ALEXANDER'S PATRIUS SERMO IN THE PHILOTAS AFFAIR

****************************************************************************************************************************

Elias Kapetanopoulos, Professor Dr.

Department of History, Central Conn. State University

New Britain, CT 06050-4010 [USA]

E-mail: Kapetanopoulos@ccsu.edu

Telephone: (860) 832-2820 (office); (860) 229-9960 (home); FAX: (860) 832-2804

Web site: http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/elias.htm

--------------------------------

=================================

CENTER FOR ATHENIAN-MAKEDONIAN STUDIES:

18 June 2000=21 June 2000= 24 ÉIoun€ou 2002 > 24 June 2002 [corrections, 27/4/04; 19/1/2006, Greek font]

Greek font is Athenian+Unicode.

The study below has been published in the periodical The Ancient World 30.2 (1999) 117-128:

Corrigenda, pages:

117 (bottom): 4639.6. = 4639.6

119, bottom: after him, add: 6.7.29-30).

119, note 8: The correct reference to E.N. Borza is "The Ancient Macedonians: A Methodological Model," MeditArch 7 (1994='95) 19.

120, Philotas begins …. Lines aliarum/above). should be to the right under sic.

120, bottom: Phrygasgue = Phrygasque

122, No. 2. Macedonicus sermo. From the end of 1a (above), transpose 4l-49 to the space before Macedonicus sermo.

124, note 20. At the end the [W€low b€low]) should read [W€low=b€low?].

126, under No.16: for ped€on/nÒmati, read ped€on Ù/nÒmati.

126, under No. 21: tÊpow' = tÊpow,

127, under No. 25: êrgow' = êrgow,

127, bottom: These instances show that the evidence=These

instances of evidence…

------------------------

ADDENDUM, p. 119 top: For Philotas’ tam victoribus, quam victis peregrina lingua discenda est, cf. Curtius, 10.3.12, Alexander speaking: Mox deinde cum stirpem generis mei latius propagare cuperem, uxorem Darei filiam duxi, proximisque amicorum auctor fui ex captivis generandi liberos, ut hoc sacro foedere omne discrimen victi et victoris excluderem [cf. also Justin, 12.12.1-2: adfinitatibus conubiorum victos victoribus miscuisse]. There is a very close connection here of uniting through marriage both <<victors and conquered>> and Philotas’ line that <<both victors and conquered>> must learn a foreign tongue, as it also implies union through language, with the conquered (victi) being the Persians, who must learn a peregrina lingua (although Philotas’ statement is made in the context of Alexander’s patrius sermo and the koine apparently used at the time). [This Addendum emerged after reading E. Baynham’s “Alexander and the Amazons”, Cl. Quart. 51.1 (2001) 124 and 125]

(27 Noembr€ou 2001)

------------------------

See also XENNIAS MAKEDONIZVN THi FVNHi by this writer in ÉArx. ÉEfhm. 1993 (=1995) 13-30.

------------------------

And Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos, "Les Macédonien Nouvelles Données et Theories Nouvelles," Ancient Macedonia VI (1996=1999) 225-239 [review/refutation of what has been said about a Makedonian "language"], and "Récentes découvertes épigraphiques et gloses Macédoniennes d'Hésychius," Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres, Comptes Rendus, Nov.-Déc. 1998, 1189-1218 [epigraphic correspondences with Hesychios].

=======================================================================

ALEXANDER'S PATRIUS SERMO IN THE PHILOTAS AFFAIR

The present study¹looks at the context in which Alexander’s patrius sermo occurs in Curtius' [Q. Curtius Rufus'] account of the Philotas affair and what its significance may be, as far as a Makedonian mode of speech is concerned. When Curtius' account of the Philotas affair is read, one cannot but notice its long, detailed narrative, colored with dramatic overtones.²However, before analyzing Curtius' account of the Philotas affair, it would be of considerable interest to see first what space has been allotted to this affair by Arrian, Plutarch, Diodoros, and Justin.

In Arrian (3. 26. 1-4), the Philotas-Parmenion affair is only 36 lines+2 words long (these and the ones below are L(oeb) C(lassical) L(ibrary) lines). Of the 36 lines+2 words, only 20 lines or about 132 words directly involve Philotas (5 lines yielded an average of 6.6 words/LCL line). Arrian states that he was following Ptolemy who wrote that Alexander accused Philotas who in turn defended himself. As a comparison, the Kleitos episode in Arrian (4. 8. 1-9. 9) involves 135 LCL lines+17 words, or about 138 LCL lines of about 910.8 words (6.6 words/LCL line). Why was Arrian so frugal with the Philotas affair? Or was this frugality perhaps in his source Ptolemy?

Plutarch yields 86 LCL lines+3 words to the Philotas-Parmenion affair (Alex. 48. 1-49. 7); of these 79 LCL lines+2 words, or about 515.5 words (6. 5 words/LCL line), are on Philotas, which also includes the affair with Antigona of Pella, who also figures in On the Fortune of Alexander, (339) e-f, with 21 LCL lines+4 words. Even though Plutarch was writing biography of a limited length, nevertheless his account of the Philotas affair is longer than Arrian's (above). Plutarch's Alexander hiding behind a curtain when Philotas was being interrogated under torture (Alex. 49. 11-12) is reminiscent of the theater. The Kleitos episode in Plutarch (Alex. 50. 1-52. 7) extends to 119 LCL lines+24 words, or about 809.4 words (6.6 words/LCL line).

