$B 13 711

r>-'

'M^

:«-/•.!

#1^

LIBRARY

OF THE

University of California.

GIF'T OF"

jO>vv^. f.t^.'^(^^WS^ Ua<M/^.....

..'^y.o^'Vv^v^. ijy:^.

Class

7 51 7-

-& g-ig:

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2007 with funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/cynegeticusOOsandrich

THE CYNEGETICUS

DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF THE

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY IN CONFORMITY WITH

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

HENRY NEVILL SANDERS, M. A.

OF THE "

UNIVERSITY

C'F

BALTIMORE
1903

THE FRIEDENWALD COMPANY
BALTIMORE, UD., U. S. A.

■^afii ScSaoKaXiav Xeiporuoc olaeiv.

Pindar, Pyth. IV 102.

Vieillard ! tela m'ont parle ces pasteurs des humains
Nourris de ton esprit, elev6s par tes mains ...

Leconte de Lisle, Khir6n.

Alle snche dysport as voydith ydilnesse

Yt syttyth euery gentilman to knowe ;

For myrthe annexed is to gentilnesse.

Qwerf ore among alle op«r, as y trowe,

To know the craft of hontyng and to blowe,

As thys book shall witnesse, is one the beste ;

For it is holsum, plesannt, and honest

And for to sette yonge hunterys in the way.

To venery y caste me fyrst to go,

Of wheche .IIII. bestis be, that is to say

The hare, the herte, pc wnlfhe, the wylde boor also;

Of venery for sothe per be no moe.

And so it shewith here in portretewre.

Where euery best is set in hys figure.

Twici.
(Eng. version from Cottonian MS. B, XII Vesp.)

1>^'^-

THE CYNEGETICUS.

In the earlier years of modern scholarship the critical treatment
of the Cynegeticus was confined to attack upon its genuineness
as a work of Xenophon and resulted in athetesis in whole or in
part. More recently the work has been subjected to investigation
both from the point of view of philosophic content and from that
of stylistic detail. The two latter phases of criticism, thoroughly
worked out as they have been by modern scientific method, have
been altogether inconclusive as to the authorship and the date of
the treatise. Towards the solution of these difficulties, I pro-
pose to apply a fourth line of investigation, if possibly I may-
weave the results arrived at by my predecessors to a logical con-
clusion, by trying to determine more nearly the date of publica-
tion from literary allusion and the locality from topographical
consideration. In pursuance of this object I originally prepared
a somewhat lengthy dissertation dealing with the ethos of the
Cynegeticus in the form of a detailed commentary, at the same
time devoting much space to the articles of scholars relating to
the subject, and finally briefly indicating my own conclusions.
This dissertation was accepted by the Board of University
Studies of the Johns Hopkins University in February of 1903,
and should have been published forthwith, but considerations
arose which suggested the advisability of putting much of the
matter in the form of a text book,^ and in consequence I have
ventured to reconstruct the dissertation so as to deal exclusively
with the problem of authorship.

The plan of the Cynegeticus divides naturally into three
parts : — a proem 1 1-17 lauding venery at the time when Greek

iThis point must be emphasised, as the Board of Studies of the Johns
Hopkins University would hardly have accepted the dissertation in its pres-
ent form as adequate, nor would the writer have had the hardihood to offer
the same. On the other hand, in the edition proposed there may be much
to offend scholars who are not sportsmen, even as the Cynegeticus has
proved offensive being tentative in Greek Literature — on the border land
between a treatise and an epideictic effusion, holding a place as precarious
as the social prestige of a fancier.

6 THE CYNEGETICUS.

Chivalry sat at the feet of Oheiron the Centaur ; a hunter's man-
ual 1 18-XI 4; an epilogue XII 1-XIII 18 enforcing the value of
training in sport as conducive to soundness of mind and body,
and to capacity in military and political conduct, and further
attacking certain teachers of the school of i^bovr}.

In the last quarter of a century or so the upholders of athetesis
have been represented by Seymour, Lincke, Eosenstiel, Norden
(as regards the proem), and Richards (mentioned in this connec-
tion rather for his attitude towards Xenophon's works gener-
ally). With the exception of Norden, these writers incline to ac-
cept the work as Xenophon's with athetesis of later accretions.^

Seymour ^ for instance regards, with a few minor omissions, as
the work of Xenophon I 18-11 8, VI 7-16, VI 23-VII 4, VII 6
and 7, VII 9-IX 7, IX 11, 12, 17, 18, X 1-3, 19-23, XII 1-17.
He thus gets rid of certain touches of naturalistic humour, over-
interpretation of observation or quaint traditions of hunters' lore,
and their formulary concomitants of curious syntax, all of which
he regards as late, but which may be equally well supported as
survivals of antiquity or anticipations of later idiom. One must
remember that the sphere of the book, the sphere of venery, has
ever been a curious mixture of low relief and high rhetoric, of
antiquated terms and neological colloquialism.

K. Lincke^ condemns the authorities that catalogued Xeno-
phon's works in the Alexandrian Library among other things for
retaining the Cynegeticus in the edition "which forms the
foundation of all our MSS. without exception, with the spu-
rious introduction and conclusion." Incidentally the form of
the Aeneas legend points to the proem as having been written
before the Hid century.* A note on geography, a numerical
calculation, a detail of mythology at once reveals to him an
interpolation. "The genuine preface (I 18) precludes the possi-
bility of the work being that of a i/eawV/coy." Later Lincke* re-
ceived a further incentive to discuss the Cynegeticus from Rosen-

1 J. J. Hartman refuses to accept the work as Xenophon's, regarding it
as inconceivable that a sportsman should be responsible for it. See
page 13, note 1.

2 Seymour, Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. 1878, p. 69 flf.

3 K. Lincke, Hermes XVII. 1882. p. 379 f. Compare A. J. P. III. 199
footnote.

*Cf. F. Riihl, Zeitschrift fur die Oesterreichischen Gymnasien XXXI.
411 ff.

5 K. Lincke, Jahrb. f. CI. Phil. CLIII. pp. 309-317.

THE CYNEGETICUS. 7

stiel's Sondershausen Program. The author of Cyn. 1 1-17 and
XII, says Lincke, is still a schoolboy at his exercises. The
hunting treatise I 18-XII 9 may be regarded as a unity. Special
emphasis is laid upon the appendix XII 10 ff. which is a polemic
against interested rivalry —in the book trade. The sons of Xeno-
phon as pupils of a second Cheiron shared in the production of
the Oynegeticus or at least in the introduction and conclusion.
He contends that the hunting treatise and the remarks on the
existing Persian Polity were written by a single author who had
not studied much beyond the Oyropaedeia.^ "There are two
personalities, two individualities dissimilar in understanding and
X disposition as they are in language, whom we here see in faithful
singleness of heart busying themselves with copying Xeno-
phontean conceptions and showing peculiar activity in the dis-
semination of Xenophontean writings. The one writes for love
of his subject ; the other, some not ingenuous Athenian teacher
and literary man, from personal interest seeks morally to anni-
hilate his co-rivals for the favour of the wealthy, and in his pas-
sionate eagerness has made the modest author of the Anabasis
and Oyropaedeia a publisher of an impudent advertisement for
his own writings."

Eosenstiel,^ comparing the Oynegeticus with kindred writings
of Xenophon, had concluded that in the former Xenophon comes
forward as an instructor to young people; that young people
require the matter in hand to be objectively impressed on them,
while a manner of subjective suggestion is more in keeping with
the maturity of the readers appealed to in the Hipparchus and
de re equestri. The use of the infin.-imperat. is held by Eosen-
stiel to point to such effort for objectivity. He remarks that the
Oynegeticus was not intended for publication, or a large circula-
tion, the sketchy character of many passages being in evidence.
He is inclined to see an interpolator's hand where the author of
the treatise on the Sublime might see agreeable variation — e. g.
the change from singular to plural. He concludes that Xeno-
phon's audience was composed of his sons and their companions,
in connection with which he says : Darum kann ich mir wohl
denken, dass X., selbst ein zweiter Oheiron (Cyn. I 2), das, was in
Einleitung und Schluss zur Empfehlung und zum Preise der

iCf. K. Lincke, PMlologus 1901. p. 564 f.

2F. Rosenstiel, Ueber die eigenartige Darstellungsform in Xenophons
Oynegeticus, Program Sondershausen, 1891.

8 THE CYNEGETICUS.

Jagd enthalten ist, in abnlicher Weise seinen jugendlichen
Zuhorern, um ihren Eifer zu wecken, miindlich entwickelt und
dabei auch seine tiefe Abneigung gegen die damaligen Sopbisten,
die Lebrer einer falscben Bildung, ungeniert ausgesprocben bat,
und dass dies etwa von einem seiner Sobne der Jagdanleitung
hinzugefiigt worden ist ; fiir diese selbsh aber was die scbrif tliche
Aufzeicbnung geboten. The date of composition he sets at
384-383. The main part of the work contains no naive tone, no
fervor iuvenilis, and introduction and conclusion and certain
other passages are to be set down to an interpolator.

