καλλιγραφέω, καλλιγράφος
(Phryn. Ecl. 92, Phryn. PS 82.13, [Hdn.] Philet. 190, Su. ε 3201)

D. General commentary

In Ecl. 92 (A.1), Phrynichus compares two verbal expressions that are semantically equivalent but different in structure. The lexicographer rejects one form – the compound καλλιγραφέω (lit. ‘to write beautifully’; for a more detailed semantic analysis, see below) – without providing any real explanation. Meanwhile the other expression – the syntagm εἰς κάλλος γράφω (‘to write beautifully’) – is approved because it is used by Attic speakers (ἐκεῖνοι, lit. ‘those’), i.e. classical Attic authors. A similar linguistic prescription is contained in PS 82.13 (A.2), whose text is quite concise, probably due to the epitomisationEpitome of the lexicon. Moreover, the entries in [Hdn.] Philet. 190 (A.3) and Su. ε 3201 (A.4) acknowledge the Attic pedigree not only of εἰς κάλλος γράφω – which the former also recommends as the appropriate alternative to the noun καλλιγράφος (‘copyist’) (cf. B.5) – but also of the parallel expression εἰς τάχος γράφω (‘to write in shorthand’). On the similar case of ταχυγραφέωταχυγραφέω (‘to write in shorthand’) and ταχυγράφοςταχυγράφος (‘shorthand writer’) vs. εἰς τάχος γράφω, see below and F.1.

Trustworthy literary examples for καλλιγραφέω and καλλιγράφος are lacking, since both words are attested only from the Hellenistic period onwards (see C.1, C.2, C.3, and C.4). Meanwhile, it is more difficult to confirm the reliability of the unanimously favourable opinion of εἰς κάλλος γράφω. Indeed, the syntagm’s first occurrences appear only in the lexica themselves and Second Sophistic authors (see C.5 and C.6), who are not counted among the classical canonical writers and, therefore, cannot be considered stricto sensu Attic linguistic models.    

Furthermore, comparison with other lemmas in the Eclogue suggests that καλλιγραφέω may also have been disliked because it was a compound -έω verb. Morphological constructions of this nature became increasingly productive from the Hellenistic period onwards, especially in specialised vocabulary: for this reason, καλλιγραφέω was likely perceived as ‘anomalous’ (on Phrynichus’ attitude towards these formations, see Ecl. 322Phryn. Ecl. 322, 361Phryn. Ecl. 361, and entry χρεολυτέω. For an overview of Phrynichus’ perception of -έω compound verbs in the Praeparatio sophistica, see Monaco, forthcoming). From a diachronic perspective, -έω compound verbs are generally described as deriving from compound nouns and adjectives (see Debrunner 1917, 95; Tucker 1990, 19–199; Willi 2003, 122–6; Ralli 2013, 174. For a synchronic and typological approach to -έω compound verbs, see Pompei, Grandi 2012; Pompei 2006; Asraf 2021). From an etymological perspective, however, καλλιγραφέω may be better understood as the outcome of two converging derivational trends. On the one hand, the verb must be related to καλλιγράφος and other -γράφος agentive compounds (around 200 forms, according to Buck, Petersen 1945, 401–2), which are almost exclusively documented in Post-classical Greek (outside of a few classical attestations – such as Cratin. fr. 267 βιβλιογράφος, ‘copyist’ and Thuc. 1.21.1 λογογράφος, ‘prose-writer’ – see e.g. Arist. Po. 1450a.28 ἠθογράφος, ‘painter of character’; Artem. 1.56.35 ἐγκωμιογράφος, ‘panegyric-writer’; P.Lips. 1.102.9 (= TM 33704) [origin unknown, 375–99 CE] χειρισμογράφος, ‘registrar’; Tz. H. 10.358.832 διθυραμβογράφος, ‘writer of dithyrambs’; for a general overview on -ος nomina agentis, see Tribulato 2015, 89–93). Used to describe professional activities, -γράφος compounds are connoted as technical termsTechnical language, which may be reflected in the pejorative nuance assumed by some -γράφος nouns (see e.g. λογογράφος ‘professional speech-writer’ as an expression of reproach, cf. Pl. Phdr. 257c.6; see Sider 2004, 29–30). On the other hand, καλλιγραφέω also seems to be built on καλλιγράφος after the pattern shown by other -έω compound verbs derived from καλλι- bahuvrihis (see e.g. καλλιγραφέω, ‘to have a beautiful writing’:    καλλιγράφος ‘having a beautiful writing’ = καλλιεπέομαι ‘to have a beautiful diction’ (e.g. Thuc. 6.83.2): καλλιεπής ‘having a beautiful diction’ (e.g. Ar. Th. 49) = καλλικαρπέω ‘to have fine fruit’ (e.g. Thphr. HP 3.15.2) : καλλίκαρπος ‘having fine fruit’ (e.g. [Aesch.] PV 371) (for a general overview of bahuvrihis, see Tribulato 2015, 77–85).

