λαγῷος, λάγειος, λαγωβολεῖον
(Moer. λ 12, Moer. λ 14, [Hdn.] Philet. 24, Poll. 6.33)

D. General commentary

The entries collected in A. deal with the adjectives λαγῷος and λάγειος (‘of the hare’) and the compound noun λαγωβολεῖον (‘place where hares are caught’), all derived from λαγώς/λαγός, ‘hare’, on which see entry λαγώς, λαγός, λαγωός). These entries tackle issues of word formation, syntax, and semantics. Each entry has a particular focus: a separate analysis is therefore required.

Moeris (A.2) prescribes λαγῷος against λάγειος (see also A.4 and B.1), probably based on the occurrences in Aristophanes (10x, see e.g. C.1) and other poets of Old Comedy (C.2, C.3). However, the prescription of λαγῷος may also rest on morphological grounds. Indeed, λαγῷος presupposes λαγώς (see B.6), a form that belongs to the so-called Attic declension and is recommended by several Atticist sources (Phryn. Ecl. 156Phryn. Ecl. 156, [Hdn.] Philet. 29[Hdn.] Philet. 29, [Hdn.] Philet. 89[Hdn.] Philet. 89, Orus fr. A 66; for further details, see AGP vol. 2, Nominal morphology, forthcoming, and entry λαγώς, λαγός, λαγωός). On the other hand, the rare λάγειος, first attested in the Corpus Hippocraticum, is not found in Attic authors, while it occurs in later medical treatises (where nonetheless λαγῷος is also attested, apparently without any reason for the alternation between the two forms). As for Su. λ 15: λάγειον αἷμα· τὸ τοῦ λαγωοῦ (‘λάγειον αἷμα [‘blood’]: That of the hare’), the syntagm λάγειον αἷμα may come from a lost locus classicus, but it is also possible that αἷμα here is only a generalising term (cf. also [Zonar.] 1288.2: λάγειον. αἷμα καὶ κρέας, ‘λάγειον. [It can refer to both] blood and meat’).

As regards other derivatives and compounds with a first component λαγο-, note that they are rare and/or poetic in Attic authors (on this point, cf. entry λαγώς, λαγός, λαγωός), see λάγινος (‘of the hare’; Aesch. Ag. 119, lyr.); λάγιον (‘leveret’; X. Cyn. 5.13; this is an isolated use, noted by Poll. 5.15Poll. 5.15: τὰ τῶν λαγωῶν λαγιδεῖς καὶ λαγίδια, παρὰ Ξενοφῶντι δὲ καὶ λάγια, ‘The [offspring] of the hares [are called] λαγιδεῖς and λαγίδια, but in Xenophon [they are] also [called] λάγια’); λαγοδαίτης (‘hare-devourer’; Aesch. Ag. 123, lyr.), λαγοθηρέω (‘hunt hares’; Ar. Lys. 789, lyr.).

It is possible that both Moeris and the Philetaerus (A.3) independently abridged a source dealing with several aspects of the adjective λαγῷος (on the relationship between the two lexica, see Hansen 1998, 52–4; entry [Herodian], Φιλέταιρος (Philetaerus)). The Philetaerus, however, probably focuses on a syntacticSyntax issue, that is, the use of the adjective λαγῷος with the ellipsis of the noun κρέα (see also B.8). The compiler of the Philetaerus may have thought that such an ellipsis was typically Attic. Indeed, different kinds of ellipsis (omission of verb, noun, preposition) are considered characteristic of the Attic dialect in grammatical sources and lexica: see e.g. Prisc. 18.302.2–3 Rosellini (3.328.13 Hertz); schol. D.T. (scholia Londinensia AE) GG 1,3.464.16, schol. D.T. (scholia Londinensia A) GG 1,3.563.11–2; Phlp. in APr. 9.21–4; Phot. ν 87 (= Su. ν 136); Greg.Cor. De dialectis 2.46–69, Greg.Cor. De comp. 92–3, Greg.Cor. De comp. 379–83; Eust. in Il. 1.199.7–8, Eust. in Il. 1.378.14–5, Eust. in Il. 1.668.4–5, Eust. in Od. 1.382.16, Eust. in Od. 1.391.8–9, Eust. in Od. 2.60.19.

As far as λαγωβολεῖον is concerned, the meaning of Moer. λ 12 (A.1) is not easy to grasp. First, the entry, which bears a resemblance to Su. λ 26 (B.4), is reported only by codd. FLaur. plut. 91 sup. 10EVat. gr. 12, both of which belong to the so-called Vatican redaction and are absent from the Parisian redaction (represented by cod. CPar. Coisl. 345 and its apographs). Furthermore, the entry appears to have no prescriptive purpose. Its structure is that of an exegetical note and is not comparable to the usual bipartite scheme of Ἀττικοί versus Ἕλληνες. Based on these considerations, it is possible that the entry is an addition to Moeris’ lexicon. Further evaluation is problematic, however, since λαγωβολεῖον has no extant occurrences. It cannot be excluded that the information on λαγωβολεῖον ultimately comes from a non-Atticist source commenting on Call. Dian. 2, where λαγωβολίαι ‘hare hunting’ is found, or rather Theoc. 4.49 λαγωβόλον ‘staff or stick for flinging at hares’ – cf. schol. Theoc. 4.49c and schol. Theoc. 7.128/129b.

Notably, both A.1 and A.2 have the ‘non-Attic’ forms λαγός and λαγωός in the interpretamentum. However, this does not necessarily mean that both entries were based on non-Atticist sources, since the compiler may have simply transposed the Attic form into its non-Attic counterpart for clarity’s sake: cf. e.g. Moer. μ 10Moer. μ 10, where the ‘Attic’ μαχαιρίδες (‘shears, scissors’) is explained by the periphrasis μάχαιραι τῶν κουρέων (‘barber’s scissors’), even though in what follows μάχαιραι (which can also mean ‘dirk’, ‘sacrificial knife’, ‘dagger’) is rejected as ‘common’.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In Byzantine learned literature there are several compoundsCompounds with a first component λαγω- (mostly hapax legomenaHapax): see e.g. Theodorus Daphnopates Epistulae 14.23 Darrouzès–Westerink λαγωκτόνος (‘who kills hares’; 10th century CE), Cecaumenus Strategicon 2.42.4 Spadaro λαγωκάρδιος (‘hare-hearted’; 11th century CE), Manuel Philes Carmina 3.149.111 Miller λαγώτροφος (‘who eats hares’; 13–14th century CE). On the other hand, both λαγῷος and λάγειος occur in technical writings, albeit sporadically. The two adjectives are not attested in Modern Greek – where the standard form for ‘hare’ is λαγός. In addition, several compounds with a first component λαγο- are found in Medieval Greek, notably λαγόγηρoς (a rodent), λαγοκυνήγι ‘hare hunting’, λαγομαγείρευμα ‘dish made with hare’, λαγοράβδιν ‘a stick useful in hare hunting’, and λαγόφθαλμος ‘hare-eyed’, while in Modern Greek one has λαγοκοιμάμαι ‘to drowse’ and λαγοπόδαρο ‘hare’s foot’. However, as de Tocqueville (2021) notes, in Modern Greek ‘the old stem λαγω- is used in learned compounds in the medical vocabulary’.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A