FREDA BEDI CONT'D (#4)

[admin]

Distinguishing Homonymous Writers, Detecting Spurious Works: Demetrius of Magnesia's On Poets and Authors with the Same Name
by Pietro Zaccaria
From Defining Authorship, Debating Authenticity: Problems of Authority from Classical Antiquity to the Renaissance
Edited by Roberta Berardi, Martina Filosa, and Davide Massimo
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

1 Introduction

In the context of a discussion about authority, authenticity, and authorship, the figure and work of the 1st century BC scholar Demetrius of Magnesia is surely worthy of consideration.1 Demetrius, a contemporary of Cicero, is the author of a pinacographical/biographical work entitled On Poets and Writers with the Same Name. Even though the work is lost, we can reconstruct, at least to some extent, its content, structure, and character thanks to about 30 fragments preserved by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (fr. 1 Mejer), Plutarch (frr. 2-3, 5 Mejer), the author of the Lives of the Ten Orators (fr. 4 Mejer), Harpocration (fr. 6 Mejer), Athenaeus (fr. 7 Mejer), and Diogenes Laertius (frr. 8-31 Mejer).2

The work was aimed at distinguishing between homonymous writers, providing biographical, bibliographical, and literary information. As the Greeks were aware of the fact that homonymy could lead to misleading attributions of literary works,3 it comes as no surprise that Demetrius also dealt with the problem of pseudepigraphy. However, this aspect of his work has been somewhat overlooked by scholars.4

The aim of this article is to reconstruct Demetrius' method of detecting pseudepigraphic works as much as possible on the basis of the available evidence. It is structured in three parts. First, the content, structure, and aim of Demetrius' work On Poets and Writers with the Same Name are briefly sketched in light of the extant fragments. Then, three fragments testifying to how Demetrius dealt with the problem of pseudepigraphy are analyzed in detail (frr. 14, 10, 1 Mejer). Finally, some general conclusions are drawn about Demetrius' approach to pseudepigraphy and its relationship to the method later developed by his younger contemporary Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

2 Demetrius' On Poets and Writers with the Some Name

Demetrius' On Poets and Writers with the Same Name ([x]) was a pinacographical/biographical work structured in separate alphabetical entries, each of them providing a full list of men (above all writers) who went by the same name. Within each entry, the various homonyms were distinguished on the basis of their biography and literary output. This work, the only one from antiquity devoted to homonyms of which a number of fragments is still extant, was probably intended as a biographical/bibliographical support to be consulted in case of uncertain identifications or attributions.5 We do not know the precise chronology and place of composition of the work, but it seems reasonable to assume that it was written in the second quarter of the 1st century BC and that copies of it circulated in Rome by the mid-1st century BC.6

Our knowledge of its structure mainly depends on two important testimonies provided by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Diogenes Laertius. in his essay On Dinarchus, Dionysius literally quotes Demetrius' entry on various men called Dinarchus (Din. 1.2-2.1 = fr. 1 Mejer). I will come back to this passage later in this article. For the moment, it is sufficient to recall the structure of Demetrius' entry quoted in it. At the very beginning, the number of men called Dinarchus is given. Then, each namesake is briefly identified, primarily on the basis of the literary output and of short biographical remarks (relative chronology, origin, etc.). Finally, a more detailed description for each namesake is provided separately. On the basis of this fragment, scholars have usually concluded that all entries consisted of a 'general' and a 'detailed' part.7 However, the very fact that Demetrius explicitly declares his intention to speak in detail of the various 'Deinarchoi' ([x]) speaks against the assumption that all entries had a separate detailed part. Diogenes Laertius (1.38 = fr. 8 Mejer) reports Demetrius' entry on men called Thales. Here, only a general characterization is given for each homonym. in this case, however, we do not know whether Diogenes Laertius quoted the entire entry of Demetrius. On the basis of these fragments, we can conclude that the order of the homonyms within the lists was not strictly chronological and that non-writers were included as well. The assumption, based on the book title, that Demetrius only listed writers is patently contradicted by the evidence.8 For example, painters and philosophers who did not write were certainly also included (frr. 8, 25 Mejer).

The extant fragments testify that biographical information played a central role in Demetrius' work (frr. 2-9, 11-13,15-16, 18-24, 27-29, 31 Mejer), but bibliographical information was also important, because the attribution of literary works was one way of distinguishing between homonyms (frr. 1, 7-8, 10, 14, 24- 26, 30 Mejer). Demetrius might have relied on book catalogues, as is suggested by the fact that he sometimes quoted the beginning of literary works (Diog. Laert. 8.85 = fr. 26 Mejer).9 It has reasonably been suggested that Demetrius based his bibliographical information on the pinakes [a lost bibliographic work composed by Callimachus (310/305–240 BCE) that is popularly considered to be the first library catalog in the West; its contents were based upon the holdings of the Library of Alexandria during Callimachus' tenure there during the third century BCE.] of the libraries of Alexandria and Pergamum.10 At any rate, it is uncertain whether or to what extent he himself provided full catalogues of works.11 Dion. Hal. Din. 1.2-2.1 (fr. 1 Mejer) shows that Demetrius could speak of the literary output of a writer without providing a list of works (see below). Closely connected with Demetrius' interest in the literary output of the various homonyms is his concern with the problem of pseudepigraphy. This is testified by three important fragments, preserved by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (fr. 1 Mejer) and Diogenes Laertius (frr. 14, 10 Mejer), that show that Demetrius adopted a conscious, critical attitude towards the problem of spurious writings.

3 Xenophon's Constitution of the Athenians and the Spartans (fr. 14 Mejer)

In the bios of Xenophon, Diogenes Laertius mentions Demetrius at the end of the list of the philosopher's writings (2.56-57 = fr. 14 Mejer):12

[x]

[x]

[x]
He (scil. Xenophon) wrote about forty books, which are divided in different ways:

the Anabasis

(for which he composed a proem to each book, but not one to the whole work),

Education of Cyrus,
Hellenica,
Memorabilia,
Symposium,
Oeconomicus,
On Horse Racing,
On Hunting,
On the Duty of a Cavalry General,
Apology of Socrates,
On Revenues,
Hieron or On Tyranny,
Agesilaus, and
Constitution of the Athenians and the Spartans,
about which Demetrius of Magnesia says that it is not by Xenophon.

While it is not certain whether the entire list of Xenophon's works derives from Demetrius, the sentence regarding the contested authenticity of the politeia(i) can be considered a certain fragment of his.13 Demetrius is the only ancient source doubting the authenticity of the Constitution of the Spartans and possibly also of the Constitution of the Athenians. The wording used by Diogenes Laertius is not clear, and its meaning has been greatly debated. The main problems arise from three considerations. First, nowadays it is the Constitution of the Athenians that is usually considered spurious, not that of the Spartans: accordingly, some scholars think that the order of the two Constitutions must have been reversed by Diogenes Laertius or his source, who, they argue, misunderstood Demetrius' text,14 Second, in the manuscripts of Xenophon's works the order of the two Constitutions is Spartans-Athenians.15 Third, the singular forms [x] and [x] might suggest that Diogenes Laertius and/or Demetrius considered the two Constitutions as a single work, the authenticity of which was rejected.16 Furthermore, if the book order was in antiquity the same as in the Mediaeval manuscripts, the fact that we find a [x] in the opening sentence of the Constitution of the Athenians might suggest that this work was thought as the continuation of the Constitution of the Spartans.17 Faced with these problems, scholars argued that Demetrius considered either the Constitution of the Spartans18 or t he Constitution of the Athenians19 or both works20 as  non-Xenophontic.

The question cannot be settled on linguistic grounds: since there are no parallel passages in Diogenes Laertius where two or more constitutions are paired together,21 it is not possible to determine whether Demetrius/Diogenes Laertius intended the two works as a single one. Nor there is any reason to claim that the text of Diogenes Laertius, as it stands, is corrupt or that he misunderstood his source. The simple fact that the manuscripts of Xenophon report the order Constitution of the Spartans-Constitution of the Athenians and that the latter has the particle [x] in the first sentence do not necessarily imply that the two Constitutions were considered a single work by Demetrius/Diogenes Laertius.22 Moreover, and more importantly, we should resist the temptation to change the transmitted text in order to ascribe to an ancient scholar a conviction of modern philologists.23 Consequently, the best and most prudent solution is to keep the transmitted text and (leaving open the question of the single work) to assume that Demetrius regarded the Constitution of the Spartans or both Constitutions as spurious. As regards the sequence of the works, another possible scenario might be added to those proposed by scholars thus far: Diogenes Laertius may have found in his source the two Constitutions in the same order as in the Mediaeval manuscripts (Spartans-Athenians), but might have changed their position in order to put the work of which the authenticity was doubted last (Athenians-Spartans).24

Unfortunately, Diogenes Laertius does not report the reason of Demetrius' athetesis [The act or fact of setting aside as spurious; rejection as invalid.], so that we can only speculate. in the case of the Constitution of the Spartans, Demetrius might have had reasons of content: since he probably refuted the tradition of Xenophon's return to Athens from the exile (Diog. Laert. 2.56= fr. 13 Mejer) and presented him as a pro-Spartan (Diog. Laert. 2.52= fr. 12 Mejer), he might not have accepted the criticisms of Spartan society found in chapter 14 of the Constitution of the Spartans as Xenophontic. With Lapini, one might also take into account the possibility that Demetrius did not consider Xenophon as the author of the Constitution of the Spartans because Xenophon himself was not a Spartan.25 This hypothesis is based on a comparison with another fragment of Demetrius in which a certain Hippasus is said to have written a Constitution of the Laconians, being himself a Laconian (Diog. Laert. 8.84= fr. 25 Mejer).26 On the other hand, reasons of style and language might have prompted Demetrius to doubt the authenticity of the Constitution of the Athenians.27 According to Lapini, 'bisogna ammettere che e piuttosto remota la possibilita che un poligrafo del I sec. a.C. abbia divinato ope ingenii la falsa attribuzione dello scritto' [Google translate: it must be admitted that the possibility that a polygraph of the 1st century B.C. has divined ope ingenii the false attribution of the writing];28 however, the analysis of other fragments will show that this possibility cannot be ruled out a priori. All in all, the problem cannot be settled with any certainty. One might thus share Lapini's scepticism and conclude that 'il problema - allo stato attuale delle conoscenze - va dichiarato insolubile' [Google translate: the problem - at the present state of knowledge - must be declared insoluble].29

4 Epimenides' Letter to Solon (fr. 10 Mejer)

Another fragment, reported by Diogenes Laertius in the bios of the Archaic poet and seer Epimenides of Crete, is highly revealing of Demetrius' approach to spurious texts (Diog. Laert. 1.112 = fr. 10 Mejer):30

[x] (scil. [x])(FGrHist / BNJ 457 T 1.112) [x]

A letter of his (scil. of Epimenides) to Solon the lawgiver, containing the constitution that Minos assigned to the Cretans, is in Circulation, too. Demetrius of Magnesia, however, in the books On Poets and Writers with the Same Name, tries to reject the authenticity of the letter as being recent and not written in the Cretan language, but in Attic, and even recent Attic.

The passage is preceded by a section devoted to Epimenides' literary output, where Lobon of Argos is mentioned as a source,31 and is followed by the full quotation of another letter allegedly written by Epimenides to Solon that Diogenes Laertius claims to have personally found.32 The letter, the authenticity of which was rejected by Demetrius, is not mentioned anywhere else in the extant sources. Other letters supposedly exchanged between Epimenides and Solon do not deal with the Cretan constitution. The letter reported by Diogenes Laertius immediately after our fragment, in which Epimenides invites Solon to come to Crete, is the reply to another letter by Solon in which the latter tells how Pisistratus became tyrant of Athens (1.64- 66).33 Diogenes Laertius probably found these two letters in a collection of forged letters which he extensively used in his first book.34

That a forger could ascribe to Epimenides a letter to Solon containing the constitution that Minos gave to the Cretans is no surprise. The ancient sources say that Epimenides came to Athens, invited by Solon and the Athenians, in order to purify the City;35 on that occasion, Epimenides 'paved the way' for Solon's legislation.36 Furthermore, Epimenides, a Cretan by birth,37 was known as the author of prose works on the legislation of Crete and on Minos and Rhadamanthys.38 The letter mentioned by Demetrius may have been based on these works.39

In this case, Diogenes Laertius reports the reason that (rightly) prompted Demetrius to consider the letter as spurious: it was not written in the Cretan dialect, but in recent Attic. The very fact that someone could ascribe to Epimenides a letter written in modern Attic shows that not many people could detect a non-authentic work on the basis of the language.40 To hide the nonauthentic character of the work, however, the second letter reported by Diogenes Laertlus (1.113) was written in literary Doric, with some Cretan elements.41

The distinction between old and recent Attic was not a rare one in antiquity.42 It was used, for example, by the Alexandrian grammarians Aristarchus and Herodianus in their Homeric criticism;43 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a younger contemporary of Demetrius, distinguished the old Attic of Plato and Thucydides from the ordinary language used by Lysias, Andocides and Critias;44 this old Attic differed but slightly from Ionic.45 For Strabo, too, Ionic was the same as ancient Attic.46 According to other later sources, Hippocrates wrote in old Attic,47 while New Comedy was to be distinguished from Old Comedy because it was written in recent Attic.48 Whatever the precise definition of recent Attic that Demetrius had in mind, he could surely distinguish an Archaic text from one written in Hellenistic koine.49 We cannot but follow him in rejecting the authenticity of what most probably was in fact a spurious letter.50

This fragment shows that Demetrius could combine different criteria to detect a spurious work: linguistic (the letter was written in recent Attic instead of ancient Cretan), geographical (Epimenides was a Cretan and must therefore have used the Cretan language), and chronological (since Epimenides was an archaic figure, he could not have expressed himself in a recent language). In this case, we have clear evidence that Demetrius himself inferred ope ingenii [Google translate: with the help of genius ], on the basis of internal reasons, the inauthenticity of a work reporting a constitution. We cannot therefore exclude the possibility that he did the same with Xenophon's Constitution of the Spartans (and of the Athenians).

5 Dinarchus' Against Demosthenes (fr. 1 Mejer)

The last testimony of Demetrius' interest in the problem of pseudepigraphy is preserved by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a younger contemporary of Demetrius who was active in Rome between 30 and 7 BC.51 In his essay On Dinarchus, which was probably written some years after Demetrius' death,52 Dionysius polemically reports a large section of Demetrius' entry on men called Dinarchus. This essay, one of Dionysius' last rhetorical works, represents the summa of his views on the problem of how to distinguish between an author's genuine and spurious works.53 It consists of three sections: 1) the reconstruction of Dinarchus' life and chronology (2-4); 2) the characterization of his style (5-8); 3) the distinction between genuine and spurious speeches (9-13).54 To establish the genuineness or spuriousness of Dinarchus' speeches, Dionysius systematically exploits the stylistic, artistic, chronological, and biographical/psychological criteria.55

The long quotation from Demetrius is reported with polemical aims at the beginning of the essay in a section in which Dionysius aims at showing the insufficiency of earlier scholarly research and at stressing the importance and originality of his own work. Dionysius refers to Callimachus, the grammarians of Pergamum, and Demetrius. Only the latter, however, is extensively quoted and sharply criticized (Din. 1.2-2.1 = fr. 1 Mejer):56

[x] (scil. [x]) [x] FGrHist / BNJ 465 T 1), [x] (FGrHist / BNJ 399 T 1), [x]

Even Demetrius of Magnesia, who was reputed to be a polymath, speaking about this man (scil. Dinarchus), too, in his treatise On Homonyms and giving the impression that he was going to say something accurate about him, did not meet the expectations. There is no reason not to report his own words. He wrote the following: We have come across four men called Dinarchus: one of them is one of the Attic orators; one collected legends about Crete; one, earlier than the latter two and a Delian by birth, wrote both poetry and history; the fourth composed a work on Homer. I want to treat each of them in turn, and first the orator. Now this man, at least in my opinion, is in no way inferior to Hyperides in charm, so that one could say: 'he might even have surpassed him'. For he uses a convincing argumentation and a variety of figures, and is so persuasive as to convince his audience that facts could not have taken place differently from what he says. And one might regard as naive those who assume that the speech Against Demosthenes was written by him, since it is very far from his style. Yet so much obscurity has prevailed that everyone happened to ignore his other speeches -- somewhat more than 160 -- while this one, which was not written by him, is alone considered his. The diction of Dinarchus properly portrays moral character and arouses emotion; maybe it is inferior to Demosthenes' style only in bitterness and intensity, but is in no way deficient in persuasiveness and propriety'. It is not possible to discover anything precise or even true from this description: for he has shown neither the origin of this man, nor the time in which he lived, nor the place in which he spent his life, but has busied himself only with common and current words and reported a number of speeches that is not consonant with any of those generally admitted. He should have rather done the opposite.

This long passage, as said above, represents an invaluable testimony for our knowledge of Demetrius' work. From our perspective, it is worth noting that Demetrius regarded the speech Against Demosthenes ([x]) as spurious.57 As in the case of Xenophon's Constitution of the Spartans (and of the Athenians) and of Epimenides' letter to Solon, Demetrius is the only authority to make this claim. Fortunately, we know the reason that led Demetrius to the athetesis: the speech was too far from Dinarchus' style.58 It Is also worth noting that Demetrius presents his position as being in contrast with others' opinion: once again, he seems to have contested ope ingenii an attribution which was generally accepted. However, Demetrius' view was followed neither by Dionysius59 nor by modern scholars60, who do not consider the speech Against Demosthenes to be very different in style from the other extant orations (Against Aristagiton and Against Philocles) and regard it therefore as genuine.61

The high number of orations reported by Demetrius (more than 160) also strikes us. This figure, according to Dionysius, was in contrast with the common opinion (the lists provided by Callimachus and the grammarians from Pergamum?). Dionysius himself does not explicitly cite any figure, but gives a full list of all genuine and spurious public and private speeches (Din. 10-13). The spurious speeches, however, cannot be counted anymore, since the text of codex F (the only testimony for the text) breaks off in the course of the enumeration of the spurious private speeches.62 Similarly, on account of possible textual corruptions it is no easy task to establish the exact number of the genuine orations, but the list in its original form probably counted around 60 speeches.63 After Dionysius, ps.-Plutarch (X orat. 850e) and Photius (Bibl. cod. 267 p. 496a-b Bekker) spoke of 64 genuine orations that were attributed to Dinarchus, some of which were handed down, however, under the name of Aristogiton.64 The Suda ([x] 333 s.v. [x]) claims that, even though some authors affirmed that Dinarchus wrote 160 orations, he actually wrote only 60 of them.65 In view of the significant discrepancy between the numbers provided by Demetrius (more than 160) and other authors (around 60), one wonders where Demetrius found this piece of information.66

We can see the traces of a debate. Demetrius attacks his predecessors calling them 'naive' for paying too much attention to a spurious oration, the Against Demosthenes, and for overlooking the other (authentic) orations. Dionysius, in turn, criticizes Demetrius for having provided no biographical information on Dinarchus and for having reported empty words concerning his style and an unreliable number of speeches. In Dionysius' eyes, it was not possible to determine the genuineness or spuriousness of an author's works without the support of a precise biographical framework that could reveal the author's chronology, place(s) of residence, literary activity, and political convictions.

In view of Demetrius' entry on Dinarchus, Dionysius' criticism seems to be justified. However, one should note that the biographical element normally played a primary role in Demetrius' work (frr. 2-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-24, 27-29, 31 Mejer). In the case of Dinarchus, Demetrius probably did not report any information because he could not find any in the available 'secondary' sources (e.g. Callimachus and the grammarians of Pergamum). This is borne out by the fact that Dionysius had to make first-hand research (based on Dinarchus' speech Against Proxenus and the Attidographer Philochorus) in order to reconstruct the orator's life.67 In addition, we know that Demetrius' criteria for establishing the genuineness or spuriousness of a literary work could represent something more than a generic stylistic comparison: the fragment on Epimenides analyzed above (fr. 10 Mejer) shows that Demetrius could combine chronological, geographical, and linguistic criteria. If our knowledge of Demetrius exclusively depended on Dionysius, the consequence would be a negative and unfair picture of Demetrius' work and qualities as a literary critic.

In view of Demetrius' fame as an erudite and of his interest in the problem of pseudepigraphy, I argue that Dionysius' polemic was not limited to the mere content of Demetrius' entry on Dinarchus. The scope and position of the textual quotation and the length of Dionysius' critical remarks may best be explained by assuming that Dionysius wanted to stress the differences, rather than the continuity, between his own work and that of Demetrius, an influential writer and a respected authority whose opinions in the field of literary criticism were probably well known in 1st. century BC Rome.68 A few years before Dionysius, Demetrius had concerned himself with the problem of pseudepigraphy and had written about the life and literary output of Attic orators and writers, such as Dinarchus, Demosthenes (frr. 2-5 Mejer), Isaeus (fr. 6 Mejer), and Xenophon (frr. 12-14 Mejer).69 In On Dinarchus, we may conclude, Dionysius sharply criticized his predecessor with the aim of enhancing his role as a literary critic, thereby presenting himself as the inventor of a systematic method for detecting spurious works.

6 Conclusions

The above analysis has shown that detecting (supposedly) spurious works must have been an important aspect of Demetrius' work. In his criticism, Demetrius does not appear to have followed others' opinions, but to have developed his own critical method. He is the only known authority to have considered Xenophon's Constitution of the Spartans (and perhaps also the Constitution of the Athenians), Epimenides' letter to Solon, and Dinarchus' Against Demosthenes as spurious. In the latter case, he even attacked his predecessors for considering Dinarchus' oration authentic. The fact that he himself regarded as spurious some texts that were usually considered genuine should prevent us from considering Demetrius a mere erudite compiler.70 Demetrius not only employed stylistic, but also chronological, geographical, and linguistic criteria, thus revealing a conscious, critical approach that in a way seems to have served as a prelude to the systematic literary criticism of his younger contemporary Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

_______________

Notes:

1 I would like to thank Prof. Stefan Schorn for reading and discussing with me the content of this article.

2 The fragments of Demetrius of Magnesia have been edited by Sheurleer (1858) and Mejer (1981). On Demetrius, cf. also Schwartz (1901), Gigante (1984), Aronadio (1990), Mejer (1994) and Ascheri (2013). Besides On Poets and Writers with the Same Name ([x]) Demetrius penned a work On Concord ([x]: T 1a-d Mejer) and On Cities with the Same Name ([x]: for a list of passages, see Mejer [1981)449 n. 5). In this article, I only take into account those passages that are explicitly ascribed to Demetrius by the citing authors. The question of whether all the lists of homonyms reported by Diogenes Laertius at the end of numerous bioi of philosophers derive from Demetrius is still open: stotus quaestionis in Mejer (1981) 450-1; Aronadio (1990) 235-7; Ascheri (2013). I am currently preparing a new edition of and a commentary on the fragments of Demetrius for the series Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker Continued Part IV.

3 See e.g. Plut. Arist. 1.6= Dem. Phal. fr.102 Stork-Ophuijsen-Dorandi= Panaet. T 153 Alessi; Diog. Laert. 7.163= Panaet. T 151 Alessi = Sosicr. Hist. fr.12 Giannattasio Andria; Suet. Gramm. 1; Quint. Inst. 3.5.14; Elias in Cat. p. 128, 9-18 Busse; Phlp. in Cat. p. 7, 16-19 Busse, Cf. Speyer (1971) 37-39; D'Ippolito (2000) 311; Speciale (2000) 513-4.

4 No specific studies, as far as I know, have dealt with this aspect of Demetrius' work. Scattered references to Demetrius' criticism can be found in Speyer (1971) 37-39, 118, 124-6.

5 In the Imperial period, a similar work [x] was authored by a certain Agresphon/Agreophon (FGrHist 1081). This obscure writer is only mentioned in an entry of the Suda that ascribes him a book [x]: see Suda a 3421, s.v. [x] = Agreophon, FGrHist 1081:[x]. Being cited as a source on a philosopher called Apollonius who supposedly lived under Hadrian (117-138 AD), he is generally considered to have lived in the 2nd or 3rd century AD: see Nietzsche (1869) 227 (2nd/3rd century AD); Cronert (1906) 134 (2nd century AD); Meier (1981) 450 (2nd century AD); Radicke on FGrHist 1081 (3rd/4th century AD). The hypothesis that his work was based on or was a continuation of that of Demetrius is neither contradicted nor supported by the evidence. For this hypothesis, see Nietzsche (1869) 227-8; Cronert (1906) 134; Radicke on FGrHist 1081.

6 From three letters by Cicero to Atticus (49 BC), we know that Cicero was familiar with Demetrius' work On Concord, which was probably dedicated to Atticus (T 1a-d Mejer). Furthermore, Cicero seems to have used Demetrius' work On Poets and Writers with the Same Name to write the Tusculanae disputatianes and De natura deorum in 45 BC (Tusc. 5.36.104 recalls fr.29 Meier; Nat D. 1.26.72 recalls fr.31 Meier). In addition, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who was active in Rome between 30 and 7 BC. says that he was reputed to be a polymath ([x], cf, fr.1 Mejer). As for Demetrius' chronology, the terminus ante quem is provided by the fact that a work of his (probably On Concord or On Poets and Writers with the Same Name) had already been published by 55 BC (T 1d Meier). The terminus post quem is given by the mention of Zeno of Sidon, who became head of the Epicurean school at Athens around 110/5 BC and was old when Cicero and Atticus attended his lectures in 79/8 BC (fr. 7 Meier). The way in which Dionysius of Halicarnassus refers to Demetrius in fr.1 Mejer ([x]) implies that the latter was already dead when the former wrote his book On Dinarchus.

7 See e.g. Mejer (1981) 451; Aronadio (1990) 238; Ascheri (2013).

8 For this influential assumption, see Maass (1880) 24-27.

9 See Duhrsen (2005) 262-3.

10 See Scheurleer (1858) 8; Nietzsche (1869) 183; Blum (1991) 197, 201; Jacob (2000) 97.

11 Cf. Mejer (1981) 451.

12 Ed. Dorandi (2013).

13 The hypothesis that the entire list derives from Demetrius was put forward by von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1881) 334; Roquette (1884) 34; Munscher (1920) 106-7; Mejer (1981) 460; Canfora (2004) 245 n. 53. The fragment of Demetrius Is followed by the famous remark about the 'edition' of Thucydides' books by Xenophon. This sentence has been considered part of Demetrius' fragment by Adcock (1963) 137-8 and Canfora (1970) 73 n. 24; (2004) 210-1, 245. However, this assumption is uncertain, since the passage is introduced by [x]: cf. Gomme et al. (1945-81) V 438; Natalicchio (1992) 87 n. 57.

14 This argument was first proposed by Diels in Pierleoni (1905) 1. See also Treu (1967) 1928-82; Schutrumpf (2002) 641; Ramirez Vidal (2005) xxxiv-lv; Marr/Rhodes (2008) 6-12. However, some scholars still think that the author might be Xenophon: see Fontana (1968) 84- 102; Sordi (2002) 17-24; (2005) 19-22; Serra (2012-3) 161-89. Others think that the work was written in the 4th century BC: see Roscalla (1995) 105-30; Hornblower (2000) 363-84. For a status quaestionis [Google translate: the status of the problem], see Searzot (2011) 3-24; Tuci (2011) 29-71; Lenfant (2017) iv-xxvii. The Constitution a/the Spartans is nowadays ascribed to Xenophon: see Breitenbach (1967) 1746-53; Ollier (1979) vii-xi; Luppino Manes (1988) 19-31; Rebenich (1998) 14-35; Schutrumpf (2002) 638; Lipka (2002) 5-9. Its authenticity was refuted by Chrimes (1948) 17-30 and Lana (1992) 17-26.

15 On the manuscripts transmitting the Constitution of the Athenians, see Lenfant (2017) cxxiii-cxxxvii.

16 This view was first put forward by Casaubon: see Treu (1967) 1931. See also Roquette (1884) 34; Frisch (1942) 38-39; Masqueray (1964) xiii n. 1; Lenfant (2017) xvii. Cf. also Lapini (1991) 21- 22.

17 Xen. Ath. pol. 1.1: [x]. See Pierleoni (1905) 1; Richards (1907) 55; Sordi (2002) 18; Marr/Rhodes (2008) 60; Weber (2010) 65. Status quaestionis in Lenfant (2017) 24-25.

18 See Kalinka (1913) 18-20; Munscher (1920) 106-7; Masqueray (1964) xiii; Treu (1967) 1930-2; Ollier (1979) vii-viii; Lipka (2002) 6-7.

19 See Diels in Pierleoni (1905) 1; Frisch (1942) 38-39; Gigante (1953) 81- 82; Natalicchio (1992) 86 n. 56.

20 See Roquette (1884) 34; Frisch (1942) 38-39; Lapini (1991) 21-22; Sordi (2002) 17-18; Humble (2004) 217; Ramirez Vidal (2005) xxxv-xxxvi; Marr/Rhodes (2008) 6-7; Serra (2012-3) 161-2; Lenfant (2017) xvii.

21 As a book title, politeia is always found either alone or with the specification of a single land or people: see Diog. Laert. 1.61: [x]; 1.112: [x]; 3.60: [x]; 4.12: [x] 5.22: [x]: 5.27: [x]; 5,43: [x]: 5.45: [x]: 5.81: [x]: 6.16: [x]; 6.80: [x]; 7.4: [x]; 7.36: [x]; 7.178:[x]; 8.84: [x]; 9.55: [x]; 7.34: [x]; 8.13: [x].

22 Lenfant (2017) 25 rightly notes that the Apology of Socrates and the Oeconomicus also have the particle [x] in the first sentence, which might be regarded as a feature of oral style.

23 As rightly remarked by Lapini (1991) 21. If the Constitution of the Athenians was actually mentioned by Demetrius, this fragment would be the most ancient testimony for the existence and the attribution of the text to Xenophon. Scholars think that the text (if non authentic) was attributed to Xenophon either soon after his death or by the Alexandrian scholars: see Kalinka (1913) 18-20; Munscher (1920) 106-7; Frisch (1942) 38-39; Gigante (1953) 81-82; Marr/Rhodes (2008) 6-7; Serra (2012-3) 169.

24 Another solution has been proposed by Serra (2012-3) 161-2: 'E curioso che Demetria, se la citazione di Diogene e fedele, unifichi le due Costitulioni (solo se e cosi, il suo dubbio colpisce la nostra Costituziane), ma anche inverta - si direbbe normalizzi -l'ordine in cui esse compaiono nella tradizione diretta ... Quest'ordine non 'classico' ha un senso solo se pensiamo alla posizione del 'cavaliere' Senofonte, per il quale la costituzione spartana verrebbe idealmente prima di quella ateniese [ ...]' [Google translate: And curious that Demetria, if the quotation of Diogenes is faithful, unifies them two Constitutions (only if so, his doubt affects our Constitutions), but also reverses - one would say normalizes - the order in which they appear in direct tradition ... This non-'classical' order it only makes sense if we think about the position of the 'knight' Xenophon, for whom the Spartan constitution would ideally come before the Athenian one [...]].

