Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 46 (2006) 63–72 © 2006 GRBS An Unpublished Ethopoea of Severus of Alexandria Eugenio Amato HE FRAGMENTS of the sophist Severus of Alexandria known at the time, in all six dihgÆmata and eight ±yopoi˝ai, were collected for the first and last time in 1832 by Christian Walz.1 Such texts, however much in need of re-examination, still remain the exclusive, even élite, property of the dedicated few, mostly specialists in ancient rhetoric or students of early Byzantine literature. Thus there is no study of Severus and no comprehensive edition on a more scientific and reliable basis than the texts in Walz’s Rhetores Graeci, no com- 1 Chr. Walz, Rhetores Graeci I (Stuttgart 1832) 534–548. The republication (with commentary and German translation) of the entire corpus of Severus’ Progymnasmata, undertaken at the beginning of the last century by Otmar Schissel and his pupils, did not proceed beyond ethop. 2–5, 7–8 Walz: in chronological order, O. Schissel, “Severus von Alexandreia. Ein verschol- lener griechischer Schriftsteller des IV. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.,” Byzantinisch- neugriechische Jahrbücher 8 (1929–30) 1–13 [ethop. 7]; Fr. P. Karnthaler, “Severus von Alexandreia. Ein verschollener griechischer Schriftsteller des IV. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. II,” ibid. 327–330 [ethop. 5]; O. Schissel, “Theo- doros von Kynopolis,” ibid. 331–349 [ethop. 2, but attributed to Theodore of Cynopolis]; J. Glettner, “Severos von Alexandreia. Ein verschollener griechischer Schriftsteller des IV. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. III,” ibid. 9 (1930– 31/1931–32) 96–103 [ethop. 3]; A. Staudacher, “Severos von Alexandreia. Ein verschollener griechischer Schriftsteller des IV. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. IV,” ibid. 10 (1932–33/1933–34) 321–324 [ethop. 4]; K. Pichler, “Severos von Alexandreia. Ein verschollener griechischer Schriftsteller des IV. Jahr- hunderts n. Chr. V,” ibid. 11 (1934–35) 11–24 [ethop. 8]. For the Narrationes see too the editions by A. Westermann, MUYOGRAFOI. Scriptores poeticae historiae Graeci (Brunswick 1843) 362, 363, 373, 373–374, 378, 387 [= Narr. 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 2 Walz]—a critical revision of Walz’s text—and J. Jacobs, De progymnasmaticorum studiis mythographicis (diss. Marburg 1899) 43–44, 64–65, 22–23, 41–42, 18–19 [= Narr. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Walz]), useful mainly for the parallels and ancient sources. T 64 AN ETHOPOEA OF SEVERUS OF ALEXANDRIA plete translation into any modern language. For Severus, in particular, undeservedly absent from the dic- tionaries of reference—not only from LSJ, where, for example, for the word suggeÊomai, found in the title of ethop. 6 Walz, the only attestation cited is S Ar. Pax 115, but also from the recent and important Diccionario Griego-Español under the general editorship of Francisco Adrados,2 only belatedly admitted to the Realencyclopädie,3 excluded or forgotten in Lesky’s Geschichte and also in Christ-Schmid-Stählin’s Handbuch—a new examina- tion of the manuscript tradition is more than ever urgent, as is a careful and systematic study of his language and style, which might help resolve the controversy over the paternity of numer- ous writings in the certainly vaster Libanian corpus, the mark of a probable Schulzusammengehörigkeit,4 but in reality utterly alien to the Antiochene’s prose. An obvious instance is Ps.