ἐνδoμενία
(Phryn. Ecl. 310, Poll. 10.12–3)

D. General commentary

The Eclogue entry (A.1) concerns the feminine noun ἐνδομενία ‘household stuff’. This noun, which occurs only from the Hellenistic age onwards, was often confused, both graphically and semantically, with another word, ἐνδυμενία ‘clothing’, which is itself not attested before the 4th century CE. The manuscripts of the Eclogue (A.1) have ἐνδυμενία, which has been corrected to ἐνδομενία by de Pauw (in Lobeck 1820, 334), since the required meaning in the passage is ‘household stuff’ (as indicated by the alternative expression that Phrynichus provides: σκεύη τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ ἔπιπλα) and not ‘clothing’ (see below for a discussion of more attestations). Given the confusion between ἐνδομενία and ἐνδυμενία, we shall address both forms in this article, following Montevecchi (1942).

ἐνδομενία is best explained as the nominalisation of a compound of ἔνδονἔνδον andμένω μένω, i.e. probably a form in -μένης, indicating something ‘which stays inside the house’. Compounds in -μένης are a rarity in Greek, however, where μένω usually produces verb-first formations in μενε-. The only possible parallel for the orientation of ἐνδομενία is ἀγρομενής, a hapax reported by Hsch. α 822 (ἀγρομενής· ὁ ἐν ἀγρῷ διατρίβων καὶ εἰς ἄστυ μὴ κατιών ‘one who stays in the fields and does not go to the city’). Notice that while Cornutus (C.3) correctly analyses ἐνδομενεία (with this spelling) as a form connected with ἔνδον and μένω, he is unique in interpreting it as an abstract noun indicating the act of staying indoors. This is clearly a para-etymology which he produces in the context of his allegorical interpretation of the Muses. The rarity and morphological obscurity of ἐνδομενία could have led to its reinterpretation as a form based on ἔνδυμι/ἐνδύομαιἔνδυμι and to the creation of the by-form ἐνδυμενία, itself probably influenced by ἔνδυμαἔνδυμα ‘clothing’. As Montevecchi (1942, 84) notes, ἐνδυμενία is never the object of lexicographic attention. This suggests that its meaning was sufficiently transparent, a fact which could explain why it crept into the manuscript tradition of some texts where ἐνδομενία ‘household stuff’ is required instead (examples include the lemma in the Suda, B.2, which refers to ἐνδομενία ‘household stuff’ but spells the word as ἐνδυοµενία, which is clearly influenced by ἐνδύω).

Both ἐνδομενία and ἐνδυμενία occur in post-classical, mostly low-register, texts. This explains why Phrynichus (A.1) and Pollux (A.2) disapprove of ἐνδομενία. As an alternative, Phrynichus prescribes the expression σκεύη τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ ἔπιπλα, as used by Eupolis (C.1), who belongs to his small group of approved Old Comedy poets (the textual history of the fragment, which is quoted more fully by Pollux 10.10, is difficult: see Napolitano 2012, 84–6; Olson 2016, 58–60). Unlike in other entries of the Eclogue, however, Phrynichus is not here recommending an archaic Attic usage. In other texts too the association between ἐνδομενία, σκεύη, and ἔπιπλα is frequent: see C.4 (ἔπιπλα καὶ σκεύη καὶ ἐνδομενείαν), Ph. De specialibus legibus 3.206.4Ph. De specialibus legibus 3.206.4 (σκεύη δὲ καὶ ἔπιπλα καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα ἔνδον), Polyaen. 7.29.2Polyaen. 7.29.2 (ἔπιπλα καὶ σκεύη), and Chrys. In epistulam ad Philippenses MPG 62.197.19Chrys. In epistulam ad Philippenses MPG 62.197.19 (σκεύη, καὶ κλῖναι, καὶ ἔπιπλα), among other examples (a full list of occurrences in the papyri is provided by Montevecchi 1942, 80–2).

These passages show that ἐνδομενία could denote both lighter utensils such as pots and pans (σκεύη) and heavier household goods such as furniture (ἔπιπλα, loosely ‘household items’: on the meaning of this noun, see Poll. 10.10, Harp. ε 109, and Su. ε 2510, all discussed, alongside other examples, in Olson 2016, 58–9; see too Napolitano 2012, 85 n. 200 and 86 n. 201). Pollux (A.2) however equates ἐνδομενία with words that denote property in general: παγκτησία (first attested in Philo of Alexandria), παμπησία, and παγκληρία (both attested in Attic poetry, the latter only in tragedy). This use of ἐνδομενία to denote movable property more broadly is also attested in legal papyri. Consider for instance C.4, a unique joint will by a husband and wife (on the text and the wealthy couple, see van Minnen 1998, 61–4), and C.5, another will, the Greek translation of a lost Latin text.

