The Date of Nonno of Panopolis-l.r. Lind

8/9/2019 The Date of Nonno of Panopolis-l.r. Lind

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-date-of-nonno-of-panopolis-lr-lind 1/6

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

The Date of Nonnos of PanopolisAuthor(s): L. Robert LindSource: Classical Philology, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Jan., 1934), pp. 69-73Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/264323Accessed: 06-06-2015 08:39 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 08:39:05 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/264323

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp






http://www.jstor.org/stable/264323

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/



NOTES AND

DISCUSSIONS

69

THE DATE

OF NONNOS

OF

PANOPOLIS

In

dealing

here

with

the

debated

chronology

f

Nonnos,

an

attempt

s

made

to organizen briefspaceour information n the subjectto date,andto bring

together

in one

place

certain data

which are

scattered

n

journals

and

else-

where. The

opportunity

or

a conclusion

on

the

basis

of

the

facts

presented

is

perhaps

made

possible

by

this

discussion.

Thereare

two

different ines

of

reasoning

at

present

as

to

the

date

of

Non-

nos: (1)

one which

places

his

floruit

at

the end

of

the fourth

and

beginning

of

the fifth

century

A.D.

and

(2)

another which

attempts

to

assign

him

to

the

period

450-90.

The

writers

of

his

time,

the

fifth

century,

and

certain

of

those

of

the

eleventh and

twelfth centuries

say

little

or

nothing

of

Nonnos;

only

AgathiasMyrrhinos 570A.D.) andthe

empress

Eudocia

(ca.

1060

A.D.) men-

tion

him

by

name;

Eustathios

(1160

A.D.)

in

his

commentary

o

the

Iliad,and

the

authorof

the

Etymologicum

agnum,

mention

the

author

of

the

Dionysia-

ca,

but not

by

name.

The

scribe

who

gave

us

our

chief

manuscript

of

the

Dionysiaca

Laurentianus

XXII 16

(L)]

neglected

o

append

he

nameof

his

author,

and it is

only

from

the

papyrus

codex of

Books xiv

and

xv,

incom-

plete

(Berolinensis

.

10567),

written

perhaps

n

the seventh

centuryand

edit-

ed

by

Wilamowitz

( Berliner

Klassikertexte,

V

[1907]

1),

that we

receive

visibleassuranceas to Nonnos'authorship.'

Ludwich

(praefatio

o

his edition

of

the

Dionysiaca

v-x)

cites

the

relevant

passages

from

the

writers mentioned

above,

together

with

one from

Euna-

pios'

Lives

of the

Sophists,

on

the

Egyptian ove

for

poetry,

whichneed

by

no

means

be

taken

as a

terminus nte

quem

or

Nonnos.2

Ludwich

believes

that

Nonnos

drew

upon

Gregory

of

Nazianzos

or

his

Dionysiaca,

andplaces

Non-

nos

between

he dates when

the

worksof

Gregory

and of

Eunapios

appeared,

i.e.,

390-405.

He

considers

Kyros

of

Panopolis,

whose

epigram AP,

ix,

136),

written

about

441-42

according

o

Friedlander,3

esembles

Dionysiacaxvi. 321

andxx.372, an

imitator,

not

a

predecessor,

f

Nonnos.

Various

other

scholars

seem to

agree

with

Ludwich

as

to

this

approximate

date.4

The

epigram

and

passages

n

question

ollow:

I

For a

description

of L

see

A.

Chiari

in

Raccolta

di

scritti

in

onore

di

Fel.

Ramorino

(Milano,

1927),

pp.

568-74. L

was

written

in

1280

A.D.

2

Christ-Schmid-Stiihlin,

Gesch. d.

griech.

Lit.,

VII,

II,

2,

p.

966,

n.

5.

3

P.

Friedlander,

Die

Chronologie

des

N. von

Panopolis,

Hermes,

XLVII

(1912),

43-59;

p. 44.

This

epigram is

discussed

(pp.

44-45)

with

passages from the Dionysiaca

analyzed

metrically

(pp.

48-49).

4Lubker,

Reallexikon

(8th

ed.),

p.

715:

N. am

Ende

des

4.

Jahrh.

lebend ;

ibid.,

p. 338:

Im

Nonnos

(400

n.

Chr.) ;

K.

Krumbacher, Die

griech.

Lit.

des

Mittelalters,

Kultur

d.

Gegenwart,

I,

8,

p. 266:

Nonnos

(um

400) ;

Christ-Schmid-Stahlin

(op.

cit.,

pp.

965-71)

present the

evidence of

Ludwich

and

Friedlinder but

make

no

definite

decision

of

their own.

