PURA. Purism In Antiquity: Theories Of Language in Greek Atticist Lexica and their Legacy

Scholars and Works

Aelius Dionysius
Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα

A. Generalities

Biographical information on Aelius Dionysius is scanty. His native city was Halicarnassus (cf. e.g. Phot. Bibl. cod. 152, 99b.21–2) and, according to Su. δ 1174 (an entry dedicated to another Dionysius, who was his ancestor), Aelius was active during Hadrian’s reign (i.e., 117−138 CE; on γεγονώς indicating the floruit and not the birth of an individual in the biographical entries of the Suda, see Rohde 1878). He wrote an alphabetical collection of Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα (Attic Words), also known to ancient sources as Περὶ χρήσεως Ἀττικῶν ὀνομάτων (On the Use of Attic Words, An.Boiss. 1.413−4), Περὶ Ἀττικῶν λέξεων (On Attic Words, Eust. in D.P. 912), Ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων (Selection of Words, Bekker 1821, 1073) and Ῥητορικὸν λεξικόν (Rhetorical Lexicon, Eust. in Il. 1.364.21−2, 4.243.6−7, 4.448.15−6. This is not to be confused with the ῥητορικόν frequently quoted in the Etymologicum Genuinum, which is instead an expanded version of the Synagoge. See Alpers 1988; Cunningham 2003, 22).

B. Transmission, editions, and reference studies

Aelius’ lexicon was directly transmitted (certainly with some degree of abbreviation and reworking) until the time of EustathiusEustathius of Thessalonica (12th century): the Byzantine scholar, who quotes the lexicographer by name 180 times (see below), had access to a codex closely related (or, less plausibly, identical) to the one read by Photius in the 9th century (see Erbse 1950, 30). In his Bibliotheca, PhotiusPhotius states that the manuscript he read contained Timaeus’ Platonic lexicon (cod. 151), the first edition of Aelius Dionysius’ work in five books, followed by the second edition of the same lexicon, also in five books (cod. 152), the Atticist lexicon of PausaniasPausanias Atticista (cod. 153, see entry Pausanias Atticista, Ἀττικῶν ὀνομάτων συναγωγή), the two Platonic lexica of Boethus (codd. 154−5), Dorotheus’ collection of foreign words (cod. 156), and Moeris’Moeris lexicon (cod. 157, see entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής). The fact that Eustathius never mentions a second edition of Aelius’ work has been explained by Erbse (1950, 29−30) as the result of the loss of the title of the second edition of the Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα in the manuscript he had at his disposal. At the same time, this hypothesis explains the three references made by the Byzantine scholar to an ‘anonymous rhetorical lexicon’ (see Eust. in Il. 3.49.8−9 ἐν δὲ ἀνωνύμῳ ῥητορικῷ λεξικῷ, in Od. 2.156.43 ἐν δὲ ἀνωνύμῳ ῥητορικῷ λεξικῷ, in Od. 2.189.10 ὡς ἐν ἀνωνύμῳ κεῖται λεξικῷ ῥητορικῷ), which should thus be identified with the second edition of the Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα, deprived of its title. As Photius clearly explains, this second edition was not a reworking of the first, but rather an addendum containing glosses that the first edition had either completely overlooked or mentioned, but without the necessary literary attestations (see Phot. Bibl. cod. 152, 99a 34−6 λέξεις […] ὅσαι τε τῇ προτέρᾳ (i.e. ἐκδόσει) οὐ συμπεριελήφθησαν ἢ περιελήφθησαν μέν, μαρτυρίαις δὲ ταῖς οὔσαις οὐκ ἐβεβαιώθησαν). Both Photius (Bibl. cod. 152, 99b.24−5) and Eustathius (in Il. 1.347.25) attest that the work was dedicated to a Scymnus, whose identity remains unknown. Of all the epigraphic occurrences of the personal name Σκύμνος (181 matches in 149 texts), Asia Minor is the region with the highest number of attestations (70 matches in 52 texts; my calculations on the PHI database, see also LGPN vol. 5.B, 386): this fits in well both with Aelius Dionysius’ Halicarnassus origin and with the content of the prefatory letter of his lexicon, in which − according to Eustathius’ testimony (in Il. 1.581.17−25) − he discussed the historical and ethnic relations of Halicarnassus (and Caria in general) with the Dorians and the Athenians, to conclude that ‘perhaps nothing could prevent an Attic word from being [found] in Caria, and a Carian word [from being found] in Athens’ (οὐδὲν ἂν ἴσως κωλύῃ καὶ ἐν Καρίᾳ εἶναί τινα Ἀττικὴν φωνὴν καὶ ἐν ταῖς Ἀθήναις Καρικήν). A parallel to this autobiographical element in Aelius’ lexicon may be found in an entry in Phrynichus’ Eclogue (238)Phryn. Ecl. 238, which includes a reference to a specific usage in the Greek of Bithynia (see Bowie 2022, 82).

