σέες
(Moer. σ 1, Phot. σ 110 [~ Orus fr. B 145, Σ σ 40], Phot. σ 161, Thom.Mag. 328.14–5)

D. General commentary

This entry in Moeris’ lexicon focuses on the two different nominative plural forms of the noun σής (‘moth, mite’), which denotes various small insectsInsects but particularly those known to consume fabrics and clothing (‘clothes-moths’) and secondarily those known to attack books and paper, (‘booklice’: see Davies, Kathirithamby 1986, 110–1; Beavis 1988, 136–40). This noun is found inflected as both an s-stem and as a t-stem (Kühner, Blass vol. 1, 510–1; Schwyzer 1939, 578). It is first attested in Pindar (C.1), where it is impossible, however, to discern its inflectional class as it appears in the nominative singular. In 5th-century Attic, it was inflected as a masculine s-stem in -ής, as attested by the occurrences of the genitive plural σέων in Hermippus (C.2) and in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata (C.3). To the same paradigm belong other forms that are transmitted only by later authors or by grammatical sources: the nom. plur. σέες, the acc. plur. σέας, and the gen. sing. σεός.

The word is likely borrowed from a Semitic languageSemitic languages: cf. Akkadian sāsu ‘moth’, Hebrew sās ‘id.’, Aramaic ss ‘id.’, etc. Masson expressed skepticism regarding the Semitic derivationLoanwords of σής (1967, 93–4; see also GEW vol. 2, 698 and DELG 999), but others defended such an origin, among them Gil Fernández (1959, 119–20), Beekes (EDG s.v.), and particularly Rosół (2013, 90–1, with extensive discussion of previous scholarship), who observes that the Eastern influence on the Greek textile industry may serve as a plausible explanation for the loan. In fact, while some later sources refer to the damage that these insectsInsects inflict on books (see C.6, C.7), in comedy they are exclusively represented in light of their consumption of textiles and clothing (see Comentale 2017, 336). The non-native origin of σής may explain its unusual inflection in 5th-century Attic: other (inherited) irregular s-stem nouns – for example, γέλωςγέλως (‘laughter’) – had already been remodeled to t-stems by that time (Cartlidge 2016, 19), but σής may have been borrowed after such remodelings had been implemented. In fact, no other simplex s-stem noun with a nom. sing. in -ής is attested at all in Greek: the very few animate s-stem nouns of Greek – in themselves a problematic and residual category en route to extinction – invariably have a nom. sing. in -ως (see Meissner 2006, 129–59). To judge from the gen. plur. σέων in Aristophanes, in Attic at least, this noun was adapted to the inflectional paradigm of s-stem adjectives, such as σαφής, σαφέος, gen. plur. σαφέων, likely because it was the only class of animate s-stems that had a nom. sing. in -ής. Rosół (2013, 90) points to the somewhat similar case of the Homeric λῖς/λίςλῖς/λίς, ‘lion’ acc. sing. λῖν/λίν, a loanLoanwords from a form akin to the HebrewSemitic languages layiš or the Aramaic lyš. There, too, the final sibilant was part of the root in Semitic but susceptible to reinterpretation in Greek as a sigmatic nom. sing. ending, particularly given that the noun was masculine: the acc. sing. λῖν (all other case-forms are post-Homeric) indicates that this noun was reinterpreted as an ῑ-stem, similar to κῖς/κίςκῖς/κίς, κιός ‘weevil’ (of obscure etymology) or (ϝ)ῑ́ςἴς ‘strength’, acc. sing. ἶν(α), instr. ἶφι (an inherited *-iH-stem). In the case of σής, its reinterpretation as a vowel stem was ruled out in the absence of any adequate model; the only masculine consonant stems with a nom. sing. in -ής were s-stem adjectives, such as σαφής, and t-stem nouns, such as θήςθής, θητός ‘serf, bondsman, hired labourer’, and the inflection of σής oscillated between those two options.

In 4th-century Attic, σής developed an innovative inflection as a t-stem σητ-, following the paradigm of nouns like θήςθής. This younger form is first attested in a fragment of Menander (C.4; see Durham 1913, 91) and in technical works by Aristotle (HA 557b3 οἱ σῆτες) and Theophrastus (HP 1.10.4.8 τοὺς σῆτας, 9.11.11.7 τοὺς σῆτας), suggesting that – at least initially – it belonged to a less literary (more technical) registerTechnical language. However, the innovative form rapidly supersedes these forms in the koine. It is telling that all attested compoundsCompounds and derivativesDerivatives of this noun, which date from the post-classical period, are constructed on the innovative stem σητ-: cf. the denominal verb σητάω (Su. σ 349 σητώμενα· βιβρωσκόμενα ‘eaten away’) and the nominal compounds σητόβρωτος ‘eaten away by moths’ (LXX Jb. 13.28, NT Jac. 5.2; Hsch. σ 542; Or.Sib. fr. 3.26, etc.), σητοβρότα ‘worm-eaten’ (P.Fam.Tebt. 15.36 = TM 10732, 114–5 CE), σητόκοπος ‘id.’ (Lucill. AP 11.78.2 = 10 Floridi, Damocr. ap. Gal. 14.127, Diosc. Mat. med. 2.182.1), σητοδόκιδες· ψυχαί, ἢ πτηνὰ ζῷα ‘moths, or winged animals’ (Hsch. σ 543; on ψυχή ‘butterfly, moth’ see Davies, Kathirithamby 1986, 99–108).

