ἀρτοκόπος, ἀρτοπόπος, ἀρτοποπέω, ἀρτοκοπέω
(Phryn. Ecl. 193, Phryn. PS 38.1–2, Phryn. PS fr. 261, [Hdn.] Philet. 177, Poll. 7.21)

D. General commentary

Atticist lexicographers (Phrynichus: A.1, A.2, A.3; the pseudo-Herodianic Philetaerus: A.4; Pollux: A.5) discuss the compound variants ἀρτοκόπος and ἀρτοπόπος (‘baker’), prescribing the latter; in the Praeparatio sophistica (A.2, A.3) Phrynichus prescribes the corresponding denominative verb ἀρτοποπέω (‘to bake’) too. In A.1 and A.5, the alternative compound ἀρτοποιός is likewise recommended.

All three compounds (ἀρτοκόπος, ἀρτοπόπος, and ἀρτοποιός) are agent nouns formed from a nominal element (ἄρτος, ‘bread’) plus a verbal element (-κόπος, allegedly from κόπτω, ‘to beat’, but see below; -πόπος, from πέσσω/πέπτω, ‘to bake’; -ποιός, from ποιέω, ‘to make’), with the first constituent functioning as the object to the second. The etymology of ἀρτοπόπος, like that of ἀρτοποιός, is clear: the second constituent -πόπος (< *pok^wos) derives from the same root as the verb πέσσω (see A.4, B.2, B.4), i.e. IE *pek^w- ‘to ripen’, ‘to cook’, ‘to bake’ (see LIV s.v.); cf. also πόπανον (‘round cake’). The literal meaning of ἀρτοπόπος is therefore ‘he who bakes bread’; see Schwyzer (1939, 298 n. 3), Duhoux (1974, 322). On the other hand, the etymologyEtymology of ἀρτοκόπος has been debated: ancient sources (A.4, B.1, B.4) mention a derivation from κόπος (literally ‘blow’, ‘beating’), whereas modern scholarship for a long time considered the compound to derive from the same root as ἀρτοπόπος via metathesis of the root consonants (*kopos < *pokos < *pok^wos or *kopos < *k^wopos < *pok^wos), or through various assimilation and dissimilation processes; see Schwyzer (1939, 298 n. 3), Duhoux (1974, 321–2), citing earlier bibliography, and Kindstrand (1983, 93). Upholding a derivation already defended by Pott (1861, 781) and Sturtevant (1908, 437), Duhoux (1974, 323) argued that the compound should instead be traced back to κόπτω. However, as already noted by Sturtevant and duly acknowledged by Duhoux, this derivation presents semantic difficulties. The verb κόπτω, while appropriate for the activity of a miller (cf. the compounds ὀλυροκόπος ‘miller who grinds spelt’ in OGIS 729.4–5 [Alexandria in Egypt, 221–205 BCE] and χονδροκοπεῖον ‘mill for making groats’ in Poll. 3.78Poll. 3.78 and 7.19Poll. 7.19 – note that in both passages the noun is missing in MSS BCFS), is not suited to a baker: the literal meaning of ‘bread grinder’ does not make sense. To obviate this difficulty, Sturtevant (1908, 438) suggested that -κόπος in compounds underwent a semantic shift, denoting the bread-maker both as ‘miller’ and as ‘baker’. Duhoux (1974, 323) proposed instead connecting the verb not only to grinding, but also to the action of kneading, citing the compound (referring to ἄρτος ‘bread’) τρισκοπάνιστος in Batr. 35 (referring to ἄρτος ‘bread’) as a parallel. This term is unlikely to mean ‘a bread [made of] thrice-grounded [flour]’, but rather ‘a thrice-kneaded bread’, i.e. a bread of superior quality obtained by working the dough with special care. Therefore, the ἀρτοκόπος is ‘one who kneads the bread’.

