Chapter 1 Tzetzes’ verse scholia
1.1 Tzetzes “accountant” of historians: some general trends from the verse
Tzetzes wrote verse scholia on the two main classical historians, Thucydides and Herodotus.9 At first sight, Tzetzes’ verse scholia on these authors show common trends as regards form and content. They address textual issues of the ancient manuscripts where they are found and comment upon the grammar, style and classical references of the main text. The larger and probably better known cycle of epigrams is devoted to Thucydides and found in the margins of Heidelberg, Pal. gr. 252 (10th century). Luzzatto identifies fifty verse scholia in the margins of this authoritative manuscript of Thucydides (E for the editors).10 Luzzatto also claims that the epigrams are autograph, i.e. jotted down in this manuscript by Tzetzes himself. Significantly, the same hand is found again in the margins and interlinear spaces of a manuscript with Tzetzes’ commentary on Hermogenes and traces of his Λογισμοί (Voss. Gr. Q. 1).11 Let us begin with the last line of f. 133v, where a symbol is placed over κλῄσειν in Thucydides’ Histories 4.8.7 and repeated in the lower margin to open a verse scholium (number 25):
Κλῇθρον, κατεκλῄσθησαν Ἀττικῷ τρόπῳ
9 For Tzetzes’ verse scholia on Thucydides, see Hude (1927), Scott (1981), Baldwin (1982), Maltese (1995: 370-371), Luzzatto (1999), Reinsch (2006: 757-758), Kaldellis (2015: 65-79), Pontani (2015: 384-385). For Tzetzes’ verse scholia on Herodotus, see Luzzatto (2000), Cantore (2012; 2013: 82-93).
10 Luzzatto (1999). I follow her numeration of the epigrams and print her text with minor changes after inspection of the manuscript (available online at https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpgraec252/0001).
The interpretation of these epigrams follows closely Luzzatto (1999) and Kaldellis (2015).
11 Aglae Pizzone first published about these findings at the blog of the Centre for Medieval Literature: John Tzetzes in the margins of the Voss. Gr. Q1: discovering autograph notes of a Byzantine scholar (https://cml.sdu.dk/blog/cml-blog-john-tzetzes-in-the-margins-of-the-voss-gr-q1-discovering-autograph-notes-of-a-byzantine-scholar). See now Pizzone (2020: 654-656). Note that the same hand also wrote verse scholia in Voss. Gr. Q. 1, similar to those of E; see e.g. Pizzone (2020: 680). On the Λογισμοί, see below.
12 See Luzzatto (1999: 18-20). Translation after Kaldellis (2015: 73): “Κλῇθρον, κατεκλῄσθησαν in the Attic manner/ every one of you sensible men, persuaded by the words of Tzetzes,/ do not write with diphthong [ει], but only with eta,/ and leave the most ignorant buffalos/ to write these with diphthongs everywhere, [5]/ those who call the darkness light just as they call the light darkness,/ bred in the pigsties of the new Circe”.
This is one of the numerous verse scholia suggesting corrections or explaining orthography. But in this epigram we can also observe four characteristic dimensions of Tzetzes’ dialogue with the ancient texts, their tradition and their reception. First, the author gives instructions to a student-reader-scribe (25.1-3), supported by a display of grammatical expertise and knowledge of ancient Greek dialects. Second, Tzetzes represents himself as a reliable source of authority, which is enhanced by the use of his own name in 25.2 as in the third person. Third, the attack to contemporary scholars, disparaged with offensive and witty names are hallmarks of Tzetzes’ polemical discourse (25.4-7). For example, βούβαλος (25.4) or similar terms are repeatedly used by Tzetzes to demean his adversaries.13 Fourth, an allusion to the obscurity of the main text in 25.6. The beginning of the poem (25.1-3) presents, therefore, a positive and constructive movement, while the final section (25.4-7), a rather negative and polemical one. The stances that Tzetzes adopts towards the main text and its author and towards the scribe, the reader and his competitors can be observed further throughout the cycle.
