PURA. Purism In Antiquity: Theories Of Language in Greek Atticist Lexica and their Legacy

Lexicographic entries

μονομάχης, μονομάχος
(Moer. μ 11)

A. Main sources

(1) Moer. μ 11: μονομάχης Ἀττικοί· κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἀναλογίαν μονομάχος.

Users of Attic [employ] μονομάχης (‘fighter in a single combat’), while μονομάχος [is formed] by analogy.


B. Other erudite sources

(1) Epim.Hom. α 262: […] καὶ ὡς διαυλοδρόμης ἐκ τοῦ διαυλοδρόμος, ἀδίκης {τε} ἐκ τοῦ ἄδικος, {τοιοῦτον καὶ τὸ ἀστόργης μονομάχης,} οὕτως καὶ Βάκχη{ς} ἐκ τοῦ Βάκχος.

Dyck’s expunction of τοιοῦτον – μονομάχης is perhaps unnecessary; see F.1.

[…] And, just like διαυλοδρόμης (‘double course runner’) [derives] from διαυλοδρόμος, {and} ἀδίκης (‘wrongdoing, unjust’) from ἄδικος – {the same also [goes for] ἀστόργης (‘without natural affection’) and μονομάχης} –, so Βάκχη{ς} (‘bacchante’) [derives] from Βάκχος.


(2) Ath. 4.154e: ὅτι δὲ ἀρχαῖον ἦν τὸ περὶ τοὺς μονομάχους καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης εἴρηκεν ἐν Φοινίσσαις οὕτως· […]. ἔοικεν δὲ πεποιῆσθαι τὸ ὄνομα οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ μάχη, ἀλλ’ ἐκ ῥήματος τοῦ μάχεσθαι μᾶλλον συγκεῖσθαι. ὁπότε γὰρ τὸ μάχη συντιθέμενον τὸ τέλος εἰς ος τρέπει, ὡς ἐν τῷ σύμμαχος, πρωτόμαχος, ἐπίμαχος, ἀντίμαχος, ‘φιλόμαχον γένος ἐκ Περσέος’ παρὰ Πινδάρῳ, τηνικαῦτα προπαροξύνεται· ὁπότε δὲ παροξύνεται, τὸ μάχεσθαι ῥῆμα περιέχει, ὡς ἐν τῷ πυγμάχος, ναυμάχος, ‘αὐτόν σε πυλαμάχε πρῶτον’ παρὰ Στησιχόρῳ, ὁπλομάχος, τειχομάχος, πυργομάχος.

That fighting involving individual combatants (μονομάχους) was an ancient custom is asserted by Aristophanes in Phoenician Women (fr. 570), as follows […]. The word [μονομάχος] does not appear to have been formed from μάχη (‘battle’), but to be instead a compound from the verb μάχεσθαι (‘to fight’). For whenever a compound of μάχη ends in -ος, as for example σύμμαχος (‘ally’), πρωτόμαχος (‘champion’), ἐπίμαχος (‘assailable’), ἀντίμαχος (‘adversary’), or ‘a war-loving (φιλόμαχον) race descended from Perseus’ in Pindar (fr. 164 Snell–Maehler), then it has an acute accent on the antepenultimate syllable. But when it has an acute on the penultimate syllable, it contains the verb μάχεσθαι, as for example in πυγμάχος (‘fist-fighter, boxer’), ναυμάχος (‘fighting at sea’), ‘you yourself first, O fighter in the gate (πυλαμάχε)’ in Stesichorus (fr. 65 PMG), ὁπλομάχος (‘fighting in armor’), τειχομάχος (‘fighting from a wall’) and πυργομάχος (‘fighting from a tower’). (Transl. Olson 2007, 237–9, slightly adapted).


(3) [Arcad.] 226.4–6: τὰ παρὰ τὸ μάχομαι καὶ μὴ παρὰ πρόθεσιν παροξύνεται· λεοντομάχος, μονομάχος, χωρὶς τοῦ ἀγχέμαχος. τὸ δὲ πρόμαχος καὶ σύμμαχος ἐκ προθέσεων.

