χρεολυτέω
(Phryn. Ecl. 370)

D. General commentary

Similarly to other entries in the Eclogue, Phrynichus’ lemma (A.1) is devoted to the analysis of two verbal expressions that have the same meaning but differ with respect to structure (cf. Phryn. Ecl. 92Phryn. Ecl. 92 on καλλιγραφεῖν ‘to write beautifully’ and Phryn. Ecl. 361Phryn. Ecl. 361 on σιτομετρεῖσθαι ‘to deal out portions of corn’). The lexicographer compares the compound verb χρεολυτέω (‘to pay one’s debt’) and the synonymicSynonyms syntagm τὰ χρέα διαλύομαι, attributing the former to popular usage (ὁ πολὺς λεώς, ‘the mass’), and the latter to the speech of the few (οἱ ὀλίγοι) and of Attic speakers (on this evaluation, see below). In assigning different stylistic values to the two forms, Phrynichus implicitly speaks in favour of the syntagm τὰ χρέα διαλύομαι, which is regarded as more suitable for Atticising Greek. This entry is one of several for which Phrynichus recommends using a syntagm in place of a compound (besides Phryn. Ecl. 92 and 361, quoted above, see Phryn. Ecl. 167Phryn. Ecl. 167, 271Phryn. Ecl. 271, 349Phryn. Ecl. 349, and 359Phryn. Ecl. 359).

Phrynichus’ opinion is clearly also motivated by considerations of canon, given that the compound verb χρεολυτέω is certainly not classical (see C.1, C.2, C.3, and below). Nonetheless, the syntagm τὰ χρέα διαλύομαι is also suspiciously absent in the Attic authors that the lexicographer favours and is first attested in Hyperides (C.4, with discussion below). However, the parallel with the Eclogue’s other entries that contrast compounds with syntagms suggests that Phrynichus’ dislike of χρεολυτέω also stemmed from the verb’s innovativeInnovative forms structure. χρεολυτέω has χρέοςχρέος (‘debt’) and λύωλύω (‘to unbind’, i.e. ‘to pay’) as lexical constituents (for the ending in -τέω, see below) and belongs to a class of formations which became highly productive from the Hellenistic period onwards, i.e. compound -έω verbs. According to the interpretation traditionally given by linguists, such compounded verbs would be the result of derivation from nomina agentis (see Schwyzer 1939, 726; Risch 1974, 309). Although this explanation is unquestionable from a diachronic perspective, it cannot solve some problematic issues, including the existence of certain compound -έω verbs that lack the corresponding nominal compound. Applying a synchronic perspective, Pompei, Grandi (2012) suggest interpreting these verbal constructions (‘complex -έω verbs’, according to their terminology) and their related nominal compounds as the outcome of the interaction between the different morphological processes of derivation, compounding, analogy, and reanalysis (on this topic, see also Christol 1991, 93–4; Ralli 2013, 174; Asraf 2021, 40–2). Applying this interpretative framework to χρεολυτέω, we can account for the -τέω suffixation as the result of a reanalysis process, given the absence of any documentation of the putative base noun χρεολύτης (‘the one who discharges the debts’) until the Byzantine age (for more on this, see E.. For -της compounded nomina agentis, see Tribulato 2015, 93–7).

From a typological perspective, χρεολυτέω – like other complex -έω verbs – may be explained as the outcome of incorporation. This morphological phenomenon, characteristic of polysynthetic languages, involves the compounding of a nominal stem (usually the direct object) with a verbal one to form a new verb (for a general overview of incorporation, see Mithun 1984; for incorporation in Ancient Greek, see Christol 1991; Pompei 2006, Asraf 2021). In Ancient Greek, the morphological and lexical ductility of complex verbs afforded them outstanding productivity from the post-classical period onwards, since they are particularly suitable for the denomination of institutional activities, daily occupations, and activities of the agricultural (see e.g. Poll. 7.141Poll. 7.141 on ἐλαιοκομέω ‘to cultivate olives’), economic-administrative (besides χρεολυτέω, see e.g. D.S. 13.58.3 σιτομετρέω ‘to deal out portions of corn’), and military fields (see e.g. X. Cyr. 3.2.25 μισθοφορέω ‘to receive wages’) (on the productivity of verbal compounds in -έω, see also Willi 2003, 122–6).

