ἁπλᾶ, διπλᾶ, τριπλᾶ
(Phryn. PS 43.17–9, Moer. τ 22)
A. Main sources
(1) Phryn. PS 43.17–9: ἁπλᾶ, διπλᾶ, τριπλᾶ καὶ τὰ ὅμοια περισπῶσιν, <οὐ> γὰρ ὑποπίπτει τῇ Ἰωνικῇ διαιρέσει, οἷον διπλόα διπλᾶ καὶ τὰ ὅμοια.
ἁπλᾶ (‘single’), διπλᾶ (‘double’), τριπλᾶ (‘triple’) and similar [forms] have perispomenon accent, for they are
(2) Moer. τ 22: τριπλᾶ τετραπλᾶ περισπωμένως καὶ μακρῶς Ἀττικοί· βραχέως Ἕλληνες.
Users of Attic [employ] τριπλᾶ (‘triple’), τετραπλᾶ (‘quadruple’) with perispomenon accent and a long vowel; users of Greek [employ them] with a short vowel.
B. Other erudite sources
(1) Phryn. PS fr. *367 (= Σb α 1799, Phot. α 2436, Su. α 3221, ex Σ′): χρυσᾶ· τὸ ἁπλᾶ καὶ διπλᾶ καὶ πολλαπλᾶ καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα περισπῶσιν οἱ Ἀττικοί, ἀργυρᾶ, χρυσᾶ, καὶ κεραμεᾶ ἀπὸ τοῦ κεραμεοῦν, καὶ φοινικιᾶ ἀπὸ τοῦ φοινικιοῦν.
Cf. Su. δ 1258, π 1871, χ 553. φοινικιᾶ is the reading of Σb and Su. (codd. AV) : Phot. and Su. (codd. GITFM) have φοινικᾶ | φοινικιοῦν is the reading of Σb and Su. (codd. GTM) : Phot. and Su. (codd. AIFV) have φοινικοῦν.
χρυσᾶ (‘golden’, nom.-acc. neut. plur.): Users of Attic employ the perispomenon accent on ἁπλᾶ (‘single’), διπλᾶ (‘double’), πολλαπλᾶ (‘manifold’), and all such forms, and [also on] κεραμεᾶ (‘earthen’, nom.-acc. neut. plur.) from κεραμεοῦν (nom.-acc. neut. sing.), and φοινικιᾶ (‘crimson’, nom.-acc. neut. plur.) from φοινικιοῦν (nom.-acc. neut. sing.).
(2) Hsch. τ 1416: τριπλῇ τετραπλῇ τε· τριπλασίονα καὶ τετραπλάσια.
‘Threefold and fourfold’ (Hom. Il. 1.128 = C.1): [It means] ‘three times as much and four times as much’.
C. Loci classici, other relevant texts
(1) Hom. Il. 1.127–9:
ἀλλὰ σὺ μὲν νῦν τήνδε θεῷ πρόες· αὐτὰρ Ἀχαιοὶ
τριπλῇ τετραπλῇ τ᾿ ἀποτίσομεν, αἴ κέ ποθι Ζεὺς
δῷσι πόλιν Τροίην ἐυτείχεον ἐξαλαπάξαι.
Do you give her up at the god’s command, and we Achaeans will recompense you threefold and fourfold, if ever Zeus grants us to sack the well-walled city of Troy. (Transl. Murray 1924, 23).
(2) Aesch. Pers. 1033:
δίδυμα γάρ ἐστι καὶ τριπλᾶ.
For it (i.e., the loss) was twice and thrice as much.
(3) Aesch. fr. 39:
εἷλκον δ᾿ ἄνω λυκηδόν, ὥστε διπλόοι
λύκοι νέβρον φέρουσιν ἀμφὶ μασχάλαις.
They dragged him up in the manner of wolves, the way a pair of wolves carry off a fawn by the shoulders. (Transl. Sommerstein 2009, 39).
(4) Hdt. 3.42.2: κάρτα τε εὖ ἐποίησας καὶ χάρις διπλῆ τῶν τε λόγων καὶ τοῦ δώρου.
