Lemmata: Beiträge zum Gedenken an Christos Theodoridis 9783110354348, 9783110354287

Citation preview

Lemmata

Lemmata

Beiträge zum Gedenken an Christos Theodoridis Herausgegeben von Maria Tziatzi Margarethe Billerbeck Franco Montanari Kyriakos Tsantsanoglou

ISBN 978-3-11-035428-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-035434-8 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-038767-4 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. © 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Satz: Michael Peschke, Berlin Druck und Bindung: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Vorwort Als im Januar 2013 der dritte Band des Photioslexikons (Buchstaben N‒Φ) erschien, beschlossen Kollegen, Schüler und Freunde von Christos Theodoridis (1935‒2009), ihn als Herausgeber, als Gelehrten und selbstlosen Vertreter der Klassischen Philologie mit einem Gedenkband zu ehren. Christos Theodoridis studierte an der Aristoteles Universität Thessaloniki Klassische, Byzantinische und Neugriechische Philologie. Danach wechselte er an die Universität Hamburg, wo er seine Dissertation verfasste und promoviert wurde. Später kehrte er an seine griechische Alma mater zurück und wirkte dort lange Jahre als Assistent, Privatdozent und als Ordinarius für Griechische Philologie. Zu Deutschland, insbesondere Hamburg und Bonn, knüpfte er enge Beziehungen, zuerst als Stipendiat des ‚Deutschen Akademischen Austauschdienstes‘ zur Vorbereitung seines Doktorats, danach gefördert durch die ‚Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung‘ für die Edition des Photioslexikons. Als zeitweiliger Mitarbeiter am ‚Thesaurus Linguae Graecae‘ beschäftigte er sich mit der Vorbereitung des Index Hippocraticus. In Hamburg gewirkt hatte er auch als Gastprofessor für Griechische Philologie. Seine wissenschaftlichen Leistungen würdigte die Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen mit der Wahl zum Korrespondierenden Mitglied. Seine profunde Kenntnis der griechischen Literatur von Homer bis zu den byzantinischen Autoren brachte er sowohl auf dem Gebiet der Lyrik, des Dramas und der hellenistischen Dichtung ein als auch in den Bereichen der Historiographie, der Sprichwörter und Scholien sowie vor allem in der Lexikographie. Das Photioslexikon zu edieren betrachtete er als sein Lebenswerk. Dem Gedenkband den Titel LEMMATA zu geben, schien den Herausgebern besonders angebracht, verweist doch einerseits der Begriff als terminus technicus auf die Lexikographie, welche Theodoridis besonders am Herzen lag. Andererseits hat das Wort eine alte Bedeutung und bezeichnet, was jemand von einem anderen erhält (‘anything received, gain, profit’ [LSJ]). Als Lemmata sind also auch die Beiträge des Gedenkbandes zu verstehen, welche der Geehrte als Gabe empfängt. Allen, die mit einem Beitrag zum Gelingen der Gedenkschrift beigetragen haben, danken wir herzlich. Unser Dank geht auch an den Verlag Walter de Gruyter, der den Band in sein Programm aufgenommen hat, und an die dortigen Mitarbeiter für die gute Zusammenarbeit. Das Herausgeber-Komitee

Inhalt Vorwort  V Abkürzungsverzeichnis  XI Publikationsverzeichnis von Christos Theodoridis  XIII

G. M. Sifakis Testimonial for a long-term comrade-in-arms  1 K. Tsantsanoglou Νηρεύς, A Controversial Water-god  5 Evanthia Tsitsibakou-Vasalos Apollo: name and function in the Oresteia  16 Antonios S. Kapsomenos Verbal puzzles in Aeschylus’ Persians  44 Heinz-Günther Nesselrath Wer ist naiver: die Griechen oder die Barbaren? Zu Herodot 1,60,3  66 Evangelos Alexiou Die Spiegelfunktion der isokratischen Rhetorik: Der lakonisierende Schüler und die Pleonexie großen Stils  73 Δημήτριος Λυπουρλής Ο Αριστοτέλης και ο φυσικός κόσμος  91 Adolf Köhnken Aemulatio cum variatione: Die erste Tat des Herakles bei Pindar und Theokrit  100 Daniela Manetti Ancora su un epigramma attribuito a Teocrito (27 Gow = 25 Gallavotti)  110 Franco Montanari Aristarchus’ Conjectures (once) again  119

VIII 

 Inhalt

Bruce Karl Braswell (†) The Grammarian Chrysippos  130 Bernd Manuwald ‚Translatio imperii‘ und die Sicht der Griechen auf die siegreichen Römer  153 Michael Hillgruber Das Wissen der Sirenen  188 Wilt Aden Schröder Zu Sallust, Catilina 3, 3 (und zum Gedankengang des Proömiums)  203 Klaus Lennartz Der römische – Hipponax  220 Lara Pagani Al crocevia di lingua e letteratura. Il grammatico Filosseno come esegeta di Omero  238 Stratis Kyriakidis Rome and the fata Asiae (Manilius, Astr.1.512)  265 Stephanos Matthaios Zur Typologie des Publikums in der Zweiten Sophistik nach dem Zeugnis der Attizisten: ‚Zeitgenössische‘ Sprechergruppen im Onomastikon des Pollux  286 Anargyros Anastassiou Sechs Bemerkungen zum Text der Schrift Galens De indolentia  314 Lorenzo Perilli Filologia minore. Esperienze dall’edizione di un lessico d’autore  320 Maria Plastira-Valkanou Xenophon’s Ephesiaca and Literary Tradition: Amphinomus’ Episode  353 Paraskevi Gatsioufa Der Kommentar Alexanders von Aphrodisias zur Metaphysik im codex sacro­ montanus: textkritische Bemerkungen  370

Inhalt 

 IX

Stefano Valente Eine ‚neue‘ Handschrift der v-Rezension des Cyrill-Lexikons: der Pragensis X F 50 (+ 1 Da 5)  394 Emanuele Dettori Hesychius ω 467 Cunningham  409 Renzo Tosi Esichio e la semplificazione di strutture complesse nella trasmissione dei lessici  411 Margarethe Billerbeck Eustathios und die Ethnika des Stephanos von Byzanz  418 Fausto Montana Per il testo della redazione A (non alfabetica) delle Lexeis di Erodoto  431 Domenico Cufalo Il Lexicon quod Theaeteti vocatur e il codice Palatino greco 173 di Platone  452 Vassilis Katsaros A Comment on a John Geometres’ Poem  473 Eudoxos Th. Tsolakis προβεβουλευμένην ἔχων τὴν ἐπιβουλήν  480 Grigorios Papagiannis Eine Blütenlese aus den Briefen des Michael Choniates  492 Maria Tziatzi Homerzitate im Gedicht Θεανώ des Michael Choniates  521 Dimitrios A. Christidis Theodore Phialites and Michael Gabras: A supporter and an opponent of Lucian in the 14th century  542 μον. Ζαχαρίας Ξηροποταμηνός, Παναγιώτης Σωτηρούδης Νέα χειρόγραφα τῆς Ἱερᾶς Μονῆς Ξηροποτάμου  550

A  bkürzungsverzeichnis A&A AJPh AU BHG BICS BIFG BMCR BollClass BZ BzA C&M C&S CFHB CGF CMG CPG CPG CPh CQ CW DELG DGE DNP EEPhThess

Antike und Abendland American Journal of Philology Der altsprachliche Unterricht Bibliotheca hagiographica Graeca Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Bollettino dell’Istituto di Filologia greca Bryn Mawr Classical Review Bollettino dei Classici Byzantinische Zeitschrift Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Classica et Mediaevalia Cultura e Scuola Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Corpus Medicorum Graecorum Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum Clavis Patrum Graecorum Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Classical World Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque Diccionario Griego-Español Der Neue Pauly: Lexikon der Antike Ἐπιστημονικὴ Ἐπετηρίδα τῆς Φιλοσοφικῆς Σχολῆς. Τεῦχος Τμήματος Φιλολογίας. Ἀριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν EEBS Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker FGrHist FHG Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen GGA GGM Geographi Graeci Minores GRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies GWU Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft HdA HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology ICS Illinois Classical Studies JbAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum Journal of Hellenic Studies JHS JÖB Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik JRS The Journal of Roman Studies LfgrE Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos LBG Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones MCr Museum criticum MH Museum Helveticum

XII  ΝΕ NWzA PCG PG Ph&Rh PL PLLS PMG PMGF RAC RE REA REG RFIC RGK RhM RM RPh S&T SGLG SIFC SJPh SVF TAPhA TAPhS TCSV ThWNT TiC TrGF UaLG WdF WJA WS ZKathTh ZPE Δ.Χ.Α.Ε.

