Sandri ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 ISSN 2159-3159 Article copyright held by the author(s) and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ A Grammatical Fragment on ἀντίστοιχα: MS. Bodl. Gr. misc. e. 1 Maria Giovanna Sandri S. Bodleianus gr.misc.e. 1 (S.C. 30541) is a single frag- ment (recto/verso) made of oriental paper (see figs. 1 and 2). The surviving fragment measures 145 x 110 mm, but its original size is uncertain (although it cannot have been much larger, since the lines of script are almost complete). It is unknown whether it comes from a scroll or a codex. Ac- cording to the Summary Catalogue of F. Madan, the leaf contains “a fragment of a Greek treatise on accents, with interlinear Arabic notes”; it is attributed to Egypt and is tentatively dated to the 14th century.1 The script: place and date The manuscript is written in a majuscule script mixed with minuscule elements, which recalls the sloping pointed majus- cule (perhaps representing a later development of it) or the so- called ‘scrittura mista’. Letters such as ε, θ, ο, and ς are shaped in the peculiar square module ‘a ovale spezzato’; the vertical strokes of letters such as ρ, υ, φ, and ψ transgress the bilinear scheme, and the horizontal strokes of τ and θ end with char- acteristic, angular serifs.2 In general the script slopes slightly to 1 F. Madan, Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford V (Oxford 1905) 829. 2 On the sloping pointed majuscule see the recent study by P. Orsini, “La minuscola ogivale inclinata. Contributo preliminare,” Scripta 9 (2016) 89– 116, with previous bibliography. On the ‘scrittura mista’ see F. D’Aiuto, M 202 A GRAMMATICAL FRAGMENT ON ΑΝΤΙΣΤΟΙΧΑ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 the right. The only minuscule letters are two deltas at lines 7 (δορά) and 9 recto (plus the ones in the abbreviations for δ(ί)φ(θογγος) at 6 recto and 11 verso); but two majuscule deltas can be found at 7 recto (δόρυ) and 8 verso (δεύτερον). De- sinences are occasionally abbreviated (e.g. ξενί(ων) at 8 recto, τ(ῆς) at 11 recto, δεύτερ(ον) at 8 verso), the S-shaped καί is always employed, and the abbreviation of δ(ί)φ(θογγος) is often written. Diacritics are almost always present (but not always, e.g. δευτερον at 8 verso); breathings have a slightly angular shape. I have submitted the script to Professor Nigel Wilson, from whom I have gratefully received invaluable advice and help. As regards the chronology, he thinks it is unlikely that the script is later than the tenth century. He also believes it quite im- probable that a majuscule of this kind should be used for such a paraliterary text at a period later than the tenth century. Indeed, it recalls the script of Sinaiticus gr. 210, whose dating to 861/2 has been convincingly argued by L. Politis.3 Several parallels can be found among the “new finds” at St. Cath- erine’s on Mt. Sinai: e.g. NE ΜΓ 43 (9th cent., Ephrem the Syrian),4 ΜΓ 62 (9th cent., Troparia [on paper!]),5 and ΜΓ 104 (9th cent., Prayers [on paper!]).6 A similar script is visible in Bodl.gr.bib.e. 1 and, even more so, in Bodl.gr.liturg.d. 1. The first consists of three Greek fragments of the New Testament (Jn 3:23, 3:26–27, 1 Cor 11:3), with ___ “La ‘scrittura mista’ maiuscolo-minuscola d’area mediorientale,” in Chr. Brockmann et al., Griechisch-Byzantinische Handschriften-Forschung. Traditionen, Entwicklungen, neue Wege I (Berlin 2020) 145–169. 3 L. Politis, “Nouveaux manuscrits grecs découverts au Mont Sinai,” Scriptorium 34 (1980) 5–17; see also Orsini, Scripta 9 (2016) 96–101. 4 The New Finds of Sinai (Athens 1999) 149 and pl. 69. 5 The New Finds 152 and pl. 81. 