Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T00:12:02.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Greek indecency and its students: ΛAIKAZEIN1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

H. D. Jocelyn
H. D. Jocelyn
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Three words of the Aristophanic lexicon, λαικάζειν, λαικαστής and λαικάστρια, are not fully explained by the contexts in which they occur. The remains of ancient learning known to scholars of the sixteenth century contained no clear and unambiguous doctrine about them. A considerable amount of fresh material however has accumulated during recent centuries. The Latinists W. Heraeus and A. E. Housman studied what was available to them around the years 1914 and 1930 respectively and came to firm conclusions but without persuading many students of Aristophanes' comic scripts in particular or of the Greek language in general. G. P. Shipp has recently drawn attention to a third century A.D. document, first published as long ago as 1925, which has the verb in a context leaving little doubt about the user's meaning. This paper attempts to consider systematically the evidence now available and to make clear how Aristophanes and other Athenians of the fifth, fourth and third centuries B.C. used the word group. It is argued that the verb remained alive among some speakers of Greek without change of function until very late and that Housman's explanation of the Aristophanic passages was correct.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 26 , 1980 , pp. 12 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

2. Heraeus published his conclusion at RhM 70 (1915) 38 n. 1Google Scholar (= Kleine Schriften [Heidelberg, 1937] 222 n. 1Google Scholar). Housman made two small but important modifications at Hermes 66 (1931) 408–9Google Scholar (= The classical papers of A.E.H. coll. and ed. by Diggle, J. and Goodyear, F. R. D. [Cambridge, 1972], III 1180–1Google Scholar). Housman's paper, which concerned the interpretation of a number of indecent passages of Latin prose and verse, was set up in type for Classical Quarterly but the Board of Management forbade the Editor to publish it (see Gow, A. S. F., A. E. Housman [Cambridge, 1936] 76 n. 1Google Scholar and the letter to R. Hackforth of 12th March 1931 printed by Maas, H., The Letters of A. E. Housman [London, 1971] 309Google Scholar).

3. Some commentators on Menander's (first printed in 1958), e.g. W. Kraus (Vienna, 1960), E. W. Handley (London, 1965 [instructed by E. Fraenkel]), and F. H. Sandbach (Oxford, 1973), with no tradition of previous exegesis to get in the way, have applied the doctrine of Heraeus and Housman to v. 892. For other discussion since 1931 see App. IV.

4. Antichthon 11 (1977) 1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. First printed in 1498. The purpose of this and a number of similar notes is to make clear how slowly the corpus of modern knowledge has grown. Judgements still influential were made in the sixteenth century on a relatively small part of the evidence now available.

6. First printed in 1516 (ed. B. di Giunta, Florence; the date in the colophon must be a mistake).

7. First restored by A. Koraësin J. Schweighaüser's edition of Athenaeus, vol. V (Strasbourg, 1805) 518 (cf. Animaduersiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas, vol. VIII [Strasbourg, 1805] 216)Google Scholar.

8. First printed in 1958.

9. First restored by A. Koraës in Schweighaüser's Athenaeus, vol. III (Strasbourg, 1803, p. 413 in app. Cf. Animaduersiones, vol. V [Strasbourg, 1804], p. 100)Google Scholar. Garzya, A., 73/74 (1972/1973) 360–3Google Scholar, argues unconvincingly in favour of Casaubon's .

10. First printed in 1498.

11. First printed in 1498.

12. First printed in 1542.

13. First printed in 1907.

14. Aristophanes' slave speaks earlier about masturbation (vv. 24-9) and excretion (vv. 69-70) and makes a joke about the width of Cleon's anus (vv. 77-8); later he refers to anal tubercles (vv. 375-81). Cephisodorus' slave uses in the same utterance with the coarse adjective (cf. an Athenian graffito of the second quarter of the fifth century. The Athenian Agora. Vol. XXI. Graffiti and Dipinti, edited by Lang, M. [Princeton, N.J., 1976] 14, C 23Google Scholar, Aristoph., Nub. 1330Google Scholar [plain-spoken old man to smart-talking son], Pollux 6. 127, Hesych. II 568 Latte [I cite Latte's edition for A-O, Schmidt's for the other letters], s.v. , Schol. Aristoph., Equ. 167Google Scholar. cod. Milan, Bibl. Ambr. L 39 sup., written above ). Menander's slave is drunk (see vv. 469-71) and has just made an indecent joke about his addressee's sexual life (see below, n. 29).

15. See vv. 487-97 (in particular v. 490), 643-6, 945 for the cook's own estimation of himself, v. 945 for a household slave's. The cook's mode of expression tends to plebeian violence; cf. vv. 394 , 398 , 424 , 488 (conj.), 514–15 , 624 , 640 , 901 , 934 .

16. Cf. Ach. 30, 83, 119, 158, 161, 591-2, 781-2, 789, 1060, 1065-6, 1216-17, 1220-1.

17. At v. 25 he reports himself as saying . On the other hand he rejects an allegation of ignorance of Homer (v. 26) and has heard of the of Philitas (v. 43).

18. For the comic story that Euripides' mother was a see Aristoph., Ach. 457, 478Google Scholar, Equ. 18–19, Thesm. 387. 456, Ran. 840. Comedy was doubtless also the source of the story that his father was a ( Vit. 1).

19. Cf. vv. 6-21.

20. Cf. vv. 45, 48. He can nevertheless cite and parody popular tragedies at length (vv. 134 ff., 275 f., 692 ff., 770 ff., 850 ff., 1010 ff.).

21. Cf. vv. 59-62, 157-8.

22. Cf. vv. 50, 62, 142, 158, 200, 206, 242, 248, 254, 291, 570. Contrast the relatively decent wording of his speech in the assembly (vv. 466-519).

23. Replying to an Odysseus bringing Agamemnon's peace-offer as at Il. 9.270–72. See Historia critica comicorum Graecorum (Berlin, 1839) 77–8Google Scholar.

24. Gentili, B., QUCC 16 (1973) 126Google Scholar, finds enthusiasm in Pherecr. fr. 149.2, failing to note the irony of ; for the force of the γε cf. Eurip., Med. 514Google Scholar, Cyc. 551, Demosth. 9. 65-6, 23.186, 25.62, Dover, K. J., Greek homosexuality (London, 1978) 182Google Scholar.

25. At Cephis. fr. 3.5 the speaker is talking aside about something which, if it comes to pass, will degrade himself. See App. III.

26. See further p. 34.

27. Interpreters have usually failed to take sufficient account of Thesm. 49–50 , Dysc. 892 , and Ach. 79 .

28. The emotional tone rises as the speaker, a farmer compelled to live in the city because of the war in progress between Athens and an alliance of Dorian states, argues that the principal causes of this war were the snatching of a female from a Megarian brothel and an avenging raid on an Athenian brothel allegedly run by Aspasia, the Milesian mistress of Pericles. At first he uses the term of the three females involved. This term in 425 was probably thought to relate to the taking of money for sexual services (see n. 122). Applied to females who provided other services besides the narrowly sexual and who received gifts rather than agreed sums of money, e.g. those who called themselves , it was somewhat abusive (cf. Plut. Sol. 15.2 [on the Athenian love of euphemism] ). Applied to ordinary street-walkers and brothel-inhabitants it carried little emotional charge. At the height of his moral indignation the farmer calls the females over whom the great war is being fought . The author of the gloss on v. 537 in cod. Ravenna, Bibl. Class. 429 , Andreas Divus (Florence, 1538), N. Frischlin (Frankfurt, 1586) and others miss completely the affective heightening. Those who perceive it (e.g. R. F. P. Brunck [Strasbourg, 1781], who translated ‘Simaetham meretricem … suas meretrices … tribus scortis … propter scorta’) do not try to explain the source of the affectivity.

29. For this act (also possible in homosexual intercourse) see Aristoph., Pax 899a–904Google Scholar, Vesp. 500-2, Lys. 58-60, 676-9, Thesm. 153, Machon, vv. 168-73 (Athen. 13.577d), 358-75 (Athen. 13.581d-f), Dioscorides. A.P. 5.55, Asclepiades, , A.P. 5.202, 203Google Scholar, Hor., Serm. 2.7.49Google Scholar, Ov. Ars 3.777–9, Petron. 23.2-24.5, 140.7, Martial 11.104.13, Juvenal 6.321, Apul, . Met. 2.17Google Scholar, Artemidorus 1.79, pp. 93-29-94.11 Pack. It is depicted on an early Attic red-figure cup, Boston 08.30a, ARV 2 p. 135 (see Vermeule, E., AK 12 [1969] 13Google Scholar and pl. 10.1), on some red-glazed moulded pots from the western part of the Roman Empire (see Ostwald, F., Index of figure-types on Terra Sigillata [Liverpool, 1936–1937], pl. XCIGoogle Scholar, figs. DD, HH, GG) and on various other works of art (see Boardman, J. and La Rocca, E., Eros in Greece [London, 1978] 153, 156, 158, 166Google Scholar). For its shamelessness see Aristoph., Vesp. 500–2Google Scholar, Machon, vv. 363-75. When Menander's slave suggests that the pipe-player accompanying him would be able to lay siege to his master's rival and mount his battlements the double meaning is transparent. The pipe-player turns away in anger (cf. Aristoph., Pax 682–4Google Scholar, Lys. 125, Virg, Serv.. Aen. 1.482Google Scholar). The term which the slave then throws at her must suggest she is capable of worse. Translations like Allinson, F. G.'s ‘strumpet’ (London-Cambridge, Mass., 1921)Google Scholar, Murray, G.'s ‘tart’ (London, 1942)Google Scholar or D. Del Corno's ‘puttana’ (Milan, n.d.) blur important ancient distinctions.

30. Mid IVth cent., from the Athenian agora; published by Milne, M. J. and von Bothmer, D., Hesperia 22 (1953) 221 n. 5aCrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Lang, M., The Athenian Agora. XXI. Graff. 15, C 33 aGoogle Scholar.

31. Vth cent., from the Piraeus; published by Dragatses, I. Ch., Ἐφημ. Ἀρχ. περ. 3 (1884) 193Google Scholar; see also I.G. I 2921Google Scholar, von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Ind. schol. Göttingen 1885/1886, 4Google Scholar (= Kleine Schriften V i [Berlin, 1937] 258)Google Scholar.

32. IVth cent., published by Lang, M., The Athenian Agora XXI, Graff. 15, C 34Google Scholar.

33. Athens, Inv. 14470, IB 16-19, IV cent, from Attica; published by Ziebarth, E., SB Preuss. Ak. d. Wiss. phil.-hist. Kl. 1934, 1023–4, nr. 1Google Scholar; see also Robert, L., Collection Froehner I, Inscriptions grecques (Paris, 1936) 14Google Scholar, REG 51 (1938) 418–19Google Scholar, 74 (1961) 146-7. The two sides of the piece of lead contain the names of over a hundred persons cursed.

34. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Band II (Heidelberg, 1970) 72Google Scholar, s.v. (the fascicle containing this article was issued in January 1961).

35. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots, Tome III (Paris, 1974) 613Google Scholar, s.v. .

36. This word is applied to a male at Eupolis, Com. fr. 309. The associations of the suffix would have enforced the insult.

37. See Aristoph., Thesm. 493Google Scholar (Suda III p. 262 Adler: R), Pollux 5.93, Hesych. II p. 592 , Photius, , Lex. I p. 384Google Scholar Naber. For ‘penis’, see Hesych. II p. 592, Photius, , Lex. I p. 385Google Scholar.

38. For this theory see Vaniček, A., Griechisch-Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch II (Leipzig, 1877) 770Google Scholar, Blaydes, F. H. M., Aristophanis Thesmophoriazusae (Halle 1880) 137, 183Google Scholar, Prellwitz, W., Etymologisches Wörterbuch der griechischen Sprache (Göttingen, 1892) 173Google Scholar, s.v. , Boisacq, E., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Paris, 1916) 550–51Google Scholar, s.v. , Walde, A. and Pokorny, J., Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen, II (Berlin-Leipzig, 1927) 396Google Scholar, Chantraine, P., La formation des noms en grec ancien (Paris, 1933) 352Google Scholar, Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik, I (Munich, 1939) 676Google Scholar.