In the right and lower margin of f. 26r, for example, two verse scholia (numbers 3-4) comment on the orthography of two different words at Thucydides’ Histories 1.63.2-3,
13 See Luzzatto (1999: 19 n. 20), Agapitos (2017: 11, 24-25, 33-34) and e.g. Tzetzes’ Histories 5.828, 9.958, 9.960, 9.967, 10.178, 11.215, 11.221, 11.224; scholia on Tzetzes’ Histories 1.396, 3.61, 3.617, 4.837 (Leone 2007: 533.5, 542.1, 544.7, 548.19); scholium on Tzetzes’ Letter 1 (Leone 1972: 159.6); scholium on Aristophanes’ Wealth 543 (Massa Positano 1960: 131.25) and Clouds 965a (Holwerda 1960: 596.14), which is the same as scholium on Oppian’s Halieutica 1.266 (recte 1.200, Bussemaker 1849: 276.54). Circe, on the other hand, is mentioned in another polemical context in Tzetzes’ Histories 10.64-76 (see Luzzatto 1999: 20; Agapitos 2017: 18-21). Now, one may wonder whether the “new Circe” (25.7) constitutes only an ornamental use of the myth (see e.g. poem 34.2 below), or a particular patroness and her circle are meant here too. Tzetzes himself worked for female commissioners, see e.g. Rhoby (2010). On Tzetzes’ misogyny, see Agapitos (2017: 15-17), to which his hostility towards the mythographer Demo can be added: Allegories of the Odyssey, Proem 32-34; see Cesaretti (1991: 138-139) and Hunger (1954: 43-44). In fact, in Tzetzes’ Histories 10.64-76 the ἀτεχνία of Circe and her filthy followers is contrasted with the τέχνη of a female writer, empress Eudokia. Now Pizzone (2020: 667-672) brings forward new evidence of the same elements in a similar polemical context from the rediscovered fragment of the Λογισμοί. Her explanation of these images through the socio-historical background of 12th-century Constantinople is very compelling and it is not at odds with a possible allusion to a patroness.
14 The two words are marked in the main text with the same symbol that opens poem 3. There is no clear separation between poems 3 and 4 and thus they could be considered as one single poem. In 3.1 the accent in τίς in the manuscript indicates that it is a question.
τὰ κύρια μόνα δὲ δίφθογγα γράφε,
The intervention seems to be motivated by corrections in the manuscript by a later hand of ἱππῆς into ἱππεῖς. Through insistent imperatives (γράψον v. 2; γράφε vv. 4, 6, 8, 11), Tzetzes teaches the reader how to write properly, again according to the Attic dialect (Ἀττικῷ τρόπῳ v. 2, Ἀττικώτατα v. 3, Ἀττικῶς v. 2). Tzetzes contrasts his learned opinions with the ones of his opponents (see τίς v. 1). The construction of himself as an authority converges with the impertinence towards the author of the main text, dubbed as cub or puppy (σκύλλος v. 3).
These strategies can adopt an even harsher and less tolerant way. In f. 185r, containing Thucydides’ Histories 1.18.1-5, two verse scholia occur in the right margin (numbers 33-34). Tzetzes first criticizes a passage of the text (paraphrased in 33.1-2) for its confusing syntax, calling it a solecism. Elsewhere he justifies Thucydides’ obscure style by invoking a feature of his dialect. For example, in verse scholium number 29 (f. 183v) he explains:
γλώσσης νόησον Ἀττικῆς εἶναι τόδε,/ […] μὴ δ’ αὖ σόλοικον μηδαμῶς νόει τόδε (“Understand that this is characteristic of the Attic dialect,/ […] so under no circumstances think this is a solecism”).16 This time, he does not follow the same logic (33.3-8): diphthong?/ Write it with an eta if you write in the Attic manner./ This puppy writes in a most Attic way./ So write all the words of this kind with an eta:/ ἱππῆς, ἀριστῆς, Φωκαῆς, except proper nouns. [5]/ Proper nouns alone you should write with a diphthong,/ I mean Δημοσθένεις and the like./ And don’t write τρόπαιον for τροπαῖον./ I tell you to do this if you want to write in Attic./ But if you want to write in some other dialect, [10]/
then write ἱππεῖς with a diphthong and τρόπαιον”.
