κάκη, κακία
(Moer. κ 29, Philemo [Vindob.] 395.9)

D. General commentary

Moeris (A.1) and Philemon (A.2) deal with κάκη, a rare abstract noun whose formation is possibly modelled on the feminine nouns πάθη ‘passive state, suffering’ and βλάβη ‘damage’ (see Frisk 1945, 221; EDG s.v. κακός; cf. Dieu 2016, 109; for further information on abstract nouns with the suffix -ᾱ/-η, see the entry ἄνθη, αὔξη, βλάστη). The meaning of κάκη varies significantly, as is also shown by the different interpretamenta found in the scholia (ἀτυχία ‘misfortune’, κάκωσις ‘ill-treatment’ [?], δειλία ‘cowardice’, εὐτέλεια ‘meanness’, etc.). Moeris prescribes κάκη and condemns the synonymSynonyms κακία as ‘Greek’ (see below for an interpretation of this term in context). A major problem with this and other lexicographical entries is the fact that κακία, used as the interpretamentum of κάκη, is in itself ambiguous, as it can mean ‘badness’, ‘baseness’, ‘cowardice’, ‘wickedness’ etc.: see e.g. LSJ s.v. The meaning ‘cowardice’ for κακία is almost certainly to be intended in B.4, B.5, and B.6, although in B.3 and B.7 κακία and δειλία ‘cowardice’ are opposed. Therefore, in the above translations κακία is not always rendered in the same way.

The aim of Philemon’s epitomised entry (A.2) is more difficult to grasp, although it must originally have been prescriptive (on Philemon’s Περὶ Ἀττικῆς ἀντιλογίας τῆς ἐν ταῖς λέξεσιν, see e.g. Ucciardello 2007 and the entry Philemon, Περὶ Ἀττικῆς ἀντιλογίας τῆς ἐν ταῖς λέξεσιν). Be that as it may, neither Moeris nor Philemon seems to be concerned with the issue of the accent of κάκη, which is treated in several ancient grammatical sources: suffice it to say here that bisyllabic nouns with a final syllable -κη and beginning with one or more consonants were said to be paroxytone, with a few exceptions, as stated e.g. by [Arcad.] 248.13–7, based on Herodianic material (I thank the anonymous referee for bringing this to my attention). In the case of κάκη, a discussion of its accent was probably also encouraged by the fact that it is a homographHomography of κακή, fem. nom. sing. of κακός (‘bad, ugly, evil’): indeed, ancient manuscripts had no diacritics, so that a sequence ΚΑΚΗ could be read as both κάκη and κακή (see e.g. Phlp. Dif.Accent.A κ 2). In this regard, note that the lemma in B.3 reads κακή in the cod. and that Euripides’ quotation in the interpretamentum has κακῆς instead of κάκης, the latter being unanimously attested in Euripides’ MSS: Isaac Voss’ emendations to B.3 seem obvious, yet it cannot be excluded with certainty that an issue regarding the accentuation of κάκη is implied here, as the anonymous referee has cautiously suggested (however, the lemma κακή printed in Cunningham’s edition is certainly a misprint: as the apparatus ad loc. clearly shows, the editor’s choice was meant to be κάκη).

Moeris’ and Philemon’s entries must be discussed in connection with other sources, especially Timaeus the Sophist (B.1), who dealt with κάκη in accordance with the main purpose of his lexicon, namely to explain obscure expressions in Plato’s writing (see Valente 2012, 58–9). It is conceivable that Moeris, Philemon, and Timaeus have a common source. Moeris and Philemon are closely related and sometimes depend on the same source, though independently of one another (see the discussion in Hansen 1998, 40–2): in the present case, they could go back to Aelius DionysiusAelius Dionysius. We have some clues in this direction, since Eustathius (B.7), who is himself concerned with the meaning of κάκη, may also be relying on Aelius Dionysius, who is one of his main sources. Furthermore, as Valente (2012, 71) states, the agreement between Moeris and Timaeus points to Diogenianus’ epitome of Pamphilus’ lexicon (see also Hansen 1998, 47–51), and this is all the more attractive in that Hesychius’ entry on κάκη (B.3) probably depends on DiogenianusDiogenianus (one of Hesychius’ main sources). It is therefore likely that Moeris, Philemon, and Timaeus draw on Diogenianus, perhaps via Aelius Dionysius (for Diogenianus as a source of Aelius Dionysius, see Erbse 1950, 36).

We might think that our lost source illustrated the ambiguity of κάκη, with reference to literary sources such as Plato – particularly the problematic C.3, quoted in B.4, B.5, and B.6 (cf. F.1) – and perhaps Euripides (C.1), who is mentioned in B.3. Indeed, κάκη is rare, although it is attested 13 times in Plato (three of these occurrences are dubious: see C.3, F.1, and below), where it can have various contextual meanings, such as ‘cowardice’ (see e.g. C.3 and Pl. Phdr. 273c.2), ‘depravity’ (Lg. 737b.8), ‘wickedness’ (Lg. 880e.3), ‘knavery’ (Lg. 916d.6), and ‘baseness’ (Lg. 921a.2).

