xenis3 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 42–46 2018 Georgios A. Xenis An Emendation in Philochorus FGrHist 328 F 194 Georgios A. Xenis HILOCHORUS offers a detail about the early practice of sacrifice (FGrHist 328 F 194 = schol. Soph. OC 100, p.12.12–20 De Marco, p.404.6–16 Papageorgiou): καὶ οὐ μόνον θυσίας νηφαλίους ἀλλὰ καὶ ξύλα τινὰ ἐφ’ ὧν ἔκαιον <νηφάλια ἐκάλουν>· Κράτης μὲν οὖν ὁ Ἀθηναῖος (362 F 4) τὰ μὴ ἀμπέλινα τῶν ξύλων πάντα νηφάλιά φησιν προσ- αγορεύεσθαι, ὁ δὲ Φιλόχορος ἀκριβέστερόν φησι τὰ μήτε ἀμ- πέλινα μήτε σύκινα ἀλλὰ τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν θύμων νηφάλια [φησι] καλεῖσθαι· καὶ πρώτῃ φησὶν ὕλῃ πρὸς τὰς ἐμπύρους θυσίας ταύτῃ κεχρῆσθαι, παρ’ ὃ καὶ τοὔνομα λαβεῖν τὸν θύμον ὡς παρὰ τὴν θυμίασιν καὶ τὴν θυὴν πεποιημένης τῆς φωνῆς … This is the text as printed by Jacoby.1 The underlined sentence is a faithful reproduction of what appears in L (= Laur. 32.9),2 and Jacoby is not the only scholar who follows the paradosis in this section of the text. Additionally, there are, on the one hand, Karl Müller, Virgilio Costa, and Nicholas Jones,3 and, on the other, all the editors of the scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Oedipus Coloneus. However, the sentence in question contains a difficulty, 1 The supplement νηφάλια ἐκάλουν belongs to Jacoby; the first to delete φησί was Triclinius (Paris.gr. 2711, fol. 151v), not Brunck. 2 I have checked the Triclinian MS. Paris.gr. 2711 and found it to repeat L’s readings in this sentence. For the Byzantine scholar’s correction of some of L’s mistakes see V. De Marco, “Gli scolii all’Edipo a Colono di Sofocle e la loro tradizione manoscritta,” RendNap N.S. 26 (1951) 26, and Scholia in Sophoclis Oedipum Coloneum (Rome 1952) ix. 3 K. Müller, FHG I (1841) 389, F 31; V. Costa, Filocoro di Atene I (Tivoli 2007) 116, F 12a; N. Jones, in Brill’s New Jacoby 328 F 194. P GEORGIOS A. XENIS 43 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 42–46 which concerns the subject to which κεχρῆσθαι refers. The existing translations fail to recognise the real subject of κεχρῆσθαι: “Atque primo dicit hoc ligno ad cremanda sacra usos esse” (Müller); “And he says that they used this wood first for burnt sacrifices” (Harding);4 “And he says that (they) used this wood first for sacrifices over fire” (Jones). There is nothing in the Greek that corresponds to the translators’ “they” or “usos.”5 Costa’s translation (117) is also inaccurate vis-à-vis the trans- mitted text:6 “(Filocoro) riferisce che questo legname fu il primo ad essere usato per i sacrifici sul fuoco.”7 4 P. Harding, The Story of Athens: The Fragments of the Local Chronicles of Attika (London/New York 2008) 44, F 48. 5 Müller’s translation omits the subject accusative of the infinitive, which is strange in Latin syntax, and therefore leaves the reference obscure. However his usos suggests that he too felt inclined to make “they” or a similar notion the subject of κεχρῆσθαι. 6 On Costa’s translation see n.11 below. 7 It has been suggested to me that the subject of κεχρῆσθαι is indefinite (“And he says that people used this wood first for burnt sacrifices”) and that its absence from the sentence is under the rule defined in e.g. H. W. Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York 1920) §937a, that “an indefinite subject of the infinitive is usually omitted.” With all due respect, this suggestion is based on a misconception. Smyth 937a and §1980 (to which the reader is referred in §937a) are not relevant to our case in two respects. §1980 provides three examples: (i) φιλάνθρωπον εἶναι δεῖ “one (τινά) must be humane” Isoc. 2.15; (ii) ῥᾷον παραινεῖν ἢ παθόντα καρτερεῖν “it is easier for a man to give advice than to endure suffering” Men. Sent. 471; (iii) δρῶντας γὰρ ἢ μὴ δρῶντας ἥδιον θανεῖν “for it is preferable to die in action rather than doing nothing” Eur. Hel. 814. In these passages the governing verbs are either im- personal verbs or impersonal expressions, and, as such, they are not con- nected with any kind of definite