Thomas Magister
’Ονομάτων Ἀττικῶν ἐκλογή

D. Sources

Thomas Magister’s selection of sources is one of the most striking features of its Eclogue. The lexicon presents many points of contact with Manuel Moschopulus’Manuel Moschopulus sylloge of Attic nouns (see Ritschl 1832, LVII; Gaul 2008, 185, who argues that Thomas had direct access to Moschopulean material at an early stage of its circulation, and most recently Nickau 2023, who can be of great help in identifying Moschopulean influences in Magister’s lexicon, and Nousia 2024, 114, with examples). Apart from his use of this contemporary source, Thomas chooses to bypass what Gaul (2007, 297) calls the Byzantine ‘chain of lexicographers’ – that is, the early and middle Byzantine lexicographical tradition, from Cyril’s lexicon to the so-called Zonaras’ lexicon – and goes back directly to the Atticist lexicographers of the Second Sophistic, drawing largely on PhrynichusPhrynichus Atticista, MoerisMoeris, PhilemonPhilemon, ‘Ammonius’Pseudo-Ammonius, and the pseudo-Herodianic PhiletaerusPseudo-Herodianic Philetaerus. Thomas’ use of PolluxIulius Pollux’s Onomasticon, although less researched, is also plausible, given the work’s popularity. The identification of Magister’s sources is aided by his tendency to group together the entries that he derives from a single source (see Ritschl 1832, LXXIII). Studies on the textual transmission of the Atticist lexica have enabled us to identify the text that Thomas read: the following list gives an account of how and, where possible, to what extent, he used Atticist lexicographers in compiling his own lexicon. It should be noted that for many doctrines Thomas may have had several Atticist models at his disposal, and it is not always easy to match Thomas’ glosses with a specific source.

• Thomas includes in his lexicon sixty-nine glosses of PhrynichusPhrynichus Atticista’ Eclogue from the letters α, κ, λ, ο, π, and τ (Fischer 1974, 49). Fischer’s analysis has shown that he reads and uses Phrynichus’ lexicon in the abridged version of family q, as evidenced both by the fact that all the items in question are found in q and by several conjunctive errors (for the text of family q of Phrynichus’ Eclogue, see Fischer 1974, 109–24; on this family, see Fischer 1974, 17–23). The nonsensical τὸ δὲ ἐνεχυριμαῖον λέγειν ὡς Ἱπποκλείδης ἀδόκιμον, ‘to say ἐνεχυριμαῖον (‘hostage’), like Hippoclides, is incorrect’ (Thom.Mag. 107.8–9) is further evidence of this descent, since it is taken directly from the version of family q of Phryn. Ecl. 342 (ἐνεχυριμαῖον οὐκ ἐρεῖς ὡς Ἱπποκλείδης, ἀλλ’ ἐνέχυρα, ‘Do not say ἐνεχυριμαῖον, like Hippoclides, but ἐνέχυρα [hostage]’), whereas the unabridged version uses the saying οὐ φροντὶς Ἱπποκλείδῃ (‘Hippoclides does not care’) to reject the careless use of ἐνεχυριμαῖα in place of ἐνέχυρα (Fischer 1974, 49–50). Nevertheless, there are some cases in which Thomas’ wording appear to follow a different redaction than q: two examples are the aforementioned Thom.Mag. 182.12–7 (see C. Content and Structure) and Thom.Mag. 113.3–7Thom.Mag. 113.3–7, from Phryn. Ecl. 98Phryn. Ecl. 98 (on which see Gaul 2008, 189). Gaul argues that these items probably derive from Philemon’ lexicon and that it is unlikely that Thomas had at his disposal more than one manuscript of Phrynichus’ Eclogue (Philemon uses Phrynichus’ lexica as one of his main sources and often retains their wording, see entry Philemon, Περὶ Ἀττικῆς ἀντιλογίας τῆς ἐν ταῖς λέξεσιν, with bibliography). There are currently no studies on whether Thomas used Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica.

• Moeris is a major source for Thomas Magister. Hansen identifies 317 parallels between Moeris’ lexicon and Thomas’ Eclogue; nevertheless, this number should not be fully trusted, since Hansen seems to link Moeris’ and Thomas’ entries even when Magister’s source may be different. To take just one example, Thom.Mag. 391.13–6Thom.Mag. 391.13–6, which admits both ἐχθές and χθές for ‘yesterday’ (see entry χθές, ἐχθές, χθιζός, χθιζινός, χθεσινός), is based on Philemo (Vindob.) 393.35‒394.4Philemo (Vindob.) 393.35‒394.4 (whose prescription ἐχθές περιελεῖς, τὸ δὲ χθές Ἀττικώτερον, ‘You will take away ἐχθές, for χθές is more Attic’, proves to be sarcastic) and not on Moer. χ 6Moer. χ 6. In any case, the text of Moeris that Thomas reads and uses is a predecessor of the common source of manuscripts VFE of the Vatican redaction (τ in Hansen’s stemma; see Hansen 1998, 30–1, 35; see the entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής).

