HISTORY OF CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP F R O M T O
T
T H
H E E
E
B E G I N N I N G N
D
O
H E L L E N I S T I C
F A
T
H
G
E
R. PFEIFFER OXFORD
E
THIS volume is concerned with the foundations laid by Greek poets and scholars in the last three centuries RC. for the whole future of classical scholarship. It starts with a brief survey Of the pre-Hellenistic ages in Greece and a few hints ai the oriental background. T h e n the author makes full use of the available evidence, especially thai of the papyri, to demonstrate the fresh start m a d e by Hellenistic poets after 300 BC and to describe the essential achievements of five generations of creative scholars in Alexandria and of their cpigoni down to the age of Augustus. R u d o l f Pfeiffer (1889 1979) was Professor of Greek at H a m b u r g (1923) and Freiburg (1928) Universities, then Fellow of C o r p u s Christi College, Oxford from 1938 to 1951. Other publications include a complete edition of Callimachus.
O X F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS
1
.r. ."l
HISTORY CLASSICAL
OF
SCHOLARSHIP
H I S T O R Y
O F
CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP FROM T H E BEGINNINGS
TO
THE END OF THE HELLENISTIC
RUDOLF
AGE
PFEIFFER
O X F O R D A T
T H E C L A R E N D O N
PRESS
Oxford
University
Press,
Great
Clarendon
Oxford Athens Buenos
Auckland Aires
Delhi Kuala
Lumpur
Mexico
City
Taipei
All
rights
reserved.
without Within
the prior
the
purpose under
UK,
exceptions
issued
by the
sent
Designs
of Oxford
or review,
countries University
in Publication
0-10-814342-7
1 3 5 7 9
10
8 6 4 2
in Great
on acid-free Bookcraft Midsomer
Britain
paper {Bath)
dealing as
of the
by Ltd.,
Norton
for
Press,
Data
the
permitted of
licences
concerning should
above
available
means, Press.
or in the case
terms
Enquiries
in other
Oxford
Data
Printed
10S8, the
Agency.
Cataloguing
ISBN
Act, with
and
Department,
Library
University
of any fair
at the address British
reproduced,
or by any
in respect Patents
terms
be
or criticism
Licensing these
to the Rights
and
may
igo8
in any form
in accordance
Copyright outside
Ltd.,
of this publication
study,
York
IQ68
Books
in writing
VXORI CARISSIMAE SACRVM
Press
by
New
Press
or transmitted, are allowed
reproduction
reproduction
part
or private
Copyright,
reprographic
States
Inc.,
Sandpiper
permission
of research the
No system,
in
University
United Press
University for
Salaam Karachi
Warsaw
of Oxford
in the
es
Melbourne
Toronto
University
6DP
Singapore
Ibadan
edition
in a retrieval
Paris
Berlin
© Oxford
stored
Madrid
Nairobi
companies
Published
Special
Madras
mark
0X2
Bombay
Dar
Istanbul
associated
is a trade,
Oxford
Town
Kong
Tokyo
and
Oxford
Bogota
Cape
Hong
Street,
York
Bangkok
-Calcutta
Florence
Oxford
New
be
PREFACE A N enterprise like this
History
t h o u g h a d v e n t u r o u s a n d l e n g t h y needs
o n l y a b r i e f a n d m o d e s t p r o l o g u e . F o r t h e u n d e r t a k i n g as a w h o l e m u s t justify itself w i t h o u t i n t r o d u c t o r y recommendations and preparatory a r g u m e n t s ; apologies f o r i t s deficiencies w o u l d h a v e n o e n d . N o b o d y w i l l d e n y t o s c h o l a r s h i p , w h e t h e r i n its h i g h e s t o r i n its h u m blest f o r m , its o w n r i g h t , a n d as l o n g as o n e carries o n t h e d a i l y w o r k o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , o f t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m , o f historical reconstruction one m a y expect a p p r o v a l ; b u t to t u r n f r o m t h a t a c t i v i t y to reflection u p o n t h e p a s t o f s c h o l a r s h i p a n d u p o n t h e scholars o f b y g o n e d a y s m a y be d e e m e d i n o p p o r t u n e a n d unnecessary. Y e t , i f s u c h s c e p t i c i s m is b y a n y means t o be c o n v e r t e d , i t w i l l s u r e l y be b y c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h t h e v e r y facts o f h i s t o r y ; a n d t o m a k e t h e i m p o r t a n t facts v i s i b l e i n t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e is precisely o u r p u r p o s e . F o r i t was i n t h e course o f t i m e a n d t h e succession o f peoples a n d g e n e r a t i o n s t h a t t h e f u l l n a t u r e a n d t h e m a n y f o r m s o f s c h o l a r s h i p w e r e r e v e a l e d . T h e h i s t o r y o f classical s c h o l a r s h i p , t h e r e f o r e , is classical s c h o l a r s h i p i n t h e m a k i n g . A n d a b o o k r e c o n s t r u c t i n g its h i s t o r y u n d e r t h i s aspect c a n c l a i m t o be r e g a r d e d as a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f s c h o l a r s h i p itself. W e say ' i m p o r t a n t facts', because i t is o b v i o u s t h a t w e d o n o t w a n t t o k n o w w h a t is obsolete a n d past f o r ever, b u t w h a t is s t i l l e n d u r i n g ; w e w a n t t o e x p l o r e t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f knowledge, the
philologia perennis.
T h i s c o n t i n u i t y was m a i n t a i n e d n o t o n l y b y t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l p o w e r o f g r e a t scholars, b u t e q u a l l y b y t h e i r m o r a l p r i n c i p l e s o f a b s o l u t e h o n e s t y a n d u n r e m i t t i n g p a t i e n c e i n t h e p u r s u i t o f t r u t h . I n deference t o these p r i n c i p l e s I h a v e m a d e i t m y task t o c o l l e c t a n d i n t e r p r e t as f a r as possible a l l t h e p r i m a r y e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l sources; t h e m o s t r e l e v a n t passages w i l l be f o u n d i n t h e t e x t , n o t i n t h e notes. F o r t h a t a n d o t h e r reasons t h i s is h a r d l y a bedside b o o k a b o u t t h e lives a n d w o r k s o f scholars,
e n l i v e n e d w i t h anecdotes a n d j o k e s . B i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a ,
t h o u g h b y n o m e a n s d i s r e g a r d e d , are c o n f i n e d w i t h i n p r o p e r l i m i t s . I h a v e i n e v i t a b l y b e e n a b l e t o g i v e o n l y a s m a l l selection o f m o d e r n s e c o n d a r y l i t e r a t u r e , a n d I m a y o f t e n h a v e b e e n a t f a u l t i n selecting the w r o n g references; b u t I a m n o t q u i t e i g n o r a n t o f a l l t h e books w h i c h I h a v e n o t q u o t e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , I h a v e n o t a t t e m p t e d i n e v e r y case t o p i c t u r e w h a t dons c a l l t h e ' b a c k g r o u n d * , b u t o n l y w h e n t h e g e n e r a l
viii
Preface
Preface
ix
ideas a n d events o f t h e t i m e exercised a s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e o n scholars o r
w h o w a s a classical scholar, a p r o f o u n d p h i l o s o p h e r , a n d a f a r - s i g h t e d
even c h a n g e d t h e course o f s c h o l a r s h i p .
h i s t o r i a n as w e l l , g a v e a v e r y n o b l e sketch i n a f e w pages o f his En-
A history o f scholarship should d r a w a t t e n t i o n t o w h a t was n e w a n d
tyklopadie und Methodologie derphilologiscken Wissenschaften ( p u b l i s h e d a f t e r
f r u i t f u l , d i s t i n g u i s h e r r o r f r o m t r u t h , a n d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e passing
his d e a t h , second e d i t i o n 1886, p p . 3 0 0 - 9 ) . A q u i t e i n d i v i d u a l a n d b r i l -
d a y f r o m t h a t t r u e k n o w l e d g e w h i c h lasts f o r ever, t h a t is, as w e s a i d ,
l i a n t s u r v e y w a s c o n t r i b u t e d b y W i l a m o w i t z i n 1921 t o t h e
' p e r e n n i a l ' . B u t t h e d e a r t h o f p r e p a r a t o r y studies o f single p r o b l e m s ,
Einleitung in die Altertumswissensckqft, 'Geschichte d e r P h i l o l o g i e * ( t h i r d e d i t i o n 1927,
based o n f u l l d o c u m e n t a r y evidence, is a n obstacle t o t h e a c h i e v e m e n t
r e p r i n t e d i 9 6 0 ) ; i t is a v e r y subjective r e v i e w o f classical scholars m a d e
o f s u c h a n a m b i t i o u s g o a l . I s h a l l s o u n d a w a r n i n g w h e n e v e r I feel
b y a g r e a t m a s t e r w h o calls u p t h e d e a d heroes o f t h e past f r o m t h e
c o m p l e t e l y i n c o m p e t e n t ; a n d as I used t h e e p i t h e t A d v e n t u r o u s ' i n t h e
o t h e r w o r l d a n d praises o r b l a m e s t h e m . W i l a m o w i t z a c k n o w l e d g e d a
first sentence o f t h i s preface, I sincerely h o p e t h e b o o k w i l l b e u n d e r -
d e b t t o t h e lectures o f O t t o J a h n ; b u t h e seems t o h a v e w r i t t e n a g o o d
stood a n d a c c e p t e d i n t h i s l i g h t .
d e a l o f his
T h e r e h a v e , o f course, b e e n e a r l i e r a t t e m p t s i n t h i s field since t h e days o f H e n r i E t i e n n e w h o w r o t e i n 1587 De
criticis veteribus Graecis et
History f r o m m e m o r y , a s t u p e n d o u s b u t n o t u n f a i l i n g m e m o r y .
So s t i l l m o r e w e i g h t s h o u l d b e g i v e n t o t h e sections d e v o t e d t o a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n scholars i n h i s m a n y books o n G r e e k a u t h o r s t h a n t o t h i s
Latinis. B u t o n l y one r e a l l y c o m p r e h e n s i v e b o o k exists: J . E . S a n d y s , A History of Classical Scholarship, i n t h r e e v o l u m e s o f 1,629 pages. A d -
b r i e f g e n e r a l a c c o u n t o f e i g h t y pages.
m i r a t i o n is m i x e d w i t h e n v y w h e n o n e l e a r n s f r o m Sandys's b i o g r a p h e r
N i e t z s c h e , R i t s c h F s f a v o u r i t e p u p i l , i n t h i s c o n n e x i o n ; a t t h e age o f
1
I
c a n n o t refrain—pace
Wilamowitz—from mentioning Friedrich
History o n 1 J a n u a r y 1900, h a d t h e first
t w e n t y - f o u r h e seriously c o n s i d e r e d w r i t i n g ' E i n e G e s c h i c h t e d e r l i t e r a ¬
v o l u m e p u b l i s h e d b y t h e C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press i n 1903 (second
r i s c h e n S t u d i e n i m A l t e r t u m u n d i n d e r N e u z e i t ' . H e w a n t e d t o find
e d i t i o n 1906, t h i r d e d i t i o n 1921) a n d t h e second a n d t h i r d v o l u m e s i n
o u t t h e g e n e r a l ideas t h a t h a d i n f l u e n c e d t h e s t u d y o f a n t i q u i t y a n d t o
1 9 0 8 ; t h e t h r e e v o l u m e s w e r e r e p r i n t e d i n B o s t o n i n 1958. E v e n t h o u g h
d e m o n s t r a t e t h e l i n k s b e t w e e n classical s c h o l a r s h i p a n d t h e d o m i n a n t
that h e started t o write t h e
o u t o f d a t e i n m a n y respects, t h i s s t a n d a r d w o r k w i l l a l w a y s r e m a i n a n
p h i l o s o p h y o f e v e r y age. T h e r e a r e some r e m a r k a b l e notes o n t h i s s u b -
i n d i s p e n s a b l e reference b o o k , a n d n o subsequent w r i t e r o n t h e same sub-
ject
j e c t c a n f a i l t o b e g r a t e f u l f o r t h e r a n g e a n d t h o r o u g h n e s s o f its m a t e r i a l .
he d i d n o t w o r k i t o u t , b u t m a d e his w a y t o w a r d s h i s o w n f a t a l p h i l o -
B u t , as a w h o l e , Sandys's w o r k is r a t h e r a c a t a l o g u e o f classical scholars,
sophy. A b o u t t h e same t i m e a n E n g l i s h classical s c h o l a r w h o h a d h i s
century b y century, nation b y nation, a n d book b y book t h a n a real
o w n ideas a b o u t s c h o l a r s h i p a n d t h e f u n c t i o n s o f a u n i v e r s i t y , M a r k
1
i n h i s letters a n d p a p e r s b e t w e e n 1867 a n d 1 8 7 1 , b u t , o f course,
h i s t o r y o f s c h o l a r s h i p i t s e l f ; t h e r e is n o l e a d i n g i d e a , n o c o h e r e n t s t r u c -
Pattison, conceived the p l a n o f w r i t i n g the history o f l e a r n i n g f r o m t h e
t u r e , n o sober d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t r a n s i e n t a n d t h e p e r e n n i a l .
Renaissance o n w a r d s .
G . F u n a i o l i , ' L i n e a m e n t i d ' u n a s t o r i a d e l l a filología a t t r a v e r s o i s e c o l i ' ,
i n spite o f his w e l l - k n o w n r e l i g i o u s b i a s , these f r a g m e n t s , especially o n
is m u c h m o r e compressed
2
Short History, b u t t h e Outlines
e v e n t h a n Sandys's
2
I n the end he completed only fragments; but,
t h e g r e a t F r e n c h scholars o f t h e s i x t e e n t h a n d s e v e n t e e n t h
centuries,
m a t e r i a l is p r e s e n t e d i n a l i v e l y p e r s o n a l style. A . G u d e m a n ' s
are e x e m p l a r y , because h i s studies i n d e t a i l a r e a l w a y s i n f o r m e d b y
of the History of Classical Scholarship (last e d i t i o n B o s t o n 1 9 0 2 ) , m u c h e n l a r g e d i n t h e G e r m a n e d i t i o n Grundriss der Geschichte der klassischen Philologie (1909 2 n d e d i t i o n ) is o n l y b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l ; b r o u g h t u p t o d a t e a n d
a n awareness o f t h e h i s t o r y o f s c h o l a r s h i p as a w h o l e . I n o u r o w n days
p r u n e d o f its i n a c c u r a c i e s , i t c o u l d b e a useful t o o l f o r f u r t h e r research.
his emphasis is, o f course, o n t h e s t u d y o f a n c i e n t h i s t o r y a n d m o s t o f
Besides these f a c t u a l surveys t h e r e a r e a f e w sketches b y g r e a t scholars
his c o n t r i b u t i o n s d e a l w i t h scholars a n d w r i t i n g s o f m o d e r n t i m e s , t h e
w h i c h are strong j u s t where w e f o u n d Sandys w a n t i n g : they g e n e r a l ideas, a r e d i s c r i m i n a t i n g , suggestive,
convey
stimulating. A . Bôckh,
N. G. L. Hammond, Sir John E. Sandys (1844.-1922) Cambridge 1935, pp. 8 0 ff. Sandys compressed the subject-matter of his monumental work into one volume for the classical student and the general reader in his Short History of Classical Scholarskip 1915.
n o o n e has d e v o t e d a n d is d e v o t i n g m o r e t h o u g h t a n d l a b o u r t o h i s t o r i c a l p r o b l e m s o f classical studies t h a n A r n a l d o M o m i g l i a n o . T h o u g h
u n i v e r s a l r a n g e o f t h e a u t h o r ' s ideas a n d k n o w l e d g e j u s t i f i e s t h e t i t l e o f his c o l l e c t e d essays:
1
t
2
Studi di Letteratura
antica I (1948) 1 8 5 - 3 6 4 .
3
Contributo alia storia degli studi classici.
1 F.Nietzsche, Werke und Brief'e, Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe; Werke ( * 9 3 5 ) 3 1 9ff.)4 4 0 with references to manuscripts and earlier editions. Memoirs (i 8 8 5 ) 3 1 9ff.Essays (1889) on the Stephani, Scaliger, etc. 3 1 0955)) 1 1 ( I 9^°) i s c e raP-11 4 6 3 - 8 0 'L'eredita dellafilologiaantica e
3
r
(1934)
pp.cxxf.,
1
il metodo storico'
x
Preface
xi
Preface
T h i s is a p e r s o n a l selection o f b o o k s w h i c h I h a v e f o u n d n o t o n l y i n s t r u c t i v e , b u t i n s p i r i n g ; l e c t u r e s , speeches, a n d p a p e r s are e x c l u d e d .
references.
T h e Bayerische
Akademie
d e r Wissenschaften
and the
British A c a d e m y were k i n d enough to vote me a n n u a l grants towards
T h e p r e s e n t v o l u m e is c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e f o u n d a t i o n s l a i d b y G r e e k
t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e expenses a r i s i n g f r o m t h i s p e r m a n e n t assistance. T h r e e
poets a n d scholars i n t h e last t h r e e c e n t u r i e s B.C. f o r t h e w h o l e f u t u r e o f
M u n i c h l i b r a r i e s , t h e B a v a r i a n State L i b r a r y , t h e U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y ,
classical s c h o l a r s h i p . I t starts w i t h a b r i e f s u r v e y o f t h e p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c
a n d t h e L i b r a r y o f t h e S e m i n a r f u r klassische P h i l o l o g i e , as w e l l as t h e
ages i n Greece a n d a f e w h i n t s a t t h e o r i e n t a l b a c k g r o u n d . B u t t h e n
B o d l e i a n L i b r a r y d u r i n g m y a n n u a l visits t o O x f o r d , w e r e l i b e r a l i n
f u l l use is m a d e o f t h e a v a i l a b l e e v i d e n c e , especially t h a t o f t h e p a p y r i ,
g r a n t i n g m e e v e r y f a c i l i t y . I t is i m p o s s i b l e t o m e n t i o n b y n a m e t h e m a n y
t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e fresh s t a r t m a d e b y H e l l e n i s t i c poets after 3 0 0 B.C.
O x f o r d a n d M u n i c h f r i e n d s f r o m whose
a n d t o d e s c r i b e t h e essential a c h i e v e m e n t s o f five g e n e r a t i o n s o f c r e a t i v e
t h r o u g h a l l these y e a r s ; b u t t h e r e is o n e t o w h o m I o w e m o r e t h a n
discussions I h a v e
profited
scholars i n A l e x a n d r i a a n d o f t h e i r e p i g o n i d o w n t o t h e age o f A u g u s t u s .
c a n be expressed b y w o r d s , E d u a r d F r a e n k e l . E v e r y o n e w h o is f a m i l i a r
B y t h e s i n g u l a r c o u r t e s y o f M r . P. M . F r a s e r I w a s a l l o w e d t o r e a d
w i t h h i s b o o k s a n d reviews k n o w s h o w i n t i m a t e l y he is a c q u a i n t e d w i t h
parts o f his f o r t h c o m i n g comprehensive w o r k o n
Ptolemaic Alexandria i n
t y p e s c r i p t ; I t h a n k h i m m o s t w a r m l y f o r t h i s p r i v i l e g e w h i c h has saved m e f r o m a variety o f errors.
t h e s c h o l a r l y t r a d i t i o n ; generous w i t h a d v i c e w h e n e v e r asked f o r i t , h e was also a c o n s t a n t d r i v i n g f o r c e b e h i n d t h e scenes. T h e d r a f t o f e v e r y c h a p t e r was r e a d b y M r . J . K . C o r d y o f t h e C l a r e n -
T h e A l e x a n d r i a n s c h o l a r poets a r e o u r ancestors, a n d w e s h o u l d a t
d o n Press. W i t h u n f a i l i n g p a t i e n c e a n d c o u r t e s y h e s m o o t h e d o u t o r ,
least t r y n o t t o b e u n w o r t h y o f t h i s n o b l e a n c e s t r y . ' T h e h i s t o r i a n m u s t
m o r e o f t e n , r e s h a p e d m y E n g l i s h ; f o r t h i s c o m p e t e n t a n d generous h e l p
become o l d i n order t o develop his a r t t o the f u l l
is o n e o f R a n k e ' s
he deserves t h e p r o f o u n d g r a t i t u d e o f t h e a u t h o r a n d o f t h e r e a d e r . I a m
m a x i m s ; t h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e o f t h e h i s t o r i a n o f s c h o l a r s h i p . O n l y
i n d e b t e d t o t h e s k i l l a n d v i g i l a n c e o f t h e P r i n t e r s , especially o f t h e
o n e w h o has p r a c t i s e d s c h o l a r s h i p a l l h i s life s h o u l d d a r e t o w r i t e a b o u t
Reader, a n d i n the r e a d i n g o f the proofs I enjoyed the h e l p o f a n ex-
its h i s t o r y . A s soon as t h e second v o l u m e o f G a l l i m a c h u s was p u b l i s h e d
p e r i e n c e d s c h o l a r , m y c o l l e a g u e Professor M a x T r e u , a n d , d u r i n g his
i n 1953 b y t h e C l a r e n d o n Press, I s u b m i t t e d t o t h e Delegates a p r o p o s a l
absence i n Greece, o f m y p u p i l D r . R u d o l f F i i h r e r . I s t a r t e d t h i s sec-
for a History of Classical Scholarship.
tion
5
*De n o n i n t e r r u m p e n d o p e r a e t a t e m s t u d i o ' is t h e subject o f o n e o f
o f t h e preface w i t h m y t h a n k s t o t h e Delegates o f t h e C l a r e n d o n
Press; I
finish
i t w i t h m y p a r t i c u l a r thanks t o t h e Secretary
to the
P e t r a r c h ' s latest a n d m o s t s y m p a t h e t i c ' L e t t e r e s e n i l i ' . B o c c a c c i o w a s
Delegates, M r . C . H . R o b e r t s , f o r h i s e n c o u r a g i n g i n t e r e s t a n d persistent
w o r r i e d a b o u t Petrarch's c o n t i n u o u s l y w o r k i n g too m u c h for his age;
support.
1
b u t his o l d f r i e n d a n d m a s t e r r e p l i e d t h a t t h e r e is n o reason t o a b a n d o n
M y first p u b l i c a t i o n i n 1914 bears t h e d e d i c a t i o n ' U x o r i c a r i s s i m a e
s t u d y because o f o l d age, a n d r e m i n d e d h i m o f t h e s a y i n g o f Ecclesi-
s a c r u m ' . I renew the words o f the d e d i c a t i o n w i t h still deeper feeling
asticus 18. 6 : ' C u m c o n s u m m a v e r i t h o m o t u n c i n c i p i e t . ' I h a v e a t least
for a l l t h a t she has d o n e f o r m e i n t h e course o f m o r e t h a n h a l f a c e n t u r y .
a t t e m p t e d t o take this advice a n d shall always be deeply grateful t h a t the Delegates i m m e d i a t e l y a n d graciously responded to m y appeal. B u t I advanced o n l y 'testudíneo g r a d u ' , u n t i l I c o u l d retire t o w o r k i n a sort o f
clausura
a n d o b t a i n e d t h e necessary s e c r e t a r i a l h e l p . I w a s v e r y
f o r t u n a t e t o find t h e assistance o f a y o u n g classical s c h o l a r , M r . S, E . A r n o l d , w h o is n o w , w h i l e p r e p a r i n g his d o c t o r a t e , i n t h e service o f t h e B a v a r i a n State L i b r a r y ; i n d e f a t i g a b l e a n d efficient, h e h e l p e d m e i n m a n y w a y s : a r r a n g i n g t h e vast a m o u n t o f m a t e r i a l c o l l e c t e d t h r o u g h decades, m a k i n g a c a r e f u l t y p e s c r i p t , a n d c h e c k i n g t h e i n n u m e r a b l e (with bibliography). A third volume of the Contribute and the publication of the Sather of 1961 are in prospect. Rer. sen. libr. xvit 2 ; reprinted in Petrarca 'Prose', La Letteratura Italiana, Storia
Classical
Lectures 1
(1955) * 156.
e Tesii
7
CONTENTS PART ONE PREHISTORY OF GREEK I.
SCHOLARSHIP
POETS, RHAPSODES, PHILOSOPHERS F R O M T H E EIGHTH TO THE FIFTH CENTURIES Scholarship not a separate discipline before the third century B.C. Survey of preliminary stages. The epic poet as his own interpreter. The attempt of the rhapsodes at continuing this self-interpretation. Xenophanes, rhapsode and philosopher, and the beginning of moral criticism. Theagenes the defender of Homer by physical allegory. No grammatical system of'cases* behind the artistry of lyric poets in the seventh and sixth centuries. Poets as interpreters in the early Attic comedy.
II. T H E SOPHISTS, T H E I R C O N T E M P O R A R I E S , AND PUPILS IN T H E F I F T H AND F O U R T H C E N T U R I E S Intermediary position of the Sophists: heirs of the rhapsodes, teachers of the future generations. The Sophists and the book. Short retrospect on the oriental background: archives and libraries in Mesopotamia from the third millennium onwards. Technical devices for writing from the East to Greece. The earliest Minoan-Mycenaean script. The Phoenician script. The new Greek alphabet. From oral composition and tradition to the written word and the reader of books. The part of the Sophists in this process, and the Socratic-Pl atonic opposition. Individual achievements of the Sophists and their contemporaries: Protagoras, Prodicus; Democritus* Movaitcd, and Herodotus on literature and language; Gorgias, Hippias, Critias. III. T H E MASTERS O F PHILOSOPHY IN ATHENS: SOCRATES, PLATO, A R I S T O T L E A conscious new method opposed to the empirical approach of the Sophists. Plato's sceptical attitude to poetry itself, and to the efforts of interpretation and literary criticism. Problems of language the central theme of the Cratylus. Study of language not hrurT^^q. Plato and the Academy. First large private library. Aristotle not the 'creator* of classical scholarship. Teleology as central idea, prior to empirical research. Aristotle neither editor nor interpreter. The rational order in literary art; permanent control of philosophical concepts by the analysis of reality. Some new fundamental linguistic terms; no separate branch of grammar. Antiquarian research in the grand manner with the assistance of pupils.
XIV
Contents
Contents
PART TWO THE HELLENISTIC AGE I.
T H E RISE OF SCHOLARSHIP IN ALEXANDRIA
87
Aristotle belonged to the world of the Greek city-state with its cultural unity; its disintegration, the split-up of Alexander's empire, and the establishment of new monarchies. A new generation of poets conscious of a definitive break, making a fresh start. From the revival of poetry to the preservation of the ancient literary heritage. Philitas' historical position : the first scholar poet of artistic perfection, tutor to Ptolemy I I , teacher of Zenodotus, the grammarian. Alexandria the cultural centre; meeting-place of the new poetical movement with the Peripatetic tradition from Athens. The organizations in the new capital: the Ptolemies and their helpers; the Museum and the Libraries. The 'bookish' age and its problems. II.
ZENODOTUS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES
105
123
Cyrene and Egypt. The complete unity of creative poet and reflective scholar in Callimachus. His insistence on drawing from the original pure sources. The general TIivaKeç of the great library the model for all ages. The TToXviiaQir) of his prose books on antiquities, on language, and on anuVAristotelian literary criticism. Elements of interpretation in his poems and learned writings. Apollonius Rhodius, the poet of the Argonautiea, in his relation to Callimachus; as a scholar he provided the first example of Hellenistic /7ep£-literature, foreshadowing later commentaries. Rhianus* local epics and critical editions of Homer. Separation of scholarship from poetry in the second half of the third century : the poetical mannerism of Euphorion and the learned compilations of the Callimacheans, Hermippus, Istros, Philostephanus, and of the Peripatetic Satyrus.
ALEXANDRIAN SCHOLARSHIP AT ITS HEIGHT: ARISTOPHANES OF BYZANTIUM Aristophanes neither poet nor scientist. Critical text of Homer and Hesiod with critical signs, punctuation, accentuation. Edition of the lyric poets;
VII. PERGAMUM. SCHOLARSHIP AND PHILOSOPHY. A NEW ANTIQUARIANISM The Attalids and the cultural life of Pergamum; library, parchment. Crates of Mallos, Stoic allegorist and cosmologist; two monographs on Homer; opposition to Aristarchus. The definite place of linguistic studies in the system of Stoic philosophy; grammatical rules and terms strictly fixed. Crates' mission to Rome in 168 B.C. Writers on antiquities: Antigonus of Carystus, Polemo of Ilium, called aTT)\oKoira$, Demetrius of Scepsis.
*34
VIII. T H E EPIGONI: FROM ARISTARCHUS' PUPILS TO DIDYMUS 252 Dissemination and renewal of scholarship in the whole Greek world after the Alexandrian crisis of 145/4 - - Apollodorus of Athens: Chronicle in iambic verse, new system of dating; monograph on the Homeric Catalogue of Ships a description of heroic Greece with explication of local names; books 'On Gods' a study of Homeric religion with analysis of proper names; minor works on Attic and Doric comedy and on mimes. Dionysius Thrax, teacher at Rhodes; influence on Rome. Interpretation of Homer, other commentaries and treatises. The problem of the TVjfWJ ypaftfiartK-q under his name: its authenticity and its arrangement in the Byzantine manuscripts. Technical grammar the latest achievement of Hellenistic scholarship. Tyrannion of Amisos, Asclepiades of Myrlea, Philoxenus of Alexandria; their grammatical writings, their relations to Rome. Didymus of Alexandria compiler of commentaries on Greek poets, historians, and orators and of comic and tragic lexica; moved by love of learning to preserve the scholarly heritage of the Hellenistic age. B
IV. S C I E N C E A N D S C H O L A R S H I P : E R A T O S T H E N E S 152 The first union of science and scholarship in Eratosthenes; his friendship with Archimedes. i\o\oyos the new term for his universality. Treatise on Attic comedy; critical chronology; mathematical geography; Homeric geography; catalogue of constellations. Poetry a parergon. V.
colometry and strophic structure. Hypotheses to his text of tragedies and comedies. Great lexicographical studies, based on his own editions, and formal grammatical inquiries, ancillary to his editorial work. Selective list of the foremost authors. VI. ARISTARCHUS: T H E A R T OF I N T E R P R E T A T I O N 210 Callistratus and otherftpioTotfxxvtuH.Aristarchus, the Ptolemies, the great crisis of 145/4 B.C. Running commentaries and monographs on Greek poetry from Homer to Aristophanes, also critical editions of the Homeric and Other poems; critical signs the link between text and commentary. The first commentary on prose writers, Herodotus and possibly Thucydides. No authentic maxim of Aristarchus on the principle of interpretation. General grammatical and metrical observations in the course of the exegetical work. Literary criticism.
Zenodotus the first Homeric scholar and librarian; the poets Lycophron and Alexander Aetolus as revisers of the comic and tragic texts. Zenodotus' text of Homer usually based on documentary evidence; the first critical symbol; no authentic tradition about the reasons for his alterations and omissions. Editions of Hesiod and of lyric poets. Glossary, but no commentary. The tragic Pleiad. Lycophron's Alexandra. Aratus, the poet of the Phaenomena, as Homeric scholar. III. C A L L I M A C H U S AND T H E G E N E R A T I O N O F H I S PUPILS
xv
c
EXCURSUSES
280
ADDENDA
287
171 INDEXES
291
ABBREVIATIONS AG
Anecdota
AGGW
Abhandlungen
(Bachmann, Bekker, Boissonade).
Graeca
der Göttinger
Gesellschaft
American
Journal
of
Archaeology.
AJP
American
Journal
of
Philology.
AUG)
Anthologia
APF
Archiv
Harwick,
Stoische
Sprachlehre
Lyrica
für
der
Wissenschaften.
ed. E . Diehl,
[Graeca),
1 9 2 5 ff.
Papyrusforschung.
K . Barwick, 'Probleme der stoischen Sprachlehre und Rhetorik', Abh. d. Säcks. Akad. d. Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil-hist.
Kl.
BCH
Bulletin
Bursian
Bursians
49. 3 (1957).
de Correspondance
Hellénique.
Jahresbericht
über die Fortschritte
der klass.
Altertums-
wissenschaft.
Callimachus I , I I , ed. R, Pfeiffer, 1 9 4 9 - 5 3 (repr. 1 9 6 5 / 6 ) . Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta I , ed. G . Kaibel, 1 8 9 g .
Call. GGF CL
Phil.
Ct.
Qu.
Classical
Philology.
Classical
Quarterly.
CUR.
Classical
CMG
Corpus
Review.
DLZ
Deutsche
DMG
Deutsche
Düring, 'Aristotle'
I. During, 'Aristotle in the ancient biographical tradition',
medicorum
Studio
Graecorum.
Literaturzeitung. Morgenländische Graeca
Gesellschaft.
et Latina
Fragmente
Gothoburgensia
FGrHist.
Die
der griechischen
FHG
Fragmenta
GGA
Göttingische
GGM
Geographi
GGN
Nachrichten
der Gesellschaft
GL
Grammatici
Latini,
GRF
Grammaticae
Historicorum
(1957).
von F . Jacoby, ed. C . Müller, 1841
Graecorum,
Gelehrte Graeci
v
Historiker,
1 9 2 3 ff. ff.
Anzeigen.
minores,
ed. C . Müller,
ed. H . Keil,
Romanae
1 8 5 5 ff.
der Wissenschaften
Fragmenta,
zu
Göttingen.
1 8 5 5 ff.
rec. H . Funaioli, I
(1907,
repr.
and
Rome,
1964). Gr.
Grammatici
Gr.
Journal
JUS
Kenyon,
Books
and
F. G . Kenyon, 2 n d ed.
Readers
Graeci,
1878-1910
of Hellenic
(repr.
1965).
Studies. Books
and Readers
in ancient
H . G . Liddell and R. Scott, Greek-English by H . Stuart Jones, 1 9 2 5 - 4 0 . H . - I . Marrou, A History of Education,
L-S Marrou
Greece
(1951). Lexicon.
New edition
translated by G . R.
Lamb ( 1 9 5 6 ) . Neue
NJb.
Pack
2
Pasquali,
Storia
Jahrbücher
für
das klass.
Altertum.
R. A. Pack, The Greek and Latin literary texts from Egypt, second revised and enlarged edition 1 9 6 5 . G . Pasquali, Storia delta tradizione e critica del testo I952)-
PLG*
Poetae
Lyrici
PMG
Poetae
Melici
P.Oxy.
Oxyrhynchus
Graeci, Graeci, Papyri.
quartum ed. T h . Bergk, ed. D . L . Page, 1 9 6 2 .
1882.
Greco-Roman (1934,
repr.
Abbreviations
XV111 PRIMI
Papiri
delta
R. Universüá
vol. I , ed. A. Vogliano,
di Milano,
1937.
PSI
Papiri
RE
delta
Societá
Italiana.
Real-Enzyklopädie
Paulys
der klassischen
Rh.M.
Rheinisches
Rutherford, 'Annotation Sandys i
Scholia
Schmidt, 'Piti^ » eS
3
Steinthal
111 ( 1 9 0 5 ) .
I . 3 , ed. 1 9 2 1 . etc.). F . Schmidt, 'Die Pinakes des Kallimachos', Klass.-philoL (Berl.
Studien
I (1922).
Sylloge
Inscriptionum
of Classical
Akad.,
H . Steinthal, 1890
Geschichte
der Sprachwissenschaft
mit besonderer
(repr.
Rücksicht
F . Susemihl, Geschickte
der griechischen
Stoicorum
Veterum
TAPA
Transactions
TGF
Tragicorum Die
auf die Logik,
bei den 2
vols.
Griechen 2.
Aufl.
1961).
SVF
Wendel, 'Bu^ beschreib^»
Akad.,
ed. W. Dittenberger, ed. tertia,
Graecarum,
2 vols., 1 8 9 1 / 2 .
Vors.
Scholarship,
Bayer.
1915-24.
drinerzeit,
2
PART ONE
Philologie.
A History
Sitzungsberichte
und Römern
Susemihl
für
Aristophanica,
J . E . Sandys,
SB
SIG
Museum
W. G . Rutherford, 'A Chapter in the History of Annotation',
3
W.St.
Altertumswissenschaft,
hg. v. Wissowa-Kroll-Mittelhaus, 1894 ff.
Fragmenta,
of the American Graecorum
Fragmente
Literatur
in der
Alexan-
ed. I . de Arnim, 1 9 0 5 ff. Philological
Fragmenta,
der Vorsokrattker,
Association.
ed. A . Nauck, 2 . ed., 1 8 8 9 .
von H . Diels.
6.
Aufl. hg. v.
W. Kranz, 1 9 5 1 - 2 .
C . Wendel, 'Die griechisch-römische Buchbeschreibung verglichen mit der des vorderen Orients', Hallische Monographien 3 (1949)Wiener
Studien.
PREHISTORY O F GREEK SCHOLARSHIP
I
POETS,
RHAPSODES, FROM
TO
PHILOSOPHERS
T H E EIGHTH
T H E FIFTH
CENTURIES
S C H O L A R S H I P is t h e a r t o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g , e x p l a i n i n g , a n d r e s t o r i n g t h e l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n . I t o r i g i n a t e d as a separate i n t e l l e c t u a l d i s c i p l i n e i n t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y before C h r i s t t h r o u g h t h e efforts o f poets t o preserve a n d to use t h e i r l i t e r a r y h e r i t a g e , t h e 'classics'. So s c h o l a r s h i p a c t u a l l y arose as 'classical' scholarship. A t least t h r e e centuries h a d p r e p a r e d t h e w a y , a n d t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s h o u l d n o t be m i n i m i z e d . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e h a d been v e r y i m p o r t a n t attempts at studying the language, collecting learned m a t e r i a l , a n d a p p l y i n g some f o r m o f l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . B u t a l l these efforts b e l o n g t o t h e h i s t o r y o f p o e t r y , h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , p h i l o s o p h y , o r p e d a g o g y . I t was o n l y w h e n t h e n e w H e l l e n i s t i c c i v i l i z a t i o n c h a n g e d t h e w h o l e perspect i v e i n t h i s field as i n others t h a t these v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s , f o r m e r l y disc o n n e c t e d , w e r e u n i t e d i n t o one selfconscious d i s c i p l i n e . I n t h i s sense t h e h i s t o r y o f classical s c h o l a r s h i p does n o t s t a r t before t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y .
1
T h e p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t I a m a t t e m p t i n g t o m a k e is t h i s : a n o v e l c o n c e p t i o n o f p o e t r y h e l d b y t h e poets themselves l e d t h e w a y t o t h e
scholarly
treatment o f the ancient texts; devotion to pure learning came later. Nevertheless, a s h o r t survey o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y stages is i n d i s p e n s a b l e ; t h e e a r l y G r e e k f o r e r u n n e r s o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c scholars m u s t b e c a r e f u l l y considered. T h e epic poets w e r e i n s p i r e d b y t h e Muses, a n d t h e p o e t w h o c r e a t e d the m a i n p a r t o f o u r
Iliad
is t h e greatest p o e t o f a l l t i m e . I t has o f t e n been
said t h a t H o m e r m u s t be his o w n i n t e r p r e t e r ; t h i s is t r u e also i n a q u i t e specific sense. H e n o t o n l y created b u t a g a i n a n d a g a i n ' i n t e r p r e t e d ' his o w n p o w e r f u l l a n g u a g e i n t h e course o f his p o e m . T h u s t h e earliest G r e e k p o e t r y t h a t w e k n o w i n c l u d e d a sort o f ' p h i l o l o g i c a l e l e m e n t ' ;
poetry
i t s e l f p a v e d t h e w a y t o i t s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . T h i s is o f s i g n a l i m p o r t a n c e for t h e o r i g i n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f scholarship (as w e s h a l l see l a t e r o n ) . 1
See below, pp. 8 8 ff.
* See below, pp. 140 and 149.
2
On
4
Poets, Rhapsodes, Philosophers
Self-interpretation of Epic Poets
'• 4>vmt,6ov yevos roSe aXvjBtos ' t h i s ( E p a p h u s ) is t h e o f f s p r i n g o f t h e l i f e - p r o d u c i n g t r u t h ' (Suppl. 5 8 4 ) , a n t i c i p a t i n g a l e a r n e d ' e t y m o l o g y ' w i d e
t h e o t h e r h a n d , one s h o u l d n o t speak o f ' H o m e r as a p h i l o l o g i s t ' . W h e n
d e r i v e d a n o t h e r f o r m o f Z e u s ' n a m e f r o m JfP
epic poets themselves a d d e l u c i d a t i n g w o r d s , h a l f - l i n e s , lines t o a m b i g u o u s
Zrjvos
1
expressions,
o r t o p r o p e r names, t h i s m a y be d u e t o a desire t o m a k e
spread i n t h e f o u r t h a n d t h i r d c e n t u r i e s .
i n s i m i l a r i t y o f s o u n d . I t is c e r t a i n l y a g e n u i n e p a r t o f t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l
Odyssey
Mavaa,
TTOMTOOTTOV
6V j u a A a T r o A A a /
My%H-
T h e attribute to
unique Arai-passage i n
aoı İimm, avBpa is so
o f m a n y m o v e s , 7roAAcW a m b i g u o u s sense o f
rpoiras e x
TTOXVTPOTTOS
iroXiifi-nrtv, -noXva-qx^vov)> ( v e r s a t u m , TroXv-nXayKrov).
D u t
ßmm4s o
The
(cf. K 3 3 0 ) is m u c h discussed i n a n c i e n t
Odyssey is d e p e n d e n t o n t h e u-ijuıv... ovXoii&qv is f o l l o w e d b y f) ııvpC
1502
ff. ; here w e h a v e n o s i m p l e p e r s o n i
n
e
T
Airat . . . A10? Kovpai u.eydXoto f ^iuAat re pvaal re irapao6a\u.oj. A n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n i n t e r p r e t e r s h a v e r i g h t l y seen
t h a t these epithets, a c t u a l l y p i c t u r i n g t h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e p e n i t e n t ,
atvos ;
s
this always means a fictitious
opening
i n t h e present circumstances, as i n
Iliad; t h e r e aXye ed-qKe ' t h e accursed
J4xaıotç
about the
lines o f t h e
w r a t h t h a t set countless woes o n t h e A c h a e a n s ' ,
a n d t h e e x a c t p a r a l l e l o f t h e w h o l e s t r u c t u r e shows t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e sentence is m e a n t t o b e a d e f i n i n g o n e i n t h e
Odyssey
as w e l l .
T h e s o u n d o f t h e a n c i e n t n a m e s o f gods a n d heroes n o t o n l y d e l i g h t e d
T h e m o s t f a m o u s e x a m p l e is 'Odysseus' i n w h i c h o n e c o u l d h e a r
(a
5 5 , etc.) as w e l l as
oBvaaofiai (a
6 2 , cf.
r
Airtd.
5
oBvpofiai
4 0 7 - 9 a n d S o p h . f r . 965 P.) ;
story w h i c h has its special significance Odyssey o 5 0 8 . B u t n o s t o r y is t o l d
O n e c a n h a r d l y d e n y t h a t i t is a g e n u i n e
allegory;
s i x t h c e n t u r y s t a r t e d t o detect ' h i d d e n m e a n i n g s ' i n m a n y p a r t s o f t h e 6
t h e y w e r e o n l y d e v e l o p i n g , i n t h i s as i n o t h e r fields,
s o m e t h i n g w h i c h t h e i m a g i n a t i o n o f a g r e a t p o e t h a d once c r e a t e d .
t h e ear o f t h e e p i c p o e t , b u t also r e m i n d e d h i m o f s i m i l a r sounds i n f a m i l i a r w o r d s : m a n y assonances a n d e v e n ' e t y m o l o g i e s ' w e r e t h e r e s u l t .
are
A r c h i l o c h u s a n d A l c a e u s f o l l o w e d i n this l i n e . W h e n rhapsodes o f t h e H o m e r i c poems,
4
4
t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e 'Prayers'. T h e /lirai-passage s h o u l d n o t be t e r m e d a n
a n d m o d e r n times. T h e p r o e m o f the 3
3
f i c a t i o n o f t h e 'Prayers', t h e d a u g h t e r s o f Zeus, as t h e epithets i n I 503
2
o v r a
Iliad
clearly show:
to speak ' e x p l a i n e d ' b y t h e f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i v e sentence : i t does n o t m e a n t h e m a n o f versatile m i n d ( v e r s u t u m ,
2
also a v e r y o l d ' a l l e g o r i c a l ' e l e m e n t i n epic p o e t r y . T h i s occurs i n t h e
asked t h e M u s e : ' O f t h e m a n t e l l m e , M u s e ,
o f t h e m a n m u c h t u r n e d t h a t r o v e d v e r y m a n y w a y s ' avSpa
B y t h e e n d o f t h e e i g h t h c e n t u r y B.C. t h e
Iliad
and
Odyssey
w e r e sub
stantially complete. T h e y were composed i n a c o m m o n Greek l a n g u a g e; a n d o n t h e basis, so to speak, o f t h i s epic p o e t r y as a priceless p o p u l a r possession t h e w h o l e G r e e k p e o p l e , t h e
IlaviXX-nvts,
b e g a n t o feel its
so t h e v e r y n a m e h i n t e d a t t h e l a m e n t a b l e f a t e o f t h e -noXurXas o r a t t h e
u n i t y i n spite o f a l l t h e differences o f race a n d class a n d i n spite o f t h e
' m a n o f w r a t h ' . L a t e r e p i c poets t o o k t h e same l i n e : H e s i o d i n t h e p r o e m
c h a n g i n g p o l i t i c a l a n d social c o n d i t i o n s . So w e m a y u n d e r s t a n d h o w
o f his
Works and Days p r a i s e d Zeus, Sefire âla ivvi-nere . . . ov r e Sea fipoTol avSpcs {Op. 2 f . ) , w h e r e t h e r e p e a t e d âl A i n t h e same p l a c e o f t h e h e x a
t h e rhapsodes w e r e a b l e to c o n t i n u e t h e i r successful a c t i v i t y t h r o u g h o u t
m e t e r s o u n d e d a p p a r e n t l y n o t p l a y f u l , b u t s o l e m n . H e s i o d was f o l l o w e d
d i f f i c u l t y w i t h o l d a n d r a r e single w o r d s o r strange c o m b i n a t i o n s o f t h e m ;
b y A e s c h y l u s i n a h i e r a t i c l y r i c passage, Ag.
1485 ff.:
t h e y , t h e r e f o r e , sometimes
iravanlov -navepyira- rl yap
reXetrai;
6
/SnoTofr
âv€v âıoç
tti foj, 6 W
âıos
A e s c h y l u s also
t h e G r e e k w o r l d also b e y o n d t h e 'epic age'. T h e y h a d , as before, some altered t h e i r o r i g i n a l f o r m a n d even gave
t h e m a new meaning. T h i s reshaping may appear to the m o d e r n m i n d q u i t e a r b i t r a r y o r e v e n m i s t a k e n ; y e t i t c a n be r e g a r d e d as a n e a r l y
! L . Ph. Rank, Etymotogiseerung en verwanU VerschijnseUn bij Homerus (Diss. Utrecht 1951) 'Homerus als philoloog'. (With bibliography; cf. esp. the very useful collection of evidence.) * See also Rank pp. 78 f. 3 From Antisthenes on (Schol. a 1, p. 9- ' 6 Dind.); see below, p. 37. * Similar 'epexegetical' clauses a 2 9 9 i., y 3 8 3 , A 4 9 0 and in the Iliad, passim. On other 'explanatory lines' see J . Forsdyke, Greece before Homer ( 1 9 5 6 ) 2 6 . s About fifty names in Iliad and Odyssey, see Rank 35 ff. A list of etymologies and puns from Homer to Aeschylus in O. Lendle, Die Pandorasage bet Hesiod (Diss. Marburg 1953, publ. 74-100
Wiirzburg 1957) Î İ 7 - 9 1 .
. . . .
E . Risch, 'Namensdeutungen und Worterklarungen beı den altesten grıechıschen Dichtern', Eumusia, Festgabe jîir E. Howald (Zürich 1947) 72 ff.: in Hesiod such 'etymologies' are not later additions, but genuine; p . 8 9 , differences between 'Homer' and Hesiod. 6
/
Besides such epexegetical a n d e t y m o l o g i c a l elements t h e r e seems t o be
poetical technique, not a c o m b i n a t i o n o f learning a n d poetry. T h e poet o f o u r
1
toTiv
Zeus i n
themselves clear, b u t n o less t o pleasure i n p l a y i n g o n w o r d s , t o d e l i g h t
5
Sitz. Ber. Bay. Mad. 1938, H . 2, p. 9. 2 ; cf. E . Fraenkel, Aesch. Ag. ( 1 9 5 0 ) on 1. 1485, and in general on 1. 687. Plat. Crat. 3 9 6 B St* ov t$v . . . xntapxet.—The Platonic Socrates seems to have been the first to get away from the traditional playing with similarities of sound; see C. J . Classen, 'Sprachliche Deutung als Triebkraft platonischen und somatischen Philosophierens', £etemala 22 ( 1 9 5 9 ) esp. 127 ff., cf. below, pp. 61 f. On the structure oi Iliad g and its position in the whole of our Iliad see BLZ 1935, 2129 ff. On its allegorical character see Leaf ad toe. and E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (iSSO« i - Reinhardt, 'Personifikation und Allegorie' in Vermächtnis der Antike ( i 9 6 0 ) 37 f. [Heraclit] Quaest. Homer, c. 37, ed. Bonn., p. 54. 7 = ed. Buffiere ( 1 9 6 2 ) p. 4 4 . Aa Reinhardt is inclined to do, loc. cit. See below, pp. 10 f. 1
a
3
6
4
s
6
K
Poets, Rhapsodes, Philosophers
Peisistratus Legend
a t t e m p t at i n t e r p r e t i n g the t r a d i t i o n a l t e x t . B u t there must have been
a b o u t some lines o f H o m e r w h i c h t h e y r e g a r d e d as i n t e r p o l a t i o n s i n -
a l i m i t b e y o n d w h i c h t h e rhapsodes w e r e n o l o n g e r free t o m a k e t h e i r
serted against M e g a r i a n interests b y A t h e n i a n s , e i t h e r S o l o n o r Peisistra-
6
1
7
tus. T h e r e is n o reference t o Peisistratus as a ' c o l l e c t o r ' i n D i e u c h i d a s
o w n a d d i t i o n s o r t o reshape t h e epic texts.
3
W e m a y assume t h a t Greeks l i v i n g i n t h e first h a l f o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y ,
n o r w o u l d t h e i n s e r t i o n o f a few lines i n t h e c a t a l o g u e p a r t s o f B (546)
i f n o t e a r l i e r , r e g a r d e d t h e c r e a t i v e p e r i o d o f e p i c p o e t r y as c o n c l u d e d .
a n d A (631) b e sufficient t o p r o v e t h e existence o f a n a u t h o r i t a t i v e s i x t h -
B u t t h e r e is n o r e l i a b l e t r a d i t i o n , let alone conclusive e v i d e n c e , o f a c o l -
c e n t u r y A t t i c t e x t o f H o m e r . Nevertheless, R i t s c h l ' s a r b i t r a r y s u p p l e m e n t
2
l e c t i o n o f e p i c poems, o r a b o u t a c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e t e x t o f t h e
Odyssey
Iliad
and
at t h a t t i m e i n a n y p a r t i c u l a r place. T h e endless discussion o f
o f 1838 a n d its d o u b t f u l consequences w e r e g l a d l y a c c e p t e d b y m a n y scholars,
1
as i f i t w e r e n e w e v i d e n c e from t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , t h e t i m e o f
possibilities a n d p r o b a b i l i t i e s belongs t o t h e h i s t o r y o f scholarship i n
the M e g a r i a n chronicle. Soon afterwards (1846), however, George Grote
post-classical a n t i q u i t y a n d s t i l l m o r e i n o u r m o d e r n age. W e s h a l l h a v e
p u b l i s h e d t h e first v o l u m e s o f h i s
t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f d e a l i n g w i t h these questions, w h e n w e c o m e t o those
w r i t e i n t h e t w e n t i e s ; t h e y c o n t a i n e d t h e first p e n e t r a t i n g c r i t i c i s m o f t h e
periods.
t r a d i t i o n a l b e l i e f i n t h e Peisistratus l e g e n d ( P a r t 1, c h . 2 1 ) . K a r l L e h r s ,
History of Greece w h i c h
he h a d begun to 2
H e r e w e h a v e o n l y t o state t h e w e l l - k n o w n f a c t t h a t t h e s t o r y t h a t
one o f t h e earliest G e r m a n a d m i r e r s o f t h e e m i n e n t h i s t o r i a n , c o n t i n u e d
Peisistratus 'assembled' t h e f o r m e r l y 'scattered' songs o f H o m e r c a n n o t
i n t h i s l i n e , u s i n g n e w a r g u m e n t s , a n d others f o l l o w e d ; b u t t o w a r d s t h e
be t r a c e d b a c k b e y o n d t h e first c e n t u r y B.c.
e n d o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y a r e a c t i o n set i n , a n d t h e c o n t r o v e r s y is
3
N o t o n l y i n the later
e m b r o i d e r i e s , b u t i n t h e w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n o f a p o w e r f u l statesman
as
3
4
5
still going on. I t is h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g t h a t Peisistratus, t o g e t h e r w i t h Polycrates
a c o l l e c t o r o f l i t e r a r y texts, as t h e earliest f o u n d e r o f a G r e e k ' l i b r a r y ' , as
of
h e a d o f a c o m m i t t e e o f scholars, w e seem t o h a v e a p r o j e c t i o n o f events o f
Samos, h e a d e d t h e l i s t o f G r e e k b o o k collectors w h i c h ends w i t h P t o l e m y
t h e P t o l e m a i c age i n t o t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y . Y e t i n m o d e r n t i m e s , f r o m
I I ; f o r t h e e x c e r p t i n t h e e p i t o m e o f A t h e n a e u s 1 3 a looks t o m e r a t h e r
d'Aubignac
l i k e s u c h lists o f f a m o u s founders a n d i n v e n t o r s as t h e so c a l l e d Laterculi
4
a n d B e n t l e y to L a c h m a n n , t h a t l a t e a n c i e n t t r a d i t i o n w a s
r e g a r d e d as t r u s t w o r t h y . I n 1838 R i t s c h l e v e n w e n t so f a r as t o i n t e r -
Alexandrine o r
polate
goes b a c k t o V a r r o ,
5
into
the obviously
defective
text o f the
Megarian historian
D i e u c h i d a s ( q u o t e d b y D i o g . L . 1 57) a phrase d e s c r i b i n g Peisistratus as ' c o m p i l e r o f t h e H o m e r i c poems'
(ßmrep
B u t the M e g a r i a n historians, Dieuchidas
6
avXXéÇas
rà
'Ofx-jpov
as w e l l as H e r e a s ,
7
«TA.).
spoke o n l y
' M. Leumann, 'Homerische Wörter', Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 3 esp. 157-261 and 3 2 3 ; see below, pp. 12 and 79. * See below, p. 25. * Gic. de or. ni 137 'qui primus Homeri libros confusos antea sic disposuisse dicitur, ut nunc habemus' ; Cicero's source was possibly Asclepiades of Myrlea JlepX ypapua-riKaiv, see G. Kaibel, 'Die Prolegomena Tîtpï KwpyUas, AGGW Phil.-hist. KJ. N.F. I I 4 ( 1 8 9 8 ) 2 6 and on Asclepiades see below, p. 2 7 3 . Adesp. AP xi 4 4 2 IJuaiorparov Ô$ TOV 'Opypov j riôpoiaa otropdS^v TO irplv àcibâpevov. The testimonia again printed by R. Merkelbach, Rh.M. 9 5 (1952) 23 ff-, and J . A. Davison, TAPA 8 6 ( 1 9 5 5 ) I ff. Cf. Dorothea Gray in John L . Myres, Homer and his Critics (1958) 2 9 0 ff. " Dissertation sur l'Riade, ed. V. Magnien (Paris 1925) 4 6 f. 'La composition de Pisistrate : elle est reçue parmi les savants comme certaine, et donne un grand poids à l'opinion que j'ai mise en avant.* W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur 1 1 (1929) 161, gives a wrong reference to d'Aubignac. (1950) passim,
s Die Alexandrinischen Bibliotheken unter den ersten PtoUmaeern und die Sammlung der homerischen Gedichte durch Pisistratus nach Anleitung eines Plautinischen Scholions (reprinted in Opuse. Philol. t (1866) 54) ; on the so-called 'Scholion Plautinum* see below, p. 100. Leaf's supplement is equally misleading (Homer, Iliad i 1 (1900) xviii, taken over with a slight alteration by
Merkelbach p. 29). * FGrHist
4 8 5 p 6 , vol.
* Ibid. 486.
m B p. 4 5 0 , Kommentar
1 3 9 2 , 11 2 3 2 .
P.Oxy. x 1241. I f G e l l i u s , N.A. v n 17, de bibliothecis, a n d I s i d o r . etym. v i 3 , 3 - 5 t o S u e t o n i u s ,
t h e catalogues i n
7
8
respectable g r a m m a r i a n s c r e d i t e d Peisistratus w i t h b e i n g t h e first f o u n d e r
'bibliothecam . . . deinceps ab Atheniensibus auctam Xerxes . . . evexit..., Seleucus jVicanor (sic; v . RE 11 A 1233) rursus in Graeciam rettulit. Ptolemaeus . . . cum studio bibliothecarum Pisistratum aemula retur* etc. ( I s i d o r . l o c . c i t . ) . I t has r e c e n t l y b e e n a r g u e d t h a t t h e d i s c o v e r y of a public library i n Athens:
9
o f o r i e n t a l l i b r a r i e s w h i c h i n c l u d e d extensive l i t e r a r y texts f r o m
the
second m i l l e n n i u m B.C., a n d o u r k n o w l e d g e o f t h e g e n e r a l c u l t u r a l p o l i c y Still by W. Schmid, Ceschichte der griech. Lit. i i (1929) 160. 6 . See L . Friedlander, Die homerische Kritik von Wolf bis Grote (Berlin 1853) 12 if.; the importance of Grate's attack had been rightly stressed by G. Finsler, Homer I i> (1924) 109. 1
1
3
Grate's Geschichte von Griechenland
(1852) — Populare
Aufsdtze
2
(1875) 4 4 7 ff.
* 'Zur homer. Interpolation' Rh.M. 17 (1862) 481 ff. •= De Aristarchi studiis Homericis (2. ed. 1865) 442 ff. (3. ed. 1882, 438 ff.); reference to Grote 440, n. 275. s O. Seeck, Die Quellen der Odyssee, 1887 (see Finsler, I 117 f.). H . Die's, Abh, Bert. Akad., 1904, Abh. 2. * H. Dahlmann, 'Terentius Varro', RE Suppl. vi ( 1 9 3 5 ) 1172 ff., esp. 1291. Sueton. de vir. ill. fr. 102, p. 130 R. Cf. Tertull. apol. 18. 5, and Hieronym. ep. 34. 1. C. Wendel, 'Buchbeschreibung' 19 f.; G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, Corpus Paulinum (London 1953) 270 and ^«iicAn/i d. DMG 101 (1951) 193 ff. considered the possibility that 'Babylonian methods, required to ensure the preservation of works of literature' had early connexions with archaic Greece as well as later influence on Alexandria; cf. below, pp. 103 and 126. 6
8 9
Poets, Rhapsodes, Philosophers
Attacks on Homer
o f m i g h t y G r e e k r u l e r s s u p p o r t t h i s slender t r a d i t i o n . B u t t h e r e is n o t y e t
s o u t h e r n I t a l y a n d S i c i l y . R e c i t i n g his o w n p o e m s (dAAà KO! aÙTos
8
a n y p r e - A l e x a n d r i a n e v i d e n c e , a n d w e m a y s t i l l suspect t h a t those e a r l y
ippajpi^Beiràêavrov,
b o o k collectors were inventions m o d e l l e d o n the Hellenistic kings.
t h e y ' h a d i m p u t e d t o t h e gods a l l t h a t is s h a m e a n d b l a m e f o r m e n '
1
s i d e r i n g t h e w h o l e a t t i t u d e o f e a r l y Greeks t o t h e b o o k ,
3
1
Con-
(Vors.
t h e existence o f
Vors.
9
21 A i ) , h e a t t a c k e d H o m e r a n d H e s i o d b e c a u s e
21 B 11), '. . . u n l a w f u l t h i n g s : s t e a l i n g , a d u l t e r y , d e c e i v i n g each
o t h e r ' (B 12, c f 1 0 ; 1 3 - 1 6 ) . T h e r e is n o c l e a r evidence t h a t X e n o p h a n e s
p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s i n t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y is u n l i k e l y . H o w e v e r , f r o m a l l these v a r i o u s a n d d o u b t f u l passages one c e r t a i n
r e c i t e d ' H o m e r ' , b u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y c a n h a r d l y be d e n i e d t h a t h e b e g a n
f a c t seems t o e m e r g e : t h e l i v e l y a c t i v i t y o f so-called pojpuiooi as reciters o f
his l o n g career as a n i t i n e r a n t poet a n d p h i l o s o p h e r b y r e c i t i n g ' H o m e r i c '
e p i c p o e m s i n t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y , o f t e n a t c o m p e t i t i v e performances. S o m e
p o e m s ; i n t h e course o f time he m a y h a v e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e i r w h o l e
s c a t t e r e d a n d c o n t r a d i c t o r y references agree i n one p o i n t : those contests
conception
4
o f the gods—the pluralism, the anthropomorphism,
the
w e r e i n s t i t u t e d f o r t h e festival o f t h e P a n a t h e n a e a ; a n d there was a r u l e
m o r a l i t y — w a s a dangerous error. E v e r y l i n e o f X e n o p h a n e s ' o w n poems
t h a t a r h a p s o d e s h o u l d b e g i n his r e c i t a t i o n w h e r e t h e p r e c e d i n g r e c i t e r
shows h o w d e e p l y he h a d b e e n i n l o v e w i t h t h e g r e a t p o e t r y o f t h e past
VTroßoXrjs
a n d h o w w e l l h e was a c q u a i n t e d w i t h its style a n d t h o u g h t . A s his o l d e r
D i o g . L . 1 5 7 ) . F o r o u r p u r p o s e , i t does n o t m a t t e r w h o l a i d d o w n s u c h
c o n t e m p o r a r y , t h e l y r i c p o e t Stesichorus o f H i m e r a , h a d ' r e c a n t e d ' his
a r u l e ; w h e r e t h e H o m e r i c p o e m s are c o n c e r n e d , t h e evidence p o i n t s t o
'Homeric' error about H e l e n ,
t h e t i m e o f t h e Peisistratids, w h i l e a P e r i c l e a n
Per.
v i g o r o u s l y a t t a c k e d his f o r m e r i d o l . I t is s o m e w h a t p a r a d o x i c a l t h a t t h e
a contest f o r a l l
p r o t e s t o f a self-conscious, r e l i g i o u s rhapsode s h o u l d b e t h e s t a r t i n g - p o i n t
sorts o f p o e t i c a l a n d m u s i c a l p e r f o r m a n c e s . I n t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y , t h e r e -
o f H o m e r i c criticism i n antiquity ; i t remained the privilege o f philo-
f o r e , a t r a d i t i o n a l t e x t m u s t h a v e b e e n a v a i l a b l e t o w h i c h t h e rhapsodes
sophers t o f o l l o w his l e a d a n d t o c r i t i c i z e t h e w a y i n w h i c h H o m e r p r e -
h a d left o f f ( I f
VTTOX^WS
ed*£i}s [ P l a t . ] Hipparch.
5
13. 4 ) seems t o refer t o a m u c h w i d e r fiovaiKrjs
228 B, e£
decree o f 442 ( P l u t . aywv,
1
2
so X e n o p h a n e s , r e v e r s i n g his a t t i t u d e , 3
4
5
w e r e c o m p e l l e d t o k e e p ; t h e y n o w b e c a m e t h e professional reciters o f
sented t h e gods, u n t i l P l a t o , f o r t h i s a n d o t h e r reasons e x p e l l e d h i m from
established l i t e r a r y w o r k s a s c r i b e d t o ' H o m e r ' . I n t h e n e w , t h e l y r i c , age
his i d e a l c i t y .
these e p i c p o e m s w e r e a c k n o w l e d g e d
as
' c l a s s i c a l ' ; a n d t h e persons
6
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e v e r y fact t h a t H o m e r , ' f r o m w h o m a l l m e n
apxfis KO.8 'Opvqpov
k n o w n t o h a v e n o t o n l y r e c i t e d b u t also e x p l a i n e d a n d c r i t i c i z e d t h e m
h a v e l e a r n e d since t h e b e g i n n i n g ' ( X e n o p h a n . B 1 0 1 |
f r o m t h e i r o w n p o i n t o f v i e w w e r e a g a i n rhapsodes. T h i s f a c t , t h o u g h
eVei
o f t e n o v e r l o o k e d , is p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t . F o r i t shows t h a t i t was
h a v e i n d u c e d o t h e r rhapsodes t o d e f e n d h i m a n d t o find m e a n s t o m a i n -
fi€fia8i]KaaL irdvres),
1
h a d b e e n rejected i n t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y m u s t
p o e t i c a l l y g i f t e d o r a t least p o e t i c a l l y m i n d e d p e o p l e , w h o m a d e t h e
t a i n his o l d a u t h o r i t y . I t is expressly stated t h a t t h e first o f these defenders
first a t t e m p t a t i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e h e r i t a g e o f t h e e p i c a g e ; o n e m a y e v e n
was T h e a g e n e s o f R h e g i u m , ' d u r i n g t h e l i f e t i m e o f X e n o p h a n e s h i m s e l f .
r e g a r d i t as a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e e a r l i e r s e l f - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e p o e t s .
6
I t was as a h i g h l y e s t i m a t e d r h a p s o d e t h a t X e n o p h a n e s o f C o l o p h o n ( b o r n i n 5 6 5 ? ) ' w a n d e r e d t h r o u g h t h e G r e e k w o r l d f r o m t h e east t o See below, p. 25. All the evidence is most carefully collected by F. Schmidt, 'Pinakes* 4 ff.: 'Zeugnisse über griechische Bibliotheken', cf. pp. 30 f.—'May be little more than mythical' is the verdict of Kenyon, Books and Readers 2 n d edition (Oxford 1951) 2 4 . — O n Greek and Roman libraries see C. Wendel and W. Gober, 'Das griechisch-römische Altertum' in Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft 2. ed. in 1 ( 1 9 5 5 ) 5 1 - 1 4 5 ; cf. Wendel'« shorter article 'Bibliothek' in RAC11 1
1
(1954) 2 3 1 - 7 4 . «P-
238-46.
J See below, p. 17. • See J . A. Davison, TAP A 8 6 (1955) 7 and JHS 7 8 (1958) 3 8 f. s H . T . Wade-Gery, The Poet of the Iliad (Cambridge 195a) 77, n. 77 to p. 3 0 . See above, pp. 3 f. * Vors. 21 B 8 , 411.; for Xenophanes as a rhapsode see K. Reinhardt, Parmenides (1916) 132 ff. H . Thesleff, On Dating Xenophanes, Helsinki 1957, tried to prove that Xenophanes was born about 540 or still later and left Colophon about 5 1 5 ; if this is correct, it lowers the date of Theagenes and others. But it will not be easy to accept Thesleff's arguments. 6
See Anth. Lyr. Gr. fasc. i i (1949) pp. 6 3 ff. annotation. P M G fr. 192 ff. = Stesich. 15 F. (two palinodes). I Timon fr. 6 0 . 1 D. called Xenophanes ' Opypoirdrns 'trampler on Homer*, cf, Zoilus 'Onypanâong below, p. 7 0 ; this parallel seems to support the variant reading 'Op-vporrarvs in Diog. L . ix 18 (-ajrarijir v.l.), though E . Vogt, Rh.M. N.F. 107 (1964) 2 9 5 ff, strongly pleads for the genitive ' O^pairar^s èniKoirr^v 'censor of the Homeric deceit' (cf. Vors. 21 35)- Timon, in his parodie style, exaggerated and disfigured Xenophanes' attacks on Homer. + 21 B 2. 12 : •ifp.erép-n ao/pin, that is, 'our knowledge and practice of poetry'. • Heraclit. Vors. 22 A 22, B 42, etc. ; on Pythagoras' so-called criticism see H. Schrader's references in Porphyr. Quaest. Horn, ad I I . (1880) 383 and in Od. (1890) 2 . 6 . W. Burkert, 'Weisheit und Wissenschaft, Studien zu Pythagoras, Philolaos und Platon', Erlanger Beitrâge air Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft 10 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , is perfectly right when he does not refer to any Pythagorean 'interpretation' of Homer, see also p. 258. 13 on the Odyssey. See below, p. 58. * Vors. 8 A I Kara Ka^uVijv 5 2 9 - 5 2 2 B.C. ; 8 A 2 irpâtros. Cf. F. Buffière, Les Mythes d'Homère et la pensée grecque (1956) 103 f., and H . J . Rose, JHS 78 (1958) 1 6 4 ^ P. Lévêque, 'Aurea catena Homeri, Une étude de l'allégorie grecque', Annales littér. de l'Université de Besançon 2 7 (i959)1
1
A
6
Poets, Rhapsodes, Philosophers
Defence of Homer
Porphyry's e x p l a n a t i o n o f the 'Battle o f the Gods' q u o t e d i n the Scholion
t h e l i s t o f t h e i n t e r p r e t e r s ; as i t c o n t i n u e d t o b e t h e d u t y o f t h e rhapsodes
Iliad Y 6 7 ' is o b v i o u s l y d e r i v e d f r o m a Stoic source a n d is t o be used w i t h t h e greatest c a u t i o n ; t e r m s l i k e TO anpe-rrds, m e a n i n g ' m y t h s a b o u t t h e gods w h i c h d o n o t b e f i t t h e i r d i v i n e n a t u r e ' (ov irperrovTas rovs vrrep rwv Oewv fivOovs), o r aAATjyopta, t h e ' h i d d e n m e a n i n g s ' (v-novoiw o f such
i n l a t e r t i m e s also (see P l a t .
I 0
to
II
Ion,passim; X e n o p h . Symp. 111 6) n o t o n l y t o
r e c i t e , b u t also t o e x p l a i n H o m e r , one c a n h a r d l y a v o i d t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t h e was a p r o m i n e n t m e m b e r o f t h a t a n c i e n t g u i l d .
1
Besides h i s
' a l l e g o r i c a l ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e B a t t l e o f t h e G o d s , T h e a g e n e s ' interest i n t h e t e x t i t s e l f is attested b y a v a r i a n t r e a d i n g i n A 381 f o r w h i c h h e is
m y t h s , are p r o b a b l y H e l l e n i s t i c ; b u t even so t h e r e m a y b e some k e r n e l
2
o f t r u t h i n t h e t r a d i t i o n t h a t t h i s k i n d o f ' a p o l o g y ' is v e r y o l d a n d b e g a n
c i t e d ; a n d g r a m m a t i c a l w r i t i n g a b o u t H o m e r ' s c o r r e c t usage o f t h e
w i t h T h e a g e n e s w h o first w r o t e o n H o m e r ' (a-n-d ©cayeVou? TOU 'Pyylvov,
G r e e k l a n g u a g e is s a i d t o h a v e s t a r t e d w i t h h i m (17
c
6?