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 08:39:05 UTC

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions





70

NOTES AND

DISCUSSIONS

AWe

7raTip

A'

&38ace

bao5TpLXa

,.AiXa

vobeLEetv,

CWSKEu

MTO

rTer'EXloL

KaOgevos

X

'r6

TO4ETppS

Yvp1aOwv

KaXaV.ouflv

WLas Tepp7rEOKOV&Vlas.

HILEP1E5,

06bE-yCLE7 EfV'KTLkI.V1V7rOXtv-

&XX7v

7raTpiEaT

a.racyrElo/.WV

apa

raaLv'

US

6Xoo'

Kp7q5fVEs

MqX77avTo

ALEXias

[AP, IX,

136].

aWE

7rarWTpAE blbate

TEXEaoLya'Aov

36Xov otvov[Dion

xvi.

321].

aWe waraT,p ALeblbate

U(Ta KX6VOV

pya

OaXdsacri7s

ibid. xx.

372].

Among

those who hold the second view

on the period

of Nonnos, the name

of

Wilamowitz5

has much

weight, although he gives no

reasons for the

date he

assigns

to him.

The most important single

attempt,

on historical and literary

evidence alone, to place Nonnos after 450 is that of P. Friedlander.6 His argu-

ments may

be summarized

as follows: (1) No writer

of the Nonnian

school

(except

Pamprepios

and

possibly Tryphiodorus)7

lived

before Anastasios

I

(491-518).8

(2)

An

exhaustive

study of the epigram of

Kyros and the

similar

passages

in

the Dionysiaca

shows

him

to be the source

for, and not the

imita-

tor

of,

Nonnos, contrary

to Ludwich's assertion. (3)

The

passage

cited by

Ludwich and others

from Eunapios

refers not to Nonnos but to

Egyptian

poetry before

him.9

Bury10

ends toward Friedlander's

view; and, as

Keydell1'

points out,

Ludwich,

in his

reply

to

Friedlander,12

does not

answer

these

argu-

ments

effectively. He belabors the point

involved

in

the

diagram, Kyros>

Nonnos

or

Nonnos

<Kyros,

and

dismisses Friedlander's

conclusions on

the

following

grounds: (1)

that Friedlander presents slight

evidence

for his

con-

tention

(chiefly AP, IX,

136)

that Nonnos

copied Kyros; (2)

that

meter is

no

sure

index

of

plagiarism.

Johannes

Kyriotes

Geometres

(tenth

century)

and

Maximos

Planudes

(thirteenth century)

copy

Nonnos

also,

but without

giving

the slightest

notice

to his curious rules

of

prosody.

Kyros'

imitation

must

have

been

of

this

nature.

However, Ludwich does not make out a clear case for an earlier floruit.

Friedlander's

somewhat

subjective

arguments

are corroborated

on other

grounds by

P.

Maas.13 The latter shows

that Planudes,

in

his private

copy

of

Nonnos'

Paraphrase of

the

Gospel of

John

(Cod.

Marc.

481), originally

at-

tached

to

the

Planudea,

or

epigram

collection,

names

as its

author either

an

5

Die griech. Lit.

des

Altertums

(3d ed.), p.

288

( um 450 ).

6

See n. 3.

7

W.

Weinberger, Tryphiodori

et Colluthi Carmina (Teubner),

p.

iii.

8

Op. cit., p. 46. 9 Op. cit., p. 52, n. 3.

lo J. B. Bury,

History of the

Later Roman Empire (1923) II,

431.

11

R. Keydell,

Bursian

230

(1931), p. 110.

12

Musaios

Hero und Leander, herausgeg.

von A. Ludwich (1912),

p.

4.

13

Byz. Zeitschr.,

IV (1923),

265-69.







NOTES

AND

DISCUSSIONS

71

Alexandrian

philosopher

alled

Ammonios

(second

half

of

the

fifth

century)

or

Nonnos;

he is not certainwhich. The

passage

n

question

runs

as

follows:

Kal

irap T-ao

A'EV

f yeTrat etvat

v ,IETaI3oX

'A,utAzvt'ov,

'AXEtavwp&os

Xw6oor6cov,

7rap'

a.XXots

Novov

wOvITOD

TOO

HavowoXtTOV.

There

seems

thus to be a

connection,

hough

slight,

between

he

two

men;

perhaps

Nonnos,

who

worked at

Alexandria,

dedicated

the

Paraphrase

o

Ammonios,his

contemporary.Maas traces next the

history

of

the MS

LaurentianusXXXII

16,refers

o

Planudes'

mitation

of

the

Dionysiaca,

al-

ready

noticed by

Holzinger,

and concludes

that Planudes

once owned

our

chief

manuscript

of

the

Dionysiaca.

