) 4 2 0 goes back to Lydus, see Wuensch p. xxxi. 7
236
Pergamum:
Scholarship
and
Philosophy
Allegorism
The use o f this particular material made the name o f Pergamum i m mortal : Lydus 'Pwpatoi ra p-epflpava. L7epyaurjva KOXOVCJIV, Suidas Ilepya.penvai- at pepfipdvat; parchment, parchemin, Pergament. I t became a common legend i n ancient times that parchment was 'invented' i n Pergamum when Ptolemy V , the coeval o f Eumenes I I , stopped the export o f papyrus. But i n fact, w r i t i n g on leather rolls was quite common i n the Near East i n early times and was adopted by the Greeks on the west coast o f Asia M i n o r before the fifth century B.C. Since the excavations o f Dura-Europos on the upper Euphrates brought to l i g h t a document o f the year 195/4B.C. which was written o n perfectly manufactured parchment, we are no longer entitled to say that the Pergamenes were the first to produce i t i n the finest quality. But they do seem to have produced it i n a larger quantity, probably because the import o f papyrus for the scriptoria o f the expanding library became too expensive, and they may have been the first to export i t to the west, as we have just heard. Whether there really was for some time an Egyptian embargo on papyrus remains an open question. Parchment, i n any case, had a glorious future, especially when the form o f the codex came slowly to supplant that o f the r o l l * 1
2
3
T h e literary treasures had to be catalogued; we referred to the IJepyap-nvoi mVaKe? when we dealt w i t h their great Alexandrian model. O n l y one librarian is k n o w n by name, the Stoic Athenodorus o f Tarsus, who went to Rome i n 70 B.C. Figures o f books i n the libraries are to be regarded w i t h due scepticism. Plutarch i n his Life of Mark Antony took from a source hostile to A n t o n y and Cleopatra the story that she was presented by the last o f her lovers w i t h 200,000 volumes from the Pergamene libraries ; modern scholars usually assume that i t was the losses of the Alexandrian Museum library, caused by the fire i n the harbour i n
5
6
7
Varro (de bibliothecis ?, see Dahlmann RE Suppl. vi 1221) in Plin. n.h. x m 70 'mox aemulatione circa bibliothecas regum Ptolemaei et Eumenis, supprimente chartas Ptolemaeo idem Varro membranas Pergami tradit repertas'; cf. also Lydus. Sec above, p. 19. F. Gumont, FouilUs de Doura-Europos 1 9 2 2 - 2 3 , Textes (1926) 2 8 1 - 5 , Parchment Document no. 1. «! C. H. Roberts, 'The Codex', Proc, Brit. Acad. 4 0 (1954) 169 if.; terminology 'membrana', 'membranae', etc. p. 174.—See also F . Wieacker, 'Textstufen klassischer Juristen', Abh. Akad. d. Wiss. Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Kl., 3 . Folge, Nr. 4 5 ( i 9 6 0 ) 93 ff., esp. 9 9 . See above, p. 133. H. v. Arnim, RE it ( i 8 g 6 ) 2 0 4 5 , Athenodorus no. 18. ' Plut. Anton. 5 8 KaXovtoioi . . . KO.1 TOCTO TUJV els KXeanarpav eyKXij/xdrutv AVTWI>1
1
3
s
of Orthodox
Stoics
237
47 B . C , that were made good by this donation (about or after 4 1 B . C . ) . Plutarch himself doubted the rehability o f his source (Calvisius?), and there is no confirmation anywhere else that a transfer o f the whole library took place. I t is hard to imagine how, for instance, the most distinguished native o f Pergamum i n the second century A . D . , Galen, could have written a number of his immensely learned works i n that city, to which he twice returned from abroad, i f i t had been robbed o f its l i b r a r y ; the same may be said o f Galen's older contemporary and fellow citizen Telephus, a prolific writer on grammatical subjects. 1
2
Alexandria was partly Pergamum's model, partly its rival, and we have already had to make some comparisons. I n scholarship, we saw, Crates was the dominating figure i n Pergamum; i n contrast to the Alexandrian scholar poets he and his pupils approached the literary heritage as philosophers, and i n particular as orthodox Stoics. This difference i n general approach d i d not prevent the younger Pergamenes profiting from the advances that Alexandrian scholarship had made i n the course of a century or more. 3
Orthodox Stoics were necessarily allegorists i n their interpretation o f poetry. Allegorism was not new. There is genuine allegory i n the Iliad itself, the /Wat-passage / 502 f f . Early interpreters o f Homer i n the sixth century B.C. claimed to have discovered hidden meanings i n many other passages, particularly when they tried to justify Homer against his detractors. I n the fifth and fourth centuries Anaxagoras' p u p i l Metrodorus from Lampsacus seems to have been a true allegorist, but not Democritus or any of the Sophists. Plato and Aristotle rejected allegorism, and so consequently d i d the Academy as well as the Peripatos. There is, however, n o w evidence that i n the fourth century members o f the O r p h i c sect composed an allegorical commentary on Orpheus' Cosmogony to which Euripides, Aristophanes, and Plato alluded; this was a highly appropriate text for an allegorical treatment, combined w i t h that 'etymology' which tried to find the 'true' meanings o f words, and w i t h the explanation of glosses. T h o u g h more elementary, i t is i n the line o f Metrodorus. 4
5
6
But the world-wide spread o f allegorism was due to its acceptance by the Stoic school. Leading Stoic philosophers (though not a l l o f them) took up the old threads and connected them w i t h their own basic
6
See above, p. 217, n. 4 . * Cf. above, p. 140. See above Pt. I, chapters I—III passim. See Kapsomenos, Ap%. AeXr. 19. 2 2 (above, p.
* Cf. Wendel,
1
REVA
(1934) 3 6 9 .
* See above, p. 5.
s
6
103,
n. 1 ) ; see also below, p.
239.
238
Pergamum:
Scholarship
and
Crates'
Philosophy
1
doctrines. As the Aoyo? (reason) is the fundamental principle o f everything, i t must manifest itself in poetry also, though hidden behind the veil of mythical and legendary tales and pure fiction. Zeno and Cleanthes initiated this new 'method', and Chrysippus of Soloi perfected i t ; 'Chrysipp u s . . . v u l t Orphei, Musaei, Hesiodi H o m é r i q u e fabellas accommodare ad ea quae ipse . . . de deis immortalibus dixerat, u t etiam veterrimi poetae . . . Stoici fuisse videantur.' I n that way they secured the support of Homer and the other great poets of the past for their own philosophy. Crates, whose o w n teacher is still unknown, was born i n Gilicia like Chrysippus ; he agreed i n principle w i t h h i m , b u t his aim was different. Stoic philosophy was no longer i n need of corroboration or illustration by the early poets ; on the contrary, Crates could now use the philosophy to give a complete new interpretation of the true meaning of the Homeric poems. H e m a y have been unconscious of doing violence t o poetry; certainly a great many future scholars down t o the present day have been induced by his example to apply philosophical doctrines i n various forms to the explanation o f poetic and prosaic literature. 2
3
Crates is said by Suidas to have been a contemporary o f Aristarchus under the reign o f Ptolemy Philometor, which roughly coincided w i t h the reign o f Eumenes I I i n Pergamum. I n conscious opposition to the Alexandrian ypappariKol the ETUHKOS o$ revived the title of KpmKOÇ, using i t , o f course, i n the wide philosophical sense we have just tried t o explain. But unfortunately there is no list o f writings anywhere, and the quotations we have very rarely mention the title o f a book. Suidas' biographical article correcdy terms h i m ' Op-qptKos, b u t stops short after a corrupt reference to one book on Homer. I t is generally assumed that Crates composed a 'commentary'' o n the two Homeric poems. T h e actual references are : Kpdr-q[ç S' iv . J]iopf?«mKWV . . . tfaoiv on a reading i n <2> 363 ; Rpdr-ns iv rot? AiopOwTiKots on the proem o f the so-called Iliad of Apellicon, Kpdrrjs iv tois ITepl oiopdwatats 4
S
6
7
Pohlenz, Stoa 1 9 7 and references I I 55. See above, p. 154, on chronology. Cic. de not. dear, 1 41 --- SVF 11 p. 316, Chrys. fr. 1077. * H . J . Mette, Sphairopoiia. Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Krates von Pergamon (1936) 1 0 3 - 1 0 , test. 1 - 1 8 . Test. 1 = Suid. s.v. Rpdrrts TipttaKpdrovs Makkun-qs; W. Kroll, RE xi (1922) 1634-41 ; Pohlenz, Stoa 1 182 f. and 11 9 2 . See above, p. 157, n. 4 and p, 159, n. 6 ; cf. esp. Sext. Emp. adv. math. 1 79. 2 4 8 . P.Oxy. 11 (1899) 221. col. xvii 30, Scholia on 0, ed. Grenfell and Hunt, p. 7 4 ; between èv and J]iop0. one letter seems to be missing, the number of the book. Crates is quoted also col. xiv 9 on 0 2 8 2 . The same title Schol. A T E 255 KaXXlarparos (KaAXip-axos T) èv T O Î Î AiopÉWrifcoîç, probably identical with hisavyypappa llepi 'IXid&os (Schol. A S 111. 131. 4 3 5 ) , and Schol. (HP) 17 8 0 Xaïpts . . . èv AiopdmriKols, apparently not a v-rropv-qp-a ; cf. also Schol. A 1
2 3
5
6
P 6 0 7 Aiovpos 7
èv TOÎÎ AiopdojTiKOiS and Q 557 A. èv trpatroj Aiop9a>TiKtôv.
An excerpt in Osann's Anecd. Roman, after the 'Vita Romana* and the section on the
Two Monographs
on
Homer
239
on the meaning of a gloss i n p 8 9 . W e should not be misled by the doubtful remark i n all our manuscripts of Suidas at the end of his article on Crates: avvira^e f S t op8w<Jiv'\ 'IXidbos KO1 ^ObvuGtlats fSifUXia 6 Kal a'AAa; this is all too easily changed into oiopdcooiv (and into iv ftifiXiois) and then used for the conclusion that Crates made a critical recension of the text. T h e three quotations i n grammatical literature do not point either to a n €Kooai,s or t o a vTTopvrjpa, b u t t o a w r i t i n g on the Homeric text i n the style o f the traditional /7epi-literature. O n l y one other title is twice 1
2
3
quoted: Kpdr-qs iv /5 TOJV 'OprjpiKatv o n the Oceanus i n 0 195 f. (eiWe be
rto y i b i d . ) and Kpd-rns iv bevripip 'Op-qpLKoiv on a reading i n O 193, i n which the poet tells o f the division of the w o r l d into three parts, each w i t h its divine ruler. As AiopQiuriKd and Op-npLKd can hardly be the same, i t is most likely that Crates composed t w o monographs i n more than one book each, the former perhaps i n nine books (p\8Ata (3?). I n the AiopBoiTiKo. textual criticism may have predominated, i n the 'Op-npiKa (sc. ^rrrrjpara, irpofiXripaTa?) cosmological and geographical problems w i t h allegorical explanations; b u t the quotations rather suggest a free mixture i n the two monographs. We should perhaps compare the Orphic commentary o f the fourth century B.C. w i t h this similar combination o f allegorical a n d lexical comments on a m u c h higher level i n Crates. I t is just possible that he wrote more books on related subjects than the two of which the titles are k n o w n . 4
5
c
6
The Aptarapxeioi, Didymus and Aristonicus, d i d not pay much attention to Crates' heretical views; our m a i n sources o f the fragments, therefore, are not the Scholia i n the Venetus A , but the exegetical Scholia i n the other manuscripts of the Iliad B (Ven. 4 5 3 ) , T (Townleianus Brit. Mus. Burnley 8 6 ) , Gen. (Genav. 4 4 ) , and the related Scholia i n P.Oxy. 2 2 1 , together w i t h Scholia i n a few manuscripts o f the Odyssey 7
a-nptta (see below, p. 2 4 0 , n. 1) refers to special proems of the Iliad, see T . W. Allen, Horn. II. (1931) p- 1 to A 1; Vitae Hometi p. 32. 20 Wil., who printed by mistake Kp. iv otopSuiTtxais. 1 Schol. H M 8 9 ; on htopBiaais see above, p. 2 1 6 . 1 Suid. v. Kpdrvs (above, p. 2 3 8 , n. 4 ) . The editio Basileensis printed StdpSatotv; pVjSAt'a 1 1
cod. G, jStjSAioif cett. codd, See above, p. 218. * Schol. Gen. 0 195 = fr. 3 2 a Mette; if eiwe rip y means TWV 'Op.rjptKwv, the work had at least three books. Schol. A 0 [ 9 3 . See E . Maass, 'Aratea', Philolog. Untersuchungen 12 (1892) 170 ff.; I cannot accept his conclusions. We have no complete collection of fragments; K. Wachsmuth, De Cratete Mallola (1860), is antiquated; the carefully edited texts in Mette, Sphairopoiia (1936) 1 1 2 - 2 9 8 , continued in Mette, Parateresis, Untersuchungen zur Sprachtheorie des Krates von Pergamon (1952) 6 5 - 1 8 5 with bibliography and Qjiellenindex, are very helpful; but Mette emphasizes in his introduction p. vi. 5 that his 'texts' are not a collection of fragments, but are confined to the problems discussed in the two books and designed only to help the reader. 1
s
6
7
240
Pergamum:
Scholarship
and
Studies
Philosophy
( H M ) , a n d particularly Eustathius, w h o was able to excerpt Scholia lost to us. These sources are supplemented by the monographs on allegory, Ps.-Heraclitus ¿AAijyopúu and Ps.-Plutarch on Homer. The rivalry between Aristarchus and Crates i n readings o f the text and i n the method of interpretation is visible everywhere, but i t is not at a l l certain w h i c h wrote earlier; i f it were better attested that the sign of SirrXrj Ttepteanypevri was used TTpos ras ypaás . . . Kpárr¡ros by Aristarchus ( P J ^ t h e priority o f Crates' AiopOwriKa over Aristarchus* second w o u l d be established. Examples o f Crates' readings can be found i n the lines quoted above from his t w o Homeric monographs; the most conspicuous instance o f his exposition o f a whole episode is his allegorical interpretation of 27 4 8 3 - 6 0 8 , the m a k i n g b y Hephaestus o f the shield o f Achilles. T h e Aristonicus Scholion on 2 483* tells us that Zenodotus athetized the whole passage; w h y he d i d so is anybody's guess, as i n the case o f all his other atheteses and conjectures. H e apparently found some fault w i t h the very detailed description of Hephaestus' masterpiece, as having no parallel i n Homeric poetry, and obelizing i t was the only course available to h i m . F r o m that day onwards the 'Shield' has been a matter o f dispute i n a l l ages; W i l a m o w i t z , for instance, admired Zenodotus' boldness and acuteness. Crates, far from suspecting the description as a n interpolation, found another solution, the same that he applied to the shield o f Agamemnon A 3 2 - 4 0 : Homer, i n depicting ten parts o f a shield, meant something else, namely the ten circles o f the sky. T h e uniqueness o f the 125 lines is justified i n his opinion, i n that they express the fundamental cosmic knowledge and wisdom o f the poet behind the veil o f words which only the interpreting philosopher is able to remove. T h e sentence i n Schol. A r a t . Ph. 2 6 orjpiovpytp yáp T ¿ 'Hd)atara> xp^crá/iei'os' rr¡s ^lAAe'toy ¿.arrióos (javr^-nv v-rréBero Koapov plpr¡pa can be confidently attributed to Crates, as i t is identical w i t h that on Agamemnon's shield i n Schol. T A 3
4
5
40 ravrnv S« o Kpárr¡s plpr¡pa
roo Koapov <pr)clv eivat. T h e sober-minded
Alexandrian grammarians had no use for fancies o f that sort; i t is understandable, however, that Crates impressed and even influenced later Stoic philosophers when they h a d t o deal w i t h Homer. Posidonius
of Post-Homeric
Poetry
241
1
became a 'moderate Cratetean' and believed he had discovered i n H o m e r the knowledge o f the tide o f the Ocean by which he felt his o w n theories confirmed; this was his a i m as i t had been that o f his predecessors from Zeno to Chrysippus, while Crates as a scholar made i t his prime endeavour to explain Homer. 2
W h a t we know of Crates' etymologies suggests that they are part of his Homeric exegesis. I n the second century B.C. etymology was not yet an essential branch o f grammar. Chrysippus had been the Stoic specialist nepi irvpoXoyiKiov* b u t his influence o n Crates seems t o have been negligible except i n the explication o f the names o f gods, as for instance Zcvs (fr. 2 and 3 Mette) and "Hie &oZße (fr. 5 5 ) . As a 'Op-nptKos Crates sides i n this field more w i t h the Alexandrian grammarians than w i t h Chrysippus, w h i c h is not so surprising i f we compare his attitude to several other problems o f language. 3
A few references to epic, lyric, and dramatic poetry show that he interested himself i n various non-Homeric problems; but no title o f a vrropvripa or a monograph is quoted anywhere, and modern efforts to attribute the fragments to books w i t h invented titles have been unsuccessful. 5
As a Stoic cosmologist, Crates was bound to criticize Hesiod's account ofTrj and Ovpavos (Schol. Hes. Th. 126 = fr. 4 7 M e t t e ) . His interest i n the Hesiodic poems, however, went m u c h further; he rejected a line about the godlike Cyclopes (Hes. Th. 142) and was bold enough to substitute a n alternative one, possibly o f his o w n manufacture. H e athetized not only the proem o f the Erga, as Praxiphanes and Aristarchus had done, but also that o f the Theogony. O f the post-classical poetry Aratus' astronomical Phaenomena attracted his attention, though the relevant fragments belong to his writings on H o m e r . H e was again on the side o f Aristarchus and also o f A r i s t o ü e i n the puzzling controversy about Alcman's birthplace since according to Suidas he believed h i m 6
1
8
9
K . Reinhardt, 'Posidonius' RE xxn 667 ff., esp. 668. 24ff.;he had reconstructed Crates' allegorical comment on the shield of Achilles and Eustathius (cf. esp. pp. 1154. 35 ff.) intermediate source in his dissertation De Graecorum tkeologia capita duo (1910) 5 9 ff. 'De Cratete Mallota'. R. Schröter, Studien zur Varroniscken Etymologie (1959) 6 4 ff. Cf. R. Reitzenstein, 'Etymologika', REvt (1909) 8 1 0 . * See above, p. 201, n. 5. Wachsmuth, De Crat. Mall. 5 5ff.;critical objections by E. Maass, Aratea 167 ff., 213. 4 ; sensible Kroll, RE xi 1635. Jacoby ad loc.; I refused to believe that epic lines were fabricated by Zenodotus, but should not think it impossible in Crates. See above, p. 2 2 0 , on the Erga; on the Theogony see Jacoby test. 4 7 b (Vita Chisiana) 1
1
2
Anted. Roman, (see above, p. 178, n. 10) p. X L I I I 15 Dind. Apiaráp^cia a-npeta . . . 17 TTepLtaTLypévr) StJrAij rrpo$ ras 2IJVO8OTÉI'OUE ypatbas (above, p. 2 1 8 ) «ai Kpárnros Kal avrov Aptarápxov KTX. ; cf. ibid. p. X L V 15 Anecd. Ven.; Mette, Spkairop. test. 18 a, b, see also Wachs1
muth. The priority of Gratesseems tobe implied by Varro L.L. vm 68 ( = Crat. fr. 64a p. 100. 31 Mette) 'sic enim responderé voluit Aristarchus Crated.' * See above, p. 175, n. 6. See above, pp. 108 ff. + Cf. above, p. 2 3 1 ; he did not question the few lines dealing with Agamemnon's shield. Mette, Sphairopoiia 36 ff. on 2 468 ff., 30 ff. on A 32ff.;fr.23 a-i pp. 172-88. 1
s
3
s
6
7
* See Maass, Aratea 33 ff., 165 ff.
p- 125.
* D. L . Page, Alcman 814342
Partheneion (1951) 167 ff.
R
24a
Pergamum:
Scholarship
and
Philosophy
Crates'
to have been a L y d i a n from Sardis; a newly discovered commentary o n A l c m a n has proved beyond doubt that this view was derived from passages i n the poems while the opposition seems to have based its assumption o f Alcman's Laconian origin on local patriotism. Interested as Grates naturally was i n the astronomical passage o f the Rhesus, he criticized Euripides' ignorance o f astronomy, excusing i t , however, on the ground that the play was an early one o f the young poet; i t is at least probable that for this statement he had consulted the SioaoKakiat, which were accessible i n the introductions o f Aristophanes o f Byzantium. Like the Peripatetics and the Alexandrians he d i d not question the authenticity of the play, as 'some' (cWot) d i d i n ancient and many i n modern times. Crates is said to have dealt w i t h the 'parts of comedy' (Kara Kpärrrro.... pip-n KatpwSias),* and his p u p i l Herodicus listed the Kajpcpoovpevoi,5 like A m m o n i u s , but there is no reason to conjecture that the Pergamenes distinguished t w o periods o f A t t i c comedy ( a p x i ' ) stylisticrhetorical grounds, i n contrast to the usual Hellenistic division into three periods [dpxala, piarj, via). 1
2
atct
a
n
<
v e
a
o
n
Even this short survey o f scanty evidence gives the impression that Crates was a serious scholar capable o f displaying solid learning w h o d i d not disregard the results o f previous research, even though i t was the work o f scholars w h o were his opponents i n principle. I f this is kept i n m i n d , the honesty and sincerity o f his sometimes bewildering method o f allegorical interpretation can hardly be doubted. A l l the pre-Hellenistic poets whose names occur i n Crates' fragments had their place i n the Alexandrian selective lists which he certainly knew. I f the Pergamenes had their o w n lists o f ey#cpt^tWt? as they had general indexes, these lists, at least o f the poets, cannot have differed m u c h from the Alexandrian ones, though there may have been i n Pergamum a keener interest i n the orators. Whether Crates was concerned i n eyKpiveiv himself, we do not k n o w ; but we do know that he who proudly claimed to be a KptTLKos, not a simple ypappariKos, practised the KpLats TratypaTOJv. 7
I 1
P.Oxy.
1
Schol. [Eur.j
2389 (1957)
fr.
i \ 1
PJies. 5 3 9
1 1 ; cf. fr.
4
7
j| Ghr. Jensen, Philodemos Vber die Gedichte, v. Buch (1923) 146ff.'Zur Poetik des Krates von Pergamon'; the reading of col. xxi 25, pp. 48 f. = fr. 86 Mette p. 182. I is decisive, cf. 5 9 f. See now F. Sbordone, 'FUodemo e la teoria dell' eufonia', Rendiamti delta Accomenda di Arckeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti, N . S . X X X (Napoli 1955) 2 5 - 5 1 . See above, p. 150. A. Meineke, Analecta Alexandrina (1843) 7 f., 30 ff. Meineke's authority never lost its influence in spite of occasional objections, see M. Gabathuler, Hellenistiseke Epigramme auf Dichter (1937) 9 4 , 172 and A. S. F. Gow, The Greek Anthology 11 ( 1 9 6 5 ) 222 f. On the epigrammatist Crates see Geffcken, RE xi 1625. Another of these Kpar-nres is the author of a work on Attic dialect frequently quoted by Athenaeus; it is almost certainly the Athenian who also wrote /7epi rtuv Xdyvnot BvoiCiv, not the Pergamene grammarian. Mette's arguments [Parateresis 4 8 ff.) for his authorship are not convincing. All the fragments are now collected and commented on by F. Jacoby FGrHist 3 6 2 'Krates von Athen* (vol. iti B 1 9 5 0 - 5 ) . See p. 238. See p. 203 about the relation of words to things; language was to him, of course,
2 3
3
4
6
8
2
6
seep. ig3<
7
As the readings and explanations o f the last editor o f the Philodemuspapyrus ilepl TroiripdTwv were apparently confirmed by a careful reexamination, i t is not unlikely that Crates was guided by Chrysippus' theory o f <£imrj, and claimed to recognize the value o f a poem from the sound o f its words, from euphony, by the mere act o f hearing (CUOTJ). A sordid epigram attacking Euphorion which is anonymous i n Planudes bears i n APxi 218 the name Kpar-qros. T h e two spiteful distichs are rather pointless i f not w r i t t e n i n or near Euphorion's lifetime. I t was not a good idea to ascribe this accumulation o f obscene implications to the scholar from Mallos, who could hardly have started to write before Euphorion's death (about 200 B . C . ) ; we should also expect that this Crates w o u l d have p u t his o w n theory into practice and striven for euphony w h i c h is totally absent from the epigram. There have been many KparnTes, and among them even an epigrammatist (Diog. L . i v 2 3 ) ; one can definitely acquit the Mallotes o f perpetrating this sort o f poetry. There is no evidence that he or any o f his pupils wrote verse. s
6 1 6
See E . Fraenkel's detailed review of W. Ritchie, 'The Authenticity of the Rhesus of Euripides' ( 1 9 6 4 ) in Gnom. 3 7 ( 1 9 6 5 ) 2 2 8 - 4 1 . * Tzetz. Proleg. p. 2 1 . 6 8 Kaibel. * Athen. 5 8 6 A , 591 c. G. Kaibel, Herrn. 2 4 ( 1 8 8 9 ) 5 6 ff., cf. Susemihl 1 4 2 6 . 8 8 ; but see the objections by A. Körte, 'Komödie', RE xi ( 1 9 2 1 ) 1256 f., esp. 1257. 4 ^ K See above, p. 206. Sext. Emp. adv. math. 1 79 = Crat. fr. 17 Mette röv /xev Kptrutav ndo-ns, v TOVTWV rraparrX-naiaiv ti'Sij/iOva; cf. ibid. I 2 4 8 = fr. 18 M.
243
Allegorism was, we saw, an essential part o f Stoic philosophical t thought, particularly as developed by Chrysippus ; then Crates applied ; i t to his new exposition o f Homeric poetry. There is a noticeable parallel i n the field of language. Chrysippus, i n the wake o f Zeno and Cleanthes, had expounded a theory o f language w i t h i n the wider scheme o f his formal l o g i c ; i n the next generation Crates adopted his concept o f linguistic anomaly and, like a l l the adherents o f the Stoic school, accepted certain grammatical rules. W e took pains earlier to find out how some o f the I o n i a n poets foreshadowed patterns o f declension and etymology, ;' and to consider how far the Sophists and Democritus, Plato and Aristotle •'! were devoted to linguistic studies. But i t was among the Stoics that
ff. On Aristarchus see above, p. 2 2 0 . f., cf. above, p. 2 2 3 , n. 5 ; on Aristoph. Byz. and Dicaearch.
9 1
Anomaly
3
8
1
of Grammatical
1
3
6
Concept
I
s
6
7
244
Superiority of Pergamenes in Grammar
Pergamum: Scholarship and Philosophy
a d e f i n i t e p l a c e was a c c o r d e d t o these studies i n t h e i r system o f p h i l o s o p h y ;
I n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l d i v i s i o n o f n o u n s i n t o t h r e e genders t h e n a m e o f t h e
g r a m m a t i c a l rules a n d t e r m s w e r e n o w s t r i c t l y fixed a n d t h e p r e l i m i n a r y
t h i r d g e n d e r h a d c h a n g e d once a l r e a d y ( f r o m
efforts o f centuries c o m p l e t e d .
became
O n l y a few examples
1
c a n be g i v e n , m a i n l y t o s h o w t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e
ovBhepov
Xoyov)
w i t h a d e l i c a t e sense o f l a n g u a g e , fixed six xP
ßijpa, dpdpov, avvocapos.
pera^v)
; it now J
T h e r e was n o clear s t a t e m e n t before A r i s t o t l e t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t f o r m s
S t o i c t o e a r l i e r classifications a n d t e r m s . F o u r p a r t s o f speech (pep-q rov w e r e t a k e n o v e r f r o m A r i s t o t l e : ovopa,
to
GKCVOS
' n e u t e r ' , t h a t is, n e i t h e r m a s c u l i n e n o r f e m i n i n e .
o f t h e pfjpa,
2
245
t h e v e r b , express d i f f e r e n t t e m p o r a l r e l a t i o n s ; t h e Stoics, OVOi
'tenses', f o u r
wptopevot
B u t i n t h e first p a r t a n e w s u b d i v i s i o n was m a d e ( b y C h r y s i p p u s ?) b e t w e e n
(present, i m p e r f e c t , perfect, p l u p e r f e c t ) a n d t w o aopioroi ( f u t u r e a n d
t h e ovopa
aorist).
as ' p r o p e r n a m e ' ( l a t e r Kvpiov
'the appellative*. T h e t e r m
mioois,
ovopa)
w o r d - f o r m s a n d d e r i v a t i o n s , was c o n f i n e d t o
opd-r] a n d
t h e t h r e e TrAayiat
Trrojcreis
trpoa-qyopiKov,
f o r m e r l y a p p l i e d t o v a r i o u s changes o f
3
f o u r 'cases', one
a n d the
ovopa a n d dpOpov a n d
to t h e i r
M a n y details o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t r e m a i n obscure t o u s ; b u t t h e standardization and codification o f the
rexvr)
Apiardpx^-os,
t h r e e TrAayiat. T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t e w o r t h y as
i n a b o o k o f a Stoic p h i l o s o p h e r , b u t i n t h e h a n d b o o k o f a n
are a l r e a d y present i n A n a c r e o n ' s
Dionysius T h r a x . W e m e n t i o n e d earlier the dispute between the Stoic
Cleobulus
2
3
poem and all four i n Archilochus' Leophilus-Iambus. The rhetorician
a n o m a l i s t s t o w h o m Crates b e l o n g e d
Cleochares w h o i n t h e first h a l f o f t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y B . C . s u r p r i s i n g l y
analogists, a d i s p u t e so often stressed i n l a t e r L a t i n
p l a y e d w i t h five cases o f a p r o p e r n a m e , i n c l u d i n g t h e v o c a t i v e
ture. I t should not be overemphasized;
4
adeves),
final
is e x t a n t , n o t
ypappariKr)
(A-qpo-
m a y have been acquainted w i t h a theoretical order o f t h a t t i m e
a n d t h e so-called 4
Alexandrian
and modern litera-
for there w a s always a l i v e l y
i n t e r p l a y b e t w e e n t h e opposite c a m p s , w h i c h l e d t o a sort o f r e c o n c i l i a -
w h a t w e find i n e a r l y I o n i c p o e t r y o f t h e seventh a n d
t i o n i n D i o n y s i u s ' b o o k . T h e m o s t r e m a r k a b l e p o i n t o f c o n t a c t was t h i s :
s i x t h centuries B . C . w a s o b v i o u s l y o n l y a p l a y i n g a t w i l l o n t h e c h a n g i n g
a l t h o u g h Aristophanes' m a i n a p p r o a c h was t o deduce a f e w general
f o r m s o f t h e same w o r d s .
rules o f i n f l e x i o n f r o m his discovery o f analogous p a t t e r n s i n t h e d e c l e n -
unknown t o us;
5
A s regards the n o m e n c l a t u r e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l Tn-too-ets-, w h i c h a l l o f us s t i l l l e a r n i n school, t h e n a m e o f t h e atVtaTi/cr)
'accusadvus',
TTTOJO-IS,
a l w a y s caused uneasiness a n d is s t i l l u n d e r discussion. T h e d i f f i c u l t y has b e e n t o r e c o n c i l e t h e usage o f this case w i t h t h e n a t u r a l d e r i v a t i o n o f t h e w o r d ainaTLKrj
f r o m alrtdadai,
'accuse', ( ' i n a c c u s a n d i ' sc. casu, V a r r o ,
L . L . v i i i 6 6 ) , o r f r o m ainov, 'cause*; so t h e p r o p o s a l was m a d e n a m e s h o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d as d e r i v e d f r o m alnarov
An. post.
6
t h a t the
' t h e effect' ( A r i s t o t .
98 a 3 6 , a l . ) , a n d this was a c c e p t e d w i t h u n a n i m o u s applause as
sion,
5
h e also observed w i t h a n o p e n m i n d t h e v a r i e t y o f f o r m s i n t h e
spoken l a n g u a g e , t h e avvrjdtia.
I t was j u s t t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n o f i r r e g u l a r i t y
i n w h i c h Crates e x c e l l e d . Sextus E m p i r i c u s t e r m e d i t rqv Kara Ttöv TTOXXWV
crvvqöeiav
TJ)V
Koivqv
; t h i s t e r m , so o f t e n used b y t h e school
Traparrip-qGiv
6
o f m e d i c a l e m p i r i c i s t s , has n o t y e t t u r n e d u p i n t h e q u o t a t i o n s o f C r a t e s h i m s e l f o r o f his p u p i l s , b u t i t characterizes his p r o c e d u r e . I t m a y e v e n be t h a t t h i s e m p i r i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n i t s e l f a n d its n a m e w e r e d u e t o a n e w i n f l u e n c e o f science o n s c h o l a r s h i p .
7
c o r r e c t f o r t h e case t h a t denotes t h e effect o f a n a c t i o n . B u t q u i t e r e c e n t l y
T h e P e r g a m e n e scholars o f t h e n e x t g e n e r a t i o n w h o a r e k n o w n t o
i t has been a r g u e d w i t h g r e a t s u b t l e t y t h a t t h e r e is a t least a p o s s i b i l i t y
h a v e been C r a t e s ' o w n p u p i l s w e r e n o t o f v e r y h i g h s t a n d i n g . B u t t h e
o f m a i n t a i n i n g t h e o r i g i n o f t h e t e r m f r o m alndadai
l e a d i n g S t o i c p h i l o s o p h e r P a n a e t i u s is also attested as his
7
via the construction
oratio obliqua iXiyxcov.
o f t h e accusative w i t h t h e i n f i n i t i v e a n d t h e accusative i n w h i c h Aristotle referred repeatedly i n
IJcpl
ootpioriKwv
to
8
others o f t h e so-called
KparfjTeioi
paOrjTfjs.
