Lexicographic entries

ἀνέῳγεν, ἀνέῳκται
(Phryn. Ecl. 128, Orus fr. A 6a, Thom.Mag. 30.11–31.14)

A. Main sources

(1) Phryn. Ecl. 128: ἀνέῳγεν ἡ θύρα· σολοικισμός· χρὴ γὰρ λέγειν ἀνέῳκται.

ἀνέῳγεν ἡ θύρα (‘the door is open’, ind. perf. act. 3rd pers. sing.) is a solecism; for one should say ἀνέῳκται ἡ θύρα (ind. perf. m.-p. 3rd pers. sing.).

(2) Orus fr. A 6a (= [Zonar.] 213.4–214.8): ἀνέῳγε χρὴ λέγειν καὶ <***> ἀνέῳκται Φερεκράτης <***>· ‘οὐδεὶς <***> δ’ ἀνέῳγέ μοι θύραν’, καὶ ὁ Πλάτων· ‘ἀνεῴγετο γὰρ οὐ πρῴ’ καὶ ὁ Δημοσθένης· ‘ἀνέῳκται τὸ δεσμωτήριον’ καὶ <***> ἐν Θετταλ(῀)· ‘καὶ τὸ κεράμιον | ἀνέῳχας <***>’. τὸ δὲ ἤνοιγε καὶ ἠνοίγετο καὶ ἤνοικται δεινῶς βάρβαρα, οἷς νῦν χρῶνται ἐπιεικῶς ἅπαντες. τὸ δὲ ἀνέῳγε δύο σημαίνει, τὸ μὲν οἷον ἀνέῳκται, τὸ δ’ οἷον ἀνεῴγνυ.

Note that in [Zonar.] the entry begins with: ἀνέωγα μέσος παρακείμενος (‘ἀνέωγα [‘I am open’]: middle perfect). This statement is part of a pericope which has been suppressed by Alpers; for the complete text and the apparatus of this passage, see entry ἀνέῳγoν, ἤνοιγoν.

One should say ἀνέῳγε (ind. impf./perf. act. 3rd pers. sing.) and ἀνέῳκται (ind. perf. m.-p. 3rd pers. sing.). Pherecrates (fr. 91 = C.1): ‘Nobody opened (ἀνέῳγε) the door to me’ and Plato (Phd. 59d.5–6 = C.3): ‘It was not opened (ἀνεῴγετο) early’; and Demosthenes (24.208 = C.4): ‘the prison had been opened (ἀνέῳκται)’. And [Menander] in The Woman from Thessaly (fr. 170): ‘And you have opened (ἀνέῳχας) the jar: you smell very much of wine, you temple robber!’. But ἤνοιγε (ind. impf. act. 3rd pers. sing.), ἠνοίγετο (ind. impf. m.-p. 3rd pers. sing.), and ἤνοικται (ind. perf. m..p. 3rd pers. sing.), which almost everybody uses nowadays, [are] tremendously barbarous. ἀνέῳγε has two meanings: one [is] like ἀνέῳκται, the other like ἀνεῴγνυ (‘open!’ imperat. pres. 2nd pers. sing. of ἀνοίγνυμι).

(3) Thom.Mag. 30.11–31.14: ἐπὶ δὲ μέσου παρακειμένου τὸ ἀνέῳγεν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀνεῴχθη· ἀνοίγω γὰρ ἀνοίξω, ἀνέῳχα, ἀνέῳγα, ἀνέῳγας, ἀνέῳγε. Συνέσιος ἐν ἐπιστολῇ τῇ Ἀγαθὸν πεποιθέναι ἐπὶ κύριον· ‘τίνες οἰκίαι τοῖς λῃσταῖς ἀνεῴγασι’. Λουκιανὸς ἐν τῷ Μίκυλλος ἢ ἀλεκτρυών· ‘καὶ ἐνδιατρίβει ἀνεῳγόσι τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς’. καὶ ἐν τῷ Χάρωνος καὶ Ἑρμοῦ διαλόγῳ· ‘ὡς ἐπιπλάσαι τοῦ σκαφιδίου τὰ ἀνεῳγότα’· ὥστε ἁμαρτάνει Φρύνιχος διϊσχυριζόμενος εἶναι τὸ ἀνέῳγε καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἤνοιξεν, ὅπερ ἀδύνατον. ἀντὶ γὰρ τοῦ ἀνεῴχθη καὶ ἤνοιγεν, ὡς ἔφημεν, λαμβάνεται· ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν ἤνοιγε καὶ τὸ ἀνεῴχθη κοινά, τὸ δὲ ἀνέῳγεν Ἀττικόν. ὅτι δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀνέῳξε κάλλιστον, Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν Πλούτῳ· ‘εἶτ’ ἀνέῳξάς με φθάσας’. καὶ Λιβάνιος ἐν ἐπιστολῇ τῇ Σέβων ἐστὶ μὲν Κρής· ‘ἀνέῳξε γὰρ τοῖς ξένοις τὴν οἰκίαν’. καὶ Θουκυδίδης ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ· ‘καὶ ἀνέῳξαν τὰς πύλας Πλαταιέων ἄνδρες’. [σημείωσαι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο· τὸ ἀνέῳγεν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἠνεῴχθη ἅπαξ εὑρίσκεται.]

