φυγαδεύω
(Antiatt. φ 1, Phryn. Ecl. 364, Poll. 8.70)

D. General commentary

The Atticist entries collected in A. concern the admissibility of the denominative verbDenominative verbs φυγαδεύω: while the Antiatticist (A.1) and Pollux (A.3) apparently endorse it, Phrynichus (A.2), who probably conceived his entry as a response to that of the Antiatticist (see Latte 1915, 382), adopts a more cautious approach, expressing uncertainty about the acceptability of φυγαδεύω without, however, categorically rejecting it (see below for further discussion of this point; incidentally, the fact that in A.2 Phrynichus refers to a verb by means of the generic term ὄνομα, rather than ῥῆμα, the standard designation for verbs, is unsurprising: cf. Phryn. Ecl. 198Phryn. Ecl. 198, 253Phryn. Ecl. 253, 305Phryn. Ecl. 305, 317Phryn. Ecl. 317, 392Phryn. Ecl. 392, and 410Phryn. Ecl. 410, all entries in which ὄνομα unquestionably indicates verbs).

Before addressing the issue raised by the entries in A., it is necessary to make a few preliminary remarks on the formation and history of denominative verbs in -εύω (what follows is based largely on Fraenkel 1906, 172–224; Psaltes 1913, 316–21; Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,3, 138–40; Palmer 1946, 134–7; Schwyzer, Debrunner 1950, 732; Chantraine 1958–1963 vol. 1, 367–9; Risch 1974, 332–5; the reader is referred to these sources for further details). Verbs in -εύω originally derive from nouns in -εύς through the suffix -i̯e/o-: in the present stem, one would expect a first-person ending *-είω < *-eu̯i̯ō    (cf. Elean φυγαδείω), but -εύω was introduced analogically on the basis of the future -εύσω and the aorist -ευσα.

Verbs in -εύω spread largely by analogyAnalogy. Homer provides abundant evidence of this process, using verbs such as βουλεύω ‘to deliberate’ (< βουλή ‘council’), which is analogically modelled on verbs regularly derived from nouns in -εύς (see e.g. βασιλεύω ‘to rule’ < βασιλεύς ‘king’). Since many verbs in -εύω arose analogically from nouns in -ος and -η, they occasionally compete with derivatives in -έω and -άω. To take one example, Homer has both ἀγοράασθε (‘you speak in the assembly’) and ἀγορήσατο (‘he spoke in the assembly’), forms of ἀγοράομαι, but far more frequently uses ἀγορεύω (64x in the Iliad alone); the latter eventually became generalised in Attic.

As regards their semantics, verbs in -εύω usually denote the profession or activity indicated by their base form, essentially meaning ‘to be such and such’ or ‘to be active with regard to such and such’ (Palmer 1946, 134). Importantly, some verbs in -εύω have a causative meaning (cf. Fraenkel 1906, 200–3), as is the case with φυγαδεύω (though see below for further details on this point).

Verbs in -εύω are attested across a wide range of registers, from poetry – where they provide a convenient means of forming metrical doublets (see e.g. Chantraine 1958–1963 vol. 1, 368–9) – to technical prose. Owing to their versatility, they remained productive throughout the history of Ancient Greek, as demonstrated by the impressive number of new formations attested in Ptolemaic and post-Ptolemaic papyri (see Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,3, 138–41; Palmer 1946, 137). It is also noteworthy that -εύω came to be adopted, together with -ίζω, came to be used as a suffix for creating loanLoanwords translations of foreign verbs (including Latin ones: see e.g. ἀννωνεύομαι ‘to have as an allowance (annona)’ and cf. Lat. annonare ‘to pay earnest’; incidentally, both -εύω and -ίζω are still used in Modern Greek to create loan verbs in Modern Greek, alongside other suffixes: see Ralli 2016 for further discussion).