Nouns [derived] from μάχομαι (‘to fight’) and not from a preposition (i.e., from μάχομαι when a preposition does not precede it) are proparoxytone: λεοντομάχος (‘fighting with a lion’), μονομάχος ‘individual combatant’ – except for ἀγχέμαχος (‘fighting hand to hand’). Instead, πρόμαχος (‘fighting before/in front’) and σύμμαχος (‘ally’) [derive] from prepositions (i.e., from μάχομαι when it is preceded by a preposition).


C. Loci classici, other relevant texts

(1) S.E. P. 1.56: ἀγωγὴν δὲ ἀντιτίθεμεν νόμῳ […] ὅταν ἀπειρημένου τοῦ ἀνδροφονεῖν οἱ μονομάχαι ἀναιρῶσιν ἀλλήλους.

And we oppose rule of conduct to law when, though homicide is forbidden, gladiators destroy one another. (Transl. Bury 1933, 91).


(2) O.Krok. 1.60.4–5 (= TM 88649) [Krokodilo (El-Muwayh), Egypt, 98–125 CE?]: [..]απ̣οπ̣ρα̣τ̣ου Αἰγύπτου ἥρπασαν [...]ς ἀποκτείναντ̣ε̣ς̣ μονομάχας γ.

… of Egypt [?] … they stole … after they have killed three μονομάχοι (here probably ‘messengers’, see D.).


D. General commentary

Moeris prescribes the compound μονομάχης (literally ‘fighter in a single combat’; for further meanings, see below) while rejecting μονομάχος: the latter is seen as the ‘regular form’, i.e., the expected form according to the inflectional rules devised by ancient grammarians based on the criterion of analogy (for further information on the meaning of ἀναλογία, see entries Δημοσθένας, Δημοσθένεις and Σωκράτη, Σώκρατες). Although μονομάχος is not explicitly assigned to the Ἕλληνες, according to the usual structure of Moeris’ lexicon, this inference may be drawn based on comparison with Moer. δ 48Moer. δ 48: Δημοσθένας Ἀττικοί· Δημοσθένεις <κατὰ> τὸ ἀνάλογον Ἕλληνες, (‘Users of Attic [employ] Δημοσθένας. Users of Greek [say] Δημοσθένεις <by> analogy’).

μονομάχης – Moeris’ preferred form – is one of the compounded nouns and adjectives in -ᾱς (Attic-Ionic -ης), a type that likely originated as possessive compounds whose second constituent may be traced back to feminine nouns in -ᾱ/-η. However, given that many of these compounds give rise to secondary verbs in ‑άω, ‑άζω, ‑έω, and ‑εύω, compounds in ‑ᾱς/‑ης were reinterpreted as verbal governing compounds (see Rüedi 1969, 37; Risch 1974, 210; Leukart 1994, 239; Tribulato 2015, 101; Fellner, Grestenberger 2016). Indeed, compounds in -μάχης – such as those in -άρχης, -άγχης, -τρίβης, ‑δέψης, and -έψης – correspond to primary verbs and may be considered verb-final compounds tout court.

μονομάχης is not attested in any canonical author (it occurs in S.E. P. 1.156 = C.1, 3.212, Clem.Al. Paed. 2.1.7.4, and in an elegiac fragment that may be the work of the astrologer Anubion, PSI 3.157.27 (= TM 64030) [Oxyrhynchus, 2nd century CE] = fr. *16.27 Obbink = 12.27 Schubert (μουνομάχας)), while the adjective μονομάχος, proscribed by Moeris, occurs in both tragedy and comedy (see Bagordo 2020, 168–70, on Ar. fr. 570). In the koine, the substantivisedSubstantivization μονομάχος, meaning ‘gladiator’, is very frequently attested, while the noun μονομάχος/μονομάχης occurs on Romano-Egyptian ostraka as a title indicating non-military agents (perhaps slaves) who served as messengers travelling from one garrison to another, as Cuvigny (2012, 8–9) argues: see e.g. C.2; O.Did. 24 (= TM 144591) [Didymoi (Khashm el-Menih), Egypt, ca. 220–250 CE]: Κύλινδρος μονομάχος ἐλθὼν μετὰ διπλώματος· ἄρτων ζεῦγος β, Φαμενωθ ιζ (‘Cylindrus monomachus, who has come with a diptych: [he has the right to receive] two couples of loaves of bread. 17th Famenoth’); O.Did. 178 (= TM 144744) [Didymoi (Khashm el-Menih), Egypt, ca. 100–110 CE]: μο]νομάχη[ς.

