The Vocabulary of Menander

Front matter

THE

VOCABULARY OF MENANDER

CONSIDERED IN ITS RELATION TO THE KOINE

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

For nearly two thousand years Menander's reputation as a writer of pure Attic has been somewhat tarnished through the attacks made upon him by the atticizing grammarians of the first centuries of our era. Notwithstanding his great popularity in ancient times, which lasted for centuries after his death, and the faithful picture of life that he painted in his comedies, our estimate of him has probably suffered on account of their adverse criticism. The recent additions to the extant body of his works give us at last an opportunity to test his diction and to decide to a certain extent for ourselves independently of the ancient grammarians where he stood among Greek writers from the point of view of language.

The present study is an examination of Menander's vocabulary, as compared with that of his predecessors and successors. For this purpose a careful list was made of all words used by him which do not appear in the literature we now possess from the classical period, together with words which he uses with new meanings. These two classes of words have been traced through the rest of the literature, and through the grammarians and lexicographers. My chief helps have been the Greek-English lexicon of Liddell and Scott, the Paris edition of the Thesaurus, and the indices listed in H. Schöne's "Repertorium griechischer Wörterverzeichnisse und Speziallexika", Leipzig, 1907, with the following important exceptions:

Aesopus: fabulae Planudeae ed. Schaefer. Lips. 1818.

Agapetus: scheda regia ed. Groebel. Lips. 1733.

Anthologia Graeca: Fr. Jacobs animadvers. in epigr. Anth. Gr. Brunckii. vol. III. pars. III. tom. XIII. Lips. 1814.

Democritus: Ethica ed. Natorp. Marburg 1893.

Ioannes Glycas: de vera syntaxeos ratione ed. Alb. Jahn. Bernae 1849.

Medici: I have used only Ermerins' Anecdota and Castellus' Lexicon.

Papyri Graeci Musei antiq. publ. Lugduni Batavi ed. C. Leemans. I. and II. Lugduni Bat. 1843, 1885.

Papyri Graeci Regii Taurinensis Musei Aegyptii ed. ab Amadeo Peyron. Taurini 1826.

Synesius: Calvitii encomium ed. Krabinger. Stuttgart 1834.

Theodoretus: Graec. affectionum curatio ed. Gaisford. Oxonii 1839.

Meursius: Glossarium Graecobarbarum. ed. altera. Lugduni Batavorum 1614.

In his Nachträge (p. iv.): Martyria]: Martyrium S. Theodoti et S. Ariadnes ed. Franchi. Roma 1901.

Passio S. Perpetuae et Felicitatis ed. Franchi. Rome 1896.

In the case of authors to whose writings two or more indices exist, I have used only the one which seemed the latest and best. As the year 600 A.D. is a convenient date at which to divide the Koine from the Greek of the middle ages, authors after that time have been disregarded. Indices which exist only in manuscript have not been consulted.

This list of omissions represents in the main books not accessible to me. Yet many citations from the authors covered by them have been found from other sources, such as the general lexica; hence the loss for this study is not so great as it might seem.

In the course of my work I have occasionally found additional indices, of which the most important are:

Alcaeus: Gerstenhauer, de Alcaei et Sapphonis copia vocabulorum. In Diss. phil. Halens. 12 (1894) pp. 231–257.

Epicurus: Linde, de Epicuri vocabulis ab optima Atthide alienis. Breslau 1906. In Bresl. phil. Abh. 9.3.

Eusebius: vol. II., Kirchengeschichte. Tl. iii. Register. ed. E. Schwartz. Leipzig 1909.

Papyri: Tebtunis Payri vol. II. London 1907.

Papyri: Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus. ed. by B. P. Grenfell and J. P. Mahaffy. Oxford 1896.

Papyri: Oxyrhynchus Papyri ed. Grenfell and Hunt. vols. V, VI, VII, VIII, IX. London 1908, 1908, 1910, 1911, 1912.

Diels, H.: die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 2te Auflage. II. 2. Wortindex von W. Kranz. Berlin 1910.

Scholia in Aristophanem ed. Fr. Dübner. Paris 1877.

Theophrastus: Characteres rec. H. Diels. Oxford 1909.

Theophrastus: ed. Wimmer. Didot. Paris 1866.

