γρυλίζω, γρυλισμός
(Phryn. Ecl. 72, Phryn. PS 58.14–59.4, Poll. 5.87)

D. General commentary

In both the Eclogue (A.1) and the Praeparatio (A.2), Phrynichus deals with both the pronunciation and spelling of γρυλίζω (‘to grunt’) and γρυλισμός (‘grunt’) and with their semantics. γρυλίζω derives from the indeclinable noun γρῦγρῦ, an onomatopoeicOnomatopoeia emulation of the piglet’s call, which lexica, scholia, and paroemiographical works typically also associate with dirt under the nails (see Hsch. γ 938, Phot. γ 217, B.1, Tz. H. 4.7; but note that Andriotis 1940, 68 questions the antiquity of this last meaning and regards it as secondary and late). γρῦ metaphoricallyMetaphors indicates a minimal quantity (see Lex.Vind. γ 1: τὸ μικρότατον καὶ εὐτελέστατον, ‘the smallest and less significant [thing]’, and Tz. H. 4.7) and is typically used with negations (see e.g. Ar. Pl. 17: οὐδὲ γρῦ ‘not a syllable’, see LSJ s.v.); note that Zenobius (5.54.11–4) labels the use of γρῦ as typical of Attic speakers. From γρῦ derive the onomatopoeic verbs γρύζω ‘to grunt’ (see also γρυσμός, ‘grunt’) and γρυλίζω, with λ as an expansion; from the latter derive the deverbal nouns γρῦλος (‘pig’) and γρυλισμός (see DELG and EDG s.v. γρῦ). Gennadius Scholarius in his Grammatica (B.5) says instead that γρυλίζω derives from γρῦλος.

γρύζωγρύζω is the more common form, and it is also employed for humans with the meaning ‘to grumble’ or even ‘to say’ (see e.g., Ar. Lys. 509: οὐ γὰρ γρύζειν εἰᾶθ’ ἡμᾶς, ‘you do not allow us to grumble’; Hsch. γ 940: γρύζειν· φθέγγεσθαι, λέγειν, ‘γρύζειν: to speak, to say’). γρυλίζω, by contrast, has a more restricted use. Although originally denoting the call of young piglets (cf. schol. Ar. Pl. 307a β), in later times, γρυλίζω was also applied to other animals: John Argyropolus (15th century) applies it to boars (Com.Catablattae 512: κάπροι γρυλλίζοντες ‘grunting boars’), and the ILNE (s.v. γρυλλίζω II) also admits it – albeit more rarely – for dogs, wolves, and lions. In any case, γρυλίζω remains a technical verb that expresses an animal sound and is rarely used for humans, except for peculiar cases. In Aristophanes, for instance, it is used twice in reference to human subjects who are told to pretend to be piglets and to imitate their call, as in the case of the daughters of the Megarian in Ar. Ach. 746 (C.1) and of the farmers in Ar. Pl. 307 (C.2). For a scoptic use of this technical verb, see C.4 and E.. The word γρυλισμός (‘grunt’), by contrast, is extremely rare and, apart from lexica and scholia, occurs only once in the Aristotelian Historia Animalium (C.3) in reference not to pigs but to the rasping breath that fishes emit.

Phrynichus’ aim (A.1, A.2) is to correct that which he calls, in the Eclogue, a ‘double mistake’ concerning γρυλίζω and γρυλισμός. His interest lies in both the prescription of their correct spelling and pronunciation (with a single λ) and their disambiguation from similar words spelt with λλ. Phrynichus’ concern regarding pronunciation is well-founded, given that the erroneous pronunciation with a double /l/ of γρῦλος (‘pig’) and its cognate words was an emerging phenomenon in his time. A similar tendency may be observed in the spontaneous gemination of /l/ in pre-tonic and post-tonic syllables occurring in Medieval Greek (see CGMEMG vol. 1, 135–7). Greek in the 2nd century CE shows a general tendency toward degemination: the pronunciation with the geminate of the words discussed in A.1 and A.2 is thus a form of hypercorrectionHypercorrection reacting to such a trend (Vessella 2018, 185). The 2nd century CE, in fact, serves as a divide in the two spellings’ occurrences, with the geminated form prevailing thereafter (see Herchenroeder 2008, 350–2). The later spelling γρύλλος (paroxytone) ‘pig’ for γρῦλος (properispomenon: see LSJ s.v.) is also disseminated in the lexicographical and erudite traditions: see Hsch. γ 946, Su. γ 463, [Zonar.] 452.19; for γρυλλίζω, see Su. φ 321, [Zonar.] 456.15 and the occurrences of this form in learned authors, such as Psellus (Op. 18.206) and Eustathius (B.4).

