Ms. Par. gr. 2646 is a paper codex dated to the second half of the fourteenth century and written by a priest named Georgios (id. D. Harlfinger; RGK II 103 = III 137).Footnote 1 Although almost totally ignored until recently, this codex is particularly interesting for the grammatical texts it preserves; for some of them, it is the codex unicus. Apart from Pollux's Onomasticon (from f. 22v to the end of the codex), which was already recorded in H. Omont's catalogue and thoroughly investigated by E. Bethe, other treatises preserved in this manuscript have recently been published as critical editions. These are: περὶ διχρόνων (at ff. 6v–16r), possibly by Herodian and edited by F. Pontani, and περὶ πνευμάτων (at ff. 19v–22v), possibly an epitome of the homonymous treatise by Trypho and edited by myself.Footnote 2 These texts transmit, not only ancient grammatical doctrine that was previously almost totally unknown, but also some new ancient fragments, both poetic and grammatical.Footnote 3 In this paper I shall provide a critical edition of the last two grammatical texts of this codex, entitled περὶ προσῳδίας and περὶ χρόνων.
As is well-known, the most comprehensive and influential handbook on Greek prosody, the περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας (On general prosody) of the famous second-century CE grammarian Herodian, is almost entirely lost, apart from two epitomes – one by John Philoponus, the other one by the so-called Ps.-Arcadius,Footnote 4 together with some fragments of direct and indirect tradition.Footnote 5
The περὶ προσῳδίας and the περὶ χρόνων in ms. Par. gr. 2646 are better described as lexica, rather than treatises. They normally list words in alphabetical order (but taking into account only the first letter of the words).Footnote 6 The περὶ προσῳδίας records the position of the accent, while the περὶ χρόνων gives word-internal vowel quantities. In some cases, different options are presented, and in two cases a poetic quotation is given, by way of example. In most cases, however, these lexica simply record linguistic facts, attaching to the lemma verbal forms such as ὀξύνουσι (‘they pronounce/write the word as oxytone’) or περισπῶσι (‘they pronounce/write the word with a circumflex on the last syllable’) in the περὶ προσῳδίας, and συστέλλεται (‘it is short’) or ἐκτείνεται (‘it is long’) in the περὶ χρόνων.
1. The περὶ προσῳδίας
1.1 A lexicon on Attic prosody
The main feature of the lexicon on prosody (ff. 16r–19r) is to record one particular type of Greek prosody, that is, Attic. Its purpose is descriptive, not prescriptive, since it aims at describing – not prescribing – how prosody works in Attic.Footnote 7 The third-person plural subject of recurring verbal forms such as περισπῶσι, παροξύνουσι, βαρύνουσι and the like is always the Athenians (οἱ Ἀττικοί). In some cases, this subject is made explicit (lemmata nos. 7, 9, 18, 80, 96, 145, 148, 178, 185), but in most cases it is implicit. It is unclear whether the subject has been lost during textual transmission or not:Footnote 8 the hanging παρ’ αὐτοῖς at lemma 2 could be a clue that the subject was explicit in the original version of the work, but there is no certainty about this. The anonymous author of this lexicon surely speaks koine, rather than Attic, as the pronoun ἡμεῖς – in contrast with the previous Ἀττικοί – reveals at l. 148 (πτεόν⋅ ὀξύνουσιν Ἀττικοί, ὅπερ λέγομεν ἡμεῖς πτύον διὰ τοῦ Υ βαρυτόνως).Footnote 9
To confirm the Attic nature of this lexicon, if we have a look at the lemmata it is clear that most of them pertain to the Attic dialect. Just to give some examples:
– The ‘span’ is named δόχμηFootnote 10 in Attic according to Moeris, in contrast to its koine counterpart σπιθαμή:
– The adverb ἐπίκλην (‘by name’) is labelled as Attic at least by Hesychius:
– The proparoxytone form of the adjective ἔρημον (‘solitary’) is Attic in many sources, starting with Herodian:Footnote 11
– The same is true for the properispomenon form of the adjective μῶρος (‘dull’), labelled as Attic by Photius and the Suda:
– The Attic corn-measure μέδιμνος corresponds to its Median counterpart ἀρτάβη in Hesychius:
– οἰσυπηρά (‘greasy’) is an Attic word according to Moeris:
– λεώ (‘men’) and νεώ (‘temple’) are patently Attic genitives (l. 111), and likewise χοᾶ (a measure of capacity) is an Attic accusative (l. 187);
– genitive plural proparoxytone forms such as πόλεων (‘cities’), μάντεων (‘prophets’), λέξεων (‘words’), ὄφεων (‘snakes’) (l. 150) are traditionally considered Attic, for example, by Theodosius and John Philoponus, whose doctrine on this point goes back to Herodian.Footnote 12
There are a few exceptions to this pattern. For example, our lexicon says that <Athenians> (we must suppose) pronounce/write χάμαθεν as proparoxytone, while in the other grammatical sources the Attic variant of the adverb seems to be the properispomenon χαμᾶθεν (see e.g. Moer. χ 22 χαμᾶθεν προπερισπωμένως Ἀττικοί⋅ χαμόθεν Ἕλληνες).Footnote 13 Additionally, the lexicon states that the <Athenians> pronounce/write φωριαμός as oxytone, while we know from the Etymologicum magnum that according to Herodian, the Athenians considered this word to be proparoxytone.Footnote 14 Such cases are not surprising, as it is well-known that in the grammatical tradition the positions of ancient and Byzantine grammarians were neither well established nor unanimous. Consider two typical examples:
– The περὶ προσῳδίας says that <Athenians> pronounce/write ὀρφῶς (‘great sea-perch’) as perispomenon. This is corroborated by a scholium on Aristophanes’ Wasps.Footnote 15 Pollux, however, states that the Attic form is oxytone (although one wonders how reliable accentuation is in the manuscript tradition of Pollux and other similar lexica):
– The same can be observed with μελαγχρής (‘black-skinned’). According to Moeris, this form is not Attic, but other sources disagree:
There is only one example in which the Attic prosodic form is opposed to another dialectal form, in this case Doric (l. 184). In a single occasion, only the Ionic form is presented (l. 183).Footnote 16 Occasionally, the lexicon shows an interest not only in the prosody of Attic, but also in the ‘ordinary language’, i.e. ἡ συνήθεια (see ll. 6, 10, 33, 37, 135). In two cases, the prosodic form of ἡ συνήθεια is opposed to its Attic counterpart (ll. 6, 33Footnote 17 and 135). In one case, ordinary language is opposed to Aristarchus of Samothrace's prescription of the accent (l. 10), while in the other only ordinary language is discussed (l. 37).
Another interesting feature of the lexicon is that, in four cases, linguistic usage is approached in a diachronic sense:
-
80 Θεττάλη⋅ οἱ νεώτεροι τῶν Ἀττικῶν βαρύνουσι, ὡς δαμάλη (‘Thettálē (“Thessalian”): later Athenians pronounce/write it as barytone, such as damálē (“heifer”)’).
-
169 τροπαῖον⋅ οἱ παλαιότεροι προπερισπῶσιν (‘tropaíon (“trophy”): older (Athenians? authors?) pronounce/write it as properispomenon’).
-
178 ὑδρορ<ρ>οάς⋅ ὀξύνουσιν οἱ νεώτεροι. ὑδρορόας οἱ παλαιοὶ Ἀττικοὶ βαρύνουσι (‘hydrorroás (“water-courses”): later Athenians pronounce/write it as barytone. Old Athenians pronounce/write hydroróas as barytone’).
-
183 φαρμακόν⋅ Ἴωνες οἱ νεώτεροι ὀξύνουσιν (‘pharmakón (“scapegoat”): later Ionians pronounce/write it as oxytone’).
It is not entirely clear what the adjectives ‘old’ and ‘later’ (Athenians, authors, Ionians and so on) exactly refer to. J. Wackernagel noticed that the accentuation assigned to ‘old’ Attic or Ionic probably referred to Homer's usage, while ‘later’ Attic mainly referred to Classical authors and koine.Footnote 18 This assumption has been recently nuanced by P. Probert, who showed that Herodian – and probably older grammarians, such as the Alexandrians – may have considered a wider spectrum of diachronic linguistic varities, i.e. the language of Homer, ‘later’ Attic, koine and ‘old’ Attic, where ‘old’ and ‘later’ Attic could refer indeed to ‘old’ and ‘later’ pronunciation of Attic in a diachronic sense.Footnote 19
Back to our lexicon, as for l. 80, the link between Athenians and the form Θεττάλη was already known at least from Stephanus Byzantius’ Ethnica (8.35.5–6 τὸ Θεττάλη δρᾶμα Μενάνδρου βαρύνεται παρὰ Ἀττικοῖς, εἰς ἰδιότητα τεθέν), but without any diachronic specification – admittedly the reference here is truly ‘diachronic’, since on the contrary it would seem that the expression οἱ νεώτεροι τῶν Ἀττικῶν simply refers to Menander, as pointed out to me by A. C. Cassio.Footnote 20 Additionally, the fact that the properispomenon form τροπαῖον was peculiar to ‘old’ Athenians seems to be well established in the grammatical tradition,Footnote 21 and the same is true for ὑδρορροάς/ὑδρορρόας.Footnote 22 As for φαρμακόν, we already knew that the oxytone form is Ionic from Phot. φ 64, but without any diachronic delineation.Footnote 23
Regardless of the meaning of these labels (which as seen above is not entirely clear), Probert has already supposed that formulae such as ‘Old Attic’ and ‘Later Attic’ within Herodian's grammatical theory are inherited from Hellenistic grammarians such as Trypho and Philemon:
My suspicion is that Herodian took over a distinction between earlier and later Attic from the Hellenistic grammarians, and that these grammarians had access to information about the pronunciation of Athenians and to some sort of folk memory of Athenian accentuations that were no longer in use or perhaps used only by older or more linguistically conservative speakers. […] Evidence that the Hellenistic grammarians already distinguished between earlier and later Attic when discussing accents is meagre, but one fragment of Trypho on accentuation [scil. Ammon. 73 = Tryph. fr. 12 von Velsen] is transmitted with the term οἱ παλαιοὶ Ἀττικοί, which may go back to Trypho himself.Footnote 24
According to Probert, in the case of Trypho this distinction was found mainly in his περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας, a work devoted to Attic prosody and pronunciation. New evidence to confirm Probert's suspicion shall be presented in the next section, where it will be argued that Trypho's περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας is one of the main sources for our περὶ προσῳδίας – it therefore seems very likely to me that these formulae of ‘Old’ and ‘Later Attic’ also go back to Trypho.
1.2 The relation between the περὶ προσῳδίας and Trypho's περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας
Given the above-mentioned Attic nature of this text, it is not surprising that, if we look at the apparatus fontium et comparandorum, parallels with Atticist lexicographers such as Pollux, Phrynicus and Moeris are abundant. The same is true for the main lexicographical texts on synonyms, such as those by Ammonius and John Philoponus: parallels with these texts can be found mainly for those lemmata where two or more homonyms can be distinguished in their meaning only on the basis of their different accents.
In the περὶ προσῳδίας, many parallels can be found with the extant fragments assigned to the περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας by the great first-century BCE grammarian Trypho. Very little is known about this work; what we do know is that it dealt mainly with the accentuation of some Attic words, with occasional comparisons with Ionic and Doric.Footnote 25 Von Velsen (Reference von Velsen1853) collected thirteen fragments under this title (frr. 7–19). At least two other fragments must be added to these: Hrd. fr. 53 Hunger (discovered in the above-mentioned Herodianic Vindobonensis palimpsest) and one fragment discovered by G. Pasquali among the scholia on Gregory of Nyssa.Footnote 26 The fragmentary survival of Trypho's περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας is very disappointing, since it was probably one of the main sources for the lost περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας by Herodian.Footnote 27
Among the fragments collected by von Velsen, only seven are explicitly attributed to Trypho's περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας, while another six have been assigned to this work by von Velsen in ope ingenii. Of the seven fragments explicitly attributed to the περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας by the indirect tradition, four of them are found in our περὶ προσῳδίας:
1. Tryph. fr. 9 von Velsen (= Ammon. 222) = περὶ προσῳδίας l. 75
However, this doctrine was widespread in the lexicographical tradition, since it was also found in Aelius Dionysius’ Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα, according to Eustathius of Thessalonica (θ 2 Erbse = Eust. in Il. 3.397.16–18). For later lexicographers, see also Philop. diff. voc. e θ 5, Phot. θ 1 and EGud 253.14 Sturz.
2. Tryph. fr. 10 von Velsen (= Ammon. 322) = περὶ προσῳδίας l. 120
In this case as well, the doctrine is widespread – it can also be found, for example, in Hesychius (μ 1450), John Philoponus (diff. voc. e μ 13) and Thomas Magister (ecl. voc. Att. 240.11).