39. For see Aristoph., Eccl. 1106, fr. 478Google Scholar; for Eupolis. Com. fr. 344. It is a reasonable guess that Hesychius' sources got the rest from comedy.

40. On the denominative verbs in - see Debrunner, A., Griechische Wortbildungslehre (Heidelberg, 1917) 118–27Google Scholar, Chantraine, P., Morphologie historique du grec (Paris, 1945) 274–5Google Scholar, Risch, E., Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache2 (Berlin, 1974) 297–8Google Scholar.

41. See Furtwängler, A., Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium (Berlin, 1885) no. 829Google Scholar, Pernice, E., Jahrb. d.k. deutsch. arch. Inst. 12 (1897) 30Google Scholar (joining nos. 757, 683, 829, 822), Festschrift für Otto Benndorf (Vienna, 1898) 75–80Google Scholar, Antike Denkmäler ii, pl. 39, 12, Payne, H., Necrocorinthia (Oxford, 1931) 112, 117 n. 2Google Scholar. For the inscription see also I.G. IV 313Google Scholar.

42. See Aristoph. com. fr. 592, Pollux 7.108. On phallic demons and their images see von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Der Glaube der Hellenen I (Berlin, 1931) 160 ff.Google Scholar, Herter, H., De Priapo (Giessen, 1932Google Scholar [RGVV 23]), passim, RE 19.2 (1938) 1692 ff.Google Scholar, s.v. Phallos.

43. Op. cit. 161 n. 2. On the passages adduced by Wilamowitz see n. 68 and App. VI.

44. Op. cit. 190. Herter seems to withdraw this suggestion in favour of Wilamowitz, 's at RE 19.2 (1938) 1695Google Scholar, and to return to it at RAC 10 (1978) 10Google Scholar, s.v. Genitalien.

45. This is described by Herter., RE 19.2, 1728Google Scholar. I have not seen the original publication: Degrand, A., Souvenirs de la Haute-Albanie (Paris, 1901) 181Google Scholar.

46. C.I.L. IV 4566Google Scholar; interpreted as Felicio tormentare. Cf. Svennung, J., Studi in onore di Luigi Castiglioni II (Florence, n.d.) 976–82Google Scholar.

47. A full and proper study would attempt to distinguish those cases where a second person has drawn the penis near the writing (cf. C.I.L. IV 7889Google Scholar; it seems impossible to decide about C.I.L. IV 8486, 8933, 10704Google Scholar). Catull. 37.9-10 and Petron. 22.1 show the aggressive function of such drawings.

48. Cf. C.I.L. IV 5278Google Scholarling … mentula Ptolemaeus, 10132 Iuli lingis Pacatus.

49. C.I.G. III 6131cGoogle Scholar = I.G. XIV 1306Google Scholar. I have not seen the original publication by Gerhard, E., Hyperboreisch-Römische Studien für Archäologie 1 (Berlin, 1833) 139Google Scholar.

50. C.I.L. IV 2254, 4756, 8346, 8501, 10129, 10243h, 10568Google Scholar.

51. Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P., The Roman inscriptions of Britain (Oxford, 1965) no. 983Google Scholar.

52. C.I.L. III 14599Google Scholar.

53. C.I.L. III 14964Google Scholar.

54. On the punitive function of certain sexual acts see p. 38; on the usage of et sim. in the writing of grammarians p. 23.

55. First printed in 1664; laecasin, i.e. , was first restored by Burman, P., Titi Petronii Arbitri Satyricon quae supersunt (Utrecht, 1709) 189Google Scholar.

56. First printed in 1471 with leicazin from X-XIth cent. cod. Rome, Bibl. Vat. lat. 3294. Was first restored by F. W. Schneidewin in his edition of 1842. W. M. Lindsay adduced new manuscript evidence in favour of in The ancient editions of Martial (Oxford, 1903) 107Google Scholar (on the Lucca codex, now Berlin, Staatsbibl. Preuss. Kulturbesitz lat. fol. 612, see also CR 15 [1901] 309–11, 413–20Google Scholar, BPhW 21 [1901] 859–60Google Scholar). I am grateful to Frances Muecke for verifying for me the reading of Vat. lat. 3294.

57. For the first cf. Aristoph., Vesp. 584Google Scholar, Av. 692, Plut. 62, Archestratos, fr. 38.3 (Ach. 1131, Equ. 433, Thesm. 211-12); for the second Aristoph., Plut. 58Google Scholar, Philemon, , Com. fr. 4.16Google Scholar, Men., Georg. 57–8Google Scholar, Peric. 370-1, Lucian, , Dial. mort. 1.2Google Scholar, Hegesippus, , A.P. 7.320.4Google Scholar; for the third Plat., Phaedr. 272eGoogle Scholar, Archestratos, fr. 5, Lucian, , Asin. 46Google Scholar, Athen. 6.269e, 9.385b (Aristoph., Ach. 200Google Scholar); for the fourth Antiphanes com. fr. 88, Demosth. 19.248, 21.39, Menan., Dysc. 264–5, 520–21Google Scholar, Hesych. II p. 199, s.v. .

58. At Petron. 42.2 frigori is treated as a person and at Martial 11.58.12 cupidae … auaritiae serves as a periphrasis for tibi … cupido.

59. Cf. Plato, phil. Ion 530cGoogle Scholar, Menan., Dysc. 401Google Scholar.

60. Educated speakers did not normally confound the uses of iubeo and dico (with Aristoph., Av. 692Google Scholar contrast Hor, . Serm. 1.10.91Google Scholardiscipularum inter plorare cathedras). At Cic, . Att. 8.8.2Google Scholar and 14.20.5 Greek infinitival phrases are attached to dico. Suet, . Aug. 53.3Google Scholar, Tib. 72.3, Galb. 4.4 may reflect a special domesticated use (ualere dico ).

61. Fragment XIII 254 of J. Taillardat's collection, Suétone, (extraits byzantins) (Paris, 1967)Google Scholar.

62. First printed by Miller, E., Mélanges de litérature grecque (Paris, 1868) 413–26Google Scholar (425).

63. P. 741. 19-24 of the text printed in Rome, 1542 (vol. II. Vol. I with pp. 1-620 was not published until 1550). Eustathius never names Suetonius but a large number of statements introduced by et sim. obviously come from a less abbreviated version of the treatise carried by the Paris codex. See Cohen, L., NJbb Suppl. 12 (1881) 326–39Google Scholar.

64. In fifth century Attic, to judge by Eurip., Med. 1346Google Scholar, referred to in general. Machon's anecdote, vv. 402-10, shows that in Alexandrian Greek by the middle of the third century it had a restricted set of associations (cf. Sueton., II 48Google Scholar, Athen. 8.342c, schol. Aristoph., Ran. 1308Google Scholar (1343 Dindorf), Eccl. 643, 841, Plut. 279, 314).

65. See Lucian, , Pseudol. 28Google Scholar, Galen XII p. 249 Kühn, Hesych. IV p. 52, s.v. , schol. Aristoph., Pax 883Google Scholar, Etym. Magn. col. 235.46 = col. 680 Gaisford, s.v. .

66. The commentators on comedy and the lexicographers proceed either from (schol. R Aristoph., Vesp. 1346Google Scholar, schol. V ad eundem locum … , Hesych. II p. 586 , Photius, , Lex. I p. 381Google Scholar, Suda, III p. 252.15Google Scholar: ) or from (schol. V Aristoph., Ran. 1308Google Scholar [1343 Dindorf] Aelius Dionysius λ 6 Erbse (= Eustath., Comm. Hom. Il. 9.129, p. 741. 14Google Scholar) , Hesych. II p. 586 , Suda, IV p. 370.16, 19–20Google Scholar, Paroemiogr. anon. IV 73, C. Par. Gr. I p. 452Google Scholar Leutsch-Schneidewin … ). Lucian and Galen (see above, n. 65), doubtless dependent on Atticist lexicography, distinguish the Lesbian and the Phoenician vices. There is no trace in ancient writing of the notion associating tribadism with Lesbos (see Welcker, F. G., Kleine Schriften II [Bonn, 1845], p. 86 n. 14Google Scholar [reprinting essay of 1816], von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Sappho and Simonides [Berlin, 1913] 72–3Google Scholar [reprinting essay of 1896], Goebel, M., Ethnica (Diss. Breslau, 1915) 86–8Google Scholar, Kroll, W., RE 12.2 [1925] 2100–102Google Scholar, s.v. Lesbische Liebe). This notion springs from Sappho's ancient reputation (I am thinking of Hor. Epist. 1.19.28, Ovid, , Her. 15.15–20, 201Google Scholar, Martial 7.69.9-10, 10.35.15-16, Hor, Porph.. Epod. 5.41Google Scholar, Max. Tyr. 18. 9, Suda IV p. 323. 7–8Google Scholar, s.v. , rather than Didymus ap. Sen, . Epist. 88.37Google Scholar, Tatian 33 et al.) and Lucian's account of Megilla and some of her fellow islanders (Dial. mer. 5.2). Phaedrus' Prometheus (4.16) produced his anatomical confusions a long way from Lesbos. Martial's Bassa (1.90) and Philaenis (7.67, 70) have no connection with the island. The error is as old as the fifteenth century (see below, n. 205).

67. 9.129, p. 741.28-9.

68. Taillardat makes it fr. II 28 of his collection. Hesychius, II p. 564 looks to be the first half of a very similar explanation.

69. See Catull. 16.1, 14; 21.7-8, 37.8, Caesar ap. Sueton, . Iul. 22.2Google Scholar, Sen, . Ben. 4.31.3-4Google Scholar, C.I.L. IV 10030Google Scholar, Martial 2.47.4, 3.82.33, 3.96.3, 4.17.3, 50.2, Anon, . Priap 13Google Scholar et saepe, Sueton., Tib. 44–5Google Scholar, Ner. 35.4.

70. Hence Catull. 10.12-13 quibus esset irrumator ∣ praetor, 28.9-13 o Memmi, ∣ bene me ac diu supinum ∣ tota ista trabe lentus irrumasti. ∣ sed quantum uideo pari fuistis ∣ casu: nam nihilo minore uerpa ∣ farti estis, Martial 3.83.2 fac mihi quod Chione. Donatus on Ter., Ad. 214–15Google Scholaros praebui (one may however doubt the alleged here in the mouth of a slave and confidently deny it at Cic, . An. 1.18.5Google Scholar, Liv. 4.35.10, Tac., Hist. 3.31, 85Google Scholar, Juven. 5. 171–2).

71. Irrumare and fellare were both metaphorical terms drawn from rural life. Irrumare does not occur in its proper sense in our texts but for rumis, ‘teat’, and subrumus, ‘sucking’, see Varr. Rust. 2.1.20 and for subrumare, ‘put to suck’, Festus, p. 400.34 Lindsay, Columella 7.4.3, 12.3.9. Fellare appears in its proper sense at Varr., Men. 261, 476Google Scholar, Macr. Sat. 7.16.25 (conj.), Cael. Aur Acut. 2.21. Catullus exploits the field of the metaphor at 80.8 (emulso labra notata sero). The story told by Suetonius, , Tib. 44.1Google Scholar (… quasi infantes firmiores, necdum tamen lacte depulsos. inguini ceu papillae admoueret) perhaps reflects linguistic rather than historical reality. Both words in their metaphorical usage were regarded as obscene (cf. Sen, . Ben. 4.31.4Google Scholar) and avoided by orators and writers of formal prose (who did not, however, avoid the theme; cf. Cic., P. red. in sen. 11Google Scholar, Sen, . Nat. 1. 16.4Google Scholar, Sueton, . Tib. 44. 1–2, 45Google Scholar, Ner. 29, Tacit, . Ann. 14.51Google Scholar, Min. Fel. 28.10, Tertull, . Apol. 9.12Google Scholar, Nat. 1.15.8, Arnob. 2.42, Lactant, . Inst. 6.23.11Google Scholar).

