I was updating the critical note to my blog post on this poem and inspecting Bergk's huge critical note when I saw that, concerning this line, he proposes «ἀ δέ μ' ἴδρως κακχέεται», maybe even «ἀ δὲ ϝίδρως κ.», on the basis of some book called «Crameri Anecdota» reporting:

ΙΔΡΩΣ· τοῦτο παρ' Αἰολεῦσι θηλυκῶς λέγεται. ἀναδέχεται κλίσιν ἀκόλουθον θελυῷ γένει· Ἀδεμ' ἱδρὼς κακὸς χέεται, ὅμοιον τῷ ἠώς· εἶτα ἡ γενικὴ ἱδρῶς

which I translate to:

SWEAT: the Aeolians have it feminine. The following takes feminine inflection: [some corrupted version of part of this line], similarly to dawn; therefore the genitive ἱδρῶς)

Now I have no idea what book this is, and how reliable its claim about sweat being feminine in Aeolic – especially since it is compared to dawn, which is feminine in Aeolic but also in Attic, so no gender change, as opposed to sweat, which is masculine in Attic, and is not even the reported ἠώς in Aeolic, but rather αὔως. Also, the part about the genitive is obscure to me: what is that "therefore" there for? So:

What book is this? Who wrote it, and when? Is the claim about the gender of sweat in Aeolic reliable? Can you explain what the genitive part is trying to say? Is there a reason feminine gender has to do with the genitive being the way it's reported? Is the genitive different in Attic where sweat is masculine?


Thanks to @TKR, we have the book now. Here is the full entry:

enter image description here

Now, the cover says this is a book published MDCCCXXXV (1835) by a certain J. A. Cramer, S.T.P.. Googling for this, I found two people: Cramer, John Anthony, 1793-1848 and Johann Andrea Cramer (link in French, no English version is available, only Danish, French, German, Esperanto, Bokmål, Russian and Swedish). Looking at link 1, it seems that is our guy. So at first sight, we're looking at a book by a 1700s-1800s guy, so why should we trust him on a gender change between Ancient Greek dialects? BUT, the cover says «e codd. manuscriptis», so what codices is this referring to? Should we trust this sort of glossary entry about sweat being feminine in Aeolic? ANd, as pointed out by TKR, if whoever wrote the entry thought sweat was feminine, how did the blatantly masculine κακὸς end up in a place where it seems to evidently refer to ἱδρὼς, which implies it should agree with it in gender as well as number, which would make it feminine, which it isn't?

  • 1
    One other thing I don't understand about the quotation is if the author thinks ἱδρώς is feminine, how can he report κακός (instead of κακή)? Btw LSJ also says it's feminine in Aeolic, citing this line: perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/… – TKR Jul 4 '17 at 20:12
  • @TKR Yeah I noticed that too. Author or copyist overlooking the gender and making kakós agree with the gender they used for hidróós, maybe? Copyist seeing an alpha (kaká), misinterpreting as omicron (kakó) and then saying "that must be an error, let me correct it real quick" and dumping the sigma in? Just guessing :). – MickG Jul 4 '17 at 20:15
  • 1
    There is some more information in the Latin prefatory note: the text, though edited by Cramer, is that of a manuscript of "Homeric parses" (Ὁμήρου ἐπιμερισμοί), whose author or collator is unknown but is conjectured by Cramer to have been a Byzantine scholar. – TKR Jul 4 '17 at 23:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.