Since

1925

nvestigation

of

the

chronology

f

Nonnoshas

taken

a

new turn;

freshargumentshave been presentedand lines of researchalongwhichthis

problem

may

possibly

be solved

have

beenlaid

down.

Golega,

rying

a

dif-

ferent

tack, has

brought

o

the

attention

of

Nonnos-scholars

he

implications

significant

or

purposes

of

chronology

n

the

religious

controversy

which

be-

came

acute

in

the

fifth

century,

knownas

the

Nestorian

heresy

or

Nestorian-

ism.

According

to A.

J.

Maclean, the

word

OrOT'KOS as

the

watchword

of

the

Nestorian

controversy

.

. . .

which

divided

Christ into two

Persons,

closelyand

inseparably

oined

together,

and

yet

distinct. 5

he

churchmen

Kyrillos

and

Theodoretos

were

prominent

ntagonists

n

the pointof

theology

inherent in the use of this word;Nestorius,bishop of Constantinople,

.D.

428-31,

has

givenhis

name

to the

dispute

which

arose

over it

andwhich

was

finally

settled at

the

Synod of

Ephesus,431.

Nonnos usesthe

word

in

both

Dionysiaca

and

the

Paraphrase;

Golega

believes he

belonged

o

that

group

of

religionistswho

regarded he

Holy

Ghost as

proceedingrom the

Sori;he

places

the

Paraphrasen

the second

half of

the fifth

century

andthus

checks

with

Friedlander's

esults.

Further,he

concludes hat

Nonnos

was a

Christian

when he

wrote

the

Dionysiaca,

and

tends

to

discredit

he

commonly

accepted

view

of

two

separate

periods,pagan and

Christian, n

the life of

Nonnos.

Apparently ollowingGeffcken,16he

declares,with

good

reason, hat

Nonnos

14

Jos.

Golega,

Studien

iuber die

Evangeliendichtung

des

Nonnos v.

Panopolis

(Kathol.

Theol.

Diss.;

Breslau,

1925);

printed

in

1930 in

Breslauer

Studien

zur

historischen

Theologie,

Band XV.

15

Hastings,

Encycl.

of Religion and

Ethics,

IX,

323-32.

Meursius

(Glossarium

Graeco-

barbarum

[1614],

p.

185) has

the

following

to

say

of

the word

OETO'Kos: inditum

hoc

nomen

est

matri

Domini ac

Servatoris nostri

Iesu

Christi a

Synodo

v.

Constantinopoli-

tana

tempore

Justiniani.

Lidell-Scott-Jones

(9th

ed.),

p.

792, cite

Cod. Just.

1. 1.

5.

1;

Just.

Nov.

3.

1;

SIG 912 B

(vi

A.D.).

Stephanus,

Thes.

ling.

Graec.,

sub

voc.:

quae

Deum peperit, Dei genetrix, Mariae virginis epith., and cites Greg., Nyss., III, 660,

who

objects

to

the

use

of

the

word; also

Greg.,

Naz.

Or.,

LI,

738. E.

A.

Sophocles,

A

Greek

Lexicon

of the

Roman and

Byzantine

Periods

(1870), p.

578,

sub

voc.,

cites

fourteen

Christian

writers,

dating

from

Origen

(253) to

Modestius

(614),

who

use

the

word.

16

J.

Geffcken,

Der

Ausgang

des

griechisch-r6mischen

Heidentums

(1920),

176-77

and

191.







72

NOTES AND

DISCUSSIONS

shows

a

mixture

of

bothpagan

and

Christian

lements

n his poetry,similar

o

writers

such as Claudian,

Dracontius,

Ausonius,

Apollinaris,Sidonius,

Sy-

nesios,

and

others.

Stegemann,'7 sing the same methodof reasoningas Golega,comesto a

slightly

differentconclusion.

Afterdiscussing

he religious

trife

between

the

Antiochenes,

headedby

Nestorius,

and the

Alexandrians,

ed

by

Kyrillos,

he concludes

that

the Paraphrase

was written

about

nine

years

after

the

Synod

of

Ephesus,

.e.,

A.D.

440.

Thus Ludwich's

dating

of the

Dionysiaca

s

strengthened,

ince Stegemann

considers

he

poemsof Gregory

of Nazianzos

(ca.

385

A.D.)

an

indisputable

erminus

post

quem or Nonnos,

an

assertion

Keydell,'8

or

one,

does

not accept.