6 The New Finds 158 and pl. 112; see also the image of a majuscule fragment from a parchment scroll, dated 9th cent., pl. 118. MARIA GIOVANNA SANDRI 203 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 Arabic on the back, and it is made of oriental paper.7 The second consists of a tiny piece of oriental paper, carrying a small fragment of a liturgical work, with Arabic in the margins. Given the similarity between the scripts, the employment of the same material, and the coexistence of Greek and Arabic, I think it is quite likely that these fragments come from the same place, and that they must be dated to approximately the same period. Unfortunately, the Summary Catalogue does not provide any information on the provenance and the time of acquisition of these artifacts by the Bodleian Library;8 but the fact that these fragments are labelled with continuous numbers (30539 to 30541) suggests that they were acquired on the same occa- sion. That the fragment is made of oriental paper does not contra- dict the chronology suggested by Professor Wilson, as paper was surely in use in the Islamic Middle East from the ninth century onwards.9 This is confirmed, for example, by the famous MS. Vat.gr. 2200, one of the oldest Greek codices made of paper, dated to the 8th–9th centuries and possibly from Egypt or the Syro-Palestinian area.10 But the Vatican manuscript is 7 On this MS. see esp. N. Wilson, Mediaeval Greek Bookhands: Examples Selected from Greek Manuscripts in Oxford Libraries (Cambridge [Mass.] 1973) nr. 8 and pl. 8. Despite the rather low date which was tentatively suggested in this study (“date uncertain, perhaps even as late as the 12th or 13th c.”), Professor N. Wilson has now changed his mind and thinks the manuscript should probably be backdated. 8 The only information we have is that they were surely acquired after 1887: see Madan, Summary Catalogue 829. 9 See esp. J. Irigoin, “Les premiers manuscrits grecs écrits sur papier et le problème du bombycin,” Scriptorium 4 (1950) 194–205, and L. Perria, “Il Vat. gr. 2200. Note codicologiche e paleografiche,” RSBN N.S. 20–21 (1983–84) 25–68. 10 On this MS. See E. Follieri, Codices Graeci Bibliothecae Vaticanae selecti (Vatican City 1969) 21–23 and Tav. 12; Perria, RSBN N.S. 20–21 (1983–84) 25–68; G. De Gregorio, “Materiali vecchi e nuovi per uno studio della minuscola greca fra VII e IX secolo,” in G. Prato (ed.), I manoscritti greci tra 204 A GRAMMATICAL FRAGMENT ON ΑΝΤΙΣΤΟΙΧΑ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 not the only early attestation of the use of paper. On the contrary, several oriental paper manuscripts of the ninth or tenth century have been discovered among the “new finds” in St. Catherine’s: in this collection, out of a total of 113 Greek manuscripts written in a majuscule script, 18 (ca. 16%) are made of oriental paper, and they have all been dated to the ninth and tenth centuries.11 As regards the place of origin of our manuscript, the co- existence of Greek and Arabic text points to the East.12 Since the Arabic notes are essentially translations of the Greek text, it is likely that this manuscript was at some point in the hands of an Arabic speaker who wanted to learn Greek. To be sure, these considerations do not fix with certainty the place of origin of the Greek script, because manuscripts often travelled, as did scribes. However, the parallels with manuscripts from St. Catherine’s, together with the peculiar type of script and the early employment of paper, suggest that Bodl.gr.misc.e. 1 was in all probability written in the East—Egypt, maybe St. Cath- erine’s, Syria, or Palestine, perhaps even Jerusalem, around the ninth/tenth centuries. The text The fragmentary text deals with the so-called ἀντίστοιχα, i.e. vowels or diphthongs that sounded the same in post-Classical ___ riflessione e dibattito I (Florence 2000) 82–151, at 103 and n.126, 108 n.154, 109–110, Tav. 12; L. Perria, Repertorio dei manoscritti greci di area orientale (Palestino-Sinaitica) (Messina 2000) nr. 17 and Tavv. 14–15. 