There are 195 fragments (180 of them from Eustathius) in which the lexicographer is quoted by name, mostly as Αἴλιος Διονύσιος (less often as simply Διονύσιος, see e.g. Eust. in Il. 3.610.2, or Διονύσιος Αἴλιος, see e.g. Eust. in Il. 1.313.31), sometimes with the addition of ὁ Ἀλικαρνασσεύς (see e.g. EM 227.35−8). The remaining 15 fragments come either from scholia – to the Iliad (4 fragments), Plato, Plutarch, Theocritus, and Hermogenes (1 fragment in each corpus) − or from lexicographic sources, namely Helladius’ Chrestomathy, summarised in Photius’ Bibliotheca (2 fragments, Phot. Bibl. 529b.25−37, 532a.22−5), the expanded Synagoge (1 fragment, Σb α 627, not accepted by Erbse), the Etymologicum Genuinum (1 fragment, s.v. γεραῖραι, also in EM 227.35−8), and a lexicographic miscellany in cod. Par. gr. 1630 (from the 14th century, 2 fragments, An.Boiss. 1.411, 413−4). Finally, the section of Photius’ library devoted to Aelius’ Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα, discussed above (Phot. Bibl. cod. 152, 99b.21−100a.13), must also be considered a fragment in that it preserves some of the content of the lexicon’s prefatory letter.

Schwabe’s edition (1890) of Aelius Dionysius and Pausanias is mostly based on the explicit quotations from Eustathius, while a large amount of anonymous material in several erudite sources (especially the Synagoge, its related lexica, and the Etymologica) is conjecturally attributed to Aelius in Erbse’s edition (1950), which superseded Schwabe’s and is the current reference edition for Aelius and Pausanias. In it, the editor aims to reconstruct the ‘authentic text’ of Aelius’ lexicon: in this attempt, he often heavily rephrases the wording of the sources, not only when the fragment is conjecturally attributed to the lexicographer, but also when the attribution is certain (i.e. when Aelius is quoted by name). By way of example, one may consider the following passages:

Εust. in Il. 1.309.26−8: Αἴλιος δὲ Διονύσιός φησι καί, ὅτι δίοπος ὁ ναυφύλαξ ὡς ἐπισκοπῶν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐφορῶν, ὥστε αὐτὸς οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ διέπειν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ ὄπτω τὸ βλέπω δοκεῖ ἐτυμολογεῖν τὸν δίοπον.

Aelius Dionysius also says that δίοπος [is] the one who keeps watch on a ship (ναυφύλαξ), since he watches over it and inspects it, so that he seems to explain the etymology of δίοπος not from διέπειν (‘to guide’), but from ὄπτω, ‘I watch’.

In Erbse’s edition, this corresponds to Ael.Dion. δ 26Ael.Dion. δ 26:

δίοπος· ὁ οἰκονόμος· Αἰσχύλος ἐν Σισύφῳ. καὶ ὁ τῆς νεὼς ἐπιμελητής, παρὰ τὸ διοπτεύειν ὡς ἐπισκοπῶν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐφορῶν. Ἀριστοφάνης δὲ ἐν Λημνίαις εἴρηκε καὶ ‘ναυφύλαξ’.

