χειμάζω
(Phryn. Ecl. 367)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus’ entry (A.1) is concerned with the use of the transitive χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun, meaning ‘to torment, to afflict, to annoy oneself’. As Phrynichus emphasises, this specific use of the verb – that is, χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun in place of the middle voice – is unknown to those whom he regards as canonical writers. Indeed, Phrynichus cannot possibly be saying that the verb χειμάζω itself was unknown to canonical writers (which is not the case – hence, the added disclaimer in the translation, i.e. ‘the approved authors who do not know [this use of] the word’). The lack of reliable evidence for χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun in canonical writers thus strongly advises against following Menander, who did employ such a construction (C.3), since Phrynichus notoriously did not regard Menander as a non‑canonical writer (see Tribulato 2014, Favi 2022). Herein, we shall concern ourselves primarily with the following issues: the semantics and usage of χειμάζω in the classical sources; the evidence for transitive χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun with the meaning ‘to torment oneself’ in place of the middle; other uses of transitive χειμάζω ‘to torment (someone)’; ancient scholarly interest in the different uses of the verb χειμάζω vis‑à‑vis Phrynichus’ proscription of transitive χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun with the meaning ‘to torment oneself’.

When used in a concrete sense, the high‑frequency verb χειμάζω covers a wide semantic range: its main meanings are ‘to spend the winter’, ‘to expose (someone) to the winter’, and ‘to raise a storm’ (see LSJ s.v. χειμάζω I–II–III.1). In addition to these concrete uses, χειμάζω developed a metaphoricalMetaphors meaning that, in classical writers, is predominantly attested with the middle or passive χειμάζομαι, namely, ‘to be storm‑tossed, to be tormented, to be distressed’. This metaphorical meaning is well documented in 5th‑ and 4th‑century BCE Attic literature (see LSJ s.v. χειμάζω III.2). While most evidence for this usage comes from tragedy (C.1; Aesch. fr. **99.15; [Aesch.] PV 563 and 838; Soph. Ant. 391, OT 101, fr. 314.273; Eur. Hipp. 315, Ion 966) and Plato (C.2, Phlb. 29a.11, Phlb. 29b.1, Tht. 170a.10, Plt. 273d.4–e.4), it is also occasionally attested in comedy (Ar. Ra. 361, Philem. fr. 28.9–10). As will be discussed presently, all these instances of χειμάζω, except Soph. OT 101, are in the middle or passive voice. Menander’s fragment (C.3) represents the first instalment of a further development of the metaphorical use of χειμάζω – namely, when the verb governs an object and means ‘to afflict (someone)’ (more on this below). It is to this use that Phrynichus objects. For several reasons, the parallels in tragedy and Plato are likely to have proved insufficient for Phrynichus to approve the construction attested in Menander. First, in all other classical instances, the verb occurs in the middle or in the passive voice (‘to be tormented’), and it is only in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King (101) that the active χειμάζω takes a direct object (‘to torment (i.e. the city)’) as it does in Menander. Hence, this use of the verb is comparatively rare. Additionally, in several instances, the notion of being exposed to a storm or of being tossed at sea is still very much alive (besides C.1 and C.2, see [Aesch.] PV 563 and PV 838; Soph. Ph. 1460; Pl. Tht. 170a.10, Phlb. 29a.11, Phlb. 29b.1; the occurrences    in Plato attest that it continued to be a live metaphor in 4th-century Attic), while, in other instances, the verb clearly evokes the image of a city as the ship of state, which is exposed to the storm (see Soph. OT 101, discussed by Finglass 2018, 198 who collects tragic parallels for the image of the storm of blood; Eur. Supp. 268–9, and Ar. Ra. 361; the passage from Frogs includes no indication of paratragic diction, and χειμάζομαι might best be regarded simply as common figurative language; however, it may also be said of a house, see Eur. Ion 966). Thus, the classical parallels for metaphorical χειμάζω/χειμάζομαι neither provide direct evidence for χειμάζω ‘to torment (someone)’ (without the metaphorical overtones relating to seafaring), nor do they specifically support the construction of χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun ‘to torment oneself’, as used by Menander, rather than the middle χειμάζομαι ‘to be tormented’. Finally, and saliently, the tragic parallels may not have served as sufficiently compelling evidence for Phrynichus to accept any (metaphorical) use of χειμάζω/χειμάζομαι: in the Eclogue, at least, Phrynichus maintains a wary attitude towards tragedyTragedy (see also the entries ἀρχῆθεν; Λάκαινα, Λακωνική; πρόσφατος).