The distribution of the various terms in literary and documentary sources is quite clear. The compound ἀρτοπόπος prescribed by Atticist lexicographers, is not attested in literary texts except for Libanius (C.6, C.7; in C.5 ἀρτοποιούς is printed by Foerster), who is cited by Thomas Magister (B.3) as an example of correct usage. ἀρτοπόπος does not appear in documentary sources either. In contrast, ἀρτοκόπος is attested as early as Herodotus (1.51.24, 9.82.5), then in Plato (Grg. 518b.6) and Xenophon (C.3, HG 7.1.38); it remains in use until the Byzantine period and is also frequently found in inscriptions and especially in papyri dated from the imperial to the Byzantine period. The compound ἀρτοποιός, which competes with ἀρτοκόπος and is approved by Atticist lexicographers (A.1, A.5; Thomas Magister presents it as a second-best choice, cf. B.3), is the most common form in literary sources: its first attestation is in Xenophon (Cyr. 5.5.39), followed by Josephus (AJ 15.309) and Aelius Aristides (C.4, 2.343 Lenz–Behr = 45.114.11 Dindorf); cf. e.g. also Plu. Alex. 22.8 and Gal. De alim. fac. 1.37.4 Helmreich (= 6.553.10 Kühn). In inscriptions, ἀρτοποιός has few attestations (see e.g. IG 2².10.col. ii.3 [Attica, 401–400 BCE], where the noun is abbreviated to ἀρτοπ(οιός) – provided the abbreviation does not stand for ἀρτοπ(όπος); IG 9,1².630(1).5 [Naupactus in Western Locris, 200–150 BCE]), whereas in papyrological sources it occurs only twice: see P.Athen. 55.8 (= TM 25228) [Egypt, 1st–4th century CE] and SB 20.14197 recto.165 (= TM 14852) [Theadelphia in Arsinoites, 253/256 CE]. On the other hand, the abstract noun ἀρτοποιΐα (often written ἀρτοποιεία) is well represented in papyri dated from the imperial to the Byzantine period. According to Pollux (A.5), ἀρτοποιΐα was already used by Aristophanes (C.2); cf. e.g. also X. Mem. 2.7.6, Str. 17.2.5, and Gal. Ad Glauc. de med. meth. 2.9 Johnston (= 11.120.11 Kühn).

ἀρτοκόπος is part of a series of compounds in -κόπος and in -κοπέω that were widely used in the language of Old Comedy, where they often took on metaphorical meanings, as well as in the prose of the classical period, as terms suited to a technical register, as is the case with ἀρτοκόπος; see Kindstrand (1983). Such compounds became more common and unmarked in the Hellenistic koine. In the case of ἀρτοκόπος, this is illustrated by the number of occurrences in documentary sources, whereas in literary texts the etymologically more transparent – and Atticist-approved – ἀρτοποιός prevailed. Returning to the hypotheses on the etymological origin of ἀρτοκόπος, its wider diffusion compared to the rare ἀρτοπόπος, the semantic difficulty of deriving it from the verb κόπτω, and the frequency of compounds in -κόπος in the technical language of classical prose and later in the common language of the koine – whose parallel may have facilitated its spread – seem to support the theory that ἀρτοκόπος originated from the same root as ἀρτοπόπος through a metathesis of the root consonants and dissimilation of the labial. This process, however, remained unknown to the ancients, who, as noted above, traced the compound back to the root of κόπτω.

As for the denominative verbs derived from the nominal compounds, ἀρτοποπέω is not attested outside lexicographical and grammatical sources, except for a fragment of the comic poet Phrynichus (C.1) quoted in the Praeparatio sophistica (A.3). ἀρτοκοπέω appears only in Pollux (A.5, who attributes it to the comic poet Phrynichus himself, see below) and in an 8th–9th century Byzantine text, in a metaphor comparing the spiritual nourishment of the people of God by the Church to breadmaking (Cosmas Vestitor Laudatio in Joannem Chrysostomum 155.26: ἡ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀρτοκοπήσασα πέτρα, ‘the baking stone of the Church’). Finally, ἀρτοποιέω is the most widespread denominative verb for the action of making bread, although it is not mentioned in Atticist lexica; it is attested as early as Ctesias of Cnidus (FGrHist. 688 F 11.8), but not in the works of authors included in the Atticist canon.