Consistently with the general features of -έω compound verbs, the occurrences of καλλιγραφέω and other -γραφέω verbs (around 80 forms, according to Kretschmer, Locker 1977, 594–5) demonstrate that such formations significantly increased in productivity during the Hellenistic period – continuing throughout the Byzantine era – especially in the specialised lexical field of professions (aside from rare exceptions to this trend – such as Pl. Prm. 165c.7 σκιαγραφέω, ‘to paint with the shadows’ and Pl. Ti. 55c.6 διαζωγραφέω, ‘paint in diverse colours’ – see e.g. P.Ryl. 4.555.15 (= TM 2411) [Philadelphia, 257 BCE] ἐπιστολογραφέω, ‘to be secretary’; ID 290.112 [Delos, 246 BCE] κηρογραφέω, ‘paint with wax’; D.H. Th. 42.29 ἱστοριογραφέω, ‘to write history’; Str. 3.4.4 μυθογραφέω, ‘to write fabulous accounts’; LXX 4Re. 23.35 τιμογραφέω, ‘to tax by assessment’; Eust. in Il. 2.274.10 πινακογραφέω, ‘to inscribe on a board’).

Literary sources offer three different definitions of καλλιγραφέω: ‘to write in a beautiful style’ (see C.2 and C.3), ‘to paint beautifully’/‘to put make up on’ (see B.1, cf. C.4) and ‘to write in calligraphy’ (see A.4, B.2, C.1). One of the first attestations of καλλιγραφέω is recorded in Pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime (C.2), in which the participle of the verb is used in reference to poets such as Bacchylides and Ion of Chios. The treatise’s author states that, despite the undeniable elegance of their style, they are nonetheless inferior to poets like Pindar and Sophocles, who are sublime even if they sometimes fail. καλλιγραφέω is employed with the same meaning in Josephus’ Against Apion (C.3), where the author says that – according to some – Plato’s speeches may be beautifully written but are empty with respect to content.

The first literary documentation of καλλιγράφος is contemporary with these texts and occurs in Philo of Alexandria’s On Providence (C.4). The author compares the transience of human beauty to the eternal grace of artworks, among which he includes the works produced by the καλλιγράφοι, i.e. ‘painters’. The verb καλλιγραφέω also shows a semantic nuance linked to painting activities, as attested by a section of Pollux’s Onomasticon (B.1) devoted to vocabulary pertaining to cosmetics. It is worth noting that, in contrast to other lexica, Pollux not only tolerates the use of καλλιγραφέω but even supports it, since the verb is a technical term and therefore appropriate for speaking about make-up (on Pollux’s attitude towards specialised vocabulary, see Tribulato 2018, 255–61; see also below).

Finally, both καλλιγραφέω and καλλιγράφος may denote writing or copying a text in calligraphy. καλλιγραφέω is employed with this meaning in the prefatory letter of the Rhetoric to Alexander (C.1), a treatise dated to the last part of the 4th century BCE whose authorship is debated (see Chiron 2002, 71; Ferrini 2015, 7–16). Although the letter purports to be from Aristotle to Alexander the Great, it is generally considered to be later than the Rhetoric itself (probably 2nd century CE), which linguistic evidence further supports (see Chiron 2002, 58–61, which includes καλλιγραφέω among the evidence for a later dating). This third meaning of καλλιγραφέω is prevalent in inscriptionsInscriptions and papyriPapyri (see P.Petra 4.39.445 (= TM 140542) [Sadaqa, 574 CE]; IG 5,1.1406.13 [Asine, 301 CE]; BGU 19.2788.5 (= TM 91696) [Hermopolis, 607–608 CE]; P.Cair.Masp. 3.67288, fol. 5, recto.5 (= TM 36523) [Aphrodites Kome, 6th century CE]; O.Frangé 774.30–1 (= TM 220312)[Tebe, 7th century CE]; see also the feminine καλλιγράφισσα, SEG 7.196 [Berytus, 5th–6th century CE]), where both καλλιγραφέω and καλλιγράφος refer specifically to calligraphers and their professional activity. In this technical field the terms were antithetical to ταχυγραφέω, ‘to write in shorthand’ (and/or the syntagm εἰς τάχος γράφω, see below), and to ταχυγράφος, ‘shorthand writer’ (see A.3, A.4, B.5), which initially referred to cursive writing and later to the use of shorthand symbols (for a detailed analysis, see De Gregorio 1995, 441–3. On the scholastic origin of the previous terms, see F.1).

