Save

A Textual Note on Epim. Hom. α 268 Dyck (Vol. II)

In: Mnemosyne
Author: Federico Favi1
View More View Less
  • 1 Oriel College, University of Oxford
Open Access

The gloss Epim. Hom. α 268 Dyck (Vol. II)1 is entirely devoted to αὐτή. The central section deals with the eight peculiarities of αὐτός. For the sake of the present discussion, it is only needed to report the first five:

ἔχει δὲ διαφορὰς ὀκτὼ μόνον τῶν μονοπροσώπων· (1) ἔστι μόνον ἀναφορικὸν τῶν ἄλλων καὶ δεικτικῶν οὐσῶν καὶ ἀναφορικῶν· οὗτος ἐκεῖνος {καὶ δεῖξις καὶ ἀναφορά}· καὶ πίστις τούτου, ὅτι οὐκ ἀνεδέξατο τὴν διὰ τοῦ ι ἐπέκτασιν· (2) μόνη τῶν μονοπροσώπων ὀξύνεται· (3) μόνη δὲ τῶν ἀντωνυμιῶν ἀπὸ μακρᾶς ἀρχομένη ψιλοῦται· (4) μόνη ἐξ ἀντωνυμιῶν δεδιπλασίασται· αὐτὸς αὐτός· (5) μόνη καὶ κωμῳδίᾳ ἐπιτέτακται· αὐτότερος αὐτότατος.

Alone among the personal pronouns, (αὐτός) has eight peculiarities. (1) It is only anaphoric, whereas the others are both deictic and anaphoric, (such as) οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος. And the proof of this is that αὐτός did not admit of the suffixation -ι. (2) Only this among the personal pronouns is oxytone. (3) Only this among the pronouns, though beginning with a long first syllable, does not have the aspiration. (4) Only this among the pronouns is duplicated: αὐτὸς αὐτός. (5) Only this is imposed to comedy: αὐτότερος αὐτότατος.

The fifth peculiarity poses some textual problems.2 The manuscripts of the Epimerismi Homerici unanimously transmit the text above. Dyck does not emend κωµῳδίᾳ ἐπιτέτακται, but the paradosis makes little sense.3 Schneider suggested emending ἐπιτέτακται into ἐπιτέταται4 (ἐπιτείνω ‘intensify’ being common grammatical vocabulary),5 in which case the reference would be to the comparative αὐτότερος and superlative αὐτότατος. Schneider’s conjecture is very reasonable and should be accepted without further ado (thus also K-A ad Epich. fr. 1). Ludwich’s emendation κἀν <τῇ> κωµῳδίᾳ6 for transmitted καὶ κωµῳδίᾳ would make sense of the isolated dative, but ‘also in comedy’ remains puzzling, especially since forms like αὐτότερος and αὐτότατος are admittedly only attested in comedy (see below; K-A ad Epich. fr. 1 do not accept this emendation either). The position of καί after µόνη at the beginning of the sentence makes it unlikely that καί may be linking this section of the gloss with the preceding one, and therefore καί is more likely to be taken with what follows.7 Besides, all entries in the Epimerismi gloss are introduced by a bare µόνη (except the third one, which is connected to the preceding one with δέ), and only the subsections within the sixth and ninth peculiarity are linked to one another with connectives. Another possibility would be to emend the paradosis into εἰ καὶ ἐν κωµῳδίᾳ. Together with Schneider’s ἐπιτέταται, the resulting text would be:

μόνη, εἰ καὶ ἐν κωμῳδίᾳ, ἐπιτέταται· αὐτότερος αὐτότατος.

Only this [sc. ἀντωνυµία ‘pronoun’, i.e. αὐτός], albeit in comedy, is intensified: αὐτότερος αὐτότατος.

The corruption process behind µόνη εἰ καὶ ἐν κωµῳδίᾳ > µόνη καὶ κωµῳδίᾳ is straightforward, and may be easily explained through vocalic homophony in Byzantine Greek (εἰ because of the final vowel in µόνη, ἐν because of preceding καί).