δίοπος: The administrator. Aeschylus in Sisyphus (fr. 232). And the inspector of the ship, from διοπτεύειν (‘to watch carefully’), because he watches over it and inspects it. Aristophanes in Lemnian Women (fr. 388) also says ναυφύλαξ (‘one who keeps watch on a ship’).

The entry is reconstructed by combining the text of a number of other erudite sources where Aelius is never mentioned, notably:

Erot. 61.15−62.3: διόπῳ· τῷ τῆς νηὸς ἐπιμελητῇ, παρὰ τὸ διοπτεύειν. Ἀττικὴ δὲ ἡ λέξις, κειμένη καὶ παρὰ Ἀριστοφάνει ἐν Ἀττικαῖς λέξεσι καὶ παρὰ Αἰσχύλῳ ἐν Σισύφῳ καὶ Εὐριπίδῃ ἐν Ἱππολύτῳ.

διόπῳ (dative): To the inspector of the ship, from διοπτεύειν (‘to watch accurately’). The word is Attic, occurring in Aristophanes (of Byzantium)’s Attic Words (fr. 338), in Aeschylus, in Sisyphus (fr. 232), and in Euripides, in Hippolytus (Veiled, fr. 447).

Poll. 7.139Poll. 7.139: δίοπος δὲ ὁ ἐπόπτης τῆς νεώς· Ἀριστοφάνης δὲ ἐν Λημνίαις εἴρηκε καὶ ναυφύλαξ.

δίοπος [is] the overseer of the ship. Aristophanes in Lemnian Women (fr. 388) also says ναυφύλαξ (‘one who keeps watch on a ship’).

Eust. in Od. 2.1.31−2: δίοπος ὁ οἰκονόμος παρ’ Αἰσχύλῳ.

δίοπος [is] the administrator in Aeschylus (fr. 232).

In general, Erbse’s basic assumption is that Eustathius should not be considered reliable for the constitutio textus, but only for the definition of the scope of each fragment, while other sources (especially the Synagoge) preserve the original wording of the lexicon though omitting the lexicographer’s name (see Erbse 1950, 22). Overall, despite the importance and usefulness of Erbse’s edition, one should bear in mind that an actual constitutio textus is in itself a methodologically controversial operation for erudite texts such as lexica (the tradition of which has always been characterised by constant reworking and epitomisation), and it becomes even more speculative when, as in the case of Aelius Dionysius and Pausanias, the text is only fragmentarily preserved through indirect transmission and is reconstructed by combining together material scattered across several ancient sources.

C. Content and structure

Photius describes the lexicon as ‘very useful for those who wish to speak Attic and for those who want to familiarise themselves with the writings of Attic authors’ (Bibl. cod. 152.99b.25−7: χρησιμώτατος δ’ ὁ πόνος οὗτος τοῖς τε ἀττικίζειν ἔχουσι φροντίδα καὶ τοῖς τῶν Ἀττικῶν συγγράμμασιν ἐνομιλεῖν προαιρουμένοις) and states that it contains not only words and expressions specific to the Athenian dialect, but also information about ancient festivals and customs (Bibl. cod. 152.99b.27−9: ὅσαι τε γὰρ ἐπιχωριάζουσι λέξεις τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις περί τε τὰς ἑορτὰς καὶ τὰς δίκας, ἐντεῦθεν ἔστιν ἐκμαθεῖν). This is confirmed by what remains of Aelius’ lexicon: most glosses have either a linguistic focus (on phonology, prosody, morphology, or syntax) or a lexicographic/dialectalDialects focus, but some fragments comment on religiousReligious language and juridicalLegal language jargon as well, and an interest in proverbsProverbs is also attested (for a detailed overview with examples of each category, see Montana 2018; cf. below).

