κυναγός, κυνηγός, κυνηγέτης
(Phryn. Ecl. 401)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus’ entry (A.1), on which Thomas Magister (A.2) depends, proscribes κυνηγός and prescribes κυνηγέτης. Phrynichus explains first that tragic poets do use the trisyllabic form but with Doric retention of [a:] (κυνᾱγός)Doric. Thus, the post-classical form κυνηγός cannot be defended based on its occurrences in tragedy, since the tragic poets, in fact, use a non-Attic formTragedy. Consequently, one should prefer κυνηγέτης, which is used by Attic writers and has the expected Attic-Ionic vocalism. Phrynichus’ wary attitude towards κυναγός is probably not an excess of zeal: the scholia to Euripides’ Hippolytus provide evidence for the opposite doctrine to that of Phrynichus (B.1). A further example is that of ὁδηγός/ὁδαγός: this form is typically post-classical (the first securely dated occurrences in literary sources are in Polybius, but as far as documentary sources are concerned, it already occurs in a few documentary papyri from the 3rd century BCE), and it regularly appears as ὁδηγός. However, a form ὁδαγός, with ‘Doric’ retention of [a:]Doric , was seemingly defended by the Atticist Orus (B.3; it is Alpers’s suggestion that Photius’ lemma derives from Orus), who possibly preferred ὁδαγός based on comparison with the other compounds with a second element -ᾱγός that are attested in Attic tragedy (for a list, see Björck 1950, 136–7) Tragedy. Thus, it seems that Phrynichus’ treatment of κυνᾱγός/κυνηγός and κυνηγέτης might aim to contrast other lexicographers’ competing opinions regarding the acceptability of compounds in -ᾱγός.

The opposition between κυνηγέτης and κυνηγός is typically explained as that between older compounds)Compounds with a second element ‑ηγέτης, from ἡγέομαι, and more recent compounds with a second element ‑ηγός/-ᾱγός, from ἄγω (with so-called Wackernagel’s lengthening of the second element of the compound). This traditional view is upheld by Chantraine (see DELG s.vv. ἄγω and ἡγέομαι) and Buck, Petersen (1945, 548); Tribulato (2015, 280) is not entirely in favour of it but does highlight some elements which might potentially support it. However, it has also been contested: see especially Ruijgh (1967, § 97), Szemerényi (1972), and Jiménez Delgado (2015). These scholars discuss the evidence from MycenaeanMycenaean and first-millennium Greek and conclude in favour of a derivation of the compounds with a second element ‑ηγέτης from ἄγω rather than ἡγέομαι. Regarding κυνηγέτης, their arguments are primarily based on semantics: that is, ἄγω and its compounds are far more commonly used to indicate the actions that κυνηγέτης is associated with. A somewhat neglected proof in support of this conclusion is also represented by στρατᾱγέτᾱς in Bacchylides’ Dithyrambs, 3.121B. 3.121, 4.7B. 4.7, and fr. 6.13 MaehlerB. fr. 6.13 Maehler without assimilation of στρατ- to initial aspiration in the second constituent of the compound. As a footnote, in the case of προκαθηγέτις, which in turn shows the assimilation of the aspirated occlusive, one must consider that comparison with προκαθηγέμων caused the false rapprochement with a non-existing *προκαθηγέτης deriving from ἡγέομαι. A full list of compounds with a second element -ηγέτης and with a second element -ηγός/-ᾱγός is collected by Buck, Petersen (1945, respectively at 548 and 626). For a morphological and semantic overview of the compounds with a second element -ηγός, see Tribulato (2015, 272–3). On the alternation between κυναγός and κυνηγέτης in tragedy and for other similar cases see Björck (1950, 138–8).

As Phrynichus correctly indicates, κυνᾱγός is primarily a tragic form, where it is attested in both lyric sections and in dialogueTragedy. Most occurrences are in Euripides (C.1, Supp. 888, IT 284, Ph. 1106 and 1169, fr. 752h.2, fr. 773.31), with only one occurrence in each of the other two main tragedians (Aesch. A. 693, Soph. El. 563). The abstract derivative κυναγίακυναγία is also first attested in tragedy (Soph. Ai. 37, Eur. Hipp. 109 and Ba. 339). To these instances we must add those of συγκυνᾱγόςσυγκυναγός (Eur. Hipp. 1093 and IT 709). Comic poets)Comedy occasionally use κυνᾱγός in choral sections (Ar. Lys. 1272) and tragic parody (C.2, where, among other overtly poetic features, one may notice the heterosyllabic treatment of muta cum liquida. In later poetry, κυνᾱγός is used by Callimachus (Cer. 50), Theocritus (23.10), and in the epigrammatic tradition (SH 977.11).

The first occurrences of κυνηγόςκυνηγός are in Aristotle’s corpus, then in Polybius, in the LXX, in Diodorus, occasionally in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, quite often in Plutarch, and finally in technical and Christian writings. The abstract κυνηγία similarly appears first in 4th-century prose (Aristotle, Theophrastus) and is then well-attested in the koine (Polybius, Diodorus, etc.). In no case does κυνηγός appear in the writings of post-classical authors who typically use high language, which clearly corroborates Phrynichus’ rejection of the form. Additionally, κυνηγός is common in documentary papyriPapyri, where the adjective κυνηγικός is also attested (this latter form is extremely rare in literature and is only attested in stylistically low Byzantine texts).