Codd. have διπλέη, accepted by Rosén : Stein corrected it to διπλῆ, followed by Wilson : Legrand and Hude print διπλὴ. See F.1.
You have done very well and [I give you] double thanks, for your words and for your gift.
(5) Hdt. 6.104.1: οὗτος δὴ ὦν τότε ὁ Μιλτιάδης ἥκων ἐκ τῆς Χερσονήσου καὶ ἐκπεφευγὼς διπλόον θάνατον ἐστρατήγεε Ἀθηναίων.
Cod. A has διπλόον : other codd. have διπλοῦν. See F.1.
This Miltiades, then, had arrived from the Chersonesus and having twice escaped death, was a general in the Athenian army.
(6) Pl. Sph. 267e.8: τὸν δοξομιμητὴν δὴ σκοπώμεθα ὥσπερ σίδηρον, εἴτε ὑγιὴς εἴτε διπλόην ἔτ᾿ ἔχων τινά ἐστιν ἐν ἑαυτῷ.
Then let us examine the opinion-imitator as if he were a piece of iron, and see whether he is sound or there is still some seam in him. (Transl. Fowler 1921, 457).
(7) Luc. Sol. 2.4: λέλεκται καὶ σεσολοίκισται τετραπλῇ, σὺ δ’ οὐκ ἔγνως.
Codd. Ν and N have τετραπλῇ : most other codd. have τριπλῇ : Macleod proposed to read τετραπλᾶ.
Things have been said and four soloecisms made, but you did not recognise them.
(8) Luc. Pseudol. 32: ὥστε ὥρα ἤδη καὶ ταῦτα συκοφαντεῖν, εἰ μὴ τριπλῇ καὶ τετραπλῇ σοι ἡ ἀποφρὰς ἐκτέτικεν.
So you now have an opportunity to libel these expressions too, three or four times over, in case ‘nefandous’ has not paid you out. (Transl. Harmon 1936, 414–5, modified).
(9) Luc. Syr.D. 31.1: ἔνδοθεν δὲ ὁ νηὸς οὐκ ἁπλόος ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ ἐν αὐτῷ θάλαμος ἄλλος πεποίηται.
Within, the temple is not all of a piece, but contains another chamber. (Transl. Lightfoot 2003, 269).
(10) Ael. NA 9.4.6: τοῦ γε μὴν σκορπίου τὸ κέντρον ἔχειν τινὰ κολπώδη διπλόην ὑπὸ τῆς ἄγαν λεπτότητος οὐ πάνυ τι σύνοπτον.
Again, the sting of the Scorpion has a kind of hollow core, so very fine as to be hardly visible. (Transl. Scholfield 1959, 225).
D. General commentary
Entries in the Atticist lexica of Phrynichus (A.1) and Moeris (A.2) prescribe the contracted forms of multiplicative adjectives in -πλόος > -πλοῦς, while the uncontracted forms, considered typical of IonicIonic, are proscribed. Similar recommendations are found in the even more numerous entries dealing with adjectives of materialAdjectives of material, which also belong to the contract thematic declension in Attic: a fragment (B.1) ascribed to the Praeparatio sophistica of Phrynichus, but likely resulting from the conflation of multiple sources, treats both adjective classes together (see entry χρύσεος, χάλκεος, φοινίκεος).
