Valente ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 639–650 © 2010 Stefano Valente Choeroboscus’ Prolegomena to Orthography: The Evidence of Psalm-Epimerisms and Ps.-Theodosius Stefano Valente HE BODY OF Byzantine orthographical literature is quite enormous and, for the most part, studied rarely and edited poorly.1 Most of the orthographical treatises are anonymous or falsely ascribed in antiquity to some famous grammarian; there are few critical editions, some careless transcriptions of single manuscripts, and few studies of the textual traditions of single works. Obviously, these are sig- nificant obstacles to understanding properly a basic part of the educational and grammatical system in the Byzantine world. Among the Byzantine orthographers, George Choero- boscus,2 a grammarian who lived in Byzantium in the eighth and ninth centuries,3 played an important role. He wrote many 1 See K. Alpers, “Die griechischen Orthographien aus Spätantike und byzantinischer Zeit,” BZ 97 (2004: hereafter “Alpers”) 1–50, nominally a review of J. Schneider, Les traités orthographiques grecs antiques et byzantins (Turn- hout 1999), but much more useful and well-grounded; see also P. Egenolff, Die orthographischen Stücke der byzantinischen Litteratur (Leipzig 1888: hereafter “Egenolff”); C. Wendel, “Orthographie,” RE 18 (1942) 1442–1454; H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Munich 1978) 18– 22. 2 On Choeroboscus’ orthographical work and his sources see Alpers 31– 36. See also N. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium2 (Oxford 1996) 69–74, 277; E. Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship. A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises (Oxford 2007) 80–81. 3 See W. Bühler and C. Theodoridis, “Johannes von Damaskos terminus post quem für Choiroboskos,” BZ 69 (1976) 397–401; C. Theodoridis, “Der Hymnograph Klemens terminus post quem für Choiroboskos,” BZ 73 T 640 CHOEROBOSCUS’ PROLEGOMENA TO ORTHOGRAPHY ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 639–650 grammatical works, including an Orthography that was alpha- betically arranged and tripartite—that is to say, divided into σύνταξις (“syntax,” dealing with problems of syllabification, especially the boundaries of syllables), ποιότης (“quality,” con- cerning doubts on the spelling of consonants), and ποσότης (“quantity,” handling doubts on the spelling of vowels).4 Un- fortunately, the direct tradition preserves only an epitome of the latter part of this work.5 The only available printed edition is Cramer’s transcription of the most important witness, the MS. Bodleian Barocci 50 (tenth cent.).6 Following Hilgard,7 Alpers rightly stresses that “es gibt … ___ (1980) 341–345. 4 See Wendel, RE 18 (1942) 1454–1455; Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur 18; D. L. Blank, Sextus Empiricus. Against the Grammarians (Oxford 1998) 199; Schneider, Les traités 4 ff. Such tripartition dates back to the sec- ond half of the second century B.C., becoming canonical first with Trypho and later with Herodian, whose Orthography was for centuries consistently the main source for all Byzantine orthographers (see Egenolff 3–4, Wendel 1440, Hunger 18, Alpers 2–3). 5 See Alpers 31–32. 