16 See also the formulaic verse σολοικοειδές, οὐ σόλοικον τυγχάνει (“It has the aspect of a solecism, but it is no solecism”) that occurs in poems 15 (f. 93v), 28 (f. 183v) and 47 (f. 290r).
17 See Luzzatto (1999: 35-37). Translation after Kaldellis (2015: 75): “Tzetzes classifies this among the solecisms of speech,/ he just cannot call this an Atticism./ Writing this way in your convoluted clauses, [5]/ you have
The last four verses of this poem (33.5-8) address outspokenly the author in the second person and strike again against his abstruseness, as deceptive and contrary to the τέχνη.
We can fully understand now the attack against Tzetzes’ adversaries in poem 25.6: not only do the buffaloes ignore the τέχνη of the Attic dialect, but they also praise Thucydides’ misleading σκότος (33.8). Moreover, in the beginning of the second verse scholium in f. 185r (34.1-2), Tzetzes compares the stylistic difficulties of the author, addressed again by Tzetzes in the second person, with those provoked by the scribe: τὸ σὸν σκοτεινὸν καὶ τὸ τοῦ βιβλογράφου/ Χάρυβδιν οἵαν ἐξεγείρουσι λόγοις.18 The labour of the scribe is a constant target of Tzetzes’ complaints and satirical remarks, as the formulaic label κόπρος βιβλογράφου reveals (see poems 30-31, ff. 183v-184v).19
Tzetzes’ criticisms, however, are not limited to grammatical, stylistic or textual remarks. He even calls into question the content of what Thucydides recounts. At the beginning of book 6, Thucydides refers to the etymology of Italy, allegedly derived from the name of a Sicilian king: καὶ ἡ χώρα ἀπὸ Ἰταλοῦ, βασιλέως τινὸς Σικελῶν, τοὔνομα τοῦτο ἔχοντος, οὕτως Ἰταλία ἐπωνομάσθη (Thucydides’ Histories 6.2.4). In our manuscript the passage is marked with a cross that also introduces a verse scholium in the right margin of f. 214r (number 35), after the heading σημείωσαι ἱστορίαν. In this epigram, Thucydides is again addressed in an irreverent way and his etymology rejected: οὐκ ἔστιν οὕτως οὐδαμῶς, Θουκυδίδη (“It is not like this, Thucydides, not at all”, 35.1). An alternative aetiology is told, involving Heracles and the Latin word vitulus (35.2-9).20 The poem is closed by a warning addressed to ancient historians with significant programmatic overtones (35.10-11): Τζέτζην παλαιὸς πᾶς πτοοῦ χρονογράφος·/ λαθεῖν γὰρ αὐτὸν οὐδὲ δαίμων ἰσχύει.21
The mission to correct the style and grammar and control the truth and consistency of the classics is asserted openly, such as in the scholium to Aristophanes’ Frogs 1328:22
eluded those who want to scrutinize you according to the τέχνη./ Just as mud disguises poor work by the mason,/obscurity of writing here masks solecism in speech”.
18 See Luzzatto (1999: 37-39). Translation after Kaldellis (2015: 76): “Your obscurity along with that of the copyist/ rouse up such a Charybdis in the narrative”.
19 See Luzzatto (1999: 26, 30).
20 For the sources of Tzetzes and loci similes in his oeuvre, see Luzzatto (1999: 77-78). To these it could be added the scholium to Lycophron 1232 (Scheer 1908: 353.3-8).