Diodoros, writing a universal history, yields 37 LCL lines+8 words for the Dimnos-Kebalinos conspiracy and only 8 LCL lines+1 word for the Philotas affair (17. 79. 1-6. 80. 1-2). This is indeed a very abbreviated account of the Philotas affair.³ This is also true of Justin, whose coverage of that affair consists of 14 lines+4 words (M. C. J. Miller text, 12. 5. 1-8),⁴ with only 2 lines on Philotas. However, Justin's constriction falls within the proper bounds of an epitomizer, in this instance of Pompeius Trogus.

Curtius' account of the Philotas affair, on the other hand, amounts to 619 LCL lines+81 words, or about 4537.8 words (6. 7-11. 40). To these should be added 14 LCL lines+1 word from 7. 1. 1-5, or about 101.8 words, for a subtotal of about 4639.6 words (10 lines gave an average of 7.2 words/LCL line). By comparing the Philotas affair to the Kleitos episode, the latter occupies in Curtius 156 LCL lines+24 words, or about 1022.4 words in 8. 1. 19-2. 12 (8 lines produced an average of 6.4 words/LCL line). Of course, the Philotas affair went through a trial paraphernalia in contrast to the episode involving Kleitos, and this may explain in part Curtius' longer account of the Philotas affair, but at the same time the trial scene provided ample room for dramatization and invention.⁵

One of the questions that arises out of Curtius' inflated account of the Philotas affair is "Where did Curtius find all this information, with all its details and melodrama?" Were records of the trial's proceedings available, which could have been used by Curtius' source(s) or Curtius himself? Probably no minutes of the trial would have been kept at the time, and this is especially true since Curtius does not allude to any records of the trial in existence.⁶Consequently, what has been invented or inflated for purposes of amplification and dramatization, although still preserving the basic truth of the affair? The basic truth is the conspiracy itself with its authentic names and Alexander accusing Philotas who in turn defends himself. Curtius' account, of course, has been expanded by the narration of the conspiracy's machinations, the accusations of Alexander, Amyntas, Bolon and Koinos, and by Philotas' own defense and finally by his gory torture. However, all of these are elements prone to invention and amplification.⁷

In any event, to comprehend as best as possible Curtius' account of the Philotas affair, it becomes necessary to dissect its structure in a synoptic style. This will bring forth the steps involved in the construction of the details and dramatic techniques therein. One such dramatic technique is when Alexander, unexpectedly so-to-speak, asks Philotas whether he (Philotas) was to defend himself in the patrius sermo, because the Makedones were to pass judgement on him. Curtius does not specify in what language Alexander addressed Philotas, but it has been inferred that it was in the koine. This is, of course, arbitrary inference, as Philotas, too, does not indicate in what language Alexander addressed him, although from the context neither of them was speaking in the patrius sermo of therein.

Alexander's question to Philotas whether the latter was to address the Makedones in the patrius sermo (6. 9. 34) and Philotas' reply (below) to Alexander's accusation that he (Philotas) hated the patrius sermo and did not learn it (ibid. 9. 36) are in themselves contradictory. When Alexander asked Philotas about the patrius sermo, Philotas responded that he was going to speak in the same language as Alexander, presumably the koine (above), because, besides the Makedones, there were also many others present and because Alexander's language was understood a pluribus (ibid. 9. 35). This response by Philotas would imply that there was a patrius sermo and that Philotas knew it, but he preferred to speak in the language Alexander had used for greater comprehension, unless this was a ploy on the part of Philotas to cover up his not knowing the patrius sermo, as accused by Alexander and later by Bolon (below). The contradiction in the patrius sermo motif shows up later, too, when Philotas in defending himself (6. 10. 23) says that the patrius sermo had become obsolete because of the intercourse with other nations (Iam pridem nativus ille sermo commercio aliarum gentium exolevit), with the comment tam victoribus, quam victis peregrina lingua discenda est, which may be rendered into Greek as kayãper nik«sin, …saÊtvw ka‹ ≤tthm°noiw j°nh gl«ssa (diãlektow?) mayht°a.⁸

How could Philotas state in the contio that the patrius sermo was no longer spoken, if it was still in vogue as suggested by Alexander's question? And how could Alexander pose such a question if the patrius sermo was no longer spoken as Philotas declared? What is the balance here? Or is this patrius sermo motif a dramatic introduction by Curtius' source(s) or even Curtius himself?⁹Plutarch, for example, has preserved evidence of this "patrius sermo motif" in such expressions as makedonist€, makedonist‹ tª fvnª and tÚ makedon€zein (see No. 4 below).

Bolon accused Philotas of hearing men of his own language through an interpreter (6. 11. 4: qui (sc. Philotas) non erubesceret, Macedo natus, homines linguae suae per interpretem audire). But as queried elsewhere, in what language was Bolon speaking?¹⁰ Bolon follows the line of Alexander's accusation (above), but this adds to the contradiction therein, because of Philotas' defense that the patrius sermo had gone out of use, although it may be indicated otherwise by an inscription of the early third century (No. 16 below). However, how could Philotas deny the patrius sermo when it was still spoken in his time according to Alexander and Bolon? In any case, there was room, as also indicated above, for invention in the patrius sermo motif, and this should become clearer from the synopsis of Curtius' account of the Philotas affair.

Curtius' account of the Philotas affair begins with the conspiracy against Alexander:

Dymnus-Nicomachus-Cebalinus-Philotas - 6. 7. 1-27.¹¹

Dymnus-Cebalinus-Philotas-Alexander - ibid. 7. 28-30.

Alexander-Philotas-Cebalinus-Dymnus - ibid. 7. 31-35.

Alexander - advocato consilio amicorum - ibid. 8. 1-22.

(the consilium takes up the conspiracy)

Alexander - postero die rex edixit omnes armati coirent -

ibid. 8. 23:VI milia fere militum venerant, praeterea

turba lixarum calonumque impleverant regiam.