TrpujTos eypaifse Trepl 'Oprjpov). A t least i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , l o n g
TOV
eXXrjvtofxov . . . ap^afiivr] . . . aim ©eayivovs 3
ypafiparucy ...-r) irepl Vors. 8. i a ) . F i n a l l y he is
before a l l e g o r i s m as a m e t h o d was f u l l y d e v e l o p e d b y S t o i c philosophers,
p l a c e d a t t h e h e a d o f t h e w r i t e r s ' w h o first searched o u t H o m e r ' s p o e t r y
interpretations o f the H o m e r i c 'Battle o f the Gods' b y 'hidden meanings'
a n d life a n d d a t e '
(-Kepi rijs 'Opvqpov -rroi-jo-eajs ydvovs T« CHJTOI? KOX xpovov KaB' ov T)Kfiaoev -npoTipevvnoav Trpea^vraroi (lev ©eayevrjs re 6 'Prjyivos,
6eoiia las a l t o g e t h e r either ev i W volats weiroMj/ieW o r avev VTTOVOLOJV {Rep. 11 378 D ) . T h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l source o f t h e l o n g S c h o l i o n t o Iliad Y 67 sees i n t h e p a i r i n g o f t h e gods b y t h e p o e t t h e a n t a g o n i s m o f t h r e e p a i r s o f n a t u r a l elements, TO fypov ray vyptp KOX TO Oepfiov TW foxP ? ^dxeoOai Kai TO Kovov TO> 0 a p e i ; f u r t h e r -
a b o u t his descent, b i r t h p l a c e , f a m i l y , a n d l i f e t i m e . T h i s t e s t i m o n i u m ,
m o r e i t identifies t h e divinities w i t h h u m a n faculties: A t h e n a
u s u a l l y n e g l e c t e d , is i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e r e s u l t o f m o d e r n i n v e s t i g a -
w e r e k n o w n t o P l a t o , w h o rejected
X
1
with
tfrpovnais, A r e s w i t h d^poavvn, A p h r o d i t e w i t h emOvfiia, a n d H e r m e s w i t h Xoyos. S u c h p h y s i c a l allegories w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n w i t h o u t p a r a l l e l i n
followed by Stesimbrotus a n d A n t i m a c h u s , w h a t is m e a n t b y
Vors. 8. 1). I t is h a r d t o say
ydvos a n d faep4 \ b u t t h i s m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n t h e first
a t t e m p t a t g i v i n g a s h o r t sketch o f H o m e r ' s l i f e , b y c o l l e c t i n g t r a d i t i o n s
plot 'Ofi-qpov a n d t h e Ayotv 'Optfpw teal
tions a b o u t t h e d a t e o f t h e
'HcnoSov. A s preserved t o u s , t h e y are p r o d u c t s o f l a t e a n t i q u i t y ; b u t t h e 4
t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y ; i n t h e few f r a g m e n t s o f Pherecydes o f Syros a n d i n t h e
earliest f o r m s o f those books, n a r r a t i n g t h e fife o f H o m e r a n d his contest
records a b o u t h i m t h e d i v i n i t i e s represent cosmic forces, a n d t h e r e is
w i t h Hesiod, g o back
a t r e n d t o conscious 'allegory*
(Vors. A 8. 9 ; B 4 a s o r t o f b a t t l e o f g o d s ) .
T h e r e is n o a g r e e m e n t a b o u t t h e exact d a t e o f Pherecydes e i t h e r a m o n g ancient chronographers
2
o r a m o n g m o d e r n scholars. I f i t is c o r r e c t t h a t
' h e c a n h a r d l y h a v e l i v e d m u c h before t h e end o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y '
3
Theagenes. T h e y
b e e n used
afterwards
c o n t a i n a c o l l e c t i o n o f r a t h e r a m u s i n g stories o f
t h e a d v e n t u r e s o f a n i t i n e r a n t p o e t ; i n this respect t h e y d i f f e r w i d e l y f r o m t h e m e r e l y genealogical
a n d c h r o n o l o g i c a l statements o f a d r y
yevo$.
a l l e g o r y m a y h a v e b e e n i n i t i a t e d b y rhapsodes l i k e Theagenes i n o r d e r t o d e f e n d offensive passages o f H o m e r against m o r a l i s t s , a n d i t m a y h a v e
t o t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y , * t h a t is, t o t h e t i m e o f
Both
yevos a n d
@LOL
are d o c u m e n t s o f t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e a c t i v i t y o f t h e
rhapsodes i n t h e H o m e r i c field. A g r o u p o f t h e m w e r e c a l l e d
' OfiriptSat
b
b y philosophical a n d theological writers like
a n d w e r e believed b y some t o be descendants o f H o m e r h i m s e l f ; f o r o u r
Pherecydes for t h e i r o w n purposes, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f offensive o r inoffensive
p u r p o s e i t is i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t t h e y w e r e n o t o n l y p e r f o r m e r s , b u t
4
passages. B u t i f he l i v e d a b o u t o r before t h e m i d d l e o f the c e n t u r y i t m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n t h e o t h e r w a y r o u n d ; o n l y n e w evidence c o u l d b r i n g a final d e c i s i o n .
5
7
Wilamowitz, Der Glaube der Hellenen 11 (1932) 215. 2 ; cf. F. Wehrli 91. Vors. 8. 3 Kai ©cayevij? ovrus rrpoavperai; cf. A. Ludwkh, Aristarchs homerische Textkntik 1 113 n. 128, about rrpotptperai. Sec R. Laqueur, Hellenismus (1925) 2 5 ; cf. below, p. 158. Homerus, ed. T . W. Allen, vol. v, and Wilamowitz, Vitae Homeri et Hesiodi, 1916. s Wilamowitz, Bias und Homer (1916) 3 6 7 , 4 3 9 ; cf. E . Vogt, RJi.M. 102 ( 1 9 5 9 ) 220 f. (see below, p. 50, n. 5 on Alcidamas). Blot of early lyric poets, Alcaeus and Sappho, also originated in the course of the sixth century B.C. W. Schadewaldt, Von Homers Welt und Werk* (1959) 55 f.; see also Die Legende von Homer, demfahrenden Sanger {1942) 101. 7 2 ; H. T . Wade-Gery, The Poet of the Iliad (195a) 19 ft, tried to argue that the Homeridai, members of a Chiot family, were the only performers of Homer's works in early times, until in the fifth century 'star' performers arose beside them. * Acusilaus FGrHist 2 F 2, Hellanic. 4 F 20 and Jacoby's Commentary. About families of poets in India see Steinthal, Geschichte der Spraehwissenscfiaft bei den Griechtn und Romem i (1890) 3 0 (but they were priests too). 1
3
1
T h e r e is n o d o u b t t h a t i n t h e H o m e r i c field T h e a g e n e s a l w a y s h e a d e d « Schol. B Y 67, H . Schrader, Porphyr. Quaest. Horn, ad It. 240, 14 = Vors. 8 A 2. * Wilamowitz, 'Pherekydes', Sitz. Bet. d. Preuss. Akad. ( 1 9 2 6 ) 126 f. = Kleine Schnfien V 2 ( 1 9 3 7 ) 128 f.; K. v. Fritz, RE xix ( 1 9 3 8 ) 2 0 2 5 3 " . 1 So emphatically W. Jaeger, The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers (Oxford 1947) 07. * This seems to be the opinion of F. Wehrli, Z" Geschichte der allegorischen Deutung Homers tm Altertum (Diss. Basel 1928) 89. s Diels-Kranz, Vors. 8 , were probably right in placing Theagenes immediately alter Pherecydes; the case for the priority of Pherecydes is put by J . Tate, Cl.R. 41 (1927) 2 1 4 ; cfCI. Qu. 2 8 ( 1 9 3 4 ) 1 0 5 - 1 4 'On the history of allegorism'. r
4
6
1
Poets, Rhapsodes, Philosophers
1 2
No System of Cases in Lyric Poetry
13
also i n t e r p r e t e r s o f t h e p o e m s . H o w f a r t h e y also p r o d u c e d p o e m s o f then-
H e r e t h e r e is n o t o n l y a n absolute p a r a l l e l i s m o f three sentences, t h e r e
o w n , o r w h e t h e r , f o r instance, t h e o r i g i n a l f o r m o f t h e so-called H o m e r i c
is also a t h r e e f o l d v a r i a t i o n o f t h e same t h e m e , a n d a sequence o f t h e
film w a s p o e t i c a l , r e m a i n o p e n q u e s t i o n s ; i t is b y n o m e a n s u n l i k e l y t h a t
n a m e C l e o b u l u s first i n t h e g e n i t i v e , t h e n i n t h e d a t i v e , a n d finally i n t h e
some o f t h e m w e r e m i n o r poets. I n I n d i a t h e reciters o f o l d p o e t r y
accusative. T h i s has b e e n t a k e n as clear evidence o f a three-case system,
g r a d u a l l y ceased t o w r i t e n e w p o e m s ; t h e y presented a n d e x p l a i n e d t h e
recognized b y I o n i a n g r a m m a r i a n s o f the sixth century a n d applied b y
o l d ones. I t is a t a n y r a t e clear t h a t w h a t Pherecydes a n d T h e a g e n e s
the poet.
w r o t e w a s i n prose.
Flcpl a rnxdrojv starts f r o m a d e f i n i t i o n o f orav -jjTOi ras (ß.vr^ovop.aaias r} TO. ovoptara etff rrdaas ras irrdtaets /j,€TaßdXXovT€s SiariÖio/ieöa rov Xoyov ws irapa KAeo^apet; C l e o -
1
2
3
T h e i n t e r e s t i n g passage i n
W e are n o t t o l d w h e t h e r t h e rhapsodes o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y h a d a n y used w r i t t e n c o l l e c t i o n s o f r a r e a n d obsolete e p i c w o r d s , were
called f r o m the
(14.59
a
fifth
century onwards ;
4
X
TTOXVTTTWTOV:
t e c h n i c a l resources f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e o l d epic p o e m s ; t h e y m a y h a v e
yX&auai as t h e y Poetics
1
1
chares is t h e n q u o t e d as h a v i n g used t h e n a m e o f D e m o s t h e n e s i n t h e u s u a l o r d e r o f t h e five cases o f G r e e k n o u n s , a n d t w o f u r t h e r e x a m p l e s are
A r i s t o t l e i n his
a d d e d , e o r i Se
9 f . ) expressly recognizes glosses as a f e a t u r e p e c u l i a r t o epic
Kai ÄvaKpeovri.
p o e t r y . O n e is t e m p t e d t o assume t h a t t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s o f H o m e r i c
®$jm f a t 7rapa nut, rcvv TToir\ri7>v WS nap* JfyvxApv/o irapa. pev oSv ÄpxiX6 oj . . . (fr. 70 D . ) ; i n t w o t r o c h a i c
TOLOVTOV
8
X
p r o p e r n a m e s a n d obscure w o r d s b y ' e t y m o l o g y ' w e r e f u r t h e r d e v e l o p e d ,
t e t r a m e t e r s o f A r c h i l o c h u s t h e n a m e o f a L e o p h i l u s is f o u r
collected,
the
p e a t e d ; i n spite o f t h e c o r r u p t i o n s a n d v a r i a n t r e a d i n g s i n t h e m a n u -
glosses. I t is therefore n o t s u r p r i s i n g t o find a m o n g t h e few prose
frag-
s c r i p t s t h e m o s t reasonable a s s u m p t i o n is t h a t t h e n a m e a p p e a r e d i n f o u r
Kpovos
o f the
a n d t r a n s m i t t e d b y rhapsodes,
perhaps
together w i t h
m e n t s o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y t h a t Pherecydes e x p l a i n e d t h e o l d theogonies i n e t y m o l o g i c a l t e r m s as
Xpovos {Vors.
d i f f e r e n t cases, possibly i n t h e o r d e r - 0 ? , -ov
t h e fifth c e n t u r y e t y m o l o g y p r o s p e r e d so v i g o r o u s l y : H e c a t a e u s o f M i l e t u s
o f h a v i n g f o u n d these t w o r a r e e x a m p l e s .
t r i e d t o i n f e r h i s t o r i c a l facts from t h e ' t r u e m e a n i n g s ' o f n a m e s o f persons
the
troXvTrTOJTov,
a
= fr. 14 PMG)
In
three
a r e q u o t e d as a n e x a m p l e o f
' t h e e m p l o y m e n t o f t h e same w o r d i n v a r i o u s cases':
KXevfiovXov fiev eywy* ipeat, KXevflovAa) 8' eirtuatvofiai, KXevfiovXov 8e StooKeto. 1
2
6
a b o v c
theoretical
o r d e r o f five cases o f t h e G r e e k n o u n
E . Sittig, 'Das Alter der Anordnung unserer Kasus', Tübinger Beiträge cur Altertumswissenschaft 13 (1931) 26- Against Sittig see K. Barwick, Gnomon 9 ( 1 9 3 3 ) 8 7 f . , 'Stoische Sprachlehre 4 6 ; Schwyzer did not take account of these important objections which were repeated and augmented by M. Pohlenz, NGGW, Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F. HI 6 (1939) = Kleine Schrifien 1 ( 1 9 6 5 ) 87 ff., and by R. Hiersche, 'Entstehung und Entwicklung des Terminus irr&aLs "Fall" *, Sitz. Ber. d. Deutschen Akad. d. Wiss. Bert. 1955, Nr. 3 , 5 ff. and finally by Barwick himself; without taking notice of these articles H . Koller, 'Die Anfänge der griechischen Grammatik', Glotta 37 (1958) 5. 2 and 3 4 ff., against Sittig. Still worse than Sittig G. H . Mahlow, Neue Wege durch die griechische Sprache und Dichtung ( 1 9 2 6 ) 2 1 2 : 'Die Grundlagen der Grammatik waren längst AUgemeinbesitz Anakreon . . . macht sich den Scherz zu deklinieren; der erste Vers mit dem Nominativ ist leider nicht erhalten.' No proof is given for this rather sweeping statement; the assumption that a line is missing before KXevßotäov /*ev eyiu/ *p4vp.tas, referring to Spengel in 34. 2 3 ; he could have referred also to in 139. 1 ; but perhaps dvrovoftaoias should be restored, which means 'pronoun' in Dionys. Hal. de comp. verb. 2 p. 7. 7 Us.-Rad. {Ivraivv^ only in cod. v), in Ap. Dysc. de pron. 4. 18, 5 . 10 Schn., where the grammarian rejects this form used by another grammarian, and in Pap. Yale 4 4 6 , first century A.D. (no. 2 1 3 8 Pack*) ed. Hubbell, CI. Phil. 2 8 (100^) 3
* Evidence for their 'learning in the article 'Homeridai' by Rzach, RE vm 2147 f.—The word fafa&os itself (which does not concern us here), its composition and meaning, is again discussed by H . Patzer, Herm. 8 0 (1952) 3 1 4 - 2 5 (fcMetov oXiya ixpiosvro, x P i ^ iaTioav, atanep KO.1 TO St/catov etf>epe iaayayovrwv &OIVLKOJV is rrjv 'EXXdSa, &otviKt]ia.
M i c h a e l Ventris's ingenious theory o f the decipherment o f this syllabic
aTTiKofievoL . . .
s c r i p t is c o r r e c t ,
K€KXi]o8ai. Greeks, therefore, w e r e ' i l l i t e r a t e ' i n e a r l i e r times, as i t seemed t o H e r o d o t u s . B u t he m u s t h a v e k n o w n a n o t h e r t r a d i t i o n f r o m one o f his
some t r u t h i n t h e s t a t e m e n t o f H e r o d o t u s ' M i l e s i a n predecessors t h a t D a n a u s a n t i c i p a t e d C a d m u s . L o c a l w r i t e r s o f KprjTiKa v o i c e d t h e c l a i m
m a i n sources, H e c a t a e u s
of t h e i s l a n d o f C r e t e (against C a d m u s ) as t h e p l a c e w h e r e letters h a d
€ £ u
writers, A n a x i m a n d e r
2
1
a e v o t
o f Miletus, w i t h w h o m t w o other Milesian
a n d Dionysius,
3
agreed: namely that
'before
irpo KdSp.ov Aavaov fieTcucopiiaat
C a d m u s , D a n a u s b r o u g h t letters over'
1
w e are c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a strange a n d p r i m i t i v e p r e -
H o m e r i c ' G r e e k ' l a n g u a g e i n a s c r i p t t h a t entails countless a m b i g u i t i e s . I t is h a r d l y c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t t h i s c l u m s y s c r i p t c o u l d h a v e been used f o r a l i t e r a r y t e x t . H o w e v e r t h a t m a y t u r n o u t , w e k n o w n o w t h a t t h e r e is 2
3
been m o s t a n c i e n t l y i n v e n t e d , a n d a n t i q u a r i a n a u t h o r s
trepl
evprfpidTOJv*
registered o t h e r c l a i m a n t s ; b u t a l l these v a r i o u s stories p o i n t i n one
D a n a u s h a d sailed f r o m E g y p t { n o t f r o m Phoenicia)
d i r e c t i o n : they dispute the p r i o r i t y o f the 'Phoenician' alphabet a n d h i n t
t o t h e A r g o l i d ; t h e r i v a l r y b e t w e e n E g y p t a n d t h e N e a r East i n t h i s field is
at a n o t h e r e a r l i e r G r e e k s c r i p t ; a n d i n t h i s respect t h e y are o n l y n o w sur-
a p p a r e n t from t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d persistent u p t o t o d a y . Since h u n d r e d s
prisingly confirmed.
aura ( r a
oroixefa).
4
o f c l a y t a b l e t s , c o v e r e d w i t h w r i t i n g i n t h e so-called L i n e a r B S c r i p t
T h e P h o e n i c i a n o r i g i n o f t h e ' a l p h a b e t ' , h o w e v e r , as i t was used i n
( w h i c h h a d been k n o w n before o n l y f r o m Knossos) w e r e f o u n d n e a r
h i s t o r i c a l G r e e k t i m e s , has n e v e r b e e n seriously
Pylos b y C. W . B l e g e n (1939) a n d i n o t h e r places o f t h e G r e e k m a i n l a n d
H e r o d o t u s is b y n o means t h e earliest a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s ; some o f t h e
called i n question. s
( M y c e n a e , 1950, b y A l a n J . B. W a c e ) , i t has been o b v i o u s t h a t H e r o d o t u s
M i l e s i a n w r i t e r s a l r e a d y q u o t e d are h a l f a c e n t u r y e a r l i e r , t h e oldest
was w r o n g w h e n he expressed h i s o p i n i o n , a l t h o u g h v e r y c a u t i o u s l y (OJS
inscription o f Teos
ifiol
SOK€€IV),
t h a t Greece was i l l i t e r a t e before t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e
( o V av . . . econd, and amongst the rather confused series of titles /Zoij/xeW is fairly certain. Hesych. v. ', £ tpaaiv rrptÖTQv i* $QIVIKT}S ei'y T»)V '.EAAaSa Kopnaßrjvat; cf. Polyzelus of Rhodes 521 FGrHist 1. 4
H. Diels, Elementum (Leipzig 1 8 9 9 ) ; ibid. p. 5 8 . 3 , the prophetic note that we shall find one day the 'old system' of writing. A. Evans had made the first announcement of its discovery in Oxford 1894.—On the term aroixeta see below, p. 6 0 and Excursus. * Plat. Crat. 431 E TO -re aX<pa KCU TO ftijra ncoi Ife&atov rtuc OTOIYCUUV; cf. Diels, loc. cit. 18 ff., 58ff.;Suet. Div. Iul. 56. 6 quarto elementorum littera 'the fourth letter of the alphabet'. Wade-Gery, The Poet of the Iliad (1952) 11 - 1 4 ; a different view on the date of a 'written copy' in D. L . Page, History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley 1959) 2 6 0 . * Epigrammaia, Greek Inscriptions in Verse from the Beginnings to the Persian War, by P, Friedlander and H. B. Hoffleit (Berkeley 1948) p. 7. Two important verse inscriptions of about 700 B.C. were published later: fragmentary hexameters painted on an oinochoe in Ithake, 43 (pl- 34» Jeffery pp. 2 3 0 , 2 3 3 , pi. 4 5 . 1. 2 : the unique verse graffito, three lines written in the Phoenician retrograde style, found in Ischia, Rend. Line. 1955, 2 1 5 ff., P *- l~4> Jeffery pp. 45, 235 f., 239, pi. 47. 1. . Alan J . B. Wace, Documents in Mycenaean Greek xxvii ff., strongly pleads for a slow evolution and speaks with scorn of the opposite 'classicistic' prejudice.—I totally disagree with the picture given by M. P. Nilsson, Homer and Mycenae (London 1933) 2 0 6 - 1 1 , who believes in the_origin of Greek epics in the 'glorious Mycenaean age' and a renascence of epics in Ionic ™ -—The new tablets, so far, do not contain any literary text or any hint at poetry; Nevertheless, they have provoked Professor T . B. L . Webster (with whom I agree in some details), into writing From Mycenae to Homer (London 1 9 5 8 ) , in which he tries—unsuccessfully, but with immense erudition and bold imagination—to reconstruct songs of Mycenaean Palaces. On the other hand, J . A. Notopoulos, Homer, Hesiod and the Achaean Heritage of °ral Poetry', Hesperia 29 ( i 9 6 0 ) 177ff.,argues for the existence of an 'Achaean' oral epic Poetry which survived in the mainland ('Hesiod', etc.) as well as in Ionia ('Homer', etc.). 1
3
8
1
5
nes
0
24
From Oral to Written
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Tradition
25
a d e f i n i t i v e a l p h a b e t i c system, m u s t h a v e b e e n r e a c h e d i n a f a i r l y short
j c r i p t w a s accessible t o e v e r y o n e , a n d i n t h e course o f t i m e i t b e c a m e
time.
the c o m m o n h e r i t a g e o f a l l citizens w h o w e r e a b l e t o use a p e n ( o r
T h e r e were m i n o r alterations a n d slight i m p r o v e m e n t s , b u t there
w a s n o 'pro-gress'
a n y m o r e either i n Greek o r i n post-Greek
times.
1
a brush) a n d t o r e a d ; the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f w r i t i n g materials i n early times
' vToO
has b e e n m e n t i o n e d a l r e a d y , a n d especially t h e i m p o r t o f p a p y r u s f r o m
rfwtv, i n t h e epic age. T h e same h a p p e n e d i n o t h e r p r o v i n c e s o f Greek
E g y p t , w h e r e i t h a d b e e n used as far b a c k as t h e t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m i n t h e
civilization, i n literature and art.
form o f s m a l l e r o r l a r g e r r o l l s f o r ritual a n d l i t e r a r y purposes. So a l l t h e
T h e a l p h a b e t w a s ' p e r f e c t ' , i t h a d f o u n d i t s o w n n a t u r e , eo"x V c 7
V
e
a
A n e w i n s t r u m e n t h a d been created, w h i c h was, o n t h e one hand,
necessary c o n d i t i o n s f o r p r o d u c i n g G r e e k books w e r e i n existence
from
i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e expression o f e x a c t nuances o f l a n g u a g e i n p o e t r y a n d
the e i g h t h o r seventh c e n t u r y o n w a r d s , i t seems. I f w e t r y t o a n s w e r t h e
philosophy a n d , o n the other h a n d , indispensable for scholarly interpreta-
t w o questions
i n t h e last p a r a g r a p h , w e a r e l e d t o d i s t i n g u i s h f o u r
t i o n a n d analysis. I n t h i s sense t h e a d a p t e d P h o e n i c i a n c h a r a c t e r s were
periods. T h e r e p r o b a b l y w a s first a t i m e o f m e r e l y o r a l c o m p o s i t i o n a n d
c a l l e d ' h e l p e r s t o w a r d s t h e Aoyos' b y G r i t i a s i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e
oral
fifth
proof, b e g a n w i t h t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a l p h a b e t i c w r i t i n g . E p i c
c e n t u r y i n a n elegiac p o e m a b o u t v a r i o u s i n v e n t i o n s o f peoples a n d
cities:
&oiviK€$
Phoenicians
S'
edpov ypdfip.ar
y
aAe££\oya
2
(Vors.
8 8 B 2. i o ) , ' t h e
i n v e n t e d letters w h i c h h e l p m e n t o t h i n k a n d t o speak'
(poTjdovvra els Xoyov
Eust. p . 1771. 4 4 ) . I n t h e a r c h a i c p e r i o d w h i c h f o l -
l o w e d t h e e p i c age t h e G r e e k s ' first a i m w a s a t b e a u t y o f s c r i p t ; f o r
t r a d i t i o n o f p o e t r y . T h e second stage, w e assume w i t h o u t f u r t h e r poets,
heirs o f a n a n c i e n t o r a l t r a d i t i o n , b e g a n t o p u t d o w n t h e i r g r e a t c o m positions i n this n e w s c r i p t w e s t i l l possess as t h e p r o d u c t o f t h a t c r e a t i v e epic age t h e t w o ' H o m e r i c ' p o e m s . T h e t r a n s m i s s i o n r e m a i n e d o r a l : t h e poets themselves a n d t h e rhapsodes t h a t f o l l o w e d t h e m r e c i t e d t h e i r
e v i d e n c e w e h a v e o n l y t o l o o k a t t h e e a r l y i n s c r i p t i o n s o n stone s t i l l p r e -
works t o a n a u d i e n c e ; a n d t h i s o r a l t r a d i t i o n w a s s e c u r e d b y t h e s c r i p t
served. T h i s t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s h a r m o n y a n d e v e n ' g e o m e t r i c ' n o r m s was
w h i c h m u s t h a v e b e e n t o a c e r t a i n degree u n d e r p r o p e r c o n t r o l . T h e r e
lTvdayopas avrwv (sc. TWV ypap-adroiv) rov KaXXovs €7T€p.eX-q9r), eV TTJS Kara. yeajpLerpiav ypap.p.r)s pvdpLicras . . . avra yojviats Kal irepttf>€peiais Kal evdeiais ( S c h o l . D i o n y s . T h r . Gr. Gr. i n
is, so f a r , n o e v i d e n c e f o r b o o k p r o d u c t i o n o n a l a r g e scale, f o r t h e c i r c u l a -
183. 3 2 ) . A r c h a i c Greece t o o k a p r i d e i n w r i t i n g as a w o r k o f a r t , t h e r e
sophy r e m a i n e d o r a l . F r o m t h e h i s t o r y o f s c r i p t a n d b o o k w e get n o
is a s t r i v i n g f o r TO
observed b y later w r i t e r s :
3
t i o n o f copies, o r f o r a r e a d i n g p u b l i c i n t h e l y r i c age. T h e p o w e r o f memory was unchallenged, a n d the t r a d i t i o n o f poetry a n d early p h i l o -
as i n s c r i p t i o n s s h o w , a n d i t c a n h a r d l y be
s u p p o r t e i t h e r for t h e l e g e n d o f t h e Peisistratean recension o f t h e H o m e r i c
d o u b t e d t h a t l i t e r a c y was f a i r l y w i d e s p r e a d ; b u t t h e i m p o r t a n t questions
poems o r f o r t h e b e l i e f t h a t Peisistratus a n d P o l y c r a t e s w e r e b o o k c o l -
are h o w f a r first p o e t r y a n d t h e n p h i l o s o p h y w e r e w r i t t e n d o w n a n d a t
lectors a n d founders o f p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s .
KOXOV,
w h a t t i m e some f o r m o f c o m m e r c i a l p u b l i c a t i o n finally c a m e i n t o b e i n g .
N o f u r t h e r c h a n g e is n o t i c e a b l e u n t i l t h e fifth c e n t u r y , w h e n t h e t h i r d 2
i n p r e h i s t o r i c G r e e c e becomes visible
p e r i o d b e g a n , o n e i n w h i c h n o t o n l y o r a l c o m p o s i t i o n , b u t also o r a l
o n l y against t h e o r i e n t a l b a c k g r o u n d ; so w e w e r e f o r c e d t o g o o u t o f o u r
t r a d i t i o n , b e g a n t o lose its i m p o r t a n c e . T h e first sign o f t h i s is t h e s u d d e n
w a y f o r a l i t t l e w h i l e . N o w i n G r e e c e w e find n o g u i l d o f scribes, n o caste
t p p e a r a n c e o f f r e q u e n t references t o w r i t i n g a n d r e a d i n g i n p o e t r y a n d
T h e pattern o f development
o f priests t o w h i c h k n o w l e d g e o f w r i t i n g was r e s t r i c t e d , n o sacred b o o k s
4
of
w h i c h t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n was t h e i r s p e c i a l p r i v i l e g e . T h e G r e e k a l p h a b e t i c
Art from t h e seventies o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y o n w a r d s ; t h e i m a g e o f scribe
lift The opposite view is taken by E . R. Dodds in the very lucid chapter 'Homer as Oral ioetry* in Fifty Tears of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1954) 1 3 - 1 7 ; be has been completely •convinced by Milman Parry's collection of formulaic material. But this only proves that Greek fS?C poems were the result of a long oral tradition and were destined for further oral transfrussion; there is no decisive argument against the composition of Iliad and Odyssey in writing. . " T y ' s so-called 'negative check' is entirely misleading: Apollonius Rhodius followed the Hellenistic theory of variation and consciously avoided formulae, repetitions, and the like. A n important part of M. Parry's priceless collection of Serbocroatian Songs has been published ( ' 9 5 3 - 4 ) 5 hut I wonder what help they may be for Homer, however contemptuously A. B. J*rd, 'The Singer of Tales', Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 2 4 ( i 9 6 0 ) , may dismiss ™°*e Homeric scholars who do not yet give full credit to Parry's revelations. 1
The best expert on 'grammatology' I. J . Gelb, A Study of Writing (London 1952) 239 (cf. 184) made the statement: 'In spite of the tremendous achievements of the Western civilization in so manyfieldsof human endeavour, writing has not progressed at all since the Greek period.. . . The complex causes for this conservative attitude may very well be beyond our capacity to comprehend.' But under the aspect of T4XOS and vats we may well be able to comprehend it (see below, p. 6 8 ) . This awaf Xcyofitvov is not only attested and explained by Eustathius, who gives a choice of three different meanings, but already quoted in the Evvaywyi) Ac'^ctuv xPV il - "' P* 74- ' Bachm. and in Phot. Berol. p. 73. 3 Reitzenstein; L - S should not list it as 'dubious'. J A. Rehm, 'Inschriften als Kunstwerke', Handbuchi\§. 3 ;JefTery, photographs of archaic inscriptions on 72 plates. * Except perhaps for small sects of mystics. 1
1
J
J
a
* E. G. Turner, ***>don 1 9 5 2 ) .
Athenian
Books
in the Fifth
and Fourth
Centuries
B.C.
(Inaugural Lecture,
26
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
and
Book Production and Reading
r e a d e r h a d a p p a r e n t l y c a u g h t p o e t i c i m a g i n a t i o n as w e l l as t h e
I f w e t u r n f r o m t h e l i t e r a r y field t o t h e A t t i c vase p a i n t e r s , w e d o n o t
i m a g i n a t i o n o f t h e vase p a i n t e r s f o r t h e first t i m e . I t c a n h a r d l y b e b y
flnd
chance
life o f t h e fidvavaoi w e r e t h e i r f a v o u r i t e subjects. Scenes o f t h e c u l t i v a t e d
written
t h a t a l l t h e g r e a t poets b e g a n t o use t h e n e w s y m b o l o f the w o r d for the mental activity o f 'recollection', o f
/unfrti};
t h i s is
life, i n w h i c h representations o f i n s c r i b e d r o l l s find a p l a c e , a p p e a r
p a r t i c u l a r l y r e m a r k a b l e , i f we r e m e m b e r t h e p a r t w h i c h physical m e m o r y had
first
i n t h e r e d - f i g u r e d style, t h e w o r k o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a r i e s o f t h e t r a g i c
Prometheus 4 6 0 f. t h e god w h o t o o k re ovvdeo-ets / iivrjysnv airdintnv, •nXdv-nv tf>pdaa> / rjv €yypdov ov p.vnp,o(nv
p l a y e d i n t h e past. I n Aeschylus'
a pride i n having invented
a n y p i c t u r e s o f ' b o o k s ' o n b l a c k - f i g u r e d vases; scenes o f t h e s i m p l e
poets, from a b o u t 4 9 0 t o 425 B.C. A t least t h r e e o f these p a i n t i n g s seem to be s l i g h t l y e a r l i e r t h a n t h e d a t e d plays o f A e s c h y l u s .
ypaap,drcov
1
O n h a l f a dozen
epydvTjv t o l d I o : (ftpevtiiv ( i b i d . 788 f.) Sophocles expressly r e p e a t e d this i m a g e i n his e a r l i e s t p l a y Triptolemus ( a b o u t 466 B.C. ?) . A e s c h y l u s was b o l d e n o u g h t o a t t r i b u t e even t o a g o d l i k e H a d e s a oe\roypdtf>os tj>p-qv, Eum. 273-5 pieyas yap ^ i S i j c e o r i v evdvvos ßporwv . . ., SeXroypdoj S e navr e V w n - a
vases, letters o r w o r d s o f e p i c o r l y r i c poems, w r i t t e n across t h e o p e n
pcvL W e find i n A e s c h y l u s n o t o n l y t h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f d i v i n e ' t a b l e t s o f
from
the
m i n d ' , b u t also t h e i d e a o f Z e u s ' t a b l e t s o n w h i c h m e n ' s crimes have
I believe, i n t a k i n g t h e c o i n c i d e n c e o f t h e l i t e r a r y passages a n d t h e vase-
b e e n n o t e d . T h i s i m a g e r e m i n d s o n e o f t h e g r e a t deities o f o r i e n t a l
p a i n t i n g s as evidence o f a c h a n g e i n t h e c o m m o n use o f b o o k s ; n o d o u b t
/XOUCTO/XTJTOO'
p a p y r u s r o l l , c a n s t i l l be d e c i p h e r e d . W e see y o u t h s a n d schoolmasters
SATCH?
2
r e a d i n g t h e t e x t ; i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y f a m o u s n a m e s l i k e
2
those o f S a p p h o , L i n o s , M u s a i o s are a d d e d t o these figures. O n a C a r n e o l Scarabaeus even a S p h i n x is represented as r e c i t i n g t h e f a m o u s r i d d l e
Alien a
rrdpeopos
[ypd<povoa\ ToWAa/oj/xaT*
w h e n a conscious m e t h o d o f
o f Zeus, a n d e n t r u s t e d h e r w i t h t h e
office o f h i s oe\roypdos, as we h a v e l e a r n e d q u i t e r e c e n t l y :
h> o4Xra> Aio$
(Aesch.
Aitnai
Kairetr* evAios S4Xrov Trrvxals
/
ypd€iv rw
avrd
W e are j u s t i f i e d ,
TrapdSoais,
o f l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n b y books,
W e a r e n o t able t o f o l l o w o u t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t i n this p e r i o d o f t r a n s i -
3
A b o u t h a l f a c e n t u r y l a t e r E u r i p i d e s also r e f e r r e d t o those r e c o r d s : raSi/c^avr' . . .
3
became established.
{Auaj) . . .
[ ? ] a b o u t 470 B.c.) .
o p e n b o o k i n h e r p a w s ( a b o u t 4 6 0 B.C,).
i t w a s a s l o w c h a n g e , l e a d i n g g r a d u a l l y t o t h e f o u r t h a n d final p e r i o d ,
r e l i g i o n s w r i t i n g t h e i r sacred books, b u t A e s c h y l u s f o l l o w e d the H e s i o d i c tradition that made
an
t i o n step b y step. T h e r e seems t o be n o n e w evidence, o n l y a f e w casual
(Melanippe,
allusions i n O l d C o m e d y
p r o b a b l y -r) ootp-q, f r . 506 N . ) . T h e t r a d i t i o n a l expression for w r i t i n g
a n d i n Platonic dialogues, w h i c h are w e l l
k n o w n b u t n e e d t o be c a r e f u l l y r e c o n s i d e r e d . E u p o l i s , A r i s t o p h a n e s ' c o n -
2
m a t e r i a l i n t r a g e d y r e m a i n e d SeAro?, e v e n w h e n o n e m i g h t suppose t h a t
t e m p o r a r y , m e n t i o n e d , p r o b a b l y i n t h e t w e n t i e s o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y , t h e
the
place o£
4
p o e t w a s a c t u a l l y s p e a k i n g a b o u t l i t e r a r y texts w r i t t e n o n p a p y r u s -
rolls.*
rd ftiflXi ojvia,
' w h e r e t h e books are o n sale'. Socrates was able 4
to get h o l d o f t h e books o f A n a x a g o r a s v e r y q u i c k l y , w h e n h e h a d h e a r d someone r e a d i n g a n i n t e r e s t i n g passage from o n e o f h i s w r i t i n g s , t h o u g h
I7g alvth (fivXa^at TCW** , eirij SeA-rowueWs (sc. filias). Pind. 0. x. a (about . ttoQi pei>os eiiä? yeypanrai. Soph. fr. 5 9 7 P. dov 0" ev (Pf.: ot>8' av A, ae 8 ' ev V) tppevos ÖCXTOLOL roOy e/xous Adyovs (60S cf. Call. fr. 75. 6 6 ö>«(JiJf«iTO SeArots); cf. Aesch. Cko. 450, Soph. Phil. 1 3 2 5 ; Eur. Tro. 6 6 3 a\va-nrv^a> tppwa 'unroll my mind' (like a book). s P.Oxy. xx (1952) 2 2 5 6 , fr. 9 a 21 ed. E . Lobel = Aesch. fr. 5 3 0 Mette; recognized by E. Fraenkel, Eranas 52 (1954) 6 4 if., as a fragment of the festival play for Hieron's foundation of the city Aetna; cf. F. Solmsen, The Tablets of Zeus, CI. Qu. 3 8 (1944) 2 7 - 3 0 . The only exception, so far, seems to be Aesch. Sappl. 946 f. raür' ov iriva&v earw eyytypap.p.€va / ovo' iv »JTWYGUS ßißXcup Ka.Ttu6epcu, Sarpaxa, see Babr. 127 and the many proverbs collected b y O . Grusius, De Babrii aetate (1876) 2 1 9 ; cf. F. Marx., Ind. lect. Greifswald (1892/3) vi. No conclusions about the actual use of writing material at certain times can be drawn from such passages. Eur. Erechtk. fr. 3 6 9 . 6 f. N . SCATWV anarrrvaaoi.^i y^pw, av aoot xAtWai; one may compare Socrates unrolling the treasures of the sages of old time in Xenoph. Mem. 16, 14: rovs Srfa-aupois rSiv irdXai aotpüivjivoptäv . . , iveXimov; see below, p. 28, n. 2. 1
474)
Cf. Aesch.
Suppl.
o.väyv'•
* Einleitung
3
in die Tragödie (1889) 121 ff.
References in the article of F. Börner, 'Der Commentarius', Herrn. 81 (1953) 2 1 5 ff., but / he did not mention Wilamowitz's theory. I fully agree in this point with Turner, Athenian Books 17. ' Marcellin. Vita Thuc. 5 4 ; Paroemiogr. cod. Coisl, 157 = Append. 11 3 5 , ed. Gotting., f voL 1 4 0 0 «*s r^v 'HpoSorov oieiav. This late tradition, often rejected, was rightly accepted by i. F- Jacoby, RE, Suppl. 11 330, and John L . Myres, Herodotus, Father of History (1953) 5l F. Jacoby, Ä£,jSuppl. 11 500 f. s
6
1
1
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
30
Hellanicus o f Lesbos;
1
Socratic-Platonic Opposition
his c o n n e x i o n w i t h c o n t e m p o r a r y Sophists
is
clearly perceptible.
Vors.
11 1. 2 1 - 3 4 =
31
8 4 B 2 ) . X e n o p h o n also records a n i n t e r v i e w o f
Socrates w i t h a c e r t a i n E u t h y d e m u s , c a l l e d o KO.AÖ>
I t is a n o t a b l e c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t u n d e r t h e a r c h o n s h i p o f E u c l i d e s (403/2 B.C.) t h e I o n i c a l p h a b e t was o f f i c i a l l y a d o p t e d f o r p u b l i c d o c u m e n t s i n
(Mem.,
i v 2. 1 i f . ) ,
w h o h a d a r e m a r k a b l e c o l l e c t i o n o f books o f poets as w e l l as o f 'Sophists'
(iroiriTojv
re
xai oojuoTOJv Toiv €vSoKLfLioraTcov) .
T
A s professional teache
Protag.
Athens instead o f the local A t t i c script. I f the w r i t t e n t r a d i t i o n started
t h e Sophists h a d t o g i v e b o o k texts o f t h e g r e a t poets ( P l a t .
i n I o n i a , as w e assumed, i t is n a t u r a l t h a t I o n i c characters w e r e p r e -
t o t h e i r p u p i l s , b u t t h e y s t a r t e d also t o d i s t r i b u t e copies o f t h e i r o w n
d o m i n a n t l y i n use for l i t e r a r y purposes i n o t h e r p a r t s o f Greece as w e l l .
w r i t i n g s as 7Tapaoelypn.Ta.
2
3
y
models,
2
a n d to w r i t e p r a c t i c a l textbooks.
I n A t h e n s t h e i r increased p o p u l a r i t y i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y
O r a l instruction, t h o u g h still most i m p o r t a n t ,
m a y h a v e b e e n b r o u g h t a b o u t b y t h e i t i n e r a n t Sophists w h o m o s t l y
for t h e i r special p u r p o s e ( P l a t .
c a m e f r o m I o n i c c i t i e s ; t h e letters d e s c r i b e d i n E u r i p i d e s '
Theseus
382 N . , p r o d u c e d before 422 B.C.) are a p p a r e n t l y I o n i c .
Occasional
2
t r a n s c r i p t i o n s o f texts w e r e necessary ( a n d , n o d o u b t , some
(fr.
tradition
5
325 E)
Phaedr.
4
3
was n o l o n g e r sufficient
228 A ) . I f t h e r e is a n y t r u t h i n t h e
t h a t P r o t a g o r a s ' books w e r e c o l l e c t e d f r o m t h e i r o w n e r s a n d
b u r n e d o n t h e a g o r a w h e n he was accused o f a t h e i s m ( a b o u t 416/15
mistakes
B.C. ?), a n established t r a d e a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f books a m o n g t h e A t h e n i a n
o f earlier
p u b l i c a t t h a t t i m e m u s t be assumed. T h i s m a y s t i l l h a v e been o n a s m a l l
l i t e r a t u r e t o o k place. Q u i t e n a t u r a l l y , t h e I o n i c s c r i p t became, i n t h e
scale; t h e discussions a b o u t t h e p r o b l e m , e v e n a b o u t t h e d a n g e r , o f t h i s
course o f t i m e , t h e u n i v e r s a l l y accepted h a n d b o t h for l i t e r a r y t e x t s a n d
new h a b i t were m a i n l y concerned w i t h Sophistic w r i t i n g s . W e
for documents.
e x a m p l e o f this i n A r i s t o p h a n e s ' sneer at Prodicus ; his p o i n t of" v i e w was
w e r e m a d e i n t h e process); b u t n o g e n e r a l
pieTaxapaKTypiauos*
5
T h e r e r e m a i n s t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e Sophists t o h a v e p l a y e d t h e decisive p a r t i n t h i s c h a n g e .
6
can really c l a i m
One o f the leading
find
an
m e r e l y e t h i c a l . A m o r e g e n e r a l p h i l o s o p h i c a l o p p o s i t i o n arose f r o m t h e side o f Socrates
6
a n d P l a t o ; i t is v o i c e d a g a i n a n d a g a i n f r o m t h e e a r l y
Protagoras
dialogue
Tagenistas
cussed passages are r e l e v a n t t o o u r p u r p o s e . I n t h e first p l a c e t h e i m -
TOVTOV
( f r . 4 9 0 K . ) ' e i t h e r a b o o k o r P r o d i c u s has r u i n e d t h e m a n ' ,
TOV ctvSp' •f)
ßtßXtov SU4>6op€v I r/ TTpoStKos.
T h e a l t e r n a t i v e a t least
shows t h a t p u r e literariness was r e g a r d e d as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a S o p h i s t ; a t t h e same t i m e i t p o i n t s t o t h e d a n g e r o f S o p h i s t i c books, p e r h a p s o f b o o k s i n g e n e r a l . F r o m Plato's
Symposium
scene is staged i n 416 B.C., o n e c a n i n f e r
7
(117 B), o f w h i c h t h e w h o l e
t h a t Prodicus'
Horai
were i n
c i r c u l a t i o n as a ' b o o k ' a t t h a t t i m e ; l a t e r o n f r o m a c o p y o f this b o o k X e n o p h o n t o o k t h e f a m o u s p a r a b l e o f H e r c u l e s a t t h e crossroads F. Jacoby, AttHs (Oxford 1949) 216 f., Index p. 107, i n , 138, Hellanicus and the Sophists. 1
1
Theopomp. 115 FGrHist
431
oral tradition and
RE
vm
(Mem. (1913)
155.
3 Of. Schol. Dionys. The, Gr. Gr. in p. 183. 20 if. Hilg. * The theory of a universal and systematical transliteration is maintained by R. Herzog, 'Die Umschrift der älteren griechischen Literatur in das jonische Alphabet', Programm zur Rektoraisfeier der Universität Basel ( 1 9 1 2 ) , but he is not able to prove his point either by the valuable collection of so-called evidence or by his arguments. J . Irigoin, L'histoire du texte de Pindare (1952) 2 2 - 2 8 still tried to maintain the theory of u.traypap^p.aTiop.6s. Our earliest specimen seems to have been written in the third quarter of the fourth century B.C. See below, p. 1 0 2 ; cf. C. H . Roberts, Greek Literary Hands 350 B.C.-A.D, 400 1
(1955) fc
7
T w o p o i n t s i n these m u c h dis-
8
m e d i a t e t a r g e t for t h e attacks was t h e Sophists, t h e i r e x a g g e r a t e d Cf. Isoer. 2 (ad Nîcocl.) 13 /XJTC TV ao/piorâiv
contemporary writers,
Cf. Marrou 54. For references to such sample speeches put into writing see W. Steidle, 'Redekunst und Bildung bei Isokrates', Herrn. 8 0 (1952) 271. 5. On the preference for the written word by Isocrates in the line of the Sophists, ibid. 279, 292, 296. Plat. Phaedr. 266 D KO.1 fiâXa rrov avxvô. • .... TO. y' èv roîç ßißXiois rots irepï Xôytov TÉ^CTJS yeyp ap.p- évoi s ; cf. M. Fuhrmann, Das systematische Lehrbuch (1960) 123 f.; see also below, p. 76, n. 5. Protagoras and Prodicus used to read manuscripts to their pupils (Diog. L . rx 50, cf. 54 = Vors. 80 A 1). Hippias repeatedly read his TptutKos to the Spartans and Athenians (Plat. Hipp. mai. 286 BC = Vors. 86 A 9 ) . See also Diels, NJb 25 (1910) 11: 'Da die Sophistik . . . den mündlichen Unterricht durch eine Unzahl praktischer Handbücher und Broschüren eindringlicher und nachhaltiger gestaltete' (italics are mine) ; this may be a little exaggerated. 3
3
4
Vors. 80 A I TO ßtßXia aiiroû leareKavaav 4v rrj àyopq iura tc-qpuKt àvotXc£>ip.(voi Trap' eicdoTov TtSv KtKrf\yAvvo€w$ 4 8 3 E) refers t o a passage o f 4
a P i n d a r i c p o e m ( f r . 169 Sn.) he is b y n o m e a n s i n t e r e s t e d i n e x p l a i n i n g t h e t e x t . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , he quotes t h e s a y i n g a b o u t t h e
See also Hdt. 111 38. Vors. 84 A 18, registered under the name of Prodicus ; it should be said that Critias is the speaker. Cf. Charm. 163 D; Xenoph. Mem. 1 2, 5 6 . Diog. L . 11 11 (Vors. 5 9 A I and 61 A 2 ) . Even if we could trust Favorinus' statement about Anaxagoras (Sowrti Sè SiKaioavtrns), it would not mean that he explained Homeric poetry as moral allegory (as many people seem to believe including Sandys, Hist, i 3 0 ) , but that hefirstmade known its ethical tendency ; in that respect he would have been a predecessor of Aristophanes, see below, pp. 4 7 f. On new combinations and readings of Pap. Herculan. 1081 and 1676 see J . Heidmann, Der Pap. 1676 der Herculan. Bibliothek (Diss. Bonn 1937) 6 f. and F. Sbordone, 'Un nuovo libro della Poetica di Filodemo', Atti delVAccad. Pontaniana, N.S. rx ( i 9 6 0 ) 252 f. This traditional mistake is particularly stressed by W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur 12(1934) 6 7 8 , and worked out by F. Buffière, Les Mythes d'Homère et la pensée grecque (Paris 1956) 132-6 'L'exégèse allégorique avant les Stoiciens'. 1
2
3
vopLos fiaoiXevs
See below, pp. 58 f. * Basilios Tsirimbas, Die Stelhmg der Sophistik zur Poesie im V. und IV. Jahrhundert bis zu Isokrates (Diss. Miinchen 1936) 53 if. 3 Cf. Vors. 8 6 B dub. about 'prosody' in B 15, *F 328. 4 See E. R. Dodds, Plato: Gorgias (Oxford 1959) 270 S.—P.Oxy. 2450 (published 1961) fr. 1, col. 11 starts with 1. 6 of the Platonic quotation, but it may still be of some help; the numerous references to Pindar's lines are given in extenso by A. Turyn, Pindari Cam. (1948) fr. 187. • M. Gigante, Ndpws fiaotXcSs (1956) 146ff.Tppia e Callicle, interpreti di Pindaro*. 1
a b o u t Nestor's
K r o n o s ; f u r t h e r m o r e , h e is m e n t i o n e d as one w h o w r o t e , l a t e r t h a n
there are
as regards P r o d i c u s a n d H i p p i a s , * b u t n o clear
evidence. W h e n Gallicles ( P l a t . law of nature'
2
Iliad
c u p a n d a b o u t t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e universe b e t w e e n t h e t h r e e sons o f
I t is v e r y l i k e l y t h a t P r o t a g o r a s ' c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a n d f o l l o w e r s i n t h e next generation practised a similar k i n d o f interpretation ;
107 T 3 ) . A s
5
3
4
3
The Sophists^ their Contemporaries and Pupils
36
'Correctness of Diction*
b e e n h i s p u p i l , n o t o n l y o n H o m e r ' s p o e t r y b u t also o n h i s life a n d d a t e .
l i t e r a l sense. W h e n h e discussed
I f t h i s is c o r r e c t , S t e s i m b r o t u s leads us t o a v e r y r e m a r k a b l e figure i n t h e
n o t a t t e m p t i n g t o understand the p r o e m o f the
TroXvTpo-rros
(a
i)
37 1
a t some l e n g t h , h e was
Odyssey b u t t o define t h e
history o f poetry a n d learning, o f w h o m we shall hear later o n , A n t i -
g e n e r a l e t h i c a l m e a n i n g o f t h e c o m p o u n d b y w h i c h t h e figure o f Odysseus
machus o f Colophon.'
is c h a r a c t e r i z e d ; Odysseus' experience i n a l l m a n n e r (Tpo7roi) o f w o r d s is
A t t h e m o m e n t , h o w e v e r , w e h a v e t o l o o k b a c k t o t h e Sophists. I f i t were true that Antisthenes h a d taken over the allegorical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Homer from Metrodorus, allegorist. Antisthenes
3
2
w e s h o u l d a t last h a v e f o u n d a S o p h i s t i c
was a p u p i l o f G o r g i a s a n d i n f l u e n c e d also b y
P r o d i c u s , before h e j o i n e d t h e c i r c l e o f Socrates. W e h a v e a l o n g l i s t o f
t o h i m m u c h s u p e r i o r t o t h e b r u t a l s t r e n g t h o f A j a x (see also his
fictitious
'OSvaoevs). T h e m a i n p o i n t , h o w e v e r , is t h i s : ' t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f w o r d s is t h e b e g i n n i n g o f e d u c a t i o n ' , apxr) rraiSevaecos rj o r a t i o n s Atas
TOJV
oVo/idVaiv
and
2
imo-Ketfiis*
3
A s f a r as w e k n o w t h e l e a d i n g Sophists a n d t h e i r
i m m e d i a t e descendants l i k e A n t i s t h e n e s , n o n e o f t h e m m a y be c o u n t e d as
titles o f books b y h i m o n H o m e r i c subjects ( D i o g . L . v i 17. 1 8 ) , especially
a n a l l e g o r i s t . T h i s is s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h e w h o l e m o v e m e n t a n d n o t u n -
o n t h e Odysseyof w h i c h some q u o t a t i o n s are preserved i n o u r S c h o l i a ;
i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e f u t u r e . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e answer t o o u r q u e s t i o n a t t h e
t h e r e seems t o h a v e b e e n even o n e b o o k
Ileal ' Opvrjpov e^-nyr/rajv. So h e 4
w a s a p p a r e n t l y m u c h c o n c e r n e d w i t h H o m e r a n d his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; i f w e c a n t r u s t D i o C h r y s o s t o m (or. 5 3 . 5
TIcpl 'OpLrjpov), A n t i s t h e n e s w a s t h e
first to m a k e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n 'seeming' a n d ' t r u t h ' i n t h e H o m e r i c p o e m s ( o n TO. fikv
Sogy,
TO.
S*
b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s section m u s t be i n t h e n e g a t i v e : n o t r u e
epp.t]veia
TOJV
tTovnjtav d i d exist. T h e S o p h i s t i c e x p l a n a t i o n s o f p o e t r y f o r e s h a d o w t h e g r o w t h o f a special field o f i n q u i r y , t h e analysis o f l a n g u a g e ; t h e
final
o b j e c t is r h e t o r i c a l o r e d u c a t i o n a l , n o t l i t e r a r y .
aX-qdeta e i p n r a i rw Trotrjrij) w h i c h w a s l a t e r
N o w o n d e r , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e Sophists b e c a m e m o r e efficient i n t h i s
so o f t e n e m p l o y e d t o e x p l a i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n s . S u c h a n e x p l a n a t i o n was
sphere t h a n i n a n y o t h e r o n e . P r o t a g o r a s seems t o h a v e l e d t h e w a y w i t h
necessary, because H o m e r was t o A n t i s t h e n e s a n a u t h o r i t y f o r m o r a l
his c o n c e p t oiopdoeireia
doctrines; he p a i d n o a t t e n t i o n either t o h i d d e n meanings
his f a m o u s b o o k c a l l e d AX-qdeta ' T r u t h ' . H o m e r w a s c r i t i c i z e d f o r c o m -
5
o r to the
See below, pp. 93 f. Antimach, ed. B. Wyss (1936) test. 9 andfr. 1 2 9 ; cf. Callim. fr. 4 5 2 . F. Jacoby in his commentary on Stesimbrotus, 11 Dp. 343. 22, rightly accepts Suidas' testimony about Antimachus (rejected by Wyss, loc. cit., p. iv), and says about Stesimbrotus: 'Von Beruf Rhapsode und im Sinne der Zeit auch Homerphilologe' and p. 349. 17 'verwendet alle Mittel der damaligen Philologie'. We had better avoid the term 'Philologie' for this period. W. Schmid Geschichte d. griech. Lit. r t (1929) 1 %i, 1 2 ( 1 9 3 4 ) 6 7 9 ; Konrad Müller, 'Allegorische Dichtererklärung', RE, Suppl, iv (1924) 17; J . Geffcken, 'Entwicklung und Wesen des griechischen Kommentars', Herrn. 67 (1932) 399 'unerfreuliche Allegoristik'; he even attributes to Antisthenes 'the first real commentary on a writer', namely on Heraclitus, but the Antisthenes who commented on Heraclitus (Diog. L . rx 15 Vors. 22 A 1. 15) has been identified long ago as one of the other three AvnoBeveis mentioned by Diog. L . vi 19, the ' HpcucXeireios: Wissowa, RE 1 2537. 3 6 ; cf. F. Dümmler, Antisthenica (1882) 16 ff.; his acute observations in Gh. 2, *De Homeri sapientia', are partly misleading, esp. p. 24. The right line was taken by D. B. Monro, Homer's Odyssey xm-xxiv (1901) 4 1 2 in his survey of ancient Homeric criticism; J . Tate in two articles on allegorism (see above, p. 10, n. 5) and finally in his vigorous polemics against R. Hoistadt corroborated the statement that 'Antisthenes was not an allegorist' Eranos 51 (1953) 14-22 with detailed arguments. So F. Bumere (1956) did not repeat the old mistake, as he did in the case of Stesimbrotus (above, p. 3 5 , 1
2
5)J There is no recent collection of testimonia and fragmenta: Antisthenis Fragmenta, ed. Aug. Guil. Winckelmann, Zurich 1842, reprinted in Mullach's F. Philos. Gr. u ( I 8 8 I ) , 2 6 I ff.; rhetorical fragments in Art. script, ed. L. Radermacher (1951) B xrx; see also H . Sengebusch, Diss. Horn. (1855/6) 115 ff. about his Homeric studies. See Addenda. * Schol. a 1, « 211 =* j} 257, 1 106, 5 2 5 (critical text in Schräder, Porphyr. Quaest. Horn, in Od. 1 8 9 0 ) ; Diog. L. vi 17 rrepi iinynruiv, irepi 'Op.-qpov codd., corr. Krische, see Schräder, Porphyr. Quaest. Horn, ad 17. {1880) Proleg. p. 3 8 6 . * The ironical remark about vnovouu in the conversation of Antisthenes, Niceratus, and Socrates (Xenoph. Symp. in 6 ) is not made by Antisthenes, but by Socrates when he comments on the ignorance and folly of the rhapsodes who do not know the 'undersenses'.
; h e p o s s i b l y d e a l t w i t h 'correctness o f d i c t i o n ' i n 4
m a n d i n g t h e M u s e i n s t e a d o f p r a y i n g t o h e r , as w e h a v e seen i n t h e r e m a r k s a b o u t ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' . F o r P r o t a g o r a s h a d established t h e r u l e t h a t f o u r classes o f sentences a r e t o be d i s t i n g u i s h e d : ' W i s h ( p r a y e r ) , q u e s t i o n , answer, c o m m a n d ' ,
€vxu>Xrp>, ipcoT-naiv,
airotcpiaw,
SietXe re TOV Xoyov Trpojros els rerTapaivroXyv . . . ovs KOI Trvdp,eva$ eirre Xoyow,
' w h i c h h e c a l l e d also bases ( ' f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s ' L—S) o f speeches'. 1
See above, p. 4 ; cf. Hippias in Plat. Hipp.
min. 364
c,
365
5
B?
Art. script, BXIX 11. 12 Raderm. Antisthenes followed the vulgate version of the epic cycle (Bethe, Homer 11 pp. 165 f. and 170 f.) that Ajax carried the body of Achilles. But there 2
seems to have been another early version, preserved by Ov. met. xin 284 ff. and Schol. «310, in which Odysseus carried the body; this is not an 'error' of the scholiast, pace Bethe who omitted Ovid's testimony. The existence of a different version is confirmed by a fragment of early epic hexameters P.Oxy. xxx ed. E. Lobel (1964) 2510. 13 and 21 in which Odysseus does the carrying of the corpse. » Art. script, B xix 6 ; cf. C . J . Classen, 'Sprachliche Deutung' £ifem<Jfa 22 (1959) 1 7 3 - 6 , on Antisthenes' interpretation of ovo^aTo (with bibliography 173. 6 ) ; see also F. Mehmel, Antike und Abendland iv (1954) 34 f. + See Excursus.
Diog. L . rx 53 f. = Vors. 80 A I = Art. script, B I I I I O . I I . This division into four 'bases' is confirmed by Quintil. inst. in 4. 1 0 : Protagoran... qui interrogandi, respondendi, mandandi, precandi... partes solas putat ( = Art. script. B m 12 ; not in Vors.), olSe els errra in our text of Diog. L . rx 54 (Vors. 11 p. 254, I4f.) does not mean that others said that Protagoras made a division into seven classes; it means that others made an alternative division, and we know from the passage in Quintilian just quoted that Anaximenes did so (Art. script, B in 12 and xxxvi 9 ) . It is a rather disturbing 'Parenthesis' in the text of Diog. L.—Alcidamas (see below, pp. 50 f.) divided sentences into four classes, using other names (B XXII 8 and 9 ) . s
s
38
Prodicus
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
39
W h e n a p o e t is t h i n k i n g o f a p r a y e r t o t h e M u s e , he o u g h t t o e m p l o y t h e
g r a m m a t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , such as Sextus E m p i r i c u s , P.H.
a p p r o p r i a t e expression, a n d n o t t h e expression f o r t h e c o m m a n d : Mrjvtv
2 Mutschmann—Mau)
ctetSe,
Bed.
I n t h e p r o e m o f the
Iliad
to
t h e p o e t is g u i l t y also o f a n i n c o r r e c t
fiijvis ' w r a t h ' o r mJA-nf ' h e l m e t ' is Mrjvtv . . . ovXoptevnv, i n s t e a d o f ovXoptevov^ t h e r e f o r e
o
T« XPoVoff
Xeyerta rpipxpr)s
i n 144 (1, p . 173. ctVat, ' t i m e is said
b e d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e p a r t s ' , past, present, f u t u r e .
1
xpovos i n g e n e r a l ,
I f Protagoras
2
use o f g e n d e r . T h e sense o f w o r d s l i k e
a c t u a l l y reflected o n such a d i v i s i o n o f
clearly masculine;
l e d t o t h e l a t e r d i s t i n c t i o n o f t h e (seven) so-called tenses, j u s t as he poss i b l y p a v e d t h e w a y f o r t h e l a t e r d o c t r i n e o f f o u r m o o d s b y his f o u r
was r e g a r d e d b y P r o t a g o r a s as a n incorrectness o f c o n s t r u c t i o n ; ' h e was a p p a r e n t l y t h e first t o d i v i d e and
Things,
ra
appeva Kal dr]Xea
yev-o r&v ovofidratv
into Males,
this m i g h t have
Females,
species o f sentences.
/catCTKCUT?, a n d t o d e m a n d a s t r i c t o b -
F r o m t h e few i n c o h e r e n t f r a g m e n t s ,
2
some o f t h e m p e r h a p s n o t e v e n
3
servance o f t h i s d i v i s i o n i n t h e use o f g e n d e r a n d e n d i n g o f w o r d s . T h e
g e n u i n e , n o p l a u s i b l e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a t r u e ' t h e o r y ' o f o'pflocVeia is
c o m i c poets r e a d i l y m a d e f u n o f such a n o v e l d o c t r i n e o f t h e correctness
possible. W e h a d b e t t e r l o o k b a c k t o P l a t o ,
o f g e n d e r . T h e r e is n o d o u b t t h a t Socrates i n A r i s t o p h a n e s ' if.) the
3
Clouds ( 6 5 8
r e p r o d u c e s t h e essence o f P r o t a g o r a s ' t e a c h i n g , w h e n he starts w i t h
comprehensively termed
Set ae . . . fiavddvetv . . . drr eorlv opdcus dpp u p i l is i n s t r u c t e d n o t t o use dXetcrpvcov f o r t h e ' h e n ' ,
characteristic w o r d s :
peva. T h e p e r p l e x e d b u t dXeKTpvatva ( 6 6 6 ) ,
because t h i s w o u l d be t h e c o r r e c t f e m i n i n e f o r m
for a f e m a l e a n i m a l , a n d n o t t o say
rr)v KapSorrov,
but
rr)v
Kapbdir-nv
rpvaiva as Clouds 681
w e l l as
Kap8o7rn
are i n v e n t i o n s o f the comic poet
AXUK-
(cf. also
i f . a n d 847 i f . ) , b u t t h e r e are i m p o r t a n t n e w o b s e r v a t i o n s a n d
discussions b e h i n d these p l a y f u l l i n e s . first
339 A, f r o m w h i c h w e
I f o n e has l e a r n e d t o d i s t i n g u i s h w h i c h (opdais)
f o r m e d a n d w h i c h n o t , one
w i l l be a b l e t o a c q u i r e eloquence, w h i c h is t h e c h i e f p a r t o f e d u c a t i o n
(rraiBf-vaews
p-eyiarov
piepos).
N e a r l y a l l t h e b e t t e r - k n o w n Sophists after P r o t a g o r a s m a d e t h e i r o w n c o n t r i b u t i o n s i n t h e l i n g u i s t i c field. T h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
figure
became
P r o d i c u s o f C e o s ; he was t h e c o e v a l o f Socrates ( b o r n 4 6 9 B.C.) a n d a b o u t t w e n t y years y o u n g e r t h a n P r o t a g o r a s .
4
A p p a r e n t l y using the f o r m u l a o f
irpwrov ydp, OJ$ dyqm npo&ucos, nepl ovofMraiv opdorrjTos p.a$etv Bel ( P l a t . Euthyd. 277 E ) , a n d Socrates s a i d rrapd iTpooiKov etbevai rr)v dXrjQeiav nepl ovop^droiv opdornros (Crat.
his g r e a t predecessor, P r o d i c u s d e c l a r e d
W e c a n n o t go a n y f u r t h e r . T h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t P r o t a g o r a s was also the
eveneia.
w o r d s a n d sentences are c o r r e c t l y
(678),
as a w o r d c a n n o t h a v e a m a s c u l i n e t e r m i n a t i o n , i f i t is f e m i n i n e .
Prot.
s t a r t e d ; t h e r e w e a r e t o l d t h e r e a l a i m o f a l l these e n d e a v o u r s w h i c h are
t o d r a w a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e tenses o f t h e v e r b is a r a t h e r
s
u n f o r t u n a t e o n e ; w e h a v e n o special reference o r q u o t a t i o n as w e h a d i n
384 B) ; i t was f o r t h i s d e c l a m a t i o n o n ' t h e correctness o f w o r d s ' t h a t h e
a l l t h e p r e v i o u s cases, b e y o n d t h e s h o r t r e m a r k i n D i o g . L . IX 52
c h a r g e d his listeners t h e u n u s u a l fee o f fifty d r a c h m a i
rrpojTOs
p.ipr\ xpovou Siaipio-e 4
KaX
Katpov Svvap,tv e^edero,
'he
first
Kal dis-
t i n g u i s h e d a n d d e f i n e d ( ? ) p a r t s o f t i m e a n d set f o r t h t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f
xatpos.
W h a t e v e r these m y s t e r i o u s w o r d s m e a n , t h e y d o n o t speak e i t h e r
of the ' v e r b ' (never m e n t i o n e d i n the t r a d i t i o n a b o u t Protagoras) o r the 'tenses'. E v e n i n P l a t o xpovo? n e v e r m e a n s 'tense', b u t a l w a y s
'time'.
5
T h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e r e m a r k a p p e a r s is m o r e o r less c o n c e r n e d w i t h rhetoric,
6
and
natpos seems
t o p o i n t i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n . B u t a n o t h e r
p o s s i b i l i t y is suggested b y a f e w passages i n l a t e r p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d Aristot. Soph, El. 14 p. 173 b 17 aoXot.Kiap.6s (=> Vors. 80 A 28 = Art. script. B ill 7). Aristot. Rhet. in 5 p. 1407 b 6 ( = Vors. 80A 27 = Art. script, B 6). Vors. 80 c 3 = Art. script, B HI 8 with Radermacher's notes.—Aristoph. Nub. 658 ff. are delightfully explained in every detail by J . Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax 11 (1924) 1-5. + Vors. Bp A; 1. M. Untersteiner, I sofisti 1 (1949} 19 'tempi del verbo'; W. Schmid, Gr. Lit. Gesch. 1 3 (1940), 23. 11 'Tempora', etc.; G. P. Gunning, De Sophistis Graeciae pratceptoribus (Diss. Utrecht 1915) 112. 3, gives more bibliographical references; he himself proposes a rather trivial interpretation (a fixed time-table for his lectures) which is, strangely enough, mentioned by Diels-Kranz in their note ad loc. See below, p. 77, See Radermacher's note to Art. script. B in 24. 1 1
3
s
6
Spaxpos €7rt'Sei^ts) .
6
T h e same r a r e expression
opdorrjs
(1)
nevTOKovrd-
is used o n l y o n c e a n d
Cf. the passage about TO. xpovtKa 4mpp^p.ara Ap. Dysc. de adv. p. 123. 21 Schn. TO. ftevrot, Stpp»£ovra TOV xpwov, Koivrjv Se TtaparaaLv SijAomra TOV rravTos xP° (SC. vuv, r}8n) ; Schol. Dionys. Thr., Gr. Gr. m 59 and 97 Hilg. (to § 19 Uhlig), esp. 97. 12 ff. ra xpwa- t'wipp^aTa 1
ov
vov
KaSoXiKov Xpovov
xpovov BijXot fj p.fptKov
OTjXovvra
(orjftepov,
. . .
19 f. r a tcatpav
irapaarariKa,
rourtari
ra.
urrorop^v
avptov).
Diog. L . very liberally credited Protagoras with 'first inventions'; he or his source clearly changed Plato's Euthydem. 286 C, ol aa.j>\ Llptorayopav , . . KOX ol en nuAatOTepoi, into ovros rrpCtras SulXcicrai. So we should not take npuiros Sttuptac too seriously. It is of no use to apply a much later term (see below, p. 202) to his efforts and call him an 'analogist' or to say that, in the universal dispute between ttvais and vop.os, language was to Protagoras a product of human convention (Burnet), or of nature (Gunning); the clear antithesis does not seem to have been fixed before Hippias (below, pp. 53, 63) in the next generation (see also Excursus to p. 37),—There is a charmingly written paper by G. Murray, The Beginnings of Grammar (1931), repr. in Greek Studies (1946) 171-91, but not quite reliable in all its details. * K. v. Fritz, 'Prodikos', RE xxm (1957) 85 ff. The beautiful and enthusiastic paper of F. G. Welcker, 'Prodikos von Keos, Vorgangervon Sokrates', first published in Rh.M. 1832 and 1836, reprinted with Addenda in Kleine Schriflen 11 (1845) 393-541 is still worth reading; on Prodicus' study of language see esp. 452 fT. * Vors. 84 A 16 = Art. script, B VIII 10 with Radermacher's note. Vors. 84A 11 (cf. 12) = Art, script, B VIII 6; cf. below, p. 62, 1
3
6
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Distinction of Synonyms and Dialects
w i t h some emphasis b y A r i s t o p h a n e s , w h e n t h e l a n g u a g e o f E u r i p i d e s '
l i k e ; f o r a h u m o u r (mucus, ' p h l e g m ' s t i l l , i n spite o f Prodicus' protest,
40
p r o l o g u e s is b e i n g tested TOJV 1181).
