Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T01:58:33.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE SÔROS OF POSIDIPPUS OR ARISTARCHUS? REVISITING THE A-SCHOLIA ΟN HOMER, ILIAD 11.101

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2025

Agnieszka Kotlińska-Toma  and
Gościwit Malinowski
Agnieszka Kotlińska-Toma
Affiliation:
University of Wrocław agnieszka.kotlinska-toma@uwr.edu.pl
Gościwit Malinowski
Affiliation:
University of Wrocław gosciwit.malinowski@uwr.edu.pl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article re-examines the A-scholia to Homer, Iliad 11.101 (= SH 701 = Posidippus 144 AB) and their reinterpretation of the term sôros, which designates the location where Aristarchus discovered the ‘Bêrisos epigram’ of Posidippus. The article challenges the prevailing and widely embraced hypothesis positing that sôros serves as the title of a lost collection of Hellenistic epigrams.

Keywords

PosidippusAristarchusHellenistic poetryanthologiesepigram

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , May 2025 , pp. 300 - 306
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

This article addresses a problem whose hypothetical solution has been accepted in scholarly literature for over 170 years. It can nevertheless be beneficial to revisit established hypotheses and re-evaluate their validity, especially when they have evolved into a sort of dogma, transformed from hypotheses into apparently unquestionable facts.

Scholars of Hellenistic literature seek evidence of the origins of ancient publishing practices, inquiring into how poets composed their collections, particularly in their initial, authorial editions. Each testimony regarding the manner of composing poems and poetic anthologies is therefore of great value. Consequently, a succinct testimonium from the Iliad A-scholia attesting to an enigmatic σωρός has become the starting point for numerous hypotheses concerning the composition of poetic anthologies during the Hellenistic period. This testimonium, Σ A on Hom. Il. 11.101 (= SH 701 = Posidippus 144 AB), reads as follows:

Did. {αὐτὰρ ὁ} <βῆ ῥ᾽ Ἶσον> {τϵ}: Ζηνόδοτος ἔξω τοῦ <ρ> “βῆ Ἶσον”. μὴ ἐμϕέρϵσθαι δέ ϕησιν ὁ Ἀρίσταρχος νῦν ἐν τοῖς Ποσϵιδίππου ἐπιγράμμασι τὸν “Βήρισον”, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ λϵγομένῳ Σωρῷ ϵὑρϵῖν. ϵὔλογον δέ ϕησιν ἐξϵλϵγχόμϵνον αὐτὸν ἀπαλϵῖψαι.

Zenodotus without ρ as βῆ Ἶσον.Footnote 1 Aristarchus says that ‘Bêrisos’ is now not to be found in the epigrams of Posidippus, but in the so-called sôros (‘heap’). He says that he (Posidippus), being criticized, reasonably erased it.Footnote 2

The hypothesis that sôros was a collection of epigrams was first advanced by Bergk, who posited that it comprised epitaphs dedicated to Homeric heroes.Footnote 3 Subsequent discussions by German scholars primarily concerned the question of whether the authorship of this collection solely belonged to Posidippus or if it was a multi-authored volume.Footnote 4 An alternative hypothesis regarding the nature of the epigrams was proposed by Reitzenstein, who stated that sôros served as the title of a collection of epigrams.Footnote 5 Later he expounded on this idea, proposing that the genesis of the ‘Bêrisos epigram’ was linked to the social game known as griphos, which is attested in Athenaeus (Deipn. 10.457e–f); he further asserted that the collection entitled Sôros was an anthology of epigrams by Posidippus, Asclepiades and Hedylus in which the verses were written without attribution.Footnote 6 Later scholars subjected specific details of this hypothesis to criticism, yet the fundamental concept that sôros was the title of an epigrammatic anthology found widespread acceptance.

