ἔκθεμα
(Phryn. Ecl. 219, Moer. γ 21)

D. General commentary

In the Eclogue (A.1) Phrynichus rejects the noun ἔκθεμα meaning ‘proclamation, edict’, prescribing in its place the synonym πρόγραμμα. Both are deverbative nouns formed from prefixed verbs – respectively ἐκτίθημι ‘to set out, to place outside’ and προγράφω ‘to set forth as a public notice’ – with the addition of the suffix -μα (< *-mn̥), indicating the result of the action expressed by the verb from which they derive (see Chantraine 1933, 182–3). Phrynichus’ entry reflects a more general interest in deverbal nouns ending in -μα among Atticist lexicographers; see also entries ἄκουσμα, ἀκρόαμα; ἀργύρωμα, χρύσωμα; ῥάπισμα; νίμμα, ἀπόνιπτρον; ὑπάλλαγμα, and the overview in AGP vol. 2, Nominal morphology, forthcoming.

Given the wide semantic range of the base verbs from which the two nouns derive, both ἔκθεμα and πρόγραμμα are polysemous, although the former covers a broader range of meanings. In literary texts, ἔκθεμα is attested with the sense ‘edict’ beginning with Polybius (C.1) and the Septuagint (C.2; in Ez. 16.24 ἔκθεμα translates the Hebrew רָמָה, meaning ‘high place’; in Muraoka’s lexicon (Muraoka 2009, s.v.) this occurrence of ἔκθεμα is glossed as ‘advertisement’). In lexicographical works, however, it is employed to gloss the noun γεῖσος, denoting the projecting part of the roof (see A.2 and B.1; on A.2, see also F.1), a meaning never attested for ἔκθεμα in literary sources. The noun is, in general, very rare (fewer than 20 attestations according to the TLG, including lexicographical works). It appears in inscriptions dated to the Hellenistic and early imperial period (cf. IOSPE I² 36.6 [Olbia, 2nd–1st c. BCE], IG 7.2712.26 and 73 [Acraephia in Boeotia, after 37 CE], I.Fayoum 75.4 [Soknopaiou Nesos, 54 CE]), and in papyri of the Hellenistic and imperial periods (cf. e.g. P.Genova 3.101.6 = TM 5594 [Arsinoites, 221 BCE?], BGU 7.1563.1 = TM 27584 [Philadelphia, 2nd c. CE]). By contrast, the earliest literary attestations of the noun πρόγραμμα occur in Demosthenes (25.9) and Aristotle (Ath. 44.2, 66.3), where the term, however, means ‘agenda’, ‘course of public business’; for its use in the sense of ‘edict’ one has to wait until the early imperial period (cf. e.g. C.3, Plu. Galb. 5.1, C.4, and D.C. 60.28.6). With the meaning ‘edict’ or ‘public notice’, the noun is also attested in papyri and inscriptions from the Hellenistic period onwards (cf. e.g. IG 12,9.234.29 [Euboea, ca. 100 BCE], MAMA 10, App. 1, 187.66.11 [Tiberioupolis in Phrygia, imperial period], P.Tebt. 1.24.28 (= TM 3660) [117 BCE], P.Oxy. 8.1101.16 (= TM 21726) [367–370 CE]) and remains in use into the Byzantine age.

