Photii Patriarchae Lexicon ed. by Christos Theodoridis (review)

This is the third volume of the new edition of Photius’ lexicon: the project was undertaken after L. Politis’ discovery (1959) of a thirteenth-century manuscript (z) in a monastery at Zavorda (Macedonia) with an almost complete text of this lexicon, previously known from the badly damaged ms. Cambridge, Trinity College O.3.9, also called Codex Galeanus (g). As it became clear shortly after its discovery, z contained also a good deal of new classical quotations, most of them previously collected in K. Tsantsanoglou, New Fragments of Greek Literature from the Lexicon of Photius (Athens 1984). This brief sketch may convey the striking importance of a new edition of Photius’ lexicon that takes into account the uncharted z. After the appearance of the first two parts (1982 and 1998) containing A–M, this long-awaited third volume should have covered the last section of the lexicon (letters N–Ω). Theodoridis’ regrettable death in 2009 prevented him from completing his invaluable task, which was sent to press for the letters N– Φ, thanks to the efforts of his widow N. Papatriantaphyllou-Theodoridis; the final letters (Χ–Ω) will subsequently be edited by S. Matthaios. The circumstances involving the final stage of the volume and its long-term production are partly amended by the useful list of addenda at 595–96, but some minor deficiencies remain: for example, Lysias and Antimachus should have been quoted according the new editions by C. Carey (2007) and J. Matthews (1996), respectively. Again, the preface to the Prolegomena is lacking (although it is quoted in the apparatus); this ought to have dealt with the highly controversial relationship between Photius and Suda. Theodoridis’ final views on the issue can be found in B. Atsalos and N. Tsironis, eds., Actes du VI^e Colloque International de Paléographie Grecque (Athens 2008) 1.633–38.

All the glosses are edited with the same masterly technique found in the previous volumes: continuous numbering of the glosses (as in Adler’s edition of Suda), source-indications in bold type on the margins, double apparatus: (a) loci similes and brief remarks on the content of the glosses; (b) reading variants of the mss. and conjectures by modern scholars.

A methodological case in point concerns the usage of cruces desperationis, where a textual corruption appears or the text itself seems to be muddled: it has rightly been questioned since the publication of the first volume,¹ and the same qualification can be advanced here. I offer a few remarks on selected points. First, on the mss. in the conspectus siglorum (1): the dating of g (twelfth century) should probably be eleventh century; see B. L. Fonkič, Manuscrits grecs dans les Collections Européennes. Études Paléographiques et Codicologiques 1988–1998 (Moscow 1999) 50–52. Second, on the identification of the sources: ν 59, φ 1218, and ρ 108 seem to be drawn from a source that Theodoridis marks as Q (= I. Bekker, ed., Lexeis Rhetorikai, Anecdota Graeca I [Berlin 1814] 195– 318); in φ 46 and υ 223 the phrases οἱ ῥήτορες ἐχρήσαντο and κεῖται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν strongly suggest that these glosses originated from a lexicon on the style of Attic orators merged into the Lex. Rhet. quoted above, as stressed by G. Wentzel, ASBW 1895, 483 (= Lexica Graeca Minora [Hildesheim 1965] 7). A parallel source that has always been overlooked is the Atticist glossary used by Priscian in the last section of his Ars (GL III 278.12–377.18 Hertz), which shows similarities with entries of other Atticist lexica incorporated into Photius’ work. I give here a list (albeit not exaustive): o 698 ≈ GL III 338, 21; o 218 ≈ GL III 331, 7–8; π 170 ≈ GL III 342,17–22; π 177 = GL III 344,13–15; &pi 999 ≈ GL III 348.17–19 and 350, 11; π 1320 ≈ GL III 357.3–8; υ 187 ≈ GL III 373.7 H.; υ 1397 = GL III 373.20–21 (leaving aside Pollux 1.65 quoted by Theodoridis, the most compelling parallel). Finally, on the commentary: for πέμφιξ in π 569, see also G. B. D...