D. Sources

In his 1890 edition of the fragments of Aelius Dionysius and Pausanias, Schwabe devoted a substantial part of his prolegomena to a discussion of the sources of the two lexicographers (cf. Schwabe 1890, 38–76), identifying four main groups: the entries on Realien, Attic customs, or specific semantic fields (such as the human ages), which ultimately go back to Aristophanes of ByzantiumAristophanes of Byzantium and DidymusDidymus; the entries on grammar and orthography, which show parallels with Trypho and Herodian; the entries on proverbs, and those which appear to be original to Aelius and Pausanias. Given the important role of comedy in Aelius Dionysius’ canon (see below), Alexandrian scholarship on the comic playwrights must have been a key source for his lexicon, with Didymus’ Comic Vocabulary (cf. Benuzzi 2020, 54–5) arguably playing a central role in the chain of intermediate sources linking Aelius to Hellenistic scholars (see also below). An example of material from Didymus’ Comic Vocabulary ending up in Aelius’ lexicon is provided by Eust. in Od. 2.188.39–40 ~ Ael.Dion. α 8Ael.Dion. α 8:

οὕτω κεῖται, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς Διονύσιος λέγει, καὶ παρὰ Θεοπόμπῳ ἀβυρτάκη ὑπότριμμά τι δριμὺ, βαρβαρικὸν διὰ πράσων καὶ καρδάμων καὶ κόκκων ῥόας καὶ ἑτέρων τοιούτων.

Thus, as the same Dionysius (i.e. Aelius Dionysius) says, the term ἀβυρτάκη occurs in Theopompus (fr. 18), [indicating] a pungent sauce, [of] barbaric [origin, made] with leeks, cress, pomegranate seeds and other ingredients of this sort.

and Gal. Ind. 6.12–4, where Galen – after stating that he has produced an epitome of Didymus’ Comic Vocabulary – describes his own treatise on the vocabulary of Old Comedy:

ἀλλ’ ἃ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς κωμικοῖς, Ἀβυδοκόμαν ἢ ἀβυρτάκην, <ἢ> ἄλλ’ ὅσα μὴ σαφῆ τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ἦν, ὥριστο κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν πραγματείαν, ἃ Δίδυμος ἔφθασεν ἐξηγήσασθαι καλῶς.

But also the words in the ancient comic playwrights – [such as] Ἀβυδοκόμας (i.e. a satyric nickname for sycophants) or ἀβυρτάκη – or however many were unclear to the listeners were defined in my (i.e. Galen’s) treatise, [words] that Didymus (n. 7 Coward – Prodi) had already explained well.

Through Didymus’ Comic Vocabulary, however, Aelius was able to access older scholarship on comedy, going back even further than Aristophanes of Byzantium (cf. above), namely to Eratosthenes of CyreneEratosthenes of Cyrene’s On Ancient Comedy. For example:

Eust. in Il. 3.401.14–8 (cf. Ael.Dion. κ 24Ael.Dion. κ 24, κ 25Ael.Dion. κ 25, σ 23Ael.Dion. σ 23): κῆπος γὰρ οὐ μόνον φυταλιά, ἀλλὰ καὶ καλλωπισμὸς κόμης κατὰ Αἴλιον Διονύσιον καὶ κουρᾶς διάθεσις τῶν ἐν κεφαλῇ τριχῶν. Θουκυδίδης δὲ κήπιόν φησι, Κωμικοὶ δὲ κηποκόμαν τὸν κῆπον κειρόμενον, ὥσπερ ἕτερον σκαφιόκουρον, καὶ ἔστι καὶ παρὰ τῷ Κωμικῷ ἡ λέξις τοῦ σκάφιον κείρεσθαι.

For the κῆπος (‘garden’) [is] not only an orchard, but also a hair ornament according to Aelius Dionysius and an arrangement of the haircut. Thucydides (2.62.3) says κηπίον (‘small garden’), and the comic playwrights [call] κηποκόμας the one who has his hair cut [in the way known] as κῆπος, just as [they call] another one σκαφιόκουρος (com. adesp. fr. 193). And in the comic playwright (i.e. Aristophanes) there is the expression σκάφιον κείρεσθαι (‘to have the hair cropped in a bowl cut’, Th. 838).

