ἐργοδότης, ἐργοδοτέω
(Phryn. Ecl. 322, Antiatt. ε 46, Poll. 7.182, Poll. 7.200)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus’ Eclogue (A.1) contains a lemma discussing the admissibility of the agentive verbal compound ἐργοδότης ‘one who farms out work; employer’ and of its denominative verb ἐργοδοτέω ‘to farm out work’. Phrynichus firmly rejects the noun, claiming that ‘it is not attested’ (οὐ κεῖται), meaning of course in the Attic authors. It is doubtful whether he was unaware of the occurrence in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (C.1) or, conversely, whether he deliberately ignored this evidence on account of Xenophon’s uncertain status within his canon of approved authors (on this issue, see the criticism in Ecl. 62Phryn. Ecl. 62, with entry ὀσμή, ὀδμή, ὄζω, ὄδωδα, and Ecl. 93Phryn. Ecl. 93, with entry ἀκμήν; on the Atticists’ approach to Xenophon, cf. also Favi 2024). Phrynichus also states that ἐργοδοτέω is used by ‘one of the poets of New Comedy’, but they, too, are not to be trusted. This is consistent with his wholesale rejection of New ComedyNew Comedy as a suitable linguistic model (see e.g. Tribulato 2014 and Monaco 2024 on his attitude towards Menander, and Tribulato 2024 for an overview of the use of comedy in Phrynichus’ lexica).

A parallel lemma in the Antiatticist (A.2) attributes to one Apollodorus the use of the form ἐργοδοτῶν, which is, however, morphologically ambiguous: it may be either the present participle of ἐργοδοτέω or the genitive plural of ἐργοδότης. The similar topic of the entries in the Eclogue and the Antiatticist suggests that they may either draw independently on the same common source(s) or be dependent on one another. From this perspective, and in light of the Eclogue, the form lemmatised in the Antiatticist may be interpreted as the present participle of ἐργοδοτέω, and the vague reference to one Apollodorus can almost certainly be identified with one of the two poets of New Comedy bearing this name – Apollodorus of Carystus or Apollodorus of Gela (see C.2 and Kassel, Austin ad PCG vol. 2, 516) – who are cited two other times in the Antiatticist (see Antiatt. κ 4Antiatt. κ 4, with entry καθίζω, καθέζομαι, καθιζάνω, and Antiatt. ρ 6Antiatt. ρ 6; cf. Tribulato 2022, 927). The Antiatticist’s identification of an Attic model for the verb ἐργοδοτέω ‘as [used] in the common language’ may be interpreted as having prompted Phrynichus’ reaction that one should not follow the poets of New Comedy. This scenario is consistent with the classic hypothesis formulated by Latte (1915, 378–80) that the Antiatticist precedes the compilation of Eclogue Book 2 (see also Fischer 1974, 39; Valente 2015, 53 n. 316; Tribulato 2022, 930). In passing, it is worth noting that the expression ὡς κἂν τῇ συνηθείᾳ (‘as [it is used] also in the common language’) employed by the Antiatticist is one of three instances in the lexicon (the other two being δ 21Antiatt. δ 21 re. δόμων ‘bricks’ and ε 68Antiatt. ε 68 re. εὑρίσκειν τιμήν ‘to receive honour’).

ἐργοδότης and ἐργοδοτέω are relatively common in Post-classical Greek, as is shown, for instance, by their occurrence in Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica (C.3 and Artem. 1.56.53), where they refer to a person who procures work for another. These occurrences are supplemented by several others in literary texts (e.g. Eus. PE 14.25.7; Greg.Naz. Or. 16, MPG 35.940.15, etc.; Ephr.Syr. Capita centum. Quomodo quis humilitatem sibi comparet 42.1, etc.) and in post-Hellenistic inscriptionsInscriptions: see e.g. MAMA 8.577.2 [Aphrodisias, imperial period], where the participle ἐργοδοτήσας, preceded by τολμήσας ἢ ἐπιχειρήσας (‘daring or attempting’), denotes the act of assigning someone the task of violating a burial. Thus, Phrynichus’ aim in A.1 is clearly to proscribe the verb solely on the only basis of its weak classical pedigree.

