Andrew R. Dyck (Ed.)-Epimerismi Homerici, Pars 2_ Epimerismos Continens Qui Ordine Alphabetico...

Epimerismi Homerici

Lexicon

Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker

(SGLG)

Herausgegeben von

Klaus Alpers Hartmut Erbse Alexander Kleinlogel

Band 5/2

w DE

G

Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York 1995

Epimerismi Homerici edidit

Andrew R. Dyck

Pars Altera Epimerismos continens qui ordine alphabetico traditi sunt

Lexicon quod vocatur seu verius

edidit

Andrew R. Dyck

w DE

G

Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York 1995

Gedruckt auf surefreiem Papier, das die US-ANSI-Norm ber Haltbarkeit erfllt.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

(Revised for vol. 5/2) Epimerismi Homerici.

(Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker Bd. 5)

"Revised and much expanded version of a dissertation ... submitted in August, 1975, to the faculty of the Divison of the Humanities of the University of Chicago" Pref.

Text in Greek; introd. in English. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. Contents: Pars 1. Epimerismos continens qui ad Iliadis li-

brum A pertinent Pars altera. Epimerismos continens qui ordine alphabetico traditi sunt. Lexicon [aimodein (romanized form)] quod vocatur seu verius [Etymologiai diaphoroi (roman-ized form)] / edidit Andrew R. Dyck

1. Homer. Iliad. 2. Homer Scholia. 3. Epic poetry, Greek History and criticism. 4. Achilles (Greek mythology) in literature. 5. Trojan War in literature. I. Dyck, Andrew R. (Andrew Roy), 1 9 4 7 - II. Series. PA4037.E64 1983 883'.01 83-17187 ISBN 3-11-006556-8 (v. 1) ISBN 3-11-012742-3 (v. 2)

Die Deutsche Bibliothek CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Epimerismi Homerici / ed. Andrew R. Dyck. Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter.

Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker Bd. 5)

NE: Dyck, Andrew R. [Hrsg.]; G T

Ps. 2. Epimerismos continens qui ordine alphabetico traditi sunt. Lexicon aimdein / ed. Andrew R. Dyck. - 1995 ISBN 311-012742-3

NE: Dyck, Andrew R.: Lexicon aimdein

Copyright 1995 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin Dieses Werk einschlielich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschtzt. Jede Verwer-tung auerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulssig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere fr Vervielfltigungen, bersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elek-tronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany Satz und Druck: Arthur Collignon G m b H , Berlin Buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Lderitz & Bauer GmbH, Berlin

parentibus optimis

Contents

Epimerismi Homerici 1

Lexicon 825

Addenda et Corrigenda 1017

Preface

This edition owes a debt of gratitude to many benefactors: to Prof. Hartmut Erbse, who first suggested the project to me and who provided unfailing counsel and support for it during the more than twenty years since its inception; to the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, which awarded a generous stipend enabling me to carry on work on this edition in the admirably equipped Philologische Seminar of the Univer-sitt Bonn during the academic year 1980 81 and in the following summers through 1989; to Frau Dr. E. Mathiopoulou, Herr E. Bark-hausen, Frau J. Neuloh and Frau G. Sauerberg for the various ways in which they made my work in Bonn pleasant and efficient; to Prof. Rudolf Kassel for his interest in my work and for fruitful discussion of difficulties in the text, especially those related to the comic frag-ments; to all those who reviewed or gave me the benefit of comments on the first volume of this work, W. Bhler, E. Duke, A. Garzya, Richard Kannicht, F. Montanari and E. Trapp; to Prof. Klaus Alpers for penetrating criticism of an earlier draft; to Dirk Obbink for bibli-ographical advice; to Nigel Wilson for advice (again) on palaeographi-cal matters; to the custodians of the manuscripts for permission to publish the results of my investigation; to my colleague David Blank for initiating me into the mysteries of computers and fruitful discussion of problems; to Catherine Schlegel for help in correcting the indices and source-indications in the margins; to my wife Janis for her consi-deration and understanding during the long gestation of this work; to the de Gruyter Verlag for its efficiency and care in handling a complex manuscript; and last, but by no means least, to Prof. Alexander Kleinlogel, who has contributed to this volume far more than anyone has a right to expect of a series editor; he not only developed a program for converting the complicated manuscript of this work and the Lexicon from my Macintosh format to the system in use by the de Gruyter Verlag but also selflessly sacrificed many hours of his time to improve this volume in both method of presentation and content. To all of the above I express heartfelt thanks; the faults that remain are mine alone.

Los Angeles March 15,1993 Andrew R. Dyck

Contents

List of Works Cited by Abbreviation 7 1. Ancient and Byzantine Works 7 2. Modern Authors and Works 17

I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Author 23 2. Purpose of the Work 25 3. The Witnesses 26

a) Description 26 b) Relation of Witnesses 28

4. Sources 34 5. Influence on Subsequent Works 40 6. Principles of this Edition 49 7. Mantissa 50 Sigla 53

II. TEXT 57

III. INDICES 763 1. Index fontium 765 2. Index verborum praecipuorum 768 3. Index litterarum et syllabarum finalium 786 4. Index auctorum 795 5. Index dialectorum 805 6. Index glossarum 807

List of Works Cited by Abbreviation

1. Ancient and Byzantine Authors

Ael. D.

Aesch. fr. Aesch. fr. ... Mette

AG ... Bk. AG ... Boiss.

AG ... Matr. Ale. Alcm.

Alexio

Alex. Mynd.

Amm."

An. Orth.

Anacr. Anacr. iamb.

Anast.

Anon, gramm. epit.

Anon. .

Anon. sol.

Anon. Vat. De dial.

Anth. Lyr.

= Aelii Dionysii fragmenta, ed. H. Erbse in: Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lxica, Abh. d. deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philos.-hist. Kl., Jg. 1949, no. 2, Berlin, 1950, pp. 9 4 - 1 5 1 see TrGF

= Die Fragmente der Tragdien des Aischylos, hrsg. v. H.-J. Mette, Berlin, 1959

= Anecdota Graeca, ed. I. Bekker, 3 voll., Berlin, 181421 = Anecdota Graeca e codicibus regiis, ed. J. Fr. Boissonade,

5 voll., Paris, 1829 -33 = Anecdota Graeca ..., ed. P. Matranga, Rome, 1850

see Sapph. = Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 1 : Ale-

man, Stesichorus, Ibycus, post D. L. Page ed. M. Davies, Oxford, 1991

= Alexionis fragmenta, ed. R. Berndt, De Charete, Chaeride, Alexione grammaticis eorumque reliquiis, pars posterior, Knigsberg, 1906

= Alexandri Myndii fragmenta, ed. M. Wellmann, Alexander von Myndos, Hermes 26, 1891, 4 8 1 - 5 6 6

= Ammonii qui dicitur liber De adfinium vocabulorum diffe-rentia, ed. K. Nickau, Leipzig, 1966

= Anekdota zur griechischen Orthographie, ed. A. Ludwich, Knigsberg, 1905-12 see PMG

= Anacreontis fragmenta iambica, ed. M. L. West in: Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, 22, Oxford, 1992, 3 0 - 3 4

= Anastasii Sinaitae Viae Dux, ed. .-H. Uthemann, Turnhout, 1981

= Anonymi grammaticae epitoma, liber alter, ed. P. Egenolff, Commentationes in honorem G. Studemund, Straburg, 1889, 289-331

= Anonymi tractatus , ed. J. A. Cramer in: AO 2, 2 8 3 - 3 1 8

= Anonymi commentarius, qui inscribitur , ed. L. C. Valckenaer in editione Ammoniana (see Lex. sp.), pp. 197-204

= Anonymi Vaticani Compendium de dialectis Graecis, ed. S. A. Cengarle, Istituto Lombardo, Rendiconti, Classe di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche 104, 1970, 1 9 - 5 9

= Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, ed. E. Diehl, rev. R. Beutler, Leipzig, 1949-52

Epimerismi H omerici

Antiatt. Antim.

AO

AP

. Dysc.

. Dysc. .

. S.

. S. ... St.

Apio

Apion. Gl. Horn.

[Apollod.] Bibl.

app. prov. Ar. Byz. ... S.

[Arcad.]

Archil.

Arist. fr.

Artem. Eph.

Ba.

Call. C G F

Choer. Ep. Ps.

Choer. Orth.

Choer. Th.

com. adesp.

CPG

Crat. Mall. ... Mette

Antiatticista, ed. Bekker, AG 7 5 - 1 1 6 Antimachi Colophonii Reliquiae, ed. . Wyss, Berlin, 1936 Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis bibliothecarum Oxoniensium, ed. J. A. Cramer, 4 voll., Oxford, 1835 37 Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis bibliothecae regiae Parisiensis, ed. J. A. Cramer, 4 voll., Oxford, 183941 Apollonii Dyscoli quae supersunt, ed. R. SchneiderG. Uhlig, 3 voll., Leipzig, 1 8 7 8 - 1 9 1 0 Apollonii Dyscoli tractatus qui inscriptus est Apollonii Sophistae Lexicon Homericum, ed. I. Bekker, Berlin, 1833 Apollonii Sophistae Lexicon Homericum, ed. . Steinicke [litt, tantum], diss., Gttingen, 1957 Apionis fragmenta Homrica, ed. S. Neitzel, SGLG 3, Ber-l i n - N e w York, 1977, 1 8 5 - 3 2 8 Apionis Glossae Homericae, ed. A. Ludwich in: ber die Homerischen Glossen Apions, Philol. 74, 1917, 2 0 5 - 4 7 and 75, 1918, 9 5 - 1 2 7 = L G M , pp. 2 8 3 - 5 3 8 Apollodori Bibliotheca, ed. R. Wagner in: Mythographi Graeci, 1, Leipzig, 1894 appendix proverbiorum, in: CPG 1, 379467 Aristophanis Byzantii Fragmenta, post A. Nauck collegit. testimoniis orna vit, brevi commentario instruxit W. J. Sia ter, SGLG 6, B e r l i n - N e w York, 1986 Arcadii Epitome Catholicae prosodiae Herodianeae, ed. M Schmidt, Jena, 1860 Archilochi fragmenta, ed. M. L. West in: Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, l2 , Oxford, 1989 pp. 1 - 1 0 8 Aristotelis Opera ex recensione I. Bekkeri, ed. Academia regia Borussica, ed. alt., 3: Librorum deperditorum frag-menta, ed. O. Gigon, B e r l i n - N e w York, 1987 Artemidorus Ephesius, ed. R. Stiehle, Philol. 11 (1856) 193 sq. Synagoges recensio b, ed. L. Bachmann in: Anecdota Graeca ex codd. mss. bibl. reg. Paris., 1, Leipzig, 1828 Callimachus, ed. R. Pfeiffer, 2 voll., Oxford, 1 9 4 9 - 5 3 Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. G. Kaibel, Berlin, 1899 Georgii Choerobosci Epimerismi in Psalmos, ed. T. Gais-ford, Oxford, 1842 Choerobosci Orthographia, ed. J. A. Cramer in: AO 2, 1 6 7 - 2 8 1 Theodosii Alexandrini Cnones, Georgii Choerobosci Scholia, Sophronii Patriarchae Alexandrini Excerpta, ed. A. Hilgard, 2 vol i , Leipzig, 1 8 8 9 - 9 4 comica adespota, ed. Th. Kock in: Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, 3, Leipzig, 1888, 3 9 5 - 6 8 3 Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, ed. E. L. a Leutsch et F. G. Schneidewin, 2 voll., Gttingen, 1839 51 Cratetis Mallotae fragmenta selecta, ed. H.-J. Mette in: Sphairopoiia. Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Krates

List of Works Cited by Abbreviation 9

von Pergamon, Munich, 1936 (frr. 1 - 5 1 , pp. 1 0 3 - 2 9 8 ) , and: Parateresis. Untersuchungen zur Sprachtheorie des Krates von Pergamon, Halle (Saale), 1952 (frr. 5 2 - 8 6 , pp. 6 7 - 1 8 5 )

De impr. = Tractatus De improprietate, in: Amm.", pp. 138 53 Dem. Ix. = Demetrii Ixionis fragmenta, ed. Tr. Staesche in: De Deme-

trio Ixione grammatico, diss., Halle (S.), 1883 Demetr. Seeps. = Demetrii Scepsii quae supersunt, ed. R. Gaede, diss. Greifs-

wald, 1880 Demo = A. Ludwich, Die Homerdeuterin Demo. Zweite Bearbei-

tung ihrer Fragmente, Knigsberg, 1912 14 Didym. = Didymi Chalcenteri grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta, ed.

M. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1854 Dinarch. fr. = Dinarchi Orationes cum fragmentis, ed. N. C. Conomis,

Leipzig, 1975 Diogen. = Diogenianus (de lexicographo cf. Latte, Hsch., pp.

X L I I - X L I V ; de paroemiographo cf. CPG 1, 177 sq.) Dion. Per. = Dionysius Periegetes, ed. C. Mller in: Geographi Graeci

minores, 2, Paris, 1861, pp. 103 176 Dion. Thr. = Dionysii Thracis Ars grammatica ..., ed. G Uhlig, Leipzig,

1883 Dion. Thr. fr. = Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Dionysios Thrax, ed. K.

Linke, S G L G 3, Berl in-New York, 1977, pp. 1 - 7 7 dist. syn. = collectio distinetionum synonymicarum D. K. = Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, ed. H. Diels W. Kranz,

1 Ith edn., 2 voll., Zrich - Berlin, 1964 [Drac. Straton.] = [Draco Stratonicensis] see Tz. ex. Ecl. =

, ed. J . . Cramer in: AO 2, 4 2 7 - 8 7

E G F = Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. M. Davies, Gttingen, 1988

EM = Etymologicum Magnum, ed. Th. Gaisford, Oxford, 1848 Epaphr. = Epaphroditi grammatici quae supersunt, ed. E. Luenzner,

diss., Bonn, 1866 Epich. = Epicharmi fragmenta, ed. A. Olivieri in: Frammenti della

commedia greca e del mimo nella Sicilia e nella Magna Grecia, 2 voli., 2nd edn., Naples, 1 9 4 6 - 4 7 , at 1, 1 1 - 1 3 7

Eratosth. Catast. = Eratosthenis Catasterismorum reliquiae, ed. C. Robert, Ber-lin, 1878

Erot. = Erotiani Vocum Hippocraticarum collectio cum fragmentis, ed. E. Nachmanson, Uppsala, 1918

Erot. Guelf. = Erotemata Guelferbytana, ed. A. Hilgard in: Choer. Th. 1, X X I - X X I X

Et. Gen. = Etymologicum Magnum Genuinum, Symeonis Etymolo-gicum una cum Magna Grammatica, Etymologicum Mag-num auctum (), ed. F. LasserreN. Liva-daras, 1, Rome, 1976

Et. Gen. = Etymologicum Genuinum et Etymologicum Symeonis, ed. G. Berger, Beitr. z. kl. Phil. 45, Meisenheim am Glan, 1972

Et. Gen. = Etymologicum Genuinum littera , ed. A. AdlerK. Alpers in: K. Alpers, Bericht ber Stand und Methode des

1 0 Epimerismi Homerici

E t .Gud . ... Stef.

Et. Gud. ... Sturz

Et. Orion. G

Et. Orion. H

Et. Orion. Jb

Et. Orion. L

Et. Parv.

Et. Sym. Et. Sym. Eulog.

Euphor.

Eur. fr.

Eur. Hipp., ed. Barrett

Eust.

Eust. in Dion. Per. Exc. ex Hdn.

Exc. Par.

Exc. .

Exc. Vat.

FGrHist

F H G

Gal.

Gal. lex. gl. Hdt.

Et. Gen., Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Hist.-filos. Meddelelser 44, 3, Copenhagen, 1969

= Etymologicum Gudianum quod vocatur, ed. A. De Stefani, 2 fase., Leipzig, 1 9 0 9 - 2 0

= Etymologicum Graecae linguae Gudianum, ed. F. G. Sturz, Leipzig, 1818

= Orionis Thebani Etymologicon, ed. F. G. Sturz, Leipzig, 1820 (G = Paris. 2653, s. XVI)

= Etymologici Orionis cod. H (Darmstad. 2773, s. XIV ex.), in: E t .Gud . Sturz, 6 1 1 - 1 7

= Etymologici Orionis codd. J (Vat. gr. 1456, s. X/XI) et b (Bodl. auet. T. II 11, s. XIV), ed. A. M. Micciarelli Collesi, Nuovi Excerpta" dall' Etimologico" di Orione, Byzantion 40, 1970, 5 1 7 - 4 2

= Etymologici Orionis cod. L (Paris. 2610, s. XVI), ed. Koes (see Et. Orion. G), 1 7 3 - 8 4

= Etymologicum Parvum quod vocatur, ed. R. Pintaudi, Mi-lan, 1973 see Et. Gen. see Et. Gen.

= Eulogii fragmenta, ed. R. Reitzenstein in: Gesch., pp. 3 5 1 - 5 8

= Euphorionis fragmenta, ed. I. U. Powell in: Collectanea Alexandrina, Oxford, 1925, pp. 2 8 - 5 8

= Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. A. Nauck, 2nd edn., Leipzig, 1889, repr. with suppl. by . Snell, Hildesheim, 1964

= Euripides, Hippolytos, ed. W. S. Barrett, Oxford, corr. repr., 1966 (orig., 1964)

= Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem, ed. M. van der Valk, 4 voll., Leiden, 1971 87; Eust. Commentarii in Odysseam, 2 voll., Leipzig, 1 8 2 5 - 2 6 see Dion. Per., pp. 201 - 4 0 7

= Excerpta ex libris Herodiani Technici, ed. A. Hilgard, Leip-zig, 1887

= Exerpta de dialectis ex cod. Par. 2662, in: Greg. Cor., pp. 6 7 5 - 8 2

= Excerpta , ed. R. Schneider, Leipzig, 1894

= Excerpta de dialectis ex cod. Vat. 292, in: Greg. Cor., pp. 6 8 3 - 7 0 0

= Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby, 3 Teile so far published, Berlin, 1923

= Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, ed. C. et Th. Mller, 5 voll., Paris, 1 8 4 1 - 7 3

= Claudii Galeni Opera omnia, ed. D. C. G. Khn, 20 voll., Leipzig, 1 8 2 1 - 3 3 see Gal., vol. 19, 6 2 - 1 5 7

= glossae Herodoteae, ed. Haiim B. Rosn in: Eine Laut- und Formenlehre der Herodotischen Sprachform, Heidelberg, 1962, pp. 2 2 2 - 2 3 1 ; cf. Herodoti Historiae, 1 (libros 1 - 4 continens), ed. Haiim B. Rosn, Leipzig, 1987 (in apparatu)


glossogr.

Gr. Gr.

Gramm. Aug.

Gramm. Leid.

Gramm. Meermann.

Greg. Cor.

Habr.

Harp.

Hdn.

Hdn. Att. pr.

Hdn. Cath. pr.

Hdn. Conviv. Hdn. [Dichr.] Hdn. II. pr.

Hdn. . .

Hdn. . .

Hdn. Hdn. Mon. Hdn. Od. pr.

Hdn. On. Hdn. Orth. Hdn. . Hdn. . Hdn. pron. Hdn. . .

Hdn. . Hdn. . Hdn. . .

Hdn. . .

Hdn. . [Hdn.] .

[Hdn.] impr.

= glossographorum fragmenta, ed. . Dyck in: Harvard Stu-dies in Classical Philology 91, 1987, 1 3 0 - 1 6 0

= Grammatici Graeci recogniti et app. critico instructi, 4 partes, Leipzig, 1867-1910

= Grammaticus Augustanus de dialectis fragmentum, in: Greg. Cor., pp. 6 6 7 - 7 4

= Grammaticus Leidensis de dialectis opusculum, in: Greg. Cor., pp. 6 2 7 - 4 1

= Grammaticus Meermannianus de dialectis opusculum, in: Greg. Cor., pp. 642 64

= Gregorii Corinthii et aliorum grammaticorum libri de dia-lectis linguae Graecae, ed. G. H. Schaefer, Leipzig, 1811

= Habronis grammatici fragmenta, coll. R. Berndt in: B.ph.W. 35, 1915, 1 4 5 1 - 5 5 . 1 4 8 3 - 8 8 . 1 5 1 4 - 2 0

= Harpocration et Moeris, ed. I. Bekker, Berlin, 1833; also by gloss no. from: Harpocration, Lexeis of the Ten Orators, ed. J. J. Keaney, Amsterdam, 1991

= Herodiani Technici Reliquiae, ed. A. Lentz, 2 voll., Leipzig, 1 8 6 7 - 7 0

= ' , ibid. 2, 2 0 - 2 1

= , ibid. 1, 1 - 5 4 7

= , ibid. 2, 904906 = , ibid. 2, 7 20 = , ibid. 2,

2 2 - 1 2 8 = , ibid. 2,

6 3 4 - 7 7 7 = -

, ibid. 2, 16 = , ibid. 2, 825 844 = , ibid. 2, 908 952 = , ibid.

2 , 1 2 9 - 1 6 5 = , ibid. 2, 612 633 = , ibid. 2, 407 611 = , ibid. 2, 166 388 = , ibid. 2, 849 897 = , ibid. 2, 845 846 =

, ibid. 1, 549 64 = , ibid. 2, 907 = , ibid. 2, 787 824 = , ibid. 2,

8 9 7 - 9 0 3 = (re

vera Orthographiae pars), ibid. 2, 390406 = , ibid. 2, 847 849 = [Herodiani] Epimerismi, in: Hdn. 1, X V I I - X X X I I I , vel

A. Dyck, in: Hermes 109, 1981, 2 3 1 - 3 2 = [Herodianus], De impropria dictione, ed. A. Nauck in: Lex.

Vind., pp. 3 1 3 - 2 0

12 Epimerismi Homerici

[Hdn.] Part.

[Hdn.] Schern.

[Hdn.] Schern. Horn.

[Hdn.] Sol. et barb.

Heliodor.

Hellad. Chrest.

Heracl. Mil.

Heracl. Pont. min.

Hippon. ... D.

Hippon. ... W.

Hsch.

Ibyc.

II. paraphr.

Io. Al.

Io. Damasc. can.

Io. Diac. Alleg. Th.

Io. Maur.

Io. Phlp. diff.

Iren.

K . - A . Lesb.

Lex. .

. .

Herodiani Partitiones ... , ed. J. Fr. Boissonade, London, 1819 [Herodiani] opusculum, ed. L. Spengel in: Rhetores Graeci, 3, Leipzig, 1856, 85 104 [Herodiani] Schematismi Homerici, ed. P. Egenolff, Zu He-rodianos Technikos, Jahrbcher fr classische Philologie 149, 1894, 337-45 [Herodianus] De Soloecismo et barbarismo, ed. A. Nauck in: Lex. Vind., pp. 294-312 Heliodori fragmenta, ed. A. R. Dyck, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 95, 1993, 10 -59 Helladii Chrestomathiae fragmenta, in: Phot. Bibl. cod. 279 L. Cohn, De Heraclide Milesio grammatico, Berliner Stu-dien fr classische Philologie und Archaeologie, 1, Berlin, 1884, 603-717 Heraclides Ponticus minor, ed. F. Osann in: Quaestionum Homericarum particulae 3 4, Gieen, 1853 54 Hipponactis Testimonia et fragmenta, ed. H. Degani, Leip-zig, 1983 Hipponax, ed. M. L. West in: Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, l2, Oxford, 1989, 109-71 Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, ed. K. Latte, 2 voll. [ O], Copenhagen, 1953 66; the rest in: Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, ed. M. Schmidt, voll. 34, Jena, 1861 62 see Alcm. , ed. I. Bekker, in: Scholia in Homeri Iliadem, Berlin, 1825, pp. 651 seq. -, , ed. G. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1825 Ioannis Damasceni Cnones iambici, ed. A. Nauck, Mlanges Grco-Romains tirs du Bulletin de Acadmie Impriale des Sciences de St. Ptersbourg 6, 1894, 199-223

: Ioannis Diaconi Allegoriae in Hesiodi Theogoniam, ed. H. Flach, in: Glossen und Scholien zur Hesiodischen The-ogonie mit Prolegomena, Leipzig, 1876, pp. 293 365

: Ioannes Mauropus of Euchaita, etymological poem, ed. R. Reitzenstein in: M. Terentius Varr und Johannes Mauropus von Euchaita, Leipzig, 1901, 4 18

: Iohannis Philoponi De vocabulis quae diversum significa-tum exhibent secundum differentiam accentus, ed. L. Daly, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 151, Phila-delphia, 1983

: Irenaei atticistae fragmenta, ed. M. Haupt, Ind. lect., aest., Berlin, 1871 = Opuscula, 2, Leipzig, 1876, 434-40 see PCG

: Lesbonax, , ed. D. Blank, SGLG 7, Ber-l in-New York, 1988, pp. 129-216

: Lexicon , quod vocatur, ed. . Dyck (contained in this volume)

: Scholia Minora in Homeri Iliadem, ed. V. de Marco, 1: OMHPIKAI codd. Urb. CLVII et Selestadiensis CVII, fase. 1, Vatican City, 1946


Lex. Patm.