A ‘technical’Technical language usage context is evident for χρεολυτέω and other -λυτέω verbs. Besides χρεολυτέω, Kretschmer, Locker (1977, 594) collect six further -λυτέω forms. Among these, εὐλυτέω (‘to discharge a debt’, SEG 39.1180.48 [Ephesus, 75 BCE]), διευλυτέω (‘to liquidate debts’, Ios. AJ 16.291.3; BGU 4.1151.42 = TM 18568 [Bousiris, 13 BCE]), ἐξευλυτέω (‘to discharge a debt’, P.Oxy. 2.271.22 = TM 20542 [56 CE]), and ἀπευλυτέω (‘to release’, P.Mich. 5.243.9 = TM 12084 [Arsinoites, 14–37 CE]) are prefixedPrefixes verbs belonging to the economic-legal vocabulary. The two remaining forms are incorporated compounds: κοιλιολυτέω (‘to evacuate’, Hsch. β 381), likely a term of medical prose, and ἀκρολυτέω (‘to untie the end of a belt’, Iren. AP 5.253.2; Nicetas Eugenianus De Drosillae et Chariclis amoribus 3.166), a Byzantine coinage. Consistently with χρεολυτέω, not all these -λυτέω verbs have an attested nominal base (cf. εὐλυτέω, which may be formed on the verbal adjective εὔλυτος ‘easy to untie’, Eur. Hipp. 256; X. Cyn. 6.12). Therefore, we must suppose that new -λυτέω formations may be productively derived from models provided by already existing verbs.

-λύτης nomina agentis are also found in Post-classical/Late Greek; moreover, they are often hapax legomenaHapax – for example, ὡδινολύτης (‘setting free from pain’, Plin. nat. 32.6), νουσολύτης (‘freeing from illness’, IGUR 1.149.1 [late 2nd/early 3rd CE]), ὀνειρολύτης (‘interpreter of dreams’, Eus.Alex. Serm. 21.4), κομβολύτης (‘cut-purse’, Hsch. κ 3432), χρησμολύτης (‘expounder of oracles’, Tz. ad Lyc. 494), εὐαγγελιολύτης (‘one who denies the gospel’, Theodorus Studites Epistulae 49.99–100 Fatouros), σημειολύτης (‘interpreter of portents’, John of Damascus Homilia in nativitatem Domini 9.25 Kotter), and τειχοκαταλύτης (‘demolisher of walls’, Phot. Bibl. cod. 72.45a.32 = Ctes. FGrHist. 688 F 45).

χρεολυτέω’s first literary occurrences are in Flavius Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, in which the verb is used in a metaphorical sense. In Ios. AJ 7.387 (C.1), the author describes the dying king David summoning his son Salomon to offer him advice regarding his future rule. He should not forget to take care of the sons of Berzelos the Galadite, who helped David during his exile: only in this way will Salomon offer the proper reward (in the text, ἀμοιβὴν χρεολυτοῦμεν) for the favour granted to his father. In AJ 18.306 (C.2), Josephus describes the emperor Caligula’s attempt to erect a statue of himself inside the Temple of Jerusalem, which was met with opposition from the Jewish community. To settle the matter, Caligula sent the governor of Syria Publius Petronius, who conversely showed compassion to the Jews, inciting the emperor’s anger. According to Josephus, God did not remain indifferent to Petronius’ benevolence and rewarded him (in the text, τὸν μισθὸν χρεολυτεῖν) by delaying the arrival of the letter that contained the suicide order for him until the emperor’s death.

χρεολυτέω is then used with its literal meaning in a passage of Plutarch’s Life of Alcibiades (C.3), in which the biographer relates how the statesman helped a metic friend of his to earn a talent by persuading him to attend the auction for the tax collection’s contract and to make a higher bid than his competitors. Since Alcibiades vouched for him, the contractors found themselves in trouble, given that they were accustomed to paying off the debts of a first contract with the profits of a second (in the text ταῖς δευτέραις ὠναῖς χρεωλυτεῖν τὰς πρώτας). Therefore, they would have been forced to offer the metic man one talent in exchange for his withdrawing from the auction.

As one might expect, this literal sense of χρεολυτέω is the most frequently attested in documentary sources. Among these, the only epigraphic attestation is in the Pleuronians’ honorific for their benefactor Lycos of Calydon (C.5), who erased the debts contracted by the community (for further detail on the inscription, see Antonetti, Cavalli 2012, 185–86; Kalliontzis 2020, 206). χρεολυτέω also appears in two documentary papyri. The first one, P.Oxy. 12.1420.5 (= TM 21828 [129 CE]), contains the report of a trial; the second, SB 18.13167.14 (= TM 27666 [unknown provenance, 2nd century CE]), is a contract between a merchant and a rich creditor for the obtaining of pecunia traiecticia – that is, the maritime loan (for further information about this document, see Thür 1987, 229–45; Morelli 2011, 199–233).