While
c o n t i n u e d t o fight t h e A l e x a n d r i a n s
t o some e x t e n t , Panaetius f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e d t h e greatness o f A r i s t a r c h u s as a n i n t e r p r e t e r — a s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , A r i s t a r c h u s ' school w i l l i n g l y 9
1
Cf. Steinthal
1 271
ff., J . Wackernagel,
Vorlesungen über Syntax
i 14ff.,R. H . Robins,
Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory (1951) 25ff.,Barwick, Stoische Sprachlehre, passim,
and above all M. Pohlenz, 'Begründung der abendländischen Sprachlehre durch die Stoa', GGN 3
* s 6
1939 = Kleine Schriften 1 (1965) 3 9 ff., and Die Stoa (1948/9) I 37 ff., 11 21 ff.
Above, pp. 76 f. See
p.
13, n. I on
3
irruicris.
See p. 14, n. 1. F. A. Trendelenburg,
3
cf. Wackernagel, Lesebuch, Erläuterungen,
1 (1836) 1 2 3 ;
1 0
See above, p. 77. Below, Chapter 8. See p. 203. Gell. N.A. 11 25. 4 'duo Graeci grammatici illustres Aristarchus et Crates summa ope ille avaXoyiav, hie avtu/iaAiW defensitavit' (.== Grat. fr. 6 4 b p. 138. 12 Mette). See above, pp. 202 f.; cf. p. 229. Sext. Emp. adv. math. 1 179 ( = Crat. fr. 6 4 e p. 140. 33 Mette). K. Deichgräber, Die griechische Empirikerschule (1930) 3 7 8 rrapar-qpeiv; Mette, Parateresis passim, but see the critical objections ofR. Schröter, Gnom. 27 (1955) 3 2 8 ff. Kroll, RE xi (1922) 1640. 57 ff. See above, p. 2 3 2 . See below, p. 2 7 0 . 1
3
x
4
3
Acta Societatis Graecae Lipsiensis
Sandys i 147, Wüamowitz, Griech. 2. Halbbd. 245 (on Dionys. Thr. in Textbd. 11 384. 21). E. Kapp, 'Casus accusativus', Festschrift B. Snell ( 1 9 5 6 ) 17-21. Vorlesungen über Syntax 1 19, 7
See, pp, 77 f.
a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e Pergamenes i n t h e field o f g r a m m a r .
6 7
8
B
1 0
246
Pergamum:
Scholarship
and
Antigonus
Philosophy
of Carystus,
Polemo
of
Ilium
247
1
However, Crates' most far-reaching influence derived from his mission to Rome i n 168 B . C . Rome's contact w i t h Greek culture had begun four or five centuries before that mission, and the Hellenization o f its literature was intensified i n the second h a l f of the t h i r d century B . C . b y translations o f Greek poetry into L a t i n . Rome had its o w n scholar poets before Grates' visit. This visit was unexpectedly prolonged when he broke his leg i n a defective cloaca o n the Palatine h i l l , and he used the time o f his recovery for giving lectures to a R o m a n audience; the effect o n the Romans was, as Suetonius' tells, *ut carmina diligentius retractarent ac legendo commentandoque etiam ceteris nota facerent'. I t was not a bad omen that the first personal approach to the Romans happened to be that of a Stoic scholar; for Stoicism always appealed to the R o m a n spirit. The best example is Panaetius' intimacy w i t h the younger Scipio and his friends i n the following generation. 2
Compared w i t h the Stoa other schools o f philosophy i n the later Hellenistic age were o f secondary importance i n scholarship as well as i n other respects. W h e n , for instance, twelve years after Grates an Athenian delegation i n w h i c h Carneades represented the Academy and Critolaus the Peripatos arrived i n Rome, we hear nothing of their scholarly activity or influence. N o t u n t i l the first century B . C . d i d Academy and Peripatos begin to edit and explain the writings o f their o w n founders, and to continue i n some way the work o f Aristophanes and Aristarchus as editors and interpreters. 3
This chapter o n Pergamum must conclude w i t h a glance at a side-line o f scholarship. There were now a number o f antiquarian writers who made their compilations not from literary sources or from the narratives o f visitors from abroad, b u t from autopsy. Callimachus, for his part, had insisted on the fact that he had never traversed the sea but collected his immense learning at home i n Alexandria ; and his disciples followed his example. But now we find travellers w h o described places they had personally inspected and a l l their treasures. T h e earliest i n Pergamum may have been Antigonus o f Carystus, w h o m Attalus I ( 2 4 1 - 1 9 7 B . C . ) called to his court ; i f the identification o f at least three bearers o f this 4
5
name is correct, he must have been a unique figure. H e examined works o f art w i t h the keen eyes o f the artist—he was a sculptor himself—and depicted them i n his writings; i t was Antigonus w h o noticed that the famous statue of Nemesis i n Rhamnus e x fj p-nXeas KAOSOV e£ oü ci
. . . TTTVXidv TL fxiKpov €^rjpTTja8at
T
TT)V €7TLyparjV % Ö V "^yopa/cpiTOs- Lldpios
find h i m copying IlapdSotja verbatim from Callimachus i n the traditional w a y . But again, as a biographer, he rejected the literary approach o f Hermippus and Satyrus and the like and gave first-hand character sketches o f his contemporaries, especially o f the philosophers he had met i n Athens and i n other cities. cVoi^o-ei/." Elsewhere we 2
3
4
Compared w i t h this picturesque, versatile personality o f the later third century, Polemo, a native o f I l i u m and therefore a subject o f the Attalids, was very much a specialist, an immensely learned antiquary, o KXrjdels ITepfnyrjTTjs (Suid.). The geographical periegesis is as o l d as the r-ijs TT€plo8o$ 'the journey round the w o r l d ' o f Hecataeus o f Miletus i n the early fifth century B . C . ; but the 'antiquarian' periegesis, not concerned w i t h geography, b u t w i t h antiquities and i n particular w i t h monuments, is a new feature of the Hellenistic age. I t was gratefully used i n the second h a l f of the second century A . D . by Pausanias who combined what he had seen w i t h what he had read i n his 'EXXdSos nepiriynais, the only periegesis completely preserved. Polemo was honoured i n 177/6 B . C . by being made a iTpogevos i n Delphi, probably i n recognition o f his book Ilepl TWV iv AfXcpois ßTjaavpdtv (fr. 27 P r . ) ; for similar reasons he was given the 5
6
7
8
Wilamowitz, Antigonos von Katystos ( 1 8 8 1 ) . H . Usener happily appreciated the dedication of this book, see Usener und Wilamowitz, Ein Briefwechsel 1 8 7 0 - 1 9 0 5 ( 1 9 3 4 ) , Nr. 1 2 - 1 4 . H . Diels, DLZm (1882) 6 0 4 f., approved of its bold hypotheses. To E . Rohde, Lit. gentralbl. (1882) 56 ff. = Kl. Schriften 1 356 ff., the 'style' was repellent and the self-confidence of the young genius was irritating. In the background there was, besides the old controversy between Wilamowitz and Nietzsche, Rohde's own quite different conception of the Hellenistic age. The bitterness of his final verdict 'Originalität des Humbugs', is understandable, but nevertheless unjust.—There is still a certain doubt about some of the identifications, as no one has re-examined all the arguments of Wilamowitz. 1
Zenob. vulg. v 8 2 ; the lexicographers, Phot., etc., omitted the reference to Antigonus. See above, p. 134. * See above, p. 1 5 1 . Polemonis Periegetae Fragmenta coll. L . Preller, 1838 (reprinted 1 9 6 4 ) ; cf. the review of O. Jahn, Jahrbücherför wissenschaftliche Kritik 2 (1840) 5 8 5 - 6 0 5 . K. Deichgräber, RE xxi 1
3
s
( 1 9 5 2 ) , 1288 ff.
The distinction is drawn by F. Jacoby on 369 FGrHist (vol. in » [ 1 9 5 5 ] , pp. 132 ff.) Kommentar I and 11, pp. 90 f.; but I prefer the expression 'antiquarian periegesis' to his 'historical periegesis' (cf. Polemo, ed. Preller, p. 155). A useful survey is given by H. Bischoff, RE XIX ( 37) 7 5 cf. E . Pernice, 'Handbuch der Archäologie' = Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaftvi 1 (1939) 240 ff. 'Periegeten und Periegesen'. G. Pasquali, 'Die schriftstellerische Form des Pausanias', Herrn. 4 8 (1913) 161 ff. * SIG 585. 114 /ToAi^twv MtXnoiQu 'IXtevs: Suid. s.v. puts him under Ptolemy V ( 2 0 4 - 1 8 0 B . C . ) as a contemporary of Aristophanes of Byzantium, but adds xai SvjKovae real TOV 'PoSlov 6
Sueton. De grammaticis et rhetoribus c. 2, sec above, p. 2 3 5 , n. 2. M. Pohlenz, Die Stoa I 257 - 'Die Stoa in Rom'. The meagre testimonia are collected by M. Gigante, 'Poesia e critica letteraria nell' Accademia antica', Miscellanea di Studi Alessandrini in memoria di A. Rostagni (1963) 234 IF., C. O. Brink, 'Peripatos', RE, Suppl. Bd. vu (1940) 9 3 7ft".;Ph. de Lacy, 'The Epicurean Analysis of Language', AJP 6 0 ( 1 9 3 9 } 8 5 ff. • On the terms àpxatoXoyla and 'antiquitates' see above, p. 5 1 . Call. fr. 178. 27 ff. and vol. 11 p. xxxrx. 1
3 3
s
ff
I Q
2
7
3
/7acoiTt'ou.
248
Pergamum:
Scholarship
and
Philosophy
citizenship o f Athens and other cities. T h e Delphian inscription is the best evidence for the date o f his life and shows that he was a contemporary o f Aristophanes and Aristarchus. His EmuroXr) ripos ArraXov (fr. 70, 72 Pr.) may have been addressed t o k i n g Attalus I (241-197 B.C.). About thirty titles o f Polemo's writings are k n o w n ; one o f them i n at least six books improved o n the description o f works o f art given by Antigonus o f Carystus and Adaeus, and he is known to have stated i n i t that the o l d Attic pronunciation was AtjivieZs, 7 ? p v « i i » AXmis w i t h rough breathing. A new fragment i n the papyrus commentary on Hipponax to which we referred above is welcome as additional evidence for the attention that he paid to questions o f language: he is quoted for the explanation o f aawdoes as ' w i l d goats', a dialectal gloss peculiar probably to the Cretans. Polemo's sources were the inscriptions. They had not been neglected by the historians from early times onwards; but it is uncertain how far even Craterus, when he made his ifrn
1
2
3
4
5
6
Polemo visited Asia M i n o r , the Aegean, the mother country, the western Magna Graecia, and Sicily; but his studies quite naturally centred o n Athens. Four o f his writings were devoted to its antiquities, one o f them in four books t o the votive offerings o n the Acropolis (fr. 1-5 P r . ) ; we can add as a fifth item to this group his attack on Eratosthenes Ileal ri\s ABrprqow 'Eparoodevovs imStjpdas (fr. 47—52 Pr., also abbreviated rd -npos 'EpaToadtvrjv). Polemo, a much more acute and trained observer o f the monuments than the great scientist and 'philologus', found h i m so often 1
fr. 5 6 - 6 9 Pr., cf. pp. 193 f. Even if the text of the fragments is not expressly polemical, it is most likely that trpas means 'against', as it certainly does in some other comparable titles LTpos TLuaiov (fr. 39 if.), TIpos 'Eparoa&evm> (fr. 4 8 f.) and others. On irpos see above, p. 133, n. 1. Phot. Berol. pp. 38. 11 ff. Reitzenstein; Polem. fr. 65 Pr. from Suid. who copied Photius. On the aspiration see K . Meisterhans, Grammatik der attischen Inschriflen (1900) 8 6 . See above, p. 1 9 9 ; P.Oxy. xvin ( 1 9 4 8 ) 2 1 7 6 , col. 1 6 ; it is overlooked in Deichgraber's article on Polemo, R E T O L J ( 1 9 5 2 ) , where a reference to P.Oxy. 1611, 1 0 1 - n also is missing. * Latte's reading and supplement Kplvrjos Philol. 9 7 { 1 9 4 8 ) 4 0 is compatible with the traces of ink and with the space. 1
LTpos Ahalov
Kal Hvrlyovov
Demetrius
of Scepsis
249
at fault that he could not refrain from expressing the half humorous, h a l f malicious doubt whether Eratosthenes h a d ever stayed at Athens; at least three o f the five certain fragments seem to allude t o Eratosthenes' twelve books Tlepl rrjs dpxaias KwptpSlas* Attic comedy h a d been a favourite subject o f Alexandrian, though not o f Pergamene scholarship. Polemo was able to draw on the work o f the Alexandrians and to profit at the same time from his personal knowledge o f the local monuments, festivals, and customs. I n the same way his Sicilian visit furthered his acquaintance w i t h Epicharmus and Doric comedy, as is revealed by his work i n twelve books npos Ttpaiov (fr. 3 9 - 4 6 Pr.). Here he also traced the origin o f parody to Hipponax, apparently i n connexion w i t h the study o f early comedy (fr. 4 5 ) ; everywhere, we see, he freely indulged i n excursuses. 1
1
Although an indefatigable traveller through the whole Greek w o r l d (not beyond i t ) Polemo d i d not lack a sense o f local patriotism; Suidas opens the list o f his writings w i t h eypaif/e nepirjynatv 'IXíov ivfitfUXloisy'. No quotations from these three books survive, but i t is possible to assign to them two fragments, one on the cult o f Apollo i n Zplvdos, rorros rrjs TptpdBos (fr. 31 Pr.), and another on the stone still shown to visitors i n I l i u m (fr. 32 Pr.), on which Palamedes was supposed to have played chess, the game invented by h i m i n the dreary years o f the Trojan war. This implies that Polemo identified his native place as the site o f Homeric T r o y and the battlefield of the Iliad. But there is not the slightest hint i n the quotations and testimonia that he ever discussed this delicate problem. His name is not mentioned i n the extensive treatment o f i t b y his fellow countryman Demetrius o f Scepsis, although earlier writers are lavishly quoted, and no polemics between the two rr€pir¡yr¡raL on Homeric topography are attested. Demetrius' exposition o f the TpwiKos oidtcaapos, 'The marshalling o f the Trojan forces', must have been written i n the middle o f the second century B.C., after Crates, whom he attacked (fr. 6 8 Gaede), and before Apollodorus, who h a d the book at hand for his Newv KardXoyos. H e 3
4
5
6
1
3
1
3
s
342
FGrHist.
Fr. 78 Pr. with an extensive commentary; but no one can tell what Herodicus exactly meant by his joke ('tablet-tapper* Sandys, 'tablet-glutton* L - S , etc.); Pasquali, Herm. 48, 177, understands the compound by analogy with Ai0o*dVos as 'Steinhauer*, which is not convincing at all. 6
1 3
241 T to; on Eratosthenes in Athens see above, pp. i 5 3 f . See above, pp. 159 ff. R. Gaede, Demetrix Scepsii quae supersunt, Diss. Greifswald 1 8 8 0 ; E . Schwartz, FGrHist
( 1 9 0 1 ) 2 8 0 7 ff. = Griechische Gesekiehtschreiber
RE
rv
( 1 9 5 7 ) 106 ff.
Sandys i 155 f. unfortunately gives the impression that Polemo and Demetrius forestalled the modern champions of this topic; Hellanicus 'of Miletus' is a slip of the pen. Strab. XHI 609 £K S Í rrjs EKJ¡I¡>€Ü)S xa\ 6 AT¡p.T¡rpiós earw, off p,ep,vt)p,€8a iroXXaKis, o rov 4
3
s
TpuiZxov oiá/coau-ov ¿^r¡yr¡aápievos
ypappiartKos,
Kara
rov avrov
xpóvov yeyovútS
Kpárnrt nal
Hptorápx
Strab. vin
339
wap* oí (sc. Demetr. Seeps.)
p.eratpé'pei rá irfitlma
(sc. Apollodor.).
250
Topographical Research
Pergamum: Scholarship and Philosophy
l i v e d as a r i c h i n d e p e n d e n t c o u n t r y s q u i r e — a n e x c e p t i o n a l case for
t o l d against D e m e t r i u s . T h e
a s c h o l a r — i n his s m a l l h o m e - t o w n , w h i c h c l a i m e d t o h a v e b e e n f o u n d e d
t h e r e ever was a T r o y ( a n d w h o c a n r e a l l y d o u b t i t ?), i t m u s t h a v e s t o o d
b y S c a m a n d r i u s , son o f H e c t o r , a n d t h e o n l y c o m p l i m e n t h e p a i d t o the
on the h i l l at Hissarlik', a n d t h a t means the region o f I l i u m .
1
IJevKr},
the giant
s t a t e m e n t o f G. W . B l e g e n w a s :
1
Tf
T h e w i d e scope o f o r i g i n a l a n t i q u a r i a n research i n P e r g a m u m roused
P e r g a m e n e c o u r t w a s his q u o t a t i o n from a p a m p h l e t o f K i n g A t t a l u s I ( a l r e a d y d e a d ) o f t h e f a m o u s passage a b o u t t h e KaXr)
final
251
sincere e n t h u s i a s m i n t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y
2
w h e n a so-called r e a l i s m
I n contrast t o Polemo, Demetrius
felt t h e ' n a r r o w n e s s ' o f c r i t i c a l a n d g r a m m a t i c a l s c h o l a r s h i p a n d l o o k e d
c o n f i n e d h i m s e l f t o t h e t o p o g r a p h y a n d a n t i q u i t i e s o f his n a t i v e c o u n t r y
for a l l t h e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f t h e s p i r i t o f t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d . D e m e t r i u s
and
was j u s t l y p r a i s e d , i n so f a r as his realistic exegesis f u r t h e r e d t h e u n d e r -
p i n e tree, a l a n d m a r k o f t h e T r o a d .
tion
2
p u b l i s h e d t h e results o f his researches i n t h e f o r m o f a n i n t e r p r e t a o f s i x t y - t w o lines o f t h e second b o o k o f t h e Iliad
3
(B 8 1 6 - 7 7 ) ,
m
e
s t a n d i n g o f a special p a r t o f t h e
Iliad.
B u t i n a case l i k e his t h e p o e t r y i t s e l f
c a t a l o g u e o f t h e T r o j a n s ; i n n o t w r i t i n g a m o n o g r a p h ITepl TOV TpcoiKov
m a y get lost f r o m s i g h t b e h i n d t h e m o u n t a i n s o f l e a r n e d s t u f f h e a p e d u p o n
otaKoo-fiov,
i t . F i v e generations i n A l e x a n d r i a h a d b e e n w o r k i n g t o restore a n d t o
h e was f o l l o w i n g i n p r i n c i p l e t h e m o d e l o f t h e A l e x a n d r i a n ,
4
b u t he inflated i t to the monstrous
e x p l a i n t h e l i t e r a r y creations o f t h e past f o r t h e i r o w n sake. I f t h e p o e m s
A l l t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t peoples a n d places,
w e r e t o b e c o m e m e r e l y sources f o r h i s t o r i c a l o r t o p o g r a p h i c a l research,
especially t h e A r i s t a r c h e a n , vrropvripa, extent o f t h i r t y books.
5
d i a l e c t glosses-and r a r e l i t e r a r y f o r m s — b u t w i t h o u t S t o i c allegories o r
t h e o b j e c t i v e o f classical scholarship w o u l d be a l m o s t lost. T h i s d a n g e r is
t h e l i k e — h e a r r a n g e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e sequence o f t h e H o m e r i c l i n e s .
for t h e first t i m e a p p a r e n t i n t h e n e w P e r g a m e n e a n t i q u a r i a n i s m .
6
Demetrius reproached H e l l a n i c u s w i t h p a r t i a l i t y for the inhabitants 7
of I l i u m
(xapit,6fievog
*IXtevai)
TOLS
because h e h a d s u p p o r t e d i n his
TpcoLKa ( a b o u t 4 0 0 B . C . ) w h a t was a p p a r e n t l y t h e l o c a l o p i n i o n t h a t t h e m o d e r n a n d t h e H o m e r i c t o w n w e r e t h e same. H e i n his t u r n , because h e rejected
this o p i n i o n , was
Ilium's fame. 'Ecrrlaiav
8
who
reproached
by Schliemann
with
Y e t D e m e t r i u s i n f a c t c a l l e d t o witness TT)V h a d w r i t t e n He pi TT}S 'Oprjpov
7T€pi TT)V VVV TCOXW o rroXepos
ovveoTr],
9
'IXtdSos,
envying
AXcgavSplvrfv
. . . TTVvOavopevrjv et
t h o u g h h e d i d n o t say w h e t h e r t h e
l e a r n e d A l e x a n d r i a n l a d y w a s t h e f i r s t t o ask t h i s q u e s t i o n . I n a n y case, t h e r e is n o trace o f 'jealousy' i n D e m e t r i u s '
fragments;
h e t o o k great p a i n s
to a r g u e his p o i n t , as h e a l w a y s d i d . H e a r g u e d t h e case i n g o o d f a i t h f o r a h i l l some six m i l e s f u r t h e r t o t h e s o u t h o n t h e o t h e r b a n k o f t h e r i v e r S c a m a n d e r n e a r B u n ä r b a s h i , a n d m a n y m o d e r n experts f r o m t h e e n d o f t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y o n w a r d s a c c e p t e d his v i e w . B u t t h e results o f t h e e x c a v a t i o n s from S c h l i e m a n n ' s g o l d e n d a y s u p t o t h e present time h a v e Diog. L . V Strab. xiii and 204 f. 1
2
8 4 rtXovoios Kal evycvrjs ävBpcairos Kai ^tAoAoyoy aicpios. 6 0 3 excerpting Demetrius; cf. W. Leaf, Strabo and the Troad ( 1 9 2 3 )
xxvn ff.
c£rrynad,u,evo$ above, p. 2 4 9 , n. 5 , efr/jynaiy below, n. 5 . Strabo who still used the original (cf. Leaf, loc. cit.) never quoted TJepl TOV Tp. 8., but always ev r, etc.) rov Tp. 8.; Hestiaea's book was a monograph TJepi rijs 3
4
L
'Ofiypov
'IXidSos.
1 Strab. X I I I 6 0 3 dvbpl iprrdptp TpiÄKovra ßißXovs ovyypdipat artxtav Tpt&wv. 7
FGrHist
8
H. Schliemann,
36 f.
4 T 22 and
F 25
b
(cf.
tcoi
evroiriat tppovrloavrl re roaovrov e^yijatv pxxpio irXeiövtav e^KOvra 6
Gaede (above,
rrepl rovriav toare TOV K0.raX6yov rdiv p. 2 4 9 , n. 3 ) 16.
F 31),
Trojanische Altertümer ( 1 8 7 4 )
Einleitung p. xl, cf. R. Jebb, JUS 2 ( 1 8 8 1 ) » Strab. xin 598 ( = fr. 26 Gaede).
'The Principal Homeric Sites* in A Companion to Horner ( 1 9 6 3 ) 3 8 5 ; this masterly survey is based on his own monumental work Troy 1-4 ( 1 9 5 0 - 8 ) and gives references to Schlie¬ mann, Dorpfeld, Leaf, Page. See above, Preller, E . Schwartz, and the surprising hymn on Demetrius by Jebb, reprinted by Sandys i 155. 1
2
J
First
Crisis
in the History
vqaovs Kal iroXets dvopuxv ypappariKojv, l,a>ypd
VIII
rreveadai
of Scholarship
253
duAoao^ojv, yeojperpajv,
re KOI larpwv Kal OXXOJV
rexy-Taiv,
TTOXXOJV
povoiKwv, ot Sia
TO
oiodaKovres
a r^TTiaravro TTOAAOUS" KareoKevaaav dvSpas iXXoyipovsThe 7raiSeta of Alexandria, w i t h the qualification eyKvieXios, was thus not identical w i t h the lofty ideal o f Greek culture i n Thucydides and Isocrates, but meant hardly more than 'general education', a syllabus o f various subjects. T h a t there are seven groups o f men listed here who practised and taught them may be accidental, especially as the list ends w i t h the words 'and o f many other rexvirai'; but we ought to note that the list is headed by the ypappariKoi, and that 'grammar' remained the first of the three literary arts when the conventional sequence o f the seven liberal arts was formulated. F r o m Alexandria the exiled and penniless ypappartKoi spread their rcxyn over the islands and the cities and stimulated intellectual life—among them Aristarchus' two prominent pupils: Apollodorus fled from Alexandria probably to Pergamum, and possibly returned later o n to his native city Athens, Dionysius T h r a x moved to the island o f Rhodes, and both vigorously continued their scholarly w o r k . 1
THE
EPIGONI: PUPILS
FROM T O
ARISTARCHUS'
DIDYMUS
I T is a striking coincidence that scholarship was represented i n the same generation at different places b y Aristarchus, Crates o f Mallos, and Demetrius o f Scepsis; b u t only Aristarchus' school produced any great young scholars of distinction, Apollodorus of Athens and Dionysius T h r a x . T h e violence o f Ptolemy V I I I forced master and disciples, together w i t h many others, to leave A l e x a n d r i a ; this 'first crisis i n the history o f scholarship', as we have called i t , led not to its extinction, b u t to its dissemination and renewal i n other parts o f the Greek w o r l d and finally i n Rome. T h e only report o f this crisis is preserved i n an excerpt d r a w n by Athenaeus from the XpoviKa o f A n d r o n o f Alexandria, who seems to have quoted Menéeles of Barca, possibly a contemporary of the crisis and himself an emigrant. This report, slightly confused i n Athenaeus, needs and deserves more careful interpretation than i t has received so far. I n Pericles' Funeral Speech Thucydides ( n 4 1 . 1) glorified Athens: rr)v rrdaav rróXiv rijs 'EXÁá&os rraíSevaiv eirat, and Isocrates loved to repeat this theme i n many variations. T h e two Hellenistic historians o f the late second or early first century B . C apparently had those famous words i n m i n d when they made the even prouder claim that the Alexandrians etatv olrraiBevaavrcs, 7rávras TOVS "EXXr¡vas feat rovs ¡3apf3ápovs, only not a l l the Greeks as the Athenians had done, b u t Greeks and non-Greeks, the whole w o r l d . After a period o f decline (e/cAeiTrotícrn? 7¡8r¡ rijs éyKVKÁÍov •n-aiSeias), the passage goes on, a revival took place, paradoxically as the consequence of the tyranny of Ptolemy V I I I : éyévero oSv avavéaiois iraXw 1
2
3
4
5
2
I f this course o f events was o f considerable value to the places concerned, i t also benefited Apollodorus to have lived i n a l l the three great cultural centres of his time, the o l d one as well as the two new ones. A l l that we know for certain of the facts and dates of his career is given by an anonymous Hellenistic geographer (about 100 B . C . ) , traditionally called Scymnus since the days o f Lucas Holstein (1630) and Isaac Vossius ( 6 3 9 ) ; i n a long passage o f the proem o f Ps.-Scymnus' IlepLTjy-nats, w r i t t e n i n comic trimeters, an unnamed duAoAoyos is described, b o r n i n Athens and a p u p i l there of a great teacher, the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon (who went on a mission to Rome i n 155 and died about 151 B . C . ) , then collaborator w i t h Aristarchus i n Alexandria 'for a long time', and author of an iambic Chronicle o f the 1,040 years from the fall o f T r o y (1184/3 B . C ) to the year i n w h i c h the work was dedicated to K i n g Attalus I I Philadelphus o f Pergamum (144/3 B . C . ) . Thomas Gale i n 1675 rightiy identified this ^tAoAoyo? as Apollodorus o f Athens. I f Apollodorus 3
4
1
5
TratSeúxs árráar¡$ Kara
róv efíoopov
epyerrjv. oSros yap . . .
OVK
6
oXiyovs...
, . . IJroXepaLOV . . .
vya8evoas...