This entry as printed in Ritschl’s edition (and here reproduced) results from a process of expansion of the Eclogue (see entry ἀνέῳγoν, ἤνοιγoν, under F.3, with bibliography) | ἐν τῷ Παναθηναϊκῷ in marg. cod. L | ἀπὸ γὰρ–ἀνέῳγεν om. cod. F | ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀνεῴχθη Ritschl (following Oudendorp’s conjecture) : ἀντὶ τοῦ ἠνεῴχθη codd. GBCPFO : ἀντὶ τοῦ ἠνεόχθη cod. D | ἀνέῳγα om. cod. F | τῇ Ἀγαθὸν–κύριον om. cod. F : ἐν ἐπιστολῇ–κύριον in marg. cod. L | Λουκιανὸς–ἀνεῳγότα om. cod. F : Λουκιανὸς–διαλόγῳ in marg. cod. L, ὡς ἐπιπλάσαι–ἀνεῳγότα om. cod. L | Phrynichus entry (A.1) does not exhibit the aorist ἤνοιξεν: on the treatment of A.1 in Thomas’ Eclogue, see entry ἀνέῳγoν, ἤνοιγoν, under F.3 | τὸ ἀνέῳγε om. cod. G | ἀνεῴχθη κοινά cod. B : ἠνεῴχθη other codd. | cod. F om. ἀνέῳγεν before Ἀττικόν | ὅτι δὲ–Πλαταιέων ἄνδρες om. codd. FL.

In the middle perfect [one has] ἀνέῳγεν, meaning ἀνεῴχθη (‘it is open’); from ἀνοίγω [one has] indeed ἀνοίξω, ἀνέῳχα, ἀνέῳγα, ἀνέῳγας, ἀνέῳγε. Synesius in the epistle [beginning with] ‘It is good to have faith in the Lord’ (Epist. 4.15–6): ‘Which houses are open (ἀνεῴγασι) for wrongdoers’, and Lucian in Mycillus, or The Cock (Gall. 6 = C.10): ‘And it [i.e. the dream] lingers in open (ἀνεῳγόσι) eyes’ and in the Dialogue between Charon and Hermes (DMort. 14.1 = C.11): ‘To fill up the [holes which] have opened (τὰ ἀνεῳγότα) in the boat’. Therefore, Phrynichus (cf. apparatus) is wrong when he states that ἀνέῳγε can also mean ἤνοιξεν (ind. aor. act. ‘s/he opened’), which is impossible. ἤνοιγεν is also used to mean ἀνεῴχθη, as we said. ἤνοιγε and ἀνεῴχθη are indeed common, while ἀνέῳγεν is Attic. That ἀνέῳξε is better [is proved by] Aristophanes in Wealth (1102): ‘Then you opened [the door], anticipating me’, and Libanius in the epistle [beginning with] ‘Sebon is from Crete’ (Epist. 192.2): ‘He opened [his] house to foreigners’, and Thucydides in the second [book] (2.2.2): ‘And Plataean men opened the doors’. Note also this: ἀνέῳγεν in place of ἠνεῴχθη is found once.

B. Other erudite sources

(1) Σ^b α 1339 (= Phot. α 1906, cf. Su. α 2282, ex Σʹ): ἀνέῳγον· καὶ Ἀμειψίας Μοιχοῖς, καὶ οἱ νεώτεροι πολλαχοῦ.

Su. α 2282 also contains another Synagoge gloss (Σ^b α 1338 = Phot. α 1905, ex Σʹʹ) which has been identified as Orus fr. A 6b. See entry ἀνέῳγoν, ἤνοιγoν.

ἀνέῳγον (‘I/they opened’): Ameipsias too [uses it] in Adulterers (fr. 13 = C.2), and more recent [authors employ it] multiple times.

