βασίλεια, βασιλίς, βασίλισσα, βασίλιννα
(Phryn. Ecl. 197, Phryn. Ecl. 231, Moer. β 16, Antiatt. β 16, [Hdn.] Philet. 121)

D. General commentary

The Atticist sources here presented deal with various forms of the feminine form of βασιλεύς ‘king’, which were approved or rejected according to their distribution and occurrence in literary sources. Strict Atticists, such as Phrynichus (A.1, A.2) and Moeris (A.3), prescribe βασίλεια and βασιλίς and reject βασίλισσα (see also B.3). The latter, marked as a Macedonian word by the pseudo-Herodianic Philetaerus (A.5), is apparently approved by the Antiatticist (A.4), while Eustathius (B.1) credits Aelius Dionysius with a discussion of the rare βασίλιννα, used by Menander (see also B.2).

βασίλεια, derived from βασιλεύς by means of the suffix -i̯a (see e.g. Chantraine 1933, 103), is already attested in Homer and is common in Attic poetry (Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes), while it is virtually absent in 5th- and 4th-century Attic prose. It is not attested in papyri (see Mayser, Gramm. 1,2, 9), excluding P. Lond. 7.1986.18 (= TM 1548) [Philadelpheia, Egypt, 252 BCE], where it is part of a cult title (as the referee helpfully points out). Unsurprisingly, given this distribution, βασίλεια is the form recommended by stricter Atticists such as Phrynichus (A.1, A.2) and Moeris (A.3). Phrynichus also prescribes the rarer and mostly poetic βασιλίς, no doubt on account of its occurrences in Attic authors (see e.g. Soph. fr. 620, Eur. Med. 1003, Pl. Lg. 694e.1).

βασίλισσα was likely formed by analogy with feminine ethnicsEthnics derived from masculine velar stems by means of the suffix -i̯a, e.g. Φοίνισσα (< Φοινικ-ι̯α; masc. Φοῖνιξ), Κίλισσα (masc. Κίλιξ), etc. (see Buck 1914, 372; Chantraine 1933, 109; Schwyzer 1939, 475; Levin 1982, 219. Lagercrantz’s 1898, 84 notion that -ισσα is the result of a compromise between the endings -ίς and -σσα is ungrounded. For a list of ethnics in -ισσα in Attic inscriptions, see Threatte 1980, 538–9, who notes that non-Attic -σσ- is generally maintained in foreign toponyms and ethnic adjectives). βασίλισσα is first attested in the 4th century BCE (see C.1, C.2, C.3, C.6) and is very well represented in both literary and documentary sources (4x in Polybius, 40x in the Septuagint, etc.: further details in Durham 1913, 50). The pseudo-Herodianic Philetaerus (A.5) designates it as a Macedonian word (see F.1); Meisterhans, Schwyzer (1900, 101 n. 5) refer to it as a koine form attested in Attic inscriptions after 307 BCE, while Schulze (1904, 40 n. 5), who is apparently unaware of A.1, indicates ‘Macedonian court language’ as the origin of βασίλισσα and other Hellenistic feminine nouns in -ισσα (Schulze’s words are partially misunderstood by Solmsen 1904, 971, who simply calls -ισσα an ‘originally Macedonian suffix’). Macurdy (1928, 290–1) also suggested that βασίλισσα was either part of an ‘older stratum’ of Macedonian language or adopted by Macedonians on the basis of its resemblance to other Macedonian words ending in -ισσα, but neither hypothesis rests on solid foundations. According to Buck (1914, 372), nothing points to a Macedonian origin of the word. Instead, he suggests that βασίλισσα originated in Ionic, given that ‘[t]he feminine ethnika in ‑ισσα are especially common in the Orient, being much less frequent in Greece proper’ (cf. also Mayser, Gramm. 1,2, 9). Another hypothesis proposed by Buck (1914, 373), according to which βασίλισσα could be a literary coinage (possibly by Xenophon, see C.1) created by analogy with ἄνασσα, is unconvincing: such a frequent word as βασίλισσα could hardly depend on a single literary source. In this regard, one may note that βασίλισσα was the official term used to refer to royal women during the Hellenistic period (see e.g. Schweizer 1898, 140; Carney 2000, 225–8; Thompson 2005, 274–8, referring to Posidipp. fr. 79 Austin–Bastianini). This likely explains why the compiler of the Philetaerus (A.5) thought of a Macedonian pedigree for this word: indeed, as Brixhe, Panayotou (1997) note, among the glosses labelled as ‘Macedonian’ in lexicographic sources, some may concern Greek words of wide circulation spread by the Macedonians (see also Sowa 2006, 117–8). Further, Stratt. fr. 33 Μακεδόνισσα ‘Macedonian woman’, from a play called Macedonians or Pausanias, may suggest a Macedonian predilection for -ισσα (see also Orth 2009, 163, according to whom Μακεδόνισσα may be parodic). βασίλισσα is the pivot-form through which the complex -ισσα suffix spread to other forms in koine Greek, generating new formations, such as ἱέρισσα ‘priestess’, ἡρώισσα ‘heroine’, etc.: these are all occupational terms used to indicate that a woman has a certain function (see Buck 1914, 373; Levin 1982, 220; for a list of such terms, see Buck, Petersen 1945, 742–3; for further details on the history of -ισσα, see E.).

