Some notes on the names ΦΑΝΑΓΟΡΕΙΑ and ΦΑΝΑΓΟΡΗΣ
ñ.180 This paper is the result of a very simple question which a colleague once addressed to me: “What was the name of the Pontic city: Phanagóreia (Φαναγόρεια) or Phanagoría (Φαναγορία)?” “Phanagóreia”, the reply came. Since that moment I repeated to myself the question again and again. I wrote down all various forms of the name. And I realized how complicated the whole matter is: ancient scholars provided spare and sometimes distorted information; modern scholars accept the one or the other version with no criticism at all (Φαναγορία instead of Φαναγόρεια, Φαναγόρας instead of Φαναγόρης etc). In the following pages an attempt is made to discuss the questions about the various forms of the names related to the well known Pontic city of Phanagoreia.
I. Phanagoreia (Φαναγόρεια) was founded by colonists from Teos (c. 545—540
II: The founder Φαναγόρης and the personal names Φαναγόρας and Φαναγόρα
The city was named after its first colonist and founder2. He was Φαναγόρης (Ionic dialect; Φαναγόρας in the Attic) from Teos. The only ñ.181 evidence which survived about the events of that colonization and foundation is the information that the inhabitants of Teos abandoned their city because of the Persian threat3.
The founder’s name is attested in several documents dating from the Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The word Φαναγόρης derived from the ancient root ΦΑϜ (cf. v. φάω n. * φάϝος > φάος / Pamphylian Greek φάβος / contracted Attic Greek φῶς, which means “light” but also “glory”), which was later formed as ΦΑΝ (cf. φαίνω < φάν--ω)4. The second composite of the name came from the word ἀγορά5. Several personal names were formed with the composite ἀγορά,
Φαναγόρης could mean “someone who brings the light, the enlightenment or the reveal to the public assembly”, but it could also mean “someone who has glory when speaking in the public assembly” (cf. Ἀγορακλής). If we choose the first meaning, then Surikov might be right and this name could be an epiklesis to the god Apollo, who was also called Πύθιος (and Λοξίας) because he revealed to the people (cf. the personal name Πυθαγόρας) the future (sometimes through intermediation of his son, Asclepius). This epiklesis could also be linked, as Surikov suggested, with the unidentified coins bearing the legend ΑΠΟΛ6. However, as Surikov himself remarked, such epiklesis (for both Phanagoreia and Hermonassa, which is also mentioned in his study) is not confirmed by any source.
Moreover, Surikov suggested that since no archaic (and even classical) Greek colony city bears the name of the (human) founder then we must assume that the case of Phanagoreia (and Hermonassa) is the same. ñ.182 The scholar then proceeds on the text of Plato (Laws) in order to support his arguments. Last, he suggested that researchers should always trust the most ancient written sources7.
For the first suggestion we may say that it is an argumentum ex silentio. It is true that we don’t have at our disposal firm evidence which would prove beyond any doubt that Phanagores, a human, was indeed the founder and first colonist. On the other hand, we have no firm data which prove the contrary: all available information — reliable or not — point to Phanagores as a human being, not a god. And it would be an exaggeration to claim that no archaic colony city took the name from the founder: Byzantium, for example, was named after Byzas, a half-historical — half-mythical person, depending on the source. It is true that perhaps Greeks of old had to invent a legend in order to explain the origins of some difficult — to — interpret place-names. But no matter who Byzas really was, according to tradition the city was named after him and this is a fact. Phanagores could be a human or a semi-god or whatever. Until new data come to light, there is one and only tradition and the fact is that the city was named after him, not someone else, not anything else.
About the question of the reliable and non reliable sources: there are no strict or clearly defined limits, frames and categories marking the reliability of the ancient and medieval writers. Each case is different. And we should never forget that late writers sourced earlier writers. Sometimes information from early writers did not survive. Sometimes information from early writers survived only through later writers. Late writers sometimes distorted information taken by their precedents, sometimes they did not.
