Lexicographic entries

ἄνθη, αὔξη, βλάστη
(Phryn. PS 19.6–7, Poll. 1.230, Moer. α 7, Moer. α 23, [Hdn.] Philet. 295)

A. Main sources

(1) Phryn. PS 19.6–7: ἄνθη· ἡ ἄνθησις, ὡς βλάστη ἡ βλάστησις.

ἄνθη: [I.e.] ἄνθησις (‘blossom’), like βλάστη (‘sprouting’), [i.e.] βλάστησις.

(2) Poll. 1.230: ἐπὶ φυτῶν καὶ δένδρων καρποφόρων ἐρεῖς […] ἀνθεῖ, καρποφορεῖ, βλαστάνει, θάλλει. καὶ τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν ὀνόματα ἄνθη καὶ ἄνθησις καὶ βλάστησις καὶ βλάστη.

Codd. AFS omit τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν ὀνόματα | Codd. BC omit ἄνθη καὶ.

Referring to plants and fruit-bearing trees, you can say […] ἀνθεῖ (‘it blossoms’), καρποφορεῖ (‘it bears fruit’), βλαστάνει (‘it sprouts’), θάλλει (‘it blooms’). And the nouns [deriving] from them [are] ἄνθη and ἄνθησις, βλάστησις and βλάστη.

(3) Moer. α 7: ἄνθην Ἀττικοί· ἄνθησιν Ἕλληνες.

Users of Attic [employ] ἄνθην (acc. sing.). Users of Greek [employ] ἄνθησιν (acc. sing.).

(4) Moer. α 23: αὔξην Ἀττικοί· αὔξησιν Ἕλληνες.

Users of Attic [employ] αὔξην (‘growth’, ‘increase’; acc. sing.). Users of Greek [employ] αὔξησιν.

(5) [Hdn.] Philet. 295: προκοπὴν οὐ λέγουσιν, ἀλλ’ ἐπίδοσιν καὶ αὔξησιν.

They (i.e. users of Attic) do not say προκοπή (‘increase’), but ἐπίδοσις and αὔξησις.

B. Other erudite sources

(1) Theognost. Can. 116.4–7 (= Hdn. Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,1.338.1–3): εἰς ξη θηλυκὰ οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν, εἰ μὴ μόνον τὸ αὐξή, καὶ αὐτὸ ἀμφίβολον περὶ τόνον· οἱ μὲν γὰρ βαρυτονοῦσιν λέγοντες αὐτὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ αὔξησις ἀποκεκόφθαι· Ἡρωδιανὸς δὲ συνηγορεῖ τοῖς ὀξύνουσιν.

Cf. Hdn. Περὶ παθῶν fr. 125f GG 3,2.215.19–20.

It is not possible to find feminine nouns in -ξη, except for αὐξή – itself doubtful with regard to its accent: for some put no accent on its final syllable (i.e., consider it to be paroxytone), stating that it has been cut short from αὔξησις by apocope. Nonetheless, Herodian agrees with those who accent it with an acute on the final syllable (i.e., consider it to be oxytone).

(2) [Arcad.] 260.9 (= Hdn. Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,1.344.19): βλαστή. τοῦτό τινες βαρύνουσι.

βλαστή: Some put no accent on its final syllable (i.e., consider it to be paroxytone).

(3) [Hdn.] Περὶ τῶν ζητουμένων 249.1–7: ζητεῖται πότερόν ποτε ἡ αὐξῆ καλεῖται περισπωμένως ἢ βαρυτόνως· οἱ μὲν ἀξιοῦσι καλεῖν καὶ περισπᾶν αὐξῆ, ὡς αὐλῆ καὶ αὐδῆ· λέγομεν δὲ ὅτι οὐ δύναται· οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸ ῥῆμα ἔστιν αὐξῶ· λέγομεν οὖν, ὅτι τρία ταῦτα ὁμοίως λέγεται· αὔξη, καὶ βλάστη, καὶ ἄνθη· ἐπεὶ παρεσχημάτισται αὐτοῖς αὔξησις, βλάστησις, ἄνθησις· τὸν αὐτὸν οὖν ἕξει καὶ ταῦτα τόνον· οὐ περισπώμενα ἀλλ’ ἀναβιβαζόμενα· αὔξη· βλάστη· ἄνθη.

It is a matter of inquiry whether αὐξῆ is [pronounced] with a circumflex accent [on the final syllable] or without an accent on the final syllable (i.e. with an acute accent on the penultimate syllable). Some think that it should be αὐξῆ, with a circumflex accent, like αὐλῆ (‘court’) and αὐδῆ (‘sound’). But we say that it is impossible: for the verb is not αὐξῶ. So, we say that the following three nouns are similar: αὔξη, βλάστη, and ἄνθη. Since αὔξησις, βλάστησις, and ἄνθησις are formed similarly to them, they will have the same accent too: they have no circumflex accent on the final syllable, but they retract [the accent] (i.e. they have an acute accent on the penultimate syllable): αὔξη, βλάστη, ἄνθη.