Norden ^ treats of the proemium of the Oynegeticus in that
division of the Kunstprosa which he entitles "Von Hadrian bis
zum Ende des Kaiserzeit," a position that has not failed to draw
comment from the critics. His whole treatment depends upon
Eadermacber's article then recently published, to the conclusions
of which he subscribes except for the date of the proem. This
be assigns to the Zweite Sopbistik. He quotes Cyn. I 3 and
adds: this affected modesty is however precisely one of the most
prominent and offensive properties of the style of the Zweite
Sopbistik. "Dass in solchem Stil ausschliesslich Vertreter der
sog. Zweiten Sopbistik gescbrieben haben, kann icb mit grosster
Bestimmtbeit versicbern." This is decided enough, yet the
Zweite Sopbistik is a phase of style not a period, and one may read
the entire book without being able to decide what limits in time
Norden sets to the Zweite Sopbistik. Pbilostratus ' writes:

TTfpi ^6 Alaxivov Tov 'ArpofJLTjToVy ov (f>afi€i' rrjs dfvrepas (ro(f)i<TTiKrJ5 np^ai

Yet Norden writes: Eadermacber urteilt (p. 36) vor dem III
Jh. V. Ohr. diirfte das Proomium scbwerlicb entstanden sein ; er
denkt also wobl an die altere asianische Schule und ziebt daber
Hegesias zum Vergleicb heran. Es lasst sich aber aus dem Stil
beweisen, dass das Proomium ein Product der Zweiten Sopbistik
ist. As a matter of fact if one reads Norden's description of this
altere asianische Schule be will think Eadermacber has good
grounds for his conviction. But Norden's criticism of Eader-
macber is apparently not merely a correction of the term " asian-
isch." He would relegate the proemium to the time when the
chase excited an interest such as we find in Arrian and Pollux.
Surely however if that is the case it is remarkable that Arrian
accepts the Proem as Xenopbon's. He would hardly have done

IE. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, Leipzig 1898.
2Vit. Soph. I, 18, 507.

THE CYNEGETICUS. 9

so had the author been within a generation or so of his time, for
he must have made some mark as the precursor of the New
Style \

On the other hand what Norden has to say of the early Asiatics
is more to the point here. " In their moods of soft, empty pathos
they broke up periods into short mincing sentences ; every sen-
tence had a strongly rhythmical cadence, clauses with ditrochee
^yj ^Z7 being an especial favourite and -^^^ -^^^ a form much
affected later." He adds that Asianism linked itself to old
Sophistic Kunstprosa ; further, " in their moments of bombast
they displayed a bacchantic, dithyrambic prose with the watch-
word of Caprice as Law Supreme."

In a series of articles that dwelt with the minor works
of Xenophon, H. Kichards^ has endeavoured to establish the
authenticity or spuriousness of sundry of the writings of Xenophon
from an exhaustive analysis of the diction. In the case of the
Oynegeticus he says : " The facts of language that tell against a
Xn. authorship are negative rather than positive." He takes
Cyn. I-XI to be genuine work of Xenophon. In XII and XIII
various things point to Xenophon as the author and there is
nothing that points the other way. " The preface is dithyrambic
in tone and poetic in expression (cp. CI. Rev. 1899, p. 347, col. 2),
but there is nothing in the vocabulary that is inconsistent with
Xenophontine authorship." In CI. Rev. 1899 p. 383 he makes
some critical notes on the Cynegeticus which may prove useful to
anyone editing the text but which do not concern us at present.'

The foregoing writers are representative of the school of partial
athetesis. Their methods have naturally points of contact with
the other lines of investigation we are now about to consider, but
for practical purposes the distinction is warranted by their
several conclusions. So far the manner of our author has been
considered ; the contents of the work and the style of composi-
tion, granting that after Gorgias matters of style in Greek Litera-
ture are thoroughly artificial, intentional and therefore capable
of statistical analysis, afford opportunity for a more material,

1 Compare Norden, p. 407 f. Gratius' Carmen Venaticum shows an ac-
quaintance with the Cynegeticus, yet it would be straining a point to see
an allusion to our proem in the opening address to Diana.

8 Classical Review 1898, pp. 285, 383. 1899, pp. 198, 342.

3 A similar remark applies to the article of van Herwerden, Mnemosyne
JN. S. XXIII, 1895.

lO THE CYNEGETICUS.

more scientifically tangible, investigation. The application of
comparative philosophy to the matter of the Cynegeticus is found
in the writings of Kaibel, Diimmler and JoeP.

G. Kaibel ^ begins by insisting on the versatility of Xenophon,
the diversity of the subjects on which he writes, and his adapt-
iveness to their sphere, his close connection with contemporary
literature and his susceptibility to external suggestion. While
admitting that the substance and the form of the treatise (in
entirety) are surprising, conforming but little to the picture one
has of Xenophon's manner of thought and expression, he denies
the probability of a careless interpolator on the grounds of the
harmony between the material and the linguistic mould in which
it is cast. That it is the product of a youthful Xenophon is
improbable from the words napaiv^ toIs veois, and also the poor
facilities for experience in hunting afforded by Attica possessed
by enemies'.

The Cynegeticus is primarily an encomium on the chase ; not a
technical treatise like the nepl iTrmKfjs, but rather analogous to
the oUovofxiKos, which is interpreted as an encomium on agri-
culture. It is also a defence of the chase against the attacks of
its opponents, and it is out of "this defence, the conclusion and
perhaps the most noteworthy part of the book, that there is
evolved an independent attack to which the chase but serves as
an accommodating bridge." The objection to the devotees of the
chase is really that the hardy hunters are a menace to rjdovrj.
The contrast set up between rjdovrj and novos would alone suffice
to reveal Aristippus as the opponent engaged. To Xenophon the
OeXfiv noveiv is the Way to virtue, the proof of which, neither
very clear nor very deep, goes hand in hand with the Prodicus
chapter directed against Aristippus in Memorabilia II 1.

Turning to the introduction Kaibel finds that the colourless
sketching of the heroes no less than the lack of variety of inven-
tion, hints at want of practice on the author's part, but the tone
and impress of the whole section does not to his mind fall far
short of Isocrates' manner, e. g. in Panath. 72. The position of
Oheiron with his twenty-one pupils is an advance on that

1 It is a matter for regret that Gomperz or some Philosopher conversant
with the Hippocratean Corpus has not treated the Cyn. comparatively.

2 Hermes XXV 1890, p. 581 f.

'A point more than once insisted on by Mahaffy, himself no mean,
sportsman.

THE CYNEGETICUS. II

accorded him by Homer, where he is SiKatoraros Kevravpav, or on
his presentation as the huntsman, as plastic art of the Vlth cen-
tury represented him. The aim of Cheironian education is
Virtue, the medium of education Toil and Work. Here, too,
Xenophon is limited by an influence from without. Antisthenes'
Herakles^ shows a surprising similarity to the introduction to
the Cynegeticus; in it Antisthenes wished to demonstrate the
theme t6 kut dpfTrjp C^v is the reXosy making use also of the
theme on 6 nopos dyadov. The theme was worked out in his
Great Herakles. By not borrowing mechanically for his cata-
logue of heroic pupils Xenophon protests against Antisthenes'
interpretation of the Homeric diKaioraros K^vravpav, Xenophon has
no place for Herakles the Hero of Cynic Doctrine; he would
not have put him among the pupils of Cheiron eyen if the legend
had already admitted him in that circle. Kaibel touches on the
possibility of Antisthenes' having introduced a ^poftja-is in per-
son; this would lend poignancy to the ironical thrust in Plato
Phaedr. 250 d, and Xenophon's intent in maintaining that 'Aper^'
become human would be like the Loved One before whose eyes
the Lover is bashful about doing or saying anything ugly, would
be to fight Aristippus with Antisthenes' weapons, at the same
time not sparing criticism of his fellow scholar.

This being so, Kaibel continues, the work was not written by
Xenophon in his early days, nor in the Vth century at all. The
attack on the sophists in chap. XIII is directed against the
sophists of the Grorgianic school and, combined with them, cer-
tain philosophers, the false in contrast to the true philosophers.
Isocrates nepl dpTi56ae<os is similar. The /^arata censured by
Xenophon (Oyn. XIII 2) may well be identical with the /xaratoi
\6yoi of Isocrates XV. 269. To obtain a wordy commentary on
the few sentences of Xenophon one has but to write out the half
of the Antidosis oration.

After the attack on the Hedonists and sophists, Xenophon com-
pares hunters and rovs fVt nXfope^Us «<^ lopras, the politicians
who turn their public activity to their own advantage. The
fact that a strained transition from the sophists to these people
who are ruined by their influence is considered sufficient, points
to Isocrates XV 274 being already in the author's mind. Iso-
crates in a similar train of thought comes quite naturally to the
.same sentiments. Kaibel then compares the method of treatment

iDummler, Akademika, p. 192. ^Cyn. XII 19, 20.

12 THE CYNEGETICUS.

adopted by Xenophon and Isocrates, and concludes: "This cor-
respondence of thoughts which are as simple and natural in Iso-
crates as in Xenophon they are forced and artificially introduced,,
I can only interpret in one way, that Xenophon was' under the
influence of the Antidosis speech and in consequence could not
have written the Oynegeticus before 353 B. 0."

The genuine relations between Xenophon and Isocrates are
now touched upon. The warning of Isocrates in XV not to treat
him as a second Socrates could not fail to attract Xenophon's
attention. The intellectual kinship, the bent towards philosophy
as they understood it, the respect for apfrr} and ttoVo?, certain
national political views held in common must bring the two men
together, and Isocrates would hardly have written a memorial
oration on Gryllus after the battle of Mantineia if the father of
the young hero were indifferent to him. Xenophon in his later
writings takes over isolated expressions of a general nature from
Isocrates with little alteration ; the Agesilaus and the Evagoras

show points of connection. So u6poi shows the influence of
\ » ^ 1

ntpi €ipr)pri5.

