Lexicographic entries

Σωκράτη, Σώκρατες
(Moer. σ 23)

A. Main sources

(1) Moer. σ 23: Σωκράτη Ἀττικῶς· Σώκρατες Ἕλληνες.

The entry is only found in cod. F | Σώκρατες cod. : Hansen reads Σωκράτην, misinterpreting the abbreviation in cod. F (I owe this information to the anonymous referee, whom I thank).

Σωκράτη (voc. sing.), in the Attic manner. Users of Greek [employ] Σώκρατες.

B. Other erudite sources

(1) Phlp. Ton. 56 (= Hdn. Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,1.418.12–3): αἱ δὲ ἀναβιβάσασαί εἰσιν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰς -ης συνθέτων βαρυτόνων καὶ εἰς -ους ἐχόντων τὴν γενικήν· Δημόσθενες, Σώκρατες, Διόμηδες.

Those (vocatives) retracting [the accent] come from the barytone compounds in -ης which have the genitive in -ους: Δημόσθενες, Σώκρατες, Διόμηδες.

(2) Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,1.175.19–176.8 (= Hdn. Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων GG 3,2.694.39–695.19): ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐπὶ τῶν κυρίων τῶν εἰς ης εἰς ους ἐχόντων τὴν γενικὴν εἰς ν ποιοῦσι τὴν αἰτιατικὴν καὶ εἰς η τὴν κλητικήν, οἷον ὁ Δημοσθένης τοῦ Δημοσθένους τῷ Δημοσθένει τὸν Δημοσθένην ὦ Δημοσθένη […]· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἐπιθέτων οὔτε εἰς ν ποιοῦσι τὴν αἰτιατικὴν οὔτε εἰς η τὴν κλητικήν, οὐδὲ γὰρ λέγουσι τὸν κακοήθην καὶ τὸν συνήθην καὶ ὦ κακοήθη καὶ ὦ συνήθη, ἀλλὰ τὸν κακοήθη καὶ τὸν συνήθη καὶ ὦ κακόηθες καὶ ὦ σύνηθες. καὶ ἡ αἰτία ἐστὶν αὕτη· ποιοῦντες γὰρ οἱ Ἀττικοὶ τὴν αἰτιατικὴν εἰς ν καὶ τὴν κλητικὴν εἰς η ποιοῦσιν, οἷον τὸν Δημοσθένην ὦ Δημοσθένη, τὸν Διομήδην ὦ Διομήδη· εἰ ἐποίησαν οὖν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπιθέτων τὴν αἰτιατικὴν εἰς ν, ἠναγκάζοντο καὶ τὴν κλητικὴν εἰς η ποιῆσαι, τῆς δὲ κλητικῆς εἰς η ληγούσης ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπιθέτων ἠναγκάζοντο καὶ τὰ οὐδέτερα εἰς η καταλήγειν, ὅπερ ἄτοπον· ἔχομεν γὰρ ἀνωτέρω, ὅτι πᾶν οὐδέτερον ὄνομα ἀρσενικῷ παρεσχηματισμένον καὶ περιττοσυλλάβως κλινόμενον τῇ κλητικῇ τοῦ ἀρσενικοῦ ὁμοφωνεῖ, οἷον ὁ ἄρσην τοῦ ἄρσενος ὦ ἄρσεν καὶ τὸ ἄρσεν […]· λοιπὸν τῶν οὐδετέρων κωλυομένων εἰς η καταλήγειν κωλύεται καὶ ἡ κλητικὴ εἰς η καταλήγειν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπιθέτων, τῆς δὲ κλητικῆς κωλυομένης εἰς η καταλήγειν κωλύεται καὶ ἡ αἰτιατικὴ εἰς ν καταλήγειν· ἔχομεν γὰρ ὅτι οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ποιοῦντες τὴν αἰτιατικὴν εἰς ν καὶ τὴν κλητικὴν εἰς η ποιοῦσιν.