Phrynichus’ severe judgment regarding χρεολυτέω is thus supported by the compound’s morphology, distribution, and context of occurrence. However, it is more difficult to ascertain the appropriateness of the recommended alternative expression χρέα διαλύομαιδιαλύω. Coherently with that which is stated by Phrynichus, who attributes the syntagm to the few and the Attic speakers (οἱ ὀλίγοι καὶ Ἀττικοί), the attestations of χρέος + διαλύω in classical Attic are limited to a single passage (unfortunately lacunose) from Hyperides’ Against Athenogenes (C.4). Nevertheless, although Hyperides was counted among the canon of ten Attic orators, his model is generally rejected in the Eclogue (see Phryn. Ecl. 309Phryn. Ecl. 309 and 311Phryn. Ecl. 311). Therefore, one may justifiably wonder whether Phrynichus had this very passage in mind when he prescribed τὰ χρέα διαλύσασθαι. However, no other evidence survives for the expression’s Attic pedigree. Neither does any documentary evidence show a clear connection between χρέα διαλύομαι and the Attic dialect, given that both inscriptions using it, IPArk 5.46–8 (Delphi, 324 BCE), a Tegean decree on the restoration of exiles, and IG 12,4.132.109 (Cos, 300 BCE), a decree of Telos in honour of Coan arbitrators, are from non-Attic regions. Conversely, χρέα διαλύομαι is more common in Post-classical Greek, attested, on the one hand, in non-Attic historians such as Polybius (31.27.4), Flavius Josephus (AJ 18.240.5), and Plutarch (Luc. 20.3.9), and, on the other hand, in Atticising authors such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus (e.g. 4.9.7.1; 5.63.1.5), Dio Chrysostom (46.6.2), and Lucian (Sat. 15.21). All this considered, it appears that through the application of the evaluative label οἱ ὀλίγοι καὶ Ἀττικοί, Phrynichus wanted to assure his readers of the appropriateness of χρέα διαλύομαι, while acknowledging its actual rarity in classical Attic (for ὀλίγον/οἱ ὀλίγοι as markers of proper but rare usages in Phrynichus, see also PS 31.3Phryn. PS 31.3 on ἁπλούστατος, Ecl. 206Phryn. Ecl. 206 on ἔφης, and Ecl. 334Phryn. Ecl. 334 on βόλβιτον: see entry βόλβιτον, βόλιτον). Consequently, the increasingly frequent occurrence of the syntagm in Post-classical Greek and among Atticising writers begs the question of whether χρέα διαλύομαι was a trait of the literary koine – since, as we have seen, it is already present in Hyperides – that was tolerated by classicising authors contemporary with Phrynichus and whether this may have influenced Phrynichus’ linguistic recommendations.

Besides these supposed canon issues, it is also possible that linguistic and stylistic features underpinned Phrynichus’ preference for χρέα διαλύομαι. As noted above, χρεολυτέω had a pronounced technical connotation enhanced by its morphological structure, which finds many parallels in other ‑έω compound verbs, several explicitly rejected by Phrynichus (see Ecl. 322Phryn. Ecl. 322 ἐργοδοτεῖν ‘to let out work’ and Ecl. 361Phryn. Ecl. 361 σιτομετρεῖσθαι ‘to deal out portions of corn’). χρέα διαλύομαι, on the other hand, did not belong to the specialised lexicon and was thus semantically neutral: it was likely perceived as more suited to a refined way of speaking. Thus, in rejecting χρεολυτέω and supporting χρέα διαλύομαι Phrynichus appears to be guided also by his dislike of those morphological formations that were characteristic of specialised vocabulary. Like many other languages, indeed, technicalTechnical language Greek shows a particular proneness to form structurally systematic and innovative compounds, which were unusual for other types of registers (see Willi 2003, 66–8; Tribulato 2010, 493; Tribulato 2015, 112. For a comparison with scientific compounds in Latin and English, see, respectively, Langslow 2000 275–9; Sager, Dungworth, McDonald 1980, 265–7). Therefore, Phrynichus seems to have chosen χρέα διαλύομαι – faute de mieux – to avoid the use of a compound that was both ‘irregular’ and lexically too specific (for other similar cases of compounds vs. syntagms, see Phryn. Ecl. 92Phryn. Ecl. 92, 167Phryn. Ecl. 167, 271Phryn. Ecl. 271, 349Phryn. Ecl. 349, 359Phryn. Ecl. 359, and 361Phryn. Ecl. 361).