. >. Lex. sp.

Lex. synt. Laur.

Lex. synt. Segu.

Lex. Vind. LGM

mant. prov. Max. Plan.

. .

Melet. nat. hom.

Men. ... K.

Men. fr. ... K . - T h .

Men. ... S.

Meth. Mich. Sync.

Mimn.

Nicias

Or. fr.

Or. .

orth.

Orus ... Ritschl

paraphr. II.

Paus. att. PCG

PEG

= Lexicon Patmense, ed. I. Sakkelion, Bulletin de Correspon-dance Hellnique 1, 1877, 10-16. 137-54 = LGM, pp. 140-65

= , ed. Bekker, AG 195 318 = Lexicon de spiritibus dictionum, ed. L. C. Valckenaer in:

Ammonius, De differentia adfinium vocabulorum ..., 2nd edn., Leipzig, 1822

= Lessico Sintattico Laurenziano, ed. L. M. Positano . A. Magri, Naples, n.d.

= Lexicon syntacticum Seguerianum, ed. Bekker, AG 117-180

= Lexicon Vindobonense, ed. A. Nauck, St. Petersberg, 1867 = Lxica Graeca Minora, selegit K. Latte, disposuit et prae-

fatus est H. Erbse, Hildesheim, 1965 = Mantissa proverbiorum, in: CPG 2, 745 79 = Maximi Planudis De grammatica dialogus, ed. L.

Bachmann in: Anecdota Graeca, 2, Leipzig, 1828, 3 101 =

e duobus codd Vindob., ed. J. La Roche, Vienna, 1863

= Meletius, De natura hominis, ed. J. A. Cramer in: AO 3, 1 - 1 5 7

= Menandri Quae supersunt, 1, ed. A. Koerte, 3rd edn., Leip-zig, 1938

= Menandri Quae supersunt, 2, ed. A. Koerte, A. Thierfelder, 2nd edn., Leipzig, 1959

= Menandri Reliquiae selectae, ed. F. . Sandbach, Oxford, 1972

= Methodius, lexicographer = Le Trait de la Construction de la phrase de Michel le

Syncelle de Jrusalem, ed. D. Donnet, Etudes de philologie, d'archologie et d'histoire anciennes, Inst. Hist. Belge de Rome, 22, Brussels - Rome, 1982

= Mimnermi fragmenta, ed. M. L. West in: Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, 22, Oxford, 1992, 83 92

= R. Berndt (ed.), Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Nicias, B.ph.W. 30, 1910, 508-12. 540-42

= Das attizistische Lexikon des Oros, ed. . Alpers, SGLG 4, Berlin-New York, 1981

= Excerpta ex Ori opere , ed. R. Reitzenstein, in: Gesch., pp. 339 ff.

= tractatus orthographiais = F. Ritsehl, De Oro et Orione commentatio, Breslau, 1834

= Opuscula philologica, vol. I, Leipzig, 1866, 582 673 = , ed. I. Bekker in:

Scholiorum in Homeri Iliadem Appendix, Berlin, 1827, pp. 651 ff.

= Pausaniae atticistae fragmenta: see Ael. D., pp. 152 221 = Poetae Comici Graeci, ed. R. Kassel et C. Austin, Ber-

l in-New York, 1983 = Poetarum epicorum Graecorum testimonia et fragmenta,

ed. A. Bernab, 1, Leipzig, 1987


. PG

Phaenias Eresius

Philox.

Phot.

Phot, -

Phryn. Eel.

Phryn. Eel. ... Lobeck

Phryn. P. S.

Pi. fr.

Pi. fr. ... Turyn

Pius

PMG

poet. Aeol. anon.

Poll.

Polyb. barb.

Porph. Q. H.

Porph. Q. H. Sodano

.

Prise. Inst.

Pt. Ptol. Ase. Reg. in Horn. voc.

Rhintho Roman.

Excerpta , ed. R. Schneider, Leipzig, 1895 Patrologiae cursus completus, etc., series Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, ca. 161 voll., Paris, 1 8 5 7 - 6 6 Phaeniae Eresii fragmenta, ed. F. Wehrli in: Die Schule des Aristoteles, 9, 2nd edn., Basel - Stuttgart, 1969 Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Philoxenos, ed. Chr. The-odoridis, S G L G 2, Ber l in-New York, 1976 , descr. R. Por-son, ed. P. Dobree, 2 voll., Cambridge, 1822 Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, 1 (A), ed. Chr. Theodoridis, Ber l in-New York, 1982 Die Ekloge des Phrynichos, ed. E. Fischer, S G L G 1, Ber-l i n - N e w York, 1974 Phrynichi Eclogae nominum et verborum Atticorum, ed. C. A. Lobeck, Leipzig, 1820 Phrynichi Sophistae Praeparatio Sophistica, ed. I. de Bor-nes, Leipzig, 1911 Pindari Carmina cum fragmentis, pars II, ed. H. Maehler, Leipzig, 1989 Pindari Carmina cum fragmentis, ed. A. Turyn, Oxford, 1952 Pii grammatici fragmenta, ed. E. Hiller, Der Grammatiker Pius und die , Philol. 28, 1869, 8 6 - 1 1 5 Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. D. L. Page, Oxford, 1962 fragmenta poetarum Aeolicorum anonymorum, quae ed. E.-M. Voigt in: Sappho et Alcaeus, Amsterdam, 1971, pp. 3 5 9 - 7 6 Pollucis Onomasticon, ed. E. Bethe, 3 voli., Leipzig, 1 9 0 0 - 3 7 Polybii De barbarismo et soloecismo tractatus, ed. A. Nauck in: Lex. Vind., pp. 2 8 3 - 8 9 Porphyrii Quaestionum Homericarum reliquiae, ed. H. Schrder, 2 voll., Leipzig, 1 8 8 0 - 9 0 Porphyrii Quaestionum Homericarum Liber I, ed. A. R. Sodano, Naples, 1970 see Anon. . Prisciani Institutionum grammaticarum libri XVIII , ed. M. Hertz, Grammatici Latini, ed. H. Keil, 23, Leipzig, 1 8 5 5 - 5 8 Ptolemaei , ed. G. Heylbut, Hermes 22, 1887, 3 8 8 - 4 1 0 Ptolemaei Ascalonitae fragmenta, ed. M. Baege, De Ptole-maeo Ascalonita, Halle, 1882 Incerti Regulae in quasdam Homricas voces, ed. Matranga, AG 4 3 6 - 5 1 see Epich. Sancti Romani Melodi Cantica. Cantica genuina, ed. P. Maas C. A. Trypanis, Oxford, 1963 Lexici Segueriani inscripti pars prima e cod. Coisl. 347 [only ], ed. C. Boysen, Marburg, 1891 = LGM, pp. 1 2 - 3 8


Sapph. = Sappho et Alcaeus, Fragmenta, ed. .-M. Voigt, Amster-dam, 1971

sch. Aesch. = Scholia in Aeschylum, ed. O. L. Smith, pt. 1 and pt. 2, fase. 2, Leipzig, 1976; The Older Scholia on the Prometheus Bound, ed. C. J. Herington, Leiden, 1972; the rest in: Aeschylus, Tragoediarum superstites, ed. G. Dindorf, 3, Oxford, 1851

sch. Aeschin. = Scholia in Aeschinem, ed. M. R. Dilts, Stuttgart Leipzig, 1992

sch. Ap. Rh. = Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium Vetera, ed. C. Wendel, Berlin, 1935

sch. Ar. = Scholia in Aristophanem, ediderunt edendave curaverunt W. J . W. Koster et D. Holwerda, Groningen Amsterdam, 1960 ; the rest in: Scholia Graeca in Aristophanem, ed. F. Dbner, Paris, 1842

sch. Arat. = Scholia in Aratum vetera, ed. J . Martin, Stuttgart, 1974 sch. Corinn. = Scholia in Corinnam, in: Griechische Dichterfragmente, 2.

Hlfte. Lyrische und dramatische Fragmente, bearb. v. W. Schubart und U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Berliner Klassikertexte, 5.2, Berlin, 1907

sch. D in II. = Scholia Didymi quae vocantur in Iliadem; ed. princ.: J. Lascaris, Rome, 1517; here cited from: , , 1675

sch. D in Od. = Didymi antiquissimi auctoris interpretatio in Odysseam, Venice, 1528

sch. Dion. Thr. = Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem grammaticam, ed. A. Hilgard, Leipzig, 1901

sch. Eur. = Scholia in Euripidem, ed. E. Schwartz, 2 voll., Berlin, 1887-91

sch. Greg. Naz. = Scolii alle orazioni di Gregorio Nazianzeno dal codice Lau-renziano 8 del Pluteo VII, ed. E. Piccolomini in: Annali delle Universit Toscane, parte prima: Scienze noologiche, tom. 16, Pisa, 1879, 231 ff.

sch. Heph. = Scholia in Hephaestionem, ed. M. Consbruch in: Hephae-stionis Enchiridion cum commentariis veteribus, Leipzig, 1906

sch. Hes. Opp. = Scholia vetera in Hesiodi Opera et dies, ed. A. Pertusi, Milan, 1955

sch. II. = Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), ed. H. Erbse, 7 voll., Berlin, 1969-88

sch. Lyc. = Lycophronis Alexandra, ed. E. Scheer, voi. 2, scholia conti-nens, Berlin, 1908

sch. Nie. Th. = Scholia in Nicandri Theriaca cum glossis, ed. A. Crugnola, MilanVarese, 1971

sch. Od. = Scholia in Homeri Odysseae 1 309 auctiora et emenda-tiora, ed. A. Ludwich, Ind. lect., Knigsberg, 188890, repr. Hildesheim, 1966; the rest in: Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam, ed. G. Dindorf, 2 voli., Oxford, 1855

sch. Opp. Hal. = Scholia in Oppiani Haliutica, ed. U. C. Bussemaker in: Scholia in Theocritum . . . , ed. F. Dbner, Paris, 1849, pp. 260-364


sch. Orib. = Scholia in Oribasium, ed. (in apparatu) I. Raeder, in: Ori-basii Collectionum medicarum reliquiae, 4 voll., Leip-zig-Berlin, 1928-33 ( = CMG VI 1,1)

sch. Pi. = Scholia Vetera in Pindari carmina, ed. . . Drachmann, 3 voll., Leipzig, 1903-27

sch. Ruf. = Scholia in Rufum Ephesium, in: Oeuvres de Rufus d' Ephse, ed. Ch. Daremberg et Ch. E. Ruelle, Paris, 1879, pp. 2 3 7 - 4 6

sch. Soph. = Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias vetera, ed. P. N. Papageor-gius, Leipzig, 1888

sch. Theoc. = Scholia in Theocritum vetera, ed. C. Wendel, Leipzig, 1914 sch. Thuc. = Scholia in Thucydidem, ed. C. Hude, Leipzig, 1927 Script. Physiogn. = Scriptores Physiognomici Graeci et Latini, ed. R. Foerster,

2 voll., Leipzig, 1893 Seleuc. = Seleuci fragmenta, ed. M. Mller in: De Seleuco Homrico,

diss., Gttingen, 1891 Semon. = Semonidis fragmenta, ed. M. L. West in: Iambi et elegi

Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, 22, Oxford, 1992, 98 114 SGLG = Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, ed.