1
aatv
rrpoXoytuv
T-ijs
rtov CTTWV (Ran. Antigone (fr. 157 i n t h e Frogs (1182 f f . ) as opdornTos
I n t h e t w o lines o f t h e p r o l o g u e o f E u r i p i d e s '
sq. N . ) t w o w o r d s a r e r e j e c t e d b y A e s c h y l u s 2
n o t p r o p e r l y d e s c r i b i n g O e d i p u s ' fate
r)v
. . .
evTuxr/s
2
a n d eZr*
iyevero
c u r r e n t i n E n g l i s h ) o n e s h o u l d say
ßXewa.
41
E v e n i f o n e finds s u c h c o n -
siderations r a t h e r p e d a n t i c , o n e has t o a d m i t t h a t t h e y h a v e n o l o n g e r t h e playful
character
o f previous centuries;
they are n o t philosophical
1
speculations e i t h e r , b u t sober a n d n e w reflections o n p r o b l e m s o f l a n g u a g e .
o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t h e was u n f o r t u n a t e f r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n -
B y d w e l l i n g o n precise d i s t i n c t i o n s o f m e a n i n g , P r o d i c u s w a s l e d t o a n
n i n g . T h e c r i t i c i s m h e r e is n o t o f theform o f w o r d s (as i n t h e ' P r o t a g o r e a n '
awareness o f t h e d i f f e r e n t usage i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f t h e c o u n t r y ; i n t h e
adXtcoroLTos,
Clouds 658
passage o f t h e
f f . ) , b u t o f t h e i r m e a n i n g . So i t is v e r y l i k e l y t h a t
w e get a glimpse o f Prodicus about
%v-iy4veTo
tinction o f
e v e n r e m i n d s us o f t h e h e a t e d d e b a t e a b o u t t h e dis-
and
etvai
i n these lines o f t h e Frogs; t h e r e m a r k
3
i n Plato's
ylyveodai
Protagoras ( 3 4 0 B f f . ) ,
where
course o f t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f S i m o n i d e s ' p o e m , h e u t t e r s t h e c u r i o u s Opinion t h a t Pittacus was n o t able Aeo-ßios
OJV Kal ev
ojvfj
ßapßdpui
ra
ovopLara
reBpapLpievos
. . . (Plat.
opBtüs Statpttv are Prot. 341 C, cf. 346 D ) ,
'as a L e s b i a n a n d g r o w n u p i n a f o r e i g n i d i o m h e c o u l d n o t c o r r e c t l y
Cratylus P l a t o
Socrates finally appeals t o P r o d i c u s . H e w a s t h e a c k n o w l e d g e d a u t h o r i t y
d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e w o r d s ' . I n his
o n t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f k i n d r e d t e r m s ; a l l t h e d i r e c t references i n P l a t o
s i m i l a r Sophistic discussions f r o m a source o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y a b o u t
(Vors. 8 4 A 13-19) i n t h e Frogs. E v e n i f
and Aristotle
are i n complete h a r m o n y w i t h A r i s t o -
%€vu$
dvOpatnov,
for 'mucus' (phlegm)
was a n essentially l i t e r a r y m a n , even i f w e c a n
t r u s t t h e t r a d i t i o n a b o u t his p o l i t i c a l m i s s i o n f r o m h i s n a t i v e i s l a n d t o A t h e n s ; i t w a s a l u c k y h i t o f P l u t a r c h ' s t o c o m b i n e t h i s a m i a b l e Sophist a n d t h e l e a d i n g scholar-poet
o f about
i n m e d i c a l l i t e r a t u r e precisely f r o m t h e e t y m o l o g i c a l p o i n t o f v i e w ; as i t is
v a l e t u d i n a r i a n s from t h e i r e a r l y y e a r s :
derived from
TOV
Xiya>
' b u r n , i n f l a m e ' , i t must m e a n ' i n f l a m m a t i o n ' a n d the
rroirjTtjV
. . . vcous" jU.eV, tcryvot)?
3 0 0 B.C., P h i l i t a s , as t y p i c a l
IJpoSiKov TOV oo<j>to-T7)v S e Kal voowBets Kal
1
1
3
6
rj
&iXlrav
TÄ TroAAa
There were also rather wild 'etymological' speculations current in the circle of the socalled Heracliteans, see K. Reinhardt, Parmenides (1916) 241 f. In pre-Hellenistic times 8vup,a}v see Schmid-Stählin, Gr. Lit. Gesch. I I 2 ( 1 9 2 4 ) 1080. Fr. 4 9 0 K. and for his *ilpai as a circulating 'book* Bee above, p. 30. 1
For metrical reasons he said eiriiiv instead of avapAruiv, which would hardlyfitinto the iambic trimeter together with the decisive term 6p86rnr°s and with itpoXoyuw. Modern editors keep the wrong variant reading, evoaiftuiv, in spite of the protest of Nauck, TGF ( 1 8 8 9 ) , Add. p. xxv, and Wilamowitz, Aischylos-Interpretationen ( 1 9 1 4 ) 8 t . r. L . Spengel, Ewwytuyri revvoiv ( 1 8 2 8 ) 4 1 , first compared Ran. 1181 with the references by Plato to Prodicus; but he confused the issue in so far as he identified the opOo-rns ovou.ara)v of Prodicus with Protagoras' opQoi-neia and was followed by others. + Vors. 8 4 A 1 7 - 1 9 ; see also Plat. Prot. 3 5 8 A n)c Si LTpootKov rovSe Staiptaiv TWV avopd-raiv •napa.i-rovu.ai, ibid. 341 c, and Radermacher's notes on Art. script, B VIII to and 11.—A complete list of Prodicus' synonyms is given by Hermann Mayer, Prodikos von Keas unddie Anjange der Synonymik (Diss. Munchen 1913) 2 2 ff. * W. Schmid, Gr. Lit. Gesch. 1 3 ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 4 6 . 8 . Vors. 8 4 B 4 ; Galen himself wrote three books IJepi ovoua.ra>v ipBdrrfros.
6
gibes i t is P r o d i c u s ' n a m e t h a t t u r n s u p as t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t o a b o o k : rj
ßtßXtov ., . rj ripoSiKos. H e
p u r e l y ' f o r m a l ' opBoerreia). 5
5
a
1
4
8
6
6
42
Democritus'' Universality
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
43
appajmiav ovras (an seni 15, p . 791 E } . T h e p i c t u r e o f P r o d i c u s as a w e a k l i n g seems t o b e t a k e n o v e r from P l a t o (Prot. 315 D ) ,
explanations.
b u t i t m i g h t have been o r i g i n a l l y derived f r o m a contemporary comic
p o e t r y a n d prose a n d a n o p e n m i n d also f o r g e n e r a l questions o f l a n g u a g e .
p o e t , as i t w a s c e r t a i n l y t h e n e w c o m e d y
T o j u d g e from o u r scanty e v i d e n c e , h e h a r d l y w e n t b e y o n d t h e steps m a d e
KAIVOTT€T€IS
SL
1
that made f u n o f Philitas'
1
Democritus was a n ingenious i n n o v a t o r o f philosophical 2
language himself; he must have h a d a n i n t i m a t e knowledge o f earlier
b y t h e g r e a t Sophists, a n d I a m i n c l i n e d t o suspect t h a t i n t h i s f i e l d t h e
frailty. O n e o f the foremost I o n i c philosophers i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e f i f t h
i m p u l s e c a m e f r o m t h e i r side. B u t w h i l e t h e Sophists used t o c o n c e n t r a t e
c e n t u r y , D e m o c r i t u s , w a s a n a t i v e o f A b d e r a l i k e Protagoras a n d a c o e v a l
on individual problems,
o f P r o d i c u s a n d Socrates ( a b o u t 4 6 5 - a b o u t 3 7 0 B . C . ) ; a g r e a t t r a v e l l e r ,
sidered a l l o f t h e m i n t u r n . H e w a s n o t r e a l l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h e i t h e r t h e
he said o f h i m s e l f : ' I c a m e t o A t h e n s — a n d n o o n e r e c o g n i z e d m e . '
2
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f H o m e r o r r h e t o r i c a l t r a i n i n g i n t h e service o f e d u c a t i o n ,
P l a t o never m e n t i o n s D e m o c r i t u s , t h o u g h h e tells us so m u c h a b o u t his
b u t w i t h his o w n p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s . So h e w a s pleased t o detect a n
c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . A m o n g s t his w r i t i n g s , w h i c h c o v e r e d n e a r l y e v e r y f i e l d
epic l i n e i n w h i c h his o w n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f vovs a n d
o f k n o w l e d g e , t h e r e w a s a s m a l l section c a l l e d catalogue,
3
after
rjdtKa,
d^at/ca,
MovatKa i n T h r a s y l l u s '
e t c . A r i s t o t l e a g a i n a n d a g a i n refers t o
D e m o c r i t u s ' v i e w s o n physics o r ethics, b u t never t o t h i s l i t e r a r y section. I t s t i t l e a n d those o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l w o r k s ,
ITtpi TtoL-qaios,
KTX,
IJepl pv8p.thv
are d e r i v e d f r o m t h e T J n w e ?
4
KOI
appovi-qs,
o f the A l e x a n d r i a n
Democritus' universal spirit apparently con-
3
4
fax ] 7
was
anticipated,
as A r i s t o t l e r e p o r t e d (68 A 1 0 1 ) ; his g e n e r a l l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y (68 B 2 6 , 5
a b a d l y c o r r u p t e d passage o f Proclus) m a y w e l l have b e e n
connected
w i t h his c o n c e p t o f t h e o r i g i n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f c i v i l i z a t i o n as expressed i n his p r i n c i p a l w o r k o n Physics, t h e
MiKp6$ cUafcocr/xo?. S u r e l y there is n o 6
reason t o say t h a t D e m o c r i t u s f o r e s h a d o w e d A l e x a n d r i a n scholarship o r
l i b r a r y a n d preserved o n l y i n D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s ; n o n e o f t h e f e w l a t e r
even t o p r o c l a i m h i m as t h e ' A l t m e i s t e r unserer Wissenschaft',
writers w h o quoted a D e m o c r i t e a n saying o n poetry, language, o r c r i t i -
most fervent a d m i r e r d i d .
as his
7
c i s m a t t r i b u t e d i t t o o n e o f these b o o k s ; t h e a t t r i b u t i o n s o f t h e respective
W h e n w e n o w t u r n t o questions o f l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , w e s h o u l d expect
f r a g m e n t s i n o u r m o d e r n collections are m a d e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e subjects
t o discover i n t h e Sophists a n e w a t t i t u d e t o epic p o e t r y . I n t h e s i x t h
o f t h e sayings a n d a r e therefore q u i t e a r b i t r a r y . W e c a n n o t e v e n be
c e n t u r y t h e a c t i v i t y o f t h e rhapsodes was v e r y l i v e l y , a n d i t c o n t i n u e d i n t o
c e r t a i n t h a t g e n u i n e D e m o c r i t e a n expressions w e r e used f o r t h e h e a d -
t h e fifth c e n t u r y .
ings. D e m o c r i t u s ' k n o w l e d g e o f t h e ' p h i l o s o p h y ' o f his f e l l o w t o w n s m a n
r e g a r d e d as t h e w o r k s o f one poet, c a l l e d H o m e r . T h e earliest w r i t e r o f
Protagoras is attested b y his p o l e m i c s against i t (68 A 114, B 1 5 6 ) ; so w e
elegiacs t h a t w e k n o w , C a l l i n u s o f Ephesus, i n t h e first h a l f o f t h e seventh
should very m u c h like t o k n o w i f Democritus borrowed f r o m h i m the
c e n t u r y ascribed t o h i m e v e n t h e epics o n t h e T h e b a n w a r s ;
i m p o r t a n t t e r m onfWn-eia
:
5
Ilepi 'Opvrjpov rj opBoeireirjs
/eat
yXtooacwv
8
I t looks as i f a l l o r m o s t o f t h e n a r r a t i v e epics were
9
i n the
p o p u l a r story-books o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y a b o u t t h e life o f H o m e r a n d
(68 A 3 3 , x i 1 = B 2 0 a ) . T h e w o r d i n g o f this t i t l e suggests a d i s t i n c t i o n
a b o u t his contest w i t h H e s i o d h e is t h e m a k e r o f a r e m a r k a b l e n u m b e r o f
b e t w e e n a ' s t r a i g h t ' epic d i c t i o n a n d t h e obsolete w o r d s n e e d i n g e x p l a n a -
poems, m a i n l y o n t h e T r o j a n w a r , b u t also o n The Afterborn, t h e 'EnLyovoi
t i o n ; this w o u l d b e n o s t a r t l i n g n o v e l t y , as t h e correctness o f H o m e r ' s use
i n t h e T h e b a n wars, a n d o n t h e
o f t h e G r e e k l a n g u a g e a n d t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f his r a r e vocables w e r e discussed a t least f r o m t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y o n . I n his a d m i r a t i o n o f H o m e r ' s 6
d i v i n e genius a n d i n s p i r e d p o e t r y h e is o n t h e side o f Theagenes a n d t h e rhapsodes against X e n o p h a n e s
a n d Heraclitus; but i n conformity with
his Sophistic c o n t e m p o r a r i e s h e seems t o h a v e a b s t a i n e d f r o m a l l e g o r i c a l 1
N o t m e n t i o n e d i n Vors. o r i n Art. script.;
cf. Pkiletae
Coi reliquiae,
ed. G . Kuchenmiiller
( D i s s . B e r l i n 1927) test. 14, cf. test. 15 a-b, t 6 a n d p . 2 2 ; see below, p . 9 1 . 2
Vors. 6 8 B 1 1 6 ; D e m e t r . P h a l . fr. 9 3 , W e h r l i , Die Sckule
des Aristoteles
D e m o c r i t u s and A t h e n s . O . R e g e n b o g e n , v . Hiva$,
RE x x (1950) 1441 f.
i S e e a b o v e , p . 3 7 , a n d Excursus 6
S e e a b o v e , p p . 11 f,
I n this p o i n t I agree w i t h R . P h i l i p p s o n , D e m o c r i t e a I . ' D . als H o m e r a u s l e g e r ' , Herm. 6 4 (1929) 166 ff. 1
2
K . v . F r i t z , Philosophic
on
op6o4w€ia,
und sprachlicher
Ausdruck
bei Demokrit,
Plato
und Aristoteles
(New York
1938) 2 4 ff. 3
O n P r o t a g o r a s see a b o v e , p . 4 2 , o n P r o d i c u s p . 4 1 , n . 5 , o n H i p p i a s p . 5 3 , n . 5 .
4
C f . A r i s t o t . de gen. et corr. 315 a 34
«foi«re . . . ncpl
5
C f . below, p . 5 9 , n . 2 ( P l a t . Crat.)
a n d p. 79, n . 2 (Aristotle).
6
68 B 4 c ff.; D i e l s s h o u l d not h a v e followed K . R e i n h a r d t i n p r i n t i n g the w h o l e o f D i o d .
andvTUiv
tppovriaai
(68
A
35).
1 7 a n d 1 8 as excerpts f r o m D e m o c r i t u s ; b u t w e c a n n o t go i n t o the details o f the endless 4 (1949} 6 4 , o n
dispute. O n t h e objections to R e i n h a r d t , ' H e k a t a i o s v o n A b d e r a u n d D e m o k r i t o s ' , Herm. 47 (1912)
» Vors. 6 8 A 3 3 , x a n d x i ; B 15 c - 2 6 a . ( ' P h i l o l o g i s c h e Schriftcn.*) 4
Taking of Oechalia. A t t h e same t i m e
4 9 2 ff. = Vermdchtnis
Poseidonios', Sits.
Ber. Osterr.
der Antike Akad.,
( 1 9 6 0 ) i i 4 f f . , s e c G . Pfligersdorffer, ' S t u d i e n zu
P h i l . - h i s t . K l . 2 3 2 ( 1 9 5 9 ) 5 . A b h . , 100 ff.
7
H . D i e l s , first i n t h e y e a r 1880, r e p e a t e d i n 1899 a n d 1910, see MJb 2 5 (1910) 9 .
8
S e e a b o v e , p p . n ff. a n d 3 5 .
• C a l l i n . fr. 6 B.« ( = P a u s . rx 9 . 5 ) , see E . B e t h e , Thebanische
Heldenlieder
(1891) 147.
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
44
T h e a g e n e s w r o t e a b o u t H o m e r ' s life a n d p o e t r y ,
1
Gorgias: Problems of Style
b u t we do not k n o w
from
t h e rest.
1
45
I n v a i n we look r o u n d for more. W i l a m o w i t z ' s
reference
2
h o w f a r h e c o n n e c t e d a l l these epics w i t h h i m . I n t h e g r e a t c o m p e t i t i o n s
t o S t e s i m b r o t u s a n d H i p p i a s o f Thasos, n o t r e p e a t e d i n this c o n n e x i o n
a t t h e P a n a t h e n a i c f e s t i v a l n o t o n l y o u r t w o preserved e p i c p o e m s w e r e
i n his l a t e r books, does n o t h e l p . W e h a d occasion t o m e n t i o n t h e f r a g -
r e c i t e d , b u t m a n y others i n p r o p e r o r d e r . S i m i l a r l y , i n t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y
m e n t s o f S t e s i m b r o t u s ' b o o k o n H o m e r w h e n w e spoke o f a l l e g o r i s m ;
A e s c h y l u s ' famous s a y i n g t h a t his tragedies are 'slices f r o m t h e
h e d i d n o t d e a l w i t h ' f o r m a l offences' i n d i f f e r e n t epic poems, b u t o n l y
banquets o f H o m e r '
2
great
refers t o t h e mass o f epic n a r r a t i v e p o e m s , a n d t h e
same is m e a n t b y t h e w r i t e r w h o d e s c r i b e d
w i t h t h e contents o f some passages o f t h e
Iliad.
Hippias
3
proposed
two
Sophocles, t h e ^tAop^poy, as
r e a d i n g s i n B 15 a n d i n W 328 as solutions ( A i W ? ) o f r a t h e r o d d t e x t u a l
' d e l i g h t i n g i n t h e epic c y c l e ' , from w h i c h he d e r i v e d m o s t o f his p l o t s , as
p r o b l e m s q u o t e d o n l y b y A r i s t o t l e ; t h e r e is n o reason w h y he s h o u l d be
3
4
E u r i p i d e s d i d after h i m . W h o finally s t a r t e d t o e x a m i n e t h a t e n o r m o u s l y
assigned t o t h e fifth c e n t u r y , a n d he o b v i o u s l y d i d n o t c o n c e r n h i m s e l f
r i c h epic p r o d u c t i o n a n d t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n t h e single p o e m s a n d
w i t h r e l a t i o n s o f epic p o e m s t o e a c h o t h e r .
t h e i r respective poets ?
A t first i t m a y be u n e x p e c t e d a n d s o m e h o w d i s a p p o i n t i n g t h a t i n t h e
I f w e consult W i l a m o w i t z , w h o m a d e the most p e n e t r a t i n g inquiries i n t o t h i s p r o b l e m as a w h o l e , w e m e e t a n u m b e r o f h i g h f l o w n c o n c e p t s : 4
' D a s fünfte J a h r h u n d e r t b e s c h r ä n k t w e s e n t l i c h
aus künstlerischem
Urteil
age o f t h e Sophists n o d i s t i n c t traces c a n be f o u n d o f t h a t
npiais rrot^d-
T w v , w h i c h was t o be r e g a r d e d as ' t h e finest flower o f s c h o l a r s h i p ' i n t h e 5
best H e l l e n i s t i c t i m e s . O n second t h o u g h t s , h o w e v e r , w e m a y f i n d t h i s
( t h e i t a l i c s are m i n e ) seinen [ H o m e r ' s ] N a c h l a s s a u f I l i a s , Odyssee u n d
result i n h a r m o n y w i t h t h e g e n e r a l l i n e w e t o o k t h a t t h e Sophists s h o u l d
M a r g i t e s . ' B u t , i n f a c t , t h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e t o b e f o u n d o f t h e ' h i g h e r
n o t be r e g a r d e d as 'pioneers o f s c h o l a r s h i p ' . T h e s t u d y o f epic p o e t r y
c r i t i c i s m ' t o w h i c h he refers, o r t h e ' e x a m i n a t i o n o f p o e t i c a l v a l u e ' , o r t h e
o n l y subserved t h e i r r h e t o r i c a l a n d e d u c a t i o n a l a s p i r a t i o n s .
'essentially a r t i s t i c j u d g e m e n t ' .
5
T h e o n l y a u t h o r whose c r i t i c a l observa-
T h e f o r e m o s t stylist was t h e S i c i l i a n G o r g i a s f r o m L e o n t i n i , a n d he
t i o n s w e c a n s t i l l r e a d is H e r o d o t u s , w h o s i m p l y n o t i c e d (11 116) t h e dis-
h a d also a n i n c l i n a t i o n t o t h e o r i z e o n stylistic p r o b l e m s .
crepancy between the account o f Paris' a n d Helen's route f r o m
Sparta
b e g i n n i n g o f t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y a n d t h u s c o e v a l o f P r o t a g o r a s , he is said t o
Iliad Cypria;
was p a i d o n l y i n 427 B.C., after P r o t a g o r a s a n d P r o d i c u s h a d s t a r t e d t h e i r
t o T r o y i n the
(Z
Cypria
( f r . 12 A l l e n — f r . 10 Bethe) a n d t h a t i n t h e
289 f f . ) a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y d e n i e d H o m e r ' s a u t h o r s h i p o f t h e
Epigonoi ( i v p o e m ' (Epig.
6
B o r n at the
h a v e r e a c h e d t h e age o f 105 o r e v e n 109 y e a r s ; b u t his first v i s i t t o A t h e n s
s p e a k i n g o f the H y p e r b o r e a n s i n H o m e r ' s
32) h e c a u t i o u s l y
a c t i v i t y t h e r e . T h e final object o f t h e i r t e a c h i n g was, as w e h a v e p o i n t e d
added ' i f Homer
fr. 3 Allen). T h e
o u t , t o e d u c a t e (•Trai.cWuai') each p u p i l b y m a k i n g h i m
6
r e a l l y m a d e t h i s epic
irepl ETTOJV cWöV whole emphasis o n t o t h e r h e t o r i c a l s t a t e m e n t (Meno 95 c Setvovs Aeyeiv, Gorg.
h i s t o r i a n asks i f t h e t r a d i t i o n o f epic p o e t r y is t r u s t w o r t h y ; a s t r i c t l y
(Prot.
l o g i c a l discussion o f H e l e n ' s s t o r y (11113-20) discovers c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a n d
t r a i n i n g , a c c o r d i n g t o Plato's
leads t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e I l i a d i c t a l e a b o u t H e l e n i n T r o y
H . Diels, NJb. 25 ( 1 9 1 0 ) 13, considerably over-estimated the merits of Herodotus ('der zuerst . . . mit Glück den echten und den unechten Homer abzugrenzen suchte . . . die höchste Stufe der philologischen Kritik . . . im V. Jahrhundert', etc.). Horn. Untersuch. 3 6 6 ; after mentioning Herodotus' passage on the disagreement of Iliad and Cypria in a point of subject-matter he continues: 'Formelle Anstöße muß selbst die kindliche Philologie der Thasier Stesimbrotus und Hippias genommen haben.* On Stesimbrotus see above, p. 35. F . A. Wolf, Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795) CLXVIII. 'Hippias, acumine artibus Loyolae digno' owes his modern fame to the whole page which F. A. Wolf dedicated to him in his small volume. + Aristot. Poet. 25 p. 1461 a 22 and Soph. El. 4 p. 166 b 1 ff.; on the details of these two passages see the commentaries on the Poetics; on AvWs and XVTIKOL see below, pp. 6 9 ff. Dionys. Thr. I p. 6 . 2 Uhl. tcptots rroir}p.aroiv, o Si) KIIXXIOTOP eon iravrojp -rdv iv rjj Ti*yV1J. Vors. 82 AB; Art. script, B VII. One would not expect to find a book of his entitled 'OvoHaoTiriv, though it is ascribed to ropytq. r$ oo^orfj by Poll, ix praef. and quoted 1 145 (iirtßoXos = ep.ßoXos 'peg', not in L - S under c°-nißoXos); cf. C. Wendel, RE xvm (1939) 507. There is no reference to this 'Ovo/ia<m*w by Diels-Kranz or Radermacher; it should have been mentioned under Dubia or Falsa. Gorgias the Athenian FGrHist 351 who wrote ilepi eratpaiv might be the author; see below, p. 2 0 8 , n. 6.
was
w r o n g a n d t h a t t h e E g y p t i a n s k n e w b e t t e r . T h e r e is n o c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e l i t e r a r y q u a l i t i e s o f d i f f e r e n t epics i n o r d e r t o separate t h e best p o e m s 1 2
Sec above, p. 11. Athen, vra 347 E = test.
47,
Aesch. ed. Wilamowitz
1914,
p.
16 rtp.dx"
T t 3 v
'Ou-ypov
p,eydXoiv Sevrrvtav.
Athen, vn
277
Homer, Origins and Transmission
2
3
E = test. adl. 9 4 Vitae, Soph. El. ed. Iahn-Michaelis (1882) 20 exaipe... TiS emKÜ KVKXs (B 2 4 ) . T h e same phrase occurs i n A r i s t o p h a n e s ' Frogs 1021 Spä/xa troi^aas Äpeojs p-eorov.—rrotov; —roils "ETTT* €TTL 0-rjßas, w h e r e i t is s p o k e n b y Aeschylus h i m s e l f t o 'full o f Ares',
5
D i o n y s u s . C h r o n o l o g i c a l l y , i t is j u s t possible t h a t G o r g i a s , w h o s u r v i v e d t h e e n d o f t h e fifth c e n t u r y b y a b o u t t e n years, t o o k t h e w o r d s o u t o f t h e comedy,
produced i n 405.
6
B u t apparently i n Plutarch's
Peripatetic
source o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y G o r g i a s w a s s a i d t o h a v e c o i n e d t h e felicitous p h r a s e ; i f w e a c c e p t t h i s t r a d i t i o n (as w e a r e b o u n d t o d o i n such cases), A r i s t o p h a n e s m u s t h a v e b o r r o w e d t h e expression f r o m G o r g i a s . I t is also m u c h m o r e p l a u s i b l e t h a t t h e A r i s t o p h a n i c Aeschylus
used a f a m o u s
phrase f a v o u r a b l e t o h i m s e l f t h a n t h a t G o r g i a s q u o t e d
Aristophanes
v e r b a t i m . I t is q u i t e l e g i t i m a t e t o raise t h e f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r A r i s t o p h a n e s owes a n y t h i n g else i n bis l i t e r a r y statements o r j u d g e m e n t s 1 1
und 3
4
On this question and the position of Gorgias see E . R. Dodds, Plato: Gorgias Gf. Gorgiae Helena, recogn. et interpretatus est O. Immisch (Kleine Texte für Übungen 158 [ 1 9 2 7 ] ) , with a very useful commentary. Vors. 31 A 1 § 5 8 ; see also above, p. 14. B 17 = B vn 19 and B 14 = BVU I .
* See
&-10. Vorlesungen
Excursus.
This view was vigorously championed by O. Immisch, 29 f.; but see Radermacher's review, Pkilol. Wochenschrift 1928, 5 ff. 6
Frogs
1021. A p a r t
b u t they have n o manifest parallels i n
(de glor. Ath. 5 , p . 348 c, cf. de aud. poet. p . 15 D) G o r g i a s is q u o t e d as s a y i n g : 7) TpaytvSla . . . napaoxovGa rots p.vdois Kai rots irddeaiv ditdrrnv, ws Popylas (Vors. 82 B 23) tjrnalv, fjv (i)v 15 n : ijv 34^ *-0 °* aTrarriaas oiKaioTepos TOV p.7] diraTrjo-avTos (cf. Aiaaol Aoyot 3 . 10, Vors. 9 0 , I I , p . 4 1 1 . 1) / c a t o ctTrar^öti? croojT€pos TOV pvr) aTTarqdevTos, ' t r a g e d y . . . b y ( t h e d i s p l a y o f ) m y t h s a n d passions has A r i s t o p h a n e s ' comedies. I n P l u t a r c h
f r o m a l i n e o f t h e Iliad a n d a m p l i f i e d i t b y a second o n e : A 450 evda S' dp? 1
o f contact w i t h Gorgias i n
a r t i s t i c prose a r e preserved,
T h e H o m e r i c Scholia
c o n t a i n a t least one e x a m p l e s h o w i n g h o w h e t o o k o v e r o n e antithesis
olfiwyr)
one p o i n t
t h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f a single t r a g e d y , some casual statements o f
Gorgias o n tragic a r t a n d o n poetic a r t i n general a n d its r e l a t i o n t o
r i v a l l i n g t h e p o e t r y o f t h e past, a n d t h u s show h i m s e l f a w o r t h y d i s c i p l e 3
a n d clever c o m b i n a t i o n s does n o t a m o u n t t o m o r e t h a n
Aeschylus a n d E u r i p i d e s a r e n o t e n t i r e l y A r i s t o p h a n e s ' o w n i n v e n t i o n s .
-naiyvia o f G o r g i a s preserved t o us, t h e Praise of Helen (Vors. 82 B 1 1 = Art script, B v n 39) a n d the Defence of Palamedes T h e t w o rhetorical
o f his f e l l o w c o u n t r y m a n , t h e p o e t E m p e d o c l e s .
1
t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e w o r d s a n d ideas i n t h e g i g a n t i c contest b e t w e e n
1
(B 11 a = B v i i 4 4 ) , r e v e a l h i s eagerness t o create
47
Se
T>
caused a deceit s u c h t h a t h e w h o deceives is j u s t e r t h a n h e w h o does n o t a n d t h e d e c e i v e d is wiser t h a n t h e o n e w h o is n o t d e c e i v e d ' . T h i s m a y b e a serious, n o t a n i r o n i c a l , r e m a r k o n a r t p r o d u c i n g ' i l l u s i o n s ' . W h e n
ws aAal&v KOI a£ OLOIS r e rovs Beards / Ran. 9 0 9 ) , h e s i m p l y means t h a t h i s a d v e r s a r y is a n
E u r i p i d e s charges Aeschylus,
e^ndra
(Aristoph.
i m p o s t o r a n d l i a r w h o cheats h i s a u d i e n c e ; such a r e p r o a c h ( o f ifievSos) is characteristic o f l i t e r a r y polemics a n d parodies f r o m early times, n o t a c o m i c d i s t o r t i o n o f a supposed S o p h i s t i c ' d o c t r i n e ' o f i l l u s i o n i s m . I n t h i s case, t h e r e is n o r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n G o r g i a s a n d A r i s t o p h a n e s . W e h a v e o b s e r v e d t h a t p o e t r y i t s e l f p a v e d t h e w a y t o its u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a n d poets n a t u r a l l y w e r e t h e c o m p e t e n t c r i t i c s o f p o e t r y ; t h i s p a r t i c u l a r l y applies t o d r a m a t i c c r i t i c i s m .
2
I t is o n e o f t h e i m p o r t a n t t o p i c s o f
O l d C o m e d y f r o m i t s b e g i n n i n g , a n d A r i s t o p h a n e s is t o b e r e g a r d e d as 3
t h e greatest h e i r o f t h i s t r a d i t i o n . W e h a v e b e e n able t o use some single lines o f A r i s t o p h a n e s i n o r d e r t o find o u t w i t h t h e i r h e l p h o w t h e Sophists s t a r t e d t o i n t e r p r e t e a r l y p o e t r y o r t o reflect o n l a n g u a g e ; i t is l i k e l y t h a t M. Pohlenz, 'Die Anfänge der griechischen Poetik', NGG 1920, Phü.-hist, Klasse, ff., tried to prove that Aristophanes used a theoretical book of Gorgias, which contained a syncrisis of Aeschylus and Euripides. Even if this conclusion cannot be accepted, the article offers a valuable collection of relevant passages from the fourth and fifth centuries and started a very lively discussion. Wilamowitz, Radermacher, W. Kranz, M. Untersteiner (The Sophists, Engl, transl. 1954, with a useful bibliography 192 f.), W. Schadewaldt, E . Fraenkel, and others took part in it; Pohlenz, Herrn. 8 4 (1956) 7a f. **= Kl. Sehr. I I 5 8 5 f., quite amiably retracted a good deal of his own overstatements. Regarding the judges who made the decision in dramatic contests, A. Pickard¬ Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (1953) 9 8 , dryly remarks: 'That there was any demand for critical capacity seems unlikely.' So these Kpna.1 do not concern us. A. E . Roggwiller, Dichter und Dichtung in der attischen Komödie (Diss. Zürich 1 9 2 6 ) , collected the material rather inadequately (see E . Wüst, Philol. Wochenschr. 1927, 1137ff.);W. Schmid, Gesch. d. griech. Lit. 1 4 (1946) 11, 13, 2 1 , 209, etc. 1
1 4 2 - 7 8 = Kleine Schriften 11 (1965) 4 3 6
1
3
48
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Gorgias' Pupils, Isocrates and Alcidamas
49
A r i s t o p h a n e s a d o p t e d m o r e t o p i c s f r o m c o n t e m p o r a r y discussions t h a n
d e c l a m a t i o n w i t h t h e s o l e m n p r o p o s i t i o n (Hel.
t h e single phrase o f G o r g i a s o n A e s c h y l u s , b u t w e s h o u l d n o t t a k e t h e r i s k
earlv,
o f t r a n s f e r r i n g his l i t e r a r y j u d g e m e n t s b y m e r e c o n j e c t u r e b a c k t o o n e o r
r e m o v e g r i e f a n d t o effect j o y a n d t o increase l a m e n t i n g ' , SuVarai yap
ov
o t h e r o f t h e Sophists. H e h a d his o w n ideas a n d his o w n c r e a t i v e l a n g u a g e ;
8) Xoyos owaorrjs
1
/icyas
'logos is a m i g h t y r u l e r . . . i t has t h e p o w e r t o stop fear a n d t o Travaai
adWAefi' /cat
/cat XVTFQV
/cat
xapav evepyaaaadai /cat ZXeov €7Tav£rjoat.
a n d i t is j u s t i n t h i s aesthetic field t h a t expressions a p p a r e n t l y c o i n e d b y
T h i s sounds l i k e a h y m n i n p r o s e o n a d i v i n e p o w e r ; i n d e e d t h e logos is
A r i s t o p h a n e s w e r e t a k e n u p b y t h e poets o f t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y .
said t o ' a c c o m p l i s h w o r k s m o s t d i v i n e ' ,
1
Funda-
2
Oeiorara epya
cWoTeAet.
Such
m e n t a l l y , his a t t i t u d e t o p o e t r y w a s o p p o s e d t o t h a t o f t h e S o p h i s t s ; h e
sentences are a t r u e s p e c i m e n o f G o r g i a s ' style, b u t t h e y c a n h a r d l y be
r e g a r d e d t h e e a r l i e r p o e t r y as t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f t h e apycua
r e g a r d e d as traces o f a d o c t r i n e o n poetics. S i n g l e s t r i k i n g f o r m u l a e , l i k e
•naiBeia, G r e e k
that of
p o e t r y was
quite naturally 'ethical'
from
epic
times
o n w a r d s ; i t w a s o n l y i n t h e g r e a t crisis t o w a r d s t h e e n d o f t h e
fifth
dtpUf]
llXeos, w e r e a d a p t e d t o l a t e r theories, as t h e Seven. I t w a s G o r g i a s ' m a i n a m b i t i o n
and
selected t h a t o n
Aristophanes t o t e a c h his
as
p u p i l s t h e t e c h n i c a l devices o f his g r a n d n e w s t y l e ; b u t t h e f o r m a l p e r -
a p r o b l e m . T h e d o c u m e n t a r y evidence f o r t h e n e w r e f l e c t i o n o n i t is
f e c t i o n o u g h t t o h a v e t h e e m o t i o n a l effects o n t h e hearers w h i c h he
c e n t u r y t h a t a consciousness arose o f t h i s i n n a t e e t h i c a l t e n d e n c y 2
Frogs,
g i v e n b y A r i s t o p h a n e s , especially i n t h e
w h e r e t h e g r e a t poets o f
described. Gorgias'
efforts h a v e
o f t e n been subjected
to ridicule i n
t h e past, represented b y Aeschylus, are a p p r o v e d as t h e m o r a l leaders o f
a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n t i m e s ; t h i s is easier t h a n t o t r y t o r e a c h a b a l a n c e d
t h e i r p e o p l e , w h i l e c o n t e m p o r a r y poets, represented b y E u r i p i d e s , o r
j u d g e m e n t o n t h e m . T h e a r t i f i c i a l i t i e s a n d e m p t y phrases o f t h e v i r t u o s o
' p h i l o s o p h e r s ' , l i k e Socrates a n d t h e Sophists, are c o n d e m n e d as de-
m a y be b o r i n g o r even r e p e l l e n t , p a r t i c u l a r l y t o t h e p h i l o s o p h i c m i n d ;
stroyers o f m o r a l s .
b u t w e s t i l l feel a g e n u i n e duAta, a l o v e f o r t h e
I n t h e course o f his d e c l a m a t i o n o n H e l e n G o r g i a s stresses a g a i n t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e aVdVr/, t h e ' d e c e p t i o n ' , w h i c h e v e r y w h e t h e r i n verse o r prose, is a b l e t o p r o d u c e (Hel. I i ) . T h e n h e calls p o e t r y i n g e n e r a l a airacrav
/cat
vofxi^oj
teal
ovo/id^a) Xoyov
Xoyos
(speech),
8 . 10 a n d p r o b a b l y
3
fierpov (Hel.
9 ) , w h i c h sounds
Xoyos,
as t h e m o v i n g p o w e r
b e h i n d t h e m . T h i s seems t o h a v e ' e n c h a n t e d ' his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a n d t o have exerted a lasting influence.
5
S u c h a s t i m u l u s c a n n o t be e n t i r e l y
d i s r e g a r d e d i n a h i s t o r y o f duAoAoyta.
'speech i n verse', TT)V Troir/o-tv
eyovra
4
O f G o r g i a s ' m a n y p u p i l s t h e m o s t d i s t i n g u i s h e d w e r e Isocrates a n d A l c i d a m a s , t w o d i f f e r e n t , even c o n t r a s t i n g
figures.
L i k e his m a s t e r ,
l i k e d e p r e c i a t i n g i t i n t h e interest o f r h e t o r i c ; b u t , o n t h e o d i e r h a n d , he
Isocrates ( 4 3 6 - 3 3 8 B.C.) has n o t been a f a v o u r i t e e i t h e r w i t h p h i l o s o p h e r s
goes o n t o describe t h e e x t r e m e l y p o w e r f u l effect o f t h i s ' m e t r i c a l c o m -
o r s c h o l a r s ; b u t n o b o d y c a n d e n y h i m his t r u e l o v e a n d m a s t e r y o f
aKovovras tlo-rjXOe Kai 2 1 3 4 and my whole review of W. Jaeger,
griechische
Dichtung und die griechische
Kultur
Paideia
1 (1934);
see also
Die
(1932} 18.
See Pohlenz, loc. cit. 167 ff., and especially W. Schadewaldt, 'Furcht und Mitleid?' 8 3 (1955) 129 ff., 144, 158, 165 «= Hellas und Hesperien ( i 9 6 0 ) 346 ff., who provides the most detailed and convincing interpretation of the relevant terms <poflos (tppUrj) and eXeos; cf. also H. Flashar, 'Die Lehre von der Wirkung der Dichtung in der griechischen Poetik', Herm. 8 4 (1956) 18 ff.: he scrutinized the Corpus Hippocraticum in order to show that 4>ofios and EACOS- with all the somatic symptoms mentioned by Gorgias have their origin in the literature on medical science. On Aristode see below, p. 75. 3
Herm.
7
1
107, 114.
2
Laiini
3
Auctor
nepl
vipovs 3. 2 TO otSovv,
u-eLpaiciwoes,
ifivxpov,
J . W. H .
Sermonis
with
KOKd^nXov KTX.
* J . D. Denniston, Greek Prose Style (1952) 10 ff., 'the influence was, I believe, wholly bad'. E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa I (1898) 6 3 - 7 9 , 'Gorgias und seine Schule'; pp. 15 ff. 'Die Begründung der attischen Kunstprosa'. Art. script, B XXIV Radermacher ( 1 9 5 1 ) . Marrou 7 9 - 9 1 ; I have always found W.Jaeger's judgement on Isocrates (Paideia in 1 9 9 - 2 2 5 , esp. 222 f.) well balanced, and disagree with Marrou on this point. W. Steidle, Herm. 8 0 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 257 ff., esp. 274 ff., 296. i Isocr. or. 3 , Nicocl. 5 - 9 = Art. script, B xxrv 4 1 . 3 , repeated almost verbatim in or. 15, Antidos. 2 5 3 - 7 . 814312 £ 3
6
50
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Hippias
d i d n o t a i m a t t h e e m o t i o n a l effects o f pLK-n a n d cAeo?, o f ' s h u d d e r i n g
references t o t h e
a n d w a i l i n g ' , b u t a t r a t i o n a l persuasion b y sober a r g u m e n t s
av8pa>7Tivov
(THAW,
ßiov
Odyssey; KaroTTTpov,
1
Study of Antiquities
he c a l l e d i t a ' f a i r m i r r o r o f h u m a n l i f e '
KOXOV
at t h a t t i m e a startling m e t a p h o r , w h i c h m e t
ireidovs S-qpuovpyov, ' p e r hrt^rrqpvnv Tretöoöff). S o m e Sophists u n f o r t u n a t e l y confused t h i s c r e a t i v e r e a s o n i n g , t h e Xoyos, w i t h sterile l e a r n i n g , ypdp.p,ara, as Isocrates c o m p l a i n e d (or. 13 K . oo<j>. 10 f f . ) ;
w i t h A r i s t o t l e ' s s h a r p d i s a p p r o v a l (Met.
f o r his p a r t n o d o u b t , he h i g h l y v a l u e d t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e k n o w l e d g e o f
agoras) h o n o u r e d b y c e r t a i n G r e e k cities. So i t is clear t h a t his b o o k was
mW«?);
h e is said t o h a v e c a l l e d r h e t o r i c
(Art script.
suadendi opificem'
B x x r v 18, cf. 19
l i t e r a t u r e , p o e t r y as w e l l as a r t i s t i c prose (or. 2
in Nicocl,
13, e t c . ) , b u t
o n l y i n so far as i t l e d t o t h e final i d e a l , t o e5 Aeyew ' g o o d s p e a k i n g ' . is n o t m e a n t i n a p u r e l y f o r m a l sense. ' T o use t h e
KaX&s xPV ^ h Panegyr. 4 9 ) ; a
a
i
s
m
e
D e s t
guarantee o f
rraßevciis,
Xoyos
1
This
Xoyat (or. 4 ,
well',
o f 'culture'
a n d 'those are c a l l e d Greeks r a t h e r w h o share i n o u r [ i . e .
fiaXXov rfjs Kotvrjs
i n 3 p . 1406 b 1 2 ) .
1
O t h e r short
sentences m a y p o i n t t o his d e f i n i t i o n o f t r a g i c p a t h o s , w h i c h p e r h a p s o w e d s o m e t h i n g t o t h a t o f his master G o r g i a s . A l c i d a m a s also m e n t i o n e d 2
l y r i c poets ( A r c h i l o c h u s , S a p p h o ) a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s ( P y t h a g o r a s ,
a c o m p i l a t i o n o f v a r i e d learned m a t e r i a l , a n d this links h i m w i t h the g r o u p o f Sophists t o w h o m w e n o w f i n a l l y c o m e , those w h o m a i n l y o r exclusively
collected
a n d described
'antiquities'.
ApxaioXoyLa
and military 'history';
antiquitates, V a r r o ' s
"EXX-qvas KaXetadai
depreciated o r overestimated w i t h equal injustice at later times.
7ratSeiicrecus' TTJS r)p,€T€pas
T)
TOU?
<j>vaea>$ /leTeyovrac ( i b i d . 5 0 , cf. 15. 2 9 3 ) . F o r t h e first t i m e t h e c u l t u r a l u n i t y o f t h e ' G r e e k s ' is q u i t e consciously p r o c l a i m e d i n t h i s m o s t f a m o u s sentence o f I s o c r a t e s ; i t p o i n t s f a r i n t o t h e f u t u r e .
2
F o r these g e n e r a l
reasons he deserves his p l a c e i n t h e h i s t o r y o f s c h o l a r s h i p . Alcidamas,
I t was H i p p i a s o f E l i s as represented i n Plato's d i a l o g u e 4
285 D =
Vors. 86
A 11) w h o used t h e w o r d
dpxaioXoyla
knowledge,
(Hipp. max.
f o r t h e first a n d
o n l y t i m e i n p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c l i t e r a t u r e ; 'people l i k e t o h e a r a b o u t t h e genealogies o f heroes a n d m e n , a b o u t t h e e a r l y f o u n d a t i o n s o f cities,
p e r h a p s s l i g h t l y o l d e r t h a n Isocrates, w a s i n f a v o u r o f t h e
3
the
L a t i n t r a n s l a t i o n o f dpxaioXoyla,
b e c a m e t h e f a m i l i a r expression for t h i s b r a n c h o f indispensable
rrjs
was
G r e e k t e r m f o r ' a n t i q u a r i a n l o r e ' as d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e g r e a t p o l i t i c a l
A t h e n i a n ] c u l t u r e t h a n those w h o share i n o u r c o m m o n r a c e ' /cat TOVS
Anax-
3
avXX-qßh-qv
rrdo-qs rrjs dpxaioXoylas,
5
Kai
a n d so he h a d ' t o l e a r n a n d t o t e a c h
i m p r o v i s a t i o n o f speeches i n p r a c t i c e a n d t h e o r y . H e r e g a r d e d t h e e p i c
a l l these t h i n g s m o s t c a r e f u l l y ' . P l a t o represents h i m as b o a s t i n g o f his
rhapsodes as i m p r o v i s a t o r s a n d h i m s e l f as c o n t i n u i n g t h e
u n i v e r s a l k n o w l e d g e as w e l l as o f his p r a c t i c a l s k i l l i n e v e r y t h i n g
rhapsodic
(Hipp,
t r a d i t i o n i n o r a t o r y ; i t m a y h a v e b e e n i n t h e same t r a d i t i o n t h a t h e t o o k
min.
u p a n d r e t o l d the o l d p o p u l a r story o f the 'Contest o f H o m e r a n d Hesiod'
H i p p i a s deserves p o s i t i v e c r e d i t f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g some special ' a n t i q u i t i e s ' .
avToax^Bid^eiv,
in
' i m p r o v i s i n g ' , o f w h i c h w e f o u n d t h e first traces i n t h e
s i x t h c e n t u r y . T h i s treatise o f A l c i d a m a s 4
book w i t h the title
Movaetov
5
was p r o b a b l y a p a r t o f a l a r g e r
( w h i c h o r i g i n a l l y means 'shrine o f the
368 B =
Vors.
86 A 12).
M a l i c i o u s t h o u g h this picture m a y
H i s register o f O l y m p i c w i n n e r s , ' OXVP-TTIOVIKUW
dvaypa<prj
(B 3) is p r o b -
a b l y t h e first a t t e m p t a t e s t a b l i s h i n g a basis f o r G r e e k c h r o n o l o g y . 6
title o f a
book
on
'Edvcov ovopiaalai
(B 2) p o i n t s t o
a n t i q u i t i e s f o r w h i c h t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f n a m e s was i m p o r t a n t ;
o f Alcidamas dealing w i t h poetry.
another book simply called
E p i c p o e t r y is m a i n l y r e p r e s e n t e d b y
Cf. Marrou 81. See 'Humanitas Erasmiana', Studien der Bibl. Warburg 22 (1931} 2, n. 2. Art. script, B XXII; other fragments in Orat. Alt. rec. Baiter-Sauppe I I ( 1 8 5 0 ) 1 5 4 - 6 ; see above, p. 37, n. 5. * See above, pp. 11 and 43 f.; F. Nietzsche, 'Der Florentinische Traktat über Homer und Hesiod, ihr Geschlecht und ihren Wettkampf', Rh.M. 25 (1870) 5 2 8 ff. and 2 8 (1873) 211 ff. =Phüologica 1 (1910) 2 1 5 - 7 6 ; he was only wrong in the assumption that the 'Contest' was an 'invention* of Alcidamas; otherwise his reconstruction of Alcidamas' Museum was confirmed by two recent papyri, see the following note. s On the Michigan Papyrus (first publ. 1925) and the Flinders Petrie Pap. (first publ. 1891) see E . Vogt, 'Die Schrift vom Wettkampf Homers und Hesiods', Rh.M. 102 ( 1 9 5 9 ) 193 ff., Gnom. 33 (1961) 6 9 7 , with bibliographical additions, and Antike und Abendland xi (1962) 103 ff. (The Flind. Petr. Pap. is now P. Lit. Lond. 191, revised by H. J . M. Milne,
Ewaywyq,
7
The
ethnographical
M u s e s ' ) ; i t is t e m p t i n g t o a t t r i b u t e t o t h e same b o o k t h e o t h e r f r a g m e n t s 6
be,
8
from
' C o l l e c t i o n ' , (B 4) comes t h e story
1
a
J
Catal.
of the Lit. Pap. of the Brit.
Mus. (1927) 157.) On the CI. Qu. 4 6 (1952) 188.
subscriptio LJepl 'Op-rjpov in
Michigan Pap. see E. R. Dodds, F. Solmsen, 'Drei Rekonstruktionen zur antiken Rhetorik und Poetik', Herrn. 6
133«-
the
67 (1932)
E . Fraenkel, Aesch. Ag. 11 385 f. On the great success of the metaphor {speculum vitae, etc.) in ancient and medieval Latin literature see E . R. Curtius, Europäische Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter (Bern 1948) 3 3 9 . 1. F. Solmsen (above, p. 50, n. 6) 140 ff. Art. script, B xxii 1 4 ; cf. Radermacher's note on 13. The title Museum was taken up by Callimachus, 1 339. * Vors. 8 6 ; selection of fragments with commentary FGrHist 6 (reprinted 1957 with Addenda) and Art. script, B XI. E. Norden, Agnostos Theos (1913) 372 f. apxcuoXoyla, in der älteren Sophistlk. On its reliability as a historical source see L. Ziehen, RE xvn (1937) 2527 ff. On similar publications of the last decades of the fifth century see F. Jacoby, Atthis (1949) 5 9 . The fundamental importance of the chronological system for co-ordinating the traditions about facts of the past was recognized by Hecataeus (about 500 B.C.), but he was completely misled by the fictitious lists of Spartan kings of which he actually tried to make use for that purpose. Cf. Hellanicus 4 FGrHist 6 7 and Damastes of Sigeion, 5 FGrHist. 1
2
3
3 6
7
8
The Sophists, their Contemporaries and Pupils
Hippias on Poetry, Rhythmics, and Metrics
o f a celebrated b e a u t y w h o was m a r r i e d t o f o u r t e e n m e n . T h e r e m u s t
f o u r o r t o seven subjects, a n d he was n o t t h e i n v e n t o r o f t h e seven
53
h a v e been t h e u t m o s t v a r i e t y i n s u b j e c t - m a t t e r i f w e t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t a l l
l i b e r a l arts. H e was n o t a serious p h i l o s o p h e r o r p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t , b u t as
t h e o t h e r s u r v i v i n g s h o r t references t o m y t h o l o g y , g e o g r a p h y , h i s t o r y ,
h e was a l w a y s eager t o startle his audience b y some n o v e l t y , h e m a n a g e d
a n d especially t o e a r l y poets a n d philosophers. H i p p i a s (B 8 ) o b s e r v e d
t o g i v e a n e w t u r n t o t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y discussion o f 'physis a n d n o m o s ' ;
t h a t t h e w o r d rvpawos
at least, i n Plato's
was n o t i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e G r e e k l a n g u a g e before
Protagoras i t was H i p p i a s w h o first used t h e a n t i t h e t i c 1
t h e t i m e o f A r c h i l o c h u s ; H o m e r c a l l e d even t h e w o r s t despot jSatrtAetis.
f o r m u l a uo-et—vopup i n t h e sense ' b y n a t u r e ' — ' b y c o n v e n t i o n ' , a f o r m u l a
H i p p i a s m a d e p a r a l l e l excerpts from t h e poets o f o l d (B 6 ) , O r p h e u s ,
w h i c h became almost classical. I n his studies o f l a n g u a g e he a c c e p t e d ,
M u s a e u s , H e s i o d , H o m e r ; i t is n o t e w o r t h y t h a t w e find e x a c t l y t h e same
l i k e others, Protagoras' c o n c e p t o f d p t f o e W a ; h e t o o k p a r t i n t h e l i v e l y
sequence i n A r i s t o p h a n e s
41 A ; w i t h o u t
d e b a t e s o n the epic poems (B 9 ) , o n H o m e r i c H e r o e s (A 9, B 5 ) , o n t h e
(fr. 7. 16 ff. P o w e l l ) . I t is
life o f t h e poet H o m e r (B 18). O n e field, so f a r a v o i d e d b y o t h e r Sophists,
q u i t e l i k e l y t h a t he a d d e d a s i m i l a r c o l l e c t i o n o f p a r a l l e l passages f r o m
was entered b y H i p p i a s alone. Q u e s t i o n s o f r h y t h m i c s a n d m e t r i c s h a d
t h e earliest philosophers, i n w h i c h T h a l e s c o n t i n u e d t h e l i n e o f t h e f o u r
been t h e concern
o f Lasus o f H e r m i o n e
3
poets j u s t m e n t i o n e d . T h e " OAvpimovLKcbv
towards the end o f the sixth century, certainly o f the A t h e n i a n D a m o n ,
4
(Ran. 1030 ff.), i n P l a t o (Apol.
H e s i o d Ion 536 a ) , a n d e v e n i n H e r m e s i a n a x 1
but
avaypatftrj was n o t a c h r o n i c l e
2
o f t h e musicians,
possibly
a list o f names w i t h o n l y a f e w necessary r e m a r k s ; so, I t h i n k , i t is
t h e teacher o f Pericles; H i p p i a s seems t o h a v e been t h e first ' l i t e r a r y '
h a r d l y c o r r e c t t o c a l l his l i t e r a r y c o l l e c t i o n s t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a ' h i s t o r y '
m a n , not a musician, t o treat language together w i t h music, distinguishing
of literature and philosophy.
2
Instead, the proper f o r m o f all the anti-
itept re ypap.pv8p,6jv /cat app.ovia)v. F r o m single
' t h e v a l u e o f letters a n d syllables a n d r h y t h m s a n d scales'
q u a r i a n w r i t i n g s o f H i p p i a s a n d his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s seems t o h a v e been
pLdrcov Swdp-cats /cat truAAajSaji'
t h e c a t a l o g u e , t h e list, t h e mVa£. T h e Sophist was i n n e e d o f t h i s k n o w -
sounds he w e n t o n t o several letters t a k e n t o g e t h e r , t h a t is t o syllables
l e d g e as o r a t o r a n d t e a c h e r ; as i n o t h e r fields, i t was n o t a s c h o l a r l y
a n d t h e i r q u a n t i t i e s , t h e n t o c e r t a i n sequences o f l o n g a n d s h o r t syllables,
interest i n t h e customs o f l i f e i n f o r m e r ages o r even i n t h e ' h i s t o r y o f
t o r h y t h m s , a n d finally t o ' h a r m o n i c s ' .
c u l t u r e ' , b u t t h e p r a c t i c a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f his c a l l i n g , t h a t i n s p i r e d his
w o r d a n d ' m u s i c ' was s t i l l m a i n t a i n e d , b u t t h e emphasis m a y h a v e been
efforts.
shifted f r o m ' m u s i c ' t o l a n g u a g e ; t h e e n d o f t h i s i m p o r t a n t d e v e l o p m e n t
3
4
Kv vrrok-qtbts 'Art arises when from many notions of experience there comes a single universal judgement', W. D. Ross, Arist. Metaph. I (1924) 114, translation. On the Platonic character of this chapter and its relation to the treatment in the Protrepticus see W. Jaeger, Aristoteles (1923) 6 8ff.= Engl, translat. by R. Robinson ( 2 n d ed. 1948) 6 8 ff. (jixvn and htvrrqu.'n are not distinguished by Aristotle in this chapter, but see Anal. post. 100 a 9 ) . I . During, Aristotle's Protreptieus ( 1 9 6 1 ) 242 agrees with Jaeger and Ross. It cannot be proved and it is not likely that Plato used a sort o f 'formula' coined in Hippocratic circles, see K . Deichgräber, Die griechische Empirikerschule (1930) 2 7 3 . i . This negative statement is confirmed by F. Heinimann, 'Eine vorplatonische Theorie der T^YJ^J', MUS. Hein. 18 ( 1 9 6 t ) 105 ff., who thoroughly scrutinized early Sophistic and medical writings; the novelty of the Socratic-PIatonic differentiation between ipntipta and riyyv becomes quite evident. K . v . Fritz, 'Der Beginn universalwissenschaftlicher Bestrebungen und der Primat der Griechen*, Studium Generale xrv ( 1 9 6 1 ) 6 1 8 f., on this particular problem; on the meaning o f 1
1
a
hrioT^pvn 6lO ff.
58
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
réxvr}.
1
Problems of Language in Plato's C r a t y l u s
T h e r e is n o need t o g o i n t o t h e v e x e d q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r i t is
59
T h i s c u r s o r y survey a g a i n emphasizes t h e divergencies o f a p p r o a c h
possible t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e o r i g i n a l S o c r a t i c c o n t r i b u t i o n a n d t h e
a n d sounds r a t h e r d i s c o u r a g i n g ; b u t d i d P l a t o a t least a p p r e c i a t e t h e
P l a t o n i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f i t ; b u t i t is a l m o s t c e r t a i n t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r
efficiency o f t h e Sophists i n t h e l i n g u i s t i c sphere w h e r e t h e y seemed t o be
w h o i n d e f a t i g a b l y asks questions a b o u t TC^WJ i n t h e Apology a n d i n m a n y
a t t h e i r best? T h e Sophistic analysis o f l a n g u a g e was h a p h a z a r d a n d o f t e n
dialogues is m e a n t t o be t h e h i s t o r i c a l Socrates h i m s e l f .
p r e t e n t i o u s ; Socrates d e v e l o p e d i t i n a m o s t c o n s t r u c t i v e a n d m e t h o d i c a l
W h e n w e d e s c r i b e d t h e results o f t h e S o p h i s t i c m o v e m e n t i n o u r
w a y a n d created a new refined i n s t r u m e n t for dialectic. Plato i n his
p r o v i n c e o f l e a r n i n g , w e n o t e d Plato's r e a c t i o n i n some cases, a n d w e
Cratylus was t h e first t o p u t p r o b l e m s o f l a n g u a g e i n t h e c e n t r e o f a c o m -
s h a l l n o t r e p e a t w h a t w a s said t h e n . Socrates n e v e r w r o t e a b o o k , a n d
prehensive p h i l o s o p h i c a l d e b a t e ; t h e y r e m a i n e d present t o his m i n d , as
P l a t o h a d great d o u b t s a b o u t t h e v a l u e o f t h e w r i t t e n w o r d so m u c h
t h e y t u r n e d u p a g a i n a n d a g a i n i n l a t e r dialogues (Sophistes 252 A ff.,
f a v o u r e d b y t h e Sophists. H e b e l i e v e d t h e i r task o f i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e o l d
Philebus 18 B ff., occasionally also i n Symp. 198 B f., Rep. 462 c ff., Tkeaet.
poets t o be useless o r even i m p o s s i b l e . B e h i n d t h i s sceptical a t t i t u d e t o t h e
206 D , Tim. 4 9 E, cf. Bp. v i i 342 B f f . ) . Sophistic debates a n d t h e dis-
i n t e r p r e t e r s , w h e t h e r rhapsodes o r Sophists, t h e r e lies Plato's deep dis-
coveries o f c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w e r e , n o d o u b t , a sort o f s t i m u l u s f o r P l a t o ;
P o e t r y w a s t o h i m s o m e t h i n g dXoyov, ' n o t
b u t he w e n t b a c k also t o t h e H o m e r i c studies a n d t o t h e serious ' l i n g u i s t i c '
reasonable' o r even ' c o n t r a r y t o reason'. H e r e g a r d e d i t f r o m t h e b e g i n -
studies o f e a r l i e r p h i l o s o p h e r s . C r a t y l u s h i m s e l f , a so-called H e r a c l i t e a n ,
n i n g as ' i n s p i r e d ' (Apol. Q2 A - C , Ion 533 E e t c . ) , a n d l a t e r o n , a c c o r d i n g
n a t u r a l l y represents t h e ideas o f H e r a c l i t u s , b u t there are E l e a t i c elements
t r u s t o f t h e poets themselves.
2
3
1
t o t h e d o c t r i n e d e v e l o p e d i n Rep. x , also as ' m i m e t i c ' (esp. 595 ff.). T h i s
a d m i x e d b y t h e o t h e r i n t e r l o c u t o r H e r m o g e n e s , a n d possibly also D e m o -
was n o t i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o his g e n e r a l v i e w , w h i c h h e n e v e r gave u p ,
critean elements;
b u t a n a d d i t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n , based o n t h e f o l l o w i n g m e t a p h y s i c a l
P l a t o n i c d i a l o g u e deals exclusively w i t h ' w o r d s ' a n d t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o
a p h i l o s o p h y o f l a n g u a g e i n g e n e r a l emerges. T h e
2
takes o n l y t h e t h i r d place after t h e
' t h i n g s ' , a n d Plato's w h o l e interest is c o n c e n t r a t e d o n t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f
p r o t o t y p e s a n d t h e w o r l d o f objects ( i b i d . 597 E) a n d so H o m e r ' s p o e t r y
t h e k n o w l e d g e o f r a cVra, o f t h e ' w o r l d o f t h i n g s ' . I t is o n l y i f w e keep
argument: 'Imitation
(filfi7)ais)
as i m i t a t i o n is p l a y , n o t seriousness' (etvat 7rai8iav rivet
KOX
ov oirovSr/v
TT)V
t h i s m a i n t e n d e n c y i n o u r m i n d t h a t w e m a y be able t o grasp t h e m e a n i n g
i b i d . 602 B) ; s t i l l w o r s e , t h e r e are others, l i k e t h e t r a g e d i a n s ,
o f some o f his i n d i v i d u a l statements o n l a n g u a g e , p a r t i c u l a r l y o n e t y m o -
' w h o p r o d u c e a n e v i l p o l i t i c a l o r d e r i n t h e soul o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' ( i b i d .
logy, w h i c h otherwise sound rather s t a r t l i n g t o the m o d e r n m i n d , a n d
605 B). I n Plato's i d e a l c i t y as t h e r e a l m o f reason t h e citizens w o u l d be
are easily m i s u n d e r s t o o d .
IxifLrjaLv
3
e n d a n g e r e d b y t h e p o e t s ; therefore t h e y h a v e t o be e x p e l l e d ( w i t h v e r y
P r o t a g o r a s , i t seems, used b u t one expression f o r w o r d s , ovojiara; so
few exceptions, i b i d . 607 A ; cf. Leg. 8 1 7 B C ) . T h e ' a n c i e n t q u a r r e l * b e t w e e n
a p p a r e n t l y d i d A n t i s t h e n e s . P l a t o i n h i s Cratylus used t w o , avofiara a n d
p h i l o s o p h y a n d p o e t r y (iraXaià . . . Siatpopà
ÎXos (Crat. 399 B ) , duAos is a pfjp.a, because i t is s a i d a b o u t h i m ; AùfaXos, as t h e n a m e o f someone, is a n 6vop,a. B o t h are SrjXojfzaTa, ' m e a n s o f m a k i n g s o m e t h i n g k n o w n ' , as P l a t o s a i d i n t h e Sophistes (261 E ) , w h e r e 6vop.a refers t o t h e Trpdrrovres (doing the action) a n d prjtia t o t h e irpâl-is ( t h e a c t i o n ) ; b u t t h e y d o n o t m a k e a n y t h i n g k n o w n u n t i l t h e y are ' t w i n e d t o g e t h e r ' a n d p r o d u c e a Xoyos, a sentence : âvdpwiros pLavôàvet (262 c ) . I f someone is c a l l e d
I f w o r d s r e a l l y are ÔTiAio/xara, i t is w o r t h w h i l e t o i n q u i r e i n t o t h e 'elements' o u t o f w h i c h t h e y are m a d e . H i p p i a s t h e Sophist m a y h a v e e n t e r e d t h i s p r o v i n c e before P l a t o , d e a l i n g w i t h letters a n d
syllables
a n d r h y t h m s i n a different w a y , perhaps f o l l o w i n g D e m o c r i t u s .
2
Plato
d a y , as P l a t o f r e e l y a d o p t e d expressions c o i n e d b y others. A s h e h i m s e l f seems t o h a v e used aroix^ta a t first, i n t h e Cratylus, i n a l i t e r a r y sense
(<pojvrj$ o-Totyeia), one is t e m p t e d t o assume t h a t t h e t e r m o r i g i n a l l y m e a n t t h e letters t o b e d r a w n u p i n a r o w alphabet,
1
trrot^os), t h e
(OTOIXCOJ,
a n d was t h e n t r a n s f e r r e d t o science, t o physics, a n d m a t h e -
m a t i c s . O b j e c t i o n s h a v e b e e n raised against t h i s hypothesis a n d s t r o n g arguments advanced for the p r i o r i t y o f mathematics, o n the g r o u n d that 2
a y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Plato's, a p u p i l o f E u d o x u s ,
Menaechmus,
3
applied oroiycra to elementary m a t h e m a t i c a l demonstrations. Whatever m a y b e t h e o u t c o m e o f t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y , f o r o u r p u r p o s e Plato's statements
Cratylus are decisive, as t h e y a l o n e i n f l u e n c e d l a t e r t e r m i n o l o g y . (Crat. 424 c ) ; t h e first g r o u p are TQ (piovqevra ' t h e v o w e l s ' , t h e second g r o u p (rd erepa) are rd re aaSojvo. KOL dtpdoyya, ' t h e consonants a n d t h e m u t e s ' , t o i n the
So d i d t h e names o f t h e g r o u p s i n t o w h i c h h e d i v i d e d t h e aroixeta
c a l l e d t h e elements o f s o u n d ( w h i c h h e a p p a r e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h ' l e t t e r s '
use t h e m o d e r n t e r m s ; t h e consonants w h i c h are n o t ddoyya are c a l l e d
ypapLpiara, as t h e first c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e syllable) o r o i y e i a (Crat. 393 D ,
•qp,i(f>ojv(L b y A r i s t o t l e .
4 2 4 c , 4 2 6 D) ; i n t h e Sophistes (252 B) he used t h e same t e r m f o r t h e f i r s t
experts o n o r o i ^ e t a :
p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e p h y s i c a l w o r l d . A f e w decades l a t e r A r i s t o t l e ' s f a v o u r i t e
w h o m h e m a y h a v e m e a n t H i p p i a s o r o t h e r Sophists.
p u p i l , E u d e m u s o f R h o d e s , was n o t a b l e t o find a n y e a r l i e r evidence o f
q u e s t i o n was w h e t h e r a correspondence b e t w e e n s o u n d a n d m e a n i n g i n
3
t h i s u s a g e ; so h e a c k n o w l e d g e d Plato's p r i o r i t y ,
arotxeta irpwros avros
4
F o r his d i v i s i o n P l a t o expressly
ovrwal yap
TTOV
Xiyovaiv
01 Setvoi 7rept 5
refers t o t h e
rovrcov, b y
Plato's o w n n e w
these p r i m a r y elements c o u l d be f o u n d ; h e considers t h a t pa) m a y suggest
E u d e m u s w o u l d o n l y b e r e f i t t e d , i f a passage o f t h e P e r i p a t e t i c p h i l o -
(Crat. 426 c, 4 3 4 c ) a n d m a y b e a n ' i m i t a t i v e s o u n d ' as i n petv a n d po-r), o r t h a t Aa/SSa suggests s o m e t h i n g s m o o t h a n d soft (Xctov,
sopher A d r a s t u s o f A p h r o d i s i a s (second c e n t u r y A.D.) c o u l d be d a t e d b a c k
pLaXaKov),
œvofiao-e
ras roiavras dpxds ( f r . 31 W e h r l i ) . T h i s m a y w e l l be c o r r e c t . 4
i n t o the
fifth
a n d so o n .
t h e n P l a t o as w e l l as A r i s t o t l e w o u l d b e
I n t h e course o f t h e d i a l o g u e several s i m i l a r questions are raised, o f
d e p r i v e d o f t h e c l a i m t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f several i m p o r t a n t scientific
w h i c h w e c a n m e n t i o n o n l y one o r t w o . W h e n some oroiYeia, s i g n i f i c a n t
t e r m s , Such as
c e n t u r y B.C.;
rapid motion
5
ovopuxra a n d prqpLara, a>val irpwrai . . . oroiyciaiSciS' . . .
i n themselves, are p u t t o g e t h e r a n d f o r m e d i n t o w o r d s , s h o u l d i t n o t b e
(rd ervpLa) a n d so finally r e a c h irvpioXoyla,
aStatperot. So f a r , t h e r e has n o t b e e n t h e slightest p r o o f , n o r has a n y c l e a r
possible t o find o u t t h e i r ' t r u e ' m e a n i n g
p r e - P l a t o n i c evidence b e e n d e t e c t e d ; b u t , o f course, i t m a y t u r n u p o n e
t h e essence o f t h i n g s ? N o w , t h i s looks l i k e t h e o l d task o f
Plato speaks about the SiW/us of àvépara Crat. 3 9 4 BC. The source of Diog. L . in 2 5 (Favorinus as in HI 2 4 , F . Leo, Die griech.-rom. Biographie (1901) 5 5 ; cf. ibid. 4 6 ff., about evp^fiara) refers, I should think, to this passage or to similar ones when it calls attention to some fip^fiara of Plato's: KOX rrparros èBedtprjoe TT}S ypau-u-artKijs TOV ovvap.iv. Whatever Diog. L . meant by Swa/us, Plato never pretended to speculate on 'grammar', which did not yet exist in the later technical sense. The translations of the often-quoted remark of Diog. L . differ widely and are misleading: Sandys i 92 'the first to speculate on the nature of grammar', or R. H . Robins, loc. cit. 17 'first considered the potentialities of grammar'. In Strata's line oKoirtîv tKaorov r i Svvarai râ\v prjuAraiv (below, p. 9 1 ) Swarat simply refers to the proper 'meaning' of the rare vocables. * See above, p. 53. Cf. Theaet. 201 E , 202 E , 203 B, Phileb. 18 c oToiveîa, as letters; as first principles cf. Tim. 4 8 B, 5 4 i>. * Cf. Diog. L . in 24 ; in this case we can trace the statement of Diog. L to a reliable source (via Favorinus ?) ; on the other hand, see the sceptical remarks to p. 35, n. 3 and above, n. 1. 1
3
1
s
See
Excursus.
f a m i l i a r f r o m H o m e r i c t i m e s as a n i n n a t e s t r i v i n g o f t h e G r e e k m i n d t o understand and explain the
6vop.ara, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e a n c i e n t p r o p e r
n a m e s o f gods a n d m e n ; t h e poets w e r e f o l l o w e d b y t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s ( H e r a c l i t u s , D e m o c r i t u s ) , h i s t o r i a n s (Hecataeus, H e r o d o t u s ) , a n d Sophists (Prodicus, H i p p i a s ? ) , w h o occasionally a n d a r b i t r a r i l y t r i e d their h a n d On the origin of the Greek alphabet see above, pp. 20 ff. The masterly pamphlet of H. Diels, Elementum (Leipzig 1 8 9 9 ) , opened the debate on the origin of oToivefov; the complete history of the controversy is given by W. Burkert, 'Erotxciov. Erne semasiologische Studie' (see Excursus to p. 6 0 ) who himself strongly pleads for the mathematical origin; see also above, p. 2 3 , n. 1 and Jeffery, The Local Scripts 4 0 . Eudera. fr. 133, Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 8 (1955) 5 5 . 2 ; cf. Plat. Tim. (above, p. 6 0 , n. 3 ) . On 'semi-vowels' see Aristotle below, p. 76. ' Plat. Crat. 4 2 4 c and E, Hipp. min. 3 6 8 D, Phtleb. 18 BC ; Hippias, see above, pp. 5 3 , 6 0 ; cf. Eur. Palamed. fr. 5 7 8 . 2 N . (415 B.C.). 1
a
J
4
a
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
Origin of Words
a t t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l g a m e . T h e P l a t o n i c Socrates, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
ones o n t h e p a r t o f those w h o are n o t w i l l i n g t o give a c c o u n t o f h o w t h e
s t a r t e d a m e t h o d i c a l a n d consistent i n q u i r y i n t o t h e f u n d a m e n t a l p r o b -
p r i m a r y w o r d s are c o r r e c t l y g i v e n . N o t o n l y here b u t i n n e a r l y every
62
l e m ' w h e t h e r t h e names themselves w i l l b e a r witness t h a t t h e y a r e n o t a t
el dpa rip.lv drro rov avrop,drov ovrws e / c a o r a
a l l g i v e n a t h a p h a z a r d , b u t h a v e a c e r t a i n correctness':
e-nifxaprvpTfaei avrd rd ovop,ara pjrf irdw KetoOai, dXX e%€iv nvd opBoTora (Crat. 397 A ) . A w o r d has 'correctness', i f i t expresses t h e essence o f t h e t h i n g : ovop,aros, tf>ap,ev, opdomns iariv avrr) 17V1? evoel^erai 010V eon TO rrpdyp.a (428 E), cf. otjXovv otov enaorov eari TCOV OVTOiV (422 D ) . F o r P r o d i c u s t h e Sophist 77 r&v ovop.drmv opBoTns h a d m e a n t t h e
63
1
case, Socrates i m m e d i a t e l y r a i s e d d o u b t s a n d objections t o t h e a r g u m e n t s w h i c h he h i m s e l f h a d j u s t advanced at l e n g t h .
