3

Here is the fragment as it appears in Voigt's edition:

enter image description here

Bergk gives the text:

μάλα δὴ κεκορημένας
Γόργως

and the critical note:

enter image description here

So Voigt seems to say the one codex for this, which is curated (?) by Vossius, read μάλα δὴ κεκορημένου στόργος, and that Hoffmann proposed her version, while Wolf had κεκορημένη and Bergk had the above text, with Toup having recognized the name Gorgo in this quootation.

However, Bergk says the tradition had στοργᾶς, Ursinus had κεκορημένος στόργος, and he "emendavi haec" to the form he gave.

This begs the question:

What did the tradition actually read, στόργος or στοργᾶς? I mean, it couldn't be both… or was there a margin note, perhaps by Vossius himself (as happened with the Hesychius gloss to ὠράνα, where he is responsible (AFAICT) for reading that as ὦ (specifically Ἐραννὰ, while others later read Εἴρανα or some contraction by comparison with LP 91) instead of ὤραννα=οὐράνια)?

Bonus questions:

  1. What is the difference between "scripsi", "correxi", and "emendavi" in Bergk's edition?
  2. What could στόργος mean? Does it even exist? Perseus doesn't have it (at least via the Greek Word Study Tool)…
  3. What work is "Aldi Thes. Cornucop.", i.e. what do Thes. and Cornucop. stand for, what is this work like, why does it seem to quote a work by Herodian called Π[ερὶ] κλίσ[εων] ὀνομ[άτων], and what does Choeroboscus have to do with this? Is it like, Choeroboscus quoted Aldi Thes. Cornucop. which quoted Herodian? And why all this quoting?
  4. (Unrelated, sprung from another fragment) What is the English for Italian sinafia, Greek συνάφεια, i.e. when a word is broken between two lines of a poem (e.g. in the Hymn to Aphrodite where we have πύκνα δίννηντες πτέρ' ἀπ' ὠράν' αἴθε- / ρος διὰ μέσσω, / indicating the break between the last Sapphic hendecasyllabic and the closing adonean)?

Update

Bonus question 4 was answered by @AlexB's comment: it's called synaphia, as I luckily guessed correctly :).

  • 1
    Well, it's synaphia, cf. "Synaphia: prosodic continuity, particularly two verse lines following each other without a period end in between" (Brill's New Pauly). – Alex B. Oct 19 '18 at 21:55
  • Also, the title of Herodian's work is Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων (available online, e.g. scaife.perseus.org/library/…) What's the connection between Herodian and Choeroboscus? Eleanor Dickey (Dickey 2007) mentions that "Choeroboscus is for example responsible for much of the preservation of Herodian's Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων" (p. 80). – Alex B. Oct 20 '18 at 1:55
  • Aldi Thes. Cornucop. stands for Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis first published by Aldo Manuzio (Aldus Manutius) and Urbano Valeriani in 1496 in Venice. It contains works by various Greek grammarians, including Choeroboscus and Herodian. – Alex B. Oct 20 '18 at 2:17
  • "why all this quoting?" Because not much of what Herodian wrote (in the second century) survived. His treatise Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων is preserved "primarily in fragments found in Choeroboscus' commentary on Theodosius" (Dickey 2007: 76), which Poliziano, Varinus (Guarino) Favorinus and Carolus Antenoreus decided to put together with other Greek texts on noun declension and accentuation, which in its turn was published by Aldo Manuzio and Urbano Valeriani (van Gulik, English transl. 2018). – Alex B. Oct 20 '18 at 2:36
  • So to sum up: 1. Herodian's Perì klísĕōs ŏnŏmátō (which I almost got right) was lost except for quoted parts, e.g. those quoted by Choeroboscus; 2. That Cornucopia is essentially an edition of various works, somewhat like Lobel-Page is an edition of Sappho and Alcaeus, and it's not a separate work quoting Choeroboscus which ended up quoting the passage where he quoted Herodian, as I had previously interpreted ("quoteception" whence "why all this quoting?"). @AlexB correct? Is that the only version of Choeroboscus we have left or are there independent manuscripts that you know of? – MickG Oct 20 '18 at 8:44
1
  1. In the critical apparatus scripsi conventionally introduces a conjecture by the editor, whereas a successful conjecture (i.e. an emendation) is introduced with either correxi or emendavi (cf. Tarrant 2016: 164-166),

also cf. West 1973, 'If the editor wants to emphasize his confidence in a conjecture which he has adopted, he can transpose "uinxerunt Heinsius (or scripsi) : iunxerunt codd." into "iunxerunt codd.: corr. Heinsius (or correxi, or emendavi)"' (pp. 90-91).

  1. A screenshot of the relevant passage from Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis:

enter image description here

It seems you've been using a very old, outdated edition Bergk 1843. I have checked two later editions de visu, Bergk 1867 and Bergk 1882 and in both editions the only form mentioned is στόργος:

Bergk 1867: enter image description here

Bergk 1882 (I'm unaware of any other later editions, and this is the edition of Bergk you should use, that is, if you feel necessary to refer to Bergk at all):

enter image description here

Two screenshots from Jonathan Toup (Toupius 1778):

enter image description here

enter image description here

  1. Aldi Thes. Cornucop. stands for Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis first published by Aldo Manuzio (Aldus Manutius) and Urbano Valeriani in 1496 in Venice. It contains works by various Greek grammarians, including Choeroboscus and Herodian.

Q: "why all this quoting?"

A: Because not much of what Herodian wrote (in the second century) survived. His treatise Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων is preserved "primarily in fragments found in Choeroboscus' commentary on Theodosius" (Dickey 2007: 76), which Poliziano, Varinus (Guarino) Favorinus and Carolus Antenoreus decided to put together with other Greek texts on noun declension and accentuation, which in its turn was published by Aldo Manuzio and Urbano Valeriani (van Gulik, English transl. 2018).

  1. It's synaphia, cf. "Synaphia: prosodic continuity, particularly two verse lines following each other without a period end in between" (Brill's New Pauly).
  • Definitely stórgŏs then. Wonder where Bergk got his stŏrgãs... – MickG Oct 20 '18 at 8:44
  • 1
    @MickG See my updated answer above. – Alex B. Oct 21 '18 at 16:09
  • 1
    @MickG I do know there are four Bergk editions - this is a well-known fact; I’m not missing it, I just don’t see how useful it could be ... – Alex B. Oct 21 '18 at 17:01
  • 1
    As for the incorrect conjecture στόργος, which was rejected more than a century ago, I thought it was clear by now there was no such word in Greek, hence emendavi. – Alex B. Oct 21 '18 at 17:06
  • 1
    @ correxi and emendavi are not necessarily used interchangeably by all editors, especially in the past - see the linked books by Tarrant or West. Now, if you really want to know how στόργος was analyzed two hundred years ago (and before), some editors of the distant past analyzed it as a “nomen mulieris” – Alex B. Oct 21 '18 at 17:32

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.