γῦρος
(Phryn. Ecl. 393, Phryn. Ecl. 394)

D. General commentary

In this entry of the Eclogue (A.1) Phrynichus condemns Menander's use of the noun γῦρος, ‘circle’, arguing that it is so hideous that it stains his most beautiful comedy, The Woman-hater (C.2, on the comedy and Phrynichus’ judgement, see Lamagna 1993). Phrynichus’ criticism of γῦρος and Menander’s diction is repeated in A.2, in which it reaches its maximum development. The use of γῦρος as a synonym of κύκλος is also registered in Photius’ lexicon, which ascribes this use to a group of speakers labelled with ἡμεῖς, ‘we’: this suggests that the perception of γῦρος may vary depending on the lexicographer and his approach to linguistic correctness.

γῦρος, with the accent shift already noted by Eustathius (B.6), derives from the adjective γυρόςγυρός (‘rounded’, ‘curved’), which originates from the IE root *geu̯-/*gu̯- by addition of the adjectival suffix *-ro- (DELG s.v. γυρός, IEW vol. 2, 397–8); many parallels may be found in Indo-European languages – see, e.g., the Armenian kuṙn ‘curved’, with ū (for an exhaustive list, see IEW vol. 2, 397–8). The adjective itself is very poorly attested in early Greek: it occurs only twice in Homer, once as an adjective in Od. 19.246 (γυρὸς ἐν ὤμοισιν, ‘round-shouldered’, qualifying the herald Eurybates) and once as a toponym in Od. 4.500 (Γυραί, ‘Whirling Rocks’). Beyond these two occurrences, no further traces of γυρός are found until Theophrastus’ prose, in which we find both γυρός and γῦρος, the latter applied to the holes in the ground in which trees are planted (C.3; cf. see B.3, B.6). Thereafter, both forms are continuously attested, and the entire family of derivatives from γυρός appears to broaden in Hellenistic Greek, as is the case, for instance, with γυρόω (‘to make round’, but also ‘to plant’) and γυράλεος (‘round’). In its general meaning, γῦρος is used as a synonymSynonyms of the already classical κύκλος (‘ring’, ‘circle’), a noun that is extensively attested with a great number of specific meanings in various areas (see LSJ s.v.). The distribution of these two nouns turns out to be unbalanced in terms of both quantity and chronology (see E.). Quantitatively, their respective diffusions are incomparable with one another: whereas κύκλος counts more than thirty thousand occurrences, γῦρος has fewer than five hundred; on their chronology, see below.

The first issue that we must confront with respect to γῦρος is its relationship to γοῦρος, a hapaxHapax in Solon’s fragment (C.1, on the fragment, see Noussia-Fantuzzi 2010, 505–7). Whether this hapax is connected to γῦρος and γυρός is uncertain and much disputed. The word is otherwise attested only in erudite sources (B.4, B.7) and even there so scarcely that its authenticity has been questioned by West (see C.1). γοῦρος has sometimes been interpreted as a non-Attic form of γῦρος. Citelli (in Canfora 2001 vol. 3, 1671) suggests that it is a Doric or Boeotian form, while DELG (s.v. γῦρις) assumes that ου renders a Doric pronunciation of υ. A further possibility is that γοῦρος derives from IE *gou-ro-, with /o/ grade. This formation would be paralleled by the Armenian kor ‘curved’, coexisting with the form with ū, kuṙn (see IEW vol. 2, 398). Scholars connect γοῦρος to the word γῦρις (‘fine flour’, see EDG, DELG, and GE s.v.), mainly attested in technical prose, whose etymology is unknown: γῦρις is included among the non-Indo-European vocabulary of Ancient Greek by Camagni (2017, 25; 121), while it is tentatively connected to γυρός in DELG s.v. The meaning of γοῦρος has been disputed and scholars have suggested various possibilities, including a kind of pasta cooked with lentils (Citelli, in Canfora 2001 vol. 3, 1671) and a meat-dish (Hammer 1902–1903, 47). However, it is safer to stick to ancient erudition, which describes it as a kind of flat cake (πλακοῦς, B.4, B.7). Erudite sources also register forms of this noun with prothetic vowel and prenasalisation (see EDG s.v.) – ἄγγουρος (Hsch. α 401: ἄγγουρος· εἶδος πλακοῦντος, ‘ἄγγουρος: A type of flat cake’), αἴγουρος (B.7), and ἄγκουρος ([Zonar.] 23.6: ἄγκουρος· τὸ μελίπηκτον, ‘ἄγκουρος: A honey cake’) – all three virtually absent from literary texts (and not to be confused with the occurrences of ἄγγουρον ‘cucumber’ in Medieval texts). Guilleux (in de Lamberterie 2011, 336; 341) separates ἄγγουρος from γοῦρος and relates it to ἄγγουρα (but note that in Hsch. α 398 one finds ἄγγορα· ῥᾶξ, σταφυλή, ‘ἄγγορα: [It means] grape, bunch of grapes’; with ἄγγορα being a correction of the manuscript’s nonsensical ἀγγοραράξ; see also Hsch. α 394: †ἀγγεράκομον· σταφυλήν, ‘†ἀγγεράκομον: Bunch of grapes’). According to Guilleux, both ἄγγουρος and ἄγγουρα refer to two different meanings of τολύπη (‘ball [mainly said of yarn]’, but also ‘round cake’).

