ἀρχαϊκός
(Phryn. Ecl. 191, Antiatt. α 131, Σ^b α 2192 [= Phot. α 2919])

D. General commentary

Phrynichus’ entry in Ecl. 191 (A.1) addresses the pronunciation and spelling of the adjectives ἀρχαϊκός (‘old-fashioned’), ἈλκαϊκόςἈλκαϊκός (‘of Alcaeus’), and τροχαϊκόςτροχαϊκός (‘trochaic’: these last two are also treated in B.2), for which he prescribes the spelling with the double ι. This doctrine, which may also have been in the Antiatticist (A.2, see below and F.1), later entered the Byzantine erudite tradition (B.3, B.4) via an expansion of the Synagoge (A.3). In the discussion that follows, I shall first address the linguistic concerns surrounding adjectives in ‑ικός before proceeding to examine their treatment within the framework of Atticist erudition. When discussing the aforementioned adjectives, I shall use the standard simplified spelling adopted by modern lexica (i.e., ἀρχαϊκός, Ἀλκαϊκός, τροχαϊκός), except when technical discourse on spelling requires otherwise.

ἀρχαϊκός (‘old-fashioned’) belongs to the class of denominative adjectives formed with the suffixSuffixes ‑ικός, which vehiculate ideas of pertinence and aptness. Initially, ‑ικός, which derives from an IE k-suffix, mainly produced ethnical adjectives and ktetics (see, for instance, the Homeric ἈχαιϊκόςἈχαιϊκός, ‘Achaean’, e.g. Il. 9.141; see also entry Λάκαινα, Λακωνική). It spreads slowly, at first, in Post-Homeric Greek before undergoing a major expansion in 5th- and, mainly, 4th-century BCE Attic, owing to its widespread use in the intellectual lexicon (see Chantraine 1933, 386–7; Buck, Petersen 1945, 637). Aristophanes, in whose works adjectives in -ικός frequently occur, often deploys them as a means of parodyingParody the sophists’ vocabulary (see Willi 2003, 139–45, and F.4). ‑ικός adjectives burgeon in the philosophical and scientific prose of the 4th century BCE (e.g. in Aristotle’s works), and -ικός becomes one of the most productive suffixes in Post-classical Greek; it is also widely attested in the Septuagint (Chantraine 1933, 390–1). Over time and thanks to its success, the peculiar semantics of ‑ικός, which was originally connected to the idea of relationship and belonging, fades, and the suffix begins to compete with other suffixes (e.g., with ‑αιος, see Chantraine 1933, 391). This is precisely the case with ἀρχαϊκός, which is ultimately used as an alternative to ἀρχαῖoς ‘ancient’ (see A.2), from which it derives. Whereas ἀρχαῖoς is attested from Hesiod (fr. 322) onwards, ἀρχαϊκός has its first certain occurrence in Ar. Nu. 821 (C.1), and is typical of Post-classical Greek: of its circa 160 occurrences, a mere 30 appear in texts composed BCE (see also DELG s.v. ἀρχή, where ἀρχαϊκός is ascribed to ‘grec tardif’). ἀρχαϊκός is thus seemingly later than its homologue ἀρχικός (‘fit for rule’), a denominative adjective formed with the suffix -ικός from ἀρχή (‘power’), which is consistently attested from the 6th century BCE (note, however, that ἀρχικός is used at least once with the meaning ‘antique’ by Phld. D. 3.14).

Given that the Atticist lexicographers, when dealing with these adjectives in ‑ικός, are mainly concerned with spelling, it is worth investigating why the matter was of particular interest to them. Atticist sources promoted the etymological spelling: given that ἀρχαϊκός derives from an adjective in -αιος (ἀρχαῖoςἀρχαῖoς), the addition of the suffix ‑ικός initially produces the ending -αιϊκός. Subsequently, the diphthong /ai/ before the suffix ‑ικός tends to be simplified to /aː/; this simplification occurs before the vowels /a/, /e/, and /i/ in Ionic and Attic and particularly affects the sequences ‑αιι‑ and *‑αιϝV-, which are created by suffixes beginning with vowels (see in detail AGP vol. 1, Chapter 5, Section A.3.5). For this development, see also Buck, Petersen (1945, 637): ‘derivatives of words in ι-diphthongs at first end in -ιικός, then lose the one ι’ (the formation process of adjectives in ‑ικός had already been described by Budenz 1858, 20). ἀρχαιϊκός (with double ι) is thus the etymological form, while ἀρχαϊκός (with a single ι) represents its later Attic simplification.

