μεσοδάκτυλα
(Phryn. Ecl. 167)

D. General commentary

In entry Ecl. 167 (A.1) – which lacks any parallels in extant Atticist lexicography and Greek erudition – Phrynichus discusses the correct terminology for the ‘interdigital space’ by comparing two synonymic expressions that differ in structure. One form, the compound noun μεσοδάκτυλα (‘spaces between fingers/toes’), is harshly rejected by the lexicographer, who even claims to be disgusted by it (ἐναυτίασα, lit. ‘I became nauseous’). The preferred form consists in the syntagm τὰ μέσα τῶν δακτύλων (‘spaces between the fingers/toes’), whose linguistic and stylistic value is upheld without the support of any literary citation or typical evaluative labels (e.g. οἱ Ἀττικοί ‘users of Attic’, οἱ ὀλίγοι ‘the few’, etc.). Although Phrynichus does not clarify the reasons that underlie his disapproval of μεσοδάκτυλα, examination of the compound’s attestations reveals its unquestionable recency, as it is documented only from the early imperial period onwards (see C.1, and below). Neither, however, does the syntagm τὰ μέσα τῶν δακτύλων boast any literary Attic precedent (see C.2, C.3, C.4, and below), and so Phrynichus’ rejection of the compound μεσοδάκτυλα may not be based on a mere question of canon. Comparison with other entries of the Eclogue suggests that Phrynichus likely objected to μεσοδάκτυλα on the grounds of its irregular structure and strong technical connotation (see below).

At first glance, μεσοδάκτυλα may be equated with compounds whose second constituent is the head (in this case, δάκτυλος ‘finger’) and the adjectival first constituent is its modifier, as e.g. in the formally identical, but semantically different and later attested μεσοδάκτυλος ‘middle finger’ (see Vita Symeonis Stylitae iunioris 214.28). Nonetheless, the meaning of μεσοδάκτυλα suggests that its first constituent is the head (since μεσοδάκτυλα is a specific kind of τὸ μέσον, see below), on which δάκτυλος is syntactically dependent rather than vice versa. In fact, the orientation of μεσοδάκτυλα must be explained as modelled after the so-called Ableitungskomposita (‘derivational compounds’); moreover, its semantics suggests that another compounding pattern (i.e. substantival left-headed compounds) surely overlapped in the process of its formation (see below). In his fundamental investigation, Risch (1945) describes Ableitungskomposita, such as μεσονύκτιος (‘of midnight’, i.e. ‘in the middle of the night’), as derived from phrases (e.g. μέσαι νύκτες) through suffixation (especially -ιος/-ιον and -ος/-ον, see Risch 1945, 17–27; Rousseau 2016, 84–8). Such an interpretation, however, neither justifies these compounds left-orientation nor considers the possibility that not all compounds of this type exhibit a corresponding phrase (on left-oriented compounds, unusual in Greek and other IE languages, see Andriotis 1938, 92–7; Lehmann 1969, 11–20; Lehmann 1974, 75–82; Tischler 1979). Rather, those Ableitungskomposita which have spatial adjectives (e.g. μέσος ‘middle’, ἄκρος ‘high’) as their first constituent (besides μεσονύκτιος, see e.g. μεσοποτάμιος ‘between rivers’, ἀκρέσπερος ‘on edge of evening’) may be explained considering the governing role of their first constituent, which feature is shared by prepositional compounds (e.g. ἐπιδήμιος ‘among the people’; see Tribulato 2015, 113; Rousseau 2016) and several other adjectival left-oriented compounds (e.g. ἰσόθεος ‘similar to a god’, ἀξιόλογος ‘worthy of mention’; see Tribulato 2007). Adjectival left-oriented μέσο-/ἄκρο- compounds are first documented in archaic Greek (e.g. Pi. I. 7.5 μεσονύκτιος; Hes. Op. 567 ἀκροκνέφαιος ‘at beginning of night’) and, despite their rarity, continue to occur in Classical and Post-classical Greek (e.g.    Aesch. Pers. 889 μέσακτος ‘half-way between two shores’; Eur. Ion 1152 μεσοπόρος ‘half-way’; App. Hann. 160.4 μεσοτείχιος ‘between the walls’; D.P. 211 μεσήπειρος ‘inland’). Likely owing to their sparse appearances and ambiguous structure, Phrynichus perceived these derivational compounds as inappropriate, as demonstrated in Ecl. 32Phryn. Ecl. 32 μεσονύκτιος (a different but morphologically closely related case is Phryn. Ecl. 392Phryn. Ecl. 392 μεσοπορεῖν ‘to be half-way’, which is an -έω verb derived from μεσοπόρος; on Phrynichus’ attitude towards -έω compound verbs, see entries χρεολυτέω and καλλιγραφέω, καλλιγράφος).