(2) Epim.Hom. α 267: ἀνέῳγεν· ‘ἐπιθήματα κάλ’ ἀνέῳγεν’. τὸ θέμα οἴγω καὶ ἀνοίγω, ὁ παρατατικὸς ᾦγον καὶ ἤνῳγον, ἐπεισόδῳ τοῦ ε ἠνέῳγον, τὸ τρίτον ἠνέῳγε, συστολῇ ἀνέῳγεν· ἔστι δὲ δευτέρας συζυγίας τῶν βαρυτόνων. τοῦτο δὲ τὸ ῥῆμα, ὅτε μὲν ἐνεργητικόν ἐστιν, αἰτιατικῇ συντάσσεται· ‘τὴν δ’ οὐ θεὸς ἄλλος ἀν{ε}ῷγεν’· ‘τὸν ἑνδεκάτῳ ἐνιαυτῷ ὤ<ϊ>ξεν ταμίη’· ‘οἴξασα κληῖδι θύρας’· ὅτε δὲ παθητικόν, εὐθείᾳ· ‘ἀνέῳκτο ἡ θύρα’, ‘ἀνέῳκτο ὁ θάλαμος’. Δείναρχος δὲ ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐν τῷ Ὑπὲρ Εὐθυγένους λόγῳ μόνος τῶν παλαιῶν τὸ ἐνεργητικὸν εὐθείᾳ συνέταξεν, οὐ κατὰ νόμον τῶν παλαιῶν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ λόγον τῆς ἀλόγου συνηθείας, εἰπὼν ‘ἀνέῳγε πᾶς ὁ τόπος’· ἐχρῆν γὰρ εἰπεῖν ‘ὁ τόπος πᾶς ἤνοικται’· ἡ δὲ συνήθεια καὶ τὸ ἐνεργητικὸν εὐθείᾳ συντάσσε{τα}ι, ‘ἀνέῳγεν ἡ θύρα’, τῶν παλαιῶν λεγόντων ‘ἀνέῳγε τὴν θύραν’. ἔστιν οὖν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνοίγω γίνεται ὁ παρακείμενος ἤνῳχα, ἐπεισόδῳ τοῦ ε ἠνέῳχα, ὁ μέσος ἠνέῳγα, τὸ τρίτον ἠνέῳγε, συστολῇ ἀνέῳγε. συνεμπέπτωκε τὸ μέσον τῷ παθητικῷ· μέσον δὲ διὰ τοῦτο καλεῖται, ὅτι ἐνεργητικόν ἐστι καὶ παθητικόν. οἱ μὲν οὖν παλαιοὶ {ὅτι} ἀπὸ παρατατικοῦ τὴν σύνταξιν ποιησάμενοι ὡς ἀπὸ ἐνεργητικοῦ ἐπὶ πλάγια ἰόντες ‘ἀνέ<ῳ>γε τὴν θύραν’ <λέγουσιν>, ὡς ἂν εἰ καὶ ἐπὶ ἀορίστου εἴποι τις ἂν ‘ἀνέῳξε τὴν θύραν’. ἡ δὲ συνήθεια πλανηθεῖσα τῷ ἀμφιβόλῳ τῆς διαθέσεως καὶ ἀπὸ μέσου παρακειμένου τὴν σύνταξιν ποιησαμένη, ὡς ἐγκειμένης παθητικῷ, εὐθείᾳ συντάσσει τὸ ῥῆμα· ‘ἀνέῳγεν ἡ θύρα’, ὡς ‘ἀνέῳκτο ἡ θύρα’.

Cf. Et.Gud. 142.3–11; Et.Sym. 1.90.3–15 ~ [Zonar.] 224.6–19. A shorter version of the same doctrine occurs in Epim.Hom. α 148.

ἀνέῳγεν: ‘[Priam] opened the fine lids’ (Hom. Il. 24.228). The base forms [are] οἴγω and ἀνοίγω, the imperfect is ᾦγον and ἤνῳγον, [and] with the addition of ε: ἠνέῳγον, the third person is ἠνέῳγε, [and] with the shortening: ἀνέῳγεν; it belongs to the second conjugation of barytone [verbs]. This verb, when it is active, is constructed with the accusative: ‘which no other god opens’ (Hom. Il. 14.168), ‘in the eleventh year, the housekeeper opened’ (i.e. wine, Hom. Od. 3.391–2), ‘opening the doors with the key’ (Hom. Il. 6.89). When it is passive, [it takes] the nominative: ‘the door had been opened’ (ἀνέῳκτο, ind. plpf. m.-p. 3rd pers. pl.), ‘the bride-chamber had been opened’ (cf. Hom. Il. 14.168). Among the ancients, only the orator Dinarchus, in [his] speech In Defense of Euthygenes (fr. 82 = C.5), constructed the active [voice] with the nominative, not following the ancients’ norm, but saying, in accordance with unregulated ordinary language: ‘The whole place is open (ἀνέῳγε)’; [he] should rather have said: ‘The whole place has been opened (ἤνοικται, ind. perf. m.-p.)’. Indeed, ordinary language also constructs the active voice with the nominative [as in] ‘the door is open (ἀνέῳγεν ἡ θύρα)’, whereas the ancients would have said: ‘s/he opened the door (ἀνέῳγε τὴν θύραν)’. One can say that from ἀνοίγω one has a perfect ἤνῳχα [and], with the addition of ε, ἠνέῳχα; the middle [perfect is] ἠνέῳγα, the third [singular] person is ἠνέῳγε [and], with shortening, ἀνέῳγε. The middle voice coincides with the passive: indeed, the middle voice is called so for this reason, because it is either active or passive. The ancients, constructing the syntax with the imperfect as if from the active [voice], proceeding by implication, <say>: ‘s/he would open the door’ (ἀνέῳγε, impf.), as one would say, in the aorist: ‘s/he opened the door’ (ἀνέῳξε). Ordinary language, on the contrary, being misled by the ambiguity of the voice and construing the syntax with the middle perfect as if it were equivalent to [that of] the passive, constructs the verb with the nominative, [as in] ‘the door is open (ἀνέῳγεν)’ as [being equivalent to] ‘the door has been opened (ἀνέῳκτο)’.

