Notes on Egyptian Plant Names in Pseudo-Dioscorides

Abstract

Among the many phytonyms transmitted in the manuscript branch R of Dioscorides’ De materia medica, 149 names can be found which are marked as Egyptian. With only a few exceptions (e.g. αἷμα ὄνου ‘male fern’), almost all seem to be of foreign origin. The paper presents, on the one hand, the history of research in this field, and on the other, sheds new light on several glosses. Particular attention is paid to plant names for which some Egyptian or Coptic equivalents can be found.

Keywords:

• plant names
• Dioscorides
• foreign words in Greek
• Egyptian glosses
• etymology

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 The terminus post quem seems to be the conquest of Dacia by Trajan (101–106 CE); there are almost 40 Dacian plant names, probably collected at a time when this region belonged to the Roman Empire. In turn, the terminus ante quem is the year 512 CE, namely, the date of manuscript C, containing the synonyms. Unfortunately, the exact date and authorship of the collection are difficult to determine; see discussions and views in: Wellmann (1898); Váczy (1969, 115–120); Riddle (1985, 28); Popa (2010); Hardy and Totelin (2016, 102); Pommerening (2016, 98–100); Dalby (2018).

2 Furthermore, the synonyms occur in later manuscripts of the same branch: Vindobonensis med. gr. XVI (A) from the fifteenth cent., Palatinus gr. 77 (H) from the fourteenth cent., as well as in the manuscrpt group called Dioscurides interpolatus (Di), to which Parisinus gr. 2183 (p), Matritensis palat. reg. 44 (M) and Marcianus Venetus 271 (v) from the fifteenth cent. belong. On the place of the synonyms in the manuscripts, see Wellmann (1898, 363–364).

3 The only exception is 1.28 C and N.

4 See Torallas Tovar (2021, 146): “the term προφήτης corresponds to Eg. ḥm-ntr, literally ‘servant of the god’, a priest in the rank of the Egyptian clergy. It appears widely attested in the papyri and inscriptions with this same meaning (…), and is confirmed by its much later use in the magical papyri (…).”

5 See Aufrère (2001, 340–341); Dieleman (2005, 199–202); Pommerening (2016, 98 n. 97). The list of the plant names used by the “prophets” is to be found in Germer (2008, 369–370).

6 Of course, the plant names may have made their way from Egyptian into the supposed source of Pseudo-Dioscorides via Egyptian Greek; on the complex situation of this variety and bilingualism in Egypt, see Fournet (2009); Vierros (2012 and 2014); Torallas Tovar (2021); Dahlgren (2022).

7 Worth noting is the fact that all four glosses with the meaning of ‘tree purslane’ begin with ἀσ-.

8 See Howald and Sigerist (1927, xx); Brodersen (2015, 13–16); Hardy and Totelin (2016, 24); Pradel-Baquerre (2018, 7 and 16–21). Cf. also the edition of Pradel-Baquerre (2018), based on only one manuscript from the fourteenth or fifteenth cent.

9 See Howald and Sigerist (1927, xx).

10 On the pronunciation and phonetic development of Ancient Greek, see, especially, Lejeune (1972); Allen (1987); Rix (1992, 40–97); Horrocks (2010, 160–172).

11 Phonetic phenomena of Egyptian Greek have recently been discussed by Dahlgren (2022, 120–125).

12 Cf. Clarysse (1997).

13 In both publications, no etymology is given; cf. Wiedemann (1883, 46) who derives ὠχϵί from the Egyptian ꜥẖmw (not ꜥẖww) ‘leaves, twigs’; already refused by Lüring (1888, 144). No Pseudo-Dioscoridean gloss was taken into account by Hemmerdinger (1968) or Fournet (1989).

14 These are alphabetical lists compiled according to biological Latin names (Manniche) and to Greek basic names (Germer).

15 See, especially, Charpentier (1981) and Keimer (1924–84, I, 140).

16 See, e.g., Lüring (1888, 143–146) and Germer (2008, 14).

17 On m3t.t, see Wilson (1997, 409); Hannig (2009, 340); cf. Erman and Grapow (1926–31, II, 33); Lesko (2002–04, I, 117). Moreover, cf. the Demotic myt ? ‘celery (Apium graveolens L.) ?’; see CDD, s.v. myt; on the Coptic form, see Crum (1939, 188); Westendorf (1965–77, 104); CDO, s.v. ⲙⲓⲧ. This identification is widely accepted, e.g., Deines and Grapow (1959, 216); Westendorf (1965–77, 104); Charpentier (1981, 322); Manniche (1989, 76 and 163); Wilson (1997, 409); Takács (1999–2008, III, 111); Pommerening (2016, 97 and 99).

