πολιτοκοπέω
(Phryn. PS 99.14–9, Poll. 9.26)

D. General commentary

The entry in the PS (A.1) discusses the meaning and use of πολιτοκοπέω (‘to court the mob’, see LSJ s.v. δημοκοπέω: the two forms are synonymsSynonyms) and highlights its novelty. In addition to preserving rich information on πολιτοκοπέω and demonstrating Phrynichus’ interest in compounds and rare words (see below), this entry is crucial to understanding Phrynichus’ use of the stylistic category of καινότης and the reconstruction of his theories of style. Prior to addressing Phrynichus’ assessment of this form, it is worth focusing on πολιτοκοπέω's morphology, chronology, and diffusion in relation to analogous compounds.

πολιτοκοπέω is a denominative verbDenominative verbs in -εω derived from the compound noun πολιτοκόπος (‘one who courts the mob’, ‘demagogue’), which belongs with the ancient subcategory of compounds having a noun (πολίτηςπολίτης) as the first constituent; from πολιτοκόπος one also has πολιτοκοπίαπολιτοκοπία (‘the act of courting the mob’, see Kindstrand 1983, 87; on compounds in -κόπος, -κοπία and -κοπέω see Sturtevant 1908, 438; Kindstrand 1983). According to Kindstrand (1983, 102), πολιτοκόπος is the earliest and the only certain classical example of the further subtype in which the first constituent denotes a human being or group (see below). Τhe meaning of the verbal second member -κόπος must be understood as metaphoricalMetaphors: ‘to hit’ stands for ‘to pester’, ‘to court’ , and even ‘to tire out’ and ‘to weary’ (see LSJ s.v. κόπτω), as suggested by Kindstrand (1983, 102–3), who regards ‘to court’ as insufficiently strong. As noted by Phrynichus (A.1), the verb κόπτωκόπτω itself can assume the meaning ‘to tire’, particularly in reference to talking: see the expressions ‘κόπτων τὰ ὦτα’ (‘tiring the ears [of the interlocutor/audience]’) used by Pollux (6.119)Poll. 6.119 as a synonym of λάλοςλάλος (‘talkative’, ‘loquacious’) and ‘κόπτοντα τὴν ἀκρόασιν’ (‘tiring the audience’) in D.H. Comp. 19.72D.H. Comp. 19.72; when a fraud is intended, κόπτω can mean ‘to deceive with words’. The nominal constituent of such compounds is usually the object of their verbal element: thus, πολιτοκόπος is someone ‘who hits [the ears of] the mob’, ‘who courts the mob’ – that is, a demagogue.

Two other series of analogously formed words indicating demagogues and their activity also derive from κόπτω: δημοκοπέω, δημοκόπος, δημοκοπία and ὀχλοκοπέω, ὀχλοκόπος and ὀχλοκοπία (though this latter form has only very late occurrences, see further E.). Both have a negative value: the δημοκόποςδημοκόπος is someone who is willing tο deceive his audience to gain the favour of the masses. Some sources connect δημοκόπος to κόπιςκόπις (‘babbler’, also ‘liar’) and κόβαλοςκόβαλος (‘deceitful’, on which see entry κόβαλος). Et.Gen. ΑΒ s.v. κόβαλος (~ Et.Gud. 332.3–8; EM 524.30–1; Su. κ 1897; [Zonar.] 1227.6–9) records that, according to OrusOrus, both κόπις and κόβαλος, alongside δημοκόπος, derive from κόπτω (on the use of κόπις to denote rhetorical deception, see Erbì 2010, 67–9; see also Frisk 1973, 915; TLG s.v. κόπις). Here, the literal meaning ‘to hit’ acquires two metaphoricalMetaphors nuances, both of them negative: ‘to weary the audience’, ‘to annoy by chatting’ or, when a fraud is intended, ‘to deceive with words’. Pollux lists δημοκόπος among both insultsAbuse (terms of) for rhetors and demagogues criticised as swindlers (4.37)Poll. 4.37 and epithets for agitators of the state and public order (6.129)Poll. 6.129. Incidentally, this may help us to comprehend an entry in Cyril’s lexicon (= Hsch. δ 863Hsch. δ 863) that registers the hapaxHapax δημοκόμποςδημοκόμπος and glosses it with ‘δημηγόρος. δήμῳ ἐπαιρόμενος’ (‘popular orator, [one] who is exalted by the people’): it may be that the correct form was δημοκόπος, intended as ‘agitator’, as in Pollux. In many sources (among others, Tim. δ 7, Hsch. δ 883, Phot. δ 272 = Su. δ 468 [ex Σʹʹ], [Zonar.] 503.16), δημοκοπέω is associated to παίζω, likely intended as ‘to make a fool of’, ‘to deceive’. For the meaning of δημοκόπος, one may also compare the [NN]_N compounds δημοκόλαξδημοκόλαξ and δημοχαριστήςδημοχαριστής (‘mob-flatterer’). The latter occurs, outside grammatical sources, only in Eur. Hec. 132Eur. Hec. 132, where Odysseus is described as ‘κόπις ἡδυλόγος δημοχαριστής’ (‘liar, sweet-talking, mob-flatterer’; note that Wilamowitz 1927, 277–8, relates this verse to δημοκόπος, alongside the expression ‘κοπίδων ἀρχηγός’ ‘leader of babblers’ in Heraclitus’ fragment (Diels–Kranz 22 B 81.9)).

