ἀργύρωμα, χρύσωμα
(Antiatt. α 60, Poll. 10.174–5)

D. General commentary

Greek erudition preserves traces of a debate among Atticist scholars concerning the appropriateness of the terms ἀργύρωμα (‘silver object’) and χρύσωμα (‘golden object’). While the Antiatticist (A.1) and Pollux (A.2) accept and support the use of ἀργύρωμα and χρύσωμα, more intransigent opinions rejecting these forms are not extant, but must have existed within the Atticist milieu (most likely underlying the label οἱ ἑλληνίζοντες in B.1, B.3, see below). One may speculate that, beyond the criterion of canonicity, stricter Atticists may also have objected to these forms on morphological grounds.

The Greek suffix -μα is the reflex of the PIE suffix *-mn̥ (compare, for instance, the Latin suffix -men). This suffix forms neuter nouns with a wide range of meanings and applications and is especially well known for producing deverbative nomina rei actae that express the result of an action (e.g. γράφω ‘to write’ > γράμμα ‘thing written’). According to Long (1968, 19), the suffix ‘has a passive significance denoting a completed state of affairs by contrast with the primarily active sense of nouns in -sis and -mos’. Nouns in -μα frequently occur in tragic language, which often uses this suffix to create unusual and solemn forms that replace non-marked vocabulary. Sometimes, these stylistically marked terms are denominal and cannot be traced back to an existing verbal root: one example is πένθημα (cf. Aesch. Ch. 432 and Eur. Supp. 1035), which is equivalent in meaning to the already Homeric πένθος, ‘grief, mourning’ (on tragic occurrences of nouns in -μα, see Chantraine 1933, 183–6, with numerous examples, and Long 1968, 18–21). A marked use of nouns in -μα is also observable in comedy (examples of comic usage have been collected by Peppler 1916). Here such nouns may serve as a parodic reflection of tragic grandeur: Willi (2003, 6) illustrates this paratragic use with Ar. Ach. 432, in which ῥάκωμα (= ῥάκος, ‘rag’) mocks Euripides’ magniloquent style. Another function of these abstract nouns in comedy is to lend a patina of solemnity and grandeur to sophistic discourse, as in Aristophanes’ Clouds (Willi 2003, 136–9; see also Dover 1976, 367). The -μα suffix then became typical of technical languageTechnical language. Its productivity in the koine is evidenced by documentary papyri (collected by Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,3 54–61), as well as by authors such as Polybius (see Chantraine 1933, 190) and the New Testament (suffice to mention βάπτισμα, ‘baptism’). The paradigm of nouns in -μα remained stable in later periods, and the suffix retained its productivity throughout the history of Greek and into Modern Greek – see E.

ἀργύρωμα (from ἀργυρόω, ‘to cover with silver’) and χρύσωμα (from χρυσόω, ‘to gild’) denote concrete objects that are the result of the actions expressed by the respective verbs – namely, silver-plated and gold-plated items. Both forms most often occur in the plural, referring to precious vessels and tableware (ἀργυρώματα, ‘silverware’, χρυσώματα, ‘goldware’: see C.2, C.5, C.6, C.7, and compare Eustathius’ comment on the appropriateness of these forms for vessels in B.3). An analogous form is χάλκωμα (‘bronze vessel’), attested, among other passages, in C.3, but the term is not the subject of any extant erudite discussion outside A.2. All these words are attested from the 5th century BCE onwards and occur in Attic texts. ἀργύρωμα first appears in Lysias (C.4) and in Sophron’s mimes (C.2), and it is attested multiple times in 4th-century Attic literature – for instance, in Theopompus (C.5) and the poets of New Comedy (beside C.6 and C.7, see also Men. fr. 366; Apollod.Com. fr. 4). It then spread in Post-classical Greek during the Hellenistic (e.g. Plb. 5.2.10) and imperial periods (e.g. Str. 13.1.67, Periplus Maris Erythraei 39.6). As for χρύσωμα, it first occurs in Euripides’ Ion, where it denotes both a golden vessel (1030) and a golden ornament (in C.1, an amulet in the shape of snakes that Creusa left with Ion as a birth token, which later enables their reciprocal recognition as mother and son). These passages, alongside C.4, provide the only extant classical occurrences of χρύσωμα, which is more common in the post-classical period, including Biblical Greek (7x in the Septuagint). Epigraphical and documentary evidence shows that these forms were in actual use. ἀργύρωμα occurs in thirteen papyri (with a total of twenty-one occurrences) spanning from the 3rd century BCE to the 3rd century CE. Beside C.8, it appears in P.Corn. 1.195 (= TM 2301) [Philadelphia, 257 BCE], where the compound ἀργυρωματοφυλάκιον, ‘the room in which silverware is stored’, also occurs (lines 12–3, 130–1). In contrast, χρύσωμα is rarer, attested in only one papyrus (P.Ross.Georg. 2.35.col. i.8 = TM 12892 [Arsinoites, 2nd century CE]) and on an ostracon (SB 26.16373.13 = TM 29583 [Narmuthis, 2nd–3rd century CE]). Regarding epigraphic occurrences, both forms occur together in IG 2².1325.25 [Attica, 2nd century CE] and in I.Didyma 424.26–7 (3rd century BCE), while ἀργύρωμα alone features in a 3rd-century BCE honorific decree inscribed on multiple stones found in the Attic region (IG 2².679.frg. c.13 = SEG 3.92.frg. b.13 = IG 2³,1.1004.26).