1
F r o m t h e so-called p r i m a r y w o r d s t h e r e is b u t a step t o t h e general q u e s t i o n o f t h e origin o f w o r d s : d o w o r d s exist as a p r o d u c t o f n a t u r e
(va€i) o r as t h e result o f c o n v e n t i o n (vdpLw) ? A s f a r as I a m a w a r e t h e (Xe£is, Aoyos), b u t a l w a y s ovop.ara; 2
d i a l o g u e does n o t say ' l a n g u a g e '
t h e q u e s t i o n is w h o first gave names t o t h i n g s . T h i s c o n t r o v e r s y i n t h e
Cratylus is o n l y p a r t o f t h e w h o l e g r e a t d i s p u t e b e t w e e n tpvms a n d vopios
p r o p e r d i s t i n c t i o n o f k i n d r e d t e r m s a n d t h e i r c o r r e c t use i n o r a t o r y ;
w h i c h b e g a n i n t h e second h a l f o f t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y B.C.
3
O n e o f Socrates'
Socrates gave t h e same expression a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t a n d p u r e l y p h i l o -
i n t e r l o c u t o r s p l e a d e d f o r ' n a t u r e ' i t s e l f as t h e g i v e r o f n a m e s , t h e o t h e r
s o p h i c a l m e a n i n g . H e l e t a t o r r e n t o f e x a m p l e s r u s h a t his p a r t n e r s i n t h e
f o r ' c o n v e n t i o n ' ; Socrates a r g u e d against b o t h o f t h e m , as he a r g u e d i n
d e b a t e , p a r d y i n g e n i o u s l y c o n t r i v e d ones, p a r t l y w i l d fancies. N o t c o n -
o t h e r cases e v e n against himself, pitilessly e x p o s i n g every o b s c u r i t y i n t h e
tent w i t h the o l d etymology o f
as t h e 'destroyer' ( 4 0 4 E a n d
a r g u m e n t s . T h e r e f o r e , a l l these n e g a t i v e p a r t s o f t h e Cratylus h a v e t h e i r
405 E ) , h e offers n o less t h a n f o u r n e w ervpia r e v e a l i n g t h e god's f o u r
special i m p o r t a n c e ; a t t h e e n d , w h e n t h e c l a i m s o f t w o k i n d s o f names t o
ATTOMWV
1
p o w e r s , as t h e a?rAo£>,
del
fidXAovros, aTroAou'ovroc,
SpLOTToXovvros
(406 A) . I t
be ' l i k e t h e t r u t h ' c o n f l i c t e d w i t h e a c h o t h e r , Socrates r e a c h e d t h e
final
is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e P l a t o n i c Socrates t h a t h e n o l o n g e r r e l i e d o n m e r e
negative c o n c l u s i o n : ' I t is p l a i n t h a t w e m u s t l o o k f o r s o m e t h i n g else,
similarities o f sound
W h e n he d e r i v e d t h e
n o t names, t h a t w i l l show us w i t h o u t names w h i c h o f these t w o k i n d s are
n a m e o f t h e M u s e s (Movaa, D o r i c Mwaa) f r o m p.wodat ' t o seek after, t o
t h e t r u e ones, w h i c h o f t h e m , t h a t is t o say, show t h e t r u t h o f t h i n g s ' ,
m e d i t a t e ' , he d i d n o worse t h a n m o d e r n l i n g u i s t s . G o i n g o n t o A p o l l o ' s
8T)XOV6TI
m o t h e r / b j r o j , h e r e f e r r e d t o m a n y £evoi w h o c a l l h e r A-nBa> because o f h e r
OTTorepa
' s m o o t h c h a r a c t e r ' , h e r XtTov •fjBos; so h e seriously l o o k e d t o n o n - A t t i c
(438 D) . A l i t t l e f u r t h e r o n , a s h o r t p o s i t i v e s t a t e m e n t is a d d e d a b o u t
f o r m s i n G r e e k dialects o r obsolete f o r m s used b y t h e e a r l y Greeks
ovra: ' t h a t t h e y are to be l e a r n e d a n d s o u g h t f o r n o t f r o m names, b u t
— aVoAAiW
(AITOXXOJV
KTX.)
.
Z
3
(ol
TTXTJV ovop^drcov, a rjpiiv epLaviei avev ovop-d earl TaA^Ö^, oet^avra 877A0VÖV1 rr/v a A r ; 6 V i a v TOJV CVTGJV
aAA' aVra £?jT7)Tea TOVTOJV
rd
"EXXyves ovop,ara . . . 7rapa TutvfiapfidpuivetXrjipaaiv, cf. 416 A) : rrvp, vBojp, a n d some others m i g h t
o n OVK ovopbdrajv ptaXXov avrd e£ avriov teat piadrjTeov KOI £TJT7]T4OV vj 4£ ovopt-drta (439 B ; cf. 438 E ret oVra . . . auTd, St* avrdiv). T h e phrases aAA* a n a . . . TrXr/v ovop\dToiv a n d r a ovra . . . a u r a e£ o r Si* OJUTWV seem t o i n d i c a t e
have been b o r r o w e d
a n o t h e r stage o f P l a t o n i c p h i l o s o p h y , w h i c h is r e a c h e d i n t h e S e v e n t h
TraAcuot 407 A o n A t h e n a , cf, 418 BC) f o r h e l p i n t r a c i n g etymologies.
m u c h b e t t e r t h r o u g h themselves t h a n f r o m names',
F i n a l l y w h e n t h e r e w a s n o h e l p from a n y G r e e k source, Socrates sus-
dXXa
p e c t e d ' f o r e i g n ' o r i g i n (409 D ff. o r i 7T0AA0 from
01
the Phrygians, although slightly modified
TTOXV
(410 A ) . B u t i n his best i r o n i c a l m o o d , h e r e g a r d e d such assumptions o f
L e t t e r (Ep. v n p p . 342 A f f . ) w h e r e w o r d a n d i m a g e (oVop-a a n d CISOJAOV)
b o r r o w i n g from t h e b a r b a r i a n s as 'evasions': a t f r a i yap dv iraoai eKovoeis
h a v e t h e i r p r o p e r p l a c e assigned i n t h e d i a l e c t i c a l process. M e a n w h i l e
elev KOX pidXa Kopuf/al rip pvi) eBeXovri Xoyov StSovai trepl rcov rrpioruiv ovopbd6JC dpBu>s /ceirat (426 A ) , ' a l l these m a y be evasions a n d v e r y clever
t o u s ; b u t t h i s is n o t t h e w h o l e story.
4
TOJV
The etymology {from arroWvfu) is at least as early as Archilochus fr. 3 0 D. , who played upon the name of the god as he played on the various forms of a single word, above, p. 14. Wilamowitz, Glauhe der Hellenen n 114. 4 , was not right in rejecting the idea of an etymological play by Archilochus, proposed already by Apollod. 3 4 4 FGrHist 9 5 . io, cf. Aesch. Ag. 1081, Eur. fr. 781. 12 N.». See above, p. 5, n. 2. O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte n ( i g o 6 ) 1076. 1; J . B. Hofmann, 1
3
z 1
Etymologisckes 4
Cf. pp.
Worterbuck 41
and
79.
des Griechischen
(1949) 206.
t h e v e r d i c t o n t h e ovop,ara i n t h e Cratylus m a y b e a n o t h e r d i s a p p o i n t m e n t O n t h e w a y t o his final c o n c l u s i o n Socrates expressed some n e w i d e a s ; these discoveries w e r e m o r e i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e f u t u r e t h a n those o f t h e ' John Ruskin's 'etymologies' of Shakespeare's names are at least as bizarre as many in the Cratylus; the difference is that Ruskin seems to have been quite in earnest when he derived Desdemona from Svo&atpwia or Ophelia from dxp^Xeia, etc. 'Munera Puiveris', 5 t h essay § 134, Works, a s
11 (1872)
143.
See above, p. 53 (Hippias), below, p. 79 (Aristotle). F. Heinimann, 'Nomos und Physis', Schweizerische Beiträge
('945);
o
n
language 4 6
ff.
zur
Altertumswissenschaft
1
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
64
Academy and Peripatos
Sophists a n d c a n b e r e g a r d e d as ' r u d i m e n t s ' o f l i n g u i s t i c k n o w l e d g e .
1
65
p o l e m i c s against t h e Sophists w a s t o b e c o m e f u n d a m e n t a l f o r g r a m -
' C h a n g e s o f s o u n d ' i n s o m e names a r e e x p l a i n e d b y t h e desire f o r
m a t i c a l t h e o r y , as w e s h a l l see. T h i s is m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e effect o f
evarop-la,
t h e i n d i v i d u a l discoveries w e f o u n d i n his Cratylus. I t was n o t t h e r h e t o r i -
&ep47Ta<pa t h e o r i g i n a l f o r m a c c o r d i n g t o t h e e t y m o l o g y , w a s c h a n g e d i n t o Oeppifarra ( 4 0 4 D ) , Oi£ i n t o M$ty§ (414 CD), o r even b o l d e r s t i l l , *H6ovorj i n t o A8-nvda (407 B irapayaywv . . . eVc TO KCLXXLOV ;^cf. 4 0 8 B, 4 0 9 c, 4 1 4 c, 417 E)« T h e s e i n d i 'goodness o f s o u n d ' ( e u p h o n y ) :
>
c a l e n t h u s i a s m , t h e passionate l o v e o f l a n g u a g e s h o w n b y teachers
from
P r o t a g o r a s t o Isocrates, t h a t w e r e decisive, b u t Plato's r i g o r o u s c r i t i c i s m o f l a n g u a g e a n d his sober proofs o f its l i m i t a t i o n s . T h e u n i q u e c o m p o u n d
v i d u a l e x a m p l e s m u s t _ n o t b e t a k e n t o o seriously ; b u t t h e same p h o n e t i c
o f his s p i r i t , a t once c r e a t i v e , c r i t i c a l , a n d a r t i s t i c , gave t h e strongest
principle,
impulse t o future generations.
a v o i d a n c e o f c a c o p h o n y , is s t i l l used b y m o d e r n l i n g u i s t s t o 2
explain the origin o f striking Greek word-forms. W e have already m e n tioned
t h a t Socrates, i n w o r k i n g o u t e t y m o l o g i e s , r e f e r r e d also t o e a r l i e r
f o r m s n o l o n g e r used i n h i s time; these references
a r e based o n t h e
T h e first decades o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y w e r e a p e r i o d f u l l o f d a n g e r ; after t h e p o l i t i c a l c a t a s t r o p h e o f A t h e n s i n 4 0 4 B.C., t h e crisis o f t h e c i t y state a n d t h e i n e v i t a b l e c h a n g e i n social c o n d i t i o n s h e r a l d e d t h e a p -
g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t f o r m a l changes h a p p e n i n t h e course o f t i m e f o r
p r o a c h o f a n e w age. I n these years, before t h e f i n a l t u r n i n g - p o i n t w a s
v a r i o u s reasons; t h e sense o f a w o r d m a y h a v e been o b s c u r e d b y these
r e a c h e d w i t h A l e x a n d e r ' s e m p i r e , t w o p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools o f t h e u t m o s t
changes, a n d w e m u s t t r y t o discover t h e o r i g i n a l f o r m (410 c ; cf. 418 c,
i m p o r t a n c e w e r e f o u n d e d i n A t h e n s . P l a t o succeeded i n s e t t i n g u p h i s
420 B). ' C h r o n o l o g i c a l ' (not y e t 'historical') considerations o f this k i n d
school (after 388 B.C.) i n a g r o v e sacred t o t h e M u s e s a n d t o t h e h e r o
w e r e s u p p l e m e n t e d b y c o m p a r i s o n o f G r e e k w i t h f o r e i g n w o r d s (409 D
A k a d e m o s ; this o r g a n i z a t i o n , a religious g u i l d called t h e A c a d e m i a ,
fT.), t h e first v e r y s l i g h t h i n t a t a c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y o f languages. Socrates'
l a s t e d f o r m o r e t h a n 9 0 0 years. A s P l a t o h a d p a v e d t h e w a y f o r scholar-
suggestion t h a t t h e r u d i m e n t a r y sounds o f t h e p r i m a r y w o r d s p o s s i b l y
s h i p , so also i n l a t e r r e v i v a l s o f w h a t w e c a l l ' h u m a n i s m ' P l a t o n i s m
h a v e a p a r t i c u l a r significance m a y g i v e h i m a c l a i m t o b e t h e ancestor
p l a y e d its p a r t , w h e t h e r w e t h i n k o f O r i g e n o r t h e F l o r e n t i n e A c a d e m y o r
o f a t h e o r y c a l l e d ' s o u n d - s y m b o l i s m ' , w h i c h is s t i l l a l i v e i n o u r o w n days.
Erasmus o r W i n c k e l m a n n a n d H u m b o l d t .
3
T h e interpretation o f the
Cratylus leaves n o
d o u b t t h a t from t h e P l a t o n i c
p o i n t o f v i e w t h e s t u d y o f l a n g u a g e c a n n e v e r b e r e g a r d e d as t h e r e is n o t a w o r d even a b o u t a
ypap,p,ariicq rexyn
imorqfjer} ;
i n t h e sense o f ' g r a m -
T h e greatest p u p i l o f t h e P l a t o n i c A c a d e m y
from
1
t h e y e a r 368 B.C.
u n t i l Plato's d e a t h i n 348 B.C. w a s a f o r e i g n e r o f I o n i a n stock, A r i s t o t l e , w h o f i n a l l y established his o w n school a t t h e o t h e r e n d o f A t h e n s (335¬
m a r ' . A classical s c h o l a r l i k e W i l a m o w i t z c o u l d n o t q u i t e suppress h i s
323 B.C.) ; t h i s s c h o o l b o r e t h e n a m e P e r i p a t o s , a t least from t h e t i m e o f
i n d i g n a t i o n a b o u t Plato's a t t i t u d e ; h e regretted t h a t Plato
Theophrastus, w h o a p p a r e n t l y was able t o occupy a large grove o f the
4
5
'fur die
2
G r a m m a t i k nichts übrig h a t t e ' ; otherwise h e w o u l d have understood
Muses n e a r t h e t e m p l e o f A p o l l o L y c e u s . T h e P e r i p a t o s was d e s t i n e d t o
t h a t f o r l o g i c a l t x a i r i i n g i t c o u l d d o t h e same as t h e m a t h e m a t i c s o n w h i c h
r e m a i n i n p r o d u c t i v e r i v a l r y w i t h Plato's f o u n d a t i o n u n t i l the m i d d l e o f
h e e x c l u s i v e l y i n s i s t e d , o r sometimes even b e t t e r . B u t , as w e h a v e seen,
t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y A . D . I t is m a i n l y d u e t o these t w o
' g r a m m a r ' as a m e t h o d i c a l
re^yv
established
A t h e n i a n o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t r e l a t i v e l y m a n y w o r k s o f t h e i r founders a r e
been a p p l i e d t o logical t r a i n i n g ; mathematics, o n the other h a n d , h a d
w e l l preserved; they were better able t o collect, copy, distribute, a n d h a n d
b e e n d e v e l o p e d f o r c e n t u r i e s a n d w a s r e g a r d e d b y P l a t o as t r u e ememj/Liij.
t h e m o n t o p o s t e r i t y t h a n a n y p r e v i o u s p h i l o s o p h i c a l circles i n t h e east o r
T h i s leads us b a c k t o t h e g e n e r a l r e m a r k s w i t h w h i c h w e b e g a n t h i s
west. T h e r e is n o evidence a b o u t t h e e a r l y f o r t u n e s o f P l a t o ' s d i a l o g u e s ;
s h o r t c h a p t e r . T h e ch^tinction o f
o
t
y
firmly
exist a n d c o u l d n o t h a v e
n
e
t
kpmtipia. a n d re^vr)
m a d e b y P l a t o i n his
See Friedländer, Plaion I I igof.; Barwick 76 fr. influence on the Stoics and on the Alexandrians; cf. also below, p. 243. W. Schulze, KZ 4 3 ( 1 9 1 0 ) 1 8 5 - 9 Kieme Schriften ( 1 9 3 3 ) 3 0 4 - 8 'Kakophonie'. E . Cassirer, Philosophie der symbolischen Formen 1 Die Sprache ( 1 9 2 3 ) 139 fr., refers to Leibniz, W. v. Humboldt, Jacob Grimm, Hermann Paul; E . Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik 1 ( 1 9 3 9 ) 3 7 , mentions the revival of this theory by A. Meillet and his school. * On «rtonj>*ij see above, p. 5 7 ; ypau-u-artKr} T. means no more than the fitting or non fitting together of ypdu.ft.aTa single letters (Soph. 2 5 3 A). See also below, p. 76 on Aristotle. s Wilamowitz, Platan 1 ( 1 9 1 9 ) 5 6 1 . 3 (a very characteristic note with reference to his own schooldays). 1
a
3
3
=
b u t i t is a f a i r guess t h a t t h e first g e n e r a t i o n o f his p u p i l s t r i e d t o c o l l e c t , to arrange, a n d t o copy t h e autographs o f the master, Platans Akademie 2 n d
ed.
a n d t h a t this
with bibliography 2 5 fr.; P. B o y a n c 6 , Le ff. The first to try to reconstruct a history of the Academy as the model of scientific organization was H . Usener, 'Organisation der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit', Preuss. Jahrb. 53 (1884) 1 ff. = Vorträge u. Aufsätze ( 1 9 0 7 ) 67 ff. K. O. Brink, 'Peripatos', RE, Suppl. 7 { 1 9 4 0 ) 8 9 9 ff. (offprint 1 9 3 6 ) ; cf. the testimonia for n*ptiraros, etc., in Düring Aristotle 4 0 4 - 1 1 . Wilamowitz, Piaton 11 (1920) 3 2 4 ; against the assumption of a fundamental edition made by the Academy after Plato's death G. Jachmann, 'Der Platontext', Nachr. der Göttinger 81*848 F 1
H . Herter,
3
(1952)
Culte des Muses chez les philosophes grecs (1937) 262
1
3
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
Aristotle not the Creator of Philology
' A c a d e m y E d i t i o n ' b e c a m e t h e basis o f a l l t h e l a t e r ones. O n t h e o t h e r
h i s t o r y o f t h e ' b o o k ' ; t h e y used b o o k s , so o f t e n m a l i g n e d , especially b y
66
67
1
h a n d , w e h a v e n o c e r t a i n k n o w l e d g e o f a n y o r a l 'esoteric' i n s t r u c t i o n ( i n
P l a t o , i n o r d e r t o save t h e f u n d a m e n t a l w o r k o f t h e i r o w n
t h e l i n e o f P y t h a g o r a s ) b e i n g g i v e n b y P l a t o h i m s e l f t o a selected i n n e r
A r i s t o t l e a n d his f o l l o w e r s c o u l d n o t h a v e a c h i e v e d t h e i r i m m e n s e l y
c i r c l e o f disciples. I n A r i s t o t l e , h o w e v e r , w e h a v e t o m a k e a d i s t i n c t i o n
l e a r n e d c o m p i l a t i o n s i f t h e y h a d n o t a c c u m u l a t e d as m a n y w r i t i n g s o f t h e
1
b e t w e e n those o f his books c a l l e d earlier A c a d e m i c '
Dialogues, w r i t t e n
d o w n p r o b a b l y i n his
p e r i o d for a w i d e r reading p u b l i c , a n d the works 2
past
masters.
as t h e y c o u l d get h o l d o f ; after t h e occasional allusions t o m o d e s t
2
earlier collections
i t is w e l l attested t h a t t h e first l a r g e p r i v a t e l i b r a r y
3
p r o d u c e d i n c o n n e x i o n w i t h his t e a c h i n g , n o t o n l y as t h e h e a d o f his o w n
was f o u n d e d b y A r i s t o t l e a n d passed o n t o his successors, w h o p r o b a b l y
s c h o o l i n his second A t h e n i a n p e r i o d , b u t also e a r l i e r b e t w e e n 348 a n d
transferred i t to the L y c e u m .
4
e a r l i e r s m a l l e r essays; b u t t h e y w e r e g e n u i n e ' w r i t i n g s ' , ypdp^iara, r e a d
'Opvqpov or. 36. 1, m or. 53 I I 2 7 4 Reiske) : ApioToreX-qs ad>* ot? <paai rrjv KpniKTfv re Kai ypap.fLaTiKr)v apxqv Xaßetv, ' A r i s t o t l e , f r o m w h o m , as t h e y
t o t h e a u d i e n c e i n his s c h o o l . L a t e r o n t h e y m a y h a v e been
say,
335 B.C., w h e n h e w a s s t a y i n g i n t h e T r o a s , i n Lesbos, a n d i n M a c e d o n i a a t t h e r o y a l c o u r t . These seem t o h a v e o r i g i n a t e d f r o m lectures a n d
rearranged and
finally
sometimes
m a d e p u b l i c b y members o f the Peripatos ; they
D i o C h r y s o s t o m says i n his speech o n H o m e r (77epi
vol. II, p . n o A r n .
criticism a n d g r a m m a r made a beginning'. This view o f Dio's
a n o n y m o u s source
5
is shared b y m a n y m o d e r n scholars, f o r instance
Upay^aretat,
L . U r l i c h s ( ' Z u e i n e r Wissenschaft d e r P h i l o l o g i e h a t Aristoteles d e n
B e t w e e n these t w o g r o u p s t h e r e is a t h i r d o n e , ' M e m o r a n d a
G r u n d gelegt'), o r W . Jaeger ('Aristoteles. . . Schöpfer der Philologie')
a n d C o l l e c t i o n s ' , p u t d o w n f o r lectures a n d b o o k s , a n d p u b l i s h e d post-
or F. M e h m e l ( ' A r i s t o t e l e s . . . der eigentliche A h n h e r r . . . der Philologie
f o r m t h e b u l k o f t h e e x t a n t w o r k s a n d are o f t e n c a l l e d 'Treatises'.
3
6
7
8
h u m o u s l y , b u t lost t o us as a w h o l e , l i k e t h e Dialogues ; o n l y f r a g m e n t s
ü b e r h a u p t ' ) . W r i t e r s , w h e t h e r o n t h e h i s t o r y o f classical s c h o l a r s h i p , o n
are
A r i s t o t l e , o r o n H o m e r i c c r i t i c i s m , agree i n r e g a r d i n g A r i s t o t l e as ' f o u n -
preserved,
writings.
a n d m a n y t i t l e s i n t h e a m a z i n g lists o f A r i s t o t e l i a n
der*, ' c r e a t o r ' , o r a t least 'ancestor', u n c o n s c i o u s l y , as i t seems, r e v i v i n g
4
W e h a v e w a t c h e d t h e s l o w progress o f t h e ' w r i t t e n ' w o r d f r o m t h e
a n o p i n i o n o f l a t e a n t i q u i t y . I f t h i s c o m m o n c o n v i c t i o n w e r e c o r r e c t , one
t o t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y a n d t h e p a r t t h e e a r l y Sophists a n d t h e i r
w o u l d h a v e t o suppose t h a t t h e earliest H e l l e n i s t i c poets a n d scholars
younger pupils played i n i t . I t m a y appear rather paradoxical t h a t
after 300 B.C., P h i l i t a s a n d his f o l l o w e r s , s i m p l y c o n t i n u e d t h e w o r k o f
Academy
A r i s t o t l e a n d his P e r i p a t e t i c school. W e h a v e p u t f o r w a r d a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t
fifth
5
a n d P e r i p a t o s , t h e schools o f t h e i r o p p o n e n t s , s h o u l d h a v e
m a d e a decisive n e w step t o w a r d s t h e e n d o f o u r t h i r d p e r i o d i n t h e
view,
9
a n d w e s h a l l h a v e t o d e a l w i t h this q u e s t i o n t h o r o u g h l y l a t e r o n ,
w h e n we trace the line f r o m the f o u r t h to the t h i r d century a n d examine Nr. 7. 334,who arguesformefirstediüon'shavingbeen made by Aristophanes of Byzantium (see below, pp. 196 f.). Against Jachmann H . Erbse, 'Überlieferungsgeschichte der griechischen klassischen und hellenistischen Literatur' in Geschichte der Textüberlieferung I (Zürich 1961) 219 fr. F. Wehrli, 'Aristoteles in der Sicht seiner Schule, Platonisches und Vorplatonisches' in Aristote et les problèmes de Méthode (Louvain i 9 6 0 ) 336, with reference to H . J . Kramer, 'Arete bei Platon und Aristoteles', Abhandlungen d. Heidelberger Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl. (1959) 6 , pp. 3 8 0 - 4 8 6 ; in an impressive but not very convincing manner Kramer revived the idea of an 'esoteric' Plato who revealed the essence of his philosophy not in his written dialogues, but only in the oral instruction of the inner circle of his pupils. Akademie (1941)
1
ed. V . Rose (1886) no. i - m ; Fragm. selecta ed. W. D. Ross (1955) pp. 1 - 9 9 ; testimonia for the term èÇojrepiKol \6yoi During, Aristotle 4 2 6 - 4 3 . 3 W.Jaeger, Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Metaphysik des Aristoteles (1912) 1 3 1 - 4 8 , 1
Fragm.
first explained the complicated process of 'publication'. F. Dirlmeier, 'Merkwürdige Zitate in der eudem. Ethik des Ar.', Sitz. Ber. Heidelberger Akad., Philos.-hist. kl., 78. 1962, 2. Abh., collecting the evidence for cross-references in Aristotle's books, stresses the Adyos-character also of the written work more strongly. There are many improvements on Jaeger's theory; as regards Plato, Dirlmeier unfortunately agrees with Kramer. Text of the ancient lists in V. Rose (above, n. 2 ) , pp. 3 - 2 2 ; cf. P. Moraux, Les Listes anciennes des ouvrages d'Aristote (Louvain 1951). New critical edition and commentary by During, Aristotle; cf. M. Plezia, Gnom. 3 4 (1962) 126 ff. * See above, pp. 2 5 - 3 2 , 5 8 . 4
the r e l a t i o n o f the Alexandrians t o the Peripatos i n d e t a i l . As the mistaken views o n Aristotie's position w h i c h w e have cited were d e r i v e d from his w o r k o n H o m e r , i t w i l l be c o n v e n i e n t t o l o o k first a t his book on
Homeric problems
a n d t o consider his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . W e s h a l l g o
o n t o t h e l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m o n H o m e r a n d o n t r a g e d y i n his
Poetics,
then
t o his studies o f l a n g u a g e , a n d finally t o his a n t i q u a r i a n collections, c o n t i n u e d i n t h e g r a n d style b y his p u p i l s . T h i s d i v i s i o n i n t o f o u r g r o u p s is Reading of plays became quite common, see Aristot. Poet. 1462 a 12, 17. Aristot. Top. 105 b 12 «VAey«»' XPV ' u>v X6yu>v. See above, pp. yf. Strab. XIII 608 ÄpiororiX-ns . . . nptxiTOS ov. The conception of an analogy between a Aoyos and a {,&ov is Platonic, Phaedr. 2 6 4 D ; but Aristotle draws quite new consequences. eKaorov
6
wonep avdptonov, tmrov,
3
s
6
Taov TOV narpdicXov
ToiavTa T}V, €7rei
. . . tort
Sc Xvois, <pr)otv ßpiorOTeXys, Kat els TO inapxovra
KOI VVV ev T% QerraXta
rrepUXKovai
irepi
TOVS Taovs
(sc.
dviymv
tdt], 5TI
ra>v $ovev8evraiv
rois
7o
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
T h e f o r m o f t h e q u o t a t i o n hid rt. is t a k e n o u t o f t h e w o r k o n
. . eon
Aristotle neither Editor nor Interpreter
Be Xvm$ leaves n o d o u b t t h a t i t
71
i n t h e g r a n d style, i n w h i c h h e v e r y p r o b a b l y s t i l l used A r i s t o t l e ' s o r i g i n a l
Homeric Problems; b u t A r i s t o t l e m a y h a v e
work.
m e n t i o n e d t h e T h e s s a l i a n c u s t o m also i n his ©eaoaXtov -noXtreia ( f r . 4 9 5 ¬
1
O f t h e v a r i o u s N e o p l a t o n i c lives o f A r i s t o t l e o n l y one m e n t i o n s a n 2
500 R o s e ) . I n a n y case, i t is a n e x a m p l e o f the w a y he used t h e s t u p e n d o u s
' e d i t i o n o f t h e I l i a d ' ; after t h e Homeric
treasures o f his collections for t h e c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e epic p o e t
the w o r d s : Kai
against less l e a r n e d predecessors w h o h a d raised subjective m o r a l a r g u -
to t h e f a m o u s s t o r y o f t h e so-called ' I l i a d o f t h e Gasket', b y some dis-
m e n t s w i t h o u t b e i n g a w a r e o f h i s t o r i c a l facts. A s i m i l a r d i f f i c u l t y (K
missed 'as a p i c t u r e s q u e l e g e n d ' ,
152)
was solved b y reference t o a p r i m i t i v e c u s t o m s t i l l s u r v i v i n g a m o n g t h e
fact.
Poetics c. 25 p . 1461 a 3 ) . ' O t h e r s one m u s t
I l l y r i a n s (fr. 160 Rose a n d
Questions i n t h e list o f w o r k s c o m e
r) rrjs 'IXidSos eteMams fjv 3
SeSwce
rm AXe^dvBpco. T h i s refers
b y others accepted
as a h i s t o r i c a l
So i t m a y be w o r t h w h i l e t o reconsider t h e w h o l e evidence.
4
cording to Plutarch, Onesicritus,
5
Ac-
t h e steersman o f t h e r o y a l s h i p a n d
(BiaXvetv) b y c o n s i d e r i n g t h e d i c t i o n ( A e f i ? ) ' , as f o r instance b y t h e (yXcarrn) ' b y ovprjas fmv -npGirov (A 5 0 ) , for e x a m p l e , ' p e r h a p s h e does n o t m e a n m u l e s , b u t g u a r d s ' (01) roi>s ypudvovs Xeyet, dXXd rovs (fyvXaxas p . 1461 a 10). W e d o n o t k n o w w h e t h e r the much-discussed q u e s t i o n w h y A p o l l o i n t h i s passage o f t h e Iliad strikes first t h e m u l e s a n d d o g s was also i n t h e l i s t o f A r i s t o t l e ' s Homeric
o f H o m e r is m e n t i o n e d b y S t r a b o ( x m 5 9 4 ) , n o t as e d i t e d o r revised b y
Problems, b u t w e d o k n o w b y c h a n c e t h a t t h e m o s t i n f a m o u s a n d m a l i c i o u s
Aristotle, but
d e t r a c t o r o f H o m e r , Z o i l u s o f A m p h i p o l i s , h a d i n c l u d e d i t i n his n i n e
vdpdrjKos
solve
a s s u m p t i o n o f a n obsolete w o r d
s
2
books K a r a
rrjs
'OpL-qpov
a n o t always u n r e l i a b l e h i s t o r i a n , r e p o r t e d : ' A l e x a n d e r always k e p t w i t h his d a g g e r u n d e r his p i l l o w a c o p y o f the
rjv
ifc TOV
an a
vdpdrjKos
e/cSoo-t?,
KaXovo-Lv.'
6
Iliad AptaroreXovs Siopdojoavros Life o f A r i s t o t l e speaks o f
W h i l e the late
a n ' e d i t i o n ' o f t h e Iliad,
P l u t a r c h (Onesicritus?)
calls i t
hiop&toais, a t e x t 'revised' o r ' e m e n d e d ' b y A r i s t o t l e . A l e x a n d e r ' s c o p y 7
8
tfaiperm yovv rts SiopÖiuo-t? rfjs 'Opirjpov Trovr]aeaig, 17 e«r TOV rov AXe^dvBpov p,erd rtov irepl KaXXiadevrj «rat Ävd£apxov erreXÖovTos /cat ur)p,eiojoapi€vov nvd: ' t h e r e is a r u m o u r a b o u t some r e -
iroirjoctas ( f r . 6 F r i e d l a e n d e r ) . So A r i s t o t l e ' s
XeyopLevrj,
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n this case (as also i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r w a r d s , Poet. 1461 a
vised t e x t o f t h e H o m e r i c poems . . . w h e n A l e x a n d e r w i t h
14) m a y h a v e been d i r e c t e d against t h a t s p i t e f u l c o n t e m p o r a r y , t h e ' Opujpo-
a n d A n a x a r c h u s w e n t o v e r i t a n d m a d e some m a r k s o n i t . ' O u r sources
Callisthenes
9
fidori$, 'Scourge o f H o m e r ' . A t t h e same t i m e H e r a c l i d e s P o n t i c u s , o n e o f
agree a b o u t t h e fact t h a t A l e x a n d e r used t o h a v e a t e x t o f H o m e r o r a t
Plato's f a v o u r i t e p u p i l s , w h o l a t e r was closely r e l a t e d w i t h A r i s t o t l e , w r o t e
least o f t h e Iliadwith
3
4
t w o books o n ' H o m e r i c S o l u t i o n s '
(Avoewv 'Op,rjpiKOJv aß'),
5
apparently
w a s a t r u e (f>iXour)pos a n d h o n o u r e d his ancestral h e r o A c h i l l e s as his
w i t h t h e same a p o l o g e t i c c h a r a c t e r . A l t h o u g h c e r t a i n circles o f the A l e x a n d r i n e M u s e u m seem t o h a v e a d o p t e d t h i s ' m e t h o d ' o f
l i f e l o n g m o d e l . I t is also possible t h a t he w a s g i v e n t h a t c o p y b y A r i s t o t l e ,
l^rr\\iara, w h i c h
a m u s e d P t o l e m a i c k i n g s a n d R o m a n e m p e r o r s , as i t h a d a m u s e d A t h e n i a n 6
P e r i p a t e t i c s , Stoics, N e o p l a t o n i s t s , a n d b y a m a t e u r s , u n t i l P o r p h y r y ( w h o
'Opsqptxd t,r)Trjp,ara
7
1
3
p. 4 5 , and
n. 4 . Soph. El. 4 . * F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 7 (1953) 59 f. Kai vorepov yKovaev ÄptaroriXovs * Fr. 1 7 1 - 5 Wehrli; cf. Dicaearch. Wehrli, Schule des Arist. 1 (1944) fr. 9 0 - 9 3 and Phaler. ibid. 4 (1949) fr. 1 9 0 - 3 . 6 Lehrs, De Aristarchi Studiis Homericis (1882) 2 0 6 .
on fr. 3 . Demetr.
3
I have always felt rather uneasy about H . Schrader's bold reconstruction (see above, p. 6 9 , n. 4 and Excursus to p. 7 0 ) ; it is a relief to learn from a thorough re-examination of the attested fragments of Porphyry and of the 'exegetic* Scholia (6) to the Iliad that the bulk of 7
a
2
1
less f r i v o l o u s g a m e . I t was m a i n l y c o n t i n u e d b y t h e p h i l o s o p h i c schools,
4>ovias vcl sim.); detailed references are given in my note on Callimachus fr, 588, who may have used Aristode as a source for his Aetia. See below, p. 78. * Schol. A ad loc. S«i rt. . . AiWres; see Excursus. Suid. s.v. ZatiXos; cf. above, p. 9, n. 3 ; U . Friedlaender, De Zoilo aliisque Homeri obtrectatoribus, Diss. Königsberg 1895. On Hippias of Thasos {Poet. 1461 a 22) see above,
these Scholia with ^r^^ara cannot be regarded as excerpted from Porphyry, see H. Erbse, 'Beiträge zur Überlieferung der Iliasscholien*, Z l 4 ( i 9 6 0 ) 17-77. The assumption that Porphyry had Aristotle's AiropTiu-ara in its original form at hand is confirmed by Erbse, loc. cit. pp. 61 ff. * 'Vita Marciana' in Aristot./ra^m. p. 427. 5 Rose; cf. 'Vita Latina' ibid. p. 443. 6 'Yhadis dictamen quod dedit Alexandra' = Düring, 'Aristotle' 97 (4) and 151 (4). A sceptical 'non liquet' was the result of the acute re-examination of the tradition by O. Gigon in his commentary on the 'Vita Marciana*, Kleine Texteför Vorlesungen und Übungen 181 (1962) 36 f. 3 D. B. Monro, Homer's Odyssey Books xni-xxiv (1901) 4 1 8 ; see also W. Leaf, Strabo on the e t e m a
symposiasts, t h e g r e a t a n d serious g r a m m a r i a n s d i s l i k e d i t as a m o r e o r
d i e d a b o u t A . D . 305) a r r a n g e d his final c o l l e c t i o n o f
h i m i n a precious b o x ; t h i s is q u i t e c r e d i b l e , as h e
Troad
(1923) 150.
W. Schmid, Geschichte der griech. Lit. 1 1 (1929) 163. 4 ; W. D. Ross, Aristotle (5Ü1 ed. 1949) 4 ; W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great I (1948) 2. ' 38 FGrHist 134 in Plut. Alex. 8 ; it is not a verbatim quotation. Plut. Alex. 26 tells of this valuable box (laßdinov) of Darius, in which Alexander put the Iliad, adding that 'not a few of the trustworthy attest it* OVK oXlyot r&v dfio7Tiartuv u.cp.aprvptfKaaiv; cf. Plut. de Alex. fort. 1 4 p. 327 v; Plin. n.h. vir 2 9 ( 3 0 ) . On ÖCSOCTI? and oiopdaiats see H. Erbse, Herrn. 87 (1959) 286 ff. and A. Ludwich, Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik 11 (1885) 431 f. and below, p. 9 4 . At the beginning of this chapter xin 1. 27 Demetrius of Skepsis is quoted, but he cannot be the source o f the later part. Callisthenes, FGrHist 124 T 10. On Anaxarchus see F. Wehrli, Schule des Aristoteles 3 (1948) 67 on Clearchus fr. 6 0 ; cf. W. Leaf, Strabo on the Troad (1923) 150. 4
0
7
8
9
7a
Homer the Poet of Iliad, Odyssey, Margites
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
73
his t u t o r f o r three years, w h o c e r t a i n l y r e a d H o m e r w i t h h i m . B u t o u r
m e m o r y i n t h e u s u a l w a y a n d scattered t h r o u g h his v a r i o u s w r i t i n g s ,
sources b y n o m e a n s agree a b o u t A r i s t o t l e ' s h a v i n g m a d e a recension o f
show t h a t h e was n o t m e t i c u l o u s a b o u t t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e t e x t .
1
'Homer' n o w meant definitively
t h e t e x t for his p u p i l . I n fact, i t is v e r y i m p r o b a b l e t h a t h e d i d . I f s u c h a n A r i s t o t e l i a n eKooor? h a d ever existed, w h y is i t n e v e r m e n t i o n e d b y
the
t h e A l e x a n d r i a n g r a m m a r i a n s i n o u r S c h o l i a , w h i c h o t h e r w i s e refer t o
Iliad
2
apYafa
dvrtypa<pa o r
q u o t a t i o n s f r o m his
e/cSocrei? /car' áVSpa a n d
Homeric Problems.
Kara, iroXeis ?
They drew their
T h e r e is a second e v e n stronger
expressly said t h a t t h e y surpassed a l l t h e o t h e r epic poems a n d gave his
Iliad and Odyssey a l o n e
preconception
o f perfect
s t r u c t u r e o f each p o e m
poet Antimachus.
statement :
A r i s t o t l e , w e c o n c l u d e , m a d e n o recension o f t h e H o m e r i c o r a n y o t h e r
w e r e ' l i k e a l i v i n g o r g a n i s m ' , satisfying his
p o e t r y ; after c h a r a c t e r i z i n g
the exemplary
(rwv TToirjp,drojv eKarepov) h e makes t h e final rrpos ydp rovrots M§ti /cat Stavoia navra vTrepfiefsX-nKe, i n
appears i n these lists. T h e o n l y p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c e d i t o r o f H o m e r was t h e 5
w i t h the a d d i t i o n o f
p o e m s as H o m e r i c ; b u t A r i s t o t l e seems t o h a v e b e e n t h e first w h o reasons.
4
Odyssey,
2
t h e titles o f A r i s t o t l e ' s lost w o r k s ,
b u t n o t a single e d i t i o n o f a t e x t
and
Margites. I t looks as i f all Plato's e p i c q u o t a t i o n s w e r e t a k e n f r o m a n d Odyssey a n d w e m a y guess t h a t h e r e g a r d e d o n l y these t w o
a r g u m e n t against t h i s v e r y d o u b t f u l t r a d i t i o n . W e are w e l l i n f o r m e d o n 3
Iliad
1
3
a d d i t i o n , t h e y (sc. these t w o poems)
surpass a l l (sc. o t h e r poems) i n
t e x t ; n e i t h e r was h e a n ' i n t e r p r e t e r ' o f t h e H o m e r i c p o e m s . W h a t h e
d i c t i o n a n d t h o u g h t . T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e o f such a clear
a c t u a l l y d i d was t o answer a l o n g series o f attacks b y censorious c r i t i c s ;
evaluation of
a c c o r d i n g t o his t h e o r y , these p o e m s w e r e a b o v e such censure, a n d he h a d
f o u r t h c e n t u r y t h e ' E r i s t i c s ' s t i l l r e g a r d e d t h e c o m p l e t e 'cycle' o f epics
to p r o v e t h e i r absolute s u p e r i o r i t y . T h i s p o i n t is stressed b y D i o C h r y s o -
as H o m e r ' s p o e t r y , as w e h a v e t o c o n c l u d e f r o m A r i s t o t l e ' s o w n r e -
Iliad
and
Odyssey
aesthetic
i n e a r l i e r t i m e s , as w e saw ; e v e n i n t h e 4
s t o m a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f his praise o f H o m e r , a l r e a d y q u o t e d : KO.1
ferences i n h i s l o g i c a l w r i t i n g s . ' I n t h e s y l l o g i s m H o m e r ' s p o e t r y is
AptaroréXrjs
a figure because o f its b e i n g a c i r c l e ' ,
avrds 6avp.dZ,ojv avrov 6
TO
ws
TTOXV
. . . ev rroXXots /cat
nptatv.
StaÁóyoi?
rrepi Troir/rov
Ste^eicrt
O f t h e ' m a n y dialogues' ( i f t h i s is n o t a r h e t o r i c a l
KVKXOV
ev rw avXXoyiapitp (Soph. El.
on
77
'Op,r)pov Troinais
cr^rùxa Stà
Topics ; h e Analyt. Post, (A 12 p . 77 b 32) ypdiprj, drjXov. rl Se; rd eirr] KVKXOÇ; avepov
e x a g g e r a t i o n ) i n w h i c h 'he goes t h r o u g h H o m e r i n d e t a i l ( ? ) ' , w e possess
Sophistic fallacies t o be r e f u t e d i n A r i s t o t l e ' s a p p e n d i x t o his
o n l y a few f r a g m e n t s o f t h e d i a l o g u e /7ept
quoted a slight v a r i a t i o n later o n i n the
TTOVOTÓJV?
w h e r e h e displays
âv
his p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n t h e a n c i e n t I o n i a n t r a d i t i o n s o n t h e ' L i f e ' o f
ctpa 7rcEs" KVKXOS
cryi^a;
H o m e r . T h e q u o t a t i o n s o f single H o m e r i c lines o r passages, d r a w n f r o m
on ovKeanv.
T h i s fallacy
8
9
" Dio Chrys.
(Alexandrum) StSátrfcet (Aristóteles) rrept re ¿px^S erre aÁÁov rponov. F. A. Wolf, Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795) cLxxxm, had already noticed that, but did not draw the consequences; A. Ludwich, Aristarcos Homerische Textkritik 11 (1885) 4 3 2 f. was on the right lines. See above, p. 66, n. 4 . * At least as long as the edition of one Euripides remains a shadow. Suid. 3694 Adler s.v. EvpiTTtSns, TpaytKÓs, rov npo-répov ¿SeA^iSoSs (a nephew of an Euripides who was older than the famous tragedian) tus Atovvatos ev rots XpoviKols (= Dionys. Hal. 4 FGrHist 2 5 1 , but Jacoby says it might be a confusion with Dionys. o ¡ÍOVOIKOS). eypatfic Sí 'Ou.-npuci¡v exoooiv el per¡ apa érépov earív. In P.Oxy. 2 2 1 , col. VI 17 (Schol. 0 155 f.) F. Blass suppl. év T¡¡ xar' E[vpi-lrríb~i}v (fat] ev rtaiv óAAotj referring to Eust. p. 3 6 6 . 13 (ad B 8 6 5 ) r¡ he K a r ' Evpirríavv (se. étfSoffi?) ¿tero rov rplrov <m'vov (B 866) . . . ypáfi réraprov rovrov . . . Tp,á>Áu> viro VMpóevri , . . ( = Y 385), oí Si) OTÍXOV xai o yeatypáipos u-vyoBels finatv (Strab. XIII 6 2 6 ) . See below pp. 9 4 f. Above, p. 6 7 ; Aristot. Fragm. ed. Ross pp. 4 and 67. Aristot. fr. 7 0 - 7 7 Rose; pp. 6 7 - 7 2 Ross. An imaginative reconstruction of the Dialogue is given by A. Rostagni, TI dialogo Aristotélico LJepl trot-qreav', Riv. fil. cl. 4 (1926) 4 3 3 - 7 0 d 5 (1927) 1 4 5 - 7 3 , reprinted in Scritti minori 1 ( 1 9 5 5 ) 2 5 5 - 3 2 6 with bibliographical additions; see especially F. Sbordone, 'II primo libro di Ar. intorno ai poeti', Atti Accad. f¡aoi\etas
or.
II
eíre 'Ofiypov
79 el roiavrá oe
K
a
t
e£r¡yovp.€vos
s
6 7
a n
Pontaniana,
N.S. 4 ( 1 9 5 4 ) 2 1 7 - 2 5 . .
Fr. 76 Rose = LJepl rroi-qr. 8 Ross. Homer mentioned also in fr. 70, 7 5 ; see also Alcidamas, above, p. 50. A. Romer, 'Die Homercitate und die homerischen Fragen des Aristóteles', Sitz. Ber. der 8
B
Sè
(KVKXOS
= ' c i r c l e ' a n d = epic cycle = H o m e r i c
poems) is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e o n l y i f t h e o l d v u l g a t e o p i n i o n was s t i l l a l i v e t h a t H o m e r was t h e m a k e r o f t h e w h o l e o f epic p o e t r y .
1
3
5
rov
I 10 p . 171 a 10), is a n e x a m p l e o f t h e
A f t e r A r i s t o t l e there is n o trace o f t h i s v u l g a t e a n y m o r e ; his d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between H o m e r , the poet o f
Iliad
and
Odyssey,
a n d t h e rest o f t h e
e a r l y epic poets, o f w h o m h e displays i n t i m a t e k n o w l e d g e i n c h a p t e r 23 o f und hist. Classe der Bayer. Akad. (1884) 2 6 4 - 3 1 4 ; G. E . Howes, 'Homeric Quotations in Plato and Aristotle', Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 6 (1895) 2 1 0 - 3 7 . See below, p. 74. * J . Labarbe, 'L'Homère de Platon" Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philos, et Lettres de l'Université de Liège, Fasc. 117 ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 4 1 0 ; cf. below, p. 74, n. 5 . Poetics 1459 b 16 navra is the reading of the Parisinus A (saec. x fin.) and of most of its apographa, also of the copy (saec. vi) used by the Arabic translator, according to GudemanTkatsch ; -navras Riccardianus 4 6 , called B or R (saec. xin/xrv) and apographa (e.g. the copy used by Aldus). Not only the manuscript-tradition, but the text of the whole passage which deals with the two rroirip.aTa, proves that -navra is the correct reading ; -navras would mean that he, "Ou.r)pos, surpasses all the other poets. This was, at least in later times, often stated, but it does not fit into the context of chapter 2 4 of the Poetics. * Above, pp. 43 ff. Cf. Philopon. ad loc., Commentaria in Aristot. Graeca xni 3 ed. Wallies (1909) 156 f., see E. Kapp in E . Schwartz, Die Odyssée ( 1 9 2 4 ) 154 and Wilamowitz, 'Lesefruchte', Hermes 6 0 (1925) 2 8 0 = Kleine Schriften rv (1962) 3 6 8 (where the text of Soph. El. has to be corrected : T) 'Opripov TToi-qais, not rà '0. ërr-n) ; E . Schwartz, Herm. 75 (1940) 5 f.
philos.-philolog. 1
3
1
74
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
the
Poetics,
Rational Order in Literary Art
seems t o h a v e b e e n final. T h e a r g u m e n t s h e used w e r e i d e n t i -
75
p o e t r y was t o p r o m o t e m o r a l d i s c i p l i n e , n o t t o effect 'pleasure' (T/OOITJ) ;
c a l w i t h those i n t h e analysis o f t r a g e d y w h i c h f o r m s t h e c e n t r e o f t h e
' m o d e r n ' a r t o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y w i t h its t e n d e n c y t o d i s r u p t o r t o m i x
w h o l e treatise. T h i s is n o t s u r p r i s i n g , w h e n w e r e m e m b e r t h a t his m e t h o d
u p t h e t r a d i t i o n a l forms, a i m i n g o n l y a t pleasure, e n c o u r a g e d lawlessness
is t o subsume e v e r y single p h e n o m e n o n u n d e r his g e n e r a l d o c t r i n e , i n
a n d b e c a m e therefore a p o l i t i c a l d a n g e r .
p o e t r y as e v e r y w h e r e else. A s i n A t t i c t r a g e d y , t h e r e is u n i t y , c o m p l e t e -
a l t h o u g h s u b o r d i n a t i n g a l l t h e o t h e r arts t o TroAtn/cTj i n his
ness, a n d greatness (ev, oAov,
p,eye6os) i n
H o m e r ' s t w o genuine poems
Ethics,
made a distinction i n the
1
A r i s t o t l e , i n his sober w a y ,
Poetics (1460
Mcomachean opdorrjs:
b 13) as regards
(1450 b 27 f f . - i 4 5 9 a 24 i f . ) . T h i s ' i n n e r ' u n i t y was n o t a t t a i n e d i n a n y
' t h e r e is n o t t h e same k i n d o f correctness i n p o e t r y as i n p o l i t i c s , o r i n d e e d
o f t h e o t h e r epics (1451 a 19 f f . ) ; t r a g e d y , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h a d a s t i l l
a n y o t h e r a r t . ' H e h a d also n o o b j e c t i o n t o its p r o d u c i n g p l e a s u r e ; o n t h e
h i g h e r degree o f u n i t y a n d was t o t h a t e x t e n t even ' b e t t e r ' t h a n epic
c o n t r a r y , pleasure s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d o f p o e t r y , t h a t is o f every species—
( c h . 2 6 ) . T h e e x e m p l a r y t r a g e d y was t h e
Oedipus Tyrannus o f
Sophocles.
epic, c o m e d y , t r a g e d y — i t s p r o p e r pleasure,
17
oUeia r)Sovrj
(1453 b 11).
P l a t o h a d d e n i e d t h e 'seriousness' o f epic p o e t r y , d e n o u n c i n g i t as ' p l a y '
T h e e m o t i o n a l effect o f t r a g e d y h a d b e e n discussed before b y G o r g i a s
(rratSta); b u t A r i s t o t l e n o t o n l y d e f i n e d t r a g e d y
a n d b y P l a t o ; a c c e p t i n g , as i t seems, G o r g i a s ' f o r m u l a o f ' h o r r o r a n d
(p.lpvnais vpdieojs orrovSalas
serious a c t i o n '
as a n ' i m i t a t i o n o f
1449 b 14), b u t also said o f
H o m e r 'as regards serious subjects, i n t h e highest degree a p o e t '
(ra arrov-
3
w a i l i n g ' , A r i s t o t l e c a m e t o a c o n c l u s i o n opposed t o t h a t o f P l a t o . H e c o n c l u d e d t h a t i t d i d n o t h a v e a n e v i l i n f l u e n c e o n t h e soul o f t h e i n -
TTotrjTTys 1448 b 3 4 ) . H o m e r e v e n a n t i c i p a t e d t h e ' d r a m a t i c ' i m i t a t i o n s (puprjaeis Spauart/cas- i b i d , b 3 5 ) , a n d as Iliad a n d Odyssey w e r e r e g a r d e d as a n a l o g o u s t o t r a g e d y , so was his Margites t o A t t i c c o m e d y .
d i v i d u a l , b u t p r o d u c e d pleasure b y t h e catharsis o f those e m o t i o n s j u s t
This poem
t o t h a t e x t e n t also t h e h i g h e r f o r m o f a r t (1462 b 12
Sata juaAio-ra
1
2
r i d i c u l i n g one o f t h e f a m o u s n i n n i e s o f o l d m u s t h a v e b e e n
m e n t i o n e d ( 1 4 5 3 b n o n tragic pleasure); tragedy, superior i n other respects, a t t a i n s t h a t p o e t i c k i n d o f pleasure b e t t e r t h a n t h e epics a n d is
v e r y p o p u l a r i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , as o r a t o r s a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s q u i t e s u r p r i s i n g l y r e f e r r e d t o i t o r q u o t e d i t several t i m e s . B u t t h e second b o o k o f the
Poetics,
i n w h i c h c o m e d y w a s discussed, is m i s s i n g , a n d t h e t w e n t y
half-lines o f a r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d p a p y r u s quality o f the
Margites;* w e
d o n o t reveal t h e poetic
3
ff.),
4
A f t e r t h e occasional l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m o f e a r l y poets a n d Sophists, after Plato's p e r t i n e n t questions a n d d e m a n d s , t h e
Poetics
o f A r i s t o t l e was t h e
first a t t e m p t a t d i s c o v e r i n g a r a t i o n a l o r d e r i n t h e p r o v i n c e o f l i t e r a r y a r t , as w a s his o b j e c t i n a l l t h e o t h e r branches o f k n o w l e d g e . W e s t a r t e d f r o m
fitted
t h e g e n e r a l c o n c e p t o f his ' t e l e o l o g y ' ; b u t w e saw t h a t t h i s speculative
i n t o t h e t h e o r y o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r a n d w h y i t was d e e m e d w o r t h y t o b e
c o n c e p t is r e g u l a r l y c o n t r o l l e d b y t h e analysis o f r e a l i t y a n d ' t h e m a n y
p l a c e d close t o t h e
Iliad
and
are s t i l l a t a loss t o see h o w t h e p o e m
Odyssey
aesthetic s u b t i l i s t l i k e C a l l i m a c h u s . The
t e r m dpÖoVn?,
'correctness',
3
a n d l a t e r o n a d m i r e d even b y a n
6
quite frequently occurred i n t h e 7
a d m i t t e d a t least t h e p r a c t i c e o f c h o r a l l y r i c , w h i c h i n c l u d e d s i n g i n g a n d 8
d a n c i n g , i n t o t h e second best i d e a l c i t y o f t h e
Laws.
The
opdoros
d e m a n d e d f o r this p o e t r y h a d a s t r i c t l y e t h i c a l m e a n i n g . T h e Kal r a rrjs
Ka)(iaihias
ax^fiara
irptöros iweSeifev ov tfioyov,
b 36. Homeri Opera ed. T . W. Allen, vol. v (1912) P.Oxy. xxii ( 1 9 5 4 ) 2 3 0 9 ed. E . Lobel.
oAAa TO
yeXotov
he
'correct' Spap.aroirot'noas
1448 1 3
152
ff. testimonia and fragmenta.
* The bold combinations of H. Langerbeck, 'Margites', Harvard Studies in Classical ( 9 5 ) 33~^3! I
ö
a
r
e
u
6
7
See above, p. 39, and
1
See
Excursus.
passim.
Poetics
is a
rexvrj
i n t h e t r u e sense o f t h a t
m
I f w e l o o k a t his studies o f l a n g u a g e a n d a n t i q u i t i e s , w e find this statem e n t f u l l y c o n f i r m e d . F r o m t h e final lines o f t h e first c h a p t e r o f his l i t t l e book
Plepl ipfirjvelas,
' O n t h e expression o f t h o u g h t s i n speech', w e m i g h t
d i s t i n c t i o n (Siaipeois) prjpia a n d his d e f i n i t i o n o f sentence (Aoyos) m o r e f u l l y i n this l o g i c a l t r e a t i s e : rrpdirov SeT 6eo8ai T I 6vop.a /cat rl prjfio., eVeiTa ri icrrtv arrodtacrt? /cat Kardtpaois /cat aTrotpavois /cat Xoyos (de interpr. I p . 16 e x p e c t t h a t A r i s t o t l e is g o i n g t o t r e a t Plato's between
6vop.a
and
a i ) , 'first w e m u s t define t h e t e r m s " n o u n " a n d " v e r b " , t h e n t h e Philology
hardly helpful. M. Forderer, Z homerischen Margites (Amsterdam i 9 6 0 ) 5 ff. argues against the attribution of the papyrus to the Homeric Margites. * The Ps.-Platonic Ale. 11 147 B quotes the Margites as Homeric (fr. 3 Allen), cf. above, p. 73, n. 2 ; Aristotle might have learnt to appreciate the poem as a member of the Academy. Callim. fr. 397. °3
n o t i o n s o f experience'. So t h e
t e r m w h i c h Aristotle took over f r o m Plato.
Sophistic a n d P l a t o n i c t r e a t m e n t o f l i t e r a r y m a t t e r . P l a t o i n his o l d age
1
2
Plat. Leg. 6 5 5 ff., 6 6 8 B, 700 BD about opBorns and ijSonJ. J . Stroux, 'Die Anschauungen vom Klassischen im Altertum" in: Das Problem des Klassischen und die Antike, ed. by W . Jaeger (1931) 2 ff., derived from these passages the idea of classicism (Klassik), but he apparently misunderstood the Platonic opBorns. On Kplais •notfnp.arutv and ciassicus see below, pp. 2 0 4 ff. Cf. 1453 a 35, 1462 b 13 and above, p. 68. Gorgias, above, p. 48, Plato, p. 58. * Cf. above p. 7 4 ; Bywater's translation freely used. 1
1
3
76
New Fundamental Linguistic Terms
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
terms " d e n i a l " a n d " a f f i r m a t i o n " a n d " p r o p o s i t i o n " a n d "sentence".'
1
B u t he confines his d e t a i l e d i n q u i r i e s t o t h e t e r m s b e l o n g i n g t o t h e subject o f syllogistic, especially t o ' a p o p h a n s i s ' ; i n t h r e e v e r y s h o r t chapters h e says o n l y a f e w w o r d s o n ovofia ( c h . 2 ) , o n pfjp-o. ( c h . 3 ) , a n d o n Xoyos
Sophistes
(ch.
4).
T h e i r r e l a t i o n t o Plato's
( q u o t e d a b o v e , p . 59) is o b v i o u s ,
but
t h e r e is a n e w A r i s t o t e l i a n p s y c h o l o g i c a l e l e m e n t ( c h . 1) i n t h a t h e
Hipp. 199 peXcuiv avv?>€cjp.a, 'sinews'), a n d so does t h e o t h e r t e r m , dpdpov, ' j o i n t ' (cf. S o p h . Tr. 769 airav KOT' dpdpov), w h i c h h e i n t r o d u c e s i n c h a p t e r 2 0 o f t h e Poetics this sounds r a t h e r a n a t o m i c a l
(cf. E u r .
(1457 a 6 ) . T h e y b o t h h a v e a f u n c t i o n o n l y i n c o n n e x i o n w i t h ovouara o r prjp.aTa; as t e r m s t h e y h a v e a w i d e r a n d less d i s t i n c t sense t h a n t h e socalled 'conjunctions' a n d the 'article' i n later strictly g r a m m a t i c a l w r i t -
Xoyos
assumes 'likenesses o f r e a l t h i n g s i n t h e s o u l ; w o r d s a n d sentences a r e
ings. T h e i d e a o f t h e
s y m b o l s o f these likenesses a n d t h r o u g h t h e m s y m b o l s o f t h e t h i n g s ' .
use o f such expressions.
2
T h e r e is n o n e e d f o r us t o go i n t o these p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d l o g i c a l subtleties,
On
ovop.ara
and
as a n ' o r g a n i s m ' suggested, I s h o u l d t h i n k , t h e
pr/para
A r i s t o t l e n o w h a d m u c h m o r e t o say t h a n i n
as A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f c o n t i n u e s b y s a y i n g t h a t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f w o r d s a n d
his l o g i c a l w r i t i n g s . I n t h e same c h a p t e r o f his
sentences 'belongs r a t h e r t o t h e s t u d y o f r h e t o r i c o r o f poetics'
quoted
yap r) TroirjTtKrjs oUeioTepa
(prjTopiKrjs
77
Protagoras'
Rhetoric
(1407 b 7) h e
t h r e e genders w o r d f o r w o r d , b u t i n h i s
Poetics
r) ovc^ts i b i d . 4 p . 17 a 6 ) . So w e realize a g a i n ,
(1458 a 8 ) , w h i l e s t i l l a c c e p t i n g the categories o f males a n d females, h e
as i n o u r o b s e r v a t i o n o n P l a t o , t h a t e v e n i n A r i s t o t l e ' s t i m e , i n t h e l a t e r
d r o p p e d t h e t h i r d t e r m (names o f ' t h i n g s ' ) as i n a d e q u a t e a n d s u b s t i t u t e d
f o u r t h c e n t u r y , n o separate b r a n c h o f ' g r a m m a r ' w a s y e t e s t a b l i s h e d ;
TA
questions o f l a n g u a g e , as f a r as t h e y w e r e n o t o f a m e r e l o g i c a l n a t u r e ,
t h e i r respective ' t e r m i n a t i o n s ' , t h i s t h i r d g r o u p a c t u a l l y occupies a posi-
h a d t o b e r e l e g a t e d t o r h e t o r i c o r poetics. A n d i t w a s i n d e e d i n his b o o k s
t i o n ' b e t w e e n ' t h e t w o others, i n so f a r as i n t h e i r ' t e r m i n a t i o n s ' ( t h a t
on
m e a n s i n t h e i r c o n c l u d i n g l e t t e r ) some o f these w o r d s r e s e m b l e t h e
these t w o subjects t h a t A r i s t o t l e u n d e r t o o k t o i m p r o v e u p o n h i s
predecessors. I n his
Poetics,
'the intermediaries'.
1
c h a p t e r 2 0 , h e first g a v e a c o m p l e t e list o f t h e p a r t s o f 3
. . . r a /idprj 1456 b 20 f f . ) f r o m t h e ' p r i m a r y
(o-Toiyeta) u p t o t h e 'sentence' (\oyos).
F o r t h e single ' i n -
ovopLara
A s he b e g a n t o classify t h e
m a s c u l i n e a n d others t h e f e m i n i n e n o u n s . T h i s r o u g h d i v i s i o n
' d i c t i o n ' (TT}S Ae'^oj? arrdorjs elements'
pLeragv
2
by
according
to g e n d e r a n d t e r m i n a t i o n h a d t o b e r e f i n e d , b u t its p r i n c i p l e was k e p t for a l l t i m e s . A s t h e w i d e sense o f prj^ara, ' t h i n g s said a b o u t oVop.ara', was t a k e n o v e r f r o m P l a t o , A r i s t o t l e t r e a t e d a ' p r e d i c a t i v e a d j e c t i v e ' also as
pjjp,a:
dvdpto-rros
(De interpr.
a
t h e 'vowels* a n d ' c o n s o n a n t s ' h e b r o u g h t i n t h e 'semi-vowels S a n d P '
a b o v e p . 6 0 ) . T h e r e was some d i f f i c u l t y w h e n h e t r i e d t o d e f i n e t h e V e r b * ;
(r)pLLva). P r o b a b l y
prjp,a is interpr.
f o l l o w i n g H i p p i a s t h e Sophist,
he only slightly
t o u c h e d o n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e syllables, t h e i r q u a n t i t y a n d p r o s o d y , a n d left a l l t h e t h e o r e t i c a l d e t a i l s t o t h e m e t r i c i a n s
4
and their metrics;
as a special b r a n c h o f l e a r n i n g , separated f r o m r h y t h m i c s a n d
'music',
i t a p p e a r s f o r t h e first t i m e i n A r i s t o t l e . I n t h e t h i r d b o o k o f t h e
Rhetoric,
eoriv
XevKos
t h a t w h i c h 'also i n d i c a t e s t i m e ' , TO 16 b 6 ff.). I n P r o t a g o r a s
xp° $ vo
20 b 1, cf. P l a t .
Cratyl. 399
d i v i s i b l e sounds' he used P l a t o ' s t e r m a n d his d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , b u t b e t w e e n
irpooornpLatvov xP
ovov
{De
c o u l d n e v e r h a v e m e a n t 'tense'
3
a n d P l a t o d i d n o t m e n t i o n i t ; so i n this case A r i s t o t l e seems t o h a v e b e e n t h e first t o p o i n t o u t t h a t d i f f e r e n t f o r m s o f t h e
pi\ao,
express d i f f e r e n t
t e m p o r a l r e l a t i o n s . A g a i n h e enlarges u p o n this n o t a b l e c o n c e p t i o n i n t h e
also d e a l i n g w i t h d i c t i o n , h e calls a l l o t h e r w o r d s w h i c h a r e n e i t h e r
Poetics,
ovofLara
fect tenses (1457 a 1 8 ) ; i n De interpretation (16 b 16) h e c a l l e d t h e f u t u r e
n o r p-t]p.a.ra
' l i g a m e n t s ' , avvoeop.01
5
(1407 a 20, cf. 1413 b 3 3 ) ;
E . Kapp, 'Greek Foundations of Traditional Logic', Columbia Studies in Philosophy 5 I use his translation. My paraphrase, which gives the essence of the difficult text 16 a 3 - 8 , is based on Kapp's translation (loc. cit. p. 4 9 ) . ' I take this chapter as genuinely Aristotelian in substance; on the heated dispute see the commentaries on the Poetics; see also recently A. Pagliaro, 'II capitolo linguistico della 1
(1942) 4 7 ; a
Poetica' in Nuovi saggi di eritica semantica ( 1 9 5 6 ) 7 7 - 1 5 1 .
b 3 4 I read with Bernhardy and Spengel rots perpiieois (not ev r. ¡1.), cf. Part, a 8 napa ru>v u,erptKtuv; Poet. ibid, b 3 8 rijs p.erptKijs (sc. TC'YMJS)-—On the former unity of word and 'music' see above, p. 53. This may be in the line of an earlier Sophistic tradition, cf. Isocr. (Art. script, B xxrv 2 2 ) rovs avvheap.ovs rois aiirovf ^17 crweyyvs nBevai tcr\. (see also Radermacher's note on fr. 2 4 ) ; as soon as we enter the field of rhetoric, the priority of Sophistic textbooks (above, p. 31, n. 3) completely lost to us, is always possible.
c h . 20, w h e n he recognizes as verbs p r o p e r t h e present a n d p e r -
a n d i m p e r f e c t tenses
majoeis
prjp,aros,
'modifications o f the v e r b ' , using
t h e same t e r m w h i c h covers t h e ' o b l i q u e cases' o f a n o u n a n d a l l sorts o f d e r i v a t i o n s f r o m i t , such as adjectives o r a d v e r b s
(De interpr.
Poetics
cannot go into the very
1457
a
I
9 irrwots
ovopLaros rj pj)pM.Tos). W e
16 b 1 a n d
c o m p l i c a t e d d e t a i l s ; t h e few w o r d s said m a y be sufficient t o s h o w t h a t
« Poet. 1456
an.