Meanwhile, the manner in which the term sôros was introduced in Didymus’ scholiumFootnote 7 does not appear to indicate unequivocally that we are dealing with the title of a specific collection. Let us therefore return to the initial testimonium. From it we can glean merely that Posidippus included the name ‘Bêrisos’ in one of his works, which contradicted the reading accepted by Zenodotus.Footnote 8 This fact was still known almost a century later to Aristarchus, who sought this erroneous reading among Posidippus’ epigrams but could not find it, since the poet had removed it (or the entire epigram) from later editions. The scrutiny of contemporaries prompted Posidippus to ensure that the erroneous reading disappeared from circulation. In all likelihood, Aristarchus endeavoured to ascertain whether this ancient anecdote concerning the events bore confirmation in factual evidence. Failing to find the erroneous name ‘Bêrisos’ in the published texts, he sought and found it in something ‘called’ sôros.

Where did Aristarchus encounter this version? Why would it be reproduced in a joint publication of Asclepiades, Posidippus and Hedylus, particularly when Hedylus must have already been acquainted with Zenodotus’ edition of the Iliad? Alternatively, if sôros was solely a collection of epigrams by Posidippus, then why does the author of this scholium, Didymus, differentiate between the later published epigrams and Sôros? When ancient authors speak of Posidippus’ poetic collection, they do not employ any specific title, merely writing ‘in the epigrams of Posidippus’ (e.g. ἐν τοῖς Ποσϵιδίππου ἐπιγράμμασι: Ath. Deipn. 10.412d, 10.414d, 10.415a–b). Didymus himself provides no specific title for Posidippus’ collection of epigrams in which Aristarchus did not find ‘Bêrisos’. Instead, he also uses the phrase ἐν τοῖς Ποσϵιδίππου ἐπιγράμμασι.Footnote 9 This suggests that the title Sôros should not be identified with some authorial collection of Posidippus’ epigrams that predates the later Epigrams (in the revised version, without the name Bêrisos). The Epigrams is a conventional title that dates back to Hellenistic times and describes collections of single-author works, with Callimachus as an illustrative example.Footnote 10 This title was sometimes bestowed by the poets themselves.Footnote 11 Other works of Posidippus known to us are quoted as follows: On Cnidus (ἐν τῷ πϵρὶ Κνίδου; Clem. Al. Protr. 4.57), Aethiopia (ἐν τῇ Αἰθιοπίᾳ; Ath. Deipn. 13.596c), Asopia (Ποσϵίδιππός τ᾽ ἐν τῇ Ἀσωπίᾳ; Ath. Deipn. 11.491). Therefore other works of Posidippus are quoted by their titles.Footnote 12 Moreover, this is a typical manner of referencing titles of both poetic and prose works. Furthermore, these titles are conspicuously non-metaphorical and directly indicate the content that they encompass.

If sôros was the title of a collection of epigrams solely by Posidippus, why was that collection named so peculiarly?Footnote 13 Could a sôros have implied a heap or a pile, chaotic and disordered, serving merely as a compilation of the poet’s scattered ephemeral verses? Meanwhile, the subsequent Epigrams would have been already selected, arranged and thoughtfully organized, as implied by P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309. Alternatively, could sôros be a metaphor for winnowed grain, denoting a chosen, ‘purified’ collection, adhering to the aesthetics of refined and impeccable Alexandrian poetry?Footnote 14 The thematically distinct sections of the collection known from P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309 bear headings that correspond to the content of the epigrams and are, as Gutzwiller points out, ‘specific and precise’. However, she underscores that these are only headings and not titles.Footnote 15 Nevertheless, these headings do resemble the aforementioned titles of Posidippus’ prose works. We thus have an intriguing editorial practice that incorporates thematic organization and titling of the collection. These titles, however, pertain to specific subjects or themes addressed within the sequences; they are not metaphorical in nature.