6 Cramer, Anecd.Ox. II 167–281. His transcription is not always reliable: see R. Schneider, Bodleiana (Leipzig 1887); Alpers 31. In this manuscript the title of Choeroboscus’ Orthography deserves attention (167.2–7): ἀρϱχὴ σὺν Θεῷ τοῦ ποσοῦ τῆς ὀρϱθογρϱαφίας κϰατὰ στοιχεῖον (scripsi : στοιχ ms., see F. Ronconi, I manoscritti greci miscellanei. Ricerche su esemplari dei secoli IX–XII [Spoleto 2007] pl. 8 : -α Cramer) ἀπὸ φωνῆς Γεωρϱγίου τοῦ Χοιρϱοβοσκϰοῦ Βυζαντίου γρϱαµµατικϰοῦ κϰαὶ οἰκϰουµενικϰοῦ διδασκϰάλου· ἐν συντοµίᾳ τµηθὲν ἐκϰ τῆς κϰαθόλου κϰαὶ κϰατὰ πλάτος αὐτοῦ Ὀρϱθογρϱαφίας· διὰ τὸ ἐν συντόµῳ εὐσύνοπτον εἶναι τὸ ζητούµενον, σὺν κϰαὶ ταῖς αἰτίαις ἑκϰάστου (“incipit with God’s help of the quantity of the orthography arranged in alphabetical order according to the notes taken at lectures of George Choeroboscus, grammmarian of Byzantium and ecumenical teacher; excerpt cut from his complete and extended Orthography, to make what is inquired easy to find quickly, with also the accounts of each one”). It confirms that Choero- boscus’ work was ἀπὸ φωνῆς (i.e. notes taken at his lectures or classes) and that the manuscript preserves only an abridged version of it (see Alpers 31 ff.). On the Bodleian Barocci 50 see Ronconi 91–131. 7 A. Hilgard, Theodosii Alexandrini canones Georgii Choerobosci scholia Sophronii (Leipzig 1894) LXXXI f. STEFANO VALENTE 641 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 639–650 deutliche Zeugnisse, daß die ursprüngliche Fassung, die κϰαθό- λου κϰαὶ κϰατὰ πλάτος αὐτοῦ Ὀρϱθογρϱαφία, auch detaillierte Pro- legomena besaß.”8 Some fragments of the prolegomena (as well as of the other two parts on σύνταξις and ποιότης) can be found elsewhere in Choeroboscus’ works.9 For instance, in his Psalm-Epimerisms, a work in erotematic form in which the biblical text is explained merely from a grammatical point of view, he often handles spelling problems.10 According to Alpers,11 “Reflexe der Prolegomena sind vielleicht auch in dem 8 Alpers 32 (n.130 for the quotation of Choerob. In Theod., Gramm.Gr IV.2 156.35–36, ἡµεῖς δέ, εἰ θεῷ φίλον, ἐν τοῖς πρϱολεγοµένοις τῆς Ὀρϱθογρϱα- φίας διαλάβωµεν περϱὶ αὐτῶν, “if it pleases God, let us explain such things in the prolegomena of Orthography”). 9 See Alpers 31–33. Furthermore, a fuller version of Choeroboschus’ Or- thography has been a direct source of Byzantine Etymologica (see Schneider, Les traités 235–255; Alpers 31 ff.). For example, Hilgard (Theodosii LXXXI) points out that Et.Magn. 816.52 Gaisford may come from this lost preface: see Choerob. Orth. 275.19 ~ Et.Gud. 566.26–36 Sturz (Hdn., Gramm.Gr III.2 604.30); Alpers (32 n.130) rejects the ascription of this entry to Charax sug- gested by Schneider (435 n.56). Moreover, Alpers (8 n.26) suggests that the similar definitions of the four canons in schol. Lond. Dion. Thrax, Gramm.Gr I.3 454.14 (dealing with the twelve canons of ἀνάγνωσις, “reading”: see D. Fehling, “Varro und die grammatische Lehre von der Analogie und der Flexion,” Glotta 35 [1956] 251) may also come from Choeroboscus. (E. Siebenborn, Die Lehre von der Sprachrichtigkeit und ihren Kriterien. Studien zur anti- ken normativen Grammatik [Amsterdam 1967] 159, cites this scholion, but does not identify the source nor the close relationship with the entry of the Et. Magn.) 10 The only avaiable edition is that of T. Gaisford, Georgii Choerobosci Epi- merismi in Psalmos (Oxford 1842), based on Paris.gr. 2756: see Schneider, Les traités 437–441, and particularly Alpers 35–36, for a survey of the textual tradition of this work. Marcian.gr. 492, mid-fifteenth century, can be added to the ten MSS. listed there: E. Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum codices Graeci manuscripti II (Rome 1985) 302. 11 Alpers 32 n.130, who cites Schneider, Les traités 439: “il est fait mention des quatre canons de l’orthographe. On trouve la doctrine complète p. 89.14ex.–26in., avec une allusion (p. 89.18–19) au double sens du mot ὀρϱθογρϱαφία. Les examples correspondent très bien à ceux du supplément 18, non à ceux de Charax.” On his latter statement see n.17 below. 