25 See Lapini (1991) 22.

26 Diog. Laert. 8.84 = fr. 25 Mejer: [x] (scil.[x]) (18 A 1 D.-K.) [x]; (FGrHist / BNJ 589 T 1) [x].

27 See e.g. Richards (1907) 55-56. Cf. Lapini (1997) 9, who speaks of an 'irrimediabile diversita dello stile edel pensiero' [Google translate: irremediable diversity of style and thought]. See also Lapini (1998) 118: 'Se si rida voce alla traditio e si restituisce l'opera a Senofonte, come si spiegano gli ionismi dell'anonimo?' [Google translate: If one laughs at the traditio and returns the work to Xenophon, how do you explain the ionisms of the anonymous?]. On the Ionisms, see Caballero Lopez (1997) 8-27. As regards the Constitution of the Spartans, stylistic evaluations of modern scholars vary: see e.g. Kohler (1896) 376: 'Die [x], was die Klarheit der Gedanken und des Ausdrucks anlangt, hinter anderen Schriften Xenophon's zuruck; dieser nicht zu verkennende Unterschied muss es gewesen sein, welcher den Kritiker Dionysios [sic] Magnes bewogen hatte, die Schrift Xenophon abzusprechen' [Google translate: The [x] what the in clarity of thought and expression, behind others Xenophon's writings back; this unmistakable one It must have been a difference which made the critic Dionysios [sic] had persuaded Magnes to deny the writing Xenophon.]; Richards (1907) 55: 'in the case of the R.L. there is no reason on grounds of style for denying X.'s authorship'; Ollier (1979) viii: 'On peut affirmer que jamais ouvrage ne porta mieux que celui-la la signature de son auteur' [Google translate: We can affirm that never work carried better than this one the signature of its author]; Lipka (2002) 7: 'Many arguments could be put forward to explain why Demetrius doubted X.'s authorship, starting from the work's stylistic simplicity, unevenness, and linguistic obscurity'.

28 Lapini (1991) 21-22.

29 Lapini (1991) 22.

30 Ed. Dorandi (2013).

31 Diog. Laert. 1.111-2 = Lobo Argivus fr. 16 Cronert = fr. 8 Garulli.

32 Dlog. Laert. 1.112-3: [x].

33 Cf. Gigante (2001) 19. See also Suda E 2471, s.v. [x]; (FGrHist I BNJ 457 T 2 = 3 A 1 D.- K. = T 2 Bernabe): [x].

34 See Demoulin (1901) 116, 133; Gigante (2001) 10. According to Duhrsen (1994). these letters were part of a Briefroman. Cf. also Portulas (2002) 219-20; Gomez (2002); Holzberg (2006) 31.

35 See e.g. Plut. Sal. 12 (FGrHist / BNJ 457 T 4c = 4 A 1 D.-K. = T 3 Bernabe); Diog. Laert. l.110-1.

36 Plut. Sol. 12.8 (FGrHist / BNJ 457 T 4c = 4 A 1 D.-K. = T 3 Bernabe): [x].

37 On Epimenides' link with Crete, see especially Tortorelli Ghidini (2000) and Tortorelli Ghidini (2001); Mele (2001).

38 Diog. Laert. 1.112 = Lobo Argivus fr. 16 Cronert = fr. 8 Garulli: [x]. The list of Epimenides' works probably comes from Lobon of Argos: see Demoulin (1901) 74-75; West (1983) 52; Gigante (2001) 21; Mele (2001) 231-232; Toye on BNJ 457 T 1.

39 See Demoulin (1901) 133; Mele (2001) 231-2. According to West (1983) 52 and Toye on BNJ 457 T 1, the two works may even have been identical. Eratosth. Cat. 27 = Epimenid., FGrHist / BNJ 457 T 9 also mentions a work called Kretika: see West (1983) 52; Toye on BNJ 457 T 1.

40 For a similar case, see Paus. 2.37.2-3. Cf. also Ath. 13.72.599c-d = Chamael. fr. 28 Martano. For a Similar kind of criticism by Eratosthenes, see Blum (1991) 241, referring to Strecker (1884) 16.

41 See Cassio (2000) 153: 'Diogene Laerzio quindi riporta per esteso (1.113) una pretesa lettera di Epimenide a Solone scritta in un dorico letterario con alcune caratteristiche che potrebbero essere cretesi (passaggio [e]> [ i] in [x]) accanto altre che non lo sono affatto (p. es. dativi in -[x] in [x])' [Google translate: Diogenes Laertius then reports in full (1.113) an alleged letter from Epimenides to Solon written in a Doric literary with some characteristics that could be Cretan (step [e]> [i] in [x]) alongside others that are not at all (e.g. datives in - [x] in [x])]. See also Demoulin (1901) 133; Gomez (2002) 201-2. According to Duhrsen (1994) 86, Diogenes Laertius regarded this letter as genuine because of the language.

42 Cf. Cassio (1993) 36 n. 2 and Cassio (2000) 154 n. 1, with literature.

43 See Stephan (1889) 25-26; Pfeiffer (1968) 228; Cassio (1993) 36 n. 2; Cassio (2000) 154 n. 1.

44 Dion. Hal. Lys. 2: [x].

45 Dion. Hal. Thuc. 23: [x].

46 Strab. 8.1.2 p. 333C:[x]).

47 Gal. vol. XVIII B p. 322 Kuhn.

48 Prolegomena de Comoedia V 5, XI b 53 Koster.

49 Cassio (2000) 154; Mele (2001) 231-2.

50 Demoulin (1901) 116; Mejer (1981) 458.

51 We do not know the absolute chronology of this work, but scholars usually assume that Dionysius' rhetorical works were written in Rome between 30 and 7 BC and that the book On Dinarchus was one of his last treatises, if not the very last: see Bonner (1939) 37-38; Pavano (1942) 335-6, 353; Untersteiner (1959) 81-82; Marenghi (1969) 4, 11; Shoemaker (1971) 393-4; Aujac (1992) 104; Galan Vioque/Guerrero (2001) 133.

52 This is revealed by the words [x] at the beginning of the passage quoted below: see Scheurleer (1858) 3; Mejer (1981) 449; Duhrsen (2005) 249; Ascheri (2013).

53 Dionysius has been considered by Untersteiner (1959) the 'fondatore della critica pseudepigrafica' [Google translate: founder of pseudepigraphic criticism].

54 Manuscript F (Laurentianus LIX 15), the only testimony of the text, breaks off in the course of the enumeration of Dinarchus' spurious private speeches.

55 On these criteria, see especially Untersteiner (1959); Marenghi (1970) 36-42; D'Ippolito (2000) 297.

56 Ed. Aujac (1992). The conjecture [x], not reported by Aujac, was put forward by Radermacher in Usener/Radermacher (1899).

57 Demetrius' statement does not imply that other scholars attributed only the oration Against Demosthenes to Dinarchus, but rather that the speech was by far the most famous: see Shoemaker (1968) 65-66. Demetrius was probably thinking of Dinarchus' [x] (Dion. Hal. Din. 10.27) and not of [x], which is said by Dionysius to be spurious (Dion. Hal. Din. 11.18), In fact. it was because of the speeches written on the occasion of the Harpalus affair that Dinarchus was well known: cf. Shoemaker (1968) 65- 66.

58 The style (charakter) of an author was commonly involved in questions of authenticity: see Ritchie (1964) 11-15; Speyer (1971) 124-5; Hunter (2002) 94-95; Fries (2014) 22.

59 See Dion. Hal. Din. 10.27.

60 See e.g. Schaefer (1885-1887) III 339-40; Blass (1887-1898) III/2, 331; Marenghi (1970) 40, 70 n. 22; Worthington (1992) 12 n. 28; Aujac (1992) 166 n. 3.

61 See Marenghi (1970) 70 n. 22; Mejer (1981) 454.

62 Dion. Hal. Din. 13.8. There are 27 extant spurious titles in Dionysius' list: see Shoemaker (1968) 68-69.

63 Scholars put forward numbers varying from 59 to 64: see Shoemaker (1968) 78. The list printed by Shoemaker, followed by Worthington (1992) 11, counts 61 speeches, with 29 genuine public and 32 genuine private speeches. According to Galan Vioque/Guerrero (2001) 137, Dionysius considered 28 public and 31 private speeches as genuine.

64 [Plut.] X orat. 850e: [x]; Phot. Bibl. cod. 267 p. 496a- b Bekker: [x].

65 Suda [x] 333, s.v. [x]. A family of six Mediaeval manuscripts from the 10th to the 15th century reports the figure of 410 or 400 orations, which is clearly incorrect: see Shoemaker (1968) 84-86.

66 Cf. Worthington (1992) 11. According to Nietzsche (1869) 183, Demetrius added the number of orations he found in the Alexandrian Pinakes to the figure he found in the Pergamenian catalogues.

67 Dion. Hal. Din. 3.1 . Other later sources on the orator's life are [Plut.] X orat. 850c-e and Phot. Bibl. cod. 267 p. 496a-b Bekker. Suda [x] 333, s.v. [x] confuses the orator with a homonymous Corinthian politician. On Dinarchus' life and biographical sources, see especially Shoemaker (1968) 8-60; Worthington (1992) 3-12.

68 This procedure is typical in historiography: cf. e.g. Schepens (2000) 11-12.

69 On Demetrius' Atticist attitude, see especially Schwartz (1901) 2815, followed by Mejer (1981) 452; Gigante (1984) 101. See also Duhrsen (2005) 260-2, 265.

70 Of course, our knowledge of Demetrius is completely dependent upon the citing authors; therefore, we should not conclude that Demetrius always contradicted the common opinion.

[admin]

'On Sail-Flying Ships Did I Roam the Great Sea ...': The Epitaph of an Anonymous Merchant from Brundisium
by Anna Dorotea Teofilo
From Defining Authorship, Debating Authenticity: Problems of Authority from Classical Antiquity to the Renaissance
Edited by Roberta Berardi, Martina Filosa, and Davide Massimo
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Si non molestum est, hospes, consiste et lege.
Nauibus ueliuolis magnum mare saepe cucurri,
accessi terras conplures, terminus hicc est
quem mihi nascenti quondam Parcae cecinere.
Hic meas deposui curas omnesque labores,
sidera non timea hic nec nimbos nec: mare saeuom.
nec metuo sumptus ni quaestum uincere possit.
Alma Fides, tibi ago grates, sanctissuma diua,
fortuna infracta ter me fessum recreasti,
tu digna es quam mortales optent sibi cuncti.
Hospes uiue uale, in sumptum superet tibi semper,
qua non spreuisti hunc lapidem dignumq(ue) dicasti.
CIL IX 60= CLE 1533

If it is no bother, wayfarer, stop and read. On sail-flying ships did I roam the great sea and reach many lands; this is the end of which the Parcae sang at my birth. Here I have laid down my troubles and all my toils; neither do I dread the stars here nor the storms nor ruthless sea, and I do not fear that expense might exceed advantage. I thank you, kindly Fides, most holy goddess, who three times restored me from a broken fortune, and who is worthy of devotion from all mortals. Wayfarer, live and fare well, may you always have money to spend, for you did not overlook this gravestone, but proclaimed it worthy.1

The epitaph presents, from a first reading, conspicuous elements of interest: length and metric form, content and references, undefined details. It was published several times (either individually or in collections, cf. Henzen [1872], at IX 60 and CLE 1533, De Ruggiero/Vaglieri [1904] 3186, Alessandri [1997)) and has often been quoted by scholars, in various contexts and to different ends. On the one hand, it has been studied in relation to social and economic history, due to its allusion to commerce and trade routes in Roman Apulia and in the Mediterranean through the port of Brindisi (cf. Silvestrini [1987), Giardina [1989], Silvestrini [1998], Grelle et al. [2017)). Other points of comparison are with literary history and epigraphic tradition, with its originality of composition and the unusually high number of allusions to canonical authors, as it has been widely recognized (cf. La Penna [1979], Massaro [1983], Caviglia [1964], Cugusi [1985], Cugusi [20(4)). Nevertheless, after Plessis (1905) n. 17, the epitaph has seldom been analyzed in a systematic way incorporating these different points of interest. This has only been done by Tise (2001), which paid special concern to the social and economic implications of both its material and literary aspects; Franzoi (2004) has provided instead more of a stylistic and linguistic analysis. With this in mind, the present work intends to contribute further reflections and thoughts.

The inscription was uncovered in Brindisi during the dredging of the port, and exists across two matching fragments of a marble slab, found in 1869 and 1871 respectively (the former containing the last four lines). It was first published by Henzen (1872), who had received a record of the inscription, an account of its material features and a paper squeeze by the priest and archaeologist Giovanni Tarantini, long-time chief librarian in Brindisi. The inscription was later included in CIL and CLE. It is now housed in the Museo Archeologico Provinciale 'F. Ribezzo' in Brindisi (inv. 813), and measures 65,5 x 52,3 x 4,7 cm.

The letters are thinly cut, with clear serifs (but no shading), and some featuring curved horizontal strokes; there are some ornamental tall letters, as well as tall long I's and apices to mark long vowels. Words are divided by a consistent usage of interpuncta, with the only exception at I. 11 between in and sumptum, where the stonecutter must have regarded the collocation, perhaps unconsciously, as a single word. There is also an interpunctum at the end of I. 1 separating the first verse from those following it, marking out its distinctiveness as a conceptual and metric unit.2

All the palaeographic elements suggest a date between the second half of the 1st century AD and the early 2nd century AD.3 Bucheler was led to date the stone 'propius ab Augusto', back to the Julio-Claudian age, from the text of the inscription only. Judging from the closing dignumq(ue) dicasti he was also uncertain about its completeness. Actually, since the name and age of the deceased are missing, as well as any information about the dedicator, the gravestone must relate to a more elaborate monument.4

The text consists of a verse per line, the first one in slightly reduced module compared to the others, without any indent, protrusion, or similar devices.5 The 12 verses of the inscription are metrically consistent.6 The opening iambic senarius, addressing the wayfarer, is followed by hexameters: the first nine illustrate the deceased's life, with a succession of three verse sentences, each made up of three coordinated main clauses and a complement clause; the two closing hexameters appeal again to the wayfarer with friendly greetings.

It Is a remarkable first-person narration of a merchant who, after a life of travels and adventures, had met with the destiny foretold by the Parcae (II. 2- 4), and is now resting in peace with no further fear of shipwreck and financial distress (II. 5-7). He praises Fides for having managed to recover from three bankruptcies, presumably due to the faithfulness of his debtors (II. 8-10), and finally wishes health and affluence to the wayfarer who had stopped to read his epitaph (II. 11-12).

A peculiarity in spelling is to be noticed at I. 3 in the demonstrative form 'hicc',7 which grammarians found alongside 'hocc' in the most ancient manuscripts of Virgil.8 Grammarians actually preferred this alternative spelling to the more common one, as this syntactic doubling better explained the lengthening of the vowel (and consequent change in accent).9 The pronoun consists of the root ho-, with the thematic vowel inflexion, and the deictic particle -ce: the full forms 'hicce' and hocce', due to the economy of the spoken language, tended to drop the final vowel before a word starting in a vowel, thereby reducing the value of the double consonant.10 However, in this case the full form does not seem to have been chosen in order to fulfil scholarly tradition, but rather to distinguish the adjective 'hic' from the adverb 'hic' in a position where a long syllable is required. This was a specific semantic choice. The spelling 'saeuom' at I. 6, Instead, is probably preferred in order to avoid the double letter /V/ on the stone.

As concerns prosody, one must read 'meas' at I. 5 as a monosyllable due to synizesis.11 It is also to be noticed that the first four feet of II. 3, 9, and 10 are all spondees, whose rhythm emphasizes the merchant's adventures and hardships, and his final destiny and the intervention of Fides.

1. The address of the wayfarer follows the epigraphic tradition, which usually conveys in iambic metre, rather than dactylic, the conventional familiar appeal to stop and read. The most commonly attested collocation is 'hospes resiste' at the beginning of an iambic senarius,12 whereas 'consiste uiator' fits likewise at the end of a hexameter;13 here 'hospes consiste' is a suitable option for the middle of the verse-line.14

Other verbs or phrases may also replace, or combine with, 'lege' (or 'perlege') in such addresses. Together with 'resiste', one tends to find verba videndi, taking the grave as a concrete object or motion towards: e.g. 'perspice monumentum' in CIL 1 [2] 3146 (from Stabiae); 'tumulum aspic[e]' in CLE 63 (= CIL V 6808 and CIL I [2] 2161, from Eporedia); 'tumulum contempla' in CLE 83 (= CIL IX 2128, from near Beneuentum); 'hoc ad grumum ... aspice / ubei continentur ossa' in CLE 74 (= CIL VI 9545 and CIL I [2] 1212, from Rome). Together with 'consiste', on the other hand, one rather finds verba sentiendi, taking abstract objects or governing a complement clause, suggesting a more subtly emotive rather than straightforwardly tactile act: e.g. 'mea fata ... percipe' in AE 1996, 453 (from Luceria); 'uide quam indigne raptus' in CLE 1007 (= CIL XIII 7070, from Mainz); 'uide quam ua[nu]m' in AE 1985, 330 (from Peltuinum, in Samnium); 'casus hominum cogita' in AE 1972, 74 (from Aquino).

Therefore, as well as the spoken familiarity conveyed by the iambic metre, one recognizes a loftier aim in using 'consiste'. It is nevertheless striking that the stylistic choice has been made in the first verse to defer the actual appeal to the reader-viewer by opening the composition with a fine polite formula.

'Si non molestum est'15 is well documented, both in this analytic form, and even more so in the synthetic form 'nisi molestum est'. In the first case the negation relates to the adjective or verb, depending on its position, whereas in the second case the whole hypothetical clause is negated by the conjunction; the contracted spelling 'molestumst', which reflects the oral pronunciation, is sometimes attested as well.

In literature, the phrase occurs frequently in comedy,16 once in Lucil. 987 Marx (= 1081 Krenkel)17 'Si noenu molestum est', once in Catull. 55.1 'Si forte non molestum est', and often in Cicero's works;18 in the early imperial age the usage is limited to a couple of indirect speeches in Livius,19 Mart. 1.96.1 'Si non molestum est teque non piget' and 5.6.1 'Si non est grave nec nimis molestum'.20 All these contexts pertain to the spoken language, from which the phrase must come, or to meta-literature. It is further possible that the usage had acquired an old-fashioned feel by the time of our inscription.21

In epigraphy, there are two near-identical attestations from the Republican age, also in iambic metre: CLE 118, 1 (= CIL X 5371, from Interamna Lirenos, in Campania) 'Hospes resiste et nisi molestust perlege' and CIL I [2] 3146, 1 (from Stabiae) 'Hospes resiste et nisi mole(s)tus[t] perspice'; two further examples, in dactylic metre, come from the early empire: AE 1986, 166b, 1 (from Pompeii, middle of the 1st century AD) 'Hospes paullisper morare si non est molestum' and CLE 1125, 2-3 (= CIL IX 3358, from Pinna Vestina, in Samnium, between the 1st and the 2nd century AD) 'Hospes, si non es[t] lasso tibi forte molestum, / oramus lecto nomine pauca legas'. Even though such formulas were not unexpected as forms of address to the passer-by,22 their placement at the very opening of a composition suggests special politeness: the only comparison seems to be CLE 1013, 1 (= CIL VI 26020) 'Si graue non, hosp[es, fuerit] remorare uiator'.

2-4. The first biographical sequence provides the reader-viewer with an overall sense, intentionally suspended and undefined, of the deceased's identity. The dignified tone of the opening and closing words aim at grabbing attention, with two literary references in alliterative collocation; except for these, the language is appropriate to the pragmatic ends of the inscription.

2. A great contrast is perceptible at the beginning of the first hexameter, not only due to the switch in metre but also to the solemnity of 'nauibus ueliuolis', a quotation from Enn. Ann. 387-8 Vahlen2 (= 378-9 Skutsch)23 'Quom procul aspiciunt hostes accedere uentis / nauibus ueliuolis'. The position in the verse is identical too, and the echo is even more emphasized by 'accessi' at I. 3.

The rare Ennian adjective, although more common than the even rarer participial compound 'ueliuolans',24 refers to 'mare' in Laev. Carm. fr. 14 Blansdorf25 'Tu qui permensus ponti maria alta / ueliuola', in Verg. Aen. 1.223-4 'Iuppiter ... / despiciens mare ueliuolum' and in Ov. Pont. 4.16.21 'Veliuolique maris uates'; in Lucr. 5.1442 'mare ueliuolis florebat' it is substantivized and has instrumental function, as in our inscription. One might suspect Virgilian influence on our passage, with the prayer of Venus to Jupiter to end Aeneas' hardships presenting a relevant analogy to our merchant's story.26

The following alliterative collocation 'magnum mare' occurs in Lucr. 2.553 'Disiactare solet magnum mare transtra cauernas', where it occupies the same position in the verse, even though the adjective precedes the noun in Lucretius. Both authors, Lucretius and the composer of our epitaph, must have perceived the metric euphony created by the hephthemimeral caesura and bucolic diaeresis, although we need not assume any direct literary borrowing here: the collocation is highly attested, in different orders and positions in the verse, in didactic poetry. Such a phonic combination is likely to have originated in the spoken vernacular.27

'Mare magnum' too is found elsewhere, variously inflected,28 in prose and poetry, the earliest being Liv. Andr. Trag. 33 Ribbeck3 (= 25 Schauer) 'Aruaque putria et mare magnum': for the same reasons pointed out above, it is unlikely we are dealing either with an allusion to the beginning of Andronicus' Odyssey,29 or to the sepulchral remake by Catull. 101;30 equally, the merchant's story is not intended to be an erudite development on the widespread epigraphic theme of travel.31

The verb 'currere' meaning 'to sail' is only documented in poetry; especially distinctive is its transitive construction in taking 'mare' or synonyms as a direct object.32 The scene evoked can be compared to Horatian passages about the dangers of sailing, and restless merchants escaping poverty: Sat. 1.1.29-30 'Nautaeque',33 'per omne / audaces mare qui currunt' and Epist. 1.1.45-46 'Impiger extremos curris mercator ad Indos / per mare pauperiem fugiens'. 5uch a realistic picture affects Ulysses' character too, yearning no more for home, but rather mercantile profit: Sat. 2.5 parodies a common anti-heroic vision, not so distant from our epitaph's values.34 Furthermore, Hor. Epist. 1.11.27 'Caelum, non animum mutant, qui trans mare currunt' reflects the popular wisdom, in the longing for reconciliation with one's destiny, by which our deceased merchant was inspired.

3. The adjective 'complures', which here refers to 'terrae', is rarely documented in poetry: mostly in comedy, once in Hor. Sat. 1.10.87, and twice in the pseudo-Vergilian Ciris, II. 54 and 391. On the other hand, it is well documented in prose, especially in reference to places; this usage must therefore derive from the vernacular, very likely that spoken by the merchant himself, rather than from literature.

Juxtaposed in contrast to 'terrae complures', and denoted by the demonstrative 'hic', 'terminus' here is used metonymically: it simultaneously signifies the end of the merchant's life, the abstract object of the Parcae's song, and the physical place of his tomb. This metonymy reflects the conceptual identification of monuments to spatial limitation, like boundary stones, with temporal limits, so that the tomb comes to represent the 'end' of life. This explains the usage of such a phrase as 'constituere terminum' in two different inscriptions, CIL VI 5215 and CIL X 1336 (= CLE 1894 from Nola), both brief and partially metrical. The phrase must have been drawn from a lost model of high stylistic quality, whether epigraphic or literary in character, which our inscription might also have shared.35

The contrastive juxtaposition of 'terminus' with 'terrae complures', brought to our attention by deictic 'hic', associates death with travel in a foreign country, a connection which sometimes features in funerary inscriptions. The only significance of the place of death lies then in the fact it differs from the place of birth.36 The name and origin of our deceased merchant is unknown, however,37 while the mention at I. 4 of the moment of birth gives no indication of a specific place.

4. The presence of the Parcae reflects a broader epigraphic theme. They usually appear in relation to their role in determining lifespan, and are typically the object of blame, as the cause of an untimely death. Negative attributes therefore predominate, and the image of the Parcae spinning the threads of life is more common by far than that of their role as prophetesses.

Very few inscriptions mention prophecy, yet not without a reproachful or judgemental tone: CLE 1141, 14-16 (= CIL III 2609 from Salona) 'Infelix mater ... / incusat denique Parcas / quae uitam pensant quaeque futura canunt'; CLE 1160, 3 (= CIL III 3146 from Opsorus, Dalmatian island) 'Legem fatis Parcae dixere cruentam'; CLE 55, 12-13 (= CIL VI 10096 and CIL I [2] 1214) 'En hoc in tumulo cinerem nostri corporis / infistae Parcae deposierunt carmine', where one is presented with the extraordinary image of the Parcae burying the deceased with their song. In comparison to these examples, our epitaph differs in its acquiescent acceptance of destiny and focus on the moment of birth rather than of death, suggesting an archaizing deference for the Parcae which surely derives from literary models.38

Although the phrasing is similar, one should reject the influence of Tib. 3.11.3-4 'Te nascente nouum Parcae cecinere puellis / seruitium', since genre and content are quite unrelevant,39 or of Ov. Trist 5.3, 25-26 'Hanc legem nentes fatalia Parcae / stamina bis genito bis cecinere tibi', where the prophecy is about life, not death. One might rather recall Catull. 64.383 'Carmina diuino cecinere e pectore Parcae' and Tib. 1.7.1-2 'Hunc cecinere diem Parcae fatalia nentes / stamina'.

Far more interesting is to observe in our inscription the desinence in 'cecinere' -ere, rather than -erunt, at the end of the verse with no metric convenience. Limitations of space may have posed problems, as I. 4 actually reaches the right edge of the stone. As 'cecinere' replaces 'cecinerunt' in nearly every poetic passage about prophecy until the late antiquity, however, it must have been carefully chosen here in order to evoke the literary tradition.

5-7. The second biographical sequence adds more colour and subjectivity to the narration. Apart from a slightly elevated emotional tone, it recalls polite conversation, featuring commonplaces and the everyday language of the mercantile profession.

5. The adverb 'hic' at the beginning of verse, referring to the tomb, emphasizes the contrast between the conditions of the living and those of the dead.

The phrase 'deponere curas / labores' is recorded in TLL V 1, 578, 72 and 579, 13. The verb means 'to let go', 'to give up', when used in relation to abstract objects. In poetry 'depone la[borem]' occurs in CLE 513, 1 (= CIL XI 627 from Forli) in an address to the wayfarer, while 'deponere curas / - am' is found in Verg. Georg. 4.531 'Nate, licet tristis animo deponere curas', Aen. 12.48-49 'Quam pro me curam geris ... / deponas' and in Ov. Rem. 259 'Nulla recantatas deponent pectora curas', Trist. 4.7.19-20 'Credam / mutatum curam deposuisse mei'. Since all these belong to contexts involving familial emotionality,40 the phrase is likely to come from spoken language. Actually, 'deponere' often occurs in prose in Cicero's and Seneca's letters and dialogues, taking any kind of feeling and disposition as object; in particular, one could compare Cic. Rep. 1.15 'Socratem ... qui omnem eius modi curam deposuerit', Fam. 4.6.2 'Omnes curas doloresque deponerem' and Ad Q. fr. 3.8.1 'Militiae labores ceteraque ... depones'.

On the other hand, the funerary context and the adverb 'hic' pointing out the tomb seem to recall the specific meaning of 'deponere', 'to bury', as if hinting at a variation on the epigraphic formula 'deponere corpus / ossa' or, metonymlcally, 'animam'.

6. 'Mare saeuom' can be traced back to Liv. Andr. Carm. fr. 18.1-2 Blansdorf2 'Nullum peius macerat humanum / quamde mare saeuom'. However, the collocation is attested in a few later authors too, and since the place of this fragment is uncertain, it is not likely that it alludes here to the Odyssey.41 There is indeed an echo of 'magnum mare' at I. 2, which is reproduced here with an elevated tone of menace.

The adjective 'saeuus' usually refers to the natural elements in the elegiac poets, especially Ovid: throughout his works, one might compare 'saeui ... ponti' in Met. 14.439, 'saeuo / ... pelago' in Met. 14.559-60, 'freta saeua' in Trist 5.9.18 and 'saeuo ... mari' in Pont. 4.16.14. Actually, the whole of I. 6 evokes the climactic power of the savage sea typical of epic-tragic imagery, found in Lucretius, Virgil, and in some archaic scenic fragments.42

It is also worth noting the heightened emotionality implied by anaphoric 'hic', emphasized by its position in the middle of the verse, and 'nec', which compounds the metaphorical pressure of its atmospheric imagery.

7. The poem comes at last to address the merchant's financial anxieties. 'Sumptus' and 'quaestus', costs and profit, are intrinsic to commercial life whose appearance in poetry is confined to comedy, satire, and didactic poetry.

In TLL VIII 902, 'metuo' is compared to 'timeo', generally meaning 'to expect damage'. There, the two are virtually synonyms.43 Even though there is no semantic difference, in the case of our epitaph there is indeed a syntactic choice: 'timeo' takes as direct object 'sidera', 'nimbos' and 'mare', which stand for the weather conditions, while 'metuo' governs a subordinate optative clause describing the event of a bad outcome, perfectly fitting the definition in Cic. Tusc. 3.25 'Metus opinio magni mali impendentis'.44

The theme of death bringing an end to the to-and-fro of costs and profit is found in a few other funerary inscriptions. All date to the imperial period, feature comparably similar phrasing, and come mostly from the Transpadane region. The archetype must be the couplet 'Quaerere cessaui numquam, nec perdere desi; / mors interuenit, nunc ab utroque uaco', which is metrically regular and occurs in identical wording in CLE 1091 and 1092 (= CIL V 4656 and 7047, respectively from Brescia and Turin).45 It is difficult, however, to associate this specific phrase with that found in our epitaph.

The subordinative conjunction 'ni', instead of 'ne', is especially attested, but not exclusively so,46 in the most ancient authors: as well as 'hicc' at I. 3, it should be considered an alternative form, rather than an archaism.

