PURA. Purism In Antiquity: Theories Of Language in Greek Atticist Lexica and their Legacy

Lexicographic entries

ὁρκόω, ὁρκωτής, ὁρκίζω
(Phryn. Ecl. 337)

A. Main sources

(1) Phryn. Ecl. 337: ‘ὥρκωσε καὶ ὁρκωτὴς δ’ ἐγώ’· οὕτω Κρατῖνός φησιν. μᾶλλον δὲ διὰ τοῦ ω λέγε ἢ διὰ τοῦ ι ὥρκισεν.

ὥρκωσε καὶ ὁρκωτὴς δ’ ἐγώ (‘He/she made (someone) swear an oath and I [am its] official administrator’): Thus says Cratinus (fr. 401 = C.1). Rather use [the form] with ω than [that] with ι, ὥρκισεν.


B. Other erudite sources

(1) Poll. 1.38: προσαπτέον δὲ τούτοις θεοὺς ὁρκίους. ὅρκον ὀμνύειν, ὀμνύναι – τὸ δὲ ὀμόσαι ἐλέγετο καὶ πίστιν ἐπιθεῖναι – ὁρκωμοτεῖν, ὁρκωμοσία ὁρκωμότας, ὁρκῶσαι, ὁρκωτούς, ὁρκιητόμους, εἰ μὴ σκληρόν.

προσαπτέον all main codd. : προσακτέον M, V, II : C has a rasura between α and τ | ὁρκωμότας omitted in codd. BC, A, M.

One must add [the name of] the gods invoked through the oath to these [expressions for ‘swearing’]. ‘To swear an oath’ (ὅρκον ὀμνύειν), ‘to confirm by oath’ (ὀμνύναι) – ‘to seal with an oath’ wa salso said ‘to add an assurance’ (πίστιν ἐπιθεῖναι) – ‘to take an oath’ (ὁρκωμοτεῖν), ‘swearing’ (ὁρκωμοσία), ‘jurors’ (ὁρκωμότας), ‘to make one swear an oath’ (ὁρκῶσαι), ‘[people] bounded by an oath’ (ὁρκωτούς), ‘[people] swearing solemnly at a sacrifice’ (ὁρκιητόμους), albeit [this form is] harsh.


(2) Poll. 4.30: τὸ γὰρ ὁμαιχμίαν μοχθηρόν, ὁρκίσαι δὲ καὶ ὅρκους ἐπαγαγεῖν, δοῦναι, λαβεῖν, ἀπολαβεῖν.

The [word] ὁμαιχμία (‘alliance, league’) is bad. ‘To make one swear’ (ὁρκίσαι), ‘to bring forward oaths’ (ὅρκους ἐπαγαγεῖν), ‘to give [oaths]’ ([ὅρκους] δοῦναι), ‘to take oaths’ ([ὅρκους] λαβεῖν), ‘to accept (oaths)’ ([ὅρκους] ἀπολαβεῖν).


(3) Hsch. o 1237: ὁρκωτής· ὁ ὁρκίζων.

ὁρκωτής: He who administers an oath.


(4) Phot. o 485 (= Orus fr. B 123): ὁρκίζειν καὶ ὁρκοῦν· ἑκατέρως.

ὁρκίζειν and ὁρκοῦν: Both [are admissible].


(5) Phot. o 491 (= Orus fr. B 124): ὁρκωτάς· οὐχὶ ὁρκιστάς, οὐδὲ ὁρκωμότας λέγουσιν.

ὁρκωτάς: [Attic authors] neither say ὁρκιστάς (‘officials who administer an oath’) nor ὁρκωμότας (‘jurors’).


C. Loci classici, other relevant texts

(1) Cratin. fr. 401 = Phryn. Ecl. 337: ὥρκωσε καὶ ὁρκωτὴς δ’ ἐγώ. (cf. A.1)

He/she made (someone) swear an oath and I [am its] official administrator.