 Abkürzungsverzeichnis

Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων Neue Wege zur Antike Poetae Comici Graeci Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca Philosophy and Rhetoric Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina Proceedings of the Leeds Latin Seminar Poetae Melici Graeci Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum Paulys Realenzyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Revue des Études Anciennes Revue des Études Grecques Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica Repertorium griechischer Kopisten Rheinisches Museum für Philologie Römische Mitteilungen Revue de Philologie Segno e testo Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica The Southern Journal of Philosophy Stoicorum veterum Fragmenta Transactions a. Proceedings of the American Philological Association Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Trends in Classics. Supplementary Volumes Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament Trends in Classics Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Untersuchungen zur antiker Literatur und Geschichte Wege der Forschung Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft Wiener Studien Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Δελτίον Χριστιανικῆς καὶ Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας

Publikationsverzeichnis von Christos Theodoridis 1. Ἀκεδνότερον ἢ ἀκιδνότερον;, Ἑλληνικά 24 (1971) 125. 2. Ein neues Aristophanes-Fragment, Ἑλληνικά 24 (1971) 367‒371. 3. Zu Menander Fr. 208,3 Körte, Ηermes 100 (1972) 498‒499. 4. Drei übersehene Bruchstücke des Apollodoros von Athen, Glotta 50 (1972) 29‒34. 5. Eine Emendation zum Lexikon des Photios, Glotta 50 (1972) 36‒37. 6. Die Menanderkommentare des Didymos, Hermes 101 (1973) 253‒256. 7. Κροτήσατε, Glotta 51 (1973) 91‒93. 8. Zu den griechischen Komikern, Ἑλληνικά 26 (1973) 41‒45. 9. μυί(γ)ας δάκρυον, Glotta 52 (1974) 61‒65. 10. Παλαιογραφικά, in: Φίλτρα. Τιμητικός τόμος Σ. Γ. Καψωμένου, Thessaloniki 1975, 43‒51. 11. Ein unbeachteter iambischer Trimeter im Etym. Magnum, Wiener Studien, Neue Folge 9 (88) (1975) 213‒215. 12. Ein neues Fragment des Aischylos, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 19 (1975) 180‒182. 13. Ἀπφάριον : Ein neues Wort für Menander, Philologus 119 (1975) 259‒261. 14. Zur Etymologie von προύν(ε)ικος, Ἑλληνικά 28 (1975) 418‒420. 15. D i e F r a g m e n t e d e s G r a m m a t i k e r s P h i l o x e n o s [Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, 2], Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1976, XIV+410 S. 16. Zwei neue Wörter für Aischylos und der P. Oxy. 1083, Fr. 1, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 20 (1976) 47‒53. 17. Zu Aischylos, Fragment 323 N.2 = 638 Mette, Ηermes 104 (1976) 376‒379. 18. Johannes von Damaskos terminus post quem für Choiroboskos (in Zusammenarbeit mit W. Bühler), Byzantinische Zeitschrift 69 (1976) 397‒401. 19. παυσινύσταλον : ein verkanntes Wort des Pherekrates, Eranos 74 (1976) 65‒67. 20. Die Hermokopideninschriften als Quelle der Demioprata im 10. Buch des Pollux, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 23 (1976) 63‒73. 21. ἐμπεδολεκαρύταινα (Com. adesp. fr. 55 Dem.), Glotta 54 (1976) 235‒239. 22. Paroemiographica, Ἑλληνικά 29 (1976) 348‒352. 23. Dieter Harlfinger, Die Textgeschichte der pseudo-aristotelischen Schrift Περὶ ἀτόμων γραμμῶν. Ein kodikologisch-kulturgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Klärung der Überlieferungsverhältnisse im Corpus Aristotelicum, Amsterdam 1971, Ἑλληνικά 29 (1976) 369‒374 [Rezension]. 24. Aristophanes Wespen 910 und Hesych ε 6216 Latte, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 120 (1977) 93‒95. 25. Zum P. Oxy. 1083, Fr. 1, V. 2, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 24 (1977) 254. 26. Bemerkungen zu den griechischen Komikern, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 26 (1977) 49‒54. 27. Zum Kanon des Pap. Graec. Vindob. 31956, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 26 (1977) 49‒51. 28. Der Menander-Kommentator Harmatios, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 28 (1978) 165‒166.

XIV 

 Publikationsverzeichnis von Christos Theodoridis

29. Neues zur griechischen Komödie, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 29 (1978) 29‒32. 30. Zum Glossar des P. Oxy. 1801, 30‒35 = Com. Graec. Fr. Pap. 343, 30‒35, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 30 (1978) 69‒72. 31. Die Abfassungszeit der Epimerismen zu Homer, Βyzantinische Zeitschrift 72 (1979) 1‒5. 32. Vier neue Bruchstücke des Apollodoros von Athen, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 122 (1979) 9‒17. 33. Zu drei Dichterstellen aus dem Lexikon des Photios, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 35 (1979) 29‒31. 34. Zum Aristophanes-Scholion Thesm. 898, Mnemosyne 32 (1979) 162‒163. 35. Zum Lexikon des Photios 111,9 und 122,15 Reitzenstein, Glotta 57 (1979) 228‒229. 36. Der Hymnograph Klemens terminus post quem für Choiroboskos, Βyzantinische Zeitschrift 73 (1980) 341‒345. 37. P h o t i i P a t r i a r c h a e L e x i c o n, vol. I (A‒Δ), LXXXI+461 S., 6 Taf., vol. IΙ (E‒M), CXVII+599 S., 8 Taf., vol. III (N‒Φ), XXVII+600 S., Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1982, 1998, 2013. 38. Klaus Alpers, Das attizistische Lexikon des Oros. Untersuchung und kritische Ausgabe der Fragmente [Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, 4], Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1981, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 235 (1983) 189‒209 [Rezension]. 39. Zum Fr. 7 des Sikyonios des Menander, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 58 (1985) 35‒36. 40. Textkritische Bemerkungen zu drei byzantinischen Gedichten, in: Δώρημα στον Ι. Καραγιαννόπουλο, Βυζαντινά 13 (1985) 1273‒1278. 41. Die ὅροι ἐνναίας der Inschriften SEG 19, 181. 182 und Photius ε 989, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 60 (1985) 51‒52. 42. Ein neues Testimonium für Hipponax Fr. 73,3 Degani, Hermes 114 (1986) 374‒375. 43. Die attischen Inschriften IG II2 1357, 29. 1550, 8 und Photius ε 1768, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 63 (1986) 105‒106 + 64 (1986) 138 (Νachtrag). 44. W. Daly (Hrsg.), Iohannis Philoponi De vocabulis quae diversum significatum exhibent secundum differentiam accentus [American Philosophical Society. Memoirs, 151], Philadelphia, American Philos. Society 1983, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 79 (1986) 348‒351 [Rezension]. 45. Ährenlese zur griechischen Komödie, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 67 (1987) 5‒10. 46. Verse byzantinischer Dichter im Ilias-Kommentar des Eustathios, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 81 (1988) 249‒252. 47. Quellenkritische Bemerkungen zum Lexikon des Suidas, Hermes 116 (1988) 468‒475. 48. Ἡ ἑρμηνευτικὴ μέθοδος του Εὐσταθίου καὶ ἡ σημασία της γιὰ τὴν κατανόηση τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων συγγραφέων, in: Πρακτικὰ θεολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου εἰς τιμὴν καὶ μνήμην τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Εὐσταθίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Θεσσαλονίκης (7‒9 Νοεμβρίου 1988), Thessaloniki 1989, 117‒129. 49. Drei neue Fragmente des Grammatikers Apion, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 132 (1989) 345‒350. 50. Zur Schreibernotiz im Etymologicum Genuinum (s.v. ᾗχι), Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 132 (1989) 409‒410. 51. Ῥαγολογίαι, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 82 (1990) 39‒46. 52. Neue Zeugnisse zu Hipponax aus dem Lexikon des Photios, Eikasmós II (1991) 33‒35.