Diimmler ^ agrees with Kaibel that the Oynegeticus is a genu-
ine work of Xenophon, but takes exception to his finding of an
opposition to Antisthenes on his part. The most important work
however that has recently appeared treating the Oynegeticus
from the Philosophic side is that of Joel,' whose second volume

1 In this connection one might with propriety quote the conclusion of J. J.
Hartman in his brief chapter on the Oynegeticus (Analecta Xenophontea
nova, 1889, ch. XV, p. 351). Non Xenophon libri auctor est sed 'I<To/cpa-
Tidev^ quidam qui arroganter et rixantis in modum loqui a magistro suo
didicit. An improbabile videtur eiusmodi puerum in Isocratis alicuiuB
sinu educatum venationis f uisse peritum ? Sed peritum re vera eum f uisse
quis unquam demonstrabit? Venatoresne? At pauci illi sunt inter philo-

logos This criticism is doubtless legitimate from the European

point of view where such sport is conventional, and is in the attitude of
Plato who regarded riding to hounds alone as worthy of a gentleman. But
in the less conventional hunting of our backwoods, where * any old dog '
will do for deer running provided he follows the standard laid down in the
Oynegeticus, we get many points of contact with the sport depicted by our
rebellious author, and just as quaintly humorous stories of the ways of
the animals, just as unintelligible directions for the making of traps ac-
companied by obvious directions for their setting.

2 F. Dummler, Philol. L 1891 p. 288.

«Der echte und der Xenophontische Sokrates von Karl Joel, Berlin 1893,.
vol. II Berlin 1901.

THE CYNBGETICUS. 13

is dedicated to the memory of Diimmler. Ills theory is that with-
out an understanding of Antisthenes we fail to understand
Plato's opponent and Xenophon's original. The use Joel makes
of the Cynegeticus in his endeavour to elucidate Cynic doctrine
may be surmised from the fact that in his first volume he refers
over forty times to that treatise for support to his argument,
while in his second volume more than 260 references may be
counted, extending to every chapter in the book, although
naturally the first and the two concluding chapters occupy his
attention most. He considers the Cynegeticus as we have it the
work of one man, and that man Xenophon. Critics, he allows,
have doubted the authenticity of the Cynegeticus and especially
that of the two concluding chapters, utterly blind to the fact that
in the entire Xenophontean corpus there is almost no passage so
personally characteristic, "so subjectiv grundlegend, so confes-
sionsmassig," as chapters XII and XIII of the Cynegeticus
(I p. 68).^ In I 418 Joel touches on the attitude towards
Palamedes in Cyn. I 11, and in Mem. IV 2, 33 fi*. In the former
Xenophon is recognized as being more independent, in the latter
as dependent on Cynic sources. In I 511, 512, 530, Joel treats of
fTrt/iActa, ao-/«7otc, novos, drawing attention (p. 512) to the worship
of' Heroic Chivalry in Antisthenes, which is interesting in view
of Cyn. I.

On Antisthenes Joel (vol. II p. 53) remarks : To the champion
of la-xvi and dperf) tcov cpyav, haunted perhaps by the hunting
instincts of his mother's country as by a romantic dream, it was
not hard to recommend the chase not merely on hygienic and
gymnastic grounds, but also precisely as a training towards

ey/cpareta and /caprepia. The Cynic (p. 57) led from naideia to apxTj

through f-y/cparfta, the Cynic Cyropaedia from hunting to Kparelp
through the same medium ; similar are the tenets of the frame in
which the Cynegeticus is set, where Xenophon professes the
evdvfMijixaTa of the Cynic (l>i\6(jo^ot, although later viewing them
more critically, and enthusiastically follows the Herakles of
Antisthenes in praise of the naib^ia of Cheiron, of -novos, even as in
the discrimination between </>i'Xot and avrliroKoi G'x^pot Cyn. XII f.

1 One might quote Th. Gomperz, Griechische Denker II p. 96 : Ein
Fachmann war Xenophon in sportlichen Dingen, als Jager und Reiter, und
die drei Schriftchen, welche er diesen seinen Lieblingsthemen widmete (das
"Jagd" und das "Reitbuch" und das Buch " Vom Reiteroberst"), gehoreh
in der That zu dem Besten, das aus seiner Feder geflossen ist.

THE CYNEGETICUS.

Diog. Laert. Diogenes VI 11 f. 105), a differentiation which is
best understood by comparison with dogs.

Joel (II 67) considers that it shows the utterly hypnotic
influence of the Cynic that the sport-loving Xenophoh does not
squarely declare hunting to be an end in itself, but defends his
passionate devotion to the chase on paedagogic grounds. In
keeping with the theory of Mem. Ill 4, 12 is the remarkable
refutation in the Cynegeticus of the objection that huntsmen
neglect to. oUcla; but, runs the answer, the oUe^a and the .7roXtTi<a
(^Koiva rd rSav <f)i\a>v !) are identical as interests, and the identity of
the economic and martial calling had already been developed by
Antisthenes in the case of the Kvav who is at once watchdog and
hound (II 70, 71).

On p. 105 we have citations to show that novos is the all-
dominating motive in the Cynegeticus, the treatise dependent on
the Herakles of Antisthenes; Cyn. XII ^ is wrongly athetised
owing to misconception of Cynic education and Xenophon's
nature. One might almost infer (from p. 110 ff.) that the Cyne-
geticus had for its motive (fyiXoTrovia, the Cyropaedia and Oeconom-
icus iniixfXeia. On p. 302 he touches on the Antisthenic Herakles
being devoted to the praise of novos and the struggle against
Cyrenaic r)8ovri (cp. p. 501 anm.). This supports Kaibel's view of
the Cynegeticus. In tracing'^ the connection between Xenophon's
Cynegeticus and Antisthenes' Herakles he maintains that the
epilogue of the former is without connection except as interpreted
through the latter. He also alludes to the figure of Arete
incarnate.

In view of the last section of Cyn. XIII where women also are
partakers of the gift of the chase, it is worthy of note that the
"Antisthenic Protagoras" preached to women also, and that
Antisthenes moreover said (Diog. Laert. VI 12) : dvdpos koI ywaiKos

rj avTrj apfri), and f] yvvaiKeta (f)v(ng ovdev xeipatv ttjs tov dvdpos ova a

Tvyxdvei. The Antisthenic theories on the value of good stock are
treated on p. 360. The author of the Cynegeticus insisted on
purity in the breed of hounds, and the dog afforded a simile ready
at hand to the Cynic. Even Diogenes used to take his pupils
out hunting (Diog. Laert. VI 31).

The language of the Antiphon fragment in lamblichus is
worth studying (pp. 674, 690). The occurrence of av-privative,

1 For the value of ndvoi and Cyn. XII see Joel pp. 378, 382.

2 P. 297.

THE CYNEGETICUS.

of compounds in ev- and 0tXo- and of substantives in -fia is notice-
able also in the Cynegeticus. Joel would have the Antiphon
fragment to be the work of Antisthenes and draws attention to
its correspondence with passages in Cyn. XII, XIII.

On Mem. Ill 11 Joel remarks: "... und nun wird die
Hasenjagd in einer Weise als Vorbild gepriesen und genau be-
schrieben, dass man die Freudeund diehelfende Hand des Autors
des Cynegeticus und des praktischen Waidmanns Xenophon
spiirt . . . Der Jagdhund fiir Freunde: das ist der Gegenstand
dieses Oapitels, wie der Wachterhund gegen Feinde der gegen-
stand von Mem. II, 9, und das sind ja die zwei Seiten des
Kynischen Ideals."

Associated as he has been with TJsener in the editing of
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and himself the editor of Demetrius,
De Elocutione, Eadermacher is a fitting representative of the
Stylistic criticism of the Cynegeticus. His article ^ shows all the
acumen of one intimate with the Greek Khetoricians and modern
methods of statistic. Whether this combination is ultimately
capable of producing a scientific criterion one may not yet
determine. Dionysius himself in deciding the genuineness of a
Lysian writing leaves final decision to an undefined aestheticism.

To Kadermacher the defenders of the genuineness of the
Cynegeticus are apparently in a numerical majority, only some
regard the book on linguistic grounds as a youthful writing of
Xenophon, while to others inherent features point to the author
being a mature man. Already cited as Xenophon's by Plutarch
(Mor. 1096 c), no one in antiquity seems to have expressed doubt
of the genuineness of the book. The testimony of Trjphon
(Athenaeus 400 a), and the fact of the treatise being included in
the corpus of Xenophon's works in the Alexandrian Library is
recalled. Since Valckenaer's time the grounds of all considera-
tions have been essentially based on linguistic and stylistic
phenomena, while the practical objections have been mostly of an
indefinite and general kind.

Leaving aside the Proemium for later consideration, Kader-
macher commences with an analysis of the sentence construction.
The author is representative of the Xt^is ftpofievr}. Parataxis is
preferred as against Hypotaxis ; so much so that the balance of
the clauses often results in ambiguity. Partiality for parentheti-
cal accretions is manifested in the striving after tabulation of

iL. Radermacher, Rhein. Mus. LI, 1896, p. 596; LII, 1897, p. 13.

l6 THE CYNEGETICUS.

ideas. His participial constructions are a token of the stylistic
trend of the author. Xenophon's manner is contrasted, especi-
ally in the technical treatises. Again in the Cynegeticus paral-
lelism of the members of a sentence lead of necessity lo Homoi-
oteleuta that could hardly be avoided. They are not to be
recognized as a definite striving after Gorgianic art. A Parisosis
that really strikes the ear occurs only in XII 13.

