Didymos of Alexandria: Commentary on Pindar (Schweizerische Beitrage Zur Altertumswissenschaft) [2nd 2., Korrigierter Nachdruck ed.] 3796529011, 9783796529016

Citation preview

S C H W E I Z E R I S C H E B E I T R ÄG E Z U R A LT E RT U M S W I S S E N S C H A F T

Bruce Karl Braswell

Didymos of Alexandria Commentary on Pindar

Schwabe

S BA 41

Dieses eBook ist seitenidentisch mit der gedruckten Ausgabe und verfügt u.a. über folgende Funktionen: Volltextsuche, klickbares Inhaltsverzeichnis sowie Verlinkungen innerhalb des Buches und zu Internetseiten. Die gedruckte Ausgabe erhalten Sie im Buchhandel sowie über unsere Website www.schwabeverlag.ch. Dort finden Sie auch unser gesamtes Programm und viele weitere Informationen.

I-IV SBA_41_Titelei_I-VIII_Titelei_SBA_39.qxp 13.10.15 15:17 Seite I

I-IV SBA_41_Titelei_I-VIII_Titelei_SBA_39.qxp 13.10.15 15:17 Seite II

SCHWEIZERISCHE BEITRÄGE ZUR ALTERTUMSWISSENSCHAFT (SBA) Herausgegeben im Auftrag der Schweizerischen Vereinigung für Altertumswissenschaft von Margarethe Billerbeck

Band 41 Herausgegeben von Margarethe Billerbeck, Leonhard Burckhardt und Alexandrine Schniewind

I-IV SBA_41_Titelei_I-VIII_Titelei_SBA_39.qxp 13.10.15 15:17 Seite III

Bruce Karl Braswell

Didymos of Alexandria Commentary on Pindar edited and translated with Introduction, Explanatory Notes, and a Critical Catalogue of Didymos’ Works

Schwabe Verlag Basel

I-IV SBA_41_Titelei_I-VIII_Titelei_SBA_39.qxp 13.10.15 15:17 Seite IV

Publiziert mit Unterstützung des Schweizerischen Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Signet auf der vorderen Umschlagseite: Schwan, römisches Bronzebeschläg aus Augst

Dieses eBook ist seitenidentisch mit der 2. Auflage der Printausgabe von 2017 Copyright © 2017 Schwabe AG, Verlag, Basel, Schweiz Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Das Werk einschliesslich seiner Teile darf ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages in keiner Form reproduziert oder elektronisch verarbeitet, vervielfältigt, zugänglich gemacht oder verbreitet werden. Satz: Arlette Neumann-Hartmann, Fribourg Gesamtherstellung: Schwabe AG, Druckerei, Basel/Muttenz, Schweiz ISBN Printausgabe 978-3-7965-2901-6 ISBN E-Book (PDF) 978-3-7965-3493-5 [email protected] www.schwabeverlag.ch

Table of Contents Preface ....................................................................................................... Prolegomena .............................................................................................. Bibliographical Abbreviations ................................................................... Sigla ...........................................................................................................

9 13 15 19

Introduction I.

The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians ............................................ 27 1. Didymos Chalkenteros ................................................................... 27 1.1. The Evidence for his Life and Times ...................................... 27 1.2. Overview: Didymos and the Alexandrian Scholars and Grammarians from Aristarchos to Herakleides ....................... 35 2. Didymos as viewed in Antiquity .................................................... 36 2.1. Senecaʼs Criticism of Didymos ............................................... 36 2.2. Didymos Bibliolathas .............................................................. 38 2.3. Macrobiusʼ Praise of Didymos ................................................ 39 3. The Works of Didymos: A Critical Catalogue ............................... 40 3.1. Lexicographical Writings (nos. 1–7) ....................................... 40 3.2. Critical and Exegetical Commentaries and Treatises on Authors (nos. 8–47) ........................................................... 46 3.3. Treatises on Grammar (nos. 48–54) ........................................ 88 3.4. Miscellanea (nos. 55–69) ........................................................ 93 3.5. Dubiae sedis fragmenta (nos. 70–86) ...................................... 101

II.

Pindaric Scholarship before Didymos ................................................ 105

III. Didymosʼ Commentary on Pindar ...................................................... 1. The Use of Historians .................................................................... 2. Citation of Earlier Poets ................................................................. 3. Relevance of the Myth to the Victor celebrated ............................. 4. Textual Criticism ........................................................................... 4.1. Defence of Manuscript Readings ............................................ 4.2. Conjectures ............................................................................. 4.3. Misplaced Ingenuity in Exegesis .............................................

113 113 116 119 119 119 119 120

6

Table of Contents 4.4. Misinterpretation of the Text .................................................. 4.5. Overinterpretation of the Text ................................................ 5. Authenticity ................................................................................... 6. Explanation in Terms of Cause and Accident ................................ 7. Aesthetic Criticism ........................................................................

120 120 120 120 121

IV. Didymosʼ Achievement ...................................................................... 123 Synopsis of Readings ................................................................................ 127 Ὑπομνήματα Πινδάρου – Commentary on Pindar I.

Olympian Odes (Fr. 1–24) ................................................................. 131

II.

Pythian Odes (Fr. 25–35) .................................................................. 177

III. Nemean Odes (Fr. 36–62) .................................................................. 195 IV. Isthmian Odes (Fr. 63–67) ................................................................. 247 V.

Paeans (Fr. 68) .................................................................................. 257

VI. Dubia (Fr. 69–72) .............................................................................. 261 VII. Falsum (Fr. 73) .................................................................................. 265 Bibliography .............................................................................................. Concordances of the Fragments ................................................................ Index of Pindaric Texts discussed in the Scholia ...................................... Index of Fontes .......................................................................................... General Index ............................................................................................ Index of Greek Words discussed ............................................................... Index of Passages cited .............................................................................

267 291 293 294 297 303 305

To MARGARETHE

Preface When scholars of the Latin West rediscovered the epinikia of Pindar, the only substantial aid they had in understanding this difficult poetry were fragments of ancient commentaries and treatises. These were preserved in the margins in a number of manuscripts of the odes. In 1515 Zacharias Kallierges published in Rome a magnificent quarto volume of the poems which left ample room for the scholia.1 The edition, which largely reflects the Vatican manuscript tradition (B), enjoyed a tirage of perhaps a thousand copies which would make modern Pindarists envious. This edition, with the scholia readily available, opened the way for the Latin translations and commentaries from Lonitzer (Basel 1528/1535) to the culmination of Pindaric studies in the Renaissance in the work of Erasmus Schmid (Wittenberg 1616). The scholia of the editio Romana furnish much of the explanation found in the commentaries of this period where they are often translated literally.2 The systematic study of the scholia began with the publication of the second volume of August Boeckhʼs Pindar edition (Leipzig 1819).3 His edition of the scholia held the field until A. B. Drachmannʼs edition (Leipzig 1903–1927), which incorporated the Ambrosian tradition (A).4 In the scholia the names of two grammarians stand out: Aristarchos and Didymos. The former is cited 76 times and the latter 78, both vastly more than any other. This is not by chance, since we owe to Didymos the preservation of Aristarchosʼ interpretations which he often mentions either in agreement or more often in dissent.5 It was Didymosʼ commentary on Pindar which in the Antonine period served as the basis of the scholia.6 The opinions of other grammarians reported in the scholia presumably derive in large part from the 1

2 3

4 5 6

The editio princeps published by Aldus Manutius in 1513 was a pocket size volume containing only the odes. On the two editions v. Irigoin (1952), 399–420, and, for a brief account, Braswell (1995), 74–76. On Kallierges’ edition v. the preliminary report of Fogelmark (2006). These have been studied in some detail for the Ninth Nemean in a monograph which I hope to publish in the near future. Between Kallierges and Boeckh five editions of Pindar were published with the scholia: Brubach (1542), Oliva Paulus Stephanus (1599), ed. Oxon. of West and Welsted (1697), Beck (1792–1795), Heyne (1798–1817). On these editions v. Fogelmark (1976). An edition of the scholia vetera on the Nemeans and Isthmians was published by Eugen Abel (Berlin 1884), which despite its limitations remains useful. Irigoin (1952), 56. Irigoin (1952), 67, 102–4.

10

Preface

same source. This alone would make Didymosʼ commentary of considerable interest to historians of scholarship and to Pindarists in particular. Considering the very different general assessment of the two scholars, it is not surprising that the work of Aristarchos on Pindar has received more attention than that of Didymos.7 The only previous edition of Didymosʼ commentary is that of Moritz Schmidt in his 1854 edition of all the fragments of the grammarian known to him.8 Schmidtʼs edition of the Pindar commentary was based on the edition of the scholia in Boeckhʼs Pindar edition of 1819 and which made only limited use of the Ambrosian tradition of the scholia.9 Nevertheless, Schmidtʼs edition of Didymos, though now badly in need of replacement, represents a considerable achievement.10 Besides the historical interest of Didymosʼ Pindar commentary, a closer examination of it suggests that it is not without value for understanding a number of disputed passages in the odes. This is a point well worth emphasizing, since the interpretations of ancient scholars reported in the Pindaric scholia have been criticized for their failure to recognize the conventions of encomiastic poetry and, in particular, their readiness to resort to guesswork to explain the text.11 Moreover, Didymos himself has had a rather bad press.12 7

8 9 10

11 12

For Aristarchos see Horn (1883), Feine (1883), Cohn (21895), esp. 872,32–873,6, and Vassilaki (2009) as well as Irigoin (1952), 51–56. For Didymos see Irigoin (1952), 67–75, whose chapter on the grammarian has long been the best introduction to his scholarship on Pindar. Still useful are the accounts in Cohn (1903), 450–51, and Deas (1931), 19–27. The privately printed pamphlet of Carnevali (1980) is limited to a discussion of five fragments, while Braswell (2011) discusses a number of fragments in a preliminary study for the present edition. On Didymosʼ scholarship more generally the accounts in Wilamowitz (1889), 157–66, Susemihl (1891–1892) II 195–210, Schmid/Stählin (1920), 432–34, and Pfeiffer (1968), 274– 79, remain valuable, but are to be supplemented by Montanari (21997), 550–52, and Montana (22006), 1–6. For Alexandrian scholarship in its historical setting Fraser (1972) provides an excellent orientation. For a recent survey of Pindaric scholarship in Alexandria v. Negri (2004). On some aspects of the way ancient readers approached the text of Pindar v. Braswell (2012). Schmidt (1854), 214–40. Boeckh (1811–1821) II, pp. iii–iv. On Cod. Re v. p. 23, n. 24 below. Cohn (1903), 446, while fair, is perhaps too severe in his criticism of Schmidtʼs performance considering the range of material included and the state of the texts available to him at the time. This however does not excuse his occasional lapses of judgment. See Lefkowitz (1985), 269–82, (1991), 147–60. See esp. West (1970), 288–96, Harris (1989), 36–44, not to mention the earlier attacks of Roemer (1912). For a recent example from a classicist writing for a broader educated public v. Mary Beard, ‟Cleopatra: The Mythˮ, New York Review of Books 58, no. 1 (Jan. 13 – Febr. 9, 2011), 10, according to whom the leading intellectual under Cleopatra ‟was a secondhand compiler by the name of Didymusˮ

Preface

11

If the present edition presents a more balanced assessment of Didymos as a scholar, it will have succeeded in one of its principal aims. Anyone beginning the study of Greek scholia a generation ago could well have received the impression that he was wandering along a lonely path. There were occasional studies, but they were few and far between. The pitfalls awaiting the beginner were outlined by W. J. Slater in a cautionary essay published over two decades ago.13 Since then a renewed interest in ancient scholarship has brought some most welcome help, notably Eleanor Dickeyʼs guide to ancient Greek scholarship14 and the internet Lessico dei Grammatici Greci Antichi of Franco Montanari and his colleagues in Genova.15 At present a group of classicists centred on the Université de Franche-Comté in Besançon has undertaken ‟un projet de traduction commentée des scholia vetera de Pindareˮ, the first fruits of which were published in a collective volume of essays.16 My own work has much benefited from the unstinting help of Margarethe Billerbeck and her Fribourg équipe. In particular, I owe special thanks to Dr. Arlette Neumann-Hartmann for allowing me to consult in advance her Lustrum Forschungsbericht on recent Pindaric studies and, subsequently, for undertaking the arduous task of formatting the present manuscript. Mario Somazzi has again aided me in various ways with the text. The Fondation Hardt in Vandœuvres provided the ideal setting for reviewing and supplementing the manuscript as it was nearing completion. To all the members of the staff I should like to express my gratitude for their continuing engagement which has made this unique institution a welcoming centre of studies for classicists from all over the world. To the Swiss National Science Foundation I am indebted for support of a project on the history of Pindaric scholarship which allowed me to undertake the monograph mentioned above; the present publication complements the original project. I am further indebted to the same institution for a generous grant for the publication of the present volume. My sincere thanks are due to the editors of the Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft for their acceptance of my work for publication and to Dr. Reto Zingg of Schwabe Verlag for his advice in seeing it through the press. Fribourg, December 2012

13 14 15 16

Bruce Karl Braswell

of whose works ‟we have only a few scraps ... (probably not a great loss).ˮ For a more positive assessment of Didymos v. Harding (2006), esp. 31–39, 41. Slater (1989). Dickey (2007). See LGGA in the list of bibliographical abbreviations. Traduire les scholies de Pindare (2009).