Meanwhile, the s-stem inflection did not wholly disappear: the coexistence of s- and t-stem forms is attested in New ComedyNew Comedy (see F.2), and Philo uses both stems in apparently free variation, although the t-stem forms occur twice as frequently as the s-stem forms (De posteritate Caini 56.2 σητός, De somniis 1.77 σέων 1.77 σητός, De Abrahamo 11.3 σητῶν, De specialibus legibus 4.149 σητῶν, Quod omnis probus liber sit 104.7 σέων). In the SeptuagintSeptuagint, the noun appears six times in the nominative singular (Pr. 14.30, 25.20a, Si. 42.13, Mi. 7.4, Is. 33.1, 50.9), but in other case forms, only the t-stem is used (Jb. 4.19, Is. 51.8 σητός, Jb. 27.18, 32.22 σῆτες). As early as the beginning of the Imperial period, only the t-stem is attested, irrespective of literary genre. In three epigrams by Antiphanes and Philip from the Garland of Philip, the word is used in variations on an entomological metaphor that criticises grammarians as ‘bookworms’ (on this topos, see Puglia 1991, 61–4; Lambert 2020): Phil. AP 11.321.1Phil. AP 11.321.1 σῆτες ἀκανθῶν ‘thorn-worms’; Antiphan. AP 11.322.2Antiphan. AP 11.322.2 σῆτες ἀκανθοβάται ‘worms walking among thorns’; Phil. AP 11.347.2Phil. AP 11.347.2 σῆτες ἀκανθολόγοι ‘thorn-gathering worms’. In later prose, Strabo uses σητῶν once (C.6); in the New TestamentNew Testament, only the nom. sing. is used (Ev.Matt. 6.19, 6.20, Ev.Luc. 12.33), but the stem σητ- appears, as noted above, in the derivative σητόβρωτος.

Unsurprisingly, the s-stem forms were prescribed as Attic by purist lexicographers (A.1, A.3, A.4) on the strength of their occurrence in Old Comedy, while the t-stem form was condemned (A.2). Interestingly, however, the support of Atticist lexicography was insufficient to ensure their successful revival, even in Atticising writers. Lucian uses each form once in two different works (C.7, C.8), and even Alciphron, whose lexical choices are often indebted to Atticist scholarship (see Olson 2019), chooses the innovative form for his only attested use of the word (C.9). Meanwhile, it is telling that σέας is attested in the Lucianic satire lambasting the ignorant book collector, who prides himself – among other things – on his knowledge of Attic vocabulary: cf. Lucian’s sarcastic remark (Ind. 26)Luc. Ind. 26 πᾶσαν μὲν ἱστορίαν οἶσθα, πάσας δὲ λόγων τέχνας καὶ κάλλη αὐτῶν καὶ κακίας καὶ ὀνομάτων χρῆσιν τῶν Ἀττικῶν – ‘You know all of history, all the arts of words, their beauties and defects, and how to use Attic nouns’.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

The noun σής is well-attested in high-register authors up to the 17th century. Its survival in learned language may be attributed to its attestations in the Bible rather than its scattered attestations in classical literature. In particular, the moth recurs relatively often in BiblicalSeptuagint and New TestamentNew Testament Greek as a symbolMetaphors of either envy (LXX Pr. 25, 20a) or decay (NT Ev.Matt. 6.19, Ev.Luc. 12.33, Ep.Iac. 5.2, LXX Is. 50.9, Jb. 13.28), with a contrast drawn between that which is imperishable and that which may and will be consumed by moths (i.e., earthly riches or mankind itself); both images (on which, see Conti Bizzarro 2009, 189–91) have precedents in pagan literature (see C.4 and C.1 respectively). In fact, the vast majority of Byzantine attestations of σής occur in theological and ecclesiastical writings (an exception is Demetrius Pepagomenus’ Hieracosophion [15th century CE], in which it denotes a parasite of hawks). It is unsurprising, therefore, that in the Byzantine period, σής invariably exhibits the t-stem declension familiar from the Old and the New Testaments, despite the Atticist lexicographers’ unanimous support for the s-stem variant. By that time, however, σής was – regardless of inflection – a literary word that warranted explanation (e.g., by Su. σ 338Su. σ 338, which glosses it with σκώληξ ‘worm’).

