βλάξ
(Phryn. Ecl. 238, Phryn. PS 53.19, Poll. 1.158, Poll. 1.197, Poll. 3.122, Paus.Gr. β 10, Antiatt. β 4, Thom.Mag. 54.12)

D. General commentary

The Attic origin of βλάξ (‘sluggish, foolish’) was uncontroversial for the Atticists. Rather, it seems that there was a need to circumscribe its range of meanings. Atticist and other erudite sources offer insights into different nuances of meaning: some highlight a sense of sluggishness, while others convey the idea of foolishness.

In terms of etymologyEtymology, βλάξ would be the closest cognate of μαλακός, probably a primary k-derivative. A split paradigm has been proposed for the two words: *ml̥h₂-k- > *μλᾱκ- and *ml̥h₂-ek- > *μαλ-ακ- (EDG s.vv. βλάξ and μαλακός). Nussbaum (2022, 220), starting from an adjectival root *mleh₂- ‘soft’ (cf. Vedic Sanskrit mlāta- ‘softened’, Young Avestan amrāta- ‘unsoftened’) posits a derivative *mleh₂-ḱ-/*ml̥h₂-ḱ- serving both as an abstract noun meaning ‘softness’ (whence the possessive derivative μαλακός ‘soft’) and as an adjective meaning ‘soft (in the head)’ > ‘stupid’ (i.e. βλάξ).

That βλάξ and μαλακός share a common linguistic origin was already made clear in the Etymologicum Genuinum (B.5, cf. EM 198.57): the word is said to derive from μαλακός via the hypochoristic μάλαξ, which would have undergone a contraction (συγκοπή) of the first vowel and a (phonetic) change (τροπή) ‒ the voiced bilabial consonant changing from nasal to occlusive. The DGE (s.v. βλάξ), however, traces the root of the word back to that of βλαδύς (*melH^u̯- cf. Latin blandus) with a ‘guttural enlargement’. On the other hand, according to other sources, the word βλάξ is the name of a type of discard fish, similar to the silurus: this would perhaps explain the use of βλάξ as a derogatory word (see Pausanias’ lexicon, A.6, cf. Su. β 315; Phot. β 150; Et.Gen. β 129; Et.Sym. β 113; EM 198.57; Hsch. β 671; Suet. Blasph. 176–8 (7.10–3); Σ β 51. Eustathius (in Od. 1.41.26) derives the word from the verb βάλλω: as one who is 'cast down', a βλάξ is incapable of standing upright due to softness or even naivety. Hence, βλάξ would also refer to a fish that is considered completely useless. According to Erotian (β 9), this kind of fish was known to be difficult to remove once it attached itself to something (see Strömberg 1943, 33–4). One may wonder whether this characteristic is relevant to the derogatory use of the word.

The loci classici of βλάξ are relatively few compared to the number of attestations of the term and its derivatives in erudite sources; nevertheless, within these references it is possible to identify two primary nuances of meaning that coexisted from the classical period: one emphasising sluggishness, the other highlighting stupidity or foolishness. The text of the Heraclitus fragment (C.1) exemplifies the difficulty of assessing the precise meaning of this word (see Robinson 1987, 136 for a discussion of the meaning of βλάξ and an interpretation of the fragment).

Gautier (1911) included βλάξ in his Lexilogus of Xenophon’s remarkable vocabulary, although he questionably classified it as an Ionicism. Indeed, XenophonXenophon appears to be the classical author who used the term and its derivatives the most, providing significant examples of the semantic range of βλάξ, along with the only known occurrences of its comparative and superlative forms (Gautier 1911, 74). While the idea of laziness is prevalent in X. Eq. 9.12, where βλάξ refers to a sluggish horse, in Mem. 3.13.4 (C.6) βλακότατος appears with the meaning of ‘blockheaded’ in a list of a servant’s worst vices. In the same vein, in Cyr. 1.4.12 (C.5), Xenophon paints a vivid picture of a young Cyrus and his fearful reaction before Astyages, which causes his inability to speak (the passage is quoted in Et.Gen. AB β 129 = B.5), just as in the Memorabilia Socrates’ interlocutors, disappointed after the usual ἔλεγχος, are said to be βλακότεροι (X. Mem. 4.2.40, see on this passage Danzig 2010, 196–9). Regarding the meaning of βλάξ in Xenophon’s writings, Schmidt (1876, 650) has argued that the word refers to someone who lacks a strong, self-assured spirit, is unable to express themselves, or is driven by curiosity. It can also describe a lifeless, sluggish horse, as opposed to a spirited but difficult to control one. Schmidt has noted the impossibility of rendering βλάξ with a single term: this is due to the word’s multifaceted semantic content, which is reflected in the variety of terms used as interpretamenta for this lemma.