Prolegomena In preparing this edition I have kept in mind two groups of potential readers, those whose interests are primarily in the poetry of Pindar and those who are interested in ancient scholarship as a special discipline. Since these two groups do not necessarily overlap, I have attempted to explain for each what the other may well take for granted. If readers new to either field should be encouraged to pursue their interest further, the collateral result would justify the additional effort required. Considering the conventional notion that both subjects are too recondite to be approached by beginners, I hope to have proved the contrary by providing a translation of almost all of the Greek and Latin texts quoted as well as annotation where necessary. For the texts of Pindar which are commented on in the scholia I have made my own choice of readings drawn mainly from the editions of Turyn (1948) and of Snell/Maehler (1987/1989). The line numbers of both are given.17 I am also responsible for the translations, for which I have often been unable to find a more felicitous rendering than that of William Race (1997). For the text of the scholia I have generally adopted that of Drachmann along with his apparatus criticus. In the case of those on the Nemeans and Isthmians the edition of Abel (1884) has sometimes been of use. For parallels from other authors I have used the standard critical editions indicated in the Index of Passages Cited, but have not hesitated at times to prefer another reading which is duly noted. Greek authors are in principal cited according to the abbreviations in the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell/Scott/Stuart Jones18 and Latin authors according to the index volume of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae.19 In some cases, notably with Pindar, I have used an expanded form for greater clarity.20 With some hesitation I have in part adopted the system of referring to secondary literature solely with the name of the author and the date of publication which can then be deciphered from the bibliography. When a publication is cited only once or twice, I have generally preferred to give the necessary information where it is needed. The achievement of authors whose works have been preserved only fragmentarily cannot be judged without reference to the context in which they are 17

18 19 20

Most readers will probably be using editions which follow the line-numeration of the latter. However, Turynʼs numeration (indicated below that of Sn./M.), which is faithful to Boeckhʼs colometry, is to be preferred; v. Itsumi (2009), xviii–xvix. Oxford, 1925–1940 (Supplement, 1968). Editio altera, München, 1990. For example, Ol. not O. for the Olympians and Is. not I. for the Isthmians.

14

Prolegomena

preserved. In the case of Didymos who stands at the end of a long tradition of Ptolemaic scholarship this obviously means taking into account other interpretations found in the same context. Accordingly the full text of a scholion is normally included. While I have not attempted a general assessment of Didymosʼ scholarship outside his Pindaric studies, in order at least to situate his contribution in this field I have included a critical catalogue of all the works which can be attributed to him with certainty. Until now we have had to rely on the selective list in Cohn (1903), which is much in need of revision and expansion. Our understanding of the full range of Didymosʼ achievement as a scholar will only be possible once his other works, fragmentary as they are, have been critically edited and studied in detail. May the new catalogue be the starting-point of a such an enterprise. The text of scholia presents notorious difficulties which result from the fact that they are extracts either drawn from original works or from scattered notes of readers, in short a conglomerate written in the margins of manuscripts.21 The mixed bag of Pindaric scholia has furnished much welcome help in the elucidation of the poet since it was first published in the editio Romana, but it has never been studied in the detail it deserves nor has it been made readily accessible by a translation into a modern language. It is hoped that the present edition of the fragments of Didymosʼ commentary preserved in the scholia will make a contribution not only to our knowledge of ancient scholarship but also to a better understanding of Pindarʼs poetry.

21

On the formation of the two recensions, the Ambrosian (A) and the Vatican (V = B, D et al.), v. Irigoin (1952), 106–15, 121, and Daude (2009), 20–21 with n. 5.

Bibliographical Abbreviations An. Par. = Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis edidit John Anthony Cramer, I–IV. Oxford, 1839–1841 (repr. Hildesheim, 1967). Bekker, AG = Bekker, Immanuel, Anecdota Graeca, I–III. Berlin, 1814–1821 (repr. Graz, 1965). 2 Bergk = Bergk, Theodorus, Poetae lyrici Graeci, ed. altera auctior et emendatior. Leipzig, 1853. 4 Bergk = Bergk, Theodorus, Poetae lyrici Graeci, ed. quart., I–III. Leipzig, 1878–1882. BMCR = Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Internet: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu. BNJ = Brillʼs New Jacoby. Internet: www.brillonline.nl. Brugmann, Gr. Gr. = Brugmann, Karl, Griechische Grammatik. Lautlehre, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre, Syntax, vierte vermehrte Auflage bearbeitet von Albert Thumb. München, 1913. CAF = Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta edidit Theodorus Kock, I–III. Leipzig, 1880–1888. Chantraine = Chantraine, Pierre, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. I–IV (continuous pagination). Paris, 1968–1980. CPG = Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum ed. E. L. a Leutsch et F. G. Schneidewin. I. Göttingen, 1839; ed. E. L. a Leutsch. II. Göttingen, 1851 (repr. Hildesheim, 1965). DBDI = Dizionario biografico degli Italiani. Roma, 1960–. DHA = Dialogues dʼHistoire Ancienne. Besançon. DNP = Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike hrsg. von Hubert Cancik, Manfred Landfester und Helmuth Schneider. 16 vols., Stuttgart/Weimar, 1996–2003. Supplemente 7 vols., Stuttgart, 2004–2012. DPA II = Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques publié sous la direction de Richard Goulet. II: Babélyca dʼArgos à Dyscolius. Paris, 1994. FGrHist = Jacoby, Felix, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin, 1923–1930, Leiden, 1940–1958, 1994–. FHG = Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum collegit, disposuit, notis et prolegomenis illustravit Carolus Müllerus, I–V. Firmin Didot. Paris, 1841– 1873.

16

Bibliographical Abbreviations

Frisk = Frisk, Hjalmar, Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, I–III. Heidelberg, 1954–1972. GCS = Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. Berlin. Gr. Gr. = Grammatici Graeci. I 1 (G. Uhlig), I 3 (A. Hilgard), II 1–3 (R. Schneider/G. Uhlig), III 1–2 (A. Lentz), IV 1–2 (A. Hilgard). Leipzig, 1867–1910. IEG = Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, ed. M. L. West, I–II, 2nd ed. Oxford, 1989–1992. IG II2 = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vols. 2–3, editio minor, pars tertia: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Berlin, 1940 (repr. Chicago, 1974). IG III = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vol. 3: Inscriptiones Atticae aetatis Romanae. Berlin, 1878–1882. IG XII (5) = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vol. 12, Part 5: Inscriptiones Cycladum. Berlin, 1903–1909. LGGA = Lessico dei Grammatici Greci Antichi. Internet: www.brillonline.nl. LIMC = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. I–IX (double vols). Zürich/München/Düsseldorf, 1981–1999. MP3 = Mertens/Pack 3 online Database. Internet: www2.ulg.ac.be/facphl/services/cedopal/pages/mp3anglais.htm. 3

OCD = The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed., ed. by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth. Oxford, 1996.

PCG = Poetae Comici Graeci ediderunt R. Kassel et C. Austin. Berlin/New York, 1983–. PG = Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca, ed. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1884–1904. PLRE = The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I (A.D. 260–395) ed. by A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, J. Morris; II (A.D. 395–527), ed. by J. R. Martindale. Cambridge, 1971, 1980. P.Oxy. = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Graeco-Roman Memoirs of the Egyptian Exploration Society. London, 1898–. RAC = Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Stuttgart, 1950–.

Bibliographical Abbreviations

17

RE = Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, hrsg. von Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, Karl Mittelhaus und Konrat Ziegler. Stuttgart/München, 1893–1980. SdA = Die Schule des Aristoteles hrsg. von Fritz Wehrli. I–X, 2. Aufl., Suppl. I–II. Basel, 1967–1978. SGLG = Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, hrsg. von Klaus Alpers, Ian C. Cunningham, Hartmut Erbse, Alexander Kleinlogel. Berlin/New York/Boston, 1974–. SH = Supplementum Hellenisticum edd. H. Lloyd-Jones et P. Parsons. Texte und Kommentare 11. Berlin/New York, 1983. SIG = Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum ed. W. Dittenberger, editio tertia. I– IV. Leipzig, 1915–1924. SVF = Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta collegit Ioannes ab Arnim. III: Chrysippi fragmenta moralia, fragmenta successorum Chrysippi. Leipzig, 1903 (repr. Stuttgart, 1968). TLG = Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Digital Library of Greek Literature. University of California, Irvine. Post TLG E. July 2011. Internet: www.tlg.uci.edu. TrGF I = Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. I. Didascaliae tragicae, Catalogi tragicorum et tragoediarum testimonia et fragmenta tragicorum minorum. Editor Bruno Snell. Editio correctior ... curavit Richard Kannicht. Göttingen, 1986. TrGF II = Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. II. Fragmenta Adespota, Testimonia Volumini 1 Addenda, Indices ad Volumina 1 et 2. Editores Richard Kannicht et Bruno Snell. Göttingen, 1981. Vorsokr. = Diels, Hermann; Kranz, Walther, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Griechisch und Deutsch, 6th ed., I–III. Berlin, 1934–1937 (corr. repr. 1952). ZPE = Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bonn.

Sigla Ammonios, Περὶ ὁμοίων καὶ διαφόρων λέξεων (De adfinium vocabulorum differentia) Cod. B Hagion Oros (Mount Athos), Μονὴ Ἰβήρων, cod. 792, saec. XV/XVI. Cod. C Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Parisinus graecus 2669, saec. XVII. Cod. D London, British Library, Arundel, cod. 550, saec. XVIinc. Cod. E Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 1008 (olim XI, 4), saec. XV. Cod. G Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vindobonensis phil. graecus 172, XVex vel XVIinc. Cod. M Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 864 (olim 490), saec. XV. Cod. N Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 890 (olim 620), saec. XV. Cod. O Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. T. 2. 10, saec. XV. Cod. P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Parisinus graecus 2652, saec. XV. η= Cod. E + Cod. G θ= Ald + B (+ C + D) π= N+ρ ρ= O+P Ald Editio princeps Venetiis apud Aldum Manutium: Dictionarium Graecum … cum interpretatione Latina Joannis Crastoni, anno 1497. Antoninus Liberalis, Μεταμορφώσεων συναγωγή (Metamorphoses) Cod. P Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Palatinus graecus 398, saec. IX.22 Athenaios, Deipnosophistai Cod. A Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 447 (olim III, 14), saec. X.

22

Codex A in Diller (1952).

20

Sigla Cod. C Cod. E

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Parisinus suppl. gr. 841, saec. XVex. Epitome. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus 60,2, saec. XVex. Epitome.

Et. Gen. = Etymologicum Genuinum Cod. A Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Vaticanus graecus 1818, saec. Xex. Cod. B Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus S. Marci 304, saec. Xex. Et. Gud. = Etymologicum Gudianum Cod. d Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Barberinianus graecus 70, saec. XI. Cod. w Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Guelferbytanus graecus 29–30, anno 1293 (= editio Et. Gud. Sturziana). Cod. z Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, suppl. graecus 172, saec. XIII (= Et. Sorbonicum). (On the codices of the Et. Gud. v. A. Cellerini, ‟Introduzione allʼEtymologicum Gudianumˮ, Roma, 1988) Harpocration Cod. A Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, graecus 3 (olim C. 4. 17), saec. XV. Herennius Philo, Περὶ διαφόρους σημασίας (De diversis verborum significationibus) Cod. P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, suppl. graecus 1238, saec. XIVinc. Homer, Ilias Cod. A Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 822 (olim 454), saec. X. Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones Cod. B Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria, Bononiensis 701, saec. V. Cod. H Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Palatinus lat. 161, saec. IX. Cod. M Montpellier, Faculté de médecine 241, saec. IX. Cod. P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 1662 (Puteanus), saec. IX. Cod. R Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 1663 (Regius), saec. IX. Cod. S Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 1664, saec. XII.

Sigla Cod. V Cod. g

Pindar Cod. A Cod. B Cod. D Cod. E Cod. F Cod. G Cod. H Cod. L Cod. V Cod. Φ Cod. α´ Cod. β´ Π42 β= γ=

21

Valenciennes, Bibliothèque municipale 147 (olim 140) (Valentianensis),23 saec. IX. Gotha, Thüringische Landes- und Forschungsbibliothek I 55, saec. XIV.

Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 886 (C 222 inf.), ca. anno 1280. Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Vaticanus graecus 1312, saec. XIII. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus 32,52, saec. XIV. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus 32,37, saec. XIV. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus 32,33, saec. XIIIex. Göttingen, Universitätsbibliothek, philol. 29, saec. XIII. Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Vaticanus graecus 41, saec. XIV. Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Vaticanus graecus 902, saec. XIVin. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Parisinus graecus 2403, saec. XIIIex. Hagion Oros (Mount Athos), Μονὴ Ἰβήρων, cod. 161, saec. XIIIex. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus conv. soppr. 94, ca. anno 1330. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Parisinus graecus 2882, ca. anno 1500. P.Oxy. 31.2536 EFL + γ GHD

Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium Cod. P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Parisinus graecus 2727, saec. XVI. Scholia in Aristidem Cod. A Oxford, Bodleian Library, Misc. 189 (Auctarium [Meerman] T. 1.12), saec. XV (no. 16 Lenz/Behr).

23

Valentianensis 187, saec. X–XI apud Monat, 26.

22

Sigla Cod. B

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Misc. 190 (Auctarium [Meerman] T. 1.13), saec. XIV (no. 17 Lenz/Behr).

Scholia in Aristophanem Cod. Γ Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus 31,15, saec. XIVinc. Cod. V Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 842 (olim 474), saec. XI vel XII. Ald editio Aldina, anno 1498. Scholia in Demosthenem Cod. F Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 416 (olim 579), saec. X. Cod. F2 scholia in cod. F manu saec. X scripta. Scholia in Euripidem Cod. B Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Parisinus graecus 2713, saec. XII. Cod. M Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 765 (olim 471), saec. XII. Cod. T Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale, B.IV.13 (olim B.VI.7), saec. XIV. Scholia in Pindarum Cod. A Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 886 (C 222 inf.), ca. anno 1280. Cod. B Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Vaticanus graecus 1312, saec. XIII. Cod. C Paris, Bibliothèque nat., Parisinus graecus 2774, saec. XIV. Cod. D Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus 32,52, saec. XIV Cod. E Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus 32,37, saec. XIV. Cod. G Göttingen, Universitätsbibliothek, philol. 29, saec. XIII. Cod. g codicis G pars recentior Cod. H Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Vaticanus graecus 41, saec. XIV. Cod. Q Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus 32,35, saec. XIV. Cod. P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Parisinus graecus 2403, saec. XIIIex.

Sigla Cod. Re Cod. T Cod. U V=

23

Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Re(h)digeranus 40, prima pars,24 saec. XIV. Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Vaticanus graecus 121, anno 1260–1280. Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, hist. gr. 130, saec. XIVinc. codicum recensionis Vaticanae consensus.

Scholia in Sophoclem Cod. G Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus conv. soppr. 152, anno 1282. Cod. H Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus 32,40, ca. anno 1300. Cod. L Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus 32,9, saec. Xex vel XIinc. Cod. M Modena, Biblioteca Estense, a.T.9.4. (olim II.B.4. no. 41 Puntoni), saec. XV. Cod. N Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 4677 (olim N 47), saec. XIV. Cod. O Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijks-Universiteit, Vossianus graec. Q 6, saec. XIV. Cod. R Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Vaticanus graecus 2291 (olim Chigi R VIII 59), saec. XV. Scholia in Theocritum vetera Cod. A Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 390 (G 32 sup.), saec. XIV. Cod. E Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Vaticanus graec. 42, saec. XIV. Cod. K Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 886 (C 222 inf.), ca. 1280. Cod. U Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Vaticanus graec. 1825, saec. XIV. Souda Cod. I Cod. V

24

Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, graecus 75, saec. XV. Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijks-Universiteit, Vossianus graec. Fol. 2, saec. XII.

Red. apud Drachmann I xxvi. The MS is an apograph of Cod. A and was cited sporadically by Boeckh in his edition of the scholia.

24

Sigla

Symeon, Συναγωγὴ πρὸς διαφόρους σημαινομένους σημασίας (unpublished) (v. infra p. 42, n. 57). Cod. S Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, E 87 sup., anno 1476–1500. Cod. T Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Vaticanus graec. 1362, saec. XVI.

Introduction

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians In his magisterial account of classical scholarship to the end of the Hellenistic Age, Rudolf Pfeiffer concluded his final chapter ‟The Epigoniˮ with a brief account of Didymos of Alexandria.25 His place in a grand tradition of scholars reaching back to the foundation of the Mouseion by the first Ptolemy26 came to play an important rôle in his own work. The cataclysmic events ending with the Roman conquest of Egypt by no means ended scholarly research in Alexandria any more than did the political upheavals of 145/4 BCE,27 nevertheless the shift of patronage to Rome inevitably brought about a translatio studiorum which could only leave the old cultural centre poorer. The decline of Ptolemaic power in the first pre-Christian century could not have failed to have an effect on the climate of scholarship in the Egyptian capital. It is against this background that we can begin to understand the programme which Didymos undertook. This may well have been no less than to preserve as much of the work of his predecessors as lay within his power.

1. Didymos Chalkenteros 1.1. The Evidence for his Life and Times What little we know of the life of Didymos comes from the Souda:28

25 26

27

28

Pfeiffer (1968), 274–79. Sometime after he established Alexandria as his capital toward the end of the fourth century BCE, on which v. Glock (2000) and Mehl (2001). On the historical background of the Mouseion v. Weber (1993), esp. 55–87. For an uptodate sketch of the Mouseion as an institution v. Nesselrath (2010). On the events of 145/4 v. Pfeiffer (1968), 211–12, 252. On the fate of the library during the Roman conquest of 48 BCE, v. Bäbler (2010), who is inclined to think there were substantial losses at the time. The source of the vita of Didymos was the sixth-century compiler Hesychios Illoustrios of Miletos; v. Souda η 611 (II 594,15–17 Adler) Ἡσύχιος Μιλήσιος, υἱὸς Ἡσυχίου δικηγόρου καὶ Φιλοσοφίας, γεγονὼς ἐπὶ Ἀναστασίου βασιλέως. ἔγραψεν Ὀνοματολόγον ἢ Πίνακα τῶν ἐν παιδείᾳ ὀνομαστῶν, οὗ ἐπιτομή ἐστι τοῦτο τὸ βιβλίον (‛Hesychios of Miletos, son of Hesychios, an advocate, and Philosophia. He lived in the reign of the emperor Anastasios [491–518]. He wrote a Nomenclator or Register of those Famous in Learning, of which this book is an epitomeʼ), and cf. (1a) Hsch. Mil. below. See further Schultz (1913), and esp. Adler (1931), 706,43–707,52.

28

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians

(1) δ 872 (II 81,1–4 Adler) Δίδυμος, Διδύμου ταριχοπώλου, γραμματικὸς Ἀριστάρχειος, Ἀλεξανδρεύς, γεγονὼς ἐπὶ Ἀντωνίου καὶ Κικέρωνος καὶ ἕως Αὐγούστου· Χαλκέντερος κληθεὶς διὰ τὴν περὶ τὰ βιβλία ἐπιμονήν. φασὶ γὰρ αὐτὸν συγγεγραφέναι ὑπὲρ τὰ τρισχίλια πεντακόσια βιβλία. Didymos, son of Didymos, a seller of dried fish. A grammarian of Aristarchosʼ school, from Alexandria. He lived in the time of Antonius and Cicero, and until Augustus. He was called ‟Bronzegutsˮ on account of his perserverance with books. They say in fact that he wrote more than 3500 books. 1

2

3

29

30

γραμματικὸς Ἀριστάρχειος: i.e. a grammarian in the tradition of Aristarchos of Samothrake (ca. 216–144 BCE). On the immediate followers of Aristarchos v. Blau (1883)29 and Hummel (1997), 65–69. γεγονὼς — Αὐγούστου: this has been understood to mean that Didymos was born in the time of Marcus Antonius and Cicero; v. Daub (1882), 88–89. However, the natural sense is that he was active in his profession at the time of the contest of Cicero and Antonius after the death of Caesar (44 BCE) and continued so into the reign of Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE). On the use of γεγονώς to designate the akme of a personʼs life v. Rohde (1878), 218, n. 2 (= Kl. Schr. I 121, n. 2), 638 (= Kl. Schr. I 180) and, for Didymos, esp. 218 (= Kl. Schr. I 176–77). Χαλκέντερος: the nickname is not attested earlier than the Souda,30 but it stuck; cf. Const. Manasses (ca. 1130–ca. 1181), Breviarium Chronicum 6533–36 ἄλλος ἦν Δημοσθένης | ἢ Δίδυμος χαλκέντερος, Ἀλεξανδρεὺς τὸ γένος | ὃν οὕτως ἐπωνόμασαν ὡς ἐν τῷ χαίρειν λόγοις | ἀπόσιτον γενόμενον ἡμέρας ἐπὶ πλείους (‛Demosthenes was different from Didymos the brazen-gutted, an Alexandrian by birth, whom they nicknamed thus because, on account of his delight in works of literature, he would go for many days without eatingʼ), and Manuel Holobolos (ca. 1245–1310/1314), Oratio in imperatorem Michaelem Palaeo-

Namely, Dionysios Thrax (p. 5), Ammonios of Alexandria (pp. 5–13), Apollodoros of Athens (pp. 13–18), Demetrios Ixion (pp. 19–20), Moschos of Syracuse (pp. 20– 25), the sons of Aristarchos: Aristarchos and Aristagoras (p. 25), Ptolemaios of Askalon (pp. 25–37), Aristodemos of Alexandria (pp. 37–39), Menekrates of Nysa (pp. 39–43), Dionysodoros of Troizen (pp. 43–45), Dionysios Sidonios (pp. 45–48), Parmeniskos (pp. 48–49), Apollonios (pp. 50–56), Chairis (pp. 56–67), Euphronios (pp. 67–77), Aretades (pp. 77–78), Neoteles (p. 78), and perhaps Apollonios, son of Chairis (p. 55, n. 2). Cf. (2), line 5, p. 30 below and χ 29 (IV 781,29–782,2 Adler).

1. Didymos Chalkenteros

29

logum 2, p. 92, line 9 Treu κατὰ τὸν χαλκέντερον Δίδυμον, and, in Latin, Amm. Marc. 22.16.16 quoted below (p. 100). τὰ τρισχίλια πεντακόσια βιβλία: Demetrios of Troizen (ap. Ath. 4,139c), on whom v. Montanari (21997), reports the same number, while Seneca epist. 88.37 raises it to 4000. When we consider that each book of the Iliad and the Odyssey may have counted as a volume and occupied a single roll, then Homer would have counted not as two volumes but forty-eight. Moreover, if e.g. Didymosʼ commentary on the Paeans of Pindar was not a multi-volume ὑπόμνημα, but ὑπομνήματα on individual Paeans, as I have suggested in the Commentary on Fr. 68, p. 259 below, 3500 books for Didymos, though still enormous, would not have been unthinkable. On the large number of books attributed to some other grammarians in antiquity v. Kaster (1995), 146.

4

(1a) Hsch. Mil. FHG IV 161, fr. 19 (= XXI, p. 16 Flach) Δίδυμος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὰ βιβλία ἐπιμονὴν Χαλκέντερος ἐπεκλήθη. φασὶ δὲ αὐτὸν συγγεγραφέναι ὑπὲρ τὰ τρισχίλια πεντακόσια βιβλία; cf. (1) above.

(2) ι 399 (II 638,4–9 Adler)

5

Ἰόβας, Λιβύης καὶ Μαυρουσίας βασιλεύς, ὃν λαβόντες καὶ μαστιγώσαντες ἐπόμπευσαν οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι· οὐ μὴν ἀνεῖλον διὰ τὴν παίδευσιν. ἦν δὲ ἐπὶ Αὐγούστου Καίσαρος καὶ τὴν Κλεοπάτρας θυγατέρα Σελήνην, ἣν ἐκ τοῦ Καίσαρος Γαΐου γενομένην [...] ἐπεποίητο, γυναῖκα εἰλήφει. συνήκμαζε δὲ αὐτῷ Δίδυμος ὁ Χαλκέντερος, ὁ καὶ πολλὰ γράψας κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ. ἔγραψε πάνυ πολλά. Iobas (Juba), king of Libya and Mauretania. The Romans captured and flogged and then paraded him. Yet they did not kill him because of his learning. He lived under Augustus Caesar. And he took as his wife Kleopatraʼs daughter Selene, whose father was Gaius Caesar, on the orders of [Augustus?]. A contemporary of his was Didymos Chalkenteros, who wrote many works against him. He himself wrote a great many works.

