ἡμίκακος, ἡμιμόχθηρος
(Antiatt. η 2, Phryn. Ecl. 312, Poll. 6.160–1)

D. General commentary

The sources collected in A. deal with the admissibility of ἡμίκακος (‘half-bad’). More specifically, the Antiatticist (A.1), in line with its ‘mild Atticist’ approach, endorses the form on the basis of the testimony of Alexis, a poet of Middle Comedy. By contrast, Phrynichus (A.2), who in all probability is responding to the Antiatticist (see Latte 1915, 378), clearly states that ἡμιμόχθηρος is to be preferred. Pollux (A.3), in a section of his work devoted to compounds in ἡμι-, appears to admit both forms (ἡμιμόχθηρος also occurs in Poll. 4.13Poll. 4.13, a list of adjectives belonging to the semantic field of badness). Phrynichus’ entry raises a number of issues, which will be discussed in detail below. To gain a clearer picture of the Atticists’ doctrines illustrated in A., it is first necessary to focus on compounds with ἡμι- as the first component, especially those of the [ἡμι-adjective] type, which form compound adjectives.

Both ἡμίκακος and ἡμιμόχθηρος are determinative compounds with a first component ἡμι- ‘half’ (< IE *sēmi-) and an adjective as their second component. This configuration is by no means the only possible one, nor is it the most common. The majority of compounds in ἡμι- (which are common from Homer to Modern Greek and across all registers) are verbale Rektionskomposita (e.g. ἡμιδαής ‘half-burnt’; cf. δαίω ‘to burn’), which are probably inherited (see Risch 1944, 22–3). Endocentric determinative compounds with a nominal second component, though attested at an early date (see e.g. the Mycenaean and Homeric ἡμίονος ‘half-ass’, i.e. ‘mule’), do not constitute a highly productive category (see Risch 1944, 23–4). Neuter forms such as ἡμιτάλαντον (‘a half-talent’), ἡμιπέλεκκον (‘half-axe’, i.e. ‘single-edged axe’), and the like, stand apart: they may plausibly be analysed as bahuvrihis that came to be reinterpreted as determinatives at an early stage (that is, already in Homer: see Risch 1944, 51 for discussion).

Turning now to determinatives formed with ἡμι- and an adjectival second component, it is important to note that they are relatively late attested (incidentally, their structure recalls that of the Homeric τρισμάκαρ ‘thrice-blest’; the latter, however, is best explained as a case of univerbation, as noted by Risch 1974, 221). Apart from ἡμίκακος and ἡμιμόχθηρος (both discussed below), the earliest examples are ἡμίξηρος ‘half-dry’ (three occurrences in the Hippocratic treatise On Superfetation, dated to the mid-4th century BCE by Lienau 1963, 78–9, though possibly reworked at a later date, as suggested by Craik 2015, 254), ἡμιπόνηρος (twice in Aristotle), ἡμίχρηστος ‘half-good’ (once in Aristotle, used as a counterpart to ἡμιπόνηρος), and ἡμίνηρος ‘half-fresh’ (Sopat.Com., 4th–3rd century BCE). The following forms are considerably later (excluding ἡμιχολώδης ‘semi-bilious’, a highly dubious reading in Hp. Epid. 7.29.2 (= 5.400.12 Littré); note that the forms are listed in a chronological order; compounds not followed by ‘+’ are hapax legomena):

ἡμιβάρβαρος ‘semi-barbarian’ (Str.+); ἡμιφάλακρος ‘half-bald’ (Lucill.); ἡμίγυμνος ‘half-naked’ (Plu.+); ἡμιπλήρης ‘half-full’ (Aret.+); ἡμίζως ‘half-alive’ (Hdn.); ἡμίλευκος ‘half-white’ (Luc.); ἡμίσοφος ‘half-wise’ (Luc.+); ἡμίφαυλος ‘half-knavish’ (Luc.+); ἡμιστρόγγυλος ‘semicircular’ ([Luc.]+); ἡμιμέθυσος ‘half-drunk’ (Poll.); ἡμίμεστος ‘half-full’ (Poll.); ἡμιπλέως ‘half-full’ (Poll.); ἡμίκενος ‘half-empty’ (S.E.+); ἡμιτριβακός ‘half-worn out’ (Pach.; NB: one would expect ἡμιτρίβακος); ἡμιάγρυπνος ‘half-awake’ (Agath.); ἡμίβραχυς ‘half of a short syllable’ (sch. D.T.+); ἡμίμωρος ‘half-foolish’ (Nicetas Stethatus, 11th century); ἡμίωμος ‘half-raw’ (schol. (Tz.) Ar.).