8-10. The third biographical sequence conveys in a solemn prayer to Fides the merchant's personal experience with contracts and agreements, ending with general advice to humanity; the language combines dignified ritual formulas with popular wisdom and emotional emphasis. According to ancient tradition, the worship of Fides was instituted by Numa Pompilius; after a period of decadence, it was reinstated in the Augustan age.47

8. 'Alma Fides' at the beginning of the verse is not likely to be a specifically Ennian echo48 (Scaen. 403 Vahlen2 = Trag. 350 Jocelyn 'O Fides alma apta pinnis, et ius iurandum Iouis'): 'almus' is a common adjective in addresses to gods and is, moreover, placed after the noun in this fragment. On the contrary, 'alma' typically precedes the noun elsewhere in later periods, especially in late antiquity; seen alongside our epitaph, Stat. Theb. 11.98 'Licet alma Fides Pietasque repugnent' and Sil. Pun. 6.132 'Alma Fides mentem ... amplexa tenebat' may suggest another lost epic model.

The periphrasis 'ago grates' and the suffix of the superlative -issuma are archaisms deriving from liturgical contexts; in particular 'grates', an alternative form of 'gratias', originally defined specific praises to gods.49 The whole verse has the rhythm of a litany, created by the trithemimeral and hephthemimeral caesuras, and the effect is emphasized by the serial alliteration of fricative, dental, sibilant and vibrant sounds, extending up to I. 10.

9. The collocation 'fortuna infracta'50 occurs in Val. Max. 4.7 pr. 'Infractae fortunae homines magis amicorum studia desiderant uel praesidiis uel solaciis gratia', whereas the same noun and verb are combined differently in Publil. Sent. fr. 24 'Fortuna uitrea est: tum cum splendet frangitur' and CLE 1336, 9 (= ICVR VII 18446, 4th century AD) 'Frangitur explicitis tristis fortuna querellis'. These have the feel of proverbial wisdom, which is the likely source of the phrase in our epitaph as well.

The adjective 'fessus' attached to the first-person singular pronoun has a particularly emotive feel in poetry, referring to various kinds of weariness. In Verg. Aen. 3.710-1 'Hic me, pater optime, fessum / deseris' Aeneas mourns his father; in Hor. Sat. 1.6.125-6 'Ast ubi me fessum sol acrior ire lauatum / admonuit' the poet contrasts a lazy morning start with the business of a public life; in Prop. 4.9.42 (= 66)51 'Fesso uix mihi terra patet' the suppliant Cacus cries for a little water.

A sign of emotional emphasis is also to be noticed in the second-person singular pronoun at the beginning of I. 10, as well as in the spondaic rhythm of both verses.

10. The plural adjective 'mortales' is here substantivized as a lofty synonym of 'homines'. For 'opto', one should compare CLE 2 (= CIL XI 3078 and CIL 1 [2] 364, from Civita Castellana, in the Fallscan territory), which is largely regarded as partially metrical,52 and dating to no later than the second half of the 2nd century BC. It is a votive lamina recording a college of cooks seeking to gain favour with the divine triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. 'Vtei sesed lubent[es be]ne iouent optantis' (I. 6, the last). It features linguistic phenomena from the Republican age as well as dialectal forms, commercial vocabulary and references to Plautus, alongside a taste for tautology; in the awkward attempt to create a lofty style, colloquialisms and archaisms are combined and often hard to distinguish from one another. The closing formula, in the metre of a regular Saturnian verse, must have been common in dedications.53 In both our inscription and in CLE 2, even if not recorded in TLL IX 2, 833, 5, the usage of 'opto' seems to pertain to the specific meaning 'to pray', rather than the more common 'to want, wish': in effect, it denotes the desire to want or wish a divinity for oneself, and thus to pray to them, in order to gain their favour.

11-12. We come to the final appeal to the wayfarer with thanks and greetings. A contrast may be drawn between the opening vocative 'hospes', and the earlier invocation of 'alma Fides': the tone shifts to that of conventional familiarity, but this is couched in original phrasing, and a hint of sanctity in its closure. Assonance and alliteration convey a sympathetic feel.

11. As a wish for good health, the alliterative collocation in asyndeton 'uiue uale' Is in fact little attested in epigraphy: it only occurs in CLE 1299, 1 (= CIL VI 24800), CLE 1431, 13 (= ICVR VII 19255) and in ZPE 201, p. 74, I. 11 (from Cartagena in Spain, of the Augustan age) where the whole hemistich is identical. Both verbs are far more frequently found in inscriptions either alone or conjoined, in different inflections, rather than simply juxtaposed.54 On the other hand, the collocation seems to be a literary usage. and is especially found in comedy.55 Additionally, it is found in Lucr. 5.961 'Quisque ualere et uiuere doctus'; in Catull. 11.17 'Cum suis uiuat ualeatque moechis'; in Hor. Sat. 2.5.110 'Imperiosa trahit Proserpina: uiue ualeque' and Epist. 1.6.67 'Viue, uale'; the phrase never appears, however, in Cicero's or Seneca's letters. As in the case of 'magnum mare' at I. 2, the assonance probably derives from the spoken language.

Moreover, 'in sumptum superet tibi semper' is not only an unusual impersonal construction, but is also unprecedented as a practical wish for affluence. It is nonetheless particularly appropriate to our epitaph's values, which it emphasizes by the serial alliteration of sibilant, labial and dental sounds. The closest comparison would be with 'bene rem geras': it is attested in Plaut. Cas. 87 'Tantum est. Valete, bene rem gerite' and Mil. 936 'Bene ambula, bene rem geras'; in Hor. Epist. 1.8.1 'Celso gaudere et bene rem gerere Albinouano'; in CLE 11, 5 (= CIL VI 13696 and CIL I [2] 1202). The last two contexts suggest special politeness.56

12. Paying respect to the grave is an ordinary theme in funerary inscriptions; the closure 'dignum dicasti' seems however to add some ambiguity. Our passage is recorded in TLL IV 965, 39-40 under the specific meaning of 'dico', 'to designate, sanction', which gives it a sacral, ritual feel. One should also consider the broader sense of 'proclaim, announce' as well, since its etymology has relevance: in some verbs distinguished by prosodic vowel gradation, as indeed dico-dico or Iabor-Iabo, the form with long vowel likely stands for an ancient root of aorist, while the other form with the suffix -a of the first conjugation features an intensive-durative aspect.57 The wayfarer's dedication is therefore not intended as a mere momentary act, in which the grave is sanctified; rather, in the very accumulation of speech-acts by multiple other wayfarers stopping to read the epitaph, the deceased's memory lives on in perpetuity, thereby enhancing its quality as a monument.58

In conclusion, our epitaph is remarkable at a literary level, in both structure and content; it displays competence in versification, awareness of the epigraphic tradition, and creativity. The presence of quotations, or at least the ones we can recognize, shows that the composer had mastered older texts central to Latin cultural identity and its idealization of the past.59 But one can also find references to more recent classics: Horace in particular, but also Lucretius, Virgil, and Ovid. In style and language, elevated and commonplace phrases are skilfully intertwined alongside liturgical and commercial vocabulary.

The epitaph is also remarkable when compared to other inscriptions of Roman Apulia.60 This observation sharpens the mystery around the identities of both the deceased, whose name and age are missing, and dedicator; even though this information must have been included in some other part of the funeral monument, the complete absence of family members or social relations in such a long and structured composition is striking. It is not unlikely that the merchant himself had commissioned the work for some 'mercenary poet', a figure which became increasingly popular with the decline of patronage; one is surprised to find the poetic composer empathizing with the client's experiences and values. It is unclear whether local teachers were able to provide an education of the sort, or whether this was rather to be sought at the capital. It is further uncertain where the inscription was actually erected; a location at Brindisi is more dubious if we remember that the stone was recovered from the port, and thus possibly in the context of a shipwreck: If so, the problem remains insoluble.


Fig. CIL IX 60 = 1533 (Silvestrini [1987]) CIL = vei s[9n

_______________

Notes:

1 Unless otherwise stated, translations are to be considered mine.

2 For these usages of interpuncta, cf. Massaro (2018) 51 and Massaro (2013a) 391-3.

3 As reported in CIL IX 60 and stated in Henzen (1872) 31. Cugusi (2004) 133-4, in a brief reference to the inscription, restricts the date to the beginning of the 2nd century AD, claiming that palaeographic aspects suggest so; giving the same reason, though, Silvestrini (chapter IV in Grelle [2017] 194) reports the date as in CIL IX 60, and so she does in Epigrpahic Database Rome (EDR167254, record written in May 2018).

4 For other details surrounding the inscription's materiality and lettering, cf. Tise (2001).

5 See above, though, about the interpunctum at the end of I. 1.

6. The only exception is v.5, where meas must be considered monosyllabic; see below.

7 CF. TLL VI, 2965, 49-84).

8 Priscian says so about Aen. 2.664 'Hocc erat alma parens' (2.952, 22 Keil); this is reported too in Ribbeck (1866) 214 and 425.

9 Especially Velius Longus 7.54.6-14 Keil.

10 Cf. Leumann (1977) 468 and Tronskij (1953) 167. 11 Cf. TLL VIII 915, 48. Metrical convenience and the influence of oral pronunciation seem to be the reasons for this phenomenon; cf. also Timpanaro (1988) 878-9; Ceccarelli (1997) 388-94; Questa (2007) 173-80.

12 It is also the most ancient, being attested in several inscriptions from the Republican period: e.g. CLE 73, 1 (= CIL IX 1527, from near Beneuentum) 'Hospes resiste et quae sum in monumento lege'; CLE 74, 1 (= CIL VI 9545 and CIL I [2] 1212) 'Hospes resiste et hoc ad grumum ad laevam aspice'; CLE 118, 1 (= CIL X 5371, from Interamna Lirenas, in Campanie) 'Hospes resiste et nisi molestust perlege'. Cf. Morelli (2018) 115.

13 E.G. CLE 1007, 1 (= CIL XIII 7070, from Mainz) 'Praeteriens quicumque legis, consiste uiator'; AE 1996, 453, 1 (from Luceria) 'Sic iter hoc felix tibi sit, consiste (u(i)ator'; CLEPann 44, 1 (from Gorsium) 'Tu qui festinas pedibus, consiste uiator'.

14 The collocation is not unusual: 'hospes' and 'consiste' occur together elsewhere, both in iambic and dactylic rhythm, either juxtaposed or with the verb at some distance; e.g. CLE 980, 1 (= CIL I [2] 3449d, from Carthago Nova) 'Hospes consiste et Thoracis periege nomen'; AE 2008, 403, 3-4 (from Venafrum, in prose or metric cola) 'Hospes qui legis hoc mo[n]/umentum consiste et perieg[3]'. Cf. Massara (2019), 50-51.

15. Cf. Hofmann (2003) 290, 380.

16 Plaut Epid. 461 'Si tibi molestum non est', anywhere else (Most. 856, Persa 599, Poen. 50, Rud. 120, Trin. 932) 'Nisi molestumst'; Ter. Ad. 806 'Nisi molestumst'; Afran. Com. 95 Ribbeck3 (= 80 Daviault) 'Nisi molestum est'.

17 Indirect tradition in Non. p. 143, 33, where the passage is mentioned about 'noenu[m] pro non'.

18 Mostly (Acad. 1.4, Cato 6, Cluent. 150 and 168, Fin. 1.28 and 2.5, Nat. D. 1.17, Planc. 5, Rep. 1.46, Tusc. 1.26) 'Nisi molestum est', elsewhere (Fam. 5.12, 10, Fat. 4, Nat.D. 1.99) 'Si tibi non est molestum'.

19 30.17.11 'Nisi molestum esset' and 45.13.17 'Nisi molestum sit'.

20 Later it only occurs in Flor. Verg. 1.2 'Nisi molestum est' and Hist. Apoll. rec. A et B 15 'Si (tibi A, uero B) molestum non est'. Cf. TLL VIII 1354, 15-25.

21 Cf. Morelli (2018) 116 n. 27.

22 Cf. also CLE 1537a, 2 (= CIL VI 25703) 'Si graue non animost, fata... acerba leges' (also integrated in CLE 2083, 2, from Lanuuium) and CLEAfr II 233, 2 (from Cesarea) 'Si non forte grav(e) est, d[isce]'.

23 Indirection tradition in Macr. Sat. 6.5.10, where the passage is mentioned as the model for Verg. Aen 1.224.

24 Only attested in Ennius, in the ablative plural 'ueliuolantibus / nauibus' (Scaen. 67-68 Vahlen2 = Trag. 45-46 Jocelyn).

25 This passage too is mentioned by Macrobius in the context referred to above; Muller adds 'carina' after 'maria alta', Ribbeck turns 'Laueius' into 'Liuius'.

26 Cf. Massaro (1983) 201-2 n. 19.

27 Cf. Ronconi (1971) 11-86.

28 In Enn. Ann. 445 Vahlen2 (= 434 Skutsch) and Scaen. 65 Vahlen2 (= Trag. 50 Ribbeck3); in Lucr. 2.1, 3.1029, 6.144, and 6.505; in Verg. Aen. 5.628.

29 Cf. Caviglia (1984) 11; such a connection seems unlikely at both a linguistic and a conceptual level.

30 Cf. Franzoi (2004) 258.

31 Cf. Cugusi (1985) 214-6.

32 Cf. TLL IV 1512, 72.

33 These are the merchants themselves, as one gathers from the context.

34 Cf. Caviglia (1984) 11.

35 Cf. Massaro (2006) 24-26.

36 Cf. Cugusi (1985) 200-1, 221.

37 Cf. Silvestrini (1998) 230.

38 Cf. Colafrancesco (2004) 139-76, 180-1; Massaro (1992) 171-2

39 Cf. Popova (1967) 161 and (1976) 41: a few years after proposing a Tibullian model for our passage, the scholar herself seems rather to recognize a Horatian model. As she writes in (1967) 171, it is impossible to decide who influence whom when different authors share themes or loci communes, but in this case the assumption of primarily lexical similarity does not seem tenable.

40 In Verg. Georg. 4.531 Cyrene comforts her son Aristaeus; in Aen. 12.48-49 Turnus bids farewell to his father-in-law, the king of the Latins, before going to die in battle; in Ov. Rem. 259 the subject is love; in Trist. 4.7.20 the object of affection is the poet's pen friend, whom he calls 'carissime'.

41 Cf. above, commentary on I. 2.

42 Cf. Caviglia (1984) 11 n.18.

43 Cf. TLL VIII 901, 59.

44 Cf. TLLVIII 907, 21-22.

45 Cf. Polverini (1976).

46 E.g. Lucr. 2.734 (niue); Catull. 61.153; Prop. 2.7.3; Verg. Aen. 3.686 and CLE 2068, 7 (= CIL XI 7856, from Carsulae, mid-1st century AD).

47 Cf. Freyburger (1986) and Otto (1909).

48 Cf. Caviglia (1984) 11 n. 18; Franzoi (2004) 259; even Bucheler takes it as such.

49 Cf. TLL VI 2, 2204, 11-12 and 16; Ernout/Meillet 19594, s.v. 'gratus', 281-2.

50 Cf. TLL VII 1, 1494, 3 and 70.

51 Editors place II. 65-66 between II. 42-43, while the authenticity of I. 42 is suspect.

52 Although once seen as a composition in highly irregular 5aturnian verses, it should rather be recognized as a lofty prose work with generic metric tendencies; cf. Massaro (2007) 128-9 and Kruschwitz (2002) 127-38.

53 Cf. Peruzzi (1966) and Stolz et al. (1973[3]) 43-45.

54 Cf. CLE 973, 10 (= CIL VI 21200) 'ulue hospes dum licet atque uale', AE 1969/70, 568, 8-9 'ualeat uiator / uibat q ui leget ', AE 2006, 475, 8 'ualete ad superos uiuite uita(m) optima(m)'.

55 E.g. Plaut. Mil. 1340 'Conserui conseruaeque omnes, bene ualete et uiuite', Stich. 31 'Quom ipsi interea uiuant, ualeant ', Trin. 996 'Male uiue et uale!' and Ter. Andr. 890 'Immo habeat, ualeat, uiuat'.

56 Cf. Massaro (1992) 75-76.

57 Cf. Vendryes (1910) 303 and Ernout/Meillet (1959 [4]) s.v. 'dico', 173.

58 Cf. Franzoi (2004) 260-2.

59 Cf. Gianotti (1989) and Pugliarello (2011).

60 Metric inscriptions of Apulia and Calabria are collected in Silvestrini (1996) 451; no other finds are recorded in the following issues of AE.

[admin]

When the Author Is Not Identifiable: The Case of the Volcei Land-Register
by Rosa Lorito
From Defining Authorship, Debating Authenticity: Problems of Authority from Classical Antiquity to the Renaissance
Edited by Roberta Berardi, Martina Filosa, and Davide Massimo
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

In the period between Diocletian and Julian a new form of imperial government was established.1 Diocletian's reforms aimed to strengthen the Empire after years of deep crisis: this involved, in particular, tightening the relationship between central imperial authority and the provincial governor, representative of the sovereign in provincial territory. As a consequence, the emperor's power reached deeper at places far from the court.2

The Volcei land-register (CIL X 407) is an enigmatic source that offers insight into this empire-wide development. Its authorship is uncertain. Most scholars identify L. Turcius Apronianus, corrector Lucaniae et Brittiorum, member of a very important senatorial family. If so, this would be the only evidence Apronianus held this office, and would further demonstrate that one of the duties of a provincial governor, in this case the corrector Lucaniae et Brittiorum, was to compile the land register of the territories under his control.

This essay has two aims. Firstly, it will suggest that its composer was indeed L. Turcius Apronianus, and secondly, that this enriches our understanding of the structure of imperial government and the tasks of governors after Dioeletian's reforms, as well as the role of the great families that held the power in Italian territory. Moreover, the inscription adds to our knowledge of the chronology of the governors of Lucania et Brittii.

The text is engraved on a limestone table (73 x 160 x 25 cm). It is now to be found in Buccino, in the tower of the castle, but was probably originally set up in the forum.3 The present panel of text -- itself not fully preserved -- was accompanied by others at its sides, and below it, but these are lost. Moreover, a space was left after the third line of the third series of possessions. A new fragment from the facade of a private house, published in 2016 and measuring 39 x 18 cm, with letters 3 cm high, corresponds to the final part of the text here below.4

CIL X 407 (Volcei) = InscrIt III 1.17 cf. SupplIt III 1987, 67-68 + SupplIt III 1987, 76-77 nr. 5 = AE 1988, 412 = HD008204 = EDR080936 13/05/1997 (Niquet)

[Ex princi)pio saero dd(ominorum) nn(ostrorum) Constantini Maximi vener[andi et Licini Augg(ustorum) / [nobilis]simorumque Caesarum Vulcelanae ci[vitatis pagis qui infra sunt/ / [Acllio Se]vero et [Vet]t[io] Rufino connss(ulibus) per Turci[um - - - adscriptae? sunt] / [millenae] MMDCCCCXCI // [- - -] X / [- - -]X / [- - -]X] / [- - - X]VI[- - -]VIII / [- - -] XV / [- - -]LXXX / [- - -]XVII / [- - -]XI / [- - -]XV / [- - -]IIII / [- - - XI] [- - -] // F(undus) Maceriatus m(illenae) LVI (f(undus) Marcellianus m(illenae) LVI / f(undus) Micerianu[s m(illenae)] X / f(undus) Casinianu[s m(llienae)] X / k(asa!) Oppiana [m(illenae) II] / k(asa!) Postumia [m(illenae)I] / iug(era) quinquaginta p(ublica?) [m(illenae) I]III / pago forensi [m(illenae) DCCCVIII] / f(undus) publica m(illenae) XI (f(undus) Perscenianus m(illenae) XIIII / f(undus) Pupianus m(illenae) VIIII / f(undus) Agellus [m(illenae)] XIIII [// F(undus) Vefeianus m(illenae) XVII / f(undus) Fuficianus c(um) sal(tibus) m(illenae) XVIIII / f(undus) Curianus m(illenae) XVIII / [f(undus)] Furianus m(illenae) XL / agellus sup(erior) m(illenae) X / agellus inf(erior) c(um) nob(ali?) m(illenae) X / [f(undus)) Mecianus m(illenae) XVI / [f(undus)] Donianus m(illenae) XLVII / [pago] Narano m(illenae) MCLXXXIII / [- - -] m(lilenae) VIII / pr(atus) Sicinianus c(um) p(ertinenciis?) m(illenae) CXX / f(undus) Viscifeianus m(illenae) XX / f(undus) [- - -]us [m(illenae)] XIIII [// F(undus) Tuaenus m(illenae) XLV / [f(undus)] Ferocianus m(illenae) XII / f(undus) castra m(illenae) XXIII / f(undus) Dor[nian]us m(illenae) XXVI / f(undus) Modianus m(illenae) XXVIII / k(asa!) Korviana(!) m(illenae) XII / f(undus) Aequarica c(um) per(tinenciis?) m(illenae) [X]XVIII / f(undus) Clo[dl]ianus m(illenae) XXXVI / [f(undus) Sc]e[ta]nus m(illenae) XL / f(undus) Vene[r]ianus m(illenae) XXIII / f(undus) Auric[i]us m(illenae) XXVIII / f(undus) campu[s] Nar(anus) m(illenae) XL / pago Aequan(o) [.// F(undus) Muscinianus m(illenae) [- - -] / f(undus)

Euporia[n]us m(illenae) [- - -] / f(undus) Ceronianus m(illenae) [- - -] / f(undus) Oppianus m(illenae) X[- - -] / pago Tra(n)samunc(lano) m(illenae) I[- - -] / f(undus) Cefrianus m(illenae) X[- - -] / f(undus) Cesi(ni]anus m(illenae) [- - -] / f(undus) Vivianus m(illenae) X[- - -] / tab(ula) Augustaliana m(illenae) X[- - -] / f(undus) [Vi]solitanus m(illenae) LX / f(undus) Pater[ia]nus m(illenae) X[- - -] / f(undus) Venat[ri]nus m(illenae) X[- - -] / f(undus) Caelinus m(illenae) X / f(undus) Da[su]vius m(llienae) X[ // ]I[- - -] / [- - - p]retio [- - -] / [- - -]VAE[- - -] / f(undus) Gentian[us - - -] / f(undus) Siccit[ianus - - -] / f(undus) Cagati[anus - - -] / ff(undi) Sileda[ni

In I. 3 the word Turcium is partially missing. The titulus was placed in 323, as we can tell from the consuls named just before.5

The text certainly represents census records, and conforms to the form prescribed by Ulpian in the Digest.6 If we compare it to other known censuses, however, it becomes clear that the Volcei table was less comprehensive in its detail: indeed, we find the taxable amounts, listed in millena (quantities of a thousand at a time), indicated by the letter M, but both the names of the landowners and their tax assessments are missing. By contrast, these are present in the land-register from Magnesia in Asia Minor, while there the villages are not enumerated. According to Duncan-Jones, this portion of the inscription presents a list of 36 farms, and is connected in some way to Diocletian's revision of taxation: the drawback of this register is, however, that it lists individual farms, some of which were probably owned by the same owner. Furthermore, we do not have the total number of millenae recorded in the register, so we cannot be sure how much of the text is missing. Vera, analyzing the data for the fundi and pagi listed in the text, suggests that as much as two thirds of the text is missing, and that it would have originally listed 160/180 predials. If so, the list would have been far longer, and covered territory including all the pagi of Volcei, and all its landholdings. As to the function of inscription, on the other hand, Vera doubts its identity as a land register, rather preferring to see it as a mere 'tax list', on the basis of the fact that it differs in character from the two main forms of land register current in the east at the time, in both its generic form, and aims (for which see above). It is difficult to be sure about this, due to the highly fragmentary nature of the text, and the fact it is our sole example of a western land register.7

The identification of Turcius in the text, as well as the function of this individual within the document, pose problems. Champlin, for example, argued that Turcius is L. Turcius Apronianus, a Roman senator of local origins, praefectus urbi in 339, and that he is presented here as a landowner, and not as the governor of the territory. The transcript produced by Mommsen in CIL X 407 and analysis in Inscrit III 1, 17 suggests that the missing portion of the text included additional information about his role. Crucially, it is clear that there is enough space for corr. While Champlin thought that there was too little room for the usual formula c.v., corrector Lucaniae et Brittiorum, this is not a serious obstacle, as governors are in fact usually named in inscriptions by their title alone, which in this case would have been corrector. We have several examples of this among inscriptions concerning governors in the Italian regiones. Claudius Uranius, corrector Flaminiae et Piceni, is simply called a corrector.8 [- - -]meius, governor also of Flaminia et Picenum, is likewise only called consularis,9 while Fabius Maximus is presented only as a rector, probably of Samnium;10 Brittius Praesens11 and Q. Sattius Fl. Vettius Gratus,12 both probably governors of Lucania el Brittii, are just called corrector. Moreover, Champlin claims that Turcius was the only owner of the lands in the list because there are no other names to be found in it. Bracco, however, associates this inscription with the colonatus, and argues that the names of the coloni were incorporated with those of the fundi, thereby suggesting a link between the coloni and the lands. For this reason, the tax-amounts refer to their coloni, thereby explaining why their names are not quoted in the list.13 Vera has since argued against Champlin as well, and proposes a different solution both to the identity and role of Turcius in the text: in a new fragment published in 1987, it is possible to read the non-initial letters ... VAE... in line 3, which may be restored as Q[VAE]STOREM. Following this reading, this way, this Turcius Apronianus would have been a namesake of the praefectus urbi of 339, a mere quaestor executing the imperial will.14 This is possible, if we compare the text of the new fragment to the one in CIL X 407. As suggested already, however, there is enough space for corr., even if the fragmentariness of the text does not allow us to choose decisively between these two options.

Unlike Vera, I believe that we can identify Turcius with the senator L. Turcius Apronianus, of the family of the Turcii, and that this man was a corrector. There are two main reasons for this. For one, L. Turcius Apronianus was certainly a praefectus urbi, as is clear from other epigraphic evidence attesting to him,15 and the holding of a governorship was one of the main avenues to reaching this office. There are, moreover, many examples of praefect urbi whose cursus honorum involved governorships in the Italian provinces.16 It is therefore highly likely that he held some role as corrector at the beginning of his career. Secondly, as we can see from the evidence for the duties of Italian governors in the Later Roman Empire, correctores, consulares and praesides had responsibilities in the area of tax-collection,17 and it is this field of action to which the present inscription belongs.

It is therefore highly probable in my view that the Turcius listed in this document is identical with L. Turcius Apronianus, that he was a corrector and that it is in this capacity that he drew up the list contained in this document.

This hypothesis is accepted by PLRE18 and Cecconi, even if with some hesitation,19 both of whom include him among the governors of Lucania et Brittii, and regard this inscription as the only testimony for L. Turcius Apronianus' office as corrector Lucaniae et Brittiorum. From the consular dating in the inscription, then, we can affirm that he was corrector Lucaniae et Brittiorum in 323.

This conclusion has consequences for our chronology of the governors of Lucania et Brittii because it allows us to reconstruct the order of governors in this territory between Diocletian and Julian, which should now be the following:20

Governors of Lucania et Britii from Diocletian to Julian

C. Pius Esuvius Tetricus / corrector / after the Autum of 274
Claudius Plotianus / corrector / 313
Rufinus Octavianus / corrector / between 315 and 319
Maecilius Hilarianus / corrector / 316
Brittius Praesens / corrector / beginning of the 4th century
L Turcius Apronianus / corrector / 323
Alpinius Magnus s. Eumenius / corrector / between 324 circa and 326
Attius Caecilius Maximilianus s. Pancha-rius / corrector / before 357
Q. Sattius Fl. Vettius Gratus / corrector / before 364

L. Turcius Apronianus, praefectus urbi, was the father of two sons: L. Turcius Apronianus Asterius,21 praefectus urbi in 363-364 and, among the other offices, corrector Tusciae el Umbriae, and L. Turcius Secundus Asterius,22 corrector Flaminiae et Piceni. His own father was L. Turcius Secundus,23 who had been clarissimus vir, and a consul. Turcius, therefore, came from a senatorial family. Like other governors of the Italian provinces, he was the most important representative of the emperor for the people of the region, and would have had various tasks, not only in the field of tax-collection.

The sources for praesides, correctore/rectores and consulares in the period between Diocletian and Julian show common features in the activities of these three categories of governor, even though the charge of consularis was the most prestigious by far. First of all, it is interesting to notice that all were involved in the administration of public works; this was especially true of correctores/rectores.24 They were also in charge of religious buildings25 and the honouring of the emperors and their familles.26 Furthermore, they had duties in other aspects of public life,27 and most importantly in the judicial sphere,28 where they had the authority to torture and inflict capital punishment on those they deemed guilty.29

The Turcii held a position of prominence among the senatorial families of the 4th century. They were of ancient origin, like the Anicii, Perronii, Aurelii, to whom the Symmachi belonged, and the Nicomachi, Valerii and Aradii. They had links to other families, too, such as the Brittii, to whom they were related through marriage, or the Ceionii, that belong to the group of ancient families listed above.30 Studying the families that ruled some of these regiones is very useful for understanding the relationships between the central power and provincial government: many governors belonged to families of the senatorial aristocracy, and were related to one another. Moreover, members of the same family were sometimes governors of the same territory within the space of several generations, or, alternatively, governed different regiones at the same time, as we see with the family of L. Turcius Apronianus.31

The family group composed of the Turcii, the Brittii (or Bruttii), and the Ceionii dominated the governorships of the Italian provinces.32 This pervasive presence of the aristocratic families would seem to present administrative risks, but its benefits were prized over its weaknesses: by relying on local families with strong local roots and networks of respect the emperors could control Italian territory more effectively. It would seem, indeed, that rulers used the local prestige of several noble families, and of the governors that came from them, to consolidate their rule in the provinces, and better adapt imperial policy to regional conditions.

The so called Volcei land-register (CIL X 407) is therefore a document of great importance. If the interpretation offered here about its originator, that this was L. Turcius Apronianus, are justified, this inscription stands to illuminate aspects of the history and government of Lucania et Brittii and, in general, of tasks of the Italian governors, and their role in 4th-century imperial government. Moreover, we gain further insights into the role of the senatorial families from which these governors hailed, and the dynamics between the central power and local communities.

Many problems of interpretation still remain, however, and it is hoped that future research will shed more light on them.

Jones dates it to 307, cf. Duncan-Jones (1976) 17.

