1. A problematic lemma

Among the lemmata beginning with η, the anonymous Antiatticist lexicon includes, without any reference to a locus classicus, the adjective ἡσύχιος ‘silent, quiet’. In cod. Par. Coisl. 345 (fol. 161^r), the codex unicus of the lexicon, ἡσύχιος is followed by the comparative ἡσυχώτερον, which derives from the synonymous adjective ἥσυχος. Since this cannot be the interpretamentum of ἡσύχιος, in his edition of the Antiatticist Stefano Valente (Reference Valente2015) considers the sequence corrupt and obelises ἡσύχιος:

In the apparatus Valente cautiously suggests that the original lemma, which later became corrupt, concerned the Attic comparative ἡσυχαίτερον, or perhaps some alternative comparative or superlative form:Footnote ¹

In what follows I shall review these hypothetical reconstructions and argue that they do not improve our understanding of the lemma. This entry and the mutual relationship between the words it includes should rather be assessed against their textual arrangement in the manuscript and in the light of the Antiatticist's approach to Classical Greek.

2. The arrangement of the lemma in the manuscript

In cod. Coisl. 345 ἡσύχιος and ἡσυχώτερον (erroneously written ἡσυχότερον) occur in the same line of text (Fig. 1), separated by two vertical points (dicolon).Footnote ²¹ The manuscript was entirely copied by the same scribe, who usually employs the dicolon to separate a lemma from its interpretamentum, to introduce quotations or reference to ancient authors, and finally to mark the end of a lemma and separate it from the following one.Footnote ²² After ἡσυχότερον (sic) there is another dicolon, followed – on the next line of text – by another word, ἡσύχιμον, which is provided with a locus classicus (Πίνδαρος Ὀλυμπιονίκαις) introduced by another dicolon. In his editio princeps Immanuel Bekker (Reference Bekker1814) kept the manuscript's punctuation, treating the three words as three different lemmata (and thus implicitly assuming that the first two have lost their locus classicus):

Figure 1. The lemma ἡσύχιος in cod. Coisl. 345, fol. 161^r. Image courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris.

By contrast, as we saw above, Valente thinks that the first two words are part of the same lemma, in which however ἡσύχιος would be corrupt.Footnote ²³ Like Bekker, he then edits ἡσύχιμον as a separate lemma, in which the interpretamentum has been dropped (not an infrequent case in the Antiatticist):

There might be a different way to explain the distribution of these three words in Coisl. 345. The original author of the lexicon may have produced a synonymic–onomastic lemma devoted to various forms in ἡσυχ-, of which only the last locus classicus (Πίνδαρος Ὀλυμπιονίκαις), specific to ἡσύχιμον, survives.Footnote ²⁴ Other lemmata of the Antiatticist display the same kind of structure. An example is β 4, which Valente himself quotes to illustrate this type of entry:Footnote ²⁵

The loci classici quoted in Antiatt. β 4 provide exact parallels only for βλάξ (Pl. Grg. 488a.8: βλᾶκα) and βλακεύεσθαι (Ar. Plut. 325, though the form used by Aristophanes is actually the adverbial compounded participle κατεβλακευμένως).Footnote ²⁶ By contrast, Plato's Euthydemus is not a locus classicus for any of the words directly included in the lemma: the dialogue uses the feminine form βλακεία, which is not included in the Antiatticist's selection.Footnote ²⁷ All of this shows that the Antiatticist may contain lemmata in which the locus classicus does not necessarily refer to all of the forms quoted in the main entry.

In the entry devoted to βλάξ the different forms of the word are separated by simple stops, whereas the dicolon is used to introduce the loci classici (Fig. 2).Footnote ²⁸ By contrast, the three adjectives ἡσύχιος, ἡσυχώτερον and ἡσύχιμον are separated by the dicolon. Although less frequent, the use of the dicolon in this function (where one would instead expect a simple dot or comma) is not unparalleled in Coisl. 345. An example is provided by the lemma Antiatt. α 25 Valente: ἀστοργία, φιλοστοργία, στοργή⋅ Ἀντιφῶν ἐν β′ Περὶ τῆς ῥητορικῆς τέχνης (fr. 73). In the manuscript (Fig. 3) a dicolon occurs after the first word, as if only this word were the main lemma. A simple dot sets φιλοστοργία apart from στοργή and no sign is employed to introduce the locus classicus; finally, a dicolon marks the end of the line. Another telling example is Antiatt. ε 47 Valente: ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνα, ἐπὶ τάδε⋅ Πλάτων Περὶ ψυχῆς. Here the scribe seems to have wrongly interpreted the lemma and has used the dicolon to separate its two parts, as if the entire sequence ἐπὶ τάδε Πλάτων Περὶ ψυχῆς were the interpretamentum (Fig. 4).

Figure 2. The lemma βλάξ in cod. Coisl. 345, fol. 157^v. Image courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris.

Figure 3. The lemma ἀστοργία in cod. Coisl. 345, fol. 156^v. Image courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris.

Figure 4. The lemma ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνα in cod. Coisl. 345, fol. 160^r. Image courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris.