642 CHOEROBOSCUS’ PROLEGOMENA TO ORTHOGRAPHY ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 639–650 Psalmenepimerismen 89,14–26 Gaisford zu erkennen”; here, dealing with the adverb σήµερϱον (Ps. 2:7), the grammarian in- troduces the (orthographical) canon of παρϱάδοσις to account for the spelling with epsilon of syllable -µε-, adding a concise list and explanation of the four canons of orthography: analogy, dialect, etymology, and history12 (89.5–30 Gaisford, whence Et.Gud. 499.26–40 Sturz.): σήµερϱον· … κϰαὶ πόθεν γίνεται; παρϱὰ τὸ ἡµέρϱα, ἑξ οὗ κϰαὶ γρϱάφεται διὰ τοῦ η· ἀνεφάνη γὰρϱ τὸ α ἐν τῷ σάµερϱον, κϰαὶ τὰ ἔχοντα ἀνα- φαινόµενον τὸ α διὰ τοῦ η γρϱάφεται, σάµερϱον σήµερϱον, ἅλιος ἥλιος, σᾶµα σῆµα. … τὸ µε ψιλόν, διατί; κϰατὰ παρϱάδοσιν. κϰατὰ ποῖον κϰανόνα τῆς ὀρϱθογρϱαφίας; κϰατὰ ἱστορϱίαν. κϰαὶ πόσοι κϰανόνες τῆς ὀρϱθογρϱαφίας; τέσσαρϱες· ἀναλογία, διάλεκϰτος, ἐτυµολογία, ἱστορϱία. τί ἐστιν ἀναλογία; ὅταν κϰατορϱθοῦµεν13 γρϱαφήν,14 ἢ ὅταν κϰανόνα ἀποδῶµεν, ὥσπερϱ ἐπὶ τοῦ ταχεία ἐδηλώσαµεν. τί ἐστιν διάλεκϰτος; ὅταν τὸ ἡµεῖς διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γρϱαφόµενον εἴπω, ἐπεὶ οἱ Αἰολεῖς ἄµ<µ>ες15 λέγουσι, τὸ πρϱοσὸν ε τῇ λέξει ἐκϰφωνή- σαντες. τί ἐστιν ἐτυµολογία; ὅταν τὸ ἤπειρϱος διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γρϱάφω<ν>16 εἴπω, διότι πέρϱας οὐκϰ ἔχει, ἄπερϱος κϰαὶ ἄπειρϱός τις οὖσα. τί ἐστιν ἱστορϱία; ὅταν τὸ χίλιοι διὰ τοῦ ι γρϱάφηται, εἴπω· “οὕτως αὐτὸ βούλεται γρϱάφειν ἡ παρϱάδοσις κϰτλ.” today: … and where does it come from? From day, thus it is spelt with eta: alpha is evident in σάµερϱον, and words which clearly have alpha are spelt with eta, as σάµερϱον σήµερϱον, ἅλιος ἥλιος (“sun”), σᾶµα σῆµα (“sign”) … Why is the syllable -µε- spelt with epsilon? According to paradosis. According to what canon of or- thography? According to history. And how many are the canons of orthography? Four: analogy, dialect, etymology, history. What is analogy? When we correct the spelling, or when we enunciate a canon, as we have demonstrated for the word τα- 12 On the four canons of orthography see Siebenborn, Die Lehre 67, 159– 163. 13 Scripsi coll. Ps.-Theodosius (see below) : κϰατορϱθῶµεν Paris.gr. 2756 (Gais- ford), Et.Gud. 499.34–35 Sturz. 14 Et.Gud. 499.35 : γρϱαφῇ Paris.gr. 2756. 15 Scripsi coll. Ps.-Theodosius (see below) : ἄµες Paris.gr. 2756. 16 Scripsi coll. Ps.-Theodosius (see below) : γρϱάφω Paris.gr. 2756. STEFANO VALENTE 643 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 639–650 χεία (“quick”). What is dialect? When I say that ἡµεῖς (“we”) is spelt with the diphthong epsilon-iota, because the Aeolians say ἄµ<µ>ες pronouncing the present epsilon in the word. What is etymology? When I spell ἤπειρϱος (“land”) with the diphthong epsilon-iota and I say because it has no limits, being ἄπερϱος and ἄπειρϱος (“boundless”). What is history? When χίλιοι (“a thou- sand”) is spelt with iota, I say “the paradosis has it spelt in this way.” If we assume, following Alpers, that this passage reflects Choeroboscus’ own Prolegomena, the explanation of analogy- canon is surprising because here the grammarian says only ὥσπερϱ ἐπὶ τοῦ ταχεία ἐδηλώσαµεν, while he is never con- cerned with this adjective in the whole Psalm-Epimerisms.17 The same formula, indeed, occurs in the so-called Ps.-Theodosius.18 This work was edited for the first (and last) time in 1822 by Goettling,19 on the basis of Paris.gr. 2553 and 2555, in a very unsatisfactory manner.20 As far as we can see, it is a hotchpotch of grammatical materials from many different and hetero- geneous sources, some of them still unidentified, probably put together before the second half of the tenth century. Its tri- partite orthographical part (pp.61–79) carries a general intro- duction to the matter (61.22–62.26), already edited in 1821 by Bekker21 on the basis of Vat.gr. 1370. After the definitions of orthography and of its three fields of investigation, the four canons are listed and described as follows:22 17 Moreover, in the Psalms, the feminine adjective ταχεία never appears. Schneider, Les traités 439 (see n.11 above) considers it as simply an allusion to the double definition of orthography. 