Scanned text contains errors.
officina non modo ex argilla similitudinem insignem^ verum et ex parvis admodum surculis, quod primum operis instaurati fuit.) But this extraordinary work betrayed a great defect in the technical knowledge of the artists of that age, namely that the refinements in the art of casting bronze, which gave such exquisite beauty and even varied power of expression to statues made of the Delian or Aegi-netan or Corinthian mixtures, had been forgotten. Pliny's words are : —Ea statua indicavit interisse fundendi aeris scientiam, cum et Nero largiri aurum argentumque paratus esset, et Zenodorus scientia fingendi caelandique nulli veterum postponeretur. His meaning cannot be that the art of casting bronze, in the most literal sense, had perished, for the statue was cast in bronze, and besides, many works in bronze are mentioned, and some still exist, of a period subsequent to this, in which the mere casting is faultless.* Neither, as Pliny expressly says, was the defect in the form of the model or in the ornamental chasing of the surface, for in these arts (fingendi caelandique} Zenodorus was inferior to none of the ancients. Nor was it in any want of suitable materials, for " Nero was prepared to lavish gold and silver," if they were required to make the proper compound. (We have here, no doubt, an allusion to the fable respecting the composition of the aes Corint/iiacum by the mixture of copper or bronze with the precious metals.) It can hardly be supposed even that the numerical proportions of the ancient mixtures were forgotten. There remains, we think, no doubt that the knowledge, which Pliny states to have been lost, was that of the more refined processes of the art, such as the proper temperature, and those other conditions which no mere rules can preserve. This view is confirmed, as Thiersch has shown, by the statements of Pliny 'respecting the processes adopted by the statuaries of his time. We may also refer the reader to Thiersch for an account of the subsequent history of the colossus of Nero. (Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 7. s. 18 ; Thiersch, Epochen, pp. 307 —313 ; Miiller, Arch'dol. d. Kunst, § 197.
In the MSS. of Pliny we have the confusion, which is so frequently made, between the names Zenodorus and Zenodotus; but there is no doubt that the former is the true reading. [P. S.]
ZENODOTUS (ztj^sotos). 1. Of ephesus, a celebrated grammarian, was the first superintendent of the great library at Alexandria, in which office he was succeeded by Callimachus. He lived during the reigns of the first and second Ptolemies, the son of Lagus and Philadelphus, but as he was probably not appointed librarian till the reign of Philadelphus, he may be said to have flourished about b. c. 280. Suidas places him under the first Ptolemy, and says that he educated the children of Ptolemy ; but it is more probable that these were the children of Philadelphus than of the first Ptolemy. Zenodotus was a pupil of the grammarian Philetas, who was probably also the instructor of Philadelphus. Zenodotus was employed by Phila-
* Some interpreters have supposed Pliny to mean that " the art of casting in bronze was lost," and therefore (rather a considerable conclusion to be " understood ") the statue was made of marble. Of many arguments which disprove this view, it may suffice to mention the decisive one, that in this part of his work Pliny is speaking of bronze works only,
delphus together with his two great contemporaries, Alexander the Aetolian and L}'cophron the Chalci-dian, to collect and revise all the Greek poets. Alexander, we are told, undertook the task of collecting the tragedies, Lycophron the comedies, and Zenodotus the poems of Homer, and of the other illustrious poets (Homeri poemata et reliquo-rum inlustrium poetarum}. This important statement, preserved by the Scholiast on Plautus, from the commentary of Tzetzes on the Plutus of Aristophanes, has given rise to much discussion. By " the other illustrious poets," Welcker supposed that the epic poets, and MUller that the lyric poets were intended ; but as it was evidently the intention of Philadelphus to make a complete collection of the Greek poets, there is no reason why we should not take the words of the Scholiast in their plain obvious meaning, and believe that Zenodotus made a collection of all the other illustrious poets both epic and lyric. It has been shown satisfactorily by more than one modern writer that Zenodotus made a collection of all the poems belonging to the epic cycle, and that his labours were not confined to the Iliad and Odyssey. It was, however, to the latter poems that he devoted his chief attention. Hence* he is called the first AiopOcorTjy of Homer, and his recension (Aidp6ta><m) of the Iliad and Odyssey obtained the greatest celebrity. It is frequently quoted by Eusta thins, the Venetian Scholia,and other grammarians under various titles, such as, ?) Z?]^o§oT6ios, tj ZrjvoSorou, -rj Zyvodorov , at Zr}vo$6Toi>, at ZvjvoSoTov SiopOuxreis^ ou, ra Z^foSoreta, &c. The corrections which Zenodotus applied to the text of Homer were of three kinds. 1. He expunged verses. 2. He marked them as spurious, but left them in his copy. 3. He introduced new readings or transposed or altered verses. Examples of these corrections are given by Clinton. (Fasti Hell. vol. iii. p. 491, foil.) The great attention which Zenodotus paid to the language of Homer caused a new epoch in the grammatical study of the Greek language. The results of his investigations respecting the meaning and the use of words were contained in two works which he published under the title of a Glossary (TAwo-crou, Schol. ad Apoll. Rliod. ii. 1005 ; Schol. ad Theocr. v. 2) and a Dictionary of barbarous or foreign phrases (Ae£efs zQvi-kcu, Galen, Gloss, Hippocr. s. vv. 7re£cu and TreAAa). It was probably from his glossary, as Wolf has remarked, that the grammarians took the few explanations of the passages of Homer, which they cite under the name of Zenodotus, since it is very doubtful whether he wrote Commentaries (vTrofjLvfi-/u.ara') on Homer. Athenaeus likewise quotes two other works by Zenodotus, one called 'ETnro/xal (x. p. 412, a), and the other 'IffropiKk v-rro^vrj^ara (iii. p. 96, f), but it is doubtful whether they were written by this Zenodotus, or by Zenodotus the Alexandrine mentioned below. (Wolf, Prolegom.. ad Horn. ; Heffter, De Zenodoto ejusque studiis Homencis, Brandenburg, 1839; Duntzer, De Zeno-doti Studiis Homericis, Gdttingen, 1848; Grafenhan, GescJdcJite der Klassichen Philologie^ vol. i. pp. 379, 430, 534, 542, vol. ii. p. 32.)
2. Of alexandria, a grammarian, lived after Aristarchus, whose recension of the Homeric poems he attacked. He is distinguished by the epithet 6 h cicrTei K\-f}6eLS by Suidas, who assigns the following works to him : 1. Ilpbs t& for' ' dflerou/xez/a rov ttolijtov. 2. TIpbs IIAaTcom