βελόνη, βελονοπώλης, ῥαφίς
(Phryn. Ecl. 63, Poll. 7.196, Poll. 10.136, Antiatt. ρ 7)

D. General commentary

In Ecl. 63 (A.1), Phrynichus compares βελόνη (‘needle’) and βελονοπώλης (‘needle-seller’) – which are approved because of their antiquity – with ῥαφίς (‘needle), a word accused by the lexicographer of being inappropriate and semantically obscure. The pedigree of βελονοπώλης is also recognised by Pollux (A.2), who includes it in the long list of -πώλης compound used by Critias and other authors whose language was well-regarded for euphony (see below and F.1). On the other hand, Pollux (A.3), the Antiatticist (A.4), and Athenaeus (B.1) consider βελόνη and ῥαφίς equally acceptable synonyms Synonyms, since they are both supported by literary sources (see C.2, C.4, C.5).

Although Phrynichus regards ῥαφίς as a barely intelligible term, it is interesting to note that its etymologyEtymology is clearer to present day scholarship than that of βελόνη. The derivation of ῥαφίς from the verb ῥάπτωῥάπτω (‘sew’) through the -ιδ- infix (typical of small-size tools) is beyond doubt (see DELG s.v. ῥάπτω). On the contrary, the lack of any semantic link between βελόνη and the stem βελ- (see βέλος ‘arrow’; cf. βάλλω ‘to throw’) has puzzled modern linguists (see GEW s.v. βελόνη). The origin of βελόνη could conceivably depend on association between the elongated shape of the needle and that of throwing weapons. βελόνη also displays the -όνη-όνη suffix that is frequent in the formation of tool namesUtensils (see Chantraine 1933, 206–7). Lastly, it should be emphasised that such etymological reconstructions of ῥαφίς and βελόνη were already sketched in ancient scholarship, see Et.Gen. AB β 92 (= EM β 113, Et.Sym. β 78, Et.Gud. β 267.19), cf. Et.Gud. β 267.20–2 and Et.Gud. ρ 490.55 respectively.

Literary sources that Phrynichus could have consulted to assess βελόνη and ῥαφίς show that the first attestation of βελόνη is in Eupolis (C.2, cf. A.3), who was generally considered to be a trustworthy author of Old Comedy (for Eupolis in Phrynichus’ literary canon, especially in the Praeparatio sophistica, see Swain 1996, 53; Strobel 2009, 101; Tribulato 2024). Archippus’ fr. 24 (C.3 = Ath. 3.86c) documents the earliest occurrence of the secondary meaning of βελόνη, i.e. ‘garfish’, a needle-shaped fishAnimals, names of (cf. B.1). It is significant that the less attested ῥαφίς also shows the same usage. In reference to the garfish, ῥαφίς is employed for the first time – as far as our sources show – in a passage of Epicharmus (C.4) quoted by Athenaeus (cf. B.1) (for an etymological overview of the Greek nouns for the garfish, see Strömberg 1943, 36–7). Archippus’ fr. 40 (C.5) quoted by Pollux (A.3) is the earliest evidence for the meaning ‘needle’. Outside comedy, other early attestations of both words can be found in Hippocrates (for βελόνη, see Morb. 3.7.8; Nat.Puer. 25.14; Int. 8.6; for ῥαφίς, see Morb. 2.66.7, though it may be a corruption: see Perilli 2017, 254). The occurrences of βελόνη and ῥαφίς reveal that both words are unquestionably ancient, dating back to at least 5th-century BCE authors: Phrynichus’ judgment about the two nouns therefore seems to have been influenced by his literary canon (see below).

The fact that both words are equally old and their meanings developed simultaneously was not unanimously acknowledged in the lexicographical tradition. While Phrynichus stresses the antiquity of βελόνη over ῥαφίς (cf. also Thomas Magister, B.7), the grammarian Helladius (B.3) recognises ῥαφίς as more ancient than its synonym. It is very likely that Helladius’ position results from the attribution of ῥαφίς to Epicharmus, whose early chronology was widely acknowledged (see Epich. test. 5 = Arist. Po. 1449b).

It is noteworthy that the ancient debate concerning the antiquity of the two words influenced modern scholarship. Relying on Helladius, Rutherford (1881,175) goes as far as to state that in Attic βελόνη replaced the more archaic form ῥαφίς. Even though the usage of βελόνη is prevalent among Attic authors (besides C.2 and C.3, see Aeschin. 3.166.7; Ephipp. fr. 12; Speus. fr. 19 Tarán (= B.1); cf. βελονίς ‘little needle’ in Hermipp. fr. 50), Rutherford’s lexical ‘replacement’ theory (also followed in LSJ s.v. ῥαφίς) is – in my opinion – neither legitimate nor necessary. The only attestation of ῥαφίς by an Attic author is in Archippus (C.5), who could have drawn on the stylistic model established by Epicharmus.