72. See the inscriptions reported at AJA 52 (1948) 321–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar (irumo te Sexte: I cent. B.C.), and at Die Antike 15 (1930), 103Google Scholar (bene caca et irrima medicos: II cent. A.D.).

73. See schol. Aristoph., Ran. 1308Google Scholar (doubtless descended from Suetonius' source), Hesych. II p. 586, s.v. (related to some passage of comedy in which a fellatrix was called a ).

74. Suetonius' information about et al. would have come in all probability from Didymus' through the ninety-five books of Pamphilus' . See Cohen, L., NJbb Suppl. 12 (1881) 339–54Google Scholar, J. Taillardat, op. cit. pp. 22-6.

75. Cf. Aeschines 2.88. Some comic terms were even more explicit, e.g. (Eustath., Comm. Hom. Il. 11.558, p. 862.42Google Scholar, Od. 17.302, p. 1821. 53-4, 22.128, p. 1921.65 [= Sueton., Π. . II 48Google Scholar]).

76. Pp. 16-17.

77. Herter, op. cit. n. 42, p. 190 n. 2, accepted Housman's argument about the absence of in the sense of scortari from Attic Greek but argued that Corinthian usage may have been different.

78. 3.83.2.

79. Cf. Callimachus, , Ait. fr. I 1.17Google Scholar.

80. See Martial 3.87.

81. Cairo Museum, Journal d'entrée no. 48217 (III cent.), 11.6-10, published by Edgar, C. C., Bulletin de la Société Archéologique d'Alexandrie No 21, Nouv. Sér., Tome VI, Ie fasc, 1925, 42–7Google Scholar, reprinted in Bilabel, F., Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten nach dem Tode Fr. Preisigkes fortgesetzt von F.B. IV (Heidelberg, 1931) 7452Google Scholar and SEG 8 (1937) 574Google Scholar. The importance of this text for the problem of was first noticed by G. P. Shipp (above n. 4).

82. The strip of lead containing the whole charm was acquired in Egypt by J. Nicole. The text was published by Martin, J., Genava, Bulletin du Musée de Genève 6 (1928) 56–64Google Scholar. The style of writing is ascribed to the III/IV century. The provenance is unknown.

83. Cf. [Demosth.] ap. Hermog. Id. 2.3, p. 325.18-21 Rabe (absent from medieval text of speech against Neaera; see Kassel, R., RhM 116 (1973) 104–5Google Scholar), Nicarchus, , A.P. 11.328Google Scholar, Gallus, Tudicius, A.P. 5.49Google Scholar, Procopius, , Anecd. 9.18Google Scholar and, in Latin, Catull. 110-7-8, Auson., Epigr. 79Google Scholar. The theme at Martial 2.28.3-4. 10.81 and Strato, , A.P. 11.225Google Scholar is a slightly different one.

84. 11.351-4. The codex is said to have been found in Thebes. On its Heracleopolitan origin see Wessely, C., WSt 8 (1886) 189Google Scholar.

85. P. Cologne, Inv. T. 1. (III/IV cent.), 11.21-3, published by Wortmann, D., BJ 168 (1968) 56–111Google Scholar (60-61).

86. Musée du Louvre. Inv. E 27145 (III/IV cent.), 11.8-10, published by Kambitsis, S., BIAO 76 (1976) 212–23Google Scholar, reprinted in SEG 26 (1976–1977) 1717Google Scholar.

87. On the relationship between the Paris codex and Poseidonios' charm see Preisendanz, K., Gnomon 2 (1926) 191–2Google Scholar, Papyri Graecae Magicae I (Leipzig-Berlin, 1928) 84Google Scholar, Nock, A. D., JEA 15 (1929) 233–5Google Scholar (omitted from Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar; see I p. 176). Nock argued that in the Paris recipe an original was omitted either by design or by accident.

88. See Aristoph., Equ. 1285Google Scholar, fr. 409, Ammianus, , A.P. 11.221Google Scholar, Anon, . A.P. 11.222Google Scholar, Auson., Epigr. 85Google Scholar, schol. Aristoph., Pax 883Google Scholar (…), Hesych. IV p. 42 s.v. , Eustath., Comm. Hom. Ii. 5.31. p. 518.43Google Scholar (= Sueton., Π. . III 70Google Scholar… [usually misinterpreted as ‘fellator’]), Photius, , Lex. I p. 375Google Scholar. s.v. . The astrologer Rhetorius, , CCAG VIII 4, p. 195.14Google Scholar. et alibi, distinguishes the , from the . Nothing is to be deduced from Aristoph., Pax. 855Google Scholar; there an innocent use of is exploited in order to make a joke about fellation. The account of the post-coital behaviour of male goats at schol. Aristoph., Plut. 295Google Scholar is likewise irrelevant.

89. αι is rarely represented by ει or η in the papyri. η on the other often represents an αι. See Gignac, F. G., A grammar of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine period. Vol. I Phonology (Milan, 1976) 240–1, 247–8, 260Google Scholar.

90. The uninterpolated scholia to the former play cite Herodian (223 (Dindorf), 957). Those to the latter are much less extensive and cite no scholarly name. On the general relationship of the Aristophanic scholia to the of Didymus see Zuntz, G., Byzantion 14 (1939) 596 ffGoogle Scholar. (= Die Aristophanes-Scholien der Papyri [Berlin, 1975] 112 ff.Google Scholar), Dover, K. J., Aristophanes: Clouds (Oxford, 1968) cxiii ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91. On the date and religion of Hesychius see Schultz, H., RE 8.2 (1913) 1317Google Scholar, s.v. Hesychios. Latte, K., Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon I (Copenhagen, 1953) vii–viiiGoogle Scholar, Bühler, W., Gnomon 42 (1970) 353Google Scholar.

92. is used of other types of oral vice at schol. Eccl. 643, 841; at Hesych. I p. 420, s.v. , the verb seems to be used of masturbation (the sense is obscure at I p. 252, s.v. , II p. 419Google Scholar, s.v. .)

93. One may guess that a commentary on the play by Didymus (cited frequently in other scholia: 41, 55, 104, 188, 224, 232, 716, 996, 1001, 1021, 1060, 1340) lies somewhere in its ancestry. For Suetonius' Περὶ and Didymus' see above, n. 74. In both cases Didymus would have drawn on one of the older Alexandrian authorities.

94. On the penis see the scholia on vv. 430, 552, 553; on the female genitalia that on v. 519; on copulation those on vv. 430, 550, 975. Where the anus is concerned, , is sometimes admitted (v. 487), sometimes replaced with (vv. 310, 487).

95. See above, n. 66.

96. See further below, n. 256.

97. General Athenian hostility to the men of the island at the time of the wars with Mytilene is more likely to be the origin of the slander (cf. Dover, K. J., Greek homosexuality (London, 1978) 183Google Scholar). The identity of the initial phonemes would have merely encouraged its acceptance.

98. Cf. the use of in those on vv. 643, 841; of in those on vv. 10, 607, 612; of in those on vv. 12, 13, 97.

99. For see I p. 23, s.v. , 54, s.v. , 93, s.v. , 96, s.v. , et al.; for I p. 425Google Scholar, s.v. , II p. 222Google Scholar, s.v. , et al.; for I p. 33Google Scholar, s.v. , II p. 2Google Scholar, s.v. , et al.; for I p. 166Google Scholar, s.v. , et al.; for p. 314, s.v. , 384, s.v. , et al.; for I p. 322Google Scholar, s.v. ; for I p. 401Google Scholar, s.v. , et al.; for et sim. II p. 564Google Scholar, s.v. λαί for et sim. I p. 252Google Scholar, s.v. , p. 420, s.v. for et sim. I p. 348Google Scholar, s.v. .

100. See Bethe, E., RE 10.1 (1917) 773 ff.Google Scholar, s.v. Iulius 398.

101. on the other hand is in the list.

102. For the Attic orators and fellation see above, n. 75. For the attitude of rhetoricians to see [Aristot., ] Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441b 21Google Scholar.

103. It was a later hand which wrote into the margin of cod. Venice, Bibl. Marc. gr. 622 after (II p. 565) the words .

104. A deviant use of by Solon caused the entry I p. 322 . Cf. II p. 432 .

105. First printed as Triclinius had adapted it (see p. 29) by Musurus in 1498.

106. Suda, III p. 240.9–10Google Scholar made the doctrine public in 1499.

107. The text of cod. Florence, Bibl. Laur. S. Marc. 304 was published by Miller, E., Mélanges de littérature grecque (Paris, 1868) 11–318 (203)Google Scholar; that of cod. Rome, Bibl. Vat. gr. 1818 by Alpers, K., Bericht über Stand und Methode der Ausgabe des Etymologicum Genuinum (mit einer Ausgabe des Buchstaben Λ) (Copenhagen, 1969) 30Google Scholar.

108. First printed in 1936 (Drachmann, A. B., Die Überlieferung des Cyrillglossars, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar). The doctrine had long been known from Suda, III p. 240.6Google Scholar.

109. First printed from cod. Leiden, Voss. gr. 20 by Gaisford, T., Etymologicum Magnum (Oxford, 1848)Google Scholar.

110. See App. V.

111. Fraenkel, E., Glotta 34 (1955) 43Google Scholar (= Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie I [Rome, 1964] 148)Google Scholar explained it as a hypostasis of .

112. Aristoph., Ach. 664Google Scholar, Nub. 529, Vesp. 84, 687, Lys. 137 , Thesm. 200. Schol, . Equ. 639Google Scholar, however, has ; Nub. 909 , ; Lys. 777 .

113. Cf. schol, . Ach. 716, 843Google Scholar, Equ. 877, Nub. 349.

114. For Attic graffiti see Blegen, C. W., AJA 38 (1934) 10–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Milne, M. J. and von Bothmer, D., Hesperia 22 (1953) 215–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Lang, M., The Athenian Agora. Vol. XXI, C5, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27Google Scholar; for Atticising literature Lucian, , Lex. 12Google Scholar, Adu. Ind. 23, Tim. 22, Alciphron 3.9.2; for grammatical writing apart from commentary upon comic texts Phrynichus, , Ecl. 168 (173)Google Scholar, schol. Aeschin. I.126, p. 176 Schultz, Hesych. II p. 261, s.v. , p. 734, s.v. .

115. It is recorded elsewhere only at Hesych. IV p. 42, s.v. (on which see p. 22).

116. See n. 64.

117. For this word see schol. Aristoph., Equ. 1278, 1287Google Scholar, Pax 883.

118. For this phrase see schol. Aristoph., Vesp. 1275, 1346Google Scholar.

119. Suda. III p. 240.7Google Scholar (Thesm. 53-7) may however be a Byzantine combination.

120. For see Eupolis, fr. 92.26 CGF Austin, Aristoph., Plut. 155Google Scholar, Alexis, Com. fr. 242.1, Xen., Mem. 1.6.13Google Scholar, Demosth. 22.73, 24.181, Aeschin. 1.70, 157; for Aristoph., Ach. 524, 527, 1091Google Scholar, Equ. 1400, 1403, Vesp. 500, 739, Pax 165, Ran. 1043, Eccl. 718, Plut. 243, Anaxilas. Com. frs. 21.5, 22.22, Eupolis, fr. 98.2, Antiphanes, fr. 300.3, Diphilus, fr. 43.40, Menan., Epitr. 646Google Scholar, fr. 7.2, inc. fr. 177.3 Körte, Com. adesp. 220.97 CGF Austin, Lys. 4.9, 19, Demosth. 19.229, 22.56, 58, 61, 48.56, 59.112, 113, 114, Xen., Mem. 1.5.4Google Scholar.