(2) Thuc. 8.75.2: μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο λαμπρῶς ἤδη ἐς δημοκρατίαν βουλόμενοι μεταστῆσαι τὰ ἐν τῇ Σάμῳ ὅ τε Θρασύβουλος ὁ τοῦ Λύκου καὶ Θράσυλος (οὗτοι γὰρ μάλιστα προειστήκεσαν τῆς μεταβολῆς) ὥρκωσαν πάντας τοὺς στρατιώτας τοὺς μεγίστους ὅρκους […].

After this, Thrasybulus, the son of Lycus, and Thrasyllus (for these were the principal proponents of the change) wishing now openly to change the state at Samos into a democracy, made all the soldiers swear the most solemn oaths […].


(3) Antipho 6.14.6: πολλοὶ τῶν περιεστώτων τούτων τὰ μὲν πράγματα ταῦτα πάντα ἀκριβῶς ἐπίστανται, καὶ τοῦ ὁρκωτοῦ ἀκούουσι, καὶ ἐμοὶ προσέχουσι τὸν νοῦν ἅττα ἐγὼ ἀποκρίνομαι […].

Many of those who are here present know each of these facts very well, and hear the officer who administers the oath, and pay attention to what I am saying in my defence […].


(4) X. HG 6.5.3: [οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι] ἐξέπεμψαν τοὺς ὁρκωτάς, καὶ ἐκέλευσαν τὰ μέγιστα τέλη ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει ὁρκῶσαι. καὶ ὤμοσαν πάντες πλὴν Ἠλείων.

[The Athenians] sent the officials who administer the oath and ordered them to administer it to the highest authorities in each city. And all took the oath except the Eleans.


(5) D. 19.278: οὐ τὸ μὲν ψήφισμα ‘τοὺς ἄρχοντας ὁρκοῦν τοὺς ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν’, οὗτοι δ’, οὓς Φίλιππος αὐτοῖς προσέπεμψε, τούτους ὥρκισαν;

Did not the decree say ‘make the magistrates in the cities take an oath’, and did they not make [only] those which Philip had sent them take the oath?


(6) X. Smp. 4.10: οὐδενὸς γὰρ ὁρκίζοντος ἀεὶ ὀμνύοντες καλόν μέ φατε εἶναι.

For though no one makes you swear an oath, you are always swearing that I am beautiful.


(7) P.Hal. 1.214–5 (= TM 5876) [Apollonopolites, after 259 BCE]: ὅρ[κος] ν[ό]μιμος. ὅταν τις ὁρκίζ[ηι, ὀμνύ]τω ὁ ὁρκιζό[μ]ενος ἐν τ[ῆ]ι ἀγορᾶι [ἐ]πὶ τοῖς ὁρκωτηρίοις κ[αθʼ ἱερ]ῶν σπέν[δων] […].

The legal oath. When anyone administers an oath, the one to whom the oath is administered shall swear in the market-place in the swearing place, pouring out libations on the offerings […]. (Transl. Bagnall, Derow 2004, 210).


(8) LXX Ge. 24.37: καὶ ὥρκισέν με ὁ κύριός μου λέγων· oὐ λήμψῃ γυναῖκα τῷ υἱῷ μου ἀπὸ τῶν θυγατέρων τῶν Χαναναίων […].

And my master made me swear an oath, saying ‘Do not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites […]’.


(9) NT Ev.Marc. 5.7: ὁρκίζω σε τὸν θεόν, μή με βασανίσῃς.

I adjure you by God, do not torment me.


D. General commentary

The subject of this entry of the Eclogue (A.1), although unstated, is the range of technical terms used in Attic legal languageLegal language for the administration of official oathsOaths. Oaths played an important role in Attic lawsuits (see e.g. C.3), in Athens’ relation with allies (see e.g. C.2 and C.4), and more generally in interstate relations (see e.g. C.5: discussions of these judicial and political functions of oaths are offered in the volumes by MacDowell 1986 and Sommerstein, Bayliss 2013). Phrynichus openly addresses the verbs ὁρκόω and ὁρκίζω (‘to make one swear an oath, to administer an oath’), denominatives with a factitive function based on ὅρκος ‘oath’. ὁρκόω belongs to the large class of factitive denominativesDenominative verbs in ‑όω from thematic stems (though Fraenkel 1906, 71 includes it among the ‘Instrumentativa’). ὁρκίζω, on the other hand, shows the analogical extension of the -ίζω suffix, which originally belongs with velar and dental stems (overview and collection of data in Müller 1915, 8–28). The same meaning as the simple verbs is also conveyed by the prefixed forms ἐξορκόω (first attested in Herodotus) and ἐξορκίζω (first attested in Demosthenes). We will only concern ourselves with the simple forms here.

