βλήχων, γλήχων
(Phryn. PS 53.16–8, Philemo [Laur.] 356)

D. General commentary

The dialectal forms of the Greek word for ‘pennyroyal’ (Mentha pulegium) are discussed in an entry (A.1) of Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica, paralleled by lemmata in other Atticist lexica, such as Philemon (A.2, B.4; see F.2), the anonymous lexicon On Prosody (B.7), and Thomas Magister’s lexicon (B.13). The discussion of this noun’s formal variants – concerning its phonology, accentuation, gender, and inflectional class – is not confined to Atticist sources, since it is widespread in grammatical and scholarly literature. Nevertheless, the noun could offer the Atticists several points of particular interest, including its attestations in Old Comedy (C.4, C.5) and its distinctive consonantism in Attic as opposed to other dialects.

Outside of Attic, this plant’s name shows an initial γ-, best exemplified by Ionic γλήχων, which occurs in the Homeric Hymns (C.1), in a fragment of the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (C.2), in Hipponax (C.3), in the Hippocratic corpus (accounting for its diffusion in later medical and scientific literature), and probably also in Herod. 9.13 γληχ[. The variant γλάχων, with non-Attic-Ionic vocalism, is attested in the Boeotian passages of Aristophanes’ Acharnians (861 = C.4; 869; 874) and in Theocritus’ Doric (C.8), on which see below, and possibly already in Mycenaean ka-ra-ḳọ[ (MY Ge 605.6a), if this stands for /glākʰō(n)/ (but see DMic s.v.). By contrast, Attic exhibits an initial β- in the oi-stem βληχώ, attested in comedy (C.5, C.6) and in Theophrastus (C.7), as well as in the derivative βληχωνίας (οἶνος) ‘(wine) prepared with pennyroyal’ in Ar. Pax 712. After the classical period, the forms in β- all but disappear. In imperial-period papyri, the γ- forms are more frequent (7x), whereas βλη̣[χων occurs only in P.Ant. 3.123 B.4.5 (= TM 65077) [6th century CE], which contains a medical work akin to Dioscorides’ Materia medica. Both variants are attested in Latin sources (e.g. B.2; see further André 1985, 36 s.v. blēchō; 112 s.vv. glēchōn, glēchōn agria).

Arguably, scholarly interest in this noun’s variants harks back to Aristophanic exegesis: not only does Aristophanes attest both the Attic and the Boeotian forms, but in Lys. 89 (C.5) he employed the term as a metaphorMetaphors for pubic hair, as noted by several sources (B.7, B.9, B.10; see now Méndez Dosuna 2017, arguing for a similar meaning in C.5). From an Atticist perspective, βλήχων/γλήχων was noteworthy not only because it occurs in so canonical an author as Aristophanes, but also because the Ionic form γλήχων had become a serious rival to the Attic one in the koine. Nevertheless, βλήχων did not disappear entirely in the post-classical period, as shown by its outcomes in Medieval and Modern Greek (E.).

As with many plant names, the etymology of γλήχων is obscure (see DELG, EDG s.v.); consequently, it is difficult to assess the relationship between its various phonological variants. A dissimilation *dl- > gl- (as in γλυκύς ‘sweet’ < *dluk-ú-, cf. Latin dulcis and Mycenaean de-re-u-ko /dleukos/ = γλεῦκος ‘sweet new wine’) hinges on the uncertain interpretation of the Mycenaean place-name da-ra-ko as /dlākʰōn/ ‘Place where pennyroyal grows’ (but see DMic s.v. for other possibilities), and would in any case leave the forms in β- unexplained. As Szemerényi (1969, 236–7 = 1987, 1367–8) observed, if the original form contained *g-, the variants with a labial cannot be accounted for, whereas, starting from *b- (from an original labiovelar?), an assimilation bl…kʰ > gl…kʰ would be conceivable. In that case, Attic would be conservative in relation to the other dialects. If, on the other hand, the variant with β- is the older, a connection with the root of the adjective βληχρός ‘weak’ becomes possible – especially in light of the plant name βλῆχρος (Thphr. CP 1.7.4, Dsc. De materia medica 4.184.1), which appears to derive from the adjective by substantivising accent retraction (see Strömberg 1940, 24). However, the initial consonantism of Attic may instead represent an innovation arising from a folk-etymological blending with βληχρός (Hawkins 2013, 65) or with the family of βληχάομαι ‘to bleat’. Indeed, ancient scholarly sources (B.2, B.3, B.11) frequently derive βλήχων from βληχάομαι, claiming that the plant causes sheep and goats to bleat (see Strömberg 1940, 155). A final possibility – accepted by Furnée (1972, 389), EDG s.v., and Monzó (2019, 183) – is that the irregular variation β/γ is due to the noun’s pre-Greek origin.