• Of the lexicon περὶ ὁμοίων καὶ διαφόρων λέξεων attributed to AmmoniusPseudo-Ammonius, Thomas uses a text halfway between the hyparchetype η and MS E (as evidenced by the conjunctive errors shared with the hyparchetype γ, representing an earlier stage of [Ammonius]’ transmission compared to η and to MS E). Clusters of glosses deriving from [Ammonius] are usually placed towards the end of each letter (Gaul 2008, 186) and can be identified by the fact that they are arranged alphabetically by the first two letters rather than by the first letter alone, as is usually the case in Thomas’ Eclogue (see Nickau 1966, XXV–XXVI).

• Thomas also includes in his Eclogue entries from Philemon’s lexicon, which he may have read in a non-metrical epitome close in size to the recension of MS L (Laur. 91 sup. 10Laur. 91 sup. 10), though more condensed in wording, which is no longer extant (see Cohn 1898, 354, and entry Philemon, Περὶ Ἀττικῆς ἀντιλογίας τῆς ἐν ταῖς λέξεσιν); a synopsis of parallels between Thomas’ Eclogue and the two recensions of Philemon’s lexicon, though limited to letters from α to δ, is provided by Cohn (1898, 354–9). Gaul (2008, 189–90) considers Philemon to be an important source for Thomas’ Eclogue: he argues that Philemon’s lexicon may underlie several glosses that at first sight would appear to be the work of Moeris or Phrynichus, and that the form of Philemon’s lexicon can be reconstructed from Thomas’ Eclogue, once the Moschopulean material has been excluded (see also Gaul 2007, 313–4, n. 64).

Thomas does not cite his sources, with the exception of PolluxIulius Pollux (mentioned once, in Thom.Mag. 246.6, although perhaps via an intermediate source) and PhrynichusPhrynichus Atticista, who counts five mentions, mainly in entries where Thomas distances himself from his position (Thom.Mag. 30.5–31.15; 91.11–92.15; 111.14–112.8; 399.1–12; note that Gaul 2008, 189 suggests that such criticism of Phrynichus may come from Philemon). The Eclogue’s approach to its sources is flexible: sometimes, in a minority of cases, the norms transmitted by Atticist scholarship are softened or even subverted, especially when the form they condemn is found in approved authors (on which see below, E. Canon). For instance, Thom.Mag. 79.11–3Thom.Mag. 79.11–3 admits both διακονοῦμαι and διακονῶ for ‘to serve’, while both Moer. δ 20Moer. δ 20 (διακονοῦμαι <Ἀττικοί>· διακονῶ <Ἕλληνες>, ‘<Users of Attic [employ] διακονοῦμαι, users of Greek [employ] διακονῶ’; see also Moer. δ 21Moer. δ 20) and Philemo (Laur.) 358 (διακονεῖσθαι· οὐ διακονεῖν. διακονοῦμαι καὶ διακονούμενος· οὐ διακονῶ, ‘διακονεῖσθαι, not διακονεῖν [‘to serve’]. διακονοῦμαι and διακονούμενος [‘I serve’ and ‘who serves’], not διακονῶ [‘I serve’]’, cf. also Philemo (Vindob.) 393.4) condemn the active form (on the prescription of the middle voice of διακονέω as typical of Attic, see entry διακονοῦμαι, διακονῶ).

E. Canon

According to the index provided by Ritschl (1832, 415–46), more than forty-five authors are mentioned in the Eclogue. However, both the difficulty of extrapolating the data and the multi-layered nature of the lexicon require caution when approaching the question of its canon. A large part of the expansion of the lexicon’s core material, which took place in the decades immediately following its composition, consisted in the addition of authors and loci that confirmed the doctrines presented by the entries or, in the opposite case, disproved them and made it necessary to correct them (see Gaul 2007, 313–5, on how Thom.Mag. 313.10–7Thom.Mag. 313.10–7, the entry on παραθήκη and παρακαταθήκη [‘thing entrusted’] developed after a reference to Thucydides was added to the original entry). For this reason, one should keep in mind that the number of authors and works mentioned in the Eclogue as we read it today only partially reflects Thomas’ intentions, since it is, at least to some extent, the result of collective work.

