ἀπεκρίθην, ἀπεκρινάμην, ἀποκριθήσομαι, ἀποκρινοῦμαι
(Phryn. Ecl. 78, Antiatt. α 10)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1) and the Antiatticist (A.2) adopt opposite stances regarding the correct use of the middle and passive voice of ἀποκρίνω, which in the active voice covers a wide range of semantic nuances (‘to separate’, ‘to choose’, ‘to exclude’, ‘to reject’, cf. LSJ s.v.). According to Phrynichus, the passive should be used only in the sense ‘to be separated’, whereas the sense ‘to reply’ should be expressed exclusively by the middle. The Antiatticist’s entry, despite its brevity, clearly aims to reject this prescription, permitting the passive in the sense ‘to reply’ (for a similar debate on the semantic range of middle and passive forms of the same verb, see entry ἐκάρην, ἐκειράμην). Both discussions concern the aorist tense, but later lexicographical sources (B.3) show that the debate involved the future as well.

ἀποκρίνω – a prefixed form of κρίνω ‘to separate, distinguish’, but also ‘to choose, decide, judge’ (cf. LSJ s.v.) – emphasises the meaning of the base verb through the prefixPrefixes ἀπο-, which highlights the idea of setting something ‘apart’, and hence, figuratively, of ‘rejecting’. It is perhaps from this latter sense that the middle voice developed the meaning ‘to defend oneself [from accusations]’ (cf. LSJ s.v. ἀποκρίνω, IV.2) and, more generally, ‘to reply’ (cf. LSJ s.v. ἀποκρίνω, IV), whereas the passive form conveyed the literal sense ‘to be separated’. This semantic distinction between the middle and passive forms is already evident in the earliest literary attestations and persists throughout the classical period. The passive form first occurs in Homer (Il. 5.12) and Archilochus (fr. 185.3) – in both cases as an aorist participle meaning ‘separated’ – and is only sparsely attested in classical authors (e.g. Thucydides 2x – see C.2 – Herodotus 1x, and Plato 2x – see C.3). The middle voice, meaning ‘to reply’, is first securely attested in Thucydides (31x, see C.1) and is extremely frequent, especially in prose (e.g. Xenophon 113x, though some instances may be later replacements for originally passive forms, cf. Rutherford 1881, 187–8), but is also found in drama (e.g. Aristophanes 4x, Eupolis 1x).

In Post-classical Greek, however, the passive voice came to be used increasingly in the sense ‘to reply’. The earliest attestation of this development may occur in a fragment of Pherecrates (fr. 56), but the transmitted aorist subjunctive ἀποκριθῶ has repeatedly been called into question by modern scholars (for a full survey of the problem, see Pellettieri 2024, 72–6). The attestation in [Pl.] Alc. 2.149a.8 (ἀποκριθῆναι) should likewise be disregarded, since the work is unanimously regarded as spurious by modern scholars. After these two dubious attestations, ἀπεκρίθην ‘to reply’ occurs once in Menander (C.4, ἀποκριθείς, on which see below), 3x in Macho (ἀποκριθῆναι in fr. 11.146 = C.5, ἀπεκρίθη in frr. 12.172 – where the form is metrically problematic, see Gow 1965, 94 – and 18.409), and once in tmesis in Theocritus (C.6, ἐκρίθην ἄπο ‘I replied’). Among prose authors (where – it must be remembered – alterations and normalisations in the manuscript transmission may have played an even greater role than in poetry), the passive voice is regularly employed by Polybius (21x vs. 4 occurrences of the middle voice in the same sense). In the Septuagint and the New Testament, the meaning ‘to reply’ is conveyed almost exclusively by the passive (see in particular the idiomatic ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, ‘replying, he said’, discussed at length in Photius’ Amphilochia 21.145–291; Elliott 2005 examines the manuscript evidence for the few cases where the New Testament uses the middle instead of the passive; for a detailed account of middle and passive voice of ἀποκρίνω in the New Testament, see Tronci 2018). Conversely, more Atticising authors almost invariably use the middle (e.g. there are no attestations of the passive form in Lucian and Aristides; the few passive aorists in Aelian always mean ‘to be separated’ or ‘to be chosen’; and Josephus has only a single instance of the passive in the sense ‘to answer’).