KoÁovpevov
iiroi-qae
KaK-
rrXr¡peis ras re
See above, p. 212. FGrHist 246 F 1 Andron, 270 F 9 Menekles; Athen. rv 184 B C . Isocr. or. 15 Tlepl avrdboaeots 293 ff., etc.; see above, pp. 50 f. The following quotations are parts of the fragments just referred to. J . Jüthner, 'Hellenen und Barbaren', Das Erbe der Alten, N . F . V I I I { 1 9 2 3 ) 7 and passim; it is out of the question that KOX TOVS flapfiápovs should mean in this context the Romans, as E . Schwartz, RE 1 2160. ( 1 8 9 9 ) 3 5 , and F. Jacoby, .PGri/trf ma ( 1 9 4 3 ) p. 223, are inclined to assume. About the differingfiguressee above, p. 211. 1
1
3
4
5
6
E . Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa n { 1 8 9 8 ) 670 f., Marrou see below, n. 2. See above, pp. 52 f. on Hippias the Sophist and cf. Marrou 176 f., 406 f. The important Hellenistic evidence, probably from the time of Dionysius Thrax, was not registered by F . Marx (p. 52, n. 8 ) and therefore neglected in the later literature on the artes. The larpot and Zu>ypa<pot appear also in other lists. FGrHist ( 1 9 2 9 ) 244 T 1-20, F 1 - 3 5 6 , with commentary; cf. RE 1 2 ( 1 8 9 4 ) 8 5 5 - 7 5 Y Munzel (life) and E . Schwartz (writings; reprinted in Griech. Geschichtschreiber 1957pp.253 ff.). GGM 1 196 f., 11. 1 6 - 4 8 = T 2 Jac.; Diogenes Babyl. SVF in 210 ff. Th. Gale, Historiae poeticae scriptores antiqui (1675) 4 3 ff. 1
2
1
4 3
D
254
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarchus'
Pupils
to
Didymus
belonged to Diogenes' school i n the early fifties, he was probably born about 180 B . C . As he dedicated the Chronicle to Attalus just a year after the catastrophe i n Alexandria, we can assume that this dedication was either an attempt to support a request for refuge i n Pergamum or an expression o f thanks for his reception there. N o t only was Pergamum, after Alexandria, the best place for a scholar, b u t Attalus, and his brother Eumenes before h i m , had been the greatest royal benefactors o f Apollodorus* native city, Athens. There is hardly anything to add to Ps.-Scymnus' information from other sources. The biographical tradition i n Suidas which makes A p o l lodorus a p u p i l o f Panaetius is obviously wrong, since Panaetius was his coeval and had been a member o f Diogenes' school himself. But i t is suggested by Stratocles' excerpt i n the papyrus 'Index Stoicorum', though not i n the passage about Panaetius' pupils, that the ypappariKos and the Stoic pov air[eBex > which might mean that Panaetius, having finally returned from Rome (about 135 B . C . ) and become head of the Stoic school i n Athens (about 130 B . C ) , 'welcomed h i m ' . I f A p o l lodorus added to the first three books o f his XpoviKa, which ended (like Polybius' 'Jaroplai) i n 144/3 - - > fourth book reaching down to 120/19 B . C . or even to 110/09 - *> fragments 5 6 and 219 suggest, he may well have done so i n Athens i n the last decade of his life. There is no help to be gained from the 'Chrestomathy' w h i c h listed the ypappariKol between famous painters and warriors; after the compiler had ended the catalogue o f the heads o f the Alexandrian library w i t h the name o f a military officer Cydas, he made the further remark that 'under Ptolemy I X ( 1 1 6 - 8 0 B . C . ) the grammarians Ammonius, Zenofdotus], Diocles, and Apollodorus flourished (rjKpaaav)\ I t may be that he meant the two well-known pupils o f Aristarchus, Ammonius and Apollodorus o f Athens, but i f so he made a slip w i t h his ' n i n t h ' as he had done twice before w i t h figures and names o f kings; i t may also be that he p u t together the names o f persons belonging to a later generation who are unknown to us. 1
€T0
B
B
c
c
2
a
a s
3
4
W e owe to Ps.-Scymnus not only the reliable biographical material, = Panaet. fr. 148 van Straaten; even of Polemo who belonged to the generation of Aristophanes of Byzantium it is said that he Snjieouce Kal rov 'PoSiov HavaiTtov = Panaet. fr. 7. Conjectures are quite useless; someone, writing on Panaetius, had produced wrong synchronisons. Ind. Stoic. Hercul. col. LXDC ed. A. Traversa (1952) 90 = Panaet. fr. 149. See above, p. 212. * P.Oxy. 1241, col. 11 17 ff.; on Ammonius see above, p. 216. 1
2
3
FGrHist
244 1 1
Apollodorus
of Athens
255
but also a sketch o f the contents o f the Xpovuca} (11. 2 5 - 3 2 ) and an explanation o f the uncommon use o f a metrical form ( 3 3 - 4 4 ) instead o f prose; as he was an admiring and faithful reader o f the original, from w h i c h he even transferred a whole line w i t h very slight changes (1. 2 i ~ A p o l l o d . F 5 8 . 3 ) , we can take his words as authentic. H e repeated Apollodorus' o w n argument that the comic trimeter was chosen for mnemonic purposes. I t must have been an unexpected novelty for his contemporaries that an Aristarchean scholar should strive for popularity and therefore risk w r i t i n g an immensely learned book i n a 'poetic' form intended to be an aid to the memory. Apollodorus displayed a remarkable faculty for putting a l l the proper names and figures into verse and he may have enjoyed doing i t . But his Chronicle has nothing i n common either w i t h the genuine poems o f the great scholar poets or w i t h the didactic poetry o f Aratus and his followers. As a sound and accurate versified epitome o f historical events i n chronological order, i t appealed to a wider reading public, and its greatest (but not wholly desirable) success was that i t supplanted the fundamental work o n critical chronology, the Xpovoypacplai o f Eratosthenes;. 2
3
4
Apollodorus had, of course, to base his XpoviKa on Eratosthenes' work, but he made some penetrating alterations: being no scientist, he dropped the section o n the principles o f scientific chronology, exactly as his contemporary Polybius had dropped the mathematical part o f Eratosthenes' geography. While Eratosthenes' latest date was that o f Alexander's death i n 324/3 B . C . , Apollodorus included the time after Alexander, probably u n t i l the end o f his o w n life i n about 110/09 B . C . H e accepted 5
F. Jacoby, 'Apollodors Chronik', Philologische Untersuchungen 16 ( 1 9 0 2 ) ; parts of this book (416 pp.) are still indispensable in spite of the enlarged and revised edition of the fragments 1
in FGrHist 244. T 2. 35 [terpp.vnp.6vevT0v; this iambic form is hardly to be compared with the dactylic KapveovtKat of Hcllanicus Ath. xrv 6 3 5 E = 4 FGrHist 8 5 a . 3 Suid. = T 1 ijpfe St trp&Tos T£>V KaXovpiva>v rpayiäp-ßaiv, a sentence in which only 'rpay'-iäpßaiv is a mistake. The tap-ßeiov was called by Aristotle Poet. 1449 a 2 4 pdXiara Ae«TtKov rä)v perpwv, etc. Cf. F. Jacoby, 'Apollodors Chronik' 6 0 - 7 4 o n m c 'didactic iambus' of 2
Apollodorus and his imitators; if anyone should inquire again into the metrical technique of those versifications, he will have to consider also the new Menander, see J . W. White, The Verse of Greek Comedy (1912) 58 ff., and E. W. Handley, The Dyscolos of Menander (1965) 56 ffSee above, pp. 163 ff.; cf. Jacoby, 'Apollodors Chronik' 3 9 - 5 9 on Apollodorus' method; see also E . Schwartz and H . Diels, who had initiated the research in this field by his article 'Chronologische Untersuchungen über Apollodors Chronika', Rh.M. 31 (1876) 1 ff. The metrical fragments ( 5 2 - 5 9 ) relating events after 144/3 do not betray any difference in style and technique. There is at least no cogent argument for attributing the fourth book of the XpoviKa to a clever continuator, though it is beyond our means to distinguish a perfect imitation from the original in this sort of literature, F 5 8 . 2 yiyvdjoKeis addresses the general reader as in Hermesianax fr. 7. 49 and 73 Powell, not a special person. 4
3
256
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarchus*
Pupils
to
Chronicle
Didymus
Eratosthenes' earliest date, the fall of T r o y i n 1184/3 * * C 63)» dadng H o m e r 240 years later i n 944/3 B.C. he followed Ephorus, not Eratosthenes, who had assumed an interval o f a hundred years. T h e length o f early epochs i n Greek history was calculated by yeveal, that is, generations of kings or other leading persons; and both Eratosthenes and Apollodorus had to operate w i t h i n this system. T h e trouble was that the duration o f the ysved was not precisely established, but only approximately viewed as a period o f 30 or 33^ years, the t h i r d o f a century, or even longer. A further trouble was that the dates o f b i r t h and death o f individuals were often u n k n o w n ; but the date o f the most important events and deeds i n their lives was known, and Apollodorus assumed that they usually happened at the culminating age of forty, called i n medical language the aKfirj. I t cannot yet be proved whether this term was transferred to chronography by Apollodorus himself or b y later chrono¬ graphers. Using the number 4 o , he was i n an old popular tradition, o f w h i c h the earliest literary witness is Hesiod, Op. 4 4 1 , where a m a n i n full vigour is called T€aaapaKQvraerr)s altflds, w h i c h was expressly understood by the grammarians (and w h y not by Apollodorus?) as aKpa^wv. I do not believe the immediate source o f an omnivorous reader like Apollodorus can be traced; but the lasting effect o f his experiment is still recognizable i n Suidas' biographical articles, where the puzzling w o r d yeyove nearly always refers to the date o f the Apollodorean aKp.fi ('floruit'), not that o f b i r t h . 1
B
G
F
D
u
t
m
4
5
6
Apollodorus' second innovation was that he tried t o render his dates more accurate b y basing them on the lists o f the archons. T h e archon's name, w h i c h could be more easily p u t into verse t h a n figures o f O l y m piads, h a d been used for dating i n the BtSaaKaXlai from Aristotle's time onwards, and Demetrius of Phaleron had published an extensive Apxovrcov dvaypafyi) w h i c h now not only the author of the chronicle, b u t also the reader could consult. Frequent synchronisms were added as a convenient 7
8
9
Sec above, p. 163. Aristarchus dated Homer to the time of Ionian migration, 1044/3, a^ P8. * On this and other figures see the well-documented and graceful paper of F. Boll, 'Die Lebensalter*, JV«w Jahrbikher ftir das kiassische Alterturn 31 (1913) 103. 2 ( = Kleine Schriften 1
1
1950,
s e c
30
2 2
p. 1 7 2 - 5 ) ¬
* Hesych. (Cyrill.) v. ai£i}i'os~ axpatatv, cf. Et. Gud. 42.16 Stef. with many parallels. A possible source for the choice of the number 40 may have been Aristoxenus on Pythagoras {see fr. 16 Wehrli) and Apollod. F 339. See the famous paper of E . Rohde, Ttyovc in den Biographica des Suidas', Rh.M. 3 3 s
6
( 1 8 7 8 ) 161 if. = Kleine Schriften I (1901) 1 1 4 - 8 4 .
Jacoby, 'Apollodors Chronik' 57 ff. See above, p. 8 1 , cf. pp. 132 (CaUimachus), 193 (Aristoph. Byz.). FGrHist 228 F 1-3, 1 0 ; cf. Apollod. 244 F 31 («ri KaXXiov), 3 4 (irri .itye^iWos and KaAAtdSou). 7 8 9
aKp.r]
257
o f Pythagoras w i t h
Ps.-Scymnus i n his summary of the XpoviKa enumerates 7roAeojv dXwo-fus, eKTomopovs
arpaTOtreScov (1. 26) K T A . , and
(ftvyds, arparelas,
KaraXvaei?
TvpawLbujv (1. 31). The fragments themselves are probably unrepresentative i n so far as they deal relatively little w i t h politics and history, but very much w i t h philosophy and poetry. This is, o f course, due to the mainly grammatical character o f the sources from which we derive our quotations of Apollodorus; but i t may still betray a certain predilection o f the disciple o f Diogenes and Aristarchus for literature. I f we consider only one literary example, three lines on Menander, we see that between the biographical dates the total number of his plays is given as 105: K-nfaaievs atv, 4K <8e> Aio-neiQovs iraTpos, / rrpds Totatv eKarov
Trevre ypdipas Spdpara
\
e^e'AtTre •nf.vrqKQvra KOX ovtiv eVaiv. 'ex istis tamen centum et quinque omnibus solis eum octo vicisse idem Apollodorus eodem i n libro scribit.' The figure T T O T C (others counted 109 or 108) is guaranteed for the text of the XpoviKa by the metre, while figures i n prose texts are exposed to corruption. The information o n the plays i n which Apollodorus was especially interested was certainly drawn from the oioaaKaXiai i n the revised I7iVa/«s and i n the 'Yrroddacis o f Aristophanes o f Byzantium; Apollodorus had only to cast the figures into his not inelegant trimeters. T h e iambic XpoviKa became a standard authority as continuations, imitations, and even forgeries prove. One obvious forgery was a geographical guide-book, also i n comic trimeters and under Apollodorus' name written i n the first century B.C. A m o n g the continuations one on oriental history, written i n prose at the end o f the first century B.C., was frequently quoted by Christian writers from Clement and Eusebius to Syncellus. But unfortunately for our knowledge o f i t Apollodorus' work was superseded i n Augustan times by a more practical textbook, the XpoviKa o f Castor o f Rhodes. 1
2
3
Apollodorus published two other great works and a few minor ones; there is no evidence for the dates o f their origin or publication. Even the Chronicle was the product o f a ypappariKos, as we have seen; i n these other works we find h i m concentrating entirely on the interpretation o f Greek poetry. T h e monograph Ilepl rov T&V veojv KaraXoyov was a scholarly Gell. N.A. xvn 4. 5 — F 43 with commentary; on the problematical number of the comedies see A. Korte RE xv (1931} 713 f.—As the line before Kr$totevs is unknown, it is difficult to supply the missing short syllable before AiorrelBovs; I should prefer hi to Casaubon's re. 1
2
ivi
Trimeters
help i n many cases, as for instance that o f the the tyranny o f Polycrates.
2
J
in Comic
F 3 1 3 - 3 0 , cf. T 16. FGrHist 2 5 0 ; cf. E.
Schwartz, 'Die Kbnigslisten des Eratosthenes', 93 ff. on Castor's pseudochronology. 1
814342
S
AGGW
4 0 (1894/5)
258
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarchus'
Pupils
to
Didymus
Monograph
treatment of Homeric geography, and that Ileal deaiv dealt w i t h Homeric religion. Aristarchus' intention i n his monograph IJepl rov vavoradpov had been to reconstruct the whole order o f the Greek ships on the roadstead from all the relevant passages i n the Iliadhe had already here and there i n his commentary tried to discover how the poet had located the several heroes and their men on the shore. Demetrius o f Scepsis, the great local specialist, had given a minute account o f the Trojan allies i n Asia M i n o r i n his Tpco'iKos SiaKoapos. These studies may have h a d some influence on Apollodorus; he certainly knew Demetrius w e l l . I n Apollodorus' opinion the poet o f the Catalogue o f Ships i n the second book o f the Iliad had given a description o f heroic Greece, and i t was the d u t y of the interpreter to explain a l l the names o f places and tribes and heroes to the reader. W e can be sure that he would not have spent so much labour o n his twelve books, i f he had not believed i n the Homeric authorship o f the Catalogue. As a matter o f fact, none o f the grammarians suspected i t as a passage o f 'Hesiodic character' or 'cyclic' o r i g i n ; they were content to athetize some individual lines as i n other parts o f the poem. So Apollodorus d i d not have to face the question whether there had been interpolat i o n from a later source, or whether there was a pre-Homeric tradition preserved i n the Greek Catalogue. I t was modern Homeric criticism that suggested those possibilities which are still being explored not w i t h out bitter feuds and personal invectives. T o Apollodorus the Catalogue was a genuine part o f Homer's work, and he used a l l the knowledge o f post-Homeric geography available t o h i m i n order t o identify the names recorded there. 2
3
4
5
H e again followed the lead o f Eratosthenes' genius; the descriptive— but not the scientific—parts o f Eratosthenes' Tetuypadn/ca, which began w i t h Homer, were his model and the m a i n source for his twelve books Ilepl rov r&v veaiv KaraXoyov. The relation is similar t o that which we noted between the chronological works o f the two scholars. T h e most substantial extracts from Apollodorus are preserved by Strabo, especially b
1 2
See above, p. 2 1 3 ; cf. Lehrs 221 ff. See above, pp. 249 ff. T 14 ovx d/ioAoyei rots VTTO rov Eicntilov 3
of
2
p. 168) 'the Catalogue appears . . . the oldest Greek verse we possess', is frankly condemned as 'Unfug'; it becomes, nevertheless, fashionable from time to time. T 13 ra nXeiora fierevdyKas rrapa rov 'Eparoodivovs; cf. above, pp. 165 f.
Ships
259
1
i n Books V I I - X o f his great geographical compilation —just as i n other parts ( I / I I and X I I I ) he is our principal source for Eratosthenes and Demetrius. But Strabo d i d not often attribute his extracts to Apollodorus by name so that a minute analysis o f whole chapters w i l l be necessary before the Apollodorean extracts can be distinguished from those o f other writers like Ephorus, Artemidorus, and Demetrius. W h e n Strabo d i d introduce a verbatim quotation w i t h the title o f the work, he used the 2
formula iv rots (rw) flepl
3
(rov) vecov KaraXoyov ; and we can conclude
from this that Apollodorus d i d not write a running commentary, a viropvnpa, on B 494 ff. line by line, but treated the sections o f the Catalogue more loosely, i n the style o f the iTep l i t e r a t u r e . 4
His immense learning and wide range o f vision over the epic period enabled Apollodorus to form a coherent picture o f Homer's Greece and o f the changes that took place after h i m ; his object was to determine the poet's geographical views, as Aristarchus had tried to discover the Homeric usage o f words and facts. Like Eratosthenes, he was far from i m p u t i n g to the poet any intention o f 'teaching', and w i t h both Eratosthenes and Aristarchus he ignored the Stoic assumption o f 'hidden' meanings which had led Crates astray and not only i n the field o f geography. But, as far as we can judge from our fragments, Apollodorus, as a true Aristarchean i n every respect, d i d not bother to set forth his principles i n a systematic introduction, though he may have given an occasional hint i n an excursus. For instance, i n a digression on the Odyssey, he bitterly criticized Callimachus for having identified the island o f Calypso with Tavhos, an islet near M a l t a , and the Phaeacian Scheria w i t h Corcyra. Callimachus, as a poet pretending (perarroiovpevos) t o be a ypapparucos, could not be forgiven when he sinned against the fundamental distinction between the historical places i n the Catalogue and the imaginary localities o f Odysseus' wanderings (rrapa rov egoitceaviopov rwv TOTTOJV) , a distinction accepted by Apollodorus from Eratosthenes. A n interpreter o f an epic text w i t h hundreds o f proper names was bound to explain the form and meaning o f the names themselves, not 5
6
7
See the table in FGrHist 11 Kommentar pp. 776 f. Is it too much to hope that this analysis, begun by Niese nearly a century ago and meanwhile advanced by others, will be completed one day? See B. Niese, 'Apollodors Commentar zum Schiffskatalog', Rh.M. 32 (1877) 2 6 7 - 3 0 7 ; E. Schwartz RE I 2866 ff., F. Jacoby in his commentary pp. 776 ff. Steph. Byz., less exact than Strabo in several respects, but still very valuable, said only h> r
4
6
Catalogue
2
At}p,
on the Homeric
3
4 6
7
5
26p
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarchus
1
Pupils
to
Monograph
Didymus
only their geographical significance. W e have noticed the repeated attempts o f the Greeks from epic times onwards to find the ervpa of proper names. For a long time these amounted to little more than a playing w i t h similarities o f sound; later the question was very seriously discussed i n Plato's Cratylus. T h e philosophical treatment o f etymology was continued by the Stoics, who, i n contrast to Plato, came to the conclusion that an analysis o f language could open the way to the knowledge o f things. I t may well have been under the Stoic influence o f his master, Diogenes of Babylon, that Apollodorus became the first grammarian i n Alexandria to write a monograph o n etymologies; there is, however, not the slightest evidence i n the fragments that he accepted the extravagant linguistic doctrines o f the Stoics. O n the contrary, he seems to have followed the lead given b y Aristophanes o f Byzantium who had set the example o f a more modest treatment o f ervpa i n his comprehensive Ae£eis, which were intended as an aid to the interpretation o f poetry. W e might expect that Apollodorus w o u l d have tried to find certain criteria to p u t his studies on a firmer basis. I t is not easy to recognize them clearly as long as IJepl rov vecov KaraXoyov is not completely reconstructed; but we can learn something by looking from the Catalogue to the other great work, IJepl Oeojv, i n which the etymologies o f names o f gods and places are numerous. (The fragments o f the monograph IJepl ervpoXoyiwv give no examples o f proper names, but only o f nouns.) 2
1
3
4
s
Apollodorus usually disapproved of the derivations o f local names from names o f heroes or from events o f the heroic age. A t t i c a (//. B 546 i f . ) , so he explained, is also called AKTIJ, not from the A t t i c hero AKTOXQS, but because i t stretches along the sea ( F 1 8 5 ) ; its name, that is, is taken and rrjs rov roirov (h~voea>s ( F I 88 on B 532 Brjoaa), as he asserts i n another passage. T h e question is only whether he was quite consistent i n the application o f his criteria. Have we to alter the text o f Stephanus o f Byzantium because i t lets Apollodorus ( F 192) derive the name o f the islands called 'Ex^vat or 'ExwdSes (B 625) cWo 'Exlvov pdvrecos, that is, from a r)pojs irrwwpos? O r must we blame Strabo for a careless excerpt from Apollodorus when he first reports ( i x 436) that IJdyaaai owes its 6
See above, pp. 4 f., and 61 f. Chrysippus IJepl ervpoXoytojv, SVF II 9. 13, 14 and ibid. 44. 4 2 ; cf. Diogen. Bab., SVF in 213. 5 ff. A«£is. The formation ervuoXoyla is not attested before Chrysippus. The dispute between E . Schwartz, who denied any Stoic influence, and his philostoic opponents should be settled by this suggestion. * F 222—5 books 'ErvpoXoyovp-eva or IJepl ervpoXoytwv; several of the grammatical quotations without title of a book (F 2 2 6 - 8 4 ) contain etymologies. See above, p. 201. Cf. G. Neumann's Dissertation (above, p. 259, n. 3) 16 ff. 1
2
3
t
3
6
w
0
on the Homeric
261
Gods
name to its many niryal, not to the vavrrr\yla o f the ship Argo, but i m mediately afterwards explains Acperai as the der-qpiov rdv Apyovavrcov, using here not a topographical etymology, but a mythological one o f the k i n d rejected i n other cases? We should never forget that Apollodorus was an interpreter o f early poetry, not a linguistic doctrinaire. x
2
I n discussing the Catalogue o f Ships we started from general questions of Homeric geography and ended w i t h the explanation o f local names. T u r n i n g to the twenty-four books entitled IJepl decZv* we are justified i n beginning w i t h the names o f Homeric gods and their etymologies; this seems to have been Apollodorus' o w n starting-point, as the substantial fragments o n Apollo ( F 95 ff.) show. T h e treatment o f the individual names w i l l finally lead to general statements o f his views o n Homeric religion and of his o w n religious attitude. The question whether this work of Apollodorus was influenced b y Stoic doctrines has naturally been raised again and again, and differently answered. The idea o f planning a complete monograph o n a l l the Homeric gods w i t h the stress o n the etymology o f their names may have been suggested b y certain writings of Stoic philosophers on the same subject, but that by no means implies that Apollodorus was affected b y or agreed w i t h their theories. T h e quotations generally prove that he d i d n o t ; an occasional similarity o f treatment was unavoidable and unimportant. Here again we probably come nearest to the t r u t h by adopting a middle position i n which Stoic influence is not denied, but strictly limited. 4
I f some people have been surprised that Apollodorus excluded nonGreek gods from his voluminous work, this is because they were n o t aware that this too was essentially a work on Homer. As i n the Catalogue, he used his knowledge o f post-Homeric literature i n order to explain the Homeric usage more clearly, though he could n o t altogether suppress the mistrust o f the vetvrepot, appropriate to a p u p i l o f Aristarchus. The Homeric epithets and erriKXf}aeis as well as the proper names themselves could reveal the qualities and deeds o f the gods. So Apollodorus was « Cf. notes on Call. fr. 18. 12 f. Even Jacoby, who put his conjecture into the text of F 192, seems not to have been absolutely certain of Apollodorus' consistency: 'daß in der Namenerklärung die mythologischen Ableitungen stark oder ganz (italics are mine) abgelehnt werden', Commentary on F 2
»54ff-,P- 778- 34¬ T 9—11, F 8 8 - 1 5 3 ,
cf 3 5 2 - 6 (number of books F 103). On IJepl BeCiv see the special studies of Munzel (below, p. 2 6 2 , n. 3 and p. 2 6 3 , n. 1 ) ; cf. also E . Schwartz, RE 1 2 8 7 2 , Reinhardt, Graec. theol. 8 3 ff., who reject the assumption of Stoic influence; Jacoby in his commentary on the fragments, pp. 753ff.,is very cautious. Stoic elements were acknowledged or even stressed by Barwick, Stoische Sprachlehre 61 and especially by Pohlenz, Stoa 1 182 and 11 92 with many references. Cf. above, p. 260, n. 3. 3
4
262
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarchus'
Pupils
to
Didymus
Names
anxious to derive epithets o f gods not 'from holy places', QVK and TWV
leptöv
. . . dno
TOTTOV
be r&v ifivxtKOJV evepyeiwv
7} . . .
avpßeßrjKortov
TO
trcpt
atofxa. H e seems to have applied his own criterion more consistently than i n the Catalogue of Ships at least, i f the source o f the famous passage about the Kovp-nres i n Strabo x 4 6 6 is Posidonius, not Apollodorus. Even Apollo, according to h i m , is called JijAio? not because he was born and worshipped i n the island o f JijAoy, b u t because he makes a l l things 'visible', SrjXa ( F 95. 3 2 ) . This etymology is one of the many i n Macrobius (sat. 1 17. 32) which Usener's p u p i l R . M u n z e l assigned to Apollodorus fay conjecture ; the conjecture was confirmed beyond any doubt b y the Geneva Scholia to the Iliad, and the number o f attested fragments on Apollo i n Books 13 and 14 o f ilepl 6ed>v increased considerably ( F 95~99)W h a t have been hitherto the most important fragments on A t h e n a are contained i n the discussion o f the etymology and meaning o f yXavKwrris, where Apollodorus tells us that i t is not to be connected w i t h the place rXavKWTnov on the Acropolis, as apparently i t had been by Callimachus, but that i t is derived from the yXavaaeiv o f her eyes. W e may now have a substantial addition t o these scanty remains i n t w o columns o f an anonymous papyrus conjectured b y R . Merkelbach t o be a part o f Ilepl Oetov. T h e writer strongly criticizes the use o f boXixdopos as a n epithet o f Pallas Athena i n two poems o f the vewrepot o n the ground that it is against the Homeric usage of dop, which means sword, not spear; but, he continues, she sprang (e^ave-naXro) swaying (-rraXXopevri) the spear from the head o f Zeus which Hephaestus had opened by a blow o f his axe. Everything here seems to point to Apollodorus as the author: the impressive display o f learning, the polemics against the wrong usage o f a word i n post-Homeric poetry, above a l l , the etymology, which is exactly i n his style. Merkelbach's arguments may be supplemented by another. There is a slight coincidence o f the new papyrus w i t h a passage i n Philodemus Ilepl evaeßelas about Zeus' head being split by the axe o f Hephaestus for 3
of Places
and of Gods
Explained
2153
the birth o f Pallas; and that this is derived from Apollodorus was cautiously and convincingly argued a long time ago b y R . M i i n z e l . Philodemus must have known Apollodorus' w o r k : his Ilepl evaefieias is the only source o f our knowledge of the number o f books into which i7v was divided and o f the statement that Apollodorus 'was fighting (pdxeTai) against the awoiKeiovvres*—Stoic philosophers, who were a l ways ready t o propose absurd identifications o f different gods, as for instance of Asclepius and Apollo ( F I 16). So reference to Philodemus may help us to attribute the new papyrus on Pallas Athena to its proper author. 1
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
F 3 5 3 . n and 354. 2 , 7.
* K . Reinhardt, 'Poseidonios über Ursprung und Entartung ,
Onent und Antike 6 (1928)
34 fr. * De Apollodon ilepi Be&v Ubris (Diss. Bonn 1883) 14ft. * F 3 5 3 . 11 and 3 5 4 . 2 , 7 ; cf. F 105, 147.
* Cf. Call. fr. 237. 11.
(early second century A . D . ) ed. E . Lobel. It is impossible to decide whether the two columns are part of Apollodorus' original or part of a very learned commentary in which Lltpl Sewv was excerpted. The paragraphus, the blank space, and the eKÖeui? are used not only in ¿TTop.viip.aTa, but in all sorts of prose books, see for instance Schubart, Das Buch} (1921) 8 6 . For the etymology of flaXXis äno rod -naXpa-ros ample evidence is given from the Phoronis (new fr.), Stesichorus (fr. 56 Page), Ibycus (fr. 17 P.), Euripides (fr. 1009» Snell, Supplementum ad Nauck TGF, 1964, p. 19), Philitas (fr. 23 Pow.), Callimachus (fr. 37). 6
7
8
P.Oxy. xx (1952) 2260 APF 16 (1956) 115 ff.
T w o conclusions can perhaps be stated as a result o f our observations. I n Apollodorus' geography the local names expressed the nature o f the place (TT)V TOO TOTTOV
3
4
5
Quaestiones mythographicae (Berlin 1883) 18 ff. dedicated to Usener, Moschop. Schol. in Hes. Op. p. 3 6 . 2 3 ff. Gaisf.; cf. Reinhardt, De Grace, theol. 109 f, Wilamowitz, Glaube d. Hell. 11 418. It is unlikely that Aristophanes of Byzantium anticipated the recognition of the Homeric eiSoiAonWa, see Excursus to p. 177, n. 4 . PRIMI1 (1937) <>- 9 «d. A. Vogliano, taking no account of FGrHist 244 ( 1 9 2 9 / 3 0 ) , esp. of F 275 and 240. * I am not aware of any exact parallel; Porphyry who used Apollod. /T. BeCiv frequently in his 'GpnpiKa ^nrf/para wrote rpapp.arixds airopias (Suid. s.v. at the end of the list of writings; cf. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre 71+). See above, pp. 69 f. with references. Schol. Nic. Al. 393 (of which we have no critical edition so far) refers for the gloss orponpos in the same book £ of the IliadA. 4 1 3 , to Apollod. ev-rois 'Ofi-^pov ( F 2 7 5 ) j one would expect either h> rots <7repi> "Ofirjpov or 'v rots 'Opr)p( ots) sc. 1-nr^p.aa^ (?), cf. Crates' 'Opt)piKa above, pp. 239. 1
1
1
n
l
!
6
e
iK
264
The Epigoni:from
Aristarchus'
Pupils
to
Didymus
Apollodorus*
Apollodorus followed the old Alexandrian tradition also i n making comedy his second field o f study after H o m e r ; like Aristophanes o f Byzantium and others he produced a monograph o n the Athenian courtesans, chiefly based on A t t i c comedy ( T 17 and F 2 0 8 - 1 2 ) . But his m a i n efforts were devoted to the so-called Doric comedy, the Spdfiara o f Epicharmus and the p.lp.01 o f Sophron ( T 18 and F 2 1 3 - 1 8 ) ; i n that field his predecessor, as we noticed, was a Pergamene scholar, Polemo. T h e evidence for the character o f Apollodorus' work is ambiguous. The explanation o f a Sicilian gloss is quoted from the sixth book o f Ilepl 'Emxapfiov ( F 2 1 3 ) , and there are five attestations ( F 2 1 4 - 1 8 ) of the title o f a w o r k on Sophron, ilept Uaxppovos, w h i c h was i n at least four books. This points to monographs w i t h interpretations i n the JTept'-style. O n the other hand, Porphyry says that Apollodorus had collected and arranged Epicharmus' writings i n ten books not chronologically, b u t according to subjects, as Andronicus had done w i t h Aristotle and Theophrastus; and by this he must have meant that there was an edition arranged by A p o l lodorus. Can i t be true that as well as w r i t i n g a monograph iTepi 'Emxdpfiov Apollodorus also published the complete text of the plays? O f course, Andronicus' edition o f Aristotle and Theophrastus is not undisputed, but Porphyry apparently used one under that name for his many philosophical writings. H e was also well acquainted w i t h several works of Apollodorus, and not likely to be misled b y errors o f an intermediate source. Therefore i t is difficult to discount his plain testimony, as Jacoby would like to do. A new papyrus containing a fragment o f a catalogue o f Epicharmus' plays i n iambic trimeters, o f which Apollodorus is the only candidate for authorship, provides no solution; b u t i t is at least more probable that these iambics—which remind us o f the iambic XpovtKa— introduced a text o f the plays than a monograph o n the poet. The titles of six mythical plays can be read o n the papyrus fragment, but not any 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Books
on Epicharmus
and
Sophron
265
allegorical or realistic ones; this w o u l d be i n harmony w i t h Porphyry's statement that Apollodorus had arranged Epicharmus' Spdpara accordi n g t o subjects. A n d i f Medea was counted as a genuine work o f Epicharmus, n o t o f D i n o l o c h u s , the editor presumably had to say somet h i n g about the disputed authorship o f this a n d other plays and the problem o f the Wevoemxdpp.eia, w h i c h h a d already been raised b y Aristoxenus. But a l l that may have been part o f his monograph IJepl 'Emxappiov; and this book was perhaps the source of later vTrop.vr}para o f w h i c h we have a welcome example i n the papyrus commentary on Epicharmus' 'OSuo-o-eus' avropoXos. 1
2
3
Plato was very fond o f Sophron's ptpoi* which he got to know i n Syracuse and brought to Athens; there is even an allusion i n the Republic to their division into dvopeToi (for instance ' T h e Tunnyfisher') a n d yvvaiKeioi (for instance 'The Sempstresses'). These scenes of everyday life became i n some details a model for Theocritus and Herondas, and now, i n the wake o f poets, Apollodorus tried i n his Flepl Uaxppovos t o give a grammatical explanation o f the rare Syracusan dialectal words and forms. There is no suggestion o f his having made an edition o f Sophron ; i f we can rely on Porphyry, we must say that Epicharmus' opdpara were the only text Apollodorus edited. 5
6
The historical position o f Apollodorus can now be defined. The five generations from Philitas and Zenodotus to Aristarchus formed, as we have said, a living c h a i n ; each o f the leading personalides took over the best from his master, and made a decisive step further, opening a new prospect for scholarship. Apollodorus' research d i d not lack intensity and originality, but its effect was to sum u p and t o supplement i n a grand style the creative work o f the previous generations. I t seems therefore out o f proportion to put h i m on a par w i t h Eratosthenes and Aristophanes o f Byzantium or to conjecture that i n certain cases he inspired Aristarchus, not Aristarchus h i m . Apollodorus is to be regarded as the first 7
8
1 1
See above, p. 208, n. 6. Porphyr. Vit. Plot. 2 4 =
peva eoiKaiwaa,
T 18 rd fstfiAla
TOV KtupojBt,oypdov els SeVa rop.ovs
@eopdorov els irpayuaTeias
Vie de Porphyre
(sc. Plotini)
ov Kara
pip.7]adpevos 3* AiroXXoSaipov rov A8r}vaiov Kal TOV AvZpoviKov rov
div o p.ev 'Ertlxapfiov Kal
See above, p. 249. vyjofou? eaaai ipdpB-nv etcSeSo2
oieZXe, rds oiKeias
v owTjyayev,
viroOeaeis els ravrov
nepnrarrjriKov,
o Be rd
avvayayojv.
ApiaToreXovs
Cf. Bidez,
ii8ff.
* Cf. O. Regenbogen, 'Theophrastos', RE Suppl. vn (1940) 1376. 6 0 ff.; During, Aristotle 4 1 2 ff. s Commentary p. 795 with many references. P.Oxy. xxv (1959) 2426 ed. E. Lobel; cf. B. Gentili, Gnom. 3 3 (1961) 332 ff. There is not only the iambic list of Callimachean poems introducing the text of the hymns in a few manuscripts, referred to by Lobel and published a long time before Reitzenstein by H. Hagen, Catalogus codd. Bernens. (1875) 520 = Call. 11 p. xcvni test. 2 3 , but there are other very late summaries of books in iambic trimeters, collected in Anth. Pal. vol. in ed. E. Cougny {1890) pp. 3 2 7 - 9 (see Call. 11 p. L V ) . 6
1
CGF 1 p. 149 Kaib., Dinoloch. fr. 4 = fr. 3 Olivieri. 1 p. 133 Kaib., cf. p. 9 0 ; A. Olivieri, Frammenti della Sicilia i (1946) pp. 108 ff.; cf. Aristoxen. fr. 4 5 , Wehrli, Schule 1
1
CGF
2
3
P.Oxy.
commedia Greca e del mimo nella des Aristot. 2 ( 1 9 4 5 ) .
xxv (1959) 2429.
pp. 152 ff. Kaib.; Olivieri, Frammenti n (1947) pp. 59 ff. A. Körte, RE 111 A (1927) ff. ' Plat. Rep. 451 c; cf. Duris, FGrHist 76 F 72. Theocritus ed. Gow 11 ( 1 9 5 0 ) , Commentary pp. 3 3 ff. and 265 f. on the relation of Theocr. mimic poems to Sophron, with due reserve. O. Crusius, Untersuchungen zu den Mimiamben des Herondas (1892) 1 8 7 - 9 . See above, p. 233. E. Schwartz, RE 1 2 8 7 5 ; his enthusiastic and authoritative judgement made a great impression, for instance on Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens 340. As far as our evidence goes, there is no reason to reverse the relation of Apollodorus who was after all the younger man to Aristarchus; Strab. 1 31 = Apollod. F 157c speaks strictly against i t * CGF 1
2
1100 6
7
B
266
The Epigoni: from Aristarchus' Pupils to Didymus
Various Treatises of Dionysius Thrax
267
a n d foremost o f t h e ' e p i g o n i ' , t o w e r i n g h i g h a b o v e t h e c o m p i l e r s o f t h e
voice i n t h e d e l i v e r y o f his speeches a n d so to restore his h e a l t h .
f o l l o w i n g centuries.
