Page 1 of 1

φιληδείμονα Cicero Atticus 12.6

Posted: May 23rd, 2017, 3:17 pm
by Barry Hofstetter
Not a Greek text, but Cicero is fond of sprinkling Greek throughout his letters.

amo enim πάντα φιληδείμονα teque istam tam tenuem θεωρίαν tam valde admiratum esse gaudeo.

The question is about φιληδείμονα. It's pretty clear what it means, and I believe it derives from φιληδέω. "For I love everyone who takes delight and I rejoice that you so especially admired such a fine point." The problem is I can't find a lexical entry, which should be φιληδείμων. Am I missing something? Is this a coinage by Cicero?

Re: φιληδείμονα Cicero Atticus 12.6

Posted: May 23rd, 2017, 6:01 pm
by Robert Emil Berge
LSJ refers to this passage for the word φιλειδήμων "fond of learning".

Re: φιληδείμονα Cicero Atticus 12.6

Posted: May 23rd, 2017, 10:33 pm
by Barry Hofstetter
Robert Emil Berge wrote:
May 23rd, 2017, 6:01 pm
LSJ refers to this passage for the word φιλειδήμων "fond of learning".
Okay, found that, although the spelling is different, and they do qualify it with "probably." I'm not altogether convinced.

Re: φιληδείμονα Cicero Atticus 12.6

Posted: May 24th, 2017, 5:44 am
by Robert Emil Berge
I don't have a new critical edition here, but I guess your quote is from Perseus, which is from the L. C. Purser edition from 1893. The Loeb edition from 1912 and the Winsteadt edition from 1928 both have φιλειδήμονα. None of the editions have any apparatus, so I don't know where φιληδείμονα came from, but it is reasonable that it is either a misprint or manuscript corruption.

Re: φιληδείμονα Cicero Atticus 12.6

Posted: May 24th, 2017, 9:29 am
by Barry Hofstetter
Robert Emil Berge wrote:
May 24th, 2017, 5:44 am
I don't have a new critical edition here, but I guess your quote is from Perseus, which is from the L. C. Purser edition from 1893. The Loeb edition from 1912 and the Winsteadt edition from 1928 both have φιλειδήμονα. None of the editions have any apparatus, so I don't know where φιληδείμονα came from, but it is reasonable that it is either a misprint or manuscript corruption.
That does appear to be the most likely explanation.