121. Both words are absent from Plato's dialogues.

122. Aristoph., Plut. 149–56Google Scholar and Xen., Mem. 1.6.13Google Scholar are suggestive. For the grammatical doctrine see Didymus ap. Harpocr. p. 268 Dindorf, s.v. , Suda IV p. 113Google Scholar. 13 . Benveniste, E., ‘Euphemismes anciens et modernes’, Die Sprache I (1949), 116–22 (118)Google Scholar, argues that like Latin meretrix and Gothic hors was in origin a euphemistic term. Perhaps so. I suspect however that Christian attitudes to sex have perverted Benveniste's view. See below, nn. 198, 281, on the bad odour of commercialism.

123. See Anaxilas, Com. fr. 21, Plut., Sol. 15.2Google Scholar.

124. See Pollux 6.189. The implication was that the woman or her legal husband profited financially.

125. For the continuing mildness in tone of in late pagan society cf. Aristaenetus 2.11.5. The Aristophanic commentators used it quite neutrally of women referred to in the scripts (schol. Equ. 1388, Nub. 684), of speaking females (Plut. 1070), and of mutes (Ach. 1200, 1216). It also served as a generic term to which (Plut. 149), (Eccl. 1098), (Pax 812), and (Av. 1258) could be related as specifics. For see Polyb. 12.15.2, Philo., Leg. All. 3.8Google Scholar, I p. 115.2 Cohn and Wendland, Pollux 6.126, 6.151, 7.201, Lucian, , Adu. Ind. 25Google Scholar, Dio 45.28.2, [Demosth., ] Epist. 4.11Google Scholar, [Phalaris, ], Epist. 4Google Scholar, schol. Aristoph., Nub. 446Google Scholar, Vesp. 82, schol. Aeschin. 1.52.

126. See Petron. 81. 5-6, fr. 30, 14, Martial 9. 37. 9-10, 11. 29.5-8, 11.87, Juven. 1.37-41, 6. 355-9, 10. 319-21, Auson., Epigr. 94. 7–8Google Scholar.

127. So H. Stuart Jones' revision of Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon in regard to [Demosth., ] Epist. 4. 11Google Scholar and [Phalaris, ], Epist. 4Google Scholar. Liddell and Scott themselves glossed the former with ‘pedico’ and the latter with ‘vile wretch’ (doubtless aware of Bentley, R., A Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris [London, 1699] 415–16Google Scholar). What caused Stuart Jones to go against Housman's advice (see App. I) is hard to say. For the Christian use of see p. 29.

128. See C.I.L. IV 5408, 8939, 8940Google Scholar. The fate threatening the ugly young slave of the leno in Plautus' Pseudolus seems to involve fellating men in the street (vv. 781-2).

129. On Cyrillus see Reitzenstein, R., RhM 43 (1888) 457–9Google Scholar. On the tradition of the ‘glossary’ see the work of A. B. Drachmann, cited above, n. 108, and Naoumides, M., ‘The v-Recension of St. Cyril's Lexicon’, Illinois Class. Stud. 4 (1979) 94–135Google Scholar.

130. See p. 28.

131. See p. 29.

132. For the interest of the commentators in etymology see schol. Aristoph., Equ. 355Google Scholar. For the lexicographers see Suda III p. 38.17Google Scholar, IV p. 783.1 Suetonius' Π. . offered many such etymologies; cf. in addition to Eustath., Comm. Hom. Il. 9.129, p. 741.28–9Google Scholar, discussed above, p. 18, Comm. Hom. Od. 22.144, p. 1921.59 ff., Suda III p. 429.14 ff.Google Scholar, s.v. .

133. On the of Aristophanes see Pfeiffer, R., History of classical scholarship from the beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic age (Oxford, 1968) 202Google Scholar.

134. Cf. Aristoph., Lys. 81 ff., 980 ffGoogle Scholar.

135. See Alpers, loc. cit. n. 107. On Oros and his works see Ritschl, F., De Oro et Orione (Breslau, 1834Google Scholar = Kleine philologische Schriften I [Leipzig, 1866] 582–673Google Scholar), Reitzenstein, R., Gesch. d. griech. Et. 287–350Google Scholar, Wendel, C., Hermes 72 (1937) 351Google Scholar, RE 18.1 (1939) 1177–83Google Scholar.

136. For the Latin metaphors see above, n. 71.

137. See Demosth. 57.35. Schol. R Aristoph., Lys. 956–8Google Scholar would seem to suggest that the same persons hired out both and .

138. Cf. Aristoph., Equ. 715–18Google Scholar.

139. Cf. Aristoph., Vesp. 1345–50Google Scholar.

140. For wet-nurses as see Antiph. com. fr. 159.4.

141. Cf. schol. Aristoph., Ach. 133Google Scholar, 657 , 680 , Equ. 61 , 270 , 71 , 1126 , Hesych. I p. 118 s.v. , p. 200, s.vv. , p. 213, s.v. , p. 220, s.v. , et al.

142. Cf. Sueton., Π. III 65Google Scholar, schol. Aristoph., Ach. 133Google Scholar … , Av. 165, Equ. 261.

143. Cf. schol. V ad loc. . For the use of see also Aristoph., Ach. 221, 1197Google Scholar, Equ. 1313, Vesp. 721, 1007 , Nub. 1436, Lucian, , Peregr. 13Google Scholar.

144. See Aristoph., Ach. 370–4, 633–42Google Scholar, Vesp. 283, 666-8, 1007.

145. See Aristoph., Equ. 878–80Google Scholar, Nub. 1093-4, Vesp. 686-95, Eccl. 112-13, Eupolis com. fr. 100, Plat, com. fr. 186. Cf. Plat., phil. Symp. 192aGoogle Scholar (Aristophanes speaking).

146. On the character of the (also transmitted in cod. Florence, Bibl. Laur. S. Marc. 303) see Reitzenstein, R., Gesch. d. griech. Etym. 254 ff.Google Scholar, Berger, G., Etymologicum Genuinum et Etymologicum Symeonis (β) (Meisenheim am Glan, 1972) xxvi f.Google Scholar, Lassere, F. and Livaradas, N., Etymologicum Magnum Genuinum I (Rome, 1976) xv ffGoogle Scholar.

147. See Aristoph., Thesm. 558Google Scholar, Diphilus com. fr. 43.22, Epicrates com. fr. 9.1, Theophilus com. fr. 11.4. Theopompus, hist. FGrH 115Google Scholar F 227, Xen., Mem. 4.56 ffGoogle Scholar.

148. See Pollux 6.128, 7.201, Lucian, , Tox. 13Google Scholar, Athen. 14. 621c, Aristaenetus 1.13.59, 1.22.6, 2.19.2, Hesych. I p. 470, s.v. , II p. 412Google Scholar, s.v. , p. 512, s.v. , III p. 372Google Scholar, s.v. , p. 383, s.v. .

149. See Epicrates, fr. 9, Theophilus, fr. 11.

150. II p. 632.

151. The lexicon attributed to Zonaras is related closely to the and has the entry (col. 1292 Tittman).

152. The verb is not evidenced elsewhere. For μαστροπύειν ‘act as a , see Xen., Symp. 4.57 et alGoogle Scholar.

153. See Dio Prus. 66.9 .

154. See Artemidorus 1.79-80, pp. 95.8-98.17 Pack.

155. See Vettius Valens 2.36, pp. 111. 4–8 Kroll, 113.214Google Scholar, 2.38, p. 121.35-6 , Ptolemy, , Tetrabibl. 3.13.160Google Scholar, 166 , Rhetorius, , CCAG VIII 4, pp. 194–8Google Scholar (195.13–14 τὰς , 196.5 … 196.11 , Manetho, , Apotel. 4.311Google Scholar (i.e. cunnilingos), (i.e. , fellatores).

156. In Argos according to Rom., Clem.Hom. 5.18Google Scholar; in Samos according to Origen, , Cels. 4.48Google Scholar.

157. See Diog. Laert. 1.5.

158. See Diog. Laert. 7.187 (SVF II 1071).

159. See Diog. Laert. 7.188. For the Stoic school as a whole see Cic., Fam. 9.22.1Google Scholar, Off. 1.128.

160. See Diog. Laert. 1.5 … 7.187 … , Rom., Clem.Homil. 5.18Google Scholar, Theophilus, , Autol. 3.8Google Scholar … , Origen, , Cels. 4.48Google Scholar.

161. A. P. 5.38. Saumaise suggested with the sense of . The epigram seems to have been first printed by Reiske, J. J., Miscellanea Lipsiensia 9 (1752) 111Google Scholar (n. 287), who confessed himself stumped by .

162. Analecta ueterum poetarum Graecorum, vol. II (Strasbourg, 1773) 349, vol. III (1776), p. 205Google Scholar.

163. Emendationes in Suidam et Hesychium et alios lexicographos graecos, vol. II (Oxford, 1790) 169 nGoogle Scholar.

164. Cf. A. P. 5.103, 105; 6.17; 9.554; 11.39, 155, 328.9-10 (Nicarchus); for other kinds of oral sexuality 11.218-23, 252, 329, 338. It is often obscure what kind is meant.

165. Jacobs, F., (Anthologia Graeca siue Poetarum Graecorum Lusus, III [Leipzig, 1794] 58Google Scholar, Animaduersiones in Epigrammata Anthologiae Graecae, II iii [Leipzig, 1801] 18Google Scholar), F. Dübner (1871-88), W. R. Paton (1927), and H. Beckby (1957) follow Toup; Jacobs, F. (Anthologia Graeca ad fidem codicis olim Palatini nunc Parisini ex apographo Gothano edita. III [Leipzig, 1817] 60)Google Scholar, H. Stadtmüller (1894) and P. Walz (1928) follow Brunck.

166. For the proposal see Anthologia Graeca … ex apographo Gothano edita, I ((Leipzig, 1813) 94Google Scholar (in the ‘variae lectiones’); for the withdrawal vol. III (Leipzig, 1817) 60 (‘apparatus criticus’).

167. See above n. 2.

168. See the poems cited in n. 164 and compare Latin epigrams on the same topic (on Catull. 78a and 79 and the Greek tradition see Hezel, O., Catull und das griechische Epigramm [Stuttgart, 1932] 42Google Scholar). Where copulation is concerned, Greek epigrammatists tend to use aposiopesis (cf. Alcaeus, , A.P. 12.29.1Google Scholar, Meleager, , A.P. 5.184.5, 12.94.4Google Scholar, Philodemus, , A.P. 5.4.5–6Google Scholar, Antipater Thess. A.P. 9.241.5, Strato, , A.P. 12.11.1–2. 213.2Google Scholar, Automedon, , A.P. 11.326.5Google Scholar) or elaborate metaphorical periphrasis (cf. Eratosthenes, , A.P. 5.242Google Scholar). The verb occurs only at Meleager, , A.P. 11.223.1, 2Google Scholar, Philodemus, , A.P. 5.126.2, 4Google Scholar, Strato, , A.P. 12.245.1Google ScholarCallikter, , A.P. 5.29.1Google Scholar. The sexual organs are rarely given their proper names (Πέος occurs only at Antipater Thess. A.P. 11.224.1 and Strato, , A.P. 12.240.2Google Scholar).

169. Nicarchus has at A.P. 11.242.1, 415.3; at 11.395.1; at 11.241.1 (cf. Strato, , A.P. 12.6.1Google Scholar), at 11.7.4 ( itself seems to be quite absent from epigram); at 9.330.8 (cf. Strato, , A.P. 12.240.1, 4, 245.3Google Scholar, Anon. A.P. 9.317.3, 5).

170. 12. First printed in 1496 (after cod. Rome, Bibl. Vat. gr. 90) as , interpreted by Jacobus Micyllus (Frankfurt, 1538) as ‘gulosus’, by T. Hemsterhys and J. M. Gesner (Amsterdam, 1743) as ‘patinarius’. I. Bekker was the first to print (Leipzig, 1853). is an emendation, made simultaneously by Seiler, E. E. (Acta Societatis Graecae I [Leipzig, 1836] 281–2)Google Scholar and C. E. C. Schneider (in C. Jacobitz's Leipzig 1838 edition).

171. βινῖν occurs only at Parasit. 10 (in a take-off of Epicurean plain-spokenness; contrast Alex. 39, Dial. mer. 14.1), only at As. 56 (citing a proverb). The euphemistic serves for both the male and female organs.