As mentioned above, the semantics of μεσοδάκτυλα and similar μέσο- and ἄκρο- compounded nouns – the majority of which are substantivised neuters – suggests that another compounding pattern likely influenced their formation, resulting in their first constituent taking on the meaning of a noun (τὸ μέσον and τὸ ἄκρον respectively) and functioning as the head of an endocentric compound (cf. μέσο-/ἄκρο- adjectival Ableitungskomposita, which are per se exocentric): aside from some early examples – such as Pi. O. 2.4 ἀκρόθις ‘topmost of the heap’ and Archipp. fr. 9 ἀκροβελίς ‘point of dart’ – examples include Thphr. HP 4.11.6 μεσογονάτιον ‘space between two knots’; Sor. Fasc. 55.4 μεσόκωλον ‘middle of a limb’; Ael. NA 7.17 μεσοπτερύγια ‘space between the wings’; Ptol. Alm. 7.5 ἀκρόπους ‘extremity of leg’; D.H. Comp. 14.45 ἀκροστόμιον ‘edge of the lips’; Aen.Tact. 15.6 ἀκρολοφία ‘mountain ridge’; Cat.Cod.Astr. 7.238.26 μεσοδάκτυλος ‘middle phalanx of a finger’, and μεσοδάκτυλα itself (for more examples, see Andriotis 1938, 106–8). This is concretely proven by the way ancient lexicography addresses these forms: aside from our Ecl. 167 (A.1: μεσοδάκτυλα = τὰ μέσα τῶν δακτύλων), see also e.g. Paus.Gr. α 57Paus.Gr. α 57 ἀκρωβέλια = τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ ὀβελίου ἄρτου ‘end of a spit-toasted loaf’; Hsch. α 2617 ἀκρόπολις = τὸ ἄκρον τῆς πόλεως ‘the highest part of the city’ (cf. Il. 6.88 πόλις ἄκρη and Od. 8.494 ἀκρόπολις ‘higher city’). Thus, from a morpho-syntactic perspective, these μέσο-/ἄκρο- noun compounds may be assimilated to substantival left-headed compounds such as ὀποβάλσαμον ‘the juice of the balsam-tree’ (Thphr. HP 4.4.14), ἱπποπόταμος ‘hippopotamus’ (Dsc. 2.23.1), ξυλοκιννάμωμον ‘wood of cinnamon’ (Dsc. 1.14.3.5), which are structurally derived from univerbated phrases and – although likely to have originated in colloquialColloquial language Classical Greek – are considerably productive in Hellenistic technical prose (see Tribulato 2010, 490–3; Tribulato 2015, 110–2). Such a structural affinity between μέσο-/ἄκρο- noun compounds and substantival left-headed compounds is even more revelatory when forms such as μεσόκωλον, ἀκρόπους, and μεσοδάκτυλος (‘middle phalanx of a finger’) are considered, since their second constituent exhibits no derivational suffix (unlike e.g. μεσογονάτιον, ἀκρολοφία, etc.) or marking for neuter gender in -oν or -α (like μεσοδάκτυλα itself). On the rare lack of suffixation in Ableitungskomposita and/or prepositional compounds, see Risch 1945, 23–4; Rousseau 2016 84–5.

Like other μέσο- and ἄκρο- compound nouns, μεσοδάκτυλα is almost exclusively recorded in post-classical scientific prose. The earliest surviving attestation of the compound is in Dioscorides (C.1). Aside from Phrynichus, the few remaining literary occurrences all date from the Byzantine period (see section E.). Although the structural comparison with substantival left-headed compounds suggests that μεσοδάκτυλα may have originated in a colloquial register, the compound is absent from all papyrological or epigraphic sources – a gap likely due to the term’s high semantic specificity (for other hints suggesting the compound’s origin in common language, see section E.; on colloquial Greek words in specialist terminology, see Willi 2003, 59–64; Tribulato 2010, 482–4; Schironi 2019, 241–5).

Phrynichus’ suggested alternative to μεσοδάκτυλα is its precise syntactic counterpart τὰ μέσα τῶν δακτύλων. As mentioned, the syntagm is not documented until the imperial age, with its first occurrences dating to the 2nd-century CE physicians, Galen and Aretaeus. The former employs τὰ μέσα τῶν δακτύλων on various occasions in relation to the anatomy of veins (C.2), remedies against ulcers between toes (C.3), and Hippocrates’ thoughts (Off. 4 [= 3.286.3–4 Littré]) on the best hand conformation for surgical practice (C.4, see also F.1). The latter also mentions cracking skin between the toes among the symptoms of elephantiasis (C.5). While GalenGalen did resort to some classical Attic features in his works, he openly opposed the adherence to contemporary Atticist purism for technical prose: thus, he could hardly have served as a model for Phrynichus’ prescription of τὰ μέσα τῶν δακτύλων (on Galen’s linguistic positions, see Herbst 1911; Swain 1996, 56–64; Kim 2010, 477–8; Vela Tejada 2009). Even the slightly different variant of the syntagm τὸ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν δακτύλων used by Hippocrates (Off. 4 [= 3.286.3 Littré]) cannot be counted as a good Attic exemplum (on this text, see F.1).