The implication of the concessive clause εἰ καὶ ἐν κωµῳδίᾳ8 would be to say that αὐτός is indeed peculiar, in that this is the only pronoun which has a comparative (αὐτότερος) and a superlative (αὐτότατος), but that these forms should not be taken at face value, since they are only used in comedy, where they serve a comic purpose. Such an observation is well paralleled in the other grammatical sources discussing αὐτότερος and αὐτότατος, see Apollonius Dyscolus, Pronouns (ed. Schneider, Grammatici Graeci vol. II.I p. 64.11 = Brandenburg 2005, 400-401): ἕνεκα γελοίου ἡ κωµῳδία σχήµατά τινα ἔπλασεν, ὥστε οὐ κριτήριον τῆς λέξεως τὸ αὐτότερος, ἐπεὶ καὶ Δαναώτατος ὑπερτίθεται παρὰ Ἀριστοφάνει, τῶν κυρίων οὐ συγκρινοµένων (‘comedy created some forms for comic purpose, so that αὐτότερος is not a means to judge to which part of speech the form (sc. αὐτός) belongs,9 since Δαναώτατος too is created as a superlative in Aristophanes, though proper names do not have degrees of comparison’); Scholia Marciana in Dionysii Thracis artem grammaticam (ed. Hilgard, Grammatici Graeci vol. I.3 p. 372.25): τὸ δὲ αὐτότερος παρ’ Ἐπιχάρµῳ πέπαικται (‘αὐτότερος in Epicharmus is a jocular form’); Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Plutum (ed. Chantry, line 83 = Sud. α 4529 Adler): ἡ αὐτότατος ἀντωνυµία πέπαικται κωµικῶς (‘the pronoun αὐτότατος is a jocular form in a comic fashion’). Interestingly, this doctrine has influenced the Latin grammarian Pompeius who discusses the comic superlative ipsissimus in Plautus and Afranius10 (Pompeii commentum artis Donati, ed. Keil, Grammatici Latini V p. 153.13: ergo vides, quae nomina conparantur: quae sunt qualitatis et quantitatis. ea autem, quae non sunt qualitatis et quantitatis, non recipiunt comparationem. ne te decipiant illa Plautina [Tr. 988] et Afraniana [432 CRF] verba, ipsissimus; ioco comico hoc dixit. est etiam apud Graecos αὐτότατος [Ar. Pl. 83] tale. comica sunt ista et ad artem non pertinent, ‘therefore you see which names have degrees of comparison: those which express a quality or a quantity. Whereas those which do not, do not have degrees of comparison. Do not be misled by the word ipsissimus used by Plautus and Afranius. The poet used this form for a comic purpose. In Greek too αὐτότατος is such. These are comic forms, and do not pertain to the grammar’).11

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Luigi Battezzato and the anonymous referee for their valuable advice and to Il-Kweon Sir and Theodore Hill for improving the English. I am solely responsible for any remaining error or misjudgements. This research was funded by a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship.

Bibliography

  • Brandenburg, P. (2005). Apollonius Dyskolos, Über das Pronomen. Einführung, Text, Übersetzung und Erläuterungen. München/Leipzig.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dickey, E. (2007). Ancient Greek Scholarship. A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica and Grammatical Treaties, from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. Oxford.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dyck, A.R. (1995). Epimerismi Homerici. Pars Altera: Epimerismos continens qui ordine alphabetico traditi sunt. Lexicon ΑΙΜΩΔΕΙΝ quod vocatur seu verius ΕΤΥΜΟΛΟΓΙΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ. Berlin/New York.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kock, T. (1888). Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, Vol. 3: Novae comoediae fragmenta. Pars II: Comicorum incertae aetatis fragmenta. Fragmenta incertorum poetarum. Indices. Supplementa. Leipzig.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ludwich, A. (1902). Review of Schneider. Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 22, coll. 801-810.

  • Schmeling, G. (2011). A Commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius. With the collaboration of Aldo Setaioli. Oxford.