If we posit that sôros is a collection of epigrams, the most plausible explanation for its title was proposed by Bing, who revisited the nineteenth-century theory of fictional epitaphs for heroes but expounded it with the ancient meaning of sôros as a funeral mound or tumulus.Footnote 16 Why though would the compiler of this hypothetical anthology of epitaphs dedicated to Homeric heroes include an epigram on Bêrisos, whose name is a creation of Posidippus’ imagination (whether by error or in jest)?

We are dealing solely with hypotheses based on subjective interpretations of the Iliad scholium and the assumption that sôros is indeed a title. However, a literal reading of this testimonium suggests an alternative solution. Let us consider the phrase ἐν τῷ λϵγομένῳ. Derivatives of ἐπιγράϕω are employed to cite titles; so too is ἐν with the title in the dative, as mentioned earlier regarding Posidippus himself. But no Greek text employs derivatives of λέγω to denote a title. If we examine the use of ἐν with a dative participle from λέγω in works like Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae, the Suda or the Homeric scholia, a pattern emerges. This construction is mainly used to refer to geographical locations and toponyms, to indicate specific holiday names and to specify the names of particular animal and plant species.Footnote 17 When Greek authors want to say that a certain work is ‘called’ something and then provides the actual title, they typically use καλέω.Footnote 18

It is possible therefore that sôros should be understood more ‘materially’. Aristarchus was director of the Alexandrian Library, which not only collected critical editions of texts prepared by philologists and copies of Greek literature but also amassed autographs of poets and original manuscripts. Evidence of this practice is found in the anecdote cited by Galen about borrowing the editions of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides from Athens against a security of fifteen talents and returning only copies of those editions.Footnote 19 Τhe Library must have had a section dedicated to preserving such archival papyri, whose value in the creation of critical editions and diorthôsis of copied works was difficult to overestimate. Therefore, we consider the sôros to be a kind of container or long scroll containing, haphazardly, the epigrams of Posidippus as they were collected, or fragments of papyri, ostraka, wax tablets or notes on which the poet himself transcribed his works, that were offered as gifts or kept by witnesses of their recitation. Hence our hypothesis is that the sôros was a kind of library repository where autographs or reliable copies of Posidippus’ dispersed works were deposited. It might have been a collection of archival texts that the Library kept for potential editors of future poetic anthologies. As the director, Aristarchus had probably no difficulties with a query in the sôros. The use of a derivative from σωρ(ός) + -ηδόν in the context of collecting books is attested by Galen in a passage specifically concerning the Library of Alexandria (In Hippocr. Epid. III Comm., XVII 1.606–7 Kühn):

ἔνιοι μὲν γάρ ϕασιν αὐτὸν λαβόντα τὸν τρίτον τῶν ἐπιδημιῶν ἐκ τῆς ἐν Ἀλϵξανδρϵίᾳ μϵγάλης βιβλιοθήκης ὡς ἀναγνωσόμϵνον ἀποδοῦναι, παρϵγγράψαντα ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ μέλανι καὶ γράμμασι παραπλησίοις τοὺς χαρακτῆρας τούτους. ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκ Παμϕυλίας κϵκομικέναι καὶ ϕιλότιμον πϵρὶ βιβλία τόν τϵ βασιλέα τῆς Αἰγύπτου Πτολϵμαῖον οὕτω γϵνέσθαι ϕασίν, ὡς καὶ τῶν καταπλϵόντων ἁπάντων τὰ βιβλία κϵλϵῦσαι πρὸς αὐτὸν κομίζϵσθαι καὶ ταῦτα ϵἰς καινοὺς χάρτας γράϕοντα διδόναι μὲν τὰ γραϕέντα τοῖς δϵσπόταις, ὧν καταπλϵυσάντων ἐκομίσθησαν αἱ βίβλοι πρὸς αὐτὸν, ϵἰς δὲ τὰς βιβλιοθήκας ἀποτίθϵσθαι τὰ κομισθέντα καὶ ϵἶναι τὰς ἐπιγραϕὰς αὐτοῖς τῶν ἐκ πλοίων. ἓν δέ τι τοιοῦτόν ϕασιν ϵὑρϵθῆναι καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἐπιδημιῶν ἐπιγϵγραμμένον, τῶν ἐκ πλοίων κατὰ διορθωτὴν Μνήμονα Σιδίτην, ἔνιοι δ’ οὐ κατὰ διορθωτὴν ἐπιγϵγράϕθαι ϕασίν, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς τοὔνομα τοῦ Μνήμονος, ἐπϵιδὴ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων τῶν καταπλϵυσάντων ἅμα βίβλοις ἐπέγραϕον οἱ τοῦ βασιλέως ὑπηρέται τὸ ὄνομα τοῖς ἀποτιθϵμένοις ϵἰς τὰς ἀποθήκας. οὐ γὰρ ϵὐθέως ϵἰς τὰς βιβλιοθήκας αὐτὰ ϕέρϵιν, ἀλλὰ πρότϵρον ἐν οἴκοις τισὶ κατατίθϵσθαι σωρηδόν.

