Scholarship, Hellenistic Peripatetic Approach

1

Scholarship, Hellenistic Peripatetic approach. Later sources mention two LIBRARIES, one in the royal palace and one FRANCESCA SCHIRONI outside of it (Tzetzes, Prooem. II,8–9 Koster). The latter was in the Serapeum and was During the Hellenistic period scholarship on perhaps established by PTOLEMY III EUERGETES Greek literary and non-literary authors devel- (246–222 BCE). oped greatly. For the first time in Greek history In order to promote scholarship the Ptole- a systematic effort to study, edit, and write mies pursued an aggressive policy of book exegeses (ranging from commentaries to lex- acquisition: apparently Ptolemy III had even ica) on the most representative Greek authors issued an order that all the books in the ships was carried out. This editorial and exegetical arriving at Alexandria had to be taken and cop- work (financed by several dynasties, especially ied; the originals would be kept and the copies the Ptolemies) is evidence that the Greek- returned to the owners (Galen, Comm. Hipp. speaking intelligentsia felt that the golden age Epidem. iii, 17a 605–8). Indeed, the Alexan- of Greece had come to an end and a great her- drian book collection was extensive, even if itage had been created, which needed to be res- the figures given by Tzetzes (Prooem. II,9–11 cued and protected. The work of Hellenistic Koster) – 42,800 books in the library in the Ser- scholars had a fundamental impact on the apeum and 490,000 books in the Royal Library – future preservation of Greek literature. Fur- are probably too large. Most likely the Library thermore, Hellenistic scholars, who were in also had books from cultures other than Greek; many respects the intellectual heirs of the Per- for example, the SEPTUAGINT, MANETHO, and per- ipatetic School, pioneered or further developed haps BEROSSOS were collected there. If indeed linguistic and metrical analysis, chronology, HERMIPPUS, a pupil of CALLIMACHUS, wrote a com- and lexicography, becoming the founders of mentary on Zoroaster (Plin. HN 30.4), then disciplines such as philology and literary even Persian texts might have been available criticism. at the Library. The scholars working at Alexan- With the establishment of the Hellenistic dria were most likely also attached to the kingdoms, royal policies of cultural promotion Museum. and PATRONAGE were developed. The best exam- The Royal Library was led by a head librarian, ple is the cultural patronage of the Ptolemies, appointed by the king to act also as a royal tutor who established the famous LIBRARY and in addition to his other duties. We know the MUSEUM of ALEXANDRIA and attracted intellec- names of the head librarians mostly through tuals from all around the Mediterranean. The entries in the Suda as well as from P.Oxy. historical sources for these institutions are 1241 (second century CE); the two sets of sources either very meager (the Museum) or difficult do not agree on the relative order of the librar- to reconcile with each other (the Library), ians and the dating of their tenure. Many solu- yet it is fairly certain that PTOLEMY I SOTER tions have been proposed, and the most widely (306–282 BCE) founded both of them, while accepted is the one offered by Fraser (1972: PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS (282–246 BCE) further I330–3): ZENODOTOS OF EPHESOS (ca. 285–270 developed them. Ptolemy I enrolled DEMETRIOS BCE), APOLLONIUS RHODIUS (ca. 270–245 BCE), ERA- OF PHALERON,aPERIPATETIC and pupil of THEO- TOSTHENES of Cyrene (ca. 245–204/201 BCE), ARIS- PHRASTUS, in this cultural project. Though TOPHANES OF BYZANTIUM (ca. 204/201–189/ Demetrios’ real contribution to the Library 186 BCE), Apollonios Eidographos (ca. 189/ and the Museum is difficult to assess (The Let- 186–175 BCE), Aristarchos of Samothrace (ca. ter of Aristeas § 9 says that he was in charge of 175–145 BCE). Eichgrün’s alternate ordering – the Royal Library, but this is most likely false), Apollonios Eidographos, Aristophanes of the learned work produced by the Alexandrian Byzantium, and Aristarchos – deserves serious scholars was definitely influenced by a attention (1961: 15–35). Besides the head

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30157 2 librarians, many other grammarians and philol- ALKAIOS, Anakreon, and possibly all the nine ogists were active there, among whom were the canonical lyric poets) was epochal. His poet-philologists LYCOPHRON, Alexander Aetolus, arrangement of PINDAR’S victory-odes in four and Callimachus. books according to the games at which the vic- The main achievement of the Alexandrian tory was achieved, as well as his work on lyric scholars of this period was the reorganization colometry with the division of poems accord- of the past Greek literary tradition and the pro- ing to lines and the triadic system (strophe, duction of standard editions (ekdoseis)of antistrophe, and epode), are still used today. Greek authors, which formed