With the author of the Cynegeticus Antithesis with Chiastic
arrangement of words forms almost a mannerism ; a noticeable
peculiarity is his predilection for Asyndeta and Appositional
construction; similarly an impression of alertness and pregnancy
is conveyed by the Infinitive for the Imperative ; a seeking for
brevity is also betrayed by his ax^nara ano koivov. In chapter V a
remarkable vacillation between the generic singular and plural
is noticed by Rosenstiel ; the occurrence of such phenomena
throughout the book precludes the theory of interpolation ;
rather are we to think of a negligent or unpractised stylist.
Xenophon's use of figures is contrasted. Anaphora, common in
Xenophon, occurs twice in the Cynegeticus. Chiasm is rare in
Xenophon, whose use of Asyndeton is also moderate. His
expansiveness does not lead one to expect elliptical expressions.
He has made as rich use of tropes as of figures.^

The Cynegeticus is poor in connectives, but Radermacher does
not insist on this point as Roquette^ finds the same criticism true
of the commencement of the Hellenica, and on that ground
assigns both to Xenophon's youth.

The plea^ of the Cynegeticus being an encomium and therefore
showing a differentiation in style is according to Radermacher
not well taken. He holds that the unity of the style which is
characteristic enough excludes the idea of a revision of a gt^nuine
work of Xenophon — it could only be a case of complete recon-
struction. The arrangement of the book is not strikingly bad; it
is not improved by the excision of minor portions. There are two
probabilities: either the book originated in a time when Xeno-
phon wrote in a style differing from that of the rest of his writ-
ings, or it is spurious.

In the former case the development must have been marvellous.
The treatise shows numerous, often signal divergencies from

iSchacht, De Xen. studiis rhetoricis, Diss. Berl. 1889.
3Roquette, De Xen. vita, 1884. He holds that the Cyn. was written at
Athens before 401 — prob. in 402 (p. 52).
aKaibel's.

THE CYNEGETICUS.

Xenophon's usage. Radermacher investigates concisely the use
of words in the Oynegeticus. He notices a striking mixture of
poetic and vulgar words which one could hardly ascribe to
Xenophon; some of these recur in un-Attic prose. The number
of compound words is also noticeable. A comparison is
instituted with Xenophon's writings. The Infinitive-imperative
is common in medical treatises of the time, but not in Xenophon;
the use of the accusative of terminus ad quem, of transitive verbs
as intransitive, occasionally the use of prepositions calls for
oomment.^ While in Syntax generally the Oynegeticus shows no
important deviations from the language of the IVth century, the
usage of words is often vulgar and to be met with in the koiv^,
and on the whole there is enough material to warrant an athetesis
of the work. The manner of expression seems in many instances
borrowed from the language of the people; some syntactical
peculiarities may be derived from the same source. It differs
distinctly from the language and style of Xenophon.

After thus treating of the Grammatica, Eadermacher intro-
duces other criteria for the genuineness or spuriousness of the
book. Greece proper today contains no bears. Brehm (Thier-
leben II p. 215) to the contrary. Heuzey denies their presence
in the vicinity of Olympus and Hirschfeld in Arcadia. They
must be admitted to exist in the Balkans. Aristotle's informa-
tion as to bears refers to the Balkans and Asia Minor. To the
author of Oyn. XI 1, they were eV ^hait x^P^^^- ^^ *^® vicinity
where the hunting treatise originated ^ there were no bears. That
vicinity was on the coast. The author knew islands where there
was excellent hare hunting, probably the Oyclades. There is
nothing against Attica as the home of the author. The law
against vvKTepcvrai (XII 6) is certainly fictitious, although Plato
(i/o/^oi 824a) contains a similar allusion, and Isocrates (Areop. 148 e)
reco,^nises that in ancient Athens hunting played an important
part in the education of the young.

The author's personality is defined more precisely than his
home. He is proud of being l8io}Tr]s and has a poor opinion of
TToXiTtKoi. yet considers it the highest duty for the citizen to be of
use to his country. Work alone leads to' Virtue, hence the value
of hunting. The pleasure-seeker is neither wise nor useful.

iBut cp. Dionysius. Hal. Ep. II ad Ammaeum 7, and generally for marks
of Thuc, i. e. early, prose style.

2 That is of course the treatise in its present form.

l8 THE CYNEGETICUS.

The author knows his shortcomings as a writer. He pays tribute
to the ideals of the philosophers but attacks the sophists fiercely.
While an avijp ipayriKos he is a pious man. He has a touch of
superstition as has every true Waidmann. He is not' a partic-
ularly prominent man. He knows not the aristocratic riding
to hounds which alone was recommended by Plato. Xenophon
on the other hand was a noted horseman, and his Cyrus hunts
hares and lions on horseback. While allowing the value of the
chase as an education, Xenophon does not see the foundation of
all aptTT} in hare hunting. About the year 400 the theme of
hunting was more exploited than we generally recognise. The
education of the young was also prominently discussed at this
time. In Eep. 535 d^ Diimmler has good grounds for seeing a
reference to, a stricture on, Antisthenes, with whom -nnvos alone
led to ap^ri], and who wrote a Herakles in which Oheiron played
an important part. There is no necessity to see a reference to

Xenophon also. In Oyn. XII 10 (Xeyovo-t bi nves ays ov xph ^P"" kvvt}-

yeaiap) Aristippus in all probability is meant, as Kaibel conjec-
tures. The chase afforded a common topic among those interested
in education.

From certain other considerations Radermacher is enabled to
date the treatise more exactly. In chap. XIII yvapr) is synony-
mous with voTjixa and (v6vprfp.a, is opposed to ovona, yvcjfXT] as opposed
to ovofia is impossible after Aristotle or perhaps even after Isoc-
rates (Arist. Rhet. 1394 a). The particular use of the word
yvatfit) speaks for the antiquity of chap. XIII ; antiquity is also
demanded by the context. The author has more in mind than a
description of the apparatus for hunting. Not being an encomium
the Cynegeticus does not stop at the Xllth chapter. The point
at issue is the education of the young. In maintaining the thesis
that apiTTi is the object of education, that the path to opiTrj is
through TTovoi, and that therefore hunting is an especially excel-
lent means of education, he must necessarily protest against his
opponents. The contrast between hunters and TroXiriKoi leads to
a recommendation of hunting as an education.

Containing as it does detailed instructions for the practice of
the chase, and insisting on the importance of the chase for moral

^irpuTov fiEV elnov <pi7iOTTOvia oh ;^a)Aov del elvai rbv dipdfievov^ ra fiev fjfjLiaea
<j>t?i67rovov rd de rjfiiaea airovov • kari 6e rovro, brav tic (pi^Myv/nvaar^g /lev koX (piTiO-
Brjpor y Kal Tvavra to. 6i.d rov oufiarog <}>ch)Trovy^ <j)i^o/J.a6^c ^^ H-V H-^^^ (pOvrjuooq fiTjSe
^TjTTjTiKog d/l/l' kv rrdai rovTotg /icaoirovy.

THE CYNEGETICUS. 19

and athletic education, the treatise constitutes a whole, and
(chap. TI to chap. XIII) is to be assigned to one author. It is
unlikely that Xenophon as a young man of at most twenty-eight
years could write the treatise, nor could one still be veos when he
dictates with such confidence to those who are no longer boys but
young men. Xenophon's polemic is never wounding. If the
attacks on the sophists are due to iuvenilis ardor Xenophon must
have been a very unpleasant young man.

In the Oynegeticus 0tXdo-o</)off and aocpiaTifs are sharply differen-
tiated. Radermacher, proceeding from von Wilamowitz (Aus
Kydathen, p. 215), concludes that Plato is responsible for the
distinction, aocf)iaTTJs being the general term and </)iXooro<^of and
iTo(f>i<TTrjs having a fundamental difference only to a narrow circle
to which Xenophon did not belong. It is only in his latest pro-
duction, TTopot (V 4), that Xenophon introduces <^i\6ao(^oi and a-o<J)ia-
ral side by side in mentioning various callings. That Xenophon
should make the distinction in his earliest writings and neglect
it in the Anabasis, Cyropaedia, Symposium and Memorabilia i&
subversive of all historical principles.

If Xenophon had actually composed the Oynegeticus as a
young man, he would have the honour of having created the word
(rocfyia-TiKos. Rather it is an invention of Plato which occurs in
the Gorgias with other formations in -ik6s, and is much used in
Platonic writings as opposed to a-o<p6s. One understands Cyn.
XIII 7 only by comparison with Plato Soph. 268 b. The writer
of the Oynegeticus was under the actual influence of Platonic
Doctrine. The Hunting Treatise cannot be a youthful pro-
duction of Xenophon, and it stands formally in most decided
contrast to his later writings. Radermacher therefore concludes
that Xenophon is not its author.

