ἐκάρην, ἐκειράμην
(Antiatt. κ 50, Phryn. Ecl. 291)

D. General commentary

Entries in the Antiatticist (A.1) and in Phrynichus’ Eclogue (A.2) discuss the different meanings of the passive and middle aorist of κείρω ‘to cut; to shear, shave’. Both lexica, like other sources (B.1, B.3, C.8), report the claim that only the middle aorist κείρασθαι should be used in the reflexive sense ‘to cut one’s hair’, whereas the passive aorist καρῆναι ought to be reserved for actions involuntarily undergone by the subject: either the shearing of sheep or the shaving of hair inflicted as a punishment (on the latter practice in the Greek world, often associated with slaves, see Stewart 2019, 141). Whereas Phrynichus endorses this rule, the Antiatticist claims that καρῆναι may also be used as the equivalent of κείρασθαι.

The active voice of κείρω (from the same IE root *(s)ker- that also gave English to shear; see EDG s.v.) may mean ‘to cut (off), crop, shear’ or ‘to mow off, cut down, ravage (a country, etc.)’. The middle, on the other hand, usually has the reflexive meaning ‘to cut one’s hair’. However, it is difficult to verify the basis for the lexicographers’ claim, owing to the fact that the passive aorist of κείρω – very rare overall in Ancient Greek – is unattested in extant Attic sources (see Veitch 1887, 360). Moreover, the few attested forms do not agree in ablaut grade (e-grade or zero grade) and in the choice of suffix (‘weak’ -θη- vs. ‘strong’ -η-; on the suffixes’ origins and historical relationship, see Willi 2018, 15, 597; Rothstein-Dowden 2022, 143–57). Pindar (C.2) attests the passive aorist participle κερθέντες (with a full grade of uncertain origin), but one MS has the supralineal varia lectio καρθέντες. The form ἐκάρην (showing the expected zero grade of the root and the originally stative-intransitive suffix -η- < *-eh₁-) – the one prescribed by the Atticists – first occurs in Herodotus (C.3), and then in a 3rd-century-BCE papyrus (C.5) and in Plutarch (C.6). Further occurrences are somewhat more numerous but also later, dating from the Roman and Byzantine periods. It is true that in some of these occurrences the passive is apparently used with a reflexive meaning, as Lobeck (1820, 319–20) observed, citing C.6 and C.10 (an epigram by Julian Antecessor) as examples of incorrect usage. Other late occurrences of the passive do not contradict the (alleged) classical rule: in C.7, for instance, the use of καρῆναι is justified by the presence of an explicit external agent (ὑπὸ κουρέως, ‘by a barber’) and finds additional motivation in the paronomasia with χαρῆναι.

On the other hand, the middle aorist ἐκειράμην, the regular counterpart to the active s-aorist ἔκειρα < *ἐ-κερ-σα- (Homeric ἔκερσα; on the preserved sibilant see Batisti 2017), is attested from Homer onwards (Il. 23.46 = C.1; Od. 4.198) and occurs, albeit not very frequently, in Attic literature, including tragedy (Aesch. Ch. 172 = C.4, 189; Eur. El. 546, HF 1390; Agatho fr. 3.1), oratory (Lys. 2.60; Aeschin. 3.211), and Middle Comedy (Eubul. fr. 32). The middle, unlike the passive, occurs more frequently from the Hellenistic age onwards, for instance in the Septuagint (only Io. 1.20), in the New Testament (3x), and in Plutarch (13x).