(3) Eust. in Od. 1.386.29–31: ὅρα δ’ ἐν τοῖς ῥηθεῖσι τὸ, θύρας ἀνέῳγεν, ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἤνοιγεν κατὰ χρόνον παρατατικόν. ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἤνοιξεν, ἵνα ᾖ μέσος παρακείμενος.

Hom. Od. 10.396 actually reads θύρας δ’ ἀνέῳξε (‘[Circe] opened the doors’), with the verb in the aorist.

Note, among these expressions, θύρας ἀνέῳγεν (‘s/he has opened the doors’) in place of ἤνοιγεν in the imperfect tense. Or meaning ἤνοιξεν (ind. aor. act. 3rd pers. sing.), as a middle perfect.

(4) Et.Sym. 1.6.23–5: ἀνέῳγεν ἡ θύρα οὐχ Ἑλληνικόν, ἀλλ’ ‘ἀνέῳγε τὴν θύραν ὅδε’ ἢ ‘ἀνέῳκται ἡ θύρα’· τὸ γὰρ ἀνέῳγεν ἐνεργητικῷ ἰσοδυναμεῖ.

‘The door is open’ (ἀνέῳγεν) is not correct Greek, but [one should say] ‘someone opened the door’ (ἀνέῳγε) or ‘the door is open’ (ἀνέῳκται). For ἀνέῳγεν is equivalent to the active [voice].

(5) Schol. Luc. Sol. 8 (= 40.4–7 Rabe): τὸ ἀνέῳγεν βούλονται μὴ λαμβάνεσθαι ἐπὶ παθητικῆς διαθέσεως. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀκριβῶς τοῦτο· χρῆται γὰρ μετὰ πολλῶν καὶ ἄλλων ὁ Πλάτων παθητικῶς ἐν Φαίδωνι ‘ἀνεῴγετο’ λέγων ‘ἡ θύρα οὐ πάνυ πρωί’. (ΓCVMOΩ)

This scholion discusses Luc. Sol. 8 (C.9). Plato’s passage is misquoted: in Phd. 59d the subject of ἀνεῴγετο is actually the prison where Socrates is kept, not a door (see C.3). ἡ θύρα may have slipped into the text because it was the standard subject with which the verb was treated in ancient scholarship.

They do not allow ἀνέῳγεν to be used in the passive voice. But this is not correct: for Plato too, among many others, [used it] in the passive in the Phaedo (59d.5–6 = C.3), saying: ‘the door was not opened early’.

C. Loci classici, other relevant texts

(1) Pherecr. fr. 91:
οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἐδέχετ’ οὐδ’ ἀνέῳγέ μοι θύραν

Nobody received me, nor opened the door.

(2) Ameips. fr. 13 = Σ^b α 1339 re. ἀνέῳγον (B.1).

(3) Pl. Phd. 59d.5–6: περιεμένομεν οὖν ἑκάστοτε ἕως ἀνοιχθείη τὸ δεσμωτήριον, διατρίβοντες μετ’ ἀλλήλων, ἀνεῴγετο γὰρ οὐ πρῴ· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀνοιχθείη, εἰσῇμεν παρὰ τὸν Σωκράτη καὶ τὰ πολλὰ διημερεύομεν μετ’ αὐτοῦ.

On each occasion, we would wait until the prison was opened, conversing with each other – indeed, it was not opened early – and once it was opened, we would enter to [visit] Socrates and spend most of the day with him.

