ἅλας
(Philemo [Laur.] 355)

D. General commentary

An entry in Philemon’s lexicon (A.1) notes that ἅλας (the accusative plural of ἅλς ‘salt’) should be declined like κύνας (the acc. plur. of κύωνκύων ‘dog’). Despite the severe abridgement, a look at the morphological history of ἅλς clearly reveals that the entry’s purpose is to condemn the neuter noun ἅλας, which is a variant of the more common τὸ ἅλς (on the possibility that the entry’s focus included the noun’s gender, see F.1). This is confirmed by an entry in Thomas Magister’s lexicon (B.3), that conveys the prescription more comprehensively, albeit omitting the morphological parallel with κύνας.

As the sole l-stem noun inherited by Greek from Proto-Indo-European, ἅλς (< PIE *sal-, *seh₂l-, or *sh₂el-: see NIL 586‒60) represented a synchronic oddity that would inevitably undergo regularisation. Notoriously, this noun could be inflected as masculine to mean ‘salt’ (also metaphorically ‘wits’ in the plural ἅλες, cf. Latin sales) or as feminine to mean ‘sea’ (primarily poetical), both attested since Homer. While the latter meaning was confined to the singular, the noun meaning ‘salt’ was prevailingly used in the plural. The analogy’s starting point was precisely the frequent accusative plural ἅλας (not the dubiously attested dative plural ἅλασι: see B.2, F.2), which was reinterpreted as the nominative-accusative singular of a neuter noun in -ας, such as κρέας, κρέατος ‘meat’ (the t-stem inflection in such nouns, originally s-stems, was itself an innovation: see Meissner 2006, 122‒8). Accordingly, a new paradigm τὸ ἅλας, τοῦ ἅλατος, etc. was created (see K‒B vol. 1, 423‒4; Schwyzer 1939, 515).

The chronology governing the first attestations of the neuter ἅλας appear is difficult to ascertain, precisely owing to the syntactic ambiguity exhibited by many attestations. Redondo (2021, 161) considers Antiphanes’ use of it (C.2) to be one of several morphological innovations first attested in comic language; however, in the context of Antiphanes’ fragment, the form may well be an accusative plural, as is the norm in 4th-century-BCE comedy; see Olson (2023, 271), who lists the rare instances of the singular: Crates Com. fr. 16.10; Ar. Ach. 835 (for the possible sexual double entendre see Olson 2002, 280); Axionic. fr. 8.3. Another fragment of Antiphanes (C.3), in which ἅλας is restored by conjecture and is, according to Olson (2022, 130‒1), best interpreted as a plural (see F.3), is more ambiguous. Thus, the Aristotelian De mirabilibus auscultationibus (C.4) provides the first secure attestation of the innovative form in the description of a miraculous spring. According to Leumann (1950, 160‒1), the morphological reanalysis originated in the misinterpretation of a literary passage – namely, Hdt. 6.119.12 (C.1), in which the accusative ἅλας is flanked by the two accusatives singular ἄσφαλτον and ἔλαιον, supporting its construal as a singular form. Given that Herodotus’ passage also describes a natural wonder, Leumann argued that it lay behind the use of ἅλας in the Aristotelian treatise, perhaps by means of a Herodotean excerpt. On the basis that Aristotle uses οἱ ἅλες in reference to table salt elsewhere, Leumann further assumed that τὸ ἅλας was first employed exclusively for salt as a mineral. However, this reconstruction appears unlikely, as the metaplasm ἅλς > ἅλας can hardly be the product of a single literary passage but rather of two easily explained linguistic phenomena, already mentioned above: on the one hand, the high frequency of the accusative plural (its ambiguity exacerbated by the frequent use of ἅλας without the article); on the other, the strong trend in the history of the Greek language towards the regularisation of nominal inflection. Morphologically isolated nouns such as ἅλς were under considerable pressure to undergo regularisation. The innovative form’sInnovative forms origins in the spoken language are confirmed by its diffusion in the koine. After the Aristotelian attestation, τὸ ἅλας was used at least twice by the 3rd-century-BCE Peripatetic philosopher Lyco of Troas (C.5), quoted by Choeroboscus (B.1) as a rare example of the neuter form in literary texts. Meanwhile, it also occurs in Ptolemaic papyri (see Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 45) and in the New Testament (cf. C.6). In the latter, in fact, the l-stem is limited to the dat. sing. ἁλί at Ev.Marc. 9.49 (varia lectio for πυρί), and the only other occurrence in early Christian literature is the gen. sing. ἁλός in 1Ep.Clem. 11.2 (see Blass, Debrunner 1976, 39). In Roman and Byzantine papyri ἅλς typically follows the classical declension, but the innovative forms are also attested (see Gignac 1980, 61‒2). Interestingly, a neuter acc. singular τὸ ἅλαἅλα is found in the New Testament (Ev.Marc. 9.50c; nominative as varia lectio at Ev.Matt. 5.13ab = Ev.Luc. 14.34, Ev.Marc. 9.50ab), possibly analogical to σῶμα, σώματος. The same form is already attested twice in a 1st-century-CE papyrus (P.Mich. 5.245.10, 21 = TM 12086 [Tebtynis, 47 CE]), although the document is quite carelessly written, and so the form might simply be a misspelling of τὸν ἅλα. In any case, the l-stem became increasingly obsolete, and it is glossed with the t-stem in lexica (see e.g. Hsch. α 2965: ἁλί· ἅλατι; Hsch. α 3245: ἁλός· ἅλατος; Hsch. α 3276: ἅλς, ἁλός· ἅλατος, θαλάσσης).