Pollux (A.2) disparagingly attributes ἐνδομενία to the language of the πολλοίοἱ πολλοί and adds, for those who still wish to use it, that he has found it attested only in one ancient source: ἐν Ὀλυμπιάδος ἀπογραφῇ, τῇ κατ’ ὄνομα περὶ τῶν φαμένων ἀφῃρῆσθαι τὰς δόσεις. In the translation offered here, ἐν Ὀλυμπιάδος ἀπογραφῇ is interpreted as a reference to a register (perhaps an inscription) concerning an Olympiad, which took its name from those who were accused of having stolen the offerings (perhaps to be interpreted as the victory crowns offered to the gods). The analysis of the passage cannot be advanced further since we have no other evidence concerning a document of this kind. The interpretation offered by Hemsterhuys (in Lederlin, Hemsterhuys 1706, vol. 2, 1154) is to be rejected. Hemsterhuys took Ὀλυμπιάδος to refer to the mother of Alexander the Great and advanced the hypothesis that the word was Macedonian, an opinion followed by Sturz (1808, 165) and Lobeck (1820, 334). This linguistic hypothesis has little factual basis. The Atticists’ condemnation of ἐνδομενία is unlikely to have concerned the origin of the word and must be due rather to its association with low-register language, as confirmed by its rare occurrence in Polybius (C.2) and the several attestations in legal papyri (e.g. C.4, C.5, P.Amh. 2.152 (= TM 24876)P.Amh. 2.152 (= TM 24876) [late 5th–early 6th c. CE]). In later periods, ἐνδομενία crops up mostly in Christian writings (e.g. C.8) or legal texts that depend on earlier sources. It would also be odd if Pollux, in condemning ἐνδομενία as a low-register word, would point those who still wish to use it in the direction of a text attributed to a Macedonian, however royal she may be. It makes more sense to assume that his reference is to an official inscription, one which was likely better known to Pollux’s contemporaries than to us. In some later sources, ἐνδομενία and ἐνδυμενία ‘clothing’ are confused. Apart from its occurrence in the manuscripts of Phrynichus’ Eclogue (A.1, see apparatus), ἐνδυμενία is first securely attested in Epiphanius’ Panarion (C.6, 4th century CE: on this work and its style, see Williams 2009, xx–xxxi) and slightly later in a contract from Oxyrhynchus (C.7). The other occurrences of ἐνδυμενία in the meaning ‘clothing’ are all in Byzantine texts (see e.g. C.9, C.10).

Montevecchi (1942, 80 and 84) discusses the possibility that the earliest attestation of ἐνδυμενία could be in Polybius. She defends the reading ἐνδυμενία offered in cod. Monac. gr. 388 (D, 14th century) and cod. Paris. gr. 1648 (E, 14th century) for δύναμιν of Plb. 5.81.3Plb. 5.81.3 (κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐσθῆτα καὶ τὴν ἄλλην περικοπὴν ἀνεπισήμαντος διὰ τὸ ποικίλην εἶναι κἀκείνων τὴν δύναμιν ‘for his dress and the other apparel [Theodotus] was not noticeable, because their army too was diversified [in its apparel]’). κἀκείνων τὴν δύναμιν is the reading of cod. Vat. gr. 124 (A, mid-10th century), which is the oldest manuscript of Polybius, and Büttner-Wobst (1889, L) accepts this reading against that of the later manuscripts. This seems the safest option. Not only would the reading ἐνδυμενίαν be a repetition of the preceding ἐσθῆτα while δύναμιν introduces a variatio, but its presence here would go against the other information we have on the history of this word, which safely place it in the late antique and Byzantine periods (as discussed by Montevecchi 1942 herself). Moreover, the corruption of a supposedly original ἐνδυμενίαν into δύναμιν is difficult to understand in a linguistic context in which ἐνδυμενία was not a rare word. The opposite corruption of δύναμιν into ἐνδυμενίαν can be justified on these exact grounds. It could be a slip (or a conscious intervention?) of a copyist who, on account of the preceding ἐσθῆτα, changed the more difficult δύναμιν into the more everyday word ἐνδυμενίαν: Polybius here writes ‘army’ (δύναμις) but the intended meaning is ‘the clothes worn by the army’, which may require an explanation.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Both ἐνδομενία and ἐνδυμενία are avoided in all high-register texts and remain rare even in legal texts such as the Basilica (C.9) and hagiographies such as the late 9th-century CE Life of Saint Martinianus (C.10). Neither noun is registered in Kriaras, LME.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A