Hipparch. I 1, Oyn. II 1 ; XII 1, Apol. VI ; Oyn. XIII 2,
Mem. II 7, 3 ; Oyn. XII 5, Oyrup. I 6, 37, bear on the whole too
external a resemblance to draw conclusions from. Just as hazard-
ous is it to build on references to Isocrates — the opinions are
hardly original with Isocrates, and the formal similarity is
unimportant. The attack on the sophists has only point for a
period when there were still sophists in Plato's sense of the word.
To the sophists of the Hunting Treatise cultivation in rhetoric
is but secondary, they are primarily occupied with other scien-
tific problems (Oyn. XIII 2). The treatise in its latter part as
Kaibel notices is strongly influenced by Oynic Doctrine. He has

20 THE CYNEGETICUS.

rendered direct reference to Antisthenes probable. Taking all
in all we arrive at the first half of the IVth century. Theo-
phrastus apparently knew the work (de plant. X 20. 4, Cyn. V
1-5 ; de plant. XI 5. 6, Cyn. VIII 1).

Having thus determined on the date and decided on the spuri-
ousness of the Cynegeticus (II to XIII), Eadermacher investi-
gates the Proemium (I 1-17). Arrian knew the proem, Philo-
stratus doubtless made use of it in Heroicus X. On grammatical
and linguistic grounds there is nothing to force us to set its
origin in a later time. The construction of the sentence is
simple. Hiatus is not suppressed more than otherwise in the
Cynegeticus. Instances occur of Asyndeton, Chiasmus, Ana-
phora, Paronomasia, Homoeoteleuta, of Antithesis, Zeugma,
Parenthesis. Simplicity of expression, however, is decidedly
sought after. The rest of the treatise is compared.

As regards the peculiarly rhythmical form: the ends of the
cola are carefully constructed, the ditrochee, especially beloved
by Asianic rhetoric, is conspicuous, 26 or 27 examples; Eader-
macher adds a table of feet employed. Aristotle only recom-
mended rhythmical form for the beginning and end of the period;
it was apparently only later rhetoricians that attempted to
extend rhythmical forms throughout in colon and period. It is
a peculiarity of Asianic style to employ rhythms conspicuously
in prose. In this the Proemium is no exception. The order in
which the heroes are introduced is due to a desire for rhythm.
The form of the Aeneas legend is no criterion for age as the
argumentum ex silentio is questionable. The aceonnt of Pala-
medes is opposed to that in Xenophon Mem. IV 2, 33. The
proem of the Cynegeticus is nothing else than a masterpiece of
rhetorical imposture like those demanded by Dionysins of Hali-
carnassus (de Dem. 1094). To ascribe it to the worthy that
wrote the remaining chapters would be a blunder. Lon^ before
the appearance of Usener's Gotternamen (p. 158) Ka<1ermacher
had concluded that we have here a genuine piece of Asianic
eloquence. This Epideixis can hanlly have originated before
the Hid century B. c. Its author had inserted Tov (-nf^iriinft^v in
XII 18. In short: die gespreizte Ansdriicksweise, die Kiihn-
heit der Worts tel lung, die auffallenden Kolenschliisse, die Ehyth-
men, endlich die kecke Mythengestaltung — sollte das nicht
Ehetorik und zwar eigenartige Ehetnrik sein ?

OF THE

UNiveasfTY

THE

In reviewing the evidence offered in the foregoing articles, I
^m inclined to take the following view. While allowing that
Rosenstiel is right in recognising the Oynegeticus as a scholastic
treatise written for boys, I cannot accept as proved his idea that
the circle for whom it was composed consisted of Xenophon's
sons and their companions. Rather than with Lincke find in the
author a schoolboy still at his exercises, I would consider him a
man who understands boys and assumes their ethos. Moreover I
think one is justified in regarding the Cynegeticus as we have it
as the work of one man, who however compiled from practical
and theoretic sources the various divisions of his book. There is
nothing to prove that these sources were not written prior to
Xenophon's activity as an author, while there is much to show
that Xenophon in other writings is a plagiarist. It is not neces-
sary to suppose that compiling a treatise somewhat of the order
of a school program, albeit a program of a new school, must have
left traces of its style in more mature work. On the other hand
the department of venery is likely to induce a sympathetic
author to cast his work in a language and ethos suitable to the
occasion ; the occasion not being repeated the treatise remains an
isolated instance of a potential department of literature. On no
other occasion does Xenophon allude to hunting at sufficient
length to warrant the introduction of a cynegetic mannerism
that would necessarily appear grotesque in another environment.
As antiquity decided that the work was Xenophon's we may not
on the existing evidence assert positively the contrary unless we
can also assert that Xenophon as a young man could not have
brought himself to reproduce or recast the work of predecessors.

In the matter of date I am inclined to place the Cynegeticus in
its entirety earlier than Radermacher would allow. It is not
necessary to wait for the Gorgias to create the word aocfyiariKos.
Words in -ikos were a mannerism as early as 424 b. c. when
Aristophanes in tlie Equites (1358 follg.) ridiculed the affecta-
tion. It is significant that this arch humorist suggests the

remedy (1383) /x/j At dXX avayKaa-oi Kwr^yijclv iyio rovrovi anavras. So

too the differentiation of Sophist and Philosopher may have been a
transient pha^e of Xenophon's intellect. Men drift apart from
the philosophy they ardently espouse as young men before world-
liness makes them practical. The argument that later on
Xenophon does not appear to have been in the inner Platonic
.circle, does not preclude him from once having imbibed influence

22 THE CYNEGETICUS.

from a common source, and made a point of the distinction be-
tween the terms. To the practical man with *'the dust of
campaigns still on him" the distinction may not have appealed
in the years of discretion. I doubt if such would appeal with
sufficient force in the present day to convert a military writer of
occasion, a contributor say to a popular magazine, into a purist
or a pedant. Radermacher makes a point when he remarks
that Chap. XIII is early because the use of -yceo/ii; as opposed to
ovoyia is impossible after Aristotle, perhaps after Isocrates. Oa
the other hand when considering Kaibel's views of the depend-
ence of the Cynegeticus upon Isocrates we may not neglect the
fact that Isocrates' method of maturing his own work and
elaborating the thoughts of others makes him no sound criterion
for a terminus ante quem non. Be it observed too that the
attack on Hedone in the Cynegeticus leaves unnoticed the tran-
scendental interpretation of Hedone in [Isocrates] ad Demonicum.
On the modern method of arguing therefore the conclusion of'
the Cynegeticus was written before that paraenesis. Sandys
appears to have good grounds for dating the ad Demonicum before
the commencement of the IVth century. Both works readily
lend themselves to the office of a school program. Both have a
touch of Cynic influence, an almost necessary symptom in educa-
tional matters at the close of the Vth century. On the other
hand the similarity between the motif of the Cynegeticus and
that of Antisthenes' work may be due to the Northern origin of
both, but this is to anticipate.

I hold there are some grounds for considering that one of the
most considerable sources from which the writer of the Cyne-
geticus drew was a work on hunting or perhaps merely natural
history written in the North, possibly in Thrace but more likely
in Macedonia. When one thinks of Protagoras and Democritus
one need not be surprised at educational movements coming from
the North. We are prepared by Aristophanes in the Nubes
(b. c. 423) to look for a new movement in education — nothing
less than seminary methods applied to biological investigation.
A passage in Aelian points to the North as the field of such inves-
tigation. We read (V. H. IV, 19) that Aristotle owed his oppor-
tunity for biological study to Philip of Macedon. Aristophanes
has already assured us that the experimental science of the
"Melian" Socrates was not a natural or congenial growth in
Attica. Joel maintains that under the Socrates figure Aristoph-

THE CYNEGETICUS.

anes ridiculed Antisthenes. Now Antisthenes' mother is said to
have been a Thracian. In the popular parlance of the day that
term might be translated " Biddy." Had the lady in question
been any Northcountry woman the gibe would have been irre-
sistible to an opponent. Joel further maintains that Antisthenes
derived his impetus towards the introduction of athleticism into
education from the hunting blood of his Northern forefathers.
Such considerations confirmed my expectations of a Northern
origin of the Oynegeticus, and I shall endeavour to support my
hypothesis on internal evidence.

Meanwhile one more point requires some attention. Possibly
because it can readily be detached from the rest of the book
without materially injuring the contents thereof the proem has
fallen a prey to the athetiser without much sympathy. Eader-
macher sees nothing in the linguistic to point to a date later than
that of the rest of the manual. On rhythmical grounds however
he feels justified in assigning a comparatively late date to its
production. 1 would like to suggest that from one point of view
it is eminently fitting as an introduction to the treatise, that is
the point of view of an educationalist of the latter part of the
Vth century. I have elsewhere — in a paper read before the
Classical Olub of Philadelphia — endeavoured to show that the
Cheiron figure of education gave before the Socrates figure. On
this supposition the proem of the Oynegeticus is only suitable
when athleticism was a new movement in education, i. e. when
the effects of the plague at Athens on the physique of the rising
generation were alarming the educationalists of Attica. The
dithyrambic effect of the prose is suited to the surroundings of
the original treatise if such emanated from the North. The
versification noticed may be unconsciously due to the theme, or
it may be an art that did not conform to the Attic standard; why
a piece of prose written elsewhere should so conform is not
evident.

Interesting as it might be, one may not compare the Pseudo-
Xenophontean Eesp. Ath. with the Oynegeticus simply because
both may be early prose. The former is written by a man of the
world blase as a London Oxonian and full of blague as any
Athenian, while the Oynegeticus is written by a non-conformist,
to whom recognition has not yet come. He does not yet own a
hunter.

24 THE CYNEGETICUS.

With these preliminary remarks I shall turn to the question of
possible allusion to the Oynegeticus in Classical Greek, and to
the internal evidence for an origin in the North.