It is probable, therefore, that Moeris rejected μονομάχος on the grounds that the term was considered somewhat trivial, although it was already in use among canonical Attic authors. Nonetheless, to better appreciate Moeris’ prescription, we must extend our investigation to the other compounds in -μάχης and -μαχος in the context of the alternance between -ας/-ης and -ος. First, I provide an up-to-date version of the alphabetical list of compounds in -μάχας/-μάχης (regardless of their category) found in Buck, Petersen (1945, 9–10), with their first occurrences indicated within brackets:

‘fighting hand to hand’ (I.Cret. 1.16.48.5 [end of the 2nd century BCE]); ἀκαμαντομάχας ‘unwearied in fight’ (Pi. P. 4.171); ἀναιδομάχας ‘ruthless in fight’ (B. 5.105); ἀπειρομάχας ‘unused to battle’ (Pi. N. 4.30); ἀταρβομάχας ‘fearing not the fray’ (B. 16.28); διμάχης ‘mounted infantryman’ (Poll. 1.132Poll. 1.132); ἐγερσιμάχας ‘battle-stirring’ (Antip.Sid. AP 7.424.4); ἐγρεμάχης ‘rousing the fight’ (Soph. OC 1054); ἐνδομάχας ‘fighting at home’, ‘bold at home’ (Pi. O. 12.14); εὐθυμάχης ‘fighting openly’ (Pi. O. 7.15); θηριομάχης ‘one who fights with beasts’ (D.S. 36.10); κεραυνομάχης ‘fighting with thunder’ (Mel. AP 12.110.2); κλεψιμάχης ‘deceitful fighter’ (Theodorus Prodromus Carmina historica 8.83 Hörandner); λεοντομάχας ‘fighting with a lion’ (Theoc. 22.2); λιμνομάχης ‘candidate for the prize at the Lenaea’ (Hsch. λ 1040); μαιμάχης ‘insolent’ (Su. μ 326); Μαραθωνομάχης ‘one who fought at Marathon’ (Ar. Ach. 181); ὀδοντομάχης ‘fighting with the tusks’ (Eust. in Il. 3.225.19); ὁπλομάχης ‘one who teaches the use of arms’ (Pl. Euthd. 299c.7); ὀφιομάχης ‘fighting with serpents’ (LXX Le. 11.22); πεζομάχης ‘fighting as a soldier’ (Pi. P. 2.65); πυρομάχης ‘resisting fire’ (Rh. 1.580.3); ταχυμάχης ‘one who quickly gets embroiled in disputes’ (Hsch. ω 132; here the compound glosses ὠκυβόαι); τειχομάχης ‘storming walls’ (Ar. Ach. 570); φαλαγγομάχης ‘fighting in the phalanx’ (Phil.Thess. AP 9.285.1). In Soph. fr. 887.1 the MSS have νικομάχαν ‘conqueror in the fight’, corrected in νικόμαχον by Heath (1762, 110) and Nauck (1855, 29): see Radt (TrGF vol. 4, 572), who prints νικόμαχον. In AP 11.155.2 ῥιγομάχας ‘fighting with cold’ (cod. Marc. gr. Z. 481) is an alternative reading for ῥιγόμαχος (cod. Pal. Heid. gr. 23).