One must know that the Athenians, for personal names in -ης having the genitive in -ους, form the accusative with -ν and the vocative with -η, as for example ὁ Δημοσθένης, τοῦ Δημοσθένους, τῷ Δημοσθένει, τὸν Δημοσθένην, ὦ Δημοσθένη […]. For the adjectives, however, they do not form the accusative with -ν and the vocative with -η: for they do not say κακοήθην, συνήθην and ὦ κακοήθη, ὦ συνήθη, but κακοήθη, συνήθη, and ὦ κακόηθες, ὦ σύνηθες. The reason is this. Since Attic speakers form the accusative (i.e. in personal names) with -ν, they also form the vocative with -η, as for example τὸν Δημοσθένην, ὦ Δημοσθένη, τὸν Διομήδην, ὦ Διομήδη. If they had formed the accusative of the adjectives with -ν, they would also have been forced to form the vocative with -η, and if the vocative of the adjectives had ended in -η, they would also have been forced to form neuter nouns with -η – but this is absurd: we have already seen that every neuter noun formed from a masculine and with a polysyllabic declension is homophonous with the vocative of the masculine, as for example ὁ ἄρσην, τοῦ ἄρσενος, ὦ ἄρσεν, and τὸ ἄρσεν […]. For the remainder, since neuter nouns cannot end in -η, the vocative of the adjectives too cannot end in -η, and since the vocative cannot end in -η, the accusative too cannot end in -ν: so, here we have the reason why the Athenians, who form the accusative with -ν, also form the vocative with -η.

(3) Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,1.176.27–177.3: ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐπὶ τῶν εἰς ης εἰς ους ἐχόντων τὴν γενικὴν κυρίων εἰς η ποιοῦσι τὴν κλητικήν, οἷον ὁ Δημοσθένης τοῦ Δημοσθένους ὦ Δημοσθένη, ὁ Ἀριστοφάνης τοῦ Ἀριστοφάνους ὦ Ἀριστοφάνη. καὶ δεῖ παραφυλάξασθαι τοῦτο, ὅτι οἱ ἔχοντες ἔθος Ἀττικοὶ ποιεῖν τὰς αὐτὰς ὀρθὰς καὶ κλητικάς, οἷον ὁ Αἴας ὦ Αἴας, ὁ Θόας ὦ Θόας, ὁ κοχλίας ὦ κοχλίας, ἐπὶ τῶν εἰς ης εἰς ους ἐχόντων τὴν γενικὴν κυρίων οὐχ εὑρίσκονται ποιοῦντες ὁμόφωνον τὴν κλητικὴν τῇ εὐθείᾳ, ὡς εἴρηται· οὐδὲ γὰρ λέγουσιν ὦ Ἀριστοφάνης καὶ ὦ Διομήδης καὶ ὦ Δημοσθένης, ἀλλ’ ὦ Ἀριστοφάνη καὶ ὦ Διομήδη καὶ ὦ Δημοσθένη· δεῖ δὲ προσθεῖναι, ὅτι ἐν τοῖς εἰς ης εἰς ους ἔχουσι τὴν γενικὴν οὖσι παρὰ τὸ κλέος ποιοῦσιν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τὴν αὐτὴν ὀρθὴν καὶ κλητικήν, οἷον ὁ Νικοκλῆς ὦ Νικοκλῆς, ὁ Περικλῆς ὦ Περικλῆς, ὁ Σοφοκλῆς ὦ Σοφοκλῆς, ὁ Ἡρακλῆς ὦ Ἡρακλῆς. πρόσκειται ἀνωτέρω ἐπὶ τῶν κυρίων, ἐπειδὴ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπιθέτων παρ’ αὐτοῖς ὁμόφωνός ἐστιν ἡ κλητικὴ τῇ εὐθείᾳ, οἷον ὁ δυστυχής ὦ δυστυχής, ὡς παρὰ Μενάνδρῳ ἐν τῷ Ἥρωϊ ‘ὦ δυστυχής, εἰ μὴ βαδιεῖ’, καὶ πάλιν παρὰ τῷ αὐτῷ ἐν Δυσκόλῳ ‘ὦ δυστυχής, τί οὐ καθεύδεις’, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ὁμοίως ἐπιθέτων.

One must know that the Athenians, for what concerns proper names in -ης having the genitive in -ους, form the vocative with -η, as for example Δημοσθένης, τοῦ Δημοσθένους, ὦ Δημοσθένη, ὁ Ἀριστοφάνης, τοῦ Ἀριστοφάνους, ὦ Ἀριστοφάνη. One must also take into account that Attic speakers, who habitually use the same form for both nominatives and vocatives – as for example ὁ Αἴας, ὦ Αἴας, ὁ Θόας, ὦ Θόας, ὁ κοχλίας, ὦ κοχλίας –, for proper names in -ης having the genitive in -ους, they seemingly do not form the vocative homophonous with the nominative, as stated: for they do not say ὦ Ἀριστοφάνης, ὦ Διομήδης, ὦ Δημοσθένης, but ὦ Ἀριστοφάνη, ὦ Διομήδη, and ὦ Δημοσθένη. It must be added that, for nouns in -ης having the genitive in -ους which are derived from κλέος, the Athenians use the same form for the nominative and the vocative, as for example ὁ Νικοκλῆς, ὦ Νικοκλῆς, ὁ Περικλῆς, ὦ Περικλῆς, ὁ Σοφοκλῆς, ὦ Σοφοκλῆς, ὁ Ἡρακλῆς, ὦ Ἡρακλῆς. The specification ‘for personal names’ is found above, since in the case of the adjectives they (the Athenians) use a vocative homophonous with the nominative, as for example ὁ δυστυχής, ὦ δυστυχής, as in Menander’s Hero (fr. 7): ‘poor thing (ὦ δυστυχής), if you don’t go’ (Transl. Arnott 1997, 45), and – again in the same author – in the Dyscolus (actually Mis. 20–1): ‘poor fellow (ὦ δυστυχής), why aren’t you asleep?’ (Transl. Arnott 1997, 261–3) – and the same holds true for all similar adjectives.