(4) Hsch. α 8326: *αὔξην· αὔξησιν (v) gAS <καὶ> αὖξιν S.

αὔξην (acc. sing.): (I.e.) αὔξησιν <and> αὖξιν.

(5) Σ^b α 1400 (= Phot. α 1959, Su. α 2511, ex Σʹ): ἄνθης· τῆς ἀνθήσεως.

ἄνθης (gen. sing.): (I.e.) ἀνθήσεως.

(6) Σ^b α 2417 (= Phot. α 3187, ex Σʹʹʹ): αὔξην καὶ ἄνθην καὶ βλάστην· παροξυτονεῖν ἀξιοῦσι πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα.

After τοιαῦτα, the so-called Supplementum Zavordense (see Theodoridis 1982–2013 vol. 1, LXI–LXXI) adds ἔστι καὶ παρὰ τοῖς κωμικοῖς καὶ παρὰ Πλάτωνι. Ἐπίκουρος δὲ πλεονάζει ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο προσίσταται, ὥσπερ ἀττικίζων, ‘it is also found in the comic poets (com. adesp. fr. 492) and in Plato. Epicurus (fr. novum) has plenty of such forms and therefore he is added (to the list), as if he was a model of Attic’.

αὔξην, ἄνθην, and βλάστην: (Some) think that all similar forms should be paroxytone.

(7) Su. α 4451: αὔξη: αὔξησις. ‘μὴ ἐφιέναι αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ μεγάλα δυνάμεως αἰρομένοις, ἀλλὰ παντὶ σθένει τὴν αὔξην αὐτῶν κολούειν’.

αὔξη: αὔξησις. ‘Not to permit them to gain great power, but to prevent their growth with all the strength’ (Agath. 15.25–7 Keydell).

(8) Thom.Mag. 10.15–8: αὔξην καὶ ἄνθην Ἀττικοί, οὐκ αὔξησιν οὐδὲ ἄνθησιν. Ἀριστείδης ἐν τῷ Αἰγυπτίῳ· ‘ἀλλ’ ἐν αὔξῃ καὶ φθίσει ῥέων ὁμαλῶς’. ἐπὶ δὲ πληθυντικοῦ αὐξήσεις, ἀνθήσεις.

Users of Attic [employ] αὔξην and ἄνθην, not αὔξησιν and ἄνθησιν. Aristides in Egyptian oration (2.451.3 Dindorf = 36.35 Keil): ‘but evenly flowing both when increasing and when decreasing’. In the plural [they say] αὐξήσεις, ἀνθήσεις.

(9) Lex.Vind. α 8: ἄνθη λέγουσιν οἱ Ἀττικοὶ θηλυκῶς ὡς βλάστη. Συνέσιος· ‘τὸ δὲ δὴ παιδαρίοις ἐπιτρέπειν τὴν ἄνθην τῆς κόμης’.

θηλυκῶς is only in the so-called α redaction (see Sandri 2020, 272–8).

Users of Attic say ἄνθη, in the feminine, like βλάστη. Synesius (Calv. 6.5): ‘the fact that the blossom (τὴν ἄνθην) of the hair well befits youths’. (Transl. Fitzgerald 1920 vol. 2, 251).

(10) Schol. Pi. N. 9.16a: Ἀττικοὶ δὲ λέγουσι καύχην τὴν καύχησιν, καὶ ἄνθην τὴν ἄνθησιν, καὶ βλάστην τὴν βλάστησιν.

Users of Attic say καύχην (‘a boast’) instead of καύχησιν, ἄνθην instead of ἄνθησιν, and βλάστην instead of βλάστησιν.

(11) [Zonar.] 185.3: ἄνθη. ἡ ἄνθησις.

ἄνθη: (I.e.) ἄνθησις.

C. Loci classici, other relevant texts

(1) Pl. Phdr. 230b.4–5: καὶ ὡς ἀκμὴν ἔχει τῆς ἄνθης, ὡς ἂν εὐωδέστατον παρέχοι τὸν τόπον.

And now that it (a plane tree) is in full bloom it will make the place particularly fragrant. (Transl. Emlyn-Jones, Preddy 2022, 355).

(2) Pl. Cra. 414a.8–9: καὶ μὴν αὐτό γε τὸ θάλλειν τὴν αὔξην μοι δοκεῖ ἀπεικάζειν τὴν τῶν νέων, ὅτι ταχεῖα καὶ ἐξαιφνιδία γίγνεται.