As the above list demonstrates, compounds in -μάχης are markedly poetic (see Fraenkel 1912, 141–3; Rüedi 1969, 144). They are often found in lyric and epigrammatic poetry (where -μαχος is nonetheless also very well attested, with the forms’ distribution easily explained on metrical grounds). Regarding their occurrences in Attic authors, Ar. Ach. 570 τειχομάχας (Dobree’s emendation due to metrical reasons, cf. Rüedi 1969, 145) is parodic, while Ar. Ach. 181 and Nu. 986 Μαραθωνομάχαι is probably best explained as a stylistic device intended to highlight the authoritativeness of those who fought at Marathon (pace Fraenkel 1912, 147–8; see Rüedi 1969, 145–9; Olson 2002, 128). -μάχης is also rare in prose: see Pl. Euthd. 299c.7 ὁπλομάχαι, perhaps formed on the basis of other compounds relating to sports and the agonistic world, such as παιδοτρίβης ‘gymnastic master’ (see also Fraenkel 1912, 147; Rüedi 1969, 149).

Regarding compounds in -μαχος, suffice it to say that they are mainly poetic and only σύμμαχοςσύμμαχος is widespread (see the detailed analysis in Minon 2019, 158–9). Further, proper namesProper names have almost exclusively -μαχος (but IG 12.3.544 [Thera, 7th century BCE] has Θℎαρ(ρ)υμάκℎας = Θαρρυμάχας, see Minon 2019, 159–60; 164–5).

As stated above, the mutual distribution of -μάχης and -μαχος needs to be set in the context of a more general alternation between compounds in -ᾱς/-ης and those in -ος. Indeed, compounds in -ᾱς/-ης sometimes offer an alternative to agent nouns in -ος, which are often the older (see Minon 2019, 163) and, by and large, remain the most common. The mutual distribution of both depends on diatopic as well as literary factors, as Fraenkel (1912, 144–5) and Minon (2019, 163) point out. Indeed, non-Attic-Ionic compounds in -ᾱς are comparatively frequent in the Doric milieu – moreover, many of them occur in choral lyric (as noted above), while epic poetry consistently avoids -ης. In Ionic prose, only compounds in -άρχης are fairly common (nonetheless, -άρχας/-άρχης is also present in Doric as well as in Attic tragedy and in the koine, see Schweizer 1898, 144; Nachmanson 1903, 121; Blass, Debrunner 1976, 40 with n. 1; Minon 2019, 156–8). Agent nouns in -ος (already occurring in Mycenaean and in Homer) are largely privileged in Attic as well as in Ionic prose. Attic inscriptions have almost exclusively agent nouns in -ος, used until the imperial age, while compounds in -ης are rare (see Meisterhans, Schwyzer 1900, 124; K–B vol. 1, 502–3; Threatte 1996, 8–16).

Documentary sources from the Hellenistic era to Byzantine times indicate that compounds in ‑ης eventually superseded those in -ος, with a few exceptions. Concerning compounds in -αρχ-, papyri reveal that -αρχος is frequently maintained in established office titles (e.g., γυμνασίαρχος, see Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 11–2). However, new formations almost exclusively have -άρχης (see Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 12; Palmer 1946, 66–9; Rüedi 1969, 111, 114–23; see also Minon 2019, 157–8, on personal names in -αρχος, incommensurably more frequent than those in -άρχης).