Lexicographical sources focus primarily on the semanticsSemantics of γῦρος (see B.1, B.2, B.3, B.6); only the pseudo-Herodianic Epimerismi (B.8) address the word’s spellingSpelling. Interestingly, forms with simple υ are contrasted with a word spelled with adscript ι (γυῖα, ‘limbs’), but in the Epimerismi, prescriptions involving υ typically refer to the disambiguation between υ and οι, which in late Greek had the same pronunciation /i/ (see e.g. [Hdn.] Epim. 10.5–12: πᾶσα λέξις ἀπὸ τῆς βυ συλλαβῆς ἀρχομένη διὰ τοῦ υ ψιλοῦ γράφεται· οἷον· βυθός […] πλὴν τοῦ Βοιωτία, χώρα, ‘All forms starting with the syllable γυ are spelt with the υ written simply, as βυθός [depth], […] except for Βοιωτία [Boeotia], the region’; on this use in the Epimerismi see LSJ s.v. ψιλός. See also Theognostus’ Canons [108 Cramer], where υ and οι are contrasted). The disambiguation between υ and ου, at a time when υ was no longer pronounced /y/ as it was in classical Attic, would make sense if applied to γῦρος/γοῦρος; nevertheless, it would be unparalleled in the Epimerismi. Therefore, B.8 may be concerned with the disambiguation of the various spellings of /i/.

Based on what we may deduce from extant sources, Phrynichus is unique among the Atticist lexicographers in dealing with γῦρος. A derivation of Photius’ entry (B.3) from Pausanias’ lexicon has also been tentatively suggested by Theodoridis (1982–2013 vol. 2, 371) since the previous gloss, Phot. γ 238, on γύρινος (‘tadpole’), derives from Pausanias (γ 15)Paus.Gr. γ 15. That some ancient sources treated γῦρος and γύρινος together is suggested by Eustathius’ testimony (B.6). However, it is impossible to prove whether Pausanias may also have dealt with γῦρος. Besides A.1, Phrynichus also mentions γῦρος in A.2, a piece of literary quarrel showing a strong authorial voice (on which see Tribulato 2014, 182). In it, Phrynichus rails against contemporary intellectuals who admire Menander, who was very popular in the 2nd century CE. This is one of the many glosses in the Eclogue that wages harsh criticism against Menander (see Sonnino 2014, 166–7; Tribulato 2014, 185, n. 50, for a list of glosses criticising Menander): here, γῦρος is listed, together with σύσσημον (‘signal’), πορνοκόπος (‘fornicator’; see entry πορνοκόπος, πορνοκοπέω), ὀψωνιασμός (‘furnishing with provisions’) and others, in an inventory of condemned words used by Menander. It is impossible to identify a context for the use of γῦρος in The Woman-hater (C.2), since it is mentioned out of context; moreover, Phrynichus himself claims that he (allegedly) fails to understand the word’s meaning. Although Phrynichus is most likely giving proof of snobbery, it is possible that Menander used γῦρος in an unusual context or sense. Kock (cf. CAF vol. 3, 97) proposed that in Menander’s play, the γῦρος was a feminine ornament (‘bracelet’ in GE s.v.), but this suggestion – like any other – remains speculative; according to Lamagna (1993, 65–66; 2004, 204) it is safer to suppose that Menander used the word in its rural meaning: ‘hole (for plants)’. An intriguing parallel for the first interpretation may be offered by Fronto. In Fronto’s passage (C.4), γῦρος means ‘shackle, chain’ applied to the feet, which impedes the stride and refers to the responsibilities that prevented Fronto from visiting Marcus Aurelius’ mother on her birthday. As noted by Castelli (2021, 155), this use of γῦρος may be numbered among the flaws of vocabulary that Fronto himself declares that he is worried about committing (cf. T2 45–7 Castelli = Caes. 2.3, 21.17–24.13 Van den Hout; remarkably, Fronto uses evaluative words that are no strangers to the Atticist lexicographers: τι [...] ἄκυρον ἢ βάρβαρον ἢ ἄλλως ἀδόκιμον ἢ μὴ πάνυ Ἀττικόν, ‘something improper, or barbarous, or unapproved, or not Attic at all’’). Incidentally, one may wonder whether Fronto’s use of γῦρος reflects that which he encountered in Menander (C.2), considering also the popularity that the playwright enjoyed in the imperial intellectual circles and that Phrynichus laments (A.2).