Whatever the explanation of the initial consonant variation may have been, it is clear enough that the forms in β- were peculiar to Attic (the isolated βλήχωνα in Hp. Mul. 94.11 may easily be an Atticism introduced in the transmission). In this respect, the lexicographers’ prescriptions accord with the forms’ distribution, and were part of a broader scholarly tradition (see e.g. B.6, B.7, B.8, B.9, B.10, B.12, schol. Ar. Pac. 712a) that recognised the Attic nature of the forms in β-. Trypho (B.1), the earliest extant grammatical source, presents the change βλήχων > γλήχων as a case of μετάληψις (‘substitution’), while other sources (B.2, B.7) claim that Attic changed the γ- to β-.

More complex is the question of the noun’s suffix. Judging from the scanty classical attestations, the genuine Attic form seems to have been the oi-stem βληχώ, whereas the n-stem βλήχων, despite A.1, is unattested. However, the occurrence of the derivative βληχωνίας in Aristophanes indirectly attests to the existence of the n-stem in Attic. One could even surmise that behind Phrynichus’ unexpected prescription lies an artificial conflation of the Attic initial β- with the n-stem inflection that was widespread in his time. In Ionic, the situation is reversed: while the n-stem γλήχων is the norm, the oi-stem γληχώ only occurs in the gen. sing. γληχοῦς (more often written γλήχους) in Hippocrates (Morb. 3.1744, 3.17.57) and other medical writers (Paulus, Oribasius, Eutecnius), in the acc. sing. γληχώ in Nic. Al. 128, 237. The evidence for other dialects is even scantier: the Theban merchant in the Acharnians uses    γλάχων (861 = C.4, 874) twice and γλαχώ (869) once, but lacking any native sources for the Boeotian form(s) of this word, we cannot assess the accuracy of Aristophanes’ representation (see Colvin 1999, 237). It cannot be ruled out, for instance, that γλαχώ is a superficial adaptation of Attic βληχώ, and that the variation between the two suffixes in the Theban’s speech is due to metrical constraints. Lastly, Doric γλάχων is only attested in Theocritus (C.8), where it is not above all suspicion of artificiality. To sum up, the n-stem variant is attested in a greater number of dialects, while the oi-stem could be an Attic innovation. Recently, however, Dedè and Cardella (2022, 277–9) have argued that Attic may rather be more conservative in this respect, while the nasal stems would be an innovation; as a parallel for the overlap between n- and oi-stems, cf. the pairs χελιδών/-ώ ‘swallow’ and ἀηδών/-ώ ‘nightingale’ (see also Schwyzer 1939, 479; Monzó 2019, 172).