Turning now to our focus here, φυγαδεύω is first attested in 4th-century Attic authors (4x in Isocrates, see e.g. C.1; 6x in Xenophon, see e.g. C.2; once in Lysias, see C.3; it was also used by the historian Theopompus, according to A.1). It becomes increasingly common from the Hellenistic age onwards: as an indication of its diffusion in koine Greek, it is worth noting that φυγαδεύω occurs seven times in the Corpus Aristotelicum, 12 times in Polybius, and 55 times in Diodorus Siculus. Given its wide dissemination, it is unsurprising that φυγαδεύω gave rise to a number of derivatives: see φρυγάδευσις (sic), which is presented as equivalent to Lat. fugitatio ‘escape’ in Gloss. 2.473.37 (note that the spelling φρυγ-, whatever its origin, appears to be defended by Gloss. 2.473.36, re. φρυγαδεύω; Gloss. 2.473.38, re. φρυγάς; Hsch. φ 941, re. φρυγά = φυγή; AO 2.25.15, re. φρυγόων = φεύγων); φυγαδευτήριον ‘city of refuge’ (LXX+); φυγαδευτής ‘one who drives away smth.’ (Ast.Soph. +); and φυγαδευτικός ‘banishing’ (Clem.Al.+).

Literary sources usually attest a causative meaning of φυγαδεύω. In this regard, note that in A.2 the active φυγαδεῦσαι is mentioned together with the pass. aor. φυγαδευθῆναι, presumably in order to prevent the reader from interpreting the active form as meaning ‘to be an exile’. Rather than constituting a superfluous clarification, this may reflect the fact that, especially – though not exclusively – in non-literary registers, active φυγαδεύω could indeed mean ‘to live in banishment, to be an exile’ (see LSJ s.v. φυγαδεύω, II; cf. B.2). In light of this, one may suppose that, although uncertain whether to endorse the use of the verb φυγαδεύω, Phrynichus was nevertheless well aware of how it should be used by an educated speaker.

Interestingly, φυγαδεύω is virtually unattested in Atticising authors (Luc. Macr. 8.7 being the sole exception), who instead employ periphrases such as πολὺ γὰρ κρεῖττον φυγάδα εἶναι κτλ. (‘for it is much better to be an exile’ etc.; D.Chr. 46.12), φυγάδα με ἤλασεν Ὀδυσσεὺς ἐκ τοῦ στρατοῦ (‘Odysseus banished me from the army’; D.Chr. 59.8), φυγάδα σε ἐποίησεν (‘he banished you’; D.Chr. 64.18), φυγάδα ἐκβάλλει Ξέρξην ἐξ ἐσχάτων ὅρων τῆς Ἀττικῆς (‘he drove Xerxes as a fugitive from the remotest boundaries of Attica’; Aristid. 3.254 Lenz–Behr = 2.259.5–6 Dindorf), τὸν δῆμον φυγάδα ἀναγκασθῆναι τῆς πατρίδος γενέσθαι (‘[to the point that] the people were forced into exile from their homeland’; Aristid. 20.13 Keil = 1.434.15–6 Dindorf), and similar turns (cf. B.2, commenting on Aelian’s expression φυγάδα εἶναι). We may therefore conclude that Atticising authors deliberately avoided using φυγαδεύω.

This reluctance on the part of Atticising authors to use φυγαδεύω would be all the more understandable if positive evidence could be found that stricter Atticists firmly rejected it. Yet the picture that emerges from the entries collected in A. is more nuanced. While the Antiatticist (A.1) and Pollux (A.3) admit φυγαδεύω (the former on the basis of Theopompus’ testimony), Phrynichus (A.2) warns his reader that the verb’s admissibility remains sub iudice until evidence of its use by a canonical author is found. Phrynichus’ remarks therefore warrant closer scrutiny.

To begin with, A.2 may be compared with other entries in the Eclogue in which verbs in -εύω are rejected, often because the same meaning can be conveyed through a more established synonym or a periphrasis: see Phryn. Ecl. 143Phryn. Ecl. 143 (re. κλαδεύειν ‘to prune’ vs. κλᾶν); Phryn. Ecl. 328Phryn. Ecl. 328 (re. ἀναισθητεύομαι ‘to lack perception’ vs. οὐκ αἰσθάνομαι); Phryn. Ecl. 333Phryn. Ecl. 333 (re. μονθυλεύω ‘to dress with forcemeat or stuffing’); Phryn. Ecl. 365Phryn. Ecl. 365 (re. φρονιμεύεσθαι ‘to be wise’ vs. φρονεῖν); Phryn. Ecl. 368Phryn. Ecl. 368 (re. χρησιμεῦσαι ‘to be useful’ vs. χρήσιμον γενέσθαι). In light of these parallels, we may infer that Phrynichus’ reservations about φυγαδεύω ultimately stem from the fact that the meaning conveyed by this widespread derivative verb could readily be expressed otherwise (as illustrated by the aforementioned passages from Atticising authors; see also B.1 and B.2).

