δυσέριστος
(Phryn. PS 65.13)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1) remarks upon the existence of the adjective δυσέριστος alongside the more common form δύσερις. His gloss is neither prescriptive nor proscriptive. Rather, Phrynichus collects a form he considers worthy of attention and then comments on its use. It is slightly surprising that, in this case, Phrynichus would recommend such a rare word as δυσέριστος. However, as the compounds formed in a similar fashion to δυσέριστος are relatively common in Greek (see below), Phrynichus might have regarded δυσέριστος as unexceptional, though rare.

Given the rarity of δυσέριστος, the locus classicus of the gloss is in all likelihood a passage of Sophocles’ Electra (C.1). The remaining evidence for δυσέριστος is limited to a passage in Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus (C.2). In later Greek, Iamblichus (Myst. 1.2) and Proclus (in Prm. 701.20) also document an abstract derivative δυσεριστία δυσεριστία ‘contentiousness’. A gloss of Hesychius on δυσήριστος (B.1) also attests to the alternative form δυσήριστος, with [ε:] (see also δύσερις/δύσηρις).

With regard to semantics, in the passage of Sophocles (C.1) δυσέριστος indicates a killing ‘which is difficult to contest’, and so the meaning must be along the lines of ‘uncontestable’, ‘inexorable’, and ‘implacable’ (see Jebb 1894, 184–5: ‘bloodshed, deadly vengeance, against which the guilty will strive in vain’, approved by Finglass 2007, 505; see also below on οὐκ ἐριστά ‘which cannot be contested’ and ‘against which one cannot struggle’ at Soph. El. 220). One can thus compare δυσέριστος with several other verbal adjectives Verbal adjectives in ‑τος formed with the prefix δυσ-. To mention but a few cases, see δυσάρεστος ‘difficult to satisfy’, δύσβατος ‘difficult to enter’, δύσφευκτος ‘difficult to escape from’, and many more (on the ambiguous status of the prefix δυσ‑, i.e. whether forms in δυσ‑ are compounds or derivations, see further Tribulato 2015, 20 and 70 n. 27). This effectively goes against the interpretation of the scholia (B.2), where δυσέριστον αἶμα is taken as the bloodshed ‘caused by unholy strife’ (i.e. between the mother and her children; this interpretation is also contested by Jebb 1894, 184–5). A meaning akin to the one in Sophocles can also likely be found in the passage of Cleanthes (C.2), where δυσέριστος indicates an urgency (σπουδή) that cannot be contested or restrained. The CGL s.v. correctly denotes that δυσέριστος means ‘hard to strive against, irresistible’, while the treatment of older lexica is outdated (see LSJ s.v. ‘pertaining to unholy strife’ and DGE s.v. 1 ‘perteneciente a una contienda impía, que acompaña a querellas funestas’, though GE s.v. also gives the correct meaning ‘implacable’ as an alternative possibility).

The verbal adjective δυσέριστος (also δυσήριστος) is based on δύσερις δύσερις with an expansion -τος (for this formation see Risch 1974, 26). Interestingly, the first available evidence for the verbal adjective ἐριστός ἐριστός ‘which can be contested’ (in turn based on the verb ἐρίζω) also occurs in Sophocles’ Electra Soph. El. 220 (El. 220; later also in prose writers, e.g. Vett.Val. 1.3.118 and Ath. 11.506b). An important parallel for δυσέριστος is ἀμφήριστοςἀμφήριστος. This word is already attested in Homer (Il. 23.382 and 23.527) and is fairly common in later poetry, but it is also used by Polybius (5.85.6) and prose writers from the imperial period onwards (Philo, Strabo, Josephus, Lucian, etc.). We also have evidence for ‑εριστος/‑ηριστος in the personal names Ἀμφήριστος and Ἀνήριστος/Ἀνέριστος (respectively 2x and 4x; the personal names Ἀμφήριτος, Ἀνήριτος, and Μετήριτος indicate that some ‑τος forms actually derive from a verb *ἐρίω, see further Bechtel 1917, 195).

Comparable, to some extent, to the cases of δύσερις and δυσέριστος is that of φίλεριςφίλερις and φιλέριστοςφιλέριστος, regardless of the obvious difference that φίλερις and φιλέριστος are verb‑initial exocentric compounds (similar compounds are, e.g., φιλακόλαστος ‘loving of incontinence’, φιλέραστος ‘fond of loving’ and ‘dear to lovers’). While φίλερις is widely attested in Greek (Aristotle, the comic poet Axionicus, imperial prose, etc.), φιλέριστος is first attested in Imperial Greek (Justinus Martyr, Adamantius).

Regarding the content of Phrynichus’ gloss, we cannot say whether he simply made a comparison between δυσέριστος and δύσερις, or whether he effectively treated these two adjectives as equivalent, on account of the epitomisation undergone by the PS. In support of the latter option is the fact that, in the epitome of the PS, οὐ μόνον is used to indicate that two forms are equivalent (see PS 65.9Phryn. PS 65.9, PS 66.7–8Phryn. PS 66.7–8, PS 76.14Phryn. PS 76.14, PS 81.14–5Phryn. PS 81.14–5, PS 83.1Phryn. PS 83.1, PS 89.10Phryn. PS 89.10, PS 106.7Phryn. PS 106.7, 109.13Phryn. PS 109.13, 110.7Phryn. PS 110.7). At first, the semantics of δυσέριστος would make this unlikely (see above), though judging from the interpretations of δυσέριστος/δυσήριστος in ancient lexicography, the idea that Phrynichus might actually have considered δυσέριστος synonymous with δύσερις should not be dismissed. Note that the interpretamentum φιλόνεικοι in the gloss of Hesychius (B.1) indicates that δυσήριστος/δυσέριστος is taken in the same sense as δύσερις ‘contentious’ or ‘causing strife, discord’ (see LSJ s.v. 2; the alternative interpretamentum that explains δυσήριστος as ἀμφίβολος reminds one of the Homeric ἀμφήριστος ‘doubtful, uncertain’, see below). The evidence for δυσεριστίαδυσεριστία ‘contentiousness’ and ‘contentious nature’ in imperial authors (see above) further corroborates this reading of δυσέριστος as a possibility. On this tentative reading of the gloss, one might infer that Phrynichus regarded the rare form δυσέριστος as more precious than δύσερις, which in turn is a common word, and thus recommended that the aspiring sophist take note of it.

Though it remains speculative, a tentative argument might be made that Phrynichus vouched for a different exegesis of δυσέριστος in the passage of Sophocles (C.1) from the one attested by the scholia (B.2). That is, Phrynichus may imply that δυσέριστον αἶμα suggests that the bloodshed caused by Ares will generate further strife or discord in the future. In this scenario, the semantic ambiguity of the adjectives in -τος, which may be active or passive, might have played a role as well (on the semantics of the adjectives in -τος see Tribulato 2021; this also squares well with Phrynichus’ suggested comparison with δύσερις, which also has an active and passive meaning). As a reference is made to the Erinyes in the following linesSoph. El. 1386–90 (El. 1386–90), one might raise the suspicion that some ancient readers took δυσέριστος as referring proleptically to Orestes’ persecution at the hands of these deities of vengeance (this is not the standard view of modern interpreters, though some have suggested it, see Finglass 2007, 505; schol. Soph. El. 1388 only remark that the ἄφυκτοι κύνες ‘inescapable dogs’ who enter the house to inflict vengeance are either Orestes or the Erinyes). The ancient etymological connection between the Erinyes and ἔρις could have played a role, too.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A