172. See 20, 21, 27, 28. Cf. Rhet. praec. 23.

173. The similarly formed (4) and (10) are also . The type of formation was common in old epic poetry and in Ionian technical prose but practically absent from the Athenian vernacular; see Debrunner, A., IF 23 (1908–1909) 1–43Google Scholar, Chantraine, P., La formation des noms pp. 253–5Google Scholar.

174. On the in general see Jones, C. P., GRBS 13 (1972) 475–8Google Scholar. On Lucian's knowledge of literature see Anderson, G., BICSL 23 (1976) 59–68Google Scholar.

175. 2.16.14–15. First printed in 1566.

176. Aristaeneti epistolae Graecae cum Latina interpretatione et nolis altera editio (Paris, 1594)Google Scholar.

177. J. F. Boissonade (Paris, 1822), p. 703, reports J. C. de Pauw's , D. W. Triller's , and F. L. Abresch's . Hercher, R., Epistolographi Graeci (Paris, 1873), 167Google Scholar, printed A. Nauck's .

178. Collection Froehner I 14Google Scholar, REG 74 (1961 146–7Google Scholar.

179. Leipzig, 1971.

180. With Menan., Dysc. 892Google Scholar and Strato, fr. 1.36 compare Aristaenetus 2.20.16–17 . Sexual intercourse is always referred to euphemistically in the epistles (see 1.3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16, 21; 2.3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 15).

181. Cf. Arnott, W. G., GRBS 14 (1973) 197–211Google Scholar, MPhL 1 (1975) 9–31Google Scholar.

182. See Cramer, J. A., Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis Bibliothecarum Oxoniensium, II (Oxford, 1835) 178Google Scholar. 12-17.

183. See Cramer, op. cit. 98. 24-7, Alpers, K., Theognostos. . Überlieferung, Quellen und Text der Kanones 1–84 (Diss. Hamburg, 1964) 83Google Scholar (for hitherto unknown can. 27. 26).

184. On Cyrillus see n. 129. For other statements of the doctrine see Suda. III p. 240Google Scholar. 10, Eustathius, . Comm. Hom. Il. 9. 129, p. 741, 28Google Scholar, Zonaras, coll. 1287, 1292 Tittmann, , [Herodianus], Partit. p. 76 BoissonadeGoogle Scholar.

185. Suda, III p. 240. 6Google Scholar, Zonaras, col. 1292. Other unprinted lexica have the entry (see Adler, , Suidae Lexicon I xvii–xviiiGoogle Scholar, III ad loc. cit., Alpers, , Theognostos 37Google Scholar).

186. See p. 25.

187. See p. 24.

188. See p. 18.

189. P. 76 Boissonade.

190. On Triclinius and Aristophanes see Wilson, N. G., CQ n.s. 12 (1962) 33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

191. See p. 24.

192. Cf. Herodot. 1. 93, Eupolis com. fr. 67, Lys, fr. 155, Aeschin. 1. 29 et passim, Demosth. 19. 233.

193. Cf. Didymus ap. Harpocr. p. 268 Dindorf, s.v. , Diog. Laert. 6. 61, schol. Aristoph, . Lys. 231, 396Google Scholar, Ran. 873. The usage spread in more formal writing; cf. Lucian, , Alex. 5Google Scholar, Dio 65. 5. 1.

194. Cf. Athen. 6. 241 e, Dio 60. 31. 1, 79. 13. 2, schol. Aristoph., Ran. 425Google Scholar.

195. Cf. Matth. 21. 31, Luke 15. 30, Paul, , Cor. 1. 6. 15Google Scholar.

196. See particularly Mark 10. 19 v. 1. (non adulterabis non fornicaberis Vet. Lat. ne adulteres Jerome), Paul, , Cor. 1. 10. 8Google Scholar (referring to Num. 25. 1–9), John, , Rev. 17.2, 18.3, 18.9Google Scholar. At Num. 25. 1 the Septuagint has clearly of the male part in the sexual act. The participle renders the Hebrew qadeš at Deut. 23. 17 (fornicans Vet. Lat. scortaior Jerome).

197. See particularly Paul, , Cor. 1. 6. 9Google Scholar ( [impudici Vet. Lat. fornicarii Jerome] distinguished from and , Heb. 13. 4 ( [fornicatores Vet. Lat. and Jerome] distinguished from ). The masculine noun is absent from the Septuagint apart from the obscure Si. 23. 16–18 (no Hebrew extant; fornicarius Vet. Lat.). To judge by 1 Kings 14.24, 15.12, 22.47, 2 Kings 23. 7, Hos. 4. 14 it was not thought suitable to translate the Hebrew qadeš ( Aquila: effeminatus Jerome). The feminine noun on the other hand not only regularly translated zonah but also qdešah at Gen. 38. 21–2 (fornicaria … fornicaria Vet. Lat. mulier … scortum Jerome) and Deut. 23. 17 (fornicaria Vet. Lat. meretrix Jerome). I am grateful to P. S. Alexander for guidance in biblical matters.

198. Contrast with Didymus' etymology (above, n. 122) four at [Athanasius], Def. 11, XXVIII 552Google Scholar a Migne: .

199. For of male fornication see Origen, , Hom, in Jer. 20. 9, XIII 521Google Scholar D Migne, , Hom, in Johann. 32. 2, XIV 745Google ScholarMigne, B. Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961) 1122Google Scholar, lists Mart., JustinApol. 1. 15.9 and 2. 2. 16Google Scholar under the rubric , ‘fornicator’ but the contexts are very general ones and the nature of Justin's addressees must be kept in mind. More certain are Basil, , Hom, in Ps. 61, XXIX 476Google ScholarMigne, B, Ep. 199Google Scholar can. 21, XXXII 721 A Migne. Clement of Alexandria uses in the manner of the pagans; cf. Paed. 2. 10. 93. 4 I p. 213 Stählin (paraphrasing Crates of Thebes), 3.3.20. 4, I p. 248, 3.4.29. 3, I p. 253.

200. For of the libidinous male see Hesych. II p. 320, s.v. , p. 479, s.v. , p. 563, s.v. , III p. 362, s.v. . If these are all interpolations from the glossary of Cyrillos my point is all the stronger. I p. 426, s.v. , II p. 462Google Scholar, s.v. , p. 554, s.v. κυσονίπται, p. 616, s.v. would stem from Diogenian, Hesychius' principal source. For of libidinous activity see Hesych. II p. 88, s.v. , p. 121, s.v. , p. 635, s.v. (at p. 213 however glosses ). Pagan society did not entirely approve of the kind of male the Church called a . From Suetonius' list of injurious terms for nine survive: , (I 14–22).

201. For in the Christian sense see Tzetzes, , Comm. Aristoph. Ran. 1051Google Scholar, Triclinius, , Comm. Aristoph. Nub. 1070Google Scholar, Vesp. 1364; for Tzetzes, , Comm. Aristoph. Ran. 429Google Scholar.

202. At Equ. 877 and Nub. 909 Triclinius has of a man described by an ancient commentator as a . At Equ. 877, 879, Vesp. 687 he uses of the behaviour of anal pathics.

203. For the text of the whole poem see p. 17.

204. Rome, 22. 3. 1474. There was another printing in Venice in the same year.

205. What Calderini seems to have originally written on Martial 11. 58. 12 was , id est irrumationem (perhaps , id est irrumationem <pati>). cupidae auaritiae, id est tibi cupido et auaro (this may have been intended to follow the next sentence), uel dicet bene uale et dimittet sine praemio.’ In the margin of the presentation copy made for Lorenzo de' Medici and autographed on 1 September 1473, cod. Florence, Bibl. Laur. 53. 33, he added ‘unde hoc uerbo usus est Lucianus pro genere libidinis quo mulieres inter se utuntur.’ Similar notes have been added at 7.67 (hoc genus libidinis mulieres Lesbiae primae inuenerunt unde id agere dicitur. autores Lucianus et Aristophanes) and 7. 70 (Sappho Lesbia fuit. non mirum si fuit tribas. nam Lesbiae mulieres id libidinis genus excogitauerunt. autores Lucianus et Aristophanes unde dicuntur mulieres uicissim agentes). The doctrine of these notes, which for some reason do not appear in the printed editions, is a conflation of Pseudol. 28, where a male addicted to oral vice is being described and the verb is used, and Dial. mer. 5, where a tribad from Lesbos is described. I am indebted to A. J. Dunston for information about the contents of the Florentine codex and much help in interpreting this information. On the codex and the unsatisfactoriness of the printed editions of Calderini's Martial commentary see Dunston's, ‘Studies in Domizio Calderin’, IMU 11 (1968) 71–150 (116–23)Google Scholar.

206. It looks as if (cf. Demosth. 19. 248) was meant to fill the second blank space (ρω αι ἔρ ἔρρωσο in iater editions). Every modern apparatus criticus saddles Calderini with the responsibility for .

207. Equ. 1285. Pax 855. See above, n. 88.

208. For lambere see 2.61. 2, 3.81.2; for lingere 7.55.6. 9.40.4; for cunnilingus 4.43.11, 7.95.14, 12.59.10, 12. 85. 3.

209. Col. 51 has fello, –las, . On Vulcanius and his sources see Loewe, G., Prodromus corporis glossariorum Latinorum (Leipzig, 1876) 194–200Google Scholar.

210. Aristophanis Comoediae nouem cum commentariis antiquis (Basle, 1547) 505Google Scholar.

211. I.e. between the printing of the text carried by cod. Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 7989 and Gronov's death. The conjecture is reported by Scheffer, J. in Titi Petroni Arbitri Equitis Romani Satyricon cum notis Boschii Reinesii et Schefferi (Amsterdam, 1700) II 277–8Google Scholar. There is no mention of it in Lectionum academicarum liber (Hamburg, 1675)Google Scholar.

212. See above, n. 163.

213. I find it in Hederich-Patrick (London, 1738), Valpy (London, 1822), Hase-Dindorf (Paris, 1842-46), Pape (Braunschweig, 1842-5), Liddell-Scott (Oxford, 1843) but not in Étienne (Paris, 1572), Scapula (Basle, 1579), Schrevel (Leiden, 1654), Damm-Duncan (Glasgow, 1824), Passow (Leipzig, 1819), Jacobiz-Seider (Leipzig, 1850), Bailly (Paris, 1894), or Liddell-Scott-Jones (Oxford, 1925-40).

214. Florence, 1538.

215. Venice. 1545.

216. Vol. V, col. 1340 (in the Index in Thesaurum Linguae Graecae, ah Henrico Stephano constructus). From here the entries pass to Scapula, J., Lexicon Graeco-Latinum Novum (Basle, 1628; ed. 1, 1579)Google Scholar, s.v. κάζω, to A. Valpy's edition of the Thesaurus, vol. IV (London, 1822)Google Scholar, s.v. κάζω, and to K. B. Hase and W. and L. Dindorfs edition, vol. V (Paris, 1842–6), s.v. λαιάζω.

217. See p. 35.

218. It is noteworthy that Duncan's, J. M. edition of Damm's, C. T.Novum Lexicum Graecum Etymologicum el Reale (Glasgow, 1824)Google Scholar has an entry on referring across to those on κάζω and the former follows Étienne's explanation of the verb; the latter gives the correct explanation of . The eleventh edition of Bailly, A., Dictionnaire grec-français (originally Paris, 1895)Google Scholar, translates both and as ‘se prostituer’ as ‘prostitué’.

219. See Jacobs, F., Anthologia Graeca III (Leipzig, 1817) 60Google Scholar, on his own suggestion about A.P. 5. 38.4 made four years previously; Blaydes, F. H. M., Aristophanis Ecclesiazusae (Halle, 1881) 186Google Scholar, on Dindor'fs suggestion about the scholium on v. 920; Friedländer, L., M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Libri, vol. II (Leipzig, 1886) 197Google Scholar, on Schneidewin's restoration of 11.58.12; the same scholar, Petronii Cena Trimalchionis (Leipzig, 1906) 251Google Scholar, on Burman's restoration of 42. 2.