_______________

Notes:

1 For the events that led to the provincialization of Italy, see the following works: Porena (2013) 329-31, on the situation of Roman Italy between the Social War of the 90 BC and the crisis of the 3rd century; Giardina (1993) 53-54 and 56-58, on the attempts to control Italian territory before the 3rd century; De Martino (1975 [2]) 800-35, on the administration of the provinces during the Empire; Mazzarino (1973 [2]) 568-71, Silvestrini (1993) 187-91, on the reunification of the Empire. For the period from the rise of Aurelian to the Empire of Constantine, cf, Potter (2004) 268-400, where the author wants, in general, to find hints of the decline of the Roman Empire in the two centuries 180-395, with a particular focus on the cultural, intellectual and political history of this period. For economic reforms from Aurelian to Constantine, cf. Carrie (1983) 283- 322. On military anarchy, cf. Jones (1973-4) I 40-60; cf. also Mazzarino (1973 [2]) 570-4. For the argument that provincialization began in the years leading up to Diocletian's assumption of power, see Mazzarino (1973 [2]) 573; Giardina (1997) 277-9, 298-9; Giardina (1993) 61-63, 66-67; Porena (2006) 9-21; Porena (2013) 334. From now onwards, every date is to be considered AD.

2 For the emperors between Aurelian and Diocletian, and the chronology of the years 275-85, in the transition from the principatus to the dominatus, cf. Polverini (1975) 1013-35; for the political evolution of Diocletian's reign, cf. Chastagnol (1994) 23-31; on the tetrarchy, instead, cf. Corcoran (2000); Feissel (1995) 33-53; Kolb (1995) 21-31; Marcone (2000) 3-17. On the various aspects of late antique administration, cf. Grelle (1986) 37-56. For Diocletian in general, cf. Jones (1973-4) 61-109. in particular 67-79 on the administration under this emperor; Grelle (1993) 78- 81, also, on the administrative organization under Diocletian, and further Kuhoff (2001); Rees (2004); Roberto (2014).

3 Vera (2016) 106.

4 ------] / [---]I[---] / [--- p]retio [---] / [---]VAE[---] / f(undus) Gentian[us ---] / f(undus) Siccit[ianus --_] / f(undus) Cagati[anus ---] / ff(undi) Silecia(ni ------

5 Chron, 354, MGH IX 1, 67; cf. Degrassi (1952) 79, CLRE 1987 180; Cecconi (1994) 219. Duncan-

6 Ulp. Dig. 50.15.4.

7 Duncan-Jones (1976) 17-18, 20; Champlin (1980) 13-18; Bracco (1984) 105; Russi (1999) 532, n. 280; Porena (2005) 205-46; Vera (2016) 108- 10; 122-4. Unlike the general view, Vera interprets M as modius and not as millena, cf. Vera (2016) 112-22. Finally, on the situation described by the Volcei land-register as a consequence of the evolution of the ancient agrarian economy, see Vera (1994) 239-48.

8 AE 1937, 119(Amiternum).

9 AE 1904, 52 (Superaequum).

10 AE 1972. 150 (Telesia); CIL IX 2212 = ILS 5690 (Telesia); CIL IX 2447 (Saepinum); CIL IX 2956 = ILS 5341 (Iuvanum); CIL IX 2957 = ILS 5521 (Iuvanum); CIL IX 2338 = ILS 5691 = Allifae 23 (Allifae).

11 AE 1978, 262 (Velia); CIL X 468 (Leucosia).

12 AE 1923, 61 = AE 1923, 62 (Regium Iulium).

13 SupplIt III 1987, 67-68.

14 Vera (2016) 110-2.

15 CIL VI 1768 = ILS 1229; CIL VI 1769; CIL VI 1772 = ILS 1230 (Roma); CIL XI 6218 = ILS 706 (Fanum Fortunae); CIL XIV 3582 = ILS 729; CIL XIV 3583 (Tibur). CIL VI 1655 (Roma) is about him or his son L. Turcius Apronianus Asterius, cf. PLRE I. Apronianus. He is quoted as praefectus urbi also in Chron. 354, MGH IX 1 68, cf. Chastagnol (1962) 105-7.

16 There are several examples of correctores that became praefecti urbi in the same period: for Lucania et Brittii, for instance, we find Maecilius Hilarianus, who was praefectus urbi from the 13th of January 338 to the 14th of July 339 (CTh 9, 19, 1; CTh 12.1.3; Chron. 354, MGH IX 1, 68; cf. Chastagnol (1962) 103-5; PLRE I, Hilarianus 5); cf. Clemente (1969) 619-44, especially 625.

17 See, just for the period between Diocletian and Julian, Septimius Theodolus, corrector Venetiae et Histriae (CIL XIII 10027.69 = ILCV 84a-b (Ellelum), if exac(- - -) is exactus); Auxonius, corrector Tusciae (CTh 8, 1, 6); Rufinus Octavianus, corrector Luaniae et Brittiorum (CTh 16, 2, 2); Iunius Rufus, consularis Aemiliae (CTh 4, 13, 1); Ulpius Flavianus, consularis Aemiliae et Liguriae (CTh 11, 16, 2); Dulcitius, consularis Aemillae (CTh 13, 10, 3); Lupus, consularis Campaniae (Symm. Rel. 40.3.5).

18 PLRE I, Apronianus 9.

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

From Stone to Parchment: Epigraphic and Literary Transmission of Some Greek Epigrams
by Sara Raczko
Trends in Classics, vol. 1, pp. 90-117
© Walter de Gruyter 2009
2009

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Abstract: This paper deals with an oft-neglected aspect of the complex relationships between the Hellenistic culture and the Archaic and Classical tradition, namely the epigrams handed down to us in both epigraphical and literary sources. These (unfortunately rare) epigrams represent the only opportunity we have to detect the divergence between the original Archaic or Classical texts preserved on stone and their copies transmitted by manuscripts. Indeed, the Archaic and Classical epigrams have usually been handed down to us either as inscriptions or in manuscript copies, but very rarely in both forms. During the literary transmission the epigrams were modified in many ways: e.g. the writing conventions of the Archaic alphabets were abandoned and replaced by the "standard" system, and the linguistic shape suffered remarkable alterations. One of the aims of this paper is to explore the nature of the modifications undergone by some Archaic and Classical epigrams on stone during their literary transmission.

Obviously, most of the modifications found in the literary tradition are either banal scribal errors or alterations due to the well-known tendency of those who copied the texts to turn dialect forms into their Attic (Koine) counterparts. Yet in some instances the modifications seem to be deliberate and in line with the typically Hellenistic tendency to "embellish" the texts by means of dialect forms absent from the original but perceived as "prestigious". It is precisely on this tendency and its effects on the texts that I shall dwell in this paper.

Keywords: Epigrams, "embellishment", Doric [a:], dialect mixture

§ 1. In Archaic and Classical times epigrams were inscribed on stone or other durable materials (pottery, bronze); they were anonymous (as a rule, until the 4th cent. B.C.) and were composed on specific occasions, mostly as epitaphs or dedications. During these early stages, the local alphabets and the local dialects played an important role. The epichoric alphabets were used and the linguistic form was the particular dialect of the dedicator himself, 1 even if the monument was set up abroad.2 It is worth noting that dialect inscriptions in prose behave differently from verse inscriptions in this respect: prose inscriptions are exclusively written in the local dialect;3 epigrams, on the other hand, being verse compositions, are influenced by poetical models, above all by epics. In this case too, however, the strength of the local context is evident: epic features or syntagmas appear, as a rule, "translated" into the epichoric dialect or "coloured" with local phonetics, e.g. [x] (Boeotia, CEG 326) and [x] (scil. [x], Corinth, CEG 360), whereas our Homeric text has [x] (scil. [x], Sparta, CEG 373) based on [x] (cf, [x]; 283).4 On the other hand, some epic features - such as gen. sing. [x] and [x], dat. plur. [x], lack of augment, movable -v, etc. - tended to retain their original shape mostly, but not exclusively, for reasons of metrical convenience or necessity. Although this was the normal practice, it was far from being a strict law: verse epigrams show many examples of literary (usually epic) forms used instead of their local counterparts without any metrical necessity, like a participle in [x] in a Thessalian epitaph (CEG 117) metrically equivalent to the local form [x], some cases of psilosis, etc.5 It must be observed, anyway, that the principles governing the use of epic or literary features that were metrically equivalent to the local ones are very difficult to pin down, being neither fixed nor consistent. This is, however, quite obvious, since stone epigrams were no recognised literary genre and were therefore not bound to any well-established standard from this point of view (Buck 1923, 136).

§ 2. During the 5th cent. B.C., a large number of epigrams began to be produced (mainly) in Attica to celebrate private or public events.6 Their style grew more and more refined (according to ancient sources, some were commissioned to famous authors like Simonides, Anacreon, Euripides and Plato)7 and showed an increasing influence of poetry: chiefly epics, elegy and chorallyrics.8 The influence exerted by some literary languages, respectively linked with the Ionic domain and with the Doric one, has been invoked to explain some inconsistencies or "deviations" of the vocalism versus the epichoric features in Archaic and Classical Attic verse epigrams. In particular, it has been argued that the occurrence of [x] after [e], [i], [r] in the place of the expected [a:] (the so-called "alpha purum", a distinctive Attic feature) was due to the influence of epics, while the presence of non-Ionic-Attic inherited [a:] (< IE *a) instead of the expected Ionic-Attic [x] to the prestige of choral lyrics.9

Clearly, in more than one instance the non-Attic vocalism can be explained by the origin of the deceased.10 Nevertheless, there are some cases, like [x] in CEG 272 (470-460? B.C.), for which it is likely that Ionic [x] instead of Attic [a:] [x] was due to deliberate decision to "colour" the epigram with Ionic or epic features.11

Definitely more frequent and more striking is the spelling with non-Ionic- Attic inherited [a:] (< *a) in Attic verse epigrams between the second half of the 6th and the first half of the 5th cent. B.C.: e.g. gen. plur. [x], dat. sing. [x]; [a:] it is also found in [x], or epithets referring to Athena like [x], etc.12 Apart from rare cases in which, again, spellings foreign to Attic are due to the origin of the deceased (CEG 77 and 83, epitaphs for a Spartan and a Megarian), a change in the vocalism for stylistic purposes, and specifically under the influence of choral lyric, may account for most of the occurrences of [a:] (Mess 1898, 12-21; Buck 1923,134-136).13

§ 3. In Hellenistic times the Greek epigram underwent a number of modifications that have been often studied in depth and on which it is impossible to dwell in detail here. Basically, the epigram acquired the status of a literary genre, became more and more detached from the local dialects (which, incidentally, were on the wane), and the tendency to mix up the dialect features increased. For the sake of convenience, Hellenistic epigrams are usually classified by modern scholars into those composed in "Ionic-epic" dialect, in "Doric" dialect and in an "admixture" of the two,14 but it is clear that things were more complicated than that. The coexistence of "Doric" [a:] and "Ionic-epic" [E:] (and the frequent insertion of Doric features in a basically "Ionic-epic" context) is not only attested in literary epigrams, but it is also evident from several Hellenistic epigrams on stone.15

At a surface level there seems to be little more than an increase of a tendency that was already evident in Classical times; but in fact it seems clear that some new "principle" was at work, in the sense that the epigrams shared the same taste for the contamination of Kunstsprachen typical of other Hellenistic literary genres16 and that the use of dialect forms must have been perceived as a means to "embellish" a poetical text; in other words there was some continuity in a remarkably different frame.17

§ 4. As I have said, during the post-Classical period epigrams were not only composed, but also copied from stones and collected in book forms and anthologies.18 The most important one was the Garland of Meleager, which included most of the epigrams transmitted to us, later flown into the Palatine and Planudean Medieval anthologies.19 Therefore, the Hellenistic anthologies contain both pure literary epigrams and poems copied from stones, several of them ascribed to famous poets of the Archaic and Classical age. Although these ascriptions have often been disputed by modern scholars, it is clear and widely accepted that in many cases we are not dealing with book epigrams, but with poems that were composed and actually engraved on monuments during the Archaic and Classical period.20 Usually, these monuments have not been preserved, and we are not able to detect the differences between the original epigraphic text and its literary copy; yet, sometimes this is possible: it is on these occasions that we become aware of how much has been lost with the loss of the epigraphic text.

One of the most serious problems of literary texts is the vagaries of transmission. The linguistic and dialect form is usually the one deepest affected by modifications: apart from mechanical mistakes, the scribes obviously tended to turn the original dialect forms into those of their spoken Koine, which was phonologically Attic. There are plenty of examples: a well-known one is the first hexameter of the famous distichon for the soldiers fallen at Salamis, ascribed to Simonides (FGE "Simonides" XI). The text as we have it in the MSS is [x], but the original on stone (CEG 131) reads: [x], with the expected dialect forms ([x]), turned into their Attic (Koine) counterparts in the literary version.21 More rarely, some modifications are due to the influence of literary texts: the epigram dedicated by the Laconians to Zeus has come down to us both on stone (CEG 367): [x] and in the text of Paus. V, 24, 3: [x]. While the change of [x] into [x] is trivial, the replacement of [x] with [x] was probably due to the fact that [x] is the Homeric form. 22

In this latter case, the replacement due to literary interference is likely to be occasional (an intervention of a learned scribe), but it has a lesson to teach. We are used to explaining the divergences between the original Archaic or Classical epigrams preserved on stone and their literary copy with "unintentional" modifications, like random corruptions, wrong transcriptions on the MSS, alterations into Attic of dialect features, and so on. However, although this is mostly the case, as we have just seen, it is clear that some changes were not mechanical, but made on purpose. In what follows I shall examine some (unfortunately rare) Classical Attic epigrams handed down to us both in the original on stone and in their literary copies in the Palatine Anthology in order to demonstrate that in some cases we are dealing not only with "mechanical" mistakes, but also with intentional modifications. In actual fact, I believe that some epigrams were purposefully tampered with in order to embellish the linguistic (and literary) features of the original epigram according to the tastes of the post-Classical age.

§ 5. Let us examine first AP VI, 138 (= FGE "Anacreon" IX), one of the epigrams of the so-called Sylloge Anacreontea of the Palatine Anthology; more precisely, it is included in the small group of dedicatory epigrams (AP VI, 134-145), ascribed to Anacreon, The set is opened by AP VI, 134, which is headed with [x], while AP VI, 137, that comes right before our epigram, is a dedication of a certain [x] to Apollo. The text of AP VI, 138 in the MS of the Palatine Anthology reads as follows:

[x]

"Formerly Calliteles erected me; but his descendants set this up, to whom give favour in return".

As we have it in our MS, the text falls within the widespread category of the "speaking monuments" ([x]), although the sudden switch from the first person [x] to [x] (scil. the new Herm dedicated by Calliteles' descendants) results, at a first glance, in puzzling syntax, given that at the very beginning of the epigram the statue itself is speaking ([x]), but at the end someone else addresses himself to the god (/statue), asking for thankfulness.24 It must be stressed, however, that this kind of switching is not unparalleled in dedications. As to the destination, it is worth noting that, according to C's lemma "[x]", AP VI, 138 should have been composed in honour of the same god as AP VI, 137, namely Apollo.25

The original on stone of our literary version was found in Attica, in Chaidari (near Daphni). It is written in the local Attic alphabet under a stone Herm dating back to the years 480-460 B.C., although we cannot exclude a slightly later date, namely 470-460 B.C. (IG I [3] 1014; cf. CEG 313); the text is damaged, but perfectly recognisable:

[x]

The discovery of the original monument made us see the epigram under a very different light: to begin with, it is a dedication to Hermes and not to Apollo.26 Moreover, for chronological reasons the ascription of the epigram to Anacreon which had been debated for a long time, turned out to be impossible. Since on epigraphic and palaeographic grounds the inscription is likely to go back to a date between 480 (470?) and 460 B.C.;27 we can safely exclude Anacreon's authorship (he was born in 575 B.C. and supposedly lived 85 years, which takes us to ca. 490 B.C. as the date of his death).

Trypanis 1951 is also convinced that Anacreon cannot be the author of CEG 313 (= AP VI, 138); in his opinion the evidence against Anacreon's authorship rests not on palaeography but on cultural data and he connects the epigram on stone with the spreading of dedications of inscribed marble Herms in Attica. It must be said, however, that Trypanis reconstructs the date of our epigram on stone on feeble bases: firstly, he interprets [x] as 'grandchildren', whereas the term has three possible meanings ('grandchildren', 'descendants' or 'sons',28 each of them would result in a very different chronology as to the generation-gap between the dedication by Calliteles and the second by his [x]; moreover, it is not sure whether or not the Herm dedicated by Calliteles was a marble one.

Trypanis remarks that a marble Herm of square shape with an inscribed epigram is typical of Attica of the 5th cent. B.C. and that the spreading of dedications of marble Herms as cult-statues (from ca. 510 B.C. onwards) came into being in a phase of Hermes' cult in which Hipparchus, the brother of the tyrant Hippias (we are between 528 and 514 B.C.) played an important role. According to some ancient sources, within the framework of the ambitious cultural project of the Peisistratids, Hipparchus summoned to Athens famous poets such as Simonides and Anacreon, and set up marble Herms (the monumental version of the wooden older ones) equipped with epigrams in all of Attica, including country and demes. The [x] served not only as milestones and cult-statues but also as a vehicle for education: some of the epigrams carved on them were allegedly written by Hipparchus himself and his friends.29 Interestingly, during his stay in Athens Anacreon was much admired by the Athenians and later on (during the late-Classical or early-Hellenistic era) he became famous as a composer of epigrams for Herms, probably because of his ties with the Peisistratids.

Through the 5th and 4th cent. B.C., the cult of Hermes became more popular; moreover, the dedication of marble Herms as cult-statues (and not only as milestones) by private citizens more frequent.30 According to Trypanis, our epigram, and probably others of the small Anacreontean Sylloge of the Palatine Anthology, was composed for, and carved on, this kind of Herm.31 Trypanis derives from these bases a hint for discarding the ascription to Anacreon of CEG 313 (= AP VI, 138). According to him, we have the important terminus post quem of 510 B.C. for the dedication of marble Herms with carved epigrams: even if Calliteles was among the first Athenians to set up a marble Herm, since the second one (our Herm) was dedicated by his [x]I = 'grandchildren' we have to calculate three generations, which take us to ca. 480 B.C. As a consequence, even if Anacreon remained in (or returned to) Athens after the death of Hipparchus (514 B.C.), which is indeed possible, and did not leave as frequently assumed,32 he would have already been dead by the time of the dedication of our Herm (see also FGE, 140). As I have said above, Trypanis' conclusions are far from being certain. As Hansen -- who rejects Anacreon's authorship too -- points out, nothing can be inferred from the shape of the second Herm: to begin with, we do not know if the first Herm was one of the marble Herms or a wooden older one; consequently the setting up of inscribed marble Herms by private individuals at the end of the 6th cent. B.C. is no terminus post quem. Moreover, we cannot determine how many years intervened between the setting up of the first and the second Herm, because [x] could in principle stand for [x] and therefore could mean 'sons' or 'descendants' (but see also below). As a consequence, Hansen does not accept the cultural data discussed by Trypanis as evidence: according to him the reasons for discarding Anacreon's authorship rest chiefly on epigraphical grounds.33

In any case, the cultural framework described by Trypanis is important for the literary transmission of AP VI 138: in fact, it is highly likely that because of Anacreon's stay at Athens the ancients began to associate him with verse epigrams on Herms, and this explains why AP VI, 138 was ascribed to him. Besides, it seems that the connection of Anacreon with verse epigrams on Herms was relatively ancient: according to Page (FGE, 123-124) several epigrams, and among them our AP VI, 138, were already ascribed to Anacreon and included in a collection of alleged Anacreontean epigrams which was used by Melager in putting together his Garland.

To sum up, if we did not have the original on stone, we would also lack two important pieces of information: first, the exact nature of the monument, which belongs to a specific phase of the cultural history of Athens; second, the transmission of Calliteles' epigram in the Hellenistic and pre-Hellenistic period, that is to say, the reason for its ascription to Anacreon, possibly dating back to the 4th-3rd cent. B.C., and, in any case, prior to the Garland.

It is time to examine the inscription more closely; as I have said, the text on stone reads:34

[x]

The stone reveals clearly to what extent the literary tradition can modify an original text. Two main points deserve attention:

1) What is carved on the stone is not [x] but [x], with H representing the initial aspirate of [x] (since the epigram was written in the Attic pre-Euclidean alphabet, where H means [h]). As a consequence, the statue was no "speaking monument", and so there is also no syntactical problem due to the fact that the statue apparently starts to speak and then suddenly becomes the object ([x]) of the verb of dedication ([x]) with a different subject ([x]). In all likelihood we are not dealing with any intentional modification of the text, but with a mistake: the pronoun [x] could be put down to a scribe who was used to plenty of cases of "speaking" objects or monuments that he came across in epigrams. Moreover, the mistake is likely to have been facilitated by a text on papyrus in which the old H representing an aspiration was wrongly interpreted as M ([x] > [x]). The difference between [x] of MSS and [x] on the stone is likely to be explained as a consequence of a trivialization too. In Attic inscriptions the two compounds are basically equivalent from the semantic point of view, but [x] is certainly less common than [x]: apart from our example, there are some occurrences of [x] in the 4th and 3rd cent. B.C., then it disappears completely until the 2nd cent. AD.; on the contrary, [x] is consistently attested from its first epigraphical occurrences (second half of the 5th cent. B.C.) onwards.35 A similar scenario is found in literary texts, where [x] is more common and is also frequently attested as varia lectio of [x].

2) On the stone the verb of dedication in the pentameter reads [x], not [x] as in the literary version; as a consequence, the dialect form is not original. What we find on the stone, [x], is the Ionic-Attic form,36 precisely what we expect in an Attic epigram. The middle of [x] with this sense is rare, but well attested already since Homer.37 In other words, if we had only the literary version of Calliteles' epigram, we would accept a dialect feature that was not original.38 Since instances of non-Ionic-Attic ("Doric") inherited [a:] instead of Ionic-Attic [E:] are, although rarely, attested in Attic inscriptional verse epigrams (see above, § 2), we might have been under the misleading impression that the literary version of AP VI, 138 was accurately copied down from an Attic epigram on stone which actually showed an occurrence of [a:] instead of Ionic-Attic [E:] ([x]).

It is obvious that the stone has the original form and that the "Doric" [x] found in the manuscript tradition cannot be due to a banal mistake :39 in my opinion, we are definitely dealing with an intentional manipulation in order to embellish the epigram.

This conclusion is a first important step. The second one is to ascertain according to what principle AP VI, 138 was tampered with. Since the original epigram was copied down and arranged in a collection during the post-Classical age, the easiest and most logical explanation for the alteration of [x] into [x] is that the former was manipulated according to the typically Hellenistic taste for combining elements taken from different literary traditions, i.e. inserting "Doric" [a:] in an Ionic(-Attic) linguistic (and literary) context. In this case we would have a text dating back to the Classical age that was altered or embellished later on according to the linguistic and literary criteria of the Hellenistic (and Roman) period.

In fact, there is another possible explanation, albeit more complex. The Hellenistic age is not only a period of poetical innovation, but also the period par exellence of philological activity on literary texts of the Archaic and Classical age. Since a striking feature of the in Archaic and Classical Attic epigrams on stone was the presence of non-Ionic-Attic ("Doric") [a:] instead of an expected [E:],40 a Hellenistic editor may have felt to be authorised to modify a banal [E:] into [a:]. In other words, sometimes later scholars or editors may have decided to "restore" (to their mind) the original shape of the Attic epigrams copied down from the stone by "characterizing" them by means of the linguistic features they found in the originals on stone and that they regarded as typical of the Archaic and Classical Attic epigrams.41

The latter hypothesis is more daring and, although we have to take it into account, it cannot be proved beyond any doubt; in my opinion the most likely explanation is the first one: an intentional modification based on the linguistic canons of the post-Classical age. Regardless of what principle we assume to have been followed -- either linguistic-literary or philological, we are in any case dealing with a deliberate alteration of a Classical epigram, whose original shape is guaranteed only by the stone.

The hypothesis of a deliberate embellishment is strengthened by the linguistic features of a couplet added at a later stage to a Classical epigram. 42 In the Palatine Anthology we find the following epigram, AP VI, 144 (Beckby) = FGE "Anacreon" XV (also AP VI, 213 his, see below)43:

[x]

"Leocrates, son of Stroebus, when you dedicated this statue to Hermes, the beautiful haired Graces did not fail to notice you, nor the delightful Academy, in whose embrace I declare to whom approaches your beneficence".

The original verse inscription (IG I [3] 983 = CEG 312) was found in Marcopoulo in the Attic Mesogeia and dates back to 460? B.C. (IG I [3] 983); such early dates as 470-460 or even 480-475? (CEG 312) have been proposed, but they seem less likely. Only the first couplet can be read (with some difficulty) on the stone:

[x]

The recovery of the original is important (a) since it is an inscribed marble Herm like that of Calliteles (note that inscribed marble Herms are rare)44; (b) since the epigram was ascribed to Anacreon in antiquity (note that Anacreon was famous as epigrammatist of Herms). Although in the MSS of the Palatine Anthology the epigram is transmitted not only as VI, 144, but also as VI, 213 his among a set of epigrams ascribed to Simonides, in all probability its original position was actually in the Anacreontean set and its placement among the Simonidea is likely to be much later than the Garland of Meleager.45 For chronological reasons the ascription to Anacreon (or Simonides) can be discarded, but in any case the question of the authorship does not affect our main interest, namely the differences between the original on stone and its literary copy.

First of all, the Herm reveals something that several scholars had already suspected, namely that the second distichon is a later addiction (moreover linked to the previous one in an inadequate way). Leocrates' dedication is indeed perfectly concluded in itself and the style of the second distichon suggests that the appendage dates back to the post-Classical age (see also below). There is no possibility that the four-line epigram as we have it in the Palatine Anthology is genuine: Wilamowitz (1913, 145-146 n. 2) put forward the hypothesis (accepted by Friedlander - Hoffieit 1948, 114) that the monument was dedicated by Leocrates in the first instance, inscribed with the initial couplet (the one found in Marcopoulo), and then a second time in the Academy, on which occasion he would have added the second couplet. In actual fact, the most plausible explanation for the startling mention of the Academy in v. 3 (obviously at Athens, whereas the Herm equipped with the original epigram was found in the Attic Mesogeia, far away from Athens), is simply that the author of the second couplet, in choosing a fictitious collocation for the statue, was conditioned by the presence in the original epigram of the [x] and Hermes, deities with whom the Academy was closely connected.46 Moreover, the style of the second couplet contrasts with that of the first, being characterized by a combination of elevated and sophisticated expressions such as [x] (whose semantics reflects a late development) 47 or [x].48 Such stylistic features are lacking in the first couplet.

Obviously enough, the two couplets present different problems. As to the first, the stone gives us the opportunity to reconstruct the original shape of the lines, while the MSS tradition has an error in the case of the name of Leocrates' father49 and the usual writing [x] for [o:], plainly different from what is actually engraved on the monument, i.e. [x] with the value of [o:], a graphic solution derived from some Ionic alphabets, and sporadically attested in other Attic inscriptions.50

The author of the second distichon is not merely pleased with sophisticated terms, but the embellishment involves another level: once more, we find an alteration of the expected vocalism (as in the case of the epigram of Calliteles), both in [x] instead of [x] and in [x] instead of [x]. In an Attic epigram we would expect the Ionic-Attic form [x] with [E:], already found in Homer and Hesiod (cf. AP IX, 189). Instead, we have [x] with [a:], attested in Pindar and in the choral lyrics of tragedy.51

Since the use of [x] had been hallowed by Homer and Hesiod, it was perfectly suitable for the elevated style of an epigram; as a consequence the choice of the "lyric" [x] sounds as a distinct affectation and the presence of the Ionic-epic [x] in the following line is yet another indication that we are before an instance of intentional dialect mixture. This hypothesis is likelier than my second one, namely that a later editor wanted to characterize the epigrams on the basis of the instances of "authentic" co-occurrences of [E:] and [a:] attested in some Attic epigrams of the Classical age.

Another of our few examples is AP XIII, 13 whose original on stone is IG I[3] 885 = CEG 280 and is in (Ionic)-epic dialect. The epigram has been edited in many ways after the discovery of the original on stone,52 but the text as we have it in the manuscript tradition of the Palatine Anthology reads:

[x]

The text on stone (CEG 280 = IG I[3] 885, ca. 440 B.C.?) found on the Akropolis reads:

[x]

The main differences between the inscription and the literary version are immediately evident: [x] is likely to be a trivialization of the [x] found on the stone (which should possibly be restored) 53, while [x] transmitted by the MSS is very distant from the original text (which scribes were probably not anymore able to understand), [x], which has been recovered from the stone.

So, the stone revealed that the third line is basically the signature of Cresilas from Cydonia (in Crete), a famous artist contemporary with Phidias. The recovering of the original line is a first step; the second one is how to interpret the linguistic shape of the sequence [x]. It is very difficult to draw any satisfactory conclusions, but a possible explanation is that some change in the dialect took place: since the third line is Cresilas' signature, it may have been a switch to his own dialect (very common in artists' signatures), namely to Doric.

Indeed, the artist's personal name, [x], is in his own dialect and although [x] is found in the epics (Hesiod), there are instances of aorists in [x] from presents in [x] in choral lyrics (cf. e.g. [x] in Pindar), so that the artist may have perceived [x] as compatible with Doric but at the same time as a prestigious form of the literary tradition (epics and choral lyrics) and therefore appropriate to the language of the epigram. 54 In this scenario, the ethnic [x] is out of place: we would expect a consistent Doric vocalism [x];55 since there are several instances of adaptation of the ethnics to the dialect of the epigram, we might even expect the form [x], which actually occurs as an ethnic with this shape in Attic texts (cf. Threatte 1980, 135) 56, but not the startling [x].