The canon as it emerges from the Eclogue is a sum of tradition and individual preferences, influenced by the demands of Thomas’ teaching and the trends of his time (namely, the popularity of a given author in the Byzantine school curriculum). Thomas inherits part of the canon from his sources: this is notably the case with the authors that ancient Atticist scholarship established as canonical (among others: Aristophanes, Plato, and Demosthenes). The mentions of comic poets (other than Aristophanes), for instance, depend entirely on the ancient Atticist lexicographers (e.g. the mention of Epicharmus in Thom.Mag. 222.16–223.13Thom.Mag. 222.16–223.13 from Phryn. Ecl. 43Phryn. Ecl. 43). The canon is then enriched by the authors of the imperial and late antique periods, who occupy an important place in it. Aelius Aristides, Lucian, Libanius, and Synesius of Cyrene all score over a hundred mentions. Aelius AristidesAelius Aristides, in particular, has just over two hundred, placing him in the top six alongside Aristophanes and Thucydides (on the role of Thomas’ Eclogue in the indirect tradition of Aristides, see Conti Bizzarro 2016). Such an expansion of the canon is in line with the revival of Second Sophistic authors in the Palaeologan age (see Gaul 2011, 174–88). The Eclogue’s canon also includes Christian works such as the Holy ScripturesHoly Scriptures and Gregory of NazianzusGregory of Nazianzus: while the inclusion of biblical material attracted criticism – see the marginal note in cod. V f. 98r. (Gaul 2007, 322 n. 3) questioning the use of the Bible in Thom.Mag. 32.1–33.5Thom.Mag. 32.1–33.5 – the presence of Gregory of Nazianzus did not pose problems, since he played a role in the Byzantine school curriculum. Thomas’ fondness for Libanius may also have facilitated Gregory’s inclusion in the canon.

Further remarks can be made on individual status of the authors and their hierarchical distribution. When a contradiction emerges, the authority of classical authors usually prevails over a later one: for example, in Thom.Mag. 351.7–352.8Thom.Mag. 351.7–352.8, the authority of Aristophanes prevails over Synesius’, leading Thomas to accept the Atticist doctrine (see Phryn. Ecl. 12Phryn. Ecl. 12) that limits the use of τέμαχος (‘slice’) to fish. Thucydides is by far the most cited author. By contrast, quotations from HerodotusHerodotus were very rare in the original version, and the extant citations were mostly added by the scholars who expanded the Eclogue (Gaul 2007, 303–4). This distribution may have been influenced not only by Thomas’ preferences, but also by Herodotus’ status among the lexicographers of the Second Sophistic (see Tribulato 2016; Phrynichus in particular recommends not to imitate Herodotus because of his use of Ionic). The marked preference for ThucydidesThucydides may also reflect the status that the two historians enjoyed in Byzantium. Thucydides, already canonical in antiquity, was considered the prose writer par excellence in the Byzantine school system: although he was not exempt from criticism (see, for instance, the aggressive disparagement expressed in Tzetzes’ scholia, on which cf. Luzzatto 1999 and, more recently, Bertóla 2022, 339–46), he enjoyed high esteem (on Thucydides’ renown in Byzantium, see Reinsch 2006, 755–9, and, most recently, Kennedy, Kaldellis 2023). Herodotus, although highly regarded both as a model of historiography and for the pleasantness of his style (see Rapp 2008, 129–32), is in second place to Thucydides (on the fate of the two historians in Byzantium see also Jeffreys 2019 and Zali 2019).

F. Evaluative terminology

In addition to determining the admissibility (or inadmissibility) of a form and providing a repository of authoritative loci to support it, Thomas Magister’s Eclogue also includes information on the style, registerRegister, and scope of use of each expression, employing a rather varied evaluative terminology. Recommended forms are often introduced by the instructions λέγε (‘say’) and ἐρεῖς (‘you will say’); on the contrary, discouraged forms are proscribed with μὴ λέγε, οὐκ ἐρεῖς, or with the expression οὐδεὶς τῶν δοκίμων εἶπεν (‘none of the approved authors said’), sometimes οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχαίων (‘none of the ancients’), οὐδεὶς τῶν ῥητόρων (‘none of the rhetors’) or, simply, οὐδείς (‘no one’). This terminology was already the standard in Thomas’ sources, just as the distinction between δόκιμοςδόκιμος (‘authentic’, ‘approved’) and ἀδόκιμος (‘unapproved’), indicating respectively admissible and inadmissible forms, frequently appears in Atticist lexicography.