Phrynichus criticises Menander for using what he describes as κίβδηλα ἀναρίθμητα καὶ ἀμαθῆ (‘countless adulterated and unlearned [words]’). While ἀμαθής is somehow expected, the use of κίβδηλoς (‘adulterated’) is more remarkable. Applying κίβδηλoς to language, Phrynichus is drawing on a metaphorMetaphors from numismatics, since the adjective originally refers to coins whose silver content has been diluted. Although this metaphor is fashionable among Αtticising writers of the imperial period (see Lamagna 2004, 85–9), Phrynichus’ Eclogue is, to the best of our knowledge, the only Atticist lexicon that employs it as an evaluative term; aside from A.2, κίβδηλoς also features in Ecl. 268Phryn. Ecl. 268, 329Phryn. Ecl. 329 (see entry αὐθεκαστότης, αὐθέκαστος), 339Phryn. Ecl. 339, 348Phryn. Ecl. 348, and 389Phryn. Ecl. 389. κίβδηλoς expresses impurity and fraud and connotes that the condemned word lacks ‘the unadulterated purity of classical Attic’ (Kim 2023, 136): as demonstrated by Lamagna (2004), Phrynichus applies κίβδηλoς to words belonging to 4th-century BCE Attic, which have no claims to admissibility for a purist but might deceive less expert eyes.

Phrynichus’ proscription of γῦρος is unsurprising, since, in his eyes, the word could by no means claim an Attic pedigree. Menander’s use of γῦρος, attested by Phrynichus, is the earliest trace we have of the noun and its sole instance before its high number of occurrences in Theophrastus. γῦρος is frequent in koine prose: it often occurs, for instance, in the Septuagint (where it is used for the ‘circle of the earth’, ‘terrestrial globe’ – see e.g. Is. 40.22 – and the ‘circle of the sky’, ‘sky’s vault’, see e.g. Job 22.14), in Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, and Plutarch. The aforementioned synonymy of κύκλος and γῦρος, recorded by many glosses (B.2, B.4, B.5), also plays against the latter in the eyes of a purist such as Phrynichus. Among the two forms, κύκλος has an assured literary pedigree, being widespread from Homer onwards, while γῦρος virtually lacks any classical occurrences and was predictably judged to be inappropriate to high register by a strict Atticist (A.1, A.2), since it pertained to a more colloquial registerColloquial language. This may also be confirmed by Eustathius (B.6), if one assumes that κοινότερον is a register marker describing γῦρος as being more typical of common language than κύκλος and does not merely refer to the word’s most frequent meaning (note, however, that the passage’s translation given in B.6 follows the latter, more cautious hypothesis).

Even if γῦρος is not a Latin loanword, a further factor that may have contributed to tarnishing its reputation in the eyes of the Atticists is its homophony with the LatinLatin word gyrus (‘circle’), which is itself, in fact, a Greek loanword. In Latin, gyrus (‘circle’) has the technical meaning ‘turn’ and was originally applied to horseback riding; it then replaces circus in poetic contexts (see Biville 1995, 295; 297; 308 for the non-standard spellings girus, guirus, goerus).