Moreover, we should note here that Surikov based his arguments on the text of Plato (Laws)8, but in the quoted passage the Greek philosopher was neither providing instructions nor enlisting the general rules about the naming of a city: he was giving examples (τάχ᾿ ἂν ἴσως… προσθείη). More, Plato was likely writing about an ideal situation, mentioning some cases which the founders followed (something which does not mean that they actually followed them). Indeed, Laws is a dialogue of political and philosophical nature about the laws by which Plato suggested that aristocracy (in which rich people participate) is the best form of government (something which contradicts his other political — philosophical work about justice, the Republic, where Plato rejected all forms of government as non functional enough to survive in the course of time). Last, Plato might refer to his own era — not the archaic one — when he mentioned these examples.
Let us go back to the names. The personal name in question is attested mostly in the Attic form Φαναγόρας (nom.), Φαναγόρου (gen.)9, but ñ.183 sometimes in the Ionic form as well: Φαναγόρης (nom.), Φαναγόρεω (gen.)10. It would be a mistake to believe that the name Φαναγόρης can form the genitive with two endings, -εω and -ου11, because these forms came from different dialects and the names have different endings in the nominative case as well. Ionic dialect was predominant in Teos, so in our opinion the right form of the founder’s name was Φαναγόρης (gen. -εω). The form Φαναγόρας was much more widespread in ancient literature because most of the texts were written in the Attic dialect. We should note here that Hecataeus’ text is corrupted: Stephanus Byzantius was usually following his sources word by word. In this case, however, Stephanus recorded the Attic form Φαναγόρου which was ascribed as Hecataeus’ writing (something which was accepted by the editors of Hecataeus’ text). Hecataeus used the Ionic dialect, not the Attic. We cannot be sure whether Stephanus himself transformed the name or he found it like this in the manuscript he used. Another option is that the name was transformed by the editors of Stephanus’ work, perhaps Hermolaus.
Φαναγόρης was a quite popular personal name in Archaic and Classical Greece. The most ancient evidence about this name is an inscription from Thrace (6th c.
Φαναγόρας was a popular name as well. Long after the decline of the Ionian cities, the name in Attic dialect began to spread in the Aegean and Attica: in Keos20 (4th—3rd c.), in Delos21, Keos22, Lesbos23 and Thasos24 (3rd c.) and in Attica25 (1st c.
III: The place names Φαναγόρεια and Φαναγορία (ἡ), Φαναγόρειον (τὸ), Φαναγόρη and Φαναγόρεια (νῆσος), τὰ Φαναγόρεια (ἐμπόριον)
ñ.185 The city’s name is not recorded either in inscriptions or in coins30. According to the literary sources the name was Φαναγόρεια (ἡ): this form was used by almost all the writers who wrote about the city (Hecataeus, Pseudo-Scymnus, Strabo, Appianus, Arrianus, Herodianus, Stephanus Byzantius, the anonymous author of the Periplus of the Pontus Euxinus). We should not forget, however, that Stephanus Byzantius sourced Hecataeus and Herodianus; Eustathius of Thessalonica sourced Arrian and the anonymous author of the Periplus sourced Pseudo-Scymnus. It is difficult therefore to say who the first to use the form was and whether the word was part of the original texts or was added by later authors or copyists. Be that as it may, all the writers have used correctly the forms of the name (Φαναγόρεια, Φαναγορείας, Φαναγορεία, Φαναγόρειαν).
The name Φαναγορία is recorded only by Ptolemy31. This must be, most likely, the mistake of a copyist who was writing the genitive or dative case of the name. He accentuated the last syllable of the nominative case and he also omitted the letter ε of the ending. No matter what happened it is true that the ending -ία — without ε — finds a parallel in the later form of the city-ethnic name Φαναγορίτης, attested in inscriptions and coins (see below). In the literary sources, however, the form Φαναγορείτης predominates. It is difficult to say whether the forms Φαναγορία and Φαναγορίτης were somehow linked to each other. We believe that Φαναγορίτης is a simplified version of the ethnic name and that it could be written either with ει or with ι.