κάκη occurs elsewhere in Attic authors: see Aesch. Sept. 192, 616 (probably also 315); Eur. Med. 1055 (C.1), Hipp. 1335, Andr. 967, IT 676 (C.2), fr. 297.1; Ar. Av. 541. As for later attestations, note that it is doubtful in Herod. 3.42 (see Cunningham 1971, 113), Orac.Sib. 5.69, and [Luc.] Ocyp. 166 (on which see Magnelli 2020, 124, who states that κάκη here means ‘disgrace’ or the like). Significantly, it occurs five times in the Atticising Aelian, who is cited as a literary authority for the use of κάκη in Su. κ 146 (see also Lex.Vind. κ 30; Schmid, Atticismus vol. 3, 204). Although Stevens (1971, 207) ad Eur. Andr. 967 thinks that κάκη is simply more convenient than κακία for metrical reasons, Dunbar (1995, 370) notes that κάκη, occurring only once in comedy, must have ‘sounded more dignified than κακία’, the latter being found in oratory, history, and philosophy, but only once in tragedy (Soph. OT 511, lyr.).

As noted above, there is the possibility that A.1, A.2, and other sources depend on previous scholarship dealing with the contextual meaning of κάκη. In accordance with his prescriptive aims, Moeris may have reshaped earlier descriptive formulations to establish an opposition based on his habitual schema of pitting Attic speakers against Greek speakers. Be that as it may, the evaluative term ἝλληνεςἝλληνες here probably qualifies κακία as an ‘unmarked’ form, given that κακία is very well attested at all stages of Greek, and also frequently occurs in canonical Attic authors (for Ἕλληνες denoting unmarked usages in Moeris’ lexicon, see the entries αὐτοσχεδιάζειν, ἥκειν, λαμβάνειν and Moeris, Ἀττικιστής). As regards Philemon’s entry, it offers a synonym for the term κάκη, viz. κάκωσις, which in itself is ambiguous, since it can have either an active or a passive meaning (‘ill-treatment’, ‘suffering’; cf. [Arcad.] 248.21 [= Hdn. Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,1.313.31]: κάκη ἡ κάκωσις and [Arcad.] 249.2 [= Hdn. Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,1.314.7]: κάκη <δὲ> ἡ δειλία). In the light of what has been said so far, we can perhaps assume that κάκωσις was intended as an interpretamentum of one of the occurrences mentioned in Philemon’s lost source. It cannot be excluded that Philemon wished to distinguish between ‘approved’ and ‘unapproved’ uses of the word κάκη, giving the equivalence κάκη = κάκωσις as a reliable one.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In Medieval Greek, κάκη, although rare, survives in learned literature, both poetry and prose. Apart from being a high-register alternative to κακία and other synonyms (and, moreover, endowed with a ‘Platonic’ allure: see D.) – it also served for metrical purposes, to judge from e.g. […] ἐξ ἀμαθίας κάκης (‘[…] of the badness deriving from ignorance’), the end of a dodecasyllable from the proem (line 6) to Georgius Pachymeres’ Σύνταγμα τῶν τεσσάρων μαθημάτων (13th–14th century): here κάκη appears after an abstract noun in -ία, probably because it is a paroxytone disyllable (and therefore necessary here at line-end), rather than because of its high calibre.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Pl. Lg. 944c.4–d.1 (C.3)

The text presents two alternative readings: μετὰ κάκης is found in Photius (B.5), while the MSS have μετὰ τάχους. According to England (1921 vol. 2, 576), μετὰ τάχους ‘forms a poor contrast’ with the following μετ’ ἀνδρείας: perhaps it is ‘a mistaken reading of a commentator’s μετ’ αἴσχους given as an explanation of μετὰ κάκης’. Schöpsdau (2011, 533) also opts for μετὰ κάκης: he refers to Lg. 944d.2 and 944e.4, where the adjective κακός is found (note, however, that Schöpsdau’s statement that the Armenian version of Plato’s Laws is another witness of the reading κάκης is misleading: see Conybeare 1924, 138). τάχους is defended as a lectio difficilior by Bury (1922, 174), who refers to Lg. 706b.6–c.7: ἔτι γὰρ ἂν πλεονάκις ἑπτὰ ἀπολέσαι παῖδας αὐτοῖς συνήνεγκεν, πρὶν ἀντὶ πεζῶν ὁπλιτῶν μονίμων ναυτικοὺς γενομένους ἐθισθῆναι, πυκνὰ ἀποπηδῶντας, δρομικῶς εἰς τὰς ναῦς ταχὺ πάλιν ἀποχωρεῖν, καὶ δοκεῖν μηδὲν αἰσχρὸν ποιεῖν μὴ τολμῶντας ἀποθνῄσκειν μένοντας ἐπιφερομένων πολεμίων, ἀλλ’ εἰκυίας αὐτοῖς γίγνεσθαι προφάσεις καὶ σφόδρα ἑτοίμας ὅπλα τε ἀπολλῦσιν καὶ φεύγουσι δή τινας οὐκ αἰσχράς, ὥς φασιν, φυγάς, ‘And indeed it would have profited them to lose seventy times seven children rather than to become marines instead of staunch foot-soldiers; for marines are habituated to jumping ashore frequently and running back at full speed to their ships, and they think no shame of not dying boldly at their posts when the enemy attack; and excuses are readily made for them, as a matter of course, when they fling away their arms and betake themselves to what they describe as ‘no dishonourable flight’’ (transl. Bury 1926a, 261). Nevertheless, κάκη = ‘cowardice’ occurs more than once in Plato’s Laws, as seen in D. above, and it cannot be easily dismissed. Be that as it may, the textual problem may be very old: it is conceivable that lost scholarship defending κάκη on the basis of the Platonic usus may have encouraged later lexicographical interest – but we cannot push this hypothesis any further.