The phonological change underlying the oscillation between the spellings -αιι- and -αϊ- proves difficult to date: in epigraphical sources, the simplification of -αιι- occurs particularly frequently in sources from the 4th century BCE (Threatte 1980, 268), but was ‘probably well underway during the 5th century’ (see AGP vol. 1, Chapter 5, Section B.5.1). However, the treatment of the diphthong /ai/ not only varies greatly over time but also varies according to literary genre (see the information on the distribution of -αιι-/-αϊ- in tragedy, in which -αιι- prevails, and in Middle and New Comedy, collected in AGP vol. 1, Chapter 5, Section B.5.1). Occasionally, the treatment also depends on the word in question: for instance, the spelling -αιικ- of the Homeric ἈχαιϊκόςἈχαιϊκός is more often preserved, although there is no shortage of occurrences in which the diphthong is simplified, as also reported by Eustathius (B.3; note that the form is also lemmatised with -αιικ- in LSJ). At any rate, the change of prevocalic diphthongs into a long vowel is a typical phenomenon of Attic (see also ὑός, with ῡ, in place of υἱός ‘son’, also mentioned by Lobeck 1820, 39–42). Prevocalic /ai/ > /aː/ is prominent in Attic inscriptions, and the spelling ‑αϊκ- in ἀρχαϊκός is already more common from earlier periods onwards, while the -αιϊκ- continues to decline over time throughout the Hellenistic and Roman ages, when such a spelling is unusual (see Threatte 1980, 287–92; but note that two epigraphic occurrences of ἀρχαιϊκός are found in two inscriptions from Delos, both dateable after 166 BCE: I.Délos 1426.B.col. i.42 and I.Délos 1428.col. ii.50; see Tod 1942, 74). Atticist lexicographers recognise the simplification of prevocalic diphthongs as a prominent feature of Attic phonology and, accordingly, typically promote the monophthongised spelling. Homeric scholarship has adopted the same approach and describes the monophthongisation of ‑αιι- to -αϊ- as an Attic trait (see AGP vol. 1, Chapter 5, Section A.3.5, for examples).

Pronunciation and spelling are Phrynichus’ obvious focal points (A.1, B.2). His prescription confronts a trait that we have seen to be typical of Attic vocalism: in this respect, the Atticist approach to adjectives in ‑ικός sets itself apart from the Atticists’ usual attitude to prevocalic diphthongs, which favours simplified spellings, to the point that Phrynichus’ entry has sometimes been viewed as interpolated (see LSJ s.v.; Buck, Petersen 1945, 641). The reason why Phrynichus makes an exception and recommends the non-simplified spelling of adjectives in ‑ικός is likely his reaction against the pronunciation of the sequence ‑αιι‑/‑αϊ‑ in his time. Originally, -αϊ- and -αιι- were interchangeable spellings roughly corresponding to the same pronunciation, given that /ai̯.i/ was pronounced /a:.i/, perhaps owing to quantitative metathesisQuantitative metathesis (Schwyzer 1939, 265–6) or compensatory lengtheningCompensatory lengthening (Fiori 2022, 67). Whereas the simplified sequence -αϊ- initially presupposed /a:/, the pronunciation of -αϊ- with /a/    prevailed over time owing to the loss of length distinction. Furthermore, in Phrynichus’ time, the diphthong αι was already rendered as /e/ and corresponded to a single vowel in spelling (see Vessella 2018, 50–3). In this context, as Fiori (2022, 68) notes, Phrynichus’ prescription makes sense because, by recommending the spelling ‑αιϊ‑, it asserts that the α should be pronounced – and counted in the metrical scansion – as long. An etymologicalEtymology interest may also underlie this prescription: Atticist lexicographers may exceptionally recommend the non-simplified spelling of adjectives in ‑ικός inasmuch as it permits the preservation of the diphthongs of nouns and adjectives in -αιος, -αια from which they are formed.