Literary and documentary evidence suggests that, in discussing ἀργύρωμα and χρύσωμα, Atticist scholars were dealing with a linguistic usage common in their own times. B.2 – which emphasises the continuity of their usage from Classical to contemporary Greek with the notation ὁμοίως ὡς ἡμεῖς ‘in the same way as we [use them]’ – almost certainly reflects a piece of Atticist scholarship (compare the discussion of these forms in A.1 and A.2). This fragment has tentatively been attributed to Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica by de Borries (fr. *256)Phryn. PS fr. *256, alongside Σ^b α 2085 (= Su. α 3789, re. ἀργυρίδιον, ‘money’, edited as Phryn. PS fr. *257Phryn. PS fr. *257), and Σ^b α 2086 (= Phot. α 2784, Su. α 3789, re. ἀργύριον, ‘small coin’, edited as Phryn. PS fr. *258Phryn. PS fr. *258). According to de Borries’ reconstruction, these three items are the remnants of a broader discussion on ἀργύριον (or perhaps ἄργυρος?) in Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica. Although this possibility cannot be discounted and the use of the notation ὡς ἡμεῖς would be consistent with other attestations in the Praeparatio sophistica (cf. Phryn. PS 81.16–7Phryn. PS 81.16–7 and 88.2–3Phryn. PS 88.2–3; see entry λάσανα and AGP vol. 3, forthcoming), the attribution to Phrynichus should not be accepted uncritically. Be that as it may, B.2 permits the use of ἀργυρώματα and χρυσώματα on the basis of their antiquity, thus aligning itself to A.1 and A.2.

As for the rejection of these forms, no proscription survives in any Atticist lexicon, but some strict scholars arguably disapproved of them. Indeed, the mention of οἱ ἑλληνίζοντες in B.1 (and B.3) most likely conceals some ‘pedant Atticists’, as already suggested by Sicking (1883, 27) and Rimedio (in Canfora 2001, 516). Although the meaning of ἑλληνίζωἑλληνίζω is not unambiguous (regarding its application to users of koine Greek opposed to users of good Attic in Posidipp. fr. 30.3, see LSJ, DGE s.v.), here the verb almost certainly denotes those who claim to speak correct Greek: οἱ ἑλληνίζοντες are thus purists of language, presumably Atticists. The entry in the Antiatticist (A.1) may also be traced back to the controversy over the legitimacy of the use of ἀργύρωμα and χρύσωμα, as already noted by Sicking (1883, 27) and Fiori (2022, 237). Although the entry might at first appear prescriptive, its form could be the result of epitomisationEpitome, and it is not inconceivable that the original entry defended the admissibility of both options: for instance, the syntagms recommended by rigorous Atticists might originally have been introduced by οὐχὶ <μόνον> (‘not <only>’), rather than οὐχί alone. Since the entry is mutilated in any case (cf. the apparatus of A.1), the loss of μόνον is plausible; moreover, the use of a negation followed by μόνον frequently occurs in the Antiatticist as a way of subverting stricter Atticists’ prescriptions (see Valente 2015, 48–9; a similar situation can be envisaged for Antiatt. γ 20Antiatt. γ 20; see entry γρᾶες, γραῦς, γραῖαι).