The lexica’s judgement regarding καλλιγραφέω and καλλιγράφος is thus consistent with their occurrences and, in the case of the former, with its morphological peculiarity. However, it is less easy to confirm the veracity of what is said about εἰς κάλλος γράφω. As noted above, the expression does not have a clear Attic pedigree, since its first occurrences hark back to the lexica themselves and to Atticising 2nd/3rd century CE authors, such as Aelian (C.5) and Flavius Philostratus (C.6), who use the syntagm as equivalent to καλλιγραφέω and καλλιγράφος respectively. It is further noteworthy that no locus classicus can be identified for the parallel expression εἰς τάχος γράφω either; on the contrary, its first literary attestation is in Gal. Libr.Propr. 19.14.16.

The Attic model implied by the lexica is otherwise recognisable if we consider the locution εἰς κάλλος as a stand-alone. The use of periphrastic expressions formed by εἰς + nouns/adjectives as adverbs of manner is frequent in Attic authors of the classical period, see e.g. Aesch. Eu. 408, ἐς κοινόν (‘in common’ = κοινῶς); Soph. OT 78 εἰς καλόν (‘well’ = καλῶς); Ar. Ach. 686 ἐς τάχος (‘quickly’ = ταχέως) (see K–G vol. 1, 471. Cf. also F.1). This adverbial use of εἰς κάλλος (i.e. ‘in an aesthetically pleasing way’) can be found in writers like Euripides (El. 1072–3: γυνὴ δ’ ἀπόντος ἀνδρὸς ἥτις ἐκ δόμων | ἐς κάλλος ἀσκεῖ, διάγραφ’ ὡς οὖσαν κακήν, ‘Any woman who makes herself beautiful while her husband is away from home you may scratch off your list as a whore’. Transl. adapted from Kovacs 1998, 269; Tr. 1201–2: φέρετε, κομίζετ’ ἀθλίῳ κόσμον νεκρῷ | ἐκ τῶν παρόντων. οὐ γὰρ ἐς κάλλος τύχας | δαίμων δίδωσιν, ‘Come, all of you, bring adornment for this poor dead boy from what you have! Our fate does not allow us to be lavish’. Transl. Kovacs 1999, 127) and Xenophon (Cyr. 8.1.33: ἀλλὰ ἰδὼν ἂν αὐτοὺς ἡγήσω τῷ ὄντι εἰς κάλλος ζῆν, ‘But on seeing them you would have judged that they were in truth living sumptuously’. Transl. adapted from Miller 1915, 321). Therefore, although we cannot identify any proper literary model for the expression εἰς κάλλος γράφω (nor for εἰς τάχος γράφω), it appears that – from the Atticists’ perspective – this syntagm’s appropriateness was adequately guaranteed by the acknowledged Attic character of ‘εἰς + nouns/adjectives’ adverbial expressions.

Furthermore, all lexicographers – except for Pollux (B.1) – seem to prefer εἰς κάλλος γράφω to καλλιγραφέω and καλλιγράφος on stylisticStyle grounds (cf. B.3 εἰς κάλλος γράφω vs. καλλιγραφία ‘beautiful style’, ‘calligraphy’ (see e.g. Plu. Conjugalia praecepta 145f.7; De Pythiae oraculis 397c.3). For more about καλλιγραφία, see F.1). Owing to its periphrastic structure, εἰς κάλλος γράφω was likely perceived as a semantically neutral expression and therefore as more suited to refined speech than the more technically connoted καλλιγραφέω (on the synthetic structure of specialised terminology, see Willi 2003, 125–6; Tribulato 2010, 490–3). This adverse attitude towards technical language is amply documented in Phrynichus’ Eclogue, which rejects many terms – especially compounds – in favour of syntagms on the grounds that they are lexically too specific and morphologically irregular (see Ecl. 167Phryn. Ecl. 167, 271Phryn. Ecl. 271, 359Phryn. Ecl. 359, 361Phryn. Ecl. 361, and entry χρεολυτέω. On this topic, see Scomparin 2022, 57–65, 74–97).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Despite the disapproval of Phrynichus and other lexicographers, καλλιγραφέω and καλλιγράφος remained in use throughout the entire Byzantine period, preserving both the meanings related to painting (i.e. ‘to paint beautifully’ and ‘painter’, see e.g. Philes Carmina de proprietate animalium 3.256; Georgius Pisides, Bellum Avaricum 172), and those linked to calligraphy (i.e. ‘to write in calligraphy’ and ‘copyist’, see e.g. Eus. HE 6.23.2.4; Thdt. Ep.Sirm. 131.150) (see also Lampe; LBG; Kriaras, LME s.vv.). It is worth noting that the latter connotations are those preserved by καλλιγραφέω and καλλιγράφος in Modern Greek (see LKN s.v.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Su. ε 3201 (A.4), Hsch. ε 1150 (B.2)