A more general question may arise as to why the Atticists did not discourage a formation in -ικός that was typical of Post-classical Greek (see above). The reason likely lies in the fact that Aristophanes used the adjective in Clouds (C.1; on Aristophanes’ privileged status in the Atticist canon, see Tribulato 2024). The phrase φρονεῖς ἀρχαιϊκά (‘you have old-fashioned ideas’) in Clouds is almost certainly the locus classicus from which ἀρχαϊκός enters the tradition of Atticist lexicographers, underlying both Phrynichus’ entries (A.1, B.1, on which see F.2, and A.2). In the Antiatticist (A.2), the adverb ἀρχαικῶς – which never occurs in Clouds – is easily explained as a standard way to lemmatise the neuter ἀρχαιϊκά, whose use is here adverbial (Fiori 2022, 60–1). According to Fiori (2022, 62–3), A.2 and B.1 may be closely connected: B.1 would belong to a cluster of consecutive glosses of the PS, all commenting on Aristophanic loci, that Phrynichus perhaps derives from the Antiatticist (Phryn. PS 38.7–1Phryn. PS 38.7–1 from Antiatt. α 123Antiatt. α 123; B.1 from A.2; Phryn. PS 39.5–6Phryn. PS 39.5–6 from Antiatt. α 102Antiatt. α 102) or, at least, from a common source (note that the relationship between these glosses, with the exception of B.1 and A.2, has already been suggested by Ruhnken, notes 29 and 37, edited in Valente 2015, 67). The relationship is plausible, but given that both items have undergone excerption, caution is advised (on the connections between the two lexica see entries Phrynichus Atticista, Σοφιστικὴ προπαρασκευή (Praeparatio sophistica) and Antiatticista, forthcoming; on A.2 and its interpretation, see further F.1). In Phrynichus’ Eclogue, the prescription of the non-simplified spelling of adjectives in ‑ικός is split into two different entries (A.1, B.2) and is exemplified by ἀρχαϊκός, Ἀλκαϊκός, and τροχαϊκός. This doctrine is repeated by Byzantine erudition: the Synagoge’s gloss (A.3) confirms that the norm was applied to all adjectives in ‑ικός (πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα). The recommendation is later reported by Eustathius (B.3, who ascribes such use to ‘ancient rhetors’, an expression with which he labels the above-mentioned lexical sources – and possibly others: see F.3) and by Thomas Magister (B.4), whose entry rests on B.2 (on the integration of materials from Phrynichus’ Eclogue into Thomas’ lexicon, see Fischer 1974, 49 and the entry Thomas Magister, ’Ονομάτων Ἀττικῶν ἐκλογή).

Together with spelling and word formation, the Atticist interest in ἀρχαϊκός may have been further piqued by semanticSemantics issues. Atticist scholars noticed that, in its earliest occurrences, ἀρχαϊκός, had a derisory sense (‘old-fashioned’, as in C.1): a marked connotation that they perceived as notable compared to the neutral meaning (‘ancient’) that ἀρχαϊκός had acquired through semantic overlap with ἀρχαῖoς (note, however, that the same derisory sense is also attested for ἀρχαῖoς in Aristophanes, see LSJ s.v.). The interest in the abusiveAbuse (terms of) connotations of ἀρχαϊκός in the context of Aristophanes’ text is evident in both Phrynichus (B.1) and later scholarship (B.5, B.6; on the possible reasons that ἀρχαϊκός may have intrigued Atticist lexicographers on semantic grounds, see further Fiori 2022, 61–2).

Phrynichus’ orthoepic doctrine does not appear to be supported by the usus scribendi of classical authors, nor does it have any significant following on the part of later Atticising writers. The spelling with -ιι- is attested only in the manuscript tradition of Aristophanes’ Clouds (C.1, see below). Although the simplified spelling in ancient grammatical sources may be the result of a later spelling convention, ἀρχαϊκός – with a single ι – is apparently the norm in Aristonicus, Apollonius Dyscolus, and Aelius Dionysius. The same applies to later scholarship: Suda (α 4070, π 1528, π 2046) and Eustathius, with the exception of B.3 (see e.g. in Il. 1.224.24), invariably use ἀρχαϊκός, and Photius himself, although certainly aware of Phrynichus’ doctrine (A.3), systematically uses the simplified spelling with a single ι elsewhere (in both his lexicon, see ε 2437, and his Epistles). Aside from the above mentioned case of Ἀχαιϊκός, in which the Homeric tradition is instrumental, the only forms for which the spelling with ‑ιι- is relatively widespread are compound adjectives in ‑ποιϊκός (see Fiori 2022, 66). For ἀλκαϊκός and τροχαϊκός, the spelling with -ιι- is not extant outside the above-mentioned lexical sources.