For some say that he (Mnemon), having taken the third book of Epidemics from the great library in Alexandria to read it, returned it after making interpolations in it with black ink and characters similar to those (in the book). Others say that he brought the book from Pamphylia. So insatiable an appetite for books did King Ptolemy of Egypt have that he commanded the books of everyone who sailed there to be brought to him and to be transcribed afresh on new pages, (so as to) return the transcribed ones to their owners, whose books had been brought to him after they arrived, and to deposit the brought ones in the libraries with inscriptions on those (books) ‘from the ships’. So they say that among those also the third book of Epidemics has been found with the inscription ‘from the ships by corrector Mnemon of Side’. Others, however, contend that it was not written ‘by corrector’ but that it simply had the name ‘Mnemon’, for the servants of the king also inscribed the names of all others who sailed there on the books that were deposited in the storage, for they were not directly carried to the libraries but first laid in piles in certain buildings.

Galen likely refers to the same storehouses, known as apothêkai, the fire of which was described by Cassius Dio (42.38):

πολλὰ δὲ καὶ κατϵπίμπρατο, ὥστϵ ἄλλα τϵ καὶ τὸ νϵώριον τάς τϵ ἀποθήκας καὶ τοῦ σίτου καὶ τῶν βίβλων, πλϵίστων δὴ καὶ ἀρίστων, ὥς ϕασι, γϵνομένων, καυθῆναι.

And many places were consumed by fire, so that among others the docks and the warehouses of grain and books, which, as they say, were of great number and excellence, were burned.

Warehouses for books and grain were likely constructed similarly—both organic materials requiring similar storage conditions, such as dry and well-ventilated spaces.Footnote 20 One can envisage that the stored rough drafts and aged papyri prompted the librarians to adopt the term most commonly used to denote a heap, especially heap of corn: σωρός.Footnote 21

Aristarchus’ sôros may therefore not pertain to the title of a literary work or a poetic collection but rather to the place where the papyri were stored.Footnote 22 Among these texts, there was also the epigram containing an erroneous form of the name of the Homeric hero, Bêrisos. Aristarchus conveys his discovery to the scholarly community: ‘You will not find this mistake in the circulating collections of Posidippus’ epigrams, but it is found among the texts preserved in a place called sôros’—a designated section of the Library of Alexandria or a repository of old manuscripts akin to what Galen describes.

References

1 The entire line would then read αὐτὰρ ὁ βῆ ῥ᾿ Ἶσόν τϵ καὶ Ἄντιϕον ἐξϵναρίξων (‘but he went on to slay Isus and Antiphus’).

2 Text based on the edition of H. Erbse, Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), vol. 3 (Berlin, 1974), 114.

3 T. Bergk, Poetae Lyrici Graeci (Leipzig, 18532), 507–8.

4 E.g. F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit (Leipzig, 1892), 2.531, who asserted that it constituted a compilation solely of Posidippus’ epigrams.

