ἐνεχυριμαῖον
(Phryn. Ecl. 342)

D. General commentary

In the Eclogue (A.1), Phrynichus condemns the use of the plural form of the substantivised adjective ἐνεχυριμαῖον (‘security’, ‘pledge’), prescribing instead the plural noun ἐνέχυρα (the singular form of the same noun is prescribed in Phryn. Ecl. 274Phryn. Ecl. 274, see entry ὑπάλλαγμα; on the relevance of the grammatical number of ἐνέχυρον in lexicographical and grammatical sources, see below). ἐνεχυριμαῖος derives from ἐνέχυρον with the addition of the suffix -ιμαῖος; derivatives in -ιμαῖος form a small group of terms attested as early as the classical period, mainly in juridical and technical contexts: see e.g. εὐχωλιμαῖος ‘bound by a vow’ (Hdt. 2.63.2), ὑποβολιμαῖος ‘brought in by stealth, supposititious’, said of children (Hdt 1.137.2, Pl. R. 537e.9), ἀποβολιμαῖος ‘apt to throw away (one’s weapons)’, an Aristophanic coinage on the basis of the aforementioned ὑποβολιμαῖος (Pax 678; see Olson 1998, 207–8), and ἐπιστολιμαῖος ‘promised by letter’ (D. 4.19). These forms are supposed to derive from adjectival forms in -ιμος, although the -ιμος form is mostly unattested; see Lobeck (1820, 558–9), Chantraine (1933, 49). The substantivised adjective ἐνεχυριμαῖος is attested only in lexicographical sources, whereas it appears as an adjective in a Pherecratean fragment (C.1) preserved by Photius (B.1) and in the proverb βοῦς ἐνεχυριμαῖος τὰ πολλὰ ἔξω βλέπει, ‘a pledged ox just looks around’, i.e. the ox is not interested in what it is doing because it does not work for its master (see Cohn 1887, 75, no. 30 and Bühler 1987, 163, no. 6, and 367–368: cf. also Zen. 2.81).

Phrynichus’ proscription of ἐνεχυριμαῖον is probably not based on morphological grounds: indeed, derivatives in -ιμαῖος are attested in Attic authors (see above), and in the Praeparatio sophistica Phrynichus himself seems to approve adjectives such as ἁρπαγιμαῖος ‘ravished’ (PS 6.6Phryn. PS 6.6), ὀνυχιμαῖος ‘of the size of nail-parings’ (PS 92.6Phryn. PS 92.6), and συλλογιμαῖος ‘collected from diverse places’ (PS 109.9Phryn. PS 109.9). The proscription of ἐνεχυριμαῖον is instead to be accounted for by its lack of attestations in canonical authors: in this regard, the use of ἐνεχυριμαῖος in Pherecrates was insufficient for approval (on the treatment of comic playwrights in Phrynichus’ Eclogue, see Tribulato 2024; however, it must be noted that Phrynichus’ proscription concerns the substantivised use of ἐνεχυριμαῖος, while Pherecrates employs it as an adjective). Furthermore, the noun ἐνέχυρον, preferred by Phrynichus, was the usual term to express the concept of ‘security’ and ‘pledge’ in classical authors (see entry ὑπάλλαγμα).

The mention of ἐνεχυριμαῖος in Photius (B.1), apparently with defensive purposes, has been explained as resulting from the derivation of Photius’ entry from the Antiatticist, as the lemma ἐνεχυρασία and the quotation of Hyperides also seem to indicate; cf. Tsantsanoglou (1984, 31–2). Indeed, on the one hand, Hyperides seems to have been a favourite model in the Antiatticist, overshadowing Isocrates and Lysias, whereas he is often criticised by Phrynichus for using inappropriate words: see entry ἐμπυρισμός, ἐμπρησμός (Ecl. 311Phryn. Ecl. 311) and Ecl. 309Phryn. Ecl. 309, on ἐγκάθετος ‘adopted’ (of a child). On the other hand, nouns ending in -σία were normally condemned by stricter Atticists: see entries ἱκεσία, ἱκετεία; θερμότης, θερμασία; ἀνοητία, ἀνοησία and AGP vol. 2, Nominal morphology, forthcoming. For the relationship between Phrynichus and the Antiatticist, see Valente (2015, 52–5).