Publikationsverzeichnis von Christos Theodoridis 

 XV

53. R. A. Kaster, Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity [The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 11], University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1988, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84/85 (1991/1992) 515‒517 [Rezension]. 54. Das Lexikon des Patriarchen Photios und das Rhetorikon des Etymologicum Genuinum, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 42 (1992) 95‒141. 55. Fr. Montanari, I frammenti dei grammatici Agathokles, Hellanikos, Ptolemaios Epithetes. In apppendice i grammatici Theophilos, Anaxagoras, Xenon – D. L. Blank, Lesbonax Περὶ σχημάτων – A. R. Dyck, Τhe Fragments of Comanus of Naucratis [Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, 7], Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1988, Αnzeige für die Altertumswissenschaft XLV, 3/4 (1992) 210‒213 [Rezension]. 56. Kritische Bemerkungen zum Lexikon des Suidas, Ηermes 121 (1993) 484‒495. 57. Ein literarisches Zeugnis für das Grabmal des Königs Philippos von Makedonien, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 103 (1994) 11‒12. 58. Ὁ σκοπὸς τῆς συγγραφῆς τοῦ Λεξικοῦ τοῦ Φωτίου, in: Μνήμη Ἁγίων Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου καὶ Μεγάλου Φωτίου ἀρχιεπισκόπων Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Πρακτικὰ ἐπιστημονικοῦ Συμποσίου (14‒17 Ὀκτωβρίου 1993) [Ἀριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης. Κέντρο Βυζαντινῶν Ἐρευνῶν], Thessaloniki 1994, 567‒572. 59. Corrigendum [zu Robert Fowler, Τwο More New Verses of Hipponax (and a Spurium of Philoxenus)?, Ιllinois Classical Studies 15 (1990) 13 n. 37], Illinois Classical Studies 20 (1995) 209. 60. Zum tragicum adespoton fr. 120b K.-Sn., Hermes 124 (1996) 129. 61. Verse byzantinischer Dichter in grammatischen Schriften und byzantinischen Lexika sowie Scholien-Sammlungen, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 46 (1996) 163‒173. 62. Ein unbeachtetes Zeugnis für Menanders Dyskolos V. 492‒493, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 139 (1996) 375‒376. 63. Zu drei Fragmenten des Herodianos, in: Φιλερήμου ἀγάπησις. Τιμητικὸς τόμος γιὰ τὸν Καθηγητὴ Ἀγαπητὸ Γ. Τσοπανάκη [Στέγη Γραμμάτων καὶ Τεχνῶν Δωδεκανήσου. Σειρὰ αὐτοτελῶν ἐκδόσεων, 20], Rhodos 1997, 639‒641. 64. P h o t i i P a t r i a r c h a e L e x i c o n, vol. II, 1998, s. Nr. 37. 65. Bemerkungen zum Onomastikon des Pollux, in: Lesarten. Festschrift für Athanasios Kambylis zum 70. Geburtstag, hrsg. von I. Vassis, G. S. Henrich, D. R. Reinsch, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1998, 45‒52. 66. Epimerismi Homerici. Pars Altera epimerismos continens qui ordine alphabetico traditi sunt, ed. Andrew R. Dyck; Lexicon ΑΙΜΩΔΕΙΝ quod vocatur seu verius ΕΤΥΜΟΛΟΓΙΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ, ed. Andrew R. Dyck [Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 5/2], Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1995, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 50 (2000) 378‒385 [Rezension]. 67. Bemerkungen zum Text der Schrift De expugnatione Thessalonicae des Eustathios, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 94 (2001) 232‒238. 68. Zu Hesychios und den hellenistischen Dichtern, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 134 (2001) 67‒69. 69. Τὸ Λεξικὸ τοῦ Ἡσυχίου καὶ οἱ Ἑλληνιστικοὶ ποιητές, in: Λόγια καὶ δημώδης γραμματεία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Μεσαίωνα. Ἀφιέρωμα στὸν Εὔδοξο Τσολάκη [Πρακτικὰ Θ΄ Ἐπιστημονικῆς Συνάντησης (11‒13 Μαΐου 2000)], Thessaloniki 2002, 79‒83. 70. Εine unbeachtete Buchangabe zum Bruchstück des Philochoros über die attischen Orgeonen, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 138 (2002) 40‒42.

XVI 

 Publikationsverzeichnis von Christos Theodoridis

71. Bemerkungen zum Text der Kommentare des Johannes Italos und Leon Magentinos zu den Aristotelischen Topika, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 52 (2002) 191‒196. 72. Weitere Bemerkungen zum Onomastikon des Julius Pollux, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 143 (2003) 71‒78. 73. Ährenlese aus dem Onomastikon des Julius Pollux, in: Δημητρίῳ Στέφανος. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Δημήτρη Λυπουρλή, hrsg. von A. Vasileiadis, P. Kotzia, A. D. Mavroudis, D. A. Christidis, University Studio Press, Thessaloniki 2004, 375‒380. 74. Στίχοι καὶ λήμματα ἀπὸ τοὺς κανόνες τῶν ποιητῶν Ἰωάννου Δαμασκηνοῦ καὶ Κοσμᾶ Ἱεροσολύμων στὸ Λεξικὸ τοῦ Ζωναρᾶ, in: Ὅσο κρατάει ἡ ἀνάγνωση… Μιὰ ἔκδοση ἀφιερωμένη στὴ μνήμη τῆς Ἀντωνίας Κατσιαντώνη-Πίστα, Thessaloniki 2005, 535‒547. 75. Kritische Bemerkungen zu der neuen Ausgabe der Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 57 (2007) 35‒48. 76. Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis des Lexikons des Photios zum Lexikon des Suidas, in: Actes du VIe Colloque International de Paléographie grecque (Drama, 21‒27 septembre 2003), Bd. II, Athen 2008, 633‒637. 77. Ein übersehenes Fragment des Aristophanes von Byzanz, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 152 (2009) 396‒398. 78. Kleine Ährenlese zu den Poetae Comici graeci, in: Παραχορήγημα, Μελετήματα γιὰ τὸ ἀρχαῖο θέατρο πρὸς τιμὴν τοῦ Καθηγητῆ Γρηγόρη Μ. Σηφάκη, hrsg. von St. Tsitsiridis, Πανεπιστημιακὲς ἐκδόσεις Κρήτης, Herakleion 2010, 383‒389. 79. Zu Thukydides 1,82,2, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 155 (2012) 413‒414. 80. P h o t i i P a t r i a r c h a e L e x i c o n, vol. III, 2013, s. Nr. 37.

