The Languages of Aristophanes Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek Oxford Classical Monographs

OXFORD CLASSICAL MONOGRAPHSPublished under the supervision of a Committee of the

Faculty of Classics in the University of Oxford

The aim of the Oxford Classical Monographs series (which replaces theOxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs) is to publish booksbased on the best theses on Greek and Latin literature, ancient history, andancient philosophy examined by the Faculty Board of Classics.

The Languages ofAristophanes

Aspects of Linguistic Variationin Classical A ttic Greek

ANDREAS W I L L I

OXTORDUNIVERSITY PRESS

This book has been printed digitally and produced in a standard specificationin order to ensure its continuing availability

OXFORDUNIVERSITY PRESS

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship,

and education by publishing worldwide in

Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong KarachiKuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi

New Delhi Shanghai Taipei TorontoWith offices in

Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France GreeceGuatemala Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Poland Portugal

Singapore Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Pressin the UK and in certain other countries

Published in the United Statesby Oxford University Press Inc., New York

© Andreas Willi 2003

The moral rights of the author have been asserted

Database right Oxford University Press (maker)

Reprinted 2006

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,

without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate

reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproductionoutside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,

Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this book in any other binding or coverAnd you must impose this same condition on any acquirer

ISBN 0-19-926264-0

To my Parents

Preface

E V E N in classics bookshops linguistic titles do not appear on thebestseller lists, but knowing this and acting accordingly are differ-ent things: to write this book—and the doctoral thesis upon whichit is based—was an act of self-indulgence. The choice of subject letme combine two of my greatest likings, that for language and thatfor entertaining literature. In addition, I enjoyed the privilege ofdeclaring myself a linguist whenever I spoke to a classicist, and aclassicist whenever I spoke to a linguist. There is no better way tobe considered a 'specialist', to hide one's ignorance, and to obtainmuch-needed help. Of this I had no small share, and so my heart-felt thanks go to many people, only a few of whom I can mentionhere.

No one . I should thereforestart with my teachers Manfred Hauser, Christoph Jungck,Andreas Knecht, and Walter Wandeler at the HumanistischesGymnasium Basel, who were the first to awaken my interest in thelanguages of classical antiquity. Later, I was taught by manyinspiring scholars in Basel, Lausanne, Ann Arbor, and Fribourg,among whom I owe most to Joachim Latacz and Rudolf Wachter.

The generous Charles Oldham Graduate Scholarship of CorpusChristi College Oxford allowed me to pursue my research withoutfinancial worries and in the most pleasant surroundings: those whoknow the College's wonderful library will understand what I mean.In the person of Ewen Bowie I had an ever-approachable collegeadviser, who is himself no stranger to Greek comedy. I alsoreceived much friendly and helpful advice from Angus Bowie, whoacted as an interim supervisor in my second year at Oxford, andfrom John Penney and Peter Brown, who at various stages exam-ined my progress on behalf of the Faculty of Literae Humanioresand who were thus forced to read two of my chapters in a less-than-final version.

Richard Ashdowne, Peter Barber, James Henderson, RichardHitchman, Philomen Probert, Elinor Reynolds, Elizabeth Roy,

viii

and Yashovardhan Shah all checked parts of what is presented hereand made my English sound less Scythian. Helen Kaufmann did sotoo, and with immense patience pointed out to me where the logicof my argument was no logic yet. Even so, there were many thingsleft to improve and in the final revision I was able to draw on a largenumber of suggestions made by my doctoral examiners AlbioCassio and Alan Sommerstein, who both sacrificed much of theirtime and shared much of their knowledge with me. After them,Lucy Qureshi, Enid Barker, Lavinia Porter, and Jenny Wagstaffeof Oxford University Press took care of the manuscript, and JulianWard impressed me with his conscientious and circumspect copy-editing.

My greatest debts, however, are those to my parents, fromwhom I may well have inherited my love for language and lan-guages, and those to my supervisor Anna Morpurgo Davies, whoguided and supported my work in such an unsurpassable way thatI feel almost sorry to have finished it now.

A.W.BaselI July 2002

Preface

Contents

Texts, Translations, and Abbreviations x

List of Figures xii

List of Tables xiii

1. Introduction i

2. Religious Registers 8

3. Technical Languages 51

4. 'Scientific Discourse' 96

5. Sophistic Innovations 118

6. Female Speech 157

7. Foreigner Talk 198

8. Conclusion 226

Appendix: Aristophanes' Attic: A Grammatical Sketch 232

References 271

Index of Passages 305

Index of Greek 337

General Index 351

271

305

337

351

Texts, Translations, and Abbreviations

References to, and quotations from, the extant plays ofAristophanes are based on the Oxford editions by Dover (1968)and (1993) for Clouds and Frogs, Dunbar (1995) for Birds,Henderson (1987) for Lysistrata, MacDowell (1971) for Wasps,

Olson (1998) for Peace, and Ussher (1973) for Ecclesiazusae, onSommerstein's Warminster editions for Acharnians (19800),Knights (1981), Thesmophoriazusae (1994), and Plutus (2001).Aristophanic passages are cited by reference to the play alone (e.g'Lys. 27' rather than 'Ar. Lys. 27').

The translations of the Aristophanic passages (except for thefragments, some single words, and certain instances where I wantto bring out a particular point) either quote or closely follow thoseby Sommerstein in his complete edition: Sommerstein fAcharnians, (1981) for Knights, (1982) for Clouds, (1983) forWasps, (1985) for Peace, (1987) for Birds, (1990) for Lysistrata,(1994) for Thesmophoriazusae, (1996) for Frogs, (1998) forEcclesiazusae, and (2001) for Plutus.

All the comic fragments and testimonies are cited according toPoetae Comici Graeci. The fragment numbering for the fragmentsof the Presocratics is that of Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Theabbreviations K[assel]-A[ustin] (PCG) and D[iels]-K[ranz](FVS) have been omitted. Occasional references to other classicaltexts are based on the standard editions; abbreviations for theseand for further corpora are as listed below.

DGE Eduard Schwyzer (ed. and comm.), DialectorumGraecarum exempla epigraphica potiora (Leipzig, 1923)

FGrH Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker,i-iii (Berlin and Leiden, 1923-58); with indexes by PierreBonnechere (Leiden, Boston, and Cologne, 1999)

FVS Hermann Diels and Walther Kranz (ed. and trans.), DieFragmente der Vorsokratiker6, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1952)

Texts, Translations, and Abbreviations xi

IG i3 Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores3, fasc. I:Decreta et tabulae magistratuum (ed. David Lewis: Berlinand New York, 1981); fasc. 2: Dedicationes, catalogi, ter-

mini, tituli sepulcrales, varia, tituli Attici extra Atticam

reperta, addenda (ed. David Lewis and Lilian Jeffery withthe assistance of Eberhard Erxleben: Berlin and NewYork, 1994); fasc. 3: Indices (by David Lewis, EberhardErxleben, and Klaus Hallof: Berlin and New York, 1998).

LSJ Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English

Lexicon9 (revised and augmented by Sir Henry StuartJones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, with arevised supplement by P. G. W. Glare with the assistanceof A. A. Thompson: Oxford, 1996).

PCG Rudolf Kassel and Colin Austin (ed.), Poetae Comici

Graeci (Berlin and New York, 1983- ).PG Patrologia Graeca

aan den Rijn, Germantown, Md., and Amsterdam,

1923- )• ilhelm Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum3

(indexes by Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen: Leipzig,1915-24, repr. Hildesheim, 1960).

SIG#

PMC Denos L.Page (ed),PoetaeMeliciGraeci(?Oxford,1962SEg SupplementukEpighium?Grem(LeidenAl

List of Figures

3.1 Models of technical language 555.1 Nominalization and typicalization processes in Clouds 1508.1 Chapter 5 (argument structure) 2288.2 Chapter 6 (argument structure) 2298.3 Chapter 4 (argument structure) 2298.4 Chapter 7 (fallacy) 230

List of Tables

2.1 The most frequent epithets in Aristophanic hymnsand prayers 20

3.1 Legal terms in Wasps and other plays 73

3.2 Denniston's 'technical terms' 89

3.3 Some pre-technical adjective usages in Frogs 93

5.1 Articular infinitives in classical Greek literature 151

6.1 Distribution of women's lines in Aristophanes 174

A P P E N D I X

A.I Frequency of 'Aeolic' and 'non-Aeolic' optativeendings in Attic drama 246

A.2 Frequency of in Acharnians and Birds 255

A.3 Substantive clauses after in classical Greek (%) 262

A.4 Frequency of on and introducing substantiveclauses in classical Greek 263

A.5 Frequency of indirect questions in classical Greek 263

A.6 Frequency of final conjunctions in classical Greek 265

A.7 The construction of in classical Greek 266

A.8 Frequency of causal conjunctions in classical Greek 267

I

Introduction

IN THE A N C I E N T Life of Aristophanes (Ar. test, I) we are told thathe tyrant Dionysius of Syracuse once asked the philosopher Platofor information about the organization of public life in Athens.Plato, instead of writing a theoretical treatise, replied by sending anedition of the Aristophanic comedies to Sicily; in these plays, hetold Dionysius, the tyrant would find the answer to all his ques-tions:

When Dionysius the tyrant wanted to learn how the Athenian state wasfunctioning, Plato allegedly sent him the work of Aristophanes . . . andsuggested that he should study the plays and learn it that way.

What Dionysius was supposed to do was to read between thelines. He would of course have been naive, for instance, if he hadinferred from Dicaeopolis' behaviour in Acharnians that everyadult Athenian was allowed to make a private treaty with an enemystate. But he would have been correct if he concluded from the plotof Ecclesiazusae that women were not normally allowed to take partin the public decision-making process. Dionysius simply had 'todetermine where reality ends and caricature or fantasy begins'.

The last phrase is quoted from Victor Ehrenberg's ground-breaking 'sociology of Old Attic Comedy', The People ofAristophanes.^ Ehrenberg's project was similar to Dionysius' task,though with a wider scope. It was not just the organization of pub-lic life, i7-oAiT«ia, that interested Ehrenberg. He recognized that com-edy is the most valuable literary source for reconstructing the'atmosphere' of classical Athenian social and economic life as awhole: 'We shall best grasp and comprehend the "atmosphere" . . .

1 Ehrenberg (1962) 39. The following paragraph is based on, and quotes from,the introduction to that book (pp. 1-13).

2 Introduction

when a source answers our questions without intending to do so.' Inmost literary genres, matters of daily life are only introduced whenthey deserve particular attention, 'but in comedy . . . the facts ofsocial and economic life [are] given merely as a background'. Sincthe comic author does not intend to inform his audience or reader-ship about facts of daily life, he does so in the most immediate, unre-flective—or should we say: honest—manner. In comedy, 'the realityof the people is not displaced by the myth, sacred or rationalized, ain tragedy, nor largely lost in the aloofness of the political historianas with Thucydides or in the abstractions of philosophy. In comedyit may be hidden, but it is never destroyed.'

More than half a century after the first publication ofEhrenberg's book, it is a deliberate, though perhaps bold, act ofintertextuality to entitle a book 'The Languages of Aristophanes'.I have done so because, in spite of my different aims, I have beenguided by the same methodological convictions as Ehrenberg—orDionysius, if he followed Plato's advice.

Historical linguists, who are overwhelmed by the grammaticaland dialectological evidence for classical Greek, often (and quiterightly) lament the almost complete lack of sociolinguistic data.The inscriptions, left untouched since antiquity, are the linguist'sfavourite sources, but their stylistic and thematic variety isextremely restricted. Poetry, including tragic poetry, deliberatelydiffers from 'real' language. And even prose, though often accept-able as a substitute for the latter, still cannot provide us with first-hand evidence for oral styles.

However, there is comedy. Just as this genre bristles with thesocio-economic facts of daily life, so it glitters with linguistic vari-ation. Styles, accents, dialects, sociolects—all intermingle. In soci-olinguistics, 'linguistic varieties' is used as a cover term for these'sets of communicative forms', which are restricted to a particulargroup of speakers, situational context, or thematic environment.2

The comic mixture of linguistic varieties is a literary construct, noless than the language of tragedy or prose, but the ingredients, thesingle varieties themselves, are taken from 'real life'. This is no newinsight. Without speaking of linguistic varieties, Kenneth Doverdistinguished the main layers (or 'ingredients') of Aristophanic

2 See e.g. Saville-Troike (1989) 49-50; Hudson (1996) 22-4; Duranti (1997)70-1.

Introduction i,

language thirty years ago, and more recently Antonio Lopez Eireand Stephen Colvin have dealt with two major fields of variation inAristophanes, the only author of Old Comedy whose plays have notbeen lost: Lopez Eire looked at colloquial language, Colvin at non-Attic dialects.3

Both Lopez Eire's colloquialism and Colvin's dialectal diver-gences are extremely basic categories. Do we have to stop there, oris it possible to learn something about more fine-grained linguisticvariation from Aristophanes' comedies? This main question unitesthe following chapters and guides us through them. They all lookat variation in the Attic Greek of Aristophanes, but they can beread independently as they treat different aspects of this topic.

Let me admit right at the beginning, the answer to the questionI have just asked will not always be a positive one, even though Ihave chosen those aspects of variation which seemed most promis-ing to me. But a negative answer can also be useful, for it may nev-ertheless teach us something about 'linguistic cultural history'.There are circumstances in which the absence of evidence is just asnoteworthy as its presence.

A comprehensive treatment of linguistic variation in Aristophaneswas out of the question; the material is too abundant. Still, the rangeof topics presented here is meant to be representative and useful forfurther research along similar lines. My personal selection of vari-eties has been guided by an 'internal', subjective, and an 'external',objective, approach.

'Internally', I proceeded from the 'passive' observation (made inrepeated readings of the Aristophanic text) that there are more orless systematic 'irregularities', i.e. bundles of similar featureswhich seem to be thematically interrelated and thus constituteautonomous varieties. The most obvious example of a variety cho-sen in this way is the 'foreigner talk' (or broken Greek) of Chapter7, but Chapters 4 and 5 on 'scientific discourse' and on sophisticlanguage in Clouds belong here as well.

'Externally', I actively searched for linguistic varieties whichhave been extensively described in sociolinguistic literature on

3 Dover (1970) 7-8; Lopez Eire (19960), (1997), and (1998); Colvin (1999); seealso Kloss (2001), who considers, from a more literary point of view, the comicpragmatics of several marked styles such as oracular language, the language of thebomolochos, or the language of foreigners. For further bibliography see Willi(20020), esp. 18-20 and 28-9.

4 Introduction

modern languages and whose existence in ancient Greek could behypothesized on typological grounds. This is the basis of Chapter2 on register variation (with religious language in hymns andprayers as a paradigmatic example), Chapter 3 on technical lan-guages, and Chapter 6 on women's language or 'genderlect'. Ishould stress, however, that in their final form, nearly all chapterscombine elements of the external and the internal approach.

Once I had chosen the linguistic varieties to be analysed, themain task was to identify (and describe) their specific linguisticcharacteristics. Throughout, I have used the following threemethods of identifying the relevant features. Again, internal andexternal aspects are closely combined.

(i) Stylistic comparisons: In a given passage, a linguistic feature isstylistically marked if its stylistic level departs significantly fromthat of its context (i.e. if the occurrence of such a feature cannot besufficiently explained by its other attestations in comedy or classi-cal Greek literature in general). For instance, an epic word in a col-loquial invective calls for an explanation.

(2) Statistical comparisons: Even a linguistic feature which isnot stylistically marked as such can be irregular if its frequency ina given passage or text sample is not pragmatically justified by thecontext or topic and differs significantly from the frequency ofthe feature in comparable passages or text samples. In order toguarantee a high degree of comparability, I have based most of mystatistical comparisons on the Aristophanic corpus only. The cru-cial importance of statistical comparisons is due to Aristophanes'reluctance to depict a linguistic variety without disruption.4

(3) Cross-linguistic comparisons: Linguistic features specific tocertain varieties are sometimes found more easily if one takes intoaccount what features characterize similar varieties in other (usu-ally modern) languages. Obviously cross-linguistic comparisonsplay a major role in those chapters where the external approachdescribed above is prominent (Chapters 2, 3, 6, and also 7), buteven there they can only be a hermeneutic tool because the variety-

4 The discontinuity of linguistic characterization, for instance, was first stressedby Plut. Mor. 8s3C-d. More recently, it has been discussed by Dover (1976), Silk(1990) 153-4, ancl Silk (2000) 209-15, who nevertheless admits (p. 221) that 'most,if not all, of the characters in Aristophanes' earlier plays possess some semblance ofrealist continuity at least some of the time' (cf. e.g. Chs. 4, 5, 6); see also Katsouris(1975) 101-2; Del Corno (1997).

Introduction 5

specific nature of features identified in this way still needs to beproved by either stylistic or statistical comparisons within comedyand/or Greek literature in general.

The concept of 'irregularity' or 'markedness', which is crucial forboth stylistic and statistical comparisons, presupposes a comple-mentary concept of 'regularity', 'normative usage', or 'unmarked-ness'. It gradually became clear to me that my project would gainin usefulness if I drew a picture not just of linguistic variation qua

deviation from the norm, but also of the Aristophanic norm itself:that is, if I made explicit what Aristophanes' language looks likewhen it is not employed to convey specific effects. In order to setthis background of unmarkedness, I have added the Appendix,which presents a short outline and characterization ofAristophanes' linguistic (or more precisely, grammatical) normsand distinctive features (as far as they either depart from, or are atleast not simply predictable from, the abstract 'Attic grammar' thathas acquired quasi-normative status in post-Renaissance classicalscholarship).

Even so, it may be objected that it is naive to expect any soundresults from a linguistic study of comic language. Is not parodyomnipresent in comedy, and does not parody falsify every infer-ence that is based on stylistic markedness? To some degree, this istrue. We are moving on dangerous ground, and this explains whythere are many 'mays' and 'mights' in my text. However, it is rarethat we are completely uncertain whether, and in what respects, apassage is parodic or not: scholia and non-comic literature are thereto help us. And more importantly, to study comic language is theonly way of finding out anything substantial about those aspects oflinguistic variation which are considered here. To brand comedy asunreliable means to surrender before defeat is certain.

Moreover, parody can be an advantage. Parody distorts andexaggerates, but it does not invent.5 In other words, the parody ofa style or linguistic variety often highlights its peculiarities. Parodyis not faithful in degree, but it is faithful in kind. Let us suppose fora moment that not a single line of Greek tragedy had survived. Letus then take just the following two lines of Acharnians, whereEuripides is speaking (Ach. 432-3):

5 The concept of 'parody' as a parasitic form is discussed by Rau (1967) 7—18,who speaks of 'formale Anlehnung und Nachahmung' (p. i j) .

6 Introduction

E U R I P I D E S : Give him the ragments, boy, of Telephus. They lie above theThyestean rags.

Since the speaker is the tragic poet Euripides, we would assumethat stylistic deviations from the norm are paratragic. We wouldnotice, by looking through the rest of the Aristophanic corpus, that

is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, that on the wholethere are very few (11) Aristophanic nouns in (only some ofwhich have simple synonyms like pdnros beside pd/<a)/ia), and that itis therefore stylistically and statistically remarkable that panada isused by a speaker who has just used another such word,'garb' in Ach. 426. We would also notice that it is very unusual incomedy to express a possessive relationship with an adjective

rather than a genitiveA first, and relatively safe, conclusion would then be that the fre-

quent use of nouns in -a>^.a and of possessive adjectives rather thanpossessive genitives was felt by Aristophanes to be common intragedy or at least Euripidean tragedy. A second, and slightly moredaring, conclusion would be that these two features were indeedcommon in tragedy. And finally we might venture a third, evenbolder conclusion: that the lost genre of tragedy, which was appar-ently departing from regular linguistic usage in these two cases,was consciously employing a 'de-automatizing' poetic languagealso in other, though perhaps unknown, respects. Now, sincetragedy is not lost, we know that our second and third conclusionsare absolutely correct, and by implication the same is probably truefor the first conclusion.

The example shows that some characteristic features of tragiclanguage are reconstructable on the basis of their comic reflection.There is no reason why a similar procedure should not lead to trust-worthy results with other linguistic varieties, where the 'original' isreally lost. This is not to say that every conclusion is of equal value.If we had concluded from our two paratragic lines that there are nopossessive genitives in tragedy, we would have been wrong. Utmostcaution is absolutely mandatory. We must distinguish betweenevidence which is certain (e.g. stylistic and statistical data describ-ing Aristophanes' usage) and suggestions or conclusions based onthe evidence which are only possible. This is why I am somewhat

Introduction 7

reluctant to write, as Ehrenberg did in his introduction, that 'thisbook is not a book on Aristophanes or on Old Comedy'. Most of thepositive facts assembled in this book are facts concerning the lan-guage, or languages, of Aristophanes, and of Aristophanes only.They show what a complex texture comic discourse has, how liter-ary styles are composed and configured, and where the potentialsand limitations of our analytic methods lie. But all of the followingchapters also at least try to place these positive facts in the widerperspective of Attic Greek and attempt, quite literally, to lookbehind the scene.

Sceptics, I hope, will find in my book a range of useful observa-tions on Aristophanes' verbal art, which can enrich the literaryinterpretation of his comic masterpieces. Those who are a bit moreadventurous may take these observations merely as their basecamp, venture beyond literature, and set out to explore, with thehelp of the sociolinguistic equipment provided in each chapter,some areas of Attic language and culture which so far are largelyunknown.

2

Religious Registers

2.1. REGISTER VARIATION

Like any other natural language, Greek is not a homogeneousentity. Everyone who reads Homer alongside Aristophanes, orSappho alongside Pindar notices that there are different varieties ofGreek. The linguistic differences between these texts can be corre-lated with the differences between epigraphic texts from variousregions of Greece. Such geographically defined language varietiesare called 'dialects': the Ionic dialect of Homer, the Attic dialect ofAristophanes, the Aeolic dialect of Sappho, and the Doric dialectof Pindar.

In a wider sense we can speak of dialects when varieties aresocially denned (i.e. when social grouping is their basic parameter).Less ambiguously, such varieties are called 'sociolects'. Forinstance, in many modern languages it is possible to individuatecertain linguistic characteristics of the speech of working-classpeople.

An altogether different type of language variety is situationallydefined (i.e. its basic parameter is the 'contextual situation'). Anative speaker of a given language may be unable to change his orher sociolect or dialect, but no native speaker speaks in exactly thesame way in all communicative circumstances. Thus, a scientistspeaks in two different modes when he or she explains a new theoryat an academic congress and when he or she has dinner at home.Such situationally defined varieties are called 'registers'.1

'Register' is a more precise term than 'style' because styles are notnecessarily defined by a situation: it is possible to speak of the'style' of an author or of a literary epoch. 'Register' should also bedistinguished from 'genre' (even though the two terms are some-times treated as synonyms). 'Register' is the linguistic code that isused in the creation of a text that belongs to a 'genre'. In other

1 Biber (1995) 7; cf. Biber-Finegan (1994) 3-4; C. A. Ferguson (1994) 16.

Religious Registers 9

words, 'register' is the significant (e.g. the language used in a culin-ary recipe), 'genre' the signifie (the recipe itself).2

Register variation seems to occur in all languages although thenumber and range of registers may vary.3 Systemic changes in reg-ister variation can even be a major factor in language change, forinstance when a new field of technology generates a new technicalregister, whose terminology or syntactic preferences may eventu-ally be absorbed into other registers as well.4

The recognition of a register is largely intuitive and based onnon-linguistic criteria. In order to describe the linguistic charac-teristics of a register it is necessary to start from a corpus of texts orspeech events which are grouped together because they fulfil simi-lar functions and occur in similar situations (local settings, parti-cipant patterns). Obviously such a categorization can be more orless subtle. We could, for instance, establish a register of fictionalprose, or divide the same text-corpus into different registers forfolktales, nineteenth-century novels, science-fiction novels, etc.Both categorizations are valid, but the choice of one or the otherinfluences the level of precision in the linguistic analysis.Depending on the choice we will find a register with greater orlesser inner variability, and with many or few 'subregisters'. A fullregister description therefore ideally indicates also how broad the'internal variation' is.5

There are two basic types of synchronic monolingual registerdescriptions: descriptions of single registers and comparisons oftwo or more registers. In studies of single registers three majorcomponents can be distinguished: the description of the situationin which the register is used; the description of the linguistic char-acteristics of the register; the analysis of the functional or conven-tional associations between the situational and linguistic features.6

If linguistic features occur only in one register, they can be called

2 Cf. Biber (1988) 68; Biber (1994) 51-3; C. A. Ferguson (1994) 20-1, 28 n. 4;Biber (1995) 8-9.

3 Ure (1982) 5; Biber (1995) 5-4 Cf. Romaine (1980) and (1982), esp. on syntactic change (spread of wh-

relativization in Scots English); Ure (1982) 6; Biber (1995) 13 and 280-313.5 Biber (1995) 7 and 133; cf. Duranti (1985) 203-20, Biber (1988) 28-33, Biber

(1994) 39—44, and Saville-Troike (1989) 138-55 for situational parameters that canbe used in the categorization (participant structure, relation between addressers andaddressees, setting, channel, purposes, etc.); C. A. Ferguson (1994) 23-4.

6 Biber (1994) 33; Biber (1995) 10.

io Religious Registers

'register markers'. However, this is very rare. Even a technicalterm like register variation could appear in several registers (e.g. inan academic article or in a university lecture). The peculiarity ofregisters therefore lies in the frequency of specific features and inthe co-occurrence of entire clusters of features, which may belongto all linguistic levels (phonology, morphology, syntax, pragmatics,lexicon).7

2.2. REGISTER D I M E N S I O N S

When two or more registers are compared, the feature clusters canbe grouped into 'dimensions of variation'. For instance, DouglasBiber has shown that oral and written registers differ cross-linguistically with regard to dimensions such as

• 'interactiveness': e.g. conversation (with frequent first-personand second-person pronouns, questions, imperatives) vs. mono-logue

• 'production circumstances': on-line production (e.g. with con-tracted forms, elliptical sentences, and parataxis rather thanhypotaxis) vs. careful planning (with structural integration andelaboration, e.g. through frequent nouns, nominalizations, sub-ordinate clauses, or precise lexical choices)

• 'personal stance/involvement': linguistic encoding of commit-ment to a proposition or of attitudes towards a proposition orother participants (e.g. through use or absence of first-personpronouns and hedges) vs. informational focus (with increasedreferential explicitness and cohesion)

• 'abstractness'8

Such dimensions of variation must be imagined not as either-oroptions, but as more-or-less continua: a personal letter shows moreinvolvement than an article in a scientific journal but less involve-ment than a conversation at the pub next door.

With Biber's dimensions, register studies become less atomisticsince single linguistic features can belong to several dimensions

7 Cf. Biber (1988) 21-2, Biber (1994) 35—6, and Biber (1995) 29-30, after others.8 Biber (1995) 241-53; cf. Chafe (1982) 38—49 with the similar dimensions 'inte-

gration vs. fragmentation' and 'involvement vs. detachment'; Givon (1979) 103-6;Ochs (1979); 'planned' vs. 'unplanned' discourse. For the concept of 'stance' seeBiber-Finegan (1989).


and since various features can be grouped together into one dimen-sion. However, without extensive statistical investigations on theentire register system of a language (e.g. Greek), it is still difficultto determine appropriate dimensions to which we can allocate iso-lated linguistic features if we describe just one or two registers (aswe will do in this chapter).

Fortunately, in a recent cross-linguistic study based on statisticalregister comparisons of English, Somali, Nukulaelae Tuvaluan, andKorean, Biber has discovered that certain dimensions are commonto all of these genetically unrelated languages. They are thereforepotentially universal or at least very widespread. Apart from threeof the dimensions already mentioned (interactiveness, productioncircumstances, personal stance/involvement), which are often con-nected with orality and 'literacy' (including 'oral literature'9), Biberalso names

• 'narrativity' (where narrative discourse can be marked bypast-tense verbs, third-person pronouns, temporal adverbs andclauses, etc.), and

• 'argumentation/persuasion' (marked by presence/absence ofpossibility modals, conditional subordination, concession con-juncts, etc.)10

In the following discussion we will see that several of Biber's 'uni-versal' register dimensions are helpful for interpreting and classi-fying register features in ancient Greek. On the basis ofAristophanic material (and therefore from a purely synchronicpoint of view), we will deal with one aspect of register variation inAttic: discourse in a religious context. With this case study, thechapter will test the viability of a register-focused approach to lin-guistic variation in Old Comedy.

2.3. R E L I G I O U S LANGUAGE

'Religious language' is often seen as one of the most basic or arche-typal registers,11 perhaps because register studies originated inanthropological linguistics.12 In some cultures, the religious code

" Cf. Chafe (1982) 49-52. 10 Biber (1995) 236-70." Cf. Crystal—Davy (1969) 146—7, recognizing different 'kinds of religious lan-

guage'; Samarin (1976) 6-9; J. Webster (1988); Saville-Troike (1989) 76—8.12 With the 'context of situation' of Malinowski (1923) 465-70: cf. Biber (1995) 6.

12 Religious Registers

is a completely different language (e.g. Latin for Catholics before

the Second Vatican Council), but often it is just a separate register

which is associated with religious purposes. Its register featuresfrequently include conservative and archaic forms (cf. Englishthou, speakesi), a special lexicon (behold, disciples), or particularities

of intonation, pitch, rhythm, and structure (repetitions).13 In

Seneca, a North-American Indian language, Chafe found that rit-

ual texts were structurally more integrated and elaborated than

conversational discourse, which in turn showed more personal

involvement features.14 Similar observations have been made in

other oral cultures.15

Religion was omnipresent in ancient Greece and there is no evid-ence for the use of a distinct hieratic language in Greek cult: nopriest spoke Egyptian or Aramaic during a religious ceremony. Buthow much do we know about a distinct religious register? Did some

kind of code-switching take place in religious contexts? Did the

Greeks address the gods in the same way as they conversed with

each other?

In Aristophanic comedy humans and divinities often interact.

On the one hand, there are divinities who appear as comicallyhumanized stage characters. In such cases we should hardly expectthat their human interlocutors change register in talking to them.On the other hand, there are also many hymns and prayers. Even ifthese frequently have a parodic slant, they may provide the answersto the questions just asked. As I have stressed in the introduction,parody exaggerates formal peculiarities. If a religious registerexisted at all, comedy is the literary genre in which it would bereflected most unambiguously.

The language of Greek prayers and hymns as the two most

prominent genres of religious discourse has been studied exten-

sively. Ausfeld, Ziegler, and Keyssner compiled huge collections of

(mainly lexical) constitutive elements in prayers and hymns

throughout Greek literature. Norden concentrated on diachronic

developments of formal structure. More recently, Pulleyn has

included a chapter on language in his monograph on prayer in

13 Crystal-Davy (1969) 152-71; C. A. Ferguson (1973) 225; Crystal (1976);C. A. Ferguson (1986) 207; J. Webster (1988) 96-9; Saville-Troike (1989) 77.

14 Chafe (1982) 49-5 2.15 See e.g. Gossen (1976) on formal religious language in a Maya community;

Mitchell (1988) and Forth (1988) on ritual Sumbanese.


Greek religion.16 The value of dramatic poetry was recognized byDieterich, who demonstrated that Socrates' prayer in Nub. 264-74echoes Orphic hymns, and encouraged the search for lost religiouspractices and texts in Greek drama. Adami compared severaldramatic text samples with literary hymns in order to detect the'formulae legitimae sermonisque sollemnis proprietates'.17Similarly, by comparing the parodic prayers in Aristophanes withnon-parodic material from other sources, Kleinknecht illustratedthe validity of the principle that comedy can, to some degree and iftreated with due caution, replace the missing real-life evidence.Horn subsequently discussed the function of parodic and non-parodic prayers in Aristophanic comedy.18

All of these studies contain valuable material. The present chap-ter intends to add to them in two ways. First, its limitation to thetexts of one author allows a microscopic synchronic analysis ofsome of the linguistic material that had to be treated summarily inmore comprehensive studies like those of Ausfeld, Keyssner, orPulleyn. Second, the theoretical framework of register analysisenables us to find out whether, or in what sense, we may speak of areligious register in (Attic) Greek. The linguistic analysis willthereby contribute to the illumination of much more generalaspects of cultural categorization.

2.4. PRAYERS AND HYMNS

Religious language is most likely to occur in prayers and hymns.In other 'religious' texts such as solemn oaths or ritual formulaethe interaction with the divine is less direct. Also, they are lessfrequent in comedy. Assertive idioms like and 'secondary interjections' such as lost their original force even though secondary interjections oftenimply a passing request for assistance.19 A prayer is more explicit.

16 Ausfeld (1903); Ziegler (1905); Keyssner (1932); Norden (1956); Pulleyn(1997) 132-55-

17 Dieterich (1893); Adami (1901).18 Kleinknecht (1937), esp. 62 for the methodological conclusion; Horn (1970);

cf. Furley—Bremer (2001) i. 341-2. Conti Bizzarro (1998) is superficial." On Aristophanic oaths see Ziebarth (1892) 6-14; Werres (1936); on the great

oath in Lys. 212-36 Kleinknecht (1937) 51-2; on the boundaries between prayersand mere invocations Horn (1970) 2-3, referring to Blaszczak (1932) 1-2; on 'sec-ondary interjections' Dittmar (1933) 17—20.

have


For Plato euxcu 'prayers' are by definition 'requests to the gods'.20 Pure prayers of thanksgiving are rare inantiquity.21

Prayers and hymns have several things in common. They areorally performed and share the same participant structure: ahuman being is the sender (addressor), a divinity, pragmaticallyif not grammatically, the addressee. The performative setting isoften similar: hymns and communal prayers are part of religiousfestivals. Moreover, their purposes overlap to some degree. Bothgenres aim at communication with the gods in order to make themwell-disposed to the sender(s). Hymns, like prayers, may contain arequest, and frequently this is not just an embedded prayer but acentral element: cletic hymns do nothing but ask for a divineappearance. For Plato, the essential difference is formal, not func-tional: hymns are sung prayers.22 Unlike some prayers, hymns arenot performed by individuals but 'sung in the participation of cul-tic performances by either the entire community or by a chorus ofperformers'.23

However, Plato's equation is not entirely satisfactory on thefunctional side. A hymn is designed—just like a sacrifice—to winor retain divine favour (cf. Av. 855-6 so as to createconditions under which a prayer is likely to be heeded. The enco-miastic or aesthetic element has therefore priority over therequest.24 In a prayer, on the other hand, the request is central andit usually depends far more on a specific situation.

In our Aristophanic corpus, the use of spoken or recited, asopposed to sung, metres helps to distinguish hymns and prayers.Thus, Socrates' anapaestic words at Nub. 264-74 represent aprayer (cf. Nub. 263 although they contain elements that aretypical of (cletic) hymns: the exalted Socrates prays in a hymnicstyle. Other passages are more ambiguous. The request in thechoral song Pax 385—99 is so crucial and the aesthetic element so

20 PI. Leg. 8oia; cf. PI. Def. 415!); Euthphr. 140; Pulleyn (1997) 5-8, againstAubriot-Sevin (1992), esp. 172-4.

21 Ausfeld (1903) 509; Versnel (1981) 42—62. Instead, there are sacrifices andhymns: Versnel (1981) 53; Pulleyn (1997) 39-55.

22 PI. Leg. 7oob; on Plato's further classification see Bremer (1981) 193; Furley(1995)31—2; Furley—Bremer (2001) i. 10-13.

23 Bremer (1981) 193; cf. Rudhardt (1992) 185-7; Pulleyn (1997) 44.24 Cf. Pulleyn (1997) 43-55; Furley-Bremer (2001) i. 3-4; pace Aubriot-Sevin

(1992) 172.


subordinated that the metre becomes an insufficient criterion.25

The situational importance and the quantitative prominence of therequest should therefore be taken into account too.

In order to be as objective as possible, I have based the follow-ing observations on Horn's list and classification of Aristophanichymns and prayers, which includes and discusses doubtful cases.26

While it is sometimes necessary also to distinguish communal andofficial prayers from private (or 'free') prayers,27 no further atten-tion will be paid to hymnic subgroupings (paeans, dithyrambs,processional hymns, etc.), except that one or two points concernonly cletic hymns.

Once we have recognized a partial overlap in the functions ofhymns and prayers, the main question of this chapter becomesmore complex. Instead of asking whether there is a religious regis-ter, we must now ask if we should speak of one religious registerwith two subregisters, or of two separate registers. Because theanswer depends on the amount of linguistic similarity between thetwo genres, the following discussion will focus especially on simi-larities and differences between prayers and hymns. We will beginwith two elements that are apparently the same in both genres:forms of invocation and epithets (§§ 2.5—2.6). We will see thatprayers and hymns are linguistically rather diverse and that itmakes more sense to speak of different registers. The same willappear in the following two sections (2.7-2.8) on lexical aspects andin a later section (2.11) on argument structuring. In between, wewill look separately at some characteristic aspects of prayer syntaxand hymn syntax (§§ 2.9-2.10). Finally (§ 2.12), we will brieflyconsider the question of internal variation mentioned in the firstsection.

25 Similarly Ran. 385—93, which is announced as a hymn (Ran. 383-4) butdevotes eight lines to the formulation of requests; only Ran. 3856 avuTrapaarara. hassomething of a cletic imperative. For non-linguistic 'markers' (gestures) cf. Pax 56;Av. 623; Pulleyn (1997) 188-95; Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 125-45; Sittl (1890) 174-99;Van Straten (1995) 134-6.

2I> Horn (1970) 4—11; cf. also the hymn list in Furley-Bremer (2001) i. 337-8.27 Ausfeld (1903) 506-7; cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 54; Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 34-5;

Pulleyn (1997) 9.


2.5. FORMS OF INVOCATION

Most communal and private prayers are introduced with w preced-ing the name of the divinity.28 However, the vocative particle is notobligatory. Since there are (semi-)official prayers with w, it doesnot seem that the absence of u> marks formality or dignity.29

Literary factors like metrical convenience may sometimes condi-tion the use of , whereas in other cases the presence or absence of(5 is probably related to the emotional distance the speaker wants tocreate between himself or herself and the addressee.30

The only element that frequently precedes the vocative is a tran-sitional dlAAa (or drap). This, too, may be conditioned by literaryconventions rather than represent actual usage.31 Prayers wherethe vocative is further postponed are extremely rare and notembedded in the action of the respective plays.32 That the invoca-tion is a crucial element of 'prayerness' is also shown by the factthat longer prayers tend to repeat it towards the end as if to ensurethe attention of the divinity.33

In a few prayers the divinity is addressed indirectly instead.34

Thesm. 296 and 331 and Av. 864 suggest that official prayers wereoften formulated by a leader and took the form

of divinity>.35 Such indirect formulations may have acquired an

28 Private prayers: Nub. 264, 429; Vesp. 389, 438; Pax 58, 62; Lys. 742, 833, 972(if the prayer begins with a> Ztv Zev); Ran. 875; Eccl. 369; communal prayers: Ach.247; Vesp. 869, 875; Pax 974.

29 Pace Schwyzer-Debrunner (1950) 61; cf. Dickey (1996) 199-206. Without a>e.g. Lys. 203, 317; Thesm. 286; Ran. 886, 892; there is not much 'formality' in Ach.816 or Eccl. 882. Thesm. 315 is rather a cletic hymn, Ran. 3850 ambiguous.

30 Cf. Ellendt-Genthe (1872) 797: 'poetae . . . quando precibus instandum, mini-tatione terrendum, arnica admonitione castigandum, indignabundi aut repente territivox promenda esset, [particula u>] abstinuerunt libenter'.

31 Cf. Denniston (1950) 15-16; Nub. 1478; Vesp. 323, 652 (drop), 1001; Thesm.282; Ar. fr. 705 (if this is a prayer); similarly Eq. 634 after aye Si) (cf. Neil (1901) 95:'I do not suppose [aye Sri] would be used in devout prayer'); Lys. 341 after a con-nective relative pronoun.

32 Ran. 1529 (closing prayer of the chorus); Eccl. 958 = 967 (refrain in a lovesong). In Pax 385 and 416, Hermes is present as an interlocutor.

33 Pax 1016; Lys. 341—9 (3 invocations); Thesm. 368-9.34 Vesp. 368, Thesm. 1229—31, and Plut. 592 are wishes or curses rather than

prayers.35 In Pax 435 with fv\iii^.ia%a no addressee is named (but see 432

cf. also Thesm. 352 a Thesm. 331. Pa1322-30 is, strictly speaking, only a description of a prayer.

dat

Thesmm.311.Pax352Thesm. of


officious ring. With first-person verbs they came to be used bypublic orators as ceremonial introductions to their speeches (cf.Eccl. 171).36 As a private prayer, Cleon-Paphlagon's lines at Eq.

763—4 (rfi jj.ev SetTTTOiVj) Adrjvair] . . . fij)(O/j.ai 'I pray . . . to OUT Lady

Athena') are therefore exceptional and characterize the speaker as

bombastic (cf. the 'hymnic' epithet peSeovaa 'sovereign' and the epic

vocalism inBoth types of invocation are exactly matched in hymns. Cletic

hymns most commonly use direct imperatives like eA0e (often cou-

pled with the cletic adverb SeOpo).38 Alternatively, the hymnic ode

at Nub. 563-74 consists only of /axAijaKto 'I call' + a list of gods.39

The indirect formulation (xraAe'to, etc. + ace.) can alternate with a

imperative in order to create poetic variatio (Thesm. 1136-59).40 It

has been suggested that real cultic hymns, unlike 'epic hymns',

employed the direct form,41 but for instance Nub. 563-74 and thefunctionally parallel antode in Nub. 595-606 differ in this respect;

dfjupt i"01 a#rc 'come close to me again' in the latter may have beenanother stereotypical direct invocation formula.42 The prayer

structure <evxeode + dat. of divinity> corresponds to hymns with choral response (Lys. 1280; Ran. 395).

Direct vs. indirect forms of invocation indicate the degree of

interactiveness. With regard to this register dimension, the same

range of options is found in hymns and prayers. If we wanted todistinguish two registers on the basis of this feature alone, wewould put together hymns and communal or official prayers butseparate them from private prayers.

36 Cf. Dem. 18. i (with Wankel (1976) 105-6; according to Usher (1999) 271 sim-ulating the opening of the people's assembly); Lycurg. i. i; Plut. Mor. Sojf; Ussher(J973) 99; Burckhardt (1924) 33—4. Plut. 771 is paratragic.

37 Affijvaia may still have been used beside Ad-qva.: cf. Neil (1901) 109; Threatte(1980) 271-4; App. § 2.1.4. On n«Se'ouaa cf. C. A. Anderson (1995) 16—22.

38 Imp. + Sevpo: Ach. 665; Eq. 559, 586, 591; Lys. 1263, 1271; Thesm. 319; forhymnic Bevpo cf. also Thesm. 1137, Ran. 395, the 'parahymnic' passages Eq. 148-9and 1335, and the cletic prayers at Eccl. 882 and (with Sevpo alone: cf. Wackernagel(1926) 71) Ran. 1306. The replacement of SeOpo by e.g. eVOciSe is exceptional (Thesm.

"59)-39 KiKAijoKco is an Aristophanic hapax legomenon and Adami (1901) 221 cites only

Orphic parallels; cf. with pedestrian KaXew Thesm. 1137, 1145.40 Cf. Thesm. 101-29 with xa'Pe anc' indirect formulations like iirofuu K\jj£ovaa

. . . Aprefiiv 'I follow glorifying . . . Artemis'.41 H. Meyer (1933) 6-7; cf. Furley (1995) 35.42 Cf. PMG 697 (Terpander fr. i Page); with d/icpi'(fioi) h. Horn. 7. i, 19. 1,22. i ;

also the verb aiiifiavaKTit,fiv in Ar. fr. 62; Cratin. fr. 72; Dover (1968) 175;Kretschmer (1894) 106.


2.6. EPITHETS

The function of divine epithets has been a matter of dispute.Ausfeld argued that they reflect the wish to find the 'right' name,by which the divinity will be magically attracted, but he acknow-ledged that honouring the god may be a positive side effect.43 ForPlato (Crat. 4006) the latter is more important:

In our prayers it is traditional for us to pray that we may call them [sc. thegods] by their favourite names and from their favourite places.

Accordingly, the magical nature of divine epithets has been calledinto question. 'The enumeration of a god's names often had moreto do with a desire to glorify that god by a rehearsal of his namesand attributes. This fits in with what we saw of hymns, namely thatthey are a sort of x^p's-, intended to delight the god.'45

In several Aristophanic prayers an epithet is chosen to fit thedramatic situation of a speaker or group of speakers. The Megarianwho has just sold his 'pigs' prays to Hermes ejuTroAafoy 'god of trad-ing' (Ach. 816-17). The women's chorus of Lysistrata (341-9)invoke Athena as iroAiovxos 'guardian of the city' because they areconcerned with saving the city, and as ûju/uaxos 'ally' because a fightwith the men's chorus is impending.46 The chorus of initiates inFrogs call Athena (or Demeter, or Kore?47) -Ton-eipa 'saviouress' asthey hope for eternal salvation (Ran. 378; cf. 386), and Dicaeopolis,inspecting the holes in his new rag-costume, comically prays toZeus SIOTTTI)? 'through-seer' (instead of firoirr-qs 'overseer') (Ach.

435)-48

43 Ausfeld (1903) 518-20, referring to Schol. //. 5. 118; similarly Usener (1929)336; Kleinknecht (1937) 19; Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 162.

44 Cf. Men. Rhet. 440. 13-15; Aesch. Ag. 160-2; Eur. fr. 912. 2-3 Nauck; PI.Phlb. 12c; Kleinknecht (1937) 131-2; Ausfeld (1903) 517—18.

45 Pulleyn (1997) 115; cf. also Graf (1991) 192.46 Cf. Henderson (1987) 111-12; C. A. Anderson (1995) 46-7, also on

'golden-crested' and Tpnoyeveia 'Trito-born'.47 Cf. Furley-Bremer (2001) it. 370.48 On (TTOTTTTJS see Keyssner (1932) 99—101. The contextual appropriateness of

epithets is a comic theme also in Pint. 1152-65.


In the prayer at Pax 991-2, Trygaeus proposes a deal to Peace:

TRYGAEUS: And resolve our fights and our broils, that we may call theeLysimache [Fight-resolver].

Here, the epithet is set out as a reward.49 Peace is not yet honoured

as she will be if she acts in a way to deserve a hymn of

thanksgiving. The x°-Pl$ conveyed by the epithet belongs to a hymnrather than to the present prayer.

Despite these examples, the view that it was crucial to find the

'right' name in a prayer can be challenged. In the Aristophanic

prayers (P) and hymns (H) collected in Horn's list, the epithets

'rank' as shown in Table 2.1 ('9 for 7' = '9 occurrences for 7 differ-ent divinities').50 The most frequent epithets are far more common

in prayers than in hymns. This is all the more surprising because

hymns tend to be extremely rich in epithets. Using just one out ofthe eight most common options, the short hymn in the parabatic odeof Clouds (Nub. 563-74) includes the following range of epithets.

Zeus vi{iifj,fSwv 'high ruler', (9ea>i>) rvpawos 'sovereign','great'

Poseidon peyaadfvris 'great and mighty', rpiaivijs raîas 'wardenof the trident',

'savage upheaver . . . of the earth and sea'Aither ned', iê'repos Tranj

father', ae/nvdraTos 'most revered", 'nourisher of all living things'

Helios tTTwowu/iay 'charioteer', /xeya? (8a£fuav) 'great power' (+ arelative clause functioning as epithet)

Unlike prayers, hymns strive for the unusual and unpredictable.

49 Similarly d\e£iKa.Kos 'averter of evil' for Hermes in Pax 422; cf. Dover (1968)

255; Olson (1998) 162.50 Leaving aside exclamations like Ran. 337-8 and certain other passages which

do not, in my view, belong here. Comic fantasy often makes possible direct conver-

sations with gods (note especially Pax 170—728) or addresses to humans that look

like prayers; cf. Horn (1970) 46. Thus, in Eg. 148-9 one may recognize cletic ele-

ments (Seupo, ipaveis) but I hesitate to count (ptArare and aajrrjp as epithets. I am more

willing to classify Ach. 566-71 as a (parodic) prayer: cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 77-9.

Different decisions in single cases (Horn's list does not include Pax 1108, but see

Olson (1998) 280) would not fundamentally alter the picture.

'Our

)


TABLE 2.1. The most frequent epithets in A ristophanic hymns

and prayers

Epithet Occurrences/

divinities

Individual references

'lord'

2.

io for 7 H: Eq. 551; Nub. 595; Thesm.

128

P: Nub. 264; Vesp. 327, 438,

875-6 (2X); Pax 442; Av. 868

9 for 7 H: £5. 562; Pax 582; ̂ 4i>. 676, 677;

Thesm. 978

P: ^c/z. 568; Nub. 1478; Pox 416;Thesm. 286

8 for 7 P: Eq. 763; JVu6. 266; Pax 976

(2X); Av.876; Lys. 203, 317;

TTzesra. 286

7 for 6 H: Thesm. 989

P: /left. 247; M/6. 264; Vesp.

389, 875; Pax 385, 399

7 for 6 H: Lys. 1286; Thesm. 1149

P: Pax 445, 975; Lys. 742, 833;Eccl. 369 (cf. Pax n08)

7 for 5 H: Ran. 323/4, 398

P: Afaft. 269; Vesp. 1001; Pax

978," 1016; Thesm. 286

5 for 5 H: Nub. 570; Thesm. 116, 322

P: N«6. 265; Pax 974b

4 for 3 H: Eq. 560, 585

P: Eq. 763; Lys. 834

3 for 3 H: Thesm. 123, 971

P:c Ran. 3856

3 for 3 H: Nub. 565, 573; Av. 1748

3 for i H: Eq. 581; Afu6. 602

P: Lys. 344/5

'dear(est)'

'mistress'

'master'

'lady'

'much-honoured'

7-

'(most) revered'

8.

-ovaa + gen.

'sovereign'

9.

'lady'

peyas 'great'

'city-guardian'

a Note the feminine form TroAimjMJTi), perhaps a morphological licence in hieraticlanguage: similarly Lys. 344/5 xpvaohoya; Thesm. 320 &i)po<pov-q 'beast-slayer'; also

(iys. 347; Nub. 989) beside TpiToyfxTJ? (Eq. 1189); Eq. 1181 'Gorgon-crested'; Lys. 217 draupoiTT) 'virginal' in an oath (cf. araupuiTos Aesch. Ag. 244).

b Also P/«i. 772, if this is classified as a prayer with Horn (1970) 11; Kleinknecht(1937)128.

c Cf. note 25 above.

1

3.

4.


The ranking further reveals that the most frequent epithets areapplied almost every time to a different divinity. In other wordsthey are as unspecific as possible. Epithets like

or irorvta all express a general notion of ruling,51

whilesovereign's subject(s), is already less common in prayers: its non-Attic phonology (lack of contraction) marks it as poetic.

occurs in an authentic cultic prayer (PMG 854 Page52) which ispraised by Marcus Aurelius (5. 7) for its simplicity. TroAimV^ros evenleaves open why the divinity is 'much-honoured'. A joke inAcharnians (758-9) implies that this adjective was considered to bea polyvalent standard epithet.53

The limited diversity of epithets in prayers makes it implausiblethat they were 'needed' in order to address a divinity with the'right' name. If that had been the case, we should expect epithetaccumulations as we get them in hymns—not least because we haveseen that the request is more crucial in prayers than in hymns, sothat it would be more damaging if the divinity did not listen. Thus,the Aristophanic statistics confirm the view that epithets are a wayof pleasing and honouring the god. Since this is the main functionof hymns (but not prayers), it is not surprising that epithets areaccumulated there.

Moreover, if epithets in prayers were more than superficialembellishments, they should figure prominently in elaborate offi-cial prayers. Yet, in the most official-sounding Aristophanicprayers, they play hardly any role. The professional priest whoprays to a long list of bird divinities at the foundation of the birdcity (Av. 864-88) gives none of them more than one (usuallycomic54) epithet.55 As the list grows longer and longer the prayer

51 Eur. Ale. 1004-5 suggests that no-ma is a 'default epithet'; cf. for araf andEur. Hipp. 88; Hemberg (1955) 9-12; Pleket (1981) 174-6. Scanoiva, when

not applied to Kore, may be a recent development since it is first attested inEuripides: Ausfeld (1903) 521; cf. Usener (1929) 222—5; Henrichs (19760) 253—66.

52 Cf. Pulleyn(iQ97) 149.53 In Ran. 851 and PI. Euthd. 2g6d 7roAuTi)n)Tos is ironically applied to humans (as

is J> am (not: araf) in Eq. 1298): cf. Dover (1993) 299; Radermacher (1954) 186;Kleinknecht (1937) 23-4 n. 3; more examples in Adami (1901) 250-1; Keyssner(1932) 66; G. Meyer (1923) 76—7.

54 e.g. Av. 873 ypuyiAos Za.pd£ws 'chaffinch Sabazius' for 0pvyios £afjd£ios', cf.Kleinknecht (1937) 31.

55 Unlike Peisetaerus, who interrupts him in Av. 868 'echt hymnenmassig':Kleinknecht (1937) 31.

whichdemNDSA SPICIFEINDICATIONOF


becomes mere name-dropping without epithets (Av. 881-8).Apparently, the proprium of an official prayer was the endlessenumeration of divinities, not the accumulation of epithets.56 Theofficial character—as in the bird prayer enhanced by the insertionof a prose passage57—is even stronger in the prayers before theThesmophoria assembly (Thesm. 295-311, 331-51). Again theenumeration is prominent, but epithets conspicuously absent,except for rather unspecific indications of origin or belonging

. The contrast with the interceding cletichymn, which consists almost exclusively of epithets, is obvious(Thesm. 312-30).

To be sure, the above statistics also show that not every hymnicepithet had to be recherche.58 Nevertheless, the number and theinventive range of epithets in hymns is much greater than that inprayers. The most diverse types of word-formation are repre-sented. Apart from simple adjectives there are very many 'verbaleRektionskomposita' in various shapes (e.g. xiaaoyopos 'ivy-bearing',

'horse-driving', ftpovTr/aiKfpawos 'lightning-thundering'),Bahuvrihi compounds (xpvaoTptawos 'with golden trident', 'with great might', xpuaoAupas 'with golden lyre', etc.), compoundswith gw- (gvnnaxos 'ally', gvyiciopos 'fellow reveller'), and local epi-thets59 in -(a)ios (repaumos, xOovios 'chthonic', -npoTrvXaios 'before thegate"). Patronymic epithets (Kpovi^-qs, TwSapiSai, ApaKovTiSys) areslightly rarer. Local and patronymic epithets can also be para-

Cronus', zlids napde'voi 'daughters of Zeus').

56 Cf. Pax 456; for similar lists outside comedy (e.g. SIG3 181. 6—9) seeKleinknecht (1937) 29—30. Despite the different context, Pax 50-3 may parody sucha list: Kleinknecht (1937) 35 n. 3; Platnauer (1964) 72; Horn (1970) 45. Olson (1998)78 stresses that lists are typical of Aristophanic style anyway (cf. Spyropoulos(1974), here 172-3), but the masculine endings -oiaiv and -ctcn in Pax 51 echo thoseof with the archaic feminine ending -aoi (Dunbar,against MSS -r)(i)oi); cf. Fehling (1969) 267.

57 Elsewhere in official texts such as laws and treaties: Av. 1035-6, 1040-2,1046-7, 1049-50, 1661-6; Eq. 941; Archippus fr. 27; cf. Eupolis fr. 401; Kloss(2001) 80-95. I" Thesm. 331-51 the lack of resolution makes the trimeters monoto-nous.

58 Cf. pfyas, a(fu>as, Av. 1747 Seivos, Lys. 1300 ayaflos, and 'lazy' predications likeNub. 569 and Thesm. 315 jieyaAairu/ios 'with great names', Thesm. 320'with many names', Thesm. 1156 voXvirorvios 'most sovereign".

59 For geographical determinations in hymns cf. Adami (1901) 227-31, 242-3;Ausfeld (1903) 523-5.

pHARASED 'DWELLING ON THE ROCK OFpARANES 'GOD OF AMYCLE SON OF


None of these formations is absolutely excluded from prayers.Interestingly, superlatives are proportionally less frequent inhymns (cf. Eq. 562, Nub. 570, Av. 677) than in prayers (cf. Pax

392-3, 393-4, 974) although Keyssner has pointed out that hymnsare in general full of hyperbolic elements (compounds with

words like diet, fj.6vos, TT&S, etc.).60

Some of the differences in the use of epithets in hymns andprayers can be related to the dimension of 'production circum-stances' (elaboration). Private prayers arose from momentary situ-ations of need and were produced 'on-line' so that some even wentwithout any epithet (Pax 58-9, 62-3, Lys. 972-9). Hymns werenecessarily performed after deliberate preparation. Epithets whichdo not reflect the immediate context could therefore be chosen (orinvented) more carefully in hymns (from where every now andthen an ornamental epithet may have found its way also into a real-life prayer61). Similarly, the superlative as a grammaticalized formof hyperbole requires less planning and is more 'automatized' than,for instance, the composition of new words. Hymns may avoid this'cheap' type of praise on purpose.

But why are epithets less important in official prayers, whichcould be pre-planned? Possibly, hymns and prayers at official occa-sions concentrated on their primary generic functions: whileprayers formulated requests, the accompanying task of honouringthe gods could be delegated to a preceding or subsequent hymn. Ifthis is so, it would be wrong to consider the partial overlap ofhymns and prayers with regard to epithets as an argument in favourof a common religious register. The consideration of some otherlexical aspects will corroborate this conclusion.

2.7. SPEECH-ACT VERBS

2.7.1. 'TO PRAY'

Both hymns and prayers often contain self-referential verbs, bywhich the speaker describes his or her own activity ('I pray', 'I singof). A fundamental difference between such speech-act verbs inhymns and prayers is their illocutionary force. A 'performative'speech-act verb is a verb which describes the activity of the speaker

60 Keyssner (1932) passim.61 As in Thesm. 282 TrepiicaAAij; 'most beauteous'; more negatively Pulleyn (1997)

51-5


and at the same time constitutes it. When someone says 'I pray thatwe will be saved' the use of the verb 'to pray' automatically makesa prayer out of the declarative statement (contrast: 'I hope that wewill be saved', which describes a mental state). In hymns, on theother hand, it is not sufficient to say 'I sing of Athena' to make asong out of the utterance. This difference correlates with the regis-ter dimension of personal stance: performative verbs like 'I pray'imply a greater commitment to the action than purely informa-tional verbs like 'I sing of.62

In addition, there is a qualitative difference of lexical stock in thespeech-act verbs of Greek hymns and prayers. Various Greekverbs describe the act of praying: and iVereuai. In classical Attic euôâi is the most general term for allkinds of prayers.63 Although dpdoât has a broader meaning inHomer,64 in fifth-century Attic it means only 'to curse (formally)'(cf. Thesm. 350; elsewhere Aristophanes uses Ka.Tapa.opai, which islittle more than a synonym of TovBopvfa 'to grumble': Vesp. 614).6S

The non-Attic phonology of Aioooâi (-aa- < *-ry-) reveals thatthis verb was not an everyday verb of classical Attic.66 In Pax 382,its only Aristophanic occurrence, the preceding poetic formsAamjCTTjs, Aa«i}crofiai 'you shall/I'll cry aloud', Teroprjaco 'I'll proclaim inpiercing tones', and aâX^vvQâoât 'I'll be annihilated' underline itsspecial flavour.57 A secondary form AiVoâi appears for the first timein Thesmophoriazusae, both at the beginning of the choral hymn inthe opening ceremony of the women's assembly (313) and in theparatragic monody of the Relative (1040 AmyifW with 'Doric' vocal-ism). The variant AiVoâi must have arisen from a misinterpretationof forms like the aorist optative Airot/ii/i' (Od. 14. 406) as a presentoptative. Thus, both its formation and its distribution mark theverb as artificial and literary. Similarly, avroâi with its tragicmeaning 'to be a suppliant'68 occurs only twice in Aristophanes,both times in a hymn (Thesm. 977, 1155).

62 For the theory of 'speech acts' and the notions of 'performative verbs' and'illocutionary force' see esp. J. L. Austin (1962) and Searle (1969).

63 Pulleyn (1997) 59-64 and 70-6, against Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 199-253; seealso Corlu (1966) 23-118.

64 Cf. Corlu (1966) 251-9; Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 302-33; Pulleyn (1997) 74-6.65 Similarly Nub. 871; Lys. 815; Ran. 746.66 Pace Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 467-70, who, on the basis of Benveniste (1969)

247-9, suggests that Xiaaopai was a technical term for propitiatory prayers.67 Cf. Rau (1967) 194; Olson (1998) 150.68 Cf. Chantraine (1968-80) 92, s.v. avra.


Finally, expressions like /uij 8fjd', iKtrevw ce 'please don't'69 appearin human conversation as well and show that ix-ereiico has completelylost its religious force. Like its synonymit has no closer connection with prayers than English 'please'(although it can of course appear in prayers or hymns: Thesm.

II59)-70

Hence, in fifth-century Attic, ewô/xai and its compounds'to pray that not', fwcuxo/xcu 'to join someone in praying',

etc.) are the only verbs used in spoken prayers to express the cor-responding speech-act.71 The elevated synonyms AiVofiai and

are confined to hymns.

2.7.2. 'TO S I N G A H Y M N '

With 'singing a hymn' the picture is different. u/Wcu itself issurprisingly rare. At Pax 799 (lyr.) it describes the activity of thelyric poet in general, without a specific reference to hymnic com-positions. In the Laconian final song of Lysistrata, v^veui twicerefers to the activity of the chorus (Lys. 1303/4, 1320/1). It may bea coincidence that there is no similar case in any of Aristophanes'Attic hymns.72

In his hymn in Thesmophoriazusae, Agathon uses the imperativeof dyaAAco to encourage the singing of the chorus (128; cf. Pax 399lyr.), but the verb covers a wider range of activities to 'honour agod'.73 Its tone is high-flown, and elsewhere Aristophanes has itonly in a quotation from Archilochus (Pax 1298).

Agathon's hymn illustrates with how much variation one and thesame notion can be expressed. The references to Agathon's—or

69 Cf. Eq. 1100; Nub. 696; Ran. 11, 167; similarly Ran. 745 iVereucu 'I beg your

pardon'.70 Against Kleinknecht (1937) 80—i and Horn (1970) 10, Ran. 298—9 is not nec-

essarily an 'inverse prayer' to a human being.71 Cf. Eg. 764; Pax 435, 1016, 1322; Av. 864; Thesm. 296, 331, 350, 351, 714;

Eccl. 171. -npoaKvvfui (e.g. Eq. 156; Plut. 771) designates not a prayer but some kind

of salutation: Pulleyn (1997) 191-3; Neil (1901) 28. For euxofuu 'to vow' see Eg. 928;

Av. 1619. In Thesm. 810 (anap.) has the archaic meaning 'to declare

(solemnly)'.72 On u/j.Wto/ufu'os throughout Greek literature see Lattke (1991) 13-79.73 Cf. Theopompus Com. fr. 48; Olson (1998) 155. For the stylistic level of

see Phot, a 164, s.v. dyijAai, who quotes Phrynichus (Praep. soph. fr. 6a):

if you were interested in archaisms and lexical grandeur,

you might use this kind of words'.

(cf.Eccl.915/17)


rather: the imagined chorus's—hymnic singing are so frequent thatthey may have been a characteristic and easily recognizable featureof Agathon's poetry. Apart from dyaAAcu, Aristophanes' Agathonalso uses oAj3i'£o> (Thesm. 118 MSS; 107 is conjectural), /cAi^co (i 16),and aeiSaj (115).

dAj3i'£co 'to praise' is absent from the rest of Aristophanes and hasa more prosaic synonym in /na/cap^co.74 In Av. 1745 (anap.) the cho-rus exhort themselves with KAiycrare to sing the final hymn, and

is a favourite of the exalted anonymous poet in Birds (905, 950/1).This character exceptionally uses /cAjj£co in an iambic line (Av. 921),no doubt because his ordinary speech is influenced by his poeticobsessions.75

The root of xA^cu also appears in K-AEUO and KfXaSfw. In Pax 778KXftovaa is taken from Stesichorus, but in the Spartan hymn inLysistrata it is again introduced freely (1298). KfXaSew (with its fam-ily: is normally used for indistinct noises of the sea orof twittering birds,76 but it is an equivalent of xrAûj in the choralpassage at Ran. 384 (cf. Ran. 1527 anap.). K-eAaoVco does not appearin iambic trimeters.

The same restriction applies to the hymnic root *melp- unattested in other classical authors, is an

Aristophanic hapax legomenon in the introduction to the Demeterhymn of Frogs (Ran. 379), the only play with the noun yuoAw^ (Ran.

370, 384, 1527). Its cognate êAwo) is confined to one choral hymnin Thesmophoriazusae (961, 970, 974, 989).

All of these hymnic verbs are used by a chorus self-referentially,in self-exhortations, or in invitations to the Muse. None of themforms part of the pedestrian vocabulary in iambic or trochaic pas-sages. When the singing of a hymn is described independently, qSw

is used (cf. Ach. 261; Ran. 320).77 As mentioned above, the comicAgathon uses aSco in the poeticized, non-contracted form aelSw

(Thesm. 115).

74 Cf. Vesp. 429, 588,1275.75 For /fAj)£oj in hymns cf. Adami (1901) 221, who also lists examples for

and76 Nub. 283, 284; Pax 801; Thesm. 44; Ran. 683. Despite its irregular vocalism,

the connection of xe\a&(w with xAiJ^tu etc. seems certain: cf. Chantraine (1968-80)485, s.v.

77 Cf. Ran. 874 viraBai; a8iu for non-hymnic lyrics: Ach. 1231, 1233/4; Nub. 1205;Lys. 1243; Ran. 1307; Ar. fr. 505. In Eq. 1266 aft&fiv echoes Find. fr. 8gaSnell-Maehler.


Like the use of epithets, the choice of speech-act verbs is linkedto the register dimension of 'production circumstances'. Thepoetic character of all the hymnic verbs reveals a search for theuncommon, which presupposes more careful planning and con-trasts with the exclusive use of non-poetic euxoju.ai in prayers. Thelast-mentioned case of aSo> vs. aei&w is particularly interesting.Contracted forms are typical of on-line production. In Attic Greek,they have become normative in most registers. Through an arti-ficial form of 'decontraction', hymns (like other lyric poetry)underline their high degree of planning.

2.8. REGISTER-SPECIFIC VOCABULARYIN PRAYERS

If we diagnose a general divergence of hymns and prayers withregard to the dimension of planning, we must account for isolatedpoetic words appearing in prayers78 either as 'borrowings' from theregister of hymns or as relics from an earlier stage when they werenot yet ousted from everyday language. Either of these theoriesmay for instance explain the occasional use of the archaic root in predications or that of epithets such as ava£/avaaaa and which no longer have an Attic referent outside the religious domain(cf. § 2.6). However, such an explanation is plausible only if ourobservations on epithets and speech-act verbs can be generalized,i.e. if there is no substantial group of other lexical elements whichare common in prayers but excluded from 'everyday' language (forif there were such elements, we might just as well add -rrorvia and

to them). By looking at a few more relevant items, this sectionwill show that the Aristophanic comedies present virtually no evid-ence for a register-specific vocabulary of prayer.

Let us start with a look at significant lexical gaps in our corpus.For instance, there are no special terms (a) for the 'help' of thedivinity, (b) for his or her 'looking upon' or (c) 'listening to' thebeliever, nor (d) for the 'fulfilment' of a prayer. For (a) we findindiscriminately the common verbs |3oi}0efv,

78 Cf. e.g. /«>Au) 'I may reach' (Lys. 743; cf. Cratinus fr. 118; Strattis fr. 42, alsowith Z-qvos) and puaajueVos 'rescuing' (Lys. 343); however, such lexemes may beintroduced to give the prayer a comic ring (e.g. Vesp. 879 r\mov 'favourable', oftensaid of gods: Keyssner (1932) 93-5-).


or fuyyiyvcotfcu,79 but the request for help can also be implicit in arhetorical question (Vesp. 439-40) or in the wish not to be 'over-looked' (Eccl. 369-70). It is rare to ask for 'salvation' instead (Vesp.

393; Ran. 386).80 Both Kadopav/Kari&etv and ftpopav/eirtSfiv for (b) Can be

said of human beings just as well as of gods,81 and the same is truefor the imperative of tW/couui (c).82 The concept of 8eoi ETTTJ/COOI is wellknown, and eirriKoos may be a piece of religious terminology, but inAristophanes it occurs only in a hymn (Thesm. HS7).83 For (d),

(Thesm. 369) is isolated and reXew and epic xpaivw are absent.The imperative Si'Sou 'fulfil!' once summarizes a list of precedingwishes (Pax 1016), but elsewhere the concrete requests standalone. Only re'Aeos 'successful' (* re'Aeos 'entire', as in Lys. 104)shows a remarkable repetition in prayer contexts (Thesm. 329, 35353). where it may have been promoted by the existence of the epi-thet TeAetos/VeAet'a '(prayer-)fulfilling'.84

In other cases, the higher frequency of a lexical form in prayersis a simple consequence of the pragmatic situation. There are fewcommunicative situations in which a speaker orders a human inter-locutor to 'accept' a present or to 'appear'. So the imperatives of

and <paiVo/j.cu are proportionally over-frequent in prayers (orhymns), but even in the limited Aristophanic corpus they are notexclusive to these genres.85

The adjective evêv-^s 'well-disposed' and the adverb'with good fortune' are perhaps the best candidates for a distinctterminology of prayer. The latter occurs twice in Aristophanes,

79 Ach. 567; Pax 416; Lys. 317; Thesm. 370; Ran. 3856; cf. Lys. 346

80 Note how the growth of the cult of Zeus Soter is reflected in the increase of

pertinent references in Aristophanic comedy: Thesm. 1009 (411 Be); Ran. 738, 1433

(405 BC); Eccl. 79, 761, 1045, 1103 (392 BC); Plut. 877, 1175, 1186, 1189 (388 BC); c

R. Parker(1996) 238-41.81 See Ach. 1156 and Eq. 75, 170, beside Nub. 289 and Ran. 876, 879.82 Lys. 878 beside Ach. 405 (perhaps a prayer parody: Kleinknecht (1937) 79);

Nub. 274; cf. Nub. 360; Pax 785; Dover (1968) 134.83 On the fleoi ewijKoot see Weinreich (1912), and cf. e.g. Phrynichus fr. 72. In

Nub. 263 (TraKovia 'to listen to' is said of a human being.84 In Thesm. 973 for Hera as goddess of marriage but elsewhere also for other

gods: Bruchmann (1893) 141; Keyssner (1932) 118-19.85 Imp. of 8e'xo(iai in prayers: Vesp. 876; Pax 977, 978; Lys. 204; Thesm. 282; c

Nub. 274; Kleinknecht (1937) 45 and Pulleyn (1997) 218 for non-Aristophanic parallels; elsewhere: Eq. 909; Nub. 1103; Vesp. 735; Pax 1204; Lys. 603; Thesm. 779; Pl63, 1147; on Vesp. 1225 see MacDowell (1971) 291. Imp. of <p<nVofuu: Eq. 591 (H);Nub. 266 (P); Thesm. 1143 (H); also a-no^vov aain^v 'reveal thyself: Pax 987 (P).


both times in a communal prayer (Ach. 250; Thesm. 305).Thematically it is akin to the formulaic wish (eV) ayad-fj rvxy 'withgood fortune' in two other Aristophanic prayers (Vesp. 869; Thesm.

283).86

The adjective fvpevys is not normally used of human beings inAttic, but it is applied to a goddess in an iambic prayer (Lys. 204).Possibly, iXews (fAaos) and evypaiv belong to the same genre-specificword-group (with clear restrictions in Attic prose), butAristophanes has them only in hymns (Lys. 1282; Thesm. H48).87

Their 'human' and prosaic equivalent is irpodvôs (also in a hymn:Thesm. 979, 982).

One lexical field where hymns and prayers share some commonground is the word-family of xatpw and xap's-88 Obviously, prayersrather ask for a favour (e.g. xap«7ao#ai 'to be gracious': Vesp. 327)and hymns think of the 'joy' they provide for the god (as with theever-recurring imperative xa'Pe> which certainly featured also innon-literary hymns89), but the distinctions are sometimes blurred,as when prayers refer to past or future 'pleasures' for the god (Ach.

248; Nub. 274).90 However, since words of this family areextremely widespread in many other text genres too, they areneither register-specific nor usable as an argument in favour of asingle religious register.

Overall, then, lexical items (apart from certain epithets) are ofmarginal importance in the constitution of a distinct prayer regis-ter. Moreover, there is not sufficient evidence for lexical registermarkers in the Aristophanic prayers. Let us now turn to syntacticregister features of prayers (§ 2.9) and hymns (§ 2.10) respectively.The following section will show how the syntactic formulation ofthe prayer request establishes various subregisters.

86 But occurs in other contexts too: cf. Av. 435, 675; Eccl. 131; Dunbar(i995) 3O1; 'n inscriptions: Tracy (1994).

87 Cf. also Av. 930 nporfptav (lyr.); Ausfeld (1903) 537—8; Keyssner (1932) 87-93;Pulleyn (1997) 219. In Plul. 636 (v/j.evys is also said of a god, though not in a prayer,fujienjs is said of men in Ionic (Hdt. 7. 237. 3) and Doric (DGE 84. 11, Argos).

88 Pulleyn (1997), esp. 16-55, stresses the importance of \apis in prayers; cf. alsoFurley (1995) 32, 45-6; Furley-Bremer (2001) i. 61-3.

89 Cf. Pax 582; Thesm. in, 129, 972; Ecphantides fr. 4; Ziegler (1913) 346-9;Calame (1995) 10-11; Wachter (1998) 72.

90 Further references to xa/w etc. in hymns and prayers include: Ach. 437(according to Kleinknecht (1937) 80 and Horn (1970) 4 and 41,3 parodic prayer, butnote the similar Vesp. 764-5); Vesp. 389; Pax 386; Thesm. 311, 314, 981, 982, 1231.

3O Religious Registers

2.9. PRAYER SYNTAX

Prayer requests take one of the following syntactic forms:

(1) imperative aorist or present(2) optative aorist or present(3) infinitive aorist or present in a.c.z.-construction(4) indirect formulation with eiix0/""91 + infinitive(5) other indirect formulations

Despite its range of possibilities, (5) is not well represented inAristophanes. It may not have been common in real-life prayerseither:

(53) Sef + a.c.i.

(sb) rhetoricalquestions

£.7.59 1-4 (H)

Vesp. 439 (P)92

cf. Pax 62 (P)

'thou must bestowvictory'

'dost thou overlookme?'

'what are you try-ing to do to ourpeople?'

(5c) + inf. Vesp. 327 (P)

'deign to be gra-cious to me'

{MAKE} + a.C.i. Ecd. 959 «= 968 (

'make him come'{COME} + final Lys. 1263-5 (H)conj. 'come that thou

mayest keep united'

Apart from (53), 3 self-conscious demand in a hymn, all these con-structions put the request into a more polite form, (sb) may reflectqualms to address a divinity with an imperative, but the frequency

91 Also Sfopai: Nub. 429.92 Cf. Ach. 55, perhaps to be added to Horn (1970) 4—11.

vESP.327(7

(

(


of (i) and the imperatives of (50) to (50) show that such an attitudewas not widespread.93

The imperatival formulation (i) is by far the most common type.Against complicated aspectual theories about imperatives inprayers, Pulleyn has recently argued that traditional views aboutaspect hold in this field too:94 the aorist imperative is appropriatewhen a request is looked at in a complexive manner, while the pre-sent imperative focuses on the action as a process (often with a'durative' nuance, for instance when the lasting effect is stressed orwhen the fulfilment implies a temporal development).

If we consider together requests in hymns and prayers, we mayfor once recognize a common 'religious' register feature. In con-versations between human beings the (second-person) presentimperative is more frequent than the aorist imperative: inAristophanes 50.6% positive present imperatives stand against49.4% positive aorist imperatives.95 In Aristophanic hymns andprayers, on the other hand, the aorist imperative is predominantwith an approximate ratio of almost 2 : i (although the frequentpresent imperative e nas no aorist equivalent).96 The ratio focletic imperatives is even more revealing (9 : i).97 There is a slighttendency to prefer the present imperative for negative requests,

93 But cf. Arist. Poet. i456bi5-18 (Protagoras test. 80 A 29); Zilliacus( 1946) 266-7.94 Pulleyn (1997) 221-6, against Bakker (1966), esp. 98-127. No theory can explain

all unexpected aspect choices (does Pax 1016 Si'Sou subsume the preceding aoristicrequests? does Thesm. 973 ojra£e agree with xaipe?), nor can Sicking (1991): if theaorist imperative is more focal, what about Thesm. 973 OTO£C VIKIJV 'bestow victory'?

95 Duhoux (2000) 246, after Kieckers (1909) n. In tragedy the aorist is evenrarer (e.g. Euripides 66.3% : 33.7%), perhaps because the present imperative suitsmore emotional scenes; cf. also Post (1938).

96 Present imperatives (n = negated): (i) xaipe: Pax 582 (2x); Av. 868; Thesin, 129, 972; cf. Eq. 1333; Pax 523; (ii)other imperatives: Nub. I478(n), 1479; AJX59(n), 388(n), 78s(n), 787, 816/17, 979(n), g86(n), 1016; Lys. 834; Thesm. 107, 973,987; Ran. 340/1, 351/2, 3856, 386, 399, 408 = 413. Aorist imperatives (n = jnj +aorist subjunctive, as equivalent of a negated aorist imperative): Ach. 405 (+ 438?),567; Eq. 637; Nub. 274, 1479(1), 1481; Vesp. 324, 327, 329, 331, 332, 393 (2x), 876,877, 1001; Pax 59, 39oa(n), 392, 400, (416), (417), 777, 78s-6(n), 977, 978, 987, 991,993, 995/6, 998; Av. 905, 950/1; Lys. 204, 317, 742, 1247; Ran. 401, 1362, 1529;Eccl. 3&9(n), 958 = 967, 9590 = 9680.

97 Present imperatives: ffli: Lys. 1271; iJKfre: Thesm. 1148; cf. Eccl. 882 "re (P).Aorist imperatives: t\9t: Ach. 665, 673; Eq. 559; Thesm. 319; Ran. 326, 675;Thesm. 1155; cAflere: Ran. 879; a<pimv'. Eq. 586; dyiVeafc Thesm. 1158; ipavriBi: Eq.591; Thesm. H43;/ioAe: Lys. 1263, 1297 (twicef); fioXfrov: Thesm. 1155; tmfir)8i: Ran.674; cf. the 'parahymnic' Eg. 1335 e'Aftr Sevp(o) and Eq. 149 Sevpo avdflaive; Nub. 266,269 apffyre, favt]rf, (\6fTt 'arise, appear, come' (Socrates' prayer); for non-Aristophanic material Adami (1901) 221; Ausfeld (1903) 516.


and sometimes the aspectual choice may be conditioned by the lex-eme: Aristophanes never uses the imperative

Duhoux convincingly interprets these facts: 'Fhomme est1'inferieur social de la divinite. Lorsqu'il s'adresse a ses superieurs,il tend a exercer une pression basse et emploie des lors le ponctuel,ou la volonte s'exprime de facon minimaliste, grace a la non con-sideration des diverses phases du developpement de 1'action.'98

This also explains the aspect of xafpe and the rarity of 'rejoice' implies an advantage for the god who receives a hymn as apresent, ij«-e 'come' (as a possible present counterpart of the aorist

an advantage for the speaker who benefits from the god's pres-ence. If we relate the point to the register dimension of 'personalstance', it seems that the speakers of the two religious genres takeup a less pressurizing attitude towards their interlocutors thanthose involved in comparable interactions between human beings.

With very few exceptions," wishes concerning the first or thirdperson are not formulated with a cohortative subjunctive or third-person imperative. This is the domain of constructions (2) to (4),which are not normally applied to second-person requests. Theoptative construction (2) is regularly employed in prayers with acurse, no matter if that curse concerns the first or third person.100

In Eq. 763-8 this 'rule' leads to a switch of construction:

PAPHLAGON: I pray . . . to our Lady Athena . . . that I may dine in thePrytaneum for having done nothing; but if I hate you . . . then may I per-ish . . .

Similarly, Pax 435-53 starts as a prayer with construction (4)(which is typical of official prayers as discussed in § 2.5), but thenturns into a curse and switches to the optative (which syntacticallyinfluences also the final request).

98 Duhoux (2000) 245. The predominance of the aorist imperative becomeseven stronger in later Greek prayer: Bakker (1966) 128-41.

99 Ach. 570 (parodic 'prayer' to Lamachus); Ran. 1359 (paratragic monody),1532; is Thesm. 311 x<upujf«i< 'may we fare well' a prayer request?

100 In Lys. 973-9 the second-person oi\oio tpfpuiv 'I wish you would carry [her]off is influenced by the third-person curse.


The few remaining examples of optatives for requests in prayersand hymns fall into two groups: prayer-like wishes, where a divin-ity is not directly addressed (cf. Thesm. 1229-31; Vesp. 368), andcertain choral passages (though not necessarily hymns) where theoptative may have been used because it was felt to be more poeticthan the imperative or the infinitive; these instances are irrelevantfor a reconstruction of real-life prayer language.101

Construction (3), the infinitive in an 'optatival' a.c.i.-construc-tion, can be compared to jussive a.c.i.-constructions in formal con-texts like laws or proclamations,102 but it must not be confoundedwith imperatival infinitives (where the addressee is the subject ofthe infinitive).103 There is no certain example of an imperativalinfinitive in an Aristophanic prayer.104 Bdelycleon's prayer inVesp. 875-84 illustrates construction (3):

BDELYCLEON: O Lord and King Agyieus, my neighbour . . ., accept the newrite. . . . End that excessively harsh, oak-hearted disposition of his . . . . Mayhe henceforward be gentle to all men, may he take pity on defendants . . .

The infinitival construction is used both in elaborate prayers likeTrygaeus' sacrificial prayer (Pax 974-1016) or Dicaeopolis" prayerbefore his private festival procession (Ach. 247-S2)105 and in shortad hoc prayers like Ach. 816-17.106

101

328 laxr/adfv), 369 Kvpaiafias, 1146 ôAois; cf. Ar. fr. in.102 Kuhner—Gerth (1898/1904) 11/2. 22-3; Schwyzer—Debrunner (1950) 380—3;

Cooper (1998) i. 767-9. MacDowell (1971) 184 refers to Vesp. 872, 879-84, 937,1216; cf. Ach. 172, 1000-1; Pax 551-5; Av. 448-50, 1040-1, 1661-6; Eccl. 418-19.

103 cf Wackernagel (1926) 267; Bers (1984) 166; Pearce (1996) 292—5 on theauthoritative tone of imperatival infinitives. On imperatival infinitives inAristophanes see App. § 4.6.4.4 below.

104 In Vesp. 870-3 TO Trpaytia could be the subject of app.oaai 'to fit well, suitPulleyn (1997) 152 n. 54 cites only six possible cases from other sources (e.g. PMG

come, hero Dionysus!')105 First-person subject: Ach. 250; Pax 1003, 1007; third-person subject: Ach.

252; Pax 1000, 1005, 1010, 1011 (2x), 1012, 1015. Cf. the parodic 'sacrificial prayer'at Thesm. 286-91 and the prayer/hymn at Ran. 387-93.

106 Cf. Ach. 435-6; Nub. 429-30; Lys. 317-18; Ran. 886-7, 892-4. In Lys. 346-9depends on

Lys. 341 1266/7 1270 Thesm. 329 (and


It has been argued that the independent infinitive results froman ellipsis of Soy 'grant',107 but the rarity of the periphrastic con-struction (sd) may speak against this. Another possibility would bean underlying verb evxopac, first-person a. c.i. -constructions wouldthen represent an extension of an original third-person usage.However, a completely different explanation is suggested by theobservation that infinitival constructions follow imperativalrequests in several Aristophanic prayers (Vesp. 875-84; Pax

974-1016; Lys. 317-18; Ran. 385-93). The inverse is not thecase.108 So the infinitival construction may have originated as acase of 'conjunction reduction',109 where the marking of the pre-ceding imperative extended over the following 'zero-marked'infinitive (the infinitive being the least-marked verbal form). Thephenomenon could thus be connected again with the registerdimension of 'personal stance' and the preference for less pressur-izing aorist imperatives in prayers: the unmarked infinitive wouldfurther reduce the amount of linguistic pressure by 'dispersonaliz-ing' the speech event. At the same time, the infinitival constructionwould not reduce the urgency as much as the optative in curses,110

which may be treated as a separate subregister of the prayer regis-ter.

Disregarding minor divergences caused by special circum-stances, the following diagram summarizes the syntax of prayerrequests. Of the four options, the infinitival construction appearsto be the most distinctive syntactic register feature:

optative — » curses (+ poetic prayers?111)imperative — » second-person requestsinfinitive -* first-/third-person requests

+ inf. — » (semi-)official prayers

107 Wackernagel (1926) 267; Dittmar (1933) 93; Schwyzer— Debrunner (1950)

380; Horn (1970) 50 n. 76; Bers (1984) 166; but cf. Pulleyn (1997) 152 with n. 52.

