ἐντέλλω, ἐπισκήπτω, ἐπιτέλλω
(Moer. ε 4, Moer. ε 62, Antiatt. ε 49, [Hdn.] Philet. 247)

D. General commentary

Greek scholarship deals with the context of use and the Attic pedigree of several verbs meaning ‘to command’ (ἐντέλλω, ἐπιτέλλω, ἐπιστέλλω, and ἐπισκήπτω). Despite the differences, an overall coherent picture emerges (indicating a possible common source): ἐπισκήπτω is considered to be more appropriate than ἐντέλλω – the latter being only rarely attested in Attic authors and therefore not recommended (see below). ἐπιτέλλω and ἐπιστέλλω are also prescribed. The Philetaerus (A.4) also affirms that ἐπιστέλλω may be used both for written and spoken commands, while ἐπισκήπτω should be restricted to orders issued in person.

Setting aside the problematic entry in Moer. ε 4 (A.1) for now, note that Moer. ε 62 (A.2) prescribes the ‘Attic’ ἐπισκῆψαι rather than the ‘Greek’ ἐντείλασθαι. Indeed, ἐπισκήπτω ‘to command’ is well attested in Attic literature: see, e.g., C.1. Meanwhile, ἐντέλλω also occurs in Attic authors – albeit rarely: see, e.g., C.2 (dubious, cf. F.2) and C.3. Nevertheless, ἐντέλλω became extremely common from the 3rd century BCE in both high- and low-register written koine: it is found in authors such as Polybius as well as in documentary papyri (see e.g. C.4). It also occurs several times in the Septuagint, which may partly account for later Christian authors’ preference for this verb. Moeris classifies ἐντέλλω as ‘Greek’, a label that likely denotes the written koine of his times (on Greek speakers in Moeris, see Maidhof 1912, 319–38; Dettori 2022). Interestingly, ἐντέλλω is not found in Kriaras’ LME, and it is attested in Modern Greek as a learned term (see Dimitrakos 1949–1950 vol. 3, s.v. ἐντέλλω). These data suggest that ἐντέλλω was deemed appropriate to several forms of prose-writing as well as to educated dialogue (cf. e.g. Arr. Epict. 1.25.3–4), though it did not gain traction in everyday speech (that ‘lower end of the linguistic continuum of educated/semi-educated speakers’ that Moeris would likely have labelled as ‘common’, see Swain 1996, 52; cf. Maidhof 1912, 291–319; Dettori 2022). Nevertheless, Moeris’ assessment and the data at our disposal do not necessarily contradict each other.

Furthermore, a comparison may be drawn between Moeris and other erudite sources, such as Harpocration (B.1), who praises Isaeus’ use of ἐπέσκηψεν instead of ἐνετείλατο, and [Hdn.] Philet. (A.4), who says that ἐντείλασθαι is rare (σπάνιονσπάνιος, i.e., scarcely attested in Attic authors, as the data suggest. Note that ‘rarity’ is an Atticist evaluative criterion: see Phryn. PS 29.16Phryn. PS 29.16; PS 13.6Phryn. PS 13.6; PS 90.7Phryn. PS 90.7; PS fr. *5Phryn. PS fr. *5 (= Σ^b α 243, Phot. α 101, ex Σ´´´); PS fr. *111Phryn. PS fr. *111; PS fr. *347Phryn. PS fr. *347; Moer. ε 39Moer. ε 39). It is tempting to assume that A.1, A.4, and B.1 independently originate from a common source (on the connections between Moeris and the Philetaerus, see Hansen 1998, 52–4).