Finally, the revival of Phrynichus’ prescription in Thomas Magister’s lexicon (B.2) is emblematic of the corruptions that can affect the transmission of ancient lexica. The abridged version of Phrynichus’ entry handed down by family q is included in Thomas’ lexicon (see A.1, apparatus; on family q as a source of Thomas’ Eclogue, see entry Thomas Magister, ’Ονομάτων Ἀττικῶν ἐκλογή), as evidenced by the presence of ἐνεχυριμαῖον in the singular and the misinterpretation of the mention of Hippoclides. Indeed, Phrynichus (A.1) shows his indifference to the use of ἐνεχυριμαῖον by unapproved authors by quoting the proverbialProverbs expression οὐ φροντὶς Ἱπποκλείδῃ (cf. Zen.Ath. 1.84 Miller = Zen. 5.31, Diogenian. 7.21, Apost. 13.70, and Arsen. 9.19b; see also Phryn. Ecl. 164Phryn. Ecl. 164 and entry κόλλοψ, κόλλαβος. The expression is attested as early as Hermipp. fr. 16 and Hdt. 6.129.4, where its origin is explained. In addition to being preserved in paroemiographical collections and other literary texts, it is also mentioned in lexica up to the Byzantine period: cf. Hsch. ο 1920 = Phot. ο 697 = Su. ο 978; on this proverb, see at least Miletti 2009, 142–4 and Kazanskaya 2015). The proverbial expression was misinterpreted as early as the MSS of the Eclogue’s q family, where Hippoclides was understood as the name of an author who allegedly used the term; the same interpretation appears in Thomas’ lexicon as well. Furthermore, the attestation of the plural ἐνέχυρα in Phrynichus’ Eclogue, and especially the juxtaposition of the plural form with the singular in Moeris’ lexicon (ρ 6Moer. ρ 6: ῥύσιον καὶ ἐνέχυρα πληθυντικῶς Ἀττικοί· ἐνέχυρον Ἕλληνες, ‘Users of Attic [employ] ῥύσιον (‘security’, ‘pledge’) and ἐνέχυρα in the plural; users of Greek [employ] ἐνέχυρον’; for a later example of the use of the plural form, cf. lyr. adesp. fr. 5.4 Powell: ὅτ<τ>ι <τοι> σου θοἰμάτιον ἐνέχυρα κεῖται, ‘for your cloth lies [here] as pledge’), which is another important source of Thomas’ Eclogue (see entry Thomas Magister, ’Ονομάτων Ἀττικῶν ἐκλογή), lead to a more complex structure of the entry than in Phrynichus’ text. Following Moeris also in his choice of evaluative terminology, the singular form – continuously used up to the Byzantine period – is attributed to the Ἕλληνες, whereas the plural ἐνέχυρα is ascribed to the users of Attic. The ongoing debate on whether ἐνέχυρον should be used in the singular or in the plural is also reflected in schol. Ar. Plut. 451a (δῆλον ὡς οὐ μόνον ‘ἐνέχυρα’ φασίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ‘ἐνέχυρον’, ‘It is clear that they (i.e. Attic/ancient authors) use not only ἐνέχυρα, but also ἐνέχυρον’), where the singular form is defended precisely on the basis of the Aristophanic attestation. In any case, even assuming that Thomas’ lexicon presents ἐνέχυρα as the better choice, both it and ἐνέχυρον are contrasted with the rejected singular form of the substantivised adjective ἐνεχυριμαῖον, as it appears in the version of family q of Phrynichus’ Eclogue.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A