11 These are ΝΕ ΜΓ 62 (9th cent.), ΜΓ 68 (9th), ΜΓ 73 (9th), ΜΓ 74 (9th), ΜΓ 75 (10th), ΜΓ 86 (9th), ΜΓ 92 (9th), ΜΓ 93 (9th), ΜΓ 94 (9th), ΜΓ 95 (10th), ΜΓ 96 (9th), ΜΓ 97 (9th), ΜΓ 102 (9th), ΜΓ 103 (9th), ΜΓ 104 (9th), ΜΓ 106 (10th), ΜΓ 109 (9th/10th), ΜΓ 113 (9th/10th). But note also some old manuscripts written on paper and in minuscule, such as ΝΕ M 21 (9th/10th) and M 362 (10th/11th). 12 A referee points out that palaeographical characteristics like the dark ink and the descending strokes highly developed beyond the base line also point in this direction. MARIA GIOVANNA SANDRI 205 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 Greek: αι/ε, ει/ι/η, οι/υ, ο/ω.13 Although of considerable impor- tance for Greek orthography in the Byzantine period, this genre still lacks in-depth study. In the Byzantine age not only were some treatises entirely dedicated to ἀντίστοιχα (and com- monly entitled Περὶ ἀντιστοίχων), but orthographic texts with a wider scope usually dealt with this peculiar phenomenon too. This second case is represented, for example, by Theognostus’ On orthography (9th cent.),14 which seems the closest parallel to our text in terms of structure at least (see below); and also by several Byzantine schedographies (the common grammatical textbooks of the Byzantine age, consisting of a succession of rules—lexicographic, syntactic, morphologic, phonetic, ortho- graphic, etc.—applied to small compositions (σχέδαι), written both in prose and in poetry).15 Most of the treatises entirely 13 See esp. E. Follieri, “Ἀντίστοιχα,” Δίπτυχα 4 (1986/7) 217–228; and “Iota mutum: Ripristino o eliminazione in alcuni testi bizantini,” RCCM 36 (1994) 271–280, at 279. On this genre in general see P. Egenolff, Die orthographischen Stücke der byzantinischen Litteratur (Leipzig 1888). See also H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner II (Munich 1978) 18– 22. S. Roussou is now preparing the entry “ἀντίστοιχα” for the Encyclopedia of Greco-Roman Scholarship (ed. F. Montanari and A. Rengakos), as well as the first critical edition of an anonymous antistoicharion transmitted in Barocci 10 and 48 (on which she gave a preliminary report at the international workshop “Editing Ancient Grammatical Texts: Challenges and Oppor- tunities,” Wolfson College, Oxford, June 2023). 14 On Theognostus’ Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας see K. Alpers, Theognostos Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας: Überlieferung, Quellen und Text der Kanones 1–84 (Hamburg 1964). The rest of the work is available in J. A. Cramer, Anecd.Ox. (Oxford 1835). S. Roussou is currently preparing a new critical edition of this work. Cf. S. Roussou, “The Reception of Herodian in the Byzantine Period: The Case of Theognostus,” GRBS 57 (2017) 482–506; J. Schneider, Les traités ortho- graphiques grecs antiques et byzantins (Turnhout 1999) 231–234; Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit s.v. “Theognostos,” https://www.degruyter.com/ database/PMBZ/entry/PMBZ19266/html. For dating this work to the mid 9th cent. see T. Antonopoulou, “The Date of Theognostos’ Orthography: A Reappraisal,” ByzZeit 101 (2010) 1–12. 