660
3
Cf. Soph. El. 14 p. 173 b 28 ff., ibid, b 4 0 rwv Xeyoficvatv . . . OKCVCOV, after referring to Protagoras' criticism of Homer's 'incorrect' use of the gender, Aristotle, of course, proved that Protagoras, not Homer, was wrong; on Protagoras see above, p. 38. * Cf. D. Fehling, 'Varro und die grammatische Lehre von der Analogie und der Flexion', Ghtta 3 5 ( 1 9 5 6 ) 261 f. See above, pp. 38 f. 1
3
B,
78
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
in-aioT? (the L a t i n
casus
A r i s t o t l e , was c o i n e d as
nomen), a p p l i e d a logical t e r m ; i t was t o o f the
Antiquarian
Research
to n o u n a n d verb alike b y
p . 7 0 ) ; t h e s t a t e m e n t was r e p e a t e d i n his
cause m a n y headaches t o
en-oTTowH?, cf. 1404 b 23 w i t h reference t o
79
Rhetoric (1406 b 3 yAwi-rat reust h e Poetics). A s glosses are c o n -
a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n g r a m m a r i a n s a n d l i n g u i s t s . T h e last i t e m i n t h e list
t r a s t e d w i t h t h e ' c u r r e n t ' w o r d s (/ciipta), t h e r e are d i a l e c t i c a l as w e l l as
is t h e Adyo?, w h i c h c e r t a i n l y m e a n s 'sentence'. T h e d e f i n i t i o n (1457 a
foreign words,
1
23) p a r t l y repeats w h a t was said i n d>oivT7 o-n/iavrtfcr)
Kara, ovvdrjxrjv
De interpretation
c h . 4 (Aoyoc . . .
KTA. 16 b 2 6 ) ; b u t n o w , r e f e r r i n g t o t h e
p a r t s o f t h e sentence d e f i n e d before, i t r u n s l i k e t h i s : Aoyos- Se
avvderr)
OTJfx&vTiKTJ
TJ? evict p.4pi)
tcad* avrd orffxalvei
ri,
(f>a>vr)
'a sentence is a c o m -
T O .
geviKa
1
(Poet.
1457 b 3 ) , i n c l u d e d i n t h i s g r o u p ; i n
prose t h e y s h o u l d be used s p a r i n g l y . A r i s t o t l e ' s r e m a r k s o n glosses c o n tinue a n earlier t r a d i t i o n , certainly o f the
'Op.-qpov yXiuTras LJepi 'Ofirjpov . . . yXcooaecuv.
used t h e expression a book
2
fifth
century:
Aristophanes
a n d possibly D e m o c r i t u s
wrote
B u t l o n g before t h a t e p i c poets a n d
posite i n d i c a t i v e s o u n d , some o f t h e p a r t s o f w h i c h i n d i c a t e s o m e t h i n g
rhapsodes h a d f a v o u r e d such obscure expressions a n d m a y have m a d e
b y themselves.' T h i s , o f course, means t h a t n o t o n l y c o m p o s i t e sentences,
collections for t h e i r o w n professional use. A f t e r A r i s t o t l e , a t a b o u t 300
but
also n o u n s o r verbs i n i s o l a t i o n c a n i n d i c a t e s o m e t h i n g , whereas
' l i g a m e n t s ' a n d ' j o i n t s ' c a n n o t . W e r e m e m b e r Plato's w o r d s i n his
Sophistes
3
B.C.,
a c o m p l e t e l y n e w i m p u l s e was g i v e n t o these studies, w h e n t w o
poets m a d e
t h e first c o m p r e h e n s i v e
learned collections o f epic a n d
262 A-C, t h a t n o u n s a n d verbs c a n n o t m a k e a n y t h i n g k n o w n , unless t h e y
d i a l e c t i c a l glosses, P h i l i t a s o f Cos a n d S i m i a s o f R h o d e s . W e c a n n o t t e l l
are t w i n e d t o g e t h e r a n d p r o d u c e a sentence. A r i s t o t l e ' s c r i t i c i s m is a g a i n
a t w h a t t i m e t h e so-called yXiooaoypd^oi, o f t e n q u o t e d i n o u r S c h o l i a t o
based o n his f o r m a l l o g i c .
Homer,
2
T h e list o f t h e e i g h t c o n s t i t u e n t s o f ' d i c t i o n ' was n e v e r m e a n t t o be
4
5
s t a r t e d t h e i r w o r k , b u t i t was surely n o t before t h e l a t e r t h i r d
century.
a n y t h i n g l i k e a l i n g u i s t i c system, b u t i t s t i l l w a s a f a i r l y c o h e r e n t analysis o f
I n the o l d d i s p u t e o n t h e o r i g i n o f w o r d s A r i s t o t l e w a s q u i t e d e f i n i t e :
tpvoei TOJV ovopdroiv
(De interpr.
some f u n d a m e n t a l t e r m s . T h e r e are some o t h e r r e m a r k s o n l a n g u a g e ,
' n o w o r d is b y n a t u r e ' ,
scattered t h r o u g h v a r i o u s w r i t i n g s , w h e r e A r i s t o t l e c o i n e d t h e t e r m s o r
p . 16 a 2 7 ) ; his answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n o f w o r d s t o t i l i n g s
t o o k t h e m f r o m sources u n k n o w n to u s ; w e select o n l y a few as r e l e v a n t t o
( w h i c h w o r r i e d P l a t o so m u c h ) has a l r e a d y b e e n q u o t e d .
our
p u r p o s e . P r o d i c u s h a d t a u g h t his p u p i l s t h e p r o p e r use o f w o r d s
h a v i n g d i f f e r e n t f o r m s b u t m o r e o r less t h e same sense; A r i s t o t l e c a l l e d
ovvojwfia,
such w o r d s ' s y n o n y m s ' (Top.
ouSeV iariv 6
T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f Platonic a n d earlier I o n i a n - S o p h i s t i c
elements
was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f A r i s t o t l e ' s studies o f l a n g u a g e . T h e r e c o u l d n o t b e
p r o b a b l y first i n his l o g i c a l w r i t i n g s
a n y t h i n g P l a t o n i c i n his a n t i q u a r i a n r e s e a r c h ; i t h a d t o b e i n t h e o t h e r
158 b 3 8 , 163 a 2 4 , c f Cat. 1 a 6 ) , t h e n i n t h e lost p a r t o f his
t r a d i t i o n . T h e r e w e f o u n d H i p p i a s o f E l i s as t h e l e a d i n g ' a r c h a e o l o g i s t ' o r
Poetics (fr.
1 Bywater,
3
cf.
Rhet.
i l l 2 p . 1404 b 39 f f . ) , w h e r e h e r e c o m -
' a n t i q u a r i a n ' , u s i n g his l e a r n e d collections f o r e p i d e i c t i c purposes. A r i s -
m e n d e d t h e use o f s y n o n y m s t o t h e p o e t . H e t r e a t e d also as essentially
totle
p o e t i c a l t h e ' c o m p o u n d s ' , t h e cWAa, w h i c h i n his s u b d i v i s i o n o f ovop.ara
c o n t r a s t t o t h e Sophists he was able t o p u t a vast q u a n t i t y o f m a t e r i a l i n
(De interpr.
o r d e r a c c o r d i n g t o his o w n p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s a n d b y o r g a n i z i n g t h e
h e h a d a l r e a d y separated f r o m t h e an-Aa, t h e ' s i m p l e ' w o r d s
16 a 23, 16 b 3 2 ) ; t h e y w e r e considered as t h e h i g h l i g h t s o f t h e d i t h y r a m b i c style
(Poet. 1459
a 9,
Rhet.
1406 b 1, cf. 1405 b 3 5 ) . M u c h m o r e
i m p o r t a n t t h a n compounds a n d synonyms was another g r o u p , the rare and
2
obsolete w o r d s , t h e glosses,
yXwouat.
A r i s t o t l e expressly s t a t e d t h a t
s u c h w o r d s are m o s t i n p l a c e i n h e r o i c p o e t r y 10, w h e r e b y assuming a gloss,
ovpijas is
(Poet.
1459 a 9 f., cf. 1461 a
t a k e n t o m e a n ' g u a r d s ' , see a b o v e ,
' A 'case'-system of Ionian grammarians in the sixth century is a very poor modern invention ; see above, pp. 12 ft with notes and bibliography on m-awts. See above, p. 60, cf. 77. Simplic. in Aristot. Cat. (Comment, in Ar. Gr. vin ed. Kalbfleisch) 36. 13 ev rat /fepi TTOtijTiifiji ovvdivvfia tlrrev etvai TO, ovo/j-ara, Adyoj Se o avros; on Prodicus see above, pp. 3 9 f. Fragments of a treatise, possibly Theophr. Ileal Ae£ea>?, dealing with awiLw/ia, onrXa, etc. in the manner of Aristot. Poet. c. 2 0 - 2 2 , were published by B . Snell in 1
3
Gneckische Papyri der Hamburger Stoats- u. Unioersitatsbibtiotkek ( 1 9 5 4 ) no. 198, pp. 3 6 ff.
7
surpassed a l l h i s predecessors i n u n i v e r s a l i t y o f k n o w l e d g e ; i n
c o - o p e r a t i o n o f his p u p i l s . A s a consequence o f his basic
teleological
p o i n t o f v i e w the d i f f e r e n t stages t h r o u g h w h i c h t h i n g s reached t h e i r ' e n d ' h a d t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d ; so c h r o n o l o g y , as a h e l p t o w a r d s r e c o g n i z i n g t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e past, a c q u i r e d a n e w i m p o r t a n c e . W e c a n u n d e r s t a n d t h e reason w h y h e t o o k so m u c h p a i n s t o establish r e l i a b l e Cf. above, p. 41 and p. 62. On Aristophanes see above, p. 15, on Democritus pp. 42 f. See above, p. 1 2 ; on their occasional mistakes and the consequences of their wrong explanations see above, pp. 5 f. and p. 6 , n. l . See below, pp. 90 f. * K. Lehrs, De Aristarchi studiis Homeruis, 3 r d ed. (1882) 37 f., collected the evidence, but he was wrong in assuming that those yXwoooypitpoi were schoolmasters of the fourth century; see K. Latte, 'Glossographika', Philol. 8 0 (1925) 148. 2 6 . See p. 63 on the origin of words, p. 76 on their relation to things. * W. Jaeger, Aristoteles 346 ff. 'Die Organisation der Forschung* ( = Engl, transl. 324 ff.). 1
1
s
4
6
Records of Performances of Plays in Athens
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
8o
81
lists o f t h e v i c t o r s i n t h e g r e a t n a t i o n a l games. T h e catalogues o f A r i s t o t l e ' s
W h e n A r i s t o t l e r e t u r n e d t o A t h e n s after A l e x a n d e r ' s a n d Callisthenes'
w r i t i n g s m e n t i o n a series o f t i t l e s r e f e r r i n g n o t o n l y t o t h e O l y m p i a n
d e p a r t u r e , he b e g a n t o search t h e o f f i c i a l records k e p t b y t h e a r c h o n s f o r
g a m e s , w h i c h h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y t r e a t e d b y H i p p i a s , b u t also i n p a r -
the performances
t i c u l a r t o t h e P y t h i a n g a m e s . T h i s w o r k , u n d e r t a k e n i n t h e archives o f
m e n t i o n e d i n t h e lists o f his w r i t i n g s . N o t h i n g f u r t h e r is k n o w n o f a b o o k
t h e D e l p h i c priests t o g e t h e r w i t h his r e l a t i v e Callisthenes, w h o w r o t e
entitled
a history o f the Sacred W a r ,
ao-TLKtuv Kal Arjvaiojv i n H e s y c h i u s ) w e r e possibly used b y t h e a u t h o r o f
1
2
3
4
m e t w i t h e n o r m o u s success; a c c o r d i n g t o
o f plays a n d d i t h y r a m b s .
1
T h r e e r e l e v a n t titles are
2
IJepl
t h e iVt/cai
TpaywSttov;
AiovvaiaKat
(or
NLKÜJV
AiovvataKiov
a n i n s c r i p t i o n f o u n d i n 1896 t h e a u t h o r s w e r e ' p r a i s e d a n d c r o w n e d ' b y
t h e r e c o r d o f v i c t o r s i n s c r i b e d o n t h e I o n i c epistyles o f a b u i l d i n g e a r l y
t h e D e l p h i a n s ; a n d t h e p a y m e n t o f p u b l i c m o n e y t o a w e l l k n o w n stone-
i n t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y B.C. ( n o w IG.
s
lTv&iaviKüjv
c u t t e r , f o r t h e l a b o r i o u s c a r v i n g o n t o stone o f t h e c o m p l e t e amypadViJ, is registered i n a n i n s c r i p t i o n o f t h e y e a r 331 B.C.
6
Even i f i t
u
2
2325). V e r b a l quotations remain 3
o n l y f r o m t h e t h i r d w o r k , t h e surpassingly i m p o r t a n t
(fr.
A iBaaKaXlai
6 1 8 - 3 0 R o s e ) , a n d t h e r e is some l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e i n s c r i p t i o n e n g r a v e d
h a d o n l y t h e f o r m o f a mvag (see 1. 10), l i k e e a r l i e r Sophistic a n t i q u a r i a n
o n t h e w a l l o f t h e b u i l d i n g j u s t m e n t i o n e d was based o n i t (I.G.
w r i t i n g s , w i t h a n i n t r o d u c t i o n o n t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e P y t h i a n games
2 3 ) / T h e poets w e r e t h e ' p r o d u c e r s ' , t h e SiSaovcaAot, o f t h e i r d r a m a s , a n d
a n d a r e f u t a t i o n o f l e g e n d a r y r e p o r t s , a n e n g r a v e d prose w o r k o f s u c h
t h e catalogues o f t h e p r o d u c t i o n s w e r e
called
BioaaKaXtac:
n
2
on
2319stone
a c o n s i d e r a b l e l e n g t h , d e d i c a t e d n o d o u b t t o t h e g o d h i m s e l f , has f e w
t h e r e w e r e e n t e r e d first t h e a r c h o n ' s n a m e , t h e n t h e n a m e s o f t h e c o m -
p a r a l l e l s ; i t m i g h t b e r e g a r d e d as a n o t h e r t e s t i m o n y o f A r i s t o t l e ' s p e r -
p e t i n g poets w i t h t h e t i t l e s o f t h e i r respective p l a y s i n o r d e r o f success a n d
sonal attachment t o A p o l l i n i s m
the names o f the protagonists w i t h the victorious actor at the
7
8
t h a t h e was g r a n t e d t h i s e x c e p t i o n a l
h o n o u r . I t is a f a i r guess t h a t t h e l a t e r registers o f v i c t o r s i n t h e h e l l e n i c contests
9
Pan-
w e r e u l t i m a t e l y based u p o n t h i s w o r k o f A r i s t o t l e .
Aristotle's book
5
end.
was based o n t h e a r c h o n ' s archives a n d m a y h a v e c o n -
t a i n e d m o r e l i t e r a r y m a t e r i a l t h a n t h e i n s c r i p t i o n s , w h i c h w e r e based o n excerpts f r o m t h e b o o k a n d w e r e k e p t u p t o d a t e a f t e r w a r d s i n t h e same
1 3 0 - 4 ; Fragm. ed. Rose p. 8. See Moraux, Les Ustes aneiennes des ouvrages d'Aristote (1951) 1 2 3 - 6 and 1 9 9 ; During, Aristotle 4 9 . 3 3 9 f . ; see also Jacoby in FGrHist in B 4 1 5 , Kommentar (1955) p. 2 1 5 and n. 24. 1
Diog. L. v 21, no.
It is possible that Aristotle mentioned in this list of Olympian victors the victory of Empedocles in 496 B.C. and that Eratosthenes took it over from this book, not from the dialogue IJepl rro^rtuv to which the passage (fr. 71 Rose) is generally attributed; so we would gain at least one short fragment, see A. Rostagni, Scritti minori 1 (1955) 257 f. Fr. 6 1 5 - 1 7 Rose. FGrHist 124 T 23 and F t. Published by T . Homolle, BCH 22 (1898) 260 ff. and 6 3 2 ; reprinted with supplements and notes in Syll. (1915) no. 2 7 5 . The final edition by E . Bourguet in Fouilles de Delphes m 1 (1929) no. 4 0 0 (unfortunately often overlooked) is reprinted with commentary and bibliography by M. N. Tod, A selection of Greek historical inscriptions 11 (1948) no. 187. Published by E . Bourguet, BCH 24 (1900) 4 6 4 ff., and Fouilles de Delphes in 5, no. 58. 4 2 ; cf. Syll. 2 5 2 . 4 2 . It gives the only certain date. In spring 3 3 4 Callisthenes went with Alexander to Asia Minor; this is the terminus ante quern for the composition of the list, We should, of course, very much like to learn the exact length of the lost work of Aristotle; but Bourguet loc. cit. m 1, p. 240 has conclusively demonstrated that this is impossible. The cost of 'two minas' in 331 may be only an instalment for the work done in this year, and the prices paid in the fourth century were quite different from those paid in the third century on which the calculations of Homolle and others were based. The figure of ' 6 0 , 0 0 0 words' given by W. Jaeger, Aristoteles (1923) 348 with particular emphasis and repeated in all the later editions and translations is a slip of the pen; Homolle's estimate to which Jaeger refers was 6 0 , 0 0 0 letters, Pomtow, Syll. 275 and 252 calculated only about 2 0 , 0 0 0 letters. O. Regenbogen, 'nivaf', RE xx (1950) 1414, 20 ff. followed Pomtow (21,000 letters), but we had better not accept any of these figures. 1
3
style. T h e p a r a l l e l t o t h e p r o c e d u r e i n D e l p h i is o b v i o u s . T h e
A l e x a n d r i n e scholars, w h o h a d n o access t o t h e A t h e n i a n archives
3
6
3
7
3
* See 'The Image of the Delian Apollo and Apolline Ethics', Ausgewählte Schriften ( i 9 6 0 ) 7 0 . * The most important is the list of Olympian victors, P.Oxy. 222 (vol. 11, 1899, with the commentary of Grenfell and Hunt); it is reprinted in FGrHist in B (1950) no. 4 1 5 in the chapter xvni 'Elis und Olympia' pp. 3 0 1 - 1 4 , with introduction, commentary and notes in separate volumes to all the historical fragments referring to this part of Greece and to the Olympian games. Chapter xvn deals with Delphi pp. 297 ff. and the Pythian games p. 301.
or
i n s c r i p t i o n s , h a d t o use A r i s t o t l e ' s c o m p i l a t i o n s ; i n t h a t w a y a few relics o f t h e o r i g i n a l w o r k are s t i l l preserved i n t h e B y z a n t i n e S c h o l i a t p t h e Attic
dramatists, b u t
4
s
great
SiSao-zcaAiai
i t is q u e s t i o n a b l e
whether
every reference
to
w i t h o u t his n a m e s h o u l d be c o u n t e d as a g e n u i n e A r i s t o t e l i a n
f r a g m e n t (as b y R o s e ) . I n A r i s t o t l e ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h e o r y t h e highest p l a c e o f p o e t i c a l p e r f e c t i o n was assigned t o A t t i c t r a g e d y ; n o w o n d e r t h e r e f o r e t h a t t o h i m t h e dates a n d details o f e v e r y single p l a y
were
r e l e v a n t f o r his p u r p o s e o f r e c o g n i z i n g t h e a c t u a l h i s t o r i c a l process o f t h e development o f tragic art. A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (1953) 68 ff.—A. Wilhelm, 'Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen', Sonderschriften des österr. Archaeolog. Instituts in Wien vi (Wien 1906, reprinted 1965) remains the classic work on this subject. Ar. fragm. pp. 8 and 15 Rose; cf. Regenbogen, 'J7tVaf RE xx 1415 ff. Reprinted by Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. 1 1 4 - 1 8 , cf. p. 105. 2 and Moraux, Les listes aneiennes 127.—The inscription of VIKCU IG. 11 2 3 1 8 , which was given the name Fasti by Wilamowitz (GGA 1906 6 1 4 Kleine Schriften vi [1937] 378) seems to have no relation to Aristotle, Pickard-Cambridge 69 f., 105 (106 ff. text), Moraux, loc. cit. 127. 24. Reprinted by Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. no—13, cf. 71 and Moraux, loc. cit. 127 f. G. Jachmann's reconstruction in his dissertation De Aristotelis didascalUs (Gottingen 1909) is not yet superseded; but see above, n. 3 on the Fasti, which he was inclined to use for his reconstruction. 8143*2 O 1
2
1
2
4
5
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
82
Constitution of Athens, Proverbs
83
A t a b o u t t h e same t i m e (after 334 B.C.) as A r i s t o t l e was c o m p i l i n g t h e
o f his elegiac a n d i a m b i c p o e t r y . H e was, o f course, f a r f r o m i n t e r p r e t i n g
records o f p e r f o r m a n c e s o f p l a y s f r o m t h e A t h e n i a n a r c h i v e s , his f r i e n d
t h e poems, b u t selected those passages w h i c h seemed t o c o n t a i n a c t u a l
a n d fellow student Lycurgus, w h o was i n charge o f the p u b l i c
e v i d e n c e for S o l o n ' s s t r u g g l e a n d f a i l u r e a n d success, a n d c o u l d b e used
finances
1
f r o m 338 t o 326 B.C., h a d a n o f f i c i a l c o p y m a d e o f t h e w o r k s o f t h e t h r e e
as a h i s t o r i c a l source f o r his p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e . T h a n k s t o t h e p a p y r u s
g r e a t t r a g e d i a n s ; t h i s w a s d e p o s i t e d i n t h e p u b l i c a r c h i v e s , a n d t h e actors
w e are a b l e t o see t h e p u r p o s e a n d t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e
w e r e c o m p e l l e d b y l a w t o keep t o t h i s a u t h o r i z e d t e x t . " T h e g r o w i n g
relation to the
Politics m o r e
clearly. I n the
Politeiai a n d t h e i r Constitution of Athens t w o p a r t s
c o r r u p t i o n o f t h e t r a g i c texts b y actors i n t e r p o l a t i o n s since t h e b e g i n n i n g
c a n be d i s t i n g u i s h e d ( a n d i t m a y h a v e b e e n t h e same i n others o f A r i s -
o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y was t h u s t o be c h e c k e d ; b u t i t is u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r
tode's m a n y
t h i s r e g u l a t i o n h a d a n y p r a c t i c a l effect. W e a r e t o l d t h a t P t o l e m y I I I
t i o n as i t existed i n h i s o w n days is d e s c r i b e d ; t h e first, i n t r o d u c t o r y ,
( 2 4 7 - 2 2 1 B.C.) b o r r o w e d t h i s o f f i c i a l c o p y f r o m t h e A t h e n i a n s , b u t n e v e r
p a r t shows h o w t h e A t h e n i a n state a r r i v e d a t t h i s final f o r m d e s c r i b i n g
r e t u r n e d i t ; so i t m a y h a v e b e e n o f some use i n t h e A l e x a n d r i a n l i b r a r y ,
t h e d i f f e r e n t stages, i n this case eleven, t h r o u g h w h i c h i t r e a c h e d i t s
1
2
a l t h o u g h w e s h o u l d n o t o v e r e s t i m a t e its c r i t i c a l v a l u e . h a v e h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l w o r k /loAmfcá, o n t h e o t h e r h i s extensive
c o l l e c t i o n o f JTOAÍTCUU ( f r . 3 8 1 - 6 0 3 R o s e ) ,
I n t h e second p a r t t h e d e m o c r a t i c c o n s t i t u -
' n a t u r e ' . I n this d e v e l o p m e n t t h e S o l o n i a n r e f o r m gave t h e decisive t u r n
A r i s t o t l e ' s w r i t i n g s o n p o l i t i c s offer a close a n a l o g y . O n t h e one h a n d we
Constitutions).
to radical democracy. Aristotle i n w r i t i n g 'history' too remained the p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h e r , t r u e t o his g e n e r a l t e l e o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t .
w h i c h b r o u g h t together t h e
T h e latest d a t e m e n t i o n e d i n t h e p a p y r u s is t h e y e a r 329/8 B.C. ( c h .
histories o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n s o f 158 cities a n d t r i b e s , m o s t o f t h e m G r e e k .
5 4 . 7 ) ; b u t t h e r e r e m a i n several o p e n questions, n a m e l y a t w h a t t i m e
I t w a s one o f t h e g r e a t days i n t h e h i s t o r y o f s c h o l a r s h i p w h e n t h e B r i t i s h
A r i s t o t l e s t a r t e d t o c o l l e c t t h e vast m a t e r i a l f o r t h e
M u s e u m a c q u i r e d i n 1889 f o u r p a p y r u s r o l l s c o n t a i n i n g t h i r t y c o l u m n s
h a v e c o - o p e r a t e d w i t h h i m , a n d w h e t h e r he ever i n t e n d e d t o p u b l i s h i t .
o f a n e a r l y c o m p l e t e t e x t o f A r i s t o t l e ' s A9r¡va¿ojv
T h e same applies t o t h e
3
4
iroXireía
w h i c h was
first
AiKaiwp,ara,
z
Politeiai,
who
may
w h i c h i n c l u d e a passage o n t h e
p u b l i s h e d b y F . G . K e n y o n a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f 1891. T h e w e a l t h o f n e w
d e a t h o f A l e x a n d e r Molossus i n t h e y e a r 331/30 B.C.; b u t i f t h e y w e r e
information and many
used b y P h i l i p o f M a c e d o n for his p o l i c y o f
n e w p r o b l e m s w e r e i m m e d i a t e l y set f o r t h b y
W i l a t n o w i t z w i t h i n c o m p a r a b l e c o u r a g e a n d quickness o f m i n d i n h i s t w o volumes entitled controversies
Aristóteles
und Athen (1893,
o n questions o f A r i s t o t l e ' s sources, o f his r e l a t i o n s t o t h e
A t t i c h i s t o r i a n s , t h e so-called A t t h i d o g r a p h e r s , the
a b o u t 800 pages). T h e
Constitution are
5
o f the literary type o f
s t i l l i n f u l l s w i n g . T w o p o i n t s m a y be m e n t i o n e d h e r e . 6
KOLVT)
dpr/vr],
a great deal o f
t h e c o l l e c t i o n m u s t h a v e b e e n a v a i l a b l e b e t w e e n 338 a n d 3 3 6 B.C. T O A r i s t o t l e ' s a n t i q u a r i a n studies b e l o n g also t h e
Greek Customs
Nofitfxa
ßapßaptKa,
Non-
(fr. 6 0 4 - 1 0 R o s e ) ; i n c o l l e c t i n g such e t h n o g r a p h i c a l m a t e r i a l
he a g a i n h a d a predecessor i n H i p p i a s , a n d m a n y f o l l o w e r s i n H e l l e n i s t i c t i m e s . T h e r e is n o d o u b t a b o u t h i s l i v e l y i n t e r e s t i n p r o v e r b s , b u t t h e
W e m u s t b e v e r y g r a t e f u l t h a t A r i s t o t l e q u o t e d S o l o n ' s o w n verses for t h e
existence o f a m o n o g r a p h o n
h i s t o r y o f t h e S o l o n i a n r e f o r m , t h u s p r e s e n t i n g us w i t h precious n e w lines
m i s t a k e n l y , I b e l i e v e — s i n c e Uapoip.io.1 a p p e a r i n t h e list o f A r i s t o t l e ' s works,
[Plut.] Decern oratorum vitac vn p. 841 F m Schmidt, Pinakes test. 6 a; cf. Pickard¬ Cambridge, op. cit. toz, 153. > Galen, comment. 11 4 in Hippocr. Epidem. Ill, CMG v 1 0 . 2 . 1 (1936) p. 79. 8 ; see below, P* ' 9 J A new fragment of the AlvUav m>Aw«'a to which we had no reference, will have to be added between fr. 472 (Alyt^rwv) and 4 7 3 (AlrmXüv) from P.Qxy. xxx ed. E. Lobel ( 1 9 6 4 ) 1
2
2527. 5 .
* P. Lit. Lond.
108 (Pack* no. 1 6 3 ) ; H . J . (1927) 84, with bibliography
M. Milne, Catalogue of the Literary Papyri in the British Museum of editions.—Fragments of two small leaves of a papyrus codex (Pack no. 164) acquired in 1880 by the Egyptian Museum of Berlin and identified by the singular acumen of Th. Bergk in the last month of his life 1881, Rh.M. 36 (1881) 87 ff. = Opuscula 11 (1886) 5 0 5 - 3 3 . * F. Jacoby, Atthis (1949) passim; cf. FGrHist ni b 11 (1954) 459ff¬ * See the survey and balanced judgement in the Introduction to Aristotle's Constitution of Athens and Related Texts, translated with an Introduction and Notes by K. v. Fritz and E . Kapp (New York 1950). 1
3
ilapoifilai
has b e e n subject t o d i s c u s s i o n —
a n d h e is expressly b l a m e d b y Isocrates' p u p i l C e p h i s o d o r u s f o r
h a v i n g collected
proverbs
( A t h . 11 6 0 D
rrapotp.ia
S
s o u n d e v i d e n c e . I n his first a n t i - P l a t o n i c d i a l o g u e ,
^tAoo-orfuar, h e
r e g a r d e d p r o v e r b s as 'survivals o f a p r e - l i t e r a r y p h i l o s o p h y ' t h e m i n a survey Delphic maxims 1
4
and treated
o f early wisdom, together w i t h t h e 'Orphics', t h e
(yvädi
aavröv,
etc.) a n d t h e precepts o f t h e Seven W i s e
One should not disregard Wilamowitz's commentary in
band (1902) 20 ff.
w h i c h is
adpotaai),
Tlepl
Griechisches Lesebuch
n i . Halb-
Fr. 6 1 2 - 1 4 Rose. Perhaps 'Pleas of right' or 'Legal decisions between different Greek states', as the (not very reliable) Vita Marciana 4 p. 97 Düring, says: AiKajidip. ara 'EXXrjyiotDii woAewv e£ &» Qihrrnos ras tpiXoveiKtas re5e 'EXX^aiv SUXvoev; cf. Gigon's commentary p. 3 9 . Two new references, see Moraux, Les Ostes anciennes 122 f. and During 140 f. Diog. L. v 22 no. 137, Hesychius no. 127 {npooifiloiv cod.). W. Jaeger, Aristoteles 131 f. = Engl, translat. 1 3 0 ; cf. fr. 13 Rose = fr. 8 Ross (p. 7 5 ) . 1
3
4
84
The Masters of Philosophy in Athens
Men.
H e liked t o embellish his later writings o n rhetoric and polities'
PART
w i t h p r o v e r b i a l q u o t a t i o n s . O n e o f his p u p i l s , C l e a r c h u s o f S o l o i , e n l a r g e d his master's c o l l e c t i o n b y w r i t i n g t w o books o f
TIapoip.taL
z
TWO
which
for t h e a m u s e m e n t o f his readers h e cast i n a l i t e r a r y n a r r a t i v e f o r m ; m a n y o t h e r s f o l l o w e d , w h o w e r e c o n t e n t t o a r r a n g e d r y lists. B u t i t w a s
THE
HELLENISTIC
3
A r i s t o t l e w h o first f r o m his p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o i n t o f v i e w c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o those t r a d i t i o n a l sayings a n d t h e i r p e c u l i a r f o r m o f ' b r e v i t y a n d p r e g nancy'
(uvvTouia teal 8e£tQT7)s).
F i n a l l y , there is a n o t h e r t y p e o f c o l l e c t i o n a t least as c o n s e q u e n t i a l as Didaskaliai o r Politeiai, t o w h i c h Aristotle led the way, the collection o f d o c t r i n e s o f p h i l o s o p h e r s a c c o r d i n g t o special topics, c a l l e d Sd^ox. W e h a v e m e n t i o n e d a p r e v i o u s c o l l e c t i o n m a d e b y H i p p i a s o f p a r a l l e l passages, n o t o n l y f r o m t h e oldest poets, b u t also f r o m t h e earliest p h i l o sophers. N o w A r i s t o t l e o p e n e d his great systematic w o r k s , f o r instance t h e Metaphysics, w i t h a r e v i e w o f his predecessors a n d g u i d e d his listeners a n d readers t h r o u g h those e a r l i e r views t o t h e final d o c t r i n e o f his o w n , w h i c h presented i t s e l f as t h e e n d , t h e re'Aoy, o f a n a t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t .
4
B u t i t was o n l y b y t h e c o m b i n e d efforts o f his school t h a t t h e m o n u m e n t a l w o r k c o u l d be continued a n d accomplished. Theophrastus missioned t o m a k e a collection o f the
was com-
Opinions of the Physicists, &vviK Schoî. Flor. 7 to Call. fr. 1. * Fr. 460 with annotations. See also below, p. 125 n. 1 and p. 136. The problem was thoroughly and eloquently treated by K. O. Brink, 'Callimachus and Aristotle: an inquiry into Callimachus LTpos npaÇttpdvrjv, CI. Qu. 4 0 (1946) 11—26; but Rostagni was not to be per suaded to change his mind, see his review of Callimachus I , Riv. fil. el. N.S. 28 (1950) 72 f.; cf. also Sentti minori n ( 1 9 5 6 ) 2 7 8 f., 319 and 1 (1955) 321, where, unfortunately, old mistakes are still repeated ('Callimaco fu certamente ad Atene alla scuola di Prassifane'). The correct view is taken by Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 9 (1957) in his commentary on Praxiphanes fr. 1 5 - 1 7 ; ibid, on fr. 8 - 1 0 about his disputed claim to have been the first ypapparticos see below, p. 158. * As far as I can see, only E. Schwartz, Charakterköpfe aus der antiken Literatür n ( 1 9 1 9 ) 4 8 , has laid the necessary stress on this historical sequence. J
6
Fr. 4 0 3 - 6 6 ; see below, pp. 127 ff.
The Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria
The Members of the Alexandrian Museum
h i s t o r i a n i n t h e l a t e r years o f his r e i g n , h e was t o give t h e m o s t r e l i a b l e
f a c i l i t y b y t h e sovereigns f o r f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r duties t o t h e Muses. O n c e t h e
96 1
97
a c c o u n t o f A l e x a n d e r ' s deeds. H e w e l l k n e w w h a t A r i s t o t l e h a d m e a n t t o
epic poet h a d been i n s p i r e d b y t h e goddess, a n d p o e t r y i t s e l f began t o
A l e x a n d e r a n d was a n x i o u s t o get o n e o f his p u p i l s a n d successors o v e r t o
o p e n t h e w a y t o its o w n u n d e r s t a n d i n g ; i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y t h e t w o
E g y p t . B u t T h e o p h r a s t u s refused t o leave A t h e n s ; S t r a t o c a m e , b u t r e -
g r e a t p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools, A c a d e m y
t u r n e d soon t o t h e L y c e u m as i t s h e a d . O n l y D e m e t r i u s o f P h a l e r o n ,
places i n groves sacred t o t h e M u s e s .
2
1
2
a n d Peripatos, h a d t h e i r p r o p e r N o w the rebirth o f poetry a n d the
o n e o f T h e o p h r a s t u s ' p r o m i n e n t p u p i l s , s t a y e d ; h a v i n g fled after 2 9 7
r e c o v e r y o f t h e o l d masterpieces
B.C. t o A l e x a n d r i a , h e h a d t o r e m a i n t h e r e as a p o l i t i c a l refugee, h i g h l y
M e m o r y . T h e n e w M u s e u m was a v e r y p e c u l i a r m e t a m o r p h o s i s o f t h e
esteemed b y his r o y a l h o s t . H e was a p r o l i f i c w r i t e r o n v a r i o u s subjects,
Mono-eta o f t h e m o t h e r c o u n t r y , n o t a b r a n c h o f t h e A t h e n i a n i n s t i t u -
3
4
were protected b y the daughters o f
3
a n d a statesman, u n d e r whose t e n years o f 'strategia* A t h e n s h a d e n j o y e d
tions t r a n s f e r r e d t o E g y p t b y some P e r i p a t e t i c s . T h e c o m m u n i t y d i d n o t
a peaceful
i n c l u d e p h i l o s o p h e r s , b u t m e n o f letters a n d a g r e a t m a n y scientists, a n d
a n d prosperous
breathing-space.
H a v i n g been
an
active
4
p o l i t i c i a n f o r so l o n g , h e c o u l d n o t h e l p m e d d l i n g i n h i g h p o l i t i c s even i n
w e s h a l l h a v e t o consider t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a m u t u a l i n f l u e n c e l a t e r o n .
E g y p t . I n his counsels t o t h e k i n g h e f a v o u r e d t h e son o f A n t i p a t e r ' s
T h e y h a d a carefree l i f e : free meals, h i g h salaries, n o taxes t o p a y , v e r y
d a u g h t e r E u r y d i c e , P t o l e m y ' s t h i r d w i f e , as successor t o t h e t h r o n e ; b u t
pleasant s u r r o u n d i n g s , g o o d l o d g i n g s a n d servants. T h e r e was p l e n t y o f
b y t h e k i n g ' s d e c i s i o n , t h e son o f his f o u r t h w i f e , Berenice, f o l l o w e d h i m
o p p o r t u n i t y f o r q u a r r e l l i n g w i t h each o t h e r . R e c e n t l y a n e w witness has
5
i n 283 B.C. as P t o l e m y I I , w h e r e u p o n D e m e t r i u s fell i n t o d i s f a v o u r a n d
t u r n e d u p , a t r u s t w o r t h y one i n so f a r as h e was a m e m b e r o f t h e M u s e u m
m e t his d o o m . T h i s , a t least, is t h e story t o l d b y t h e m u c h - m a l i g n e d
himself. C a l l i m a c h u s i n his first I a m b u s , p u t t i n g o n t h e guise o f t h e o l d
H e r m i p p u s , w h o is expressly q u o t e d b y t h e source o r sources o f D i o g e n e s
H i p p o n a x c o m i n g f r o m the dead, admonished the
L a e r t i u s f o r his lives o f t h e P e r i p a t e t i c s .
a
T
98
The Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria
Movaéiov
êv
The Royal Library, Demetrius of Phaleron
T h e i m a g e o f t h e b i r d c a g e stuck : scholars as beings,
TaXdpw.
99
L a g u s h a v i n g t h e a m b i t i o n t o e q u i p t h e l i b r a r y , established b y h i m i n
l i k e r a r e b i r d s , c u t o f f f r o m life. T i m o n ' s c o n t e m p t f o r t h e n e w scholar-
A l e x a n d r i a , w i t h t h e w r i t i n g s o f a l l m e n as f a r as t h e y w e r e w o r t h serious
ship is i l l u s t r a t e d b y t h e a n e c d o t e
t h a t h e t o l d his ' p u p i l ' , t h e p o e t
a t t e n t i o n ' , etc. ; t h e n t h e s t o r y o f t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h i n t o
dvrlypa^a)
G r e e k f o r t h e n e w l i b r a r y is t o l d . C u r i o u s l y e n o u g h , t h i s is o u r o n l y
1
A r a t u s , h e s h o u l d use t h e ' o l d copies' o f H o m e r ( r à a p v m a n o t those TJST/
'already corrected', a l l u d i n g n o d o u b t t o t h e
ëiojpôcofiéva
evidence f o r t h e establishment o f t h e l i b r a r y b y P t o l e m y I ,
1
W e have
e d i t o r i a l w o r k o f Z e n o d o t u s . Satire a n d anecdotes a c c o m p a n y t h e w h o l e
already q u o t e d
h i s t o r y o f classical scholarship f r o m i t s v e r y b e g i n n i n g ; w e n e e d o n l y
Aristotle's l i b r a r y ,
r e m e m b e r P h i l i t a s o r t h i n k o f Scaliger, B e n t l e y , M o m m s e n , o r H o u s m a n .
w h i c h w e h a v e n o w t o a d d t h e second h a l f ( x n i 608) : Kai StSâ^a? TOÙÇ èv
2
B u t i t has n e v e r d i s t u r b e d scholars e i t h e r t o b e c o m p a r e d i n a n t i q u i t y w i t h r a r e b i r d s i n a cage o r t o b e c a l l e d ' m u m m i e s ' i n o u r o w n d a y . I once m i l d l y p r o t e s t e d
4
against t h e a t t e m p t
scholar poets as c o n f i n e d t o a n ' I v o r y T o w e r ' ,
6
connoisseurs,
b u t even
rrpwros (sc. AptOTOTeXrjs)
cttv tap.ev avvayaythv ßißXla, t o
arrangement o f a l i b r a r y ' . T h i s points t o Peripatetic influence o n the organization o f the library.
w h i c h has b e c o m e so
s t r a n g e l y fashionable i n r e c e n t years. C e r t a i n l y t h e y h a d t o w r i t e t h e i r books f o r s m a l l circles o f w e l l - e d u c a t e d
h a l f a sentence f r o m S t r a b o ' s r e p o r t o n t h e fate o f
Alyumo) ßaaiXeas ßißXiodrjKrjs avvragiv, ' a n d t a u g h t t h e k i n g s o f E g y p t t h e 3
t o regard the Hellenistic
5
2
Immediately the name because t h i s P e r i p a t e t i c
3
o f D e m e t r i u s o f P h a l e r o n comes t o m i n d ,
o f t h e m o s t v a r i e d e r u d i t i o n b e l o n g e d after 297
such
B.c. t o t h e e n t o u r a g e o f t h e k i n g . H e m u s t h a v e been a sort o f l i n k between
a l e a d i n g f i g u r e as C a l l i m a c h u s was d e e p l y a t t a c h e d t o his n a t i v e c o u n t r y
Athens a n d Alexandria ; b u t h o w far c a n w e prove that the k i n g carried
Cyrene, t o t h e worship o f the Cyrenean A p o l l o , a n d t o one o f the strong
o u t t h e ideas o f his d i s t i n g u i s h e d guest? D e m e t r i u s w a s always a great
forces o f t h e age, r u l e r - w o r s h i p ; first P h i l i t a s a n d t h e n t h e successive
f a v o u r i t e w i t h W i l a m o w i t z , w h o represented h i m as h a v i n g 'das universale
heads o f t h e l i b r a r y a c t e d as t u t o r s o f t h e heirs t o t h e t h r o n e a n d w e r e
M u s e i o n i n A l e x a n d r i a gestiftet' a n d even as t h e first h e a d o f t h e l i b r a r y .
exposed t o t h e h a z a r d s o f p o l i t i c a l s t r i f e .
T h e sources w h i c h w e h a v e e x a m i n e d so f a r are silent a b o u t D e m e t r i u s .
7
4
T h e k i n g , as w e h a v e h e a r d , b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e M u s e u m . W e d o n o t hear o f their o b l i g a t i o n t o lecture; b u t i n nearly a l l the
Lives o f t h e poets a n d scholars 'teachers' as w e l l as ' p u p i l s ' a r e m e n -
t i o n e d . E v e n i f w e h a v e t o b e c a r e f u l i n a c c e p t i n g t h e details o f t h i s b i o g r a p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n , u l t i m a t e l y preserved i n Suidas'
Lexicon, w e m a y
assume t h e g r a d u a l g r o w t h o f a free f e l l o w s h i p o f masters a n d disciples. O f t h e m a n y institutions inside t h e M u s e u m t h e l i b r a r y was the most
hist. eccl. v 8, 1 1 ( a n e x c e r p t f r o m I r e n . adv. haer. i n 2 1 . 2 Massuet) : IlroXefiatos o Adyov cpiXortp^vfievos VTT' avrov KaT€OK€vaou€V7jv ßißXiodrjKrjv €v AXe^avopela Koup.rjo-ai r o t s Trdvrwv dvdpatavyypdfXfLaaiv 5s 1
r i v e s ènl TOO 'PiXaSéXipov
èmxXrjdévros).
Strab. xiii 608 and above, p. 67, n. 4; on the whole chapter see Düring, 'Aristotle', pp. 382 and 393 f. See above, pp. 96 f. 'Antigonos von Karystos' 291. This statement was taken over by Susemihl I 7 f. ('ohne Zweifel . . . das gelehrte Studium der Peripatetiker, hinübergetragen durch Demetrios und Straton'). It was repeated word for word by Müller-Graupa in his very useful and comprehensive article 'Museion', RE xvi ( 1 9 3 3 ) 801 f. and became a commonplace in almost every modern book. The very reserved and critical judgement of E. Martini, 'Demetrios', RE iv (1901) 2837 f., was hardly noticed or rejected; see E, Bayer, 'Demetrius Phalereus', Tübinger 1
3
4
Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft Die hellenistische Dichtung
3 6 (1942) 105 ff. 1 2 2 , 'erster Vorstand'
in contradiction to his own correct remark p. 165 on Zenodotus; pp. 160 f. Museum. Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula, ed. P. Wendland (Leipzig 1900) 9 ; revised edition of H. St. J . Thackeray (Cambridge 1900) as appendix to H. B. Swete's Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Later editions and translations are based on this text of Thackeray's, who used Wendland's edition. Amongst them the edition by M. Hadas (New York 1951 ) is useful because of its introduction, short commentary, and especially its bibliography; he only missed Jacoby's pertinent remarks on Hecataeus Abd. 2 6 4 FGrHist 2 1 - 2 4 = III a (1943) 6 1 - 7 5 , P - 6 5 f- New Edition in Sources Chrétiennes vol. 8 9 (1962) by A. Pelletier. Ludovicus Vives, the Spanish humanist, seems to have been the first lo challenge the authenticity of the Epistle in his notes to Augustin. De Cio. D . xvm 4 which he edited in 1522 with Erasmus, 'Letter to the Reader' (ep. [309 Allen). s
6
z
Diog. L . ix 1 1 3 ; cf. Wilamowitz, 'Antigonos von Karystos', PkiloL Untersuch. 4 43. On Timon and Aratus see below, p. 121. * See above, p. 91. Pkilologia Perennis (1961) 1
5
es
7
100
The Second Library in the Serapeum
The Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria
101
n a r r a t i v e o f the o r i g i n o f t h e G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n o f the P e n t a t e u c h , t o be
sequence o f t h e l i b r a r i a n s . Tzetzes, c o m p i l i n g t h e Prolegomena t o h i s
d a t e d p r o b a b l y i n t o t h e l a t e r second c e n t u r y B.G. ; t h e o t h e r is preserved
c o m m e n t a r y o n t h r e e comedies o f A r i s t o p h a n e s , m e n t i o n e d first t h e
i n Tzetzes' Prolegomena to Aristophanes* c o m p i l e d i n t h e t w e l f t h c e n t u r y
scholar poets w h o h a d t o d e a l w i t h t h e scenic poets u n d e r t h e r e i g n o f
A.D. a n d p a r t l y t r a n s l a t e d i n t o L a t i n b y a n u n k n o w n I t a l i a n h u m a n i s t
rod 0iXa8éXdjov) a n d t h e n w e n t o n : o ydp Bid AyjpLrp-piov TOO &aXrjp€OJÇ Kal érepojv éXXoylpiœv (yepovolujv M b 8 ) dvopmv Sarrdvats j S a c r i A i / c a t s drravraxodev r à ç jUifiXovs els AXeÇdvSpeiav avvrjdpoLOev KOI ovalfttftXioSrjKatsravras diréOeTo ' (bv rrjs eKroç p.èv àpidp.oç rerpaKiupivpiai o t a ^ t ' A i a t o V r a / c o c r t a t , rijç 8è TÔJV dvatCTopaiv ivToç ovpipnycZv p.èv fiîfUXurV dpSpiOS reaaapaKovra p.vpid$es, a / x t y â V 8è Kal drrXôjv p-vpidSes èwéa . , . r à S e crvvrjdpoicrpié'va p't/SAta oi>x 'E/Wrjvojv piôvov, àAAà fcat TOJV dXXwv drravTcov iOvtov rjaav Kal 8r) Kal 'Efipatwv avTtàv . . . o r e Si) Kal Ta? TÔJV 'Efipatojv 8id rdiv éfîoopLrjKovra (4f38op.rjKovra
o f t h e f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y A.D. i n a n a n n o t a t i o n t o P l a u t u s .
T h e r e l e v a n t passages m u s t be q u o t e d v e r b a t i m ; paraphrases are o f n o use. A r i s t e a e ep. 9 - 1 0 ( = E u s e b . ^ . f . v m 2. 1-4) Karao-roBels
em TTJ? TOO
fiaoiXews f$if3\ioBrjK7]S Ar)p,rjTpios o 'PaXypevs expr)p.aTla$rj rroXXd oidopa irpos TO avvayayetv, el ovvarov, drravra TOL KOTO. TT)V oiKoup.ewnv j8t/3Ata, Kal iroiovpievos dyopaopiovs Kal pLeraypafyds e m reXos rjyayev, ooov ifi eavTw, rr)v rod p V c r i A e i o s TTpodeaiv. IJapovrojv ovv r)uu)V ipa)TT)Oels rrocrai rivh piupidSes rvyxdvovai fiif$Xia>v, etrrev vrrep rag sitcom, jUaoiXev- orrovodaai S* ev oXtya) XP® P ^P^ trXi]pa>0'i)vai TrevTi)KOVTa pLvpidSas rd Xoiira. rjpoorjyyeXrai 8e p.01 Kal rd TOJV 'lovoaiatv vop,ip.a p,€Taypai uirpmv Kal ora&u-wv 168 c 15. 16 ff. Dind. — test. 27 b Schmidt pp. 11 f. 1
3
s
6
7
tv 17} -npdi-rn fit£JAtûÔijitiy TÎJ cv Bpov\(la» oluohou-nBeiorj- tri Se vorepav Kal iripa èyévera jSi^Ato6ijicrj (v Tt3 Scpanctai fiucporépa rtfs rrpurrns, ryrts KOL dvyârnp wvopà'a&T] avrrjs.
A Bookish Age
The Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria
102
regarded as the founder o f a new temple o f Serapis. But the foundation tablets o f the Serapeum, excavated i n 1945 on the very h i l l o f Rhakotis where Ptolemy I had built a sanctuary before, bear the name o f his grandson, Ptolemy I I I ( 2 4 6 - 2 2 1 B . C . ) ; Tzetzes' report thus becomes questionable. The person, the wealth, and the activity o f Ptolemy I I so much fascinated posterity that he was easily credited w i t h some o f the merits o f his father as well as o f his son. This son, called Euergetes, the p u p i l o f the poet o f the Argonautica and very keen on acquiring ancient texts, is now attested as founder o f the new temple; this does not i m p l y that he added a library to its precincts, b u t i t does not exclude i t either. T h e question which o f the Ptolemies set up the 'smaller' or 'daughter' library and at which place i t was situated, looks to be insoluble at the moment. Figures i n our manuscript tradition are very often unreliable; as regards the number o f books i n the Alexandrian libraries, there are also contradictions between Aristeas and Tzetzes, mistakes made b y the L a t i n translation, and different figures i n the other sources. They agree, however, i n one point, that hundreds o f thousands o f papyrus rolls were stored there during the first half o f the t h i r d century B . C . 1
2
3
4
I t is obvious that we have reached the age which we called—hesitatingly—a 'bookish' one; the book is one of the characteristic signs o f the new, the Hellenistic, w o r l d . T h e whole literary past, the heritage o f centuries, was i n danger o f slipping away i n spite o f the learned labours of Aristotle's pupils; the imaginative enthusiasm o f the generation living towards the end o f the fourth and the beginning o f the t h i r d century d i d everything to keep i t alive. The first task was to collect and to store the literary treasures i n order to save them for ever. I t is precisely to this period, the later decades of the fourth century B . C . , that we can assign the earliest o f the p a p y r i which have come to light i n Egypt and provide us Callimachus n (1953) xxxix. 6 with references to A. Wace, JHS 6 5 (1945) 106 if., and A. Rowe, 'The Discovery of the famous Temple and Enclosure of Sarapis at Alexandria', Suppl. aux Annates du Service des AntiquiUs de VEgypte, Cahier No. 2 ( i 9 4 ) - ° discoveries and discussions see P. M. Eraser, 'Two Studies on the Cult of Sarapis in the Hellenistic World', Opuscula Atheniensia in (Lund i 9 6 0 ) 11. 6 , Shifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, ser. i in 4°, vol. V I I . Welles, Historia 1962, 2 7 1 - 9 8 (see above, p. 9 3 , n. 1) tries to persuade us that the cult of Serapis in Rhakotis was instituted by Alexander himself, when he founded Alexandria on his return from Siwah in 331 B . C . ; but as far as he prefers the stories of Callisthenes and Ps.-Callisth. to the report of Ptolemy-Arrian, it is very hard to believe in his reconstruction. Not only Parsons, The Alexandrian Library 3 4 7 if., but also serious works like the Handbuch 1
6
n
l a t e r
2
der Bibliothekswissenschaft
in 1 ( 2 n d ed.
1953) 55 or the Geschichte der Textuberlieferung
63 failed to take notice of the excavations. Schmidt, Pinakes, test. 6 b. * See above, pp. 100 f.; cf. test. 2 4 a, Schmidt, figures p. 37.
1 (1961)
3
Pinakes
pp. gf., and the explanation of the
103
1
w i t h actual specimens o f Greek books. W e can even guess that the significant change i n the nature o f Greek w r i t i n g w h i c h took place i n the first half o f the t h i r d century B . C . may have been due to the aesthetic sense o f the great scholar poets. These books were the necessary means for the regeneration o f poetry as well as for the b i r t h and growth o f scholarship. W e see how very important the gradual progress o f book production i n earlier centuries was. 2
3
Starting from the oriental background, we have followed its development by the Greeks themselves, which now appears as the preparation for the new era. I f there was a revival o f oriental or Egyptian influence, probably i n some technical devices, i t should not be over-estimated. The alphabet was one o f the decisive creations o f the Greek genius which opened a new era of cultural life; i n contrast to the Orient and to Egypt, w i t h their guilds o f scribes and castes o f priests, the Greek alphabetic script was accessible to everyone. I t was also a revolutionary change that free public access was had to the immense written treasures o f the Alexandrian libraries; they were not temple- or palace-libraries to which a privileged minority was admitted, but they were open to everyone who was able and willing to read and to learn. There was a free w o r l d o f the spirit even i n the hew monarchies, and the preconditions for such a development existed only where Greek civilization prevailed. The unprecedented interest i n books was kindled by the new scholar poets, who were i n desperate need o f texts; by a notable coincidence the royal patrons and their advisers immediately fulfilled these imperative demands i n a princely way. W e shall find a similar sequence of events when i n the Italian renaissance the ardent zeal o f the poets and humanists from Petrarch to Politian led to the recovery o f the Classics and the setting-up of great libraries. 4
5
6
I n the course of this chapter the question of Demetrius' contribution to scholarship i n Alexandria has been discussed. O f the only two sources, On the recentfindof a papyrus (Commentary on the Orphic Theogony) near Salónica sec S. G. Kapsomenos, 'Der Papyrus von Dervéni', Gnom. 35 (1963) 222 f., and Apxa.iuXoytKo¡> AeXrlov 19 (1964, published 1965) 1 7 - 2 5 (with plates 1 2 - 1 5 ) , who is inclined to assign the handwriting to the middle of the fourth century B . C . (C. H. Roberts thinks of about 300 B.c. and P. M. Fraser of 280 B.c.). Cf. below, p. 139, n. 7 and p. 237. See C. H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands 350 B . C - A . D . 4 0 0 (Oxford 1956) xv and plates 1—5 with commentary, See above, pp. 19, 2 5 - 2 7 , 29, 6 6 f. Cf. above, p. 18 and especially the references to Wendel and Zuntz, p. 7, n. 9. A. Thibaudet, La Campagne avec Thucydide ( 7 t h ed. 1922) 58 ff., and K. Kerényi, Apollan. Studien über antike Religion und Humanität (Wien 1937) 186, may be quoted as typical examples of exaggerating the influence of the ancient Egyptian tradition on the new course in Alexandria. See above, pp. 24 ff. 1
2
3
4
s
6
104
Th Rise of Scholarship in Alexandria e
Aristeas and Tzetzes, Tzetzes turned out to be partly, although indirectly, dependent o n Aristeas, and chronological confusions i n both of them were obvious. The necessary conclusion is that the vulgate version of Demetrius' key position rests on very poor evidence. Nevertheless, on general grounds we may believe i n the probability that, by his advice to the king, he furthered the new scholarship and brought to i t the influence o f his great master Aristotle. We have argued that this new scholarship originated from the ideas o f Philitas and Zenodotus i n Alexandria; we must now try to get away from those uncertain modern reconstructions and grapple w i t h a serious new historical p r o b l e m : the relation between this new scholarship and the Peripatetic tradition, not only at the beginning of the t h i r d century but throughout the Hellenistic age.
II ZENODOTUS
CONTEMPORARIES
1
2
See above, pp. 95 f. * In my earlier short papers (above, p. 88, n. 1) there was no space for working out this relation; the Aristotelian line, therefore, remained too much in the dark. 1
A N D HIS
I N the previous chapter on the rise of scholarship i n Alexandria one name occurred again and again, that o f Zenodotus o f Ephesus. H e was the first of a series o f great personalities i n an age i n which the supremacy o f the individual was being everywhere asserted. The individual, conscious o f having entered a new sphere of intellectual activity, easily inclined to a slightly exaggerated subjectiveness. There was no tradition o f scholarship yet that Zenodotus could have inherited. H e had to find his own way. We should therefore not be surprised i f sometimes he stumbled. I t is u n just to measure h i m b y the standard o f his followers i n the t h i r d and second centuries, who tried i n the course o f time to build up a regular technique o f editing and expounding texts; compared w i t h them he is bound to appear somewhat unequal or arbitrary i n his textual criticism. Radically opposed theories are held by modern scholars concerning Zenodotus' Homeric criticism, because our so-called evidence, coming from the polemics o f his adversaries, has often been misunderstood. 1
We have mentioned the collecting and storing o f books i n Alexandria; Zenodotus presumably took part i n this formidable enterprise, as the king chose h i m to be his first librarian. Tzetzes' late excerpts from Scholia on Aristophanes and Dionysius T h r a x are our only source for those parts o f the early history of the Museum library on which the Letter of Aristeas is silent. The first sentence o f Tzetzes' Prolegomena contains one o f these unique pieces o f information: 'ICTTCOV on AXe£av8pos o ALTOJXOS KO.1 2
AvKopa>v p,ev rds rijs KOjpupSias, AXelja Se rds Trjs TpayoiSias-, dXXd ST) Kai rds oarvptKas. T h e n comes the passage on Demetrius o f Phaleron and on the translation o f the Hebrew books quoted i n the last chapter, before Tzetzes takes up his first sentence and 3
See especially above, pp. 92, 94, 104. He, if anyone, would deserve a new monograph. Meanwhile see H. Duntzer, De Zenodoti studiis Homericis, Gdttingen 1848, and A. Romer, 'Uber die Homerrecension des Zenodot', Abkandlungen der Bayer. Akad. der Wissenschaftm, I. Classe, 17. Bd., 3. Abh. 1885. See Addenda. Suid. v. Z-nvoooTos. j Cf. pp. 101 ff.; CGF 1 1 (1899) ed. G. Kaibel pp. 19 f, Pb 1 ff. and 2 0 ff. The beginning of version Ma pp. 24 f. is almost identical with Pb; but Mb pp. 31 f. has a slightly different 1
z
106
Alexander Aetolus and Lycophron
£enodotus and his Contemporaries
goes o n : ras Se cncqvueas AXigavSpos re, cos OLOjpdmaavTO, ras Se 7Toinrt«:ac ZT)V68OTO5 TT 6JTOV P
elrrajv, «rat AvKocppojv /cat varepov AplaTapxos
1
OltDpdaHTClVTO. 1
T h e stumbling-block i n this remarkable paragraph is the expression Stopdovv, repeated again and again. As regards Zenodotus, i t is i n conformity w i t h the wording o f a l l the other grammatical sources and the references i n our Scholia on H o m e r ; he was indeed the first StopflorrTjs of the Homeric and other poems, revising and emending the text, and oio 8ovv was the proper technical term. The reference to Aristarchus proves conclusively that this is what the Prolegomena mean; they do not refer to the collecting or arranging of books i n the library. N o distinction is made between Zenodotus' work and that o f Alexander Aetolus and L y c o p h r o n ; they are said to have done the same for the scenic poets as he had done for the epic (and lyric) poets, oiwpBmuav (or BitopOojcravTo), that is, they made critical editions. M o d e r n scholars have been generally startled by this remark, and that is quite understandable; the 'logical' procedure would have been to p u t the mass o f collected books i n order, to sort them out, classify and catalogue them, and then to compare the manuscripts and revise the text, not to start immediately w i t h a treatment of the difficult tragic and comic texts. A stronger objection is the lack o f any reference to Alexander and Lycophron i n our Scholia on the tragedians and on Aristophanes, i n contrast to the many references to Zenodotus i n our Homeric Scholia. For such reasons some have tried to give SiopOovv a non-committal sense ('to make straight', that is, 'to p u t i n the right order') or to charge the not always trustworthy Tzetzes w i t h a mistake. T h e I t a l i a n humanist who translated part of the Prolegomena on the margin o f a Plautine manuscript boldly changed ounpocovav into the 2
P
3
4
5
wording:
AXe^avSpos 6 AinoXos Kp9mcrav, ZyvoSoros be ras 'Op^Tfpflovs KOX TOIV Xantiov TTO^TISV and pp. 32. I ff. rwv 'EXXrjvtoiDV be fiipXuv . . . T O ; Tpayixag piv aiiupBaioe (sc. Ptolemaeus rex) bi AX^avbpov TOV AITOXOQ KTX. on Lycophron, Zenodotus, l
P
Aristarchus, etc. It is reprinted by Schmidt, Pinakes test. 24 a, b, c, and fully discussed pp. 39 f, but 1 cannot accept his conclusions. The text of Tzetzes and the Schol. Plautin. was much better dealt with thirty years earlier by H . Pusch, 'Quaestiones Zenodoteae', Dissertationes 1
Philological
Hatenses xi (1890) 2 0 3 - 7 .
See above, p. 9 4 . 3 On Lycophron see also below, p. 1 1 9 ; it is unlikely that no one attempted an edition of the scenic poets before Aristophanes of Byzantium about 200 B . C . ; but his work, of course, cast every earlier effort into the shade. * Cf. Sandys i 121 'responsible for the classification'; 'preliminary sorting out' E . A. Barber, Oxf. Class. Diet. s.v. Alexander Aetolus and Lycophron, and so many others. s See above, p. 102. 1
3
phrase 'poeticos libros i n u n u m collcgerunt et i n ordinem redegerunt', and he has even been praised for being the only one to find the correct meaning. But this is an arbitrary assumption, based on a modern prejudice. I f we replace our meagre evidence by a fictitious story, the picture of the decisive first decades of the t h i r d century B . C and of their poets and scholars is i n danger o f being falsified. This is the reason w h y we have taken some trouble to re-examine the tradition. I t does not tell us anything about the administrative work i n the royal library and the handling of its books, as we might expect from other passages of the Prolegomena, but about the three earliest Siopdcural, the revisers o f the most important poetical texts i n the possession o f the king. Scholarly co-operation o f this k i n d between two distinguished poets and the p u p i l o f Philitas is quite characteristic o f these years. T h e king i n whose reign this happened, or even to whose 'impulse' i t was due, is said to have been Ptolemy I I ( 2 8 8 - 2 4 7 - - ) ; there is no reason so far to reject this tradition, as i n some other cases, i n which there has been a confusion w i t h Ptolemy I or Ptolemy I I I . W i t h the chronology of Hellenistic poets and scholars we are on particularly treacherous ground, but we must not let overscepticism deprive us of the few more or less reliable dates. Zenodotus may have started to prepare his principal work on the Homeric poems before his royal p u p i l came to the throne; his a.Kp.-t] was put i n the time o f Ptolemy I , that is, before 2 8 8 B . C . , by ancient chronographers. But i t is quite likely that he finished and published his edition and his glossary under the young king i n the first decade of his reign. T h e t w o experts i n scenic poetry seem to have arrived i n Alexandria some time after 285 B . C . ; but how much later we are not able to guess, I t is fairly certain that Lycophron was no longer i n Eretria after 273 B . C , but that does not help very much. Alexander Aetolus belonged to the literary circle o f Antigonus Gonatas at Pella (after 276 B . C . ? ) , so d i d Aratus. Aratus went to Syria for a few years and then returned to Macedonia. I n the same way Alexander may have interrupted B
c
2
3
4
5
See Schmidt, Pinakes 4 0 . On the so-called Scholium Plaulinum see above, pp. 100 ff.; its author hardly knew that 'in ordinem redigere' did not mean 'put into the right order", but that it was the Latin equivalent of the Greek iy plve»>, cf. Quintil. inst. or. 1 4 . 3 'auctores alios in ordinem redegerint, alios omnino exemerint numero', that is 'to put them on the list of the classics'. On otopdow ~ dirigere in the Schol. Arat. see below, p . 121, n. 4 . See above, p. 102. Suid. v. ZTJVOSOTO? 'ErhtaiQs . . . hri nroX(u,alov yeyovws TOV rrptarov; E . Rohde, /Vyoft, Kleine Schriften 1 (1901) 127 f., believed that Philitas as well as his pupils Zenodotus and Theocritus were all dated too early. The real difficulty lies only in the tradition that Aristophanes of Byzantium was his 'pupil'. This is hardly compatible with such an early date for Zenodotus, but see below, p. 172. • See below, pp. 119 ff. i _ 1
K
1
1
s
S e e
b e
o w >
p
1 2 0 t
108
Zjmodolus and his Contemporaries
Zenodotus' Text of Homer
his stay at Pella for several years i n order to w o r k for Ptolemy I I i n Alexandria and then gone back afterwards. I have scanned the chronological combinations o f ancient and modern times anew; b u t I shall not trouble the reader w i t h the separate items. The negative result as a whole is o f some importance to us: there is no reliable tradition or convincing argument to be found against the priority o f Zenodotus. 1
The principal 'Zenodotean question is, of course, another one: what was the character and value o f his critical work? W e shall see that Zenodotus published a new text o f epic and lyric poetry and a glossary, but he d i d not publish any commentary or monograph. So his successors had no opportunity o f learning at first hand the reasons for his decisions. We must assume, though no evidence exists, that they could use an oral tradition o f Zenodotus' viva voce exegesis, noted down by his pupils and handed on to later generations, or, failing this, that they hazarded their o w n opinions about the ground o f his constitution o f the Homeric text. I n our Scholia which are only excerpts from the ancient Hypomnemata some cautious remarks o f Aristarchus or o f the Aristarcheans are occasionally preserved: p ^ o x e . . . vtrelhjtpev 'perhaps . . . he took . . . to mean' ; but we may be sure that they are omitted i n most cases. Later ancient and modern scholars accepted pure guesses and dubious oral tradition as evidence of Zenodotus' scholarship; no wonder a bewildering divergence o f modern opinions on Zenodotus has arisen out o f such mistakes. W e should be conscious o f the fact that we are on treacherous ground whenever Zenodotus' reasons are praised or blamed. I n a case like A 88 he was blamed for having altered the text 'because he believed i t is out o f character for a goddess to endeavour to find the object o f her search'. But this is mere guesswork; an early Ptolemaic papyrus, published i n 1906, agrees w i t h the text Zenodotus had accepted (not invented) for reasons we do not know. There was no authentic written tradition o f Zenodotus' arguments for his alterations or omissions o f Homeric lines; b u t his successors were i n a position to compare Zenodotus' text w i t h that o f other manuscripts, as they had even more copies at their disposal than Zenodotus himself, and so they could see the differences i n the number o f lines and i n the readings. I n this respect their statements deserve credit. There is even 1
2
3
4
109
a chance o f inquiring into the nature o f the earlier and contemporary copies o f the Homeric text that Zenodotus might have been able to use. We have had to touch on the history o f this text several times. I t is very likely that from the sixth century B . C . onwards a traditional text o f the epic poems existed to which the professional reciters, the rhapsodes, had to keep; but that i t was a sixth-century Attic text which became authoritative everywhere cannot be proved. The poet Antimachus of Colophon, who regarded Homer as a Colophonian, produced the earliest edition o f which we know at the end o f the fifth century. The frequent quotations by writers of the fourth century, especially Plato and Aristotle, show considerable variants. I t is difficult to use them for conclusions about a fourth-century text o f Homer, as philosophers, orators, and historians often quote from memory, but i t can happen that their readings agree w i t h early papyri. 1
2
3
4
Actual fragments o f ancient books w i t h Homeric lines are extant from the beginning o f the Ptolemaic era onwards. Since J . P. Mahaffy started to publish the Flinders Petrie Papyri i n 1891,5 fragments o f such early copies have continued to t u r n up from time to time. Compared w i t h the enormous quantity o f Homeric papyri from the third century B . C . to the seventh century A . D . known to us at present, their number (about twenty) is very small, but their importance for our purpose is relatively great. They surprisingly differ not only from our medieval manuscript tradition, but also from the papyri later than 150 B . C . ; quite a number o f new lines ('plus verses') and o f new readings occur besides a few omissions. I t would be too much to say that these early Ptolemaic texts give 6
7
Homer ( 1 9 2 5 ) , The Athelized Lines of the Iliad ( 1 9 4 4 ) , Bias Atheniensium ( 1 9 5 0 ) , did not give any
credit to the various utterances of the later grammarians, and did not admit internal reasons for athetizing, but oversimplified the case, in so far as he assumed that every line suspected or omitted by Zenodotus (and his great successors) was unattested or very badly attested in early copies (cf. below, p. 1 1 4 ) ; nevertheless, his Ilias of 1950 gives a complete and useful survey of Zenodotus' atheteses and omissions. See above, pp. 5 - 7 ; Ritschl's arguments in which he made some good points are spoiled by his general theory of the 'Peisistratus-recension', which is wrong. See above, p. 94. See above, pp. 73 f.; on the so-called Xvmeot see pp. 69 ff. and Excursus. « See Aeschin. 1 149 = Pap. Heidelberg p. 46, 87 Gerhard, 'Ptolemaische Homerfrag¬ mente', below, n. 7. * Royal Irish Academy: Cunningham Memoirs, no. 8 ft (Dublin); this publication provoked A. Ludwich to write his controversial book Die Homervulgata als voralexandrinivh erwiesen 1
1
(1898).