220. Cf. Bloch, L., Philologus 56 (1897) 548CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

221. See above, n. 56.

222. In a discussion of Petronius 28.2 and Martial 12.82.11 (see above, n. 2).

223. In a discussion of Martial 2.83 and 4.17 (see above, n. 2).

224. See App. I for Housman's letter of 28 December 1930. The sixth fascicle of the lexicon was, I am led to think, passing through the press at the time and could have been altered.

225. See above, n. 34.

226. There is nothing in his Supplement to the lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones (Oxford, 1968).

227. See above, n. 35.

228. Cf. Paoli, U. E., SIFC n.s. 15 (1938) 43–9Google Scholar, Juret, A., Dictionnair éetymologique grec et latin (Macon, 1942) 352Google Scholar, Marmorale, E. V., Petronii Arbitri Cena Trimalchionis (Florence, 1948) 48Google Scholar, Degani, E., RCCM 4 (1962) 362–5Google Scholar, Stefenelli, A., Die Volkssprache im Werk des Petron (Vienna, 1962) 69Google Scholar, Maxwell-Stuart, P. G., Hermes 103 (1975) 379–80Google Scholar, Henderson, J., The maculate Muse (New Haven and London, 1975) 35, 153Google Scholar, Smith, M. S., Petronii Arbitri Cena Trimalchionis (Oxford, 1975) 99Google Scholar, Dover, K. J., Greek homosexuality (London, 1978) 113 n. 6, 142–3Google Scholar (and n. 12). Herter, H., De Priapo (Giessen, 1932) 190 n. 2Google Scholar, accepts Housman's argument only for Attic Greek. Robert, L., REG 74 (1961) 147Google Scholar, refers Frisk to Heraeus' article but not to Housman's. Fehling, D., Ethologische Überlegungen auf dem Gebiet der Altertumskunde (Munich, 1974) 27–38Google Scholar (28, n. 116) throws a lot of light on the general subject but perhaps fails to appreciate fully Housman's modification of Heraeus' view of the particular word. Giangrande, G., Eranos 71 (1973) 77–82Google Scholar, conjectures at Theocr. 21.32, translating ‘surely you won't act stupidly’ and arguing that by the time of Theocritus the verb ‘had lost its literal force’.

229. Cf. Hofmann, J. B., ed. 3 of Walde, A., Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch I (Heidelberg, 1938) 748Google Scholar, s.v. laecasin, Ernout, A. and Meillet, A., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine, ed. 2 (Paris, 1939) 517Google Scholar, s.v. laecasin (there was no entry in ed. 1), Glare, P. G. W., Oxford Latin Dictionary, fasc. 4 (Oxford, 1973) 995Google Scholar.

230. See above, n. 3.

231. See above, n. 38.

232. This phrase can be particularly misleading. Fehling's, D. article in Homo 23 (1972) 281–5Google Scholar makes the different orientation of clearer than does the book cited above, n. 228. German-speakers conscious of their social impregnability or momentary superiority use such language freely (often shortening to ‘du kannst mich’). A Greek of the pagan era would not have done so; it would have suggested that he was himself a particularly low sort of pathic. At Catull. 97.12, 98.4, C.I.L. IV 4954Google Scholar, Martial 2.61.5–8, 9.4 it is a question of the anus of someone other than the speaker/writer.

233. I am informed that ‘cock-sucker’ is so common at some levels of American English as to be used metaphorically of any person judged to be socially worthless. American lexicographers nevertheless seem strangely naive about the origin of the pejorative term ‘sucker’.

234. On the metrical problems of this passage see Jackson, J., Marginalia scaenica (Oxford, 1955) 109–110Google Scholar. What is omitted may have made the speaker's point a lot clearer.

235. Cited in the scholium on Aristoph., Ran. 1308Google Scholar as well as at Eustathius, , Comm. Hom. Il. 9.129, p. 741Google Scholar. 22–5.

236. The last three passages are all cited in the scholium on Aristoph., Vesp. 1346Google Scholar.

237. See above, n. 66.

238. The epitome of Suetonius' in cod. Paris, Bibl. Nat. suppl. gr. 1164 (see above, p. 18) lists and . Extant literature and the lexica contain many more: e.g. .

239. For the Lacedaemonians see Hesych. II p. 554, s.v. , p. 568, s.v. , p. 569, s.v. ; for the Cretans Aristot., Pol. 2.7.5Google Scholar, 1272a 24, fr. 611. 15, Timaeus, , FGrH 566Google Scholar, F 144 (Athen. 13. 602 f), Hesych. II p. 529, s.v. , Virg., Servius.Aen. 10.325Google Scholar; for the Chalcidians Plut., Mor. 761Google Scholar a, Athen. 13. 601 e, Hesych. IV p. 270, s.v. .

240. See schol. RE Aristoph., Ach. 308Google Scholar.

241. See Aristot. fr. 544, schol. Aristoph., Pax 622Google Scholar, schol. Eurip., Androm. 445Google Scholar.

242. See Polyb. 8. 16. 4–5, Plut., Aem. 23. 10Google Scholar.

243. See Pausanias x 3 Erbse.

244. Maxwell-Stuart, P. G., Hermes 103 (1975) 380Google Scholar, fails to take note of the context of at schol. Aristoph., Ran. 1308Google Scholar.

245. So Dover, K. J., Greek homosexuality 183Google Scholar.

246. From grammars and my own reading I note Soph., Ai. 970Google ScholarAristoph., Ach. 421Google ScholarNub. 1470 , Ran. 28 , a vase graffito reported by Kretschmer, P., Die griechischen Vaseninschriften (Gütersloh, 1894) 87Google Scholar (see also Schulze, W., GGA 1896, 238Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften (Göttingen, 1933) 700Google Scholar), Plat., Hipp. mai. 292Google Scholar, Demosth. 10. 62 , 19. 186 . 21. 112 οὐ μέτεστιν, οὒ 25. 50 Aristaen. 1. 24. 15–16 . This type should be kept distinct from the one at Hom., Od. 3. 27–8Google Scholar, Aesch., Ag. 1299Google Scholar, Soph. fr. 846 Radt, Xen., Symp. 2.4Google Scholar, Plat., Pol. 3. 390Google Scholar c, 6. 484 d, 10. 605 e, Menan., Colax fr. 2. 4–5Google Scholar.

247. Elmsley, P., Aristophanis comoedia Acharnenses (Oxford, 1809) 124Google Scholar, put Soph., Ai. 970Google Scholar, Aristoph., Ran. 1308Google Scholar and Menan., Colax fr. 2.4–5Google Scholar (Athen. 10.434 c) together with Ach. 421 and proposed that οὐ be replaced with οὐν in all four places.

248. F. V. Fritzch (Zürich, 1845) suggested the interpretation ‘haec Euripidis crotalistria minime imitabatur Terpandrum Lesbium’; J. van Leeuwen (Leiden, 1896) ‘haec certe Musa satis discrepat a priscis uatibus Lesbiis’; T. G. Tucker (London, 1906) ‘did not act the Lesbian, i.e. (1) practised no true music learned from the Lesbian, (2) had not charms enough to play the part of the Lesbian women’; L. Radermacher (Vienna. 1922) ‘diese Muse war nicht geeignet für Liebesaffären’; W. B. Stanford (London, 1958) ‘this Muse certainly wasn't playing the Lesbian part’.

249. Cf. the behaviour attributed to pipe-players at Aristoph., Vesp. 1345–6Google Scholar and Menan., Peric. 485Google Scholar.

250. For the vulgarity of castanet rhythm see schol. RV ad loc. , Apul., Met. 8.24Google Scholar. For its sexually exciting character see Scipio ap. Macrob., Sat. 3. 14. 7Google Scholar, [Virg., ] Copa 1–4Google Scholar, Martial 6. 71, Anon. Priap. 27, Juven. 11. 162–76 (171–2), Alex., Clem.Paed. 2. 4. 2, I p. 181Google Scholar. Arnob. 2. 42. It had a role in the cult of Cybele (Hom., Hymn. 14. 3–4Google Scholar, Pindar, , Dith. 2. 8–11Google Scholar, Eurip., Hel. 1308–19Google Scholar, Thyillus, , A.P. 7. 223. 1–2Google Scholar) and in the wilder forms of the cult of Dionysus (Eurip., Cycl. 204–5Google Scholar and various vase paintings discussed by Wegner, M., Das Musikleben der Griechen [Berlin, 1949] 62–3, 212–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

251. My interpretation is admittedly speculative but perhaps no more speculative than others. Before the time of Didymus the statement was set against 1305 . The commentator presumably had in mind the scene of Euripides' tragedy in which the heroine shook a rattle at the child on her arm as she sang (see Photius, , Lex. I p. 353Google Scholar, s.v. , P. Oxy. 6. 852, fr. 1, col. ii, 8, Bond., G. W.Euripides. Hypsipyle (Oxford, 1963) 65, 139–40Google Scholar). This was no more than a learned guess, one of several made about the play by scholars treating it as a piece of book-literature.

252. See App. II.

253. Cf. Taillardat, J., Les images d'Aristophane (Paris. 1962) 428 n. 3Google Scholar.

254. See above, n. 65.

255. Aristophanes. Ecciesiazusae (Oxford, 1973) 203Google Scholar. Faber, Tanaquil, Epistolae. pars altera … additae sunt Aristophanis (Saumur, 1665) 168Google Scholar, offered the comment: ‘alludit ad foeditatem Lesbiam … fortasse id etiam eo dictum est quod earn diuaricatis cruribus decumbentem uideret.’ It is hard to see what grammatical structure Toup, J. had in mind when he argued, Emendationes in Suidam … pars tertia (London, 1766) 133–5Google Scholar, that λάβδα was an adverb formed from λάπτειν.

256. Rutherford, W. G., Scholia Aristophanea, vol. II (London, 1896) 551Google Scholar, restored the original comment as N.G. Wilson (private communication) suggests .

257. Aristophanis Comoediae II, Variae lectiones nolae et emendationes (Strasbourg, 1783) 51Google Scholar; cf. Forberg, F. C., in his edition of the Hermaphroditus of Beccadelli (Antonius Panormita)(Coburg, 1824) 278–9, 336Google Scholar.

258. Aristophanis Ecclesiazusae (Halle, 1881) 186Google Scholar.

259. For the effeminacy of Ionian males see Cratinus com. fr. 419 (Photius, , Lex. I p. 301Google Scholar, s.v. , Aristoph., Ach. 104–7Google Scholar, Thesm. 160-63, Thucyd. 5.9.1, 6.77.1, Satyrusap. Athen. 12.534 b, [Hal., Dionys.] Ars rhet. 11. 3, II p. 379Google Scholar. 2 Usener-Radermacher, Hesych. I p. 311, s.v. , II p. 384Google Scholar, s.v. . Presumably they were thought unable to satisfy the appetites of their womenfolk. For Ionian women, , see Aeschines Socr. ap. Athen. 5. 220 b. For the women of Ionian Miletus and the dildo (not necessarily referred to earlier in this play) see schol. Aristoph., Lys. 109Google Scholar, Suda III p. 518Google Scholar. 19, s.v. .

260. The nearest to this kind of euphemism elsewhere in comedy is Aristoph., Ach. 1149Google Scholar γε (Reiske: γε codd.) τὸ δεῖνα.

261. See Varr., Men. 48Google Scholar and App. VI. It is hard to know what to make of the solitary lambda on the opposite side of the fourth century scyphos bearing (C33 Lang; see p. 15).

262. For fellation and eating see Catull. 80. 6 grandia te medii tenta uorare uiri, 88. 8 non si demisso se ipse uoret capite, C.I.L. IV 1825Google Scholar… fellator esuris, 1854 Caliste deuora (∼ 5396 Cossutifela), 2360 ursi me comedant et ego uerpam qui lego, Martial's joke about the Priapus siligineus at 14.69, Tertull., Apol. 9. 12Google Scholaruiuos uorant … futurum sanguinem lambunt … non edunt infantes plane sed magis puberes. Archil. spur. 328. 9 .