Let us turn to the construction used by Menander (C.3). It is worth noting that Menander elsewhere uses the middle χειμάζομαι with its more common meaning – that is, ‘to be tormented’ (see Men. Car. 6: οὐ κεχείμασται σφόδρα, ‘[he/she/it] is not much tormented’, Men. fr. 298.6–7: ἀλλ’ ἐν ἀκαλύπτῳ καὶ ταλαιπώρῳ βίῳ | χειμαζόμενος ζῇ, ‘Instead, he is tormented and lives an unsheltered and miserable life’). That this was still the more common usage is further confirmed by the occurrence of χειμάζομαι in Philem. fr. 28.9–10. Overall, this demonstrates that the construction of the transitive χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun had not quite entered into common use by Menander’s time. Comparison with other instances in which the active voice + reflexive pronoun construction is used when the middle voice would be equally viable indicates that the former construction is used emphatically (see Allan 2003, 26–7). Taking this into account while also considering the evidence for χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun in contemporary sources to Menander (see below), it is reasonable to conclude that χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun may well have originated in colloquial languageColloquial language, which would account for its sparse occurrence in literary sources. While evidence as to the context of Menander’s fragment is lacking, parallel formulations may betray a similarly emphatic tone (the closest instance being Sam. 671–2: εἰδώς τ’ ἀκριβῶς οὐθὲν οὔτ’ ἀκηκοὼς | διὰ κενῆς σαυτὸν ταράττεις εἰς ἀθυμίαν τ’ ἄγεις, ‘Without having seen or heard anything with certainty, for no reason you agitate yourself and sink into despair’; in the case of Dysc. 371, the distress relates to physical labour in the fields, while in fr. 788.3, it appears to denote sustained efforts to remedy other people’s mistakes).

Besides Menander, another instance of transitive χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun occurs in a passage of Menander’s contemporary (and fellow ephebe) Epicurus’ Περὶ φύσεως (C.4), while a considerably later instance occurs in a late antique documentary papyrus, SB 12.11153.6–7 (C.5). We may offer some brief remarks on these passages and their language. Regarding the passage of Epicurus (C.4; the text of this papyrus fragment has been established by Laursen 1997, 22), the context is a confutation of a claim made by Epicurus’ opponents that the mind’s dispositions and activities are solely the consequence of an atomic structure (for a discussion see Masi 2006, 23–9). Epicurus demonstrates that his opponents arrive at erroneous conclusions based on false premises (hence the translation ‘confuse themselves’). This passage’s tone and content are very polemical (see Masi 2006, 27), and it is quite possible that the χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun construction serves as an expressive means of denouncing Epicurus’ opponents’ unfounded claims and the absurd consequence of their faulty reasonings. The philosophical context notwithstanding, the passage’s polemical nature aligns well with the notion that Epicurus is employing χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun as an expression that is both colourful and proper to a more colloquial tone for the purpose of denouncing his opponents’ mistakes. SB 12.11153.6–7 (C.5) is a private letter dating from the late 3rd or early 4th century CE. It discusses family matters (the precise subject matter remains elusive, owing to the fragmentary state of preservation, and many details and puzzling features of this text remain unclear; for a discussion, see Pezzati 1971, 161–2). From a graphic perspective, the letter is not very competently written (see Pezzati 1971, 161). At the linguistic level, the syntax is elementary and repetitive. The occurrence of ἔγραψες (in place of ἔγραψας, line 3) and ἐπιστόλιν/ἐπίστολιν (in place of ἐπιστόλιον, line 6) serve as clear proof of the writer’s adoption of the low koine. Further proof of linguistic informality is provided by the fact that in the reflexive constructions οὐκ ἐπέδευσάς σοι (i.e. οὐκ ἐπαίδευσάς σε) and χιμάζουσά σοι (i.e. χειμάζουσά σε), one might have expected the reflexive pronoun σ(ε)αυτόν in place of the simple personal pronoun σε.