3 4

ἐπὶ Αὐγούστου Καίσαρος: i.e. 27 BCE–14 CE. ἐκ τοῦ Καίσαρος Γαΐου: recte ἐξ Ἀντωνίου; cf. D. C. 49.32.4 ἐπὶ δὲ δὴ τῇ Κλεοπάτρᾳ μεγάλως διεβλήθη, ὅτι τε παῖδας ἐξ αὐτῆς, πρεσ-

30

5

31 32 33

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians βυτάτους (πρεσβυτέρους Bekker)31 μὲν Ἀλέξανδρον καὶ Κλεοπάτραν (καὶ δίδυμοι γὰρ ἐτέχθησαν) νεώτατον (νεώτερον Bekker) δὲ Πτολεμαῖον τὸν καὶ Φιλάδελφον ἐπικληθέντα ἀνείλετο (‛but in the matter of Kleopatra he [Antonius] was severely critized because he had acknowledged as his own children by her, the oldest being Alexander and Kleopatra, twins at birth, and the youngest Ptolemaios, also called Philadelphosʼ), and Str. 17.3.7 (C. 828,32–34 R.) Ἰούβας32 μὲν οὖν νεωστὶ ἐτελεύτα τὸν βίον, διαδέδεκται δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν υἱὸς Πτολεμαῖος, γεγονὼς ἐξ Ἀντωνίου θυγατρὸς καὶ Κλεοπάτρας (‛Now Ioubas died recently, but his son Ptolemaios, whose mother was the daughter of Antonius and Kleopatra, has succeded to the throneʼ). ἐπεποίητο: the subject of the verb has been lost. Jacoby (FGrHist 275 T 1) tentatively suggested ἡ Ὀκτα[ο]υία; cf. Plut. Ant. 87.1 Ἀντωνίου δὲ γενεὰν ἀπολιπόντος ἐκ τριῶν γυναικῶν ἑπτὰ παῖδας, ὁ πρεσβύτατος Ἄντυλλος ὑπὸ Καίσαρος ἀνῃρέθη μόνος· τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς Ὀκταουία παραλαβοῦσα μετὰ τῶν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς ἔθρεψε. καὶ Κλεοπάτραν (sc. Σελήνην) μὲν τὴν ἐκ Κλεοπάτρας Ἰόβᾳ τῷ χαριεστάτῳ βασιλέων συνῴκισεν (‛Antonius left seven children by his three wives, of whom Antyllos, the eldest, was alone put to death by [Augustus] Caesar. The rest were taken up by Octavia and raised with her own. Kleopatra [Selene], the daughter of Kleopatra, Octavia gave in marriage to Iobas, the most cultivated of kingsʼ), but cf. also D. C. 51.15.6 ἥ τε Κλεοπάτρα (sc. Σελήνη) Ἰούβᾳ τῷ τοῦ Ἰούβου παιδὶ συνῴκησε· τούτῳ γὰρ ὁ Καῖσαρ τραφέντι τε ἐν τῇ Ἰταλίᾳ καὶ συστρατευσαμένῳ οἱ ταύτην τε καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν τὴν πατρῴαν ἔδωκε, καὶ αὐτοῖς καὶ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον καὶ τὸν Πτολεμαῖον ἐχαρίσατο. (‛Kleopatra [Selene] was married to Iobas, the son of Iobas; for to this man who had been raised in Italy and had accompanied him on campaigns, [Augustus] Caesar gave both this [girl] and the kingdom of his fathers, and as a favour to them spared the lives of Alexander and Ptolemaiosʼ). The two accounts are not necessarily contradictory since Augustus and Octavia will have been acting in concert; however, the final decision was certainly in the hands of the emperor. συνήκμαζε δὲ αὐτῷ Δίδυμος ὁ Χαλκέντερος: the report of Iobasʼ recent death in Str. 17.3.7 (C. 828,32–34 R.) together with the mention of Kyzikos, which lost its freedom in 25 CE,33 as a free city in Str.

On the occasional use of the superlative where we would expect a comparative v. Kühner/Gerth (1898), 22–24. See Radt ad loc. (VIII 520) on the orthography of the name. Cf. Radt ad loc. (VII 433).

1. Didymos Chalkenteros

31

12.8.11 (C. 576,7–9 R.), makes Jacobyʼs dating of Iobasʼ death to 23 or 24 CE almost certain; v. Commentary, p. 322 to FGrHist 275 T 4c. πολλὰ γράψας κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ: M. Schmidt (1854), 302–5, suggested that in Ath. 14,634e Δίδυμος ὁ γραμματικός ἐν ταῖς πρὸς (Α, εἰς Wilamowitz ap. Kaibel) Ἴωνα Ἀντεξηγήσεσιν (‛Didymos the grammarian in his Counter Explanations against Ionʼ) we should perhaps read πρὸς Ἰώβαν (‛against Iobasʼ); cf. FGrHist 275 T 13, where Jacoby prints πρὸς Ἴωνα (?). However, Wilamowitzʼ correction is clearly right: εἰς Ἴωνα (‛on Ionʼ); v. p. 59 below.

6

(3) α 3215 (I 288,19–25 Adler)

5

Ἀπίων, ὁ Πλειστονίκου, ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς Μόχθος, Αἰγύπτιος, κατὰ δὲ Ἑλικώνιον Κρής, γραμματικός, μαθητὴς Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Ἀρχιβίου, ἠκηκόει δὲ καὶ Εὐφράνορος γηραιοῦ καὶ ὑπὲρ ρ´ ἔτη γεγονότος, Διδύμου δὲ τοῦ μεγάλου θρεπτός. ἐπαίδευσε δὲ ἐπὶ Τιβερίου Καίσαρος καὶ Κλαυδίου ἐν Ῥώμῃ. ᾖν δὲ διάδοχος Θέωνος τοῦ γραμματικοῦ καὶ σύγχρονος Διονυσίου τοῦ Ἁλικαρνασέως. ἔγραψεν ἱστορίαν κατ᾿ ἔθνος καὶ ἄλλα τινά. Apion, son of Pleistonikes, nicknamed Mochthos, from Egypt, but, according to Helikonios from Crete. Grammarian, a pupil of Apollonios son of Archibios. He also attended the lectures of Euphranor who was then an old man over a hundred years old; he was a nursling of Didymos the Great. He taught in Rome in the time of Tiberius Caesar and Claudius. He was the successor of the grammarian Theon and a contemporary of Dionysios of Halikarnassos. He wrote a history organised by nation as well as certain other works.

1

Ἀπίων: on Apion v. Cohn (31894), S. Neitzel (1977), 189–90, and Montanari (11996). He is a major object of Josephosʼ polemic in his defence of the Jews which conventionally bears his opponentʼs name (Contra Apionem). ὁ Πλειστονίκου: a confusion with one of Apionʼs nicknames Πλειστονείκης (‛of many quarrelsʼ); cf. Gell. 7.8.1, Clem. Al. Strom. 1.21, p. 65,1–2 Stählin; Euseb. Pr. ev. 10.10.16 (I 594,13 Mras), quoting from Julius Africanus, Chron. fr. 34,80 (p. 80 Wallraff), and Ps.-Justin. Cohort. ad Gr. 9 give his fatherʼs name as Poseidonios. Μόχθος: the nickname has generally been understood as ‟Toilerˮ, but there might have been an indirect reference to his difficult character; cf. the German proper name Mühsam, which may have originally implied either a diligent or difficult character. For Apionʼs nickname cf. also

32

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians

2

3 4 4–5 5

34 35

36

37

(4), line 3 below. According to Plin. n. h. praef. 25, Tiberius called him sarcastically cymbalum mundi because of his self-advertisement.34 Αἰγύπτιος: according to Jos. Ap. 2.28–29 Apion was an Egyptian born in the great oasis, who falsely claimed to be an Alexandrian. The oasis has been identified with El Kargeh; v. Neitzel (1977), 189, n. 2. Among his writings was a history of Egypt (FHG III 509–12; FGrHist 616 F 1– 7, cf. also F 8–21), which perhaps contributed to the notion that he was an Egyptian. If however his father was named Poseidonios, he certainly came from a Greek or at least Hellenized family. Ἑλικώνιον: on the chronicler v. Tinnefeld (1998), 286, further Wirth (1964). Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Ἀρχιβίου: probably not Apollonios Sophistes the author of the extant Lexicon Homericum (complete in the form of an epitome),35 which made use of Apionʼs Homeric glossary,36 but the father or grandfather of Apollonios Sophistes,37 v. Cohn (11895) and F. Montanari (21996). Εὐφράνορος: on Euphranor v. L. Pagani (12007). θρεπτός: ‟nursling”, possibly but not necessarily a slave; v. Braswell/ Billerbeck ad Epaphroditus T. 1, line 2 (p. 66). ἐπὶ Τιβερίου Καίσαρος καὶ Κλαυδίου: i.e. from 14 to 54, viz. the reigns of Tiberius (14–37), Gaius (37–41), and Claudius (41–54). Cf. Sen. epist. 88.40 quoted p. 37 below. Θέωνος: on Theon v. Wendel (1934), Guhl (1969), esp. pp. 14–15 (Pindar commentary), and Meliadò (2008). Theon was presumably an

On Tiberiusʼ interest in philology v. Billerbeck (1990), 195–97. ed. Bekker (1833), Steinicke [α–δ] (1957). On Apollonios Sophistes cf. Souda α 3423 (I 309,11–12 Adler) Ἀπολλώνιος, Ἀρχεβούλου ἢ Ἀρχιβίου. ἔγραψε Περὶ λέξεων Ὁμηρικῶν κατὰ στοιχεῖον (‛Apollonios, son of Archeboulos or Archibios. He wrote On Homeric Words arranged alphabeticallyʼ). Since he cites Apionʼs glossary (p. 2,19 Bekker et passim) and is cited in turn by Herodian (I 115,13; II 472,13–14 Lentz), he probably lived toward the end of the 1st cent. CE. ed. Neitzel (1977), 213–300. On the Homeric glossary edited by Arthur Ludwich (1917/18 = 1965) v. Neitzel, 301–26, and on Rylands Papyrus 26 v. also Naoumides (1961), 55–75. Cf. Souda α 4106 (I 375,37–38 Adler) Ἀρχίβιος, Πτολεμαίου, Λευκάδιος ἢ Ἀλεξανδρεύς, γραμματικός, τῶν ἕως Τραϊανοῦ τοῦ Καίσαρος ἐν Ῥώμῃ παιδευσάντων (‛Archibios, son of Ptolemaios, Leucadian or Alexandrian, grammarian, taught in Rome until the time of the emperor Trajanʼ) — perhaps the father of Apollonios Sophistes; cf. also Souda α 4105 (I 375,35–36 Adler) Ἀρχίβιος, Ἀπολλωνίου, γραμματικός. τῶν Καλλιμάχου ἐπιγραμμάτων ἐξήγησιν (‛Archibios, son of Apollonios, grammarian, wrote an interpretation of the epigrams of Kallimachosʼ) — perhaps the son of Apollonios Sophistes.

1. Didymos Chalkenteros

33

older contemporary of Didymos; cf. Guhl (1969), p. 2. On Theon’s Pindar commentary v. Treu (1974). Διονυσίου τοῦ Ἁλικαρνασέως: as Dionysios himself tells us, he came to Rome sometime in 30 BCE and was writing the preface to his Roman Antiquities in 7 BCE.38

6

(4) α 2634 (I 233,5–10 Adler)

5

Ἀντέρως, ὁ καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος, Ἀλεξανδρεύς, γραμματικός, παιδεύσας ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου, τοῦ μετὰ Γάϊον βασιλεύσαντος, ἐφ᾿ οὗπερ καὶ Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς γέγονεν· ἀκουστὴς δὲ ἦν Ἀπίωνος τοῦ Μόχθου. φέρονται αὐτοῦ βιβλία Περὶ γραμματικῆς β´. καὶ τοῦτο δὴ ὑμνούμενον ὄνομα Ἀντέρως ἐν τοῖσδε τοῖς γενναίοις ἐσῴζετο. ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀλλήλους ἠγάπων.39 Anteros (‟Mutual Loveˮ), also [named] Apollonios, from Alexandria, grammarian, taught in Rome during the time of Claudius, who was emperor after Gaius, during which time Herakleides of Pontos was active. He was a pupil of Apion Mochthos. Extant is his On Grammar in two books. And this much-praised name Anteros was preserved in these two noble men, that is they loved one another.

1 3–4

38

39

Ἀντέρως, ὁ καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος: on Apollonios Anteros v. Montanari (21996), 881. ἀκουστὴς δὲ ἦν Ἀπίωνος τοῦ Μόχθου: on Apion v. (3) above.

D. H. 1.7.2 ἐγὼ καταπλεύσας εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἅμα τῷ καταλυθῆναι τὸν ἐμφύλιον πόλεμον ὑπὸ τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ Καίσαρος ἑβδόμης καὶ ὀγδοηκοστῆς καὶ ἑκατοστῆς ὀλυμπιάδος μεσούσης, καὶ τὸν ἐξ ἐκείνου χρόνον ἐτῶν δύο καὶ εἴκοσι μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος γενόμενον ἐν Ῥώμῃ διατρίψας (‛I landed in Italy at the time the civil war had just been ended by Augustus Caesar, in the middle of the hundred and eighty-seventh Olympiad, and have lived in Rome from that time on to the present day, a period of twenty-two yearsʼ). The entry in the Souda continues in lines 10–13 with the example of a pair of lovers Chariton and Melanippos: Χαρίτων γὰρ καὶ Μελάνιππος εἰς ἔρωτα ἀλλήλοιν συνεπνευσάτην (Aelian, cf. σ 1501, συνεπεσέτην Adler). καὶ ὁ μὲν Χαρίτων ἐραστὴς ἦν, Μελάνιππος δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν ὁ ἐρώμενος ἐς τὸν φίλον τὸν ἔνθεον ἀναφλεχθεὶς ἰσότιμον τὸ τοῦ πόθου κέντρον ἀνεδείκνυτο (‛For Chariton and Melanippos breathed together in love. Chariton was the lover, while Melanippos, the beloved, his soul set ablaze toward his inspired friend, made known the spur of love with equal honourʼ). The text comes from excerpts made by Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos from Aelian (fr. 202 Hercher), on which v. Adler (1931), 700,57– 705,51, esp. 704,56–61.