G. M. Sifakis

Testimonial for a long-term comrade-inarms Christos Theodoridis returned to his alma mater, the University of Thessaloniki, in September 1970 as a Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Hamburg, where he wrote his dissertation on Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Philoxenos under the guidance of Professor Winfried Bühler. As soon as he arrived at the Classics Library (the Σπουδαστήριον Κλασσικῆς Φιλολογίας καὶ Ἀρχαίας Ἱστορίας) in the Old Building of the Faculty of Philosophy he looked for a quiet place in the middle of the reading room to set up a working place. And he started to work on a regular basis, totally absorbed in what he was doing, presumably preparing his dissertation for publication (it came out in 1976). In September 1970, also, I joined the Classics Department in Thessaloniki as a professor extraordinarius of ancient Greek literature. I had spent the previous couple of years in the Classics Department of the University of California, Los Angeles, the very department where Winfried Bühler had taught for a few years before my time there. So the great scholar naturally became the subject of our first conversations with Dr. Theodoridis: He related the happy years of studying near his mentor in Hamburg, and I reported on the high esteem in which he was held and remembered by his former colleagues and students at U.C.L.A. It did not take me long to realize that Ch.Th. was unemployed and actually looking for a job, although he was too shy or too proud (or both) to mention it to a relatively stranger like me. And yet, as a newly appointed professor, I could (at that time) offer him a job as my senior assistant; which I did as soon as I looked through some of his manuscripts and saw that he already was an accomplished scholar, even though the continuous flow of short papers that was soon to become his trademark as a philologist had not yet begun. His appointment was effected in 1971, although his first assignment – to compile a list of journal holdings related to antiquity and Byzantium, which existed in the numerous departmental libraries all over the campus – had by then been completed. The result of his search (in a book form) became a serious research tool that was used by philologists, historians, archaeologists and others, until the central University Library obtained a reliable computerized catalogue many years later. Computers in the 1970’s were very big and inaccessible to non-specialists. Personal computers appeared towards the end of the decade, but much earlier, in the beginning of the decade, a special-purpose small computer was invented by David W. Packard, a former colleague of mine at U.C.L.A. The Ibycus, as he called it, was designed to search the Classical Greek texts, which had begun to

2 

 G. M. Sifakis

be digitized in 1971 by the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae project in the Department of Classics of the University of California, San Diego. Ibycus was privately produced in, perhaps, less than two hundred copies, one of which was set up and demonstrated in Thessaloniki by Packard himself.1 Ch.Th. immediately became a regular user of that specialized search engine, which was crucial to the great project that was assigned to him a few years after he joined the Classics Department, the edition of the Lexicon of Photios, the erudite Patriarch of Constantinople (ca. 810‒893/94). The only complete manuscript of the Lexicon had been discovered in 1959 by Linos Politis, the distinguished palaeographer and historian of modern Greek literature, in the Monastery of Závorda in central Macedonia. Its edition was obviously a major enterprise which was undertaken by a committee of scholars. But as time went by it became obvious that specific tasks should be assigned to individual researchers: Kyriakos Tsantsanoglou was entrusted with the publication of the fragments of ancient literature cited by the Lexicon either as lexical entries or as quotations illustrating the meaning of the entries,2 and Ch.Th. was entrusted with the edition of the dictionary itself. The first volume (A‒Δ) came out in 1982, the second (E‒M) in 1998, while the third one (Ν‒Φ) was posthumously published in 2013. I mention these dates to indicate the size of the project, which began in 1974 and lasted through the end of life of a scholar constantly assiduous in carrying out his demanding task. Naturally, his work on Philoxenos was an excellent preparation for the Lexicon project, and the very good reviews of Ch.Th.’s edition of the grammarian’s fragments3 augured well for the outcome of the new enterprise. Although in the years following its commencement Ch.Th. was totally immersed in it, he never stopped issuing a stream of short (or not so short) articles, which he used to 1 After fifteen or so years of serving the international community of Classical scholars, the Ibycus became obsolete as personal computers became proficient in languages including polytonic Greek. 2 See New Fragments of Greek Literature from the Lexicon of Photius [Πραγματεῖαι τῆς Ἀκαδημίας Ἀθηνῶν 49], Athens 1984. 3 “Mais nous avon dès maintenant, dans les Fragmente des Grammatikers Philoxenos, une édition remarquable, d’une grande précision philologique, de l’œuvre de Philoxène qu’on peut ainsi, pour la première fois, embrasser dans son ensemble. Les historiens de la grammaire sauront gré à Chr. Theodoridis de leur avoir donné cet excellent ouvrage” (J. Lallot, RÉG 90 [1977] 170). “The book in its totality is impressive, evidencing not only remarkable diligence on the part of its author (…) but also textual abilities, as on page after page we find Thd. improving the text not only by choosing intelligently among what others have proposed but also by many convincing emendations and attractive conjectures of his own” (G. L Koniaris, AJPh 99.3 [1978] 394). “Th. is conscientious and systematic (… he) is to be congratulated on his industry and scholarship in starting from scratch and producing this fine edition” (M. D. Macleod, JHS 99 [1979] 182).



Testimonial for a long-term comrade-in-arms 

 3

call Miszellen jokingly. The series of more than six dozen such papers had begun in 1971 and continued until 2012. Many of them were byproducts of his work on the Lexicon, but they deserved or demanded independent publication either because they involved new discoveries that had to be announced to the philological community without undue delay, or because they required extensive discussion that could not have been accommodated in the apparatuses of the Lexicon. But there were several others that had an independent origin. A list of Ch.Th.’s publications can be found elsewhere in the present volume. This is not the place, nor am I the proper person to evaluate that body of short papers, which alone, I feel, would make proud any philologist interested in lexicography, grammatical matters, or textual criticism. But I might be allowed to single out the studies closer to the my special interests, those related to dramatic poets, which amount to more than 27% of the total. Fragments of poetry culled from a variety of sources including papyri (“Ährenlese zur griechischen Komödie” 1987, “Ein neues Aristophanes-Fragment” 1971, “Ein neues Fragment des Aischylos” 1975, “Zwei neue Wörter für Aischylos und der P.Oxy. 1083.1” 1976, “Παυσινύσταλον: ein verkanntes Wort des Pherekrates” 1976, “Ἀπφάριον: Ein neues Wort für Menander” 1975, and so forth; and of course his latest “Kleine Ährenlese zu den Poetae Comici Graeci” 2010). Regarding the great ἆθλος of restoring to life the New Photios, Ch.Th.’s achievement was acknowledged with admiration as soon as the first volume of the Lexicon came out.4 And M. L. West’s verdict on the occasion of the recent publication of the third volume says it all: Theodoridis’ work of course represents a huge advance in terms of editorial technique, with its numbering of glosses, marginal source-indications, and double apparatus in which all the parallel texts from the grammatical tradition are cited and exact information provided about variants and scholars’ conjectures. For α–φ we now have a definitive edition. Unless some of the missing leaves from g [= Codex Galeanus in Trinity College, Cambridge] turn up, or a manuscript independent of g, Photius will not need to be edited ever again. (Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2013.07.50)

4 See, for instance, C. J. Ruijgh’s concluding comment: “Nous voulons terminer ce compte rendu en remerciant M.T. des services rendus à la philologie grecque et en souhaitant qu’il réussisse à mener à bon terme les autres volumes du Lexique.” (Mnemosyne 4th ser. 38. 3–4 [1985] 431). Or Enzo Degani’s judgement: “Alieno dai voli e dalle seduzioni della fantasia, saldamente ancorato ai dati della tradizione ed ai propri principi metodici, il Th. ha assolto il suo oneroso compito con grande probità ed acribia. (…) Il presente volume, realizzato con grande acribia ed impegno, rappresenta un contributo che fa onore alla filologia ellenica.” (Gnomon 59.7 [1987] 584–585).