-Libanius Ethopoea 26 (T¤naw ín e‡poi lÒgouw eÈnoËxow §r«n),5 which, peremptorily attributed to 2 See the Lista I (Autores y Obras) and the Suplemento on the webpage http://www.filol.csic.es/dge/lst/lst-int.htm. 3 K. Gerth, “Severos von Alexandreia,” RE Suppl. 8 (1956) 715–718. 4 On Severus’ identity most scholars adopt Schissel’s conclusions, By- zantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 8 (1929–30) 2–3, that he was the pupil of Libanius against whom the latter directed an entire speech ca. 389: see R. Foerster, Jahrbücher für klassische Philologie 113 (1876) 640–641, no. 57 (Katå SebÆrou) in Foerster’s edition (Libanii Opera IV [Leipzig 1908] 150–174). This conclusion seems now to be challenged on rhythmical grounds by M. Steinrück, “Éthos et rythme dans les éthopées de Sévère d’Alexandrie,” in E. Amato and E. Schamp (eds.), ÉHYOPOIIA. La représentation de caractères entre fiction scolaire et réalité vivante à l’époque impériale et tardive (Salerno 2005) 157– 164. It has also been thought that this sophist’s name concealed the consul ordinarius Messius Phoebus Severus, who lived under Anthemius (467–472) and is mentioned by Photius (Bibl. cod. 142 = VI 9.16, 21.4, 22.31 and 10, 30.6, 47.21 Henry) and the Suda (s.v. Seb∞row [S 182]): see J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca2 VI (Hamburg 1712) 138, followed uncritically by Walz, Rhetores 356; Westermann, MUYOGRAFOI xix; J. Puiggali, “Art et folie: à propos d’Aristénète II 10,” Littérature, médecine et société 6 (1984) 29–40, at 32. However that may be, B. Puech, Orateurs et sophistes grecs dans les inscriptions d’époque impériale (Paris 2002) 450, is clearly wrong to propose identifying the sophist Aelius Severus mentioned in an epitaph of the 2nd–3rd century A.D. (CIL VI 10868, IG UrbRom II 296) with the Severus of Anthemius’ day. 5 Foerster, Libanii Opera VIII (Leipzig 1913) 434–435. EUGENIO AMATO 65 Severus by Schissel,6 has been properly established as his work by attentive examination of style, language, and content to- gether with the detailed investigation of the manuscript tradi- tion I have recently published elsewhere.7 This investigation in particular has also permitted the re- covery from Paris.gr. 2544 a fragment of an unpublished etho- poea by Severus, hitherto unknown to scholars, whose theme is the words pronounced by Demosthenes on the death of Philip (T¤naw ín e‡poi lÒgouw Dhmosy°nhw toË Fil¤ppou époyanÒntow). It is on this discovery that I intend to dwell here in order to present the first edition of the text, a translation, and a com- mentary. But let us begin by introducing the manuscript and its contents.8 It is a miscellaneous manuscript, on paper, containing 127 folios all told, certainly dating from the second half of the six- 6 O. Schissel, “Rhetorische Progymnasmatik der Byzantiner,” Byzan- tinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 11 (1934–35) 1–10, at 6 n.1, in opposition to K. Orinsky, De Nicolai Myrensis et Libanii quae feruntur progymnasmatis (diss. Breslau 1920), who had supported Nicholas of Myra (see E. Richtsteig, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 2 [1921] 209); Schissel is followed un- critically by H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner I (Munich 1978) 109, and Chr. Heusch, Die Achilles-Ethopoiie des Codex Salmasi- anus. Untersuchungen zu einer spätlateinischen Versdeklamation (Paderborn 1997) 35. Contra, B. Schouler, La tradition hellénique chez Libanios I (Lille/Paris 1984) 123–124, and J.