3. Tryph. fr. 12 von Velsen (= Ammon. 73) = περὶ προσῳδίας l. 3
This lemma was also present, in a shorter form, in Aelius Dionysius’ Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα.Footnote 35 For later grammarians, see e.g. Philop. diff. voc. a α 12, EGud 203.15–17 Stef., lex. synon. 57.Footnote 36
4. Tryph. fr. 13 von Velsen (= Athen. deipn. 2.40.15–19) = περὶ προσῳδίας l. 27
On this fragment see also Ammon. 33. No other exact parallels for this lemma are extant, but this doctrine must have been well-known, since the uncontracted form ἀμυγδαλέα is well attested.Footnote 39 It is probable that something (such as περὶ τοῦ δένδρου) has fallen out at the end of the lemma in the περὶ προσῳδίας.
Frr. 7 (on στρουθός / στροῦθος), 8 (on ἐξανεψιοί / ἀνεψιοί) and 11 (on τρόχοι / τροχοί), which are also explicitly attributed to the περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας, are not discussed here.
Among the fragments that have been conjecturally attributed to the περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας by von Velsen, one matches four lemmata in our περὶ προσῳδίας:
As for μόχθηρος / μοχθηρός, one needs to assume that Trypho's περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας firstly recorded the opinion of unnamed authors (φασί) who argued for a distinction in meaning between μόχθηρος ‘wreched’ and μοχθηρός ‘rascal’ in Attic; Trypho then affirmed that this opinion was untenable (ἀτόπως scil. φασί) and that the only legitimate accentuation was the oxytone one for both the meanings, as in the koine. The anonymous author of our lexicon probably selected from Trypho only the part that interested him, i.e. the one advocating the contrastive Attic accentuation, leaving aside the koine one. Additionally, it is worth noticing that the Attic accentuation of ἄδελφε as proparoxytone is not otherwise discussed.
Among the fragments attributed to the περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας there is a long one which discusses the accentuation of λαγώς / λαγός (‘hare’; Athen. deipn. 9.62). According to Athenaeus, Trypho says that Athenians generally used to pronounce/write this word as oxytone, i.e. λαγώς (sometimes without -ς); its corresponding koine-counterpart is λαγός (although this is sometimes found in Attic authors as well). Trypho also says that ‘some people illogically pronounce the word as perispomenon’ (εἰσὶν δ’ οἳ καὶ ταῦτ’ ἀλόγως κατὰ τὴν τελευτῶσαν συλλαβὴν περισπωμένως προφέρονται). This would match the prescription in our περὶ προσῳδίας, which says that this word must be written as λαγῶς (l. 116). However, it is not certain here that the source for this lemma is Trypho: as our περὶ προσῳδίας is to be regarded as a text on Attic prosody, if our author were willing to follow Trypho's argument, he would have chosen the form labelled as Attic by Trypho, i.e. λαγώς.Footnote 43
A similar situation is found in l. 170: ταὧς⋅ περισπῶσιν καὶ δασύνουσιν. One of the fragments of Trypho (fr. 5 von Velsen (= Athen. deipn. 9.57)) deals with precisely this word, and mainly (but not solely) with its internal aspiration. For this reason, the fragment has been assigned by von Velsen to Trypho's περὶ πνευμάτων. I have already argued elsewhere that this fragment should probably not be assigned to that work,Footnote 44 and now we can reasonably assume that it belongs to the περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας, instead (after all, it is precisely the Attic aspiration and accentuation of the word that is discussed here). Probert's conjecture of δασύνουσιν in place of the transmitted βαρύνουσιν is, I think, certainly right: apart from Hsch. τ 294 (τάως⋅ τέως. Κρῆτες. καὶ δασέως τὸ ὄρνεον), there is no parallel for the barytone form of τάως. After we accept Probert's conjecture, Tryph. fr. 5 and our l. 170 match perfectly:
There is one last fragment within von Velsen's edition that finds a match with a lemma from our lexicon:
This fragment was assigned to Trypho's φυτικά. To this lexicographical work, which deals with the names of various plants, von Velsen only assigned five fragments (frr. 116–20). It is possible that this specific fragment does not actually belong to the φυτικά, but to the περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας. After all, as with the case of Tryph. fr. 5, the Attic usage of a given word is discussed here. However, it is not possible to confirm with certainty that the source for l. 4 is Trypho, since Atheneus does not say what Trypho's discussion on μάζαι (‘barley-cakes’) was about.
It was already mentioned that two more fragments belonging to Trypho's περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας have been discovered since von Velsen's edition, one by Hunger in the Vindobonsensis palimpsest of Herodian and one by Pasquali among the scholia on Gregory of Nissa. Each of them matches a lemma in our lexicon:
1. Hrd. fr. 53 Hunger (Tryph. fr. novum) = περὶ προσῳδίας l. 35
2. Tryph. fr. novum (ed. Pasquali (Reference Pasquali1910)) = περὶ προσῳδίας l. 36
It has already been shown that, for most of Trypho's fragments, several parallels can be found in the lexicographical tradition. It is well known that Trypho's doctrine influenced that of later grammarians, up to the Humanistic period. If Trypho indeed influenced grammarians of the Imperial era such as Herennius Philo and Aelius Dionysius, and then Ammonius, Philoponus and others, it is unsurprising that these fragments are found in later grammarians’ work as well, as they are part of the same lexicographical tradition. However, one could rightly object that the presence of some of Trypho's fragments in our lexicon does not by itself prove that the anonymous compiler of the lexicon had Trypho's περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας at his disposal, since he could have easily taken the lemmata from other sources.
Indeed, it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that the author of our lexicon had Trypho's περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας in his hands. However, in my opinion, the evident interest of the lexicon in Attic language, and its correspondences with most of the fragments assigned to Trypho's περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας, suggest that Trypho's περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας was indeed one of the main sources of this work, whether directly or indirectly. Moreover, it should be noted that, immediately after the περὶ χρόνων, our Parisinus manuscript transmits – as codex unicus – the versio plenior of an epitome of Trypho's περὶ πνευμάτων.Footnote 53 Of course, Trypho's περὶ Ἀττικῆς προσῳδίας would have been very different from our lexicon on prosody. Due to the poor state of preservation of Trypho's work, we cannot know for certain what it was like, but it was probably similar to Herodian's περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας, comprising a list of words divided into categories and sub-categories. Furthermore, in Trypho there was surely a more detailed and extensive explanation of each choice of accent than we find in the lexicon on prosody: this is confirmed by the above comparisons between Trypho's fragments and the lemmata in the περὶ προσῳδίας, which show how much Trypho's doctrine is cut to the bone by the anonymous compiler of the lexicon. We are thus led to another consideration concerning the structure of both the περὶ προσῳδίας and the περὶ χρόνων: they represent a unicum in Greek lexicography, since no other treatise on accentuation or vowel quantity arranged as a lexicon is attested, at least as far as I know.Footnote 54 It is true that several other lexica and exegetical materials deal with prosody, but there is nothing that can match the very specific interests of our two lexica;Footnote 55 and, of course, various ancient treatises on prosody (περὶ προσῳδίας) are extant, but they are not lexica.Footnote 56 Unfortunately, there is no clue as to the authorship and/or an exact chronology for the two lexica, but it is clear that at some point somebody collected different sources on prosody and decided to make two unique products, whose aims (orthographic? didactic?) remain uncertain.Footnote 57 It must be pointed out that the sources on prosody the anonymous compiler used were not exclusively focused on Attic prosody, since in the two lexica prosodies other than Attic are also mentioned (albeit to a lesser extent). For a discussion on this with reference to the περὶ χρόνων, see infra at §2, while in relation to the περὶ προσῳδίας see e.g. διδοῦσι at l. 47 (obviously, one would expect to find διδόασι in Attic) and ἐχθριῶ at l. 62.Footnote 58
The antiquity of the sources used by the anonymous compiler of the two lexica (if not of the two lexica themselves) is confirmed by the presence of some grammatical fragments and one poetic fragment attributed to Eupolis that are not otherwise preserved. These are published here for the first time (see infra at §3).
2. The περὶ χρόνων
In the περὶ χρόνων (ff. 19r–v), a change in sources can be observed. In the apparatus comparandorum, the most quoted work is (not surprisingly) Herodian's περὶ διχρόνων. The interest in Attic, here, even if surely present, is less patent than in the lexicon on accentuation: even if there is some information on Attic quantity (see e.g. ll. 2 and 36Footnote 59), Attic seems to be ‘one of the dialects’, not the main one as it was in the περὶ προσῳδίας. In fact, several lemmata under discussion are traditionally considered non-Attic. For example:
– θῦμα (‘sacrifice’) is said to be non-Attic, at least by Moeris:
However, note that this word is attested in Attic authors (twenty-one times in Euripides alone!).
– The plural neuter form of τέρας (‘wonder’) as τέρατα is cited as belonging to the koine by Moeris, while the Attic form would be τέρα:
That Attic is no longer the focus of this work is made clear by a comparison between these two lemmata:
The main topic of the περὶ χρόνων is not to discuss how Athenians perceived the quantity of alpha within the word ὑδαρής (‘watery’), but to explore all the possibilities in use. Note that the vowel quantity of this term is not attested anywhere other than in Moeris and in the περὶ χρόνων.Footnote 60
3. New ancient grammatical and poetic fragments
It has already been mentioned that the περὶ προσῳδίας and the περὶ χρόνων carry some new ancient fragments: one is attributed to the fifth-century BCE poet Eupolis (infra at §3.1), one to the famous Alexandrian grammarian Aristophanes of Byzantium (infra at §3.2, but it may belong to Demetrius Ixion (second century BCE) instead), four to Aristarchus of Samothrace (216–144 BCE, infra at §3.3) and one to the first-century BCE grammarian Seleucus (infra at §3.4, but this attribution is debatable: this fragment overlaps with an already-known fragment attributed to Aristocles of Rhodes).
3.1 Eupolis (περὶ προσῳδίας, l. 5)
The neuter substantive ἀδίκιον is rarely attested. It occurs once in Herodotus (5.89.7), once in Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 54.2.9–10) and once in Plutarch (Vit. Per. 32.5.1).Footnote 61 The other rare occurrences are in lexicographical works, which aim at explaining the meaning of this term with the substantive ἀδίκημα, by and large ‘wrong done’.Footnote 62 Aristotle, in his Constitution of the Athenians, describes this crime in detail as mismanagement of public funds.Footnote 63 Unlike ἀδίκιον, σιτίον has so many occurrences both in poetry and prose that no further notes on its usage are needed. The presence of the genitive τῶν σιτίων, here, leaves no doubt that Eupolis’ fragment concerns a crime of malversation, related to provisions and/or public maintenance.
The description of politicians and rulers as scum and thieves is a recurring theme in Eupolis’ poetry: see e.g. fr. *126 K.-A. (= Demoi, fr. 11 Telò, σοφὸς γὰρ ἁνήρ, τῆς δὲ χειρὸς οὐ κρατῶν (‘for the man is wise, but he can't rule his hand’), referring to Themistocles) and fr. 235 K.-A. (ἐξ Ἡρακλείας ἀργύριον ὑφείλετο (‘he filched money away from Heracleia’), referring to a certain Simon who stole public funds from his city, from the play Poleis).Footnote 64
Metrically speaking, assuming that the fragment is continuous, it could be part of an iambic trimeter. Two possible arrangements are
and
3.2 Aristophanes of Byzantium (?) (περὶ προσῳδίας, l. 92)
κάνθον⋅ Ἀριστοφάνης βαρύνει ἐν τῇ περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου.
‘kánthon (“eye”): barytone, according to Aristophanes in his On the dialect of the Alexandrians’.
If one excludes textual corruptions, at first sight the Aristophanes mentioned here can be none other than the famous grammarian Aristophanes of Byzantium (ca. 265/257– ca. 190/180 BCE). However, some considerations challenge this attribution. No other source mentions that Aristophanes wrote a treatise on the dialect of the Alexandrians, and even though he must have had a strong interest in the Attic dialect in his Ἀττικαὶ λέξεις (frr. 337–47 Slater), no other work of his on a specific dialect is attested. Additionally, W. J. Slater observed that only three fragments dealing with accentuation are attributed to Aristophanes, and he noted that even these fragments might perhaps be attributed to Aristarchus instead.Footnote 65 What is under discussion is not whether Aristophanes knew accentuation and prosody in general – he surely did – but whether these concepts were just in his mind (as ‘Grammatik im Kopf”)Footnote 66 or were actively employed in his exegetical activity. More recently, on the other hand, other scholars such as F. Pontani seem to be less skeptical about Aristophanes’ involvement in accentuation,Footnote 67 and the same is true for A. C. Cassio who, in a personal communication, pointed out to me that in fr. 382 Slater Aristophanes is quoted by Apollonius Dyscolus about a principle regarding the accentuation of prepositions, thus a systemic issue: it would be quite weird if he was wrong in this passage. It should be also observed that κάνθος / κανθός was surely part of Aristophanes’ vocabulary, since this term occurs in the epitome of his περὶ ζῴων, even if the word is here inherited from Aristotle's Historia animalium (491b.23).Footnote 68
While leaving open the possibility that the fragment does indeed belong to Aristophanes,Footnote 69 in case it does not, one should look at other suitable candidates. The only two grammarians that are credited with a work entitled περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου are Aristarchus’ pupil Demetrius Ixion (second century BCE)Footnote 70 and Minucius Pacatus Irenaeus (first century CE).Footnote 71 Let's start by discussing the second option. Minucius Pacatus Irenaeus’ treatise on the dialect of the Alexandrians is only preserved in three, maybe seven, small fragments.Footnote 72 These fragments mainly deal with lexical and morphological issues, rather than prosodic ones. On the other hand, only one fragment coming from Demetrius Ixion's περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου is preserved:Footnote 73
Dem. Ix. fr. 40 Staesche (= Athen. deipn. 9.48.34–36) τὴν μέσην δὲ τοῦ ὀνόματος συλλαβὴν ἐκτείνουσιν Ἀττικοὶ ὡς δοίδυκα καὶ κήρυκα, ὡς ὁ Ἰξίων φησὶ Δημήτριος ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου.
