ἀδολέσχης, ἀδόλεσχος
(Moer. α 49, [Hdn.] Philet. 179, Phryn. PS 36.5–12, Poll. 6.119)

D. General commentary

ἀδολέσχης (‘chatterer’, ‘verbose’) attracted the attention of ancient scholars for multiple reasons. Atticist lexicographers are primarily concerned with recommending its use against the diffusion of the form ἀδόλεσχος (A.1, A.2, B.1; this is the doctrine on which we will closely focus here), while other erudite sources also demonstrate an interest in its meaning (B.5, B.6), etymology (A.3, B.3), and inflection (B.3, B.4).

ἀδολέσχης is an ā-declension masculine noun of uncertain etymologyEtymology. Its initial /a:/ has been linked to different forms: it may either derive from the adverb ἄδην (‘to satiety’, ‘unceasingly’) or, more likely, it may be the result of the contraction of a form in *ἀϝαδο-, deriving, by means of privative ἀ, from ἡδύς ‘sweet’ (DELG, DGE, s.v. ἀδολέσχης). *ἀϝαδο- would be reflected in the forms ἀαδές (for ἀηδές, ‘unpleasant’) and ἀαδεῖν (‘to disturb’) preserved by Hsch. α 9, α 10 (on these forms see DELG s.v. ἀαδα). Note that ancient scholars were also uncertain as to the origin of this word and that Phrynichus already dealt with both these etymologies (A.3). ἀδολέσχης is the basis for the creation of several forms, such as ἀδολεσχία (‘loquacity’), ἀδολεσχέω (‘to chatter’), and ἀδόλεσχος (‘loquacious’), which may be a back formation from ἀδολεσχέω (Vessella 2018, 129).

In Attic, ἀδολέσχης is well attested in Old Comedy (C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4) and Plato (C.5, C.6). Old Comedy poets (C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4) use ἀδολέσχης in reference to philosophers: this epithet reflects the negative perception of a kind of philosophy – namely, that of the sophistsSophists – that they consider to be idle boasting. Socrates is the ἀδολέσχης par excellence, as explicitly stated by Eupolis (C.1, on which see Olson 2014, 130–5) and Aristophanes in Nu. 1485 (C.2, in which Socrates’ Thinkery is described as ‘the house of chatterers’). In C.3, where a character is said to have been corrupted by futile teachings, the mention of the sophist Prodicus suggests a reference to Socrates’ associates (see Bagordo 2020, 56–7). A similar context is also conceivable for Cephisodorus’ fragment (C.4, on which, see Orth 2014, 351–3). The accusation of ἀδολεσχεῖν (‘to speculate on abstract matters’ and thus ‘to talk of idle things’, ‘to teach idle things corrupting the young’) may have been among the charges laid against Socrates. This is suggested by, along with the multiple instances of comic abuseAbuse (terms of), his self-mockery in Tht. 195b.9–10 (C.6) and by what Socrates says in X. Oec. 11.3 (ἀδολεσχεῖν τε δοκῶ καὶ ἀερομετρεῖν, ‘I am thought to chatter and to measure the air’, i.e. ‘to make idle speculations’) and in Pl. Phd. 70c.1, where such an accusation is attributed to a κωμῳδοποιός, most likely Aristophanes in Clouds. The association of ἀδολεσχέω with Socrates and his circle may also conceal a criticism levelled at Euripides, whom Aristophanes contemptuously associated with the sophists (see Bagordo 2020, 57; Carey 2000, 429 on Euripides as ‘the archetypal sophist’).