-L. Fournet, “Une éthopée de Caïn dans le Codex des Visions de la Fondation Bodmer,” ZPE 92 (1992) 253–266, at 254 n.9, who still attribute the piece to Libanius. Indeed, Schissel offers no proof: cf. A. Stramaglia, “Amori impossibili. PKöln 250, le raccolte progimnasmatiche e la tradizione retorica dell’ ‘amanti di un ritratto’,” in B.-J. and J.-P. Schrö- der (eds.), Studium declamatorium. Untersuchungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkreden von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit (Leipzig 2003) 213–239, at 223 n.26. 7 E. Amato, “L’autore dell’EÈnoËxow §r«n (Ps.-Lib., ethop. 26 Foerster) ed il più antico frammento in prosa di etopea d’autore,” in E. Amato (ed. with the assistance of A. Roduit and M. Steinrück), Approches de la Troisième Sophistique. Hommages à Jacques Schamp II (Brussels 2005) 3–17; E. Amato, “Prolegomeni all’edizione critica dei Progimnasmi di Severo Alessandrino,” Medioevo greco 5 (2005) 1–42. Only W. Hörandner, Der Prosarhythmus in der rhetorischen Literatur des Byzantiner (Vienna 1981) 69, had previously proposed attribution to Severus following analysis of the rhythmical clausulae. 8 For a brief account of the MS., see H. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale III (Paris 1898) 1. 66 AN ETHOPOEA OF SEVERUS OF ALEXANDRIA teenth century, partly written by the Cretan Zachary Scordylis (Zaxar¤aw SkordÊlhw or SkordÊliow), §p¤tropow of the patriarch of Constantinople Josaphat II (1555–1565)9 and subsequently in the service of the French ambassador to Venice Jean Hurault de Boistaillé,10 for whom he became agent for acquir- ing books and also copied several manuscripts.11 Comparison with the handwriting in these manuscripts, and above all in Vind.Theol.gr. 72,12 leaves no doubt about the attribution to Scordylis of a part of Paris. 2544.13 The manuscript, which includes amongst other things ex- cerpts from Alexander of Aphrodisias, Michael Psellus, and Plethon, ends with an anthology of quotations from Severus’ ethopoeae (headed sebÆrou sofistoË élejandre¤aw, ±yopoi˝ai); in fact from eight ethopoeae, of which only the first six correspond to known texts. These are nos. 5, 7, 4, 6, 1, 2 Walz, copied respectively on ff. 123r.2–8, 123r.9–24, 123r.25–123v.19, 123v.20–124r.11, 124r.12–124v.5, 124v.6–25.14 9 See N. B. Tomadakes, “ÉEpiskopØ ka‹ §p¤skopoi Kudvn¤aw,” KretChron 11 (1957) 1–42, at 35–36. 10 He appears first as a historical figure in 1558 when he was entrusted with delivery of a letter dated 30 December 1557 from Henry II to the sultan Suleiman at Constantinople: E. Carrière, Négociations de la France dans le Levant II (Paris 1850) 421, 437, 452. 11 See D. F. Jackson, “The Greek Manuscripts of Jean Hurault de Boistaillé,” StIt IV 2 (2004) 209–252. For the manuscripts copied by Scor- dylis in general, see M. Vogel and V. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (Leipzig 1909) 126; Ch. G. Patrinelis, “ÜEllhnew kvdikogrãfoi t«n xrÒnvn t∞w énagennÆsevw,” EpetMesaionArch 8–9 (1958–59) 63–125, at 107; P. Canart, “Scribes grecs de la Renaissance. Additions et corrections aux répertoires de Vogel-Gardthausen et de Patri- nélis,” Scriptorium 17 (1963) 56–82, at 68 ; E. Gamillscheg and D. Harlfinger, Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800–1600, II Handschriften aus Bibliotheken Frankreichs und Nachträge zu den Bibliotheken Grossbritanniens, A. Verzeichnis der Kopisten (Vienna 1983) 76. 12 See Gamillscheg and Harlfinger, Repertorium II, C. Tafeln (Vienna 1989) Tab. 84. 