ἀγανακτῶ σου
(Phryn. PS fr. *5 [= Σ^b α 243, Phot. α 101])

D. General commentary

The entry shared by the Synagoge and Photius’ lexicon (A.1), in all likelihood deriving from Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica, deals with the syntactic construction of the verb ἀγανακτέω (‘to be angry with’) and attests to the extant – albeit rare – usage of ἀγανακτέω + genitive in place of the standard construction with the plain dative. The use of σου and σε to denote the genitive and the accusative, respectively, is one of the standard ways in which grammarians discuss verbal government without quoting a specific passage (see also B.1, B.3). This gloss (A.1) is rich in evaluative terminology and describes the construction ἀγανακτέω + genitive as innovative (καινός) and infrequent (σπάνιοςσπάνιος), contrasting it with the current construction with the genitive of θαυμάζω (‘to wonder at’, ‘to admire’) and ἄγαμαι (‘to admire’ or, in a bad sense, ‘to be jealous of’, ‘to be angry at’, see LSJ s.v.).

Both θαυμάζω and ἄγαμαι may be constructed with either the accusativeAccusative or with the genitive, and for both verbs, the construction with the genitive – although less frequent – is well attested in Attic for both things and people. θαυμάζω + genitive occurs, among others, in Aesch. Ag. 1999 (see Medda 2017 vol. 3, 218), Eur. Supp. 909, Pl. Cr. 43b.4–5; ἄγαμαι + genitive is attested in Ar. Av. 1744 and Eup. fr. 349, X. Mem. 4.2.9. These verbs also entered the Atticist debate, and Moeris prescribes their construction with the genitive as peculiar to Attic (B.1, B.2). An interest in their syntax is also exhibited by syntactical lexica (see Lex.Synt. θ 3, concerning θαυμάζω) and by the pseudo-Herodianic Philetaerus (B.3), which focuses on the double construction of ἄγαμαι and quotes θαυμάζω as an analogous case. The Philetaerus (B.3) ascribes a different pragmatic force to the two syntactic constructions: it presents ἄγαμαι + genitive as ironic with reference to Eupolis’ fragment (C.2), for which a sarcastic tone should indeed not be excluded.

ἄγαμαι has been recognised as ‘frequent in comedy’ (see LSJ s.v.) and typical of ‘colloquial Attic’ (see Olson 2014, 64 commenting on C.2; for ἄγαμαι + genitive in Aristophanes, see Poultney 1936, 124). A rich list of occurrences of ἄγαμαι and, mainly, of θαυμάζω with the genitive was assembled by Cooper (1998, 242–3), who classified genitives of this nature as causal genitives depending on verba affectuum. ἀγανακτέω, expressing anger, belongs to this category and generally admits both the dativeDative and the genitive, or the dative and the accusative (see Cooper 1998, 242–3; 294–5). Nevertheless, the case of this verb is slightly different. ἀγανακτέω is mainly constructed with the plain dative and less frequently with the plain accusative, and it is followed by the genitive only with prepositionsPrepositions such as ὑπέρ, περί (for the thing) and κατά (for the person with whom one is angry). The verb is included among anger-related verbs constructed with the dative (Cooper 1998, 294) but not among those constructed with the genitive (Cooper 1998, 242; see, among others, μηνίω, ‘to cherish wrath against someone’, and ὀργίζομαι, ‘to be angry with’). The construction with the genitive of ἀγανακτέω is indeed extremely rare: its only occurrence in Classical Greek appears to be in Lys. 14.39 (C.1). Even in modern lexica, the assertion that ἀγανακτέω can be constructed with the genitivus rei relies, de facto, on this very gloss (see LSJ, DGE s.v.).