Note also «' yap (eK)yfvoiTo + inf. 'I wish it would happen that' in Ar. fr. 1 1 1 (as in

Pax 346), and iroti + a.c.i. in Men. Epitr. 555—6.

los pax joi6 Si'Sou summarizes the requests.109 Cf. Kiparsky (1968); Bers (1984) 173 on jussive infinitives; Watkins (1967)

and Renehan (1976) 1 1—22 on simplex verbs after compound verbs; Platt (1910) on

the nominative + re after a vocative (App. § 4.1.1.1).110 Aubriot-Sevin (1992), esp. 276 and 291, implausibly suggests that the opta-

tive is more authoritative than the imperative; see also Gonda ( 1 956) 54 n. i ; Bakker

(1966) 108 n. 25; Pulleyn (1997) 151.111 Frequent in tragedy: Pulleyn (1997) 151. The ratio imperative : optative is 72 :

20 in Homer, 30 : 16 in the lyric poets: Pulleyn (1997) 150.


2.10. HYMN SYNTAX

The hymnic lexicon largely corresponds to the lexicon of lyricpoetry in general.112 We may therefore wonder if there is a similaroverlap in the field of syntax or if there are syntactic features that

are predominantly or exclusively hymnic. In order to answer this

question we will look at the following three points, which Adami

considered to be characteristic of hymn syntax:113

(1) avoidance of the article,

(2) relative clauses (continuing a chain of epithets),

(3) accumulation of finite verbs and participles.

We will compare a set of Aristophanic hymns with some of

Aristophanes' other lyric pieces. The following sample texts are all

taken from non-parodic hymns, e.g. parabatic odes and antodes:114

(a) Eq. 551-64 parabatic ode 14 lines(b) Eq. 581-94 parabatic antode 14 lines

(c) Nub. 563-74 parabatic ode 12 lines

(d) Nub. 595-606 parabatic antode 12 lines(e) Lys. 1296-1315 20 lines

(/) Thesm. 1136-59 24 lines

(i) Avoidance of the article. It is not always possible to saywhether a definite article would have been used in a prose para-phrase (cf. e.g. Thesm. 1143 Tvpawovs), but the use of the article isindeed restricted in most of the sample texts. The ratio betweenlack of the article and use of the article is approximately (a) 3 : i,

(6)0 :4 , ( c ) 5 - i , ( « 0 7 : i , ( « ) a : i , ( / ) i 2 : i .The figures are similar in three non-hymnic choral passages

from Birds:

(g) Av. 227-62 the Hoopoe's song 36 lines 4 : 1

(h)Av. 1058-71 ode of the second 14 lines 12 :1parabasis

112 Diphilus fr. 29 associates hymnic style with (lyric passages of?) tragedy. Non-Attic phonology (Doric a, uncontracted forms, aa) in Aristophanes is more frequentin hymns than elsewhere, thus illustrating the importance of 'de-automatization'and 'planning1 (cf. App. §§2.1.1, 2.1.4, 2.2.1).

113 Adami (1901) 261-2, and for (2) and (3) also 242-3; Norden (1956) 166-72.114 For the connection between hymns and parabatic odes see Gelzer (1960) 207

with n. 7; Eduard Fraenkel (1962) 191—215; Horn (1970) 12—21.

24.LINES


(i) Av. 1088-1101 antode of the second 14 lines 10 : iparabasis

However, (g) is thematically similar to a cletic hymn (cf. Av. 252Sevp' ire), and (h) and (i) are 'para-hymnic' self-praises of thebirds.115 Choruses like Lys. 1043-71 or Eccl. 300-12, randomlychosen as examples of non-hymnic lyric pieces, present a differentpicture:

(k) Lys. 1043-71 29 lines i : 5(/) Eccl. 300—12 13 lines o : 5

Omission of the article characterizes other genres too (for instancesome paratragic lines of the stage Euripides: cf. App. § 4.3). It istherefore no exclusive register marker. Nevertheless, Adami'sobservation might be correct—as long as the deviation of (b) can beexplained. This hymn to Athena structurally corresponds to (a), ahymn to Poseidon. The stylistic difference mirrors the differentcharacter of the two gods. Poseidon is the aristocratic god of theKnights, Athena the tutelary goddess of the common demos. Theprosaic use of the article makes the language of the hymn to Athenamore 'demotic' since it comes closer to everyday speech, whereasthe article was customarily omitted in the lyric traditions of theelite.

(2) Relative clauses. A predicating relative clause occurs in all ofthe sample hymns though not necessarily in continuation of orna-mental epithets as in (a), (c), and (/): in (d) the relative clause con-tains the epithets, and in (6) and (e) it predicates a divinity orlocality which is not directly addressed. In (/) the relative clause ofAv. 1089-90 has a similar predicating function.

(3) Accumulation of finite verbs and participles. A comparison of(a) to (/) with (k) and (/) shows that the latter contain more finiteverbs (and about as many participles). Even if Adami's generaliza-tion was meant for the predicating part of hymns only, theAristophanic material does not support the idea that a concentra-tion of finite verbs and participles was felt to be a typical hymnicfeature. While it can be characteristic of a hymn (as in Ran.323-36), we should expect a clearer tendency if it were essential. Anexample like the extended relative clause of Eq. 551-8 almost seems

115 Cf. Dunbar (1995) 213 and 576-7.


to avoid a second finite verb (beside dvSdvet 'pleases'). As to par-ticipial style, (d) has three predicating participles in twelve lines,but there is no sign of excessive accumulation. In general, adjecti-val epithets clearly outnumber the participles.

The introduction of complex information in a subordinate clausemakes the predicating relative clauses of hymns another signal ofstructural elaboration, reflecting a high degree of planning in thedimension of production circumstances. The omission of the arti-cle also belongs here because it opposes the natural flow of speech.At the same time, it reduces referential explicitness and cohesion sothat poetic abstractness prevails over the informational focus. Incomparison with other lyric registers, the predicating relativeclause is the most distinct syntactic feature of hymns.

2. i i . ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Ancient prayers and hymns are negotiations with the gods. UnlikeChristian prayers they assume that divinities have personal obliga-tions and interests. They regularly include an explicit or implicitargumentation. One may distinguish various structures:116 da-quia-dedi; da-quia-dedisti; da-quia-dedit; da-ut-dem; da-ut-dare-possim; do-ut-des. Such structures contain a considerable comicpotential; da-ut-dem, for instance, is parodied in Vesp. 393—4:

PHILOCLEON: O take pity now on me who dwells close to thee, and save me,and I vow never to piss or fart beside your wicker fence.

Aristophanes would not have formulated Philocleon's comicprayer in this way if there had not been a well-established traditionof da-ut-dem prayers.

The following argument structures are found in Aristophanes.

(i) Implicit argumentation:

(a) An advantage for the divinity is implied if the prayer is ful-filled: Ach. 248-9; Vesp. 389-90; Pax 63, 395, 781 (H).

Cf. Pulleyn (1997) p. xv.116


(b) The advantage for the divinity lies in a sacrifice, libation,hymn, etc. (da-quia-dedi/do): Nub. 274; Pax 435, 977-8; Av.903; Lys. 204; Thesm. 1230—1 (the play as a 'gift'); Ran.674-5 (H); cf. the greeting xaipt: every hymn is per defini-tionem a present for a divinity.

(c) Epithets (<pi'Aos) or the mention of a personal tie place thedivinity under an obligation: e.g. Ach. 568, 675 (H)'fellow demesman'); Eq. 636; Pax 776-7 (H)

'with me, thy friend'); Ran. 886, 892.

(2) Explicit argumentation:

(a) da ut dem:Ach. 277-8

'if you drink with us, . . . you shall slop down'Vesp. 393-4

'take pity and save me . . . and I vow never to piss'Pax 392-9

'be gracious . . . and we will glorify . . . you withsacrifices'

Pax 400—4'take pity . . . and I will tell you of something'

Pax 416—24'help us ... and we will hold the greatPanathenaea in your honour'

Thesm. 287-8'grant that I may have ample possessions and sac-rifice to you from them on many more occasions'

(b) da quia dedisti (also veni quia venisti):Ach. 405

'answer my call, if ever thou didst answerany mortal'

Eq. 591-4 (H)'thou must . . . bestow victory, now if ever'

Pax 775-81 (H)

'dance . . . with me . . . for these have beenthy chosen themes from the first'

Thesm. 1157-9 (H)'if ever heretofore you have come in answerto our call, now too come'


Ran. 403-7 (H)'be with me as escort—for it was you who

tore apart. . . and found a way'Cf. also Ach. 437—8; Nub. 356. In Nub. 595 (H) 'come close to me again', aiJre implies veni quia venisti.

(c) da quia dedi:

Eq. 763-6

'I pray i f . . . I have been the worthiest of all servants

of the Athenian people'

Pax 385-8

'do not . . . if ... you remember ever having eaten a

young pig given by me'

(3) No argumentation, but appeal for pity or forgiveness:117

Vesp. 327-8

'deign . . . to be gracious to me and pity my plight'Vesp. 439

'dost thou ignore my plight,. .. thus manhandled?'

Vesp. 1001-2

'forgive me; I did it unintentionally'

Pax 58-9'what on earth are you aiming to do?'

Cf. also Vesp. 368; with both an appeal for pity and an argumen-tation: Vesp. 393-4 (cf. 2(0)); Pax 62-3 (cf. i(a)), 400-4

(cf. 2(0); pity requested on behalf of others).

The absence of an explicit or implicit argumentation can easily beaccounted for in short prayers which aim at conciseness (e.g. Eccl.

171-2, 369-71). It is more surprising in the communal prayersbefore the Thesmophoria (Thesm. 295-371), parts of which

(295-311, 331-51) are likely to reproduce official prayers quite

faithfully.118 Here the lack of argumentation is probably due to the

117 Cf. Ausfeld (1903) 533, 541; Versnel (1981) 10 n. 30.118 e.g. the curse against those who betray the city to the Persians (as in Isocr. 4.

157); cf. the scholiast's remark onaspires to rule as a dictator or to join in restoring the dictator' (similarly Andoc.Myst. 97; Arist. Ath. Pol. 16. 10); Burckhardt (1924) 29-31; Kleinknecht (1937)33—7; Haldane (1965); R. Parker (1983) 193—4; Bowie (1993) 209.

or


situational setting. Since the Athenian assembly—the model forthe women's gathering—started with the sacrifice of a pig followedby the declamation of a prayer and a curse upon those speakers whowould lead the audience astray,119 a sacrifice may have been rep-resented on stage or left to the imagination of the audience. Thissacrifice then, together with the interceding hymns, would count asan 'implicit' argumentation. Hence, the absence of an explicitargumentation follows again from the concentration on the requestas central purpose of the genre (cf. § 2.6).

The structure da-quia-dedisti (2(6)) occurs several times inhymns, once in a respectful address to the Clouds which is rem-iniscent of a hymn (Nub. 356 x<u'p )> and once or twice in a prayer-like request formulated by Dicaeopolis when he asks for Euripides'help. If the argumentation da-quia-dedisti was (or was consideredto be) typical of hymnic requests,120 perhaps because a hymn rep-resented a recompense for the earlier gift, Dicaeopolis' pseudo-prayers may be hyper-characterized for dramaturgical reasons: astructure da-ut-dem, which would have been more common inprayers (see below), could easily be misunderstood by the audienceas simple bargaining between two equal human beings.

The self-assertive da-quia-dedi (2(c)) is very rare. In Pax 385-99it is moderated by an implicit argumentation of type 1(0) and bythe extensive da-ut-dem promise. The only character who imperti-nently relies on his 'merits' is Cleon-Paphlagon in Eq. 763-8: thestructure of the prayer is part of the character portrayal.

Another figure who prays in a characteristic manner isPhilocleon in Wasps. He speaks four of the seven prayers that askfor pity or forgiveness (3), three times without another argument.Philocleon is presented as a weak and helpless puppet of dema-gogues, who is only superficially upheld by his power fantasies.

The most frequent of the explicit argument structures in prayersis da-ut-dem (2(0)). Many of the promises (though not Ach. 277-8and Vesp. 393-4) could occur in real prayers. Hence, da-ut-demwas probably seen as the archetypal prayer-form.121

119 Cf. Hansen (1991) 142, referring to Aeschin. i. 23; Dinarchus 2. 141100)2. 16;

Dem. 19. 70; see also Isocr. 4. 157; Dem. 23. 97; Kleinknecht (1937) 33—5.120 Cf. Nub. 356-7, without a request.121 Note that Greek evx/i 'prayer' is also the normal word for a 'vow', where the

same idea of da-ut-dem is crucial.


If we look at the linguistic structuring elements in the explicitargumentations of type 2, we observe a regularity that further cor-roborates the register typology established so far. Ausfeld pointedout that the argumentation of Greek prayers (which he called 'parsepica') often begins with a conditional clause introduced by ei

as the divinity is reminded of his or her earlier services orof previous gifts from the believer.122 In fact, these «i-clauses arefound in most examples of types z(b) and z(c)—but we have seenthat z(c) is exceptional and z(b) characteristic of hymns rather thanprayers. As an alternative, some examples of 2(6) employ a connec-tive ydp, which is highlighted as a hymnic feature in Pax 582—600:in this hymn to Peace the chorus use ydp no less than five timeswithin twelve lines when they explain their exultation (do-quia-dedisti).123 Vesp. 1001-2, where ydp occurs in a prayer, is of a dif-ferent argument type (3).124 Thus, since ydp and a (TTOT^TTOV) arepredominantly 'hymnic', their use in literary prayers probablyreveals more about religious attitudes than about the actual phras-ing of real-life prayers.

The typical prayer argumentation (2(0)) only once employs asubordinate clause. Instead, phrase coordination with <c<u is the rulealthough clauses with iW, STTWS, or wa-re would be perfectly possible.Differences between preferential discourse structures in prayersand hymns (da-ut-dem vs. da~quia-dedi/dedisti) go hand in handwith a preference for parataxis and hypotaxis respectively

and a different amount of logical cohesion or explicitness. The preference for parataxis or hypotaxis again correlates

with the register dimension of 'production circumstances' (or plan-ning), while the amount of logical cohesion is connected with thedimension of 'argumentation/persuasion': under similar condi-tions, the argumentational explicitness seems stronger inAristophanes' hymns than in his prayers.

122 Cf. Ausfeld (1903) 526-8. For the tripartition invocatio-pars epica-preces seeAusfeld (1903) 514-15. H. Meyer (1933) 5 speaks of 'Hypomnese', and other termsare also used: Furley-Bremer (2001) {.51.

123 Cf. Eccl. 3—7 with three ydp in five lines in a 'para-hymnic' invocation:Kleinknecht (1937) 93-8; Rau (1967) 205-6; Horn (1970) n; on hymnic ydp alsoNorden (1956) 157.

124 In Ran. 1531 ydp explains the wish but is not part of an argumentation.

Religious Registers

2.12. INTERNAL VARIATION

2 . 1 2 . I . P R O C L A M A T I O N OF

I have mentioned in section 2.1 that a full description of a linguis-tic register should also point out how much internal variation theregister allows, i.e. how broad the range of linguistic registerfeatures is, and how much standardization has taken place. Thisquestion is difficult to answer in a highly selective register studylike the present one, in particular since our corpus includes paro-dic material. However, a short cut based on typological considera-tions may give us some clues.

It has been noted that religious discourse is cross-culturallyoften marked by prescribed ritual openings and closings.125 If wesubscribe to the hypothesis that the beginning and end of a ritualevent (e.g. a prayer) is the most likely place for standardization, wecan test the amount of standardization in a prayer register by con-centrating on the opening and closing elements. The only condi-tion is, of course, that they show some degree of uniformity.Fortunately, the Aristophanic corpus includes pertinent elementsfor both 'ends' of elaborated (often communal) prayers: the procla-mation of fv<frni.ia and the closing words that correspond to our'Amen'.126

Communication with the gods is potentially dangerous. Toguarantee the absence of ill-omened interference, etVî'a isproclaimed at the first stage of a communal prayer ceremony. Inpractical terms this was a call for abstention from articulatedspeech.127 e<V«)/xi'a is also established before other situations thatdemand religious concentration (e.g. a sacrifice or the performanceof a hymn). There are eleven Aristophanic scenes in whichis proclaimed:

125 Crystal-Davy (1969) 169; C. A. Ferguson (1986) 205, 212; Saville-Troike(1989)77.

126 Other (possible) ritual formulae in Aristophanic comedy (cf. the commen-

taries ad loc.) include Vesp. 862 ~ Av. 903; Pax 433 ~ 1104; Pax 968; Pax 1334-5 ~

Av. 1736; Pax 1336 ~ Eccl. ii2<);Av. 864-75 ~ Thestn. 331-4; Lys. 834 ~ Ran. 301;Ran. 354-70; Ran. 479; Ran. 1462 ~ Ar. fr. 504. 14.

127 Cf. Eq. 1316; Thesm. 39-40. Pulleyn (1997) 184 stresses that the oXoXvyrj doesnot contravene the interdiction: cf. Pax 96-7; Aesch. Ag. 28, 595-6; Benveniste(1966) 308—10. On Av. 863 without a proclamation see Dunbar (1995) 542.

42


1. Ach. 237Ach. 241(before Dicaeopolis'processional prayer)

2. Eg. 1316-17(before the 'epiphany'of Demos)

'Speak fair, speak fair.'

3. Nub. 263(before Socrates'prayer)

4. Vesp. 868

'Let everyone speak fair and close hismouth, abstain from giving evidenceand close the courts of law. . . .'

'Let the old man speak fair and listento the prayer.'

(before Bdelycleon's 'First let all now speak fair.'prayer in the 'court-room' scene)

5. Pax 96-101(without a follow-ing prayer)

'You should speak fair and not utterthe least ill-omened sound, but shoutfor joy; and bid all men keep silence. . . and close up their arses.'

6. Pax 434(before Trygaeus'prayer and the rescueof Peace)

7. Pax 1318-22(before the weddingprayer)

8. Av. 959(before the sacrifice)

9. Thesm. 39-48(before Agathon'shymn)

'Speak fair, speak fair.'

'Let all speak fair, and let the bride bebrought out here', etc.

'Let all speak fair.'


'Let all the people close their lips andspeak fair; . . . let windless heavenrestrain its blasts, let the blue waves ofthe sea make no noise; . . . let the tribesof birds be lulled to sleep, let the feet ofthe beasts that range the woods bebound fast in stillness . . . "

10. Thesm. 295(before the Thesmo- 'Let all speak fair, let all speak fair.'phoria prayer)

n. Ran. 354-70(before the hymn ofthe initiates)

'Let all speak fair, and let these standout of the way of our dances: whoeveris unfamiliar with words such as theseor has thoughts that are not clean', etc.

Metrical needs are excluded in (i), where the imperativewith sacral gemination128 stands extra metrum. The exact match in(6)—again extrametrical like the preceding OTTOV^ mrovS-q 'libation,libation!'—suggests that this was an established formula. However,the speaker of the non-metrical line (10) uses a different syntacticalform in a scene where Aristophanes clearly wanted to imitate anofficial procedure as closely as possible; again there is a match in(8). Moreover, it is hardly a coincidence that (2), (3), (5), (7), and(n) all begin with the same fiKf^flv xpy, which is followed byand more precise indications about the following steps in the rit-ual.129 There is a further parallelism between (2)

128 On this phenomenon see Norden (1957) 136—7; cf. e.g. Pax 433, 976, 1104;Pulleyn (1997) 133-4; Norden (1956) 169 n. i on doubled vocatives.

would fit into the anapaestic tetrameters of (7) and (10).


object of Imichftfiv in (5) is a coarse joke, and the phrase withauy/cAijeii' in (z) is a comic variation of the preceding ar6fj.a K\rjfti>, butthe sense and the parallelism of (2) and (9) suggest that there was aregular formulation in which aroâ was the object of either

or a compound of this verb.Obviously, there was no single liturgical formula for the procla-

mation of eiHprjfjiia, but the repetition of certain types of formulationin Aristophanes shows that some standardization must have takenplace. There were at least three regular options—(a)

, (b) repeated euîj/neiTe, (c) (repeated)but we would need additional material to know, for instance, if (c)

was always used before the opening prayer of an assembly. Thestem eixprjfj,- is used throughout. The fanciful descriptions of theprojected ciVw"a by Agathon's servant in (9) were certainly notnormal practice.130 The case illustrates how a fairly standardizedformula is dramatically transformed for the sake of comic charac-terization.

2.12.2. ' A M E N '

The same 'limited diversity' is seen at the end of severalAristophanic prayers. The following list of the closing words ofsome of the more elaborate prayers shows the essential similarities:

1. Vesp. 874(choral prayer before the 'Hail, Paean.'courtroom scene)

2. Pax 453(prayer before the rescue 'But for us may there be bless-of Peace) ings. Strike up the paean: hail!'

3. Pax 1016(sacrificial prayer ofTrygaeus) 'All this, o most highly honoured

one, grant us, we pray thee.'

130 Mesomedes Sol. 1—4 is so similar to Thesm. 39—50 that a direct influence islikely.

and (9)(5)

The


4. Thesm. 310—11(prayer before theThesmophoria)

'For this pray ye, and for theirblessings upon yourselves. HailPaean, hail Paean, hail Paean!May we fare well!'

5. Thesm. 350-1(ditto)

" . . . but to all you others pray thatthe gods may grant many bless-ings.'

6. Thesm. 368-71(ditto, chorus)

'O almighty Zeus, we beg theegive effect to these prayers, sothat the gods may be with us,women though we be.'

In some communal prayers Aristophanes may have left out theclosing element because it was not essential for his dramatic pur-poses. The above passages fall into three groups: (a) recapitulationof the preceding requests with ravra: (3), (4), (6); (b) generalrequests for ayafla:131 (2), (4), (5); (c) the cultic crywith variation of the exact shape: (i), (2), (4). In both (a) and (b), apersonal pronoun occurs in the dative, either in the first or in thesecond person depending on whether a leader formulates theprayer. The elements {TO.VTO.} , {pers. pron. dat.}, and {dya8d} aremost freely combined.

The cultic cry (c) is not restricted to prayers to Apollo (Paean)and there is no Aristophanic evidence for other cultic cries with thesame closing function.132 That 117 -no.ui>v was a regular ending of

131 Cf. Av. 623-4; Eccl. 781; Rudhardt (1992) 208 n. 2; Kleinknecht (1937) 31-2on aatrripia. and uyiem in Av. 878-9 as in Men. Kol. fr. I. 7, where summarizes the preceding prayer; Ausfeld (1903) 542-6; Pulleyn (1997) 7-8.

132 e.g. the oAoAuyT), on which see Pulleyn (1997) 178-80; Olson (1998) 86;Rudhardt (1992) 178-80; Deubner (1941). Lys. 240-2 implies the use of the as a cry of joy and victory: similarly Eg. 616, 1327; Pax 97.


prayers is also implied by other sources such as Thucydides(6. 32. 2).'"

The same cultic cry occurs in other circumstances. In Ach. 12.12

it is a wailing invocation of the healing-god, in Lys. 1291 a cry ofvictory, and the context in Av. 1763 suggests a link with the

'wedding hymn' mentioned in Thesm. 1034-5. In Eq.

1318 and Pax 555, the verb •nauovil,ea> means 'to sing a song of cele-bration and thanksgiving'.134 Nevertheless, the cry is the closestpragmatic equivalent to our 'Amen' in response to a prayer recitedby a leader. As an expression of joy it is reinforced by âipiatuv in

(4)-135

Both in the proclamation of euqnîa and in the closing words ofcommunal prayers there is just enough standardization to considerthem as established register features. The range of variation in theactual wording suggests that the concept of a fixed liturgy was asforeign to fifth-century Athens as that of religious scriptures (andin fact, the two concepts may well be connected).

Now if a fair amount of variation characterizes even the moststandardized parts of the prayer register, this register must havebeen extremely heterogeneous as a whole. This heterogeneityresulted in the occasional overlap with the register of hymns, whichwe have observed earlier (cf. §§ 2.6 and 2.8). However, the two reg-isters diverge so much with respect to several dimensions that itwould be unwise to group them together as one religious register.Instead, the overlap should better be conceived of as 'functionaltransfer' from hymns to prayers.136

2.13. CONCLUSION

The results of this chapter are threefold: (i) literary, (2) method-ological, and (3) linguistic.

133 Cf. Herod. Mim. 4. 82, 4. 85; Xen. Anab. 3. 2. 9; Pulleyn (1997) 182.134 Cf. Eq. 408 iTjiraiomaai; Olson (1998) 190; Pulleyn (1997) 182—3; Kappel

(1992), esp. 65-70; Kleinknecht (1939) 60; for the orthography Wackernagel (1925)

61-3.135 Another response is Thesm. 312 StxojuefJa 'we say amen' (cf. e.g. Ran. 589): as

in Thesm. 352 £weuxo'/«a0a, the congregation approves of the leader's prayer.136 As described for religious discourse elsewhere by C. A. Ferguson (1986)

211-12.


(i) On the literary level, we have several times touched upon theintersection of style, dramatic function, and characterization. AsDieterich saw first,137 Socrates' prayer in Nub. 264-74 is full ofhymnic elements (cletic imperatives, elaborated ornamental epi-thets, a predicating relative clause, local predication with thehypotactic structure eir(e) . . . fir(f) . . . e?r(e) ... 17 ... i?138). Theatypical prayer lends an air of comic solemnity to the self-appointed mystery-priest Socrates.

In Eq. 763—8 Cleon-Paphlagon uncommonly uses the self-conscious da-quia-dedi structure, the indirect formulation euô/nai +dat., which was typical of official and ceremonious prayers, thehymnic epithet êSeouojj, and the epic form Myvaiy. This man haslost contact with the demos, in whose interest he claims to act.Conversely, Philocleon's prayers reveal his weakness as he contin-uously asks for pity and forgiveness.

The two parabatic hymns of Knights are differentiated linguis-tically into a demotic one for Athena and an aristocratic one forPoseidon (use of the article). The great variety of hymnic speech-act verbs in Agathon's hymn may be a parody of his style, just asthe proclamation of aVw"'a by his servant contrasts with the com-mon formulae and foreshadows the appearance of the exaltedpoetaster.

(2) The results are encouraging also on a methodological level.The dimensional approach to register variation has provided atheoretical framework within which the findings can be interpretedstraightforwardly. The cross-linguistic validity of the four basicdimensions 'production circumstances', 'interactiveness', 'argu-mentation/persuasion', and 'personal stance/involvement' hasbeen confirmed. Furthermore, the correspondence of the linguisticmaterial found in comedy both with these dimensions and withextralinguistic expectations (dramatic function of single charac-ters, functional differences between hymns and prayers) demon-strates that comedy is a reliable source for register studies. Acomprehensive register description of Attic Greek might well starthere.

137 Dieterich (1893) 282-3; cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 22-5.138 Parallels in Adami (1901) 227-9; Ausfeld (1903) 525; Norden (1956) 144-7;

non-hymnic examples (Aesch. Bum. 292—6; Theocr. i. 123-4) show hymnic influ-ence on literary prayers.


(3) On the linguistic level, we have seen that prayer languageand hymn language are too different from each other to form a sin-gle religious register of Attic Greek. It cannot be said, as it canabout 'religious English',139 that 'religious Greek" was 'probablythe most clearly marked variety of all'. The differences between theregister of prayers and that of hymns are grouped with respect toseveral dimensions. Most prominently the two genres diverge inthe dimension of production circumstances. The much smallerrange of epithets and the lack of variation in speech-act verbs bothreflect the more improvisational (on-line) production of prayers(which is in itself a remarkable cultural fact even though it seemsnormal to us because the Christian, especially Protestant, tradition

encourages extemporary as well as institutional praying140).Moreover, there is little register-specific vocabulary in prayers.Exquisite lexical choices, structural elaboration (subordinateclauses, both relative and conditional), and 'de-automatizing'devices (lack of articles, decontraction) betray the careful planningof hymns. The lack of articles illustrates the reduced importance ofreferential explicitness. In the argumentation/persuasion dimen-sion, logical cohesion seems stronger in hymns than in prayerssince causal clause connections are made explicit.

Prayers and hymns share some common ground in the dimen-sions of interactiveness and personal stance. In the former, bothgenres make use of direct and indirect modes of address, and dif-ferentiation rather occurs between subgenres of prayer(official/communal vs. private prayers). The interesting preferencefor aorist imperatives in addressing divinities is related to thedimension of personal stance: it appears to reduce the speaker'spressure upon the interlocutor. The dispersonalization of requestsgoes even farther in prayers where infinitival constructions camou-flage the roles of addresser and addressee.

An additional interest of register studies lies in their sociocul-tural implications. If we deny the existence of a single religiousregister in Attic Greek, we say something about cultural catego-rization. Religion was not perceived as one unified cultural domain

139 Crystal-Davy (i 969) 171.140 Cf. Samarin (1976) 10. Contrast e.g. the situation in Sumbanese, where ritual

language is required: Mitchell (1988) 66. Similarly, prayers in Swiss Germanchurches are usually said in Standard German.

SO Religious Registers

with clear boundaries against other, 'normal', domains. The non-existence of a single religious register and in particular the limitedspecificity of prayer language mirror the comparatively relaxedattitude towards the divine in the Greek world. The distinctivenessof hymn language, on the other hand, is that of lyric poetry in gen-eral, xapiy is created for gods and men alike.

3

Technical Languages

3.1. INTRODUCTION

In the preceding chapter we saw how comic material can be used inhistorical register studies. We are now prepared to tackle the slightlymore complex, but not dissimilar, issue of technical languages.

Every now and then technical languages are 'discovered' inAristophanes and Greek comedy in general.1 It is believed thatthe integration of technical languages into comedy showsAristophanes' mastery of verbal art. Unfortunately, the method-ological and theoretical issues that should form the basis of suchdiscoveries have never been properly addressed. The aim of thischapter is therefore twofold. In the first place it seeks to provide thetheoretical background for the study of technical languages in com-edy (§§ 3-2~3-3)- Secondly, some of the evidence collected by ear-lier researchers will be critically reviewed. I will argue thattechnical languages are far less prominent in Aristophanes' playsthan is often assumed—an observation which does not in the leastlessen the poet's linguistic achievements (§§ 3.5-3.8). I will also aswhy technical languages are such a marginal phenomenon.

From a theoretical perspective there are two basic requirementswhen dealing with technical languages in comedy. We need (i) asuitable definition of technical language (§ 3.2) and (2) appropriatecriteria for the identification of technical terms (§ 3.3).

3.2. D E F I N I N G 'TECHNICAL LANGUAGE'

3.2.1. T E C H N I C A L L A N G U A G E S A N D REGISTERS

Even in linguistic literature, registers and technical languages arenot always clearly distinguished. Let us therefore first look at the

1 Cf. in particular Denniston (1927), Miller (1945), and Byl (1990), but also e.g.Dover (1970) 7-8, where 'technical languages' are listed as one out of five stylisticcategories in Aristophanes.

52 Technical Languages

fundamental difference between these two linguistic varieties. Inthe previous chapter (§2.1) we saw that the basic parameter of reg-isters is their situational context (just as the basic parameter ofsociolects is social grouping and that of dialects is geographicregion). So what is the basic parameter of technical languages?

In a recent discussion of medical Latin, Langslow has arguedthat the definition of a technical language has both a social and acontextual part. In Langslow's view all the spoken and writtenutterances of a defined group of specialists on topics related to theirspecialized field constitute a technical language.2 If technical lan-guages were defined, like sociolects, through the group of speakersalone (i.e. Langslow's 'group of specialists') we should have toargue that a physician uses medical language when he or she buysfood at a supermarket. The question is just whether we need asocial specification at all. Is a word like polioencephalitis less tech-nical when a butcher utters it than when a doctor does? To be sure,polioencephalitis is likely to occur more frequently in texts andutterances produced by doctors, but strictly speaking this is acci-dental. We may therefore regard topic (Langslow's 'contextualpart') as the basic parameter of technical languages.3

Technical languages and registers partially overlap: the situa-tional parameter of registers often implies a topical restriction. Forexample, if we study the language of legal contracts, this will be inthe first place a register study: we are dealing with a genre that iscreated in a more or less well-defined situational context. At thesame time we will find much technical (legal) terminology.However, this is accidental again. It is theoretically possible on theone hand to find the same terminology, perhaps even with the samefrequency, in other situational contexts (e.g. in a lecture oncontract law) and on the other hand to draw up a legal contractwithout using any legal terminology (for instance by replacing itwith complicated paraphrases). The description of a given register(e.g. the register of instruction sheets) may point out that it is acharacteristic feature of the register to include a large amount oftechnical vocabulary, but because topic, not situational context, isthe basic parameter of a technical language, it would be mistakento speak of the 'technical language of instruction sheets'.

2 Langslow (2000) 26—7. On the history of modern technical-language researchsee Hahn (1981).

3 Cf. Porzig (1957) 219; Hoffmann (1985) 30.

Technical Languages 53

3-2.2. TECHNICAL LANGUAGES AS TECHNICAL

VOCABULARIES

A careful separation of registers and technical languages alsoexplains why technical 'languages' regularly consist of vocabularyitems ('terms') rather than morphological or syntactic features.'The essence of a technical discipline is a structured set of objectsand methods. . . . Because it names things which are not named inthe language of every day, the lexicon of a technical language mustbe peculiar, but there is no corresponding functional need for thetechnical language to develop non-standard features in spelling,pronunciation, inflection, syntax, or style.'4 In fact, syntactic orstylistic features that are sometimes listed as 'technical' (e.g. thfrequency of passive constructions, the rarity of personal pro-nouns, the prominence of nominal groups over verbal expression5)are not technical-language features but register features. They arenot conditioned by the topic but by the situational context. The useof technical vocabulary ('terminology'), on the other hand, is oftenunavoidable when a special topic is dealt with. Unless I resort toextensive explanatory paraphrases, which substantially reduceclarity of communication, I cannot express without technical termsan observation like 'the o-grade of the root of ye'pcu can be seen in theverbal noun cpopoy'; but there is no intrinsic reason why I should notsay, with alternative syntax, 'you can see the o-grade of the root of

in the verbal noun <popos'. Or again, a doctor may write in a personal letter to a professional friend about a difficult case of polioen-cephalitis and produce a text which bristles with terminology butcompletely lacks any distinctive syntactic or stylistic features.6

4 Langslow (2000) 7; cf. Porzig (1957) 259; Seibicke (1981) 50.5 Cf. Sager-Dungworth—McDonald (1980) 186—229; Hoffmann (1985) 41—2,

136-41; Hoffmann (1986) 464 (which can be read as a brief register description oftechnical genres: note the reference to 'Textsorten'); Fluck (1996) 55-6. For thestyle (or register characteristics) of ancient Greek scientific genres see Thesleff(1966) and van der Eijk (1997).

6 The existence of an established terminology can of course influence the style oftechnical texts. Since there is a technical term appendicectomy a physician mayreplace a verbal phrase like after the appendix has been cut out by the shorter nomi-nal phrase after the appendicectomy.


3.2.3. G E N E R A L K N O W L E D G E A N D S U B J E C T I V E P E R C E P T I O N

Since technical languages are topic-based varieties, their existenceis closely linked with the existence of specialized fields. We mustnot search for a technical language of a specialized field that did notexist as such in a professionally less diversified ancient society.For example, one may classify the verb to winnow as a technicalterm of agriculture in a modern industrial society. In an ancientagricultural society, where winnowing was part of daily life, thesame classification would be problematic. The definition of 'tech-nicality' is therefore always subjective and based to a large extenton fuzzy categories such as 'majority usage' and 'collective generalknowledge' in a given society. It depends both on the fragmenta-tion of a society into professional groups and associations and onthe amount of shared education among the members of this society(no matter if that education takes an institutionalized form or not).7

Because 'collective general knowledge' is no hard and fast cate-gory, the validity of a horizontal opposition between 'technical' and'general' language has sometimes been questioned. It has beenargued that technical languages should be seen, in a vertical model,as a subcategory of general language.8 The question whether to

winnow belongs to general or to technical language would then bewrong. By belonging to technical language the verb would also

belong to general language. Just as every Greek utterance belongsto one or another Greek dialect every utterance would belong toone or another technical language. Figure 3.1 illustrates the twomodels. From a theoretical point of view the vertical model isunobjectionable, but it is counterintuitive. Who would classify astechnical an utterance like / am going to buy an ice cream? The ver-tical model does not even eliminate the need for the native speak-ers' subjective judgements. Who, if not the native speakers, willdecide where to set the boundaries between the different technicaldomains?9

7 Cf. Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 68-9, 98; Heller (1981) 225-8.8 Heller (1981) 220-2, Mohn (1981) 210, and Hoffmann (1985) 48-52, against

e.g. Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 63-4 and Seibicke (1981) 51 (but note thepostscript on p. 66). Reformatskij (1968) 121-2 ambiguously speaks of terminologyas a 'subsystem' in the lexical system of a language, although he subscribes to the'horizontal' model.

9 Cf. Hoffmann (1985) 53-7.


Horizontal model

Language A

Vertical model

Language A = GL

GLTL,TL2TL3 - TL, TL2TL3 -

Note. GL = general language; TL = technical language

FIGURE 3.1. Models of technical language

Moreover, there is not more vagueness in a horizontal separationof general and technical language than in other 'horizontally separ-ated' categories of variational linguistics. In dialectology isoglossesconstitute geographical dialect boundaries wherever they formprominent isogloss bundles. Similarly, one may envisage theboundary between technical language and general language as atransitional zone in which every individual has his or her personalboundary. There will be a line where a (relative, if not absolute)majority of the individual 'technolect' boundaries coincide. Thismajority boundary can be regarded as the theoretical abstraction ofthe collective boundary between technical and general language.

The horizontal model has a further advantage. Only if there areboth technical and non-technical language features does it makesense to classify a given utterance or text as more or less technical. Atext is more technical than another text if it shows more technicalfeatures or if its technical features are more unanimously recognizedas technical (in linguistics, for example, Schwebeablaut is more tech-nical a term than adjective). If texts—as in the functional stylistics ofthe Prague school10—are labelled as 'communicative', 'aesthetic','practically special', or 'theoretically special' (the two latter referringto technical texts), there must be some measure of technicality, espe-cially because the differences between technical and non-technicaldiscourse are differences in degree rather than in kind.11

10 Cf. Hoffmann (1985) 31-3; Fluck (1996) 12-13.11 Cf. Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 17, 65; Fluck (1996) 15. The mutual

exclusiveness of the aesthetic and the practically or theoretically special may havebeen less pronounced in classical Greek science: Lanata (1968).


3.2.4. A D E F I N I T I O N OF T E C H N I C A L L A N G U A G E

On the basis of the preceding remarks, we can now formulate thefollowing definition: a technical language is the sum of all the lin-guistic features (a) which are necessary for the formulation andlabelling of concepts, ideas, and phenomena in what a given societyperceives as a specialized area, but (b) whose active and passivehandling does not form part of what that society acknowledges asthe general linguistic knowledge and competence which everyadult member is expected to have acquired in the process of his orher education.

Since the formulation and labelling of specialized concepts,ideas, and phenomena does not usually necessitate non-lexicalextensions of the linguistic system, technical languages regularlymanifest themselves as technical vocabularies ('terminologies'12).The present chapter, like technical-language research in general,13

therefore concentrates on the lexicon (and its extension throughderivational morphology).

3.3. IDENTIFYING TECHNICAL TERMS

3.3.1. COMEDY AND THE N E E D FOR C R I T E R I A OF

T E C H N I C A L I T Y

The reduction of technical language to technical vocabulary haspractical consequences for the linguistic study of ancient comedy.Since technical terminology is independent of its situational con-text, a comic passage that does not parody a particular technicalgenre may nevertheless contain technical terms. Where there is noparody, for instance, of a medical treatise, a medical consultation,or a medical prescription, there may still be medical terminology.If this were not so, any search for medical terminology in

12 Including, in the terms of Soviet terminological research, both 'terminologies'and 'nomenclatures': terminological signs (terminy) are linked with the conceptualsystem of a specialized field, whereas nomenclature signs (nomenklaturnye znaki)merely label the ontological inventory of objects belonging to the field and cannotbe defined because they lack a differentia specified: cf. Reformatskij (1961) 47-9;SeibickefigSi) 55-6; Hoffmann (1985) 162-3. Thus, amaryllid is a termin but snow-drop a nomenklaturnyj znak.

13 See e.g. Fluck (1996) 47; only the lexicological-terminological (Moscow)school of technical-language research acknowledges the special status of the lexiconfrom a theoretical point of view too: cf. Hoffmann (1985) 30 and (1986) 460-1.


Aristophanes would fail a priori because there are no parodies ofmedical text genres in the Aristophanic plays.14

Hence, in order to study technical language(s) in comedy weneed a catalogue of criteria by which technical words can be ident-ified. In the following subsections I will first discuss such criteriaas are valid for all literary genres (§ 3.3.2) and then highlight a fewadditional points which are more specifically linked with comedy (§3.3.3). At the end of each subsection, the discussion will be illus-trated with comic examples.

3.3.2. G E N R E - I N D E P E N D E N T C R I T E R I A

3.3.2.1. Special reference, monosemy, and normalization

In his book on Latin medical language Langslow discusses threepossible criteria of technicality: '(i) the extent to which a word isgenerally understood in the linguistic community as a whole("Allgemeinverstandlichkeit"); (2) the extent to which a word isrelated to a particular specialist or technical discipline("Fachbezogenheit"); (3) the extent to which a word is normalizedor standardized in its usage ("Normung").'15 Of these criteriaLangslow rejects (i) but retains (2) and (3).

The need for criterion (2) is obvious. It would be absurd to sug-gest that a word x belongs to the technical terminology of field Y ifthe referent of x had nothing to do with the objects and ideas of Y.No one would suggest that apple is a technical term of medicine.

Criterion (3), which demands consistent and regular usage bythe specialists in a given field, is supported by the fact that tech-nical terminology is meant to facilitate communication amongspecialists. Words that are ambiguous or polysemous within a spe-cialized field are useless as technical terms (e.g. word in linguistics).Ideally, a technical term is precisely related to other terms withinthe same field, context-independent, and monosemous (but oneand the same lexeme may of course act as a technical term withdifferent meanings in different specialized fields: e.g. valency inlinguistics and chemistry).16

14 Ran. 939—44 is at best a faint echo of a medical prescription.15 Langslow (2000) 13, based on Heller (1981).16 Cf. Reformatskij (1961) 51-2; Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 75; Fluck

(1996) 47; Langslow (2000) 8-9, who then refers (pp. 11-12) to a case of apparentpolysemy in ancient medical terminology. On the problem of polysemy and lack of

5 8 Technical Languages

In the case of synonym pairs, a specialist community often uses(i.e. standardizes) only one of the two words because the technicallexicon also tends to be as economic and concise as possible.17

Example The concept of the metrical unit 'verse' is expressedwith three different words in Frogs: eiros, pf/na, and <m'xo?. Veryoften it is not clear whether eVoy and prâ refer to a single word, aphrase, a passage, or a verse: they show an ambiguity or polysemythat is typical for general-language words. In the verse-weighingscene (Ran. 1364-1413) there is less ambiguity because Aeschylusand Euripides put single lines, 'verses', onto the balance.Nevertheless, both tiros (Ran. 1381, 1387, 1388, 1407, 1410) andp-fjua (Ran. 1367, 1379) are used. In Ran. 1239, on the other hand,Euripides uses ai-iôs (although he might well say SXov TO <fVros). Withreference to poetry, arixos always designates the verse unit (cf. itsuse in line counting: e.g. PI. Leg. 9593; Nicostr. Com. fr. 29; DioHal. Thuc. 10 (p. 339. 15 Usener-Radermacher)). cm'xos 'verse' is ahapax legomenon in Aristophanes and rare in classical literature; soit may have been a technical term, which Aristophanes hereadopted from literary criticism. The original meaning 'row' sug-gests that ore'xos was first used when written texts were analysed—probably not before the second half of the fifth century. It isplausible that Aristophanes would give such a term to the 'sophist'Euripides.

3.3.2.2. Expressive neutrality

As a consequence of their context-independence technical termstend to be modally and expressively neutral (e.g. orcinus area ratherthan killer whale). Without modal neutrality technical terms wouldlose their context-independence since the context would at leastdetermine if their referent is considered as good or bad.18 Ofcourse, technical terms may be used in emotional discussions, butthen the expressivity is not conveyed by the lexeme itself.

standardization in early anatomy see also Lanza (1979) 116-17 and Lloyd (1983)153-4, 160-5.

17 Cf. Fluck (1996) 35; Langslow (2000) 16—22, 25.18 Reformatskij (1961) 52-3; cf. Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 18, 81;

Fluck (1996) 50. On polemical technical pamphlets in the 5th cent, see Thesleff(1966) 102-3.


Example Denniston suggested that avOdoris (avda.86aToij.os) in Frogs

(837, 1020) is a technical term of literary criticism.19 In later liter-ary criticism (cf. Longin. 22. 3; Dio Chrys. 52. 4) aiida^s can in factbe expressively neutral and mean something like 'idiosyncratic,stylistically eccentric'. In Ran. 1020, however, avffdSws is more eas-ily understood as 'arrogantly, stubbornly', and in Ran. 837Euripides uses av6aS6arofj.os (together with dypiowoids 'savage-poet',etc.) in an invective against Aeschylus ('arrogant-speaking'). SinceEuripides is not voicing any aesthetic objections to stylistic idio-syncrasy (avOaSem), the abusive force must lie in the lexeme itself.Hence, neither avBd&ws nor ai50aSd<TTOftos are expressively neutral;they must be separated from the at50a8eia of literary criticism.

Similarly, in Ran. 1004 pâra aepvd 'majestic words' cannot belinked to ae/xvd? as a technical term for the 'grand' style in later crit-icism (cf. Arist. Rhet. i4O4b8 and Poet. I4s8a2i; Dion. Hal. Dem.

13 and Thuc. 23 (pp. 157. 10 and 360. 8-9 Usener-Radermacher))because the laudatory context suggests an untechnical positive con-notation that is in line with the common Aristophanic use of aepvos

as an attribute of divinities, divine acts, and expressions of religiousreverence (e.g. Eq. 1312; Nub. 265, 291, 315; Thesm. 948).

3.3.2.3. 'Allgemeinverstandlichkeit' and 'Allgemeingebrauchlichkeit'

Criterion (i), 'Allgemeinverstandlichkeit', is rejected by Langslowbecause of the difficulty in defining common comprehensibility(i.e. common linguistic competence) in a heterogeneous society.The rejection necessarily implies the acceptance of words likethumb or liver as technical terms of medicine.20 In Langslow'sstudy that is unproblematic because his corpus, unlike comedy,consists exclusively of texts which are indisputably technical; hisaim is lexicological rather than sociolinguistic as he wants todescribe the language, or vocabulary, of Latin medical treatises inits entirety.

Whereas terminology is stylistically neutral in technical writingsof this sort,21 it becomes stylistically marked ('obscure', 'funny',

19 Denniston (1927) 115.20 Langslow (2000) 14-15; similarly e.g. Seibicke (1981) 42. Somewhat surpris-

ingly Langslow (2000) 9 writes of the 'danger that some Latin words which acontemporary would have taken to be technical medical terms may now not beidentifiable as such', as if for him too the speakers' perception were the ultimatecriterion.

21 Reformatskij (1961) 53; Schippan (1984) 246; Langslow (2000) 9 n. 32.


etc.) in non-technical genres such as comedy. Simply to reject crit-erion (i) in an investigation of non-technical texts would be disas-trous. The main interest in dealing with technical vocabularies incomedy lies in the individuation of those words which lack stylisticneutrality. There is no point in classifying as 'technical' every wordthat happens to be attested in technical texts as well—i.e. despite thefact that it occurs in comedy in a perfectly non-technical passage. Ifwords like Qtptfa 'to vomit forth, disgorge', xaAapds 'slack', or'wild pear' are listed as technical simply because they also occur inHippocratic writings,22 it becomes even more difficult to draw a linebetween the technical and the non-technical. Which examples ofthumb and liver are non-technical and which are technical—andtechnical in what field: anatomy, pathology, butchery? The soci-olinguist rather wants to know when the comic writer made refer-ence to a specialist discourse that excluded the general public.

Thus, we must not reject criterion (i) if we want to define techni-cal terms as words from a specialized field whose 'active and passivehandling' is beyond the general linguistic competence of fully edu-cated adult members of the community (cf. § 3.2.4). At the sametime, our narrow concept of technical terminology suggests a slightmodification. Because Greek, unlike most modern languages, didnot develop its technical vocabulary with the help of foreign mor-phological and lexical material, almost all technical terms must havebeen analysable by native speakers. Even words that did not belongto the active lexical competence of the average Greek would oftenhave been commonly comprehensible. In order to make the criterionmore meaningful it should include an explicit reference not only tothe 'passive' but also to the 'active' handling of words. Instead ofasking whether a word was understood by the non-specialist(Langslow's 'Allgemeinverstandlichkeit') we may ask whether it wasalso usedby the non-specialist when he or she intended to refer to therelevant item or concept ('Allgemeingebrauchlichkeit').

Example The pseudo-doctor's ou ira^Trav ouVo's fan TOI {SuLaipos 'thisman cannot at all expect to live much longer' in Men. Aspis 450 isplain enough, but 'normal' people might rather have said some-thing like ou jSioiCTcrai or a-nodavfi-rai for 'he must die'; Piann/io? is 'all-gemeinverstandlich' but not 'allgemeingebrauchlich'.

22 As in Miller (1945) 78 and By! (1990) 153-4. Dover (1997) 115 rightly refusesto classify thumb and liver as technical terms.


3.3.2.4. Lexical distribution

The criterion of 'Allgemeingebrauchlichkeit' or 'common usage'can only be applied if there is a way to reconstruct the general (oraverage) linguistic competence in classical Athens. The standardprocedure for doing this consists in checking and interpreting theattestations of a given word. It is certainly insufficient for the clas-sification of a lexeme like axpds 'wild pear' as a medical term topoint out that it appears frequently in Hippocratic texts (and notjust because not all the Hippocratic texts are technical writingsintended for a specialist audience23). A minimum requirement isthat the lexeme must not regularly occur with the same meaning intexts from non-technical (or different technical) fields.

But even that is not enough. Classical Greek literature presentsonly a small fraction of what non-specialists talked and thoughtabout. The absence or rarity of a word in non-technical texts isoften easily explained by the thematic interests of extant literature.Nevertheless, such a rare word can be assumed to have belonged togeneral language if it denoted an object or phenomenon which anynon-specialist would want to refer to every now and then.24 Forexample, reurAov 'beet' occurs in pre-Hellenistic times almostexclusively in comedy and scientific writing, but the frequencywith which the word occurs in comedy shows that it was by nomeans unusual. Similarly, many anatomical and physiologicalterms of Greek were pre-scientific and belonged to everyday lan-guage, and the same must have been true for many words concern-ing health and illness.25 How often should we expect a word like

'toe' to appear in non-technical (e.g. historical) prose or inepic and tragic poetry? And yet, every child certainly knew how torefer to his or her toes. Here Dover's rule of thumb is useful: 'it isessential that before we label any phenomenon "technical" we askourselves "how else could it be expressed?'"26

23 Cf. Thesleff (1966) 107-12; Jouanna (1992) 85-105; van der Eijk (1997) 86-9.24 The fact that a word appears also in non-comic non-technical literature does

not automatically preclude its existence as a technical term, but in such cases thecontext usually gives a hint at its technicality: cf. § 3.3.2.6.

25 Lanata (1968) 26 and 29, after Schwyzer (1935) 92; cf. Lanza (1979) 114-15;Lloyd (1983) 151-3; Langslow (1999) 184-6.

26 Dover (1997) 115 (see also p. 117; 'the mere fact that a lexeme is attested forthe first time in such-and-such an author does not in itself tell us that the authorcoined it').


Example Dover's rule, which implicitly acknowledges theimportance of common usage, still leaves cases of doubt. Were theextremely rare verbs rwT\dt,fiv "aKa-m^w d^WAous", i.e. 'to turn overthe earth around vines (?)', and oiVapi£eiv 'to strip off vine-leaves'(Pax 1147-8) commonly used and understood? For theAristophanic audience an exact comprehension of these words wasnot necessary since the context showed that the chorus were talk-ing about some agricultural activity.

In Ran. 1281-2 Euripides announces that he will present a ardais

by Aeschylus. This phrase is attested nowhere else. In thescholia ardais fteAcyv is understood as a technical synonym of

'(tragic) stasimon'.27 Elsewhere the songs of the two rivals arereferred to simply as /u '̂Ar) (Ran. 1255, 1261, 1262, 1297, 1307,1326), which must have been the usual non-technical and some-what loose way of referring to tragic songs. The scholiast's view issupported by the fact that ardais contains the suffix -ais, which wasproductive in the formation of systematic terminologies.

The situation with Ran. 1122 ypdois TWV -npaypara>v 'exposition ofthe plot' is similar, fodais does not occur elsewhere before Aristotle(where it has a different meaning: 'style'). This is remarkable, eventhough the phrase TO wpdyâ ippdêtv 'to explain the (dramatic) situation/plot' had nothing technical about it.28 With bothand ypaais the question remains if these were established technicalterms of literary criticism or Aristophanic coinages meant to par-ody technical discourse.

J.J.2.J. Necessary technical reference and determinologization

There are words which have both a technical and a non-technicalmeaning. Sometimes the two meanings overlap (e.g. fruit in general language and in botany). If such a word occurs in comedy, itshould be classified as technical only if the non-technical meaningis insufficient. After all, the audience would first understand a wordlike fruit in the normal way, and only if that did not make sensewould they look for an alternative meaning. As a consequence even

27 Cf. Cingano (1986) and Dover (1993) 347, with other explanations (to which

my argument would still apply). On the term ordoipov /ie'Aos ('a tragic choral song

which is neither a parodos nor a lyric dialogue with a stage character') see Dale

(195°).28 Cf. Eq. 36; also Ttfayâta. 'dramatic action' in Cratin. fr. 92, dramatic

'to explain the plot" in Pax 50-2, and TrpayfiO/Trpdyâ-ra <ppa£,fi.i> in non-

dramatic contexts at Nub. 823 and Av. 1507.


words that did belong to the active and passive vocabulary of theaverage Athenian can be technical if, in a specific context, they arenecessarily associated with the written texts or oral discourse of aspecialized field.

Here the possibility of 'determinologization' must be taken intoaccount. Wherever technical progress reaches the sphere of generalconsumption and changes the canon of common knowledge (forinstance through the invention of commonly accessible technolo-gies, but also through more institutionalized and canonized generaleducation), formerly technical words tend to be taken over intogeneral language (e.g. vitamin). Often determinologization andmetaphorization go hand in hand (e.g. to overhaul).29 While tech-nical terms typically have precise semantic relations with otherterms in their field, they frequently lose this precision when theyare determinologized. Similarly, the expressive neutrality maydisappear (e.g. rich in vitamins implies a positive connotation ofvitamin).

It is not always possible to determine if a non-technical word isin origin a determinologized term or if, vice versa, a technical termis a terminologized general word (i.e. a word that has secondarilyacquired a well-defined meaning in a specialized field30). From asynchronic perspective, it is fortunately unimportant whether aword was first non-technical and then technical or the other wayround.

Example Two comic examples for the non-technical usage of tech-nical terms are orpOaXîa and êAayxoAia.31 In medical writing the for-mer is used as a cover term for a group of inflammatory eyediseases (e.g. Hp. Epid. 3. 7 otpQaXpiai vypai 'wet ophthalmies'(iii. 84 Littre), Aph. 3. 12 otpdaXîai ^pai 'dry ophthalmies' (iv. 490Littre)). In Plut. 115 the blind Plutus is said to suffer from

32 It is true that 6<p9a\[i(a in the Hippocratic sense can causeblindness (cf. Hp. Coac. 218-19 (v. 632 Littre)), but blindness is not

29 Cf. Porzig (1957) 47-8 and 263-4; Heller (1981) 228-33; Schippan (1984)249-50; Fluck (1996) 160-3.

30 See e.g. Lanata (1968) on Hippocratic terminology (also on metaphors inancient technical language: p. 31).

31 On these words cf. Zimmermann (1992) 515-16.32 Or he was at least originally said to suffer from it, if the revised version of the

line, which is preserved in the scholia and which reformulates the point withoutusing the word o<p0aAfu'a, contains Aristophanes' own correction: Sommerstein(2001)141.


simply equivalent to o<p6a\fj.ta. So 6<pOaty.ta is fuzzier in Plut. 115 thanin the Hippocratic corpus (cf. Schol. Ar. Plut. 115). In Ran. 192 andAr. fr. 132 otpdaXîdw is imagined as transitory and remediable. Thiscan be brought in line more easily with the Hippocratic attestationsbut it contradicts the plot of Plutus (where the healing is miracu-lous).

In medicine fxeAayxoAia refers to a specific illness (e.g. Hp. Morb.

i. 3 (vi. 144 Littre)), but in comedy /xeAayxoAaco is a general term for'being mad' (e.g. Av. 14; Eccl. 251, after the synonymIt is debated if jueAayxoAia in the medical sense is a case of terminol-ogization33 or if /j.eAayx°Aaco has been determinologized, but tech-nical and non-technical /ieAayxoAdw are certainly not identical.

Metaphors are particularly difficult to deal with because weoften do not know whether they were created by an individualwriter.34 In Ran. 941 Euripides claims that he has 'slimmed down'tragedy (laxvava). The surrounding lines recall a medical treatment(cf. 940 olSovaav 'swollen', 942 eVuAAioi? punning on <r'/ra-i5AAiov 'thyme',which was used—like 942 Trepmdrois 'walks'—in medical cures, 943

'juice' and d-m/floic 'filtering out').35 However, the medicalimagery need not imply that the word material is medical as well.In fact most of the words (except for dnrjddiv) are also attested innon-technical contexts.

3.3.2.6. Explicit indication

Occasionally there are more unambiguous signs of technicalitythan word distribution. Dover points out that 'it is a useful indica-tion of technical status when the writer uses some part of KaA«V (asin he died of a disease which is called polioencephalitis rather than he

died of polioencephalitis).36 A comic example is found in Ar. fr. 233'what is called iSOoi?' (cf. § 3.4; also Men. Aspis

445-6).

33 Langholf (1990) 46—50 and 267—9.34 For the problem of distinguishing 'original' and common metaphors see

Taillardat (1965) 15-24, who adopts a distributional approach along the line sug-gested here for technical terms.

35 Cf. Miller (1945) 80; Dover (1993) 310; Jouanna (2000) 191-3; onCollinge (1962) 54 n. 16 (borrowed by the doctors from general language).

36 Dover (1997) 115, referring to Diogenes of Apollonia fr. 64 B 6 (pp. 63. 11 and65. 11-12 Diels-Kranz); cf. Schwyzer (1935) 91-2; Lasserre (1983) 166; Lloyd(1983) 154-5; but also n. 85 below. Similarly KaAeiv and equivalent expressionsoccur when (non-technical) items of foreign culture and provenance are named(Vesp. 1137; cf. Ach. 89; Av. 485).


Example In Ran. 1120 TO irpwrov r>js rpayaiSiaj /ie'pos 'the first partof the tragedy' explains the preceding TrpdAoyos, although the latteris not introduced with KaAeiV or some such word. Ran. 1119 is thefirst attestation of wpoAoyos. Aristophanes has the word only in thisscene, but here no less than ten times within 150 lines (Ran.

1119-1246). In ordinary speech it is sufficient to refer to the pro-logue of a play as its 'beginning' or 'first part'; so TrpdAoyoy may havebeen a technical term of literary criticism.37

3 - 3 - 3 - A D D I T I O N A L C R I T E R I A I N C O M E D Y

j.J.J.I. Comic misunderstandings

Paradoxically comedy is in two respects an ideal genre to studyancient technical terminology. First, comedy is not written for arestricted audience like most classical Greek prose texts (exceptoratory). It is meant to be understood and appreciated by the entirespeech community of Athens, not just by a limited number of well-educated people. Comedy therefore closely reflects the abstractconcept of 'general linguistic competence', as was already acknow-ledged by Galen in the treatise On Medical Terminology

(Ar. fr. 346). In order to demonstrate the non-technicality of the lexeme ijTrt'aAoy 'shivering fit', Galen argues thatAristophanes used it in a comic parabasis talking to the audienceabout his own health: had ijTn'aAos been an unknown technical termlike aKiv&atlios or fDdrvpi (both meaning no more than 'thingummy'),the comic poet would have avoided it. Secondly, because of theconcentration on humorous entertainment, certain forms ofimplicit comment on the technicality of a given word are morelikely to occur in comedy than anywhere else. The following threetypes can be used as additional criteria of technicality.

First, there are comic misunderstandings. If one stage charactermisunderstands the words of another character, this may indicatethat these words were felt to be technical, especially if the speakeris a specialist of some sort and talks about his field. Of course theaudience must notice the misunderstanding and be able to infer theintended, technical, meaning from the context. Otherwise we must

37 Pace Lucas (1968) 136; note the use of /iepos both in Aristophanes and inAristotle's definition (Poet. I452big-2o:'the entire part of a tragedy before the parodos of the chorus').


assume that the words were not technical and that the scene focuseson the linguistic incompetence of the addressee rather than on thevocabulary of the speaker.

Example In Nub. 225-6 Socrates' quasi-technical use of('to think around, speculate about') is not understood byStrepsiades, who mistakes the word, in accordance with normalusage, for a synonym of v-n-cpypovu 'to despise". At the same time theplain compound structure of -rrepicppovw makes it easy enough for theaudience to infer the (invented) technical meaning.

In Nub. 638-45, 651-3, and 659-61 Strepsiades does not knowthe metrical and grammatical meanings of p-Vpov 'metre',

• 'trimeter/tetrameter', 8a«TuAos 'dactyl', and'masculine'. The audience, on the other hand, is expected to

be acquainted with the special reference of these words, so that onemay hesitate to classify them as technical. In the case of fxeVpov it isparticularly obvious that Strepsiades is linguistically incompetent(as has already been shown in Nub. 212-13, where he misunder-stands the straightforward Trapareiveiv 'to stretch out alongside', andin Nub. 232-6, where he does understand the word material butcompletely misunderstands the meaning of Socrates' utterance38).

3.3.3.2. Accumulation of formally similar words

A second comic criterion of technicality is the accumulation of for-mally similar words. Technical terminology tends to be lexicallyand morphologically systematic.39 Lexical systematicity meansthat the creation of one technical term often leads to the parallelcreation of other terms as well, because most specialized fieldsoperate with systematic structures like classifications, hierarchies,oppositions, etc.40 If there is a technical term prefix for a grammat-ical element added at the beginning of a word, it makes sense alsoto speak of a suffix for a grammatical element at the end of a word.Such lexical systematicity is often formally reflected in morph-

38 Possibly also in Nub. 192-3 with epej3oSiydoj 'to ereboscrutinize': Di Marco(1987) 56. Kloss (2001) 116-31 underlines the incompatibility of Socrates' dis-course with that of simple men like Strepsiades throughout Clouds.

39 Cf. Reformatskij (1961) 54 and (1968) 123—4; Sager-Dungworth—McDonald(1980) 16; Langslow (2000) 24-5.

40 But ancient terminology may not have dreaded empty slots as much as mod-ern terminology does: Hp. Prog. 25 (ii. 190 Littre); Lanza (1979) 115—16; Langslow(2000) n.


ological systematicity (a pair prefix/suffix is more convenient than apair prefixl*subjunci).

Exclusively technical affixes (such as English -itis in pathology)did not exist in classical Attic.41 Nevertheless, the accumulation ofa group of formally similar words, which all refer to one particulartechnical field, can be used by a comic poet to draw attention to the(perhaps excessive) linguistic systematicity in that field. Eveninvented words and words which are usually non-technical acquirea technical ring in such collocations. Since lexical systematicity isless obtrusive than morphological systematicity, it is more difficult,though not impossible, to achieve a similar effect by the accumula-tion of formally diverse words which all refer to a particular spe-cialized field.

Example In the initial scene of Wasps (Vesp. 71-88) the two slavesinvite the audience to guess what mental derangement their masteris suffering from. The suggestion that Philocleon could be'philocubist (i.e. dice-addicted)' is answered with the words

'no, but the affliction does beginwith "philo-"' (Vesp. 77).42 Subsequent guesses are('drink addict'), <piAo0uTijs ('sacrifice addict'), and <piAo£evos ('hostingaddict'), until the solution cpiXriXiaarris ('addicted heliast') is given.The passage suggests that the terminology of mental pathologyincluded many (ptAo-compounds (even though the majority of

-compounds in the Hippocratic corpus are distinctly non-terminological; but cf. Vesp. 834 (pi\ox<apfa 'place addiction').

In Nub. 317-18 the systematicity of rhetorical terminology isunderlined as Socrates accumulates nouns in -ou: 8iaAe£is 'dis-course', Trepi'Aefis 'circumlocution', Kpovais 'incisive power', Kcu-aAî/ii?'repressive power'. Some of these are probably invented, but thepassage shows an awareness that the suffix -CTIS was playing an

41 The suffix -Tri? occurs both in determinologized words from medicine

'pleurisy': cf. § 3.6) and in non-medical terms like ywanoui'rris 'women's

apartments'. Synchronically monofunctional or oligofunctional suffixes such as -ous

for various types of baking products (e.g. nhanovs 'flat cake', ariaapovs 'sesame

cake'), -as for bird names (e.g. drrayas 'francolin', jSaoxds 'duck', comic

'Gobbler'), or -las for wind names (e.g. ovKoipavTias 'gale of indictments', comically

modelled after Kaua'as 'north-easter' in Eg. 437) also occur in non-technical words.42 Presumably a line which contained a further compound with

'women addict', (piAomu? 'boy addict'?) has fallen out before this reply: MacDowell

(1971) 140.


important role in the formation of technical vocabularies (on nounsin -CTIS- see also §§ 3.5 and 5.5).

The accumulation of compound verbs in Thesm. 54—7, whereAgathon's servant describes the poetic activity of his master, alsoleaves an impression of technicality (/coAAoneAea) 'to glue songs',

'to coin ideas', avrovoâ.t,ia 'to create metaphors',i 'to melt wax'; cf. Plut. 162-7 and 513-14 with compound

verbs denoting specialist activities: § 5.3.2).The simultaneous use of the general-language verbs reKrcuW 'to

build', yo/i<poto 'to nail', and «oAAao> 'to glue' in Eq. 462-3 leads totheir association with a particular technical field (Eq. 464

'for god's sake, aren't you saying anythingout of the wagon works?').

3.3.3.3. Characterizing passages

The third criterion of technicality that is specific to comedy is theoccurrence of potentially technical lexemes in passages that have acharacterizing function. Here it is not even necessary that thewords of a stage figure are comprehensible to the audience. Whenthe language of a stage character has no other function than to por-tray him as a specialist in a certain field (while the contents of theutterance are irrelevant), the comic playwright is free to introduceas many obscure technical terms as he likes—or to invent pseudo-terms. Thus, if a word with a limited lexical distribution occurs ina characterizing passage, there is a good chance that the word is atechnical term. In Menander's Aspis (446), for instance, it does notmatter at all whether the spectators understand exactly what tppevtTisis, as long as the fake doctor sounds as medical as possible.43

Since interpreters do not always agree on dramatic functionality,it can be difficult to decide whether a passage is purely characteriz-ing. The problem is most acute in Old Comedy where almosteverything can be justified as 'comic incongruity'. However, if aword occurs several times in different contexts, this usually speaksagainst its technicality since it is unlikely that comic incongruitywas repeatedly achieved by the same lexical means.

Example There is one scene in which Aristophanes deliberatelymakes a character speak in an incomprehensible manner. The

is identified as a technical term also by the preceding'we (doctors) usually call (it)': cf. § 3.3.2.6.


geometer Melon's presentation in Av. 1000—9 is obscure thatmodern scholars do not agree on the 'correct' interpretation.44

Also, Meton's interlocutor Peisetaerus is by no means incompet-ent. Meton's vocabulary, however, is not at all technical. Wordslike Sia/lr/Tris 'compass' and KOVWV 'ruler' were certainly known toevery Athenian. Meton's discourse sounds technical only becauseof the paradoxical and slightly incoherent interweaving of conceptslike the baking-cover air, the crooked ruler, and the squared circle.

The situation is slightly different when one stage character asksa specialist for the name of a technical concept or activity. WhenStrepsiades arrives at the (ppovriarrjpiov in Clouds, Socrates names athis request two technical activities (<fpe/3oSi9aa> 'to ereboscrutinize',

'to astronomize') and two technical devices (and darpovofila, both referring to some tool: Nub. 191-202).45 Herethe formal similarity of these derivations from verbal compoundsalso plays a role (cf. §§ 3.3.3.2 and 5.3).

3.3.4. R E C A P I T U L A T I O N

The following criteria of technicality have been catalogued in thissection. Technical terms are:

related to a specialist disciplinecontext-independent in meaning within that disciplinestandardized in usage and at least ideally monosemousexpressively neutralin non-technical environments like comedy rare and unambigu-ously associated with a specialist field, and, most importantlynot actively used (though possibly understood) by the non-specialist, and therefore subjectively classified as technical by theaverage native speaker

Because they do not form part of general language, technical termsare stylistically marked in comedy. Their markedness is exploitedfor comic (misunderstanding), stylistic (accumulation), and dra-matic (characterization) purposes.

A concept of technical language which takes into account thenative speakers' perception of linguistic features as technical or

44 Cf. Wycherley (1937) 23-8; Gladigow (1968) 271-5; Zanetto (1987) 259;Dunbar (1995) 555-9.

45 Cf. the naming of the birds in Av. 269-304.

so

yo Technical Languages

non-technical seems most appropriate in studying ancient comedybecause comedy was written for a broad non-specialist audience. Itis true that such an approach hardly ever leads to absolute certaintyabout the technicality of a word, but if we are able to declare whichwords were not technical, this is an important first step.

To focus on the speakers' perception is of great historical inter-est. By establishing the subjective technicality or non-technicalityof a group of lexemes, we learn which areas of life were or were notspecialized, i.e. whether they formed part of common educationaland cultural knowledge or not. (Of course, the absence of a giventerminology in comedy never implies that it did not exist, only atbest that it was not prominent enough to be satirized.) Since thesocial organization of a community influences the formation oftechnical languages, technical-language research can contribute tothe reconstruction of social structures. In the following three casestudies (§§ 3.5-3.7) we will also look at such historical implications.But let us first ask on what grounds we may assume that (subjec-tively perceived) technical languages existed at all in classicalGreece.

3.4. TECHNICAL LANGUAGES INCLASSICAL GREECE

As varieties whose basic parameter is topic (rather than situationalcontext or social class), technical languages presuppose the exist-ence of specialized ('technical') fields, i.e. 'spheres of intellectuallyorganized social activity'.46 Hence, technical languages can beexpected in all societies with an advanced stage of labour division.Since professional specialization certainly existed in classicalAthens (as illustrated for instance by Plut. 160-7), it is apririoriplausible that there were also technical languages.

However, the situation may have been similar to that of theEuropean Middle Ages, when the number of 'theoretical' technicallanguages (i.e. technical languages that were used in theoreticaand typically written, discourse only) was limited and when thenarrower radius of social interaction allowed far more individual-ized communication than in modern industrial societies.47

46 Reformatskij (1961) 47.47 Cf. Fluck (1996) 29; Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 38; Seibicke (1981)

62—3; on ancient Greece: Dover (1997) 116.


Moreover, the boundaries between different specialist groupswere fluid in antiquity. This could lead to terminological anarchy,as in (what we would call) the medical sciences where the socialcompetition among the practitioners of medical art obstructed theformation of a unified technical discourse.48 Also, a real need forterminological precision arises only when a special subject istreated in writing. In oral teaching and discussion, specialists mayrely on contextual specification of meaning. The transition to awritten specialist discourse probably had not even started in manytechnical fields by the time of Old Comedy.49

Despite all this, there are some positive indications that techni-cal languages did exist in classical Athens. The anonymous authorof the Pseudo-Xenophontic Constitution of Athens mentions nauti-cal terminology (i. 19), and Thucydides seems to refer to medicallanguage in his discussion of the plague (2. 49. 3). Medical lan-guage is undeniably parodied later, in Menander's Aspis (431-64:note especially 445-6). 50 A famous Aristophanic fragment fromBanqueters (fr. 233) shows that by the 4203 certain old legal termswere understood only by a small group of specially trainedAthenians. Interestingly, technical terminology and poetic(Homeric) language are treated as comparable kinds of specialistdiscourse:

A: Now, in addition, tell me some Homeric glosses: what does

['ship-sterns'] mean? . . . What does aiievqvd Kapijva ['feeble/fleetingheads/figures'] mean?

B: In that case, let your son, my brother, explain what ISvoi ['witnesses']

means! . . . And what is omW ['to marry']?

In comedy the nautical language mentioned by the author of theConstitution of Athens is not (or at least not extensively51) reflected.

48 Lloyd (1983) 160-7; cf. Pohlenz (1938) too; Lloyd (1979) 86-98; Langholf(1990) 50-1; van der Eijk (1997) 84-5; Langslow (2000) 27—33.

49 Thesleff(ig66) 105-7.50 See Dover (1997) 115-17; on medical language in tragedy Collinge (1962).51 Words like Thesm. 52 Spvoxoi 'ship-framing props' (cf. Taillardat (1965) 442

n. i; I have not seen Camacho Maxia (1996)) are very rare and not necessarily tech-nical.

A.

B.


As for medical language, it has often been claimed thatAristophanes (like later comic writers) borrowed extensively fromthe technical discourse of his time.52 Similarly, the language of lit-erary criticism has been an area of major interest. With an articleon this topic Denniston initiated the study of technical languagesin comedy.53 In the following sections I will review the lexicon ofthese two fields, but I will start with a case study on legal termin-ology. Each time, it will become clear that there is little truly tech-nical material.

3.5. LEGAL LANGUAGE

Legal language has perhaps the most difficult task of all technicallanguages. It should ideally be comprehensible to a wide circle ofnon-specialists, but at the same time it must be extremely precisein order to exclude loopholes.54 The more sophisticated a legal sys-tem becomes, the harder it is to meet both demands.

A society in which juridical tasks are widespread—for instancebecause many lawsuits are decided by non-specialist juries orbecause there are no professional lawyers—actively and passivelyhandles more legal vocabulary than a society in which only care-fully trained judges and advocates have daily contact with legaldetails. Classical Athens belonged to the first type of society. Thisis reflected in the attitude of comedy towards legal vocabulary. TheAristophanic fragment which cites the word l&vot as requiring spe-cialist knowledge (fr. 233, quoted in § 3.4) is unrepresentative.55

Because it is centred around the actions and manners ofPhilocleon and his elderly Athenian fellow jurors, Wasps is thecomedy that contains the greatest amount of lexical material refer-ring to legal matters and lawcourt proceedings.56 Table 3.1 lists

52 See esp. Miller (1945); Byl (1990); cf. Zimmermann (1992), who is moreconcerned with the dramatic function than with the linguistic status of pathologicalreferences; for later comedy Sanchis Llopis (2000).

53 Denniston (1927); cf. already Radermacher (1921) passim.54 Fluck (1996) 41.55 Their archaism rather than their technical meaning make t&voi or mrveiv

'incomprehensible'; for a similar idea see Lys. 10. 15—20.56 On the general theme of Wasps see e.g. Dover (1972) 121-31 and MacDowell

(1995) 150—79; on the meaning of the more specific words in Table 3.1, textbookssuch as A. R. W. Harrison (1968) and (1971) or MacDowell (1978).


TABLE 3.1. Legal terms in Wasps and other plays

Lexeme Meaning Individual occurrences

'to be convicted'

'oath by the prosecuting(or defending) party beforea process at law'

'not liable to an eSBwa'

'to defend oneself

'to acquit"

'to be acquitted'

'acquittal'

'to acquit'

'not having voted'

'(bill of) indictment'

Vesp. 893, 898; cf. Ach.

662, 701; Pax 1234; Plut.481

Vesp. 544/5, 1041

'to indict'

'testament'

'prosecutor'

'to be examined foradmission to the ephebes'

'lawcourt railing'

'to bring into court'

'to be acquitted'

'(the) Eleven' (policeofficials)

Vesp. 587

Vesp. 778, 816, 944, 949; cf.

Thesm. 188; Ar. fr. 101

Vesp. 571, 988, 992, 1000

Vesp. 579, 985, 997; cf.Nub. 167, 1151; Plut. 1181

Vesp. 558, 562, 645; cf.Nub. 874

Vesp. 922

Vesp. 754

Vesp. 842, 848, 894, 907; cf.Ach. 679, 714; Eq. 307, 442;

Nub. 1481; Ar. fr. 289.

Vesp. 880, 894, 907; cf.Nub. 758, 770, 1482; Pax

107

Vesp. 584, 589

Vesp. 902, 1207 (cf. Eq.

368; Eccl. 452; Ar. fr. 452SIWKW; Nub. 1482 diutKaBui)

Vesp. 578

Vesp. 386, 552, 830; cf. Eq.

675

Vesp. 826, 840, 842, 847; cf.Nub. 782, 845; Eccl. 983,986

Vesp. 157, 160, 994

Vesp. 1108


TABLE 3.1. (cont.)


'penalty, fine' Vesp. 769

'heiress' Vesp. 583, 589; cf. Av. 1653

'to call to witness' Vesp. 1437; cf. Nub. 495

'public examination of an Vesp. 571; cf. Eq. 825; Pax

official's administration' 1187

'to act as juror' Vesp. 772; cf. Eq. 798; Lys.

380

'juror' Vesp. 206, 891, 1340; cf.

Eq. 255; Av. iog; Ar. fr.216 (also Vesp. 88

(jpiATjAiaaT^s, 195 yc'pwviJAiaarfKos)

'thesmothete' (archon Vesp. 775, 935; cf. Eccl.

responsible for, and 2910presiding over, various

kinds of court proceedings)

'little jar' (used as voting- Vesp. 321-2, 853, 854; cf.urn) Ar. fr. 598

'to convene the court' Vesp. 304-5

'(the) New Court' Vesp. 120

'to bring before the court" Vesp. 1335, 1416, 1418,1445; cf. Nub. 1221; Av.

1046, 1425, 1455; Eccl. 864

'to call on (a case)' Vesp. 825, 830, 851, 1441;

cf. Nub. 780

'to accuse' Vesp. 489, 840, 842, 905,

932; cf. Thesm. 444; Ran.

996; Plut. 376,917, 1039,

1073

'wickerwork funnel at Vesp. 99, 755, 1339; cf. Eq.

the opening of the voting- 1150; Thesm. 1031urn'

'gate in the UpvyaKToS Vesp. 124, 775; cf. Eq. 641;Ar. fr. 216



'water-clock' (used to Vesp. 93, 857, 858; cf. Ach.

time speeches) 693'to act as /fA7)Tijp' Vesp. 1413; cf. Nub. 1218

'witness to the delivery of Vesp. 189, 1408, 1416, 1445;the legal summons' cf. Av. 147, 1422

'official in charge of the Vesp. 695, 724; cf. Av. 1541state treasury'

'(to award) the maximum Vesp. 106penalty'

'testimony' Vesp. 1041, 1439; cf. Eq.

1316

'to call to witness' Vesp. 1436; cf. Ach. 926;Nub. 1222, 1297; Pa* 1119;

Av. 1031; Ran. 528; Plut.

932; Ar. fr. 256

'witness' Vesp. 782, 936, 937, 962; cf.Nub. 777, 1152; Eccl. 448,451 ;P/««. 499,891,933

'fee for a fwijyopos' Vesp. 691

'official prosecutor at the Vesp. 482; cf. /Jc&. 705, 715;evBwa Eq. 1358, 1361; Ar. fr. 205.

9,424

'tablet on which the jurors Vesp. 167wrote their verdict'

'polemarch'(one of the Vesp. 1042archons)

'to summon into court' Vesp. 1334, 1406, 1417; cf.Nub. 1277; Av. 1426; Ran.

578

'judicial summons' Vesp. 1041

'wooden boards' (inscribed Vesp. 349, 848with notices on pendingtrials)

'to award the penalty' Vesp. 106, 847

'penalty' Vesp. 897; cf. Plut. 480

'an official who is liable Vesp. 102; cf. Ach. 938; Eq.

to an f 259


TABLE 3.1. (cont.)


'(the) accused, defendant' Vesp. 390, 579, 693, 718,880, 893, 899, 943, 947,1000; cf. Nub. 167, 1193(also Ach. 1 129; Eq. 442

'mussel-shell' (used asvoting-token)

'to vote'

'pebble' (used for votingand counting)

Vesp. 333, 349; cf. Eq. 1332

Vesp. 591, 756, 769; cf.Ach. 714; Av. 1603, 1626,1676; Lys. 698, 951; Eccl.706, 816

Vesp. 94, 109, 656, 675, 9871207; cf. Eq. 808; Lys. 270;Ran. 1263

in alphabetical order the relevant lexemes for procedures, legalparties and states, lawcourt implements, etc. in Wasps. Only themost general terms are omitted (S(Ka£cti> 'to judge', SiVij (-ISiov) 'law-suit', SiKacmjpiov (-ISiov) 'lawcourt', (£vt>)SiKaarris '(fellow) juror',oStKcco 'to do wrong', KoAa£u> 'to punish'). Almost all of the lexemesin the table belong to large Greek word-families. For a Greek they

would not produce the alienating effect that characterizes much of

modern terminology (where foreign words are common). Thereare no comic misunderstandings and no obvious cases of dramatic

characterization through the use of legal vocabulary in Wasps. The

list also shows a remarkable lack of formal patterning. There are

only two words in each of -ais, -ca, and -IKOS (respectively,

onein -fj.a (rtfj.rifjia), and one in -rr/p («:Ai)Tr}p), while the formation of the

rest follows less marked types.

It may be argued that amoyfvgis and TrpooKhyais were subjectivelyperceived as technical. There is an Aristophanic passage where the

systematic function of the suffix -ais in legal terminology is under-lined by the creation of a comic lexeme that parallels two realterms. In Nub. 874-5 Socrates asks:


SOCRATES: How is he ever going to learn effective forensic defence, or thesummons, or persuasion by bombast?

Similar pseudo-terms are coined in Nub. 764 (dydviats SiVijs58) and

Thesm. 863 (Sowai •ywaiKioeius SIKIJV 'to pay the penalty for a female

impersonation'). That -my was frequently employed in legalterminology is illustrated by the fact that there are over forty dif-

ferent nouns in -ens in the index to Harrison's textbook on Athenian

law.59 irpoaKXijats is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes and rare else-where. In Vesp. 1041 it occurs in conjunction with dimoftoaia and

fiaprvpla so that this line may be intended to highlight terminology

through accumulation, dm>9>eu£i? occurs several times but—apartfrom the passage of Clouds just quoted—only in the mouth ofPhilocleon and the chorus of jurors.

However, there are arguments against treating drroVcuû and

as technical terms. First, the formation of nouns in -ais

was extremely productive not only in legal language. Any Athenian

could have formed the two words on the spot from dwoêuyco and

Neither dwoipeuycu nor Tf/xxncaAeofiai was reserved forcommunication among specialists. The latter is used by a female

bread-seller in Wasps (1406) and by Plathane, another woman oflow social standing, in Frogs (578); comic incongruity is not a suf-ficient explanation in either case. The same type of argument is

applicable for KAr/rij/i (used by the bread-seller: Vesp. 1408),(Strepsiades: Nub. 495), KaXew 8t>cr)v (Strepsiades: Nub.

780), rinrjfj,a (Chremylus: Plut. 480), and even(small child: Vesp. 304-5).

As for amoyevyai, the word occurs in non-legal contexts with avery similar meaning ('to escape'), and basic concepts like 'to

acquit', 'to be acquitted', or 'to be convicted" must have formed

part of general vocabulary anyway. Hence, we ask, 'How else could

57 According to Dover (1968) 206, xaiivioois 'puffing up' is 'the language ofrhetoric, not of law', but the parallelism with dbroipeufis and KArjcns makes thatdoubtful; cf. also Holt (1941) 152 and, on K\f/oi.s, A. R. W. Harrison (1971) 85.

58 dtpdviois 'getting rid of in PI. Soph. 2596 and Dem. 33. 22 is a parallel coinagerather than an adaptation of an existing legal term; in Hdt. 4. 15. i the meaning isdifferent ('disappearance').

59 A. R. W. Harrison (1968) and (1971); on legal -ow-nouns see also Holt (1941)156-7 and Handley (1953) 130-1, 139. On the increase of -ens-nouns in prose seeHolt (1941) 158-65 and § 5.5.2.


it be expressed?' There is a synonym eKcpfvyw, but this is less

widespread and therefore more likely to have been technical

(though I would also hesitate to label fKyxvyw as 'technical', sincethis compound verb too is very straightforward in meaning and

formation).60

Partial synonymity must also be taken into account. In Vesp.

824—6 Ka\<ica (SLKTJV) and eladfw BiKrjv are used interchangeably. Both

are properly said of the presiding magistrate (in this case,Bdelycleon): tioa-yw Si^v places the emphasis on the fact of bring-ing the case before the court whereas KaXew SIKTJV concentrates on the

words of the magistrate. An argument against the technicality ofhas already been mentioned. We might then regardas its technical counterpart. However, Nub. 845 shows

that eiWyai, too, had already been taken over into general language:there it is used loosely, speaking of the litigant rather than the mag-

istrate.