13 See Jackson, StIt IV 2 (2004) 228: Zachary bought the MS. for J. Hurault de Boistaillé “ab Andrea Graeco 5 aureis” and he also wrote the text from folio 104 to the end. 14 And not on ff. 123–127 and 142v, as wrongly stated by Schissel, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 8 (1929–30) 8–9, 334. EUGENIO AMATO 67 There thus follow two other ethopoeae, which have so far at least in part escaped scholars’ notice. The final text (ff. 125v.13–126v, t¤naw ín e‡p˙ lÒgouw ı ¶rvw fid∆n fidrutÒmon kÒptein tØn mÊrran §pixeiroËnta ¶ti §gkumonoËsan tÚn êdvnin) in fact attracted Schissel’s attention, but he confined himself to reporting its title, albeit without investigating its authorship.15 In reality, as I have been able to establish, it is Progymn. 51 in Pignani’s edition of Nicephorus Basilaces, falsely attributed to Severus.16 Such errors of attribution are far from rare in works of this type. I hardly need stress that progymnastic literature, being a product of the schools and as such less protected in its textual integrity than high literature, was often subjected to reworking and reuse in educational circles by successive readers, be they professors of rhetoric or skilful adaptors.17 It is therefore no surprise that in Vind.Phil.gr. 321 Severus’ ethop. 3 Walz appears without a heading precisely amongst the Progymnasmata of the same Basilaces.18 However, so far as the Paris manuscript is concerned the reasons for the false ascription of Basilaces’ ethopoea to Severus may also be codicological. The ethopoea (t¤naw ín e‡p˙ lÒgouw dhmosy°nhw, toË fil¤ppou époyanÒntow) preceding the extract from Basilaces runs from f. 15 Schissel, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 8 (1929–30) 334 n.5. 16 The testimonium escaped the attentive and scrupulous researches of A. Pignani, “Prolegomeni all’edizione critica dei Progimnasmi di Niceforo Ba- silace,” Bollettino dei Classici N.S. 21 (1973) 41–57, at 41–43; ead., Niceforo Basilace. Progimnasmi e monodie (Naples 1983) 51–57. 17 Cf. Stramaglia, in Studium 230; id., “Le Declamationes maiores pseudo- quintilianee: genesi di una raccolta declamatoria e fisiognomia della sua trasmissione testuale,” in Amato, Approches 195–224; Amato, Medioevo greco 5 (2005) 28–30; id., “Costantino Porfirogenito ha realmente contribuito alla redazione dei Geoponica?” GFA 8 (2005) [forthcoming]. Severus himself is not exempt from this dynamic: for example, in Leid.Vulc.gr. 2, ethop. 4 Walz is wrongly ascribed to Libanius. In Urb.gr. 152, ethop. 4 and 6 bear an alterna- tive ascription to Procopius of Gaza; the same thing happens in Reg.gr. 147 to no. 4, in which no. 3 is inserted among the letters of Julian and Basil (f. 141v) and no. 7 among the ethopoeae of Libanius (131v), neither with any kind of heading, so as to bring the correct attribution into confusion. 18 Cf. Pignani, Bollettino dei Classici N.S. 21 (1973) 43; Amato, Medioevo greco 5 (2005) 32. 68 AN ETHOPOEA OF SEVERUS OF ALEXANDRIA 124v.26 to 125v.12. Consideration of the text, however, shows that it ought to be divided in two. Only the portion from f. 124v.26 to 125r.7 (t∞w pleonej¤aw) corresponds to the title of the ethopoea in question. Not being known from another source, it may be confidently identified as a damaged fragment of an un- published ethopoea that as we shall see is the work of Severus of Alexander. The following lines (f. 125r.8–125v.12, g°gonen ≤ pa›w – doke› moi Íf°jontai), by contrast, correspond to Nicol. Progymn. 