πρώτως, πρῶτον
(Phryn. Ecl. 285, Moer. π 17, Moer. π 50, [Hdn.] Philet. 87)

D. General commentary

Atticist sources reveal conflicting approaches regarding the use of the adverbs πρώτως and πρῶτον, the former conveying the qualitative meaning of ‘primarily’, ‘foremost’, while the latter expresses the temporal meaning of ‘first’, ‘before’. At first glance, Phrynichus (A.1) appears to proscribe πρώτως entirely, allowing only for πρῶτον, although it is possible that he only rejected the temporal usage of πρώτως (cf. below). The Philetaerus (A.4) is as strict, but its proscription, unlike Phrynichus’, is motivated by a grammatical rule (cf. below). Moeris (A.2) appears to accept both πρώτως and πρῶτον but distinguishes between their functions, stating that one is an adverb of quality and the other of quantity (however, in A.3, he claims that πρώτως is the form used by the Ἕλληνες). This is the same approach found in other grammatical sources, such as Ps.-Ammonius (B.1, followed by Thomas Magister) and the Homeric scholia (B.2).

The adverbial accusative πρῶτον ‘first’ (from the adjective πρῶτος < *pr̥h₂/₃-to-, cf. Dor. πρᾶτος, see EDG s.v.) is widely used from the beginning of the Greek literary and documentary record. The adverb πρώτως, instead, first appears in Aristotle (55x). In the philosopher’s writings, πρώτως may mean not only ‘primarily’, ‘foremost’, but also – with a more technicalTechnical language nuance in the philosophical discourse – ‘essentially’ (often in definitions, along with κυρίως/κυριώτατα ‘properly/most properly’, ἁπλῶς ‘simply’, and/or a passive participle of the verb λέγω ‘to say’; cf. e.g. Arist. Cat. 2a.11–2 = C.2) and ‘immediately’ (cf. e.g. Arist. Apo. 79a.36–8), and is also used with δευτέρως/ἑπομένως ‘secondly/secondarily’ in enumerations and comparisons (cf. e.g. Arist. EN 1158b.29–33). For at least the first few centuries of its use, πρώτως appears to be specific to ‘scientific’ (mostly philosophical, astronomical, and geometrical) literature (cf. e.g. Autolycus 8x, Chrysippus 15x, among which see C.3, and Euclides 4x). This distribution arguably stems from the primary meanings of πρώτως (listed above), that make it particularly appropriate for theoretical discussions.

However, between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE, πρώτως spreads to other forms of prose – frequently in the temporal meaning ‘for the first time’ (cf. e.g. Diodorus Siculus 10x; also in the New Testament 1x) – only to return to being used mainly in scientific and philosophical writings from the 2nd century CE onwards (cf. e.g. Galen 197x, Claudius Ptolemaeus 26x, Alexander of Aphrodisia 105x, and Plotinus 94x). This trend continues into late antiquity, with technical, mathematical, and philosophical authors (in particular Aristotelian and Platonic commentators) being joined in the use of πρώτως by Christian writers (see e.g. Gregory of Nyssa 18x, Eusebius 8x, John Chrysostom 8x, Leontius 20x; for the Byzantine evidence, see E.).

Regarding the documentary evidence, the earliest securely dated attestation of πρώτως is in UPZ 1.110.181 (= TM 3502) [Memphis (?), 164 BCE], where the adverb is used in the temporal meaning. In inscriptions, πρώτως occurs frequently in honorary texts dating to the imperial period – see e.g. IG 2².1368.3–5 [Athens, before 178 CE] = C.5: ἀγορὰν συνήγαγεν πρώτως ὁ […] ἱερεύς (‘the priest first convened an assembly’); on this inscription, see F.1 – and particularly with the verb ἄγω in expressions relating to the celebration of festivals and competitions – see e.g. F.Delphes 3.1.547.9–11: Ὀλύμπεια τὰ ἐν | Ἀθήναις πρώτως ἀχθέν|τα (‘the Olympic games first held in Athens’).

We may speculate whether the Atticists’ opinion on πρώτως had a role in its regression in imperial-period literature: in fact, πρώτως is almost completely absent from the most Atticising authors of that time such as Dio Chrysostom and Lucian (1x each; both meaning ‘for the first time’), Aristides, Aelian, and Flavius Philostratus (no attestations). The relevance of the Atticists’ proscription of πρώτως is confirmed by Galen (C.4), who defends the use of πρώτως ‘even though some Atticists avoid the term’ (κᾂν εἴ τινες τῶν Ἀττικιζόντων φυλάττοιντο τοὔνομα). Yet, the lexica do not provide a unanimous position on the use of πρώτως and πρῶτον, and each entry should be investigated separately.