5 R. Reitzenstein, Inedita poetarum Graecorum fragmenta (Rostock, 1891), 6–7 n. 3. The concluding statement of this footnote (‘habetis iam vetustissimam epigrammatum syllogam’) initiates the theory that the Sôros is the earliest anthology of Hellenistic epigrams.

6 R. Reitzenstein, Epigramm und Skolion. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der alexandrinischen Dichtung (Giessen, 1893), 94–6. This idea was elaborated by W. Wallace and M. Wallace, ‘Meleager and the “Soros”’, TAPhA 70 (1939), 191–202, who even discerned within the sequence of anonymous epigrams in Book 5 of the Anth. Pal. (135, 142, 168, 200, 201, 205) a portion of the Sôros collection. The hypothesis regarding three epigrammatists was also adopted by I.G. Galli Calderini, ‘Su alcuni epigrammi dell’Antologia palatina corredati di lemmi alternativi’, AAP 31 (1982), 239–80 as well as G. Tarditi, ‘Per una lettura degli epigrammisti greci’, Aevum(ant) 1 (1988), 5–75 (although he believed that the Soros’ epigrams were accompanied by lemmata of the authors). However, A. Cameron, The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes (Oxford, 1993), 374 contends that the compilation’s author was the youngest of these epigrammatists, namely Hedylus, who appended works by Posidippus and Asclepiades to his own epigrams. A similar opinion was expressed by H. Lloyd-Jones, ‘All by Posidippus?’, in D. Accorinti and P. Chuvin (edd.), Des Géants à Dionysos. Mélanges de mythologie et de poésie grecques offerts à Francis Vian (Alessandria, 2003), 277–80, who previously inclined towards the notion that Sôros was a collection by a single author (‘The Seal of Posidippus’, JHS 83 [1963], 75–99, at 96). Sporadic dissenting voices emerged regarding the uncritical acceptance of the theory that sôros was the title of a collection of epigrams, whether by one or multiple poets. See e.g. L. Argentieri, ‘Epigramma e libro: morfologia delle raccolte epigrammatiche premeleagree’, ZPE 121 (1998), 1–20, at 9: ‘ed effettivamente immagina molto di più di quanto dicano i fatti; dopotutto per noi Σωρός è solo un nome in uno scolio, anche se ricorda uno di quei titoli “cumulativi” tipici delle miscellanee come Πάγκαρπον o Στέϕανος’.

7 On Didimus as transmitter of the scholium see G. Nagy, ‘Homeric echoes in Posidippus’, in B. Acosta-Hughes, E. Kosmetatou and M. Baumbach (edd.), Labored in Papyrus Leaves: Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309) (Washington, DC, 2004), 57–64, at 62; H. Lloyd-Jones, The Further Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones (Oxford, 2005), 246–9. On Didymus as a source of information and text for Aristarchus, see F. Schironi, The Best of the Grammarians: Aristarchus of Samothrace on the Iliad (Ann Arbor, 2018), 65–71.

8 G. Huxley, ‘ΒΗΡΙϹΟϹ’, JHS 112 (1992), 153 defends the reading Βήρισον, identifying Bêrisos as the eponymous hero of the Βηρύσιοι, who, according to subsequent sources, resided in the Troad. This defence is not significant for our argument, though, since Aristarchus demonstrates that Posidippus removed that name (or the entire epigram) from later editions of his epigrams.

9 K.J. Gutzwiller, Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context (Berkeley, 1998), 152 and F. Ferrari, ‘Posidippus, the Milan papyrus, and some Hellenistic anthologies’, Classic@ 1 (2004), 1–14, at 8 contend that the collection of epigrams quoted by Athenaeus is the same comprehensive edition of poetry in which Aristarchus failed to locate the Bêrisos form.