and schol. Eur. Tr. 1175, which preserves Eratosthenes’ interpretation of the verb κηπεύω not in the generic sense of ‘to tend to’, ‘to cherish’, but as ‘to arrange [the hair] in the hairstyle known as κῆπος’ (Eratosth. fr. 66 Strecker, cf. Benuzzi 2019, 342–6; for a similar case, see Eust. in Il. 3.514.21–5 ~ Ael.Dion. ε 55Ael.Dion. ε 55 and Eratosth. fr. 75 Strecker). In the light of these cases, one might initially assume that Aelius relied directly on Didymus’ Comic Vocabulary, but it is more plausible that the former had access to the work of Didymus and other late Hellenistic scholars through the 2nd-century CE grammarian DiogenianusDiogenianus, who produced a lexicon based on Iulius Vestinus’ epitome of the massive 95-book lexicon compiled in the 1st century CE by Zopyrion and Pamphilus (see Ippolito 2005, Meliadò 2019, Montana 2003, Benuzzi 2020, 54). This is suggested by the fact that many entries in which Aelius evidently reuses Hellenistic scholarly material have parallels in Hesychius, who in turn explicitly names Diogenianus among his sources in the prefatory letter of his lexicon (see e.g. Hsch. κ 2529 on κῆπος as a type of haircut; cf. e.g. Schwabe 1890, 79: Erbse 1950, 68).

E. Canon

Since Aelius Dionysius was active during Hadrian’s reign (see above), he predates Phrynichus and Pollux (who are usually dated to the second half of the 2nd century CE, see the entries Phrynichus Atticista, Ἐκλογὴ Ἀττικῶν ῥημάτων καὶ ὀνομάτων (Ecloga), forthcoming and Iulius Pollux, Ὀνομαστικόν (Onomasticon)) by at least half a century. This chronological distance is reflected in the different canons of authors adopted by Aelius and by his successors.

Of the 195 fragments definitely attributed to Aelius Dionysius by the sources, 28 contain references to comic playwrights mentioned by name. The range of authors cited includes not only the 5th-century Attic poets considered authoritative by the strict Atticist Phrynichus − Cratinus (4x), Pherecrates (5x), Eupolis (1x), Plato (1x), Aristophanes (6x by name, at least 4x as ὁ κωμικός) − but also, in limited numbers, the playwrights excluded (and often openly criticised) by Phrynichus, and conversely accepted by the Antiatticist and Pollux, such as Theopompus (1x), Alexis (1x), Philemon (1x), and Menander (8x). Generic references to οἱ κωμικοί are also attested (5x). For the number of comic quotations in the text of Aelius Dionysius conjecturally reconstructed by Erbse (1950), see Sonnino (2014, 191−2). Overall, as observed by Sonnino (2014, 171), Aelius Dionysius – at least as far as the extant fragments of his lexicon allow us to reconstruct – shows a canon of comic playwrights that is more inclusive than that of Phrynichus (who practically excludes the poets of Middle and New Comedy), but more restrictive than that of Pollux and the Antiatticist, in that the quotations from these playwrights are rather few (whereas Pollux and the Antiatticist quote them very frequently; see entries Iulius Pollux, Ὀνομαστικόν (Onomasticon) and Antiatticista, forthcoming).

The same trend can be observed with regard to prose writers: Aelius refers not only to authors accepted by Phrynichus as models of good Attic − such as Thucydides (9x) and the philosopher Plato (3x) − but also to some of those accepted by the Antiatticist and Pollux, and rejected by Phrynichus, namely Herodotus (4x) and Xenophon (1x). In this case, too, the distribution of the quotations is revealing: although Aelius also mentions Herodotus and Xenophon, he quotes Thucydides and Plato more often (in contrast, in Pollux the references to e.g. Thucydides and Herodotus are almost equal in number [87x vs. 79x, TLG count], and in the Antiatticist the former is quoted even less often than the latter [44x vs. 64x, TLG count]). In keeping with the general caution of the Atticists towards tragic language, tragedy is much less represented in Aelius’ fragments than comedy and prose: there are only two certain quotations from Sophocles (Eust. in Od. 1.253.10−6 ~ Ael.Dion. ε 48Ael.Dion. ε 48; schol. (Ap. H. ?) Hom. Il. 15.705b.4−9 (A) ~ Ael.Dion. φ 13Ael.Dion. φ 13; for a third possible quotation, see Eust. in Od. 1.32.30−3 ~ Ael.Dion. α 18Ael.Dion. α 18, α 20Ael.Dion. α 20) and two likely ones from Aeschylus (see Ael.Dion. δ 26 above) and Euripides (Eust. in Il. 3.552.28−31 ~ Ael.Dion. σ 1Ael.Dion. σ 1) respectively.