To these, a few other compounds may be added that do not easily fit into a clear category, especially since the distinction between a nominal and an adjectival second component can at times be problematic (see Risch 1944, 34–5). A case in point is provided by compounds with an ethnonymEthnics as their second component, such as the hapax forms ἡμικρής ‘half-Cretan’ (Lyc.), ἡμιιουδαῖος ‘half-Jewish’ (Ios.), ἡμίμηδος ‘half-Mede’ (Oenom.), and ἡμιπέρσης ‘half-Persian’ (Oenom.).

Setting aside minor issues of classification, it is noteworthy that none of the attested compounds of the type [ἡμί-adjective] are particularly early. Of particular interest for our purposes is the fact that they are by no means confined to the high registerRegister: they include technical terms, colloquial expressions, and extempore formations, many of which carry a more or less pronounced comic overtone. We will return to all this briefly below, in connection with the Platonic passage listed in C.3.

With the necessary background now in place, we can move on to our main focus. The issue raised by the Atticist sources in A. appears to be one of lexicon and style rather than morphology, as is evident from the fact that Phrynichus contrasts two compounds identical in structure. That said, certain problems arise that warrant closer scrutiny.

To begin with, the surviving evidence for both ἡμίκακος and ἡμιμόχθηρος is too scant to allow a clear understanding of the semantic and stylistic difference between them. ἡμίκακος is reported by Pollux to occur in Sophocles (fr. 1051 = C.1). The only other occurrence would be that in Alexis mentioned by the Antiatticist; notably, Ar. Th. 449 (C.2) has the adverb ἡμικάκως, used in the sense ‘tolerably, more or less’, according to the translation by Austin, Olson (2004, 192), who regard the expression as ‘most likely colloquial’. As for the enigmatic Euclides, who, according to Pollux, used ἡμίκακος, his identity cannot be determined with certainty (see the apparatus in A.3). In later sources, ἡμίκακος occurs only a couple of times (Eus. PE 5.24.7 = Oenom. 6.68; Pall. V.Chrys. 92.11).

Attestations of ἡμιμόχθηρος, by contrast, are somewhat more abundant. The form first occurs in Plato (R. 352c.7, see C.3), where the tone of the whole passage is vividly colloquial (see below for further discussion); it is subsequently attested sporadically in imperial and later literature (see Section E.). Most notably, it appears seven times in the works of Galen and three times in those of Oribasius, suggesting that it may have entered medical terminologyMedical language as a designation for anything potentially harmful to one’s health (see e.g. C.5).

To sum up, it is difficult to determine the diastratic difference between the two forms based on the available evidence. It may be added that more than one scholar has expressed perplexity at Phrynichus’ entry (A.2). According to Rutherford (1881, 419), ‘this article if by Phrynichus is certainly unworthy of him’, since ‘the adjectives are equally good’. For his part, Pearson (1917 vol. 3, 147) noted that ‘it is difficult to understand why he [i.e. Phrynichus] took this line: possibly he thought it [i.e. ἡμίκακος] less suited to an elevated prose style than ἡμιμόχθηρος, and Sophocles may have used ἡμίκακον in a satyr-play’.

Pearson’s hypothesis implies that ἡμίκακος was a colloquial form (as suggested by Austin, Olson 2004, 192 ad Ar. Th. 449 ἡμικάκως, see above) and that Phrynichus was aware of its attestation in a satyr-play by Sophocles. In my view, however, it is impossible to determine whether Sophocles used ἡμίκακος in a satyr-play, given that his tragedies are themselves studded with colloquialisms (see most recently Diani Wilke 2024, with bibliography; note that Soph. fr. 1051 = C.1 is listed among the fabulae incertae in Radt’s edition). Moreover, it is by no means certain that Phrynichus would have rejected a colloquialism such as ἡμίκακος. Rather, he appears generally wary of poeticismsPoetic language, whether or not they occur in tragedy: see Phryn. Ecl. 214Phryn. Ecl. 214, 251Phryn. Ecl. 251, 294Phryn. Ecl. 294, 401Phryn. Ecl. 401, entry Λάκαινα, Λακωνική; note in particular that in Ecl. 157Phryn. Ecl. 157 (re. λίβανος) Sophocles’ usage is rejected precisely because it is a poeticism. Conversely, in Ecl. 351Phryn. Ecl. 351 Phrynichus cites a passage by Sophocles in support of his view that πρόσφατος may be used of a thing – a usage by no means confined to elevated style (on the specific reasons for his approval of Sophocles’ usage, see entry πρόσφατος). Additionally, one should consider the possibility that ἡμιμόχθηρος, the form endorsed by Phrynichus, may likewise have been colloquial, as will be suggested below.

