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.