Source: http://ancientrome.ru/publik/article.htm?a=1473078563
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:36:16+00:00

Document:
Текст приводится по изданию: «Античный мир и археология». Вып. 16. Саратов, 2013. С. 180—189.
с.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 B. C.) on the pre­sent day Ta­man’ pe­nin­su­la, in the north-eas­tern Black Sea area. Ac­cor­ding to so­me scho­lars, the­se co­lo­nists did not co­me di­rectly from Teos, but through Ab­de­ra, which was ano­ther co­lo­ny foun­ded by Teos al­most si­mul­ta­neo­us­ly with Pha­na­go­reia. It seems that Pha­na­go­reia enjoyed a free sta­tus from the ve­ry be­gin­nings un­til 480 B. C., when the Ar­chaea­nac­tids — ru­lers of the Cim­me­rian Bos­po­rus Kingdom — ex­ten­ded their power over the ci­ty. Pha­na­go­reia was a pros­pe­rous ci­ty at that ti­me, min­ting sil­ver coins and tra­ding with the Greek mo­ther-ci­ties and co­lo­nies. When the Spar­to­cids took over the Bos­po­rus Kingdom, Pha­na­go­reia fa­ced the dec­li­ne. La­ter, it was the first ci­ty that re­bel­led against Mith­ri­da­tes Eupa­tor and in the middle of the 1st c. B. C. it was par­tial­ly destroyed by Phar­na­ces. The­re is evi­den­ce that the ci­ty still exis­ted in the 4th c. A. D. and that it was sud­den­ly aban­do­ned as a re­sult of the Hun­nish raids. A small tra­ding cen­ter ap­pea­red much la­ter in that pla­ce1.
The ci­ty was na­med af­ter its first co­lo­nist and foun­der2. He was Φανα­γόρης (Ionic dia­lect; Φανα­γόρας in the At­tic) from Teos. The on­ly с.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, e. g. Ἀγο­ρακ­λής (the one who has glo­ry in the pub­lic as­sembly), Ἀγο­ράκ­ρι­τος (the one who is being jud­ged by the pub­lic as­sembly, cf. Δη­μόκ­ρι­τος), Ἀθη­ναγό­ρας (a wise ora­tor — inspi­red by At­he­na), Ἀρισ­τα­γόρας (the best ora­tor or the best among tho­se who work for the com­mon good), Διαγό­ρας (a good ora­tor — inspi­red and en­cou­ra­ged by Zeus), Εὐαγό­ρας (a good ora­tor), Μολ­πα­γόρας, Πρω­ταγό­ρας (the best ora­tor or the best among tho­se who work for the com­mon good), Πυ­θαγό­ρας (the one who pro­vi­des in­for­ma­tion to the pub­lic as­sembly), Τι­μαγό­ρας, Νι­καγό­ρας, Κλει­ναγό­ρας etc. Mo­reo­ver, se­ve­ral per­so­nal na­mes were for­med with the com­po­si­te φαν- (or φαιν-), e. g. Φανοκ­λής, Φαινεκ­λῆς, Φανόκ­ρι­τος, Φανό­μα­χος, Φανό­δικος, Φανοστρά­τη, Φαινα­ρέτη, Φαίνιπ­πος etc.
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. с.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 с.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. B. C.)12. Sin­ce then we can find it in Tha­sos13 and Chios14 (5th—4th c.), again in Tha­sos15 and in the Cim­me­rian Bos­po­rus16 (4th c.), in Sa­mos17 (3rd—2nd c.) and again in Chios18 (2nd—1st c.). This Ionic form с.184 at­tes­ted ac­tual­ly in the Eas­tern parts of the Greek world, is rep­re­sen­ted by the ear­liest inscrip­tions19.
