ἐντέχνως, τεχνικῶς
(Antiatt. ε 76, Phryn. Ecl. 323, Poll. 4.24)

D. General commentary

The adverb ἐντέχνως (‘skilfully’, ‘artistically’) is discussed in the Antiatticist’s lexicon (A.1) and in Phrynichus’ Eclogue (A.2). Both entries note that the adverb is rejected by other, unidentified authorities (certainly other Atticists); Phrynichus also mentions the accepted alternative form, τεχνικῶς. The entry Eclogue entry as transmitted by fam. q (see A.2, apparatus) was subsequently taken up by Thomas Magister’s lexicon (B.1); the entry in fam. q clearly contrasts the two adverbs, probably expressing Phrynichus’ position more explicitly (see below).

Both ἐντέχνως and τεχνικῶς are two adverbs, derived respectively from the adjectivesAdjectives ἔντεχνος and τεχνικός, both meaning ‘skilful’, ‘artistic’ (for adjectives ending in -ικός in Atticist lexica, see entry ἀρχαϊκός and AGP vol. 2, Nominal morphology, forthcoming). ἐντέχνως is first attested in the orators Antiphon (C.1) and Lysias (C.3), but becomes more frequent in the imperial age, when it is also used by Atticising authors such as Aelianus (C.5) and Longus (3.18.4). τεχνικῶς, apart from being more widely attested than the former in literary language – the frequency of the two adverbs is consistent with that of the adjectives from which they derive, since τεχνικός is much more common than ἔντεχνος – is well represented in authors belonging to the Attic canon, such as Plato (cf. e.g. C.2, Cra. 425a.7), Isocrates (cf. e.g. 4.48, 9.73), and Demosthenes (C.4, 24.28).

The entries by the Antiatticist (A.1) and by Phrynichus (A.2) are consistent in reporting that the adverb ἐντέχνως was rejected by other representatives of the Atticist movement. This agreement – and, more generally, the fact that the same term is discussed in both lexica – may be explained as a reaction on the part of Phrynichus to the Antiatticist himself (for the assumption that the entries included in the second book of the Eclogue constitute polemical responses to entries in the Antiatticist’s lexicon, see Latte 1915, 378–82; Valente 2015, 52–3). Sicking (1883, 104), however, expresses uncertainty as to how the Antiatticist’s entry should be interpreted: ‘hic Phrynichus Antiatticistam agit; a quorum partibus stet noster, incertum est’, whereas Valente (2015, 53) appears to believe that the two lexica actually share the same doctrine. Indeed, despite the apparent similarity of the two entries, the intentions of the two lexicographers were probably opposed: the Antiatticist, following a recurring structural pattern in his lexicon, may have first reported the censure of the adverb by other Atticists (the verb ἀποδοκιμάζωἀποδοκιμάζω, ‘to reject as unworthy’, is not attested otherwise attested in the lexicon, but expressions and verbs with similar meanings used in the 3rd person are very frequent: see Valente 2015, 45–7). In a second part of the entry – lost in the epitomisationEpitome process – he probably went on to defend the adverb on the basis of its use by an author he regarded as authoritative, perhaps Lysias himself, who is mentioned by Phrynichus (C.3, A.2). On the contrary, given the distribution of the two adverbs in literary language, Phrynichus was probably opposed to the use of ἐντέχνως. In the relevant entry, however, he ironises the fact that the Atticists who censor ἐντέχνως nonetheless justify its use by appealing to Lysias – an author whom Phrynichus himself did not accept into his canon (cf. Phryn. Ecl. 90Phryn. Ecl. 90, Phryn. Ecl. 330Phryn. Ecl. 330, and entry ἀκολουθεῖν μετ’ αὐτοῦ). Pollux (A.3), by contrast, seems to adopt a more moderate stance, listing both adverbial forms. It should be noted, however, that the epitomisationEpitome of the lexicon may influence our perception of this passage of the Onomasticon. For the presence of Lysias in the Onomasticon, see entry Iulius Pollux, Ὀνομαστικόν (Onomasticon).

The prescription of τεχνικῶς and the rejection of ἐντέχνως by Phrynichus and other Atticists does not appear to be connected with the distribution, in classical sources, of the adjectives from which the two adverbs are derived, since ἔντεχνος is attested several times in a canonical author such as Plato (cf. e.g. Sph. 225c.7, Phdr. 262c.6); see Lobeck (1820, 344) and Rutherford (1881, 457). The situation is therefore different from that of the pair of adverbs ἐμπειρικῶςἐμπειρικός and ἐμπείρωςἔμπειρος (cf. Antiatt. ε 78Antiatt. ε 78: ἐμπειρικῶς· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐμπείρως. Ἄλεξις Οἴνῳ, ‘ἐμπειρικῶς (‘by experience’): In place of ἐμπείρως. Alexis [uses it] in Wine (fr. 162)’), where the likely proscription of ἐμπειρικῶς by the strictest Atticists is consistent with the absence of attestations of this adverb and the corresponding adjective (ἐμπειρικός, ‘experienced’) prior to Aristotle; see Arnott (1996, 475). The Atticist preference for τεχνικῶς can therefore be traced directly to the literary canon, as the use of the two adverbs clearly illustrates.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A