34

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians

6

ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀλλήλους ἠγάπων: the implication is that Apollonios Anteros was not only the pupil but also the ἐρώμενος of Apion. This is confirmed by the continuation quoted in n. 39 above, if it in fact belongs here.

(5) η 463 (II 582,1–9 Adler)

5

Ἡρακλείδης, Ἡρακλείδου, Ποντικός, ἀπὸ Ἡρακλείας τῆς Πόντου. γραμματικός· ὅστις Διδύμῳ τῷ πάνυ κατὰ τὴν Ἀλεξανδρέων ἐφοίτησεν. οὗτος ἐπειδὴ ἤκουσεν Ἄπερoς, τοῦ Ἀριστάρχου μαθητοῦ, εὐδοκιμοῦντος κατὰ τὴν Ῥώμην, πολλά τε τοὺς Δίδυμον διασύροντας, ἔγραψε μέτρῳ Σαπφικῷ ἤτοι Φαλαικίῳ βιβλία γ´, δυσερμήνευτα καὶ πολλὴν τὴν ἀπορίαν ἔχοντα προβαλλομένων ζητημάτων, ἅτινα Λέσχας ἐκάλεσεν. εἰς Ῥώμην δὲ κομίσας καὶ τοῦ Ἄπερoς καταφανεὶς κατέμεινε σχολαρχῶν ἐν αὐτῇ ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου καὶ Νέρωνος. ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ ποιήματα ἐπικὰ πολλά. Herakleides, son of Herakleides, of Pontus, from Herakleia in Pontus. Grammarian. He attended the school of Didymos who was famous in Alexandria. When he heard that Aper, the pupil of Aristarchos, was highly esteemed in Rome, while Didymos was much disparaged, he wrote three books in Sapphic or Phalaecian metre, difficult to interpret and presenting great difficulty in the questions posed. These he called Leschai (Learned Conversations). He took them to Rome and, having denounced Aper, he remained there as the head of a school under Claudius and Nero. He also wrote many epic poems.

3

Ἄπερος: the reading here in cod. I and in line 7 in codd. I and V, which was adopted by Meineke (1843), 377, and Westermann (1845), 369, lines 52 and 57. In both places the other manuscripts have Ἄπερως, which though apparently unparalleled, was adopted by Adler. However, Ἄπερος is attested as the genitive of the name in Georgios Synkellos, Ecloga Chron., p. 472,16 Mosshammer,40 for the praefectus praetorio and father-in-law of the emperor Numerian (283/84); v. further Seeck s.v. (1894) and PLRE I 81, 2. Ἄπερος τοῦ Ἀριστάρχου μαθητοῦ: chronologically impossible if taken literally. A grammarian called Aper is not otherwise known; v. Cohn (21894). It is just possible, though not likely, that Ἄπερος is a

40

With the accusative Ἄπερα at p. 472,23 Mossh.; cf. Zonar. Epit. Hist. 12.31 (III 159,8 Dindorf) Ἄπρον, which corresponds to the Latin, e.g. Hier. chron. 225,10 (Helm) Aprum.

1. Didymos Chalkenteros

7

8

8–9

35

mistake for Ἀπίωνος. What we otherwise know of Apion would fit the rôle ascribed to Aper here. Still less likely is the suggestion of Westermann (1845), 369, app. crit. ad l. 52 that Ἀντέρωτος41 should be read for Ἄπερος (v.l. Ἄπερως); v. ad line 3 above. Λέσχας: on the work v. Meineke (1843), 377–81, and Daebritz/Funaioli (1912), 487,39–488,24. Artemidoros of Daldis in his Oneirokritika 4.63 (p. 287,9–12 Pack) cites the Leschai along with Lykophronʼs Alexandra and Partheniosʼ elegies as examples of stories which are strange (ξέναι) and recherché (ἄτριπτοι). καταφανεὶς: ‟vix sanumˮ Schmidt (1854), p. 10. The meaning here has been much disputed, v. e.g. Daub (1882), 94–96; however, Adler rightly did not change the text. In later Greek καταφαίνομαι can mean ‟show upˮ, ‟denounceˮ; cf. Just. 1 Apol. 13.4 μανίαν ἡμῶν καταφαίνονται ‟they denounce our madnessˮ, which Sophocles, Greek Lexicon s.v. καταφαίνομαι glosses with κατηγορέω. In compounds κατα- is often used in a disparaging sense, e.g. καταγιγνώσκω c. gen. ‟condemnˮ, καταθέω and κατατρέχω c. gen. ‟run downˮ, ‟treat insultinglyˮ. Here it is uncertain whether an accusative object, e.g. διασυρμόν, has been lost or, more likely, the verb is used c. gen. In the Suda Online καταφανείς is translated here as ‟outshoneˮ, which gives a false sense. Herakleides went to Rome in the first place not to compete with Aper but to defend the reputation of his master. ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου καὶ Νέρωνος: cf. i.e. from 41 to 68 CE.

1.2. Overview: Didymos and the Alexandrian Scholars and Grammarians from Aristarchos to Herakleides The information derived from the Souda about the relation of Didymos to his predecessors and contemporaries can be summed up as follows: Aristarchos (ca. 216–144 BCE), founder of the Alexandrian tradition of scholarship followed by Didymos. Didymos, active in Alexandria from the time of Antonius (82–30 BCE) and Cicero (106–43 BCE) until Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE), grammarian in the Alexandrian tradition of Aristarchos, no teacher mentioned by name. Iobas, king of Mauretania, historian, married to Kleopatraʼs daughter, lived in the time of Augustus, died ca. 23/24 CE, contemporary of Didymos, who wrote against him. 41

See (4), p. 33 above.

36

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians

Euphranor, teacher in Alexandria, already over 100 years old when Apion was his pupil. Apollonios son of Archibios, Alexandrian, teacher of Apion, grandfather or father of Apollonios Sophistes who was active in the 1st cent. CE. Theon, Alexandrian grammarian, son of the grammarian Artemidoros of Tarsos (1st cent. BCE). He was the predecessor of Apion. Dionysios of Halikarnassos, rhetor and historian, contemporary of Apion, active in Rome from ca. 30 BCE to ca. 7 BCE. Apion, nicknamed Mochthos, Egyptian but probably of Greek descent, raised in the house of Didymos, grammarian, pupil of Apollonios, son of Archibios, attended lectures of Euphranor, active in Rome in the time of Tiberius and Claudius (from 14 to 54 CE), successor of Theon. Aper, an Aristarchean, who disparaged Didymos in Rome and was attacked by Herakleides of Pontus. Apollonios, nicknamed Anteros, pupil and probably also the ἐρώμενος of Apion, taught in Rome during the time of Claudius (from 41 to 54 CE). Herakleides, son of Herakleides, of Pontus, pupil of Didymos, went to Rome to defend his teacher against Aper, an Aristarchean. He remained in Rome as the head of a school under Claudius and Nero (from 41 to 68 CE).

2. Didymos as viewed in Antiquity 2.1. Senecaʼs Criticism of Didymos The enormous productivity of Didymos not only earned him the nickname Χαλκέντερος but the contempt of the Stoic Seneca (ca. 4–65 CE) who in the service of philosophy adopted a stance distinctly hostile to the systematic study of literature. In epist. 88.37 he sneers: Quattuor milia librorum Didymus grammaticus scripsit. Misererer, si tam multa supervacua legisset. In his libris de patria Homeri quaeritur, in his de Aeneae matre vera, in his libidinosior Anacreon an ebriosior vixerit, in his an Sappho publica fuerit, et alia, quae erant dediscenda, si scires. I nunc et longam esse vitam nega.

Didymus the grammarian wrote four thousand books. I would pity him, if he had only read so many useless ones. In the books he investigates Ho-

2. Didymos as viewed in Antiquity

37

merʼs place of birth, who was the real mother of Aeneas, whether Anacreon was more lustful or more given to drink, whether Sappho was a prostitute, and other such matters which should be forgotten, if you knew the answers. Come now, donʼt tell me that life is long! Seneca then goes on in section 39 to ridicule Aristarchos: Et Aristarchi notas, quibus aliena carmina conpunxit, recognoscam et aetatem in syllabis conteram? Itane in geometriae pulvere haerebo? adeo mihi praeceptum illud salutare excidit: ʽtempori parce!ʼ? Haec sciam? Et quid ignorem?

And the signs of Aristarchus, with which he branded the poems of others, am I to decipher them and wear my life away on verses? Shall I really get stuck in the sand of geometry? Have I gone so far as to forget that wholesome precept ʽSpare your timeʼ? Should I know these things? And what may I not know? In the same vein the Stoic philosopher takes on Apion in section 40: Apion grammaticus, qui sub C. Caesare tota circulatus est Graecia et in nomine Homeri ab omnibus civitatibus adoptatus, aiebat Homerum utraque materia consummata, et Odyssia et Iliade, principium adiecisse operi suo, quo bellum Troianum complexus est. Huius rei argumentum adferebat, quod duas litteras in primo versu posuisset ex industria librorum suorum numerum continentes. Talia sciat oportet qui multa vult scire.

Apion the grammarian, who in the reign of Gaius Caesar went around putting on a show all over Greece and was called a Homerist42 by every city, used to maintain that Homer, when he had finished both topics, the Odyssey and the Iliad, then added a beginning to his work with which he rounded off the whole Trojan war. As proof of this he used to adduce the fact that Homer had deliberately inserted in the first verse two letters which contain the number of his books. Those are the sort of things which a would-be polymath should know. Seneca employs the same strategy in attacking all three grammarians. He picks out in each a point which he considers to be both absurd and reprehensible because it deters a person from sapientia, the proper pursuit of a free-born man (epist. 88.2). In the case of Didymos it is not his enormous production as such but the fact that it contains what is trivial in the philosopher’s eyes, which is to 42

Probably Ὁμηρικός as was Seleukos (Suid. σ 200, IV 337,5 Adler). This would perhaps have been justified by his Γλῶσσαι Ὁμηρικαί, which were extensively used by Apollonios Sophistes for his Homeric lexicon.

38

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians

say any kind of philological enquiry. Aristarchos is ridiculed for his use of critical signs (σημεῖα) in the margin of texts, a practice introduced by Zenodotos and further developed by Aristophanes of Byzantium. Just as the number of his works is used to make Didymosʼ scholarship seem more absurd, so too is the comparison of Aristarchosʼ marginal signs to the diagrams which lowly geometers were accustomed to scratch in the ground. In the case of Apion the argument used to support his assertion that the key to the number of books originally composed by Homer is contained in the first two letters of the Iliad, viz. μῆ(νιν), i.e. μη´ (48) is justly held up to ridicule.43 In short, Seneca is dismissing all systematic study of literary texts as useless. This says more about Seneca as a philosopher than about Aristarchos and Didymos, two of the most representative scholars in their field.44 2.2. Didymos Bibliolathas Besides the nickname Χαλκέντερος, Didymos received another which stuck as well, Βιβλιολάθας (ʽBook-Forgetterʼ), although it is attested as such only in Ath. 4,139c: Δίδυμος ὁ γραμματικός — καλεῖ δὲ τοῦτον Δημήτριος ὁ Τροιζήνιος (SH 376) βιβλιολάθαν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος ὧν ἐκδέδωκε συγγραμμάτων· ἐστὶ γὰρ τρισχίλια πρὸς τοῖς πεντακοσίοις. Didymos the grammarian, whom Demetrios of Troizen45 calls the ʽbookforgetterʼ on account of the great number of treatises he has published, namely almost three thousand and five hundred. The name however is implied in an anecdote related by Quintilian (ca. 35–ca. 100 CE). After criticizing literary scholars who inflate their commentaries with unnecessary information, he remarks (inst. 1.8.20): Nam Didymo, quo nemo plura scripsit, accidisse compertum est ut, cum historiae cuidam tamquam vanae repugnaret, ipsius proferretur liber, qui eam continebat.

43 44

45

On the ζητήματα mentioned by Seneca v. Stückelberger (1965), 138–40. Impatience with the details of philological enquiry is a recurring reaction of those who seek a broader view of a subject unencumbered with the minutia upon which it is ultimately based. An amusing example from the beginning of the last century is Ludwig Hatvanyʼs satire, Die Wissenschaft des nicht Wissenswerten: Ein Kollegienheft (Leipzig, 1908, repr. Oxford, 1986), with its chronicle of the trials of a student who goes to Berlin to study the Classics only to find himself entoiled in the intricacies of Altertumswissenschaften. On Demetrios of Troizen v. note ad (1), line 4, p. 29 above.