Armigeri cover Philotas agmine suo that he might not be

seen a vulgo before the king (rex) addressed the

soldiers (milites) - ibid. 8. 24.

De capitalibus rebus vetusto Macedonum modo inquirebat

rex, iudicabat exercitus (rex, iudicabat added by Hedicke,

LCL) - in pace erat vulgi - ibid. 8. 25.

Dymnus' corpse is brought into the assembly - ibid. 8. 26.

(Dymnus had died through a self-inflicted wound and in

the presence of Alexander who was interrogating him -

6. 7. 29-30).

Alexander enters the contio, with a sad expression, the

sadness being manifested by his friends (amicorum),

too. For a long time Alexander stares at the ground,

then he begins to speak - ibid. 9. 1-2.

Alexander's speech - ibid. 9. 3-24.

Alexander orders Philotas to be brought - he is led in with hands

bound behind and covered (velatum) with an old cloak

(obsoleto amiculo) - ibid. 9. 25.

Philotas' wretched plight moves the assembly - yesterday

the commander of the cavalry (ducem equitatus), today

bound and tried. The assembly also thinks of Parmenio,

the great general, who had lost two other sons (Hector,

Nicanor) before this - ibid. 9. 26-27.

Amyntas with his speech breaks the assembly's mood of

pity, haranguing against Philotas, but it was not

entirely pleasing to Alexander, as Amyntas reminded

the Makedones of their wives (coniugum) and

motherland (patriae) - ibid. 9. 28-29.

Coenus, married to Philotas' sister, also inveighs against

Philotas and is ready to cast the first stone against

him, but Alexander stops Coenus. Philotas must be

given the opportunity to defend himself - ibid. 9. 30-31.¹²

Philotas is ordered to speak, but sive conscientia sceleris sive

periculi magnitudine amens et attonitus, non

attollere oculos, non hiscere audebat - then a flood of

tears overtakes him and falls into the arms of the man

holding him - with his cloak (amiculo) his tears are

dried and gradually recovers himself to the point of

speaking - ibid. 9. 32-33.

Alexander breaks in, asking Philotas: "Macedones," inquit

(sc. Alexander), "de te iudicaturi sunt; quaero, an patrio

sermone sis apud eos usurus." -ibid. 9. 34 (see below).

Philotas, replying: "Praeter Macedonas," inquit (sc.

Philotas), "plerique adsunt, quos facilius quae dicam

percepturos arbitror, si eadem lingua fuero usus qua tu

egisti, non ob aliud, credo, quam ut oratio tua intellegi

posset a pluribus." - ibid. 9. 35.

Alexander: "Ecquid videtis adeo etiam sermonis patrii

Philotan taedere? Solus quippe fastidit eum discere.

Sed dicat sane utcumque ei cordi est, dum memineritis

aeque illum a nostro more quam sermone abhorrere."

Alexander then departs from the contio - ibid. 9. 36.

Philotas begins his defense - ibid. 10. 1-37.

23 (Philotas replies to the charge of not knowing the

patrius sermo): "Mihi quidem obicitur quod societatem

patrii sermonis asperner, quod Macedonum mores

fastidiam. Sic ego imperio quod dedignor, immineo! Iam

pridem nativus ille sermo commercio aliarum gentium

exolevit; tam victoribus, quam victis peregrina lingua

discenda est" (see above).

36-37: Philotas replies to one of the bystanders (unus

e circumstantium turba).

Bolon inveighs against Philotas - ibid. 11. 1-7.

Bolon is described as pacis artium et civilis habitus

rudis, vetus miles, ab humili ordine ad eum gradum in

quo tunc erat promotus (ibid.11. 1). Although, as

described, of a rough, uncultured nature, Bolon is

shown a powerful speaker (below).

4, one of Bolon's accusations against Philotas was:

Ludibrio ei fuisse rusticos homines, Phrygasgue et

Paphlagonas appellatos, qui non erubesceret, Macedo

natus, homines linguae suae per interpretem audire.¹³

Bolon's speech inflames the contio - the bodyguards

(corporis custodibus) want to tear Philotas to

pieces - ibid. 11. 8.

Alexander, however, has returned to the contio and

concilium in posterum diem distulit - and amicos

convocari iubet - ibid. 11. 9.

The rest (ceteris) want Philotas to be stoned to death

according to the Makedonian custom (Macedonum

more), but Hephaestio, Craterus and Coenus propose

that the truth be obtained through torture; the others

also accept this course. Consilio ergo dimisso, and

Hephaestio with Craterus and Coenus proceed to put

Philotas to the interrogation (quaestionem). Alexander,

having talked with Craterus, withdraws into his

quarters where he awaits until late at night the

interrogation's results - ibid. 11. 10-12.

Philotas' torture - ibid. 11. 13-33. Philotas' reactions during

the torture, and the others'. Philotas' confession.

Alexander orders that Philotas' confession be read the

following day and that Philotas be present (he had to

be carried in, since he could not walk) - ibid. 11. 34.

Philotas acknowledges all (omnia agnoscente eo) - then

Demetrius is led in and denies any participation in a

conspiracy - ibid. 11. 35.

Philotas turns to Calas who loses any power of speech - the

Makedones suspect Philotas is attempting to besmirch

Calas who eventually confesses his participation with

Demetrius in the conspiracy - ibid. 11. 36-37.

Omnes ergo a Nicomacho nominati, more patrio, dato signo

saxis obruti sunt - ibid. 11. 38.