(4) D. 24.208: καὶ μὴν εἰ αὐτίκα δὴ μάλα κραυγὴν ἀκούσαιτε πρὸς τῷ δικαστηρίῳ, εἶτ᾿ εἴποι τις ὡς ἀνέῳκται τὸ δεσμωτήριον, οἱ δὲ δεσμῶται φεύγουσιν, οὐδεὶς οὔτε γέρων οὔτ᾿ ὀλίγωρος οὕτως ὅστις οὐχὶ βοηθήσειεν ἂν καθ᾿ ὅσον δύναται.

Suppose that in a moment’s time you were to hear an outcry hard by this court, and suppose that you were told that the prison had been opened and that the prisoners were escaping, there is not a man, however old or however apathetic, who would not rally to the rescue to the utmost of his power. (Transl. Vince 1935, 505, adapted).

(5) Din. fr. 82:
ἀνέῳγε πᾶς ὁ τόπος.

The whole place is open.

(6) Hp. Morb. 4.39.2 Joly (= 7.558.6–10 Littré): φλέβες τε γάρ εἰσι διὰ παντὸς τοῦ σώματος τείνουσαι, αἱ μὲν λεπτότεραι, αἱ δὲ παχύτεραι, πολλαὶ καὶ πυκναί· αὗται δὲ, μέχρις οὗ ἂν ζώῃ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀνεῴγασι καὶ δέχονταί τε καὶ ἀφιᾶσι νέον· ἐπὴν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ, συμμύουσι καὶ γίνονται λεπταί.

Veins extend throughout the whole body: some are thinner, while others are thicker, numerous and densely [branched]; and while the person is alive, these [veins] are open and receive and release new [fluid], whereas, when [the person] dies, they close and become thinner.

(7) NT Ev.Io. 1.51: καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὄψεσθε τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἀναβαίνοντας καὶ καταβαίνοντας ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

And he (i.e. Jesus) says to him (i.e. Nathaniel): ‘In truth, in truth, I tell you, you will see the sky open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man’.

(8) NT 1Cor. 16.9: θύρα γάρ μοι ἀνέῳγεν μεγάλη καὶ ἐνεργής, καὶ ἀντικείμενοι πολλοί.

For a great and effective door is open for me, and [I have] many adversaries.

(9) Luc. Sol. 8: (ΛΟΥΚΙΑΝΟΣ) Καὶ πῶς φῂς οὐ δυνήσεσθαι; ἡ γὰρ θύρα σχεδὸν ἀνέῳγέ σοι τῆς γνωρίσεως αὐτῶν. (ΣΟΦΙΣΤΗΣ) Εἰπὲ τοίνυν. (ΛΟΥ.) Ἀλλὰ εἶπον. (ΣΟΦ.) Οὐδέν γε, ὥστε ἐμὲ μαθεῖν. (ΛΟΥ.) Οὐ γὰρ ἔμαθες τὸ ἀνέῳγεν; (ΣΟΦ.) Οὐκ ἔμαθον.

Cf. schol. Luc. Gall. 32 (= 95.20–2 Rabe).

(Lucian) How come you say you won’t be able? For the door is pretty well open for you to recognise them. (Sophist) Well, say something. (L) But I’ve already said it. (S) You’ve said nothing for me to notice. (L) Didn’t you notice the word ‘is open’ (ἀνέῳγε)? (S) No, I didn’t. (Transl. MacLeod 1967, 27, slightly adapted).

(10) Luc. Gall. 6: ἐνδιατρίβει ἀνεῳγόσι τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς μελιχρὸς οὕτως καὶ ἐναργὴς φαινόμενος.

[The dream] lingers in open eyes, appearing so sweet and vivid.

(11) Luc. DMort. 14.1: καὶ κηρὸν ὡς ἐπιπλάσαι τοῦ σκαφιδίου τὰ ἀνεῳγότα καὶ ἥλους δὲ καὶ καλῴδιον, ἀφ’ οὗ τὴν ὑπέραν ἐποίησας, δύο δραχμῶν ἅπαντα.

And [I brought you] wax to fill up the [holes] which have opened in the boat, and nails, and the rope with which you made the brace; two drachmae in all.

D. General commentary

The verb ἀνοίγω attracted the interest of ancient scholars for several reasons. Apart from the fluctuating position of the augment in relation to the preverb and the resulting coexistence of two alternative conjugation patterns for past tenses (i.e. ἀνέῳγ-, ἤνοιγ-), on which see entry ἀνέῳγoν, ἤνοιγoν, erudite sources also discuss the use of the unaspirated active perfect ἀνέῳγα with intransitive meaning (‘I am open’) in place of the middle-passive ἀνέῳγμαι, which one would expect in Classical Greek. Atticist scholarship (A.1, C.9, A.2) debates the admissibility of this usage.