21 See Luzzatto (1999: 75-76). Translation after Kaldellis (2015: 76): “Every one of you ancient historians fear Tzetzes,/ not even a supernatural spirit can escape his notice!”. However, note that the manuscript seems to read παλαιοῖς.
22 Koster (1962: 1077.49-1079.89). After consultation of the manuscript Ambr. C 222 inf., f. 103r (now available at http://213.21.172.25/0b02da8280051c1e), I was able to make two minor improvements to Koster’s edition (I keep his punctuation though). On this manuscript (last quarter of the 12th, copied by a scholar closely connected with Tzetzes), see Mazzucchi (2003; 2004).
ὧν πασῶν [sc. Βίβλων] λογισμοὺς βίβλος μία ἐμοῦ περιέχει στίχοις ἰάμβοις τοῖς
Of all these books, one book of mine contains the accounts, most of them in iambic verses, but quite a few also in other metres. And other books have here and there my accounts of other wise men, not because I attack moved by enmity towards some, nor in vain or without reason, but rather censuring some for an error regarding the τέχνη or for missing the facts or the chronology, or because they say things contradicting themselves […] After reading this book of mine, whoever would want to, would find the faults of Aeschylus, Euripides and many others, included in my accounts for their error regarding the τέχνη or the truth, yet not for the sake of jesting comedy or ill will with falsehood.
The Accounts (Λογισμοί) here mentioned is the title of a work by Tzetzes, widely considered to be lost until in 2020 Aglae Pizzone brought to light a manuscript where it is partially preserved.23 Tzetzes’ description invites us to an identification of them with our verse scholia. First, these accounts are in verse, mainly comment upon ancient authors and can also be found occasionally (σποράδην) in other manuscripts. Second, the motivations in Tzetzes’ enterprise of watching (ἐλέγχειν) the form (τέχνη) and content (ἱστορία) of the text commented upon match precisely those of his verse scholia.
The connection of the Λογισμοί with Tzetzes’ verse scholia has been first proposed by Luzzatto, who also refers to Tzetzes’ Histories 6.399-403, where Tzetzes specifies the objects of his critiques, among which historians and chroniclers (ἱστορικοὶ καὶ χρονικοὶ).24 When consulting these books, which did not belong to him (ὢν ἀβίβλης), he annotated the necessary accounts in their margins: ἐκείναις [sc. βίβλοις] παρενέγραφε
23 On the Λογισμοί, see primarily Pizzone (2020), who corrected a long-lasting misunderstanding in Wendel (1948:
1990, 2004; see Luzzatto 1999: 74 n. 18), by which the Accounts were equated to Tzetzes’ commentary on Hermogenes in political verse (Walz 1834: 670-686; Cramer 1837: 1-148). As she points out, the catalogue of the library already records some of the Accounts’ verses in ff. 212v-239v; see De Meyier (1955: 93). Pizzone masterfully reconstructs the possible stages of composition of the oeuvre and the associations between imperial administration, authenticity and authorship that emanate already from its title. In this respect, see now Pizzone (2020b).
24 Luzzatto (1998: 71-72; 1999: 156-161).
τοὺς λογισμοὺς οὓς ἔδει. The same oeuvre is alluded to in Tzetzes’ Histories 11.349-354, where Tzetzes repeats the goal of censuring the content and the form (ἄλλους ψευδῶς, ἀτέχνως δε, οὓς ἤλεγξεν ὁ Τζέτζης) in his Book of Accounts (ὧν βίβλος ὅλη γέγραπται τῶν Λογισμῶν τῷ Τζέτζῃ). Book of Accounts is in fact the title proposed by Luzzatto, considering also the scholium to Aristophanes’ Frogs 100a.25 There, Tzetzes defends Euripides of unfair criticism, different from the real problems addressed in the Accounts, again for the sake of truth and without ill will: οὐχ ὡς ἡμεῖς τοῖς τῶν σοφῶν λογισμοῖς δικαίως ἐκεῖνον ἐλέγξαμεν, οἷσπερ ἐχρῆν [...] οὐ καθ’ ὑμᾶς φθόνῳ φερόμενος, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν.
