ἐλλύχνιον, θρυαλλίς
(Phryn. Ecl. 134, Phryn. Ecl. 404, Antiatt. ε 83, Moer. θ 12, Philemo [Vindob.] 394.36–7)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1, A.2), the Antiatticist (A.3), Moeris (A.4), and Philemon (A.5) discuss two terms denoting the lamp wick, namely ἐλλύχνιον (literally the ‘thing inside the lamp’, hence ‘lamp wick’) and θρυαλλίς (originally the name of a plant used to make lamp wicks, which later came to be used to indicate the lamp wick itself, cf. below). Whereas Phrynichus, Moeris, and Philemon reject the common form ἐλλύχνιον and advocate the more refined θρυαλλίς (as does Thomas Magister, B.12), the Antiatticist defends the acceptability of ἐλλύχνιον on the basis of its attestation in Herodotus. For Phrynichus’ and Pollux’s discussion of two further terms connected with the lamp, see entry λυχνία, λυχνεῖον.

The noun ἐλλύχνιον is a prepositional governing compound formed from ἐν- and λύχνος ‘lamp’, and displays the suffix -ιος, which is typical of this class of compounds (on this category, see Risch 1974, 187–8; Tribulato 2015, 104–6; on the Atticists’ discussion of these compounds, see AGP vol. 2, Word formation, forthcoming). The noun thus denotes that which is ‘inside the lamp’, i.e. the lamp wick. The term is found for the first time in Herodotus (C.1), then in the Hippocratic corpus (3x), and remains only sparsely attested up to the imperial period (only twice in Theophrastus and three times in Apollonius Paradoxographus). As far as documentary evidence from the Hellenistic period is concerned, ἐλλύχνιον occurs in two inscriptions from Delos – i.e. ID 316.76–8, 101 [231 BCE] and ID 338.20 [224 BCE] (in the latter, with the spelling ἐνλύχνιον) – and in several papyrusPapyri documents dating from the 2nd century BCE, cf. SB 16.12375v.1.75 (= TM 4111) [Arsinoites (?), ca. 180 BCE] (here spelled ἐνλύχνιον), P.Med. 1.27.2+3.26, 31 (= TM 5967) [Memphis, 158 BCE], UPZ 1.101.6 (= TM 3492) [Memphis, 156 BCE], and UPZ 2.204.3–5 (= TM 3606) [Thebes, 134 BCE].

From the 1st century CE onwards, the noun begins to appear more frequently in literary sources, primarily in medical texts (e.g. Dioscorides 5x, see C.3; Soranus 2x; Galen 6x), although is also occasionally found in authors such as Plutarch (3x), as well as in the lexica that discuss its usage (cf. below). Papyrus evidence from the imperial period is limited to SPP 22.56.2.17 (= TM 27634) [Soknopaiou Nesos, 2nd-3rd century CE] (here spelled ἐνλύχνιον) and a marginal note in P.Mich. 11.619 (= TM 21368) [Oxyrhynchus (?), ca. 182 CE]. Both papyri – just like those mentioned above – preserve private accounts of household expenses.

In view of the noun’s meaning and its distribution between the classical and the imperial periods, ἐλλύχνιον evidently belonged to everyday usage. Its absence from the works of canonical Attic authors is no doubt the primary reason for its proscription by Phrynichus (A.1, A.2), Moeris (A.4), and Philemon (A.5), who instead prescribe the synonymSynonyms θρυαλλίς.

