μισογύνης, μισογύναιος, φιλογύνης, φιλογύναιος, φιλόγυνος
(Moer. μ 7, Moer. φ 17, Antiatt. φ 6, Poll. 3.46, Poll. 3.47–8)

D. General commentary

Various Atticist sources deal with compounds in -γύνης that they compare to those in -γύναιος and/or -γυνος (all from γυνή ‘woman’, ‘wife’) and likely attest to an Atticist interest in morphological issues, such as word-formation and compounding, although matters of word-choice may also be at stake.

While Moeris (A.1, A.2) prescribes -γύνης as the Attic form (see also B.2, depending on Moeris), the Antiatticist (A.3) further admits -γυνος, attested in Lysias (fr. 296 Carey; but see F.1). Moreover, in a list of terms relating to marriage, Pollux (A.4, A.5, see also Poll. 6.172) informs us that Aristophanes used ἄγυνοςἄγυνος ‘wifeless’ (fr. 757) and that the equivalent ἀγύναικοςἀγύναικος (a hapaxHapax) is found in the comic poet Phrynichus (fr. 20).

The following list (from Buck, Petersen 1945, with some corrections and integrations) accounts for the great variety of alternative forms and, simultaneously, the comparative rarity of various individual compounds with a second component going back to γυνή:

• γύναιξ: καλλιγύναιξ (Hom.+), ἡμιγύναιξ (Simon., Su.), ἀγύναιξ (Soph.), φιλογύναιξ (Pl., Aristaen. [interpol.]), πολυγύναιξ (Str.), ὀρσιγύναιξ (lyr. adesp.), πρωτογύναιξ (Hsch.);
• γύναικος: ἀγύναικος (Phryn.Com. fr. 20, see A.5), μισογύναικος (Hierocl. Facet.); φιλογύναικος (Byzantine);
• γύνης: νεογύνης (Ameips. fr. 35 [conjecture for νεογήμης]), μισογύνης (Men. [play’s title, see C.3]; Plu., Hieron), φιλογύνης (Antiphan. [C.2]+), πολυγύνης (Poll.), ἀνδρογύνης (AP, schol. Hom. [prob.]);
• γυνος: ἄγυνος (Ar.+, see A.5), ἀνδρόγυνος (Eup. [dub.], Pl.+, Hdt., Cyran., Epiph.), κατάγυνος (Arist.), λάγυνος ([Arcad.], etc. [invented by grammarians]), μισόγυνος (title of a play by the Roman comic poet Atilius [2nd century BCE]; Theognost.), φιλόγυνος (Lys.? see A.3 and F.1), ἡμίγυνος (Synes.);
• γύναιος: φιλογύναιος (Arist.+), ἀγύναιος (LXX+), μισογύναιος (Ph.+), πολυγύναιος (Ptol., Ath.), ἀνδρογύναιος (Ath.Al.), διγύναιος (Ath.Al.), κακογύναιος (Procl.), ἡμιγύναιος (Su.), καταγύναιος (Gloss., Byz.), ὑπογύναιος (Eccl.).

The list demonstrates that many compounds with a second component deriving from γυνή, several of which are equivalent in meaning, are late attested (even if the abovementioned subtypes have a first compound already in the classical period) and often poetic. However, as Sommer (1948, 62–3) noted, the athematic -γύναιξ is likely of considerable antiquity, καλλιγύναιξ having already been attested in Homer as a formulaic epithet (often reused and vivified in later epics, see Kraft 1963, 138–9). Moreover, according to DELG s.v. γυνή, the rise of compounds in -γύνης might be related to the extension of an ā-stem in the declension of γυνή (see entry γυναί; the same may hold true for -γυνος). Indeed, although the stem γυναικ- forms the standard declension (except for the nom. sing), acc. sing. and pl. γυνήν, γυνάς, voc. sing. ὦ γυνή, and nom. pl. γυναί occurred in comedy between the 5th and 4th centuries BCE (see entry γυναί; cf. also K–B vol. 1, 458; Schwyzer 1939, 582–3; Orth 2013, 137). However, evidence for ā-stem forms in documentary sources is late and scanty: the earliest occurrence that I have been able to identify in papyri is P.Adl. 9.6 (= TM 9) [Pathyris, 104 BCE] γυνῶν (gen. plur.). As for -γύναιος forms, they are late and likely depend on the spread of γύναιον (‘woman’) in the koine (Schwyzer 1939, 583; DELG s.v. γυνή; see also below).