Curtius' own observations on the affair - ibid. 11. 39-40.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Philotas dead, the soldiers' (milites') hatred changed to

pity (invidia in misericordiam vertit), being moved by

Philotas' distinction and his father's (Parmenio's) old

age. Parmenio's services to Alexander are also

recalled. Mutinous voices (seditiosaeque voces) are

reported to Alexander. He summons all to come to

his quarters (omnes in vestibulo regiae praesto sint)

and enters the contio - Atarrhias asks that Lyncestes Alexander be brought before them - 7. 1. 1-5.

Thoughts on Parmenio and his end - and on Philotas

whether he told the truth through torture or simply

confessed to put an end to his torments - ibid. 2. 33-34.¹⁴

The preceding synopsis, without having gone into a detailed paraphrasing, amply illustrates the melodramatic elements of potential amplification in Curtius' account of the Philotas affair, although preserving the affair's kernel, as stated above. However, the critical question that must be asked is what is the Greek equivalent which Curtius has rendered into patrius sermo. Curtius has Alexander say (6. 9. 34 above): "Macedones," inquit, "de te (sc. Philotas) iudicaturi sunt; quaero, an patrio sermone sis apud eos usurus," which may be turnt into Greek as "oﬂ MakedÒnew," ®fh, "per‹ soË kr€nein m°llousin. §rvt« (se), §ån par' aÈto›w tª patr–& fvnª (gl≈ss˙?) xrª." In the Greek sources there are found makedonist€, makedonist‹ tª fvnª, tÚ makedon€zein, makedon€zvn tª fvnª, ≤ fvnØ MakedÒnvn, patr–& fvnª, ktl. (Nos. 1-25 below). With the exception of the last example, the other evidence cited here and below with a reference to a Makedonian mode of speech cannot reproduce Curtius' patrius sermo. At any rate, the references to a Makedonian mode of speech are all late, as the evidence presented below shows.

[a. before 425 B.C. Herodotos, 7.73: oﬂ d¢ FrÊgew, …w MakedÒnew l°gousi, §kal°onto Br€gew xrÒnon ˜son EÈrvpÆioi §Òntew sÊnoikoi ∑san MakedÒsi, metabãntew d¢ §w tØn ÉAs€hn ... tÚ ˆnoma met°balon §w FrÊgaw; cf. also the BrÊgoi in idem 6.45 and 7.185. See under No. 5 below].

[b. Feb. 425 B.C. Aristophanes, The Acharnians 233-235: ka‹ bl°pein/ BallÆnade/ ka‹ di≈kein g∞n prÚ g∞w. See under No. 5 below].

[[c. ca. 264/3 B.C. "Macedonian tongue." Poseidippos. F. W. Walbank. SCI 15 (1996), p. 129. Guido Bastianini, with whom the writer corresponded, replied that there is no "Macedonian tongue" in the Poseidippos epigrams, only the mentioning of Eordaia. Bastianini very generously sent the writer a copy of CA' DE SASS 121 (March 1993), in which he published with Claudio Gallazzi (pp. 34-39) photographs of the new Poseidippos papyrus, and the fragment which clearly shows EORDAIA appears on pp. 38 and 39. My sincerest thanks to Professor Bastianini, and Professor Walbank for bringing this matter to my attention]].

1. [323 B.C.-] 3rd cent.Makedonist€. B€ow ÉAlejãndrou (The Alexander Romance), ed. W. Kroll (Berlin, 1958), p. 138, 32.14-15: PeukÒlaow d° tiw §j aÈt«n, énØr t“ m¢n e‡dei oÈk éprepÆw, ﬁdi≈thw <d¢> ka‹ oÈdemiçw tãjevw ÍfhgoÊmenow, plhs€on ståw toË ÉAlejãndrou <e‰pen>: "ÉEpÉ égay“ m¢n [sou] ÉAl°jandre F€lippow t∞w Makedon€aw <∑rjen>, §pÉ égay“ d¢ ka‹ sÊ:" Metalab∆n tØn fvnØn makedonist‹ e‰pen dakrÊvn: (15) "SÊ ≤mçw §ån épole€chw, épÒlvle Makedon€a: soË teleut«ntow kalÚn ¶sti ka‹ MakedÒnaw sunapoyane›n soi t“ poiÆsanti Makedon€an éj€an toË DiÒw." ÑO d¢ ÉAl°jandrow dakrÊvn §j°teine tØn xe›ra tØn dejiån ka‹ lab∆n toË MakedÒnow t∞w xeirÚw ¶mfasin §poie›to paraklÆsevw. In K. Müller, The Fragments of the Lost Historians of Alexander the Great, etc. (Chicago, 1979), the makedonist‹ part is mentioned in the notes, p. 147 (Ps.-Kallisth., 3.32.8).

1a. First cent. B.C.: Didymos, below, under No. 5 and notes 17, 18 and 19.

2. 41-49. Macedonicus sermo. L. Annaeus Seneca, the Younger, Consolatio ad Helviam Matrem 7.1: Quid sibi volunt in mediis barbarorum regionibus Graecae urbes? Quid inter Indos Persasque Macedonicus sermo? Cf. ÉArx. ÉEf. 1993(1995), p. 28, under V, for an explanation of Seneca's Macedonicus sermo.

3. Reign of Claudius (41-54) or later. Patrius sermo. Curtius, above. Philotas’ trial, where the patrius sermo occurs, belongs to 330 B.C.

4. ca. 73-120. Makedonist€, makedonist‹ tª fvnª, tÚ makedon€zein.