In Vesp. 922 acpiriî may mean 'to acquit', but it can also be

understood more generally as 'to let escape'. Accordingly only

dtroXvai has the precise meaning 'to acquit', and again at least oneword with this meaning must have existed in general language. Inthe pairs eTrifj.apTVpOfj,ai/fj.apTvpoiJ.ai and TrpoCTKaAeo/iayWAeofiGU the

greater frequency of the simplex verbs suggests that they were usedmore widely. The compounds have been shown above to be non-technical.

Frequency and word distribution (e.g. the fact that they areattested in several plays) indicate the non-technicality of wordssuch as ypacpij, ypa<po/xcu, 8ia>Kw(v), i}Aia<mjs, K\r]r^p, gwrj-yopos, and

(»): would Aristophanes use these lexemes so often if they

were restricted to a specialist discourse?

Lexemes like d-noXoyeofiai, Karrjyopeai, âprvpofiai (often little more

than 'help!'), pdprvs, ^cpiôâi occur in some contexts without any

reference to lawcourt proceedings. At best they are determinolo-

gized terms and thus synchronically no longer technical. Otherwords designate items of everyday life whose use in the lawcourts

is, linguistically speaking, accidental

Finally, there are items and concepts which all Athenians, how-ever little contact they had with the law, would have encountered,

60 In the use of anotpeirytu and tKipetryai (as well as dtroAiicu) legal vocabulary over-laps with the vocabulary of healing in medicine: van Brock (1961) 222—3 and 235.


heard of, and referred to frequently in their personal lives. Theseare physical objects (SpvyaKros, TO Kcuvov,6* icty/cAi's), administrativefunctionaries (01 IvScKa, BeapoOtrris, KwhaKpfTrjs, irohfiiapxos), and gen-eral sociocultural phenomena (8ia6r/Ki), Soxriâô/iai (every freebornAthenian boy underwent the process of

One might certainly argue in favour of the technicality of somewords listed in Table 3.1. For instance,

(in a formal question of the beadle at Vesp. 754), and may well have been technical. Yet, it is clear that

large proportions of the legal vocabulary even in such a topical playas Wasps did not belong to an exclusive specialists' discourse. Thisappears to be a consequence of the Athenian legal system, in whicha large part of the citizens over thirty could and did serve asjurors.62 As a consequence, a comparatively advanced mastery oflegal vocabulary was recognized as the cultural standard. Of courseAristophanes may have preferred not to use many words exactlybecause they were too technical. But even that would point in thesame direction: if Aristophanes, in a play centred on legal matters,did not make fun of legal vocabulary, this vocabulary was probablynot regarded as technical. The democratic organization of thelawcourts prevented not only the creation of an inaccessible legallanguage, but also the folk-linguistic idea that legal language ishard to understand and employ.

3.6. MEDICAL LANGUAGE

Medical language has been particularly attractive to Aristophanicscholars because we possess in the Hippocratic corpus an extensivemedical documentation from ancient Greece. The oldestHippocratic writings are roughly contemporary with Old Comedyand therefore easily comparable.63 Also, the great practical impactof medicine on everybody's life might make the comic exploitationof medical terminology rewarding.

61 A proper name: cf. MacDowell (1971) 147.62 See S. C. Todd (1990), esp. 167-70, and MacDowell (1995) 156-7 for a dis-

cussion of how the juries were composed in practice (primarily old men with lowcash incomes, perhaps mainly farmers). The orators seem to take it for granted thatthe jurors understand the regular features of court procedure.

63 On the dates of the various treatises see Jouanna (1992) 85-105, 527-63. Thecomparison of considerably later texts is of course problematic.


On the other hand, the general importance of medicine meansthat medical terms are quickly taken over into general language.Since earlier Greek literature is less concerned with everyday lifethan comedy, it is not surprising that the lexical overlap of medicalliterature with comedy is greater than that with lyric poetry ortragedy. If an anatomical or physiological term first appears incomedy and in the Hippocratic writings, this does not automatic-ally imply that medical discourse is the comic source.64

In this section I will discuss all those lexemes that have beenclassified as technical terms of medicine in two articles, one byMiller and one by Byl.65 The obvious non-technicality of some ofthem shows that these compilations were more than exhaustive.For reasons of space and because the context is of some import-ance in establishing the technicality of a word, I will disregard afew lexemes that occur only in the Aristophanic fragments. Thegeneral reservations expressed here would hold for those words aswell.

Miller and Byl proceed in a similar way, and Byl expressly statesthat he wants to complement Miller. Both collect those wordswhich are attested in Aristophanes as well as in the Hippocratic cor-pus and which have some—though sometimes remote—connectionwith any field of medicine (especially anatomy and pathology). Thebanality of many of the words they discuss might suggest thatMiller and Byl operate with a different definition of technicalityfrom the one adopted here (or the one adopted by Galen in the frag-ment discussed in § 3.3.3.1). However, this is apparently not thecase. Neither makes explicit methodological statements, but bothoccasionally note that a given word does perhaps not deserve inclu-sion in the list because it was also used in common language. Hence,the criterion of common usage and the dichotomy between generaland technical language are implicitly acknowledged. Byl, forinstance, concludes: 'il faut remarquer que le genial poete comiquen'a pas cesse de recourir a un vocabulaire medical technique queseuls, sans doute, des inities pouvaient saisir (aTroTj-AijKTos, Guepes,

948; KorvXrj&wv, Guepes, 1495; are/nV7?. Thesmophories, 641;, Guepes, 810; <p\vKTcuva, Assemblee, 1057, Guepes, 1119,

64 Kudlien (1971) stresses that there are no Aristophanic passages which refer to

the historical Hippocrates or quote literally from a Hippocratic work.65 Miller (1945) and Byl (1990); cf. also Jouanna (2000) 172-83.

Technical Languages

Grenouilles, 236 . . .)-'66 Thus, it is fair to subject Byl's and Miller'scollections to a rigorous review and to wonder, for example, howmany people would subscribe to the view that 'only initiates are ableto understand' English words like paralysed, sterile, or blister — eventhough two of these plain English words probably sound more tech-nical to the non-specialist than their Greek counterparts because oftheir foreign origin.

Miller and Byl themselves doubt the technical status of a firstgroup of words, whose frequency in non-technical Greek literatureargues against their inclusion (translations in the following lists aremostly according to LSJ):

'to be angry''uncastrated', i.e. 'a real

man''inborn'

'to vomit forth, disgorge''chest'67

'sweat''to break

(the head)''excrement''deaf, dumb'

To the anatomical items of this list (dwpat;, TrXevpd, pis) one may addthe following words of a similar kind, which may be slightly lesscommon in literature and which are therefore adduced by the twoauthors without reservation:

66 Byl (1990) 161— 2; cf. in Miller (1945) statements like 'not current outside med-ical literature', 'in medical writers only', 'fully technical'. Aristophanic andHippocratic references for the words in the following lists are easily accessible viathe two articles and the respective indexes or concordances.

67 There is no reason why Bdelycleon should be characterized by using medicalterminology in Vesp. 1194; the misunderstanding of the word in the next line justsupports a pun.

68 I do not understand why Byl (1990) 160 thinks that the verb ceases to be 'unverbe tout a fait courant" when 'il apparait dans un contexte de medecine religieuse'in Plut. 658; and if it did so, why does this not apply to <l>vxpa 8a\aTTji 'cold seawater' in the same line?

69 From colloquial TV<PO$ 'delusion, nonsense' (i.e. a determinologization of'fever').

70 Pace Miller (1945) 76, oiSiVoi is not synonymous with SVOTOKIW. in Ran. 1423SvoTOKfw means 'to have a difficult birth'.

'to wash oneself'68

'to be mad'side (of a person)'

'nose''stupid,

silly'69

'blind''to blow up, distend''lame''to have the pains of

childbirth'70

81

8a Technical Languages

'shin''sinew'

'belly,abdomen"

Of these, only KorvXyStav requires some anatomical knowledge to beused properly—in fact, too much knowledge for Philocleon: inVesp. 1495, this character states that his KorvXrjSwv turns in his(not vice versa). Since the scene does not suggest in any way thatPhilocleon should appear as an incompetent quack because of hismistaken use of terminology, KOTV^WV must have belonged togeneral vocabulary. This does not mean that every Athenian knewprecisely how a human joint worked.72 The other items presupposean absolute minimum of anatomical knowledge and cannot havebeen restricted to technical discourse.

A third group of words are attested in descriptions of medicaltreatment, without being confined to such contexts. To regardthem as technical is like saying that camomile tea is a technical termbecause it can be used as a tonic:

'to deliver from, curefrom'

'to (retire to) ease one-self

'privy''hellebore'

'to drop in''to make to mis-

carry'73

'bandage''greasy wool'

'to lay hold of,touch'

'linen cloth'

71 Thesm. 509 tfrpov refers to the 'belly' of a pot, not to human anatomy. The pri-mary reference of fmoydarpiov in Vesp. 195 is to the 'belly of a sea fish' as a delicacy(cf. Ar. fr. 380).

72 Despite //. 5. 305-7, where the mechanism is described; cf. Collinge (1962) 43.73 Miller (1945) 77 admits that the medical writers of the Hippocratic corpus do

not use this word (rather CKTITPOIOKCU).74 Used in Ach. 1 135 and Pax 1286 without any medical idea of fortification but

purely for the sake of the pun with fltupôooôi 'to put on armour'.

'socket of a joint''vertebra'

'ankle'71

'to drink'74

'to heal''doctor'

'catmint''small reed' (used as

a phial)'to put in the

probe' (in order to inducevomiting or to soundwounds)

'to plaster'(and compounds) 'to stir,

mix'


'to bend oneselfback'75

'(acid) fig juice''garlic'

'squill'

The only specific word in this group is Kara^Xcxa. In Eq. 1150 it isused metaphorically, which shows that it formed part at least of thepassive vocabulary of the audience.

Since pathology and symptomatology are more arcane disci-plines of medicine, they might be a better source for technical ter-minology. But again a large part of the relevant lexemes denote themost basic and general symptoms and diseases, which everyAthenian must have observed and talked about frequently. Thefew more specific (and therefore terminologically more suitable)lexemes constituted the only economic way of referring to therespective phenomena (e.g. fir/Trw, yXa/j.wv, /cuAAdy).76 Moreover,many of the following words are quite common in comedy:

'irascible''paralysed'

'notblinking/winking'

'to cough''pot-bellied'

'blear-eyed'77

'to lie awake'

75 Although AopSoofim rarely occurs outside the Hippocratic corpus, its obsceneuse by Aristophanes cannot involve a play with a technical term: otherwise theinvented obscene name of the 'divinity' AopSwv (alongside KvflSaaos from'stooping forwards') in PI. Com. fr. 188. 17 would be unduly obscure. The para-tragic context in Eccl. 10 excludes a medical reference too.

76 Leaving aside patently non-medical words like Eccl. 433 avafiopfiopvîa 'togrumble loudly' (with no reference to intestinal rumbling), Vesp. 1045'fruitless' (of land).

77 In the Hippocratic corpus yAa/iupd?, not78 The reference of eKirmrui in Eccl. 906 is not entirely clear, but (a) 'to fall out'

works sufficiently well so that the principle applies that a technical meaning may beassumed only if the non-technical meaning is excluded, (6) a reference to the after-birth is not appropriate, and (c) if fK-ni-nrui needed a special meaning, it would ratherbe the (hardly technical) meaning 'to be dislocated" (jocularly applied to rprâ 'cun-nus').

'to infer, conjecture''to anoint, spread like

salve''drug, remedy''to grope about'

'boil''to suffer

from a concussion of thebrain'

'to become dizzy''to fall out'78

'(slight) sore''idiot'


'painful''well-coloured, of

healthy complexion''shivering fit'79

'squint-eyed'80

'to itch''club-footed, bandy-

legged''to have a black eye'

'bent forwards, hunch-backed'

'numbness''disease'

'disease''to be half asleep, doze'

'to cause pain'pain''to swell, to be swollen'

'to be crazy''to maim, mutilate''fever'81

'to have a fever''to suffer from

dizziness'82

'convulsion, spasm''barren, sterile''stomach-ache,

colic'83

reravos 'convulsive tension,(hence:) erection'

'hard of hearing'i 'to get/be inflamed''blister'

'blister'84

'slack, loose'

There are surprisingly few references to specific diseases in theAristophanic comedies. In Ran. 1247 OVKO., some kind of growth onthe eyelids, appears in a comic comparison and must therefore havebeen a commonly used word (despite Hp. Epid. 3. 7 (iii. 84 Littre)

'what is called aOwa'85). As for the rest, we observeat least some morphological systematicity in Aristophanes' medicallexicon with the following semantically comparable verbs in -aco and

79 Cf. Ar. fr. 346, discussed in § 3.3.3.1.80 In Ach. 15 Siearpdrpriv IBwv, the verb Siaarpfyofjiai does not refer to squinting

eyes but (metaphorically) to bodily torture. Sommerstein correctly translates 'therewas a sight this year that racked me to death'.

81 Also 8fp/j,a, nvp: for non-technical synonyms in this domain cf. English heat,temperature, fever.

82 In Ach. 1219 apparently more or less synonymous with the preceding

83 In Thesm. 484, as with rapa-nopai T-ffv •yaarepa 'to have an upset stomach', a ref-erence to yaarrjp is needed: obviously, oTpdcpos alone was not terminologically precise.

84 Pace Miller (1945) 84, yiui's is not a less technical variant of cp^vKTaiva. butsomething different: yAuKraira is a blister caused, for instance, by rowing, ipco'is ablister caused by burning.

85 Against the 'rule of thumb' that raAefi> and similar words often indicate thetechnical status of a word (cf. § 3.3.2.6), a avxa (Travopdlovaiv may rather point outto the reader that he or she knows the described object under the colloquial nameav*<a; the 'rule' mainly applies to non-technical texts.


'to suffer from swollen groins' (e.g. as a consequenceof long walking)

'to be blear-eyed''to suffer from ophthalmia, to have eye

problems''to suffer from gout'

'to suffer from strangury''(of swine:) to have measles'

Verbs in -idw often denote a state of physical or mental illness.Many of these were common in general language, where the suffixextended its domain and became comically productive (Eg. 61

'to suffer from oraculosis'; Nub. 183 /tad^nacu 'to sufferfrom pupilosis'; Lys. 715 fStvyTidw 'to suffer from fuckosis', etc.).86

Verbs like ovp^naw 'to feel the need to urinate' and x^Tidco 'to feelthe need to ease oneself make it doubtful that -idco was by this timestill felt to be exclusively medical and technical.87 There are nocomic accumulations of such verbs in Aristophanes (though note atleast Ar. fr. 322 with four illness verbs in

is not introduced as a specialist's word in the mouth ofthe slave at Eq. 383. References to arpay-yovpia (Vesp. 810; Thesm.

616; Ar. fr. 371), to 6<p6aXfita (Ran. 192; Pint. 115; Ar. fr. 132; cf.§ 3.3.2.5), and to jSou/Widv (Vesp. 2770; Lys. 987; Ran. 1280) alsooccur in the mouth of untrained speakers and are too widespread incomedy to have been exclusively technical. Ar^ds has lost all termi-nological precision in the colloquial ATÔS xroAoKiWais 'you havepumpkins in your eyes' (Nub. 327). Finally, the context of Plut. 559shows that TroSaypa/troSaypdw must have been a relatively commonillness, which had no alternative (non-technical) name.

The one Greek suffix that is most frequently medical is -my. Itis revealing that irAeupms is the only medical lexeme in -ms- inAristophanes. Again, the context at Eccl. 417 makes it clear thatpleurisy was not rare, so that determinologization could easily takeplace.

86 For a complete list see Peppier (1921) 154-6.87 Pace Jouanna (2000) 172—83; also, Lys. 553 poTraAiofios 'priapism' need not be

a pseudo-technical term created by Aristophanes with a technical suffix -io/idr, asZimmermann (1992) 517 argues.


There is not a single Aristophanic passage that would requireadvanced medical knowledge to be fully understandable.88 Ofcourse many comedies are lost, but we should note that there isonly a single fragment of Old Comedy in which a doctor appears.In Middle and New Comedy references to doctors and medicalthemes become quite common.89 The one fragment from OldComedy is Crates fr. 46, where a doctor says:

'But I'll apply my cupping-instrument and ifyou like I'll open (the vein)'. What is striking is not the use ofincomprehensible terminology but the use of a Doric dialect(because the great medical schools were in Doric-speaking Cos,Cnidus, and Sicily). The association of medical specialists withDoric Greek continued into Middle and New Comedy, as is shownby Alexis fr. 146 (cf. Men. Aspis 431-64):

If a local doctor says 'Give him a TpvfDdov ('bowl') of imaavi] ('barley gruel')in the morning', we immediately think he's worth nothing, but if he pro-nounces it -nri.aa.va. and Tpou(3Aioy, we're impressed. Or again, if he says('beet'), we disregard it, but if he says aevrXov, we eagerly pay attention—asif a afvthov and a revrMov were not the same!

The fragment illustrates that the Athenian public did not regardthe handling of obscure terminology as the distinctive sign of anaccomplished physician. The point is not that a 'proper' doctorwould replace Tmaam) etc. by more impressive lexemes, but that hwould have a Doric accent. Perhaps Aristophanes might even have

88 The greatest amount of anatomical knowledge is probably required in Ran.

134, where e'yKeyaAou flpi'cu Svo 'the two fig-leaf pates of the brain' presupposes some

idea of what a human brain looks like (but even this knowledge could be obtained

from looking at animal brains, which were eaten as a delicacy: cf. e.g. Ar. fr. 128. 2;

PI. Com. fr. 37).89 Cf. Sanchis Llopis (2000), who underlines the frequency of the title '/arpo'f in

Middle and New Comedy, after Gigante (1969) 302-3, Gil-Rodriguez Alfageme

(1972), and Impero (1998) 63-75.


Doricized90 an Attic word if he had wanted to present it as a med-ical term.91

Since Thucydides (2. 49. 3) apparently knows of a specializedmedical discourse and since the initial scene of Wasps seems toreflect an awareness of a (commonly understood) systematicterminology for mental illnesses (compounds with <piAo-: see §3.3.3.2), it is problematic to explain the absence of medical termi-nology in Aristophanes simply with the fact that 'au Ve siecle, lestermes medicaux n'etaient pas, comme aujourd'hui, des termessavants . . . mais des termes absolument courants'.92 It is true thatlarge parts even of specialist treatises such as the Hippocratic OnRegimen and On Ancient Medicine (written around 400 BC) musthave been easy enough to understand for an educated lay person,but I would be more hesitant to make this claim for a work like OnAffections (£.380 BC?), which explicitly addresses the interestednon-specialist but contains a considerable amount of (unexplained)nosological terminology. Instead, I would propose to conclude (a)from Thucydides, that there was an exclusive specialist discourse,but (b) from Aristophanes, that most of this specialist discourse hadnot yet acquired the status of a folk-linguistic stereotype and hadnot yet become prominent enough to be imitated and adapted in aliterary genre that addressed a wide audience.

3.7. THE LANGUAGE OF LITERARY CRITICISM

Systematic literary criticism arose together with sophistic teachingtowards the end of the fifth century BC. In training future oratorsthe sophists dealt with literary and linguistic material.93

90 Or possibly lonicized, since the first medical treatises were written in Ionic inorder to make them more widely accessible: Lasserre (1983) 164-5; van der Eijk(1997) 99-100; cf. Rossi (1977) 83; also Ameipsias fr. 17 with Colvin (2000) 294?Was the unassibilated -ins (adjectival in origin and therefore influenced by the mas-culine -mjs) synchronically felt to be 'Doric' when it had become substantivized?On the schools of Cos and Cnidus see Jouanna (1992) 66-84.

91 For similar reasons the bogus doctor of Men. Asp. 464 uses a hyper-Doric formvoaa^La (instead of

92 Psichari (1908) 106 n. i, cited by Byl (1990) 161. Note also the distinctly techni-cal terms from the earlier parts of the Hippocratic corpus, which are discussed by Lloyd(1983) 155-8 (e.g. xpoTayiriu, /iaorjTTJpe;, and i/idoi for different types of muscles).

93 Cf. e.g. Grube (1965) 15-21; Harriott (1969) 130-61; Russell (1981) 114-17;on pre-systematic literary criticism e.g. Grube (1965) 1-15; Dover (1993) 24—37. Alist of sophistic works on literature or rhetoric is given by PI. Phdr. 2(t6e-2.(tjc;Kranz f ig ig ) 148-50.

92


Aristophanes' Frogs stages a contest between Aeschylus andEuripides and thus reflects the new theoretical interest in litera-ture.

In the first extensive discussion of technical terminology inAristophanes, Denniston argued that Frogs repeatedly draws on anestablished language of literary criticism or literary theory.94 Mythird case study will review, and partially supplement, his evid-ence. Although the distinction between literary criticism andrhetoric is not always straightforward, I will concentrate on theformer and not take into consideration words like aywv 'rhetoricalor legal debate' (Ran. 785, 867, 873, 882/3).95 Denniston's selec-tion of words is representative rather than exhaustive.

Denniston's 'technical terms' (including his translations orinterpretations) are set out and briefly commented on in Table 3.2below. Denniston adds fiifiXiov 'book' (Ran. 1114) to his list: 'thefact that an individual in fifth-century Athens was always seen witha book marked him out, even if you did not know what the bookwas, as a member of the "reading set" '. This does not makea 'technical term'. People who have got a swimming pool in theirgarden also belong to a certain 'set', but is 'swimming pool' there-fore a technical term? At best jSijSAiov resembles words like 'tongue', AaAeiV 'to chatter', Aerr-roy 'refined', or'idea'/'to reason', which are frequently associated in comedy withthe sphere of sophistic intellectuals.96

Denniston's method of identifying technical terminology is dif-ferent from that employed by Miller and Byl, who collected themedical vocabulary. Denniston proceeded on a methodologicallysafer path insofar as he started to look for a technical meaning onlywhen he thought an expression was too odd to be understood in anon-technical manner. The weakness with Denniston's approachis not that he classifies as technical words which are commonlyused and commonly understood, but that he does not allow for thecreation of original metaphors on the basis of general-language lex-emes. At the same time he readily 'reconstructs' technical mean-ings, which are insufficiently or not at all paralleled in literarycriticism. The result of both methods is similar: like Miller and

94 Denniston (1927); Corbato (1993) 124—5 is much more cautious.95 Cf. Murphy (1938) 80, and on agonistic words in general now Campagner

(2001).96 Cf. Denniston (1927) 117-20.


TABLE 3.2. Denniston's 'technical terms'

'Technical' term/meaning (accordingto Denniston)

Ran. Commentary

'sanded floor of thewrestling-ring'(wrestling metaphors)

'presumptuous inspeech'

'arrogantly'

'full of productiveenergy'

904 Wrestling metaphors playedan important role insophistic teaching becausethe new education 'replaced' realwrestling exercises." However,

itself is not attested in liter-ary criticism and Aristophanes mayjust be playing with such imagery.

837 See §3.3.2.2.

1020 See §3.3.2.2.

96 Heracles does not understand 'productive, fertile' in Ran. 98, butthis need not indicate technicality.His reaction may simply show thatthe metaphor was new. The evid-ence for technical ydw/ios is poor: PI.Tht. isocand 1516 probably do notemploy established terminology butextend a physiological birth-metaphor.

956, 1104 The dependent genitives'subtle rules' (956) and

'clever ideas' (1104) virtu-ally exclude Denniston's technicalsuggestion (based on Antiphanes fr.189. 21). In 1104 the common mean-ing 'attack' fits well, and if there is amore specific reference than 'inser-tion' in 956, it must be taken fromthe field of building and construc-tion, not from literary criticism.13

8966 A metaphor from the lively tragicdance <?/i/«Afia (cf. Vesp. 1503) is not'pointless' enough before the duel of

'opening (of a play)'

'euphony'/'melodiousrecitation of lines'

Technical Languages

TABLE 3.2. (cont.)


Ran. Commentary

'elaborate messenger-speeches' (a laEuripides)

amateur poet

'keyword'

the two tragic poets to override theprinciple that a technical meaningmay be assumed only if a non-technical meaning is excluded.

942 Again a technical meaning is unlikelybecause the general meaning 'littlephrases' (with a derogatory note)yields good sense (cf. Ach. 398; Pax532). The technical meaning sug-gested by Denniston is not attested.

459 The chorus attack public characters,not would-be poets, so that I'Sieora?means 'ordinary people' as opposedto generals and the like.c

854 'the sum or gist of thematter' (LSJ) occurs in Pindar,Thucydides, and Lysias, and the'summing-up word", not paralleledelsewhere, need not be technical atall.d In Ran. 854 the pun on

'corner-stone' is central, not the imitation oftechnical terminology.

819 The only evidence for a technicalmeaning of 7ra/>af<W»< 'linchpin' is themetaphorical phrase

'axles of rhetoricalphrases' in Isaac Porphyrogennetus(twelfth century AD).

942 Like a real cure, the quasi-medicaltreatment of tragedy by Euripidesincludes TrepiVarot 'walks'.

is used in Ran. 953 with a non-technical meaning '(discursive) talk-ing about sth.' which would also fitRan. 942.

'linchpins'?

'pacing up and downof the characters onstage'

90

Technical Languages


Ran. Commentary

800('comic jumble of twotechnical terms used

by the metrists')

'artistic restraint'

carpentering metaphors 799-801,818-25

is a 'frame used for mould-

ing and measuring bricks'. As such

(cf. the measuring tools

'rules' and trr/xfis tnwv 'word mea-sures' in Ran. 799) it is rightly called

'a kind of measuring tool'by the lexicographer Zonaras (-n

1555. 22), who is not thinking of

metrics. In Pherecrates fr. 84

'folding (or:pocket-size) anapaests' (not:

'catalectic anapaests') are an ('new invention'). Probably

new pocket-size items were le dernier

cri, and 'pocket brick-frames' havemore comic point than 'catalecticplaisia-metres'.

Unparalleled in literary criticism.

Carpentering metaphors (cf. Eq.

461-71; Thesm. 52-7) were used todescribe poetic composition fromProto-Indo-European timesonwards; they could hardly beregarded as a 'technical' usage of lit-erary criticism (though literary crit-icism may of course have employedsimilar imagery)."

• Cf. Denniston (1927) 116; Bonanno (1983); O'SulIivan (1992) 65; O'Regan(1992) 11-13.

b Cf. Dover (1993) 311; Slater (1995) 39 n. 28 notes that 'eiajSoAiJx [sc. inAntiphanes fr. 189. 21, A.W.] for "opening" seems deliberately vague': it may noteven be technical there.

c Cf. Dover (1993) 252-3; Eq. Tib; Pax 751.d Find. Pyth. 4. 116; Thuc. 4. 50. 2; Lys. 13. 33.' See Schmitt (1967) 296-8 on *wek"os teks- 'to build/frame word(s)'; in Greek e.g.

Find. Ol. i. 29, Pyth. 3. 113-14; Ugolini (1923) 261-5; Taillardat (1965) 438-9, 456;Angeli Bernardini (1967) 81 ('terminologia . . . che finisce col sembrare conven-zionale'); Harriott (1969) 92-104; Niinlist (1998) 83-107; note also the common

and its cognates: Lanata (1963) 229-30. For similar metaphors in early liter-ary criticism see Democritus fr. 68 B 21; Lanata (1963) 262; O'SulIivan (1992) 140-1.

9i

827


Byl, Denniston is able to present an impressive list of 'technical'vocabulary, but only a small number of items bears closer scrutiny.

Denniston's line was continued by other scholars who addedwords and phrases such as ra vevpa TTJS rpayojSias (Ran. 862, 'thesinews of the tragedy', taken as 'literary structure'),97 crroijSij (Ran.

1178, 'padding (in a literary work)'), -napaKovdw (Ran. 1116, 'tosharpen, i.e. train, in rhetorics'), XijKudiov (Ran. 1200—47, 'oil-flask'> 'bombast'),98 or eâ-naraw (Ran. 910, 'to deceive' > 'to createdramatic arrar-q (illusion?)').99 The non-technical meaning of allthese words suits the context and is sometimes even less obscurethan the alleged technical sense.

A number of adjectives acquired quasi-terminological precisionin later literary criticism. In origin they belong to general languageand their attestations in Frogs do not presuppose any specialistknowledge (see Table 3.3 below).

I have argued in an earlier section (3.3.2) that Trpo'Aoyo? 'pro-logue', cm'xos 'verse', ordois fj.e\u>v '(tragic) choral song', and <ppdoi$

TCOV -npayjjidrwv '(dramatic) exposition' may have been technicalterms of fifth-century literary criticism. These words are differentfrom the ones listed in Tables 3.2 and 3.3, as they all have a veryprecise denotate. Two of them have less precise general-languagesynonyms (crn'xos = tiros, ardats (jieXwv — fj.eXos), two more are possiblypseudo-technical coinages characterized by the suffix -cny, and oneis paraphrased before its first appearance (wpdAoyos). Even so wecannot be sure that they were regarded as technical. It is interest-ing, however, that (a) they all occur in the most technical scenes ofFrogs, between Ran. 1119 (wpdAoyoy) and Ran. 1281 and (b) they are all introduced by the modernist Euripides, whosecriticism of Aeschylus is predominantly formal, whereas Aeschylusstresses the thematic 'faults' of his rival.

On the whole, very little supports the claim that Frogs makesmuch use of an established technical language of literary criticism.

97 Cf. Ugolini (1923) 266-7; Pohlenz (1920) 145; Corbato (1993) 125; Dover(<993)300-i.

98 Taillardat (1965) 293 on oroi/Jij, 297-8 on \i)Kvffwv, 467 on trapaKovaui; see alsoO'Sullivan (1992) 106-50 passim.

99 Pohlenz (1920) 158-62 and Ugolini (1923) 269-70, refuted by Pfeiffer (1968)47. For the sophist Gorgias a-ndrij is a positive value, whereas it has negative con-notations for the 'sophistic' stage-Euripides. What Gorgias meant by a.Tta-n\ is moredifficult to ascertain: cf. e.g. Rosenmeyer (1955); Verdenius (1981).


TABLE 3.3. Some pre-technical adjective usages in Frogs

Adjective Ran. Commentary

'witty, urbane'

'skilful'

'slender'

'refined'

'fine'

9010, 906 aarfla 'urbanities' are mentioned as astylistic feature in Aristotle'sRhetoric (141 ib2z-3), but aareios is,like English nice, a very unspecificadjective (cf. e.g. Ach. 811; Alexisfr. 194). No technical nuance isneeded in Ran. 901 and 906 (cf.Ran. 5, where the slave Xanthiasspeaks of something aanwv 'witty')."

71, 1121, Every 'skilful' or 'clever' person can1370 be called Seîos, not just poets (cf.

e.g. Eq. 228; Pax 190). The adjec-tive is partly synonymous with, andultimately replaced by, «ro/ii/ids.b

(941) The 'lightest' style of rhetoric iscalled ioxv&s xapa/crTJp (Demetr. Eloc.190-235), but laxvaivui in Ran. 941belongs to a series of medicalimagery. Also 'it is not surprising iftwo people talking about similarthings use similar words',0 and theidea of 'swollen' words and 'heavystyle' is likely to be pre-technical.Perhaps the stylistic image evenoriginated in comedy.d

967 In literary criticism'elegance' is a feature of the

(e.g. Demetr. Eloc. 36;Dion. Hal. Dem. 38 (p. 210. 10Usener-Radermacher)), but incomedy KOTO'S has a much broaderrange of meanings ('elegant','clever', etc.). In Ran. 967 a politi-cian is called xoî/ids, not a writer.

1108, 1111 In Alexandrian literary criticism(828, 876) Aen-TOTT)? 'refinement' is a formal styl-

istic quality," whereas inAristophanes metaphorical ALTO'S is(negatively) associated with 'subtle'

(cf.

(cf.


TABLE 3.3- (cont.)

Adjective Ran. Commentary

sophistic thinking (and only secon-

darily with its verbal expression).

927,1434, The quality of aa^vna. 'clarity' is

'plain, clear' 1445 essential in the loxvos xapaxTTjp ofrhetorical theory (cf. e.g. Demetr.Eloc. 191-203), but the meaning'plain, clear" is common not only in

rhetorical stylistics (e.g. Ach. 103;Lys. 777; Pint. 40).

1004,1496 See §3.3.2.2.

'grand'

" Pace Radermacher (1954) 274; Turasiewicz (1986) 211.b Dover (1993) 13-14.c Dover (1993) 33 n. 65, also against the comparison of Ran. 941 |3apo9 'over-

weight' with fia.pvs/f$apvTT]s in Arist. Rhet. lyqi'z'j—8.d Cf. Sicking (1962) 155-6, Pfeiffer (1968) 47-8, 137-8, and dayman (1977)

33-4, against Taillardat (1965) 467-70.e See e.g. Call. Ait. frs. i. u, i. 24 Pfeiffer; Call. Ep. 27. 3; AP 9. 25; Pfeiffer

(1968) 137-8; dayman (1977) 30.

Even if such a thing existed by 400 BC, only the well-educated frac-tion of Aristophanes' audience would have recognized pertinentreferences. Frogs stages, rather than laughs at, literary criticism.

3.8. CONCLUSION

In this chapter we have seen that technical languages are topic-based linguistic varieties, which manifest themselves almost exclu-sively in the lexicon. In order to distinguish technical language andgeneral language we must take into account the native speakers'intuitive classifications and the criterion of common usage. Thisis crucial in studying a non-technical genre like comedy, wheretechnical terms often appear in contextual isolation (i.e. in non-technical passages). Research on the potentially technical vocabu-lary of comedy enables us to find out which sociocultural areaswere or were not regarded as unaccessible to the non-specialist.Since comedy is written and performed for the whole demos, itreflects the classification of social domains as technical or non-technical more closely than other literary genres. In other words,


we are able to reconstruct interesting aspects of Athenian culture ifwe apply a strict definition of linguistic technicality.

The two most 'scholarly' characters in extant Aristophanic com-edy are the sophist Socrates and the geometer Melon. Interestinglythey are not, or only marginally, characterized by the use of incom-prehensible technical language. There is both a linguistic and asocio-historic reason for this. First, Greek technical discourse,unlike modern terminology, did not adopt much foreign wordmaterial and therefore remained relatively transparent.100

Secondly, by the end of the fifth century theoretical technicaldiscourse was only just developing and had not yet reached the cul-tural status it has in modern societies. Sophists like Prodicus andProtagoras were just starting to reflect on verbal precision and syn-onymy (opBor^s ovofj,a.Tu>v, 6p9of-rrfia), two issues that are fundamentalin the creation of commonly recognized terminologies. To be sure,a practical technical discourse must have existed earlier on, forinstance among artisans, but that discourse had a much closer linkto daily life.101 Since non-specialists readily acknowledge the needfor a practical technical discourse, it is not an ideal target for comicsatire.

The case of the legal vocabulary in Wasps illustrates the import-ance of social factors in the separation of technical and non-technical fields. Despite the specialized reference of some lexemes,most words apparently belonged to general language, probablybecause the Athenian legal system was democratically organized.The almost complete absence of medical terminology inAristophanes is more striking. I have suggested that in the fifthcentury the use of dialect (rather than 'technolect') constituted thedistinctive mark of the medical specialist. Professional competitionprevented the quick establishment of widely accepted doctrines.The resulting fragmentation of medical theories forced doctors to'sell' their knowledge in an accessible manner and hindered thegrowth of a stable specialist terminology.102

100 por these sources of modern terminology cf. Sager-Dungworth—McDonald

(1980) 79-80, 251-87; Seibicke (1981) 43-50; Schippan (1984) 247-9; Hoffmann

(1985) 153-8; Fluck (1996) 48-55. Loanwords are not so rare as designations (nomen-

clature signs) for items of foreign culture: cf. Langslow (1999) 190; in comedy e.g.

Ach. 108-9 aôvi; (a Persian measure); Vesp. 1137, 1149 Ka.vva.Kr) (a Persian cloak).101 Mohn (1981) 208 sees in the separation of home and workplace an important

factor for the development of distinct technical languages.102 Cf. Lloyd (1983) 165-7.

4

'Scientific Discourse'

4.1. REPLACING TECHNICAL LANGUAGE

At the end of the last chapter we observed that the lack of technicalterminology in Aristophanic comedy is nowhere as conspicuous asin the portrayal of those stage characters who correspond to themad professors of modern farce. I assume that Aristophanes mighthave inserted a substantial amount of technical terminology intothe language of a figure like Socrates in Clouds if the Athenian pub-lic had been as aware of restricted specialist vocabularies as mod-ern audiences usually are.

However, we would not do justice to the comic genius ofAristophanes if we contented ourselves with such a negative con-clusion. By asking what Aristophanes might or might not havedone if technical terminology had been prominent enough, we arefocusing on comic technique rather than on the relationshipbetween the comic text and linguistic reality. We will return to thisrelationship in the next chapter, but comic technique is worthhaving a closer look at as well. In this chapter we will see howAristophanes is able to create in Clouds a distinct 'scientific dis-course', even though he does not make use of technical language assuch. I will argue that Aristophanes compensated for the absenceof high-profile technical languages by substituting linguisticmaterial taken from, or linked to, the tradition of Presocraticscientific poetry.

Language plays an important role in Clouds. The comic Socratesand his students do not in every respect speak like normal Athenians.On the one hand, they explicitly develop linguistic theories which arebased on abstract principles and therefore promote departures fromnormal usage. On the other hand, they are implicitly characterizedby certain linguistic (mainly lexical) 'deviations' from standardAttic. These actual deviations are not simply illustrations of theaccompanying theories, but there is a certain dramatic logic in the

'Scientific Discourse' 97

double departure from the norm. The theories demonstrate thatAristophanes' Socratics are voluntary linguistic outsiders, and theactual deviations concretely exemplify this outsider status. I willbegin with a short presentation of Socrates' linguistic teachings inClouds, but the main part of this chapter will be devoted to the actualdeviations and their relation to Presocratic scientific discourse.

4.2. L INGUISTIC THEORIES IN CLOUDS

4-2 .1 . ETYMOLOGY

The linguistic interests of Socrates and his students lie in the fieldsof etymology and grammar. Let us first consider etymology. InNub. 383-94 Socrates explains to his new student Strepsiades howthe atmospheric phenomenon of thunder is produced. By way ofillustration he compares thunder to a loud fart and concludes (Nub.394)'

'That's why the two words sound alike, /Jpov-nj "thunder" and wopSij"fart".' For an ancient etymologist jSpoi/Tjj and TropSij might well havesounded similar enough to suggest a connection.1 In Plato'sCratylus there are etymological speculations that are no lessabsurd; even if they were meant to be parodies, it was not the tech-nique of etymologizing that was criticized but rather the belief thatmore than plausibility could be reached.2 Aristophanes, on theother hand, laughs at the idea of 'looking behind' language as such,not just at its formal excesses: to establish a serious semantic linkbetween 'thunder' and 'fart' contradicts common sense and istherefore unacceptable to an ordinary Athenian. // the search forfantastic etymologies derided in Clouds was inspired by one or twoindividual thinkers (rather than common scientific practice),

1 Dover (1968) 151 (whom I follow in attributing the line to Socrates) suggeststhat fipov-rri may have been pronounced as [|3op(>>)-nj]; however, 'it is doubtfulwhether the reverse metathesis CRVC -* CVRC can be found' in Attic inscriptions:Threatte(ig8o)476.

2 Baxter (1992) 87-8; O'Hara (1996) 17; cf. e.g. PI. Crat. 4006 (i/ivxij 'soul' from'holds fast and keeps the nature'), 4O5b (AiroXXwv from

"always shooting'). Literary etymologies occur early: Od. 19. 406-9 from oSvaaofiai 'to hate'); Aesch. Ag. 688-9 (EAtVij from eAc'va; 'capturing

ships'); Marzullo (1953) 99-104; Lendle (1957) 117-21; O'Hara (1996) 7-18. Ran.1478 (TrvciV/SeiTrveiV 'to breathe/dine') and other Aristophanic passages collected byFerrante (1965) 483-8 parody this tradition.

98 'Scientific Discourse'

Aristophanes' point of reference was probably the school ofAnaxagoras and Diogenes of Apollonia.3

Pheidippides, after his training in Socrates' school, explains tohis father why he need not be afraid of the last day of the month,the eVq Tf «rai ve'a, on which he will be summoned into court for nothaving paid back his debts. Pheidippides implies that the name elnjT KO.I vta must refer to two days (the eWj and the vea), that one daycannot be two days, and that Strepsiades may therefore defendhimself in court by claiming that his creditors deposited the fees foropening a lawsuit on the wrong day (the /vij instead of the vea), sothat the lawsuit is null and void (Nub. 1178-1200).4 The sophist-ical reasoning again challenges the commonly established, thoughapparently illogical, acceptation of fV>j re xai vea as the designationof a single day. Similarly, in Nub. 1286 Strepsiades turns away acreditor by misunderstanding TOKOS 'interest' as TOKOS 'child, animalyoung' although only the former was commonly used and the lat-ter was purely poetic.5

Finally, Aristophanes exploits the assonance of 'char-coal' with avdpomoi 'human beings' for a pun in Nub. 95-7. Thephilosopher Hippon's cosmological comparison of the sky with abaking-cover (wviyeus) is presented as if it had been suggestedmerely by the phonetic similarity between avdpoj-noi and

The 'phrontistic' attachment to true meanings and etymologicalconnections is so strong that it overrides all common-sense know-ledge: the world (and its theoretical perception) must be adapted tolanguage.

4-2.2. G R A M M A R

As with etymology, Aristophanes makes Socrates run amok in thefield of grammar. In this case Socrates adapts language to theworld, a process that must have seemed no less absurd to those whohad never thought about a possible link between the two (or indeedto those who were strict adherents of the view that language is notlinked to the world by an inherent bond of nature,

3 For Anaxagoras' and Diogenes' use of etymology see e.g. Baxter (1992) 127-30;Funghi (1997) 33-4; Janko (1997) 80-1.

4 See Sommerstein (1982) 218 for this explanation.5 The double meaning is also exploited in Thesm. 843—5.


Socrates makes three points. First, after Strepsiades hasincluded aheKrpvwv 'cock' in a list of male animals, Socrates objectsthat the hen is called aXtKTpvwv as well. In order to reflect the sex dif-ference between the two, dAeVrcup (masc.) and (fern.)must be used from now on (Nub. 660-6). Secondly, Strepsiadesinadvertently says r-qv KapBo-n-ov when he speaks of the 'kneading-trough' and Socrates, taking for granted that the noun is femininebecause of the article, postulates that it must rather be Strepsiades wittily concludes that the womanish Cleonymus has tobe renamed as well: KXewnvfir] (Nub. 669-80). Finally, Socratesargues that names like Afieivlas cannot be masculine because of theirvocative Aîvta (which would be the same if it came from a femin-ine nominative * Anemia). Again Strepsiades counters with a remarkon the lack of manliness of one Ameinias, who failed to do militaryservice (Nub. 681-92).6

This grammatical passage plays with the ideas of Protagoras,who had distinguished, probably for the first time in a systematicmanner, the three grammatical genders of Greek.7 Protagorasdeveloped rigid principles which he then applied to literary texts.For instance, he criticized Homer for treating ^Vjcis 'wrath' (in //. i.1-2 fi-qviv . . . ovXopevyv 'accursed wrath') or mjATjl 'helmet' as femin-ine, not masculine, nouns. It is true that nouns in -f are very oftenmasculine, but nouns in -is are more often feminine. Wackernageltherefore suggested that Protagoras applied semantic criteria: 'hel-mets' are worn by men, and 'wrath' is a heroic, 'male' feeling.8

However, the idea expressed in Aristotle's Poetics (i4s8B8-i7) thatall nouns in -s (including those in -f and -0) should be masculine(or neuter, but not feminine) looks suspiciously similar: perhapsthis goes back to Protagoras, whose views may have been more pre-scriptive, and less descriptive, than Wackernagel thought. In thiscase the prescriptive 'purism' of Aristophanes' Socrates was not sofar removed from the actual grammatical theories of the day. Thisis not to say that there was no exaggeration: for instance, it wouldhave been logically sufficient to invent a new name for either themale or the female aXex-rpvcav, but by introducing both dAeK-rpucuva (a

6 A similar joke occurs in Eq. 969; cf. Peppier (1918) 180-1.7 Protagoras test. 80 A 27 (= Arist. Rhet. i407b6-8); on Protagoras as a source for

the scene cf. also Rosenstrauch (1961) 50-2.8 Protagoras test. 80 A 28 (= Arist. Soph. el. J73b 17-22); Wackernagel (1928)

4-5-

ioo 'Scientific Discourse'

regular feminine formation beside a masculine word in -tav) and(a word well established in the poetic tradition)

Aristophanes underlined Socrates' willingness to make languagesubservient to his theories rather than the other way round.9

Ironically, one of Socrates'—the real Socrates'—last words was,according to Plato (Phd. i i8a),

4 -3 - L INGUISTIC PRACTICE IN CLOUDS

4.3.1. D I N O S

The treatment of etymology and grammar in Clouds illustratesAristophanes' intention to portray Socrates as a linguistic manipu-lator. It is slightly disappointing that the theories put forward bythe stage philosopher do not influence his linguistic practice. Togive just one example, in Nub. 766—8 Strepsiades describes a burn-ing-glass to Socrates, apparently without knowing the proper namefor 'glass', uaAo?:

STREPSIADES: Have you ever seen that stone at the druggists', the beautifultransparent one they use to light fires?SOCRATES: Do you mean glass?

Since there is little comic point in Strepsiades' ignorance of theword JaAos, the lines look as if they were meant to feed a joke—which does not come. It would have been easy enough (and metri-cally possible) for Socrates to ask, on the model of feminine

but he does not do so and it would be rash to emendthe passage for the sole reason that it seems a little flat.

Yet, there is one keyword of Clouds which may echo (or ratherforeshadow) Socrates' grammatical theory. At the same time itleads our search for a linguistic characterization of the 'phrontists'

9 On aXtK-rpvaiva. and the suffix -atva see also § 6.6 and Peppier (1918) 179;Chantraine—Meillet (1932) 295; Chantraine (1933) 107-9; Eduard Fraenkel (1955)42-5, on the Attic graffito xaTinrv-yaiva 'she-pathic' (SEG xiii. 32). For poetic (anddialectal?: Risch (1990) 236—7) d/W/crcop cf. e.g. Find. Ol. 12. 14; Aesch. Ag. 1671;Soph. fr. 851 Radt; Ar. Vesp. 1490; Cratin. fr. 279 (in prose only when the sex hassome importance: Hp. Int. \. 32 (vii. 168 Littre); Arist. fr. 347 Rose).


into a different direction. With the name of Socrates' 'god' Alvo's weenter the world of Presocratic science.

Strepsiades is not satisfied with Socrates' teaching that thunder-storms are produced by clouds crashing into each other. He asks if

it is not Zeus who drives the clouds. Socrates replies (Nub. 380): 'Not in the least; it's a celestial vortex'. For

Socrates aiWpioy Sivos 'a rotation/whirl in the air' may simply be

another atmospheric phenomenon, but Strepsiades (mis)takes

for the name of a divinity (Nub. 380-1):

STREPSIADES: Vortex? That I hadn't realized, that Zeus is no more, andVortex is now king in his place.

Strepsiades' misunderstanding is favoured by two circumstances.

(i) Instead of relational adjectives with the suffix -ios, like

non-poetic Greek usually used genitival constructions (e.g. In classical Greek al6epios is restricted to poetic texts, for

instance tragic lyrics. However, adjectives in -ios often served asdivine epithets: xdovtos 'of the nether world', 8a\dooios 'of the sea',

'of horses' (e.g. Nub. 83). In one pseudo-Aristotelian treatise

(Mw. 4<Diai7) cuW/Hos is explicitly mentioned as an epithet of Zeus.Strepsiades does not realize that Socrates simply uses a poeticadjective in a scientific explanation. Similar combinations of poeticwords with a scientific content are found in the verse fragments ofthe Presocratics. Here aiOepios is attested in Empedocles,Parmenides, among the Pythagoreans, and perhaps inHeraclitus.10

(2) Formally, the unusual word or 'name' Alvos could be inter-preted as a thematized contamination of the regular oblique stem of

Zeus, At- (gen. Aios), with the poetic alternative oblique stem Zrji'-.11

The resulting assonance with Sivy 'whirl, eddy' satisfies the etymo-

logical principle of the ftpovrri/Trop&ri-ioke according to which there is

an intrinsic link between a name and its physical manifestation.

10 Empedocles fr. 33 B 115. 9 (aiBepiov fieVos 'celestial force'); Parmenides frs. 28B i. 13, 8. 56, 10. i. The Pythagoreans are said to have called the moon 'celestial earth" (fr. 58 B 37). For Heraclitus see test. 22 A 8, where'celestial body' may be Heraclitus' own expression.

" Dover (1968) 150 compares Atvos with personal names in

1 0 1

IO2 'Scientific Discourse'

That the god has been named differently in ancient times I do not ignore:Dis and Zen and Den and Zas and Zes in Pherecydes according to a spe-cial declension pattern.

It is not entirely clear which of these names Herodianus found in

Pherecydes (i.e. where to put a comma: before rrapd, before

before ml Zijs?). The paradigm Zas, Zavros is certainly attested in

the fragments of this eccentric Eastern cosmogonic writer, whorenamed other gods too, probably in order to reveal their 'true'names together with their 'true' histories that could not be foundin Homer or Hesiod.12 If Herodianus did not find Afy and Zfy in

Pherecydes as well, he may have taken the former from an epi-

choric dialect,13 the latter from Aeschylus (Supp. 162). In the case

of Z-fjv the etymologizing intention is quite obvious since the name

of Zeus is explicitly linked with £ijv 'to live' in Plato (Crat.

3g6a-b).14 Esoteric speculations about divine names may alsohave been promoted by Pythagoras, allegedly a student ofPherecydes',15 and his followers. According to Pythagoras' bio-grapher Porphyry (VP 17), the first line of an epigram whichPythagoras wrote while visiting the Idaean cave in Crete read:

16 'Here died and is buned Zanwhom they call Zeus'. Though hardly authentic, the epigram maystill be right in attributing to Pythagoras the claim that he knew the

'real' name of Zeus. In Av. 570 Euelpides unexpectedly uses the

12 Thus also 'Piy for'Pt'a, Xpovos for Kpovos, fiyijvos for 'iJvearas: Pherecydes test.7 A Q, frs. 7 B 2, 9; cf. Schibli (1990) 17 n. 8 and 135-9; Zos also West (1971)51—2, who suggests that Pherecydes had in mind the Luvian god Santa.

13 Bile (1988) 145 n. 289 and 367 mentions a hyper-Doric nominative Tav onimperial Cretan coins from Hierapytna and Polyrrhenia; for spellings of theaccusative as Ar)va/Tjjm in Crete see Wathelet (1974) 201-2 and Bile (1988) 202-3.

14 Baxter (1992) 119-22 sees Pherecydes as one of Plato's targets when Plato pre-sents such (parodic) etymologies.

15 Cf. (sceptically) Schibli (1990) 11-13 and (confidently) Breglia (2000) 168-78.A connection between Pherecydes and Pythagoras is already established in the 5thcent, by Ion of Chios (fr. 36 B 4): Riedweg (1997) 87-8.

16 Cf. (with jue'yas 'great' instead of ffavwv) AP 7. 746; Cyrill. in lulian. 10, p. 342(Migne, PG 76. 1028); loh. Chrysost. in epist. ad Titum cap. i, Horn. 3 (Migne, PG62. 676).

Renaming Zeus with such a principle in mind had a certain tradi-

tion. The grammarian Herodianus writes (2. 911. 7-9 Lentz):

1 6

on


name Zdv. The Pythagorean theonym may prepare the way forthe subsequent bird cosmogony with its Orphic allusions (Av.

693-702); Orphic and Pythagorean elements are not easily distin-guishable for us and probably never were for outsiders such as theaverage Athenian theatre-goer.17 The name Ais, too, may haveoriginated in Pythagorean circles since Herodianus found it in thethird-century phlyax-writer Rhinthon of Tarentum, who is said tohave been a Pythagorean.18 Thus, to those who were aware of thefact that such esoteric circles had a fashion of analysing names,Strepsiades' misunderstanding was perfectly reasonable.

And yet, it remained a misunderstanding. Socrates had not meantto speak of a divinity called Dinos. Strepsiades did not know whatat least the well-educated among Aristophanes' audience knew:that Slvrj as a 'whirl/eddy/rotation (in the air)' formed part of thelatest scientific theories. According to Democritus, for instance,the atoms are sorted out according to size and shape by 'whirls' andhe compares this concept to a rotating sieve. The word SiVos com-monly denoted in Attic a certain type of vessel (allowing a furtherpun on divas in Nub. 1473), but in the passage from Democritus itmay be a synonym of SiV^:19

Through the rotation of the sieve lentils are heaped up separately togetherwith lentils, barleycorns with barleycorns.

Whether Democritus also spoke of Sivr; as the whirling-force is notentirely clear, and whether his predecessor Leucippus had alreadyused the words Slvos and Stv-rj in comparing cosmological processesto whirls is even less certain.20 For chronological reasons it is

17 Herodotus (2. 81) 'mentions Pythagorean and Orphic teaching in the samebreath': Burkert (1972) 125-32; cf. Guthrie (1935) 216-21; on the bird cosmogony,Dunbar (1995)437-47. Dunbar (1995) 384 wants to see in Zdv atAv. 570 an 'Eleanpronunciation of Zeus' name', but the -a- can be explained differently as an(archaizing) hyper-Dorism (cf. Wathelet (1974) 205) and no Elean nominative Zdvis attested. The accusative Zdva occurs repeatedly in the Derveni commentary on anOrphic cosmogony: Janko (1997) 62.

18 Hdn. Gr. 2. 675. 3 Lentz (cf. Eustath. 1387. 26 ad Od. i. 27 ff.). OnRhinthon's Pythagoreanism see Rhinthon test. 4.

19 Democritus fr. 68 B 164; cf. fr. 68 B 167 (Si'ros Travroiuiv iSetov 'whirl of variousforms'?).

20 Cf. Democritus test. 68 A i, 69, 83 (where avdyK-rj 'necessity' and 8iV»j areequated), and fr. 68 B 5. i; Leucippus test. 67 A i (Bivrj), 24 (Sims). 'We cannot lay

IO4 'Scientific Discourse'

unlikely that Democritus is the source of inspiration for our pas-sage in Clouds.

A much better candidate is Empedocles: 'so far as we can see itwas Empedocles who coined the concept of the SiVi?'-21 Accordingto Empedocles a 'cosmic rotation' (Sivy) was responsible for theseparating or coming together of the four 'roots' or elements, fire,air, water, and earth, depending on whether it was the turn of Loveor Strife to be at the centre, i.e. in control, of the SiVij. In this sensethe Blv-q was indeed the fundamental moving force of nature andcomparable to a supreme god.22 That Aristophanes23 was familiarwith the work or thought of Empedocles may be indicated by thecomic cosmogony in Birds, according to which TSptos 'Love' mixestogether everything (Av. 700 aweêi^v a-navTa) so that new beingscome into life; the work of "Eptos here corresponds to the uniting andcreative force of &MTTJS 'Love' in Empedocles.24

Whether the cuWpos Sivai mentioned in another Empedocleanfragment (31 B 115) are thought of as parts of the all-embracingcosmic 8iV>? is doubtful. Still, the wording is surprisingly close toAristophanes' aiWpios Sfvos, not least because the Empedoclean SiVaiare described in the same fragment also as alOepiov jueW 'celestialforce' with the Aristophanic adjective. The wider context is thepunishment for a soul that has defiled itself by (unwillingly) shed-ding blood—probably through eating meat—and that is now dri-ven from one element to the next.25 The punishment is ordained by'AvayKt} 'Necessity', another prominent cosmic force in Presocraticthinking that reappears in the passage from Clouds: the aldepios Stvos

'compels' (Nub, 376 avayxaadwai, 377 81' avdyKrjs, 379 ovoyKa^tov; cf.

any stress on Clement's use of the term [Sivot] in discussing Anaxagoras':J. Ferguson (1979) 357; cf. Anaxagoras test. 59 A 57 (SCros) as well as 12 and 88

; J. Ferguson (1971) 104-6.21 J. Ferguson (1971) 107-8.22 Cf. Empedocles fr. 31 B 35. 3-4 with the commentary by Wright (1995) 206-7.

Arist. Cael. 295"3i-2 ironically comments on the importance of the Sivrj inEmpedocles (cf. now also P. Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665-1666, a(ii) 4, a(ii) 19).

23 And others: Eur. Ale. 245 may reflect Empedocles' teaching: J. Ferguson

(1979)358.24 Cf. Zanetto (1987) 240; Dunbar (1995) 445-6; note further Av. 697 where Eros

is ciKtos dvefioj/ceai Si'rais 'like to the swift eddies of the wind'.25 The source (Hippol. Ref. Haer. j. 29. 22) regards the passage as an explana-

tion for Empedocles' appeal to vegetarianism: cf. Empedocles frs. 31 B 136, 137,139; Wright (1995) 284-7.


405 VTT' avdyKr/s) the clouds to crash into each other.25 Of course, thisparticular Empedoclean fragment must not be regarded asAristophanes' immediate source, but the intricate conceptual linksshow that Aristophanes is playing with the kind of discourse

Empedocles was employing.In fact, the replacement of the usual word for 'whirl, rotation',

by the unusual27 masculine Stvos may point to Empedoclesrather than to Presocratic scientific language in general. The mor-

phological invention of a divine Slvos is reminiscent not only of thecomic Socrates' etymological and grammatical theories but also of

the real Empedocles' creation of a masculine

'sphere') to designate the divine 'universe'. It has even been sug-gested that Empedocles might have spoken of a more personal

in a restored line of the new Strasbourg papyrus.28

4.3.2. ECHOES OF S C I E N T I F I C POETRY

Although its recurrence (Nub. 380-1, 828, 1471) makes SivorfAlvos a

keyword for the parodic scientific theories developed in Clouds, and

although SiVos is accompanied both by the adjective alOepios, which isfrequent in Presocratic scientific poetry, and by the Presocratic con-

cept of avayxri, one may still hesitate to recognize the Presocratic

poets in general or even Empedocles in particular as a major sourceof linguistic inspiration for Aristophanes. Can such a thesis be cor-roborated by a study of other 'Socratic' keywords and key phrases?

(i) The sophist Socrates and his community live in the'thinkery', the house where people are busy with

'thinking' and tppoim'Ses 'thoughts, reflections'.29 The noun26 For dvayKr; etc. cf. Empedocles test. 31 A 32, 38, 45, 48, 49 (necessitas), and frs.

31 B 115. i, nd; P. Strasb.gr. Inv. 1665-1666, d 2; Dover (1968) 149-50, who alsorefers to two Parmenidean fragments mentioning avdyKrj (fr. 28 B 8. 30, 10. 6) aswell as to testimonia for Parmenides, Leucippus, and Democritus (add Heraclitus:see the index in FVS iii. 41-2); Schreckenberg (1964) 103-22.

27 The use of Sfvos for SiVTjms 'whirling' in the sophist Antiphon is noted asexceptional by the grammarian Harpocration: Antiphon Soph. fr. 87 B 25.

28 Martin—Primavesi (1999) 305-6 on P. Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665-1666, d 8; fora<paipos see Empedocles test. 31 A 41, 52; frs. 318 27. 4 = 28. 2, 29. 3; Wright (1995)188. In fr. 31 631 acpaipos is called a god.

29 Pace Goldberg (1976), the suffix -rfjptov does not necessarily convey theimpression of an august location (cf. &taiuarrjpwv 'prison', auiippoviaTripwv 'house ofcorrection', epyaemjpiov 'workshop/brothel', aTroSunjpiov 'undressing room'); thealternative local suffix -eiov was less compatible with the underlying agent noun

'thinker'.

io6 'Scientific Discourse'

occurs seven times in the play (Nub. 137, 229, 233, 236, 740,762, 951) but only four times elsewhere in Aristophanes. In theother plays only the chorus uses it and the meaning tends to be'care, concern' rather than 'thought, reflection" as in Clouds (and inEccl. 571, where the context is again 'sophistic'). In the latter sense(ppovris is a poetic word found in tragedy, lyric poetry, and twice inthe fragments of Empedocles (but not in the other Presocratic writ-ers).30 Similarly, (ppovri^ta regularly means 'to be concerned, care'(cf. /ai) (ppovrtoris 'never mind') but in Clouds nearly always 'to think,reflect'.31

(2) The noun fiepipva is semantically close to (ppovris: Socrates andhis students are p.epnt.vo<fpovri<no.i 'reflective thinkers' (Nub. 101),whereas the uneducated Strepsiades behaves a-rrfpifj.epifj.vais 'withoutcircumspect cogitation' (Nub. 136). Clouds is the only play ofAristophanes in which the noun ^tpi^va occurs, even in dialogue(Nub. 420, 952, 1404). Again ^4pifj.va '(philosophical) thought' isuncommon in prose but a favourite word of Empedocles' (and noother Presocratic writer).32

(3) Socrates describes his own activity to Strepsiades as depofSarw

'I walk the air and -nepi<ppovu> the sun' (Nub. 225;cf. 741, 1503). Strepsiades mistakes ntpiypovw for a synonym of

'to despise', and with that meaning irtpiypoveiu does in factoccur, though rarely, in other classical authors. Socrates, however,means 'to think around/about (the sun)'. In this sense Trepiypovdw isunique but derivable from the adjective -ntpiypiuv 'concerned with,thoughtful'.33 The latter is virtually confined to epic poetry, uponwhich Presocratic scientific poetry is modelled.

(4) The Aristophanic coinage epcf}o8i<pdw 'to poke into Erebus'(Nub. 192: fpffloSt<pa)atv v-rro TOV Tdprapov 'they are searching into the

nether darkness below Tartarus') denotes, beside irfpiypovelv and(on which see § 4.4.2 below), a third 'scientific' activity of

30 Empedocles frs. 318131.2 , 134. 5; cf. e.g. Aesch. Ag. 912; Soph. OT6j; EurHipp. 436; Find. fr. 182 Snell-Maehler.

31 According to Burnet (1924) 76, the latter is un-Attic, but see e.g. Eg. 71.32 Empedocles frs. 31 B 2. 2, 11. i, and 110. 7; cf. Dover (1968) 107. Ar. fr. 691

with nepip.va.iu 'to reflect' probably ridicules Socrates or a thinker of his kind (cf. PI.Rep. 6o7c). On the importance of <ppovr!s, ft.fpifj.va, etc. in Clouds cf. also Ch. 5.4.1and Noel (2000) 120.

33 nfpiippiov 'haughty' in Aeschylus (Supp. 757; Ag. 1427) is secondary after'to despise' (for which cf. e.g. Thuc. i. 25. 4; PI. Ax. 3723; Aristodemu

FGrH 104 F i. 13. i).


the Socratics. The distribution of the second elementsuggests that it belonged to an informal register of Attic and thuscreated a comic dissonance with the high-flown first element.34

hardly ever found in prose, rarely in tragic lyrics, butfrequently in epic poetry, occurs in Aristophanes only in, or withreference to, the bird cosmogony in Av. 693-702 with its curiousmixture of Hesiodic, Orphic, and perhaps Empedoclean elements(but there four times).35 Av. 693 even groups together, like Nub.

192, "Epfjlos and Tdprapos. The compound epejSoSupaco in Clouds thuspresents the Socratics as potential readers or composers of suchcosmogonies, i.e. either as Orphic 'scholars' or, with a stronger sci-entific tinge, as cosmologists a la Empedocles, who used the sameepic language.36 It is true ? is not attested in the fragmentsof any Presocratic philosopher, but the underworld was certainly atheme in Empedocles' writings: he discussed fires burning beneaththe earth and promised to his student Pausanias the power to fetchthe dead from Hades.37

(5) In Nub. 161 Socrates' student explains to Strepsiades howthe sound of the gnat results from the wiwj 'blast (of air)' thatstreams through the insect's guts. The noun -nvo-f) is frequent in epicand tragic poetry but almost totally absent from classical prose(where meOâ. is used instead, as in Nub. 164). The (pseudo-)scient-ific context would again suggest a reference to scientific poetry. Inthe Presocratic philosophers TTVO(I)^ is attested only in Empedocles

(twice) and in a Pythagorean fragment.38

(6) Because the very first words of a stage character often carrycharacterizing elements, Socrates' ri jut KO\W, w V1?/"̂ ; 'Why dostthou call me, thou creature of a day?' in Nub. 223 is of particular

34 For (-)Sicpao) (despite Headlam (1922) 353 not necessarily 'Ionic') cf. Av. 1424;Cratin. fr. 2; Herod. 3. 54, 6. 73, 7. 78; Theophr. Char. 10. 6; Luc. Lex. 9.

35 Av. 691, 693, 694, 1193; on the complex influences in this passage see Guthrie('935) 92-6; West (1983) 111-12 and 203, as well as 199-200 and 230 on Epe/Jo; inthe Orphic cosmogonies (cf. 'Orpheus' fr. i B 13; Acusilaus fr. 9 B i); Dunbar

(i995)437-46-36 Cf. Diog. Laert. 8. 57 with Arist. fr. 70 Rose; Wright (1995) passim (see the

index s.v. 'Homeric adaptation'). For a list of cosmogonic fragments in Empedoclessee Wright (1995)79.

37 Empedocles frs. 31 B 52, in.38 Empedocles frs. 31 B 102 and in. 4; Pythagorici fr. 58 B 30, where Arist.

Phys. 2i3b24 refers to the same Pythagorean doctrine as Arist. fr. 201 Rose but usesinstead of TTVOIJ: the difference suggests that Aristotle took the less usual word

from the Pythagorean source.

io8 'Scientific Discourse'

interest. According to the scholiast eyij/uepe alludes to a Pindaricpoem (Find. fr. 157 Snell-Maehler) in which the silenus Marsyasaddressed the musician Olympus, but the difference of context istoo great to make this plausible. After all, Aristophanes' audiencesees Socrates as a scientist hanging in a basket high up in the air andintent on studying closely some physical phenomena; the specta-tors realize from his form of address that Socrates 'is looking downon Strepsiades as a god might look down from Olympos on a mor-tal'.39 When applied to men both eyrjêpoy and its synonym'short-lived' are almost exclusively poetic. In Aristophanes theonly other occurrence is Av. 687, in the introduction to the birdcosmogony. And the figure of the scientific thinker with a godlikeattitude who uses poetic language and sees his (potential) audienceas t(p-q^fpioi has one striking parallel: Empedocles. In the introduc-tion to his Physics Empedocles asks the Muse for permission toreveal <Lv Bepis e<mv eVyfiepioiaiv aKoveiv 'what is fitting for mortal mento hear'.40 Elsewhere Empedocles is even more explicit about hisown divine nature.41

(7) Clouds also provides a parallel for Empedocles' concern about0<ff"? in the fragment just cited, when he is about to reveal the secretsof nature to his student(s). In Nub. 140 Socrates' student is reluctantto describe his master's research:'It may not lawfully be divulged except to the students'.42

(8) While Strepsiades is e<p^/uepos, Socrates later complains thatPheidippides is ITJTTUTIOS 'silly' (Nub. 868). This epic adjective is anAristophanic hapax legomenon equivalent to vijmos. The latter isused in non-epic poetic genres, but in comedy it is as rare asvijTrimos.43 vijmos is attested twice in Empedocles, when he describes

39 Dover (1968) 125.40 Empedocles fr. 31 B 3. 4; cf. 31 B 131. 1-2 with a similar contrast between

effyrfiAepLwv Tiy and the 'I' (^jite-repa? êAe'ra? 'our concerns'); Guidorizzi (1996) 221.

ftptlltepios/etpriiitpos 'mortal, short-lived' (cf. Dickie (1976)) does not appear in theother Presocratics.

41 Empedocles fr. 31 B 112. 4-5 /j.fra n-dai reri/icVos 'I move as an immortal god, not mortal any longer, honouredamong you all'; cf. 31 B 113, the association of irjrpoi and fidvrets with the gods in 31

B 146, and perhaps 31 B 23. 11 9tov napa 'from a god', which is often taken to refer tothe Muse (cf. Wright (1995) 181) although she would rather be fled; Kingsley (1995)258-9.

42 Tsantsanoglou (1997) 125-6 suggests that Empedocles is imitating the begin-ning of an Orphic theogony.

43 Pax 1063 reflects the epicizing language of oracles; Nub. 105 is comicallyincongruent in the speech of the rustic Strepsiades.


those who have no knowledge (yet) of his doctrines.44 Aristophanesmay have preferred VTJWVTIOS to vrfnios because it belonged exclusively

to hexameter diction and could evoke scientific poetry more unam-biguously.

(9) There is a striking coincidence between the list of cloud-worshippers that Socrates gives in Nub. 331-4 and the highestforms of human existence that Empedocles acknowledged and sawembodied in himself:

SOCRATES: Because you aren't aware that these goddesses sustain andnourish a whole host of 'experts', diviners from Thurii, professors of themedical art, long-haired do-nothings with onyx signet-rings; and com-posers of convoluted songs for dithyrambic choruses, men of airy quack-ery, they maintain in idleness doing nothing, because they poeticize aboutthe Clouds.

Since (b), (c), and (d) are nouns used in apposition to the very gen-eral designation aotfimai (a), since (d) is a purely descriptive comicmultiple compound, and since (/) stands in apposition to (e) (refer-ring to the poetic 'flights' of dithyrambic poets), Socrates' listcontains three concrete professions: hymnic (dithyrambic) poets(e), doctors (c),45 and '(Thurian) diviners' (b). Now compareEmpedocles fr. 31 B 146, where he describes the last stage of thewise men's souls before they become gods:

But in the end they are diviners, hymnic poets, doctors, and chiefs amongthe men on earth, from where they then rise up as gods excelling in hon-our.

44 Empedocles frs. 31811.1 (vy-moi- ov yap acpw SoAixoppoW? ei'cri pepifivai 'fools!for they don't have far-reaching thoughts'), 137. 2; v-qmos also occurs in Heraclitusfr. 22 B 79 and Democritus fr. 68 B 76.

45 Rather than just 'writers of medical theory' (although someone likeEmpedocles might well pass as a 'theoretician of medicine'): cf. Dover (1968) 144(also on the general use of

no 'Scientific Discourse'

One does not need to regard the Empedoclean fragment as themodel on which Nub. 331-4 was directly based to admit that theconceptual world is similar but by no means conventional: earlierlists of the best types of human life make different choices.46

If we take into account that all the above features occur in comicdialogue, not in lyric passages, so that their stylistic markedness isquite prominent, and if we do not postulate that every 'Socratic'utterance in Clouds must reveal the same linguistic slant (in thesense of 'continuous characterization'), we may conclude that

(i) the language of Socrates and his community in Clouds con-tains a significant number of uncommon poetic features

(ii) these features are strongly reminiscent of scientific poetry inthe Presocratic tradition (which is consistent with the por-trayal of Socrates as a scientist)

(iii) some of the features (just like the invention of the comic Sfvo?)find their closest parallel in the fragments of Empedocles,and

(iv) if Empedocles was not himself the source of inspiration forAristophanes, the comic poet must have been inspired bycomparable authors or scientists whose writing and think-ing formed part of the same intellectual discourse

In the next section I will argue that Aristophanes may have hadgood thematic reasons for choosing Empedocles as his linguisticmodel. The preceding linguistic observations thus become part ofa literary (and historical) analysis of Clouds. Since some parts of thenext section are admittedly hypothetical, I should stress at thispoint that the conclusions reached above do not depend on thevalidity of the following suggestions.

4.4. THE BACKGROUND OF 'SOCRATIC'LANGUAGE

4.4.1. E M P E D O C L E S

Much of what we know about Empedocles' life is based on latesources such as Diogenes Laertius, and at least some of this mater-ial is probably based on deductions made from Empedocles' work.

46 Cf. Wright (1995) 291; Vegetti(i998) 354-5.


The exact dates of his life are difficult to establish, but his 'workinglife covered a period between 477 and 432 BC1.47 Even if his travelsmay never have brought him from Sicily and South Italy to main-land Greece, except perhaps for one visit to Olympia, the fame ofEmpedocles' extraordinary exploits must have reached Athens eas-ily, for instance by way of contacts with the colony at Thurii, whichhe visited shortly after its foundation in 444 BC. Empedocles waswell-known enough to be singled out for attack by the author of the(early) Hippocratic treatise on Ancient Medicine.48 Moreover,Empedocles' student Gorgias had come to Athens in 427 BC, only

few years before the date of Clouds (423 BC).49 But what madeEmpedocles a more ideal target for stylistic parody than most otherscientists was the accessibility of his work. According to the histor-ian Dicaearchus, the rhapsode Cleomenes recited Empedocles'Kadappoi ('Purifications') in Olympia and similar recitals may wellhave taken place in Athens, the capital of Greek culture.50

The objection might be made that there is no overt reference toEmpedocles in Clouds. However, if these Empedoclean elementswere introduced into the language of Socrates, it would have beendifficult to refer to them as Empedoclean at the same time.Moreover, there is no overt reference to people like Hippon,Diogenes of Apollonia, or Protagoras either, all of whom undeni-ably contributed to the composite figure of Socrates.51 IfEmpedocles' stay in Thurii was protracted, the Athenians mighteven have associated him with that city, which would explain thecurious 'profession' ©oupio'/iaims 'Thurian diviner' in Nub. 332 (butanother possible explanation will be suggested in § 4.4.2).

A series of miraculous legends was attached to Empedocles, andeven if they were based on statements in his work rather thanon actual facts, Empedocles himself may have had his share in

47 Wright (1995) 3.48 Hp. VM 20. i (i. 620 Littre); cf. Wright (1995) 13; Vegetti (1998) 347-52.49 For Gorgias as a student of Empedocles see Gorgias test. 82 A 2, 3, 10, 14;

Classen (1959) 37-8; Kerferd (1985); Kingsley (1995) 220. For Empedocles' trav-

els, his stay in Thurii, and his visit to Olympia (according to Timaeus FGrH 566 F

6 = Diog. Laert. 8. 71-2 he died on the Peloponnese, not in the Etna) see

Empedocles fr. 31 B 112. 7; Diog. Laert. 8. 52, 8. 66; critically Wright (1995) 6. The

information in the Suda (s.v. "A«fu>v) that Empedocles spent some time in Athens

may be untrustworthy: Wright (1995) 17.50 Athen. 14. &2od; cf. Diog. Laert. 8. 63.51 Cf. e.g. Gelzer (1956) 68-9, 87; Dover (1968) pp. xxxvi-xxxvii, 107, 127-8;

Vander Waerdt (1994), esp. 66-75.

I l l

112 'Scientific Discourse'

promoting such legends. Peter Kingsley has recently localizedtheir roots in the Pythagorean tradition. Thus, Empedocles' semi-divine status as a magic wonder-worker is consistent with thePythagoreans' liking for magic; the story that Empedocles healed amadman by singing Homeric verses to the lyre corresponds to thePythagorean practice of soothing affections with music; and thelegend of Empedocles' death in the flames of Etna recalls the deathof Heracles because the imitation of Heracles was important inPythagorean tradition.52 Empedocles shares the attitude of thePythagoreans to non-initiates when he claims to reveal his 'magic'knowledge only to his student Pausanias; he seems to promote thePythagorean doctrine of metempsychosis (and consequently alsovegetarianism); and if he described an underworld journey, thiswould parallel the story of Pythagoras' katabasis.53 ThatEmpedocles was a direct student of Pythagoras' and imitated hislifestyle, as the sophist Alcidamas and the historian Timaeusclaimed, may be an invention, but it is plausible that he studiedwith some later Pythagorean, as the third-century historianNeanthes wrote.54 Both Timaeus and Neanthes agree thatEmpedocles was excluded from Pythagorean circles because ofAoyo/cAoma, i.e. because he had publicized in his work Pythagoreanesoteric knowledge (which was not usually written down, or at leastnot made accessible to everyone55).

We can now recognize two thematic parallels betweenEmpedocles' picture of himself and the comic Socrates of Clouds.In fr. 31 B i i i Empedocles promises to Pausanias the power ofcontrolling the winds: he may check them or summon them at hiswish, so as to bring dry weather instead of rain and rain instead ofdrought. Also Pausanias will be able 'to lead up from Hades thestrength (or life-force?: /aeVos) of a dead man'.

52 Cf. Dodds (1951) 145—6; Kingsley (1995) passim (e.g. 247-8, 274—7, 289—316),with references (and further bibliography: 1 12 n. i).

53 Empedocles fr. 3 1 B 1 1 1 . 2 (fiovvu> aoi 'to you alone'); cf. the initiation vocabulary in fr. 31 B no (naBapos 'pure', eVowreueiv 'to behold'); Wright (1995) 259;Kingsley (1995) 219-21; for metempsychosis and vegetarianism see especially frs.31 B 115, 117, 136-9; on the underworld journey Kingsley (1995) 225-6, but alsoWright (1995) 271; on Pythagoras' katabasis Burkert (1972) 155-9.

54 Diog. Laert. 8. 54-6 (with Timaeus FGrH 566 F 14, who states thatEmpedocles fr. 31 B 129 refers to Pythagoras, and Neanthes FGrH 84 F 26).Empedocles' imitation of Pythagoras is conspicuous even if the doctrinal points ofcontact were superficial, as Casertano (2000) maintains.

55 Cf. Riedweg(i997).


Wondering why Aristophanes chose clouds as the chorus of aplay about intellectuals, Dover pointed out that clouds wereregarded not as deities but 'simply as part of the mechanism bywhich Zeus sends rain' and hence 'suitable objects of worship for aman devoted to KO.IVO. Sai^dwa'.56 But there is more to it: whoevercontrols and directs the clouds is also empowered to control therain. It is true that Socrates must use a prayer to make themappear—perhaps because Aristophanes did not want to give awaythe opportunity of introducing some Orphic elments (cf. § 4.4.2)—but essentially the clouds follow his wishes, as if he wereEmpedocles' Pausanias.57

Pausanias' second ability is mirrored more closely in Birds thanin Clouds. In Av. 1553-64 Socrates is presented as a i/niâycoydy, whofetches the souls of the dead from the nether world.58 But inClouds, too, the inhabitants of the ypovnarripiov are called tjivxai aoyat'wise souls' (Nub. 94), and by implication Socrates is a i/jvxayaryos ofmen who are 'half-dead' (cf. Nub. 503

4-4 -2 . P Y T H A G O R E A N CLOUDS

Clouds also contains several Pythagorean echoes. I have alreadymentioned the possible allusion contained in the 'renaming' ofZeus, but there are further aspects.

(i) When Strepsiades first sees Socrates hanging high above theground, he asks Socrates' student who that man is and gets a funnyanswer (Nub. 219):

STUDENT: Himself.

STREPSIADES: Who himself?

STUDENT: Socrates.

STREPSIADES: Socrates!56 Dover (1968) p. Ixviii.57 Cf. Bowie (1993) 120. According to Timaeus (FGrH 566 F 30 = Empedocles

test. 31 A i, from Diog. Laert. 8. 60) and others, Empedocles once actually checkedsome harmful winds (by technical means) and was therefore called'wind-checker'; cf. Wright (1995) 261-2.

58 Cavaignac (1959) 247 reads this as an allusion to Pythagorean metem-psychosis.

i i4 'Scientific Discourse'

The indeterminate av-ros is reminiscent of the way in which thePythagoreans used to refer to their spiritual master without nam-ing him, perhaps out of quasi-religious awe (O.VTOS eya 'he himselfsaid it').59 There is some evidence that it may not have beenunusual for a Greek slave to speak of his or her master as auros.60

However, it is not a slave who is speaking in Nub. 219: the manu-scripts designate the speaker as /xaflij-ny? 'pupil, student' and hisknowledge of Socrates' research projects fits that role better.Moreover, if the audience could recognize in the word avros thenormal term by which slaves referred to their masters, why doesStrepsiades not understand who is meant? He knows perfectly wellwhose house he is in, and in everyday matters he is not stupid at all.Since the authoritarian way of thinking which underlies the

'argument' was established in Pythagoreanism by 400 BC at thlatest, there is no reason why Nub. 219 should not contain a comicecho.61 But even if there is no direct reference, the student's

expresses a hierarchical relationship between master and discipleswhich recalls the situation among the Pythagoreans.

(2) The verb depoflaTai (based on an underlying noun

'air-walker') in Socrates' line Nub. 225 is likely to be anAristophanic invention (reflected in PI. Apol. igc), but it closelyresembles the surname of an alleged student of Pythagoras',Abaris, who was called cu'SpojScmjs- 'aether-walker' according to theLives of Pythagoras by Porphyry and lamblichus. The source of thetwo writers added that 'some' say that Pythagoras himself had trav-elled through the air (aepoâruiv -rpoirov Tivd 'somehow air-walking')when he appeared at two places far distant from each other on thesame day. Whether Abaris' surname was already current inAristophanes' time cannot be ascertained, but Herodotus did knowof (and rationalize) Abaris' performance.62

59 Diog. Laert. 8. 46 (cf. 8. 44). Kingsley (1995) 163 points out that Pythagoreaninformants of Socrates remain nameless in Plato. Socrates' student 'avoids' naminghis master already in Nub. 195.

60 Ar. fr. 279, 942?; PI. Prot. 3Hd; Men. Sam. 256, 258; Theocr. 24. 50. In Ran.519—20 Dionysus' ypdoov . . . airro? on a'orepx°f«" 'tell [them] . . . that the man him-self will be making his entry" perhaps suggests an imagined direct formulation

Cf. Dover (1968) 125 and for the (possible) origin of this Schwyzer/Debrunner (1950) 211.

61 Cf. also Marianetti (1992) 64. On the date of the dogmatic Pythagoreand/cova/tara see Burkert (1972) 91, 188.

62 Porphyr. FP2g; Iambi. VP 135-6 (cf. 91); Hdt. 4. 36; cf. Burkert (1972) 150.


(3) Not only does Socrates' oath in Nub. 627, a 'by Respiration, by Void, by Air', contai

another reference to the primeval divinity Chaos that played animportant role in Orphic cosmogonies together with "Epefios andAWrip (cf. Aepa),63 but the more remarkable Avam>ori coupled withA-TIP also connects the line to a work ascribed to Pythagoras andbeginning with the words which I breathe'.64 It is not even necessary that this work itself wasin circulation in Aristophanes' time: it is sufficient if its authorquoted a typical Pythagorean oath, which was used already in thefifth century.

This list can be supplemented with material of a more general type.

(4) The way in which the Socratics in Clouds constitute a group ofinitiates recalls both Orphic mystery cults and the 'secretive'organization and teaching of the Pythagorean communities;65 theaffinity between Orphism and Pythagoreanism (at least whenlooked at from outside) has already been mentioned (§ 4.3.1).

(5) Socrates' prayer in Nub. 264-74 contains elements that arecharacteristic of Orphic hymns, as Dieterich showed more than ahundred years ago.66

(6) Since Orphism and Pythagoreanism were particularlystrong in Southern Italy, it is tempting to see in the Nub. 332 a reference to Orphic or Pythagorean seers or priests;some of the earliest Orphic gold leaves, datable to around 400 BChave been found precisely at Thurii.67

(7) The asceticism of the 'phrontists' in Clouds (Nub. 103, 175,363) has a parallel in Pythagorean lifestyle; this feature became

63 See West (1983) 70, 184-6, 198-201, 230-1. Av. 691, 693, 698 (bird cos-mogony), and Socrates' Nub. 424 (containing another 'divine triad' and stressingthe number '3' (rpia TOUTI), which was important already in early Pythagoreanism:Riedweg (1997) 88) are the only other passages in Aristophanes where the wordXdo; occurs.

64 Pythagoras test. 14 A 19; cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 86-7; Dover (1968) 177-8.65 Cf. Dover (1968) p. xli, referring to Arist. fr. 192 Rose (Pythagoras test. 14 A

7) but maintaining that 'the analogy between initiation and admission to a course ofinstruction is an obvious one'; Taylor (1911) 129-77; Morrison (1958) 202—3;Marianetti (1992) 63-71.

66 Dieterich (1893) 282-3; cf. Ch. 2.13; Guthrie (1935) 2'2-i3; Kleinknecht(1937) 21-6; Gelzer (1956) 68; Marianetti (1992) 50.