Other grammatical and lexicographical discussions of χρεολυτέω are independent of Phrynichus’ influence. In [Ammon.] 318 (B.1), which focuses on the semantic distinction between μετρέομαι (‘to get a measure’) and ἵσταμαι (‘to weigh out’), χρεολυτέω is employed to paraphrase the expression δείδω μὴ τὸ χθιζὸν ἀποστήσωνται Ἀχαιοὶ χρεῖος (‘I fear the Achaeans shall pay back yesterday’s debt’), which is found in Il. 13.745–6 (Nickau 1966, 82 suggests a Homeric commentary as the common source of pseudo-Ammonius and schol. Hom. Il. (A) 13.745–746a. Cf. also Eust. in Od. 2.34.24–9). Differently, [Hdn.] Epim. 207.17–208.2 (B.2) mentions χρεολυτέω in relation to the correct orthography of compounds formed with χρέος, which generally require omicron but can present omega in case of synaloepha (entries such as Hsch. χ 699, Su. χ 460, [Zonar.] χ 1858.22–5, and Gennadius Scholarius Grammatica 2.494.31–3 may be connected to pseudo-Herodian or, otherwise, may be traced back to a common source). Besides χρεολυτέω, the form χρεωλυτέω, which is compounded with the Attic variant χρεώς, is also attested (see LSJ s.v.). Although this is the reading that some manuscripts transmit for Phryn. Ecl. 370 (see A.1), it is more likely that the form originally used by Phrynichus was χρεολυτέω. Indeed, not only is the spelling with omicron widely preserved by the manuscript tradition, but this is also the most frequent form in koine Greek (see above). Furthermore, the lexicographer’s criticism of χρεολυτέω would be consistent with the following lemma Phryn. Ecl. 371Phryn. Ecl. 371, in which χρέως is chosen over χρέος (for a detailed discussion on χρέως vs. χρέος in Atticist lexica, see Vessella 2018, 255–6 and entry χρέως, χρέος).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Aside from its only late attestation in patriarch Dositheus’ History of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (11.71.14), χρεολυτέω does not appear to have persisted in either Byzantine or Modern Greek. The verb χρεολύω, created on the model of χρεολυτέω but based on λύω, is documented sporadically (see Vita sancti Martini 6.34 and Nicolaus Cerameus Epistula ad patriarcham Hierosolymorum Nectarium 192.20).

As far as the nomen agentis χρεολύτηςχρεολύτης is concerned, we have no evidence for it prior to the Byzantine age. It is mostly employed in grammatical sources as an orthographic exemplum (see Theodos.Gr. Περὶ γραμματικῆς 69.5; [Zonar.] 1858.24; Gennadius Scholarius Grammatica 2.494.31–3), and in poetry as God’s or Christ’s epithet (see Rom.Mel. 21.17.6; [Rom.Mel.] Ἀκάθιστος ὕμνος 22.2; Manuel Philes Carmina 5.13.68). χρεολύτης survives, at least in literature, until the 17th century, as is proven by two passages of Anastasius Gordius’ Letters (1.91.8; 1.438.23). It is worth noting that two derived words belonging to this lexical family are in use in Modern Greek: the nomen actionis χρεολύσιο (‘amortisation’) and the adjective χρεολυτικός (‘of amortisation’) (see LKN s.vv.), both of learned creation.

Significantly, Phrynichus’ recommended form χρέα διαλύομαι appears to have had a better fortune than the ‘competing’ form χρεολυτέω. Indeed, the syntagm can be found not only in late and Byzantine Atticising authors such as Libanius (Ep. 1276.1; 1339.2), Photius (Homiliae 7.80.1; Epistulae 283.332), and Michael Psellos but also in legal texts such as Justinian’s Novels (583.25; 583.30), the Basilica (51.4.4.15), and the Ecloga Basilicorum (5.2.6.40). The latest occurrences of χρέα διαλύομαι trace back to Neophytus Ducas’ Letters (338.2, 546.11) – that is, to the 17th century.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A