‘Athenians lengthen the middle syllable within the word, as in doíduka (“pestle”) and kḗruka (“herald”), as Demetrius Ixion says in his On the dialect of the Alexandrians’.
This fragment is very interesting because, like our Aristophanes of Byzantium (?) fragment, it deals with prosody, in particular with a vowel quantity within a certain kind of word. To support the hypothesis that the author of our fragment could be Demetrius, note that Trypho surely knew Demetrius’ works, since he quotes Demetrius at least once.Footnote 74 As discussed above, Trypho may be one of the main sources of the περὶ προσῳδίας, perhaps the most ancient one, and this fragment could therefore come from his work. Obviously, Trypho could not have quoted Irenaeus, since Irenaeus lived after Trypho.
From a palaeographical point of view, we must admit that it is very difficult to understand how the names Εἰρηναῖος or Ἰξίων (provided they were written in their abbreviated form) could have been corrupted into Ἀριστοφάνης, unless due to confusion with another lemma or the loss of something in the middle.
As for the substantive κάνθος / κανθός, it is first attested in Hippocrates.Footnote 75 It also occurs in Aristotle,Footnote 76 probably once in Callimachus,Footnote 77 once in Moschion,Footnote 78 once in Cercidas,Footnote 79 once in NicanderFootnote 80 and so on.
3.3 Aristarchus of Samothrace
Aristarchus of Samothrace (216–144 BCE) was well acquainted with accentuation. Indeed, many of the extant fragments from this grammarian are related to accentuation and pronunciation in general. Aristarchus’ main method for determining the position of the accent within a given word was the analogical one. As witnessed by several Homeric scholia attributed to Herodian, the main reason for Aristarchus to state the position of accents was to distinguish in meaning between two (or more) homographs.Footnote 81
3.3.1 αὐτομόλος / αὐτόμολος (περὶ προσῳδίας, l. 10)
αὐτομόλο<ς>⋅ Ἀρίσταρχος παροξύνει. τὸ δὲ ἐν τῇ κοινῇ συνηθείᾳ αὐτόμολος προπαροξύνεται.
‘automólos (“deserter”): Aristarchus puts the acute on the penultimate syllable. In the common language, autómolos is proparoxytone’.
No parallel for the prescription of the accentuation of αὐτομόλος / αὐτόμολος is found. This term was quite widespread before Aristarchus’ period, but it was much more common in prose than in poetryFootnote 82 and it is not attested in epic at all. The most frequent attestations of this term are in Herodotus.Footnote 83 The fragment may belong to Aristarchus’ Commentary on Herodotus: this exegetical work included Herodotus’ first book, as demonstrated by a third-century CE papyrus, P.Amh. II 12, which at the end of one of its two columns carries the following subscription: Ἀριστάρχου Ἡροδότου ᾱ ὑπόμνημα.Footnote 84 That Aristarchus’ commentary could have involved Herodotus’ book 2 too – and not only book 1 –, has recently been supposed by Matijašić.Footnote 85 αὐτομόλος / αὐτόμολος does not occur in book 1, but it does occur twice in book 2. This obviously does not make it certain that the fragment comes from Aristarchus’ commentary on Herodotus book 2 – many occurrences of the term are found in other writers and worksFootnote 86 – but it remains a possibility.
It is common for Aristarchus to oppose literary usage to common language (ἡ συνήθεια):Footnote 87 it is therefore likely that the second part of the lemma also comes from Aristarchus.
3.3.2 ἀκαρῆς (περὶ προσῳδίας, l. 14)
ἀκαρῆς⋅ Ἀρίσταρχος περισπᾷ.
‘akarḗs (“small”): Aristarchus puts the circumflex on the last syllable’.
No parallel for ἀκαρῆς as perispomenon is found, since the nominative of this term should normally be oxytone, while its accusative form (ἀκαρῆ) is perispomenon:Footnote 88 it is possible that the lemma is corrupt and the intended form is the accusative.
This adjective is not attested in epic, but it has several occurrences in comedy, mainly in Aristophanes,Footnote 89 and so the fragment may belong to Aristarchus’ commentary on this poet.Footnote 90
3.3.3 Κρότων / κροτών (περὶ προσῳδίας, l. 106)
Κρότων⋅ Ἀρίσταρχος βαρύνει ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως⋅ ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ ζῴου, ὀξύνει.
‘Krótōn (Crotona): Aristarchus writes this word as barytone, when it refers to the city; when it refers to the animal instead [i.e. the tick], he writes the word as oxytone’.
This fragment should be added to the list of those Aristarchean fragments which are clearly meant to disambiguate the meaning of two homographs on the basis of their different accents.Footnote 91 The city name is too frequently attested to guess at the provenance.Footnote 92 On κροτών (‘tick’) as paroxytone (κρότων), see, contra, Suid. κ 2482 and EGud 349.19.24 Sturz.
3.3.4 χροία, χροίας (περὶ προσῳδίας, l. 188)
χροία καὶ χροίας⋅ Ἀρίσταρχος βαρύνει.
‘chroía and chroías [“skin”, scil. nominative and genitive]: barytone, according to Aristarchus’.
The fragment may belong to Aristarchus’ commentary on Homer, but given the very frequent occurrences of this term, it is impossible to state the origin of the fragment with certainty.
According to the Suda, χροία is the Attic form of this substantive (in opposition to the oxytone form, which belongs to the koine):
Suid. χ 552 Χροιά: χροία δὲ παροξυτόνως οἱ Ἀττικοί. ὡς ἥδομαι πρῶτα τὴν χροίαν ἰδών. ἡ δὲ κοινὴ ὀξυτόνως. Χρόα δὲ βαρυτόνως, ὡς ψόα.
‘Chroiá: in Attic chroía is paroxytone, as “I am delighted to see the skin (chroían) first” (Ar. Nub. 1171). In the koine, the term is oxytone. Chróa is barytone, like psóa (“muscles of the loins”)’.
In addition, the barytone form of this term with the loss of iota (i.e. χρόα), is cited as Attic in the Etymologicum magnum:Footnote 93
EM 679.25–43 (= Hrd. παθ. 280.4–19) Ποιῶ: Παρὰ τὸ ποιόν⋅ ἢ παρὰ τὸ πονῶ, ἀποβολῇ τοῦ ν, καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ι. Ἰστέον ὅτι οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἀποβάλλουσι τὸ ι, λέγοντες ποῶ. […] Λέγουσι δέ τινες, ὅτι οὐ πάντως οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἀποβάλλοντες τὸ ι καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν τόνον φυλάττουσιν⋅ ἰδοὺ γὰρ τὸ χροιὰ, γινόμενον παρ’ αὐτοῖς κατὰ ἀποβολὴν τοῦ ι χρόα, βαρύνεται. […]
‘Poiṓ (“to do”): from poión (“of a certain nature”), or from ponṓ (“to work hard”), by the loss of nu and the addition of iota. It must be known that Athenians lose the iota, saying poṓ. Some people say that the Athenians do not always preserve the accent, when removing an iota: chroiá (“skin”), after becoming chróa in their dialect by the loss of iota, is barytone’. […]
3.4 Seleucus (?) (περὶ χρόνων, l. 27)
θῦμα⋅ ἐκτείνουσι, ὡς Σέλευκος ἐν τῷ περὶ διαλέκτων.
‘thýma (“sacrifice”): they lengthen [scil. the hypsilon], as Seleucus does in his On dialects’.
As with the fragment attributed to Aristophanes, this one also presents some problems concerning its attribution. The Seleucus mentioned here must be the so-called Ὁμηρικός, a grammarian active in Alexandria at the court of Tiberius (first half of the first century CE).Footnote 94 Most of his extant fragments belong to a commentary on the Homeric poems (frr. 1–26 Müller) and to a glossary (γλῶσσαι, frr. 36–68 Müller),Footnote 95 where he shows an interest in both lexicography and dialectology. In some fragments, he is even interested in prosody, such as the accentuation and aspiration of words (see, for example, fr. 66 on σησαμῆν and fr. 70 on ταὧς). The problem is that no other source mentions a treatise on dialects (περὶ διαλέκτων) by him in the strict sense.
Moreover, the very same fragment is attributed to the first-century BCE grammarian Aristocles of RhodesFootnote 96 in the Epimerismi Homerici, as well as in other lexicographical and exegetical sources:Footnote 97
epim. Hom. κ 18 Dyck ⸤κύματα (Β 144): ἐκ τοῦ⸥ κυκῶ δευτέρας συζυγίας τῶν περισπωμένων. […] κ⸤αὶ ἔστι⸥ μακρὸν τ⸤ὸ υ⸥⋅ τὰ εἰς μα δισύλλαβα τῷ υ παραληγόμενα συστέλλουσιν αὐτό, οἷον πλύμα χύμα θύμα⋅ σεσημείωται τὸ κῦμα, τὸ δὲ λῦμα ποιητικῶς ἐκτείνεται, τὸ δὲ θῦμα ἱστορεῖ Ἀριστοκλῆς ἐν τῷ Περὶ διαλέκτων ἐκτεινόμενον.
‘kýmata (“waves”): from kykṓ (“to stir”) of the second conjugation of perispomena verbs. […] The hypsilon is long. Disyllabic words ending in -ma and having hypsilon in their penultimate syllable, make hypsilon short, such as plýma (“water used in washing”), chýma (“fluid”), thýma (“sacrifice”). Note that kýma and lýma (“water used in washing”) have a long hypsilon in poetry. Aristocles in his treatise on dialects says that thýma is long’.
Another fragment is attributed to the same work in Herodian's περὶ διχρόνων, and this fragment also deals with vowel quantities (those within words ending in -ις):
18.14–17 Τὰ εἰς ις λήγοντα βαρύτονα ἀεὶ συστέλλει τὸ ι, εἰ μὴ σύνθετα ὑπάρχοι ἐξ ἁπλῶν ἐκτεινόντων τὸ ι, κόνις, δῆρις, μάντις, ὄρχις, ὄφις, λάτρις, ὄρνις, Ἀριστοκλῆς δὲ ἐν τῷ περὶ διαλέκτων φησὶν Ἀττικοὺς ἐκτείνειν.
‘Barytone words ending in -is always have the short iota, unless they are compounds that come from simple forms with long iota, like kónis (“dust”), dḗris (“battle”), mántis (“prophet”), órchis (“testicle”), óphis (“serpent”), látris (“hired servant”), órnis (“bird”); but Aristocles in his treatise on dialects says that Athenians lengthen the iotas within these words’.
That both Seleucus and Aristocles commented upon the quantity of hypsilon in the word θῦμα in their treatises on dialects is possible, but maybe untrue. As already mentioned, no source attributes a περὶ διαλέκτων to Seleucus except for our περὶ χρόνων. Although Seleucus surely dealt with accentuation and aspiration, there is no evidence that he commented upon vowel quantity. On the other hand, many sources report that Aristocles did write a περὶ διαλέκτων, and besides the fragment on θῦμα another fragment of his also deals with vowel quantities. Very little is known about either Aristocles’ or Seleucus’ grammatical activity, but based on what is extant, perhaps the most likely hypothesis is that the name Σέλευκος in our Parisinus manuscript is a corruption from Ἀριστοκλῆς (although this corruption is very difficult to explain from a paleographic point of view: compare supra on the possibility that Ἀριστοφάνης was corrupted into Ἰξίων, or Εἰρηναῖος).
The two lexica also provide new testimonia for three previously known tragic fragments.
TrGF 585a and b Kn.-S., respectively ἀλκηστής (‘sea-bream’) and ἀμυντής (‘defender’), are attested in Photius’ Lexicon and the Suda:
Phot. α 1270 Ἀμύντης καὶ ἀλκήστης⋅ †στρατηγικὰ† καὶ Αἰσχυληρὰ τὰ ὀνόματα.
Suid. α 1681 Ἀμύντης καὶ ἀλκήστης, τραγικὰ καὶ Αἰσχυληρὰ τὰ ὀνόματα.
‘Amýntēs and alkḗstēs, these words are tragic and Aeschylean’.