15 On the application of ἀντίστοιχα to schedography see, for example, P. 206 A GRAMMATICAL FRAGMENT ON ΑΝΤΙΣΤΟΙΧΑ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 dedicated to ἀντίστοιχα still remain to be published.16 The chief aim of these texts was to prescribe how to write words that sounded the same in spoken language but were different in both orthography and semantics. That this was a widespread problem in Byzantine times is confirmed by a punishment of 130 genuflexions ascribed to Theodore the Studite (8th/9th cent.) for those scribes who “did not take good care of ἀντί- στοιχα, accents, and punctuation” when copying texts: εἰ µὴ φιλοκάλως κρατεῖ τὸ τετράδιον, καὶ τίθησι τὸ ἀφ’ οὗ γράφει βιβλίον, καὶ σκέπει ἐν καιρῷ ἑκάτερα, καὶ παρατηρεῖται τά τε ἀντίστ〈ο〉ιχα καὶ τοὺς τόνους καὶ τὰς στιγµάς, ἀνὰ µετανοίας λ′ καὶ ρ′.17 I have compared the text of our manuscript with the extant treatises on ἀντίστοιχα known to me and have not been able to find an exact match. Our text is quite schematic and provides pairs (or triplets) of words whose orthography mostly changes ___ Agapitos, “Anna Komnene and the Politics of Schedographic Training and Colloquial Discourse,” Νέα ῾Ρώμη 10 (2013) 89–107, at 91 and 102 n.57, and “Grammar, Genre and Patronage in the Twelfth Century: Redefining a Scientific Paradigm in the History of Byzantine Literature,” JÖB 64 (2014) 1–22; A. Giannouli, “Education and Literary Language in Byzantium,” in M. Hinterberger (ed.), The Language of Byzantine Learned Literature (Turnhout 2014) 52–71, at 62–64, 67, 71. 16 Theodora Antonopoulou will soon publish the Orthographical Canons of Nicetas of Heraclea (12th cent.), which also deal with ἀντίστοιχα. She has already published a preliminary study of the manuscript tradition, “The Orthographical Kanons of Nicetas of Heraclea,” JÖB 53 (2003) 171–185. Schneider, Les traités 526–743, mentions some of the extant treatises on ἀντίστοιχα: some were published by A. Ludwich, Anekdota zur griechischen Orthographie I–XIV (Könisberg 1905–1910). An excerpt from the ἀντι- στοιχάριον copied in Vat.gr. 23 was published by R. Reitzenstein, “Inedita poetarum graecorum fragmenta,” Index lectionum in Academia Rostochiensi semestri hiberno a. 1890/1892 3–18, at 8–15. 17 PG 99.1740. ἀντίστ〈ο〉ιχα is supplemented by J. Featherstone, “A Note on Penances Prescribed for Negligent Scribes and Librarians in the Mon- astery of Studios,” Scriptorium 36 (1982) 258–260. Cf. Giannouli, in The Language of Byzantine Learned Literature 67 n.74. MARIA GIOVANNA SANDRI 207 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 on the basis of ἀντίστοιχα (ὑννή/οἶνος [recto 3–6], δῶρα/δορά/ δορύ [recto 6–11], and πολῶ/πωλῶ [verso 6–11]). For each orthographic form the relevant meaning is given. The whole text is organized under the following scheme: “word X and word Y: in the former case, meaning so-and-so, vowel/diph- thong x (is used); in the latter case, meaning so-and-so, vowel/diphthong y (is used).” Some prescriptions on accentua- tion are occasionally given too, as περισπώµενος (“with the circumflex on the last syllable”) at verso 10 confirms; and one might assume that occasional rules on aspiration and quantities of δίχρονα (Greek vowels that can be either short or long: α, ι, υ) were also provided. A similar pattern is used, for example, by Theodore Prodromus (12th cent.) in his Κανὼν περὶ ἀντιστοί- χων,18 by the anonymous author of the Τεχνολογία περὶ ἀν- τιστοίχων transmitted in Vat.gr. 883 (ff. 1r–14v, 14th cent.), Matritensis 4623 (ff. 150r–173r, 15th cent.), and Paris.gr.suppl. 