The term in later grammatical literature was awo tbaivijs, Choerob. in Theodos. Gr. Gr. iv 1. 103. 3 and rv 2. 1. 3 Hilg. j cf. Rutherford, 'Annotation' 31 ff. and the references given by Diels-Schubart and Zuntz, p. 212, n. 7, below. * Schol. A A 63, B 553, cf. tarn B 641. A 548. P 134 (see below, p. 118, n. 2 ) . J See below, p. 114. * G. M. Boiling in his careful and valuable studies The External Evidence for Interpolation in 1
Pack* lists 680 Homeric papyri in a total of 3026 literary papyri. See Addenda. Grenfell and Hunt, The Hibek Papyri 1 (1906) 6 7 - 7 5 , opened the discussion of the problem in the introduction to P.Hib. 1 9 - 2 3 (Pap. of Iliad and Odyssey about 2 8 5 - 2 5 0 B . C . ) ; these few outstanding pages are fundamental and not yet superseded. G. A. Gerhard, 'Ptolemaische Homerfragmente', Verogentluhungen aus der Heidetberger Papyrussammlung rv ( 1 9 1 1 ) , with important new texts and useful explanations. Cf. Homeri Bias ed. T . W. Allen 1 (1931) 6
_ 1
the impression o f a 'chaos'; b u t we can appreciate Zenodotus' problem when we realize that he was confronted w i t h such a great number o f more or less differing copies. W e may assume that he ignored carelessly written private copies circulating i n Egypt, of w h i c h a few specimens are extant, and was eager to look for better ones. There is a temptation to think i n this connexion o f the official Athenian copy of the tragic poets which was 'acquired' for the Alexandrian library and helped to constitute the text o f the tragedies. Indeed I should guess that i t is the recollection o f this attested fact that lies behind the modern inventions o f an ' A t t i c ' more or less official copy o f Homer for the Panathenaic festivals. There is no hint o f the existence of such a copy anywhere i n ancient literature; i t has even been argued that the Alexandrian scholars kept silence just because they used i t as the main source o f their editions. But i t must be emphasized that there is not the slightest evidence so far t o show either that there was an authoritative sixth-century Attic text or that a fourth-century one arrived i n Alexandria; i t remains one of several vague possibilities. M a n y copies from cities a l l over the Greek world were assembled i n the royal library, even from the periphery, from Massilia i n the west and Sinope i n the north-east. I t is not i m probable that Zenodotus, examining manuscripts i n the library, selected one text o f Homer, which seemed to h i m to be superior to any other one, as his main guide; its deficiencies he may have corrected from better readings i n other manuscripts as well as b y his own conjectures. Aiópdwois can be the term for either kind o f correction. I t is hard to imagine any other way. T h e I t a l i a n humanists h a d to face a similar situation when numerous manuscripts o f L a t i n classics were recovered and they had to prepare their editions; they used to pick out one 'codex pervetustus' which they followed and occasionally emended by comparison w i t h other codices as well as by their own conjectures. But there was no 'central library like that i n Alexandria i n the Renaissance; and i n any case, o f course, an analogy can do no more than indicate what may or perhaps was likely to have happened. 1
2
1
This is the result, a meagre result, we have to confess, o f our prel i m i n a r y inquiry into the nature o f the texts o f the Homeric poems accessible to Zenodotus for his SiópíWt?. Let us now turn to that 'principal Prolegomena
FT., 194ff.,P. Gollart, 'Les Papyrus de l'lliade' in P. Mazon, Introduction á l'lliade (1942, repr. 1948) 3 7 - 7 4 , chronological table pp. 6 3 ff.—G. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione e critica del testo ( 1 9 3 4 , reprinted 1952) 220ff.,and H. Erbse, 'Uber Aristarchs Iliasausgaben', Herm. 87 (1959) 2 7 5ff.,are most helpful and also give further bibliographical references. On Boiling's book, see p. 108, n. 4. See above, p. 82. See the etcSoWs Kara TTOXCLS above, p. 9 4 . 1
2
The Proem of the Iliad
Zenodotus and his Contemporaries
i io
57
I I I
1
question' w h i c h w e p u t above: what use d i d he make o f those copies ? D i d he carefully consider their lines and variant readings and constitute his text o n this 'documentary' evidence, or d i d he suspect or even delete lines and change the wording according to his o w n arbitrary judgement? The best way w i l l be to select a few typical examples and to examine them as thoroughly as possible. We can start w i t h the text o f two lines (A 4 - 5 ) o f the proem o f the Iliad; the interpretation o f this one short Homeric sentence w i l l reveal nearly a l l the difficulties o f Zenodotus' new enterprise, w h i c h he undertook w i t h the boldness o f a well equipped pioneer. I t is a lucky chance that the fifth-century reading o f A 5 is quite certain from a rare concord o f the three tragedians: Aesch. Suppl. 800 f. KValv 8* en-eifJ' eAojpa /cam^topíoi? / opvioi OÍLTTVOV, Soph. Ant. 29—30 (V4KW , . .) eáV 5* a/cAauTOv, ara^ov, olatvois /3opaV, Eur. Ion 5 0 4 f. TTTOLVOIS . , , $olvav Brjpul T€ (foivíav Safra, Hec. 1078 Kvoiv re oivíav Safra. They all must have had before them a text avrovs Se éXcópia rcú^e Kvveacriv / olojvotol re Safra, not the vulgate text oiwvotul re miox. A n d Safra is exactly what Zenodotus wrote i n his edition, though i t is attested only by Athenaeus (epit. 112 F ) . This line is not preserved i n any extant Ptolemaic papyrus, and there is no trace o f this variant left i n our manuscripts and Scholia, where only the reading olmvoiol re jrao-t is preserved without further comment. W h a t we still read there is the remark o f Aristonicus i n Schol. V e n . A , that Zenodotus athetized the two lines 4 and 5. H e kept them i n his text, as we have seen, but he must have marked them w i t h a marginal 'obelus'. The reason for obelizing A 4 - 5 may have been that they were omitted i n a copy o f his o r that the context o f the poem i n the opinion of the editor runs more smoothly when ¿g oS 8rj immediately follows upon prjviv . . . 7) . . . rrpotaipe, not upon A LOS S' éreXeíero fiovX-q. Thanks to 2
3
4
5
6
Gf. the most valuable discussion by Pasquali, Storia 2 2 4 - 3 0 . For that reason I dare to choose it in spite of its text having been subjected to vehement discussion for ages. I should like to refer to A. Nauck, Melanges Gréco-Romains 111 (1874) 9 - 1 4 and rv {1880) 4 6 3 ; E. Schwartz, Adversaria (Index Gottingae 1908) 7 f., Pasquali, Storia 236 f.; cf. Leaf, Boiling, Von der Mühll ad loe. A. Pagliaro, 'Nuovi saggi di critica semántica', Biblioteca di cultura contemporánea 51 (1956) 8, 21, 35ff.On Apollonius Rhodius' reading of A3 see below, p. 147. Restored by E. Fraenkel, Mus. Helv. 17 ( i 9 6 0 } 2 3 8 ; the interpolation of the Sophoclean Une into [Eur.] Phoe. 1634 was recognized by Valckenaer. Soph. Ai. 8 3 0 , Phil. 957 are not to the point. ciri póvatv TWV av&pdynuiv Batra (Eust, p. 19. 4 5 : Safras Ath.) Xéyei ó noi-or/jS, ¿rrl hi Qnptatv OÓK ért. ayvoátv Sé raines TÍJS hut no longer in 2 7 3 / 2 B . C . , when his adversary Aeschylus took his place, Syll. 4 1 6 . 3. This is the only evidence for the date of Menedemus' banishment from Eretria. If it is reliable (see K. v. Fritz, RE xv [ 1 9 3 1 ] 7go), Lycophron must have met him there before 273 B . C . ; but when this meeting took place and when Lycophron left his native island of Euboea for Alexandria we cannot tell. It ¡3 not known whether Lycophron stayed with Menedemus and Aratus at the court of Antigonus Gonatas in Pella. Wilamowitz, HD 1 166, by mistake refers to Commentariorum in Aratum rel. ed. E. Maass (1898) 1 4 8 ; in Theon's Life of Aratus, which quotes an otherwise unknown writing of Antigonus Gonatas himself to or on Hieronymus of Cardia (6 '4vriyovos ev rots rsepi t 'Itpdivvpav FGrHist 154 T 9 ) , Alexander Aetolus is mentioned together with Aratus, Antagoras, and Persaeus, but neither Lycophron nor Menedemus. 3
4 5
BG
3
6
G. Strecker,
De Lycophrone,
Euphronio,
Eratostkene comkorum interpretibus,
Diss. Greifswald
Zenodotus and his Contemporaries
iao
Aratus as Homeric Scholar
have been based on knowledge of Cratinus, Eupolis, and Aristophanes. I t tried to explain the rare words so frequently used i n comedy, thus continuing the glossographic work o f Philitas i n a new field. Quite naturally Lycophron's bold enterprise was heavily attacked by his better-equipped successors, especially by Eratosthenes; they probably picked up his worst blunders (for instance on Aristoph. Av. 14 or Vesp. 2 3 9 ) , and the whole work may not have been as bad as these examples. Like his contemporary, Zenodotus, who was no doubt a much greater scholar, he had to suffer the fate o f an explorer o f a new literary province. As a connoisseur o f the comic poets, he made a recension o f the text too, i f the w o r d hiopQovv in the Prolegomena has to be accepted. 1
Certainly a text must have been available when Euphronius i n the following generation composed a commentary on individual plays o f Aristophanes. There is a passionate dispute about the genuineness o f an iambic poem unanimously ascribed to Lycophron by the ancient t r a d i t i o n , the Alexandra, i n which Cassandra's prophecies o f the future sufferings of Trojans and Greeks are related i n 1,474 trimeters. T h e language o f this poem is full o f rare and strange vocables, especially epic and tragic glosses; comic ones w o u l d hardly fit the sombre subject. This penchant for glosses is characteristic also o f the treatise IJepl Kwpupolas, and the inclination to enigmatical obscurity would be i n harmony w i t h a tendency we observed i n the Technopaegnia o f the early t h i r d century B . C . I am therefore disposed, after examining Lycophron's scholarly work, to accept the traditional date of Alexandra as correct, a conclusion I reached independently when some time ago I had to consider the relation o f the poem to Callimachus. Another poet o f the same generation, Aratus from the Cilician Soloi, never associated w i t h the scholar poets at Alexandria, but after his formative years i n Ephesus (?) and Athens stayed at the court o f A n t i gonus Gonatas i n Macedonia and for a few years also i n Syria at the court o f Antiochus. His first teacher was Menecrates of Ephesus, a grammarian as well as a poet i n the Hesiodic manner on agriculture and bee2
3
4
5
(1884) 2 - 6
and
23-78;
W. G. Rutherford, 'Annotation*
417;
cf. K. Ziegler,
RE
xni
{1927)
2323 ff.
See above, p. go. * See below, p. 161. 1
' Schol. Lye.
however, made a conjecture about a second Lycophron. XLllt; a full bibliography of the discussion is given by A. contribute alia storia degli studi classici (Roma i 9 6 0 ) 4 3 7 . 2 2 . Cf. Rio. star.
1226,
* Callimachus 11 Momigliano, Secondo itat. 71 (1959) 5 5 i f¬
(1953)
* See above, p. 107 and p. ug, n. 5.
121
1
keeping; in Athens he was imbued w i t h philosophy, particularly Stoic doctrines, and became the friend o f Antigonus. He then celebrated the king's marriage to Antiochus* half-sister Phila (276 B . C . ) i n one or t w o hymns at Pella, where he met Alexander Aetolus and possibly T i m o n . Antigonus is said to have encouraged h i m to put Eudoxus' star catalogue into verse ; the result was the epic Phaenomena, the most successful o f his many poems, highly appreciated even i n the literary circles of Alexandria, not to speak o f its surprising and age-long popularity as a practical schoolbook on astronomy. A scientific subject was here treated w i t h Stoic religious and philosophic feeling i n a style derived from Hesiod. Aratus had learned these things i n Ephesus and Athens, but the polished simple form was his own and could not have earned any better praise than the epithet Xerrrov, 'subtle', bestowed on i t by Callimachus. Intimate knowledge o f the Homeric language is obvious i n every line. W e have referred to the anecdote that he asked T i m o n for the best text of H o m e r he could get and was told to use the ' o l d copies', not the 'corrected* ones. T h e tradition i n the different versions o f the Life o f Aratus that he produced a critical edition o f the Odyssey is fairly reliable ; i n Syria later on he was induced by Antiochus to 'correct the Iliad, as i t was corrupted by many*. W h e n and w h y he went to Syria we do not know. I t is no more than a modern assumption that he fled from Pella to Antioch when Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia i n 2 7 4 - 2 7 2 B . C . , and turned to editing H o m e r ; but he may have gone there later and for a longer time before Antiochus I 2
3
4
Suid. v. Uparos • . . &KOvarr}s Se èyévero ypappariKoS fiev rov 'Eipealov MeveKpdrovç, Sè Tip,ois ovru>s Apâreios dts J^piardpxetos
/cat Apiarotfraveios.
T t v è ç Sè avrov els Evplav èXnXvOévai tf>aoi (cat yeyovivai
nap'
wore rqv '/AiaSa SiopBdiaaoBai, Stà TO VTTO noXXâ>v XeXvp.âv9ai and ibid. p. 78. 32 ëypaipt Sè »cat âAAa rrovquaTa "f irept re 'Ou.-qpov Kai '/AtriSos* ov fiôvov rà 0aivêu.eva. E . Maass, 'Aratea*, Philologische Untersuchungen 12 (1892) 243 ff., and J . Martin, Histoire du texte des Phénomènes d'Aratos', Études et Commentaires 22 (1956) 151 ff., treated these confused and corrupted texts. The sources, on the other hand, Dositheus of Pelusium and Carystius of Pergamum(?), are quite reliable. No one who is at all acquainted with Theon's commentaries on the great Hellenistic poets will believe in the reconstruction of his edition of Aratus attempted by Martin pp. 195 ff. Avri6x
opla>v
.
. . iJASe
rrpos
ftvrloxQv
TOV Meyav
. . . ical Trpoearq vrr' avrov
rijs efcef
Sij/iotri'ar /3i 8Aio(iijK'ijs; cf. below, p. 150. )
* List of Rhianus' readings J . La Roche, Die Homerische Texlkritik im Altertum ( 1 8 6 6 ) 4 5 ff., and W. Aly, RE 1 A ( 1 9 2 0 ) 788 f.; cf. G. Mayhoff, De Rhiani Cretensis studiis Homericis 1870. Callimachus n, p. X L I I I on Rhianus; F. Jacoby, FGrHist m a ( 1 9 4 3 ) 8 9 if. (commentary on no. 265) and in B p. 754 (Addenda), strongly pleads for an earlier date. But even if in a single case, Hy. n 4 7 ff., Callimachus took over an erotic motif from Rhianus, it would not affect the issue, as this poem in my opinion was written at the beginning of the second half of the third century; passages of the Hecale and of the Aitia were certainly imitated by Rhianus, see Hecal. fr. 2 6 6 . If Rhianus is the author of the new epic fragment P.Oxy. xxx ( 1 9 6 4 ) 2522 A , B according to Lobel's 'reasonable hypothesis', it is even possible that a line of Callimachus* second hymn was his model (1. 17—Call. hy. 11 1 5 ? ) . 3
*
FGrHist
8
See below, pp. 148 f.
2 6 5 T 1.
CALLIMACHUS A N D THE
GENERATIONO F HIS
PUPILS
was no distinguished textual critic i n the generation after Zenodotus ; only Aristophanes o f Byzantium at the end o f the t h i r d century was his equal i f not his superior i n this field. The outstanding representatives o f scholarship between Zenodotus and Aristophanes were two men from Cyrene, Callimachus and Eratosthenes. After Alexander's death Ptolemy I ruled over the old D o r i a n colony o f Cyrene as the western part o f his Egyptian kingdom (perhaps 322 B . C ) ; then his stepson Magas was given a kind o f independent regency (about 300 B . C . ? ) , and there was a time o f considerable trouble between Egypt and Cyrene i n the seventies. But at length the only daughter o f Magas and Apame, Berenice, was betrothed to the son o f Ptolemy I I , and o n their marriage and accession i n 247/6 B . C . Cyrene was finally united w i t h Egypt. Although we cannot fix a precise date for the arrival o f the two Cyreneans i n Alexandria, there is no doubt that i t was after the Ionians h a d started the 'new movement'. For literary men were attracted, not a l l at once—but i n the course of several generations—by the splendour of the new capital and the patronage of its kings. Callimachus' Encomion on Sosibius (fr. 384) may have been one o f his earliest elegiac T H E R E
1
2
3
4
5
See above, p. 118, and below, pp. 171 ff. F . Chamoux, 'Le Roi Magas', Revue historique 2 1 6 ( 1 9 5 6 ) 18 ff.; cf. below, p. 124, n. 4 . It worried Niebuhr, Kleine historische una* philologische Schriften 1 ( 1 8 2 8 ) 2 2 9 . 4 0 , and still confused Geyer, RE xiv ( 1 9 3 0 ) 2 9 6 . 6 0 ff. s.v. 'Magas', that Iustin. xxvi 3 . 3 (and Hygin. astr. 11 2 4 ) called Berenice's mother not Apame, but Arsinoe. This mistake can now be traced back to Call. fr. 110. 4 5 , where Berenice is addressed and mount Athos is called fioviropos Apoivo-qs ^ . i j T p o ; aeo; the Scholion to this line correctly explains: KOTO. nu,ty etrrev, errei dvya-r-qp Anap.as KOX Maya. As a matter of fact, Ptolemy I I I and his wife, the foot Evepyerai, were officially honoured as the children of the Beol ASeX^ol (see my note on Call. fr. 110. 4 5 ) . The expression lXn Teicdeooi straightway with 'lieb den Eltern', as we read in the Arttmis-Bibliothek der alien Welt, 'Die Dichtungen des Kallimachos' ( 1 9 5 5 ) 2 9 1 . See above, pp. 9 3 and 95. See Callimachus vol. 11, pp. xxxvui ff. 'Quaestiones chronologicae selectae'; see also H . Herter, RE Suppl. v (1931) 3 8 6 ff. 1
1
3
4
s
124
Callimachus and the Generation of his
Creative Poet and Reflective Scholar
Pupils
poems, written under Ptolemy I i n Alexandria; the only well-attested facts are that he celebrated the marriage o f Ptolemy I I to his sister Arsinoe (between 278 and 273, perhaps 276/5 B . C . ) by an epic, and the apotheosis o f the queen (shortly after J u l y 270 B . C . ) by a lyric poem. This was apparendy i n the prime of his life ; towards its end he composed the Lock of Berenice (246/5 B . c . ) i n honour o f the Cyrenean princess recently married to Ptolemy I I I . I t was this k i n g who sent for the other native o f Cyrene, Eratosthenes, called a ' p u p i l ' o f Callimachus, to be librarian and probably tutor to his son. Both the Cyreneans, very different from each other i n age and spirit, seem to have been peculiar favourites o f the young royal pair. 1
2
There is a complete unity o f the creative poet and the reflective scholar i n Callimachus. W e found this combination first i n Philitas. Between h i m and Callimachus, however, Zenodotus had made a cont r i b u t i o n o f a new kind to scholarship, and institutions for its promotion had been founded by the kings and especially favoured by a king who was the p u p i l o f Philitas and Zenodotus ; so the younger generation started from a better position and was enabled to reach a higher degree of that unity than the older one. There is every reason to believe that Callimachus began to write poetry i n his early years i n Cyrene. W e read on Cyrenean coins of the end o f the fourth and the beginning o f the t h i r d century the same names o f members o f a noble family as i n one o f his epigrams i n which he mourned their misfortunes. H e was apparently still i n his mother country when, as he tells us himself, he first p u t a w r i t i n g tablet on his knees, and the Lycian A p o l l o addressed h i m as 'poet' and 'dear friend' and advised h i m on the art of poetry. A few lines later he implies that he is one o f those 'on w h o m the Muses have not looked askance i n their childhood'. I n the proem to his greatest poetical achievement, the four books o f the Aitia, he pictures himself transferred in dream from ' L i b y a ' to M o u n t Helicon 'when his beard was just sprouting' ; a n d 'Libya'—supposing that the anonymous epigram quotes 3
4
5
6
7
Suid. v. 'EparoaBévns = Call, n test. 15. * WÛaiûowitz, 'Ein Weihgeschenk des Eratosthenes', NGG, Phil.-hist. K l . 1894. 31 = Kleine Schrifien 11 ( 1 9 4 1 ) 65 ; Der Gtaube der Hellenen n ( 1 9 3 2 ) 3 1 8 . I . See also above, p. 9 8 . Strab. X V I I 838 KaXXlp-ax^S . • • WDIIJTIJS âp-a Kaï irepl ypau-piariKriv èairovSaKcûs = Call, test. t 6 ; see also below, p. 136. * Call. Ep. 20 with my notes. F . Chamoux, 'Epigramme de Cyrene en l'honneur du roi Magas*, BCH 82 ( 1 9 5 8 ) 587. 3 , listed the poems which he regards as 'Cyrenean' and promised to deal with them in another article. The new epigram found in Apollonia has no particular Callimachean flavour. * Call. fr. 1. 21 f., see above, p. 9 5 . Call. fr. 1. 3 7 iraî&as. Schol. Flor. 18 to Call. fr. 2 àpnytvetos ; epigr. adesp. AP vit 42 ôvttaa . . . /uw etc Aifivys àvatîpas fis 'EXLKCOVO, (see notes on fr. 2 ) . 1
3
6
1
125
him exactly—can mean Cyrene more easily than Alexandria. W h e n and w h y he left Cyrene for Alexandria we do not k n o w ; we are only told that he started modestly as a schoolmaster i n a suburb o f the Egyptian capital called Eleusis. This may have been under Ptolemy I ; since i n the seventies, d u r i n g the reign o f Ptolemy I I and his sister Arsinoe, Callimachus already moved i n the court circle, celebrating royalty i n the two poems we have mentioned, and he was probably still a 'young man' o f the court when he was given a responsible commission i n the royal l i b r a r y . T h i s swift career seems to have been due entirely to the extraordinary gifts o f a masterful personality. 1
2
3
4
Callimachus* poems, i n spite o f their novelty, were informed by an exact and wide knowledge o f the earlier poetry from which he drew his models. Practising his craft and reflecting on i t went together. This reflection quite naturally extended to the literature o f the past, to a l l the various forms o f metre and language, and to the recondite sources o f its subject-matter. O n l y the most passionate study could result i n exquisite poetical workmanship, and only boundless curiosity could open the untrodden ways (fr. 1. 28) to new fields o f learning. Ironically the poet hints at the danger o f 'much knowledge (^ TroXviSptl-n xaXerrov KO,KOV) i n certain cases; on the other hand, the mere pleasure o f listening and learning is to h i m the least perishable o f pleasures i n human life. 1
5
Two points should be kept i n m i n d . I f his verse very often sounds like charming word-play, the poet is never tired o f reminding us that everything he is going to tell is true because i t is well attested {dfiaprvpov ovBev aet6a>) ; the Muses, who once taught Hesiod and now answer Callimachus' questions, always utter the truth. I n another case he refers to a local writer by name (fr. 75. 54) as his reliable source. I n speaking o f 'recondite sources', 'reliable source', we apply this word, which originally means the fountain of a stream or a river, figuratively to literature. I n the beautiful finale o f Callimachus' h y m n to Apollo {hy. 11 108-12) the god contrasts the filthy water o f a great river w i t h the clear droplets the bees 6
A visit to Athens and an apprenticeship with Praxiphanes must be dismissed as modern inventions, see above, p. 95, n. 4. Suid. v. KaX\tp,ax°s = Call. test. 1. 8 ; his fifth Iambus (fr. 195) deals with a ypapsfiaroSiSoo-KaAos who taught children aXa fSrjTa.. See above, p. 123, on the elegiac poem Sosibius. veavloKos rijs avXrjs Tzetz. Proleg. Mb p. 31. 13 Kaib. = Call. test. 14 c. 17, cf. Ma 1, p. 2 5 , 3 K. = Call. test. 14 b. 14 veavlai fyaav KaX\tu,axos (sscr. y p . auxrrparas cod. A) KOX 'EpaToa&hrns. Whatever these expressions mean, they can hardly refer to a man beyond his twenties. H-OAVESO€(JJ fr. 75- 8 ' Strab. rx 438 iroXvttrratp . . . Kai irdvra TOV fiiov , . . 'ovara u.v8eta8ai 1
2
3 4
S
fsouXopevfas 6
Call. fr.
O W Y W ] ' = fr. 178. 3 0 ; fr. 2 8 2 aieavrj | iiSuAt's. 612;
cf. test. 7 9
voXvlaropos
avSpis
*al afwMrwmw.
ia6
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
The Pinakes of the Entire Body of Greek Literature 1
carry to Demeter from the pure and undefiled fountain-head. I n these metaphorical lines spoken b y Apollo the poet condemns the lengthy traditional poem w i t h its conventional formulae, b u t praises brevity and novelty i n verse. This meaning is quite obvious. But there seems to be implied another piece o f advice, hardly recognized by modern interpreters of the h y m n : poets should draw from the original pure source, not from its polluted derivatives. Callimachus was, as far as I can see, the first to use this image i n a literary sense. This demand o f the scholar poet applies equally to poetry and to scholarship. I t became a favourite image i n the age o f humanism and a fundamental concept of scholarship i n the modern world. 2
3
I f we consider Callimachus' general attitude, occasionally revealed i n some lines o f his poems, the remarkable feat o f scholarship that he achieved i n the l i b r a r y is perhaps not quite incomprehensible. His task was to find a system for arranging the texts o f all the writers collected for the first time i n the royal library (or libraries). W h e n we glanced at the prehistory and early history o f script and book i n Greece, we observed the oriental background and commented cautiously on the relations between the orient and Greece. N o w i n Alexandria a Greek library was founded on a grand scale ; and this reminds us o f the enormous Babylonian and Assyrian libraries o f old. I t is natural to inquire whether there may have been direct influence, since the door o f the east had been opened by Alexander m u c h wider than before, and recent research has at least p u t this question more urgently; but the answer so far is not very definite. T h e layout o f the papyrus-rolls i n the Alexandrian library seems to have resembled that o f the clay tablets i n the oriental libraries i n one or perhaps two significant points. The title o f a w o r k was regularly placed at the end of the r o l l and o f the tablet ( i n contrast for instance to the practice i n the Egyptian papyri ), and i n 'catalogues' not only this title, but also the 'incipit' was cited. O n tablets and rolls the number o f lines was occasionally counted, and these 'stichometrical' figures were p u t at the end and sometimes as running figures i n the margins; they 4
5
6
7
See Excursus. Cf. below, p. 137. rnjyq = ¿pvij in Pind., Plat., etc., is totally different; the Callimachean metaphor has also nothing to do with the so-called 'source-research' that seeks to find out what was not invented by the author but taken over from an earlier 'source', see for instance 'Les sources de Plotin', Entretiens sur l'anüquité classique v (1960) and esp. the discussion by R. Harder, 'Quelle und Tradition', pp. 325 ff. * Above, pp. 17 ff. On the Lyceum see above, pp. 66 f. See Zuntz's and Wendel's publications, p. 7, n. 9, above. Cf. above, p. 1 8 ; Wendel, loc. cit. 2 4 ff, 76, and passim; 'Incipit', 2 9 ff.; stichometry, 34ff.,4 4 ; on titulature see R. P. Oliver, 'The First Medicean MS of Tacitus and the Titulature of Ancient Books', TAPA 82 (1951) 232 ff, with examples from the papyri. 1
1
J
s
6 7
127
appear again i n library-catalogues. T h e earliest example o f title and number o f lines placed at the end of a r o l l turned up i n a recent publication of Menander's Sicyonius; the date o f the papyrus seems to be the last t h i r d o f the t h i r d century B . C . , very near to Callimachus' lifetime. Even a personal remark o f the scribe i n verse is added, and these notes altogether may be properly called a 'colophon'. There is very scanty evidence for libraries i n the Ionic and A t t i c periods; b u t the same technical devices as i n the east, or similar ones, may have been used i n Greek private houses or i n philosophical schools. 1
Whatever may have been achieved before the t h i r d century B.C., Callimachus had no real model for his immense undertaking. T h o u g h his task was probably not so much to create as to develop an appropriate method, he d i d i t so successfully that his 'fists', called IHvaKts, were generally acknowledged as a model for the future. Besides the Pinakes, he assembled a variety o f learned material helpful for the understanding o f the ancient texts and invaluable for the w r i t i n g o f poetry i n the new style; i n these books he resumed the labours o f the younger Sophists and the Peripatos w i t h a new purpose. For the IJlvaKes Tzetzes is again our authority; after giving the number o f books i n the two libraries he goes o n to say: wv TOVS rrlvaKas vorepov KaXXlp,axos d,Treypdqjaro. This sentence is slightly enlarged i n another later version ; v rrjs avXrjs vorepojs pLera i~i)v dvopOwotv TOVS TTLVO.KO.S avriov aTreypdiparo; then a reference to Eratosthenes follows and finally the remark: aAAa rd ifaAAi/xayou 2
3
KOA
TOV 'Eparoadevovs
p.erd
TOJV
fUlfiXoJV, (hs ^fjv,
Kal Siopdojueojs
&i\aoe\<pov.
fipaxvv
TWO. xpovov KOV
CTT'
eyevero avrov
TOV
rrjs
crvvayojyrjs
IJroXepLatov
TOV
Obviously i t is the sequence o f events that is stressed i n both
versions o f the Prolegomena:
vorepov—varepws
p.erd r. a.—p,€rd
ftpaxvv
Therefore the change o f vorepcos to ioropel os, proposed by Dziatzko and accepted b y most modern editors, is not justified. This TWO,
xpovov.
4
1
Menand.
Sicyonius
edd. A. Blanchard et A. Bataille, Recherches
de Papyrologie
in
(1964)
1 6 1 : Pap. Sorb. 2 2 7 2 , col. xxi, pi. xni. Colophon, although a Greek word, is not an ancient
term, but a modern one (not before the eighteenth century?) for the device at the end of early printed books, 'containing the tide, the printer's name and the date and place of printing 1774', see The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. colophon. The word is frequently applied to mere titles at the end of a roll, as if synonymous with 'subscription*; I think it had better be reserved for the cases in which more personal remarks of the scribe were added (as with the printer in modern times); there is no occurrence so far of the name of a scribe in Greek antiquity. * Cf. above, p. 101, where the full text of the version Pb is quoted (cf. Ma p. 25. 2 K.). See below, p. 153, n. 5. Call. test. 14 c. I kept vareptas with reference to the parallel vorepov in 14 a. Cantarella who reprinted Tzetz. and all the other testimonia (above, p. 100, n. 1), p. 5 9 . 1 4 did not even mention the manuscript reading in his app. crit. J
4
i28
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
Arrangement of the General Pinakes
conjecture w o u l d enormously enhance the authority o f Tzetzes' report, as i t makes Callimachus himself the ultimate source o f at least a part o f the Prolegomena. T h e unfortunate I t a l i a n humanist h a d no scruples about producing the following 'translation' on the m a r g i n of his Plautine codex: 'sicuti refert Callimacus aulicus regius bibliothecarius q u i etiam singulis voluminibus titulos inscripsit.' Hinc Ulae laerimae. Here we have Callimachus not only quoted as a literary authority, b u t also elevated t o the official rank o f court-librarian; there is no evidence that he held this position except this slip of the 'translator', and there is not even r o o m for h i m i n the well-known series o f librarians. 1
2
Tzetzes apparently h a d i n m i n d a sort o f catalogue o f books extant i n the library. Hesychius-Suidas' biographical article KaXXlp.axos, once probably the introduction to an edition o f Callimachus' collected poems (of w h i c h therefore very few titles were mentioned i n the biography) points t o a comprehensive ' b i b l i o g r a p h y ' : TIivttK€s riov ev irdoj) rraiSela StaXapupavTajv /cat aaojv /cat uwrayp,draiv(?) . Whatever is meant b y ovvrdypLara (probably 'writings'), its connexion w i t h yAtuacrai is strange, as 'a list o f writings' should belong to the great general Pinakes. I t is, o f course, easy t o change the proper name to Arjpiotcpirou. Democritus was a bold innovator i n the language o f philosophy, but i t can hardly be said that his o w n language is distinguished by obsolete words. W e must also remember that he wrote something himself on Homer's language and his glosses, although only the title remains, as i n the case o f Callimachus' Democritean Pinax. 1
vov
Ka
77
L
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Gall. 11 test, 1, cf. above, p. 1 2 8 ; fr. 4 5 4 - 6 Call. 1 pp. 3 4 9 f. Regenbogen, nivag, xx ( 1 9 5 0 ) 1423. 3 8 tried to change the odd sequence of words. It is worth while to stress again the correct view of the young Nietzsche, see note on fr. 456 and cf. above, p. 50, n. 4. See above, p. 8 1 , on Aristotle's work in the archives and on the term BtSdaKaXos. See above, pp. 105 f. IG siv 1098 a, 1 0 9 7 , 1098 (A. Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen [ 1 9 0 6 ] 195 ff., 2 5 5 ) ; for further references see my note on Call. fr. 4 5 6 ; the texts are now reprinted with notes by A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (Oxford 1953) 1 2 1 - 3 , cf. p. 72. See above, pp. 90 and 115. Call. 11 test. 1 and 1 p. 350 after fr. 456 (where the reading of the manuscripts is omitted; see also Corrigenda u p . 1 2 2 ) . Vors. 6 8 A 32 the conjecture of Demetrius Chalkondylas (1499) AIIIJ.OKPLTOU is printed without any reference to A-np-oKparovs in the codices; but D.-Kr. mention the frequent form -Kparovs for -tcpvrov in the notes to B 3 5 , 160, 161, 178. Cf. Apollon. Dysc. Pron. 6 5 . 17 Schn. and Synt. 7 8 . 4 Uhl. awray/iara 'prose books'. See above, pp. 42 f. Democritus' language and his books on literature. • Callimachus' critical acumen should no longer be credited with having unmasked the 1
RE
1
3 4
5
6
7 8
133
We have taken pains to call attention to many d r y and sometimes baffling titles. Inconspicuous as the individual headings may look, the impression o f the whole is overwhelming. T o amass hundreds of thousands o f rolls i n the library would have been o f little use without a sensible classification that enabled the prospective reader to find the books he needed. For the first time i n history the Pinakes o f Callimachus made the greatest treasures o f literature accessible b y dividing poetry and prose books into appropriate classes and by listing the authors i n alphabetical order. O n l y the most passionate desire to save the complete literary heritage o f the past from oblivion and to make i t a permanent and fruitful possession for a l l ages could have provided strength and patience for this immense effort. Querulous critics o f the scholar poets, Philitas, Callimachus, and their followers i n ancient and modern times, may carp at the excessive learning of their poetry and at the amateurish deficiencies o f their scholarship. But they should not undervalue the fervent devotion to learning that sprang from the enthusiasm o f a great poet. No doubt the 120 books o f the Pinakes gave plenty o f scope for additions and corrections ; even our short quotations have revealed this again and again. Aristophanes o f Byzantium published a whole book TIpos rovs KaXkipidxov irlvaKas. IIpos is ambiguous and often means 'against* i n titles, b u t there is n o t the slightest reason to assume that Aristophanes ever wrote 'Against Callimachus' Pinakes* ; his book was meant t o be a supplement, which certainly was very welcome about fifty years afterwards, and he made use o f Callimachus' chronological tables of the A t t i c dramatists for the summaries o f plays i n his editions. This was the immediate effect; b u t everyone w h o needed biographical material, who undertook editions o f texts, who wrote o n any literary subject had to consult the great work ; i t has never been superseded by a better one. The anonymous r/iVa/cej o f the rival library i n Pergamum, very rarely quoted, once for a comic poet and twice for orators, d i d n o t compare 1
2
3
4
Democritean forgeries of Bolos (Suid. s.v. BûXos A-nu.oKplretos) ; this strange fellow lived towards the end of the third century B . C . or even later, as the best expert on pseudo-scientific ancient literature finally found out, Max Wellmann, 'Marcellus von Side', Philol. Suppl. xxvn 2 ( 1 9 3 4 ) 1 ff., with further references; see also Vors. 11 6 8 B 3 0 0 and A. J . Festugière, La Révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste 1 (1950) 196 ff., 222 ff. and Add. 4 3 2 . F. Schmidt, Pinakes 97 f., and Rehm-Voge\,ExaktelVissenschaften* ( 1 9 3 3 ) 57 and 6 3 , relied on earlier publications of Wellmann. See my notes after Call. fr. 453, and below on Praxiphanes p. 135 and on Polemon, p. 2 4 8 , n. 1. Call. fr. 456. See above, p. 129. Schmidt, Pinakes, p. 28 fr. 3 èv rots nepyap-nvois rrivagi (fr. 4 has to be cancelled) ; cf. ibid p. 104 and the whole chapter V on the after-effect of the Pinakes 9 9 ff. See also Regenbogen, Pinax col. 1424 ff. s
1
1
3 4
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
Books on Antiquities and Language
i n importance w i t h the Alexandrian Pinakes o f Callimachus upon w h i c h
paradoxography as a distinct literary genre. Like Philitas and Zenodotus he was not scientifically minded, as this work reveals better than any other; there is no recognizable intercourse between science and scholarship i n Alexandria before Eratosthenes.
134
they were probably modelled. A number o f titles, some o f them found only i n Suidas' article, and some short quotations give an idea o f the variety o f learned books published under Callimachus' name; i n preparing them he may have been assisted b y friends a n d pupils. A throng o f students was drawn to Alexandria by the new longing for unlimited knowledge and the fact that incomparably richer material was now offered there than ever before i n Athens or elsewhere. T h e Sophists had had epideictic-oratorical aims i n their treatment o f literary, especially poetical, subjects, and the great A t t i c philosophers and their schools had had their philosophical purposes. N o w for the first time we find wide literary knowledge being acquired for the sake o f the literary tradition itself, that is, for the works to be written i n the present age and for the preservation and understanding o f the works written i n past ages. This is the new separate discipline o f scholarship. The books o f Callimachus the scholar {ypafipuiTLKos) are often regarded as mechanical compilations of antiquities. As a matter o f fact they are not restricted at all to antiquarian matter; we can apply our old scheme to them, though perhaps i n a different sequence, briefly reviewing his books on antiquities, on language, and on literary criticism, and finally considering how far he may be regarded as an interpreter o f earlier Greek poetry. T h e Nofiiua fiapfiapifca were an antiquarian collection o f 'Non-Greek Customs', possibly supplementing Aristotle's book w i t h the same title. A general book IJepl dyd)vu>v probably belongs to the same group, since some o f the Sophists and Aristotle and his school frequently compiled material ' O n games'. The forty-four excerpts i n Antigonus o f Carystus, Hist, mirab. 1 2 9 - 7 3 , from Callimachus' Ilapdooga show h i m as a writer on marvels; his keen curiosity for 'Incredibilities' led h i m to make this Collection of marvels in all the earth according to localities from historical, geographical, and antiquarian sources. There is no earlier example o f 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fr. 4 0 3 - 2 8 , 4 5 7 - 9 , 4 6 1 - 6 , 6 9 3 ; fr. 4 0 3ff.are arranged according to the alphabetical order of the titles. See above, pp. 125 ff. See above, p. 3. Call. fr. 405 with notes; on Aristotle see above, p. 83. Call. fr. 4 0 3 ; on Hippias the Sophist see above, pp. 5 ff, on Aristotle pp. 79 ff., on Duris, the Peripatetic historian, and others see notes to fr. 401. * Thomas Stanley was the first to discover these substantial excerpts, not Bentley, see Call. 11, p. X L V , i and Addenda p. 122. Qavp.droiV r£iv els drraaav ri\v yrjv Kara rairovs ovroiv avvayuiyr} is the title in Suidas' table ;
135
From a book entitled 'EBVLKOI ovop-aalat, that is, Local nomenclature, special names for fishes i n different cities (Chalcedon, T h u r i i , Athens) are quoted; as there was a chapter on fishes, the arrangement o f the whole must have been by subjects. Though unproven, i t is not impossible that the titles i7ept dvepicov (fr. 4 0 4 ) , IJepl opvciov (fr. 4 1 4 - 2 8 ) , Mrjvtav TrpoaTjyoplai Kara HBvos teal TTOAEI? (p. 3 3 9 , Local Month-names) are only the sub-titles o f other chapters i n the same comprehensive Onomastikon. This vocabulary was certainly not arranged i n alphabetical order like Zenodotus' Glossai. T h e relation o f names to things was a philosophical problem, discussed at length i n Plato's Cratylus and also by Aristotle. But Callimachus listed and disposed all the names he could find for the purely literary reasons w h i c h we have just stated; i t was the first vocabulary of its kind, as far as we know, and was eagerly used by Aristophanes o f Byzantium and later generations. I t can hardly be decided whether works entitled Kriaeus vrjawv nat TtoXtuxv KO\ p.erovop,aalat (p. 339) and Ilepi TOJV ev Tjj otKovp-evQ rroTapLtuv (fr. 457—9) belong to the books on antiquities or to the books on language; 'changes o f name' rather point to the second group. There remain a few headings and fragments for which we are completely at a loss to find a place, or even to understand the titles. But the important fact is that we are able to find traces o f nearly a l l the learned collections o f Callimachus i n his poems : fairsounding names o f rivers and islands, o f winds and nymphs and birds were picked out o f them t o embellish the verses, and a number o f fine local stories was found i n them and saved from oblivion. 1
2
3
4
5
One book has been left out o f this cursory survey, Callimachus' Against Praxipkanes, IJpos npa£t xaKtp. Whatever {SifiXlov here means, p.eya KaKov, a 'great evil', is a sort o f old formula ( 0 134, i 4 2 3 ) , and p,4yas w i t h reference to literature is always vituperative; w e may compare the filthy pceyas poos i n contrast t o the pure oXlyrj Xtfids (hy. 11 1 0 8 ) , or the a^ydXn yvv-q o f a poem contrasted w i t h subtle small-scale ones, Kara Xemov (fr. 1. 12). As i n the case o f Aratus the statement i n the prose book has its exact parallel i n an epi gram, so also there are obvious parallels i n the poems to the t w o other passages tentatively ascribed t o the same prose w r i t i n g . Plato was deemed an incompetent critic, as we have just seen; the reason was that he ap preciated the poetry o f Antimachus, whose Lyde Callimachus condemned i n an epigram (fr. 398) as ' a fat and not lucid book'. T h e general disap proval o f the fieya fiifiXlov uttered i n the prose m a x i m is a common topic i n Callimachus' poems and is the particular theme o f his introductory elegy t o the Aitia against his adversaries, w h o m he calls 'Telchines*. 2
3
4
5
6
7
A list o f these adversaries compiled by a learned scholiast includes the name o f Praxiphanes the M y t i l e n e a n ; this is invaluable evidence for the opposition between the poet and a leading Peripatetic and shows that the ambiguous ilpos i n the title means 'against Praxiphanes'. There is no tradition that Praxiphanes h a d personally attacked Callimachus i n his writings. T h e learned collections and also the Pinakes may give the i m pression o f being rather Aristotelian i n subject-matter, despite their new purpose ; b u t i n literary criticism Aristotie's theory and Callimachus' views are plainly incompatible. As the one relevant prose book is almost lost, we have to rely m a i n l y on the poems. A g a i n and again, charmingly as well as firmly, he p u t forward his clear and consistent opinions. H e is never pedantic, b u t rather humorous and ironical or even o f a lively 8
137
aggressive spirit. Aristotle, we remember, i n the severest o f styles demanded organic unity o f every artistic w o r k : ¿V, oAov, réXos, p-éycdos were the decisive terms. A l l parts must have a definite relation t o the whole work, which itself is distinguished by completeness and magnitude. T h e Iliad and Odyssey, b u t not the other epics, are living organisms o f this k i n d ; they and the masterpieces o f A t t i c tragedy alone fulfil these requirements. I f it were possible for any further poetical works to be produced at a l l , they must somehow conform to this standard prescribed by Aristotle. N o w Callimachus regarded Homer w i t h the same devotion and affection as Aristotle had done, i n contrast to everything 'cyclic' (Ep. 2 8 ) , which lacked organic unity, b u t abounded i n traditional formulae. For that very reason he esteemed H o m e r inimitable, even unapproachable. I t would be a vain ambition to vie w i t h h i m and the other great poets of the past; i f poetry lived on, i t was bound t o follow principles quite different from those inferred by Aristotle from the ancient poems ( T ¿ dpxata). For years poetical criticism had been i n the hands o f Sophists and theorizing philosophers; the time had come for a r e t u r n to its originators, the practising poets. 1
2
3
The new poetical school o f Callimachus and his followers was osten tatiously anti-Aristotelian. Rejecting unity, completeness, and magnitude, it consciously aimed at a discontinuous form (fr. 1. 3 oı>x ev aetata 8ir¡víK£s) i n a more or less loose series o f pieces o f a few lines (fr. 1. 9 oXiyoarixos). T h e proper quality o f a poem was t o be Aem-óV 'subtle'. I t has been rightly noticed that this key term and a few other ones had already occurred i n Aristophanes' comedies, especially i n the critical passages o f the Frogs: réxrn / [KpiW¿r¡v (Call. fr. 1. 17 f.) is almost a verbal quotation. But the truth of this observation was overlaid by two hypotheses: namely that Aristophanes borrowed his phrases from a Sophistic source, probably Gorgias, a n d that Callimachus used a rhetorical source on the genera dicendi. N o proof o f these hypotheses has yet been produced ; they remain a strange b u t typical example o f the 4
5
6
9
» Cf. above, pp. 120 f. Praxiphan. fr. 2 Brink = fr. 11 Wehrli. On its various meanings see Wendel, Buchbeschreibung Cf. above, p. 126. « Call. fr. 1. 1 Schol. Florennha tofr.1,1. 7, p. 3 . " Cf. above, p. 88.
a
See above, p. 94.
3 4
56
See above, p. 7 4 . * Aristot. Poet. ch. 23 f., esp. p. 1459 b 22. Also the Margİtes is Homeric to him as to Aristotle, see fr. 3 9 7 . * E . Reitzenstein, 'Zur Stiltheorie des Kallimachos', Festuhrifi fur R. Reitzenstein { 1 9 3 1 ) 2 5 - 4 0 on AÍTTTO'Í, ibid. p. 2 9 . 2 M. Pohlenz on Aristoph. Ran. 8 2 8 , 8 7 6 , 9 5 6 , 1108, m l . A great deal of the evidence in Aristophanes had already been better collected and interpreted by J . D. Denniston, 'Technical Terms in Aristophanes', CI. Qu. 21 (1927) ngf.; see also Axistoph. fr. nov. 33 a Demiañczuk (~ Satyr, vit. Eurip. p. 3 . 20 von Arnim, Suppl. Eur.) râ 1
3
A[eir]T¿ pr¡¡j.o.r' [e£eo]p,rjxfTO.
ff.
1
3
Therefore one can risk putting Housman's supplement into the text; Aristoph. Ran. 766,
7 7 9 . 785¬
' S e e above, p. 134.
* On Aristophanes see above, pp. 47 f.; on Callimachus* supposed rhetorical model see E . Reitzenstein (above, n. 4) 37 ff.
138
Callimachus and the Generation of his Pupils
Elements of Interpretation in Poetry and Prose
modern quest for hidden sources. T h e natural assumption is that the Hellenistic poets derived their critical terminology directly from the poets o f the fifth century, w h o m they knew so well. Substantial parts o f Callimachus' Iambi are indebted to A t t i c comedy; there is no need to invent intermediate handbooks. T h e meaning o f the word Aem-os underwent a characteristic change; while i t was once used disapprovingly o f over-refinement o f spirit or diction, for instance, that o f Euripides i n contrast t o the vigour that Aeschylus achieved through the magnitude (¡idyedos) o f his words, the Alexandrians, Callimachus, Hedylus, L e ó nidas, employed i t as a t e r m o f the highest praise to describe the style they were eager to achieve i n their poems. W e find another significant epithet i n the Praxiphanes pamphlet, where Aratus was praised as a poet o f die highest r a n k : rroXvaad-qs. ' M u c h learning' was i n archaic times a reproach against those who had no true wisdom; b u t this word also came to have the opposite connotation i n the Hellenistic age; unlimited knowledge o f subject-matter and language was now deemed an indispensable requisite for the new poetry called ao<j>¿r¡ (Call. fr. 1. 18). 1
L o o k i n g back on Callimachus' o w n noXvpiaBir) amassed i n his prose works, we may ask whether they can be assigned to a particular epoch o f his life. W h e n the epilogue o f the Aitia came to light, the first editor saw i n the concluding line Callimachus' 'formal farewell to poetry' and a declaration 'that he w i l l n o w devote himself to prose'; indeed his appointment at the Alexandrian library was regarded as the point i n his career at which he turned from poetry to prose. But avrap ¿ya> Movaéwv TTtlov \e\rrciui vofióv indicates the Musa pedestris o f the Iambi which followed the Aitia i n the final edition arranged b y the poet himself; the pentameter gives no answer to this or any other question o f chronology. W h e n we divided Callimachus' prose works i n t o three groups, o n antiquities, o n language, and on literary criticism, we asked whether there was not a fourth one on interpretation. As far as we know, he never edited a text or wrote a commentary; the few fragments o f his 'Y7Topvr¡fiara seem to indicate a collection o f mythological, linguistic, and geographical material. But i n many passages of his poems he discloses his 2
3
4
1
Heraclit. Vors. 2 2 B 4 0 ; cf. Plat. Leg. 811 A B , 8 1 9 A against iroXvuaSta. and against the TioXvyvaiu-oves. On Hippias as iroXviiaB^s see p. 52, n. 5 . Oxyrhynchus Papyri V I I (igio) ed. A. S. Hunt, p. 18 on Fol. 2 verso of P.Oxy. 1011,
TToXviLaBír,
Phaedr. 2 7 5 A 1
1.
The
89.
On text and interpretation see Call. fr. 112. 9 and the discussion in Philol. 87 (1932) 226 f. and Call, ti p. xxxvi; the correct reading -rret,6v, not velos (confirmed by E. Lobel's revision of the papyrus) and interpretation were found by R. Herzog, Bed. Philol. Wochenschr. 1911, p. 29. Various opinions are registered by H. Herter, Bursian 255 (1937) 1 4 4 1 Above, p. 135, n. 4. 3
4
139
acquaintance w i t h the Iliad and Odyssey and occasionally allows us to guess not only what text he chose but also how he understood its meaning. I n this sense only he may w i t h reserve be called an 'interpreter' of Homer. 1
First o f a l l we should like to know how far Callimachus used Zenodotus' new critical edition o f Homer and how far he relied on pre-critical texts, ret ctpxafa a.vriypa<pa, such as T i m o n recommended to Aratus. Several Callimachean readings o f the Homeric text seem to agree w i t h those known to us only as Zenodotean. The beautiful Naxian girl, Cydippe, took part i n 'the dance o f sleeping Ariede, Apnj&ri$ \ [i x\°P ev8ova-r)s, Callimachus tells us (fr. 6 7 . 1 3 ) ; i n the famous Homeric passage to which he alludes, xopov . . . otov . . . AatSaXos -rjuKijaev . . . ApidSvrf (2 5 9 ) i Y Zenodotus read Api-qhr). This certainly is a most remarkable coincidence; but as Zenodotus constituted his text on earlier manuscripts that he found reliable, the same sources may have been accessible to Callimachus. Although i t is possible or even very probable that he followed Zenodotus, the coincidence i n this and about ten similar cases is not conclusive proof. A t least one example proves that Callimachus also consulted other texts older than the Zenodotean e d i t i o n : only the 'cityeditions' had the unique variant reading vrjo-utv em (fyXurepauiv (0 454 and X 4 5 ) , from which he transferred the epithet to another noun, 0nAurarov rreSlov (fr. 5 4 8 ) , 'the most fertile p l a i n ' . By connecting B-qXvrarov w i t h rreolov Callimachus gave his 'interpretation' o f the Homeric phrase: i t does not mean 'island where females reign', like Lemnos and Imbros, but 'island that is euyeto?', w i t h good soil, fertile. I t is possible that he consulted the elementary explanatory notes that must have accompanied the Homeric text for a long t i m e and finally became a substantial part o f our so-called D-Scholia, i n which they were mixed u p w i t h more learned grammatical comments. When he took over TOLOS from / / 2 3 1 i n
2
ov
s
2
o n I
3
4
5
6
7
F. de Ian, De Callimacho Homeri interprete, Diss. Strassburg 1 8 9 3 ; H. Erbse, 'Homer¬ scholien und hellenistische Glossare bei Apollonios Rhodios', Herm. 81 (1953) 163 ff., esp. 173 ff. on Callimachus; see also Call. 11 p. 133 Index s.v. 'Homerus'. See above, p. g8. See above, pp. 111 ff. Zenodotus had athetized, but not left out, the whole description of Achilles' shield (E 483-617). I collected in the note to fr. 12. 6 (see also Addenda) the passages where Callimachus' Homeric text agrees with Zenodotus and other editions mentioned in our Scholia; see now Erbse's critical remarks, Herm. 8 1 , 179. at airo row noXtaiv €Ko6o€t,s, cf. above, pp. 9 4 , 110. _ See Schol. AT on
v xpdvaiv IJroXepiaiov rov erat avv rtp I. * See above, pp. 140, 146. * For the first Plutos, produced twenty years earlier, the only quotation with ev nXovrut irpojTtp expressly added seems to go back to Euphronius fr. 6 4 Str. = Schol. (v) Aristoph. 1
4
griechischen Etymologika
s
Ran. 1093.
6
8
9
161
* Schol. (v) Aristoph. Av. 1403 = 77 Str. and Athen. xi 495 c — fr. 107 Str. So in RE vi {1907) 1221. 10 ff. by L. Cohn. Flis name most frequently occurs in the Scholia to the Birds and to the Wasps; on Pint. and Ran. see above n. 3 and in general The Scholia on the Aves of Aristophanes ed. J . W. White (1914) x v i i . See below, p. 169. s
6
7
811342
M
I
Science and Scholarship H i s knowledge o f the
Founder of Critical Chronology
as w e l l as o f t h e copies i n t h e l i b r a r y
StoaoxaAt'cu
l e d h i m t o i n q u i r e i n t o questions o f t h e p e r f o r m a n c e s o f tragedies comedies,
f o r instance
Aristophanes'
Eirene
whether
t h e r e was
Hieron.
1
a second p e r f o r m a n c e
o r even a second p l a y w i t h t h e same n a m e
w h e t h e r a n o t h e r v e r s i o n o f Aeschylus'
and
Persai
of
Eratosthenes w a s p r i m a r i l y a scientist as w e stated a t t h e b e g i n n i n g . I n his w r i t i n g s o n O l d C o m e d y a n d r e l a t e d subjects t h e r e is n a t u r a l l y n o e v i d e n c e o f this. B u t i n his f u n d a m e n t a l books
g e o g r a p h y w e c a n c l e a r l y see t h e scientist i n h i m , especially t h e m a t h e m a t i c i a n a n d a s t r o n o m e r , i n f o r m i n g t h e w o r k o f t h e scholar. I t is this t h a t
wide literary horizon 2
distinguishes t h e m f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s a t t e m p t s o f Sophists, p h i l o s o p h e r s , a n d historians.
a p o p u l a r a n c i e n t h y m n addressed t o A t h e n a , t o w h i c h A r i s t o p h a n e s a n d icaAAiWe"
4
and he
c h r o n o l o g y i n a n t i q u i t y . ( I t is, o f course, n o a c c i d e n t t h a t t h e r e v i v a l o f
was n o t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a n e p i n i c i o n
these studies a t t h e e n d o f t h e s i x t e e n t h a n d t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e seven-
VIKOIOV
3
recognized
C a l l i m a c h u s also h a d
rightly
(fr. 3 8 4 . 3 9 ) .
¿evs, KpoTatviarvs fTrowoios, Sv TleLQiorpaTtp ovvttvat rd> -rvpdvvtp AoKX-nmd&rfs ev TW s' /Jt/JAia) ru>v rpap,p.a.Tt,Ku>v; if this is the correct general title of the large work, it was divided into two parts, a systematic 77epi ypap.p.ariK^s (Sext. Emp. Adv. math. 1 2 5 2 , vol. in p. 6 2 . 22 Mau) and a biographical fltpl ypap.p.o.TiKv~>i> {Comment, in Aral, reliqu. ed. E . Maass, p. 76. 5 ) ; on Asclepiades see above, p. 158, and on his Ppap-p-artKa H. Usener, Kleine Schriften ( l 9 ' 3 > 3»9-
B . C ( a c c o r d i n g t o o u r era) a n d this was fixed as t h e first y e a r o f t h e
10
1
"
5
d a t i n g t h e m h e h a d t o use one o f t h e l o c a l systems; i t is n o w g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d t h a t this was n o t Ctesias* A s s y r i a n list, b u t t h e list o f t h e S p a r t a n k i n g s preserved i n Eusebius' Xpovimd. T h e b e g i n n i n g o f this list takes us 6
b a c k t o t h e y e a r 1104/3 - - > w h i c h is t h a t o f t h e B
c
'HpaKXeio&v tcddooos;
t h e I o n i c m i g r a t i o n was p u t s i x t y years l a t e r , a n d t h e t a k i n g o f T r o y ,
Tpolas dXuiais,
e i g h t y years e a r l i e r , 1184/3 - - T h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n this B
c
earliest date a n d t h e latest, t h a t o f A l e x a n d e r ' s d e a t h (324/3 B.C.), w a s d i v i d e d i n t o t e n epochs. A t this p o i n t t h e m o d e r n scientist m a y be i n 7
c l i n e d t o m o d e r a t e his a p p r e c i a t i o n o f Eratosthenes' m e r i t s , n o t i c i n g w i t h 1 2 3
Van der Waerden, Science awakening (1954) 228 ff. See above, pp. 51 and 8 0 f.; on Timaeus see FGrHist FGrHist
241 F 4 - 8 .
566 T 1, 1 0 ; F 1 2 5 - 8 . * FGrHist
2 4 I F 1-3.
On 'Zeittafeln' see Regenbogen, /Jtvaf RE xx 1462. 60 ff. E . Schwartz, 'Die Konigslisten des Eratosthenes und Kastor', AGGW40 (1894/5) 6 0 ff.; the excerpt from Diodorus in Euseb. Chron. 1 2 2 1 . 31 ff. See also W. Kubitschek, 'Kdnigsverzeichnissc', RE xi (1922) 1015 tf. s
6
7
FGrHist
241 F 1.
Science
and
Scholarship
Founder
His knowledge o f the SioacncaXUu as well as o f the copies i n the libraryled h i m to inquire into questions o f the performances o f tragedies and comedies, for instance whether there was a second performance o f Aristophanes' Eirene or even a second play w i t h the same name and whether another version o f Aeschylus' Persai was produced i n Sicily for H i e r o n . Furthermore we owe to Eratosthenes' wide literary horizon a few important critical comments o n lyrics. He assigned to Lamprocles a popular ancient h y m n addressed to Athena, to which Aristophanes and Phrynichus had alluded i n comedies, and he recognized that A r c h i lochus' famous "rrJi-eAAa KaAAtWc ' was not the beginning o f an epinicion but the refrain o f a h y m n to Heracles; Callimachus also had rightly called i t a vucaiov e wvdvai riu rvpavvut AaxXviridovs ev no ?' pVfJAiw TOW rpap.p.a.Ti.Ktau; if this is the correct general title of the large work, it was divided into two parts, a systematic Jlepl ypapip.ariKijs (Sext. Emp. Adv. math. 1 2 5 2 , vol. in p. 6 2 . 22 Mau) and a biographical [Jtpl ypap.p,miKu>v (Comment, in Arai. reliqu. ed. E. Maass, p. 7 6 . 5 ) ; on Asclepiades see above, p. 158, and on his rpa^ariKa H. Usener, Kleine Schri/ten 1
1
6
7 8
* Schol. Dionys. Thr., Gr. Gr. in p. 160. 10. The Scholiast emphasi2.es the same use of ypap.p^ara for ovyypap.p.ara. by Call. Ep. 6 and 2 3 ; cf. the passage of Asclepiades in Sext. Emp., just quoted. See G. Knaack RE vi 384 f. and below, p. i 8 o on accents. 1 0
:
Chronology
163
Eratosthenes was primarily a scientist as we stated at the beginning. I n his writings on O l d Comedy and related subjects there is naturally no evidence o f this. But i n his fundamental books o n chronology and geography we can clearly see the scientist i n h i m , especially the mathematician and astronomer, informing the work of the scholar. I t is this that distinguishes them from the previous attempts o f Sophists, philosophers, and historians. Eratosthenes fully deserves to be honoured as the founder o f critical chronology i n antiquity. ( I t is, o f course, no accident that the revival o f these studies at the end o f the sixteenth and the beginning o f the seventeenth century A . D . by J . J . Scaliger coincided w i t h the founding o f modern science i n the later Renaissance.) The most reliable authentic documents on which Eratosthenes could base the dates of historical events were the lists o f the winners i n the O l y m p i c games; since Hippias had started to reconstruct the ' OXvpmovLKojv dvaypatp-q and Aristotle and others like Timaeus had followed h i m , Eratosthenes was able to build upon these earlier efforts i n his own register of* OXvpnriavtKat, a work o f at least t w o books. I n his greater work, the Xpovoypas ßovXevöuevos (Codd. A V, ßovX6p.cvos cett.) npos Evpevy tpvyeîv, €^t>A<xv0i? KTX. ; this text is hardly sound, and perhaps we should read otaoKetbBels 'observed as planning to fly, he was imprisoned*. But it is just a modern embellishment that 'Eumenes tried to steal Ptolemy's librarian' (so for instance Kenyon, Books and Readers, p. 8 9 ) . * Plin. n.h. vin 13, Plut. de soll. an. 972 D , Aelian. n.a. 1 38, probably from a common source; see F. Jacoby FGrHist 275 Juba von Mauretanien (vol. I I I A , Kommentar, 1943, p. 319 and on F 5 4 ) . * Aelian. n.a. v n 43, x i t i 8.
the Perfect
Scholar
173
1
comprehensive book ' O n animals' (i7ept ^ o W ) , but i t is hard to detect any w i t i n the idea o f scholar and elephant being avrepaaral. Aristophanes' compilation J7epi £ o W based on Aristotle, Theophrastus, and the paradoxographers is the only contribution he is known to have made to that particular Peripatetic and Alexandrine tradition o f natural history and paradoxography which we have distinguished from genuine science. But i f he is correctly listed i n one o f Aratus' biographies w i t h many other writers on Phaenomena* this work would belong to the same category; there is no reason to assume that i t was a poem. H e was neither a scientist nor a poet; he was the perfect scholar. 2
3
5
The scheme under which we classified the occasional scholarly efforts of prc-Hellenistic times can now be applied to the fully developed scholarship o f Aristophanes; we shall survey his immense output under the same four heads: texts, language, literary criticism, and andquities. Three men began the Siopdojots o f epic, lyric, and dramatic poetry at the beginning of the third century B . C . ; but i t was Aristophanes alone who towards its end made the fundamental recensions o f the texts i n all these fields. Zenodotus' pre-eminence as the first Stopdwrqs o f the epic poems was not seriously challenged i n his own day. Can we tell how far Aristophanes and his pupils made a fresh start? Zenodotus had been a pioneer; his successors were i n a different position, as they could always compare the new manuscripts coming into the library w i t h his revised text. Timon's sarcastic h i t at a 'revised' text o f Homer where the 7raAata ypadjr} had been altered shows a characteristic attitude of the Greek spirit; distrust o f a hypothetical 'genuine' text, and an inclination to save the 'old text' hallowed by tradition. Aristophanes apparently shared this attitude. Reluctant to delete lines or to put conjectures into the text, he and his 6
7
8
2
3
Aristoph. 'Hist. an. epitome', ed. S. P. Lambros, Suppl. Aristotelicum t i ( 1 8 8 5 ) ; cf. L. de Stefani, Studi it. dijil. class. 20 (1913) 189 ff. The authentically Aristophanic part of the late Byzantine excerpts contains no version of the elephant-tale; 11 119 p. 64 L . is taken from Aelian n.a. vn 43. The anecdote should certainly not have been treated as one of the Griechische Mdrchen von dankbaren Tieren by A. Marx (1889) 93 f.—It would hardly be an improvement to assume that the elephant-story had its origin in 'EXetpas as proper name (IG v 1, no. 6 9 9 ) , or surname (Polyb. xvni 24. 2 ) , or nickname of a human rival and was then transferred to the animal. See above, p. 152; his arrangement seems to have been a model for the many later writers on the same subject, see M. Wellmann, Herm. 51 (1916) 63 f. Comment, in Aral. rel. ed. E . Maass 79. 6, cf. E. Maass, Aratea (1892) 151. See above, p. 6 7 ; cf. also p. 134. Cf. above, pp. 118 and 123. See above, pp. 98 and 122. Zenodotus had omitted A 7 8 - 8 3 and M 1 7 5 - 8 1 , probably for internal reasons (see above, p. 114), but Aristophanes kept these passages in his text, obelizing them as not genuine. 1
2
3
4
s
7 8
6
174
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Critical
Height
pupils preferred to express their opinions by signs i n the m a r g i n ; Aristarchus resorted to separate commentaries or monographs.
Zenodotus
may have been by no means as bold and arbitrary i n his textual criticism as many believe, b u t Aristophanes and Aristarchus became more conservative still. I n Aristophanes' case i t is easier t o assess the technical improvements in his editions, of which we have special information, than to reconstruct his actual text, for which we have to rely on occasional remarks i n the late Scholia. These are sparse, because from the next generation onwards the Homeric work o f his p u p i l Aristarchus was regarded as the authority on Homer and the agreement or disagreement w i t h his master was not often expressly stated by himself or registered by Aristonicus and Didymus. Similarly we may recall that the success o f Apollodorus' XpoviKd made i t almost impossible to reconstruct the chronography o f Eratosthenes. Even when readings had been originally marked as Aristophanic, some o f the later compilers o f our Scholia left his name out, keeping only those of Zenodotus or Rhianus (Schol. T B 53, H 443, O 3 3 ) , although others preserved i t (Schol. A to these lines); vice versa, at E 10 Schol. T has the name, but Schol. A omits i t . T h e hypomnema to Book 21 o f the Iliad, preserved i n P.Oxy. 221 o f the second century A . D . agrees w i t h the medieval manuscripts o f our Scholia i n giving the readings i n lines 1 and 249 under the name o f Aristophanes; but i t also contains the words vrapa Apioroipdvei to the variant reading i n line 217 TreAaaa? for y iXduas which are no longer extant i n the manuscripts. So i n assessing the nature of Aristophanes' edition we must be conscious that our knowledge of i t depends on mere chance. 1
3
3
4
Some of his well-attested readings, rejected by Aristarchus, sound very sensible and plausible. I n Zeus' teasing speech to Hera at the beginning of Book 4 o f the Iliad Aristophanes wrote (A 17) el 8 ' avrojs root -nam (ptXov teal r)ov ytvono ' i f this [the second alternative, namely to make peace] would equally please a l l [the gods]'; the adverb a t ! ™ ? (explained by oLtoiois i n Schol. T ad loc.) is exactly what we should expect i n this 5
See below, p. 178. The number of Aristophanic readings in each of the 2 4 books of the Iliad is given by T. W. Allen, Horn. //. 1 ( 1 9 3 1 ) 2 0 2 ; it is about afifthof the Zenodotean and atenthofthe Aristarchean readings, ibid. 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 . See above, p. [64. 4 A list of all the readings, complete for its time, was compiled by A. Nauck; the text has to be checked against such new editions as are available, and the list supplemented from the P PY * . , . r s Aristarchus' aS ira>s (Schol. A) would express uncertainty, and ovro>j in a tew manuscripts is a frequent false reading for aSrw. Cf. Hes. Th. 402 avrojs rrdvrtaai, Theocr. xxn 78 ovTii>s . . . travras. 1
1
1
a
ri
Text
of Homer
175
context before rräoi and i t can even help to restore a corrupt and sorely tried line o f the Odyssey. 1
As the most striking example o f Aristophanes' 'acuteness' modern critics frequently emphasize his assumption that line 296 o f Book 23 was the i i m i t ' o f the Odyssey. T h e reunion o f Odysseus and Penelope, tp 296 01 fiev eirevra / darrdmot Xitcrpovo iraXatov OeapLov LKOVTO, is commented on in the Scholia: ApLOTos OV, *aA<Si Vind. 133) Schol. MV a 1 - 2 0 4 Aplarapxos dBertt rhv N4 av, with arguments and counter-arguments. Thus although he accepted Aristophanes' view of iu 296 as the 'limit' of the poem, he continued to obelize individual passages of the following part; it was therefore not 'athetized' as a whole. QT
KVi
176
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Hesiodic
Height
1
line w i t h one of his symbols? I f so, d i d Aristarchus correctly interpret i t as reXos or -nepas ? Does our Scholion preserve his interpretation ? Given all the hazards o f the tradition we can only hope that the answer w i l l be i n the affirmative; there is no chance o f proving i t . But w h y d i d Aristophanes raise the problem at all? I t has been suggested that Apollonius Rhodius, i n the last line of his Argonautica (rv 1781 oWacnöJs• a/cra? Hayao-ntSas d<jair€ßy]re) was already deliberately alluding to iji 296, i n order to demonstrate to his learned audience his belief that H o m e r had concluded the Odyssey at this point. But there is no resemblance at a l l between the two lines beyond the three syllables at the beginning. So obscure an allusion would have been intelligible only i f the notion that this line was the ' l i m i t ' of the Homeric poem was already familiar to the connoisseurs o f his generation, either from copies o f the Odyssey ending there or from the discussions o f Homeric scholars. T h e text o f the Argonautica by no means proves that Apollonius held this notion and that Aristophanes was influenced by him. I t is not impossible, though unlikely, that Aristophanes came across good copies o f the Odyssey ending at *fi 296, copies w h i c h so strongly impressed h i m that he marked this line as the irepas o f the poem i n his o w n edition. Could he have believed that a sentence starting w i t h ol p.kv eVe-tra brought a great epic poem to a satisfactory close? W e should suppose that i t was followed by at least one adversative sentence w i t h avrdp or 84, w h i c h had to be deleted when the longer version preserved i n all our manuscripts, avrap Trp\ep.axos KT\. was added. But whether Aristophanes had documentary evidence or not, his assumption o f the ' l i m i t ' at that place must have corresponded w i t h his own feelings. D i d he perhaps feel the difference between the poetical quality o f the preceding part and that o f the following 600 lines ? W i t h o u t doubt a change does take place here. The poetical power gripping the m i n d o f the listener throughout Books 3
3
4
5
S
He could have put a lectional sign like the Kopatvis after tf> 296 marking the end. For the coronis see the lists and drawings by W. Lameere, Les publications de Scriptorium rv ( i 9 6 0 ) 1 9 0 - 2 0 4 . On the symbols introduced by Aristophanes see below, p. 179. The codex Harleianus (H, saec. xm) added after IKOVTO a colon and a paragraphos (:—). It wasfirstput forward by L. Adam, Die aristotelische Theorie vom Epos nach ihrer Entwicklung bei Griechen und Römern (1889) 92, but hardly noticed, until Eduard Meyer, Herrn. 29 (1894) 478 f., championed it, see H . Herter, Bursian 285. 400, with bibliography; I agree with D. L . Page, The Homeric Odyssey (1955) 130, n. 1. 3 On Ap. Rh. as epic poet and Homeric scholar see above, pp. 146 if. * Ap. Rh. five times began a hexameter with aavaaUas and he may have had ip 296 in mind when he wrote 11 728 aartaaltas . . . opp,ov TKOVTO ; the Homeric model for rv 1781 might 1
1
have been if> 238 aorraaiot 5 ' etreßtw yat-ns.