In three cases, Aelius Dionysius mentions the absence of attestations as a reason for rejecting a form:

Phot. Bibl. cod. 279.532a.22−5: ὅτι τὸ ἀρχέτυπον, φασίν, οὐδενὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων συγγραφέων οὐδὲ ῥητόρων οὐδὲ τῶν Μούσαις κατόχων εἴρηται, ὡς Διονύσιος ὁ Ἁλικαρνασσεὺς ἱστορεῖ.

They say that the word ἀρχέτυπον (‘model’) is not used by any of the prose writers, the orators or any of those inspired by the Muses, as Dionysius of Halicarnassus (α 184) attests.

Eust. in Il. 4.448.3−5: Αἴλιος δὲ Διονύσιος ἐν τῷ ῥητορικῷ αὐτοῦ Λεξικῷ οὐκ ἐθέλει ὠνομάζεσθαι γράστιν ὅλως. φησὶ γάρ· κράστιν Ἀττικοὶ τὴν πόαν, γράστιν δὲ οὐδένες.

Aelius Dionysius in his rhetorical lexicon (κ 36Ael.Dion. κ 36) completely forbids saying γράστις. For he says: ‘Attic-speakers call the grass κράστις, nobody [calls it] γράστις’. (See the entry κράστις, γράστις).

Eust. in Od. 1.9.30−1: φησὶ γοῦν Αἴλιος Διονύσιος, ὅτι ἀγαθώτερος καὶ ἀγαθώτατος παρ’ οὐδενὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων κεῖται.

Aelius Dionysius (α 10Ael.Dion. α 10) says that ἀγαθώτερος and ἀγαθώτατος occur in none of the Greek writers. (See the entry ἀγαθώτερος, ἀγαθώτατος).

This kind of phrasing is also found in other Atticist lexica, see e.g. Phryn. Ecl. 197Phryn. Ecl. 197 (βασίλισσα οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχαίων εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ βασίλεια ἢ βασιλίς, ‘none of the ancients said βασίλισσα (‘queen’), but [they said] βασίλεια or βασιλίς’, see the entry βασίλεια, βασιλίς, βασίλισσα, βασίλιννα) and Poll. 10.60Poll. 10.60 (εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀναλογεῖον ἐθέλοις προσονομάζειν, οὕτω μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ τοῖς βιβλίοις ὑποκεισομένου παρ’ οὐδενὶ τῶν κεκριμένων εὗρον, ‘if you want to use the word ἀναλογεῖον (‘bookrest’), I did not find it [used to indicate] the object that is put under the books in any of the selected [authors]’).

F. Evaluative terminology

The extant fragments of the Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα display much of the evaluative terminology found in later Atticist lexica.

In two instances (An.Boiss. 1.411 ~ Ael.Dion. φ 20Ael.Dion. φ 20, Eust. in Od. 1.151.38 ~ Ael.Dion. ρ 6Ael.Dion. ρ 6) Aelius uses the term ἰδιῶταιοἱ ἰδιῶται to indicate common speakers (in one case the everyday usage is defined by the adjective κοινόςκοινός, see Eust. in Il. 3.496.13 ~ Ael.Dion. σ 4Ael.Dion. σ 4: ὁ κοινὸς λεγόμενος σάκκος, ‘the commonly used [word] σάκκος (‘sack’)’).

