ἀνθρωπεία, ἀνθρωπίνη
(Moer. α 48, Poll. 2.5)
A. Main sources
(1) Moer. α 48: ἀνθρωπείᾳ φύσει Ἀττικοί, ὡς Θουκυδίδης· ἀνθρωπίνῃ Ἕλληνες.
Cod. F omits ὡς Θουκυδίδης.
Users of Attic, like Thucydides (1.76.3 = C.1), [employ] ἀνθρωπείᾳ φύσει (‘human nature’, dat. sing.). Users of Greek [employ] ἀνθρωπίνῃ (‘human [nature]’, dat. sing.).
(2) Poll. 2.5: ἀνθρωπεία τέχνη, ὡς Θουκυδίδης, ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις, ὡς Πλάτων.
Codd. BC omit ὡς Θουκυδίδης and ὡς Πλάτων.
ἀνθρωπεία τέχνη (‘human art’), like Thucydides (2.47.4), ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις (‘human nature’), like Plato (Tht. 149c.1 = C.2, Ti. 90c.3).
B. Other erudite sources
(1) Phot. α 1985 (= Su. α 2526): ἀνθρώπειον σῶμα· Κάνθαρος εἴρηκεν. καὶ ἀνθρωπεία φύσις Θουκυδίδης.
Erbse tentatively ascribes this entry to Aelius Dionysius (α *139)Ael.Dion. α *139, while de Borries assigns it to Phrynichus (PS fr. *198)Phryn. PS fr. *198.
ἀνθρώπειον σῶμα (‘human body’): So said Cantharus (fr. 11). Also ἀνθρωπεία φύσις, Thucydides (2.50.1, cf. 1.76.3 = C.1).
(2) Thom.Mag. 12.1: ἀνθρωπεία φύσις, οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνη.
ἀνθρωπεία φύσις, not ἀνθρωπίνη.
C. Loci classici, other relevant texts
(1) Thuc. 1.76.3: ἐπαινεῖσθαί τε ἄξιοι οἵτινες χρησάμενοι τῇ ἀνθρωπείᾳ φύσει ὥστε ἑτέρων ἄρχειν δικαιότεροι ἢ κατὰ τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν δύναμιν γένωνται.
And they are to be commended who, yielding to the instinct of human nature to rule over others, have been more observant of justice than they might have been, considering their power. (Transl. Smith 1919, 131).
(2) Pl. Tht. 149c.1–2: ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις ἀσθενεστέρα ἢ λαβεῖν τέχνην ὧν ἂν ᾖ ἄπειρος.
Human nature is too weak to acquire an art which deals with matters of which it has no experience. (Transl. Fowler 1921, 31).
(3) Aristid. 1.138 Lenz–Behr (= 13.218.21–2 Dindorf): ἐκλέλειπται τὰ κοινὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπείας φύσεως ἡμῖν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν.
We have abandoned those things common to human nature for your sake. (Transl. Behr 1986, 33).
(4) Luc. Pr.Im. 7: ‘ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ γάρ,’ φησίν, ‘μᾶλλον δὲ ὑπὲρ ἅπασαν τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν τὰ τοιαῦτα’.
‘Such praise’, she said, ‘is too high for me; indeed, too high for human kind’. (Transl. Harmon 1925, 303).
D. General commentary
Moeris’ entry (A.1) prescribes the ‘Attic’ expression ἀνθρωπεία φύσις, exemplified using a Thucydidean quotation (see C.1) rather than the ‘Greek’ ἀνθρωπίνη (φύσις). ἀνθρωπεία φύσις (together with the syntagm ἀνθρώπειον σῶμα by the comic poet Cantharus) is also recommended by Photius, whose entry likely goes back to Atticist sources (see B.1), and by Thomas Magister (B.2), who depends on Moeris’ entry. The counter-expression ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις, however, is accepted by Pollux (A.2), whose acceptance rests on Plato’s authority (see C.2).