67 Cf.Zuntz (1971) 287-98.

63

of

'no, by the ai

n6 'Scientific Discourse'

central in the stereotypical picture of the Pythagorean in fourth-century comedy.68

(8) Grote pointed out 150 years ago that the burning of the at the end of Clouds may have been inspired by the

famous burning of the Pythagorean meeting-place in Croton, a lit-tle—but perhaps not much—earlier in the fifth century.69

4.4.3. A COMPOSITE SOCRATES

I have already mentioned that the concrete teachings of Socrates inClouds are neither particularly Pythagorean nor close toEmpedocles' views but rather connected with figures likeProtagoras, Hippon, and above all Diogenes of Apollonia (a fol-lower of Anaxagoras'), to whom Vander Waerdt wants to attributeall the physical theories upheld by Socrates in Clouds.70 In a ratherschematic way the situation can be described as follows: Clouds

stages a Socrates who holds Diogenean ideas, lives in aPythagorean setting, and uses Empedoclean language. To be sure,such a composite picture is a result of much comic freedom.Nevertheless, it has an inner coherence. Janko has argued convinc-ingly that the famous Derveni papyrus, which gives an allegoricalinterpretation of an Orphic cosmogonical poem, perfectly agreeswith the doctrines of Diogenes of Apollonia and was perhaps writ-ten, if not by Diogenes himself, by one of his students, Diagoras ofMelos.71 If this is correct, Diogenes' 'school' tried to connect, bymeans of allegorical interpretation, the exotic ideas of Orphismwith the Ionic tradition of natural philosophy. Diagoras was evenattacked, not unlike Empedocles, for revealing the Orphic logos.72

Not surprisingly then, Aristophanes turned to Diogenes for the'scientific' part of his play. As a comic stage environment for such

68 Cf. Marianetti (1992) 64-5; Bowie (1993) 118. For later comedy cf. e.g. Alexis

frs. 201, 223; Antiphanes fr. 158; T. B. L. Webster (1970) 53.69 Grote (1847) 550 n. i; cf. Burkert (1972) 115-17, 291 n. 73; Marianetti (1992)

104. On the date see Musti (1990) 62-5.70 Vander Waerdt (1994) 70—5, who admits, however, that the baking-cover

heaven (Nub. 95-7) belongs to Hippon: cf. Cratin. fr. 167 (= Hippon test. 38 A 2);

Dover (1968) 107. It may (but need not) be accidental that Hippon was a

Pythagorean: Burkert (1972) 290 n. 62.71 Janko (1997); note the link between Socrates and Diagoras in Nub. 830: Dover

(1968) 200-1.72 Athenagoras Suppl. 4. i; Janko (1997) 88-9, 92.


theories, on the other hand, an Orphic or Pythagorean communitywas much more rewarding than the 'worldly' study-rooms of aDiogenes or Diagoras.

A similar argument holds for Socrates' language. The prose ofDiogenes of Apollonia, though nowadays worth taking notice ofbecause of its curious mixture of Ionic and Attic elements, was notremarkable enough to allow substantial parody, and even if it hadshown a more recognizable profile, only a tiny fraction ofAristophanes' audience would have been familiar with this style.73

Writings of Pythagoras himself, if they existed at all, were notknown. Orphic cosmogonies could have been a substitute, but theywould not have been associated with scientific writing. Hence, theideal stylistic model for the portrayal of Socrates was Empedocles:a scientist with Pythagorean affiliation, perhaps already famous fordivulging Pythagorean ideas, whose poetic writings were known,despite their secretive attitude, to large audiences throughout theGreek world and whose style was distinctive and eccentric enoughto be parodied and recognized.

Finally, we may even go one step further and relate these resultsto those reached in the preceding chapter on technical languages. Ifthere had been, for instance in the work of Diogenes of Apollonia,a fully-fledged technical language of science, Aristophanes wouldprobably have chosen this linguistic variety as his model.74 Hischoice of another type of scientific discourse may therefore beinterpreted as an additional, indirect, argument against the exist-ence of an established, unified, and 'exclusive' scientists' jargon.

73 On Diogenes' Ionic-Attic cf. Janko (1997) 84-5. The 'hymnlike elements'

found by Deichgraber (1933) in Diogenes and Anaxagoras are not particularly

strong.74 Note that Socrates' sentences are not more complex than those of his inter-

locutors, even though sentence complexity is nowadays conventionally regarded as

typical of scientific writing (and of academic writing in general).

5

Sophistic Innovations

5.1. SOPHISTS, CLOUDS, AND LINGUISTICINNOVATION

A linguistic discussion of Clouds would be incomplete if it werelimited to an analysis of the 'scientific discourse' described in thelast chapter. Whereas Aristophanes' 'phrontists' are presented asscientists in the Presocratic tradition of scholar-poets likeEmpedocles, they are also, and perhaps in the first place, sophists.This duality of character is reflected in a duality of expression. Wewill now turn to the sophistic layer of language in Clouds.

The development of fifth-century Athenian culture was deeplyaffected by the sophistic movement. The sophists' comprehensivesyllabus for professional education led them towards systematicstudies in the most diverse intellectual fields. Thus, Protagoras' OnSciences or On Mathematics and Prodicus' On Nature dealt withscientific questions, Hippias wrote a list of Olympic victors to facil-itate historical studies, and Protagoras' On Virtues as well asAntiphon's On Truth explored philosophical themes.1

Because all of these studies were ultimately propaedeutics to thesuccessful study and use of rhetoric, language too was bound tobecome an important object for intellectual investigation. Gorgiasdeveloped a theory of speech figures. Protagoras, as mentioned ear-lier in our short discussion of the famous 'grammar scene' in Clouds(Nub. 658-92: § 4.2.2), treated grammatical topics like nominalgender, perhaps in his work on stylistics or opSoeWa; he also distin-guished four types of speech acts (euxwAi? 'request' or 'prayer',

'question', anoKpiois 'affirmation' or 'answer', eVroA^ 'order')and applied the classification to a literary interpretation of Homer.Prodicus investigated problems of semantic overlap and synonymy(ovofiaTutv opdoTrjs 'correctness of names'), which seem to have made

1 Cf. Hippias fr. 86 B 3; Prodicus frs. 84 B 3-4; Protagoras fr. 80 B 7 and test. 80A i; Antiphon Soph. frs. 87 B 1-44.

Sophistic Innovations 119

him acknowledge dialectal and social factors in language.2 It wasthe first time that the Greek language was used and analysed soconsciously and attentively. And since the wealth of new themes,thoughts, and concepts could only be adequately expressed if tra-ditional language was substantially reshaped and enriched, it wasprobably also the first time that Greek underwent such fundamen-tal linguistic changes within a few decades only.

Aristophanes' comedy Clouds appears to reflect a widespreadunease about the new intellectual climate, which undermined tra-ditional values and questioned established hierarchies. ManyAthenians would have shared Strepsiades' expectation that aproto-sophist like the comic Socrates3 could further any dubiousobjective—in Strepsiades' case, to win a lawsuit against his credi-tors, who rightly claim their money back. And once Strepsiades'son Pheidippides had learnt nothing but to disobey and maltreathis father, what traditionally-minded Athenian would havefrowned when, at the very end, Strepsiades stopped the nightmareand set fire to Socrates' house?

Given the prominent role of language in sophistic culture, it isnot surprising that language is repeatedly thematized in Clouds.Throughout the play, there are scenes in which Aristophaneshighlights various innovative features of word formation andmorphosyntax, so as to create a sophistic 'atmosphere'. None ofthese features is exclusive to Clouds, and in some way Aristophanes'treatment of them seems paradoxical. On the one hand, the innova-tions are frequently employed elsewhere in comedy without anystylistic saliency, which suggests that they had already becomeperfectly acceptable in everyday language. On the other hand, theirusage in Clouds is statistically or stylistically exceptional andcontributes to the general sophistic theme of the play.

However, this is only an apparent paradox. It results from ahistorical situation in which something like a sophistic Zeitgeist

2 Cf. Gorgias test. 82 A 2, 4; Protagoras test. 80 A i (with a variant adding'narration', ciTrayyeAia 'report', K\fjais 'calling'), 27—9 (opdoe-ireta need not

have been the title of Protagoras' work, but it was his slogan: Classen (1959) 34;Pfeiffer (1968) 280); Prodicus test. 84 A n, 13-19; on the recognition of dialectaland social factors see PI. Prot. 34ic (cf. 34&d-e); Pfeiffer (1968) 41; Solmsen (1975)106-9 (in Thucydides?); on the sophistic contributions to philological and linguis-tic studies in general see Classen (1959); Pfeiffer (1968) 32-56.

3 A role also accorded to Prodicus: Nub. 361; Av. 692; Ar. fr. 506; cf. Dover(1968) pp. Iv—Ivi; Henrichs (19766) 21. There is probably not much of the historic


influenced Attic Greek as a whole deeply enough to bring alonglinguistic innovations. While the comic poet preferentially andconsciously introduced such innovative features into a comedydepicting the sophistic world, where their growth had originated,he also started using them, unconsciously and like every speaker ofAttic, in other unmarked contexts.

I will first present and discuss the relevant data for each phen-omenon separately. Although the phenomena seem unconnected atfirst sight, I will argue that all of them are symptoms of one generalevolutionary trend in classical Attic Greek. Subsequently, I willshow that Aristophanes' impressionistic presentation of these fea-tures as 'sophistic' agrees well with a typological explanation of thegeneral trend, and that the roots of the trend must indeed be soughtin the cultural revolution which Athens witnessed in the secondhalf of the fifth century.

5.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:NOMINALIZATION AND TYPICALIZATION

The six linguistic phenomena that will be discussed in the mainpart of this chapter are too diverse to have an obvious commondenominator. In order to demonstrate the intrinsic link betweenthem, two theoretical concepts are essential: 'nominalization' and'typicalization' (Typisierung).

'Nominalization' is defined as the 'derivation of nouns fromanother word class, e.g. from verbs (feeling vs. feel) or adjectives(redness vs. red), but also from another noun (womanhood vs.woman).'4 In Greek, typical examples include the formation ofverbal nouns in -m? (also -/â) or the formation of abstract nounsfrom adjectives, e.g. nouns in -6rys. Within the verbal paradigm,

Socrates in Clouds: cf., against readings like that by Gomperz (1924) 405-18, Dover(1968) pp. xxxii—Ivii. This may explain why, according to Dickey (1996) 119-27,Plato and Xenophon agree in making Socrates use friendship terms as forms ofaddress all the time, whereas Aristophanes does not. I cannot detect, with Havelock(1972) 10-15, a 'Socratic' use of the reflexive pronoun in Clouds.

4 Bussmann (1996) 327. 'Nominalization' is sometimes understood even morecomprehensively so as to include the embedding of a subordinate clause in (the syntactic slot of a noun phrase in) a main clause: Lehmann (1982) 68. For the presentcontext the narrower definition will do, but in a wider perspective the increasingsentence complexity in Attic Greek may well be related to the evolutionary trendobserved in this chapter.

120


the formation of participles falls under this heading, too. A processof partial nominalization occurs for instance when a finite verb isreplaced by a participial periphrasis

In a nominalization hierarchy the periphrasis can beseen as the first step towards full nominalization

Since the distinction between nouns and adjectives is problem-atic in many cases, 'adjectivization' should be treated as a subcate-gory of 'nominalization'. The participial example just givenillustrates this: ypdycav is the syntactic equivalent of either an adjec-tive or a noun. Hence, the formation of verbal adjectives as well as other deverbal adjectives belongs to the nominalizationstrategies of ancient Greek.

'Typicalization' is a slightly more complex concept. 'A preposi-tional act involves, apart from reference and predication, a seriesof further operations. These operations find their expression incategories which help to constitute the sentence: mood, aspect,tense, diathesis, person, case complements. The individuality of aproposition or thought consists in the specification of all of thesecategories. If they are neglected, the thought is generalized or"typicalized" (typisiert) and loses its individual character.Typicalization goes hand in hand with nominalization. Thecategories listed above as constituents of a proposition graduallydisappear in the process of nominalization.'5 Thus, in the verbalform ypafffi mood, aspect, tense, diathesis, and person are specified,but in the nominal form ypaipcvs none of them is. It is true that thecopula of ypayfvs fan conveys some of the specifications, but a sen-tence like ZaiKp&Tris ypdtpei (or: ypdcperai.) yijs irepiooov 'S. is drawing aworld map (for himself)' is nevertheless a more individualizedproposition than ZWpanjs- y-ijs -rrepioSou ypacpevs Ian. The formerdescribes a specific action in the present, whereas the latter onlysays that Socrates belongs to the category (or 'type') 'world-mapdrawer' and not, for instance, if (and for whom) Socrates is cur-rently drawing a world map or if he did so in the past. In this case,typicalization (generalization/de-individuation) involves (i) asemantic reduction of the category 'tense' (and possibly 'diathe-sis'), and (2) a syntactic nominalization process.

5 Translated and paraphrased from Lehmann (1982) 68.

121

122 Sophistic Innovations

Typicalization and nominalization are connected by an implica-tional relationship. While typicalization does not necessarily takethe form of nominalization, nominalization necessarily impliestypicalization. Consequently, all the phenomena discussed in thefollowing sections can be regarded as part of a comprehensive ten-dency towards typicalization, but this typicalization does notalways manifest itself in the form of nominalization. We will startwith non-nominalizing typicalization processes in the case of thecreation of verbal compounds in -eu> and the so-called 'resultative'perfect, and then turn to nominalizing typicalization processeswith the verbal nouns in -ms, the abstract nouns in -/xa, the adjec-tives in -IKOS, and the verbal adjectives in -reoj. Each of the sectionsis divided into two parts. First ('usage'), I will present the stylistic-ally relevant passages from Clouds (and sometimes from otherAristophanic comedies as well). Secondly ('function and develop-ment"), I will illustrate the accelerated growth of the respectivephenomena in classical Attic, explain them as symptoms of ageneral trend towards typicalization, and link them with the emer-gence of a 'sophistic' culture.

5.3. VERBAL COMPOUNDS IN -t'o, ( - d w )

5.3.1. USAGE

When Strepsiades, led by Socrates' student, enters the ypovTiarripiov,

he sees several people who are performing various strange activ-ities. He asks his guide what they are all doing. In an earlier chap-ter (3.3.3.3) I have argued that Strepsiades' questions may serve toindicate the (pseudo-)technical character of some of the terminol-ogy with which he is now confronted. One group, he is told by theStudent (Nub. 192), c'peffoSKpaiaty VTTO TOV Tdprapov 'are searching intothe nether darkness below Tartarus'. Their backs, at the sametime, 'are learning astronomy on their own account' (Nub. 194):auros K0.6' O.VTOV daTpot'Ofj.fLv SiSdo/cerai. Both (pefioBupdw* anddarpovo^ftu* are hapax legomena in Aristophanes (as are all the wordsmarked with an asterisk * in this section). They belong to aproductive class of denominal verbs in -4u> (and more rarely -do>6)

6 Synchronically, the compound verbs in -dui (e.g. cpefio&Kfdui, presupposing anunderlying a-stem *(ptf)oSt(f>-r)s) were apparently weaker than those in -ecu so that

was replaced by -re'cu in e.g. depojSarT/? —* depo/Sare'tu (not:Siitterlin (1891) 18.


which are derived from compound nouns or adjectives. The under-lying compounds are mostly verbale Rektionskomposita with a nom-inal first element and a verbal second element (VRK2' often thenominal element is the object of the verbal element), but othertypes of compounds occur as well: for instance, there are cases of'inverted' VRK2, in which the verbal element precedes (e.g.

'to twist justice'), or of Bahuvrihi compounds (e.g.'to give oneself airs'). The boundaries between the

different types of compounds are fluid, so that it makes sense, atleast from a synchronic point of view, to group together all theverbs in -eoi (-aw) that are derived from compounds with twoautosemantic (i.e. verbal or nominal, but not prepositional) ele-ments ('CP-fw verbs').

When Strepsiades first meets Socrates himself and when he hasenquired what the latter is doing at the moment, Socrates replies(Nub. 225 — 15°3)° qgpoffaTcii KCU Trepuppovtu TOV TJXiov 'I walk the air and[speculate about] the sun'. Again, cie/>o|3aT<ra)* is an Aristophanichapax legomenon among the CP-ew verbs and the compound

at least resembles this formational type although it doesnot contain an autosemantic first element.

Strepsiades has very specific ideas about what he may learn inSocrates' sophistic school. He is desperate to be taught how toAeTTToAoyetV* 'to chop logic' (Nub. 32O7), arevoXeaxeiv* 'to chatter

minutely' (Nub. 320), aTp&jiooiKeiv* 'to twist justice' (Nub. 433), andy\a>TToarpo<pelv* 'to be a verbal twister' (Nub. 792). Socrates, on theother hand, tells Strepsiades that the Clouds favour the sophists(Nub. 334), on Tavras fiovao-noovai* 'because they poeticize about[them]'. And in fact, the goddesses generously ask Socrates for hiswishes because (Nub. 363) t<p' rîiv atnvo-npoaanTtis* 'you give yourselfairs on our account'. Finally, when Strepsiades is disillusioned andwants to take revenge, he first thinks again of the sophists' ownweapons and plans to StKoppayfiv 'to cobble up lawsuits' (Nub. 1483;cf. Av. 1435) but then decides simply to set fire to their house. Oneof Socrates' students observes him, asks what he is about to do, andStrepsiades replies ironically in the sophists' own jargon (Nub.

I49°): fi'aAgTrToAoyoti/xat* rais &OKOIS TTJS oixi'as '[I am] chopping logic

with the rafters of your house'. Once the ypovriarripiov is burning,another of the students exclaims full of horror (Nub. 1497):

7 Cf. Nub. 1496 SiaAeTTToAoyou/xcu; Ran. 828


? 'Help, who's putting our house to theflames?'

5.3.2. F U N C T I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T

The frequency of CP-ew verbs in Clouds is not remarkable in itself.

In Todd's Aristophanic index I have counted more than 150 items.

In Clouds too, there are CP-ew verbs in non-sophistic contexts (e.g.

Nub. 16 and 27 oveipovoXew 'to dream of sth.', 481 reixo^x^* ' besiege', 624 le.pofj.vTniovew* 'to be sacred remembrancer"). Even thetraditionalist Strong Argument uses several of them (983

'to eat dainties', 994 aKaiovpyew* 'to act rudely', 999 iwyaiKaKew 'tocast sth. in someone's teeth' and veoTTOTpoyew* 'to rear sb. from a

nestling'). These words may contribute to the linguistic atmos-phere of the play as a whole, but above all they show how the CP-

ew verbs were multiplying at the time.9

Nevertheless (and despite the fact that such things are difficult

to measure), there seems to be no other Aristophanic play in which

the thematic association of CP-ew verbs with one particular group

of people is so constant. In the chapter on technical languages wehave seen that this class of denominal verbs is typically used todenote specialist and professional activities (Ch. 3.3.3.2). Thisfunction is highlighted in the following accumulations:

Thesm. 54-6 KoXXoê\eia 'to patch verses together','to coin maxims', K-qpoxvTfw 'to mould in wax'

Plut. 162—7 aKUTOTo/i«o 'to be a shoemaker', xPva°X°*w 'to be agoldsmith', AcuTroSureco 'to be a robber',

'to be a burglar', jSupaoSti/ie'co 'to tan hides'

Plut. 513-14 vavmriyew 'to be a shipbuilder', rpoxonoifui 'to make

wheels', aKVToronew 'to be a shoemaker', 'to make bricks', aKvôSeijiew 'to tan

hides-

Many of the 'sophistic' CP-ew verbs in Clouds seem to be original

Aristophanic creations since neither they themselves nor the

underlying compounds (including further derivations, for instance

8 Strepsiades himself had spoken of tiiTnjj.Trpa.vai. rr/v ainiav in Nub. 1484.9 Debrunner (1917) 95, after Siitterlin (1891) 63, gives the following figures for

new compound derivations in -ew. in Homer 20, in classical Greek 450, in post-classical Greek 600. At the same time the simplicia in -eta lose their productivity.

to*


in -ia) are attested in other classical or Hellenistic authors and sincethey are not simply variations on such productive types as

'to walk the air',10 y\uiTroaTpo<pfu> 'to be a verbal twister', 'to search into the nether darkness', aenvo-n-poacuireu) 'to

give oneself airs', arevoXeax^ 'to chatter minutely', <rrpei/ioSi/«a> 'totwist justice'.

The concentration is remarkable, for in the rest of the Aristophaniccorpus there are only about three times as many further CP-eia

verbs which fulfil these criteria of originality. Moreover, they arethematically much more diverse:

'to turn bread', y\umoTTOif<a 'to do it with the tongue', 'to talk loudly of Sth.', daXaTTOKo-rrew 'to Strike the

sea with the oar', KoivodvXaKeai 'to have a common purse','to patch verses together', KopTroXaKfw 'to be an empty

braggart", Kpovai.S-qiJ.euj 'to cheat the people', KVK\oaofiew 'to whirlround", KwoKcmtw 'to beat like a dog", Aayofl^pe'cu 'to hunt hares',

'to get into dirty quarrels', povoKontiu 'to sleepalone", oiVrpoxoe'tu 'to pour fourth a piteous strain', •ny>a>KTorj)p£co 'tobe an arse-watcher', avKoXoyew 'to gather figs', rpiifiijuepeai 'to wastethe day'.

Despite the general growth of the CP-ew class, we may concludethat the prominent role which these verbs play in Clouds is notcoincidental. The question arises whether the statistical increase ofCP-eai verbs in classical Attic was somehow connected with thesophistic movement.

From a linguistic point of view, the formation of CP-e'ou verbshas two main functions:

(1) 'Integration': Socrates could say */3a5t'£co Sia TOU aepos, andStrepsiades might wish to Sums o-rpeipeiv, but acpof}a.Tea> and

present a more economic or concise way of expressingthe imagined activity; a transitive or prepositional verbal phrase iscondensed or 'integrated' into a single intransitive verb.

(2) Typicalization: a slight semantic difference between forinstance *"£pe/3oj oupdui and fptftooupaw results from the denominalorigin of the latter. Strictly speaking, Ipfflooupdw is not an equivalent

10 PI. Apol. igc refers to, and quotes, Clouds.


of *'Eptf$o$ 8i<pdca but of *fp£fioSi<f>T]s flfit.. It depicts the activity not astransitory or punctual, i.e. time-bound ('individuation'), but astime/ess, regular, or habitual ('typicalization'). This quality of theCP-eio verbs explains why they frequently refer to professionalactivities.

Typicalization (as well as integration) is an essential characteristicof scientific and intellectual discourse, which focuses on generalprinciples rather than on fragmented particularities. Lexical com-pounding became an important means for developing a descriptiveand scientific Greek vocabulary.11 Hence, the increasing frequencyof CP-fw verbs in fifth-century Greek may in fact be related to thesophists' new and systematic way of looking at the world.

Of course Aristophanes need not have recognized the reasons forthe linguistic trend in order to locate its origins among those whopromoted cultural change. However, Clouds does betray a remark-able linguistic awareness, for the Aristophanic comedies demon-strate elsewhere how fast the unconscious creation of CP-e'cu verbsbecame a fashion even in contexts that did not demand concisenessor typicalization. For example, we find in Vesp. 1254 6vpoKoir<la> 'tobang against doors' (= 9vpas KOTTTW) or in Eccl. 762 neidapxeuj as a syn-onym of 'to obey'. The CP-e'cu verb -nvpiroXew 'to light a fire,burn (down)' was particularly successful, perhaps because of the

paradigmatic difficulties which its equivalent eV^'V^P1?/" presented;is attested no less than five times in Aristophanes

(Nub. 1497; Vesp. 1079; Av. 1580; Thesm. 243, 727).

5.4. TRANSITIVE ACTIVE PERFECT( 'RESULTATIVE PERFECT')

5.4.1. USAGE

Strepsiades is not warmly welcomed when he knocks at the door ofthe (fpovTiarripiov for the first time. An enraged student of Socrates'appears with the words (Nub. 133)

'Oh, get stuffed! Who's been knocking at this door?'Strepsiades formally introduces himself with name, patronymic,and demotic. But the student continues to shout (Nub. 135-7):

11 See G. Meyer (1923) 24-46.


STUDENT: An ignoramus, for sure, the way you've kicked so hard at thedoor without circumspect cogitation, and rendered abortive an idea thathad been discovered.

With (arrfp<.)iiepinvtos and ypovrts the student's rebuke is meant toevoke an intellectual way of expression. Both lexemes belong to agroup of catchwords that reappear throughout the play whereverscientific or sophistic thinking and reasoning is referred to.12 Sincethis is the first appearance of one of the 'phrontists', it is to beexpected that the passage contains characterizing linguistic mater-ial. Hence, another exceptional feature of the three lines calls forattention: the use of two transitive active perfect forms: XeXaKTixas

and

Door-knocking scenes are a stock ingredient of Aristophaniccomedy so that the passage in Clouds can easily be compared tosimilar passages in other comedies.13 The first question ofSocrates' student (ris eod' 6 KOI/ICLS rr)v 9vpav;) is closely paralleled else-where.14 The subsequent use of the perfect, however, departs fromthe standard. It has been suggested that the perfect conveys a noteof affective insistence corresponding to the anger of the student.15

Yet, Carion in Plut. I IOI (av rr/v 8vpav CKOirrfS ovruial acpoSpa; 'Did you

knock on the door so violently?'16) and Heracles in Ran. 38-9 (ris

'Who knocked on the

door? He charged at it just like a centaur, whoever—') are highly

12 Cf. Ch. 4.3.2: for (ppovris, (ppofTi£eip, <ppovnorris (only in Nub.), <ppovria(j.a (onlyin Nub.), tppavTiarripiOv (only in Nub.) see Nub. 94, 128, 137, 142, 155, 181, 189,215,229, 233, 236, 266, 414, 456, 695, 697, 700, 723, 724, 735, 740, 762, 857, 951, 1039,1144, 1345, 1487 (Clouds contains more than half of all the Aristophanic examplesfor this word-family); for fiepifiva, a.-nepip.fpip.v<u<; (both only in Nub.) see Nub. 136,420, 952, 1404; combined with cppovr- in Nub. 101 ^(pi^voippovTiaral (only here).Further catchwords include for instance yvwp.i), yvwp,i&i.ov etc., ACTTTOS, and (and in Nub. 135 perhaps also dîafli};: Marzullo (1973) 130 n. i). Thematically,

recalls Socrates' midwife-image (cf. e'£(tyi|3Aou) in PI. Tht. isoe), but thatmay be a coincidence: see Taillardat (1965) 446; Dover (1968) pp. xlii-xliii.

13 Cf. Eq. 725-9; Pax 179-81; Av. 57-60; Ran. 37-9 and 464; Eccl. 976-7; Plut.

1097.14 Eq. 728 TiWs oi fSoaivres; Av. 60 riV o flou»>; Ran. 464 TI'S otros; Plut. 1097

'who is knocking at the door?'.15 Chantraine (1927) 173.16 For this 'visualizing' imperfect cf. Eccl. 977 rrjv Bvpav ^parres 'you really

bashed on my door': Schwyzer-Debrunner (1950) 276-7.


upset too, but they use an imperfect and an aorist respectively. The

perfect may imply the notion of guilt and responsibility.17 But

again the indignant Demos in Eq. 729 uses an aorist under the same

circumstances (TT)V tlpeaiwvTjv pov KaTfairapdâre 'y knocked my

harvest-wreath to pieces!'). While both explanations certainly contain some truth, the student's perfect remains remarkable and there

must be more to it.

The use of a transitive active perfect is highlighted again later in

Clouds. Although Strepsiades has been expelled from Socrates'school because of underachievement, he shows off with his newknowledge before his son Pheidippides. He swears, like Socrates,

by a meteorological phenomenon (Nub. 814/^(1 TIJV '0/iu'xA->)i< 'byMist'; cf. Nub. 627), he exposes the Socratic theology of Aivos (Nub

828), and he even reproduces as much as he remembers about

grammatical gender (Nub. 850-1). Pheidippides remains unim-

pressed (Nub. 856-9):

PHEIDIPPIDES: Oh, that's why you've lost your cloak, is it?STREPSIADES: I haven't lost it, I've invested it in knowledge.PHEIDIPPIDES: And what have you done with your shoes, you fathead?STREPSIADES: I lost them 'for essential purposes', as Pericles would haveput it.

Strepsiades' first reply is a typical example of sophistic

and wojudruw opflorr;?. The old man replaces both the tense and the

verb his son has used with such alternatives as he finds more fitting.

By using the perfect Strepsiades focuses on his present cloakless

state, not on the past action of losing or giving up his cloak. Because

he prefers the positive verb KaTa^povrlêiv to the negative

the stress on the continuing effect of what he did makes

Strepsiades' words sound rather proud. Not surprisingly, he lateruses the punctual aorist when he speaks himself of a loss (859

. Pheidippides' TeV/xxpa in 858 ironically echoesStrepsiades' perfect forms. The crucial point is, as with Nub. 135-7

17 Chantraine (1927) 164-5, '75-8; cf. McKay (1965) 13; Rijksbaron (1984*)409; Sicking-Stork (1996) 147: 'The Agent. . . has become . . . a "door-kicker" andan "abortionist".'


above, that the lines would be just as acceptable if the aorist wereused throughout. Moreover, the only other Aristophanic passageswhere we find three transitive active perfect forms within two orthree lines is Plut. 372—3, staged about thirty-five years later thanClouds.

5.4.2. F U N C T I O N AND D E V E L O P M E N T

The Greek perfect originally expressed an intransitive present stateof the verbal subject, which looks back to an action in the past (e.g.the state rlBv^Ko. 'I am dead' looking back to the action

'I died').18 In early Greek, transitive active perfect forms are rela-tively rare.19 In the fifth century, the transitive perfect suddenlyexpands very quickly. Traditionally the new transitive active per-fect forms are labelled 'resultative perfect'. By 'resultative perfect'Wackernagel understood transitive active perfect forms whichwere no longer used to express the state of the verbal subject (aswith the intransitive perfect), but which had come to express a stateof the object.20 Such a definition must lead into serious difficultiesbecause it is often a matter of textual interpretation whether theactive perfect of a transitive verb refers to the state of the object('resultative') or to the state of the subject. When Socrates' studentsays tppovTiS' tgrinflXwKas, is it more important that Strepsiades is an'abortionist' or that the thought has been lost? Chantraine there-fore tried to save the notion of a 'resultative perfect' by askingrather vaguely if there was a 'passage of the action onto the object'or if the object 'introduces the notion of a realization which isessential in the process that is envisaged'.21

More recently, the existence of the 'resultative perfect' has beendenied. It has been maintained that all the occurrences of a transi-tive active perfect in classical Greek still describe the state of thesubject.22 But although Wackernagel and Chantraine failed to

18 The recent argument by Sauge (2000) that the Greek perfect is causativeand/or intensive rather than stative is unconvincing.

19 For Homeric examples see Chantraine (1927) 11-16 (e.g.20 Wackernagel (1904) 4: '[eine Bedeutung], bei der das Perfekt von einer ver-

gangenen Handlung gebraucht wird, deren Wirkung im oder am Objekt noch in derGegenwart fortdauert'.

21 Chantraine (1927) 6 and 12.22 Cf. McKay (1965); Rijksbaron (1984(1); Sicking-Stork (1996) 146—50; Duhoux

(2000) 428.


explain clearly what was new, it is impossible to deny that there wassomething new about the perfect in fifth-century Greek. One mustaccount for the sudden growth of transitive active perfect forms inthe classical period. Chantraine gives the following approximatefigures for his 'resultative perfect' in Attic drama and prose:23

Aeschylus 12-20Sophocles 50Euripides 'many more'Aristophanes 200Thucydides 35Plato (early dialogues) 125

These statistics do not lose their significance even if Chantraine'sclassification of any single transitive active perfect as resultative iscontested. They indirectly reflect the growing frequency of thetransitive active perfect in general.

I believe that the concept of a 'resultative perfect' can (andshould) be retained, even though the criticism of Wackernagel'sand Chantraine's views is justified inasmuch as it attacks an allegedchange from a 'state of the subject' to a 'state of the object'. Instead,more attention must be paid to the semantic tendencies of transi-tive and intransitive verbs as such.

If the perfect of a verb x expresses a present state that looks backto an action in the past, there are two logically distinct types of per-fect:24

(a) 'I started to x and have been x-ing until now'(i.e. the event/state x continues into the present)(~ English 'I have been reading")

(b) 'I x-ed and from that moment on I have been someone who(once) x-ed'

23 Cf. Chantraine (1927) 123—38; the Platonic dialogues are Hippias Maior andMinor, Alcibiades, Apologia, Euthyphro, Crito, Charmides, Laches, Lysis, Protagoras,Gorgias, Meno. Of course these figures are meaningful only if the overall length ofthe respective texts is taken into account; in the OCT editions, the correspondingapproximate page totals are: Aeschylus 380 (c.8,000 verses), Sophocles 400(c. 10,000 verses), Euripides 1,110 (c.26,000 verses), Aristophanes 590 (c.15,000verses), Thucydides 600, Plato (selection) 530. For the statistics in §§ 5.7.2 and5.8.2, I add the following OCT page totals: Herodotus 800, Lysias 270, Plato(entire) 2,500, Xenophon 1,400, Demosthenes 1,370.

24 If it were not so cumbersome, one might speak of 'non-terminative presentsituation' instead of 'present state' (in order to include 'durative/iterative actions').


(i.e. the result of the event x continues into the present)(~ English 'I have read')

Let us assume that (a) is the original type. With stative and dura-tive verbs like jSaaiAeuai 'to be king', the perfect fiepaaiXevKa wouldmean 'I started to be king and have been (being) king until now'.The meaning of this sentence is in many cases synonymous withvariant (b) 'I was king and from that moment on I have been some-one who was king'; both sentences are equivalent if the speaker is aking who is still ruling.

With terminative verbs (in which the verbal action expressed bythe verbal stem of the perfect has an inherent end-point, e.g.Si'Soi/i/Se'Scoxa25), on the other hand, (a) is semantically exceptional'I started to give and have been giving until now' does not as a rulecoincide with (b) 'I gave and from that moment on I have beensomeone who gave'. This is not to say that (a) is excluded: evenwhen there have been continuous ('iterative') single acts of givingfrom the past right into the present, we may still speak of (a) ('Istarted to give and have been giving continously until now, firstgiving x, then giving y, then giving z, etc.').26

There is a tendency for intransitive verbs to be stative or dura-tive, and for transitive verbs to be terminative. The differencebetween (a) and (b) is therefore less conspicuous with intransitiveverbs. When perfects of transitive verbs start to be formed,however, this automatically strengthens variant (b), which is more

25 With the terminology 'terminative' vs. 'stative' and 'durative' I followRijksbaron (19840) 3—4 and 34-6: 'terminative' and 'durative' roughly correspondto 'telic' vs. 'atelic' in other models (e.g. Binnick (1991) 181). The question if theperfect stem is terminative can be difficult since the meaning of the present is notalways decisive: with eyvuiKa (Nub. 1095; similarly fLefiaB-qicffv) in Nub. 1143, 1148,1150), for instance, the present yiyvuiaKui ('to recognize") may be terminativebecause of the reduplicated formation and the aorist tyvw ('he recognized') may beterminative because of the punctual value of the aorist; the crucial point is whetherthe meaning of the root *gneh^~ is already terminative.

26 e.g. Nub. 738 dioJKoas [ivpiaKis ayai /3ouAo/«u 'you've heard a million times whatI want', or ladha. eopye 'he has done good things' in //. 2. 272 (cf. Chantraine (1927)13); even Nub. 1065—6 'We'pjSoAo? , . . Ta\avra TroAAci 8«i -rrov^piav 'Hyperbolus. . . has made a whole load of talents by being wicked' may belong to (a) rather than(b). This model of the perfect also explains the much-debated archaic 'intensive'perfect (e.g. fttflpvxo. 'to roar, bellow (intensely)' beside j8puâo/iai 'to roar, bellow').In type (a) Pff3pvxe means 'he started roaring and has been roaring until now', thusadding an extended temporal dimension which the present Ppvx&rai 'he roars' doesnot have; the 'roaring' of a lion is more intense if it consists not just of one transi-tory act of roaring but if it has been continuous for some time.


common with terminative verbs. After some time, (a) becomes sorare in comparison with (b) that (6) is recognized as the new canon-ical type of perfect. This in turn further encourages the multiplica-tion of active transitive perfects and a vicious circle is established.

Since the event x in itself is located entirely in the past in the caseof (b) (whereas in (a) the event x belongs to both past and present),(b) is much more similar to the aorist. Whether the aorist or theperfect is used does not depend any longer on the ontological('objective') character of x, but on the way the speaker looks at x('subjectively'). As a consequence, the perfect starts to encroach onthe domain of the aorist. This is what happened in fifth-centuryGreek, although it still took at least another century until theboundaries between the perfect and the aorist began to disappearcompletely.27 Since only (b) is really interested in the result ofx andits continuation into the present, the traditional name 'resultativeperfect' may be retained for (b).

It is possible that Aristophanes highlights the use of the resul-tative perfect in Clouds simply because he feels its novelty andassociates linguistic innovation as such with the sophists (eventhough he does not refrain from using the resultative perfect him-self elsewhere28). But there may be a more specific reason for theconnection of the new tense and the intellectual pursuits of thesepeople.

Strepsiades' statement illustrates that the coexistence of aoristand resultative perfect allows greater semantic precision (opdoetrfia).The difference between the aorist and the resultative perfect lies inthe typicalization conveyed by the latter. An aorist exXeififv tmrov 'hestole a horse' individuates an event, a resultative perfect /ceVAoyeviTt-nov typicalizes it ('he is a person who has stolen a horse', whichcomes close to saying 'he is a horse-thief).29 Hence, the notion ofguilt often accompanies the use of the perfect. It is a more generaland therefore stronger statement to say of somebody 'he is a horse-thief than to say 'he stole a horse'. In the former case the stealing

27 See e.g. McKay (1965); Horrocks (1997) 53 and 118—19.28 Unlike for instance Sophocles, Euripides, or Herodotus, who seem to avoid

the resultative perfect by using the periphrastic expression «x<u + part. aor. (cf. inAristophanes Av. 852, 1082; Thestn. 236, 706; Eccl. 355, 957): Aerts (1965) 128-30.

29 The perfect would be even stronger in its non-resultative usage since KtVAoyewould then mean 'he started to steal and from then on he has been stealing (againand again)'.

Sophistic Innovations 13 3

of horses is presented as a habitual occupation, whereas in the lat-ter case there might be special or attenuating circumstances.

So, the resultative perfect presented an ideal mode of expressionin lawcourt oratory. In the Lysianic corpus, for instance, there are36 examples of ireirol-qKa, 22 of ijftaprijKa, 22 of transitive eipyaafiai, ig

of ijSiV^Ka, 16 of Se'Scoxa (often: 8iVr;r), and 5 of ijaejSrj/ca.30 In

Aristophanes, too, wewonj/ca (15 + 3 times transitive (18), and eipyaa/j-cu (6), together with 'guilt-verbs' like

(6) and awoXw^fKa (6), are among the most frequent transi-tive perfects.31 Probably, the general trend started from this groupof verbs.

If the growth of the resultative perfect was initiated and fur-thered in lawcourt oratory, the connection with the rhetoricalteaching of the sophists is straightforward. Interestingly, of the twoextant set speeches by Gorgias (basically the only extensive sophis-tic texts that have survived), the epideictic praise of Helen con-tains, apart from oiSa, no transitive perfect forms, but the 'forensic'apology of Palamedes shows at least six relevant items.32 There arefurther examples of 'guilt' perfects in Clouds as well, but they—likemost other transitive active perfects in the play, with the possibleexception of the 'Socratic' dogma formulated by Pheidippides inNub. 1471 (JiVo? /SamAeuei, rov A" efeAqAaKOK 'Vortex is king, havingexpelled Zeus')—are not highlighted and illustrate rather the gen-eral increase of these forms in contemporary Attic than sophisticstyle in particular.33

30 Cf. also the striking accumulation of perfect forms in Lys. 14. 41-2; Ar. Plut.368-73; Sicking-Stork (1996) 148; Rijksbaron (19846) 413: 'M.i. hangt de opkomstvan het "Agens-gerichte" perfectum van transitieve werkwoorden dus direct samenmet de opkomst van het concept van het individu.'

31 Cf. Chantraine (1927) 136; note that 3 of his 9 examples for flpyaapai are inreality passive (Eg. 844; Ran. 1023, 1282), and that the figure for (aâreprfKa iswrong (13 instead of i). The figures for Lysias are based on D. H. Holmes (1895).

32 Gorg. Pal. (— fr. 82 B I ia) 5 TreironjKius, 21 Trfrronj/coTi, irapa&f&wKOTi, 24 36 TreTroiijKores, dnfKrovoTts', cf. 29

33 Cf. Nub. 26 airoXuiXeKtv 'it has ruined', 33 e'îjAi/ra; 'you have rolled", 497'I have done wrong', 1080 iJSi'mjKa? 'you have done wrong', 1266

'he has done', 1498 fiA^yare 'you have stolen'. Note also the apparently unnecessarytransitive active perfects in Eupolis fr. 386, referring to Socrates.


5.5. VERBAL NOUNS IN -ois

5 . 5 . 1 . USAGE

In the chapter on technical languages (3.5) we have already seenhow Aristophanes mocks the formation of legal terminology in -ois

when Socrates asks (Nub. 874-5):

SOCRATES: How is he ever going to learn effective forensic defence, or thesummons, or persuasion by bombast?

In Nub. 764, Strepsiades exclaims, full of pride about his own

sophistic inventiveness, -qvprjK1 atpaviaiv T-ijs SIKIJS aoywartp 'I'vefound a really ingenious disposal method for that lawsuit'. But thebest-known lines in which the coinage of verbal nouns in -oiy is par-odied are Nub. 317-18. Socrates describes the blessings the Cloudsbestow upon idle men:

SOCRATES: . . . who bestow on us intelligence and discourse and under-standing, fantasy and circumlocution and incisive and repressive power.

That these words evoke the vocabulary of rhetoric becomes clearwhen Eq. 1379-80 is compared, where Kpovanxos 'incisive' and

'repressive' are joined in an unambiguous context (see§ 5.7.1). JiaAe£is, attested only here in classical Greek, anda hapax legomenon, probably refer more generally to 'argumenta-tions' and 'disputations', Kpovais and Kcn-aAî/u? more specificallyto rhetorical 'striking' and 'checking' the arguments of anopponent.34 The accompanying mind-words yvui^ and

enhance the sophistic character of the passage since these lexemesappear several times in pertinent contexts in Aristophanes.35

34 Cf. Dover (1968) 142—3; on Kpovais and KaraAiyi/ris also Borthwick (1959) 27-9,on TTepiXe-yeiv = TO irepifpx^0^1 TCO Aoyw Kai otov neptaaa Xeyciv Hermippus fr. 89.

35 See Handley (1956) 218-20; cf. also reparela 'talking marvels' in rhetorical cri-ticism: Isocr. 12. i; Ar. Eq. 627; Ran. 834; Byl (1981) 118.


5 . 5 . 2 . F U N C T I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T

Although verbal nouns in -ais were employed in more than onespecialized field, the above passages show that Aristophanes estab-lished a particular link between them and sophistic discourse. In adiscussion of the Aristophanic nouns in -an, Handley has distin-guished three groups: ( i) terms associated with the intellectualworld of the sophists, (2) (pseudo-)poetic words, and (3) 'technical

'speech'; kitchen: ervripvais 'soup ladle"; warfare: ra£iy 'battle-order';politics: airrjais 'public maintenance', etc.). Handley puts about athird (16) of the 53 Aristophanic nouns in -ais into the first 'sophis-tic' group, and he finds nearly all of them exclusively in the 'intel-lectual' plays Clouds, Thesmophoriazusae, and Frogs.36

To separate groups (i) and (3) may be slightly misleading. Thesudden increase of nouns in -CHS in fifth-century Greek was mainlydue to technical specialization and the only difference betweenspheres (i) and (3) is that between theoretical and practical spe-cialization. Vowles gives the following figures for newly appearingnouns in -ens:37

Homer 55Hesiod 11lyric poets (incl. Presocratic 41

philosophy)

Aeschylus to Aristotle (excl. 1097 (of which Aristotle 275)medicine)

medical writers 630

The medical authors together with the Presocratic philosophersmay have been the first to promote the large-scale formation ofnouns in -ms.38 But if the origin of the growth was in the intellec-tual spheres of Ionia, other areas were soon affected. In the index

36 Handley (1953), esp. 141 (the one exception is Eccl. 674 ot/ojois, but this neednot be 'sophistic': cf. Hdt. 3. 102. 2; PI. Prat. J 2 i d ; IG i3. 48*". 5); cf. Holt (1941)

H9-52.37 Vowles (1928) 58; again (cf. n. 23 above), more precise figures would be prefer-

able, but the general tendency seems clear enough.38 Cf. e.g. Thales fr. i t B 3 (auympiai;, Trffyvvais, avaraais); Heraclitus fr. 22 B 55

(oi/ns, jaaffyois); Parmenides fr. 28 B 7. 2 (Sirens); Empedocles fr. 31 B 8 (nifu,SiaAAa^ts); Philolaus frs. 44 B 10 and 13 (eVcuai?, ovfjuppovyois, ataOrjais, ptôjai?,avatpvais, yeWijats); Diogenes of Apollonia fr. 64 B 5 (poTjaiy, erepoi'axn?); for medicallanguage see Chantraine (1933) 284-6; Holt (1941) 112-16.


to the Attic inscriptions of the fifth century, I have counted 42nouns in -<w and it would be wrong to ascribe all of them to directsophistic influence. Even in poetry the word class becomes larger,but here it has primarily stylistic functions: common words arereplaced by formations in -CHS to achieve a 'de-automatizing'effect.39

The particular association in comedy of the verbal nouns in -auwith the world of the sophists must be due to the role which thesophists played in promoting systematic enquiry in many special-ized fields. Abstract thinking furthered abstract expression. Since'the variant with a nomen actionis expresses the event less determin-ately—not so much as a factual one—but instead embraces a widercircle of possibilities',40 the increased creation of verbal nouns is asymptom of the general trend towards de-individuation or typical-ization (including nominalization) in fifth-century Greek. This ismost clearly seen when simple verbs like pavQavtiv are replaced byverbal phrases in which the verb has only auxiliary functions(fj.adt]ai.v TToifiaSai.*1). Thucydides' fondness for such constructionssufficiently indicates their stylistic level; as they are not even paro-died in comedy, they may have been exclusively literary. But thenominalizing function of the nouns in -ots can also be observed inthe passages quoted from Clouds. Both in Nub. 874-5 and in Nub.317-18, alternative constructions would have been possible (e.g.

5.6. ABSTRACT NOUNS IN -â AND

5.6.1. USAGE

Beside the verbal nouns in -ais, the most important group ofabstract nouns in Greek was formed by the neuter nouns in -fia.

Like the class in -CHS, this nominal class is very old and many nounin -|U.a are common and stylistically unmarked (e.g. -npa-yâ. 'matter,

39 Already in Aeschylus: Bum. 588, 749; Prom. 488; Sept. 29; Supp. 715, 1009; cf.also the parodies in Ar. Av. 291 Adipwais (= 290 Xorpos); Thesm. 147(Agathon, for aAyos); A. A. Long (1968) 32. Even Socrates' eVi'Sei|is 'presentation'in Nub. 269 may be poetic rather than sophistic, despite Handley (1953) 132 andDover (1968) 135.

40 Translated from Porzig (1942) 21; cf. also Freundlich (1987) 127-36.41 Thuc. i. 68. 2; cf. Aristonymus fr. 4; Denniston (1952) 24—5; Freundlich

(1987)37-42.

and


thing', TTvevfj,a 'breath', etc.).42 In tragic poetry, nouns in -pa were

frequently used to create unusual ('de-automatizing') variantforms (e.g. SoJpij/na for Scapov 'gift').43

Nevertheless there is at least one passage in Clouds where a noun

in -fj.a has a particular stylistic value. In Nub. 247-8 Socrates laughsat Strepsiades because he is ready to swear an oath by the gods:

SOCRATES: What do you mean, swear by the gods? Apart from anythingelse, we don't credit gods here.

The line feeds a pun on vo^wâ, which is misunderstood by

Strepsiades as 'currency, coin', its normal meaning (cf. Ran. 720,

722). What Socrates wants to say is of course

don't believe in gods'.

Other instances are less prominent, but it may be significant that

Socrates' student uses the hapax legomenon ypovTiapa 'idea' when hespeaks of his teacher's discoveries (Nub. 155) and that Strepsiades

ironically praises one of those discoveries as Stevrfpevpa 'gutology'

(Peppier) (Nub. 166). There is no verb *Sifi>Tfpfveii> and Dover has

pointed out that formations in -â with a prefix Sia- are rare beforethe end of the fourth century; the word must therefore lend an aura

of sophistic solemnity to the rustic's phrase.44 The same high-flown tone is present in Socrates' repeated use of vorma 'idea', espe-cially in Nub. 743 (cf. Nub. 229), where Strepsiades has just usedand is going to use again yvu>\t,i\ for the same concept (Nub. 730,

747). Elsewhere in Aristophanes, vdi)/j,a has a sophistic tone, too, atleast when it is not used by a chorus.45

Finally, in a group of lines that is remarkable in other respects as

well (see §§ 5.7.1 and 5.8.1) Socrates encourages Strepsiades to find

42 Also in Clouds: e.g. Nub. 205 00910/10 'device', 668 Si'Say/â 'piece of instruc-

tion', 966 fio/M 'song', 1231 fidBrifia 'training', all with non-comic parallels.43 Cf. A. A. Long (1968) 40-6; Peppier (1916) 459-60, with statistics (Aeschylus

218, Sophocles 188, Euripides 302); in comedy see e.g. Nub. 283 /ceAaSTjjia 'sound'

for x-e'Aaoos; Nub. 305 Suipr/fia; inversely Nub. 161 Truer] for the com

Ch. 4.3.2). Nub. 967 /Jdafia for (3oij is a quotation: Dover (1968) 215.44 Dover (1976) 367. oiaro'ij/ia 'thought, idea' (cf. Xen. HG 7. 5. 19; Isocr. 3. 9;

PI. Symp. 2iod) may have been the model of Sievrepev/j-a, but the only other lexeme

with Sia—jua in Aristophanes is Agathon's Siavcv/iara 'nods' (Thesm. 122, if not

; differently Noel (1997) 17845 Eg. 1203 (a la Euripides); Av. 195 (note KOIJU/IOS 'refined'); chorus: Nub. 705;

Vesp. 1055; Thesm. 463.

we

(ct.


an d7ratdAi?fia 'fraud' (Nub. 729) although the personified divinityFraud is invoked elsewhere as MircuoAi; by the sophist himself (Nub.

1150).

5.6.2. FUNCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

The increase in productivity of the abstract nouns in -pa is lessspectacular than that of the verbal nouns in -ats. They are mostfrequent in the Ionic dialect of Herodotus and the Hippocratic cor-pus, but they certainly had a continuous history from preliterarytimes onward in Attic as well.46 Even the metaphoric use of nounsin -jua as a contemptuous way of referring to people can be tracedback as far as Homer and probably belonged to vernacular speech.Aristophanes turns it upside down when such words becomelaudatory through a sophistic perversion of values (Nub. 260'cunning rascal', 447 -nepiTpifj.^ SIKWV 'pettifogger').47

In tragedy the abstract nouns in -pa acquired stylistic grandeur,especially when they were used in the plural.48 Nearly all of theexamples in Clouds can be interpreted in a similar manner. Heretoo, the nouns in -fia make the sophistic discourse more weighty.There is no passage in which the formation is highlighted as a fea-ture of a peculiar sophistic style—with the exception of Nub.

247-8. But there, the point at stake is not so much the formationitself (vofjuapa is common enough) as the syntactic replacement of(normal) ou vofii£o/x<-i> by rîv vo/iia/x* OVK eon. The full verb is trans-formed into an abstract noun supported by a copula, which consti-tutes a shift towards nominalization. If the copula were omitted,the clause would even be fully nominal. From a syntactic point ofview, Nub. 248 therefore recalls the structural consequences of themultiplication of verbal nouns in -<ns.

That a tendency towards abstract expression often contributes tosyntactic nominalization may be illustrated further with Nub. 38and 406, where Socrates twice explains a meteorological phenom-enon with the prepositional phrase Sid rr/v nvKvor-qra 'owing to [their]

46 Ernst Fraenkel (1906) 225-33; Peppier (1916) 459 assumes an Ionic origin forthe increase; cf. Chantraine (1933) 183-4; A. A. Long (1968) 19-20.

47 Also Av. 430; contemptuously Ran. 92; Plut. 454; Ar. fr. 686; Eupolis fr. 384.8; Men. Sam. 481; Men. fr. 563; for Homer see e.g. II. 3. 50—1 (irrj/ia, xap/â) and

Porzig (1942) 146-8, for the orators MacDowell (1990) 400 (xraflapâ); cf. Peppier

(1916) 460-1 ; A. A. Long ( 1 968) 42-3 and 1 1 4-25 .48 Peppier (1916) 459-60; A. A. Long (1968) 43.


density'. In both cases, a subordinated clausewould have been a feasible alternative, which ranges

further down in a hierarchy of nominality.49 One should not readstylistic significance into every prepositional phrase containing anabstract noun, but in this case the repetition in the mouth of the'sophistic' speaker is striking. Moreover, abstract nouns in -<myj areextremely rare in Aristophanes. There are only 6 different lexemesin -O'TTJ? with a total of 12 occurrences. Apart from TTVKVOTTJS 'den-sity', a lexeme often found in scientific writing (Aristotle,Theophrastus, Hippocratic corpus, Plato's Timaeus),50 at least twomore have distinct thematic affiliations with the sphere of thesophists in Aristophanic comedy: Nub. 153, where Strepsiades isimpressed by Socrates' ACTI-TOTI?? 'subtlety', and Ran. 1181

'phraseological exactitude', which alludes to Protagoras'or Prodicus'

5.7. ADJECTIVES IN -IK6S

5.7.1. U S A G E

Eq. 1375-81 is the most famous Aristophanic passage in which anaccumulation of adjectives in -IKOS occurs. Demos describes whowill be most affected by the reforms he intends to introduce and theSausage-seller echoes him in the function of the

DEMOS: I mean those adolescents in the perfume market, who sit and blab-ber things like this: 'Clever man, that Phaeax; ingenious, the way he

49 Cf. Lehmann (1982) 74.50 Also in the Presocratic testimonies: Anaximenes test. 13 A 5; Anaxagoras test.

59 A 89; Archelaus test. 60 A 7; Idaeus test. 63 A i; Diogenes of Apollonia test. 64A 30; Metrodorus of Chios test. 70 A 15.

51 Beside AeTrroTTjs cf. the more common Sefidrijs 'cleverness' (Eq. 719; Vesp.1059; Ran. 1009); in Eq. 1132 nvKvorys 'shrewdness' puns on 1137 HVKVI, Plut. 564

s 'decorum' occurs 35 years after Clouds, and VCOTIJ; 'youth' (Ach. 211/2;Vesp. 1199; Av. 732) is common already in Homer. See also Mignot (1972) 97-9;

Mawet(ig83) 183-4.

51


escaped death! He's cohesive and penetrative, productive of originalphrases, clear and incisive, and most excellently repressive of the vocifer-ative.'SAUSAGE-SELLER: So I suppose you're give-the-finger-ative to thatbletherative lot?

The young men in the perfume market are discussing the rhetor-

ical qualities of the politician Phaeax, but -IKOS is not only 'treated

as characteristic of literary criticism, or rather, of judgements pro-

nounced by people who regard themselves as cognoscenti'.52 Atleast the adjective flopujSijTixds is not part of the rhetorical judgement

and shows that the audience is meant to imagine these dandies

employing such formations in different contexts as well. The

passage suggests (i) that -i«rd? is a 'sociolectal' (rather than a 'tech-

nolectal') suffix, and (2) that the people who use -i/cdy are equated

with those who discuss rhetorical issues, i.e. have some sophistic

training.In Wasps, Bdelycleon instructs his father how to behave in fash-

ionable society. Again, adjectives in -IK-OS play an important role in

the advice:

Vesp. 1132 TpiflcaviKais 'deftly', (1158 and 1162

'Laconian (shoe(s))'), 1199 avfrpixwrcnov 'bravest', 1204'most mettlesome', 1208 fuûrcm/cds 'symposiastic',

1208 fwovaiaoTiKos 'socialite', 1212 yv^vaariKw? 'athletically', 1244'cultured', (1259 AiawniKov 'a la Aesop', 1259

'Sybaritic').

In the following choral section Aristophanes qualifies certain

people of the Athenian jet-set with the adjectives

'artistically highly skilled' (Vesp. 1276) and dvnoao<piKa>Ta.Tov 'most

talented" (Vesp. 1280). The generation gap involved in the issue is

underlined in Vesp. 1197-1200, where Philocleon replaces the suf-

fix -iK-dy in a reply to his son:53

52 Dover (1987) 229, translating Dover (1970) 13.53 Cf. Peppier (1910) 436-7; Chantraine (1956) 99.


BDELYCLEON: Tell me something else: if you were drinking with men youdidn't know, what sort of thing you'd done do you think you'd mention asthe bravest action of your youth?PHILOCLEON: That one, that one, was the bravest of my actions.

In Clouds there are not particularly many adjectives in -IKO'S butsome are rather conspicuous and corroborate the sophistic connec-tion hinted at in Knights. In Nub. 482-4, Aristophanes uses thesame technique to highlight the suffix as in Vesp. 1199-1200.Strepsiades, as yet untrained by Socrates, answers his teacher's

with p'ljju.un' (cf. in Nub. 414 the chorus's

SOCRATES: No; I want to find out a few things from you—such as whetheryou have a good memory.STREPSIADES: It works two ways, I tell you: if something is owed to me, it'svery retentive.

And again in Nub. 727-30:

SOCRATES: You must not be soft, you must cover right up; for you have tothink up a defraudative idea, a piece of chicanery.STREPSIADES: Ah, if only instead of lambskins someone would throw overme a lovely bit of ... fraudulent ingenuity!

Adjectives in -T/HS are by no means more common than adjectivesin -ixrdf,55 but the point is that Strepsiades uses a different, more

54 Since Socrates could silently walk up and down on the stage for a whilebetween Nub. 729 and 731, Rodriguez Alfageme (2000) 34 is right to point out thatNub. 727-9 need not be given, with Dover (1968) 190 and other editors, to the cho-rus instead of Socrates (MSS); but even if the Clouds are speaking, they do so in asophistic manner (as awoortpriTiKos and dmuoArâ prove).

55 Excluding the compounds in -narpis, 19 out of more than too entries for -in Buck-Petersen (1944) 426-7 are adjectival; only 7 of these are attested in classi-cal or early post-classical writers (Aristophanes: a770<7Tep7)TpiV; Theopompus Com.:

Apollophanes: oreyaviuTpis; Hippocrates: Siaerro^cuTpis; Herodotus:Demosthenes:


conservative, suffixation. When Strepsiades finally does have therequired cunning idea, his success gives him the right to use thesophistic word (Nub. 747): ^Xw r°Kov yvain-qv a-nomt.pT]T(,K-t\v 'I have adefraudative device for avoiding interest'. After returning homefrom Socrates' school, Strepsiades displays his new knowledge andlaughs patronizingly when his son swears by Zeus (instead of ,

'your ideas are antiquated' (Nub. 821). Similarly, hederides a creditor who has no sophistic training in grammar (Nub.

1258), dm; VdAeaas evrj6iKai<; "nyy KapSoirov" 'because you were sillyenough to speak of a cardopus'. When Pheidippides graduates fromSocrates' school, Strepsiades finds that he looks

'deniative and contradictive' (Nub. 1172-3).Aristophanes may not have been alone in establishing a link

between the spread of the suffix -t«ro? and the new sophistic educa-tion of young upper-class Athenians. The comic author Ameipsiascompeted in 423 against Aristophanes' Clouds with his own com-

edy on Socrates, and in one fragment the philosopher is addressedas KaprepiKos 'capable of endurance' (Ameips. fr. 9. 2).56

5.7.2. F U N C T I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T

In an article on the suffix -IKOS in Aristophanes, Peppier drew atten-tion to the explosive increase of adjectives in -i«ro? especially infourth-century Greek. Apart from ethnic adjectives (e.g.there are very few formations in -IKOS in Homeric epic and early lyricpoetry (fiapfiaptKos 'barbaric', /J.OUCTIK-O? 'artistic', opyavtKos 'orphaned',

'boyish', TrapBtviKos 'maidenly'). Aeschylus is highly restric-tive, too, but with Euripides a real vogue begins. So not every oneof the c.ioo different non-ethnic adjectives in -IKOS whichAristophanes uses must be regarded as stylistically significant.57

Peppier gives the following figures for newly appearing lexemesin -

56 xapreptKos may not be a comic coinage like dwoffrepijTiKos (cf. Xen. Mem. i. 2.

i; 3. i. 6; PI. Def. 4123; Isocr. 8. 109), but that does not invalidate the point since

Kaprepos would have been an alternative. On -IKOS in Aristophanes see also Lopez

Eire (19966) 31-4; Noel (1997) 175-6, 181.57 Cf. e.g. fipyvtieos 'peaceable' in Ran. 715, and later in Isocr. 5. 3, PI. Rep. 39Qb,

Xen. Oec. i. 17, etc.; copiicos in Ar. fr. 245 (from the early Banqueters), Ach. 272,Plut. 963, and Crates fr. 43.

58 Peppier (1910) 429-30; Dover (1997) 119 counts 34 in Thucydides. Cf. also

n. 23 above.


In the fourth century, writers like Plato or Xenophon accumulateadjectives in -IK-OS without any parodic intention,59 and Peppierconcludes that 'philosophy is the peculiar sphere of these adjectivesin -KOS and their adverbs'. However, Dover points out that thePresocratic fragments, with the exception of one fragment ascribedto the fifth-century Pythagorean Philolaus (fr. 44 B 11), do not sup-port the hypothesis of a philosophical origin. Instead, he stressesthe frequent use of -IK-OS in fifth-century administrative inscrip-tions, which established the classificatory usage of the suffix.60

In the index to Inscriptiones Graecae i3 (i.e. to the Attic inscriptions before 403/2 BC) I have counted 14 non-ethnic formations in

with a total of 46 occurrences in 26 (out of c. 1,500) inscrip-tions. Leaving aside the common nouns /iouat/oj 'arts','navy', <pvau<6s 'army surgeon' (or personal name?), and(Persian gold coin), nearly all of them appear in the context offinancial transactions. They denote 'fees' or 'payments' for aparticular group of professionals (sculptors: ayaâro-noiKov; jurors:

marines: em/Jcm/cov; stone-dressers?: XiOoKoîKov; stone-masons: XiQovpyixov, carpenters: TCKTOVIK-OV). In the same financialfield, fu^jnaxiK-ds always accompanies yopos ('tribute from the allies'),and lew/coy mostly occurs together with apyvpiov or vo/îo/iara ('for-eign money'). Among the inscriptional adjectives inand gviJ-fj-axiKos are the most common.61 It is possible thatspread first in the domain of economics because it was firmly estab-lished in ethnic adjectives and the transfer from e.g.'Ionian tributes' to ^vfj.âx^Kos cpopos was particularly easy.62

59 Xen. Mem. i. I. 7, 3. i. 6; PI. Phdr. 248d-e; cf. Peppier (1910) 431-2; Dover

(1997) 119. Occurrences of-IKO; in Middle and New Comedy are therefore of lesser

interest than those in Old Comedy (e.g. Anaxippus fr. i. 36; Men. fr. 351;

Posidippus fr. i. 7; Strato fr. i. 30).60 Dover (1997) 118-19, after Dover (1970) 13 (cf. Dover (1981) 9), against

Peppier (1910) 430 and Ammann (1953).61 The two remaining examples are iWtKov (restored in 1G i3. 597, sc. ayuiva), an

(the official deme register of citizens who are eligible for an

allotted office).62 Many of the ethnic and geographic adjectives in -IKOS qualify monetary terms

'): cf. the index of IG i3, s.v.

AeschylusSophoclesEuripidesHerodotus

128

2413

ThucydidesI socratesPlatoAristotle >

3«55

3476oo


While Dover is certainly right that the suffix -i/co's was not exclu-sively philosophic or sophistic, one must also take into account thecrucial differences between the epigraphic and the literary(Aristophanic) material, as follow.

(i) The monothematic association of -i«ds with economics isabsent in comedy.

(2) Non-ethnic adjectives in -IKOS are never applied to persons inthe fifth-century inscriptions, but this is very frequent both infourth-century prose and already in Aristophanic comedy.63

(3) The replacement of non-suffixal variants, or the exchange ofsuffixation, as highlighted by Aristophanes, has no parallel in theinscriptions (e.g. IAVTJ/AOVIKOS for ^vq^wv, avopiKwrarov for

apXauKa. for

(4) All the epigraphic lexemes in -ncds are clearly denominal.Formally speaking, the same is true for the Aristophanic examplesbecause -IKOS is a denominal suffix. However, there is a differencebetween a denominal adjective whose underlying noun is lexical-ized (e.g. ewi/SaTr/y, £evos, £u/ufiaxos) and one where this is not the case,so that the deverbal character of the underlying noun itself is muchstronger. Thus, it could be argued that airoa-rfp^Ti.^ is formed onthe basis of a-noarfprj^, but the Aristophanic context suggests adirect derivation from an-ocr-repe'co. The vovs curoCTTep^TiK-ds is an 'ideawhich defrauds (dnoarepfi)', and Phaeax is KaTaAiyn-riK-ds because he isa person 'who checks (KaraXa^dvet) his opponent' (cf. in Clouds also

whereas the inscriptional e-mficniKov is the'payment for the f-niâraC, not the *'payment which emjSaiW. Ofcourse, some comic examples are not 'deverbal' in this sense, butthose which are show that the linguistic fashion depicted byAristophanes went beyond the traditional applications of the suffix

in administrative usage.

The last point is the most interesting in the present context.Paraphrasing quasi-deverbal adjectives in -IKOS with the generaliz-ing present does not fundamentally alter their meaning. The for-mations in -IKOS take over some of the functions of relative clauses.Compare for instance Nub. 747 e^cu TOKOV •yvca/j.Tjv aTroarfp-qriK^v with a

synonymous alternative formulation:

63 e.g. Eg. 1378-81, Nub. 483, 1172-3, and other passages referred to above;again Xen. Mem. i. i. 7, 3. i. 6, and PI. Phdr. 248d-e; even in Philolaus fr. 44 B 11the 'nature of the number' is quasi-personal.


, The adjectival variant is more concise and it pre-sents the 'defraudatory' quality of the yvwp-q not so much as a meansto an end in one concrete case but as an unalterable attribute.Similarly, when Pheidippides has become e$apvr)riKos KavriXoyiKos heis not just able to deny and to contradict (*a.vnXf-ytiv SiWrcu): he is'deniative' and 'contradictive'. In this extended function, whichAristophanes highlights as fashionable and sophistic in Knights

and Clouds, the adjectives in -IKOS contribute to the general typical-ization (de-individuation) and nominalization of Attic Greek. Theinnovative application of the suffix -IKOS led to a considerableincrease in productivity, which in turn further supported thegrowth in the original denominal domain.

5.8. VERBAL ADJECTIVES IN -

S.8 . I . USAGE

The lines Nub. 727-9, which have already been discussed becauseof the presence of the nominal phrase vovs dTroCTTepryriKos and the ver-bal noun (XTratdArjâ (§§ 5.6.1, 5.7.1), contain a further exceptionalphenomenon, the accumulation of three verbal adjectives in

SOCRATES: You must not be soft, you must cover right up; for you have tothink up a defraudative idea, a piece of chicanery.

Such an accumulation is unique in Aristophanes' comedies. Thereare five cases of two verbal adjectives within two lines, but theshortest sequences of three verbal adjectives in a row span sixor seven lines.64 On the whole, verbal adjectives in -re'os are notvery frequent in Aristophanes: I have counted 63 examples.65

Obligation66 is normally expressed by Set (c.iso examples) or

64 Lys. 496-501; Ran. 652-8; for two verbal adjectives within two lines see Eq.920—1; Pax 922—3; Lys. 292-3, 500-1; Eccl. 875—6.

65 Bishop (1899) i t and Moorhouse (1982) 171-2 exclude ambiguous (personalor impersonal) cases in their figures of 6 personal and 46 impersonal examples;Poultney (1963) 376 counts 61 examples.

66 The verbal adjectives in -re'o; express obligation rather than necessity: Bishop(1899)7.


(c.i6o examples). Moreover, Nub. 727-9 is remarkable (a) becausethe impersonal plural verbal adjective in -rea (occurring only 10times in all the comedies, and only about 35 times in the whole ofclassical Greek67) is nowhere else doubled in Aristophanes, and (b)because the copula is nearly always expressed with impersonal(although the ratio with the singular -T<!OI>/-T(OS is only about i cop-ular : 2 non-copular verbal adjectives).68

S.8.2. F U N C T I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T

It must be admitted that the use of verbal adjectives is not con-spicuous in other parts of Clouds (or any other comedy). If Nub.727-9 were not marked as sophistic by other means, we might hes-itate to see in the uncommon accumulation of verbal adjectives anindication of 'sophistic' style. However, the phenomenon fits inwell with the tendencies observed elsewhere in this chapter.

The omission of the copula with -re'a (where it is usuallyexpressed) and the repetition of verbal adjectives both enhance thenominal character of the sentences at Nub. 727—9. Of the threemain variants for deontic statements, verbal adjectives in

and xp*)> the first is the most nominal one from a synchronicpoint of view. It is true that xpn is in origin nominal too, but theexistence of the augmented form expr)v in Aristophanic comedyshows that it was by that time perceived as an impersonal verb anda syntactic equivalent to the genuinely verbal Set.69

The verbal adjectives in -T«os/-T<:a appear late in Greek literature.The first examples are rrrjâvrfov 'to be injured' in Theognis and

'to be proclaimed' in Pindar.70 Unfortunately, there are

67 Cf. Bishop (1899) 126-9, wim examples from Sophocles, Herodotus,Thucydides, and Plato (the impersonal plural verbal adjective is not found in theAttic orators, Xenophon, or Menander).

68 The only other omission of the copula with impersonal -re'a in Aristophanes isAch. 480 (and Thucydides shows a similar reticence with 12 impersonal -re'a, butonly one non-copular example: Thuc. 7. 60. i); cf. also Bishop (1899) 249 and 129:comedy uses the copula more often than other genres, for the overall ratio is abouti : 4; Lasso de la Vega (1952) 319-25; Poultney (1963) 376.

69 Augmented (xp"i)v does not occur in comic lyrics (nor in tragedy), but inAristophanes' spoken lines there are 16 metrically guaranteed cases: Lautensach(1899) 152-9; Platnauer (1942); Barrett (1964) 361-2.

70 Thgn. 689; Find. Ol. 2. 6; the use is impersonal in Pindar, ambiguous inTheognis: cf. Bishop (1899) 10. The exact relationship of the verbal adjectives inwith Mycenaean qe-te-jo and Hesiodic yareios (Hes. Th. 310; Sc. 144, 161) is unclear:see Schwyzer (1939) 811 and the literature cited by Meier-Briigger (1992) 164.


no exact figures for the subsequent increase. Even Bishop, who col-

lected and analysed all the verbal adjectives in in Greek

literature between Theognis and Dinarchus, is not explicit aboutthe figures although he must have had them since he speaks of anexact total of 1,831 verbal adjectives (1,076 of which are used

impersonally).71 It is possible, however, to extrapolate some rawstatistics from his discussion and supplement them with a few per-

sonal counts based on the electronic database of the Thesaurus

Linguae Graecae (*):

Tragedy c.no (Euripides around 70%, Aeschylus less thani o% of the examples)

Comedy £.67 (Aristophanes 63*)

Herodotus 22*Thucydides 31*Xenophon c.i6oPlato c.i,040

Oratory ^.230 (of which Lysias 5*, Demosthenes 97*)

However imprecise these figures may be, they allow two observa-tions. First, there is a continuous increase of verbal adjectives

throughout the fifth and fourth centuries. Secondly, no otherwriter is so fond of them as Plato, which may reflect a predilection

in fourth-century spoken Attic. A colloquial origin is suggested bythe gradual increase in tragedy, the greater frequency in comedythan in fifth-century historical prose, and the reservations of even

a rather informal orator like Lysias.The origin of the verbal adjectives in -Te'os/-T<ra is disputed, but

they are generally assumed to be related to the (pre-Greek) forma-tion of verbal nouns in *-tu-.72 If this is the case, the verbal adjec-tives must have led a subliterary life before the fifth century andtheir late appearance cannot be due to a linguistic 'invention'. But

why did the construction suddenly become so much more fre-quent?

Again, the explanation may lie in a trend towards nominalization

and typicalization in Attic Greek. Nominality is the distinctive fea-

ture of the verbal adjectives in a as contrasted with the most

common deontic constructions xPV (perceived as an impersonal

71 Bishop (1899) 4 and 14; for the significance of the following figures cf. n. 23above.

72 Cf. e.g. Rix (1992) 237; Sihler (1995) 623.


verb) and Set. Compare the following two sentences: (a)Variant (b) literally means 'the horse

is one which has the quality of having to be yoked', whereas (a)simply means 'one must yoke the horse'. The nominal character of(b) makes the statement more universal. The verbal adjectives arebetter able than their syntactic alternatives to express generaltruths and theorems, especially when they occur in nominal sen-tences (i.e. without a copula), which tend to be used in the formu-lation of timeless statements anyway (even though other factorssuch as metrical convenience, speed and economy of expression, orstylistic variation also influence the omission or retention of thecopula).73 The generalizing and didactic value of the verbal adjec-tives in -Tcos/-T<!a is illustrated, for instance, by the third category ofPythagorean aKovaâra or 'doctrinal theorems', which answered thequestion ri -npaKreov rj ov -rrpaKreov; 'what is to be done or not to bedone?'74 With this semantic potential, the verbal adjectives natur-ally blossomed at a time when a strong intellectualization of Atticculture led to a new interest in universal concepts and principles.

I propose to reconstruct a three-stage mutual interactionbetween sociolinguistic layers.

(i) With the verbal adjectives in -T<to?/-Te'a, subliterary Greekpreserved an archaic syntactic usage as a (rare) alternative to thecommon deontic expressions Set and

(2) The cultural change in fifth-century Athens prompted the'rediscovery' of this syntactic option as a convenient means ofexpressing universal deontic statements: the verbal adjectives wereadmitted into literary Greek and became common in cultivatedconversation.

(3) Under the influence of cultivated usage, the frequency of theverbal adjectives increased also in the colloquial layers of Greek,which had preserved the construction to begin with.

This scenario is independent of the 'sophistic' interpretation ofNub. 727-9. But if it is correct, it confirms the idea that Nub. 727-9was linguistically marked by Aristophanes.

73 Cf. Guiraud (1962) 158-60; Dover (1963) 308; Benveniste (1966) 165;Moorhouse (1982) 341-2. Bers (1984) 195-6 stresses the importance of genre in thepredilection for nominal sentences: they are more frequent in gnomic (didactic)authors than in historical or geographical prose.

74 Beside ri eari; and ri juaAiara;: Iambi. VP 83. The categories may reach backat least to Aristotle: Burkert (1972) 170.


5.9- FURTHER N O M I N A L I Z A T I O N PROCESSES(ARTICULAR I N F I N I T I V E , VERBAL

PERIPHRASIS)

The nominalization and typicalization processes that have beendescribed in the preceding sections are summarized in Figure 5.1.I should stress again that the observation of a general trend towardstypicalization in fifth-century Attic does not depend on the inter-pretation of the examples cited from Clouds. The same observationcould have been made by simply looking at the statistical increaseof transitive active perfects, verbal nouns, or verbal adjectiveswithout paying attention to a precise literary context. In fact, thereare at least two further phenomena which are not highlighted inClouds, but which form part of the same linguistic tendency.

( i) In the nominative and accusative ( i .e. with TO, but without preposition), the articular infinitive is a traditional syntactic featureand frequent in tragedy. In the genitive and dative, however, thearticular infinitive only gradually becomes common in classicalGreek. Moreover, subordinate clauses are now increasinglyreplaced by prepositional phrases containing an articular infinitive.Thus, in Nub. 1061-2 the Weak Argument asks:

WEAK ARGUMENT: For who is there that you have ever yet seen to derive

any benefit from being modest?

The obvious syntactic alternative to this fully nominal articularinfinitive would include a full verb, a copula, or at least a partici-pie:

The increasing frequencyof articular infinitives in the genitive and dative or after preposi-tions further supports the general nominalization of fifth-centuryAttic. The statistics collected by Birklein and Burguiere show aspectacular growth both of the absolute numbers of the articularinfinitive as a whole and of the proportional share of the non-traditional articular infinitives (columns II and III of Table 5.i).75

75 Birklein (1888) n, 22, 32, 38, 46, 66-70, 75-80, 84; Burguiere (1960) 121-4;cf. Duhoux (2000) 263-4. In Just 2,000 lines of Menander, Aalto (1953) 33 counts23 examples (i case in every 87 lines): 11 nom./acc. (47.8%), i dat., 8 gen. (together39.1%), 3 prepositional (13.0%).

individuation < » typicalization(verbal) (nominal)

Note. The diagram shows the morphosyntactic phenomena discussed in Ch. 5 positioned on a scale (1-9) ranging from full individuation(verbal) on the left to full typicalization (nominal) on the right. For each nominalization/typicalization phenomenon a more verbalized/indi-vidualized alternative is suggested between curved brackets. Phrasal and contextual complements are added in square brackets.

The numbering and positioning in the above diagram identify individual words as follows:Position i: Finite (simplex) verbs (pres./aor., with or without nominal object) Position 6: 'Deverbal' adjective in -Position 2: 'Resultative perfect' Position 7: Adjective (with copula)Position 3: Denominal compound verb expressing habituation Position 8: Verbal nouns inPosition 4: Verbal infinitive Position 9: Abstract noun in -Position 5: Verbal adjective in -re'os

FIGURE 5.1. Nominalization and typicalization processes in Clouds


TABLE 5.1. Articular infinitives in classical Greek literature

I. nom./acc. II. gen./dat. III . with prep.

Ncx % No. % No. % TOTAL

AeschylusSophoclesEuripidesAristophanesHerodotusThucydidesPlatoXenophonDemosthenes

4482

7439

35

63932

539361

86.33

84.579.6660.0

71.421.4

45-941-331.9

4

7

H9

569

480

252

372

7-87.2

15-113.810.2

23-4

23.66

20. o

32.9

38

5179

163620

515397

5-98.2

5-426.218.4

55-330-539-435-i

5i97936549

295203213061 130

The high figures for Thucydides are hardly surprising given thewell-known sophistic strand in his language. Those for

Aristophanes illustrate that the new constructions76 were gaining

territory in colloquial language as well, even though they may still

have been bookish because of their abstractness: 94% of all attesta-

tions in the literature of the fifth and fourth centuries occur in

prose, only 6% in drama.77

The fact that there is a particularly noticeable concentration ofarticular infinitives in the second half of Clouds with 8 cases within600 lines need not be significant. In Nub. 1061 and 1071 the sophis-tic Weak Argument is speaking (echoed by the Strong Argument inNub. 1067) and in Nub. 1412 the articular infinitive occurs in asophistic argument, but the other cases seem less remarkable (Nub.

826, 1084, 1303, 1357). There is an exceptionally high incidence of

76 Overall, the articular infinitive is more common in Aeschylus (i case in every159 lines) and Sophocles (1/106) than in Euripides (1/269) or Aristophanes (1/238),but this results from the frequency of the old nominative-accusative usage in theearly tragedians: Birklein (1888) 33-4; Burguiere (1960) 118. The replacement of afinal clause by an articular infinitive in the genitive (without preposition) is notattested in comedy.

77 Burguiere (1960) 120; Duhoux (2000) 264. Vendryes (1944) 129 observes thatthe articular infinitive is an elevated feature in Lysias; on the abstract (or 'typical')character of the articular infinitive, which does not express gender or number, seeDenniston (1952) 37-8; Kurzova (1968) 69-83.


articular infinitives also in Wasps (as well as Plutus, but by that timethe usage was firmly established anyway).78

(2) In the third person plural of the medio-passive perfect andpluperfect, Attic Greek regularly used a periphrastic expressionwith a participle and the copula elaiv (e.g. Pax 197'they have moved out' for unpronounceable *e'£u>iaavTai; cf. App. §3.4.1.4). Perhaps starting from possessive constructions with thecopula (e.g. Ach. 512 KOLÔI yap fanv ap.ijf\ia KeKoêva 'I too have hadvines cut down'; Nub. 795; Ar. fr. 215?), the periphrastic perfectgradually intruded into the singular as well, especially, but notexclusively, with neuter plural subjects.79 Almost half of theAristophanic cases for the extended use of the periphrasis occur inthe last two plays. The transition from, for instance,

'a thing has been examined' to

thing is examined" (cf. Lys. 26) is again a step towards nominaliza-tion of a verbal phrase. This is particularly clear where the perfectparticiple parallels an adjective; here, the periphrastic expressionsupports syntactic integration (cf. Eccl. 746-7

Til be an absolute loser and have very littlesense rather than KCLKO&aifiwv avfjp eooftat KCLI vovv o\iyov KC/CTTjaojU-ai).

Mutatis mutandis the same thing happens in the case of the so-called schema Chalctdicum,81 where a present verb form is replacedby a periphrastic construction of present participle + copula (e.g.Eq. 468 ravra fan av^cfvatii^tva 'that plot's welded together' for

, Again a possessive notion accounts for some but not allcases.82 The figure also occurs with active perfect participles.83

78 Cf. Birklein (1888) 38; Vendryes (1944) 131.79 Ntr. pi.: Ach, 1089; Av. 1291; Eccl. 139, 458, 970; Plut. 161, 626; ntr.

and other genders: Eq. 230, 844; Vesp. 127; Pax 566; Av. 1301; Lys. 26-7, 175, 1038;Thesm. 75 (and cf. 1119); Ran. 761 (and cf. 721); Eccl. 61, 1139, 1147; Plut. 77 (isperson!), 1192; also a future perfect in Av. 655 foeoBov fTTTtptufievui 'you'll bwinged'. The 'Latinate' -rawrayi fanv o-ma 'these are roasted' in Pax 1057—8 isexceptional.

80 Similarly with present participles Av. 755; Ran. 1396; Plut. 371; cf. Bjorck(1940)32.

81 Lesbonax Gramm. 5 Blank.82 Pax 334; Av. 652; Lys. 101, 729—30 (both possessive); Thesm. 77 (paratragic);

Plut. 49; Ar. fr. 74 (possessive?); later e.g. Antiphanes frs. 4, 54. 3, 122. n;Anaxandrides fr. 57. 4. In passages like Av. 962, Ran. 35-6, 80-90, or Eccl. 1094, theparticiple stands for a relative clause and does not go with the copula: similarly225-6; Ran. 433; Eccl. io86;cf. Bjorck (1940) 15, 102-3. The frequent type

'who is calling?' with an articular participle is idiomatic: Bjorck (1940) 89-92.83 Eq. 854; Av. 1473; Plut. 867.

80


It is true that the aspectual motivation for both types,part. pres. and etvai + part. perf. pass., is sometimes strong, that theperiphrasis may involve a 'Verlegung des Schwergewichts von derHandlung auf das Eigenschaftliche' or a 'partialisierende Schau',and that in translation adverbs like 'actually, indeed' may help torender the exact semantic nuance.84 However, a purely semanticexplanation does not do justice to the fact that the usage is not pre-dictable, that it becomes more common in fourth-century prose ascompared with fifth-century literature,85 and that it seems at leastas strong in literary as in spoken registers since neither Old norMiddle and New Comedy employ it more frequently than othercontemporary genres.86

The verbal periphrasis and the articular infinitive share two essen-tial features. Both involve a nominalizing process which (a) gradu-ally increased in frequency during the fifth and fourth centuries,and (b) was firmly rooted in cultivated or literate registers. IfAristophanes was right in associating the nominalizing and typi-calizing processes discussed earlier with the spread of sophistic cul-ture, both (a) and (b) also apply to all of them. That he wasprobably right becomes clear if we now look at these developmentsfrom a typological perspective.

5.10. N O M I N A L I Z A T I O N , TYPICALIZATION,AND LITERATE CULTURE

It has long been observed that languages which know both oral andwritten registers always have a very clear divide between the two.87

Recently Biber has shown that, although the distinctions betweenoral and written registers vary from language to language, they allresemble each other since most of the language-specific distinc-tions can be grouped together into a few universal register dimen-sions: interactiveness, production circumstances, personalstance.88 Biber's approach has been presented in more detail in

84 Bjorck (1940) 28; Coseriu (1975) 16-18; Rutherford (1903) 249.85 Aerts (1965) 25-6; Dietrich (1973) 201-9. 86 Bjorck (1940) 36.87 Even though the distinction is not absolute, as Biber (1988), esp. 160-4,

stresses. For further literature on oral vs. written registers see e.g. the contributionsin Tannen (1982) and the references in Biber (1995) 12-15.

88 Biber (1995) 236—53.


Chapter 2. Here I will concentrate on the dimension of productioncircumstances in the differentiation of oral and written registers.

As we have seen in Chapter 2, the dimension of production cir-cumstances has similar structural correlates across all languages. Inoral registers with 'on-line' production, elliptical sentences,parataxis, or contracted forms are frequent, whereas written regis-ters with 'planned' production show extensive structural integra-tion and elaboration. Concretely, this means more hypotacticstructures, more precise lexical choices, and above all a high degreeof nominalization: frequent nouns, derived nominal forms, attribu-tive adjectives, and prepositional phrases.89 Moreover, structuralintegration can involve typicalization processes other than nomi-nalization: compare the integrated d/je/foSiyaw with a non-integrated

or the integrated perfect KeVAoya with a non-integrated

Consequently, a shift towards nominalization and typicalizationis, typologically speaking, the grammatical manifestation of a shiftfrom a more 'oral' towards a more 'literate' mode of expression. Ifthe literate mode becomes influential and prestigious enough toleave its imprint on the oral mode, such a development can affectthe entire system of a language.90 In practical terms, nominaliza-tion and typicalization processes are therefore to be expected wher-ever (i) literacy is spreading and (2) literate culture is gainingsociocultural prestige.