263. The meals provided in this building at public expense were'a regular butt of the comedians (see Aristoph., Equ. 280–83, 535, 573–6, 709, 1404Google Scholar, Pax 1084, Ran. 764) and others (see Plat., Apol. 36 dGoogle Scholar).

264. Cf. the way in which the at Nub. 910–14 and the young scape-grace at Nub. 1328–68 take insults as compliments and the leno at Plaut., Pseud. 360–8Google Scholar accepts a whole series as true and justified.

265. Cod. Ravenna, Bibl. Class. 429 abbreviates the note to .

266. See Jones, D. M. and Koster, W.J.W., Scholia in Aristophanem I ii (Groningen-Amsterdam, 1969) 47Google Scholar. On the value of the scholia and glosses in the Milan manuscript see Jones, D. M., CQ n.s. 5 (1955) 46–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

267. is an odd word for a grammarian himself to use. For however see schol. Aristoph., Equ. 78, 639Google Scholar, Eccl. 102, 801, Plut. 176, Hesych. II p. 126, s.v. , p. 312, s.v. .

268. p. 30.

269. The presence of ἑταῖραι at private banquets was not uncommon at Athens; see Aristoph., Ach. 1092Google Scholar, Isaeus 3. 13-14, Xen., Mem. 1. 5. 4Google Scholar, Plat., Rep. 2. 373 aGoogle Scholar, [Demosth.] 59. 33–4.

270. The new Phrynichus (London, 1881) 401–3Google Scholar. The sense which Rutherford gave to and (‘make water’, ‘ease oneself’, ‘coeo’) suggests that with ‘relieve oneself’ he had masturbation in mind.

271. Aristophanesstudien I (Leipzig, 1898) 24Google Scholar. Cf. J. van Leeuwen ad loc. (Leiden, 1900).

272. Cf. Dover, K. J., Greek homosexuality 142 n. 12Google Scholar.

273. See nn. 7, 9.

274. See Cobet, C. G., Novae lectiones (Leiden, 1858) 248–66Google Scholar (253 on ), Rutherford, W. G., The new Phrynichus 138, 376 ffGoogle Scholar.

275. Housman text © 1980 The A. E. Housman Estate. The original is in a collection of letters relating to Henry Stuart Jones' revision of Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon which is preserved in room 302, Clarendon Building, Bodleian Library, Oxford. It was drawn to my attention by P. G. W. Glare on 3 May 1979. I owe permission to publish the text to the Oxford University Press and to the Society of Authors acting on behalf of the Estate of A. E. Housman. Mr Glare tells me that there are no other letters by Housman in the collection.

276. For the text see p. 13.

277. Schol. ad loc. εἰϛ is to be understood ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with πρωκτόν.

278. D. Barrett (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1964). Cf. Taillardat, J., Les images d'Aristophane 70Google Scholar, Dover, K. J., Greek homosexuality 143Google Scholar.

279. A few translators (e.g. Hickie, Van Daele, Cantarella) have followed orthodox opinion about λαικζειν. Most try to take some account of the context: Andreas Divus translates ‘et fucat’ (so too Frischlin); the Rositini brothers ‘e sbelleta’; L. Kuster ‘et impudice se gerit’; Brunck ‘et clunem agitat’; Seeger ‘und juckt’; Poyard ‘et se livre à un amant’; Rogers ‘does what is wrong’; Marzullo ‘e lo piglia a quel posto’; P. Dickinson ‘I know what passage he offers’; Barrett ‘and stuffeth it up his fanny’.

280. πράμοϛ is not elsewhere recorded but appears to be linguistically possible (cf. Schwyzer, , Griech. Gramm. I 494Google Scholar n. 2, 595, Frisk, , Griech. Et. Wört. II 600Google Scholar). Agathon may have used it in one of his tragedies. Most editors follow Grynaeus in substituting πρόμοϛ, an epic word explained by grammarians as a contraction of πρόμαΧοϛ (see schol. Hom., A.Il. 3. 44Google Scholar) and frequently used of royal personages in tragedy (Aesch., Ag. 200, 410Google Scholar, Eum. 399, Soph., OR 660Google Scholar, OC 884, Eurip., Heraclid. 670Google Scholar, Tr. 31, Phoen. 1244, IA 699).

281. For the general substance of the insult see vv. 35, 206, Equ. 876–80, Vesp. 1063–70, Lys. 1092, Ran. 29, 57, Eupolis, fr. 100. 2, Plaut., Asin. 703Google Scholar, Aul. 280–88, 636–8, Capt. 867–8, Epid. 66, Most. 890–96, Pseud. 314, 1177–82, 1187–8, Rud. 1073–5. For the verbal form see vv. 157–8, 1115–24, Plaut., Aul. 285–6, 637Google Scholar, Auson., Epigr. 77. 7Google Scholar, Strato, , A.P. 12. 210.3–4Google Scholar. It was the taking of money in return for the act which brought special opprobrium (Aeschin. 1 passim, Diog. Laert. 2.31 (on Phaedon), Justin 22. 1. 2–5 (on Agathocles), Plaut., Curc. 482Google Scholar, Cato, , Or. fr. 212Google Scholar, Catull. 33. 7–8, 106, Calvus, fr. 18, Cic., Phil. 2. 44–5Google Scholar, Plut., Cic. 7. 7Google Scholar, Ant. 2. 4–5Google Scholar, Sammonicus Serenus ap. Macrob., Sat. 3. 17. 4Google Scholar.

282. Comic personages often used this kind of imagery in an approving way (cf. vv. 67–9, Ach. 685–8, Equ. 782, Nub. 1397, Pax 749–50, Ran. 819, 826, 880–81, 900–902, 956, fr. 699, Cratinus, fr. 70, Pherecr. fr. 94, Plato com. fr. 67). For a clearly pejorative use see Alexis, fr. 220/21. 7–8. Whether any fifth century theorist used it seriously and what attitude the comic poets themselves had to it are questions not as easily answered as some historians of Greek aesthetics think.

283. See Artemidor. I. 79, p. 96. 9–12.

284. See p. 32.

285. See for teachers of literature Crates, , A.P. 11.218Google Scholar (on Euphorion), Sueton., Gramm. 23.6Google Scholar (on Q. Remmius Palaemon), Auson., Epigr. 87Google Scholar, Anon. A.P. 11. 338Google Scholar; for rhetoricians Lucian, , Pseudol. 23–8Google Scholar, Rhet.praec. 23; for philosophers Lucilius, , A.P. II. 155Google Scholar; for orators Aeschin. 2. 88, Duris, , FGrH 76Google Scholar, F 8 (on Demosthenes), Timaeus, , FGrH 566Google Scholar, F 35 (on Demochares, basing himself on something in a comedy by Archedicus), Axionicus com. fr. 4. 15. 16 (ap. Athen. 8.342 c; on Callias), Cic., Cael. 78Google Scholar, Dom. 25–6, 47, 83, Har. resp. 11, Pis. 8 (on Sex. Cloelius; see Bailey, D. R. Shackleton, CQ n.s. 10 (1960) 41–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar), P. red. in sen. 11 (on A. Gabinius), Sest. 111 (on L. Gellius), Achilles Tatius 8. 9. 2, 5.

286. See Aristot., Pol. 5.8.13, 1311b 30Google Scholar, Stob., Flor. 3.41.6, p. 758Google Scholar Hense, Anon. Vit. Eur. 84–6. For the malodorous breath of the see Petron. 21. 2, Martial 11. 30. 1, 12. 85.

287. P. Cologne 7511. 14 (Page, D. L., Supplementum lyricum Graecum (Oxford, 1974) 478. 21Google Scholar).

288. On the proper sense of see Jannoray, J., BCH 64–5 (1940–1941) 38–40; 68–9 (1944–5) 89 n. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

289. Cf. Merkelbach, R., ZPE 14 (1974) 106Google Scholar, Barigazzi, A., Gallivotti, C., Marzullo, B., Montanari, O., Mus. Crit. 8–9 (1973–1974) 8, 24, 48–9, 93Google Scholar, Degani., E.A&R 19 (1974) 118–19Google Scholar, Koenen, L., Poetica 6 (1974) 502Google Scholar, Bert, J. E. and Luppe, W., ZPE 16 (1975) 229Google Scholar, Risch, E., Graz. Beitr. 4 (1975) 222Google Scholar, Marcovich, M., GRBS 16 (1975) 7Google Scholar, Casanova, A., Prometheus 2 (1976) 33 n. 38Google Scholar ( = ‘rafa perineale’).

290. For the use of the penis see Aristoph., Equ. 364Google Scholar, Diodor. 16. 93. 7 (and Justin 9. 6. 4–8). Nicarchus, , A.P. 9. 330. 7–8Google Scholar, a second century A.D. Ostia graffito (Corte, M. Delia and Ciprotti, P., SDHI 27 (1961) 336–7Google Scholar (no. 61), Solin, H., Arctos 7 (1972) 195Google Scholar, Rea, J., ZPE 36 (1979) 309–10)Google Scholar, Catull. 16. 1. 14; 56. 6–7, Hor., Serm. 1.2. 133Google Scholar, Anon. Priap. 5 et saepe, C.I. L. IV 2254Google Scholar, Val. Max. 6. 1. 13, Martial 2. 60. 2, Apul., Met. 9. 28Google Scholar; for penis-substitutes see Aristoph., Nub. 1083Google Scholar, Catull. 15. 18–19, Juven. 10. 317, Lucian, , Peregr. 9Google Scholar, Diog. Laert. 2. 128 (anecdote about Menedemus), Anon. A.P. 9. 520, schol. Aristoph., Plut. 168Google Scholar, Hesych. II p. 567, s.v. Suda IV p. 285Google Scholar, s.v. . In general see Fehling, D., Ethologische Überlegungen (cited above, n. 228) 18–26Google Scholar. To Fehling's ethological material may be added what ancient writers report about roosters and partridges (Aristot., H.A. 9.8, 614Google Scholar a 2, Plin., Nat. 10.100–101Google Scholar. Athen. 9.389c. 391e, Aelian., An. 4.16Google Scholar).

291. See Herod. 6. 137. 3, 9. 73. 2, Pindar, , Pyth. 10.36Google Scholar, Bacchyl. 17. 39–41, Eurip., Hipp. 1072–3Google Scholar, El 945–8, Hel. 784–5, Aristoph., Nub. 1068–70Google Scholar, Critias ap. Ael., V. H. 10.13Google Scholar (on Archilochus; cf. Max Tyr. 18.9), Xen., Mem. 2. 1. 30Google Scholar, Plat., Phaedr. 254 c-eGoogle Scholar, Lys. 1 passim, 12.98, 14.26, Aesch. 1. 15–17, Demosth. 22. 58, 23. 141, Theopompus, , FGrH 115 F 187, 213Google Scholar, Aristot., E.N. 7. 5. 3, 1148b 29–31Google Scholar, fr. 570, Clearchus, fr. 43a Wehrli, Nicarchus., A.P. 9. 330. 6Google Scholar ( of an ithyphallic Pan) and in general MacDowell, D. M., G&R 23 (1976) 17Google Scholar, N. R. E. Fisher, ibid. 186–7.

292. For of a person lacking in sexual self-control see Crates Theb. ap. Alex., Clem.Strom. 2. 20. 121.1, II p. 179Google Scholar (fr. 5 Diels).

293. and are absent from oratory, from Plato's dialogues and even from tragedy. For the epic usage exploited by the cook see Hom., Il. 11. 695Google ScholarOd. 24. 282 , Hes., Theog. 514–16Google Scholar, Erg. 134 .

294. Cf. [Hippocr., ] Epist. 23.5Google Scholar.

295. For the text see p. 13.

296. Cf. Eupolis, fr. 209, Aristoph., Equ. 1374–80Google Scholar, Xen., Symp. 2. 3Google Scholar, Diog. Laert. 2. 76 (anecdote about Aristippus), 6. 66 (about Diogenes of Sinope), 7. 23 (about Zeno). For the same attitude to perfumes at Rome see Scipio Aemil. fr. 17, Titius, fr. 2, Cic., Sex. Rose. 135Google Scholar, Sest. 18, P. red. in sen. 12–16, Pis. 25.

