ἐρυγγάνω, ἤρυγον, ἐρεύγομαι, ἠρευξάμην
(Phryn. PS 73.15‒7, Phryn. Ecl. 42, Moer. ε 50, Philemo [Vindob.] 393.17‒20)

D. General commentary

Several Atticist lexica, including Phrynichus’ Eclogue (A.2) and Praeparatio sophistica (A.1), as well as Moeris (A.3), express their preference for the present ἐρυγγάνω ‘to burp, to belch; to vomit’ and the aorist ἤρυγον over the synonymousSynonyms ἐρεύγομαι and ἠρευξάμην. Only Philemon’s lexicon (A.4), on which Thomas Magister (B.5) depends, takes issue with this doctrine, permitting both verbs, albeit with different semantic specialisations: ἐρεύγομαι would refer to eructation after a meal, ἐρυγγάνω to burping on an empty stomach (see F.2).

Both presents are formed from the Indo-European root *(h₁)reug- ‘to burp, belch’ (see LIV 509), with different ablaut grades and suffixes. The thematic root present ἐρεύγομαι, attested since Homer, is likely inherited, as illustrated by comparison with Latin ē-rūgō (the athematic Old Lithuanian present riáugmi could be an innovation, while the Modern Lithuanian r(i)áugėti may represent a remodelling of an inherited thematic present). By contrast, the nasal infix present ἐρυγγάνω is clearly secondary: not only it is attested later but it belongs to a type – the so-called ‘double nasal’ present – that was productive in Post-Homeric Greek, invariably accompanying thematic aorists (cf., e.g., the creation of λαμβάνω beside λάζομαι ἔλαβον, of λιμπάνω beside λείπω ἔλιπον, or of πυνθάνομαι beside πεύθομαι ἐπυθόμην; on this process see now Jasanoff 2022). Indeed, while variation occurs in the present stem, the only aoristAorist in use in Classical Greek is the thematic ἤρυγον (which, interestingly, might be regarded as the imperfect of an unattested present ἐρύγω: see F.1). The sigmatic aorist ἠρευξάμην is late, attested first in composition (Clem.Al. Paed. 3.2.5.4 ἐνερευξάμενος) and even later as a simplex (Gr.Nyss. Ephr. 46.840.26); Phrynichus’ proscription is our very first attestation of this form.

Another important difference between the two presents lies in the fact that ἐρυγγάνω is restricted to the meaning ‘to belch, burp, vomit’, while ἐρεύγομαι and especially ἤρυγον may also mean ‘to bellow, roar’, since Homer (cf. e.g. Il. 17.265, 20.403–6). The question of whether these are simply different specialisations of the same root (see DELG, EDG s.v. ἐρεύγομαι), or whether ἐρεύγομαι ‘to bellow’ derives from a separate root *rug- (cf. ῥύζω, ῥυζέω ‘to growl’, Lat. rūgiō ‘to roar’, and see Dihle 1984, 113) remains debated. Nevertheless, ἐρεύγομαι first occurs with the meaning ‘belch’ in Homer (e.g. C.1, C.2), and is used in a figurative sense by Alcaeus (C.3, of a river, as already in Hom. Od. 5.438) and Pindar (C.4, of a volcano; fr. 130, of the rivers of the underworld). In the Hellenistic period, poetic usage continues in Lycophron (921) and Apollonius Rhodius (5x), but ἐρεύγομαι is simultaneously the normal form in koine prose, from Aristotle (3x) to the Septuagint (3x). (ἐξ)ερεύγομαι enjoyed a peculiar success in Jewish and Christian Greek, whose reasons were investigated by Dihle (1984, 111–4). In the SeptuagintSeptuagint, (ἐξ)ερεύγομαι is regularly used to translate Hebrew and Aramaic words meaning ‘roar’, ‘say out loud’; in Christian theology, the verb often refers to the ‘coming forth’ of the Logos from the Father. According to Dihle, the specifically Biblical meaning of (ἐξ)ερεύγομαι was generalised, beginning with passages in which it described the leonine ‘roar’ of Yahweh; consequently, ἐκβάλλω or (ἐξ)εμέω were reserved for expressions meaning ‘to vomit, spit out’.

