No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2019
Phot. Lex. ε 100 Theodoridis: ἔγχουσαν οἱ Ἀττικοὶ λέγουσι τὴν ῥίζαν, οὐ δὴ ἄγχουσαν, ἣν ἀπείρως Ἐρατοσθένης φυκίον. Ἀμειψίας Ἀποκοτταβίζουσι· ‘δυοῖν ὀβολοῖν ἔγχουσα καὶ ψιμύθιον’ (fr. 3 K.–A.).
Phot. Lex. ε 100 Theodoridis: The Attic writers call the root enchusa (alkanet), not anchusa, which Eratosthenes out of ignorance (thinks is) a seaweed. Ameipsias in the Cottabus-Players (writes): ‘alkanet and white lead at the price of two obols’ (fr. 3 K.–A.).
1 References to the following works are shortened to the name of the author: Bagordo, A., Die antiken Traktate über das Drama. Mit einer Sammlung der Fragmente (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1998)Google Scholar; Geus, K., Eratosthenes von Kyrene. Studien zur hellenistischen Kultur und Wissenschaftsgeschichte (Munich, 2002)Google Scholar; Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar; Strecker, K., De Lycophrone Euphronio Eratosthene comicorum interpretibus (Greifswald, 1884)Google Scholar; Theodoridis, C. (ed.), Photii patriarchae Lexicon, I: α–δ, II: ε–μ, III: ν–φ (Berlin, New York, Boston, 1982–2013)Google Scholar.
2 The codex Zavordensis is the only copy of the Lexicon that contains the whole work, albeit abridged; it was discovered by Linos Politis in 1959 in a monastery at Zavorda, in Macedonia. On this MS, see Theodoridis in the introduction to the first volume of his edition of the Lexicon, xxxii and lxi–lxxi; a short survey of older editions of the Lexicon is in M.L. West's review of the third volume of Theodoridis's work in BMCR 2013.07.50, online at <http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-07-50.html>.
3 On Eratosthenes’ works, see in general Pfeiffer, 152–70 and F. Montana, ‘Hellenistic scholarship’, in Montanari, F., Matthaios, S. and Rengakos, A. (edd.), Brill's Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, 2 vols. (Leiden and Boston, 2015), 1.60–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 1.111–18; Geus in his important book presents and analyzes in depth all the surviving material.
4 On this plant and its cosmetic and medicinal uses, see P. Wagler's entry ἄγχουσα in the RE (1.2 [1894], col. 2111).
5 See Ar. Lys. 48, Eccl. 929, fr. 322.3 K.–A. and the fragment of Ameipsias mentioned in our entry; another anonymous comic fragment which appears in the entry on ἔγχουσα in the Etym. Gen. (see n. 8 below) uses the related verb ἐγχουσίζομαι (com. adesp. fr. *170 K.–A).
6 φῦκος (Roccella tinctoria), which e.g. appears along with ἔγχουσα in Ar. fr. 322.5 K.–A., a list of articles of toiletry.
7 They are listed in Theodoridis's apparatus criticus: Poll. Onom. 5.101 Bethe, Hsch. ε 353, α 925, sch. Ar. Lys. 48a Hangard, sch. Ar. Eccl. 929a et b Regtuit (unde Suda α 416), sch. Dion. Chrys. 7.117 (p. 105 Sonny); Thom. 145.13.
8 The annotation in the Etym. Gen. has been published by Theodoridis among the testimonia to our entry in Photius; see also the Etym. Magn. 313.30–6 Gaisford, which is derived from this entry.
9 On this work, see Pfeiffer, 159–62; a detailed analysis of the most important fragments is in Geus, 291–301; a discussion of the extant material is in Montana (n. 3), 112–14. Editions of the fragments are listed above.
10 See n. 7 above; the Attic spelling was also noted by the grammarian Moeris, who in the second century a.d. compiled an Atticistic lexicon (ε 30 Hansen).
11 On the Miners of Pherecrates: Eratosth. fr. 46 Strecker (= Phot. Lex. ε 2203 Theodoridis); see also fr. 93 Strecker (= Harp. μ 25 Keaney); both fragments have been published by Bagordo as fr. 5 in his collection. On the fragments discussing the Miners, see Slater, W.J., ‘Aristophanes of Byzantium on the Pinakes of Callimachus’, Phoenix 30 (1976), 234–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who explores the studies of Eratosthenes and Aristophanes of Byzantium on the Attic dialect, and especially Tosi, R., ‘Appunti sulla filologia di Eratostene di Cirene’, Eikasmos 9 (1998), 327–46Google Scholar, at 328–31. Another fragment (sch. ad Ar. Ran. 1263c Chantry = fr. 149 Strecker = 17 Bagordo) mentions some ψευδαττικοί in connection with a variant reading in Aristophanes’ Frogs and the identification of forged plays: on this problematic fragment, see Tosi (this note), 331–4, with earlier bibliography, and my article ‘Una nota allo schol. ad Aristoph. ran. 1263c Chantry’, SemRom 6 (2017), 277–83Google Scholar.
12 On the origins of Atticism, see Slater (n. 11), 236; my article ‘Athenaeus, Crates and Attic glosses: a problem of attribution’, in Braund, D. and Wilkins, J. (edd.), Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire (Exeter, 2000), 364–71Google Scholar and 578–80, at 366; Pagani, L., ‘Language correctness (Hellenismos) and its criteria’, in Montanari, F., Matthaios, S. and Rengakos, A. (edd.), Brill's Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, 2 vols. (Leiden and Boston, 2015), 798–849Google Scholar, at 828–30.
13 See Strabo 1.2.2; Eratosthenes had actually been there to pursue his interest in philosophy (see the biography of Eratosthenes in the Suda lexicon, ε 2898).
14 Polemon's fragments have been collected by Preller, L., Polemonis Periegetae fragmenta (Leipzig, 1838)Google Scholar; the frr. derived from the work against Eratosthenes are nos 47–52, at 85–95. Three fragments—frr. 47 (= sch. ad Ar. Av. 11a Holwerda = Eratosth. fr. 42* Strecker), 48 (= Harp. α 166 Keaney: ἄξονι = Eratosth. fr. 80 Strecker) and 52 (= Hsch. ε 7567 Latte: Ἐφωδίων = Eratosth. fr. 21 Strecker = fr. 9 Bagordo)—appear to be against passages from the work On Old Comedy (see Preller, 85). On Polemon and Eratosthenes, see Pfeiffer, 248 and Geus, 299–301.