the basis of the Aristophanes of Byzantium also prepared an medieval tradition that we still use. They also edition of the Aristophanic comedies and per- wrote commentaries (hypomnemata)on haps also of MENANDER and the tragic poets. He ancient authors, lexica (lexeis) collecting liter- was probably also the first to use accents in his ary as well as dialectal or rare words, and editions to clarify the pronunciation and pros- monographs discussing particular literary ody of debated words. topics (syggrammata). Euphronios (end of third century BCE), the HOMER was the most studied author at Alex- teacher of Aristophanes of Byzantium, is the andria. At least three head librarians produced first Alexandrian scholar we know of to have an edition: Zenodotos, Aristophanes, and Aris- written a commentary (hypomnema), specifi- tarchos. The poet Rhianos of Crete, active at cally one on ARISTOPHANES’ Plutus (perhaps on Alexandria in the second half of the third cen- the basis of Lycophron’s edition). Commen- tury, also prepared editions of Homer, but it is taries on different authors were among the unknown whether he was connected with the most important results of Aristarchos’ scholar- Alexandrian court. From the fragments we ship; he authored hypomnemata on HESIOD, have, Zenodotos’ text was somewhat idiosyn- ARCHILOCHOS, Alkman, Pindar, AESCHYLUS, SOPH- cratic and seems to have been founded on an OCLES, Aristophanes, and perhaps BACCHYLIDES Ionian rhapsode’s text (West 2001: 33–45). and EURIPIDES. Prose authors were most pro- Aristarchos’ Homeric edition is particularly bably studied and commented upon even if important since it fixed a standard Homeric the evidence is scarce; however, a papyrus text in terms of number of lines, eliminating (P.Amherst 2.12) preserves the title of Aristarchos’ lines that were poorly attested. The Homeric hypomnema on HERODOTUS; Aristarchos might papyri confirm this: earlier Hellenistic papyri have also worked on PLATO (Schironi 2005). present a Homeric text different from ours, Even though the commentaries and editions with many additional lines, while those from of the Alexandrians are not preserved by direct 150 BCE onward offer the standard Homeric tradition, many fragments of their work have text we still use, proving that by that time Aris- been preserved by later sources such as scholia, tarchus’“selected” Homeric text had had an lexica, and other exegetical texts, as well as by impact on the book market. We also owe to papyri. This evidence has allowed scholars to the Alexandrians the division of both poems reconstruct at least in part the editorial and into twenty-four books. exegetical principles followed at Alexandria. Editions of other poets were also prepared at The Alexandrians invented and used the Alexandria. Under Ptolemy II, Alexander so-called critical signs (semeia), which were Aetolus edited tragedies and satyr plays and written in the margin of their editions and Lycophron of Chalkis edited comedies. Hesiod commentaries and had a specific meaning for and Pindar may have been first edited by the reader of those texts. The critical signs used Zenodotos and then by Aristophanes (who for Homer are those we know best. The obelos, considered the Shield spurious). In particular, a small horizontal line, was placed on the left of Aristophanes’ edition of the lyric poets (which the line which was considered spurious (an included not only Pindar, but also Alkman, operation called athetesis). The asteriskos (※) 3 indicated a line repeated elsewhere; the sigma findings to correct problematic passages within

(C) and the antisigma ( ),C which were used the poems, either emending the text or athetiz- together, marked two consecutive lines of iden- ing lines which in his view had not been written tical content. To these signs, used by Zenodotos by Homer. Although this approach to Homeric (obelos) and Aristophanes (obelos, asteriskos, poetry was somewhat circular, it also was sur- sigma, and antisigma), Aristarchos added the prisingly scientific and rigorous, at least for that diple (>), used to highlight lines which were time (Schironi, forthcoming). considered noteworthy for various reasons Other scholarly genres were developed at (e.g., language, content, myth, style) and which Alexandria. Monographs on specific topics were were then discussed in the commentaries. Aris- popular among the Alexandrians from the very tarchos also introduced the diple periestigmene beginning. Zenodotos wrote a monograph on (>:) to highlight lines where he argued against the number of days covered in the Iliad and a Zenodotos (and perhaps also against Krates of Life of Homer. Apollonius of Rhodes wrote an Mallos). The combination of asteriskos with Against Zenodotos and monographs on Hesiod obelos (※ —) was used for repeated lines that and Archilochos; Callimachus authored an he wanted to athetize. A few other critical signs Against Praxiphanes (a Peripatetic scholar), in are known, the meaning of which is debated. which he discussed questions of literary criti- We also have evidence of critical signs used cism. Aristarchos’ monographs concerned his by the Alexandrians for Hesiod, the lyric Homeric studies (On the Iliad and on the Odys- poets (especially in the metrical handbook of sey, On the Camp), sometimes with a polemical Hephaistion) and for Plato (Diog. Laert. 