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. B. C.) (Stran­ge­ly enough, the pas­sa­ge from Hdt. VII. 214: Ὀνή­της τε ὁ Φανα­γόρεω ἀνὴρ Κα­ρύσ­τιος was con­si­de­red by LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρας, Euboia 3, as evi­den­ce for the na­me Φανα­γόρας, not Φανα­γόρης!). And, of cour­se, the­re was a fe­ma­le per­so­nal na­me Φανα­γόρα which is at­tes­ted — to our knowled­ge — on­ly in At­ti­ca: in the 5th—4th c.26, in the 4th c.27 and in the 3rd c.28 How can we explain the spread of the per­so­nal na­mes Pha­na­go­ra and (to a les­ser deg­ree) Pha­na­go­ras in At­hens? It seems that it was the re­sult of the approa­ching between At­hens and the Bos­po­rus Kingdom, who­se re­la­tions be­ca­me stron­ger af­ter Pe­ric­les’ ex­pe­di­tion and es­pe­cial­ly in the ti­mes of Sa­ty­rus I and Leu­con I. Sin­ce the 430’s—420’s the Pon­tic area (in par­ti­cu­lar the nor­thern sho­res) be­ca­me mo­re fa­mi­liar to the At­he­nians29.
с.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 с.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.
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. B. C. on the coins of the ci­ty39. From that ti­me on, this term was writ­ten с.187 in inscrip­tions as well: the first, da­ted in 88—87 B. C. speaks about the bou­le and de­mos of the ci­ti­zens of Pha­na­go­reia (ΦΑΝΑΓΟΡΙΤΩΝ: Φανα­γορι­τῶν ἡ βου­λὴ καὶ ὁ δῆ­μος)40. The se­cond, da­ted in the first cen­tu­ries A. D., speaks about an am­bas­sa­dor sent to Ro­me by the ci­ti­zens of Pha­na­go­reia (ΦΑΝΑΓΟΡΕΙΤΩΝ: Ἥδυ­κος Εὐόδου πρεσ­βευτὴς Φανα­γορει­τῶν τῶν κα­τὰ Βοὸς πό­ρον)41. The­re should be no doubt that the na­me of­fi­cial­ly used sin­ce at least the end of the 2nd c. B. C. was Φανα­γορ(ε)ί­της. In so­me texts of the first cen­tu­ries A. D. (e. g. Ap­pia­nus42) the old form Φανα­γορεύς was used but that de­pen­ded on the work that each wri­ter sour­ced.
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. A. D. and is at­tes­ted on­ly in two aut­hors: At­he­nae­us and He­ro­dia­nus (and al­so Ste­pha­nus By­zan­tius, who co­pied He­ro­dia­nus)43.
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).
с.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.
In a well known inscrip­tion of the 4th—3rd c. B. C. from Rho­des one reads the na­me Φαινα­γόρειοι47. This na­me can­not be lin­ked di­rectly to abo­ve men­tio­ned eth­nic na­mes Φαινα­γόρευς — Φανα­γορ(ε)ί­της, be­cau­se it forms the no­mi­na­ti­ve ca­se of the sin­gu­lar num­ber as Φαινα­γόρειος. The Rho­dian inscrip­tion en­lists the na­mes of the sub­di­vi­sions of the lo­cal tri­be (phy­le), so Phai­na­go­reioi was the na­me of a pat­ra or dia­go­nia of Ka­mei­ros in Rho­des. Whe­re did they get their na­me from?
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. B. C.49 The ety­mo­lo­gy and mea­ning of the na­me Phai­na­go­ras is the sa­me as that of Pha­na­go­res -as (see abo­ve). The first op­tion seems un­li­ke­ly, but the se­cond seems mo­re lo­gi­cal.
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. B. C.50 Per­haps the na­me Phai­na­go­ras — and Phai­na­go­reioi — in Rho­des is but a me­mo­ry of tho­se who had mig­ra­ted the­re from Ar­go­lis. A per­son na­med Phai­na­go­ras could ha­ve been one of them.