2. Didymos as viewed in Antiquity

39

For example, it is recorded that Didymus, than whom no one has written more books, once objected to some account as being false, whereupon a book of his was produced which contained it. Whereas Senecaʼs reservations about Didymosʼ publications concerned the quantity of what he regarded as useless studies, Quintilian adduces an example which by implication impugns the quality of his scholarship. If he wrote so much that he could not remember that he had elsewhere expressed a contradictory opinion, then his scholarship is the worse for it. Such an argument is in fact sophistic. If the work denying the truth of the account is later, it could be a correction which the author should have signaled if he remembered it. Even if Didymos is given the benefit of doubt, he remains nevertheless a βιβλιολάθας.46 2.3. Macrobiusʼ Praise of Didymos In the first half of the fifth century another érudit Macrobius,47 faced with similar problems to those which confronted Didymos in his time, wrote admiringly (Sat. 5.18.9) of him as grammaticorum omnium facile eruditissimus (‛easily the most learned of all grammariansʼ) and again (Sat. 5.22.10) Didymus, grammaticorum omnium quique sint quique fuerint instructissimus (‛the best informed of all grammarians who are or ever have beenʼ). Macrobiusʼ enthusiastic assessment of Didymosʼ place among the grammarians is best understood in the fin de siècle climate in which he lived.

46

47

An elaboration of this epithet presumably led to the anecdote mentioned by van der Valk (1963), 358, n. 191, as well known ‟that Didymos even forgot the names of his own childrenˮ. Unfortunately he gives no source for it. On the person and his date v. PLRE II 1102–3, s.v. Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius, and now Bruggisser (2009), 831–35.

40

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians

3. The Works of Didymos: A Critical Catalogue.48 The enormous production of Didymos can be classified, as was done by Moritz Schmidt, in four categories: 3.1. Lexicographical Writings (nos. 1–7) 1. Περὶ παρεφθορυίας (vel διεφθορυίας) λέξεως (On the wrong [or corrupt] use of words). The title is attested at Ath. 9,368b: καὶ παρὰ τῷ τὸν Χείρωνα δὲ πεποιηκότι τὸν εἰς Φερεκράτην (fr. 157, PCG VII 183) ἀναφερόμενον ἐπὶ ἡδύσματος ἡ παροψὶς κεῖται καὶ οὐχ, ὡς Δίδυμος ἐν τῷ Περὶ παρεφθορυίας λέξεως (fr. 1, p. 19 Schm.), ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγγείου. And in the author of the Cheiron, which is attributed to Pherekrates, the word (sc. παροψίς) is used of a relish, and not, as Didymos maintains in his treatise On the Wrong Use of Words, of the vessel containing it.49 The title is also attested in a variant form, in sch. Ar. Aves 768e Holwerda, p. 121: Δίδυμος ἐν τῷ Περὶ διεφθορυίας λέξεως (fr. 2, pp. 19–20 Schm.) οὕτως· «ἐπὰν ἴδῃ τὸν θηρευτὴν ἡ πέρδιξ, προκαλινδεῖται αὐτοῦ ἐπισπωμένη πρὸς ἑαυτήν, ὡς δὲ γίνεται περὶ τὸ ἀγρεῦσαι αὐτήν, οἱ νεοσσοὶ φεύγουσιν· εἶτα καὶ αὐτὴ διαδρᾶσα ὕστερον αὐτοὺς συνάγει». Didymos in his treatise On the Corrupt Use of Words, writes as follows: ‟When the partridge sees the hunter, it goes to the ground in front of him attracting him to itself. And when he is busy with catching it, the chicks escape. Then having itself escaped, it gathers them together afterwards”.50 The point in question is the meaning of ἐκπερδικίσαι in Aves 768, where sch. 768c explains that the verb is used instead of ‟to escapeˮ (ἀντὶ τοῦ «φυγεῖν»), 48

49 50

Since the edition of Schmidt remains the only collection of Didymosʼ fragments to which reference can be made, for convenience I have followed the general arrangement of his edition. In view of the enormous number of works attributed to Didymos, it is possible that future papyrus discoveries may bring to light further treatises and commentaries; e.g. P.Oxy. 4455 published by Haslam (1998) and more recently discussed by Montana (2009) attests to Didymosʼ study of Herodotos, perhaps in the form of a commentary. In this he would have had a predecessor in Aristarchos; v. Lossau (1964), 103, n. 114, 127. Both meanings are well attested, cf. Ath. 9,367b–d. Phryn. 147 Fischer, like the speaker Leonides in Ath. 9,368b, condemns the meaning favoured by Didymos. Dunbar ad Ar. Aves 768 notes that Didymosʼ comment is a paraphrase of Arist. HA 613b18–21. Cf. also Arist. fr. 347, Rose (1886), p. 247 (< Ath. 9,389b).

3. The Works of Didymos: A Critical Catalogue

41

i.e. ʽescape like a partridgeʼ. Sch. 768e offers the alternative explanation of Didymos, viz. ʽto practise partridge tricksʼ. In both cases Didymos is treating the use of a word in what he considered the wrong sense. However, Schmidt, pp. 15–16, followed by Cohn (1903), 464,41–61, understood διεφθορυῖα / παρεφθορυῖα to include examples such as the use of Καθηρεύς for Καφηρεύς (sch. Eur. Tr. 90)51 and the alleged corruption of Κιμμέριοι into Κίμβροι (D. S. 5.32.4).52 In both these cases it is the change of the form of a word which is regarded as a corruption and not the use of a word in the wrong sense as in the examples from Didymos. Moreover, sch. Ar. Pl. 388, which Schmidt and Cohn included under this title dealt with a still different linguistic phenomenon; v. no. 2 below. 2. Περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεων (On the different meaning of words).The title is attested in sch. vet. Ar. Pl. 388b, Chantry, p. 81: ἀπαρτί· συνωνυμεῖ ἡ λέξις · ἔσθ᾿ ὅτε γὰρ καὶ χρονικὸν ἐπίρρημα δηλοῖ, ὡς καὶ Καλλίμαχος (fr. 609 Pfeiffer) «ἄρτι θέναρ βάλλει», καὶ ὁ Πλάτων (Lysis 215c), ἐπὶ τοῦ «νῦν»· «ἤδη ποτέ του ἤκουσα λέγοντος, καὶ ἄρτι ἀναμιμνῄσκομαι». ταῦτα ἐκ τῶν Διδύμου Περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεως (fr. 3, p. 20 Schm.). aparti: the word arti is synonymous53 [with aparti]. This is the case when it has the meaning of a temporal adverb as also with Kallimachos ‟now the palm of the hand throwsˮ and Plato in the sense of ‟nowˮ: ‟I once heard somebody say, and I have just now recalled itˮ. This is from Didymosʼ On the different meaning of words. Both Schmidt and Cohn (1903), 464,33–61, were misled by Dindorfʼs unfortunate conjecture adopted by Dübner in sch. Ar. Pl. 388 (p. 346b, on which v. p. 563a) where Dübner gives the title of Didymosʼ work as Περὶ διεφθορυίας λέξεως and not as Περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεων as in Chantry (1994), p. 81 (388b) who rightly keeps the reading of the manuscripts.54 This separate work dealt with the difference in meaning of a word, e.g. when, as here, it receives a different accent. Presumably Didymos also treated the difference in meaning 51 52 53

54

Cf. also St. Byz. κ 141 Billerbeck (370,12–13 Meineke). Diodoros uses the alleged corruption to argue that the Germanic tribe of the Cimbrians were originally Scythian Cimmerians. The scholiast is alerting the reader to the fact that ἀπαρτι can have two different meanings. In Ar. Pl. 388 it is accented on the final syllable (ἀπαρτί) and means ʽcompletelyʼ or ʽexactlyʼ (Synagoge [B] α 1637 Cunningham, p. 634), but it means ʽjust nowʼ when it is paroxytone (ἀπάρτι) and is in that case synonymous with ἄρτι. On the passage v. also Chantry (2009), 378–80.

42

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians

of words more or less synonymous. Both types are included by Herennios Philon and Ammonios in their extant lexica.55 Didymos is in fact the first datable grammarian known to have compiled a lexicon of words of this kind.56 The authors of other works listing similar words differing in meaning are all later than Didymos.57 It is thus possible that he may have established the genre Περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεως. 3. Περὶ ἀπορουμένης λέξεως (On puzzling words). The only reference to this work, which encompassed at least seven books, is found in Harpokration (δ 23 Kean., 88,8–10 Dind.)58: δερμηστής· Λυσίας ἐν τῷ Πρὸς Εὐπείθην (fr. LXI 122, p. 375 Carey = fr. LIII, p. 359 Thalheim). Δίδυμος (fr. 1, p. 20 Schm.) μὲν ἀποδίδωσι τὸν σκώληκα οὕτω λέγεσθαι τῷ Σοφοκλεῖ ἐν Νιόβῃ (fr. 449 Radt), ἐν ζ´ τῆς Ἀπορουμένης λέξεως, Ἀρίσταρχος δὲ τὸ Σοφόκλειον ἐξηγούμενος τὸν ὄφιν ἀπέδωκε. μήποτε δὲ μᾶλλον ἂν εἴη ὅστις τὰ δέρματα ἐσθίει δερμηστής, ὡς ὑποσημαίνεται καὶ ἐν ς´ Μιλησιακῶν Ἀριστείδου (FGrHist 495 F 1, FHG 4, 326a, fr. 29). 55 56

57

58

E.g. Her. Phil. 171 τροχός and τρόχος, and 164 στρατόπεδον and στρατός; cf. Ammon. 478 and 450. The Συνώνυμα of Simaristos, mentioned by Athenaios (3,99c; 9,395f, 399a; 11,478e, 481d, 483a, 496c), could possibly be earlier, though there is no evidence for it. His synonym lexicon in at least four books also treated under the term synonym what we now call homonym; cf. Ath. 11,481d: κυμβία τὰ ποτήρια καὶ πλοῖα μικρὰ (corr. Kaibel in app. cr.) Σιμάριστος (‛kymbia are cups, and also small boats, according to Simaristosʼ). On Simaristos v. Latte (1925), 164, n. 60 (= Kl. Schr., 656, n. 60). For the use of συνωνυμεῖν to refer not ‟à lʼexistence de plusieurs signifiants pour un même signifié ..., mais, inversement, à la polysémie dʼun même signifiantˮ, see Lallot (1997) II 317. Besides Herennios Philon and Ammonios, Seleukos is credited (Souda σ 200) with having written a Περὶ τῆς ἐν συνωνύμοις διαφορᾶς. Likewise, Ptolemaios of Askalon is credited (Souda π 3038) with having written a Περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεως in the early imperial period; however, the treatise published under his name by Heylbut (1887) is not authentic, v. Nickau (1984), pp. XXIX–XXXIII, and Nickau (1990). In the 6th cent. the Alexandrian grammarian and Aristotle commentator Joannes Philoponos compiled a glossary on the accent of homonyms (Περὶ διαφόρων τόνων), last edited by Daly (1983). The unpublished Συναγωγὴ πρὸς διαφόρους σημαινομένους (-μένων Cohn) σημασίας in codices Ambrosianus E 87 sup. and Vat. gr. 1362 is the work of Symeon, the 12th cent. author of the partially published etymologikon which bears his name; v. Reitzenstein (1897), 256, Reitzenstein (1907), 816,29–817,13, Nickau (1966), LX–LXII, and Dickey (2007), 91–92. On the Περὶ τῶν ἀπορουμένων παρὰ Πλάτωνι λέξεων falsely ascribed to Didymos v. Valente (2012), 247–51.