Given that both μεσοδάκτυλα and τὰ μέσα τῶν δακτύλων lack pedigree, it becomes clear that canon issues do not wholly resolve the interpretation of Ecl. 167. Rather, a comparison with other morphologically similar lemmas (see Ecl. 271Phryn. Ecl. 271 ἀφρόνιτρον ‘sodium carbonate’; Ecl. 303Phryn. Ecl. 303 γαστροκνημία ‘calf of the leg’; Ecl. 359Phryn. Ecl. 359 σύαγρος ‘wild boar’) suggests that Phrynichus’ systematic rejection of substantival left-headed compounds, which were likely perceived as morphologically irregular (in the case of μεσοδάκτυλα, likely enhanced by the ambiguous morphological interpretation of the first member μέσο-, see above) and excessively technically marked. To confirm this, all Phrynichus’ chosen alternatives in these entries are syntagms or simplexes (see for Ecl. 271 λίτρον and λίτρου ἀφρόν; Ecl. 303 κνήμη; Ecl. 359 σῦς ἄγριος). Although phrases such as τὰ μέσα τῶν δακτύλων are documented in specialist prose, the general preference of scientific language for synthetic formations may have influenced the perception of syntagms as less technical and accurate compared to their compounded counterparts (on substantival left-headed compounds as ‘morphological patterns’ of scientific taxonomy, see Tribulato 2010, 492–3; Tribulato 2015, 110–2. For a typological comparison with scientific compounds in Latin, see Langslow 2000, 275–9). For this reason, Phrynichus may have systematically favoured them over left-headed compounds, evaluating the syntagms as more neutral and stylisticallyStyle refined. Moreover, the syntagms’ lack of terminological formalisation is proven definitively in the case of τὰ μέσα τῶν δακτύλων and its variant τὸ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν δακτύλων, which cause an uneconomic lexical overlap and are thus inadequate for the univocal designation of anatomical referents (on standardisation and lexical economy as general criteria of technical languages, see Fijas 1998; Langslow 2000, 16–20; Willi 2003, 69). Furthermore, Phrynichus’ preference for syntagms – even when no Attic models are apparent – over structurally ‘irregular’ compounds is a modus operandi that he also pursues in the case of innovative -έω compound verbs (see Ecl. 361Phryn. Ecl. 361 σιτομετρεῖσθαι ‘to deal out portions of corn’, and entries χρεολυτέω and καλλιγραφέω, καλλιγράφος).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

μεσοδάκτυλα remained in use throughout the Byzantine period. In contrast to previous attestations, the compound figures not only in medical prose (see Nicolaus Myrepsus Dynameron 10.20.12) but also in non-scientific literature, such as the description of St. Clement’s and St. Agathangelus’ martyrdom in the Synaxarion of Constantinople (Synaxarium mensis Januarii 23.1.28) and the parody Spanos (D 644 = A 231 = B 55 Eideneier), in which μεσοδάκτυλα serves as an irreverent metaphor for the intergluteal cleft (for Spanos’ mocking imitation of medical vocabulary, see Eideneier 1977, 198–200; 232–4). μεσοδάκτυλα survived until the 19th century in the Cretan vernacular (see Hatzidakis 1892, 289) and until the end of the 20th century in Pontic Greek (see Andriotis 1974, 373). With respect to τὰ μέσα τῶν δακτύλων, the only late documentation of the syntagm is found in Symeon Metaphrastes’ Passio Probi, Tarachi et Andronici (1076.51–2 Migne) (for the Atticising refined style of his collection of saints’ lives, see Ševčenko 1982, 300–3) and its linguistic adaptation into 17th-century Modern Greek by the monk Agapius Landus (Νέος Παράδεισος 11.59.23–4).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Gal. In Hipp. De off. med. comm. 18b.712.8–9 Kühn (C.4)

The sentence δάκτυλον ἐκφυῆναι […] τῶν δακτύλων – both in the version transmitted by manuscripts (cod. Par. gr. 1849 and its apograph cod. Marc. gr. 279; on the tradition, see Roselli 1992; Ihm 2002, 112) and that restored by Kühn – is likely corrupt. Inconsistencies in content emerge, particularly considering the original Hippocratic passage (Off. 4.4–5: δακτύλων εὐφυΐα, μέγα τὸ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν δακτύλων, καὶ ἀπεναντίον τὸν μέγαν τῷ λιχανῷ, ‘Good formation of fingers: one with wide intervals and with the thumb opposed to the forefinger’ [Transl. Withington 1927, 63]; cf. Littré 1841, 287). In his reference edition – which regrettably lacks essential ecdotic information – Kühn partially sticks to the manuscripts’ reading while overlooking the Hippocratic parallel. Consequently, his restored text is not only incoherent but also deviates in meaning from Hippocrates’ original discussion. Further evidence of the passage’s corruption is provided by De usu part. 1.9 (= 3.22.11–3 Kühn), in which Galen correctly quotes the same Hippocratic excerpt, and Guido Guidi’s 16th-century Latin translation of Galen’s commentary (in cod. Par. lat. 6866), which appears to be based on a better version of the text (Optima autem digitorum structura est, ubi ipsis magnum spacium interiectum est […]).