6 (I p.305.8–21 Walz).19 How is this gap to be ex- plained? I maintain that our manuscript faithfully reproduces a copy (how remote cannot be established) in which the loss of an indefinite number of intervening folios can be presumed to have caused a leap from the new ethopoea to Nicolaus, the two texts being copied back-to-back without the scribe’s noticing. Be that as it may, the evidence of Paris.gr. 2544 represents a good example of Pasquali’s well-known principle recentiores non deteriores.20 What is surprising is the perfunctory and negligent treatment of the manuscript by Severus’ previous editors. The manuscript, which Schissel at first merely recorded21 without thinking it worth considering for establishing the text of ethop. 7 Walz, suddenly appears in the apparatus of nos. 2, 4 and 5 Walz as edited by Schissel himself and his pupils Stau- dacher and Karnthaler.22 None of them, however, took the trouble to give a preliminary description of the manuscript or at least study its relation to the other witnesses. That explains 19 Walz did not know the evidence of the Paris MS., which offers an abridged text. 20 Collation of the MS. does not reveal heavy corruption, thus making it an important witness within its family. The order in which Severus’ etho- poeae are transmitted and the readings shared with other MSS. or peculiar to it indicate that it belongs to what I call the b family, along with Vind.Phil. gr. 321 (XIII med.), Paris.gr. 2918 (XIV ex.), Barocci 131 (XIII), Neapol.gr. 209 [III.AA.6] (XIII/XIV), Cantabr. 1158 [O.2.54] (XVII), Virens. 124 (XVII), Langb. 9 (XVII–XVIII), but is not dependent on any of them. For details see Amato, Medioevo greco 5 (2005) 28. 21 Schissel, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 8 (1929–30) 8. 22 Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 8 (1929–30) 325 and n.1, 334; 10 (1932–33/1933–34) 322. EUGENIO AMATO 69 for example why Staudacher considers our very manuscript to be the original of the much older Paris.gr. 2918!23 I present an edition and translation of the new fragment: T¤naw ín e‡poi lÒgouw Dhmosy°nhw toË Fil¤ppou époyanÒntow; EÔge t∞w tÊxhw, kairÚw §leuyer¤aw ¥kei to›w ÜEllhsi ka‹ dustuxhmãtvn énãpaula. pãlin éneilÆfamen ëpantew ì tÚ pr‹n éf˙r°yhmen, ka‹ g°gona tØn gl«ssan metå t∞w poli- te¤aw §leÊyerow, pr≈hn t“ d°ei t∞w parous¤aw énaptÒmenow. EÔge toË yanãtou, mÒnon går toËton oÈk §xeir≈sato F¤lippow, éllå pãntvn kratÆsaw, ÍpÚ toÊtou kekrãthtai, ka‹ g°gone doËlow ı pçsi periye‹w …w toÎnoma. panÆguriw §p‹ toÊtoiw ka‹ yeo›w xaristÆria. ÖV pÒsa kat' §ke¤nou dhmhgorÆsaw t∞w pleonej¤aw … Tit. e‡p˙ cod.: correxi Sev. tit. ethop. 2 et 5 Walz coll. || 2 éneilÆfeimen cod.: correxi || 4–5 énaptÒmenow cum codice ego coll. Lib. Or. 33.15: possis énaptoÊmenow. What would Demosthenes say on the death of Philip? Well done, Fortune! A time of freedom has returned for the Greeks and relief from woes. Once more we have recovered everything of which we had previously been deprived; I have regained the freedom to speak along with the democratic con- stitution, I who yesterday was inflamed with fear of his presence. Well done, Death! Only him could Philip not bring under his power, but he who conquered all was by him conquered, and he has become a slave who imposed his name on all. Let there be a festival for this and libations to the gods! Oh, how often have I spoken against his greed … We are clearly faced with the beginning of an ethopoea of the “pathetic,” “indefinite,” and “simple” type,24 whose at- 23 This is a rhetorical anthology datable to the fourteenth century, con- taining ethop. 