Unlike ἐλλύχνιον, whose meaning is rather transparent, the noun θρυαλλίς is far from self-explanatory. In all likelihood, it originally indicated the Plantago crassifolia (cf. LSJ s.v.; EDG s.v.; for the suffix -αλλίς, generally used for plant or bird names, see Chantraine 1933, 251–2; 346, cf. also the noun θρῦον ‘reed’). The meaning ‘lamp wick’ is therefore best understood as a consequence of the plant being used to make wicks. In the classical period, the word occurs in Aristophanes (10x, always with the meaning ‘lamp wick’, see e.g. C.2) and once in Archippus (according to the Philetaerus, B.5, which quotes him in connection with the expression κηρίνη θρυαλλίς, cf. Miccolis 2017, 296–8). Later, the term shows a distribution similar to that of ἐλλύχνιον in literary texts: it occurs only sporadically (cf. Theophrastus 1x, Nicander 3x, in both cases employed as a plant name) and is somewhat better attested in the imperial period, primarily in medical texts (Dioscorides Pedanius 1x = C.3, Galenus 9x, with both meanings) and in the lexica that discuss it (with or without ἐλλύχνιον, see A.1, A.2, A.4, A.5, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5) but also in Plutarch (3x, with both meanings; the same author also employs ἐλλύχνιον 3x, cf. above). The documentary evidence for θρυαλλίς is limited to two attestations, both occurring in papyrus contracts from the archive (found in a cartonnage at Abusir el-Meleq) of the scribal office of an Alexandrian legal specialist. Both contracts concern the sale of a ‘tomb garden’ (κηπόταφος or κηποτάφιον, see Arpaia 2020) and describe the field’s yield, thus employing θρυαλλίς as a plant name: see BGU 4.1118.15–6 (= TM 18560) [22 BCE] [θρυα]|λίδας μ (translatable as ‘forty plants for lamp wicks’) and BGU 4.1120.12 (= TM 18562) [5 BCE] θρυα̣λ̣ίδ̣α̣ς̣ συμμίκτους (‘mixed plants for lamp wicks’). Overall, in the Atticists’ time, θρυαλλίς was no doubt a much rarer and more refined term – especially as a way to refer to the lamp wick – than ἐλλύχνιον, and was in all likelihood confined to written, high-register usage. Therefore, the strict Atticists’ preference for this term is unsurprising.