Plutarch, (a) Alex. 51.6: énaphdÆsaw (=ÉAl°jandrow) énebÒa makedonist‹ kal«n toÁw Ípaspiståw (toËto d¢ ∑n sÊmbolon yorÊbou megãlou)¹⁵ [Kleitos episode of 328 B.C.], (b) Eum. 14.5: eÈyÁw éspasãmenoi (=oﬂ MakedÒnew tÚn EÈm°nh) makedonist‹ tª fvnª tãw te ésp€daw éne€lonto, ktl. [321 B.C.], and (c) Ant. 27.4: t«n prÚ aÈt∞w (=Kleopãtraw) basil°vn oÈd¢ tØn Aﬁgupt€an énasxom¢nvn paralabe›n diãlekton, §n€vn d¢ ka‹ tÚ makedon€zein §klipÒntvn.

5. ca. 73-120: Kayãper MakedÒnew. Plutarch, Moralia 292e (The Greek Questions): tÚ dÉ élhy¢w oÈk ¶xei oÏtvw. oÈ går ént‹ toË f t“ b xr«ntai Delfo€, kayãper MakedÒnew "B€lippon (B€lippon går)" ka‹ "balakrÚn" ka‹ "Beron€khn" l°gontew, éllÉ ént‹ toË p. See [a] above.

This may be echoed in (1) time of Marcus Aurelius: Herodianos, ed. A. Lentz, Gram(matici) Graeci, III.1 (1867=Hildesheim, 1965), pp. 281, 10-13: B°roia pÒliw Makedon€aw, ¥n F°rvna kt€sai fas€n, aÈtoÁw d¢ tÚ f eﬁw b metapoie›n, …w Fãlakron Bãlakron ka‹ B€lippon ka‹ Kebal›non. ílloi épÚ Bero€aw toË B°rhtow toË MakedÒnow[=St. Byz., s.v. B°roia (6th cent.)=Herodianos, ed. A. Lentz, Gram. Graeci, III.2 (1870=Hildesheim, 1965), p. 379, *667], and 318, 12: ka‹ tÚ keblØ épÚ toË kefalØ g°gone (12th cent., Etym. Magnum,¹⁶ s.v. K°blh: ÉEk toË kefalØ g€netai katå sugkopÆn; 11th cent.: M. Psellos, Anecdota Graeca, ed. J. Fr. Boissonade, I [Paris, 1829], p. 239: K°blh, ≤ kefalÆ, and III [Paris, 1831], p. 225, 445: Ka‹ k°blhn m¢n tØn kefalÆn); (2) sixth cent : St. Byz., s.v. Br€gew, ¶ynow Yr&kikÒn. ÑHrÒdotow •bdÒm˙ (see above under [a]), and Frug€a, ... oﬂ §j •kat°raw l°gontai FrÊgew ka‹ Muso€: l°gontai ka‹ Br€gew=Herodianos, ed. A. Lentz, Gram. Graeci, III.2 (1870=Hildesheim, 1965), p. 379, under *668.); (3) 12th cent.: Etym. Magnum, under s.v. ÉAmorbØw ka‹ ÉAmorb°w: ..., ka‹ tropª toË f eﬁw b, …w §n t“ kÊfow, kÊbow: feren€khw, beren€khw ... MeyÒdiow; (4) Herodianos, ed. A. Lentz, Gram. Graeci, III.2 (1870=Hildesheim, 1965), p. 367, under *607=Ep. Cr. I 37, 26 [1st cent. B.C.-180]¹⁷, E. Gud. 97, 30 [11th cent.]¹⁸, E. M. 179, 3 [12th cent.]¹⁹, ÉAfrod€th: ... ı d¢ D€dumow [1st cent. B.C.] parå tÚ èbrÚn t∞w dia€thw: tÚ går b t“ f suggen°w §sti: d∞lon d¢ épÚ toË MakedÒnaw m¢n tÚn F€lippon B€lippon kale›n ka‹ tÚn falakrÚn balakrÚn ka‹ tÚn KefalhnÚn KebalhnÚn ka‹ toÁw FrÊgaw BrÊgaw ka‹ toÁw én°mouw diå tÚ fusçn fushtåw ˆntaw bÊktaw. ka‹ ÜOmhrow "buktãvn én°mvn" [k 20]; (5) 12th cent.: Etym. Magnum, B°roia: PÒliw MakedÒnvn, ∂n fas‹n épÚ F°rhtow tinÚw ktisye›san, F°roia, ka‹ katå MakedÒnaw (No. 25 below), B°roia, tropª toË f eﬁw b, …w Feren€kh, Beren€kh, ≤ gunØ toË patrÚw toË Ptolema€ou: toË f trap°ntow eﬁw b. Ka‹ tØn kefalÆn, kebalØn l°gousi=Herodianos, ed. A. Lentz, Gram. Graeci, III.2 (1870=Hildesheim, 1965), p. 379, note ad fr. *667 [see also Otto Hoffmann, Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum (Hildesheim, 1974), pp. 22, note 19, and 50, note 27], and Notae Crit. (Etym. Magnum, p. 561): 39. Ptolema€ou] Addit V. ¶sti d¢ katå MakedÒnaw (Nos. 13, 25 below) tÚ ˆnoma, oﬂ tÚ f tr°pousin eﬁw tÚ b./ ib. ka‹ tØn] toË f trap°ntow eﬁw b tØn D …/ ib. l°gousi] ka‹ tÚn F€lippon B€lippon l°gontew V; (6) 12th cent.: Eustathios, Commentarii ad Dionysion Periegeten, under line 458: émfilaf¢w d¢ kur€vw §st‹ tÚ dasÊ, o ¶stin émfot°rvyen lab°syai, trap°ntow toË b eﬁw f, MakedÒnvn ¶yei (No. 12 below), o„ ka‹ tÚn F€lippon B€lippÒn fasi, and idem, Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam, I ( 1825=Hildesheim, 1960), p. 326,1618, 40: ... nËn d¢ érke› prÚw de›jin tÚ, F€lippow B€lippow, ka‹ tÚ, PallhnikÚn bl°pein µgoun BallhnikÚn épÚ PallÆnhw t∞w katå Yrñkhn t∞w ka‹ BallÆnhw ... l°getai d¢ ˜ti te ∏w gl≈tthw ¶stin ı B€lippow ént‹ toË F€lippow, t∞w aÈt∞w ka‹ tÚ BallÆnh ént‹ toË PallÆnh (see [b] above; and Athenaios, 649c-e: cittãkia-bistãkia-pistãkia-fittãkia (pittãkia, note 6)-bistãkia [Loeb]), ... (Index in Eustathii Commentarios in Homeri Iliadem et Odysseam, by M. Devares (1828=Hildesheim, 1960), p. 87, s.v. B€lippow ént‹ toË F€lippow katå gl«ssan diå tØn toË b prÚw tÚ f sugg°neian) and under No. 6 below; (7) ca. end of 10th cent.: Souda, s.v. kefalÆ, ... ka‹ ı ÑIppokrãthw d¢ kÊbhton. MakedÒnew d¢ k°bhn, tÚ b ént‹ toË f lambãnontew, …w §p‹ Feren€khw, Beren€khw=An. Ox. 2 (1835=Amsterdam, 1963), p. 456, 27-30, kefalÆ: ...: ka™‹ ÑIppokrãthw kÊbhton: MakedÒnew d¢ keblØn, tÚ b ént‹ toË f lambãnontew, …w §p‹ t∞w Beren€khw, Feren€kh gãr §stin; and (8) date?: Marius Geymonat, Scholia in Nicandri Alexipharmaca (Milan, 1974), pp. 152, under 424c: <keblhgÒnou ˜ §sti toË §n tª kefalª ¶xontow tÚn gÒnon. keblØ går ≤ kefalØ §n sugkopª toË a ka‹ tropª toË f eﬁw b> (see notae crit. therein), and 154, under 433a: keblhgÒnou: t∞w §n tª kefalª tÚn gÒnon §xoÊshw, ...: suggen¢w <går> tÚ b t“ f. ka‹ Kall€maxow (fgm. 657 Pfeiffer): émf€ te keblØn/ eﬁrgm°now égl€yvn oÔlon ¶xei st°fanon ... <ka‹ EÈfor€vn per‹ t∞w ÉAyhnçw (fgm. 127 Scheidw., 108 Powell): keblhgÒnou ÉAtrut≈nhw> [see notae crit. therein]. A. Panayotou in ÑH Gl«ssa t∞w Makedon€aw, ed. G. Babiniotes (Athens, 1992), pp. 190-191 (j 190=k 190).²⁰

