The seventh volume of the Supplementum Grammaticum Graecum, edited by Valeria Bacigalupo, is devoted to Pius, “a rather obscure but far from negligible figure of a grammarian”[1]. Until now, the reference work for this ancient scholar was an article by E. Hiller[2]; the book by Bacigalupo now replaces it.
The volume is opened by a Foreword (p. VII) by the editors of Supplementum Grammaticum Graecum. Bacigalupo’s contribution then constitutes an Introduction, which provides an in-depth study of this grammarian (pp. 1-28) and of the edition, with an Italian translation of and commentary on the material ascribed to Pius (pp. 29-157). At the end, the (copious) bibliographical references (pp. 158-191)[3], the comparatio numerorum of the fragments (p. 193) and very useful indices (fontium, locorum, rerum, verborum, pp. 195-212) are provided. The book is in general well edited, with few typos or errors[4].
The first chapter of the Introduction deals with Pius’ life and offers a thoughtful analysis of the available information and scholarship on this topic (pp. 1-8). Actually, very little is known about Pius’ life. As Bacigalupo clearly states, the only certain information we can rely on is that Pius knew Aristarchus’ works (F 5, ll. 1-2: Πῖος ἀπολογούμενος πρὸς τὰς ἀθετήσεις Ἀριστάρχου ταῦτά φησιν…) and that Orus is the source of a glossa of the Etymologicum Magnum where Pius is mentioned (F12b): the terminus post quem is then the II century B.C. – when Aristarchus was alive –, while the terminus ante quem is the V century A.D. – when the activity of Orus is dated.
As for Pius’ chronology, Bacigalupo recalls a thesis by A. Dyck – according to whom Pius was datable to the III c. because “one would expect a child so named to have been born after the death of Antonius Pius on March 7, 161”[5] – and then investigates the epigraphical documents which testify to the name Pius. This careful examination lets her show that the cognomen Pius/Πῖος is well attested between the I and III c., and namely in the II c. This element, together with the nature of the explanations proposed by Pius (see infra), makes possible that Pius lived between the I and III century A.D.
The second (pp. 8-12) and the third (pp. 13-19) chapters investigate the surviving material ascribable to Pius and the purpose of his work respectively, while the fourth chapter (pp. 19-21) is devoted to the anonymous fragments attributed to Pius by previous scholars but not included in this edition.
Bacigalupo identifies a testimonium and seventeen fragmenta (whereof one [F 15] dubium and two spuria [FF 16-17]) of Pius’ activity, which are transmitted by the Etymologica (T 1, FF 11-13), by Εustathius (F 9), by the scholia exegetica to the Iliad (FF 1-8) and the Odyssey (F 10) and by the scholia to the Sophocles Ajax’s (F 14): apart from the ones devoted to this Sophoclean play (FF 13-14), the fragments concern mostly Homeric exegesis (FF 1-12).
There is a sole explicit testimony to a work by Pius: the Etymologica (T 1, which is in fact a portion of F 11) mention a ὑπόμνημα written by Pius to the 16th book of the Odyssey. However, Bacigalupo convincingly argues that the other fragments also possibly refer to a work of hypomnematic nature. Indeed, as it can be deduced from the surviving fragments, Pius was mainly interested in the lexical or grammatical explanation of single words or phrases and in the literary, rhetorical or stylistic analysis of specific passages – the two fields that are usually present in the ὑπομνήματα[6]. Moreover, this double focus of Pius’ investigations leads us to presume that his work was used not only in an erudite context, but also in an educational one: it is well known that students read texts in order to face both syntax and lexical problems and interpret them with regard to the content. As a result, from Bacigalupo’s analysis, Pius appears as a perfect example of a γραμματικός of the imperial age, both a philologist and a teacher, such as scholars of the calibre of Apion of Oasis and Alexander of Cotiaeum.
At the end of the Introduction, there are the criteria of the edition (p. 22) and a list of manuscripts of the sources of Pius’ fragments (pp. 22-28), with a short bibliography. The bibliographical references presented here are essential, with few absences. For instance, regarding the Marc. Gr. Z. 453 and 454, the descriptions provided by E. Mioni[7] could have been added, or the paper by M. Maniaci on the layout of manuscripts with scholia could also have been cited for the Marc. Gr. Z. 453[8]. Here it might have been useful to provide a list of the reference edition of each source as well, which in any case can be deduced from the final bibliography.