(4) Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,1.190.3–7: Ἡράκλεες Ἡράκλεις καὶ Ἥρακλες καὶ ἀττικῶς ὦ Ἡρακλέη· ἰστέον ὅτι τὸ μὲν Ἡράκλεες ὥσπερ τὸ ὦ Δημόσθενες ἐστί, τὸ δὲ Ἡράκλεις ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἡράκλεες κατὰ κρᾶσιν τῶν δύο εε εἰς τὴν ει δίφθογγον, τὸ δὲ Ἥρακλες ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἡράκλεες γέγονε κατὰ συγκοπὴν τοῦ ε, τὸ δὲ ὦ Ἡρακλέη Ἀττικόν ἐστιν, ὥσπερ τὸ ὦ Δημοσθένη.

Ἡράκλεες, Ἡράκλεις, Ἥρακλες, and ὦ Ἡρακλέη, in the Attic manner. One must know that Ἡράκλεες is like ὦ Δημόσθενες, while Ἡράκλεις [comes] from Ἡράκλεες through crasis of the two εε into the diphthong ει and Ἥρακλες is formed from Ἡράκλεες through syncope of ε. Ἡρακλέη is Attic, like ὦ Δημοσθένη.

(5) Phot. σ 613: Στρατοφάνη· τὴν κλητικὴν πτῶσιν Μένανδρος Σικυωνίῳ· ‘Στρατοφάνη λιτόν ποτ’ εἶχες χλαμύδιον καὶ παῖδα ἕνα’· καὶ ἀεὶ οὕτως λέγει.

Στρατοφάνη: Menander in Sikyonios (fr. 3 = C.1) [uses] the vocative case: ‘Stratophanes, you once owned one plain cloak and only one male slave!’ He always uses this form. (Transl. Arnott 2000, 305, slightly adapted).

(6) [Zonar.] 497.30–498.8: ἰστέον, ὅτι οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν εἰς ης κυρίων τῶν εἰς ους ἐχόντων τὴν γενικὴν ποιοῦσι τὴν αἰτιατικὴν εἰς ν, καὶ τὴν κλητικὴν εἰς η. οἷον, Ἀριστοφάνην, ὦ Ἀριστοφάνη. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἐπιθέτων οὔτε εἰς ν ποιοῦσι τὴν αἰτιατικήν, οὔτε εἰς η τὴν κλητικήν. καὶ ἄξιον ἐστὶ ζητῆσαι, διατί καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπιθέτων οὐ ποιοῦσιν ὁμοίως τοῖς κυρίοις. καὶ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι εἰ ἐποίησαν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπιθέτων εἰς ν τὴν αἰτιατικήν, ἠναγκάζοντο καὶ τὴν κλητικὴν εἰς η ποιῆσαι· τῆς δὲ κλητικῆς εἰς ἦτα ληγούσης, ἠναγκάζοντο καὶ τὰ οὐδέτερα εἰς ἦτα καταλῆξαι· ἐπειδὴ πᾶν οὐδέτερον ἀπὸ ἀρσενικοῦ παρεσχηματισμένον καὶ περιττοσυλλάβως κλινόμενον, τῇ κλητικῇ τοῦ ἀρσενικοῦ ὁμοφωνεῖ. οὐ δύναται δὲ τὰ οὐδέτερα εἰς ἦτα καταλήγειν, ἐπειδὴ τὸ η οὐκ ἔστι τελικὸν τῶν ἑνικῶν οὐδέτερον.

τῶν εἰς ης κυρίων and ἐπειδὴ τὸ η οὐκ ἔστι τελικὸν : Tittmann’s edition has τῶν εἰς ος κυρίων and ἐπειδὴ τὸ ο οὐκ ἔστι τελικὸν, which make no sense, as is clear from the context and the parallels cited above in A. and B.