According to Kindstrand (1983, 103) forms in δημο- and ὀχλο- are Hellenistic formations: admittedly, their occurrences dispersed significantly during the Hellenistic and imperial periods. Nevertheless, some traces of their possible presence in earlier times may be discerned: the verb ὀχλοκοπέωὀχλοκοπέω may have been used by DemadesDemades, since it occurs in two passages that Tzetzes (H. 6.124) ascribes to rhetorical exercises by this author (fr. 75 and fr. 78 De Falco, the latter including ὀχλοκόποςὀχλοκόπος too). Much depends on whether one accepts that the adjective δημοκοπικόςδημοκοπικός (‘of a demagogue’) is the original reading in Plato’s Phaedrus (C.5), given that this occurrence would prove the earlier existence of δημοκόπος. Some scholars consider δημοκοπικός here to be chronologically unplausible, preferring δημοτικός (‘popular’, ‘public man’ i.e., ‘politician’, also interpreted as ‘demagogue’), transmitted by part of the manuscript tradition. Nevertheless, δημοκοπικός should not be dismissed, given that it is also transmitted via indirect tradition in Hermias’ commentary on the Phaedrus (see F.2).

The chronology of πολιτοκόπος and its cognates poses fewer problems. Lexica trace all forms to Attic Greek, whether Antiphon (5th century BCE; see C.3, A.2) or Old Comedy dramatists, such as Sannyrion (C.2, A.2) and Plato Comicus (C.1, A.1, on which see Pirrotta 2009, 237). The occurrences in Old Comedy are joined by that in Diphilus (C.4), attested by the Synagoge (B.1). This prevalence of comic occurrences of πολιτικοπέω (and cognates) is hardly surprising, given that comedy – particularly Old ComedyOld Comedy – often resorts to -εω compound verbs: Aristophanes alone has more than one hundred and fifty forms (see Willi 2003, 124, based on Todd 1962; for their use in Clouds, see Willi 2003, 122–6, and, for the connection between the productivity of compound verbs in -εω and the emergence of scientific and intellectual discourse, see Willi 2003, 125–6). As far as compounds in -κόπος and -κοπέω in general are concerned, Kindstrand (1983, 106–8) describes them as a typical feature of Old Comedy and notes how their occurrences in classical prose generally have a literal and non-metaphorical meaning.

The ubiquitous presence of compounds in -κοπέω in classical Attic and particularly in Old Comedy is reflected in their discussion on the part of Atticist lexicographers. Phrynichus’ PS (A.1), as we have seen, provides us with the richest information on πολιτοκοπέω: this item is more informative than both Pollux (A.2, who only records this form) and later lexica, since the entry shared by Photius and the Suda (B.1, thus deriving from the Σʹʹ expansion of the Synagoge) merely reports Diphilus' use of πολιτοκοπέω. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that the entry on πολιτοκοπέω in the Synagoge (B.1) likely depends on a different doctrine, given its reference to Diphilus, who is not mentioned by either Phrynichus or Pollux and who is, moreover, a New Comedy dramatist (and is thus likely to have been less authoritative in the eyes of purists).