And again, the word θάλλειν (‘to flourish’) seems to me to figure the rapid and sudden growth of the young. (Transl. Fowler 1926, 105).

(3) Soph. OT 717–8:
παιδὸς δὲ βλάστας οὐ διέσχον ἡμέραι
τρεῖς.

Not three days separated the birth of the child [from what followed]. (Transl. Finglass 2018, 394).

(4) Thuc. 1.69.4: ἡσυχάζετε γὰρ μόνοι Ἑλλήνων, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, […] καὶ μόνοι οὐκ ἀρχομένην τὴν αὔξησιν τῶν ἐχθρῶν, διπλασιουμένην δὲ καταλύοντες.

O Lacedaemonians, you alone among the Greeks pursue a passive policy, […] and you alone propose to destroy your enemies not at the beginning of their growth, but when this has doubled.

D. General commentary

Various entries in Atticist lexica are concerned with whether feminine nouns denoting a verbal action (nomina actionis) should end in -ᾱ/-η or in -σις in Attic (the scope of the present entry does not permit a complete explanation of the development of both suffixes: for an overview, see e.g. Chantraine 1933, 19–24, 275–89; Holt 1940). Phrynichus (A.1) and Moeris (A.3, A.4) prescribe nomina actionis like ἄνθη, αὔξη, and βλάστη as the correct Attic forms. Nevertheless, ἄνθησις and βλάστησις are found in Pollux (A.2), while αὔξησις ‘increase’ is prescribed in the Philetaerus (A.5) instead of προκοπή. Later sources (which depend in part on Atticist lexica) also consider derivatives in -ᾱ/-η to be Attic, see B.5, B.6, B.8, B.9, B.10. However, the relationship between the forms in -ᾱ/-η and those in -σις was debated in antiquity in reference to the type of accent in -ᾱ/-η derivatives. Inherited nomina actionis with the o-grade root vocalism are usually accented on the last syllable (e.g. κλοπή ‘theft’), while derivatives with other root vocalisms are sometimes recessive. According to Probert (2006, 297), who supersedes previous theories (see Chantraine 1933, 20–4; Bolelli 1949; Kuryłowicz 1958, 114–5), ‘the suffix -ᾱ-/-η- was inherently accented and […] the reason why many words that have lost their abstract meaning have recessive accentuation […] is that in these words the suffix has lost its synchronic identity and a default recessive accent may, but need not, result’ (a similar explanation is given by Dieu 2016, 106–11, 114–5, who also attempts to account for the accentuation of ἄνθη, αὔξη, and βλάστη).

From B.1 and B.2, we can conclude that Herodian considered -ᾱ/-η derivatives to be oxytone (for a tentative explanation of Herodian’s view, see Lobeck 1846, 269; however, B.3, a pseudo-Herodianic work holds a different view: see Dickey 2014, 333–4). B.1 also indicates that some grammarians must have considered αὔξη to be a noun derived from its corresponding form in -σις by way of apocope. This last explanation does not contradict Atticist prescriptions, since Attic and other dialects were often understood to have derived from a common language (see e.g. Maidhof 1912, 282–7; Siebenborn 1976, 146–91; Pagani 2015, 846; van Rooy 2020, 14, 31, and cf. entry Σωκράτη, Σωκράτην). In any case, Atticist prescriptions are best explained on the basis of occurrences of ἄνθη, αὔξη, βλάστη, and their corresponding forms in -σις. Indeed, ἄνθη occurs in Plato (C.1) but is extremely rare in later literature (see Nic. Th. 625 and Ael. NA 12.4). αὔξη is frequent in Plato (15x, see e.g. C.2 and note that αὔξη can sometimes mean ‘dimension’, as in Pl. R. 528b.1) but does not occur in any other canonical author, though it is well-attested in the Hippocratic corpus, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Plotinus, and Eusebius. βλάστη occurs in Sophocles (5x, see e.g. C.3), Plato (5x), and Xenophon (1x). It is also well-attested in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and in later medical and scientific literature. As for the occurrences of ἄνθη, αὔξη, and βλάστη in Atticising authors, see the above mentioned Ael. NA 12.4 and Schmid (Atticismus vol. 2, 89, vol. 3, 21, 101, 105, 187, vol. 4, 129, 641).