K. Alpers, H. Erbse, A. Kleinlogel, Berlin New York, 1974

SH = Supplementum Hellenisticum, ed. H. Lloyd-Jones, P. Par-sons, Berlin New York, 1983

Simon, fr. ... D. see An th. Lyr. Soph. fr. see TrGF Sophr. see Epich. Sophron. see Choer. Th. Soran. = Sorani fragmenta, ed. L. Scheele in: De Sorano Ephesio

medico etymologo, Diss. Argent. Selectae 8, Straburg, 1885

Steph. Byz. = Stephanus Byzantius, Ethnicorum quae supersunt, ed. A. Meineke, Berlin, 1849

Stesich. see Alcm. Strabo = Strabonis Geographica, ed. A. Meineke, 3 voll., Leipzig,

1866 Su. = Suidae Lexicon, ed. A. Adler, 5 voll., Leipzig, 1928 38 Suet. . = J. Taillardat (ed.), Sutone, , -

(extraits byzantins), Paris, 1967 S. V. F. = Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, ed. I. ab Arnim, 4 voll.,

Leipzig, 1905 -24 Synt. Segu. = Lexicon syntacticum Seguerianum, ed. Bekker, AG 117 80 Theo = Die Fragmente des Alexandrinischen Grammatikers Theon,

ed. C. Guhl, diss., Hamburg, 1969 Theod. see Choer. Th. Theogn. = Theognosti De orthographia opus: can. 184, ed. K.

Alpers, Theognostos . berlie-ferung, Quellen und Text der Kanones 184, diss., Ham-burg, 1964; the rest in: AO 2, 15, 5 - 1 6 5

Thom. = Thomae Magistri sive Theoduli monachi Ecloga vocum Atticarum, ed. F. Ritsehl, Halle, 1832

Tim. = Timaei Sophistae Lexicon vocum Piatonicarum, ed. D. Ruhnken, 2nd edn., Leiden, 1789, vel ed. nova, curavit G. A. Koch, Leipzig, 1828 (K.)


trag, adesp. Kn. Sn.

TrGF

Tryph.

[Tryph.]

Tyrann.

Tz. ex.

Tz. Hist. Tz. in Hes. Opp.

Tz. in Lyc. Zenob. I

Zenob. II

Zenod. ... D.

Zenod. in gloss.

[Zenodor.]

Zon.

= Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 2: Fragmenta ade-spota, ed. R. Kann ich t -B . Snell, Gttingen, 1981

= Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. I2, ed. B. Snell, Gttingen, 1986 (Sn.); vol. 2, ed. R. Kann ich t -B . Snell, Gttingen, 1981 (Kn. Sn., cf. above: trag, adesp.); vol. 3 (Aeschylus), ed. S. Radt, Gttingen, 1985; vol. 4 (So-phocles), ed. S. Radt, Gttingen, 1977 (cf. above: Soph, fr.); (Euripides) ed. A. Nauck, ed. secunda, Leipzig, 1889 (.2)

= Tryphonis Grammatici Alexandrini Fragmenta, ed. A. de Velsen, Berlin, 1853

= [Tryphonis] Grammatica in Pap. Lond. 126 asservata, ed. F. G. Kenyon in: Classical Texts from Papyri in the British Museum, London, 1891, pp. 1 0 9 - 1 6

= Die Fragmente der Grammatiker Tyrannion und Diokles, ed. W. Haas, SGLG 3, Ber l in -New York, 1977, pp. 7 9 - 1 8 4

= A 196: Draconis Stratonicensis liber De metris poeticis, Ioannis Tzetzae Exegesis in Homeri Iliadem, ed. G. Her-mann, Leipzig, 1812; A 97 609: Der unbekannte Teil der Ilias-Exegesis des Iohannes Tzetzes, ed. A. Lolos, Beitrge zur klassischen Philologie 130, Knigstein/Ts., 1981

= Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae, ed. P. A. M. Leone, Naples, 1968 = Tzetzes in Hesiodi Opera et dies, in: Poetae Minores Graeci,

ed. Th. Gaisford, 2, Leipzig, 1823 see sch. Lyc.

= G. Schoemann, Commentatio de Zenobii commentario Rhematici Apolloniani, Danzig, 1881

= G. Schoemann, De Etymologici Magni fontibus II: De Zenobii praeter commentarium Rhematici Apolloniani scriptis verisimilia, Danzig, 1887

= H. Duentzer, De Zenodoti studiis Homericis, Gttingen, 1848

= H. Pusch, Quaestiones Zenodoteae, diss., Halle (S.), 1889, in: Dissertationes philologicae Haienses 11, 1890, 119216

= , ed. E. Miller in: Mlanges de littrature grecque, Paris, 1868, pp. 40712 = LGM, pp. 2 5 3 - 2 5 8

= Iohannis Zonarae Lexicon., ed. I. . . Tittmann, 2 voll., Leipzig, 1808

2. Modern Authors and Works

Ahrens, Aeol.

Ahrens, Dor. B.ph.W. Barrett, Eur. Hipp

= H. L. Ahrens, De Graecae linguae dialectis, I: De dialectis Aeolicis et pseudaeolicis, Gttingen, 1839

= H. L. Ahrens, De Dialecto Dorica, Gttingen, 1843 = Berliner philologische Wochenschrift

see Eur. Hipp., ed. Barrett

18

Blank

Bechtel

Blass-Debrunner-Funk

C. P. C . Q . Chantraine, Gr. h.

Cohn, Heracl. Deichgrber,

Empirikerschule Denniston, Particles2

Duentzer

Erbse, Att. Erbse, Beitr.

Frisk, G. E. W.

Galland, Arcad.

Hermann, De emend.

Herwerden, Coli.

Hoffmann

Kaibel, C G F

Kopp, Amm.

La Roche, H. T.

Lehrs, Ar.3

Lehrs, Hdn.

Lehrs, Qu. ep. Lentz

Lentz, Pneum. eil.

Lobeck, Ell.

Epimerismi H omerici

D. Blank, Ancient Philosophy and Grammar: the Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus, Chico, 1982 F. Bechtel, Die griechischen Dialekte, 3 voll., Berlin, 1 9 2 1 - 2 4 F. BlassA. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, transi. R. Funk, Chicago London, 1961 Classical Philology Classical Quarterly P. Chantraine, Grammaire homrique, 2 voll., Paris, 1973 63 see Heracl. Mil. K. Deichgrber, Die griechische Empirikerschule, Berlin, 1930 J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, 2nd edn., Oxford, repr. (with corr.) 1966 H. Duentzer, De Zenodoti studiis Homericis, Gttingen, 1848 see Ael. D. H. Erbse, Beitrge zur berlieferung der Iliasscholien, Ze-temata 24, Munich, 1960 H. Frisk, Griechisches Etymologisches Wrterbuch, 3 voll., Heidelberg, 1 9 7 3 - 7 9

: C. Galland, De Arcadii qui fertur libro de accentibus, diss., Straburg, 1882, in: Dissertationes Philologicae Argentora-tenses Selectae, 8, Straburg, 1882, pp. 1 4 7 - 2 3 2 G. Hermann, De emendanda ratione Graecae grammaticae, pars prima, Leipzig, 1801 H. van Herwerden, Collectanea critica, epicritica, exegetica, Leiden, 1903

: Otto Hoffmann, Die griechischen Dialekte, 3 voll., Gttingen, 1 8 9 1 - 9 8

: Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. G. Kaibel, Berlin, 1899

: A. Kopp, De Ammonii, Eranii, aliorum distinctionibus syn-onymicis earumque communi fonte, diss., Knigsberg, 1883

; J. La Roche, Die Homerische Textkritik im Alterthum, Leipzig, 1866

: K. Lehrs, De Aristarchi studiis Homericis, 3rd. edn., Leip-zig, 1883

; K. Lehrs, Herodiani scripta tria emendatiora, Knigsberg, 1848

; K. Lehrs, Quaestiones epicae, Knigsberg, 1837 see Hdn.

; A. Lentz, Pneumatologiae elementa ex veterum grammati-corum reliquiis adumbrata, Philologus, Suppl. 1, Gttingen, 1860, 6 4 1 - 7 8 7

^ C. A. Lobeck, Pathologiae Graeci sermonis elementa, 2 voll., Knigsberg, 185362


Lobeck, Proli.

Lobeck,

Ludw., AHT

Ludwich, Demo2

Mayser

Meineke, An. Al. Meineke, FCG, ed.

min. Meineke, Qu. seen. 2

Meister

Miller, Mi. Nauck

Nauck, Ar. Byz.

Pintaudi, 1975

Reitzenstein, Gesch.

Reitzenstein, Varr u. Mauropus

Ribbach

Ritsehl Schmidt, Weltbild

Schneidewin, Eust.

Schneidewin, Exx. cr.

Staesche Thierfelder

Thumb Scherer

Tichy

Valk

C. A. Lobeck, Pathologiae sermonis Graeci prolegomena, Leipzig, 1843 C. A. Lobeck, sive verborum Graecorum et nominum verbalium technologia, Knigsberg, 1846 . Ludwich, Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik, 2 voll., Leip-zig, 1884-85 see Demo E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemerzeit, new edn., 2 vols, in 6, BerlinLeipzig, 1923-38 A. Meineke, Analecta Alexandrina, Berlin, 1843 Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, ed. A. Meineke, ed. min., 2 partes, Berlin, 1847 A. Meineke, Quaestionum scenicarum specimen secundum, Progr., Berlin, 1827 R. Meister, Die griechischen Dialekte ... , 2 voll., Gttingen, 1882-89 E. Miller, Mlanges de littrature grecque, Paris, 1868 . Nauck, Kritische Bemerkungen, VII, Mlanges Grco-Romains tirs du Bulletin Historico-Philologique de Aca-dmie Impriale des Sciences de St. Ptersbourg 4,1875 80, 9 0 - 2 3 6 , at 1 4 9 - 5 0 Aristophanis Byzantii grammatici Alexandrini Fragmenta, ed. A. Nauck, Halle, 1848 R. Pintaudi, Gli epimerismi come fonti dell' Etymologicum Parvum, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, ser. 3, 5, 1975, 1 6 7 - 7 5 R. Reitzenstein, Geschichte der griechischen Etymologika, Leipzig, 1897 see Io. Maur.

W. E. Ribbach, De Aristarchi Samothracis arte grammatica, Naumburg, 1883 see Orus . . . Ritsehl Martin Schmidt, Die Erklrungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias, Zetemata 62, Munich, 1976 Eustathii Prooemium commentariorum Pindaricorum, ed. F. G. Schneidewin, Gttingen, 1837 F. G. Schneidewin, Exercitationum criticarum in poetas Graecos . . . capita quinqu, Braunschweig, 1836 see Dem. Ix. . Thierfelder, Beitrge zur Kritik und Erklrung des Apol-lonius Dyscolus, Abh. Schs. Ak. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. 43, 2, Leipzig, 1935 A. Thumb, Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte, 2. Aufl., vol. 2, enlarged by . Scherer, Heidelberg, 1959 E. Tichy, Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Grie-chischen, Sb. d. sterreich. Akademie der Wissenschaften, philos.-hist. Kl. 409, 14, Vienna, 1983 M. van der Valk, Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, 2 voll., Leiden, 1963-64


Wackernagel = J. Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften, 3 voll., Gttingen, 1952-79

Wackernagel, S. U. = J. Wackernagel, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer, Forschungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik 4, Gttingen, 1916

Wilamowitz, Obs. crit. = U. von Wilamowitz-Mllendorff, Observationes criticae in comoediam Graecam selectae, diss., Berlin, 1870

1. The Author

In the prior volume a case was made for authorship of our work by George Choeroboscus; it was based upon similarities of doctrine between the Ep. Horn, and works known to have been written by Choeroboscus, the agreement in date and Choeroboscus' authorship (which is no longer disputed1) of the Epimerismi in Psalmos, similar in plan and complemen-tary in doctrine to the Ep. Horn.2 Here I would like to offer some further evidence of the same kind. Though none of these indices is decisive in itself, taken together they create, I think, a probability bordering on certainty that Choeroboscus was the author.