If we look beyond the construction with the reflexive pronoun, the evidence for transitive χειμάζω ‘to torment (someone)’, although it is less ubiquitous than the verb’s other uses, is not negligible. It may be that it represents a further development from χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun (‘to torment oneself’), which was itself a development from χειμάζομαι (‘to be tormented’). Interestingly, Diogenes Laertius (C.6) uses transitive χειμάζω ‘to torment (someone)’ in a section of Epicurus’ life, discussing the philosopher’s polemic against the Cyrenaics, which recalls the instance of χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun in Epicurus’ Περὶ φύσεως (C.4): one might reasonably wonder whether this indicates that transitive χειμάζω was typical of Epicurus, though is difficult to gauge the extent to which Diogenes may be reproducing Epicurus’ exact words. However, the evidence is not limited to Diogenes Laertius: three further instances of transitive χειμάζω ‘to torment (someone)’ may be found in Philodemus (C.7, see also Mort. 4, P.Herc. 1050 col. 34.21–8, and Lib., P.Herc. 1471 col. 22a.8–9), two in Plutarch and pseudo-Plutarch (C.8, see also [Plu.] De libidine at aegritudine 1.19–24), three in documentary papyri (C.9, see also P.Oslo 2.4.8 (= TM 21525) [provenance unknown, 61 CE], O.Krok. 2.268.5–6 (= TM 704553) [110–117 CE]; notice, too, intransitive χειμάζω ‘to be agitated’ in SB 5.8006.12 (= TM 30795) [provenance unknown, 3rd century CE]), and more in Christian texts (besides C.10, see, e.g., Vita Sancti Abericii Episcopi 37.13 Nissen, Thdt. Interpretatio in Ezechielem MPG 81.920.2–7, Cyr.Al. Fragmenta in libros Regum MPG 69.688.37–9, Nil. Epist. MPG 79.4.3.1–3; in many instances, χειμάζω is used in nautical metaphors that describe the mundane or religious storms afflicting human life: see, e.g., Basil. Ep. 240.2.28 Courtonne, discussed by Trenchard‑Smith 2016, 343–4; Euagr.Pont. De octo spiritibus malitiae MPG 79.1148.43). The evidence from the documentary papyriPapyri is particularly revealing as to the register to which this use of χειμάζω belongs. All are private documents that are concerned with everyday subjects and frequently exhibit clear characteristics of the low koine (regarding C.9, notice the thematic inflection of ἀφίημι in ἀφεῖ, i.e. ἀφίει). This serves as a robust indication that χειμάζω was indeed an expressive and colourful feature of colloquial speech. This is in line with the frequency with which this use of χειμάζω is attested in Christian texts and is in no way incompatible with the verb’s use by Philodemus, Plutarch, and Diogenes Laertius. By comparison, if we turn to Atticising writers, it is notable that while middle and passive χειμάζομαι ‘to be storm-tossed’ and ‘to be tormented’ is relatively common, transitive χειμάζω ‘to torment (someone)’ is wholly unattested (by contrast, intransitive χειμάζω ‘to spend the winter’ is attested 4x in Aelian’s NA). This distribution may well confirm that transitive χειμάζω ‘to torment (someone)’ was a lively expression but that since it was not considered elegant Greek, it was avoided in more formally written Atticising texts.

We may briefly suggest a comparison with σαλεύω. Besides the intransitive use ‘to move up and down, to roll, to toss’ (said of a ship), σαλεύω may also be transitive with the meaning ‘to cause to oscillate, to shake’. In this sense, it is used with various referents (see LSJ s.v. σαλεύω I.1) and in rare cases also to govern a human referent (‘to shake (someone)’, see LXX 4Reg. 17.20, Ps. 35.12, Sap. 4.19, Si. 28.14 and 29.17, NT Act.Ap. 17.13; an important parallel in documentary papyri is offered by O.Did. 293.14–20 (= TM 144954) [88/96 CE]: οἶδες (i.e. οἶδας) καί, ὧδε ἂν ἔνθῃ (i.e. ἔλθῃ) τῶν θεῶν θελόντων κ<α>ὶ τῶ (i.e. τοῦ) Πανός, ο<ὐ> μή με σαλεύσῃ, ἀλλὰ ἀποδώσω αὐτῦς (i.e. αὐτοῖς) τὴν <α>ὐτὴν ὕβριν τήν (i.e. ἥν) συ (i.e. σοι) ἐπόησαν, ‘You know too that, if [he] comes here, the Gods and Pan willing, by no means he will shake me, but I shall return them the same violence which they made to you’; the emendation <α>ὐτὴν is by Elisa Nuria Merisio, while the editors print ὕ{τὴν ὕ}βριν τήν; on the language and style of this text, see A. Bülow‑Jacobsen in O.Did., 319; for its use in a metaphorical sense, see also λίθον σαλεῦσαι ‘to shake a stone’ in P.Oxy. 3.528.11–3 (= TM 28368) [2nd century CE]). This latter usage, however, appears to be confined to texts written in the lower language: prose writings in the high koine offer up no instances of such a transitive use of σαλεύω ‘to shake (someone)’ (whereas σαλεύω is attested in official inscriptions from Roman times with the meaning ‘to shake, to destroy’ a monument or a tomb, see, e.g., IG 2².13213.6–7 [Athens, ca. 113–120 CE] and IG 12,4.2966.4–5 [Kos, 2nd century CE]; it is also worth noting the use of ἀσάλευτος ‘unshakable’ to qualify the effectiveness of official deliberations or regulamentations, see, e.g., I.Aphrodisias and Rome 17.11–2 [198 CE] and I.Magnesia 116.25–7 [117–138 CE]).

