ἀληθεστέρως, καταδεεστέρως
(Antiatt. α 39, Antiatt. κ 48)

D. General commentary

These two entries of the Antiatticist are concerned with the formation of the comparative adverbs of two sigmatic adjectives, ἀληθής and καταδεής. The irregularity of ἀληθεστέρωςἀληθεστέρως and καταδεεστέρωςκαταδεεστέρως lies in the formation of the adverb by means of the suffix ‑ως, as the regular version would be the neuter form of the comparative (on this see entry ἐχθροτέρως, ἐπιτηδειοτέρως and Sicking 1883, 21). The comparatives ἀληθέστερος and καταδεέστερος have their first attestations in Attic prose (in Thucydides and Isocrates respectively) and do not occur in poetic language. Adverbs in ‑εστέρως are also avoided in poetry, though two early and authoritative examples would be Euripides’ εὐλαβεστέρως (IT 1375)Eur. IT 1375 and σωφρονεστέρως (IA 379)Eur. IA 379. Note that both forms occur at the line-end.

The adverb ἀληθεστέρως features for the first time in the extant sources in Plato’s Republic (C.1, C.2). Here, as in many other of its lemmas, the Antiatticist seems to register the first occurrence of a given form in Greek literature. The transmitted text in cod. Par. Coisl. 345Par. Coisl. 345 erroneously attributes the adverb to the third book of the Republic. Valente (2015, 94) argues that perhaps the Antiatticist originally quoted book 9 of the Republic and that the mistake later arose from the misinterpretation of the original numeral E (in the copy of the lexicon in majuscule), altered into Γ. It may be useful to note in passing that there is no lemma ἀληθεστέρως in the Platonic lexicon of Timaeus Sophista, in spite of the results given by the TLG, which unfortunately still uses the edition of the lexicon prepared by J. F. Dübner (1839) where the original lemmas preserved in cod. Par. Coisl. 345Par. Coisl. 345 were interpolated with material taken from other lexica (see Valente 2012, 20). Apart from these two Platonic occurrences, ἀληθεστέρως is a rare form in Greek: it is used twice in Plotinus’ Enneades (C.4, C.5) and once by Anastasius of Sinai (C.6).

One may wonder to what extent the texts that have reached us reflect their original language and whether some instances of these irregular adverbs may have been tacitly corrected during their textual transmission. This issue is relevant for the discussion of Antiatt. κ 48, which credits Isocrates’ Antidosis with the use of καταδεεστέρως. This form, however, is not found in the Isocratic corpus known to us, while καταδεέστερον is attested several times. Valente (2015, 197) tentatively identifies the locus classicus with Isoc. 15.149 (C.3); another possibility would be Isoc. 15.178Isoc. 15.178 (τῆς μὲν οὖν ἐπιθυμίας οἶδ’ ὅτι πολὺ καταδεέστερον ἐροῦμεν ‘I know that I shall be speaking in a much inferior way than my aspiration’). Isocrates is the first author to testify to the use of the comparative of καταδεής, which is much more frequent than the positive adjective as it strengthens the notion of being ‘inferior, weak’ (see LSJ s.v. καταδεής.2). The analogical adverb καταδεεστέρως, just like ἀληθεστέρως, occurs only a few times. The two secure examples appear in the pseudo-Demosthenic oration Against Olympiodorus (48.55.5)D. 48.55.5 and in StobaeusStob. 4.7.62.87 (4.7.62.87). A third can be found in the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 36.6.4 (C.8), where all editors print καταδεεστέρως, a modern conjecture for the transmitted καταδεεστέρους of the manuscripts (see F.1). These attestations show that the adverb could find an application in prose language from the early 4th century BCE onwards, though it apparently never made its way into higher prose.

If the Antiatticist’s compiler aimed to collect analogical forms in ‑εστέρως, it is unclear why he did not register earlier forms such as ἐνδεεστέρως (Thuc. 2.35.2Thuc. 2.35.2, Thuc. 4.39.2Thuc. 4.39.2, later alsoIsoc. 35.3 Isoc. 35.3) and ὑποδεεστέρωςThuc. 4.71.2 (Thuc. 4.71.2.3), to quote only those derived from adjectives in ‑δεής. The lexicon could also have noted the presence of other, similar adverbs in Euripides. Perhaps the selection of these forms depended on the use of precompiled sources that focused on the lexicons of certain authors only. More generally, however, the aim of these lemmas is likely to have been the collection of forms that, while relatively common in 5th-century Attic prose, did not become established in high-register Greek. In these entries, the Antiatticist could therefore combine its customary interest in the classical roots of sub-standard developments already attested in classical authors. It is worth noting that no other erudite source comments on the adverbs in ‑εστέρως except the entry in Σ^b α 2305 (B.1 = Phot. α 3037), which mistakenly attributes ἀσφαλεστέρως to Plato’s Republic (the adverb is first attested in Thucydides, and the Republic has one instance of the superlative adverb ἀσφαλέστατα at 467e.6; it is open to speculation whether the text may have been altered during transmission to avoid sub-standard features such as ἀσφαλεστέρως).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Judging from the available evidence, ἀληθεστέρως and καταδεεστέρως were not commonly used in Byzantine literature, though other analogical adverbs of this kind have a good number of attestations in both high- and middle-register Greek. ἀληθεστέρως is only attested in Nicetas Choniates (C.7), while καταδεεστέρως is used once by Michael Psellus (Theologica 21.102Michael Psellus Theologica 21.102). The regular formations are ἀληθέστερον and καταδεέστερον, the former frequently found in conjunction with εἶπον in the idiom ‘to tell the truth’ (see C.7 for a parallel).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 36.6.1–6 (C.8)

καταδεεστέρως, in lieu of the transmitted καταδεεστέρους, was first introduced by Erasmus in his Basel 1550 edition of Aristoteles’ Opuscula (see Fuhrmann 2000, 81). The sentence εἴ που τῶν ἀντιδίκων καταδεεστέρως ἔχει πρὸς τὸ λέγειν κτλ. describes the possible condition of disadvantage of a defendant. While ἔχει clearly requires an adverb, the accusative plural is out of place. Perhaps it arose from a misunderstanding of the rare adverb in -ως.