Theophrastus: Hindenlang, L.: Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Theophrasts botanischen Schriften. Diss. Strassburg 1910. (Diss. phil. Argent. sel. XIV. 2.)

van Herwerden: Lex. Gr. suppletor. ed. II. Leyden 1910.

van Herwerden: Addenda ad lex. gr. suppl. ed. II., in Mnemosyne N. S. 39 (1911) pp. 10–12.

A statement is necessary about the authors whose use of a word has been considered sufficient to mark it as good Attic. All the Atticists agree in accepting as standard Attic (δόκιμοι) the orators, Thucydides, and Aristophanes and the other writers of old comedy. As regards tragedy, the practical difficulty is much slighter than the theoretical. It is difficult, indeed almost impossible, to separate the "good" words in tragedy from the "bad". And yet, in spite of the large element in tragedy of Epic and Ionic words, the dialogue portions furnish a large body of the best Attic usage, though generally of a style more elevated than that of Menander's comedy. However, since the latter is the basis of our investigation, and the element of paratragedy in it is relatively small, for practical purposes the dialogue of tragedy supplies a fair test of Menander's vocabulary and has been accepted in this treatise along with the approved writers. For the same reason I have not taken into account paratragedic passages in the comic writers. No word in such passages would incur the censure of the Atticists. In the case of Plato, who is included by the Atticists, and whose stylistic excellence is unquestioned, I adopted the following plan. In view of the large number of words which he employs which are not found in earlier Attic writers, I regarded the purity of his diction as doubtful. Indeed, his long absence from Athens might well have caused his vocabulary to become tainted. But after considerable progress had been made in this investigation, and various tests, as will be seen below, had been applied, the purity of his diction in the main seemed amply vindicated. The Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία found among the works of Xenophon, which has often been ascribed to Critias, has been accepted in this study as pure Attic. To these we must add the old Attic inscriptions.

The canon of good writers, then, in following discussion contains the ten orators, Plato, Thucydides, Aristophanes and the fragments of old comedy, the dialogue of tragedy, Attic inscriptions previous to the death of Alexander, and the Xenophontic Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία. This is the standard adopted in the selection of the words in the third chapter, which represents the bulk of my work. In chapter II are contained special studies, involving a comparison of Menander with certain of these classical writers taken as representative, and certain later authors in addition.

Chapter I

CHAPTER I

Words used by Menander which are Condemned by one or more of the Grammarians

After the Athenians lost their ascendancy in the affairs of Greece, their originality in literature began to decline. Loss of supremacy brought with it loss of vigor. With the rule of the Macedonian came a lessening of interest in public affairs, accompanied by a spiritual weakening. Patriotism had been a large factor in producing the great literary works of the fifth century. When this impulse was gone, men of a literary bent devoted themselves to scientific pursuits and to the study of the writings of the past. Schools of grammarians sprang up. Other circumstances contributed to this result. With the conquests of Alexander, Greek spread and became a world-language. This advance brought a loss of purity, due to the difficulty foreigners had in learning the language. As the current speech gradually changed the use of glosses to interpret the older language became more and more necessary. As the fifth century Greek had to be instructed in Homer (cf. Aristophanes Δαιτ. fr. 222 K.), so the Greek of the third century required helps to the understanding of old tragedy and comedy. Again, the immense superiority of the classical masterpieces, the recognition that they were "classic" (ἀρχαῖος is indeed the word for "classic") brought with it a certain veneration for the language of the "classical" writers where it differed from the current speech. The teacher was not content to inculcate the principles of the best writing of his day, but gave to his pupils, as the standard by which they should measure their style, the best writers of the fifth and fourth centuries. The result was, inevitably, the equating, more or less, of the λέξεις = glosses, with λέξεις δόκιμοι, and the mere glossary came in the end to serve as a dictionary of standard usage. When we come to the revival of "Atticism", the lines were drawn very closely. All departures, or supposed departures, from the old Attic in vocabulary and syntax were ruthlessly condemned, and these standards were applied not only to contemporary writers but also to the best writers of the Alexandrian period, such as Menander. For if the grammarian had condemned a word in an author of his own time, he could not afford to be confronted by a student with the same word in Menander. The great popularity of Menander made it all the more necessary for the strict stylist to utter a warning against him.