Regarding the forms treated by Moeris and the Antiatticist in particular, it is worth noting that μισογύνης is the title of a play by Menander, and this may be behind the Atticists’ appreciation of the compound (see below). φιλογύνης is attested in Antiphanes (C.2), Polybius (1x), Diodorus Siculus (1x), Aelius Aristides (1x), and later prose. μισογύναιος first occurs in Philo of Alexandria (1st century BCE – 1st century CE), while φιλογύναιος is attested in the literary koine from the 4th century BCE onwards. Interestingly, φιλογύναιος also appears in SB 411.3 [1st century CE?], where it has no deprecatory sense (contrary to its occurrences elsewhere) but denotes ‘one who loves his wife’ (on the inscription and its chronology, see Bingen 2005, 144–7).

Considering that Menander and Antiphanes, who use μισογύνης and φιλογύνης, are not part of Moeris’ restricted canon of approved authors (see Moeris. Ἀττικιστής, forthcoming), it is conceivable that Moeris’ prescriptions in A.1 and A.2 depend on a now lost locus classicus to which the Antiatticist may also have referred. In this respect, one wonders whether at least one of the two compounds μισογύνης and φιλογύνης may have appeared in some canonical comic poet. Although speculative, this hypothesis is appealing. The peripatetic philosopher Hieronymus of Rhodes (3rd century BCE) reported an anecdote in which EuripidesEuripides is called μισογύνης as well as φιλογύνης. This opinion is transmitted in Ath. 13.557eAth. 13.557e: φιλογύνης δ᾿ ἦν καὶ Εὐριπίδης ὁ ποιητής. Ἱερώνυμος γοῦν ἐν Ἱστορικοῖς Ὑπομνήμασίν φησιν οὕτως· εἰπόντος Σοφοκλεῖ τινος ὅτι μισογύνης ἐστὶν Εὐριπίδης, ‘ἔν γε ταῖς τραγῳδίαις,’ ἔφη ὁ Σοφοκλῆς· ‘ἐπεὶ ἔν γε τῇ κλίνῃ φιλογύνης’, ‘The poet Euripides also liked women. Hieronymus in his Historical Commentaries (fr. 36 Wehrli = 33 White = Soph. test. 58a = Eur. test. 107a), for example, says the following: ‘When someone remarked to Sophocles that Euripides hated women, Sophocles said: ‘In his tragedies he does; but he certainly likes women in bed!’’ (Transl. Olson 2010, 235). Such an anecdote, which undoubtedly reflects a method consisting in ‘infer[ring] a personal misogyny on the part of the poet from the violent women he portrayed on the stage’ (Podlecki 1969, 126), likely owes something to the comic representation of Euripides as a woman-hater (see Schorn 2004, 285–6 with further bibliography). Moreover, a play by Menander is entitled Μισογύνης (see C.3). Interestingly, schol. (ex.) Hom. Il. 14.342–51 (bT) appears to include the μισογύνης among the various characters typical of that kind of poetry that imitates reality (see Meijering 1987, 68, according to whom the scholiast refers to New Comedy and its characters). It is thus conceivable that μισογύνης and φιλογύνης (or at least one of the two) first appeared in Old ComedyComedy, respectively characterising women-haters and women-lovers. Later comedy may have included stock characters who were identified/identifiable as μισογύνης and φιλογύνης, as the title of Menander’s play appears to suggest.

Moeris’ rejection of μισογύναιος and φιλογύναιος is likely due to their relatively late attestations (this holds true for compounds in -γύναιος in general, as seen above). The spread of the form γύναιον (= γυνή, without any special overtone: see DGE s.v. γύναιον 2) in the koine may also have been instrumental in this regard. Furthermore, we cannot exclude the possibility that Moeris associated -γύναιος with other adjectives formed with the suffix -αιος, which was productive in the koine and later (see e.g. Chantraine 1933, 46–9; Cartlidge 2014, 136–9).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In Medieval Greek, compounds with a second component -γύναιξ, -γύνης, -γύναιος, and -γυνος mostly occur in learned texts. Moreover, many of these are already attested in Ancient Greek: see section D. for a detailed list. These compounds' comparative rarity is likely unrelated to the reorganisation of the paradigm of γυνή in later Greek, when a nom. sing. γυναίκα was created on the analogy of the acc. sing. (see CGMEMG vol. 1, 458–9): indeed, compound adjectives in -γύναικος are also extremely rare.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Antiatt. φ 6 (A.3)

The Antiatticist, tacitly approving the form φιλογύνης, also admits φιλόγυνος, which was attested in a now lost locus classicus by Lysias (fr. 296 Carey = C.1). Valente (2015, 242) cautiously wonders whether one should rather read φιλογύναιος instead of φιλόγυνος, based on Moeris’ entries (A.1, A.2). This is certainly possible – however, it should be noted that φιλόγυνος is in line with Aristophanes’ ἄγυνος (fr. 757, see A.5) and that φιλογύναιος and other compounds in -γύναιος are attested only later, indicating that it is safer to maintain the transmitted text.