Phrynichus discusses ἐλλύχνιον and θρυαλλίς once in the first book of the Eclogue (A.1) and once in the second (A.2). In A.1, he identifies ἐλλύχνιον as one of the words that ‘have burst into Athens’. The same verb, εἰσκωμάζω (‘to burst in, to intrude’), occurs in another entry from the Eclogue, where Phrynichus complains about a disreputable form that has entered the language of the Ἕλληνες, i.e. the cultured elites of his time, see Phryn. Ecl. 362Phryn. Ecl. 362: στηθύνιον ὀρνιθίου λέγουσί τινες οὐχ ὑγιῶς. εἰ γὰρ χρὴ ὑποκοριστικῶς λέγειν, <λέγε> στηθίδιον· εἰ δ’ οὐκ ἔστιν ὑποκοριστικόν, πόθεν εἰσεκώμασε καὶ τοῦτο τὸ κακὸν τῇ τῶν Ἑλλήνων φωνῇ; (‘Some incorrectly say στηθύνιον (‘little breast’) for a little bird. Indeed, if you need to use a diminutive, say στηθίδιον. If it is not a diminutive, from where has this pest burst into the language of the Greeks?’, transl. Merisio in the entry στηθύνιον, στηθίδιον). In A.1, however, the incorrect form is said to enter not the ‘language of the Greeks’ but ‘Athens’. This formulation can be interpreted in two ways: either Phrynichus had found and criticised a (now lost) occurrence of ἐλλύχνιον in a classical Attic author or Ἀθῆναι functions here as a metonymic reference to ‘those who wish to speak like Athenians’, in which case Phrynichus’ criticism is aimed at his contemporaries. Either way, Phrynichus’ rejection of ἐλλύχνιον is clear, as is his prescription of θρυαλλίς. As far as A.2 is concerned, it is difficult not to view this entry as a response to the Antiatticist’s remark (A.3) that ἐλλύχνιον was acceptable on the grounds that it occurred in Herodotus (C.1; the reference to Herodotus in one of Photius’ entries on ἐλλύχνιον and θρυαλλίς, i.e. B.9, likely results from Photius’ ultimate dependence on Phrynichus). On the Antiatticist predating the compilation of the second book of Phrynichus’ Eclogue, see Latte (1915, 378–80), Fischer (1974, 39), Valente (2015, 53 n. 316), and Tribulato (2022, 930). Αs is most often the case with Phrynichus and the Antiatticist, their opposite stances on a given form stem from the attestations found in what each lexicographer considers to be ‘authoritative’ texts. HerodotusHerodotus provides a clear illustration of the differing approaches adopted by Phrynichus and the Antiatticist: while the former condemns words attested in the historian on more than one occasion (see e.g. entry θρίδαξ, θριδακίνη), the latter regards him as an unquestionably canonical author (as evidenced by the over 60 quotations in the lexicon). In this respect, Moeris’ entry (A.4) is noteworthy. Although he aligns himself with Phrynichus by assigning θρυαλλίς to the Ἀττικοί and ἐλλύχνιον to the Ἕλληνες, he nonetheless mentions Herodotus’ attestation of ἐλλύχνιον, as if to introduce a degree of nuance into his prescription (interestingly, the only other reference to Herodotus in Moeris concerns a form that the lexicographer promotes as belonging to the Ἀττικοί, which may suggest that the historian occupied a somewhat ‘hybrid’ status within Moeris’ canon; the evidence, however, is too meagre to draw any conclusion, cf. entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής). Philemon’s entry (A.5), by contrast, does not address issues of literary attestation, but rather focuses – besides proscribing ἐλλύχνιον – on the twofold meaning of θρυαλλίς as both a plant name and the term for the lamp wick. Interestingly, two sections of the interpretamentum show similarities with different later lexicographical entries, all ultimately traceable to Synagoge expansions: the phrase τὸ περικαιόμενον τοῦ ἐλλυχνίου occurs in Phot. θ 235 (B.10) and Et.Gen. AB s.v. θρυαλλίς (from which ΕΜ 456.32–3 and [Zonar.] 1053.3 derive), whereas ἐστὶ καὶ βοτάνη πρὸς λύχνον ἁρμόζουσα is attested in Phot. θ 234, Su. θ 514, and Et.Gen. s.v. θρυαλλίς (on which ΕΜ 456.33–4 and [Zonar.] 1053.4 depend). As regards Pollux (B.2, B.3, and B.4), he clearly treats ἐλλύχνιον and θρυαλλίς as synonyms.

As regards the extent to which the Atticists’ prescription of θρυαλλίς over ἐλλύχνιον influenced the usage of imperial-period authors, it may be observed that, at a purely quantitative level, θρυαλλίς has more occurrences than ἐλλύχνιον in 2nd- and 3rd-century literature across genres (54 vs. 24 hits in the TLG). However, one should take into account the fact that θρυαλλίς may denote not only the lamp wick (like ἐλλύχνιον) but also the plant from which lamp wicks were usually made (cf. above). Bearing this in mind, it is worth noting that, among the most Atticising authors, Lucian provides three attestations of θρυαλλίς (always in the sense ‘lamp wick’, used metonymicallyMetonymy for ‘lamp’) and never uses ἐλλύχνιον; Aelian employs both ἐλλύχνιον and θρυαλλίς (once each, the latter meaning ‘lamp wick’); and Athenaeus uses only θρυαλλίς once (likewise in the sense of ‘lamp wick’).