Prominent among the votaries of this creed were Herodes Atticus and Aristides; but for maintenance of a rigorous standard of Attic style Phrynichus stands at the head of the atticizing school of grammarians. The eligible words were taken from the works of a small list of writers. The canon of Phrynichus is given by Photius, Bibl. p. 101 b Bekker:

Εἰλικρινοῦς δὲ καὶ καθαροῦ καὶ Ἀττικοῦ λόγου κανόνας καὶ στάθμας καὶ παράδειγμά φησιν (sc. Φρύνιχος) ἄριστον Πλάτωνά τε καὶ Δημοσθένην μετὰ τοῦ ῥητορικοῦ τῶν ἐννέα χοροῦ, Θουκυδίδην τε καὶ Ξενοφῶντα καὶ Αἰσχίνην τὸν Λυσανίου τὸν Σωκρατικόν, Κριτίαν τε τὸν Καλλαίσχρου καὶ Ἀντισθένην μετὰ τῶν γνησίων αὐτοῦ δύο λόγων, τοῦ περὶ Κύρου καὶ τοῦ περὶ Ὀδυσσείας, τῶν μέντοι κωμῳδῶν Ἀριστοφάνην μετὰ τοῦ οἰκείου, ἐν οἷς ἀττικίζουσι, χοροῦ, καὶ τῶν τραγικῶν Αἰσχύλον τὸν μεγαλοφωνότατον καὶ Σοφοκλέα τὸν γλυκὺν καὶ τὸν πάνσοφον Εὐριπίδην.

Of this list we have practically nothing left of Aeschines, Critias and Antisthenes, with the possible exception of the Xenophontic Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία, and two words assigned to Antisthenes, but usually considered spurious. Among the rest, Phrynichus definitely censures Xenophon (p. 89 L., 160 R. al.), and Euripides (p. 341 L., 427 R.); while nowhere in his extant work does he cite any word from Aeschylus or Sophocles as an example of good Attic. He places under the ban also Herodotus (p. 130 L., 207 R. al.), Homer (p. 145 L., 223 R. al.), Hesiod (p. 101 L., 149 R.), Epicharmus (p. 108 L., 194 R. al.), Aristotle (p. 311 L., 366 R. al.), Theophrastus (p. 341 L., 427 R.), new comedy as a group (p. 344 L., 456 R. al.), and the writers of new comedy individually passim; and even of the orators Hyperides (twice: pp. 333 L., 417 R., 335 L., 419 R.).

Positive evidence from the extant writings of Phrynichus as to which writers were approved we find for the orators at pp. 37 L., 103 R., and 379 L., 474 R.; for Plato p. 37 L., 103 R. al.; for Thucydides p. 312 L., 366 R. al.; for old comedy p. 37 L., 103 R. al.; for Aristophanes p. 323 L., 370 R., al.

To these Atticists, whose literary souls lived in the glorious age of Athenian ascendancy, the speech of their contemporaries was barbarous and unfit for the purposes of literature, composed as it was of words from every dialect spoken in Greece, with the addition of Hebrew, Egyptian and other foreign elements. Attic alone was the medium of good literature; words from any other dialect were at once condemned (e.g. Phryn. p. 358 L., 463 R., al., esp. p. [270 L. adn. cr.] 338 R.).

This attitude of theirs met with a good deal of opposition even in their own day, and many writers like Galen and Plutarch refused to be bound by rules so strict; though Galen himself has been accused of lapsing into the critical spirit of the Atticists. The influence of the Atticists, however, affected them also. This school is represented among grammarians by the Antiatticist in Bekker's Anecd. Graec. I p. 75–116, and by Pollux. They approved of words used in Homer and Ionic writers, and even in new comedy.

In distinguishing "good" words from "bad", Moeris and other grammarians frequently employ the terms Ἀττικῶς, Ἑλληνικῶς and κοινῶς. The exact distinction between the last two terms, which was for a long time unsettled, has been recently decided by A. Maidhof, who shows that Ἑλληνικῶς refers to the Hellenistic literary language, while κοινῶς means the speech of everyday life, especially of the lower classes. Since either word brands an expression as un-Attic, it is unnecessary for the purposes of this dissertation to regard the distinction.