The textual tradition of Aristophanes’ passage should also be considered. ἀρχαιϊκά is transmitted only by codd. Rav. 429 and Ambr. C 222, whereas all other witnesses have the simplified spelling ἀρχαϊκά. The preservation of the older spelling ἀρχαιϊκά suggests that the two manuscripts were produced within an Atticising milieu by scholars who were likely acquainted with the lexicographical tradition concerning this passage. Aside from Atticist scholarship, Aristophanes’ indirect tradition adopts the simplified spelling, which is used in both the scholia commenting on the passage and the paroemiographical sources (B.5). Note also that the scholia focus on the adjective's negative connotation, ‘dumb’, while overlooking its spelling: see, e.g., schol. Ar. Nu. 821 (μωρά, schol. rec. Ar. Nu. 821: ἀσύνετα). All editors follow the Atticist prescription and print ἀρχαιϊκά, but there is no certainty of the original spelling, as Dover (1968, 200) notes, and both are metrically equivalent. The same may be said of Antiphanes’ fragment (C.2), for which Ath. 4.143a has the simplified spelling, while ἀρχαιϊκός is the result of a correction by Kock (based on A.1). Difficulties in understanding the treatment of -αιικ-/-αϊκ- are increased by the oscillations of the manuscript tradition. Remarkably, cod. Par. Coisl. 345Par. Coisl. 345 itself has the simplified spelling -αϊκ- in both A.2 and B.1, corrected into -αιικ- by editors. Although it is not possible to definitively conclude what the original spelling of the adjective in Clouds (C.1) was, Phrynichus’ interest may, in itself, offer a clue in favour of ἀρχαιϊκά. As we have seen, the Atticists’ interest in adjectives in ‑ικός was likely aroused by Aristophanes’ passage, and Phrynichus could easily assume that the non-simplified spelling was the correct Attic form because he had noted it as a rare feature in Aristophanes. Nor is it unlikely that B.1 (and perhaps A.1) is what remains of his commentary on the Aristophanic locus (C.1).