One must know that the Athenians form the vocative with -η for personal names in -ης having the genitive in -ους, as for example Ἀριστοφάνην, ὦ Ἀριστοφάνη. But for adjectives they neither form the accusative with -ν nor the vocative with -η. It is worth investigating why they do not form the adjectives in the same way as the personal names. One can say that, if the Athenians had formed the accusative of the adjectives with -ν, they would have been also forced to form the vocative with -η. If the vocative had ended with η, they would have also been forced to form neuters ending in η, since every neuter deriving from a masculine and with an imparisyllabic declension is homophonous with the vocative of the masculine. The neuters cannot end in η, for -η is not the ending of the neuter singular.

C. Loci classici, other relevant texts

(1) Men. Sic. fr. 3:
Στρατοφάνη λιτόν ποτ’ εἶχες χλαμύδιον καὶ παῖδα ἕνα (cf. B.5).

Stratophanes, you once owned one plain cloak and only one male slave. (Transl. Arnott 2000, 305).

(2) IG 5,1.768 [Sparta, Roman period]: Σωκράτη χαῖρε.

Farewell, Socrates!

(3) Cic. Att. 14.9.8: O Socrate et Socratici uiri! numquam uobis gratiam referam.

Socrate ERMZ^t : Socrates bdms.

Ah Socrates, Socratics, I can never repay you! (Transl. Shackleton Bailey 1999, 157).

D. General commentary

The entry of Moeris’ lexicon in A.1 deals with the vocative singular of s-stem personal names in -ης. Moeris prescribes vocatives in -η while marking the ending -ες as ‘Greek’. Other entries deal with the inflection of s-stem personal names in -ης: see entry Δημοσθένας, Δημοσθένεις and F.1.

Moeris’ prescription is in line with other erudite sources that regard s-stem vocatives in -η as Attic, see B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.6. Herodian may have faced the issue, as one can argue from Eust. in Il. 2.16.2–4 (= Hdn. Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων 3,2.639.28–9) and Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,1.163.3–5 (= Hdn. Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων 3,2.682.10–13), which treat the vexata quaestio of the Homeric vocative Ἄρες (Hom. Il. 5.33, 5.455), compared to the vocative Σώκρατες (see also Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,1.217.27–30 = Hdn. Περὶ παθῶν 3,2.321.24–27, Hdn. Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων 3,2.676.30–34). John Philoponus’ epitome of Herodian’s Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας (B.1) also cites Σώκρατες and other vocatives with reference to their accentuation (see also B.2). In Choeroboscus’ commentary on Theodosius’ Canons, which sets out a range of inflectional rules, the ending -η is explained by analogy: according to Theodosius/Choeroboscus, Attic speakers say Σωκράτη because they form the accusative of s-stem proper names in -ης with -ν, not with the expected -η (see B.2 and B.6, which explain why adjectives in -ης do not follow the same rule).

Despite correspondences with other grammatical sources that indicate Σωκράτη was Attic, Moeris’ prescription raises problems. There are no attestations of such s-stem vocatives in 5th-century BCE Attic authors; surviving occurrences are from the 4th century BCE onwards, see e.g. Men. Sic. 135, 142, fr. 3 (C.1 = B.5, see Gomme, Sandbach 1973, 644). There is no doubt that these forms depend on analogy with masculine a-stemsa-stems (see also entry Δημοσθένας, Δημοσθένεις). The possibility remains open that by the second half of the 5th century BCE the two inflectional types were already being confused, and this was perhaps even the case in canonical Attic authors: see e.g. Ar. Nu. 1206Ar. Nu. 1206 Στρεψίαδες (instead of the ‘standard’ a-stem vocative in -η – a case which is ‘equal and opposite’ to that treated by Moeris). Alternatively, the example from Clouds can also be explained as an ad hoc formation designed to obtain stylistic grandeur (see Dover 1968, 238; according to the schol. ad loc., the form flouts inflectional rules and signifies Strepsiades’ boorishness). In Attic inscriptions, s-stem vocatives usually end in -ες: only in IG 2².10241 (1st–2nd century CE) does one find Μενεκράτη Μηνοφίλου Σαρδιανὲ χαῖρε, where the vocatives are corrections for the previously carved Μενεκράτης and Σαρδιανός (see Threatte 1996, 178). Nonetheless, from the Hellenistic age onwards, s-stem vocatives in -η are often attested in inscriptions from all over the Greek-speaking world (see e.g. C.2 and further data in Schulze 1923, 245–8; Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 40; Schwyzer 1939, 579). Moreover, LatinLatin texts sometimes show s-stem Greek proper names with a vocative ending -ē, see Neue, Wagener (1902–1905 vol. 1, 447–9); Leumann (1977, 444). In Cic. Att. 14.9.8 (C.3) some MSS have the vocative Socrate, while others have Socrates. The vocative Socrate is also found elsewhere in Cicero, see Hort. fr. 43 Müller (= 42 Grilli) and Cicero’s translation of a pericope of Plato’s Protagoras in Prisc. Inst. GL 2.247.21–248.1 (= fr. 2 Müller).

