[Herodian]
Φιλέταιρος (Philetaerus)

The work transmitted as Αἰλίου Ἡρωδιανοῦ Φιλέταιρος is an Atticist lexicon that proves problematic for modern readers on several levels. Φιλέταιρος (literally ‘fond of one’s companions’) is a personal name attested throughout Greece from the 5th century BCE onwards (see LGPN s.v.): this title may be interpreted as ‘companion’ and may reflect the work’s popularity within the late-antique school curriculum (see Dain 1954, 16). The difficulties posed by this work begin with its authorship. Indeed, the lexicon – which, in its extant form, is clearly epitomisedEpitome and heavily reworked – is attributed by the manuscripts to the great grammarian Herodian. This attribution, however, is most likely incorrect (as already noted by Lehrs 1848, 22), although most modern critics since Reitzenstein (1897, 377–97) believe that the compilation is at least partly based on genuinely Herodianic material (see Dain 1954, 13; Ucciardello 2021, 60). Argyle (1989) proposed instead to identify the author of the lexicon epitomised in the Philetaerus as CornelianusCornelianus, the dedicatee of Phrynichus’ Eclogue, on the basis of a series of clues – most notably the close correspondence between Phryn. Ecl. 231Phryn. Ecl. 231 and Philet. 121[Hdn.] Philet. 121, on the one hand, and Phryn. Ecl. 371Phryn. Ecl. 371 and Philet. 146[Hdn.] Philet. 146, on the other. In both sets of entries, Phrynichus criticises the literary passage adduced by Cornelianus in favour of a usage which he deems incorrect (for Ecl. 231 and Philet. 121 see the entry βασίλεια, βασιλίς, βασίλισσα, βασίλιννα):

Phryn. Ecl. 371: χρέως· Ἀττικὸς ἂν φαίνοιο καὶ ἐπιμελής, εἰ διὰ τοῦ ω μεγάλου χρέως λέγεις. σὺ μέντοι τῇ σεαυτοῦ πολυμαθίᾳ τὸν Ἀριστοφάνην διὰ τοῦ ο ἐδείκνυες τὸ χρέος ἐν ταῖς {ἑτέραις} Νεφέλαις εἰπόντα ‘ἀτὰρ τί χρέος ἔβα με μετὰ τὸν Πασίαν;’ ἔοικε δὲ παρῳδηκὼς εἰρηκέναι, διόπερ οὐ χρηστέον αὐτῷ.

χρέως: You (i.e., Cornelianus) would appear Attic and scrupulous, if you said χρέως with ω. However, in your great erudition, you have pointed out that Aristophanes in the {second} Clouds (30) writes the word χρέος with o: ‘what debt (χρέος) came upon me after Pasias?’. But he seems to have written this line as a parody, so you should not use it.

[Hdn.] Philet. 146: τὸ χρέως καὶ τὸ χρέος, ἀμφοτέρως. ‘ἀτὰρ τί χρέος ἔβα με μετὰ τὸν Πασίαν;’ Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν Νεφέλαις.

[You can say] χρέως and χρέος, both ways. ‘What debt (χρέος) came upon me after Pasias?’. [Thus] Aristophanes in Clouds (30).

The attribution to Cornelianus has been rejected by Alpers (1998, 103−8; see also Ucciardello 2021, 61), who does not consider Ecl. 231 and 371 as sufficient evidence for the claim that Cornelianus compiled a lexicon of his own, which Phrynichus allegedly read while composing the Eclogue (Argyle 1989, 526): according to Alpers, Phrynichus’ criticism rather refers to scholarly discussions between the two intellectuals, and the above correspondences are due to Cornelianus reading the lexicon of which the extant Philetaerus is an epitome (see Alpers 1998, 107). Drawing on a hypothesis by Reitzenstein (1897, 377‒97) concerning the subscriptio found in the primary manuscript of the Philetaerus (i.e. cod. Vat. gr. 2226, on which see below), Alpers (1998, 108) was inclined to identify the author of the lexicon epitomised in the Philetaerus as Alexander of CotiaeumAlexander of Cotiaeum, teacher of Aelius Aristides (ca. 70/80‒150 CE, see Montana 2018): the subscriptio reads Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ †κωμικῷ†, which he emended to Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ Κ<οτιαεί>ῳ. On the contrary, Argyle (1989, 530) explained the wording of the subscriptio by hypothesising that Cornelianus’ first name was Alexander (Ἀλεξάνδρῳ {τῷ} Κ<ορνηλιαν>ῷ). The subscriptio reads:

καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ †κωμικῷ† συγγέγραπται τοιουτονὶ συνταγμάτιον, ἐν ᾧ πολλὰ τούτοις συμφέρεται. δοκεῖ μέντοι μοι οὗτος παρ’ ἐκείνου λαβὼν ἔχειν, ἐπειδὴ ὅσα ἐκεῖνον εἰκὸς εὐφραδέως εἰπεῖν, ταῦτα μάλιστα καὶ ἐνταῦθα εὑρίσκω. (See translation below).

