ῥύμη, στενωπός
(Antiatt. ρ 2, Phryn. Ecl. 383, Poll. 9.37–8)

D. General commentary

The Antiatticist (A.1) and Phrynichus, in the second book of the Eclogue (A.2), discuss the noun ῥύμη in the sense of ‘narrow street, alley’. The former states that some unnamed scholars reject this usage of the noun and recommend στενωπός instead. The view of these anonymous grammarians coincides with the position taken by Phrynichus (A.2), who characterises ῥύμη in the sense of ‘alley’ as typical of contemporary uneducated speakers (οἱ νῦν ἀμαθεῖς) and possibly as a Macedonian usage. Although the Antiatticist (A.1) does not state this explicitly, it is likely that his entry is intended to defend the use of ῥύμη in the sense of ‘alley’ (cf. La Roi, Roumanis 2024, 73 and below).

Τhe noun ῥύμη goes back to the same root of the verb ἐρύω ‘to drag, to draw towards one’ (i.e. *u̯eru-; cf. EDG s.v. ἐρύω) and, through the suffix -μη, conveys the abstract notion of ‘force’ (cf. Chantraine 1933, 148; conversely e.g. the concrete noun ῥυμός indicates the part from which the chariot is pulled – i.e. the pole – and ῥυτήρ means ‘rein’, see LSJ s.vv.). The earliest secure attestation of ῥύμη in Greek literature occurs in Thucydides (3x), where it denotes either the force of an attack in a battle (C.2 and Thuc. 2.81.4) or the force of an object striking another (see Thuc. 2.76.4). The noun is also well attested in Aristophanes (4x). A fifth attestation in Ar. V. 1487 is doubtful, since the codd. read ὑπὸ ῥώμης ‘with force, vigorously’, while ὑπὸ ῥύμης ‘with a rush, swing’ is Lobeck’s emendation (1820, 404). This conjecture has been adopted by some editors (e.g. van Leeuwen 1909, 223; Sommerstein 1983, 142; Wilson 2007, 272), but rejected by others (e.g. Bekker 1829, 236; Dindorf 1835, 272; Biles, Olson 2015, 503; MacDowell 1971, 323 praises the conjecture but does not print it in the main text). The noun also occurs 3x in Xenophon and once each in Plato (Sph. 236d.5) and Demosthenes (21.99). In all these passages, ῥύμη always means – either literally or figuratively – a ‘rush’, ‘impulse’, or ‘impetus’. In the 4th century BCE, a different, and apparently unrelated, meaning emerges, i.e. ‘narrow passage, alley’. Its first attestations are found in Aeneas Tacticus (4x, see C.3; Vela Tejada 1991, 294 lists ῥύμη among Aeneas’ lexical innovations) and Philippides (2x: frr. 14 and 22 = C.4, both quoted in A.3). The relationship between the base meaning ‘force, rush, impetus’ and the secondary sense ‘narrow passage, alley’ is not self-evident, but the semantic shift likely presupposes the idea of a place ‘where the crowd presses’ (see EDG s.v. ῥύμη).

While the base meaning of ῥύμη remains in use – cf. e.g. Aristotle 1x, Antiphanes 1x, the pseudo-Euripidean Rhesus 1x, Nicander 1x, Diodorus 4x, Philo of Alexandria 40x, Josephus 4x, Plutarch 33x, Appian 10x, and Arrian 6x (note that in some instances, e.g. D.S. 17.20.4, D.S. 18.71.4, and Ph. De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 50, ῥύμη is a modern emendation for the transmitted ῥώμη, or even ὀρμή) – the meaning ‘alley’, first attested in Aeneas, becomes increasingly frequent in post-classical literature. It is found, for instance, in the Hippocratic treatise On the Heart (C.5, dated to the 3rd century BCE, cf. Craik 2015, 56), Polybius 12x, the Septuagint 3x (see Muraoka 2009 s.v. ῥύμη), and the New Testament 4x. As might be expected, this is the only meaning attested for ῥύμη in documentary texts, where the noun is extremely common (more than 300 total hits on Papyri.info), with occurrences as early as the 3rd century BCE: cf. e.g. P.Cair.Zen. 4.59764.42 and 46 (= TM 1388) [Philadelphia, 255–254 BCE] and the obscene graffiti in SEG 8.661 and 662 [Karnak, 2nd century BCE] (whose low register is further confirmed by the presence of a verb with the analogical ending -οσαν, cf. entry ἐλέγοσαν, ἐγράφοσαν, ἐσχάζοσαν).