The Greek perfect tense originally retained the function of the IE perfect; it thus had an intransitive meaning and expressed a present state (see Chantraine 1927, 71–86, Schwyzer 1939, 768, Sihler 1995, 564; on the IE perfect see Di Giovine 1990–1996). This original function is well visible in Homer, where most perfects have an intransitive stative meaning and transitive perfects occur more rarely: on the Homeric perfect, see the taxonomy set out by Wackernagel (1904) and Chantraine (1927); most recently, see Willi’s (2018, 225–39) detailed analysis of the values of early Greek (Homeric) perfects and of the semantic and functional evolution of the perfect (Willi 2018, 239–44). The Greek perfect later acquired a resultative function, being thus used to express the result of a past action: this innovative development is clearly exhibited from the 5th century BCE onwards.

ἀνοίγω has the so-called ‘second’ or ‘strong’ perfect (cf. Sihler 1995, 573–4): in addition to non-aspirated forms, in which the verbal stem remains unchanged (ἀνέῳγα), the verb also developed aspiratedAspiration forms in which the velar of the verbal stem changes to χ (ἀνέῳχα). Aspirated perfects developed from the 5th–4th century BCE; they are considered typical of Ionic and Attic, but there is significant evidence of their presence in other dialects (on non-Attic attestations of aspirated perfects, see Cassio 2017). Whereas the older perfects were mostly stative, these new formations had mainly a resultative meaning: it follows that a clear distinction arose between intransitive unaspirated perfects and transitive aspirated perfects; thus, in the case of ἀνοίγω, between ἀνέῳγα ‘I am open’ and ἀνέῳχα ‘I have opened’ (see Schwyzer 1939, 772).

In erudite sources the perfect ἀνέῳγα is often analysed as a ‘middle perfect’ (μέσος παρακείμενος, cf. A.2, A.3, B.2, B.3): this definition implies that the unaspirated ἀνέῳγα functions as a middle in meaning, but there are also ancient scholars who seem to have considered it to formally be a middle (B.2). According to the aforementioned reconstruction, the intransitive perfect ἀνέῳγα ‘I am open’ is the more ancient form, retaining the perfect’s original stative function. Nevertheless, ancient scholars debate its acceptability: in particular, B.2 describes the use of the intransitive perfect as a feature of the less regulated form of the current language (ἄλογος συνήθειασυνήθεια), which has a weaker control over syntax. Ancient sources seemingly tend to interpret ἀνέῳγα ‘I am open’ as a syntactic irregularity: see Phrynichus (A.1), who rejects the intransitive perfect as a solecism, and B.2, in which the use of the intransitive perfect in Dinarchus (C.5) is explained as a ‘construction of the active voice with the nominative’. Atticist sources show different attitudes towards the use of the intransitive perfect: while Phrynichus’ position is uncompromising (A.1), Orus allows its use, albeit while dealing with the position of the augment’s position (A.2, see further entry ἀνέῳγoν, ἤνοιγoν). It is noteworthy that Thomas Magister (A.3) does not follow Phrynichus (A.1) in proscribing the use of the intransitive perfect, which he instead justifies on the authority of Synesius (on Phrynichus as one of the main sources of Thomas’ Eclogue and on Thomas’ literary canon, see entry Thomas Magister, ’Ονομάτων Ἀττικῶν ἐκλογή). Shortly afterwards, Thomas goes so far as to openly criticise Phrynichus for the equivalence he allegedly draws between ἀνέῳγε and the aorist ἤνοιξεν: on the possible reasons for this criticism and the implications for Phrynichus’ entry, see entry ἀνέῳγoν, ἤνοιγoν, F.3).

Apart from its perceived syntactic anomaly, the chronological distribution of the intransitive perfect may also have given rise to scepticism among ancient purists. Its classical occurrences are indeed scanty: both forms of the active perfect are rarely attested in classical literature compared to the middle perfect (cf. Chantraine, 1927, 106). Aside from Menander (fr. 170), the transitive aspirated perfect ἀνέῳχα is found only in the pseudo-Demosthenic oration Against Phaenippus (42.30) and in the Hippocratic treatises. The earlier traces of the intransitive unaspirated ἀνέῳγα are found in Dinarchus (C.5), the only classical author to use it according to B.2, and in the Hippocratic treatises On Diseases 4 (C.6) and On the Heart (7.1); note that whereas On Diseases 4 probably dates from the early/mid 4th century BCE according to Craik (2015, 190), On the Heart was probably composed later, between 300 and 250 BCE (Craik 2015, 56). The active participle ἀνεωγώς appears in a fragment by the historian Megasthenes preserved by Strabo (FGrHist 37 F 45).