A similar use of the dicolon features in some of the other lexica in Coisl. 345, particularly those which, like the Antiatticist, present the lexical material in a succinct way, with a short interpretamentum immediately following the lemma. Let us consider for instance the entry on πηκτίς in the Ἡροδότου Λέξεις (version A), collected in fols. 165^v–167^v of the manuscript (Fig. 5).Footnote ²⁹

Figure 5. The lemma πηκτίς in cod. Coisl. 345, fol. 165^v. Image courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris.

If one were to judge this sequence of words superficially, it would be easy to think that πηκτίς is followed by its interpretamentum (ὄργανον ψαλτήριον ‘stringed instrument’) and that the following word, αὐλός, is a new lemma. However, this is obviously not the correct interpretation, as is shown by the version of this lemma in Stein's edition:

In the lemma on πηκτίς, therefore, the dicolon is used to separate different parts of the interpretamentum (and is replaced by commas in Stein's edition). A similar arrangement is found in the entry ἑδώλοισιν, where again the dicolon separates its various intepretamenta (Fig. 6).

Figure 6. The lemma ἑδώλοισιν in cod. Coisl. 345, fol. 165^v. Image courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris.

In Moeris’ lexicon, which occurs immediately after the Ἡροδότου Λέξεις in the manuscript (fols. 167^v–175^v), the scribe uses the dicolon to separate the two main parts of each lemma, which in the typical style of this lexicon consist of the usage of the Ἀττικοί and that of the Ἕλληνες. Out of many possible examples, let us consider Moer. α 4 Hansen, contrasting the dual and plural forms of the expression ‘ageless immortals’: ἀθανάτω ἀγήρω Ἀττικοί⋅ ἀθάνατοι ἀγήρατοι Ἕλληνες. In the manuscript (Fig. 7), the dicolon occurs before and after Ἀττικοί, and then again after Ἕλληνες.

Figure 7. The lemma ἀθανάτω ἀγήρω in cod. Coisl. 345, fol. 167^v. Image courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris.

To conclude, the above examples show that the scribe of Coisl. 345 sometimes resorts to the dicolon to separate different elements within the same lemma, much as he might do with a simple dot.Footnote ³⁰ Such usage is more frequent in those lexica – Antiatticist, Ἡροδότου Λέξεις, Moeris – which are part of the ‘secondary miscellany’ contained in fols. 150^r–186^r of the codex.Footnote ³¹ These parallels allow us to confirm that the sequence ἡσύχιος : ἡσυχώτερον : ἡσύχιμον. Πίνδαρος Ὀλυμπιονίκαις, as presented in fol. 161^r of the manuscript, may have constituted one lemma of the onomastic type. In order to pinpoint its function, I shall now turn both to the classical attestations of these words and to the Byzantine context of their reception, which is central to the understanding of the lexical selection copied out in Coisl. 345.

3. In defence of the interpretatio Pindarica

The first question to consider is the provenance of the words contained in the lemma. The locus classicus behind the last word, ἡσύχιμον, is Pi. Ol. 2.32, the only text in which the adjective seems to have been used:

Since ἡσύχιμος is a hapax, one would expect a different organisation of the entry in the Antiatticist, with ἡσύχιμος as the lemma and ἡσύχιος as its gloss. Indeed, this is the strategy adopted by one of the scholia uetera on this line (schol. uet. Pi. Ol. 2.58f), which explains ἡσύχιμον ἁμέραν with ἡμέρα δὲ ἡσύχιος, ἡ τοῦ θανάτου⋅ ἐπεὶ ἐν αὐτῇ θανόντες ἡσυχάζομεν ‘the peaceful day, the day of (one's) death; because in this day, by dying, we find rest’ (ἡσύχιος is also used in schol. 58f, while schol. 58c glosses ἡσύχιμος with ἥσυχος, ἀπράγμων, εὐτυχής).Footnote ³² The Pindaric scholia provide a glimpse of an exegetical context in which ἡσύχιμος and ἡσύχιος were discussed together and which may have inspired the author of the Antiatticist in his creation of the hypothetical lemma ἡσύχιμον⋅ ἡσύχιον: the original order would have become corrupt during transmission.Footnote ³³

However, the authenticity of the preserved order (with ἡσύχιος as the main lemma) can be defended with two further pieces of evidence. First, the same scholia on Ol. 2.32 are behind an entry in the Rhetorikai lexeis (121 Naoumides) in which the lemma is not ἡσύχιμον as expected, but ἡσύχιον. This shows that the interpretamenta of the scholia (or their exegetical ancestors) could be extrapolated to constitute the main entry of lexicographical lists, as a result of simplification.Footnote ³⁴ Secondly, Valente (Reference Valente2015) seemingly overlooks the fact that ἡσύχιος itself is a Pindaric word, used in Pythian 9:

It is therefore highly probable that this synonymic–onomastic lemma of the Antiatticist was specifically devoted to Pindaric words. This would not be surprising, because Pindar is the most frequently quoted lyric poet in the Antiatticist, with seven entries, all provided with direct references to Pindaric loci.Footnote ³⁵ It is also noteworthy that in two of these seven lemmata the reference is not to the Epinicians, but to Threnoi and Hymns, which confirms the pre-Byzantine provenance of the information provided in these entries. In conclusion, it cannot be ruled out that the original lemma was, for example, ἡσύχιος (or ἡσύχιον, with lemmatisation in the accusative as in the Pindaric model) καὶ ἡσύχιμον⋅ Πίνδαρος Ὀλυμπιονίκαις, perhaps with the sole erroneous attribution of both words to the Olympians (which may either be original or the result of the loss of the first locus classicus).