For the moment, it should be noted that Phrynichus’ rejection of ἡμίκακος presents an additional challenge, as it seemingly ignores Ar. Th. 449 ἡμικάκως (C.2). This may be due to the fact that Phrynichus’ immediate aim was to refute the doctrine of the Antiatticist, who in turn seems unaware of the Aristophanic occurrence, given that he relies on Alexis as his authority. One may therefore assume that Phrynichus simply did not bother to collect further evidence for ἡμίκακος, since his primary concern was to contrast the Antiatticist’s doctrine. For his purposes, ἡμιμόχθηρος – an adjective attested in Plato – would have sufficed (cf. Arnott 1996, 80–1). Speculative though this may be, this hypothesis remains plausible, especially if one considers that Phrynichus likely conceived the Eclogue as a work of primarily practical orientation (see Fischer 1974, 44–7), and that he sometimes invites his interlocutor to pursue further enquiry into particular issues (see e.g. entry φυγαδεύω), which suggests that his doctrines were not always based on first-hand evidence.

That said, it cannot be ruled out that Phrynichus was fully aware of the use of ἡμίκακος/ἡμικάκως in Attic authors, yet nevertheless regarded ἡμιμόχθηρος as the preferable form. One possible reason is that the latter may have been perceived as less transparent than ἡμίκακος. A possible parallel may be found in Phryn. Ecl. 301Phryn. Ecl. 301: ἡμικεφάλαιον μὴ λέγε, ἀλλ’ ἡμίκρανον (‘Do not say ἡμικεφάλαιον (‘half the head’), but rather ἡμίκρανον’). At first glance, ἡμίκρανον appears more refined than its alternative. Unfortunately, however, no firm conclusion can be drawn from this entry, owing to the almost complete lack of evidence for both ἡμικεφάλαιον and ἡμίκρανον before the imperial age.

Be that as it may, Pearson’s aforementioned suggestion that Phrynichus promoted ἡμιμόχθηρος because it was better suited to ‘an elevated prose style’ should be treated with caution. The surviving occurrences of ἡμιμόχθηρος – as well as comparison with many determinative compounds of the [ἡμι-adjective] type mentioned above – suggest that it was not a high-register word. In this regard, let us consider the occurrence of ἡμιμόχθηρος in Pl. R. 352c (C.3). Plato’s passage is marked by a lively conversational tone, as evidenced by the use of μή τοι (‘a strong negative somewhat rarely used by Plato’, according to Adam 1920 vol. 1, 57), the compressed expression ἔπραξαν ἃ ἔπραξαν, and the emphatic adverbs κομιδῇ, παντάπασιν, and τελέως – not to mention the adjective παμπόνηροι, which carries a strongly derogatory connotation in comedy and in the works of Demosthenes (see e.g. Olson 2002, 285), and which functions as a counterpart to ἡμιμόχθηροι.

In conclusion, while one may conjecture that Phrynichus regarded ἡμιμόχθηρος as more recherché – and therefore more suitable? – than ἡμίκακος, there is no concrete evidence that the latter was stylistically inferior to the former; rather, it is likely that Attic authors employed both terms in colloquial contexts.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Whereas compounds in ἡμι- continue to be used down to Modern Greek, the same cannot be said of ἡμίκακος and ἡμιμόχθηρος. The former is virtually unattested in Byzantine learned literature, while the latter occurs sporadically in learned authors discussing moral issues (cf. its definition in B.1) – no doubt with reference to such authorities as Plato (C.3) and Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 40.22.12 Moreschini–Gallay) – and often in the context of stylistic elevation: see e.g. Nil. Epist. 2.189.1–2 (= MPG 79.297.44–5): ἡμιμόχθηρος ὑπάρχειν μοι ἔοικας, οὐ μὴν ὁλομόχθηρος (‘You seem half-bad to me, certainly not totally bad’); Leo Choerosphactes Chiliostichos Theologia 310 Vassis: ἡμιμοχθήρους φύσεις (‘half-bad natures’; on this passage, see also entry ἀμφαρίστερος, ἐπαρίστερος). At times, however, ἡμιμόχθηρος – though used with reference to moral behaviour – appears to retain an echo of its use as a technical term in the medical language (see above, Section D.): see e.g. Symeon Metaphrastes Vita Stephani Iunioris 1124–6 Iadevaia: εἰσὶ γὰρ κἂν τοῖς φαύλοις καὶ πονηροῖς ἡμιμοχθηροί τινες καὶ ἰάσιμοι τὴν κακίαν (‘For even among the vile and wicked, there are some who are half-bad and whose baseness can be cured’); Nicephorus Gregoras Historia Romana 3.282.11–2 Bekker–Schopen: ὧν τὸ μὲν ἀνίατον, τὸ δ’ ἡμιμόχθηρον καὶ ἰάσιμον (‘Of these two things (i.e. blasphemy and ignorance), the one [is] incurable, whereas the other [is] half-bad and curable’).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A