ἥμισυς
(Phryn. PS 73.4–6, Antiatt. η 16, Antiatt. η 17, Orus fr. B 51)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1), the Antiatticist (A.2, A.3), Orus (A.4), and Thomas Magister (B.2) discuss both the correct spelling of the feminine and the declension of the masculine and neuter of ἥμισυς, ἡμίσεια, ἥμισυ (‘half’; on the etymology and semantics of this adjective, see Gunnerson 1905, 50–3, 57–8; de Lamberterie 1990, 941–4).

While the spellingSpelling ἡμίσεια, recommended by Phrynichus (A.1), is the expected one for the feminine and requires no discussion here (see Vessella 2018, 203, for more information), the doctrines concerning the gen. sing. and the acc. plur. masc. found in Atticist sources are problematic, and some preliminary remarks are necessary. ἥμισυς, ἡμίσεια, ἥμισυ is inflected according to two different models (thematic forms such as e.g. nom./acc. sing. neut. ἥμισον or acc. plur. masc. ἡμίσους, attested sporadically in documentary sources since the 5th century BCE – see e.g. LSJ s.v. ἥμισυς, ἡμίσεια, ἥμισυ – are not taken into account here). The masculine and the neuter follow the inflectional pattern of u-stems with apophonic alternation *-u/-eu̯, which affects several adjectives as well as a few inherited nouns in Greek (but note that originally ἥμισυς was probably a noun, inflected as a non-apophonic stem in *-u, *-u̯-os: for an overview, see e.g. Gunnerson 1905, 1–20, 57; de Lamberterie 1990, 1–40, 943–44; Sihler 1995, 322–7). The feminine shows the stem in the e-grade and the suffix -i̯a/-i̯ā (Gunnerson 1905, 18, 58–60). The gen. sing. masc./neut. of u-stem adjectives is -εος (still attested in fourth-century BCE Attic inscriptions, see Threatte 1996, 304), whereas -εως appears in the koine (likely created by analogy with the gen. sing. of ablauting nominal u-stems in Attic, see e.g. Sihler 1995, 324; on gen. -εως in koine authors, see already Lobeck 1820, 247–8). Note, however, that in papyri -εως may also represent ‘an orthographic variation of the regular ending’ (Gignac 1981, 129). Moreover, the MSS of canonical authors often fluctuate between the two forms, and one cannot exclude that, in such cases, alternative readings existed already at an early stage of the manuscript tradition: see e.g. Thuc. 2.78.2 (= C.1; ἡμίσεος ABFGM : ἡμίσεως CEPm), 4.83.6 (ἡμίσεος ABGM : ἡμίσεως CEF), 4.104.4 (ἡμίσεος CFGM: ἡμίσεως E : ἡμισείας AB); Pl. Ti. 56e.7 (ἡμίσεος YA² : ἡμίσεως A [ut vid.] F); Pl. R. 601c.4 (= C.4; ἡμίσεως ADM : ἡμίσεος A²F).

As regards the acc. plur. of ablauting u-stem adjectives, its original form was *-υνς (< *-u-ns): an acc. plur. πολύς (< *πολύνς, ‘many, much, great’) is restored by the editors in some Homeric passages on the basis of the scholia (on acc. plur. -ῡς in Homer, see most recently Le Feuvre 2022, 75–9, with bibliography). This form was later replaced by -εϝας – created by analogy with the nom. plur. -εϝες – which is first attested in Homer and becomes generalised in later Ionic. By contrast, the acc. plur. -εις is common in Attic authors (see e.g. C.3) and inscriptions (Threatte 1996, 304), while in Homer it may represent an Atticism (see Chantraine 1958–1963 vol. 1, 221; according to Wackernagel 1903, 367–73, the acc. plur. πολεῖς in Homer may have replaced *πολένς, which would in turn have been formed by the change of -ύνς to -ένς due to the analogical spread of -ε-; Gunnerson 1905, 25–6, however, is sceptical of this hypothesis. Cf. also AGP vol. 1, 263–4). -εις is likewise the usual koine form.