Literary sources sometimes exhibit a more nuanced distribution. The case of Flavius JosephusFlavius Josephus is instructive in this regard: as Schmidt (1893, 485–7) notes, some compounds are unanimously attested (ἔπαρχος, μεριδάρχης, etc.), while, in other cases, the MSS oscillate between -άρχης and ‑αρχος. See also Schmid (Atticismus vol. 4, 683; 691), who notes that compounds in -ης, often attested in the literary koine, sometimes also occur in Atticising authors. Based on the above discussion, Moeris’ prescription appears to be problematic, in that it seems to be partially inconsistent with both Attic evidence and the evolution of the koine, in which new formations in -ης are fairly common. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that Moeris’ prescription of μονομάχης depends on a lost locus classicus, one that is perhaps highly poetical. Moreover, Moeris undoubtedly considered μονομάχος as the ‘analogical’ form (see above) – that is, that which was adopted by most speakers and thus less preferable than μονομάχης (the ancient grammarians debated as to whether compounds in -μάχος derived from μάχη or μάχεσθαι, see B.2 and B.3; cf. Cipolla 2021, 308 n. 158). It is at least conceivable that Moeris considered agent nouns in -ης to be secondary forms derived from ‘regular’ forms in -ος, as B.1 also apparently does (however, it is difficult to ascertain the precise nature of the derivational process postulated in B.1, which proposes a somewhat puzzling parallel διαυλοδρόμης : διαυλοδρόμος = Βάκχη{ς} : Βάκχος). Moreover, the spread of the substantivised μονομάχος meaning ‘gladiator’ as well as the largely prevailing proper names in -μαχος may have also played a role in Moeris’ dismissal of μονομάχος (the same might well be true for the widespread σύμμαχος).

Finally, one wonders whether Moeris’ preference for ἀδολέσχης ‘chatterer’ instead of ἀδόλεσχος in Moer. α 49Moer. α 49 also implies an evaluation of ἀδόλεσχος as ‘analogical’ – that is, ‘regular’ (ἀδολέσχης Ἀττικοί· ἀδόλεσχος Ἕλληνες, ‘Users of Attic [employ] ἀδολέσχης, users of Greek [employ] ἀδόλεσχος’). Nonetheless, both forms raise a series of issues, and other lexicographical sources must be compared: see entry ἀδολέσχης, ἀδόλεσχος.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In Byzantine Greek, some types of compounds in -ης remain productive and well attested (see e.g. compounds in -άρχης; on the phonetic and morphological changes which affected masculine nouns in ‑ης, see CGMEMG vol. 1, 355). Nonetheless, nouns and adjectives in -μάχης are mostly limited to high-register texts, and no new formation is found, with the exception of κλεψιμάχης ‘deceitful fighter’ (Theodorus Prodromus Carmina historica 8.83 Hörandner). By contrast, compounds in -μάχος/-μαχος are more frequently attested, although new formations are minimal (proper names are not considered here). Some agent nouns in -μάχος – partly occurring for the first time in the context of apologetic literature – are often used in reference to religious and political quarrels: see e.g. γνωσιμάχοι ‘opponents of knowledge’ (Io.D.+), λογομάχος ‘contender about words’, ‘contender against the Logos’, i.e. one holding Arian views (Gr.Naz. +; but note that much earlier texts have λογομαχέω and λογομαχία), Χριστομάχος ‘contending against Christ’ (Gr.Nyss. +). Furthermore, iconoclasts are often referred to as εἰκονομάχοι (see also the hapax χρωματομάχος [Nicephorus Confessor], with the same meaning).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Epim.Hom. α 262 (B.1)

Dyck’s expunction of τοιοῦτον καὶ τὸ ἀστόργης μονομάχης is perhaps unnecessary. First, the entry is found only in cod. O, being part of a supplement that may possibly be traced back to the Herodianic Ἐπιμερισμοί (see Dyck 1995, 36–40). Second, even if τοιοῦτον καὶ τὸ ἀστόργης μονομάχης (note the hapax ἀστόργης) interrupts the series of correspondences between forms in -ης and -ος, it may easily be understood as a parenthetical addition to that which immediately precedes it.

Bibliography

Bagordo, A. (2020). Aristophanes. Skenas katalambanousai – Horai (fr. 487–589). Übersetzung und Kommentar. Göttingen.

Blass, F.; Debrunner, A. (1976). Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Revised ed. by F. Rehkopf. Göttingen.

Buck, C. D.; Petersen, W. (1945). A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives. Arranged by Terminations with Brief Historical Introductions. Chicago.