That (i) literacy was spreading quickly in late fifth-centuryAthens can be inferred for instance from the fact that we first hearat this time of an established Athenian book market (Eupolis fr.327). 91 And as for (2), with their new intellectualized form of edu-cation the sophists both promoted, and profited from, a changingsocial evaluation of 'bookish' culture and an increasing apprecia-

89 Biber (1995) 259—60; cf. Givon (1979) 82—3, 103-6; Chafe (1982).90 Biber (1995) 300 suggests that written registers evolve in three stages: (i) gen-

esis (written registers enter a language and are already quite different from typical

spoken registers), (2) early development (written registers become more sharply

distinguished from spoken registers, extending the range of register variation), (3)

split between popular and specialized registers (the former becoming more similar

to oral registers). This model treats oral registers as static, but since stage (3) occurs

when the literate public is widening, the convergence which takes place is likely to

be mutual in both literate and oral registers.91 Also Av. 1288; cf. Aristomenes fr. 9; Nicophon fr. 10; Theopompus Com. fr.

79; Harris (1989) 84-5, and for the spread of literacy in general 65-115.


tion of literary learning. In other words, we could have predictedon typological grounds exactly those grammatical trends which weactually observe in Aristophanes' sophistic comedy. In this sense—because it illustrates so well how literate expression and sophisticteaching went hand in hand—a fragment from Aristophanes'Tagenistae is perhaps the best key to the linguistic world of Clouds

(Ar. fr. 506; note the resultative perfect and the moderncf. Ch. 6.8.2):

Either a book or Prodicus or one of those babblers has corrupted thisman.

5 . I I . C O N C L U S I O N

In this chapter we have seen how a close analysis of stylisticallymarked passages in Aristophanic comedy can throw new light onlinguistic change. The observation that the phenomena consideredhere are spreading during the classical epoch is not new in itself,but the particular co-occurrence of these phenomena inAristophanes' Clouds allows us to reconstruct their position in thesociolinguistic system of Attic Greek, to link their spread to theemergence of a new cultural movement, and to recognize theircommon foundation in a general trend towards nominalization andtypicalization. The validity of Aristophanes' implicit indicationsabout their 'sophistic' nature has been corroborated by typologicalarguments. Since nominalization and typicalization processes gen-erally characterize shifts from oral to literate modes of expressionand since the sophists were the most prominent promoters of achange from a traditional oral culture to a new literate culture, it isplausible to see in the verbal play of Clouds not just a literary con-struct (as in the case of the 'scientific discourse' described in thepreceding chapter) but a comic reflection of an actual diachronicdevelopment with a sociolinguistic background.

On the basis of an entirely different body of material and withmore emphasis on the typological aspect, the next chapter on

92 Cf. further Denniston (1927) 117-18, also on Ran. 943, 1409; Pfeiffer (1968)27-32-


female speech in Aristophanes will further elaborate on this con-nection between comic representation, cultural change, and soci-olinguistic variation.

6

Female Speech

6.1. INTRODUCTION

The study of gender-specific language has been one of the mostthriving fields of sociolinguistics over the past few decades. At leastsince the seventeenth century it has been known that there are non-European cultures whose languages mark the speaker's genderobligatorily in their grammar. North American languages becamethe focus of interest after the work by Sapir on the Indian Yana lan-guage in Northern California.1 These languages fundamentallydiffer from those of an Indo-European type where the only form ofmorphological gender-marking does not depend on the sex of thespeaker. However, Jespersen noted early that in European cul-tures, too, women do not speak exactly like men. His 1922 chapteron women's language contains some crude generalizations, but it isalso a rich source of contemporary and historical material from var-ious cultures and highly valued as the starting-point of moderngender linguistics.2

In the 19703 the works of Labov, Lakoff, and Trudgill providednew stimuli.3 Here were made some of the statements whichgender-linguists still position themselves for or against. Certainfundamental notions even reached a non-specialist audience andcontributed to a general interest in the matter.4 Perhaps the mostfascinating (and most controversial) finding was that men almostuniversally use more stigmatized or non-standard linguistic

1 Sapir (1929); later Haas (1944); Flannery (1946); cf. Bodine (1975) with a sur-vey of further studies; more recently e.g. Bradley (1998) on an Australian aborigi-nal language. On early reports see Jespersen (1922) 237-8; Coates (1998) 7.

2 Jespersen (1922) 237-54, with statements like 'the vocabulary of a woman as arule is much less extensive than that of a man' (p. 248). Even earlier, Frazer (1900)had discussed the topic: cf. Bodine (1975) 130. A first reaction by a classicist was thechapter on 'II linguaggio delle donne' in Menander by Zini (1938) 57—80.

3 Labov (1972); Trudgill (1972); Lakoff (1973).4 Reflected for instance in the hotly debated book by Tannen (1990): cf.

Troemel-Ploetz (1991).

158 Female Speech

features than women.5 Most researchers agree that the reason mustbe a social one and that gender-based differences in language arenot conditioned by biological factors (although women may havean innate biological superiority in language acquisition and use).6

The nature of the ancient evidence did not facilitate gender-linguistic research by classical scholars. Nevertheless, the issue wassoon taken up. In a first step, Gilleland collected secondary evi-dence: statements by ancient grammarians and other authors.Next, it was recognized that comedy and mime might yield some-thing comparable (in type if not in quality) to modern collectionsof oral data. Since the comic poets were all men, the material mustof course be treated with extreme caution; it certainly encodes folk-linguistic notions about gender-specific language as well as linguis-tic realities. Still, the articles by Bain on New Comedy and byAdams on Roman Comedy have demonstrated that a substantialnumber of plausible facts can be gathered. Whereas Bain had con-sciously neglected Old Comedy because of its discontinuous andoften unrealistic mode of characterization, which might falsify theresults to an even greater degree, Sommerstein showed that certainstereotypes about women's language were recoverable there too,and that some of them were probably based on real gender differ-ences in classical Greek.7 Sommerstein's observations, mainly onoaths, address forms, and the use of affective adjectives andobscene language, were a reliable starting-point for my own inves-tigations.8

Of course, my primary aim is not merely to recapitulateSommerstein's list of female-speech features in Aristophanes. Irather want to relate his data (as well as additional material) tomodern gender-linguistic theories. In order to do so, I will firstdiscuss a range of basic concepts in sociolinguistic research on

5 Cf. e.g. Coates (1986) 57—78; Nordberg (1975) 596, with further references.6 Cf. Maccoby-Jacklin (1975) 75-85; Chambers (1992) 199-204; critically

Macaulay (1978); James (1996) 118.7 Gilleland (1980); Bain (1984); Adams (1984); Sommerstein (1995). The (good)

investigation on women's language in Euripides by McClure (1995) turned out tobe less rewarding. On Roman comedy see also Schauwecker (2002).

8 Eugenia Lopez-Garcia kindly allowed me also to use her unpublishedCambridge M.Phil, thesis: Lopez-Garcia (19980) and (19986). Further points aremade by Nieddu (2001), but few of these are supported by a quantitative analysis,so that the classification of his 'locuzioni e giri di frase che nella loro particolaremodulazione appartenevano . . . all'universo femminile' (p. 218) remains entirelysubjective.

Female Speech 159

women's language and situate the Athenian linguistic world in thisframework (§§ 6.2-6.7). Next, I will give a catalogue of gender-specific features in Aristophanic language (§ 6.8). Finally I willinterpret these features with the help of the concepts presented inthe first part (§§ 6.9-6.10), before ending with a few remarks ondramatic technique (§ 6.n).

6.2. STANDARD, PRESTIGE, AND INNOVATION

If we start from the observation that men use more stigmatized andnon-standard features than women we soon encounter the first diffi-culty. The observation presupposes the existence of a linguistic'standard', from which speakers can depart. In most modern literatesocieties it is easy to establish what is standard since oursocieties tend to be 'literarized': the grammar of the 'standard' lan-guage regularly coincides with that of cultivated writing, and as suchit has great cultural prestige. Athens in the fifth century was not anilliterate society, but written standards could not have the same reg-ulatory function. Literature was accessible only to a minority, and,more importantly, literary standards that could become prestigevarieties were only just developing. Authors like Thucydides orGorgias still belonged to an era of literary experimentation.

In the period of Old Comedy, Athens underwent deep changes.Through its empire it had lost the innocence of the archaic city-state. Its political leadership unavoidably led to a growing interna-tionalism of the population. During the Peloponnesian War (whichrevealed that non-Athenian ways of life were not always inferior)allies were gained and lost. Athens was a hub for visitors and settlersfrom all parts of the Greek world. All this fluctuation left its imprinton the Attic language. Linguistic change was omnipresent. Withthe new internationalism the roots of Koine Greek were growing.

In such periods of accelerated linguistic change some people areinevitably less happy than others. The 'Old Oligarch', who wrote,perhaps in the 4205, the Pseudo-Xenophontic Constitution ofAthens, was probably9 one of those who had uneasy feelings aboutthe development of Attic Greek (2. 8):

9 Despite the hardly laudatory mention of /3apj3apoi at the end of the passage (cf.Cic. de rep. 2. 7), Frisch (1942) 254 rightly warns that 'it should . . . be kept in mindthat we are here in the middle of an enumeration of "advantages" of the naval supe-riority'.

160 Female Speech

Moreover, because they heard all kinds of languages and dialects, [theAthenians] selected one thing from this variety and another from that. Infact, all the other Greeks prefer their own dialects, ways of life, and man-ners, but the Athenians have a mixed language with elements taken fromall the other Greeks as well as from the barbarians.

For people like the 'Old Oligarch" pure Old Attic would have beenthe ideal 'standard', the most 'prestigious' form of Attic. On theother hand, there was a long tradition of ennobling Attic with for-eign elements. Tragedy had always borrowed features of the liter-ary language of Ionia. Ionic influences are equally obvious in earlyAttic prose. And Lopez Eire has argued that the emergence ofKoine Greek in the fourth century was essentially the consequenceof an lonicization of Attic.10 Since Ionia also played a central rolein the establishment of the common cultural heritage of Greece,such an lonicized Attic could easily acquire social prestige. Hence,for a second group of Athenians 'prestige' Attic would have meantan Attic more open to linguistic innovations.

Through what channels would these innovations creep in? InGreek dialectology most emphasis is usually laid on wavelike lin-guistic spread. Modern studies of linguistic innovation show that abetter analogy than that of the wave would be that of a stone skim-ming across a pond. The spread of uvular /r/ in Europe, forinstance, started in Paris around 1600, and subsequently invadedthe German and Scandinavian linguistic area by jumps from oneurban centre to the next. Minor jumps from these centres firstaffected smaller towns, then villages, but many less urbanizedpatches remained unaffected.11 Thus, we would expect innova-tions from outside to start off in Athens (or maybe the Piraeus), andto reach more remote parts of Attica only slowly. A famousAristophanic fragment may confirm this scenario (fr. 706):

10 Lopez Eire (1993), after others like Meillet (1965) 262—4.11 Chambers-Trudgill (1998) 166-86; details for the spread of uvular /r/ in

Trudgill(i974)2i8-2i.

Female Speech 161

[him] whose language is the average style of the polis, neither urbane andslightly womanish, nor vulgar and somewhat boorish.

The fragment is difficult to interpret, but it clearly distinguishesthree sociolectal strata in Attic. One of the two negative extremes islabelled 'rustic, boorish' and thus associated with the dypds 'coun-tryside' (cf. inraypoiKOTtpav), the other is called 'urbane' and associ-ated with the aarv 'city' (cf. dcn-eiW). In view of the stone-skimmingmodel for linguistic diffusion, the 'urbane' style must be the onemore open to innovation. Cultivated lonians would visit the cityof Athens rather than the rural deme of Acharnae. The 'urbane'variety is further characterized as 'womanish'. Apparently, (over)-refined language was folk-linguistically associated with an unmanlyor 'female' style of speaking.12 How did this association comealong? Were Athenian women among those promoting linguisticinnovation?

The idea is not implausible. In many traditional societies womenare the main caregivers for small children, whose language acquisi-tion is therefore biased in favour of the women's norm. When thechildren (or at least the boys) grow up, they may redefine their lin-guistic models, but the initial advantage for women's languageremains.13 Even in English, a language with a recognized standard,women observe the 'standard' only with regard to stable variables(i.e. variants that have coexisted for a long time, like walkin' vs.walking), but they are less conservative than men in the case of vari-ables which reflect change in progress (like the American raising of[se] in words like rat).14

A well-known passage from Plato further supports the view thatAthenian women formed part of the linguistic avant-garde. In theCratylus, Socrates observes that women retain best what he takesto be the ancient pronunciation of <ij>/<ei> and <£> (PI. Crat.

4i8b-d):

12 Cf. the association of (Euripidean) tragedy with cultural 'feminization1: Zeitlin(1981) 2io-i i; Zeitlin (1990) 88-95; Taaffe (1993) :39; Hall (1998) 29-33.

13 Cf. Labov (1972) 302-3; Lakoff (1973) 47 n. i; Thorne-Henley (1975) 23-4;Labov (1990) 219-20.

14 Labov (1972) 243, 301-4; Labov (1990) 210-18; Eckert (1998) 66.

162 Female Speech

You know that our ancestors used the iota and the delta in a very correctway, especially the women, who best preserve the ancient pronunciationBut nowadays, people change iota into epsilon or eta, and delta into zetabecause they sound more impressive. . . . Thus, the most ancient speakerused to pronounce rmtpa as i^tpa, a bit later they made it epepa, and todaythey say riiitpa. . . . Similarly, you know that our anscestors said Svoyov for

The fact that Plato was no great historical linguist does not dimin-ish the value of his observations on synchronic pronunciation vari-ation. The passage shows that women were among the promotersof an iotacistic pronunciation [i:] for <ij>/<ei>. For <£> the impli-cations are less obvious, but <Suoyw> for <1,vy6v> may be anattempt to reproduce a pronunciation [S£] for traditional Attic [£8].In both cases, then, the female pronunciation of Plato's day was tobecome common by the end of the fourth century. Sommersteinsuggests that these pronunciations originated in Boeotian, and that'women were more ready than men to adopt innovations from thislow-prestige source'.15 However, there is no evidence for Boeotianinfluence on Attic: the change [e:] > [i:] may have taken place inde-pendently, and Boeotian <8S> for <£> is not what we find in laterAttic.16 And why should women have taken up a low-prestige pro-nunciation? When low-prestige features are adopted, they regu-larly have 'covert' prestige (see § 6.3), and that is extremely unlikelyin this cultural constellation.

Instead, we may tentatively assume (i) that women prominentlyfurthered linguistic innovation in Attic17 because they regarded theinnovatory variety as prestigious, and (2) that this variety had pres-tige connotations also for those (male) social groups who aimed atcultural refinement (doreKmjs) although that meant to be on the'female' side of the established gender-model.

15 Sommerstein (1995) 83, who interprets the anlaut of <Suoydv> as [d-], so thatthe women's pronunciation would have been ephemeral; for the pronunciation of<£> and the transition [zd] > [dz] (> [z]) in 4th-cent. Attic see Allen (1987) 56-9.Female iotacism is also plausible from an anatomical viewpoint, since 'the shorterlength of women's vocal tracts does predict higher formant positions': Labov (1972)303-

16 Conversely, Boeotian is influenced by Attic: cf. Vottero (1998) 137-40.17 Cf. already Duhoux (1987) 190-5.

Female Speech 163

6.3. LANGUAGE LOYALTY

Athenian women led a more restricted life than Athenian men andwere thus less directly exposed to innovatory influences from out-side, e.g. from the cultural prestige area of Ionia. Hence, one mightobject to hypothesis (i) in the preceding section that women shouldnot be expected to have innovated more than men.18

At this point we need to distinguish different types of societies.The social network theory of J. and L. Milroy predicts that peoplewho have all their social relationships within a narrowly definedcommunity, a tight 'social network', are more likely to use non-standard or non-prestigious speech variants.19 In communitieswhere women are more 'domestic' than men and less involved inclose-knit peer groups that form at places of employment or onstreet corners, women are more open to elite norms and less con-strained by vernacular norms which are maintained by peer moni-toring.20

A study by Holmquist in a modern Spanish village found that,although men were much more exposed to standard Spanishbecause of their jobs, women's speech was significantly closer tostandard Spanish and therefore more innovative than that of men,who kept to the traditional local patois.21 Borker has pointed outanthropological similarities throughout Southern Europe, wherethe separation of women's and men's domains are a prominent fea-ture of social life. Her description of the prevalent cultural systemin these countries could be a description of the cultural system thatcharacterized most ancient Greek societies. It is based on opposi-tions of public and private, honour and shame, male and female:'The domestic domain here is not just the home, nor is it a neutralanalytical construct but a conceptualization that is grounded in aspecific cultural tradition that privatizes and spatializes it.This culturally specific concept of the domestic domain sets it in

18 The real seclusion of women may have been less complete than the idealizedseclusion: cf. Richter (1971); Gould (1980)46-9; Just (1989) 105-25; Fanthametal.(1994) 106—9; Blok (2001) 97-100 and 109—16.

19 Milroy (1980) 177—8; cf. James (1996) 100—2.20 Hill (1987) 157, after Cheshire (1978) 66-7 and Milroy (1980) 80-1, 155-7.21 Holmquist (1985) 198—202; similarly Gal (1978) on a bilingual Hungarian vil-

lage where (young) women prefer the socially higher classed German to the 'lower'Hungarian because the latter is associated with a peasant lifestyle; cf. James (1996)103-4, with further examples.

164 Female Speech

opposition to an equally culture-bound public domain, and associ-ates the domestic domain with women.'22 Typologically, it istherefore plausible to find in ancient Athens a situation which issimilar to that in the modern Spanish village.

The concept of 'language loyalty' further clarifies the issue.However close-knit women's social networks are, women may feellittle loyalty to the traditional culture embodied in traditional lan-guage. They may expect a real or symbolic bettering of their livesand social positions from the culture that is associated with the newlanguage. In this situation the two languages or styles often repre-sent a 'power code' (the 'code' which promises a better life by chal-lenging existing structures from above or outside while beingsupported by a socio-economic strength that is not regulated by thecommunity itself) and a 'solidarity code' (which is regulated by thecommunity to enforce cohesion in face of the threat from above oroutside).23

The question is whether Athenian women could expect to bettertheir lot in life through the adoption of the new code. Certainly itwas a time when men in intellectual circles began to reflect on therespective positions of women and men: Bruns went as far as tospeak of 'Frauenemancipation', and he saw in a comedy likeLysistrata the reaction to such ideas.24 Moreover, it might havebeen sufficient for women to be regarded as more refined, whichwould have enhanced their self-esteem as well as their symbolicsocial status (even if their practical status remained the same). Ithas been suggested that women in modern Western societies usefewer non-standard or stigmatized features because unlike menthey are mainly judged by superficial criteria such as appearanceand behaviour. Since women do not have the means of securingmaterial capital in the same way as men, they are forced to accu-mulate symbolic capital in order to become respected.25 Againmuch depends on the kind of community, but the extent to whichwomen use standard or prestige language as a strategy for gaining

22 Borker (1980) 37; cf. Reiter (1975) 254-73; for the basic dichotomiesmale/female and public/private in ancient Greek gender-construction cf. Xen. Oe7. 20-5; Foley (1981) 140-61; for the Spartan exception to the rule see Cartledge(1981); Fantham et at. (1994) 56-67.

23 Cf. for 'power code' vs. 'solidarity code' Hill (1987) 128; for 'language loyalty'James (1996) 103-4.

24 Bruns (1900); cf. also Rothwell (1990) 21—3.25 Trudgill (1972) 182-3; Eckert (1998) 73.

Female Speech 165

respect seems to be inversely related to the level of their participa-

tion in public life.26 The far-reaching exclusion of women from

public life in Athens would then corroborate the idea that they 'had

to' turn to a prestige language which was distinct from the tradi-

tional solidarity code.27

But why would men not seek the same symbolic capital in addi-

tion to their material capital? Labov and Trudgill point out that

non-standard speech is often associated with showing indepen-

dence from social constraints and that this is a characteristic feature

of the gender construction of 'masculinity' (whereas 'femininity'

encourages conforming to social rules). Stigmatized male language

therefore has 'covert prestige', as opposed to the 'overt prestige' of

standard language.28 Of course, it would be exaggerated to think of

the traditional Athenian solidarity code (i.e. the Old Oligarch's

ideal Attic: cf. § 6.2) as stigmatized. However, we had good reasons

to suppose that the cultivated Athenian elite attached overt prestige

to a linguistically innovative (lonicizing) form of Attic. Thus,

showing independence could mean opposition to the linguistic

fashions of this elite, fashions which the average male citizen did

not have under his control, both because they came from 'outside'

(e.g. from Ionian culture) and because they were supported 'inside'

mainly by members of more intellectual social strata (e.g. the

sophistic circles). This again reminds us of the contrast between'feminine' cultivated urbanity and 'masculine' rustic boorishness

in Aristophanes fr. 706 (quoted in § 6.2), and also of the comic

'feminization' of intellectuals like Socrates, Euripides, and

Agathon. The allegedly pathic homosexual Agathon is most clearly

linked with femininity,29 but 'feminine' features are also attached

to Socrates, whose followers spend their lives indoors rather thanin the agora, and to Euripides, who is said to teach women not to

conform with male-imposed norms and whose linguistic behaviour

is characterized as Aa/W 'chatter' just like that of women.

26 James (1996) no.27 Cic. de oral. 3. 45 notes the conservative pronunciation of Roman women: per-

haps overt prestige here implied traditionalism (mos maiorum); cf. Gilleland (1980)180-1; Adams (1984) 44.

28 Trudgill (1972) 183-4; James (1996) 113-15.29 Cf. McClure (1999) 222.

166 Female Speech

6.4. POLITENESS

In connection with 'masculine' and 'feminine' gender regulations,politeness (in the widest sense, i.e. including features like the useor non-use of strong words and obscenity30) is a crucial point.According to Brown and Levinson, politeness essentially consistsin respecting other people's feelings and attending to their 'faceneeds' (i.e. their natural wish not to be offended, but to berespected or liked). 'Positive' politeness strategies aim at disarmingthreats to positive face needs by showing support, approval, andinterest in the interlocutor. Typical linguistic features of this typeare terms of endearment and compliments.

'Negative' politeness strategies are based on avoidance andassure the addressee that the speaker will not interfere with his orher freedom of action or opinion; typically—and usually moreoften in female than in male speech—'hedges' are used to limit theforce of a speech-act (words like 'maybe', questions instead ofassertions, tag questions to seek agreement, etc.).31 Moreover, var-ious modern studies have shown that women develop a cooperativespeech style and observe social rules of politeness better thanmen.32 The drawback is that women's language thereby becomesless straightforward, which leads to the folk-linguistic notion offemale insincerity.

6.5. STEREOTYPING AND DRAMATIC REALISM

Despite the cross-cultural similarities of women's speech, whichresult from the subordinated status of women in most societies, theneed to consider the potentially relevant socio-economic factors ofeach culture individually has been subsumed in the sociolinguisticslogan 'think practically, look locally'.33 If anywhere, this is crucial

30 On (the absence of) female swearing and obscenity in modern (Western) cul-ture see e.g. Jespersen (1922) 245-7; Lakoff (1973) 50-1; Coates (1986) 108-9;McClure (1999) 208 n. 7; for Latin see Adams (1984) 45-6.

31 Brown (1980) 114-17; cf. Brown-Levinson (1987) 70; Coates (1986) 109—12;Coates (1988) 113-18; J. Holmes (1995) 72-114; similarly in Latin: Adams (1984)55-68.

32 Cf. Lakoff (1973) 56-7; Brown (1980) 119-33, on Tzeltal; M. H. Go(1980), on boys and girls in Philadelphia; Shibamoto (1987) 28—9, on Japanese;Coates (1986) 114-17; Coates (1988) 118-19; J- Holmes (1998) 467-8.

33 In the title of Eckert—McConnell-Ginet (1992); cf. Sherzer (1987) 117; James(1996) 119.

Female Speech 167

in the case of an ancient society like classical Athens, where we arefacing the additional problem that all our evidence is filteredthrough male perception and stereotyping. Perhaps the best mod-ern analogue to our investigation is Shibamoto's study on thedepiction of female speech in (male-centred and male-written)Japanese television soap operas. Shibamoto found that stereotypi-cal features of women's language are accumulated in these soapoperas, since women are expected to behave more womanly (andmen more manly) than in reality.34

An essential difference between the Japanese soap operas and theAristophanic plays lies in the fact that men played all the femaleroles in Greek comedy. We might therefore fear to find only stereo-typical features in Aristophanes, but these in an exaggeratedfrequency. However, a male playwright does not just sprinkle a few'female' features over an essentially male script in order to repro-duce 'typically female' language. He rather operates with an intu-itive concept of what women's conversation sounds like, withoutbeing able to pin down the exact features that produce the desiredeffect. For instance, if the author had heard female speakers useconservative morphology a thousand times, he would automati-cally introduce a larger amount of conservative morphology intohis representation, even though he might occasionally give thesame forms also to a male speaker and be unable to analyse gram-matically what makes his female discourse 'female'. In such caseswe are dealing with (subconscious) 'indicators' rather than (con-scious) 'stereotypes' or 'markers',35 but since a neat separation israrely possible, the catalogue in section 6.8 will consider themtogether.

6.6. FOLK-LINGUISTIC NOTIONSAND 'SEXIST' LANGUAGE

In order to assess the gender-linguistic material we actually find incomedy, we need to be aware of the major folk-linguistic ideas

34 Shibamoto (1987) 40-7; for a disagreement between folk-linguistic thinkingand linguistic reality see Hill (1987) 121; for the methodological problems withancient languages also Bain (1984) 24-5 and Adams (1984) 43—4.

35 Cf. for this distinction Saville-Troike (1989) 72-3, after Labov (1972) 237—8.In the present context it is unnecessary to distinguish (inaccurate) 'stereotypes' and(accurate) 'markers': since we will never know how women really spoke, 'stereotype'is the safer label.

168 Female Speech

about female speech in classical Greece. This section brieflyreviews the relevant data.

McClure has recently discussed the range of verbal genres whichare associated with women in the Greek literary tradition: rituallamentation, ritual obscenity (aio^poAoyi'a), ritual cries like the

female choruses, gossip, and seductive persuasion.36 Manyof these are typically assigned to the domestic or private sphere(whereas public speech-making is a male domain), and most ofthem are closely paralleled by similar 'female' genres in othertraditional cultures. Among the Kuna Indians of Panama, publicverbal genres are 'male', but women perform the private genres oflullabies, tuneful weeping, and lamentation.37 Among theAraucanians in Chile, women are responsible for laments butexpected to be taciturn and submissive, whereas men are trainedfor public speaking.38 The same division characterizes theAthenian household, where women are told to shut up when theywant to discuss politics with their husbands and ideally keep silentanyway.39 In public, women must not only not speak themselves,but not even be spoken of, as Pericles implies in his funeral oration.Also, orators avoid naming respectable women in forensic speechesand this rule of etiquette may well have been observed in othersocial contexts as well.40 A Mediterranean areal pattern makeswomen domestic storytellers.41 Even in comedy, Lysistrata pre-sents a major part of her political vision in an extended wool-work-ing metaphor drawn from domestic life.42

One of the most persistent cross-cultural notions about womenis the idea that they are gossips. Only recently has the socio-

36 McClure (1999) 32-8, and 40—7 on lamentation; cf. also Blok (2001) 104-9 and

Lardinois (2001) 80-91 on ritual lamenting and singing, Deubner (1941) on the

and O'Higgins (2001) on 37 Gal (1991) 182; Sherzer (1987) 98 and 112, also on other non-industrial soci-

eties; McClure (1999) 32-8, esp. 35.38 Sherzer (1987) 100-1; McClure (1999) 35.39 Lys. 507-20; cf. Eccl. 520-1 (where Blepyrus does not accept his wife's 'that's

none of your business'); Xen. Oec. 3. 12, 7. 5; Soph. Ai. 293; Eur. Tro. 654-5; Plut-

Mor. I42c-d; Gilleland (1980) 182. The reality may have been more like Eccl.

551—5, where a husband wants to talk to his wife about the results of the

cf. Dem. 59. 110-11; Gould (1980) 50.40 Thuc. 2. 45. 2.; Schaps (1977); cf. Sommerstein (19806) with similar evidence

from comedy.41 Harding (1975) 296-7; Reiter (1975) 264-5; Sherzer (1987) 98.42 Lys. 567—86; cf. Henderson (1987) 129; Foley (1982) 14—21, on Praxagora's

OiAos-centred political system in Ecclesiazusae.

Female Speech 169

psychological function of 'chatting' in all-female settings been re-evaluated,43 The association of women and gossip is reported inrural communities of the entire Mediterranean.44 In ancientGreece pertinent references are widespread, especially in drama.45

The distribution of the verb XaXelv 'to chatter' in comedy reflectsthis stereotype.46

In Aristophanes, AaAeiV (and AaAia, AaAo?) frequently denoteswomen's speech and conversation. Most of the time it has unmis-takably negative connotations.47 In view of the association ofwomen with (over-)refined discourse (§ 6.2), it is significant thatthe only other social group to whom AaAetV constantly refers in com-edy is the club of sophistically trained fops a la Euripides.48 Againpeople who seek (exaggerated) aarfioT-rjs are thrown together withwomen. This may betray a certain fear of a general feminization ofsociety, as the sociocultural balance shifted from the publictowards the domestic sphere during and after the PeloponnesianWar.49 The transition from Old to Middle Comedy is one of thesymptoms of an increasingly 'privatized' and domesticizedAthenian world.

The idea that women use language for tricking and cheating isequally common. Sometimes this takes the form of seductive per-suasion,50 but comedy also imputes to women the betrayal ofsecrets and straightforward lying51—another parallel betweenwomen and the sophistically educated and supposedly effeminateelite politicians.52

43 Swacker (1975) 76; Harding (1975) 297-302; J. Holmes (1998) 461; cf.Johnson—Aries (1983).

44 Borker (1980) 32; also in Roman culture: Adams (1984) 46.45 Outside comedy cf. e.g. Semon. 7. 90-1 West; Eur. Phoen. 198-201; McClure

(5999) 56-62; in comedy e.g. Thesm. 393; Eccl. 113-14, 120.46 Cf. Taaffe (1993) 86, 116; McClure (1999) 60.47 Lys. 356, 442, 627; Thesm. 717; cf. Thesm. 393.48 Ach. 705, 716; Eg. 1381; Nub. 931, 1053; Ran. 91, 917, 1069, 1492; Ar. fr. 392.

When AaAefp is said about other people who are 'chattering' (frequently with theimplication that they should 'shut up': Eg. 295; Nub. 505; Vesp. 1135; Eccl. 1058),it is not associated with a particular style of talking. For the contrast \a\dv 'to chat-ter' vs. Ae'yfii/ 'to speak' see Eupolis fr. 116.

49 Cf. e.g. Zeitlin (1981)210-11.50 Rothwell (1990) 28-9, 35-7; McClure (1999) 62-8; cf. Lys. 1037

'born cajolers'.51 Thesm. 393, 483-5, 502-16; Eccl. 238; cf. already Hes. Op. 77-9 on Pandora.52 Cf. the references in Jocelyn (1980) 53 n. 145; Rothwell (1990) 77-81;

McClure (1999) 221.

170 Female Speech

On a different level, attitudes towards women are expressed bylanguage itself. Apparently harmless linguistic features like thegeneric function of masculine forms in present-day Europeanlanguages (and in ancient Greek53) may not be recognized as 'sex-ist' by everybody. Under the assumption that a language becomessexist only when its speakers are aware of, and exploit, its discrim-inating potential, 'linguistic sexism' can be a problematic term fora cultural context where the matter was not on the agenda.Interestingly, however, Aristophanes does betray an awareness ofsome pertinent issues.

First, the unambiguous identification of a woman includes a ref-erence to her husband (or in the case of an unmarried woman to herfather). The complete naming pattern for a woman consists of herfirst name, her husband's (or father's) name in the genitive, and thedeme to which she belongs through her husband (or father): forinstance, KplrvXAa Avnde'ov rapyijTrd^.54 After the women havetaken over power in Ecclesiazusae, the pattern is inverted: Blepyrusgets excited about being o rrjs aTpaTr/yoC 'the [husband] of the(she-)general'.55 In Thesmophoriazusae, a woman inverts thepatronymic naming-convention and speaks of

'Euripides the son of the (she-)greengrocer'.55

Secondly, in the women's assembly of Thesmophoriazusae theformulaic language of a real (male) assembly is modified by thewomen. In the initial prayers the formulabecomes -ntpl rov STJÔV rov Adr/valcav KO.I rov TWV ywaiKwv 'for the people

of the Athenians and for the people of the women' (307-8),57 and

53 Even on the morphological level, for in the nominative and accusative dual offeminine -yr-stem participles, the masculine form often replaces the feminine one:cf. e.g. Eccl. 1087; Lautensach (1921) 248-51.

54 Thesm. 898: AvriSfos may be the father, but in Thesm. 605 Mica presents her-self as KXfuivvjiov yw?j 'wife of Cleonymus'; Eccl. 46270; Eccl. 49, 51. In Thesm. 619 the disguised Relative is asked for his/her husband'sname.

55 Eccl. 727; cf. Eccl. 1126 d avrfp r-ijs KeKTi^tcVr;? 'the husband of the mistress'.56 Thesm. 387; cf. Ran. 840 (where the exception is necessary for the modificatio

of Eur. fr. 885 Nauck).57 Loraux (1993) 88, 116-18, and 151-2 (cf. p. 247) exaggerates the significance

of the parallelism between Athenian men and ethnically unspecified women (cf.Thesm. 335-6, 372-3). Sommerstein (1994) 177 rightly points out that 'Ar. coulnot write . . . "the people of the male Athenians and of the female Athenians",because in the relevant grammatical case (genitive) the phrases denoting male andfemale Athenians would have been identical'. In Thesm. 346 the original

'betraying the city' becomes n-poSiSouoa TOV cplhov 'betraying the boyfriend'.

Female Speech 171

the women do not only praybut also'to the gods, to the Olympians and the Olympianesses,

to the Pythians and the Pythianesses, to the Delians and theDelianesses' (331-4), although of course there are not two or moreDelian and Pythian goddesses.

Thirdly, one may note the deliberate hesitation regardingnominal motion (i.e. the creation of female counterparts of maledesignations) when 'male' offices are renamed in Ecclesiazusae.

Although it would be simple to create a-rpar^y'6s/'a^partis after ing pairs like xraTrÂoj/xawTjAi?, Praxagora at first remains (-q)

58 The same reluctance is seen with other words withoutan established female equivalent: 77 ypa/^narevs (not, after

59 On the other hand, when a sepa-rate female variant does occur, the suffix -aim rather than -18- isoften used and it is possible, though not certain, that -aiva hadcomic or derogatory overtones.60 Both the lack and the exaggera-tion of distinctively feminine forms linguistically reinforce genderroles. A certain paternalistic attitude towards women is even inher-ent in the fact that women's attributes like clothing have a tendencyto appear in the 'homely' diminutive.61

Unfortunately, the ancient sources hardly ever spell out general-izations like 'women's speech is conservative, colloquial, polite,etc.' The Platonic passage cited in section 6.2 probably does notimply anything like that:

seems to refer to the specific point of the pronunciation ofand <f>.62 Aristotle notes the obvious point that female

voices are higher and weaker. A comic actor playing the part of a

58 Eccl. 246, 491, 500, 727; crrpaTijyt'y 'lady general': Eccl. 835, 870; cf.Pherecrates fr. 269; Eccl. 1126 i; xexTTj/itn; 'mistress'; Taaffe (1993) 187 n. 32.

59 Thesm. 292 (TCUV prfTopuiv refers to female speakers), 432; Cratin60 Lys. 184 SttvOiuva 'Scythianess'; Eccl. 713 K-rjpvKaiva 'heraldess'; cf.

Pherecrates fr. 70 /tayeipaiya 'cookess', ix8vo-na>\atva 'fish-selleress' (contrast Plut.

427 AeiaOoTruiAi; 'peasepudding-seller'); on -aiva, which is common in female animal

names, see Chantraine (1933) 107-9; Eduard Fraenkel (1955) 44—5.61 Cf. Lys. 47, Eccl. 332 KpoKun&iov 'saffron gown'; Lys. 48, 150, Eccl. 374

'tunic'; Lys. 72 l,aiviov 'waistband', with the note by Henderson (1987) 76; Lys. 931'breastband'; Lys. 1189 x\av!&iav 'dress clothes'; Eccl. 318

'semi-foldover'; also Thesm. 143, etc. rn&iov 'breast'; Mawet (1983) 185-6.62 Pace Bain (1984) 28-9 and McClure (1999) 33, 39; if a generalization were

meant, Plato might have inserted something like KCU rd aAAa or Travrais (though ofcourse he did not have to do so). Further details are observed in PI. Men. ggd andPI. Ale. 1 I2ob: cf. Bain (1984) 29.

172 Female Speech

woman may have spoken with a falsetto voice at least for the firstfew lines, even though nothing in the text makes that explicit.63

In his comparison of Aristophanes and Menander, Plutarchcomplains that Aristophanes did not give his characters appropri-ate speech styles (Plut. Mor. 853C-d):

Even though his style is so varied and uneven, he does not attribute theappropriate peculiar tinge to each character: for instance gravity to a king,rhetorical force to an orator, simplicity to a woman, ordinary speech to anormal person, or vulgarity to a working-class character.

The testimony is of course late, but it is based on the text of Atticcomedy so that Plutarch must have observed aTrAoVr/s in the speechof Menander's women; at least for Menander's time the stereotypethat women's language was 'simple' may be extrapolated. Thesame idea is possibly attested even earlier. A passage of theEtymologicum Magnum, based on Philoxenus, reports two frag-ments of a women's mime by Sophron (Et. Mag. 774. 41-6,Sophron frs. 33 and 34):

Sophron's vytwrtpov KoboKvvTas ('healthier than a pumpkin') is problematic.Why does he not say vyiearfpov? It must be stressed that he made that mis-take on purpose in order to imitate the simple-minded style of women. In

the same way he also introduced the barbarism Tarw/ieVa TOV KITWVOS 'being

deprived of her dress' instead of eV'xupa Btiaa 'having pawned [her dress]':

'the interest has ruined her', ([source:] Philoxenus)

If we can trust the explanation, Sophron deliberately introducedcertain solecisms like vyuaTtpov when a woman was speaking.However, there is nothing to complain about in the second frag-ment, except perhaps that the technical expression fvf\vpa nOeVcu isavoided. It would be bold to infer from Sophron that fifth-century

63 Arist. HA 538bi2—15; Ar. Thesm. 267-8 (where ™ ifSf-yân •yvvaiKiêtv 'to puton a woman's voice' probably refers to the pitch of the voice); McClure (1999) 38-9;for the question of falsetto voices cf. Taaffe (1993) 105; Vetta (1993) 716; Thesm.192 (Agathon is ywaiK-dycuro? 'female-voiced').

Female Speech 173

Athenians, too, regarded women's speech as simple or grammati-cally incorrect, but the possibility should be borne in mind.64

6.7. METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS

Some preliminary remarks are necessary before we cataloguefemale speech features in Aristophanes. Most of Aristophanes''female' features are gender-preferential (i.e. used more frequentlybut not only by female speakers), and only few are gender-exclusive.65 Hence, we must often operate with statistics.Sommerstein has calculated that in the eleven completeAristophanic plays (with a total of c. 15,300 lines) there are about2,670 women's lines if women's lines are 'all those lines which con-tain something, even a monosyllable, uttered by a femalespeaker'.66 In most plays women have little to say, and those whohave are usually goddesses, not 'typical' women.67 In the canonicalthree 'women's plays' female speakers posing as men may beexcluded and male speakers in the role of women should beincluded.68 Sommerstein's figures, reproduced in Table 6.1, takethese special cases into account. Thus, a feature is probably'female' when the percentage of occurrences found in female lines

64 On female airXoTijs see also Nieddu (2001) 203-4; for non-linguistic comicstereotypes about women (liking wine, sex, etc.) cf. Just (1989) 153-93.

65 Adams (1984) 44, after Bodine (1975) 131, speaks of 'sex-exclusive' and 'sex-preferential', but 'gender-exclusive/-preferential' underlines the socioculturalaspect of the differentiation even when socially defined 'gender' and biological 'sex'coincide: cf. Labov (1990) 209; Chambers (1992) 174-7; Taaffe (1993) 15—16.

66 Sommerstein (1995) 62, after Bain (1984) 31.67 But the goddess Iris in Birds, for instance, is conceptualized (or 'sexualized')

as a woman: Av. 1213—15 with Dunbar (1995) 619-20 and Henderson (2000) 137;Av. 1254-5; on the Clouds cf. Taaffe (1993) 32-3.

68 Thus, Praxagora's speech at Eccl. 173-240 (except 190—2 and 204) can be con-sidered as 'male', and Thesm. 466-519 is 'female' although it is spoken by Euripides'Relative. Despite the objections of McClure (1999) 209 n. 15 and despite Taaffe(1995) passim (esp. chs. 3 and 4), who focuses on continuous gender-shifting, this isthe only practicable way of dealing with the material. To count quasi-sexless char-acters like the Clouds as female speakers makes the statistics conservative. Let ussuppose that a feature A occurs 50 times in the 17.4% female lines (i.e. about oncein every 50 lines) and 50 times in the 82.6% male lines (i.e. about once in every 250lines). Now, if quasi-sexless 'women' have no female accent but account for approx-imately 500 lines, this means that A occurs with the low 'male' frequency also inthese 500 lines (i.e. c.2 times) and that the preferential use of A is even more notice-able in the 'real' women's lines (£.48 times in c.2,200 lines, i.e. about once in every45 lines). Moreover, the fact that 'mixed' lines are counted as 'female' lines worksin the same conservative direction.

174 Female Speech

TABLE 6.1. Distribution of women's lines in A ristophanes

Women's lines

Play

Lys.

Thesm.

Eccl.Other plays

TOTAL

No.

768

708

636

560

2,672

%

S8.I

57-753-8

4-8

17-4

is significantly69 higher than 17.4%. If we find only one feature withwhich, say, 30-40% rather than 15-20% of all the Aristophanicexamples occur in the mouth of a woman, caution is necessary. Ifwe find a whole group of features with an increased frequency inwomen's speech and if all of them point in a similar direction, thechances that these features add up to a 'female' style are better.

All the 'women's plays' belong to the second half ofAristophanes' extant work: Lysistrata and Thesmophoriazusae bothdate from 411 BC, Ecclesiazusae from around 392 BC (with only Frog

of 405 BC in between and Plutus of 388 BC afterwards).70 Hence, if afeature is particularly frequent in women's lines, it might just be ageneral linguistic innovation. One option would therefore be to lookonly at the last five plays, but that would reduce our basis of com-parison too much. Luckily, the linguistic differences between theearliest and the latest plays (with the possible exception of Plutus,

which does look more recent in some respects71) are not particularlybig. The linguistic character of a play is rather determined by itstheme. Knights, for instance, has a high proportion of colloquial(and sometimes apparently 'late') features.72 The danger of raw sta-tistics is best illustrated with an example:

69 In a non-statistical sense: both the size of the corpus and the frequency of the

features discussed here allow no meaningful application of statistical significance-

tests.70 On the history of female characters in Old Comedy see Henderson (2000).71 Cf. Willi (forthcoming, 2003).72 A syntactic example: 4 out of 14 Aristophanic cases of a subjunctive (instead

of an oblique optative) in a final clause after a secondary tense belong to the secondhalf of this play: Eq. 669, 893, 1182, 1393. All of these lines can be explained by thecontext, but the optative would be possible; cf. App. § 4.6.4.2; Weber (1884) 120—1;Poultney (1963) 369-73.

Female Speech 175

The idiomatic expression wpa (<r<mV) + inf. 'it is time to' occurs 12times in the eleven complete plays, four times spoken by women(33.3%). Clearly 33.3% is more than the expected 17.4%.However, five instances of the idiom belong to Ecclesiazusae, andthree of them are female. A ratio of 60% is not aberrant for thatplay with over 50% women's lines. If we exclude Ecclesiazusae weare left with i 'female' case against 6 'male' cases, i.e. more or less

exactly the ratio we should expect (14.3%).

Moreover, there are many words or expressions in female lineswhich are rare or non-existent elsewhere in Aristophanes. Every

one of these is a potential female feature, but none of them has to beone. Note for instance:

Lys. 74 oAi'yoi> owe*a 'for a short time': only here for Lys. 114 and Thesm. 813 avOêpov. for rfj avrfj r/fiepa, male only atAch. 522.

Lys. 126 fioifj.va.Te 'to make fit': an onomatopoeic verb of a collo-

quial type found only here; similarly other colloquial verbs used

only by women: KotKvXXw 'to look gaping about' (Thesm. 852),

'to plot' (Thesm. 429, 852). Is this a parallel to Sophron's

Lys. 553 efWfjj 'engender': in an anapaestic tetrameter, the sig-

matic aorist is not necessarily a female solecism like Sophron'sthe only parallel occurs in Hes. fr. 343. 8

Merkelbach-West. Thesm. 426 oiKorpiifi 'family-destroyer': only here in Aristophanes.

Thesm. 532 KO.KIOV 'worse': like tvT^r) not pure Attic, but possiblyfelt to be poetic; in Aristophanes KO.KLOV is also used by the effem-inate Agathon (Thesm. 203; elsewhere e.g. Eupolis fr. 248).Another irregular comparative is the female servant'soXfiiwTfpos 'more blester' in Eccl. 1131.

Eccl. 58 avXXeXeypfvas 'assembled': a rare participial form (for

cf. Av. 294), used probably for metrical convenience

rather than as analogical regularization like /caxriov, evTîj, or

cf. Eccl. 1090 8iaXf\T)fj.fj,evov 'seized' (male, for

Eccl. 1 15 17 firi ffiTTfipia 'inexperience': a negated abstract noun, a

frequently in Thucydides (influence of 'sophistic' dcrmd-nys?) but73 Ussher (1973) 82 suggests that the form lends formality to Praxagora's

address.

176 Female Speech

nowhere else in Aristophanes; cf. Praxagora's sophistic (?)'home' at Eccl. 674.74 Note the quasi-litotic structure of the syn-tagma, which equals •?) d-n-eipia: cf. observation (xi) in section 6.8.1below.

Eccl. 282 impersonal euoBt 'it is usual': unique in Greek (thoughnatural enough75); again the depiction of female oVa/a'a is notruled out.

6.8. CATALOGUE OF FEMALE FEATURES

For the sake of structural clarity, I have arranged Aristophanes''female' features under the headings of 'syntax and pragmatics'6.8.1) and 'idioms and vocabulary' (§ 6.8.2), but the categoriesoverlap. I have not found any evidence for gender-specific phonet-ics or phonology (for instance in the form of puns illustratingPlato's remarks on iotacism). Apart from the isolated items men-tioned in section 6.7there is no morphological deviation either.76

6.8.1. SYNTAX AND P R A G M A T I C S

(i) Final clauses. By far the most widespread final conjunction inAristophanic comedy is Zvo, but owcos (av) is still a common alterna-tive. In tragedy, ws (av) is strongest, followed first by omx>s (av), laterby "va. In Thucydides and in the Attic inscriptions of the fifth cen-tury, OTTCUS is stronger than tva, but in the Attic orators and Platoprevails. Obviously older STTWS (av) is gradually replaced bywhich is predominant in Herodotus and may have infiltrated Atticfrom Ionia.77

o>s (av) was at best a marginal option in non-literary Attic around400 BC. In the inscriptions and in Thucydides on-coy (av) is frequent

74 Cf. Denniston (1952) 28 with n. i; Wackernagel (1928) 265; Vetta (1989) 154;note the (younger) use of ftij, where Thucydides uses ov: Moorhouse (1959) 38, withPlatonic parallels.

75 Ussher(i973) 114.76 Lopez-Garcia (19980) 2 wrongly states that 'dual forms are much more fre-

quently employed by women than by men". In the complete plays, 5 out of 22 exam-ples of periphrastic instead of synthetic forms in the (plu-)perfect passive (e.g. Lys.

175 tan TrapfOKfvaa/j.fvoi' 'has been provided for' for TrapeaKevaoTai) are female(22.7%), but 3 of them belong to Ecclesiazusae, and the two 4th-cent. plays containalmost half of the total (10).

77 For exact figures, mainly based on Weber (1884) and (1885), see App. § 4.8.6.

Female Speech 177

out of stylistic conservatism. Although Sirws (av) is missing inLysias, many of the comic occurrences do not look artificial (cf. e.g.Ach. 444; Vesp. 178) and it is still found in Plato.

In comedy, final OTTCOS is mainly construed with (a) the futureindicative, (b) the subjunctive (or occasionally optative), (c) thesubjunctive (or sometimes optative) + av. (a) is distributed evenly,but 5 (6?) out of 8 (9?) examples (62.5% (66.7%?)) of (b) are inwomen's lines,78 and 12 out of 25 examples (48.0%) of (c) arefemale.79

The long-lasting predominance of ws (av) in tragedy was cer-tainly helped by the fact that it was a convenient metrical alterna-tive to OTTCOS (av). Of the 3 Aristophanic examples for cos + subjoccur in a Laconian chorus and may be a dialect characteristic. Thethird is female.80 cos av is regularly construed with the subjunctiveonce with the optative: 5 out of 14 examples (35.7%) are in femalelines.81

The higher frequency of both OTTCOS (av) and cos (av) with femalespeakers in Aristophanes can be interpreted in two ways. If weassume that cos (av) is an older variant for oVcos (av), which survivedlongest in tragedy because it was metrically convenient, theincreased use of these conjunctions would be a conservative fea-ture.

Alternatively, women's speech is more subjective. OTTCOS (av) issemantically distinguished from fva by an additional hint at subjec-tivity, uncertainty, or restriction to particular circumstances,whereas iva is more unconditional.82 This explanation is supportedby the fact that owcos + fut. ind., which is the most categorical of the

78 Based on the index by O. J. Todd (1932) 181 (in many cases the transmittedtext is changed by modern editors); female: Av. 1240 (MSS); Lys. 384 (MSS); Ran.iT,5\;Eccl. 117, 917 (MSS; perhaps av must be inserted so that the example belongsto(c)); possibly Thesm. 285; male: Nub. 974, 1199; Vesp. 1526/7.

79 Female: Nub. 937—8, 1461; Lys. 182, 221 = 222 (counted once), 239, 358—9,539-40, 1183-4; Ran. '363; Eccl. 716, 836—7, 881; male: Ach. 444, 714, 930-1; Vesp.178, 862; Av. 1457; Lys. 267-9, 4'9> 4Z5. 1223-4; Ran. 872; Eccl. 732; Plut. 225-6.

80 Laconian: Lys. 1265, 1303/4; female: Eccl. 286. Cf. also Av. 1338, here classi-fied as cue an (MSS), but perhaps to be taken as simple ais in a (Doricizing) quota-tion from Sophocles (fr. 476 Radt): Dunbar (1995) 653—4.

81 Female: Lys. 689/90; Thesm. 601—2; Ran. 1340; Eccl. 57, 297; male: Ach. 44;Vesp. 113, 425; Pax 1156; Av. 1338 (opt.), 1454-6, 1509, 1549; Plut. 112. If only theplays from Lysistrata onwards are taken into account, 5 out of 6 examples (83.3%)are female.

82 Amigues (1977) 105-6.

2

ij8 Female Speech

oTrojj-constructions and therefore semantically closest to iVa, is dis-tributed evenly.83

(ii) Conditional clauses. In comedy, as elsewhere, conditionalclauses are usually introduced by either el + ind. or edv/fy + subj.An old variant possibility to express a conditional relation is theparatactic juxtaposition of two main clauses. It may be assumedthat this was more frequent in the colloquial registers of Greeksince spoken language favours parataxis. Even in comedy, how-ever, the examples are few. I am aware of 5 Aristophanic cases, 2 ofwhich are female (40%); 2 more are spoken by Praxagora posing asa man, and one by a male slave.84

(iii) Participial constructions. Depending on their context Greekparticiples can have causal, temporal, final, conditional, or conces-sive functions. These functions can be clarified by the addition ofparticles: <uy for final (future) participles and causal participles,for causal participles, xai-ntp for concessive participles. InAristophanes, the most common one is <Ls, with no remarkable dis-tribution. Causal are is absent from tragedy, but found in bothcomedy and fourth-century prose (rarely in Thucydides). Thissomewhat redundant pragmatic marker was probably rooted incolloquial language.85 Aristophanes has 10 examples, 3 of themspoken by women (30%). are is used almost exclusively with theparticiple &v, ouoa, Sv in Aristophanes; both exceptions, which seemto extend the domain of the particle, are female.86

Concessive participles are rare and a construction with Spws isusually preferred. Of the 6 Aristophanic examples with /miWp, 3 arefemale (50%).87 Moreover, there is just one example of concessiveKO.ITOI + part, in Aristophanes, a construction that is common onlyin later Greek but extremely rare (or non-existent) in other classi-

83 Pace Lopez-Garcia (19980) 8, women do not use the final subjunctive after asecondary tense more often than men: with Nub. 539 (Clouds) and Eccl. 117 only 2out of 14 Aristophanic examples are female. In Lys. 373-4 the women, unlike themen, use the 'correct' optative. Cf. n. 72 above.

84 Female: Thesm. 405, 407-8; Praxagora: Eccl. 179, 197; male: Av. 76-9. Ach.540 is slightly different because of the separating dAAa.

85 Cf. Denniston (1950) p. Ixxiv n. 6 and 525-6, reporting c.8 examples inThucydides, c.z6 in Plato, £.30 in Xenophon, but only one in the orators.

86 Female: Thesm. 456 (not u>v); Eccl. 37 (not un>), 257; male (* = spoken by aslave): Pax 623, 634; Av. 75*, 285; Lys. 418; Ran. 546, 671*.

87 Female: Lys. 826 (also o/*cuj), 918; Thesm. 371; male: Nub. 890; Thesm. 938;Pint. 571; cf.Ach. 222

Female Speech 179

cal authors (Eccl. isg).88 The use of all these particles to specify themodal force of participles represents a linguistic trend that wasgoing to gain strength in the fourth century.

(iv) povXei/flovXeaOf + subj. Both in Attic from the fifth centuryonwards and in Koine Greek the deliberative subjunctive is oftenreplaced by a periphrasis with ftovXei/ftovXfadf + subj.89 There are 9such cases in the Aristophanic comedies, 3 of which occur in femalespeech (33.3%).90 Although this was a common way of formulatingan utterance like Lys. 938 /SouAei ^vpiaw ae; 'shall I perfume you?',and although the bare deliberative subjunctive was more easilyused in questions introduced by an interrogative pronoun, thereare cases where the deliberative subjunctive is found in exactly thesame type of question (e.g. Ran. i, 6, 64). Moreover, the formula-tion with ftovXei/flovXeade could be replaced by a positive assertion

and vice versa many positive assertions (or cohorta-tive utterances) could in theory be made more politely or submis-sively by using the |3ouAei-type.91 It is therefore revealing that twoof the male examples are spoken by slaves, and none of them by amajor figure who directs the action. The pragmatic function of elic-iting the addressee's support is typical for a cooperative, polite, andsomewhat self-subordinating style.

(v) Possessive adjectives and personal pronouns. It has been sug-gested that Aristophanes' women indicate possession more fre-quently than men with the enclitic genitive /xou/aou.92 Eventually,the possessive adjectives e'fids/<jo's will give in to the constructionwith pov/aov, which becomes standard in Koine Greek.93 The claimthat women are more innovative here is not unambiguously sup-ported by statistics. In the eleven plays I count 57 /ion + 53 aov (=no) against 130 epos + 56 ad; (= 186), taking into account onlythose cases where both would be grammatically possible. The

88 Boiling (1935) 261-2: Praxagora's 'syntax reveals her sex'; cf. Denniston(195°) 559; Ussher (1973) 97-8.

89 Cf. Jannaris (1897) 446-7; Kiihner—Gerth (1898/1904) ii/i. 221—3;Schwyzer—Debrunner (1950) 318; Stevens (1976) 60—i; Blass—Debrunner (1979)295-6; Cooper (1998) i. 677-9; this point is based on Lopez-Garcia (19980) 9.

90 Female: Lys. 821, 938; Thesm. 553; male: Eg. 36, 52 (both slaves); Av. 813—14(Peisetaerus' assistant Euelpides), 1689-90 (Heracles, a comic buffoon); Ran. 127(Heracles), 416-17.

91 Contrast for instance Ran. 416—17 fiovXeaBe aKuii/im^fi'; 'shall we make fun?'with Ran. 213 ytfeyfuj^W ''et us utter'.

92 Lopez-Garcia (19980)4-7. 93 Blass-Debrunner (1979) 235.

180 Female Speech

possessive adjectives are more frequent than the enclitic pronounsin all the plays except Knights with its bawdy tone and the latePlutus. This may be a symptom of Aristophanes' syntactic conser-vatism (cf. App. § 4-9).94 In total, 23 of the 110 examples of(20.9%) and 43 of the 186 examples of e/j.6s/a6s (23.1%) are used byfemale speakers, which shows that women indicate possessionslightly more often than men but do not prefer the modern andmore colloquial pov/aov. In the three women's plays the picture isnot essentially different, except for Thesmophoriazusae.95 Here all5 examples of pov/oov occur in women's lines, against only 11 out of19 examples of ep6s/o6s (57.9%, an excellent match for 57.5% femalelines).96 In this play at least, the use of pov/aov does contribute to acolloquial colouring of women's speech. It is also possible that

was felt to be more affective than

(vi) Ethic dative. A speaker can use the dative of a personal pro-noun in the first and second person either to display his or her ownaffective involvement or to prompt that of the interlocutor.97 Suchpronouns are logically superfluous, but they stress the interactivecharacter of a conversation or mitigate the force of imperatives andimperatival utterances such as Lys. 125 r( /M.OI fj.(TaaTpe<pfo6e; 'Why doyou turn away?' (= 1̂7 fieTaarpayiyTe).

It is not always easy to distinguish an ethic dative from a dativeof interest. When Pheidippides asks his father in Nub. in TI aoi

'what do you want me to learn?', the dative can be inter-preted as an ethic dative or a dative of interest since it is in responseto his father's wish that Pheidippides considers studying withSocrates. In Nub. 206 avrrj 8e aoi yijs tT€pio8os Trdatjs 'and this is a mapof the whole world', on the other hand, aoi must be an ethic dative:Socrates' student does not intend to give the map to Strepsiades,nor has the latter asked for the explanation.

Applying rather restrictive criteria I have counted about 30 ethicdatives in the eleven complete plays of Aristophanes. Of these, 12

94 Ach. 5 fiov/aov : 15 efj.6s/o6s; Eq. 19 : 14; Nub. 12 : 21; Vesp. 5 : 13; Pax 5 : 8;Av. 11 : 30; Lys. 14 : 17; Thesm. 5 : 19; Ran. 15 : 17; Eccl. 9 : 25; Plut. 10 : 7.

95 In Lys. 50% of pav/nov and 52.9% of e/jos/od; are female (against the generaltendency, only 51.6% of the possessive syntagmas are female in 58.1% female lines),in Eccl. 44.4% of ftou/aou and 60% of e'ju°Va°s (55.9% female possessive syntagmas in53.8% female lines).

96 Moreover, 8 of the female examples of epos/cos belong to the paratragic songsof the Relative, where /xou/oou would be stylistically inappropriate.

97 Cf. Kiihner-Gerth (1898/1904) ii/i. 423.

Female Speech 181

are in the mouth of a woman (40%).98 The women-only scene at thebeginning of Lysistrata presents no less than 5 good examples in200 lines.

(vii) Expressions for minimal quantities. In colloquial languagequantitative expressions like 'much', 'little', or 'nothing' are oftenintensified by the use of hyperbolic metaphors (which eventuallylose their original meaning: cf. French ne . . . pas 'not a step'). InAristophanic comedy, women (together with unpretentious speak-ers like slaves) are fond of such metaphorical expressions for min-imal quantities." Again their language may be depicted as moreaffective and less referential than men's. The following expressionsfor 'no/nothing/not at all' occur in Aristophanes: OV&'/OVK d/capij ('atiny bit': 3X), ouSe ypv ('grunt'), oi5o" fpefStvdov ('chick-pea'),

('fig'), firjSc Kapyos ('twig'), ovSe TracnraAiji1 ('finest meal"),

('peg'), ouSe OTpifaXiKiyg ('tweet'), ouSe (pe(fid\v£ ('spark'),

('drop').100 Some of these may be Aristophanic creations, andcertainly all of them belong to an expressive, colloquial register.Just 3 out of the 12 occurrences are given to women (25%).

However, we may add the two Aristophanic examples of thesimilar intensified minimal expression ov&e rqv nvpLoarrjv ôlpav and

'not the ten-thousandth part', both being female(and increasing the percentage to 35.7%).10] The point supportsother indications that Aristophanes' women use a more expressiveor colloquial register than men.

(viii) Double av. In main clauses with a counterfactual indicativeor a potential optative (ôvXoi^v av) the modal particle

av is obligatory in Attic. Sometimes, especially in longer clauses,is repeated. This has been explained as a pragmatic feature toreduce the amount of information the listener has to process.102

98 Female: Vesp. 1388; Lys. 38, 65, 125, 172, 202, 707; Thesm. 289, 291, 627Eccl. 136, 518; male: Ach. 60, 129, 341, 342, 458, 470; Nub. 57, 206; Vesp. 577; Pa83, 87; Av. 134, 1005; Lys. 909, 1074 (mixed chorus); Thesm. 1133? (the Scythian'ssyntax is unclear); Ran. 986; Eccl. 311. Further ambiguous cases include Nub. 10116; Lys. 96 (female), 850, 851 (female), 864 (female): the percentage remains similar with a less strict classification.

99 Cf. Lopez-Garcia (19986) 2-5.100 Ach. 1035; Nub. 1396; Vesp. 91 (slave), 541, 701; Pax 121, 1223; Av. 1649;

Lys. 107, 474 (both female); Eccl. 284 (female); Pint. 17 (slave); cf. also Vesp. 92,213; Ran. 614; Plut. 244 (all slaves); Eupolis frs. 4, 99. 20; Taillardat (1965) 125—8.

101 Lys. 355; Thesm. 555; cf. Prato (2001) 256.102 Slings (1992) 102-5; f°r trie repetition as a consequence of Wackernagel's

Law see Wackernagel (1892) 399; Eduard Fraenkel (1977) 46.

182 Female Speech

However, this can only be part of the explanation since the repeti-tion also occurs in short sentences like Pax 68

'how could I go all the way right to Zeus?', in whichthe double S.v simply reinforces the modal aspect. Thus, double avis not only a sign of pragmatically conditioned redundancy butserves as a 'hedge' and further diminishes the assertive force of apotential or counterfactual clause.

In the eleven Aristophanic comedies I have counted 10 counter-factual and 39 potential sentences in which one finite verb isaccompanied by two intances of av.103 Of these 49 examples, 17 arespoken by women (34.7%). Even more significantly, 14 of the 16examples in the three women's plays are female (87.5%).104

(ix) Iterative indicative + av. From the fifth century onwards, therepetition of a past action could be expressed by the indicative of apast tense accompanied by the particle av. (In earlier literature,iterativity was expressed by the simple imperfect indicative.) Inprose, Herodotus uses the construction more frequently thanThucydides; perhaps it originated in Ionia.

Statistics show the conversational character of the syntagma. Itis almost completely absent from tragedy but omnipresent inAristophanes.105 On the whole, women do not use the constructionmore often than men, but 2 of only 5 passages where such indica-tives + av form a long string (with at least 4 av within 10 lines) arespoken by women.106

(x) Particles. It has long been noticed that the particle ye is exces-sively frequent in the scene with the two female innkeepers in Frogs

103 This is the most objective criterion since a second av is not necessary even ifa participle 'justifies' it. Lys. 115-16, where the finite verb eWAoi|iu is implied, andThesm. 440—1, where double av accompanies a (potential) infinitive after wore, areincluded (but not, for instance, Thesm. 715).

104 pernaie: Lys. 3) t I 3 i 115-16, 141 (MSS), 147-8, 191, 252-3, 541/2 (conjec-tural), 572-3, 1025-6; Thesm. 440-1, 526, 830; Ran. 572-3; Eccl. 118; Pint. 485-6(?), 511; male: Ach. 211-15, 218, 307, 920-1 ;Eq. 17-18, 856-7; Nub. 118,425, 840,1056-7, 1250; Vesp. 171-2, 508—9, 510-11, 927—8; Pax 68, 321, 1223; Av. 127, 829,1017-18, 1126-9, "47. 1592-3; Lys. 361; Thesm. 196; Ran. 34, 96-7, 581, 585, 1450(conjectural); Plut. 137-8.

105 Stevens (1945) 103-4, after Seaton (1889): Aeschylus o, Sophocles 3,Euripides i (?), Thucydides i, Aristophanes > 50 (and 'several' examples in the ora-tors and Plato); cf. also Duhoux (2000) 205.

106 Female: Lys. 510-19 (Lysistrata: 7 av); Plut. 982-6 (Old Woman: 4 av); male:Nub. 1382-5 (Strepsiades: 5 av); Pax 639-47 (Hermes: 5 av); Ran. 911-20(Euripides: 4 av, but going on until 950 with 5 more av).

Female Speech 183

(especially in Ran. 559—67 with 5 ye within 9 lines). Sommersteinobserves that this is not typical for women elsewhere: 'at most wecould say that Aristophanes thought that this habit of repeatedlybestowing special emphasis on a word or phrase . . . was a good wayof comically characterizing elderly women of low social status'.Instead, he notes a disproportionate female use of heavier adversa-tive particles

In the women's plays there are 24 female and just 3male examples (88.9%). According to Sommerstein this may reflectthe stereotype that women are unable to make up their minds.107

The essential force of the particle ye lies in the concentration ona single idea. The intensive or emphatic function is only one side ofthe coin. Concentration can also entail limitation.108 For instance,

means something like 'I at least' and implies 'but others (per-haps) not'. Thus, eycoye is slightly less assertive than eyoJ, andserves as a hedging particle. If the scene in Frogs is significant, thefunction of ye as a hedge could help to explain the increased use bywomen.

This interpretation may find additional support in Aristophanes'use of e'yojye and of the particle TTOV, another hedging device, whichconveys a speaker's uncertainty.109 To start with the latter, -n-ov isdistributed evenly in most Aristophanic contexts. It nearly alwaysoccurs together with conjunctions or other particles

Typically TTOV gravitates to anearly position in the sentence since its function is to throw doubt onthe whole sentence, not on individual words. Only rarely is TTOV thelast word in a sentence. In these cases doubt is thrown in as anafterthought.110 I have found 5 cases in Aristophanes, in two ofwhich TTOV is arguably a local particle, not a hedge. The other threeare all female.111

As for eywye (ejuoiye, e/ie'ye), there are 109 Aristophanic examples,of which 28 are in the mouth of a woman (25.7%). With a total of17.4% women's lines, this is not breathtaking, but it is remarkablethat there are no fewer than 7 cases of eycuye in the first 100 lines ofthe women-only scene at the beginning of Ecclesiazusae. If

107 Sommerstein (1995) 81; cf. also the unique unseparated Kai fieVroi in Eccl.509: Ussher (1973) 146.

108 Denniston (1950) 114-15. 109 Denniston (1950) 490—i.110 Denniston (1950) 493.111 Eccl. in, 1:9, 1179; possibly local: Vesp. 2756; Av. 10.

184 Female Speech

occurred with that frequency everywhere in Aristophanes, thereshould be a total of more than 1,000 examples.112

(xi) Indirect and litotic expressions. Indirect expressions and the

rhetorical figure of litotes are a further hedging strategy. It is 'less

unconditional' to say 'not bad' (with a stress on both words) for

'(very) good'. To define what counts as litotic or indirect is not

always easy. The most obvious cases include a double negation ('not ill-timed' = '(very) well-timed'). We may further

include those cases where the negated term has a restrictive or neg-

ative semantic shade itself: OVK oAi'yoi 'not few', ov KO.KOS 'not bad'.

With positive terms the matter is much more complicated. We tendto classify them as primary [x] and their negative opposites as sec-ondary [—x] even when they are not linguistically marked: 'not

good' is less likely to be felt as a litotic or indirect expression than

'not bad'. Probably our perception has something to do with fre-

quency. Since oAi'yoi 'few' is a common word itself, ov 77-oAAoi 'not

many' is more readily perceived as an indirect expression.

Similarly, ov SiVcuoy 'not just" can easily function as an indirectexpression because it is synonymous with the well-establishedaStKos 'unjust'. In the following statistics I have tried to apply asmuch common sense as possible.113

In the eleven complete plays, 15 of the £.33 adjectival114

instances (ov KaKos/tpavXos 'not bad' = xpTJT°s/Kaôs, ov woAAoi 'notmany' = oAi'yoi, OVK omeipos 'not inexperienced' ='not small' = u-eya.*;, ov ovaKoXos 'not unfriendly' = Trpaoc, etc., includ-ing derived adverbs) are spoken by women (45.5%).115

112 Similarly, 4 of the 55 Aristophanic occurrences of the hedging particle(Laconian y<av) appear in the (exclusively female) first two hundred lines ofLysistrata (Lys. 63, 68, 102, 155); if this were the average, Aristophanes would havea total of more than 300 yovv. Elsewhere, however, yovv is not predominantly femaleand a particularly high frequency of yovv also characterizes the slave Xanthias'speech in the early scenes of Frogs (Ran. 159, 289, 293, 320).

113 Excluding, for instance, Nub. 616 and Pint. 1025 OVK opOois 'incorrectly', butincluding Ran. 695 ov KaAuis 'not all right' and Ran. 930 ou paSia 'not easy' (bothmale).

114 Indirect verbal phrases like OVK firauxu 'that's bad!' (Lys. 70; Thesm. 1213) or'bad for you!' (Ach. 563; Eq. 235,828; Vesp. 186; Ran. 843; cf. Nub. 427

'you will not come to grief, 817 OVK ev tppovtis 'you're not in your rightmind') and the common idiom OVK f'aO' OTKUS ov 'certainly' are not considered here.

115 Female: Nub. 458; Lys. 14, 853, 854, 1112, 1125, 1127; Thesm. 462, 463-4,710, 859; £cd. 71, 257, 287; Pint. 981; male: Eq. 386, 545; Vesp. 797, 1351; Pax 430;Av. 1362, 1413; Lys. 1038; Thesm. 1211; Ran. 5980, 695, 708, 8990, 8996, 930; Plut.

715,755, i°°3-

Female Speech 185

(xii) OVK eroj. The semantic structure of the idiom OVK ITOS + finiteverb 'not in vain, not for nothing" is similar to these indirectexpressions ('that is why' being an assertive variant). Outside com-edy OVK (TOS is found only in Plato; it may have been colloquial. Inthe Aristophanic plays there are 8 examples of OVK erds, 3 of whichare spoken by women (37.5%). The context of one more example ina fragment reveals that a woman is speaking (raising the percentageto 44.4%).l16 Moreover, two of the five male examples are in thelate Plutus, and the rest are used to contrast a poet's high-flownregister with colloquial speech.

(xiii) 'Tag questions'. Research on modern female speech hasshown that women use more 'tag questions', which stimulate lis-tener response and create an interactive or supportive speechatmosphere.117 Obviously, tag questions ('you would never dothat, would you?') are much more frequent in English than inancient Greek, but we do find a similar phenomenon there. Aspeaker can insert a syntactically unconnected opasfoparc; into his orher utterance. In modern editions this is usually marked off bydashes or periods (Thesm. 490:

'Euripides never said that, did he?'). This must be distin-guished both from independent questions in which the verb has theprimary meaning 'to see' (not: 'to agree') and from 'triumphant'

'you see!, there you are!', which stands independently, oftenin direct reply to a preceding remark or action of the interlocutor(Nub. 689-91:

'If you hap-pened to see Ameinias, how would you call him?—How? Like this:"Come here, come here, Ameinia."—You see!? you're calling her awoman, "Ameinia".').

There are 6 paratactically inserted, agreement-seeking instancesof opaj/o/HiTe; in Aristophanes; 4 of them are uttered by 'female'speakers (66.7%): i by a woman and 3 by Euripides' Relative whohas to adopt a female style when he delivers his speech at theThesmophoria.'18

116 Female: Lys. 138; Thesm. 921; Eccl. 245; Ar. fr. 9; male: Ach. 411, 413; Av.915; Pint. 404, 1166.

117 Cf. Lakoff (1973) 53-5; Coates(i986) 103-5;). Holmes (1995) 79-91, also onthe pragmatically similar English you know.

118 Female: Thesm. 490, 496, 556; Eccl. 104; male: Nub. 355; Pax 331 (perhaps'triumphant' opdre?). Speaker-listener solidarity is also created by the use of the'sociative' plural (pluralis modestiae), on which Schwyzer-Debrunner (1950) 243

186 Female Speech

(xiv) An utterance is less imposing when it refers to shared opin-ions of speaker and listener. By adding 'it is natural/likely/reasonable that' or 'as is natural/likely/reasonable' a speaker implicitlyasks for the listener's assent as he or she suggests that his or herviews are based on the common ground of sound logic.119 In theeleven comedies the expression eiVds/-oTa (lanv) occurs 23 times,8 of which are female (34.8%). The female chorus ofThesmophoriazusae has 3 of the 6 cases where

s parenthetically inserted like an assent-seekin g particle.120

(xv) Forms of address. The differences between female and maleforms of address have been discussed by Sommerstein.121 Heobserves that 'when one's audience is wholly female . . . both themost disdainful and the most deferential expressions are avoided'.Men do not normally address women with vocative expressionsimputing misfortune or stupidity (KaKoSaiôv, Tromjpa, etc.),122 butgenuinely rude forms of address are used by men towards women

'louse', etc.). Possibly only the use of half-affective 'mockinsults' was inappropriate for men. Honorific or complimentaryepithets (dya0e 'good sir', etc.) are not usually addressed to womenat least not by men other than their husbands. The male age-terms

are respectful, the female ypav is disparaging.123

Forms of address that are used only or predominantly by womenare those involving adjectives like raAas 'poor, dear' (both to menand women: all 6 examples of (a)) rdXaiva and all 9 examples ofrdXav are female124), yi'Aos- 'dear' (voc.: 19 male, 15 female = 44.1%;

note that 'in der Tragodie und Komodie sprechen in diesem Plural bes[onders]Frauen, in Verbindung mil dem allgemeinen, d.h. maskulinen Genus adjektivischerBestimmung'. From comedy they cite only Eccl. 31, but cf. Tkesm. 452 and Eccl.

695. At least in Eccl, 31 and 695, however, the plural fits the context quite naturally.119 Cf. ]. Holmes (1995) 9^ on English of course as a negative politeness device.120 Female: Thesm. 722, 974, 1144; male: Nub. 1374; Plut. 258, 662 (slave);

elsewhere female: Nub. 418; Lys. 1118; Thesm. 582, 839; Eccl. 493; male:Ach. 692, 703; Nub. 393, 1418, 1439; Pax 736, 761; Ran. 697, 900, 1060; Plut. 1122,1208. Eccl. 146 (MS) eoiKt 'apparently' has 8 male parallels.

121 Sommerstein (1995) 73-8.122 Sommerstein (1995) 74 lists only 4 cases in Aristophanes (total: 99): Pax 113

(addressing girls); Lys. 891, 948; Lys. 521 is erroneously included.123 Cf. the 'defeminization' of old women in many cultures: Brown (1980)

118—19; Bowie (1993) 266; McClure (1999) 211 and 254—5.124 Sommerstein (1995) 69-70 and Dickey (1996) 162—3, after Bain (1984) 33 and

Schol. PI. Tht. 1786: the vocative ra\avraT(/Ta)tavra-n], too, is used only by women(5 examples).

Female Speech 187

vocative of the superlative: 20 male, 14 female = 41.2%),'sweet' (almost exclusively from woman to woman when it has noerotic connotations125). TaXas/rdXatva has feminine associations inother respects as well: see section 6.8.2, observation (xxviii). Menuse yAvKvs in the vocative only when they address women for whomthey feel intense desire; Dicaeopolis' entreating use of vocatival

towards Euripides is meant to sound ludicrous.126

The vocative <L ê\f 'my friend' is not gender-exclusive as sug-gested by a scholion on Plato,127 but n out of 23 cases inAristophanes are female (47.8%; both men and women are thusaddressed). In the plays after 420 BC the percentage rises dispro-portionately, with 10 out of 12 examples being female (83.3%).128

In Aristophanes, only a woman can address an individual manwith avep, and only a man addresses an individual woman with ywcu.Usually the addressee is the husband or wife of the speaker. Onlywomen seem to have used -rtnvov 'child' as a form of address (at leastamong native speakers and except in tragedy). Perhaps this fore-shadows the general replacement of waiy in later Greek.129

Forms of address not usually used by women are the diminutivesin -iov, -apiov, -ibiov (used affectionately and ingratiatingly by men),forms of address implying superiority of the speaker

men's personal names, some of the most commoncomplimentary vocative epithets (/SeAi-iore, apiare, Sou/none, etc., allapproximately 'my dear friend'), and terms designating a man's age

'old man', veawWe, jj.fip6.Kiov, both 'young man').130 These

125 Cf. Alexis fr. 164; also to a child: Lys. 889, 890. Eccl. 985 yAu«a>i' 'sweetie' is'less amatory than admonitory': Sommerstein (1995) 71. It may be face-threatening;cf. Bain (1984) 36-7.

126 Ach. 462, 467, 475; for 'erotic' yAuKiis see Pax 526; Lys. 872; Thesm. 1192;Eccl. 1046; cf. Sommerstein (1995) 70—1.

127 Schol. PI. Tht. i78e; cf. Gilleland (1980) 181.128 Female: Vesp. 1400; Av. 1216, 1257; Lys. 56, 157, 471; Thesm. 615; Eccl. 120,

133, 245, 520; male: Eg. 671, 1337; Nub. 33, 1192, 1338; Pox 137,259, 380,630,884;Av. 1360; £«/. 994.

129 Cf. Sommerstein (1995) 75-6, after Wackernagel (1912) 25; Bain (1984) 27and 38-9; Dickey (1996) 65-71, 225—6; Antiphanes fr. 161. 6. TCKVOV is used by theScythian (Thesm. 1198; Ar. fr. 602 is paratragic). Calonice addresses Lysistrata as

(Lys. 7) although she cannot be an old woman: cf. Lys. 17—19, 102—3;Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1927) 123; Henderson (1987) 68.

130 Sommerstein (1995) 76-8, noting as exceptional Eccl. 891'piper sweetie'; Thesm. 634 K\tio8tvts, 1134 Fltpatv (paratragic), 1175Lys. 762 Saiôvuu 'dear ladies'; Eccl. 1129 jia/rapie «ai rpiooXfiie 'blest and three-times-happy'.

188 Female Speech

restrictions fit into the framework of politeness-theory as all of theforms are potentially face-threatening: the speaker presents him-self as superior, condescending, and in a position to make judge-ments.131

(xvi) Obscenity. The use of obscene language by men and womenhas been treated by Sommerstein and McClure.132 The latterestablishes a link between obscenity and the gender-constructionof masculinity. Women's 'need' for obscenity was channelled intoreligious festivals where alaxpoXoyia had an established function.133

Sommerstein defines as a ('primary') obscenity 'a word whichdirectly denotes some sexual or excretory organ, state or activity'and which is almost entirely absent from the higher literary genres(tragedy, oratory, philosophy, historiography) but frequent in OldComedy, satirical or subliterary prose, as well as non-literary textslike graffiti, curse tablets, and magical spells.134 In the threewomen's plays Sommerstein finds 16 such words with a total of 75occurrences. Only 20 of these are uttered by women (26.7%, whilewomen speak more than half of the lines). Moreover, women donot normally use them in front of men. In Lys. 439-42, the use of

'you'll shit' clearly violates a norm and theproboulos is dulytaken aback.135

(xvii) Terms of abuse. In Aristophanes, only (old) women employthe metaphorical personification SXedpos 'plague' as a term of abuse(3 times). Abusive ydopos 'pestilence' is once used by a woman andonly once more by a man. The metaphorical ru/j./3e 'tomb' occurs inthe mouth of the female chorus of Lysistrata.}3f> Because of theirabstractness these terms may have been rather mild (in comparison

131 Cf. Wolfson-Manes (1980) 89-91 on the use of (English) terms of endear-ment as address-forms.

132 Sommerstein (1995) 78-80; McClure (1999) 205—59: female obscenity ismainly heterosexual and apolitical.

133 Cf. O'Higgins (2001); McClure (1999) 47-52 and 215-18; Sommerstein(1995) 78 n. 50.

134 Sommerstein (1995) 78-9, based on Bain (1991) 53; note Philippides fr. 5. 4with the euphemism vitppoi 'kidneys' for opêi; 'testicles' (but in Lys. 962 old menuse this euphemism and in Lys. 363 old women speak of opxfts)', Eur. El. 945—6.

135 Sommerstein (1995) 80 lists as exceptions Eccl. 706, 709, 1062, in thewomen's new society; add Lys. 1119 aaSijs 'prick', Eccl. 908, 942 airoStiV 'to fuck',and in the women's decree (Eccl. 1015—20) Kpoveiv 'to bang" and tmoSeiv; cf. McClure(1999) 253-8.

136 oXfdpos: Lys. 325; Thesm. 860; Eccl. 934; <p06pos: Thesm. 535; Eq. 1151 (male);Lys. 372; cf. Svennung (1958) 61.

Female Speech 189

with words like Kara-n-vyuiv 'pathic') and more appropriate for femaledecorum.137 The unspecific term of abuse -n-avovpyos 'criminal' isalso frequently used by women: 11 out of 39 Aristophanic exam-ples are female (28.2%).138

(xviii) Oaths. The women's assembly-rehearsal in Ecclesiazusae

shows that oaths could be linguistic markers. Apart from obviousslips like mistakes of grammatical gender and wrong forms ofaddress,139 oaths are the only gender-linguistic feature that isexplicitly commented upon. When one of the women swears byDemeter and Kore (/id TW dfu>), she is reprimanded by Praxagoraand corrects herself with an oath by Apollo. Later on, anotherwoman inadvertently swears by Aphrodite.140

Sommerstein notes that Aristophanic women swear more oftenthan men, with one oath in every 23 lines (men: i oath in every 35lines). Women's speech thus becomes more affective or emotional.The most frequent oath for women and men is that by Zeus, butapart from that, women swear mostly by goddesses (especially 'thetwo goddesses', Aphrodite, Artemis, and Hecate/Phosphorus), andmen by gods (and Demeter).141 There is no other area in whichlinguistic segregation is so clear cut, and the separation remainsessentially the same (or becomes stronger) until the time ofMenander.142 Women have a powerful role in linguistic change asfar as subconscious indicators are concerned, but they have little

137 Cf. Sommerstein (1994) 219 on Thesm. 962—5: 'choral interludes in the latterpart of an Old Comedy were often devoted to satire on individuals. . . . Here, as inLys. 1043-9, the chorus announce they will not do this. The explanation that it isimproper for "a woman . . . to speak abusively of men" may seem disingenuous inview of much that has been said by women . . . earlier in the play; it may neverthe-less be significant that the two choruses which explicitly reject satire of individualsare respectively all-female and half-female in role.' Old men are fond of

as term of abuse: Lys. 283, 371, 397, 622/3, 635.138 Including Ecd. 437, a reported female utterance.139 See Ecd. 165, 299; cf. Ecd. 204, 285-6.140 Ecd. 155-60, 189-91; cf. Ziebarth (1892) 11-13; Kleinknecht (1937) 84. For

an inverse joke see Thesm. 594: the invocation c! TroAurifiijToi 0eoi 'glorious gods!' ispurely male in comedy (Sommerstein (1995) 65 n. 13) and the disguised Relativeonly just diverts into a 'more female" u> iro^vTipyrw 6ew.

141 Sommerstein (1995) 64-5, with nn. 12 and 14, counts 117 female and 447male oaths (female: Zeus 63, the two goddesses 16, Aphrodite 13, Artemis 8,Hecate/Phosphorus 7, etc.; male: Zeus 295, Apollo 30, Poseidon 23, Demeter 23,'the gods' 23, Dionysus 14, Hermes 7, etc.). On the exceptional female oath byApollo (Lys. 917, also Ran. 508 and Ecd. 631?) see Sommerstein (1995) 66 n. 16.

142 Sommerstein (1995) 65-6.

190 Female Speech

chance to influence a male-dominated society with regard to con-scious markers.