The second word discussed by the sources in A. is στενωπός (a compoundCompounds of στενός ‘narrow’ and ὀπή ‘passage’). As an adjective, it already occurs with ὀδός ‘street’ in the Iliad (3x). As a substantive, it is first attested in the Odyssey, where it indicates the Strait of Messina (see Hom. Od. 12.234: ἡμεῖς μὲν στεινωπὸν ἀνεπλέομεν γοόωντες, ‘we sailed the narrow strait, wailing’). Its first secure occurrences in the sense of ‘alley’, however, are found in Sophocles (C.1; see also the phrase στενωπὸς Ἅιδου in Soph. fr. 832, meaning ‘door of Hades’) and Pherecrates (fr. 113, but see Franchini 2020, 109, who interprets this attestation as a reference to river rapids rather than to an alley). Plato uses the noun once (Ti. 70b.6), but in the sense of ‘channel’ or ‘passage (in the human body)’. In the 4th century BCE, στενωπός is employed once by the comic playwright Nicostratus (fr. 25, as ‘alley’; on this fragment, see Lamari 2023, 164–6). The term later occurs 3x in Apollonius Rhodius (in the sense of ‘sea strait’) and once in the New Comedy playwright Hegesippus (fr. 1.23, meaning ‘alley’), before becoming much more frequent in post-classical prose, where its meaning is almost always ‘alley’ or even, more generally, ‘street’ (Diodorus 13x, Dionysius of Halicarnassus 28x, Philo of Alexandria 4x, Josephus 24x, Plutarch 26x; by contrast, Strabo uses the term only for the sea strait, 7x). στενωπός ‘alley’ and πλατεῖα ‘broad street’ (cf. A.3) are the most common terms by which Greek authors refer to the two main components of the so-called ‘Hippodamian’ urban grid (on these terms and their Latin equivalents angiportum and platea, see Harsh 1937, 44–50 and Castagnoli 1971, 10–54). Unlike ῥύμη, στενωπός is entirely absent from documentary texts.

In view of the distribution of ῥύμη and στενωπός, Phrynichus’ stance (A.2) is unsurprising: he defends the use of ῥύμη attested in canonical authors (i.e. ‘rush, impetus, impulse’) and rejects the meaning ‘alley’, which had become common in his own time as a result of the semantic shift already observable in Aeneas Tacticus (cf. above). The labelling of ῥύμη ‘alley’ as ‘Macedonian’ has only one parallel in the rest of Phrynichus’ work, i.e. Phryn. Ecl. 354Phryn. Ecl. 354: παρεμβολὴ δεινῶς Μακεδονικόν, καίτοι ἐνῆν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ χρῆσθαι, πλείστῳ καὶ δοκίμῳ ὄντι (‘παρεμβολή [is] utterly Macedonian, yet it was possible to use στρατόπεδον, which is the most frequent and authentic [term]’). Although both occurrences convey a more or less marked criticism of the term labelled Μακεδονικός, they should also be situated within the broader context of imperial and late antique references to Macedonian in lexicography and grammar (see e.g. Pollux 5x, Philetaerus 2x, Hesychius 68x). This tradition may go back to Hellenistic scholars such as Amerias (on whom see Valente 2005, Pagani 2021, and AGP vol. 1, 525–6), but it also likely reflects the general tendency of grammarians and lexicographers to label as Macedonian ‘Greek words of wide circulation spread by the Macedonians’ (Pellettieri in the entry βασίλεια, βασιλίς, βασίλισσα, βασίλιννα; on Macedonian glosses in ancient sources, see Sowa 2006 and AGP vol. 1, 78 with n. 56; on Macedonian more generally, see Brixhe, Panayotou 1997; Méndez Dosuna 2012, with further bibliography). Still, it cannot be excluded that – as suggested by Tribulato (2022, 923) – the characterisation of ῥύμη as a Macedonian usage derives from Phrynichus having in mind its attestations in Philippides (i.e. frr. 14 and 22 = C.4, both quoted by Pollux in A.3): Philippides was a friend of the Macedonian general – and successor of Alexander the Great – Lysimachus (cf. Plu. Dem. 12.8), so it is not unreasonable to suppose that Phrynichus would have perceived his language as being to some extent influenced by Macedonian Greek.

While rejecting ῥύμη in the sense of ‘alley’, Phrynichus prescribes στενωπός, a rarer term with eminent classical antecedents (cf. above). It is worth noting that A.2 is transmitted in the second book of Phrynichus’ Eclogue, which – if one accepts the hypothesis advanced by Latte (1915, 378–80; cf. also Fischer 1974, 39; Valente 2015, 53 n. 316; Tribulato 2022, 930) – should have been compiled after the Antiatticist. However, the Antiatticist entry itself (A.1) reports – likely to criticise it (cf. below) – the proscription of ῥύμη and prescription of στενωπός in the sense of ‘alley’. At first glance, therefore, one might be led to assume that A.1 responds to A.2 rather than the reverse. Still, the following considerations may be advanced: (1) not every entry in the Antiatticist should be understood exclusively in relation to Phrynichus’ Eclogue (and the unnamed scholars mentioned in A.1 may well be other grammarians who happened to share the same view as Phrynichus); (2) Phrynichus may in fact have discussed ῥύμη and στενωπός also in the first book of the Eclogue, but this hypothetical entry may have been lost as a result of epitomisationEpitome. Be that as it may, the Antiatticist’s aim – although not stated explicitly in the entry – was in all likelihood to defend ῥύμη in the sense of ‘alley’, and thus to counter the stricter Atticist position in favour of στενωπός (for other Antiatticist entries with οὔ φασι δεῖν λέγειν, see e.g. the entries βαίνω, βιβάζω, and prefixed forms and καμμύω, as well as Valente 2015, 45–6). In this respect, the authority on which the Antiatticist may have relied is plausibly Philippides (thus already Tribulato 2022, 923), who uses the noun twice (in frr. 14 and 22 = C.4, both quoted in A.3). Indeed, Philippides is quoted eight more times in the lexicon (once from the Euripides-lover, i.e. the play from which C.4 derives). Moreover, he is the playwright whom Pollux likewise cites (A.3) in connection with the use of ῥύμη as ‘alley’.