5, 7, 4, 6, 1, 2 Walz (ff. 140v–141r). For a brief account of the MS., see Omont, Inventaire 59; for a detailed analysis, I. Lana, I Progimnasmi di Elio Teone I (Torino 1959) 32–41, 46–47, and G. Ballaira, Tiberii de figuris Demosthenicis libellus cum deperditorum operum fragmentis (Rome 1968) 85–91; cf. also Pignani, Bollettino dei Classici N.S. 21 (1973) 43. 24 For these terms, see Ps.-Hermog. Progymn. 9 (pp.20.24–21.5 Rabe). They are not immune to criticism, above all as regards “ethical,” “pa- thetic,” and “mixed” ethopoea: see Joh. Geom. ap. Joh. Doxap. at II 499.20–28 Walz. The technical writers (see especially Ps.-Hermog. pp. 70 AN ETHOPOEA OF SEVERUS OF ALEXANDRIA tribution to Severus seems to me unarguable both for reasons of style and language and on grounds of content. To pursue this last topic, even if as R. Kohl writes “Aeschi- nes et Demosthenes longe primum declamationum themata praebuerunt inter omnes viros qui afferuntur in ludis rhe- torum” (in particular events relating to Philip II),25 the only other ethopoeae to develop this theme are Severus nos. 1 (T¤naw ín e‡poi lÒgouw Afisx¤nhw eÍr∆n parå Dhmosy°nei efikÒna Fil¤ppou) and 2 (T¤naw ín e‡poi lÒgouw Afisx¤nhw §n tª fugª Dhmosy°nouw didÒntow aÈt“ §fÒdion). Thus the content of the new ethopoea from the Paris manuscript fits perfectly within a framework well attested for the Alexandrian sophist.26 Passing to the other two aspects, it must first be emphasized that Meyer’s Law is obeyed almost throughout: there is only one ternary pause of the PPr type in a strong clausula (parou- s¤aw énaptÒmenow) and one in a weak (eÔge toË yanãtou). This lines up excellently with W. Hörandner’s finding that in Severus’ ethopoeae the deviation from the norm is 2.6% for strong clausulae and 3.4% for weak.27 How, moreover, can one fail to cite for the conceit of Death the dispenser of justice and righteous bringer of peace (EÔge toË yanãtou, mÒnon går toËton oÈk §xeir≈sato F¤lippow, éllå ___ 21.19–22.3 Rabe; Aphthon. p.35.13–14 Rabe; Nicol. pp.65.11–66.8 Felten) also envisage a dia¤resiw katå toÁw tre›w xrÒnouw (present/past/future; different subdivisions in Anaxim. pp.71.20–23 and 90.21–92.2 Fuhrmann2; Cic. Inv. 1.36; Ps.-Dion. Hal. Opusc. II p.269.9–11 Usener-Radermacher; Empor. p.563.19–31 Helm), which cannot be employed in our case (only the present [EÔge t∞w tÊxhw – xaristÆria] and the past [ÖV pÒsa ktl.] are identified). 25 R. Kohl, De scholasticarum declamationum argumentis ex historia petitis (diss. Paderborn 1915) 66, who provides (259–328) a useful repertory of declama- tions and in general of progymnasmata on Demosthenes and Aeschines. The subject became highly fashionable from the Second Sophistic onwards: see D. Russell, Greek Declamation (Cambridge 1983) 118–120; G. Anderson, Philostratus. Biography and Belles Lettres in the Third Century A.D. (London 1986) 28, 34–35, 47, 68. 26 For a detailed analysis of the content and sources of ethop. 1–2, see J. Schamp, “Un viatique pour la critique: le cas de l’éthopée,” in Amato, ÉHYOPOIIA 143–156. 27 Hörandner, Prosarhythmus 162. EUGENIO AMATO 71 pãntvn kratÆsaw, ÍpÚ toÊtou kekrãthtai) the parallel of ethop. 5, where Briseis calls on Death as follows: ka‹ efi mØ mÒnow, …w ¶oiken, §leuyer≈sei me yãnatow, b¤ow douleÊvn oÈ paÊsetai? Indeed, the entire Homeric ethopoea demonstrates stylistic and linguistic devices typical of Severus that we also find in the new Paris fragment. I quote the brief text in its entirety (the results of comparing our fragment with Severus’ other ethopoeae are of course the same), so as to make the echoes clearer (Sev. ethop. 