This

argument

presupposes

hat

the

Dionysiaca

was

written

before

he Paraphrase,

contention

ikewise

not with-

out

opponents. 9

Thus

far the

investigation

of this problem

has

been

conducted

with

a good

deal

of

subjective

theorizing

on

grounds

of

literary

and

historical

evidence,

together

with great

emphasis

on

the

matterof contemporary

nfluences

and

plagiarism.

An

additional

source

of information

s at

hand

in

the papyri.

K6rte,

n

his review

of

recently

discovered

iterarypapyri,20

iscusses

with per-

spicacity

one

of

especial

importance

or the

chronology

of Nonnos:

an

en-

comionwritten

in

praise

of Patrikios

Theagenes

who

flourishedat

Athens,

470-90, by a fellow-townsmanf NonnosnamedPamprepios.He is the earli-

est

dated

member

of the Nonnian

school,2'

iving

at Athensfrom 465

to

475,22

and

his encomion

hows

the influence

of Nonnos.

Though

his

papyrus,

f

we

may

definitely

attribute

it

to

Pamprepios,23

ives

us an earlierexample

of

Nonnian

poetry

than

Friedlander

ad

judged

possible,

yet

his arguments

are

not thus

invalidated.24

.

Maas

agrees

with

Gerstinger,

he editor of

the

papyrus,

as to its

authorship.25

In resume,

we

have,

then,

these sources

of evidence:

(1)

references

o

Non-

nos

in

authors

rom

the

fifth

to the twelfth

centuries,

direct

and

indirect;

(2)

literary nfluencesand metricalsimilarities Friedlander);3) Planudes'copy

17

V.

Stegemann,

Astrologie

und

Universalgeschichte

(1930),

p.

208.

18

Bursian

230,

p.

110.

19

Geffcken,

op.

cit.;

K.

Kuiper,

De

Nonno

evangelii

Johanei

interprete,

Mnemo-

syne,

XIV

(1918),

227

ff.

20

A.

KBrte,

Literarische

Texte

mit

Ausschluss

der

christlichen,

Archiv

fur

Papy-

rusforschung,

X, 1-2, 18-70;

Pap.

Vindob

297888

A-C

( um

500

n.

Chr. ),

ed.

H.

Ger-

stinger,

Sitz.-Ber.

d. Wien.

Akad.

Philol.-hist.

Kl.

(3.

Abh.

mit

Tafel),

Band

CCVIII.

21

Christ-Schmid-Stahlin,

op.

cit.,

p.

961;

also Keydell,

Bursian

230, pp.

122-23.

22

Asmus,

Byz.

Zeitschr.,

XXII

(1913),

323

ff.

23

See,

for

an

objection,

0.

Schissel,

Phil.

Woch.,

XLIX

(1929),

1073-80;

the

assigna-

tion

to

Pamprepios

is doubtful.

24

K6rte,

op.

cit.,

p.

26.

25

Gnomon,

V

(1928),

250-52.







NOTES AND

DISCUSSIONS

73

of

the

Paraphrase,

withits

superscription;4) the records

of

religiousdisputes

in

the fifth century;

and (5) the papyri.

If

we accept

Ludwich's

erminus

ost

quem

as

381-90,

whenGregoryof

Nazianzoswrote his

poems,and as terminus

ante quem he destruction 529) by earthquakeof Berytos,a Phoeniciancity

described t length

by

Nonnos

n

Dionysiaca

xli,

we

have

more

han

a

century

of

interval,

in the second

half of

which Friedlander,Golega, and Mass en-

deavorto

place Nonnos.

Further,

I

see

no

reasonwhy imitation

of

Gregory

Nazianzenshould cause

Ludwich

o

regard

Nonnos

as an

actual

contempo-

rary of that poet.

The evidenceof the

papyri, houghnot incontestable,

eems

to

make a later date for Nonnos

more

than

plausible;and the Pamprepios

papyrus,

n

particular,

f

definitelyproved to be by

Pamprepios,will tend

to

narrow he date

of

the compositionof

the Dionysiaca,

and therefore he ma-

turity

of

Nonnos,

to

the spacefrom 450

to

490

A.D.

In

regard

o

the

imitators

of

Nonnos,Friedlander's bservation

hat they do not

(with the exceptions

mentioned)come

before he reign of Anastasios seems

incontrovertible

nd

probablyhis

strongestargument. Untilwe find,

therefore,

actual proof o

the

contrary,

his results

must be regardedas

the

most

careful conclusionsyet

made

on

the subject.

L. ROBERT LIND

WABASH

COLLEGE


All bj JSTOR T d C di i



Documents

The Date of Nonno of Panopolis-l.r. Lind