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 с.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, e. g. Ἀρισ­τα­γόρειοι, Μει­δαγό­ρειοι, in the sa­me inscrip­tion whe­re we find the form Φαινα­γόρειοι. Mo­reo­ver, the com­po­si­tes Φαν- and Φαιν- had the sa­me mea­ning and were both in use. The opi­nion ac­cor­ding to which both Ar­rian and Eus­ta­thi­us (or — per­haps — on­ly Eus­ta­thi­us, who com­men­ted on Ar­rian’s text) used the form Φαινα­γόρας (see abo­ve) inspi­red by the form Φαινα­γόρη which they found in Dio­ny­sius Pe­rie­ge­tes, and that Dio­ny­sius pre­fer­red to use the form Φαινα­γόρη instead of Φανα­γόρεια for met­ri­cal pur­po­ses52 is ra­ther con­vin­cing. Of cour­se we can­not exclu­de the hy­po­the­sis that Dio­ny­sius was awa­re of the form Φαινα­γόρας and sin­ce he was wil­ling to wri­te about the Pon­tic ci­ty of Pha­na­go­reia he con­fu­sed the na­mes by thin­king that all forms are lin­ked to one and the sa­me na­me and ci­ty.
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.
1Фана­го­рия. По мате­ри­а­лам таман­ской экс­пе­ди­ции ИА РАН. М., 2008. С. 11 сл.; An In­ven­to­ry of Ar­chaic and Clas­si­cal Po­leis. Oxf., 2004. P. 950—951; Kuz­net­sov V. Ke­poi — Pha­na­go­ria — Ta­gan­rog // An­cient Greek Co­lo­nies in the Black Sea. Thes­sa­lo­ni­ki, 2003. Vol. 2. P. 897—921.
2I. E. Su­ri­kov rejec­ted this view in a re­cent stu­dy (Сури­ков И. Е. Об эти­мо­ло­гии назва­ний Фана­го­рии и Гер­мо­нассы (к поста­нов­ке про­бле­мы) // ДБ. 2012. Вып. 16. С. 441—469) clai­ming that the ci­ty’s na­me ori­gi­na­ted not from the foun­der but from the epik­le­sis to the god Apol­lo. I would li­ke to express my gra­ti­tu­de to prof. S. Ju. Mo­nak­hov who kindly pro­vi­ded me with a co­py of Su­ri­kov’s stu­dy.
3Arr. Bith. F. 60. FHG. P. 597 = Eus­tath. Comm. a. Dio­nys. Pe­rieg. I. 549. GGM2. P. 324. Cf.: Ps.-Scym. F. 17b. P., 2000. P. 142. See al­so: Ma­ri­no­ni E. Ta­le­te in Ero­do­to: La cro­no­lo­gia e l’at­ti­vi­tà po­li­ti­ca sul­lo sfon­do del­la con­quis­ta per­sa­na dell’Asia Mi­no­re // AC­ME. 1976. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 215. N. 118; Mal­kin I. What’s in a na­me? The epo­ny­mous foun­ders of Greek co­lo­nies // At­he­nae­um. 1985. No. 63. P. 114. 121 ff.
4But φαν- did not co­me di­rectly from the form φῶς, as Su­ri­kov sug­gests (Сури­ков И. Е. Указ. соч. С. 464: He­re per­ti­nently to draw at­ten­tion to that the first com­po­nent of this com­po­si­te — φαν- (φαιν-) — di­rectly oc­curs from φῶς «light»). Cf.: LSJ. 1996. Hof­mann J. Ety­mo­lo­gi­sches Wör­ter­buch des grie­chi­schen. Mün­chen, 1950. P. 1912—1913, 1916 and P. 464—465, 467, 487.
5Bech­tel F., Fick A. Die Grie­chi­schen Per­so­nen­na­men. Göt­tin­gen, 1894. P. 43—44, 273—274.
6Сури­ков И. Е. Указ. соч. С. 466. For the­se coins see bib­lio­gra­phy in n. 37 he­re.
7Сури­ков И. Е. Указ. соч. С. 462.
8Там же. С. 450—451, 462 сл.
