The Byzantine Empire had a long tradition of educational practices, including schedography. It became popular in the 10th century and continued to be cultivated until the 19th century, with a peak in the 13th century. In the late 19th century, scholars began to take an interest in the relevant texts. In the mid-20th century, there were attempts to study these texts as a curious kind of paraliterary production. Currently, in the 21st century, there have been editions of different schedographical collections. Schedographical texts are a very specific kind of written documents and do not fit well with the usual editorial practices. They were written to be read aloud, intended to teach, not to entertain, and generally, they do not have the aesthetic value of a literary text. Finally, these texts appear in collections of very different origins. In many cases we do not know their original context, which makes them difficult to be interpreted. In this article, 23 schedographical texts from manuscript Vat. Pal. Gr. 92 are published. This manuscript consists of 239 ff. and it was copied in the last decades of the 13th century in southern Italy. The manuscript contains more than 425 schedae. In contrast to other paratexts used in schools, the manuscript includes glosses with forms of popular Greek, such as, e. g., the use of σπίτι for “house”. A complete edition of the manuscript will certainly reveal more expressions similar to this one. 29 remaining unpublished texts will be published in the second part. The humorous phrase that heads this article, ὦ μωρῆς παιδίον, is the schedographical resolution of the phrase ὀμμ’ ὀρεῖς (glossed as ἐγείρεις) παιδίον, included in one of the schedae published here for the first time.
The author discusses the newly found Greek inscriptions from Lasica, from the basilica on Machkhomeri Hill near Khobi dated to the 6 th c. CE, with three Greek words and expressions having non-standard meanings. The only possible interpretation of the expression ἔχετε ἐν παραθέκῃ (sic) that comes to mind is “to have or keep as a pledge, to have or keep entrusted” i. e. the martyrs must keep the soul of the founder Gorgonios, which he entrusted to them as a pledge of his own salvation. The standard meanings of the term κατοίκησις as “settling” or “dwelling, abode” do not correspond to the context of the list of the benefactors either as an act or as a locus, as well as the early Byzantine meaning “government, administration”. It should mean here a burial, which could be understood as a new dwelling of the body or even a shrine for the relics (probably one of the Forty Martyrs), which appeared in Machkhomeri in connection with the rebuilding of the basilica and which was placed in the martyrium in the eastern end of the southern aisle. Finally, the term συνοδία by its origin meant a “companionship on a journey”, and later became a terminus technicus for caravan; new, Byzantine meanings of this word are “Christian fellowship company of the faithful, local congregation”, “gathering, assembly for worship”, “community of religious”. But here it is an “association of lay people around an institution or an influential person, probably functioning as a group of pilgrims”
This article offers a transcription and translation, as well as a commentary, on P. Mich. inv. 5594. The papyrus is believed to date from the fourth century A. D. The origin and provenance of it are unknown. The papyrus is damaged in some places, so lacunae in the text or poorly readable places are restored in accordance with the formulas and word usage on the papyri, which is always explained in the commentary. The beginning of the papyrus has been lost but the formulas at the end of it (Ἀσπάσῃ κατ̣ ’ [ὀνό]ματα… καὶ ἔ̣ρ̣ρωσό μοι) and address on the verso of the papyrus indicate that it is obviously a private letter in which a certain Lucius writes to Plution. The Nomina Sacra (θ(εο)ῦ ἐν κ(υρί)ῳ; κ(ύρι)ος) regularly repeated in this letter suggest that it was written by a Christian to a Christian. The context of the letter and the definitions pertaining to Plutio on the verso (πρεσβύτερος καὶ ὁμολογητής) suggest that the relationship between Lucius and Plutio is that of a dependent and his patron where the Lucius is being supported by a superior in age or status. As is often the case, a scrap of letter details only a moment in someone’s life, leaving us only to speculate on the context and the whole picture
This paper examines the form διεπρήστευσε, obelized in the editions of Herodotus. There have been two ways of interpreting the form: some scholars have taken it to refer to an act of speech, while others have sought here a verb of motion. Both groups of scholars proposed a variety of conjectures, some of them addenda lexicis and none of them commanding immediate acceptance. After a review of various solutions that have been proposed to-date, this paper argues in favor of retaining the reading of the paradosis and analyzing (-)πρηστεύω as a verb of quick motion. The verb is argued to be an Ionic colloquialism (or even Herodotus’ own Augenblicksbildung), derived from the root of πίμπρημι in its original meaning ‘to blow’ (of which ‘to burn’ is a secondary development) via an agent noun πρηστήρ / *πρήστης, cf. μνηστεύω ‘woo’: μνηστήρ ‘suitor’ or δυναστεύω ‘hold power’: δυνάστης ‘person with power’. The proposed translation ‘blasted, dashed’ is supported by typological parallels for the semantic development ‘to blow’ → ‘to move (impetuously)’, such as Old English blǽstan ‘to blow; to move impetuously’ or Russian dut’ ‘to blow; to dash, to rush’. Interestingly, Hittite (parip) parāi-, the cognate of Gk. πίμπρημι, may show the same semantic development: ‘to blow’, ‘to ignite fire by blowing’ > ‘to move swiftly’.