These entries may attest to an Atticist interest in word formation and derivation (see also entry αἰσχυντηλός, σιγηλός, σιωπηλός). Nevertheless, to appreciate the Atticists’ views on the semantically equivalentSynonyms ἀνθρωπεία/ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις, it is advisable to consider the attestations of ἀνθρώπειος and ἀνθρώπινος as well as the frequency of ἀνθρωπεία/ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις in Attic authors. ἀνθρώπειος is formed with the complex suffix -ειο-, which may either derive from an s-stem + *-i̯o- (-εσi̯ος > -ειος, -εος) or continue the Indo-European suffix *-ei̯o-, which mostly indicates adjectives of materialAdjectives of material (see Hajnal 1994; Probert 2006, 271; in Greek, one has -εο-, or, with gemination of i̯, -ειο-: see e.g. χρύσεος, χρύσειος). According to Ruijgh (1998–1999), in Mycenaean, -e-jo (/-ei̯i̯o-/) was used exclusively to derive adjectivesAdjectives from proper names: such adjectives survived into later Greek and retained their original possessive value (see e.g. Πυθαγόρειος). In Attic, however, -ειο- can have one further origin corresponding to an Ionic (or Homeric) trisyllabic -ήϊος (from the suffix *-ii̯o- attached to nouns in ‑ηυς/‑ευς): this is also the case with ἀνθρώπειος (Ionic ἀνθρωπήϊος). Whatever its origin, -ειο- spread by analogyAnalogy and was generalised in Attic, where it formed derivatives of many kinds (on this subject in its entirety, see Chantraine 1933, 52–3; Schwyzer 1939, 467–8; Palmer 1946, 21–2; Risch 1974, 129–30).
ἀνθρώπειος is well attested throughout the history of Ancient and Byzantine Greek (see Vock 1928, 89–91), even though ἀνθρώπινος partially supplanted it (see below and E.). Note that ἀνθρώπειος occurs in tragedy and Thucydides (11x), in which four attestations of the expression ἀνθρωπεία φύσις are found (the latter is attested twice in Plato). Moeris’ prescription is therefore unsurprising, since Thucydides occupies a prominent place in his canon (see Moer. α 34Moer. α 34, α 160Moer. α 160, γ 17Moer. γ 17, δ 38Moer. δ 38, ε 15Moer. ε 15, ε 19Moer. ε 19, ε 63Moer. ε 63, ν 4Moer. ν 4, π 18Moer. π 18, π 54Moer. π 54, and probably also δ 45Moer. δ 45, λ 27Moer. λ 27, μ 3Moer. μ 3, π 86Moer. π 86; cf. entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής).
ἀνθρώπινος is formed by means of the suffix -ινο-, which characterises many adjectives denoting material, origin, etc. and which was productive throughout the history of Ancient Greek, competing with -ειο- and other suffixes (see Chantraine 1933, 201–3; Palmer 1946, 29–30; Risch 1974, 100; for the possibility that -ινο- goes back to a complex *-i-no, see Probert 2006, 270–76, with further bibliography). ἀνθρώπινος is widespread in prose writing from the 4th century BCE onwards (130 times in the Platonic corpus alone) and has more than a hundred occurrences in documentary sources (mostly papyriPapyri from the 3rd century BCE to the 7th century CE and inscriptions) such as private letters, contracts etc., often in euphemistic formulas, such as ἐὰν δέ τι πάθω ἀνθρώπινον ‘If a misfortune should happen to me’ vel simm. (but note that such euphemistic formulas sometimes have ἀνθρώπειον rather than ἀνθρώπινον: see Papathomas 2001, 240). In any case, different contexts are sometimes detectable: see e.g. Pap.Lugd.Bat. 17.14.12–6 (= TM 27544) [Egypt, 2nd century CE]: οὐδὲν γὰρ μεῖζόν ἐστιν οὐδὲ ἐράσμιον οὐδὲ ἡμ[ερώ]τατον οὐδὲ ἀπολαυστ[ότερόν] ἐστιν ἢ ἡ τοιαύτη φι[λία] [ἐν] [τ]ῷ ἀνθρωπ[ί]νῳ βίῳ (‘For nothing is greater, nor pleasant, nor so gentle, nor more enjoyable than such a friendship in human life’). The syntagm ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις has numerous attestations: as for Attic authors, however, it only occurs in Isocrates (3x), and in Plato (8x, to which one may add three occurrences in works that are dubiously ascribed to Plato).