ἐρυγγάνω is rarer, with a more restricted distribution suggesting that it belonged to colloquialColloquial language Attic: it occurs in Attic drama, from Old Comedy (C.6) and satyr play (C.5: notice that ἐρεύγετο was used in the Homeric hypotext of this passage = C.2) to New Comedy (C.8), and either the simple verb or its compound προσερυγγάνω occurs in the Characters of Theophrastus (C.7). Only in the Hippocratic corpusHippocratic corpus do both present stems occur, when they are used to refer to either belching or vomiting. Upon close examination of the occurrences, however, no semantic distinction is evident between the two; in the only treatise where both occur, On the Diseases of Women, they appear to be used interchangeably (cf. e.g. Hp. Mul. 8.22: ἐρυγγάνει θαμινά, 177.10: ἐρεύγεται θαμινά, ‘she has frequent eructation’). The co-occurrence of both present stems in the corpus should therefore rather be attributed to dialectal mixture. Meanwhile, it seems likely that ἐρεύγομαι and ἐρυγγάνω were not wholly synonymous with (ἐξ)εμέω(ἐξ)εμέω in the medical language, given that the latter refers to vomiting sensu stricto while the former were invoked to describe a wider range of conditions, including belching and bloating.

Phrynichus’ Eclogue (A.2) acknowledges the Homeric use of ἐρεύγομαι but recommends that ἐρυγγάνω be used to sound πολιτικός, an important and difficult term in his evaluative terminology that is often opposed – as here – to ποιητικός ‘poetic’. While ἐρεύγομαι is by no means restricted to poetry, its Homeric pedigree and its subsequent use by poets from Alcaeus to Apollonius marked it as more appropriate to a poetic registerPoetic language. By contrast, the form employed in Attic comedy is deemed more appropriate for the cultivated register that Phrynichus identifies as πολιτικός (see Tribulato forthcoming). A severely epitomised entry in the Praeparatio sophistica (A.1) is concerned with the same verbal forms and likely presented a similar doctrine to the Eclogue that also extended to the aorist forms. Moeris’ typically succinct rule (A.3) is in line with Phrynichus. However, the fact that the distribution of the two present stems was less straightforward left scope for other Atticist lexicographers to defend both, as did Philemon (A.4), although his argument meets with little textual support (see F.2).

In accordance with the prevailing Atticist prescriptions, ἐρυγγάνω is preferred by some literary authors writing in the 2nd century CE, including Lucian (3x, e.g. C.9), Alciphro (C.10, plus ἀπερυγγάνω in Ep. 2.30.10), and possibly Aelian (see the apparatus in B.4); Galen, too, prefers ἐρυγγάνω (Durling 1993, 167) and uses ἐρεύγομαι only in quotations (interestingly, he felt the need to gloss the latter with the former in his Hippocratic glossary: see B.1 and Perilli 2017, 333). Note, however, that Galen himself uses ἐξερεύγομαι (16x) in the sense ‘to emit, expel’; ‘to empty (of veins)’, aligning himself with Hippocratic usage (6x); his preferences regarding the simple verb notwithstanding, he did not go so far as to create a compound ἐξερυγγάνω, unattested in classical sources. Meanwhile, some Atticising writers apparently did not hesitate to use even the simple ἐρεύγομαι, as is the case for Appian (Mith. 480.6) and Philostratus (Im. 2.26.4, Gym. 46.5). Regarding the latter, Schmid (Atticismus vol. 4, 297) included ἐρεύγομαι among the ‘poetic expressions’ in Philostratus’ prose, which is consistent with Phrynichus’ stylistic evaluation, although in light of the actual distribution of ἐρεύγομαι, it may as well be a concession to the variant that predominated in koine prose and, most likely, in the spoken language. ἐρυγγάνω was still preferred by later high-register authors, from Synesius (C.11) to classicising Byzantine writers (see E.). Nonetheless, that form had already fallen out of living use, as attested by the fact that late ancient and medieval lexica (B.2, B.3, B.4) gloss it with ἐρεύγομαι, which is also the form presupposed by Modern Greek.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