D i o n y s i u s ' a r r i v a l t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n east a n d west o n
T h e case o f A r i s t a r c h u s ' o t h e r m o s t d e v o t e d p u p i l , D i o n y s i u s T h r a x , is
secessio t o R h o d e s was a stroke o f g o o d
t o go t o A l e x a n d r i a , his enforced
e x t a n t — t h e y h a v e t o be r e c o n s t r u c t e d f r o m f r a g m e n t s a n d t e s t i m o n i a —
f o r t u n e , b r i n g i n g t h e best o f A l e x a n d r i a n scholarship
Téxy ) 7
t h a t goes u n d e r t h e n a m e
ypappariKrj
With
R h o d i a n soil was e x t e n d e d t o scholarship. As t h e R o m a n s d i d n o t l i k e
p a r a d o x i c a l i n one respect. N o b o o k o f a n y H e l l e n i s t i c scholar is s t i l l w i t h t h e one e x c e p t i o n o f t h e
1
counterbalance
o f D i o n y s i u s T h r a x . Y e t i n l a t e r a n t i q u i t y a n d i n recent times critics
Dionysius
to Rome
as a
to t h e e a r l i e r i n f l u e n c e o f doctrines f r o m P e r g a m u m .
was
first
2
o f all a n interpreter o f Homer. H e followed
h a v e t r i e d to d e p r i v e D i o n y s i u s o f t h e a u t h o r s h i p a n d t o assign t h e b o o k t o
A r i s t a r c h u s i n r e g a r d i n g h i m as a n A t h e n i a n ; b u t f r o m D i d y m u s ' a n d
a n a n o n y m o u s c o m p i l e r o f a l a t e r date.
A r i s t o n i c u s ' excerpts i n t h e S c h o l i a i t is e v i d e n t h o w o f t e n h e c o n t r a d i c t e d
D i o n y s i u s , l i k e A p o l l o n i u s ' R h o d i u s ' , was one o f t h e f e w scholars w h o
3
Tr]pr¡s b o r e a n a m e t h a t was b e l i e v e d t o be T h r a c i a n . H i s f o r m a t i v e years
arjpeta, a n d ypappartud his n u m e r o u s w r i t i n g s i n c l u d e d vTropvr]p.aTa ( r u n n i n g c o m m e n t a r i e s ) a n d awTaypaTixd
i n A r i s t a r c h u s ' school m u s t h a v e e n d e d i n 144/3 - - >
(treatises). A b o o k o f p o l e m i c s against Crates' H o m e r i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ,
1
w e r e natives o f A l e x a n d r i a ; he was s u r n a m e d Qpa$ because his f a t h e r B
upheaval
c
drove h i m f r o m Alexandria t o Rhodes:
w
h
e
n
t
n
e
political
w e k n o w t h a t his
his master i n d e t a i l , w h e n r e f e r r i n g t o his readings, c r i t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s . W e l e a r n f r o m Suidas t h a t besides 4
5
g r a t e f u l R h o d i a n p u p i l s c o l l e c t e d t h e means f o r his r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f
TIpoç Kpdr-nra ( S c h o l . A / 4 6 4 ) , a n d a n o t h e r llepl rroaorf]rtov A f i m ) p r o b a b l y b e l o n g to this g r o u p o f treatises. H i s MeXérat
Nestor's c u p i n silver. I f t h e elder T y r a n n i o n , w h o l a t e r d i s t i n g u i s h e d
X 9) m a y h a v e been a c o l l e c t i o n o f H o m e r i c 'Exercises' o r o f r h e t o r i c a l
h i m s e l f i n R o m e , was a m e m b e r o f the a u d i e n c e to w h i c h D i o n y s i u s lec-
'Declamations'.
t u r e d , this m u s t h a v e b e e n a b o u t 90 B . C . I t is possible also t h a t t h e
as KoxMa)
i b u n d e r o f classical scholarship i n R o m e , L . A e l i u s S t i l o , w h o
o n t h e t h r e e u s u a l accents, as T y r i c o r u m p o e t a r u m l o n g e studiosissimus'
2
3
accom-
6
s
7
T h e fact t h a t he e x p l a i n e d a gloss i n H e s i o d
(Schol. (Schol. (
a n d t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f h i m i n a passage, possibly f r o m V a r r o , 5
p a n i e d Q.. M e t e l l u s N u m i d i c u s i n t h e y e a r 100 B . C . i n t o his v o l u n t a r y
need n o t i m p l y t h a t h e w r o t e m o n o g r a p h s
exile a t R h o d e s , was decisively i n f l u e n c e d b y D i o n y s i u s ' i n s t r u c t i o n . T h e
H o m e r i c epic a n d l y r i c p o e t r y ; m o r e p r o b a b l y t h e reference i n b o t h cases
4
or commentaries
o n post-
i s l a n d o f R h o d e s h a d been a h o m e o f p h i l o s o p h y a n d r h e t o r i c f o r a l o n g
is to his l i n g u i s t i c a n d p r o s o d i e studies. H o w e v e r t h a t m a y be, these o t h e r
time. T h e Peripatetic t r a d i t i o n h a d
w r i t i n g s w e r e considerable b o t h i n q u a n t i t y a n d i n c r i t i c a l q u a l i t y a n d
flourished
Aristotle's p u p i l Eudemus, and Praxiphanes,
5
there since t h e days o f
t h o u g h a n i m m i g r a n t , was
c o u n t e d as one o f t h e f a m o u s R h o d i a n s . T h e S t o a was represented b y t h e
d o n o t deserve t o be t o t a l l y o v e r s h a d o w e d b y t h e ypappaTiKr).
i l l u s t r i o u s names o f Panaetius, a n a t i v e R h o d i a n , i n t h e second a n d o f Posidonius i n t h e first c e n t u r y B . C . Schools o f r h e t o r i c w e r e
cause célèbre o f t h e
Téxvq
10
This slim book o f no more t h a n
fifty
p r i n t e d pages i n I m m a n u e l
established
b y an A p o l l o n i u s ' R h o d i u s ' (not the poet) w h o came f r o m A l a b a n d a a b o u t 120 B . C . a n d l a t e r b y M o l o n , f r o m w h o m C i c e r o l e a r n e d t o c o n t r o l his
F. Klingner, 'Ciceros Rede für den Schauspieler Roscius', Sitz. Ber. Bayer. Akad., Phil.hist. Klasse 1953. 4 = Studien zur griechischen und römischen Literatur (1964) 548 ff. See above, p. 246. See above, p. 228. * Cohn, RE v 978 f., gives a list of the quotations with references to Ludwich and Lehrs. Cohn, RE V 977. 6 2 , is inclined to conjecture avyypappara ; but as avvraypa means a 'treatise' in the grammatical terminology (see Apollonius Dyscolus pron. p. 6 5 . 17 Schn., synt. 56. 5 Bekker-Uhlig), so does ouvrayp-ariKd in the commentaries on Aristotle, see L - S s.v. Parmeniscus, a school-fellow of Dionysius, wrote at about the same time a book of the same title, cf. C. Wendel, RE xvin (1949) 1570 ff. Possibly in/*. Würzburg 2, col. 1 1 6ff.,as restored by F. Della Corte (below, p. 2 7 0 , n. 2 ) . Schol. Procl. in Hes. Op. 57t. [Sergius] in Donat., GL iv 529. 17 = Varro, fr. 84 Goetz-Schoell p. 214. 4 ; cf. Dionys. Thr. p. 7. i Uhlig. M. Fuhrmann, Das systematische Lehrbuch ( i 9 6 0 ) 29 fr. (with bibliography), 145 fr., 152ff-,and 192 (Addenda); V. di Benedetto, 'Dionisio Trace e la tcchne a lui attributa', 1
2
3
Se airó rov irarpos T-jpov KAJJ#«ÍÍ . . . Apiarapjeov Had-n-rf/s, ypap.p,o.TiKÓ<;. Part of the text of the article is confused. For biographical dates and bibliographical references see L . Cohn, RE v ( 1 9 0 5 ) 9 7 7 - 8 3 . There is no collection of testimonia and fragments more recent than that of M. Schmidt, Philol. 7 (1852) 3 6 0 ff., esp. 369 ff.; see also below, p. 271, n. 5. See above, p. 211. Cf. Strab. xiv 655 on Rhodian philosophers and scholars, Athen. xi 489 A on Nestor's cup {A 632 ff.); cf. below, p. 273 Tyrannion. On the relation of the famous Mycenaean Dove cup to the Homeric description of Nestor's cup see H. L . Lorimer, Homer 1
Suíd. v.
Aiavvatos
ji\*£avÓ~pfvs,
1
and the Monuments 3
Suíd. v.
(1950) 328 ff.
Tvpawtaiv
BirjKovae Kal Aiowaíou
. . . ycyovcos rov
QpaKos ¿v 'Póhai , . . Biav-perTi); Be yevoptvos
. . .
h> 'Pdip.fl. . . . Cf.
7
4
1 0
ed. F . Marx (1894) p. 139, F . Leo, Geschichte der Rom. Lit. 1 (1913) 3 6 2 .
G. Funaioli, 'Lineamenli d'una storia della filología attravcrso ¡ secoli', Studi di letteratura See above, p. 135.
antica 1 ( 1 9 4 8 ) 204.
6
B
¿vi /To/Aírijíoo TOÜ peyáXov Kal irporepov (ca. 7 ° B.C.)
below, pp. 272 f. * Rhet. adHerenn.
3
1
Annali délia Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, 87-118-
Ser. H, vol. 2 7 (1958) 1 6 9 - 2 1 0 , vol. 2 8 (1959)
268
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarchus'
Pupils
to
The
Didymus
Bekker's Anecdota Graeca stands at the end o f a long series o f studies o f language from the Sophists t o the philosophers and scholars; i t summed u p i n a concise form the results o f the past and became a school-book i n the future, suffering the corruptions and alterations unavoidable i n this sort of literature. The brief and abrupt sentences i n a staccato style called forth copious explanatory notes through the centuries; indeed these socalled Scholia, collected from various Byzantine manuscripts, fill more than 3 0 0 pages i n Bekker a n d nearly 6 0 0 i n Hilgard's large critical edition. T h e lengthy Byzantine notes include some precious relics o f ancient learning, i n some o f which even the problem o f the origin o f the Techne is raised. 1
2
The Techne itself starts w i t h a definition: rpappaTiKf} earw. igm&pm TWV Trapa. Troir/rais re KOX uvyypatpevaLv ms em TO rroXi) Xtyopevaiv. ' G r a m mar is the empirical knowledge o f what is for the most part being said by poets and prose writers.' This definition is i n the best Alexandrian tradition, as everyone w i l l appreciate who has followed us on our way from the early t h i r d to the first century B . C . ; i t suits the p u p i l o f Aristarchus perfectly, a n d we hardly need the confirmation o f its genuineness b y V a r r o and Sextus Empiricus. A l l the terms o f the sentence were discussed i n the Scholia; distinguishing between a lower (piKpd) grammar confined to the knowledge o f w r i t i n g and reading and a higher one (peydX-n), they produced a formula for the latter which precisely corresponds to the practice o f the Alexandrian scholars: peydXr/v 8e ypappariKrjv Xeyovo-i TT)V KaTaytyvopevTjv rrepl rr)v epnetpiav rdv •novqT&v ; indeed we can see from 3
4
s
Cicero de or. 1 187, where the first i t e m i n a system o f ars grammatica is 'pertractatio poetarum', that this definition goes back to the first century B.C. T h e prose writers are n o t excluded i n Dionysius' introductory sentence; but he p u t them second because they had not been treated by any scholar before Aristarchus. T h e sentence immediately following the definition distinguishes six parts o f ypappariKfj. T h e first is the dvdyvojots, reading aloud w i t h 6
Ed. princ. in I. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graecavu ( 1 7 1 5 ) 2 6 - 3 4 . Dionys. Thr. Ars grammatua, ed. G. Uhlig, Gr. Gr. 1 1 ( 1 8 8 3 ) ; Scholia in Dionys. Thr. A. gr., ed. A. Hilgard, Gr. Gr. 1 3 ( 1 9 0 1 ) , both volumes reprinted 1 9 6 5 ; cf. Cohn, RE v 982 on the importance of the Scholia for the history of grammatical studies. Dionys. Thr. p. 5. 1 f. Uhl. with all the variants in manuscripts, translations, and ancient quotations; « s om. PSI1 18. 13, see below, p. 270, n. 2. * Varro fr. 107 Goetz-Schoell p. 2 2 7 , Sext. Emp. adv. math. 1 5 8 D. Thr. eV TOLS TTapayyeX1
2
3
fiaoi ¿ 7 7 0 1 'ypappariKr)
. . . iprrtipia d>s erri TO TrXeiorov T£>V . . . Xtyopeviov'
(cf. 6 3 , 72, 8 0 f.); see
also di Benedetto on the variants of the text. Tlapa.yyeXp.aTo. seems to have been the title in Sextus' copy. Schol. in Dionys. Thr. p. 114. 28 Hilg. {Prolegom. Schol. Vat.). * Rutherford 'Annotation' 9 7 - 4 5 5 dealt thoroughly with all the six parts. 5
Grammatical
Techne
and its Sections
269
attention to the correct modulation o f the voice, a very important part that involves the whole problem o f the relation o f the written letters to the spoken words. T h e other parts are: the i$^f}cm the explanation o f the poetical tropes; the exposition of obsolete words (yXwooai) and subjectmatter (luToplai); the finding o f etymologies; the setting out o f analogy, t
dvaXoylas ttcXoytcrpos; and the noblest o f all, the Kpiais troirjpdTOJv, 1
2
3
'literary criticism'. O f these six parts only the first, on reading, accents, and punctuation is elaborated i n paragraphs two to four o f the Techne, and anybody expecting an elaboration o f the rest w i l l be disappointed. The dislocation between paragraphs four and six is obvious. A short paragraph (5) is squeezed i n , mentioning pou/rojSwt as a feature o f the Homeric poems and giving its t w o popular etymologies from pdnretv and pdfiSos; i t now looks rather out o f place, b u t perhaps i t was not quite so inappropriate i n the original, given that Dionysius' m a i n interest was i n Homer and that the rhapsodes were the first 'interpreters' o f epic poems. From paragraph six onwards there is again a coherent series o f chapters right through to the end; they contain, as we should say, a simple system of technical grammar. Beginning w i t h the letters of the alphabet (oroixeZa) and their division into vowels, diphthongs, and consonants ( 6 ) , they go on to the syllables, long, short, anceps ( 7 - 1 0 ) , a n d finally t o the eight parts o f speech ( 1 1 ) , which are elaborated one after another ( 1 2 - 2 0 ) . We meet again here all our old acquaintances encountered at different stages o f our long journey from the fifth to the second century B.C. a n d now united i n an apparently happy company. 4
The members of this company are: the noun w i t h its three genders (the t h i r d bearing the Stoic name ovotTepov) a n d its five case-inflexions including the vocative; the appellative (rrpoa-nyopla) regarded as a species (eZSo?) o f the ovopa, not as a separate part o f speech; the verb w i t h its tenses; the participle, as peroxr] sharing formal and functional characteristics o f noun a n d v e r b ; the dpBpov, meaning article and relative p r o n o u n ; the pronoun, used i n place o f the n o u n ; the preposition (irpodeois), placed before other parts o f speech; the adverb (inlppripa); the ovvoeopos, n o w merely 'conjunction', limited t o the function o f connecting other parts o f speech. A glance back at all the passages, i n which we have analysed the study o f language from Protagoras to the Stoics w i l l reveal clearly what the 5
See above, pp. 202 f. and 229. See above, p. 157; di Benedetto 179. 4 by mistake translated 'textual criticism', which would be 8iop9coais and is not mentioned in the Techne. The passage is possibly quoted by Varro, see above, p. 267, n. 9. * See above, p. 5. s See especially pp. 37 f., 59 ff., 76 ff., 203, 229, 273 ff. 1
2
3
270
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarchus'
Pupils
to
The Problem
Didymus
author o f the Teckne accepted from his various predecessors, what he rejected, what he added or slightly changed. I t is unnecessary to repeat all the details, but one general fact should be emphasized: the Stoic influence is stronger i n this technical part of the grammar than i n the earlier paragraphs. This leads back to the crucial question whether Dionysius actually was the author o f the Techne, as the tradition claims, and whether its arrangement, as represented i n a l l our manuscripts, was the author's original one. I t is understandable that the purely Stoic elements i n the book, for instance the case-inflexions of the noun and the tenses o f the verb, should have raised a doubt whether its author could have been the Aristarchean Dionysius. But what i t proves is the superiority o f the Stoic systematization and the eventual acknowledgement o f this b y the Alexandrian school; the grammatical section (TJepl Tf}s ujvr}s r^xvys) of the logic of Diogenes of Babylon, who taught Apollodorus i n Athens, seems to have been particularly effective. I t cannot be regarded as a decisive objection to Dionysius' authorship. The papyri seem at first sight to provide stronger arguments. T h e few papyri from the first t o the t h i r d and fourth centuries A . D . that contain fragments of technical grammar differ to some extent from the Techne, and i t is only when we reach the fifth century that we find one containing the beginning o f the Techne itself. But these are arguments e silentio, and i t is not safe to draw conclusions from them. I t has happened so often that the missing evidence, upon which papyrologists or archaeologists had built far-reaching historical hypotheses, has suddenly come to light and shown the most subtle arguments and inferences to have been delusive. Dionysius, as we saw, produced a number o f notes and linguistic studies, and later grammarians, especially Apollonius Dyscolus, preserved 1
2
3
1
See above, p.
2
PSI1 (1912)
2 5 3 , and esp. K. Barwick, Remmius Palaemon (1922) 9 9 ff. ed. G. Vitelli, no. 1 8 ; Pack* no. 344 and 3 4 5 Dionys. Thr., no. 2 1 3 8 - 7 6 Grammar. V. di Benedetto 1 8 5 - 9 6 scrupulously re-examined the papyri, seeking thensupport for his dating of the Techne. P. Land. (inv. no.) 126 should no longer be quoted as a fifth-century codex; Kenyon's dating in the ed. princ. (1891) has been corrected by H . J . M. Milne, Catalogue of the Lit. Papyri in the Brit. Mus. (1927) p. 150, now P. Lit. Lond. 182, third/fourth century A . D . P. Wurzburg 2, second century A . D . (U. Wilcken, 'Mitteilungen aus der Wurzburger Papyrussammlung', Abh. d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl.Jg. 1933, Nr. 6 (1934) 22 ff.) has apparently escaped di Benedetto's attention; if the Dionysius col. 1 14 were D. Thrax and what follows a verbatim reference to the Techne, as F. Delia Gorte, Rio. fit. class. 6 4 (1936) 4 0 6 ff. suggests (with the help of bold supplements), the origin of the Techne could not be attributed to the later centuries of the empire. A unique papyrus-codex of the sixth century A . D . published in 1952 refuted the assumption that large marginal commentaries around the text could not have been written before the time of Photius, see Call. vol. n, p. xxvn 3 ; one small lamp found in a proto-geometric grave in 1955 put an end to the debate about the non-existence of lamps in the epic age, see J
Ausgewdhlte Schriften, p. 3 . 5.
of Authenticity
271
a few fragments of these dealing w i t h grammatical questions. The Scholia on the Techne* report that nves—it was a bad habit of grammarians to say 'some' instead o f quoting the name o f the source—rattfe had found i n these works three small items which contradicted the corresponding passages i n the Techne and had therefore concluded that this book could not have been a genuine work of the pupil of Aristarchus (pi) yv^aiov that). But the discrepancies are by no means fundamental, and Dionysius may well have changed his m i n d about minor controversial points. I f i n one work he had treated appellatives and proper names as two different parts o f speech i n the Stoic sense, he might have returned t o Aristarchus' standpoint i n the Techne, where Trpooriyopia is a subdivision (etoos) o f ovopa; i f elsewhere he had followed the Stoics i n making no distinction between apdpov and avrwwpia, he could still have listed them i n the Techne as two of the eight parts o f speech, which was apparently how Aristarchus had treated them. I n the t h i r d instance, the definition o f the verb quoted by Apollonius Dyscolus from some book of Dionysius, the wording differs from that i n the Techne, but the meaning (p-fjpa as Karrjyopr)pa, that is 'predicate') is compatible w i d i i t . 2
3
These variants were picked out from the Scholia i n 1822 shortly after Bekker's publication o f them by K . W . Gottling, who as a young professor i n the University o f Jena was one of Goethe's advisers i n classics; he tried w i t h great eloquence to persuade his readers that the so-called Ars grammatica o f Dionysius was a Byzantine compilation. The controversy thus provoked was silenced i n favour of Dionysius by M o r i t z Schmidt, the strange and learned editor of Didymus' fragments and of Hesychius i n five volumes, and by U h l i g , the editor o f the Techne. I n fact, classical scholars and linguists of the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries hardly recognized the existence o f a problem, u n t i l i n 1958 d i Benedetto brought i t into the foreground again. But we have already considered his main points without finding i n them any completely decisive objection to Dionysius* authorship. I f he d i d not write the Techne about 100 B.C., the part played by scholars i n the systematization of grammar a century later 4
5
6
Schol. Dionys. Thr. pp. 124. 7-14 and 161. 2 - 8 Hilg. (Prolegom. Schol. Vat.), Apolion. Dysc. vol. in Fragm. ed. R. Schneider (1910) 71. 27 ff. Compare for instance the self-contradiction of the grammarian Philoxenus in Et. Or., s.v. fiovAos (C. Wendel, RExx, 1941, col. 200. 15). See above, p. 244. Theodos. Alex. Grammatica ed. C. G. Goettling ( 1 8 2 2 ) , praef. pp. v ff. M. Schmidt, 'Dionys der Thraker', Philol. 8 (1853) 231 ff., 510ff.;pp. 231 f. a bibliography of the controversy. Only a small selection of references is given: Steinthal, Wilamowitz, Rutherford, G. Murray, Robbins, Barwick, Pohlenz, Marrou, Schwyzer. 1
1
1
4
s
6
272
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarckus'
Pupils
to
Didymus
Tyrannion,
must have been greater than we believed but this is not a very plausible supposition, because our tradition offers no evidence for i t . T h e arrangement of the Techne i n our manuscripts, however, cannot be original, as we noticed when we analysed the sequence o f the paragraphs. We cannot guess what happened; something seems t o have been lost after paragraph four, and perhaps a meddlesome redactor tried to combine as much o f the original as he could still get hold of. W e must hope that a friendly papyrus w i l l disclose the fata libelli one day. But even i n its damaged condition the structure o f the Techne is not unlike that o f the typical textbooks (tloaywyal) of the Hellenistic age; and the comparative analysis o f them recently undertaken is very welcome for our purpose. 2
I f I am right, technical grammar is the latest achievement o f Hellenistic scholarship. I t would have come much earlier, i f Aristotle h a d been the father o f philology, as many believe he was; but the scholar poets who actually created i t turned to the eppyveia rwv TrotrjTtüv and regarded the study o f language as no more than the handmaid o f textual criticism and interpretation. Very late, and under the influence o f Stoic doctrines, an Alexandrian scholar constructed from observation (epTreipia) o f the language o f poets a n d prose writers a 'system o f ypappxiriKif that is a Texvrj. The lateness o f its appearance, often regarded w i t h surprise, is i n harmony w i t h the line o f development we have traced from the t h i r d to the first century B . C . W i t h Dionysius T h r a x and his school i n Rhodes we have entered the first century B . C . The name of Didymus i n Augustus' reign w i l l mark the terminus o f our wanderings through the Hellenistic age. B u t between the two, there is at least a triad o f scholars w h i c h has a right t o be briefly mentioned. T w o came from Asia M i n o r , T y r a n n i o n from Amisus i n Pontus, and Asclepiades from M y r l e a i n Bithynia. T y r a n n i o n , having been a member of Dionysius' school, returned to his native city as a teacher; made prisoner d u r i n g the second M i t h r i d a t i c war he was taken to I t a l y i n 71 B . c . and lived i n Rome from about 67 B . C . onwards. Like his fellow captive, the poet Parthenius, he found great patrons and friends: Caesar, Cicero, 3
4
5
Asclepiades,
Philoxenus
Atticus. I n Suidas' article the titles o f his books are hopelessly mixed up w i t h those o f a younger T y r a n n i o n ; b u t we can distinguish at least two groups, one o n Homeric subjects a n d one o n problems o f technical grammar. His object was to improve on his teacher's Homeric and grammatical writings. Asclepiades may have spent some o f his early years i n Alexandria, though this is doubtful, b u t he certainly went to Rome and even to Spain. His interests were the same as Tyrannion's; b u t there is no evidence that he was a p u p i l o f Dionysius, and his Homeric monographs, i n which, like Dionysius, he reinterpreted Nestor's cup (A 352 ff.) and the passage on the Pleiads, contained polemics against the Alexandrians as well as against the Pergamenes. Asclepiades' collection o f biographies IJepl ypappaTiKcav was perhaps the source o f the story about Peisistratus i n Cicero de oratore. His systematic treatise ITepi ypappariKijs and Tyrannion's definition o f ypappariK-rj* both intentionally differed from Dionysius' Techne, a fact which shows how controversial this field had become. 1
2
3
A very peculiar a n d unexpected task awaited T y r a n n i o n i n Rome, that o f dealing w i t h Theophrastus' library, which included a substantial part o f Aristotle's manuscripts. Strabo, who prided himself o n having attended Tyrannion's lectures i n Rome (some time after 4 4 B . C . , perhaps about 3 0 B . C . ) , gives a rather unsatisfactory report o f the fortunes o f this unique Peripatetic library. I t was transferred from Athens to Rome by Sulla i n 8 4 B . C . , b u t apparendy i n disorder a n d neglect. T y r a n n i o n , duAapicrTOTeAi?? OJV, 'had a hand i n dealing' {oiex^ipiaaro) w i t h the library, 'having made friends w i t h the librarian' (depoTrevaas TOV irrl rrjs ßtßXio8-rjK7)s). Plutarch, i n his life o f Sulla, is hardly more precise: AeycTcu , . . evo-Kevaoaodai ra TTOXXOL, 'he is said to have put ready most things', but he adds the information that from T y r a n n i o n (mrp* avrov) the work o f final arrangement and publication was passed on to a specialist, the Peripatetic philosopher Andronicus o f Rhodes. The t h i r d o f these scholars, Philoxenus, was born i n Alexandria and came from there to Rome. T h e Alexandrian school h a d lived o n i n a modest way after the great 'secessio'; Aristarchus' p u p i l A m m o n i u s 5
6
7
8
G. Wentzel, RE u (1896) 1628 ff.; B. A. Müller, De Asclepiade Myrleano, Diss. Leipzig ; A. Adler, 'Die Kommentare des Asklepiades v. M.*, Herrn. 4 9 (1914) 3 9 ff. See p. 6, n. 3. See above, pp. 158 and 162. Sext. Emp. adv. math. 1 72 f. Strab. xin 6 0 8 f.; Plut. Vita Sullae 26. On Aristotle's library see above, p. 6 7 . All the relevant evidence is collected and commented on by Düring, Aristotle 337 f. and 412 ff. Cf. above, p. 264, on Porphyry's testimony. C. Wendel, RExx. (1941) 194ff.;R. Reitzenstein, Geschichte dergriech. Etymologika (1897) t8off.,338ff.is still important. On Ammonius see above, pp. 2 1 6 and 2 5 4 ; OGI 172 'Ovdoavopos lepcvs - • • rtraypivos (eiri TT)S eV Ä\X€$ai>opeia fteydhr/s ßißXioß^Kns. 1
1 a
cap.
See di Benedetto 118. See Fuhrmann, Das systematische
116. J On iprrtipio.
Lehrbuch {1960);
cf. D. Fehling, Gnom,
34 (1962) 113
ff.,
and riyvr) see above, pp. 57 f., 6 4 f., 75. * See above, p. 2 6 6 , n. 3 ; cf. C. Wendel, RE v n A (1948) 1 8 1 1 - 1 9 . Testimonia with interpretations and many references in GRE Prolegomena pp. xv f. no. 2 6 ; ibid, p, xvii no. 27 Asclepiades, pp. xx f. no. 39 Philoxenus. » Cf. 'A Fragment of Parthenios' Arete', CI, Qu. 3 7 (1943) 3 0 f. = Ausgewählte Schrißen ( 1 9 6 0 ) 144.