Phrynichus advises his reader to use ὁρκόω, like Cratinus (C.1), and to avoid ὁρκίζω. He is likely also concerned with the word used to indicate the officer who oversaw the administration of the oath (ὁρκωτής, again used by Cratinus), though this is not openly stated (see below for this hypothesis). In the snippet of a line quoted by Phrynichus, Cratinus may be parodying official language (see Olson, Seaberg 2018, 227 for a brief commentary). ὁρκόω and ὁρκωτής are used in relation to formally binding oaths in Thucydides (C.2: a political context), Antiphon (C.3: a judicial context) and Xenophon (C.4: a diplomatic context), but already in Demosthenes ὁρκίζω occurs in the same sentence as ὁρκόω (C.5: a diplomatic context), while Xenophon (C.6) uses it outside a formal context. Significantly, in C.5 ὁρκόω occurs in the quotation of a formal decree, while Demosthenes uses ὁρκίζω to comment on the decree: this suggests that ὁρκόω may have been a more conservative form than ὁρκίζω (I thank the referee for this suggestion).

Thus, the root of Phrynichus’ motivations for preferring ὁρκόω must lie in a combination of his personal approach to Attic literary models and the status of ὁρκόω and ὁρκίζω in his own times. In the whole history of Ancient Greek, ὁρκόω is the rarer form, scoring some 100 attestations in the period between the 5th century BCE and the 4th century CE. Its occurrence in prominent authors of the Attic canon such as Thucydides, Cratinus and Aristophanes (Lys. 187, Th. 276) no doubt sustained Phrynichus in his choice of the verb against ὁρκίζω. The continuous use of ὁρκόω on the part of authors such as Isaeus, Xenophon, Lysias and Demosthenes confirms its Attic pedigree, as does its occurrence in inscriptions of the classical age (e.g. IG 1³.39.3–4 [Athens, 446/5 BCE], SEG 36.792.2 [Thasos, late 5th century BCE]). In post-classical literature, ὁρκόω occurs in both higher prose (ranging from Josephus and Plutarch to Appianus and Cassius Dio) and texts in a lower register (such as the Vita Sancti Abercii, Job’s Testament and the Passio Sancti Pancratii Romae). Despite its usage by some authors writing in high-register koine, ὁρκόω does not really stand out as an Atticism: if anything, it may perhaps have been perceived as a less common form, which would also explain Phrynichus’ preference.

ὁρκίζω, on the other hand, is an innovative by-form that gains ground in the koineKoine in accordance with the great productivity of -ίζω verbs in this period (Müller 1915, 39; Schwyzer 1939, 735–6), another fact that likely explains Phrynichus’ orientation. The verb scores more than 200 occurrences in the period between the 4th century BCE and the 4th century CE. Its attestations range from high-koine prose (Diodorus, Clemens of Alexandria, etc.) to Hellenistic inscriptions and papyri (see e.g. C.7, an extract from the city laws of Alexandria; see too P.Cair.Zen. 5.59846 [= TM 1470, Philadelphia ca. 263–229 BCE], concerning a lawsuit), as well as the lower language of the OldOld Testament and the New TestamentNew Testament (C.8, C.9). Starting from the Scriptures (e.g. C.9), ὁρκίζω also acquires the new transitive (and no longer factitive) meaning of ‘to adjure someone’ (from ‘to place someone under an oath’), a semantic change likely due to Semitic influence (Kotansky 1995, 251 and n. 18). This meaning, although usually avoided in high-level prose, is very common in religious texts, where around the 2nd century CE we also sometimes see ὁρκόω used in the same fashion. With the further specialised meaning ‘to place a demon under oath’ (i.e. ‘to make a demon swear that he will abandon the body of a possessed person’), ὁρκίζω – like ἐξορκίζω – also becomes the technical verb of exorcism, first attested around the 1st century BCE (see Kotansky 1995, 249–51).

