δίκρανος, δίκροος
(Phryn. Ecl. 204)

D. General commentary

This entry in Phrynichus’ Eclogue (A.1) contrasts two cognate possessive compounds: the two-ending adjectives δίκρανος and δίκροος (alternative forms δίκρους and δίκρος), both meaning ‘cloven, forked, cleft, bifurcated’ (in the above translations, the last meaning has been used). In δίκρανος, this meaning transparently results from that of its constituents, namely δι- ‘double; two’ (< δίς ‘twice’) and -κρᾱν- ‘head’ (cf. κρᾱνίον ‘skull, head’). The element -κρᾱν- belongs to the same PIE root reconstructed by Nussbaum (1986) as *-ḱr-eh₂-/-ḱr̥-h₂- (‘skull, head’), which also yields Greek κάρη/κάρᾱ (on -κρᾱν-, see in detail Nussbaum 1986, 168, who explains it as a pre-Greek neuter oblique in -n- from the PIE s-stem ḱr̥h2-es-: see further Nussbaum 1986, 200–1; 219; EDG s.v. κάρᾱ). The second constituent of the by-form δίκροος is instead related to κέρας, ‘horn’ (< PIE *ḱer-h2-s). The compound’s morphology, together with the phonetic changes that occurred in Greek, have obscured the etymological connection between the compound and its base form. As established by Nussbaum (1986, 4), δίκροος presupposes *δί-κροϝο-, ‘two-horned’, its second constituent best explained as *-ḱr-ou̯-(o-) (with *ḱr- representing the zero grade of *ḱer- and -ou̯- a u-stem suffix: see Nussbaum 1986, 15). δίκροος would thus be a ‘rather archaic formation’ that cannot be synchronically derived from ‘the normal Greek word for ‘horn’’, κέρας (Nussbaum 1986, 4). The attention devoted by Phrynichus to δίκροος and δίκρανος, and mirrored in other ancient erudite sources, indirectly reflects the difficulty of explaining their synonymitySynonyms. Indeed, synonymity is the focus of B.2, B.4, B.5, and B.6, while the formation of δίκροος is addressed by the cluster of etymological sources collected in B.3, on which we will focus at the end of this section.

Possessive compounds in -κρανος first occur in 5th-century authors: see e.g. βούκρανος ‘ox-headed’ in Empedocles (Diels–Kranz 31 B 61.19), ὀρθόκρανος ‘with a high head’ in Sophocles (Ant. 1203), and the noun ἐπίκρανον ‘capital of a column’ (Pi. fr. 33d.7 Snell–Maehler) or ‘head-dress’ (Eur. Hipp. 201). δίκρανος is an extremely rare form. It occurs only in Parmenides (Diels–Kranz 28 B 6.5 = C.1) as an epithet of βροτοί, whereas its appearance in Call. fr. 785 Pfeiffer, quoted by the scholia to Aristophanes’ Peace 637 (see B.5), is dubious and is probably represents either a corruption of δίκροος or δίκρος – especially since the same pairing of δίκρος and φιτρός, ‘log, piece wood’, occurs in Call. Aet. fr. 177.2 Pfeiffer (= SH fr. 259.2, fr. 54.2 Harder, C.4; see Pfeiffer ad fr. 785, Harder 2012 vol. 2, 440, and B.3) – or a gloss that has intruded into the text. Among the few later attestations of δίκρανος, the example in Luc. Tim. 12.3 (καὶ μονονουχὶ δικράνοις ἐξεώθει με τῆς οἰκίας, ‘and in a single night he drove me out of the house with a pitchfork’) is likely reminiscent of Aristophanes’ δικροῖς ἐώθουν (Pax 637 = C.3, see discussion below). A further meaning, ‘crossroads, a meeting of two roads’, is reported by Hsch. δ 1830.

