βόλβιτον, βόλιτον
(Phryn. Ecl. 334, Antiatt. β 44, Moer. β 14, [Hdn.] Philet. 41, Philemo [Laur.] 356, Thom.Mag. 55.14)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1), Moeris (A.3), the Philetaerus (A.4), Philemon (A.5), and Thomas Magister (A.6) discuss the two variants βόλβιτον and βόλιτον (on the term’s gender, see below), which are used, from the classical period onwards, to denote cow manure. Surprisingly, Phrynichus’ stance (A.1) on the issue is the most nuanced among all Atticist sources: the lexicographer accepts both βόλβιτον and βόλιτον, though he considers the latter ‘more advisable’ (literally ‘more authentic’, δοκιμώτερον), whereas βόλβιτον is attested only in a few Attic authors. On the contrary, Moeris (A.3) and the Philetaerus (A.4) identify βόλιτον as the sole Attic form, assigning βόλβιτον either to koine Greek (A.3) or, remarkably, to Doric (A.4). Philemon (A.5) and Thomas Magister (A.6, on whose source see below) instead openly proscribe βόλβιτον and promote βόλιτον, making no mention of dialects. As regards the Antiatticist (A.2), the lexicon includes an entry for βόλβιτον, referring to its occurrence in Hipponax (C.1, C.2). However, the entry’s highly abbreviated form does not allow us to ascertain whether the lexicographer intended to actively recommend βόλβιτον, to permit it alongside βόλιτον (as in A.1), or merely to record its as the Ionic counterpart of Attic βόλιτον. The fact that the immediately preceding entry (Antiatt. β 43 = B.2, on which see Fiori 2022, 155–8) concerns the derivative βολίτινον in Aristophanes’ Frogs (C.6) makes the latter two interpretations more likely.

Modern linguists are not unanimous regarding the etymology of the term βόλ(β)ιτον. Beekes (EDG s.v., see already Furnée 1972, 180, 187) argues for a pre-Greek origin, on the basis of (1) the alternation βόλ-/βόλβ-, (2) the suffix -ιτο-, and (3) the existence of the variants βόλβυθον and βόλβιθον. While the first two arguments are solid, the forms βόλβιθον and βόλβυθον are attested only rarely, and only in late sources. More specifically, βόλβιθον occurs once in the 4th-century CE papyrus codex Par. suppl. gr. 574 (PGM 4.1440; on the intervocalic change τ > θ in papyri from the Roman period, see Gignac 1976, 92), and once in a treatise on venoms dating to the imperial period but preserved only in late Byzantine manuscripts (Ael.Prom. 45.4; the occasional change τ > θ is also attested in the Byzantine period, cf. CGMEMG vol. 1, 208 and E.). The variant βόλβυθον, which occurs once in Hsch. β 780, may well be an itacistic misspelling of βόλβιθον (on the adjective βολβιθώδης in Michael Psellus Opuscula 55.51, cf. E.). In other words, the only genuine ancient alternation appears to be that between the Attic form βόλιτον (C.4, C.5, C.6) and the Ionic form βόλβιτον, first attested in Hipponax (C.1, C.2) but – according to Phrynichus (A.1) – also occurring in a few Attic authors. If one rejects the hypothesis of a pre-Greek origin for βόλ(β)ιτον, two possible explanations remain for the alternation βόλβ-/βόλ-. On the one hand, it may be assumed that the original form was βόλιτον (as already held by Herodian, cf. B.4), which was etymologically related to βολή/βόλος ‘throw’ and βολεών ‘dunghill’ (cf. Eust. in Od. 1.40.34–6 = 1.198.18–20 Cullhed–Olson; on βολεών, see entry ἱστών and other place-nouns in -(ε)ών). This, however, would entail explaining the variant βόλβιτον as influenced by βολβός ‘bulb, onion’’ – that is, by assuming a folk-etymology based either on the idea of manure as a fertilizer or on the general association of onions with bad smell. On the other hand, some have argued that the base form was βόλβιτον, derived from βολβός, and that βόλιτον arose from it through dissimilation (cf. Solmsen 1906, 722; Schwyzer 1939, 260), possibly under the influence of βολή/βόλος and βολεών (on dissimilatory alternations and their treatment in Atticist lexica, cf. AGP vol. 2, Phonology, forthcoming). Both explanations, however, involve the suffixSuffixes -ιτο-, which has very few parallels in Greek (cf. Solmsen 1906, 722; GEW s.v. βόλβιτον; DELG s.v. βόλιτον). Overall, the fact that the word belonged to low-register spoken language surely contributes to the difficulty of explaining its etymology. Remarkably, the alternation βόλβ-/βόλ- also appears in some derivatives: one finds the adjective βολίτινος (‘made of dung’) in C.6, but also the noun βολβιτίνη (actually spelled βολβοτίνη or βολβοτύνη) in Ath. 7.318e (= Aristot. fr. 299 Gigon), denoting a foul-smelling variety of octopus (also called βολίταινα in the History of Animals (3x) and βολβιτίς in Epich. fr. 54 = C.3).