The suggestion that Phrynichus’ criticism of ὁρκίζω is owing to the supposed non-Attic character of this verb is doubtful. Based on its occurrence in inscriptions from the Doric area, in his book on denominative verbs Fraenkel (1906, 86) assumed that it was one of those DoricDoric features that later spread to the koinekoine (on the issue in general, see Kretschmer 15–20, in the context of his theory that the koine was not specifically based on Attic but was a ‘conglomerate’ of various dialects; Cassio 1999, 993–4; Cassio 2012). Fraenkel also explained its early occurrence in XenophonXenophon as one of the many instances of non-Attic vocabulary in the historian (on this aspect of Xenophon’s diction, see Huitink, Rood 2019, 23–32, who correctly advise against labelling as ‘dialectisms’ forms which may have been part of the spoken language but avoided in formal registers for some time). There is room to doubt Fraenkel’s hypothesis. First, the distribution of ὁρκόω and ὁρκίζω in Attic sources is not significantly different. More importantly, although ὁρκίζω is indeed frequent in Doric inscriptions, these occurrences never date to before the 4th–3rd centuries BCE (the earliest could be CID 4.2, [Delphi, ca. 400–375 BCE], where, however, the restoration of a form of ὁρκίζω features in a badly corrupt part of the text). This makes it impossible to prove that ὁρκίζω really was a dialectal verb that was later adopted by Attic authors and the koine. On balance, the frequency of ὁρκίζω in later Greek and the relatively more ‘archaic’ feel of ὁρκόω provide good enough reasons for Phrynichus’ dislike of the former (see too Lobeck 1820, 361); it is unnecessary to assume that it was originally a dialectal word.

No other lexicographer we know of follows Phrynichus’ proscription of ὁρκίζω. Pollux mentions both ὁρκόω and ὁρκίζω in two sections of the Onomasticon concerning oaths (B.1) and alliances (B.2). Photius (B.4) states that both verbs are allowed. Based on the seemingly anti-Phrynichean attitude of this lemma, Alpers identifies Photius’ source with Orus (through a lost version of the Synagoge), who elsewhere uses expressions like ἑκατέρως (Alpers 1981, 68; note however that no source is identified in Theodoridis’ edition of Photius).

In quoting Cratinus’ line, Phrynichus (A.1) also includes the agent noun derived from ὁρκόω, ὁρκωτής. It is unclear whether in this entry of the Eclogue he is specifically concerned with designations of the officers who administered oaths. However, an entry in Photius (B.5) is devoted precisely to the promotion of ὁρκωτής against ὁρκιστής and ὁρκωμότης (‘juror’), which suggests that Phrynichus’ attitude towards Cratinus’ ὁρκωτής might also have been prescriptive. With the exception of one attestation in the Hellenistic historian Polemon (fr. 83 Müller), ὁρκωτής only occurs in classical Attic literature (C.1, C.3, C.4) and inscriptions (e.g. IG I³ 11.10, before the mid-5th century BCE). This distribution reflects the fact that ὁρκωτής was a technical termTechnical language, used in particular for the specifically Athenian practice of employing commissioners to receive oaths from their allies (on this function, see A. J. Bayliss in Sommerstein, Bayliss 2013, 181–3). An antiquarian interest in Athenian customs, along with the lexical rarity of ὁρκωτής, must no doubt have made the word worthy of attention for the Atticists. It later survives only in lexicography. It is glossed by Hesychius (B.3) with the nominalised participle ὁ ὁρκίζων, a fact which could highlight the unsuitability of ὁρκιστής, a term explicitly rejected by Photius (B.5: Alpers 1981 identifies the source as Orus, but Theodoridis defines the lemma as a ‘glossa aliunde non nota’). Photius also proscribes ὁρκωμότης, which Pollux (B.1) seemingly approved of, if we are to trust those manuscripts in which the form is preserved (see the apparatus to B.1). According to Tsantsanoglou (1984, 76), ‘the addition of ὁρκωμότας here does not make any sense, unless one takes into account an Atticistic condemnation of ὁρκωμοτεῖν in the sense of ‘take an oath’’. Ιn fact, there is no trace of such condemnation in our sources: although in Attic literature ὁρκωμοτέω mostly occurs in tragedy, Pollux presents it as an acceptable form and does not single it out as particularly poetic.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