4 

 G. M. Sifakis

The “huge advance in terms of editorial technique” mentioned by West was achieved by a combination of the initial editorial design and the formatting of a page layout corresponding to it. The former was due to the editor, the latter to the computer experts of the publisher, who also supplied the appropriate (commercial) software for the desktop typesetting. But the typing of the text – lexical entries, the double apparatus and marginal indications – was done directly onto the page layout by Ch.Th. himself, from beginning to end. He actually rejected any suggestion that he might use some help from a typist because he knew that no typesetter would ever manage to cope with his handwriting and transfer his manuscripts to the computer template. The labour involved in this kind of operation was enormous, but the end result was, not only free of mistakes, but “una stampa mirabile” (Degani, see n. 4). As John J. Keaney put it, “[t]he mind can only boggle at the technical quality of the edition.”5 An essential quality of Ch.Th.’s profile as a scholar was that he had an extraordinary affinity with the work of Photios and the lexicographers, as well as Eustathios6 and scholiasts, attributable, I think, to his being a true neo-Byzantine metagrammarian himself. He was of course an indefatigable researcher and, in addition, an exemplary teacher devoted to his students, particularly to those who claimed his attention by asking for his assistance with regard to their current or future studies. Thanatos began to challenge him about two years before delivering the final blow. Christos resisted with his customary patience, dignity, and even good humour, but knew that ῥοπή ᾿στιν ἡμῶν ὁ βίος, ὥσπερ ὁ ζυγός. However, we now have the third volume of the New Photios, and also have every reason to believe that what little remains to be done will be done well and published before too long.

5 AJPh 106.3 (1985) 389. 6 See Ἡ ἑρμηνευτικὴ μέθοδος τοῦ Εὐσταθίου καὶ ἡ σημασία της γιὰ τὴν κατανόηση τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων συγγραφέων, in: Πρακτικὰ θεολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου εἰς τιμὴν καὶ μνήμην τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Εὐσταθίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Θεσσαλονίκης (7–9 Νοεμβρίου 1988), Thessaloniki 1989, 117–129.

K. Tsantsanoglou

Νηρεύς, A Controversial Water-god (with Reference to Hesiod Th. 233–236) Νηρέα δ᾽ ἀψευδέα καὶ ἀληθέα γείνατο Πόντος πρεσβύτατον παίδων· αὐτὰρ καλέουσι γέροντα, οὕνεκα νημερτής τε καὶ ἤπιος, οὐδὲ θεμίστων λήθεται, ἀλλὰ δίκαια καὶ ἤπια δήνεα οἶδεν.

It seems as if Hesiod was interested less in the god himself than in his name. It must be significant that the name Νηρεύς does not occur in Homer. The god’s name in the Iliad is the descriptive ἅλιος γέρων (18.141) and in the Odyssey the combination of ἅλιος γέρων and Πρωτεύς: 4.365 Πρωτέος ἰφθίμου θυγάτηρ ἁλίοιο γέροντος, 384–385 πωλεῖταί τις δεῦρο γέρων ἅλιος νημερτής, | ἀθάνατος, Πρωτεύς. We do not know whether the name Νηρεύς was known to Homer or not.1 Τhere can be no doubt, however, that Hesiod not only knew the appellations used by Homer but also considered them widely known. This is obvious as regards ἅλιος γέρων, the Old Man of the Sea, since Hesiod is setting forth an argument at interpreting the god’s appellation (234 αὐτὰρ καλέουσι γέροντα, οὕνεκα κτλ.). It is so, however, also as regards Proteus. Because, as it seems, πρεσβύτατον παίδων alludes to Πρωτεύς, the first-born son of Pontus. The usage may be related with the transfer of unnamed folk tale characters to named and genealogized mythical figures. In the folk tale level, the main characters are the first and, predominantly, the third out of three sons or daughters. I cannot make out any character named ‘Second’ in this sea myth genealogy. However, in spite of the prosodic difficulties,2 Ἀμφιτρίτη, the sea-goddess par excellence, and Τρίτων, her son, have been associated in numerous myths with the number three and its ordinal. They may have had initially the third place, irrespective of the position they have acquired after the mythical line of descent was consolidated. In other myth areas, Πρωτόγονος and Τρῑτογένεια are self-defined parallels. In any case, I must make myself clear that what I am speaking about is not strict linguistic

1 Νηρηΐδες occurs in Il. 18.38, 49, 52, in a passage athetized already in antiquity. See below. 2 -τρῑτ- in the mythical figures, τρῐτ- in the numeral; metrical lengthening is the usual explanation.

6 

 K. Tsantsanoglou

derivations, but popular, not necessarily erroneous, etymologies, such as Hesiod devised and perceived.3 Parallel to Πρωτεύς is no doubt the Nereid Πρωτώ. In Hesiod’s catalogue of the Nereids (Th. 243–262), the manuscripts give unanimously the first place to Πρωτώ (243 Πρωτώ τ᾽ Εὐκράντη τε Σαώ τ᾽ Ἀμφιτρίτη τε). However, editors change her name into Πρωθώ, a curious reading found in an allegorical interpretation of the Theogony by Joannes Galenus Diaconus, dating, as it seems, from the Middle Byzantine period, 313.8 Flach: ἡ Πρωθὼ … παρόσον ἐπισυμβαίνειν εἴωθεν ἐν θαλάσσῃ τοῖς ναυτίλοις πρώθειν4 τὰς νῆας. The adoption of Πρωθώ relies on the fact that a second Πρωτώ appears in the list, in a verse that recurs identically in Homer, in the Homeric catalogue of Nereids (Il. 18.39–49) which was athetized by Zenodotus and Aristarchus, and was omitted in the Argive edition: Th. 248 = Il. 18.43 Δωτώ τε Πρωτώ τε Φέρουσά τε Δυναμένη τε.

The first verse in the Homeric catalogue is entirely different from the Hesiodic one (ἔνθ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔην Γλαύκη τε Θάλειά τε Κυμοδόκη τε). W. Schulze, Quaestiones Epicae, Gütersloh 1892, 22, n. 3, explains Πρωτεύς from πρωτόν, πέπρωται as Fatidicus, ‘prophet’, and accordingly West on Th. 248 considers, along with other suggestions, the same connotation for the Πρωτώ who is common in the Theogony and the Iliad. I would rather surmise that all four names of Nereids in this common verse have to do with the maritime trade and its effects on social life, symbolizing the successive stages of the commercial procedure: Δωτώ, the Giver, Φέρουσα, the Bringer, Δυναμένη, the Wealthy. Then, Πρωτώ could have been initially Πρᾱτώ (πρᾱτός, πέπρᾱται), the Trader. The producer gives his produce to the dealer, the dealer trades the produce and brings back the profit, which enriches the producer. The name, having been thought to derive from Doric πρᾶτος = πρῶτος, was ‘corrected’ to the dialectally proper Πρωτώ, and in this form, having inadvertently produced a second namesake Nereid, passed into the lists. M. L. West, on Th. 234, discusses two possible interpretations of αὐτὰρ καλέουσι γέροντα: a. “they call him (an, the) Old Man”, b. “they call the old man so, i.e. Nereus”, and states his preference for the second of them. He also rejects Merkelbach’s explanation of Hesiod’s etymology of the name Νηρεύς,5 “as consisting in the νη of νημερτής together with ἦρα implied by ἤπιος”, a strange way of etymologizing, even folk-etymologizing, in which an initial negative prefix is 3 In real-life practice, the custom may possibly help in interpreting the origin of the Roman numeral praenomina: Primus, Secundus, Tertius, …, Decimus. 4 πρώθω, a late form of προωθέω, the immediate ancestor of Modern Greek σπρώχνω, ‘push’. 5 Konjekturen zu Hesiod, SIFC 27/28 (1956) 286–301, esp. 289.