According to the critical editions of the ancient texts, four ancient authors recorded the island of Phanagoreia (Φαναγόρεια νῆσος): Hecataeus, Dionysius Periegetes, Herodianus and Stephanus Byzantius32. In our opinion only Dionysius and Herodianus present the original information. Hecataeus should be excluded from this group. Despite the fact that in Hecataeus’ latest edition the fragment in question (Φαναγόρεια, πόλις ἀπὸ Φαναγόρου, ὡς Ἑκαταῖος Ἀσίᾳ. ἡ νῆσος Φαναγόρη καὶ Φαναγόρεια. ἔστι καὶ ἐμπόριον τὰ Φαναγόρεια οὐδετέρως, which is taken from Stephanus Byzantius) is wholly attributed to the ancient writer, we believe that only the first part of it belongs to Hecataeus. The rest of the fragment should be considered as Stephanus’ addition, based on information from Herodianus. The Byzantine lexicographer wrote — in the entry Φαναγόρεια — about the island which was called Φαναγόρη and Φαναγόρεια, copying Herodianus (according to A. Lentz).
Lentz’s effort to restitute Herodianus’ text (not only in this passage but as a work in general) is ambiguous though and we should wonder ñ.186 whether this information about Phanagoreia really belongs to Herodianus or Stephanus. We would like to express the following hypothesis here: that Dionysius’ information about an island with two cities on it, Phainagore (Φαιναγόρη) and Hermonassa (Ἑρμώνασσα) was copied and distorted by Stephanus (who wrote, mistakenly, about two different islands, not cities. Actually Dionysius is wrong too, because Hermonassa was not located on the same island as Phanagoreia, but on a peninsula). Thus Stephanus copied the first form of the name (Φαναγόρη) from Dionysius (Φαιναγόρη) and the second (Φαναγόρεια) from Strabo. This point of view can be confirmed by the fact that Stephanus used the form Φαναγόρεια when he mentioned Strabo (see also below) and Φαναγόρη or Φαναγόρα in all other cases, that is when he wrote about the island33. In this case, the fragment considered as Herodianus’ production belongs to Stephanus.
The terms Φαναγόρειον (τὸ) and Φαναγόρεια (τὰ, ἐμπόριον), in neuter, singular and plural number, respectively are recorded by Strabo and Stephanus Byzantius. Stephanus copied Strabo, but the question is not so simple. According to the previous editions of Strabo’s work, the passage was “τὸ Φαναγόρειον (καλεῖται…)”, but in the latest edition Radt has corrected the name as “ἡ Φαναγόρου καλεῖται…”34. A. Meineke had accepted the old restitution of Strabo’s text and, of course, he used it in Stephanus’ text as well35. In the new edition of Stephanus’ work the passage in question is omitted36. It is impossible to explain Strabo’s choice to present the name in neuter, since he knew that it was originally female. Perhaps this invention is somehow connected with Phanagoreia’s identity as an ‘emporion’, a word of neuter gender. In some less important manuscripts of Strabo’s work one can read ἡ Φαναγορία (see Radt, app. crit.). Be that as it may, in our opinion Radt is right to correct the word, because Phanagoreia — as Meineke had also remarked — was in fact ἡ τοῦ (or ἡ ἀπὸ) Φαναγόρου πόλις. Strabo, however, was not the only author who described Phanagoreia as an ‘emporion’. Appianus wrote: ἐς Φαναγόρειαν, ἕτερον ἐμπόριον37.
IV: The ethnic names Φαναγορεύς and Φαναγορ(ε)ίτης
According to Herodianus, the ethnic name originally used for the inhabitants of Phanagoreia was Φαναγορεύς, but later the form Φαναγορείτης dominated: Φαναγόρεια πόλις, τὸ ἐθνικὸν ἐχρῆν Φαναγορεὺς ὡς Ἀλεξανδρεὺς τῷ πλείονι λόγῳ ἐκράτησε δ᾿ ὅμως Φαναγορείτης38. This information is absolutely reliable. The form Φαναγορεὺς is attested in the literary texts from the very ancient times until the end of Antiquity; the form Φαναγορ(ε)ίτης, on the other hand, is used for the first time in the end of the 2nd c. and in the 1st c.
This procedure of reading and copying earlier texts resulted to the delay of the use of the new form in the works of the authors writing in the Christian times. The form Φαναγορ(ε)ίτης first appeared in literary texts in the 2nd c.