There is no agreement among scholars on the interpretation of this form. The possible explanations are two: a) some scholars regard [x] as a mechanical mistake, namely a simple graphic inversion of the vowels of the two final syllables;57 b) according to a completely different perspective, [x] would be rather due to the influence of the epics. 58 Of course, the "influence of the epics" is meant in the sense that a Doric form [x] (in the basically Doric context of the third line) was altered by colouring the pre-suffixal vowel with Ionic-epic phonetics. Although the outcome [x] is relatively surprising, it is far from isolated: it is paralleled by some forms with a coexistence of Ion. [E:] and "Dor." [a:], e.g. [x], Eur. Hipp.736 and [x], Bacchil. V, 47; XII, 1 (cf. Buck 1913, 140), and by other examples of substantives in [x] in tragedy (chorals parts) like [x] and [x].59

In the case of other Classical epigrams that have come down to us we are not so lucky, because they are fragmentary and only few letters engraved on the stone are recognisable. In fact, they are clear examples of how these kinds of epigrams can result in a puzzling problem for an editor.60

This is evident in CEG 4 (458 or 457 B.C.? cf. CVI 14), a public monument now lost, commemorating the Athenians fallen at Tanagra. It is literarily transmitted as AP VII, 254 (= FGE "Simonides" XLIX), which reads:

[x]61

The epigraphic text is barely preserved and is reconstructed on the basis of the literary copy, see Hansen's edition (CEG 4):

[x]

Apart from other questions,62 a major problem is that words showing [a:] instead of the expected Ionic-Attic [E:] coexist with words showing the expected long [E:]. A long [a:] is certain for [x] (alpha is in the inscription) and possible for [x] (but Planudes has [x]); it coexists with [E:] in [x] and [x],63 for which we do not have the original on stone and all MSS have a vocalism [E:]. Judging from the examples in the epigrams quoted before, this coexistence is likely to be genuine.64 However, since the epigraphic text is so seriously damaged that in some cases we do not have the original form to compare with, we cannot be sure that the distribution of [a:] and [E:] in the literary version actually reflects that on the stone. For example, in the case of [x] it is only the stone that makes it possible to recover the original with [a:], while the form is transmitted with the Ionic-Attic vocalism (with [E:]) in the MSS of both the Palatine and the Planudean Anthologies.65 On the other hand, in the case of [x] P vs. [x] in Pl all we have is the MS tradition: the likeliest solution is that PI has an Attic trivialized fonn, and that the original is preserved in P, but of course this is far from certain, since P could theoretically have "Doricized" an original [x] or mixed various forms of different traditions. This causes a problem for editors, who make very different choices: as we have just seen, Beckby (and so Hansen in CEG 4) prints [x], alongside [x] and [x], Waltz 1960 prints [x] but [x] (and [x]), while, most surprisingly, Page (FGE "Simonides" XLIX) always prints the "Doric" forms ([x] and [x]).66

AP VI, 343 (Beckby) (= FGE "Simonides" III)67 makes clear once again how difficult it is to detect in full the differences between the epigraphic original and the literary version of the same epigram because of the poor conditions of the text on stone. AP VI, 343 is a copy of an Attic epigram, IG I[3] 501 B (quoted also by Hdt. V, 77; Diod. X, 24, and partly by Aristides XLIX, 65 D.):

[x]

"Having defeated the Boeotians and Chalcidians in the work of the war, the sons of the Athenians quenched their arrogance in sorrowful iron chains and dedicated these horses to Pallas as a tithe of their ransom".

The epigram, although less relevant to the present discussion (since [x], and [x] found in the MSS are corruptions ascribable to the literary transmission, whose most reasonable correction seems [x]; see below n. 69), is worth briefly mentioning because we have the fragments of two different versions on stone, a phenomenon comparatively rare, but not unparalleled. In 507/6 Euboeans and Boeotians invaded Attica while the Athenians were fighting against a Peloponnesian army; nevertheless, the Athenians were able to defeat the Euboeans and Boeotians and to take many prisoners. The tithe of the ransom was used to erect a monument that was then destroyed by the Persians in 480 B.C. Many years later, a replica of the monument was set up on the Acropolis, probably slightly after 457 B.C., to celebrate the Athenian victory over the Boeotians at Oenophyta.68 Fragments of both versions were found in the second half of the 19th century: IG I[3] 501 B (stoichedon, ca. 455 B.C.) has the lines in the same order of all the literary sources (Hdt., AP, etc.); while the other, which was recovered ca. 15 years later (IG I[3] 501 A, ca. 505 B.C.) shows the lines in a different order, namely an inversion of the first and the third hexameter); see CEG 179:

[x]

It is generally held that the latter was the original version and, on the contrary, that the literary tradition, starting with Herodotus, depends from the second version. It is likely that when the replica of the old monument was set up the new victory was linked to the earlier one, and the sequence of the lines was altered because now the focus was on the supremacy gained by the Athenians upon some of their major Greek enemies.

§ 6. And now some remarks by way of conclusion. The Greek epigrams attested both on stone and in manuscript copies are very few but extremely interesting, since they provide us with the unique opportunity of examining the alterations undergone by the texts during the literary transmission. Quite often we find the obvious mistakes we expect: an epigram originally written on a monument dedicated to a certain god appears in, say, the Palatine Anthology as addressed to a different god; a proper name is misspelt; a dialect feature is turned into its Attic-Ionic counterpart because the scribes tended to trivialize forms that sounded unfamiliar to them.

Yet, this is not the whole story. In some cases we are clearly dealing with deliberate alterations of the original, which took place at some point during the transmission, some of them concerning the dialect choices of the originals. Two slightly different explanations of these dialect alterations are possible. Since a certain amount of dialect mixture is already evident in many Archaic epigrams on stone one might argue that, say, [x] was written by an editor (or a learned scribe) instead of [x] because he wanted to convey the flavour of the dialect treatment of epigrams in a bygone era.

It is also possible, and in my opinion far more probable, that the text was altered not according to scholarly principles of learned reconstruction, but in the wake of the typically Hellenistic tendency to mix up dialects in order to "embellish" literary texts. If we had more originals on stone (or metal) we would certainly discover that the dialect of many of our literary epigrams copied from Archaic or Classical monuments was more or less heavily manipulated in Hellenistic and Roman times.70

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

_______________

Notes:

1 Mickey 1981, 36; Buck 1913. The artist's signature was usually in his own alphabet  and dialect: as a result, when the dedicator and the artist had different  origins, we might find a contrast between the alphabet and dialect of the dedication  and those of the signature. However, we come across several examples  of the adaptation of the name of an artist working abroad to the dialect of the  dedication; on the other hand, sometimes the dedication is in the dialect of the  artist; cf. e.g. Buck 1913, 135-143.
 
2 The same principle is true also for epitaphs, whose dialect and alphabet are those  of the dedicator and not of the deceased, although they usually coincide, the  reason being that sepulchral monuments were, as a rule, erected by kinsmen  or compatriots. In epitaphs for deceased buried abroad, however, the alphabet  and the dialect can be either that of the dedicator or of the deceased, with various  degrees of interference (Buck 1913, 143-145).
 
3 It should be mentioned, however, that decisions of interstate arbitrations were  usually written in the dialect of the arbitrators (see e. g. Buck 1913, 150-152).
 
4 Cf [x] (Corinth, CEG 357) for the Homeric verse-ending  [x] (Paros, CEG 414) on [x] at the beginning of the line (and similar Homeric instances).  In this respect  the deep contrast between stone epigrams and literary elegy, whose language  was Ionic (with epic features), is remarkable.
 
5 Mickey 1981; Buck 1923, 134, who stresses that there are not only plenty of  instances of epic forms instead of the dialect ones, which might have been employed being metrically equivalent, but also several examples of epic features where the local forms could have been easily used, although metrically different. This contradicts the widely accepted statement put forward by Kock 1910 that verse-epigrams were composed in the dialect of the dedicator and literary forms foreign to his dialect were employed exclusively when necessitated by the metre.
 
6 Epigrams were engraved, e.g., on such important public monuments as those intended to celebrate the Persian Wars or on the polyandria for the fallen in various military campaigns.
 
7 For example, according to Plutarch. Nic. 17, 4, Euripides wrote the epitaph for the Athenians fallen in the Syracusan war, but its authenticity is very doubtful (cf. FCE, 155-156). On the other hand, on the basis of Hdt. VII, 228, Simonides' authorship of the epigram for Megistias seems reasonably sure (FGE "Simonides" VI). It has been argued that Simonides' fame as epigrammatist depended on his activity as an author not only of epigrams on stone, but also of fictive ones, soon collected in a sylloge; on the development of Athenian epigrams (from the epigraphic to the literary form), and the key-figure of Simonides, see Boas 1905; Gentili 1968; Bravi 2006.
 
8 This is especially true for the style of private epigrams, which was more influenced by elegy, and by tragedy and rhetoric, as well. It cannot be excluded that the ties between lamentatory elegy and funerary epigrams date back to an ancient phase: a polyandrion and two lamentations on stone of the 6th cent. B.C. strongly suggest that a threnodic elegy really existed and was related to funerary epigrams; Cassio 1994, 110-116 with previous discussions.
 
9 Buck 1923, 134; Mickey 1981, 44. Since epigrams were written in the epichoric  dialect, in several cases [E:] occurs alongside the "regular" Attic [a:] [x], which,  as expected, is found in the rest of the epigram.
 
10 Mickey 1981, 44 and nn. 23-24 with references (cf. CEG add. locc.); Buck  1913, 144. For instance, in CEG 66 (end of the 6th cent. B.C.) the Ionic vocalism  of [x] and [x] is likely to be explained by the Ionic origin of the  deceased. More complex are [x] (CEG 280), an artist's signature that  will be discussed in detail later, and [x] from Selymbria (which is actually  in the Doric spelling [x]) in CEG 11 (460/450 B.C.) on which see  Kock 1910, 37 (Ionic origin) and Mess 1898, 14 (imitation of epics). Generally  speaking, in the case of epitaphs the most likely hypothesis (but by no means  always valid) is that dialect features might have been introduced (or retained)  in foreign ethnics or personal names to preserve something of the "identity"  of the deceased buried outside his country. As far as Ionic vocalism is concerned,  it should be noted that [E:] is found under some circumstances in  text prose as well (signatures of artists of Ionic origin on Attic vases) and that  even in public documents like the Athenian tribute lists, the spelling of foreign  ethnics was not standardized: in ethnics of East Ionic areas not only spellings  with "alpha purum" are attested, but also some instances of [E:] instead of  Attic [a:] (Threatte 1980, 131-135).
 
11 Cf. [x] CEG 273 (ca. 470-450? B.C.), [x] versus the usual, contracted,  [x] CEG 235 (ca. 500-480? B.C.); Mickey 1981, 43-44 and  nn. 21-30, who also notes that these instances of [E:] for [a:] are attested in  a historical period (5th cent. B.C., after the Persian Wars) in which Athens  was heavily influenced by Ionic culture. One may also wonder whether the influence  of elegy played some role (we have already mentioned the ties between  elegy and stone epigrams).
 
12 As it is expected, several examples of [a:] occur alongside Ionic-Attic [E:]: in  CEG 235 [x] but [x] and [x] (cf. D'Alfonso 1986); [x] [v in CEG 7  (post 450? 5th cent. B.C.?); [x] but  [x] in CEG 243 (ca.500-480? B.C.); [x],  [x] in CEG 205 (510-500? B.C.); [x] alongside[x] in CEG 284  (500-480? B.C.); [x] alongside [x] on a dedication to Athena  ([x]) CEG 194 (525-510? B.C.); [x] alongside [x] in CEG 61  (ca. 510-500?); [x] alongside [x] in CEG 31 (540-520  B.C.); [x] alongside [x] (epic reminiscence) in CEG  302 (ca. 540?); possibly [x] alongside [x] in CEG 4 (458 or  457 B.C.). Other occurrences of [a:] are [x] CEG 261 (dedication  to Athena, ca. 490-480 B.C.?) and, probably, [x] in CEG 229  (500-480?), but the text is damaged; [x] in CEG 1(ii) (ca. 490-460?  B.C.). References in Mickey 1981, 44 and nn. 25-27.  

13 Of course the inherited [a:] (<IE *a) is a feature not exclusively Doric in itself  (it is basically shared by all dialects apart from Ionic-Attic), it is true, however,  that it was perceived as one the most distinctive features of the choral lyric.  Mickey 1981, 44 agrees with Buck's interpretation and goes further, suggesting  that "the a-vocalism, which would have been familiar from the 'Doric' choral lyric, had a high-style solemnity, and thus would have seemed particularly appropriate  for references to deities"; see also D'Alfonso 1986, 86; Palumbo  Stracca 1987, 431. This is not the place to discuss the motivations of every occurrence  of retained [a:] in the Attic literary production, to which I shall return  on another occasion; I would like only to stress that the influence of such a  prestigious poetry as choral lyric is not wholly unexpected; besides, there are  some reminiscences of choral poetry in the dialogue of tragedy too (Bjorck  1950). Absolutely to be ruled out are other hypotheses (see Kock 1910, 29-  35) which explain these [a:] as due to the retention of Archaic Attic forms  (the same theory, and just as unsatisfactory, has been put forward for some instances  of non-Ionic-Attic inherited [a:] in the dialogue of tragedy); cf. e.g.  Palumbo Stracca 1998, 241-242.
 
14 See e.g. Gow - Page 1965, xlv; in fact, the so-called "mixed" epigrams are prevailingly  written in an Ionic-epic dialect with an admixture of Doric.
 
15 Cf. GVI701 (Smyrna 2nd cent. B.C.), GVI703 (Mykonos 2nd/1st cent. B.C.),  GVI761 (Thasos 2nd/1st cent. B.C.?), GVI798 (Troas 3rd cent. B.C.), etc., see  e.g. Palumbo Stracca 1987, 431 n. 6.
 
16 On the practice of contaminating literary genres and their Kunstsprachen in order  to achieve artificial poetical languages and, in particular, on the Doric features  in Isyllus' poems on stone, Callimachus, Theocritus and various epigrams (e. g.  those of Posidippus, Anyte, etc.), see Wilamowitz 1886, 25 - 29; Molinos-Tejada  1990; Cassio 1993; Strunk 1964; Gow - Page 1965, xlv-xlvi; Geoghegan  1979,14 and 19; Acosta-Hughes 2004; Sens 2004; Lapini 2007,300 n. 30 with  bibliography and previous discussions.
 
17 This is not just a theoretical problem, since what a modern editor prints depends  on how he interprets the data. In several instances it is clear that the transmission  is responsible for some alterations (e.g. of [E:] into [a:]), in others fur  less so: [a:] alternating with [E:] might be genuine and the text ought not to  be corrected (cf. Gow - Page 1965, xlv-xviii). Palumbo Stracca 1987 rightly  notes that editors should be extremely cautious in giving epigrams a uniform  dialect shape, since dialect forms can be found alongside epic or literary features  of different types in the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic stone epigrams, and,  of course, even more frequently in literary Hellenistic epigrams.
 
18 Although several transcriptions of verse inscriptions engraved on stone may date  back to a previous period, the phenomenon gains momentum only from the 4th  cent. B.C. onwards. We have statements in ancient sources about various characters,  like Neoptolemus of Parium, Heliodorus and Philo chorus of Athens,  and, above all, Polemo of Ilium (called [x] 'tablet-glutton') who travelled  throughout Greece to copy and collect inscriptions on monuments; cf.  e.g. Cameron 1993, 5; Petrovic 2007, 92-95.
 
19 Collections of epigrams, several of them ascribed to famous poets, must have  been circulating since the end (to play it safe) of the 4th cent. B.C. and the beginning  of the 3rd cent. B.C. (the evidence is provided by accounts in ancients  sources, sequences of epigrams in MSS, and papyrus scraps of such collections  prior to the Garland), Gow - Page 1965, xvi; Cameron 1993, 6 -13; Gutzwiller  1998, 15-53; Meyer 2005, 98-100; Krevans 2007; cf. also Petrovic 2007, 90-  98.
 
20 Among the ca. 100 epigrams ascribed or ascribable to Simonides and among the  18 ascribed to Anacreon, several date back to the Hellenistic age, but some are  plainly contemporary with one of the two poets. The authors are unknown to  us, in all probability these epigrams were transcribed from the monuments and  it was the collector who attributed them to such prestigious poets as Simonides  or Anacreon (e.g. FGE "Simonides" XIII, XXII a e b, XLV, XLVI, etc. and  "Anacreon" VI, IX, XV, X); FGE, 119-124; Gow - Page 1965, 516-517;  Boas 1905, 249-250; Hauvette 1896, 5-65, 145; Petrovic 2007, 53-54.
 
21 Another possible example is CEG 4 (458 or 457 B.C.) with its literary copy AP  VII, 254, in which [x] is transmitted instead of the original [x]  (§ 5).
 
22 Hoffmann - Debrunner - Scherer 1969 [4], 80; Gallavotti 1978, 17; in general,  on Pausanias' epigraphical interests cf. Zizza 2006. On the root *selH2 /  *s1H2 and the quantity of [a] in [x] see LIV, 480.

23 It must be stressed that on the manuscript [x] is followed by a punctuation  mark (see Preisendanz 1911, 166). Given that the two accents are clearly a  mistake, the most likely interpretation of the verb as we have it in the MS is  [x]. Note that Page, Becky and Waltz 1931 did not  print in their critical apparatus the MS form, but basically their interpretation  of it: Page's apparatus ad FGE "Anacreon" IX reads [x], whereas  both Beckby and Waltz 1931 print [x]. Such an editorial choice  is not only inappropriate, as in Page's edition, although his interpretation of  the sequence is correct, but even misleading, as in Beckby's and Waltz's editions.  As a matter of fact, theoretically a form [x] with short [a] is possible,  since it is a secondary formation (see Schwyzer 1939, 742 n. 3) attested, although  rarely, in Homer e.g. at II. 12.56, where it is the reading of Aristarchus,  and at Od. 3.182; however, on palaeographic grounds we can safely reject  [x].
 
24 A verse asking the god for something beneficial to reciprocate the dedication, as  in our AP VI, 138, is a recurring feature, already from the earliest dedicatory  epigrams on stone, e.g. CEG 326 [x], CEG 396 [x]; examples of this sort can be found  in the Palatine Anthology as well: see AP VI, 346 (FGE "Anacreon" IV)  [x]; AP VI, 137 (FGE "Anacreon"  VIII) [x], etc.; cf. FGE, 137.
 
25 The scribe known as the "Corrector" (C) is responsible for many corrections  and additions: lemmata, ethnics and attributions (sometimes the only indication  of the authorship of an epigram, but often also clearly false); it is possible that he  found those supplements and corrections in his own manuscript against which  he collated P; Gow - Page 1965, xxxv-xxxviii; Cameron 1993, 99-120.
 
26 Thus, the contrast between epigraphical data and those offered by the manuscript  transmission reveals immediately to what extent the literary transmission  can be not only inaccurate as to the destination of epigrams, but even misleading.
 
27 Earlier datings, mostly depending on the acceptance of Anacreon's authorship  (e. g. 520 B.C. ca. Labarbe, cf. SEC XXI, 93), can be safely rejected (see Hansen  ad CEG 313; cf. FGE, 140).
 
28 Although it is true that [x] means 'grandson', more frequently it simply  represents the assimilated form of [x] and therefore means 'descendant'  or 'son', already since Homer (e.g. 'son' at Il. 5.813); cf. LSJ ss.vv. [x]  and [x]. On the phonetics and semantics of the two compounds in Attic  inscriptions cf. below n. 35.
 
29 Pseud.-Plat. Hipparch. 228 d -229 [x]; cf.  the Herm found in Koropi not far away from Athens (CEG 304, 528-514  B.C.); see e.g. Picard 1935, 10; Trypanis 1951. According to Aloni 1984,  the cultural policy of the Peisistratids, whose main issues were the reorganization  and regulation of the rhapsodic recitals at the Panathenaea, recording the  Homeric poems and according priority to the Delian Apollo (pan-Ionic) as opposed  to the Delphic one (philo-aristocratic), had the political aim of associating  education and knowledge with tyranny and not with tradition, which is usually  connected with aristocracy.  

30 As I have said, the phenomenon started from ca. 510 B.C.
 
31 AP VI, 143, VI, 144 and VI, 346 (= FGE "Anacreon" XIV, XV and IV): FGE,  ad locc.
 
32 Trypanis 1951, 31-33 argues that evidence for a stay of Anacreon in Thessaly  after the murder of Hipparchus are scanty and, on the contrary, that it is more  likely that he either came back to or even never left Athens (which seems to be  indicated by the close connection to the powerful Athenian family of Critias, cf.  Plat. Charm. 157e, and the portrayals of Anacreon on Attic vases dating back to  the end of the 6th cent. B.C.).
 
33 Hansen ad CEG 313.
 
34 CEG 313, cf. IG I [2] 834; IG I 381 [E]y[y]ovoi; more cautiously IG I [3] 1014 has  now E[.]yovoi (see ad loc.); however, Hansen (ad CEG 313) explicitly states that  he is positive on identifying vestiges of the first y on the monument.
 
35 Threatte 1980, 581-583; on literature, cf. above n. 28.
 
36 Aorist forms of i[x] with [a:] are wholly unfamiliar to Ionic-Attic,  where, as is well known, [x] with [E:] is found.
 
37 Cf. [x] in an epigram ascribed to Simonides (FGE "Simonides" V); see  also [x] with this meaning and Doric vocalism in AP App. I, 251;  279, etc. For other instances see LSJ s.v. [x].

38 Most surprisingly, Paton 1916-1918 prints [x].
 
39 The tendency is rather to turn dialect forms into their Attic counterparts (for an  example from the Palatine Anthology see AP VII, 254) and not the other way  around.
 
40 Another one, although less frequent, is the use of "epic" [E:] instead of "alpha  purum". On the co-occurrence of [a:] and [E:] respectively in the Attic verse  epigrams on stone and in the Hellenistic epigrams see above, §§ 2 and 3.
 
41 Cassio 1993a; Id. 1997 showed that a certain number of dialect Archaic texts  were manipulated during the Hellenistic age according to a similar "philological"  principle. However, the phenomenon took place with mechanisms different  from those dealt with in this paper: e.g. in the case of the choral lyrics of  Alcman a later scholar or editor decided to insert -- usually not legitimately --  dialect features that were not found in the original, on the assumption that Aleman  wrote in Doric, whereas the author himself had chosen the "international"  forms instead of their strictly local counterparts.
 
42 AP VI, 144 is another Classical epigram altered during the post-Classical age; in  this case, the modifications show linguistic patterns similar to AP VI, 138 but  took place with a different mechanism, because the embellishments are found  in the couplet added in the post-Classical period. The phenomenon of a later  appendage is paralleled by the epigram for the Corinthians fallen in the Persian  Wars: only the first couplet of the epigram appears in AP VII, 250 (= FGE  "Simonides" XII) and Pseudo-Plutarch., de malign. Hdt. 870e, while two  more are quoted by Aristides XLIX, 66 (D.); see FGE, 204-205.
 
43 Interestingly, AP VI, 213 his, the other occurrence of this epigram, is slightly  different from that ascribed to Anacreon (AP VI, 144): AP VI, 213 his reads  [x] (vs. [x] in AP VI, 144; see below n. 49) and, notably,  [x] (P) was corrected into [x] by the scribe C.
 
44 See nos. 869-874 Lazzarini (including the aforementioned CEG 304 and CEG  313).
 
45 Possibly later than Cephalas, the terminus ante quem is the Suda (Boas 1905, 150-  161); however, the problem is discussed among scholars, cf. Hansen ad CEG  179 and Petrovic 2007, 141-143. Incidentally, some scholars regard the authorship  of Simonides as genuine; for example Hansen (ad CEG 312) dates  the inscription to 480-475? B.C. on the basis of the palaeographic data and  of the assumption that the epigram was composed by Simonides (cf. Bravi  2006, 28 n. 35). Hansen recalls that Simonides left Athens in 476 B.C. and died ca. 46817; however, the evidence according to which Leocrates the strategos  was identical with the Leocrates mentioned in connection with Simonides  is scanty (Hauvette 1895, 133-134; FGE, 144) and, above all, given that the  inscription is likely to be later than 480-475 B.C., the palaeographical data  seem actually to rule out such a conclusion.
 
46 FGE, 145; Petrovic 2007, 134-135, 139.
 
47 As Page (FGE, 145-146) rightly observes, the use of [x] in AP VI, 144 is  further confirmation that the second couplet is a later (Post-classical) appendage:  the first instances (in Homer) of [x] mean 'palm of the hand',  while during the Hellenistic age [x] developed also the value of 'crook  of the arm' (e.g. in Theocritus and some epigrams) whence, metaphorically,  'embrace' in our AP VI, 144 (cf. Petrovic 2007, 140).
 
48 There is a further problem with the meaning of [x]: according to Wilhelm  1889, 233 (cf. FGE, 146; Petrovic 2007, 140-141), we would expect  [x] rather than [x] ([x] means 'good deed', 'favour' or 'public  service': of course the dedication of a Herm can be interpreted as any of these).  The choice of [x] was possibly due to the "formula" [x] ('for  service done') useful to fill the first part of the pentameter and very common in  dedications (there are many examples in the Palatine Anthology too). However,  it cannot be excluded that [x] refers to Leocrates' activity as strategos.
 
49 The MSS have [x] or [x] instead of the right [x], which,  however, was already corrected by Schneider on the basis of Thuc. I, 105  who mentions a Leocrates son of Stroebus as an Athenian strategos in 479 and  459 B.C., a conjecture which the stone showed to be right.
 
50 It is unnecessary to assume a mistake in the inscription, as Page does (cf. FGE,  145; see also Wilhelm 1899, 231): the use of [x] = [o:] in Attic inscriptions (and  in Attic script) is relatively rare on texts on stone (nevertheless, it appears at least  on three of them), but there are several instances on ostraka. It was typical of the  alphabets of Thasos, Paros and Amorgos, and it is indeed possible that the Attic  usage was influenced by them. It should be noted, however, that in the aforementioned  Ionic alphabets [x] denotes both [o] and [o:], while in the instances  of Attic script [x] has never designated the two values at the same time, but only  that of [o:] or of [o] at anyone time. In all likelihood, n was sporadically used  for about sixty years in order to distinguish [9:] from [0] (which was not possible  in the epichoric Attic alphabet, since O denoted both long and short vowels),  but was never adopted for official use and disappeared soon after 450 B.C.,  along with the establishment of the standard use of [x] = [[x]], still rare in 5th  cent. B.C. Attic texts (cf. Threatte 1980, 47 -49).
 
51 Cf. [x] in Pindar Pyth. II, 28. Interestingly enough, in tragedy the root  [x]- alternates with [x]- depending on the form (substantive, verb, etc.) and  on whether it occurs in the dialogue or in the chorus: the p£ of the verb always  has [E:] in the chorus too (while in choral lyrics the proper [x] is obviously found);  the present forms in tragedy are found only in the dialogue and they  have [a:] ([x]). As to the compounds, the second element is always  [x] in the chorus ([x] and [x] Eur., [x] Aisch.), but  we cannot be sure of its shape in the dialogue because [x] Soph.  Trach. 869 is a modern conjecture (the text has [x], which was also corrected  into [x] or [x]; Bjorck 1950, 136.
 
52 Cf. e.g. Beckby's edition: [x].  "Pyres, beloved son of Polymnestos, dedicated this, / having vowed the tithe  to Pallas Tritogeneia / Cresilas from Cydonia wrought it".
 
53 That [x] (contra metrum) in the MSS is a trivialization is clear, but I am  not wholly convinced of emendations like [x] (printed by Paton) and  [x] (printed by Beckby and Buffiere). In fact, the stone has  [x], in all probability a high-style form without augment; aorists in  [x] are found in the literary tradition: in the epics the aorists in [x] are  generalized for presents in [x] and [x] alternates with [x] for metrical convenience  (aorists in [x] for presents in [x] can be found also in choral lyrics,  cf. Pindar, where also aorists in [x] and "Doric" aor. in [x] are attested). Given  these premises, it seems to me that [x] is to be ruled out, since it has no  support in the original on stone; the form [x] seems problematic too,  being unparalleled. One may wonder if it would not be safer to correct  [x]: it is attested in the literary tradition (chiefly in the epics, c£  [x] in Hes. Op. 43) and consistent with the language of the epigram,  moreover it is found on the stone (and it would easily explain the trivialization  [x] in the MSS).
 
54 The epichoric form would have probably been [x], since in most Doric  dialects, including that of Crete, aorists in [x] are generalized for presents in  [x].
 
55 Cresilas' signature on an epigram found at Hermione in Argolis (Lazzarini 74)  reads [x].
 
56 As to the dialect shape of artists' signatures, see above n. 1.
 
57 Kirchhoff, Kaibel and Kock, see Hansen ad CEG 280 with bibliography; cf.  Threatte 1980, 134-135 (who adds that if [x] is not a mistake, it  could be a mixture of two dialects or a hyperionism, cf. [x] Hdt. III,  44 and 59).
 
58 Mess 1898, 15, whose interpretation is accepted by Buck 1913, 139-140; Hansen  (ad CEG 280); see also Palumbo Stracca 1985, 65.
 
59 It does indeed seem possible that we are dealing with an Ionic(-epic) colouring  of the form, paralleled by some examples in tragedy in which the Ionic vocalism  was perceived as somewhat poetic, especially in a chorus: see chiefly Bjorck  1950, 160-162; 352-357 ("als hochpoetisch gerade in C. gegen D."), cf.  also Barrett 1964, 301 (on [x]): "there is some evidence that tragedy  may have felt it more elevated in names with Ionian association". Interestingly  enough, the Ionic-epic colouring of a Doric form always involves the vowels in  the root and not in the endings: for the same practice in a very different context  cf. [x] on the "Hipponion leaf'.
 
60 In this paper I have left aside CEG 430, 431, CEG 2 776 (and CEG 305), because  either the originals are so poorly preserved that possible differences are  not detectable or they are irrelevant to my main topic.
 
61 "Salute chiefs, who gained the great glory of the war, / sons of the Athenians,  excellent in horsemanship, / who once for fatherland lost your youth / fighting  against a great part of the Greeks". P1 has [x],  while P1 has [x] and, along with P2yp [x].
 
62 Given that the original on stone is lost, I do no want to commit myself to  [x] (see CEG 4); yet, since the MSS have [x] (P) or  [x] (P after correction), [x] seems feeble; both GVI 14 and  IG I[3] 1181 print [x].
 
63 The first [E:] of [x] is etymological (< IE *yegwa) , cf. e.g. GEW, 620.
 
64 This means that, in general terms, we should be prepared to accept an occasional  inherited non Ionic-Attic ("Doric") [a:] in an Attic epigram. There is no  need to postulate with West (accepted by Petrovic 2007, 185-186) a [x]  on the stone, cf. Hansen ad CEG 4.
 
65 As to our topic, namely the difference between the original on stone and its literary  copy, it is evident that [x] with [E:] is a trivialization.
 
66 Since [a:] and [E:] coexist in Classical Attic epigrams there is, to my mind, no  reason for printing such a text; cf. the criticism in Palumbo 1987, 434. The  same problem, namely unclear information in the MSS as to [a:] and [E:] is  found in AP VII, 245, a literary copy of a public Attic epigram (CEG2 467;  338 B.C.): the original on stone is damaged, in the MSS P has [x], both  P after correction and P1 have [x]. It should be noted that once more several  editors accept a correction (Kaibel's in this case) and print [x] (see Hansen  ad CEG2 467).
 
67 On the question of the ascription to Simonides see FGE, 192; Petrovic 2007,  218-222.
 
68 See Meiggs' and Lewis' commentary ad ML 15. There is however no agreement  among scholars on the victory celebrated by the dedication of the second  monument and also on the original site of the monument, cf. FGE, 192; Raubitschek  ad DAA 173; Bravi 2006, 52; Petrovic 2007, 211-214.
 