As far as the noun’s genderGender, grammatical is concerned, C.4 provides the oldest attestation that undoubtedly employs it as neuter (in the earlier occurrences – i.e. C.1 βολβίτῳ and C.2 βολβίτου – the noun could theoretically be either masculine or neuter; cf. Bianchi 2017, 265). However, the term is unequivocally treated as a masculine in late erudite sources, cf. Su. β 366 (βόλιτος), Su. ε 1049 (βόλιτος), schol. Ar. Eq. 658a (βόλιτοι, βολίτους), schol. Ar. Ra. 295b (βόλβιτος), schol. rec. Ar. Ra. 295b (βόλιτος, βόλβιτος), schol. (Tz.) Ar. Ra. 295 (βόλιτος), and schol. Ael. NA 4.26.18 (βόλβιτος). Interestingly, [Zonar.] 396.2 (βόλιτος καὶ βόλβιτα. τὰ κόπρια, ‘βόλιτος and βόλβιτα: Excrements’) appears to treat the βολ- variant as masculine and the βόλβ- variant as neuter; however, the entry’s brevity makes it impossible to determine whether this distinction reflects an earlier teaching or rather results from the conflation of different pieces of information under one lexicographical item.

In terms of frequency in extant Greek literature, the form βόλιτον is by far the least attested. Besides occurring twice in Aristophanes (C.5 and Ar. Eq. 658) and once in Cratinus (C.4, although the metre could accommodate βόλβιτα as well, cf. above and below), the term appears once in Aristotle (HA 552a.16), three times in Theophrastus, and then almost exclusively in grammatical treatises, lexica, and scholia. βόλβιτον, on the other hand, is attested (after Hipponax, C.1 and C.2) in the Hippocratic corpus (18x) and in a number of later medical texts (e.g. Dioscorides Pedanius 7x, Galen and Pseudo-Galen 12x, Oribasius 9x, Aëtius 14x, Paulus 7x), as well as in the Septuagint (5x), in Christian authors (e.g. Origenes 2x, John Chrysostomus 5x), and – understandably, given the term’s meaning – in Byzantine technical texts such as the Hippiatrica (16x) and the Geoponica (36x). The variant βόλιτον has no documentary attestations, whereas βόλβιτον occurs once in a tax account from Oxyrhynchus (SB 16.12695.verso.28 = TM 17450) [143 CE].

It therefore comes as no surprise that the Atticists (including Pollux, B.1) favoured the rarer and surely Attic βόλιτον over βόλβιτον, which – despite being attested in ‘a few of the Attic authors’ (cf. A.1: ὀλίγοι τινὲς […] τῶν Ἀττικῶν) – was widely used from the koine period onwards. Bianchi (2017, 263) supposes that Cratinus (C.4) was among the few Attic authors alluded to by Phrynichus as using βόλβιτον instead of βόλιτον. According to Bianchi, the metre could also accommodate the transmitted βόλβιτα, while the conjecture βόλιτα – proposed by Porson (1812, 284) and Lobeck (1820, 357) – rests mainly on the attestations of βόλιτον in Aristophanes (i.e. C.5 and Ar. Eq. 658), which are metrically secure. Be that as it may, Phrynichus’ remark that some Attic authors employed βόλβιτον may simply stem from the fact that the copies at his disposal preserved erroneous readings.

As regards the Antiatticist, the two contiguous entries on βολίτινον (β 43 = B.2) and βόλβιτον (β 44 = A.2) likely derive from a source that discussed the two forms together in greater detail. Thanks to B.4, this ancient discussion can be traced back to Herodian’s Περὶ παθῶν, and it cannot be ruled out that the Antiatticist indeed drew upon this grammatical treatise or upon a common source (cf. Fiori 2022, 155–8; on other Herodianic doctrines in the Antiatticist, cf. Valente 2015, 41–2). In this respect, it is also worth noting that the term βόλιτον appears to have have been mentioned in Solon’sSolon laws according to Appendix proverbiorum 1.58: βολίτου δίκην· πρὸς τοὺς ἀξίους καὶ ἐπὶ μικροῖς τιμωρίαν ὑπέχειν. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς Σόλωνος ἄξοσιν ὁ νόμος καὶ τοὺς βόλιτον ὑφελομένους κολάζει (‘Dung suit: [A proverb] coined for those who suffer deservedly even because of trifles. For in the axones of Solon the law punishes also those who have stolen dung’, transl. Leão 2022, 115). The Solonian laws were studied in detail by Hellenistic scholars – from Eratosthenes to Asclepiades of Nicaea, Didymus, and Seleucus (for an overview, see Davis 2011) – and we should not discount the possibility that the mention of a βολίτου δίκη may have prompted an erudite and linguistic discussion, potentially serving as a source for the Antiatticist (still, see Davis 2011 n. 98 for his scepticism regarding whether the βολίτου δίκη actually featured in Solon’s original legislation).