Pollux’s discussion (A.3) is interesting in that its interpretation depends on the value of the adverb τάχα, which may mean either ‘presently, easily’ or ‘perhaps’ (cf. LSJ s.v.). While the optative ἂν εὕροις makes the second option more likely (‘perhaps you could find etc.’), the fact that Pollux immediately quotes the texts in which the terms at issue appear seems to sit uneasily with the dubitative tone of τάχα δ’ ἂν εὕροις (cf. Valente 2013, 154–5). This apparent contradiction may be resolved by supposing that Pollux meant ‘perhaps you could also find ῥύμη [...] being used (i.e. in canonical Attic authors)’ but was unable to provide evidence other than the New Comedy passages that he goes on to quote. Still, one cannot discount the possibility that τάχα here means ‘easily’ and that the phrase τάχα δ’ ἂν εὕροις κτλ. merely serves to introduce the ensuing quotations (I thank the anonymous reviewer for this suggestion).

The strict Atticists’ rejection of ῥύμη in the sense of ‘alley’ is reflected in the usage of imperial authors, who – regardless of their more or less marked tendency towards Atticising language – appear to use the noun exclusively in the sense of ‘rush, impulse, force’ (see e.g. Aelius Aristides 2x, Aelian 2x, Cassius Dio 8x, Heliodorus 7x). In keeping with this pattern, στενωπός occurs far more frequently in authors of the same period, especially in the more Atticising ones (see e.g. Lucian 8x, Aelius Aristides 10x, Achilles Tatius 6x).

In late antique literature, ῥύμη continues to be employed for the most part in the abstract sense of ‘rush, impulse, force’ (e.g. Libanius 7x, John Chrysostom 100+). The meaning ‘alley’, however, remains attested, primarily in texts commenting on Scripture – in which ῥύμη occurs exclusively with this sense (cf. above; e.g. Basil of Caesarea 7x) – but occasionally also in authors who otherwise employ the noun mostly in the abstract sense (e.g. John Chrysostom 4x). In lexicography, ῥύμη is often treated as a synonymSynonyms of στενωπός; see e.g. Hsch. λ 420 (cf. Σ λ 2 = Phot. λ 7 ~ Su. λ 152), Hsch. σ 1754, Hsch. σ 1755, St.Byz. ρ 55, and B.4. At the same time, στενωπός itself remains well attested (e.g. Libanius 28x, John Chrysostom 41x, Procopius of Caesarea 26x).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In accordance with Byzantine lexica, which reiterate the Atticist prescriptions of ῥύμη in the sense of ὁρμή and στενωπός in the sense of ‘alley’ (cf. B.2, B.3), Byzantine Greek displays a distribution of the two nouns similar to that of earlier centuries: high-register texts employ ῥύμη mostly in the abstract sense, whereas low-register or technical texts (e.g. hagiographies, legal writings) use it in the sense of ‘alley’ (cf. Kriaras, LME s.v. ῥύμη). Similarly, στενωπός remains in use throughout the Byzantine period. Of particular interest is the compound στενορύμη/στενορύμιον (literally ‘narrow alley’), attested in a small number of texts from the 7th century CE onwards, such as Leontius of Neapolis (1x), the Synagoge (and the related entries in Photius and the Suda, i.e. B.3), and the Basilica (2x); cf. LBG s.vv. στενορύμη and στενορύμιον. A further attestation occurs in the Epimerismi attributed to Herodian, which are, however, of uncertain dating (cf. Dickey 2014, 329), while the latest occurrence recorded in the TLG appears in a collection of popular songs recorded in a 16th-century manuscript (Carmina anonyma medii aevii 95.492 Pernot; the spelling, for the neuter plural, is στενορύμνια).

Both ῥύμη and στενωπός are attested in archaising authors up to the 19th century (e.g. John Capodistrias ῥύμη 3x, in the meaning ‘alley’; Alexandros Rizos στενωπός 4x) and are retained, along with στενορύμι, in Modern Greek (ρύμη is employed in both its abstract and concrete meanings: see LKN s.vv. ρύμη, στενορύμι, and στενωπός).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A