The second aim of Phrynichus’ glosses (A.1, A.2) is semantic disambiguation. The mispronunciation of these forms meaning ‘pig’ leads to their overlapping with the geminate forms γρύλλος and γρυλλισμός, which instead denote a dance ‘among the Egyptians’ (A.2), with γρύλλος also designating the performer of such a dance. γρυλλισμός is acknowledged as a neologism peculiar to the Egyptian Greek of the Roman period by Torallas Tovar (2020, 146–7), but the etymology of γρύλλος remains unknown (see DELG, s.v., and further F.1). The forms with /l/ (relating to pigs) and those with /ll/ (relating to dance) are not etymologically connected and hence should be kept distinct. For this reason, pronunciation and spelling have a crucial role in disambiguating them: as Vessella (2018, 185) rightly says, ‘this is precisely what worries Phrynichus’. These entries (A.1, A.2) demonstrate how Phrynichus actively responded to the linguistic evolution of his time and confirm that his two lexica were concerned not only with oral production but also with written texts.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Whereas γρυλισμός is not attested in Byzantine literature, γρυλίζω also lives on outside the erudite tradition and has some literary occurrences in authors writing in different registers. γρυλίζω is often used in Greek redactions of the anecdote relating that elephants are afraid of pigs: see, for instance, Historia Alexandri Magni (recensio γ) 3.103–4 (σμικρότατα χοίρων βρέφη … μεγάλα γρυλλίζοντα, ‘very small young piglets grunting aloud’), Geo.Pis. 9.964–5 (καὶ τῶν ἐλεφάντων ἐκφοβοῦσι τὸ κράτος | τὰ μικρὰ γρυλλίζοντα τῶν χοίρων βρέφη ‘and small young piglets grunting scare the strength of elephants’), and Neophitus Inclusus (Or. 16.29). A late occurrence of γρυλίζω may be found in an iambic invectiveScoptic language addressed against the eunuch Theodore the Paphlagonian by Constantinus Rhodius (10th century, C.4). In the final part of the invective, the eunuch is compared to a pig and told to behave like one, grunting, chewing ordure, and wandering in a dunghill: remarkably, when telling the mocked eunuch to follow his mother (ἕπου τε μητρὶ πυκνὰ πυκνὰ γρυλλίζων, ‘follow [your] mother grunting over and over’), Constantinus quotes Cario’s words in Ar. Pl. 306–7 (ὑμεῖς δὲ γρυλίζοντες ὑπὸ φιληδίας | ἕπεσθε μητρὶ, ‘follow your mother grunting of delight!’, C.2), replacing ὑπὸ φιληδίας with the expression πυκνὰ πυκνά, which is frequently employed in Byzantine Greek.

With the exception of Thomas Magister, who reproduces Phrynichus’ doctrine (B.3), scholars throughout the Byzantine age are no more concerned with the spelling and pronunciation of these words, and forms with geminated λ prevail. The ILNE lists these words as γρῦλλος, γρυλλίζω, γρυλλισμός, and γρύλλισμα, confining the singleton spelling to dialect variants. Nevertheless, the actual representation of these spellings in works remains difficult to follow, given that the manuscripts constantly oscillate between the single and double λ. Such oscillation affects even Aristophanes’ tradition (Ach. 746, Pl. 3077), whereby manuscripts are divided between the two spellings, prompting Vessella’s (2018, 185) suggestion that behind Phrynichus’ interest for γρυλίζω, beyond the concern for pronunciation, may also lie an uncertainty about Aristophanes’ text as early as the 2nd century CE.