Some Atticists’ criticism of these forms may have been multifaceted. First, rigorous Atticists might have deemed the occurrences of the term at their disposal insufficiently canonical: they were likely to disregard the multiple occurrences of ἀργύρωμα in New Comedy (cf. Phrynichus’ harsh criticism of Menander: see Tribulato 2014). Regarding Lysias, the doubt expressed in B.1 suggests that questions about the authenticity of the text may have been instrumental in excluding the passage from the occurrences deemed acceptable: Lysias was not held in high regard by strict Atticists (see entry ἀκολουθεῖν μετ’ αὐτοῦ; on Lysias’ substantial use by Pollux, see instead entry Iulius Pollux, Ὀνομαστικόν (Onomasticon)). Secondly, the two nouns’ diffusion in Post-classical Greek may also have raised suspicion towards them. On a deeper level, however, one might speculate that the reason for their rejection was morphological, with the suffix -μα as the likely culprit. Due to their use in tragedy and comedy (on which see above), nouns in -μα may have been perceived as stylistically marked forms associated with a bombastic style (see above). These terms might thus have been considered ill-suited for good prose style – which was the Atticist lexicographers’ target – especially when a respectable and less stylistically marked alternative was available (it should also be noted that nouns in -μα are comparatively rare in Attic orators, as Long 1968, 20 notes; Fiori (2022, 237) reaches similar conclusions about the noun κόλασμα, ‘punishment’, discussed by Antiatt. κ 92Antiatt. κ 92). The suffix’s productivity in post-classical times (see above) may likewise have provoked mistrust among strict Atticists. Deverbatives in -μα seem to have attracted the attention of Atticist scholars. A general aversion towards abstract nouns in -μα appears to emerge from Phrynichus’ Eclogue (to name but a few, see Ecl. 118Phryn. Ecl. 188, on σύμπτωμα, ‘happening’; Ecl. 249Phryn. Ecl. 249, on γεννήματα, ‘offsprings’; Ecl. 258Phryn. Ecl. 258, on ἔκτρωμα, ‘abortion’; Ecl. 274Phryn. Ecl. 274, on ὑπάλλαγμα, ‘pledge’, on which see entry ὑπάλλαγμα). The Antiatticist instead discusses – besides ἀργύρωμα, χρύσωμα, and κόλασμα – also δραπέτευμα (‘getaway’, δ 5Antiatt. δ 5), δόξασμα (‘notion’, δ 44Antiatt. δ 44), and δικαιώματα (‘judgements’, δ 49Antiatt. δ 49); unfortunately, the extremely condensed form of the Antiatticist’s entries prevents us from fully understanding how and why these terms were discussed. On the treatment of nouns in -μα in Atticist lexica, see also the entries ἄκουσμα, ἀκρόαμα; ἔκθεμα; νίμμα, ἀπόνιπτρον; ῥάπισμα; ὑπάλλαγμα, and AGP vol. 2, Nominal morphology, forthcoming). As for ἀργύρωμα and χρύσωμα, one may tentatively speculate that they aroused suspicions also on semantic grounds because, unlike most deverbatives in -μα, they denote objects – albeit as the result of an action – which may have been regarded as anomalous.

The recommendation to use a syntagmSyntagms instead of a proscribed form (often a compound or a recent formation) is not unusual in Atticist scholarship (see entries καλλιγραφέω, καλλιγράφος; χρεολυτέω; μεγιστάνες, and μεσοδάκτυλα). As for the syntagms ἀργύρεος κόσμος (‘silver ornament’) and χρύσεος κόσμος (‘gold ornament’), which rigorous purists recommended according to B.1, B.3, and – as argued above – A.1, the latter is more frequently attested in extant literature. χρύσεος κόσμος is attested in ancient sources (cf. Hdt. 7.31; B. Dith. 3.60–2 Irigoin; X. Vect. 4.9), but it does not seem characteristic of classical Attic and occurs more frequently in post-classical literature, e.g. in Polybius (18.17.5), Diodorus Siculus (e.g. 5.45), Strabo (4.1.5.70–1), Plutarch (e.g. Phoc. 19.4), and the Septuagint (e.g. 1Ma 22.3; Jer. 4.30). If, as suggested above, rigorous Atticists indeed endorsed the syntagm χρύσεος/ἀργύρεος κόσμος, one may speculate that they specifically took issue with a particular semantic nuance of ἀργυρώματα and χρυσώματα, i.e. their use to denote ‘silver/golden jewelry’ (possibly also in Lysias’ passage, C.4), since their application to vessels was well established (compare A.2). Nevertheless, the lack of further context in Lysias’ passage makes it impossible to determine what objects ἀργυρώματα and χρυσώματα refer to. The testimony of B.2, however, suggests that Lysias employed these forms in their most common sense – i.e., to denote precious vessels. It is therefore most likely that the noun κόσμος serves merely as a placeholder, illustrating the applicability of the adjectives ἀργύρεος and χρύσεος to any noun.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Both ἀργύρωμα and χρύσωμα are used in Byzantine literature in mixed- and high-register texts, albeit not very frequently. The two terms are sometimes used together, as in patriarch Nicephorus’ oration against Constantine Copronymus (PCG 100, 433.44, where they denote gold and silver cross-shaped pendants worn as amulets by Christians), in the so-called Theophanes Continuatus (321.1), and in John Tzetzes’ Histories (5.860). Both words are also used in Greek alchemical treatises of uncertain date.

The paradigm of neuter nouns in -μα remained stable throughout the late antique and medieval periods, and the suffix continued to be productive. In Medieval Greek, numerous new nouns in -μα were created from verbs, including both foreign base verbs and fictitious verb stems (see CGMEMG vol. 2, 644–5 for examples). A final -ν was occasionally added to the nominative, accusative, and vocative endings from an early age, by analogy with nouns in -ον. More rarely, and considerably later, an alternative nominative and accusative ending in -μας emerged by analogy with nouns displaying similar plural endings (notably τὸ κρέας, ‘meat’, cf. Hatzidakis 1905–7 vol. 2, 467; CGMEMG vol. 2, 650). Transfers to other paradigms were rare and largely confined to regional variants (CGMEMG vol. 2, 656). The derivational suffix -μα remains productive in Modern Greek, where it denotes the result of an activity (e.g. πάντρεμα, ‘union, marriage’ < παντρεύω, ‘to unite, to marry’), the activity itself (μαγείρεμα, ‘cooking’ < μαγειρεύω, ‘to cook’), or, less frequently, an object (διαμέρισμα, ‘apartment’ < διαμοιράζω, ‘to divide’, see Alexiadou 2014 and Poutarchidou 2022, 89–100).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A