The entries in the Eclogue and the Antiatticist do not focus on the morphology of the two compounds, but rather on their admissibility in Atticising Greek, given their diffusion in Post-classical Greek and their scanty use in Attic (the only two occurrences being C.1 and C.2). Besides B.1, which simply glosses ἐργοδότης, a broader semantic interest emerges in the two passages in Pollux’s Onomasticon, which, while admitting ἐργοδότης (A.3) and ἐργοδοτέω (A.4), also explain that they denote the action opposite to that conveyed by the agentive compounds ἐργολάβοςἐργολάβος and ἐργολαβέωἐργολαβέω, which instead refer to those who receive work from the ἐργοδόται, and the action itself (on A.3 and its theatrical context, see Bagordo 2013, 266–7). In A.3, Pollux’s final statement – that the orators use ἐργολαβέω in the sense of ἐπηρεάζω – is open to two interpretations. The translation provided here, which takes ἐπηρεάζω as a term of abuseAbuse (terms of), is based on passages in Attic oratory in which ἐργολαβέω is used disparagingly of individuals (often other orators) who profit by taking advantage of others: see e.g. D. 22.49 (ψηφίσματα δ᾿ εἶπεν ἐν ὑμῖν δεινὰ καὶ παράνομα, δι᾿ ὧν ἠργολάβει καὶ πολλὰ τῶν ὑμετέρων κέκλοφε, ‘but he proposed among you monstrous and unlawful decrees, through which he made profit and has stolen much from you’; the same sentence occurs verbatim in D. 24.161), D. 32.11 (οὗτος […] ἠργολάβηκεν αὐτὸς καὶ κατεπήγγελται τουτῳί, ‘this man (Aristophon) himself has sold his services to this man (i.e. the plaintiff) and has come to an agreement with him’), and Aeschin. 2.112, where the phrase σοφιστοῦ […] ἐργολαβοῦντος ἐγκώμια εἶναι refers to the kind of praise that the speaker deems characteristic of a mercenary sophist. For this metaphorical sense of ἐργολαβέω, see further Poll. 8.30Poll. 8.30, Poll. 8.31Poll. 8.31, Alciphr. 3.19.1, Σ α 823. An alternative interpretation, however, is also possible: namely, that here Pollux refers not to ancient orators but to the legal practitioners of his own day. Given that in Post-classical Greek ἐργολαβέω, especially in juridical language, could also denote fraudulent conduct, Pollux’s ἐπηρεάζω may thus be understood in the sense ‘to mistreat someone; to commit malfeasance’: for this interpretation, see further entry ἐργολάβος, ἐργολαβέω.

The information reported in the LSJ s.v. ἐργοδότης – namely, that a potentially incorrect usage of the term in the sense of ‘workman’ (rather than ‘employer’) is attested in Aret. SD 1.6.6 (C.4) – is surely mistaken. Aretaeus recounts an anecdote concerning a builder who, though otherwise mad, was, while at work, in full control of his professional skills and able to ‘associate with the ἐργοδόται’. The passage illustrates Aretaeus’ general point about madness, namely that does not necessarily manifest itself in all of an individual’s activities, but may be absent, for instance, when he is working. The LSJ follows Adams (1856, 302–3) in interpreting the text as referring to the builder’s ability to bargain with workmen under his authority and to remunerate them appropriately (see Adams 1856, 302–3: ‘he would associate with the workmen, made a bargain with them, and remunerate their work with suitable pay’). However, as noted by Cuvigny (2021, 55), who criticises this interpretation, the passage in fact indicates that the builder is capable of negotiating with the contractors on his own behalf and of producing good work in exchange for fair remuneration. Thus, there is no evidence in Greek texts for a mistaken application of ἐργοδότης.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

ἐργοδότης and ἐργοδοτέω are regularly used in Byzantine texts, though mostly in high or middle registersRegister (neither term is recorded in Kriaras, LME). Examples of the noun include an attestation in the 10th-century Eparchicon biblion, a collection of regulations governing the trade guilds in Constantinople (22.2.10–1: εἰ δὲ ἐνδεὴς ὕλης ὁ ἐργοδότης τυγχάνει, μετὰ προτροπῆς αὐτοῦ ἑτέρων ἐφαψάσθωσαν ἔργων, ὡς μὴ ἀργοὶ ὄντες οἱ τεχνίται ἐν ἀπορίᾳ τροφῆς γένωνται, ‘and if the employer lacks material, let others, at his urging, lend a hand, so that the workmen, being idle, do not fall into want of food’), and in Michael Psellus Theologica (102.108–10: τῆς γὰρ ὕλης τὴν δεσποτείαν εἰληφυίας τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ τῶν πονηρῶν λογισμῶν οἷα δὴ ἐργοδοτῶν τινων ἐπικειμένων καὶ καταναγκαζόντων τὸν ἄνθρωπον μὴ θεῖα οἰκοδομεῖν ὀχυρώματα […], ‘for when the soul has come under the mastery of matter, and when wicked thoughts, like certain employers, press upon and compel a person not to build divine strongholds [...]’). As for the verb, which is less common than ἐργoδότης, see a similar passage in Eparchicon biblion (22.1.5: ἐὰν δὲ ἀπορίᾳ ὕλης ἢ κακίᾳ τοῦ ἐργοδοτήσαντος ὑπέρθεσις γένηται, ‘if, owing to a shortage of material or to the employer’s wickedness, there is delay […]’), as well as Eust. Orationes 9.17.36–42 (καὶ μὴν καὶ οἱ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις εἰσέτι πλέον μικροϋποκριταί, οἳ τοὺς χάλικας δηλαδὴ παραφοροῦντες, καὶ τὸν πηλὸν ἢ τὴν τίτανον ὀργαζόμενοι, τὰς ἀρχὰς μέν, ὅτε γνωρισθῶσι τοῖς ἐργοδοτοῦσιν, εὐήθεις καὶ ἁπλοϊκοὶ τυποῦνται τὴν θέαν, μικρὸν δὲ ὅσον ἐξαλλάσσουσιν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τὰ ἔμπαλιν, ‘and indeed even those who in such [tasks] are still the more inferior assistants – those who carry pebbles and work clay or lime – when they become acquainted with their employers, [although] they are initially appear as being naïve and simple in their appearance, undergo a slight change in the opposite direction’). While the verb has disappeared in Modern Greek, ἐργοδότης has been revived as a learned calque (the LKN s.v. identifies German Arbeitgeber ‘employer’ as its model).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A