Erudite sources privilege different semantic nuances at different times. The sources that privilege the aspect of laziness are Phrynichus (A.2), who explains βλάκες with οἱ ἐκλελυμένοι ‘relaxed’ (indeed in Aristophanes’ fragment, C.3, the word is accompanied by φύγεργοι ‘work-avoiding’, cf. Bagordo 2016, 246–8) and Pollux, who alternatively associates βλάξ with words such as ἄθυμοι (A.3), μαλακός (A.5) and – in relation to horses, as in Xenophon ‒ ἀργός (A.4). Such a description of a βλάξ matches fairly well the picture of the bon vivant drawn by Thomas Magister (A.8): a βλάξ would not only indulge in idleness and indifference, but would also enjoy the τρυφή. In contrast, although in the passage from Plato’s Gorgias (C.4) βλάξ can be translated as ‘dunce’, in his Platonic lexicon Timaeus (B.2) explains the word by emphasising the idea of sluggishness (διὰ νωθρ<ε>ίαν): in the specific case of Callicles, βλάξ takes on a precise meaning, referring to someone who lingers in error (on this entry and its connections with Cyrillus’ lexicon, see Valente 2012, 48; cf. also Valente 2008, 612). Other sources, instead, highlight another aspect of the semantic spectrum of βλάξ, i.e. foolishness: the interpretamentum of Pausanias (A.6) includes the terms εὐήθη, μωρά, ἀνόητα, and the explanation of the βλακεννόμιον tax ‒ levied in Alexandria on the profits of astrologers, who exploited simpletons (τοὺς μωρούς). Τhe author of the P.Berol.inv. 9965 (= TM 65774) (B.1) also used μῶρος to gloss βλάξ, while in the fragment of Hippocrates of Chios (C.2) βλάξ appears in combination with ἄφρων in a synonymous dittology (on the use of βλάξ with synonyms, Bagordo 2016, 248). In Aristides (C.7, quoted by Thomas Magister, A.8), the meaning ‘foolish’ is evident: translating βλάξ with ‘lazy’ would certainly not be acceptable in this case. Other erudite sources provide more comprehensive interpretamenta of the word, such as Hesychius (B.3), Aelius Dionysius (B.4, though the attribution of the gloss to Aelius Dionysius is disputed, see Erbse 1950, 70) and the Etymologicum Genuinum (B.5). Besides, according to the Physiognomica, the lips are the telltale sign for distinguishing ἄψυχοι from βλάκες individuals: ‘those whose upper lip is larger than the lower are spiritless; those whose lower lip is larger than the upper, on the contrary, are foolish’ (Polem.Phgn. 80).

Parallel to the interest of Atticist scholars in βλάξ, its derivatives, and related loci classici (the term also appears in a fragment quoted by Ath. 5.219a = com. adesp. fr. *109), βλάξ productively entered the vocabulary of Atticising authors of the imperial age, such as Plutarch (Quom. adul. ab amico internoscatur 60e), Lucian (Peregr. 39.15, Tox. 15.13; Deor.Con. 13.7; DMort. 9. 2), and, as already noted, Aristides (see C.7 and Aristid. 28.12 Keil = 49.495.1 Dindorf, cf. Schmid, Atticismus vol. 2, 175, where βλάξ appears among the terms Aristides would have borrowed from Xenophon), who retained the word’s range of semantic nuances.

As for the documentary papyri, to the best of our knowledge, the word is never attested. It may have been perceived as a high-register term due to its distinctly Attic origin. The sole possible instance appears in SB 14.11294.4 (= TM 14433) [Arsinoites(?), 2 BCE], a private letter written by a certain Sosibius to his brother Archias, where, between two lacunas, it is possible to read βλᾶκα (‘se la lettura è esatta, è la prima comparsa di questo aggettivo nel lessico dei papiri’: Zecchini in Geraci et al. 1974, 104; see also Harrauer 2010, 249 n. 66).