Naturally the spoken language contained many words unsuited to a good style. It is so in every age, and in every nation. Before a word is considered "good", we commonly search "good" writers for it. When we find it used by an approved author, we regard it as a "good" word. This was the process also of the Atticists. The great difference lies in the fact that their limits were far too narrow, and, set far back in the past, prevented the language from growing. Many words of Menander they failed to find among the representative authors who formed their canon, and hence they were especially severe in their criticism of him. Their harshness may have been due also in part to the great vogue of Menander, which made his faults, as they deemed them, all the more prominent, and might induce others to copy him, whether consciously or not. One quotation from Phrynichus will suffice to prove that this great comic poet was, in his opinion, quite outside the pale of good authors. Phryn. p. 442 L., 500 R. αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι· τοῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἀδόκιμον, ὡς μηδὲ Μένανδρον αὐτῷ χρήσασθαι. διαλύων οὖν λέγε αἰχμάλωτον γενέσθαι.

Even the source of Pollux, more liberal than Phrynichus, was not satisfied with Menander's diction. He says (3.29) Μένανδρος, ᾧ ἀεὶ μὲν οὐ χρηστέον ὡς οὐκ ἀκριβῶς Ἑλληνικῷ, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀκατονομάστων πιστευτέον· ὧν γὰρ γενῶν ἢ πραγμάτων ἢ κτημάτων ὀνόματα παρ᾽ ἄλλοις οὐκ ἔστι, ταῦτα ἀγαπητὸν ἂν εἴη κἂν παρὰ τούτου λαβεῖν.

The words found in Menander which are definitely attacked by the grammarians may conveniently be divided into three groups, according to the nature of the criticism directed against them:

I. A word is used by οἱ νεώτεροι, οἱ νῦν, ἡ νέα (sc. Ἀτθίς), ἡ νέα κωμῳδία; or, it is used παρ᾽ ἡμῖν; all in contrast to οἱ ἀρχαῖοι, οἱ παλαιοί.

II. A word is used by Ἀλεξανδρεῖς, Μακεδόνες, Ἕλληνες; or it is Ἀσιατικόν, Ἑλληνικόν, βαρβαρικόν; or it is used Ἑλληνικῶς, κοινῶς; all in contrast to Ἀττικοί, or Ἀττικόν, or Ἀττικῶς. Here are included a few names of objects which are Μακεδονικά, βαρβαρικά, Ἑλληνικά; in one instance (οὐθείς, Eust.) the phrase is ἐσχάτως βαρβαρίζει.

III. A word is:

a. ἀνεκτόν.

b. ὑπόφαυλον.

c. ἰδιωτικόν, ἀδόκιμον. Or we find comments like these, expressing disapproval: μᾶλλον τὸ δεῖνα (some other word is preferable), οὐδεὶς τῶν δοκίμων εἶπεν, οὐ γὰρ χρῶνται οἱ δόκιμοι, πειστέον δὲ τοῖς δοκίμοις τοῖς μηδ᾽ εἰδόσι τοὔνομα, τοῖς ποιηταῖς ἀφείς, Μενάνδρῳ δεδόσθω, παρασεσημασμένον. Sometimes a word which is currently misused, and which we find in Menander in this improper meaning, is simply cited with its proper meaning under the word which is recommended, e. g. [Hdn.] Philet. p. 471 Piers. ἐπιλήσμων· ὁ ἐπιλανθανόμενος· λήθαργος δέ, κύων ὁ κρύφα δάκνων. Here λήθαργος in the meaning ἐπιλανθανόμενος is by implication condemned. In the case of νουνεχόντος, Apollon. Alex. in Bekk. Anecd. 587.15 says δοκεῖ ἀσύστατον εἶναι. In these instances the contrast is with δόκιμον, etc.

d. Expressions of positive disapproval: οὐ χρὴ λέγειν, οὔ φασι δεῖν λέγειν, οὐκ, ἀποτρέπου λέγειν, ἁμαρτάνει λέγων. Also, μετάθες τὸ α εἰς τὸ ε, λέγων πεντέμηνος (Phryn.), and τόλμη καὶ τόλμα, … νάρκη δὲ διὰ τοῦ η (Phryn. apud Bekk. Anecd.).

e. Expressions of more positive disapproval: φαυλόν, παμπόνηρον, αἰσχύνει τὴν πάτριον φωνὴν (λέγων) (Phryn.), τοῦτο Μένανδρος τὴν καλλίστην τῶν κωμῳδιῶν τῶν ἑαυτοῦ, τὸν Μισογύνην, κατεκηλίδωσεν εἰπών (Phryn.), … καὶ ἄλλα κίβδηλα ἀμαθῆ.