273
'903 1
3
4
3
6
7
8
814312
T
274
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarckus'
Pupils
to
Didymus
Didymus
was its head i n the second h a l f o f the second century B.C., and an inscript i o n gives us the name o f a librarian appointed b y Ptolemy I X at about ioo B.C. Varro's relation to Philoxenus makes i t fairly certain that he belonged t o the first half o f the first century B.C. H e wrote o n Homeric subjects, b u t these are far surpassed by the variety and originality o f his linguistic studies. A m o n g his treatises o n dialects was one new feature: ilepl ríjs 'Pojuaioiv SiaAeVrou. But clearly he regarded L a t i n as a species o f Greek dialect, a n d he d i d not initiate a comparative study o f two different languages, as i t is sometimes said. H i s technical grammar centred o n the verbs, especially the pf]p.ara povovvXXafia, from which he derived other forms o f verbs and even o f nouns. T h e monosyllables as the apxat, the prototypes, h a d a particular value, he believed, for the recognition of the ervpa and were also the criteria for the correct use o f the Greek language (iXÁr¡viapós). These are old problems, already met i n a series o f philosophical debates ranging from Plato's Cratylus to the Stoics, but the emphasis has shifted. T h e peculiar merit o f this generation was to keep discussion going among the Greek scholars and at the same time to strengthen Rome's philhellenism i n this field. I t is only a modern legend, however frequently retold, that the Romans brought destruction upon Greek science and scholarship. But there was, as we have seen, a general inner decline o f the Greek spirit, quite natural i n the w o r l d o f rival small kingdoms and cities and o f the decaying Ptolemaic régime. Scholarship gained new life i n Rome, a n d even i n Egypt the growing interest o f Caesar, M a r k Antony, and Augustus, and the lively exchange between Alexandria and R o m e had an encouraging effect o n scholars. 1
2
3
4
5
I t is uncertain whether Didymus, born and grown u p i n Alexandria, ever settled down i n R o m e ; Alexandria, where the libraries were b u t slightly damaged, is more likely to have been the scene o f all his amazing feats o f learning. I n spite o f them—or perhaps because o f them—his reputation has never been very high. T h e fellows o f the Museum, ' GRF 4 4 3 - 6 ; the Tyrannion who treated the same subject was the younger one after Philoxenus. a
See above, pp. 6 0 ff., on the ap%a.L
Cf. above, p. 246. This will be the subject of another volume, which will also deal with Didymus' (younger) contemporaries Tryphon, Theon, etc., in connexion with scholars of the following generation. * Strab. xrv 674 f. Suid. v. AÍSupos. L. Cohn, REv (1905) 4 4 5 ff. Didymi . . . Fragmenta coll. M. Schmidt ( 1 8 5 4 , repr. 1 9 6 4 ) ; on the Didymus-fragments in the Scholia on Homer sorted out by A. Ludwich, Aristarcos horn. Textkritik and on Van der Valk, Researches see above, p. 214, n. 1. Research was very much stimulated by the publication of the Berlin papyrus At.ovu.ov tltpi Arjpoodévovs (see above, p. 2 1 2 , n. 7 and p. 2 1 8 , n. j on Leo's review); bibliography in Pack no. 339 with references to other papyri containing short quotations of Didymus. See also M. Lossau, 'Untersuchungen zur anuken Demosthenesexegese', Palingenesia n (1964) passim. 3
s
2
Compiler
of Earlier
Commentaries
275 1
inclined to mockery i n the golden days o f the earlier Ptolemies, but not i n the times o f disturbance, seem to have recovered their sense o f h u m o u r ; at any rate we find them once again coining malicious nicknames. T h e title Xa\K€VT€pos, ' o f brazen guts', stuck to Didymus for ever; ^XtoXd6as characterized h i m as one who had produced so many books that he could not remember what he had written. The fantastic figure o f 3,500 or 4,000 books is probably derived from the same source; i t was known, like the name fSifiXtoXddas, i n the first century A . D . 2
W h a t was the driving force behind Didymus' productivity, w h i c h obviously differed from that o f the other Hellenistic scholars? Before we answer this question, we must t r y t o state the verifiable facts o f his life and work. T h e dates of his lifetime and the age he reached are not precisely known, as Suidas puts his di
4
1
5
See above, p. 170. * Quintil. inst. 1 8. 2 0 ; Demetr. Troezen. in Athen. rv 139 c; cf. Sen. tp. 8 8 . 3 7 . FGrHist 275 T 1, cf. T 13 {ca. 50 B . C . - A . D . 2 3 j a c o b y ) . Cf. E . Rohde, Kleine Sckrifien 1 177. i, who understands em Avraiviov as the year 4 3 ; if Didymusflourishedthen, he was born in 8 3 . The section in Wilamowitz, Einleitung in die Tragbdie 1 5 7 - 6 8 , on Didymus is still very valuable, as it covers a wide field, not only tragedy. See above, pp. 215 ff.; also the text of the Schol. r 126 and A 522 is quoted. 1
3
4
3
276
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarchus
Pupils
1
to
Didymus
Commentaries
Aristarchus (F 126), or the agreement of Aristarchus w i t h 'nearly a l l the other editions' [A 5 2 2 ) , and he noted their disagreement, for instance at K 306, where the vulgate text of our manuscripts reads ot Kev dptarevojai: OVTOJS Aplorapxps "ot KCV dpioroi HOJOC"' o oe Zrp/oooTos * avrovs ot tpopeOVGLV dpvpova iTr/Acicova". ApioTo
1
3
Like his predecessors i n Alexandria, Didymus dedicated his most strenuous labours, after his books on Homer, to A t t i c comedy, gathering various readings and explanations o f the comic poets, especially Aristophanes, from the earlier editions, commentaries, and monographs. His most valuable contribution was i n the collection o f a vast amount o f literary, historical, biographical, and prosopographkal m a t e r i a l ; for this non-linguistic matter had been inadequately treated by Aristarchus. There is no evidence that he made a new recension of the text. Although his name is quoted sixty-seven times i n the Scholia o f Aristophanes, the usual expression ev vTropvf]paoL is not added. So i t is only a conjecture that he chose to publish his material i n the form o f vTropvfjpara, b u t an almost certain conjecture, as i t is hardly imaginable that the quotations could have come from a series of monographs. Aristophanes of Byzantium had made the striking emendation AXKCLIOS for Axaios ( A r . Thesm. 162) i n his fundamental recension o f the t e x t ; Didymus, however, tried to defend the manuscript tradition by arguments w h i c h were justly called 'silly' (XeXf)pT)Tai) by a later commentator i n our Scholia. This example is characteristic o f Didymus* lack o f common sense—and also o f the conservative narrow-mindedness o f compilers i n general. Didymus' commentaries o n Homer, Pindar, and the tragedians have the same limitations; b u t i t would be very unfair to dwell o n these and 4
5
6
7
8
9
3 4
5
6 7
8
9
2
Historians,
Orators
277
let them obscure his genuine merits. For the exposition o f Pindar's Epinicia, as w i t h Aristophanes' comedies, he made excerpts from earlier comments, but he also scanned the historians, especially those on Sicily, and even the antiquarian Polemo, and thus supplied what Aristarchus had left unexplained. Didymus' vTropvrjpara included the Paeans and the Hymns and probably many more o f the seventeen books into which Aristophanes o f Byzantium had divided the Pindaric poems. O f his vTTopvripa BaKxvXlSov €7TLVLKOJV only the title survives. T h e classification o f the various genres, w i t h all its subdivision and definition was the subject of his monograph 77ept XvpiKajv -noi-nTUiv. 1
2
3
4
We cannot be certain whether Didymus wrote on Aeschylus. His favourite tragedian was Sophocles, and an analysis o f the exceptionally learned Scholia on Sophocles' Oedipus Coloneus can give some idea o f his vTropvrjpa,, even i f the wording is hardly his own. His name is quoted three times (Schol. OC 155, 237, 763), and the references to the earlier vTtopvrjpaTiadpevoL (Schol. OC 388, 3 9 0 , 681) are i n his style, though he probably added to them something o f his o w n on Attic antiquities, mythography, and history. W h i l e he collected facts and judgements favourable to Sophocles, i n his commentaries o n plays o f Euripides he combined the critical voices of the past w i t h his o w n criticism. His name occurs eighteen times i n the Scholia on six plays, b u t we cannot yet say how many plays altogether he commented on. The 8idxf>opa dvriypa<pa cited i n the subscription o f the Scholia on Medea included a copy o f Didymus from which extracts were made. These dvriypa<pa were, o f course, vrropvrjpaTa; no clear reference has yet been found to an CKBOOIS or 8iopda>ais by Didymus o f any lyric or dramatic poet. His work stopped at the point beyond which he had no predecessors to draw on. So he had to confine himself mainly to the exegesis o f the poets. W i t h the possible exception of the great historians, the only prose writers on w h o m there were commentaries at his disposal for excerpting and compiling were the orators, especially Demosthenes. This is strange, 5
6
7
8
' See Irigoin, Histoire du texte de Pindare 6 7 - 7 5 . See above, p. 183. See above, p. 222. W. Schmid, Gesch. d. gtiech. Lit. 11 (1934) 3 0 5 , is much too confident in his arguing; by a slip of the pen, a commentary on Aeschylus is attributed by him to Aristophanes of Byzantium. Scholia in Sophoclis Oedipum Cotoneum, ret. V . de Marco ( 1 9 5 2 ) ; in praef. pp. xxii f. the exaggerations of J . Richter, W.St. 33 (1911) 3 7 ff., are reduced to their proper limits. See Elsperger, 'Antike Kritik gegen Euripides', Philol. Suppl. xt 1 (1908) 108 ff., 114 ff. and Index p. 167.—Cf. Eur. Hipp. ed. W. S. Barrett (1964) p. 4 8 . G. Zuntz, An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides (1965) 253 f., believes in an edition of 'the text which Didymus issued for those students of his voluminous commentaries who cared to have the wording preferred by him at their elbows*. • See above, pp. 224 f. 1
C. Wendel, 'Mythographie', RE xvi (1935) 1 3 5 8 - 6 1 . See above, pp. 175 ffl See above, pp. 159 ff. and 224. Cf. P. Boudreaux, Le lexte d"'Arislophane 9 1 - 1 3 7 on Didymus. Ammonius' KcaiiuiSovfievoi were a convenient source, not yet at the disposal of Aristarchus. See above, p. 224. Athen. I I 6 7 D Ai&vftos 5* i^ryyovfitvos TO ian&tiw (Aristoph. PI. 720) must not mean a commentary on the Phitos, as is generally supposed; cf. above on ef •qyetoBai pp. 222 f. See above, p. 189. A. Roemer not only did this, but made Didymus the scapegoat for everything which he regarded as mistaken in the Scholia; cf. above, p. 233, n. 1. 1
on Poets,
4
5
6
7
3
278
The Epigoni:from
Aristarchus
Pupils
1
to
Didymus
Preservation
seeing that they had traditionally been studied i n the schools o f rhetoric, and not b y the ypappartKoL Y e t some titles a n d some fragments o f Didymus' comments o n the A t t i c orators' were k n o w n even before the great Berlin papyrus gave us a substantial part o f the original o f áiSvpov riepl Ar¡poa6évovs. I n this monograph, composed o f irregular lemmata from Philippica r x - x i i followed b y explanatory notes, Didymus often refers to evtoi or tatis or oí vTropvypmLoavres w i t h w h o m he d i d , or d i d not agree. T h e ITivaKcs o f Callimachus had contained a section o n the orators, and he had also raised various questions o f authorship; later, i n the time o f Aristophanes o f Byzantium selective lists o f the foremost orators had been arranged. Didymus' references reveal the important fact that, besides these, there were exegetical writings o n Demosthenes i n existence before his time; careful investigations have shown i t to be likely that they belonged t o the late second o r the early first century B . C a n d treated questions o f chronology, history, and language. So, just i n this one branch o f prose literature, he had ample material t o exploit. 2
3
4
5
6
Otherwise he could draw only o n the interpreters o f poetry. Thus his lexical writings are best represented b y his A¿£is KcopiKf] and his Aé£ts rpayiKf]. I n the long series o f glossographical, lexicographical, and onomatological collections the A4£ets o f Aristophanes of Byzantium had been the highlights, ranging over wide fields o f literature. Didymus, i n making his excerpts from this material a n d from exegetical works, confined himself to the usage o f the comic and tragic poets. But his work on the language o f the tragedians amounted t o at least twenty-eight books, o f w h i c h the arrangement is still unknown ; i t must have been an immense storehouse i n w h i c h the treasures o f earlier research were piled u p , waiting for the future. A few titles a n d fragments o f other specialized lexical and grammatical writings are ascribed to D i d y m u s ; b u t i n some of these cases the reference may be to younger grammarians o f the same name. 7
8
9
of the Scholarly
Heritage
279
1
There is finally a group o f monographs. T h a t on the classification o f the lyric poets has already been mentioned, and we shall refer to only two others here. Flepl 7rapoi/uo> augmented the collection o f proverbs compiled b y Aristophanes o f Byzantium; i t owed most o f its material to Attic comedy. A miscellaneous work, called Hvp-jroataKa (or ZvppeiKTa), was an accumulation o f what had not found a place elsewhere; but even here there were some trifles of genuine learning on Homer, Sappho, and Anacreon. 2
The scholar poets and their successors i n the t h i r d and second centuries B . C . h a d been moved b y their love o f letters and b y their own work as writers to preserve the literary heritage o f the epic, Ionic, and A t t i c ages; they firmly believed i n its eternal greatness. Didymus i n his t u r n was moved by the love o f learning t o preserve the scholarly heritage o f the Hellenistic age; he had a sincere admiration for the greatness o f scholars and a firm belief i n their authority, although he was not totally devoid o f critical judgement. H e also knew that editions, commentaries, and monographs ought not to be treated as sacrosanct monuments o f literature. Their substance had to be preserved, not their f o r m ; the careful compilation o f intelligendy chosen excerpts gave them the best chance o f survival i n a declining civilization that wished for short cuts t o knowledge. 3
We earlier postponed the answer to the question whether the driving force behind Didymus' fantastic activity can be recognized; the answer, now that we have found i t , defines his relation to the whole o f Hellenistic scholarship and his historical position at the end o f the age. W e can say w i t h some confidence that Didymus was enabled to become the most efficient servant o f an ancient intellectual community, because a decent order h a d been re-established i n the whole Mediterranean world b y Augustus' peace.
10
Didym. fragm. pp. 3 1 0 - 1 7 Schm. See above, p. 212, n. 7 ; the characteristic form of ílcpl Avp-oadtvovs was recognized by F. Leo in his often quoted review of the editio princeps. See above, pp. 128 ff. * See above, p. 206. Lossau, Palingenesia 11 (1964) 6 6ff.'Die frühalexandrinische Demosthenesexegese (vor Didymos)'; on ovyypafip.a, {móp.trnp.a, etc., see p. 213. The usual assumption that his studies of the orators were more original than the other ones (Cohn RE v 458. 3 5ff.)has not been confirmed. Didym. fragm. pp. 1 5 - I H Schm. Hesychius in the dedicatory episde of his lexicon speaks of 'alphabetical order' («ara oTotxtiov), but Harpocrat. s.v. jijpoAoi^av (Didym. p. 84 Schm. fr. 1) and Macrob. Sat. v 18. 9, 11 f. are hardly reconcilable with this statement. ' Didym. fragm.f>p. 1 5 - 2 7 and 335~55 Schm. Cohn, R E v 465 f. and 471 f.
1 2
1
2
1
s
6
7
1
1 0
RE
Didym. fragm. pp. 3 5 6 - 4 0 0 Schm. See O. Crusius, Analecta adparoemiograpkos x v i i i (1949) 1747 ff.
1
See above, pp. 87 f., cf. p. 3 .
Graecos (1883) 4 8ff.,9 2ff.and
K. Rupprecht,
Excursuses
EXCURSUSES Excursus to p. 37
28t
rejects Hermeias' own explanation of tcvpia as 'literal' i n contrast to 'figurative' and imposes a different meaning upon i t : 'words i n common usage', 'current words' i n contrast to poetical, artistic, obsolete, ornamental words. The whole article is based on the same writer's book Die Mimesis in der Antike (Bern 1954). I f the foundations laid i n the book on plp-nats are not solid enough, as I am convinced they are not (see also W . J . Verdenius, Mnemosyne ser. rv, vol. 10 [ 9 5 7 ] 2 5 4 - 8 and H . Herter, DL% 1959, 4 0 2 ff.), almost everything breaks down that is said i n this article about the beginnings of Greek grammar. [Addendum. D . Fehling, 'Zwei Untersuchungen zur griech. Sprachphilosophie' 1. 'Protagoras und die op&oeireta', Rh.M. 108 ( 1 9 6 5 ) 2 1 2 - 1 7 , came at least partly to similar conclusions. 2. '0vats und Beats' 2 1 8 - 2 9 * can just refer to his polemics against oversimplifications i n late ancient and modern times without taking sides. Cf. p. 202, n. 6.] J
Plat. Pkaedr. 267 c ( = Vors. So A 26 = Art. script, B H I 4 Raderm.) Tlpwrayopeia Se . . . OVK pevTOl Totaur' arret ,•—opBoeiretd ye TIS . . • Kcd aAAa rroAAa
Kal KaXd. This probably was Protagoras' own expression, but certainly not the dtle of a book, as rts shows. O n Democritus see above, p. 42 . For the later use of the term i n rhetorical writings see Radermacher, ad loc. Themistius, or. 2 3 P- 350- 9 Dind., tried to make i t clearer by adding Kal opBopprjpoovvn—. I n T
Plat. Crat. 391 B ( = Vors. 8 0 A 2 4 = Art. script, B H I 9 ) Socrates says 8i8d£ai ae rr)v opBorora irept TWV TOIOVTWV ('about such questions of language') rjv
epa&ev irapd IIpwTayopov. Hermogenes replies that i t would be absurd to accept single doctrines, i f one rejects the ' T r u t h ' of Protagoras entirely: el TT)V AX-rjdeiav TT)V IIpojTayopov oXws OVK dirooexopai. So Protagoras possibly treated such problems i n this book. But one should not take rr/v opBorrpra rrepl TU>V TOIOVTWV simply as rrepl ovoudroiv opBoTOTa (as Diels-Kranz seem to d o ; for similar misinterpretations of TWV TOIOVTWV = TOVTWV in Aristode see M . Pohlenz, Herm. 8 4 [ 1 9 5 6 ] 6 i ) and assume that this was the Protagorean expression. As far as we have any evidence, i t is more characteristic of the so-called Heraclitean Cratylus, whom Plato introduced as the principal person of his dialogue {Cratyl. 383 A = Vors. 6 5 A 5 KpaTvXos (pr/alv o8e . . . ovoparos opBorrjTa etvat
eVaoTw TWV ovrwv vaei Tretf>vKvtav KTX. ; cf. 3 9 7 A ) , and again i n a different way of Prodicus (see p. 4 0 ) ; we should also hesitate to attribute the 'etymological' arguments for the 'correctness' of Homeric names i n the discussion between Socrates and Hermogenes (Cratyl. 391 A - 3 9 3 B ) to Protagoras, as they are connected with the question of qSvois and vopos (see above Cratyl. 3 8 3 A ) ; see p. 3 9 , n. 3 and p . 5 3 . Hermeias (fifth century A . O . ) i n Plat. Phaedr. 267 C D p. 239. 14 Couvreur m Art. script, B H I 5 explained opBoerreia as KvptoXegta; this neoplatonic explanation is not supported by any other tradition, and there is no reason for accepting it, especially when we compare his explanations of Polus' and Licymnius' 'doctrines' which immediately precede that of Protagoras. For the obvious mistakes see Radermacher, Art. script, B xrv 10 and B X V I 2 : Hermeias ascribed the distinction of Kvpia, hrlBeTa, etc., to Licymnius whom he called the teacher instead of the pupil of Polus, and he went on to attribute to Protagoras, who belongs to the older generation, the precept to use the Kvpia, not the other species of ovopara. Even Wilamowitz seems to have been misled by Hermeias in his otherwise important note to Eur. Here. F. 5 6 opdws aUXos, when he says that 'Protagoras by opBoerreia meant TO TOTS Kvpiois ovopaaiv xp7}odat?. H . Koller, 'Die Anfange der griechischen Grammatik', Glotta 3 7 ( 1 9 5 8 ) 5 - 4 0 , reconstructs a theory of Protagoras' SpBoeireta on the basis of KvptoXegla, but he
:
Excursus to p. 46 Plut. Qu. conviv. V I I I O p. 715 E Kal TOV Alo~xyXov laropovai ra? TpaywSlas epirtvovra iroteiv, Kal ovx, ws Topylas ehrev, ev TWV opapdrwv OVTOV "pearov (peyiarov cod.: em. Reiske) Äpews" etvat, TOVS "EITT* 4TTI @r]ßas, aAAa -rrdvra
Aiovvaov (Aesch. trag. ed. Wilamowitz 1914, p. 7 8 ; cf. ibid. pp. 14 f. test. 4 3 ) . These polemics against Gorgias stressing the point that all the plays of Aeschylus are 'full of Dionysus' are derived from a Peripatetic source, probably Chamaeleo IJepl Alax^Xov, see fr. 4 0 a and b, F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 9 (1957) 61 and commentary 8 5 f. The first to notice the identity of
the quotation from Gorgias i n Plutarch with the wording i n the Frogs is said to have been T h . Stanley (who edited Aeschylus i n 1 6 6 3 ) ; so Van Leeuwen in his commentary ( 1 8 9 6 ) to Aristoph. Ran. loc. cit., but I was unable to verify this statement i n one of Stanley's editions.—Another reference which is so far missing should be added to our collections of Gorgias' fragments: Philodem. Herculan. Volum. coll. altera ( 1 8 7 3 ) T . v i n , p. 15 (Pap. no. 1578) roil Alo^vXov S[ . . . ] !äpea>$ eXeye. Its relation to Aristoph. Ran. 1021 was recognized by I . Kemke, Philod. demus. ( 1 8 8 4 ) i n fr. 16, p. 27 ; T h . Gomperz, Z Philodems Büchern von der Musik (Wien 1885) 15, also referred i t to Gorgias and proposed supplements; independendy, a similar supplement was proposed by E. Scheel, u
De Gorgianae disciplinae vestigiis (Diss. Rostock 1890) 2 5 . 1.
Excursus to p. 60 Theo Smyrn., Expositio rerum mathem. ed. E. Hiller
(1878) 49
ff. (Latin transla-
tion in Chalcid. Comment, in Plat. Tim. c. 4 4 , ed. J . H . Waszink, Plato Latinus rv, Leiden 1962, p. 9 2 ) ; Erich Frank, Plato und die sogenannten Pythagoreer ( 1 9 2 3 )
167 ff., believed he had discovered a pre-Platonic atomistic system of the 'music' i n this passage and gave a detailed interpretation of some Democritean fragments; but he has not convinced me either that Adrastus is dependent on
282
Excursuses
an early atomist source or that one is able to get so m u c h out of the scanty titles and quotadons, listed by Diels under the heading Movoucd (above, p. 42). T h e r e is nothing beyond the ordinary Platonic-Peripatetic tradition to be found in Adrastus' few sentences. H . Koller, 'Stoicheion', Glotta 34 (1955) 161 if., accepted Frank's dating of the Adrastus-passage in T h e o Smyrn., but instead of an atomist source he invented a pre-Platonic musical system in which oT-oivefov was used for the 'reihenbildende T ö n e ' ; he himself admitted, however, that there is no clear evidence for arotxelov as a musical term in the sense of 'scale'; see also the short refutation of Roller's arguments by W . Burkert, *2TOIX€LOV% Pkilol. 103 (1959) 177 f-
Excursus to p. 70 T h e Avoeis to this question (Schol. A A 50) are inserted by S c h r ä d e r into Porphyr. Quaest. Horn, in II. p. 4 ; but there is no evidence for this (see also Schrader's own note on 1. 6). T h e first solution quoted by the Schol. is a rare
and interesting one: Kal ol per pr/ToptKCUS Avovres tpacrtv, ort aStAdvBpomov ov TO
8eiov . . . rrporepov dvo TOIOVTWV (,(poiv r)p£a.TO perdvoiav TOty dpaprrjaaot StSovs. T h i s Schol. p. 13. 18 D i n d . is written on the outer margin in two columns; cf. on the inner margin p. 14. 11 D i n d . a>iAdv8pwrros d>v o 8cos irp&rov . . . rd dXoya (,<pa dvatpet, iva Sid TOVTWV ety Oeos dyaydiv TOVS "EAArjvas eiri TO evoeßew wapaaKevdar) (nothing about perdvoia). I f I had known this passage earlier, I should have been glad to quote it as a very welcome piece of new evidence for my interpretation of Callimachus fr. 114, where I said: 'The main point . , . left out by the later paraphrases . . . is expressed in the concluding di¬ stichon of Apollo's answer: the god is intentionally slow in practising retribution in order that there should be even a chance of peravoelv for the evildoer— that is, of changing his mind' ('The image of the Delian Apollo and Apolline ethics', The Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 25 [1952] 30 f. = Ausgewählte Schrifien [ i 9 6 0 ] 69). T h i s is exacdy what the anonymous AUTIKÖS says: ' T h e god as ¿\iXdv8pwrros started his revenge first with the animals, granting repentance to the human evildoers perdvoiav rots dpaprqaaai SiSoii?.' H e has preserved what the other paraphrases left out.—On XVTLKOL in general see A . Gudemann, iAvaeis\ RE x i n (1927) 2511 ff., esp. 2517. 30 pr/ropiKtbs
Avovres. Excursus to p* 74 Plat. Leg. 764 D E . T h i s is the only passage where the words uovajSla and vopo>ota are applied to lyrical songs and opposed to one another. Modern scholars generally refer to it, when they deal with the classification of lyric poetry into 'monody and choral song'; so for instance C . M . Bowra, Greek Lyric Poetry 2nd ed. (1961) 4. But this is a traditional mistake. Plato was actually speaking of the training of solo-singers and chorus-singers in the course of a discussion of
Excursuses
283
musical education. T h e two terms are not used either by h i m or by any other ancient writer for theoretical classification ; xopwSi'a does not occur elsewhere at all and povwSla is strictly applied to the song of a single actor in tragedy. O n the 'catachrestic' use of the word pov
Excursus to p. 98 W h e n I read the London Paper on Hellenistic Poetry in 1954, I knew only of two passages in G . Flaubert's letters on the ' T o u r d'ivoire' (Œuvres completes. Correspondance, Nouvelle édit. a u g m e n t é e , 11. Série Paris 1926, p. 396. 24. April 1852 to Louise Colet: ' I l faut. . . monter dans sa tour d'ivoire et l à , comme une b a y a d è r e dans ses parfums, rester seuls dans nos rêves' and ibid. i n (1927) p. 54. 22. Nov. 1852; 'montons au plus haut de notre tour d'ivoire, sur la d e r n i è r e marche, le plus près d u ciel'). I was rash enough to say that Flaubert had 'invented the ivory tower as a refuge for nineteenth-century littérateurs' {JUS 75 [1955] 73 = Ausgewählte Schrifien 158). But later I was startled by m y own rashness and began to make further inquiries with the help of Hugo Friedrich, who referred me also to E . R . Curtius, Kritische Essays zur europäischen Literatur (Bern 1950) 382. No doubt Sainte-Beuve, the greatest French critic and a minor poet, was the first to use the phrase for the seclusion of an unworldly poet, namely Alfred de Vigny, in a poem of 1837 (Pensées d'août,
1837, in Poesies complètes 11 nouv. éd. 1863 p. 231, A . M . Villemain [epistula Horatiana]) : ' L a poésie en France . . . Lamartine, Hugo . . . et Vigny plus secret, / Gomme en sa tour d'ivoire, avant midi, rentrait.' A very bold turn was given herewith to the famous image in Song of Songs 7. 5 o rpav^Aos oov d>s irvpyos iAeipdvTLvos (Sulamith), transferred to the Blessed V i r g i n in the Lauretan Litany: 'Turris eburnea.' I t would have saved a lot of trouble, if I had looked up in time the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. ivory, where the reference to Sainte-Beuve and A . de V i g n y is given (the F r e n c h dictionaries I had consulted did not help). But who made this ivory tower so popular again that it became a stock phrase in the daily papers in England and Germany ? H e n r y James started to write a novel The Ivory Tower before the First World W a r , but broke it off in August 1914; the urifinished book was published i n London 1917, but 'no mention is made of the symbolic object itself (see Preface, p. v i ) . T . S. Eliot in his introduction to Paul V a l é r y , Essays, Collected Works, ed. J . Mathews, vol. v u (1958) xix speaks of 'a new conception of the poet. . . . T h e tower of ivory has been fitted up as a laboratory . . . a solitary laboratory.'
Excursuses
Excursuses
284
Excursus to p. 126 Call.
hy. I I I I O ff. Ar/ot 8' OVK duo TTCLVTOS vowp (popeovai peXiaaai, / dXX' TJTIS re KOL dxpdavros dvepnei / irtoaKOs e§ Upr)s SXtyrj AijSae aKpov dturov. W h e n
KaBapr]
A n n a F a b r i edited Callimachus i n 1675, learned father referred her to Schol. Theocr. x v 94 rds Upelas (iralpas codd.: em. T . Faber) avrfjs (sc. rtjs Kdprjs) Kat TT}S ArjprjTpos peXloaas XeyetrBai. F r o m that day on the peXiaaai were taken to mean 'priestesses' who carry water to a temple of Demeter to wash the holy image; see especially G . Pasquali, Quaestiones Callimacheae (1913) 8 6 - 9 2 ; cf. also P.Oxy. x v (1922) 1802 col. 11 29 = Apollod. IT. Be&v 244 FGrHist 89, where Parian BeapodyopidXovoai yvvaiKts are called peXiuoai and an anonymous hymn to Demeter (Page, Greek Lit. Pap. p. 408) v. 2 Sevre peXiaaai. I n my edition (1953) I quoted Hesych. peXuraai- al TT)S Arjpynrpos pvartSes. I have to recant it now with some regret. MeXiooai simply are bees doing what Aristotie said in h.an. v m 1 p. 596 b 18 vSwp S' •qStara els eavrds Xappdvovow, oirov dv KaBapov dvairrjoa (more references RE i n 453. 29 ff.); see also V i r g . georg. I V 5 4 f. 'flurnina Ubant/summaleves' (sc. apes), where 'summa' coincides with aKpov dcorov. I f Virgil had these lines of the hymn in mind n
e
r
(cf. F . Klingner, Virgils Georgica, 1963, pp. 166 f.), he certainly understood
pAXiaoai not as priestesses, but as bees. T h e r e is no reason to assume that Hesychius' gloss goes back to a commentary on Callimachus. See Schol. Theocr. x v 94 with Wendel's notes. W e may be pleased to get rid of the priestesses and to restore the poetical simpk'city of the passage; on the other hand, we have to confess that we are not able to see why the bees offer their tiny drops of water to Demeter. ( O n Demeter and bees see Olck, RE i n 448. 58 ff.) But there are very many allusions in Callimachus' poems of which we do not yet grasp the meaning. O n e rather rash suggestion may be worth consideration. Callimachus refers to Philitas' Demeter more often than we could guess from the old fragments (fr. 5 - 8 K u c h e n m u l l e r ) : the opirvta Beapo<j>opos C a l l . fr. 1. 10 is the Demeter of Philitas and the m u c h discussed gloss deppa for TO£OV hy. 11 33 is taken from the poem, as the new Scholia disclosed (Call. 11 p. 47). T h e peXtooat as fioxryevets occur in a hexameter of Philit. fr. 18 K . , possibly imitated by C a l l . fr. 383. 4 (see my note ad l o c ) , but we do not know the context of the line; some scholars suspected it may belong to the Demeter. So it is possible that the connexion of the bees with Demeter at the end of the second hymn is a reminiscence of Philitas' Demeter which was present to his mind when he wrote the hymn and the polemics against the Telchines.
Excursus to p. 142 T h e text has been misunderstood by Meineke, Wilamowitz, and by Wendel, who printed the conjectures of his predecessors in his apparatus; see also his 'Die Ü b e r l i e f e r u n g der Scholien zu Apoll. R h . ' , AGGW i n 1 (1932) 113; cf. H . Herter, Rh.M. 91 (1942) 313 and Bursians Jahresbericht 285 (1955) 227 f r . ; P.
285
H ä n d e l , Herrn. 90 (1962) 4 3 1 ; Lesky (above, p. 88, n. 3) 666. T h e y all understand Twv ßißXioBrjKÜiv TOO Movaelov dgicoBrjvat as a reference to his librarianship; but the same phrase is used by Euseb. Hist. eccl. i n 9. 2 ßißXioBrjKrjs d£ia)BT)vat or Praep. ev. V I I I I . 8 TWV Kara TT)V ÄXcgdvopeiav ßtßXLo8r)Kiuv ^iwB-q in the sense of TT)S ev ßißXtoB-qKais dvaßeaews . . . Kara^coB'fjvat (Hist. eccl. 11 18, 8 ) ; see also above (p. 100) Aristeae epist. 9 d£ia Kai TT}S . . . ßißXioOrjicns. After his first failure and his exile to Rhodes, Apollonius returned, 'as some said', to Alexandria and recited his Argonautica with the highest success, so that he was deemed worthy of the libraries of the Museum and was buried beside Callimachus himself. I t simply is a legendary story of his complete rehabilitadon in his nadve city and of the final reconciliation with his adversary in the grave. This dubious passage at the end of the second vita cannot be compared with the serious tradition in P.Oxy. 1 2 4 1 ; the story of the 'return of the native' may be due to a confusion with the later Apollonius, the Eidographer and librarian after Aristophanes of Byzantium; but as the vita does not say anything about such an appointment of Ap. R h . at the library, it becomes still more doubtful whether it is necessary to assume such a confusion.
Excursus to p. 177. 4
Attentive readers of Wilamowitz's posthumous work on Greek religion may be startled by a remark on Aristophanes of Byzantium i n the important paragraph on 'personifications' (Wilamowitz, Der Glaube der Hellenen 1 (1931) 26, repeated 11 (1932) 417). Aristophanes is there praised for having dealt sensibly with the Homeric elhayXoTroda, because he said that the poet had formed mythical images of certain deities bearing the same names as human rrddrj and -irpdypara, like epws, epis, ößos, and so on. Wilamowitz refers to Porphyry on the Iliad (p. 42 S c h r ä d e r ) as evidence. But in fact Eustathius was the only one to attribute the first appearance of the theory of the Salpoves eiSwAoTroiovpevot pvBiKtös to a monograph of Aristophanes, LJepi AlylSos (Eust. p. 603. 28 on E 738). I n our Homeric Scholia B on B 787 no author is quoted, in that on E 741 Aristotle (cf. Schol. B H Q , A 6 3 4 ; doubtful Schol. A A 4 ) . Nauck's suspicion that the reference to Aristophanes in Eustathius is an error was reinforced by S c h r ä d e r with stronger arguments. (Nauck pp. 2 7 1 - 3 ; Porphyr. Quaest. Horn, ad H. ed. H . S c h r ä d e r [1880] 4 4 f . ; independendy L . Cohn, Jahrbb.f. class. Phil. Suppl. 12 [see p. 197, n. 3] 2 8 7 . 4 c a m e t o the same conclusion as S c h r ä d e r , and Jacoby FGrHist 11 [1930] 754. 36 on Apollodor. nepl 8ed)v was right in following them. Cf. Aristot. Pseudepigr. ed. V . Rose [1863] 162 f.) O n Schrader's questionable reconstruction of Porphyry and on the possible relation of Porphyry to Aristotle see above, p. 70, n. 7. A parallel is the wrong attribution of the explanation of the proverb KepKvpatwv pdari$ to Aristophanes Byz. in Schol. ( V , Aid.) Aristoph. Av. 1463; Zenob. A t h . 111 14 (Miller, Melanges p. 370) confirmed with the reference to ÄpiaroTeXr/s . . . eV -HJ KepKvpaiwv UoAiTeia the less exact and therefore rejected statement of Zenob.
286
Excursuses
Par. rv 49 (cf. Aristot. fr. 513 R . ) . Another parallel may be Erotian. Voc. Hippocr. s.v. Trtxeptoj p. 73. 13 Nachmanson, who following Rose, Aristot. fr. 636, reads Apio-roTcXr/s iv rois 'Yiropvrjpaaiv for Apiaro^dvrjs in the manuscripts. So it is quite uncertain whether there was a avyypap.ua of Aristophanes on the Aegis and whether he ever dealt with this or any other fundamental problem of Greek religion; on evidence for etStuXoiroua see also K . Reinhardt, De Graecorum theologia (Diss. Berlin 1910) 107 ff. and add Plut. adv. Colot. r i
p. ft 13 A oi Troirjral . . . dvetoaiXoTrotovvres . . . (27 535)> Schol. A D / 502 dveiSojXoiTOtei rds Avrds dis Salpiovds rwa$ (cf. Schol. E u r . Or. 256).
A D D E N D A p. 36. 3 'Antisthenis Fragmenta', coll. Fernanda Decleva Caizzi, Testi e document per lo studio deWAntichitd 13 (1966), based in part on an unpublished thesis by Jean Humble, Antisthenes' Fragmenten (Gent, 1932). p. 42. 3 Cf. below, p. 243. 1 Addenda. p. 43,1. 19 G . M . A . Grube, The Greek and Roman Critics 1965. This is a welcome study by an expert in ancient rhetoric; just because it is written from a different point of view, it may be useful to compare some of its chapters with our passages on literary criticism (cf. pp. 47, 204, etc.). p. 52. 1 B . Snell,
Philol. 96 (1944) 170 ff. = Gesammelte Schriften (1966) 119 ff.
p. 53. 3 T h e scanty and ambiguous tradition is carefully re-examined by G . A . Privitera, 'Laso di Ermione nella cultura ateniese e nella tradizione storiografica', Filologia e Critica, 1 (1965). p. 54. 2 O n P.Oxy. 1083, fr. 1 as part of a Sophoclean satyr-play see (1966) 63 ff.