18 On Coptic ⲙⲉϩⲙⲟⲩϩⲉ/ⲙⲉϩⲙⲟⲩϩⲓ, see Crum (1939, 211); Westendorf (1965–77, 112); CDO, s.v. ⲙⲉϩⲙⲟⲩϩⲉ. On the identification of mḫmḫwt as ‘purslane’, see Charpentier (1981, 356); Manniche (1989, 137–138); Hannig (2009, 379); cf. also Erman and Grapow (1926–31, II, 131); Černý (1976, 99); Vycichl (1983, 131); Germer (2008, 328). The gloss μοχμουτίμ has been linked to these forms by Manniche (1989, 163).

19 Apart from ‘common wormwood (Artemisia absinthium L.)’, Dioscorides (3.23) describes two other similar species, one of which occurs in Egypt: καλοῦσί τινϵς καὶ τὸ σέριφον ἀψίνθιον θαλάσσιον, ὅπϵρ πλϵῖστον ἐν τῷ κατὰ Καππαδοκίαν Ταύρῳ γϵννᾶται καὶ ἐν Ταφοσίρϵι τῆς Αἰγύπτου, ᾧ οἱ ᾿Ισιακοὶ ἀντὶ θαλλοῦ χρῶνται. ἔστι δὲ πόα λϵπτόκαρφος, ἐοικυῖα ἀβροτόνῳ μικρῷ, πϵριπληθὴς σπέρματος, ὑπόπικρος, κακοστόμαχος, βαρύοσμος, στύφουσα μϵτὰ ποσῆς θϵρμασίας. “Some call even the seriphon absinthion thalassion; this plant grows abundantly on mount Taurus in Cappadocia and at Taphosiris of Egypt. The priests of Isis use it instead of olive branches. It is a thin-stemmed herb resembling a small wormwood, abounding in seed, somewhat bitter, bad for the stomach, oppressive in scent, and binding with a degree of warmth” (trans. Beck 2005). Because of its occurrence, this species can be identified as ‘Judean wormwood (Artemisia judaica L.)’; see Germer (2008, 203).

20 On the identification of sꜥm, see Daumas (1979: A. absinthium); Charpentier (1981, 566: A. absinthium); Aufrère (1986, 13: A. herba-alba); Manniche (1989, 80: A. absinthium); Westendorf (1999, 184, 335, 345, etc.: ‘wormwood’); Hannig (2009, 724: A. absinthium, A. maritima, A. vulgaris); Germer (2008, 110–111 and 203: A. judaica; she points out that A. absinthium and A. herba-alba do not occur in Egypt, while A. judaica is still used by the Egyptians as medicinal herb today); Pommerening (2016, 99: Artemisia); cf. Erman and Grapow (1926–31, IV, 45).

21 See, e.g., Hannig (2009, 155).

22 Both sꜣry and sꜣr.t were compared to the Greek σάρι n. ‘an Egyptian water-plant similar to papyrus’ (Thphr., HP 4.8.2 and 5; Hsch. σ 210: in the manuscript σάριν); see esp. Hemmerdinger (1968, 245); Koemoth (1997, 151–154). But it is more likely that σάρι goes back to the Egyptian sꜥr ‘a plant (prob. a kind of sedge)’; see Wiedemann (1883, 37); Loret (1892, 30); Chassinat (1968, 399–400); Charpentier (1981, 566–567); Fournet (1989, 67–68); cf. Torallas Tovar (2004, 194). Moreover, note that Koemoth (1997, 152) excludes any relationship between σάρι and σααρθρά.

23 According to Hannig (2009, 768), there are two words: smt and smtj (see the next note); cf. Westendorf (1999, 505) who speaks out against this opinion.

24 The connection between σϵμέθ/semet and the Egyptian smt was first proposed by Wiedemann (1883, 38); later accepted, e.g., by Charpentier (1981, 586); Manniche (1989, 115 and 163); Pommerening (2016, 99); see also Westendorf (1999, 505); Hannig (2009, 768: smt ‘ein Arzneistoff’ and smtj ‘eine Pflanze, Gartenkresse (Lepidium sativum L.)?’); cf. Erman and Grapow (1926–31, IV, 144); Deines and Grapow (1959, 442); Germer (2008, 115 and 284).

25 Cf. Germer (2008, 115).

26 On the identification of sꜥꜣm as ‘chaste tree’, see Daumas (1979, 66–67); Charpentier (1981, 911); Manniche (1989, 155 and 163); Pommerening (2016, 99). Aufrère (1987, 26–29) proposes the latter interpretation. Hannig (2009, 723–724) considers both identifications as possible; cf. Erman and Grapow (1926–31, IV, 43); Deines and Grapow (1959, 426); Germer (2008, 109–110).

27 Cf. Wiedemann (1883, 12). Germer (2008, 31) rejects the identification of jns.t as ‘sage’; cf. Hannig (2009, 89).

28 Previously, the τουκού gloss was only compared to the Egyptian dr-nkn ‘a plant (from which indigo dye is extracted), perh. true indigo (Indigofera tinctoria L.) or another species’; see Wiedemann (1883, 42); already rejected by Lüring (1888, 144).