On the other hand, the vocative Σώκρατες is everywhere attested in Plato. It was the standard form in Xenophon and occurs in later prose texts: five times in Lucianus; nine times in Aelius Aristides and six times in Maximus of Tyrus. The inflectional rules elaborated by grammarians, see e.g. B.2, show that it was considered the standard based on analogy.

It is not immediately clear why Moeris should have recommended a form which was widespread in Post-classical Greek, while condemning another that is very well attested in canonical Attic authors. Supposedly, he found the vocative Σωκράτη in a now lost locus classicus. It cannot be excluded that Σωκράτη sporadically occurred instead of the usual Σώκρατες in Aristophanes and in Plato: since Σώκρατες is unequivocally attested in both authors, normalisation may have taken place at some stage of the manuscript tradition. It is noteworthy that in Ar. Nu. 222, 256, 736, 784 the reading Σώκρατες is not metrically necessary and Σωκράτη is theoretically possible (Ar. Nu. 219 ὦ Σώκρατες, the reading of the MSS, raises problems: see Dover 1968, 125). Attempts to explain Moeris’ preference for Σωκράτη are speculative, however. Alternatively, it is conceivable that the frequency of Σώκρατες in the written koine and its conformity to inflectional rules elaborated by grammarians influenced Moeris’ understanding. Other Atticist lexica likely discussed issues similar to that of A.1. The entry in [Zonar.] 14.18[Zonar.] 14.18(Ἀγαμήδης. κύριον. κλητικὸν καὶ θηλυκὸν Ἀγαμήδη; ‘Agamedes. Proper name. Ἀγαμήδη is vocative and feminine’) may depend directly on Su. α 142: Ἀγαμήδης· ὄνομα κύριον. καὶ θηλυκὸν Ἀγαμήδη. The Suda however omits any possibility that Ἀγαμήδη is a vocative form. Assuming that the compiler of pseudo-Zonaras’ lexicon did not make the addition himself, he and the Suda may have independently abridged the same (Atticist?) source (see Tittmann 1808, liii).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Since masculine and feminine nouns of the 1st and 3rd (consonantal-stem) declensions gradually merged (Horrocks 2010, 121, 286–88; CGMEMG vol. 1, 253), Medieval Greek s-stem nouns are almost entirely limited to cultivated literature, cf. also entry Δημοσθένας, Δημοσθένεις. Literature and scholarship in Medieval Greek attests only to the vocative form Σώκρατες, and no occurrences of Σωκράτη are extant.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A

Bibliography

Arnott, W. G. (1997). Menander. Vol. 2: Heros. Theophoroumene. Karchedonios. Kitharistes. Kolax. Koneiazomenai. Leukadia. Misoumenos. Perikeiromene. Perinthia. Edited and translated by W. G. Arnott. Cambridge, MA.

Arnott, W. G. (2000). Menander. Vol. 3: Samia. Sikyonioi. Synaristosai. Phasma. Unidentified Fragments. Edited and translated by W. G. Arnott. Cambridge, MA.

Dover, K. J. (1968). Aristophanes. Clouds. Edited with an Introduction and Commentary. Oxford.

Gomme, A. W; Sandbach, F. H. (1973). Menander. A Commentary. Oxford.

Leumann, M. (1977). Lateinische Grammatik. Vol. 1: Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. 2nd edition. Munich.

Neue, F.; Wagener, C. (1902–1905). Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. 3 vols. 3rd edition. Leipzig.

Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1999). Cicero. Vol. 4: Letters to Atticus. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge, MA.

Schulze, W. (1923). ‘Zur Bildung des Vokativs im Griechischen und im Lateinischen’. ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ. Festschrift Jacob Wackernagel zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres. Göttingen, 240–54 (= Id., Kleine Schriften, 82–96).

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

Tittmann, I. A. H. (1808). Iohannis Zonarae Lexicon. 2 vols. Leipzig.

CITE THIS

Andrea Pellettieri, 'Σωκράτη, Σώκρατες (Moer. σ 23)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2023/02/037

ABSTRACT

This article provides a philological and linguistic commentary on the vocative forms Σωκράτη and Σώκρατες discussed in the Atticist lexicon Moer. σ 23.