WSt 79
p. 70. 5 Add Dark FGrHist 76 F 30 npofiX-rjpaTa 'Opr/piicd (in Schol. Gen. <2> 499). p. 82,1. a\from bottom read Attic annalists instead of Attic historians. p. 93. 4 'the very few exceptions', scil. made by Plato in regard to poets. p. 105. r T h e manuscript of this book was in its final form before I was able to see the second volume of M . V a n der Valk, Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad (1964); for references to the first volume see pp. 214. 1, 233. 2, 3, 274. 5. It is now impossible to dojusdce to an honest and diligent author whose painstaking researches cover part of the same ground as some of the following chapters, especially those on Zenodotus and Aristarchus. T h i s is the more regrettable as M r . V a n der V a l k often expresses different or even opposite views on the critical work of the Alexandrians. But his opinion that 'the Alexandrian critics had no correct idea of the significance of a diplomatic text', which is now openly expressed
(pp. 565 f ) , was the unspoken assumption behind his Textual Criticism of the
Odyssey (1949) and the first volume of his Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad (1963), and must unfortunately be regarded as a preconceived idea, not as a result of historical inquiries. T h e new volume was nobly reviewed by H . Erbse, Gnom. 37 (1965) 532 ff. See now also A . Lesky, 'Homeros', RE, Suppl. X I (1967), Sonderausgabe 151. 38 ff. p. 109. 6 A new edition of 'The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer' by Stephanie West has just been published in Papyrologica Coloniensta xii (1967); cf. p. 116. 5. p. 128. 6 Callimachus' Pinakes are expressly attested as the source in all these cases; but I ought to have referred to some other anonymous passages on the authenticity of which the Pinakes or Aristophanes' supplement are the most likely sources. I n the catalogue of Aeschylus' plays (below, p, 129) Ahrvatai yvrjatoi as well as Alrvaiai vodoi are registered. According to the Vita Sophoclis Aristophanes gave a total of 130 plays, TOVTWV hi vevoBevrai
288
Addenda
Addenda it,' (£' coni. Bergk in order to make the figure equal to Suidas' figure of 123 genuine Sophoclean plays). Aristophanes probably made this statement in his supplement to Gallimachus Pinakes (Nauck p. 249), cf. below, p. 192. 8 Addenda. I n the same work he may have doubted the Hesiodic origin of the Shield of Heracles (see below, p. 178). Cf. also A r g . [ E u r . ] 1
Rhes. Hvtoi VO0OV VTTevor/aav ..." iv {xevTOi r a t ? oiSaoKaXlais dis yvyaiov avayeypairrai. T h e notes ov atp^rat or ov aiot,ovrai against the titles of plays of which the text did not reach the 'haven of safety' in Alexandria are probably taken over from the Pinakes into Aristophanes' hypotheses: see Arg. E u r . Med. to the satyr-play ©epiaral or A r g . Aristophan. Ach. to
Cratinus' X
De adfin. vocab. differentia ed. K . Nickau (1966) §202 Kai evdv Kai ev9ea>s Bia Hpos TOVS ntvaKas KaXXtudxov rrepi ÄvrtaSdvovs S i a o r e A A « rr)v Xe^iv ( S y m . : rd^tv E r e n . ) . ' I f Erennius Philo's Epitome had not preserved the title of
p. 133, 1. 19 A m m o n . €vdvs
Aristophanes' book, the new fragment would most probably have been attributed to a part of the Ae&is, as adwas was ascribed to a treatise on blasphemy before Miller's discovery of the codex Athous (see below, pp. 198 f.). T h e comic poets were registered i n Callimachus' Pinakes (see above, pp. 129 f.); did Aristophanes' supplement contain chapters on individual poets (77epi AvTupdvovs) ? Cf. p. 178, 1. 3. T h e editor of A m monius has promised (p. 182) to publish a paper on the new Aristophanes fragment i n Rh.M., vol. n o . p. 133. 1 See also above, p. 128. 6, and Addenda. 143. 2 Dionysius Salvagnius, O v . Ib. Comment, (first published 1633), Proleg. pp. 12 f.
p.
p. 143. 5 Apollon. R h . P-
r
Argonautica ed.
G . M . Mooney ( 1 9 1 2 ) reprinted 1964.
4 9 - 5 T h e suggestion of R . F ü h r e r , c U A 1) y' dVpa /car' dvopdv Kpdara, would avoid this difficulty; it would avoid also the elided form ä«p' which never occurs in Homer. 1
p. 150,1.19 P. V o n der M ü h l l , 'Antiker Historismus in Plutarchs Biographie des Solon', Klio 35 (1942) 89 ff., seems to go a litde too far in his task of restoring Hermippus' reputation as the biographer of Solon against Leo's grim censure (see above, p. 129. 1 ; cf. also above, pp. 82 f. about Aristotle on Solon). p. 151, 1. 12 'Rivers'. T h e r e is possibly a new reference in a ' C o m m e n tary on C h o r a l L y r i c ' , P.Oxy. X X X I I (1967) 2637 fr. 10, 3 avos h> r
289
thaXhcwas'theßrst scholar among the Atthidographers' (ibid. p. 227 his italics), we must at least reply that antiquarian research is not quite true scholarship as we have defined it in this book (see p. 3 and passim). p. 157, 1. 9 from bottom. I n the Hippocratic Epidem. iv. 37 (vol. v, p. 180. 1 L i t t r é ) written towards the end of the fifth century means a teacher of the rudiments.
B.C.
ypapuariKos
p. 178,1. 4 Cf. above, p. 128. 6 Addenda.
p. 192. 3 R . Cantarella, T l nuovo Menandro', Rendiconti dellTstit. Lombard.,
Classe di Lettere
93 (1959) 82, and F . Stoessl, Menander Dyskolos, Kommenta ( 9 6 5 ) H ) even assume that the existence of Aristophanes' edition is proved. Stoessl pays particular attention to the distribution of parts {passim, see index, p. 267), and so does Handley (above, p. 191. 6) 44 ff. 1
p. 192. 8 F o r Aristophanes on the authenticity of a number of Sophoclean plays see above, p. 128. 6 Addenda. p. 195.4 'Thedramatic hypothesesfromOxyrhynchus' (of Menandrean plays?) first published by Coles and Barns 1965, are now P.Oxy. xxxi (1966) 2534. p. 197. 3 E . Miller, Mélanges 427-34 reprinted i n Lexica Graeca Minora, selegit K . Latte, disposuit et praefatus est H . Erbse (1965) 273-82 Aristophane de Byzance.
Études sur Quintilien, reprinted Amsterdam 1967. Vit. Pythag. 18. 80 speaking of the selecti, says that Pythagoras TOVS iyKpidévras vqV êavrov Sir^prjKe %f*>pfe • • •', Plat, in Rep. and Leg. uses iyKplv€iv and drroKptvtiv also about literature, cf., e.g., Rep. 377 c TOVS S' èy-Kpidévras, sc. p,v$ovs. T h e grammarians may have borrowed the
p. 206. i J . Cousin, p. 206. 2 I a m b i .
expression from a philosophical source. p. 213, 1. 16 T h e name of the Naucratite grammarian (Schol. G e n . i> 363) Ktaaavos is differently spelt and accentuated i n our manuscripts ; see also my note on C a l l . fr. 495 and P. M . Fraser, Cl. Rev. 67 (1953) 43- I t is uncertain whether P. Y a l e inv. 446 (Pack no. 2138) can be attributed to him. 2
p. 215. 4 Erbse repeated the result of his paper on 'Aristarchs Iliasausgaben' in his contribution to Geschichte der Textüberlieferung i (1961) 224 f. G . Zuntz contradicted him, successfully I think, i n his review Gnom. 35 (1963) 3. p. 215. 6 A good example to illustrate the relation between early Homeric papyri and the critical Alexandrian editions and the so-called vulgate text is Pap. H a m b u r g 153 ; see Griechische Papyri der Hamburger StaatsUniversitätsbibliothek (1954) 98 with Merkelbach's commentary. p. 219. 1 Nicanor (1850 and 1875) reprinted 1967. p. 219. 5 T h e papyrus P.Oxy. 1086 of the first century B . C . is further proof that Alexandrian critics continued to use paraphrases ( T O 4£ijs on S 819) for their exegesis, as the vulgate commentators had done in schools for generations (cf. Rutherford, 'Annotation* 336 if. with further references). As his predecessors had not produced commentaries, it is very likely that Aristarchus set the fashion (see also C a l l , ii p. Ixxviii on paraphrases of ancient scholiasts). 6UB12
u
und
Addenda p. 229, 1. 10from bottom. T h e early Ptolemaic Pap. H i b . ii (1955), ed. T u r n e r 193 (c. 250 B . C . ) preserved in Z 4 the reading which Aristarchus, once he had found it, received into his text (Schol. A B T ) ; previously in his vwofivrjaara he had adopted another reading mendoned with a third
GENERAL
variant in the Scholia (see A . Ludwich, Aristarchs horn. Textkr. i . 262 f.). H e carefully considered the documentary evidence, attested by the early papyrus (cf. above, p. 114, on similar cases in Zenodotus), and in this case his final choice became also the reading of the medieval manuscripts. p. 230. 7 J . W . K o h l , De chorizontibus, Diss. G i e ß e n 1917, contains 'chorizontum fragmenta' with notes on the text; a second part on the general problems was promised but never published. p. 234. 4 Gf. also Esther V . Hansen 'The Attalids of Pergamon', Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 19 (1947) 353~94 Attalid patronage of learning. p. 242. i P.Oxy 2389, fr. 9 = fr. i , Schol. B p. 7.
PMG A l c m . fr. 13 p. 3 3 ; ib. fr. 6 — PMG A l c m .
p. 243. i I f the headings of some writings of Democritus on MOVOIK¿ are correctly registered by Diog. L . , he seems to have dealt with euphony in LTepl KaXXoovvrjs éirétov and in J7epi €v<J>ióvwv Kai hvutj>d}viov ypappárcov 68 B 18 a, b). See above p. 42. 3 and cf. L i c y m n . Art. script. B x v i 3 KOXXOS
SÍ ovóparos
(Vors.
KTX.
pp. 246. 5 and 247. 3 Callimachus was fond of describing works of archaic art, but derived his knowledge from literary sources only, see fr. 114 with A d d . I I (Delian Apollo), fr. 100 (SamianHera),fr. 197 (Hermes of Ainos). p. 248. 3 P.Oxy. xxxi (1966) 2535; col. ii. 12 <£nci Llo[Xéprav, proposed by T u r n e r as an alternative to other supplements; Polemo, who wrote about the Athenian acropolis and about epigrams, may be quoted in this commentary on the epigram which is said to have been cut on the bronze quadriga near the Propylaeon on the acropolis (I owe the reference to this possible but uncertain supplement to M . T r e u ) . p. 252. 2 F . Kuhnert, 'Allgemeinbildung und Fachbildung in der Antike',
Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion für
Altertumswissenschaft 30 (1961) 31 f. took note of Menéeles. pp. 272 f. I ought to have mentioned that i n a commentary on A l e m á n , P.Oxy. 2390, fr. 2 col. I I 5 = PMG A l c m . fr. 5 p. 22 a special reading of T y r a n n i o n is referred to: © « u v [ Kal T]vpavvlwv avayiyvd>aKov{at xpvow] Kara. yeviKijv; it probably means xpuow rréXas (not the dative xPV(TV ireXas), and may have been quoted by T h e o n in one of his many commentaries from a grammatical writing of T y r a n n i o n , who wrote no commentaries, as far as we know.
INDEX
* indicates a specially extensive reference Academy, Plato's school: 65, 97. -— revivified by Arcesilaus: 157. — delegation to Rome: 246. — and Peripatos explaining the writings of their own founders: 246. 'Academy Edition* of Plato: 66. Accadian, see glossaries. accentuation: 178; cf. Aristophanes Byz. — in papyri: 180. — Aristarchus' accentuation: 219. Adaeus: 248. Adrastus of Aphrodisias: 60 and Excursus, adverb, see enipprjfta. Aeschylus, catalogue of plays: 128.6 Addenda, 129. — 'slices from the great banquet of Homer': 44¬ — Septem: 'peorov Apecos' (Gorgias): 46, — Supplices performed after 4 6 8 B . C . : 194. — etymologies, Ag. 1485 ff.:
4 ; Supplices
5 8 4 : 5¬
— writing 7 8 8 f.:
Eum. 2 7 3 - 5 : 2 6 ; Prom. 4 7 0 2 6 ; fr. 5 3 0 M. (Aitnaiait): 26.3.
— hypotheses
(Septem,
Supplices,
f.,
Aitnaiai):
•94¬
— no evidence for Aristophanes' work on the text: 192. — Aplorapxos Xou: 222.
cv vrrop-injaet Avtcovpyov
Aliryy-
— no evidence for Didymus' commentary: 277.
Agatharchides, on poetry: 166.4. Agathon, and the Sophists: 55. Alcaeus, one of the nine lyric poets: 205. — monostrophic songs: 186. *> — edition of Aristophanes Byz.: 185. — edition of Aristarchus: 221. — v.l. Xenas:
x*Xvs:
— allegory: 5. — in P.Oxy.
181 f., 185.
2506: 222.
Alcidamas: * 5 0 f, 191. Alcman, one of the nine lyric poets: 205. — a Lydian: 220 f., 241. — Parthenion (fr. 1 Page), colometry: 188.
— empire: 87. — and Ptolemy 1: 95 f. Alexandria, capital of the Ptolemies: g2 f. — Satyrus' On the Demes of Alexandria : 151. — birthplace of Apollonius Rhodius, Diony¬ sius Thrax, Philoxenus, and Didymus: 141, 2 6 6 , 273 f. — climax of a new cultural movement: 95. — attracted students: 134. — scholarship at its height: 171 if. — five generations of scholars from PhiHtas and Zenodotus to Aristarchus: 233, 265. — iytcvicXios rraibfla:
253.
— and Athens: 99. — andCyrene: 123, — and Pergamum: 237. -— and Rome: 274. — exiled Alexandrian scholars in other cities: 253. allegorical interpretation: — physical, Schol. Y 6 7 : 1 o; cf. Pherecydes, Theagenes. — not used by Sophists: 3 5 ; cf. Metrodorus, Antisthenes. — rejected by Plato, Aristotle, Eratosthenes, Apollodorus: 10, 237, 259. — not practised by Alexandrian scholars, but by the Stoics, Crates and his pupils, in Pergamum: 140, 167, 237. — practised by Orphics: 237. — practised by Neoplatonists: 2 2 6 ; cf. Porphyry. allegory, I 502 ff. Avrai: 5, 2 3 7 ; cf. Archilochus, Alcaeus. alphabet, Phoenician origin: 20 ff. — definitive Greek alphabetical system: 23, 103.
Ammonius, pupil and successor of Aristarchus: 2 i 6 f . , 2 5 4 ( ? ) , 2 7 3 f . — treatise(s) on Aristarchus: 216 f.; ef, 215-5¬ — Kwp.ep8ovft(vot:
242.
Anacreon, celebrated by Critias: 54. — one of the nine lyric poets: 205. — in P.Oxy. 2 5 0 5 : 2 2 2 . — edition of Zenodotus (?): 118; of AristoAlexander Aetolus, one of the tragic Pleiad: phanes Byz. (?): 1 8 5 ; of Aristarchus with 119. interpretations: 221. — revised the text of tragedies and satyr— in Didymus' ZvpiroataKa: 2 7 9 . plays: 105 ff., 132, 160, 192. — fr. 14 Page: 12, 14, 244. Alexander the Great,
292
analogy («mi.): — general rules of regular inflexion discovered by Aristophanes Byz.: 205, 229. — a monograph of Aristophanes Byz. (?): 208.
General Index
General Index — etymology of JijAior by Apollodorus: 262.
— Lycian, addressed Callimachus as poet : 9 5 . 124¬
— cult in Zp.iv8os explained by Polemo : 249. — identified with Asclepius by Stoic philosophers: 263.
— guiding principle of Aristarchus' interpretation: 203, 229. Apollodorus of Athens: * 2 5 2 ff. — dispute between analogists and ano- — school of Aristarchus in Alexandria : 171, malists: 203, 245. 252 f. — setting out of analogy in Dionysius Thrax: — fled to Pergamum: 253. 269. — returned to Athens (?) : 254. Anaxagoras, books available in Athens: 27 f. — called ^tAoAoyos by Ps.-Scymnus: 158, — explaining ethical tendency of Homer: 253. — historical position : 265. 35-3¬ — XpovtKci versified epitome of historical — teacher of Metrodorus: 35. Anaxarchus: 71. events in chronological order : 255. Anaximander of Miletus, historian: 20. and Eratosthenes' Xpovoyparlai: 164, Andron of Alexandria, Xpovixd: 252. 255¬ Andronicus of Rhodes, editor of Aristotle — — and Xpovucd of Castor : 2 5 7 . and Theophrastus: 264, 273. — followed Ephorus, not Eratosthenes in anomaly, cf. analogy. dating Homer : 256. — in the formal logic of Chrysippus: 203. — monograph on the Homeric Catalogue of — linguistic, adopted by Crates: 243. Ships : 257 ff. Antidorus ofKyme: 157 f. — used Demetrius* commentary on the Antigonus of Carystus: ' 2 4 6 ff. catalogue of Trojans: 249, 258. — excerpts from Callimachus' LTapdSofa: — tried to determine Homer's geographical 134, 247. views: 258. — biographer: 247. — etymologies of local names: 260. Antigonus Gonatas, literary circle: 107, 120. — LTtpl Bfùv, names of Homeric gods and Antimachus of Colophon: * 9 3 ff. their etymologies: 261 fF. — pupil of Stesimbrotus: 35 f. Stoic influence stricdy limited: 261. — editor of Homer: 72, 94, 109. — works on Doric comedy and Mimus : 264 f. — and Plato: 93 f. Apollonius Dyscolus, preserved fragments of — and Callimachus: 94. Dionysius Thrax: 270. — and Apollonius Rhodius: 146. — cK&oots = exposition, treatise (?): 216. Antiochus I Soter and Aratus: 120. Apollonius è clooypdtpos, librarian after Antiochus I I I the Great, and Euphorion: Aristophanes Byz. : 172.2, 184, 210. 122, 150. — not literary, but musical classification of Antiphanes com.: 133 Addenda, lyric poems: 184. antiquarian research, see Hippias of Elis. Apollonius Rhodius, born in Alexandria, — Aristotle: 79 ff. went to Rhodes, did not return to Alexan— Callimachus: 134. dria: 141 f. — Aristophanes Byz. (?): 208. — librarian between Zenodotus and Aristo— in Pergamum: 235, 246 ff. phanes Byz.: 154. admired in the nineteenth century: — scholar : * ( 4 0 ff. 251. — poet: 141 ft antiquitates, Varro's translation of apxaio— two editions of the Argonautica : 141 f. Xoyla: 5 1 . — minor poems: 144. Antisthenes: * 3 6 f . and Addenda. — interpretation of Homer in his Argonaaticct: Antisthenes o ' HpaKXelr eios: 3 6 . 2 . 146 ff. Antony, Mark: 236, 274. — monograph Against Zenodotus : 147. Apame: 123. — Hesiodic criticism : 144. Apelles, father of Aristophanes of Byzan- — monograph on Archilochus : 144,181,212. tium: 172. — and Antimachus : 94. Apion, pupil of Didymus: 275. — and Callimachus: 142 ff. Apollinism, Aristotle attached to: 80. — familiar with medical technicalities: 152. Apollo, etymologies (Archilochus, Plato, Apollonius 'Rhodius* from Alabanda, founApollodorus): 6 2 , 261. der of a rhetoric school in Rhodes : 266.
Apollonius Sophista, Lexicon, used writings of the Aristarchean tradition: 2 2 9 . Aratus of Soloi: * 120 ff. — pupil of Menecrates at Ephesus: 93, 120. — and Timon of Phlius ¡98, 121 f. — and Antigonus Gonatas in Athens: 107, 120 f. — Phaenomena, study of astronomy: 121,
293
— practice of athetosis: 231. — Didymus fJepl rr)s Aptarapxov hiopOdf trews: 217 f., 275 f. — Porphyry coined the formula "Oprnpov e£ 'Op.rjpov oo-tp-nvt^eiv, not Aristarchus: 227.
— division of Iliad and books (?): 116. — on A 5 : 112 f., 227. — Tlepl TOV vaverrddpAu;
152¬
— and Hesiod: 117. — and Callimachus: 121, 136, 138. — and Crates: 241.
24
213, 258.
— ifi 296 as WAos of the Odyssey: 116, 175 f.
Ps.-Arcadius, Epitome of Herodian's
Kado-
2 0 : 179-
Arcesilaus the Platonist, teacher of Eratosthenes: 153 f. Archilochus; see also Passages discussed. — thefirstof the three iambographers: 204. — allegory: 5. — and Homer in P.Hibeh 173 and in Heraclid. Pont.: 145, 191. — and Critias: 54. — and Aristotle: 145. — and Theocritus and Callimachus: 146. — and Apollonius Rhod.: 144, 181. — fr. 120 D.3 and Eratosthenes: 162. — and Aristophanes Byz.: 181, 208. — and Aristarchus: 220. Archimedes, dedicated his Method to Eratosthenes: 155. — Cattle Problem:
into
— on Homer's Aiivwis: 112.
— 'larptKa (?): 152. ,W-T) LIpoowSia
Odyssey
156.
archons, lists of: 256. — kept official records for the performances of plays: 81.
— on Homeric language : 231. — on the art of composition in the epic narrative: 232, — on the harmony between the speech and the character of an epic hero: 232. — avyypappara (monographs): 2 1 3 . — Against Philitas:
91.
— against the vwpi'toFT-ej: 2 1 3 , 230.7. — Homer an Athenian: 228, 267. — supreme authority as critic and interpreter in later antiquity: 2 3 2 ; cf. 174. — Aristarchomania: 232. — an outstanding controversial figure in modern Homeric literature: 233. — Hesiodic criticism: 220. — ApxtXoxua
— — — —
'Yiropvypara:
220.
commentary on the lyric poets: 184. on Alcman: 151, 218, 241. on Anacreon: 185. new recension of Pindar's text (?) ¡ 2 2 1 .
— on Bacchylides' Dithyrambs:
130, 2 2 2 .
— commentaries on tragedies: 223. — commentaries on eight Aristophanic comedies: 2 2 4 . Aristarchus: * 2 i o f T . — the first to comment on prosewriters; — pupil of Aristophanes Byz.: 171, 174. Herodotus: 2 2 4 ; Thucydides (?): 225. — fifth librarian after Zenodotus: 210. — tmopv^para on prose writers follow the — tutor to several Ptolemies: 210 ff. patterns of those on the poets: 225. — teacher of Apollodorus of Athens: 253, — extended the concept of analogy to the 257. interpretation of texts: 203. — teacher of Ammonius: 273. — discovered a few grammatical and metri— rivalry with Crates of Pergamum: 240. cal rules: 229. — treated the selected authors (cf. iy- — his school acknowledged the superiority Kptdtrrts and rrpa-TTOpcvoi) ; 2 0 8 . of the Pergamenes in the field of gram— selected three iambographers: 204. mar: 2 4 5 . —
800
( ? ) virop.v^p.a.ra;
see also
ovyypapr,
para.
— K . Lehrs, (i833)
:
Be Aristarchi
studiis
Homericis
7. 2 1 4 f¬
— Homeric criticism: 214 ff. problem of a new recension of the Homeric text: 215 ff. sequence of tmopv^nara and aiop8oj~ at is: 217¬
— interpreting Aristophanes' vrtonv^para:
anp.eta in
175.
— reluctant to alter the
rrapa&oois:
229.
the
Aristeas,
Letter of: 9 9ff.,2 8 5 .
Ariston of Chios, teacher of Eratosthenes: 153 f-. 157Aristonicus, flepl anpMlasv ('/AtaSo? *ai ' O&vaoetas), preserved authentic Aristarchean material: 214, 218. — on r 5 4 : 2 2 9 . — on Z 2 0 1 : 2 2 7 . — critical signs on Hesiod: 2 2 0 . 3 . on Alcman: 221. — suspected of having misunderstood Aristarchus: 233.
General
294
Aristonicus (cont.): — disregarded Crates* views: 239. Aristophanes Com., alphabetical catalogue of his comedies: 129. — plays edited by Aristophanes Byz. with those of Cratinus and Eupolis: 190, — one of the selected authors: 204. — 9 vwoOtoeis contain hiSaoKaXiai: 196. — commentary of Euphronius on individual plays: 120. — Aristarchus commented on eight comedies: 224. — commentary of Didymus: 276. — dramatic criticism, topic of Old Comedy: 47¬ — adopted more topics from contemporary discussions than the phrase of Gorgias on Aeschylus: 4 8 . —
'Ofi^pou
yX&rrat
(fr.
222 K.):
15, 7 g .
on pre-eminence among the Attic tragedians: 204. problem of the moral leadership of the poets, usefulness and danger of their teaching: 167. passages on criticism taken up by Hellenistic poets (Callimachus, etc.): 137. Aristophanes of Byzantium: * 172 ff. — succeeded Apollonius Rhodius as librarian : 154. — use of critical a-qptia: 178, cf. 173 f. — use of lectional signs (punctuation and accentuation): 178; cf. 180. — tfi 296 the 'limit' of the Odyssey: 175. — Aristarchus in his commentary on ip 296 agreed: 231.1. — editions of lyric texts: 130. — objected to Zenodotus* conjecture in Anacreon: 118. — edition of Pindar; put Pindaric poems into proper order: 183. — his influence decisive for the terminology of lyric poetry: 183. — colometry: 187 f. — work on dramatic poetry: 188 if. — successor of Alexander Aetolus in dealing with tragedies and satyr-plays: 160. — published text of Cratinus, Eupolis, and Aristophanes: 190. — Aristoph. Tfiesm. 162 coni. AXxaios for
— Frogs,
Axatosi
189, 2 7 6 .
— hypotheses of tragedies and comedies: 192 ff. — edition of Plato (?): 196 f. — Atfcts:
197 ff.
used Callimachus' comprehensive vocabularies: 135. — discovered recurrent patterns in the Greek declension ( K A I W ) : 202 f.
General
Index — interest in the spoken language of his own day: 2 0 2 , 2 4 5 . — llpos
Tovs
KaXXifidxov
irlvaicas:
133 ; see
Addenda (new fragment). — arranged selective lists or authors: 204 ff.; cf. 278. — monograph about Athena's shield (?): also
208, 2 8 5 .
— monograph on analogy (?): 208. — on Homeric elScoXonoua (?) : 2 8 5 . Aristotle: * 6 $ ff. — Neoplatonic lives of: 71. — and Alexander the Great: 96. — library: 9 9 . — school: 65. — attachment to Apollinism: 80. — manuscripts of, in Theophrastus' library : 273. — Andronicus' edition arranged according to subjects: 264. — lists of his writings: 6 6 , 131. — Dialogues:
66.
— 77payparefeu,
Memoranda
and
Collections:
66.
— not the founder of scholarship, father of philology, etc.: 67, 272. — the new poetical school of Callimachus and his followers ostentatiously antiAristotelian: 137. — and Apollonius Rhodius: 143. — and Eratosthenes: 156. — and Aristophanes Byz., Ilepi (d>tov. 173. — is to be read instead of Aristophanes B y 2 . : 285 f. — Iliad and Odyssey as living organisms, works of Homer; first place as epics: 137. 204 f. — the non-Homeric ('cyclic') epics: 73, 230. — defender of Homer: 6 9 . — Homeric Problems:
67.
— quotations of Homer: 109. — Aitopr)p.aTa ApxiXoxoo:
145,
— on Alcman's birthplace: 220, 241. — Ai&aaicaXtai:
8 1 , 132.
— Poetics: 75. ch. 2 0 : 76. — relation of words to things: 75 ff. — -rrd&n rrjs Aefews, modification in form of words: 201. •— four parts of speech: 76 f., 244. — synonyms: 78. — writings on politics, LToXtriied, /JoAtreiai: 82.
— antiquarian studies: 83. — proverbs: 8 3 , 208. Aristoxenus, quoted minor lyric poets: 205. — on *Pevb'erri.xdpp€LCL: 2 6 5 .
Arsinoe I I :
9 2 , 100, 123.3,
I 2
4-
Arsinoe I I I : 153.5. Artemidorus of Ephesus: 259. Artemidorus of Tarsus, styled
Aptorotpavfios:
210.
Arts, the Seven Liberal: 5a f., 253. Asclepiades of Myrlea, on ypappartK-j ypappariKol:
and
158, 163, * 2 7 2 f.
Asclepiades of Samos: 93 f. Assurbanipal: 18. Athanasius: 207.4. Athena, etymology of yXavKÖmis by Apollodorus: 262. -— etymology of LJaXXas (by Apollodorus?): 262 f. Athenodorus of Tarsus, Pergamene librarian: 236. Athens, production and export of books: 28. — adopted the Ionic alphabet: 30. — and the Sophists: 4 5 . — and Democritus: 4 2 . — and the masters of philosophy: 5 7 ff. — political catastrophe in 404 B . C . : 6 5 . — Aristotle in Athens: 81. — under the 'strategia' of Demetrius of Phaleron: 96. — and Alexandria: 99. — Aratus in Athens: 121. — Eratosthenes in Athens: 153 f., 156 f. — TIJS 'EXXdoos
•no.ib'evot.s: 2 5 2 .
— centre of philosophical studies in the Hellenistic world: 157. — Alexandrian scholars fleeing to Athens: 212, 253.
— and the Ionian migration: 228. — and Polemo: 248 f. and Addenda. — and the Attalids: 254. athetesis: 231. Athos, ßoviropos Apaivoifs: 123.3. * Attalids, brought Pergamum into prominence: 234 fr. Attalus, father of Philetaerus: 234. Attalus I, called Antigonus of Carystus to his court: 246. — addressed by Polemo: 248. — about the rfaAi; LJevKrj, quoted by Demetrius of Scepsis: 250. Attalus I I Philadelphus, Apollodorus' Chronicle dedicated to him: 253.
Atthidographers, relation to Aristotle's Constitution of Athens: 8 2 ; cf. Philochorus. Attic forms and words in the epic language, pointed out by Aristarchus: 228. — pseudo-Attic forms in comedy, noted by Eratosthenes (?): 161. Augustus, Pax Augusta: 2 7 9 . Ausonius, Technopaegnion: 90.2.
Index
295
Babylonians: 18. Bacchylides, one of the nine lyric poets:
authenticity, questions of: 128.6 and Addenda, 192.8.
205.
— classification of poems: 130, 222. — colometry: 188. — metrical signs in papyri: 186. Barber, E . A.: 88.3 ('Hellenistic Poetry'). Bathycles, story of the cup of: 97. Bentley, Richard: 6, 98, 170. Berenice I , mother of Arsinoe Philadelphus and Ptolemy I I : 96. Berenice I I , wife of Ptolemy I I I : 123 f. Bernhardy, G . : 153. Bible, V T , 'Song of Songs' 7.5 (Wpyos fX&hdvnvos): 2 8 3 ; cf. Septuagint. Bockh, A., metrics: 187Boethius, quadrivium: 5 2 . Bolos: 132.9. books and scholarship: 17 ff. — Greek: 25 ff. — pictures of books on vases: 27. — danger of books: 32. — used in Academy and Peripatos: 67. — number in the Alexandrian libraries: 102.
book-trade, Alexandrian, and the classicsf?); 194.1.
Bunarbashi: 250. Cadmus, and Phoenician letters: 20 f.; cf. Danaus. Caesar: 272, 274. calendar, see Eratosthenes. Callicles: 34 f. Callimachus: * i 2 3 ff.
— and Cyrene: 98, 124. — and the library: 101, 125. — alludes to quarrels of scholars: 97, 143, 170.
— and Homer and epic cycle: 137, 230, — and Hesiod: 117. •—and Archilochus: 146, 162. — and Plato: 136. — and Aristotle: 137, 230. — and Antimachus: 94. — and Philitas: 8 9 , 95. — and Lycophron: 120. — and Aratus: 93, 121. — and Rhianus: 122, 149. — and Eratosthenes: 153. — and Aristophanes Byz.: 171 f., 183. — and Apollodorus of Athens: 259. — poems: 125 f. — as interpreter of early poetry: 140. — image of the original pure source in a literary sense: 126 and Excursus. — fundamental aesthetical terms: 136 f.; cf. 230.
20.6
General
CalHmachus (cont.): — Homeric text (of Zenodotus and others) used in his poems: 139 f. — lyric cola: 185. — describing works of archaic art in his poems: 246.5 Addenda. — Aetia, Apollo Delius (fr. 1 1 4 ) : 282. aims of poetry: 137 f. see also 'Homeric text used in his poems'. — Lock of Berenice (fr.
1 1 0 ) : 123 f.
— Encomion on Sosibius (fr. — Ibis:
3 8 4 ) : 123.
141.
— nivaxes:
127 ff.
alphabetical order: 129; cf. 195. classification of lyric poems: 181. tragic and comic poets: 160. orators: 278. writers on medicine: 152. 'Miscellanea': 131. — — questions of authenticity: 128.6 and Addenda. two special Pinakes: 131 f., 193. — books of the scholar besides the LlivaKts: — the first Onomasticon (?): 135, 197. — study of language: 198. — Against Praxiphanes:
135 f.