Another formal issue concerning the name of pennyroyal is the accent. Herodian’s doctrine, as preserved in Pseudo-Arcadius’ epitome (B.5) and in Theodosius (B.6), prescribed recessive accentuation for the non-Attic form γλήχων, and final accentuation (as well as feminine gender: see below) for the Attic one. It is unclear from the epitome whether Herodian’s observation about final accent was meant in reference to βληχώ only, or also to βληχών (see Roussou 2018, 379). Phrynichus’ entry (A.1), in which all the dialectal variants are transmitted with oxytone accentuation, may have undergone corruption (see F.1), however, note that in the anonymous On Prosody (B.7), oxytony is explicitly prescribed for both γληχών and βληχώ. Indeed, the Ionic form is predominantly transmitted with the recessive accentuation prescribed by ancient grammarians, but it appears accented on the suffix in the 1st-/2nd-century CE papyri transmitting [Hes.] fr. 70.22 (C.2) and Hippon. fr. 84.4 West² (= fr. 86.4 Degani) (C.3), where modern editors have sometimes restored the paroxytone accent. It is unclear whether these passages show a genuine dialectal variant or the influence of the final accentuation prescribed for Attic. The accentuation of nouns in -ων, -ωνος is, on the whole, unpredictable (see Dieu 2022, 358–60), but as a rule it is recessive when the suffix goes back to the individualising ‘Strabon suffix’ *-ōn- (cf. στραβός ‘squinting’ > Στράβων ‘the squinting one’). Thus, if βλήχων derived from the root of βληχρός the recessive accent would be expected. As already argued by Dindorf (ThGL vol. 2, 287–9), the prescription of Attic βληχών in grammatical sources is plausibly due to confusion with βληχώ. Indeed, as the oi-stems are invariably oxytone in Greek, the gen. sing. γλήχους transmitted in medical texts should be corrected to -οῦς, since it cannot be derived from an unattested s-stem variant *τὸ γλῆχος.

Lastly, Phrynichus (A.1) prescribes the feminine gender for all the noun’s dialectal variants, whereas other sources (B.5, B.7, Su. γ 287, [Zonar.] 440.8–9) seem to attribute the feminine gender only to the Attic form. If B.4 is interpreted as claiming feminine gender for Ionic γλήχων (see F.2), Philemon would agree with (and possibly rely on?) Phrynichus on this point. While in classical sources the noun is indeed always feminine, regardless of dialect and inflection, in some later sources (collected by Roussou 2018, 380) the masculine ὁ γλήχων occurs and, as remarked by Dindorf (ThGL vol. 2, 288), it was doubtlessly used by some of Phrynichus’ contemporaries. The Modern Greek forms are neuter, being ultimately derived from the post-classical diminutive β-/γληχώνιον (see E.); however, compare ὁ ἄγριος γλήχωνας ‘the wild pennyroyal’ in the pseudo-Galenic Λέξεις βοτανῶν (388.11 Delatte), showing the Medieval Greek shift from consonant to a-stem inflection (see LBG s.v.).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

During the medieval period, γλήχων continues to be attested almost exclusively in medical and botanical works, where the Ionic form predominates, thanks to its diffusion in Hippocratic and Galenic literature. By contrast, βλήχων is only used by the 13th-century physicians Nicolaus Myrepsus (6x) and Demetrius Pepagomenus (2x). Meanwhile, lower-register texts attest several forms derived from the Attic variant, including βλησκούνη (cited in Thomas Magister’s lexicon as the equivalent of classical βλήχων in the contemporary common language; see B.13), β-/φλησκούνιν, βλησκουνίτσα, β-/φλησκουνίτσι, and the compound βλησκουνέλαιον ‘pennyroyal oil’ (see LBG and Kriaras, LME s.vv.).

The standard Modern Greek form is φλησκούνι, but the dialects exhibit a wide range of forms (Andriotis 1974 s.v. βληχώνιον), both with initial β- (βλησκούνη, βληχούνι, βληχουνί, βληχούν’, βλεχούνι, βλοχών’, βλουχούν’) and with initial γ- (γληφώνι(ν), γληφούνι, γληχώνιν, γληχούν’, γλεχούνι). The presence of the suffix -ώνι(ον)/-ούνι(ον) shows that these forms are derived from the diminutive βληχώνιον (attested in schol. Theoc. 5.56) or from its unattested variant γληχώνιον (cf. Andriotis 1967 s.v.; thus, despite Dedè, Cardella 2022, 278 n. 24, the place of the accent in the Modern Greek forms does not argue for their derivation from the oxytone form(s) in -ώ(ν)). It is possible that the irregular consonant variations and the substitution of -σκ- for -χ- in several forms – including the standard one – are ‘different ways of avoiding the two velars’ (Shipp 1979, 157); for the insertion of -σ- before a word-internal consonant, cf. the parallels collected by Pandelidis (1928, 430–1). The forms in φλ-, already attested in the Byzantine period, derive from the Attic ones in βλ- through devoicing of the initial fricative /v/ to /f/, but the dialectal occurrence of forms in γλ- demonstrates that the Ionic variant must also have entered the low-level koine. Indeed, the Atticist prescriptions regarding the noun’s correct initial consonantism (see D.) become even more understandable when considered alongside the assumption of a competition between the two variants in the contemporary spoken language.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Phryn. PS 53.16–8 (A.1)