Therefore, the literary sources reveal that ῥαφίς was, at least initially, a marginal form in Attic compared to βελόνη; this stood in contrast with other dialects, such as Syracusan Doric, where ῥαφίς is likely to have been the more common form. Support for this hypothesis flows from the problematic entry Antiatt. ρ 7 (A.4, see also F.2) and Ath. 7.319d (B.1) where, in both cases, the use of ῥαφίς is traced back to Epicharmus. In addition, the earliest epigraphic documentary evidence recording βελόνη and ῥαφίς appears to be consistent with this interpretation, since βελόνη features in an Attic inscription of the Athenian Asclepieion containing the inventory of the dedications to the sanctuary (IG 2³.1010.185 [Athens, 244/3 BCE]; for later documentary occurrences of βελόνη, see below). By contrast, ῥαφίς is attested only in a fish price list from Acraephia in Boeotia (SEG 32.450 [Acraephia, late 3rd/early 2nd century BCE]).

Even though ῥαφίς may have been rare in Attic, Phrynichus’ criticism about the obscurity of the word (A.1) appears intentionally hyperbolic. Indeed, ῥαφίς seems to have been perfectly clear to Phrynichus’ contemporaries and was widely used in Post-classical Greek, as its occurrences in documentary papyriPapyri (see P.Oxy. 4.736.75 (= TM 20436) [1st century CE]) and in the New Testament (Ev.Marc. 10.25.2; Ev.Matt. 19.24.2) indicate (for a discussion of the lower form of koine used in the gospels, see below). Papyrological attestations of the compound ῥαφιδοποιόςῥαφιδοποιός ‘needle-maker’ are also relevant (see BGU 13.2351 (= TM 29232) [provenance unknown, late 2nd century CE] and P.Berl.Cohen 16 (= TM 110058) [provenance unknown, late 2nd century CE]). Consequently, Phrynichus’ forthright opinion regarding ῥαφίς is likely to stem from literary considerations: the word could be considered obscure since none of the approved Attic authors used it (cf. Philemo 396.4 [Vindob.] (B.2)). More particularly, it is evident that Phrynichus’ criteria for the evaluation of the lemmas in Ecl. 63 are less chronological – both ῥαφίς and βελόνη are ancient – than they are influenced by dialectal factors: a DoricDoric playwright like Epicharmus could not be a stylistic model for an Atticist. However, it remains unclear why the lexicographer does not openly trace ῥαφίς back to the Sicilian playwright, as he does elsewhere (see Ecl. 43Phryn. Ecl. 43 and 79Phryn. Ecl. 79). One possible explanation could be found in the epitomisationEpitome to which the lemma was perhaps subjected (cf. Fischer 1974, 37), although this is not a certain scenario.

The other occurrence of ῥαφίς mentioned in the sources is ascribed to Archippus (C.5), an Old Comedy author outside the canonical triad of Aristophanes, Eupolis, and Cratinus. If we trust the attribution of PS fr. *243Phryn. PS fr. *243 to Phrynichus (see Reitzenstein 1907; de Borries 1911, 163; Theodoridis ad Phot. α 2203), this lemma is the only quotation of Archippus made by the lexicographer, where he defines the participle ἀπαγκωνισάμενος (‘elbowing’), employed by the playwright, as ‘very solemn’ (on the meaning of σεμνῶςσεμνός, see e.g. PS 11.13Phryn. PS 11.13; PS 40.13–4Phryn. PS 40.13–4; see also Silk 2009, 22–3). Usage of ῥαφίς by Athenian author as highly regarded as Archippus would raise legitimate questions as to why Phrynichus suggested it was not approved (ἀδόκιμονἀδόκιμος). The answer lies in the fact that the attestations of ῥαφίς in Epicharmus – even if he is not explicitly mentioned in Ecl. 63 – could have suggested to Phrynichus that the word was intrinsically non-Attic, or even Doric. Therefore, Archippus being a ‘minor’ poet in the Eclogue’s Old Comedy canon, his use of ῥαφίς could not redeem the word, especially considering the occurrences of the ‘competing’ form βελόνη and of the compound βελονοπώλης in good Attic authors such as Eupolis and Aristophanes (on βελονοπώλης, see below; for the Old Comedy canon in Phrynichus, see Tribulato 2024).

Conversely, for less uncompromising Atticists such as the Antiatticist and Pollux the authority of two classical playwrights like Epicharmus and Archippus would have been enough to approve ῥαφίς, despite the fact that the former was a Doric writer and the latter was not part of the canonical comic triad (for the presence of non-Attic authors in the canon of the Antiatticist, see Tribulato 2021, 184–6; for the ampler literary canon of the Onomasticon, see Tosi 2007, 6–8, and F.1).