The multiplicative adjectives in -πλόος – such as διπλόος, Attic διπλοῦς ‘double’ – have a suffix of unclear origin: it was perhaps remade from -πλος (which is expected, based on the comparison with other Indo-European languages: cf. Latin du-plus, Gothic twei-fl, etc.) under the influence of verbal governing compoundsCompounds with a second member in -CόCos, possibly as a result of confusion with compounds in -πλόϝος ‘sailing’ (see Kretschmer 1923, 218; Schwyzer 1939, 598; Dieu 2022, 386‒7). Forms of the kind ἁπλόςἁπλός (An.Ox. 2.231), διπλόςδιπλός (Opp. C. 2.449, etc.) are late and rare, although they may be older in some non-Attic dialects, as suggested by adverbial forms like Cretan διπλει, τετραπλει (with an ending modelled on locative adverbs in -ει) or Corcyran διπλη, Cretan διπληι (from old instrumentals in *-ē) (see DELG s.v. ἁπλόος and Bile 1988, 212‒3). Meanwhile, the Homeric adverbs τριπλῇ and τετραπλῇ in the Iliad (C.1) may derive either from adjectives in -πλός (like their Cretan and Corcyran equivalents) or in -πλόος, in the latter case with the contraction seen in διπλῆν (Il. 10.34, Od. 19.226), while the uncontracted stem appears in διπλόος (Il. 4.133, 20.415). Homer does not attest ἁπλόος directly but has the nom. fem. plur. ἁπλοΐδες (Il. 24.230, Od. 24.276).
Contract compound adjectives typically received a recessive accent in Attic, so that, for example, gen. sing. εὐνόου ‘friendly’ gave εὔνου in place of the expected *εὐνοῦ after nom. sing. εὔνοος > εὔνους (contract adjectives of material underwent the opposite development, becoming perispomena in Attic; see Dieu 2022, 386‒7). The numeral adjectives in -πλόος, however, evaded this trend, retaining the perispomenon accent that resulted from the contraction, likely because their compound nature had become opaque (see Risch 1974, 177). Moreover, in the direct cases of the neuter plural Attic analogically reintroduced the timbre /a/ for reasons of morphological transparency, while retaining the long quantity and the circumflex accentuation, producing an ending -ᾶ that was not the regular phonological outcome of contraction (which would have been *-ῶ < -όα). In adjectives in -πλόος, this meant that the Attic -πλᾶ was distinct from non-Attic -πλά (from the short forms in -πλός) in quantity and accent type only. This implies that the Atticist prescriptions on the correct form of adjectives such as ἁπλᾶ can be seen as relating to orthoepyPronunciation, rather than orthography (see Vessella 2018, 250 on A.2).
In Attic prose, the multiplicative adjectives, such as those of material, appear only in contracted form, which is also the norm in tragedy (see, e.g., C.2, quoted by Hansen as the possible locus classicus of A.1), with the exception of an Aeschylean fragment (C.3), and in Aristophanes; Attic prose inscriptions also regularly show contraction (see Threatte 1996, 286‒9). Uncontracted forms are found in non-Attic literature, but often in addition to the uncontracted forms in varying proportions according to genre and author: Homer, as already mentioned above, has a mixture of contracted and uncontracted forms; Archilochus (fr. 196a.36) has a single instance of the uncontracted διπλόη (meanwhile, διπλοῖ occurs in the spuriously attributed fr. 330.2); Pindar employs the uncontracted forms exclusively (ἁπλόος N. 8.36, διπλόος N. 5.52, 10.89, I. 3/4.88, 5.17, τριπλόος O. 9.2); Herodotus primarily uses the contracted forms, with a small number of exceptions (see C.4, C.5, although the possibility of alterations in the course of the textual tradition cannot be excluded: on this point, see F.1); the Hippocratic corpus, whose Ionic-based language admits several Attic traits, presents a confused picture, although the contracted forms outnumber the uncontracted ones (see López Eire 1984, 345, and F.3 for the special case of substantivised διπλόη). Hellenistic literature shows a preponderance of contracted forms, albeit with more instances of uncontracted forms than are found in classical Attic authors. Gammage (2018, 140‒1) observes that, in this period, uncontracted forms are particularly frequent in epic poetry (Apollonius, Nicander, Oppian) and in medical writers (including Galen): this may be due to the respective influence of the Homeric and Hippocratic models rather than the influence of the koine. In fact, contraction is the norm in the New Testament (Debrunner; Blass 1976, 37) and in Roman and Byzantine papyri (Gignac 1981, 210).