As for the Atticist discussion of βλάξ, although its metrically attested long alpha would not allow the word to be classified as an Attic-Ionic form (EDG s.v. βλάξ; Fiori 2022, 174–5), its Attic pedigree was already affirmed in the Ptolemaic era, as attested by P.Berol.inv. 9965 (= TM 65774) (B.1, cf. Cyr. (ex cod. Brem. G 11) β 103), see Poethke 1993; Ucciardello 2006 = Ucciardello 2012, 11–35; cf. also the edition of individual lemmata in Esposito 2012 and some remarks in Vecchiato 2020, 12–8 and in AGP vol. 1, 529–30). The ethnic Ἀθηναῖοι in this papyrus has been explained as a probable allusion to the use of the word made by Aristophanes (see Ucciardello 2006, 44–5; AGP vol. 1, 530). Aristophanes of Byzantium (Ar.Byz. fr. 16A–D) mentioned Xenophon as an auctoritas for some forms in βλακ- (though it is uncertain which, as Prauscello notes in AGP vol. 1, 453; Fiori 2022, 172 discusses the relationship between Aristophanes of Byzantium, the Antiatticist, Eustathius, and the underlying loci classici concerning this gloss). It has been plausibly argued that Aristophanes of Byzantium was interested in this family of words precisely because their ᾱ made their Attic status suspect (Fiori 2022, 174–5; cf. Slater 1986, 13, who could not understand ‘why Ar. Byz. should have felt it necessary to prove their antiquity’).

According to Phrynichus (A.1), βλάξ was not to be confused with βάκηλος ‒ the equivalent of ‘Gallus’, the eunuch priests of the goddess Cybele (cf. Lucas 1939 and Masson 1967; incidentally, this entry supports a Bithynian origin for Phrynichus, cf. Su. φ 764, and see Bowie 2021, 82) ‒ which was probably used with the extended meaning of ‘sluggish’. Phrynichus recommends using instead the words βλάξ and βλακικός, forms which are attested in classical Attic writers (οἱ ἀρχαῖοι). Two observations can be made regarding the confusion between the two words (which are etymologically unrelated) and the semantic shift from βλάξ (‘sluggish, foolish’) to βάκηλος (‘eunuch’, ‘effeminate’). On the one hand, there is an obvious phonetic similarity between βάκηλος and βλάξ. On the other hand, at the semantic level, there is also a point of contact between the two words: the range of the meanings of βλάξ also includes the idea of being soft, delicate, and effeminate, through its derivation from the same root as μαλακός (see above) ‒ hence the semantic proximity to βάκηλος, which also carries the meaning of ‘womanish’. Indeed, the two words receive similar interpretamenta elsewhere: while Phrynichus glosses βλάκες with the word ἐκλελυμένοι (‘relaxed’, A.2), in the Suda (β 46) a βάκηλος is said to be ἔκλυτος (‘relaxed’). All these factors may have contributed to a blurring of the usage of these terms. Moreover, Phrynichus (A.1) and Hesychius (B.3) attribute the use of βλάξ to the ‘ancients’ and the ‘Athenians’ respectively (on the use of Ἀττικοί/Ἀθηναῖοι in lexicography, see Ucciardello 2012, 28–9; 71–9). The Antiatticist (A.7) provides literary examples of words in βλακ-, but offers no insight into their usage. However, these examples are problematic: apart from the reference to Plato’s Gorgias, the lemmata do not correspond to the loci classici included in the interpretamentum: Pl. Euthd. does not attest βλάξ, but its derivative βλακεία; Ar. Pl. 125 likewise does not attest the noun itself, but the derived form καταβλακευμένως (Fiori 2022, 168–72 provides a useful up-to-date discussion of these issues). By shifting the perspective, this gloss provides valuable information about the lexicographer’s sources: the onomastic structure of the entry seems to derive from the source used, rather than being an innovation of the Antiatticist (cf. Valente 2014, 51; on this entry’s structure, see also Tribulato 2021, 125).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A