In the long poem number 8 on Thucydides (Heidelberg, Pal. gr. 252, f. 45r), which together with number 50 (f. 326v) are probably the best known of the series, Tzetzes defines his role in a similar way. He claims that he is the only one entitled to judge according to the τέχνη the writings of this puppy (again the disrespectful nickname) and all ancient and new literature (8.7-9): apparently self-deprecatory use of δυσμαθής. Notice that the same epithet is given to the buffaloes in the aforementioned verse scholium 25.4.30 The same goes for ἀμαθής, employed to refer both to his enemies and to himself.31 These terms are frequently associated with a dispute with the prefect Andronikos Kamateros regarding court patronage and the teaching of rhetoric.32 With this characterization, Tzetzes seems to
25 Koster (1962: 732-733.6); see Luzzatto (1999: 160 n. 12).
26 See Luzzatto (1999: 46-58). Translation after Kaldellis (2015: 72) and Pontani (2015: 384): “To judge according to the criteria of the τέχνη the works/ of this puppy and of the ancients and moderns/ is the gift of Tzetzes alone, the most ignorant one”.
27 Leone (1969-1970: 146.360).
28 See Pizzone (2017: 206; 2020: 672 n. 61, 682-685; 2020b: 51-53). Whether this ὑπογραφή (Leone 1969-1970:
146.359) corresponds to the Iambi, the Histories or another work by Tzetzes remains unclear (Leone 1969-1970:
130).
29 Pizzone (2020: 656-657). See https://www.dbbe.ugent.be/occurrences/19745.
30 See also the occurrences of δυσμαθής in the polemical Iambi (Leone 1969-1970: 141.216, 141.230, 143.260).
31 E.g. Tzetzes’ Histories 9.408, 9.656-659, 9.688-690, 9.702-707, 10.64-76, 10.240-242, 11.210-224, 11.286, 11.349-354, 12.85-91, 12.223-246. See also the title of the last of the Iambi (Leone 1969-1970: 145).
32 For Andronikos Kamateros’ episode, see e.g. Leone (1969-1970: 128-130), Agapitos (2017: 22-27), Pizzone (2017:
185-186; 2020: 669, 671 n. 56, 682 n. 91).
ironically impersonate his adversaries. Many of these elements in fact meet in Tzetzes’
Histories 11.246-249:
ἀλλ’ ἤδη σε συνέχεεν ὁ ἀμαθὴς ἐπάρχῳ, ὁ λογιστὴς τῶν παλαιῶν, οὗ δι’ ἰάμβων βίβλος τῶν Λογισμῶν γραμματικῶν, ῥητόρων, φιλοσόφων, τῶν μετρικῶν, ἱστορικῶν, μηχανικῶν, τῶν ἄλλων.
But the ignorant in the eyes of the prefect already confused you, the accountant of the ancients, the author of the iambic book of Accounts of the grammarians, rhetoricians, philosophers, the metricians, historians, mechanicians, and others.
A similarly explicit prescriptive instance occurs in the left and lower margin of Heidelberg, Pal. gr. 252, f. 184v (verse scholium number 32 on Thucydides’ Histories 5.17.2).
Tzetzes explains a syntactical and rhetorical figure that deepens the obscurity of Thucydides (32.1). After attacking again the rhetoricians who defend Thucydides’ style (32.2-3), Tzetzes sets the guidelines for writing history properly (32.4-5):
τίς ἱστορούντων ἀκριβὴς κανὼν μάθε·/ σαφὴς μετ’ ὄγκου καὶ ταχύς, πειθοῦς γέμων.33 In this regard, Herodotus (τὸν μελιχρὸν Ἡρόδοτον ἐν τοῖς λόγοις, 32.8)34 is to be preferred over Thucydides, Tzetzes implies at the end of this poem.