9He­cat. F. 225; cf.: He­rod. De Pro­so­dia Ca­tho­li­ca // Gram­ma­ti­ci Grae­ci. Leip­zig, 1867. Vol. III. 1. P. 280 and Steph. Byz. s. v. Φανα­γόρεια); Ps.-Scyl. 72; Stra­bo. XI. 2. 10; Arr. Bith. F. 60. FHG. P. 597; Ano­nym. PPE. F. 11r19—20 (Dil­ler).
10Hdt. VII. 214; Hip­pocr. De morb. I. 2. 8, with app. crit.: φα­ναγο­ρέω in ano­ther ma­nuscript (cf.: Ga­len. In Hip­poc­ra­tis lib­rum pri­mum epi­de­mia­rum com­men­ta­rii // Clau­dii Ga­le­ni Ope­ra Om­nia. Leip­zig, 1828. Vol. 17. 1. P. 168); КБН. № 971 (4th c. B. C.).
11As it is sta­ted in КБН. № 971, comm. Cf.: SEG. 26. 1976—77, 1891. Ma­ri­no­ni E. Ta­le­te… P. 214. No. 118 wri­tes that Φανα­γόρας is the Ionic na­me (“In og­ni ca­so Pha­na­go­ras è antro­po­ni­mo di si­cu­ra tra­di­zio­ne ioni­ca”), so­me­thing which is half-right: the form of the na­me is At­tic, not Ionic. As for the ori­gin, the na­me in ques­tion is Ionic but as we will see fur­ther be­low it exis­ted — in­de­pen­dently — in ot­her re­gions as well.
12Sayar M. Pe­rin­thos — He­rak­leia (Mar­ma­ra Ereğli­si) und Um­ge­bung. Wien, 1998. P. 251. No 69 (= Col­litz H., Bech­tel F. Sammlung der grie­chi­schen Dia­lekt-Inschrif­ten (he­reaf­ter: SGDI). Göt­tin­gen, 1905. Vol. 3. 2. P. 740. No. 5722 (233); Fra­ser P., Mat­thews E. A Le­xi­con of Greek Per­so­nal Na­mes (he­reaf­ter: LGPN). Ox­ford, 1987. Vol. 1. P. 339, Φανα­γόρης, Thra­ce 2).
13Hip­pocr. De morb. I. 2. 8; IG. XII (8). P. 88. No. 270 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρης, Tha­sos 5).
14SGDI. P. 707. No. 5658 (179); LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρης, Chios 1.
15Pouil­loux J. Re­cher­ches sur l’his­toi­re et les cul­tes de Tha­sos, I, De la fon­da­tion de la ci­té à 196 avant J. C (Étu­des Tha­sien­nes, 3). P., 1954. P. 262. No. 27; Bon A. M., Bon A., Gra­ce V. Les timbres am­pho­ri­ques de Tha­sos (Étu­des Tha­sien­nes, 4). P., 1957. P. 398—399. No. 1638 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρης, Tha­sos 7); Du­nant C., Pouil­loux J. Re­cher­ches sur l’his­toi­re et les cul­tes de Tha­sos. II. De 196 avant J. C. jus­qu’à la fin de l’An­ti­qui­té (Étu­des Tha­sien­nes, 5). P., 1958. P. 234. No. 409 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρης, Tha­sos 6).
17Θεοφα­νείδης Β. Επιγ­ρα­φαί Σά­μου // AD. 1924—25. Vol. 9. P. 101. Frg. Στʹ (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρης, Sa­mos 3). The inscrip­tion is da­ma­ged but the peop­le on the is­land were Ionic spea­king.
18Mav­ro­gor­da­to J. A chro­no­lo­gi­cal ar­ran­ge­ment of the coins of Chios, part III // NC. 1916. P. 324 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρης, Chios 2).
19To the abo­ve men­tio­ned we may add Hdt. VII. 214 (5th—4th c.). It seems that He­ro­do­tus did not chan­ge the na­me, sin­ce the Ionic dia­lect was pre­do­mi­nant in Euboia anyway.
20IG. XII (5). P. 143. No. 544. Frg. B:2, 4 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρας, Keos 4).