69 Since various literary sources quote the second version of the epigram, there are  numerous variants: the MSS have [x], and [x]. The  latter does not seem admissible on account of its meaning nor is [x]  both because [u] is supposed to be short, and for historical-linguistic reasons  (a parallel and much later example is corrected in [x] by Peek, GVI  238). The form [x], proposed by Hecker, seems suitable from both  points of view, and it would easily explain the vv. ll. [x] and  [x]; however, it must be said that [x] is unparalleled. There are  remarkable palaeographical problems too: the first version of the epigram is  not stoichedon, but the second one is, and for the restoration of the epigram  scholars usually take into account the number of letters allowed by the stoichedon  system. Some scholars imagine a complete stoichedon order, in which the  number of the letters is regular and fixed, and in which, as a consequence,  [x] (and [x]) is impossible: hence, they print [x] (ML  15), or [x] (IG I[3] 501 A; B) or [x] (CEG 179: Hansen rejects  [x] and [x] as being all impossible because  of the stoichedon order or semantics or lack of parallels, and supposes a mistake  in the copy of the 5th cent. B.C.). Several scholars are, on the contrary, positive  about [x] (but contra see Iacobacci 1990, who is for [x]). In fact,  since the second epigram on stone was copied and adapted from a non-stochei don original, there is in my view no particular difficulty in thinking that in the  stoichedon version (likely) an iota shared a stoichos with another letter. Moreover,  since already in Homer [x] is widely used for [x] adjectives based  on athematic stems (e.g. IX [x], see Risch 1974[2], 151-152), [x] is definitely  a satisfactory correction for our epigram (for detailed discussions see  Hansen ad CEG 179; FGE, 193; Raubitschek ad DAA 173). Indeed,  [x] is accepted in the LSJ Revised Supplement (cf. Glare - Thompson  1996, 63).

70 I am grateful to professors A.C. Cassio, E. Dettori, M.L. Lazzarini, B.M. Palumbo and B. Zimmermann for comments and suggestions. I wrote this paper during a stay at the Hardt Foundation (Geneva, Switzerland) financed by a "Hardt Research Scholarship".

______________

Bibliography

Acosta-Hughes, Benjamin (2004), "Alexandrian Posidippus: on Rereading the GP Epigrams in Light of P.Mil. VIII 309", in: Benjamin Acosta-Hughes / Elizabeth Kosmetatou / Manuel Baumbach (eds.), Labored in Papyrus Leaves: Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309), Cambridge (Mass.), 42-56.

Aloni, Antonio (1984), "L'inteiligenza di Ipparco. Osservazioni sulla politica dei Pisistratidi", in: Quademi di Storia 19, 109-148.

Barrett, William Spencer (1964), Euripides. Hippolytos, Oxford.

Beckby = Beckby, Hermann (1967 -1968), Anthologia Graeca. 2. verbesserte Auflage, Munchen.

Bjorck, Gudmund (1950), Das Alpha impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache, Uppsala.

Boas, Marcus (1905), De epigrammatis Simonideis, Groningae.

Bravi, Luigi (2006), Gli epigrammi di Simonide e le vie della tradizione, Roma.

Buck, Carl Darling (1913), "The Interstate Use of the Greek Dialects", in: Classical Philology 8, 133-159.

Buck, Carl Darling (1923), "A Question of Dialect Mixture in the Greek Epigram", in: [x]. Festschrift Jacob Wackernagel, Gottingen, 132 -136.

Buffiere, Felix (1970), Anthologie Grecque. Premiere Partie, Anthologie Palatine. Tome XII (Livres XIII-XV), Paris.

Cameron, Alan (1993), The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes, Oxford.

Cassio, Albio Cesare (1993), "Iperdorismi callimachei e testa antico dei lirici (Call. Hy. 5, 109; 6, 136)", in: Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all'eta ellenistica. Scritti in onore di Bruno Gentili, Roma, 903-910.

Cassio, Albio Cesare (1993a), "Alcmane, il dialetto di Cirene e la filologia alessandrina", in: Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 121, 24-36.

Cassio, Albio Cesare (1994), "I distici del polyandrion di Ambracia e l''io anonimo' nell'epigramma greco", in: Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 33, 101- 117

Cassio, Albio Cesare (1997), "Futuri dorici, dialetto di Siracusa e testa antico dei lirici greci", in Albio Cesare Cassio (cyr,), Kata Dialekton. Atti del III Colloquio Intemazionale di Dialettologia Greca (Napoli - Fiaiano d'Ischia, 25-28 sett. 1996), in: Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli 19, 187-214.

D'Alfonso, Francesca (1986), "Mistione dialettale in un'iscrizione attica del VI/ V sec. (IG I[2] 643)", in: Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale 28, 83-90.

CEG = Hansen, Petrus Allanus (1983), Carmina epigraphica graeca saeculorum VIII- Va. Chr. n., Berolini et Novi Eboraci.

CEG2 = Hansen, Petrus Allanus (1989), Carmina epigraphica graeca saeculi IV a. Chr. n., Berolini et Novi Eboraci.

DAA = Raubitschek, Antony Erich (1949), Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis (ed. with the collaboration of Lilian Hamilton Jeffery), Cambridge (Mass.).

FGE = Page, Denys Lionel (1981), Further Greek Epigrams, Cambridge.

Friedlander, Paul / Hoffleit, Herbert Benno (1948), Epigrammata. Greek Inscriptions in Verse From the Beginnings to the Persian Wars, Berkeley / Los Angeles.

Gallavotti, Carlo (1978), "Le copie di Pausania e gli originali di alcune iscrizioni di Olimpia", in: Bollettino del Comitato per l'Edizione nazionale dei Classici Greci e Latini 26, 3-27.

Gentili, Bruno (1968), "Epigramma ed elegia", in: L'epigramme grecque, in Entretiens Hardt XIV, Vandoeuvres / Geneve, 39-81.

Geoghegan, Daniel (1979), Anyte. The Epigrams, Roma.

GEW = Frisk, Hjalmar (1960), Griechisches etymologisches Worterbuch, Heidelberg.

Glare, Peter Geoffrey William / Thompson, Anne A. (1996), Greek-English Lexicon Revised Supplement, Oxford.

Gow, Andrew Sydenham Farrar / Page, Denys Lionel (1965), The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams, Cambridge.

Gutzwiller, Kathryn (1998), Poetic Garlands. Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, Berkeley / Los Angeles / London.

GVI = Peek, Werner (1955), Griechische Vers-Inschriften, I, Berlin.

Hauvette, Amedee (1896), De l'authenticite des epigrammes de Simonide, Paris.

Hoffmann, Otto / Debrunner, Albert / Scherer, Anton (19694), Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, I, Berlin.

Iacobacci, Gabriella (1990), "Sul vocabolo [x]", in: Bollettino dei Classici 11, 160-163.

Kock, Bernardus (1910), De epigrammatum Graecarum dialectis, Gottingae.

Krevans, Nita (2007), The Arrangement of Epigrams in Collections, in: Peter Bing / Jon Steffen Bruss (eds.), Brill's Companion to Hellenistic Epigram, Leiden / Boston 2007, 131-146

Lapini, Walter (2007), Capitoli su Posidippo, Alessandria.

Lazzarini, Maria Letizia (1976), Le formule delle dediche votive nella Grecia arcaica, Roma.

LIV = Rix, Helmut (1998), Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben, Wiesbaden.

Mess v., Adolf (1898), Quaestiones de epigrammate attica et tragoedia antiquiore dialecticae, Bonnae.

Meyer, Doris (2005), Inszeniertes Lesevergnugen. Das inschriftliche Epigramm und seine Rezeption bei Kallimachos, Stuttgart.

Mickey, Katherine (1981), "Dialect Consciousness and Literary Language: an Example from Ancient Greek", in: Transactions of the Philological Society 79, 35-66.

ML = Meiggs, Russell / Lewis, David Malcolm (1969), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. To the End of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford.

Molinos Tejada, Teresa (1990), Los dorismos del Corpus Bucolicorum, Amsterdam.

Palumbo Stracca, Bruna Marilena (1985), "Lettura critic a di epigrammi greci (I)", in: Bollettino dei Classici 6, 58-75.

Palumbo Stracca, Bruna Marilena (1987), "Differenze dialettali e stilistiche nella storia dell'epigramma greco", in: Giancarlo Bolognesi / Vittore Pisani (eds.), Linguistica e filologia. Atti del VII Convegno Internazionale dei Linguisti (tenuto a Milano nei giorni 12-14 settembre 1984), Brescia, 429-434.

Palumbo Stracca, Bruna Marilena (1998), "[x] nel polyandrion di Ambracia e un' espressione proverbiale ateniese", in: Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale 40, 237-245.

Paton, William Roger (1913-1918), The Greek Anthology. With an English Translation, I, Cambridge (Mass.) / London.

Petrovic, Andrej (2007), Kommentar zu den simonideischen Versinschriften, Leiden / Boston.

Preisendanz, Carolus (1911), Anthologia Palatina: Codex Palatinus et Codex Parisinus, phototypice editi, praefatus est Carolus Preisendanz (= Codices Graeci et Latini; 15), Lugduni Batavorum.

Picard, Charles (1935), "L'Hermes de Leocrates et les jardins de l'Academie", in: Revue Etudes Anciennes 37, 9-14

Risch, Ernst (1974 [2]), Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache, Berlin / New York.

Schwyzer, Eduard (1939), Griechische Grammatik, I, Munchen.

Sens, Alexander (2004), "Doricisms in the New and Old Posidippus" in: Benjamin Acosta-Hughes / Elizabeth Kosmetatou / Manuel Baumbach (eds.), Labored in Papyrus Leaves: Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309), Cambridge (Mass.), 65-83.

Strunk, Klaus (1964), "Dorisches und Hyperdorisches", in: Glotta 42, 165- 169.

Threatte, Leslie (1980), The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, I. Phonology, Berlin / New York.

Trypanis, Constantine Athanasius (1951), "The Epigrams of Anacreon on Hermae", in: Classical Quarterly N.S. 1, 31-34.

Waltz, Pierre (1931), Anthologie Greque. Premiere Partie, Anthologie Palatine. Tome III (Livre VI) Paris.

Waltz, Pierre (1960), Anthologie Grecque. Premiere Partie, Anthologie Palatine. Tome IV (Livre VII, epigr. 1-3 63), Paris.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff v., Ulrich (1886), Isyllos von Epidauros, Berlin.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff v., Ulrich (1913), Sappho und Simonides, Berlin.

Wilhelm, Adolf (1889), "Simonideische Gedichte", in: Jahreshefte des Osterreichen Archaologischen Institutes in Wien 2, 221-244.

Zizza, Cesare (2006), Le iscrizioni nella Periegesi di Pausania: commento ai testi epigrafici, Pisa.

[admin]

Review: Further Greek Epigrams
Reviewed Work(s): Further Greek Epigrams: Epigrams before A.D. 50 from the Greek Anthology and Other Sources, Not Included in 'Hellenistic Epigrams' or 'The Garland of Philip' by D. L. Page, R. D. Dawe and J. Diggle
Review by: Hugh Lloyd-Jones
The Classical Review, 1982, New Series, Vol. 32, No.2 (1982), pp. 139-144
Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
1982

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

After bringing out Hellenistic Epigrams in 1965 and The Garland of Philip in 1968, A. S. F. Gow and Sir Denys Page decided to complete the collection of epigrams down to A.D. 50 by editing all the other epigrams composed during the period covered by the Palatine and Planudean Anthologies, except for those preserved only in inscriptions. Those who find the book expensive should note that it consists of three sections, each of which by itself amounts to an important work.

The first section contains epigrams ascribed by name to authors; this falls into two parts, one containing epigrams whose ascriptions are certainly or probably correct and the other epigrams falsely, or at least without firm foundation, ascribed to famous names earlier than the Hellenistic period. The second section contains anonymous epigrams judged to be earlier than A.D. 50; this too falls into two parts, the first containing epigrams from the two great anthologies and the second epigrams from other sources. The third section contains the epigrams of Leonides of Alexandria, the specialist in so-called isopsephic epigrams, Tiberius Ilus and Nicodemus of Heraclea, and also those ascribed to imperial Romans, not only Germanicus and Tiberius, who fall within the dateline of the collection, but also Trajan, Hadrian and Julian, who do not. A number of the epigrams will also be found in Supplementum Hellenisticum, ed. H. Lloyd-Jones and P. J. Parsons (forthcoming) henceforth referred to as SH.

When Sir Denys died in July 1978, he left behind the typescript of the work, marked as 'ready for the press, except that it would be the better for a critical eye'. That has been provided by the editors, who have also added indexes corresponding with those of the earlier collections. The editors have missed some errors which Sir Denys would surely have eliminated if he had had time; but in general the book maintains the high level of its predecessors. In particular, the section dealing with epigrams ascribed to famous persons before the Hellenistic age is of high excellence and great importance. Page deals with each epigram as an individual case, but in general regards these attributions with a scepticism which his handling of the evidence shows to be well founded. He points out that the problem of the epigrams ascribed to Simonides was better handled by Marcus Boas in his Groningen dissertation of 1905 De epigrammatis Simonideis than it was by Wilamowitz, whose Sappho und Simonides comes in for some rough treatment. Page often supports his view about the dates of epigrams with excellent observations about style and language; yet some of his opinions are open to the reproach of subjectivism, all the more because of the assurance with which they are put forward. Yet the book represents another considerable addition to Page's vast contribution to learning, and it is sad to think that it will be the last.

In the remarks that follow, I refer to the epigrams in terms of the continuous numbering of lines that runs right through the book. Antigenes 40: surely the chariot of the Graces is not a real chariot (see the note on SH 317, 5). Apollonius 53: Page's usual scepticism deserts him when he writes of the crude epigram against Callimachus ascribed in the Palatine Anthology to 'Apollonius the grammarian' that 'there is nothing improbable in the ascription'; even if one shares his belief that 'in the notorious controversy at Alexandria concerning poetry ... the chief antagonists were Callimachus and Apollonius of Rhodes' (for the case against doing so, see M. R. Lefkowitz, The Lives of the Greek Poets (1981), p. 117 f.), one may well hesitate to ascribe such a production to the author of the Argonautica. In the second line, Page makes heavy weather of the use of [x]": we do not need to suppose that it can mean 'criminal', but many passages, such as Il. 19.86, indicate that it can mean 'guilty'. Arcesilaus 63: for a defence of [x], see P. Von der Muhll, Kl. Schr. 280. Archimedes 79: [x] has been conjectured by A. S. Hollis. P. 34: the name appearing in AP 9. 4 as [x] in P and as [x] in Pl. might be corrupt for [x], a commoner name than [x], though that occurs at AP 9. 33. Democritus 140: surely the sense is 'Ares (her lover) will be captivated by the sight'. Dionysius Sophista 158: read [x]. Flaccus 172: [x] is found in Hymn. Hom. Merc. 21, 63, 150, 254, and the hymn is generally taken to be earlier than Sophocles. Gaetulicus 195: [x] means 'having won respite from anxiety', see LSJ 1350, col. ii, 1. 7 f. Gallus 227 f. : Page oddly forgets to refer to SH 970, discussed by himself at PCPS 198 (1972), 63 f. Herodicus: see also SH 495, convincingly ascribed to this author by I. During, Herodicus the Cratetean (1941), p. 63 f. Id. 237: on [x], see M. Fusillo, Ricerche di Filologia Classica I, Studi di Litteratura Greca (Pisa, 1981), p. 9 f. 265: the text is also supported by the proverb [x] (see Shackleton Bailey, Cicero's Letters to Atticus VI, p. 261). Pisander 293 f.: see R. M. Cook in Festschrift Andreas Rumpf (l952), pp. 38 f. Plato Junior 301-2: the companion of Daphne is Apollo, not Dionysus. Satyrus 331: how can Page be surprised that swallows should be called 'daughters of Cecrops', and when at last he remembers Philomela, how can he complain that she was daughter not of Cecrops but of Pandion? Cecropides may stand for any Athenian females, which as the Plauttine, Daemones (Rudens 604) knew at once, swallows are. 337: [x] is taken as cognate accusative going with [x], but this is awkward; I believe it to be a corruption of an adjective going with [x] and meaning' bird-catching'. 340: why not [x], meaning 'brings into action'? P. 116: Page brushes aside the notion that my case for ascribing to Poseidippus SH 705, put forward at JHS 83 (1963), 75 f. might be correct (cf. the equally arbitrary treatment at HE 482); dogmatic assertion, even by a great scholar, is no substitute for reasoned argument, and Page's own treatment at Greek Literary Papyri (1942), p. 470 f. will not suffice.

Section I. ii: Page handles eighty epigrams ascribed to Simonides and fifteen anonymous ones belonging to his period or not much later. Fifty-two of these are given to Simonides by AP, about three-quarters of them occurring within extracts from the Garland of Meleager; most are copies of inscriptions, but some are literary exercises of Hellenistic date. Page concludes that Meleager made use of a Sylloge Simonidea put together early in the Hellenistic period, and that the Hellenistic epigrams ascribed to Simonides had been either added to later editions of this or taken by Meleager from other anthologies. The only epigram ascribed to Simonides by an author earlier than Aristotle is the one on Megistias, and we have no positive reason for supposing that he wrote any of the others. The same is true of the epigrams ascribed to Anacreon, of which Meleager must have had a collection, and of those ascribed to Plato; in the case of the latter, Page agrees with the important article of W. Ludwig (ORBS 4 (1963), 77 f.). Equal suspicion attaches to the other epigrams attached to famous names; only those assigned to Parrhasius and Zeuxis are treated by Page as genuine.

'Aeschylus' 476 f.: Page points out that if the epitaph ascribed to Aeschylus had really stood upon his tomb, it would hardly have been necessary for it to inform the reader that it was in Gela. 'Anacreon' 492: Page rightly argues, against Wilamowitz, that [x] is hardly an expression that Anacreon can have used. Archilochus 531-5 (the lines about the lost shield): Page points out that, if these lines form a complete poem, it is the earliest surviving example of its type. 540-1 (= fr. 331 West): Page comes down strongly against authenticity. 'Pindar' 582-3: see now R. Scodel, GRBS 21 (1981), 301 f., though her view that Eur. Heracl. 657 echoes the epigram may be questioned. 'Plato' 612 f. (the epigram on Dion): Page's doubts about the authenticity of the lines seem to me justified, but I do not see why one cannot write [x], just as well as [x]. 'Sappho' 679: cf. S. Ant. 804. 'Simonides' 604-5: I miss a reference to the epigram published by C. A. Trypanis at Hermes 88 (1960), 69 (see Snell, Gr. Metrik (1962), p. 5, I. 688: surely [x] simply means 'were killed'; cf. Il. 15. 522, etc. 710-3, 714-7: Page remarks that the Thermopylae epigrams are 'among the best that have survived', and that the ascription to Simonides may well be right. 725: Page complains that Jacoby did not consider the problem posed by [x], since if the epigram on a monument to Corinthians killed in the Persian Wars erected at the Isthmus consisted simply of a single couplet, this word is appropriate only at the place of burial. But why? [x] may mean 'We lie low', as instances like that at Il. 18. 20 suggest. 764: a masterly treatment of the epigrams on Athenians killed in the Persian Wars concludes that they stood on a war-memorial erected in Athens, that the first commemorated the war as a whole, and that the second, commemorating Marathon only, was added later. Like Mrs Lefkowitz (op. cit. 71), he does not believe that Aeschylus left for Sicily because the epigram of Simonides was preferred to his. 772-3: Page makes a strong case, against Jacoby, for holding that the epigram [x] stood on the battlefield of Marathon. 776-7: in the famous epigram on the Spartan dead at Thermopylae, Page prefers [x] to [x], on the ground that [x] cannot mean 'commands'; but the word can take its colour from the context, and I hope his view will not be generally accepted. 796 f.: Page follows L. A. Stella in taking the epigram on Simonides' fifty-seventh victory in dithyrambic contests to be Hellenistic, a view strongly supported by [x] in line 3. 816-7: 'Kimon painted the door on the right, Dionysios that on the right of those who leave' seems to Page 'oddly phrased'; but any oddity might be accounted for by the desire for euphemism. 818: Page justly remarks that the problem of the tripods dedicated at Delphi by Gelon and his brothers is better handled by Jebb in his commentary on Bacchylides than it is by Wilamowitz. 878: on this epigraphic use of [x] see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 577. 898: [x]? 944-5: [x]... The best reeds for making pipes came from the land west of the Copaic Marsh, in the region of Orchomenos, where the earth was rich and black; the locus classicus is Theophr. Hist. Plant.4. 10-11. We know from Apostolius 18, 17 (Paroem. Gr. ed. Leutsch-Schneidewin II, p. 721) that Chares was the name of a famous aulete, and I suggest that the only change needed is the substitution of [x] for [x]; since as Page says 'the plural here presumably signifies, as so often, the double-flute, of which the two pipes, laterally pierced, were held together by the [x]', the plural may stand in apposition to the singular [x] (cf. e.g. Xen. Cyrop. 8. 3. 12 [x]). 990-3 (= AP 7. 514): I do not see why Page finds the style of these lines 'ponderous' and the half-line [x] 'dull and heavy'. 1001-5: Page finds the last words of Protomachus (AP 7.513) to be 'wretched, full of insipid sentimentality'; for the same reasons he might say the same of certain words of the dying Hippolytus (1363 f.); ancient taste was different.

Section II. i: Anon. 1082-3 (= AP 5. 50): 'the implication may be that the lovers' ecstasy is so great that they seem quite different from their normal selves', but a more convincing explanation would be welcome: drink? P. 339: from the way Page writes about the Pisistratean recension of Homer, in which he is a devout believer, no one would guess that any opinion other than his own had ever been propounded. Assigning the famous epigram on the subject (1182 f. = AP II. 442) to the Hellenistic period, he adds that 'there is no denying that it may be earlier or later'; I for one would deny that it could be earlier. P. 344 n. 1: West alone, and not Parsons, is responsible for the new edition of the papyrus fragment of Erinna at ZPE 25 (1977), 98; see now SH 401. 1244-5: the fictitious epitaph for Callimachus appears less 'undistinguished' if one remembers that the poet is called [x] of the Muses because of the conversation described in the first two books of the Aitia. 1329: Jacobs' explanation of the occurrence of 'Arcadian' when we expect 'Elean' on the ground that though the Alpheus flows past Olympia it rises in Arcadia is rejected as being 'far-fetched'; but it had occurred to me independently of Jacobs, and I think it may be right. 1411: Page finds [x] to be an 'extraordinary' epithet for [x], but as Dodds, citing Jacobsthal, observes in his note on Eur. Bacch. 553-5, objects pertaining to the gods are often called golden. 1425: does Stadtmuller 'merely compose afresh' when he emends to [x]? I would accept his conjecture, except that I would keep [x]. 1461: why does Page object to the mortal paramour of a god being called his 'bride'?

Section II. ii. Anon. 1493: on Arimnestus, see Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (1972), p. 455 n. 40. 1499: surely [x] merely contrasts the residence of the artist with the location of the work. 1546: Helicaon has now turned up as a speaking character in the [x] of Sophocles (see fr. 10 e, 8 Radt and Haslam in P. Oxy. 44 (1970), 10-11). 1550-1: according to Athenaeus 8. 337 E, when the aulete Dorion gave evidence of wit, the Cyprian dynast Nicocreon quoted the epigram [x]. Page rightly complains that the quotation seems to have had no point; it would have some if we altered [x] to [x]; which is an easy change. 1570-1 : the epithet on Timotheus is of the same type as those in Lobon or in the Peplus Aristoteleus (also FGE 1604 f.). 1576-85: Page does not quote the detailed discussion of the Chaeronea epigram by H. Wankel, ZPE 21 (1976), 97 f.; Wankel's conclusion (expressed at Demosthtenes' Rede fur Ktesiphon uber den Kranz II (1976), p. 1233) is, 'Ich halte das Gedicht gleichfalls fur echt, allerdings nur mit grossen Bedenken und weil sie sich seine Unechtheit nicht erweisen lasst'. I agree with Page that the epigram is spurious, for as he says, if it is not there is no way of avoiding the conclusion that Demosthenes has put into 1. 9 an implication which it requires violence to insert, and which was surely not intended by the author. 1611: [x] should probably be paroxytone (see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 881). 1612-3: [x] (test. 16 in G. Kuchenmuller, Philetae Coi Reliquiae (Diss. Berlin, 1928); cf. test.21 = Suid. s. [x]. Page is led by the words of Athenaeus' dialogue (9. 401 E) which introduce the quotation to argue that the expression [x] 'refers to literary usage which has not been sanctioned by ancient authority'. But the [x] is the name of a well-known logical puzzle propounded by Eubulides (see Diog. Laert. 2. 108, and cf. William and Martha Kneale, The Development of Logic (1962), p. 114. 'Nights' evening-thoughts', Page writes, 'is a very odd expression'. Night is, of course, a regular time for [x]: see, for example, Menander, Misoumenos 1 f. Surely 'evening night-worries' are night-worries that begin as early as the evening of the day before; that derives support from 1. 8 of the prologue of the Misoumenos, if we accept Austin's conjecture (first at PBA 63 (1978), 321) and read [x] ([x], Turner, P. Oxy. 48 (1981), 12, where he rightly prefers Austin's emendation of the [x] of P. Oxy. 3368 to West's [x]). 1632-3: in the fragment of Varro quoted in translation on p. 446, the name 'Apollas' rests on an improbable conjecture; see Jacoby, FGrH 413 Skopas (?); 'Scopas' is the likeliest restoration of the corrupt names in Pliny, HN 1. 8 and 8.82. For information about Greek werewolves, Page refers to Frazer's Pausanias (4. 189); for a plausible explanation of the belief, see Burkert, Homo Necans (1972), p. 99 f. 1660: [x] as the lectio difficilior deserves preference. 1674 f. (= SH 977, the epitaph on Zeno's dog Tauron): Page wrote in Greek Literary Papyri (1942), p. 461 'since the boar was a [x], I do not know what is meant by saying it was like one', and he now (p. 458) points out that the postponement of [x] in 1. 3 is 'unparalleled so far as I have noticed'. Both difficulties are removed if in 1. 3 we read [x], taking [x] ... [x] in 1. 2 as a parenthesis, and place a full stop after [x]. 1703: accepting Page's [x] and reading [x], we may take the sense to be that while in office Marcellus shed much of the blood of his enemies. 1704 f. (the graffito from Redesiyeh): see Etienne Bernand, Les inscriptions merriques de l' Egypte greco-romaine (1969), no. 164, 568 f. (pl. CI) and Andre Bernand, Le Paneion d'El Kanais (1972), no. 8, 38 f. (pl. 23, 1-2). In order to ask the god to save Alexandria, the poet would not have to know of troubles there; cf. Call. fr. 112.9 or FGE 1565. 1735: Trypanis' [x] is a better supplement than Korte's [x]. P. 471: the much damaged quotation from Sophocles in the commentary on the epigram on the oyster is fr. 966A Radt. 1472: although Ares was not the official consort of Aphrodite, he was so notoriously her lover that it is no use making a fuss about his being called her [x], as he probably is in 1. 1747. 1783 A f.: see SH 986 for the results of a fresh examination of the papyrus. 1814 f.: Page says that no one would have spoken of Agesilaus in these terms, but as the words in question are put into the mouth of the lame Spartan himself, the poet may have been crediting the king with great modesty. However, the editors of SH were somewhat rash in taking it for granted that Agesilaus is referred to. 1820 f. it is worth remarking that the statues of Cleobis and Biton may still be seen at Delphi. 1833: perhaps the [x] is the tomb itself. 1835: a prophet may be called [x], as Tiresias sometimes is in tragedy, and even in death Sibylla retains the dignity of her office. 1844 f.: on Sicyonian dancing, see now Audrey Griffin, Sikyon (1982), 161-2. P. 497, second piece, 1. 4: for Agenor, read Agapenor. 1856 f.: late though she learned her letters, why should Eurydice be assumed not to have written her own dedication?

Section III. Leonides 1882-3: Page's remark that the sentence is Callimachean in style and spirit is confirmed by a Callimachean epigram (HE 1134 f.). 1887: this line, like 1379, echoes Call., HE 1300. 1893: Page agrees with Jacobs that the sense is 'munera enim [x] invidiae obnoxia', but the main point is that the poet can confer gifts which envy cannot spoil. 1940: cf. Call. fr. 110. I. Nicodemus 2038-9: since [x] may mean 'cult objects' as well as 'rites' (see Dodds on Eur. Bacch. 469-70), [x] may not be altogether inappropriate. Tiberius Hus 2048-9: Page quotes [x] at Pindar, Pyth. 12. II in the sense of 'destroyed' as though it were not a conjecture in that place. Wilamowitz, Schroeder and Turyn all read [x], but Snell restored [x], and it is defended by Burton, Pindar's Pythian Odes (1962), p. 28 and Kohnken, BICS 25 (1978), 92. Tiberius 2104: to the instances of [x] in the sense of 'scion', add now the second line of the third book of the Aitia (SH 254, 2). Hadrian 2129: does [x] when applied to Cypris mean 'sweetly singing', or does it rather mean 'eloquent, persuasive'? 2137-44 (= Kaibel, Epigr. 888): it has long been known that this epigram is not by Hadrian the emperor but by Hadrianus the Tyrian sophist, that its Quadratus is not Pliny's friend but Marcus Aurelius' son-in-law, and that its Severus is not L. Catilius Severus, consul under Trajan, but Cn. Claudius Severus, consul in AD. 173; see Syme, Roman Papers II (1979), p. 689.

Christ Church, Oxford

HUGH LLOYD-JONES

[admin]

Dicaearchus
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 11/19/22

For the pirate, see Dicaearchus of Aetolia.

A series of different ancient sources report that Plato was a poet in his youth, before turning to philosophy. The oldest of these seems to be Dicaearcus, quoted by Diogenes Laertius.

-- Defining a 'Pseudo-Plato' Epigrammatist, by Davide Massimo

Dicaearchus of Messana (/ˌdɪkeɪˈɑːrkəs ... məˈsɑːnə/; Greek: Δικαίαρχος Dikaiarkhos; c. 370/350 – c. post 323 BC), also written Dikaiarchos (/ˈdɪkaɪɑːrk/), was a Greek philosopher, geographer and author. Dicaearchus was a student of Aristotle in the Lyceum. Very little of his work remains extant. He wrote on geography and the history of Greece, of which his most important work was his Life of Greece. Although modern scholars often consider him a pioneer in the field of cartography, this is based on a misinterpretation of a reference in Cicero[1] to Dicaearchus' tabulae, which does not refer to any maps made by Dicaearchus but is a pun on account books and refers to Dicaearchus' Descent into the Sanctuary of Trophonius.[2] He also wrote books on ancient Greek poets, philosophy and politics.

