$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 
 
 BY 
 
 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. 
 
14 
 
 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. 
 
 15 
 
 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. 
 
 17 
 
 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. 
 
 I 
 
 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 
 
 21 
 
 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. 
 
 23 
 
 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. 
 
 25 
 
 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. 
 
 27 
 
 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. 
 
 29 
 
 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. 
 
30 
 
 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. 
 
 31 
 
 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. 
 
32 
 
 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 
 
 OF 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 TO ^^ Main Library • 198 IVIain Stacks 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 NRLF 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 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 
 
 1 
 
VC 00217 
 
m^ 
 
 
 ^^^