The following is an alphabetical list of all Menander's words which are condemned by the ancient grammarians. After each word stands the name of the grammarian who objects to it, and a designation (e.g. I, IIIb, etc.) of the group and sub to which it belongs in accordance with the categories above outlined. For a full statement about each word the reader is referred to chapter III.

ἀκουστής: Poll. IIIe.

ἀκρατεύομαι: Phryn. IIIc; Th. M. IIId.

ἀμβλυωπέω: Harp. II; Th. M. IIId.

ἀνάριστος: Phot. Berol. IIIc; Suid. IIIc.

ἀορτή: Suid. II; Anon. ap. Bekk. Anecd. II.

ἀπόδημος: Moer. II; Th. M. IIId.

ἄχρις: Phryn. IIIc; Moer. II; Ps.-Hdn. II.

βάκηλος: Phryn. IIId; Th. M. IIId.

βασίλιννα: Ael. Dion. ap. Eust. II.

γῦρος: Phryn. IIIe.

διατροφή: Th. M. IIId.

δύσριγος: Phryn. IIIe; Poll. I.

ἑαυτοῖς for ἀλλήλοις, etc.: Eust. IIId.

ἔγχυτος: Moer. II.

ἐξαλλάττω = τέρπω: Phryn. IIIc; Antiatt. ap. Bekk. Anecd. II.

ἐπαρίστερος: Phryn. IIId; Poll. IIIc; Th. M. IIId.

ἐπικόπανον: Poll. I.

ἐπιχειμάζω: Phryn. IIIc.

ἡμίγραφος: Poll. IIIa.

ἡμιλάσταυρος: Poll. IIIe.

ἡμιφυής: Poll. IIIa.

ὁ θάτερος: Phot. IIId; Etym. Gud. IIId; Etym. Magn. IIId; Eust. II; Th. M. II, IIId.

κακοδαιμονέω: Phryn. IIIc; Th. M. IIIc.

καταφαγᾶς: Phryn. IIIe; Poll. IIIe.

καυσία: Poll. II; Suid. II

κοιτών: Phryn. IIIc; approved by Poll.

κολλυβιστής: Phryn. IIIc, d; Moer. II; Th. M. IIIc, d.

κόνδυ: Ath. II; Hesych. II.

κουρίς: Helladius II.

λαβρώνιος: Ath. II.

λήθαργος: Phryn. I, IIIe; Ps.-Hdn. IIId; Th. M. II.

λιτυέρσης: Poll. II; Ath. II; Phot. II; Suid. II.

μεγιστάν: Phryn. I, IIId; Th. M. IIIc.

ὁ μέθυσος: Phryn. IIId; Poll. IIIc; Moer. II; Antiatt. ap. Bekk. Anecd. IIId; Ps.-Hdn. IIIc; Th. M. IIIc.

μειρακίσκος: Th. M. IIIc.

μελίπηκτον: Th. M. IIIc.

μερισμός: Th. M. IIId.

μεσοπορέω: Phryn. IIIe.

μετανοέω: Moer. II.

μετριάζω: Phryn. I, IIIc.

μυόχοδος: Moer. II. (Moeris attacks the noun τὸ μυόχοδον; but his censure would apply also to the adj.)

μωρός (not μῶρος): Arcad. II.

νάρκα: Phryn. ap. Bekk. Anecd. IIId; Ath. I.

νουθετησμός: Poll. IIIe.

νουνεχόντως: Apollon. ap. Bekk. Anecd. IIIc.

οὐθείς: Phryn. I, IIId; Phot. I; Eust. II.

ὀψωνιασμός: Phryn. IIIe; Poll. IIIe.

ὀψώνιον: Phryn. IIIe; Phot. I.

ὁ Πάνακτος: Harp. I; Suid. I.

παράσιτος. Poll. I.

πεντάμηνος: Phryn. IIId; Moer. II; Th. M. II.

περισκελίς: Moer. II.

πολύτιμος: Th. M. IIIc; Lex. Vind. IIIc.

πορνοκόπος: Phryn. I, IIIe; Th. M. I.

προσπαίζω w. dat.: Th. M. IIId.

ῥίσκος: Poll. I.

σάρισ(σ)α: Poll. II; Hesych. II; Phot. II; Suid. II; Etym. Gud. II; Etym. Magn. II.

σής, σητός: Moer. II; Phot. IIId; Th. M. II.