Atticising writers align themselves with lexicographers’ prescriptions. Lucian, for example, uses only the contracted forms, including the adverbial τριπλῇ and τετραπλῇ (C.7, C.8), which are not attested in classical Attic but had a Homeric pedigree; for an uncontracted form in his imitation of literary Ionic (C.9), see F.2. Aelian (C.10) has another apparent exception (see F.3). Even Achilles Tatius, whose Atticism may be described as moderate, uses only the contracted forms (14x), with no manuscript variants attesting the uncontracted forms (see Gammage 2018, 148‒9). It should be noted that the multiplicative adjectives in -πλοῦς faced competition from forms in -πλάσιος, such as διπλάσιοςδιπλάσιος ‘double’, attested since Solon (fr. 13.73 West), or τριπλάσιοςτριπλάσιος ‘triple’ (Ar.+). These originally had a slightly different meaning – ‘twice/thrice the size’ rather than ‘double’, ‘triple’ (see van Beek 2022, 462‒3) – but offered the advantage of being morphologically more transparent and became ubiquitous in Attic prose, ultimately surviving into Modern Greek (see E.). Even later are forms such as διπλασίων (Arist.+), τριπλασίων (Archim.+), derived from the previous forms by the addition of the suffix of primary comparatives.
E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary
Multiplicative numerals occur very rarely in Byzantine Greek (see CGMEMG vol. 2, 1263) and show the contracted endings more frequently than the uncontracted endings, although some occasional shifts to other inflections (e.g., nom. masc. sing. ἁπλής, ἁπλύς) may attest to writers’ insecurity about the ‘proper’ ending (see CGMEMG vol. 2, 721‒7). Typically, however, these adjectives shifted to the simple o- and ā-stem declensions: this process’ culmination is seen in Modern Greek, in which the forms απλός, διπλός, and τριπλός are in use. However, a trace of the contracted declension survives in the synthetic gradation forms of απλός ‘plain, simple, single’, which still has a comparativeComparatives απλούστερος and superlativeSuperlatives απλούστατος (see LKN s.v.), taken from the classical ἁπλούστερος and ἁπλούστατος: the latter were ostensibly constructed with the extended suffixes -εστερο-, -εστατο-, but they were likely formed on the model of the contracted nominative in -οῦς (see Schwyzer 1939, 535). Multiplicatives of the type διπλάσιος, τριπλάσιος are also used in Modern Greek – not, however, as direct survivals but rather as borrowings from the learned tradition.
F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences
(1) Hdt. 3.42.2 (C.4)
The only multiplicative adjective that Herodotus uses – with 5 occurrences – is διπλόος. In the tradition of the Herodotean text, these primarily show the contracted endings (Untersteiner 1949, 86), with a couple of exceptions: one is at 6.104.1 (C.5), where the codex optimus A (= Laur. Plut. 70.3, 10th century CE) has διπλόον; consequently, all editors print the uncontracted form here. At 3.42.2 (C.4), the codd. have διπλέη, a form that is not only contradicted by διπλῆν, transmitted by all codd. at 5.90.1, but is also linguistically suspect, given that the uncontracted form should have been διπλόη. The unexpected ending -έη might perhaps be explained as analogous to the contract adjectives in -εος, or perhaps to πλέος πλέη πλέον ‘full’; otherwise, it is comparable with the Cretan διπλεία (see K.‒B. vol. 1, 378‒9). Smyth’s (1894, 357 n. 1) theory that ‘the adj. in the feminine when α follows is διπλεία = Ion. διπλῆ < διπλέη; when ο follows it is διπλόος’ seems unlikely and ill-founded, given that it is based on this single example. Nevertheless, only Rosén (1987) and Medaglia (in Asheri, Medaglia, Fraschetta 1990) print the manuscript reading here; other editors normalise it to either διπλῆ or διπλή. Indeed, an additional complication is added by the oxytone accentuation transmitted by some codd. in the various Herodotean occurrences of this adjective; Hoffmann (1898, 299‒300) argued that these should be interpreted as instances of the ‘short’ form διπλός (see D.), and Hude (1927) and Legrand (1932‒1954) printed