* This might be a possible solution of the grammatical difficulties discussed by P. Friedlaender, Herrn. 6 4 (1929) 376. See also above, p. 116, on the traditional division into twentyfour books.
Criticism
21 to 23, i n which the contest of the bow, the killing of the suitors, and the reunion o f Odysseus and Penelope are told, suddenly crumbles away. I n a rapid sequence of short scenes, lacking vigour of language, every motif, every action is quickly, even impatiently, brought to a happy end. W e cannot know whether Aristophanes' m i n d was really struck by the i n feriority of the whole complex as unworthy o f the great poet of the R e t u r n and the Vengeance. But we can say that the hint given i n our Scholia under his name had enormous effect; i t has been unanimously welcomed by modern critics o f every denomination, unitarians and analysts alike. As Zenodotus had done i n the proem o f the Iliad, so i n the finale o f the Odyssey Aristophanes posed a crucial problem which has been a subject for continuous dispute up to the present day. 1
2
3
4
The scholar poets of the t h i r d century were remarkably fond of Hesiod, as we have observed, and their interest stimulated the activity o f the grammarians. As Aristophanes is said to have p u t a critical tjijpeim at Hes. Th. 6 8 , he must have followed Zenodotus i n editing Hesiod. W e saw how he raised a special problem o f authenticity i n the Homeric Odyssey; similarly i n Hesiod he continued the discussion o f the PseudoHesiodea, which had apparentiy been started by Apollonius Rhodius. Aristophanes denied the Hesiodic origin o f the Xlpojvos 'YiroOrjicai* and doubted that o f the Shield of Heracles, which Apollonius had maintained. The 'Shield of Achilles' i n the eighteenth book of our Iliad, which Zenodotus had athetized was the model for this later poem; according to the hypothesis o f the Scutum the first fifty-six fines o n Heracles' mother 6
5
7
9
They have used it, of course, in quite different ways. See above, pp. 111 ff. On Aristophanes Byz. and the Odyssey see also below, p. 191. If we carefully consider the style as well as the purpose of the whole finale, we are strongly reminded of the style and aim of the first book. The quality of the poetry is essentially the same: it lacks vigour of language and power of intuition, it displays an anxious accumulation of motifs, carried out more quietly in the first book for the exposition, but more quickly in the concluding book. This is not an addition to an already finished poem, a 'continuation' or 'epilogue', but the work of the poet who finally built up our Odyssey and by his intentional references from Book 24 to Book 1 constructed something like an arch over the whole vast composition for which he had used a number of older powerful epic poems. Even the most scrupulous re-examination by Page 1 0 1 - 3 6 (see above, p. 176, n. 2) has not convinced me that tf/ 297 ff. is 'a later appendix, loosely attached to a poem already substantially complete'; in his notes he refers to earlier literature. Page's view is shared by G. S. Kirk, The Songs of Homer (1962) 248 ff. As regards the relation of at to a I agree in general with P. Von der Muhll, 'Odyssee', /?£ Suppl. vn (1940) 764ff. On Homeric etScoAoTrou'a see Excursus. 1
1 J
4
Schol. Hes. Th. 68 irrea-qp-rivaTo; Schol. Hes. Th. 126 is hopelessly corrupt and we had better wait for a new edition. See above, p. 117. See above, p. 144. Quintil. 1 1 , 15 ( = Hes. test. 57 Jacoby) nam is primus (sc. Aristoph. Byz.) 'YrrodijKas . . . negavit esse huius poetae; cf. Schol. Pind. P. vi 22. » See above, p. 175, n. 6. s
6
7
8
814842
N
1 8
Alexandrian
7
Scholarship
at its
Height
Punctuation
Alcmene were identical w i t h a part o f the fourth book o f the KardXoyos (ywatKcvv) and 'therefore Aristophanes suspected' its non-Hesiodic provenance. This shows that he gave reasons for his suspicion; perhaps he did so i n his supplement to the Pinakes o f Callimachus. Yet, despite his doubts, the Scutum remained w i t h the Theogony and Erga i n every ancient text o f Hesiod, just as the end o f our Odyssey also survived his verdict. 1
2
3
4
We have no information about Aristophanes' views on orthography or methods o f marking variant readings i n the margin, but we have several times referred to the use o f critical signs as an integral part o f Aristophanes' extensive editorial work. Since the presence o f such signs i n a few very early p a p y r i is not proven, we may fairly see i n Zenodotus the originator o f the first critical symbol, the obelus, w h i c h meant more than the introduction o f a mere technical device. Aristophanes then seems to have improved the whole editorial technique by increasing the number o f critical ar}p.eta. By the acrreplo-Kos he marked the lines repeated from another place i n w h i c h they appeared to be more appropriate (Schol. y 71-73 = t 2 5 3 - 5 ) , o-iyfia and fonimyfux (>) two consecutive lines having the same contents and being therefore interchangeable (e 247 ff., w i t h Schol. cf. Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 1 5 3 ) . The choice and critical decision he left to the reader or future editor, following the example o f Zenodotus. 5
6
7
8
D
V
t
n
e
9
10
Lectional signs, one might say, are not i n the strict sense the business of the scholar, but of the scribe and corrector; punctuation and accentuation therefore are part o f the general history o f the script. But as we paid some attention to the early development o f the script, to books and to libraries, we may now say a few words about the growing importance o f P.Oxy. xxni (1956) 2355 ( = Hes. fr. P Merkelbach), in which Scut. 1-5 are preceded by the ends of six other hexameters, may belong to this part of the fourth book; see Lobel's introduction. Argum. Hes. Scut. 1 (— Hes. test. 52 Jac.) rrjs AorriBos r) apxr) & Tl rijs ayyu/aeVijs aKvraXns uvyypo.fi1
2
1
6
7
8
182
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Classification
Height 1
about the meaning o f a word i n the lyric text o f Alcaeus. Aristophanes, we see, had the benefit of several predecessors i n the lyric field; but i t was he, through his more extensive and much more penetrating labour, who dominated the future. I n modern times a l l non-epic a n d non-dramatic poetry is usually called lyric. But the ancient theorists and editors distinguished between elegiac and iambic poems on the one hand, and melic poems o n the other. The stichic or distichic poems i n dactylic or iambic rhythms, falling into well demarcated recurrent 'lines', were regarded as special kinds o f «rn, recited poetry like the hexametric epic poems a n d hymns, a n d their makers were termed iXeyeioiroiot and iapßonoLot. Although there were sometimes instrumental preludes and interludes, the delivery of elegy and iambus was declamatory or perhaps melodramatic, as opposed to singing w i t h obligatory instrumental accompaniment. Verse that was sung to music and very often also to dancing and was composed o f elements o f varying r h y t h m and length was called peXiKrj or XvptK-r) novq<jt$. I t may seem surprising, i n view o f the statement that the grammarians concentrated o n the text and allowed the music to perish, that this firm distinction was based on the relation o f text and music. T h e metrical form, however, remained and was the feature w h i c h chiefly distinguished the lyric text from all the rest. A lyric poem was a ¡J.4XOS i n early Greek literature, the poet a UCXOTTOIOS, a maker of songs, or UZXLKÓS ( S C . TroL-qrrjs), and the whole genre (xtXtfcr) 7701170-1?; and these remained the normal terms i n later disquisitions about poetical theory and the classification o f poetry. But i n references to editions o f texts and i n lists o f the 'makers' the authors are called XvptKol; J7ept XvptKcöv TTOI^TUJV was the title D i d y mus gave to the book he wrote under Augustus, based o n the research of the entire Hellenistic age. T h e foremost poets were always spoken o f as the e W a XvptKoi, and from the first century B . C . onwards their work began to be termed XvpiKj¡ Trewjots;, that is, 'poetry sung to the lyre' (as the lyre h a d once been the most important o f the accompanying instruments). L a t i n writers occasionally used 'melicus', as Cicero does when he borrows from Greek theoretical literature, b u t 'lyricus' became the usual L a t i n term i n Augustan times and later. Horace hopes t o be included among the 'Iyrici vates' (not the ' m e l i c i ' ) ; O v i d always says 'lyricus', 2
3
4
Dicaearch. fr. 9 9 Wehrli, Schule des Aristoteles 1 ( 1 9 4 4 ) . On Alcaeus fr. 3 5 9 L.-P. = fr. 103 D. see below, p. 185. Cf. Lysanias (Eratosthenes' teacher?) IJepl lafißairotcbv above, p. 153, n. 3 . Aristoph, Ran, 1250, Plat. Ion 5 3 3 E al., Heraclid. Pont. fr. 157, Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 7 ( 1 9 5 3 ) , [Aristot.] Probl. 920 a 11. H . Färber, Die Lyrik in der Kunsttheorie der Antike (1936) 7 ff. 'Der Name der Lyrik'; on the nine poets see below, pp. 205 f. 1
2 3
4
of Lyric
Poetry
183
and so do Quintilian, Pliny, and Seneca. Even i n the L a t i n theorists 'melicus' was displaced by 'lyricus', and the derivations from i t became more and more purely musical terms. The modern use of the term 'lyric', from which we started i n this paragraph, comes from L a t i n literature since Quintilian as well as O v i d and Horace were favourite reading i n the Italian Renaissance. O n the basis o f this survey I venture to suggest that Aristophanes' influence was decisive for the change o f terminology. Both Istros, the Callimachean, a n d the poet Euphorion, who were a few years senior to h i m , gave their books the title iTepi ^eAoTrotcùv ; after his editions no such title seems to occur. But indeed the whole classification o f lyric poems was determined by the needs o f the editor, not by any older tradition of poetical theory or artistic practice. T h e Indexes o f Callimachus were the only work o n which Aristophanes could have built ; they at least pointed the way to the arrangements o f poets and poems in several classes and subdivisions. There never was a general system; authors were given individual treatment according to the contents or the form o f their poems. 1
2
3
4
Pindar is the only great lyric poet o f whose works four complete books (the Epinida) were preserved and commented o n i n later ancient and medieval times. O f the lost poems a great number o f quotations and recently discovered papyrus fragments are now available to us, and many references i n the biographical tradition and i n the Scholia supplement our knowledge. One o f our most precious testimonies tells us that i n Aristophanes' arrangement Apimov p,h> v8a>p headed the Epinicia {irpoTeTaKTai VTTO Aptcrrorfidvovs rod avvrd^avros Ta. nwhapiKd) . T h e word ovvTaTTeiv confirms that he was not the first collector o f the Pindaric poems, but that he put them into proper order. Something similar may have been said i n the recently published Life of Pindar, i f we are justified i n supplying : SJoJpTjTCu Se O . I Ï T [ O ] 0 r [ à Troi'qp.ara VTT' ApLOTO(pdv]ovs et? p\/ïAia i£. The songs o f victory were divided into four books according t o the four places o f the national games, O l y m p i a , Delphi, Isthmus, and Nemea, a principle taken over from Callimachus, though not applied to Simonides and Bacchylides. T h e «VtVt/cot were the concluding group o f seventeen 5
6
7
334 F 56, a biographical anecdote about Phrynis. Euphor. fr. 58 Scheidweiler, about the mythical inventors of the ovptyÇ. See above, p. 130; on a modern mistake of a 'Platonic' classification see Excursus on p. 74. Names of choral songs occur in Plat. Leg. 700 G D (above p. 75, n. 1). Cf. J . Irigoin, Histoire du texte de Pindare (1952) 3 5 - 5 0 'L'édition d'Aristophane de Byzance'. » Pind. ed. B. Snell n' { 1 9 6 4 ) . Schol. Pind. 1 (1903) 01. ed. Drachmann p. 7. ? Above, p. 130. 1
a 3
4
6
FGrHist
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Pindar,
Height
books: yêypadje Bè fkfft\îa eVrctKcuSefca' vp.vovs> iratâvas, BtOvpdfifian' irpoooatwv jS', -napQevLttiv p ', éperat Se mal y' o e-TTtypdir
T
Musici
0
Scriptores Graeci ed.
G. von
Ian
(1895) 308 f. and
passim.
A.
Bôckh made the perfectly correct statement: 'Apollonius . . . carmina secundum genera harmoniae, Dorium, Phrygium etc. . . . distinxit et consociavit.' Pindari Opera 11 1 (1819) xxxi. We shall not ask how the clSoypdtpos was able to make this distinction, if musical notation was already lost, see above, p. 181.
Alcaeus,
Anacreon
185
not even k n o w how many of the lyric poets Aristophanes edited. Pindar was certainly one o f t h e m ; to the single quotation i n the Scholia to the Epinicia can now be added three of his variant readings i n the marginal notes of the great papyrus of the Paeans {P.Oxy. 841) 1175 («V Se, not h> Se), 1
8 9 (00-0-a, not 00-a), and v i 181 (unintelligible). T o Alcman's great
vi
Parthenion the Louvre papyrus notes on the margin opposite col. 1, 32 (= PMG p. 6 Page) Aristophanes' reading AiSas (not AiSas); i t is likely that at col. i l l , 27 ( = PMG p. 6) Api[ to the reading vai (instead o f vai) means Aristophanes, not Aristarchus, since i t is proposed like the other Aristophanic variants, for prosodic reasons. T h e quotation o f the lines 64 ff. o f the Parthenion for the meaning o f dpivvao-Bat may belong to his Ae£eis; P.Oxy. 2390, fr. 50. 7, begins w i t h the name Apurroipa.v[ but i t is uncertain whether this fragment belongs to a commentary on Alcman, as the other forty-nine fragments apparendy do. W e know by chance that Aristophanes defended a traditional reading i n Anacreon against Zenodotus' conjecture; but Aelian's phrase avriXeyet Kara Kpdros, points rather to an article on Kepoets-ipoets i n the /le^ety, or even to a passage on the 'horned doe' i n i7ept ^OJOJV, than to an edition of Anacreon's text. O n the other hand, i n Hephaestio's metrical handbook the strophe o f Anacreon's first poem is said to be divided into eight cola Kara TT)I> VVV CKSOO-IV, that is, according to the edition o f Aristarchus; b u t i t could be divided i n another way, eis re rpidSa Kal irevrdSa. T h . Bergk convincingly argued that the phrase 'present edition' implies the existence of an earlier edition w i t h differing «-aiAa, which could only be that o f Aristophanes; and i n fact i n the chapter on the metrical or}p.eta Hephaestio contrasted 2
t
3
4
5
6
Apiaro<j>dv€iov eKSoaiv of Alcaeus w i t h TT)V VVV ri)v Apiordpxeiov. So i t is very likely that there was an Aristophanic edition of Anacreon and certain that there was one of Alcaeus; there is a reference to a reading i n the latter (x&vs instead o f XeTras) i n his treatise on the axyvp>evy] CTKUTOATJ. Aristophanes' lyric texts were distinguished from a l l the previous ones by a prominent new feature; they were not written i n continuous lines like prose, but divided into shorter metrical /c p. 57, and on colometry in general p. 31+. Bockh did not break up his periods into cola in his big Quarto edition of 1811, but the following editors (except A. Turyn 1948) tried to do so; they are naturally often at variance with each other and with the Byzantine manuscripts of the Epinicia. On the colometry of the papyri and the unavoidable adjustments sec Snell, Pind. n pp. 17, 26, 73, 88. On Pindar's periodic t^hnique and on the difficulties in respect of the choral passages of the drama see P. Maas, Greek Metre (196a) § 66. 1
+
3
3
4
t e x t
Criticism
and Colometry
in Old Attic
Comedy
189
units o f varying length and movement. T h e question is how far his colometry is preserved i n our manuscripts. I f we look first at A t t i c Comedy, we find that i n the foremost codex o f the Aristophanic comedies, the Venetus, the Clouds is followed by the subscription: /ce/auAiorat eVc TOJV 'HXiooojpov. Heliodorus, a metrist i n the middle o f the first century A . D . , maintained the principles o f the Alexandrian tradition as his younger contemporary Hephaestio d i d ; but he h a d various dvrlypacpa o f the comedies at his disposal, applied a developed system of colometrical signs and accompanied his SteSoms o f the text w i t h a running metrical commentary. As a result, i t is almost impossible t o reconstruct the details o f Aristophanes' colometry i n the text o f the scenic poets as we could w i t h that o f Pindar; and this must be taken as characteristic o f the situation i n general. There was a continuous and lively scholarly activity i n the field of drama throughout the later centuries which has obscured its beginnings i n Alexandria. 1
2
3
W e have described how the previous generations o f scholars tried t o cope w i t h the difficulties o f language and subject i n A t t i c comedy. Aristophanes o f Byzantium was doubtless influenced b y the w o r k o f his teachers Euphronius and Eratosthenes o n old comedy, a n d i t is specifically attested that he was an eager p u p i l of the comic writer M a c h o n , from w h o m he learned 'the parts of comedy' i n his youth. T h e Scholia to Aristophanes' comedies, like those to Homer and Pindar, preserve a few references to Aristophanes o f B y z a n t i u m ; they are just sufficient t o reveal the m a i n lines of his textual criticism. H e emended (fxeraypdifias) a corrupt proper name i n Thesm. 162 (AXKOIOS for A^OMS) ; he marked consecutive interchangeable lines by the same 0-np.efa as i n his edition o f the Odyssey (Ran. 152 ff.) ; he felt that after Av. 1342 something is missing 4
5
6
7
8
P. Boudreaux, Le cf. 138 ff. on Heliodorus, pp. 2 5 - 4 7 on Aristophanes of Byzantium and esp. on his colometry 35 ff. For a balanced review of this rare book (written in 1914) see P. GeiBler, Gnom. 2 (1926) 213 ft 1
Cf. the subscription after the
Texte d'Aristophane
1
Peace:
K£Ka>Xio~rai wpos r a 'HXioBcapov.
et ses commentateurs (1919) 1 7 9 ;
F . Leo, Herm. 2 4 (1889) 2 8 4 .
O. Hense, REwiu (1913) 31 f.; the StirX-ij was introduced to mark antistrophic responsion and lyric lines were separated from the dialogue by eZaOeats 'indenting'; the aarepio-Kos was no longer used. 3
4
Cf. above, pp. ugf., 159-162.
s
See Athen. xrv
664 A O ypau-partKos
V I 241 F S i S i W a A o s yevofitvos
Apioroipdtrns
rajv K a r a Kotuipotav
Machon, 'The Fragments' ed. by A. S.
F.
Gow,
eoirovSaa-c avo"xp\acraL
p.tpS>v Apiaroepa>v to the many published proposals I happen to know, although we should expect an article. Of. below, p. 193. 3 H . Erbse, 'Uberlieferungsgeschichte der klassischen und hellenistischen Literatur' in Geschickte der Textüberlieferung 1 (1961) 223, drew from the publication of the Dyscolus the same conclusion, but no one else, as far as I can see. See Addenda. * See above, pp. 105 f.; cf. p. 160. See above, p. 8 2 . Nauck, pp. 62 f.; cf. Schol. Eur. ed. E . Schwartz 11 p. 380 Index: Aristophanes grammaticus. Schwartz's text has always to be consulted. 1
a
s
6
7
P.Oxy.
rx {1912) 1174, col. in 20, vi 5. 8, rx 6 ( ? ) ; see also Hunt p. 31.
8
P.Oxy.
xv (1922)
1805,
see Turner's note p. 3. * See above, p. 185. 1 1
Einleitung
Soph.
Tra. 7 4 4 ; P.Oxy.
xxvn
in die Tragödie pp. 145 f.; cf. 133. 19.
(1962) 2 4 5 2 10
fr.
2. 16,
Soph.
Theseus,
See above, p. 190.
to the Text
of the
Dramatists
193
T h e word imodeois has various meanings; i t may have been used i n Peripatetic circles for the plots o f plays: A tKaidpxov nvas vrrodecreis rtuv Evpmloov KOX HocpoKXeovs p-vdcov. The summaries prefixed to the plays i n our manuscripts also refer several times to this p u p i l of Aristotle; he seems to have dealt w i t h the contents of tragedies and comedies and w i t h questions o f scenic poetry i n writings on festivals w i t h poetical competitions, of which one was entitled TTept Atovvo-iaKujv dyojvojv. Aristophanes made use o f this Peripatetic source o f about 300 B.C., as the fragments prove. O n the other hand, his a i m was not to produce learned collections i n the ' r i c h ' style o f Dicaearchus ( T e r i p a t e t i c i magni et copiosi'), b u t to write simple and correct introductions to the text o f individual plays; and the obvious basis o f these was, as is attested, Gallimachus' chronological Pinax of the dramatic poets. The making of the hypotheses is thus typical of the interrelation between the Peripatetic tradition and Alexandrian scholarship. As Aristotle's and his pupil's didascalic works and Gallimachus' Pinakes are lost, i t is only through Aristophanes' hypotheses that a great deal o f priceless information has reached us. 1
2
3
I f we exclude for the present the late Byzantine elaborations, there are two groups o f introductions, both labelled viroddaeis, extant i n p a p y r i and medieval manuscripts. O f the one group only a few are explicitly attributed to Aristophanes; b u t there is a large number o f anonymous hypotheses built o n the same formal plan. They treated the subjectmatter of the play (a u7ro/ceiTat T O } opdp,ari) very briefly, touching on the treatment o f the same theme by other dramatists; then they mentioned the scene, and the identity o f the chorus and of the prologist; finally they gave the date of the first performance, the titles of the other plays produced simultaneously b y the author, the names o f the competitors w i t h the 4
Sext. Emp. Adv. Math, m 3 = Dicaearch. fr. 78 Wehrli. * F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 1 (1944) Dikaiarchos, fr. 7 3 - 8 9 , esp. fr. 7 9 - 8 4 , title fr. 7 5 ; cf. fr. 63 from the Bios 'EWahos. On his style Gic. de off. 11 5. 16 =fr.24 W. See above, pp. 132 and 133; Et. gen. B v. -nival; . . . irivaKas . . . ols ivrvx&v o ypap.iJ.aTi.Kos erroi-qaaro ras v-nodeoeis ru>v hpap.dra>v, see my notes on Gall. fr. 4 5 6 . As regards Aristophanes' urroOeaecs Nauck's otherwise sound scepticism was exaggerated (pp. 2 5 2 - 6 3 ) : he reluctantly admitted the authority of three of them as possible: Aesch. Eum., Soph. Ant., Eur. Med., but refused to acknowledge Eur. Or., Phoen., Bacch. and [Eur.] Rhes. (pp. 256 ff.). The way for their understanding was prepared by F. G. Schneidewin, 'De hypothesibus tragoediarum Graecarum Aristophani Byzantio vindicandis', Abhandlungen der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Hist.-phil. KJ. V I (1856) 3 - 3 8 . T h . O. H . Achelis, 'De Aristophanis Byz. argumentis fabularum', Philol. 72 (1913) 4 1 4 ff. and 5 1 8 ff. and 73 ( 1 9 1 4 - 1 6 ) 122 ff., provided a very useful collection and discussion of all the material known at that time ; G. Zuntz, The Political Plays of Euripides (1955) 1 2 9 - 5 2 'on the tragic Hypotheseis', with bibliography p. 130. 3 made the best critical inquiry into the main types of the tragic, esp. Euripidean, hypotheses. Compare also the commentators of the Oxford Euripides, esp. of Med., Ale, Hipp. Too little attention had been paid to the Aeschylean hypotheses, see below, p. 194. On the hypotheses to comedies see below, p. 196. 1
3
4
814342
O
i94
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
result o f the competition, occasionally the number the play had i n the chronological register o f the author's works, and a critical judgement. I f a virdQtoLs contains some o f these items i n a simple, condensed style its Aristophanic origin is at least highly probable; he meant them to be a necessary help for the scholarly reader. M o d e r n research has naturally concentrated o n the r i c h material preserved i n our tradition o f Euripides ; as far as we can reconstruct Aristophanes' edition, we cannot recognize any difference between his prefaces to the plays w h i c h now have no scholia, the so-called nine 'alphabetic' plays, and those to the ten 'selected' plays w i t h ample commentaries. 1
Recently discovered hypotheses have provided important new evidence for Aeschylus. The sequence o f the plays i n his Theban tetralogy, previously much debated, was established when the didascalian part o f the hypothesis to the Septem, missing i n the minor manuscripts, was published from the codex Mediceus; its complete and exact wording has been confirmed as ancient by a papyrus o f the second century A . D . Another fragment o f the same papyrus surprisingly revealed that Sophocles was Aeschylus' competitor when he performed the Danaides tetralogy, and so made the conclusion inevitable that the Supplices were performed after 468 B.c., not i n the early fifth century B.c. ; no hypothesis is preserved i n the codex unicus Mediceus. A hypothesis which, w i t h good reason, is believed to be that o f Aeschylus' Sicilian festival play AlrvaZai (or Alrvat)* brought unexpected news not about the date, b u t about the place represented i n the play. This play, whatever its title, to w h i c h the preface belongs, was divided into five fiép-q, 'acts', and for each o f them a change o f scene was mentioned; the fifth scene seems to have been the same quarter o f Syracuse i n which the theatre was situated and the plays were performed, namely the Temenites. I n these examples we catch a glimpse o f the many data once supplied to the reader by Aristophanes, but often lost i n the slow process o f epitomizing through the centuries. 2
3
T h e arguments o f the second group are o f a quite different type, b u t Wilamowitz, Einleitung 139 (cf. 145), called Aristophanes 'Gesamtausgaben der Klas¬ siker . . . in erster Linie ein buchhandleriscbes Unternehmen'; he repeated this assertion in later books and succeeded in persuading others (see E . Schwartz, Ethik der Griechen, 1951, p. 136). But I have never found any proof for this enterprise of an Alexandrian book-trading. P.Oxy, X X (1952) 2256, fr. 2 = Fragmente des Aischylos, hg. von H. J . Mette (1959) fr. 169. P.Oxy. 2 2 5 6 , fr. 3 = fr. 122 Mette; it is to be regretted that G. Murray in his muchimproved second edition of Aeschylus (OCT" 1955) desperately tried to stick to the early date, p. vi and p. 2. See now H . Lloyd-Jones, L'Antiquité Classique 33 (1964) 356 ff. + P.Oxy. X X (1952) 2 2 5 7 , fr. 1, with E . Lobel's commentary = fr. 2 6 Mette. I cannot ihink of any better supplement in 1. 13 than [hi r Edw\ which implied his 'foolish' character ; the fragmentary very learned commentary on this poem i n a papyrus o f the second century B . C . contains the name o f Aristophanes besides those o f his older contemporary Hermippus and o f his younger one Polemo. T h o u g h i t is still impossible t o say t o what line o r word that fragment o f the commentary belongs, there can be little doubt the reference is made to Aristophanes the grammarian, not the comic poet. A t the very least the text confirms his view that the word adwas was k n o w n 1
2
3
4
5
to the TraAatot.
I n the same first section o f the Aegeis we find the strange verbal forms €(f}€vyoorav teal iXdyoaav dvrl rov €<j>evyov /cat eXeyov. Eustathius has preserved a longer excerpt w i t h references: 7rapa8l8ojm Se (Aptaro^dv^s) KOI art T O •'eaxdl,oaav" rrapd AvKOpov>. (21) /ecu Trap' aAAotjro 4X4yoaav" /eat T O "ot Se vXr/alov yevop-evatv (l)vrjs XaXKi8ea>v tSta etVtv. T h e main point seems to be that there was no literary authority amongst the 7raAatot for the ending i n -oaav, as Aristophanes correctly observed; b u t he found i t i n one o f the new poets and perhaps conjectured that this poet, 6
c
95*5) 2 1 4ff.,36 (1957) 4 8ff-with bibliography p. 4 8 . 1, 2, to which has to be added A. Dihle, 'Analogie und Attizismus', Herrn. 8 5 (1957) 170 ff.; a postscript^pp. 203 ff. modifies Fehling's overstatements about Varro's incompetence, confusions, and inventions. Entretiens sur VantiquiUclassique rx (1962) Varron',see F. Collart, 'Analogie et anomalie',pp. 117^-40. 1
p.rjXa
s
e
e
a
l
s
o
1
1
s
2
6
2
t
ff
Grammatical
Inquiries
203
monograph i l e p l avoAoyia?, and i t is unbelievable that he intended to refute Chrysippus' three or four books 77epi T T ) ? Kara. d ? Aefet? dvcvpaAta?. Chrysippus of Soloi, who had declined a call to Alexandria and died as an Athenian citizen and head o f the Stoic school between 208 and 204 B . C , developed as part of his formal logic the theory that words are not i n harmony w i t h things they express and called i t dvwfiaXia; i t is illogical i f a plural signifies a singular subject (as the plural Ofjftai for one city), a masculine form a feminine idea, and so on. H e was thus renewing under a new aspect an o l d philosophical dispute upon the relation o f words to things well known to us from Plato's and Aristotle's writings. Aristophanes, on the other hand, never entered the arena where the philosophers were fighting; he confined himself i n this case, as i n others, to a scholarly problem o f grammar. T h e term 'grammar', so far consciously avoided, can now indeed be used; we can see that as part o f scholarship i n general a separate discipline was being built up which reached its height i n the second generation after Aristophanes, i n the rexvn ypafifiartK-q o f Dionysius T h r a x , the p u p i l o f Aristarchus. W e are i n the dark about the way the rules of inflexion were shaped i n the meantime. T h e concept o f analogy was apparently extended by Aristarchus to the interpretation o f texts. T h e n i n the fields o f grammar and exegesis a dispute must have arisen between analogists and anomalists, which is known to us from L a t i n sources o n l y ; Aristophanes had nothing to do w i t h i t . I f we take a broad view of his lexical and of his formal linguistic studies, i t becomes clear that they were auxiliary to his editorial work. 1
T
2
3
4
5
6
Aristophanes' editions were confined to a certain number o f poets and even the references i n the Lexers rarely go beyond a limited group of poets and prose writers. This cannot have happened by chance. A sort of sifting o f the whole literature, as stored i n the library and registered i n It is hardly derived from the mathematical and philosophical term avaXoyta { = proportion) used by Eratosthenes, the Pfatonist, in his Plalonictis, see above, p. 137. SVF 11 p. 6. 1 0 ; cf. ibid. Chrysipp. fr. 151, p. 4 5 . 2 3 and 2 6 ; cf. Barwick, Stoischc 1
1
Sprachlehre 53 ff.
See above, pp. 59 ff. (Plato), 75 ff. (Aristotle). * Sext. Emp. adv. math. 1 4 4 ed. Mau, vol. 111, p. 12. Myrlea) ypapuartKri rolvvv Xeyerai . . . 1; hrrtXhi teal 3
Apiaroipavvv
TC Kal Aplarapxov
17 ff. (perhaps from Asclepiades of rots irepi Kparnra TOV MaXXdirtjv
cKrrovrjBftaa.
To Aristophanes' five rules Aristarchus added a sixth negative one (above, p. 202, n. 5 ) . L . Lersch, Die Sprachphilosophie der Allen, dargestellt an dem Streite uber Analogie und Anomalie derSprache (Bonn 1 8 3 8 ) , actually based the whole history of ancient philosophy of language on this dispute opened by Aristophanes. It is still worth while to read Nauck's ironical devastating criticism (p. 270) written more than a century before Fehling Glotta 3 5 (1956) and 36 (>957) who now rejects the possibility of reconstructing the quarrel from the Latin sources, particularly from Varro. His paper is a typical example of the reaction against the excesses of source-research, but not wholly successful. s
6
ao4
Selective Lists of Authors
Alexandrian Scholarship at its Height
Gallimachus'
Pinakes, m u s t h a v e t a k e n p l a c e . I n t h i s process A r i s t o p h a n e s
205
places w h i c h A r i s t o t i e a n d his school, f o l l o w e d b y Z e n o d o t u s a n d his
p l a y e d a decisive p a r t , i f Q u i n t i l i a n ( x i . 54) was r i g h t i n s a y i n g : A p o l ¬
pupils,
lonius i n o r d i n e m a grammadcis d a t u m n o n venit, quia Aristarchus
Halicarnassus a n d Q u i n t i l i a n ( x i . 53 f f . ) a n d o f l a t e r lists seems to h a v e
atque Aristophanes, p o e t a r u m iudices, n e m i n e m sui temporis i n n u m e r u m
g i v e n f o u r o r five n a m e s o f p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c epic p o e t s .
1
r e d e g e r u n t . ' A b o u t a c e n t u r y e a r l i e r C i c e r o h a d w r i t t e n i n t h e same sense
1
h a d assigned t o t h e m ; b u t t h e c o m m o n source o f D i o n y s i u s o f
T h e n u m b e r o f t h e n i n e l y r i c poets was
firmly
2
established. A s t h e
t o A t t i c u s ( x v i 11. 2 ) : ' c u i u t A r i s t o p h a n i A r c h i l o c h i i a m b u s sic epistola
i a m b i c poets w e r e l e d b y A r c h i l o c h u s , a n d t h e epic b y H o m e r , so o f t h e
l o n g i s s i m a q u a e q u e o p t i m a v i d e t u r . ' These L a t i n t e x t s ,
l y r i c poets P i n d a r was a l w a y s t h e
2
3
o f w h i c h the
first,
'novem l y r i c o r u m longe . . .
G r e e k sources are u n k n o w n , c l e a r l y state t h a t some a u t h o r s w e r e r e c e i v e d
p r i n c e p s ' , as w e find i n t h e a n o n y m o u s H e l l e n i s t i c e p i g r a m ,
i n a n d others e x c l u d e d f r o m a n ordo established b y l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m
c o m p o s e d a b o u t a c e n t u r y after A r i s t o p h a n e s , w h i c h is o u r earliest testi-
indicium). T h e t e n d e n c y t o select t h e best w r i t e r s f o r v a r i o u s
m o n y f o r t h e N i n e : P i n d a r , Bacchylides, S a p p h o , A n a c r e o n , Stesichorus,
(if/ttms,
reasons is a v e r y o l d o n e ;
perhaps
pre-eminence
S i m o n i d e s , I b y c u s , Alcaeus, a n d A l c m a n . T h i s r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e n u m b e r ,
Frogs, m u s t
c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e s m a l l c i r c l e o f t h e epic, i a m b i c , a n d scenic poets, is
have been settled b y t h e m i d d l e o r second h a l f o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y
p u z z l i n g . I t m a y l e a d , a n d has i n d e e d l e d , t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e
4
t h e passionate debate a b o u t
3
a m o n g the A t d c tragedians, still going o n i n Aristophanes' B.C. w h e n H e r a c l i d e s P o n t i c u s w r o t e
LJepl
rpiwv TpaywBoTroiatv.
The
N i n e w e r e a l l t h e l y r i c poets whose w o r k s h a d s u r v i v e d f r o m t h e p r e -
same n u m b e r is i m p l i e d b y A r i s t o p h a n e s i n t h e H y p o t h e s i s t o E u r i p i d e s '
H e l l e n i s t i c era a n d w e r e s t o r e d i n t h e A l e x a n d r i a n l i b r a r y . E v e n i f t h a t
TOJV
6
Medea, Trap* ovStrepcp Ketrai r) pvdoiroda, w h i c h c a n o n l y m e a n ' n e i t h e r i n
w e r e c o r r e c t i n this one case, i t w o u l d be r a s h t o e x t e n d i t t o a l l t h e o t h e r
Aeschylus n o r i n Sophocles', a n d i t r e m a i n e d a u t h o r i t a t i v e f o r t h e l a t e r
g r o u p s o f poets w e h a v e j u s t s u r v e y e d , a n d t o d e n y
ages. I t is i n t h e hypotheses t o tragedies a n d comedies t h a t w e s t i l l
selective lists alongside t h e c o m p l e t e
precious traces o f his i n d i v i d u a l j u d g e m e n t s o n poems a n d p o e t s .
find
6
4
t h e existence
of
Pinakes. A r i s t o p h a n e s ' m o s t effective
w o r k was, as w e h a v e seen, t h a t o n t h e l y r i c poets. T h o u g h his n a m e is
T h r e e iambographers were received i n t o the ranks b y Aristarchus, a n d
n o t expressly m e n t i o n e d i n t h e p o o r evidence, w e m a y c o n j e c t u r e t h a t
A r c h i l o c h u s was a c k n o w l e d g e d as t h e best b o t h b y h i m a n d b y A r i s t o -
his e d i t i o n c o m p r i s e d t h e n i n e poets a n d t h a t t h e r e f o r e this n u m b e r
phanes.
b e c a m e a u t h o r i t a t i v e i n t h e same w a y as his t e r m i n o l o g y , classification,
7
T h e r e is n o f u r t h e r evidence
for t h e j u d g e m e n t o f t h e t w o
A l e x a n d r i a n g r a m m a r i a n s . As the foremost ('praecipui',
atjioXoyoi) o f the
a n d c o l o m e t r y . T h e o r d e r m i g h t d i f f e r , b u t t h e a c t u a l names w e r e t h e 5
m a n y e a r l y c o m i c poets Q u i n t i l i a n ( x 1 . 66) enumerates t h e t h r e e whose
same i n a l l the H e l l e n i s t i c e p i g r a m s
n a m e s H o r a c e h a d used t o b u i l d u p t h e h a r m o n i o u s first l i n e o f his
Byzantine times. M o r e o v e r , a fair n u m b e r o f names a n d small fragments
a n d prose lists u n t i l t h e latest
f o u r t h satire, ' E u p o l i s a t q u e C r a t i n u s A r i s t o p h a n e s q u e poetae / a t q u e a l i i
o f o t h e r e a r l y l y r i c poets is k n o w n t o u s . W r i t e r s a b o u t h i s t o r y a n d t h e o r y
q u o r u m comoedia prisca v i r o r u m s t ' . T h i s famous t r i a d reappeared q u i t e
o f m u s i c i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y B.C., such as A r i s t o x e n u s a n d H e r a c l i d e s
6
accepted;
P o n t i c u s , q u o t e t h e m v e r y freely, b u t t h e y o c c u r also i n t h e m e t r i s t s a n d
Eratosthenes a n d A r i s t o p h a n e s r e g a r d e d Pherecrates, f o r i n s t a n c e , as its
encyclopedists. T h e r e w a s even a n a d d i t i o n m a d e t o t h e N i n e — w e c a n n o t
often i n l i t e r a t u r e o n O l d C o m e d y , b u t was n o t exclusively e q u a l . I n t h e field o f epic p o e t r y H o m e r as t h e a u t h o r 8
a n d H e s i o d as t h e a u t h o r o f
of Iliad a n d Odyssey
Theogony a n d Erga always o c c u p i e d t h e first
t e l l a t w h a t t i m e — a B o e o t i a n poetess, ScKdVn Koplwa; o f h e r p o e m s , 1 1
Cf. QuintU. 1 4. 3 'quo (sc. iudicio) . . . ita severe sunt usi veteres gramrnatici ut . . . auctores in ordinem redegerint, alios omnino exemerint numero.* Quintilian x 1. 59 'ex tribus receptis Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus iamborum ad e£w maxime pertinebit unus Archilochus.' Nauck pp. 6 7 and 2 4 9 ; L. Radermacher, 'Kanon', REx (1919) 1873 ff. on Quintil. and Dionys. Hal. and their common source. • See above, pp. 4 3 ff. (cf. p. 14, n. 4 ) , 73 ff, 135 f.; on icplois p. 117. * Fr. 179 Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles 7 (1953) with commentary p. 123. A. Trendelenburg, Grammaiicorum Graecorum de arte tragica iudieiorum reliquiae (Bonn 1867) 23 ff. Cf. above, pp. 144 ff. See CGFi pp. 3. 3, 58. 165, 81 ad test. 10 Kaibel; on Eratosthenes see above, p. 161. 1
1
3
6
1 1
J
See above, p. 117. Regenbogen, 'Pinax', RE xx 1455 ff. A.P. ix 184. The evidence is assembled by H. Färber,
Antike (1936) 11 22 ff.; cf.
Die Lyrik
in der Kunsttheorie der
r 2 5 f.
Wilamowitz, 'Die Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyriker', AGGW, N . F . rv 3 (1900) 6 3 ¬ 71 Der Alexandrinische Kanon; unstinted approval was expressed by D. L . Page, 'Corinna'. The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper No. 6 (1953) 6 8 ff. Well-founded objections were raised by Radermacher RE x 1873 if., Regenbogen RE xx 1455 ff- and especially by J . Stroux, who was wrong only in so far as he brought in Plato's concept oi öpBoTTjs (see above, p. 75, n. 1 ) ; see also Färber, loc. cit. and W. Döring, 'Zur pädagogischen Problematik des Begriffes des Klassischen', Göttinger Studien zur Pädagogik 24 (1934) 2 0 ff-, who gives a sensible survey of the problem with bibliography although from his own pedagogical point of view. Sec above, pp. 182 ff. PMG p. 3 6 0 : 'Poetae melici minores'. 4
1
6
206
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Height
Ruhnken s J
novel i n language and style, some fragments have turned up o n papyri. I t is very hard to believe that the works o f a l l these people were lost temporarily or for ever by the t h i r d and second centuries B . C . when the critical editions were made a n d the lists arranged. I t is much more natural to suppose that by the severe judgement o f the great grammarians they were regarded as minor poets—which they actually were—and not admitted t o the higher ranks. I f therefore the existence o f selective lists cannot be denied i n the case o f the lyric poets, i t is still less deniable for the other groups. This assumption is i n full agreement w i t h an unprejudiced interpretation o f the passages from Q u i n t i l i a n Books i a n d 10 quoted above, i n which he called the great grammarians 'poetarum iudices'. I f we consider the origin and development o f scholarship i n Alexandria and Aristophanes' personal activity i n particular, i t is not surprising that i n this field also the poets were the first t o be treated. But lists o f the foremost orators, historians, and philosophers followed i n the course o f time ; though only the list o f the orators could rival that o f the poets i n significance, a n d besides Alexandria other places like Pergamum, Rhodes, Athens, a n d Rome began to play their parts. 1
The Greek expression for selecting authors and registering their names i n the selective list was iyxplveiv ; they were then called iyxptOevres. A t least, we have direct evidence o f this only for the orators, but it must also have been applied to the poets. For when Horace concluded the first ode o f the first book w i t h the flourish, 'quodsi me lyricis vatibus i n s è r e s . . . ' , he was surely alluding to this term and cherishing the hope that Maecenas would iyxpivt-iv h i m to the group o f the 'novem lyrici'. Q u i n tilian's term, 'ordo', transferred from the terms o f social ranks into the literary sphere, was not favoured by later authors. But i n Cicero we find a distinction of'classes', as when he assigned some Stoic philosophers, i n 2
3
Every section has its special problems of chronology and locality. In the late Byzantine lists the confusion of indexes and selective lists makes reconstruction almost impossible; H . Usener could not succeed in his bold and acute attempt: Dion. Hal. De imitatione (1889) 110 ff. Most of the evidence is assembled by O. Kroehnert, Canonesne poetarum, scriptorum, artifiaim per antiquitatem fuerunt? Diss. Königsberg r8g7.—-J. Cousin, Études sur Quintüien 1 ( 9 3 ° ) 546 ff. esp. 5 6 5 - 7 2 , discusses Quintilian's sources and the origin and codification of the lists at great length ; he stresses the activity of Pergamum in the second century B . C . as far as the orators are concerned. But see A. E . Douglas, Mnemosyne rv 9 (1956) 30 ff. and below, p. 208, n. 2 ; cf. also below, p. 242. 1
1
Aeivapxps . . . pr/Tatp rdv p,€rà Arjp.oa6évovs iyKpiQivrwv eis; ibid. v. Tlvdias . . . OVK (iv^iKpißt) (recte suppl. Toup) fieri Ts Bpaaiis Kai èieowaouévos ; Phot. bibl. 20 b 25 Aloxivyjv . . . Kai (PyJwiyos . . . tts TOVS àpiarovs iyKplvet,, Kavàva p-erd ye TOVS npojTovs ÄrrtKov Xayou TOVS eVetVou diro(f>aLv6p,ci>os Xâyouî.—Diodor. I X fr. 6 tKKptvetv = 1
Suid. v.
'numéro eximere'. Cic. Acad. 11 73 'qui mihi cum illo collati quintae classis videntur'. 3
'cañones
9
comparison w i t h Democritus, to the fifth class; and i t became the Roman way to call the iyKptdévrts 'classíci', which means writers o f the first class, 'primae classis' i n the political and military language. W e shall, later on, hear more about this term, familiar to us through its adoption b y the scholars o f the Renaissance. T h e complete repertories were called irivaKes (indexes); b u t there was no corresponding Greek or L a t i n w o r d for the selective lists. I n the year A . D . 1768 the term 'canon' was coined for them by D a v i d Ruhnken, when he w r o t e : 'Ex magna o r a t o i u m copia tamquam i n canonem decern dumtaxat rettulerunt' (sc. Aristarchus et Aristophanes Byzantius). Then Ruhnken dropped the cautious 'tamquam' and went on calling all the selective lists ' c a ñ o n e s ' . His coinage met w i t h worldwide and lasting success, as the term was found to be so convenient; one has the impression that most people who use i t believe that this usage is o f Greek origin. But Kdvüjv was never used i n this sense, nor would this have been possible. From its frequent use i n ethics KOVOJV always retained the meaning of rule or model. Aristophanes' grammatical observations about analogy i n declension could be called Kavóves, rules, or a certain author and his style could be described as naviúv, a model or exemplar. So i t was not by the ancient, b u t i t could have been b y the Biblical, tradition that the catachrestic use of canon was suggested to Ruhnken. T h o u g h the Biblical canon does not mean a list o f writers, i t does mean a list o f books o f the Bible accepted b y the Christian church as genuine and inspired ; and this usage was and is current i n a l l the modern languages. The w o r d 'canon' has been intentionally avoided i n this chapter on Aristophanes; nevertheless, everyone is at liberty t o speak o f the Alexandrian canon o f the nine lyric poets or the ten orators, since die expression is sanctioned by its age and convenience, and w i l l , I a m afraid, never disappear. But i f one calls such lists 'canons', one should be aware that this is not the proper significance o f the Greek xavióv but a modern catachresis that originated i n the eighteenth century. 1
2
3
4
D. Ruhnken, 'Historia critica oratorum Graecorum' in his edition of Rutilius Lupus and often reprinted: Opuscula t (1823) 386¬ H. Oppel, 'Kavd>v. Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte des Wortes und seiner lateinischen Ent¬ sprechungen (regula-norma)' Philologus, Suppl. x x x 4 (1937) passim; on Ruhnken see p. 4 7 . Cf. the review by K. v. Fritz, AJP 6 0 (1939) 112 ff. See above, p. 202 (declension) and p. 206, n. 2 (Aeschines' Áóyot as Kavuw). Euseb. hist. eccl. V I 25. 3 TQI> eKKÁr¡oiaaTiKÓv tpoXaTTOtv navóva, p.óva réaaapa eiSeWi euayyéXia uaprúperai (se. Origen) seems to be the earliest evidence of the word for the canon of scripture; Oppel Kavdiv 70 f. and others refer to a passage of Athanasius, written about A . D . 350, at least twenty-five years after Euseb. hist, eccl., Athanas. *de deer. Mic. syn.' 18 {Werke, hg. von der PreuB. Akad. d. W'iss. 11 ! , 1935, p. 15. 20) p.r¡ Sv ix TOV KOVOVOS (SC. Hermas). 1
1768 2
3 4
2
ao8
Alexandrian
Scholarship
at its
Height
Various
T h e €yKpL$€vres became the TTparropievoi'* they were 'treated', that is, commented o n b y the grammarians, and the vast activity o f Aristarchus i n the next generation was dedicated to this 'treating' of the eyKptdevres. T h e i r writings or at least a great number o f them were copied again and again to be read i n schools and b y the educated p u b l i c ; so they were saved for eternity, while the eKKpidivTts were left to perish. I t is difficult enough to establish the fact o f iyKplveiv and the contents o f the lists; much as we should like to know Aristophanes' o w n criteria, the attempt to reconstruct them from the late sources would be quite chimerical. I f he ever published such lists, the additions to Callimachus' Pinakes would have been an appropriate place. 2
A short final w o r d about the few titles and fragments o f Aristophanes' monographs ; they were supplementary to his great literary works and seldom merely antiquarian. W e have seen that i t is very doubtful whether he wrote a book TTepl alyloos about Athena's shield (which would have belonged to his Homeric studies), or a separate grammatical work on analogy. H i s treatise on the phrase Axyvp.€W) GKVTOXT] i n an epode o f Archilochus has been referred to i n connexion w i t h his treatment o f lyric poetry, and ' T h e Parallels to Menander and other writers' regarded as p a r t o f his w o r k o n the comic poets. W e have not yet mentioned two rather antiquarian collections nepl -npoauiTTUiv* ' O n masks', and ITepl TU>J> AQi]V7]atv eraipt'cW, ' O n Athenian courtesans', a continuation o f his labours devoted to A t t i c Comedy. T w o further monographs were i n the Peripatetic tradition. Aristotle had regarded the proverbs as survivals o f early wisdom and encouraged his pupils to collect them. B u t Aristophanes, while not disregarding the popular origin o f the irapat/iiat, seems to have been interested i n their complete and proper wording a n d their different meanings, and to have searched for them i n the literary texts, especially o f the comic poets. U n d e r this aspect he arranged the first scholarly collection o f Merpucal irapotpiiat i n two books a n d o f Ap.*Tpoi 3
2
I f we now look back over all Aristophanes' accomplishments, two outstanding features catch our eye: an impressive series o f 'firsts' i n many fields, and the central position held by his other works i n a long historical development. Nauck pp. 2 3 5 - 4 2 ; fr. 9 is to be cancelled (see Excursus to p. 177) and fr. 13 belongs to the Ae£cts.—O. Crusius, Analects ad paroemiographos Graecos (1883) 75 ff., discovered a series of proverbs in the Athos MS. (Miller, Milanges 3 4 9 ff.) as excerpts from Aristophanes; cf, K . Rupprecht, 'Paroemiographi', RE xvm (1949) 1742 ff.; this important article confirms Crusius' discovery and makes further additions. See above, p. 173. 1
2
6
7
8
1
dpdfiara
TOUTS A\apvtts
Trpa-nojievoi p.&'.
dn-ep
ewia;
cf. Schol. Nic.
Th.
Si iT€TTpa.)(ap.cv Aptaro<pavovs
KTA.
See Marrou 161 ff., who has too much confidence in Cousin's arguments (above, p. 2 0 6 , n. 1 ) . 1
* Nauck, pp. 2 6 4 - 8 3 .
* See above, pp. 181 f., 191. * The only fragment deals with the comic character Maioutv, CGF1 p. 76 Kaibel; Poll, iv 1 3 3 - 5 4 is supposed to have derived some material from Aristophanes, see C. Robert, 2 5 . Hallisches
Winckelmamsprogr.
(1911) 6 0 ff.
* Aristoph. Byz., FGrHist 3 4 7 F I, cf. subject Sec above, pp. 83 f. * Cf. Eratosth. above, p. 139, n. 8.
T 1
1
i n four books; i t was a great enterprise that well befitted the writer o n Aefcts a n d o n comedy. Aristophanes' two books 77ept £ O J O J V , based on Peripatetic sources o f natural history and paradoxography, w h i c h we lightly touched on at the beginning of this chapter, remained, as we see, an isolated compilation. TrapoipLiai
4
Schol. Dionys. Thr. p. 21. 17 Hilg. Xvptxoi ol KOL 11, Suid. v, Apta?o$avns (com.) . . . opapara 8' avrou
209
Monographs
with references to four other writers on the same
7
814342
Life
of Aristarchus
211
Euergetes I I , then to the king's eldest son Eupator, who was born i n 163 and died as king o f Cyprus in 150 B.C., finally to the younger son, born probably i n 162/1 B.C., who succeeded his father i n 145 as Ptolemy V I I Neos Philopator and was murdered i n the following year o n the wedding day o f his widowed mother and his father's younger brother. The latter usurped the throne as Ptolemy V I I I and styled himself Euergetes I I , but was called KaKepyerrj? by the Alexandrians and &VGKOJV 'pot-belly' by his learned enemies, no doubt i n allusion to the nickname given by Alcaeus to the hated tyrant Pittacus. A l l the friends o f his murdered nephew, the 'fautores pueri', were persecuted, including Aristarchus although he had been the usurper's own t u t o r ; he escaped to Cyprus where he is assumed to have died shortly afterwards. T h e two sons he left were, unlike their father, o f feeble m i n d . 1
VI ARISTARCHUS:
2
T H EA R T O F
4
3
INTERPRETATION
5
exerted his influence not only by his u n r e m i t t i n g productiveness, b u t also through his followers. T h e earliest o f his personal pupils seems to have been Callistratus, who perhaps made his teacher's oral interpretations, i n p a r t at any rate, k n o w n to a wider public and tried to refute atheteses of his schoolfellow Aristarchus; but as late as the first century B.C. Artemidorus, the collector o f the bucolic poems, and D i o dorus o f Tarsus were styled Apiarotpdvetoi. T h e greatest figure among them was Aristarchus.
A R I S T O P H A N E S
1
H e was a native o f the island o f Samothrace (tpvtret or dvwOev Uaao-
9pd£), but became a citizen of Alexandria (AXegavopevs Secret), where he lived under Ptolemy V I Philometor ( 1 8 0 - 1 4 5 B . C . ) ; no precise dates are given i n the biographical tradition. I f Aristarchus reached the age o f seventy-two, as Suidas says, and i f it is correctly conjectured that he died about 144 B.C., he was born about 216 B.C. W h e n the post o f librarian became vacant before or after Aristophanes' death i n 180 B.C., Apol¬ lonius o eiSoypdtpos* succeeded, and i t was only after h i m that Aristarchus was appointed, the fifth head of the library after Zenodotus. L i k e most or perhaps all o f his predecessors, Aristarchus also had to act as tutor i n the royal family, first to Philometor's younger brother, later 2
3
5
6
There were hardly any anecdotes or jokes current about Aristarchus' life and habits, except perhaps Callistratus' indignant remark that he was negligent in appearance, eVt -v raiv Apiarapxov
ua$r)-raiv =
FGrHist
234T I . P.Oxy. xix (1948) 2222. 1 f. provided the solution that he has to be counted as king (see C. H. Roberts, ad loc.); therefore Euergetes I I was correctly described as the eighth Ptolemy: Script. Hist. Aug. Caracalla 6. Andron FGrHist 246 F 1 ; cf. Posidon. FGrHist 8 7 F 6. Strab. xvn 795, Plut. Coriolan. it. 2
See above, p. 190, n. 4. Suid. v. ApLarapxoS • • • eVl /TroAejUai'ou TOV 0iAo/*ijTopos J P.Oxy. 1241 I I 15 <J>iAoTraropo$ is one of the many clerical errors of the papyrus. On the Ptolemies V I to I X often referred to in this chapter see H. Volkmann, RE xxm (1959) 1 7 0 2 - 4 3 , whose article 'Ptolemaios' is based on the careful studies of W. Otto and H. Bengtson. On Aristarchus' life and writings L. Gohn, RE 11 (1896) 8 6 2 - 7 3 , is still useful. Suid. v. Aptarapxos . . . reXevrif h* ev Kvirpat . . . en) S' avrov rijs ^uijs oj8'; but in ydyove 5e Kara TTJV pvs' 'OXvfimaSa { 1 5 6 - 1 5 2 B . C . ) the figure must be corrupt as he was at that time in his sixties. See above, p. 172, n. 2. Tzetz. Proleg. Ma pp. 2 5 , 9 if. Kaib. nparepos 5e ZijvdSo-roi, e' i) 8' per' avrov Aptorapxos, cf. Mb p. 32. 37 Kaib. The Schol. Plaut. (above, p. 100, n. 2) produced nonsense, as usual, 'Aristarchus autem quattuor annis minor fuerit . . . Zenodoto', etc.—If one Apollonlus were counted, Aristarchus would be the fourth from Zenodotus, if two Apollonii, the fifth; the second alternative is correct. 1
2
3
4
5
3
4
3
Ale.
fr.
129. 21 L . - P .
(<j>voyoiv pap.)
and
429
(v).
Iustin. xxxvni 8. 2 'fautores pueri'; cf. Andron FGrHist 2 4 6 QVK oXlyovs ipvyabevaas, Suid. v. Aplarapxos. It is surprising that he chose Cyprus, which was firmly in Ptolemy's hand, as asylum. Rostagni's suggestion that Aristarchus went together with the king to Cyprus in 131/30 B . C . is not acceptable, Scritti minori 11 1, pp. 211 f. Athen. 1 2 1 c . Suid. v. AptaTapXQS • • • p-ad-qraX Si avrov ypapp.ar^KOi wepl rov$ p.' iyivovro . . . 7rof8ay . . . 6
7
8
ap.^01 eiJijflets. Moox°S, EvpaKOvaios. ypap,u.arucos, Aptorapxov yvwpiuos (on yvmpep-os cf. p. 154) Scvrepos TTOITJT^S pera QeoKpirav KTX. ; his poems including the fragments in Bucolici Graeci rec. A. S. F. Gow (1952) 132 if.; W. Biihler, 'Die Europa des Moschos', Hermes, 9
.
Suid. v.
. . 0
Einzelschriften 13 ( i 9 6 0 ) .
212
Aristarchus:
the Art of
Commentaries
Interpretation
Horace who saw an allusion to i t i n a line o f the Letter to Augustus. Even i f not authentic, i t is well invented.
1
Aristarchus' best pupils and many other scholars o f the younger generation fled to various places not under Egyptian rule, Rhodes, Pergamum, Athens. F r o m this secessio doctorum the first crisis ensued i n the history o f scholarship. T h a t the chief-librarianship fell to an obscure m i l i t a r y officer, called Gydas, eV TÛJV Xoyxov, speaks for itself. 2
Ptolemy V I I I , dissolute and violent, was a repellent figure, b u t he was not unintelligent and not uninterested i n learning, as the fragments of the twenty-four books o f his Memoirs on a strange variety o f subjects disclose and as Plutarch asserts {^iXopaBelv SOKOVVTL), A S Aristarchus' disciple, he even ventured to conjecture Xeipwves paXaKol alov (for tow) r)Sè o-eXivov (e 72) because the water-parsnip, not the violet, seemed to suit Calypso's watery meadows. Under h i m and his successors the institutions were carried on, the Museum and the two libraries; papyrusdocuments and inscriptions give some names o f later privileged members and administrators. 3
4
5
T u r n i n g from Aristarchus' place i n the troubled history o f the second century B . C . to his literary work, we immediately realize that he filled a gap left by his predecessors; they had, w i t h very few exceptions, abstained from w r i t i n g commentaries on the texts they edited. N o doubt they had explained them to their personal pupils ; b u t we cannot judge how far the listeners wrote these lectures down and used them for their o w n publications, as no reference is preserved, though a monograph o f Apollonius Rhodius, for instance, foreshadowed the vTroixv^uara. Aristarchus was ready to w o r k out r u n n i n g commentaries w i t h great courage 6
7
3
Rhet. adHerenn. rv 28. 3 9 ; Porphyrio ad Hor, epist. 11 1. 257 si, quantum cuperem, possem quoque'; cf. Schol. Pseudacr. ad loc. 'iuxta Aristarchum'. P.Oxy. 1241 11 16. M . Launcy, 'Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques', Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 169 (1949/50) 2 7 3 and 1163, lists Cydas because of his name as Cretan, unfortunately accepting Rostagni's date; see also other \oyxQ6poi pp. 3 1 6 , 5 6 5 and rrpwrot, ^t'Aot «ai viAtapvpi Xoyxotbôpai p. 1279 (Index). There seems to be no clear definition of the military rank of this group and of its relation to the royal court. 3 Ptolem. Euerg. 11: FGrHist 234 F n = Eustathius' epitome of Athen. 11 61 c and repeated in his commentary on « 72 p. 1524- 52 (cf. 1. 4 0 otov . . . d)s ical woXXoîs àpéoicet râtv ma Attirât). * Cf. Muller-Graupa, 'Museion', RE xvi (1933) 8 1 5 f., and Schmidt, Pinakes 15, on the libraries. ' On the four ypapp-ariKot, said to have lived under Ptolemy I X see below, p. 2 5 4 . See above, pp. 140, 146 ( ? ) , 161, 175 ; we disregard in this connexion colloquial explanations in schools, preserved in the vulgate scholia. î Cf. above, p. 1 0 8 ; on lectures of scholars and copies made by pupils see H . Diels in 'Didymos Kommentar zu Demosthenes' bearb. von H . Diels u. W. Schubart, Berliner Klassikertexte 1 (1904) xxx ff., and G. Zuntz, Byzantion xrv (1939) 560 ff. On the word v-n6p.vnp.a see above, p. 2 9 . 1
s
6
8
and Monographs
213
and success. Aeyerai o£ ypddjai vrrkp o / ßißXla vTroavrjaarajv povojv, we read i n Suidas, who mentions no other writings by h i m . The sentence can hardly mean, as F. A . W o l f supposed, that Aristarchus wrote nothing but commentaries; this would probably have been a>' ßißXla vrropvTipdrcov fiova, not fiovcov. T h e Greek words, as they stand, say that he wrote more than 800 books o f commentaries alone (that is, i f one only counts the commentaries), leaving i t open what other books there might have been not included i n this figure—about which one certainly feels a little uneasy. Even i f the commentary o n Homer had forty-eight books, i f every commentary on an individual play was regarded as a separate unit and so on, i t would still be difficult to account for 8 0 0 vTrouvr)paTa. 1
2
I n the traditional line, at least from Apollonius Rhodius on, Aristarchus wrote a number o f monographs called avyypdppara, as distinguished from the continuous vnop.vrjp.cLTa by Didymus, who thought them o f more value than the latter. They were mostly polemics: Jlpos 3
0iXirav* (Schol. A A 524, B i n ) , LTpos Ktopavov [A 97, B 798, Q 110), LTpos TO Slvoivos rrapddo^ov (M 435) (that is against Xenon's assumption that two poets had composed Iliad and Odyssey); two o f them dealt w i t h specific questions of subject-matter: Llepl '/AtaSo? teal 'Oovoaeias (I 349) and LJepl TOO vavardOpov (K 53, M 258, 0 449, cf. A 166, 8 0 7 ) . These avyypdppara were also interpretations, though i n a form different from that o f the vTropv^para, and F. A . W o l f could easily have regarded ovyypdppara and v-nopvrjpara together as 'commentarios'. So when he said that Aristarchus wrote nothing but commentaries, ' n i h i l aliud' can only mean 'no separate editions o f the Homeric text' (like those o f Zenodotus, Aristophanes, and some others). Wolf's simple sentence implies an interpretation w h i c h is still questionable today. By a unique stroke o f good fortune large excerpts from Aristarchus' are preserved i n a Venetian codex o f the Iliad w i t h text and copious marginal and interlinear scholia, the most precious parts o f vTropvrjpara
5
F. A. Wolf, Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795) ccxxrx 'dicitur A. . . . conscripsisse . . . si Suidam recte intelligo, nihil aliud quam Commentarios'; cf. ibid. n. 8 and p. C C X L I V n. 30. In Suidas' life of Callimaehus precisely the same conventional figure appears for his whole output: Call. 11, test. 1. 6 ßtßXla imcp ri oKraKooia. On the inconsistency in the relation of the cases of fiovos to the respective nouns see Kühner-Gerth, Grammatik der griech. Sprache 11 i 'Satzlehre' {1898) 2 7 5 . 3 . Schol. A ß I I I et . . . avyypdp.pa.Ta. rwv vrrop,vi)p.6.Tviv TrporaTTOUtv. Cf. above, p. gi. Codex Venet. Marc. 454 ( A ) ; cf. H. Erbse, 'Beiträge zur Uberlieferung der Iliasscholien', Zetemata 2 4 (1960) esp. 78 ff. and 123 ff. Erbse is preparing a new edition of all the Scholia on the Iliad; meanwhile we have to use the editions of Schol. A and B by Dindorf and of T by E . Maass, and to consult the facsimile of cod. Ven. A in Codices Graeci et Latini photo¬ graphice depicti vi ed. D. Comparetti (Leiden 1 9 0 1 ) . 1
2
3
4
5
214
Aristarchus:
the Art of
Aristarchus
Interpretation
which are based on the labours o f four men, Didymus, Aristonicus, Herodian, and Nicanor, who had made excerpts from Hellenistic sources in the time of Augustus and o f the early Roman empire. T o two o f them we owe substantial passages o f authentic Aristarchean material: to Didymus IJepi rfjs Aptarapx^ov 8iop0aWw? and to Aristonicus LJepl rrnpettuv ('/AiaSo? Kai ' OSuacreta?). 1
Editor
of the Homeric
Text
215
interpretations o f the relevant passages i n the Scholia and i n the whole grammatical literature were nevertheless penetrating; they were augmented and corrected i n two later editions, and his pupils continued research i n this field. One o f the first things Lehrs d i d was to object to Wolf's assertion that Aristarchus had produced vTrofj.vripio.Ta only, and to his refusal to believe that there had been more than one edition o f them by Aristarchus himself. Lehrs concluded that Didymus had had at his disposal two Aristarchean editions o f the Homeric text preceded by two editions o f the commentary; and this conclusion met w i t h universal approval u n t i l i t was challenged by Erbse. H e took great pains to reinterpret the references to Aristarchus' writings as exMatig, oiopddxjtis, vTTopLvrjuaTa i n our Scholia and to extricate the proper meaning o f these terms as used by Didymus. These investigations led to the following conclusion : Aristarchus d i d write v7r0p.vrjp.ara, w i t h many references to the previous recensions, but probably only once; they contained, o f course, lemmata from the Homeric text and ample textual criticism besides the main exegetical part. O n the other hand, he d i d not make new separate editions o f the text, but accepted the 'vulgate' text (the Kotval iKSoaeis) for general use. A l l this would fit very nicely into our picture of Homeric scholarship i n the t h i r d and second centuries B.C. Towards the middle o f the second century the imperative demand was not for editing the text anew, but for explaining i t i n its entirety; the absence o f a more or less authoritative text arranged by the ypap.p,aTt,Ka>TaTos would make i t easier to understand w h y the textual criticism o f the Alexandrian grammarians had relatively little influence on the Homeric text itself, as i t is preserved i n papyri and manuscripts. I t looks to me as i f by a sort o f unconscious counter-revolution W o l f has now been p u t back o n the throne from which Lehrs had driven h i m ; the details and still more the arguments differ, but the two essential points are the same: there was no separate edition o f the text, but just a commentary i n only one edition by Aristarchus himself. 1
2
3
I t was the special interest o f the French i n manuscripts and palaeography awakened by Montfaucon that led J.-B. de Villoison i n 1781 to the discovery o f the two foremost manuscripts o f the Iliad i n Venice, w h i c h he published i n 1788; and this discovery made possible the modern reconstructions of Aristarchus' Homeric studies. F. A . W o l f acknowledged the 'insigne m e r i t u m Villoisonii' when he made the first attempt at a history o f the Homeric text. His chapter on its treatment by the Alexandrian grammarians, especially by Aristarchus, became a model for future writers on the history o f any ancient text; i t is therefore o f lasting value. But this, o f course, was not the part o f Wolf's Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795) which stirred the emotions o f the whole literary world. I n tracing the history o f the transmission o f the Homeric text from the Hellenistic age back to the age o f the epic poets for the first time, he had to raise the question o f the origin of the epic poems, of their unity and genuineness. W o l f opened the eyes of his contemporaries and o f posterity to the unique historical position o f the Homeric poetry. One should always keep i n m i n d his starting-point from the wealth o f new material i n the Venetian codex and the new spirit o f bold historical inquiry, even i f one sees h i m taking the wrong way i n individual arguments and conclusions. After the general prelude i n Wolf's Prolegomena the foundation for special Aristarchean studies was laid i n 1833 by the monograph o f K . Lehrs, De Aristarchi studiis Homencis. I t was Lehrs, not Wolf, who discovered the importance o f the subscriptions which give the names o f the 'four m e n ' ; no wonder that he overestimated the value o f codex A and neglected the scholia i n the other manuscripts. They were a l l (A B D L V ) printed together i n I . Bekker's edition o f 1825, and unfortunately arranged i n one continuous text; Lehrs's reconstruction o f Aristarchus' work was handicapped by being based on this sometimes delusive text. His 1 Didymi Fragmenta coll. M. Schmidt (1854, reprinted 1964) 112 ff.; A. Ludwich, Aristarchs homerische Textkritik nach den Fragmenten des Didymos 1 (1884) H ( 1 8 8 5 ) . Aristonicus, 77epi orjpteiwv '/AiaSo? reliquiae, ed. L . Friedlaender (1853) 39 ff., LTepl a-np-ctotv 'OSvaoeias, ed. O. Carnuth { 1 8 6 9 ) . M. Van der Valk, Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, part 1 {1963) 536 ff. 'The critics transmitting the text and views of Aristarchus' (cf. H . Erbse, Gnom. 3 6 [1964] 5 4 9 ff., esp. 5 5 5 ) .
4
5
6
Second edition 1865, third edition 1 8 8 2 ; see especially above, p. 214, n. I Ludwich on Didymus, Friedlaender on Aristonicus, Lentz on Herodian. Lehrs Ar. 22 was unjust in believing that Wolf did 'not remember' the monographs; he actually mentioned them Proleg. C C X L I V n. 30 as VTrop.vrip.aTa. Wolf p. ccxxxvn and Lehrs Ar. 23 ff. * H . Erbse, 'Ober Aristarchs Iliasausgaben', Herm. 87 (1959) 2 7 5 - 3 0 3 (see also above, p. 213, n. 5 ) ; but J . A. Davison, 'Homeric Criticism' in A Companion to Homer (1963) 224, correctly speaks of Aristarchus' commentary as having been prepared to accompany his text. Ammonius may have supplemented his master's ¿TToy.vrip.aTa. in a sort of second edition 1
1
3
3
3
5
(ejreic8o£7tf).
See above, p. tog, n. 7, the reference to The Hibeh Pap. r, in which pp. of the vulgate post-Aristarchean text also is discussed. 6
70
ff. the problem
2i6
Aristarchus:
the Art of
Interpretation
The
The meaning of the words EKOOOIS and SiopBaxns and the rather vague use o f grammatical terms i n general has caused us some difficulty already. W h e n Schol. A o n A 522 pf\ ae vof)ori comments oi>xi pr] ae'',cUAa "¿177 T I " at Aptrndpxov Kal at dXXai axeoov rrdaaL oiopdojueis, i t is very hard to suppose that anything was meant b u t 'the recensions o f Aristarchus and nearly a l l the other ones'. I t is almost impossible not to supply eKoooeis or oiopdwatis i n the traditional sense o f (critical) editions i n Schol. A f 126 1
iC
Kal al
Aptordpxov
Kal r) Zr/vooorov Kal
r)ApUJTO(pdvovs ' TTOps, i n t e r p r e t s
AXrfiov
himself.