σκοῖδος: Hdn. II; Hesych. II; Phot. II.

στριφνός: Moer. II.

σύσσημον: Phryn. IIIe.

τηγανισμός: Poll. IIIb; cf. Moer. (II) and Phryn. ap. Bekk. Anecd. s. v. τάγηνον (II).

τρόπαιον (not τροπαῖον): Arcad. II; Schol. in Thuc. I; Schol. in Dion. Thrac. ap. Bekk. Anecd. II; Suid. I; Etym. Magn. I.

Total 63, of which 2 (ἀπόδημος and κοιτών) are approved elsewhere.

It is difficult to classify accurately such cases as Συν. λεξ. χρησ. ap. Bekk. Anecd. 423.9 and Suid. s. v. ἀπέφησεν· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀντεῖπε. Μένανδρος. The use of ἀντί may be taken to imply that Menander employed ἀπέφησε where he should have had ἀντεῖπε; i.e. where ἀντεῖπε was the correct Attic word, and hence ἀπέφησε was not strictly correct. Obscure as this instance is, the problem is still further complicated by instances like Eust. 809.42 παρὰ Αἰλίῳ Διονυσίῳ κεῖται τὸ λυκοφιλίως ἀντὶ τοῦ ὑπόπτως, ὑπούλως κτλ., and Phot. λυκοφιλίως· ὑπόπτως, ὑπούλως. οὕτω Μένανδρος. The latter is the usual way of defining a word which would be unfamiliar to the average reader; i.e. the lemma is cited as being used in the meaning of the other word or words. It is impossible, therefore, to decide whether in the first citation the two expressions are merely synonymous and Eustathius is not condemning Menander, or Photius has copied his original in a more abridged fashion. Again, compare Moer. 48 ἀκκισμός, Ἀττικῶς, προσποίησις, Ἑλληνικῶς, with Hesych. ἀκκισμός· προσποίησις. In Moeris the phrasing would seem to indicate disapproval of the word προσποίησις, yet this disapproval is not reproduced in Hesychius. Further, note the following examples: Phot. p. 257 N. ἡκόντων· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἡκέτωσαν.—Id. p. 309 N. καλοῦμεν· ἀντὶ τοῦ καλέσομεν, where ἡκόντων and καλοῦμεν are the regular Attic forms, as Photius must have known. Clearly the use of ἀντί cannot be regarded as expressing either approval or disapproval. I shall therefore merely mention the additional instances of this use of ἀντί in connection with words which appear in Menander but not in good Attic. Obviously there can be no words which the grammarians explain by ἀντί τινος with the possible implication that they were not good Attic, that do not appear in my list. The list follows:

ἀνατρέχω = ἀναλύω, βαθύς = πονηρός, ἐξαλλάττω = τέρπω, ἐσχάτως = ἀκρῶς, κιγκλισμός = τάραχος, λυκοφίλιος = ὕποπτος, παθαίνομαι = πάθους μεταλαμβάνω, πατάγημα = λάλος, πανοῦργος, ὑπόθεσις = ὑποθήκη. Total 9, of which 1 (ἐξαλλάττω) is censured elsewhere, and 2 (ἐσχάτως and παθαίνομαι) approved.

On the other hand we also find in Menander many words which are specifically mentioned by grammarians as Attic and are contrasted with others called "Hellenic" or "Koine". This has been noticed by Bruhn, but he seems to attach too much importance to the fact. For "even Menander", though guilty of sacrilege against the holy Attic dialect, would not always use the word which was later put under the ban. These words as a class do not come within the scope of this study as outlined above. The following list includes all words recommended as good which fail to appear in what we have left of the accepted writers.

ἄβρα: Hesych.

ἀγαπησμός: (Favorinus) ; Phot. Berol.

ἀγγαρεύω: Phot. Berol.; Suid.

ἀνάδοχος: Hesych.; Suid.

ἀνεμιαῖος: Moer.; Th. M.

ἀντάλλαγος: Anon. ap. Bekk. Anecd.; Phot. Berol.; Suid.

ἀπόδημος: Poll.; condemned by Moeris and Thomas Magister.

αὐθέκαστος: Phryn.

γαστρίζω: Phryn.; Th. M.

δημιουργός: Schol. in Ar. Eq. 650; Suid.; Etym. Magn.; Ael. Dion. ap. Eust.