10 Whether Callimachus composed the collection to which later authors refer using the term-title ‘Epigrams’ is unclear. The arrangement of the Aetia and Iambi collections suggests that the poet placed importance on editing his own works: N. Krevans, ‘The poet as editor: Callimachus, Virgil, Horace, Propertius and the development of the poetic book’ (Diss., Princeton, 1984), 230–300; M.A. Harder, ‘Aspects of the structure of Callimachus’ Aetia’, in M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit and G.C. Wakker (edd.), Callimachus (Groningen, 1993), 99–110; D.L. Clayman, Callimachus’ Iambi (Leiden, 1980), 49. He probably prepared the arrangement of the Epigrams collection himself: Gutzwiller (n. 9), 183–226.

11 The title of Diogenes Laertius’ collection of epigrams is the best example, as he himself provides it while citing his own epigram on Thales (1.39): ἔστι καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐς αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Ἐπιγραμμάτων ἢ Παμμέτρῳ τόδϵ τὸ ἐπίγραμμα. It is in fact a double title, the second option perhaps offering a more metaliterary label.

12 On the verso of papyrus P.Petr. 2.49 (SH 961), containing the text of the Epithalamium for Arsinoe, the title (or heading) σύμμϵικτα ἐπιγράμματα Ποσϵιδίπ[που has been inscribed. Τhis resembles the title of Simias of Rhodes’ collection, ποιήματα διάϕορα (Suda σ 431 Adler). In both authors’ cases, these represent assortments of selected ‘mixed’ epigrams, and the extant titles serve an informative function, delineating the poetic character (if not genre) embodied by these collections.

13 The hypothesis of a single-author collection is advocated by Gutzwiller (n. 9), 18, 155–6; see also R. Höschele, Die blütenlesende Muse: Poetik und Textualität antiker Epigrammsammlungen (Tübingen, 2010), 82, 309–11.

14 See T.B.L. Webster, Hellenistic Poetry and Art (London, 1964), 45, who juxtaposes this title with Theoc. 7.155, as previously suggested by F. Lasserre, ‘Aux origines de l’anthologie II’, RhM 102 (1959), 307–70, at 326. Ferrari (n. 9), 7 n. 17 points also to Posidippus 52.6 AB; cf. M. Santirocco, Unity and Design in Horace’s Odes (Chapel Hill, NC and London, 1986), 8–9. Metaphorical titles, although attested as early as the Classical period (e.g. Peplos by Aristotle), became particularly popular from the first century b.c., as can be inferred from the lists included in the prefaces to their works by Pliny and Gellius: e.g. Μοῦσαι of Aurelius Opilius, Ἀμαλθϵίας κέρας of Sotion, Λϵιμών (λέξεων?) of Pamphilus of Alexandria, Κηρίον/Κηρία of Herodes Atticus, Στρωματϵῖς of Caesellius Vindex, Παντοδαπὴ [ὕλη] of Favorinus, as well as Λύχνοι and Πάγκαρπον by unknown authors.

15 Gutzwiller (n. 9), 83. According to D. Obbink, ‘Tropoi (Posidippus AB 102–103)’, in B. Acosta-Hughes, E. Kosmetatou and M. Baumbach (edd.), Labored in Papyrus Leaves: Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309) (Washington, DC, 2004), 292–301, the title Tropoi, understood as ‘characters’ in the sense of Theophrastan personalities, is precise and non-metaphorical.

16 P. Bing, ‘Homer in the Σωρός’, in Y. Durbec and F. Trajber (edd.), Traditions épiques et poésie épigrammatique (Leuven, 2017), 99–114.