The assembled evidence demonstrates that Phrynichus’ assertion (A.1) that transitive χειμάζω + reflexive pronoun (‘to torment oneself’) is an expression used by the Ἀλεξανδρεῖς should be taken as a metalinguistic and sociolinguistic categorisation to indicate the low and/or non‑prestigious koine and, more generally, the less formal language that the purists frown upon (see Fournet 2009; Favi, Tribulato 2024; Favi forthcoming; AGP vol. 2, forthcoming, on πατάνια/βατάνια in Antiatt. β 7Antiatt. β 7 and Poll. 10.107–8Poll. 10.107–8; see also the entries ἤμελλον, ἠβουλόμην, ἠδυνάμην; ἐλέγοσαν, ἐγράφοσαν, ἐσχάζοσαν; ἐξαλλάσσω, ἐξάλλαγμα). Indeed, χειμάζω ‘to torment (someone)’ attracted little attention in ancient scholarship. Menander’s use of transitive χειμάζω is only mentioned by pseudo‑Ammonius (B.1), possibly to single out this classical instance as surprising. On the contrary, ancient scholarship devoted more sustained attention to the other uses of χειμάζω. Regarding Atticist sources, Pollux (B.2) registers (seemingly without comment) χειμάζομαι ‘to be tormented’, while Phrynichus in the PS (B.3) approves intransitive χειμάζω ‘to spend the winter’. As noted above, these constitute the verb’s main uses as employed by classical writers. Aside from Atticist lexicography, other lexicographical sources afford equal attention to χειμάζω ‘to spend the winter’ (sometimes establishing a parallel with παραχειμάζειν: see Hsch. χ 471, Hsch. χ 472, Lex.Vind. χ 6, Lex.Vind. χ 17) and χειμάζεσθαι ‘to be tossed at sea, to be tormented’ (concretely and metaphorically: see Lex.Vind. χ 17).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Middle or passive χειμάζομαι ‘to be tormented, to be distressed’ occurs frequently in Byzantine texts, its meaning rendering it particularly suited to religious or spiritual contexts. This use may have been favoured by the Scriptural precedent of LXX Pr. 26.10: πολλὰ χειμάζεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἀφρόνων (‘everyone of the fools is severely battered’; see the exegesis by Wolters 2020, 249). This use of χειμάζομαι survives in Modern Greek.

Although transitive χειμάζω is considerably less than middle or passive χειμάζομαι ‘to be distressed’, it does occur in a variety of texts ranging from different periods (C.11, see also Vitae Nicetae Patricii 2.8.7 Papachryssanthou). Liturgical poetic texts employ χειμάζω ‘to torment someone’ in vivid nautical metaphors depicting the troubles of life (see, e.g., John Mauropus Canon in S. Nicolaum 5.122 Panagiotou, John Mauropus Canones paracletici 6.137 Follieri, John Mauropus Canones paracletici 8.248 Follieri). We should point out that in high-register prose χειμάζω is regularly used in historiography in the classical sense of ‘to spend the winter’ (Constantinus VII, John Scylitzes, George Cedrenus, Zonaras), and this is likely related to the fact that scholarly literature is also concerned with this use (see D.).

Consequently, the rare instance of χειμάζω in Nicephorus Blemmydes (C.12) is noteworthy. In this case, while the subject of χειμάζω is ἀσθένεια, no direct object is expressed: nonetheless, it is clear that Nicephorus is referring to himself. Hence, we may count this as an instance of the transitive χειμάζω, which is remarkably rare in Byzantine high prose. The document is a short letter to Theodorus II Ducas Lascaris, written while Nicephorus was ill. He says that he will soon send another letter containing more information about his condition. Although the letter contains some hallmarks of Byzantine high-register prose (e.g. ἄν + optative, periphrastic εἶμι + articular infinitive), it is noteworthy for its inclusion of a remarkable instance of Medieval Greek σας = ὑμῶν (Epistulae 29.5 Festa), which is the only known instance of this pronoun in Nicephorus Blemmydes (see Festa 1898, 317). This form provides a parallel to transitive χειμάζω ‘to torment (someone)’ and confirmation that this letter is sprinkled with elements of linguistic informality.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A