them in their editions accordingly, while Stein (1869‒1871) and Wilson (2015) choose the circumflex accent. However, Hoffmann’s theory is unlikely, given that the forms in -πλός appear to have been foreign to Attic-Ionic during the classical period. Here, as with other linguistic features, it is unlikely that the mix of different forms in Herodotus’ text reflects what the author himself wrote (a point already made by Merzorf 1875, 217: ‘Has omnes formas simul usurpasse Herodotum quis est, qui credat?’, even though his preferred solution of restoring the uncontracted διπλό- in all instances has not been followed in major modern editions), but it is difficult to determine which forms originated with the author and which were inserted at a later time. Leaving aside the problematic διπλέη, it is perhaps not coincidental that in cod. A only the acc. masc. sing. διπλόον appears uncontracted, while the feminine (acc. sing. -ῆν, plur. -ᾶς) and neuter forms (nom.-acc. plur. -ᾶ) are contracted. This distribution is reminiscent of Homer, who has the masc. διπλόος (2x) but the fem. διπλῆν (2x). In light of the widespread ancient notion that Homer’s and Herodotus’ languages shared a special affinity, it is possible that, at some point in the history of the text, a distribution of contracted and uncontracted forms that mirrored the Homeric distribution was introduced. On the problem of Herodotus’ ‘Homericness’, see, recently, Tribulato (2022) .
(2) Luc. Syr.D. 31.1 (C.9)
The only Lucianic instance of uncontracted ἁπλόος is found in the treatise On the Syrian Goddess, a work of disputed authorship written in an imitation of Herodotean Ionic. In fact, Herodotus himself does not attest ἁπλόος or any other multiplicative adjective except for διπλόος, which appears mostly contracted in the tradition of his text (see F.1). Thus, this use of ἁπλόος belongs to the instances in which the phonology of On the Syrian Goddess ‘tries very hard to be Herodotean, but […] overdoes some features (such as uncontracted forms)’ (Lightfoot 2003, 110). Given that Lucian’s pastiche ‘is written in the light of grammatical prescriptions’ (Lightfoot 2003, 98) regarding the Ionic traits of Herodotus’ language, hyper-Ionisms such as this may reflect the notion – also seen in lexicographical sources such as A.1 – that multiplicative adjectives were categorically uncontracted in Ionic. It is also possible that Lucian was following the idea that in Herodotus (as in Homer), only the feminine forms of -πλόος adjectives were contracted (see F.1); unfortunately, this cannot be verified as no other instances of multiplicatives occur in this treatise.
(3) Ael. NA 9.4.6 (C.10)
Aelian follows the Atticist prescriptions in using only the contracted forms of ἁπλόος and διπλόος. This isolated instance of uncontracted διπλόηδιπλόη in the On the Nature of Animals is not, pace Schmid (Atticismus vol. 3, 19), to be counted among the occasional uses of ‘open’ forms by Aelian, given that this is not the adjective but its substantivised feminine, meaning ‘fold’, used in a specialised anatomical sense to designate the ‘porous substance between the double plates in the bones in the skull’ (LSJ s.v.; borrowed in modern languages, cf. e.g. English diploe); this noun never appears contracted in Greek literature, likely because it was a technical borrowingTechnical language from Hippocratic Ionic. Additionally, uncontracted διπλόη could claim some Atticist credentials, given that Plato (C.6) had used it in the figurative sense ‘weak spot, flaw’, although like other Attic prose writers, he exclusively used the contracted forms of multiplicative adjectives.
Bibliography
Asheri, D.; Medaglia, S. M.; Fraschetti, A. (1990). Erodoto. Le storie. Vol. 3: La Persia. Milan.
Bile, M. (1988). Le dialecte crétois ancien. Étude de la langue des inscriptions. Recueil des inscriptions postérieures aux IC. Paris.
Blass, F.; Debrunner, A. (1976). Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Revised ed. by F. Rehkopf. Göttingen.
Chantraine, P. (1933). La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris.