On the basis of the above, it is clear that the great diffusion of βασίλισσα (and other forms in -ισσα) in the koine as well as its extreme rarity in Attic authors favoured its rejection by rigorous Atticists, such as Phrynichus and Moeris (cf. also the parodic, hyper-Attic βασίλιτταν in Luc. Iud.Voc. 8Luc. Iud.Voc. 8). According to Eustathius (see B.1), Aelius Dionysius (β 5)Ael.Dion. β 5 considered βασίλισσα to be Attic, even if he possibly signalled it as a later form together with βασίλιννα (cf. B.2 and see below), while the Antiatticist probably (A.4) accepted βασίλισσα in view of its occurrence in the comic poet Alcaeus and in Aristotle, in line with his promotion of words with a literary pedigree and yet ‘rejected by the most rigorous Atticists because of their usage in the common language’ (Valente 2015, 43; cf. also Cassio 2012, 252–3). Moreover, note that CornelianusCornelianus, the imperial secretary (see e.g. Alpers 1998, 103–8; van den Hout 1999, 401–2 with bibliography) whom Phrynichus addresses in Ecl. 231 (A.2), found the word in the oration Against Neaera (C.4), whose attribution to Demosthenes was already questioned in antiquity (see Kapparis 1999, 48–56. On the variant reading βασίλιννα, see F.1). It is possible that in this entry Phrynichus is polemising not only with Cornelianus but also with the Antiatticist. As Latte (1915, 380) noted, Ecl. 231 (A.2, from Eclogue Book 2) completes Ecl. 197 (A.1, from Eclogue Book 1). It is possible that Phrynichus returned to βασίλισσα after consulting the Antiatticist (β 16, A.4) and encountering its defence of the term (see also Valente 2015, 53; Orth 2013, 49). Latte used these two entries of the Eclogue to propose that Eclogue Book 2 was written in response to the Antiatticist, but see the remarks in Fischer (1974, 39–40).

Remarkably, Phrynichus rejects Alcaeus’ testimony, perhaps because he does not consider him to be a poet of Old Comedy, as Ornaghi (2002, 123 n. 19) suggests (see also Orth 2013, 49–50). Alternatively, one might think that Phrynichus, despite placing Alcaeus among the poets of Old Comedy, does not credit him with the same authority as Aristophanes, Eupolis, and Cratinus – not to say that Phrynichus is generally wary of words and expressions that are rarely attested in Attic authors (on this issue more broadly, see Tribulato 2024).

According to Eustathius (see B.1 and B.2), Aelius Dionysius (β 5)Ael.Dion. β 5 also discussed βασίλιννα. It has a few attestations (C.4, C.5) and may be related to the role held by the wife of the Athenian King Archon (see F.2 and F.3). The suffix -ιννα is problematic: according to Chantraine (1933, 205), it could be Pre-Greek; given its relatively frequent occurrence in feminine personal names, it likely has a hypocoristic meaning, see Schwyzer (1939, 491) and Levin (1982, 217–8), according to whom βασίλιννα would be ‘some ‘queen for a day’, addressed affectionately by those in attendance’.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

βασίλισσα is well attested in Medieval Greek. As Bensammar (1976) points out, βασίλισσα (alternating with βασιλίς) was one of the most frequently occurring titles used to mention an empress or a princess, both in official documents and in other sources from approximately the 8th century to the 12th century. The suffix -ισσα gradually spread in Byzantine Greek, giving birth to several proparoxytone nouns: see Buck, Petersen (1945, 742–3), with a list of 66 items. Paroxytone forms such as κομητίσσα (‘countess’) and συγγηνίσσα (‘kinswoman’), attested in 12th-century documents from Sicily (though note that the edition of these texts by Cusa 1868 is not wholly reliable), may be due to the influence of Romance nouns in -essa (e.g. comitessa), see CGMEMG (vol. 2, 462). In Early Modern Greek, -ισσα is also found in a few loanwords that are inflected according to the feminine declension of paroxytone adjectives in /is/ (see CGMEMG vol. 2, 782, 784, arguing that these forms are closer to nouns in terms of their morphology). -ισσα is generalised in Modern Greek, where it has contributed to the formation of a great number of words: see the many examples collected in Hatzidakis (1892, 26).