Moeris likely rejected ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις for multiple reasons. First, it was not attested in such a canonical author as Thucydides, who preferred ἀνθρωπεία φύσις. Further, the adjective ἀνθρώπινος was too commonly used in the koine – often in standardised formulas, as previously noted. It is remarkable that Moeris appears to overlook Plato’s use of ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις, given that the philosopher serves as a major Attic source in his lexicon (see Moer. β 1Moer. β 1, β 10Moer. β 10, δ 8Moer. δ 8, δ 24Moer. δ 24, δ 26Moer. δ 26, δ 36Moer. δ 36, δ 42Moer. δ 42, ε 67Moer. ε 67, ε 72Moer. ε 72, ι 2Moer. ι 2, κ 29Moer. κ 29, ψ 12Moer. ψ 12, ω 9Moer. ω 9). Moeris sometimes considers Platonic words and expressions with a degree of reservation, either because they have (almost) no occurrence in other Attic authors (see Moer. δ 33Moer. δ 33, ε 6Moer. ε 6, ε 39Moer. ε 39, ζ 9Moer. ζ 9, π 61Moer. π 61, σ 25Moer. σ 25, χ 16Moer. χ 16) or due to the fact that Plato uses them with a particular meaning that is not otherwise attested (δ 12Moer. δ 12, κ 2Moer. κ 2). This may also apply to Moer. α 48 (A.1). One might speculate as to whether α 48 was originally among those entries wherein the two contrasted forms are both attributed to an Attic author (see β 10Moer. β 10, where Plato’s form is accepted while Demosthenes’ is proscribed and perhaps also μ 3Moer. μ 3, in which Thucydides and Demosthenes are contrasted but no evaluative terminology is used). This may have been a more frequent structure in the lexicon that is now underrepresented as a consequence of epitomisationEpitome (see entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής).
Atticist prescriptions concerning ἀνθρωπεία/ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις may find some resonance in the Atticising authors of the imperial age: ἀνθρωπεία φύσις is more attested than ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις in Aelius Aristides (6x vs. 1x, see C.3), and Flavius Philostratus (5x vs. 2x). However, both occur only once in Lucian (see C.4). As for later authors, ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις prevails (but see e.g. Libanius, where both ἀνθρωπεία φύσις and ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις are attested seven times).
E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary
Both ἀνθρωπεία φύσις and ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις are well attested in Byzantine literature, primarily in prose writing and without any perceptible stylistic nuance. However, ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις is considerably more widespread: this is unsurprising, given the wide diffusion of the adjective ἀνθρώπινος, which survives into Modern Greek, and of the suffix -ινο- – the latter, incidentally, originated the widespread suffix -ενιο- (by metathesis from -εινο-), which denotes ‘the material from which something is made’ (CGMEMG vol. 2, 737).
F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences
N/A
Bibliography
Behr, C. A. (1986). P. Aelius Aristides. The Complete Works. Vol. 1: Orations I–XVI. Leiden.
Chantraine, P. (1933). La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris.
Fowler, H. N. (1921). Plato. Vol. 7: Theaetetus. Sophist. Translated by H. N. Fowler. Cambridge, MA.
Hajnal, I. (1994). ‘Die frühgriechische Flexion der Stoffadjektive und deren ererbte Grundlagen’. Dunkel, G. E. et al. (eds.), Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich. Wiesbaden, 77–109.
Harmon, A. M. (1925). Lucian. Vol. 4: Anacharsis or Athletics. Menippus or The Descent into Hades. On Funerals. A Professor of Public Speaking. Alexander the False Prophet. Essays in Portraiture. Essays in Portraiture Defended. The Goddess of Surrye. Translated by A. M. Harmon. Cambridge, MA.
Palmer, L. R. (1946). A Grammar of the Post-Ptolemaic Papyri. Vol. 1: Accidence and Word Formation. Part 1: The Suffixes. London.
Papathomas, A. (2001). ‘Correctiones minores zu griechischen Papyrusbriefen’. ZPE 137, 240–44.
Probert, P. (2006). Ancient Greek Accentuation. Oxford.
Risch, E. (1974). Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. 2nd edition. Berlin, New York.
Ruijgh, C. J. (1998–1999). ‘The Social Status of Persons Indicated by Possessive Adjectives in ‘-e-jo’, with Some Linguistic Observations’. Minos 33/34, 251–72.
Schwyzer, E. (1939). Griechische Grammatik. Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. Munich.
Smith, C. F. (1919). Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Vol. 1: Books 1–2. Translated by C. F. Smith. Cambridge, MA.
Vock, M. (1928). Bedeutung und Verwendung von ΑΝΗΡ und ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ und der stammverwandten Derivata und Komposita in der älteren griechische Literatur (bis nach 350 v. Chr.). Freiburg.
CITE THIS
Andrea Pellettieri, 'ἀνθρωπεία, ἀνθρωπίνη (Moer. α 48, Poll. 2.5)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2024/03/001
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
DerivativesPlatoSuffixes-ειος-ινος
FIRST PUBLISHED ON
12/12/2024
LAST UPDATE
09/01/2025