5 Walz): T¤naw ín e‡poi lÒgouw Brish‹w épagom°nh ÍpÚ t«n khrÊkvn; Metå patr¤dow ép≈leian, metå basil°vw éna¤resin, metå tosoËton dustuxhmãtvn katãlogon §k deut°rou pãlin afix- mãlvtow g¤nomai: ÜEllhnew kay' ≤m«n §strateÊsanto, ka‹ g°gona doruãlvtow: ÜEllhnew kay' ÜEllÆnvn gegÒnasi, ka‹ prÚw doule¤an épãgomai. ka‹ efi mØ mÒnow, …w ¶oiken, §leu- yer≈sei me yãnatow, b¤ow douleÊvn oÈ paÊsetai. What would Briseis say when carried off by the heralds? After the loss of my country, after the killing of the king, after such a list of many woes I am taken captive anew for the second time: the Greeks marched against us, and I became their prisoner; the Greeks took on the Greeks, and I am led away to slavery; if Death alone, so it appears, does not free me, life will not cease to make me be a slave. Note first of all the same preference for short, broken cola, almost sobbing as it were, such as also recur in the new Paris fragment. Identical, too, are the abundance and careful disposi- tion of rhetorical figures: whereas in the ethopoea edited above we encounter in a bare eight lines instances of homoeoteleuton (éneilÆfamen éf˙r°yhmen ~ polite¤aw §leÊyerow ~ parous¤aw énaptÒmenow), chiasmus (kairÚw §leuyer¤aw ~ dustuxhmãtvn énãpaula), polyptoton and alliterative word-play (kratÆsaw, ÍpÚ toÊtou kekrãthtai)28, epanaphora (EÔge t∞w tÊxhw … EÔge toË yanãtou), and ellipsis of the verb (panÆguriw §p‹ toÊtoiw ka‹ yeo›w xaristÆria), in this piece a mere six lines exhibit epa- naphora (metå ... metå ... metå), double anaphora (ÜEllhnew ... 28 It may be observed that this passage has a very similar precedent in Favorinus Fort. 22: ı d¢ PoliorkhtØw DhmÆtriow afixmãlvtow genÒmenow §j o‡nou ka‹ m°yhw ét¤mvw ép°yanen, ÍpÚ t∞w TÊxhw poliorkoÊmenow. 72 AN ETHOPOEA OF SEVERUS OF ALEXANDRIA ka‹ ~ ÜEllhnew ... ka‹), polyptoton (ÜEllhnew kay' ÑEllÆnvn; g¤nomai ~ g°gona ~ gegÒnasi), epembolé (…w ¶oiken), chiasmus (§leuyer≈sei me yãnatow, b¤ow douleÊvn oÈ paÊsetai), parallel- ism and isosyllabism (metå patr¤dow ép≈leian, metå basil°vw éna¤resin; ÜEllhnew kay' ≤m«n §strateÊsanto ~ ÜEllhnew kay' ÑEllÆnvn gegÒnasi), paronomasia (mØ� � ~ me), and alliteration (mØ mÒnow). In particular, too, the syntagm eÔge+genitive seems typical of Severus: see ethop. 1 (p.539.23 Walz) EÔge t∞w d¤khw, and 7 (p. 545.21) EÔge t∞w fÊsevw. Similarly, I should like to note the use of dustÊxhma and kairÒw, for which see ethop. 4 (p.543.10–11 and 544.9) §pikouf¤zein §y°lvn toË dustuxÆmatow and stra- teÊein kat §ke¤nou kairÒw. Of great interest, finally, for the lines pãlin éneilÆfamen ëpantew ì tÚ pr‹n éf˙r°yhmen, ka‹ g°gona tØn gl«ssan metå t∞w polite¤aw §leÊyerow, are the parallels of ethop. 7 (p.546.5–6), én˙r°yhmen Íp' §xyr«n ka‹ pãlin toÁw §xyroÁw diå toË paidÚw én˙rÆkamen, and 4 (p.543.3–4), ±tuxÆ- samen eÈsebÆsantew, ka‹ j°non épodejãmenoi j°noi t«n ofike¤vn gegÒnamen. In conclusion, there is no reason, in the light of this exam- ination of style, language, and content, to doubt the passage’s attribution to the sophist Severus of Alexandria, as recorded in the Paris manuscript.29 August, 2005 Départ. de Sciences de l’Antiquité Université de Fribourg Rue Pierre-Aeby, 16 CH-1700 Fribourg eugenio.amato@unifr.ch 29 I thank heartily Leofranc Holford-Strevens (Oxford University Press) and Jesús Ureña Bracero (University of Extremadura), both of whom have been enormously helpful. I wish to express too my gratitude to the anon- ymous reader for GRBS.