3.65 intent (Against Philitas, Against Komanos, and PSI 1488). Against the Paradox of Zenon). Monographs It is still debated precisely how “editions” On Comedy were written by Lycophron and and “commentaries” were organized. Papyrus most famously by Eratosthenes. fragments seem to suggest that they were two Lexicography was of great interest to Alex- separate texts; the edition (ekdosis) contained andrian scholars. The poet and grammarian the text together with critical signs (perhaps Philitas of Kos, invited by the Ptolemies in with variants in the margins) and the hypom- Alexandria as tutor to the son of Ptolemy nema was a running commentary organized I (the future Ptolemy II), composed a list of in the form of lemmata (the lines commented Ataktoi Glossai (lit. glosses without an order), upon) followed by explanations. The critical probably collecting rare dialectal and poetic signs were repeated in the commentaries next words. After Philitas, his pupil Zenodotos to the lemmata and worked as a link between authored a poetic glossary in alphabetical the edition and the commentary (Pfeiffer order, while Aristophanes prepared a great col- 1968: 218–19; Schironi 2012). Different read- lection of Lexeis, with poetic and prose glosses ings offered by different manuscripts gathered as well as words pertaining to certain semantic in the Library were often discussed with the fields. help of rather advanced linguistic analysis; Callimachus’ Pinakes (“tablets”) were a cata- sometimes the scholar himself suggested a logue of Greek literary works, ordered according proper emendation for a corrupted passage. to the author and genre: each author was given a Commentaries also discussed the reasons short biography, a list of works accompanied for an athetesis (i.e., the rejection of a line by their incipit, the total number of lines, and considered spurious) and questions of style, probably some discussion of date and authentic- characterization, mythographical topics, his- ity. In his Against the Pinakes of Callimachus tory, and geography. In his Homeric exegesis Aristophanes corrected some of Callimachus’ in particular, Aristarchos tried to isolate what data. Aristophanes’ dramatic hypotheseis were was typically Homeric in terms of style, lan- connected to this interest in collecting and orga- guage, and mythical background, and used his nizing the historical data about literary texts: 4 they consisted of introductions to each drama (1.1–6). Yet these scholars did not limit them- (both tragedy and comedy), with a summary selves to literary authors, as a flourishing schol- of the plot, notes about the staging (chorus, arship on HIPPOCRATES developed at Alexandria actors, scene), the date of the first performance and beyond (von Staden 1992). Bacchios of and the result of the dramatic competition (he Tanagra (third century BCE), a student of HERO- used Peripatetic sources); these hypotheseis have PHILOS, collected the first Hippocratic lexicon, been preserved both in papyri and medieval epitomized by various physician-lexicogra- manuscripts containing Greek drama. phers; all these lexica are lost except Erotian’s Paradoxography, the interest in marvels, also (first century CE). Similarly, a tradition of com- flourished among Hellenistic scholars. Callim- mentaries on Hippocrates and other medical achus composed a treatise on Non-Greek Cus- texts started at Alexandria. The commentary toms,aCollection of Wonders of the Earth on the Hippocratic treatise On Joints by APOLLO- According to their Locations and Ethnical NIOS OF KITION (70 BCE) is noteworthy because it Denominations (perhaps with sub-chapters is one of the only two Hellenistic hypomnemata entitled On the Rivers of the Inhabited Earth, that have reached us by direct tradition (the On Winds, On Birds, etc.). The sources of these other being that by the astronomer HIPPARCHOS collections were most likely the historical, geo- on the Phaenomena of ARATOS OF SOLOI). graphical, and erudite texts collected in the Eratosthenes was the most versatile of the Library. Aristophanes’ On Animals, an epitome Alexandrian scholars: he was a grammarian of similar works of ARISTOTLE, Theophrastus, but also a poet, a mathematician, and a geogra- and other sources, belongs to this genre (and pher. In his Geography he offered his own map- is among the few works of Alexandrian schol- ping of the earth and also discussed questions arship which have survived). Connected to eru- of Homeric geography; in particular, he dition and the study of literature was an claimed that since the aim of poetry is not interest in