The Greeks in Bactria and India c25: Appendix 13. Σάγαλα ἡ καὶ Εὐθυμηδεία

The Greeks in Bactria and India c25

Language: English

Appendix 13. Σάγαλα ἡ καὶ Εὐθυμηδεία

Renou² in his edition of Ptolemy’s Indian books prints Εὐθυδημία. His note is: ‘Εὐθυδημία scripsimus: εὐθύδη X, εὐθημία Γ, εὐθυμηδία ω, -μέδια ἄ.’ His text is based on X (Vaticanus 191, thirteenth century) which all editors seem agreed is the best MS; Γ (Vatic. Palat. 388, fifteenth century) is said to exhibit some curious and erratic readings; ω is Renou’s sign for the general body of MSS, and ἄ for the *editio princeps* of 1533 (Bâle) which Müller rated highly; it is based on Γ but has various divergences. The Latin versions all have -media. One MS of the group ω (Vat. Urbin. 82) is eleventh-century; -μηδία therefore is actually the oldest reading known, for what that may be worth.

c25.4

² L. Renou, *La géographie de Ptolémée, l’Inde*, 1925.

c25.5

It might be held that εὐθύδη of X warrants Εὐθυδημία, but Renou did not explicitly put it on that ground; there is little doubt from his note (scripsimus) that he adopted Bayer’s old conjecture Εὐθυδημία because most writers since have done so. The historical considerations which make Εὐθυδημία impossible are dealt with in my text (pp. 247 *sq.*); here I am only considering Ptolemy’s text.

c25.6

The corruption of -μηδία into -δημία would be easy and obvious; Εὐθυδημία makes such good sense so long as one does not think about it, and the reasons which have affected the modern writer are precisely those which would have affected the ancient scribe. But if the original text gave the obvious Εὐθυδημία, no reason can be found for its alteration in almost every MS into the meaningless Εὐθυμηδία. It is just possible that Εὐθυμηδής was a (very rare) Greek name;³ but cities were not named after commoners, and though a military colony might be (pp. 6, 11), no one would suggest that Sāgala was a military colony. No modern writer has in fact adopted Εὐθυμηδία. It is clearly a corruption; but one cannot suppose almost universal corruption of anything so obvious as Εὐθυδημία.

c25.7

³ The one possible instance is Euthymedes of Pliny xxxv, 146, with a *v.l.* Euthymides.

c25.8

We must therefore follow the rule *praestat lectio difficillima* and turn to Εὐθυμέδια. This cannot possibly be a corruption of Εὐθυδημία; and it is not easy to see how Εὐθυμηδία, composed apparently of two words well known to any scribe, could become Εὐθυμέδια, while -μέδια would infallibly become -μηδία owing to the mental pull of the well-known name Μηδία. Now Εὐθυμέδια as it stands is not only meaningless but wrongly accented; place-names ending in -ια after a short vowel are paroxytone,⁴ and it ought to be Εὐθυμεδία. The accent shows that the right form must have been Εὐθυ- μέδεια. This could easily be corrupted on the one hand into Εὐθυμήδεια and on the other into Εὐθυμηδία; for Μηδία (the country) was sometimes spelt (and accented) Μήδεια,¹ and the corruption therefore ran Εὐθυμέδεια —Εὐθυμήδεια—Εὐθυμηδία. That Εὐθυμέδεια would have been corrupted is certain, for no scribe would have understood it. I have not traced the first appearance of this word, but prior to Renou’s edition it was generally supposed that it had MS authority; one must take it from Renou that this is not so. It is a properly formed feminine name, one of a class (p. 248 n. 2); but it has been generally discarded for Εὐθυμηδία because writers could not explain it. I gave the right meaning long ago,² but did not know enough at the time to account for it; it is now extremely obvious (p. 248). Ptolemy then wrote Σάγαλα ἢ καὶ Εὐθυμέδεια.

c25.9

⁴ As ’Αρμενία, Μακεδονία, Καππαδοκία, and many others.

c25.10

¹ Stephanus s.v. ’Αρσακία. ² JHS xxii, 1902, p. 274. ³ P. 80: ‘Εὐθυμηδία 1, 46; [Εὐθυμήμεια Nonnus 26, 338].’ ⁴ JA 1926 p. 21 n. 1: Rapson (he means Macdonald) thinks Euthydemia conjectural, but ‘cf. toutefois la leçon Εὐθυμήμεια (Nonnus xxvi, 338) citée par Renou, La géographie de Ptolémée p. 80’. ⁵ In fact Nonnus himself did not know a single name from the Indo-Greek period; for Κασπείρων of xxvi, 167, if correct (all MSS have καὶ σπείρων), was certainly merely taken, like so many other names, from the Bassarica of Dionysius (see Stephanus s.v. Κάσπειρος). His few genuine Indian names are taken from the Alexander story. ⁶ P. 118 n. 84. ⁷ His note is: ‘ἐριστοβάρειαν LΩ; Εὐθυμήμειαν m. “Num ’Αριστοβάρειαν?” k*’ (i.e. Koechly). ‘m’ is de Marcellus’ edition.

c25.11

I must however notice one further point. Renou actually supported the conjecture Εὐθυμηδία by an appeal to Nonnus xxvi, 338, not in his critical note, certainly, but in his index;³ a misleading statement which took in Przyluski⁴ and might take in others. Nonnus never mentions the word.⁵ The MSS of xxvi, 338 (see Ludwich’s edition of 1911 ad loc.) give the line as λαὸς εὐκρήδεμνον Ἐριστοβάρειαν ἐάσας. Of course Eristobareia is meaningless; Nonnus’ 26th book, the gathering of the Indian army, is full of meaningless names which he invented himself. But de Marcellus, in his edition (1856) of Nonnus for the Didot series, went steadily through book xxvi altering meaningless names into names he happened to have heard of, sometimes regardless of scansion, and among others he altered Ἐριστοβάρειαν into Εὐθυμήμειαν, producing the marvellous hexameter λαὸς εὐκρήδεμνον Εὐθυμήμειαν ἐάσας. He gave no reasons; his note⁶ merely says that Eristobareia, a meaningless word, ‘s’évapore devant l’Euthymédie de Ptolémée, qu’il faut lire Euthydémie’. It is a pity that such rubbish should have found a place in Ludwich’s apparatus,⁷ as well as in Renou.

c25.12

The whole story of the word Εὐθυμηδία (see further, p. 247) has been a lamentable example of how not to write history.

Linked texts (1)

Naturalis historia — C. Plinius Secundus, Latin