Life

He was the son of one Pheidias, and born at Messana in Sicily,[3] though he passed part of his life in Greece, and especially in Athens and the Peloponnesus.[4] He also travelled to make his measurements of mountains. He was a disciple of Aristotle[5] and a friend of Aristoxenus (a letter written to him is attested in Cicero[6]). Eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century scholarship often considered him a friend of Theophrastus as well, but this is based on the reference to a man named Theophrastus in the spurious Description of Greece, which is transmitted under Dicaearchus' name but actually consists of excerpts from a geographic poem written by Dionysius, son of Calliphon, and from a prose periegesis of Greece, written by Heraclides Criticus. It is uncertain when Dicaearchus died. The only certain terminus post quem is the death of Alexander the Great (323 BC). According to Pliny,[7] Dicaearchus measured mountains "with the support of the kings" (cura regum). Most scholars identify these kings as Cassander and Ptolemy I Soter. If this identification is correct, this would put Dicaearchus' activity between 306 and 287 BC. However, the kings might also refer to Philip III Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV, who were the nominatim kings after the death of Alexander the Great. If that identification is correct, this moves his activity to 323–317 BC.[8]

Writings

Dicaearchus was highly esteemed by the ancients as a philosopher and as a man of most extensive and learned information upon a great variety of things.[9] His work is known only from the many fragmentary quotations of later writers. His works were geographical, political, historical and philosophical; but it is difficult to draw up an accurate list of them, since some that are quoted as distinct works may have been only sections of greater ones, and many titles are only attested once. The fragments extant, moreover, do not always enable us to form a clear notion of the works to which they once belonged. The geographical works of Dicaearchus were, according to Strabo,[10] criticised in many respects by Polybius, though Strabo himself was more forgiving of Dicaearchus' ignorance of western and northern Europe, since – unlike Polybius – Dicaearchus had never visited these places.

Dicaearchus wrote on cultural history, music and literature:

• Life of Greece (Βίος Ἑλλάδος) – The Bios Hellados, in three books[11] is Dicaearchus’ most famous work. It inspired the Bios Hellados of Jason (identified as Jason of Nysa by the Suda[12] but perhaps a different historian with the same name[13]) and Varro's De vita populi Romani and De gente populi Romani. Only a few fragments actually cite the title,[14] but there are many fragments on cultural history that cite no title and might belong to this work.[15] Dicaearchus apparently attempted to write a biography of the Greek nation from earliest times to the reign of Philip II. The most famous passages are those cited by Varro[16] and Porphyry[17] on early history, which suggest a dualistic view of progress. His anthropological theory combined elements from the Hesiodic tradition of decay with progressivist theories. From Hesiod, he adopted the concept of a "golden race", which led a life of bliss but ultimately degenerated because humans became greedy, which led to war. This is combined with progressivist ideas, such as the harsh life of early man and the gradual invention of the arts. In his reconstruction, Dicaearchus distinguished three stages: the golden race, in which man lived off the spontaneously grown fruits of the earth, the pastoral life, in which man started domesticating and hunting animals, and the agricultural life, in which agriculture was introduced.[18] Dicaearchus apparently also explained the saying, "sharing stops choking", as a reference to how humans learned to distribute surplus fairly.[19] Dicaearchus also discussed the origin of the polis, which he derived from the expansion of families through marriage and the kinship of brothers and sisters.[20] According to Dicaearchus, various stages of this evolution were reflected in patrae, phratries and phylae, which were social organisations into which citizens were grouped in many poleis. Another remarkable feature of the Life of Greece is that the first book discussed Egypt and Babylon, probably as cultural predecessors of the Greeks. In the Life of Greece, Dicaearchus also stated that Euripides' Medea plagiarised the Medea play of the obscure tragedian Neophron.[21]
• On Musical Contests (Περὶ μουσικῶν ἀγώνων) and On Dionysiac Contests (Περὶ Διονυσιακῶν ἀγώνων) – These works discussed innovations in Greek music and drama. In On Dionysiac Contests, Dicaearchus probably also treated the story that, when competing at the Dionysia with the Oedipus Tyrannus, Sophocles was defeated by the tragedian Philocles,[22] and that Aristophanes' Frogs was staged twice.[23] In this work, Dicaearchus probably also stated that the third actor was introduced to Athenian tragedy by Sophocles.[24]
• On Alcaeus (Περὶ Ἀλκαίου) – This was a monograph on the Lesbian poet Alcaeus of Mitylene.
• Works on Homer and Euripides – Plutarch[25] cites Dicaearchus alongside Aristotle and Heraclides Ponticus as men who wrote on Homer and Euripides. Dicaearchus' works were probably either monographs on these poets (like his work On Alcaeus) or belonged to problemata literature (both Aristotle and Heraclides Ponticus wrote works on Homeric problems).

Among his geographical works may be mentioned:

• Circuit of the Earth (Γῆς περίοδος)[26] – This work was a geographical description of the world as it was then known. Dicaearchus divided the inhabited world into a northern and southern part, separated by a line running from the Strait of Gibraltar through Sicily to the Himalaya.[27] He attempted to calculate the distances between various points on this line. In the Circuit of the Earth, Dicaearchus also treated the famous problem of the flooding of the Nile.
• Measurements of mountains[28] – The Suda[29] cites the work as Measurements of Mountains in the Peloponnese (Καταμετρήσεις τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ ὀρῶν), but other fragments show that Dicaearchus also measured mountains in Thessaly[30] and on Rhodes.[31] The work may have been part of his Circuit of the Earth. It was the earliest known attempt to measure the heights of various mountains by triangulation, for which he used a dioptra instrument. Dicaearchus' goal was to show that mountains were not as high as people believed and therefore did not impact the sphericity of the earth. Many of his results were later adopted by Eratosthenes.

Of a political nature was:

• Tripolitikos (Τριπολιτικός)[32] – A work which has been the subject of much dispute. It was probably a political dialogue (perhaps to be identified with the "political meeting" mentioned by Cicero[33]) or a speech. Since the only extant fragment discusses the Spartan public meals, some scholars identify it with the Spartan Constitution. Many scholars consider it a work on the mixed constitution, but this is based on a misinterpretation of the εἶδος δικαιαρχικόν, mentioned in Photius;[34] the word δικαιαρχικός does not refer to Dicaearchus but simply means "relating to a just government".[35]
• Constitutions – Dicaearchus is said to have written a Spartan Constitution (Πολιτεία Σπαρτιατῶν), Pellenian Constitution (Πελληναίων πολιτεία), Corinthian Constitution (Κορινθίων πολιτεία) and Athenian Constitution (Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία).[36] No fragments survive of these works. The Spartan Constitution was apparently read annually in the council of the ephors in Sparta, in the presence of the Spartan youth.[37]

Among his other philosophical works may be mentioned:

• On the Soul (Περὶ ψυχῆς) – Dicaearchus wrote two works on the soul: the Lesbian Dialogue (Λεσβιακός) and the Corinthian Dialogue (Κορινθιακός), both in three books. The titles refer to the scene where the philosophical dialogue was set, viz. at Mytilene in Lesbos and at Corinth, respectively. The general title for these two works was On the Soul (Περὶ ψυχῆς). In the Lesbian Dialogue, Dicaearchus endeavoured to prove that the soul was mortal.[38] In the Corinthian Dialogue, Dicaearchus argued that the soul has no existence outside the body. The first book presented a discussion of learned men about the soul. In the subsequent two books, a man named Pherecrates argued for the non-existence of the soul.[39]
• On the destruction of men (Latin: de interitu hominum)[40] – This work collected the causes of human destruction and concluded that man himself was the greatest threat. It is uncertain whether "de interitu hominum" is a book title or merely describes the content of the work.[41]
• Descent into Sanctuary of Trophonius (Εἰς Τροφωνίου κατάβασις)[42] – A work which consisted of several books. It appears to have been a work on luxury.[43] The title refers to the oracle of Trophonius in Lebadea, where people who wished to consult the oracle had to descend into a cave. Cicero informs us that he translated a section from this work in his De re publica.[44] The work may have also contained an account of the degenerate and licentious proceedings of the priests in the cave of Trophonius.
• On Lives (Περὶ βίων) – This was probably a philosophical work on the right way of life.[45] The title is only attested once.[46] The fragments on philosophers (the Seven Sages, Pythagoras and Plato) are usually attributed to this work, though they may belong to other works such as the Life of Greece or the Circuit of the Earth as well. Of particular interest is the fragment on the death of Pythagoras, for which Dicaearchus claims to rely on local oral sources from Southern Italy.[47]
• On the Sacrifice at Ilium (Περὶ τῆς ἐν Ἰλίῳ ϑυσίας)[48] – The title refers to the sacrifice which Alexander the Great performed at Ilium at the start of his expedition against Darius III. Together with his beloved Hephaestion, he paid honours on the tombs of Achilles and Patroclus at Troy, probably as a proclamation of their own relationship, which was mirrored on these two mythical heroes. The sole fragment that remains of this work discusses the story that, after the march through the Gedrosian Desert, Alexander passionately kissed the eunuch Bagoas in a full theatre, to great applause. This suggests that the work may have treated Alexander's relationships, perhaps as part of a more general discussion on love.[49]

Dicaearchus also wrote speeches:

• Olympikos (Ὀλυμπικός),[50] Panathenaikos (Παναθηναϊκός)[51] – These are usually considered either works on contests held at the Olympic Games and the Panathenaic Games or philosophical dialogues. However, the most plausible interpretation is that they were speeches.[52] Indeed, the Suda explicitly calls Dicaearchus an orator (ῥήτωρ).[53]

There is lastly one spurious work and one doubtful work:

• Description of Greece (Ἀναγραφὴ τῆς Ἑλλάδος) – This work is spurious. Although it is transmitted under Dicaearchus' name, it actually consists of excerpts from two separate works. One is a geographic work dedicated to "Theophrastus", and consisting of 150 iambic lines; the acrostic of the first twenty-three lines shows that it was really the work of one "Dionysius, son of Calliphon". The other work is a prose periegesis entitled On the Cities in Greece and was written by Heraclides Criticus.[54]
• Summaries of the Tales from Euripides and Sophocles (ὑποθέσεις τῶν Εὐριπίδου καὶ Σοφοκλέους μύθων)[55] – This was a collection of plot summaries of the plays of Euripides and Sophocles. Many of these summaries survive in papyri or have been prefaced to the plays of Euripides in medieval manuscripts. This work is unlikely to have been written by the Peripatetic Dicaearchus. It was probably either wrongly attributed to him or was the work of another man named Dicaearchus, a grammarian of Lacedaemon, who, according to the Suda,[56] was a disciple of Aristarchus.[57]

References

1. Cicero, Ad Atticum, vi. 2. 3
2. Verhasselt 2018, pp. 34–35, 279–280.
3. Suda, δ 1062.
4. Cicero, Ad Atticum, vi. 2. 3.
5. FGrHist 1400 T 7a–f.
6. Cicero, ad Atticum, xiii. 32. 2.
7. Pliny, Naturalis historia, ii. 162.
8. Verhasselt 2018, pp. 5, 196–198.
9. Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes, i. 41, De officiis, ii. 16; Varro, Res rusticae, i. 2. 16; Pliny, Naturalis historia, ii. 162.
10. Strabo, ii. 4. 2.
11. Mirhady 1.7a
12. Suda, ι 52.
13. Verhasselt 2018, pp. 9–10.
14. FGrHist 1400 F 1–9.
15. FGrHist 1400 F 24–35.
16. Varro, Res rusticae, i. 2. 15–16, ii. 1. 3–5 = Mirhady 54–55.
17. Porphyry, De abstinentia, iv. 2. 1–9 = Mirhady 56A.
18. Verhasselt 2018, pp. 9, 231–241.
19. Zenobius, v. 23 = Mirhady 57
20. Stephanus Byzantius, π 68.
21. Hypothesis A 2 on Euripides' Medea (Dain-Mazon-Irigoin).
22. Hypothesis 2 on Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus (Dain-Mazon-Irigoin).
23. Hypothesis 1 on Aristophanes' Frogs (Wilson).
24. Vita of Aeschylus, 15 (Radt).
25. Plutarch, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, xii. 1095a.
26. Lydus, de Mensibus, iv. 107.
27. Agathemerus, Geographiae informatio, 5.
28. Pliny, H. N. ii. 65; Geminus, Elem. Astron. 14.
29. Suda, δ 1062.
30. Pliny, Naturalis historia, ii. 162.
31. Geminus, Elementa astronomiae, xvii. 5.
32. Athenaeus, iv. 141a–c; Cicero, Ad Atticum, xiii. 32. 2.
33. Cicero, Ad Atticum, xiii. 30. 2.
34. Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 37 p. 8a Bekker.
35. Fotiou, A. S. (1981), "Dikaiarchos and the mixed constitution in sixth century Byzantium: new evidence from a treatise on "political science."” Byzantion 51: 533–547; Verhasselt 2018, pp. 24–25, 581–583.
36. Cicero, Ad Atticum, ii. 2. 2.
37. Suda, δ 1062.
38. Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes, i. 77.
39. Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes, i. 21.
40. Cicero, De officiis, ii. 16.
41. Verhasselt 2018, pp. 12–13.
42. Cicero, Ad Atticum, vi. 2. 3, xiii. 31. 2, xiii. 32. 2, xiii. 33. 2; Athenaeus, xiii. 594e, xiv. 641e.
43. Verhasselt 2018, pp. 14–15.
44. Cicero, Ad Atticum, vi. 2. 3. The passage is De re publica, ii. 7–9.
45. Verhasselt 2018, pp. 21–24.
46. Diogenes Laertius, iii. 4–5.
47. Porphyry, Vita Pythagorae, 56–57.
48. Athenaeus, xiii. 603a–b.
49. Verhasselt 2018, pp. 13–14, 272–273.
50. Athenaeus, xiv. 620d.
51. Scholion ad Aristophanis Vespis 544b (Koster).
52. Verhasselt 2018, pp. 15–17.
53. Suda, δ 1062.
54. FGrHist 2022 = BNJ 369A.
55. Sextus Empiricus, Adversus mathematicos, iii. 3.
56. Suda, δ 1063.
57. Verhasselt (2015). "The Hypotheses of Euripides and Sophocles by 'Dicaearchus'". Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies. 55: 608–636.

Sources

• David C. Mirhady, "Dicaearchus of Messana: The Sources, Texts and Translations," in Fortenbaugh, W., Schütrumpf, E., (editors) Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion. Transaction Publishers. (2001). ISBN 0-7658-0093-4
• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Smith, William, ed. (1870). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Further reading

Editions

• Fortenbaugh, W., Schütrumpf, E., (editors) Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion. Transaction Publishers. (2001). ISBN 0-7658-0093-4
• Verhasselt, G. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker Continued. IV. Biography and antiquarian literature, B. History of literature, music, art and culture. Fasc. 9 Dikaiarchos of Messene No. 1400. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018. ISBN 9789004357419
• Wehrli, F., Dikaiarchos. Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar, Hft. 1. Schwabe. 2nd edition (1967)
Studies
• Alonso-Núñez, J.M., 'Approaches to world history in the Hellenistic period: Dicaearchus and Agatharchides' Athenaeum 85 (1997) 53–67
• Bodei Giglioni, G., 'Dicearco e la riflessione sul passato' Rivista Storica Italiana 98 (1986) 629–652
• Cooper, C., 'Aristoxenus, Περὶ Βίων and Peripatetic biography' Mouseion 2(3) (2002) 307–339
• Purcell, N., 'The way we used to eat: diet, community, and history at Rome' American Journal of Philology 124 (2003) 329–358
• Verhasselt, G. , ᾿Dicaearchus on Alcaeus: A Peripatetic approach to archaic poetry' Rivista di filologia e istruzione classica 144 (2016) 266–299
• Verhasselt, G., 'What were works Περὶ βίων? A study of the extant fragments' Philologus 160 (2016) 59–83

External links

• Fragments des poemes géographiques de Scymnus de Chio et du faux Dicéarque, M. Letronne (ed.), Paris, Librairie de Gide, 1840.

[admin]

Stephanus of Byzantium
by Wikipedia
11/19/22

Stephanus or Stephan of Byzantium (Latin: Stephanus Byzantinus; Greek: Στέφανος Βυζάντιος, Stéphanos Byzántios; fl. 6th century AD), was a Byzantine grammarian and the author of an important geographical dictionary entitled Ethnica (Ἐθνικά). Only meagre fragments of the dictionary survive, but the epitome is extant, compiled by one Hermolaus, not otherwise identified.

Life


The Byzantine Empire during Stephanus' lifetime, with Justinian's conquests in green

Nothing is known about the life of Stephanus, except that he was a Greek grammarian[1] who was active in Constantinople, and lived after the time of Arcadius and Honorius, and before that of Justinian II. Later writers provide no information about him, but they do note that the work was later reduced to an epitome by a certain Hermolaus, who dedicated his epitome to Justinian; whether the first or second emperor of that name is meant is disputed, but it seems probable that Stephanus flourished in Byzantium in the earlier part of the sixth century AD, under Justinian I.[2]

The Ethnica

Even as an epitome, the Ethnica is of enormous value for geographical, mythological, and religious information about ancient Greece. Nearly every article in the epitome contains a reference to some ancient writer, as an authority for the name of the place. From the surviving fragments, we see that the original contained considerable quotations from ancient authors, besides many interesting particulars, topographical, historical, mythological, and others. Stephanus cites Artemidorus, Polybius, Aelius Herodianus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Strabo and other writers.[3]

The chief fragments remaining of the original work are preserved by Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De administrando imperio, ch. 23 (the article Ίβηρίαι δύο) and De thematibus, ii. 10 (an account of Sicily); the latter includes a passage from the comic poet Alexis on the Seven Largest Islands. Another respectable fragment, from the article Δύμη to the end of Δ, exists in a manuscript of the Fonds Coislin, the library formed by Pierre Séguier.[4]

The first modern printed edition of the work was that published by the Aldine Press in Venice, 1502. The complete standard edition is still that of Augustus Meineke (1849, reprinted at Graz, 1958), and by convention, references to the text use Meineke's page numbers. A new completely revised edition in German, edited by B. Wyss, C. Zubler, M. Billerbeck, J.F. Gaertner, was published between 2006 and 2017, with a total of 5 volumes.[5]

Editions

• Aldus Manutius (pr.), 1502, Στέφανος. Περὶ πόλεων (Peri poleōn) = Stephanus. De urbibus ("On cities") (Venice). Google Books
• Guilielmus Xylander, 1568, Στέφανος. Περὶ πόλεων = Stephanus. De urbibus (Basel).
• Thomas de Pinedo, 1678, Στέφανος. Περὶ πόλεων = Stephanus. De urbibus (Amsterdam). Contains parallel Latin translation. Google Books
• Claudius Salmasius (Claude Saumaise) and Abraham van Berkel, 1688, Στεφάνου Βυζαντίου Ἐθνικὰ κατ' ἐπιτομήν Περὶ πόλεων = Stephani Byzantini Gentilia per epitomen, antehac De urbibus inscripta (Leiden). Contains parallel Latin translation. Google Books
• Lucas Holstenius, 1692, Notae & castigationes in Stephanum Byzantium De urbibus (Leiden). Google Books
• Thomas de Pinedo, 1725, Stephanus de urbibus (Amsterdam). Google Books
• Karl Wilhelm Dindorf, 1825, Stephanus Byzantinus. Opera, 4 vols, (Leipzig). Incorporating notes by L. Holsteinius, A. Berkelius, and T. de Pinedo. Google Books
• Anton Westermann, 1839, Stephani Byzantii ethnikon quae supersunt (Leipzig). Google Books
• Augustus Meineke, 1849, Stephani Byzantii ethnicorum quae supersunt (Berlin). Google Books
• Margarethe Billerbeck et al. (edd), Stephani Byzantii Ethnica. 5 volumes: 2006–2017. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 43/1)[5][6][7]

References

1. Browning, Robert (2016-03-07). "Stephanus of Byzantium". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Classics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.6074. ISBN 978-0-19-938113-5. Retrieved 2021-10-02.
2. One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Stephanus Byzantinus". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 880.
3. J. S. Richardson, Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218-82 BC: "In four places, the lexicographer Stephanus of Byzantium refers to towns and ... Artemidorus as source, and in three of the four examples cites Polybius.; From political architecture to Stephanus Byzantius
4. Chisholm 1911, p. 880.
5. Jump up to:a b de Gruyter
6. Reviewed by C. Neri in
7. Reviewed by Martin L. West

Further reading

• Smith, W., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. 3, s.v. "Stephanus" (2) of Byzantium.
• Diller, Aubrey 1938, "The tradition of Stephanus Byzantius", Transactions of the American Philological Association 69: 333–48.
• E.H. Bunbury, 1883, History of Ancient Geography (London), vol. i. 102, 135, 169; ii. 669–71.
• Holstenius, L., 1684 (posth.), Lucae Holstenii Notae et castigationes postumae in Stephani Byzantii Ethnika, quae vulgo Peri poleōn inscribuntur (Leiden).
• Niese, B., 1873, De Stephani Byzantii auctoribus (Kiel)
• Johannes Geffcken, 1886, De Stephano Byzantio (Göttingen)
• Whitehead, D. (ed.), 1994, From political architecture to Stephanus Byzantius : sources for the ancient Greek polis (Stuttgart).

[admin]

Diogenes Laertius
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 11/19/22

For other people named Diogenes, see Diogenes (disambiguation).

Diogenes Laërtius (/daɪˌɒdʒɪniːz leɪˈɜːrʃiəs/ dy-OJ-in-eez lay-UR-shee-əs;[1] Greek: Διογένης Λαέρτιος, Laertios; [fl. 3rd century AD) was a biographer of the Greek philosophers. Nothing is definitively known about his life, but his surviving Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers is a principal source for the history of ancient Greek philosophy. His reputation is controversial among scholars because he often repeats information from his sources without critically evaluating it. He also frequently focuses on trivial or insignificant details of his subjects' lives while ignoring important details of their philosophical teachings and he sometimes fails to distinguish between earlier and later teachings of specific philosophical schools. However, unlike many other ancient secondary sources, Diogenes Laërtius generally reports philosophical teachings without attempting to reinterpret or expand on them, which means his accounts are often closer to the primary sources. Due to the loss of so many of the primary sources on which Diogenes relied, his work has become the foremost surviving source on the history of Greek philosophy.

Life


17th-century engraving

Laërtius must have lived after Sextus Empiricus (c. 200), whom he mentions, and before Stephanus of Byzantium and Sopater of Apamea (c. 500), who quote him. His work makes no mention of Neoplatonism, even though it is addressed to a woman who was "an enthusiastic Platonist".[2] Hence he is assumed to have flourished in the first half of the 3rd century, during the reign of Alexander Severus (222–235) and his successors.[3]

The precise form of his name is uncertain. The ancient manuscripts invariably refer to a "Laertius Diogenes", and this form of the name is repeated by Sopater[4] and the Suda.[5] The modern form "Diogenes Laertius" is much rarer, used by Stephanus of Byzantium,[6] and in a lemma to the Greek Anthology.[7] He is also referred to as "Laertes"[8] or simply "Diogenes".[9]

The origin of the name "Laertius" is also uncertain. Stephanus of Byzantium refers to him as "Διογένης ὁ Λαερτιεύς" (Diogenes ho Laertieus),[10] implying that he was the native of some town, perhaps the Laerte in Caria (or another Laerte in Cilicia). Another suggestion is that one of his ancestors had for a patron a member of the Roman family of the Laërtii.[11] The prevailing modern theory is that "Laertius" is a nickname (derived from the Homeric epithet Diogenes Laertiade, used in addressing Odysseus) used to distinguish him from the many other people called Diogenes in the ancient world.[12]

His home town is unknown (at best uncertain, even according to a hypothesis that Laertius refers to his origin). A disputed passage in his writings has been used to suggest that it was Nicaea in Bithynia.[13][14]

It has been suggested that Diogenes was an Epicurean or a Pyrrhonist. He passionately defends Epicurus[15] in Book 10, which is of high quality and contains three long letters attributed to Epicurus explaining Epicurean doctrines.[16] He is impartial to all schools, in the manner of the Pyrrhonists, and he carries the succession of Pyrrhonism further than that of the other schools. At one point, he even seems to refer to the Pyrrhonists as "our school."[13] On the other hand, most of these points can be explained by the way he uncritically copies from his sources. It is by no means certain that he adhered to any school, and he is usually more attentive to biographical details.[17]

In addition to the Lives, Diogenes refers to another work that he had written in verse on famous men, in various metres, which he called Epigrammata or Pammetros (Πάμμετρος).[3]

Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers


Dionysiou monastery, codex 90, a 13th-century manuscript containing selections from Herodotus, Plutarch and (shown here) Diogenes Laertius

The work by which he is known, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers (Greek: Βίοι καὶ γνῶμαι τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ εὐδοκιμησάντων; Latin: Vitae Philosophorum), was written in Greek and professes to give an account of the lives and sayings of the Greek philosophers.

Although it is at best an uncritical and unphilosophical compilation, its value, as giving us an insight into the private lives of the Greek sages, led Montaigne to write that he wished that instead of one Laërtius there had been a dozen.[18] On the other hand, modern scholars have advised that we treat Diogenes' testimonia with care, especially when he fails to cite his sources: "Diogenes has acquired an importance out of all proportion to his merits because the loss of many primary sources and of the earlier secondary compilations has accidentally left him the chief continuous source for the history of Greek philosophy".[19]

Organization of the work

Diogenes divides his subjects into two "schools" which he describes as the Ionian/Ionic and the Italian/Italic; the division is somewhat dubious and appears to be drawn from the lost doxography of Sotion. The biographies of the "Ionian school" begin with Anaximander and end with Clitomachus, Theophrastus and Chrysippus; the "Italian" begins with Pythagoras and ends with Epicurus. The Socratic school, with its various branches, is classed with the Ionic; while the Eleatics and Pyrrhonists are treated under the Italic. He also includes his own poetic verse, albeit pedestrian, about the philosophers he discusses.

Books 1–7: Ionian Philosophy
Book 1: The Seven Sages
Thales, Solon, Chilon, Pittacus, Bias, Cleobulus, Periander, Anacharsis, Myson, Epimenides, Pherecydes
Book 2: Socrates, with predecessors and followers
Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, Socrates, Xenophon, Aeschines, Aristippus, Phaedo, Euclides, Stilpo, Crito, Simon, Glaucon, Simmias, Cebes, Menedemus of Eretria
Book 3: Plato
Plato
Book 4: The Academy
Speusippus, Xenocrates, Polemo, Crates of Athens, Crantor, Arcesilaus, Bion, Lacydes, Carneades, Clitomachus
Book 5: The Peripatetics
Aristotle, Theophrastus, Strato, Lyco, Demetrius, Heraclides
Book 6: The Cynics
Antisthenes, Diogenes of Sinope, Monimus, Onesicritus, Crates of Thebes, Metrocles, Hipparchia, Menippus, Menedemus
Book 7: The Stoics
Zeno of Citium, Aristo, Herillus, Dionysius, Cleanthes, Sphaerus, Chrysippus
Books 8–10: Italian Philosophy
Book 8: Pythagoreans
Pythagoras, Empedocles, Epicharmus, Archytas, Alcmaeon, Hippasus, Philolaus, Eudoxus
Book 9: (Eleatics, Atomists, Pyrrhonists)
Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Parmenides, Melissus, Zeno of Elea, Leucippus, Democritus, Protagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, Anaxarchus, Pyrrho, Timon
Book 10: Epicurus
Epicurus

The work contains incidental remarks on many other philosophers, and there are useful accounts concerning Hegesias, Anniceris, and Theodorus (Cyrenaics);[20] Persaeus (Stoic);[21] and Metrodorus and Hermarchus (Epicureans).[22] Book VII is incomplete and breaks off during the life of Chrysippus. From a table of contents in one of the manuscripts (manuscript P), this book is known to have continued with Zeno of Tarsus, Diogenes, Apollodorus, Boethus, Mnesarchus, Mnasagoras, Nestor, Basilides, Dardanus, Antipater, Heraclides, Sosigenes, Panaetius, Hecato, Posidonius, Athenodorus, another Athenodorus, Antipater, Arius, and Cornutus. The whole of Book X is devoted to Epicurus, and contains three long letters written by Epicurus, which explain Epicurean doctrines.

His chief authorities were Favorinus and Diocles of Magnesia, but his work also draws (either directly or indirectly) on books by Antisthenes of Rhodes, Alexander Polyhistor, and Demetrius of Magnesia, as well as works by Hippobotus, Aristippus, Panaetius, Apollodorus of Athens, Sosicrates, Satyrus, Sotion, Neanthes, Hermippus, Antigonus, Heraclides, Hieronymus, and Pamphila.[23][24]

Oldest extant manuscripts

There are many extant manuscripts of the Lives, although none of them are especially old, and they all descend from a common ancestor, because they all lack the end of Book VII.[25] The three most useful manuscripts are known as B, P, and F. Manuscript B (Codex Borbonicus) dates from the 12th century, and is in the National Library of Naples.[a] Manuscript P (Paris) is dated to the 11th/12th century, and is in the Bibliothèque nationale de France.[27] Manuscript F (Florence) is dated to the 13th century, and is in the Laurentian Library.[27] The titles for the individual biographies used in modern editions are absent from these earliest manuscripts, however they can be found inserted into the blank spaces and margins of manuscript P by a later hand.[27]

There seem to have been some early Latin translations, but they no longer survive. A 10th-century work entitled Tractatus de dictis philosophorum shows some knowledge of Diogenes.[28] Henry Aristippus, in the 12th century, is known to have translated at least some of the work into Latin, and in the 14th century an unknown author made use of a Latin translation for his De vita et moribus philosophorum[28] (attributed erroneously to Walter Burley).

