βρέχει
(Phryn. Ecl. 255)

D. General commentary

The entry of the Eclogue concerns expressions for ‘it rains’, but it is of interest also for the insight it offers into Phrynichus’ methodology and his approach to the canon of approved Attic authors. In Classical Greek ‘it rains’ is normally expressed by ὕει, and this is the form recommended by Phrynichus against βρέχει, which originally meant ‘to wet’ or ‘to get wet’ but later became the common form for ‘to rain’ (which is continued in Modern Greek: see E.).

The proscription of βρέχει for ‘it rains’ is also found in Philemon’s lexicon (B.1), which dates to the same period as the Eclogue. The semantic equivalence of the two verbs is confirmed in entries in Hesychius and later lexica (B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5). In his Hippocratic lexicon, Erotian (B.4) reflects on the meanings of the action noun βρέγμαβρέγμα (‘rain’ and ‘heavy shower’), showing that the connection of βρέχω with rain was common in Post-classical Greek. Some of these erudite sources also engage in discussions on whether the meaning ‘to rain’ is original or a later development. For instance, Eustathius (B.5) considers the meaning ‘to get drenched’ to be a secondary development, specifically referring to its metaphorical usage for people who drink too much. Contrary to this, Thomas Magister (B.6) – who follows Phrynichus in proscribing βρέχω and recommending ὕω – goes to great lengths to demonstrate that in Attic or Atticising authors such as Aristides, βρέχω can be used only for things soaked in water. In this usage, he makes a concession for passive forms of βρέχω that apply to things drenched by rain (hence the quotations where the verb refers respectively to land drenched in rain and to someone who does not wish to get wet). Thomas’ focus on morphologically passive forms (καταβρεχθῶ, βρεχθεῖσα) probably reflects the fact that the middle-passive forms of βρέχω are not attested in Attic and become frequent only in Post-classical Greek.

Two entries in the late Byzantine Lexicon Vindobonense offer competing views. While the first (B.7, transmitted only in codex A) repeats the rule that the correct form for ‘it rains’ in Attic is ὕει, the second (B.8, transmitted in three manuscripts) goes against the doctrine enunciated by Thomas Magister that βρέχω should be used only for ‘to be drenched’ and ascribes this meaning to the compound διαβρέχω, while prescribing βρέχω for ‘to rain’. These two entries in the Lexicon Vindobonense depend on information contained in Moschopulus’ Περὶ σχεδῶν and Planudes’ De constructione verborum (details on these parallels in Guida 2018, 46 and 49). What these contradictory sources show is that there was some uncertainty about the correct meaning of βρέχω in Classical Attic, an uncertainty deepened by the fact that throughout the history of Greek, βρέχω has kept both the meaning ‘to be wet, drenched, soaked’ and ‘to rain’, and that the latter at some point replaced ὕω in common language (see below and E.).

In the meaning ‘to rain’, both ὕω and βρέχω may be used impersonally or with an expressed subject, to indicate the entity that sends the rain (e.g. Hom. Il. 12.25 ὗε Ζεύς ‘Zeus rained’, cf. B.2; Pi. O. 7.34: βρέχε θεῶν βασιλεύς, C.3). The first extant attestation of impersonal ὕει is in Hesiod (C.1), while impersonal βρέχει is first attested in Theophrastus (C.4). According to Phrynichus, however, impersonal βρέχει was already used in an Old Comedy piece, which some attributed to Teleclides (C.2, see below). In fact, this usage is not found elsewhere in either poetry or high prose, where βρέχω – as signalled by some of the lexica discussed above – regularly means ‘to wet’ or, in the passive, ‘to get wet, to be bathed, to be wrenched’. The Septuagint and the New Testament thus are the only texts where both the impersonal and the personal constructions of βρέχω are common (e.g. C.6), also in transitive usages where the direct object is not rain (e.g. χάλαζαν ‘hail’ in C.7, or μάννα ‘manna’ in C.8). This distribution suggests that, particularly when used impersonally, βρέχω for ‘to rain’ – though perhaps common in lower Greek (as testified by the odd attestations in the technical prose of Theophrastus, C.4, and in Arrian’s commentary on Epictetus, C.9) – never became acceptable in written Greek except for those authors influenced by the Scripture (examples include Philo, Justinus, Clemens, Origen, and Eusebius). The situation does not seem to have much evolved in later centuries: both personal and impersonal βρέχει are absent from learned texts (see E.).