A vast range of words are used to label certain forms as Attic: Ἀττικοίοἱ Ἀττικοί (‘Users of Attic’), Ἀττικός, ἈττικώτεροςἈττικώτερος (‘Attic’, ‘more Attic’). The counterpart ἀναττικόςἀναττικός (‘non-Attic’) is also found (7x): note that ἀναττικός otherwise appears only in Phrynichus’ lexica; its use by Aristophanes of Byzantium (fr. 71) is reported by Eustathius (in Od. 1.301.5–6). Remarkably, the label Ἀττικοί is sometimes accompanied by the adverb κυρίωςκυρίως: the expression οἱ κυρίως Ἀττικοί, ‘genuine users of Attic’ is, to my knowledge, peculiar to the Eclogue (Thom.Mag. 22.11; Thom.Mag. 54.4–5, on which see the entry βάτος; Thom.Mag. 240.13–4; Thom.Mag. 393.9–15) and is of particular interest because it may reveal an intention to maintain a distinction, within a wide group of canonical authors, between first-rate (in all likelihood ancient Attic authors) and second-rate – though still respectable – models (perhaps later Atticising authors). The approved use of Attic speakers is usually contrasted with that of Greek speakers – ἝλληνεςἝλληνες, ἙλληνικόςἙλληνικός (‘Users of Greek’, ‘of users of Greek’) – a structure which is peculiar to Moeris’ lexicon (see the entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής), and which Thomas preserves and occasionally applies to doctrines that do not come from Moeris (see e.g. Thom.Mag. 41.14–5Thom.Mag. 41.14–5: ἀλάβαστον δίχα τοῦ ρ Ἀττικοί, μετὰ δὲ τοῦ ρ ἁπλῶς Ἕλληνες, ‘Users of Attic [say] ἀλάβαστον without the ρ, users of Greek [say it] with a simple ρ’, see Ael.Dion. α 71Ael.Dion. α 71, Σ^b α 827 = Phot. α 886, ex Σʹʹʹ). Less frequently, Ἀττικοί is contrasted with κοινόςκοινός (‘common’), κοινότερος (‘more common’) and, interestingly, κοινοί. The label κοινοί is used five times (Thom.Mag. 78.3–12; 96.7; 97.12; 183.1; 357.13–358.2) for a group of speakers opposed to the Ἀττικοί: κοινοί is unprecedented in Atticist lexicography and it is not easy to determine with certainty whether it overlaps with Ἕλληνες in indicating Greek speakers, or whether – more likely – it refers to those who use a lower non-Atticising register, i.e. ‘common people’, a category that would be paralleled by the expression ἐν τῇ κοινῇ χρήσει, ‘in common use’ (see Poll. 2.72Poll. 2.72). DialectsDialects other than Attic are seldom mentioned: we find only Ἰωνικός (4x, usually applied to forms from Herodotus and Xenophon: see, e.g. Thom.Mag. 258.6–7Thom.Mag. 258.6–7, on ὀδμή in place of ὀσμή [‘smell’] in Xenophon, from Phryn. Ecl. 192Phryn. Ecl. 192; see also Phryn. PS 97.21–2Phryn. PS 97.21–2; Poll. 2.76Poll. 2.76; [Hdn.] Philet. 304[Hdn.] Philet. 304) and Δωρικός (2x). More rarely, a form is proscribed by criticism of the speakers who use it: this is the case with ἀμαθεῖςἀμαθής ‘ignorant people’ (also ἀμαθές, for a form), which in one case is combined with Ἑλλήνων ἄγευστοι (‘unskilled users of Greek’: see Thom.Mag. 2.7–9Thom.Mag. 2.7–9, on the correct use of the particle ἀτάρ, ‘nevertheless’). The comparison between two forms is often made by the expression κάλλιον ἤ (‘more beautiful than’): in this case, the inferior form does not seem to be proscribed outright, but rather gently discouraged.