(xix) Complimenting. The exchange of compliments is a strikingfeature of the first, women-only, scene in Lysistrata. As in modernsocieties, men in Greek comedy do not praise each other for theirappearance. They can express appreciation about the looks of awoman (especially when they sexually desire her) but, with thepossible exception of love scenes, these are comments about, notcompliments to a woman. The women in Lysistrata complimenteach other in an ordinary conversation.143 To be called «ro/j.i/ids 'ele-gant' is complimentary for women but depreciatory for men.144

Complimenting is a prime strategy to respond to 'positive face-needs'.145

6.8.2. I D I O M S A N D V O C A B U L A R Y

Short-term diachronic developments in a language are most easilyobserved in the lexicon. For Aristophanes there is a major dividingline between the plays up to Ecclesiazusae and the late Plutus, butgradual changes are also seen. Caution is therefore even morenecessary in this field. Nevertheless, a few observations may be rel-evant to our discussion. Several of them take into account the breakbetween Ecclesiazusae and Plutus. Words or expressions that willbecome prominent only in the last play are sometimes used moreoften by women than by men in the earlier plays.

(xx) The colloquial idiom ov( t>ev )/y,-i]( 8eV ) uyi^s/Ws 'crazy' occurs 7times in Plutus, 4 times in the earlier plays; 2 of the 4 earlier attes-tations are female.146 The idiom is reminiscent of the indirect or'litotic' structures discussed in section 6.8.1, observation (xi).

143 Lys. 79-80, 83, 88-90; cf. Calonice's advice in Lys. 8 (and 707). Male compli-

ments in amatory contexts are implied in Plut. 1018, 1020 (cf. Eccl. 973); for com-

ments about women see Eq. 1390; Av. 667—8, 670; Lys. 1148, 1157-8; Thesm. 1185,

1187.144 Contrast Lys. 89 with Vesp. 1317. 145 Cf. J. Holmes (1995) 115-53.146 Female: Thesm. 394, 636; male: Ach. 956; Eccl. 325; cf. Plut. 37, 50, 274, 355,

356, 362, 870; Stevens (1976) 25-6. For similar expressions with the verb

see (female) Av. 1214 (rhetorical question), Plut. 507, 1060, 1066, and (male) Nub.

1275, Pax 95, Lys. 1228, Plut. 364.

+Female Speech 191

(xxi) The postposition x^PiV in the prospective sense 'for the pur-pose of appears 4 times in Plutus, 3 times earlier. Of the 3 earlierinstances, 2 are female.147

(xxii) The adverb KOO^LWS 'orderly, properly' occurs 5 times inAristophanes: 3 times in Plutus (the only play where thecorresponding adjective Koapios is found) and twice inThesmophoriazusae in the mouth of a woman.148

(xxiii) At some point the numeral els followed by the particle yewas added to the indefinite pronoun rts to form the new indefinitecollocation efy ye' TI? 'someone'. Without the particle ye, the originalforce of ef? is still observable (ef? ns 'a single, unnamed individ-ual'149), but & ye' TIS with ye is synonymous with T« alone; theexpressivity of the new idiom points to a colloquial origin,and similar forms appear 5 times in Aristophanes, twice in the latePlutus, twice in undated fragments with unknown speakers, andonce in the mouth of the disguised Relative in Thesmophoriazusae.

Here it is immediately preceded by the formally and etymologicallyrelated adverb a^wayf-nuts 'somehow'. In Acharnians a^ye-rry 'some-where' occurs once. Thus, 2 of the 3 attributable 'intensified'indefinite pronouns and adverbs before Plutus belong to a speech inwhich a man tries to sound as woman-like as possible.150 The fea-ture may be regarded as a further strategy for increased hedging.

(xxiv) The comic association of women with AaAia 'chattering' hasalready been mentioned (§ 6.6). However, AaAeiV is not always usednegatively. A few neutral passages foreshadow the later replace-ment of Ae'yccv by AaAeiV 'to speak'. In these passages the speakers arethe modernist Euripides (whose neutral or even positive use of

is due to his 'perverted' social norms: 2X), the slave Xanthiasin Frogs (2X), and the women in Ecclesiazusae (3X).151

147 Female: Thesm. 586; Eccl. 140; male: Ran. 1418; cf. Plut. 53, 154, 260, 1009.148 Female: Thesm. 573, 853; Plut. 978; male: Plut. 671, 709 (both slaves); cf. for

; Plut. 89, 565, 566; also Plut. 564 Koa/iiOTTjs (female).149 Av. 899 (also conjectured for Av. 268 by Hall-Geldart (1906)); Ran. 911; cf.

in general Kuhlmann (1997/98) 90-1.150 'Female': Thesm. 429, 430; male: Ach. 608; cf. Plut. 402, 413; Ar. fr. 191

(mentioning women and probably late because of the young word tViWe in fr. 194from the same play), fr. 506.

151 Euripides: Thesm. 267; Ran. 954; Xanthias: Ran. 751, 752; women: Eccl. 16,119, 120; perhaps also Thesm. 1083, 1087, 1108-9 (all spoken by the Scythian). Thesm.138 AaAef (if correctly transmitted) creates a comic incongruence in the paratragic pas-sage, and Pax 539 AaAeiK 'to chat' equals SiaAe'yetrOai 'to have a conversation', not

192 Female Speech

(xxv) In later Greek the adjective 6'Aos 'entire' begins to supplant'whole'. Already in classical Attic there are contexts in whichand iras are interchangeable: it is, for instance, possible to say

and both are equally comprehen-sive.152 In the Aristophanic plays there are about 18 instanceswhere oAos could be replaced by miy since the notion of entirety isnot necessary in the context (although it does lay stress upon thesyntagma).153 Of these, 8 are spoken by women (44.4%) and manyof the rest by low characters like slaves or the Sausage-seller.154

(xxvi) In fourth-century Greek, possibly intruding from Ionia,'like' spreads as a comparative conjunction equivalent toAttic 'officialese' used it earlier. In Aristophanes

occurs 4 times, once in its old domain in a legal text, once spokenby a slave, and twice used by women in the initial scene ofEcclesiazusae.*55 Their speech may be ahead of its time.

(xxvii) From the late fifth century onwards, virapxu 'to exist' grad-ually loses its original force and eventually becomes synonymouswith In Aristophanes, tWpxoi occurs 9 times: 4 times used bymen, always in paratragic or highly solemn contexts, 5 times bywomen, apparently without stylistic distinction.156

(xxviii) The sex-differentiated use of the adjective'poor' has been discussed by Sommerstein.157 Only men exclaim indistress or alarm o"/zo« (or aifiof) rdAas 'poor me!' (28 times), whereaswomen use rdAaiv' dyai as an equivalent (6 times); the masculine

appears only in paratragic lyrics.158 In other contexts, too,the adjective is mostly paratragic (for rdXaivo/TaXav in the vocativesee § 6.8.1, observation (xv)). Of the 3 instances where the adjective

152 Contrast Nub. 1129, Thesm. 658, and Eccl. 33 (maav) with Nub. 36, 75, Eccl.39, 55, 1099, 1123, and Plut. 743 (oArjv).

153 But not in Eq. 1191, Pax 7, 987, and Ran. 1239, where oAos 'the entire x' con-trasts (implicitly) with 'only part of x', nor in Ach. 85, Av. 430, 1000, and Ran. 506without the definite article.

154 Female: Lys. 29, 1144; Eccl. 39, 55, 63, 66, 1123; Plut. 1015; male: Ach. 138,160; Eq. 681; Nub. 36, 75; Vesp. 29; Pax 27; Av. 224; Eccl. 1099; Plut. 743.

155 Female: Eccl. 61, 75; male: Av. 1042 (decree); Eq. 8 (slave).156 Female: Lys. 1159; Eccl. 114, 622, 654, 669; male: Vesp. 868 (proclamation of

Thesm. 155 (Agathon), 851, 1013 (Euripides' Relative, about to 'become'a tragic heroine).

157 Sommerstein (1995) 68-70; cf. Wilson (1971) 294—5 (exclusively female)v in Homer; Bain (1984) 33-5; McClure (1995) 45-8.

158 Ach. 1191/2, 1210; Thesm. 1038.

on

Female Speech 193

is used as a parenthetic expression of pity or self-pity, 2 are spokenby women, to whom the social code of behaviour may have allowedgreater emotionality.159

(xxix) The fossilized imperative dfte'Aei, colloquially used as a parti-cle of emotional support ('don't worry, never mind'), occurs 4 outof 12 times in the mouth of Aristophanic women (33.3%).160

6.9. SUMMARY AND CLASSIFICATION OFFEATURES

The gender-preferential features of the preceding catalogue aresummarized and classified in the following lists under the threeheadings 'politeness', 'colloquialism', and 'innovation'. In section6.10 each group will be interpreted separately.

Politeness

Negative politeness is enacted when a speaker mitigates the force ofan utterance by (sometimes cumulative) hedging, so that theaddressee feels not (or less) imposed upon. Women do this moreoften than men with (iv) 'cooperative' jSouAei,-, (viii) double av, (x)restrictive (Hya>)ye/iTov, (xi) indirect ('litotic') expressions, (xv)avoidance of face-threatening forms of address, and (xvi) avoidanceof obscenities. The gender-preferential use is particularly strongwith (viii), (xi), and (xv).

Positive politeness takes the form of (xiii) elicitation of agree-ment (opas/opdre;), (xiv) references to shared opinions

, (xv) affectionate address forms among women, (xix) compli-ments, and (xxix) the (at least originally) confidence-inspiring par-ticle d/j.e'Aei. Complimenting and affectionate addresses are almostgender-exclusive and therefore easier to observe, but on the wholenegative politeness strategies are just as well represented inAristophanes' female speech as positive ones.

Colloquialism

A second group of gender-preferential features create a warm andcollaborative interactional atmosphere (and are thus loosely relatedto positive politeness strategies): (i) preference for the 'subjective'

159 Female: Lys. 760; Thesm. 385; male: Pax 251.160 Female: Lys. 164, 172, 842, 935; male: Ach. 368; Eq. 1213; Nub. 422, 488, 877,

1111; Ran. 532; Eccl. 800.

194 Female Speech

final conjunction OTTWS/WS (av), (vi) ethic dative, (xv) and (xxviii)

Such 'affective' features often belong to an informal or colloquialregister. They may therefore be classified together with some othergender-preferential colloquialisms: (ii) paratactic conditional con-structions, (v) possibly pov/aov instead of e^dy/ads, (vii) intensifiednegations (ovSe <pei/iaAu£, etc.), (xviii) frequency of oaths, (xx) lexicalitems like ofy <5yi«, and (xxiii) intensified indefinite pronouns

The redundancy of some of these features (ethic dative, intensi-fied negations, indefinite pronouns) creates the impression thatfemale speech is more emotional and less referential than malespeech.161

InnovationCertain female features foreshadow later developments of AtticGreek. While some of the modernisms may have originated in acolloquial register ('bottom-up changes': (v)(xxiv) neutral AaAeiV for Aey*'"), others are stylistically unclassifiable((iii) arf/Ka'mep + part., (xxii) Koapttos, (xxv) oXos) or seem to belongto higher levels ((xxvi) KaOdirep, (xxvii)

The evidence for female innovatory tendencies is not huge.Unsurprisingly, it is stronger for vocabulary than for syntax orpragmatics: choices for or against lexical innovations are made con-sciously, whereas syntax is more automated.162

6.10. SOCIOLINGUISTIC INTERPRETATION

The classification in section 6.9 largely confirms the hypothesesdeveloped in the theoretical part. Even though the evidence, whichnow supplements Plato's phonological observations, is filteredthrough male ears, the third class of features ('innovation') showstraces of a greater readiness on the part of Athenian women toaccept new linguistic trends. These trends were promoted by thegrowing internationalism of Athens and probably endorsed by anintellectual elite rather than by the simple man on the street of an

161 Cf. McCIure (1995) 57, on emotional female speech in Euripides; Adams(1984) 47, after Gilleland (1980) 181, for Latin; Shibamoto (1987) 30, for Japanese;J. Holmes (1998) 462-3; on 'feminine' redundancy in other languages seePhilips-Reynolds (1987) 91-2.

162 Cf. Shibamoto (1987) 30; Hudson (1996) 45.

Female Speech 195

Attic deme. They accompanied a parallel change towards a slightlymore liberal and open society and ultimately led to the formationof Koine Greek. In this respect, the Athenian gender-linguistic sit-uation of around 400 BC was similar to that of the modern Spanisvillage in which the socially confined women promote the spread ofstandard Spanish (associated with social progress) against the localdialect.

The interpretation of the second group of features ('colloquial-ism') is ambiguous. If we believe in a high degree of accuracy inAristophanes' representation of female speech, we may account forit by observing that Athenian women had little access to intellec-tual education with its higher stylistic registers. Alternatively,these features may reflect male stereotypes about women's lan-guage. Not only could colloquialisms hint at the alleged 'simplic-ity' of women's speech, which Plutarch praised in Menander'scomedies,163 but they were appropriate to depict female languageas gossip. The affectiveness of some features matches the gender-construction of a society in which lamentation and persuasiveseduction were female speech-genres.

Perhaps the most interesting group is the first one ('politeness').I cannot believe that Aristophanes was consciously aware of polite-ness differences in male and female speech. However, the comicmaterial matches modern observations about the importance of orinattention/indifference to politeness strategies among women andmen respectively so well that similarities like the taboo on obscen-ity and the various hedging strategies are hard to dismiss as coinci-dental. Classical Attic can therefore be added to those languageswhere we have evidence for a more cooperative and face-respectingfemale style of conversation. In fact, the subordinate social statusof women almost had to provoke this linguistic reaction. The typo-logical similarity of the ancient and modern data is also valuablebecause it confirms the legitimacy of using, with much caution,Aristophanic comedy as a surrogate for the missing sociolinguisticevidence from fifth-century Athens.164

163 In Sanskrit drama women talk in ('lower') Prakrit, men in Sanskrit: Jespersen(1922) 241-2.

164 Occasionally I have drawn attention to a parallelism between women's andsla\'es' language. According to O'Barr-Atkins (1980) 109-10, social status is moreimportant than gender in determining the amount of subordination and politeness;cf. Ochs (1987) 58-70 and Bing-Bergvall (1996) 5, with further literature, on theintersection of gender and other sociolinguistic factors. A sociolinguistic chapter

196 Female Speech

6 . i i . THE LITERARY D I M E N S I O N

Our results also have a literary dimension. Both Adams and Bainhave observed the tendency of ancient comic writers (Terence inone case, Menander in the other) 'to accumulate markers of femi-nine speech (especially at the beginning of a speech)'.165 If we listall the female examples of the gender-preferential features of ourcatalogue, we find not only—as we would expect—that they aremost widespread in the three women's comedies of Aristophanesbut also that their density is unequal. When we look at units of 100lines, the following three passages are most densely 'female': thefirst 200 lines of Lysistrata; the first 200 lines of Ecclesiazusae(excluding the paratragic soliloquy in lines i-i8);t66 lines 370—470of Thesmophoriazusae. These passages are similar in two respects:

(i) All of them are the first 'women's scenes' in these plays. InThesmophoriazusae women's lines start in 295, but 295-371 consistof a parodic prayer-ceremony, which is modelled upon the (male)public prayers before a meeting of the people's assembly.167 The'free' action of the women starts in Thesm. 372.

(2) All of them are exclusively female, with no (undisguised)man being present. The differences between men's and women'slanguage may have been too small to be comically contrasted witheach other in a male-female dialogue, but they were sufficient forthe creation of a purely female atmosphere, where they could beaccumulated without distraction by a male voice.

Moreover, language and theme interact. Female features occurwith about the same proportional frequency in Lysistrata andEcclesiazusae, but they are significantly less frequent inThesmophoriazusae. In both Lysistrata and Ecclesiazusae the actionis based on the antagonism of the sexes.168 This is not so inThesmophoriazusae: the women are opposed first to Euripides andsubsequently to Euripides' Relative, but the action does not pivoton an institutionalized sex-struggle. It was therefore less importantfor the comic poet to make the women sound as female as possible.

could probably be written on slaves' language too: cf. Zini (1938) 23-55 ar>d moreguardedly Krieter-Spiro (1997) 201-33.

165 Bain (1984) 32; Adams (1984) 75.166 Also, this scene explicitly refers to female and male speech differences (oaths).167 Cf. Haldane (1965). 168 Cf. e.g. Shaw (1975) 264-5; Foley (1982).

Female Speech 197

These literary aspects indirectly confirm the validity of the lin-guistic results. It is no coincidence when statistical observationsneatly correlate with thematic considerations although they areindependent of each other. Some realism there must have been inLysistrata's language. Exactly how much, we cannot tell. The nextchapter on Aristophanes' 'foreigner talk' will bring out even moreclearly that this uncertainty is the price we have to pay for workingwith literature.

7

Foreigner Talk

7.1. S IMPLIFIED REGISTERS AND'FOREIGNER TALK'

In Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae a Relative of Euripides'intrudes, on Euripides' request, into a women-only festival inorder to defend the tragic poet against the hostile plots of theAthenian women. Despite his disguise, the Relative is soondetected, arrested, and placed under the custody of one of thoseScythian archers who were employed as policemen in classicalAthens. The final scenes of the play involve extensive dialoguesboth between the Scythian and his prisoner and between theScythian and Euripides, who wants to rescue his Relative, first(unsuccessfully) by re-enacting various tragic scenes, later (suc-cessfully) by distracting the Scythian's attention with the help of apretty prostitute.

For us, these scenes are of particular value because Aristophanesmakes the Scythian speak broken Greek and thus produces themost extensive ancient example of a 'simplified register'. Since thestudy of 'simplified registers' is a relatively recent field of sociolin-guistics, the Aristophanic evidence has so far not been looked atfrom this angle.

Simplified registers are more or less conventionalized linguisticvarieties which are used by fully competent speakers of a given lan-guage to address people whose knowledge of that language is felt tobe less than normal.1 The two most common simplified registersare 'baby talk' (adults to small children) and 'foreigner talk' (nativespeakers to foreigners). Those who use baby talk or foreigner talk(implicitly) assume that small children and foreigners find it easierto understand a primitivized form of language.

1 Cf. Ferguson—DeBose (1977) 100. The concept of 'foreigner talk' goes back toSchuchardt (1909): Ferguson—DeBose (1977) 103.

Foreigner Talk 199

There are different ways of primitivizing or simplifying a lan-guage. Baby talk, for instance, is characterized in various culturallyindependent societies by a slow or exaggerated enunciation, ahigher pitch, short sentences with little or no embedding, theavoidance of inflection, or the use of diminutive and hypocoristicformations. It is mostly conventional or language-specific in itsphonology and lexicon, whereas prosodic and syntactic featurestend to be more universal.2 The evidence for ancient baby talk islimited and mainly lexical.3

Like baby talk, foreigner talk is a widespread phenomenon. Ithas even been suggested that such a register exists in all languages.4

This idea is supported by the fact that foreigner talk, too, thoughbeing conventionalized and language-specific in some respects,apparently follows language-independent rules of structural sim-plification. Typically, grammatical words and function words areomitted, short sentences predominate, repetitions are frequent,and a special lexicon is created.5 As a possibly universal register,foreigner talk is of some interest also to the historical sociolinguist,not least because of the changes register systems usually undergo.6

It is therefore most unfortunate that there is no pertinent ancientevidence. The grammarians are silent, and in comedy Greekpeople address foreigners and fellow Greeks in the same way. InThesmophoriazusae, it is the Scythian, not his Greek interlocutors,whose language is simplified. When the foreigner's language is sim-plified, we are dealing with two different kinds of simplification:'broken language" and 'secondary foreigner talk'.

7.2. BROKEN LANGUAGE AND 'SECONDARYFOREIGNER TALK'

Since native speakers use foreigner talk to address non-nativespeakers, this can be regarded as an accommodation phenomenon.Every learner of a foreign language, at every stage of the learningprocess, operates with a somewhat simplified grammar of the

2 Ferguson-DeBose (1977) 102-3.3 West (1970) 184-5; Stephanopoulos (1983) 15; Golden (1995): e.g. Ar. fr. 883.

On modern baby talk see C. A. Ferguson (1964) and Snow—Ferguson (1977).4 C. A. Ferguson (1971) 143.5 Ferguson—DeBose (1977) 104-5 speak of 'widespread' features; cf.

Hinnenkamp (1982) 15—22; Muhlhausler (1986) 106.6 C. A. Ferguson (1981) i i .

zoo Foreigner Talk

target language.7 Until the language acquisition is finished, thelearner is forced to converse in 'broken language' with the nativespeakers of his or her target language. The native speakers, in turn,notice the foreigner's incomplete command of their own language,decide to reduce its complexities, and switch to foreigner talk.Thus, broken language and foreigner talk are likely to occurtogether. Their interaction might even be the ultimate source ofpidgin languages (i.e. simplified languages designed to make arudimentary form of communication possible between the speak-ers of two different languages). In situations where speakers of alanguage A are subordinated to speakers of B, who place little valueon the knowledge of A, the speakers of the 'lower' language A makethemselves understood as best they can (by using broken B),whereas the speakers of the 'higher' language B 'condescend' tothem (by using simplified or foreigner-talk B). Both groups meetsomewhere in the middle, and if the contacts are regular enoughbroken and simplified B become a pidgin language.8

Because they usually co-occur, broken language and foreignertalk mutually influence each other. That broken language is mod-elled, at least to some degree, upon foreigner talk is suggested bythe fact that people from the most diverse linguistic backgroundsshare many features when they attempt to speak the same targetlanguage.9 Conversely, the conventional or language-specificfeatures of foreigner-talk registers must reflect particular culturalsettings, in which native speakers assimilate their foreigner talk tothe 'rules' of the broken language of their foreign interlocutors.10

Hence, there is only a small (mainly phonetic or phonological) dif-ference between foreigner talk on the one hand and conscious (usu-ally comic) imitation of broken language by native speakers on theother hand. Such conscious imitation has been called 'secondaryforeigner talk'.11 Although this terminology is somewhat confus-ing, it correctly reflects the large overlap between 'secondary for-

7 Cf. Ferguson-DeBose (1977) 107.8 Bloomfield (1935) 473; cf. Romaine (1988) 72—4.9 Clyne (1968) 137—8. Some of the similarities between broken language and for-

eigner talk may also result from a universal knowledge of how to simplify properly:cf. Romaine (1988) 76-7 and 211.

10 Cf. Ferguson-DeBose (1977) 109-10." Hinnenkamp (1982) 40-1, after C. A. Ferguson (1975) 2. The first studies of

secondary foreigner talk include C. A. Ferguson (1975), Corder (1975), andValdman (1977) and (1981) 47-9; cf. Hinnenkamp (1982) 196—7.

Foreigner Talk

eigner talk' and 'primary foreigner talk' (as described in § 7.1), bothof which are simplified registers used by native speakers. In soci-olinguistic literature, the two varieties of foreigner talk are not evenalways clearly distinguished. 12

Unlike primary foreigner talk, both broken language and sec-ondary foreigner talk are known to us from ancient Greek sources.Wherever the Greek of a given text is so bad that its author cannothave been a native speaker, we are facing broken language. Thissituation is virtually excluded in literary works.13 Secondary for-eigner talk, on the other hand, typically occurs in literature, andhere Aristophanic comedy is our most important source.14

The 'grammar' of Aristophanes' secondary foreigner talk inThesmophoriazusae has been carefully described by Friedrich andBrixhe.15 In section 7.3 I will have to re-evaluate some of the mate-rial, but this is not my main objective. Both Friedrich and Brixhehave treated the Scythian's Greek as indirect evidence for gram-matical developments in substandard (but native) Greek. One ofmy aims is to show that such attempts are misguided because theyoverlook the somewhat artificial simplification that is typical offoreigner-talk registers. Instead, a comparison of the characteristicfeatures of Aristophanic foreigner talk with the findings of soci-olinguistic research on modern foreigner talk reveals some inter-esting similarities and differences, which add a diachronicdimension to this branch of sociolinguistics and thus enrich thedebate about the universal and/or conventional bases of foreigner-talk registers. At the same time, the cross-linguistic approach shedsnew light upon the sociocultural system of ancient Athens andmodifies certain traditional views about Greek ethnocentricity.

12 Cf. e.g. Meisel (1977) 97.13 Cf. Teodorsson (1977) 23 n. 72 (on Ptolemaic papyri): 'Examples of insuffi-

cient command of Greek are mostly found in private correspondence.'14 Cf., apart from Thesmophoriazusae, Ach. 104 (Persian), Av. 1615, 1628—9,

1678-9 (Triballic god), and Timotheus' dithyrambic poem Persai (PMG 791.150—61). These are different from passages written in (real or invented) barbarianlanguages, on which see Hall (1989) 38—9 and Colvin (1999) 39—89, 287-95.

15 Friedrich (1918); Brixhe (1988).

2OI

2O2 Foreigner Talk

7 .3 - A PHONOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTION OFARISTOPHANES' F O R E I G N E R TALK

7.3 .1 . V O W E L Q U A N T I T Y

Before we can compare the Aristophanic material in Thesmopho-

riazusae with modern foreigner talk, we must outline the basicphonology of the Scythian's Greek. This involves a certain amountof 'dry' textual criticism, but until we have a clear idea about thephonological principles applied by Aristophanes, we are unable todeal with morphological and syntactic phenomena. Without asound phonology we cannot know what range of correct forms maybe read into any given solecism, so that we might, for example,misinterpret a phonological mistake as a syntactic one.

Let us start with a relatively simple issue: vowel quantity. InThesm. 1086, the manuscripts read naiTe TO TTCOVIJ; ('Where dat voicefrom?'). This must represent irodev r/ <pwvrj; with a wrong case (cf.below and § 7.5.2) and gender as well as the loss of final -v in(cf. § 7.3.4). The only difficulty is the first vowel of -num. Friedrichsuggests a 'falsche Umschrift altattischer Schreibweise in die jiin-gere ionische'.16 Aristophanes would have written -n-ore TO wove anmeant something like rroQtv TOV <f<avr\. This is problematic for tworeasons. First, even though TO is likely to represent TOV (rather thaa neuter instead of a feminine article), the syntactic parallel inThesm. 1212 -nov TO y<-'povT(o); 'where's de ol' man?' shows that suchan accusative TO is measured short even before a consonant.Secondly, Colvin has recently argued that Aristophanes probablyused the Ionic alphabet (where the letter <co> existed).17

The metre is anapaestic. Hence, if the manuscripts' TO is shorthe first vowel of noQev must be long and the transmission

' is correct. The implication is that the Scythian gets some ofhis quantities wrong—hardly a surprising feature of broken lan-guage and secondary foreigner talk. There is no need to 'justify'this, as Brixhe does, with the later loss of vowel-quantity opposi-tion among native speakers of Greek, and it is even more incautiousto infer from our passage that the Athenian lower classes had lostthis opposition by the end of the fifth century.18 Such a view only

16 Friedrich (1918) 284. " Colvin (1999) 92-100.18 Brixhe (1988) 127—8, according to whom this confirms the view of Teodorsson

(1978) 94-8 that by 350 BC a large group of Attic speakers no longer distinguished

Foreigner Talk 203

obscures the relation between cause and event. Confusion betweenlong and short vowels probably originated in the broken Greekof people from regions like Asia Minor, where some linguisticsubstrates did not (phonologically) distinguish short and longvowels.19

7.3.2. A S P I R A T E D STOPS AND A S P I R A T I O N

Aspirated stops and word-initial aspiration are another straightfor-ward issue. Most Attic voiceless aspirated stops (9, <p, %) are repre-sented by the corresponding voiceless unaspirated stops (T, IT, K) inthe lines of the Scythian (whose mother tongue, a member of theIranian language group, may have lacked such aspirated stops20).The few exceptions must be scribal errors or slips by Aristophaneshimself. In either case, they would not have influenced the render-ing of these sounds by an actor, whose task was not to reproduce asfaithfully as possible a written manuscript but to imitate a foreignaccent. The question whether such orthographic inconsistencies goback to Aristophanes may interest the textual critic, but it does notaffect our knowledge of Attic foreigner talk. In our context, onlythe divergences from normal Attic count. We will return to thispoint when we discuss the Scythian's iotacism and the loss ofword-final nasals (§§ 7.3.3 and 7.3.4).

For word-initial aspiration, rough breathings are written in themanuscripts. The fact that the Scythian cannot pronounce [th, ph,kh] need not imply that he is also unable to pronounce [h-]. Thereare many languages (such as English or German) which have aphoneme /h/ but which do not have a phonemic distinctionbetween aspirated and unaspirated consonants (and whose speak-ers therefore find it difficult to keep these apart in pronouncing

long and short vowels. Teodorsson (1974) 252 explicitly dismisses the Scythian'sAttic as evidence.

lv According to Philostr. VS 2. 13 (p. 97 Kayser), Pausanias of Caesarea accusedHerodes Atticus of 'Cappadocianism' because of this kind of mistake; cf. Schweizer(1898) 94, with a citation of Photius, s.v. yaptuiKos; Thumb (1901) 143; Brixhe(1976) 27.

20 This is historically plausible because (i) the voiced aspirated stops of Proto-Indo-European had lost their aspiration in Proto-Iranian and (2) the voiceless aspi-rated stops of Proto-Indo-Iranian had become fricatives in Proto-Iranian: cf.Mayrhofer (1989) 6 and 8. As long as there is no evidence to the contrary, we maysafely assume that the Athenian 'Scythians' were really recruited among theIranian-speaking Scythians north of the Black Sea.

204 Foreigner Talk

words from languages where the phonemic distinction doesexist).21 To be sure, there must have been some foreigners (andeven some Greeks, such as East lonians) who would pronounce to?as [o:s] instead of [ho:s], but that does not settle the matter. IfScythian had word-initial [h-] in its phonological system, aScythian foreigner would have had no difficulty with this sound inGreek. To introduce smooth breathings into the text only coversup our ignorance. Without positive evidence (or rather against it:see § 7.3.4), it is unfair and dangerously misleading to assume thatAristophanes made all his foreigners speak with the same accent,no matter where they came from.22

7.3.3. I O T A C I S M

The Scythian does not properly conjugate his verbs. At least in thepresent tense, he uses a passepartout ending -i (certainly in thefirst- and third-person singular, but probably also in the secondperson: cf. § 7.3.5). This further illustrates his indifference towardsvowel quantity, even though the manuscript readings are some-what muddled. Usually the ending is -ei/-ei? when the metredemands a long syllable (17*) and -i/-i? when the syllable is short(i4X). However, there are cases where the reading is -ei, althoughthe vowel is metrically short. An actor certainly pronounced [i] inthese cases too, and for our understanding of Aristophanes' for-eigner talk it is again unimportant to know what was actually writ-ten in the actor's text (if he used a written text at all).23 Conversely,there is one case where the manuscript reading -i is metrically longand another one where, in a long position, both -eu and -is- arefound in R(avennas), our main source.24

The situation is best explained if we assume that the forms withsimple -i were originally written everywhere, and that those which

21 The manuscript readings in Thesm. 1092 (TTOV 'ad' rj fiiapd; 'Where is she, de

villain?', with -6' before j}) and 1214 (airdrpex' eus Ta/acrra 'run fast as you can', with

-K' before <is) do not clarify the issue: cf. Brixhe (1988) 123-4.22 This is implied by Brixhe (1988) 124 and also by Morenilla-Talens (1989)

174-6, although the latter does admit a 'superficial' differentiation. The best evi-

dence for Scythian are personal names of the Black Sea region: see Zgusta (1955),

esp. 245-71, with a list of characteristics including word-initial x- (probably =

[h-]).23 For the forms see Friedrich (1918) 283—4.24 Thesm. 1198 aKoXovri 'follow (me)', 1083

Foreigner Talk 205

stood in long positions were later changed by a conscientious scribe(who overlooked only one or two cases) into forms with -<u. Thismust have happened when iotacizing mistakes had become com-mon in the transmission so that the scribe could assume that one ofhis predecessors had erroneously introduced all the apparentlyrecent forms with simple -i. Such a scenario is supported by Thesm.

1185 yoyyuAt (= yoyyuAi's 'turnip'), which occurs in this form in thefourth-century papyrus P.Oxy. 3840, but which was later mistakenfor an iotacist slip and 'corrected' into the non-Attic formby a copyist.

But even if this is wrong and both -i and -ei occurred inAristophanes' original (which would make it more difficult toexplain why the form with -i once or twice stands in a long posi-tion), the basic point remains the same. An actor trying to imitatea foreign accent would hardly adjust the quality of his vowels to themetre: he would not pronounce them as [e:] in a long syllable, butas [i] in a short one. He would probably adjust the quantity of thevowels and pronounce them either as [i:] and [i] or as [e:] and [e]according to the metre. In our case, it must be [i:] and [i] because[e:] and [e] would not have been rendered by <ei> () and <t>

but instead by <ei> and <<•>. Thus, the Scythian's universal verbalending -i(s) further illustrates the lack of quantitative vowel-opposition, and it shows that his speech was characterized by aniotacizing pronunciation of long [e:].

Now, as early as the fifth century the Attic inscriptions presentnumerous examples of written for [e:] (i.e. in the Ionic alpha-bet <ei>), and even written for [E:] (i.e. <ij>, which theScythian seems to retain, despite the isolated pun with'arrow-case' and Karaflivfca 'to fuck away' at Thesm. 121 s25).Because of this overlap between the epigraphic evidence andAristophanes' foreigner talk, Brixhe concludes: 'L'etranger ne creedone pas. II s'empare d'une variation basse, a la generalisation delaquelle il va contribuer.'26

25 The only good example of written for <•>;> is Thesm. 1108 fit - /J.TJ, againstmore than 40 counter-examples (e.g. Thesm. 1002, 1114, 1187 ^-f\, as well as all theforms of the feminine article). It is therefore dangerous to assume original <t>, andThesm. 1108 («' may be a scribal error (cf. the 'hypercorrect' Thesm. 1135in R ante correcturam).

26 Brixhe (1988) 126; on early Attic iotacism see Teodorsson (1987) and Duhoux

(1987).

206 Foreigner Talk

As in the case of the Scythian's indifference towards vowel-quantity, we must ask if such a conclusion is warranted. There aretwo objections. First, it is possible, but by no means certain, that aScythian public slave (8rj/j.oaios), 'tout naturellement, en apprenantle grec, . . . va s'emparer d'une variante basse autochtone'.27 TheScythian archers were stationed in ghetto-like barracks,28 wherethey must have continued to speak Scythian and where their socialcontacts with both upper- and lower-class Athenians were limited.On duty, as we know mainly from comedy,29 they accompaniedmagistrates and kept order at the people's assembly, so that theywere not more exposed to lower-class speech than to educatedAttic.

Secondly, and more crucially, let us consider a simple modernparallel. Native speakers of Italian or French often have difficultieswith pronouncing English word-initial [h-], e.g. in have or help. Inan English comedy, a French or Italian character would thereforepronounce these words as 'ave [ae:v] and 'elp [elp]. But the sametranscription would be valid for a native speaker of CockneyEnglish. Are we then allowed to conclude that the French or Italianspeaker has 'adopted' a Cockney pronunciation? Surely not: theonly reasonable inference is that French and Italian do not knowword-initial [h-]. Similarly, the Scythian's vocalism may indicatethat he grew up with a language which did not make a distinctionbetween fe:] and [i:], but it does not teach us anything about lower-class Attic.30

7 . 3 . 4 . LOSS OF F I N A L -v

The type of inference we have just dismissed is already found inFriedrich's discussion of the Scythian's loss of word-final -v. 'Da

27 Brixhe(i988) 128.28 First in the agora, later on the Areopagus: Jacob (1928) 54-5; Ba'bler (1998)

166.29 Apart from Thesmophoriazusae see Ach. 54-5; Lys. 433-62; cf. Eccl. 143; Hall

(1989) 45—6; Ba'bler (1998) 167-9. On the Scythians' functions see Plassart (1913)192—4; Jacob (1928) 57—64; Hunter (1994) 145—7: 'they had virtually none of thefunctions and powers that have come to characterize police since the nineteenth cen-tury'.

30 Pace Brixhe (1988) 136: 'Cette forme d'attique presente un interet incon-testable pour 1'histoire de ce dialecte et de la koine: . . . a la fin du Ve siecle, le vocal-isme, par exemple, d'une partie des hommes et des femmes vivant en Attique etparlant 1'attique est deja, pour 1'essentiel, celui du grec moderne.'

Foreigner Talk 207

auch die altattische Volkssprache auslautenden Nasal vorKonsonanten oft nicht bezeichnet, . . . liegt die Annahme nahe,dass Aristophanes hier eine Eigenttimlichkeit der in Athengesprochenen Volkssprache wiedergibt.'31 Since the broken Greekof the Persian in Acharnians and that of the Triballian god in Birds

show the same feature, Friedrich argues that this loss of -v cannothave been realistic (for real Triballians, Persians, and Scythianswould have had different accents) but must have been a conven-tional stereotype of foreigners' speech, which was based on sub-standard Attic usage.

Although it seems convincing at first sight, this argument, too, isinvalid. First of all, we do not know how phrases like Thesm. 1096

were actually pronounced on stage. Twofundamentally different phonetic realities may stand behind such agraphic representation: either a complete loss without trace of thefinal -v or a loss that resulted in the nasalization of the precedingvowel (the latter being more likely in the case of the Persian'sfor xpv°°v at Ach. 104 because Persian probably had such nasalizedvowels32). Furthermore, even if all three stage foreigners pro-nounced this feature in the same way, this would still not prove thatAristophanes was satisfied with just one type of foreigner talk. Onthe English stage, both the French and the Italian drop their initial[h-], but this does not imply that they have the same accent. Insuch cases, the differences are more important. Whereas theScythian has no problems with Attic [e:] (<TJ>), the Triballianreplaces it by a more open [a:] (<a>), and while the Scythian isunable to pronounce the aspirated sounds [th, ph, kh] (<6, <p, x>), thePersian has xpw°-33 Obviously, they do not share a purely conven-tional accent.

As with the iotacizing spellings, the manuscript readings inThesmophoriazusae are not consistent with regard to forms withand without -v. We have already seen in section 7.3.2 that we mustpay more attention to those forms which differ from the standard(i.e. those without -v) because an actor follows the general indica-tions of his script, not every single letter; in fact, it would be

31 Friedrich (1918) 286; cf. Brixhe (1988) 128-9.32 As may be inferred from the fact that Persian writing did not express word-

final nasals and nasals before stops: cf. Kent (1950) 39.33 Ach. 104; for the Triballian cf. e.g. Av. 1678

for

208 Foreigner Talk

extremely difficult sometimes to pronounce the final -v and some-times not.34

Moreover, the chaos in the manuscripts is only apparent. In theScythian's lines there are 50 cases of -ov or -yv where the final nasalcould be dropped. In 30 of these the loss is indicated in the manu-scripts, and in one more (Thesm. 1005 /^dAAo) the metre requires theloss.35 Of the remaining 19 forms with-v, 15 occur either at the endof a line or between vowels.36 It looks as if -v was written in inter-vocalic position in order to prevent the elision of the vowel before,or the prodelision of the vowel after, -o (or -17). Only at line-end isthe variation between the two graphic variants truly unpredictable.If hiatus was tolerated in the unmelodious foreigner's speech,37

there is only one case in which the final -v is metrically guaranteedand therefore less likely to be of secondary origin.38 Alternativelyintervocalic word-final -v may represent a real connecting sound(similar to a v ephelkystikon) so that only line-final -v would bepurely graphic.

7.3.5. LOSS OF F I N A L -;

Word-final -? is apparently lost as well, although we cannot knowexactly how often: since the Scythian does not always choose thecorrect nominal gender, a form in -o may stand for a neuter (-ov) ora masculine (-os) nominative.39 The following considerations onthe textual history of intervocalic -s make even cases like Thesm.1176, KUÔ TIS dveyefpi fioi 'some rev'llers wakin' me up', ambiguous.

A nominative singular in -os does occur four times in the manu-scripts.40 In three of these, -os stands in prevocalic position, where

34 The requirement of consistency is less strong with morphology or syntaxbecause phonology is an extremely 'automated' linguistic layer.

35 Friedrich(i9i8) 285-6.36 The same is true for -v after vowels other than 17 and o. In Thesm. 100

scribal interference is obvious because R first had37 Elision of the new final vowel is found only in Thesm. mi, 1185, 1210-11,

1213, and 1220; the metre never excludes final -o with hiatus; cf. also Prato (2001)

334-38 Thesm. 1187 (e)vSov: graphic vSo would no longer be recognizable as tvSov. The

few cases of final -v before consonant are easily explained as orthographic inconsis-tencies (Thesm. 1085, 1114, 1197).

39 Because the nominative and the oblique cases are kept apart in the consonantstems (§ 7.5.2), the forms in -o probably do not represent accusatives in the functionof nominatives.

40 Thesm. 1007 iropfids — <pop/id? 'mat', 1133 [itapos, 1180 ehairpos ~ tXatppos 'nim-ble', I I Q 2 ATTIKOS.

Foreigner Talk 209

-s may have been inserted to prevent hiatus or elision (as with final-v: cf. § 7.3.4). In the fourth case (Thesm. 1192 ATTIKOS), -s is metri-cally required in order to form position, but since some of theScythian's vowel quantities are wrong (and since incorrect length-ening could be favoured by the accent on -os, at least if the Scythianpronounced the Greek pitch accent as a stress accent41), the origi-nal might have omitted -s even here. As -? is more consistentlywritten after the long vowels in Thesm. 1084 TrpvTaveis, 1214 <l>s, and1215 opdws (all before consonant), it is possible that the loss of final-? was restricted to the position after a short vowel (as in the nom-inative singular of o-stems); but there at least we must postulatephonetic consistency if we assume that Aristophanes created hisforeigner talk for a free actor, not for a slavish reader.

Fortunately in this case there are three strong arguments to sup-port the claim that word-final -s was secondarily introduced atsome point in the textual transmission. First, there is one casewhere word-final -s seems to have been erroneously inserted. In atext full of grammatical errors it is of course difficult to say what isand what is not an original (i.e. intended) mistake. But if a mistakeis exceptional even though the author could have introduced it fre-quently, it probably did not belong to the original version. TheScythian often forms his nominatives incorrectly, but he hardlyever uses them for a wrong case (other than the vocative; cf.§ 7.5.2). One of just two exceptions occurs in Thesm. 1007:

'Ere, let me bring out a mat, so I guardyou' (— ytp', tyui '^fvtyKw <popfj.6v, i'va <pv\a%u> ere).42 Since Aristophanescould easily have made the Scythian use the nominative instead ofthe accusative (or genitive or dative) more often, we may assumethat Thesm. 1007 originally had -nopij.6 (i.e. the syntactically correctaccusative) and that -s was inserted in order to avoid the hiatusbefore iW.

The second-person singular present of thematic verbs corrobo-rates this theory. Mostly these verbal forms contain their final -s,

but in Thesm. 1089 the manuscript reading is KaKKtiaKi /^.oi 'you make

41 We do not know anything about the nature of the accent in Scythian or other

Old Iranian languages, but (Western) Middle Iranian had a stress accent;

Mayrhofer (1989) 12; Schmitt (1989) 98.42 Friedrich (1918) 287. In Thesm. 1102 a genitive Fopyovo should be read: the

Scythian does not care about the correct declension of the name AJpyos after he has

just heard

2io Foreigner Talk

fun at me'.43 //there was a stage at which second-singular endingsin -i were 'corrected' into -is, KOLKKOLOKI may have remained unaf-fected because of its obscurity: after all, an interpretation as a mid-dle second person was not excluded. Now, Thesm. 1102 stronglysuggests that there was such a stage. In the second half of this line,

and -nf.pl must stand for Ae'yeis and yc'peis.44 In R, the main man-uscript source for Thesmophoriazusae, Thesm. 1102-3 were erro-neously omitted and later, by a corrector (R2), reinserted in thebottom margin. Whether Ra did this on the basis of an independentexemplar we do not know, but it seems an odd coincidence that two(except for Thesm. 1089, isolated) second-singular forms without-y occur precisely in such a 'lost' line. As both the first- and thethird-singular forms end in -i anyway, it does in fact make sensethat the second singular agrees with this: why should the Scythianbe unable to keep the first and third persons apart but distinguishthe second person (all the more since -et? and -<ri are far more simi-lar than -w and -ei)? We may therefore hypothesize that the arche-type had forms in (quantitatively indifferent) -t also in the secondsingular. Before a vowel, hiatus was tolerated in the foreigner'sGreek.45 Later on, either an ancestor of R or R itself was 'clarified'by the insertion of -s, but the revision of R (by R2) was done withthe help of an 'unclarified' manuscript (which may even have beenthe exemplar from which R was copied if the 'clarification' wasintroduced by the scribe of R himself).

Finally, there is a third point to suggest that -s was inserted sec-ondarily. Thesm. 1192 juVAi? 'honey' is the only case where a neuternoun seems to have become masculine. Moreover, Aristophanesusually builds barbaric forms of third-declension nouns on thebasis of the stem, to which a universal ending -o is added(Friedrich's casus indefinitus4f>). If anything, we might thereforeexpect */i<r'AiTo. One may suspect that an original ̂ e'Ai47 was mistakenfor verbal jue'Aas when the manuscript was 'clarified' by the inser-

43 The scholiast paraphrases this with raroyfAa? /tot, but the exact Greek equiv-alent is unclear: Brixhe (1988) 133 suggests KaKxaaKt = Kayraa/« = /Friedrich (1918) 280 KaKaaia = Kaxao/feis; cf. Prato (2001) 323.

44 -ne.fi is not -nf.fi with anastrophe, as pointed out correctly by Brixhe (1988) 137n. i. For another second-person form without -? see n. 59 below.

45 Hiatus after verbal -i is certain in Thesm. 1179 fieAe-rijai.46 Friedrich (1918) 288.47 Regular nominatives for consonant-declension nouns are more common than

irregular ones: see § 7.5.2.; Friedrich (1918) 286 and 288.

Foreigner Talk

tion of final -s. And indeed, /ne'Ai is now read in the oldest source forThesm. 1185—93, fourth-century papyrus P.Oxy. 3840.48

7.3.6. THE O R I G I N S OF M O D E R N F O R E I G N E R T A L K ?

The argument that word-final -s and -v must have been droppedconsistently at least in a stage version of Aristophanes' foreignertalk allows an interesting new interpretation of the Scythian's gen-eralized verb form in -c. wuAafi, irepi, Ae'y', etc. Obviously, a form like

could stand for an iotacized third-singular Ae'yei as well as for aniotacized second singular with loss of final -;, Ae'yw- The only formthat needs a special explanation is the first singular, where thereplacement of Ae'yco by Ae'yi is less straightforward.49

There are two plausible theories. Brixhe compares the formationof the French future, in which foreigners and young childrensometimes model the first person after the second and third per-sons: the final vowel ofparler-ai is replaced by that of parler-as andparler-a.50 However, there remains a small difference between theFrench and the Greek cases. In French, parler-as and parler-a arein fact phonetically identical so that the pressure to generalize theending is strong. In Greek, on the other hand, Ae'yw and Ae'yei areidentical only when the Scythian foreigner pronounces them, notwhen he hears them. Brixhe's explanation therefore implies thatthe foreigner aligns the first singular on the basis of his own artic-ulation rather than on the basis of a real morpho-phonetic mergerof two adjacent forms.

Alternatively, we may look for the origin of the ending -i outsidethe singular paradigm. According to the phonetic rules ofAristophanes' foreigner talk, -i may stand for -i, -tv, -«, orHence, the underlying form of \eyi may be an infinitive

48 In Thesm. 1195 Kapiao aov TOVTO is interpreted as âpiao^ (with mistaken genus

rerbi) av TOVTO 'do me dis favour' by Friedrich (1918) 299. Since there is no otherindication that the Scythian pronounces Attic <v> as [u], Friedrich postulates (withBrunck) Kapiao av TOVTO for the original but leaves it open why av should havebecome aov. The difficulty may be removed if we assume another incorrect inser-tion of intervocalic -s in an original Kapiao (for xapiaov) of (= oSv) TOVTO.

49 Pace Friedrich (1918) 293, there is only one certain first-singular form in -w.

Thesm. 1084 KaXeaui. In Thesm. 1125, fiaoTiyaiaapa may stand for(fut.) rather than for /âcmyuj a' apa (pres.: 'den I whip you'), and other apparentexceptions can be explained similarly.

50 Brixhe (1988) 133-4.51 In Thesm. 1135 Aa/SeiV, word-final -vis written (or added?) because it is line-final.

the

211

212 Foreigner Talk

The advantage of this theory lies in the wide range of moderntypological parallels. In simplified registers, finite verb forms arereplaced by the present infinitive all across the world: inGastarbeiterdeutsch, simplified Italian, Turkish foreigner talk,West African Pidgin English, Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea, theSpanish contact language on the Philippines, and Tay Boi, aFrench pidgin in Vietnam.52

The history of foreigner talk is largely unknown. However, wehave seen in section 7.2 that foreigner talk is likely to be one of thesources in the formation of pidgin languages. It is therefore reveal-ing that the use of the infinitive as an all-purpose form reaches backseveral centuries in some of the varieties just listed. Moreover, thepersistence of this simplification feature is illustrated by its recur-rence in the earliest well-attested pidgin. The so-called 'LinguaFranca' or 'Sabir', 'a go-between language, formed out of Romancelexical material, which appeared in the Middle Ages among Latinsand Arabs, later even among Turks' and which continued to beused at least until the nineteenth century in the Mediterraneanports, already replaced inflected verb forms by the infinitive.53 Andstill earlier, in the twelfth century, Giraldus Cambrensis met anuneducated anchorite who knew just enough Latin for the mostessential purposes, but used it 'per infinitivum nee casus serv-abat'.54

Of course, these early parallels are still separated by a large time-gap from the language of Aristophanes' Scythian. But we shouldnote that the infinitive has such a prominent role in more recentsimplified registers because it has a special status in the verbal sys-tems of the respective medieval and modern languages, and in thisrespect classical Attic Greek closely resembles languages likemedieval Romance or modern German (more than, for instance,medieval Greek, which lost the infinitive together with the otherBalkan languages): among other things, the infinitive carries themain verbal force in constructions with modal verbs, it can be used

52 Cf. Hinnenkamp (1982) 19 and 155; Clyne (1968) 132-4; Ferguson—DeBose(1977) 104; Valdman (1981) 48.

53 Schuchardt (1980), especially 67—70 and 74-87.54 Brewer (1861) 90—1 (cited by C. A. Ferguson (1975) 14 n. 5). In Giraldus'

example, the infinitive is the only simplified feature and the anchorite does observecase-forms: cf. e.g. 'Ego . . . ire Hierosolymam et visitare sepulchrum Domini mei;et quando redire, ego ponere me in hoc carcere pro amore Domini mei qui mori prome.'

Foreigner Talk 213

in imperatival function (at least under certain circumstances),55

and it is the 'most nominal' of all verb forms so that it is convenientfor foreigner-talk systems, which often prefer nominal to verbalsentences.56

7.4. FEATURES OF MODERN FOREIGNER TALK

By speculating about the origin of the Scythian's verbal paradigm,we have already started to compare ancient and modern foreignertalk. We will now pursue this comparison more systematically andlook for further points of contact between Aristophanes' foreignertalk and similar registers in modern languages.

Ferguson and DeBose have compiled the following list of fea-tures that are widespread in foreigner-talk registers:

(1) slow and exaggerated enunciation as well as great overallloudness

(2) use of full forms (instead of contractions, etc.)(3) use of short sentences and parataxis rather than hypotaxis(4) repetition of words and use of invariable tag questions(5) use of analytic paraphrases for certain lexical items and

grammatical constructions(6) reduction of inflection (often by selection of one or two all-

purpose forms)(7) omission of function words (such as articles, prepositions,

auxiliaries)(8) avoidance of dialectal or slang forms in favour of standard

forms(9) phonological simplification (e.g. by addition of a vowel to

final consonants)(10) use of a special lexicon of quantifiers, intensifiers, and

modal particles(u) use of foreign or foreign-sounding words (e.g. English

savvy)57

55 The imperatival force of the infinitive (cf. App. § 4.6.4.4) is important for itsrole in foreigner talk: Schuchardt (1980) 70 n. 7.

56 On nominal sentences in foreigner talk and broken language cf. (apart from thelocus classicus 'Me Tarzan, you Jane') C. A. Ferguson (1971) H5~7; C. A. Ferguson('975) 4-5; Clyne (1968) 131; Valdman (1981) 48; Hinnenkamp (1982) 52-3 andI 12.

57 Ferguson-DeBose (1977) 104; cf. also Meisel (1977) 90-1. Hinnenkamp(1982) 15—31 distinguishes the following types of simplification: loss of markedness,

57

214 Foreigner Talk

Although this list is designed for primary foreigner talk, it canserve as a point of reference for secondary foreigner talk, too.Whereas (i), for instance, is more likely to be a feature of primaryforeigner talk (which is irretrievable in a written text anyway) and(8) presupposes the native speaker's competence to make a choice,the rest of the list is comprehensive enough to cover secondaryforeigner talk as well. I have already noted (in § 7.1) that theScythian's interlocutors do not use a (primary) foreigner-talk register when they speak to him, but this need not mean that Greekdid not possess such a register. Aristophanes may have neglected itin order to create a greater linguistic contrast between the barbar-ian and the Greek.

The eleven points in the above list concern phonetics andphonology (i, 2, 9), morphology (6, 8), syntax (3, 4, 5, 7), and thelexicon (5, 8, 10, n). The following analysis is arranged accordingto these categories but discusses each point separately.

7.5. ANCIENT FOREIGNER TALK INTHESMOPHORIAZUSAE

7.5.1. PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

(i) Not applicable (see § 7.4).(2) If the occasional writing of final -v (and -y) is only graphic

and does not represent a connecting sound between vowels, fullforms prevail over elided forms at least occasionally; but elisiondoes occur elsewhere, and even aphaeresis (Thesm. 1092) and era-sis (Thesm. 1104) are found.

(9) The loss of some final consonants produces more syllables ofa CV-type, but since other closed syllables are not simplified, thisis an accidental development. However, the dropping of final con-sonants belongs itself to the category of phonological simplifica-tion, together with the loss of distinctive vowel-quantity and thereplacement of aspirated by non-aspirated voiceless stops.58

morphophonemic reduction, impoverishment of the lexicon, approximation to thedeep structure of language, and functional reduction of language.

58 There are further isolated phonological changes: Thesm. 1007 'feiviy/a is readby the editors as 'fiviyxi = e^tveyKui, and Thesm. 1085 eri KUKOV is explained as

by the scholiast ('is bad for you'); the suggestion of Friedrich (1918) 285 is notmore plausible (01 = TI). On Apra/iov^ta (Thesm. 1201, etc.) see Friedrich (1918) 286and Hall (1989) 40.

Foreigner Talk 215

7 - 5 - 2 . M O R P H O L O G Y

(6) Together with the Scythian's inability to cope with grammati-cal gender (cf. § 7.5.3), the reduction of nominal and verbal inflection probably constitutes the most prominent feature ofAristophanes' foreigner talk. The all-purpose verbal form in -i hasbeen discussed earlier (§ 7.3.6).59

In the paradigm of the o-/a-stem nouns, the loss of final conso-nants produces a (graphically) indistinguishable common form forthe nominative and the accusative. The rest of the paradigm is notattested with sufficient certainty, but Thesm. 1103 TO represents agenitive, so that the whole declension may have been imagined asunified.60 (The articles in Thesm. 1092 ij and 1214 6 (in crasis) aremorphologically correct, and in Thesm. 1212 TO yfpovr(o) 'de ol' man'

is equally correct as the accusative article, even though theaccusative itself is syntactically wrong; note, however, that ye'pcov isfeminine in Thesm. mi, 1123, 1199, and 1220: see further § 7.5.3.)

In the consonantal declension, the Scythian usually distin-guishes the nominative (Thesm. mi yepwv, 1124 rpijaas 'boring ahole', 1133 dAcomyf, Il88 TO CTKijjua = aîy/ia, 1192 /ne'Ai, I2OO

1214 ypaus; 1212 ytpovrfa) is probably an accusative: cf. 1086and § 7.3.1) from the casus indefinitus in -o, which stands for theother cases and whose morphological origin is unclear.Thematization must be excluded because the nominative is notaffected.61 Possibly, the genitive in -05 stands behind -o,62 but it isa bit surprising that the genitive (and not the syntactically impor-tant accusative) should be generalized.

The levelling of the nominal paradigm is mainly a morphologi-cal process. Friedrich's claim that the case forms are completely

59 Correct verbal forms occur for instance with Thesm. 1114

or with the aorist imperative in -ao(v) (Thesm. 1123-4, 1184, 1195). Thesm. 1002

must be changed into -01 because of the metre, which also

demands Thesm. 1108 AaAijai (= AaATjaj;?), another second-singular form without -s.

One may wonder whether Thesm. 1187 fieVrjs with -s is original. In Thesm. 1133 -i

perhaps represents a secondary ending: R has «ViT7)/a'£ei (em0TJia£e), but the final syl-

lable must be short.60 Thesm. 1097 AaAo KO.I Karaparo yvvaiKo 'damn jadderbox of a woman!" stands

for a genitive or an accusative.61 Against Brixhe (1988) 132-3 and Friedrich (1918) 287-8, in Thesm. 1135 the

variant reading /no<my' a(v) is plausible if emrvfj.! (mss. eViru/ieiV) replaces an opta-

tive. Thesm. 1112 icAeVro represents /cAeVn;?, and Thesm. 1185

is now disproved by P.Oxy. 3840 (cf. § 7.3.3).62

Brixhe (1988) 132.

216 Foreigner Talk

mixed up in their usage is exaggerated.63 With one or two excep-tions of doubtful interpretation (Thesm. i i2Oayon>;on Thesm. 1007cf. § 7.3.5), the nominative does not appear in the function of anoblique case (other than the vocative: Thesm. 1006and the only nominal evidence for syntactic confusion of the othercases is Thesm. 1086 TO TTOIVIJ and 1212 TO yfpovT(o), where anaccusative (probably) stands for a nominative. Of course the casemixture might be more ubiquitous without the morphological syncretism.

In the pronominal paradigm, the Scythian tends to generalizethe fullest form, the datives («V°'' and ooL Such a choice is typicalof broken languages and foreigner talk.64 The formal 'dative'stands for a genitive (Thesm. 1210) or an accusative (Thesm. 1007,1176). The correct accusative pronouns («)/*«' and at appear justonce (or possibly twice65) in a wrong function (Thesm. 1126, for adative or genitive).

The stems of nouns and verbs are mostly correct (e.g. future andaorist stems like Thesm. 1120 ewTovT)a(a) (from <p8ove<o), 1225(from Tpex<f), and even the 'unnecessary' perfect future 1127

(from d-jTOKOTT-rw) ).66 The future KaXeaw in Thesm. 1084 isnot proper Attic, but it did become acceptable in later Greek andmay have been around already; an interpretation as an aorist sub-junctive is less plausible.

(8) Not applicable (see § 7.4). We have seen earlier (§§ 7.3.1,7.3.3, 7.3.4) that the Scythian's morphology tells us nothing aboutAttic slang. The existence of the casus indefinitus, for instance, doesnot show 'dass schon die damalige attische Volkssprache dasBestreben zeigte, die zahlreichen obliquen Kasusformen zu ver-einfachen, d.h. durch den einen casus indefinitus zu ersetzen, und

63 Friedrich (1918) 290.64 Cf. the use of the possessive adjectives moja and tvoja for the personal pro-

nouns ja and ty ('I'/'you') in pidgin Russian: Nichols (1980) 398. The same ten-

dency towards fuller forms may explain why me replaces / in English foreigner talk:

cf. C. A. Ferguson (1975) 7.65 If tpBovtw cannot be followed by an a.c.i. in Thesm. 1120; cf. Friedrich (1918)

288. Thesm. 1193 nap' E/J.C stands apart because dialects other than Attic prefer

+ accusative (cf. also Ar. fr. 466. 5; Alexis fr. 250): Buck (1955) 108—9. Moreover,

errors of prepositional government do not indicate that a foreigner is unable to han-

dle the case system as a whole.66 Thesm. 1109 AaAds may be influenced by roXpas in the same line; cf. also §

7-5-3-

Foreigner Talk 217

dass Aristophanes sich hierin an die einheimische Volksspracheangeschlossen hat'.67

7.5.3. SYNTAX

(3) The Scythian's sentences are short, but not noticeably shorterthan those of his interlocutors. There is little opportunity toreplace hypotactic by paratactic structures. In Thesm. 1123-4

Scythian should better have used an infinitive depending on'you want (to)', not the aorist imperative 7ruy«jo(v) 'bug-

ger!'. In Thesm. 1120 we find a paratactic replacement if we accept(or TTvyi^s) for the original, but if the final -s was inserted

secondarily, irvytt,i could represent an infinitive depending on'I would grudge'. Thesm. nog is puzzling because of

the solecism AaAdy '(you) dalk'. If the final -s stood in the original,we would have a paratactic construction replacing an infinitiveafter ToA/ta? 'you dare'. Note that the paratactic solution is reallyungrammatical only in Thesm. 1109 and 1120, which are lesscertain than 1123-4.

On the other hand, there are some cases where correct hypotaxisis either attempted (Thesm. 1119 ei) or actually found (Thesm. 1007

1123 fl, and 1187 TIV ji-fj). In Thesm. 1135 a correct infinitive con-struction is transmitted.

(4) Both tag questions and word repetitions are more typical ofprimary than of secondary foreigner talk so that their absence is notsurprising. When the Scythian repeats a word, he does so, like anative speaker, because he is excited (Thesm. 1093, 1184, 1196,1218).

(5) The Scythian does not use periphrastic constructions inorder to avoid grammatical difficulties.

(7) The fact that the Scythian does not omit function words likeprepositions and articles contrasts quite remarkably with the situ-ation in German secondary foreigner talk, for which a studyshowed that articles (and sometimes prepositions too) are nearlyalways omitted.68 Prepositions are followed by the correct casemore often than not,69 and the Scythian's mistakes with regard tothe article are mistakes of selection rather than mistakes of simpli-fication: because he is uncertain about nominal gender (as is also

67 Friedrich (1918) 290. 6S Hinnenkamp (1982) 52-3.69 On Thesm. 1193 napd + ace. see n. 65 above.

the

218 Foreigner Talk

revealed by adjectival (in)congruence: Thesm. 1127 TOUTOI, 1133Il8o e'Aaupds, 1187 KaAd, I I Q 2 yAuKepd; cf. 1109

he often chooses the wrong article. The form TO (= TO or TOV) isslightly predominant, but it is not a universal default form like thefeminine die in German foreigner talk.70 Since the Scythian's pris-oner, Euripides' Relative, is still dressed up as a woman, the comicforce of the foreigner talk with its female ycpw (Thesm. 1111, 1123,1199, 1220) and male ypavs (Thesm. 1214; cf. 1218 avro, 1222

is particularly strong.Absence of copula, too, is extremely widespread in modern for-

eigner talk. It is interesting to see how this issue is handled in Greek,where copula-less nominal sentences are grammatical. Since theScythian does use V in Thesm. 1092, mi, 1200, and 1215, thecopula-less variant was not as generalized as in modern foreignertalk. Nevertheless, one or two examples of sentences where a nativespeaker of Greek would not have omitted the copula show that thetendency is the same in ancient and modern foreigner talk. In Thesm.

1180 (as e'Aairpds' 'ow nimble she is!' may still be acceptable as a cop-ula-less exclamation, but fy is clearly missing in the counterfactualsentence at Thesm. 1119 «' TO •npiaxro SeOpo TTcpiearpa^./j.e'i'ov 'if 'is arse'olwas durned roun' dis way'. Apparently this syntactic feature of sim-plified registers is not just a conventional stereotype in languageswhich do not admit copula-less nominal sentences.

The Scythian's use of verbal mood and gender should also be men-tioned in connection with syntax. In Thesm. 1187 the manuscriptshave a correct subjunctive pfvys, but in Thesm. 1002 and 1108 thesubjunctives iVtTeuo-ij and AaArj? must probably be changed metri

causa into mood-indifferent iVeTtOo-i and AaATyo-i.71 An optative is per-haps intended, though not marked, in Thesm. 1135.72 The middleis sometimes, but not always, replaced by the active, whereas theinverse does not occur.73

70 Cf. Ferguson-DeBose (1977) 104. The Scythian's TO stands for 6 (Thesm.1119, 1176, 1212 (or for TOV: cf. § 7.5.2)), r; (Thesm. 1086 (or for TIJV?), 1127, 1187,1192), and ri]v (Thesm. 1126, 1197), but there are also cases of correct article usage(e.g. Thesm. 1001, 1124, i222ry(v)).

71 Cf. n. 59 above; for the subjunctives in Thesm. 1007, 1222, and 1225, theScythian uses his forms in -i (here = Attic -w).

72 See n. 61 above; in Thesm. 1088 the unmetrical «Aauaaifii is best changed intoFriedrich (1918) 280.

73 Friedrich (1918) 292: Thesm. 1179 opx-jjo-i 'she (will) dance', 1195 Ka.piao(v) (for1201 nepv-ijai (for fte^njao/uai); also 1005 /JouAi? (= /SouAei) if the final -? is

Foreigner Talk 219

On the whole, syntactical mistakes are far less characteristic ofthe Scythian's speech than phonological and morphological blun-ders. Syntactic irregularity is more prominent in morphosyntax(gender agreement) than in sentence structure (parataxis, lack ofcopula).

7 - S - 4 - L E X I C O N

(5) The Scythian does not use analytical paraphrases to describedifficult lexical items.74 His vocabulary is quite impressive (cf. e.g.Thesm. 1124 aav&o 'board', nSoûAAo 'flea'). In Thesm. 1101-3 hemisunderstands Euripides(-Perseus) but correctly 'translates' thehigh-flown Kapa into KecpaAiJ.

(8) The range of the Scythian's vocabulary is particularly wideon a vulgar level. Obvious vulgarisms (Thesm. 1123 -nvyiao 'bugger',1124 irp(UKTioo(v) 'fuck', 1215 K-aTa/fyvrjai 'fuck away') stand side byside with informal words such as AaAetV (1082) and •ypv&iv (1095) for

Moreover, the Scythian frequently uses diminutives(Thesm. Il8o KaiSto — KtaSiov, 1184 Tuydrpio(v) = OuyaTptov, 1185

1188 Troario(v} = TToaBiov, \ 194 etc. ypa8io(v)).

(10) The Scythian does not have a special lexicon of quantifiers,intensifies, and modal particles. He correctly employs Thesm.

1123 O7rd8p(a) — O(f>6Spa or 1214 <•"? raKiara — cos ra\ima (not e.g.

(?)). He is the only Aristophanic character who uses theintensified affirmative particle VO.IKI (= va^, formed afterThesm. 1183, 1184, 1196, 1218), but the word does occur elsewherein Greek literature (e.g. Men. Sam. 296) and must have been linguistically acceptable; it may be an expressive colloquialism.

(n) We do not know if auîjvTj 'arrow-case' (Thesm. 1197, 1215)was an unusual (though comprehensible) foreign word. It is firstattested on an Attic inscription of 427/6 BC (IG i3. 350. 82) butabsent from classical literature.

original. Sier (1992) 68 suggests that popular Attic was the source even for these

mistakes.

74 Or does Thesm. 1188 TO aK-fffia wepl TO TTOOTIOV refer to the female body ('de

blace aroun' de willy')?75 Cf. also Thesm. 1192 yAuxepd 'sweet'; this word recurs in Aristophanes only

once, at Lys. 971, where the men's chorus echoes the women's jrayyAux-e'pa of Lys.970. The thematic alternative to yAwus is welcome to the foreigner, but its use bywomen may also hint at informality.

22O Foreigner Talk

In Thesm. 1114 there are two words that are even more obscure:(* 'mixed') and OKVTO. ^KTOV might be a distortion of eitheror a colloquial by-form JUKKOV, and OKVTO has been changed

into Kvaro 'pudenda muliebria' by Scaliger and into OVKO 'fig' (=female genitals) by Sommerstein. In either case, a word of the'savvy'-type is not totally excluded.

The lexical side of Aristophanes' foreigner talk is unremarkable,even though some nuances may simply be lost to us. Would anative speaker ever have spoken of a dâprcoAos yepuuv ('wicked oldman'; cf. Thesm. n i l ) or did it sound wrong to say

('you fancy getting the whip': cf. Thesm. 1135)?

7.6. CONCLUSIONS

7.6.1. TEXTUAL C R I T I C I S M

The conclusions which can be drawn from the precedingdiscussion fall into three groups. I will start with a summary of myobservations on the textual criticism of Thesmophoriazusae, thenturn to the linguistic results, and finish with some literary andsociocultural aspects.

I have stressed that we must not rely too much on the textualtransmission when dealing with a passage representing foreignertalk. The Aristophanic text began as the script for a dramatic per-formance. An actor did not read out exactly what was written butcreated his own version of a foreign accent. Our text gives only themost basic indications for the principal phonological features of'Scythian' Attic. It was sufficient if these indications were given afew times since the actor would automatically generalize them. Wemust therefore pay most attention to those spellings which indicatea deviation from the phonological norms of Attic, even if there aremany regular forms beside them. If an iotacizing pronunciation isindicated in some cases, we may assume that it is meant to occur inall comparable contexts (as long as there are no strong coun-terindications like metrical demands).

Nevertheless, the distribution of iotacizing and diphthongalforms in the Scythian's verbal paradigm suggests that a more thor-oughly iotacizing text was altered at some point in the transmissionby the reintroduction of graphic diphthongs <ti>. A similar inter-vention may have taken place with the insertion of word-final -v

Foreigner Talk 221

between vowels (although it must be admitted that the intervocalicpronunciation of -v could have differed from that before conso-nants). The best evidence for a post-Aristophanic 'correction' ofthe manuscripts is available in the case of final -s: two lines whichwere temporarily lost but soon recovered preserve the originalform without -s in the second singular of the verbal paradigm, anda fourth-century papyrus scrap from Oxyrhynchus now shows thatthe manuscript reading /ue'Ais for /WAi is secondary as well.

7.6.2. L I N G U I S T I C S

Since earlier studies of Aristophanes' foreigner talk have operatedwith a problematic methodology, perhaps the most important lin-guistic conclusion of this chapter is a theoretical one. TheAristophanic scene is structurally comparable with secondaryforeigner-talk passages in modern literature and should be treatedin the same way. The barbarisms of the Scythian do not revealhitherto unknown sociolectal features of the Athenian lowerclasses. If there are overlaps, they are accidental and can only bedetected by studying independent evidence for sociolinguistic vari-ation in fifth-century Athens (e.g. defixiones, dipinti, and graffiti onvases).76

Although it sounds paradoxical, it is methodologically safer tomake inferences about the unknown mother tongue of the Scythianfrom his attempts at speaking Greek. If Aristophanes' reproduc-tion of the Scythian's broken language is reasonably faithful toreality, we may for example hypothesize that fifth-centuryScythian did not have a phonemic distinction between aspiratedand non-aspirated voiceless stops or between closed [e:] and [i:],and that it did not know word-final [-n] and [-s] (except perhapsbefore a vowel).

Moreover, Thesmophoriazusae adds a new diachronic dimensionto our knowledge of foreigner-talk registers. Certain general paral-lelisms between ancient and modern secondary foreigner talk areobvious, but the Aristophanic play also shows that the use of ana-lytic paraphrases, the omission of function words like articles andprepositions, or the existence of a distinctive lexicon of quantifiersare not universal features of simplified registers (or, to be more

76 Sier (1992) 67 notes that 'auf den Fluchtafeln und den Vaseninschriften findetsich . . . nichts, was dem Idiom des Skythen entsprechen wurde'.

222 Foreigner Talk

cautious, universal features of the way in which simplified registersare perceived by native speakers). Modern foreigner talk—at leastin the major languages of Western Europe—is much moreconcerned with syntactic and lexical phenomena, whereas phono-logical and morphological features clearly predominate inThesmophoriazusae. This divergence is certainly due above all tothe extraordinary morphological variety of ancient Greek, but itmay also have something to do with a difference in thinking aboutlanguage. It may be that language or a language was conceived ofin classical Athens, as in many other ancient societies, as a set ofwords which are translatable one by one into any other language.With such a concept in mind, people would be less ready to regis-ter and imitate mistakes that affect syntactic structures (these beingthought to be identical in all languages).

7.6.3. L I T E R A R Y T E C H N I Q U E

A N D S O C I O C U L T U R A L CONTEXT

There has been some debate about the function of foreigner-talkregisters. Some hold that foreigner talk is created in order to con-vey an ethnocentric feeling of superiority to the native speaker,whereas others maintain that the native speakers' primary goal is tofacilitate communication with non-native speakers.77 With sec-ondary foreigner talk the second explanation can be disregarded:after all, the addressees are native speakers themselves. There maybe cases in which secondary foreigner talk represents a culturalsuperiority of the foreigner, but they are exceptional and possibleonly in settings where the native speaker is not at home.78 Thesituation in Thesmophoriazusae is not one of these. Aristophanes'foreigner talk is a literary expression of Greek ethnocentricity.However, this statement must be clarified somewhat.

The Scythian's poor Greek does not prove that the Greeks wereexcessively ethnocentric and contemptuous of foreign languagesand cultures.79 Secondary foreigner talk is a common literary

77 See Hinnenkamp (1982) 172-85 and 191; also Valdman (1977) 127-8; Meisel(1977) 98.

78 Cf. Nichols (1980) 405 on the interaction between Russians and nativeSiberians in Russian fictional and ethnographic works.

79 As seems to be implied e.g. by Halliwell (1990) 71-2, and MacDowell (1995)271 ('Many Athenians probably thought patronizingly that a man must be stupid ifhe could not speak Greek properly'). Kloss (2002) 77 exaggerates the contrary ('beigenauerem Hinsehen ist nicht die unvollkommene Sprachform selbst lacherlich').

Foreigner Talk 223

device also in societies which are comparatively open-minded (likeour own). Even if the basic image of the Scythian was that of anuncultivated savage,80 there may have been other images of 'theScythian'. When we laugh at the representation of a foreigner'sbroken language, we do not necessarily imply that there is some-thing wrong with his or her culture.81 In the (admittedly excep-tional and half-legendary) figure of the Scythian prince Anacharsis,who became famous for his wisdom when he visited Greece inthe sixth century, fifth-century Athens did in fact possess analternative image of 'the Scythian'.82

The broken language of the Scythian is more broken than that ofthe Persian in Acharnians (who nasalizes word-final -v and has apossibly iotacized wrong vowel-quantity in the ending of the ver-bal form A-iji/ifi, but whose morphology, syntax, and lexicon areimpeccable83). Such a differentiated reproduction of variousbroken accents is again paralleled in modern literary foreigner talk.The degree of linguistic simplification in secondary foreigner talkis related to the degree of cultural acceptance of the respective

80 T. Long (1986) 106-7; Hall (1989) 52. aKv9if,fiv is a metaphor for incompre-hensible neologisms in Demetr. Eloc. 96, and ano SKVÛIV pr/ats 'speechScythian' (e.g. Demetr. Eloc. 216) was an idiom for harsh outspokenness: cf. theinsult in Hdt. 4. 127. 4 and Gartner (1990) 220 n. 26; also Hall (1989) 40—1. AfterJacob (1928) 73-6 and Janssens (1952) 458-9, Sier (1992) 72 n. 28 thinks thatAristophanes' Scythian could be a caricature of a policeman rather than of a bar-barian, but in a city without native policemen the distinction is irrelevant.Ridiculing the Scythian may have had a political dimension if the play was per-formed in 410: Hall (1989) 53—4; Sier (1992) 82; but cf. MacDowell (1995) 272.

81 In PI. Apol. i?d Socrates takes it for granted that foreigners are not ridiculedbecause of their 'unfamiliar' language, but he is speaking of £evot rather than

and may have in mind non-Athenian Greeks; the beginning of the first'Letter of Anacharsis' (3rd cent.?) suggests that laughter was not uncommon as areaction: cf. Ba'bler (1998) 172.

82 The 'myth' of Anacharsis does not make him a perfect speaker of Greek: cf.Kindstrand (1981) 7 and the sentence from the first 'Letter of Anacharsis' cited byWerner (1983) 594 (Anacharsidis Epistula i. 2:

'Anacharsis uses broken language among the Athenians—and the Athenians among the Scythians'). For a positive attitude towards Scythianculture see Hdt. 4. 46, where the Scythians are distinguished from the

'most uncivilized people' of the Black Sea region; cf. alsoT. Long (1986)9 and 16-17; Hall (1989) 38 n. 2.

83 Ach. 104: ou Aiji/ri (MSS unmetrically also'You not vill get goldo, you open-arsed laonian.' The final letters of 'laovav can betaken as av and be given the same emphatic force as in the Laconian passages ofLysistrata (on which see Colvin (1999) 234): cf. Schol. Ar. Ach. 104

'as a barbarian he used the ou, which isDoric but not common Greek').

224 Foreigner Talk

foreigners.84 Thus, the Scythian's and the Persian's Greek becomevaluable sources for our knowledge of Greek attitudes towards'barbarians'. They demonstrate that the dichotomy between'Greeks' and 'barbarians' was a fundamental but not an exhaustiveclassification.85 Some barbarians are seen as more civilized thanothers. It may be significant that the Persian is allowed to say a sen-tence in his own mother tongue (no matter if it is real Persian ornot) so that the tables of communicative superiority are turned: intheir own interest, the Athenians struggle to understand the for-eigner's words.

If the Scythian therefore occupies a particularly low position onthe Athenian scale of cultivation (though perhaps still a higher onethan the Triballian god of Birds86), this may be relevant for theinterpretation of Thesmophoriazusae, a play in which the respectiveroles of tragedy and comedy are central. His imperfect handling ofAthenian language and culture makes the Scythian immune toEuripides' attempts at rescuing his Relative through re-enactingtragic scenes. The contrast between tragic and barbarian languageis a source of humour, but at the same time it makes the audiencerealize what would happen if the Scythian were an ordinaryAthenian and therefore able to enter Euripides' tragic fictions: hewould be duped by Euripides' tragic language.87 Euripides' failureto deceive the Scythian by cultural means therefore draws attentionto tragedy's usual success in deceiving its non-barbarian audience.

84 Cf. Valdman (1977) 122-5; Valdman (1981) 44-9: 'The lower the status of agroup of foreigners, the more stereotypic the FT used to portray their approxima-tion to the target language'.

85 For the basic opposition Greek vs. 'barbarian' see Werner (1983), and for aranking of the 'worst' barbarians Diogenianus Gramm. 6. 24 Leutsch-Schneidewin, cited by T. Long (1986) 142.

86 Cf. Dunbar (1995) 702; in Av. 1678-9 the Triballian's words,'Pitty tall gelly Pincess ah hand over to

buds', are easy to understand and even contain some correct morphology (mostnotably wapaSi'Swjut), but this may be due to the dramatic situation which necessi-tates a clear verdict: the interpretation of Av. 1628-9basha hide wit steek?" (?) is far less obvious (cf. Dunbar (1995) 728) and in somerespects the Triballian's Greek is distinctly inferior to that of the Scythian (note theabsence of definite articles, the pronunciation of Attic 17 as a, or the morphologictreatment of the o-stem j3aKTijpiov and of the a-stems mprj and (3aoi'Aeia). AgainstSommerstein (1987) 304, I do not think that the Triballian's vafiaiaarpev in Av.1615 represents a Triballian phrase rather than a barbarized version of

cf. Dunbar (1995) 724-5, after Bayard (1920) 30.87 Cf. Hall (1989) 49-52; Sier (1992) 71-2 and 78; Kloss (2001) 46-8; Kloss

(2002) 76-8.

Foreigner Talk 225

The Scythian's broken language may be primitive, but its counter-part, Euripides' tragic language, is treacherous. In an interpreta-tion of Aristophanes' Acharnians, Foley has suggested that thecomic poet constructs an opposition between tragedy as a dramaticgenre that depends on illusion and hides the truth, and comedy asone that reveals the truth and thereby frustrates the intrigues oftragedy.88 With the above reading of Thesmophoriazusae we reachthe same point. In this sense, the foreigner-talk scene has a dram-atic as well as a comic function. It reminds the Athenian people ofAristophanes' ceterum censeo: comedy is on their side and laughswith them at both the savage and the intellectual.89

88 Foley (1988), esp. 44.89 The dramatic function explains why secondary foreigner talk does not occur

more often in comedy, for instance in the mouth of slaves: Aristophanes wanted it

to be more than comic farce. As always, we do not know what has been lost: cf.

Colvin (2000) 292-3; Sier (1992) 73 n. 33; Hall (1989) 38; T. Long (1986) 157-60.

8

Conclusion

With the language of Aristophanes' Scythian we have reached thefringes of linguistic variation in Attic Greek. It is now time to pulltogether the threads of the preceding chapters.

The most important result reached in the six Aristophanic casestudies is basic but promising. It has become clear that it is feasi-ble to operate with categories of variation which are more fine-grained than the well-known ones of 'foreign dialect', 'paratragicstyle', or 'colloquial language'. The universally recognized absenceof linguistic continuity in Aristophanes, and above all the lack ofcontinuous linguistic characterization, should not discourage usfrom analysing ̂ continuous varieties: first, because variation is aninteresting topic in its own right and secondly because linguisticcharacterization—if we do want to look for it—is possible even in adiscontinuous mode.

Let me start with the latter point. In Chapters 4 and 5 on the'scientific' and the 'sophistic' languages of the Socratics in Cloudswe saw how two completely different varieties can complementeach other and highlight different thematic aspects of one and thesame play. That both are discontinuous is a necessary consequenceof their complementary use. The essential condition for a variety toassume a dramatic function is just that there are sufficient markerseither (i) to make it conspicuous in one or two particular scenes or(2) to let it constantly reappear throughout an entire play, thoughwith less prominence in any single scene. We saw an illustration oftype (i) in Chapter 6 with the distribution of women's speech inLysistrata, Thesmophoriazusae, and Ecclesiazusae, where the initialwomen-only scenes show the greatest density of female features soas to set a 'female atmosphere'. Type (2) is the technique observedin Chapters 4 and 5, where both words drawn from or alluding tothe vocabulary of scientific poetry and nominalizing or typicalizingsyntactic structures were repeatedly associated, in a statisticallyunusual manner, with the comic Socrates and his students. Such

Conclusion 227

intermittent characterization is different in degree, but not in kind,from the continuous characterization exemplified by the Scythian'sforeigner talk discussed in Chapter 7. Moreover, Chapter 2 showedthat even a variety which is not speaker-specific can acquire char-acterizing functions if particular individuals deviate from theregular usage within that variety (for instance when 'Cleon' praysin an unusually bombastic style and Philocleon constantly appealsfor pity in his prayers).

However, questions of dramatic functionality and linguisticcharacterization take a secondary role in this study. In the firstplace we have been looking at linguistic variation in its own right.Our primary interest was to find out if, or how much, a carefulanalysis of Aristophanic language can refine our knowledge of vari-ation in Attic Greek as a whole.

A negative answer to this question was given in Chapter 3, whichaimed at correcting the widespread view that Aristophanes' vocab-ulary is interspersed with technical terms from the most diversespecial fields. Although there is independent evidence for theincipient formation of technical terminologies in fifth-centuryGreek, comedy does not reflect these new varieties. Probably theAthenian folk-linguistic consciousness had not yet developed astereotypical image of 'technolects' which could have served as theplaywright's basis for successful parody. At the time, only the lan-guage of Presocratic scientific poetry was distinctive enough tofunction as a partial substitute in the depiction of the theorizing(and slightly esoteric) intellectual (Chapter 4).

Chapters 2 and 5 to 7 gave more positive answers to our mainquestion. In Chapter 2 we saw how at least parts of the registersystem of Attic Greek can be reconstructed from their reflection incomedy. All we need is enough textual material to allow meaning-ful comparisons. With just one prayer and one hymn it would havebeen hard to establish what linguistic features are register-specific,how much overlap there is between the registers of prayers andhymns, and if we should or, as I have argued, should not, speakof a unified religious register. We also saw that the parodic natureof Aristophanes' prayers and some of his hymns is no seriousobstacle to such a reconstruction since parody usually maintains orexaggerates formal characteristics, although it combines them withincongruous content. The crucial task is to 'subtract' the parodicelement in order to recover the recurrent underlying structures: if

228 Conclusion

two parodic prayers are built as (a + b + c + x) and as (a + b + c + y)respectively and if a non-parodic prayer (a + b + c + z) wouldbe conceivable, it is reasonably safe to conclude that (a + b + c)are invariant elements typical of the register of prayer. Mutatismutandis this method is comparable to the method of 'internalreconstruction' in historical linguistics.

Now, if a variety is not, like a register, tied to a textual genre, itis far more difficult to recognize such invariant elements. This iswhy the typological perspective became more important inChapters 5 and 6. In both cases we had only one (relatively limited)set of data—in Chapter 5 a group of nominalization and typicaliza-tion features and in Chapter 6 a cluster of gender-preferentialfeatures—but linguistic typology supplied virtual additional, andindependent, sets of data. When our comparisons are thus based onmaterial extracted from external sources (in the form of eithertypological parallels or evidence from other ancient texts), ourmethod may be called 'external reconstruction'.