Phrynichus’ rejection (A.1) of πρώτως as ‘utterly corrupt’ (διεφθαρμένον πάνυ) is consistent with other entries where he considers forms attested in Aristotle (cf. Phryn. Ecl. 231Phryn. Ecl. 231 re. βασίλισσα; on which, see entry βασίλεια, βασιλίς, βασίλισσα, βασίλιννα) and Chrysippus (cf. Phryn. Ecl. 153Phryn. Ecl. 153 re. οὐθείς vs. οὐδείς ‘no-one’; on which, see AGP vol. 2, Phonology, forthcoming), and, more generally, with his dislike of post-classical forms and technical vocabulary. The participle διεφθαρμένον in relation to a proscribed form has parallels in Phrynichus’ lexica (this applies not only to διαφθείρω but also to παραφθείρω – also meaning ‘to ruin, to corrupt’ – and the noun διαφθορά ‘corruption’) in entries considering various issues including phonology (see PS 116.4–7Phryn. PS 116.4–7 re. ὕριχος vs. βρίσχος ‘wicker basket’ and Ecl. 267Phryn. Ecl. 267 re. σίλφη vs. τίφη ‘one grained wheat’), morphology (see Ecl. 377Phryn. Ecl. 377 re. σκνιφόν vs. σκνίψ, the name of an insect, with the expression κατὰ διαφθοράν), prefixation (see Ecl. 57Phryn. Ecl. 57 re. ἐπιτροπιάζειν vs. ὑποτροπιάζειν ‘to relapse’), and composition (see PS 87.9–11Phryn. PS 87.9–11 re. λαίθαργος vs. λαθροδήκτης ‘biting secretly’, with παραφθείρω instead of διαφθείρω; cf. entry λήθαργος, ἐπιλήσμων). As mentioned previously, A.1 initially appears to proscribe πρώτως entirely (and the labelling of the form as διεφθαρμένον – along with the redaction of fam. q, as well as Galen’s remark in C.4 – does point in this direction); however, we cannot discount the possibility that Phrynichus’ aim was not to censor πρώτως as a whole, but to reject its temporal use, which was well attested in authors including Diodorus Siculus (cf. above) and in documentary texts (cf. above). If this is correct, we should note that the only two instances of πρώτως in Atticising authors of the imperial period, namely Dio Chrysostom and Lucian (cf. above), apply the temporal meaning ‘first, for the first time’ and not the qualitative meaning that Phrynichus may have been promoting according to this second interpretation of A.1.

The Philetaerus’ complete rejection of πρώτως (A.3) is motivated by a clearly stated grammatical rule, i.e. that ordinal adjectives do not produce adverbs – that is, adverbs ending in -ως. The rule (which is also implied in the last section of A.1 in the version preserved by fam. q) is actually contradicted by the literary evidence: the presence of adverbs such as δευτέρως ‘secondly’, τρίτως ‘thirdly’, and τετάρτως ‘fourthly’ in Plato (8x – among which see C.1 – 1x, and 1x, respectively) proves that they were already being used in classical Greek (cf. also Lobeck 1820, 311).

Compared to Phrynichus and the Philetaerus, Moeris (A.2) addresses the problem differently: indeed, he accepts both πρώτως and πρῶτον but distinguishes between their function. This approach is also adopted by the synonymic lexica (B.1), which present πρῶτον as an adverb indicating order (ἐπὶ τάξεως) and πρώτως as an adverb of quality (ἐπὶ ποιότητος), providing an example of its use in the sense of ‘excellently’ (however, the reference to Plato is not fully correct as the passage alluded to in B.1, i.e. C.1, only has δευτέρως and not πρώτως also, as claimed by the lexicon). The fact that a few entries later (A.3), Moeris discusses again πρῶτον and πρώτως, stating that the latter is the form used by the users of Greek (Ἕλληνες), is likely the result of the dependence on a source different from that relied on by A.2, i.e. a source that proscribed (or appeared to proscribe) πρώτως entirely, in favour of πρῶτον – potentially A.1 itself (on Moeris’ dependence on Phrynichus’ Eclogue, see entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