Initially, Phrynichus’ entry (A.1) can be linked to his interest in compounds, which is manifested primarily – and abundantly – in the PS. πολιτοκοπέω is not the sole compound based on κόπτω treated in the Praeparatio: besides πολιτοκοπέω and δημοκοπέω, we find βωλοκοπέωβωλοκοπέω (‘to break clods of earth’, in PS 54.13–4Phryn. PS 54.13–4, from Ar. fr. 800Ar. fr. 800), θαλαττοκοπέω θαλαττοκοπέω (‘to make a splash’, metaphorically intended as ‘to speak in vain’, ‘to talk nonsense’, in PS 74.13–5Phryn. PS 74.13–5, from Ar. Eq. 830Ar. Eq. 830), θυροκοπέωθυροκοπέω (‘to knock at the door’, in PS 74.16Phryn. PS 74.16, from Ar. V. 1254Ar. V. 1254; see also θυροκόποςθυροκόπος, ‘someone who knocks at the door’, i.e. a ‘beggar’ in PS 75.1–2Phryn. PS 75.1–2), κυνοκοπέωκυνοκοπέω (‘to beat [someone] like a dog’, in PS 54.13–4Phryn. PS 54.13–4, from Ar. Eq. 289Ar. Eq. 289). This is a substantial group, paralleled only in Pollux. In the Onomasticon (which is significantly more extended than the PS), in addition to πολιτοκοπέω (A.2) we find: ἀρτοκοπέωἀρτοκοπέω, ‘to keep a bakery’ (7.21)Poll. 7.21, βωλοκοπέωβωλοκοπέω, ‘to break clods of earth’ (7.141)Poll. 7.141, ὀρτυγοκοπέωὀρτυγοκοπέω, ‘to play at the game of quail-striking’ (9.107)Poll. 9.107, πιττοκοπέωπιττοκοπέω, ‘to smear with pitch’ (7.165)Poll. 7.165, and πτερνοκοπέωπτερνοκοπέω, ‘to stamp with the heels [to show disapprobation]’ (2.197Poll. 2.197, 4.122Poll. 4.122, see LSJ s.vv.). Verbal compounds in -κοπέω are otherwise scantily treated by Atticist lexicographers: the Antiatticist (θ 8)Antiatt. θ 8 records only θυροκοπέωθυροκοπέω, while in Moeris and in the Eclogue, only nominal compounds occur and are, interestingly, generally disapproved (Moer. λ 27Moer. λ 27: λιθοκόποςλιθοκόπος, ‘stone-cutter’; Ecl. 193Phryn. Ecl. 193: ἀρτοκόποςἀρτοκόπος, ‘baker’; Ecl. 390Phryn. Ecl. 390: πορνοκόποςπορνοκόπος, ‘fornicator’, see entry πορνοκόπος, πορνοκοπέω).