18 See G. Uhlig, Dionysii Thracis ars grammatica (Leipzig 1883) XXXVII; Egenolff 10–13; Alpers 23 ff. As Alpers rightly stresses, Schneider (Les traités 130–175) misleadingly calls it “Supplément 18” on the basis of Uhlig LV. 19 Θεοδοσίου γρϱαµµατικϰοῦ περϱὶ γρϱαµµατικϰῆς. Theodosii Alexandrini Gram- matica, ed. C. G. Goettling (Leipzig 1822). 20 See Alpers 23–26. 21 Anecd.Bekk. III 1127–1128 n. *. See Egenolff 11; Alpers 8, 24. 22 I print Bekker’s text with some slight corrections and supplements on the basis of the variant readings of Goettling’s edition (n.19 above). 644 CHOEROBOSCUS’ PROLEGOMENA TO ORTHOGRAPHY ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 639–650 δύο σηµαίνει τὸ τῆς ὀρϱθογρϱαφίας ὄνοµα. ὀρϱθογρϱαφία ἐστὶν ἡ ὀρϱθῶς γεγρϱαµµένη λέξις, κϰαὶ πάλιν ὀρϱθογρϱαφία ἐστὶν ὁ κϰανὼν ὁ {ἀποδοτικϰὸς κϰαὶ} ἀποδεικϰτικϰὸς τῆς ὀρϱθῶς γεγρϱαµµένης λέξεως. ἐὰν γὰρϱ τὸ ταχεῖα γρϱάψω διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου, κϰαὶ αὐτὴ ἡ λέξις ὀρϱθῶς γρϱαφεῖσα ὀρϱθογρϱαφία κϰαλεῖται, κϰἂν ἐρϱωτηθεὶς τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς γρϱαφῆς κϰαὶ εἴπω <τὸν κϰανόνα>, ὅτι τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰς υς <ληγόντων> ἀρϱσενικϰῶν παρϱεσχηµατισµένα θηλυκϰὰ <διὰ τοῦ εια> διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γρϱάφεται, <οἷον ταχύς ταχεῖα, ὠκϰύς ὠκϰεῖα, ἡδύς ἡδεῖα,> βρϱαδύς βρϱαδεῖα, ὀξύς ὀξεῖα, κϰαὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κϰανὼν ὀρϱθογρϱαφία κϰαλεῖται. τῆς δὲ ὀρϱθογρϱαφίας εἴδη τρϱία, σύνταξις, ποιότης κϰαὶ ποσότης. κϰαὶ σύνταξις µέν ἐστιν ὅταν ζητῶµεν ποίᾳ συλλαβῇ συντάξωµεν τὰ στοιχεῖα, οἷον ἐν τῷ ἀσθενής τὸ σ πότερϱον ληκϰτικϰόν ἐστι τῆς πρϱοτέρϱας συλλαβῆς ἢ ἀρϱκϰτικϰόν τῆς δευτέρϱας·23 ποιότης δὲ ὅταν ζητῶµεν ποῖον στοιχεῖον γεγρϱαµµένον ἐν τῷ ἔµπορϱος, τὸ ν ἢ τὸ µ· ποσότης δὲ ὅταν ζητῶµεν ἐν τῷ µῖµος πόσα στοιχεῖά ἐστι, µι ἢ µει. κϰαὶ ταῦτα µὲν τὰ εἴδη τῆς ὀρϱθογρϱαφίας. κϰανόνες δὲ αὐτῆς τέσσαρϱες, ἀναλογία, διάλεκϰτος, ἐτυµολογία, ἱστορϱία. κϰαὶ ἀναλογίᾳ µὲν κϰατορϱθοῦµεν γρϱαφήν, ὅταν κϰανόνα ἀποδῶµεν, ὥσπερϱ ἐπὶ τοῦ ταχεῖα ἐδηλώσαµεν· διαλέκϰτῳ δέ, ὅταν τὸ ἡµεῖς διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γρϱάφων εἴπω ὅτι Ἀιολεῖς ἄµµες λέγουσι, τὸ π<ρϱ>οσὸν ε{ν} τῇ λέξει <ἐκϰ>φωνήσαντες.24 ἐτυµολογίᾳ δέ, ὅταν τὸ ἤπειρϱος <διὰ τοῦ η τὴν πρϱώτην συλ- λαβὴν κϰαὶ> διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου <τὴν δευτέρϱαν> γρϱάφων εἴπω “ἐπειδὴ πέρϱας οὐκϰ ἔχει, ἄπερϱός τις οὖσα.”25 ἱστορϱίᾳ δέ, ὅταν τὸ 23 62.3–7 Goettling: οἷον ἐν τῷ ἀσθενής πότερϱον τὸ σ κϰτητικϰόν ἐστι τῆς ἀ συλλαβῆς ἤγουν τῆς πρϱώτης, ἢ τῆς θε ἤγουν τῆς δευτέρϱας, τουτέστιν ἀσ- λέγοµεν ἢ ἀ-σθε, τῆς πρϱώτης ἐστὶ ληκϰτικϰὸν ἢ τῆς δευτέρϱας ἀρϱκϰτικϰόν (“for example, whether in ἀσθενής sigma belongs to the syllable ἀ, the first, or to the syllable θε, the second, that is to say whether we say ἀσ- or ἀ-σθε, that is whether sigma ends the first syllable or begins the second”). 24 Scripsi coll. Choerob. (see above), Charax (see below) : ὅτι τὀ ποσον (sic) ἐν τῇ λέξει πρϱοφωνήσαντες Vat.gr. 1370 (Bekker) : ὅτι οἱ Δωρϱιεῖς ἄµεες λέγουσι κϰαὶ ἡµεῖς τὸ περϱισσὸν ε συναιρϱοῦντες δίφθογγον ἐποιήσαµεν Paris.gr. 2553 and 2555 (62.18–19 Goettling). 