The Synagoge’s entry (A.1) attests that Phrynichus recommends the use of the construction of ἀγανακτέω with the genitive for its καινότης (‘novelty’, ‘innovation’). A.1 is one of the ten entries of the indirect tradition of Phrynichus’ PS in which καινότης features as an evaluative criterion: see, aside from A.1, Σ^b 304 = Phot. α 273 (Phryn. PS fr. *66Phryn. PS fr. *66); Σ^b 404 = Phot. α 414 (Phryn. PS fr. *91Phryn. PS fr. *91); Phot. α 551 (cf. Phryn. PS 20.1–2Phryn. PS 20.1–2); Phot. α 1377 (cf. Phryn. PS 49.1–2Phryn. PS 49.1–2), Phot. α 1488 (cf. Phryn. PS 14.6Phryn. PS 14.6); Σ^b 1351 = Phot. α 1801 (cf. Phryn. PS 21.12Phryn. PS 21.12); Phot. α 1913 (cf. Phryn. PS 44.7–10Phryn. PS 44.7–10); Phot. α 1980 (Phryn. PS fr. *193Phryn. PS fr. *193). Note that καινότης also features in Σ^b 834 = Phot. α 899, but this entry does not mention Phrynichus, nor has it been included among the fragments of the PS. Phrynichus’ particular interest in καινότης is confirmed by six entries in the Praeparatio that feature innovation as an evaluative criterion for style (Phryn. PS 65.20–1Phryn. PS 65.20–1; Phryn. PS 75.19Phryn. PS 75.19; Phryn. PS 94.21–95.4Phryn. PS 94.21–95.4; Phryn. PS 99.14–9Phryn. PS 99.14–9; Phryn. PS 116.9–13Phryn. PS 116.9–13; Phryn. PS 120.1–2Phryn. PS 120.1–2) and is also noted in Photius’ Bibliotheca, in which he highlights that the PS lists expressions ‘which are formulated and structured in an elegant and original manner’ (see Phot. Bibl. cod. 158.100a.36–7: τῶν χαριέντως τε καὶ καινοπρεπῶς εἰρημένων τε καὶ συντεταγμένων). The criterion of novelty is applied to two areas: syntax, on the one hand, and that which we may call callidae iuncturae on the other, these latter being remarkable phrases whose originality is emphasised (see entries ἄνεμος καὶ ὄλεθρος ἄνθρωπος and πολιτοκοπέω). In the case of A.1, the novelty concerns syntax and is classified as a valuable trait. This is noteworthy on two counts: on the one hand, it is significant that a construction alternative to the dative is encouraged, given that the use of the dative is a feature that an Atticist purist might rather be expected to protect, in light of the increasing trend towards its demise in the koine (see Humbert 1930; Papanastassiou 2007, 611; Horrocks 2010, 97). On the other hand, A.1 may be compared with Phryn. Ecl. 330Phryn. Ecl. 330 (see entry ἀκολυθεῖν μετ’ αὐτοῦ), whose evaluative terminology is similar in some respects, although the meaning of the prescription is, in fact, opposite: in Phryn. Ecl. 330, καινὸν σχῆμα (‘innovative syntax’) is used to condemn the construction of verba sequendi with μετά + genitive in place of the plain dative; thus, while in the PS item, καινός is a positive label, in Ecl. 330, it is clearly negative.

Several considerations are in order. The prepositional construction of verba sequendi with the genitive, described as ‘innovative and strange’ in the Eclogue, is more widely attested than ἀγανακτέω + genitive. The greatest difference between the two situations appears to be the preposition: in Ecl. 330, Phrynichus, taking his cue from a syntactical construction used by Lysias, is in fact condemning the usage of prepositional phrases with verba sequendi, which were proliferating at the expense of the plain dative (see Horrocks 2010, 97; Bortone 2010, 154–5, see also entry ἀκολυθεῖν μετ’ αὐτοῦ) and are instead legitimated by the Antiatticist (α 122)Antiatt. α 122. Phrynichus may have considered the replacement of a plain dative with a prepositional phrase to constitute a more grave mistake than its replacement with the plain genitive, which may have been more acceptable in his eyes. This would be coherent with the fact that prepositional phrases are the plain dative's most significant competitor in koine Greek (see Horrocks 2010, 97). Alternatively, the fact that the construction with the genitive was regarded as an Atticist marker for verbs such as θαυμάζω and ἄγαμαι (B.1, B.2) may have induced Phrynichus to promote the same construction for ἀγανακτέω, despite the fact that it was a quasi-hapaxHapax. In this scenario, Phrynichus would be applying analogicalAnalogy criteria to syntax while judging the admissibility of a construction (on analogy as a fundamental principle for 2nd-century CE grammarians, e.g. Apollonius Dyscolus and Herodian, see Pagani 2015, 821–8; 832–8, with further bibliography). If the information provided by the gloss is correct, Phrynichus would examine and evaluate syntaxes on an individual basis and apply the criterion of καινότης (‘innovation’) to syntax in two opposing senses. The marker of innovation would be applicable, depending on the circumstances, to a refined and valuable trait (as is the case for this gloss, A.1) or, on the contrary, to something that risks sounding odd and inappropriate (as in Ecl. 330). One might also conceive that Phrynichus originally offered reasons for supporting his preferences, thereby making his precepts easier to understand, and that these entries' apparent ambiguity is attributable to the vicissitudes of their transmission.