In late antiquity, ἐλλύχνιον still occurs mostly in medical treatises (Oribasius 13x, Aetius 13x, Alexander of Tralles 3x, Paulus 6x) and occasionally also in magical papyri (e.g. PGM 4.1091–2, 3198 [= TM 64343], 4th century CE), with only a few occurrences in lexica (B.6, B.7) and other texts (e.g. Stobaeus 1x). θρυαλλίς, by contrast, is much less frequent in medical and scientific texts, where it appears both as a plant name and with the meaning of ‘lamp wick’ (cf. Oribasius 1x, Adamantius 2x, Aetius 3x, Alexander of Tralles 1x, Paulus 1x). Outside medical and scientific texts, however, θρυαλλίς appears to be far more widespread than ἐλλύχνιον, with Christian authors clearly preferring it (see e.g. Gregory of Nyssa 3x, Basil of Caesarea 2x, John Chrysostom 2x, always in the sense of ‘lamp wick’). In light of this distribution, despite the scarcity of attestations in typically Atticising imperial authors, the frequency of θρυαλλίς in late antique Christian authors suggests that the strict Atticists’ prescription of this noun over ἐλλύχνιον did indeed influence high-register usage in the following centuries.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Between the 8th and the 10th centuries CE, ἐλλύχνιον occurs almost exclusively in the Hippiatrica (6x) and in lexica (B.8, B.9, B.10), with only a few additional attestations, mostly in hagiographic texts (the rare adjective ἐλλύχνιος – for which see LBG s.v. – is not directly related to the meaning ‘lamp wick’, but rather means ‘of the lamp’ or ‘of the vesper’). In the same period, θρυαλλίς is much better attested across genres (e.g. Theodorus Studites 1x, Arethas 2x, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus 3x, Symeon Neotheologus 4x). A similar distribution can be observed in the following centuries: although still present in high-register texts (e.g. Michael Psellus 2x, Eustathius 2x, Michael Choniates 2x, Nicetas Choniates 1x, and Maximus Planudes 1x), ἐλλύχνιον is much less attested than θρυαλλίς (which occurs, among others, in Michael Psellus 2x, Theodorus Prodromus 4x, Isaac Comnenus Porphyrogenitus 4x, Eustathius 4x, Constantine Stilbes 6x, Nicetas Choniates 2x, and Theodorus II Ducas Lascaris 4x). The latter also features repeatedly in figures of speech, such as the similes in Leo Philosophus (Carmen ad Job 351–4: ὡς δὲ θρυαλλὶς ἀμυδρὰ ἀνημμένη ἐν δαΐδεσσιν | ἠελίοιο πεσόντος ἅπαξ ἀποκίδναται ὕλης, | ὣς πόθον ἄλλον ἅπαντα μετὰ φρεσὶν ὄντ’ ἀνθρώπων | ἀστράψας ὅ γε θεῖος ἐπεσσυμένως κατέφλεξε, ‘As a dim flame lit up with pinewood at sunset suddenly spreads through a forest, so the divine completely burns up every other desire in the human heart’) and in Callistus I Patriarcha (Capitula de puritate animae 44: ὡς γὰρ τοῦ κηρίου ἡ θρυαλλὶς ἀναφθεῖσα πρῶτον φωτίζει τὸν οἶκον ἐκεῖνον τὸν ζοφώδη καὶ σκοτεινόν […] οὕτω καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ ἔρωτι θείῳ ἁλοῦσα κτλ, ‘For just as the wick of a candle, once lit, first illuminates the dark and gloomy room […], so too the soul, when overcome by divine love, etc.’). To these examples may be added further, more idiosyncratic metaphorical uses, such as those by Ignatius Diaconus (Vita Tarasii patriarchae 12.9: ἀγυρτῶδες καὶ χυδαῖον καὶ τῆς αἱρετικῆς θρυαλλίδος ἀπόζον, ‘imposter-like, vulgar, and reeking of a heretical wick’), Theodorus Prodromus (Carmina historica 18.33, referring to an enemy ‘whom a single Comnenian spark can burn up’, ὃν μόνη μία θρυαλλὶς Κομνηνικὴ συμφλέγει), and Georgius Babuscomita (Ep. 7.15: εἰ καὶ ῥητορικῆς θρυαλλὶς ἡμῖν ἐναποκέκρυπταί ποτε κτλ, ‘if the flame of rhetoric has ever lain hidden in me, etc.’).

Regardless of their distribution in Byzantine literature, neither θρυαλλίς nor ἐλλύχνιον is securely attested after the 15th century. In Modern Greek, θρυαλλίδα is one of the terms used to denote the lamp wick, alongside φιτίλι (cf. LKN s.vv.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A