— writer of vrrop.vqpo.ra : 210 f. Odyssey:
1 g 1.
— on Pindar: 221. — on Aristophanes: 224. canon as term for selective list of authors coined by D. Ruhnken: 2 0 7 ; cf. Kavojv. — Biblical: 207. Carneades: 246. case: grammatical system of cases, see rrrdiais.
Castor of Rhodes: Xpovacd: Catullus, translation of the
257. Lock of
Berenice:
156.
Chamaeleo, on lyric poets: 181, 221.6, 222. —on Aeschylus: 281. chronology, Greek: 51 (Hippias), 79 (Aristotle), 163 (Eratosthenes), 2 5 5 (Apollodorus). Chrysippus of Soloi, LJepl 2 4 1
— on selected authors and distinction of 'classes' : 204, 206. — de or. I 187, on ars grammatica : 268.
— on Aristarchus' name as proverbial: 232. classiei, writers of the first class : 207 ; cf. c'y Kpi
Devres-
clay tablets, Mesopotamian : 18. Cleanthes, allegorism: 238. — theory of language : 243. Clearchus of Soloi, LJapoiptai : 8 4 . Cleochares, order of five cases : 13, 244. Cleopatra: 236. Collège Royal, a new Movoeîov : 119. colometry : 187 f. Colophon, birthplace of Antimachus, Hermesianax, and Phoenix: 93. colophon: 127. Comanos, Aristarchus Ilpès Koip.av6v: 213 and Addenda. Comedy, Attic, dramatic criticism topic of Old Comedy : 47. —• — first effort to distinguish the style of the comic poets: 160. division into periods: 242. Eratosthenes' special theory oh the origin: 161. Eratosthenes' interest in the language : 161.
Calltnus of Ephesus: 4 3 . Callisthenes: 71, 80* Callistratus, earliest (?) pupil of Aristophanes Byz.: igo f. — on the
General
Index
irvpoXoytKatv:
201,
"
— LJepl rrjs Kara r a j Ae'ifeis dvtitp,aXla$: 2 0 3 , 243.
— allegorism: 238. Cicero, pupil of the rhetor Molon in Rhodes: 266.
— patron of Tyrannion: 272.
Aristophanes Byz., textual criticism and colometry : 189. commentaries of Euphronius and Callistratus: 224. commentaries of Aristarchus : 224. less studied in Pergamum than in Alexandria: 242, 249. • Apollodorus* monograph on courtesans: 264. 1 Didymus' compilation of earlier explanations: 276. Comedy, Doric, Polemo acquainted with: 249.
— -— Apollodorus' edition of Epicharmus and monograph on Sophron : 264. commentary, see vTtopvqpxi. — marginal commentary around the text : 270.3-
Conon, astronomer, and Archimedes and Callimachus : 156. Corinna : 205 f. Cos: 9 2 . Craterus: 248. Crates of Athens: 243.4. Crates of Mallos in Pergamum: 235, * 2 3 8 ff. — and the library: 235. — Aiopdmnicd:
238 f.
— 'Op-npited: 2 3 9 .
— Stoic allegorical interpretation of Homer : 238 ff., 2 5 9 ; cf. 140.
— and Aristarchus: 240. — and Dionysius Thrax: 267. Crates, epigrammatist, AP xi 218 attack on Euphorion: 243. Cratinus, name quoted by Eratosthenes: 161. — edition of text by Aristophanes Byz. (?): 190.
— referred to in the /U'^cty: 199. — one of the selected authors: 204. Crete: 21. crisis, first crisis in the history of scholarship: 2 1 2 , 252.
Critias, as poet and antiquarian: ' 5 4 f. — on Phoenician characters: 24. — on Archilochus: 54, 146. — on Anacreon: 54. criticism, Homeric: see Homer, criticism, literary: 43 and Addenda; see Kplats
also
(rroi-nparoiv).
— critics of poetry, the poets: 47. — and selected authors: 204. cycle, epic, and cyclic: see KVKXOS, Cydas, chief librarian: 212, 254. Cyrene: 123 f., 153. — Libya = Cyrene?: 125.
Ilepl AtovvoiaKcov
aydivutv (?) : 193.
— on mathematical geography before Eratosthenes: 165. 'diction', see Ae'£t?. Didymus, born, grown up, working in Alexandria: * 2 7 4 ff.
— nicknames
and
XaXxevrepos
BifiXioXdBas:
275¬
—a certain lack of common sense: 276. — preserved the scholarly heritage of the Hellenistic age: 279. — preserver of variants: 276. — compiler of excerpts: 279. — summed up the Homeric Studies of Alexandrian scholars: 275. TTJS Aptorapxelov
ff., 275. — preferred Aristarchus'
SiopOojaetos'• 2 1 4 ,
216
KVKXIKOV.
99 ¬ f
— and the library: 101. — and the new scholarship: 103 f. dvayparp-q : 2 5 6 .
Demetrius of Scepsis: ' 2 4 9 ff. — TptaiKos StaKoapos '• 249, 2 5 8 .
— and Strabo: 259. Democrttus: * 4 2 f. — Democritean Pinax of Callimachus: 132. — among the selected authors: 207. — and Plato: 59. — and Hippias (?): 60. — LJepl 'Op-qpov . . . yXoiaacoiv:
297
— on Alcaeus (?): 181 f. — on lyric poetry: 222. — contents of tragedies and comedies in
— Tit pi
Damon: 53. Danaus, bringing letters to Greece: 20 f. ; cf. Cadmus, declension, see KXtms. Delphi, and Aristotle: 80 ff. — and Polemo: 247. Demetrius of Phaleron, in Alexandria: * 9 6 ,
— Apxovrwv
Index
79.
— linguistic study: 4 3 , 198, 243. — on euphony: 243.1 Addenda. — on povatK-q (?): 2 8 1 .
Demosthenes, speeches listed in IHvaKes: I3 — references in Aristophanes' A4£ets: 197. — Didymus' monograph ileal A-npooOevovs: 1
278.
— exegetical writings of the 2nd/ist centuries B . C . ( ? ) : 278. Dicaearchus, Life of Greece, influence on interpretation of Homer: 112.
avyypau.para
to his
vrrop.vfip.aTa.: 2 1 3 .
— blamed for having misunderstood Aristarchus : 233. — virop.vqp.ara on Iliad and
Odyssey: 2 7 6 .
— did not pay attention to Crates' views: — monograph on the classification of lyric poets, LJepl XvptKtov irot-qrutv: 184, 277, 279¬
— commentary on Bacchylides' epinicia: 222. — no reference to an CKO'OOIS or Stop$tu<ns of any lyric or dramatic poetry: 277. — commentaries on tragedy: 277. on Attic comedy: 276. on historians and orators: 2 7 7 ; cf. 225. — monograph LJepl Anpoodevovs: 278. — lexical writings (./lefts Koip.iKrf and Aegis rpayiK-q) : 2 7 8 .
augmented the collection of proverbs compiled by Aristophanes Byz.: 2 7 9 . Dieuchidas: 6. Dinolochus, Medea: 265. Dio Chrysostomus, on Aristotle as founder of scholarship: 67, 72. Diocles, grammarian: 254. Diodorus of Tarsus, ApLorotbdveios: 210. Diogenes of Babylon, teacher of Apollodorus: — LJepl napoipidiv
253. 2 5 7 , 260.
— effect upon Dionysius Thrax: 270. Dionystades of Mallos, on Attic comic poets: 160.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, selective lists of authors: 2 0 4 . 3 , 5 Dionysius Iambus, teacher of Aristophanes Byz.: 171. 2 0
— LJepl SmAtV-raw: 2 0 2 .
General
298
Dionysius of Miletus, historian: 2 0 . Dionysius Thrax: * 2 6 6 ff. — from Alexandria to Rhodes: 2 5 3 , 2 6 6 . — as painter : 2 2 4 . — interpreter of Homer: 2 6 7 . — Homer an Athenian: 2 2 8 , 2 6 7 . — linguistic and prosodic studies with references to epic and lyric poetry: 2 6 7 . —• T4x"V ypapnaTíK-q: 2 6 6 ff.; cf. 2 4 5 ; see also
grammar. -definition of ypappartK-j: 2 6 8 . typical structure of Hellenistic textbooks: 2 7 2 . Stoic influence in the technical part of the grammar: 2 7 0 . —,— question of authorship raised by Byzantine Scholia; K.. W. Gottling, V. di Benedetto: 2 6 8 , 2 7 0 f. — no fundamental discrepancies between it and his other works: 2 7 1 . Dioscurides (?) IJepi TOW nap' 'O/Mjpw vófuim: 113.1.
General
Index — definition of ypa/ifiartKiJ: 1 6 2 . — on spoken accents (?): 1 8 0 f. — on poetry aiming at ^uvaytoy/a, not SiSaoKaAta, and the reaction against this statement: 1 6 6 f., 2 5 9 . — Homeric problems in his chronology and geography: 1 6 4 . — on lyric poetry: 1 6 2 , 1 8 1 . — continued and criticized Lycophron's work on comedy: 1 2 0 , 1 6 0 . — on the origin of comedy (?) and on its foremost representatives: 1 6 1 ; cf. 2 0 4 . — observations on the comic language: 1 6 1 . — on performances of tragedies and comedies: 1 6 2 . — Apx^eKTOviKos, technical terms of the craftsman, esp. in comedy: 1 6 2 . — Xpovoypaiiiat, scientific chronology: 1 6 3 . superseded by Apollodorus' Xpovacd: '64, 255.
— register of * OXvpvmaviKat: 163. — on the authenticity of Eudoxus'
TJepl
rrjs
Donatiau-Charisius: 2 0 2 . Dosilheus ofPelusium: 1 2 1 , 4 . Doxographi: 8 4 . dual, peculiar to the Athenians: 2 2 8 . Duris: 7 0 , 5 Addenda.
'OKTacr-npihos: 1 6 4 . — Tlcpi Tijs avaperp-qoecos TTJT — Vtioypa^t-na, including the
Egypt, a thousand years of Greek civilization: 2 3 4 . — and Rome: 2 7 4 . elephant, anecdote: 1 7 2 f. Eleusis, suburb of Alexandria: 1 2 5 . Empedocles: 4 6 . enallage: I 4 7 ' 4 Ephesus: 9 3 . Ephorus: 2 5 9 . Epicbarmus, and Polemo: 2 4 9 . — and Apollodorus: 2 6 4 f. — catalogue of plays in iambic trimeters:
1 6 8 f. Erbse, Hartmut, on the Scholia on the Iliad and on Aristarchus: 2 1 3 . 5 , 2 1 5 and Addenda. etymology, in early poetry, especially of proper names: 4 , 1 2 . — in philosophical and historical writings of the sixth and fifth centuries B . C . : 1 2 , 4 0 ,
264.
— ^vheitLxdppeta: 2 6 5 . Eratosthenes: * 1 5 2 if. — librarian: 1 2 7 , 1 4 1 f->
of geography: 1 6 5 . — catalogue of constellations,
Karao-repi-
o-pol: 1 6 8 . — poems (Hermes, Erigone):
1
61.
— in Plato's Cralylus: 6 2 , 2 8 0 . — sparingly and soberly treated in Arislophan. Byz. Aegeis: 2 0 1 , 2 6 0 , — first Stoic specialist Chrysippus /7«pi irvpoXoytK&v:
201, 241, 243, 260.
— Crates in his interpretation of Homer: J54> * 7 2 -
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
yijs : 1 6 4 f. earlier history
mathematician and astronomer: 1 6 3 . nicknames (BÍJTO, névradXos): 1 7 0 . ironical style: 1 6 8 . and Gyrene: 1 2 3 , 1 5 0 , 1 5 3 . and Athens: 1 5 3 , 2 4 9 . Zenon's yvcúp4">s = 1 5 4 . and Callimachus: 153. and Archimedes: 155 f. and Neoptolemus of Parium : 1 6 6 . and Aristophanes Byz.: 1 7 1 . and Aristarchus: 2 3 1 . and Apollodorus: 2 5 8 . and Demetrius of Scepsis: 2 4 9 .
241.
— Apollodorus,
monograph
IJepl
irvpo-
Xoyi&tv. 2 6 0 .
— Apollodorus on etymologies of names of gods and places: 2 6 1 ff. — Dionysius Thrax, part of his grammar, finding of etymologies: 2 6 9 . — Philoxenus on monosyllables and trvptt: 274.
Euclid, EUmenta: 1 5 6 . Euclides. archon, and the Ionic alphabet: 3 0 . Eudemus of Rhodes, Peripatetics in Rhodes: 266.
— on (TTotveta: 6 0 . — on 8o£ai: 8 4 .
Index
299
Eudoxus, and Eratosthenes: 1 6 4 f. Flaubert, Gustave, on the 'ivory tower': 2 8 3 . — star catalogue used by Aratus: [ 2 1 , 1 5 2 . floruit (aKp-q): 2 5 6 ; cf. ytyove. Euenus, and the Sophists: 5 5 . Fouilles de Delphes HI 1, no. 40a: Hedylus: 9 3 . 111. — references to writing, fr. 5 0 6 N . : 2 6 ; fr. Heliodorus: 1 8 9 , 1 9 6 . Hellanicus of Lesbos: 3 0 , 2 5 0 , 2 5 5 . 2 . 382 N. : 30. * - lines criticized in the Frogs, fr. 1 5 7 sq. N . : Hephaestio, metrical handbook in the Alexandrian tradition: 1 8 5 ff. 40. — etymology of TTaAAdi fr. ] 0 0 9 * Snell: Heraclides Ponticus, Homeric Solutions: 7 0 . — On Homer, Hesiod,and Archilochus: 1 4 5 . 262.8. Euripides (not the tragedian), editor of — / f e p t Ttov T p n o v TpaycaBorroiaiv : 2 0 4 . — quoting minor lyric poets: 2 0 5 . Homer (?): 7 2 . 4 . — sent by Plato to Colophon in order to Eurydice, third wife of Ptolemy 1: 9 6 . collect Antimachus' poems: 9 4 . Eusebius, Hist. eccl. v 8 . 11 (Alexandrian Heraclides Ponticus (the younger), pupil of library): 9 8 . Didymus: 2 7 5 . — XpoviKa, list of Spartan kings: 1 6 3 . Heraclitus, on etymology of names: 1 2 . — Hist. eccl. vi 2 5 . 3 on icavd/v: 2 0 7 . 4 . — against Homer: 4 2 . Eustathius, on A 5 v.I. rrSoi: Saira: 1 1 3 . — Cratylus represents ideas of Heraclitus on — on ifi 2 9 6 as the end of the Odyssey: 1 7 5 . language: 5 9 . — excerpts from Aristophanes' Ae£*ts: — on punctuating the opening sentence: 1 9 9 ff. — and the Homeric Scholia: 2 1 9 , 2 4 0 . J79— on fi&fakoiroiia : 2 8 5 . [Heraclitus] Quaest. Homer.: 5 . 4 , 2 4 0 . Hereas: 6 . Faber, Tanaquil: 2 8 4 . Hermeias, explained opfWtma as KvptoXegla Fabri, Anna: 2 8 4 . in his commentary on Plat. Phaedr.: 2 8 0 . 1
2
General Index
30O
the somatic symptoms mentioned in Hermesianax of Colophon: * 8 g . sophistic and philosophical literature — list of early poets in an elegy: 52, 89. probably derived from 'Hippocratic' — and Philitas: 93. writings: 48.3. — and Antimachus' Lyde: 9 4 . Hermippus of Smyrna, LJepirraTrrrtKos and — no evidence for eprretpla—rex^n as formula in 'Hippocratic' literature: 57. KaXXifiáxtios, biographical work: * i 2 g , Hipponax, probably quoted in Aristo150 and Addenda, 247. phanes' Aefcis: 199. — on Demetrius of Phaleron: 96. Herodian, on prosody in Cod. Ven. A of the — explanation of a dialectal gloss by Polemo: Iliad:
214, 219.
[Herodian], JTepí ax~npA.roiv, definition and examples of polyp to ton: 12 f. Herodicus, pupil of Crates of Mallos,
248.
— origin of parody according to Polemo: 249.
historians, in selective lists: 206. — commentaries on historians: 224, 277. Kaiptpffovptv01: 2 4 2 . Hittites, cuneiform tablets with words in — on Polemo as arnXoK¿iTas: 248. Hittite, Sumerian, and Accadian: 18. Herodotus, and the growth of the book (?): Homer, bis own interpreter: 3 f. — Attic text (?): 7, 109 f. — observations on language: 41. — Peisistratean recension: 6 f . , 2 5 . — on Iliad and Cypria: 4 4 . — official copy for the Panathenaic festivals: •—references in Aristophanes' Ai$eis: 197. no. — first commentary by Aristarchus: 224 f. — city-editions: 94, 110, 139. Herondas, and Sophron: 265. — historical person for every Greek, his — Philitas not in the Dream: 9 0 . 5 . date and life: 11, 43, 117, 164. Hesiod, Op. 2 f. 'etymology': 4 . — Op. proem, its anaphoras and antitheses: — regarded as an Athenian: 228, 267. 14. — Codex Ven. Marc. 4 5 4 (A) of the Iliad with Scholia: 213 f., 219. — his date in relation to Homer's date: 164. — Codices Ven. Marc. 4 5 3 (B), Townl., — in selective lists of authors: 204 f. Genav., etc., of the Iliad with exegetical — Aristotle's Hesiodic questions: 144. Scholia: 239. — favourite with the great poets of the first — Codices HM of the Odyssey with Scholia: half of the third century B . C . : 117. 2 3 9 f. — Zenodotus' edition of the Theogony. 117. — Apollonius Rhodius on Hes. Theog., — correct use of Greek language: 42. Hants, and Opvt8apavreia: 144. — criticism, starting-point of philosophical criticism: 9. — Aristophanes Byz. edited the Theogony (Suppl. to Pinakes): 177 f. scholarly criticism: 105 ff. textual criticism: 215. doubted the Hesiodic origin of Xiputvos — the poet of most of the narrative poems 'YiroBrjtcai and Aowls: i77f(sixth century B . C . ) : 11, 4 3 f. — Hesiodic criticism of Aristarchus: 220. — proems of Theogony and Erga athetized by — the poet of Iliad, Odyssey, Margites (fourth Crates: 241. century B . C . ) : 73. — Dionysius Thrax on a gloss in Hesiod: — only Iliad and Odyssey Homeric: 1 1 7 , 2 0 4 f. 267. — and Aeschylus, see Aeschylus. Hipparchus, criticism of Eratosthenes' /«*• — and Antisthenes: 36. — and Gorgias: 46. ypa 53¬ u f. — on early poets and philosophers: 5 2 , 84. — and Aratus: 121 f. — on 'elements' of words (?): 60 f. — and Rhianus: 122, 148 f. Hippias of Thasos, on Homeric textual ques- — and Callimachus: 137, 139f. tions: 45. — and Apollonius Rhodius: 1 4 6 - 8 . Hippocraticum Corpus, $¿fios—¿Acor and — and Eratosthenes: 164, 166, 168f. r
5
General Index — and Aristophanes Byz.: 174 ff. the first to accentuate the text: 180 f. — and Callistratus: 191. — and Aristarchus: 213 ff. on date and birthplace: 228, 367. on Homeric Sals (cf. 227) and Au'vvos: 112 f. — and Crates: 238 ff. — Polemo on the site of Troy and the battlefield of the Iliad: 249. — Demetrius of Scepsis on the Catalogue of the Trojans and the site of Troy: 249 fF. — and Apollodorus of Athens; on geography : 258 ff.; on theology: 261 ff. — and Dionysius Thrax: 267. — and Didymus: 275 f., 279. — A 1 f.: 4 , 3 3 . —
4 3 : 147.
—
^4-5:
—
A 2 2 5 - 3 3 : 113. 108,
Z 4 : 229.6
—
7 3 9 4 : 229.
ff.:
114.
Addenda.
— —
/ 502
—
A 3 2 - 4 0 : 240.
—
A 5 5 : 147.
f.:
— A 97 —
5, 237.
148.
— Z 272 : 140. — 27 4 8 3 - 6 0 8 : 175.6, 177, 2 4 0 .
i f.:
4 , 37.
a
—
e 7 2 : 212.
— p. 127 ff. (number of the cattle of Helios): i 6— v 1 0 2 - 1 2 (Cave of nymphs): 226. 5
—
o 5 0 8 (atvos):
—
4> 2 9 6 (end
5. of the
Odyssey):
231.1.
— Schol. A on A 5 0 (on p\erdvoia) Horace, A.P. 132 and 136: 230. — A.P. 333 and 9 9 ff.: 167. — A.P. —
wapaypa^'j l 17g.
— in Aristophanes' Istros: * i 5 o f . —
Aégtts : 197.
Ilepl p.t\orroi&v: 183.
Ivory Tower, and the Hellenistic scholar poets : 98 and Excursus. James, Henry : 283. Juba of Mauretania, historian: 275. Kenyon, F. G. : 82. ktisis-poetry, early hexaraetric, and the KTÎaeis of Apollonius : 144. Kumarbi, and Hesiod's Kxonos story; 22.4.
Laterculi Alexandrini : 7.
7 7 4 3 2 - 5 8 : 113.
—
— Panegyr. : 4 9 , 50. —
Lacy des, member of the Peripatos : 235. lamp, see AIÎYVOSLamprocles, hymn to Athena: 162. Las us of Hcrmione, KUKXLKOX yopoi, mentioned by Euphronius: 161. — on rhythmics (?) : 53 and Addenda.
i n , 147.
— A 88f.:
— on rralBevats : 5 0 , 2 5 2 .
116, 175
ff.,
• : 282.
4 5 0 : 2 3 2 . 2.
Odes 1 1. 3 5 : 182, 2 0 6 .
— Sat. 1 4 . 1: 204.
Housman, A. E . : 9 8 , 137.5. humanists, Italian: no, 233. hyperbaton: 34. hypotheses (summaries of plays):
192-6.
iambographers, in the selective lists: 204, Ibycus, one of the nine lyric poets: 205. — etymology of JTaAAas: 2 6 2 , 8 . Icaria, in the Erigone-Iegend: 169. Ilium, site of the Homeric Troy: 249 f. inscriptions, sources of historians and antiquarians : 248. Ion of Chios, Omphalt: 223. Isocrates: * 4 9 f.
Latin, a species of Greek dialect: 274. leather rolls: 19, 236. lectures, of Alexandrian scholars and copies made by pupils (?) : 108, 212.7. Lehrs, Karl, admirer of George Grote : 7. — Aristarchean studies : 214 f. Leo, F., on ffcpi-literature : 146.2. libraries, said to be founded by Greek tyrants (?) : 7. — with literary texts in Mesopotamia : 18. — Aristotle's library : 67, 99. — library of the Alexandrian Museum : 98 ff. sequence of the librarians: 1 5 4 ; cf. 142, I 7 2 , 2IO, 2 1 2 , 273 f. losses caused by the fire in 4 7 B . C . : 236. — smaller or daughter library at Alexandria (connected with a Serapeum?) : 101 f. — relation between Alexandrian and oriental libraries (?): 103, 126. — Pergamene library : 235 fF. Licymnius: 5 5 , 280. Litany, Lauretan : 283. Longinus, Cassius : 226. Lycon, member of the Peripatos: 235. Lycophron, member of the Pleiad, Alexandra and its date : 119, 120. — Alexandra 21 «rv
Lycurgus of Athens, and the official copy of the three tragedians, borrowed by Ptolemy I I I : 8 2 , 192.
302
General
lyric poetry, arrangement in the Pmakes: 130.
— editions from Zenodotus to Aristophanes Byz.: 181 ff. — terms XvptK-tf and fi«Ai»ci) irol-nais, Xvptxoi (lyriei) and peXoiroioi
(melici):
182 f.
— division of lyric texts into cola by Aristophanes Byz.: 185 f. — selective list of the nine lyric poets: 205. — monostrophic and triadic songs: 186. — modern distinction into monodtc and choral lyric: 2 8 3 ; cf. povtpSia. — Didymus' monograph on the classification of the various genres: 277. Lysandreia, festival in Samos: 93. Lysanias, teacher of Eratosthenes: 146.1, Lysimachus, one of the
Diadochi:
160.
— teacher of Aristophanes Byz.: 171, i8g. Macrobius, and Apollodorus: 262. Magas: 123. 73 f.
Massilia: 110. mathematics, as enurrrjftn:
Menander, Dyscolus: 191, 196. — Sicyonius, colophon: 127. — in Callimachus' Pinakes: 129 f.
— and Aristophanes Byz.: 190 ff., 208. — total number of plays in Apollodorus' 257-
Menccles of Barca: 252. Menecrates of Ephesus, teacher of Aratus: 93» iao. Menedemus, Eretrian philosopher: 119. metaphors, in Homer, explained by Aristarchus: 232. Metellus Numidicus: 266. metricians: 76. Metrodorus of Lampsacus, pupil of Anaxagoras: 35, 237. Mimnermus: 89. Molon: 266. Momrnsen, Theodor: 98. monosyllables, as prototypes regarded by Philoxenus: 274. Moschopulus, Apollodorus' theology: 263. Moschus of Syracuse, Europa: 211. Musaeus: 27, 52. Muses, name: 62. — telling the truth (Hesiod, Callimachus): 125-
98, 233.
— scholars and scientists, no philosophers: 9 7 . 159¬
— no peaceful community: 97, 143. Museum, Ashmole's: 97.3. Museum, British, Greek papyri: 82. — Assyrian tablets: 18. music, attribution of lyric poems to their musical classes by Apollonius el8oypa<pos: 184.
— loss of musical notation on Greek lyric poetry: 181. musicians, Lasus of Hermtonc, Damon the Athenian: 53.
General Panaetius, Stoic philosopher, native of Rhodes: 266. — pupil of Crates: 245. — on Aristarchus: 232, 245. — and the younger Scipio: 246. — and Apollodorus: 254. Panathenaea, recital of epic poems at the festival: 8, 44. papyri, Egyptian papyri and oriental leather rolls: 19. — import into Greece: 22, 25 ; cf. jSufJAos. — earliest Greek papyri (late fourth century B . C . ) : 102 f. — of the Plolemaic era with Homeric lines: 108 ft with many 'plus verses': 115. — of i>itop,vfipv.Ta. on Homer: 2 1 9 . P.Berol.
Nemesis of Rhamnus: 247. Neoptolemus of Parium, and Eratosthenes: 166.
Nicanor, under Hadrian, on punctuation: 180, 214, 2 1 9 .
Niceratus, rival of Antimachus: 93. noun, see ovopa.
64.
medicine, writers on medicine in Callimachus' Pinakes: 152. Melanchthon: 49. melicus, see lyric poetry.
Xpovttcd:
Museum, Alexandrian: 9 6 ff.; cf. Movaetov and libraries. — free fellowship of masters and disciples :
93, 234.
Machon, poet, on the parts of comedy:
Margites:
Index
obelus, see ofieXos. Odysseus, etymologies of the name: 4 . Olympic winners, see Hippias of EHs; 'OXvp,irioviKwv avaypay: 51 ; Aristotle: 8 0 ; Eratosthenes: 163; Apollodorus: 256. Onasander, librarian: 2 7 3 . 8 . Onesicritus: 71. Onomastika, vocabularies arranged according to subjects or localities, Callimachus: ' 3 5 . 197¬
— Aristophanes Byz.: 200. oral composition, of epic poetry: 25. oral tradition, of interpretations of Zenodotus: 108. of Aristophanes Byz. : 2 1 c oral transmission, of epic poetry: 2 5 . orators, Attic, in Callimachus' Pinakes: 128, 131.
selective lists in Alexandria: 206 f. keener interest in the orators in Pergamum: 2 4 2 . exegetical writings by Didymus (and his predecessors?): 277 f. ordo, of selected authors: 204. oriental background of Greek culture: 17 ff., 103, 126,
Orpheus, heading the series of the earliest poets: 52, 89. — allegorical commentary on Orpheus' Cosmogony: 103.1, 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 .
Orphics, and Aristotle (?): 83.
Berl. Klass.
ritpl
Texte I inv. 9780 Atovpov
A-qpoaBivovs
no
viropwqpo.,
but
a
monograph: 278. P.Oxy. II 221 Schol. on 0: 238.6. P.Oxy, 841 and 2442 Pindar Paeans, marginal notes with abbreviations: 118. P.Oxy.
1241, Chrestomathy
with
list
of
Alexandrian librarians: 154. P.Oxy. 2 2 6 0 : no anonymous commentary, but part of Apollodorus' TIcpl ffeaiv: 262.6, P.Oxy. 2438, arrangement ofPindar'spoems: no uir6p.v?ip.a, but a monograph on lyric poets: 2 2 2 . 4 . P.Sorbonne inv. 2 2 4 5 , earliest Odyssey papyrus with stichometric figures: 116.5. paradoxographers: 134 f., 152, 173. paraphrases for exegesis: 219.5 Addenda, parchment: 236. Parthenius: 272. participle, see peroxy. Pausanias: 247. Peisistratus: 6 f., 25. Pergamum : * 2 3 4 ff.; see also libraries. — rivalry with Alexandria: 159, 171 f. — refuge of scholars under Ptolemy V I I I : 2506,
ypappartKol
of new institutions in Alexandria : 95» 4 — literature LTepl rod SeiW (?) t 146. — inclination of the Callimacheans Hermippus, Istros, Philostephanus towards the Peripatos: 151. — hypotheses to the text of the dramatists Peripatetic and Alexandrian: 193. — Aristophanes Byz. and the Peripatetic tradition: 208 f. — edition and explanation of the writings of its founder : 246. — Peripatetic tradition in Rhodes : 26G. Petrarch : 170. Pherecrates, regarded as equal to Eupolis, Cratinus, and Aristophanes: 161, 204. Pherecydes of Syros: 10, t 2 . Phila, half-sister of Antiochus I : 121. Philetaerus, son of Attalus: 234. philhellenism : 68, 274. Philicus of Corcyra, Hymn to Demeter: 157. Philitas, ITOII)T7)Î âpa. KOI Kptrixos : * 8 8 ff. — praised by Theocritus and Callimachus; new movement in poetry and scholarship: 95, 124, 157, 265. — tutor to the heir of the throne: 92, 98. — valetudinarian (?) : 41, 170. — historical position : 67, 104. — Demeter, and Callimachus : 284. l 0
— Aristarchus, flpos
0tXlrav:
9 1 , 213.
Philochorus: 151.1 Addenda. Philodemus, IJept rrovopd-roiv, book V :
— Htpi
243.
evoefSelas'• 262 f.
— referring to Gorgias on Aeschylus : 281. philosophers, in Callimachus' Pmakes: 131. — in selective lists : 206. philosophy, and scholarship: 57 ff., 134. 237 ff. — ancient quarrel, philosophy—poetry : 58. — of language: 59, 198. Philostephanus : 150 f. and Addenda. Philoxenus : 273 f. — technical grammar centred on the verbs: 274.
212.
— scholars called themselves — iltpyap-nvol
m
— AroKTOi. rXûaaai : 7 9 , 9 0 f., 198.
184.2. P.Oxy.
Index
KpniKol,
not
or
133- 2 3 6 .
— interest in orators: 206.1. — lists of ey-KptBivres (?) : 242. — antiquarian writers: 246 ff. — influence on Rome: 246, 267. periegesis, geographical (Hecataeus) and antiquarian (Pergamum): 247. Peripatos: * 6 s ff. — and Alexandria: 67, 97. — initiators of Alexandrian scholarship not Peripatetics: 95. — Peripatetic influence on the organization
— Latin as a species of Greek dialect: 274. Phoenician script: 20 ff. Phoenix of Colophon : 93. Pindar, always the first of the nine lyric poets in the selective lists: 205. — critical edition by Zenodotus : 117 f. by Aristophanes Byz. : 183 ff. — new recension (?) and commentary by Aristarchus: 221. — commentary of Didymus : 276 f. — colomefry and strophic structure : 187 f. — Paeans:
118, 185.
— and Archilochus : 146. — and Callicles on vôp.os :
34.
General
304
General
Index
Pittacus, called V by Alcaeus: a n . plagiarism: 191. Plato, Academy edition, based on autographs : 6 5 f. — edition of the dialogues arranged in tetralogies or trilogies: 196. — no Alexandrian edition (by Aristophanes Byz.): 196 f. — Academy edition with commentaries: 246. — and poetry: 10, 34, 58, 69, 74 f. (c'pfloTijs),
— on the Cave of the Nymphs (v 1 0 2 - 1 2 ) : 2 2 6 .
167, 237. — CratyliiSt problems
Praxiphanes, Peripatetic, and Callimachus:
of language: 59 ff. — paved the way for scholarship: 65. — used the compound
— self-interpretation of epic poetry: 3 f., 226.
— traditional technique of epic poetry: 4 . — references to writing and reading in poetry: 25 f, — poets competent critics of poetry: 47. — Gorgias on poetry: 48, — Plato and poetry, see Plato. — Callimachus on poetry: 126. — Eratosthenes on poetry: 166. — translations of Greek poetry into Latin: 246.
— on the Kovp-nres
(?): 262.
— TOV nXaTOJvos Ttfiaiov e£•nyovp.evos: 2 2 3 - ' ' 95. ' 3 5 f -
— /Ttpl jroiirrtSe, dialogue between Plato and Isocrates: 136. — first to be called ypapp-ariKos (?): 158. — and Hesiod: 220, 241. — in Rhodes: 266. Proclus, Chrestomathy, division of lyric poetry: 184.
