γυναικίζω, γυναικισμός, γυναικηρός, γυναικάριον
(Phryn. PS 56.6–7, Phryn. PS 55.16, Antiatt. γ 10, Antiatt. γ 11)

D. General commentary

All the words dealt with in these four entries of the PS and the Antiatticist derive from γυνή. γυναικίζω (A.1, A.2) denotes the act of behaving like a woman or in an effeminate way (see the interpretamentum γυναικῶν τρόπῳ διάγειν in A.1). γυναικισμός (A.2) is used for the action itself (‘womanish behaviour’), while γυναικηρός ‘womanish’ (A.2, A.3) denotes the quality of being effeminate. The fourth word, γυναικάριον (A.4), is originally a diminutive formation, but is mostly used in a pejorative fashion (‘silly woman’, ‘bad woman’: see below). These entries in the PS and the Antiatticist may derive from the fragmentation and abbreviation of a wider discussion concerning derivatives of γυνή, perhaps based on comic language, as suggested by the fact that the two Antiatticist entries (A.2, A.4) attribute the use of γυναικίζω, γυναικηρός and γυναικάριον to Diocles, who belongs to the last generation of Old Comedy playwrights (see Orth 2014, 186; cf. also PS 60.18Phryn. PS 60.18 on γύννις ‘womanish man’). The interest of each form for the lexicographers could have varied according to its meaning, morphological structure, and frequency in Greek.

Whereas the suffixes used to form γυναικίζω, γυναικισμός and γυναικάριον became extremely productive in Post-classical Greek, γυναικηρός is a very rare form employing a rather uncommon suffix. Denominative verbs in -ίζω (here, γυναικίζω) and the abstract nouns derived from them (γυναικισμός) are already frequent in classical Attic, and both increase in the koine (for a diachronic overview, see Chantraine 1933, 139–44). Semantically, γυναικίζωγυναικίζω would not have sounded like a strange or archaic word to post-classical ears. Since Aristophanes (C.1), the verb is employed for men who talk and behave like women, usually in overt connection with their sexual impotence or ‘passivity’ (see C.4). The verb thus acquires a pejorative sense (see e.g. C.5, C.6, C.7), a connotation that continues in Christian texts (on the frequency of terms of abuse for passive homosexuality, see the classic Henderson 1975, 209–15). Phrynichus’ interest in γυναικίζω (A.1) – by no means a rare or elegant term in his own times – seems to accord with the attention to a scurrilous register which sometimes surfaces in the PS (see Phot. Bibl. cod. 158Phot. Bibl. cod. 158 on the fact that Phrynichus collected ἐνίας δὲ καὶ εἰς τὰς σκωπτικὰς […] λαλιάς ‘some [expressions useful] for mocking remarks’ and entry ἀμφαρίστερος, ἐπαρίστερος).

Syntax may also play a role in the Atticist lexicographers’ attention towards this verb. After the three classical occurrences in Aristophanes (C.1), Diocles (C.2) and Hippocrates (C.4), γυναικίζω invariably appears in the middle voice, starting with a first attestation in Polybius (C.5). Significantly, even Phrynichus himself, in an entry of the Eclogue dealing with oaths (B.3), uses the verb in the middle (the same happens in B.1 and B.2). Although both Phrynichus and the Antiatticist lemmatise the verb in the active (γυναικίζειν), in the PS (A.1) the further glossing of the active participle γυναικίζοντες with οἱ γυναικιζόμενοι is precious evidence that the principal issue might have been the active use of the verb in classical texts. While our inability to consult native speakers of the ancient language makes it impossible to know definitively why γυναικίζω evolved into a middle-only formation, one possibility is that its intransitive meaning and/or subject-affectedness led to medialisation (as suggested by a referee, a model could be ἀνδρίζομαι ‘to play the man’; for the relation between the middle and subject-affectedness, see Allan 2003, 15–9).

The hypothesis that voice could be behind the Atticists’ attention to γυναικίζω receives further support from the extreme scarcity of its active use: in the whole of later ancient and Byzantine literature, the only author who uses active γυναικίζω is Cassius Dio (see C.6 and 59.26.8D.C. 59.26.8, 80.14.4D.C. 80.14.4, 80.16.4D.C. 80.16.4). Probably trained in the best rhetorical schools of Nicaea, Cassius DioCassius Dio adopted some Atticist conventions in his style, though with frequent concessions to the koine (on Dio’s Atticism and the way it had to accommodate the Latin words of his time, see Millar 1964, 41–2; Freyburger-Galland 1997, 26–7; Jones 2016, 298–301). No other author who worked at the time of the Second Sophistic uses active γυναικίζω: even Lucian (C.7) has one instance of γυναικίζομαι. This suggests that Lucian, who is always careful to avoid inappropriately anachronistic forms, may have felt that the active was out-dated.