The second form, δίκροος – contracted to δίκρους and later abbreviated by hyphaeresisHyphaeresis to δίκρος, the latter a form already attested in Attic texts – is by far the more common, not only in Attic literature but also in later texts. Its first attestation, in the uncontracted nominative δίκροος, appears in the Little Iliad (C.2), where it refers to a blade, while in Aristophanes’ Pax 637 (C.3) it qualifies the ‘bifurcated cries’ of the orators who used to drive Peace away from Athens. The dative plural δικροῖς, unanimously transmitted by the MSS and the indirect tradition of this line from the Peace, presupposes the contracted form δικροῦς (nom. sing.). However, it is likely that the original form used by Aristophanes was δίκροις, i.e. the dative plural of either δίκροoς or δίκρος, which are the standard forms in Attic (see below). If so, one might speculate that the perispomenon δικροῖς was introduced in copies of Aristophanes’ Peace on the basis of an (erroneous) analogical theory, according to which all contracted adjectives should have perispomenon accentuationAccent in Attic. The existence of an ancient theory of this kind may be postulated based on Philemon’s entry (B.1, followed by Thomas Magister, see apparatus) that δίκρους should be accented like χρυσοῦς (on the latter, see entry χρύσεος, χάλκεος, φοινίκεος). Philemon, however, is certainly mistaken: not only do possessive compounds, by rule, have the accent on the first constituent (see Risch 1974, 182; Dieu 2022, 398), but more generally, contractedContraction adjectives tend to have recessive accentuation in Attic (Dieu 2022, 310). The perispomenon accentuation (δικροῦς) recommended by Philemon and Thomas, instead, is analogicalAnalogy to adjectives such as χρυσοῦς, as proposed by Philemon, or διπλόος > διπλοῦς ‘twofold’ (see Lobeck 1820, 234), although these are exceptional cases (see Dieu 2022, 310; 385–7). We may note in passing that διπλόος and other multiplicative adjectives in -πλόος are likely not compounds, but formations based on a suffix of unclear origin, which, however, may have been influenced by active verbal compounds in -πλόος from πλέω ‘to sail’, in which the accent should correctly be placed on the second constituent (see entry ἁπλᾶ, διπλᾶ, τριπλᾶ and Risch 1974, 177 for the influence of compounds on the accentuation of these adjectives; Dieu 2022, 385–7 addresses the accentual pattern in detail).

The line from Aristophanes’ Peace (C.3) is also discussed in the tradition of the etymologica (see B.3) – upon which Lentz based his edition of Hdn. Περὶ παθῶν GG 3,2.385.17–25 – and more extensively in schol. Ar. Pac. 637b (B.6, echoed in Su. δ 1109), where κεκράγμασιν ‘cries’ is taken as a (typically comic) metaphorical replacement of ξύλοις ‘wooden objects’, i.e. the pitchforks with which Peace is driven away. Indeed, in later Greek, δίκροος/δίκρους/δίκρος often appears as an epithet of ξύλον ‘wood’ to denote a forked object: see e.g. Aen.Tact. 36.1.4 (‘forked pole’) and Timocles fr. 9.6 (where it denotes a forked stick used to inflict pain on a parasite), as well as the already mentioned Call. Aet. fr. 177.2 Pfeiffer (= SH fr. 259.2 = fr. 54.2 Harder = fr. 149.2 Massimilla, C.4), where it is used as an epithet of φιτρός ‘piece of wood’. Olson (1998, 202), however, notes that pitchforks are hardly appropriate to orators; he instead proposes ‘a yoke-like device in which malefactors’ heads were bound […], here wielded in a minatory fashion when Peace shows her face’. For his part, Vix (2018, 9) interestingly takes δικροῖς as a noun with an instrumental function (‘a coup de fourche’) and κεκράγμασιν as a further noun with a sort of modal meaning (‘avec des hurlements’).

As for the form of the adjective in Attic, besides the first ambiguous attestation in the textual transmission of Aristophanes’ Peace (C.3, see above), it normally occurs in its uncontracted form (only δίκρουν – always in this form – appears in Pl. Ti. 78b.6, Timocl. fr. 9.6, Thphr. CP 4.6.2 and HP 9.18.5). δίκροος is particularly favoured by Aristotle, who uses it to qualify different bodily parts (the womb in HA 511a.6; crabs’ claws in HA 590b.25; the tongue of reptiles in PA 660b.6, etc.). This specialised usage continues throughout Greek scientific texts (e.g. in Theophrastus’ botanical works, in Galen, etc.). The nominalised neuter τὸ δίκρουν first appears in the Hippocratic corpus with the technical meaning ‘bifurcation’ (always referring to the tongue: see e.g. Hp. Coac. 225). The entry in Galen’s lexicon of Hippocratic words (B.2) may be devoted to this noun, which is the only form used by Hippocrates, but this is not certain: δίκροος and δισχιδής – which is mentioned in the entry as a synonym – also occur as adjectives in Galen and other medical writers (whereas δίκρανος does not; on the by-form δίκραιος in Hippocrates, see Perilli 2017, 327). While δίκρος/δίκροος/δίκρους is amply used in Galen, it is rare in other imperial authors, only featuring twice in Pollux (both times in 5.31Poll. 5.31, as the noun τὸ δίκρουν, denoting the pole to which nets are attached) and once in Artemidorus (5.74.2, as an epithet of δένδρον).