1242 (ff. 173r–188r, A.D. 1697);19 and by the anonymous author of the short, orthographic παρασηµειώσεις in Oxon.Barocci 76 (ff. 266r–276r, 15th cent.).20 Theodore Prodromus’ Κανὼν περὶ ἀν- τιστοίχων is also especially close to our text in that, though mainly focused on ἀντίστοιχα, it also includes pairs of words that are similarly written but not similarly spoken: e.g. line 32 εἴρηκεν/ᾑρήκει, 62 ὕθλος/ἦθος, 103–104 κόµη/κόµµος/κῶµος/ κώµην/κῶµον. It is worth noting that if the proposed dating to the ninth/tenth century is correct and if one assumes that our fragment originally belonged to a treatise entirely dedicated to ἀντίστοιχα (as I am inclined to think) and not to a wider text on 18 W. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos: Historische Gedichte (Vienna 1974) nr. 186. The text was edited by E. Miller, “Lexiques grecs inédits,” Annuaire de l’Association pour l’encouragement des études grecques en France 8 (1874) 222–284, at 237–248. 19 On this τεχνολογία see Schneider, Les traités 705–733. 20 On these annotations see Schneider, Les traités 578–579. 208 A GRAMMATICAL FRAGMENT ON ΑΝΤΙΣΤΟΙΧΑ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 orthography, then to my knowledge this manuscript appears to be the most ancient witness of a text on ἀντίστοιχα.21 Recto . . . . . ο̣...............τ̣ο̣........ 1 ἰ̣µ̣ε̣.ν[...]δίφθογγος[..].[.].[....] καὶ ἦτ̣α ἐπὶ τ̣έλ̣[ου]ς̣, [τὸ δεύτε]- ρ̣ον ἐπὶ τοῦ συν̣δέ[σ]µ̣[ου. ὑν]- ثرحلا ذیبن ‘plough’ ‘wine’ νή καὶ οἷνος· [τ]ὸ πρῶτ̣ο̣ν̣ [ἐπὶ τοῦ] 5 ἀρότρου υ̣ ψ̣ι̣λ̣ό̣ν̣, [τ]ὸ δ[εύτε]- ρον ἐπὶ τοῦ ο̣ἶ̣ν̣ο̣υ̣ οι δίφθογγος. [δῶρα] دلج ‘skin’ καὶ δορά καὶ δ̣ό̣ρ̣υ̣· [τ]ὸ πρῶτον ἐπ̣[ὶ τῶν] ξενίων ω µέγα ἡ̣ π̣αραλ[ήγου]- ىناثلا ‘skin’ σα, [τ]ὸ δεύτερον ἐπὶ τ̣[οῦ δέρµα]- 10 τος ο µικρὸν καὶ [ἄ]λ̣[φα. τὸ] ثلاثلا ‘third’ τρίτο̣ν̣ ἐπὶ̣ τῆς αἰ<χ>µῆς̣ حمرلا ‘spear’ fort. post 12 <ο µικρὸν καὶ υ> addendum, ut anonymus corrector proposuit Verso . . . . . [.................]λ[..] 1 [..............].[....]εν [...........].ι̣....ΐ̣α̣ς̣ 21 The famous Oxon.Barocci 50 is also dated to the tenth century, but it contains (ff. 1r–109r) Theognostus’ On Orthography, not a text specifically dedicated to ἀντίστοιχα. On this MS. see esp. F. Ronconi, “Bodleian Library ms. Baroccianus 50: annotazioni codicologiche su un manoscritto miscel- laneo,” in B. Atsalos (ed.), Actes du VIe Colloque International de Paléographie Grecque (Athens 2008) 639–655. MARIA GIOVANNA SANDRI 209 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 π.λ[........].καὶ τ̣..ο̣υ̣ لوألا [ ] ‘first’ [πολῶ καὶ πωλῶ·] τὸ πρ̣ῶτον ἐπὶ̣ 5 [τοῦ] κ̣ι̣ν̣[οῦµαι ἡ π]α̣ραλήγο̣υ̣σα [....].[...]λ̣ω̣ι̣ς̣, [τ]ὸ δεύτερον [ἐπὶ τοῦ] π̣ι̣πράσκω ω µέγα, [ἀµφό]τερ̣α περισπωµ̣έ̣νως. 10 [.......].ι̣ δίγθογγος ἀπ.τ[..].εϊν 2 ]γ[ vel ]τ[ 3 fort. παλ- vel πωλ- 4 τ̣..ο̣υ̣] τρίτου vel τούτου fort. legendum 10 περισπωµένως scripsi] περισπωµένος [sic] cod. 11 lege ει vel οι ante δίγθογγος lege ἀποτ- vel ἀπετ- Recto … diphthong … and eta at the end … the second means the conjunction. Hynnḗ and hoínos: the first means ‘plough’ (with hypsilon), the second means ‘wine’ (with the diphthong oi ). Dṓra, dorá, and dóry: the first means ‘gifts’ (the penultimate syllable having omega), the second means ‘skin’ (with omicron and alpha), the third means ‘spear’ … Verso … [polṓ and pōlṓ:] the first means ‘to move forward’ (the penultimate syllable having …22), the second means ‘to sell’ (with omega), and they both have the circumflex accent on the last syllable. … diphthong … Notes Recto 1–4: The traces are too scanty to make any guess about the restoration of the passage. The first word of the pair is made of a diphthong (perhaps οι?) and ends with -η, while the second is a conjunction. 4–6: For ὑννή meaning ‘plough’ see Hsch. υ 198 ὑννή· αἴξ. καὶ τὸ τοῦ ἀρότρου σιδήριον τὸ τέµνον τὴν γῆν. καὶ ὕννις ὁµοίως. I think that the opposition was originally between ὑνή and οἴνη 22 One would expect to have ο µικρόν (omicron) here, but the extant traces do not seem to match this restoration: I see two low vertical strokes and little more. 210 A GRAMMATICAL FRAGMENT ON ΑΝΤΙΣΤΟΙΧΑ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 (not οἶνος, nor οἷνος): for the early use of οἴνη instead of οἶνος see e.g. Hes. Op. 572, Scut. 292; Eur. Bacch. 