As for ἡσυχώτερον, the matter is more complicated. In principle, it cannot be ruled out that it may have featured in a lost Pindaric work and hence that the whole lemma was concerned with Pindar's language. Alternatively, as suggested above, ἡσυχώτερον could have been interpolated when the copy of the Antiatticist in Coisl. 345 was assembled. In this case, it may be that the antigraph displayed a columnar alphabetical layout which aided the addition of new material.Footnote ³⁶ This hypothetical scenario is suggested not only by the occurrence of the comparative in the Arethas scholium considered above, but also by the development of ἡσύχιος and ἥσυχος in post-classical Greek, which may have influenced the reception of the original Antiatticist lemma in the Byzantine linguistic context.

4. The role of semantic development in the reception and perpetuation of the lemma

In the preceding section I mentioned the hypothesis that the entry on ἡσύχιος in the Antiatticist might have originated in Pindaric exegetical material reused for the kind of descriptive and onomastic purposes typical of lexicography. In contrast to other lemmata of the Antiatticist, that on ἡσύχιος eludes a closer definition of its aims (be they of a polemical, purist or prescriptive nature). In this section I shall briefly look into the use of ἡσύχιος and its synonym ἥσυχος throughout the history of Greek in order to better define how the original Antiatticist lemma may have been received in the Byzantine linguistic and cultural milieu behind the creation of its codex unicus, Coisl. 345.

ἡσύχιος is attested from Homer onwards and is also frequently used in Attic texts. ἥσυχος is similarly ancient (its first attestation being Hes. Th. 763) and enjoys a considerable popularity at all chronological stages of the language. The two adjectives are synonyms and it is hard pinpoint their semantic differentiation in different contexts, not least because – as mentioned above apropos of their comparatives – the manuscript tradition shows that they were often confused and exchanged. An important stage, however, is represented by biblical and New Testament Greek. Here ἡσύχιος, ἥσυχος, ἡσυχία and ἡσυχάζω are employed with a vast semantic extension, whereby the usage of these terms is initially associated with the semantic field of rest and peacefulness and then develops into the expression of religious virtue.Footnote ³⁷ Consider also the popularity of the personal name Ἡσύχιος, which begins its life as a Judaic name (corresponding to Hebrew Noah) and soon becomes popular in Christian contexts as well.

The biblical use of ἡσύχιος became a model for Christian Greek vocabulary down to the late Byzantine age, often under the influence of biblical passages that attained the status of Christian loci classici.Footnote ³⁸ Among these is Is. 66.2, a passage very frequently quoted in Christian exegesis, and one in which ἡσύχιος and ταπεινός feature as the attributes of the quiet and humble man who fears God's word (καὶ ἐπὶ τίνα ἐπιβλέψω ἀλλ’ ἢ ἐπὶ τὸν ταπεινὸν καὶ ἡσύχιον καὶ τρέμοντα τοὺς λόγους μου; ‘to whom shall I look if not the quiet and humble man who fears my word?’). Another popular expression is ἡσύχιος βίος, which is already attested in the classical age but becomes the definition of the Christian way of life, devoted to humbleness and peacefulness. An influential text that employs this expression is St Paul's Second Letter to Timothy (2.2): ἵνα ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον διάγωμεν (‘[let us pray] so that we can lead a quiet and peaceful life’), which again is often quoted in later texts.Footnote ³⁹

The centrality of ἡσύχιος and ἥσυχος in the Greek Christian lexicon might explain why the Antiatticist lemma devoted to these forms may have been interesting for Byzantine readers. The Pindaric model provided these common adjectives with an ancient pedigree, which was an integral part of the Byzantine mediation between Christian identity and the classical past. In principle, such a Judeo-Christian dimension may have been already present in the original version of the Antiatticist, since the language of the Septuagint and the New Testament is a repository of lower koine usages which the Atticists may have wished to discuss in their works for various reasons.Footnote ⁴⁰ However, the interest of the Antiatticist entry on ἡσύχιος for Byzantine readers could also have resided in the fact that the adjective, while common in Byzantine literary language, does not seem to have been used in the medieval vernacular. Texts in this language variety employ ἥσυχος instead (cf. Kriaras s.v.) and this is the only form that has survived in modern Greek, where ἡσύχιος exists only as a personal name. It seems, therefore, that ἡσύχιος was a marked term in Byzantine Greek, typical of Christian language but not necessarily common in everyday communication. This sheds light on the context in which the original Antiatticist lemma was received, transmitted and perhaps altered at Byzantium: the entry placed a marked term, typical of Christian Greek, in continuity with classical usage and at the same time preserved memory of its rare synonym, ἡσύχιμος.