Νηρεύς, A Controversial Water-god 

 7

united copulatively with the stem of a noun without refuting this second part of the compound as usual, but connoting a different word which happens to start also with a negative prefix. I very much doubt if the ancient conundrums proposed by West as parallels to this type of analysis have anything to do with Hesiod’s etymologies.6 His own tentative proposals are either to consider, in place of 235 ἤπιος, *εἴριος ‘prophetic’, from εἴρω, or to surmise that Hesiod has left “the second syllable of Nereus unexplained, content with the coincidence of the syllable νη in νημερτής”. Merkelbach is, however, annoyed by αὐτάρ, and therefore changes αὐτὰρ καλέουσι to Νηρέα δὲ καλοῦσι. West dismisses Merkelbach’s alteration and explanation, but does not discuss about the function of αὐτάρ, apparently considering it additive, ‘besides, moreover’, as H. G. Evelyn-White does in his translation (“and men call him”). G. W. Most in his recent (2006) Loeb edition of Hesiod prefers an asyndetic translation (“they call him”), but notes significantly: “The point of this explanation is unclear”. αὐτάρ has, however, a strikingly contrasting sense. And, no doubt, syntactically, it is the first of West’s two interpretations that is obvious and coherent: “but they call him Old Man”. Where is the contrast then? If the fact that people call him Old Man is to be contrasted with something, this must be his formal name which should imply youthfulness. The explanation of the etymology by Hesiod must also be coherent with these senses, with Νηρεύς implying youthful properties, whereas other, old-age properties must account for his naming ‘Old Man’. More precisely, I believe that Hesiod derives Νηρεύς from νεαρός ~ νηρός. Nereus is ἀψευδής and ἀληθής, i.e., possesses the properties of a young child, unmendacity and truthfulness. In the Photius Lexicon (ο 128 Theodoridis) and in Suda (οι 134 Adler), probably from the Atticist Pausanias (o 10 Erbse), we read οἶνος ἄνευ παίδων· δύο παροιμίαι· ἡ μὲν ‘οἶνος καὶ ἀλήθεια’, ἡ δὲ ‘οἶνος καὶ παῖδες ἀληθεῖς’· λαμβάνεται δὲ (καὶ add. Phot.) ἐπὶ τῶν ἁπλοϊζομένων καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν λεγόντων; see Theodoridis’s copious apparatus fontium. The lemma of Photius and Suda comes from the speech of Alcibiades at Pl. Smp. 217e, τὸ λεγόμενον, οἶνος ἄνευ τε παίδων καὶ μετὰ παίδων (…) ἀληθής, which has nothing to do with the παιδικά, though this is the general subject of the speech. The speaker has in mind οἶνος καὶ παῖδες ἀληθεῖς, but, at present, he is interested only in the wine, so he expresses the proverb as: “in wine there is truth, children added or not”. A relevant Modern Greek proverb is ἀπὸ τρελὸ κι ἀπὸ μικρὸ μαθαίνεις τὴν ἀλήθεια, 6 I would also doubt West’s claim in this context that at Od. 13.79–80 νήδυμος is ‘glossed’ by the poet νήγρετος ἥδιστος. On the contrary, I would maintain that the mere use of νήδυμος in connection with νήγρετος ἥδιστος shows that its linguistic affinity to ἡδύς (cf. ἥδυμος) was not realized by the poet.

8 

 K. Tsantsanoglou

“It is from a madman and a little child that you learn the truth”, the difference between a mad and a drunk man being minimal. ἀψευδέα καὶ ἀληθέα, as West shows, are also frequently used of prophets, such as Nereus (or Proteus) was, and it cannot be doubted that the sense of ‘reliable and unerring’ might be connoted here. However, the contrast that follows shows that the properties are mentioned to account for the name Νηρεύς = ‘Young’. On the other hand, he was called Old Man because, though ‘Young’ by name, he possessed also the properties of an old man: gentleness (ἤπιος), observance of religious laws (οὐδὲ θεμίστων λήθεται), just and mild behaviour (δίκαια καὶ ἤπια δήνεα οἶδεν). We shall have, however, to return to this proverb later on. But what about νημερτής, which I omitted above in rewording Hesiod’s interpretation of the appellation γέροντα (οὕνεκα νημερτής τε καὶ κτλ.)? If it is synonymous to ἀψευδής and ἀληθής (as, e.g., at h. Merc. 369 νημερτής τε γάρ εἰμι καὶ οὐκ οἶδα ψεύδεσθαι), does it represent a property that is common to both young and old age? Hesiod ends his catalogue of the Nereids with 262 Νημερτής θ᾽, ἣ πατρὸς ἔχει νόον ἀθανάτοιο, whereas the relevant catalogue in the Iliad contains (18.46) Νημερτής τε καὶ Ἀψευδής. If Hesiod’s Νημερτής is called so because she has her father’s character, the reference may be to an old man’s character. The Iliad catalogue seems interpolated, as mentioned above, and no special significance should be accorded to the two names that are taken as synonyms. In Odyssey, νημερτής is an attribute of the ἅλιος γέρων, occasionally under the name of Proteus. The epithet is apparently associated with the prophetic properties of the marine god. Is then the meaning in Hesiod Th. 235 ‘infallible, unerring’? But elsewhere in the epic the adjective qualifies not persons but words or speech (ἔπος νημερτὲς ἔειπες, νημερτέα μυθήσασθε, νημερτὲς ἐνίσπες, εἴπηι νημερτέα βουλήν etc.), usually translated ‘true’, without any specific connotation of infallibility. νημερτής is, naturally, ὃς οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, but it may well have a passive meaning οὗ οὐκ ἔστιν ἁμαρτεῖν, therefore ‘indisputable, certain’ and, of persons, ‘clearly, plainly speaking’, a usage most appropriate for some prophets, in contrast to other prophetic gods, like Apollon Loxias, whose utterances were ambiguous and obscure. This meaning of νημερτής is best illustrated in Empedocles’ list of contrasting personified entities, where (fr. 122.4 D.-K.) Νημερτής is juxtaposed with Ἀσάφεια: Νημερτής τ᾽ ἐρόεσσα μελάγκουρός τ᾽ Ἀσάφεια. Hence, Empedocles’ Νημερτής signifies, as a proper noun, Σαφήνεια, ‘clarity, plainness’, and as an adjective ‘clear, plain’. Scholars, perhaps in order to contrapose ἐρόεσσα to an attribute from the same semantic area, in translating μελάγκουρος, oscillate between ‘black-haired’ (Wilamowitz; from κουρά) and ‘black-eyed’ (Diels-Kranz; from κούρη = ‘pupil’). None of the two, however, is opposite to ἐρόεσσα, connoting ugliness or hatefulness. I believe, μελάγκουρος, as an attribute of Ἀσάφεια,