535, Phoen. 229; Hyps. fr.58.4; Moschion fr.6.12; etc. At a certain point (maybe already in the source of our text) οἴνη was corrupted into οἶνος, and in order to make it more similar to ὑνη (and in some way different from οἶνος) someone put the rough breathing on it.23 However, it must be pointed out that the aspirated form ap- parently has a few occurrences in the Eastern area: e.g. Isaias Abbas Ascet. 12.1.13, 28.2.7;24 Nilus Ancyr. Ἄισμα 74.8.1, 77.9.1;25 Euth. Zigab. Ad Alex. 3.140.55, 7.249.32, 25.1268.41, etc.26 If it does not reflect a real aspiration of this word in spoken language, one may wonder whether these occurrences are just mistakes in copying or whether this spelling was indeed in use in the Eastern area during the Byzantine age. On the orthography of οἶνος see Theogn. Orth. 354 Τὰ διὰ τοῦ υνος δισύλλαβα οὐκ οἶδε τὴν διὰ τῆς οι διφθόγγου γραφήν· θυνός· φρυνός· ξυνός· γρυνός· πλυνός· τὸ οἶνος σεσηµείωται διὰ τῆς οι διφθόγγου γραφόµενον· τὸ γὰρ κοινὸς διφορεῖται· ἐπὶ µὲν γὰρ τῆς πόλεως βαρύνεται καὶ διὰ τοῦ υ ψιλοῦ γράφεται· ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ ἐν δυσὶ τισὶ κειµένου διὰ τῆς οι διφθόγγου ὀξύνεται. The contrast be- tween οἴνη/οἶνος and ὑννή is not otherwise attested. 6–11: For δῶρα = ξένια see Hsch. δ 2725 δῶρα· ξένια.27 For 23 This distinction was merely orthographic, since the rough breathing was no longer pronounced at that time. 24 Ed. A. Iordanites, Τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀββᾶ Ἠσαΐου λόγοι ΚΘʹ (Jerusalem 1911). 25 Ed. H.-U. Rosenbaum, Nilus von Ancyra Schriften: Kommentar zum Hohelied I (Berlin 2004). 26 PG 130.20–1360. For the form χοἷνος, from the crasis of ὁ οἶνος, see also Tryphon fr.10.7.12–13 von Velsen (= Apol. Dysc. Conj. 14–16) ἐπιφερο- µένου γὰρ µόνου τοῦ ο κρᾶσιν ποιεῖται, καὶ ὁ σός χὡ σός, καὶ ὁ οἶνος χοἷνος, καὶ ὁ φίλος χὡ φίλος (which, however, I think has little to do with our passage). 27 See also e.g. Suda ξ 36 and Ps.-Zon. Lex. 589.26. MARIA GIOVANNA SANDRI 211 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 δορά = δέρµα see Hsch. δ 2203 δορά· δέρµα.28 For δόρυ = αἰχµή see Hsch. α 2205 αἰχµή· λόγχη, δόρυ.29 I do not find any parallel for the combination of these three pairs. Verso 6–11: cf. Theogn. Orth. 540 Τὸ πολῶ διφορεῖται κατά τε γραφήν, καὶ σηµασίαν· ἐπὶ µὲν γὰρ τοῦ πιπράσκω διὰ τοῦ ω µεγάλου, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ κινοῦµαι ἢ περιπατῶ διὰ τοῦ ο µικροῦ· ἀµφότερα οὖν ἐν τῇ συνθέσει τὴν ἰδίαν φυλάττει γραφήν [...]. On πολῶ see e.g. Hdn. Ep. 112.7–8; Ps.-Arc. Epit. 101.15, 181.14; Etym.Parv. µ 5; Epim.Hom. 1.19b; etc.30 December, 2022 Wolfson College, University of Oxford Linton Rd, Oxford OX2 6UD, UK maria.sandri@classics.ox.ac.uk 28 See also Hsch. δ 680 and e.g. Suda δ 1376, Etym.Mag. 284.12, Ps.-Zon. Lex. 562.20. 29 See also e.g. Etym.Gud. α 60.21–22 de Stefani and Ps.-Zon. Lex. 85.13. 30 I thank Professor Nigel Wilson and Stephanie Roussou for reading the paper, and for their invaluable advice and comments. I am also indebted to the anonymous referees for their helpful criticism. I owe the transcription of the Arabic notes in the critical edition to Nora Schmidt, to whom I am sincerely grateful. 212 A GRAMMATICAL FRAGMENT ON ΑΝΤΙΣΤΟΙΧΑ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 Fig. 1: Bodl. gr. misc. e. 1, recto MARIA GIOVANNA SANDRI 213 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 201–213 Fig. 2: Bodl. gr. misc. e. 1, verso