Printed editions


Title page of an edition in Greek and Latin, 1594


1611 Italian edition

The first printed editions were Latin translations. The first, Laertii Diogenis Vitae et sententiae eorum qui in philosophia probati fuerunt (Romae: Giorgo Lauer, 1472), printed the translation of Ambrogio Traversari (whose manuscript presentation copy to Cosimo de' Medici was dated February 8, 1433[29]) and was edited by Elio Francesco Marchese.[30] The Greek text of the lives of Aristotle and Theophrastus appeared in the third volume of the Aldine Aristotle in 1497. The first edition of the whole Greek text was that published by Hieronymus Froben in 1533.[31] The Greek/Latin edition of 1692 by Marcus Meibomius divided each of the ten books into paragraphs of equal length, and progressively numbered them, providing the system still in use today.[27]

The first critical edition of the entire text, by H.S. Long in the Oxford Classical Texts, was not produced until 1964;[25] this edition was superseded by Miroslav Marcovich's Teubner edition, published between 1999 and 2002. A new edition, by Tiziano Dorandi, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2013.[32]

English translations

Thomas Stanley's 1656 History of Philosophy adapts the format and content of Laertius' work into English, but Stanley compiled his book from a number of classical biographies of philosophers.[33] The first complete English translation was a late 17th-century translation by ten different persons.[34] A better translation was made by Charles Duke Yonge (1853),[35] but although this was more literal, it still contained many inaccuracies.[36] The next translation was by Robert Drew Hicks (1925) for the Loeb Classical Library,[37] although it is slightly bowdlerized. A new translation by Pamela Mensch was published by Oxford University Press in 2018.[38]

Legacy and assessment


The Italian Renaissance scholar, painter, philosopher, and architect Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472) modeled his own autobiography on Diogenes Laërtius's Life of Thales.[39]

Henricus Aristippus, the archdeacon of Catania, produced a Latin translation of Diogenes Laertius's book in southern Italy in the late 1150s, which has since been lost or destroyed.[39]

Henry Aristippus of Calabria (born in Santa Severina in 1105–10; died in Palermo in 1162), sometimes known as Enericus or Henricus Aristippus, was a religious scholar and the archdeacon of Catania (from c. 1155) and later chief familiaris of the triumvirate of familiares who replaced the admiral Maio of Bari as chief functionaries of the Kingdom of Sicily in 1161.

While the historian of Norman Sicily, John Julius Norwich, believes him to have probably been of Norman extraction despite his Greek surname, Donald Matthew considers it self-evident, based on both his name and occupations, that he was Greek. He was first and foremost a scholar and, even if Greek, he was an adherent of the Latin church.

Aristippus was an envoy to Constantinople (1158-1160) when he received from the emperor Manuel I Comnenus a Greek copy of Ptolemy's Almagest. A student of the Schola Medica Salernitana tracked down Aristippus and his copy on Mount Etna (observing an eruption) and proceeded to give a Latin translation. Though this was the first translation of the Almagest into Latin, it was not as influential as a later translation into Latin made by Gerard of Cremona from the Arabic. The original manuscript is probably in the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice.

Aristippus himself produced the first Latin translation of Plato's Phaedo (1160) and Meno and the fourth book of Aristotle's Meteorologica. He also translated Gregory of Nazianzus at the request of William I of Sicily.

In 1161, William appointed three familiares—Aristippus, Sylvester of Marsico, and the Bishop Palmer—to replace the assassinated Maio. In 1162, Aristippus was suspected of disloyalty by the king and imprisoned. He died probably soon after in that very year. He may have helped himself to some of the royal concubines during the rebellion of 1161.

-- Henry Aristippus, by Wikipedia

Geremia da Montagnone used this translation as a source for his Compedium moralium notabilium (circa 1310) and an anonymous Italian author used it as a source for work entitled Liber de vita et moribus philosophorum (written c. 1317–1320), which reached international popularity in the Late Middle Ages.[39] The monk Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439) produced another Latin translation in Florence between 1424 and 1433, for which far better records have survived.[39] The Italian Renaissance scholar, painter, philosopher, and architect Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472) borrowed from Traversari's translation of the Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers in Book 2 of his Libri della famiglia[39] and modeled his own autobiography on Diogenes Laërtius's Life of Thales.[39]

Diogenes Laërtius's work has had a complicated reception in modern times.[40] The value of his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers as an insight into the private lives of the Greek sages led the French Renaissance philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592) to exclaim that he wished that, instead of one Laërtius, there had been a dozen.[41] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) criticized Diogenes Laërtius for his lack of philosophical talent and categorized his work as nothing more than a compilation of previous writers' opinions.[39] Nonetheless, he admitted that Diogenes Laërtius's compilation was an important one given the information that it contained.[39] Hermann Usener (1834–1905) deplored Diogenes Laërtius as a "complete ass" (asinus germanus) in his Epicurea (1887).[39] Werner Jaeger (1888–1961) damned him as "that great ignoramus".[42] In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, however, scholars have managed to partially redeem Diogenes Laertius's reputation as a writer by reading his book in a Hellenistic literary context.[40]

Nonetheless, modern scholars treat Diogenes's testimonia with caution, especially when he fails to cite his sources. Herbert S. Long warns: "Diogenes has acquired an importance out of all proportion to his merits because the loss of many primary sources and of the earlier secondary compilations has accidentally left him the chief continuous source for the history of Greek philosophy."[19] Robert M. Strozier offers a somewhat more positive assessment of Diogenes Laertius's reliability, noting that many other ancient writers attempt to reinterpret and expand on the philosophical teachings they describe, something which Diogenes Laërtius rarely does.[43] Strozier concludes, "Diogenes Laertius is, when he does not conflate hundreds of years of distinctions, reliable simply because he is a less competent thinker than those on whom he writes, is less liable to re-formulate statements and arguments, and especially in the case of Epicurus, less liable to interfere with the texts he quotes. He does, however, simplify."[43]

Despite his importance to the history of western philosophy and the controversy surrounding him, according to Gian Mario Cao, Diogenes Laërtius has still not received adequate philological attention.[39] Both modern critical editions of his book, by H. S. Long (1964) and by M. Marcovich (1999) have received extensive criticism from scholars.[39]

He is criticized primarily for being overly concerned with superficial details of the philosophers' lives and lacking the intellectual capacity to explore their actual philosophical works with any penetration. However, according to statements of the 14th-century monk Walter Burley in his De vita et moribus philosophorum, the text of Diogenes seems to have been much fuller than that which we now possess.

Editions and translations

• Diogenis Laertii Vitae philosophorum edidit Miroslav Marcovich, Stuttgart-Lipsia, Teubner, 1999–2002. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, vol. 1: Books I–X ISBN 9783598713163; vol. 2: Excerpta Byzantina; v. 3: Indices by Hans Gärtner.
• Lives of Eminent Philosophers, edited by Tiziano Dorandi, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013 (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, vol. 50, new radically improved critical edition).
• Laërtius, Diogenes (1688). The lives, opinions, and remarkable sayings of the most famous ancient philosophers. The first volume written in Greek, by Diogenes Laertius ; made English by several hands. Vol. 1. Translated by Fetherstone, T.; White, Sam.; Smith, E.; Philips, J.; Kippax, R.; Baxter, William; M., R. (2 volumes ed.). London: Edward Brewster.
• Laërtius, Diogenes (1853). Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Yonge, Charles Duke. London: G.H. Bohn.
• Translation by R.D. Hicks:
o "Index" . Lives of the Eminent Philosophers (Two volume ed.). Loeb Classical Library. 1925.
o Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Vol. I. Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library. 1925. ISBN 978-0-674-99203-0.
o Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Vol. II. Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library. 1925. ISBN 978-0-674-99204-7.
• Translations based on the critical edition by Tiziano Dorandi:
o Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Pamela Mensch. Oxford University Press. 2018. ISBN 978-0-19-086217-6.
o Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Stephen White. Cambidge University Press. 2020. ISBN 978-0-521-88335-1.

See also

• Mochus

Notes

1. The statement by Robert Hicks (1925) that "the scribe obviously knew no Greek",[26] was later rejected by Herbert Long. The more recent opinion of Tiziano Dorandi, however, is that the scribe had "little knowledge of Greek ... and limited himself to reproducing it in a mechanical way exactly as he managed to decipher it". A few years later an "anonymous corrector" with good knowledge of Greek rectified "many errors or readings that, rightly or wrongly, he considered erroneous" (Dorandi 2013, p. [page needed]).
1. "Diogenes Laërtius", The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2013
2. Laërtius 1925a, § 47.
3. Chisholm1911, p. 282.
4. Sopater, ap. Photius, Biblioth. 161
5. Suda, Tetralogia
6. Stephanus of Byzantium, Druidai
7. Lemma to Anthologia Palatina, vii. 95
8. Eustathius, on Iliad, M. 153
9. Stephanus of Byzantium, Enetoi
10. Stephanus of Byzantium, Cholleidai
11. Smith 1870, p. 1028.
12. Long 1972, p. xvi.
13. Laërtius 1925b, § 109. Specifically, Diogenes refers to "our Apollonides of Nicaea". This has been conjectured to mean either "my fellow-citizen" or "a Sceptic like myself".
14. Craig 1998, p. 86.
15. Laërtius 1925c, § 3–12.
16. Laërtius 1925c, § 34–135.
17. Long 1972, pp. xvii–xviii.
18. Montaigne, Essays II.10 "Of Books" Archived 2009-02-14 at the Wayback Machine.
19. Long 1972, p. xix.
20. Laërtius 1925b, § 93–104.
21. Laërtius 1925c, § 36.
22. Laërtius 1925d, § 22–26.
23. Friedrich Nietzsche, Gesammelte Werke, 1920, p. 363.
24. Long 1972, p. xxi.
25. Long 1972, p. xxv.
26. Hicks 1925, p. [page needed].
27. Dorandi 2013, p. [page needed].
28. Long 1972, p. xxvi.
29. de la Mare 1992, p. [page needed].
30. Tolomio 1993, pp. 154, ff.
31. Long 1972, p. xxiv.
32. "Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 14 March 2014.
33. Stanley, Thomas (1656). The History of Philosophy. London: J. Mosely and T. Dring.
34. Fetherstone et al 1688, Volume 1, Volume 2 (published 1696).
35. Yonge 1853.
36. Long 1972, p. xiii.
37. Laërtius 1925.
38. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers - Diogenes Laertius. Oxford University Press. 14 May 2018. ISBN 978-0-19-086217-6. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
39. Cao 2010, p. 271.
40. Cao 2010, pp. 271–272.
41. Montaigne, Essays II.10 "Of Books" Archived February 14, 2009, at the Wayback Machine.
42. Jaeger 1947, p. 330 n.2.
43. Strozier 1985, p. 15.

References

• Cao, Gian Mario (2010), "Diogenes Laertius", in Grafton, Anthony; Most, Glenn W.; Settis, Salvatore (eds.), The Classical Tradition, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, pp. 271–272, ISBN 978-0-674-03572-0
• Dorandi, Tiziano, ed. (2013). "Introduction". Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521886819.
• Craig, Edward, ed. (1998). "Diogenes Laertius (c. AD 300–50)". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 4. p. 86.
• Laërtius, Diogenes (1925a). "Plato" . Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 1:3. Translated by Hicks, Robert Drew (Two volume ed.). Loeb Classical Library.
• Laërtius, Diogenes (1925b). "Others: Timon" . Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 2:9. Translated by Hicks, Robert Drew (Two volume ed.). Loeb Classical Library.
• Laërtius, Diogenes (1925c). "Epicurus" . Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 2:10. Translated by Hicks, Robert Drew (Two volume ed.). Loeb Classical Library.
• Laërtius, Diogenes (1925). "Index" . Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Hicks, Robert Drew (Two volume ed.). Loeb Classical Library.
• Laërtius, Diogenes (1925b). "Socrates, with predecessors and followers: Aristippus" . Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 1:2. Translated by Hicks, Robert Drew (Two volume ed.). Loeb Classical Library. § 65–104.
• Laërtius, Diogenes (1925c). "The Stoics: Zeno" . Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 2:7. Translated by Hicks, Robert Drew (Two volume ed.). Loeb Classical Library. § 1–160.
• Laërtius, Diogenes (1925d). "Epicurus" . Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 2:10. Translated by Hicks, Robert Drew (Two volume ed.). Loeb Classical Library. § 1–154.
• Long, Herbert S. (1972). Introduction. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. By Laërtius, Diogenes. Vol. 1 (reprint ed.). Loeb Classical Library. p. xvi.
• Hicks, Robert Drew (1925). Introduction. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. By Laërtius, Diogenes. Translated by Hicks, Robert Drew (reprint ed.). Loeb Classical Library.[clarification needed]
• Smith, William, ed. (1870). "Diogenes Laertius". Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology.
• de la Mare, Albinia Catherine (1992). "Cosimo and his Books". In Ames-Lewis, F. (ed.). Cosimo 'il Vecchio' de' Medici, 1389–1464. Oxford.
• Strozier, Robert M. (1985), Epicurus and Hellenistic Philosophy, Lanham, Maryland and London, England: University Press of America, ISBN 978-0-8191-4405-8
• Jaeger, Werner (1947). Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture. Vol. III. Translated by Highet, Gilbert. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Tolomio, Ilario (1993). "Editions of Diogenes Laertius in the Fifteenth to Seventeenth Centuries". In Santinello, G.; et al. (eds.). Models of the History of Philosophy. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp. 154, ff.

Further reading

• Barnes, Jonathan. 1992. "Diogenes Laertius IX 61–116: The Philosophy of Pyrrhonism." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Vol. 2: 36.5–6. Edited by Wolfgang Haase, 4241–4301. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
• Barnes, Jonathan. 1986. "Nietzsche and Diogenes Laertius." Nietzsche-Studien 15:16–40.
• Dorandi, Tiziano. 2009. Laertiana: Capitoli sulla tradizione manoscritta e sulla storia del testo delle Vite dei filosofi di Diogene Laerzio. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter.
• Eshleman, Kendra Joy. 2007. "Affection and Affiliation: Social Networks and Conversion to Philosophy." The Classical Journal 103.2: 129–140.
• Grau, Sergi. 2010. "How to Kill a Philosopher: The Narrating of Ancient Greek Philosophers' Deaths in Relation to the Living. Ancient Philosophy 30.2: 347-381
• Hägg, Tomas. 2012. The Art of Biography in Antiquity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
• Kindstrand, Jan Frederik. 1986. "Diogenes Laertius and the Chreia Tradition." Elenchos 7:217–234.
• Long, Anthony A. 2006. "Diogenes Laertius, Life of Arcesilaus." In From Epicurus to Epictetus: Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy. Edited by Anthony A. Long, 96–114. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
• Mansfeld, Jaap. 1986. "Diogenes Laertius on Stoic Philosophy." Elenchos 7: 295–382.
• Mejer, Jørgen. 1978. Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
• Mejer, Jørgen. 1992. "Diogenes Laertius and the Transmission of Greek Philosophy." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Vol. 2: 36.5–6. Edited by Wolfgang Haase, 3556–3602. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
• Morgan, Teresa J. 2013. "Encyclopaedias of Virtue?: Collections of Sayings and Stories About Wise Men in Greek." In Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Edited by Jason König and Greg Woolf, 108–128. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Sassi, Maria Michela. 2011. Ionian Philosophy and Italic Philosophy: From Diogenes Laertius to Diels. In The Presocratics from the Latin Middle Ages to Hermann Diels. Edited by Oliver Primavesi and Katharina Luchner, 19–44. Stuttgart: Steiner.
• Sollenberger, Michael. 1992. The Lives of the Peripatetics: An Analysis of the Content and Structure of Diogenes Laertius’ “Vitae philosophorum” Book 5. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Vol. 2: 36.5–6. Edited by Wolfgang Haase, 3793–3879. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
• Vogt, Katja Maria, ed. 2015. Pyrrhonian Skepticism in Diogenes Laertius. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.
• Warren, James. 2007. "Diogenes Laertius, Biographer of Philosophy." In Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire. Edited by Jason König and Tim Whitmars, 133–149. Cambridge; New York : Cambridge University Press.

Attribution:

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Diogenes Laërtius". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 8 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 282.

External links

• Works by Diogenes Laertius at Perseus Digital Library
• Works by Diogenes Laertius in eBook form at Standard Ebooks
• Works by Diogenes Laertius at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about Diogenes Laertius at Internet Archive
• Works by Diogenes Laertius at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
• Ancient Greek text of Diogenes's Lives
• Article on the Manuscript versions at the Tertullian Project
• A bibliography of the Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers
• Libro de la vita de philosophi et delle loro elegantissime sentencie. Venice, Joannes Rubeus Vercellensis, 20 May 1489. From the Rare Book and Special Collections Division at the Library of Congress
• Digitized Manuscript of Diogenes Laertius' Vitae Philosophorum (Arundel MS 531) at the British Library website

[admin]

Oded Golan
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 11/22/22

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

-- Into the Land: The Forgery Scandal, created by Eiv Kristal and Natan Odenheier
-- King Solomon's Tablet Of Stone, directed by Sean Smith
-- Oded Golan, by Wikipedia
-- False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the Bible's Claim to History, by Daniel Lazare
-- The Bible Unearthed: The Making of a Religion, directed by Thierry Ragobert
-- The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History, by Keith W. Whitelam
-- The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine
-- Letting Go of God, by Julia Sweeney
-- The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
-- Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, by Jimmy Carter

Oded Golan (Hebrew: עודד גולן) (born 1951 in Tel Aviv) is an Israeli engineer, entrepreneur, and antiquities collector. He owns one of the largest collections of Biblical archaeology in the world.[1]

Golan was accused by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) of involvement in the forgery of one half of the James Ossuary inscription, the Jehoash Inscription and other items. Golan denied any involvement in forgery, and argued that he purchased the two items from licensed antiquities dealers in 1976 and 1999 respectively.[2]

Four other defendants were indicted along with Golan, including two of the largest antiquities dealers in Israel. In 2012, the court acquitted Golan of forgery and fraud, but convicted him of illegal trading in antiquities. [3] In late 2013, the Supreme Court ordered the State to return to Golan the James Ossuary, the Jehoash Inscription and hundreds of other items that had been confiscated by the IAA “for the purpose of investigation."[4]

Background

The son of an engineer and a professor of microbiology, Golan served as an officer in the Israel Defense Forces before studying industrial and management engineering at the Technion, graduating with honors.

He was then involved with several hi-tech ventures, developed and operated global professional training seminars and tour programs, and subsequently went on to be involved in real estate development in Israel. Since childhood, Golan has had a keen interest in archeology and antiquities. At the age of 10, during a visit to the ancient site of Tel Hatzor, he discovered the world’s oldest dictionary, which was later published by Professor Yigael Yadin. At the age of 12, Golan participated in excavations at Masada.[5]

Golan's Collection

Golan's collection, amassed over a period of more than 50 years, contains thousands of archaeological artifacts, the vast majority of which were purchased from antiquities dealers, mostly in East Jerusalem.[6]

Golan’s collection includes a wide range of artifacts which together represent the culture of Israel and TransJordan from the fifth millennium BCE to the fifth century AD.[7] Among the items that attracted international attention is the James Ossuary, the bone box possibly used to intern the bones of James, brother of Jesus.

IAA claims and trial

Following statements made by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) in June 2003 challenging the authenticity of the inscriptions or the patina on the inscriptions of the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet, the IAA confiscated both items from Golan, along with hundreds of other items of antiquity, allegedly for the purposes of the investigation.

The IAA publicly stated that Golan and numerous antiquity dealers were involved in forgery, assisted by experts in ancient Semitic languages, and cautioned that according to IAA policy all items discovered outside official excavations should be suspected as being forged. Media coverage and documentary films which reported the IAA claims were accompanied by rumors, creating what Golan called a “media circus".[8]

The BBC reported that when the police took Oded Golan into custody and searched his apartment they discovered a workshop with a range of tools, materials, and half finished 'antiquities'. This was presented as evidence for an operation on a great scale. According to other allegations, collectors around the world have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for artifacts that came through Oded Golan's associates. Dozens of these items were examined. Police then suspected that artefacts made by the same team of forgers have found their way into leading museums around the world.[9]

The documentary film The History Merchants alleged Golan (working with a team of people, including an expert in ancient semitic languages and an artisan) had produced a number of forged artifacts for sale on the religious antiquities market. In 2004, Horizon aired King Solomon's Tablet of Stone on the BBC. This program included allegations of forgery and fraudulent activity by Golan.[10]

King Solomon's Tablet Of Stone
directed by Sean Smith
Producer: Lara Acaster
Narrator: Jack Fortune
Horizon wishes to thank Israel Antiquities Authority, Tel Aviv University, Ma ariv Newspaper, Haaretz Daily Newspaper, English Edition, The City of David Visitors Center
by BBC Science & Nature
February 5, 2015

King Solomon's Tablet of Stone
by BBC Science & Nature
October 1, 2014

The authenticity of many Holy Land artefacts is thrown into doubt.



2001. A clandestine meeting of leading Israeli archaeologists are shown a remarkable artefact. It's a stone tablet, apparently from 1,000BC. The writing on its face describes repairs to the temple of King Solomon. It is the first archaeological evidence ever found of this legendary building.

The relic caused a sensation. But this was only just the start.

For authentification, the tablet was taken to the Geological Survey of Israel. Here, after a battery of tests, including radiocarbon dating, scientists officially pronounced the stone to be genuine. The tests even revealed microscopic particles of gold in the outer layer of stone. These were apparently the result of the tablet surviving the fire which, according to the bible, destroyed the temple when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem in 586BC.

The stone tablet was offered for sale to the Israel Museum, home to many of Israel's greatest treasures. Rumours suggested the asking price was as high as $10million.

Suspicions aroused

But the museum needed to know where the stone had come from. Even its owner was a mystery. To make matters more complex, the stone itself had disappeared again. The Israeli Antiquities Authority wanted answers. A nine month search for the mysterious stranger who had first appeared with the stone eventually led them to a private detective who had been hired by a well known antiquities collector, Oded Golan.

Golan insisted he too was just a front man for another collector. But the authorities were suspicious. He was known to be the owner of the James Ossuary, another extraordinary artefact which had appeared a couple of years earlier. This was a burial box with an inscription linking it to Jesus' brother.

The authorities raided Golan's apartment and recovered both the ossuary and the elusive stone. It was time to establish once and for all if both were genuine. So they set up a committee of linguists and scientists to examine them.

Looking at the stone, several linguists said 'fake'. Some of the Hebrew, they claimed, was not ancient. Other experts claimed that so little is known of ancient Hebrew that it's impossible to be sure.

The geological evidence

The committee turned to geology. Dr Yuval Goren, a geo-archaeologist and head of the Archaeological Institute at Tel-Aviv University, soon found evidence that a team of sophisticated forgers had led the earlier experts astray.

• The patina on the stone had in fact been manufactured artificially
• The charcoal particles which produced the convincing radiocarbon date had been added by hand
• The gold fragments hinting at an ancient fire were a clever final addition

The authorities presented their conclusions. They announced that the stone tablet, and the James Ossuary, were elaborate fakes.

But who was producing these fakes and how? Dr Goren decided to piece together how the stone tablet had been made. He tracked the origin of the stone itself - apparently a building block taken from a Crusader castle. It was even possible to work out how the fake patina had been manufactured and the ingredients used. What was clear was the team of forgers included experts in a range of disciplines.

More fakes suspected

When the police took Oded Golan into custody and searched his apartment they discovered a workshop with a range of tools, materials, and half finished 'antiquities'. This was evidence for an operation of a scale far greater than they had suspected.

Investigators have established that collectors around the world have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for artefacts that came through Oded Golan's associates. Dozens of these items have now been examined by Dr Goren, and all have been revealed to be forgeries. Police now suspect that artefacts made by the same team of forgers have found their way into leading museums around the world.

Some archaeologists have now concluded that everything that came to market in the last 20 years without clear provenance should be considered a fake. Many of these objects, like the stone tablet which started the investigation, were cynically playing on the desire of many of the collectors to see the bible confirmed as history. For those in search of the temple of Solomon - their goal is as far away as ever.

On December 29, 2004, Golan was indicted in an Israeli court along with three antiquities dealers; Robert Deutsch, one of Israel’s most important licensed antiquities dealer and an inscriptions expert who has lectured at the University of Haifa; dealer and conservator Refael Braun; and dealer Shlomo Cohen; Faiz al-Amla, a Palestinian dealer from the village of Beit Ula in the Hebron Hills was charged with trading in antiquities without a license. Early in the trial, charges were dropped against Braun and Cohen,[11] leaving Golan and Deutsch as the only defendants.

Golan denied any involvement in forgery and argued that he had purchased the inscriptions from licensed antiquities dealers. In the trial, Golan presented evidence that proved that he had purchased the James Ossuary in 1976 and the Jehoash Table in 1999.[12][13][14] Golan stated that to the best of his understanding and judgment, these are authentic ancient inscriptions.

Court ruling and acquittal

In a trial that lasted almost eight years (2004-2012), the District Court of Jerusalem heard testimony relating to the authenticity of the inscriptions on the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet from over 50 experts from a wide range of fields, who examined the inscriptions and submitted dozens of scientific reports, and 70 other witnesses including antiquities dealers and well-known collectors. Trial transcripts covered over 12,000 pages, and the court ruling was 438 pages long.[15]

Trial aftermath

The IAA announced that they accept the court’s ruling.[16] The State accepted the main decision of the District Court and did not appeal against the judgment. After the judgment, the State moved to confiscate the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet for the State Treasury, arguing that these items may well be of enormous historic, religious and archeological significance and therefore should not remain in private hands. The District Court and the Supreme Court denied this motion and ordered the State to return to Golan all the antiquities that had been taken from him. The James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet, as well as hundreds of other antiquities, were returned to Golan in late 2013.[17][18]

Further reading

Nina Burleigh, (2008): Unholy Business: A True Tale of Faith, Greed and Forgery in the Holy Land

See also

• Three shekel ostracon

Three shekel ostracon
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 11/22/22

The three shekel ostracon is a pottery fragment bearing a forged text supposedly dating from between the 7th and 9th century BCE.[1] It is 8.6 centimeters high and 10.9 centimeters wide and contains five lines of ancient Hebrew writing.[2] The inscription mentions a king named Ashyahu [x]) donating three shekels (about 20–50 grams of silver) to the House of Yahweh. No king named Ashyahu is mentioned in the Bible, but some scholars believe it may refer to Jehoash ([x]), who ruled Judea 802–787 BCE.[3]

The ostracon was purchased by Shlomo Moussaieff from the Jerusalem antiquities dealer Oded Golan. Doubts about the authenticity of this and other artefacts sold by Golan began to be expressed in the late 1990s, and in 2003 Professor Christopher Rollston, a leading authority on Northwest Semitic inscriptions, said he is "confident beyond a reasonable doubt" that the "three shekel ostracon" is a forgery.[4] The same negative conclusion was reached on the basis of scientific examination of the patina.[5]

Text

‎
According to your order, Ashyahu the king, to give by the hand of [Z]ekaryahu silver of Tarshish for the House of Yahweh three shekels.[6][2]

See also

• House of Yahweh ostracon

References

1. John Noble Wilford Published: November 11, 1997 (1997-11-11). "Temple Receipt for a 3-Shekel Donor - New York Times". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2012-06-26. Retrieved 2012-10-01.
2. Jump up to:a b "Byt Yhwh Ostracon". Kchanson.com. 2007-04-18. Archived from the original on 2012-07-28. Retrieved 2012-10-01.
3. Stieglitz, Robert. "Ashyahu: He's Josiah | The BAS Library". Members.bib-arch.org. Archived from the original on 2014-08-21. Retrieved 2012-10-01.
4. "The Moussaieff Ostraca, Bibliographic Notes". Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2013-01-06.
5. Yuval Goren, Miryam Bar-Matthews, Avner Ayalon and Bettina Schilman (2005). "Authenticity Examination of Two Iron Age Ostraca from the Moussaieff Collection". Israel Exploration Journal. 55 (1): 21–34.
6. Translation according to Shanks, Hershel: "Three Shekels for the Lord. Ancient Inscription Records Gift to Solomon's Temple Archived 2019-01-16 at the Wayback Machine." Biblical Archaeology Review 23.6 (Nov/Dec 1997) 28-32.

Notes

1. Books written on the subject included: ‘The Brother of Jesus’ by Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington, ‘Resurrecting the Brother of Jesus’, edited by Byrne & Mcnary-zak, ‘The Jesus Family Tomb’ by Jacobovici and Pellegrino, and ‘The Jehoash Tablet: King Jehoash and the Mystery of the Temple of Solomon Inscription’ by By Prof. Victor Sasson. Films created for Discovery on the subject included ‘James, Brother of Jesus’ (2003), ‘The Jesus Discovery/The Resurrection Tomb Mystery’ (2012), and ‘The Lost Tomb of Jesus’ (2007).

References

1. Hasson, Nir (2012-03-30). "Israeli Antiquities Collector Talks About His Trial – and His Acquittal". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-03-15. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
2. "Oded Golan: I never faked any antiquity". jpost.com. June 12, 2009. Archived from the original on March 14, 2016. Retrieved March 14, 2016.
3. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
4. Hasson, Nir (2013-10-17). "Ending a 7-year Saga Court: Israel Must Return Biblical-era 'Jehoash's Tablet' to Owner". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-03-15. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
5. Kalman, Matthew (8 April 2012). "Why I believe this box contains Jesus's brother". Express.co.uk. Archived from the original on 2016-03-11. Retrieved 2016-03-21.
6. Section 1211, p.411, http://www.news1.co.il/uploadFiles/485637843608857.doc
7. Hasson, Nir (2012-03-30). "Israeli Antiquities Collector Talks About His Trial – and His Acquittal". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-03-15. Retrieved 2016-03-21.
8. Randall, Michael. "The Bible and Interpretation". http://www.bibleinterp.com. Original design: Andreas Viklund. Archived from the original on 2019-12-09. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
9. "BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon". Archived from the original on 5 February 2015. Retrieved 1 October 2014.
10. "King Solomon's Tablet of Stone". Archived from the original on 15 October 2014. Retrieved 1 October 2014.
11. Thomas D. Bazley (2010). Crimes of the Art World. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-313-36047-3.
12. Sections 231-48 and 555-64, p.95-102 and 183-8, http://www.news1.co.il/uploadFiles/485637843608857.doc Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine
13. "Forged in faith". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Archived from the original on 2015-09-06. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
14. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-05-13. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
15. P.12, http://www.news1.co.il/uploadFiles/485637843608857.doc
16. "Israel Antiquities Authority". http://www.antiquities.org.il. Archived from the original on 2016-04-21. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
17. חסון, ניר (2013-10-17). "סוף לסאגת לוח יהואש: העליון הורה למדינה להשיבו לאספן עודד גולן" [End to the saga of the Jehoash Tablet: The Supreme Court ordered the state to return it to collector Oded Golan]. הארץ (in Hebrew). Archived from the original on 2016-03-08. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
18. "Israel Antiquities Authority Returns "Jesus Brother" Bone Box to Owner - Biblical Archaeology Society". Biblical Archaeology Society. 11 November 2013. Archived from the original on 2016-04-02. Retrieved 2016-03-29.

External links

• Alleged forger of Holy Land antiquities held 23/07/2003, Haaretz,
• "Written in Stone," David Samuels, A Reporter at Large, The New Yorker, April 12, 2004, p. 48
• Oded Golan's refutation of the documentary's claims
• Review of The History Merchants
• UK Daily Telegraph investigative article (May 2005)
• The art of authentic forgery by Nadav Shragai, 14/04/2008 Haaretz,
• King Solomon's Tablet of Stone
• The Authenticity of the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet Inscriptions – Summary of Expert Trial Witnesses, Oded Golan (2011)