When it comes to the unaspirated perfect, things are further complicated by the fact that the 3rd pers. sing. overlaps with the imperfect. This is the case, for instance, in Men. fr. 184, where ἀνέῳγεν is most likely to be a transitive imperfect (see AGP vol. 1, 335 n. 326) and C.2, for which the entry in the Suda seems to leave open the possibility that Ameipsias used the intransitive perfect, although the Synagoge transmits the imperfect ἀνέῳγον (B.1, see Orth 2013, 265–6, and entry ἀνέῳγoν, ἤνοιγoν, F.2). In any case, in Classical Greek the intransitive meaning ‘to be open’ is usually expressed by the middle-passive form, as Phrynichus (A.1) notes: examples of the expected usage are, among others, C.3 and C.4 (note, incidentally, that B.5 is misleading, since Plato’s use corresponds to the expected usage in Classical Greek). The intransitive use of the active voice of ἀνοίγω is otherwise limited to the rare nautical meaning of the verb ‘to be in the open sea’, attested in Xenophon (cf. e.g. HG 1.1.2, see DGE s.v).

The use of the intransitive unaspirated perfect increased in Post-classical Greek. According to Chantraine (1926, 77), ἀνέῳγα belongs to the group of active perfects of middle verbs (cf. ἀνοίγνυμι), rarely attested in Attic, whose presence in koine Greek can be explained as the survival of an archaism: these perfects would have been used and understood by learned users, although they had disappeared from living use long before, as their rarity in Attic literature would prove (Chantraine 1926, 78). Nevertheless, the increased use of ἀνέῳγα in texts reflecting a lower registerRegister of koine Greek together with the criticism exhibited by some erudite sources (cf. A.1, B.5), may suggest that it was typical of the lower register of the koine, though perhaps only as a relic. Some occurrences of the unaspirated perfect can be found in the New Testament (cf. Blass, Debrunner 1976, 77). In addition to the ‘open sky’ of John’s Gospel (C.7), it occurs twice in Paul’s epistles: in C.8, concerning the reasons that led him to stay in Ephesus longer than usual, Paul uses the very expression that the scholarly sources condemn (θύρα […] ἀνέῳγεν); see also 2Cor. 6.11 (τὸ στόμα ἡμῶν ἀνέῳγεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Κορίνθιοι, ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν πεπλάτυνται, ‘My mouth is open to you, Corinthians, my heart is wide open’). The intransitive perfect is frequently found in imperial technical prose: it is used, among others, by Strabo (e.g. 1.3.6, 5.6.42: ἀνέωγέ τ’ ἐνταῦθα σπήλαια ὑπερμεγέθη, ‘an enormous cave opens here’) and Dioscorides (e.g. 2.45.1), and occurs multiple times in the treatise Pneumatica by Heron of Alexandria (1.7) and in Plutarch’s writings (e.g. Pyrrhus 32.1). Interestingly enough, even an Atticising writer like Lucian employs the intransitive perfect twice (C.10, C.11), although this use is criticised in the Solecist (C.9); schol. Luc. Gall. 32 (= 95.20–2 Rabe) underlies this contradiction. It should be noted, however, that the authorship of the Solecist is debated precisely because of the discrepancies with Lucian’s own usages (see Hall 1981, 298–307). The occurrences in C.10 and C.11 may be explained by a higher tolerance towards intransitive perfect active participles, which may have been perceived as lexicalised forms whose use was close to that of an adjective. The fact that a large number of unaspirated active perfect participles occur in Late Antique and Byzantine Greek (see E.) may suggest that forms like ἀνεῳγός ‘open’ were popular and widely accepted fixed forms.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In Byzantine times the perfect is a marked trait, typical of a literary, controlled register. In Post-classical Greek, the perfect was weakened by its increasing functional overlap with the aorist, which caused it to be perceived as a generic past tense, and by the morphological merging of the two tenses, which made their distinction even less discernible and affected the speakers’ command of these forms (Horrocks 2010, 176–8). These developments led to the generalisation of the aorist for the past tense at the expense of the perfect, which eventually dropped out of living use in the late antique or early Byzantine period, except for some lexicalised perfect participles, which remained in use as verbal adjectives (see Mandilaras 1972, on the overlap of the two tenses in documentary papyri). To express the resultative meaning, an analytic construction was introduced in place of the synthetic perfect: mainly ἔχω + perfect passive participle, for the active voice, and εἶμαι + perfect passive participle, for the passive voice. In addition, various analytic constructions are in use in Medieval Greek, on which see CGMEMG vol. 3, 1831–43. Synthetic perfects are also occasionally found in Medieval Greek, but they are either rare or lexicalised remnants or perfects used in place of aorists; furthermore, they rarely show reduplication (see CGMEMG vol. 3, 1761–2, 1765–6).