Philemon’s prescription (A.1) has no parallels in the other Atticist lexica. Its preservation in the lexicon’s severely abridged redaction may be attributable to the interest it held for Byzantine readers owing to the frequency of τὸ ἅλας in NT Greek (see E.). A rigorous Atticist would surely have avoided the innovative form: indeed, it is absent from high-register authors of the 2nd century CE, and when ἅλας does occur in their works, it is invariably a clear accusative plural (τοὺς ἅλας: D.Chr. 36.6, Ael. NA 7.38.15; in Ael. NA 7.38.2 ἅλας could theoretically be singular, but unambiguous nom. and acc. plur. forms occur several lines later). The anonymous referee has kindly drawn our attention to Plu. Aetia physica 912e (C.7), where the codd. transmit τὸ ἅλας, although the occurrence of τὸν ἅλα several lines above and of the plural τῶν ἁλῶν in the same sentence have led editors to the plausible conclusion that the text is corrupt. Galen also seems to avoid the neuter τὸ ἅλας, although the pseudo-Galenic De remediis parabilibus (14.327.1) has καὶ ἅλας βωλικὸν μετὰ γλήχωνος (‘and a lump of salt with pennyroyal’). The later grammatical tradition also discussed the two competing variants; in their commentaries to Theodosius’ Canones, both Choeroboscus (B.1) and Charax – as excerpted by Sophronius (GG 4,2.394.3‒7), possibly drawing on Herodian’s Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων – report that some authorities derived ἅλς from ἅλας by way of syncope of α, accompanied by a change in gender, for which the alleged derivation of the feminine κάρη ‘head’ from κάρηνον ‘summit’ was presented as a parallel. The latter is a slight misrepresentation of Herodian’s doctrine, repeated in several erudite sources (e.g. Hdn. Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,1.341.7‒9 = Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,2.42.13‒5, etc.; see Le Feuvre 2022 for other sources), that the neuter gender of κάρη, which is apparently at odds with its ‘feminine’ ending, is explained by the loss of the syllable -νον (the opposite view ‒ the correct one by modern linguistic standards ‒ that κάρηνον is a derivative of κάρη is attested only in Epim.Hom. in Il. 1.44B, Et.Gud. κ 299, [Zonar.] 1162.3‒4). The common (Herodianic?) source of Charax and Choeroboscus rejected this explanation of ἅλς, deriving the common form from a far rarer one – rarer, that is, in classical texts: Choeroboscus duly admits that τὸ ἅλας is the norm in the συνήθειασυνήθεια ‘common usage’. Nonetheless, this debate reveals that some grammarians explained the synchronically irregular and isolated ἅλς with reference to a commoner and more regular morphological category, according to the principles of analogyAnalogy. From an Atticist perspective, meanwhile, the greater regularity of τὸ ἅλας did not make it any more acceptable, precisely because it was rare in canonical texts.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

During the medieval period, those authors who exhibit more Atticising tendencies occasionally preserve the masculine inflection of ἅλς and thus employing ἅλας as an acc. plur. in line with the classical norm (cf. e.g. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus De legationibus 483.35 τοὺς ἅλας τῆς φιλοφροσύνης). Meanwhile, the Modern Greek αλάτι ‘salt’ descends (via Medieval ἁλάτιν) from the ancient diminutive ἁλάτιον based on the innovative stem ἁλατ- and attested since the Hellenistic period (IG 4²,1.123.60 [Epidaurus, ca. 350–300 BCE] ἁλατίω[ι]): see Kriaras, LME s.vv.). However, τὸ ἅλας did not disappear, but like other neuter t-stems in -ας, such as κέρας, πέρας, and τέρας (and, partly, γήρας and κρέας), it remained in use throughout the medieval and early modern periods (see CGMEMG vol. 2, 678‒9). In particular, τὸ ἅλας owes its great diffusion in Medieval Greek to its attestations in the New Testament (see D.). In the genitive singular, an innovative form τοῦ ἁλάτου, analogical to the o-stems, developed alongside ἅλατος. Modern Greek preserves το άλας as the technical term ‘salt’ in its chemical sense, while the plural τα άλατα has the medical meaning ‘back pain’ (see LKN s.v.). However, the unsuffixed άλα(ς) survived in several modern dialects, including Thracian, Pontic, Cappadocian, and South Italian (ála [neut.], see Rohlfs 1964, 23), etc.: see Shipp 1979, 53‒4.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Philemo (Laur.) 355 (A.1)