Kaibel has already brought to notice the parallelism between
Oyn. XIII and Isocrates XY, rrcpl avrtSdo-eo)?. He held that the-
former is unintelligible without the explanations in the latter.
Eadermacher can interpret Cyn. XIII 7 only by comparison with
Plato, Soph. 268 b. We may not however decide that a Greek
needed the periphrasis of Isocrates or the lucidity of Plato ; as
well might we conclude that Aeschylus and Pindar were unin-
telligible until Protagoras began syntax. Isocrates cannot be
relied upon in establishing dates. His method of maturing his
writings for long years before publication, his acknowledged
tendency to repeat extracts from his former essays, his very
position as teacher of epideictic commonplaces precludes us from?
giving unqualified admission to his evidence. We dare not allow
moreover that a master of expression like Isocrates would be
incapable of recasting an apophthegm, even a crude one, into a
rounded period.

After all, where a work contains no specific allusions to matters
of history the only satisfactory means of dating its production
short of a definite statement of a contemporary authority i&
allusion to its contents. If considerations lead us to suppose
with Eadermacher that the Oynegeticus had already been pub-
lished before the end of the first quarter of the IVth century, we
cannot wait for Plutarch (Mor. 1096 c) to allude to Cyn. V 33 as^
written by Xenophon. On the other hand the Oynegeticus in its
present form confessedly written for the young is not likely to be
quoted by men of mature habit of mind unless the author
thereof be already a man of reputation. When the author
becomes famous or when his readers in turn become writers, we
may look for allusion. We may expect the allusion to be faint;
we shall not be disappointed. Besides this reminiscential liter-
ary illusion in the present case if the book had any scientific
value we should expect to see statements quoted or combated in
technical works unless the author has tempered his matter too
successfully to the young brain he addresses.

An allusion to the Oynegeticus in Theophrastus would be
highly satisfactory. Eadermacher however questions : Ob unsere
Schrif t bereits dem Theophrast vorgelegen hat ? Man vergleiche

THE CYNEGETICUS.

de C. pi. 19, 20, 4 oUre yap depovs tvo(rp.a CsCll. to. t\pr]) ovre )(€ip,a>vos
oUtc rjpoff dWd p.ii\i<TTa tov (pBivonapov. )(€ip.S>vos fifv yap vypuy Oepovs 8
av ^riptivdevTOf Sio Koi p.€(Tt]n^pLas x.^ipiaTa. tov h rjpos al roiv avBiatv
oapai nap€voxKovaiy to Se peToncopov avppeTpop €^€1 npos arravra Tr]v Kpaaiv

mit Cyneg. 5, 1 ;^ft/ic3»'off pev oSv 7rpa> ovK o^ei avTCiv, dann 5, 2-4 iiber
die verse hiedenen Niederschlage, welche die Spur verwischen,

welter 5, 5 r6 de eap K€Kpap4vov Tjj aypa KaKas irapexi^i to. t^vr) Xaprrpa nXfjv
et ri 17 yr] e^avBovaa /SXurrTfi ras Kvvas els to avTO avppiyvvovaa Ta>v dvOSav
ra? 6(jpds» Xfrrra be koi d(ra<f)rj tov Oepovs' didnvpos yap ovaa fj yrj dcfiaviC^i
TO Oeppou o e\ov(Tip' eart yap Xctttov* • tov 8e peTond>pov KaBapd' oaa yap rj
yrj (pepei, to. pep rjpepa irvyKeKopia-Tai, Ta 8e dypia yrjpa SiuXcXurai. Offen-

bar hat Theophrast den Inhalt der Stelle sehr genau wiedergege-
ben ; nur verraisst man fiir sein bio Ka\ pea-rjp^plas xfipto-'-a etwas
Entsprechendes. Aber das stebt unmittelbar vorher im Ueber-
gang vom vierten zum fiinften Kapitel : dyeoOaaap 8e Oepovs pep pe'xpi
peaTfp&pias. So beruhren sich auch Theophrast a. 0. 19, 5, 6:

dia TovTO Ka\ TO. ix»''7 '■^i' y^aySip evarjpoTepa -^eKanQepTa paXaKoas vn avT^p
Tr]P Kvprjyiap Und Oyneg. 8, 1 l^peveadai 8e rovs Xayois orap pi<pr) 6 6e6s
&<rr€ rj(f)aPL(rBai Tr)p yrjp' el 8 epeaTai /Lie\dy;^t/xa, bva^rjTrjTos eaTai, Eln

sicheres Urtheil lasst sich freilich aiich nicht hier gewinnen.

Ein sicheres Urtheil — unfortunately not. Yet candidly I
must confess that it is the most tangible allusion to the Cyne-
geticus I can find in the literature of this period.

Besides the apparent cross-references in Xenophon and Iso-
crates already noticed by Kaibel — and we must remember in that
case we have to deal with the amenities of fellow- demesmen —
I venture to draw attention to the following passages : Cyn. lY 1
in connection with Simon and Xen. de re equestri, II 3 in con-
nection with Plato, Kep. II 375, IX 12 and Hypereides, portions
of IX and Eur. Bacchae, XI 3 and Demosthenes.

In Cyn. IV 1 in the enumeration of the points of a well-bred

hound, we have the expression o-kAi; noXv peiCa> rh omaBep tS)v

epTTpoa-Bep koi e-rrippiKpa. enlppiKpos L. and S. translate " shrunk
up," "relatively lean" says Dakyns in his translation. To
describe the effect one might suggest couchant expectant. We
know the Greeks had an eye to form and often caught a pose
where our eyes are too matter-of-fact. One has but to see a
pointer handled to catch a judge's fancy, or for that matter any
fast animal on the alert, to appreciate the appearance of the

1 Notice that Aristotle (sens. 444 a 32) held that man alone enjoyed the
faenlty of smelling flowers.

:26 THE CYNEGETICUS.

shoulder being the highest point behind the neck, and this I take
it is the significance of tnlppiKPos. With the author of the Cyne-
geticus the eye is a well-trained judge. Symmetry is a component
part in the summing up of the ideal dog, IV 2 (as of the hare V
30), aavufierpoi are the mongrels III 1 and 3, prj da-vfxp^Tpos, ship-
shape, the arrangement of the nets in II 7. A similar appeal
to the eye is, perhaps naturally, noticeable in the opening of
Simon's treatise nep] cl8ovs ko) eVtXoy^? ittttwi/,^ the book on which
Xenophon based his De re equestri .... 8ok€i <de> poi -mpX iTrmKrjs

•^HtnaK^TTTeov ilvai^ npStTov, <C6i rty^- eni6vp.fi eldevai KaXms tovto to
pddrjpa. <CtrpaiTov pev ovv XPV^ '"'7'' narpida yiyvwaKCiVf a>s ecrriv Kara, ye
r^v 'E\\d8a x^pf^v KpaTiarTt] f] QeaoaXia. to de ptyedos Tpia twv ovopaToav
enibexfTai' peya, piKpov, (vpeyfdeSf tj €i jSouXft avppeTpovy Koi S^Xov f0 ov
rav oi/opaTtav app6(T€i tKuaToy. KpaTKnov de ep navTl ^(C<o rj (Tvpp^Tpia,
Xpoa 8e ovK e;^o) iTrrrav dpiTrjv opia-ai. SokcI de poi Spas <Cx"''"'?^ ^'"^f
Spoxpovs eo-Tiv avTrj eavT^ oXrj koL evOpt^ pdXiaTa dplaTr) eivai a)s eVi ■<Ct6'^

TToXv, <6Tt 8e'> rj Troppcoraro) ovov Koi rjpiovov. Symmetry then occu-
pies a prominent place with Simon. The passage contains other
more interesting points of contact with the Cynegeticus. In the
first place the mention of the locality of the breed as a recom-
mendation. In Oyn. X 1 hounds are known as 'ivSiKai, KprjTiKai,
AoKpideSf AuKaipai, in III 3 they are diJfferentiated as KaaTopiai and
aXoTTCKiSe?, pure-bred and mongrels. The author continues in X 1

irpcoTov pev ovv xph *t»'Ot fds Kvvas ck tovtov tov yevos pfj Tas eiriTvxovaaf
Iva cToipai So-i noXepdv ro) 6r}pi(o. Pierleoni '^ writeS ^^IvbiKi'is . . .

\oKpl8as secludam," oblivious to the obvious reference in Philo-

StratUS EiKoveSf KT), 2vo6TJpai, "ypa^ei 8f) AoKpidas AaKalvas 'ivdiKas

KprjTiKds" Dakyns expresses himself as at a loss to understand
rovTov. Diels suggests tovtodv tov yeVoff. They omit to notice that
mongrels are referred to, III 4, as €< twv ovtcov kw^v (i. e. dXa-rreKl'
da>v — dioTi €K Kvvmv re Koi dXantKidcov eyevopTo III 1), the pure breed In

III 11 in the phrase oias Se del elpai tov avTov yepovs Td t€ eidrj kqX to.

aXXa, (f>pd(r(o. Aristeides (rex- pf/r. Sp. II 534, 27, a testimonium
omitted by Pierleoni) quotes the passage in X 1 as tos kvpus UdaTov
ycpovs, which certainly is a correction that an editor of the Cyne-
geticus should not have failed to make whether in Classical,
Koman or Modern times. But where are the Castorians ? Where

1 Eugenius Oder, De Hippiatricorum codice Cantab rigien si, Rhein. Mus.
LI 1896 p. 67, for the text. In this passage the corrections are those of
Blass.