Νηρεύς, A Controversial Water-god 

 9

refers to the dark and obscure offsprings or products (κοῦροι) of ‘Obscurity’, whether it be the way of thinking or expressing oneself in talking or in writing. From this point of view, clarity may be added to the properties of old age possessed by Nereus, which justify his naming as Old Man according to Hesiod, but also in the references to the prophet in the Odyssey (4.349, 384, 401, 542, 17.140). The adjective’s range of meanings is clearly illustrated in Hsch. ν 484 νημερτές· ἀναμαρτές, ἀληθές, σαφές. Plut. 474c (De tranquillitate animi), the sole source of the complete fragment of Empedocles, instead of μελάγκουρος presents μελάγκαρπος, whοse sense is identical with the one proposed here. μελάγκουρος comes from Tzetz. Proleg. Ar. Com. 1. 115 (Scholia in Aristophanem I 1A Koster) τὴν κατ᾽ Ἐμπεδοκλέα ‘μελάγκουρον’, κατὰ δὲ Τζέτζην κουτούλαν καὶ κερκεσύραν περιεπεστάτην ἀσάφειαν, καὶ μᾶλλον εἰ σφοῖς λόγοις αὐτὴ ἑαυτῇ ἀντιβαίνουσα γίνοιτο ὁτὲ μὲν ἀρνίον, ὁτὲ δὲ τραγίον, ὁτὲ δὲ κόνδουρον, 〈ὅτε δὲ〉 ἀειδούριον. Although Tzetzes offers the correct adjective, I suspect, because of the joking designations with which he supposedly improves Empedocles’ μελάγκουρος, that he rather understands ‘black-tailed’: κουτούλα must mean ‘truncated, tailless’ (not ‘kahlköpfig’ [Trapp]), κερκεσύρα ‘tail-dragging’ (κέρκος, ἡ = tail; not ‘Mann in Frauenkleidern?’ [Trapp]), and κόνδουρον ἀειδούριον (not κόνδουρον, 〈ὅτε δὲ〉 ἀειδούριον [Koster]) ‘bobtailed donkey’. In other words, he describes the περι〈σσο〉επεστάτη ἀσάφεια, i.e. ‘most loquacious Obscurity’, now as short-tailed, now as long-tailed, or, in cases of self-contradiction, now as lamb, now as billy goat, now as short-tailed donkey. Tzetzes also in Chiliades XII 574 λέγει γὰρ (sc. Empedocles) τὴν ἀσάφειαν μελάγκορον ὑπάρχειν, ineptly altered to μελάγκαρπον by Sturz. The opening of a lost poem by Alcaeus, fr. 366, is οἶνος, ὦ φίλε παῖ, καὶ ἀλάθεα, which is also the opening of Theoc. Id. 29, Παιδικά 〈α´〉. The source of our information about Alcaeus’ fragment is the Scholiast on Pl. Smp. 217e (see above): οἶνος καὶ ἀλήθεια· ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν μέθῃ τὴν ἀλήθειαν λεγόντων. ἔστι δὲ ᾄσματος Ἀλκαίου ἀρχή· Οἶνος, ὦ φίλε παῖ, καὶ ἀλήθεια. καὶ Θεόκριτος. The first verse of Theoc. 29 is ‘Οἶνος, ὦ φίλε παῖ,’ λέγεται, ‘καὶ ἀλάθεα’. The Scholiast of Theocritus ad loc. states no more than ἡ δὲ ὁμιλία ἐστὶ 〈…〉 παρόσον εἰρῆσθαί φησιν ‘οἶνος καὶ ἀλήθεια’, παρὰ τὴν παροιμίαν. Some scholars believe that the whole verse of Theocritus, λέγεται included, is borrowed from Alcaeus, an assumption supported by the Idyll’s Aeolic dialect and metre (gl2d, Sapphic pentameter, the metre of Sappho’s second book). Others, like Gow, Page, Voigt, and Liberman, leave only οἶνος, ὦ φίλε παῖ, καὶ ἀλάθεα for Alcaeus, while Lobel wavers between the two options (Lobel and Page, Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, Alc. Z 43, app. cr.). Voigt, though publishing the text indicated above (i.e., gld), seems to consider the verse imperfectly transmitted, since she proposes the metres gl2d or pher3d, the second apparently for associating the verse with the fragments 367 and 368

10 

 K. Tsantsanoglou

that speak of wine and παιδικά. Then, the Alcaeus verse may be an expanded glyconic, gld, only if it is complete and the last word represents ἀλήθεια, as Theocritus seems to take it. If Alcaeus’ verse was, however, longer, it might have been gl2d, like Theocritus’ verse, or pher3d, as Voigt considers. Τhe short version of the proverb quoted in Photius and Suda, i.e., οἶνος καὶ ἀλήθεια, is also known to Plutarch, Art. 15.4, and Athenaeus 2.57e, but the quotation of the proverb in Plato seems to point to the long version. I believe that the same thing happens with Theocritus’ source as well. In Plato this is clear, irrespective of the Scholia. But also in Alcaeus, no matter how Theocritus understands it, ἀλάθεα can only signify ἀληθέα (adj. neut. pl.); cf. Hamm § 55 c. And a neuter plural adjective can hardly be the predicate of a masculine nominative singular noun (οἶνος).7 Alc. 69.7 εὐμάρεα προλέξαις, which Page adduces as parallel, Sappho and Alcaeus 312, cf. 226–228, is dissimilar and is certainly not = εὐμάρειαν προλέξαις. The person described at fr. 69 as a fox could well foretell easy or convenient things, but wine by no means could be true things. Liberman, who reminds that ἀλάθεα may also be adj. masc. acc. sing., brings forward (vol. II p. 245, n. 326), exempli gratia, sentences like οἶνος καὶ ἀληθῆ ποιεῖ ἄνθρωπον or οἶνος καὶ ἀληθέα μυθεῖται, for completing the elliptic οἶνος καὶ ἀλάθεα. However, in both his examples, καί is unaccounted for. An elliptic οἶνος καὶ ἀλάθεα could stand only if ἀλάθεα meant ἀλήθεια, as in Theocritus’ verse. Further, the correption of καί before ἀλάθεα is unique in the Aeolic poetry, with the exception of the so-called ‘abnormal’ poems of Sappho. Page, Sappho and Alcaeus 65, justifies the correption as ‘a special case’, and West, GM 34 n. 7, as it belongs to a proverb. I cannot see, however, why a dialectally formulated proverb should not comply with the prosodical rules of the dialect. If ἀλάθεα can be nothing but plural adjective, it must refer to more than one subjects. And the proverb implied by Plato includes wine and children, regardless of how Alcibiades employs it in his argument. One would expect the Platonic Scholia to produce a parallel with both subjects. I do not question the Theocritus verse, but I believe that the Hellenistic poet misinterpreted Alcaeus’ ἀλάθεα as = ἀλήθεια. I do not doubt, of course, that his source is Alcaeus. But as regards the form of the Alcaeus verse transmitted in the Platonic Scholia, I suspect that it was modified under the influence of the Theocritus text. The verse produced by the Scholia is identical (but for λέγεται) with Theoc. 29.1, yet the Scholia have simply καὶ Θεόκριτος, without stressing the obvious borrowing. On the other hand, the Scholiast of Theocritus does not mention the borrowing from Alcaeus, only the proverb (παρόσον εἰρῆσθαί φησιν ‘οἶνος καὶ ἀλήθεια’, παρὰ τὴν παροιμίαν). 7 The usually articulated neuter plural τἀληθῆ is used for ‘truth’, not for the abstract notion but in expressions like ‘tell me the truth’, i.e. ‘tell me true words’.