The variation of the endings -είτης and -ίτης can be explained as a simplification of the first form. We exclude the case that the official form was Φαναγορίτης — the name written on coins — because in the inscriptions which are also reliable sources we can find both versions Φαναγορίτης and Φαναγορείτης. On the other hand, the literary sources mention only the form Φαναγορείτης. The reason for which the new form of the name (Φαναγορ(ε)ίτης) was not widespread and generally known is that the city was in decline at that time and it was soon destroyed and there was no particular interest for the name. Authors who mentioned the city in the following centuries did nothing but to collect information from their precedents. This procedure resulted to the spreading of the old form of the name rather than the new.
The form ΦΑΝΑΤΟΡΙΤΩΝ44 is obviously a mistake during the carving of the cast for the coin minting. A similarity between Γ and Τ in that region is not possible, because there is no such evidence in other inscriptions (moreover, the letter Τ is not recognizable or even present in all the coins of type II of the classification made by Frolova and Ireland: in the table XXXIX:4, for example, we can clearly read Γ).
ñ.188 We can assume that the replacement of the first form of the ethnic name by another as in the case of the names Φαναγορεύς and Φαναγορ(ε)ίτης was a gradual process and that for some time the two names co-existed. A similar case can be found in nearby Panticapaeon, where the ethnic name was formed as Παντικαπαιεύς, Παντικαπεύς, Παντικαπαιάτης or Παντικαπαΐτης45, and at the same time the form Βόσπορος was in use for the city and the ethnic names Βοσπορανός and Βοσπορίτης for its citizens46.
V: Φαιναγόρας — Φαιναγόρειοι in Rhodes and Argolis
In a well known inscription of the 4th—3rd c.
There are several options regarding the origin of the name Phainagoreioi in Rhodes. It could have been derived from a local place name like Φάναι, which Ch. Christodoulou believes it was the ancient form for the place name Φάνες48, whose location points to an observatory where fires were lightened in order to give signals. Or it could have been derived from a local personal name Φαιναγόρας, which is attested in Rhodes in the 3rd—2nd c.
Another two options, much more complicated this time, bring into the discussion the areas of Argolis and of the northern Euxin. According to a very ancient tradition, the inhabitants of the greatest Rhodian cities were migrants from Argolis. It is interesting to note here that the name Phainagoras is attested in Argolis in the 2nd—1st c.
Regarding the north shores of the Euxin, one could link the name Phainagoreioi to the Pontic city of Phanagoreia. The relations between Rhodes and the northern Euxin are attested in archaeology, epigraphy and literature. Rhodian amphora was exported to the Bosporan Kingdom ñ.189 and according to Agatharchides (ed. Müller C. GGM 1. P. 66) numerous merchants from Bosporus were heading to Rhodes: Ἐκ γὰρ τῆς Μαιώτιδος λίμνης πολλοὶ τῶν φορτιζομένων ἐν φορτηγοῖς ἀκάτοις δεκαταῖοι κατῆραν εἰς τὸν ῾Ροδίων λιμένα (ἀφίκοντο). Another clue to support the relations between Rhodes and the Bosporan Kingdom in general or Phanagoreia in particular is the ethnic name Βοσπορανοί, attested in Rhodes51. Although there is no grammatical connection between the forms Phainagoreios and Phanagoreus or Phanagor(e)ites, it is not hard to explain the form of the name attested in Rhodes. The ending -ειος (showing the origin or possession, cf.: Πυθαγόρας — Πυθαγόρειος — Πυθαγόρειοι) is common for several ethnic (tribal) names,
In brief, the original name of the first colonist and founder of Φαναγόρεια (Phanagoreia) was Φαναγόρης (Ionic). Φαναγόρας was the Attic version of this name which — together with the female personal name Φαναγόρα — became very popular in Athens. Φαιναγόρας was another version of the name, attested in Rhodes, Argolis and in some manuscripts. The city’s official name was Φαναγόρεια — sometimes mistakenly attested as Φαναγορία. Other versions of this name (in neutral, plural) are attested by ancient and medieval authors. The ethnic name of Phanagoreia’s citizens in early times was Φαναγορεύς but later the word Φαναγορείτης dominated. The link between the Pontic city of Phanagoreia and the tribal or ethnic names Φαιναγόρειοι and Βοσπορανοὶ attested in Rhodes is not clear.