6. First cent. (100). MakedÒnvn diãlektow. Herakleides (Milesios)=Eustathios, ad Odysseam, under No. 5 above, pp. 375-376, 1654, 19-20: tÚ d¢ fv paraxy¢n eﬁw tÚ fãzv §j o ≤ fãsiw, ... êllvw d¢ metalhfy¢n MakedÒnvn fhs‹ (sc. ÑHrakle€dhw) dial°ktƒ ka‹ §jenexy¢n diå toË b, poie› tÚ bv bãzv Sikelik«w katå tÚ sig« sigãzv ... §k d¢ toË bãzv, ka‹ ≤ bãjiw Dvrik≈teron [cf. An. Par. 3 (1841=Hildesheim, 1967) 364, under 540]. ka‹ oÏtv m¢n §k toË fv Makedonik«w [No. 7 below] g°gone tÚ bv. oÈd° pote gãr fhsi katÉ érxåw l°jevn §ke›noi (sc. MakedÒnew) t“ f xr«ntai, éllÉ éntÉ aÈtoË dhladØ tÚ b. …w ka‹ o B€*lippow dhlo› ka‹ êlla eﬁrhm°na •t°rvyi.

7. First cent. Makedonik«w. Herakleides (Milesios)=Eustathios, under No. 6 above.

8. 103. Makedon€zvn (tª fvnª). Dio Chrysostom, The Fourth Discourse on Kingship, 55: ÑO pãntvn, ¶fh (=Diog°nhw), dusmax≈tatow, oÈ pers€zvn, oÈ mhd€zvn (=lud€jvn) tª fvnª, kayãper o‰mai Dare›ow, éllå makedon€zvn te ka‹ •llhn€zvn (replying to Alexander) [Alexander would have met Diogenes at the end of 336 B.C.].

9. Middle 2nd cent. Makedonikå ÙnÒmata (Nos. 23, 24 below). Arrian, ÉAnãbasiw ÉAlejãndrou, 7.11.3 [event of 324 B.C.]: ka‹ tå makedonikå ÙnÒmata êghmã ti PersikÚn kaloÊmenon ka‹ pez°tairoi P°rsai ka‹ ésy°teroi êlloi ka‹ érgurasp€dvn tãjiw PersikØ ka‹ ≤ t«n •ta€rvn ·ppow ka‹ taÊthw êllo êghma basilikÒn (Loeb, Brunt). The ésy°teroi are separate from the pez°tairoi.

10. Middle 2nd cent. Makedon€zvn tª fvnª. Papyrus fragment, PSI 12.2 1284, identified as from Arrian's Tå metÉ ÉAl°jandron²¹ [Flavii Arriani quae exstant omnia, ed. A. G. Roos, with Addenda et Corrigenda by G. Wirth, II (Teubner, 1968), p. 324 [event attributed to 320 B.C.]: p°mpei (=EÈm°nhw) aÔyiw Jenn€an êndra makedon€zonta tª [f]vnª (to address the opposing Makedones)]; cf. the writer's study in ÉArx. ÉEf. 1993 (1995), pp. 13-30. Could Xennias be the Xanthus (=Xanthi) of Ps.-Kallisth. 1. 42 (Latin text in K. Müller, The Fragments, under No. 1 above)?

