ξύν, σύν
(Moer. ξ 2, Moer. ξ 3, Moer. ξ 4)

D. General commentary

In these lemmas, Moeris contrasts various forms in ξυν- and συν-, identifying the former as the Attic form of the prefix (and hence to be used by Atticising speakers) and the latter as the common koine form (which is in fact attested in both high- and low-level koine Greek). In fact, ξύν is already attested in Mycenaean Greek (cf. the forms ku-su = ξύν and ku-su-pa = ξύμπας, on which, see Bartoněk 2003, 236, 345, 348, 448) and is thus likely to be inherited. It also occurs in early epic (cf. B.3 and B.6, which describe ξύν as an Ionic feature), where it is gradually replaced by σύν (see Wathelet 1977, 160–4; Janko 1982, 236). Dunkel (1982, 236) expresses the different, unconvincing view that σύν is inherited, while ξύν is a Greek innovation depending on a contamination of kon- (> κοινός) and σύν. ξύν is widespread in 5th-century Attic literature as well as in other Attic documents; as Threatte (1980, 553–4) notes, ‘Public documents earlier than the last quarter of the fifth century have normally ξύν’, although ‘[t]he normal spelling is σύν by the end of the fifth century’, the only apparent exception being ξυμβάλλεσθαι in the formula γνώμην δὲ ξυμβάλλεσθαι (cf. Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,1, 184; López Eire 1997, 95; Colvin 1999, 209–10; Willi 2003, 237–8; Horrocks 2010, 75). From the 1st century CE onwards, however, ξυν- is back in fashion, particularly (but not exclusively) among Atticists and ‘Thucydidean’ historians (it is frequently used in, e.g., Arrian, Flavius Philostratus, Themistius, Julian, Theodoretus, Agathias, Procopius, etc.). However, there appears to be no exact rule determining the distribution of συν- and ξυν-, and Atticist authors, such as Dio, Aristides and Lucian, typically avoid ξυν- (see Schmid, Atticismus vol. 3, 16; vol. 4, 13–4, 630; note that ξύν does not occur in the tradition of Libanius, at least according to Foerster’s text and apparatus; even the relatively few forms in ξυν- are not always univocally attested in Libanius’ MSS). Forms in ξυν- could also serve as a tool for the compositio verborum – that is, the exercise of combining words in the sentence: on this point, see e.g. B.1.

Moeris, therefore, prescribes a phonological form which was peculiar to epic poetry and ‘ancient’ Attic (absent in the so-called Great Attic; cf. B.2 and B.4), and labels σύμμαχοι and σύμφωνος as ‘Greek and common’, i.e., of a lesser value (according to Maidhof 1912, 327). In Moer. ξ 3 (A.2), however, συνωρίς is simply ascribed to the Ἕλληνες. The difference between this entry and those of A.1 and A.3, in which the formula Ἕλληνες καὶ κοινῶς is used for the forms in συν-, is not immediately clear: it may be due to text transmission and/or epitomisation, but one must consider the possibility that the difference is an original one (cf. entry ἀμείνω, ἥττω). In this regard, it is necessary to examine the distribution of συνωρίς/ξυνωρίς, given that σύμμαχοι and σύμφωνος are extremely common in various registers of the Greek language and thus escape further analysis.

ξυνωρίς (meaning a ‘pair of horses’, with or without chariot or carriage, but also ‘a pair’, ‘a couple’ of anything, a metaphor often found in literature, cf. LSJ s.v. συνωρίς) is the standard Attic form in the 5th century BCE (see, for all, C.1). It is later replaced by συνωρίς, already attested in Attic texts (3x in Plato) and later in high-register koine authors as well as in documentary papyriPapyri, largely accounts: a total of five occurrences includes three secure attestations of συν- (P.Petrie 2.25c.7 (= TM 7497) [Ptolemais Hormou, 3rd century BCE]; P.Petrie 2.25e.10 (= TM 7499) [Ptolemais Hormou, 3rd century BCE]; P.Oxy. 43.3116.12 (= TM 15994) [3rd century CE]). Nevertheless, ξυνωρίς re-emerges in the language of high-register authors from the imperial age onwards – this is the form almost exclusively used by, e.g., Heliodorus, Themistius, Julian, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Isidore of Pelusium, Sophronius (yet Libanius has συνωρίς; both forms are found in Himerius). These data support the conclusion that ξυνωρίς was regarded as a prestigious form in light of its Attic allure as well as its literary occurrences. συνωρίς, meanwhile, was appropriate to both literature (in the fashion of Great Attic and high-register koine authors) and documentary writing (as a terminus technicusTechnical language that was less commonly used in everyday speech: see also its cognate συνωριστής ‘driver of a/driven in a συνωρίς’, which is attested only in documentary papyri). If this analysis is correct, the differential treatment of σύμμαχοι and σύμφωνος vs. συνωρίς is unlikely due to Moeris’ carelessness or to the textual transmission but rather would reflect the different standing of συνωρίς relative to σύμμαχοι and σύμφωνος, which were perceived as widespread at all levels of written and spoken language.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In Byzantine Greek, ξυν- is well attested and often serves as a marker of grand styleStyle. This is also the case with ξυνωρίς, which, thanks to its literary pedigree, was likely considered to be prestigious: it is used several times in solemn phrases and expressions, often with a metaphoricalMetaphors meaning (‘couple’, viz. of human or divine beings etc.): see, e.g., Io.D. Nativ.M. 12: ὦ ἱερὰ ξυνωρὶς Ἰωακεὶμ καὶ Ἄννα ‘Oh holy couple, Joachim and Anne’; Phot. Ep. 285.204: Εὐτυχῆ καὶ Διόσκορον, τὴν ἀλληλοπρόξενον τοῦ σκότους ξυνωρίδα ‘Eutyches and Dioscorus, the couple of men who get each other to be in the darkness [of sin]’; Michael Monachus Encomium in archangelos Michaelem et Gabrielem 11: ὦ ξυνωρὶς θεοπρόβλητος Μιχαήλ τε καὶ Γαβριήλ ‘Oh Michael and Gabriel, couple sent from God’; Nicephorus Basilaces Or. B 5 91.16–9 Garzya): χάρις δὲ καὶ Μωυσῇ […] καὶ Ἰησοῦ […]. ἂν τοῦτο τὸ ζεῦγος, ἂν ταύτην τὴν ξυνωρίδα ἐπὶ μακρὸν τηροίη θεός, ταχὺ καὶ γῆν τὴν ἐπηγγελμένην ληψόμεθα ‘Thanks to Moses [..] and to Jesus. If God watches over this yoke, this couple, soon we will reach the Promised Land’.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A