Because typology teaches that the transition from oral to literatemodes of communication is regularly accompanied by nominaliza-tion and typicalization processes, we were able to interpret the dataof Chapter 5. Essentially, we simply acknowledged the strikingcoincidence between the linguistic situation in Clouds (3 in Figure8.1) and the combination of a historical and a typological factualpremise, which are both completely independent of theAristophanic play (i and 2). Aristophanes may have been (par-tially) aware of the link between the emergence of 'sophistic' cul-ture and the gradual transition from an oral towards a literatesociety (premise i), but he was certainly not aware of the typolog-ical premise (2), which predicts a shift towards syntactic typical-ization. Hence, he would not have reached conclusion (3) if he hadnot been able to reach this conclusion independently: from his ownobservation of his contemporaries' sociolinguistic habits. A mod-ern historical typologist, on the other hand, might have reachedexactly that conclusion without even looking at Aristophanes'Clouds. This parallelism strongly suggests that the sophistic vari-

(1) History: WHEN sophistic culture THEN oral -» literate(2) Typology: WHEN oral —* literate THEN typicalization(3) Clouds: WHEN sophistic culture THEN typicalization

FIGURE 8. i. Chapter 5 (argument structure)

Conclusion 229

ety described in Chapter 5 had a foundation in linguistic reality,quite unlike Socrates' 'scientific' style of Chapter 4.

The usefulness of typological comparisons was further illus-trated in Chapter 6. Again we can formalize the basic argument(Figure 8.2). What made the discussion slightly more complex wasthe fact that principle (i) is not universally applicable and that wefirst had to consider whether ancient Athens belonged to thosesocieties in which it does apply. Also, we had to be particularly cau-tious because of the many stereotypical notions about womenwhich were circulating in classical Athens and which may haveinfluenced the depiction of women's speech (for instance byincreasing the poet's use of affective and colloquial features).

(1) Typology: WHEN women speak THEN they use more innovative features/polite-ness

(2) Aristophanes: WHEN women speak THEN they use more innovative features/polite-ness

FIGURE 8.2. Chapter 6 (argument structure)

We should note that the way in which the argument of Chapters5 and 6 proceeded is logically very similar to the traditional argu-ment structure of Chapter 4. There, too, we compared anAristophanic set of data with an independent set of data (Figure8.3). From this we concluded that Aristophanes wanted to make hisSocrates speak in the way in which Presocratic philosophers suchas Empedocles wrote their poems.

(1) Presocratic poetry: WHEN Empedocles wrote THEN he used terms x,y, a

(2) Aristophanes: WHEN Socrates speaks THEN he uses terms x, y, z

FIGURE 8.3. Chapter 4 (argument structure)

Yet, the similarity may be deceptive. There is an important dif-ference between the method followed in Chapter 4 and that ofChapters 5 and 6. In Figure 8.3 only the two THEN clauses are iden-tical. By contrast, in Figures 8.1 and 8.2 the WHEN clauses alsomatch. Moreover, in Figures 8.1 and 8.2 one specific statementabout Aristophanes is added to a statement of much greatergenerality. It is this statement which validates the realistic inter-pretation of Aristophanes. In Figure 8.3, on the other hand, we aresimply comparing two statements which are equally specific.

230 Conclusion

Consequently Figure 8.3 cannot lead to the same type of conclu-sions as Figures 8.1 and 8.2. Neglecting this fundamental differ-ence made some scholars misinterpret the evidence looked at inChapter 7 (Figure 8.4). It does not automatically follow fromstatements (i) and (2) in Figure 8.4 that 'Scythian' Greek is theearliest form of Koine Greek. Such a conclusion would be legiti-mate only if it were plausible that Aristophanes modelled theScythian's Greek upon the initial stages of Koine Greek in Athens(just as the conclusion of Chapter 4 is legitimate only as long as itis plausible that Aristophanes modelled Socrates' 'scientific dis-course' upon Empedocles' style). However, the comparison withmodern evidence shows that secondary foreigner talk is a literaryphenomenon, which is independent of sociolectal variation amongnative speakers. Typology thus reveals the fallacy of connecting thetwo sets of data set out in Figure 8.4. Of course, this does notdiminish the historical interest of foreigner-talk passages. Sincethey reflect the sociocultural attitude of native speakers towardsnon-native speakers, such passages should be taken into account indiscussions of identity and 'otherness'.

(1) Historical linguistics: WHEN Koine THEN loss of final -c, iotacism, etc.

(2) Thesmophoriazusae: WHEN'Scythian'Greek THEN loss of final -K, iotacism, etc.

FIGURE 8.4. Chapter 7 (fallacy)

Summarizing the preceding remarks, we can distinguish twomethods by which a (partial) reconstruction of 'real' varieties ispossible on the basis of their literary reflections in comedy:

'internal reconstruction', especially in the case of well-attestedsituational (and thematic) varieties such as registers; and'external reconstruction' with the help of comparative materialfrom other ancient sources or, in the case of virtually irrecover-able sociolectal variation, from typological studies on modernlanguages.

Finally, it is also instructive to have a look at the linguistic compo-sition of Aristophanes' varieties. We may roughly arrange them inthree groups. A first group consists of the most easily identifiablevarieties which are characterized mainly by phonological and mor-phological deviations from normative Attic (e.g. the Scythian's

Conclusion 231

Greek, but also all the non-Attic dialects in Aristophanes). In ahierarchy of stylistic saliency they are followed by a second groupof varieties which are marked out by a peculiar vocabulary (e.g. the'scientific' language of Socrates and at least in theory all technicallanguages, but also other literary styles such as paratragic or hym-nic language). The third and last group contains those varietieswhich are distinguished by little more than a particular range ofsyntactic and pragmatic preferences (e.g. the register of prayers orsociolects such as the speech of women and sophists).

For the latter two groups especially, much research remains tobe done. It would be rewarding to undertake a comprehensivedescription of Aristophanes' registers and to pin down, forinstance, the finer differences between parabatic language, lyriclanguage, and dialogue language. Similarly, one might discussfurther sociolinguistic issues: for example, whether some linguisticfeatures are more common in the mouths of slaves and servants orwhether older and younger people are linguistically differentiatedPresumably the answer to these questions would again reveal somefascinating facts of language, literature, and social history. Afterall, we have only just started to translate the languages ofAristophanes.

Appendix

Aristophanes' Attic: A Grammatical Sketch

i. P R E L I M I N A R Y REMARKS

An exhaustive Aristophanic grammar remains a scholarly desideratum.The following pages cannot fill this gap. Their aim is to present those lin-guistic features which are of particular diagnostic value in deciding forAristophanes' language as a whole—but especially in the stylisticallyunmarked passages—(i) how conservative or innovative, and (2) howliterary ('artificial') or conversational ('realistic') it is. In other words, thissummary treats only those grammatical areas in which Aristophanes'usage does not correspond to that of other classical Attic writers or, morefrequently, where a normative grammar of classical Attic Greek (as repre-sented in our standard handbooks) allows several possible ways of expres-sion to stand alongside each other.

Such parallelisms of two or more competing forms (e.g. older andyounger variants) are of particular diagnostic interest and demand fre-quent statistical references. When neither of the two forms is stylisticallymarked (i.e. when the choice is determined by criteria such as metricalneed or euphony), we may speak of 'polymorphy'. The rarer form is calledthe 'recessive variant'.1 Much of the statistical evidence presented in thisappendix has been collected by others, who were working on specificgrammatical phenomena. Their data are here supplemented and inte-grated into a comprehensive picture of Aristophanic grammar.

We must not expect spectacular results from such a collection of mate-rial. It largely confirms a view which has been held since antiquity:Aristophanes writes in an extremely pure and somewhat conservative formof Attic Greek.2 Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to point out on what factualbasis such intuitive notions as Aristophanic purity and conservatism rest.

Pragmatic or interactional features (e.g. the use of ellipses, anacolutha,deixis, interjections, etc.) and the peculiarities of Aristophanes' lexicon(figurative language, obscenity, vulgarism, diminutives, comic word for-mation, etc.), which contribute much to the colloquial appearance ofAristophanic language, have been left aside almost completely since the

1 For this terminology see Bjorck (1950) 84-91.2 Cf. e.g. Ar. test. 65 (Quint. 10. i. 65-6), test. 69 (Phot. Bibl. 158, p. ioib4

Bekker), test. 87 (Schol. Thuc. i. 30. i).

Aristophanes'Attic 233

inclusion of such features would not have been of great value for theintended diagnosis; many of them occur mainly or exclusively in comedyand their use can therefore not be compared to that in other texts.3 Evenin the three traditional areas of grammar (phonology/phonetics, morphol-ogy, syntax), the treatment is necessarily selective.4 However, it is unlikelythat a different range of material would have led to divergent generalconclusions.

2. PHONOLOGY AND PHONETICS

2.1. V O C A L I S M

2.1.1. Long a

It is a characteristic feature of the Ionic-Attic dialect group that originallong a is changed into TJ. In Attic this change does not take place after

Long a in other positions occurs in Aristophanic comedy:

(1) as a product of vowel contraction or compensatory lengthening (e.g.

(2) in some analogical formations (aorists in -am like "a^vava after aoristsof verbs in

(3) in a few word-formation suffixes (bird names in -as, colloquiale.g. ytvat; 'quack'),

(4) in some colloquial words which may have a non-Attic origin (e.g., 'noble', KodAe/io? 'blockhead', xo/kAo? 'imp', aiciVaAos 'saucy'),

(5) with speakers of dialects other than Attic,6

(6) in quotations (e.g. Nub. 30; Vesp. 753; Av. 1337),(7) in parodies of other literary genres (e.g. tragic lyrics: Thesm. 101-29;

Ran. 1264-77, 1331-63),

3 These aspects are treated extensively by Lopez Eire (19960), (1997), and(1998); cf. already Lottich (1881). On Aristophanic imagery see Taillardat (1965);on obscenity Henderson (1991), Dover (2002), and the literature cited by Willi(20020) lo-i i; on comic word formation Uckermann (1879), the articles by Peppier(1910), (1916), and in particular (1918), (1921), as well as, for the compounds,G. Meyer (1923) 119—32, and Costa Ramalho (1951).

4 For even more eclectic (but good) surveys see Anagnostopoulos (1925),Hoffmann—Debrunner—Scherer (1969) 116—26, Hiersche (1970) 163—77, and LopezEire (1986). Most of the material presented here was first collected in Willi (2001)168-97.

5 Also in u> rav 'my friend', which may originally be, with Kretschmer (1909) 58,an allegro variant of <J raAa»; but cf. also Dickey (1996) 159-60.

6 Cf. for (2) Lautensach (1911) 200-2; for (3) Chantraine (1933) 31-2 and 380-2,Petersen (1937), and Bjorck (1950) 260—74; for (4) Bjorck (1950), esp. 46—56; and for(5) Colvin(i999) 137-4°-

234 Appendix

(8) without consistency in some lyric passages of particular solemnity(often in hymnic songs performed by non-human choruses: e.g. Av1058-71; Ran. 209-49).

2.1.2. Compensatory lengthening

In some non-Attic dialects (e.g. East Ionic), the loss off in the groupsand Af was 'compensated' by lengthening the vowel of the preceding

syllable. In tragedy forms like £firas and Kovprj are used as recessive variants,but they are not allowed into comedy except for parodic purposes (e.g.Thesm. 101 /coupon 'maidens', but cf. Thesm. 115

Note. The evidence of Mycenaean Greek e-ne-ka (without -zv-) suggeststhat cvfKa/fivfica does not go back to *eVfe/<a and that efveKa represents an arti-ficial literary variant with metrical lengthening that made its way into non-epic Ionic. Nevertheless, the shape of this preposition is best discussedhere because the case is synchronically similar to that of compensatorylengthening. By far the most common Aristophanic form of the preposi-tion is owfKa., which originated as a sandhi variant when cases like

or SrujLoweKa were reanalysed as STJ/XOU oiVe/ca. Unlike o»e/ca, oweâ is infact regularly used as a postposition.7 Beside owtKa, the original dW«-a—aconvenient metrical alternative—is well-attested. Apart from these two,the Aristophanic manuscripts sometimes have eiWra. Guided byWackernagel's opinion that eiW/ca is a ghost-form in Attic,8 editors oftenreplace «ycica with the metrically equivalent ovvtxa.. But althoughWackernagel may have been right, one must not argue that Aristophanesor Demosthenes should also use fefros and ôOVos if they use eiVxa. At a timewhen Attic was sensibly influenced by Ionic, a sandhi productcould also be reanalysed as Sij/iou eiW/<a. // our texts must be regularized,Wackernagel's view is the only possible one, but there is a slight chancethat it obscures real variation in late fifth-century Attic Greek.9

2.1.3. e's vs- &

Word-final -vs lost its nasal at an early stage, without trace if the next wordbegan with a consonant but triggering another (earlier) process of com-pensatory lengthening if the next word began with a vowel. So an original

would develop into «'s and e's respectively. The former was generalizedin Attic, the latter in Ionic. Whereas tragedy uses <?; as a polymorphic vari-ant form, comedy has only «'s (except in fossilized idioms such as

7 Wackernagel (1887) 119. Pace Monteil (1963) 267, owe/ca is never used as acausal conjunction in comedy: in Nub. 422 (anap.) owe/co or eiVira goes with

8 Wackernagel (1887) 109—15, criticized already by Coulon (1908) 26—32.9 Cf. B. Rosenkranz (1930) 149. Similarly, it may be over-zealous to replace, with

Sobolewski (1890) 99-100 and Coulon (1908) 32-5, all the variants in -tv: seeThumb-Scherer (1959) 296.

A ristophanes 'Attic 235

'be hanged!'). Other comic occurrences of e? (of which only the prevocaliccases are significant) are paratragic or non-Attic.10

2.1.4. Vowel contraction

Attic Greek eliminated word-internal hiatus more consistently than other

dialects, most notably also in groups like to and tui (though not in bisyllabic

words or when a digamma had separated the two vowels). Uncontracted

vocalism in comedy usually1' indicates parody of tragic, lyric, and epic

poetry,12 or it serves as a literary embellishment in anapaests and lyric

metres.13 Thus, the uncontracted suffix -deis appears only in a few lyric,

epic, or para-epic passages,14 whereas the contracted variant -ouj is com-

monly used in names for cakes and pastry (fiehiTovs 'honey cake',

'flat cake', nvpanovs 'wheat cake', etc.).

Stylistically unmarked polymorphy exists in a few particular cases.

( i) The name of the goddess Athena occurs both as Alhivaia (Pax 271; Av.

828, 1653) and as M-qva (Pax 218) in Aristophanic trimeters. In the Attic

inscriptions, too, ABrfvala continues to appear, even in private dedications,down to the fourth century.15

(2) Names in -K^S also occur in the uncontracted form -icAe'i;;. The nom-

inatives FI(piKXei)s, SoffoK\(ijs, J(poK\eris, and MeyaK-AeTjs stand against

and HpaxArjs, and the dative HpaKAe'ei (Av. 567, anap.) differs

from Avl>poK\fl (Vesp. n87).16 The uncontracted forms do not necessarily

reflect an earlier state since they may have been recreated in analogy with

the genitive in -K&OVS (which is not further contracted).17

2.1.5.

It is sometimes claimed that the conditional conjunction TJK for tan is Ionicrather than Attic.18 In reality, it is the regularly contracted Attic form.

Whereas em< is usual in the inscriptions,19 it is the recessive variant in

Aristophanes, who has £.70 lav and £.270 f/v. The crasis form xav (=

10 e.g. Pax 140; Thesm. 1122; cf. Rutherford (1881) 432 n. i; Sobolewski (1890)34-63; Coulon (1908) 91; C. Austin (1973) 133 on the possible exceptions at Vesp.147 and Thesm. 657; Colvin (1999) 207.

11 But note the common opvcov 'bird'; Av. 368 avyytvee (trim.) is suspect and Ach.106 '/aora; imitates the foreigner talk of Ach. 104.

12 e.g. Ach. 1185, 1191/2; Pax 1064; Av. 972, 978; Thesm. 108, in, 126; Ran.

1353-13 e.g. Eg. 973; Nub. 297, 401?; Vesp. 615; Av. 1748; Ran. 213, 675.4 e.g. Pax 1098; Av. 246/7, 698; Thesm. 325, 1044.5 Cf. Threatte(i98o)27i-4.6 Cf. Anagnostopoulos (1925) 16; Lupa§ (1972) 42.7 Cf. Kretschmer (1888) 479; Threatte (1996) 183.8 Buck (1955) 106; correctly B. Rosenkranz (1930) 147-8; Thumb-Scherer

(1959) 296—7; Hoffmann-Debrunner—Scherer (1969) 111.19 Threatte (1996) 672-4.

236 Appendix

c.jo examples) must not be used as evidence for a third variant av, althoughthis is occasionally found in the inscriptions.20

2.1.6.

The short variant avr-faavT- of the reflexive pronoun reflects an allegropronunciation rather than a regular contraction. In the eleven completeplays I have counted the following figures (the numbers for trimeters onlyare in brackets): tav-r- 23 (6); avr- 44 (23); aeour- 25 (16); aavr- 71 (44).Obviously the long forms are the recessive variants. The small number of

in trimeters suggests that eavr- may not have been heard very often inordinary speech. In anapaests (avr- and avr- are distributed equally (n :12), but caw- occurs 7 times at the 'dactylic' line-end where divergencesfrom real-life language are most common. The comparison ofAristophanes' early and later comedies does not provide evidence for agradual replacement of the longer variants by the shorter forms. The Atticinscriptions prefer tavr- throughout the fifth and fourth centuries.21

Surprisingly, tragedy (especially Euripides) favours the shorter variantsmore clearly than (Aristophanic) comedy.22 This may be a sign thatAristophanes is phonologically conservative.23

2.1.7.

Prevocalic m, ei, and 01 often lose their i in classical Attic orthography (evenwhen originally the i was followed by *F). Presumably the second elementof these diphthongs was not always pronounced, even if it was written.This is certain when the quantity of the 'diphthong' syllable is affected(but not in pairs like K\aiui/K\a.ui where the first syllable is always long24).The most frequent case in comedy is the parallelism of •noiius andHow to spell this verb in modern editions is a secondary question, but thealternation between a long and a short first syllable is a linguistic fact.Taking Acharnians, Knights, and Clouds as a sample, I have counted thefollowing figures: rta(i)- long, 21; TTO(I)- short, 58; no(i.)- ambiguous, 3.Given that 33 out of 39 unambiguous occurrences in iambic trimeters areshort, long rro(i)- must be regarded as an artificial conservatism for metri-

20 The manuscripts have dV in Av. 554; Lys. 901, 902; Thesm. 154, 1187:Sobolewski (1891) 13; cf. Arnott (2002) 193-4.

21 Threatte (1996) 315-17.22 According to the statistics in Lupa? (1972) 42.23 Unlike the inscriptions and Thucydides (cf. Schwyzer (1939) 607; Threatte

(1996) 314) Aristophanes never uses the older ayuiv avruiv instead ofeavrtav, nor theindirect reflexive pronouns ov/ov, oi/ol, etc. on their own, except in Nub. 1313 (lyr.);cf. Kallenberg (1925) 64-79.

24 Lupas(i972)48-g.25 Cf. Lupa? (1972) 49—52, also on ofos, etc.; Ussher (1973) 170—1 on aroid 'hall',

'pomegranate', nota 'grass'; Dover (1993) 209 on ijAdrjaeK 'threshed, struck'; forlater comedy Arnott (aooia).

cal convenience. Despite the epigraphic convention of writing iro- onlybefore £ and 17,26 the following vowel does not seem to influence the lengthof the syllable.

2.2. C O N S O N A N T I S M

In Attic (as in Boeotian and West Ionic), original groups likeand sometimes *ry and *6y develop into TT, not aa (as for instance in EasIonic).27 Unlike tragedy, comedy adopts Attic TT. Some scholars havewondered whether aa and TT were just spelling variants for the same soundThis is not only unlikely28 but virtually excluded by the manuscripts ofcomedy where an does appear in the same well-defined environments aslong a: in words of foreign stock (e.g. ><dp/aaaos 'narcissus'), some placenames (fJapvaoaos), solemn hymns,29 foreign dialects,30 parodies or quota-tions of epic and lyric poetry,31 paratragedy, and tragic quotations.32 Ifthere had not been a difference in pronunciation, it would be difficult toexplain why aa and TT should have been distinguished orthographically.

2.2.2.

Mutatis mutandis the preceding remarks on TT are also valid for Attifrom original pa (which was retained in Ionic and other dialects but in Atticonly under analogical pressure, e.g. in the dative plural of r-stems).Because this group is infrequent anyway, comic examples of non-Attic paare extremely rare. They do occur in the foreign word /3upaa 'leather' andits derivatives as well as in the parody of Agathon's lyrics (Thesm. 125).

2.2.3.

In the Attic inscriptions of the late fifth century, the preposition or preverbaw(-) predominates over £vv(-). Similarly aw(-) is about three or four timesas frequent as its older variant fw(-) in those Aristophanic passages inwhich the metre allows a decision.33 As a preposition (6v/avv (instead of/ieTa) occurs only in the same elevated contexts as aa or long a34 and in a few

26 Threatte (1980) 326-9. 27 Buck (1955) 69-70.28 Cf. Allen (1987) 61 and Colvin (1999) 266, against (e.g.) Platnauer (1964) 71.29 e.g. Nub. 567/8; Thesm. 988, 999; Ran. 328, 340/1.10 See Colvin (1999) 166-7. 31 e.g. Pax 1286; Av. 238, 250.12 e.g. Ran. 992, 1172, 1314; in monodies: Thesm. 1052; Ran. 1349; occasionally

elsewhere with reference to tragedy: Ran. 827, 898.33 Sobolewski (1890) 32-4: auv is demanded by the metre 6 times, fuv 2 times,

aw- 86 times, fuv- 23 times; cf. Colvin (1999) 209—10; for the inscriptions Threatte(1980) 553-4.

34 e.g. Nub. 604; Vesp. 1081; Thesm. 102, 1034; Ran. 445. Lys. 1143 is exceptional.

A ristophanes 'Attic 237

aa VS. TT

idiomatic expressions (fw oirAois 'under arms', (\>v ffeois 'with the gods','wisely'). Here the old form may have been fossilized so that the coex-

istence of aw(-) and fw(-) is not a case of true polymorphy with twoexchangeable variants.

2.3. S U P R A S E G M E N T A L F E A T U R E S

2.3.1. Accent

The accentuation of our texts was introduced long after the time ofAristophanes. Hence, little can be said about how regular or irregularcomic pronunciation was in this respect. The sneering reference at Ran.

303-4 to the tragic actor Hegelochus' slip of saying ya\fjv 'weasel' insteadof YaXjjv' 'calm (of the sea)' suggests, however, that the traditional pitchaccent (and not the stress accent that came to be used in later Greek) wasstill the norm in both comic and tragic speech.

2.3.2. Correptio Attica

A short-vowel syllable before most groups of plosive + liquid or nasal (i.e.muta cum liquida) is short in Attic (correptio Attica). In lyric metres and inanapaests non-observance of correptio Attica is quite common.35

Correption is usual in both tragic and comic trimeters (76.5% observancein Aeschylus, 69.7% in Sophocles, 69.2% in Euripides), but comedy isstricter (86.5% observance in Aristophanes' trimeters and tetrameters).36

Since some groups (/3A, yA, yv, y/n, Sv, Sp) regularly break the rule and shoultherefore be disregarded, the real figures may be even clearer. There isonly a handful of non-parodic comic trimeters in which correptio Attica isnot observed.37

2.3.3. Avoiding hiatus: crasis, elision, prodelision

With crasis, elision, and prodelision, comedy is more tolerant thantragedy. Presumably this reflects the usage of spoken Attic.38 In comedy,unlike tragedy, verbal forms in -ji<u, -am, -rot, -afloi, and -TO< are freelyelided. Among the more spectacular cases of crasis, which involve twopolysyllabic words, one may note for instance cywSa (= eyw oBa, e.g. Ach.

35 e.g. Nub. 335, 401; Vesp. 570, 678; Av. 579, 591, 686; Ran. 680; more examples in White (1912) 365, and L. P. E. Parker (1997) 92-3.

36 Figures based on Allen (1987) 109, who refers to Schade (1908).37 Thus Eq. 207?; Nub. 869?; Vesp. 151?, 837; Pax 1201; Av. 45, 820?; Pint. 166,

1019, 1153; cf. White (1912) 364-5.38 Widespread crasis is suggested not only by metrical considerations and the

manuscript transmission but also by the fossilization of a crasis form in o darepos(Men. fr. 491; cf. Qartpov = TO erepov).

Appendix238

904)* Trtpioi/Ktyia-TrcAfloW' (~ rapioi/iofiat airfXdovr', Ran. 5^9)> *-*r

Eccl. 410). I am not aware of any comparative statistics.39

According to Platnauer, there are 2.3 cases of prodelision in every 100lines of Aristophanes (as against 0.4 in Aeschylus, 1.3 in Sophocles, and0.6 in Euripides).40 Platnauer observes that prodelision becomes rarer inAristophanes' last plays (and even more so in Menander).

While hiatus is mostly avoided, it is tolerated (or rather created) inwhere it strengthens the expressive force of this variant for

The gradual spread of ouSe «fs is reflected in Aristophanic com-edy, the hiatus form first occurs in Lys. 1045 and Ran. 927, but it is com-mon only in the last play (Plut. 37, 138, 1115, n82).41

2.3.4. " ephelkystikon

With certain inflectional forms, most notably the dative plural in the third plural in -ova, fari/tint, and the aorist and imperfect third singu-lar in -t, hiatus can be avoided not only by elision but also by the additionof a y ephelkystikon. This device, in Aristophanes apparently more com-mon in anapaestic metres than in iambic trimeters, is increasingly frequentin fourth-century Attic.42 If we take the occurrences of can' vs. tariv accord-ing to Todd's Aristophanic index as one sample and the first 500 lines ofAcharnians as another, it seems that forms with and without v ephelkystikon

are distributed almost equally, though perhaps with a slight predominanceof the shorter forms.

2.4. V A R I A

2.4.1. Phonological uncertainties

With some of the phenomena discussed here one has to rely entirely on thetransmitted orthography. As long as two variants are well differentiatedand the transmission does not contradict our expectations, this procedureis relatively safe (cf. e.g. aa vs. TT).

In other cases we have to admit our ignorance. Take for instance theending -rji (-TJ) of the a-stem dative singular and of the second-person mid-dle. The Attic inscriptions show some attestations of an a-stem dative

39 Kriiger (1879) 23—30 gives an extensive list of examples; cf. also Lopez Eire(19960)79-84.

40 Cf. Platnauer (1960) 140.41 Menander has more than 30 cases of ovSf efs; cf. in general Wackernagel (1928)

114, 268-9; Moorhouse (1962) 245—6. Separated ov&' av eis occurs already in Eq. 573and Vesp. 72. See also Stinton (1977) on interlinear hiatus, where Aristophaniccomedy is much freer than Euripidean and Sophoclean (but not Aeschylean)tragedy.

42 Cf. Zacher (1899) 465-73; Thumb-Scherer (1959) 293; Threatte (1980)640-3.

A ristophanes' A ttic 239

in -ft as early as the fifth and fourth centuries. This may suggest that somepeople pronounced this ending as [ei] (or [e:]?), but we do not knowwhether most of them did. Somewhat inconsistently modern editors oftenprefer -ti for middle forms such as <j3ouA«> 'you want' (or the dative

rather than <jro'Ar/i> although the latter is the regular orthographyof the inscriptions before £.370 BC) but not for <Kop«.> 'to the girl'.43

Similarly, at the time of Old Comedy the standard ending for the nom-inative plural of words in -eu; was -T/S if the inscriptional spellings are takenas a guideline.44 But how can we know that this was not actuallypronounced in the same way as the later -eis?

A comparable problem of consonantism is the 'correct' spelling of wordsbeginning with either o<p-/ax- or an-/aK- (e.g. eraoyyos 'sponge','splinter'). Even if the orthographic question could be solved,45 it wouldtell us nothing about the phonetic realization.

2.4.2. Puns as evidence

On the basis of cumulative evidence from a group of comic puns which are

all supposed to work with the same kind of assonances, Perpillou hasargued for a widespread pronunciation of cu as [e] or [e:]. However, hismaterial is hardly sufficient to prove the suggestion,46 and it seems thatthis method of reconstructing the phonetics of the comic stage is not prac-ticable given the low level of phonetic similarity that informs much ofAristophanes' punning.47

2.5. CONCLUSION: PHONOLOGY AND PHONETICS

Where it is possible to make a judgement, the phonetic and phonologicallevel of Aristophanic grammar corresponds well with the classical Atticsystem. Deviations are nearly always introduced for precise stylisticreasons (e.g. in lyric parts and literary parody). Polymorphy with two styl-istically equivalent variants occurs only in a few marginal cases

and quite possibly both variants were used alongsideeach other even in non-literary Attic. The case of 4avT-/avT- (and that of

43 Cf. Threatte (1980) 377-83 and (1996) 213; the middle ending is absent fromthe relevant inscriptions (see Threatte (1996) 451-2), but Zacher (1899) 473-84argues for -ei in Aristophanes; similarly Arnott (20016) 40 for later comedy.

44 See Threatte (1996) 239-42.45 Hiersche (1970) 165—6 makes a good case for OH-/OK-.46 Perpillou (1984): because of the sexual meaning of waiW 'to bang",

(Lys. 852) need not evoke TTCO; 'penis', and in Eq. 1284—6 there is no link at allbetween aioxpais 'obscene' and laxapas 'hearths'. See also Ch. 7.3.3 on the pronun-ciation of ei.

47 e.g. Ach. 276-83 $oA^(«pai)i-dAi)?/SdAA^3aAfrs; Ach. 751cf. the warning by Merry (1893) about the use of Pax 926 fioiffimflftfiv) as an argu-ment for early iotacism.

240 Appendix

may point to a certain phonetic conservatism (or aim for careful

speech), but artificial archaizing is absent (cf. £vv-/aw-). Only with

does tragedy seem to be statistically closer to what one might expectin 'real-life' Attic (contrast e.g. aa/rr, correptio Attica).

3. MORPHOLOGY

3.1. N O U N S

3.1.1. Dative plural of o-stems

Throughout the fifth century the Attic inscriptions show infrequent exam-ples of the long dative plural ending -OKH(K) rather than the usual -ois. Thelast securely dated examples of -oim(v) in public documents appear around

420 BC, but because official inscriptions are often conservative it is safe toassume that the long form had disappeared from spoken Attic long

before.48 In Aristophanes -ois is far more common already in the earlier

plays, but -oiai(v) does exist, also in the late plays, as a recessive variant. InAcharnians, Knights, and Clouds, I have counted 271 -ois against 104

Even if the 88 cases of prevocalic -ois are disregarded (since

they might be interpreted as -oio'), -ois is twice as strong as

Nevertheless, it is a revealing sign of morphological conservatism inAristophanes if an old, and probably lost, form like -oiai(i') has such astrong position. Metrical reasons alone are no sufficient explanation since

Menander manages to write his plays virtually without -oioi(x).49 There is

no significant difference between the treatment of the dative plural end-ings in nouns and pronouns.

3.1.2. Dative plural of a-stems

Although the situation is not exactly the same, the Aristophanic treatmentof a-stem and o-stem dative plurals is more or less identical. The originalending of the a-stem dative plural was -7701 (or -aoi after e, i, o). This ending is regular in the inscriptions until around 420 BC, when it is quicklreplaced by -ais.50 In Acharnians, Knights, and Clouds there are 122 formsin -ais (of which 36 are prevocalic) and 39 in -aioi(t-). Where the longer formoccurs, we might wonder whether Aristophanes wrote -aicu(v), as trans-

mitted, or -i)oi(v), as on the inscriptions (where -aicn is very rare). On the

whole, the case for -aim(v) seems stronger: with -i)o-i(n) we would have toassume a somewhat gratuitous extensive orthographical revision of the

text. In any case the strength of -aiai(v) in Aristophanes reflects literary

48 Cf. Dover (1981) 4, 14 n. 10; Lopez Eire (1993) 49; Threatte (1996) 25-32.49 For the handful of exceptions see Gomme-Sandbach (1973) 735.50 Only the locatival use (AB-ffvâi) remains current: see Threatte (1996) 96-101,

374-5-


convention rather than the real frequency of the long endings in late fifth-century spoken Attic.

3.1.3. Attic declension

The so-called Attic declension (e.g. in i>«is, Aeuls, TAeaJs), which disappearedin Koine Greek, is alive and well in Aristophanes. Forms like rads or Aadsare stylistically conditioned.sl MeWAaos once occurs at the hexameter-likeend of an anapaest (Av. 509).

3.1.4. Irregular declension forms

In Aristophanes, as elsewhere in classical Attic, the word m'ds has an o-stemnominative and accusative singular, but w-stem forms in the other cases.52

Similarly, forms such as SevSpfai (Av. 1066), KAaSeoi (Av. 239), and (Nub. 911) are 'regular' within their heteroclitic declension patterns.

Irregular declension forms of other stems either have a distinctive styl-istic function53 or belong to marginal and (synchronically) irregular wordswhere people may have been uncertain about the 'correct' forms.54 Theonly truly surprising metrical licence is the stylistically unmarked genitiveSuyarc'pos in a trimeter (Vesp. 1397).

3.2. A D J E C T I V E S

3.2.1. Comparative stems

In classical Attic the comparatives in -(()<uv are regular n-stems in mostcases: -(C)otv, -(i')oros. Only the forms ending in -(i')ova (ace. sg. masc./fem.,nom./acc. pi. ntr.) and -(i')oi>e$/-(i')ovas (nom./acc. pi. masc./fem.) competeagainst remnants of the older i-stem declension: -(t)<u, -(!)ovs. In theinscriptions, probably because of their conservatism, the longer formsspread into the remaining domain of the s-stem forms long afterAristophanic times.55 To judge from a sample of ten of the most frequentcomparatives in -(l)u>v,stl Aristophanes uses both variants with the samefrequency. The longer forms are slightly predominant with -ova/~ui (27 :

51 Nub. 306 (alongside 'Doric' a); Lys. 775 ('para-epic' oracle); Thesm. 39

(Agathon's servant), 1148 (hymnic). Eq. 163 Xaaiv (not guaranteed by the metre)

may allude to //. 4. 90: Neil (1901) 29.52 Cf. La Roche (1893) 222-6.53 e.g. Pax 1301 Tonkas 'parents' (para-epic); Av. 679, 1412 (lyric voc.

'nightingale', xÂiSoi 'swallow'); Lys. 774 -nrtpvyfaaiv 'wings' (mock oracle).54 e.g. Ach. 93 Trpe'ajSetus 'ambassador' (not TrpeajSfuToii); 7V»6. 559 eiVoiis 'similes'

(ace. pi., after the s-stem comparative?); Nub. 1327 -narpaXoia 'father-beater' (voc.);

Ar. fr. 26 <PpvvaivSa (voc.); Ar. fr. 318 rjptos (nom. pi.), fr. 712 rjptav (ace. sg.).55 See Threatte (1996) 311—12; cf. Schwyzer (1939) 536 n. 3.56 apeivuiv, pfXrlwv, fXar-rtav (Aristophanes never uses oAet'£<ui> like the inscrip-

tions: cf. Dover (1981) 4),

242 Appendix

56

2i), the shorter ones with -oves/-oi>as/-ovs ( 4 : 5 : 15). It is just possible thatone variant (presumably the older and shorter variant rather than theyounger and longer one) was purely literary, but the comic text suggeststhat both were commonly used.

3.2.2. Comparatives and superlatives in

Since the comparative and superlative are highly expressive linguistic cat-egories, their intensifying character is frequently strengthened, especially

in colloquial language, through peculiar morphological developments.

One possibility is the use of the suffix often with a pejora-

tive connotation. In words such as noTiararos 'great boozer' (Thesnt. 735)and perhaps even KXcnriaraTos 'most thievish' (Plut. 27), which are based on

adjectival irons and KA«rrr)s respectively, the suffix may have been regardedas semi-regular. From here it was transferred to some other stems (mostly

o-stems): nrcuxiarfpos 'more beggarly' (Ach. 425), nopoyayiVaTos 'mostalone-eating' (Vesp. 923), iuaoiropirai<(oTaTos 'most shield-band-hating' (Pax

662), AaAiWepos 'more talkative' (Ran. 91, Ar. fr. 684), i/KvSioraTos 'mostlying' (Ar. fr. 920).5? Where it borders on word formation, comic mor-

phology is somewhat colloquial.

3.2.3. Irregular comparatives and superlatives

There are a few cases of analytic comparatives (Vesp. 1105'more sharp-spirited'; Plut. 747 fiaXôv rv<pX6v 'more blind').58 Other irreg-

ular comparatives and superlatives include colloquial intensifications(frequent wpaJTiaros 'firstest'; Eq. 352, Plut. 182 HOVWTHTOS 'alonest'; Eq. 1165

firster'; Vesp. 1502 pcaaros 'middles!'; Plut. 83 am-ora-ros 'self-est'), but some of them may have been designed for comic effect likeâraoiTdTos 'Danaosest' (Ar. fr. 270). There are one or two cases wheremetrical need played a role: Nub. 790 emâôraTos 'most forgetful' (cf.Cratinus fr. 451 and Alexis fr. 317, perhaps attesting a positiveLys. 776 'more pathic'.59

3.3. P R O N O U N S

3.3.1. Neuter singular

In Old Comedy the neuter pronominal forms TO.VTOV, TOIOVTOV, roaovrov vir-tually never occur without the final -v: in Aristophanes, Eq. 1234, wherethe manuscripts have TOOOVTO, is metrically ambiguous, but Plut. 361 TOWVTO

57 Cf. Peppier (1918) 183; Leumann (1945) 10-14.58 Cf. further Eg. 1252; Vesp. 550; Pax 402; Thesm. 816-17. On Eccl. 1131 see

Ch. 6.7.59 The latter might parody metrical lengthening in a hexameter. For irregular

comparatives and superlatives in other comic poets see Peppier (1918) 181—3.

Aristophanes' Attic 243

need not be changed.60 Since forms like TOIOUTO appear quite often in

Middle (and New) Comedy, they may have been used occasionally by 400

BC. If so, this would be an additional indirect argument for Aristophanes'

morphological conservatism.

3-3-2. Dual of a-stem pronouns

Whereas nominal a-stems regularly have a dual in -a, pronominal dual

forms in -a (rd, ram-a) are not attested in the Attic inscriptions of the clas-

sical period, and -ro.lv is exceedingly rare.61 It therefore depends on our

belief in the transmission whether we allow forms like rd and raw into the

Aristophanic text (or replace them by TO>, T<HV). While it would be wrong to

postulate TO for frequent collocations such as T, it may also be dangerous to excise ra where it is backed by some

manuscripts (Eq. 424, 484; also Pax 847 TOUTO?). In the genitive and dative,

TOIK is hardly ever found instead of ralv in the transmitted text (also

Eccl. 1106). Analogical pressure may well have led to the creation of such

forms in spoken Attic, even if they were not recognized as correct by those

who wrote epigraphic texts.62

3-3-3. Tendency towards bisyllabism (TOV vs. TIVOS, Srov vs. ou-riros, etc.)

In the interrogative pronoun the shorter and older forms TOU; (33 exx.) andTOI; (26) are still more frequent than their polymorphic variants TWOS; (17)

and TIM; (4). In the indefinite pronoun, nraj (12) and iW (i i) have alreadyovertaken TOU (9) and TW (9) (which remain predominant in the inscriptions

until around 350 BC63).

However, Aristophanes never uses OUTIVOS, utnvi instead of(oicmai occurs once in a parodic hexameter: Pax 1279). Morphological con-

servatism may here be coupled with a preference for bisyllabic pronomi-

nal forms, which yielded the best equilibrium between the two competing

forces of linguistic economy, clarity and effort. The tendency towards

bisyllabism also explains the occasional replacement of olnvfâmves by

oaoi/oaai (Ach. 862; Lys. 268; Eccl. 112).

3.3.4. Deictic

Many personal pronouns and certain adverbs are reinforced by the addi-

tion of a deictic -I (6St, OVTOOI, ffBaSi, etc.). There are more than 600 exam-

ples of deictic -i in Aristophanes (though very few in the parabasis and

60 In Ran. 1399 both TOIOUTO and roioinov are transmitted, and in Pax 759 andLys. 485 the transmitted form in -o is metrically impossible.

61 Cuny (1906) 14; Threatte(i996) 91-3. 62 Cf. Cooper (1972).63 Threatte (1996) 340-2; the Aristophanic figures are based on the index com-

piled by O. J. Todd (1932) and therefore refer to the edition by Hall—Geldart (1906)and (1907).

244 Appendix

lyric or paratragic parts),64 whereas it is virtually absent from the officialinscriptions, from tragedy, and from Thucydidean prose. The distributionshows that deictic -I was particularly strong in colloquial Attic but avoidedin more formal text genres. According to Dover's statistics, the ratiobetween forms with -i and forms without -I is i : 4 in Aristophanes (con-trast e.g. Lysias with i : 17 and Plato with i : 30). 65

Similarly, comedy often reinforces with an added particle both inter-rogative causal TI; 'why?' and the conjunction on, mainly in its causal use:TIIJ;, OTIIJ. Since ni}; occurs already in epic poetry, such 'strenghtened' vari-ants must have had a long subliterary history and should not be regardedas recent morphological innovations.66

3.4. VERBS

3.4.1. Endings

3.4.1.1. -fj.eBa. VS. -fieoflo

The most frequent case of verbal polymorphy is that of the first-personplural middle and passive endings -pe8a and -neaOa. It is very unlikely that-peaBa was used in spoken Attic, but in Aristophanic comedy it is a com-mon recessive variant (76 -fifoffa : 177 -fifda). Although the tolerance for-fitada seems greater in lyric passages, it is not confined to them. In latercomedy, -êafla gradually disappears like the dative plural in -o«n/-ai<ji.67

3.4-1 • 2. Optative of contracted verbs

The old set of singular optative endings for contracted verbs-of, and, for verbs in -aw, -<jv", etc.) is replaced in Attic by the remodelledset -ou;v, -on;;, -OIT; (after athematic forms like SiSoiVi f°r verbs inetc.). In tragedy the endings of the former set still serve as recessivevariants, but in Aristophanes there are only two well-attested examples instylistically marked contexts (Eq. 1131, lyr.; Pax io-j6a/b, para-epic hexa-meter).68 Aristophanes never uses plural forms with the optative marker-IT;-, not even with athematic verbs or in the aorist passive.69

64 Martin de Lucas (1996) 161-3.65 Dover (1997) 64; cf. Threatte (1996) 411-12.66 Cf. Denniston (1950) p. Ixxvi, 287; nij; is further strengthened as

Vesp. 1155; Pax 1018; Thesm. 84.67 For the figures see Lautensach (1896) 26-8 (who counted 9 -fifada : 62 -êfla in

the then accessible fragments of Middle and New Comedy).68 See further La Roche (1893) 138-48; Lautensach (1916) 104-10, with statis-

tics.69 Ran. 1448 aw6ftrj/j.ev 'we would get saved', if correct, probably quotes

Euripides (fr. 582 Nauck).


3.4.1.3. 'Aeolic' optative

In the active aorist optative the endings for the second and third singularand third plural are either 'Aeolic' -(a)fias, -(a)fie, -(a)eia^ or 'non-Aeolic'

Statistics show that the 'Aeolic' forms were regular infifth-century Attic (Table A.i).70 The Aristophanic manuscripts neverhave -(a)a.i.fv (but 6 times -(a)fiav) nor an entirely certain case of -(a)ai (but44 times -(o)ete).71 Real polymorphy seems to exist only in the second sin-gular (13 -(a)eias : 8 -(a)ais). In Middle and New Comedy, -(a)a« takes overcompletely, but Aristophanes is conservative: 2 out of 8 -(o)ais inAristophanes belong to the late Plutus, and 3 of the earlier examples standin anapaests where -(a)ois may be regarded as a poetic licence rather thanas a colloquial innovation.

TABLE A.I. Frequency of 'Aeolic' and 'non-Aeolic' optative endings inAttic drama

AeschylusSophoclesEuripidesAristophanesOld Comedy (except Ar.)Middle/New Comedy

'Aeolic'

23

5078

638

3°

'non-Aeolic'

72

10

IO

—15

3-4-1-4- Middle optative (and third-plural perf. med.-pass.):

The third-person plural of the middle optative presents a further case oftrue polymorphy in Aristophanes. In Aeschylus and Sophocles-man still predominate over -OII>TO/-<HI>TO, but with Euripides andAristophanes a reversal takes place (Aristophanes: 16 -vro : 5 -aro).72 It isimpossible to say how often, if at all, the forms in -a.ro could still be heardin spoken Attic.

In the medio-passive third-person plural of the perfect and pluperfect,the endings -cmu/-aTo are not found in Aristophanes. Instead, periphrasticforms or, in the case of verbal stems ending in a vowel or diphthong, formsin -VTOI are used.73

70 Lautensach (1917) 169-80 (but note Cratinus fr. 183 d^waiv?); cf. La Roche

(1893) 132-7; Duhoux (2000) 224-5.71 Plut. 505 (anap.) is doubtful and in Ar. fr. 332. 15 Ae'fai? is now retained.72 -an: Eq. 662; Nub. 1199; Pax 209; Av. 1147; Lys. 42; cf. Lautensach (1916)

113—16; Wackernagel (1916) 89-93.73 e.g. Pax 197; Eccl. 238, 771-2, 838; also Eccl. 265 etBia^fvai toptv 'we are used

to'. Note Ran. 1113 coTpareujieVoi tlaiv 'they are old campaigners' vs. Ran. 1116

246 Appendix

3.4-i-5- ^ vs- ^"'. pluperfect endings; oioBa

In the first-singular imperfect of tlpi, the later form fy is guaranteed (sinceit prevents hiatus) only in Plutus (29, 695, 822). Of course, this need noimply that Aristophanes, unlike for instance Euripides, never usedbefore.74

In the first-singular pluperfect both -ij and -«.v seem to occur: in Av. 511'I knew' is certain (against some of the manuscripts), but in Vesp. 558,

635, and Pax 1182 the later -ew stands before a vowel. In the second per-son ijSrjaOa (or -fiada) is once guaranteed (Eccl. 551), fiSfis never (thoughtransmitted).75 Unlike Cratinus (fr. 112), Aristophanes does not use(nor oiSas) instead of olaOa.

3.4.1.6. Imperative endings

With certain athematic verbs such as larafiai or n'tfe/nai the middle impera-tive occurs in a contracted ("aria, rtffov, also raflou 'sit down') and an uncon-tracted (taraao, TiBeao, also icaêro) form. In the latter, the originalintervocalic -a- has been retained or analogically restored. Surprisingly,Aristophanes and Euripides do not share the preference of both earlytragedy and comedy for the contracted variants.76 Whether Aristophanes'treatment was conservative or not, it may show some concern for morphological clarity.

There are no Aristophanic examples of the third-plural active impera-tive -rwaav, which replaced -vrwv in later Greek.

3-4-2. Augment and reduplication

The augment is omitted in comic dialogue only once in Aristophanes, inthe para-epic verb jSiveoxo^v 'I used to fuck' (Eq. 1242). Elsewhere omis-sion occurs in para-epic hexameters and in some parodic or high-flownlyric passages.77

'they are sharpened'; similarly Vesp. 1114 eunx eyKaOrn^fvoi. vs. Ach.

343 eyKaSrjvTai 'they sit inside'; cf. La Roche (1893) 171-2; Lautensach (1896) 29;

Kontos (1898) 270-9, with a list for the classical Attic writers. In the active perfect

subjunctive and optative, non-periphrastic forms like TrevoiSoii] and KtK\6<p<aai are

usual: cf. La Roche (1893) 161-9; Lautensach (1917) 181-4. For the periphrastic

medio-passive perfect subjunctive and optative see e.g. Ach. 671; Lys. 567; Thesm.

397; Plut. 680.

74 Cf. Rutherford (1881) 242-3; Lautensach (1896) 4-5; E. Harrison (1942);

Barrett (1964) 292-3.75 Cf. La Roche (1893) 220-1; Lautensach (1896) 6—n; Dover (1968) 144.76 See Lautensach (1918) 83-90, with statistics (Aeschylus 2 : 3; Sophocles 7 :

11; Old Comedy (except Aristophanes) i : 7; Middle—New Comedy 2 : 6; but

Euripides 10 : 3; Aristophanes 13 : 7).77 e.g. Pax 1276-92 passim; Av. 701, 777; Ran. 217; cf. Lautensach (1899)

165-81. Ach. 754 efunopevofiav 'I set out' should probably be corrected.


With fie'AAcu, jSouAojucu, and Swa^cu, fourth-century Attic began to use anaugment i}- on a regular basis, but Aristophanes has only rjfteAA- (Ran. 1038and Eccl. 597, against 7 examples of c/xcAA-), never i)j3ouA- andand eSw- being common).78 Since at least ij|3ouA-, which is modelled uponT/0eA- from eWAco,79 is found as early as the fifth century, this is another indi-cation of morphological conservatism. With KaSâi, Ka0e'£oât, andinitial and interior augment coexist even in trimeters (though exaO- isnormal).80

The perfect of 6pdu> is eopaKa, not e'uJpara (e.g. Thesm. 32-3; Plut. 98). On

augmented fxftv see Chapter 5.8.2.

3.4.3. Verbal stems

3.4.3.1. Present: thematization of athematic verbs

The thematization of athematic verbs such aswhich is frequent in Middle Comedy, is found only in the lateAristophanes (Plut. 719 avfnrapaêf/muiv; cf. his older contemporaryPherecrates' fr. 152. 9 and further instances even in writers likeThucydides and Andocides).81

The only case where (something like) thematization is frequent is theimperative of verbs in -fiatvw with either athematic (aoristic) -f)i)6t or quasi-thematic -)3o (as if from *-fiau>; cf. Si'Sou, riBei, r«). Among the tragic writersonly Euripides uses these forms, which may have been colloquial stan-dard.82

3.4.3.2. Aorist

From the middle of the fourth century onwards, the Attic inscriptionsshow the aorist marker -K- of the reduplicated athematic verbs

and iTjfu also in the plural (i.e. eStuxav for eSoaav, etc.). Consideringthat epigraphic conventions are usually conservative, such forms mayalready have been in widespread use by 400 Be; they are preferred to theolder ones in Middle and New Comedy.83 In Aristophanes there are onlytwo cases and one of them reflects the free use of such forms in epic poetry

rather than linguistic innovation (Nub. 968 TrapeSwKav at the end of an ana-paestic tetrameter, leaving only Ach. 101 fwrjieaB' as a 'recent' form).84

78 Cf. Lautensach (1899) 2-3; Duhoux (2000) 96-7; Arnott (2002) 196-8.79 In Aristophanic comedy 9i\u> is only used in the idiomatic rjv 6(&s OfXfi 'god

willing', etc.80 Cf. Lautensach (1899) 131-5.81 Cf. La Roche (1893) 155-60; for the sth-cent. prose writers B. Rosenkranz

(1930) 152. Lys. 895 SioTiflei? (MSS) must stand for Sum'fli;?.82 Cf. Lautensach (1911) 4-5 and (1917) 190-1.83 Threatte (1996) 600-2, 615-17; Lautensach (1911) 118-19.84 Contrast Vesp. 574, 717; Lys. 108; Ran. 1190.

248 Appendix

In tragedy, presumably under Ionic influence, weak aorists sometimesreplace strong aorists in the passive voice. In Aristophanic comedy, Thesm.

1128 arpecpBui (paratragic) and Lys. 526 auAA<rx0«aais (anap.) are isolated.85

Regular alternation is found only with (dn--/Si-)TjAAay7p vs.though again with a preference for the strong form ( 1 5 : 5 examples, the

latter probably being influenced by the futureAristophanes does not yet have aorist forms like elira/rivtyKa. or

which are found in various fourth-century authors.86 At the same time, the

literary aorist cAefa beside d-nov is much rarer in Aristophanes than for

instance in Euripides (but not as rare as in later comedy).87

3.4.3.3. Perfect

The old system of oT&afiaptv is stable in Aristophanes, but the infinitive and

participle clitcvai/eiiabs of foixa alternate with the rarer variants

(oiK(t>ai/(otK<as.S8 The parallelism of eV™;, etc. (15 examples, including com-pound forms) vs. CCTT^KOIS (5) seems to be another case of metrically condi-

tioned polymorphy. In the perfect of yt'yvo/xai, the middle yeyeVrâi (28) is

already stronger than yc'yora (i i).The later aspirated perfects (such as nîrpaxa: cf. e.g. Ran. 302

are virtually absent from Aristophanes (but note Lys. 952 (mrt-rpuffV, forms

like f!\ricpe are of course common, Lys. 1003 vnoKfKvtpa^fs is etymologicallyjustified, and Ar. fr. 615 Ae'Aacpa? 'you have gulped down' may contain a

stem Aa<p- as in Xaipvaow 'to gulp down').

3.4.3.4. Future

Contracted futures like aptpiai (from apyiewvfu), t\u>, Kpffj.u>, ire™, ortighten rather than loosen their grip on Attic over time. WhenAristophanes has fifiw (Av. 425, 1570; the Attic writers Andocides andLysias use /9i$aa-) and, despite the ample attestation of Ko\daw/-ofi.ai in clas-

sical Attic, even KO\UI^<U 'I will punish' (Eq. 456; Vesp. 244), this may be arecent feature.89

The use of 'Doric' futures like tfevgovjievov (e.g. Ach. 1129, but Vesp. 157

(Ran. 1221), or x«oeia0ai (Vesp. 941) may have been anoption in spoken Attic and need not reflect metrical constraints even if it

contravenes prose usage.90

85 Contrast e.g. Ach. 1022; Vesp. 1107; Eccl. 116, 395.86 Cf. Lautensach (1911) 101-15. 87 Lautensach (1911) 165-6, with statistics.88 Compare e.g. Nub. 185, Eccl. 1161, and Av. 697 with Vesp. 1142, 1413, and

Ar. fr. 663; similarly StSoiKtu? (Pax 607; also Eccl. 181 ScSoiVarf) vs. SeSuus (Eccl.643; Plut. 448). For more detail, also on the following points, see Lautensach (1921)231-48.

89 Cf. Schwyzer (1939) 785; Hauri (1975), esp. 171-2.1)0 Excessive regularization, as promoted by Walker (1894) anc< (1906), is danger-

ous. The model •n'ania/ neaovnai/fTrfaov must account for the aorist fxf<""> (Thesm.570); cf. Schwyzer (1939) 786.


In analogy to TTOTTJCTU) and Trcuijacu, the future of |8aAAcu is either(Vesp. 222, 1491) or /JaAeO (Ach. 283; compound verbs). Similarly,competes with occasional Somjaoj.91 The verb pmrw can be treated as a verbin -fw even in the present (Vesp. 59; Eccl. 507). Like ?x<u with oxôuj andrpexcu has two futures with Spaôu/iai (Vesp. 138) beside 6pffofj.ai, and it is noteasy to see a semantic distinction between the two.92

3.4.4. Tmesis

The separation of a preverb from the verbal stern ('tmesis') is commonlyregarded as poetic (cf. PI. Phdr. 2373). A similar, though possiblyindependent, phenomenon occurs in comic dialogue, but here the twocomponents are separated only by particles or other enclitic words. Thetone of some of the Aristophanic examples (and the frequency withdiroAAum) suggests that tmesis was a means of colloquial intensification.93

One may compare the 'adverbial tmesis' of words like evravffi, whichbecomes evye-ravBi (Thesm. 646).

3.5. M O R P H O L O G I C A L U N C E R T A I N T I E S

As with phonology, there are cases of uncertainty in morphology. Apartfrom those mentioned already, they include the accusative singular of s-

stem personal names, where the inscriptions suggest that -r/v was normalby 400 BC and need not be changed into -i;,94 the aorist of WTOJLUII (bot

and firranyv occur in the manuscripts),95 or the controversial'Lautensach's Law', according to which compound verbs starting with ev-'well, good" have no temporal augment rju-.95

3.6. C O N C L U S I O N : M O R P H O L O G Y

Formal variation is more frequent in Aristophanes' morphology than inhis phonology. In some cases it is likely that one of the two variant formswas not used in contemporary spoken Attic (-oi<7i/-aiai, -pfoSa, perhaps-aro). Elsewhere the parallelism of two forms is not 'artificial' but points tothe existence of synchronic variation also in 'real' language. Here,

91 Nub. 562; Ran. 737; cf. Vesp. 726 SeSoxijaai; Ran. 148592 Contrast e.g. Ran. 193 with Vesp. 138; Humbert (1960) 153 sees here a 'futur

determine' and a 'futur indetermine'.93 In trimeters: Nub. 792; Vesp. 784; Av. 1456, 1506; Pint. 65; elsewhere: Ach.

295; Nub. 1440; Vesp. 437; Pax 1274; Av. 346; Lys. 262-3, 1280; Ran. 1047, 1106?;cf. Wackernagel (1928) 172—4, also on the origin of VTTO TI 'a little' (Vesp. 1290);Morpurgo Davies (rgSs) 86—8; Dunbar (1995) 697.

94 e.g. Nub. 182, 1465, 1477; cf. Threatte (1996) 173-6.95 Cf. Dunbar (1995) *52> against Lautensach (1911) 10-11.96 Lautensach (1899) 47-9, 146-9, rejected by Mastronarde (1989).

250 Appendix

Aristophanes does not usually show a clear preference for the youngervariants (cf. e.g. comparative stems, ô\l•j^^p•„ 'Aeolic' optatives, augmentwith ne'AAcu, first singular TJ")- A conservative attitude is indicated by theabsence or rarity of certain features (e.g. aorists like tSuiKav, ofaflas, thema-tized athematic verbs, weak instead of strong aorists). Of course this doesnot preclude the use of colloquial features since 'colloquial' is not alwaysthe same as 'recent' (cf. deictic -I, TU},-, tmesis, probably comparatives andsuperlatives in -(aT(pos/-ioTaros). Generally speaking, Aristophanes seemsto exploit variation (or synchronic 'irregularity') more readily in verbalthan in nominal morphology, but obviously the rich verbal system of clas-sical Greek also provided him with more numerous opportunities to do so.

4. SYNTAX

4.1. N O U N S

4.1.1. Case

4.1.1.1. Nominative and vocative

Nub. 1168 and Av. 1467 may be interpreted as containing a nominative

instead of a vocative, but apparent cases elsewhere must be taken as

exclamatory nominatives.97 The switch from a vocative to a nominative in

a list of addressees is very old, but it is not a strict rule (contrast Nub. 264-5

•withAch. 55).

The vocative is preceded by u> much more frequently than not, but the

two variants are essentially equivalent (compare e.g. Ach. 95 and 818, 284

and 1018, 887 and 1174, 1132-3 and 1136-7).98

4.1.1.2. Accusative

Directional accusatives without a preposition are always stylistically

marked in Aristophanes and extremely rare even in parody.99 The same is

true for the non-prepositional ablatival genitive100 and local dative101

97 Pace La Roche (1893) 215-17: Vesp. goo; Thesm. 649, 878; Ran. 921; cf.exclamations like xoKoSai'/iojv eyai 'poor me!': Dittmar (1933) 22—4.

98 Cf. Dickey (1996) 199—206: Aristophanes has <J with 80% of his vocatives (cf.orators ^.90%, Thuc. 85%, but later Men. 12%), but the view of Scott (1905) 39-41that omission of u> in Aristophanes regularly indicates elevation of style isunfounded (cf. also Ch. 2.5).

99 Av. 952; Thesm. 1045-6; non-parodic: Nub. 299/300 (lyr.); quotation: Nub.30; cf. Bers(i984)73.

100 Perhaps Av. 941/2 dAdrai arparujv 'he is an outcast from the host' (?): cf. Bers(1984) 100; Dunbar (1995) 537.

101 Nub. 272; Lys. 1298; Thesm. no, 126, also 1055?; quotations: Ran. 1318,1403; note locatival Mcyapoi (^4c/i. 758) and fIvBol(Lys. 1131 * Eg. 1273 rJvBwn) butalso eV MapaBwvi (Vesp. 711; Ar. fr. 429); cf. Bers (1984) 95-8.


although the latter is fossilized in forms like MapaOwvi, 'OAu^m'am,

(which are comparable to a directional 'AôwrdSt or an ablatival

Participial absolute accusatives

are relatively rare (cf. Euripides with 16 i£6v/irap6v). Adverbial

'perhaps' is not yet found. There is a remarkable, probably tra-

ditional,102 extended usage of such absolute accusatives (or nominatives?)

with a personal subject (Ach. 1182; Plut. 277?; Ar. fr. 664).

A typically comic, presumably colloquial, type of inner accusative is

represented by Ach. 95 vavyapKrav pheneiv 'to look like a warship", etc.103 The

inner accusative offigurae etymologicae is used as a means of intensification

(e.g. Kpayov xeKpayeVai, Aijpov Aijpcfv).

4.1.1.3. Genitive105

The frequency of the absolute genitive in Aristophanes suggests that this

was no purely literary construction (£.85 examples, more or less equally

divided between early and late plays).

The genitive of comparison (c.izo examples) is hardly ever challenged

by the alternative construction with TJ (/cpei'moi* rj avr/p vs. Kff'nruw av&pos). In

some cases ^ is of course necessary, for instance when an adverb, an adver-

bial phrase, a preposition, a full clause, or an infinitival construction fol-

lows;106 also -nXfiv is always accompanied by fj. Elsewhere the genitive of

comparison is replaced by the construction with rj mainly for the sake of

greater clarity.107 The usual preference for the genitive is a sign of syntac-tic conservatism.

Vesp. 352 OVK eoTtv omjs 'there isn't enough of a hole' preserves an archaic

syntagma with a partitive genitive instead of a nominative after a negativesubstantive verb.108 Apparently this construction had survived in collo-

quial language. Another colloquial feature is the frequent use of exclama-tory genitives; again, this may be old.109

102 Cf. M. L. Rosenkranz (1964) 271-3.103 Cf. Ach. 254; Eq. 631, 855; Vesp. 455, 643, 847, 900; Pax 1184; Av. 1169,

1671; Ran. 562, 6030, 804; Eccl. 2926; Plut. 424.104 e.g. Eq. 487; Av. 31, 1401; Thesm. 793, 880; Eccl. 106; Plut. 419, 517, 1044;

cf. Vetta (1989) 153.105 See the comprehensive study by Poultney (1936), with lists for all the usages.106 e.g. Nub. 1418; Vesp. 650; Pax 23; Lys. 304; Thesm. 519; Ran. 947; Plut. 939;

note Eccl. 700-1 irpdrepov au-rijs for -n-pdrepoy -i) Tap' avrf). A substantivized infinitivein the genitive of comparison occurs only once: Av. 13430, For general statistics seeSchwab (1893-4) 'i- 42—3, 78, and 92 (where the ratio of 9.8 gen. : i rj in comedywould be even more in favour of the genitive if irhtiv T/ had been excluded; cf. e.g.Aesch. 35.5 : i, Soph. 9.4 : i, Eur. 11.5 : i, Hdt. 19.8 : i, Thuc. 11.6 : i, Xen. 3.8 :i, Plato 7.6 : i, Dem. 3.9 : i).

107 Nub. 432; Vesp. 1068/9, "49; Av. 369; Lys. 432; Thesm. 273; Eccl. 1040,1096. A possible exception is Thesm. 203 with r; av instead of aou.

108 Cf. Schwyzer (1940) 10.109 Examples in Dittmar (1933) 24-5; Poultney (1936) 125-6.

252 Appendix

4.1.1.4. Dative

The dative, which was lost in later Greek, is as strong in Aristophanes aselsewhere in classical Attic. The switch, with predicative participles, fromthe dative to the nominative (Vesp. 133-5:

'the . . . son . . . is called . . .Bdelycleon: he's got some rather haughtifalutin ways'; Av. 46-7) or to theaccusative (Eq. 1394-5; Thesm. 674-6; Eccl. 1019-20:

the older women shall

be permitted, without penalty, to drag the young man away, taking hold ofhim by the peg') may be a first symptom of weakening, but such phenom-ena are not uncommon in other writers either.110

4.1.2. Gender

Nominal gender is a topical issue in Clouds (see Ch. 4.2.2) and in the'women's plays' (see Ch. 6.6, especially on nominal motion). As in othelanguages with such a grammatical category, there are a few words withvariable gender: rapiôs 'dried fish' masc. (Ar. fr. 207) vs. rdpix°s ntr. (Eq.1247), opiyavos 'origanum' fern. (Eccl. 1030) vs. optyavov ntr. (Ran. 6030; Arfr. 128), Aijuds 'hunger' fern. (Ach. 743: Megarian) vs. Aijuo? masc. (Pax 483).

4.1.3. Number

During the fourth century the dual completely disappears from AtticGreek, first in the verbal system, later also with nouns.111 Somewhat para-doxically, the dual is stronger in Euripidean tragedy than in Aeschylus,presumably because Euripides' language is more open towards spokenAttic than the literary register of Aeschylus. It is clear from Aristophaniccomedy that the dual was very much alive in fifth-century Attic. The dif-ference between Aristophanes' language and that of his younger contem-porary Plato is striking: whereas Plato uses the dual in about 25% of allcases in which he could have used it, the corresponding Aristophanic fig-ure is 57%.112 In the verbal paradigm the dual seems even stronger than inthe nominal paradigm (c.75% observance). Many apparent exceptions areeasily explained by the context (e.g. Pax 1054; Av. 95: the Hoopoe cannotknow the number of people who are looking for him; also Ach. 729-835 i

110 These sentences are not anacolutha like Ach. 1164-8 or Pax 1242-4: for thelatter cf. Slings (1992) 96-101. The complete loss of the dative occurs much later:see Humbert (1930).

111 Cf. in general Hasse (1891) and Cuny (1906); for the Attic inscriptionsMeisterhans-Schwyzer (1900) 199—201.

112 Cuny (1906) 94, 163-4; cf- Bers ('984) 59~6o; Duhoux (2000) 131-4. LopezEire (1991) 21—6 exaggerates the weakness of the Aristophanic dual because he doesnot compare it with other writings.

A ristophanes' Attic 253

Megarian).113 A tendency towards the loss of the dual can only be seen inthe gradual increase of incongruous agreement, for instance between adual subject and a plural verb; there are particularly many instances in thelateP/uto.114

Since the dual is far less common in oratory than in comedy and con-sciously avoided in a writer like Thucydides (whose rate of observance isabout 5%), it seems to have borne the stigma of Attic parochialism.115

Hence, Aristophanes' syntax is both conservative and dialectally puristwith regard to the dual.

The <jx%m ATTIKOV (ntr. pi. subject agreeing with singular verb) is firmlyobserved.116 Occasional variation between singular and plural in othercontexts reflects the freedom of lively spoken language.117

Poetic plurals118 and the pluralis maiestatis (Thesm. 183, 196) are exclu-sively parodic.

4.2. A D J E C T I V E S

There is only a handful of examples of a singular neuter adjective with thearticle in the function of an abstract noun (e.g. Nub. 414'endurance', anap.; Plut. 562 TO atfr/KuiSes 'waspishness', anap.); only thecommon TO SIKO.WV 'justice' occurs in iambic dialogue (Ach. 500; Av.1435).119 The neuter participle is not used in this way at all.

The replacement of a possessive genitive by an adjectival construction isparodic (e.g. Ach. 433 TUIV &vioTetun> paKwv 'of the Thyestean rags'; Av. 939;Thesm. 919; Ran. 1142).

4.3. ARTICLE

Aristophanes often omits the article in parodic passages (paratragedy, lyricparody) and less frequently in non-parodic lyrics with a solemn tone (e.g.

113 But metrical need can be a determining factor, too: e.g. Av. 367 Ran. 605—6

114 Plut. 73, 429—30, 471, 482, 484, 509, 532, 608—9, 733~4> 735—6; cf. Poultney

(1963) 363-7-115 Meillet (1965) 218.116 Cf. Kuhner-Gerth (1898/1904) ii/i. 64-6 (also on 'regular' exceptions with

personal subjects, as in Ach. 806—7); Wackernagel (1926) 101—3; Poultney (1963)362-3. In Pax 1262 the plural verb is due to the separation from its subject.

117 e.g. Vesp. 433, 975—6; Lys. 209, 763; Eccl. 504—10; cf. the construct™ ad sen-sum in Eccl. 431—2. On singular vs. plural verbs used by/to the chorus see Kaimio(1970) 36-157: in the first person Aristophanes makes the chorus use the pluralmore often than the tragic writers.

118 e.g. Ach. 426, 479; Nub. 1165; Thesm. 41, 874; Ran. 13390; Eccl. n.119 Elsewhere e.g. Eccl. 895 TO aofof 'expertise' (cf. Lys. 547); Eccl. 901 TO

rpvyepov 'voluptuousness'.

254

Appendix

hymns); there is nothing comparable with the constant tragic omission for

the sake of 'de-automatization'.120 With certain nouns like e'/ocAijm'ai' or the omission of the article (e.g. ets tKK\-qalav, but tv TTj/cxAijaia121) is par-

alleled in prose so that it is difficult to find instances where the article is

dropped metri gratia only.122

With oSe and OUTOS, however, the rules are less strict. The type S&f/oSros

avr/p is certainly less common than in tragedy, but it does occur, especially

with SSe, even in (apparently non-parodic) comic dialogue. In Acharnians

and Birds I have counted the figures set out in Table A. 2 (which are

approximate only since it is sometimes difficult to decide whether

stands in an attributive relationship to a neighbouring noun).

TABLE A. 2. Frequency ofSSe and otros in Acharnians and Birds

Ach.

Av.16

15

28

334a

6C4b

—a Ach. 336, 454 (paratragic, trim.), 985? (trim.), 1191/2 (paratragic).b Ach. 130, 462—3, 960, 1049 (all trim.).c Av. 921 (trim.), 936-7?, 1274 (trim.), 1313, 1366 (trim.), 1725.

Particular uses of the article, which without doubt belonged to spoken

Attic, include the address to slaves (e.g. Ran. 40 6 mis; Ran. 271; also toother subordinated persons: Ach. 155 01 Spo/ccs; Av. 665 ?) UpoKvif) and thestrengthening of™'; in TO rl; (Nub. 775; Pax 826; Ran. 7, 40).123

As a relative, anaphoric, or demonstrative pronoun, the article is notused in Attic (except in idioms such as 6 fj.ev/6 Se, TOV xal rov, irpo TOU); accord-

ingly, it is restricted in Aristophanes to passages in other dialects.124

120 e.g. Nub. 275-90, 298-313 (but not Nub. 949-58, 1024-33); Av. 904-53 passim, 1372-1401 passim; Thesm. 101-29, &95 (paratragic); Eccl. 507-8 (paratragic); cf.also Ch. 2.10. On tragic 'de-automatization' or 'defamiliarization' see Bers (1984)190-4.

121 Cf. Ussher (1973) 94, 108, 112; in general Cooper (1998) i. 390-1.122 Anagnostopoulos (1925) 16 adduces Lys. 18, 101, 882, where the omission is

in fact surprising, but all of these passages would mean something slightly differentif there were an article; note however Lys. 108 MiXr/aiai.

123 Cf. Wendel (1929) 8; Svennung (1958) 214-24; TO ti;\ Humbert (1960) 51-2.The type d nais is not 'solemn' as Del Corno (1985) 158 claims.

124 Cf. Witkowski (1915) 24-5; Colvin (1999) 226-7; also Eq. 1039 and Av. 973(mock oracles); Thesm. 126 (Agathon's song).


Type

4-4- P R O N O U N S

The variation between the older possessive construction 6 fftos irarr/p andthe younger A mrqp pov is a clear case of syntactic polymorphy in

Aristophanes. The older variant is still predominant (186 : i io).125

Further details are given in Ch. 6.8.1.The non-reflexive possessive construction rarely replaces the reflexive

, etc., and when it does, there may be metrical reasons

(Eq. 565; Plut. 55).Unlike tragedy and occasionally prose, Aristophanes has no example for

the change from tfnavrov, atavrov to a generalized reflexive pronounwhich became more common in Koine Greek.126

It is doubtful if there is an Aristophanic example for the later use of

as indefinite pronoun (= ris).127

4.5. PREPOSITIONS 1 2 8

As in Attic prose, but not in tragedy, aw/fw is not used alongside turd as a

comitative preposition (see above, App. § 2.2.3).129 When a person isaccompanied and when simultaneity is emphasized, apa + dat. 'together

with' is an alternative (also sociative OUTO'S: Eq. 7 auraf? Sia/3oAaf? 'togetherwith his lying-tales'). The participial construction with eôji/Aa^cup is veryfrequent, too. The prepositional adverb 6/j.ov is common in food and cook-ing contexts (Eccl. 404; Ar. frs. 22, 383, 581. 6, 701).

The prepositions and prepositional adverbs an<pi, dm, St'xa, x^P's- «'ra' as

well as H.CTO + dat. are confined to stylistically marked contexts (parody,lyrics, dialect parts) or to specialized usages (Ran. 554 with distributive dv'

i;/u<u/3oAiaia 'in half-obol portions'); other prepositional words like

ir&as are completely missing.For prepositional 'until' Aristophanes has only ^c'xpi (rarely), never

fare, and fws, which become more common in post-classical Greek.

The agentive preposition is nearly always vno. Nub. 1122 irpos jpwv and

Ach. 226 nap' e/ioO (lyr.) are isolated, agentive e£ non-existent inAristophanes.

125 A certain reluctance towards the younger construction may account for theirregular replacement of juou by tôv in Lys. 301 and for the intrusion of the encliticpersonal pronoun into the position of the possessive adjective (Av. 11 io; Lys. 168,416). Conversely, the reflexive possessive genitive aurou/aimjj can stand in enclitic(or proclitic) position: Nub. 515-16, 905; Pax 880; Av. 475.

126 Cf. Schwyzer—Debrunner (1950) 197—8; Lys. 1070 comes closest.127 Cf. Eq. 1128; Av. 462, 1292; Wackernagel (1928) 318.128 For more detail see Sobolewski (1890).129 Cf. Mommsen (:8gs) 1-9, 634-60.

256 Appendix

In addition to the directional prepositions els, o>?, im, andAristophanes has almost half of all the classical Attic examples ofgen. 'straight to'; possibly this prepositional adverb had a colloquialtouch.130 Directional uis, which is rare in tragedy, becomes increasinglyfrequent in the two fourth-century comedies (Eccl., Plut.: 18 examples,against only 16 in the six extant comedies written down to 414 BC: Ach

Eq., Nub., Vesp., Pax, Av.).

Except in the case of we/w, the postpositional use of prepositions withanastrophe is parodic or consciously high-flown (e.g. Vesp. 1118; Lys.

1145-6).131 The same applies to the positioning of the preposition betweenan attributive adjective or pronoun and its noun (e.g. Nub. 1159SoJâai 'within these halls'). However, anastrophic Ê'TO, napa, and eVi can beused, even in comic dialogue, as adverbial equivalents of fie'-recm, etc.

4.6. V E R B S

4.6.1. Diathesis

Like nominal gender, verbal gender (diathesis) is comically exploited (Eq.

115 peyKfrai, 1057 x<r'aaiTo); foreigners cannot handle it correctly (see Ch.7.5.3; also Pax 291132). Apart from this, there is little irregularity or vari-ation. The passive future replaces the middle future in Eq. 98 (contrast

Lys. 910),133 but with verbs carrying a suffixal -q- the inverse is the case(Nub. 1379 TviTTT;aofi.cu; Vesp. 1491; Ran. 797). The active imperatives'stop!' and eyeipe 'wake up!' (?) may be very old relics.134

4.6.2. Tense

On the 'resultative' perfect (and the periphrasis ex<o + part, aor.) see Ch.5.4, on periphrastic constructions with a participle + etvai both in the per-fect and in the present see Ch. 5.9. (and above, App. § 3.4.1.4). Here, thAristophanic plays foreshadow fourth-century developments, though notmore strongly than other fifth-century texts.135

The expression of a 'futur proche' with n '̂AAoj + inf. is not more commonin Aristophanes than in contemporary prose. However, prose writers

130 Richards (IQOI): 25 cases in classical Attic (10 in Aristophanes, 5 in other

comic writers, 9 in Plato, Thucydides, and Xenophon taken together).131 Cf. Mommsen (1895) 644—5, 653—4; Wackernagel (1928) 196—7; Bers (1984)

17 on Arist. Poet. !458b3i-4.132 Cf. Bers (1984) 111-12; Cassio (1985) 149; Lopez Eire (1986) 243; Colvin

(1999) 291-2; Duhoux (2000) 126.133 Cf. also Lys. 744 rcfofiai vs. Thesm. 509 re^cw.134 e.g. Vesp. 37; Ran. 122, 340/1; cf. Wackernagel (1926) 122; Schwyzer-

Debrunner (1950) 224; MacDowell (1971) 132.135 For the perfect (and pluperfect) see the list in Kontos (1898) 287—304, with

many examples also from the tragedians, Herodotus, and Thucydides.


prefer the construction with a future infinitive, whereas in Aristophanes,as in later Greek, that with a present infinitive is much more frequent(except after the past tense e^fXXov).136

4.6.3. Aspect

A remarkable aspectual distribution exists in the imperative, where thepresent imperative is slightly predominant in human conversation (thoughless clearly than in tragedy), but the aorist imperative is preferred inaddressing gods: see Ch. 2.9 for more details. The (epic) imperative oiV'bring!', which is apparently built on the future stem and probably a com-ically pathetic form rather than a colloquial archaism, is aspectually iso-lated.137

4.6.4. Mood

4.6.4.1. Indicative

The use of av with the indicative of a past tense to indicate a habitual orrepeated action is much more widespread in Aristophanes than in otherfifth-century authors. It is therefore presumably colloquial but not neces-sarily as recent a development as its visible history might suggest (see fur-ther Ch. 6.8.1).

It is disputed whether a modalized future indicative + av for emphaticfuture statements should be recognized as genuine (cf. e.g. Nub. 1157;Vesp. <)42;Av. 1314).l38 Emphatic prohibitions with ov ̂ + fut. ind.139areso common that the indicative occasionally spreads even into the domainof ov fi-fi + subj. in emphatic denials (Pax 1037; Ran. 508-9). The use of+ ind., which is characteristic of oaths (Av. 195; Lys. 917-18; Eccl. 1000;Ar. fr. 395), must be distinguished from (om«s) \u\ + ind. after explicit orimplicit expressions of fear (Ach. 343; Nub. 493?).

For moods in final clauses see below, App. §§ 4.6.4.2. and 4.8.6.

4.6.4.2. Optative

Given the retreat of the optative in post-classical Greek, Aristophanes'observance of the oblique optative in final clauses after a secondary tenseshows his syntactic conservatism. The oblique optative is here used 40

136 See Basset (1979) 132-6, and Duhoux (2000) 161, with statistics:Aristophanes 18 fieAAoj + fut. inf. vs. 41 /ic'AAoi + pres. inf. vs. 2 f«r'AAcu + aor. inf. (cf.Aeschylus 6-3-1; Sophocles 11-12-0; Euripides 29-34-13; Herodotus 74-36-2;Thucydides 77-41-5; Isocrates 67—37-0; Demosthenes 106-0.0-2 or 3).

137 Ach. 1099, noi, 1122 (where olat is misleadingly counted as an aorist-stemimperative by Nickau (1993) 163); Ran. 482; cf. Alexis fr. 125; Anaxippus fr. 6;Leumann (1953) 211 n. 2.

138 See Moorhouse (1946).139 e.g. Ach. 166; Nub. 367, 505; Ran. 202; cf. Ktihner—Gerth (1898/1904) ii/2.

222-3; Schwyzer-Debrunner (1950) 293; Cooper (1998) i. 653-6.

258 Appendix

times and neglected 14 times (74%). While this figure is similar to that ofcontemporary oratory, a complete reversal has taken place by the time ofMenander (c.27%).140 Moreover, the irregular use of the subjunctive isalways due to the agent's continued interest in the accomplishment of theaction, so that the past tense in the main clause does not adequately expressthe true temporal relationship.141 The strength of the oblique optative isalso obvious in its occasional intrusion into final clauses without a preced-ing past tense, mainly when the context of the main clause suggests somereference to the past.142

Very rarely the potential optative occurs without the particle av, a phe-nomenon that is 'excluded only from the most rigid and fastidious sorts ofwriting'.143

4.6.4.3. Subjunctive

Unlike the omission of av with the potential optative, the absence of av inconditional, relative, or temporal clauses with the subjunctive is usuallydue to a pompous or parodic context;144 in anapaests and with Trpiv it isslightly more common.145

4.6.4.4. Imperative

The function of the imperative is often taken on by other constructionssuch as rhetorical questions,146 indirect formulations (e.g.inf. 'it is up to you to', often used by the chorus;147 independent emeus + ind.fut.: cf. below, App. § 4.8.6), the potential optative,148 the imperativalinfinitive,149 or constructions with the verbal adjective in -TC'O- (cf. Ch. 5.8).

140 Cf. Ch. 6.7; Weber (1884) 120-1; Poultney (1963) 369-73; Duhoux (2000)231-40.

141 Eg. 669, 893, 1182, 1393; Nub. 539; Vesp. 70, 313, 1028; Pax 226; Av. -73; Lys.373 (contrast 374); Thesm. 944; Ran. 1419; Eccl. 117.

142 Vesp. no; Av. 1524; Ran. 24; cf. Eq. 935; Ran. 766 (but not Eccl. 881, 917,where the optative may be potential; Thesm. 588 depending on 585 avoTrcî/iai; Pax413 and Av. 1338 with attraction of mood).

143 Bers (1984) 135; cf. Hale (1893) 180-3, 202; Slotty (1915) 139-42;Wackernagel (1926) 236—7: Vesp. 472; Av. 180?; Lys. 839?; Thesm. 872 (paratragic);Plut. 374?, 438?. In Eq. 1057, Ran. 574, and Eccl. 898 the drof the preceding poten-tial optative may 'count'.

144 Eq. 698, aped in Eq. 700; Pax 450; Av. 928-30: all can of course be 'corrected';cf. Sobolewski (1891) 16-19; Bers (1984) 158-61.

145 Eq. 805; Lys. 580-1, 1005?; Ran. 1281; Eccl. 629, 688, 752.146 Cf. in general Zilliacus (1946); for rhetorical questions Dittmar (1933) 37-41

(more than 80 examples in Aristophanes).147 e.g. Nub. 1345, 1397, 1494; Pax 1305; Lys. 315, 839; Ran. 590; Eccl. 514.148 Eq. 1161; Vesp. 726; Ran. 1401, 1467; Eccl. 132.149 Often in oracles: Eq. 1039; Av. 971, 973, 975; elsewhere (often after a full

imperative): Ach. 257; Eq. 1187; Nub. 850, 1080; Vesp. 386, 1216; Pax 1153; Lys.536; Thesm. 157; Ran. 133, 169; Eccl. 1107, nn, 1146?; contrast the 'optatival'infinitive (Ch. 2.9) and cf. Dittmar (1933) 92; Bers (1984) 168-82.


Some colloquial usages of the imperative are particularly frequent inAristophanes. For instance, a second-person imperative often 'agrees'with wd^/rif150 although T« is used even more frequently in the 'correct' waywith a third-person imperative in an address by a master to his slaves (e.g.Ach. 570-1, 805, 1096; cf. Lys. 1050 with rrds). Another idiomatic usage isthe rhetorical question o?o0' o Spdaov; 'do you know what you should do?',which contains, at least in synchronic terms, the aorist imperative (e.g. Eq.1158; Pax io6i).151

4.6.5. Nominal forms of the verb

Exclamatory infinitives are far more common in Aristophanic comedythan in other genres. Like the genitive of exclamation they certainlybelonged to colloquial Attic (e.g. Av. 5-6

'To think, wretched me, that I've gonearound and about for more than a hundred miles of travelling, at the bid-ding of a crow!').152 Most of the exclamatory infinitives are preceded bythe article (exceptions: Nub. 819?; Vesp. 835).

On 'optatival' infinitives see Ch. 2.9, on 'imperatival' or 'jussive' infini-tives App. § 4.6.4.4 above, on the articular infinitive Ch. 5.9. Both thearticular and the absolute infinitive (e.g. lôl &OKCIV 'it seems to me') aremore common in literary prose than in comedy. Aristophanes has aboutfour examples of the absolute infinitive.153

On the verbal adjectives in -reo- see Ch. 5.8.

4.7. P A R T I C L E S

According to Denniston, particle usage in Aristophanes and in the oratorsis more purely Attic than that in the tragedians, Plato, Xenophon, andsometimes Thucydides.154 For instance, 'ancillary' ovv with other particles(except in the combinations <JAA' ovv, yow/, 8' oSv, and ptv oZv) or ouSe withoua preceding negative phrase are rare among the 'pure Attic' authors.

Differences between Aristophanes and tragedy must be due to thediverging stylistic levels of the two genres. Thus, Sr/vov and TOI'VW are fre-quent in comedy (and prose) but rare in tragedy, whereas interrogative ?} is

150 e.g. Ach. 204; Vesp. 422; Pax 301, 555; Pint. 1196; cf. Coulon (1908) 193-4;Wendel (1929) 25; Svennung (1958) 220-1.