If Xennias was a Makedon, then the phrase énØr makedon€zvn tª fvnª stands for Maked≈n, as the writer originally argued in ÉArx. ÉEf. 1993 (1995), pp. 17 and 19; otherwise it becomes a superfluous designation, if a Makedon (cf. A. B. Bosworth's comments in AHB 10.1 [1996], pp. 25, note 18, and 26, note 22, but Xennias' nomenclature is entirely different from the examples cited therein). On the other hand, Xennias may have hailed from some other Greek area, as the name indicates (ÉArx. ÉEf. 1993[1995]=BÉ 1997, No. 350), and he simply spoke in the Makedonian fashion, which of course implies a form of Makedonian speech, which the evidence identifies as a Greek dialect (below). The Makedonian attire and mode of speech could be assumed by others, as shown by Plutarch, Pyrrhus 11.4: ∑san d° tinew oÓw aÈtÚw o PÊrrow §gkay€ei prospoioum°nouw e‰nai MakedÒnaw, ka‹ l°gontaw ˜ti nËn kairÒw §sti t∞w Dhmhtr€ou barÊthtow épallag°nai, ktl. Cf. Aischylos, Choeph. 563-564: êmfv d¢ fvnØn ¥somen (=o‡somen) Parnhss€da,/ gl≈sshw éutØn Fvk€dow mimoum°nv (Orestes to Pylades) [On gl«ssa-diãlektow, cf. Th. Harrison’s "Herodotus’ Conception of Foreign Languages" in Histos 2, 1998 (Internet)].

11. Middle 2nd cent. FvnÆ. Pausanias, Messeniaka, 29.3: §pe‹ d¢ §k tvn ˜plvn ka‹ t∞w fvn∞w MakedÒnaw ka‹ DhmÆtrion tÚn Fil€ppou gnvr€zousin (=oﬂ MessÆnioi) ˆntaw, ktl. (cf. Polybios, 3.19.7-11 [event of 214 B.C.]).

12. Middle 2nd cent. MakedonikÚn/MakedÒnvn ¶yow. Apollonios Dyskolos, eds. R. Schneider and G. Uhlig, Gram. Graeci, II (1910=Hildesheim, 1965), p. 301, 214b: ... µ éntestramm°nvw, ˜te ≤ klhtikØ éntÉ eÈyei«n paralambãnetai katå makedonikÚn ®yow µ yessalikÒn, …w oﬂ prÚ ≤m«n tÚ toioËton §pist≈santo, aÈtår ı aÔte Yu°stÉ ÉAgam°mnoni {B 107} ... Cf. Eustathios, ad Dionysion, under No. 5 above, (6): trap°ntow toË b eﬁw f, MakedÒnvn ¶yei.

13. Middle 2nd cent. (?). Katå MakedÒnaw [see under Nos. 5.5 above and 25 below]. Scholion to Lycophron, Alexandra, 455 (˜n xãrvnow »mhstoË dorã): xãrvnow: xãrvn ı l°vn katå MakedÒnaw (ed. E. Scheer, II [Berlin, 1958], p. 168).

14. ca. 180. ÑH fvnØ MakedÒnvn. Cornelianus, Philetaerus=Sonya Argyle, CQ 39 (1989), p. 526: 121 Bas€lissan ı Dhmosy°nhw §n t“ katå Nea€raw. ¶sti d¢ ≤ fvnØ MakedÒnvn (see also p. 533, *197) [the katå Nea€raw dates from the middle of the fourth cent. B.C.]. Cf. Eustathios, ad Odysseam, under No. 5 above, p. 70, 39-40: éllå ka‹ bas€*lissa katå A‡lion DionÊsion ÉAttik«w (=Index in Eustathii, under 5 above, p. 85, s.v. basileÊw).

15. ca. 200. Makedon€zontew. Athenaios, Deipnosoph., 121f-122a: ka‹ ˜w (=KÊnoulkow): "... ka‹ går parå to›w érxa€oiw poihta›w ka‹ suggrafeËsi to›w sfÒdra •llhn€zousin ¶stin eÍre›n ka‹ Persikå ÙnÒmata ... / ... makedon€zontãw tÉ o‰da polloÁw t«n ÉAttik«n diå tØn §pimij€an ..."

16. after 212. Fvnª makedonikÆ(n). M. B. Hatzopoulos, BCH 111 (1987), p. 411 (BÉ 1988, under No. 826), lines 7-10: ped€on Ù/nÒmati N€khn …(w) mh/n«n dÊo, fvnª make/donikÆ(n) (manumission inscription from Makedonia).

17. Fourth cent. MakedÒnvn gl«ssa. Eudaimon Pelousiotes=Eustathios, ad Odysseam, under No. 5 above, p. 113, 1457, 19-20: Ka‹ per‹ toË ﬂppÒta d°, poihtik°w taÊthw eÈye€aw t«n •nik«n. ..., ı tojÒta, ı ﬂpphlãta, ka‹ tåw ımo€aw, EÈda€mvn ı Phlousi≈thw MakedÒnvn gl≈sshw e‰nai l°gei. o· tr°*pousin eÈyei«n klinom°nvn diå t∞w ou, tÚ hw eﬁw êlfa, ... (=Index in Eustathii, under No. 5 above, p. 1: a lÆgousai ... katå gl«ssan MakedÒnvn, ...). W. Dindorf, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam, I (Oxford, 1855), p. 124, under 68: ﬂppÒta] EÈda€mvn ı Phlousi≈thw e‰nai l°gei MakedonikÒn, oﬂ d¢ AﬁolikÒn. R (see therein note 20) [cf. An. Ox. 4 (1837=Amsterdam, 1963) 334, 9; and An. Par. 3 (1841=Hildesheim, 1967) 338, 175].