The meaning is not entirely clear and the wording requires some interpretation. As underlined by Ucciardello (2021, 62 n. 25), the term συνταγμάτιον (unattested before the 4th century CE) suggests that the subscriptio was written by a late-antique scholar, who was copying (and arguably epitomising) a series of lexicographical works. All in all, the author of the subscriptio seems to underline the similarity in content between the Philetaerus and a work by Alexander that he seems to have had at his disposal (possibly, but not necessarily, in the same antigraph he was copying from): since the author of the subscriptio found the same materials in both, he concluded that the Philetaerus drew on Alexander. In the light of this, one may translate the text as follows:

Alexander the †comic playwright† has also written a small treatise such as this (i.e. the Philetaerus), and in it (i.e. in Alexander’s work) many [prescriptions] agree with these (i.e. those found in the Philetaerus). In fact, it seems to me that he (i.e. the author of the Philetaerus) drew from him (i.e. Alexander), because especially those things that he (i.e. Alexander) seems to say eloquently, I find here (i.e. in the Philetaerus) as well.

As far as the manuscript tradition of the lexicon is concerned, the Philetaerus is equally complex. Its transmission is intertwined with that of several other grammatical works, and many of the relevant manuscripts remain to this day unedited and largely understudied: even the standard critical edition by Dain (1954) ‒ primarily based on the most complete extant manuscript of the Philetaerus, cod. Vat. gr. 2226Vat. gr. 2226 (14th‒15th century) ‒ does not take into account some other important testimonies. In preparation for a future re-edition of the lexicon, Ucciardello (2021, 56–72) has provided a thorough reconstruction of the Philetaerus’ editorial history in modern times, as well as a comprehensive list and description of the manuscripts which preserve the text (the list includes 11 manuscripts already known to scholars as preserving Herodianic material but not taken into account by Dain, along with two manuscripts never before considered).

The Philetaerus consists of 319 entries which do not follow any kind of order (only one short sequence − i.e. Philet. 215−8 − deals with kitchen utensils and thus possibly reflects a thematic organisation, see Dain 1954, 17). Dain (1954, 15−6) explains the lack of any discernible internal structure by the fact that the work is actually a series of notes taken by someone reading several lexicographical works (possibly in preparation for a lecture) or by someone attending an oral lesson. In the most complete manuscript of the Philetaerus, i.e. cod. Vat. gr. 2226, there is a vacat (f. 156r) dividing Philet. 135[Hdn.] Philet. 135 (re. καθίζεσθαι) from Philet. 136[Hdn.] Philet. 136 (re. καθεσθήσεται): this has been taken by Dain (1954, 20) to be either the result of a loss of text or a possible trace of an ancient division of the treatise into two parts: both hypotheses are bound to remain speculative. As far as the content of the entries is concerned, most of them deal with lexical matters, but morphological prescriptions are also well represented (e.g. Philet. 44[Hdn.] Philet. 44, on the Dioscuri’s name, see the entry Διόσκουροι, Διόσκοροι, Διοσκόρω). Observations on syntax are limited to rather essential notes (see Dain 1954, 17). Several entries deal with phonetic, morphological, and lexical differences between dialectsDialects. Besides Attic, which is obviously the most represented, Ionic is discussed in Philet. 69[Hdn.] Philet. 69, 200[Hdn.] Philet. 200, 271[Hdn.] Philet. 271, 288[Hdn.] Philet. 288, 296[Hdn.] Philet. 296, 304[Hdn.] Philet. 304, and 318[Hdn.] Philet. 318, and Doric in Philet. 41[Hdn.] Philet. 41, 68[Hdn.] Philet. 68, 275[Hdn.] Philet. 275, and 301[Hdn.] Philet. 301. Thessalian and Macedonian are also mentioned, although in Philet. 54[Hdn.] Philet. 54 the designation of πῖναξ, ‘writing tablet’, as θετταλόν is highly doubtful and the adjective was emended by Toup (1790, vol. 1, 450) to ἀθετητέον, ‘to be avoided’. Moreover, in Philet. 120[Hdn.] Philet. 120, the sentence ἔστι δὲ ἡ φωνὴ Μακεδονική in reference to κανοῦς, ‘basket’, is likely drawn by mistake from the following entry, Philet. 121[Hdn.] Philet. 121, which identifies the word βασίλισσα, ‘queen’, as Macedonian (in keeping with a general tendency in Greek lexica to consider as Macedonian in origin ‘Greek words of wide circulation spread by the Macedonians’, see entry βασίλεια, βασιλίς, βασίλισσα, βασίλιννα). Italian Greek is also featured (see Philet. 139[Hdn.] Philet. 139, with the rare adjective ἰταλιωτικός).