The plan of the Ep. Horn, does not allow the author much scope for personal utterances.3 Moreover, as has been observed in the prior volume (pp. 5 6), the first personal pronoun is ordinarily merely retained by our author from his source.4 This is, however, characteristic of Choero-boscus.5 Moreover, there are several first person statements which are of interest in themselves. There are, for instance, the unaltered first person and unaltered cross-reference of Choeroboscus (512, o 13, 56, referring respectively to Th. 1,149, 25 or 2, 203, 2 and 2, 83,19 and 25). It is difficult to say who might be the grammarian of 128 who puts forward with such confidence his own view in opposition to that of or the grammarian who disagrees with Herodian at 53. Choeroboscus would certainly fit, however, since he does not hesitate to disagree with Herodian on other occasions.6

It would be idle to list all the many passages in which the Ep. Horn, agree with Choeroboscus in doctrine. What is of interest is a passage like Ep. ad A 26 B, 60 62, where a prosodical doctrine of Herodian (1, 156, 16. 2,927,4) is adapted to orthographical purposes, just as at

1 Cf. W. Bhler and Chr. Theodoridis, Johannes von Damaskos terminus post quem fr Choiroboskos, BZ 69, 1976, 399, n. 10; Reitzenstein, Gesch., pp. 2 0 5 - 6 , n. 4; Cohn, RE 3, 2 (1899), 2366, 9 ff.

2 Ep. ad A, pp. 5 - 7 , 3 5 - 3 6 . 3 Cf., however, the unexpected (personal?) observation at 149:

. 4 Further examples: the Herodianic first person retained at 31 and 24. 5 Cf., e.g., Th. 2, 330, 910 (retention of Herodianic first person). 6 Cf., e.g., Th. 1, 225, 29. 313, 2. 325,1. 407, 23. 2, 53, 9. 336, 31, where he takes the

side of Ap. Dysc. against Herodian; in 1,322,19 he points out that Herodian contradicts himself; on the other hand, he defends Herodian against critics at 2, 32, 32.


Choer. Ep. Ps. 43,33. In other words, the passages of Ep. Horn, and Ep. Ps. exhibit the same method. But an even closer link is suggested by 40, which shares with Ep. Ps. 153,8 the substitution of for in a quotation of 187.7 Compare further Ep. Horn, 94 with Ep. Ps. 85, 33: Ep. Horn, presents the doctrine : , ; in Ep. Ps. Choeroboscus begins with the same information: . ; , , . . . , . . . ; but then he adds two more meanings, which he evidently found in Orus, , but without correcting the .

So far the similarities discussed are such that they could be accounted for simply by Choeroboscus' use of Ep. Horn, as a source in the composi-tion of Ep. Ps. However, the two works complement each other in such a way as to make it likely that they were written in tandem by the same author. Thus, rules and definitions spelled out in one are merely alluded to in the other. In addition to the examples given at Ep. ad A, pp. 35 36, note that Ep. Horn, 23 alludes to the three meanings of spelled out at Ep. Ps. 78, 30.

Finally, the possibility deserves careful consideration that in five places where Choeroboscus is cited in later works the reference is, in fact, to a passage of the Ep. Horn.: 1) The grammatical excerpt printed at AO 4,408, 7 attributes to Choero-boscus an etymology of from not attested in his preserved writings; Hilgard assigned it to Choeroboscus' commentary on Herodian's ,8 but one wonders if it might, in fact, be a reference to Ep. Horn, 71. 2) Et. Gen. s. . has at the end (in A only) this reference: (sic); if this is a reference to Ep. Horn, 143, we should read . . . (). 3) EM 800, 5 (s. . ) cites Choeroboscus as source for material identical to that in Ep. Horn, 6 but not found, so far as I can see, in this form elsewhere. 4) At Et. Gen. s. v. there is a reference to Choeroboscus for material very similar to that preserved at Ep. Horn, 14; might this be the place the author of Et. Gen. had in mind? 5) Et.Sym. V = D as cited by Gaisford ad EM 801,19 contains at the end of the entry s. v. the notation " ; if the is a mistake for , I suggest that this is a citation of the and refers to Ep. Horn, 14.9

7 The substitution appears also in EM 342, 34, which depends on Ep. Horn. 8 Gr. Gr. 4 ,1 , LXXXIV, 3 2 - 3 4 . 9 Cf. also n. 16 below.

Introduction 25

2. Purpose of the Work

Lehrs and Reitzenstein already saw that the Ep. Horn, were composed with a view to the exigencies of school instruction.10 A bit of the ethos of the late antique/Byzantine school shines through some passages, I think. We see, for instance, the self-image of the teacher as a priest initiating his charges into mysteries in the etymology of at Ep. Horn, 80: . . . , . Likewise there is a specimen of the schoolmas-ter's humor at his own expense at 3, where is defined as .11 A large part of the transactions of the classroom took, of course, the form of question-and-answer exchanges between teacher and pupils. This aspect of the enterprise is also reflected in Ep. Horn., albeit in some versions more than in others.12 Thus, for instance, at 1 the definition = is followed by the question and command: ; . Then follows the citation of I 358 to illustrate the posited meaning. Similarly, 134 provides the answer "whenever the problem is posed to you" ( ) as to the meaning of the .

The last example also illustrates another function of the Ep. Horn, related to the needs of the school, namely to inculcate the meanings of basic grammatical terms.13 Tzetzes ad Hes. Opp. 285 provides a clear picture of the earliest stages of Byzantine grammatical instruction: , , -, , , - -14 . . .15 This sequence makes it clear why in connection

10 Herodiani scripta tria emendatiora, Knigsberg 1848, pp. 425 26; Reitzenstein, Gesch., pp. 2 0 4 - 5 ; cf. Chr. Theodoridis, BZ 72, 1979, 4 - 5 .

11 It is but a short step from here to the complaints of the fourth ptochoprodromic poem.

12 In general, such material tends to be absent from the earlier versions (G, Et. Gud.) but present in the latest (O).

13 Some examples: ( 12), ( 35), ( 27), ( 50), ( 57); usually these are not separate lemmata, but cf. 65 (). Choeroboscus' other writings show this same tendency: cf. Th. 1,131, 5 () or 1,157, 21 ( vs. ).

14 On the relation of schedography to the Ep. Horn. cf. Lehrs (n. 10 above), pp. 4 2 5 - 2 6 .

15 Cf. R. Browning, The Correspondence of a Byzantine Scholar, Byzantion 24, 1954, 435, n. 2, who called attention to this scholium as a source for Byzantine educational practices, and K. Alpers, Das attizistische Lexikon des Oros. Untersuchung und kritische Ausgabe der Fragmente, SGLG 4, BerlinNew York, 1981, p. 16, n. 17.


with the study of Homer (par excellence ) it was necessary to drill and illustrate the just learned grammatical categories of Dionysius Thrax and the rules of Theodosius for declension and conjugation. It was evidently thought desirable also to add a fairly large dose of Herodianic prosodical rules at this stage.16 These elements plus etymological informa-tion drawn primarily from Orion and some exegetical material from scholia account in general for the character of the main series of glosses of the Ep. Horn. This core was later expanded by interpolations added independently and from different sources in the two branches of the tradition (G/Et. Gud. and O; cf. below no. 4 "Sources").

3. The Witnesses

) Description

For the other witnesses cf. Ep. ad A 16 ff. On the basis of my inspection of O (now housed in the Bodleian) in May, 1992, a few observations can be added to Ludwich's description (AHT 2,609 12). A volume of miscellaneous, mostly Homeric content, O contains the following note in its flyleaf: "This Book was given by Mr. Wm. Terrers (formerly alumnus) a Turkey merchant of London A . D . 1633. The MS is of the 14th Century." The following are the contents according to the current pagina-tion (see Ludwich for further detail):

1) fol. 1 8: Tzetzes, Homeric Allegories, by the scribe of the text of O (as Ludwich, 1.1., 609, had observed); 2) fol. 9 - 1 0 9 : the Iliad with scholia; fol. 57 is left free (dated by Ludwich, ibid., at the latest to the beginning of the 14th century); 3) fol. 110 21: continuation of Tzetzes, Homeric Allegories, in the same hand as before; 4) fol. 122 28: scholia to Iliad A B, in the same hand as no. 2; Ludwich, 1.1., 610, dates this part (with a query) to the 16th century on grounds of newer paper and a very young hand; 5) fol. 129: left free apart from an on the verso (by the scribe of 9 b below); ) fol. 130 143v: Ep.Hom. to beginning of A (fol. 138 is left free);

16 To revert briefly to the problem of authorship: it would make sense for Choero-boscus, who wrote commentaries on Dionysius Thrax and Theodosius, as well as the Ep. Ps., to have completed the cycle of "aids for the schoolteacher" by composing the Ep. Horn, as well.

Introduction 27

7) fol. 143v 149r: Heraclitus, Homeric Allegories (by the same scribe); 8) fol. 149r 250r: Ep. Horn, in lexicon form (by the same scribe; the beginning of this text is falsely marked at 149v, whereas it had actually resumed 1/3 of the way down 149r with the words .; the gloss on follows); 9) fol. 250v 255v (end): ; incip.: . (by the same scribe through 253v, thereafter a new scribe, with a more careless hand and using black rather than brown ink, takes over; see no. 5).

The manuscript is thus the work of a team of three scribes, responsible respectively for (1) 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 a; (2) 2, 4 and most of the marginalia in 6; and (3) 5 and 9 b. The text of the Iliad and of Tzetzes' Allegories differ from the other items by being in double-column format. The main text of the Ep. Horn, (as of the other contributions of the same scribe) is written in a brown ink; in the Ep. Horn, the initial letters of glosses are highlighted with red. The paper containing written text is, pace Ludwich, uniform throughout. The present numeration postdates binding in a single volume; there is evidence of a previous numeration beginning at fol. 130 of the following material (to the end) as a separate item.

Ludwich's datings of paper and scripts within this codex need revision. Foil. 57 and 255 share a bell-shaped watermark similar to no. 3027 Mosin Traljic and dated by them to 1388;17 according to N. G. Wilson's analysis of the quires (quoted Ep. ad A, p. 19), fol. 57 is part of a 12-leaf gathering and joins with fol. 52, containing the Homeric text dated by Ludwich at the latest to the beginning of the 14th century. Ludwich's dating of our scribe is probably on palaeographical grounds a bit too early: note the writing of with standing on top of o, as in cod. Vat. gr. 616 (a little after 1354)18 or the exuberant bow for - and trailing tails of - and -, as in cod. Reg. gr. 181 (A.D. 1364).19 Nor is Ludwich's suggested date (16th century with a query) likely for no. 4 (by the scribe O2) in view of the fact that the watermark at foil. 123, 125, 127 and 129 is similar to the inscribed balance no. 896 Mosin Traljic and there dated to 1396. Indeed, probably the written folios are roughly contemporaneous and belong to the very end of the 14th century. One might be tempted to regard scribe (3) as an exception; Ludwich thought 9 b added later (fol. 255 lacks the expected page no. [sc. 302] of the original numeration). Note, however, that fol. 255 contains the same

17 V. A. Mosin and S. M. Traljic, Vodeni Znakovi XIII i XIV vijeka, 2 voll., Zagreb, 1957.

18 Alexander Turyn, Codices Graeci Vaticani saeculis XIII et XIV scripti annorumque notis instructi, Vatican City, 1964, pi. 126.