These are ll. 19 and 20, respectively, in the περὶ προσῳδίας. As for ἀμυντής, it is also cited by the Etymologicum magnum Footnote 98 as being oxytone – while according to Photius and the Suda this term is paroxytone, like ἀλκήστης. ἀλκηστής was marked as oxytone as well by Dindorf in the TLG ope ingenii, and the correctness of his emendation is hereby confirmed.
Furthermore, l. 55 in the περὶ χρόνων attributes to Sophocles (without any identification of the play) the use of the term σιρός (‘silo’) with long iota. This fragment could match fr. 276 R. σιροὶ κριθῶν, which belongs to the play Inachus and is transmitted by a scholium on Demosthenes:
schol. Demosth. 8.61b σιροῖς] τὰ κατάγεια. Θεόπομπος (FGrHist 115 F 349) καὶ Σοφοκλῆς ἐν Ἰνάχῳ (fr. 254 N.2) ‘σιροὶ κριθῶν’.
‘siroís] the silos. Theopompus, and Sophocles in his play Inachus: “siroì (‘silos’) of barleycorns”’.
Note that no other source gives us information on the quantity of iota within this word in Sophocles.
4. Implicit clues of peculiar pronunciations
In a personal communication, A. C. Cassio pointed out to me that, in several cases, these lexica give implicit clues to some peculiar pronunciations – particularly recessive accents – in ancient and Byzantine times. This paragraph relies totally on his observations and owes a great debt to him.
The prescription on ἀποδόσθαι (περὶ προσ. l. 6) must reflect the pronunciation with recessive accent *ἀπόδοσθαι (the compiler here wants to say, ‘do say/write ἀποδόσθαι, and not ἀπόδοσθαι as you are used to doing’), and the same is true of such forms as *γένεσθαι, *δέδεσθαι, *πίθεσθαι, *λάβεσθαι (περὶ προσ. l. 38). Prescriptions on the traditional, paroxytone accentuation of nouns ending in -ία (such as γωνία, γενία, ἱστορία, συνθεσία and ἀρτηρία, see περὶ προσ. l. 43) must reveal recent, different pronunciations of these nouns with a retracted accent.Footnote 99 The prescription of διδοῦσι (περὶ προσ. l. 47) wants to correct the vernacular pronunciation δίδουσι, which is very well attested in the Byzantine period. Our lexicon prescribes διασπάσθαι (περὶ προσ. l. 56; one would actually expect διασπᾶσθαι), probably meant to correct a common pronunciation *διάσπασθαι, which in turn may have been favoured by the loss of the long quantity of alpha (in practice the word was pronunced with the same accent and quantity as πράξασθαι). ἐχθριῶ (περὶ προσ. l. 62, a verb not otherwise attested) probably reveals a pronunciation *ἐχθρίω. ἱμᾶντος and ἀνδριᾶντος (περὶ προσ. l. 83), witness the lengthening of alpha in the spoken language, which is similar to the case of ἔνθά μιν or φύλλά τε in Homer, in which the first syllable, with a short vowel as nucleus and a nasal or liquid as coda, was ‘susceptible d'intonation’Footnote 100 and as a consequence treated like the one of δῆμός τις from an accentual viewpoint. κυῶ (περὶ προσ. l. 89) witnesses the alternation between the forms κύω and κυέω. As to κάθησθαι (περὶ προσ. l. 98 in the place of correct καθῆσθαι), the retracted accent must be attributable to the analogy κάθεσθαι from thematic κάθομαι, a verb still alive and well in Modern Greek.
5. Critical edition
|16r περὶ προσῳδίας
1 ἀληθές⋅ ὀξυτόνως τὸ ὄνομα λέγουσιν. ἄληθες δὲ βαρυτόνως τὸ ἐπίρρημα.
2 Ἄνα{γ}κες⋅ ὅταν ἐπὶ τῶν Διοσκόρων προπαροξύνουσι. τὸ δὲ ἀνα{γ}κές ὀξύνουσιν ὅτι ἐστὶν ἐπιθετικόν, καὶ κατὰ στέρησιν τοῦ ἄκους. ἀνα{γ}κῶς περισπῶσι⋅ |16v δηλοῖ δὲ παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἡ λέξις τὸ ἐν φροντίδι καὶ ἐπιμελ{λ}είᾳ εἶναι.
3 ἁρπαγή⋅ ὅτε σημαίνει τὸ ἁρπάζειν ὀξύνεται. ὅτε δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ σκεύους παραλαμβάνεται ἁρπάγη⋅ ἁρπάγη δὲ λέγεται δι’ ἧς ἐκ τῶν φρεάτων τοὺς κάδους λαμβάνουσι.
4 ἀχιλλ<ε>ία ἡ μάζα παροξύνεται. ἀχίλλ<ε>ια προπαροξύνεται ὅτε σημαίνει τὰ ἄλφιτα.
5 ἀδικιῶν⋅ περισπῶσιν. ἀδικίων παροξύνουσιν, ὡς βιβλίων, ὁπότε ἀπ’ εὐθείας πέπτωκε τῆς τὰ ἀδίκια⋅ Εὔπολις⋅
ἀδίκια τῶν σιτίων. [fr. novum]
6 ἀποδόσθαι⋅ πρὸ τέλους ἡ ὀξεῖα. ἡ μέντοι συνήθεια ἀλόγως <προ>παροξύνει τὸ ἀπόδοσθαι.
7 ἄχρειος⋅ προπαροξύνεται Ἀττικῶς καὶ ἀναλόγως. λέγεται δὲ καὶ ἀχρεῖος.
8 ἀποχρῆ⋅ περισπῶσι. λέγεται δὲ καὶ ἀπόχρη παροξυτόνως.
9 ἀ{σ}παρτί⋅ ὀξύνουσι τὴν τελευταίαν Ἀττικοί, καὶ βραχύνουσι.
10 αὐτομόλο<ς>⋅ Ἀρίσταρχος παροξύνει. τὸ δὲ ἐν τῇ κοινῇ συνηθείᾳ αὐτόμολος προπαροξύνεται.
11 λέγεται καὶ ἀγροῖκος καὶ ἄγροικος⋅ ὅτε δὲ προπερισπᾶται, σημαίνει τὸν ἐν ἀγρῷ διατρίβοντα.
12 ἀτεχνως⋅ καὶ περισπῶσι καὶ παροξύνουσι. σημαίνει δὲ τὸ περισπώμενον τὸ ἁπλῶς. τέσσαρα μόνα ἐπιρρήματα ἴσως εἰσὶ παραλόγως βαρυνόμενα⋅ συμπερισπᾶσθαι γὰρ αὐτὰ ἔδει τῇ γενικῇ τῶν πληθυντικῶν⋅ αὐτάρκως, κακοήθως, νοσώδως, αὐθάδως.
13 ἀτταγᾶς⋅ περισπῶσιν.
14 ἀκαρῆς⋅ Ἀρίσταρχος περισπᾷ.
15 ἀρνεώς⋅ κατ’ ὀξεῖαν τάσιν.
16 ἀχυρών⋅ κατ’ ὀξεῖαν τάσιν. τὸν ἀχυρῶνα λέγουσιν.
17 αἰξ καὶ ὀξύνεται κατά τινας κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν, καὶ περισπᾶται κατά τινας.
18 ἄδελφε⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν Ἀττικοί.
19 ἀμυντήν τὸν βοηθὸν, ὀξυτόνως λέγουσιν.
20 ἀλκηστής⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
21 Ἀδικράν [Hdt. 4.159]⋅ ὀξύνουσι, ὡς νεκράς, εὐκράς.
22 ἡμέρᾳ⋅ βαρύνουσιν.
23 ἄναντες, πρόσαντες⋅ |17r προπαροξύνουσι.
24 ἀγόραιον⋅ ὁμοίως.
25 αὐθημερόν⋅ ὀξύνουσι.
26 ἀλωπέκεως, χελιδόνεως, βασίλεως, ἵππεως⋅ προπαροξύνουσι.
27 ἀμυγδάλας⋅ βαρύνουσιν ἐπὶ τοῦ καρποῦ. ἀμυγδαλᾶς περισπῶσιν.
28 ἀττελεβός⋅ ὀξύνουσι.
29 Ἀχαῖα ἡ Δημήτηρ, προπερισπῶσιν.
30 ἀθρόως⋅ παροξύνεται. ἄθροος δὲ τὸ κατὰ στέρησιν τοῦ θροῦ τρίτην ἐκ τέλους ποιεῖ τὴν ὀξεῖαν.
31 ἀρχιέρεως⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
32 ἡ ἄνθη⋅ βαρύνεται.
33 αὐξή⋅ ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ ὀξύνεται. τινὲς δὲ τὴν λέξιν βαρύνουσι.
34 βομβυλιός⋅ ὀξύνεται.
35 βαύνους⋅ παροξύνουσιν. σημαίνει δὲ ἡ λέξις καμίνους.
36 βλάστη⋅ βαρύνεται. <παροξυτονεῖν ἀξιοῦσι> καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα ὀνόματα †τῶν μηνῶν†.
37 βασιλίνδα⋅ παροξύνει ἡ συνήθεια.
38 γενέσθαι, δεδέσθαι, πιθέσθαι, λαβέσθαι⋅ παροξύνουσιν. τὸ μέντοι παρὰ τῷ ποιητῇ
π{ε}ίθεσθέ μοι, ὡς ἀγορεύω [Od. 24.461]
προπαροξύνεται.
39 γύλιον⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
40 γέλοιος⋅ ὁμοίως.
41 γήραντα, ἵσταντα⋅ ὁμοίως.
42 γληχών⋅ ὀξύνουσι, καὶ θηλυκῶς ἀποφαίνονται. λέγεται καὶ χωρὶς τοῦ Ν, καὶ κατὰ μεταβολὴν τοῦ Γ εἰς Β. τάττεται καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ γυναικείου αἰδοίου.
43 γωνία, γενία, ἱστορία, ὁμιλία, συνθεσία, ἀρτηρία⋅ βαρύνουσι.
44 γενοῦ⋅ περισπῶσι.
45 πυθοῦ, λαβοῦ, γρῦ, γλαῦξ⋅ ὁμοίως.
46 δοχμή⋅ ὀξύνουσι.
47 διδοῦσι⋅ προπερισπῶσι.
48 δικρόν⋅ ὀξύνεται.
49 Φιλήμων⋅ παροξύνεται.
50 δάκετον⋅ προπαροξύνεται.
51 διαλ<λ>ακτής⋅ ὀξύνεται.
52 δασεῖ⋅ περισπῶσι.
53 δένδρων⋅ βαρυτόνως. καὶ δενδρῶν περισπωμένως λέγουσι, δένδρη.
54 δισεπτά λέγουσι, ἀλλ’ οὖν γε ἐν τριβῇ τὸ παροξύτονον.
55 δεκάπαλαι⋅ προπαροξύνεται.
56 διασπάσθαι, ἀνασπάσθαι⋅ παροξύνεται.
|17v 57 δαίδιον⋅ τρίτην ἀπὸ τέλους ἡ ὀξεῖα.
58 δου[..]της, τριέτης, οἰκέτης βαρύνεται, ὡς δαΐδων, Μήδων.
59 δύσερως⋅ προπαροξύνεται.
60 Διοσκόροι⋅ πρὸ τέλους ἡ ὀξεῖα.
61 ἐπίκλην⋅ παροξύνεται.
62 ἐχθριῶ τὸ ἐχθραίνω περισπωμένως.
63 ἔρημον⋅ προπαροξύνεται.
64 τὸ δὲ δῆμος Θρῖα, ἡ μέντοι <ἄρρην> εὐθεῖα Θριώς ἐστιν.
65 ἐνδΰδα⋅ παροξύνεται.
66 ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ ἐπέκεινα⋅ προπαροξύνεται, παραλόγως⋅ ἡ γὰρ ἐπεί οὐδέποτε συντίθεται μετὰ ἀντωνυμιῶν.
67 ἐνώπιον⋅ προπαροξύνεται.
68 εἰς πάντα⋅ παροξύνεται.
69 ἕρκιος τὸ ὄνομα <προπαροξύνεται>. ἑρκεῖος <προ>περισπῶσιν.
70 ἔνβραχυ⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν. σημαίνει δὲ ἡ λέξις τὸ συντόνως καὶ ἁπλῶς.
71 εὔδαιμoν⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
72 Ἐλευ<θε>ράς τὸ τοπικὸν ὀξύνουσιν, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθετικὸν βαρύνουσιν⋅ ὥσπερ μελαίνας τὸ ἐπιθετικὸν βαρύνουσιν, τὸ δὲ τοπικὸν ὀξύνουσιν.
73 ἐπίπλα⋅ πρὸ τέλους ἡ ὀξεῖα.
74 <ἐπ>ηλύτην⋅ παροξύνουσιν.
75 Θαλαμάς⋅ ὀξύνουσιν, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τῶν Διοσκόρων. θαλάμας βαρύνουσιν, ὁπότε τὰς καταδύσεις σημαίνει.