Νηρεύς, A Controversial Water-god 

 11

Possibly, the borrowing was not so literal. Theocritus, following the old literary tradition of starting a poem with the first verse of someone else’s poem (e.g., Aesch. Persae 1 from Phryn. trag. Phoenissae, TrGF 3 F 8, or the openings of ᾠδαί in the parabasis of Old Comedy), does the same thing in 17.1, the Ἐγκώμιον εἰς Πτολεμαῖον, which starts with the first hemistich of Aratus’ Phaenomena. The purpose of the reproduction there was to criticize the contemporary fellow-poet for writing a blasphemous proem.8 When he replicates, however, a revered poet of the past, as here, his purpose must be different; no doubt, to indicate honorifically and perhaps emulatively the remote source of his inspiration. It is the same thing done by Callimachus in the opening of his Iambi (fr. 191.1 Pf. = Hippon. °187 Deg.), ἀκούσαθ᾽ Ἱππώνακτος. Τhe admittedly usual address ὦ φίλε παῖ combined with a reference to a proverb where παῖς was expected to be included but is not, seems suspicious. I wonder if the Alcaic verse was, with the same metrical possibilities as above (gld), οἶνος καὶ πάις, ὦ φίλ᾽, ἀλάθεα, “wine and child, my dear, are truthful”, including the children in the proverb, but without the abnormal correption and the unnatural use of ἀλαθεα, whether as = ἀλήθεια or as the neuter plural adjective ἀληθέα referring to οἶνος. Or, one might possibly speculate, in a longer verse (gl2d), οἶνος, ὦ φίλε, καὶ πάις 〈ἔστιν〉 ἀλάθεα, “wine, my dear, and child are truthful”;9 or, in a still longer verse (pher3d), such as Voigt conjectured, οἶνος, ὦ φίλε, καὶ πάις 〈ἔμμεν᾽〉 ἀλάθεα 〈φαῖσιν〉, “they say, my dear, that wine and child are truthful”. A partly similar corruption appears in the collection of proverbs by Gregorius Cyprius. Whereas both codd. Leid. (II 83) and Mosq. (ΙV 60) present the version οἶνος καὶ παῖδες ἀλήθεια, Leutsch ‘corrects’ to οἶνος, ὦ παῖδες, ἀλήθεια from the Pantini edition (Leiden 1619, 279) reproduced in CPG I Leutsch-Schneidewin (Gregorius Cyprius, III 23). We do not know what Alcaeus and his dear friend talked about in the song. The hypothesis that the fragment comes from a παιδικὸς ὕμνος is very plausible as it depends on the borrowing of Alcaeus’ first verse in a Theocritus paederastic Idyll. However, the form of Alcaeus’ verse might have been adapted by Theocritus to serve his own story. After this long digression let us return to Νηρεύς, our primary subject. It is commonly believed that the contraction νεαρός > νηρός is much later than Hesiod. νε͜αρός in synecphonesis is not uncommon in poetry (e.g., Pind. Pyth. 10.25), but in clear-cut contraction it is not transmitted before the 3rd century BCE, PCair. Zen. 8 K. Tsantsanoglou, The λεπτότης of Aratus, Trends in Classics 1 (2009) 55–89, esp. 62–67. 9 Such a construction, where the singular number of the copula is determined by the neuter plural of the predicate, may have led to the misconception that the Aeolic form of ἀλήθεια is ἀλάθεα.

12 

 K. Tsantsanoglou

616.7, 11 (ὧν) νηρὸς (εἷς), in the sense ‘fresh’, i.e. unsalted, of fish. Contemporary is the use of ἡμίνηρος, ‘half-fresh’, i.e., ‘half-salted’, of fish again, by the phlyacographer Sopater of Paphos (fr. 11 K.-A., PCG I 281) and the physician Diphilus of Siphnos, Ath. 3.121b, both of the 3rd cent. BCΕ. The best known occurrence is the 2nd century CE Phrynichus Att. instruction, 27 F. νηρὸν ὕδωρ μηδαμῶς (vel μὴ εἴπῃς), ἀλλὰ πρόσφατον, ἀκραιφνές, apparently used of drinking water in contrast to stagnant water. The Atticist instruction became famous, because it indicated the precursor of the Modern Greek νερό, ‘water’. Hesiod employs the uncontracted νεαρός in the sense ‘new, fresh’, fr. 357.2 M.-W., ἐν νεαροῖς ὕμνοις ῥάψαντες ἀοιδήν. Homer uses it in the sense ‘young’, Il. 2.289, παῖδες νεαροὶ χῆραί τε γυναῖκες. However, the contraction of ε + α = η is quite old and is widespread over many dialects; Buck § 42.1, 2; Schwyzer Gr. Gr. I 250: e.g., neut. pl. ending -εᾰ ~ -η (ἔτεα ~ ἔτη, ἡμίσεα ~ ἡμίση), masc. acc. sing. σ-stem -εα ~ -η (Πολυδεύκεα ~ Πολυδεύκη), masc. and fem. acc. sing. and neut. nom. and acc. pl. of σ-stem adjectives (ἀληθέα ~ ἀληθῆ), pluperf. ending -εα ~ -η (ἐνενοήκεα ~ ἐνενοήκη), ϝέαρ ~ ϝῆρ Alcm. 20.3, δέλεαρ ~ βλῆρ Alcm. 167, dat. δελέατι ~ δέλητι Hsch., ἔαρος ~ ἦρος common, κέαρ ~ κῆρ Hom. (“κέαρ is perh. a later formation on the analogy of ἔαρ: ἦρ” LSJ s.v.), κτέανον ~ κτῆμα, κτῆνος, νεάτη ~ νήτη common; also -εᾱ ~ η, e.g., ἐα�ν ~ ἤν common in Homer, νεᾱ̃νις or νεῆνις ~ νῆνις Anacr. 14.3, etc. Consequently, the question is not whether the contracted νηρός is attested later than Hesiod or not, much less whether the etymology of Νηρεύς implied by Hesiod is linguistically correct or not, but whether the listener in Hesiod’s time would perceive the intended etymology of the poet or not. And I do not see why not, given the spread of the particular contraction. We are accustomed to face the uncontracted and the contracted forms as two grammatically and lexically distinct entries, one old and one new, though they often represent no more than the usual in everyday speech slurring of two contiguous vowels. I do not doubt the habit of personal authors to prefer an open spelling to a contracted one or reversely, but, granted that the habit does not reflect the preferences of their Alexandrian editors, it does not mean much for the history and the evolution of the words. Naturally, often in poetry, one of the two options is required for prosodical reasons. Obviously, I have attempted to explain the Hesiodean etymology of Νηρεύς at Th. 233–236, not the name’s linguistic derivation. The usual explanation renders the name as ‘the Wet one’, from the adj. νηρός, supposedly meaning ‘wet’. This etymology goes back to the ancient grammarians, e.g., Sch. Il. 18.38 τοῦ ποιητοῦ (sc. Ἡσιόδου) παρὰ τὸ νεῖν τὴν λέξιν (sc. Νηρεύς) ποιησαμένου, ὅθεν καὶ νῆσος καὶ ναρὸν τὸ ῥευστικόν. Eustathius Il. 1.137 van der Valk, adds more cognate words: νῆσσα, νήχω, ναῦς. However, modern linguists question the association



Νηρεύς, A Controversial Water-god 

 13

of Νηρεύς with both ναρός and νηρός, as well as the relationship between the two adjectives. “Von νηρός ist νᾱρός ‘quellend, strömend’ zu trennen” notes Frisk s.v. νηρός. There is no doubt that νᾱρός comes from *νᾰϝερός (