Words and usages that are considered incorrect are labelled by terms such as βάρβαροςβάρβαρος, βαρβαρισμόςBarbarism, and σολοικισμόςSolecism. For instance, Aelius deems ‘barbarous’ the Aristophanic hapax ἠπάομαι (Ar. fr. 239), see Eust. in Od. 1.367.24−6 φησὶ γοῦν Αἴλιος Διονύσιος (α 64Ael.Dion. α 64) ἀκέστριαν οὐκ ἠπήτριαν […] τὸ δὲ ἠπήσασθαι παντελῶς φησι βάρβαρον (‘Aelius Dionysius says [the correct form is] ἀκέστρια (‘seamstress’), not ἠπήτρια […] and he says that ἠπήσασθαι (‘to mend’) is completely barbarous’. The noun and the verb are also rejected by Phrynichus, Ecl. 64Phryn. Ecl. 64, and by the Atticist Philemon, [Vindob.] 392.6Philemo (Vindob.) 392.6, 394.26Philemo (Vindob.) 394.26. See also Moer. α 101Moer. α 101). Another interesting example is Eust. in Od. 1.151.39−40 ῥὼξ γὰρ εἰπεῖν, βαρβαρισμὸς καὶ σολοικισμός ἐστιν ὥς φησιν Αἴλιος Διονύσιος (‘to say ῥώξ is a barbarism and a solecism, as Aelius Dionysius [ρ 6Ael.Dion. ρ 6] says’; see entry ῥάξ, ῥώξ). Here the presence of σολοικισμός (‘syntactical error’) in Eustathius’ text justifies Erbse’s reconstruction (1950, 139) that the usage criticised by Aelius was not simply ῥώξ instead of ῥάξ, but ὁ ῥώξ instead of ἡ ῥάξ: indeed, ὁ ῥώξ is a barbarism (i.e., a phonematic error) in that the α is replaced by ω, but also a solecism (i.e., a syntactical error) because the masculine article is used with a feminine noun (see Sandri 2020, 23).

In another entry, Aelius labelled the late and scantily attested ἱατρίνη (‘midwife’, found – before and during the lexicographer’s time − only once in Iosephus and twice in Galen, and almost certainly a medical term) as οὐχ’ ἙλληνικόςἙλληνικός, that is ‘non-standard Greek’, see Eust. in Il. 3.244.15−7: ἰστέον δὲ […] ὅτι οὐ μόνον κατὰ γένος ἀρρενικὸν ἰατρός, ἀλλὰ καὶ θηλυκῶς. φησὶ γοῦν Αἴλιος Διονύσιος ἰατρὸν γυναῖκα, Ἄλεξις δὲ ἰάτριαν. ἡ δὲ ἰατρίνη οὐχ’ Ἑλληνικόν, φησί (‘one should know […] that ἰατρός (‘physician’) [can be used] not only as a masculine, but also as a feminine. Indeed, Aelius Dionysius [ι 1Ael.Dion. ι 1] [says]: ‘the woman [is called] ἰατρός, while Alexis [calls her] ἰάτρια. ἰατρίνη, instead, is not Greek’’).

The presence of such terminology proves that Aelius’ lexicon had a clear prescriptive agenda, aimed at promoting the literary Greek of Attic authors against forms and usages deemed too common, non-Greek, or more specifically non-Attic. This idea is reinforced by fragments characterised by the structure ‘X, οὐ Υ, λέγουσιν οἱ Ἀττικοί’, such as Eust. in Od. 1.354.25 φησὶ γοῦν Αἴλιος Διονύσιος. ἄγνον ἀρσενικῶς, οὐ λύγον καλοῦσιν Ἀττικοί (‘Aelius Dionysius [α 22Ael.Dion. α 22] says: ‘Attic-speakers say ἄγνος (‘chaste-tree’), masculine, not λύγος’’). In the light of this, the many fragments that contrast the Attic and Ionic forms of the same word may imply that the grammarian considered the Attic form preferable (see e.g. Eust. in Il. 1.331.13−4 Αἴλιος δὲ Διονύσιός φησιν, ὅτι ζμικρὸν καὶ μικρὸν οἱ Ἀττικοί, μικκὸν δὲ Ἴωνες, ‘Aelius Dionysius [ζ 3Ael.Dion. ζ 3] says that Attic-speakers [say] ζμικρός and μικρός (‘small’), while Ionic-speakers [say] μικκός’).