As with the adverb πρῶτον, πρώτως remains in use throughout the Byzantine period, both in high-register authors – with a clear prevalence in philosophical and theological writings (cf. e.g. Photius 24x, Arethas 23x, Michael Psellus 190x, Eustathius 30x, Nicetas Choniates 42x, Georgius Acropolites 21x, Georgius Pachymeres 60x, and Gennadius Scholarius 265x) – and in works characterised by a less refined Greek (e.g. legal literature, hagiographies, and monastic documents). Both its temporal and qualitative meanings are attested, but its use is highly influenced by each work’s content and by the specific context; for example, among Photius’ 24 occurrences of πρώτως, six have the meaning ‘primarily, essentially’ (in association with κυρίως ‘properly’, δευτέρως ‘secondarily’, or ἀληθῶς ‘truly’) and come from philosophical/theological discussions. However, the temporal meaning ‘for the first time’ is also well attested; cf. e.g. Phot. Bibl. cod. 235, 304a.35–7: οὔτε οὖν ἀπὸ Ἀδάμ, ὥς φασί τινες, πρότερον οὐκ ὢν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τότε πρώτως πλασθεὶς εἰς κόσμον παρῆλθε (‘And the man – who did not exist before – did not come into the world, after being created for the first time, from Adam, as some say’). In contrast, in historiography, πρώτως is almost exclusively in the temporal sense (see e.g. Nicetas Choniates Historia 4: ἀρχὴ δέ μοι τῆς ἱστορίας ὅσα μετὰ τὸ πέρας εὐθὺς τῆς ζωῆς ἅμα καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ ἐκ Κομνηνῶν ἄρξαντος πρώτως Ἀλεξίου συμβέβηκεν, ‘the beginning of my history [coincides with] the events immediately after the end of the life and power of Alexios, the one among the Comnenians who took power for the first time’; Georgius Acropolites Annales 13.4–9: ὡς γοῦν οἱ Ἰταλοὶ πᾶσαν τὴν τῆς Μακεδονίας χώραν ὑφ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἐποιήσαντο, βασιλικῶς τοῦ πρώτως ἐν τῇ Κωνσταντινουπόλει κατάρξαντος Βαλδουΐνου τὰ κατ’ αὐτοὺς διευθύνοντος, καὶ πρὸς τὴν πόλιν Ἀδριανοῦ διεμηνύσαντο ὅπως ὑπ’ αὐτοὺς γένηται, ‘as the Italians had subjected all the land of Macedonia, when Baldwin, the first of them to rule in Constantinople, was directing their affairs as emperor, they sent word also to the city of Hadrian that it should become subject to them’, transl. Macrides 2007, 139). The common use of πρώτως in the temporal sense in Byzantine Greek explains Maximus Planudes’ attempt (B.3) to distinguish between the different uses of the predicative πρῶτος (‘first among all’), on the one hand, and the two adverbs πρῶτον and πρώτως on the other; interestingly, πρῶτον is explained as indicating priority in a sequence (as in ‘first X and then Y’), while πρώτως is glossed with the phrase ἄρτι πρώτως ‘just now, very recently’ (cf. e.g. Anna Comnene Alexiad 1.1.3: νεώτατος γὰρ ἦν καὶ ἄρτι πρώτως ὑπηνήτης, ὅ φασι, ‘for he was very young and [had] just [become] bearded, as they say’). This rule does not appear to align with the literary evidence, where πρώτως is commonly used in the sense ‘for the first time’ (cf. above).

Medieval Greek developed other ways to convey both the temporal meaning ‘first, before’ (in addition to the adverbial neuters πρῶτον and πρῶτα – cf. Kriaras, LME s.v. πρώτος; CGMEMG vol. 2, 837 – we find the adverb πρῶτις – cf. Kriaras, LME s.v.; CGMEMG vol. 2, 838), but also the idea of qualitative priority (see the adverb πρωτύτερα, which can have both a temporal and a qualitative meaning; cf. Kriaras, LME s.v.).

πρώτως is retained in Early Modern Greek literature to the 19th century, but not in Modern Greek, in which the meaning of ‘primarily’ can instead be conveyed by the adverbs πρώτιστα and πρωτίστως (from the adjective πρώτιστος ‘very important’, cf. LKN s.v.), while the only adverbs directly derived from the adjective πρώτος ‘first’ are πρώτα and πρώτον (both in the temporal sense of the Ancient Greek πρῶτον).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    IG 2².1368.1–9 (C.5):

This inscription, engraved on a column found in the Athenian acropolis and dating to 164–165 CE, describes rituals and rules concerning a voluntary association devoted to the cult of Dionysus, known as Iobacchoi (for a recent discussion with all the relevant bibliography, see Lapinoja-Pitkänen 2021). The inscription states that at the time of the monument’s production, the association was led by none other than the magnate and rhetorician Herodes Atticus, who had been the pupil of, among others, Favorinus, Phrynichus’ polemical target (on Phrynichus’ criticism of Favorinus, see entries εἶμι, ἐλεύσομαι, νῆες, ναῦς, νῆας, and υἱεύς, υἱέως, υἱέα). The presence of the temporal πρώτως in such an official text – produced (if not under his supervision) under the patronage of an extremely well-known intellectual like Herodes Atticus – represents a remarkable counterpart to Phrynichus’ strict proscription of this use.