In light of the above, some considerations regarding the Atticists’ prescriptions can be made. First of all, Phrynichus’ apparently puzzling prescription of ἡμίσεως (a form typical of the koine) may actually be due to the epitomator’s misunderstanding of Phrynichus’ original doctrine or to a scribal lapse. Nonetheless, one cannot exclude that oscillations between -εος and -εως existed already at an early stage of the manuscript transmission of canonical authors, as noted above; this might account for Phrynichus’ stance. A hint in this direction is offered by Orus (A.4), who prescribes both forms – in keeping with his anti-analogist approach (see Alpers 1981, 4–7; entry Orus, Ἀττικῶν λέξεων συναγωγή) – and by the Antiatticist (A.2), who notes that in Pl. R. 601c.4 (= C.4, where the MSS show both readings) ἡμίσεως is used adverbially (see LSJ s.v. ἥμισυς, -εια, -υ II). We may suppose that the Antiatticist’s (or his source’s) doctrine was intended to keep ‘the gen. sg. of the adjective [i.e., -εος] and the adverbial form distinct’ (to quote Gunnerson 1905, 57, summarising the explanation found in Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,1.222.24–223.2; cf. [Hdn.] Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων GG 3,2.708.34–9). One may also think that the relevant entries, now epitomised, had the additional aim of rejecting a gen. sing. ἡμίσους, a form probably created by analogy with contracted s-stem genitives on the basis of a neut. plur. ἡμίση (the proportion being γένους : γένη = x : ἡμίση). This form, often found in literary koine, is explicitly condemned in Thomas Magister’s entry (B.2).

As regards the acc. plur. ἡμίσεας, Phrynichus apparently considered it to be ‘more Attic’ than ἡμίσεις. Similarly, the Antiatticist (A.3) recommends ἡμίσεας. This does not actually correspond to what we usually find in canonical Attic authors. According to Fiori (2022, 37–8), Phrynichus’ evaluation should be interpreted in light of Thomas Magister’s entry (B.2): the latter, Fiori argues, reflects an extreme application of the principle of analogy, which – taking the neuter plural ἡμίσεα (on which see below) as its starting point – led to the prescription of the uncontracted ἡμίσεας. This hypothesis, however, raises several problems. To begin with, interpreting Phrynichus’ prescription in light of Thomas Magister’s words presupposes some form of connection between the two lexica – a connection which is not at all certain, since we seemingly lack proof that the Praeparatio sophistica was among Thomas Magister’s sources (see entry Thomas Magister, ’Ονομάτων Ἀττικῶν ἐκλογή). Admittedly, we may assume that in the present case Thomas Magister had access to Atticist material similar to that found in the epitomised entry of the Praeparatio sophistica. In any case, however, Thomas Magister’s entry appears to be a multilayered one. Its first part, dealing with the gen. sing., is composed of Herodianic material (see B.1 and the other passages collected by Alpers 1981, 214 in his apparatus to A.4). Thus, the doctrine expressed in the lemma cannot safely be regarded as a fully coherent one. In this respect, the Thucydidean quotations at the end of the entry may have been juxtaposed with what precedes by Thomas Magister (or by a later compiler, given that the lexicon underwent accretions). Indeed, the use of ἡμίσεας for the feminine in Thuc. 8.8.3 (C.2) τὰς ἡμίσεας (CEG, B1 in rasura : ἡμισείας F : ἡμισέας AM) does not correspond to the feminine form ἡμίσειαι found immediately before in the ‘Herodianic’ part of the entry and prescribed, it would seem, by Phrynichus himself (see A.1; note that the editors of Thucydides print ἡμισείας of cod. F, on the basis of other attestations of the feminine in the text of Thucydides as well as in Attic inscriptions: see Classen, Steup 1922, 23 and cf. the data collected in Threatte 1996, 303–4).

Conceivably, then, the Atticists’ preference for ἡμίσεας was not prompted by analogy with other uncontracted forms of the same declension. Rather, a lost locus classicus (or perhaps a version of Thuc. 8.8.3 = C.2 attesting ἡμίσεας) probably lies behind their prescription. Alternatively, analogy with the acc. plur. of ēu-stems may have played a role (see AGP vol. 1, 267–8). Be that as it may, ἡμίσεας must have been an isolated form in canonical Attic authors, since no epigraphic or literary attestation survives. On the other hand, ἡμίσεας occurs several times in Herodotus and in the Corpus Hippocraticum, whereas in later times it is rare, apart from its many attestations in Arrian and Appian.