76 θριᾶ τὰ φύλλα συκῆς περισπῶσιν.
77 Θαλῆς⋅ περισπῶσιν, ὡς Ἑρμῆς.
78 Θήσειον⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
79 θρομβούς⋅ ὀξύνουσιν, ὡς πολλούς.
80 Θεττάλη⋅ οἱ νεώτεροι τῶν Ἀττικῶν βαρύνουσι, ὡς δαμάλη.
81 θεμέλιον καὶ θήλυδες⋅ προπαροξύνουσι.
82 Θρᾷξ⋅ περισπῶσιν.
83 ἱμᾶντος, ἀνδριᾶντος⋅ προπερισπῶσιν.
84 ἴδου⋅ τὸ προστακτικὸν ῥῆμα βαρύνουσιν.
85 ἴκτινος⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
86 ἰτέα, μηλέα, καρύα, περσέα⋅ παροξύνουσιν.
87 Ἰκάριοι⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
88 ἰδέ, λαβέ, φερέ, εἰπέ⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
89 κυῶ⋅ περισπῶσιν.
90 καθᾶψε⋅ προπερισπῶσιν⋅ οὕτω καὶ ὁ λόγος.
91 Κολώνου⋅ βαρύνουσιν, ὡς Κορώνου.
92 κάνθον⋅ Ἀριστοφάνης βαρύνει ἐν τῇ περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου.
93 κόλοβος⋅ προπαροξύνεται.
|18r 94 κρεῶν⋅ περισπῶσι.
95 κλέπτων⋅ βαρύνουσιν.
96 κλεπτικόν, κου[φ]οτής⋅ ὀξύνουσιν Ἀττικοί.
97 καθαρτής, βραδυτής, ταχυτής⋅ ὁμοίως.
98 κάθησθαι, Kυνόσαργες⋅ τρίτην ἐκ τέλους.
99 κ<ρ>αμβόν⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
100 καταδέρθειν⋅ βαρύνουσιν.
101 κλείδιον⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
102 κάτω, κάρα⋅ παροξύνουσιν.
103 Καλλισθενῶν⋅ περισπῶσιν, καὶ τὰ ὁμοίως.
104 καταγέλως⋅ παροξύνoυσιν.
105 κραγόν⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
106 Κρότων⋅ Ἀρίσταρχος βαρύνει ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως⋅ ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ ζῴου, ὀξύνει.
107 κάκη⋅ βαρύνεται ἐπὶ τῆς κακώσεως.
108 καταπυγων⋅ ὁπότε τίθηται ἐπὶ τοῦ μεγάλην ἔχοντος πυγὴν <παροξύνεται>⋅ τὸ{ν} δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ καταφεροῦς προπερισπᾶται.
109 ληδίον⋅ παροξύνουσιν.
110 λαρινοί⋅ τῇ τάσει ὡς ἀλγεινοί.
111 λεώ, νεώ⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
112 λεπαστήν⋅ ὁμοίως.
113 λαβέσθαι, ἰδέσθαι, μεθέσθαι⋅ παροξύνουσιν.
114 μῶρος⋅ προπερισπῶσιν.
115 †λινοπίς⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
116 λαγῶς⋅ περισπῶσιν.
117 μόχθηρος⋅ τρίτην ἐκ τέλους, ὅτε σημαίνει τὸν ἐπίπονον.
118 μεθυπλήξ⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
119 Mαρικᾶς⋅ περισπᾶται.
120 μισήτη{ς} ἡ καταφερής, βαρύνουσιν⋅ μισητή δὲ, ὀξύνουσιν ἡ ἀξία τοῦ μίσους.
121 μάκρος τὸ οὐδέτερον, βαρύνουσιν. τὸ δὲ ἀρσενικόν, ὀξύνουσιν.
122 μελαγχρής⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
123 μέδιμνος⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
124 μυρσίναι⋅ παροξύνουσιν.
125 μυριῶν, χιλιῶν⋅ περισπῶσιν.
126 μεθύσθαι⋅ παροξύνεται.
127 νοσώδων⋅ παροξύνει Ἀρίσταρχος⋅ ὁ δὲ λόγος ἀλόγως βούλεται.
128 νυνί⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
129 νύμφιος ὁ παστὸς, προπαροξύνουσιν.
130 νεότης⋅ παροξύνουσιν.
131 νύνδη καὶ †νύναην⋅ ὁμοίως παροξύνουσιν.
132 ξυρεῖν⋅ περισπῶσιν.
133 οὐλάς⋅ ὀξυτόνως λέγουσι τὰς κριθάς.
134 οἰσυπηρά⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
135 οὐλόν⋅ τὸ ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ ὀξυνόμενον. οὖλον προπερισπῶσιν.
136 οὐκ ἐτός⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
137 ὀρφῶς⋅ περισπῶσιν.
138 πάλημα⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
139 πριών⋅ ὀξύνουσιν⋅ πρίονος τομήν.
140 πριῶ⋅ περισπῶσιν τὸ προστακτικόν.
141 πλανῶ καὶ φυσῶ⋅ περισπῶσιν.
142 περίστῳον⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
|18v 143 προστῷον⋅ προπερισπῶσιν.
144 π[..] π[..]οξυτόνως ὁ ποιητὴς ἀναγι<γ>νώσκει.
145 πλῆθρον⋅ Ἀττικοὶ προπερισπῶσιν.
146 πλευρῖτιν, νεφρῖτιν, πρεσβῦτιν⋅ προπερισπῶσιν.
147 πρωτόλεια⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
148 πτεόν⋅ ὀξύνουσιν Ἀττικοί, ὅπερ λέγομεν ἡμεῖς πτύον διὰ τοῦ Υ βαρυτόνως.
149 πανάγη⋅ βαρύνουσιν.
150 πόλεων, μάντεων, λέξεων, ὄφεων⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
151 προῖξ⋅ περισπῶσιν.
152 πριάσθαι, καὶ πυθέσθαι, καὶ παραθέσθαι, καὶ ὑποθέσθαι, καὶ διαθέσθαι⋅ παροξύνουσι.
153 παιδίον⋅ παροξύνουσιν.
154 †πλατεῖν⋅ περισπῶσιν.
155 παρεῖαι ὄφεις [Crat. fr. 225 K.-A.]⋅ προπερισπῶσιν.
156 πώμαλα⋅ ὑφὲν ἀναγιγνώσκουσι.
157 ῥόφειν⋅ βαρύνουσιν.
158 ῥινή ὁ τῶν χαλκέων ὀξύνεται, ἡ δὲ θαλαττία βαρύνεται.
159 σηπία⋅ βαρύνουσιν, καθάπερ γωνία.
160 στελεόν⋅ ὀξυτόνως λέγουσι. λέγεται καὶ ἀρσενικὸν στελεός.
161 σκορπίος⋅ παροξύνουσιν.
162 σκινδαλαμος⋅ καὶ ὀξύνουσιν καὶ προπαροξύνουσιν.
163 Σύνερως⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
164 Σάβοι⋅ βαρύνουσι.
165 συνεργός⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
166 σιρόν⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
167 τρήμη⋅ βαρύνουσιν.
168 <αὐ>τουργούς⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
169 τροπαῖον⋅ οἱ παλαιότεροι προπερισπῶσιν.
170 ταὧς⋅ περισπῶσιν καὶ δασύνουσιν.
171 τορύνη⋅ ἐκτείνουσι τὸ Υ καὶ βαρύνουσιν.
172 τίθηνος⋅ προπαροξύνουσι, ἐπὶ τοῦ τρέφοντος καὶ τρεφομένου.
173 τάναγρα⋅ προπαροξύνουσι.
174 τιμώρια, τραγώδια⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
175 τίμαιος⋅ ὁμοίως.
176 τυφῶς⋅ περισπῶσιν.
177 τρίβος⋅ παροξύνουσιν.
178 ὑδρορ<ρ>οάς⋅ ὀξύνουσιν οἱ νεώτεροι. ὑδρορ<ρ>όας οἱ παλαιοὶ Ἀττικοὶ βαρύνουσιν.
179 ὑπέρφευ, ὑπέρευ⋅ παροξύνουσιν.
180 φαλῆς⋅ περισπῶσιν.
181 φιλαπέχθ<ημ>ον⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
182 φρούριον⋅ ὁμοίως.
183 φαρμακόν⋅ Ἴωνες οἱ νεώτεροι ὀξύνουσιν.
184 φράτηρ⋅ βαρυτονοῦσι. Δωριεῖς δὲ ὀξύνουσιν.
185 φακῆ⋅ περισπῶσιν Ἀττικοί.
186 φοριαμός⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
187 χοᾶ⋅ περισπῶσιν. χόα <δέ>, βαρύνουσιν.
188 χροία καὶ χροίας⋅ Ἀρίσταρχος βαρύνει.
189 χάριεν⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν.
190 χερνίβας⋅ παροξύνουσιν, καὶ |19r οὕτω εὑρίσκεται παρὰ τοῖς κειμένοις τραγικοῖς.
191 χαμᾶζε⋅ προπερισπῶσιν.
192 χ{ε}λιδή⋅ ὀξύνουσιν, ὡς τρυφή.
193 χάμαθεν⋅ προπαροξύνουσι, καὶ ἄνευ τοῦ Ι γράφεται.
194 χνόη⋅ βαρύνουσιν.
195 ψαλτής⋅ ὀξύνουσιν.
196 ψυλλῶν⋅ περισπῶσιν, ἐκ τοῦ αἱ ψύλλαι. Ψύλ<λ>ων δὲ βαρύνουσιν, ἐκ τοῦ οἱ Ψύλλοι. καὶ τὸ θηλυκὸν δέ <…>.
197 <ὦ πόποι⋅ …> ὅταν δύο περισπωμένας λάβῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ γενομένου ἀπὸ τοῦ μόχθου.
198 ᾧ⋅ τὸ δοτικὸν ἄρθρον. ἐπίρρημα δὲ ὦ, περισπῶσιν. τὸ δὲ σχετλιαστικόν, ὀξύνουσιν.
περὶ χρόνων
1 ἀκονιτί, ἀμισθί, ἀπνευστί, ἀναιμωτί⋅ διχῶς καὶ ἐκτείνουσι καὶ συστέλλουσι.
2 ἁλμῡρός⋅ ἡ δευτέρα μακρὰ παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς.
3 Ἀμᾱζών⋅ ἐκτείνει τὴν δευτέραν συλλαβήν.
4 ἀμελείᾱ⋅ τὸ τελευταῖον Α ἐκτείνει. ὁμοίως ἀδρανείᾱ, εὐσεβείᾱ, εὐμαθείᾱ καὶ συνηθείᾱ.
5 ἀνδρῐ́ζου⋅ συστέλλει τὴν δευτέραν.
6 ἄνᾰν, ἅπᾰν⋅ ὁμοίως.
7 ἄνᾰλτος⋅ ὁμοίως, καὶ ψιλοῦται.
8 Ἀτρέᾱ, βασιλέᾱ⋅ τὸ ἐπὶ τέλους Α ἐκτείνουσι.
9 ἀμφιρεφέᾰ [Il. 1.45], δυσκλέᾰ⋅ συστέλλουσι.
10 βόθῡνος⋅ ἐκτείνουσι τὸ Υ.
11 βέλτιον, κάλλιον, ἥδιον, ἰατρός, τορύνη, ξυρόν⋅ ταῦτα πάντα καὶ ἐκτείνουσι καὶ συστέλλουσι.
12 βούλῑμος⋅ ἐκτείνουσι.
13 γνωμίδῐον⋅ τὸ δεύτερον <Ι> συστέλλει.
14 Γῡ́γης⋅ ἐκτείνει τὸ Υ.
15 γλῠ́φειν⋅ συστέλλουσι τὸ Υ.
16 γονέᾱ⋅ ἐκτείνει τὸ Α.
17 Διονύσῐον⋅ συστέλλει τὴν παραλήγουσαν, οὕτω καὶ Ἀπολλώνῐον.
18 ἐνέπρῑσεν⋅ ἐκτείνει τὸ Ι. πρῖσαι δέ, ἐκτείνει.
19 εὐκλείᾱν, εὐροίᾱν, ἐννοίᾱν⋅ ἐκτείνουσι τὸ Α.
20 ἑωλοκρασίᾱ⋅ τὸ τελευταῖον Α μακρόν.
21 θρίναξ⋅ καὶ ἐκτείνουσι καὶ συστέλλουσι.
22 Θρῑάσιον⋅ τὸ πρῶτον ἐκτείνει.
23 θρῖον⋅ ἐκτείνει.
24 θύρᾰζε⋅ ἡ παραλήγουσα βραχεῖα.
25 θύειν⋅ καὶ ἐκτείνουσι καὶ συστέλλουσι.
26 θῡ́λακος⋅ ἐκτείνει τὸ Υ.
27 θῦμα⋅ ἐκτείνουσι, ὡς Σέλευκος ἐν τῷ περὶ διαλέκτων.
28 ἰατρός⋅ ἡ πρώτη διχῶς.