3. The Works of Didymos: A Critical Catalogue

43

Dermestes: Lysias in the speech Against Eupeithes. Didymos in the seventh book of his Puzzling Words explains that the word is used for the worm by Sophokles in the Niobe, while Aristarchos in his interpretation of the Sophoclean expression explains it as a snake. A dermestes is perhaps rather what eats leather, as is implied in the sixth book of the Milesiaka of Aristeides. The word is obviously a compound of δέρμα and ἔδω and is used of what eats skin or leather; v. Gil Fernandez (1959), 106–7, who agrees with Didymos in identifying it as an insect. Beavis (1988), 138, suggests that it is a beatle. 4. Λέξις τροπική (Glossary of figurative expressions). The only reference to this work is found in Synagoge (B) α 233 (p. 540 Cunningham): ἀγαθοεργοί· Ἀττικοὶ τοὺς ἀγαθὸν ἐργασαμένους τι. ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἀρχή τις ἐν Λακεδαίμονι οἱ ἀγαθοεργοί· ἄρχουσι δὲ τῶν ἔξω καὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ τῶν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως παρανομησάντων, ὥς φησι Δίδυμος ἐν τῇ Τροπικῇ λέξει (fr. 1, p. 23 Schm.). Agathoergoi (ʽbenefactorsʼ): the Attic writers call those who do anything good [benefactors]. There is also a magistracy in Lakedaimon [called] ‟the benefactors”. They in fact supervise the external and internal affairs of the city as well as unlawful acts outside the city,59 as Didymos says in his Glossary of Figurative Expressions. Tauriskos, the pupil of Krates of Mallos,60 is credited with recognizing γραμματικοὶ τρόποι ʽgrammatical tropesʼ (S. E. M. 1.248–49), but there is no evidence that he wrote a systematic work on them.61 Didymos and his contemporary Tryphon are the first known grammarians to whom such a work is attributed.62 A treatise Περὶ τρόπων was included under the name of Tryphon by Walz (1835), 726–60 (cf. XXIV, pp. 100–1 Velsen), and Spengel (1856), 189–206, in their respective collections of the Rhetores Graeci. Gräfenhan (1852), 279, argued against the authenticity of this work. Wendel (1939), 729,60–730,36, likewise doubted whether it contained anything which goes 59 60

61 62

According to Hdt. 1.67.5 they are sent by the state on missions abroad. The leading figure of the Pergamene school in the 1st half of 2nd cent. BCE, contemporary of Aristarchos in Alexandria, on whom v. Pfeiffer (1968), 238–46, Broggiato (2001), and Pagani (2007/2009). On Tauriskos and his system of grammar v. Blank (1998), pp. 259–62, and cf. Broggiato (2001), 8 (T 20), 262, and cf. Pagani (2011), 20. For Τryphon cf. Souda τ 1115 (602,1–2 Adler). Wackernagel (1876), 27 (= Kl. Schr. III 1453) concluded that Didymos was in fact latter than Tryphon; cf. Reitzenstein (1897), 307 with n. 2, which shows that Didymos took Tryphon’s work into account.

44

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians

back to Tryphon. Another treatise Περὶ τρόπων, which Walz (1835), 761–81, and Spengel (1856), 215–29, wrongly included under the name of Gregory of Corinth, was reedited more recently by West (1965), who argued that it may in some form represent the original treatise of Tryphon. In any case, there is no reason to doubt that Tryphon wrote a treatise on tropes. Since Didymos and Tryphon are known to have argued against each otherʼs positions in other works,63 it is not unlikely that they did so as well in their works on tropes. 5. Λέξεις Ἱπποκράτους (Lexicon to Hippokrates). According to Cohn (1903), 465,3–28, a false deduction of Schmidt from Erotian (p. 5,14–19 Nachmanson): τῶν δὲ γραμματικῶν οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις ἐλλόγιμος φανεὶς παρῆλθε τὸν ἄνδρα. καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἀναδεξάμενος αὐτὸν Εὐφορίων (Test., p. 430 Lightfoot) πᾶσαν ἐσπούδασε λέξιν ἐξηγήσασθαι διὰ βιβλίων ς´, περὶ ὧν γεγράφασιν Ἀριστοκλῆς καὶ Ἀριστέας οἱ Ῥόδοι. ἔτι δὲ Ἀρίσταρχος καὶ μετὰ πάντας Ἀντίγονος καὶ Δίδυμος (p. 24 Schm.) οἱ Ἀλεξανδρεῖς. Of the grammarians there is not a distinguished one who passed by this man (sc. Hippokrates). For even Euphorion, the man who took him up, went to the trouble of explaining every term in six books,64 about which the Rhodians Aristokles65 and Aristeas66 have written and after all of them the Alexandrians Antigonos67 and Didymos. Clearly however Didymos must have treated Hippocratic λέξεις, possibly but not necessarily in a separate glossary. 6. Λέξις κωμική (Glossary of the language of comedy). That Didymos compiled glossaries to both the language of comedy and the language of tragedy is expressly stated by Hesychios in the prefatory letter to Eulogios (I 1,1–5 Latte): Πολλοὶ μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι τῶν παλαιῶν τὰς κατὰ στοιχεῖον συντεθείκασι λέξεις, ...· ἀλλ᾿ οἱ μὲν τὰς Ὁμηρικὰς μόνας ὡς Ἀππίων καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ τοῦ Ἀρχιβίου· οἱ δὲ τὰς κωμικὰς ἰδίᾳ καὶ τὰς τραγικάς, ὡς Θέων καὶ 63

64 65 66 67

Cf. Philox. Gram. 619 (p. 362, Theodoridis) and see Reitzenstein (1901), 86, 92 as well as Wendel (1939), 726,66–729,35. For more recent work on Tryphon see Dickey (2007), 84–85, and Ippolito (2008). Cf. fr. 49, p. 131 De Cuenca = frr. 175–76, pp. 228–29 van Groningen = frr. 196– 97, pp. 430, 432 Lightfoot. See Wentzel (1895). See Cohn (31895). See Cohn (11894).

3. The Works of Didymos: A Critical Catalogue

45

Δίδυμος (fr. 1, p. 28 Schm.) καὶ ἕτεροι τοιοῦτοι· ὁμοῦ δὲ πάσας τούτων οὐδὲ εἷς. Many others have compiled alphabetical glossaries to the early authors ... . Now some have compiled glossaries of Homeric words only such as Appion and Apollonios the son of Archibios,68 others separately of words used in comedy and words used in tragedy as did Theon69 and Didymos and others like them, but there is not a single glossary that lists all of the words together.70 The Λέξις κωμική of Didymos is explicitly cited by Oros in Et. Gen. s.v. καρύκκη (AB) ... ὁ δὲ Δίδυμος Λύδιον βρῶμα φησὶν ... φησὶ γὰρ ἐν τῇ Κωμικῇ λέξει ... ῏Ωρος (= Et. Gud. 301,37–43 Sturz, EM 492,52 Gaisford) (‛karukke: ... Didymos says it is a particular kind of Lydian food ... He says it in fact in his Lexicon of words used in Comedy’).71 Whether some unspecified references to a λέξις κωμική refer to Didymosʼ glossary, as Cohn (1903), 462,9–18, thought likely, cannot be proved. Likewise, where Didymos is mentioned in the scholia to Aristophanes without further specification, most of the citations presumably come from his commentary on the poet (v. no. 21, pp. 63–64 below), although some could be drawn from his glossary. 7. Λέξις τραγική (Glossary of the language of tragedy). The λέξις τραγική of Didymos is cited by Harpokration ξ 4 Keaney (= 216,1–2 Dind.): ξηραλοιφεῖν· Αἰσχίνης Κατὰ Τιμάρχου (1.138). ξηραλοιφεῖν ἔλεγον τὸ χωρὶς λουτρῶν ἀλείφεσθαι, ὡς Δίδυμος ἐν κη´ Τραγικῆς λέξεως (fr. 1, p. 84 Schm.). xeraloiphein: Aischines in his speech Against Timarchos. They used to call the anointing without water ‟dry anointingˮ, as Didymos writes in the twenty-eighth book of his Glossary of the Language of Tragedy.72 While Hesychios in his preface would seem to imply that Didymosʼ glossary on words used in tragedy was arranged alphabetically, Harpokration makes it clear that the Λέξις τραγική was divided into at least 28 books. Whether the

68 69 70

71 72

On Apion and Apollonios v. pp. 31–32 above. See Guhl (1969), 15–16 and cf. frr. 39 and 40 (pp. 41–42 Guhl). On the tradition of compiling glossaries Tolkiehn (1925) remains valuable. See further Latte (1925), Pfeiffer (1968), 12, 41, 78–79, 90–91, 115, 197–203, 228, Dyck (1987), Tosi (1998). See Alpers (1981), 111–12. The word ξηραλοιφεῖν is attested in S. fr. 494 Radt καὶ ξηραλοιφῶν εἵματος διὰ πτυχῶν (ʽdry anointing himself [i.e. with powder] through the folds of his tunicʼ).

46

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians

individual books of the glossary were themselves organized alphabetically is unclear.73 3.2. Critical and Exegetical Commentaries and Treatises on Authors (nos. 8–47) 8. Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως [sc. Ἰλιάδος καὶ Ὀδυσσείας] (On the Aristarchean Recension [of the Iliad and Odyssey]74. In the tenth-century codex A of the Iliad75 after each book except 17 (Ρ) and 24 (Ω) a subscriptio is added: Παράκειται76 τὰ Ἀριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως (cf. fr. 1, p. 112 Schm.), τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Νικάνορος Περὶ στιγμῆς.77 Written [in the margins] beside [the text] are Aristonikosʼ Signs and Didymosʼ On the Aristarchean recension, and also some extracts from the Iliadic prosody of Herodian and from the On punctuation of Nikanor. The importance of Didymos in the formation of what is conveniently referred to as the Viermännerkommentar (VMK), which is one of the main sources of 73

74

75 76 77

Pfeiffer (1968), 278, n. 8, thought the statements of Hesychios and Harpokration are irreconcilable. Unfortunately the long quotations from Didymosʼ work in Macr. Sat. 5.18.9–12 do not furnish a clue in this respect, pace Pfeiffer. On the problem of determining whether multivolume lexicographical works were arranged alphabetically v. Cohn (1913), 688–90. For which v. the edition of Ludwich (1884–1885). Subsequently a few new fragments which cite Didymos by name have come to light: Hdn. Orth. ap. Reitzenstein (1897), p. 307 ad Ξ (14).43 (III 573 [test. Erbse]), Eust. 1039,41 (III 790,14 van der Valk) ad Ο (15).717 (IV 149 [test.] Erbse), P.Oxy. 2.221 (2Pack 1205) ad Φ (21).203 (V 96,12 Erbse), ad Φ (21).363 (V 114,27–28 Erbse), Cyr. Lex. ap. An. Par. IV 182, 7 ad Ψ (23).806 (V 492 [test.] Erbse). For Didymosʼ treatment of the text of the Iliad and its relation to Aristarchos v. van der Valk (1963–1964) I 536– 53, and for that of the Odyssey v. van der Valk (1949) 25–31, 171. Venetus graecus 822 (olim Marc. graec. 454). On the term παράκειται v. Montana (22010), 192–93. This is the text found at the end of book two (Β), Erbse (1969), 352,18–20. It is repeated with slight variation after the 22 books with subscriptiones with the exception of book one where the name of Herodian is omitted. This is presumably an oversight on the part of the scribe, since material from Herodian is used in the scholia to book one. The title of Didymosʼ work is given in shorthened form in sch. (A) Il. Ρ (17).607c1 οὕτως ..., φησὶν ὁ Δίδυμος ἐν τοῖς διορθωτικοῖς (= fr. 1[a], p. 112 Schm.), sch. (A) Φ (21).110a ὡς καὶ Διδύμῳ δοκεῖ ἐν τῇ διορθώσει (= fr. 1[b], p. 112 Schm.), and Hdn. Gr. Il. pros. Ω 557 (p. 335 Lehrs = II 127,37–38 Lentz ἐπεί με πρῶτον ἔασας· δασύνει Δίδυμος τὸ ἔασας ἐν πρώτῳ διορθωτικῶν (= fr. 1[c], p. 112 Schm.).

3. The Works of Didymos: A Critical Catalogue

47

critical comments preserved in Venetus A, has long been recognized.78 Thanks to the edition and detailed study of Didymosʼ fragments of this work by Arthur Ludwich, we can judge his contribution to Homeric scholarship. This lay in his careful gathering and objective reporting of the readings adopted by Aristarchos without imposing his own preferences.79 Pfeiffer (1968), 217 with n. 4, convincingly argues that Didymos did not write his Περὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως ‟as an effort to reconstruct the original διόρθωσις [of Aristarchos] no longer availableˮ as supposed by Ludwich I 38–40, and Wilamowitz (1884), 296–98, who found an explanation of its alleged loss in the fire of 47 BCE.80 9. Ὑπομνήματα εἰς Ἰλιάδα (Commentaries on the Iliad). The commentary by Didymos on the Iliad is expressly cited twice by Ps.-Ammonios: (1) Diff. 300 (p. 78,11–79,1 Nickau), s.v. λῃτουργεῖν διὰ τοῦ η¯ καὶ λιτουργεῖν διὰ τοῦ ι̅ διαφέρει, φησὶ Δίδυμος ἐν Ὑπομνήματι δευτέρας (-ρῳ E, Scaliger) Ἰλιάδος (fr. 4, p. 180 Schm.). letourgein (‛perform public dutiesʼ) and litourgein (‛speak poorlyʼ) differ, the former written with ʽeʼ and the latter written with ʽiʼ, as Didymos says in the Commentary on the second book of the Iliad.