A.1 also arouses interest with respect to the Eclogue’s afterlife. Whereas Phrynichus’ PS is frequently recognisable as a source of both the Synagoge and its expansions (see Cunningham 2003, 46; 53), it is assumed that analogies between the Synagoge and the Eclogue do not depend on the incorporation of the latter’s materials into the former but rather on the derivation of their glosses from a common source (Fischer 1974, 48). The Synagoge’s gloss (A.3) is remarkable in that it exhibits a clear correspondence with Phrynichus’ Eclogue (A.1). Contrary to common belief, according to which the Eclogue would be virtually lost in Byzantium until its retrieval on the part of Thomas Magister in the 14th century, it is not implausible that one of the compilers of the Synagoge’s expansions may have had access to it, either directly or through an intermediary source. Along with the content – given that A.1, among the ancient Atticist doctrines on ἀρχαιϊκός, is the only one that confronts its spelling – the derivation of A.3 from A.1 is also suggested by the lemmatisation (ἀρχαιϊκόν in both entries, against ἀρχαϊκῶς of A.2 and ἀρχαιϊκὰ φρονεῖν of B.1) and the similar phrasing (A.1: λέγε ἐν δυοῖν ι, A.3: διὰ τῶν δύο ιι); in A.3 πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα might thus constitute more general information replacing the examples Ἀλκαϊκός and τροχαϊκός (A.1). The absence of the Aristophanic quotation in A.1 is not conclusive, since it might easily have been supplemented by A.3 (from B.1 or elsewhere) or have fallen in A.1 owing to epitomisation; although it is generally assumed that the Eclogue is not abridged, it is not implausible that it underwent epitomisationEpitome (Tribulato 2022, 929). A.3 is not the only clue to the circulation of materials from the Eclogue in Middle Byzantine scholarship: at least one other gloss (Phryn. Ecl. 56Phryn. Ecl. 56, on the correct meaning of ἀφῆλιξ, ‘elderly person’) may have been incorporated into the Synagoge’s tradition (Σ 1154 [= Σ^b α 2529, ex Σ´, on ἀφήλικα]; see entry ἀφῆλιξ, ἀφηλικέστερος). Furthermore, according to Tribulato (2022, 929–31) the reference to Phrynichus in Phot. α 1552 (on ἀναλφάβητος, ‘illiterate’: the gloss is also edited as Phryn. PS fr. *19Phryn. PS fr. *19) may point toward the Eclogue rather than the PS and might thus suggest that Photius had some access to Phrynichus’ Eclogue. During the 9th century, the Eclogue was known and used by John of SardisJohn of Sardis: in his commentary on Aphthonius’ Progymnasmata (180.19–181.4), he mentions Phrynichus’ doctrine on σύγκρισις (‘comparison’, one of the exercises envisaged by the ancient rhetorical training). Alpers (2009, 147) argues for John’s direct use of Phryn. Ecl. 243Phryn. Ecl. 243, describing the existence of an intermediate source as unprovable and implausible (see entry σύγκρισις). Alternatively, A.3 may derive from a source common to A.1 or even from a more complete recension of A.2 or B.1, in a form that still preserved information on spelling. Nevertheless, this latter hypothesis appears to be a less economic inference.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Both the adjectives ἀρχαϊκός and ἀρχαῖος are regularly attested throughout the Byzantine age and across different registers, albeit in imbalanced proportions: while ἀρχαϊκός occurs approximately 160 times, forms of ἀρχαῖος are indeed attested almost a hundredfold. ἀρχαϊκός is regularly used in both Byzantine Hochsprache and by authors writing in the middle register: it is employed, for instance, by Photius (ε 2437, plus four other occurrences), Eustathius (in Il. 1.106.4, plus more than twenty other occurrences), and Nicetas Choniates (Or. 3.18.11), but it is used also by Theodorus Prodromus (Rhodanthe et Dosicles 5.187). The form ἀρχαῖος is likewise attested across all registers, including high-register Atticising authors such as Anna Comnene (1.16.6.3, plus six other occurrences), Michael Choniates (Or. 1.1.17.9, plus more than thirty other occurrences), and Nicetas Choniates (counting roughly as many occurrences of ἀρχαῖος as his brother). Nevertheless, ἀρχαῖος occurs frequently in Medieval Greek (see Kriaras, LME s.v.) and is habitually employed in works written in a lower register, such as chronicles; see, for instance, the anonymous Chronicon Paschale (9.7 Dindorf, plus roughly twenty other occurrences). Both forms survive in Modern Greek (see LKN s.v.): while αρχαίος, which occurs more commonly, generally means ‘ancient’, αρχαικός has the more technical meaning of ‘archaic’ (of ages, artefacts, etc.).

ἀρχαϊκός is never spelled with the double ι in Byzantine literature, with the spelling -αιικός restricted to ethnicalEthnics adjectives: Ἀχαιϊκός (‘Achaean’), ‘Εβραιϊκός (‘Hebrew’), and Μακκαβαιϊκός (‘Maccabean’); note, however, that these also admit the spelling with a single ι. Nor does the non-simplified spelling appear to be typical of the Hochsprache: the ethnic ῥωμαικός (‘Roman’, and then ‘Byzantine’) spelled ῥωμαίϊκος (with retraction of the accent) is attested for the first time in the Chronicle of the Morea (14th century), known for its closeness to spoken Greek (see Chron.Mor. 4130). The only exception to the restriction of the spelling with ιι to ethnic adjectives is found in an extremely late text, the History of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem by Dositheus II of Jerusalem (published in 1715: see 7.131.14 Deledemos), in which Christ’s throne is qualified with the adjective κορυφαιϊκός (‘supreme’, a hapax from κορυφαῖος, ‘supreme’).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Antiatt. α 131 (A.2)