21IG. XI (2). P. 39. No. 156 A; P. 42. No. 158 A; P. 47. No. 161 A (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρας, De­los 1, 2).
22IG. XI (4). No. 592 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρας, Keos 5); IG. XII (5). P. 168—169. No. 610 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρας, Keos 6).
23Mur­ray A., Smith A., Wal­ters H. Ex­ca­va­tions in Cyp­rus. L., 1900. P. 96. No. 4 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρας, Les­bos 7).
24IG. XII (8). P. 110. No. 294 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φανα­γόρας, Tha­sos 8).
25IG. II2. P. 736. No. 2469 (= LGPN. 2. P. 440, Φανα­γόρας, At­hens 1).
26IG. II2. No. 12211 = 12219 (= LGPN. 2. P. 440, Φανα­γόρα, At­hens? 10). We are not con­vin­ced, howe­ver, about the rea­ding of this na­me as a fe­ma­le one.
27SEG. 1968. Vol. 23. P. 59. No. 157 (= LGPN. 2. P. 440, Φανα­γόρα, At­hens, Myrrhi­nous 8); SEG. 1968. Vol. 23. P. 60—61. No. 161 (= LGPN. 2. P. 453, Φανα­γόρα, At­hens 2); Clair­mont C. Clas­si­cal At­tic Tombsto­nes. Kilchberg, 1993. Vol. 3. P. 106. No. 258 (v.) (= LGPN. 2. P. 440, Φανα­γόρα, At­hens? 13). The­re are about fif­teen mo­re inscrip­tions men­tio­ning this fe­ma­le na­me.
28Ales­hi­re S. The At­he­nian Askle­pieion. The Peop­le, their De­di­ca­tions and the In­ven­to­ries. Amster­dam, 1989. Inv. V. P. 262 (= LGPN. 2. P. 440, Φανα­γόρα, At­hens? 18).
29The mu­tual re­la­tion between At­hens and the Bos­po­rus Kingdom in the 5th—4th c. is a to­pic pre­sen­ted in se­ve­ral stu­dies of M. V. Skrzhinska­ja and D. Braund, for example. For Pe­ric­les’ Pon­tic ex­pe­di­tion, see bib­lio­gra­phy in: Χα­ραλαμ­πά­κης Π. Η εκστρα­τεία του Πε­ρικ­λή στον Εύξει­νο Πόν­το // Ιστο­ρικές Σε­λίδες. 2009. Vol. 42. P. 16—27.
30Cf.: Cou­nil­lon P. Pseu­do-Sky­lax… P. 84 with No. 249. As far as I know, the­re are no inscrip­tions or coins men­tio­ning the ci­ty’s na­me. On­ly the eth­nic na­me is at­tes­ted he­re and the­re.
31Pto­lem. IX. 6 (ed. Stu­ckel­ber­ger A., Grasshoff G. Ba­sel, 2006. Vol. 2. P. 532) = (5. 9. 8, ed. Nob­be C. Leip­zig, 1843—1845. Vol. 2. P. 38); Cou­nil­lon P. Pseu­do-Sky­lax… P. 85 says that Stra­bo men­tions the form Φανα­γορία, but ac­cor­ding to the la­test edi­tion it seems that this is not the ca­se: Stra­bo XI. 2. 10.
32He­cat. F. 225; Dio­nys. Pe­rieg. 550—552; He­rod. De Pro­so­dia Ca­tho­li­ca. P. 341; Steph. Byz. s. v. Ταυ­ρική; s. v. Φανα­γόρεια.
33Cf.: Steph. Byz. s. v. Ἀπά­τουρον.
34Stra­bo (Op. cit. P. 298, app. crit.).
35Steph. Byz. s. v. Βόσ­πο­ρος.
36Steph. Byz. s. v. Βόσ­πο­ρος (Bil­ler­beck P. 364).
38He­rod. On par. (Lentz P. 896).