In the Eclogue (A.1) Phrynichus therefore reacts to a usage that even the less archaising texts tend to avoid. However, his testimony shows that impersonal βρέχει was in use in classical Greek, though it never made it to the high language of literary texts. It is impossible to ascertain the context of this attestation of βρέχει in a comedy. A likely possibility is that the verb was used to gesture towards low-register language.

The entry, which touches upon the issue of the authenticity of ancient texts, is also important for the appreciation of Phrynichus’ methodological tenets. The first in order of importance, which Phrynichus also enunciates in other entries of the Eclogue, is that one should avoid usages that are attested only once (hapax legomena: see Ecl. 64Phryn. Ecl. 64, 93Phryn. Ecl. 93, 129Phryn. Ecl. 129, 151Phryn. Ecl. 151, 218Phryn. Ecl. 218, 297Phryn. Ecl. 297, 402Phryn. Ecl. 402, 403Phryn. Ecl. 403 and entry πρόσφατος). Phrynichus considers βρέχει with suspicion regardless of whether Teleclides may be the author of the play or not (it is unclear whether this play may be the Apseudeis: see Bagordo 2013, 105; 260). The low pedigree of βρέχει paired with its rarity in Attic is a good enough reason to reject its single use, even if this play were by Teleclides. Consequently, the fact that a certain usage is documented in an approved Attic author does not suffice to make it automatically approved. The second methodological tenet follows on from this conclusion. The canon, while fundamental in Phrynichus’ perception of linguistic correctness, is not a monolithic principle that overrides common sense and linguistic practice. In this respect, Phrynichus hints at a third principle: the aspiring Atticist should be able to judge the authenticity of the texts in which certain ‘classical’ usages are allegedly attested and not take them uncritically. Here the fact that the play may be spurious constitutes a further reason to reject βρέχει. Phrynichus’ argument, however, makes it clear that spuriousness is only an additional element that contributes to the unacceptability of the expression: the first criterion remains its rarity, so that one should avoid using βρέχει because it is a hapaxHapax (on the role of hapax legomena in the Eclogue, see Monaco 2024). In this context, the use of the adjective ἀρχαία to qualify the comedy in which βρέχει occurs is significant. Phrynichus is not suggesting that the play may not belong to Old Comedy on account of its language. The play is old, but it is not by Teleclides; impersonal βρέχει must be rejected not because of the age of the comedy, but because it is a rare usage.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

The use of βρέχω for ‘to rain’ remains rare in Byzantine high prose. To name just a few classicising authors, it is absent from the works of Arethas, Psellus, Anna Comnene, Nicephorus Basilaces, Michael Choniates, and Tzetzes, except for when they explicitly quote or refer to Scripture. For instance, while Photius uses βρέχω as a gloss on ὕω in his lexicon and cites scriptural passages where it means ‘to rain’, he uses it in his own writings in the classical meanings of ‘to wet, to be wet’ (e.g. Bibl. 249.439b, Bibl. 250.452b, Ep. 174.175, etc.). Impersonal βρέχει is sometimes found in hagiographies, such as the mid-10th-century Life of St. Andrew Salus (C.10), where βρέχει features in the context of a conversation between St Andrew and his disciple Epiphanius on the origin of the water that comes from the clouds in winter. However, in Medieval Greek too, βρέχω can be used in both the personal meanings ‘to wet’ (i.e. as a synonym of διαβρέχω) and ‘to send rain’, and impersonally as ‘it rains’ (see Kriaras, LME s.v.), usages that continue into Modern Greek (see LKN and ΙLΝΕ, s.v.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Phryn. Ecl. 255 (A.1)

In the sentence ὅπερ, εἰ καὶ γνήσιον ἦν τὸ δρᾶμα, τῷ ἅπαξ εἰρῆσθαι ἐφυλαξάμεθ’ ἄν, the textual tradition oscillates between the reading τῷ ἅπαξ εἰρῆσθαι of the U family and τὸ ἅπαξ εἰρῆσθαι of the b family. The latter proposes a more intelligible syntax for ἐφυλαξάμεθα, with the accusative τό indicating the thing which one should be aware of. However, the verb already has an object in the preceding relative ὅπερ. Thus, Fischer is correct in choosing τῷ ἅπαξ εἰρῆσθαι: the articular infinitive in the dative expresses the reason why one should avoid using βρέχει: ‘because it is attested only once’.