As regards the frequent label παλαιοίοἱ παλαιοί, it seems to be used especially in cases where the tone is descriptive, rather than prescriptive (see e.g. An.Boiss. 1.413−4 περὶ τοῦ ὑπογράφειν […] λέγει Διονύσιος ὁ Ἁλικαρνασσεὺς ἐν τῷ περὶ χρήσεως Ἀττικῶν ὀνομάτων, ὅτι τὴν ὑπό εἰώθασιν οἱ παλαιοὶ πολλάκις καὶ ἀντὶ τῆς πρό ἐκτιθέναι, ‘with regard to ὑπογράφειν (‘to subscribe’) […] Aelius Dionysius, in the [work] On the Usage of Attic Terms [υ 10Ael.Dion. υ 10], says that the ancients are often used to putting the prefix ὑπό in place of πρό’, Eust. in Il. 3.459.29−30 ῥῶπος μέντοι λεπτὸς καὶ εὐτελὴς φόρτος, ὡς δὲ Αἴλιος Διονύσιος λέγει, καὶ ποικίλος, γέλγην δέ, φησίν, αὐτὸν ἔλεγον οἱ παλαιοί, ‘ῥῶπος [means] a frivolous and worthless trinket, as Aelius Dionysius says [ρ 14Ael.Dion. ρ 14], and also abstruse. ‘The ancients’, he says, ‘called this γέλγη (‘frippery’)’’).

Bibliography

Alpers, K. (1988). ‘Das Lexikon des Photios und das Lexikon rhetoricum des Etymologicum Genuinum’. JÖB 38, 171−91.

Bekker, I. (1814–1821). Anecdota Graeca. 3 vols. Berlin.

Benuzzi, F. (2018). ‘Osservazioni sulla trasmissione degli studia Aristophanica di Eratostene nella lessicografia e negli scolî’. Eikasmos 29, 335–51.

Benuzzi, F. (2020). ‘Didymus and Comedy’. Coward, T. R. P.; Prodi, E. E. (eds.), Didymus and Graeco-Roman Learning. London, 51–61.

Bowie, E. L. (2022). ‘Greek High Culture in Hellenistic and Early Imperial Bithynia. Towards a Prosopography of Practitioners of Greek Culture in Bithynia Down to the Middle of the Third Century AD’. Mnemosyne 75, 73−112.

Cunningham, I. C. (2003). Synagoge. Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων. Texts of the Original Version and of MS. B. Berlin, New York.

Erbse, H. (1950). Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika. Berlin.

Ippolito, A. (2005). ‘Iulius [4] Vestinus’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Iulius_4_Vestinus. Last accessed on 18 April 2024.

Meliadò, C. (2019). ‘Zopyrion [1]’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Zopyrion_1. Last accessed on 18 April 2024.

Montana, F. (2003). ‘Diogenianus’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Diogenianus. Last accessed on 18 April 2024.

Montana, F. (2018). ‘Aelius [1] Dionysius’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Aelius_1_Dionysius_it. Last accessed on 18 April 2024.

Rohde, E. (1878). ‘Γέγονε in den Biographica des Suidas’. RhM 33, 161−220.

Sandri, M. G. (2020). Trattati greci su barbarismo e solecismo. Introduzione ed edizione critica. Berlin, Boston.

Schwabe, E. (1890). ΑΙΛΙΟΥ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΥΣΑΝΙΟΥ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΑ ΑΤΤΙΚΑ. Aelii Dionysii et Pausaniae Atticistarum fragmenta. Leipzig.

Sonnino, M. (2014). ‘I frammenti della commedia greca citati da Prisciano e la fonte del lessico sintattico del libro XVIII dell’Ars’. Martorelli, L. (ed.), Greco antico nell’occidente carolingio. Frammenti di testi attici nell’Ars di Prisciano. Hildesheim, Zurich, 163–204.

Tosi, R. (2022). ‘Iulius [2] Pollux’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Iulius_2_Pollux_it. Last accessed on 18 April 2024.

CITE THIS

Federica Benuzzi, 'Aelius Dionysius, Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2024/02/053

ABSTRACT
This article presents an overview of Aelius Dionysius’ Attic Words, addressing its transmission, structure, sources, evaluative terminology, and views of the canon of classical authors.
KEYWORDS

Aelius DionysiusAtticismLexicography

FIRST PUBLISHED ON

30/09/2024

LAST UPDATE

27/09/2024