The Antiatticist’s lemma (A.2) has been ascribed to the same doctrine on spelling exposed by Phrynichus’ Eclogue (B.1, A.3) since Sicking (1883, 45), who suggested that ἀρχαϊκῶς (of cod. Par. Coisl. 345) should be corrected to ἀρχαιϊκῶς. It is possible, of course, that ἀρχαιϊκῶς was the original reading and that the simplified spelling is attributable to the usus of the scribe copying cod. Par. Coisl. 345 (see Fiori 2022, 64), even more so if ‑αιικ- was the original spelling in Clouds. Nevertheless, another interpretation of this lemma seems reasonable. The fact that the Antiatticist contrasts ἀρχαιϊκῶς/ἀρχαϊκῶς with ἀρχαίως may indeed suggest a morphological rather than phonological interest. The entry may remark on – and perhaps justify with Aristophanes' authoritative voice – the use of adverbial formsAdverbs derived from adjectives in ‑ικός. A direct parallel may be offered by Antiatt. ε 78Antiatt. ε 78, in which the lexicon contrasts ἐμπειρικῶςἐμπειρικῶς and ἐμπείρως (ἐμπειρικῶς· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐμπείρως. Ἄλεξις Οἴνῳ, ‘[You can say] ἐμπειρικῶς instead of ἐμπείρως (‘empirically’, ‘by experience’). Alexis (fr. 243) in Wine’). In this case, the interest is considerably more likely to remark on the comic use of ἐμπειρικῶς (which is later and more typical of scientific and philosophical prose) in place of the already classical ἐμπείρως. The Antiatticist proves to be interested in adjectives in ‑ικός, which it discusses in several entries: see Antiatt. α 63Antiatt. α 63: ἀριστητικός (‘fond of his breakfast’); γ 19Antiatt. γ 19, γ 38Antiatt. γ 38: γραμματικός (‘teacher’, ‘grammarian’); δ 47Antiatt. δ 47: διδασκαλικός (‘instructive’); ι 3Antiatt. ι 3: Ἰταλικός (‘Italian’); ι 8Antiatt. ι 8, ι 9Antiatt. ι 9: ἰσχυρικός (‘stubborn’); ν 4Antiatt. ν 4: νομικός (‘acquainted with laws’); π 16Antiatt. π 16, π 17Antiatt. π 17: παιδικός (‘childish’), παιδικά (‘favourite’), on which see entry παιδικός; π 29Antiatt. π 29: πλωτικός (subst. ‘seafaring’); ω 3Antiatt. ω 3: ᾠδικός (‘good at singing’); see also ε 131Antiatt. ε 131: ἐπιβατικά (‘additional wares’); β 42Antiatt. β 42: βουλευτικά (‘place for the council’). Note that Antiatt. γ 31Antiatt. γ 31: Γραικός (‘Greek’) is a separate case, since Γραικός is not formed with the suffix ‑ικός, (on this ethnic see Calce 2011, 7–9). The adjectives in question form a varied group in terms of chronology and frequency of attestation: some stand a good chance of being noted for their uncommonness (see, e.g., the comic hapaxHapax ἀριστητικός). Various motivations drive the discussion of these forms: the concern – at least, as far as we can tell from the epitomised text – is often for the form’s semantics (α 63, π 29, ω 3) and/or for the identification of a locus classicus that illustrates it (δ 47, ι 3); sometimes, the substantivised use is remarked on (at least β 42; γ 19, 38; ε 131; π 17). The Antiatticist is not isolated in showing an interest in adjectives in ‑ικός, since these formations often attract the attention of Atticist lexicographers: multiple entries in Phrynichus’ PS address adjectives in ‑ικός (see e.g. Phryn. PS 125.11Phryn. PS 125.11, on χαριστικός, ‘generous’), and Phrynichus recommends παλαιστικός, ‘expert in wrestling’, as an ancient and thus valuable form (Phryn. Ecl. 212Phryn. Ecl. 212; see entry παλαιστρικός, παλαιστικός). See AGP vol. 1, Chapter 5, Section Β.5.1, for further examples.