biographies. Lives of poets and phi- instruction but entertainment, the Homeric losophers were written by SATYROS OF KALLATIS poems should not be considered textbooks of and Hermippus of Smyrna. Another of Callim- geography, and therefore mapping poetic achus’ pupils, Istros, worked on local histories voyages such as that of Odysseus was useless. connected with myth. Chronology was the In his learned and scientific approach to schol- topic of Eratosthenes’ Chronological Tables, arship, Eratosthenes, together with Aristopha- possibly covering the destruction of Troy nes and Aristarchos, is the best example of the (dated to 1184 BCE) to the death of Alexander spirit of Alexandrian scholarship at its height, (323 BCE). This work was the basis of the Chron- which went beyond the simple editions and ika of Apollodoros of Athens (a pupil of Aris- exegesis of texts and developed a rigorous tarchos), which then became the standard method for the study of literary texts. chronological handbook during the Roman The great development of scholarship at Empire. Alexandria came to a halt after the intellectual Alexandrian scholars of the third and second “diaspora” of 145 BCE, when Ptolemy “Phys- centuries BCE used to define themselves as kon” killed PTOLEMY VII NEOS PHILOPATOR and grammatikoi, and they are often labeled as became king as PTOLEMY VIII EUERGETES II, exiling Alexandrian “grammarians” even now. How- many intellectuals connected with Ptolemy VI ever, this survey has shown that the term does (Athen. 4.184b–c). Among them was probably not mean “scholars of grammar” in the modern Aristarchos, who left Alexandria and settled in sense of the word, but rather has a wider mean- Cyprus, where he died the following year (144 ing. A grammatikos was a philologist and a lit- BCE). Even though the Library lasted through- erary critic, as clarified by the definition of out the end of the Hellenistic period and into grammar given by Dionysios Thrax (a pupil the Roman Empire (despite the famous fire of Aristarchos) in his Techne Grammatike during the Alexandrian War in 48 BCE) and 5 scholars kept working there, the heyday of Stoic cosmology in his poems. Krates, however, Alexandrian scholarship was over after Aris- was nonetheless very similar to an Alexandrian tarchos left. Apollodoros is his most famous grammatikos in many other respects: he worked pupil; aside from the Chronika, he wrote a on Homer (Diorthotika and Homerika), Hesiod, monograph On the Gods, in which he explained lyric poets, and drama, and was very skilled in the meaning of the epithets of the Homeric using all the philological tools of the Alexan- gods, and one on the Catalogue of the Ships drians (critical signs, linguistic analysis, etymol- in Iliad 2. While following Aristarchean schol- ogy). He also dealt with the same problems as arly principles, Apollodoros’ interests were the Alexandrians (atheteseis, choice of variants, more focused on etymology, history, and geography, myths); for example, he athetized the geography, and he produced some original proems of Hesiod’s Work and Days (as Aris- research. However, the following generations tarchos did) and of the Theogony. of Alexandrian scholars seem to have been Thus, even if scholars at Pergamon might mostly concerned with systematizing or have had some different approaches to literary responding to the work of previous scholars: authors, their work was by and large based on for example, Ammonios and Didymos wrote the same methods and goals. For example, the monographs discussing Aristarchos’ editions supposed linguistic conflict between the Alex- of Homer. Didymos in particular was one of andrian grammarians who followed “analogy” the most prolific scholars at Alexandria in (strict and rational rules of declension) and the the first century BCE; still, most of his work con- Pergamene critics who followed “anomaly” sisted in summarizing and excerpting the orig- (spoken usage) has been conclusively shown inal research of his predecessors. This dramatic to be based on a misunderstanding of VARRO change in Alexandrian scholarship is probably by modern scholars (Fehling 1956–7; Blank at least partly due to the changing political sit- 1994); rather, analogy and anomaly were lin- uation, with the decline of Ptolemaic patronage guistic principles used by both schools accord- and the subsequent Roman conquest. ing to their needs and specific situations. The Although the work of Alexandrian scholars work carried out by other scholars in Perga- was especially outstanding, the output of the mon shows all the similarities between the lat- courts at PERGAMON and ANTIOCH IN SYRIA is also ter and Alexandria: among the pupils of Krates, worthy of mention. In Pergamon EUMENES II Artemon worked on the mythical and histori- (197–159 BCE)foundedalibrary,whichbecame cal questions in Pindar’s poems and Herodikos the natural rival of the Royal Library of the focused on Homer and Attic comedy. Homer Ptolemies. Indeed, some