Most occurrences of ἀδολέσχης are indeed ironically also related to the disparaging view of the sophists’ philosophy in Plato. In Tht. 195b.9–10 (C.6), Socrates is exposed to self-mockery and calls himself ἀδολέσχης for his inconclusiveness; the same reproachful meaning of ‘chatterer’ occurs in Pol. 299b.7; R. 488e–489a. Note that Plato often matches ἀδολέσχης and ἀδολεσχία with μετεωρολόγοςμετεωρολόγος (‘astronomer’, figuratively ‘one who speculates on abstract matters’, see Baxter 1992, 139–41) and μετεωρολογία (C.5; Phd. 270a.1; also Pol. 299b.7; R. 488e–489a in a negative sense). Plato’s pairing of ἀδολέσχης and μετεωρολόγος suggests that, in his view, ἀδολέσχης – denoting someone who is good at talking and who possesses a rhetorical ability that allows him to discuss abstract phenomena – refers not only to the philosopher in general but to the natural philosopher in particular (note that, incidentally, Socrates is presented as such in Clouds). Phrynichus’ definition of ἀδολέσχης as someone who philosophises ‘on nature and the universe’ (A.3, B.2; on the philosophical meaning of τὸ πᾶν see LSJ s.v. πᾶς, IIIb) confirms this interpretation. An ironical entendre often accompanies both ἀδολέσχης and μετεωρολόγος, given that such ability is often regarded in a bad light, as idle prattling. In Par. 135d–e, Parmenides advises Socrates not to limit his speculation to visible things, but to participate in the discussion of abstract phenomena, even if most people consider this useless and call it prattling (Par. 135d.5: καλουμένης ὑπὸ τῶν πολλῶν ἀδολεσχίας, ‘which is called prattling by most people’). Nevertheless, in other Platonic passages ἀδολέσχης has a more nuanced meaning. Ιn Cra. 401b.8 (C.5), it may be intended in a neuter or even positive sense, as ‘subtle talker’; the same applies to Phd. 270a.1, where ἀδολεσχία is presented as the ‘keenness in speaking’ that all arts.

Outside the context of 5th- and 4th-century Athens, ἀδολεσχέω loses its connections to sophistic circles and is applied to loquacity as a flaw of ordinary people. The ἀδολέσχης is one of the moral types portrayed in Theophrastus’ Characters (3)Thphr. Char. 3: here, the chatterer is merely a long-winded person who annoys other people with unsolicited and unidirectional conversation (see Diggle 2004, 199 for a commentary and the difference that Theophrastus posits between ἀδολέσχης and λάλοςλάλος). The ἀδολεσχία of the homonymous Plutarchian treatise (502b–515a)Plu. De garrulitate 502b–515a is also ordinary in nature: it affects people who talk too much and fail to listen to their interlocutors (note that Plutarch uses ἀδόλεσχος for the chatterer).

Given the abundance of occurrences of ἀδολέσχης in 5th- and 4th-century Attic, it is unsurprising that Atticist lexicographers promote the word (A.1, A.2, B.1). The adjective ἀδόλεσχος, ‑ον, which is instead typical of Post-classical Greek – its first certain attestation being in the pseudepigraphic work known as Letter of Aristeas (C.7, probably 2nd century BCE) – suffers the opposite fate. Although Pollux lists it among adjectives that describe annoyingly loquacious people (A.3, note that ἀδολέσχης, which would be expected, is absent), ἀδόλεσχος is proscribed by stricter Atticist lexicographers (A.1, A.2, B.2). Aside from the already mentioned factors – namely, chronology and canon – another reason that may have provoked the rejection of ἀδόλεσχος is that, being substantivisedSubstantivization, it may have been perceived as a masculine noun in ‑ος (cf. e.g. Plu. 503b: οἱ ἀδόλεσχοι). As a noun, ἀδόλεσχος was a 2nd-declension paradigm that replaced the 1st declension form and was thus a later synonymSynonyms competing with the original form: it is unsurprising, therefore, that Atticist lexicographers discouraged it.

An interest in the paradigm of ἀδολέσχης surfaces in the doctrine preserved by the Etymologica (B.3), which indicates its gen. sg. endingGenitive as -ου. This prescription may reflect the distance that was created in later Greek between the high-register, formal language and the spoken koine, which, in turn, could explain the Atticists’ rejection of ἀδόλεσχος. The Attic gen. sg. -ου, imported from o-stemso-stems (Schwyzer 1939, 586), remained standard in formal Greek, but in later spoken Greek, it was replaced by -α (for nom. in -ας) and -η (for nom. in -ης), with the aim of normalising a declensional paradigm that was considered anomalous (thus giving ἀδολέσχη in place of the classical ἀδολέσχου: on the replacement of gen. sg. in -ου, see Horrocks 2010, 286; CGMEMG vol. 2, 301–2, 355–6). Such standardisation, which is attested in papyri from the 1st century CE for common nouns and already in Great Attic inscriptions for personal names (Threatte 1996, 82–6), remains a constant in spoken Greek throughout the centuries and survives in Modern Greek, in which the gen. sg. endings of masculine nouns in -ης and in -ας are, respectively, -η and -α (e.g., ‘the student’: ο φοιτητής, του φοιτητή).