Although the synthetic perfect disappeared from the spoken language, in Byzantine times it remained in widespread use in Byzantine times among authors adopting a classicising register, mainly as a substitute for the aorist; for details, see the study by Hinterberger (2014, with bibliography). Byzantine authors make liberal use of the intransitive perfect and pluperfect. Examples are particularly abundant when it comes to the perfect participle ἀνεῳγός, ‘open’, but there is no shortage of occurrences of the indicative perfect. To mention but a few, the intransitive perfect is used by Eustathius (e.g. in Od. 2.329.3: ἀνέῳγεν ὁ τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως οἶκος τοῖς ἐθέλουσιν ἐκφορεῖν τοὺς νεκροὺς, ‘Odysseus’ house was open for those willing to carry out the bodies’), Nicetas Choniates (e.g. 65.2–3: οἱ καταρράκται ἀνεῴγεσαν οὐρανοῦ, ‘the sky’s floodgates opened’; note that the biblical model for this passage has the [double augmented] passive aorist, cf. LXX Gen. 7.11: οἱ καταρράκται τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἠνεῴχθησαν, ‘the sky’s floodgates were opened’), Nicephorus Gregoras (e.g. 1.566.19), and Gennadius Scholarius (e.g. Or. 11.9.18).

In Modern Greek, ανοίγω is still the standard verb meaning ‘to open’, and is used both transitively and intransitively: the sentence η πόρτα ανοίγει, ‘the door opens’, is thus correct Standard Modern Greek; on the range of meanings covered by the verb, see ILNE s.v. Modern Greek has a periphrastic perfect (παρακείμενος) composed of έχω + aorist infinitive (thus, from ανοίγω: έχω ανοίξει, ‘I have opened’), which replaced the Medieval Greek pluperfect and whose use increased from the 19th century onwards (Horrocks 2010, 300–1).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A

Bibliography

Alpers, K. (1981). Das attizistische Lexicon des Oros. Untersuchung und kritische Ausgabe. Berlin, New York.

Blass, F.; Debrunner, A. (1976). Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Revised ed. by F. Rehkopf. Göttingen.

Cassio, A. C. (2017) ‘Trinacria perfecta. Some Unusual Greek Perfects and Pluperfects in Ancient Sicily’. Willi, A. (ed.), Sprachgeschichte und Epigraphik. Festgaben für Rudolf Wachter zum 60. Geburtstag. Innsbruck, 39–47.

Chantraine, P. (1927). Histoire du parfait grec. Paris.

Craik, E. M. (2015). The ‘Hippocratic’ Corpus. Content and Context. London, New York.

Di Giovine, P. (1990–1996). Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo. 3 vols. Rome.

Hall, J. (1981). Lucian’s Satire. New York.

Hinterberger, M. (2014). ‘The Synthetic Perfect in Byzantine Literature’. Hinterberger, M. (ed.), The Language of Byzantine Learned Literature. Turnhout, 176–204.

Horrocks, G. (2010). Greek. A History of the Language and its Speakers. 2nd edition. Chichester.

MacLeod, M. D. (1967). Lucian. Vol. 8: Soloecista. Lucius or The Ass. Amores. Halcyon. Demosthenes. Podagra. Ocypus. Cyniscus. Philopatris. Charidemus. Nero. Edited and translated by M. D. MacLeod. Cambridge, MA.

Mandilaras, B. G. (1972). ‘Confusion of Aorist and Perfect in the Language of non-Literary Greek Papyri’. Mandilaras, B. G. (ed.), Studies in the Greek Language. Athens, 9–21.

Orth. C. (2013). Alkaios – Apollophanes. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Heidelberg.

Schwyzer, E. (1939). Griechische Grammatik. Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. Munich.

Sihler, A. L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York, Oxford.

Vince, J. H. (1935). Demosthenes. Orations. Vol. 3: Orations 21–26. Against Meidias. Against Androtion. Against Aristocrates. Against Timocrates. Against Aristogeiton 1 and 2. Translated by J. H. Vince. Cambridge, MA.

Wackernagel, J. (1904). ‘Studien zum griechischen Perfectum’. Programm zur akademischen Preisverteilung. Göttingen, 3–24.

Willi, A. (2018). Origins of the Greek Verb. Cambridge.

CITE THIS

Giulia Gerbi, 'ἀνέῳγεν, ἀνέῳκται (Phryn. Ecl. 128, Orus fr. A 6a, Thom.Mag. 30.11–31.14)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2025/01/016

ABSTRACT

This article provides a philological and linguistic commentary on the perfect forms ἀνέῳγεν and ἀνέῳκται discussed in the lexica Phryn. Ecl. 128, Orus fr. A 6a, Thom.Mag. 30.11–31.14.