The main corpus of the book (pp. 29-157) consists of the edition of Pius’ fragments[9], with an Italian translation and a double commentary. The first one is continuous and is devoted to the contextualisation of the sources and to an explanation of Pius’ interpretations in the light of other ancient grammatical or literary works; the second one is lemmatical and focuses on single passages or words with dubious understanding and on textual problems.
This part of the volume is very rich and reasoned, not only because of the preciseness of the analyses proposed (almost all the existing scholarship on single problems is taken into consideration), but also because Bacigalupo shows a very careful approach to each fragment, pondering conscientiously what can be ascribable to Pius and what is due to the (often tangled and uneven) transmission of the source.
A clear example that illustrates this method can be read in the commentary to F 3, where the source (schol. ex. Hom. Il. 11.100b Erbse) collectively transmits the interpretations of Nicanor, Pius and “others” (οἱ δέ). Here[10], the author underlines that, even if it could be possible to imply that either Nicanor or Pius knew the opinion of the other scholar – an element which would be of extreme importance for the chronology of Pius –, it is actually more plausible that the compiler of the scholium put these interpretations together; thus, this source does not give any hint about the relationship between the two grammarians.
In conclusion, Bacigalupo’s volume distinguishes itself for a meticulous and thorough analysis of each testimony or fragment attributable to Pius and will surely be a reference work not only for the life and work of this grammarian, but in general for everyone interested in ancient grammar and philology, providing an example of how to approach the remnants of remote intellectuals.
Notes
[1] Foreword, p. vii.
[2] E. Hiller, Der Grammatiker Pius und die ἀπολογίαι πρὸς τὰς ἀθετήσεις Ἀριστάρχου, «Philologus» 28, 1869, pp. 86-115.
[3] I report some errors here: the references to Erbse 1960, quoted on p. 4 n. 12, and the one to Pagani 2006/2009, cited on p. 11 n. 47, are absent (respectively: H. Erbse, Beiträge zur Überlieferung der Iliasscholien, München 1960; L. Pagani, Telephus, in Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity, 2006/2009); on p. 178 two works by F. Montanari (A new papyrus commentary on the Iliad, «TiC» 1.2, 2009, pp. 177-182; Ekdosis alessandrina: il libro e il testo, in M. Sanz Morales-M. Librán Moreno (eds.), Verae lectiones: estudios de Crítica Textual y Edición de Textos Griegos, Cáceres – Huelva 2009, pp. 143-167) are not distinguished in 2009a and 2009b.
[4] For example: p. 25 “Andrés” for “de Andrés”; p. 114, in the first line, the majuscule letter is absent; p. 160, in the reference of the article by D. Baldi and S. Vecchiato, there is an additional comma after the abbreviation ‘D.’; p. 176, in the reference of Mitchell’s work, “ad” is written instead of “as”.
[5] A. R. Dyck, The Fragments of Alexander of Cotiaeum, «ICS» 16.1, 1991, pp. 307-335: 331.
[6] See p. 9 and n. 34 with bibliography.
[7] Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum Codices Graeci Manuscripti, recensuit E. Mioni, II, Thesaurus antiquus. Codices 300-625, Roma 1985, pp. 235-236 (Marc. Gr. Z. 453), 236-240 (Marc. Gr. Z. 454).
[8] See M. Maniaci, Problemi di mise en page dei manoscritti con commento a cornice. L’esempio di alcuni testimoni dell’Iliade, «S&T» 4, 2006, pp. 211-297: 226-232, 293 – where the author argues that a second, but contemporary hand is responsible of the first five quires of the manuscript.
[9] I mention here some slight imperfections that I noticed in the apparatus criticus: on p. 79 (F 7), a correction by von Wilamowitz – Moellendoff is cited, but it is not written where he proposed this emendation; on p. 89 (F 9), the name of J. Stallbaum is quoted in the apparatus, but the reference is absent in the final bibliography; on p. 121 (F 13), one can find the word ‘suppl.’ for the integrations by Reitzenstein in ll. 1 and 2, but not for the ones in ll. 6 and 8.
[10] See p. 56.