ὑπάλλαγμα
(Phryn. Ecl. 274)

D. General commentary

In the Eclogue (A.1), Phrynichus rejects the use of the noun ὑπάλλαγμα instead of ἐνέχυρον (‘pledge’, ‘security’). ὑπάλλαγμα is a deverbative noun formed from the verb ὑπαλλάσσω (‘to exchange’) with the suffix -μα < *-mn̥ (on derivative nouns in -μα, see Chantraine 1933, 175–90 and the entry ἀργύρωμα, χρύσωμα; on their discussion in Atticist lexica, see also entries ἄκουσμα, ἀκρόαμα; ἔκθεμα; νίμμα, ἀπόνιπτρον; ῥάπισμα, and AGP vol. 2, Nominal morphology, forthcoming). It expresses the object of the action conveyed by the verb, i.e. ‘that which is exchanged’, ‘substitute’. Conversely, ἐνέχυρον is a prepositional compoundCompounds and a hypostasis of the syntagm ἐν ἐχυρῷ. The adjective ἐχυρός (< *seg^h-u-ró ‘strong’, ‘secure’; cf. Skt. sáhuri- ‘victorious’, ‘strong’) derives from the IE root *seg^h- (‘to overwhelm’, cf. ἔχω); see DELG, EDG s.v., and NIL 600.

The term ὑπάλλαγμα is first attested in Aristotle (C.3), where it refers to coins as the ‘exchangeable representative of need’ (ὑπάλλαγμα τῆς χρείας), as coins are the means by which individuals’ needs within society are met. In Theophrastus – whose writing was probably transmitted by Porphyry (C.5); see Bouffartigue, Patillon (1979), 18–9 and 25 – the noun refers to the bodies of the animals which are used as substitutes for human ones in sacrifices. In both cases, ὑπάλλαγμα takes on the generic meaning of ‘object that is exchanged’, ‘substitute’. The noun also seems to be employed with this meaning in schol. (Did./ex.) Hom. Od. 4.93.4–5 (H): χαρτοῖς γὰρ οὖ<σινἐκ> φύσεως τοῖς χρήμασιν οὐ χαίρω διὰ τὸ συμβὰν ὑπάλλαγμα λίαν ἀνιαρόν, ‘In fact, although goods bring joy, I do not rejoice in them, because the price at which I happen to acquire them is too grievous’.

Apart from a few passages in scholarly and lexicographical works (including B.1, where the term has a different meaning: see below), ὑπάλλαγμα is not attested elsewhere in Greek literature. Conversely, it appears numerous times in Egyptian papyriPapyri dated between the 3rd century BCE and the 4th century CE: see e.g. C.4, BGU 4.1147.25 (= TM 18593) [Alexandria, 13 BCE], BGU 4.1167.2.31 (= TM 18618) [Alexandria, 12 BCE]. This is due to the fact that the term was used to refer to a specific type of security in lending practices as an alternative to mortgaged property. In this type of contract, the creditor agrees not to acquire any temporary rights over the debtor’s property (unlike direct forfeiture, typical of mortgages), while the debtor renounces their right to dispose of the property. In particular, in the earliest documents attesting to this type of security – the papyri from Alexandria quoted above – the term ὑπάλλαγμα refers to the ownership documents handed over by the debtor to the creditor as a ‘substitute’ for their property, over which the creditor initially acquires no rights. On the contrary, in the legal institution of mortgage (ὑποθήκη), it is the property that is directly assigned to the creditor as security for the loan. The legal institution of ὑπάλλαγμα appears to be attested only in Egypt, from the Augustan age until the 4th century CE. However, evidence from the time of Trajan onwards no longer mentions the ownership documents handed over by the debtor to the creditor. Instead, the property was attributed to the creditor through a procedure of ἐνεχυρασία, which – in the case of land – culminated in the registration of the creditor’s name in the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων (the property register), thus enabling the creditor, if necessary, to initiate a second procedure for the ἐμβαδεία, that is, the actual entry into possession of the pledged property. Documents from the Ptolemaic age that attest to the term ὑπάλλαγμα – see e.g. BGU 6.1246.25–6 (= TM 7322) [Elephantine, 3rd c. BCE] – cannot be counted with certainty among the attestations of this specific type of contract, which only became established later. On the legal institution of ὑπάλλαγμα, see Alonso (2008).

