ἄμυνα, χειμάμυνα
(Phryn. Ecl. 13, Moer. α 151)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1) and Moeris (A.2) proscribe the use of the deverbative noun ἄμυνα ‘self-defence, vengeance’ as extraneous to classical Attic. As an alternative, Phrynichus recommends using the verb ἀμύνομαι ‘to defend oneself’, as the Philetaerus (B.3) and Thomas Magister (B.9) also do. Interestingly, Photius (B.6) observes that while ἄμυνα is not attested among ancient authors, many of them employ the compound χειμάμυνα ‘winter-defence’ (referring to a thick cloak). Indeed, several erudite sources ascribe the latter noun to either Aeschylus (C.1) or Sophocles (C.2), even though it is not attested elsewhere.

The abstract noun ἄμυνα is generally considered (e.g. by Chantraine 1933, 101; Schwyzer 1939, 475) to be a backformation from the verb ἀμύνω ‘to ward off, to defend, to help’, which has an obscure etymology (it is possibly a nasal present from the root *h₂meu̯- of ἀμεύσασθαι ‘to surpass’, with the nasal infix extended to the whole paradigm: see DELG, EDG s.v.). By itself, ἄμυνα has no secure attestations before the 1st century BCE (C.4). Although the Philetaerus (B.3) apparently attests to its use by Theopompus (but see F.2), there is no basis for deciding between the comic poet (5th–4th century BCE) and the historian (4th century BCE; see Farmer 2022, 233–4). Furthermore, it is possible that the words καὶ ἔχειν ἄμυναν ‘also to have defence’ in the Philetaerus entry are textually corrupt. Indeed, several scholars have emended this passage (see the apparatus to B.3); Papageorgiou (apud Nauck 1892, XIV), in particular, proposed restoring χειμάμυναν (an emendation judged ‘certain’ by Pearson 1917 vol. 3, 165) in light of the immediately following mention of Sophocles, who employed χειμάμυνα, according to an entry in the Synagoge identified by Erbse as a fragment of Aelius Dionysius (B.7) on the basis of Eustathius (B.8).

Be that as it may, the classical usage of χειμάμυνα is attested by other sources, notably Pollux (B.2), who attributes it to Aeschylus (C.1). Indeed, Erbse corrected Σοφοκλεῖ to Αἰσχύλῳ in B.7 on the strength of Pollux’s testimony, supposing that a confusion occurred between the names of the two tragic poets. However, as Radt (TrGF vol. 3, 458; see also vol. 4, 632) correctly observes, since Photius says that χειμάμυνα is found in many ancient writers, it is unnecessary to suspect an unlikely confusion between Aeschylus and Sophocles in B.7 (with Erbse), or to add Aeschylus’ name to B.7 and B.3 (with Papageorgiou). The existence of the compound χειμάμυνα in classical times makes it plausible that the corresponding simplex noun also existed. Farmer (2022, 234) claims that in Theopompus Comicus’ time ἄμυνα ‘could have been readily understood, on the analogy ἀμύνω : ἄμυνα = εὐθύνω [‘to direct, to put straight’] : εὔθυνα [‘setting straight; account’]’, following a suggestion that goes back to Rutherford (1881, 74–5), who, however, preferred to assume that ἄμυνα ‘entered the Common dialect [i.e., the koine] from the dialects’. Note, indeed, that εὔθυνα would have been a somewhat unlikely analogical basis, being attested only once in literary sources of the classical period – as the acc. sing. εὔθυναν in Lys. 11. 9 – while elsewhere Lysias has εὐθύνη (see AGP vol. 2, Nominal morphology, forthcoming; however, εὔθυναν also occurs epigraphically in IG 2².1183.16–8 [Attica, after 340 BCE], on the basis of which it has also been restored in IG 2².1174.19–20 [Attica, 368/367 BCE]). Another possible trace of the existence of ἄμυνα in the classical period may be sought in the proper name ἈμυνίαςἈμυνίας (also attested as an adjective meaning ‘defiant, on its guard’ in Ar. Eq. 570, but probably as an allusion to a prominent contemporary Athenian of that name, satirised elsewhere in Aristophanes; see Kanavou 2011, 78; Olson 2023, 15), if it was derived from ἄμυνα by way of the suffix -ίας (on which see Chantraine 1933, 93). However, Ἀμυνίας is more probably a short form of a verb-initial compound name in Ἀμυν(ο)-, such as the common Ἀμύνανδρος ‘Warding off the enemy’ (see Minon et al. 2023, 87).