δίθυρος: Hesych. s. v. θυρίς; Poll.

ἐσχάτως: Phryn.; Th. M.

ζωπυρέω: Moer.; Th. M.

θεραπαινίδιον: Th. M.

κλαυμυρίζομαι: Phot.

κοιτίς: Anon. ap. Cram. Anecd. Ox.; Etym. Magn.; Etym. Gud.; Suid.

κοιτών: Poll.; condemned by Phrynichus.

λέμφος: Ammon.

μάγαρον: Ael. Dion. ap. Eust.; Phot.

μισογύνης: Poll.; Moer.

νεόττιον: Hesych.; form of word only, Phryn.; Th. M.

ὀλολύττω: Phot.

ὄφις = ψέλλιον: Moer.

παθαίνομαι: Phot.

παιδισκάριον: Hesych.; Phot.; Th. M.

(παλίμβολος in other meaning: Th. M.)

(προτέλεια in other meaning: Th. M.)

ῥοίδιον: Phryn.

σανδαλοθήκη: Phot.

ὑπέρευγε: Longin. ap. Spengel Rhet. Gr. I p. 307.25.

ὑπέρφοβος: Poll.

χαμαιτύπη: Poll.; Moer.; Th. M.

Total 32, of which 2 (ἀπόδημος and κοιτών) are definitely censured by other grammarians.

Chapter II

CHAPTER II

Menander's use of certain types of words, supposedly Characteristic of the Koine, tested by their use in other writers

In addition to the words to which the grammarians definitely take exception, and to those of which they approve, we naturally find in Menander a good many other words which do not appear in the extant works of good writers of the classical period. Some of these words are doubtless missing in the approved writers merely by accident, because, for example, those authors did not happen to have occasion to use them in the books which have come down to us. A writer's vocabulary is of course governed very largely by the subject of which he treats. An example of this, if one be needed, may be found in the excessive proportion of adjectives having the termination -ικός in those plays of Aristophanes which satirize the philosophers, as compared with the plays which deal with other topics. Hence many words which were in good use in the best period of Greek do not happen to appear in the pages of the approved authors.

It is often difficult to decide where to draw the line in such cases. Instances which seem certain to one judge may appear doubtful in the eyes of another. The decision must be in part subjective. Among the examples of these words are ἀνδρεϊστέος, ἀριστόδειπνον, ἀρτικροτέομαι, ἀσκοπυτίνη and ἀττικουργής.

Other words of Menander which are missing in classical writers are strange compounds like ἀντλιαντλητήρ, which were probably used nowhere else; mere coined words, for comic effect, of which there are many instances in Aristophanes and other comic writers. E. g.

σκοροδοπανδοκευτριαρτοπώλιδες, Ar. Lys. 458.

κυμινοπριστοκαρδαμόγλυφος, Ar. Vesp. 1357.

γαστροχάρυβδις, Cratinus 397K.

δειπνοπίθηκος, fr. adesp. 321 K.

Even the casual reader of Menander will notice that such words are rarely employed by him. It is hardly fair to regard this last group of words as of very great authority in determining Menander's relation to the Koine, if only for the reason that Aristophanes is even more liable to censure than Menander if they are barred out as bad Greek. They are therefore inserted in this list merely to complete the group of his words not found in the authors of our canon.

For convenience, the words discussed in this chapter are divided into several classes, according to the types which they represent. The classification is not exhaustive, but is believed to include all types which are significant. The groups considered are diminutives, variations from the Attic norm in accent and gender, words having the prefixes ἀ-privative and δυσ-, those with the suffixes -ώδης, -μα, -μός, -ικός (verbal adjectives in -τος), and -ίζω, and verbs (and occasionally other words) which have two or more prepositions prefixed.

Diminutives.

Like any other comic poet, Menander made frequent use of diminutives. In this he simply reflects the speech of everyday life, for the Greeks, like the other nations of southern Europe, were very partial to this form. Menander has 21 diminutives which do not appear in the classical authors: namely ἁλύσιον = a piece of jewelry, ἑταιρίδιον, θεραπαινίδιον, ἱστάριον, κερμάτιον, κοιτίς, λεβήτιον, μαχαίριον, μειρακίσκος (Plato), νεόττιον = the yolk of an egg, ξενύδριον, παιδισκάριον, πλόκιον, ποτηρίδιον, ῥοίδιον, σακ(κ)ίον, ταμιειδιον, τριπόδιον, φάνιον, χιτωνάριον, χλαμύδιον. Among these words, the following appear before Menander: μαχαίριον, μειρακίσκος, τριπόδιον, χλαμύδιον. But ἁλύσιον in this sense is used by Philippides; also κερμάτιον; νεόττιον in this sense by Diphilus; and σακ(κ)ίον with a different meaning by Aristophanes and Xenophon. The rest seem to have been introduced into literature by Menander. Nearly all are uncommon in all periods.

