Orus
Ἀττικῶν λέξεων συναγωγή

The 5th-century grammarian Orus (originally from Alexandria but active in Constantinople, probably as a professor at the imperial court; see Alpers 1981, 89−95) wrote a Collection of Attic Words. Although the title of the work is not preserved as such in ancient sources, it has been recovered thanks to Alpers’ conjecture (based on observations by Ritschl and Bernhardy; see Alpers 1981, 98) about the text of Su. ω 201Su. ω 201, the biographical entry for Orus originally found in Hesychius Milesius’ Onomatologus (for a recent assessment of this work, see Kaldellis 2005, 384−9). The catalogue of Orus’ works in the Suda entry is evidently corrupt, listing an obscure title transmitted as ‘Orthography on the Diphthong αι against Phrynichus’; Alpers’ emendation is based on the idea that the wording of the Suda results from the conflation of two separate titles due to a saut du même au même: the ‘Alphabetical Orthography on the Diphthong αι’ and the ‘Alphabetical Collection of Attic Words against Phrynichus’ (ὀρθογραφίαν περὶ τῆς αι διφθόγγου <κατὰ στοιχεῖον, Ἀττικῶν λέξεων συναγωγὴ> κατὰ Φρυνίχου κατὰ στοιχεῖον). The phrase κατὰ Φρυνίχου implies that Orus’ lexicon tended to oppose the stricter Atticism embodied by PhrynichusPhrynichus Atticista (see below).

All of Orus’ works (except for an excerpt of his Orthography devoted to the iota subscript, preserved in cod. S. Salvatore 118; see Rabe 1892; Alpers 1981, 80–1) survive only in the form of quotations in later erudite literature, from Stephanus of Byzantium onwards (see Alpers 1981, 91−2; Ippolito 2008a). Modern knowledge of Orus’ Atticist collection owes much to the pivotal edition by Alpers (1981), who was able to identify numerous anonymous fragments ultimately deriving from the lexicon. The edition distinguishes between two categories of fragments: the A fragments, found in the 13th-century lexicon attributed to Zonaras (see Alpers 1981, 3–11; 149–93), and the B fragments, found in lexica other than [Zonaras] (mainly in the expanded Synagoge; see Alpers 1981, 56–86, 194–260). [Zonaras’]Pseudo-Zonaras lexicon preserves a considerable number of entries containing quotations from ancient literature (especially ancient comedy) not found elsewhere. Many of these entries show a remarkable overlap with Phrynichus’ lexica, sometimes openly contradicting his prescriptions (see e.g. Phryn. PS 89.6Phryn. PS 89.6 and [Zonar.] 1334 = Orus fr. A 62; Alpers 1981, 6). Several of these entries have parallels in glosses from the Etymologicum Genuinum in which Orus is explicitly mentioned (see Alpers 1981, 7–9). These parallels, along with some specific features of the entries (on which see Alpers 1981, 5–7), confirm the attribution of the anonymous Atticist glosses in [Zonaras] to Orus: these glosses constitute the A fragments. However, the identification of the B fragments is much less certain, since the main source for these fragments, the expanded SynagogeSynagoge, used other Atticist sources besides Orus, namely Aelius Dionysius (see the entry Aelius Dionysius, Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα), Pausanias (see the entry Pausanias Atticista, Ἀττικῶν ὀνομάτων συναγωγή), Phrynichus (see the entries Phrynichus Atticista, Σοφιστικὴ προπαρασκευή (Praeparatio sophistica) and Phrynichus Atticista, Ἐκλογὴ Ἀττικῶν ῥημάτων καὶ ὀνομάτων (Ecloga), forthcoming), and the Antiatticist (see entry Antiatticista, forthcoming); cf. Alpers 1981, 64; Cunningham 2003, 52–3. Thus, although some attributions are confirmed by parallels in the erudite tradition (particularly in the Etymologicum Genuinum and [Zonaras]), it is often difficult to establish the Atticist source for each Synagoge gloss (see Alpers 1981, 56–64). Consequently, the attribution of other anonymous Atticist material in the Synagoge to Orus must be based on other criteria of content, style, canon, and wording; Alpers considers the anomalistic tendency of the doctrine (1981, 65), the acceptance of more than one usage as correct (with expressions such as ἑκατέρως λέγεται; see Alpers 1981, 68), and the use of less canonical authors such as Menander (1981, 67; see below) to be particularly indicative of derivation from Orus. Other linguistic features identified by Alpers as indicative of Orus’ work include the use of the phrase ἐν τῷ α in the sense of ‘with alpha’ in entries on pronunciation, the preference for δηλοῖ over σημαίνει in the sense of ‘it means’, and the use of χρὴ λέγειν and δεῖ λέγειν (‘one must say’) in the present tense instead of other forms (especially the future) preferred by other lexicographers (1981, 65–7). Inevitably, the B fragments identified as Orus’ by these criteria should be handled with caution and are thus distinguished from the A fragments preserved in [Zonaras] (1981, 69).

As indicated in the reconstructed title and confirmed by certain sequences of entries in [Zonaras] (see Alpers 1981, 99), Orus’ lexicon was arranged alphabetically. The work was intended to inform readers about various aspects of correct linguistic usage, including semantics (see e.g. fr. A 17Orus fr. A 17 on the meaning of βασκαίνω, and fr. B 78Orus fr. B 78 on two terms for ‘seamstress’, ἀκέστρια and ἠπήτρια), phonology (see e.g. fr. B 41Orus fr. B 41 on the correct spelling of ἄρακος, the name of a leguminous plant), morphology (see e.g. fr. B 79Orus fr. B 79 on the future of verbs in -ίζω), and syntax (see e.g. fr. A 4Orus fr. A 4 on the expression ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ τὸν ἴππον, ‘to mount the horse’, against the incorrect ἀναβαίνειν τὸν ἴππον). Questions of diathesisDiathesis are also frequently discussed (see e.g. fr. A 3a−bOrus fr. A3a–b on ἀλεαίνειν vs ἀλεαίνεσθαι, and fr. B 122Orus fr. B 122 on ὀξυθυμεῖσθαι vs ὀξυθυμεῖν). Several entries show an interest in dialectsDialects; after Attic (mentioned 38 times), Ionic is the most frequently discussed dialect (13 times), although Doric is also mentioned (four times). Athenians (Ἀθηναῖοι) are referred to explicitly in frr. A 24Orus fr. A 24 and A 61Orus fr. A 61, while the Alexandrian dialect is mentioned (and criticised) in fr. A 42Orus fr. A 42 (see also the disparaging adjective Αἰγύπτιος in fr. A 78Orus fr. A 78).