Despite the possible existence of ἄμυνα already in classical Attic, the Atticists’ rejection of this noun is easily understood in light of its later attestations from the 1st century BCE onwards. The first certain occurrences of ἄμυνα are in Philodemus (C.4) and in the Book of Wisdom (C.5); the term then became extremely frequent in koine authors such as Philo (22x, e.g. C.6) and Josephus (50x), as well as in Plutarch (31x), and continued to be common, as Lobeck (1820, 23) remarked, in both lower- and higher-register authors. By contrast, the more Atticising authors generally tended to avoid this word: Schmid (Atticismus vol. 3, 231) noted a single occurrence in Aelian (fr. 197.3 Hercher, though the attribution is contested: see C.7), to which may be added a few further instances in Achilles Tatius (2x), Philostratus the Younger (2x, including C.8), and Libanius (Decl. 43.2.67.9). Appian stands apart with his nine occurrences, all in the formula ἐς/πρὸς ἄμυναν ‘for defence’. On the continued success of ἄμυνα in Post-classical Greek, see E. Interestingly enough, Moeris (A.2) assigns the word ἄμυνα to the κοινὴ συνήθεια, which in this context probably means ‘contemporary (common) usage’ as opposed to classical Attic usage (see Valente 2013, 150; entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής). This suggests that the noun belonged to the language of Moeris’ contemporaries – hardly surprising, given its vitality in texts of all registers. More uncertain is how the similar remark by Photius’ (B.6) should be interpreted: the phrase ὡς ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ λέγομεν ‘as we ordinarily say’ only adds λέγομεν to Moeris’ formulation, thus occupying an intermediate position between those cases in which Photius inherits such references to the συνήθεια from his sources and the rarer cases (Phot. α 1501; α 2165; α 2252) in which he introduces such references independently (see AGP vol. 3, forthcoming). Although the general impression is that by συνήθεια/συνήθης/συνήθως Photius does not normally refer to his or his contemporaries’ language, his use of these labels is inconsistent, and the inclusion of λέγομεν makes it virtually certain that in B.6 the lexicographer intended to indicate that ἄμυνα was still current in Byzantine Greek (see E.), even if it remains uncertain whether the reference is to the contemporary literary or colloquial register.

The Atticists’ proscriptions against ἄμυνα are not isolated, but part of a wider diffidence towards nouns in -ᾰ with a long penultimate syllable and with an equivalent form in -ᾱ/-η – a phenomenon particularly common with certain suffixes, including -νη/-νᾰ (cf., e.g., πρύμνη/πρύμνᾰ ‘stern, poop’). Since forms in -ᾰ increased in the koine, the Atticist lexica generally prescribe the long-vowel variants, although in some cases both forms are accepted; moreover, it is likely that several variants in -ᾰ arose before the Hellenistic period (see AGP vol. 2, Nominal morphology, forthcoming, and entries θέρμα, θέρμη and κολόκυνθα, κολοκύντη). From the Atticist point of view, ἄμῡνᾰ could readily be regarded as one of the forms in -νᾰ to be rejected (note the long penultimate syllable), despite the fact that no ā-stem variant ἀμύνη is ever attested – unlike pairs such as πρύμνη/πρύμνᾰ or εὐθύνη/εὔθυνᾰ (the homophonous noun ἀμύνη, attested twice in Romanus Melodus, means ‘faith’ and is a borrowing from Hebrew ʾemūnāh, as demonstrated by Trypanis 1972).