Phrynichus’ entry on πολιτοκοπέω (A.1) is not merely relevant as evidence of the penchant for compounds displayed in the PS but is also salient in several other respects. The νῦν that introduces the figured meaning of κόπτωκόπτω is noteworthy: as Orth (2015, 395) points out, it either means ‘in the present case’ or refers to the present time – that is, to the linguistic usage of Phrynichus’s contemporaries. The latter case does not imply that κόπτω only began to be used to mean ‘to urge insistently’ in his time, given that Classical Greek appears to have been familiar with its connection with verbose insistence: rather, Phrynichus’ νῦν likely suggests that this use of κόπτω was particularly common and fashionable among his contemporaries. The comparison with δημοκοπέω, for its part, is remarkable for two reasons. First, πολιτοκοπέω is said to appear (ἔοικε) to have the same meaning: this may suggest that by Phrynichus’ time, its occurrences were already scarce and that an overlap between the πολιτοκοπέω and δημοκοπέω had to be cautiously proposed. It is possible that Phrynichus knew πολιτοκοπέω mainly through its use by Plato Comicus (C.1, A.1), on which see F.1. Second, Phrynichus qualifies πολιτοκοπέω as being καινότερος than δημοκοπέω. Given that forms in πολιτο- appear to be contemporary or, perhaps – if we accept the reading in Plato (C.5) – considerably earlier than forms in δημο-, καινός here is unlikely to have a chronological meaning. The fact that Kindstrand (1983, 102), who interprets καινότερον as ‘later’, dismisses Phrynichus’ claim as ‘unsupported’ also favours a non-chronological interpretation. Here, rather, Phrynichus rather uses καινός as a stylistic evaluation highlighting the originality and rarity of the word compared to analogously formed terms, which were significantly more common, as the existence of the aforementioned compounds in δημο- also meaning ‘mob-flatterer’ (δημοκόλαξ and δημοχαριστής, whereas πολιτοκόπος remains alone) confirms: note the correct understanding on the part of Orth (2015, 395: ‘origineller’) and already on the part of Wilamowitz (1927, 278: ‘seltener’). This use of καινός for ‘original’ is not isolated in the PS: the adjective is also employed as an evaluative criterion of originality and rarity in PS 75.19Phryn. PS 75.19 (where ἰσῆλιξἰσῆλιξ is said to be more original than ἡλικιώτης ‘equal in age’; note also that the structure of the two glosses is the same) and in PS 65.20–1Phryn. PS 65.20–1 (where ἔξηβοςἔξηβος is compared to ἔξωρος ‘out of age’, see entry ἔξηβος). The words that Phrynichus presents as ‘original’ are those that he finds attested in classical authors but which are very rare: this is the case with both ἔξηβος (an Aeschylean hapaxHapax in Th. 10) and ἰσῆλιξ, which occurs only in X. Smp. 8.1.4, whereas dozens of instances of ἡλικιώτης are attested in authors belonging to the Attic canon (Aristophanes, Plato, Demosthenes, etc.). That the concept of καινότης implies a certain rarity is also proven by the fact that, in the only instance in which it is matched by another evaluative criterion (in PS 65.20–1, see entry ἔξηβος), καινός is opposed to καθωμιλημένοςκαθωμιλημένος (‘current’). The indirect tradition of the Praeparatio is particularly relevant for the understanding of how Phrynichus employs καινότης as a stylistic criterion. The tradition of the Synagoge (mirrored in Σ^b and in Photius’ lexicon) indeed preserves the extended version of some glosses of the PS, where Phrynichus’ stylistic evaluation still surfaces. It is, for instance, the case of the items ᾄδειν ὅμοιον (PS 20.1–2Phryn. PS 20.1–2, see Phot. α 551, see entry ᾄδειν ὅμοιον) and ἄνεμος καὶ ὄλεθρος ἄνθρωπος (PS 21.12Phryn. PS 21.12, see Σ^b 1351 [= Phot. α 1801, ex Σ´´´], see entry ἄνεμος καὶ ὄλεθρος ἄνθρωπος): both items are extremely abridged in the epitome, while they survive in a more extended form in the indirect tradition, where they preserve key information regarding Phrynichus’ assessments on style and context.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

πολιτοκοπέω and its cognates disappeared long before the Byzantine age, when their only known trace is the short entry on πολιτοκοπέω in Photius’ Lexicon and in the Suda (B.1). δημοκοπέω and its cognates, by contrast, are used continuously throughout the Byzantine age in both erudite sources and literary texts. Both δημοκοπέω and δημοκόπος are admitted by Atticising authors, such as Nicephorus Basilaces (Or. B 4 82.4 Garzya; Adversus Bagoam 93.30 Garzya, where the eunuch Bagoas is qualified as δημοκόπος) and Nicetas Choniates (Chronicle 562.17). The verb survives in Modern Greek as δημοκοπώ (see LKN s.v.), a synonym of the more common δημαγωγώ (‘to act like a demagogue’). The LKN also lists its cognates δημοκόπος, δημοκοπία and δημοκοπικός. Modern Greek preserves several compounds in -κόπος and -κοπώ, most of which represent learned katharevousa formations, given that they do not exhibit the phonological changes of Modern Greek, whereby the form that corresponds to the ancient κόπτω is κόβω (see Ralli 2013, 151–3). On compounds in -κόπος and ‑κοπώ in Modern Greek, mainly belonging to the semantic sphere of insistence and perseverance, see Hatzidakis (1910, 292–3).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Pl.Com. fr. 113 (C.1)