Contrary to Phrynichus’ strict position, an entry in Photius’ lexicon (B.2) implicitly presents γῦρος as an admissible form (if, as is likely, behind ὡς ἡμεῖς ‘as we do’ conveys something tantamount to οἱ Ἀττικοί λέγουσιν, ‘Attic-speakers say’, as it is the case in Phot. ο 180: ὀκλάξ· οὕτως καὶ οἱ Ἀττικοὶ λέγουσιν ὡς ἡμεῖς, ‘ὀκλάξ [‘in crouching’]: Users of Attic also use [it] as we do’). Interestingly enough, Photius himself turns out to be one of the authors who use γῦρος most often, always (apart from the occurrences in the lexicon) in the meaning ‘terrestrial globe’, as in ὁ γῦρος τῆς οἰκουμένης (Ep. 284.58). One should not, perhaps, dismiss the possibility that the gloss (B.2) refers to this specific use of γῦρος for the ‘circle’ of the Earth and the sky, beginning, as we have seen, with the Septuagint and thus legitimised by the authority of the Bible in the eyes of the Byzantines. Remarkably Photius uses ἡμεῖς in both B.2, in which he highlights the continuity of the use of γῦρος meaning κύκλος, and in B.7, in which he explains γοῦρος with αἴγουρος (note, however, that this form, which one might expect to be more current, is, in fact, a hapax). The label ἡμεῖς is no stranger to the lexicographical tradition: it already appears in Atticist sources, for instance in Moeris’ lexicon (in which ἡμεῖς may substitute the label Ἕλληνες, see Swain 1996, 52) as well as in Herodianic and pseudo-Herodianic materials, and later surfaces in the expansions of the Synagoge (see entry ἀνεμιαῖος, ὑπηνέμιος). Photius’ entries offer a good example of how the label ἡμεῖς is used, either to highlight the continuity of the linguistic use under discussion (as in B.2), or to underline a difference in use (as in B.7). It is not easy to determine to which group of speakers ἡμεῖς refers, chronologically speaking: its use by scholars of the 2nd century CE warrants that the formulation Ἀττικοὶ vs. ἡμεῖς dates back to at least their time and that later scholarship retained this formulation and expanded its use. In any case, the use of ἡμεῖς in Byzantine lexicography may suggest that the items in question, even when they rely on earlier sources, also express the perspective of the scholars of that period, as the chronological distribution of γῦρος confirms. According to Sakalis (1977, 458) and Matthaios (2010, 92), Photius’ use of ἡμεῖς signals his agreement with the ancient scholars’ perspective and his adhesion to the Atticist ideology.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

The chronological distribution of γῦρος and κύκλος turns out to be unbalanced. κύκλος is frequently attested from the 5th century BCE to the 6th century CE (with ebbs and flows: in this range, the lowest setting reaches anyway 462x, in the 5th century) and, though being extant until the 17th century, its occurrences decrease significantly from the 7th century CE on. The use of γῦρος, on the contrary, increases over the centuries: after appearing in the 4th–3rd century BCE (13x according to TLG data), it surfaces again in the 2nd and 4th centuries CE (14x; 31x) and is thereafter attested continuously throughout the medieval and early modern period (see Kriaras, LME s.v.), with a peak from the 12th to the 17th century (according to TLG data, in this timespan it occurs 240x, that is, half of the total occurrences).

γῦρος is broadly attested in mixed- and low-register works whose language exhibits features that approach spoken Greek; it is only occasionally used by learned authors, such as Nicetas Choniates (Or. 3.25.7–8 van Dieten: ὡς τόξον περιαχθεὶς τῷ γύρῳ τῆς οἰκουμένης ‘like a bow drawn around the terrestrial globe’). γῦρος is particularly attested in 13th–15th-century historical works in the vernacular, such as The Trojan War, the Chronicle of Morea (2055–6: ἡμέρες πέντε ἐποιήσασιν οἱ Φράγκοι ἐκεῖ τὸν γῦρον | μὲ πόλεμον ἀδιάλειπτον, ἡμέραν γὰρ καὶ νύχταν ‘for five days the Franks laid the siege there, fighting increasingly, day and night’), and the Chronicle of the Tocco (3909: χωρίς τοὺς άλλους τoὺς πεζούς, ὅπου έδραμαν τό γύρω, ‘without [counting] the other infantrymen, who hastened from the surroundings’). The work that counts the highest number of occurrences is The Cretan War by Marinos Tzane Bounialis (17th century), thanks to the frequent use of adverbial phrases γύρου γύρου or γύρου τριγύρου (‘in circle’, ‘all around’, see LBG s.v. γύρου and τριγύρω).

Both γῦρος and κύκλος survive for ‘circle’ in Modern Greek (see LKN, ILNE s.v.). From γῦρος derive, aside from the adverb γύρω (‘around’), the very common verb γυρίζω (‘to turn’, ‘to return’, also γυρνώ) and the noun γυρισμός (‘return’).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A