Unlike its base verb, γυναικισμόςγυναικισμός is not attested in classical texts and remains relatively rare in the koine. γυναικισμός usually has negative undertones similar to those of γυναικίζω (see e.g. C.8, Phld. Mus. 128.37 DelattrePhld. Mus. 128.37, Plu. Caes. 63.11Plu. Caes. 63.11). It is unclear whether the Antiatticist (A.2) originally discussed γυναικισμός by referring to a classical text, a reference now lost to us. Since there is no clear correspondence between γυναικισμός as the main lemma and the following γυναικίζειν and γυναικηρόν, Meineke (FCG vol. 2,2, 838) cautiously (‘fortasse’) suggested emending γυναικηρόν into γυναικισμόν. This seems unnecessary. γυναικισμός might function as a thematic headword for an entry that collects various terms denoting womanish behaviour, as in the Suda entry (B.2), where the phrase γυναικεία φύσις seems to introduce further expressions based on γυνή. Other parallels for lemmas of this kind are, e.g., Antiatt. β 4Antiatt. β 4 (on forms in βλακ-: see Fiori 2022, 169–75), Phot. α 3139Phot. α 3139 (on forms in Ἀττικ-: see Orth 2014, 204), and Phot. α 3349Phot. α 3349 (forms in ἀφθον-: see entry ἀφθονέστερον, ἀρχαιέστερον).

As far as γυναικηρόςγυναικηρός is concerned, this adjective is uniquely attested in the Antiatticist (A.2) and the Praeparatio sophistica (A.3). The focus of the latter is γυναικηρὸς τρόπος ‘womanish manner’, which is consistent with the attention of the PS towards syntagmatic expressions. The ‑ηρός suffix was particularly productive in Ionic and Attic, but later lost ground to other suffixes denoting a quality or a durable state (Chantraine 1933, 232–3). Most of the adjectives in -ηρός derive from first- and second-declension nouns, while only a few of them are based on third-declension nouns such as αἱματηρός ‘bloody’ (a common tragic word < αἷμα), ἀνθηρός ‘bloomy, fresh’ (Soph., Eur. < ἄνθος) and ὑδρηρός ‘watery’ (Eur. fr. 309a.1 < ὕδωρ). Significantly, all these forms are poetic and mostly tragic. Thus, one may wonder whether γυναικηρός was a comic coinage formed to express the same meaning as γυναικεῖος in a loftier, perhaps parodic, way.

Morphology may also offer some insights into the Antiatticist’s interest in γυναικάριονγυναικάριον. Apart from Diocles (C.3), the word first occurs in the New Testament (C.9), which abounds in formations in -άριον (Chantraine 1933, 71–2). In this passage of Paul’s second Letter to Timothy, γυναικάρια is not a true diminutive (‘little women’) but one of the frequent cases where diminutives are used to express contempt (‘bad women’ or ‘silly women’: for this function of diminutives, see Petersen 1910, 113–30). γυναικάριον retains this pejorative function in a variety of Christian texts that quote or allude to this scriptural passage (see e.g. Origenes Cels. 6.24, Iren.Lugd. Haer. 1.7.5, etc.). Negative undertones are also suggested in Arrian/Epictetus, given its usage in contexts where women are the source of trouble and vice (e.g. Arr. Epict. 2.18.18, 2.22.24, etc.). Although we have no context for Diocles’ use of the word (C.3), this classical attestation could have served to redeem a koine term formed with a suffix, -άριον, that sometimes raised suspicions among strict Atticists (see Phryn. Ecl. 398Phryn. Ecl. 398 and 151Phryn. Ecl. 151, and entry κυνίδιον, κυνάριον; on the suffix and its development, see Petersen 1910, 260–71). Possibly, Diocles too could have used γυναικάριον to describe a character negatively (see Orth 2014, 230 and, for similarly pejorative diminutives in Aristophanes, Peppler 1902, 26–8, who also discusses ἀνδράριον at Ar. Ach. 517).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

γυναικίζωγυναικίζω is always used in the middle in Byzantine texts, but by this time most of the occurrences are of the participle γυναικιζόμενος, which has transitioned from a truly verbal participle to an adjective (‘effeminate’). γυναικισμόςγυναικισμός is very rare. Apart from Constantine VII quoting Diodorus Siculus (De legationibus 80.17, 330.23), it occurs in Georgius Tornices just after γυναικίζω (Orationes 14.317Georgius Tornices Orationes 14.317: ἐν μὲν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐπίσημοί τινες ἦσαν καὶ περιλάλητοι καὶ γυναῖκες ἀνδριζόμεναι καὶ ἄνδρες γυναικιζόμενοι τὸν φαῦλον ἀνδρισμὸν καὶ γυναικισμόν ‘among the Greeks there were some remarkable and famous individuals, both women who behaved like men and men who behaved like women – a bad kind of manly and womanly behaviour’), three times in Eustathius’ commentary on the Iliad (2.33.16, 2.323.17, 4.591.5) and once in Nicetas Choniates (Or. 14.130.14). Like many other diminutives in -άριον, γυναικάριονγυναικάριον remains common in Byzantine texts also outside of references to the passage in Paul’s second Letter to Timothy. It is included in Kriaras, LME with the meaning ‘woman of bad habits’. γυναικηρός, as already discussed, remains a hapax in Diocles.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A