Another noun, βελονοπώλης (‘needle-seller’), is acknowledged as ἀρχαῖον by virtue of its derivation from βελόνη in Phryn. Ecl. 63 (A.1) (for its ancient etymology, see B.4). βελονοπώλης is a compound with a verbal second element (πωλέω ‘to sell’) belonging to first-declension masculine nouns (for this compositional type, see Tribulato 2015, 101). Agentive compounds in -πώλης are a highly productive category in Greek, so much so that more than 150 occurrences are recorded in Buck, Petersen (1945, 5–6) (for a general overview of the productivity of -πώλης compounds in literature, inscriptions, and papyri up to Byzantine Greek, see Casarico 1983; Drexhage 1991; Drexhage 2022; Ruffing 2002; Diethart 2005; Diethart 2008; see also entry ὀπωροπώλης). Many of these nouns – βελονοπώλης included – are attested in Critias (Diels–Kranz 88 B 70 = C.1) and Aristophanes (see Beta 2007, 40). Given that both authors are models of proper Attic Greek for Phrynichus, it is not surprising that the compound is considered ‘ancient’ by the Atticist (see Strobel 2009, 100).

Nouns in -πώλης, besides being a regular morphological category, are generally approved by Atticist lexicographers, as shown by the long list in Poll. 7.196 (A.2) and by other cases, see e.g. Ael.Dion. ρ 14Ael.Dion. ρ 14 [= Eust. in Il. 3.459.29–460.1] ῥωποπώλης (‘dealer in petty wares’) and γελγοπώλης (‘garlic-dealer’); Phryn. PS 52.13Phryn. PS 52.13 βιβλιοπώλης (‘bookseller’); Moer. γ 19Moer. γ 19 γελγοπώλης. The only exception to this consensus is lemma Ecl. 176Phryn. Ecl. 176 ὀπωροπώληςὀπωροπώλης (‘fruit-seller’), which, seems to be rejected by Phrynichus for solely socio-linguistic reasons and not for morphological issues (see entry ὀπωροπώλης).

Since the words ascribed to Critias (C.1) rely upon Pollux’ indirect tradition (A.2), we know nothing about the context in which Critias used βελονοπώλης. More significant for us is the passage of Aristophanes’ Wealth (C.6), in which the two main characters Cario and Chremylus enumerate unscrupulous actions carried out by those who try to get money in any possible way. Among these, they also mention Pamphilus, an Athenian commander of cavalry and army leader convicted of embezzlement, and his ‘sidekick’, a parasite nick-named ‘the needle-seller’, who used to lead a lifestyle similar to his master’s (see Apostol. 14.4.7). The scholia tell us more about this curious figure: his real name was Aristoxenus and he was a needle-seller before turning to embezzlement (see schol. Ar. Pl. 175b). Despite the uncertain reliability of this information, the popularity of Aristophanes’ character was such that the word βελονοπώλης – originally used only to denote a profession – later began to be closely associated with Pamphilus’ accomplice (see B.5 and [Zonar.] 382.6). For this reason, in Su. π 433 (B.6) the compound is mentioned along with other literary epithets for parasites.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Despite Phrynichus’ (A.1), Pollux’ (A.2) and Thomas Magister’s (B.7) stylistic recommendations, βελονοπώλης did not enjoy popularity in Post-classical Greek, so much so that its only attestation in Byzantine literature is in Manuel Kalekas’ Contra Josephum Bryennium (321). In contrast, βελόνη and ῥαφίς continued to be used for a long time, especially in medical and religious prose (for βελόνη, see. e.g. Orib. Collectiones medicae 2.58.16.1; 44.21.12.2; Chrys. In Matthaeum 58.605.56; Marc.Diac. V.Porph. 82.2; Aët. 37.4; Theophylactus Enarrationes in evangelia 1.356.45–6; for ῥαφίς, see e.g. Epiph.Const. Haer. 1.308.4; Gr.Nyss. V.Macr. 31.10; Paul.Aeg. 3.59.8.17; Hippiatrica Berolinensia 14.12.5; Eust. Sermones 9.156.16–7). The frequency of the two nouns in Biblical exegesis owes to their occurrence in the well-known aphorism according to which it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. This famous quote shows two variants, the one with βελόνη (see NT Ev.Luc. 18.25.2NT Ev.Luc. 18.25.2), the other with ῥαφίς (see NT Ev.Marc. 10.25.2NT Ev.Marc. 10.25.2; NT Ev.Matt. 19.24.2NT Ev.Marc. 19.24.2). It is notable that the different distribution of the two nouns is coherent with the usus scribendi generally pursued in the GospelsNew Testament, among which Luke’s is, stylistically, the most elevated (see Blass, Debrunner 1976, § 3; Horrocks 2010, 149).