39She­lov D. Coi­na­ge of the Bos­po­rus, VI—II Cen­tu­ries B. C. Oxf., 1978. Nrs. 26—28, 112—114; Ано­хин В. Монет­ное дело Бос­по­ра. М., 1986. С. 139, 142—145, 147—8; Fro­lo­va N., Ire­land S. The Coi­na­ge of the Bos­po­ran Kingdom. From the First Cen­tu­ry B. C. to the Middle of the First Cen­tu­ry A. D. Oxf., 2002. P. 12—13, 15, 17, 19—20, 22—23, 47—48; Fro­lo­va N. Die frü­he Münzprä­gung vom Kim­me­ri­schen Bos­po­ros (Mit­te 6. bis An­fang 4. Jh. v. Chr.). B., 2004. P. 71—74, 76. Per­haps the da­ting of the coins is not ac­cu­ra­te be­cau­se the scho­lars use dif­fe­rent me­thods. Be that as it may, any dif­fe­ren­ce in the da­ting is not so im­por­tant for our stu­dy.
40SEG. 1991. Vol. 41. P. 212—213. No. 625. Cf.: Вино­гра­дов Ю. Г. Фана­го­рий­ские наем­ни­ки // ВДИ. 1991. № 4. С. 14—35.
41Mo­ret­ti L. Inscrip­tio­nes Grae­cae Ur­bis Ro­mae. Ro­ma, 1972. Vol. 2. 1. P. 164, 166. No. 567.
42App. Mith. 108. 511. We can­not ac­cept that the eth­nic na­me of the ci­ti­zens of Pha­na­go­reia is at­tes­ted on­ly by Ap­pian, as it is clai­med by Коло­бо­ва К. М. Поли­ти­че­ское поло­же­ние горо­дов в бос­пор­ском государ­стве // ВДИ. 1953. № 4. С. 53.
43At­hen. XIII. 57; He­rod. On pa­ron.
44Fro­lo­va N., Ire­land S. The Coi­na­ge… P. 47. Tab. XXIX: 2—9.
45See e. g. КБН. № 37, 1048 and Steph. Byz. s. v.
46Cf.: the com­ments in Χα­ραλαμ­πά­κης Π. Ιστο­ρικο­γεωγ­ρα­φικά Ευξεί­νου Πόν­του. Η πε­ριοχή ­της Κρι­μαίας. (1ος αι. Π. Χρ. — 6ος αι. Μ. Χρ). Ioan­ni­na, 2008. P. 189—196.
47Peek W. Inschrif­ten von den do­ri­schen In­seln. B., 1969. S. 12—13. No 10 (= LGPN. 1. P. 452, Φαινα­γόρας, Rho­des 1). Cf.: Πα­παχ­ριστο­δουλου Ι. Οι αρ­χαιοοι ρο­διακοι δη­μοι. At­hens, 1989. P. 55, 230 (n. 101), 235 (n. 194) and IG. XII. 1. No 695.
48Πα­παχ­ριστο­δουλου Χ. Ιστο­ρια ­της Ρο­δου. Αθη­ναι, 1972. P. 39.
49SEG. 1957. Vol. 14. P. 159—160. No 687 (= LGPN. 1. P. 452, Φαινα­γόρας, Rho­des 2).
50Πα­παχ­ριστο­δουλου Ι. Οι αρ­χαιοοι… P. 33; IG. IV. P. 133. No 731 (= LGPN. 3. 1. Oxf., 1997. P. 442, Φαινα­γόρας, Ar­go­lis 1).
51Πα­παχ­ριστο­δουλου Ι. Οι αρ­χαιοοι… P. 71, 242 (n. 306).
52Ma­ri­no­ni E. Ta­le­te… P. 215. N. 118. Cf.: IOS­PE. Vol. 4. P. 230: Quod su­per­set, mo­men­dum est ti­tu­lum nostrum pro­ba­re Pha­na­go­ren­ses ip­sos no­men con­di­to­ris Φανα­γόρης, -εω scrip­sis­se…, non Φαινα­γόρας, ut scri­bunt Eus­ta­thi­us… et Ar­ria­nus.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.