For what concerns the forms in -σις, it must be noted that the suffix *-ti- was extremely productive in Greek and played an important role in the development of technical languages (see e.g. Fraenkel 1906, 234; Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,3, 65–71; Chantraine 1933, 277–89): this fact may have influenced Phrynichus’ and Moeris’ judgment. Moreover, ἄνθησις and βλάστησις are not attested in any canonical Attic author. Conversely, αὔξησις is found in Thucydides (1x, see C.4), Plato (3x), and Xenophon (3x): this may be the reason why the Philetaerus (A.5) prescribes it, even if αὔξησις has hundreds of occurrences in later literature and technical treatises (one may recall e.g. of αὔξησις as a rhetorical term meaning ‘amplification’).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Nomina actionis in -α-/-η- are still found in Modern Greek, although they were challenged by forms in -σις, -σμος, -ία, -μα, etc., already in antiquity: see e.g. the synonyms ἁρπαγή (‘rapture’), ἁρπαγία, ἅρπαγμα, ἁρπαγμός (also attested in Modern Greek; the latter form is actually attested as ἁρπαμός, see ILNE s.v. ἁρπαγμός). For what concerns the forms prescribed by Atticist lexica, note that ἄνθη survives in Modern Greek, albeit it is limited to some northern dialects: according to ILNE, in Macedonian άνθ’ (< άνθη, with loss of final unstressed /i/, see e.g. Trudgill 2003, 53) can mean ‘blossom’ as well as ‘the whole of the flowers of a tree’. Meanwhile, αὔξη and βλάστη have been superseded by αὔξησις (> Modern Greek αύξηση) and βλάστησις (> Modern Greek βλάστηση).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A

Bibliography

Bolelli, T. (1949). ‘Rapporti fra intonazione e valore morfologico e semantico nei nomi d’agente e nei nomi d’azione in -ā e in -o- in greco’. SIFC 24, 91–116.

Chantraine, P. (1933). La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris.

Dickey, E. (2014). ‘A Catalogue of Works Attributed to the Grammarian Herodian’. CPh 109, 325–45.

Dieu, É. (2016). L’accentuation des noms en *-ā (*-eh₂) en grec ancien et dans les langues indo-européennes. Étude morphologique et sémantique. Innsbruck.

Emlyn-Jones, C.; Preddy, W. (2022). Plato. Vol. 3: Lysis. Symposium. Phaedrus. Edited and translated by Christopher Emlyn-Jones, William Preddy. Cambridge, MA.

Finglass, P. J. (2018). Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Cambridge.

Fitzgerald, A. (1930). The Essays of Synesius of Cyrene. 2 vols. Oxford, London.

Fowler, H. N. (1926). Plato. Vol. 4: Cratylus. Parmenides. Greater Hippias. Lesser Hippias. Translated by Harold North Fowler. Cambridge, MA.

Fraenkel, E. (1906). Griechische Denominativa in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung und Verbreitung. Göttingen.

Holt, J. (1940). Les noms d’action en -σις (-τις). Aarhus.

Kuryłowicz, J. (1958). L’accentuation des langues indo-européennes. 2nd edition. Warsaw, Cracow.

Lobeck, A. C. (1846). PHMATIKON. Sive verborum Graecorum et nominum verbalium technologia. Königsberg.

Maidhof, A. (1912). Zur Begriffsbestimmung der Koine besonders auf Grund des Attizisten Moiris. Würzburg.

Pagani, L. (2015). ‘Language Correctness (Hellenismos) and Its Criteria’. Montanari, F.; Matthaios, S.; Rengakos, A. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. 2 vols. Leiden, Boston, 798–849.

Probert, P. (2006). Ancient Greek Accentuation. Oxford.

Sandri, M. G. (2020). ‘Un nuovo estratto del Lexicon Vindobonense nel ms. Barocci 216’. Prometheus 46, 272–9.

Siebenborn, E. (1976). Die Lehre von der Sprachrichtigkeit und ihren Kriterien. Studien zur antiken normativen Grammatik. Amsterdam.

Theodoridis, C. (1982–2013). Photii Patriarchae Lexicon. 3 vols. Berlin, New York.

Trudgill, P. (2003). ‘Modern Greek Dialects. A Preliminary Classification’. Journal of Greek Linguistics 4, 45–63.

Van Rooy, R. (2020). Greece’s Labyrinth of Language. A Study in the Early Modern Discovery of Dialect Diversity. Berlin.

CITE THIS

Andrea Pellettieri, 'ἄνθη, αὔξη, βλάστη (Phryn. PS 19.6–7, Poll. 1.230, Moer. α 7, Moer. α 23, [Hdn.] Philet. 295)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2024/03/017

ABSTRACT

This article provides a philological and linguistic commentary on the nouns ἄνθη, αὔξη, and βλάστη, discussed in the Atticist lexica Phryn. PS 19.6–7, Poll. 1.230, Moer. α 7, Moer. α 23, [Hdn.] Philet. 295.