To better understand the scholarly debate underlying the lexicographical entries, one should bear in mind that the stricter Atticists rejected the spread of the passive aorist at the expense of the middle aorist (cf. e.g. Phryn. Ecl. 78Phryn. Ecl. 78, 79Phryn. Ecl. 78; Moer. π 22Moer. π 22; Philemo (Laur.) 359Philemo (Laur.) 359 = Philemo (Vindob.) 393.9Philemo (Vindob.) 393.9). This may be seen as a reaction against the gradual loss of distinct middle aorist and future endings in the koine (see also entry ἀπεκρίθην, ἀπεκρινάμην), encouraged by the fact that the middle already lacked a distinct morphological expression in the present and perfect systems (see Horrocks 2010, 103; 130; 256). It is therefore hardly surprising that Phrynichus, later followed by Thomas Magister (but note that cod. F, reflecting the earlier stage of the lexicon’s composition in Thessaloniki, offers a quite different text, which makes it clear that the quote from Libanius was intended to illustrate a deviant usage: see B.3), and the Philetaerus (B.1) were keen to preserve the semantic distinction between κείρασθαι and καρῆναι. A passage in Lucian’s Solecist (C.8) likewise implies that the use of the passive instead of the middle was perceived as incorrect. The middle of κείρω was recognised as having a reflexive meaning by some ancient grammarians, including the Stoic source quoted by Diogenes Laertius (B.2), who labels this usage as ἀντιπεπονθός (literally ‘antipassive’, though with a different meaning from that assigned to the term in modern linguistics; see Rijksbaron 1986, 440 [= 2018, 366]).

While it is likely that the Antiatticist’s aim was, as usual, to defend a more inclusive view, its entry raises a few problems. The lemma of A.1 is transmitted in cod. C as καρθείς, which does not correspond to any attested passive aorist form of κείρω: Lobeck (1820, 319–20) and Van Dam (1873, 38–9) therefore corrected it to καρείς, aligning this entry with the other erudite sources discussing καρῆναι. Nevertheless, as Valente (2015, 197) suggests, the lemma might have been intended as a reference to Pindar (C.2), where, as already noted, καρθέντες occurs as a varia lectio of κερθέντες. The Antiatticist, unlike the other Atticist lexica, includes Pindar in his canon, quoting him in at least seven entries (see Tribulato 2021a; Tribulato 2021b), and the fact that the participle is lemmatised may point to Pindar’s line. If Valente’s suggestion is correct, the entry’s aim may have been to highlight the admissibility of the ‘weak’ passive aorist in -θη-, in addition to its reflexive meaning; however, this must remain uncertain. At least Moeris preferred the ‘weak’ passive aorist in -θη- over the ‘strong’ one in -η- (Moer. β 40Moer. β 40, δ 16Moer. δ 16, η 21Moer. η 21, κ 7Moer. κ 7, κ 59Moer. κ 59), but the other sources collected above do not address the issue of suffix choice with regard to the passive aorist of κείρω. Be that as it may, the Pindaric line’s value as evidence for a reflexive meaning of the passive aorist is questionable. Even though the verb is indeed used with reference to Jason’s unshorn locks of hair, the subject is not a person but the locks themselves, whose role in the cutting process was of course entirely passive. If C.2 was not the Antiatticist’s locus classicus, the lexicographer may have had in mind some other, now-lost literary passage in which καρ(θ)είς allowed a reflexive, rather than a passive, reading. Rutherford (1881, 368–9) argued that, even though the passive aorist of κείρω happens to be unattested in classical Attic, καρῆναι must certainly have been employed. Although Rutherford’s observation conforms to the general pattern opposing a transitive active to a self-benefactive middle and to a passive, it is difficult to share such absolute confidence.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Both the middle and the passive aorist of κείρω occur often enough in medieval literary sources. In addition to the meanings inherited from Classical Greek (see D.), the verb developed a new specialised meaning, ‘to tonsure’, and by extension ‘to make someone a monk’; in the middle, κείρομαι means ‘to take a clerical or monastic tonsure’, and by extension ‘to become a monk’. Since the middle aorist is a residual category in Medieval Greek, mostly confined to the mixed and high registers (see CGMEMG vol. 3, 1758–9, 1762–4), occurrences of κείρασθαι in this period should be regarded as a classicising feature. In Modern Greek, the usual verb for hair-cutting is κουρεύω, attested since late antiquity in the middle κουρεύομαι ‘to take the tonsure’ (see LKN s.v.), and derived from the classical noun κουρεύς ‘barber’ (Pl.+), according to the pattern of deagentival verbs in -εύω formed from nouns in -εύς (e.g. χαλκεύς ‘smith’ : χαλκεύω ‘to forge’, etc.). However, the archaising κείρω, κείρομαι, with past perfect εκάρην, survives as a learned synonym (see ΛΝΕΓ s.v.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A