anecdotes, such as was also studied by Zenodotos of Mallos and the attempt by Aristophanes of Byzantium to Hermias (Broggiato 2014). Paradoxography move to the service of Eumenes II (Su. α was cultivated at Pergamon as well, as ANTIGO- 3936), indicate that these two centers competed NOS OF KARYSTOS (third century BCE) wrote a for scholarly hegemony. Perhaps because of Collection of Wonderful Stories but also had this intellectual competition, Krates, the most antiquarian and biographical interests, writing famous Pergamene scholar and a contemporary Philosophers’ Lives and perhaps also descrip- of Aristarchos, defined himself as a kritikos in tions of artworks (if it is the same Antigonos). clear opposition to the grammatikoi of Alexan- In the second century BCE Polemon of Ilion, an dria (Sext. Emp. Adv. Math.1.79).Suchdefini- antiquarian periegete, wrote many treatises on tion implies that Krates’ interests went beyond several regions in the Mediterranean, in which mere textual work and included criticism, as he sometimes criticized Eratosthenes. Deme- shown in his theory of poetics preserved by Phi- trios of Skepsis discussed the geography of lodemos’ On Poems. In his exegesis Krates the Trojan camp in the Iliad in the form of a sometimes employed allegorical methods to running commentary (of thirty books!) on Iliad prove that Homer had hidden clues relating to 2.816–77. 6

Poets and intellectuals moved among courts. rich with rare glosses and antiquarian details. The poet Aratos of Soloi first went to PELLA at Without royal patronage, which allowed these the court of ANTIGONOS II GONATAS (277–239 intellectuals to work and provided them with BCE) where he composed the Phaenomena; later rich libraries that collected manuscripts from he went to Syria because ANTIOCHOS I SOTER all over the Greek world, none of the achieve- (281–261 BCE) supposedly convinced him to ments of Hellenistic scholarship (and poetry) make a recension of the Iliad “as it had been would have been possible. corrupted by many interpolators” (Achill. Comm. Fr., p. 78.8–11 Maas). Aratos also pre- pared an edition of the Odyssey. Indeed, the REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Seleucid court seems to have favored scholarly Blank, D. L. (1994) “Analogy, anomaly and Apollo- activities. ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS (222–187 BCE) nius Dyscolus.” In S. Everson, ed., Language: 149– entrusted the management of the Library of 65. Cambridge. Antioch to the epic poet Euphorion of Broggiato, M. (2001) Cratete di Mallo, I frammenti. Chalkis (who might have had erudite interests La Spezia. but does not seem to have produced any Broggiato, M. (2014) Filologia e interpretazione a scholarly work). Another library with a Pergamo. La scuola di Cratete. Rome. Museum attached to it was founded by ANTIO- Eichgrün, E. (1961) Kallimachos und Apollonios CHOS IX KYZIKENOS (115–95 BCE). Rhodios. Diss. Berlin. Hellenistic scholarship is thus characterized Fehling, D. (1956–7) “Varro und die grammatische ” by a huge variety of products. Even if much of Lehre von der Analogie und der Flexion. Glotta – – it is lost, the intellectual interests developed at 35: 214 70, 36: 48 100. that time are the basis of the discipline called Fraser, P. M. (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford. Pfeiffer, R. (1968) History of classical scholarship. humanities, because the Hellenistic period was From the beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic the first time when intellectuals looked at past age. Oxford. literature as something worth preserving and Schironi, F. (2005) “Plato at Alexandria: Aristopha- studying. In addition, the editorial work on nes, Aristarchus and the ‘philological tradition’ of archaic and classical literature carried out espe- a philosopher.” Classical Quarterly 55: 423–34. cially at Alexandria led to the formation of the Schironi, F. (2012) “The ambiguity of signs: critical “canon” (see Pfeiffer 1968: 207): scholars σημε~ια from Zenodotus to Origen.” In M. R. selected the most representative authors from Niehoff, ed., Homer and the Bible in the eyes of – each genre and their selection shaped our ancient interpreters:87 112. Leiden. own classical tradition. Finally, Hellenistic Schironi, F. (forthcoming) The best of the grammar- scholarship was most often founded on royal ians. Aristarchus on the Iliad. Ann Arbor. von Staden, H. (1992) “Lexicography in the third patronage. Indeed, some scholars were also century B.C.: Bacchius of Tanagra, Erotian, and court-poets, such as Callimachus, Apollonius Hippocrates.” In J. A. López Férez, ed., Tratados Rhodius, Lycophron (at Alexandria), Alexander hipocráticos (estudios acerca de su contenido, Aetolus (at Alexandria and Pella), and Aratos (at forma y influencia): 549–69. Madrid. Pella and Antioch), who used their scholarship West, M. L. (2001) Studies in the text and transmis- even when they composed their learned poems, sion of the Iliad. Munich.