δίκρος/δίκροος/δίκρους seems to have died out in later Greek, as is confirmed by the frequent attention it receives in lexicography (e.g. Hsch. δ 1833, on δίκροα ξύλα; Phot. δ 588 and δ 589 = B.4). The tendency of erudite sources to lemmatise forms of δίκροος/δίκρους/δίκρος and gloss them with δίκρανος – although the latter was in fact rarer (see especially B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5 and B.6) – raises the suspicion that δίκροος/δίκρους/δίκρος puzzled ancient scholars because of its etymology. Indeed, the cluster of sources going back to the Etymologicum Genuinum (B.3) is precisely focused on the competing etymologies offered by ancient scholars for δίκρον and δίκροον (apparently nouns in the text, since they are glossed with δίκρανον ξύλον ‘bifurcated object; pitchfork’). The first etymology is attributed to one Apollonius (despite Vix’s (2018, 10) identification of this person with Apollonius Dyscolus, his identity is open to speculation: see Pagani (2015) and Montana (2018) for two other likely candidates). It explains these compounds as syncopated forms of δικάρανον ‘two-headed’ (note that cod. E of the Etymologicum Symeonis – Parmensis 2139 – credits Herodian instead, an attribution accepted by the editor of the Et.Sym., Davide Baldi; all the other MSS have ἕτεροι). The second etymology, attributed to Alexander of Cotiaeum by all sources except the Etymologicum Symeonis, derives the second constituent of the compounds from κόρος ‘shoot’. This is clearly a para-etymology built on the fact that pitchforks are made of wood and on a loose phonetic similarity between δίκροος/δίκρος and κόρος (see Vix 2004, 365–6 and Vix 2018, 9–10 for an analysis and the limits of this ancient etymology). Finally, a third etymology – expressed by the first-person statement ἐγὼ δὲ νομίζω, ‘but I think’ – with remarkable insight, introduces κέρας ‘horn’, which is the etymology established by modern linguists as well (see above). Lentz (ad GG 3,2.385) edited the whole etymological discussion as fr. 698 of Herodian’s Περὶ παθῶν, which is often cited as a source in the Byzantine etymologica (see Dyck 1991, 317). He did so for structural reasons, namely the mention of predecessors and the fact that the expression ἐγὼ δὲ νομίζω is typical of Herodian’s style.

In Lentz’s reconstruction, the Genuinum and the Magnum preserve a sequence of etymologies, the last of which is attributed to Herodian, who would thus be the ultimate source of the entire discussion. The Etymologicum Symeonis instead replaces Apollonius with Herodian, leaving the speaking first-person writer of the last etymology anonymous (and thus obscuring the source of this). It also omits the sentence Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ὁ τοῦ Ἀσκληπιάδου ἐν τῷ ιʹ τῶν παντοδαπῶν, which suggests that both the first and second etymologies appear to belong to Herodian. It seems that the lexicon’s compiler simplified the chain of sources quoted by the anonymous commentator (who in the etymologica writes in the first person, ἐγώ) and attributed both etymologies to this individual. The reason why the Etymologicum Symeonis independently identified Herodian as the proposer of the first etymology is unclear. Some confusion is also evident in Dyck’s (1991, 317–8) concluding statement that ‘[i]f Lentz has correctly assigned our passage to Herodian […] it is he, rather than Alexander, who has the honor of being the first to propose the etymology currently favored (< κέρας; the stem ending in -ϝ will account for the original δίκροον)’, since the etymologica do not seem to attribute the authorship of this etymology to Alexander of Cotiaeum. Be that as it may, this etymological fragment is valuable in that it preserves the information that Alexander of Cotiaeum wrote a Miscellany in ten books (cf. also e.g. test. 5 Dyck) and that his father was called Asclepiades (for both pieces of information, see Dyck 1991, 318; on Alexander’s biography and his Παντοδαπά, probably an etymological work in alphabetical order, see further Montana 2018; on the possibility that Alexander of Cotiaeum may be the source of the Pseudo-Herodianic Philetaerus, see entry [Herodian], Φιλέταιρος (Philetaerus)). As already noted, the fragment is also a remarkable example of an ancient etymology that predates the one reached by modern scholars through the comparative method. Phrynichus’ approach to the two compounds (A.1) is much simpler, being unconcerned with their etymology and morphology. His preference for δίκροος over δίκρανος likely reflects the use of the former by Aristophanes (C.3), in a line which, as discussed above, was the focus of erudite discussions.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A