subject. This suggests that the omitted subject of the infinitive can acquire the idea of indefiniteness only if that idea exists already in relation to the governing verb. In other words, the idea of in- definiteness is transferred from the ‘subject’ of the governing verb to the omitted subject of the infinitive. By contrast, in Φιλόχορος … πρώτῃ φησὶν ὕλῃ … ταύτῃ κεχρῆσθαι the subject of the governing verb is definite (Φιλόχορος). So in our case there is absolutely no source from which the omitted subject of the infinitive could acquire the notion of indefiniteness. The second respect in which the rule is irrelevant can be described as follows: 44 AN EMENDATION IN PHILOCHORUS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 42–46 The (omitted) subject of κεχρῆσθαι can be none other than the subject of the leading verb φησίν, that is, Philochorus, and the correct translation can be nothing but “And he says that he used this material (scil. thyme wood = τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν θύμων ξύλα) first for burnt sacrifices.” However, to accept Philochorus as the subject of κεχρῆσθαι is problematic. To be sure, the original context from which the Philochorean material was extracted is lost; the passage in its present shape was probably written by Didymus, who was gathering the views of earlier scholars on what species of wood should be considered “sober.”8 Still an inference about the content of the original Philochorean ma- terial is possible: although Philochorus had a profession related to the conduct of sacrifices,9 it is inconceivable that he should have mentioned his own sacrificial practice and then proceeded in the next sentence, παρ’ ὃ καὶ τοὔνομα λαβεῖν τὸν θύμον (“on account of which thyme also took its name”), to identify it as the basis for the wood to acquire the name θύμος! After all, we know that the word θύμον/θύμος existed before Philochorus’ time (ca. 340–263/2 B.C.): cf. e.g. Pherecrates F 177 K.-A. ἀρκεῖ μία σκόνυζα καὶ θύμω δύο. Now in our Didymean passage the central idea is, quite ex- pectedly, “wood”; this is well brought out by the fact that all the subjects of the other three infinitives of our passage, that is, προσαγορεύεσθαι, καλεῖσθαι, and λαβεῖν, are various sorts of wood. This offers a clue as to how we can solve the problem. I in contrast to our case, which has an infinitive in Indirect Discourse, Smyth's examples involve infinitives not in Indirect Discourse. The difference of the two types of infinitives in relation to the indefiniteness/definiteness of the omitted subject is well explained by W. W. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (London 1889) §744, and need not be repeated here. 8 Cf. Jacoby’s notes on Philochorus F 12 (p.279). 9 According to FGrHist 328 T 1 = Suda φ 441 s.v. Φιλόχορος, Philochorus was an inspector of sacrificial victims (ἱεροσκόπος), and he wrote a book On Sacrifices (Περὶ θυσιῶν α΄). For the Atthidographers’ connection to the re- ligious life of Athens see J. Dillery, “Greek Sacred History,” AJP 126 (2005) 508–509. GEORGIOS A. XENIS 45 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 42–46 believe that the transmitted text of the Didymean passage re- quires emendation. Reasons of symmetry as well as meaning suggest that, like the other three infinitives, κεχρῆσθαι too should be provided with a subject related to a species of wood. I correct the transmitted text to καὶ πρώτην φησὶν ὕλην πρὸς τὰς ἐμπύρους θυσίας ταύτην κεχρῆσθαι,10 “And he says that this material was used first for burnt sacrifices.”11 In this new constitution of the text κεχρῆσθαι is now to be taken in its passive meaning, and the three datives connected with it, πρώτῃ … ὕλῃ … ταύτῃ, which served as the object of κεχρῆσθαι and the qualifications thereof, have been changed to accusatives to function as the subject of κεχρῆσθαι and the quali- fications thereof. Admittedly, the passive meaning of κεχρῆσθαι is uncommon; however, there are parallels, which, importantly, come from the field of ancient scholarship, precisely like our passage: (i) Phrynichus Ecl. 403 (ed. Fischer) Γελάσιμον· Στράτ- τιν μέν φασι τὸν κωμῳδοποιὸν (F 83 K.