This, however, is not the whole story. Unlike elsewhere in the Eclogue, in A.2 Phrynichus adopts a particularly cautious attitude (as already noted by Chronopoulos 2020, 388, who draws a parallel between Phrynichus’ ἀμφισβητούμενον and ἀμφίβολον ‘doubtful’, a term applied in Poll. 6.1Poll. 6.1 to words whose Attic pedigree is disputed). Whether or not he was responding to the Antiatticist (Latte 1915, 382 argues that he was), there is no compelling reason not to take Phrynichus’ remarks literally and assume that he was genuinely encouraging further enquiry into the matter (this is probably also the case in Phryn. Ecl. 416Phryn. Ecl. 416, where he recommends verifying whether Favorinus is justified in using πενητεῦσαι ‘to be poor’ – or rather ξενιτεῦσαι ‘to live abroad, to be a mercenary’, according to the reading of some MSS; significantly, both verbs end in -εύω). Such a recommendation is fully in line with Phynichus’ general approach to linguistic phenomena: rather than evaluating morphological categories in the abstract, he consistently pays close attention to attestations in canonical authors, which he regards as a primary criterion for determining what counts as good Attic usage and what does not.

Bearing this in mind, we may venture a further speculation concerning Phrynichus’ entry. As noted above, φυγαδεύω occurs in Xenophon, Lysias, Isocrates, and Theopompus. Phrynichus could hardly have approved the verb on such grounds, since none of these authors appear to have constituted an indisputable authority for him (on Lysias, see Phryn. Ecl. 90Phryn. Ecl. 90; Ecl. 323Phryn. Ecl. 323; and entry ἀκολουθεῖν μετ’ αὐτοῦ; on the the attitude of stricter Atticists towards Xenophon, see most recently Favi 2024, 151–2, with bibliography; for what it is worth, Isocrates is never explicitly invoked as a model in the Eclogue). Yet, as Lobeck (1820, 385) and Rutherford (1881, 478) point out, φυγαδεύω also occurs twice in the speech Contra Boeotum 2 ([D.] 40.32 = C.4), which, although regarded as spurious by modern scholars, is included in the Corpus Demosthenicum: since Phrynichus would probably not have hesitated to adduce Demosthenes’ testimony in support of φυγαδεύω had he been able to do so, we must consider the possibility that he was simply unaware of the occurrences of this verb in the speech Contra Boeotum 2, at least when he composed the entry in question (this would be unsurprising: cf. Phryn. Ecl. 126Phryn. Ecl. 126 and 248Phryn. Ecl. 248, together with the observations of Fischer 1974, 44–5). Alternatively – and even more speculatively – Phrynichus may have regarded the speech Contra Boeotum 2 as spurious, just as he treats the pseudo-Demosthenic speech Against Neaera ([D.] 59) in Phryn. Ecl. 231Phryn. Ecl. 231 (see entry βασίλεια, βασιλίς, βασίλισσα, βασίλιννα).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

φυγαδεύω is well attested in Byzantine Greek: it occurs across a wide range of registers, and its legitimacy is never called into question, as is evident both from the fact that scholars and lexicographers employ it to gloss rare expressions (see e.g. B.2) and from its use in literary texts (including poetry: it occurs twice in Romanus Melodus). The verb generally retains its causative meaning, with rare exceptions: for example, in Ducas Historia Turcobyzantina 16.12 Grecu (15th century) it means ‘to be an exile’, as observed by Psaltes (1913, 321). In Modern Greek, φυγαδεύω survives as a learned form (see LKN s.v.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A