Variations in accent and gender.

It is not strictly within the scope of our work to discuss dis in accent and gender, but we may simply mention μωρός for μῶρος and τρόπαιον for τροπαῖον of which grammarians do not approve. They occur, however, in the modern editions of the orators.

Variations in gender from ordinary usage are:

ἡ λιβανωτός

ἡ Πάνακτος

μέθυσος of a man; cf. ch. I.

Compounds with ἀ-privative.

H. A. Hamilton has shown that the use of these words increased as time went on. There is a fair number of them in Menander which do not occur in the classical writers, but few which were not used before his day. The former group comprises 14; viz. ἀβέβαιος, ἀδιάφθορος (of a virgin), ἀκρατεύομαι, ἀλυπία (Plato), ἀμέριμνος = carefree, ἀνάριστος, ἀνέπαφος, ἀπαρηγόρητος, ἀσθενικός, ἀστοργία, ἀσυλλὀγιστος, ἀσχολέομαι, ἀτυφία, ἀχόρταστος. Of these only ἀδιάφθορος in this sense, ἀμέριμνος in this sense, ἀνέπαφος (used by [Dem.]), ἀστοργία, ἀτυφία and ἀχόρταστος first appear in Menander, and the adjective ἄστοργος occurs in Aeschines. As compared with 20 new negative compounds in Demosthenes, this number does not show that Menander had a tendency to this form of expression, but rather the contrary. Here he agrees with middle and new comedy in general, which shows 19 new negative compounds, in contrast to Aristophanes and the old comedy, which furnish 92 new examples.

Compounds with δυσ-.

New compounds with δυσ- are δυσδιάθετος, δυσνουθέτητος, δυσπαρακολούθητος, δύσφευκτος. None of these is censured by the grammarians, yet δύσριγος elicits blame from Phrynichus and Pollux, though it is found in a fragment of Aristophanes. This compound seems less regular in formation than the others. They are all rare words, as appears from the list in chapter III.

-ώδης.

The suffix -ώδης is not common in good writers. We find in Menander three words formed with it which do not occur in classical writers with the exception of Plato: viz. Ἀλεξαν βορβορώδης (Plato), ἐργώδης (Plato). This group, however, is too small to be of any significance for our study.

We may note in passing that adjectives in -ώδης are unusually frequent in Thucydides and Theophrastus.

In order to form a proper estimate of an author's vocabulary we should examine not only the individual words he uses, but also the kinds of words. In comparing Menander's diction with the Koine we should study his use of certain types of words known to have been favorites in Hellenistic Greek. Such a test involves a statistical comparison on the one hand with certain writers of classical Attic, and on the other with typical writers of the Koine. For the former I have selected Aristophanes, Thucydides, Plato and Demosthenes; for the latter, Polybius and Plutarch.

Since a careful estimate of the amount of the extant fragments of Menander gives a total of c. 3393 full lines, or c. 113 pages of 30 lines each, an equal amount has been taken from each author with whom a comparison is made. The selections of passages in the test authors were made almost at random, care being taken, however, to avoid any works that might furnish misleading results: e.g., the comedies of Aristophanes aimed at the sophists were not taken, because of the great frequency of -ικός words in those plays. A page of 30 Teubner lines was taken as standard. It has not been thought worth while to attempt to equalize the quantitative discrepancy between prose and verse.

Among the types of words which are said to be characteristic of the Koine the most prominent are perhaps the following:

noun-suffixes: -μα, -μός, -σις;

adjective suffixes: -ικός (verbal adjectives in -τος);

verb suffixes: -έω, -ίζω;

double compounds.

Of this list, -σις and -έω are very common in the classical period as well, and are therefore of minor importance in determining a writer's connection with the common dialect. The rest, however, became far more frequent in later times, and may fairly be said to furnish as trustworthy criteria as can be found. They will be taken up in the order named.