-A.) εἰρηκέναι τοὔνομα· ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς οὐ τοῖς ἅπαξ εἰρημένοις προσέχομεν τὸν νοῦν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς πολλάκις κεχρημένοις, κέχρηται δὲ τὸ γελοῖον. (ii) schol. Hom. Il. 24.23 τὸν δ’ ἐλεαίρεσκον: ἀπὸ τούτου ὀκτὼ (sc. 23–30) ἀθετοῦσι καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἑπτὰ (sc. 24–30) οὐκ ἀλόγως. ὁ δὲ πρῶτος ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ δεόντως κεχρῆσθαι ὥστε τὴν συναφὴν εἶναι· “τὸν δ’ ἐλεαίρεσκον μάκαρες θεοὶ εἰσορόωντες” / “ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή ῥ’ ἐκ 10 The Suda (ν 356 s.v. νηφάλιος θυσία) offers a slightly altered version of schol. Soph. OC 100. Among other alterations (e.g. omissions of the names of certain authors), it reworded our passage in such a way as to avoid κεχρῆσθαι, presumably because it had noticed the problem arising from Philochorus’ being the subject of κεχρῆσθαι: καὶ ξύλα δὲ νηφάλια, τὰ μὴ ἀμπέλινα μήτε σύκινα, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν θύμων. καὶ πρώτη ἐστὶν αὕτη ὕλη πρὸς τὰς ἐμπύρους θυσίας, παρ’ ὃ καὶ τοὔνομα…. It is significant that the sense of the Suda’s version coincides with the sense obtained from the Greek text as emended in this article. 11 Costa’s translation corresponds more closely to the revised than the transmitted version of the text. Is it possible that he understood the verb as a passive, as argued here, but neglected to mention the problem with the datives and suggest an emendation? 46 AN EMENDATION IN PHILOCHORUS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 42–46 τοῖο” (23. 31).12 With regard to the mechanism of corruption, it is entirely plausible that the rare passive construction πρώτην … ὕλην … ταύτην κεχρῆσθαι was trivialised to the common active construction πρώτῃ … ὕλῃ … ταύτῃ κεχρῆσθαι.13 It is helpful to end by offering a translation of the revised Greek text in its context: Now, Crates the Athenian says that all of the woods not from the vine are called sober. But Philochorus says more accurately that neither wood from the vine nor from the fig but rather wood from thyme is called sober. And he says that this material was used first for burnt sacrifices, on account of which thyme (θύμος) also took its name, on the grounds that the word was formed from the fuming (θυμίασις) and the burnt sacrifice (θυή).14 November, 2017 Department of Classics and Philosophy University of Cyprus gxenis@ucy.ac.cy 12 LSJ s.v. χράω (Β) C.VII is the relevant section, but it should include examples of the perfect tense besides those of the aorist. Moreover, as the discussion has made clear, Erbse’s adoption of Villoison’s conjecture τῷ in schol. Il. 5.266b is not necessary: τὸ ποινή κέχρηται is an acceptable con- struction and means “ποινή is used.” 13 A less satisfactory way to resolve the textual problem would be to add the subject <τοὺς Ἀθηναίους> to κεχρῆσθαι: the scholion on OC 100 itself arose out of the need to provide the reader with information on an Athenian sacrificial practice, and in the part of the scholion which precedes Philochorus F 194 the notion of “the Athenians” occurs both explicitly and implicitly: e.g. in De Marco’s edition p.12.7 Ἀθηναῖοι … θύουσιν; p.12.11 δρωμένων, scil. ὑπὸ Ἀθηναίων; ἔκαιον, scil. Ἀθηναῖοι. Moreover, the supplement restores an acceptable degree of generality to the sense of the passage. However, there are two disadvantages to this approach: (i) it is difficult to explain the loss of the phrase in the course of the manuscript transmission. By contrast, the loss of νηφάλια ἐκάλουν (see n.1) is more easily explicable: the scribe’s eye skipped from ΕΚΑΙON to the similar ΕΚΑΛOΥN. (ii) τοὺς Ἀθηναίους as subject of κεχρῆσθαι would not be in perfect harmony with the subjects of the other three infinitives. 14 I wish to thank the anonymous reader for his judicious comments on this article, and Professor Kent Rigsby for the speedy review process.