This picture is not necessarily at odds with what we know of Phrynichus’ views. Indeed, in the epitome of the Praeparatio sophistica, the comparative Ἀττικώτερον is elsewhere applied to lexical and morphological rarities, as opposed to more common (Attic) usages. In particular, the following cases are noteworthy:

• Phryn. PS 14.3Phryn. PS 14.3: αἱμωδεῖν ‘to have the teeth set on edge’ is only attested in Cratinus (fr. 41). As Tribulato (2025, 167) notes, in Phot. α 629 (to be traced back to a fuller version of Phrynichus’ entry) ‘αἱμωδεῖν is considered typical of the Ἀττικοί, while the form αἱμωδιάω (which PS 14.3 gives only as an alternative […]) is attributed to the πολλοί’, that is, to ‘the multitude’;

• Phryn. PS 114.14–6Phryn. PS 114.14–6: τητινόν ‘of this year’ is not attested in extant Attic literature. The entry in PS 72.4–5Phryn. PS 72.4–5 states that its equivalent ἐπέτειον is in current use (καθωμίληται; this and other similar labels in the Praeparatio sophistica seemingly refer to ‘usages that are so frequent in casual register that they may border on the vulgar’, as Tribulato, 2025, 191, notes).

In conclusion, Phrynichus’ preference for ἡμίσεας may be due to its being more marked than ἡμίσεις, which, besides being the standard form in Attic authors, had the drawback of being common in the koine.

As regards the Atticists’ prescription of the neut. plur. ἡμίσεα instead of the contracted ἡμίση, it is fully understandable in the light of both literary attestations and documentary sources: ἡμίσεα is ubiquitous in 5th- and 4th-century Attic literature (but cf. Hyp. 3.10.27–8 τὰ ἡ[μί|ση, already noted by von Bamberg 1882, 202) and is normally attested in Attic inscriptions (ἡμίση occurs only once, in a mid-4th-century BCE inscription; see Threatte 1996, 304). Later authors have almost exclusively ἡμίση, which also occurs several times in papyri from the 3rd to the 1st century BCE.

The declension of ἥμισυς in Atticising authors follows that prescribed by the Atticist sources mentioned above only partially, judging from the few occurrences of the cases that were the object of ancient discussion. Notably, Philostratus Maior has one instance of the acc. plur. ἡμίσεας (Im. 4.2), which, as already noted, is comparatively rare in later prose writing – with some major exceptions (Arrian and Appian). Furthermore, the nom. acc. neut. plur. ἡμίση, rejected by the Atticists, is found in Ael. VH 6.1.

Libanius, who combines Attic forms with high-level koine features (see López Eire 1991, 98), uses the acc. plur. ἡμίσεας (Prog. 12.25.3) and nom. acc. neut. plur. ἡμίσεα (Or. 62.48); however, in his Hypotheses to the Orations of Demosthenes we find both a gen. sing. ἡμίσους (53.8, like Dio of Prusa, as noted by Thomas Magister, see B.2) and a neut. plur. ἡμίση (53.9).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

The traditional inflectional model of ἥμισυς continues to be used in Byzantine literary and scholarly works (where the acc. plur. masc. ἡμίσεις and the nom. acc. plur. neut. ἡμίση prevail over ἡμίσεας and ἡμίσεα, respectively). It is still found as a learned form in Modern Greek (only in fixed expressions, such as το έτερον ήμισυ ‘the other half’: see LKN s.v. ήμισυς, ημίσεια, ήμισυ). Thematic forms of the adjective, already attested in papyri of the imperial era (see Gignac 1981, 128–9), become clearly established in Medieval Greek, where ήμισος is attested (but cf. ἡμίσεον, found in a Sicilian official document dated to 1190: on this form, which shows the same morphological development as oxytone adjectives in -ύς, see CGMEMG vol. 1, 745; 758). A form ημισός, with accentual shift to the final syllable, is found between the 14th and the 16th centuries. This yields μισός (through aphaeresis), first attested in the 15th century and the standard Modern Greek form (see Kriaras, LME s.v. ήμισος; for a detailed discussion of all these forms and their attestations, see CGMEMG vol. 1, 757–60).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A