19 Ibid., pl. 137.


bell-shaped watermark as fol. 57 (see above). Also, though this scribe writes more carelessly, a fact which might incline one to date him a bit later, the hand is not so young, e.g., as that of Par. Suppl. 1278 (1442), which shows ligature with , a rising well above the line, etc.20 However, the last (blank) leaf may have been added at the time of binding, since fol. 257 has a watermark similar to nos. 12755 (1581) and 12804 (1588) Briquet.21

b) Relation of Witnesses

The analysis of the relations of the witnesses, at pp. 22 27 of the prior volume can, in general, stand; however, it does need to be augmented at certain points where the Ep. ad A provided insufficient evidence to make it possible to draw firm conclusions.

The variant-carrier a of the hyparchetype is reconstructed from and Et. Gud. (see stemma, Ep. ad A, p. 25). I offer here a collection of evidence from this volume to lend further support to the relations there set forth. The following are separative errors of a against : 22, 27 28: ' (in corr. Cr.) " : : (sup. add. d1 s. 1. ) d; 30, 84: : om. (per homoeotel.) a; 30, 85 86: , : om. (per homoearct.?) a; 68, 9: : om. a; 94, 26: : a; 94, 36: : a; 103, 88: : Pc : ; 107, 36: , : om. per homoearct. a; 171, 45: O : : d; 175, 93 95: (" " " [ 192]) : : - tantum Gud. In addition, O can be shown to be independent of and Et. Gud. individually. O's independence of is indicated by the following errors of against : 29, 81: O : ; 44, 72 73: : ; 58, 61: : om. per homoeotel. ; 81, 11: d : () ; 82, 30: : (ex confusione compendiorum) ; 94, 7 8: d : om. ; 100, 68: : O c : '

20 Cf. D. Harlfinger, Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800 1600, 2 C, Vienna, 1989, pl. 248.

21 C. M. Briquet, Les filigranes, 4, Amsterdam, 1968. Note also that among the material edited in this volume an additional corrector's hand appears, but only in a single place, 40 b (in the upper margin of 174v); more cursive than the other hands of O, it is here designated O4.

Introduction 29

(sic) ; 104, 11: : om. (fort, per homoeotel.) ; 133, 78: O d : - ; 134, 80: O d : ' ; 135, 85: O dac : d1 : ; ibid., 87: (ut 252) d : ; 138, 25: : c : ; 142, 41: (ut 1133) : ; 169, 32: : ; 169, 34: : ; 171, 4142: : d : om. ; 175, 72: (sc. ) : .

On the other hand, the following are separative errors of Et.Gud. against : 30, 87: : om. d; 61, 74: : om. (per homoeotel.) d; 62, 80 81: : om. per homoeotel. d; 68, 27: : d; 72, 6162: , : om. per homoeotel. Gud.; 81, 16: : - d; 82, 24: ' : (sic) d; 94, 8: et ( in loco 2 litterar. inc.) O : d; 94, 12: , : om. d; ibid., 27: : d; 98, 59: : d; 103, 88: : Gud.; 107, 37 38: : om. per homoeotel. d; 143, 44 46: . , , , : om. d; ibid., 48: pr. O : d; 153, 9 10: , , : om. per homoeotel. d; ibid., 12: : () d, quod idem del.; 163, 66: : Gud. : EM; ibid., 67: (ut 36) : ' : om. Gud.; 168, 20 21: , , - , , : om. per homoeotel. d; 171, 42: : - d; 172, 48: : - d; ibid., 52: : om. Pd; ibid.: : om. d; 175, 68 69: , : om. per homoeotel. Gud.; ibid., 7172: . , : om. Gud.; ibid., 90: : Gud.; 180, 33 34: ( ), (. om. ) ( De Stefani) : om. per homoeotel. d; 191, 2: : d; 200, 52: : (cd.) : d; ibid., 54: : d; 210, 11 13: : om. per homoeotel. d; 215, 24: ' (ut Eur. Tr. 989) : d; 229, 57 58: o '


Moreover, within a, Et. Gud. is not merely copied from P, as the following errors of against Et.Gud. attest (I had previously been able to adduce only three errors, none decisive [Ep. ad A, p. 25]): 42, 51: O d : ; 69, 34 35: ' d : om. per homoeotel. ; 97, 52: d : om. ; 104, 8: d : (sic) : ; 137, 6: d : ; ibid., 11 12: , d : om. per homoeotel. ; ibid., 17: d : ; 141, 37: d : ; 147, 79: d : ; 152, 94: d : om. (fort, per homoeotel.) P O ; 153, 11: d : per confusionem compendiorum ; 159, 46: Gud. : om. EM 71, 19; 165, 89: d : - ; 168, 17: d : ; 175, 91: Gud. : - ; ibid., 16: Gud. : - ; 181, 39: d : : ; 182, 57: d : om. ; 202, 75: d : om. .

The b variant-carrier of the hyparchetype is reconstructed from two witnesses, G and Et. Gud. (see stemma, Ep. ad A, p. 27). The independ-ence of the one remaining witness that can be compared, namely O,22 is shown by a number of errors of b which the scribe of O could not easily correct, viz.: o 23, 49: O : om. (per homoeotel.?) b; o 74, 35 36: " {} " ( 649) : om. b; 34, 34: : - b; ibid., 35: : b; 50, 50: : b; 74, 26 27: : om. b; 27,10: : b; 28, 16 17: : b; 4, 25: : b; 6, 80: : om. d et (ut ex spatio conclusi) G; 11, 23 24: alt. O : per homoeotel. om. b; 8, 48 49: O : om. per homoeotel. b; 12, 1: : om. per homoeotel. b; 1, 6 7: , : om. per homoeotel. b; 3, 22: : om. b; 5, 71: : om. per homoearct. b; 14, 4: : om. b; 14, 8: : om. b. Some of these errors ( 6, 5 and 14) suggest that b may already have tended to curtail quotations.

We come next within the b hyparchetype to the relations of G and Et. Gud. In attempting to separate them, I previously adduced three errors of G against Gud. (Ep. ad A, pp. 25 26); but those errors were of such a character that an intelligent scribe could have corrected them. In the meantime, K. Alpers has presented a fairly strong case that the

22 cannot be compared with b because it is extant only for the letter a, G only for t-co.

Introduction 31

archetype of Gud. (d) was copied in the latter half of the tenth century;23 it therefore could not depend upon G (ca. 1100; cf. Ep. ad A, pp. 20 22). However, in case the new dating should be questioned, the following errors of G against Gud. could not have been easily corrrected by a scribe (i.e., the correct reading could not be inferred from context): 61, 40 41: , , , d : om. per homoearcton G; 2, 12 13: - Od : om. per homoeotel. G; 17, 72 73: , d : om. G; 63, 18 19: . . () Gud. : om. G; 4, 11: : : om. per homoeotel. G e ; 10, 41: ( ) Gud. : om. G; 29, 86: Gud. : G; 33, 14: Gud. : G; 21, 36 37: d : per homoeotel. om. G; o 60, 33 35 d : om. G : ; 66, 76: d : om. per homoeotel. G; ibid., 76 77: d : om. per homoeotel. G; o 77, 51: O d : G; 26, 83: d : - G ; 32, 24 and 26: d : G; 60, 39 40: , , d : om. per homoeotel. G ; 64, 77: d : G; 66, 89: d : G; 73, 20: d : om. per homoeotel. G ; 76, 43: d : - G ; 80, 68: Gud. : om. per homoeotel. G ; 92, 42 43: , , d : om. per homoeotel. G; 95, 49: d : - G; 7, 42: z : (et lect. possibilis) c : G; 7, 83: ' ' d, ut Horn.: ' G O; 15, 31: alt. : (per homoearct.) G dac : ' d1 ( et ' s. 1. add.); 14, 3 4: d : om. G ; ibid., 14: (ut Ezech. 17, 3) d : G O.

In view of the new chronological relations, however, it becomes impor-tant to establish the independence of G from Gud. For this purpose the following errors of Gud. against G, should be sufficient (I cite only cases where the reading of d is preserved and unambiguous; glosses of the supplement [see below] are marked with an asterisk): 38, 79: (in 191) O et (per cd.) G : ' d; 147, 42 43: G : () d; 52, 65: GO : (iterum!) d; 57, 11: (cd.) pro G : d; 2,

23 . Alpers, Die Etymologiensammlung im Hodegos des Anastasios Sinaites, JOB 34, 1984, 6 2 - 6 3 .


12: (per ed.; cas. inc.) G : - d; 7, 66: G : om. d; 14, 54: GO : d; 26, 36: GO : d; ibid., 37: GO : d; 29, 56 58: GO : per homoeotel. om. d; ibid., 59: GO : - d; 35, 6: GO : om. d; ibid., 7: G : d; ibid. GO : d; ibid., 8: G : Od; ibid., 9 11: - GO : om. d; 36,16: GO : d; ibid., 17-18: GO : om. per homoearct. d; 42, 74: ' G : d; ibid., 76 77: G : per homoeotel. om. d; 52, 49: GO : d; 60, 1 GO : d; 66, 37: GO : - d; * 104,15: G : d; * 110, 34: G : d; 2, 10: GO : d; ibid., 14: G : d; o 5, 52: GO : d; o 8, 77: GO : d; o 10, 13: G : d; o 13, 40: GO : d; ibid., 53: GO : d; ibid., 55: GO : d; ibid., 80: GO : d; o 42, 20: GO : d; o 46, 56: G : - d; ibid., 63 64: GO : om. d; o 48, 80 81: GO : d; o 64, 54: GO : d; ibid., 56: alt. GO : d; ibid., 57: G : Od; ibid., 58: GO : om. d; o 66, 75: GO : d; o 67, 86 87: GO : om. d; o 70, 7: GO : d; o 74, 31: GO : om. d; 25, 80: GO : om. (per homoearct.) d; 26, 8687: G O : om. per homoeotel. d; 34, 31: GO : - d; ibid., 31 32: - G : d; 35, 53: GO : d; 36, 58: GO : d; ibid., 63: GO : - d; 45, 14: GO : om. d; 46, 24: ' GO : (ex cd. falso soluto) d; 47, 33: GO : d; 50, 46: GO : d; ibid., 4849: et ( om.) G : om. d; 57, 12: G : - Od; 58, 14: GO : d; 64, 74: GO : d; 66, 91: G : d; 74, 25: G : - d; 76, 42: GO : om. d; 78, 52: GO : - d; ibid. GO : d; ibid., 54 57: G : om. per homoeotel. d; 85, 92: G : - - d; 87, 11: G O : - d; 90, 36: G : () d; * 94, 48: G : d; 2, 9: GO : d; 1, 6: GO : per homoeotel. om. d; 19, 14: GO : d; ibid. 32: G : d; 23, 69: ' ' GO : d; * 40, 54: G : d; 2, 11: G : d; 6, 41: GO; d; ibid. 47: GO : - d; ibid. 49: GO : - d; ibid. 51: ' G O : d; ibid. 56:

Introduction 33

GO : - d; 7, 8486: GO : om. d; 34, 46: G O : d; 4, 31: G O : om. d; ibid., 33: G : d; * 17, 3: G : d; * 22,19: G Gen. : d ( recte Hsch.); 6, 39: GO : om. d; 13, 76: GO : dac, del. d1; 17, 5: GO : d; * 27, 32: G : d; 2, 8: GO : () d; 6, 72: G O : om. per homoeotel. d; 11, 87 88: GO : om. per homoeotel. d; 15, 37 38: GO : om. per homoeotel. d; 20, 69: GO : d; 24, 94: GO : d; 25, 2: GO : d; ibid. 5: G O : d; 1, 3: G O : d; * 3, 14: G : d; * 5, 27: G : d; * 7, 35: G : d; 5, 65: GO : d.

Finally, a brief characterization of the scribe of G. His great merit is that, though capable of trivializing errors,24 he tends to copy what he sees in front of him, including the abbreviations, whereas it is precisely the attempt to resolve these that is so often the undoing of the scribe of O (cf. Ep. ad A, p. 20). On the other hand, G is not without his faults; in general, syntax is not his forte,25 and he is largely oblivious of the distinction between o and .26 Moreover, he is well aware that the parchment he is using is valuable, and he makes every effort to conserve it, both by reducing the size of the margins (cf. Ep. ad A, p. 21) and, where necessary, curtailing the extent of the text. He thus carries further b's tendency to eliminate illustrative and explanatory material.27

24 Examples: 47, 11: O d : G; 6, 53: Gud. : G; 8, 86: O Gud. : G; o 17, 10: (recte) d : G; o 19, 19: d : G; o 23, 52: O d : G; o 23, 72: O d : G; o 26, 79: d : () G; 53, 75: d : G; 5, 54: d : G.