The prescription of ἀρτοπόπος and ἀρτοποπέω by Phrynichus (A.1, A.2, A.3) can likely be explained by the use of such compounds in now-lost Attic texts, which probably belonged to Old Comedy, as suggested by the attestation of ἀρτοποπέω in the comic poet Phrynichus (C.1). On the other hand, ἀρτοκόπος and ἀρτοκοπέω appear in authors, such as Herodotus, who are not included in Phrynichus’ canon. However, attributing Phrynichus’ disapproval solely to questions of canonical status is problematic for two reasons: first, the presence of ἀρτοκόπος in Attic authors such as Xenophon and especially Plato (although an early trivialisation of ἀρτοπόπος into ἀρτοκόπος cannot be excluded); second, the claim in the Praeparatio sophistica (A.3) that ἀρτοπόπος is peculiar to both Attic and Ionic speakers. Since Phryn. PS fr. 261 is preserved only indirectly, one may suspect that the mention of Ionic speakers is a later addition to Phrynichus; indeed, the text of the fragment shows several variations within the manuscript tradition (see apparatus in A.3). Be that as it may, one may wonder whether the preference for ἀρτοπόπος and ἀρτοποπέω was motivated, at least from the perspective of ancient authors, by the meaning of the verbs underlying the compounds, as also the Philetaerus (A.4) seems to suggest: the verb πέσσω, from which ἀρτοπόπος and ἀρτοποπέω derive, is well attested in Old Comedy to denote the action of baking bread (cf. e.g. Ar. Pax 869: ὁ πλακοῦς πέπεπται, ‘the cake is baked’; Ar. Ra. 505: ἔπεττεν ἄρτους, ‘(she) started baking bread’; Ar. Ec. 843: πόπανα πέττεται, ‘cakes are baked’), while the derivation of ἀρτοκόπος from κόπτω may have posed semantic challenges even in ancient times (see above for the discussion in modern etymological studies). Similarly, the transparent meaning of the compound ἀρτοποιός and its potential presence in Attic texts that have not survived (but cf. ἀρτοποιΐα in Aristophanes, C.2) must have made this further compound an equally acceptable alternative in the Atticists’ eyes. Pollux (A.5) appears to concur with Phrynichus’ prescriptions, albeit presenting the alternative form ἀρτοκόπος in an apparently less proscriptive manner. The most problematic aspect of comparing Pollux’s passage (A.5) with Phryn. PS fr. 261 (A.3) is the attribution of the verb ἀρτοκοπέω to the comic poet Phrynichus; the verb presumably originates from the same passage reported by Phryn. PS fr. 261 in relation to the verb ἀρτοποπέω. One may wonder whether Pollux’s text should be emended to ἀρτοποπεῖν, although the sequential placement of ἀρτοκοπεῖν after ἀρτοκόποι, taken from Xenophon (C.3), satisfies a logical criterion. The issue is difficult to resolve given that ἀρτοκοπέω is rare and ἀρτοποπέω is otherwise unattested. It is noteworthy that Libanius (C.6, C.7) uses the term ἀρτοπόπος, reflecting his adherence to Atticist norms. Consequently, Libanius is cited as a model by Thomas Magister (B.3). However, the rarity of the compound and the uncertainty surrounding its usage are further illustrated by Libanius’ manuscript tradition, which presents considerable variation between the form in -πόπος and the more widespread form in -ποιός (see apparatus in C.5, C.6 and C.7); incidentally, it could be posited that in C.5 the form to be printed is also ἀρτοπόπους, given that this appears to be the correct reading in C.6 and C.7, and that Thomas Magister (B.3) quotes C.5 alongside C.6 and C.7 as loci classici in which ἀρτοπόπος is found.

Among the Atticist lexicographers, Phrynichus – who generally shows an interest in compounds – devotes numerous entries of the Praeparatio sophistica to verbal compounds in -κοπέω, as Pollux does as well (see entry πολιτοκοπέω, where such forms are listed). By contrast, entries concerning nominal compounds in -κόπος are rarer: besides ἀρτοκόπος, cf. also Moer. λ 27Moer. λ 27: λιθοκόπος, ‘stone-cutter’ and Phryn. Ecl. 390Phryn. Ecl. 390: πορνοκόπος, ‘fornicator’. As in the case of ἀρτοκόπος, these compounds are generally proscribed, and the grounds for their rejection must be assessed individually: for instance, Phrynichus (Ecl. 390; see also Ecl. 394Phryn. Ecl. 394) rejects πορνοκόπος due to its use by Menander, in contrast to the synonym πορνότριψ, which he instead attributes to ‘the ancient Athenians’ (οἱ δ’ ἀρχαῖοι Ἀθηναῖοι); see entry πορνοκόπος, πορνοκοπέω.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In Medieval and Byzantine Greek both ἀρτοκόπος and ἀρτοποιός remain in use, though the latter is more widespread and typically appears in high-register texts (cf. e.g. Constantinus VII Porphyrogenitus De cerimoniis 436.2 Reiske, Michael Psellus Epistulae 30.131.38). As far as verbs are concerned, apart from a single attestation of ἀρτοκοπέω in an 8th–9th century text (see D.), only ἀρτοποιέω continues to be used. Both αρτοποιός and αρτοποιία still survive in Modern Greek (see LKN s.vv.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A