The relative distribution of ὁρκόω and ὁρκίζω in Ancient Greek continues in Byzantine and Medieval Greek. Though much less frequent, ὁρκόω does not die out and may be found in legal texts, which sometimes recycle older material (see the 9th-century legal code known as the Basilica, e.g. at 49.1.6 Scheltema–van der Wal). It also occurs in less official texts, such as the hagiographies (see e.g. the 10th–11th-century Vitae Sancti Demetriani, l. 427 Grégoire). In Byzantine Greek ὁρκόω is also found more frequently with the meaning ‘to adjure someone’ (see e.g. Life of St Andrew Salus 10.462 Rydén: ὁρκῶ δέ σε τὸν θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ‘But I adjure you by God who made heaven and earth’). This is also the most frequent meaning in which ὁρκίζω is attested in Byzantine texts, while both in the classical meaning of ‘to make someone swear an oath’ and as a synonym of ὀμνύω ‘to swear’ the verb is not very common, and usually confined to classicising authors such as Photius (Bibl. 242.339a.11), and Anna Comnene (e.g. 13.12.10, 14.2.14). All these meanings of ὁρκόω and ὁρκίζω also feature in Medieval Greek (see Kriaras, LME s.vv.), though only ὁρκίζω continues into Standard Modern Greek (see LKN s.v.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A

Bibliography

Alpers, K. (1981). Das attizistische Lexicon des Oros. Untersuchung und kritische Ausgabe. Berlin, New York.

Bagnall, R. S.; Derow, P. (2004). The Hellenistic Period. Historical Sources in Translation. Oxford.

Cassio, A. C. (1999). ‘La lingua greca come lingua universale’. Settis, S. (ed.), I Greci. Vol. 2.3: Trasformazioni. Turin, 991–1013.

Cassio, A. C. (2012). ‘Intimations of Koine in Sicilian Doric’. Tribulato, O. (ed.), Language and Linguistic Contact in Ancient Sicily. Cambridge, 251–64.

Fraenkel, E. (1906). Griechische Denominativa in ihrer geschichtliche Entwicklung und Verbreitung. Göttingen.

Huitink, L.; Rood, T. (2019). Xenophon. Anabasis. Book III. Cambridge.

Kotansky, R. (1995). ‘Greek Exorcistic Amulets’. Meyer, M.; Mirecki, P.A. (eds.), Ancient Magic and Ritual Power. Leiden, New York, 243–77.

Kretschmer, P. (1901). ‘Die Entstehung der Koiné’, Sitzungsbericht der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 143 (X. Abhandlung), 1–40.

Lobeck, C. A. (1820). Phrynichi Eclogae nominum et verborum Atticorum. Leipzig.

MacDowell, D. M. (1986). The Law in Classical Athens. Ithaca NY.

Müller, A. (1915). Zur Geschichte der Verba auf -ίζω im Griechischen. Freiburg.

Olson, S. D.; Seaberg, R. (2018). Kratinos frr. 299–514. Translation and Commentary. Göttingen.

Schwyzer, E. (1939). Griechische Grammatik. Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. Munich.

Sommerstein, A. H.; Bayliss, A. J. (2013). Oath and State in Ancient Greece. Berlin, Boston.

Tsantsanoglou, K. (1984). New Fragments of Greek Literature from the Lexicon of Photius. Athens.

CITE THIS

Olga Tribulato, 'ὁρκόω, ὁρκωτής, ὁρκίζω (Phryn. Ecl. 337)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2021/01/032

ABSTRACT
This article deals with the cognate terms ὁρκόω, ὁρκωτής and ὁρκίζω, discussed in the Atticist lexicon Phryn. Ecl. 337.
KEYWORDS

Denominative verbsLegal languageOaths-ίζωὁρκομωτέωὁρκομώτης

FIRST PUBLISHED ON

01/10/2022

LAST UPDATE

05/01/2024