Bury, R. G. (1933). Sextus Empiricus. Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Translated by R. G. Bury. Cambridge, MA.

Cipolla, P. (2021). ‘Spigolature stesicoree II. Osservazioni critico-esegetiche su alcuni frammenti’. Lexis 39, 282–313.

Cuvigny, H. (2012). ‘Introduction’. Cuvigny, H. (ed.), Didymoi. Une garnison romaine dans le désert oriental d’Égypte. Vol. 2: Les textes. Cairo, 1–37.

Dyck, A. R. (1995). Epimerismi Homerici. Pars Altera Epimerismos continens qui ordine alphabetico traditi sunt. Lexicon ΑΙΜΩΔΕΙΝ quod vocatur seu verius ΕΤΥΜΟΛΟΓΙΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ. Berlin, New York.

Fellner, H. A.; Grestenberger, L. (2016). ‘Greek and Latin Verbal Governing Compounds in *-ā and Their Prehistory’. Hansen, B. S. S. et al. (eds.), Etymology and the European Lexicon. Proceedings of the 14th Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17–22 September 2012. Copenhagen, 135–49.

Fraenkel, E. (1912). Geschichte der griechischen Nomina agenits auf -τηρ, -τωρ, -της (-τ-). Vol. 2: Entwicklung und Verbreitung der Nomina im Attischen, Entstehung und Accentuation der Nomina auf -της. Strasbourg.

Heat, B. (1762). Notae sive lectiones ad tragicorum graecorum veterum Aeschyli, Sophoclis, Euripidis quae supersunt dramata deperditorumque relliquias. Oxford.

Leukart, A. (1994). Die frühgriechischen Nomina auf -tās und -ās. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Herkunft und Ausbreitung (unter Vergleich mit den Nomina auf -eús). Vienna.

Meisterhans, K.; Schwyzer, E. (1900). Grammatik der attischen Inschriften. 3rd edition. Berlin.

Minon, S. (2019). ‘Dérivation en -ᾱ- ou en -ŏ-. Critères distributionnels. Le cas des anthroponymes en Ἀγορᾱ- vs -ᾰγόρᾱς, -ήγορος’. RPh 93, 145–96.

Nachmanson, E. (1903). Laute und Formen der magnetischen Inschriften. Uppsala.

Nauck, A. (1855). De tragicorum Graecorum fragmentis observationes criticae. Berlin.

Olson, S. D. (2002). Aristophanes. Acharnians. Edited with introduction and commentary. Oxford.

Olson, S. D. (2007). Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Vol. 2: Books 3.106e–5. Edited and translated by S. Douglas Olson. Cambridge, MA.

Palmer, L. R. (1946). A Grammar of the Post-Ptolemaic Papyri. Vol. 1: Accidence and Word Formation. Part 1: The Suffixes. London.

Risch, E. (1974). Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. 2nd edition. Berlin, New York.

Rüedi, E. H. (1969). Vom Ἑλλανοδίκας zum ἀλλαντοπώλης. Eine Studie zu den verbalen Rektionskomposita auf -ας/-ης. Zurich.

Schmidt, W. (1893). De Flavii Iosephi elocutione observationes criticae. Leipzig.

Schweizer, E. (1898) Grammatik der pergamenischen Inschriften. Beiträge zur Laut- und Flexionslehre der gemeingriechischen Sprache. Berlin.

Tribulato, O. (2015). Ancient Greek Verb-Initial Compounds. Their Diachronic Development within the Greek Compound System. Berlin, Boston.

CITE THIS

Andrea Pellettieri, 'μονομάχης, μονομάχος (Moer. μ 11)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2024/03/029

ABSTRACT
This article provides a philological and linguistic commentary on the compounds μονομάχης and μονομάχος, discussed in the Atticist lexicon Moer. μ 11.
KEYWORDS

AnalogyCompoundsDerivatives

FIRST PUBLISHED ON

12/12/2024

LAST UPDATE

12/12/2024