In the PS, Phrynichus (A.3) deals with ἀδολέσχέω and ἀδολέσχης in relation to their etymologyEtymology and orthography. Although we cannot discount the possibility that the original entry of the PS included a proscription of ἀδόλεσχος, the entry as it is preserved in the epitome does not concern the opposition ἀδολέσχης/ἀδόλεσχος, nor does the indirect tradition in the Synagoge (B.2) provide further detail on this. The entry is interesting by virtue of its orthographic prescription. In presenting alternative etymologies, Phrynichus argues that if ἀδολέσχης comes from ᾄδω (‘to sing’), it should be written with the adscript ι (the derivation of ἀδολέσχης from ᾄδω is proposed, for instance, by Orio 23.1–4Orio 23.1–4, see entry ᾄδειν ὅμοιον). This is a purely orthographic prescription: the adscript ι here functions as a marker of vowel length, indicating that the α is long (Vessella 2018, 130). A phonetic implication underlies this prescription: by the time Phrynichus was writing, the diphthong ᾱι has already merged with /a:/, since diphthongs with long vowels followed by /i/ lost their second element during the Hellenistic period (see Vessella 2018, 61–2 on these diphthongs’ evolution and their treatment in Atticist lexica). When discussing the second possible derivation of ἀδολέσχης, (from ἀηδήςἀηδής, ‘unpleasant’), Phrynichus (A.3) mentions a trisyllabic spelling of ἀηδία (‘unpleasantness’) with the first syllable lengthened as the result of the synaloepheSynaloephe. The reference to Ionic speakers is almost certainly an allusion to Homeric language, and Phrynichus is likely drawing here on the Homeric exegesis commenting on Od. 1.134. The use in this line of ἀδήσειεν/ἀηδήσειεν (‘he felt disgust’), with the smooth breathing, in place of ἁδήσειεν with the rough breathing, is indeed explained by a scholium traced back to Herodian’s work on prosody; cf. schol. (Hdn.) Hom. Od. 1.134bSchol. (Hdn.) Hom. Od. 1.134b (HM^aY): ἀδήσειεν: ψιλωτέον τὸ ‘ἀδήσειεν’· ὅταν γὰρ ἐν συναλοιφῇ τὸ ψιλούμενον κατ’ ἀρχὴν φωνῆεν ἐπικρατήσῃ, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ ἐπικρατεῖ, οἷον ‘ὦ ἑταῖρε’ ‘ὦταῖρε’ (‘ἀδήσειεν: ἀδήσειεν should be spelled with the smooth breathing; indeed, when the initial vowel with a smooth breathing prevails in synaloephe, its breathing prevails too, as in ὦ ἑταῖρε ὦταῖρε [‘o comrade’]’). The synaloephe to which the scholium refers occurs between ἀ and ἡδύς (see Pontani 2007, 82, with references to other scholia; on ἀδήσειεν see also Eust. in Od. 1.33.26–30). The orthographic issue is not retained in the indirect tradition of the Synagoge (B.2). Although it remains possible that this is due to material factors and that the compiler of the epitomeEpitome of the PS synthesised different excerpts, one of which was unavailable to the compiler of Σʹʹʹ, this discrepancy is intentional and the compiler of the Synagoge’s gloss dismisses a prescription that was obsolete in his eyes. Although the indirect tradition of the PS sometimes preserves a longer version of its entries (see entries ᾄδειν ὅμοιον, ἄνεμος καὶ ὄλεθρος ἄνθρωπος concerning their preservation of evaluative terminology lost in the direct tradition of the PS), it is not unusual for it to have a shorter text (see, e.g., Phryn. PS 27.13–7Phryn. PS 27.13–7 and Phot. α 3387, on ἀφοῦ; Phryn. PS 45.20–2Phryn. PS 45.20–2 and Phot. α 2733, on ἀποψύχει).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

The verb ἀδολεσχέω is used in the Septuagint meaning ‘to ponder’, ‘to meditate’, sometimes ‘to tell’ (e.g. Ps. 118.23, Gen. 24.63), and it survives with this meaning throughout the Byzantine age. ἀδολέσχης survives in Byzantine high-register literature until the Palaeologan Renaissance (when it is employed, for instance, by Nicephorus Chumnus and Demetrius Cydones), while it unsurprisingly disappears from texts written in the lower registers. ἀδόλεσχος is also employed: note that the Atticising author Michael Choniates also uses it (Ep. 113.144: δι’ ἀδολέσχου μακρηγορίας, ‘for [my] verbose long-windedness’). In the Medieval period, the use of two-termination adjectives was in any case restricted to written mixed-register and high-register texts, while this inflectional class had largely disappeared from spoken Greek (see CGMEMG vol. 2, 718).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A