Etymologicum Symeonis, γ-ε

The Classical Review, 2000

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Medical History, 1997

2019

2015

In this paper I will focus on a crux in two Platonic scholia, where manuscripts have the impossible διονύσιον, but Greene suggests δίκαιον. This amendment was made on the basis of a gloss of Photius’ Lexicon, although the corresponding gloss of Suidas confirms the text of Platonic scholia. However the agreement with Photius is not so important, not only because it is impossible to prove that he reproduces the text of the glossary composed by the Atticist Aelius Dionysius without any modification (it is also the source of Suidas and other Byzantine lexica, and especially of the so called Erweiterte Synagoge, which the Platonic scholia derive from as well), but also because our scholia reveal elsewhere a major affinity with Suidas than with Patriarch’s Lexicon. In the light of a careful review of the loci paralleli I therefore suggest the reading δημόσιον.

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 175 (2010): 177–87

Emerita, 2023

Until recently, the two standard Greek etymologi- cal dictionaries were Frisk 1960 and Chantraine 1968 (second edition: 1999, third edition: 2009), although Frisk was not in a position to consider the evidence of Linear B, and neither author took account of laryngeal theory. By contrast, laryn- geals are central to many entries in Beekes 2010, which has accordingly become a fundamental re- search tool in the field of classical studies. The detailed philological notes offered here focus in- stead on Beekes’ handling of the Greek language itself, with special attention to material drawn from Hesychius. The implicit argument is that the handling of Greek in the new dictionary is often unreliable, and that readers should treat its handling of ancient texts, in particular the lexicog- raphers, and thus many of its individual conclu- sions, with caution.

The oldest manuscripts of the Etymologicum Gudianum The Etymologicum Gudianum is by far the most widespread Byzantine etymological lexicon, being transmitted in approximately thirty manuscripts. The work has been first published only in 1818 by F. W. Sturz on the basis of a transcription of one much reworked codex: Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, 29-30 Gudianus graecus. This manuscript, once owned by the scholar Marquard Gude, gave the Etymologicum its current name. Sturz' very poor edition was partially superseded by that of Edoardo Luigi De Stefani (1909-1920), based on the pioneering studies of Richard Reitzenstein, who identified the original manuscript of the work, ms. Vatican City, BAV, Barb. gr. 70. Since this original exemplar of the Etymologicum is still extant, scholarship has not paid due attention to the numerous copies of the lexicon; their affiliation has been sketched only summarily and a comprehensive reconstruction, which takes both manuscriptological and philological data into account in order to provide a complete and detailed picture of the transmission, is still missing. The aim of this paper is to present some results of the study of the most ancient copies of the Vat. Barb. gr. 70, most of them produced in Southern Italy. The analysis of the written artefacts, combined with a detailed investigation of the text they transmit, allows to determine the relationship among them as well as to propose more precise dates and, possibly, localisations. This will help to shed some light on the 'beginnings' of the transmission of the Etymologicum Gudianum.