Prodicus of Ceos, on differentiation of kindred terms, etymology, Ae'^eis: * 3 g ff., 6 2 , 78, 2 2 8 , 280. — Horai, circulating
book: 30. — as orator in the Pinakes: 131. Propertius: 89. Protagoras, interpretation of Simon ides* Seopas-poem: "32 ff. — correctness of diction, division of genders and of tenses (?): 37 ff.; cf. 77. — educational purpose: 16, 39. — books burned (?): 31 f. — and Democritus: 42¬ — Ahr,6eia: 280.
proverbs: 83 f., 208 f. Ptolemy I , Soter: 92 f., 95 f., 98 f., 101 f., 123.
Ptolemy I I (called 'Philadelphus' at the end of the second century B . C . : 1 0 0 . 3 ) 7. 9 ° . 100 f., 107. Ptolemy I I I , Euergetes I : 8 2 , 102, 123 f, :
— Stoics on the Adyos manifesting itself in poetry: 238. — and philosophy, see philosophy. poets, poetae philosophi and poetae docti: 55¬ — as SiSd<7iraAoi, 'producers*: 81. — chronology of Hellenistic poets: 107. Poggio: 144. Polemo of Ilium, antiquarian: »247 ff. — against Eratosthenes: 248 f. — in 12 books 77pds Tlpaiov on Doric Comedy and the origin of parody: 249. — on Ilium as the site of the Homeric Troy: 249-
Politian: 90, 170. Polus: 280. Polybius: 165, 254 f. Polycrates of Samos: 7. Porphyry, 'OpuputA, r,rrrqp.aTa: (aajrnvlfcw),
— letter to Anatolius (on interpretation of Homer): 226. — on Apollodorus: 264. Posidippus: 94. Posidonius, in Rhodes: 266. — and Eratosthenes: 165. — on Homer: 240 f.
285.
*4'» 153-
Ptolemy IV, Philopator: 155, 171. Ptolemy V, Epiphanes: 153, 171. Ptolemy V I , Philometor: 210, 238. Ptolemy V I I , Neos Philopator: 211. Ptolemy V I I I , Euergetes I I : 211 f., 252. Ptolemy I X , Philometor: 254, 274. punctuation: 178 ff., 219, 269. Pyrrhus: 121. Pythagoras: 9.5. Pythian games: 80. quadrivium: 5 2 .
Ojiintilian, on selected authors: 204 ff. rhapsodes: 5 , 8 f., n , 55, 109; cf. paipwota, 10, 70, 2 2 6
p'ojp(pS6s.
rhetoric: 76, 278.
Rhianus of Crete, epic poems: "148 f. — edition of Homer: 122, 149, 174. — and Callimachus: 122, 149. Rhodes, introduction of letters and papyrus into Greece via Rhodes in the eighth century B . C . ( ? ) : 22. — new cultural centre in the Hellenistic age: 2 0 6 , 212, 253, 2 6 6 . — Apollonius Rhodius and Rhodes: 141 f., 284.
Index [Scymnus], on Apollodorus: 253ff.,257. Seleucids: 234. sentence, see Aoyos. Septuagint: 100; cf. Bible. Serapeum, Alexandrian: 101 f. Seven Wise Men: 83, 97. Scxtus Empiricus, and Dionysius Thrax: 268.
Sicily, historians on Sicily: 277. signs, critical, see a-qpela. signs, lectional, see accentuation, punctuation. Simias of Rhodes, poems and glosses: * 8 g f.,
— Dionysius Thrax and his pupils in Rhodes: 266. rhythmics: 5 3 . Ritschl, Friedrich: 6 f. 7 9 . 198. Rohde, Erwin: 247.1. similes, explained by Aristarchus: 232. Rome, and Pergamum: 234, 246, 267. Simonides, one of the nine lyric poets: 205. — Roman scholar poets: 246. — Epinicia, arrangement in Callimachus' — Greek missions of Stoics, Academics, and Pinakes: 130. Peripatetics to Rome: 246. — poem to Scopas (fr. 37 Page) explained by — and Alexandrian scholarship: 2 6 7 ff., Protagoras: 32 f. 272, 273 f. Sinope: no. — and philhellenism: 274. Soloi in Cilicia: 93. Solon, elegiacs and iambics: 82. Ronsard, Pierre de: 119. Sophists, practical purpose in their treatRuhnken, David: 207. ment of literary subjects: 16, 134. Ruskin, John: 63.1. — heirs of the rhapsodes: 16, 55. — interpretation of the written word as Sainte-Beuve, Ch. A.: 283. mental training: 32 ff. Salmasius: 170. — analysis of language, rhetorical or educaSamothrace: 210. tional: 37 ff, 45 ff. Sappho, name on vase paintings: 27. — no true literary criticism: 43 ff. — one of the nine lyric poets: 205. — compilation of antiquities: 51 ff. — monostrophic songs: 186. Sophocles, Pinakes on the number and — in P.Oxy. 2 5 0 6 : 222. authenticity of plays: 128.6 Addenda. — in Didymus* Miscellanea: 279. — edition of the text by Aristophanes Byz.: satyrs, in P.Oxy. 1083, fr. 1 (Sophocles) claiming competence in many fields like the Sophists: 54 and Addenda— commentary of Aristarchus: 222 f. Satyrus from Callatis, Peripatetic, Life of — commented on by Didymus: 277. Euripides: 151. — and Herodotus: 225. — On the Demes of Alexandria: 151. — on Phoenician letters, fr. 514 P. (/7oiScaliger, J . J . : 98, 163. p.eves) : 21. scholarship, definition: 3. — satyr-play P.Oxy. 1083, fr. 1, cf. P.Oxy. — a separate intellectual discipline: 3 , 134, 2 4 5 3 ! 54171. Sophron, and Plato: 265. — monograph of Apollodorus: 264 f. — classical: 3«, 88, 251. — in Alexandria and in the Peripatos: 6 7 , Sosibius, celebrated by Callimachus in the 104, 113, 193. early third century B . C . ( ? ) : 123 f. Sosibius Laco, On Lacedaemonian Cults, — poetry and scholarship, see poetry. Laconic glosses: 202. — and science: 152ff.,167, 245. — first crisis in the history of scholarship and — on Alcman: 220. its consequences: 212, 252. sound-symbolism: 64. Scholia, marginal commentaries around the speech, see Aoyostext: 270.3. Sphinx, reciting the riddle from an open 'Scholium Plautinum': 100.2, 106 f., 128. book: 27. science, and scholarship, see scholarship. Stanley, Thomas: 134.6, 281. Scipio, the younger, and Panaetius: 246. Steinthal, H . : 59.3Scolia of Elephantine: 186. Stephanus of Byzantium, and Apollodorus of script, see writing. Athens: 260. B14342
General Index
3o6
Stesichorus, one of the nine lyric poets: 205. — Palinode: 9 . — in P.Oxy. 2 5 0 6 : 2 2 2 .
— etymology of J7aAAos: 2 6 2 . 8 . Stesimbrotus of Thasos, on Homer: 3 5 , 4 5 . stichometrical figures, on clay tablets and papyrus rolls: 126. Stilo, L . Aclius, and Dionysius Thrax in Rhodes: 266. Stoicism, Stoics, and Aratus: 121. — Ariston of Chios and Eratosthenes: 153, 157¬
— in Pergamum: 235 ff. — on poetry: 140, 237 ff. — linguistic studies: 243 ff. — and Apollodorus: 261. — and Dionysius Thrax: 270. — and Rome: 246, 267. Strabo, and Eratosthenes: 154, 165f., 259. — and Apollodorus: 258 f. -— and Demetrius of Scepsis: 249 f. — and Tyrannion: 273. — report of the fortunes of Theophrastus' library: 273. Strato, Com., quoting PhiUtas in Pkoenicides: 9*-
Strato of Lampsacus, 6
Suetonius, on Peisistratus: 7. — iltpi
pXao^npiwv:
201.
Sulla: 273. Sumerian, see glossaries, symbols, see trope to.. Symmachus, commentary on Aristophanes: 196.
synonyms, see also owu>wu,a. — Prodicus first authority on synonyms: 3 4 , 40.
— distinction of synonyms in Homer by Aristarchus: 2 2 8 . Tabulae lliaeae: 195. Tecknopaegnia (Carmina figurata): 9 0 , 2 , 120.
Telephus, Pergamene grammarian: 237. terminology, vague and fluid as regards scholarship: 159. Terpander: 145. Thales: 52. Theagenes of Rhegium, on Homer: * 9 ff., 42, 69.
— his Homeric writings regarded as the beginning of ypanpariKy (by Asclepiades of Myrlea?): 158. Thro Alexandrinus (not yet identified), on edition of Homer by Aratus in his Vita Arati:
121.4.
General Index
Theocritus,
epigr. 21 — Syrinx: 9 0 .
(on Archilochus):
146.
— and Sophron: 265, — and Philitas: 8 9 . Theophrastus, and the Peripatos: 65. — refused to leave Athens for Alexandria: 96.
— list of his writings in the Pinakes (?): — edition made by Andronicus: 264. -—library transferred to Rome: 273. —
tPvaticdiv
131.
hogai: 8 4 .
— and Aristophanes' i7cpi (.uioiv: 173. Thucydides, and the 'book': 29. — in Aristophanes' A4(as: 197. — first commentary by Aristarchus (?): 2 2 5 . — on rraiSevotsi
252.
Timaeus ofTauromenion, and Hippias: 163. — helpful for commenting on Pindar ¡ 2 2 1 . Timon of Phlius, contempt for scholars and scholarship: 97 f., 170, 173. — and Aratus: 121 f. Timotheus, Persai papyrus: 179, 186. tragedy, tragedies available as 'books', but not the first proper Greek books: 28 f. — Alexander Aetolus first to deal with tragedies in Alexandria: 105 f. — selection of the three great Attic tragedians: 204. Triclinius, Demetrius: 187. Troy, site of the Homeric Troy: 249, 251. — the taking of Troy 1184/3 B . C . as earliest date fixed by Greek chronologists: 163. truth, see aX^Beia. Tyrannion from Amisus in Pontus, pupil of Dionysius Thrax in Rhodes: 266. — teacher in Amisus and Rome, writer on Homeric subjects and on technical grammar : 272 f. and Addenda. — on accents (?): 180.6. — and Theophrastus' library in Rome: 273. Tyrannion, the younger: 273. Tzetzes, Prolegomena to Aristophanes: ioof.; for Latin translation see 'Scholium Plautinum'. — and Aristeas' letter:
101, 104.
— on the Museum library: 105 ff. — on Callimachus' Pinakes:
127.
Ugarit (Ras-Shamra): 18. Valla, Lorenzo: 49.2, 144. Varro, De bibliothecis: 7. .— antiquitates
(translation of apvmoAoyia) :
5*¬
— on TTO$I) rrji Xe£ft»s in Aristophan. Byz.: aoi. — on the principle of avaXoyla. in Aristophanes Byz.: 2 0 2 .
— and Dionysius Thrax: 267 f. — and Philoxenus: 274. vases, Attic red-figured, representations of inscribed rolls: 27. Ventris, Michael: 21. Vigny, Alfred de: 283. Villoison, J.-B. de, discovery of the two foremost manuscripts of the Had in Venice, 1 7 8 1 : 214.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrtch von:
Aris¬
toteles und Athen: 8 2 .
Xenophanes : 8 f, 42, 58, 69. Xenophon: 3 0 f., 225. Zenoof Kition, and Eratosthenes (?) : 154. — allegorism: 238, 241. — theory of language : 243. Zenodotus of Ephesus: ' 1 0 5 ff. — pupil of Philitas, tutor to Ptolemy I I (and Arsinoe?) : 92. — scholarly co-operation with two poets, Alexander Aetolus and Lycophron: 107. — first librarian of the Museum, succeeded by Apollonius Rhodius: 105, 141.
Wolf, F. A., Prolegomena ad Homerum, first attempt at a history of the Homeric text — and his followers called ypap.partKal : 157. and disclosure of the unique historical — first SiopftoTjJj of epic and lyric poetry : 94, 106, 108, 173. position of the Homeric poetry: 2 1 4 f. Homeric text based on documentary paving the way for future analytical evidence : 114. efforts ¡ 2 3 1 . athetoses: 114, 177, 240. words, see also anomaly, oi>o/*a, prjpa. — relation of words to things: 59, 6 3 , 7 6 , — invention of the obelus: 115, 1 7 8 ; see also
243.6. ^ — a s SijAtu/tara: 6 0 .
— Timon alluding to his edition of Homer
— origin of words: 6 3 , 79. writing, oriental: 18f. — Semitic: 22 f. — Mycenaean: 20 f. — of epic poets: 25. — a work of art in archaic Greece: 24. — references to writing and reading in poetry and art of the fifth century B . C . : 2 5 ft Xenocritus of Cos: 92.2. Xenon, one of the xotplCovrts:
213.
(?) : 9 8 , 139¬
— no commentary or monograph : 108, 115. —rXûxsaai, alphab. arranged : 108, 112, 115. — text of A 4 - 5 : 111 ff., 147 f. — edition of Hesiod's Theogony : 117. lyric poetry : 117 f. — and Callimachus : 139. — and Apollonius Rhodius : 141, 147 f. — and Aristophan. Byz. : 171 f. Zenodotus Philetaerus : 115.2. Zeno[dotus], grammarian under Ptolemy I X : 254. Zoilus of Amphipolis : 70,
of Greek Çyrrjpa : 6 9 ff.,
gevircd (ovopara)
263 ; see also Xtjaets.
dfleXos,
ypttpatva: 61, 7 6 .
INDEX
O F GREEK
WORDS
BavpAma,
— Laconic glosses: 202. at vos: 5.
yAotaooypâfot : 79-
amaTWiTj nrÛiats, 'accusativus' : à*m '• 2 5 6 . ÔAifoW 36, 57, 6 3 . àAiTeyyijç {coni., ~reayys pap.) :
yvojpipos
àpâprvpov:
244.
ypapptariKol,
125'
Addenda, 253.
âpvmrot : 2 2 5 . àvâyvtoats : 2 6 8 f.
dvrlarpotpos : l 8 6 . fitfiXiOÔriKtùv : 141 f., 2 8 5 .
ôrfpioToi (se. xpôvot) : 2 4 5 ; cf. ôtptapévot. 227, 229.
àn-anj : 47 f. àirXâ (se. ovopara) \ 78 ; cf. SnrAâ. àirri #««51 (viva voce exegesis) : 108.1.
Bt-qy-nats: 195. Oiyv€K
ànperrès: 10, 2 3 2 . àppoviat : 53-7-
àpxotoAoyÎŒ : 51 i cf. antiquitates. Hratcra
178, 186.
(Hraicroi
yXwaaat)
: 90.
avrws: 174, 175-' (coni. ; ovrais codd.). âipaiva
61.
'22, 2i5f.;
cf.
159, 2 3 8 , 2 4 2 .
KvxXtKuts, KoxXiKwrepov,
'cychc* as
inferior: 227, 2 2 9 , 2 3 0 ; cf. vetarepot.
epic cycle: 4 4 , 73. KvptoXe^la, neoplatonic explanation of o'pfioKVKAOS,
e i r o o : 280 f. KWXOV:
see ovopa.
r
262.
rare and obsolete (epic) words:
12,
; cf. 198. — Democritus, Aristophanes, Aristotle on 41
yXmaaat : "J& f.
— learned collections by Philitas and Simias : 79. 9°¬
— Zenodotus' rXâaaat, alphabetically arranged: 115. — Aristarchus* correction of errors in the explanation of yXwaaat: 228. — exposition of yXàiooai part of Dionysius' Techne: 2 6 9 .
— Hippocratic glosses: 92.2.
first distinguished by Plato: 59 f. in Aristotle: 76 ff. — Stoic distinction between ovopa, 'proper name', and TrpoayyoptKov, 'appellative': 224.
— final definition in the Texyy of Dionysius Thrax (three genders,fivecase-inflexions): 269. opBoerreta: opBorns: 011
words peculiar in form or significance (in contrast to yXateaw, rare and obsolete words); cf. glossaries. — Aristophanes Byz. Aegets: 197 ff. — Didymus Aegis xuipitcy and rpayixy: 278. Aef is, diction: 76. Xegets,
aipCerat:
128.6
Addenda.
'neuter': 245.
rrdB-q (rijs X4gea>s) : 2 0 1 . dpxata: 15.
iraiSeta,
— eytcvKAtos: 2 5 3 . iralSevats, rratBeva): 5 0 , 2 5 2 , napaypatfyq, irapdypa<po9: 179. rrapary'priats: 2 4 5 . irelBetv, ireiBcb: 5 0 , ilevraBXos, Tlepyap-nvd
137 f.
37, 4 2 , 53, 280.
39 f., 6 2 , 74 f., 205.4.
ovSerepov,
187.
Xerrros:
38.
nickname of Eratosthenes:
' 7 8 , 257. — Ilepyapnvoi; rrtvag: 52.
tttrBtats,
peXavvetfrqs or peXatveip^s : 9 1 . 6 . peAiKTj irolrjais or ri peXtKa, see
TroXviopfin: 125. rroXvpaBys: 138. •noXvrrrtinov; cf. jrrcuoir,
oiopBoims. (Xeyeionoioi: 182. IXeos : 4 8 f. ; cf. ^oSos, jtptKy. èXXnvtapés: u , 274. èpiretpta: 57, 6 4 , 6 8 , 2 6 8 ; cf. WjfM). èvBovato.ap.ôs : 5^-3èÇyyfîoBat: 222 f., 2 5 0 . 3 . etfyrjats: 225.4, 2 5 0 . 3 , 2 6 9 . èirlppvpa : 269èmar-qpy : 57, 6 4 .
pepfSpava or pepfip&vai: 2 3 6 . peraypdipetv: 189.
206
ff.
(see also
Addenda); cf.
Hellenistic textbooks: 2 7 2 . 'indenting': 189.3. èVSoois: 71 f., 9 4 , 215 f., 2 7 7 ; cf. Trpoe'icSoffts-,
yeaiypa<}>io. compound coined by Eratosthenes (?) : 164. yXtàaaai,
179, t 8 6 .
ÎTTÎUSOÏ :
i 86.
ipp-nvela Ttûv jrowjTÛii': 3 2 , 140. ïrvpa, èrvpoXoyetv KTX., see etymology.
perdvoia: ril peragv:
pipyais:
vopos: vovs:
and
133, 2 3 6 .
— noun, pronoun: 12 ff.
rrpoaqyapiKov:
30.
p8.
veuirepoi:
evaropla
eirreAe's : 232.
77.
Museum.
voBoi
cf.
244.
JiT-woi?, poets playing on the various forms of the same word : 12 ff.; cf. iroXvirroirov. — applied to noun and verb: 76 f. — confined to noun and article; four cases (one opfJiJ, three irAayiai) : 244. — five cases (including the vocative): 269. rrvpyos eXeipdvTivos, see Ivory tower.
262 ; cf. KUKAIKOV vevodevrai:
128.6
Addenda.
3 4 f., 3 9 . 3 , 5 3 , 6 3 , 2 8 0 ; cf. 4 3 ; cf.
170.
236.
no An OTI^O t: 115. rrparropevoi: 208. rrpoeK&oats: 141 f.
povipSla: 2 8 2 . Mauaeta on Mount Helicon: 155. Movaetov, 'shrine of the Muses': 5 0 ;
tiiiViia: 39.
: 64.
lyric poetry.
282.
peraxapaKrvptapos: peroxy: 2 6 9 .
(or -vat):
nivaxes of Callimachus: 127 ff. and passim. — supplement of Aristophanes Byz.: 133,
elaaytayat,
see floruit,
yeved: 2 5 6 .
rXavKUiiriov:
8 9 , 157, s
one
— ovopara—pypara
eyxpivetv. KVKAIKOV
It.
— yevi) ovopdroiv:
154.7.
Kptats (ironyparoiv) : 117, 2 0 4 , 2 4 2 , 2 6 9 ; cf. KptriKOs:
Olympic win-
words, expression for words in Protagoras, etc.: 59.
'declension': 2 0 2 , 2 4 3 . marginal symbol: 176.1,
KXIOIS,
see
see also pypa,
— ovopara
33.1, 38.
Kopotvls,
137.
$.1* 9 4 . " 0 >
Bip-a, nickname of Eratosthenes : 170. Kpiais. fliiflAos (name of the Egyptian papyrus; cf. etSos, 'musical class': 184. papyri) : 2 2 . elSwXorrotla : 2 8 5 f.
yévq T
OpripiSzu! ovopa,
Aoyoj, sentence: 37, 75 f, 78¬ — speech: 4 9 , 2 2 9 . 2 , 244, 269, — reason (Stoic): 238. Avpun) iroirjats, see lyric poetry. Atio-eir: 70, 2 8 2 ; cf. (,-qTr}para. Aiivvos : 112, 2 7 0 . 3 .
eyKpivetv:
yéyove,
123.3.
Kavoiv: 2 0 7 .
— metrical sign : 189.3. Sofa, O p p . to àXyBeta: 3 6 . Ôoiai, 'doctrines of philosophers' : 84.
aÙTOO"XcS«ii«v ! 50-
Katpos:
avaypatpy,
ners.
269.
KaBvyyr-qs:
and
ënBoats. SutpSamjs: 9 4 , 106 f. BtnXd (sc. avépara) : 7 8 , 92.1 ; cf. ànXà. SirrXij, critical sign: 2 1 8 , 2 2 8 . —nepi.tartyu.4vn: 218.
âpdpov : 77, 2 4 4 , 2 6 9 .
àorçploicos:
157 f.
SiaAwticci : 41.2. SiaoroAij : 219. StSaoKoAi'a, 'instruction': r 6 6 j cf. tpvxayinyla. BthaaKoXlat oi plays: 8 l , 132, 191, 196. StSaavaAot, 'instructors': 154. — 'poets as producers of plays' : 81, 132.
avaifiaAia, jee anomaly. &rra£ Xeyopeva:
Alexandria:
Bats: Jl% 2 2 7 . BéXros: 2 6 . oyXdipara, see words.
dVayyuio-Turoi î 29> àvaXoyia, analogy. ôWi<«yf(a : 178, 218. àgvovoBat TCIV
in
toropiat:
8 9 , 137.
OAupirtoviKtav
tapfsorrotol: 182.
: 154'
: 41, 7 9 .
first critical symbol: 115, 178. ofipiKa (?), o^pt^a, ofipucaAa: 200 f.
oXtyoarixiy:
1 3 4 f t 152.
123.3.
Beoi Evepyerat:
ypappartxy, see also 'grammar'. — definition of Eratosthenes : 162. — definition of Dionysius Thrax : 268.
92.1.
ofipia,
Baupara:
Beat AheXipol:
Words
Wms.
paipuiBla: 2 6 9 . paiptaSos:
12.1;
pypa,
ovopa.
cf.
cf. rhapsodes.
Index of Greek Words
3io
(summaries of plays), two ancient groups: 1 9 2 - 5 ; cf. Aristophanes Byz. — Byzantine hypotheses: 195 f. vrr6pvrjpa, inropv-qpa-ra, definition: 29¬ oavvas: 198 f.; cf. 248 aawdocs. — commentaries: 161 (Euphronius), 175, oajprjvi&iv: 227212 ff., 2 2 4 f . (Aristarchus), 2 5 0 (Demearjptta, critical marks in the margin: 115 trius of Scepsis), 276 f. (Didymus). (Zenodotus), 174ff.,178 (Aristophan. — viropvTfpara on separate rolls: 218. Byz.), 218 f. (Aristarchus), 214, 218, 220 — vTTopvripara and avyypdppara: 213. (Aristonicus) ; cf. dvriatypa, aarepiaKOS, — and /lept'-literature: 218. SMTATJ, o'/ieAos, atypa. — and e£iJyijo-(s: 222 f., 225.4. aiypa, critical mark: 178.
—
ovofiara—prjpara
— tenses:
vTToOtoeis
: 5 9 ff.
77, 2 6 9 ;
K a r a TO aicorrtaptvov
cf.
TTTWOW.
viroartyp-q:
: 232.
aoto~rqs: 16. ar^XoKOTTas:
^tAoAoyo?: 9 7 , 156 ff. (Eratosthenes), 2 5 0 . I {Demetrius of Scepsis), 2 5 3 (Apollodorus). •pofios: 4 8 . 3 ; cf. eAio;.
248.
artyp-i), punctuation: 180. — critical mark; 218. oroi^eta: 2 3 , 6 0 f., 7 6 , 2 6 9 , 2 8 2 . (rrpoip^:
186.
'monographs', distinguished
avyypdppara,
from v\TOprrjpa-ra: — called ypdppara: ovvocapof.
180.
tpvats: 3 4 . 3 9 - 3 . 53- 6 3 , 2 8 0 ; cf.
213.
—- and re'Aos: 6 8 .
162.
i ' t W i o v : 211.
Xpavos:
R
*X V> V
a
n
a
-floats
(Aristotle):
tytTttpia:
— and aotpiT)'. 8 8 f.
f. (time),
— iroMjTiKiJ: 75' — ypappartK-j
! 267 f.
Tifijvos: 154.7. rpofavs:
154-7-
77, 2 4 5
(tense); cf.
prjpa.
ifivxaycuyta,
— P.Hib.
Addenda; cf. Xenon.
'entertainment':
166;
cf.
8iSa-
oxaXia.
Aristophanes, Ran. 1021: 46 and Excursus. 1114: 28.6.
Aristotle,
Analyt. Post. A 12
p.
b
no.
b 32:
110. 7 7 : 113.6.
9 4 a : 123.3.
f. and Excursus. Diogenes Laertius ix 5 2 : 38. Eratosthenes, fr. 22 Powell: 169.2. Euripides, Hec. 5 7 4 : 199.7. Gellius, N.A. X V I I 4 . 5 : 257. Homer A 3 : 147.4. — Hy. 11 1 0 8 - 1 2 : 125
•— T 91ff.: 149 and Addenda.
voSs.
—
(sc.
77
3 4 : 76.4.
— A 1 7 : 174.
tfivxy '• 4 3 i cf.
diptapevoi
145.4.
173. 1 2 : 145.4.
Callimachus, fr.
68.
57, 6 4 , 68.
— fr. 9 4 . 2 D.»:
xpovot) : 2 4 5 ;
f 81 : 1 4 9 . '
cf._dop(crTOi.
t
—
DISCUSSED
9 1 6 7 : 175.
— ¿ 3 9 ° : 94-8¬ — Schol. A A 5 0 : 282. — Schol. A B 1 6 0 : 2 3 0 . 2 . Papyrus Hibeh 172. 5 : 9 1 . 6 .
.^rchilochus, fr. 70 D.*: 13. — fr. 9 4 D . J : 14.3.
— fr.
Xwp('£oires: 230.7
re'Aos, and
— Argonautica rv 1 7 8 1 : 176.
1456
97.7. 38
a
— Soph. El. I 10 p. 1 7 1 a 1 0 : 7 3 .
245. XapaKtrai:
Alcman, fr. 1 Page: 188.1. Anacreon, fr. 3 D. : 12 f. Apollonius Rhodius, Vita A., Schol. ed. Wendel p. 2. 1 3 : 142, 285.
— Poetics 1459 b 1 6 : 73.3.
61.
ijnuvycra:
76 f., 2 6 9 .
'spoken language': 2 0 2 , awrdypara, writings ( ? ) : 132. avvwwpa, see also synonyms. — coined by Aristotle: 78. owtfOeta,
vopos.
INDEX O F PASSAGES
—
172.56:92-1¬
—
173- ' 2 : 145.4.
Plato, Leg. 764 D E : 282. Plutarch, Anton. 5 8 , 5 9 :
Pollux 73.
236.7.
— de exilio 7 p. 601 F : 9 6 . 3 . V 15: 200.9.
vin 5 9 9 f. Walz = in 9 7 . 2 0 Spengel [Herodian] /7epi axypdrmv: 12.6. Rhianus, fr. 1.17 Pow.: I49.5and Addenda. Simonides, fr. 36. 1 Page: 33.1, Sophocles, fr. 597 P.: 26.2. Suidas v. Aptaroipdmjs BvUdvrtos: 172.3. Rhet. Gr.
— V . Kpdr-qs
MaXXdi-rns
'. 2 3 9 .
Theo Alexandrinus (not yet identified), Vita Arati p. 148. 14 Maass (Comment, in Arat. rel.
1 8 9 8 ) : 121.4.
Timon, fr. 12 D . : 97.7. — fr. 6 0 . 1 D . : 9.2. Tzetzes, de com. Gr. prooem. Mb 2 9 , CGF 1 ed. Kaibel p. 31 ( = Call, test. 1 4 c ) : 127.4.
OTHER TITLES
INTHIS HARDBACK REPRINT PROGRAMME
S A N D P I P E R B O O K S L T D( L O N D O N )
ANDPOWELLS BOOKS
FROM
(CHICAGO)
ISBN 0-19-
Author
Title
6286409 8228813 8148348 826643X 8219393 8148992 82530IX 8143109 S201S40 8266 lt>2 8224354 8581114 8140444 8212968 8223129 8140401 8142560 8218354 8225253 8212720 8148224 8141378 8152442 8223447 8226578 S148100 8142641 8147813 8264259 8116020 8143427 8142277 8269765 8213891 820695X 8269684 S21460X S225369 8225571 8143249 S143257 8214316 8148380 8141076 8141092 8264178 814833X 8171587 8218362 8221657 8148135 8642040 3222254 8251408 8148259 8143273 8200951 8201745 8161115 8140185 8141696 8148542 8140053 822799X 8114877 8119224
ANDERSON George K . B A R T L E T T & MacKAY CAMPBELLT B C H A D W I C K Fknrv COWDREY H.F..IÜAVIES M . D O W N E R I... F R A E N K E L Edward G O L D B E R G P.J.P. H A N S O N R.P.C. HARRISS G . L . H E A T H Sir Thomas HOLLISA.S. H O L L I S T E R C . Warren H U R N ARD Naomi H U T C H I N S O N G.O. JONES A . H . M . JONES Michael LE P A T O l . Kill.John L E N N A R D Reginald L I E B E S C H U E T Z J . H.W .G. LOB EL Edgar & PAGE Sir Denvs M A A S P. & T R Y P A N I S C . A . M c P A R I . \ N F . K It M c F A R I . A N E K.B. VII IGGS Russell M I L L E R J. Innes M(X)RHEADJohn M (X ) R M A N J ohn OWEN A.L. PFEIFFER R. P I C K A R D - C A M B R I D G E AAV. PLATER & W H I T E P L U M M E R Charles POWICKF. Michael POWIGKE Sir Maurice POWICKE Sir Maurice PRAWER Joshua PRAWER Joshua RABY F.J F RABY F J E. R A S H D A L L S.POW1CKE R 1 C K M A N GeoffreV ROSS Sir David ROSS Sir David R U N C I M A N Sir Steven S A L M O N J.B. S A L Z M A N L.F. SAYERSJane E. SCHEIN Svlvia SHERWIN W H I T E A N . SOUTER Alexander S O U T H E R N RAV. SQUIBB G. SYME Sir Ronald SYME Sir Ronald T H O M P S O N Sallv W A L K E R Simon WELLESZ F.gon W EST M I W'ESTM L . WESTM.L. WEST M L; WHITBY M . & M, WOOL1'' Rosemarv W R I G H T Joseph
The Literature of the Anglo-Saxons Medieval Frontier Societies The Emperor and the Roman Army 31 BCto 235 AD Priscillianof Avila The Age of Abbot Desiderius Sophocles Trachiniac Leges Henrici Primi Horace Women, Work and Life Cycle in a Medieval Economy Saint Patrick King, Parliament and Public Finance in Medieval England to 1369 Aristarchus of Samos C.allimachus Hecale Anglo-Sason M ilitan Institutions The King's Pardon for Homicide - before A D 1307 Hellenistic Poetry The Greek City Ducal Brirtany'l364-1399 The Norman Empire Rural England 1086-1135 Continuity and Change in Roman Religion Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmcnta Sancti Romani Melodi Cantica Lancastrian Kings and I .ollard Knights 'The Nobility of Later Medieval England Roman Ostia The Spice Trade of the Roman Empire Thcoderic in Italy A I list o n of the Franciscan Order The Famous Druids History- oi Classical Scholarship (vol 1] Dithyramb'Tragedy and CometH' Grammar of the Vulgate Lives of Irish Saints (2 vols) Military Obligation in Medieval England Stephen Langron The Christian Lite in the Middle Ages Crusader Institutions The History of The Jews in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem A History of Christian Latin Poetry A History of Secular Latin Poetry in the Middle Ages {2 vols) The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (3 vols) The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome Aristotle: Metaphysics (2 vols) Aristotle. Physics 'The Eastern Schism Wealthy Corinth Building in England Down to 1540 Papal Judges Delegate in the Province of Canterbury 1198-1254 Fidetes Crucis The Roman Citizenship A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 AD Eadmer Life of St. Ansclm The High Court of Chivalry History in Ovid Tacitus (2 vols) W omen Religious The Lancastrian Affinity 1361-1399 A History ol Byzantine Music and 1 lymnography Greek Metre Hesiod: Theogony The Orphic Poems I Icsiod: Works & Days The I lisrory of Theophylact Simoeatta The English Religious Lyric in the Middle Ages Grammar of the Gothic Language