One can merely speculate about the selection of κύνας as a parallel for the correct inflection of ἅλας. In fact, it may be the case that in Philemon’s original entry the choice of κύων (rather than another, more regular athematic noun with a monosyllabic stem) was suggested by the fact that it, too, could be both masculine and feminine. Indeed, several entries in the surviving redactions of Philemon treat the same word from different perspectives, suggesting that a single entry was split in the course of epitomisationEpitome (see entry Philemon, Περὶ Ἀττικῆς ἀντιλογίας τῆς ἐν ταῖς λέξεσιν). As an example, we may cite the three separate entries in cod. L dealing with βλήχων/γλήχων ‘pennyroyal’ (on which see entry βλήχων, γλήχων) that discuss its phonology (Laur. 356Philemo (Laur.) 356: βλήχων· οὐ γλήχων, ‘[Say] βλήχων, not γλήχων’), meaning (Laur. 356Philemo (Laur.) 356: βλήχων· βρῶμα διὰ πυρὸς καὶ γάλακτος ἡψημένον παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις […], ‘βλήχων: A foodstuff made by boiling wheat and milk, among the Egyptians’), and grammatical gender (Laur. 358Philemo (Laur.) 358: ἡ γλήχων ὡς ἡ κύων, ‘ἡ γλήχων (i.e., feminine), like ἡ κύων’). Interestingly, in the latter case, κύων is once again selected as the model, although, in this case, it shares its ending (though not its inflection) with γλήχων (the inflection of κύων was a point of debate for grammarians, cf. S.E. M. 1.195). It is possible, then, that a single passage in Philemon similarly discussed several grammatical topics as they pertained to ἅλς, including its inflection, gender, and meaning.

(2)    Su. α 1078 (B.2)

The second part of this entry in the Suda quotes a proverb that also appears in the alphabetical collection transmitted in cod. Laur. Plut. 55.7 (1314 CE), 356r–361v and cod. Par. gr. 2650 (1427 CE), 107r–114v (Cohn 1892, 258.91). LSJ (s.v. ἅλς) mention this passage as a witness to the dative plural ἅλασιν of the l-stem ἅλς in addition to ἁλσί (and the Homeric ἅλεσσι), but Edwards (1962)    astutely argued that ἅλασιν could hardly be an inherited dative plural of ἅλς nor an analogical variant modelled on r-stems such as ἀνδράσι, πατράσι, etc., as, in the latter case, *ἁλάσι would be expected; rather, he took it to be the regular dative plural of the t-stem ἅλας and argued that it should be accordingly removed from the entry ἅλς in LSJ and moved under the entry ἅλας. Edwards’ suggestion was followed in the LSJ Supplement (1968)    and Revised Supplement (1996) . However, it has been suspected since Schott (1612, 347) that ἅλασιν should be corrected to ἀλλᾶσιν ‘sausages’, a reading that has been accepted by the editors of Hsch. α 3273: ἀλλᾶσιν ὕει· τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς ἄγαν εὐθηνίας ἐτίθετο, ‘It’s raining sausages: it is said of excessive abundance’, where cod. H has ἀλσεινεύει.

(3)    Antiph. fr. 132.1–4 (C.3)

The precise reconstruction of this Antiphanes fragment, transmitted by Athenaeus, is fraught with difficulties. The corrupt reading τοῦτο αλα of cod. A has been variously emended by the editors; all agree that a comma should be inserted between the demonstrative (which is clearly singular) and the noun that follows it, but whereas Kassel and Austin accept the transmitted ἅλα, Schweighäuser, followed by Olson, corrected it to ἅλας. In the former case, the noun can only be singular; in the latter, it may be taken as singular if it agrees with τοῦτ(ο), but as a plural if it agrees with ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις (thus Olson [2022, 130], who, however, does not mention the possibility of reading the innovative neut. sing. ἅλας).