17 Cf. Ath. Deipn. 3.81a ἐν Ἀπολλωνίᾳ τῇ Μορδίῳ λϵγομένῃ (‘in Apollonia called Mordia’), 3.88a τῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἀλϵξάνδρϵιαν λϵγομένῃ Φάρῳ νήσῳ (‘on the island called Pharos, near Alexandria’), 3.82f τὰ δὲ Πϵρσικὰ λϵγόμϵνα μῆλα (‘so called Persian apples’) 7.284f <ἡ> κωβῖτις λϵγομένη (‘[fish] called kôbitis’), 9.395a ἐν τοῖς λϵγομένοις Καταγωγίοις (‘during [the festival] called Katagôgia’), Suda α 75 Ἀβρεττηνὴ χώρα, ἡ λϵγομένη Μυσία (‘Abrettene, the territory, which is called Mysia’), Σ A Hom. Il. 6.133 Νυσήϊον· τὴν λϵγομένην—Θρᾴκης νῦν (‘Nyseion: the one so called, now Thrace’). The participle λϵγόμϵνος in the preserved corpus of Greek texts mentioning the titles of works, such as scholia and Athenaeus, is never found in conjunction with the name of a title, but exclusively with that of a tangible object, space, toponym, etc. It can also serve to specify a literary work, but in such cases, it appears solely in an adjectival construction, preceding an attributive adjective modifying a common noun (e.g. Σ Theoc. 7.21b, Ath. Deipn. 8.359d–e).

18 Σ A Hom. Il. 18.570 ἥ τϵ καλουμένη Σϕαῖρα ποίημά ἐστιν ϵἰς τὸν Λίνον (‘[The poem] called Sphaira is about Linus’); Suda α 1916 on the genres and works of Anacreon: ἔρωτας παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ ᾠδάς. καὶ συνέγραψϵ παροίνιά τϵ μέλη καὶ ἰάμβους καὶ τὰ καλούμϵνα Ἀνακρϵόντϵια (‘composed songs about the love of boys and women, as well as drinking songs and iambs, and [the works] called Anacreontics’); and, in the case of poetic collections of Agathias, ibid. 112 τά τϵ καλούμϵνα Δαϕνιακά, καὶ τὸν Κύκλον τῶν νέων ᾿Eπιγραμμάτων, ὃν αὐτὸς συνῆξϵν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ καιρὸν ποιητῶν (‘[the works] called Daphniaka, and the Cycle of the New Epigrams, which he himself compiled from the poets of his time’). Daphniaka is a good example here as it was a title of a collection of short hexametric love poems. Likewise, in the case of the collection entitled Peplos attributed to Aristotle, which is often juxtaposed with the hypothetical Sôros (e.g. R. Merkelbach, ‘ΒΟΥΚΟΛΙΑΣΤΑΙ (Der Wettgesang der Hirten)’, RhM 99 [1956], 97–133 at 124), the title is given by Eustathius as follows (in Il. 2.557, page 285, I 439.23–6 van der Valk): ἱστορϵῖ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς Πορϕύριος καὶ ὅτι Ἀριστοτέλης σύγγραμμα πραγματϵυσάμϵνος, ὅπϵρ ἐκλήθη Πέπλος, γϵνϵαλογίας τϵ ἡγϵμόνων ἐξέθϵτο καὶ νϵῶν ἑκάστων ἀριθμὸν καὶ ἐπιγράμματα ϵἰς αὐτούς, ἃ καὶ ἀναγράϕϵται ὁ Πορϕύριος ἐν τοῖς ϵἰς τὸν Ὅμηρον, ἁπλᾶ ὄντα καὶ οὐδέν τι παχὺ καὶ ϕλϵγμαῖνον ἔχοντα (‘Porphyry himself also recounts that Aristotle composed a work, which was called Peplos , in which he set out the genealogies of chieftains, the number of their ships and epigrams about them. These, Porphyry notes in his writings on Homer, were simple and contained nothing elaborate or extravagant’). The present medio-passive participle from καλέω is commonly used to denote all types of names: proper names, names of animals, toponyms, names of buildings, etc. Other examples of titles cited with a derivative of καλέω can be found in M. Davies and P.J. Finglass, Stesichorus: The Poems (Cambridge, 2014), 337, who note that the participle ‘implies that this is what everyone calls the poem, whether or not it was so called by the author’.