Both γρυλίζω and γρυλισμός live on in Modern Greek. γρυλίζω is referred to both pigs and dogs, and it also metaphorically applies to human beings, meaning ‘speak angrily’ (see LKN s.v.). γρυλισμός, alongside γρύλισμα, is the technical word used to designate the pig’s grunt, but it is also applied to other animal sounds and to the human voice when muffled and/or threatening (see LKN s.v.). ILNE registers two verbs γρυλλίζω with different meanings: γρυλλίζω II, ‘to grunt’, is not to be confused with γρυλλίζω I, ‘to open wide the eyes’: the latter is a synonym of γουρλώνω (‘to open wide the eyes’), which survives, with metathesis, in the Medieval Greek γρουλ(λ)ώνω and acknowledged to derive from the Hellenistic comic figure of the γρύλλος (see LKN, s.v. γουρλώνω, ILNE, s.v. γρυλλώνω: I thank the anonymous referee for these references; see further F.1). The same applies to two homophonous γρυλλισμός, one deriving from γρυλλίζω II and thus denoting a grunt and the other deriving from γρυλλίζω I and indicating the act of opening wide the eyes (see ILNE, s.v.). In Μodern Greek, γρύλος denotes the cricket, being a returning loanword from the Latin gryllus (I thank the anonymous referee for this suggestion), although the meaning ‘pig’ is also rarely found in the dialects (see ILNE, s.v. γρύλλος). γρύζω is transmitted in Μodern Greek in the form γρούζω (see ILNE, s.v.). γρῦ, which already accompanied negations in Classical Greek, undergoes a grammaticalization process, and persists as a means of negation (meaning ‘nothing, not at all’) in Modern Greek as γρι (see ILNE, s.v. γρῦ; LKN, s.v. γρι; Andriotis 1940, 68–84; I thank again the anonymous referee for these suggestions).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Phryn. Ecl. 72 (A.1), Phryn. PS 58.14–59.4 (A.2)

At first glance, the dance-related meanings that Phrynichus lists are surprising. Nevertheless, his disambiguation has a solid grounding. The figure of a γρύλλος is mentioned in a papyrus listing performers taking part in an Egyptian festival, SB 20.15029 (= TM 29512)SB 20.15029 (= TM 29512) [Arsinoites, 2nd century CE]. As pointed out by Perpillou-Thomas (1989, 153), both Phrynichus and the papyrus are coherent in identifying the γρύλλος as an artist specialising in pantomimes and grotesque performances typical of the Egyptian milieu, a character actor (see Tedeschi 2011, 43, ‘un caratterista che provvedeva a rendere più allettante lo spettacolo’). Moreover, Plin. HN 35.114 attests to the use of γρύλλος to denote ‘parody’, ‘caricature’, and the hapaxHapax verb γρυλλογραφέωγρυλλογραφέω (‘draw caricatures’) occurs in Phld. 2.297 in opposition to serious painting. According to Plin. HN 35.114, the Egyptian painter Antiphilus had once portrayed a man called Gryllus, who was ridiculous and deformed-looking: thereafter, grotesque and parodic paintings were called grylli. As Crevatin (2011, 401) notes, γρύλλος’ place within the theatrical vocabulary constitutes the trait d’union between its uses for dance and art. The γρύλλος also appears in line 1 of P.Oxy. 22.2331 (= TM 64144)P.Oxy. 22.2331 (= TM 64144) [3rd century CE], a fascinating text accompanied by drawings that describe the competition between Heracles and a ridiculous man who boasts about silly endeavours featuring the dative of γρύλλος. Scholars are not unanimous on the significance of this occurrence: according to some, it refers to the drawings accompanying the text (see for instance Maas 1953; Herchenroeder 2008, 366–7), whereas others argue that it rather indicates the character with whom Heracles contends (see Rossi 2014, 342–3; Degiovanni 2016, 303–9). In this second case, the word γρύλλος would serve as a label for a type of man, a deformed or silly character who makes himself ridiculous. A preposterous antihero may be found in Plutarch’s dialogue GryllusPlutarch’s Gryllus, which takes its name from a former companion of Odysseus, now transformed by Circe into a talking pig. Plutarch’s dialogue is centred on a debate concerning education: Odysseus’ counterpart, Gryllus, unsurprisingly exhibits parodic and coarse traits. As Herchenroeder (2008, 348–50) argues, when Plutarch composed his Gryllus, the single-lambda spelling continued to predominate for ‘pig’: Gryllus’ name would thus be an intellectual pun evoking both γρῦλος (‘pig’) and γρύλλος (‘silly character’). On the γρύλλος, see further Binsfeld (1956) ; Hammerstaedt (2000) ; Crevatin (2011, 399–402). The ridiculousness of the γρύλλος is likely to be echoed in the name of the parasite mocked by the Middle Comedy poet Axionicus in fr. 2Axionic. fr. 2: Γρυλλίων (see DGE, s.v.). According to Crevatin (2011, 400–2) the Greek loanword gryllus in Latin is the basis of the Italian (especially Tuscan) form grullo, ‘silly’.

