ἀδυναμία, ἀδυνασία, ἀδυνατία
(Moer. α 59, Poll. 3.122)

D. General commentary

Moeris (A.1) prescribes the action noun ἀδυνασία (‘debility, inability, poverty’), rejecting its equivalent ἀδυναμία as typical of ‘common’ language (see below). Both forms are also mentioned by Pollux (A.2) in a long list of synonymsSynonyms denoting expressions for weakness, inability, etc. The Synagoge (B.1), probably drawing from earlier Atticist lexicography, presents a more elaborate picture: it ascribes ἀδυνασία to Thucydides (see C.1) and Antiphon (C.2), and ἀδυναμία to Demosthenes (C.3). Moreover, B.1 also mentions the form ἀδυνατία, used by Deinolochus (C.4), a poet of Sicilian Doric Comedy (5th century BCE). Thomas Magister’s entry (B.2) treats ἀδυνασία together with other supposedly Thucydidean forms (actually unattested in Thucydides): on Thomas Magister’s entry, which raises a series of problems, see entry ἀνοητία, ἀνοησία.

Although elsewhere it is clear that Atticist lexicographers are apparently interested in the admissibility of suffixesSuffixes such as -τία and -σία (see entry ἀνοητία, ἀνοησία), the present case is probably different in that it is focused on word choice. All three forms (ἀδυνατία, ἀδυνασία, and ἀδυναμία) are probably recommended or rejected on the basis of both to their frequency and their occurrence in works by canonical authors. Indeed, various derivations were based on δύναμαιδύναμαι ‘to be able’ (probably a present with a generalised nasal infix, perhaps going back to *deuh₂-: see EDG s.v. δύναμαι and see entry δύνῃ, ἐπίστῃ for further details). In particular, ἀδυνατία derives from ἀδύνατοςἀδύνατος (‘unable, powerless’) by means of the suffix -ία, while ἀδυνασία is probably the assibilated form of ἀδυνατία rather than a derivative from the rare and poetic δύνασις (on -σία as the assibilated form of -τία, see entry ἀνοητία, ἀνοησία and below). ἀδυναμία, overwhelmingly present from from the Homeric poems onwards, can be traced to δύναμιςδύναμις (‘power, capacity’).

Of these three forms, ἀδυνασία – the one recommended by Moeris – is rare (see Lobeck 1820, 508). Alongside Herodotus (3.79.3, 7.172.16), it occurs in Thucydides (7.8.2 = C.1, 8.8.4) and in Antiphon (C.2). It is later found in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (once) and Cassius Dio (once) and is not found in papyri. The comparative rarity of ἀδυνασία, above all in an author like Thucydides, was in itself a matter of interest for scholars: see schol. Thuc. 8.8.4a (B.3), according to which ἀδυνασία is a hapaxHapax in Thucydides (it may be noted in passing that the MSS reporting the scholium in question date back to an exegetical corpus – usually marked with a Θ – that included a number of Atticist glosses; see Kleinlogel 2019, 96–120). As we have seen, however, this is incorrect (cf. also the apparatus in Kleinlogel 2019, 932): it may well be possible that the adverb ἅπαξ here means ‘very rarely’, cf. DGE s.v. ἅπαξ III. Moeris himself probably prescribes ἀδυνασία on the basis of both its rarity compared to ἀδυναμία (see below) and its occurrences in Antiphon and Thucydides, two exemplars of Attic language according to Moeris’ strict views on the matter (see entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής, forthcoming).

That said, although ἀδυναμία is also attested in canonical Attic authors (8x in the Platonic corpus; once in Demosthenes) and therefore recommended by Pollux (A.2) and the Atticist sources on which the tradition of the Synagoge is based (B.1), Moeris condemns it as a ‘common’ form, i.e. of lesser value (the exact meaning of κοινός – and its cognates – in the lexicon is hard to define, however; and the present entry is only transmitted by cod. F, which repeatedly uses κοινός even where codd. C and V agree in reading Ἕλληνες: for further details, see entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής, forthcoming). Moeris’ rejection of this term likely stems from its high frequency. Indeed, we may note in passing that ἀδυναμία occurs a number of times in philosophical treatises and commentaries as a counterpart of the widespread δύναμις (the latter having a solid philosophical pedigree, at least by Plato’s times; see e.g. Souilhé 1919). Evidence for ἀδυναμία in non-literary sources is, however, scarce, with only one guaranteed occurrence in a petition dating to the 3rd century CE (P.Oxy. 12.1469.5 [= TM 21870]).

Interestingly, while Moeris rejects ἀδυναμία as ‘common’, B.1 recommends it based on the authority of Demosthenes. There are other entries in Moeris where a form classified as ‘common’ is in fact attested in Demosthenes; see Moer. β 10Moer. β 10: βιβλία διὰ τοῦ ι, ὡς Πλάτων, Ἀττικοί· βυβλία, ὡς Δημοσθένης, κοινόν (‘Users of Attic [say] βιβλία, with ι, as Plato. βυβλία, as Demosthenes, [is] common’; detailed discussion on this entry is found in Maidhof 1912, 303–5; Vessella 2018, 178–9). We can also compare Moer. β 27Moer. β 27, which reads βλάβος Ἀττικοί· βλάβη κοινόν (‘Users of Attic [say] βλάβος. βλάβη [is] common’), together with Antiatt. β 34Antiatt. β 34, where we find βλάβος· τὴν βλάβην. Δημοσθένης Κατὰ Λεπτίνου (‘βλάβος: [I.e.] βλάβη. Demosthenes in Against Leptines [20.9]’): here, the Antiatticist cites Demosthenes as evidence for the use of the feminine βλάβη, otherwise condemned as ‘common’ by Moeris (see Maidhof 1912, 306–7). In the light of these entries, we can cautiously argue that, although Moeris certainly included Demosthenes in his restricted canon (see Moer. α 16Moer. α 16, ε 20Moer. ε 20, ι 16Moer. ι 16), he preferred authors such as Thucydides and Antiphon when having to choose between these and Demosthenes (see also Moer. μ 3Moer. μ 3; entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής, forthcoming).