  • Schneider, R. (1902). Grammatici Graeci II/II. Commentarius criticus et exegeticus in Apollonii scripta minora. Leipzig.

  • Schneider, R. (1910). Grammatici Graeci II/III. Librorum Apollonii deperditorum fragmenta collegit disposuit explicavit. Indices omnium librorum confecit. Leipzig.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
1

Dyck 1995, 153-154.

2

Other grammatical texts discuss the forms αὐτότερος and αὐτότατος: Apollonius Dyscolus, Pronouns (ed. Schneider, Grammatici Graeci vol. II.I p. 63.20 = Brandenburg 2005, 399): σύγκρισίν τε καὶ παραγωγὴν ἀνεδέξατο [sc. τὸ αὐτός], ὡς ἐν Ἀλκυονεῖ [-όνι cod.] Ἐπίχαρµος· αὐτότερος αὐτῶν [fr. 1] (‘αὐτός admitted of degrees of comparison (see note on p. 3) and derivation’); Scholia Marciana in Dionysii Thracis artem grammaticam (ed. Hilgard, Grammatici Graeci, vol. I.3, p. 372.23): παρὰ Ἀριστοφάνει [Plut. 83] τὸ αὐτότατος καὶ παρὰ Μενάνδρῳ τὸ †αἰτιώτατος† [αὐται- Kock 1888, 250] [fr. 651]· τὸ δὲ αὐτότερος παρ’ Ἐπιχάρµῳ πέπαικται [fr. 1] (‘αὐτότατος is in Aristophanes and †αἰτιώτατος† in Menander. αὐτότερος in Epicharmus is a jocular form’); Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Plutum (ed. Chantry, line 83 = Sud. α 4529 Adler): ἡ αὐτότατος ἀντωνυµία πέπαικται κωµικῶς (‘the pronoun αὐτότατος is a jocular form in a comic fashion’). See further Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Plutum (ed. Chantry, line 83, a-c-d-e).

3

Dyck 1995, 153.

4

Schneider 1902, 88.

5

See Dickey 2007, 238.

6

Ludwich 1902, col. 806.

7

One may compare the use of καί in the seventh peculiarity, i.e. µόνη ἐξ ἀντωνυµιῶν καὶ ἴδια σηµαινόµενα ἔσχεν (‘only this among the pronouns also had its peculiar meanings’).

8

For the use of concessive εἰ καί in the Epimerismi Homerici one may compare e.g. Epim. Hom. ε 100 Dyck (Vol. II): ἕρµατα· … ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἔρεισµα κατὰ συγκοπὴν ἕρµα. καὶ διὰ τί τὸ µὲν ἔρεισµα ψιλοῦται, τὸ δὲ ἕρµα δασύνεται; τὰ βραχέα φωνήεντα καταλήγοντα εἰς ρ ἐπιφεροµένου τοῦ µ δασύνονται, οἷον ὅρµος ὁρµή ἅρµα Ἑρµῆς· τῇ συντάξει οὖν τῶν συµφώνων δασύνεται, εἰ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἔρεισµά ἐστιν (‘ἕρµατα … or it is created from ἔρεισµα by syncopation. And why does ἔρεισµα not have the aspiration, whereas ἕρµα does? Short vowels before ρ take the aspiration when ρ follows, as in ὅρµος ὁρµή ἅρµα Ἑρµῆς. ἕρµα therefore takes the aspiration because of the combination of consonants, even though it is from ἔρεισµα’).

9

On this last sentence, see Schneider 1910, 219 and Brandenburg 2005, 401.

10

This form is also attested in Petronius (63,3; 69,3; 75,11; 76,1; see Schmeling 2011, 260).

11

Priscian is less selective on this point, see Prisciani grammatici Caesariensis institutionum grammaticarum (ed. Keil, Grammatici Latini II p. 84.9-11).

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 99 0 0
Full Text Views 145 57 5
PDF Views & Downloads 126 61 6