29 ἰχθῡ́δια⋅ ἐκτείνουσι τὸ Υ.
30 ἱερείᾱ⋅ τὸ Α ἐκτείνει.
31 ἱμᾱ́ντα, |19v ἀνδριᾱ́ντα⋅ τὴν παραλήγουσαν ἐκτείνουσιν.
32 κηρυκῑ́νη⋅ μακρὸν ἔχει τὸ Ι, ὡς Ἀμφιτρῑ́τη.
33 κᾰτᾱ́ρα⋅ ἡ πρώτη συστέλλει, καὶ ἡ δευτέρα μακρά.
34 κάτᾰγμα⋅ ἡ δευτέρα βραχεῖα.
35 καλαμῑ́ς, κεραμῑ́ς⋅ συστέλλουσι τὴν τελευταίαν.
36 λίαν⋅ Ἀττικοὶ μηκύνουσιν, ὁ ποιητὴς καὶ ἐκτείνει καὶ συστέλλει.
37 λῠσιτελές⋅ τὸ Υ συστέλλει.
38 Μακεδονίᾱ⋅ ἡ τελευταία μακρά.
39 μύστᾰκα⋅ ἡ μέση συστέλλεται.
40 μεῖξαι⋅ ΕΙ διχῶς γράφεται.
41 ξῡ<ρ>εῖν, καὶ ξῡρόν, καὶ ξῡρῶ⋅ μακρὸν τὸ Υ.
42 ὄρνῑς⋅ μακρόν.
43 οἰκῑ́διον⋅ μακρὸν τὸ δεύτερον.
44 πίτῡρα⋅ μακρὰ ἡ μέση.
45 πέρδῐκας⋅ συστέλλει τὴν μέσην. ὁμοίως χοίνῐκα.
46 πελᾰργός⋅ συστέλλει.
47 πτῠ́ω⋅ συστέλλει.
48 πλοκαμῐ́ς, ῥιπῐ́ς, καλαμῐ́ς, κεραμῐ́ς⋅ συστέλλει τὴν τελευταίαν.
49 <ῥ>ᾱγδαῖος⋅ μακρὸν τὸ Α.
50 ῥᾰ́βδος⋅ συστέλλει τὸ Α.
51 ῥαφανίδας, ὄρνις, αἰγίδια, σίδια⋅ ταῦτα διχῶς φασί. καὶ τὸ σηπίδιον.
52 στρῡφνός⋅ ἐκτείνει.
53 σπλαγχνῑ́δια⋅ ἐκτείνει τὸ ΧΝΙ.
54 στέᾱρ⋅ ἐκτείνει.
55 σῐρός⋅ συστέλλουσι, ποιητικῶς δὲ ἐκτείνει Σοφοκλῆς [fr. 276 R. ?].
56 τέρᾰτα⋅ συστέλλει τὸ πρῶτον Α.
57 ῡἱεῖς⋅ ἐκτείνει.
58 Ὑμηττός⋅ διχῶς.
59 ὑδαρής⋅ διχῶς.
60 φρέᾱρ⋅ ἐκτείνει.
61 φιτῠ́σαι⋅ βραχεῖα ἡ μέση.
62 φύμα⋅ διχῶς.
63 ψημῡ́θιον⋅ ἡ δευτέρα μακρά.
64 ψῶρα⋅ διχῶς.
65 ὥρῐον⋅ συστέλλεται. παρὰ δὲ τῷ ποιητῇ ἐκτείνεται [Od. 9.131].
Apparatus criticusFootnote 101
περὶ προσῳδίας
1 ἄληθες scripsi] ἀληθές cod.
2 ἀνακῶς ἢ ἀναγκῶς μετὰ τοῦ Γ in folii marginem inferiorem adnotavit scriba αὐτοῖς cod., Ἀττικοῖς fort. recte
3 λαμβάνουσι cod. p.c., λαμβάνομεν cod. a.c.
8 ἀπόδοσθαι] ἀποδόσθαι cod.
10 παροξύνει scripsi] παροξύνουσι cod. a.c., παροξύνεται cod. p.c.
12 αὐτάρκως, κακοήθως, νοσώδως, αὐθάδως scripsi] αὐταρκώς, κακοηθώς, νοσοδώς, αὐθαδώς cod. lemma suspectum, idem in EM 171.40 (fort. interpolatum?)
14 ἀκαρῆ fort. recte περισπᾶται cod.
20 ἀξία F. Pontani per litteras] ἐκ cod.
21 Ἀδικράν] -κράς cod. νεκράς cod., νεκάς fort. recte
22 ἁμέρᾳ prop. F. Pontani per litteras
24 ἀγόραιον scripsi, cf. e.g. Ammon. 11 et Philop. diff. voc. a α 2 (vel ἀγόρε<υ>ον vel ἄγορον [Eur. Herc. 412]?) ἀγόρεον cod.
27 ἀμιγδ- hic et infra cod.
36 κανόνων pro τῶν μηνῶν prop. anonymus arbiter
38 π{ε}ίθεσθέ Hom.] πείθεσθέ cod.
36 <παροξυτονεῖν ἀξιοῦσι> addidi e Phot. α 3187
40 ὅμοιος cod.
42 αἰδειίου cod.
43 γωνία, γενία, ἱστορία, ὁμιλία, συνθεσία, ἀρτηρία⋅ βαρύνουσι scripsi (cf. l. 159)] γώνια, γένια, ἱστόρια, ὁμίλια, συνθέσια, ἀρτήρια⋅ προπαροξύνουσιν cod.
44–5 unam glossam malit P. Probert per litteras, fort. recte
49 hoc lemma suspectum, fort. ad lemma antecedens haec verba e.g. δικρόν⋅ ὀξύνεται. Φιλήμων παροξύνει (vel δικρόν⋅ ὀξύνεται, <ὡς> Φιλήμων⋅ […] (verbum a littera δ- incipiens) παροξύνεται prop. anonymus arbiter)
54 λέγουσι δισεπτὰ cod. ἐν τριβῇ] ἐντριβεῖ cod.
58 δου[..]της lacunosum ob rasuram
64 τὸ δὲ δῆμος Θρῖα, ἡ μέντοι <ἄρρην> εὐθεῖα Θριώς ἐστιν scripsi (cf. Steph. Byz. 8.59), sed corruptela multo amplior mihi videtur] τὸ δ’ ἐν τῷ δήμῳ θραί [!], ἡ μέντοι εὐθεία θριώς ἐστιν cod.
65 ἐνδΰδα suspectum, sed cf. Hsch. ε 2830 (†ἔνδυδαν⋅ ἕωθεν†). ἐνδύτα vel Ἐνδηΐδα fort. recte
68 εἰσάντα pro εἰς πάντα prop. F. Pontani per litteras
69 Ἕρκιος scripsi, ἑρκίος cod. ἑρκεῖος scripsi, ἑρμεῖος cod.
70 ἁπλῶς scripsi (vel ὅλως?), cl. e.g. synag. ε 328 et Phot. ε 825
71 εὔδαιμων cod.
73 ἐπίπλα cod.
80 Θεττάλη scripsi, cl. Ammon. 405.18] θαττάλοι cod.
81 θήλυδος [Soph. fr. 1054 R.] fort. recte
90 καθᾶψε F. Pontani per litteras] καθᾶ δέ cod.
92 Ἀριστοφάνης cod., Εἰρηναῖος vel Δημήτριος fort. recte., sed amplior corruptela fort. latet Ἀλεξανδρέων scripsi, άλεξάνδρου cod.
100 καταδέρθειν F. Pontani per litteras] καταδέρθην cod.
103 de Καλλισθενῶν vd. app. loc.
108 κατὰ πυγῶν cod. προπερισπᾶται cod., sed περισπᾶται possis
115 †λινοπίς cod., λοπίς vel λινοπλήξ fort. recte (vd. Suid. λ 567). λινοπάξ prop. F. Pontani per litteras
119 Mαρικᾶς scripsi (cf. etiam Hdn. cath. pros. 50.12), μαρικῶς cod.
124 μυρρίναι fort. recte (cf. e.g. Moer. μ 23)
131 προπαροξύνουσιν cod. p.c. s.l †νύναην cod., νύνδι prop. F. Pontani per litteras
136 οὐκ ἐτός A. C. Cassio per litteras] οὐκετός cod.
138 πάλημα scripsi (cf. etiam Poll. 7.21.6)] πάληνα cod.
144 π[..] π[..]οξυτόνως lacunosum ob rasuram. fort. π[ρο]π[αρ]οξυτόνως recte, ad lemma 143
152 παραθέσθαι, καὶ ὑποθέσθαι, καὶ διαθέσθαι om. cod., deinde redint. in mg.
154 πατεῖν fort. recte
158 ὀξύνουσι et βαρύνουσι cod.
163 Σύνερως suspectum
168 <αὐ>τουργούς F. Pontani per litteras
169 <τῶν Ἀττικῶν> vel <Ἀττικοί> post παλαιότεροι fort. supplendum est
170 δασύνουσιν coni. P. Probert per litteras] βαρύνουσιν cod.
171 τορύμη cod.
174 προπαροξύνουσιν P. Probert per litteras ὁμοίως cod.
181 φιλάπεχθον cod.
186 φοριαμός suspectum (sed cf. EGud 556.37 Sturz Φορίαμος, εἰς τὸ ὦκα et 556.56 Sturz Φορίαμον, κιβώτιον). φωριαμός fort. recte
196 αἱ ψύλλαι scripsi] αἱ ψύλου cod. οἱ Ψύλλοι scripsi] ὁ ψυλός cod. <Ψύλλα> in lacunam fortasse?
197 <ὦ πόποι⋅ …> addidit F. Pontani per litteras
198 ᾧ scripsi] ὦ cod. δοτικὸν scripsi] δοκῶς cod. ὦ scripsi] ὄν cod.
περὶ χρόνων
1 ἀναιμοτί cod.
6 ἄνᾰν (vel Ἄναν? cf. Polyb. hist. 34.9.12) suspectum, sed cf. Hsch. α 4453
11 τορύμη cod. ξυρόν suspectum (cf. l. 41), sed cf. Moer. ξ 5
13 τὸ δεύτερον <Ι> scripsi (vel τὴν τρίτην fort. recte?)] τὴν δευτέραν cod.
23 θρίον cod.
27 Ἀριστοκλῆς pro Σέλευκος praeb. epim. Hom. κ 18
30 ἐκτείνουσι] ἐκτείνει cod.
35 cf. l. 48
42 sed cf. l. 51
47 πτύω scripsi] τύπτω cod.
48 καλαμῑ́ς, κεραμῑ́ς fort. delendum (cf. l. 35)
58 Ὑμηττός scripsi] ὑμητῶς cod.
61 φιτῦσαι cod.
63 χημύθιον cod.