25 62.20–24 Goettling: ὅταν τὸ ἤπειρϱος διὰ τοῦ η τὴν πρϱώτην συλλαβὴν κϰαὶ διὰ διφθόγγου τὴν δευτέρϱαν γρϱάφοντες εἴπωµεν· ἄπερϱος τίς ἐστιν ἡ γῆ, ἤγουν µὴ ἔχουσα πέρϱας, τρϱοπῇ δὲ τοῦ α εἰς η κϰαὶ πλεονασµῷ τοῦ ι ἤπειρϱος (“when we spell ἤπειρϱος with eta in the first syllable and with the STEFANO VALENTE 645 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 639–650 χίλιοι γρϱάφων διὰ τοῦ ι εἴπω· “οὕτως αὐτὸ βούλεται γρϱάφεσθαι ἡ παρϱάδοσις.” The noun orthography has two meanings: orthography is the word correctly spelt and the demonstrative canon of the word correctly spelt. For example, if I write ταχεῖα with the diph- thong epsilon-iota, the word itself correctly spelt is called orthog- raphy; and if I am asked about the account of the spelling and I say the canon, that is “the feminine adjectives ending in -εια of masculine ending in -υς are spelt with the diphthong epsilon- iota, as ταχύς ταχεῖα (“quick”), ὠκϰύς ὠκϰεῖα (“swift”), ἡδύς ἡδεῖα (“sweet”), βρϱαδύς βρϱαδεῖα (“slow”), ὀξύς ὀξεῖα (“sharp”), then the canon itself is called orthography. The fields of orthography are three: syntax, quality, and quan- tity. Syntax is when we inquire to which syllable we assign the letters: for example, whether the first sigma in ἀσθενής (“weak”) ends the first syllable or begins the second. Quality is when we inquire which is the letter to be spelt in the word ἔµπορϱος (“trader”), my or ny. Quantity is when we inquire which are the letters in µίµος (“mime”), my-iota or my-epsilon-iota. And these are the fields of orthography. Its canons are four: analogy, dialect, etymology, history. And we correct the spelling with analogy, when we enunciate a canon, as we have demonstrated for the word ταχεῖα. With dialect, when I spell ἡµεῖς (“we”) with the diphthong epsilon- iota and I say that the Aeolians say ἄµµες pronouncing the epsilon present in the word. With etymology, when we spell ἤπειρϱος (“land”) with eta in the first syllable and with the diphthong epsilon-iota in the second and I say: “because it has no limits, being ἄπερϱος.” With history, when I spell χίλιοι (“a thousand”) with iota and I say “the paradosis has it spelt in this way.” The third paragraph shows striking coincidences with the Psalm-epimerism cited above, in particular with the canon of analogy, which is illustrated, just as in Choeroboscus’ passage, ___ diphthong in the second and we say: ‘the earth is ἄπερϱος, that is it has no limits’; ἤπειρϱος comes from changing alpha in eta and adding iota in ἄπερϱος”). 646 CHOEROBOSCUS’ PROLEGOMENA TO ORTHOGRAPHY ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 639–650 only by ὥσπερϱ ἐπὶ τοῦ ταχεῖα ἐδηλώσαµεν. However, in Ps.-Theodosius, such a formula can be easily explained through the first paragraph dealing with the definition of or- thography, where its second meaning—ὁ κϰανὼν ὁ ἀποδεικϰτικϰὸς τῆς ὀρϱθῶς γεγρϱαµµένης λέξεως—is exemplified by the (ana- logical) canon of the adjective ταχύς ταχεῖα, which occurs elsewhere in Choeroboscus’ Orthography.26 The same example can thus be recalled a few lines below to account for the canon of analogy.27 Thus, if the Psalm-epimerism hints, as it seems, at this extended definition, then at least the entire passage of Ps.-Theodosius may have been gathered from Choeroboscus’ lost Prolegomena to orthography. Moreover, two other possible pieces of evidence can be produced. In the entry ἤπειρϱος of Choeroboscus’s Orthography 26 See 179.20 (whence Et.Gud. 51.20 De Stefani, see [Zonar.] 