« Xenophontis Cynegeticus rec. Ginus Pierleoni, Berl. 1903.

THE CYNEGETICUS.

are our dtrra yevr)? Where we left them in chapter III and where
they lie buried until they receive a memorial tablet in the Antho-
logy—a cenotaph indeed.^ In spite of III 4, I am tempted to
see in III 11 a local allusion edited out of recognition. The
humour of the " two sorts of dogs " demands that the author of
the passage should own the Castorian Kennels or be master of
chase to the Castorian hunt. Must the Castor of III 1 be a god
— may he not be a local genius — a dogman ? Failing that may
we look for Castoria on the ancient map ? Indifferent to the
prejudiced claim our author makes for his breed, Aristotle says
all " Spartan hounds " went back to a fox cross — all showed a
dip of the brush as we might say.

Be this as it may, dogs are classed by locality, and locality is a
prime recommendation to Simon. But not colour. In the de re
eq. Xenophon looks at a horse's foot first — a criticism on Simon.
He does not mention colour except once quite inappositely, 1 17,

TToXX^ yap TrXfioi/cff evxpoacrroi e^ alaxp^v V ^'^ Toiovrav alaxpoi yiyvovrai.

The word has given trouble to editors. With the author of the
Cynegeticus it is different. Compare the following, IV 6 : fvrpixfs

df, €av exoxTi XenTfjv koi TTVKpfjv koL fiaXaKrjp rrjv Tplxa» to. 8c ;fpa>/iaTQ ov
Xpr] tlvai Tccp Kvvav ovrf nvppa ovt€ fieXava oUrt XevKo. rravTfkcos' eari yap
ov ytvvaiov tovto^ aXX' dLirKovv Ka\ Brjpioidest ai fiep ovp irvppai exovaai €<tt-
axrap Xcvktjp rpixa fTrapBovaap Trept ra Trpoaana Be it further

observed that Simon uses the Inf.-imv. in €tra (viroba etvat, albeit
Oder adds " certe 8f7 vel xpv supplendum " ; the imv. in -aap occurs
in a passage rejected by Blass — the sole case of a plural imv. in
the fragment. When we remember the difference of subject and
of audience* there is a curious similarity between the treatise of
Simon and the Hunter's Manual.

Plato makes many whimsical allusions to Cynism generally
but in the following I think I detect an actual allusion to the
wording in the Cynegeticus. Our author (II 3) requires of the
Keeper (dpKucapd?) that he be eXa(f>p6s, laxvpos, ^vx^v 8e iKaposj in
order that he may take pleasure in his work. He chooses Indian
dogs for deer hunting because they are laxvpai, fxeydXai, irodmKeisy

ovK n'^vxot' adding e^^ovorat de ravra iKopal yiypopjai rropeip (IX 1 Cp. I V

2), I trace a reference to the former passage in Plato, Eep. II 375^

1 Nicander of Colophon, Pollux V 40. Anthol. Pal. 6. 167.

2 Cp. Xen. de re eq. II 1 : ttoXv 6e Kpelrrov rov Tcuko6dfivriv elvai rtfi fiev veo)
tve^iaq re sTrifieleladai rfJQ eavrov koX 'nnriKyg ^ eTnara/xevu t]6j] LTTTcd^eadai (leXerav -
T(f) 6e TTpea^vrepo) rov re oIkov kui tcjv (j>i?ujv Kal rwv tvoXltikuv koX rav TvoAeficKuv
fiaXhjov ^ dfj.<pl TTuTievaiv SiaTplfietv.

28 THE CYNEGETICUS.

Otet ovv rt, ^u b eyco, 8io(fi€p€ip (f)v<riv yevvaiov (TKvXaKos els <po\aKr)v vcavla-
Kov €vy€vovs', To TTolov Xeycis', Olop o^vv rt ttov bei avroiv eKarepov elvai
npos atadrjaiv Kiil eXa(j)p6v npos to alcrdavofievov biooKaBeiVj Kal I a ^v p 6 v

av, iav birj ekovra biapdx€(r0ai. We note however iu Plato the ab-
sence of the Cynic test of man and dog which is a prominent
feature in the Oynegeticus, viz. cfyikorrovia. This quality is, how-
ever, not lost sight of in Rep. 535 d already quoted.

In Oyn. IX 12 we have an intricate description of the
TTobocTTpd^ai used for deer, an intricacy not elucidated much by
Pollux V 32 as far as their manufacture is concerned. Harpo-
cration s. v. noboaTpd^m and the Etym. M. both couple the names
of Hypereides and Xenophon as using the word. This has led
Revillout to reconstruct a passage in Hypereides V 18 as d\Xa koI

TTfWf rdKavTa 7rpoaa(f)ei\ov p.€ &unip vnoxeipiov ev TToboarpa^ij elXrjfxfxevovj

a reading virtually accepted by Weil, Blass, Sandys (CI. Eev.
1895 p. 71 f.) and generally. The young rustic, plucked by the
*' wily Egyptian " and a courtesan is now in the toils of the law.
The reference certainly gains point when the contrast is made
between the helplessness of the victim and cumbrousness of the
machine as described by our author. Although the simile was
used by Hypereides also in his speech against Autocles (frg. 62),
the argument for a reference to the Cynegeticus is somewhat
weakened by frg. 34, where (in his speech against Aristogeiton
made memorable by the words cVeo-Korfi fxoi ra UaKebSvav onXa) we

read av be S> OvXmave el rfjp yaXedypav ^rjTelsf exeis.

If one reads Cyn. IX on the hunting of fawns and then turns
to Euripides Bacchae 862 he will note many points in common,
but will also note that Euripides (1. 870) considered that fawns
were caught by means of nets. I have elsewhere (Studies in
Honor of B. L. Gildersleeve p. 447) hinted that the presence of
the dpKvapos in Cyn. IX 6 would be sufficient to mislead a poet
who, like his friend Socrates, was not a sportsman. In connection
we may reflect that the Bacchae was written at the close of Euri-
pides' life, for Archelaus and a not altogether congenial Mace-
donian audience, on a theme that was the mainspring of the
Macedonian nationality, and that in the play, which has often
been held to constitute a manner of recantation, he advises his
audience to abjure rationalism and stick to their hunting.^

1 Compare 1852 elde Trdlg kfibg eWripoq elrj, /irirpoic eiKaadelg rpoTzoiq . . . aXka
deofzaxelv fiovov olog r ekeIvoc and cf, Tyrrell Introd. p. XVII, Mahaffy Euri-
pides, p. 85. One would expect the brother of Cynegeirus to use hunt-
ing metaphors correctly. In Eum. 112 I am inclined to take apKvafj.druv, even

THE CYNEGETICUS.

In XI 3, of big game, we read to. de avrav Kara^alvovra cts TO Tr(8iou
rrjs PVKTos anoKKtiadivra fxera imrup Koi ottXcov dXiaKerai, us Kivdvpop Kadia-

TCLPTa Tovs aipovpTus. Demosthenes, whose metaphors from hunting
are usually confined to cases where the management of affairs
has passed beyond Athenian control,^ employs the metaphor of
ircpi(TToixlO<^0ai in 6. 27 and in 6. 14 we read of Philip aXX* i^iaaBx}

pi] Ala (tovto yap €<r6' vrroXoiTrop) /cat rrapa ypa)ixr}Pj rav ©fTraXeSv Imreav
Ka\ Tap Qr)^ai(op OTrXtrcoi/ €p fiea-a Xi;0^eiV, (rvp^x^PW^ ravra. xhc pas-
sage in Demosthenes — dWa shows it is hypophoric — gains point
if we suppose the reference is to the lion of the North coming
down from his fastnesses and caught on the plains; it gains
further point if there is a hidden menace to the captors as indi-
cated in the Cynegeticus. To my mind innecip koi ottXito^p ep ixeaa

\r}<f)d€is is a classical prose translation of aTroKkeKrdePTa /xera tnirap

xa\ onXatp dXiV/cerai.^ As the big game is the subject of the sentence
fiera Cannot be translated precisely unless in the sense of ep /xcVw,
that is in what we are led to consider its earliest significance.'

3fC 3fC 3fC 3|C 3|C

If the Cynegeticus appeared in Attica in its present form with
or without the introductory chapter in the first quarter of the
IVth century and the writer was already well on in years, where
did he acquire his intimate knowledge of hare hunting and deer
running ? The falling off of the hare in Attica may be a comic

in spite of 145, as of the human net of beaters. The word kyKaTi?.?Mipag im-
plies a personified, sentient net at the side ; the exasperated hunter does
not notice the eye of the escaping deer but the adieu he waves with his
tail. Sophocles is more to be trusted in this respect. Agamemnon sinned
against Artemis, against Sport, because he shot an e?ia<pov that was at once
CTiKTOQ Kal Kepdarrjg, and therefore probably a pet animal of the Persian
variety. Compare Pindar 01. 3. 29 where Gildersleeve comments : *< Mythic
does have mythic horns."

iDem. 3. 3 to. irXeicj tcjv irpayfiaTiov rjfiag EK7re<j>evyevai cf. 14. 15, 18. 33.
Cf. 4. 8 KaTETZTTjxt /iiivToi TTCvra, ibid. 9 kvk2m iravraxi fi^'^'^ovTaq W^^ '^^^ /cai?7-
/levag -rrepiOToixK^Tai. Harpocration s. v. TrepiaTOLxil^erai refers to this passage
and elucidates from Xen. Cyn. (VI 5 and 8).