Encouraging the acquisition of a vocabulary appropriate to a particular genre is one of the Eclogue’s main focuses. Since students of rhetoricRhetoric are the expected readers and users of the Eclogue, special attention is given to the identification of forms suitable for prose, denoted by labels such as λογογράφοι, ῥήτορες, συγγραφεῖς (‘prose-writers’, ‘rhetoricians’), and less frequently with the adjectives λογογραφικός (‘suitable to prose’) and ῥητορικός (‘suitable for rhetorical composition’). Usually, the vocabulary which is suitable for rhetoricians’ needs is contrasted with poetic forms, marked by ποιηταί (‘poets’) or ποιητικόςποιητικός (‘poetic’). Only twice are poetic forms more specifically assigned to τραγικοί (‘tragic poets’) and κωμικοί (‘comic poets’), mentioned together in Thom.Mag. 222.4–6; 247.13–249.15. Occasionally there is a reference to two professional categories using technical vocabulary: τεχνικοί (‘grammarians’, 4x: see, for instance, the entry ἐρυγγάνω, ἤρυγον, ἐρεύγομαι, ἠρευξάμην) and ἰατροί (‘physicians’, 1x). Since the aspiring rhetor should avoid poetic formsPoetic language – as advised in Thom.Mag. 229.10–1Thom.Mag. 229.10–1: […] ἀλλὰ σὺ τὸ μελίπηκτα ἀφεὶς τοῖς ποιηταῖς μελιτοῦτταν λέγε […], ‘but you should leave μελίπηκτον (‘honey-cake’) to the poets and say μελιτοῦττα’ – suitability for prose composition plays a role in determining the admissibility of a form, even if it is proscribed by Atticist sources. For instance, in Thom.Mag. 254.4–8Thom.Mag. 254.4–8: ὀπτήρ ποιητικώτερον, κατάσκοπος δὲ ῥητορικόν, ‘ὀπτήρ (‘spy’, ‘one who sees’) is poetic, while κατάσκοπος fits rhetorical composition’, Thomas subverts Moeris’ norm by discouraging κατάσκοπος (Moer. o 43Moer. ο 43: ὀπτῆρες Ἀττικῶς· κατάσκοποι Ἕλληνες, ‘ὀπτῆρες [is said] in the Attic way, users of Greek [employ] κατάσκοποι’) because he considers the word appropriate for high-register prose. In this case, another possibility is that Thomas is reporting information taken from Moeris’ text (i.e. from a predecessor of the antigraph of MSS VFE) and that the present form of Moeris’ gloss, transmitted only by MS F, results from the epitomisation that the text underwent in the manuscripts of the Vatican redaction (where the adverbial Ἀττικῶς is typical). Note, however, that the evaluation of expressions according to their suitability for a given genre, typical of Thomas’ Eclogue, would be unparalleled in Moeris. The same attention to suitability for prose is found in the marginal notes to MS V. Among others, note 11 (f. 104r, see Gaul 2007, 323) on the doctrine concerning the perfect participle of βαίνω expressed in Thom.Mag. 58.19–20Thom.Mag. 58.19–20, criticises Thomas’ prescription, arguing that the forms that he favours, though Attic, are poetic and unfit for rhetorical composition: Ἀττικὰ μὲν ταῦτα, ποιητικὰ δέ. οὐ γὰρ πάντα τὰ Ἀττικὰ καὶ ῥήτορσι χρήσιμα (‘These forms are Attic, but poetic. Not all Attic forms are suitable for rhetoricians’).

The use of evaluative terminology concerning styleStyle is less frequent: σκωπτικός (‘mocking’) is attested once, in Thom.Mag. 377.10–2Thom.Mag. 377.10–2, concerning the imperative φθείρου used as an imprecation (‘be off’), which depends on Moer. φ 25Moer. φ 25 (where there is no evaluative term). σεμνόςσεμνός ‘solemn’ occurs only once, in Thom.Mag. 168.3–4Thom.Mag. 168.3–4, which discusses terms for ‘temple-keeper’. Here, ζάκορος is defined as σεμνότερόν τι ἦν than νεωκόρος. This note is probably meant to show that ζάκορος (mainly attested in poetry) was a more solemn way of addressing a temple-keeper.

In a few cases, the Eclogue remarks that an unapproved form is used by Lucian, a good Atticising author, but in jest and thus is not to be taken seriously. One example is the use of κορυφαιότατος, ‘the most supreme’, which is proscribed by Atticist scholarship because it is the superlative of an already elative form (Thom. Mag. 211.7–8: κἂν ὁ Λουκιανὸς παίζων λέγῃ, ‘even if Lucian says it jestingly’). In 48.10–1, the Eclogue casts doubt on the tone of a passage by Lucian, and παίζων is opposed to σπουδάζων (‘seriously’): εἰ καὶ Λουκιανὸς λέγει, οὐκ οἶδα εἴτε παίζων εἴτε σπουδάζων, ‘even if Lucian says it, I do not know whether in jest or seriously’.