81.14) αἰπεῖα· δίφθογγον· κϰαὶ πάντα τὰ παρϱασχηµατισµένα τὴν (ἀπὸ τὸ [Zonar.] ft. recte) εἰς υς· ταχύς, ταχεῖα· βρϱαδύς, βρϱαδεῖα (“high: diphthong; and all the adjectives from those ending in -υς: ταχύς ταχεῖα, βρϱαδύς βρϱαδεῖα”), 208.5 (Hdn., Gramm.Gr III.2 513.25–27) εὐρϱεῖα· διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου· … τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰς υς ἀρϱσενικϰῶν διὰ τοῦ εια παρϱασχηµατιζόµενα θηλυκϰά, διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γρϱάφεται· οἷον, βρϱαδύς, βρϱαδεῖα· οὕτως κϰαὶ ἡδύς, ἡδεῖα, κϰαὶ εὐρϱύς, εὐρϱεῖα (“wide: with the diphthong epsilon-iota … The feminine adjectives ending in -εια which derive from a masculine ending in -υς are spelt with the diphthong epsilon-iota, as βρϱαδύς βρϱαδεῖα, as well as ἡδύς ἡδεῖα and εὐρϱύς εὐρϱεῖα”), 253.12 (~ Et.Magn. 687.5 [Hdn. 573.5]) πρϱεσβεῖα· διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γρϱάφεται· … τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰς ευς διὰ τοῦ εια παρϱεσχηµατισµένα θηλυκϰὰ διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γρϱάφεται· οἷον, ταχύς, ταχεῖα, οὕτως κϰαὶ πρϱεσβύς, πρϱεσβεῖα κϰτλ. (“embassy: it is spelt with the diphthong epsilon-iota … The feminine words ending in -εια which derive from one ending in -ευς are spelt with the diphthong epsilon-iota: as ταχύς ταχεῖα, so πρϱεσβύς πρϱεσβεῖα”). 27 Fehling (Glotta 35 [1956] 238) rightly stresses that “Analogie sei die Zusammenstellung des Ähnlichen, die zur Aufstellung der Regeln (worunter hier und im Folgenden speziell die ‘κϰανόνες’ der antiken Flexionslehre ver- standen sein sollen) führe … Sie—oder vielmehr der Grammatiker mit ihr— stellt die ähnlichen Wörter zusammen und bildet daraus die Regeln.” Thus, the enunciation of the canon suffices to find the correct spelling of a word; analogy can thus be the demonstrative canon (κϰανὼν ἀποδεικϰτικϰός) itself, corresponding to the second definition of orthography. STEFANO VALENTE 647 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 639–650 (217.7–13 [cf. Hdn., Gramm.Gr. III.2 517.32–35]), the account of its spellings according to the etymology (κϰατὰ ἐτυµολογίαν) is recalled with almost the same wording as in Ps.-Theodosius: ἥπερϱος· ἥπειρϱος δὲ λέγεται ἡ γῆ· γρϱάφεται δὲ τὸ µὲν η ἐκϰ τοῦ α τοῦ στερϱητικϰοῦ, ἄπερϱος γὰρϱ λέγεται κϰατὰ ἐτυµολογίαν· τὸ δὲ πει δίφθογγος, ὅτι ἔχει ἀπὸ πρϱωτοτύπου φωνῆς τὸ ε· πέρϱας γὰρϱ οὐκϰ ἔχει, ἄπερϱός τις οὖσα κϰαὶ ἤπειρϱος κϰτλ.28 ἤπερϱος: the earth is called land; eta is spelt because of alpha privative, because ἄπερϱος is said according to etymology. The diphthong epsilon-iota in πει, because the word has epsilon from the primitive name, since it has no limits, being ἄπερϱος and so ἤπειρϱος etc. Furthermore, it seems worthwhile to cite the only other com- plete preface to orthography preserved, that of John Charax (second half of the sixth century), who wrote a complete and tripartite Περϱὶ ὀρϱθογρϱαφίας (About orthography), still unedited as a whole, which closely depends on Herodian’s Orthography.29 The structure of his introduction is close to that of Ps.-Theodosius, but some remarkable differences in wording can be observed. Therefore it is generally assumed that they do not derive one from another, but the similarities can be explained by their independent use of Herodian’s Orthography as a direct source:30 28 See also Epim.Hom. Α 485A (~ Et.Gen. codd. AB s.v. ἠπείρϱοιο, Et.Gud. 246.54–247.3 Sturz, Et.Magn. 433.54 Gaisford) ἠπείρϱοιο· ἤπειρϱος λέγεται ἡ γῆ παρϱὰ τὸ ἄπειρϱός τις οὖσα κϰαὶ ἤπειρϱος κϰατὰ πλεονασµὸν τοῦ ι κϰαὶ ἐκϰτάσει τοῦ α (“of land: the earth is called land according to the fact that it has no limits (ἄπειρϱος) and becomes ἤπειρϱος with the addition of iota and lengthening of alpha”). It is important to emphasise that the author of the anonymous Epimerismi Homerici can be possibly identified in Choeroboscus himself (see A. R. Dyck, Epimerismi Homerici [Berlin/New York 1983–1995] I 5–7, II 23–24). 29 See Egenolff 4 ff., Alpers 7–8 and 19 ff. 30 Egenolff 12–13; see however Alpers 26: “so besteht zwar der Verdacht, daß Ps.