18. Fourth cent., probably. Katå MakedÒnvn fvnÆn (bis). Scholion to Per‹ thw parapresbe€aw, C. Müller and J. Hunziker, Oratores Attici. Fragmenta Oratorum Atticarum, II (Paris, 1858), p. 627, 390, 1: P°ll˙] ÉIst°on ˜ti P°llh §klÆyh diå tÚ épÚ boÚw eÍr°syai tØn proshgor€an pell∞w tÚ xr«ma, ˜ §sti tefr«dew katå tØn MakedÒnvn fvnÆn, µ parå toÁw p°llaw, toÁw l€youw katå tØn MakedÒnvn fvnÆn. ATCV. Cf. C. Wendel, Scholia in Theocritum Vetera (Teubner, 1967), p. 38, 26 [e.] p°llaw: ka‹ P°llh Makedon€aw, ˜ti boËw aÈtØn ere p°llh tÚ xr«ma=Etym. Magnum, s.v. P°leia: ...: ka‹ P°llh, pÒliw Makedon€aw, ˜ti boËw aÈtØn ere, p°llh tÚ xr«ma: ... Cf. Etym. Magnum (1848=1962), p. 1865, under 35 (notae crit.): … Codex Havn. 1971. … ka‹ P°llh pÒliw MakedonikÆ, ˜ti boËw aÈtØn ere, p°llh tÚ xr«ma, ...

19. Fifth cent., it seems. MakedÒnew/Macedones. Makedonian words in Hesychios; see Jean N. Kalléris, Les anciens Macédoniens: étude linguistique et historique, I and II (Athens, 1954 and 1976) [and vol. III]; Otto Hoffmann, Die Makedones, under No. 5 above.²²

20. Fifth cent., it seems. FvnØ MakedonikÆ. Hesychios, s.v. mattÊhw (Artemidorus. Molpis): ≤ m¢n fvnØ MakedonikØ <Lakv->, ˆrniw, ktl. Cf. Athenaios, 140e-141e, and 662f (... ka‹ per‹ t∞w parå to›w nevt°roiw kvmiko›w mattÊhw: ¥n Yettal«n fhsin e‰nai eÏrhma, §pixvriãsai d¢ kén ta›w ÉAyÆnaiw katå tØn MakedÒnvn §pikrãteian [Loeb])-664f.

21. Sixth cent. MakedÒnvn ı tÊpow. St. Byzant., s.v. D›on: ... tÚ §ynikÚn DieÊw. Pausan€aw d¢ Diãstaw fhs€: MakedÒnvn går ı tÊpow, ÉOr°stai, Lugkhsta€; Herodianos, ed. A. Lentz, Gram. Graeci, III.1 (1867=Hildesheim, 1965), p. 78, 14-17: Tå diå toË esthw ... Di°sthw – Pausan€aw d° Di™ãstaw aÈtoÁw kale› - MakedonikÚn ¶ynow …w ka‹ ÉOr°sthw parÉ ÑEkata€ƒ EÈr≈p˙, ktl. [Arkadios, under No. 23 below, p. 27, 6-8]. Pausanias, Boiotika 30.7-8: MakedÒnvn d¢ oﬂ x≈ran tØn ÍpÚ tÚ ˆrow tØn Pier€an ¶xontew ka‹ pÒlin D›on, ..../...., ka‹ ˆnoma BafÊraw ént‹ ÑElik«now lab∆n .... toËton oﬂ Diasta‹ tÚn potamÚn §pirre›n ... fasi. Cf. IG II² 3289, lines 7-9: D[i]ensium (hedera) per legatum/ C. Memmium Lycum./ Diest«n (132).

22. Sixth cent. Patr–a fvnÆ. St. Byzant., s.v. Borm€skow, xvr€on Makedon€aw, §n ⁄ kunospãraktow g°gonen EÈrip€dhw: oÓw kÊnaw tª patr–& fvnª •sterikåw (=•ster€skaw R) kaloËsin oﬂ MakedÒnew, ı d¢ poihtØw trapez∞aw. Cf. FGrH IIIC, 776. Anhang; A. Gellius, Attic Nights, 15.20.10; Athenaios, 598d-e. Euripides died in 406 B.C.

23. ca. 850-893. MakedonikÚn toÌnoma (Nos. 9 above, 24 below). Photios, Lexicon, ed. S. A. Naber, II [Leidae, 1865], p. 164, s.v. sko›dow: tam€aw tiw ka‹ dioikhtÆw. MakedonikÚn d¢ toÌnoma: diÒper M°nandrow §n Kiyaristª sko›don DiÒnuson l°gei. Cf. IG XII(5), No. 92, line 1: Skoid€& KallipÒlei Svsãndr&, ktl. (1st or 2nd cent.), and Th. Rizakis and G. Touratsouglou, Epigraf¢w ãnv Makedon€aw (Athens, 1985), No. 74, line 3: [---]w sko€dou (3rd-2nd cent. B.C., from Agios Georgios, Grevena). Hesychios, s.v. sko›dow: érxÆ tiw parå MakedÒsi tetagm°nh §p‹ tvn dikasthr€vn. ÑH l°jiw ke›tai §n ta›w §pistola›w ÉAlejãndrou; Pollux 10.16: toËton (sc. skeuofÊlaka) d¢ ka‹ sko›dÒn tinew »nÒmazon, tÚn §p‹ t«n skeu«n §n ta›w barbarika›w époskeua›w, ktl. [