19 Gal. In Hippocr. Epid. III Comm. III 17a, page 607 Kühn; see below. The details of Galen’s testimonium are subject to debate, particularly regarding whether it was Ptolemy II or Ptolemy III Euergetes who borrowed the copies, and which edition of the three tragedians was the subject of the ‘compensation’. See K. Pietruczuk, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides between Athens and Alexandria: A Textual History (Rome 2019), 122–5. For our argument, the precise dating of the events described in this anecdote is of secondary importance.

20 Compare the Roman horrea chartaria, which were warehouses for paper (blank papyrus scrolls). The term horreum in its literal sense refers to granaries. For the etymology of horreum, see D.B. Kaufman, ‘Horrea romana: Roman storehouses’, The Classical Weekly 23.7 (1929), 49–54, at 49.

21 The act of piling up scrolls (designated by the verb σωρϵύω) in the processes of the compilation of the Quran is attested in the work of the thirteenth-century monk Bartholomew of Edessa in Confutatio Agareni 65 (ed. K.-P. Todt [Würzburg, 1988], 94): ὁ δὲ Ἀποπάκρης ἐπϵρίμϵνϵ τοῦ ὑποστρέψαι. καὶ ἰδόντϵς ὅτι οὐκ ἦλθϵν, ἀπέμνησαν αὐτόν. καὶ λέγουσι πρὸς τὸν λαόν· “ϕέρϵτϵ τὰς γραϕὰς αὐτοῦ, ἃς δέδωκϵν ὑμῖν ὁ Μουχαμέτ, ἵνα σωρϵυθῶσι καὶ γένωνται βιβλίον ἕν”. καὶ ἐκάθισϵν ὁ Ἀποπάκρης χαλιϕάτης ἀντὶ τοῦ Μουχαμέτ. ἦν δὲ Ὀθμάνης γραμματικὸς πάνυ καὶ ἐπέταξϵν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἀποπάκρης σωρϵῦσαι πάσας τὰς γραϕὰς τοῦ Μουχαμέτ, ποιῆσαι αὐτὰς βιβλίον ἕν, τὸ λϵγόμϵνον κουράνιον. καὶ πϵποίηκϵν τοῦτο καθὰ ὁρίστηκϵν. (‘But Abu Bakr waited for him [Muhammad] to return. And when they saw that he did not come, they recalled him. And they said to the people: “Bring the writings that Muhammad has given to you, so that they may be collected and become one book”. And Abu Bakr sat as caliph in place of Muhammad. Now, Uthman was very learned, and Abu Bakr commanded him to collect all the writings of Muhammad and make them into one book, which is called the Qur’an.’). CQ’s reader also drew our attention to a similar testimony in Latin – Ammianus Marcellinus’ account of the burning of books in Antioch at 29.1.41: deinde congesti innumeri codices et acerui uoluminum multi sub conspectu iudicum concremati sunt, ex domibus eruti uariis ut inliciti, ad leniendam caesorum inuidiam, cum essent plerique liberalium disciplinarum indices uariarum et iuris, ‘then, innumerable writings and many heaps of volumes were hauled out from various houses and under the eyes of the judges were burned in heaps as being unlawful, to allay the indignation at the executions, although the greater number were treatises on the liberal arts and on jurisprudence’ (transl. J.C. Rolfe).

22 The storage of unpublished texts in warehouses (ἀποθῆκαι) is confirmed by Galen when he recounts how his manuscripts, which he had not yet handed over to the scribes for copying, were destroyed in the fire on the Via Sacra in 192 (De indolentia 13; 16; 17–19; text and commentary in P.R. Tucci, ‘Flavian libraries in the city of Rome’, in J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou and G. Woolf [edd.], Ancient Libraries [Cambridge, 2013], 277–311, at 292).