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s l i n e . A l l this m i g h t seem t o s u p p o r t t h e guess t h a t
its o r i g i n i n the f o l l o w i n g words o f P o r p h y r y :
4
I t was
as a y o u n g
i\o\oyos a n d KpirtKos a n d sober 'Op-qpiKa
philosopher,
3
a£uov Se
an A t h e n i a n p u p i l o f the
Cassius L o n g i n u s , t h a t P o r p h y r y w r o t e his l e a r n e d
£rfnfrtaTa;
s
l a t e r , i n his R o m a n days after A . D . 263
Homeric
(Z 2 0 1 )
rreSlov
Question,
from
dXda8ai,
f r o m Aristarchus Schol. A Z 201,
<j>ovrov TrXdvrjs,
given b y P o r p h y r y i n the eleventh
essentially corresponds t o t h a t i n A r i s t o n i c u s ' e x c e r p t duo Trjs yevoptvqs
ev avrip
rov
BeXXepo-
i t is v e r y l i k e l y t h a t P o r p h y r y also preserved A r i s t a r c h u s '
2
A r i s t a r c h u s c o u l d h a v e g i v e n t h e m a x i m o f oadyr/vl^Lv rov w h e r e ; b u t c o u l d he r e a l l y ?
TtovqTrjv
Scholars are n o t i n c l i n e d t o
some-
pronounce
u n d e r t h e s p e l l o f P l o t i n u s , t h o u g h h e n e v e r lost his l o v e o f H o m e r , he
g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , b u t p h i l o s o p h e r s are, a n d P o r p h y r y was a l w a y s , e v e n
a p p r o a c h e d h i m as a N e o p l a t o n i c a l l e g o r i s t a n d t r e a t e d f o r instance t h e
i n his e a r l y g r a m m a t i c a l studies, o f a p h i l o s o p h i c a l b e n t . T h e c o n c l u s i o n
Cave of nymphs
is t w o f o l d : t h a t t h e f o r m u l a " Op-qpov
i n the
Odyssey (v
1 0 2 - 1 2 ) as a n a l l e g o r y o f t h e u n i v e r s e , i n
' Op-qpov aady-qvl^iv was c o i n e d 3
a m o n o g r a p h w h i c h , i n s h a r p c o n t r a s t t o his e a r l i e r studies, n o l o n g e r
b y P o r p h y r y a n d s h o u l d n o t be t a k e n as a n a u t h e n t i c r e m a r k o f A r i s t a r -
e x p l a i n s t h e p o e t ' o u t o f h i m s e l f ' . T h e r e is n o h i n t t h a t P o r p h y r y h a d
chus, t h o u g h i t is n o t against his s p i r i t ; a n d t h a t one m u s t be a l i t t l e
Homeric Question j u s t i n his d e d i c a t o r y l e t t e r t o A n a t o l i u s w h e r e he s a i d : ipov ireipcopevov OJS avros pev iavrov TO. rroAAa "Oprjpos i^r/yeirai
c a u t i o u s a b o u t a t t r i b u t i n g a w i n g e d w o r d t o a special a u t h o r .
Aristarchus i n m i n d either i n the eleventh
quoted or Seiwpwcu
;
6
i n this
A r i s t a r c h u s ' m a i n o b j e c t was t o discover t h e H o m e r i c usage; f o r t h e e x p l i c a t i o n o f w o r d s a n d facts he collected a l l t h e p a r a l l e l s i n t h e Iliad
and
second passage he was s i m p l y r e s t a t i n g his p e r s o n a l e n d e a v o u r as a n
Odyssey, t r e a t i n g a n y w i t h o u t p a r a l l e l s as a V a f Xeyopeva
i n t e r p r e t e r o f H o m e r w i t h o u t r e p e a t i n g t h e f o r m u l a w i t h aatfr/vlleiv.
Yet
w h e n he e n c o u n t e r e d s o m e t h i n g w h i c h seemed n o t t o fit a t a l l i n t o t h e
t h e sense o f his f o r m u l a does n o t disagree w i t h A r i s t a r c h u s ' o p i n i o n ; one
p a t t e r n o f t h e H o m e r i c l a n g u a g e o r t h e H o m e r i c l i f e , he t e r m e d i t
may compare (f>pa{,Op€Va
the unique Scholion D o n
VTTO TOO 7TOn)TOV pvdlKOJTtpOV
E
385:
€KO€X^Crdai
Aplarapxos KO.T&
Tr)v
d£ioi
TO,
TTOirjTLKrjV
W. Christ, Geschichte der griech. Lit. (1889) 4 5 3 'in der Exegese ging er . . . von dem Grundsatz aus, daß man jeden Autor zunächst aus sich selbst erklären müsse' (repeated verbatim in the later editions by W. Schmid). L . Cohn (see above, p. 210, n. 2) RE 11 (1896) 8 6 8 . 62 (Aristarch) 'war der Ansicht, daß Homer nur aus sich selbst erklärt werden müsse'. Sandys 1 (1903) 131 A. 'insisted that each author was his own best interpreter', repeated in the 2 n d and 3 r d editions. E . Heitsch, Antike und Abendland ix ( i 9 6 0 ) 21 'Die von A. für die methodische Erklärung aufgestellte Maxime lautet: 'Ou.-rjpov e £ 'Opr/pov aa raiv ibpa^opevuiv, probably 'interpolated' aXXrjyopiKcos; according to Schol. D Aristarchus' sentence was more general, not particularly against allegory. See esp. Schrader's note on p. 298. 1 7 - 2 0 . In our Scholia, as far as they represent the Alexandrian tradition, the rare word aatp-nviCeiv is not used for the activity of the interpreter; but if the poet makes something clear, it is said o n-otijTTjs aar}vit,ei. In the philosophical and rhetorical literature of the Roman empire it is a quite common expression, see for instance Clem. Al. vol. rv 699 St. * See above, p. 197. See above, p. 112. 1
2 3
3
228
Aristarchus:
the Art of
Interpretation
Grammatical
in so far as Safra disappeared from a l l the manuscripts o f the Iliad and survived only i n a quotation by Athenaeus. Even i f one is convinced that Satxa not Trao-i is the original reading, and the one known to a l l the tragedians, this example aptly illustrates the processes of thought behind Aristarchus' decisions. I n innumerable other cases there has never been any doubt that the result o f his acute observations was correct: he chose the right variants, he detected i n the explanations o f glosses errors that had been traditional for centuries, he much improved the distinction o f synonyms, following the earlier efforts o f Prodicus a n d Aristotle, and, continuing the research o f Aristophanes of Byzantium, he saw how many more words, often quite common ones, had changed their meaning i n the interval between the epic age or even the A t t i c and his own time. As Aristarchus pointed out the use o f some 'Attic* forms and words i n the epic language, i t has become one o f the commonplaces of modern literature o n Homer that Aristarchus for this reason regarded h i m as an Athenian by b i r t h . I f one looks for proof o f this assumption i n the Scholia, one finds nothing more substantial than one oWA-rj on N 1 9 7 which according to Aristonicus, draws, attention t o the dual Aiavre pepdore; the scholiast adds a sentence that its use has some reference t o the mother country (of the poet?), as i t is peculiar to the Athenians. This rather implies that the Athenian b i r t h was known from other sources and is only confirmed by the use o f the dual. Certainly, the long list o f b i r t h places i n the popular pMoi o f Homer includes the statement that he was an Athenian according to Aristarchus and Dionysius T h r a x . I n his commentary on Archilochus, that is, i n the serious grammatical literature, Aristarchus dated Homer t o the time o f the I o n i a n m i g r a t i o n ; these Ionian colonizers came, as a widely accepted ancient version says, from Athens. So i t is not improbable that Aristarchus was referring here not only to the time, but also to the home o f Homer, namely Athens. I n one of the pVot the two things are actually combined. I n the course o f his tireless exegetical work Aristarchus also discovered 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
See, e.g., J . Wackernagel, SpTachliche Untersuchmgen zu Homer ( i g i 6 ) 156. Wilamowitz, Horn. [Inters. 258 f., //. und Horn. 9 , 507. Schol. A N 197 SurAij) on owex&s K^XPV™ ' SVIKOIS' r) Si ava<popa rrpos ra irepl rrjs TrarpiSos- M-qvalutv yap tSiov. G. W. Nitzsch, De historia Homeri, Fasc. posterior (1837) 8 9 , was reluctant to draw strict consequences from this dubious sentence, but correctly referred to the connexion of Homer's life with Ionian migration in the biographical tradition; cf. Aristonic. ed. L . Friedlaender p. 15. 2 and Jacoby below, n. 6. Homeri Opera ed. T . W. Allen, v (ign) p. 247. 8 = Vitae Horn, et Hes. ed. Wilamowitz (1916) p. 29. 9 ; cf. Allen p. 244. 13 = Wil. p. 25. 8. See above, p. 220, n. 5 . Cf. F. Jacoby, FGrHist m Suppl. (A Commentary on the ancient historians of Athens) 1577, " 474 f¬ * Allen, Homeri Opera V p. 2 4 4 . 18 (and 13) = Wil. Vitae Homeri p. 2 5 . 13 (and 8 ) . 1
2
3
T 0
?
4
1
6
and Metrical
Observations
229
a few general grammatical and metrical rules. W e are told that he added a sixth rule o f inflexion to the five stated by Aristophanes a n d recognized eight parts o f speech. He obviously observed that ending a word w i t h the 'fourth trochee' o f the hexameter is avoided, since he at / 394 instead o f the vulgate reading yvvatKa / yapAaaerai suggested reading yvvatKa ye / pdaaerai, though he d i d not alter the text. 1
2
3
The concept o f grammatical analogy is first attested for Aristophanes i n the limited sphere o f declension; i t seems t o have become a sort o f guiding principle of Aristarchus' interpretation and to have involved h i m in heated disputes w i t h an opposition that defended anomaly. But he was no pedant i n his search for parallels. Unlike any o f his predecessors, Aristarchus, by surveying the epic usage i n its entirety, was able to pick out those words w h i c h occurred only once i n H o m e r ; Aristonicus preserved the Aristarchean sentence i n Schol. A r 5 4 -n-oAAa S e eonv arratj A e y d ^ c r a 7rapa rtp Trotrjrfj. Dealing w i t h the problems o f these many singularities was an integral part o f his interpretation, as we can recognize not only from the Scholia, but also from the lexicon of Apollonius Sophista, w h o used Aristonicus and perhaps earlier writings o f the Aristarchean tradition. 4
We must observe the distinction between the drra^ Xeyopeva acknowledged as Homeric a n d the expressions or passages marked w i t h the obelus as ovx 'OprjpiKcos or KVKXIKOJS for various reasons. Even when one disagrees w i t h Aristarchus' decisions, one must appreciate his sober arguments based on carefully collected evidence; as they are preserved in excerpts from his own commentaries, we are much better informed about him than about his predecessors. H e was reluctant to alter the TrapaSoo^c, that is the agreement of most manuscripts, by conjectures or by omission of lines. His caution is criticized as excessive i n the (Didymus-) Schol. A / 222 dpetvov ovv efyev dv, r)criv 6 Aplarapxos, <et> (add. Bekker) eydyparrr . . . ciAA'
opojs
VTTO
rrepirrrjs evXafieias ovoev peredrjKzv, ev rroXXais ovrtos
evpoiv cpepopevnv rr)v ypad>r]v. Aristarchus marked repeated lines w i t h the asteriscus; when, as often happened, he found them not only empty, but inappropriate i n certain places, especially i n speeches, he added obeli to See above, pp. 202 f. * Quint. Inst. 14. ao OCtO partes {6vop,a, prjfta, neroxq, avratvapUa, ap&pov, enippnua, irpodeoti, avi>Seau,os). This list is different from the parts of diction distinguished by Aristotle, see above, pp. 7 6 - 7 8 ; o n the Stoics and o n Dionysius Thrax see below, p. 2 6 9 . * 3 9 4 HrjXevs Qrjv pot iireira yvvatKa yaueaoerat avros i n all the ancient (Schol. T ad loc.) and medieval manuscripts; yvvatKa. ye p.dooerai Aristarch. Schol. A intermarg. ad loc. Both readings are objectionable, see P. Maas, Greek Metre § 87. * F. Martinazzoli, Hapax Legomenon, pt. i i ( 1 9 5 3 ) , pt. 1 2 { 1 9 5 7 ) 'Lexicon Homericum di Apollonio Sofista'; cf. H . Erbse, Gnom. 27 (1955) 52 ff. and 31 (1959) 2 1 6 ff. 1
3
2
Literary Criticism
Aristarchus: the Art of Interpretation
3°
the asterisci. H e d i d so, for example, i n Hera's speech (B 160-2 and 164)
1
on OLK€iOTepov ivra> Tr)s AQrjvas Xoyw eijrjs curt reraypevoL (176-8 and 180), vvv Be KVK\IKWT€POV Xtyovrai (Aristonic. Schol. A S 1 6 0 ) . But he disagreed w i t h Zenodotus' omission o f the whole speech, j u d g i n g i t t o be 'Opr/piKiLs ex > provided that the few lines just referred to were athetized, since they were suitable i n Athena's admonition o f Odysseus to go round to the individual Greek heroes, b u t not i n Hera's address to Athena. z
ovTa
T h e use o f the term KVKXIKtorepov or KVKXIKWS* reflects the distinction first drawn by Aristode between the great poet o f the Iliad and Odyssey and the makers o f the other early epics, the KVKXIKOL* Originally this w o r d referred t o the subject o f the poems, especially to the T r o j a n cycle from the causes o f the w a r t o the death o f Odysseus, the latest homecomer; but after Aristotle, compared w i t h the t w o selected poems o f Homer, everything 'cyclic' was regarded as inferior, which meant at least conventional, and often trivial. I n that respect Zenodotus, C a l l i machus, and a l l the Alexandrian poets and scholars—so often i n opposition to the Peripatos—accepted the Aristotelian doctrine. Calhmachus' angry pronunciamento, exBalpia T O Trotrjpa TO KVKXIKOV (Ep. 2 8 ) , was widely acclaimed and frequently repeated; there is also an obvious allusion to it by Horace i n his famous lines A.P. 132 ' n o n circa vilem patulumque moraberis orbem' and 136 ' u t scriptor cyclicus o l i m ' . 5
6
O n the other hand, i f the Iliad and Odyssey were t o be esteemed as creations o f perfect workmanship by one poet, not a few difficulties and discrepancies presented themselves to the scrutinizing scholarly m i n d . I t was relatively easy to recognize and to remove lines missing i n some o f the manuscripts as post-Homeric insertions. But there were many lines or even passages i n a l l the manuscripts w h i c h seemed hardly reconcilable w i t h the idea o f perfection a n d u n i t y , and had therefore t o be carefully 7
231
considered and, i f necessary, marked as un-Homeric or, i n special cases, as 'cyclic'. T h e only solution was not to delete them, b u t t o mark them as spurious, as 'interpolations' (TO aBereiv); athetesis, invented b y his predecessors, was practised b y Aristarchus w i t h the utmost skill and continued to be practised by his followers i n the field of Homeric criticism through two millennia. 1
No change i n method was possible u n t i l a new concept o f history dawned i n the eighteenth century a n d oral, popular poetry was discovered as the product o f an early age, essentially different from the later ones. Aristarchus h a d been able t o distinguish certain traces o f the Homeric language from the Attic and Hellenistic usage and to pick out differences i n civilization; but the new concept demanded an attempt to understand the specific character o f epic poetry as a whole, its origin, development, and final form. M a n y passages that h a d startled the Alexandrian and later scholars were no longer deemed interpolations but were acknowledged as signs o f different strata i n the structure o f the great poems. F . A . Wolf, starting from the newly discovered Venetian Scholia, tried to give proofs for the new historical research step by step, i n contrast to the vague generalities o f the Homeric enthusiasts; he a t least paved the w a y for the analytical efforts o f the following generations o f scholars who were eager t o unveil the mysteries o f epic stratification. 2
I t is quite natural that the negative aspect o f Aristarchus' Homeric criticism prevails i n this chapter; our sources say almost nothing i n praise of the positive values he admired and loved i n the greatest o f all poets. Like Eratosthenes he saw i n Homer an imaginative and creative poet whose a i m was to give pleasure, not to instruct. T h e scattered aesthetic and rhetorical terms that have come down to us do not suggest that Aristarchus followed the principles o f a theory o f poetics. Occasional phrases like Bid. -rravrog (Schol. A & 562, A 217 K T X . ) otKovopiKÖis ( f 6 1 6 , Schol. p 103, v 356), eW/ca TT}S avTLKaraoTdo-ttDs ('balance'? Ö 212) call 3
4
}
Zenodotus had a different text in B 156 followed by B 169, completely omitting Hera's speech. Since that time ancient and modern critics have never stopped discussing the whole passage, see F. Von der Muhll, Arc/. Hypomnema zur Ilias (1952) 4 0 . I read Kvp.iKo>Tep(ov) in the facsimile of cod. Ven. A p. 2 7 last line, which is, I should think, a slightly corrupt KUKXtKajrepov. Villoison's Koivo-repov was accepted by Dindorf; Bekker read (?) Ko>p.tKa>T€pov, Lehrs conjectured avoiKetorcpov (Herodiani scripta tria, Epi¬ metrum, 1848, p. 4 5 9 ) , followed by Friedlaender, Aristonic. p. 62. Aristarchus in Schol. A (Aristonicus) 0 610 said offivelines KVKXIKU>S TtuJi-oAoyetVat and athetized them while Zenodotus had left them out. Cf. Schol. A Z 325 KVKXIK&S KaraK4xPV h I 222 Kv/cXtKaiTtpov; Schol. T Q 628 KVKXIK&S (Wilamowitz: Ihlois cod.); Schol. BEP 1/115 ou KVKXIKUS . . . dAA' . . . TO iSt'wfxa with the annotation of the editors. « Seeabove,pp. 7 3 . Above, p. 117. Above, p. 137. Aristarchus rejected the view of the separators (XCU/M£OIT€S) who assumed two poets for Iliad and Odyssey, as a 'paradox' (see above, p. 2 1 3 ) . He gave references from the Iliad to the Odyssey; cf. Schol. A 354, A 147, etc. 1
2
r
3
Ta
r
7
5
6
Cf. his commentary on to 2 9 6 as the WAoy of the Odyssey, where he agrees with Aristophanes, above, p. 175. Perhaps his most striking athetesis is that of Q 2 5 - 3 0 , the worst patchwork in our Homeric text. See above, pp. 213 f. Didymus had hardly an opportunity of mentioning aesthetic judgements of Aristarchus, but Aristonicus had. The exegetical Scholia in b T contain little Aristarchean material. W. Bachmann, 'Die ästhetischen Anschauungen Aristarchs in der Exegese und Kritik der Homerischen Gedichte', Beilage zum Jahresbericht des Alten Gymnasiums Nürnberg 1 (1901/2) 11 (1903/4) gives a partly useful collection of evidence. Less helpful is Atkins, Literary Criticism 1 ( 1 9 3 4 ) 188 if.; on the art of composition see also R. Griesinger, Die ästhetischen Anschauungen der alten Homererklärer, Diss. Tübingen ( 1 9 0 7 ) 9 ff, See above, pp. 166 f. 1
% 3
4
232
Aristarchus: the Art of Interpretation
Aristarchus' Authority
233
a t t e n t i o n t o t h e a r t o f c o m p o s i t i o n i n t h e epic n a r r a t i v e ; o t h e r phrases
s t u p i d e x c e r p t o r s , first D i d y m u s ,
e m p h a s i z e t h e h a r m o n y b e t w e e n t h e speech a n d t h e c h a r a c t e r o f a n e p i c
h a v i n g m i s u n d e r s t o o d t h e o r i g i n a l . O n t h e o t h e r side t h e r e w e r e
h e r o , eV
rjOa Xeyerat
117
(A
specific f u n c t i o n o f m e t a p h o r s 2
20J
efKfiariKws, I
TO atajTTiofievov
14
els
KTA.). S t y l i s t i c o b s e r v a t i o n s
(npos ipnf>acnv
B
explain
670) o r o f similes
av^Tjatv) o r o f ' n o t m e n t i o n i n g a t h i n g
Z 337, 17 432 KTX.),
sort, censorious epithets arrpe77eV,
the (S
16,
(Kara
1
I n c o n t r a s t t o a p p r e c i a t i o n s o f this
evreXes,
Treptaoov,
crop u p again and
1
then Aristonicus
2
were b l a m e d for the
a n t i - A r i s t a r c h e a n s w h o d i d n o t h i g h l y respect e i t h e r his t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m o r h i s e x e g e t i c a l w o r k . O n e t h i n g is q u i t e c e r t a i n : o n t h e e t e r n a l H o m e r i c 3
battlefield Aristarchus remains an outstanding controversial
figure.
We
h a v e t r i e d here o n l y t o p u t h i m a n d his predecessors i n t o t h e i r p r o p e r h i s t o r i c a l place.
a g a i n ; b u t his deep a f f e c t i o n is a l w a y s present even i f i t r e m a i n s i n t h e
A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s c h a p t e r w e d e s c r i b e d t h e crisis o f t h e y e a r
b a c k g r o u n d . H e q u i t e h o n e s t l y a c c e p t e d , as m a n y o f his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
145/4 B . C , w h i c h b r o k e t h e l i v i n g c h a i n o f e m i n e n t p e r s o n a l i t i e s t h a t h a d
c o n f i r m , the Aristotelian a n d Callimachean distinction between H o m e r i c
s t r e t c h e d f r o m P h i l i t a s a n d Z e n o d o t u s t o A r i s t a r c h u s . T h e y w e r e , as w e
s u p e r i o r i t y a n d c y c l i c i n s u f f i c i e n c y a n d he used c r i t i c a l signs a n d w o r d s
h a v e seen, c o n n e c t e d b y p e r s o n a l l i n k s , as t h e y o u n g e r scholars w e r e t h e
t o m a k e i t c l e a r i n t h e interests o f t r u e p o e t r y .
pupils o f the previous generations; b u t there were n o
A r i s t a r c h u s a c h i e v e d s u p r e m e a u t h o r i t y as c r i t i c a n d i n t e r p r e t e r . I n t h e second h a l f o f t h e second c e n t u r y B . C Panaetius, b o r n i n R h o d e s a n d
p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools w i t h t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r
So£ai.
StaSo^at,
as i n t h e
T h e great Alexandrians
w e r e u n i t e d , n o t b y d o c t r i n e , b u t b y t h e c o m m o n l o v e o f letters, a n d e v e r y
t h e n t h e l e a d i n g f i g u r e a m o n g s t t h e Stoics i n A t h e n s a n d R o m e , so a d -
one o f t h e m was a n i n d e p e n d e n t i n d i v i d u a l i t y . W e s h a l l find o n l y
m i r e d t h e ease w i t h w h i c h A r i s t a r c h u s d i v i n e d t h e sense o f t h e d i f f i c u l t
p a r a l l e l i n t h e I t a l i a n Renaissance o f t h e f o u r t e e n t h a n d fifteenth c e n t u r i e s
pAyruv . . . Stavoias.' I n t h e first
paStws
a n c i e n t p o e t r y t h a t h e c a l l e d h i m a 'seer':
Sid.
Karap-avreveadaL
century
TT]S
TUJV
Trot^arcui'
TO
B.C.
C i c e r o a n d H o r a c e attest t h a t his n a m e was a l m o s t p r o v e r b i a l as t h a t o f 2
t h e serious a n d sincere c r i t i c . I n d e e d t h e l e g e n d o f his i n f a l l i b i l i t y h a d its dangers i n t h e u n c r i t i c a l days o f l a t e r a n t i q u i t y , a n d he w o u l d h a r d l y h a v e a p p r o v e d o f those n a i v e a d m i r e r s w h o f o l l o w e d h i m b l i n d l y even against t h e i r b e t t e r k n o w l e d g e .
i n t h e y e a r 1848 N a u c k p r o t e s t e d against w h a t he c a l l e d ' A r i s t a r c h o I f the image o f the g r a m m a r i a n reconstructed
from
the com-
m e n t a r y o f t h e f o u r m e n i n t h e V e n e t i a n c o d e x A a p p e a r e d i n t h e eyes o f t h e m o d e r n A r i s t a r c h e a n s t o be d i s f i g u r e d b y some i m p u r i t i e s , t h e Ath.cn. xrv 6 3 4 c = Panaet. Rhod. Fragrrunta ed. M. Van Straaten ( 1 9 6 2 ) fr. 9 3 . Bentley alluded to this saying in the preface to his Horace ( 1 7 1 1 ) XX 'opus . . . est, ut de Aristarcho olim praedicabant, divinandi quadam peritia et pavriKT).' Cic. ad Ait. 1 14. 3 'quarum (orationum) tu Aristarchus es' (cf. in Pison. 73 more jokingly, Jam. in 11. 5, ix 10. 1). Hor. A.P. 450 'fiet Aristarchus". The remarks on Aristarchus' accentuation at the end of Schol. A E> 316 -mepvyos (against the Kavuiv the Schol. adds Trei$6p f9a avrcp d>$ rravv aplarip ypappaTtK£vo4ooi (paXXov Treiareov ApLarapx
o~ia, but later additions (see Herodian. I p. lxxix n. Lentz, cf. Lehrs 297). One is reminded of an amusingly simple sentence of Boccaccio in his very learned compilation De montium, sytvarum, fontium... nominibus (printed after 'Iltpl yeveaAoyiW deorum' in ed. Basil. 1 5 3 2 ^ . 5 0 3 ) 'ut mallem potius eorum autoritati quam oculis credere meis', when what he read in the beloved books of the ancients did not agree with what he saw with his own eyes. * Aristoph. Byz. Fragm. p. 56, n. 75. He seems to have coined 'Aristarchomania*. 1
1
3
r
J
five
generations
f r o m P e t r a r c h t o P o l i t i a n , whose c o m m o n l o v e
and
l a b o u r restored s c h o l a r s h i p f r o m dangerous d e c l i n e t o life a n d d i g n i t y . A. Roemer relentlessly attacked Didymus in his numerous books and articles, see especially Aristarchs Athetesen in der Homerkritik ( 1 9 1 2 ) ; bibliography in A. Roemer and E . Belzner, 'Die Homerexegese Aristarchs in ihren Grundziigen', Studien zur Geschichte und 1
1
based o n i t A r i s t a r c h u s ' a u t h o r i t y rose a g a i n t o a n o v e r w h e l m i n g h e i g h t ;
4
A . D . : t h e l i v i n g c h a i n o f f r e e l y associated masters a n d disciples t h r o u g h
Kultur des Altertums 13 (1924) 267.
3
A f t e r V i l l o i s o n ' s d i s c o v e r y o f t h e V e n e t i a n codices a n d Lehrs's studies
mania'.
one
M. Van der Valk,
Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad 1 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 5 5 3
ff. tried to
discredit Aristonicus.
Van der Valk in this and in his earlier book on the Odyssey takes a very Alexandrian grammarians, particularly of Aristarchus. See Addenda to p . J
poor
view o f the
105.1.
Invitation
VII
of Stoics
by the
Attalids
235
The Attalids had first invited distinguished members o f the Peripatos, Lacydes, and Lycon, who politely refused to emigrate to the new Hellespontic kingdom. Aristophanes o f Byzantium, although for an u n known reason he had seriously considered fleeing to Eumenes I I , was prevented from leaving Egypt. But this enterprising k i n g ( 1 9 7 - 1 5 8 B.C.) finally succeeded i n attracting a Stoic philosopher from the south o f Asia M i n o r to his capital, Crates from Mallos i n C i l i c i a . I t was not the intention o f the kings to set up a sort of Pergamene school i n opposition to the Alexandrians; it just happened that earlier invitations were declined, and then the Stoics came. T h e 'Stoics' mean Crates and a few personal pupils; one should not speak o f a 'school' o f Pergamum at a l l , as is so often done. There was no sequence o f teachers and disciples like that i n Alexandria, where we saw five generations following one another. Quite independendy, as i t seems, a new k i n d o f antiquarian research was started i n Pergamum towards the end o f the t h i r d century B.C. under the reign o f Eumenes' predecessor, Attalus I (241-197 B.C.) and continued throughout the second century. 1
PERGAMUM:
SCHOLARSHIP A N D
2
PHILOSOPHY A
NEW
ANTIQUAR1ANISM
G R E E K scholarship i n Alexandria suffered heavy losses, as we have seen, in the first great crisis o f its history; nevertheless i t was able to continue its existence' u n t i l Egypt, after a thousand years o f Greek civilization, finally returned to the orient. I n the course o f the second century B.C., when the political and economic power o f the Ptolemies declined, other places i n the Aegean w o r l d grew mightier and rose to importance as seats o f learning also, Pergamum above a l l .
3
2
Even i f we take into account a l l the energy, a m b i t i o n , and skill o f the family o f the Attalids, i t still seems a miraculous feat that Pergamum was brought into such prominence by them for a century and a half. Philetaerus, the son o f Attalus, governor o f the h i l l fortress o f Pergamum, having i n 282 B.C. betrayed and deserted Lysimachus, at that time lord o f Macedonia, Thrace, and Asia M i n o r , left a more or less independent principality to his nephews Eumenes and Attalus and their heirs. They consolidated and enlarged i t i n t o a k i n g d o m , defeating the violent Celtic invaders and w i t h Rome's help i n 190 B.C. even the Seleucids; they made their capital a new centre o f cultural life, and i n its magnificent setting the arts, philosophy, science, and scholarship flourished u n t i l the country was 'legally' inherited by Rome i n 133 B.C. But no Pergamene literary monument could equal the splendour of the colossal marble altar erected to Zeus Soter b y Eumenes I I to commemorate his final victory over the barbarians. There were no poets at any time i n Pergamum comparable to those i n Alexandria, nor can Pergamene scholarship i n its origin and development be compared w i t h t h a t o f Alexandria. 3
4
' Gf. also above, p. 171. See the references to the history of the Hellenistic age above, p. 87, n. 2 . Strab. xttl 623 f. + Altertümer von Pergamon, by A. Conze and others, vol. l-x ( 1 8 8 5 - 1 9 3 7 ) . H . Kahler, Der große Fries von Pergamon ( 1 9 4 8 ) , see esp. Pt. I I I 'Der große Fries und die Geschichte Pergamons', pp. 131 ff., the date of the altar 142 f., the question of allegory 149. 1
3
4
Books are the indispensable tools of scholars; the Ptolemies, stimulated by the scholar poets, had collected and stored hundreds o f thousands o f papyrus rolls i n Alexandria, and appointed the leading scholars i n succession as librarians. I n Pergamum only Eumenes I I is attested as founder of the library (Strabo x m 6 2 4 ) . This seems to be confirmed by the excavations. For according to a dedicatory inscription i t was Eumenes I I who added to the great temple o f Athena on the Acropolis the dignified building that housed his l i b r a r y . Grates may have helped his king i n organizing and administering the l i b r a r y ; this is suggested by the fact that he is said to have played a part i n devising a finer method o f preparing sheepskin for w r i t i n g material and advising its export to Rome. 5
6
7
See above, p. 172. Wendel, Buchbesehreibung 60 ff., tried in vain to prove that Aristophanes' pupil Callistratus moved to Pergamum and there wrote against Aristarchus. Sueton. Degrammaticiset rhetoribus 2 (p. 4. 4 Brugnoli 1963) 'Crates. . . missus ad senatum ab Attalo rege . . . sub ipsam Ennii mortem' (169 B . C . ) ; Attalus (II) became king in 159/8 B . C . , and cannot have sent off Crates to Rome in 168 B.C., it was Eumenes I I . The same confusion of Attalus and Eumenes in Lyd. de mens. 1 28 who depends on Sueton. Varro correctly mentions Eumenes; Sandys i i n (who overlooked Lydus' testimony) by a further confusion understood Eumenes I ( 2 6 3 - 2 4 1 B . C . ) . Sandys 1 163. 'The school of Pergamum' contrasted with 'the school of Alexandria'. See above, pp. 98 ff. Schmidt, Pinakes test. 4 5 - 5 4 , p. 16, on the Pergamene library, p. 28 on the Pergamene IJivajces; cf. pp. 4 3 f. See also Kenyon, Books and Readers 68 ff., and Wendel, Buchbeschreibung 1
1
3
3
3
4 s
go, and Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft 6
in i* (1955) 8 2 ff.
Altertümer van Pergamon 11 and RE xix (1937) 1258 f.
Lydus, De mensibus ed. R. Wuensch (1898) 1 28 = Mette, Sphairopoiia (1936) 105, test. 7 ; the often-quoted sentence in F. Boissonade, Anecd. Graec. 1 (1829) 4 2 0 goes back to Lydus, see Wuensch p. xxxi. 7
236
Pergamum:
Scholarship
and
Philosophy
Allegorism
The use o f this particular material made the name o f Pergamum i m mortal : Lydus 'Pwpatoi ra p-epflpava. L7epyaurjva KOXOVCJIV, Suidas Ilepya.penvai- at pepfipdvat; parchment, parchemin, Pergament. I t became a common legend i n ancient times that parchment was 'invented' i n Pergamum when Ptolemy V , the coeval o f Eumenes I I , stopped the export o f papyrus. But i n fact, w r i t i n g on leather rolls was quite common i n the Near East i n early times and was adopted by the Greeks on the west coast o f Asia M i n o r before the fifth century B.C. Since the excavations o f Dura-Europos on the upper Euphrates brought to l i g h t a document o f the year 195/4B.C. which was written o n perfectly manufactured parchment, we are no longer entitled to say that the Pergamenes were the first to produce i t i n the finest quality. But they do seem to have produced it i n a larger quantity, probably because the import o f papyrus for the scriptoria o f the expanding library became too expensive, and they may have been the first to export i t to the west, as we have just heard. Whether there really was for some time an Egyptian embargo on papyrus remains an open question. Parchment, i n any case, had a glorious future, especially when the form o f the codex came slowly to supplant that o f the r o l l * 1
2
3
T h e literary treasures had to be catalogued; we referred to the IJepyap-nvoi mVaKe? when we dealt w i t h their great Alexandrian model. O n l y one librarian is k n o w n by name, the Stoic Athenodorus o f Tarsus, who went to Rome i n 70 B.C. Figures o f books i n the libraries are to be regarded w i t h due scepticism. Plutarch i n his Life of Mark Antony took from a source hostile to A n t o n y and Cleopatra the story that she was presented by the last o f her lovers w i t h 200,000 volumes from the Pergamene libraries ; modern scholars usually assume that i t was the losses of the Alexandrian Museum library, caused by the fire i n the harbour i n
5
6
7
Varro (de bibliothecis ?, see Dahlmann RE Suppl. vi 1221) in Plin. n.h. x m 70 'mox aemulatione circa bibliothecas regum Ptolemaei et Eumenis, supprimente chartas Ptolemaeo idem Varro membranas Pergami tradit repertas'; cf. also Lydus. Sec above, p. 19. F. Gumont, FouilUs de Doura-Europos 1 9 2 2 - 2 3 , Textes (1926) 2 8 1 - 5 , Parchment Document no. 1. «! C. H. Roberts, 'The Codex', Proc, Brit. Acad. 4 0 (1954) 169 if.; terminology 'membrana', 'membranae', etc. p. 174.—See also F . Wieacker, 'Textstufen klassischer Juristen', Abh. Akad. d. Wiss. Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Kl., 3 . Folge, Nr. 4 5 ( i 9 6 0 ) 93 ff., esp. 9 9 . See above, p. 133. H. v. Arnim, RE it ( i 8 g 6 ) 2 0 4 5 , Athenodorus no. 18. ' Plut. Anton. 5 8 KaXovtoioi . . . KO.1 TOCTO TUJV els KXeanarpav eyKXij/xdrutv AVTWI>1
TiKtôv.
An excerpt in Osann's Anecd. Roman, after the 'Vita Romana* and the section on the
Two Monographs
on
Homer
239
on the meaning of a gloss i n p 8 9 . W e should not be misled by the doubtful remark i n all our manuscripts of Suidas at the end of his article on Crates: avvira^e f S t op8w<Jiv'\ 'IXidbos KO1 ^ObvuGtlats fSifUXia 6 Kal a'AAa; this is all too easily changed into oiopdcooiv (and into iv ftifiXiois) and then used for the conclusion that Crates made a critical recension of the text. T h e three quotations i n grammatical literature do not point either to a n €Kooai,s or t o a vTTopvrjpa, b u t t o a w r i t i n g on the Homeric text i n the style o f the traditional /7epi-literature. O n l y one other title is twice 1
2
3
quoted: Kpdr-qs iv /5 TOJV 'OprjpiKatv o n the Oceanus i n 0 195 f. (eiWe be
rto y i b i d . ) and Kpd-rns iv bevripip 'Op-qpLKoiv on a reading i n O 193, i n which the poet tells o f the division of the w o r l d into three parts, each w i t h its divine ruler. As AiopQiuriKd and Op-npLKd can hardly be the same, i t is most likely that Crates composed t w o monographs i n more than one book each, the former perhaps i n nine books (p\8Ata (3?). I n the AiopBoiTiKo. textual criticism may have predominated, i n the 'Op-npiKa (sc. ^rrrrjpara, irpofiXripaTa?) cosmological and geographical problems w i t h allegorical explanations; b u t the quotations rather suggest a free mixture i n the two monographs. We should perhaps compare the Orphic commentary o f the fourth century B.C. w i t h this similar combination o f allegorical a n d lexical comments on a m u c h higher level i n Crates. I t is just possible that he wrote more books on related subjects than the two of which the titles are k n o w n . 4
5
c
6
The Aptarapxeioi, Didymus and Aristonicus, d i d not pay much attention to Crates' heretical views; our m a i n sources o f the fragments, therefore, are not the Scholia i n the Venetus A , but the exegetical Scholia i n the other manuscripts of the Iliad B (Ven. 4 5 3 ) , T (Townleianus Brit. Mus. Burnley 8 6 ) , Gen. (Genav. 4 4 ) , and the related Scholia i n P.Oxy. 2 2 1 , together w i t h Scholia i n a few manuscripts o f the Odyssey 7
a-nptta (see below, p. 2 4 0 , n. 1) refers to special proems of the Iliad, see T . W. Allen, Horn. II. (1931) p- 1 to A 1; Vitae Hometi p. 32. 20 Wil., who printed by mistake Kp. iv otopSuiTtxais. 1 Schol. H M 8 9 ; on htopBiaais see above, p. 2 1 6 . 1 Suid. v. Kpdrvs (above, p. 2 3 8 , n. 4 ) . The editio Basileensis printed StdpSatotv; pVjSAt'a 1 1
cod. G, jStjSAioif cett. codd, See above, p. 218. * Schol. Gen. 0 195 = fr. 3 2 a Mette; if eiwe rip y means TWV 'Op.rjptKwv, the work had at least three books. Schol. A 0 [ 9 3 . See E . Maass, 'Aratea', Philolog. Untersuchungen 12 (1892) 170 ff.; I cannot accept his conclusions. We have no complete collection of fragments; K. Wachsmuth, De Cratete Mallola (1860), is antiquated; the carefully edited texts in Mette, Sphairopoiia (1936) 1 1 2 - 2 9 8 , continued in Mette, Parateresis, Untersuchungen zur Sprachtheorie des Krates von Pergamon (1952) 6 5 - 1 8 5 with bibliography and Qjiellenindex, are very helpful; but Mette emphasizes in his introduction p. vi. 5 that his 'texts' are not a collection of fragments, but are confined to the problems discussed in the two books and designed only to help the reader. 1
s
6
7
240
Pergamum:
Scholarship
and
Studies
Philosophy
( H M ) , a n d particularly Eustathius, w h o was able to excerpt Scholia lost to us. These sources are supplemented by the monographs on allegory, Ps.-Heraclitus ¿AAijyopúu and Ps.-Plutarch on Homer. The rivalry between Aristarchus and Crates i n readings o f the text and i n the method of interpretation is visible everywhere, but i t is not at a l l certain w h i c h wrote earlier; i f it were better attested that the sign of SirrXrj Ttepteanypevri was used TTpos ras ypaás . . . Kpárr¡ros by Aristarchus ( P J ^ t h e priority o f Crates' AiopOwriKa over Aristarchus* second w o u l d be established. Examples o f Crates' readings can be found i n the lines quoted above from his t w o Homeric monographs; the most conspicuous instance o f his exposition o f a whole episode is his allegorical interpretation of 27 4 8 3 - 6 0 8 , the m a k i n g b y Hephaestus o f the shield o f Achilles. T h e Aristonicus Scholion on 2 483* tells us that Zenodotus athetized the whole passage; w h y he d i d so is anybody's guess, as i n the case o f all his other atheteses and conjectures. H e apparently found some fault w i t h the very detailed description of Hephaestus' masterpiece, as having no parallel i n Homeric poetry, and obelizing i t was the only course available to h i m . F r o m that day onwards the 'Shield' has been a matter o f dispute i n a l l ages; W i l a m o w i t z , for instance, admired Zenodotus' boldness and acuteness. Crates, far from suspecting the description as a n interpolation, found another solution, the same that he applied to the shield o f Agamemnon A 3 2 - 4 0 : Homer, i n depicting ten parts o f a shield, meant something else, namely the ten circles o f the sky. T h e uniqueness o f the 125 lines is justified i n his opinion, i n that they express the fundamental cosmic knowledge and wisdom o f the poet behind the veil o f words which only the interpreting philosopher is able to remove. T h e sentence i n Schol. A r a t . Ph. 2 6 orjpiovpytp yáp T ¿ 'Hd)atara> xp^crá/iei'os' rr¡s ^lAAe'toy ¿.arrióos (javr^-nv v-rréBero Koapov plpr¡pa can be confidently attributed to Crates, as i t is identical w i t h that on Agamemnon's shield i n Schol. T A 3
4
5
40 ravrnv S« o Kpárr¡s plpr¡pa
roo Koapov <pr)clv eivat. T h e sober-minded
Alexandrian grammarians had no use for fancies o f that sort; i t is understandable, however, that Crates impressed and even influenced later Stoic philosophers when they h a d t o deal w i t h Homer. Posidonius
of Post-Homeric
Poetry
241
1
became a 'moderate Cratetean' and believed he had discovered i n H o m e r the knowledge o f the tide o f the Ocean by which he felt his o w n theories confirmed; this was his a i m as i t had been that o f his predecessors from Zeno to Chrysippus, while Crates as a scholar made i t his prime endeavour to explain Homer. 2
W h a t we know of Crates' etymologies suggests that they are part of his Homeric exegesis. I n the second century B.C. etymology was not yet an essential branch o f grammar. Chrysippus had been the Stoic specialist nepi irvpoXoyiKiov* b u t his influence o n Crates seems t o have been negligible except i n the explication o f the names o f gods, as for instance Zcvs (fr. 2 and 3 Mette) and "Hie &oZße (fr. 5 5 ) . As a 'Op-nptKos Crates sides i n this field more w i t h the Alexandrian grammarians than w i t h Chrysippus, w h i c h is not so surprising i f we compare his attitude to several other problems o f language. 3
A few references to epic, lyric, and dramatic poetry show that he interested himself i n various non-Homeric problems; but no title o f a vrropvripa or a monograph is quoted anywhere, and modern efforts to attribute the fragments to books w i t h invented titles have been unsuccessful. 5
As a Stoic cosmologist, Crates was bound to criticize Hesiod's account ofTrj and Ovpavos (Schol. Hes. Th. 126 = fr. 4 7 M e t t e ) . His interest i n the Hesiodic poems, however, went m u c h further; he rejected a line about the godlike Cyclopes (Hes. Th. 142) and was bold enough to substitute a n alternative one, possibly o f his o w n manufacture. H e athetized not only the proem o f the Erga, as Praxiphanes and Aristarchus had done, but also that o f the Theogony. O f the post-classical poetry Aratus' astronomical Phaenomena attracted his attention, though the relevant fragments belong to his writings on H o m e r . H e was again on the side o f Aristarchus and also o f A r i s t o ü e i n the puzzling controversy about Alcman's birthplace since according to Suidas he believed h i m 6
1
8
9
K . Reinhardt, 'Posidonius' RE xxn 667 ff., esp. 668. 24ff.;he had reconstructed Crates' allegorical comment on the shield of Achilles and Eustathius (cf. esp. pp. 1154. 35 ff.) intermediate source in his dissertation De Graecorum tkeologia capita duo (1910) 5 9 ff. 'De Cratete Mallota'. R. Schröter, Studien zur Varroniscken Etymologie (1959) 6 4 ff. Cf. R. Reitzenstein, 'Etymologika', REvt (1909) 8 1 0 . * See above, p. 201, n. 5. Wachsmuth, De Crat. Mall. 5 5ff.;critical objections by E. Maass, Aratea 167 ff., 213. 4 ; sensible Kroll, RE xi 1635. Jacoby ad loc.; I refused to believe that epic lines were fabricated by Zenodotus, but should not think it impossible in Crates. See above, p. 2 2 0 , on the Erga; on the Theogony see Jacoby test. 4 7 b (Vita Chisiana) 1
1
2
Anted. Roman, (see above, p. 178, n. 10) p. X L I I I 15 Dind. Apiaráp^cia a-npeta . . . 17 TTepLtaTLypévr) StJrAij rrpo$ ras 2IJVO8OTÉI'OUE ypatbas (above, p. 2 1 8 ) «ai Kpárnros Kal avrov Aptarápxov KTX. ; cf. ibid. p. X L V 15 Anecd. Ven.; Mette, Spkairop. test. 18 a, b, see also Wachs1
muth. The priority of Gratesseems tobe implied by Varro L.L. vm 68 ( = Crat. fr. 64a p. 100. 31 Mette) 'sic enim responderé voluit Aristarchus Crated.' * See above, p. 175, n. 6. See above, pp. 108 ff. + Cf. above, p. 2 3 1 ; he did not question the few lines dealing with Agamemnon's shield. Mette, Sphairopoiia 36 ff. on 2 468 ff., 30 ff. on A 32ff.;fr.23 a-i pp. 172-88. 1
s
3
s
6
7
* See Maass, Aratea 33 ff., 165 ff.
p- 125.
* D. L . Page, Alcman 814342
Partheneion (1951) 167 ff.
R
24a
Pergamum:
Scholarship
and
Philosophy
Crates'
to have been a L y d i a n from Sardis; a newly discovered commentary o n A l c m a n has proved beyond doubt that this view was derived from passages i n the poems while the opposition seems to have based its assumption o f Alcman's Laconian origin on local patriotism. Interested as Grates naturally was i n the astronomical passage o f the Rhesus, he criticized Euripides' ignorance o f astronomy, excusing i t , however, on the ground that the play was an early one o f the young poet; i t is at least probable that for this statement he had consulted the SioaoKakiat, which were accessible i n the introductions o f Aristophanes o f Byzantium. Like the Peripatetics and the Alexandrians he d i d not question the authenticity of the play, as 'some' (cWot) d i d i n ancient and many i n modern times. Crates is said to have dealt w i t h the 'parts of comedy' (Kara Kpärrrro.... pip-n KatpwSias),* and his p u p i l Herodicus listed the Kajpcpoovpevoi,5 like A m m o n i u s , but there is no reason to conjecture that the Pergamenes distinguished t w o periods o f A t t i c comedy ( a p x i ' ) stylisticrhetorical grounds, i n contrast to the usual Hellenistic division into three periods [dpxala, piarj, via). 1
2
atct
a
n
(fr. 4 8 f.) and others. On irpos see above, p. 133, n. 1. Phot. Berol. pp. 38. 11 ff. Reitzenstein; Polem. fr. 65 Pr. from Suid. who copied Photius. On the aspiration see K . Meisterhans, Grammatik der attischen Inschriflen (1900) 8 6 . See above, p. 1 9 9 ; P.Oxy. xvin ( 1 9 4 8 ) 2 1 7 6 , col. 1 6 ; it is overlooked in Deichgraber's article on Polemo, R E T O L J ( 1 9 5 2 ) , where a reference to P.Oxy. 1611, 1 0 1 - n also is missing. * Latte's reading and supplement Kplvrjos Philol. 9 7 { 1 9 4 8 ) 4 0 is compatible with the traces of ink and with the space. 1
LTpos Ahalov
Kal Hvrlyovov
Demetrius
of Scepsis
249
at fault that he could not refrain from expressing the half humorous, h a l f malicious doubt whether Eratosthenes h a d ever stayed at Athens; at least three o f the five certain fragments seem to allude t o Eratosthenes' twelve books Tlepl rrjs dpxaias KwptpSlas* Attic comedy h a d been a favourite subject o f Alexandrian, though not o f Pergamene scholarship. Polemo was able to draw on the work o f the Alexandrians and to profit at the same time from his personal knowledge o f the local monuments, festivals, and customs. I n the same way his Sicilian visit furthered his acquaintance w i t h Epicharmus and Doric comedy, as is revealed by his work i n twelve books npos Ttpaiov (fr. 3 9 - 4 6 Pr.). Here he also traced the origin o f parody to Hipponax, apparently i n connexion w i t h the study o f early comedy (fr. 4 5 ) ; everywhere, we see, he freely indulged i n excursuses. 1
1
Although an indefatigable traveller through the whole Greek w o r l d (not beyond i t ) Polemo d i d not lack a sense o f local patriotism; Suidas opens the list o f his writings w i t h eypaif/e nepirjynatv 'IXíov ivfitfUXloisy'. No quotations from these three books survive, but i t is possible to assign to them two fragments, one on the cult o f Apollo i n Zplvdos, rorros rrjs TptpdBos (fr. 31 Pr.), and another on the stone still shown to visitors i n I l i u m (fr. 32 Pr.), on which Palamedes was supposed to have played chess, the game invented by h i m i n the dreary years o f the Trojan war. This implies that Polemo identified his native place as the site o f Homeric T r o y and the battlefield of the Iliad. But there is not the slightest hint i n the quotations and testimonia that he ever discussed this delicate problem. His name is not mentioned i n the extensive treatment o f i t b y his fellow countryman Demetrius o f Scepsis, although earlier writers are lavishly quoted, and no polemics between the two rr€pir¡yr¡raL on Homeric topography are attested. Demetrius' exposition o f the TpwiKos oidtcaapos, 'The marshalling o f the Trojan forces', must have been written i n the middle o f the second century B.C., after Crates, whom he attacked (fr. 6 8 Gaede), and before Apollodorus, who h a d the book at hand for his Newv KardXoyos. H e 3
4
5
6
1
3
1
3
s
342
FGrHist.
Fr. 78 Pr. with an extensive commentary; but no one can tell what Herodicus exactly meant by his joke ('tablet-tapper* Sandys, 'tablet-glutton* L - S , etc.); Pasquali, Herm. 48, 177, understands the compound by analogy with Ai0o*dVos as 'Steinhauer*, which is not convincing at all. 6
1 3
241 T to; on Eratosthenes in Athens see above, pp. i 5 3 f . See above, pp. 159 ff. R. Gaede, Demetrix Scepsii quae supersunt, Diss. Greifswald 1 8 8 0 ; E . Schwartz, FGrHist
( 1 9 0 1 ) 2 8 0 7 ff. = Griechische Gesekiehtschreiber
RE
rv
( 1 9 5 7 ) 106 ff.
Sandys i 155 f. unfortunately gives the impression that Polemo and Demetrius forestalled the modern champions of this topic; Hellanicus 'of Miletus' is a slip of the pen. Strab. XHI 609 £K S Í rrjs EKJ¡I¡>€Ü)S xa\ 6 AT¡p.T¡rpiós earw, off p,ep,vt)p,€8a iroXXaKis, o rov 4
3
s
TpuiZxov oiá/coau-ov ¿^r¡yr¡aápievos
ypappiartKos,
Kara
rov avrov
xpóvov yeyovútS
Kpárnrt nal
HptorápxypdV KaXovpiva>v rpayiäp-ßaiv, a sentence in which only 'rpay'-iäpßaiv is a mistake. The tap-ßeiov was called by Aristotle Poet. 1449 a 2 4 pdXiara Ae«TtKov rä)v perpwv, etc. Cf. F. Jacoby, 'Apollodors Chronik' 6 0 - 7 4 o n m c 'didactic iambus' of 2
Apollodorus and his imitators; if anyone should inquire again into the metrical technique of those versifications, he will have to consider also the new Menander, see J . W. White, The Verse of Greek Comedy (1912) 58 ff., and E. W. Handley, The Dyscolos of Menander (1965) 56 ffSee above, pp. 163 ff.; cf. Jacoby, 'Apollodors Chronik' 3 9 - 5 9 on Apollodorus' method; see also E . Schwartz and H . Diels, who had initiated the research in this field by his article 'Chronologische Untersuchungen über Apollodors Chronika', Rh.M. 31 (1876) 1 ff. The metrical fragments ( 5 2 - 5 9 ) relating events after 144/3 do not betray any difference in style and technique. There is at least no cogent argument for attributing the fourth book of the XpoviKa to a clever continuator, though it is beyond our means to distinguish a perfect imitation from the original in this sort of literature, F 5 8 . 2 yiyvdjoKeis addresses the general reader as in Hermesianax fr. 7. 49 and 73 Powell, not a special person. 4
3
256
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarchus*
Pupils
to
Chronicle
Didymus
Eratosthenes' earliest date, the fall of T r o y i n 1184/3 * * C 63)» dadng H o m e r 240 years later i n 944/3 B.C. he followed Ephorus, not Eratosthenes, who had assumed an interval o f a hundred years. T h e length o f early epochs i n Greek history was calculated by yeveal, that is, generations of kings or other leading persons; and both Eratosthenes and Apollodorus had to operate w i t h i n this system. T h e trouble was that the duration o f the ysved was not precisely established, but only approximately viewed as a period o f 30 or 33^ years, the t h i r d o f a century, or even longer. A further trouble was that the dates o f b i r t h and death o f individuals were often u n k n o w n ; but the date o f the most important events and deeds i n their lives was known, and Apollodorus assumed that they usually happened at the culminating age of forty, called i n medical language the aKfirj. I t cannot yet be proved whether this term was transferred to chronography by Apollodorus himself or b y later chrono¬ graphers. Using the number 4 o , he was i n an old popular tradition, o f w h i c h the earliest literary witness is Hesiod, Op. 4 4 1 , where a m a n i n full vigour is called T€aaapaKQvraerr)s altflds, w h i c h was expressly understood by the grammarians (and w h y not by Apollodorus?) as aKpa^wv. I do not believe the immediate source o f an omnivorous reader like Apollodorus can be traced; but the lasting effect o f his experiment is still recognizable i n Suidas' biographical articles, where the puzzling w o r d yeyove nearly always refers to the date o f the Apollodorean aKp.fi ('floruit'), not that o f b i r t h . 1
B
G
F
D
u
t
m
4
5
6
Apollodorus' second innovation was that he tried t o render his dates more accurate b y basing them on the lists o f the archons. T h e archon's name, w h i c h could be more easily p u t into verse t h a n figures o f O l y m piads, h a d been used for dating i n the BtSaaKaXlai from Aristotle's time onwards, and Demetrius of Phaleron had published an extensive Apxovrcov dvaypafyi) w h i c h now not only the author of the chronicle, b u t also the reader could consult. Frequent synchronisms were added as a convenient 7
8
9
Sec above, p. 163. Aristarchus dated Homer to the time of Ionian migration, 1044/3, a^ P8. * On this and other figures see the well-documented and graceful paper of F. Boll, 'Die Lebensalter*, JV«w Jahrbikher ftir das kiassische Alterturn 31 (1913) 103. 2 ( = Kleine Schriften 1
1
1950,
s e c
30
2 2
p. 1 7 2 - 5 ) ¬
* Hesych. (Cyrill.) v. ai£i}i'os~ axpatatv, cf. Et. Gud. 42.16 Stef. with many parallels. A possible source for the choice of the number 40 may have been Aristoxenus on Pythagoras {see fr. 16 Wehrli) and Apollod. F 339. See the famous paper of E . Rohde, Ttyovc in den Biographica des Suidas', Rh.M. 3 3 s
6
( 1 8 7 8 ) 161 if. = Kleine Schriften I (1901) 1 1 4 - 8 4 .
Jacoby, 'Apollodors Chronik' 57 ff. See above, p. 8 1 , cf. pp. 132 (CaUimachus), 193 (Aristoph. Byz.). FGrHist 228 F 1-3, 1 0 ; cf. Apollod. 244 F 31 («ri KaXXiov), 3 4 (irri .itye^iWos and KaAAtdSou). 7 8 9
aKp.r]
257
o f Pythagoras w i t h
Ps.-Scymnus i n his summary of the XpoviKa enumerates 7roAeojv dXwo-fus, eKTomopovs
arpaTOtreScov (1. 26) K T A . , and
(ftvyds, arparelas,
KaraXvaei?
TvpawLbujv (1. 31). The fragments themselves are probably unrepresentative i n so far as they deal relatively little w i t h politics and history, but very much w i t h philosophy and poetry. This is, o f course, due to the mainly grammatical character o f the sources from which we derive our quotations of Apollodorus; but i t may still betray a certain predilection o f the disciple o f Diogenes and Aristarchus for literature. I f we consider only one literary example, three lines on Menander, we see that between the biographical dates the total number of his plays is given as 105: K-nfaaievs atv, 4K Aio-neiQovs iraTpos, / rrpds Totatv eKarov
Trevre ypdipas Spdpara
\
e^e'AtTre •nf.vrqKQvra KOX ovtiv eVaiv. 'ex istis tamen centum et quinque omnibus solis eum octo vicisse idem Apollodorus eodem i n libro scribit.' The figure T T O T C (others counted 109 or 108) is guaranteed for the text of the XpoviKa by the metre, while figures i n prose texts are exposed to corruption. The information o n the plays i n which Apollodorus was especially interested was certainly drawn from the oioaaKaXiai i n the revised I7iVa/«s and i n the 'Yrroddacis o f Aristophanes o f Byzantium; Apollodorus had only to cast the figures into his not inelegant trimeters. T h e iambic XpoviKa became a standard authority as continuations, imitations, and even forgeries prove. One obvious forgery was a geographical guide-book, also i n comic trimeters and under Apollodorus' name written i n the first century B.C. A m o n g the continuations one on oriental history, written i n prose at the end o f the first century B.C., was frequently quoted by Christian writers from Clement and Eusebius to Syncellus. But unfortunately for our knowledge o f i t Apollodorus' work was superseded i n Augustan times by a more practical textbook, the XpoviKa o f Castor o f Rhodes. 1
2
3
Apollodorus published two other great works and a few minor ones; there is no evidence for the dates o f their origin or publication. Even the Chronicle was the product o f a ypappariKos, as we have seen; i n these other works we find h i m concentrating entirely on the interpretation o f Greek poetry. T h e monograph Ilepl rov T&V veojv KaraXoyov was a scholarly Gell. N.A. xvn 4. 5 — F 43 with commentary; on the problematical number of the comedies see A. Korte RE xv (1931} 713 f.—As the line before Kr$totevs is unknown, it is difficult to supply the missing short syllable before AiorrelBovs; I should prefer hi to Casaubon's re. 1
2
ivi
Trimeters
help i n many cases, as for instance that o f the the tyranny o f Polycrates.
2
J
in Comic
F 3 1 3 - 3 0 , cf. T 16. FGrHist 2 5 0 ; cf. E.
Schwartz, 'Die Kbnigslisten des Eratosthenes', 93 ff. on Castor's pseudochronology. 1
814342
S
AGGW
4 0 (1894/5)
258
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarchus'
Pupils
to
Didymus
Monograph
treatment of Homeric geography, and that Ileal deaiv dealt w i t h Homeric religion. Aristarchus' intention i n his monograph IJepl rov vavoradpov had been to reconstruct the whole order o f the Greek ships on the roadstead from all the relevant passages i n the Iliadhe had already here and there i n his commentary tried to discover how the poet had located the several heroes and their men on the shore. Demetrius o f Scepsis, the great local specialist, had given a minute account o f the Trojan allies i n Asia M i n o r i n his Tpco'iKos SiaKoapos. These studies may have h a d some influence on Apollodorus; he certainly knew Demetrius w e l l . I n Apollodorus' opinion the poet o f the Catalogue o f Ships i n the second book o f the Iliad had given a description o f heroic Greece, and i t was the d u t y of the interpreter to explain a l l the names o f places and tribes and heroes to the reader. W e can be sure that he would not have spent so much labour o n his twelve books, i f he had not believed i n the Homeric authorship o f the Catalogue. As a matter o f fact, none o f the grammarians suspected i t as a passage o f 'Hesiodic character' or 'cyclic' o r i g i n ; they were content to athetize some individual lines as i n other parts o f the poem. So Apollodorus d i d not have to face the question whether there had been interpolat i o n from a later source, or whether there was a pre-Homeric tradition preserved i n the Greek Catalogue. I t was modern Homeric criticism that suggested those possibilities which are still being explored not w i t h out bitter feuds and personal invectives. T o Apollodorus the Catalogue was a genuine part o f Homer's work, and he used a l l the knowledge o f post-Homeric geography available t o h i m i n order t o identify the names recorded there. 2
3
4
5
H e again followed the lead o f Eratosthenes' genius; the descriptive— but not the scientific—parts o f Eratosthenes' Tetuypadn/ca, which began w i t h Homer, were his model and the m a i n source for his twelve books Ilepl rov r&v veaiv KaraXoyov. The relation is similar t o that which we noted between the chronological works o f the two scholars. T h e most substantial extracts from Apollodorus are preserved by Strabo, especially b
1 2
See above, p. 2 1 3 ; cf. Lehrs 221 ff. See above, pp. 249 ff. T 14 ovx d/ioAoyei rots VTTO rov Eicntilov 3
of
2
p. 168) 'the Catalogue appears . . . the oldest Greek verse we possess', is frankly condemned as 'Unfug'; it becomes, nevertheless, fashionable from time to time. T 13 ra nXeiora fierevdyKas rrapa rov 'Eparoodivovs; cf. above, pp. 165 f.
Ships
259
1
i n Books V I I - X o f his great geographical compilation —just as i n other parts ( I / I I and X I I I ) he is our principal source for Eratosthenes and Demetrius. But Strabo d i d not often attribute his extracts to Apollodorus by name so that a minute analysis o f whole chapters w i l l be necessary before the Apollodorean extracts can be distinguished from those o f other writers like Ephorus, Artemidorus, and Demetrius. W h e n Strabo d i d introduce a verbatim quotation w i t h the title o f the work, he used the 2
formula iv rots (rw) flepl
3
(rov) vecov KaraXoyov ; and we can conclude
from this that Apollodorus d i d not write a running commentary, a viropvnpa, on B 494 ff. line by line, but treated the sections o f the Catalogue more loosely, i n the style o f the iTep l i t e r a t u r e . 4
His immense learning and wide range o f vision over the epic period enabled Apollodorus to form a coherent picture o f Homer's Greece and o f the changes that took place after h i m ; his object was to determine the poet's geographical views, as Aristarchus had tried to discover the Homeric usage o f words and facts. Like Eratosthenes, he was far from i m p u t i n g to the poet any intention o f 'teaching', and w i t h both Eratosthenes and Aristarchus he ignored the Stoic assumption o f 'hidden' meanings which had led Crates astray and not only i n the field o f geography. But, as far as we can judge from our fragments, Apollodorus, as a true Aristarchean i n every respect, d i d not bother to set forth his principles i n a systematic introduction, though he may have given an occasional hint i n an excursus. For instance, i n a digression on the Odyssey, he bitterly criticized Callimachus for having identified the island o f Calypso with Tavhos, an islet near M a l t a , and the Phaeacian Scheria w i t h Corcyra. Callimachus, as a poet pretending (perarroiovpevos) t o be a ypapparucos, could not be forgiven when he sinned against the fundamental distinction between the historical places i n the Catalogue and the imaginary localities o f Odysseus' wanderings (rrapa rov egoitceaviopov rwv TOTTOJV) , a distinction accepted by Apollodorus from Eratosthenes. A n interpreter o f an epic text w i t h hundreds o f proper names was bound to explain the form and meaning o f the names themselves, not 5
6
7
See the table in FGrHist 11 Kommentar pp. 776 f. Is it too much to hope that this analysis, begun by Niese nearly a century ago and meanwhile advanced by others, will be completed one day? See B. Niese, 'Apollodors Commentar zum Schiffskatalog', Rh.M. 32 (1877) 2 6 7 - 3 0 7 ; E. Schwartz RE I 2866 ff., F. Jacoby in his commentary pp. 776 ff. Steph. Byz., less exact than Strabo in several respects, but still very valuable, said only h> rs ( F I 88 on B 532 Brjoaa), as he asserts i n another passage. T h e question is only whether he was quite consistent i n the application o f his criteria. Have we to alter the text o f Stephanus o f Byzantium because i t lets Apollodorus ( F 192) derive the name o f the islands called 'Ex^vat or 'ExwdSes (B 625) cWo 'Exlvov pdvrecos, that is, from a r)pojs irrwwpos? O r must we blame Strabo for a careless excerpt from Apollodorus when he first reports ( i x 436) that IJdyaaai owes its 6
See above, pp. 4 f., and 61 f. Chrysippus IJepl ervpoXoytojv, SVF II 9. 13, 14 and ibid. 44. 4 2 ; cf. Diogen. Bab., SVF in 213. 5 ff. A«£is. The formation ervuoXoyla is not attested before Chrysippus. The dispute between E . Schwartz, who denied any Stoic influence, and his philostoic opponents should be settled by this suggestion. * F 222—5 books 'ErvpoXoyovp-eva or IJepl ervpoXoytwv; several of the grammatical quotations without title of a book (F 2 2 6 - 8 4 ) contain etymologies. See above, p. 201. Cf. G. Neumann's Dissertation (above, p. 259, n. 3) 16 ff. 1
2
3
t
3
6
w
0
on the Homeric
261
Gods
name to its many niryal, not to the vavrrr\yla o f the ship Argo, but i m mediately afterwards explains Acperai as the der-qpiov rdv Apyovavrcov, using here not a topographical etymology, but a mythological one o f the k i n d rejected i n other cases? We should never forget that Apollodorus was an interpreter o f early poetry, not a linguistic doctrinaire. x
2
I n discussing the Catalogue o f Ships we started from general questions of Homeric geography and ended w i t h the explanation o f local names. T u r n i n g to the twenty-four books entitled IJepl decZv* we are justified i n beginning w i t h the names o f Homeric gods and their etymologies; this seems to have been Apollodorus' o w n starting-point, as the substantial fragments o n Apollo ( F 95 ff.) show. T h e treatment o f the individual names w i l l finally lead to general statements o f his views o n Homeric religion and of his o w n religious attitude. The question whether this work of Apollodorus was influenced b y Stoic doctrines has naturally been raised again and again, and differently answered. The idea o f planning a complete monograph o n a l l the Homeric gods w i t h the stress o n the etymology o f their names may have been suggested b y certain writings of Stoic philosophers on the same subject, but that by no means implies that Apollodorus was affected b y or agreed w i t h their theories. T h e quotations generally prove that he d i d n o t ; an occasional similarity o f treatment was unavoidable and unimportant. Here again we probably come nearest to the t r u t h by adopting a middle position i n which Stoic influence is not denied, but strictly limited. 4
I f some people have been surprised that Apollodorus excluded nonGreek gods from his voluminous work, this is because they were n o t aware that this too was essentially a work on Homer. As i n the Catalogue, he used his knowledge o f post-Homeric literature i n order to explain the Homeric usage more clearly, though he could n o t altogether suppress the mistrust o f the vetvrepot, appropriate to a p u p i l o f Aristarchus. The Homeric epithets and erriKXf}aeis as well as the proper names themselves could reveal the qualities and deeds o f the gods. So Apollodorus was « Cf. notes on Call. fr. 18. 12 f. Even Jacoby, who put his conjecture into the text of F 192, seems not to have been absolutely certain of Apollodorus' consistency: 'daß in der Namenerklärung die mythologischen Ableitungen stark oder ganz (italics are mine) abgelehnt werden', Commentary on F 2
»54ff-,P- 778- 34¬ T 9—11, F 8 8 - 1 5 3 ,
cf 3 5 2 - 6 (number of books F 103). On IJepl BeCiv see the special studies of Munzel (below, p. 2 6 2 , n. 3 and p. 2 6 3 , n. 1 ) ; cf. also E . Schwartz, RE 1 2 8 7 2 , Reinhardt, Graec. theol. 8 3 ff., who reject the assumption of Stoic influence; Jacoby in his commentary on the fragments, pp. 753ff.,is very cautious. Stoic elements were acknowledged or even stressed by Barwick, Stoische Sprachlehre 61 and especially by Pohlenz, Stoa 1 182 and 11 92 with many references. Cf. above, p. 260, n. 3. 3
4
262
The Epigoni:
from
Aristarchus'
Pupils
to
Didymus
Names
anxious to derive epithets o f gods not 'from holy places', QVK and TWV
leptöv
. . . dno
TOTTOV
be r&v ifivxtKOJV evepyeiwv
7} . . .
avpßeßrjKortov
TO
trcpt
atofxa. H e seems to have applied his own criterion more consistently than i n the Catalogue of Ships at least, i f the source o f the famous passage about the Kovp-nres i n Strabo x 4 6 6 is Posidonius, not Apollodorus. Even Apollo, according to h i m , is called JijAio? not because he was born and worshipped i n the island o f JijAoy, b u t because he makes a l l things 'visible', SrjXa ( F 95. 3 2 ) . This etymology is one of the many i n Macrobius (sat. 1 17. 32) which Usener's p u p i l R . M u n z e l assigned to Apollodorus fay conjecture ; the conjecture was confirmed beyond any doubt b y the Geneva Scholia to the Iliad, and the number o f attested fragments on Apollo i n Books 13 and 14 o f ilepl 6ed>v increased considerably ( F 95~99)W h a t have been hitherto the most important fragments on A t h e n a are contained i n the discussion o f the etymology and meaning o f yXavKwrris, where Apollodorus tells us that i t is not to be connected w i t h the place rXavKWTnov on the Acropolis, as apparently i t had been by Callimachus, but that i t is derived from the yXavaaeiv o f her eyes. W e may now have a substantial addition t o these scanty remains i n t w o columns o f an anonymous papyrus conjectured b y R . Merkelbach t o be a part o f Ilepl Oetov. T h e writer strongly criticizes the use o f boXixdopos as a n epithet o f Pallas Athena i n two poems o f the vewrepot o n the ground that it is against the Homeric usage of dop, which means sword, not spear; but, he continues, she sprang (e^ave-naXro) swaying (-rraXXopevri) the spear from the head o f Zeus which Hephaestus had opened by a blow o f his axe. Everything here seems to point to Apollodorus as the author: the impressive display o f learning, the polemics against the wrong usage o f a word i n post-Homeric poetry, above a l l , the etymology, which is exactly i n his style. Merkelbach's arguments may be supplemented by another. There is a slight coincidence o f the new papyrus w i t h a passage i n Philodemus Ilepl evaeßelas about Zeus' head being split by the axe o f Hephaestus for 3
of Places
and of Gods
Explained
2153
the birth o f Pallas; and that this is derived from Apollodorus was cautiously and convincingly argued a long time ago b y R . M i i n z e l . Philodemus must have known Apollodorus' w o r k : his Ilepl evaefieias is the only source o f our knowledge of the number o f books into which i7