Interestingly, -issa appears in LatinLatin from the 3rd century CE onwards. It is found in words of Greek origin but is also attached to Latin bases, frequently forming the feminine counterpart of masculine religious titles (for a list, see André 1971, 109 to whom Adams 2003, 422 adds pateressa – that is, the feminine equivalent of the title of the synagogue pater; see also Levin 1982, 220–2). The suffix became increasingly common in Medieval Latin, where it usually formed feminine nouns denoting affinity (nepotissa) and social status (ducissa, baronissa, advocatissa etc.): see André (1971, 110). -issa has become very productive in French, Italian, and Romanian (cf. also English ‑ess and see Levin 1982, 222).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Phryn. Ecl. 231 (A.2), [Hdn.] Philet. 121 (A.5)

A.2 suggests that the use of words such as βασίλισσα may have contributed to the dismissal of the speech Against Neaera as non-Demosthenic. One might compare the pseudo-Herodianic A.5, according to which βασίλισσα is a Macedonian word. Such an evaluation (on which see D.) may originally depend on a scholarly work on Demosthenes that noted an apparent discrepancy between the figure of the King Archon’s wife and her associated title. We may cautiously assume that the author of this scholarly work was Didymus (who, in turn, may have related on previous scholarship), since he dealt with questions of attribution (see e.g. Gibson 2002, 40–1, referring to Didymus’ discussion on the authenticity of D. 11 in P.Berol.inv. 9780 = 281 Coward–Prodi) and commented on the meaning of a verb in Against Neaera (303 Coward–Prodi).

(2)    [D.] 59.74 (C.4)

This passage in the oration Against Neaera deals with the wife of the King Archon at Athens. The MSS read either βασίλιννα or βασίλισσα. We may compare Poll. 8.91Poll. 8.91 τὴν δὲ συνοικοῦσαν αὐτῷ βασίλισσαν καλοῦσιν ‘The woman who lives with him (i.e., the King Archon at Athens) is called βασίλισσα’: as Macurdy (1928, 278–9) noted, this last piece of information likely goes back to C.4. If so, we may assume that Pollux himself read βασίλισσα in the oration Against Neaera, as did Cornelianus (see A.2 and D.). Nevertheless, Kapparis (1999, 333) argues that βασίλιννα is the lectio difficilior, supported by Men. fr. 886 (C.5, see also F.3) and possibly Ar. Av. 1678 – where however βασιλιναῦ, pronounced by the barbarous god Triballus, likely disguises βασίλεια (see Dunbar 1995, 735). In Kapparis’ view, βασίλιννα ‘seems to have been in the classical period not the standard word for ‘queen’, but a fossilized form from the remote past, employed only as a stereotypical title for the wife of the basileus’. According to Macurdy (1928, 279), however, ‘[t]here is […] nothing to show that the title of the ‘queen-archon’ was either Basilinna or Basilissa except the misunderstood passage in the speech against Neaera, which has been wrongly construed to give this meaning’, since the author of the speech used βασίλιννα as a word of his own century simply meaning ‘queen in the secular sense’ (Macurdy 1928, 277). Carlier (1984, 325 n. 3) agrees with Macurdy, but he nonetheless thinks that βασίλιννα may be ‘traditional Attic vocabulary’ and that Menander’s words in C.5 could be a ‘traditional word-play’ (this last hypothesis, however, is left unexplained: Carlier merely recalls that an anthroponym Βασίλιννα is attested in the 4th century in Attica [IG 2².5735.1]).

(3)    Men. fr. 886 (C.5)

This fragment’s wording is puzzling (see the apparatus in C.5), and my translation is tentative. Moreover, one cannot state with certainty whether βασίλιννα is intended as a noun meaning ‘queen’ or as an anthroponymAnthroponyms (see F.2). Furthermore, the pun that underlies Τρικορυσία is unclear. Kock in CAF vol. 3, 237 suggested that it refers to a sarcastic, mocking woman, see Ar. Lys. 1032 οὐκ ἐμπίς ἐστιν ἥδε Τρικορυσία; ‘isn’t she a real Tricorysian gnat?’. In any case, the explanation of the ethnic given by the scholium ad loc. (ἔστι γὰρ ἀλσώδης καὶ κάθυγρος. ἢ ἐπεὶ πονηροί εἰσιν οἱ Τρικορύσιοι ‘[Trikorythus] is rich in woods and very wet. Or [because] the Trikorysians are knavish’) appears to be extempore. A possible alternative explanation may lie in the fact that Τρικορυσία may be jokingly intended as a compound whose first member is τρι- ‘much’, and whose second member resembles κορύσσω, a verb that can have the metaphorical meaning ‘to rear one’s own head’, see com. adesp. fr. 1324 Kock = iamb. adesp. fr 29 Diehl. If so, Τρικορυσία would mean ‘a woman who rears her head too high’, a ‘very fastidious woman’ or the like.