This entry in the epitome of Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica lemmatises the Attic form βληχών, then discusses the gender and inflection of the noun’s Doric and Ionic cognates. Although the text as transmitted lacks an explicit prescriptive focus, it is likely that Phrynichus, like other Atticist lexicographers (A.2, B.7, B.13), recommended the variant with β-. It is noteworthy that all three dialectal variants are transmitted in this entry with oxytone accentuation. As discussed above (D.), given that suffix-accented forms are attested in Ionic (though not in Doric), and that βληχών was prescribed for Attic by Herodian, the transmitted accentuation is not necessarily corrupt. However, the acc. sing. Ionic τὴν γληχόνα / Doric τὰν γλαχόνα shows an ŏn-stem that is not attested elsewhere (and is expressly ruled out by a grammatical doctrine possibly going back to Herodian, cf. B.6 and [Arcad.] 127.6–7 = Hdn. Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,1.39.1–2), making it likely that this entry underwent some degree of corruption (see Dindorf, ThGL vol. 2, 288). Fiori (2024, 200) observes that the labelling of the proscribed form γλαχών as Doric instead of Boeotian is slightly surprising, since the Doric form is only employed by Theocritus, whereas the Boeotian one – occurring in an otherwise canonical text such as the Acharnians – was at greater risk of being mistaken for Attic. However, the unabridged entry of the Praeparatio sophistica may well have contained a mention of Boeotian.

(2)    Philemo (Laur.) 356 (A.2)

The epitome of Philemon’s lexicon transmitted by cod. L contains three separate entries dealing with βλήχων or γλήχων. The first (B.4) prescribes the form with β- against that with γ-, in line with other Atticist sources (A.1, B.7, B.13). In the second entry, the lemma βλήχων is followed by a definition that clearly belongs to the noun ἀθάρη ‘gruel, porridge’, the discussion of which immediately follows (cf. Phryn. PS 14.11–3Phryn. PS 14.11–3, Σ^b α 463 = Phot. α 471). The third entry (B.4), alphabetised under γ, generically claims that ἡ γλήχων follows the model of ἡ κύων (for this structure, see entry βάτος), though it is unclear which grammatical feature is meant. Given the presence of the feminine article, it is likely that the object of the prescription is the noun’s grammatical gender, although it cannot be excluded that its recessive accentuation is (also) prescribed.

In the second entry, it appears that βλήχων was erroneously written in place of ἀθάρη; the first and third entries, on the other hand, clearly deal with dialectal variants of the same noun, even though they now appear in separate places of the lexicon. It is tempting to suppose that the original version of Philemon’s work featured a single entry, or passage, dealing with βλήχων/γλήχων from several perspectives, such as initial consonantism, accentuation, and gender – all of which are discussed in other scholarly sources – and that this discussion was later split into separate alphabetical entries during the text’s abridgementEpitome (for other similar cases, see entry Philemon, Περὶ Ἀττικῆς ἀντιλογίας τῆς ἐν ταῖς λέξεσιν). Alternatively, the double mention of βλήχων/γλήχων may depend on the consultation of two different sources: the fact that in cod. L the entry on γλήχων is immediately followed by two entries with a similar structure (Philemo (Laur.) 358: γέλως [‘laughter’] ὡς ἔρως [‘love’]; γαῦρον [‘haughty’] ὡς παῦρον [‘small’]) may lend support to this hypothesis.