-Theodosios für Einleitung, σύνταξις und ποιότης von Charax abhängt, in dem Konglomerat seines ποσότης-Teiles dagegen, mindestens neben anderen, den Anonymus Crameri benutzt hat. Bei dem gegen- wärtigen Kenntnisstand kann aber auch nicht ausgeschlossen werden, daß 648 CHOEROBOSCUS’ PROLEGOMENA TO ORTHOGRAPHY ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 639–650 ὀρϱθογρϱαφία διττῶς λέγεται· ὀρϱθογρϱαφία γάρϱ ἐστι κϰαὶ <ἡ> κϰατὰ τὴν λέξιν ἠκϰρϱιβωµένη γρϱαφὴ κϰαὶ ὁ κϰανὼν ὁ ἀποδεικϰτικϰός, ᾧ ἀποδείκϰνυται ἡ ὀρϱθῶς γεγρϱαµµένη λέξις. ἐὰν γὰρϱ τὸ ἐαρϱινός γρϱάφω διὰ τοῦ ι, κϰαὶ αὐτὴ ἡ λέξις ἡ ὀρϱθῶς γρϱαφεῖσα ὀρϱθογρϱαφία λέγεται. κϰἂν ἐρϱωτηθεὶς τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς γρϱαφῆς εἴπω· πάντα τὰ εἰς ινος κϰαιρϱοῦ παρϱαστατικϰὰ διὰ τοῦ ι γρϱάφεται· ἡµερϱινός, νυκϰτερϱινός, κϰαὶ ὁ κϰανὼν αὐτὸς ὀρϱθογρϱαφία λέγεται. εἴδη τῆς ὀρϱθογρϱαφίας τρϱία· σύνταξις, ποιότης, ποσότης. σύνταξις µὲν οὖν ἐστι ζήτησις στοιχείων περϱὶ κϰατάληξιν κϰαὶ ἐπιφορϱὰν συλλαβῶν, ὡς ὅταν ζητῶµεν, ποίᾳ συλλαβῇ συν- τάξοµεν τὰ στοιχεῖα, οἷον· ἐν τῷ ἀσθενής τὸ σ πότερϱον ληκϰτικϰόν ἐστι τῆς πρϱώτης συλλαβῆς ἢ τῆς δευτέρϱας ἀρϱκϰτικϰόν; ποιότης δὲ ζήτησις περϱὶ σύµφωνα κϰαὶ τὴν τούτων µεταβολήν, ὡς ὅταν ζητῶµεν, ποῖόν ἐστι στοιχείων ἐν τῷ ἔµπορϱος, τὸ ν ἢ τὸ µ. ποσότης δέ ἐστι ζήτησις περϱὶ πλείονα ἢ ἐλάσσονα φωνήεντα κϰατὰ τὴν λέξιν, τουτέστι περϱὶ διφθόγγου ἢ µονοφθόγγου, οἷον· τὸ µῖµος πῶς γρϱαπτέον; διὰ τοῦ ι ἢ διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου; ταῦτα µὲν οὖν τὰ εἴδη τῆς ὀρϱθογρϱαφίας. κϰανόνες ὀρϱθογρϱαφίας τέσσαρϱες· ἀναλογία, διάλεκϰτος, ἐτυµο- λογία κϰαὶ ἱστορϱία. κϰαὶ ἔστι ἀναλογία µὲν κϰανὼν ἀποδεικϰτικϰός, ἱστορϱία δὲ ἡ τῶν παλαιῶν παρϱάδοσις, διάλεκϰτος δὲ ἰδίωµα γλώσσης, ἐτυµολογία δὲ σύντοµος κϰαὶ ἀληθὴς ἀπόδειξις τοῦ ζητουµένου παρϱὰ τὸ ἔτυµον, ὅ ἐστι ἀληθές. κϰαὶ πάλιν ἀναλογίᾳ µὲν οὖν κϰατορϱθοῦµεν γρϱαφήν, ὅταν κϰανόνα ἀποδῶµεν, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡµερϱινός ἐφάνη, διαλέκϰτῳ δέ, ὅταν τὸ µείλιχος διὰ ει γρϱά- φων εἴπω· ἐπειδὴ οἱ Αἰολεῖς µέλλιχος λέγουσι τὸ πρϱοσὸν ε ἐν τῇ λέξει ἐκϰφωνήσαντες, ἐτυµολογίᾳ δέ, ὅταν εἵλωτες διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γρϱάφων εἴπω· παρϱὰ τὸ Ἕλος, ἢ τὸ εἰλικϰρϱινής παρϱὰ τὴν ἕλην, τουτέστι τοῦ ἡλίου αὐγήν· ἱστορϱίᾳ δέ, ὅταν τὸ χίλιοι διὰ τοῦ ι γρϱάφων εἴπω, ὅτι οὕτως αὐτὸ γρϱάφεσθαι βούλεται ἡ παρϱάδοσις. χρϱὴ µὲν γινώσκϰειν ὡς ἡ ἱστορϱία πολλάκϰις ἐναντι- οῦται διαλέκϰτῳ· τῶν γὰρϱ Αἰολέων χέλλιοι λεγόντων ἀπῄτει διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γρϱάφεσθαι, ἡ δὲ παρϱάδοσις τῶν παλαιῶν τὸ ι ἔχει. ___ Ps.-Theodosios auf dieselbe Quelle wie Charax und der Anonymus Cra- meri, also Herodian, zurückgeht.” I print the text of Alpers 6–7 with a few modifications in punctuation; moreover, I adopt Graux’s κϰατορϱθοῦµεν γρϱα- φήν instead of κϰατορϱθῶµεν γρϱάφειν of the manuscripts, and χίλιοι proposed by Egenolff (20 n.14) instead of χίλιος. STEFANO VALENTE 649 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 639–650 Orthography has two meanings: it is both the exact spelling according to the word and the demonstrative canon which dem- onstrates the word correctly spelt. For instance, if I spell ἐαρϱινός (“of spring”) with iota, the word itself correctly spelt is called orthography. And if I am asked about the account of the spelling and I say “all the adjectives indicating seasons or moments of the day ending in -ινος are spelt with iota, as ἡµερϱινός (‘diurnal’) and νυκϰτερϱινός (‘nocturnal’),” then the canon itself is called or- thography. The fields of orthography are three: syntax, quality, quantity. Syntax is the investigation about letters at the end and in the sequence of syllables, as when we inquire to which syllable we assign the letters: for