In the interpretamentum of Hsch. ε 1150 (B.2), the verb ἁμιλλάομαι (‘to compete’) is likely used to allude to ἀποδείξεις – public performances that were frequent in the Hellenistic and imperial periods and whose aim was to test the scholastic skills acquired by students (see D’Amore 2015, 97–101; Olson 2021, 402). Some of the didactic contests recorded by the sources tested writing, like the calligraphy contest (see καλλιγραφία in I.Mylasa 909.19 [Hydai, 2nd century BCE] and CIG 3088.col. ii.4[Teos, 2nd century BCE]) and the shorthand competitions (see Hsch. α 3665: ἁμιλλᾶν· τὸ ἐρίζειν. καὶ εἰς τάχος γράφειν, ‘ἁμιλλᾶν (‘to compete’): competing; also, ‘to write in shorthand’). It is worth noting in passing that, according to Latte (1966, 37), the infinitive ἁμιλλᾶσθαι in Hsch. ε 1150 might not be original but rather a later addition deriving from another unspecified lemma. If this is the case, it seems reasonable – though not necessary – to suppose an insertion from entry Hsch. α 3665. The scholastic context underlying the expressions εἰς τάχος γράφω and εἰς κάλλος γράφω is further attested by schol. (vet. Tr.) Ar. Ach. 686 (ἐς τάχος παίει· παίειν λέγουσι τὸ πᾶν ὁτιοῦν συντόνως ποιεῖν. ‘στρογγύλοις’ δέ, πιθανοῖς ἢ πανούργοις. τὸ δὲ ‘ἐς τάχος’ ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν ἐν τοῖς διδασκαλείοις παίδων, ἐφ’ ὧν οὕτως ἐλέγετο, ἐς τάχος γράφει, ἐς κάλλος, ‘ἐς τάχος παίει (‘he quickly hits’): They call παίειν (‘to hit’) doing anything quickly. στρογγύλοις (‘with terse [words]’), [also] πιθανοῖς (‘persuasive’) or πανούργοις (‘cunning’). The locution ἐς τάχος (‘quickly’) comes metaphorically from children at school, of whom it was said ‘he writes quickly, he writes beautifully’’). A reference to Aristophanes’ Ach. 686 is also found in Su. ε 3201 (A.4), where ἐς τάχος παίει is offered as further evidence of the appropriateness of ἐς κάλλος/ἐς τάχος γράφει.

(2)    EM 649.32–8 (B.4)

The source of lemma EM 649.32–8, devoted to the participle παλιμπλαγχθέντας (‘driven back’, masc. acc. pl. aor. pass.), is debated. On the one hand, La Roche (1866, 313) traces the erudite material back to Herodian; on the other hand, Schironi (2004, 285) excludes the potential attribution to Aristarchus. The entry deals with the linguistic notion that it is impossible for a word to assume one meaning when compounded and another when used as a simplex. This thesis is supported by the examples of καλλιγραφέω and καλῶς γράφω, which are here considered to be semantically equivalent. Nonetheless, the occurrences indicate that, in contrast to καλλιγραφέω, καλῶς γράφω was never used to imply literary or painterly embellishments; rather, it referred to detailed and correct writing, specifically in terms of content (see e.g. Isoc. 12.173.1; Pl. Phdr. 259e.2; X. Cyn. 13.6.4.; D. 7.22.3). Therefore, καλλιγραφέω and καλῶς γράφω are not precise synonyms but rather are placed side by side because of their semantic connection with the generic concept of ‘good writing’.