The distribution in the papyriPapyri is noteworthy. In Ptolemaic documentary texts, the passive in the sense ‘to reply’ is – as one would expect – prevalent, both in private letters (see e.g. the ostrakon in O.Sam. inv. 578.14 (= TM 706233) [223 BCE]) and in legal documents (see e.g. P.Tor. Choach. 11bis.35 (= TM 3562) [119 BCE]). From the imperial period onwards, however, the meaning ‘to reply’ is far more frequently conveyed by the middle voice (see Gignac 1981, 323–4 and n. 7). Although occurrences in private contexts are attested (cf. e.g. P.Oxy. 34.2728.10 (= TM 16597) [312–8 CE]), the majority of examples comes from judicial proceedings. Here the verb introduces the words of plaintiffs, defendants, lawyers, and witnesses – see e.g. P.Oxy. 2.237 fr. 7.33 (= TM 20506) [after 186 CE]: Σεουήρου καὶ Ἡλιοδώρου ῥητόρων ἀποκρειναμένων κτλ (‘when the lawyers Severus and Heliodorus answered that…’). Still, more technical nuances also occur, such as ‘to be answerable for, to be accountable for’: this usage is particularly well attested in later documents (from the 5th to the 7th century CE), where the formula ὑπευθύνον εἶναι πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπιζητουμένοις ἀποκρίνασθαι (‘to be responsible for answering all requirements’) is very frequent (cf. e.g. P.Heid. 4.306.17 (= TM 21098) [413 CE] and P.Fouad 1.20.10–1 (= TM 20976) [441–4 CE]). Such a distribution is surprising, since, in general, ‘both Ptolemaic and post-Ptolemaic papyri show a preference toward passive aorists’ (Mandilaras 1973, 142). However, in the case of ἀπεκρινάμην and ἀπεκρίθην, one may assume that the middle remained prevalent as a crystallised feature of legal languageLegal language, thus resisting the broader trend towards the extension of the passive.

As might be expected, Phrynichus’ prescription (A.1) follows classical usage: for the meaning ‘to reply’, one must employ the middle voice exclusively, whereas the passive is restricted to the sense ‘to be separated’. Still, Phrynichus’ entry deserves closer attention. In particular, it does not explicitly target a specific author or passage; however, comparison with Photius (B.6) – who states that Menander used ἀποκριθείς instead of ἀποκρινάμενος in the play Phanion (C.4) – makes it tempting to draw a connection. Photius’ notice could in principle go back to a more complete version of the Antiatticist (A.2): this is the view advanced by Tsantsanoglou (1984, 132), but Valente (2015, 28) urges caution, noting that Photius may have drawn on a different, unknown source. If Tsantsanoglou’s hypothesis is accepted, one may further speculate that Menander was also Phrynichus’ target and that he was mentioned by name in a less epitomisedEpitome version of the entry (indeed, his name occurs in 18 entries of the Eclogue, 16 of which criticise him to varying degrees). Remarkably, Menander is clearly involved in another entry from the B version of the Synagoge (B.3), where he is cited as an example of the middle diathesis (and not the passive, as in B.6) in the sense ‘to reply’. The presence of two quotations from the plays Basket Carrier (fr. 199) and Supposititious Child (fr. 392) prove beyond doubt that Σ^b is here relying on an ancient source. Unlike the other lexicographical sources discussing this issue, in which the forms are always in the aorist, B.3 contrasts the middle future ἀποκρινεῖται with the passive future ἀποκριθήσεται. Nevertheless, the entry clearly belongs to the broader grammatical debate on the correct use of the middle and passive of ἀποκρίνω. The attribution to Orus proposed by Alpers (1981, 207) would accord with the anti-Phrynichean character of the grammarian’s work (on which see entry Orus, Ἀττικῶν λέξεων συναγωγή), especially if – as hypothesised above – Phrynichus originally mentioned Menander explicitly: indeed, B.3 could theoretically be viewed as a response to Phrynichus, showing that Menander also used the middle voice in the sense ‘to reply’.

The Scriptures’ influence on religious authors ensured the survival of the passive in the sense ‘to reply’ throughout late antiquity and the Byzantine period, despite the Atticist prescription.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Archaising texts from the Byzantine period down to the 20th century continue to employ both the middle and the passive of ἀποκρίνω in the sense ‘to reply’ (see also the adverb ἀποκρινομένως ‘in reply’, cf. LBG s.v.). In Medieval Greek, the verb also developed an alternative stem in /en/, i.e. ἀποκρένομαι (cf. Kriaras, LME s.v. ἀποκρίνομαι and CGMEMG vol. 3, 1295).

Modern Greek retains the deponent verb αποκρίνομαι (past perfect αποκρίθηκα, imperfect αποκρινόμουν(α)) in the sense ‘to reply, to respond’ (cf. LKN s.v.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A