example, does the first sigma in the ad- jective ἀσθενής (“weak”) end the first syllable or begin the second? Quality is the investigation about consonants and their change, as when we inquire which is the letter in the word ἔµ- πορϱος (“trader”), my or ny. Quantity is the investigation about the presence of more or fewer vowels in a word, that is about diphthong or monophthong: for example, how must the word µίµος (“mime”) be spelt? With iota or the diphthong epsilon- iota? These are the fields of orthography. The canons of orthography are four: analogy, dialect, etymol- ogy, and history. Analogy is the demonstrative canon, history the tradition of the ancients, dialect is a special form of a language, etymology is the concise and true demonstration of the matter of inquiry according to its genuine sense, that is, true origin. And we correct the spelling with analogy, when we enun- ciate a canon, as it has been made clear for the word ἡµερϱινός. With dialect, when I spell the word µείλιχος (“gentle”) with the diphthong epsilon-iota and I say: “because the Aeolians say µέλλιχος pronouncing the epsilon present in the word.” With etymology, when I spell εἵλωτες (“helots”) with the diphthong epsilon-iota and I say: “it comes from Ἕλος (‘Helos’),” or εἱλικϰρϱινής (“pure”) from ἕλη (“warmth of the sun”), that is the brightness of the sun. With history, when I spell χίλιοι (“a thousand”) with iota and say that the paradosis has it spelt in this way. It is necessary to know that history often contradicts dialect: for instance, since the Aeolians say χέλλιοι, the dialect would require the spelling with the diphthong epsilon-iota, but the tradition of the ancients has iota. 650 CHOEROBOSCUS’ PROLEGOMENA TO ORTHOGRAPHY ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 639–650 Apart from the general identity of structure and contents due to their common source, conclusive differences include the double definition of orthography and its exemplification in the first paragraph, and the examples used for the four canons in the third. In particular, the analogy-canon is accounted for by the exemplification of the second meaning of orthography—ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡµερϱινός ἐφάνη—which differs from that of Ps.-Theo- dosius (ταχεῖα). Therefore, only Ps.-Theodosius 61.22–62.26 seems to agree with Epim.Ps. 89.5–30: here Choeroboscus lists and explains the four canons which assure the correctness of spelling, as is usual in all introductions to orthography, seemingly citing his own lost Prolegomena to Orthography. The wording of these two passages is nearly the same, and Ps.-Theodosius can also justify the otherwise unintelligible definition of analogy as ὥσπερϱ ἐπὶ τοῦ ταχεία ἐδηλώσαµεν. Thus, it can be inferred that these paragraphs of Ps.-Theodosius may be (or at least come from) Choeroboscus’ lost Prolegomena to his Orthography, being thus a primary witness. However, this remains a hypothesis until a new complete critical edition of these two works is produced, which will allow for a more accurate inquiry into their mutual textual relationships.31 July, 2010 Dpt. di Filologia Classica e Medioevale Università di Bologna via Zamboni 32 I–40126 Bologna, Italy stefano.valente@unibo.it 31 This paper is based on a lecture (“The Writing Identity of a Byzantine Man: Choeroboscus and the Canons of Greek Orthography”) given on 6 March 2010 at the conference Being Byzantine: Limits, Definitions and Realities (Oxford), organized by the Oxford Byzantine Society. I would like to ex- press my gratitude to Marco Ercoles, Leonardo Fiorentini, Camillo Neri, Renzo Tosi, and the anonymous reader for GRBS for their valuable sug- gestions and criticism to my paper.