With regard to the verbal derivative κυνᾱγέω/κυνηγέωDenominative verbs, the form κυνᾱγέωκυναγέω occurs in Bion’s Lament for Adonis (60) and was also conjectured for metrical reasons by Hermann in [Aesch.] PV 571–2, although more recent editors retain the transmitted reading κυνηγετεῖ (see Griffith 2000, 196), whereas the form κυνηγέωκυνηγέω, first attested in the corpus Aristotelicum (5x) and in Plato’s Seventh Letter (349c.1), is then well-attested in high koine (2x in Polybius, 14x in Diodorus, 3x in Philo, 2x in Strabo, 14x in Plutarch, 2x in Artemidorus, 4x in Babrius) and in abundance in Christian and technical writings. Pollux records it once in a section on the vocabulary of hunting (7.135, see below on κυνηγετέω). As in the case of κυνηγός, the denominal verb κυνηγέω is equally unattested in writers who use Atticising or otherwise elevated language.

Κυνηγέτηςκυνηγέτης is already a Mycenaean word (ku-na-ke-ta-i in Pylos, Na 248)Mycenaean. It is also used by Homer (Od. 9.120) and Pindar (N. 6.14, with ‘Doric’ vocalism). In tragedyTragedy, κυνηγέτης is far less common than κυναγός, since it occurs only 6x (C.3, Soph. fr. 314.231, Eur. HF 860, Ba. 871 and 1189 [in these lyric parts, Euripides uses the form with the ‘Doric’ vocalism κυνᾱγετ-], [Eur.] Rh. 325). It is the standard term in some prose works: Xenophon’s Cynegeticus (17x) and Plato (3x). Comic poetsComedy also use this form, but the evidence is meagre (C.4, Men. Dysc. 42 and Her. fr. 1.2; in Pl.Com. fr. 188.16, the godlike Κυνηγέται are paired with Κύων as the object of worship, see further Pirrotta 2009, 350–1; finally, one of Anaxandrides’ comedies is titled Κυνηγέται).

In Hellenistic and Imperial Greek, κυνηγέτης occurs only once in Polybius and Diodorus; it is also much less common than κυνηγός in Plutarch. However, it is significant that κυνηγέτης is in fact the form adopted by Atticist writers and later sophists (Dio Chrysostom, Lucian, Aelian, Philostratus, Fronto, Libanius, Synesius) and that it is attested in the Greek novel (Longus 2.16.2, Charito 1.1.16). All these writers entirely avoid κυνηγός/κυναγός (see above), and this preference for κυνηγέτης squares well with Phrynichus’ prescription of the latter form. Pollux frequently mentions κυνηγέτης and its nominal derivatives also (25x; among these are several compounds with a second element -κυνηγέτης, e.g. συν- and φιλο-), whereas he ignores κυνηγός/κυναγός, save for one passage (5.43; but does perhaps Pollux derive the excursus from Theopompus, whom he quotes [FGrHist 115 F 340] a little earlier?). Unlike κυνηγός (and κυνηγικός), κυνηγέτης and κυνηγετικός are unattested in documentary papyriPapyri. This is a further indication that these forms did not belong to the common language. These forms only occur in the Herculaneum papyri and in a para-literary papyrus containing scholia to Euripides’ Phoenician Women (P.Würzb. 1 [= TM 59895, Hermoupolis 6th century CE], where κυνηγέτης occurs at line 82, and κυνηγέτις at lines 79 and 83).

Unlike κυναγός/κυνηγός and κυναγέω/κυνηγέω, κυνηγέτης served quite early as the basis for the development of denominative κυνηγετέωκυνηγετέω (C.5, [Aesch.] PV 572, Soph. fr. 314.21–125–231, Eur. HF 896, Ar. Eq. 1382, X. Cyn. 5.34, Pl. Lg. 824a.13, Aeschin. 3.255), which in post-classical times is not only common in high koine (5x in Polybius, 1x in Diodorus, 1x in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 1x in Strabo, 7x in Plutarch) but unlike κυνηγέω is also abundantly attested in writers using a more or less Atticising language (to mention some exemplary cases, it occurs 1x in Arrian, 5x in Appian, 1x in Dio Chrysostom, 3x in Lucian, 1x in Aristides, 3x in Aelian). Pollux records κυνηγετέω twice in sections concerning the vocabulary of hunting (5.9Poll. 5.9 and 7.135Poll. 7.135).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

The opposition between the more prestigious κυνηγέτης and the more everyday κυνηγός continues in Byzantine Greek: while κυνηγός is normally avoided by writers who use archaising language, the opposite is the case with κυνηγέτηςκυνηγέτης. The latter is well-attested in, to mention the more relevant authors, Synesius, John Chrysostom, Procopius of Gaza, Choricius, Aeneas of Gaza, Aristaenetus, Anna Comnene, Nicephorus Basilaces, Michael and Nicetas Choniates. In addition, κυνηγέω too is found in prose writers who adopt archaising language, such as Procopius of Caesarea and Theophylact Symocatta. The competing form κυνηγόςκυνηγός is more common in hagiographies and chronicles throughout Byzantine literary history and in a variety of more ‘technical’ texts, such as the surviving excerpts from the astronomer Rhetorius and legal writings (Epanagoge, Basilica). The form κυνηγός also occurs in Digenis Akritis (cod. Escorial 616) and subsequently in many poems written in Medieval Greek (Libystrus and Rhodamne, Bellus Troianum, Callimachus and Chrysorroe, etc.). This remains true in Modern Greek also: κυνηγός is the standard term for 'hunter' and κυνηγέτης does not survive. The corresponding adjective is κυνηγετικόςκυνηγετικός, with a more common analogical variant being κυνηγητικός (based on other forms in -ητικός such as καθοδηγητικός). There is no trace of κυνηγικός, which appears to have been rarely utilised already in antiquity (see D.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A