The noun did not survive into Standard Modern Greek, in which the word for ‘moth’ is σκόροςσκόρος, derived from the ancient κόριςκόρις ‘bedbug, Cimex lectularius’ by metaplasm and resegmentation of [s] in sequences such as τοὺς κόρους [tus ko-] > [tusko-] > [tus sko-] (see LKN s.v. σκόρος). Note that the κόρις and the σής are grouped together by Alciphron (C.9) and Antiphanes (AP 10.20.6Antiphan. AP 10.20.6 λαθροδάκναι κόριες ‘bedbugs biting in secret’ is a variation of sorts on the σῆτες ἀκανθολόγοι at v. 2); the two species were likely confused in non-technical language. However, the ancient σής survives in Pontic (see Andriotis 1974 s.v.), where all the local dialectal variants present a stem with a dental, confirming that in the koine the paradigm must have undergone paradigm levelling.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Hdn. Περὶ μονήρους λέξεως GG 3,2.910.27–911.3 (B.1).

This passage from Herodian’s Περὶ μονήρους λέξεως mentions σεύςσεύς (Lehrs’ correction to the corrupt readings of the manuscripts) among apparent exceptions to the rule that nouns in -εύς are invariably polysyllabic (the only true exception admitted by Herodian being the name Ζεύς). Herodian argues that σεύς does not constitute a real exception to his rule because it is ‘formed by analogy’. In fact, the nominative singular σεύς ‘moth’, mentioned by several grammatical and erudite sources (see also B.3, B.4, B.6, B.8), is not attested in any extant literary source, and indeed Choeroboscus (on which later sources such as B.8 depend) explicitly states that it was unattested. It was likely invented to provide a ‘regular’ nominative for Attic forms such as σέες, σέας, and σέων after the parallel of υἱεύςυἱεύς ‘son’, with its plural forms υἱέες, υἱέας, and υἱέων. Indeed, υἱεύς itself is a pseudo-learned hypercorrection based on gen. sing. υἱέος, dat. sing. υἱεῖ, nom. plur. υἱεῖς and gen. plur. υἱέων (which originally belonged to the inherited ablauting u-stem *υἱυ-/*υἱεϝ-) following the model of nouns in -εύς, such as βασιλεύς (on the complex morphological history of υἱύς/υἱός and the rise of hyper-corrected forms like υἱεύς, see entry υἱεύς, υἱέως, υἱέα). σέες, σέας, and σέων were ambiguous, in that they could appear as though they belonged to a u- or eu-stem as well as to an s-stem; however, while as s-stems they were morphologically isolated, the ubiquitous noun υἱύς/υἱός, with its (artificial) variant υἱεύς, offered a model for interpreting them as eu-stems. Another factor that may have contributed to the creation of σεύςσεύς was the fact that the old nom. sing. σής could be perceived as belonging specifically to the stem σητ-, to which it was more recognisably related. This is most evident in a passage by Choeroboscus (B.6) in which both paradigms – σής σητός and σεύςσεύς σεός – are mentioned separately to illustrate two different categories of monosyllablesMonosyllables.

(2)    Com. adesp. fr. 1084.23–5 (C.5)

This is a fragment of New ComedyNew Comedy preserved in P.Ant. 1.15 (= TM 61558)P.Ant. 1.15 (= TM 61558) [2nd–3rd century CE] for which Menandrean authorship has been proposed on various grounds of plot, structure, and style, but contested by Cartlidge (2016)    on the basis of two linguistic peculiarities: the first is the use of the negative adverb οὔποτε (1084.8), otherwise unattested in MenanderMenander; the second is the presence of the gen. plur. [σέ]ων, a virtually certain restoration. Given that Menander employed the innovative form σῆτες in fr. 761 (C.4) and that *[σητ]ων would be unmetrical here, Cartlidge (2016, 21–2) argues that the use of the s-stem form in the fragment precludes the attribution to Menander. However, as Favi (2019, 164–5) points out, heteroclisis itself is hardly decisive evidence: three centuries after Menander, σής continues to exhibit a heteroclitic inflection in Philo and, still later, in Lucian; moreover, the argument that σέων could not have been a living form in Menander’s time would also apply to other New ComedyNew Comedy authors. According to Favi (2019, 167), the use of the conservative form [σέ]ων in the context of this fragment may have sociolinguistic connotationsSociolinguistics in that the persona loquens in these trimeters is almost certainly a θεράπαινα, possibly an elderly one, and older female speakers are known to favour linguistically conservative formsConservative forms. The fragment’s author may thus have intentionally chosen a form that was (falling) out of use to typify this character’s speech.