As for ἀδυνατία, it is only discussed in B.1 (see F.1), where the authority of the Sicilian comic poet Deinolochus is adduced. Although de Borries included this entry among the fragments of the Praeparatio sophistica, the mention of Deinolochus suggests a less rigorous Atticist source than Phrynichus: compare e.g. Phrynichus’ rejection of words attested in Epicharmus (Ecl. 43Phryn. Ecl. 43 and 79Phryn. Ecl. 79) with the relatively frequent references to Deinolochus in the Antiatticist (Dinol. fr. 1 = Antiatt. α 127Antiatt. α 127; Dinol. fr. 5 = Antiatt. σ 16Antiatt. σ 16; Dinol. fr. 7 = Antiatt. π 33Antiatt. π 33; cf. also Antiatt. π 34Antiatt. π 34 and Kassel, Austin PCG vol. 1, 179 ad Dinol. fr. 3; on the possible presence of undetected Antiatticist material in Byzantine lexicography, see the Valente’s cautious discussion of the topic [2015, 16 and n. 91]). Moreover, the non-assibilated form ἀδυνατία need not be necessarily ‘Doric’ (where non-assibilation is not systematic, see e.g. Willi 2008, 127 n. 31; Alonso Déniz 2013): it could be a later analogical form based on both other -τία formations and the widespread verbal adjective ἀδύνατος and its derivatives, as argued above. This would also explain the singularity of ἀδυνατίας being used as an interpretamentum in Σ^b α 1585 (= Phot. α 2207, Su. α 2869, ex Σ′Σ^b α 1585 (= Phot. α 2207, Su. α 2869, ex Σ′); note, however, that cod. B has ἀδυναστείας, while Phot. [z, b] has ἀδυνατείας). We may, therefore, hold that ἀδυνατία featured in the spoken koine as an analogical form totally unrelated to Doric phonology: in trying to endow the form with an authoritative background, B.1’s source recurred to the testimony of Deinolochus.

Moeris’ apparent lack of interest in ἀδυνατία is all the more remarkable in that he and other Atticist lexicographers elsewhere show a preference for allomorphs in -τία over those in -σία (see entry ἀνοητία, ἀνοησία): this last point is probably enough to exclude any suggestion that Moeris considered ἀδυνατία to be a Doric non-assibilated form. Moeris’ silence on ἀδυνατία, if not due to epitomisation, probably depends therefore on the fact that the noun does not occur in the works of canonical Attic authors. That said, as noted above with regard to Phrynichus, Deinolochus could hardly have been a model for a strict Atticist (although there are other entries where Moeris is more tolerant of Doric: see Moer. δ 6Moer. δ 6, which prescribes διωκάθω, ‘to chase’, as a by-form of διώκω ‘common to Doric, Ionic, and Attic’; there is, however, no apparent prescriptive purpose behind Moer. π 30Moer. π 30, which deals with the ‘Doric’ form πεττύκια, ‘clippings of leather’, and its equivalent πιττάκια – the latter of which is also found in Deinolochus [fr. 7]).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

ἀδυναμία, proscribed as ‘common’ by Moeris, is found in Medieval Greek (see Kriaras, LME s.v.), and is the standard form in Modern Greek (ILNE s.v.; LKN s.v.). αδυνασιά/αδυνασία/αδυνασά (all traced back to the ancient ἀδυνασία) and αδυνατία are also present as local variants in various modern Greek dialects (see ILNE s.vv.). The latter, found on Kimolos and in Pontos (Oinoi), is compared with the ‘Old Doric’ ἀδυνατία by ILNE (s.v.). As we saw in D., however, there is no need to posit a Doric origin for ἀδυνατία: we cannot rule out the possibility that αδυνατία continues a non-dialectal but analogical ἀδυνατία.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Σ^b α 384 (= Phot. α 394, ex Σ′′′; Phryn. PS fr. *87) (B.1)

The mention of Deinolochus in various lexicographical and exegetical works (including the Antiatticist, Pollux, Hesychius, and Eustathius – maybe via Aelius Dionysius, who perhaps discussed a number of expressions found in Deinolochus, see Dinol. fr. 12) likely points to a common source (Didymus?), depending on Hellenistic scholarship. Deinolochus was probably still read during the first centuries of the imperial age, as we can see from P.Oxy. 33.2659 (= TM 63604) [2nd century CE] (= Dinol. test. 3), likely a library catalogue in which the titles of some of Deinolochus’ plays are listed in alphabetical order (see Otranto 2000, 29–38). The ancient idea that Deinolochus was the son, pupil, or rival of Epicharmus (see Dinol. test. 1 and 2) may even have contributed to the survival of some of his plays (at least until the first centuries of the imperial era).