Dieu, E. (2022). Traité d’accentuation grecque. Innsbruck.
Fowler, H. N. (1921), Plato. Theaetetus. Sophist. Translated by H. N. Fowler. Cambridge, MA.
Gammage, S. (2018). Atticism in Achilles Tatius. An Examination of Linguistic Purism in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon. [PhD dissertation] University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Gignac, F. T. (1981). A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Times. Vol. 2: Morphology. Milan.
Harmon, A. M. (1936). Lucian. Vol. 5: The Passing of Peregrinus. The Runaways. Toxaris or Friendship. The Dance. Lexiphanes. The Eunuch. Astrology. The Mistaken Critic. The Parliament of the Gods. The Tyrannicide. Disowned. Translated by A. M. Harmon. Cambridge, MA.
Hoffmann, O. (1898). Die griechischen Dialekte in ihrem historischen Zusammenhange mit den wichtigsten ihrer Quellen. Vol. 3: Der ionische Dialekt. Quellen und Lautlehre. Göttingen.
Hude, K. (1927). Herodoti Historiae. 2nd ed. Oxford.
Kovacs, D. (1994). Euripides. Vol. 1: Cyclops. Alcestis. Medea. Edited and translated by David Kovacs. Cambridge, MA.
Kretschmer, P. (1923). ‘Literaturbericht für die Jahre 1919 und 1920’. Glotta 12, 179‒277; 294.
Legrand, P.-E. (1932‒1954). Hérodote. Histoires. 11 vols. Paris.
Lightfoot, J. L. (2003). Lucian. On the Syrian Goddess. Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by J. L. Lightfoot. Oxford.
López Eire, A. (1984). ‘En torno a la lengua del Corpus Hippocraticum’. Emerita 52, 325‒54.
Merzdorf, R. (1875). ‘Quaestiones grammaticae de dialecto Herodotea concursu modo admisso modo evitato’. Curtius, G. (ed.), Studien zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik. Vol. 8. Leipzig, 127–222.
Murray, A. T. (1924). Homer. Iliad. Vol. 1: Books 1–12. Translated by A. T. Murray. Revised by William F. Wyatt. Cambridge, MA.
Risch, E. (1974). Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. 2nd edition. Berlin, New York.
Rosén, H. B. (1987‒1997). Herodotus. Historiae. 2 vols. Leipzig.
Ruijgh, C. J. (1967). Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien. Amsterdam.
Scholfield, A. F. (1959). Aelian. On Animals. Vol. 2: Books 6–11. Translated by A. F. Scholfield. Cambridge, MA.
Smyth, H. W. (1894). The Sounds and Inflections of the Greek Dialects. Vol 1: Ionic. Oxford.
Stein, H. (1869‒1871). Herodoti Historiae. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Berlin.
Threatte, L. (1996). The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. Vol. 2: Morphology. Berlin, New York.
Tribulato, O. (2022). ‘The Homericness of Herodotus’ Language. (With a Case Study of -έειν Aorist Infinitives in the Histories’). Matijašić, I. (ed.), Herodotus ‒ The Most Homeric Historian? Oxford, Edmonton, Tallahassee, 241‒86.
Untersteiner, M. (1949). La lingua di Erodoto. Bari.
Van Beek, L. (2022). The Reflexes of Syllabic Liquids in Ancient Greek. Linguistic Prehistory of the Greek Dialects and Homeric Kunstsprache. Leiden, Boston.
Vessella, C. (2018). Sophisticated Speakers. Atticistic Pronunciation in the Atticist Lexica. Berlin, Boston.
Wilson, N. G. (2015). Herodoti Historiae. 2 vols. Oxford.
CITE THIS
Roberto Batisti, 'ἁπλᾶ, διπλᾶ, τριπλᾶ (Phryn. PS 43.17–9, Moer. τ 22)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2023/02/035
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
AccentAdjectivesContractionHypercorrectionMorphology, nominalπολλαπλόοςτετραπλόος
FIRST PUBLISHED ON
20/12/2023
LAST UPDATE
25/06/2024