the date of nonno of panopolis-l.r. lind
TRANSCRIPT
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
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 2/6
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
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 3/6
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.
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
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 4/6
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.
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
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 5/6
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.
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
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 6/6
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
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 08:39:05 UTC
All bj JSTOR T d C di i