29 Cf. Keimer (1924–84, I, 140); Löw (1924–34, II, 88). Wiedemann (1883, 36; cf. p. 40) claims that the Greek σάμψουχον/σάμψυχον ‘marjoram (Origanum majorana L.)’ is an Egyptian word related somehow to σοφώ; cf. Manniche (1989, 129). Moreover, cf. D’Arcy Thompson in Crum (1939, 610), where σοφώ is compared to the Coptic ϣⲓϥⲉ (Sahidic) m. ‘a kind of cress’.

30 Cf. αἷμα ταύρου ‘horehound’ (3.105 RV), αἷμα ἴβϵως ‘bramble’ (4.37 RV) or ‘chaste tree’ (1.103 RV), etc.

31 Note also that, according to Dioscorides in the relevant passage (4.9.2), this plant was used for haemostatic purposes.

32 Cf. στέφανος ‘spineless butcher’s broom (Ruscus hypophyllum L.)’ (4.145 and 4.145 RV), Ἀφροδίτης στέφανος ‘horse mint (Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. or another species of Mentha L.)’ (3.41 RV), γῆς στέφανος ‘ground-ivy (Glechoma hederacea L.)’ (4.125 RV) or ἡλίου στέφανος ‘tree purslane (Atriplex halimus L.)’ (1.91 RV).

33 Moreover, cf. the gloss κρόβισος (v.l. κρόβυσσος) ‘eryngo (Eryngium campestre L. or E. maritimurn L)’ (3.21 RV) which Wellmann (1907–14, II, 249) links to ⟨μα⟩κρόβι[σ]ον (a conjecture; mss.: κρόβισον, κρόβυσον, κρόβισσον) ‘common houseleek (Sempervivum tectorum L.)’ (4.89 RV) and, therefore, treats the ethnonym Αἰγύπτιοι in the case of κρόβισος as suspected.

34 In addition, she juxtaposes ἄραχος (and ἄρακος) with the Egyptian jwry.t ‘a kind of bean, prob. cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.)’, Demotic wrꜣ ‘id.’, Coptic ⲟⲩⲣⲱ (Sahidic, Bohairic, Fayumic), ⲁⲣⲱ (Sahidic, Fayumic) m. ‘bean’.

35 On the Coptic name of rocket, see Crum (1939, 824); Westendorf (1965–77, 461, 574); CDO, s.v. ϭⲓⲛϭⲓⲛ.

36 See also Hannig (2009, 972). But Germer (2008, 148 and 259) rejects this identification. Moreover, cf. Erman and Grapow (1926–31, V, 177); Deines and Grapow (1959, 538–539).

37 See Black, George, and Postgate (2000, 67); Drower and Macuch (1963, 85); Gelb et. al. (1956–2010, IV, 43); Sokoloff (1990, 135; 2002, 298; 2009, 256).

38 On the Coptic ⲕⲟⲣⲧⲉⲛ, see Crum (1939, 117); CDO, s.v. ⲕⲟⲣⲧⲉⲛ.

39 On this feature of the Fayumic dialect, see Peust (1995, 130–131); Allen (2020, 20 and 22).

40 So also Lesko (2002–04, I, 274) and Hannig (2009, 504). However, Germer (2008, 294) does not agree with this identification. Cf. Erman and Grapow (1926–31, II, 439).

41 See Lacau (1952), Allen (2020, 70 and 92–93).

42 Wiedemann (1883, 8) had linked ἄγον with the Egyptian gj.w (not jg.w) perh. ‘a species of Cyperus L.’.

43 On Coptic ⲁⲛⲛⲟϣⲉⲣ, see Crum (1939, 12); CDO, s.v. ⲁⲛⲛⲟϣⲉⲣ.

44 He mentions that the inhabitants of Egypt used different names for both kinds of endive: cichorium (= Greek κιχόριον) ‘wild endive’ and seris (= Greek σέρις) ‘cultivated endive’.

45 Cf. Wiedemann (1883, 10) who derives this plant name from the Egyptian ꜥmꜥꜥ prob. ‘grain’. In turn, Witczak (2018), against the context and manner of Pseudo-Dioscorides, claims that ἄμϵτρος is not an Egyptian, but a Balkan gloss (allegedly related to the Albanian mjedër ‘raspberry’); he erroneously writes (p. 23): “It is unclear whether the pronoun οἱ (‘others’) refers to the Egyptians, the Dacians, or yet different non-Greek inhabitants of the Roman Empire”; see the passage 4.37 RV quoted above (in the introduction).

46 Wellmann (1907–14, II, 328) in the commentary qualifies φιλάκουον as “suspectum”.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded in part by National Science Centre, Poland [research project no. UMO-2020/39/B/HS2/00934]. I also want to thank the Lanckoronski Foundation for a scholarship that enabled me to do preliminary research on this topic in Vienna (July 2018).