In contrast to ὑπάλλαγμα, the noun ἐνέχυρον is a legal term with plenty of occurrences (more than 3,000, according to the TLG), dating back to the 5th century BCE. It usually refers to an object (typically a movable asset) offered as security in a loan transaction, which passed immediately into the creditor’s possession upon conclusion of the contract (see Fine 1951, 61–2, with n. 4; on loan transactions in Attic law, see also the bibliography cited in Arnott 1996, 72, ad Alex. fr. 7.2). It is attested in Herodotus (2.136.8–11), in Old and Middle Attic comedy (Hermipp. fr. 29, C.1, Ar. Pl. 451, Antiph. fr. 75.12, Alex. fr. 7.2), in Plato (Lg. 820e.4, 949d.6), in Attic oratory (e.g. Antipho 5.76, And. 3.39), and especially in the Demosthenic corpus (e.g. C.2, 34.36, 41.11), but also in the Septuagint (De. 24.10–3) and in Menander (Epit. 502). In literary texts, the noun continues to be used during the imperial and Byzantine ages. ἐνέχυρον also occurs in inscriptions (e.g. IG 12,7.237.51 and 53 [Amorgos, 2nd c. BCE?], SEG 42.1086.9 [Lydia?, 350–300 BCE]) and papyri, the latter mainly dated to the imperial and Byzantine periods, when the noun appears within the formula ἐνεχύρου λόγῳ καὶ ὑποθήκης δικαίῳ, ‘by way of security and by right of mortgage’: see e.g. P.Col. 8.244.7 (= TM 40982) [Krokodilopolis (Medinet el-Fayum), 500–550 CE], BGU 17.2698.32 (= TM 69769) [Hermopolis, 7th c. CE].

Returning to Phrynichus’ condemnation of ὑπάλλαγμα, it should be noted that the lexicographer appears to object specifically to the technical legal use of the term corresponding to ἐνέχυρον, rather than to the semantically broader use found in Aristotle (C.3) and Porphyry (i.e. Theophrastus; C.5). Indeed, it is precisely the use of ὑπάλλαγμα in multiple contexts – and thus its lower semantic precision – that may have led Phrynichus to censor it. Furthermore, unlike ἐνέχυρον, ὑπάλλαγμα is not attested in canonical Attic authors. While the reasons why Phrynichus rejects the term are fairly clear, it is more difficult to determine which technical usage of ὑπάλλαγμα he had in mind: whether the aforementioned institution attested by the imperial-period papyri or rather the one attested in Σ^b α 1740 = Phot. α 2378 (B.1). In this entry, ὑπάλλαγμα is used as a contemporary term (ὃ νῦν ὑπάλλαγμα λέγεται) to gloss the noun ἀποτίμημαἀποτίμημα, which in Attic oratory denotes a security (ἐνέχυρον), specifically a kind of security of equal value to the dowry that the groom was to give to the bride’s relatives (cf. e.g. Lys. fr. 92 [= Harp. α 209 ~ Σ^b α 2004, Phot. 2682, Su. 3597, ex Σʹ], D. 30.7, [D.] 49.11; cf. also Poll. 3.36Poll. 3.36, Hsch. α 6716). In fact, the noun ἀποτίμημα could also indicate the security that the κύριος of the bride had to pledge in case the dowry’s delivery was delayed: see Fine (1951, 116–34), who questions U. E. Paoli’s interpretation of ἀποτίμημα as datio in solutum (see Paoli 1933). There do not appear to be documentary attestations of ὑπάλλαγμα in this technical sense, which certainly differs from the usage evidenced by the Egyptian papyri (see Alonso 2008, 46). It can be assumed that in the imperial period the term entered legal language to denote various types of securities within contracts concluded in different fora. Among these contracts, the ὑπάλλαγμα institution of imperial Egypt is the best known today, thanks to the fortuitous preservation of legal documents from that area.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A