Outside literature, it is worth noting that only βελόνη is attested in late imperial and Byzantine documentary sources (see Edictum Diocletiani Giacchero 7.53, 16.12–14 and SB 20.14214 (= TM 38442) [provenance unknown, 6th/7th century CE]), while ῥαφίς seems to lack such evidence.

In Modern Greek, neither βελόνη nor ῥαφίς are preserved as such. The word βελόνη was used in literature until the 18th–19th century (see Dionysios of Fourna’s Ἑρμηνεία τῆς ζωγραφικῆς τέχνης 1.13.2; Nicodemus the Hagiorite’s Ἐξομολογητάριον 3.5.3.551; Neophytos Doukas’ Τετρακτύς 3.176.3, 226.11), whereas the derivatives βελόνα – which underwent metaplasmMetaplasm of the inflectional class – and βελόνι – a hypochoristic – are still current (see LKN s.v.). The only surviving trace of ῥαφίς is in the Modern Greek learned compounds ραφιδογράφος/ραφιγράφος (‘braille embosser’) and ραφιδογραφία (‘braille writing’) (see LKN s.v.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Poll. 7.196 (A.2)

In listing the nouns he records, Pollux informs his readers that they are also used by other authors who are more esteemed (κεκριμένοι) than Critias because of euphony. Here, as well as in other passages of the Onomasticon, the term κεκριμένοικεκριμένοι takes on a specific meaning, since it defines the group of writers considered worthy because of their correct Attic Greek (similarly, κεκριμένα are approved words: see Theodoridis 1976, 69–70; Bussès 2011, 75–8). Regarding Poll. 10.87–8Poll. 10.87–8, Bussès (2011, 76) notes that the expression τῶν ἧττον κεκριμένων suggests the existence of approval rankings for authors used as sources in lexica; nonetheless, Pollux does not seem to be persuaded by these classifications and declares that prejudices against certain writers do not prevent him from accepting their usage. Such a modus operandi is confirmed in the letters that preface the Onomasticon, where Pollux explains his intention to hark back to linguistic models who are ideal for their lexical appropriateness and not because of their elegance (see Tribulato 2018, 255–61. On euphony in Pollux, see Conti Bizzarro 2018, 6–8; for a general overview about euphony, see Stanford 1967; de Jonge 2015, 987–90). Going back to A.2, it is not clear who Pollux refers to with πολλοί, but since Demosthenes and Aristophanes are mentioned later in this passage (see Ar. fr. 845 λιβανωτοπωλέω, ‘to deal in frankincense’, and D. 48.12 φαρμακοτρίβης, ‘drug-grinder’), they probably belong to this group of authors. Furthermore, some of the compounds which are said to be used by Critias are documented in Aristophanes as well, including τυροπώλης ‘cheesemonger’ (Eq. 854), στυππειοπώλης ‘oakum-seller’ (Eq. 129), πινακοπώλης ‘board-seller’ (Nu. 766). The placement by Pollux of Critias alongside Demosthenes and Aristophanes indicates an attempt to elevate the reader’s regard for Critias’ language, which was not appreciated as much as other literary models of euphony.    

(2)    Antiatt. ρ 7 (A.4), Epich. fr. 45 (C.4)

Cod. Par. Coisl. 345Par. Coisl. 345 (C) bears the corrupted lemma ῥυπίδα (‘dirt’, see LBG s.v.), which is the reading left between cruces by Valente (2015, 232). This error, which the copyist could have produced as a result of the alternating order ῥα-/ῥυ- of other close lemmas (e.g. ῥαβδίζειν, ῥύμην … ῥάξαι, †ῥυπίδα†), is probably a corruption of ῥαπίδα, also chosen by Bekker (1814–1821 vol. 1, 113.14): see Kassel, Austin, PCG    vol. 1, 102 (cf. also Hsch. ρ 119 ῥαπίδες· […] περόναι). Compared to ῥαφίδα, the more common form proposed by Lobeck (1820, 90), ῥαπίδα may arise from the de-aspiration of the aspirated stops (i.e. [k^h], [t^h], [p^h]) in Sicilian Doric (see Greg.Cor. De dialectis 151; Willi 2008, 20–1). However, whether Epicharmus’ fr. 139 originally presented ῥαπίδα or ῥαφίδα remains an open question. Bekker’s editorial choice led Kaibel (1899, 100) to suggest ῥαπίδες as the proper reading also for Epich. fr. 45 (C.4 = fr. 51 Kaibel).