Moeris offers a similar evaluation in the problematic ε 4 (A.1), in which the verb ἐνετειλάμην is said to be attested παρ’ οὐδενί, ‘in no author’. Here, Moeris surely refers to canonicalCanon Attic authors: nonetheless, ἐντέλλω has some attestations in Sophocles, Euripides, Plato etc., as noted above. Therefore, it is possible that the text is epitomisedEpitome and that some information has been lost: cf. Moer. ε 6Moer. ε 6 (εὐκταῖον ἑνικῶς παρ’ οὐδενὶ τῶν παλαιῶν εἰ μὴ παρὰ Πλάτωνι ἐν Νόμοις ‘The singular εὐκταῖον [is found] in no ancient author but Plato in the Laws’. See also F.1). Moreover, ἐνετειλάμην is opposed to the Homeric ἐπιτέλλω. This is unsurprising, given that Moeris sometimes presents Homer as a ‘proto-Attic’ author (see entries ἥρῳ and οἶσε). In this regard, we may interpret the expression παρ’ οὐδενί here as signifying that no representative of ‘Old Attic’Attic, old has ἐνετειλάμην, perhaps implying that the verb is found at a later stage of the Attic dialect (on Moeris’ periodisation of Attic, see Wendel 1932, 2503.19–48 and entry χολάς, χόλιξ). Such a hypothesis would be consistent with the fact that the recommended form ἐπιτέλλω (‘to command’; Homeric and poetic) is not securely attested in extant Attic literature, apart from [Aesch.] PV 100: Ar. Av. 977 κἂν μέν, θέσπιε κοῦρε, ποιῇς ταῦθ’ ὡς ἐπιτέλλω ‘and if, inspired youth, you carry out the orders I give you’ (transl. Henderson 2000, 151) is a parodicParody oracular hexameter. For a possible attestation in Sophocles, see F.2. However, A.1 does not show Moeris’ usual distinction between Attic speakers and Greek speakers, and therefore it may originate from other erudite sources (see Hansen 1998, 37).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Moer. ε 4 (A.1)

Hansen places πλὴν ἀντὶ τοῦ ν τὸ π ὁ γραφεὺς ἔγραψεν in square brackets, evidently considering it a later addition to the original text, although it was surely present in the archetype (see the stemma codicum in Hansen 1998, 35). The parenthetical observation was likely a marginal or interlinear note signalling a mistake made by a scribe at some stage in the manuscript tradition and was perhaps accidentally added to the main text. For his part, Bergler thought that Moeris wrote something like ἐπετειλάμην παρ’ οὐδενὶ εὗρον. πλὴν (παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ) ἐπετείλατο γὰρ ἀέθλους. Ὅμηρος λέγει and that his sentence was later merged with a scribe’s comment (see Bergler’s note in Pierson 1759, 136).

(2)    Antiatt. ε 49 = Soph. fr. 269 (A.3)

Valente cautiously suggests reading ἐπιτέλλω for ἐντέλλω, quoting, e.g., Hsch. ε 5310Hsch. ε 5310 ἐπιτέλλει· ἐντέλλεται. ἐπέρχεται. Nevertheless, this last entry is likely to be a somewhat epitomised version of a discussion regarding differences among similar words and cannot be directly compared with A.3: in Hsch. ε 5310 ἐπιτέλλω is credited with two different meanings (‘to command’ and ‘to come on’: see LSJ s.v. ἐπιτέλλω (B) ‘to rise’), while in A.3, the interpretamentum clearly implies a lemma meaning ‘to command’. This last meaning is found in other sources also cited by Valente, which nonetheless appear to have a different focus than A.3: Hsch. ε 5311Hsch. ε 5311 ἐπιτέλλειν· ἐντέλλεσθαι may go back to Homeric scholarship (cf. Hom. Il. 2.10; see e.g. Apollon. Lex. 74.26 ἐπιτεῖλαι ἐπιτάξαι, ἐντείλασθαι), while Σ ε 754 (= Phot. ε 1750; Su. ε 2665)Σ ε 754 (= Phot. ε 1750; Su. ε 2665) ἐπιτέλλεται· ἐντέλλεται, παραγγέλλει refers to Gr.Naz. MPG 37.499.13, which is not to say that ἐπιτέλλεται here is in the middle voice. Furthermore, ἐπιτέλλω ‘to command’ is almost never attested in extant Attic literature (see D.), while ἔντειλεν is found in Pi. O. 7.40. Therefore, it is likely that the active form ἐντέλλω also occurred in Sophocles and was later noted by scholars and lexicographers due to its comparative rarity. In this regard, it is also possible that the author of the Antiatticist wished to bestow a literary pedigree on such a rare form, in accordance with his ‘main focus’, that is, ‘to collect evidence for words and expressions suspected not to be classical’ (Valente 2015, 59).