(2)    Phryn. PS 58.14–59.4 (A.2)

The sentence ὑῶν μὲν οὖν ἡ φωνὴ γρυλισμός (‘γρυλισμός is indeed the call of pigs’) appears to serve as a conjunction between two distinct parts of the gloss. While the first part deals with the spelling and semantics of γρυλίζω and γρυλισμός, the second offers an onomastic list of other animal calls. This list opens with nouns for animal calls (sometimes with a morphological alternative, as in the case of μυκηθμός and μύκησις) and then continues with the corresponding verbs, whose list is left open. The passage evidently has an onomastic structureOnomastic structure and finds a striking parallel in the short onomastic lexicon known as De vocibus animalium (B.2), which lists verbs and nouns connected with animal calls and, in some versions, with sounds produced by objects and/or natural elements, and even with human voice. This lexicon has strong similarities with the section of Pollux’s Onomasticon devoted to animal sounds (Poll. 5.86–90, see for instance A.3) but, aside from showing some different items, it is shorter and (almost always) restricted to verbs. This work, which is not currently available on the TLG, was edited by Bancalari (1893, 88–9). It enjoyed some popularity and circulated widely, being transmitted, in different formats and lengths, by over fifty manuscripts. Phrynichus’ gloss has some points of contact with the De vocibus animalium: it shows an interest in listing animal sounds and adopts one of the two types of lemmatisation that De vocibus animalium uses and contains two of its entries, with the third person in the present tense followed by the nominative of the animal. μηκᾶται αἲξ καὶ ἔλαφος (‘the goat and the deer bleat’) and βληχᾶται πρόβατον (‘the sheep bleats’) in fact correspond respectively to De vocibus animalium 7 (although without the deer) and 6 in Bancalari’s edition. The animals considered by Phrynichus form a coherent group: all are quadrupeds and, except for the wolf, are farmyard animals. In the De vocibus animalium, these animals are listed together at the beginning of the lexicon (pigs are n. 10 Bancalari, sheep n. 6, goats n. 7, oxen n. 8, horses n. 11, wolves n. 3). The presence of such an onomastic section in the PS is peculiar, given that the epitome transmitted in cod. Par. Coisl. 345Par. Coisl. 345 tends to have short entries that focus on a single item of information. Two alternative assumptions may be made: either this entry testifies to an earlier stage of the PS, prior to the epitomisation and showing some traits of an onomastic structure, or the entry as it stands in the epitome blends the original gloss on γρυλίζω with other materials perhaps taken from the De vocibus animalium.