Αpparatus locorum
περὶ προσῳδίας
1 Ptol. diff. verb. α 12; Ammon. 26; Philop. diff. voc. a α 20; Zon. 131.22–24; Thom. ecl. voc. Att. 34.14–16 cf. etiam Ap. Dysc. adv. 160.19–22 et Ps.-Arcad. 134.24–26
2 Ael. Dion. α 118; Paus. α 111; Moer. α 147 et 148; Philop. diff. voc. b α 8
3 Her. Phil. 28 et Ammon. 73 (= Tryph. fr. 12 von Velsen); Philop. diff. voc. a α 12; EGud 203.15–17 Stef.; Eust. in Il. 3.397.15–18; lex. synon. 57 de ἐκ τῶν φρεάτων τοὺς κάδους λαμβάνουσι cf. Ar. Eccl. 1004
4 cf. Athen. deipn. 3.82 (= Tryph. fr. 118); Paus. att. 181; synag. α 2596; Phot. α 3440
7 schol. Hom. Il. A–bT B 269a1–2; epim. Hom. A 79; Ps.-Arcad. 99.25–100.1 et 134.7–10; Eust. in Od. 2.174.19; Ps.-Choer. ποσότ. 284.19 ἀχρεῖος apud Ps.-Hrd. Philet. 241
8 Moer. α 9 cf. etiam Ps.-Arcad. 198.3
9 Phot. α 2267; Io. Alex. 176
11 Ptol. diff. verb. α 13; Her. Phil. 7; Ammon. 6; Poll. 9.12.4–5
12 Ammon. 84; Ptol. diff. verb. α 47; Philop. diff. voc. α 8; schol. Aristoph. pl. 109; EGud 226 Stef. EM 171.40; Zon. 338.22–23
13 Phryn. ecl. 86 et PS 275*; Phot. α 3127; Eust. in Il. 3.226.21; EM 167.55–56
14 Moer. α 64 e t 89; synag. α 657; Phot. α 714
15 ἀρνεώς tantum apud Soph. fr. 723a?** cf. Phot. α 2848
16 Phryn. PS 9.19; epim. Hom. ζ 2
17 cf. Io. Alex. 27; Philop. diff. voc. a α 3.3; Theogn. can. 800; epim. Hom. α 131; EGud 50 Stef.; Eust. in Il. 3.730.15 et in Od. 2.60.14; EM 36.55
19–20 ἀλκηστής et ἀμυντής apud TrGF adesp. 585a–b schol. Soph. El. 70; Phryn. PS 175*; Phot. α 1270; Suid. α 1681 et ψ 16
21 Ἀδικράν apud Hdt. 4.159
22 Choer. epim. Ps. 39.11
23 Ps.-Hrd. Philet. 245 cf. Io. Alex. 149.6–7
24 Ammon. 11; Philop. diff. voc. a α 2; Suid. α 309; Zon. 19.15
25 Io. Alex. 136.28
26 Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 253.35–36
27 Athen. deipn. 2.40 (= Tryph. fr. 13 von Velsen); Ammon. 33; Zon. 150.7 cf. etiam Moer. α 15 et 98
29 cf. Or. 18.21
30 Or. 28.18 cf. etiam Philop. diff. voc. a α 4; EGen α 141; epim. Hom. α 100; EGud 33.7–14 Stef.; Eust. in Od. 1.13.32 etc.; EM 25.54
32 Ps.-Hrd. part. 269. 3–5; Ps.-Hrd. loc. prav. 249.1–13; synag. α 2417; Phot. α 3187; LexVind. α 8 cf. etiam Moer. κ 9 et Thom. ecl. voc. Att. 10.15
33 (Vd. app. Ad. l. 33) cf. etiam Moer. α 23
34 Or. 186.19–21; Ps.-Hrd. παθ. 171.5–7; Choer. epim. Ps. 7–10; EGud 533.14–16 Stef.; EM 380.37–40
35 Poll. 6.88.5 cf. etiam Moer. β 12; schol. Aristoph. Ach. 86a et c; Hsch. κ 4092
36 (Vd. app. Ad. l. 32) ὁ ποιητής, scil. Homerus
37 Io. Alex. 150
38 schol. Hom. Il. A Η 282c, bT Η 293c, A O 698 (= Tyrann. fr. 1.40), ΑbT Π 47a–b; EGen. λ 126; Ps.-Hrd. Philet. 252; Eust. in Il. 3.805; EM 567.28–38
40 Ael. Dion. γ 4; Ap. Dysc. pron. 50.4–6; Moer. γ 4; Theogn. can. 292; epim. Hom. γ 22; schol. Aristoph. Ra. 6; schol. Lond. DT 471.14–15; EM 224.40–4 cf. etiam Phryn. ecl. 199 (sed Γελάσιμον μὴ λέγε, ἀλλὰ γελοῖον) et Philop. diff. voc. a γ 6
42 schol. Aristoph. Ach. 874a–c et Lys. 89b; Phot. β 176; Suid. β 338 et γ 287; Zon. 440.8–9 de γληχών apud Iones (pro γλήχων), vd. Phryn. PS 53.17
45 Ps.-Hrd. Philet. 251; Ps.-Arcad. 196.14–19; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 140.23–25 et 246.12; schol. Aristoph. Pl. 103b
46 cf. Ael. Dion. δ 30 et Moer. δ 41 (δόχμη codd. C V, sed δοχμή cod. F)
47 Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 334.23–9; Zon. 543.25–7.
51 schol. Eur. Ph. 468
53 cf. Ael. Dion. δ 6
54 Phot. δ 667;
55 cf. Phot. δ 152, π 49 et π 371; Suid. δ 176
59 schol. Hom. Il. T Χ 473b; Ps.-Hrd. Philet. 253
60 cf. Phryn. ecl. 205; Eust. in Od. 1.417.20–2
61 cf. Hsch. ε 4862
63 Hrd. μον. 938.23; Ps.-Arcad. 69.12–13; Eust. in Il. 2.42.1–2
64 cf. Steph. Byz. 8.59
66 epim. Hom. ε 97, ε 172 et μ 70; Ps.-Hrd. Philet. 254
68–9 cf. Eust. in Il. 2.285.39
70 Io. Alex. 178; schol. Aristoph. vesp. 1120a cf. etiam Phot. ε 825
71 Io. Alex. 59; EM 130.46. cf. etiam Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 395.10–11; EGud 173.22–25 Stef.
75 Her. Phil. 94; Ammon. 222 (= Tryph. fr. 9 von Velsen); Ael. Dion. θ 2; Philop. diff. voc. e θ 5; EGud 253.14–16 Sturz; Eust. in Il. 3.397.17
76 cf. (sed θρία) EGud 265.21 Sturz
77 schol. Hom. Il. A O 302b1.8–9; Moer. θ 4; EM 442.7
78 Ps.-Hrd. loc. prav. 252.17; EGud 262.54 Sturz; EM 451.47 cf. etiam Hsch. θ 554
80 Ammon. 405; schol. vet. Aristοph. nub. 749b; Suid. θ 289
81 cf. etiam Moer. θ 11
82 Io. Alex. 26; EGud 50.2–4 Sturz; EM 36.55; epim. Hom. α 131
83 Io. Alex. 34
84 Philop. diff. voc. a ι 2; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 140.21
86 Ps.-Hrd. part. 217.8; Theogn. can. 621; Ps.-Choer. ποσότ. 306.28
88 schol. Hom. Il. A A 85c; schol. vet. Plat. Res. 514a, ter; Io. Alex. 92.3–4; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 25.23; epim. Hom. A 85b; Eust. in Il. 1.533.22
89 Heraclid. fr. 48 (= Eust. in Od. 1.45.11) cf. etiam Philop. diff. voc. a κ 19; EM 509.14; ESym. ε 209
94 schol. vet. Aristoph. ran. 338d; Theod. can. 35.20; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 356.18
95 schol. vet. Aristoph. vesp. 900b
96 Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 326.12; Thom. ecl. voc. Att. 193.11
97 sch. vet. Soph. El. 70; Suid. ψ 16; EM 436.5; Thom. ecl. voc. Att. 185.11
98 schol. vet. Demosth. 24.231.11; cf. Theogn. can. 232; Zon. 1272.13
99 cf. Hsch. κ 3941; Phot. κ 1050
103 cf. Io. Alex. 81; Theod. can. 7.19–8.3; Zon. 498.23–4; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 179.18; schol. Vat. DT 128.11–13
105 schol. vet. Aristoph. eq. 487a
106 Steph. Byz. 1.144.9; Philop. diff. voc. a κ 17
109 Eust. in Il. 4.190.23
111 Theod. can. 16.5; Theod. τόν. 200.3; Io. Alex. 41.8; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 248.28
112 Athen. deipn. 11.70
113 Vd. l. 38
114 schol. vet. Aristoph. eq. 350b; Phot. μ 612; Suid. μ 1342; Eust. in Od. 1.67.5
116 Io. Alex. 37; schol. Aristoph. vesp. 493c; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 253.10; EM 635.36
117 Ptol. diff. verb. 402.13–16 Hey.; Her. Phil. 140; Suid. μ 1310; Eust. in Il. 1.533.17; schol. rec. Aristoph. pl. 391b; Thom. ecl. voc. Att. 240.9–10
120 Ammon. 322; Hsch. μ 1450; Philop. e μ 13; Thom. ecl. voc. Att. 240.11
121 schol. Hom. Il. Α Μ 66a et Ψ 419α1; EM 727.1–4
122 schol. Hom. Od. π 175.4–6; Phot. μ 223 (= Orus fr. 98); Eust. in Od. 2.120.12 cf. contra Moer. μ 18
123 cf. Hsch. α 7471; Suid. α 4020; EM 150.7; Thom. ecl. voc. Att. 240.13
125 Io. Alex. 77.18–19; schol. Aristoph. ach. 1055b; schol. Aristoph. eq. 660b; Suid. χ 308
126 vd. l. 38
127 Io. Alex. 198.10–11
128 Io. Alex. 173
129 Philop. diff. voc. a ν 4; Theogn. can. 311.7
131 Io. Alex. 134; schol. Lond. DT 444.8–9
132 Ps.-Hrd. Philet. 209
133 epim. Hom. ο 43.7; EGud 440.47 Sturz cf. etiam Erot. voc. Hipp. 104.1; schol. Hom. Od. T 393; Hsch. ο 1733; Choer. orth. 280.30–1; EGud 584.8–9 Sturz
134 cf. Moer. ο 38
135 schol. Hom. Il. A B 153a; schol. Hom. Il. A K 134b; Eust. in Il. 3.31.12–15; EM. 640.50
137 Io. Alex. 37.1–2; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 253.10; schol. Aristoph. vesp. 493c Vd. contra Poll. 6.50.4 (ὀρφός ἢ τὸ Ἀττικώτερον ὀρφώς)
139 Phot. π 1168
141 Ps.-Hrd. part. 181.7; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 14.31
142–3 Hrd. fr. 52 Hunger (= Philemon Fr. novum); EM 665.4–5; Hrd. fr. 52 Hunger cf. etiam Poll. 78.1–2 et Moer. π 11
148 vd. (sed de πτέον, nec πτεόν): Poll. 10.128.2–4; Ael. Dion. π 73; Eust. in Il. 3.518.7–9 cf. etiam Poll. 245.2–3 et Paus. att. 37
150 Moer. μ 12; Io. Alex. 80–1; Theod. can. 41.14–16; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 179.28
152 vd. l. 38
153 Suid. π 857 cf. etiam Her. Phil. 153 et Philop. diff. voc. b π 17
155 Ptol. diff. verb. 404.13–14 Hey. cf. etiam Harp. π 26; Hsch. π 765; Phot. π 344–5; Suid. π 585
156 Ap. Dysc. adv. 190.22–191.3; Or. 137.16–21; EM 698.45–50; schol. Aristoph. pl. 66d et 206a
157 Ael. Dion. ο 44 et ρ 12; EM 705.27–29
158 Philop. diff. voc. a ρ 2; Choer. orth. 255.6–9; Suid. ρ 169 cf. etiam Moer. ρ 8
160 Hrd. μον. 943.12–13; Theogn. can. 732.3–4
161 Poll. 6.50.4–5
162 Hsch. σ 1008; schol. rec. Aristoph. nub. th–thr 1301a–b cf. etiam Moer. σ 50 (sed σχινδαλμός ἐν τῷ χ Ἀττικοί⋅ σκινδαλμός Ἕλληνες)
164 vd. Steph. Byz. 18.4; Suid. σ 12
165 cf. Ptol. diff. verb. σ 141; Ammon. 452; Philop. diff. voc. a σ 14; Eust. in Od. 2.330.45–6; EGud 516.8–10
167 Eust. in Il. 3.241.1–2; EM 726.53–6
169 schol. vet. Aristoph. thesm. 697; Suid. τ 1049; Eust. in Il. 1.533.12–14; schol. Vat. DT 131.19; EM 796.16–17
170 Athen. deipn. 9.57 (= Tryph. fr. 5 von Velsen); Eust. in Il. 2.27.8 de ταῶς, cf. etiam schol. Aristoph. av. 268 et 269a; Io. Alex. 37; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 253.31–32
171 Hrd. διχρ. 10.33 cf. etiam schol. vet. Aristoph. av. 78 et [Did.] lex. Plat. 1004
174 Moer. Τ4; schol. vet. Eur. Or. 425; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 403.16–23
175 EGud 269.24 Stef.; EM 198.55; schol. Aristoph. pac. 62ab
176 Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 253.30–31
177 schol. Hom. Il. bT Ξ 372b cf. etiam Moer. υ 14 et schol. Eur. Or. 261
178 cf. Ps.-Arcad. 117.10–11
180 schol. Hom. Il. A Ο 302b1; schol. Aristoph. ach. 263b
183 Ael. Dion. φ 2; Phot. φ 64
184 epim. Hom. π 136.4–5
185 Zon. 1793.3–4; EM 538.49–50; schol. Aristoph. pl. 192f
186 Ps.-Arcad. 68.21–69.2; schol. Hom. Il. A Ω 228a; EM 804.17–23
187 Moer. χ 26; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 238.1–6
188 schol. Hom. Il. A Λ 437a–b1
189 Ammon. 405; Io. Alex. 136.21–22; Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 211.30; schol. Aristoph. pl. 145; Suid. χ 103 cf. etiam Philop. diff. voc. χ 2
190 χερνίβας apud e.g. Aesch. choe. 129, Eur. IT 244 et 335, phoe. 662, etc.