This piece explores the difficult expression βλιμάζων ἐπιεικέστερον found in the MSS of the Letter of Aristeas, in the section describing how Ptolemy II Philadelphus puts questions to the interpreters he has invited in Alexandria and receives advice to treat his subordinates with kindness and not to impose harsh punishments on them (Ep. Arist. 188). According to the most scholars, who have published the Letter of Aristeas, including P. Wendland, H. Thackeray, H. Andrews, R. Tramontano, and R. Shutt, the verb βλιμάζω in the answer of the Jewish sage means ‘to chastise’. However, this interpretation is not supported by the actual usage of the verb in ancient Greek. In fact, this word, which is often used in comedy, usually means ‘to grope’ and seems quite out of place coming from the sage. Günther Zuntz pointed out that the verb βλιμάζω is not appropriate and suggested correcting βλιμάζων to κολάζων, which is accepted by A. Pelletier (1962) and is supported in the recent studies on the Letter (Wright [2015] and Erto [2012]). The consideration of the correction and the analysis of the wordusage in ancient Greek literature, as well as the examination of the explanations provided by lexicographers, where the verb θλίβω and its derivatives are used as synonyms for βλιμάζω, lead us to the conclusion that Zuntz’s suggestion is not necessary und should be rejected. The reading βλιμάζων, confirmed by the manuscripts, may be retained by supposing that it implies pressure in a broader sense
This piece explores the difficult expression βλιμάζων ἐπιεικέστερον found in the MSS of the Letter of Aristeas, in the section describing how Ptolemy II Philadelphus puts questions to the interpreters he has invited in Alexandria and receives advice to treat his subordinates with kindness and not to impose harsh punishments on them (Ep. Arist. 188). According to the most scholars, who have published the Letter of Aristeas, including P. Wendland, H. Thackeray, H. Andrews, R. Tramontano, and R. Shutt, the verb βλιμάζω in the answer of the Jewish sage means ‘to chastise’. However, this interpretation is not supported by the actual usage of the verb in ancient Greek. In fact, this word, which is often used in comedy, usually means ‘to grope’ and seems quite out of place coming from the sage. Günther Zuntz pointed out that the verb βλιμάζω is not appropriate and suggested correcting βλιμάζων to κολάζων, which is accepted by A. Pelletier (1962) and is supported in the recent studies on the Letter (Wright [2015] and Erto [2012]). The consideration of the correction and the analysis of the wordusage in ancient Greek literature, as well as the examination of the explanations provided by lexicographers, where the verb θλίβω and its derivatives are used as synonyms for βλιμάζω, lead us to the conclusion that Zuntz’s suggestion is not necessary und should be rejected. The reading βλιμάζων, confirmed by the manuscripts, may be retained by supposing that it implies pressure in a broader sense
The results of a comparative study of verb forms with aspectual semantics in Ancient Greek (Koine) (which has an overt category of aspect) and Latin (where aspect is rather a covert category), based on the Gospel of Mark, have shown that the expected correspondence of verb forms appears to be standard in the material as well: it is found in the majority of cases (97,6 % of the Ancient Greek Aorist translated by the Latin Perfect, and 89,4 % of the Ancient Greek Imperfect/ Present translated by the Latin Imperfect). Therefore, there must be a considerable semantic overlap between the Ancient Greek Aorist and the Latin Perfect forms and between the Ancient Greek Imperfect/Present forms and the Latin Imperfect forms. For each pair, there must be a common semantic core, corresponding in the first case to the perfective, and in the second case to the imperfective viewpoints. In the minority of cases, we find deviations from this standard correspondence. Some of them can be explained by the trivial fact that the context allows freedom in the choice of the aspectual viewpoint. However, in several cases, the discrepancies are not accidental and can be explained by the existence of specific differences between the grammatical systems of two languages. These include iterative contexts and contexts with speech verbs
- 1
- 2