(2)    Phryn. PS 38.9–11 (B.1)

Among the numerous entries in the PS that contain abusiveAbuse (terms of) expressions, this gloss belongs to the large group of items that refer to old age in particular (cf. Pellettieri forthcoming, for examples; see also Kaibel 1899, 9–11). Phrynichus registers the parodic use of the names of Kronos and the mythical king of Athens Codrus to indicate people with old-fashioned ideas and manners. This use may be traced back to another passage in Clouds (398)    in which Socrates insults Strepsiades, calling him Κρονίων (‘son of Cronus’); Aristophanes also uses it in V. 1480. The abusive use of both appellatives, analogous to that of ἀρχαϊκός (‘stupid’), is noted by the Antiatticist, κ 66Antiatt. κ 66: Kρόνος· μωρός. Ὑπερείδης (‘Cronus: Stupid. Hyperides [fr. 252 Jensen]’; note that the entry results from the editors’ corrections, while cod. Par. Coisl. 345 has κόρνος· Ὑπερείδης). Several later sources remark on this use: in addition to Byzantine scholia to Aristophanic passages (e.g. schol. [Tz.] Ar. Nub. 929a, 929c), see also Hsch. κ 3208, Phot. κ 854, Su. κ 2470, and Eust. in Od. 1.20.16.

(3)    Eust. in Il. 3.483.19–21 (B.3)

As van der Valk (1971–1987 vol. 3, 483) notes, it is not easy to trace Eustathius’ information back to an extant source, but he probably applies the term παλαιοὶ ῥήτορες to the ancient grammarians and lexicographers discussing adjectives in ‑ικός. Aside from Ἀχαιϊκός, the adjectives he uses to exemplify this doctrine are, in any case, quite unusual. δικαϊκόςδικαϊκός, from δίκαιος (‘just’), of which it appears to be a synonym, is only extant in Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, in which it occurs twice (5.34, 9.22: τρέχε ἐπὶ τὸ σεαυτοῦ ἡγεμονικόν […] ἵνα νοῦν δικαϊκὸν αὐτὸ ποιήσῃς, [‘Commit to your reason, to make your mind just’], the latter is quoted in Su. δ 1057). γενναϊκόςγενναϊκός, instead, has no occurrences in any other extant erudite or literary source, neither with the simplified nor with the non-simplified spelling. The derivative in ‑ικός of γενναῖος (‘noble’) is indeed γεννικόςγεννικός; this adjective, which overlaps semantically with γενναῖος, was in use from the 5th century BCE (its first occurrence is attested in Ar. Eq. 457) and is used by Eustathius himself (e.g. in Il. 2.69.5).

(4)    Ar. Nu. 820–1 (C.1)

Buck, Petersen (1945, 636) argued that the use of the suffix ‑ικός spreads out from the 5th–4th century BCE onwards and that it is notably productive for abstract concepts, as a distinctive characteristic of an Athens dominated by sophisticSophists culture. ἀρχαϊκός occurs for the first time in Ar. Nu. 821 in a line of dialogue uttered by Strepsiades, who is, in fact, speaking as though he were a sophist: Starkie (1911, 187) describes the use of adjectives in ‑ικός, marked and rarer than their regular forms, as a parodicParody trait that reveals Strepsiades to have absorbed Socrates’ mannerisms (see Willi 2003, 139–45). Aristophanes' disparaging use of ἀρχαϊκός also relates to the sophistic perspective and to the contempt and disregard that sophists, embodied by Socrates and the Wrong Discourse, are thought to hold for traditional culture. When accusing Pheidippides of uttering inanities by calling his ideas ‘old-fashioned’, Strepsiades is, in fact, adopting the sophistic perspective that he wishes his son to acquire. Both ἀρχαικός and ἀρχαῖος are constantly used in this sense in the play. When father and son end up arguing again about Zeus’ existence towards the play's conclusion, in a scene that ironically reproduces their first quarrel, Pheidippides – who has now acquired the sophists’ perspective and manners – reproaches his father as ἀρχαῖος: see Nu. 1469–70: ἰδού γε Δία πατρῷον· ὡς ἀρχαῖος εἶ. | Ζεὺς γάρ τις ἔστιν; ‘Here we go again with Zeus father: you are so old-fashioned! Who is indeed [this] Zeus?’. Strepsiades makes the same accusation against lyre-playing in Ar. Nu. 1357.