The Atticists were not the first to focus on ἄμυνα. The meanings of the middle present ἀμύνομαι were discussed by Aristophanes of Byzantium (B.1; see Slater 1986, 26 for parallels in other erudite sources), while those of the active ἀμύνω are discussed in Antiatt. α 67Antiatt. α 67: ἀμύνει τοὺς πολεμίους· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀμύνεται. Πλάτων Φαίδρῳ (‘He wards off (ἀμύνει) the enemies: instead of ἀμύνεται. Plato in the Phaedrus (260b.1)’). One may therefore wonder whether the discussion of the noun in the Atticist entries likewise goes back to a common source that treated the verb and the noun together, possibly Apollonius himself (see AGP vol. 2, Nominal morphology, forthcoming, and F.1). The legalLegal language meanings of ἄμυνα are discussed in an entry of Timaeus’ Platonic lexicon (B.4), which, via the expanded Synagoge, made its way into Photius, the Suda, and the Pseudo-Zonaras’ lexicon. However, since the noun is absent from Plato, who employs only the verb ἀμύνω, this passage must be counted among the later interpolations in Timaeus (on the Synagoge’s reliance on an already interpolated and epitomised copy of Timaeus, see Valente 2012, 33–4).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

During the Byzantine period, ἄμυνα remains very frequent, with hundreds of attestations down to the modern period, both in higher-register authors – despite the Atticists’ proscription – and in those who admit vernacular forms, such as Constantinus Manasses (see Kriaras, LME s.v.). In addition to the simplex, the noun ἀντάμυνα ‘resistance’, derived from the classical ἀνταμύνομαι ‘to defend oneself against someone, to resist’, is attested in several authors of the 12th and 13th centuries, beginning with Theodorus Prodromus’ Catomyomachia 43 (see LBG s.v.). In Modern Greek, the term άμυνα retains all the meanings of ‘defence’, including in a legal or a sporting context, partly under the influence of French défence, while αμύνομαι is used in the sense ‘to defend oneself, to repel an attack’ (see LKN s.v.). Note also the compound αεράμυνα ‘air defence’, likewise a calque from modern European languages.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Moer. α 151 (A.2)

This entry in Moeris’ lexicon, which agrees with Phrynichus (A.1) in rejecting the noun ἄμυνα, belongs to a cluster of entries (149–51) sharing a similar structure – stating that ‘no user of Attic’ (οὐδεὶς Ἀττικός/τῶν Ἀττικῶν) employed a given form – and probably derived from a single source. Since α 149Moer. α 149, which concerns the non-Attic use of ἀκμήν in the sense of ἔτι ‘as yet, still’, also has a parallel in Phryn. Ecl. 93Phryn. Ecl. 93 (see entry ἀκμήν), it is tempting to assume that α 150Moer. α 150 too was taken from a now-lost lemma of the Eclogue. Alternatively, Phrynichus and Moeris may both have drawn upon the same source; see entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής.

(2)    [Hdn.] Philet. 84 (B.3)

This entry discusses two cases in which Attic prefers to employ a verb (προκόπτω ‘to advance’, ἀμύνομαι) rather than the corresponding abstract noun (προκοπή ‘advancement’ and ἄμυνα, respectively). However, the examples adduced from the classical authors are problematic, likely as a result of abridgement. First, the phrase προκοπτομένων τῶν πραγμάτων ‘the situation having progressed’, attributed to Demosthenes, is in fact absent from his corpus, though it does occur in Herodotus (see Dain 1954, 54). As for the second part of the entry, it remains unclear whether the word(s) attributed to Theopompus are the preceding ἄμυναν (as assumed by Kassel, Austin PCG vol. 7, 748) or the following καὶ ἔχειν ἄμυναν (as assumed by Demiańczuk 1912, 87; see also Farmer 2022, 233–4). In the former case, the quotation transmitted as καὶ ἔχειν ἄμυναν, variously corrected by the editors (see B.3), would belong to Sophocles, who is mentioned immediately afterward. If, following Papageorgiou, καὶ ἔχειν ἄμυναν is corrected to χειμάμυναν, Sophocles would be cited for the use of the compound (as he is in B.7) and Theopompus for that of the simplex. On the other hand, if καὶ ἔχειν ἄμυναν is accepted (or corrected to something like κατέχειν/κἄκειν ἄμυναν, following Cohn and Demiańczuk), the implication would be that Sophocles, too, employed the simplex noun – making him our earliest known witness.