Phrynichus records Plato Comicus' use of πολιτοκοπέω in his Pisander. This form is consistent with the play’s theme: the target is the Athenian politician Pisander, initially a fervent democratic who later became an advocate of the oligarchic party. The semantic nuance of the verb in Plato Comicus, however, appears to have been peculiar, since Phrynichus glosses it with ‘to reproach’ and ‘to ridicule’ (λοιδορέω, κωμωδέω). Pirrotta (2009, 237) suggests that this meaning was likely paralleled in Diphilus (C.4), but this remains highly hypothetical, given that neither fragment is extant. This significance is otherwise unattested for both πολιτοκοπέω and δημοκοπέω: their meanings ‘to court the mob’ and ‘to annoy the mob [by chattering]’ can certainly be understood as ‘to deceive the mob [with discourses]’ but less readily as ‘to insult’. Plato Comicus could thus have used πολιτοκοπέω to play on the ambiguity between a more literal meaning of κόπτω (‘to hit’ >‘to insult’) and the metaphoricalMetaphors sense (‘to insist with’, ‘to court’): Pisander, in this case, would be represented in the act of insulting and ridiculing the masses, whom, earlier, he had harangued as a democratic. Comic exegesis may have marked the joke in this use of πολιτοκοπέω, thus laying the foundations for Phrynichus’ remark (A.1). Given that the fragment is transmitted out of context, however, this reconstruction remains speculative.

(2)    Pl. Phdr. 248e.2–3 (C.5)

In Phdr. 248d–e, Plato expresses his theory of metempsychosis, describing the rules that govern the incarnation of souls. Whereas seventh-level souls incarnate into craftsmen or farmers, who live ‘menial but honest’ lives (Yunis 2011, 145), lower-level souls incarnate into people who are despicable: sophists and demagogues (eighth-level souls) and, worst of all, tyrants (ninth-level souls). For the figure of the demagogue, the manuscript tradition is divided between δημοκοπικόςδημοκοπικός and δημοτικός (‘popular’, ‘public man’ i.e. ‘politician’, also interpreted as ‘demagogue’). Some scholars see δημοκοπικός as chronologically untenable and favour δημοτικός: Kindstrand (1983, 87), for example, does not accept δημοκοπικός and argues that similar compounds in -ικός from nouns in ‑κόπος are attested much later, spreading from the Septuagint onwards. Other scholars, by contrast, defend δημοκοπικός: de Vries (1969, 144), for instance, argued that δημοκοπικός is more suitable for indicating a demagogue (see also Hackforth 1952, 80) and that it is preferable in connection with σοφιστικόςσοφιστικός (‘of a sophist’). An important clue in identifying the correct form is provided by the indirect tradition: indeed, δημοκοπικός should not be dismissed, since it is transmitted by Hermias’ commentary on the Phaedrus (173.16–8 Lucarini, Moreschini), which explains it as follows: σοφιστικὸς δὲ καὶ δημοκοπικὸς ταύτῃ διαφέρουσιν, ὅτι ὁ μὲν σοφιστὴς διδάσκαλος βούλεται εἶναι νόμων καὶ ἀρετῆς, ὁ δὲ δημοκόπος ῥητορεύειν ἐν πλήθει (‘σοφιστικός and δημοκοπικός differ in this respect: the sophist wants to be a teacher of laws and virtues, whereas the demagogue [wants] to speak in public in the crowd’). Hermias’ text, which preserves Syrianus’ lectures on the Phaedrus (early 5th century CE), testifies that prominent scholars engaged in Platonic exegesis knew the passage with the reading δημοκοπικός. The stance adopted by Moreschini, who defends δημοκοπικός on the basis of Hermias in his edition of the Phaedrus, is thus deemed plausible.