^onTai for oTz'kiTaL Soph. Ant. 115. (ttoA/Iwv //e^' okTmv ^vv 6^ iinroKd/ioig Kopv-
deaai) and Thuc. 'nnroc for iTnrog = iwrr^g is apparently not used by technical
writers.

3 Cf. Monro Tlom. Gram. §§ 193-6. Of course I recognise that while
fiiaog seems to be related to Sk. m^dhya, it is convenient to associate fierd
(Indo-germ. Forsch. Ill 199) with L. peto. rredd. I am inclined to think
that with the two usages of ficrd we have to do with homonyms.

THE CYNEGETICUS.

jest/ but Attica possessed of enemies was no place for a sports-
man. On the other hand there is a wealth of observation
quaintly incorporated in the Oynegeticus, as true to life as the
picture of poor Wat in Shakespeare.'^ Again where did he get his
information on deer hunting, which is carried on by stalking
or trapping but not by netting? Not from the Poets, Pindar
with his horned doe, Sophocles with his utiktos koI Kepda-TTjs, Euri-
pides with his netting of fawns ; not from Attica, we may infer.
There is little in the Oynegeticus to indicate topography, but
that little is significant.

A qualification for the Keeper in Oyn. II 3 is that he speak
Greek. This may refer to the selection of a slave, but the idea of
a p€os — and to such the book is directed — ^taking out a slave who
could not understand what he said is preposterous. The keeper
is probably a habitant and speaks a dialect not recognized by the
philologians of the time as Greek, a patois. The qualification
points to the North.

In V 22 Hares are divided into two species — bvo Se koI to ydvrj

ea-Tiv avrtov^elsewhere (III 1) it was said to. 6e ycvrj T<ap Kvvav fWi

dirrd — one larger, darker approaching the shade of ripening olives

(JiriivepKvoi, Cp. PolluX V 67, cort be tovto nepKPrjs eXaias to ctSoy, ovt

ofK^aKos €Ti OVT fjbr} fieXaipofieprjs) with a Comparatively large white
blaze on the forehead, the variation in colour including the
whole tail (kvkXco 7repnroUi\os)f cyes inclining to yellow (vTroxdponoi)
ears showing plenty of black. The other species is comprised of
smaller hares, inclining to light brown Qni^avdoi), with less white
on the forehead, tail white at the side (^oifpd is used throughout),
eyes inclining towards blue,^ less black about the ear. We are to
infer that the big hares are most common in the highlands, the
smaller on the islands — we are given reasons for this. There is
perhaps another reason the author does not give, viz. that the
highlands were nearer Central Europe, the islands in Southern
Europe. Hares differ in these regions.*

* Of Nausicrates.

2 See Paul Stapfer, Shakespeare and Classical Antiquity, trans, by E,
Gary, p. 136. "The too caressing boar who killed Adonis with a kiss had
not been seen out hunting as the hare had."

^ vTToyTiavKoc \ as in viroxaponoL and x<^po^oi III 3 one may suppose that it
is the slight predominance of these pigments that determines the colour.
I observe that the lion's eyes are yellow, the leopard's blue. According to
Scholiast to Lycophron ;^dp6)v was the Macedonian for lion.

* Possibly a slight clue to the locality of the hunting ground might be
traced from the atmospheric conditions. From Cyn. VIII 1 we learn that

THE CYNEGETICUS.

1 have already referred to the possibility of the apKvcapQiy the
keeper, the guide, speaking a patois (Cyn. II 3). Indications of
this patois may perhaps underlie the name nokvs and the tech-
nical term ;^apo7roy.

Now in a footnote to his article* Radermacher calls attention
to the presence of the colourless adjective noXur among the sub-
stantives suggested in Cyn. YIII 5 as suitable names for hounds.
He proposes Uoh?is a name for a hound recognised by C. I. G.
8139. I would rather see in the word an afl&nity to the root 7re\
Sk. car, with the meaning "Ranger," and if the form offends
change to noXeuff. At the same time I would refer to Arist.
Vesp. 1228 irapa-nokii ^oaifxevos, which might be translated " You
bark up the wrong tree."^ It is worthy of note that in his list
of proposed names the author of the Cynegeticus suggests none
of dogs that are famous.

In Cyn. Ill 2 we find among the defects of hounds the word
xapoTToi which I would translate "Dudley faced," an objection
that still holds good in the ring. Curiously enough if we are to
oredit the Schol. ad Lycophr. Alex., the Macedonian for lion was
xap(ov. Later the proper signification of the word fades and we
get it used as synonymous with yXav/co?, but Aristotle whose ac-
curacy in such subjects was due to Macedonia,' does not fail to
differentiate the terms in H. A. I. 10 and G. A. V 1, although in
the latter passage he does not discuss the ^apoTrot among men.
There seems to have been a superstition in the word, as it was
confidently asserted that only a xapoTros horse could face a lion.*
Arrian (Cyn. IV 5) takes exception to the point made by our
author, and holds that a xaponoi eye does not necessarily betoken

a north wind means continued frost, bnt a southerly wind a rise in temper-
ature. In the vicinity of Plataea, according to Thucydides III 23, 5 an
east or north wind (Dobrie however rejects i) j3opeov) brings a thaw,
ip. 625.

2 Once assume that such a form with such an interpretation may pass
muster and we get an interesting phenomenon in the language of the
brother of Cynegeiros. In the second part of the strophe of the Agamemnon
commencing (717) edpefev di leovroq Ivtv, figurative possibly of Menelaus'
unsuspecting entertainment of Paris, we read: wolea tJ' eax' £v ayKoXaLq \ veo-
rp6^ov TEKVov dUav | (^taidpuTrbQ {°cjc Weil) ttotI x^ipf^ ^«^ | ^^v re (°ovTa Auratui)
yaarpoq avayKaiq. If TzoXea may be an unusual word meaning Ranger,
Plunderer, it might well be paraphrased aivLv^ which would account for the
reading Ikovra aiviv of the first line.

3 Aelian, V. H. IV 19. ^Oppian, Cyn. IV 114 f.

THE CYNEGETICUS.

an inferior dog. An examination of the passage however will
show that Arrian considers pards, lions and lynxes to have
similar eyes which vitiates his evidence. On the other -hand our
author has a prejudice against this style of dog. Moreover we
are surprised to find that he does not mention Molossian dogs
which were a famous breed in antiquity, and valuable enough to
to be imported by Polycrates ^ into Samos. Now Oppian ^ tells-
us that the Molossians were x<^poiroL I am inclined to fancy
that the objection of our author was a local one.

I must reserve for another occasion the investigation of the
sphere of the imperatives in -aav which are a distinctive feature
of the Oynegeticus. For the present I would merely hint at the
occurrence of instances in Demosthenes and Hypereides closely
following upon charges of undue Macedonian influence, and in
inscriptions connected with bribery and corruption.

Finally in regard to the list of heroes mentioned in the Proem
I would notice that the names are taken from the Almanac of
Greek Chivalry whence the Macedonian nobles derived their

To sum up my conclusions, then, there is evidence of allusioa
to the Oynegeticus in classical Greek Literature such as would
warrant our dating the treatise early in the IVth century, and
possibly in the Vth. A theory by which Xenophon as a young
man compiled the Oynegeticus from other sources will satisfy the
discrepancies between upholders of the work as Xenophon's and
those who consider it spurious. Certain internal evidence points
to a Macedonian origin for parts of the treatise.

1 Athen. XII 540 d. 2 Cyn. I 375.

aWilamowitz, Introd. to Eur. Here. Fur.

VITA.

Henry Nevill Sanders was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, July
14th, 1869, the second son of William Rutherford Sanders M. D.,
Professor in the University of Edinburgh, whose life has been
recorded in the Dictionary of National Biography. H. N.
Sanders was educated at Fettes College, Edinburgh, and entered
the University there, studying under Professors Tait and Crum
Brown. Having, however, shortly afterwards moved to Canada,
he entered the University of Trinity College, Toronto, where he
was awarded the Prize for Latin Verse and the Burnside and Wel-
lington Scholarships for Classics, and received the degree of
B. A. in 1894, winning the Prince of Wales' Prize as Senior
Classic. He then studied under Professors von Wilamowitz and
Dziatzko in Goettingen, and in 1896 entered the Johns Hopkins
University as a graduate student, studying Greek, Latin and San-
skrit under Professors Gildersleeve, Bloomfield, Warren, K. F.
Smith and C. W. E. Miller. To these he is under a deep debt of
gratitude not only for their assistance to him as a student but
also for many good offices since recorded. In 1897 he was made
Fellow in Greek at Johns Hopkins University, and in the fol-
lowing year after proceeding to the degree of M. A. at Trinity
University, Toronto, he was appointed lecturer in Greek and
Latin, later in Sanskrit also, at McGill University, Montreal, a
position he held until 1902 when he was elected Associate Pro-
fessor of Greek at Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania.

OF THE

RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT

TO ^^ Main Library • 198 IVIain Stacks

LOAN PERIOD 1
HOME USE

NRLF

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS.

Renewls and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date.

Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405.

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

SENT 6N HI

A lift 40ft7

AUb L L 1337

U.C. BERKELEY

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
FORM NO. DD6 BERKELEY CA 94720-6000

VC 00217

^^^