According to the standard view on the issue, the habit of marking questions with a particular typographical sign in Greek and Latin script does not arise prior to the eighth or ninth century. This period is generally credited with the ‘invention’ of the question mark (excepting Syriac evidence, which points to the fifth and sixth centuries). The purpose of the present article is to correct this view. It argues that the first indication for the use of a typographical sign that (...) marks questions can actually be detected no later than during the reign of Emperor Hadrian (a.d. 117–38), that is, more than half a millennium before the traditional date of the invention. The chief witness is Nicanor of Alexandria, who does not seem to have used question marks himself, but criticizes the misappropriation of another punctuation mark to that purpose. He thus indirectly testifies to the existence of question marks. Comparable traces can also be found later in the exegetical works of some Christian commentators. (shrink)

A concise summary of Nicanor’s theory of punctuation that has recently been discovered in a codex mixtus of the 15th century throws precious new light on a topic of some complexity. The general picture that emerges from the new extract does not substantially differ from that of the other known summary, which has been the starting point for all modern reconstructions of Nicanor’s theory. Therefore, these reconstructions need not be rewritten on a larger scale. The two summaries nevertheless display some (...) telling differences in how they explain and present the details, not least when read against the backdrop of Nicanor’s actual practice that can be derived from the relevant scholia to Homer. The purpose of the present article is to assess the new discovery especially with regard to these differences and their effects on how Nicanor’s theory is to be reconstructed. (shrink)

Journal Name: Philologus Issue: Ahead of print.

Suidas’ source for biographical data erroneously listed a treatise περὶ ναυστάθμου (On the ships at anchor) among the works of Nicanor. In the relevant notes on two passages from the Iliad, Nicanor is referring to Aristarchus’ monograph of the same title, not his own.

Name der Zeitschrift: Byzantinische Zeitschrift Jahrgang: 109 Heft: 2 Seiten: 861-894.

Genau 150 Jahre nach dem Erscheinen der letzten vollständig zu nennenden Ausgabe der Odysseescholien von W. Dindorf (Oxford 1855) legt Filippomaria Pontani (im folgenden: P.) ein Buch vor, das berechtigten Anlaß zur Hoffnung gibt, daß das dringende Desiderat einer vollständigen Neuausgabe dieses Scholiencorpus endlich erfüllt werden wird. Als der kürzlich verstorbene Doyen der Homerscholienforschung, Hartmut Erbse, 1966 einen Neudruck von Ludwichs Specimina mit den Scholien zu Od. 1.1–309 besorgen ließ, äußerte er im Vorwort fast beschwörend den Wunsch, daß “Ludwichs gutgemeinter, (...) aber eben doch unfertiger Text einen jungen Gelehrten dazu anregen sollte, das ganze Werk von Grund auf zu erneuern und zu vervollständigen”. P. ist sichtlich gewillt (S. 5) und, nach dem zu besprechenden Buch zu schließen, auch fähig, diese schwierige, aber zweifellos lohnende Aufgabe zu übernehmen. Das Buch stellt gewissermaßen die Prolegomena zu einer Neuedition der Odysseescholien dar, weshalb das Augenmerk insbesondere auf der paläographischen, papyrologischen, kodikologischen, überlieferungsgeschichtlichen und textkritischen Untersuchung des Materials liegt, das die Grundlage einer (Neu-)Edition bildet. Aber das Buch leistet mehr, was maßgeblich an P.s Grundüberzeugung liegt, “che ogni manoscritto rappresenti il frutto di un'intenzione precisa, comprensibile solo in una determinata cornice storica e geografica” (S. 6). Diesem historischen und geographischen Kontext spürt P. denn auch durchweg und mit viel Akribie nach. Dadurch erfährt der Leser viel, was deutlich über das hinausgeht, was üblicherweise in einem Prolegomena-Band zu einer kritischen Ausgabe zu lesen ist. Zu einem gewissen Grad wird auch die Anordnung des Materials davon tangiert. (shrink)

The paper examines how the Alexandrian critic Aristarchus actually puts to use the well-known maxim ‘to elucidate Homer from Homer’, irrespective of the disputed question whether he himself coined the phrase. A survey of the relevant evidence reveals that he implements the maxim in a way that is neither dogmatic nor free from ‘exceptions’ but displays the same sense of proportion that can be found elsewhere in his work as a literary and textual critic. The argument is backed with numerous (...) examples from his commentaries. (shrink)