Phrynichus’ proscription of ἔκθεμα, certainly due to its lack of attestations in canonical authors and its use in koine Greek, may perhaps also be motivated by other factors. Indeed, although a form *ἔκθημα is not attested, other Atticist lexica prescribe deverbative nouns built on the root of τίθημι ending in -ημα against variants ending in -εμα: see Moer. α 57Moer. α 57: ἀνάθημα Ἀττικοί· ἀνάθεμα Ἕλληνες, ‘Users of Attic [employ] ἀνάθημα (‘votive offer’). Users of Greek [employ] ἀνάθεμα’, and Philemo (Laur.) 354Philemo (Laur.) 354: ἀνάθημα· οὐκ ἀνάθεμα, ‘ἀνάθημα: Not ἀνάθεμα’; Moer. σ 21Moer. σ 21: σύνθημα ἐν τῷ η· ἐν τῷ ε Ἕλληνες, ‘σύνθημα (‘preconcerted signal, connexion’), with η. Users of Greek [say it] with ε’; cf. also Phryn. Ecl. 420Phryn. Ecl. 420: εὕρημα χρὴ λέγειν διὰ τοῦ η, οὐχ εὕρεμα, ‘One should say εὕρημα (‘invention’), with η, not εὕρεμα’, and Eust. in Od. 2.133.23–5 (= Hdn. Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,1.353.9–12). Although the alternationVowel alternation between η and ε is a widespread phenomenon across multiple levels and in various stages of documentary Greek (cf. Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,1, 47; Gignac 1976, 242–7; Threatte 1980, 161–2), the popularity of short forms in -εμα in koine Greek might be due to the analogy with competing abstract nouns in -σις, which require a short vowel in the preceding stem; cf. Threatte (1980, 161–2); Vessella (2018, 146–8). Gunkel (2011), on the other hand, linked the formation of innovative short forms in -εμα to the morpho-phonological phenomenon of ‘trochaic shortening’, whereby nouns with word-final –⏑ sequences adjust to word-final ⏑⏑ sequences, but only when the verbs from which the nouns derive exhibit a morphological stem alternation (ablaut) and one of the stem allomorphs ends in a short vowel (cf. e.g. the pairs χεῦμα/χῦμα, πῶμα/πόμα, εὕρημα/εὕρεμα; note that the absence of attestations for the long form *ἔκθημα could be explained by the fact that such forms are attested only from the Hellenistic age onwards, a period when conservative formations derived from stems ending in a long vowel were not so frequent; see Gunkel 2011, 10). Since there was an Atticist debate about these nouns, Phrynichus’ rejection of ἔκθεμα could therefore also be related to the proscription of similar forms ending in -εμα; see Lobeck (1820, 249–50), Rutherford (1881, 319), and AGP vol. 2, Nominal morphology, forthcoming. Finally, the semantic ambiguity of ἔκθεμα noted above – the noun was also used to denote a projecting architectural element (A.2, B.1) – may have been another reason for its inadmissibility from an Atticist perspective, as it could be perceived as a very general term applicable to a range of contexts. On the semantic ambiguity of deverbative nouns in -μα as a factor underlying their proscription, see also entry ὑπάλλαγμα.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Moer. γ 21 (A.2)

Hansen’s reconstruction, which restores the binary pattern typical of Moeris’ lexicon between the usage of the Ἀττικοί and that of the Ἕλληνες, does not seem to fit the text of the entry as transmitted by MS F (Laurentianus plut. 91 sup. 10)Laur. plut. 91 sup. 10. Indeed, the neuter form γεῖσοςγεῖσος (a metaplastic variant of the older γεῖσον) is attested only from the Hellenistic period onwards (cf. e.g. LXX Ez. 43.17) and is not employed by Attic authors, who instead use the form γεῖσον: cf. e.g. Eur. Ph. 1180, Soph. OT 876, and Ar. fr. 802 – in the latter case, denoting the hem of a garment. It should also be noted that entry γ 21 is transmitted only by MS F and may represent a later addition to the lexicon from a different lexicographical tradition, although this addition cannot be ascribed to the copyist of MS F, who conflated this entry with the following one, γ 22Moer. γ 22 (see A.2, apparatus). This means that he was copying from a text arranged in two columns, with the interpretamenta listed beneath their respective lemmata, so that two lemmata appeared on one line and their two interpretamenta on the next; see Hansen (1998, 32). The entry appears with the same wording in Hsch. γ 270 (B.1, from Pseudo-Cyril’s lexicon), where it seems to have an exegetical rather than a prescriptive purpose, especially if one accepts the form γείση as correct. Should one decide to correct the reading to γεῖσα (cf. Musurus’ proposal in the Hesychius apparatus; the plural in the direct cases selected in the entry itself is in fact the most attested in Attic drama, whereas it does not appear to be used in later literary works – mainly the Septuagint – that employ the noun γεῖσος in other grammatical cases), the entry may well have an Atticist origin and may originally have been part of Moeris’ lexicon. In that case, Moeris would be the source for the entry in Pseudo-Cyril’s lexicon and in Hesychius, B.1, even in the corrupted form transmitted by MS F.