Among the Atticist sources, the Philetaerus is of particular interest in that it identifies βόλβιτον as Doric rather than – as one would expect in light of the attestations in Hipponax (C.1, C.2) – Ionic. One wonders whether the occurrence of the derivative βολβιτίς (the name of a foul-smelling octopus, cf. above) in Epicharmus (C.3) may have influenced the source(s) behind the Philetaerus entry, and whether epitomisation subsequently condensed the information to the point that βόλβιτον itself was identified as Doric.

Thomas Magister’s entry (A.6) likewise deserves scrutiny. At first glance, it would appear to derive from Philemon (A.5), though not reproducing it exactly (on Philemon being one of Thomas’ main sources, see entries Philemon, Περὶ Ἀττικῆς ἀντιλογίας τῆς ἐν ταῖς λέξεσιν and Thomas Magister, ’Ονομάτων Ἀττικῶν ἐκλογή). However, although the entry in Thomas’ Eclogue (A.6) appears closer in wording to Philemon (A.5: βόλιτα· οὐ βόλβιτα) than to Moeris (A.3: βολίτοις Ἀττικοί· βολβίτοις Ἕλληνες), one of the MSS of the Vatican recension of Moeris’ lexicon, cod. F, actually reads βολίτα· βόλβιτα. Since the Vatican recension is the one to which Thomas Magister had access while compiling his own lexicon (see Thomas Magister, ’Ονομάτων Ἀττικῶν ἐκλογή), it cannot be excluded that A.6 in fact depends on Moeris rather than on Philemon (indeed, Hansen 1998, 87 lists Thomas Magister as testimony of the entry). As for the words λέγε τὴν τῶν βοῶν κόπρον (which appear in neither Philemon nor Moeris), they may represent Thomas’ own addition or, perhaps less plausibly, reflect a more complete version of his source. Be that as it may, to further substantiate the hypothesis of Thomas’ dependence on Moeris, one should take into account his tendency to draw clusters of entries from each of his sources and thus examine the parallels between Thomas Magister, Philemon, and Moeris in the entries surrounding A.6. Although not conclusive, this survey points towards Thomas’ actual dependence on Moeris rather than on Philemon: indeed, A.6 falls right in the middle of a sequence of entries (i.e. Thom.Mag. 54.6–56.13) which – with very few exceptions (i.e. Thomas’ entries re. βλάξ, βάρος, and βέβαιος) – are most likely drawn from Moeris and follow almost exactly the order found in that lexicon (see Thom. Mag. 54.6 ~ Moer. β 7Moer. β 7, Thom. Mag. 54.7–8 ~ Moer. β 2Moer. β 2, Thom. Mag. 54.18–55.4 ~ Moer. β 5Moer. β 5, Thom. Mag. 55.7–13 ~ Moer. β 13Moer. β 13, Thom. Mag. 55.14 (= A.6) ~ Moer. β 14 (= A.3), Thom. Mag. 55.15 ~ Moer. β 17Moer. β 17, Thom. Mag. 55.16–56.2 ~ Moer. β 21Moer. β 21, Thom. Mag. 56.3 ~ Moer. β 22Moer. β 22, Thom. Mag. 56.4–8 ~ Moer. β 28Moer. β 28, Thom. Mag. 56.9–19 ~ Moer. β 29Moer. β 29, Thom. Mag. 56.11–2 ~ Moer. β 32Moer. β 32, Thom. Mag. 56.13–5 ~ Moer. β 40Moer. β 40). This cluster of entries is, in fact, preceded by another group (i.e. Thom.Mag. 53.6–54.6) which is instead evidently based on Philemon (see Philemo (Laur.) 356.6–357.4).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

While the survival of βόλιτον in Byzantine texts is confined to erudite works (cf. D.), βόλβιτος/βόλβιτον appears sporadically also in historical texts (cf. Nicetas Choniates 1x) and in medical literature (Nicholas Myrepsus 3x, Demetrius Pepagomenus 1x). The derivative βολβιθώδης (‘dung-like’) occurs once in a treatise by Michael Psellus (Opuscula 55.51) transmitted by a single manuscript (the reading is actually βολβυθώδεις). Here, Psellus is drawing almost verbatim from the Problemata attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisia: in the corresponding passage (i.e. [Alex.Aphr.] Suppl.Pr. 1.13.1 Kapetanaki–Sharples) most manuscripts read βολβιτώδης, while βολβιθώδης is a minor variant, possibly influenced by λεκιθῶδες which appears a few lines earlier both in the Problemata (1.12.6) and in Michael Psellus (Op. 55.48). Given that the occasional change from τ to θ is also attested in the Byzantine period (cf. CGMEMG vol. 1, 208), βολβιθώδης should be regarded as an aberrant form. βόλβιτος/βόλβιτον has no continuation in Medieval and Modern Greek.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A