78

79 80

First by Lehrs (1833). Whereas Lehrs, p. 32 (2ed., p. 27, 3ed., p. 28) correctly recognized that Aristonikosʼ Signs preceded Didymosʼ work, M. Schmidt, p. 277, maintained that it served as a source for Aristonikos; v. Ludwich (1884–1885), I 51–54. See Ludwich (1884–1885) I 41–42. Just what form the Aristarchean recension (διόρθωσις) took is still much disputed. The communis opinio, first formulated by Lehrs (1833), 18–37 (3ed., 16–32), that Aristarchos had produced two critical editions of the Homeric text after having composed two commentaries on Homer was long accepted until it was challenged by Erbse (1959), who concluded that Aristarchos probably wrote only one commentary (ὑπόμνημα) and did not produce new editions (ἐκδόσεις), but accepted the texts then in circulation (the κοιναὶ ἐκδόσεις) as a basis for his comments. This apparent, common-sense solution is seemingly contradicted by conflicting texts, as was noted by Pfeiffer (1968), 215–17, who concluded that Aristarchos wrote his first ὑπομνήματα on the basis of the Homeric text of Aristophanes of Byzantium, then his διόρθωσις, and after that his second ὑπομνήματα on the basis of his own text. A revised recension of his text, which took into account his second commentary, was subsequently made by others, presumably by Ammonios or other pupils. The debate continues, v. Lührs (1992), 6–10, Rengakos (1993), Haslam (1997), Nagy (1997), Montanari (1998), West (2001), Rengakos (2002), Nagy (2003), Janko (2003/4), and West (2004). Whatever form Aristarchosʼ work took, the question of what Didymos had as his basis remains, as Pfeiffer (1968), 217, remarked, ‟an insoluble problemˮ.

48

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians (2) Diff. 513 (p. 133,3–5 Nickau), s.v. χλαμὺς καὶ χλαῖνα διαφέρουσι, καθὼς διὰ πολλῶν ἀπέδειξε Δίδυμος ἐν Ὑπομνήματι δευτέρῳ (τῆς β´ Sym.) Ἰλιάδος (fr. 5, p. 180 Schm.) chlamus (‛short mantleʼ) and chlaina (‛cloakʼ) differ, as Didymos showed at length in the Commentary on the second book of the Iliad.

Besides his critical treatise on the Aristarchean διόρθωσις of Homer, Didymos wrote exegetical commentaries (ὑπομνήματα) on both the Iliad and the Odyssey, material from which is preserved in the scholia but is seldom identified as such.81 Where there is a reference in the form ἱστορεῖ Δίδυμος as in fr. 1 (p. 179 Schm.) = sch. Il. 1.399 or ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ Διδύμῳ as in fr. 15 (p. 182 Schm.) = sch. Il. 22.126, it is to the D-scholia82 (falsely called Didymos scholia); v. van Thiel (2000), p. 47. On fr. 10 (p. 181 Schm. = St. Byz. α 24 Billerbeck) v. no. 53, p. 92 below. On fr. 6, 12, 13 v. van der Valk (1963), 440, n. 134. From the identifiable fragments of Didymosʼ commentary it is clear that he provided extensive information on the mythological background of the text, on geography, and the meaning of words including etymologies.83 10. Ὑπομνήματα εἰς Ὀδύσσειαν (Commentaries on the Odyssey). The commentary of Didymos on the Odyssey is expressly cited four times: (1) Et. Gen. (AB)84 (= Et. Magn. 720,24–26 Gaisford) s.v. Σκύρος· ἡ νῆσος· ἐπεὶ ἀργιλώδης ἐστι καὶ λευκόγεως. σκύρος γὰρ ἡ λατύπη. Δίδυμος λέγει ἐν Ὑπομνήματι ξ´ (immo λ´) Ὀδυσσείας85 (fr. 3, p. 183 Schm.). Skyros: the island. For [it is so called] because it consists of clay and white earth. In fact skyros means gypsum. Didymos says so in the Commentary on the fourteenth (recte eleventh) book of the Odyssey.

81

82

83 84 85

The references to Didymos noted in the margin of Erbseʼs edition of the exegetical scholia of the Iliad refer mainly to his critical treatise. For a concordance of the references to Didymos in Schmidtʼs edition and in Erbseʼs v. the index of authors in Erbse, vol. 6, pp. 545–46, s.v. Didymus. On the composite nature of codex Venetus A, which includes much from the Dscholia omitted by Erbse in his edition, v. Erbse (1960), 78–122. The full text of the manuscript was printed by Dindorf (1875), and the D-scholia on the Iliad have now been conveniently made available as a ‛Wartetextʼ by van Thiel (2000). See further Cohn (1903), 449,41–67. See Alpers (1981), 112. Cf. Od. 11 (λ).509 ἤγαγον ἐκ Σκύρου (‛I [Odysseus] brought him [Neoptolemos] from Skyros’).

3. The Works of Didymos: A Critical Catalogue

49

(2) St. Byz. α 410 Billerbeck (116,5–9 Meineke) s.v. Ἀρέθουσα· ... Δίδυμος ὑπομνηματίζων τὴν ν´ (Xylander, μ´ codd.) τῆς Ὀδυσσείας φησίν «Ἀρέθουσαι δέ εἰσιν η´» (fr. 4, p. 184 Schm.) .86 Arethousa: ... Didymos in his Commentary on the thirteenth book of the Odyssey says that ‟there are eight Arethousaiˮ. (3) Et. Gen. (B) (= Et. Magn. 664,46–51 Gaisford) s.v. περισκέπτῳ· «περισκέπτῳ ἐνὶ χώρῳ» (α 426). ... ἢ περίσκεπτον, ὅ τις ἂν κατανοῶν θαυμάσειεν, οἷον «ὄφρα γένωμαι | σοὶ τὸ περίσκεπτον παίγνιον, Ἀρσινόη» (Call. Epigr. 5.7–8 Pf.). Δίδυμος ἐν Ὑπομνήματι ξ´ Ὀδυσσείας.87 οὕτως εὗρον ἐγὼ εἰς τὸν Ὦρον88 (fr. 5, p. 184 Schm.).89 with a view all around: ‟in a place with a view all aroundˮ. ... or admired, what someone viewing would wonder at, as ‟that I might become your admired toy, Arsinoeˮ. Didymos in the Commentary on the fourteenth book of the Odyssey. So I found it in Oros. (4) Et. Gud. (d) (138,3–9 De Stefani) s.v. ἀνέγναμψαν «αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ δεσμὸν ἀνέγναμψαν» (ξ 348), ἀνέλυσαν. ... ἀναγνάψαι οὖν ἐξαπλῶσαι καὶ τὸ τὰ δεδεµένα ἀναλῦσαι. Δίδυμος ἐν Ὑπομνήματι Ὀδυσσείας (fr. 6, p. 185 Schm.).90 undid: ‟but they (sc. the gods) undid my bonds”, loosened. ... For to have undone means to have unrolled and the having unrolled what had been bound. Didymos in the Commentary on the Odyssey. Although ancient scholars seem, predictably, to have devoted more attention to the Iliad than to the Odyssey, Schmidt included more instances which he regarded as coming from Didymosʼ Odyssey commentary (31 pages) than from his Iliad commentary (3½ pages). This is the reverse of the proportion of fragments which Ludwich (1884) regarded as coming from Didymosʼ On the Arist86

87

88 89 90

Cf. Od. 13 (ν).408 πὰρ Κόρακος πέτρῃ ἐπί τε κρήνῃ Ἀρεθούσῃ (‛by the rock of Korax and the spring of Arethousa’) and sch. (V=D) ad loc., where four Ἀρέθουσαι κρῆναι are listed. The citation of Didymos in St. Byz. α 410 presumably derives from Epaphroditus; v. Braswell/Billerbeck (2008), pp. 87–96 (fr. 2). Ad 14 (ξ).6 περισκέπτῳ ἐνὶ χώρῳ. The scholion has not been preserved in our MSS of the Odyssey scholia. The edition of Dindorf (1855) has been replaced for the D-scholia by Ernst (2006) and is being replaced for the exegetical scholia as well by the splendid new edition of Pontani (2007) and (2010). Cf. Ritschl (1834), 71. οὕτως εὗρον ἐγὼ εἰς τὸν Ὦρον Et. Magn., om. Et. Gen. (AB); cf. Alpers (1981), 112, n. 54. Schmidtʼs addition of Ὦρος was false. The gloss comes from Orion, as De Stefani noted in the similia (p. 138); cf. Et. Gen. (AB), α 845 (II 46,4–10 Lass./Livad.) s.v. ἀνέγναμψαν ... οὕτως Ὠρίων, and v. further Alpers (1981), 112, n. 54.

50

I. The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians

archean Recension (no. 8, p. 46 above): 331 pages from the Iliad and 124 pages from the Odyssey. 11. Ὑπόμνημα εἰς Ἡσίοδον (Commentary on Hesiod). In the scholia on the Theogony Didymos is expressly cited only once: Sch. Hes. Th. 126 (p. 28,3–8 Di Gregorio) Γαῖα δέ τοι πρῶτον μέν· κέντρον ἡ γῆ. αἴτιον δὲ σφαίρας τὸ κέντρον· διὸ γεννᾷ ἡ Γῆ τὸν Οὐρανόν. ἀλλ᾿ ὁ Κράτης (fr. 79 Broggiato) ἀπορεῖ· εἰ γὰρ ἶσον, πῶς δύναται καλύπτειν; λέγει οὖν ἶσον ὅμοιον τῷ σχήματι, σφαιροειδῆ, τῷ μεγέθει δέ ἀπειροπλάσιον· Δίδυμος (fr. 1, p. 300 Schm.) δὲ ὅτι ἐγεννήθη. οὕτως καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης (fr. sp. 439, pp. 173–74 Slater).91 Earth first of all [bore starry Sky, equal to herself to cover her on every side]. The earth is the centre, and the centre is the cause of the sphere. For that reason Earth bore Sky. But Krates raises a difficulty. If in fact it (sc. Sky) is equal, how can it cover it (sc. Earth)? Now one calls equal that which is like in shape, viz. spherical, but it (sc. Sky) is infinite in magnitude. Didymos however says it (sc. Sky) was born. So also Aristophanes (sc. of Byzantium). Krates found a difficulty in the verse because he was thinking of the sky as a hemisphere. Didymos saw no problem in the verse presumably because he assumed that Hesiod was thinking of the sky as flat as the earth itself.92 In the scholia on the Works and Days Didymos is quoted once for an explanation of a hapax legomenon: Sch. Hes. Op. 304b (p. 102,9–19 Pertusi) κηφήνεσσι κοθούροις· κηφήν ζῷον μελισσῶν ἀργότατον καὶ ἄκεντρον. κόθουροι δὲ ἢ ὅτι κάθηνται παρατηροῦντες τὴν ὥραν ἐν ᾗ ἐκβαίνουσιν αἱ μέλισσαι, ἵνα ἐκλαθόντες ἐσθίωσι τὸ μέλι·93 ἢ ὅτι κολοβὴν οὐρὰν ἔχουσιν — ἀποκρύπτουσι γὰρ τὴν οὐράν —. Δίδυμος (fr. 2, p. 300 Schm.) δὲ κοτούροις, ὅτι κότον ἔχουσιν ἐν οὐρᾷ — κατὰ Ἀριστοτέλην (HA 553b10–12) ἀκέντ-

91 92 93

See Nauck (1848), p. 60, n. 83. For an undisputed reference to Aristophanesʼ work on the Theogony v. fr. 405, p. 158 Slater (= fr. 68b, p. 15,16–19 Di Gregorio). See West (1966), p. 198, ad Th. 127 Οὐρανὸν. The description reflects Ar. V. 1114–16 ἀλλὰ γὰρ κηφῆνες ἡμῖν εἰσιν ἐγκαθήμενοι | οὐκ ἔχοντες κέντρον, οἳ μένοντες ἡμῶν τοῦ φόρου | τὸν γόνον κατεσθίουσιν οὐ ταλαιπωρούμενοι (‛But there are drones sitting among us who have no stingers who stay around and feed off the fruit of our tribute without working for it’).

3. The Works of Didymos: A Critical Catalogue

51

ροις94 —, Ἀμερίας95 δὲ κακούργοις. μόνος δὲ Ἡσίοδος τῇ λέξει ἐχρήσατο ἅπαξ. stingless drones: a drone is a kind of bee which is very indolent and stingless. They are kothouroi either because they sit when they are waiting for the time at which the bees leave [the hive], so that they may eat the honey without being noticed. Or [they are kothouroi] because they have a docked (κολοβός) tail — for they conceal their tail. But Didymos [writes] κοτούροις, because it has rancour (κότος) in its tail. According to Aristotle they are tailless. Amerias however [writes] κακούργοις (wicked[-tailed]). Hesiod alone uses the word. The scholion is a good example of how ancient scholars tried to use etymology to explain the meaning of a word. Lacking as they did a knowledge of the historical development of language, their etymologies are seldom more than guesses. The meaning of κόθουρος remains uncertain, although the explanation ʽbob-tailedʼ (cf. Hsch. κ 3217 [II 497 Latte] κοθώ· βλάβη [ʽdamageʼ]) is plausible.96 Didymosʼ explanation reveals how he was prepared to accept an absurd meaning simply because of a supposed phonetic change of a smooth dental stop (τ) to an aspirated one (θ), which would of course be possible if the suffix (