297. See Semonides, fr. 16 West (on women using before sexual intercourse), Hesych. II p. 554, s.v. .

298. In J. Schweighaüser's edition of Athenaeus (see above, n. 7). Schweighaüser himself translated ‘baccharin tuis uero pedibus ego emam? itane prostituam baccarin?’

299. In vol. III of his translation of Athenaeus (London, 1854) 1102.

300. In vol. VII of his translation of Athenaeus (London, 1941) 195.

301. In Adversaria II (Cambridge, 1833) 353Google Scholar.

302. See Meineke, A., Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum II ii (Berlin, 1840) 883–4Google Scholar (in vol. I (1839), pp. 268–9, Meineke had followed Koraës and Schweighaüser), Kock, T., Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta I (Leipzig, 1880) 800–1Google Scholar, Edmonds, J. M., The fragments of Attic Comedy I (Leiden, 1957) 921Google Scholar.

303. Loc. cit. (above, n. 271).

304. Greek homosexuality 142 n. 12, adding the explanation: ‘the noun which follows it (i.e. ) is not its object, but a self-contained incredulous repetition of a word from the previous line.’

305. See above, n. 4.

306. Cf. Archedicus com. fr. 3. 6–7.

307. For self cursing in strong asseveration see Aristoph., Ach. 151–2, 475–8Google Scholar, Equ. 400–401, 409–10, 413–14, 694–5, 767–8, 769–72, 832–5, Nub. 1255, Vesp. 629–30, Lys. 235, 932–3 ( (see Lowe, J. C. B., Hermes 95 (1967) 64–6Google Scholar)), Ran. 579, 586–8, Eccl. 977 (, Eurip., Suppl. 454–5Google Scholar, Eubulus com.fr. 116/7.7 (), Aristophon.fr. 9.9–10, Alexis, fr. 145, Menan., Asp. 282–3Google Scholar, Dysc. 309–12, Epitr. 361–2, 1062–3, Theocr. 5. 15–16, Herodas 7. 31–5, Lucian, , Gal. 33Google Scholar. The way of speaking is parodied at Aristoph., Ran. 177Google Scholar (a corpse speaking).

308. For other occurrences of see above, n. 14. It had much the same tone and force as εὐρύπρωκτος (Aristoph., Ach. 716Google Scholar, Nub. 1084, Thesm. 200) and (Ach. 106). It would have been stronger than καταπύγων (see above, p. 23), suggesting long habituation.

309. Cf. the ironic Aristoph., Equ. 175Google Scholar, Av. 177 (Lowe, J. C. B., Glotta 51 (1973) 46Google Scholar: . For ᾰρα with the future of verbs of the general sense of (i.e. aliquid pati) see Aristoph., Pax 532–3Google Scholar, Nub. 215–17, Thesm. 247–8, 916–17, Eccl. 942 ( future (cf. Eurip., Androm. 758–9Google Scholar, Heraclid. 270)), Plut. 874–6, Menan., Asp. 356Google Scholar, Xen., Hell. 2. 3. 56Google Scholar (reporting a dialogue).

310. See Plin., Nat. 21. 29, 135Google Scholar, Dioscorides 3. 44. For suggestions about the plant's botanical identity see André, J., Lexique des termes de botanique en latin (Paris, 1956) 49Google Scholar.

311. Cf. Aristoph., Thesm. 247–8Google Scholar (Kuster: .

312. The syntax of F. H. Bothe's , ‘paedicabor si baccarin; , scil. quasi dicat “peream si baccharin tibi emo”’ (Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Paris, 1855) 341Google Scholar) is not credible for an Attic poet and the particular interpretation of is wrong but the general purport of the slave's reaction comes out.

313. For the text see p. 13.

314. Papyrus Bodmer IV. Ménandre: Le Dyscolos (Cologny-Geneva, 1958) 92Google Scholar. van Groningen, B. A., Le Dyscolos de Ménandre. Étude critique du texte (Amsterdam, 1960) 103Google Scholar, translated similarly: ‘ne cesseras-tu pas de dire des bêtises?’ There was more like the required vigour in Diano's, C. ‘valle a contare al postribolo le tue buffonate’ (Menandro. Dyskolos ovvero sia Il Selvalico (Padua, 1959) 136)Google Scholar.

315. Cf. Aristot., Eth. Nic. 4. 14. 6, 1128a22ff.Google Scholar, Plut., Mor. 853Google Scholar a, Hermogenes, , Inv. 4. 11, pp. 200Google Scholar. 20–201. 11 Rabe (on Latin comedy see Cic., Fam. 9. 22. 1Google Scholar), Persons of the educated class in Menander's scripts do in fact without exception speak very decorously about sexual matters (cf. Dysc. 858, Epitr. 478–9, Sam. 47–50, Sicyon. 371–3).

316. Menanders Dyscolos mit einem kritischen Kommentar (Vienna, 1960) 117Google Scholar. Cf. Jacques, J.-J., Ménandre: Le Dyscolos (Paris, 1963) 118Google Scholar, Martin, J., Ménandre. L'Atrabiliaire (Paris, 1973) 179Google Scholar, Arnott, W. G., Menander I (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1979) 335Google Scholar.

317. Cf. Theuerkauf, A., Menanders Dyskolos als Bühnenspiel und Dichtung (Diss. Göttingen, 1960) 108Google Scholar n. I, H. Dohm, Mageiros (Munich, 1964) 234 n. 1Google Scholar. Handley, E. W., The Dyskolos of Menander (London, 1965) 288Google Scholar, ignores the issue. Sandbach, F. H., Menander. A Commentary (Oxford, 1973) 270Google Scholar, accepts the view of Kraus ‘with some hesitation’.

318. At Av. 1257 replies to a threat of sexual assault.

319. Cf. Iuppiter te perduit at Epid. 66, at le cadauer surdum et mulum delirumque praeconem omnipotens et omniparens dea Syria et senatus Sabadius et Bellona et mater Idaea et cum suo Adone Venus domina caecum reddant qui scurrilibus iamdudum contra me uelitaris iocis at Apul., Met. 8. 25Google Scholar. At Poen. 610 di te perduint expresses disgust at an obscene jest.

320. At Curc. 314 and Most. 1002 uae capiti tuo expresses annoyance at a frigid verbal joke.

321. Cf. the use of πάϑημα at Aristoph. Thesm. 210.

322. Cf. Plaut., Pseud. 1143–4Google Scholar, where an insulting gesture accompanies a verbally innocent question.

323. For previous indecency on the part of the slave see vv. 461–2.

324. For fellation regarded as more disgraceful than submission to buggery see Martial 3. 73, 6. 56, 12. 35. For the two acts coupled in insult see Cato ap. Cic., De Orat. 2.256Google Scholar, Petron. 9.6.

325. For the text see p. 13.

326. See Herod. 1. 133, Plat., Leg. 6. 637 eGoogle Scholar; Xen., Cyr. 8. 8. 10Google Scholar, Plut., Mor. 714 dGoogle Scholar.

327. The festive occasion licences the farmer's condition at Ach. 1198 ff. Something about general Athenian attitudes to alcohol can be learnt from Aristoph., Equ. 85–100Google Scholar, Vesp. 79–80, Lys. 1228–38, Ran. 738–40, Critias, Eleg. fr. 6, Demosth. 6. 30, 19. 46.

328. The Athenians liked particularly to distinguish themselves in this respect from the Boeotians; see the passages of Eubulus and others cited by Athenaeus at 10. 417 b-f.

329. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1973.

330. Aristophanis comoedia Acharnenses (Oxford, 1809) 116Google Scholar. Cf. Mitchell, T., The Acharnenses of Aristophanes (London, 1820)Google Scholar ad loc. (pp. 35–6), Rennie, W., The Acharnians of Aristophanes (London, 1909)Google Scholar ad loc. (p. 103). Elmsley had removed the second foot proceleusmatic in v. 78 (on which see most recently Newiger, H.-J., Hermes 89 (1961) 177)Google Scholar by replacing with . Brunck replaced with (after F. Morel) and found ‘uis et lepos quidam’ in the repetition of the pair of particles.

331. Cf. Aristoph., Equ. 179, 1254Google Scholar, Plat., Rep. 8. 549 eGoogle Scholar, Xen., Cyr. 4. 2. 25Google Scholar, Isocr. 15. 121, Demosth. 19. 265, Theophr., Char. 26. 2Google Scholar, Men., Sam. 349–50, 512Google Scholar.

332. See the passages cited above in n. 112. The word often occurs in Attic graffiti; see Blegen, C. W., AJA 38 (1934) 10–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Lang, M., The Athenian Agora Vol. XII, C 5, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27Google Scholar.

333. For fellation and deception see p. 25.

334. Cf. vv. 27 , 75 . The same attitude to pathics is evinced by the chorus (vv. 664, 716).

335. See p. 33.

336. The subject of the epigram is in any case ridiculed as a cunnilingus rather than a fellator. The graphemes named in the poem all seem to have reference to the shape of the female pudendum.

337. Eustathius, , Comm. Hom. Il. 2. 581. 39–42Google Scholar … makes the matter clear, if not Photius, Lex. I p. 368Google Scholar. s.v. . In general see Anderson, J. K., Military theory and practice in the age of Xenophon (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1970) 18–20Google Scholar.

338. Maxwell-Stuart, P. G., Hermes 103 (1975) 380 n. 5Google Scholar, seems to have got his knowledge from modern dictionaries.

339. See Grial, J. G., Diui Isidori Hispal. Episcopi opera (Madrid, 1599) 17Google Scholar: ‘qui impuritiam malunt, aut aliud obscoenum uerbum ex Aristophanis Concionatricibus intelligunt.’

340. For the form impuritia (∼ impuritas) see Plaut., Persa 411Google Scholar; for puritia Varroap. Non. p. 156.8. For the attitude of the Roman military authorities to pathics and the like see Polyb. 6. 37. 9.

341. See Pub. Virgilii Maronis appendix … Josephi Scaligeri … in eandem Appendicem Castigaliones et Commentarii (Leiden, 1572) 208Google Scholar. What Scaliger meant is not entirely clear to me. He cited Ausonius., Epigr. 87. 8Google Scholar (see above, n. 336) and read into Anon. Priap. 78. 5 the name Labdace as one proper to the limping victim of a cunnilingus.

342. See Elementa doctrinae metricae (Leipzig, 1816) 411Google Scholar.

343. See In M. Terentii Varronis Saturarum Menippearum reliquias Coniectanea (Leipzig, 1858) 139–40Google Scholar.

344. See RhM 20 (1865) 406Google Scholar (= Kleine Schriften I (Leipzig-Berlin, 1915) 540)Google Scholar.

345. See Analecta III 210Google Scholar, ‘irrumatorem et paediconem innuit’. Brunck was as confused about the sense of paedico as he was about that of irrumator.

346. Cf. Apollodorus on Sophron ap. Athen. 7.281 e-f.

347. Cf. Jacobs, F., Animaduersiones in Epigrammata Anthologiae Graecae II iii (Leipzig, 1801) 77Google Scholar, Dübner, F., Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina II (Paris, 1888) 449Google Scholar, Beckby, H., Anthologia Graeca IV (Munich, 1958) 525Google Scholar. Maxwell-Stuart, P. G., Hermes 100 (1972) 232Google Scholar, and Clarke, W. M., AJPh 99 (1978) 433–7Google Scholar, make other guesses.

348. Wilamowitz, op. cit. n. 42 above, cited this epigram in arguing that ΛΑΙ alone was written on the sixth century Corinthian plaque, AD ii, pl. 39, 12.

349. Cf. Clarke, M. L. ap. Maxwell-Stuart, P. G., Hermes 103 (1975) 379–80Google Scholar.