25 Cf. 38, 7172: (recte) d : G; 39, 88: d : G; 55, 77: d : G; 23, 14: d : G; 9, 93: O Gud. : G; 9, 1 : ' Oac Gud. : G et 1; 13, 20: O z : G e ; 10, 66: Gud. : G; ibid., 71: Gud. : G; 8, 74: d : -v G; o 21, 43: O d : G; o 31, 1: O d : -v G.

26 Cf. 39, 53: O d : G; 47, 13: O d : G; o 3, 19: O d : G; 46, 24: O d : G; 4, 20: d : G; 32, 40: d : - G.

27 Cf. 106, 23: Gud. : om. G; 6, 70: Et. Gud. : om. G; 81, 70: : om. (in lineae fine) G; 6, 39: d : om. G; 19, 22: ' , ( 221) d : om. G: 14, 47: : om. G; ibid., 4849: : om. G; ibid., 50: : om. G; 10, 73: d : om. G; 4, 27: ' d : om. G ; ibid., 29: d : om. G O; ibid., 31: d : om. G O; ibid., 36: d : om. G O.


4. Sources

The Epimerismi Homerici are transmitted in two forms, commentary and lexicon, of which the latter was created out of the former by combining the commentaries to Homer , and A (in that order): cf. Ep. ad A, pp. 8ff . Pages 27 33 of the prior volume treat paradigmatically the sources of one component of the lexicon of the Ep. Horn., namely the commentary to Homer A. A similar analysis applies mutatis mutandis to the commentaries to and ; for details see the index fontium.28 Besides the glosses of the commentary to , and A, the lexicon of Ep. Horn, also includes a supplement which was ordinarily added after the commen-tary on A, i.e., at the end of the commentary for each letter of the alphabet. The two branches of the tradition, b (reconstructed from G and Et. Gud.) and O, differ markedly in the content of their respective supplements.29 It is the source of these two supplements that I shall explore here.

The supplement in b consists largely of short glosses of etymological character; the following is a complete list with an asterisk marking those with a close counterpart in Et. Gen.: t 61, 62, 63, 64, 65*, 66*, 67*; 103, 104, 105, 106, 107*, 108*, 109*, 110*, 111, 112*, 113*, 114*, 31, 51*, 52, 53*, 54, 55*, 56*, 57*, 58*, 59, 28, 29*, 30*, 31*, 32*, 33*, 34*, 8*, 9*, 10*, 92, 93, 94*, 95, 96*, 101*, 102*, 103*, 7*, 8*, 9*, 10*, 11*, 32*, 40*, 41*, 42*, 46, 47, 48*, 49, 50*, 51*, 52*, 15, 16*, 17*, 18*, 19, 20*, 21*, 22*, 23, 24*, 25*, 26*, 27*, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 26, 27, 28, 2*, 3, 4*, 5*, 6*, 7*, 16, 17*, 18*, 19*, 20*.

The degree of relation of these glosses to Et. Gen. is striking; apart from the Methodius-glosses of a , there is no parallel for it in the Ep. Horn.

28 Note also that another ninth-century source can now be added, viz. Michael Syncellus: cf. H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaften 12, 2, 1, Munich 1959, p. 503. The next editor of Herodian's works will find relevant observations on the following glosses: 6, 17, 19, 23, 25, 35, 40, 49, 53, 60, 73, 76, 80, 82, 87 (bis), 88, 97, 100, 104, 138, 139, 144 (bis), 147, 178, 180, 182, 183, 184, 192, 197, 231, 234, 236, 247, 250, 261 (bis), 270, 275, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281 (bis), 282, 289, 293, 295, 296, 317, 327, 358, 365, 368; 57, 59, 78, 79, 34, 46, 52, 77, 105, 113, 116, 154, 155, 162, 171, 174, 178, 180, 182, 186, 188, 189, 195, 206; 1, 3 b; 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 20, 21, 24, 27 (bis), 31, 33, 34, 43, 48, 51, 54 (bis), 59, 61, 67 (bis), 75, 78; 4, 9, 10, 19 (bis), 24, 29, 30, 35, 37, 49, 55, 56, 65, 68, 100, 114, 125, 127 (bis), 135, 143, 153, 164, 165, 168; 3, 6, 8, 11, 19, 32, 34, 36 (bis), 38, 46, 48; 30, 43, 45, 63, 64, 66, 72, 75, 76, 82, 85, 87; 1, 3, 6 (quater) , 9, 14, 19; o 1, 2, 5, 21, 31, 43, 44 (bis), 50, 94 (bis), 96, 97, 105; 20, 25, 27, 33, 48, 50, 56, 61, 63, 73, 75, 79, 92, 107, 112, 116, 131, 132 (bis), 133, 135, 142, 151, 152, 156, 166, 179, 181; 1, 19, 31, 46; 3, 4, 6; the next editor of Apollonius Dyscolus will find relevant material on 134, 66, o 94 and 34.

29 Cf. Ep. ad A, pp. 1 2 - 1 3 .

Introduction 35

Moreover, these are glosses which Et. Gen. itself has derived from a variety of sources (sch. Horn., Herodian, Et. Orion., , etc.). What is the explanation? In view of the errors of Et. Gud. against G in this sector (see pp. 32 33 above) and the fact that the scribe of the main text of Et. Gud. (in contrast to the scribe who added the marginalia) very rarely used the Et. Gen. as a source,30 a relation Et. Gen. - Gud. - G seems most unlikely.31 More probably, in this fairly unremarkable group of glosses the basic source relation b G/Gud. remains unaltered.

A hypothesis that would account for the phenomena so far described would be Gen. -> b - G/Gud. , with allowance made for the interpolation of a handful of glosses of other provenance ( 31, 19, 26 27, 3, 16), especially at the beginning of the supplement i.e., glosses which might have been present already in the archetype but lost in O's exemplar and hence were not the special property of b; these strictures would apply to 31, 26 27 and 16. Another possibility would be that the scribe of b first exploited other sources before using Et. Gen. (cf. the Et. Orion., composed from a fixed number of sources used in a set order); hence in certain letters of the alphabet (viz. , , ) the scribe of b did not use the Et. Gen. at all.

What are the possible objections? An obvious problem would be any errors of Et. Gen. against Gud./G. I have discovered only one serious error, namely the omitted citation of H 241 s. v. , a gloss which, however, is transmitted in A alone; hence the scribe of A might have omitted material transmitted in other versions of Et. Gen., whence b could have taken it; or the quotation could have been added suo Marte by the scribe of b.

Another possible objection arises f rom the source-indications for two glosses in d, ( = Ep. Horn, 62), which bears the siglum and the gloss ( = Ep. Horn, 31), which has a siglum connecting it with Io. Dam. can. iamb. 3; if one takes them seriously, they would seem to speak against the relation b - Gud. in these cases. But the credibility of these sigla depends on whether they were written by the scribe of the main text of d, since only he knew his sources with certainty.32 In view

30 Of the ca. 25 pp. of text of Et. Gud. edited by Reitzenstein, Gesch., pp. 109 36, only two of the glosses which he assigns to Et. Gen. as source are a) glosses in the main text, b) not Methodius glosses and c) still attributed to the Et. Gen. by De Stefani (viz., , ; a third, , he assigns to Et. Gen. with a question mark following).

31 Note, too, the absence from Et. Gud. (at least in the manuscript sources to which I have access) of the following glosses: ( 31), ( 19), ( 28) and ( 27); hence in this respect, too, the hypothesis of Gud. as intermediary source is problematic.

32 Cf. De Stefani, BZ 16,1907, 55; Ep.Hom. I, pp. 14f.


of the form of the and its thickness the siglum for the gloss ' seems clearly to have been added by d1; since this gloss appears near the beginning of the i-supplement, I would assume the relation Eel. -> b Gud. /G and presume that the corrector inferred the more remote, rather than the immediate source (alternatively b and Gud. may both have preserved a source-indication omitted by G). The gloss stands in an alphabetical series which has no glosses from Et. Gen. in any case; hence it can either be explained mutatis mutandis in similar fashion to or on the assumption that the source-indication is correct and Et. Gen. not used in this section of the supplement (see above). On the other hand, note the gloss ( 103), which bears in Gud. the siglum Homeri (see Ep. ad A, p. 13) and therefore ought to derive from the Ep. Horn., as our hypothesis predicts.

Still more interesting is the supplement to O, which uniquely preserves a number of ancient grammatical doctrines and poetic (and other) quota-tions. How did these learned materials survive to the 12th century (the date at which we have the first indication of the use of a version of Ep. Horn, including O's supplement [see pp. 45 46 below])? I am going to argue that the supplement in O, like that in G, derives essentially f rom a single source.

First it should be made clear that there is an intermediary source, i.e., that the redactor of the recension of Ep. Horn, that first included O's supplement was not working with the texts of the grammarians themselves. One can see this perhaps most clearly in the glosses pertaining to preposi-tions. Here we encounter some very learned material which may well derive from Apollonius Dyscolus, : common to our material and the (relatively meager) preserved fragments are an interest in demarcation between prepositions and other parts of speech, including problems of anastrophe (a 264, 142; . Dysc. 3, 133 ff. and 135, 38 f.; cf. 85); formal characteristics of prepositions (a 293; Ap. Dysc. 3, 136, 41 ff.); the sense of the preposition, including the sense ( 1 0 9 - 1 0 ; . Dysc. 3,137, 35 ff.; cf. a 95, 105 and 118); Apollonian terminology, such as likewise appears ( 148; cf. Schneider's index s.v.). Such sophisticated argumentation was well over the head of the compiler, who was merely interested in extracting the "notable points" ( ) about the various prepositions (cf., e.g., ad 148, 142), as he was similarly interested in excerpting concerning pronouns (cf. 249, 301, 66 and 72). Note, too, that the redactor of Ep. Horn, is using a source which has already aug-mented the original text with Christian examples (cf. 61, 109 110).

In terms of their content, the glosses of the supplement in O can at first glance be divided into two groups: exegetical notes and grammatical

Introduction 37

excerpts. The exegetical glosses pertain largely to Homer, but also to other poets, including Hesiod ( 164, 43, 84, 38), Aristophanes ( 167, 42, 37), Euripides ( 27) and others ( 7 and possibly 22), as well as to Herodotus ( 86, 179). The Homeric lemmata are not confined to the first three books of the Iliad but range freely over both poems. In some cases it is, of course, impossible to determine what specific passage the gloss originally referred to (cf., e.g., 16). However, in many cases we are helped by the fact that the excerptor has inserted, immediately after the lemma, a quotation of the context from which the vox glossando has been taken. That these quotations immediately following the lemmata were added mechanically later and not originally part of the gloss is clear from the glosses 292, 69 and 23, in which the same passage is quoted twice, once immediately following the lemma and once as part of the argument. The quotations immediately following the lemmata, then, have been added in the process of excerpting to indicate the passage to which they referred in the excerptor's source. Furthermore some glosses which appear at first to be purely grammatical excerpts turn out on closer inspection to have passed through an exegetical filter; so, for instance, the gloss on ( 103), which was applied to 152, as the quotation following the lemma shows.

Now the overwhelming majority of the glosses in which quotation follows immediately after lemma refer to Homeric passages. Indeed, the source for these seems very likely to have been arranged originally in the form of a Homeric commentary.33 However, as we have seen, the source of the redactor of the O-supplement also contains non-Homeric glosses. The combination of these two disparate elements is very likely to have occurred only after the work had been altered from commentary to lexicon form.

The Herodianic , like the source of the O-supplement, included not only Homeric but also non Homeric glosses.34 Thus the attributed to Herodian are the only work known to have been available in the Byzantine period that matches the characteristics of the O-supplement: an exegetical work on Homer which was expanded (perhaps after rearrangement as a lexicon) to include other elements.