During the Byzantine period, ἐρυγγάνω continued to be employed by authors who adopted a more Atticising style, such as Arethas (Scripta minora 21.205.27), Leo Choerosphactes (C.12; on his predilection for words attested in comedy and mediated by Atticist lexicography, see Vassis 2002, 40‒1 and entries ἀνταναγιγνώσκω, ἀντιβάλλω, ἄπλυτος πώγων, ψυχορροφεῖν), and Michael Psellus (Chronographia 6.99.4, Oratoria minora 14.15). In other texts, however, ἐρεύγομαι remains the norm, its status likely reinforced by its roots in Biblical language (see D.). It is from ἐρεύγομαι that the Modern Greek ρεύομαι ‘to belch, burp’ developed, likely via the aorist ἐρεύχθην > *ἐρέφθην > ἐρεύτην, ερεύφτηκα, whence a new present ρεύομαι was formed on the analogy of κρύφτικα, κρύβομαι (LKN s.v.). Next to this form, the dialectal variant ρεύγομαι (derived by aphaeresis from the classical form) and the learned ερεύγομαι also exist, while ἐρυγγάνω left no traces.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Phryn. PS 73.15‒7 (A.1)

Phrynichus derives the thematic aorist ἤρυγον from an (unattested) present ἐρύγω, treating it, in fact, as though it were an imperfect. The present ἐρύγωἐρύγω is attested relatively frequently in the grammatical tradition, beginning at least with Heraclides of Miletus (fr. 23; see also schol. (Hdn.) Hom. Il. 18.580 (A) = Hdn. Περὶ Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,2.109.32‒110.3; EM 379.20‒30 = Et.Sym. ε 813). Therefore, it is likely that Phrynichus was drawing on one such source. Other thematic aorists with present-like properties (i.e., paroxytone accentuation in the infinitive) – namely, ὄφλειν (from ὀφλισκάνω ‘owe’) and ῥόφειν (cf. ῥοφέω ‘slurp’) – were discussed and defended in Atticist scholarship, likely going back to Aelius Dionysius (cf. Ael.Dion. ε 64Ael.Dion. ε 64 = Phot. ε 1982; Ael.Dion. o 44Ael.Dion. α 44 = Phot. ο 364; Ael.Dion. ρ 12Ael.Dion. ρ 12, from Phot. ο 364 and Phot. ρ 200; EM 705.27‒9; Anon. Περὶ προσῳδίας 157; see Lobeck 1866, 150 n. 4; Vessella 2018, 237; Dieu 2022, 227‒9 and 246‒7 on other thematic aorists that were reinterpreted as present forms and accented accordingly). See more in detail entries ῥοφέω, ῥυφέω and ὄφλειν, ὀφείλειν, ὀφλισκάνειν.

(2)    Philemo (Vindob.) 393.17‒20 (A.4)

Although transmitted by the overall more epitomised cod. V, this is one of the more substantial extant entries in Philemon’s lexicon and one in which Reitzenstein discerned traces of the original iambicIambic poetry trimeters, emending the text accordingly (see entry ἥρως, ἥρωες for a similar case). This aspect of Reitzenstein’s editorial practice may be criticised (see Verdejo Manchado 2020, 265–6 n. 43 against similar attempts to restore the iambic metre in fragments of Helladius’ Chrestomathy); nevertheless, this entry likely preserves an example of Philemon’s argumentative technique, together with an even ampler one (Philemo (Vindob.) 393.35‒394.4Philemo (Vindob.) 393.35‒394.4) discussing the variants χθές and ἐχθές for ‘yesterday’ (see entry χθές, ἐχθές, χθιζός, χθιζινός, χθεσινός). Both entries first present a rival – and more restrictive – doctrine and then criticise it using various arguments; in the latter case, an Aristophanic quotation (Nu. 175) guarantees the admissibility of ἐχθές; here, a difference in meaning between ἐρεύγομαι and ἐρρυγγάνω is claimed. In both cases, the doctrine rejected by Philemon is in fact that which is found in more rigorous Atticists, such as Phrynichus and Moeris. However, the alleged semantic distinction is perplexing as it is not borne out by textual evidence. It may be hypothesised that the restriction of ἐρεύγομαι to postprandial vomiting or belching is based on its use in Homer (Il. 16.162 = C.1, of wolves; Od. 9.374 = C.2, of Polyphemus), though it should be noted that all occurrences of ἐρυγγάνω in Attic drama and prose also refer to eructation after – or, at most, during – eating or drinking. In the Hippocratic corpus, where both presents occur with comparable frequency (see D.), several occurrences of ἐρυγγάνω refer specifically to belching (cf. e.g. Prorrh. 2.4.31, De diaeta 40.29, 76.6) or vomiting (cf. e.g. De diaeta 75.2, 75.5, 76.2) after a meal, thereby disproving Philemon’s claim.