A.1 is not the only entry that deals with syntactical innovation in Photius’ lexicon: another example is Phot. α 1377Phot. α 1377, paired with Phryn. PS 49.1–2Phryn. PS 49.1–2 (note that in Phot. α 551, cf. Phryn. PS 20.1–2Phryn. PS 20.1–2, instead, σύνταξις does not necessarily imply that the gloss comments upon a syntactic structure, see entry ᾄδειν ὅμοιον). In α 1377, Photius describes the syntax in question (ἀμφίἀμφί or περίπερί + accusative in place of εἰςεἰς + accusative) as innovative, without ascribing any openly positive or negative sense to it (Phot. α 1377: ἀμφὶ τὰ στρατεύματα δαπανᾶν· καινὸς ὁ λόγος καὶ διεσχηματισμένος· ἦν γὰρ τὸ κατὰ φύσιν εἰπεῖν εἰς τὰ στρατεύματα δαπανᾶν. εἴποις δ’ ἂν καὶ οὕτως· περὶ ἀθλητὰς δαπανᾶν, περὶ ἑταίρας <καὶ> πᾶν ὅ τι ὅμοιον. οὕτως Ξενοφῶν καὶ Φρύνιχος. ‘To spend money ἀμφὶ τὰ στρατεύματα (‘on the troops’): The expression is novel and [innovatively] shaped. The natural way to say it would be ‘to spend money εἰς τὰ στρατεύματα’. You could also say so: περὶ ἀθλητὰς δαπανᾶν (‘to spend money on champions’), [to spend] περὶ ἑταίρας (‘on courtesans’) and anything similar. So [say] Xenophon (An. 1.1.8) and Phrynichus (PS 49.1–2)’. Remarkably, the corresponding entry in the PS (49.1–2: ἀμφὶ τὰ στρατεύματα δαπανᾶν· εἴποις δ’ ἂν καὶ περὶ ἀθλητὰς δαπανᾶν καὶ περὶ ἵππους, ‘To spend money ἀμφὶ τὰ στρατεύματα [on the troops]: You could also say περὶ ἀθλητὰς δαπανᾶν [to spend money on champions], and περὶ ἵππους [on horses]’) does not preserve any evaluative terminology, nor does it make the focus on syntax clear; this confirms the importance of the indirect tradition for understanding the use of evaluative terminology with respect to style in the Praeparatio.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

ἀγανακτέω persisted in continuous use down through the centuries. It is well attested in high-register Byzantine Greek, in which it is mainly constructed with prepositional phrases using the dative or the genitive. Its use with the plain genitive, which occurs, for instance, in Demetrius Cydones’ Ep. 170.34 (εἰ δ’ ἀγανακτεῖς τῶν συνθηκῶν λυομένων, ‘If you are vexed for the conventions being dismissed’) is otherwise very rare. The verb survives in Medieval Greek and then in Modern Greek as well: the regular form αγανακτώ, with the consonant cluster /kt/ (a ‘learned cluster’, see CGMEMG vol. 1, 126–7) is complemented in Medieval Greek by αγαναχτώ, which exhibits the manner dissimilation of /kt/ (stop + stop) into /xt/ (fricative + stop; on manner dissimilation, see CGMEMG vol. 1, 185–93) and ’γανακτώ, with aphaeresis of /a/ (see CGMEMG vol. 1, 61–3). A secondary meaning ‘to tire’, ‘to be tired of’ (see Kriaras, LME; LKN; ILNE s.v.) is added to its primary meaning ‘to be vexed at’ from Medieval Greek onwards. Contrarily to ἄγαμαι, which has disappeared, θαυμάζω, which is also attested as θαμάζω in Medieval Greek (see Kriaras, LME s.v.), owing to the rising /u/ > Ø (see CGMEMG vol. 1, 29–31), survives in Modern Greek. Nowadays, both αγανακτώ and θαυμάζω are constructed with the accusative (plain or with prepositions).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A