Other indicators also point to the Herodianic as the source of the O-supplement. Seven of the glosses of O's supplement are independently attested for this work, namely the following:

33 Cf. o 96, 15, an evident cross-reference from the Iliadic to the Odyssean part of the commentary.

34 See Hermes 109, 1981, 2 2 8 - 2 9 .


Ep. Horn, gloss Hdn. Ep. fr. 41 L. teste Et. Gud. d1

on Homer verse 249 1) 262

2) 17 3) 71 4) 150 5) 35 6) 42 7) 117 8) 71

34 39 40 19 43 32

9

15 722 or 375 370 ? ?

These glosses all pertain to voces Homericae, and two of them ( 71, 150) include the quotation of the relevant Homeric passage immediately after the lemma.

Now if the attribution of the O-supplement to the Herodianic - is correct,36 there are several consequences. One of these has to do with the "doublet glosses" of the lexicon of Ep. Horn. There are a few cases in which the Ep. Horn, preserve two glosses on the same lemma, one among the glosses of the commentary to the first three books of the Iliad or the original supplement to the archetype of the Ep. Horn., the other in O's supplement. If we assume that O's supplement derives f rom Hdn. Ep., then in the case of two of these doublets s. v. ( 135 and 275) and ( 12 and 27) we can say that both glosses derive from Hdn. Ep.: for Ep. Horn, 135, which, since it is preserved in Et. Gud., belongs to the supplement to the archetype, is attested for Hdn. Ep. (fr. 47 D.); the same is true of 12 (fr. 46 L.), which belongs to the commentary on 248. The content of each member of the pair is essentially the same; the difference is that the commentary gloss and the gloss from the supplement to the archetype have been curtailed and watered down i.e., subjected to editing for the Byzantine school , whereas the glosses of the supplement to O preserve ancient learning in a purer form.

In 1981 I adduced evidence to show that Hdn. Ep. had served as a source for Ep. Horn, at all three stages of composition: 1) the commentary on Iliad , , A; 2) the supplement to the archetype; 3) the supplement to O.37 Now we are in a better position to understand how this came

35 This list supersedes that printed ibid., 235. 36 Except, of course, for the strictly alphabetized glosses from Methodius interpolated

in O's supplement at 305 59 or the glosses from Seleucus interpolated at 122 and 1 5 6 - 6 2 .

37 Hermes 109,1981, 233 35. Note, however, that if the hypothesis about the source of the O-supplement is correct, the following glosses edited in Ep. ad A can, on the basis of their order of occurrence in O, be vindicated for the pseudo-Herodianic Epimerismoi: Ep. ad 1 ( = 74), 1 B l a (Oab; = 298), 2B1 ( = 24), 2 C , a 2

Introduction 39

about. At the time of the formation of the archetype (9th 10th century) Hdn. Ep. was among the sources used,38 but the glosses borrowed were subjected to a thoroughgoing revision in usum scholarum, with unnecessary citations curtailed or eliminated entirely and complicated argumentation simplified. A copy of Hdn. Ep. did survive, however, albeit converted to lexicon form and interpolated. In perhaps the early 12th century this work came into the hands of the redactor of the O supplement, who interpolated glosses from it into his copy of Ep. Horn, and did so without regard to the glosses on the same lemmata already occurring in the Ep. Horn. This process will account, in general, for the relatively large number of repeated glosses in our work.39

( = 75), 3 ( = 7), 3D 1 ( = 157), 5 ( = o 106), 51 ( = 4), 7D 1 ( = 5), 9C (Oab; = o 107); 18C ( = 6), 19D1 ( = 8); 201 ( = 160), 23 ( = 299); 26C1 ( = 116), 44 C1 ( = 117), 45 ( = 22), 85D ( = 108), 203 ( = 9), 2291 ( = 41), 263 ( = 161), 317 ( = 118), 357 ( = 162), 462 ( = 110), 569 ( = 119), 575 ( = 120), 5 7 6 ( = 25).

38 The precise extent can no longer be ascertained; I have ordinarily assumed use of Hdn. Ep. in the commentary on , , A and the supplement to the archetype only where we have explicit testimony, but it is likely to have been much more extensively used. Note 4243, which, I suspect, may derive from Hdn. Ep. ad 310; in 42 there would be no need for the quotation of pa as well as unless this was preserved from a source which quoted the entire line before glossing individual words (ordinarily, of course, the alphabetical arrangement of the Ep. Horn, will preclude the possibility of contiguous glosses being drawn from the same passage of Hdn. Ep.).

39 Viz. ( 271, 292), ( 199, 304), ( 173, 239), ( 318, 373), ( 145, 284), ( 1, 2, 249, 300), ( 148, 267), ( 135, 237), ( 96, 369), ( 233, 346), " ( 132, 266), ( 134, 274), ( 256, 296), ( 141, 278), ( 142, 279), ( 194, 273), ( 143, 295), " ( 105, 283), ( 137, 277), ( 168, 203, 269), ( 258, 294), ( 192, 364), ( 12, 27), ( 61, 64), ( 18, 65, 67), ( 55, 66), ( 9, 77), ( 42, 75), ( 12, 13), ( 36, 167), ( 121, 168), ( 16, 41, 195), ( 55, 188), ( 85, 199), ( 186, 200), ( 160, 175), ( 18, 163, 172), ( 164,179), ( 6, 97, 184), ( 89, 101, 205), ( 104, 177), ( 43, 169), ( 88, 107), ( 4, 8), ( 10, 11), ( 3, 4), ( 8, 30), ( 5, 27, 31), ( 16, 37), ' ( 23, 45, 70), ( 12, 24), ( 11, 71), ( 13, 56), ( 15, 66), ( 100, 146), ( 2, 3), ( 29, 128), ( 102, 166), ( 65, 98), ( 8, 101), ( 25, 45), ( 7, 124), ( 30, 105), ( 143, 163), ( 45, 73), ( 18, 60), ( 10, 11, 69), ( 6, 52), ( 21, 33), ( 31, 39), ( 1, 47), ( 18, 41), ( 2, 46), ( 36, 102), ( 70, 110), ( 18, 95, 101), ( 89, 109), ( 81, 105), ( 102, 172), ( 83, 92), ( 115, 155), ( 37, 175), ( 105, 118 [cf. 235]), ( 148,181), ( 23, 111), ( 120, 138), ( 113, 156), ( 50, 129), ( 49, 126), ( 7, 109), ( 91, 137), ( 2, 53), ( 23, 67), ( 33, 64), ( 1, 16), ( 26, 28), ( 1, 41), ( 16, 32),


Finally, if the hypothesis is correct that the O-supplement derives from Hdn. Ep., what, if anything, does this suggest about the authorship o f t h a t work? The consequence would be that the name Herodian traditionally attached to it has no real meaning. Surely this was already the case in the ninth century, when Choeroboscus wrote: . . . . ' , ' .40 The work contains Herodianic doctrines but is so interpenetrated with elements drawn from later grammarians including Orus (v 52), Helladius ( 152), John Philoponus ( 183) and Zenobius ( 29, 83, 55) that any attempt to locate a Herodianic 'core' would appear to be doomed. I have accordingly printed in square brackets the name of the author to whom it belongs according to the tradition.

5. Influence on Subsequent Works

If the Epimerismi Homerici were intended as a guide for schoolteachers, what evidence we have suggests that they were not a particularly popular or successful one, since they were copied into only three codices (although other copies can, of course, have perished). This restricted circulation can be accounted for in several ways. There were competing works, such as the pseudo Herodianic Schematismi Homerici, which, like the Ep. Horn., consisted largely of Herodianic excerpts explaining voces Homericae, as well as the Regulae in quasdam Homricas voces (- ) , in which the Ep. Horn, them-selves are pillaged (see pp. 47 48 below). Moreover, the premise of the Ep. Horn., namely that Homer should be the first text studied after pupils have mastered the elementary rules of grammar, is not a necessary or obvious one. Other texts closer in diction to the spoken language could be studied first, Homer later with the aid of the D-scholia. Thus Choero-boscus' Epimerismi in Psalmos achieved greater popularity, surviving in ten manuscripts.41 When the Ep. Horn, were revived in the 12th century

( 33, 39), ( 6, 34), ( 5, 32, 45), ( 3, 15), ( 5, 14), ( 16, 27); somewhat different is the case of ( 3, 72).

40 Hdn. Ep. fr. 1 L. = Tractatus B: cf. Choer. Th. 1, LXXVI f.; Erbse, Beitr., p. 109. 41 Sc. Marc. gr. 492 (s. XV); Udine, Bibl. Arcivescovile e Bartoliniana cod. 260 (olim

VI, 7; s. XIV); Vat. gr. 1861 (s. XIII); Vat. gr. 1881 (s. XIII ex.); Salamanca, Biblioteca de la Universidad, M 236 (olim 12 12; s. XVI in.); Laur., San Marco 770 (s. XIV in.); Laur., San Marco 771 (s. XII); Paris, gr. 2756, f. 125v and ff. 68~ (s. XV); Paris, suppl. gr. 1192 (s. XV); Jerusalem, Patriarch., Metochion 210 (anno 1507); cf. A . Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testa-


Finally, if the hypothesis is correct that the O-supplement derives from Hdn. Ep., what, if anything, does this suggest about the authorship o f t h a t work? The consequence would be that the name Herodian traditionally attached to it has no real meaning. Surely this was already the case in the ninth century, when Choeroboscus wrote: . . . . ' , ' .40 The work contains Herodianic doctrines but is so interpenetrated with elements drawn from later grammarians including Orus (v 52), Helladius ( 152), John Philoponus ( 183) and Zenobius ( 29, 83, 55) that any attempt to locate a Herodianic 'core' would appear to be doomed. I have accordingly printed in square brackets the name of the author to whom it belongs according to the tradition.

5. Influence on Subsequent Works

If the Epimerismi Homerici were intended as a guide for schoolteachers, what evidence we have suggests that they were not a particularly popular or successful one, since they were copied into only three codices (although other copies can, of course, have perished). This restricted circulation can be accounted for in several ways. There were competing works, such as the pseudo Herodianic Schematismi Homerici, which, like the Ep. Horn., consisted largely of Herodianic excerpts explaining voces Homericae, as well as the Regulae in quasdam Homricas voces (- ) , in which the Ep. Horn, them-selves are pillaged (see pp. 47 48 below). Moreover, the premise of the Ep. Horn., namely that Homer should be the first text studied after pupils have mastered the elementary rules of grammar, is not a necessary or obvious one. Other texts closer in diction to the spoken language could be studied first, Homer later with the aid of the D-scholia. Thus Choero-boscus' Epimerismi in Psalmos achieved greater popularity, surviving in ten manuscripts.41 When the Ep. Horn, were revived in the 12th century

( 33, 39), ( 6, 34), ( 5, 32, 45), ( 3, 15), ( 5, 14), ( 16, 27); somewhat different is the case of ( 3, 72).

40 Hdn. Ep. fr. 1 L. = Tractatus B: cf. Choer. Th. 1, LXXVI f.; Erbse, Beitr., p. 109. 41 Sc. Marc. gr. 492 (s. XV); Udine, Bibl. Arcivescovile e Bartoliniana cod. 260 (olim

VI, 7; s. XIV); Vat. gr. 1861 (s. XIII); Vat. gr. 1881 (s. XIII ex.); Salamanca, Biblioteca de la Universidad, M 236 (olim 12 12; s. XVI in.); Laur., San Marco 770 (s. XIV in.); Laur., San Marco 771 (s. XII); Paris, gr. 2756, f. 125v and ff. 68~ (s. XV); Paris, suppl. gr. 1192 (s. XV); Jerusalem, Patri

Andrew R. Dyck (Ed.)-Epimerismi Homerici, Pars 2_ Epimerismos Continens Qui Ordine Alphabetico...

Documents

Transcript of Andrew R. Dyck (Ed.)-Epimerismi Homerici, Pars 2_ Epimerismos Continens Qui Ordine Alphabetico...