191 Hrd. διχρ. 14.17 et μον. 95 1.28; Ael. Dion. χ 3 schol. Hom. Il. A Γ 29b; epim. Hom. χ 21 cf. etiam Ap. Dysc. adv. 194.18–21
192 cf. Moer. χ 17
193 Ael. Dion. χ 3 [. . .] τὸ δὲ χαμᾶθεν ὡς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον (vd. Vessella Reference Vessella2018, 253–4) cf. etiam Ap. Dysc. adv. 187.7; Moer. χ 22; Thom. ecl. voc. Att. 393.13–14
194 schol. Aesch. th. 153p et 154; schol. Soph. El. 716; epim. Hom. β 31; Suid. χ 359
195 Hrd. μον. 946.5 (= Apollod. fr. 237a); Philop. diff. voc. ψ 2; Choer. in Th. Alex. 187.18
196 cf. Ael. Dion. ψ 5; Hsch. ψ 267; Phot. 656.4–7; Suid. ψ 152; EGud 574.62–63 Sturz
197 Io. Alex. 169; schol. Vat. DT 278.6–10
198 Io. Alex. 143.14–17; Philop. diff. voc. ω 3; EGud 576.36–44 Sturz
περὶ χρόνων
1 Ap. Dysc. Adv. 161.4–12; Hrd. Διχρ. 19.19–28; synag. Α 1913; Phot. Α 2586; Suid. Α 3454
2 Hrd. Διχρ. 15.18–21
5 Choer. Epim. Ps. 30.1
6 de ἅπᾰν apud Iones vd. Ael. Dion. Α 155; synag. Α 1620; Phot. Α 2250; Suid. Α 2892; Eust. in Il. 1.82.2
8 Hrd. Διχρ. 13.19–20; Mischl. Spirit. 192.20
9 de δυσκλέα cum alpha longo apud Atticos vd. Schol. Hom. Il. K 281a
10 Hrd. Διχρ. 10.23
12 Hrd. Διχρ. 14.31–35
17 Phryn. Ecl. 346; Ps.-Hrd. Loc. Prav. 252.12–17
18 cf. Egud 468.35–37 Sturz
19 Ael. Dion. Ε 71; schol. Eur. Or. 30; Phot. Ε 2227; EM 462.4–5; Esym. Γ 190 vd. etiam schol. A M 281a–b1
23 cf. supra περὶ προσῳδίας §76
24 Hrd. διχρ. 14.15–17; Io. Alex. 161; epim. Hom. χ 21; EGud 560.55 cf. Moer. θ 10
25 Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 75.1–5
27 Choer. epim. in Ps. 81.25–7; epim. Hom. κ 18
30 Choer. in Th. Alex. can. 221.35–8
33 Choer. epim. in Ps. 39.15
34 cf. Moer. κ 20
35 Hrd. fr. 53 Hunger (= Trypho Fr. novum); Hrd. διχρ. 18.25–32
36 Ammon. 298; Hrd. διχρ.12.29–31; Phot. λ 496; EParv λ 8; epim. Hom. π 134
39 Phot. β 318
41 cf. Ps.-Hrd. Philet. 209
43 Phot. ο 88
44 Moer. π 29
45 Athen. deipn. 9.41; Hrd. διχρ. 9.10–17; Choer. in Th Alex. 223.30–31
46 Phryn. ecl. 80
48 Hrd. διχρ. 18.25–32
51 de ῥαφανίδας vd. Phryn. ecl. 142; cf. etiam Hrd. διχρ. 18.28–29 de ὄρνις cf. Hrd. διχρ. 18.14-17; Ps.-Arcad. 34.1–4; epim. Hom. ο 46; schol. T M 218b2; EM 632.9
52 Hrd. διχρ. 14.29–30; Hrd. μον. 947.1
54 Hrd. διχρ. 12.10–11
56 Hrd. διχρ. 8.3–4
58 Steph. Byz. 20.29
59 cf. Moer. υ 9
60 Hrd. διχρ. 12.10–11
62 cf. epim. Hom. κ 133.4
63 Moer. ψ 3
64 cf. Moer. ψ 6 et epim. Hom. ω 6
Sigla in the apparatus locorum
Ael. Dion. = Aelii Dionysii atticistae fragmenta, ed. H. Erbse, Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen lexika, Berlin 1950, 94–151.
Ammon. = Ammonii qui dicitur liber De adfinium vocabulorum differentia, ed. K. Nickau, Leipzig 1966.
Ap. Dysc. adv. = Apollonii Dyscoli περὶ ἐπιρρημάτων, ed. R. Schneider, GG 2.1, Leipzig 1878, repr. 1965, 119–20.
Ap. Dysc. pron. = Apollonii Dyscoli περὶ ἀντωνυμίας, ed. R. Schneider, GG 2.1, Leipzig 1878, repr. 1965, 3–116.
Apollod. = Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum (FGrHist), vol. 1, ed. K. Müller, Paris 1853, 428–69.
Ps.-Arcad. = Pseudo-Arcadius’ Epitome of Herodian's De prosodia catholica, ed. S. Roussou, Oxford 2018.
Athen. deipn. = Athenaei Naucratitae Deipnosophistarum libri xv, ed. G. Kaibel, 3 vols., Leipzig 1887–90, repr. 1965–6.
Choer. epim. Ps. = Choerobosci Epimerismi in Psalmos, ed. T. Gaisford, Oxford 1842.
Choer. orth. = Choerobosci Orthographia, ed. J. A. Cramer, An. Ox. 2, Oxford 1835, repr. 1963, 167–281.
Choer. in Th. Alex. can. = Choerobosci Scholia in Theodosi Alexandrini canones, ed. A. Hilgard, GG 4.1 (103–17) et 2 (1–371), Leipzig 1889–94.
Ps.-Choer. ποσότ. = Choerobosci περὶ ποσότητος, ed. J. A. Cramer, An. Ox. 2, Oxford 1835, repr. 1963, 283–318.
[Did.] lex. Plat. = S. Valente (ed.), I lessici a Platone di Timeo Sofista e Pseudo-Didimo, Berlin and Boston 2012.
EGen α–β = Etymologicum magnum genuinum. Symeonis Etymologicum una cum magna grammatica. Etymologicum magnum auctum synoptice, ed. F. Lasserre and N. Livadaras, vol. 1, Rome 1976; vol. 2, Athens 1992.
EGud…Stef. = Etymologicum Gudianum quod vocatur, vols. 1–2, glossae ἀάλιον – ζειαί, ed. A. de Stefani, Leipzig 1909–20.
EGud…Sturz = Etymologicum Graecae linguae Gudianum, ed. F. G. Sturz, Leipzig 1818.
EM = Etymologicum magnum, ed. Th. Gaisford, Oxford 1848.
EParv = Etymologicum parvum quod vocatur, ed. R. Pintaudi, Milan 1973.
epim. Hom. A = Epimerismi Homerici, ed. A. R. Dyck, vol. 1, SGLG 5.1, Berlin and New York 1983.
epim. Hom. α–ω = Epimerismi Homerici, ed. A. R. Dyck, vol. 2, SGLG 5.2, Berlin and New York 1995.
Eust. in Il. = Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, ed. M. van der Valk, vols. 1–4, Leiden, New York, Cologne 1971–87.
Eust. in Od. = Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam ad fidem exempli Romani editi, ed. G. Stallbaum, vols. 1–2, Leipzig 1825–26 (de libris a–b vide nunc E. Cullhed, ‘Eustathios of Thessalonike: Parekbolai on Homer's Odyssey 1–2’, PhD thesis, Uppsala 2014).
Harp. = Harpocration, Lexeis of the ten orators, ed. J. J. Keaney, Amsterdam 1991.
Her. Phil. = Herennius Philo, De diversis verborum significationibus, ed. V. Palmieri, Naples 1983.
Hrd. διχρ. = Herodiani technici περὶ διχρόνων, ed. A. Lentz, GG 3.2, Leipzig 1870, 7–20. Nunc vide etiam Pontani 2022.
Hrd. μον. = Herodiani technici περὶ μονήρους λέξεως, ed. A. Lentz, GG 3.2, Leipzig 1870, 908–52.
Ps.-Hrd. loc. prav. = ed. J. A. Cramer, in An. Ox. 3, Oxford 1836, 246–62, repr. 1963. (vd. etiam A. Dain, Le Philétaeros attribué à Hérodien, Paris 1954, 73–74.)
Ps.-Hrd. part. = Herodiani Partitiones, ed. J. F. Boissonade, London 1819.
Ps.-Hrd. Philet. = A. Dain, Le Philétaeros attribué à Hérodien, Paris 1954.
Hsch. α–δ = Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. 1, ed. I. C. Cunningham, SGLG 11.1, Berlin and New York 2017.
Hsch. ε–ο = Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. 2, ed. I. C. Cunningham, SGLG 11.2, Berlin and New York 2020.
Hsch. π–σ = Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. 3, ed. P. A. Hansen, SGLG 11.3, Berlin and New York 2005.
Hsch. τ–ω = Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. 4, ed. I. C. Cunningham and P. A. Hansen, SGLG 11.4, Berlin and New York 2009.
Io. Alex. = Ioannis Alexandrini Praecepta tonica, ed. G. Xenis, Berlin and New York 2014.
lex. synon. = V. Palmieri, ‘Un anonimo excerptum Vaticanum di sinonimi greci’, Byzantion 58, 1988, 440–50.
LexVind. = Lexicon Vindobonense, ed. A. Guida, Florence 2018.
Mischl. spirit. = Mischlexikon περὶ πνευμάτων, ed. L. C. Valckenaer, in Ammonius, De adfinium vocabulorum differentia, Leiden, 1st edn. 1739, 2nd edn. 1822, 188–215.
Moer. = Das attizistische Lexikon des Moeris, ed. D. U. Hansen, in SGLG 8–9, Berlin 1998.
Or. = Orionis Thebani Etymologicum, ed. F. G. Sturz, Leipzig 1820.
Paus. att. = Pausaniae atticistae fragmenta, ed. H. Erbse, in Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika, Berlin 1950, 152–221.
Philop. diff. voc. = Ioannis Philoponi De vocabulis quae diversum significatum exhibent secundum differentiam accentus, ed. L. Daly, Philadelphia 1983.
Phot. α–φ = Photii patriarchae Lexicon, ed. C. Theodoridis, vols. 1–3, Berlin 1982–2012.
Phot. χ–ω = Photii patriarchae Lexicon, ed. R. Porson, vols. 1–2, Leipzig 1823.
Phryn. ecl. = Phrynichi Ecloga, ed. E. Fischer, Berlin 1974.
Phryn. PS = Phrynichi Praeparatio sophistica, ed. I. de Borries, Leipzig 1911.
Poll. = Pollucis Onomasticon, ed. E. Bethe, vols. 1–3, Leipzig 1900–1937.
Ptol. diff. verb. = Ptolemaei De differentia vocum, ed. V. Palmieri, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere di Napoli 24, 1981–82, 191–225.
Ptol. diff. verb. … Hey. = H. Heylbut, ‘Ptolemaeus Περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεων’, Hermes 22, 1887, 388–410.
schol. Aesch. th. = Scholia Graeca in Aeschylum quae exstant omnia, ed. O. L. Smith, vols. 1–2.2, Leipzig 1976–82.
schol. (vet. et rec.) Aristoph. = editio Groningensis: Scholia vetera et rec. in Aristophanis Ach. (ed. Wilson, 1975), av. (ed. Holwerda, 1991), eccl. and thesm. (ed. Regtuit, 2007), eq. (ed. Jones and Wilson, 1969), Lys. (ed. Hangard, 1978), nub. (vet.: ed. Holwerda, 1977; rec.: ed. Koster, 1974), pac. (ed. Holwerda, 1982), plut. (ed. Chantry, 1994 and 1996), ran. (ed. Chantry, 1999 and 2001), vesp. (ed. Koster, 1978).
schol. Batr. = A. Ludwich, Die Homerische Batrachomachia des Karers Pigres: nebst Scholien und Paraphrase, Leipzig 1896.
schol. … DT = Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem grammaticam, ed. A. Hilgard, GG 3, Leipzig 1901.
schol. Eur. = Scholia in Euripidem, ed. E. Schwartz, 2 vols., Berlin 1887–91, repr. 1966.
schol. Hom. Il. A et bT (scil. scholia Ariston., Did., Hrd., Nican., ex.) = Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, ed. H. Erbse, vols. 1–7, Berlin 1969–88.
schol. Hom. Od. α–θ = Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam, ed. F. Pontani, vols. 1–4, Rome 2007–20.
schol. Hom. Od. ι–ω = Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam ex codicibus aucta et emendata, ed. G. Dindorf, vols. 1–2, Oxford 1855, repr. 1962.
schol. Op. = U. C. Bussemaker, Scholia et paraphrases in Nicandrum et Oppianum in Scholia in Theocritum, ed. F. Dübner, Paris 1849.
Steph. Byz. = Stephani Byzantii Ethnica, vols. 1–2, A–O, ed. M. Billerbeck with J.-F. Gaertner, B. Wyss, Chr. Zubler, G. Lentini, A. Neumann, Berlin and New York 2006–14. (For Π–Ω, see Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum quae supersunt, ed. A. Meineke, Berlin 1849.)
Suid. = Suidae Lexicon, ed. A. Adler, vols. 1–4, Leipzig 1928–38.
synag. = Synagoge: Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων, ed. I. C. Cunningham, SGLG 10, Berlin and New York 2003.
Theogn. can. = Theognosti Canones, ed. J. A. Cramer, An. Ox. 2, 1–165.
Thom. ecl. voc. Att. = Thomae Magistri Ecloga vocum Atticarum, ed. F. Ritschl, Halle 1832.
Zon. = Ioannis Zonarae Lexicon, vols. 1–2, ed. I. A. H. Tittmann, Leipzig 1808.