151 The origin of this aorist imperative may be gerundival: Kretschmer (1919).Hence, it is not used with the imperatival negation /nj (Thesm. 870 is a quotation ofan irregular use by Sophocles, fr. 493 Radt; cf. Thugenides fr. 4).

132 See further Nub. 268, 819; Vesp. 835; Av. 7-8; Ran. 741; Eccl. ?88-<)o; Pint.593; cf. A. R. Anderson (1914) 74-5; Dittmar (1933) 91-2; Bers (1984) 183-6.

153 Nub. 1252; Pax 857; Av. 1225 (conjectural); Eccl. 350; cf. Thesm. 34; alsoNub. 722 oAiyou (sc. Bfiv).

154 Denniston (1950) pp. Ixx—Ixxii; for a detailed discussion of various colloquialparticles in Aristophanes see Lopez Eire (19960) 119-33.

260 Appendix

far more usual in tragedy than in Aristophanes.155 Only the base Scythianuses i/aiKi (= i«u'x<) as an emphatic assentient particle (cf. Ch. 7.5.4).

In certain passages Aristophanes mocks a current fashion of particleusage (Eccl. 773—6 assentient yap; Plut. 833—8 KoiuSfj fiev olv 'absolutely'; onRan. 559-67 see Ch. 6.8.1) or uses a particular particle for a stylistic end(airrdp in a hexametric oracle: Av. 983; fie'v at the beginning of a speech: Ach.

136; Vesp. 907; Thesm, 383; Plut. 489).The widespread view that a high frequency of particles was typical of

spoken and more colloquial Attic has recently been modified byDuhoux.156 Whereas in fifth-century drama (both tragedy and comedy)particles constitute only about 13% of all words (Menander c.io%), thecorresponding figure for Plato's and Xenophon's dialogues is £.17-18%.Within Aristophanes there is no general statistical difference betweendialogic and non-dialogic passages, but ye or Srj-ra are especially strong indialogue, S<r, fj, xal, ov&f, and ^t in other parts.

4.8. SENTENCE STRUCTURE AND COMPLEX SENTENCES

4.8.1. Nominal sentences

Nominal sentences are more frequent in Aristophanes (Lys.: 60.0% nomi-nal sentences : 40.0% copular sentences) than in Plato (Symp.: 53.6%nominal sentences), Lysias (i, 7, 10, Eroticus: 58.7%), Demosthenes (De

corona: 46.7%), or Isocrates (Paneg.: 50.6%), but less frequent than intragedy (Soph. OT: 72.3%) and Thucydides (bk. 2: 77.8%).157 Obviouslynominal sentences were perfectly common in spoken Attic and not con-fined to particular genres or authors.158 It is impossible to state confidentlyhow 'conservative' or 'innovative' Aristophanes was: his percentage seemshigh in comparison with fourth-century prose, but this may be explainedby the difference of text genre.

4.8.2. Parataxis

The high incidence of parataxis in comedy certainly reflects the generalpreference of spoken language for paratactic (and sometimes asyndetic)sentence structures. Even in comedy, however, parataxis with KOI, Se, andother simple connective particles is used in particular to produce simpleand unpretentious narratives.159 From such passages, connecting

155 Denniston (1950) p. Ixxv, 282 n. i, 568; on roiWv Lopez Eire (19960) 52-5.156 Duhoux (1997), correcting e.g. Denniston (1950) pp. Ixxii-lxxiii;

Schwyzer-Debrunner (1950) 556.157 Figures based on Lasso de la Vega (1952) 320-5.158 But of course they are frequent in gnomic writers (e.g. Hesiod) or tragic cho-

ruses: Guiraud (1962) 158; Bers (1984) 195-6.159 e.g. Eq. 625-82; Nub. 709-15, 1373-6; Vesp. 605-12; Pax 605-48; Av.

494-503; Lys. 784—92; Thesm. 476-89; Ran. 1192-5; Plut. 653—747; cf. Trenkner(1960) 4-5, Dover (1997) 76, and Ch. 6.8.1 above on paratactic conditional clauses.


was transferred into the position between a conjunct participle

and the main verb, a construction that is quite frequent in comedy (e.g. Eq.

391-2 TOIOUTOS cuv . . . K&T' dvrip fSo^fv efrai 'having been that sort of character,

he's now managed to pass for a man').160

4.8.3. Substantive clauses

Declarative verbs like Ae'y<u can be followed either by a substantive clause

introduced by on or tis or by an infinitival construction

TJK(tv). The former variant is strongly assertive, whereas the speaker's atti-

tude and judgement are left more open with the infinitive.161 Apart from

the slight semantic difference, the choice is also determined by generic

considerations. The percentages, given in Table A.3, for substantive

clauses after Aeyu are based on Fournier's statistics.162 In general the

infinitival construction seems more elevated and appropriate for literary-

prose. Rather surprisingly, however, it is also considerably more frequent

in Aristophanes than in the orators. This may indicate that Aristophanes'

language is not entirely 'oral' (but a more thorough investigation taking

into account other factors such as sentence length would be needed to sub-

stantiate this conclusion).

A certain artificiality of Aristophanic language is further indicated by

the choice between on. and ws (OTTOIS only in Pax 132, paratragic), which are

TABLE A.3. Substantive clauses after \iyia in classical Greek (%)

Aeschylus 87.5 12.5

Sophocles

Herodotus

Thucydides

Aristophanes

Plato

Antiphon

Lysias

I socrates

Aeschines

7i.486.662.329.2

35-221.4i i . i

4-5

7-7

28.613-4

37-770.8

64.8

78.6

88.9

95-5

92.3

160 Cf. Nub. 409, 624; Av. 536, 674; Lys. 560; Denniston (1950) 308-9; Trenkne(1960), esp. 8, 12—13, and 52—3.

161 Cf. Kurzova (1968) 64-6; Crespo (1984) 7-10; Delaunois (1988) 143; Cooper(1998) ii. 1040—2.

162 Fournier (1946) 149; cf. Duhoux (2000) 265.

262 Appendix

inf.

TABLE A.4. Frequency of on and ws introducing sub-stantive clauses in classical Greek

Aeschylus 8 28SophoclesEuripidesAristophanesHerodotusLysias

3512

79I I O

293

56

9585

271

135

semantically interchangeable (Table A.4).163 Apparently, o>? was an Ionic(Herodotus) and poetic (tragedy) form, which was not very common inunpretentious Attic, as the figures for Lysias suggest. The relative fre-quency of u>s in Aristophanes must then be explained by the fact that sucha metrical alternative was extremely convenient.

4.8.4. Indirect questions

In classical Attic indirect *who?'-questions are introduced most commonlyby Sorts, more rarely by os. Later, the direct interrogative pronoun rtsbecomes predominant. The distribution in different authors is shown inTable Aj.164 The fact that rk is quite common in Lysias but absent fromAristophanes illustrates again Aristophanes' conservatism. With indirect

TABLE A. 5. Frequency of indirect questions in classical Greek

AeschylusSophoclesEuripidesAristophanesLysiasHerodotus

10

2935

118

3378

3J319ii8

23

45

—

—12

I

163 Monteil (1963) 356, and 399 for the statistics; cf. Fournier (1946) 155.164 Monteil (1963) 145, 150, 154, who understands passages like Thesm. 619 or

Plut. 941 and 998 as direct questions. In 'answering questions' (rt voifis,—o n'What are you doing?—What am I doing? [I am x-ing]') both inter-

rogative pronouns are used but the direct one less often (Nub. 664; Pax 847; Av.608, 1234; Ran. 1424; Eccl. 761 vs. e.g. Ach. 595; Eq. 128, 1073; Nub. 677, 690,1495; Vesp. 48; Pax 701; Av. 164, 299; Ran. 198).


questions other than Sans/ris the direct interrogative pronoun is found inAristophanic comedy as well.165

4.8.5. Relative clauses166

In relative clauses with defining value (i.e. where the subordinate clause

defines a conceptual class to which the antecedent belongs), both Sans and

os can be used, but again the preference for ocms is much stronger in com-

edy than in other genres, including the speeches of Lysias.167 Since o? is

particularly frequent in Herodotus, it may have been prominent in Ionicand spread from there into Attic. Aristophanes would then keep his Attic

pure again.

In addition, the preference for bisyllabic pronouns (cf. above, App.

§ 3-3-3) supported Sans. Accordingly, ofos/oaos are more frequent thano-rroios/oTroaos (but among the relative adverbs, the short forms ov/tyo' pre-dominate over oTTi/owot/oVoi).168 Of course, the semantic context also plays

a role in all these cases, and the differences between the various genres areinsignificant.

4.8.6. Final clauses

The frequency of ovuis (ai>), ws (av), and !va in introducing final clauses has

been discussed in Ch. 6.8.1. The figures shown in Table A.6 have beencounted by various scholars.169 In the present context, the most important

observation is that Aristophanes, unlike Lysias, still uses the traditionalAttic omos (av) beside !va. Even more surprisingly, 0>s av is occasionallyfound in non-parodic trimeters (e.g. Ach. 44; Eccl. 57; Plut. 112); withoutdoubt, this is at least partly due to metrical convenience.

In negative final clauses, !va ̂ (47 exx.) easily surpasses fn} alone (7),(6), and tus (av) ^rj (Av. 1509). In iambic trimeters there are only

3 cases of ̂ and STTOJS /«j respectively.170 However, simple ^-q is normal

165 e.g. Pax 21, 688; Thesm, 801; Plut. 1171.166 See in general Sobolewski (1891) 157-79.167 Monteil (1963) 135-6: Aeschylus o os : 3 OOTI?; Sophocles 14 : 10; Euripides

13 : 47; Aristophanes 7 ; 44; Lysias 17 : 42; Herodotus 41 : 24. Note OCTTIS in a non-defining relative clause at Plut. 13: Lopez Eire (1991) 37.

168 Statistics in Sobolewski (1891) 177. Relative ev6fi> and evfla occur only in lyricpassages: Av. 748, 1485, 1556; Lys. 625; Thesm. 1046. Note that Aristophanes useslocal fi/orrg and local iva (Pax 900; Av. 153, 822; Ran. 778), which are both extremelyuncommon in Lysias. Very rarely (Ach. 364; Vesp. 1270), except in dialect passages(e.g. Ach. 730; Lys. 84), j5i7£f/<I(irep) can replace ulcmep. Temporal oVcus (Nub. 60) anoircuj for (is (Thesm. 1106, paratragic) are isolated in Aristophanes.

169 See Weber (1884) 127, 132; Weber (1885) 9, 44-5, 55, 74-5; cf. W. W.Goodwin (1897) 398; Monteil (1963) 402; for the inscriptions Meisterhans—Schwyzer (1900) 253—5 and the index of IG i3; Amigues (1977) 99 considersonly final clauses with subjunctive.

170 Vesp. 162; Av. 1239 (paratragic); Lys. 1093-4; Eccl. 29, 997; Plut. 622. Lysiashas only ira jmj, not ̂ alone: Wackernagel (1928) 276.

264 Appendix

now

TABLE A.6. Frequency affinal conjunctions in classical Greek

Aeschylus

Sophocles

Euripides

Aristophanes

Herodotus

Thucydides

Inscriptions

Plato

Ten Orators

ii

3i1918

13114

9

2342

S2

7

24S

—

732S

12

23

52

182

316i

—i

3/4

ii

527

14iii

——

—

2

H

71

l83

107

52

I I

368

579

with verbs of fearing and verbs of caution/intention/effort (which have

OTTOJS as their positive conjunction): 29 examples of f«j stand against

oirws nrf (Eq. 112, after a verb of fearing; Vesp. 141, 155, 372; Thesm. 653)

and i of (is ^rj (Vesp. 113).

With verbs of intention and effort (<pvXarTu>, <ppovrit,u>, n([ivijo8ai) the use of

fut. ind. is regular. From here, the future indicative spreads occa-

sionally—but in comedy more frequently than in prose and tragedy—into

final clauses in a strict sense.171 Conversely, a subjunctive after

occurs after verbs of intention and effort.172 Such grammatical flexibilityis characteristic of spoken language.

Imperatival independent subordinate clauses introduced by owcos (e.g.

Eccl. 149 OTTOJS eptk 'make sure that you speak') are extremely common in

Aristophanes, who has c.ô out of the 80 examples in classical Greek.Obviously this was a colloquialism.173

4.8.7. Consecutive clauses

Consecutive u>s (for ware), which is common in tragedy, is found only once

in Aristophanes (Ran. mo). The usual wart is construed with either an

infinitive or a finite verb (mostly the indicative either as realis or as irrealis

with ax, but also the potential optative). The infinitive construction

presents the consequence in a more abstract manner than the vivid and

171 Vesp. 527/8; Pax 310, 432; Lys. 384?, 1094; Thesm. 431, 653; Ran. uzi; Eccl.783, 997; cf. Eccl. 488, 495 with rf; see further Ch. 6.8.i; Weber (1884) 122; W. W.Goodwin (1897) 115-16; Amigues (1977) 79—82; Duhoux (2000) 457—8.

172 Ach. 1060; Eq. 81?, 918, 926; Nub. 739; Eccl. 624; W. W. Goodwin (1897)125—6.

173 Amigues (1977) 69; cf. Weber (1884) 124-5; W. W. Goodwin (1897) 94;Kalen(i94i) 98-137.


266 Appendix

concrete personal mode,174 but the semantic difference does not fullyexplain the wide divergence between tragedy and literary prose(Herodotus) on the one hand and Aristophanes and oratory (Lysias) on theother. The variant with the personal mode must have been predominant inspoken Attic (Table A.?).175

TABLE A.7. The construction of uiarf in classical Greek

AeschylusSophoclesEuripidesHerodotusAristophanesLysias

+ inf.

94-737-984.0

63.324.117.0

+ pers. mode

5-362.1 (!)16.0

36.775-983.0

4.8.8. Conditional clauses

On the variation between lav, rjx, and S.v see App. § 2.1.5 above, on paratac-tic conditional clauses see Ch. 6.8.1. The various (regular) hypotactictypes in Aristophanes have been listed and discussed by Sobolewski.176

4.8.9. Causal clauses

Statistics for the use of the causal conjunctions on, to?, and own have beencompiled by Monteil (Table A.8).177 The easiest way to interpret these fig-ures and to relate them to the use of STI/OJS as substantivizing conjunctions(cf. above, App. § 4.8.3) is to assume that Attic originally used only u>; incausal clauses, but in substantivizing clauses both on. and us, whereas Ionicpreferred substantivizing u>s and causal on. The two conjunctions becamecompletely interchangeable with the growing influence of Ionic on Attic(and vice versa) although, to judge from Lysias, on. was generally preferredin simple and non-literary Attic (in accordance with the tendency towardsbisyllabic conjunctions). If this is correct, both the high number of causalcas and the avoidance of the recent variant Start in Aristophanes again

174 Cf. Kurzova (1968) 49; Delaunois (1988) 148-9; Duhoux (2000) 274-5.175 Statistics based on the figures in Monteil (1963) 350.176 Sobolewski (1891) 13-120.177 Monteil (1963) 401; he regards (p. 358) causal ws as a recent development

originating in colloquial Attic, but this does not explain its use in Aeschylus andSophocles and its almost complete absence from Lysias.

TABLE A. 8. Frequency of causal conjunctions in classical Greek

AeschylusSophoclesEuripides

HerodotusAristophanesLysias

i

i

H63

6542

14

56120

8IOO

5

———

9—10

underline his conservatism, especially when his usage is compared withthat in the unpretentious oratorical prose of his contemporary Lysias.

Aristophanes also has c.$o examples of causal e-net and £.30 examples ofcausal

4.8.10. Temporal clauses

The most common temporal conjunctions in Aristophanes are Sre/Srav

(48/83 CXX.), TyviVa (av) (25/17), cVeiSij/eimSav (9/15), onoTf/o-ncnav (2/12),(4/3), ecu? (av) (6/l8), <i? (17), e'f ov/t£ OTov/a<p' ou, etc. (19), and

(26/58, of which 57 are with the infinitive). In the mock oracle of Av.

983 and in the 'law' of Av. 1355 «njv is an archaism; in Lys. 1175 it mustgive a solemn note to Lysistrata's words. The quasi-Hellenistic temporalconjunction <=f ore at Av. 3346 is unique and emendation may be neces-sary.178

4.9 . C O N C L U S I O N : S Y N T A X

To paint a coherent general picture for Aristophanes' syntax is more diffi-cult than for his phonology and morphology. Some syntactic features areintroduced for parodic purposes and can be discarded in our context(poetic plurals, omission of the definite article). Among the rest there areno features whose existence in spoken Attic is entirely implausible, but itis likely that the frequency of Ae'yw with the infinitive or of <i? as a substan-tivizing conjunction were furthered by metrical requirements (similarly u>;

in final clauses, omission of av with the subjunctive and potential opta-tive).

There is a series of characteristics that are more common in comedythan in other literary genres. These illustrate the colloquial layer inAristophanes' language (e.g. frequency of exclamatory genitives and

178 Cf. Dunbar (1995) 265; statistics after Sobolewski (1891) 120-57, wr>o furtherdiscusses the different types of temporal clauses.


exclamatory infinitives, frequency of paratactic structures, predominanceof wart + personal mode, imperatival independent oiro>?-clauses,second-person imperative, past indicative + av for habitual actions,gen. '(straight) to', inner accusatives with fi\f-nu>). None of these features,however, is necessarily recent.

The innovative features in Aristophanes' syntax (growing frequency oftransitive active perfects, /w'/Uaj + pres. inf.) are easily outnumbered by theconservative features in other areas (frequency of dual, strength of obliqueoptative, genitive of comparison rather than ij, retention of finalfrequency of causal ci? and absence of causal Sidn, absence of rk in indirectquestions). In the use of the dual, syntactic conservatism goes hand inhand with a certain Attic purism (cf. also particle usage, preference forOOTI? in 'defining' relative clauses).

5. GENERAL CONCLUSION

The preceding tour d'horizon of Aristophanic grammar has shown that thesame general tendencies prevail in all three classical areas of grammar:phonology, morphology, and syntax. Given that Aristophanes wasregarded as the comic author par excellence by the ancient grammariansand Atticists, it is not surprising that linguistic conservatism and dialectalpurism are the two most outstanding features of his language.

It is important to keep this in mind when searching, for instance, for thefirst symptoms of Koine-ized Greek. While it is true, as Lopez Eire hasshown,179 that some early evidence for later linguistic phenomena comesfrom the comedies of Aristophanes, these plays are also our first extensivesource of colloquial Attic, a linguistic stratum which must have con-tributed its share to the formation of Koine Greek. Since colloquial fea-tures are not necessarily innovative features, it would be wrong to concludethat Aristophanes' Attic is in any sense 'later' or more 'diluted' than thatof contemporary writers such as Euripides, Thucydides, or Lysias. In fact,most of our evidence, in the form of both grammatical material and ancientopinion, suggests the exact opposite.

Moreover, there is an anthropological point to this. More than any otherliterary genre in fifth-century Athens, comedy reflected, and contributedto construct, the local citizens' corporate identity. In this function OldComedy parallels carnivalesque genres in other cultures, where in-grouplanguage often enforces social cohesion.180 Aristophanes wrote as an

179 Lopez Eire (1986), esp. 249—57, and (1991). Lopez Eire does not always takeinto account how common a feature is in other sth-cent. literature.

180 Cf. Willi (20021!)) 112-25; personally I am most familiar with the Fasnacht (=carnival) in Basel (Switzerland) where satirical texts are composed in an extremelyconservative (but colloquial) version of the local dialect, which only very few

268 Appendix

Athenian, for Athenians, and on Athenian matters. Could there have been

a more suitable medium than the purest Athenian language?

speakers would use with similar 'purity' in other contexts (cf. Universitat Baselpress release of 19 April 2002, referring to research conducted by a team of studentsunder the direction of Prof. Heinrich Loffler).


References

Journals are abbreviated according to L'Annee Philologique. Editions andcommentaries of non-fragmentary ancient texts are cited under the nameof the modern editor and/or commentator.

AALTO, PENTTI (1953). Studien zur Geschichte des Infinitivs im Griechischen

(Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, 880.2). Helsinki.ADAMI, FRIEDRICH (1901). 'De poetis scaenicis Graecis hymnorum sacro-

rum imitatoribus'. Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie: Supplement-

Band, 26: 213-62.ADAMS, J. N. (1984). 'Female Speech in Latin Comedy'. Antichthon, 18:

43-77-AERTS, WILLEM JOHAN (1965). Periphrastica: An Investigation into the Use

of flvai and exeiv as Auxiliaries or Pseudo-Auxiliaries in Greek from Homerup to the Present Day. Amsterdam.

ALLEN, W. SIDNEY (1987). Vox Graeca: A Guide to the Pronunciation of

Classical Greek (3rd edn.). Cambridge.AMIGUES, SUZANNE (1977). Les subordonnees finales par 3-rrws en attiqueclas-

sique (Etudes et commentaires, 89). Paris.AMMANN, A. N. (1953). -i/co? bei Platan: Ableitung und Bedeutung mil

Materialsammlung. Freiburg/CH.

ANAGNOSTOPOULOS, G. P. (1925).

'Apiaroyavovs'. Athena, 36: I-6o.

ANDERSON, ANDREW RUNNI (1914). 'Studies in the ExclamatoryInfinitive'. CPh 9: 60-76.

ANDERSON, CARL A. (1995). Athena's Epithets: Their StructuralSignificance in Plays of Aristophanes (Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 67).Stuttgart and Leipzig.

ANGELI BERNARDINI, PAOLA (1967). 'Linguaggio e programma poetico inPindaro'. QUCC4: 80-97.

ARNOTT, W. GEOFFREY (20010). 'Some Orthographical Problems in thePapyri of Later Greek Comedy I: m>(t)ei> (along with Compounds andCongeners)'. ZPE 134: 43-51.

(20016). 'Some Orthographical Problems in the Papyri of LaterGreek Comedy II: -ei or -77(1) as the Ending of the Second PersonSingular Middle and Passive in the Present and Other Tenses of Verbsin -u)'. ZPE 135: 36-40.

ARNOTT, W. GEOFFREY (2002). 'Some Orthographical Variants in thePapyri of Later Greek Comedy", in Andreas Willi (ed.), The Language

of Greek Comedy. Oxford, 191-217.AUBRIOT-SEVIN, DANIELE (1992). Priere et conceptions religieuses en Grece

ancienne jusqu'd la fin du Ve siecle av. J.-C. (Collection de la Maison de1'Orient Mediterraneen, 22). Lyons.

AUSFELD, KARL (1903). 'De Graecorum precationibus quaestiones'.Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie: Supplement-Band, 28: 503-47.

AUSTIN, COLIN (1973). Review of Douglas M. MacDowell, Aristophanes:

Wasps (ed. with introd. and comm.: Oxford, 1971). CR, NS 23: 133-5.AUSTIN, J. L. (1962). How to do Things with Words: The William James

Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955 (ed. J. O. Urmson).Oxford.

BABLER, BALBINA (1998). Fleissige Thrakerinnen und wehrhafte Skythen:

Nichtgriechen im klassischen Athen und ihre archdologische Hinterlas-

senschaft (Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 108). Stuttgart and Leipzig.

BAIN, DAVID (1984). 'Female Speech in Menander'. Antichthon, 18: 24-42.(1991). 'Six Greek Verbs of Sexual Congress

. CQ, NS 41: 51-77.

BARKER, WILLEM FREDERIK (1966). The Greek Imperative: An Investiga-

tion into the Aspectual Differences between the Present and Aorist Impera-tives in Greek Prayer from Homer up to the Present Day. Amsterdam.

BARRETT, W. S. (1964). Euripides: Hippolytos (ed. with introd. andcomm.). Oxford.

BASSET, Louis (1979). Les emplois periphrastiques du verbe grec

Etude de linguistique grecque et essai de linguistique generate. Lyons.BAXTER, TIMOTHY M. S. (1992). The Cratylus: Plato's Critique of Naming

(Philosophia Antiqua, 58). Leiden, New York, and Cologne.BAYARD, L. (1920). 'Aristophane, Oiseaux, 1615—1616'. RPh, NS 44: 30.BENVENISTE, EMILE (1966). Problemes de linguistique generate, i. Paris.

(1969). Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-europeennes, ii: Pouvoir,

droit, religion (summaries, table, and index by Jean Lallot). Paris.BERS, VICTOR (1984). Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age (Yale

Classical Monographs, 5). New Haven and London.

BIBER, DOUGLAS (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge.(1994). 'An Analytical Framework for Register Studies', in Douglas

Biber and Edward Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on

Register. New York and Oxford, 31-56.

(I995)- Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-LinguisticComparison. Cambridge.

and FINEGAN, EDWARD (1989). 'Styles of Stance in English: Lexicaland Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect'. Text, 9/1:

93-I24-

272 References

(1994). 'Situating Register in Sociolinguistics', in DouglasBiber and Edward Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on

Register. New York and Oxford, 3-12.BILE, MONIQUE (1988). Le dialecte cretois ancien: Etude de la langue des

inscriptions, recueil des inscriptions posterieures aux 1C (Ecole francaised'Athenes: Etudes cretoises, 27). Paris.

BING, JANET M., and BERGVALL, VICTORIA L. (1996). 'The Question ofQuestions: Beyond Binary Thinking', in Victoria L. Bergvall, Janet M.Bing, and Alice F. Freed (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender

Research: Theory and Practice. London and New York, 1-30.BINNICK, ROBERT I. (1991). Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and

Aspect. New York and Oxford.BIRKLEIN, FRANZ (1888). Entwickelungsgeschichte des substantivierten

Infinitivs (Beitrage zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache,

3.1). Wiirzburg.BISHOP, CHARLES EDWARD (1899). 'The Greek Verbal in -reo'. AJPh 20:

i—2i, 121-38, 241-53.BJORCK, GUDMUND (1940). *Hv Si&daiaov: Die periphrastischen Konstruk-

tionen im Griechischen (Acta Societatis Litterarum Humaniorum RegiaeUpsaliensis, 32.2). Uppsala and Leipzig.

(1950). Das Alpha impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache: Attische

Wort- und Stilstudien (Acta Societatis Litterarum Humaniorum RegiaeUpsaliensis, 39.1). Uppsala, Wiesbaden, and Leipzig.

BLASS, FRIEDRICH, and DEBRUNNER, ALBERT (1979). Grammatik des neutesta-

mentlichen Griechisch (i$th edn.: rev. by Friedrich Rehkopf). Gottingen.BLASZCZAK, W. (1932). GdtteranrufungundBeteuerung: Untersuchungen zu

volkstiimlichen Ausdrucksformen in der griechischen Literatur. Diss.

Breslau.BLOK, JOSINE H. (2001). 'Virtual Voices: Toward a Choreography of

Women's Speech in Classical Athens', in Andre Lardinois and LauraMcClure (eds.), Making Silence Speak: Women's Voices in GreekLiterature and Society. Princeton and Oxford, 95-116.

BLOOMFIELD, LEONARD (1935). Language. London.BODINE, ANN (1975). 'Sex Differentiation in Language', in Barrie Thome

and Nancy Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance.

Rowley, Mass., 130-51.BOLLING, GEORGE MELVILLE (1935). Review of J. D. Denniston, The

Greek Particles (ist edn.: Oxford, 1934). Language, n: 260-2.BONANNO, MARIA GRAZIA (1983). 'Aristoph. fr. 198 K.

MCr 18: 61-70.BORKER, RUTH (1980). 'Anthropology: Social and Cultural Perspectives',

in Sally McConnell-Ginet, Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman (eds.),Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York, 26-44.

References 273

BORTHWICK, E. K. (1959). '/faraATji/ns: A Neglected Technical Term inGreek Music'. CQ, NS 9: 23-9.

BOWIE, ANGUS M. (1993). Aristophanes: Myth, Ritual and Comedy.Cambridge.

BRADLEY, JOHN (1998). 'Yanyuwa: "Men Speak One Way, Women SpeakAnother" ', in Jennifer Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader.Oxford and Maiden, Mass., 13-20.

BREGLIA, LUISA (2000). 'Ferecide di Siro tra orfici e pitagorici', in MarisaTortorelli Ghidini, Alfredina Storchi Marino, and Amedeo Visconti(eds.), Tra Orfeo e Pitagora: Origini e incontri di culture nell'antichita.

Naples, 161-94.BREMER, J. M. (1981). 'Greek Hymns', in H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope

and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World(Studies in Greek and Roman Religion, 2). Leiden, 193-215.

BREWER, J. S. (1861). Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, i. London.BRIXHE, CLAUDE (1976). Le dialecte grec de Pamphylie: Documents et gram-

maire. Paris.(1988). 'La langue de 1'etranger non grec chez Aristophane', in Raoul

Lonis (ed.), L'etranger dans le monde grec: Actes du colloque organise parI'Institut d'Etudes Anciennes. Nancy, 113-38.

BROWN, PENELOPE (1980). 'How and Why are Women More Polite: SomeEvidence from a Mayan Community', in Sally McConnell-Ginet, RuthBorker, and Nelly Furman (eds.), Women and Language in Literatureand Society. New York, 111-36.

and LEVINSON, STEPHEN C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universal inLanguage Usage (znd edn.: Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 4).Cambridge.

BRUCHMANN, C. F. H. (1893). Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas Graecosleguntur (Supplement of Ausfuhrliches Lexikon der griechischen undromischen Mythologie, ed. W. H. Roscher). Leipzig.

BRUNS, Ivo (1900). Frauenemancipation in Athen: Ein Beitrag zur attischenKulturgeschichte des funften und viertenjahrhunderts. Kiel.

BUCK, CARL DARLING (1955). The Greek Dialects: Grammar, SelectedInscriptions, Glossary. Chicago.

and PETERSEN, WALTER (1944). A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns andAdjectives Arranged by Terminations with Brief Historical Introductions.Chicago.

BURCKHARDT, AUGUST (1924). Spuren der athenischen Volksrede in der

alten Komodie. Diss. Basel.BURGUIERE, PAUL (1960). Histoire de I'infinitifen grec (Etudes et commen-

taires, 33). Paris.BURKERT, WALTER (1972). Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism

(trans. Edwin L. Minar, Jr.). Cambridge, Mass.

274

References

BURNET, JOHN (1924). Plato's Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates and Crito(ed. with notes). Oxford.

BUSSMANN, HADUMOD (1996). Routledge Dictionary of Language andLinguistics (trans, and ed. by Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi).London and New York.

BYL, SIMON (1981). 'Le vocabulaire de la metis dans les Nuees

d'Aristophane'. AC 50: 112-20.(1990). 'Le vocabulaire hippocratique dans les comedies

d'Aristophane et particulierement dans les deux dernieres'. RPh, 3rdser. 64: 151-62.

CALAME, CLAUDE (1995). 'Variations enonciatives, relations avec lesdieux et fonctions poetiques dans les Hymnes homeriques'. MH 52:2-19.

CAMACHO MAXIA, JESUS (1996). El lexico marinero en Aristofanes. Diss.Valencia.

CAMPAGNER, ROBERTO (2001). Lessico agonistico di Aristofane. Rome.CARTLEDGE, PAUL (1981). 'Spartan Wives: Liberation or Licence?'. CQ,

NS 31: 84-105.CASERTANO, GIOVANNI (2000). 'Orfismo e pitagorismo in Empedocle?', in

Marisa Tortorelli Ghidini, Alfredina Storchi Marino, and AmedeoVisconti (eds.), Tra Orfeo e Pitagora: Origini e incontri di culturenell'antichitd. Naples, 195-236.

CASSIO, ALBIO CESARE (1985). Commedia e partecipazione: La Pace diAristofane (Forme materiali e ideologic del mondo antico, 24). Naples.

CAVAIGNAC, E. (1959). 'Pythagore et Socrate (A propos d'Aristophane,Oiseaux, v. 1553-1564)'. RPh, 3rd ser. 33: 246-8.

CHAFE, WALLACE L. (1982). 'Integration and Involvement in Speaking,Writing, and Oral Literature', in Deborah Tannen (ed.), Spoken andWritten Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy (Advances inDiscourse Processes, 9). Norwood, NJ, 35-53.

CHAMBERS, J. K. (1992). 'Linguistic Correlates of Gender and Sex'.English World-Wide, 13/2: 173-218

and TRUDGILL, PETER (1998). Dialectology (2nd edn.). Cambridge.CHANTRAINE, PIERRE (1927). Histoire du parfait grec (Collection linguis-

tique, 21). Paris.(1933)- La formation des noms en grec ancien (Collection linguistique,

38). Paris.(1956). Etudes sur le vocabulaire grec (Etudes et commentaires, 24).

Paris.(1968-80). Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue grecque: Histoire des

mots. Paris.and MEILLET, ANTOINE (1932). '©e'aiva et les derives grecs en

RPh, 3rd ser. 6: 291-6.

References 275

CHESHIRE, JENNY (1978). 'Present Tense Verbs in Reading English', inPeter Trudgill (ed.), Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English. London,52-68.

CINGANO, ETTORE (1986). 'II valore dell'espressione UTO.OIS ^fXuiv inAristofane, Rane, v. 1281'. QUCC 53: 139-43.

CLASSEN, CARL JOACHIM (1959). 'The Study of Language amongstSocrates' Contemporaries'. PACA 2: 33-49; repr. in Carl JoachimClassen (ed.), Sophistik (Wege der Forschung, 187). Darmstadt, 1976,

215-47-CLAYMAN, DEE LESSER (1977). 'The Origins of Greek Literary Criticism

and the Aitia Prologue'. WS 90: 27-34.CLYNE, MICHAEL G. (1968). 'Zum Pidgin-Deutsch der Gastarbeiter'.

Zeitschrift fur Mundartforschung, 35: 130-9.COATES, JENNIFER (1986). Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic

Account of Sex Differences in Language. London and New York.(1988). 'Gossip Revisited: Language in All-Female Groups', in

Jennifer Coates and Deborah Cameron (eds.), Women in Their SpeechCommunities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex. London and NewYork, 94-122.

(1998). 'Part I: Gender Differences in Pronunciation and Grammar,Introduction', in Jennifer Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader.Oxford and Maiden, Mass., 7—11.

COLLINGE, N. E. (1962). 'Medical Terms and Clinical Attitudes in theTragedians'. BICS 9: 43-55.

COLVIN, STEPHEN (1999). Dialect in Aristophanes and the Politics ofLanguage in Ancient Greek Literature. Oxford.

(2000). 'The Language of Non-Athenians in Old Comedy', in DavidHarvey and John Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies inAthenian Old Comedy (with a foreword by Kenneth Dover). Londonand Swansea, 285-98.

CONTI BIZZARRO, FERRUCCio (1998). 'Sull'impiego di forme innichenella commedia greca', in Elsa Garcia Novo and Ignacio RodriguezAlfageme (eds.), Dramaturgia y puesta en escena en el teatro griego.Madrid, 251-8.

COOPER, III , GUY L. (1972). 'In Defense of the Special Dual FeminineForms of the Article and Pronouns rd, raw, ravra, ravraiv, KT\. in AtticGreek'. TAPhA 103: 97-125.

(1998). Attic Greek Prose Syntax, 2 vols. (after K. W. Kriiger). AnnArbor.

CORBATO, CARLO (1993). 'Alia ricerca di un linguaggio tecnico nella criticaletteraria greca', in Sergio Sconocchia and Lucio Toneatto (eds.),Lingue tecniche del greco e del latino: Atti del I" Seminario internazionale

sulla letteratura scientifica e tecnica greca e latina. Trieste, 123-7.

276 References

CORDER, S. P. (1975). 'The Language of Kehaar'. Work in Progress:Department of Linguistics (University of Edinburgh), 8: 41-52.

CORLU, ANDRE (1966). Recherches sur les mots relatifs a I'idee de priere,d'Homere aux Tragiques (Etudes et commentaires, 64). Paris.

COSERIU, EUGENIO (1975). 'Der periphrastische Verbalaspekt imAltgriechischen'. Glotta, 53: 1—25.

COSTA RAMALHO, AMERICO DA (1951). AarXa ovoâranoestilodeAristofanes.Coimbra.

COULON, VICTOR (1908). Quaestiones criticae in Aristophanis fabulas.

Strasbourg.CRESPO, EMILIO (1984). 'On the System of Substantive Clauses in Ancient

Greek'. Glotta, 62: 1-16.CRYSTAL, DAVID (1976). 'Nonsegmental Phonology in Religious

Modalities', in William J. Samarin (ed.), Language in Religious Practice.

Rowley, Mass., 17-25.and DAVY, DEREK (1969). Investigating English Style. London.

CUNY, ALBERT (1906). Le nombre duel en grec. Paris.DALE, A. M. (1950). 'Stasimon and Hyporcheme'. Eranos, 48: 14—20.DEBRUNNER, ALBERT (1917). Griechische Wortbildungslehre (Indoger-

manische Bibliothek, 8). Heidelberg.DEICHGRABER, KARL (1933). 'Hymnische Elemente in der philosophischen

Prosa der Vorsokratiker'. Philologus, 88: 347—61.DELAUNOIS, MARCEL (1988). Essai de syntaxe grecque classique: Reflexions

et recherches (Publications des Facultes Universitaires Saint-Louis, 44).Brussels and Louvain.

DEL CORNO, DARIO (1985). Aristofane: Le Rane (ed. with introd., trans.,and comm.). Milan.

(1997). 'La caratterizzazione dei personaggi di Aristofane attraversoi fatti di lingua e di stile', in Pascal Thiercy and Michel Menu (eds.),Aristophane: La langue, la scene, la cite. Bari, 243-51.

DENNISTON, J. D. (1927). 'Technical Terms in Aristophanes'. CQ 21:113-21.

(1950). The Greek Particles (2nd edn.: rev. by K. J. Dover). Oxford.(1952). Greek Prose Style. Oxford.

DEUBNER, LUDWIG (1941). 'Ololyge und Verwandtes'. Abhandlungen derPreussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historischeKlasse, i.

DICKEY, ELEANOR (1996). Greek Forms of Address from Herodotus to

Lucian. Oxford.DICKIE, MATTHEW W. (1976). 'On the Meaning of eyripepos'. ICS i:

7-14.DIETERICH, ALBRECHT (1893). 'Ueber eine Scene der aristophanischen

Wolken'. RhM, NS 48: 275-83.

Reference 2777

DIETRICH, WOLF (1973). 'Der periphrastische Verbalaspekt imGriechischen und Lateinischen'. Glotta, 51: 188-228.

Di MARCO, MASSIMO (1987). "Epeflo&i.<fwaiv: paronimia e lusus osceno inAristoph. Nub. 192 sg.'. QUCC 55: 55-8.

DITTMAR, WOLFGANG (1933). Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Aristophanesund Menander (Diss. Leipzig). Weida in Thiiringen.

DODDS, E. R. (1951). The Greeks and the Irrational (Sather ClassicalLectures, 25). Berkeley and Los Angeles.

DOVER, KENNETH J. (1963). Review of Charles Guiraud, La phrase nomi-nate en grec d'Homere a Euripide (Paris, 1962). CR, NS 13: 307-9; repr.in Dover (1987) 70-2.

(1968). Aristophanes: Clouds (ed. with introd. and comm.).Oxford.

(1970). 'Lo stile di Aristofane'. QUCC 9: 7-23; Eng. trans, in Dover(1987) 224-36.

(1972). Aristophanic Comedy. Berkeley and Los Angeles.(1976). 'Linguaggioecaratteri Aristofanei'. RCCM 18: 357-71; Eng.

trans, in Dover (1987) 237-48.(1981). 'The Language of Classical Attic Documentary Inscriptions'.

TPhS 1-14; repr. in Dover (1987) 31-41.(1987). Greek and the Greeks: Collected Papers, i: Language, Poetry,

Drama. Oxford and New York.(1993). Aristophanes: Frogs (ed. with introd. and comm.). Oxford.(1997). The Evolution of Greek Prose Style. Oxford.(2002). 'Some Evaluative Terms in Aristophanes', in Andreas Willi

(ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy. Oxford, 85-97.DUHOUX, YVES (1987). 'Le vocalisme des inscriptions attiques: Une ques-

tion de methodes'. Verbum, 10: 179-98.(1997). 'Grec ecrit et grec parle: Une etude contrastive des particules

aux Ve-IVe siecles', in Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), New Approaches to

Greek Particles: Proceedings of the Colloquium Held in Amsterdam,January 4—6, 1996, to Honour C. J. Ruijgh on the Occasion of his

Retirement (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, 7). Amsterdam,15-48.

(2000). Le verbe grec ancien: Elements de morphologie et de syntaxe his-toriques (2nd edn.: Bibliotheque des Cahiers de 1'Institut deLinguistique de Louvain, 104). Louvain-la-Neuve.

DUNBAR, NAN (1995). Aristophanes: Birds (ed. with introd. and comm.).Oxford.

DURANTI, ALESSANDRO (1985). 'Sociocultural Dimensions of Discourse',in Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, i: Disciplines

of Discourse. London, 193-230.(1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge.

278 References

ECKERT, PENELOPE (1998). 'Gender and Sociolinguistic Variation', inJennifer Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford andMaiden, Mass., 64-75.

and McCoNNELL-GiNET, SALLY (1992). 'Think Practically and LookLocally: Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice'. AnnualReview of Anthropology, 21: 461-90.

EHRENBERG, VICTOR (1962). The People of Aristophanes: A Sociology of OldAttic Comedy (3rd edn.). New York.

ELLENDT, FRIEDRICH, and GENTHE, HERMANN (1872). Lexicon Sophocleumadhibitis veterum interpretum explicationibus, grammaticorum notatio-nibus, recentiorum doctorum commentaries (and edn.). Berlin.

FANTHAM, ELAINE, FOLEY, HELENE P., KAMPEN, NATALIE B., POMEROY,SARAH B., and SHAPIRO, H. A. (1994). Women in the Classical World:Image and Text. New York and Oxford.

FEHLING, Detlev (1969). Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch vor

Gorgias. Berlin.FERGUSON, CHARLES A. (1964). 'Baby Talk in Six Languages'. American

Anthropologist, 66/2: 103-14.(1971). 'Absence of Copula and the Notion of Simplicity: A Study of

Normal Speech, Baby Talk, Foreigner Talk, and Pidgins', in Dell Hymes(ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages: Proceedings of aConference Held at the University of the West Indies. Cambridge, 141-50.

(1973). 'Some Forms of Religious Discourse'. International Yearbookfor the Sociology of Religion, 8: 224-35.

(1975). 'Toward a Characterization of English Foreigner Talk'.Anthropological Linguistics, 17: 1-14.

(1981). 'Foreigner Talk as the Name of a Simplified Register', inMichael G. Clyne (ed.), Foreigner Talk (International Journal of theSociology of Language, 28). The Hague, Paris, and New York, 9-18.

(1986). 'The Study of Religious Discourse', in Deborah Tannen andJames E. Alatis (eds.), Languages and Linguistics: The Interdependence ofTheory, Data, and Application (Georgetown University Round Tableon Languages and Linguistics, 1985). Washington DC, 205-13.

(1994). 'Dialect, Register, and Genre: Working Assumptions aboutConventionalization', in Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan (eds.),Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. New York and Oxford, 15-30.

and DEBOSE, CHARLES E. (1977). 'Simplified Registers, BrokenLanguage, and Pidginization', in Albert Valdman (ed.), Pidgin andCreole Linguistics. Bloomington, Ind. and London, 99-125.

FERGUSON, JOHN (1971). 'Afros'. Phronesis, 16: 97-115.(i979)- 'Abos in Aristophanes and Euripides'. CJ 74: 356-9.

FERRANTE, DOMENICO (1965). 'Immagini etimologiche nei poeti grecidell'eta ionico-attica'. Rendiconti dell'Istituto Lombardo, 99: 453-89.

References 279

FLANNERY, REGINA (1946). 'Men's and Women's Speech in Gros Ventre'.International Journal of American Linguistics, 12: 133-5.

FLUCK, HANS-R. (1996). Fachsprachen: Einfuhrung und Bibliographie (sthedn.). Tubingen and Basel.

FOLEY, HELENE P. (1981). 'The Concept of Women in Athenian Drama',in Helene P. Foley (ed.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity. New York,127-68.

(1982). 'The "Female Intruder" Reconsidered: Women inAristophanes' Lysistrata and Ecclesiazusae'. CPh 77: 1-21.

(1988). 'Tragedy and Politics in Aristophanes' Acharnians'. JHS108: 33-47; repr. in Erich Segal (ed.), Oxford Readings in Aristophanes.Oxford and New York, 1996, 117-42.

FORTH, GREGORY (1988). 'Fashioned Speech, Full Communication:Aspects of Eastern Sumbanese Ritual Language', in James J. Fox (ed.),To Speak in Pairs: Essays on the Ritual Languages of Eastern Indonesia.Cambridge, 129-60.

FOURNIER, H. (1946). Les verbes 'dire' en grec ancien (Collection linguis-tique, 51). Paris.

FRAENKEL, EDUARD (1955). 'Neues Griechisch in Graffiti'. Glotta, 34: 42-7.(1962). Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes. Rome.(r977). Due seminari romani di Eduard Fraenkel: Aiace e Filottete di

Sofocle (ed. by some participants, preface by L. E. Rossi; SussiEruditi, 28). Rome.

FRAENKEL, ERNST (1906). Griechische Denominativa in ihrer geschichtlicheEntwicklung und Verbreitung. Gottingen.

FRAZER, JAMES GEORGE (1900). 'A Suggestion as to the Origin of Genderin Language'. Fortnightly Review, 73: 79-90.

FREUNDLICH, RAPHAEL (1987). Verbalsubstantive als Namen furSatzinhalte in der Sprache des Thukydides: Bin Beitrag zu einerGrammatik der Nominalisierungen im Griechischen (Beitrage zur klassi-schen Philologie, 152). Frankfurt a. M.

FRIEDRICH, JOHANNES (1918). 'Das Attische im Munde von Auslandernbei Aristophanes'. Philologus, 75: 274-303.

FRISCH, HARTVIG (1942). The Constitution of the Athenians: A Philological-Historical Analysis of Pseudo-Xenofon's Treatise De Re PublicaAtheniensium. Copenhagen.

FUNGHI, MARIA SERENA (1997). 'The Derveni Papyrus', in Andre Laks andGlenn W. Most (eds.), Studies on the Derveni Papyrus. Oxford, 25-37.

FURLEY, WILLIAM D. (1995). 'Praise and Persuasion in Greek Hymns'.^5115:29-46.

and BREMER, JAN MAARTEN (2001). Greek Hymns, \: The Texts inTranslation, ii: Greek Texts and Commentary (Studien und Texte zuAntike und Christentum, 9/10). Tubingen.

z8o References

GAL, SUSAN (1978). 'Peasant Men Can't Get Wives: Language Changeand Sex Roles in a Bilingual Community'. Language in Society, 7:1-16.

(1991)- 'Between Speech and Silence: The Problematics of Researchon Language and Gender', in Micaela Di Leonardo (ed.), Gender at the

Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era.Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 175-203.

GARTNER, HANS (1990). 'Demetriana varia'. Hermes, 118: 213-36.GELZER, THOMAS (1956). 'Aristophanes und sein Sokrates'. MH 13:

65-93-(1960). Der epirrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes: Untersuchungen

zur Stmktur der attischen alien Komodie (Zetemata, 23). Munich.

GIGANTE, MARCELLO (1969). 'II ritorno del medico straniero'. PP 24:302-7.

GIL, Luis, and RODRIGUEZ ALFAGEME, IGNACIO (1972). 'La figura delmedico en la comedia atica'. CFC 3: 35-91.

GILLELAND, MICHAEL E. (1980). 'Female Speech in Greek and Latin'.AJPh 101: 180-3.

GIVON, TALMY (1979). 'From Discourse to Syntax: Grammar asa Processing Strategy', in Talmy Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics,

12: Discourse and Syntax. New York, San Francisco, and London,81-112.

GLADIGOW, BURKHARD (1968). 'Thales und der SiajSip-^'. Hermes, 96:264-75.

GOLDBERG, SANDER M. (1976). 'A Note on Aristophanes' ypoi>Ti<mjpioi>'.CPh, 71:254-6.

GOLDEN, MARK (1995). 'Baby Talk and Child Language in AncientGreece', in Francesco De Martino and Alan H. Sommerstein (eds.), Lo

spettacolo delle voci. Bari, ii. 11—34.GOMME, A. W., and SANDBACH, F. H. (1973). Menander: A Commentary.

Oxford.GOMPERZ, H. (1924). 'Die sokratische Frage als geschichtliches Problem'.

Historische Zeitschrift, 3rd ser. 33: 377-423.GONDA, J. (1956). The Character of the Indo-European Moods with Special

Regard to Greek and Sanskrit. Wiesbaden.GOODWIN, MARJORIE HARNESS (1980). 'Directive-Response Speech

Sequences in Girls' and Boys' Task Activities', in Sally McConnell-

Ginet, Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman (eds.), Women and Language in

Literature and Society. New York, 157-73.GOODWIN, WILLIAM WATSON (1897). Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the

Greek Verb (enlarged edn.). London.GOSSEN, GARY H. (1976). 'Language as Ritual Substance', in William J.

Samarin (ed.), Language in Religious Practice. Rowley, Mass., 40-60.

References 281

GOULD, JOHN (1980). 'Law, Custom and Myth: Aspects of the SocialPosition of Women in Classical Athens'. jfHS i oo: 38-59; repr. in JohnGould, Myth, Ritual Memory, and Exchange: Essays in Greek Literature

and Culture. Oxford, 2001, 112-57.GRAF, FRITZ (1991). 'Prayer in Magic and Religious Ritual', in

Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera: AncientGreek Magic and Religion. New York and Oxford, 188-213.

GROTE, GEORGE (1847). History of Greece, iv. London.GRUBE, G. M. A. (1965). The Greek and Roman Critics. London.GuiDORlZZl, GIULIO (1996). Aristofane: Le Nuvole (ed. with comm.;

introd. and trans, by Dario Del Corno). Milan.GUIRAUD, CHARLES (1962). La phrase nominate engrec d'Homere a Euripide

(Etudes et commentaires, 42). Paris.GUTHRIE, W. K. C. (1935). Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the

Orphic Movement. London.HAAS, MARY R. (1944). 'Men's and Women's Speech in Koasati".

Language, 20: 142-9.HAHN, WALTHER VON (1981). 'Einfiihrung: Zur Forschungsgeschichte', in

Walther von Hahn (ed.), Fachsprachen. Darmstadt, 1-14.HALDANE, J. A. (1965). 'A Scene in the Thesmophoriazusae (295-371)'.

Philologus, 109: 39-46.HALE, WILLIAM GARDNER (1893). ' "Extended" and "Remote"

Deliberatives in Greek". TAPhA 24: 156-205.HALL, EDITH M. (1989). 'The Archer Scene in Aristophanes'

Thesmophoriazusae'. Philologus, 133: 38-54.(1998). 'Ithyphallic Males Behaving Badly; or, Satyr Drama as

Gendered Tragic Ending', in Maria Wyke (ed.), Parchments of Gender:Deciphering the Bodies of Antiquity. Oxford, 13-37.

HALL, F. W., and GELDART, W. M. (1906). Aristophanis Comoediae, i:Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes, Vespae, Pax, Aves (ed. with critical appa-ratus; 2nd edn.). Oxford.

(1907). Aristophanis Comoediae, ii: Lysistrata, Thesmophoria-

zusae, Ranae, Ecclesiazusae, Plutus, Fragmenta, Index nominum (ed. withcritical apparatus). Oxford.

HALLIWELL, STEPHEN (1990). 'The Sounds of the Voice in Old Comedy',in E. M. Craik (ed.), 'Owls to Athens': Essays on Classical SubjectsPresented to Sir Kenneth Dover. Oxford, 69-79.

HANCOCK, IAN F. (1977). 'Recovering Pidgin Genesis: Approaches andProblems', in Albert Valdman (ed.), Pidgin and Creole Linguistics.Bloomington, Ind. and London, 277-94.

HANDLEY, ERIC W. (1953). '-sis Nouns in Aristophanes'. Eranos, 51: 129-42.(1956). 'Words for "Soul", "Heart" and "Mind" in Aristophanes'.

RhM, NS 99: 205-25.

282 References

HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN (1991). The Athenian Democracy in the Age of

Demosthenes: Structure, Principles, and Ideology. Oxford and

Cambridge, Mass.HARDING, SUSAN (1975). 'Women and Words in a Spanish Village', in

Rayna R. Reiter (ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women. New Yorkand London, 283-308.

HARRIOTT, ROSEMARY (1969). Poetry and Criticism before Plato. London.HARRIS, WILLIAM V. (1989). Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, Mass, and

London.HARRISON, A. R. W. (1968). The Lam of Athens, i: The Family and

Property. Oxford.(1971). The Law of Athens, ii: Procedure. Oxford.

HARRISON, E. (1942). 'Attic ij and fy, "I Was" '. CR 56: 6-9.HASSE, ERNST (1891). Ueber den Dual bei den attischen Dramatikern.

Programm Bartenstein.

HAURI, HANS WALTER (1975). Kontrahiertes und sigmatisches Futur:

Einflusse von Lautstruktur und Aktionsart auf die Bildung des griechiscken

Futurs (Zeitschriftfur Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, Erganzungsheft24). Gottingen.

HAVELOCK, ERIC A. (1972). 'The Socratic Self as it is Parodied inAristophanes' Clouds'. YCS 22: 1-18.

HEADLAM, WALTER (1922). Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments (ed. A. D.Knox). Cambridge.

HELLER, KLAUS (1981). 'Der Wortschatz unter dem Aspekt desFachwortes: Versuch einer Systematik', in Walther von Hahn (ed.),Fachsprachen. Darmstadt, 218-38; repr. from WissenschaftlicheZeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universitat Leipzig, Gesellschafts- und

Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 19, 1970, 531-44.HEMBERG, BENGT (1955). Îraf, araoaa und ara«? als Gotternamen unter

besonderer Beriicksichtigung der attischen Kulte. Uppsala and Wiesbaden.HENDERSON, JEFFREY (1987). Aristophanes: Lysistrata (ed. with introd. and

comm.). Oxford.(1991). The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy (2nd

edn.). New York and Oxford.(2000). 'Pherekrates and the Women of Old Comedy', in David

Harvey and John Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in

Athenian Old Comedy (with a foreword by Kenneth Dover). Londonand Swansea, 135-50.

HENRICHS, ALBERT (19760). 'Despoina Kybele: Ein Beitrag zur religiosenNamenkunde'. HSPh 80: 253-86.

(19766). 'The Atheism of Prodicus'. Cronache Ercolanesi, 6: 15-21.HIERSCHE, ROLF (1970). Gmndsuge der griechischen Sprachgeschichte bis

zur klassischen Zeit. Wiesbaden.

References 283

HILL, JANE H. (1987). 'Women's Speech in Modern Mexicano', in SusanU. Philips, Susan Steele, and Christine Tanz (eds.), Language, Gender,and Sex in Comparative Perspective (Studies in the Social and CulturalFoundations of Language, 4). Cambridge, 121-60.

HINNENKAMP, VOLKER (1982). Foreigner Talk und Tarzanisch: Eine ver-gleichende Studie iiber die Sprechweise gegenuber Auslandern am Beispieldes Deutschen und des Turkischen. Hamburg.

HOFFMANN, LOTHAR (1985). Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache: EineEinfuhrung (2nd edn.: Forum fiir Fachsprachen-Forschung, i).Tubingen.

(1986). 'Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede in den Fachsprachen'.Zeitschrift fiir Germanistik, 7: 459—67.

HOFFMANN, O., DEBRUNNER, A., and SCHERER, A. (1969). Geschichte der

griechischen Sprache, i: Bis sum Ausgang der klassischen Zeit (4th edn.).Berlin.

HOLMES, DAVID H. (1895). Index Lysiacus. Bonn; repr. Amsterdam, 1962.HOLMES, JANET (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London and New

York.(1998). 'Women's Talk: The Question of Sociolinguistic Universals',

in Jennifer Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford andMaiden, Mass., 461-83.

HOLMQUIST, JONATHAN C. (1985). 'Social Correlates of a LinguisticVariable: A Study in a Spanish Village'. Language in Society, 14:191-203.

HOLT, JENS (1941). Les noms d'action en -at; (-TIS): Etudes de linguistiquegrecque (Acta Jutlandica, 13.1). Aarhus and Copenhagen.

HORN, WILHELM (1970). Gebet und Gebetsparodie in den Komodien desAristophanes (Erlanger Beitrage zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft,38). Nuremberg.

HORROCKS, GEOFFREY (1997). Greek: A History of the Language and itsSpeakers. London and New York.

HUART, PIERRE (1973). rw>/«j chez Thucydide et ses contemporains(Sophocle—Euripide—Antiphon—Andocide—Aristophane ): Contribu-tion a I'histoire des idees a Athenes dans la seconde moitie du V" siecle av.J.-C. (Etudes et commentaires, 81). Paris.

HUDSON, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics (2nd edn.). Cambridge.HUMBERT, JEAN (1930). La disparition du datif en grec (du I" au Xe siecle)

(Collection linguistique, 33). Paris.(1960). Syntaxe grecque (3rd edn.: Collection de philologie classique,

2). Paris.HUNTER, VIRGINIA J. (1994). Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic

Lawsuits, 420-320 B.C. Princeton.IMPERO, OLIMPIA (1998). 'La figura dell'intellettuale nella commedia

284 References

greca', in Anna Maria Belardinelli, Olimpia Impero, GiuseppeMastromarco, Matteo Pelegrino, and Piero Totaro, Tessere. Frammenti

della commedia greca: Studi e commenti. Bari, 43-130.JACOB, OSCAR (1928). Les esclavespublics a Athenes. Liege and Paris.JAMES, DEBORAH (1996). 'Women, Men, and Prestige Speech Forms: A

Critical Review', in Victoria L. Bergvall, Janet M. Bing, and Alice F.Freed (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and

Practice. London and New York, 98-125.JANKO, RICHARD (1997). 'The Physicist as Hierophant: Aristophanes,

Socrates and the Authorship of the Derveni Papyrus'. ZPE 118: 61-94.JANNARIS, A. N. (1897). An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic

Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity down to the

Present Time Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and

Present Popular Greek. London.JANSSENS, EMILE (1952). 'Les etrangers cornme element comique dans les

comedies d'Aristophane', in Melanges Georges Smets. Brussels, 455-60.JESPERSEN, OTTO (1922). Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin.

London.JOCELYN, H. D. (1980). 'A Greek Indecency and its Students: AaiKa£ei»'.

PCPhS,NS2b: 12-66.JOHNSON, FERN L., and ARIES, ELIZABETH J. (1983). 'The Talk of Women

Friends'. Women's Studies International Forum, 6: 353-61.JOUANNA, JACQUES (1992). Hippocrate. Paris.

(2000). 'Maladies et medecine chez Aristophane', in Le theatre grec

antique: La comedie, Actes du io'me colloque de la Villa Kerylos. Paris,

171-95-JUST, ROGER (1989). Women in Athenian Law and Life. London and New

York.KAIMIO, MAARIT (1970). The Chorus of Greek Drama within the Light of the

Person and Number Used (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum,46). Helsinki.

KALEN, TURE (1941). Selbstandige Finalsatze und imperativische Infinitive

im Griechischen (Acta Societatis Litterarum Humaniorum RegiaeUpsaliensis, 34.2). Uppsala and Leipzig.

KALLENBERG, H. (1925). 'Bausteine fiir eine historische Grammatik dergriechischen Sprache'. RhM, NS 74: 64-114.

KAPPEL, LUTZ (1992). Paian: Studien zur Geschichte einer Gattung

(Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, 37). Berlin andNew York.

KATSOURIS, ANDREAS G. (1975). Linguistic and Stylistic Characterization:

Tragedy and Menander (Dodone Supplement, 5). loannina.KENT, ROLAND G. (1950). Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New

Haven, Conn.

References 285

KERFERD, GEORGE B. (1985). 'Gorgias and Empedocles', in LucianoMontoneri and Francesco Romano (eds.), Gorgia e la Sofistica: Atti del

Convegno Internazionale (Siculorum Gymnasium, NS 38). Catania and

Lentini, 595-605.KEYSSNER, KARL (1932). Gottesvorstellung und Lebensauffassung im

griechischen Hymnus (Wiirzburger Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft,2). Stuttgart.

KIECKERS, E. (1909). 'Zum Gebrauch des Imperativus Aoristi undPraesentis'. IF 24: 10-17.

KINDSTRAND, JAN pREDRlK (1981). Anacharsis: The Legend and the

Apophthegmata (Studia Graeca Upsaliensia, 16). Uppsala.KINGSLEY, PETER (1995). Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic:

Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition. Oxford.KIPARSKY, PAUL (1968). 'Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax'.

Foundations of Language, 4: 30-57.KLEINKNECHT, HERMANN (1937). Die Gebetsparodie in der Antike (Tiibinger

Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft, 28). Stuttgart and Berlin.

(J939)- 'Die Epiphanie des Demos in Aristophanes' Rittern'. Hermes,

74: 58-65.KLOSS, GERRIT (2001). Erscheinungsformen komischen Sprechens bei

Aristophanes (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte,59). Berlin and New York.

(2002). 'Sprachverwendung und Gruppenzugehorigkeit als Themader Alien Komodie', in Andrea Ercolani (ed.), Spoudaiogeloion: Formund Funktion der Verspottung in der aristophanischen Komodie (Drama,11). Stuttgart and Weimar, 71-88.

KONTOS, KONSTANTINOS S. (1898). '*iAoAoyiKai 7rapcm)pJ)aeis'. Athena, IO:

261-324.

KRANZ, WALTHER (1919). 'Die Urform der attischen Tragodie undKomodie'. Neue Jahrbucherfur das klassische Altertum, 43: 145-68.

KRETSCHMER, PAUL (1888). 'Uber den Dialekt der attischen

Vaseninschriften'. KZ 29: 381-483.(1894). Die Griechischen Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach unter-

sucht. Giitersloh.(1909). 'Zur Geschichte der griechischen Dialekte'. Glotta, i: 9-59.(1919). 'Der griechische Imperativus Aoristi Activi auf -aov. Glotta,

10: 112—22.KRIETER-SPIRO, MARTHA (1997). Sklaven, Koche und Hetdren: Das

Dienstpersonal bei Menander. Stellung, Rolle, Komik und Sprache

(Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 93). Stuttgart.KRUGER, K. W. (1879). Griechische Sprachlehre fur Schulen, ii: Ueber die

Dialekte, vorsugsweise den epischen und ionischen, i: Formenlehre (sthedn. by W. Pokel). Leipzig.

286 References

References 287

KUDLIEN, FRIDOLF (1971). 'Hippokrateszitate in der altgriechischenKomodie?'. Episteme, 5: 279-84.

KUHLMANN, PETER (1997/98). '£fc als Indefinitpronomen im Griechischenin diachroner Sicht'. Glotta, 74: 76-93.

KUHNER, RAPHAEL, and GERTH, BERNHARD (1898/1904). AusfiihrlicheGrammatik der griechischen Sprache, ii/i-2: Satzlehre (3rd edn.).Hanover and Leipzig.

KURZOVA, HELENA (1968). Zur syntaktischen Struktur des griechischenInfinitiv und Nebensatz. Amsterdam and Prague.

LABOV, WILLIAM (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia.(1990). 'The Intersection of Sex and Social Class in the Course of

Linguistic Change'. Language Variation and Change, 2: 205-54.LAKOFF, ROBIN (1973). 'Language and Woman's Place'. Language in

Society, 2: 45-79-LANATA, GIULIANA (1963). Poetica pre-platonica: Testimonianze e fram-

menti, testo, traduzione e commento. Florence.(1968). 'Linguaggio scientifico e linguaggio poetico: Note al lessico

del "de morbo sacro" '. QUCC 5: 22-36.LANGHOLF, VOLKER (1990). Medical Theories in Hippocrates: Early Texts

and the 'Epidemics' (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur undGeschichte, 34). Berlin and New York.

LANGSLOW, DAVID R. (1999). 'The Language of Poetry and the Languageof Science: The Latin Poets and "Medical" Latin', in J. N. Adams andR. G. Mayer (eds.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry (Proceedingsof the British Academy, 93). Oxford, 183-225.

(2000). Medical Latin in the Roman Empire. Oxford.LANZA, DIEGO (1979). Lingua e discorso nell'Atene delleprofessioni. Naples.LARDINOIS, ANDRE (2001). 'Keening Sappho: Female Speech Genres in

Sappho's Poetry', in Andre Lardinois and Laura McClure (eds.),Making Silence Speak: Women's Voices in Greek Literature and Society.Princeton and Oxford, 75-92.

LA ROCHE, J. (1893). Beitrage zur griechischen Grammatik, i. Leipzig.LASSERRE, FRANCOIS (1983). 'Sociolectes hippocratiques dans le traite Des

lieux dans I'homme', in Francois Lasserre and Philippe Mudry (eds.),Formes de pensee dans la collection hippocratique: Actes du IVe collogueinternational hippocratique. Geneva, 163-72.

LASSO DE LA VEGA, JOSE SANCHEZ (1952). 'Sobre la oracion nominal enatico'. Emerita, 20: 308-36.

LATTKE, MICHAEL (1991). Hymnus: Materialien zu einer Geschichte derantiken Hymnologie (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, 19).Freiburg and Gottingen.

LAUTENSACH, O. (1896). Grammatische Studien zu den griechischenTragikern und Komikern, i: Personalendungen. Programm Gotha.

288 References

LAUTENSACH, O. (1899). Grammatische Studien zu den griechischen Tragikernund Komikern: Augment und Reduplikation. Hanover and Leipzig.

(1911)- Die Aoriste bei den attischen Tragikern und Komikern(Forschungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik, i).Gottingen.

(1916). 'Grammatische Studien zu den attischen Tragikern undKomikern: Konjunktiv und Optativ'. Glotta, 7: 92-116.

(1917). 'Grammatische Studien zu den attischen Tragikern undKomikern: Optativ [und Imperativ]'. Glotta, 8: 168-96.

(1918). 'Grammatische Studien zu den attischen Tragikern undKomikern [Imperativ: Nachtrag]'. Glotta, 9: 69-94.

-(1921). 'Grammatische Studien zu den attischen Tragikern undKomikern: Infinitive und Partizipien'. Philologus, 77: 46-76, 228-55.

LEHMANN, CHRISTIAN (1982). 'Nominalisierung: Typisierung vonPropositionen", in Hansjakob Seiler and Christian Lehmann (eds.),Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenstdnden, i: Bereich undOrdnung der Phdnomene. Tubingen, 66-83.

LENDLE, OTTO (1957). Die 'Pandorasage' bei Hesiod: Textkritische undmotivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Wiirzburg.

LEUMANN, MANU (1945). 'Unregelmassige griechische Steigerungs-formen'. MH2: 1-14; repr. in Manu Leumann, Kleine Schriften. Zurichand Stuttgart, 1959, 214—29.

('953)- ' "Aoristi mixti" und Imperative vom Futurstamm imGriechischen'. Glotta, 32: 204-13; repr. in Manu Leumann, KleineSchriften. Zurich and Stuttgart, 1959, 234-41.

LLOYD, G. E. R. (1979). Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in theOrigin and Development of Greek Science. Cambridge.

(1983). Science, Folklore and Ideology: Studies in the Life Sciences inAncient Greece. Cambridge.

LONG, A. A. (1968). Language and Thought in Sophocles: A Study ofAbstract Nouns and Poetic Technique. London.

LONG, TIMOTHY (1986). Barbarians in Greek Comedy. Carbondale andEdwardsville.

L6PEZ EIRE, ANTONIO (1986). 'La lengua de la comedia aristofanica'.Emerita, 54: 237-74.

(1991)- Atico, koine y aticismo: Estudios sobre Aristofanes y Libanio.Murcia.

(1993). 'De 1'attique a la koine", in Claude Brixhe (ed.), La koinegrecque antique, i: Une langue introuvable? (Etudes anciennes, 10).Nancy, 41-57.

(19960). La lengua coloquial de la Comedia aristofanica. Murcia.(19966). 'L'influence de 1'ionien-attique sur les autres dialectes

epigraphiques et 1'origine de la koine', in Claude Brixhe (ed.), La koine

References 289

grecque antique, ii: La concurrence (Etudes anciennes, 14). Nancy andParis, 7-42.

(1997). 'A propos de 1'attique familier de la comedie aristophani-enne', in Pascal Thiercy and Michel Menu (eds.), Aristophane: Lalangue, la scene, la cite. Bari, 189-212.

(1998). 'Sobre el atico coloquial de la comedia aristofanica', in JuanAntonio Lopez Ferez (ed.), La comedia griega y su influencia en la liter-

atura espanola (Estudios de filologia griega, 3). Madrid, 137-75.LOPEZ-GARCIA, EUGENIA (19980). 'Aspects of Colloquial Syntax in

Aristophanes: Levels of Language, Characterization and LanguageChange'. Cambridge M.Phil, thesis.

(19986). 'Indirect and "Less than Literal" Expressions in Comedy'.Cambridge M.Phil, thesis.

LORAUX, NICOLE (1993). The Children of Athena: Athenian Ideas about

Citizenship and the Division between the Sexes (trans. Caroline Levine,foreword by Froma I. Zeitlin). Princeton.

LOTTICH, OTTO (1881). De sermone vulgari Atticorum maxime ex

Aristophanis fabulis cognoscendo. Diss. Halle.

LUCAS, D. W. (1968). Aristotle: Poetics (ed. with introd., comm., andappendixes). Oxford.

LUPA$, LIANA (1972). Phonologie du grec attique (lanua Linguarum, 164).The Hague and Paris.

MACAULAY, RONALD K. S. (1978). 'The Myth of Female Superiority inLanguage'. Journal of Child Language, 5: 353-63.

McCLURE, LAURA (1995). 'Female Speech and Characterization inEuripides', in Francesco De Martino and Alan H. Sommerstein (eds.),Lo spettacolo delle voci, Bari, ii. 35-60.

(1999). Spoken like a Woman: Speech and Gender in Athenian Drama.

Princeton.MACCOBY, ELEANOR EMMONS, and JACKLIN, CAROL NAGY (1975). The

Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford, Calif, and London.MAC Do WELL, DOUGLAS M. (1971). Aristophanes: Wasps (ed. with introd.

and comm.). Oxford.(1978). The Law in Classical Athens. London.(1990). Demosthenes: Against Meidias (Oration 21) (ed. with introd.,

trans., and comm.). Oxford.(1995). Aristophanes and Athens: An Introduction to the Plays.

Oxford.McKAY, K. L. (1965). 'The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect down to the

Second Century A.D.'. BICS 12: 1-21.MALINOWSKI, BRONISLAW (1923). 'The Problem of Meaning in Primitive

Languages', in C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The Meaning of

Meaning.- A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the

290 References

Science of Symbolism (with introd. by J. P. Postgate and supplementaryessays by B. Malinowski and F. G. Crookshank). London and NewYork, 451-510 (loth edn.: London, 1949, 296-336).

MARIANETTI, MARIE C. (1992). Religion and Politics in Aristophanes'Clouds (Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien, 24).Hildesheim, Zurich, and New York.

MARTIN, ALAIN, and PRIMAVESI, OLIVER (1999). L'Empedocle deStrasbourg (P. Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665-1666) (introd., ed., and comm.).Strasbourg, Berlin, and New York.

MARTIN DE LUCAS, ISABEL (1996). 'Los demonstratives con -icpidictica enAristofanes'. Emerita, 64: 157-71.

MARZULLO, BENEDETTO (1953). 'Strepsiade'. Maia, 6: 99-124.(!973)- 'Aristophanes, Nub. 652-4'. Philologus, 117: 130-3.

MASTRONARDE, DONALD J. (1989). 'Lautensach's Law and the Augment ofCompound-Verbs in eu-'. Glotta, 67: 101-5.

MAWET, FRANCINE (1983). 'La formation nominale dans VAssemblee desFemmes d'Aristophane'. Glotta, 61: 182-92.

MAYRHOFER, MANFRED (1989). 'Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen;Uriranisch', in Riidiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium LinguarumIranicarum. Wiesbaden, 4-24.

MEIER-BRUGGER, MICHAEL (1992). Griechische Sprachwissenschaft, i:Bibliographic, Einleitung, Syntax. Berlin and New York.

MEILLET, ANTOINE (1965). Apercu d'une histoire de la langue grecque (8thedn. with bibliog. by Olivier Masson: Etudes et commentaires, 55). Paris.

MEISEL, JURGEN M. (1977). 'Linguistic Simplification: A Study ofImmigrant Workers' Speech and Foreigner Talk', in S. P. Corder andE. Roulet (eds.), Actes du $eme colloque de linguistique appliquee deNeuchdtel, 20-22 Mai igj6: The Notions of Simplification,Interlanguages and Pidgins and their Relation to Second LanguagePedagogy. Neuchatel and Geneva, 88-113.

MEISTERHANS, K., and SCHWYZER, EDUARD (1900). Grammatik der atti-schen Inschriften (3rd edn.). Berlin.

MERRY, W. W. (1893). 'Aristophanes and the "Erasmians" '. CR 7: 32-3.MEYER, GUSTAV (1923). Die stilistische Verwendung der Nominal-

komposition im Griechischen: Bin Beitrag zur Geschichte der Snr\a omâra(Philologus Suppl. 16.3). Leipzig.

MEYER, HERBERT (1933). Hymnische Stilelemente in der fruhgriechischenDichtung (Diss. Cologne). Wiirzburg.

MlGNOT, XAVIER (1972). Recherches SUr le Suffixe -rqs, -nrras (-ras, -TO.TOS) ,

des origines a la fin du IV" siecle avant J.-C. (Etudes et commentaires,76). Paris.

MILLER, HAROLD W. (1945). 'Aristophanes and Medical Language'.TAPhA 76: 74-84.

References 291

MILROY, LESLEY (1980). Language and Social Networks (Language inSociety, 2). Oxford.

MITCHELL, DAVID (1988). 'Method in the Metaphor: The RitualLanguage of Wanukaka', in James J. Fox (ed.), To Speak in Pairs:

Essays on the Ritual Languages of Eastern Indonesia. Cambridge, 64-86.MOHN, DIETER (1981). Tach- und Gemeinsprache: Zur Emanzipation

und Isolation der Sprache', in Walther von Hahn (ed.), Fachsprachen.

Darmstadt, 172—217; repr. from Walther Mitzka (ed.), Wortgeographie

und Gesellschaft: Festgabefiir Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 60. Geburtstag.

Berlin, 1968, 315-48.MOMMSEN, TYCHO (1895). Beitrdge zu der Lehre von den griechischen

Prapositionen. Berlin.

MONTEIL, PIERRE (1963). La phrase relative en grec ancien: Sa formation,

son developpement, sa structure des origines a la fin du Ve siecle a. C.

(Etudes et commentaires, 47). Paris.MOORHOUSE, A. C. (1946). 'ov with the Future". CQ 40: i-io.

(1959). Studies in the Greek Negatives. Cardiff.(1962). 'ef olSa and ouSe ef?: Cases of Hiatus'. CQ, NS 12: 239-47.(1982). The Syntax of Sophocles (Mnemosyne Suppl. 75). Leiden.

MORENILLA-TALENS, CARMEN (1989). 'Die Charakterisierung derAuslander durch lautliche Ausdrucksmittel in den Persern des Aischylossowie den Acharnern und Vogeln des Aristophanes'. IF 94: 158-76.

MORPURGO DAVIES, ANNA (1985). 'Mycenaean and Greek Language', inA. Morpurgo Davies and Yves Duhoux (eds.), Linear B: A 1984 Survey

(Bibliotheque des Cahiers de 1'Institutde Linguistique de Louvain, 26).Louvain-la-Neuve, 75-125.

MORRISON, J. S. (1958). 'The Origins of Plato's Philosopher-Statesman'.C0,Ns8: 198-218.

MUHLHAUSLER, PETER (1986). Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Oxford andNew York.

MURPHY, CHARLES T. (1938). 'Aristophanes and the Art of Rhetoric'.HSPhw. 69-113.

MUSTI, DOMENICO (1990). 'Le rivolte antipitagoriche e la concezionepitagorica del tempo'. QUCC 65: 35-65.

NEIL, ROBERT ALEXANDER (1901). The Knights of Aristophanes (ed. withintrod. and comm.). Cambridge; repr. Hildesheim, 1966.

NICHOLS, JOHANNA (1980). 'Pidginization and Foreigner Talk: ChinesePidgin Russian', in Elizabeth C. Traugott (ed.), Papers from the 4th

International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam, 397-407.NICKAU, KLAUS (1993). 'Zum Verbalaspekt der Imperative in

Aristophanes' Acharnern 1097-1142'. Glotta, 71: 158-66.NIEDDU, GIAN FRANCO (2001). 'Donne e "parole" di donne in Aristofane'.

Lexis, 19: 199-218.

292 References

NOEL, MARIE-PIERRE (1997). 'Mots nouveaux et idees nouvelles dans lesNuees d'Aristophane'. Ktema, 22: 173-84.

(2000). 'Aristophane et les intellectuels: Le portrait de Socrate et des"sophistes" dans les Nuees', in Le theatre grec antique: La comedie, Actes

du ioime colloque de la Villa Kerylos. Paris, 111-28.

NORDBERG, BENGT (1975). 'Contemporary Social Variation as a Stage in aLong-Term Phonological Change', in Karl-Hampus Dahlstedt (ed.),The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics, 2: Proceedings of the

Second International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics.

Stockholm, 587-608.NORDEN, EDUARD (1956). Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formen-

geschichte religioser Rede (4th edn.). Stuttgart.(19S7)- P- Vergilius Maro: Aeneis Buck VI (4th edn.). Darmstadt.

NUNLIST, RENE (1998). Poetologische Bildersprache in der friihgriechischen

Dichtung (Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 101). Stuttgart and Leipzig.O'BARR, WILLIAM M., and ATKINS, BOWMAN K. (1980). ' "Women's

Language" or "Powerless Language"?', in Sally McConnell-Ginet,Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman (eds.), Women and Language in

Literature and Society. New York, 93-110.OCHS, ELINOR (1979). 'Planned and Unplanned Discourse', in Talmy

Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 12: Discourse and Syntax. NewYork, San Francisco, and London, 51-80.

(1987). 'The Impact of Stratification and Socialization on Men's andWomen's Speech in Western Samoa', in Susan U. Philips, Susan Steele,and Christine Tanz (eds.), Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative

Perspective (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations ofLanguage, 4). Cambridge, 50-70.

O'HARA, JAMES J. (1996). True Names: Vergil and the AlexandrianTradition of Etymological Wordplay. Ann Arbor.

O'HiGGiNS, D. M. (2001). 'Women's Cultic Joking and Mockery: Some

Perspectives', in Andre Lardinois and Laura McClure (eds.), Making

Silence Speak: Women's Voices in Greek Literature and Society.

Princeton and Oxford, 137-60.OLSON, S. DOUGLAS (1998). Aristophanes: Peace (ed. with introd. and

comm.). Oxford.O'REGAN, DAPHNE ELIZABETH (1992). Rhetoric, Comedy, and the Violence

of Language in Aristophanes' Clouds. New York and Oxford.O'SULLIVAN, NEIL (1992). Alcidamas, Aristophanes and the Beginnings of

Greek Stylistic Theory (Hermes Einzelschr. 60). Stuttgart.

PARKER, L. P. E. (1997). The Songs of Aristophanes. Oxford.PARKER, ROBERT (1983). Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek

Religion. Oxford.(1996). Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford.

292 References

References 293

PEARCE, T. E. V. (1996). 'The Imperatival Infinitive in Homer, withSpecial Reference to A 20'. Mnemosyne, 4th ser. 49: 283-97.

PEPPLER, CHARLES W. (1910). 'The Termination -K6s, as Used byAristophanes for Comic Effect'. AJPh 31: 428-44.

(1916). 'The suffix -fta in Aristophanes'. AJPh 37: 459-65.(1918). 'Comic Terminations in Aristophanes: Part IV. AJPh 39:

173-83.(1921). 'Comic Terminations in Aristophanes: Part V. AJPh 42:

152-61.PERPILLOU, J.-L. (1984). 'La diphthongue ai en Attique'. Glotta, 62:

152-7-PETERSEN, WALTER (1937). 'The Greek Masculines in Circumflexed -as'.

CPh 32: 121-30.PFEIFFER, RUDOLF (1968). History of Classical Scholarship from the

Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford.PHILIPS, SUSAN U., and REYNOLDS, ANNE (1987). 'The Interaction of

Variable Syntax and Discourse Structure in Women's and Men'sSpeech', in Susan U. Philips, Susan Steele, and Christine Tanz (eds.),Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective (Studies in theSocial and Cultural Foundations of Language, 4). Cambridge, 71-94.

PLASSART, A. (1913). 'Les archers d'Athenes'. REG 26: 151-213.PLATNAUER, MAURICE (1942). 'Xp-fiv -. exw'- CR 56: 2-6.

(1960). 'Prodelision in Greek Drama'. CQ, NS 10: 140-4.(1964). Aristophanes: Peace (ed. with introd. and comm.). Oxford.

PLATT, ARTHUR (1910). 'On n etc. with Vocatives'. CR 23: 105-6.PLEKET, H. W. (1981). 'Religious History as the History of Mentality: The

"Believer" as Servant of the Deity in the Greek World", in H. S. Versnel(ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in theAncient World (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion, 2). Leiden,152-92.

POHLENZ, MAX (1920). 'Die Anfange der griechischen Poetik'. NGG142-78; repr. in Max Pohlenz, Kleine Schriften, ii (ed. Heinrich Dorrie).Hildesheim, 1965,436-72.

(1938). 'Hippokratesstudien'. NGG 67-101; repr. in MaxPohlenz, Kleine Schriften, ii (ed. Heinrich Dorrie). Hildesheim, 1965,175-209.

PORZIG, WALTER (1942). Die Namenfiir Satzinhalte im Griechischen und imIndogermanischen (Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- undKulturwissenschaft, 10). Berlin.

(1957). Das Wunder der Sprache: Probleme, Methoden und Ergebnisseder modernen Sprachwissenschaft (and edn.). Berne.

POST, L. A. (1938). 'Dramatic Uses of the Greek Imperative'. AJPh 59:

3'-59-

294 References

POULTNEY, JAMES WILSON (1936). The Syntax of the Genitive Case inAristophanes. Baltimore.

(1963). 'Studies in the Syntax of Attic Comedy'. AJPh 84:

359-76.PRATO, CARLO (2001). Aristofane: Le Donne alle Tesmo/orie (ed. with

introd. and comm.; trans. Dario Del Corno). Milan.PSICHARI, JEAN (1908). 'Sophocle et Hippocrate: A propos du Philoctete a

Lemnos'. RPh, NS 32: 95-128.PULLEYN, SIMON (1997). Prayer in Greek Religion. Oxford.RADERMACHER, LUDWIG (1921). Aristophanes' 'Frosche' (ed. with introd.

and comm.: Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien,Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 198.4). Vienna.

(1954). Aristophanes' 'Frosche' (2nd edn. by Walther Kraus). Vienna.RAU, PETER (1967). Paratragodia: Untersuchung einer komischen Form des

Aristophanes (Zetemata, 45). Munich.REFORMATSKIJ, A. A. (1961). 'Cto takoe termin i terminologija", in Voprosy

terminologii: Materialy vsesojuznogo terminologiceskogo sovescanija.Moscow, 46-54.

(1968). 'Termin kak Clen leksiCeskoj sistemy jazyka', in Problemystrukturnoj lingvistiki 1967. Moscow, 103-25.

REITER, RAYNA R. (1975). 'Men and Women in the South of France:Public and Private Domains', in Rayna R. Reiter (ed.), Toward anAnthropology of Women. New York and London, 252-82.

RENEHAN, ROBERT (1976). Studies in Greek Texts: Critical Observations toHomer, Plato, Euripides, Aristophanes and other Authors(Hypomnemata, 43). Gottingen.

RICHARDS, H. (1901). 'On a Greek Adverb of Place'. CR 15: 442-5.RICHTER, DONALD C. (1971). 'The Position of Women in Classical

Athens'. CJ(>T. 1-8.RIEDWEG, CHRISTOPH (1997). ' "Pythagoras hinterliess keine einzige

Schrift"—ein Irrtum? Anmerkungen zu einer alten Streitfrage'. MH 54:65-92.

RIJKSBARON, ALBERT (19840). The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb inClassical Greek. Amsterdam.

(19846). 'Het Griekse perfectum: subject contra object'. Lampas, 17:403-19.

RISCH, ERNST (1990). 'Zu Wackernagels Einleitung in die Lehrevom Genus (Syntax 2.iff.): Die Bezeichnungen des Haushahns', inHeiner Eichner and Helmut Rix (eds.), Sprachwissenschaft undPhilologie: Jacob Wackernagelunddielndogermanistikheute. Wiesbaden,

234-49-Rix, HELMUT (1992). Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und

Formenlehre (2nd edn.). Darmstadt.

RODRIGUEZ ALFAGEME, IGNACIO (2000). 'La structure scenique dans lesNuees d' Aristophane', in Le theatre grec antique: La comedie, Actes du

iofme colloque de la Villa Kerylos. Paris, 25-45.ROMAINE, SUZANNE (1980). 'The Relative Clause Marker in Scots English:

Diffusion, Complexity, and Style as Dimensions of Syntactic Change'.

Language in Society, 9: 221-47.(1982). Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology.

Cambridge.(1988). Pidgin and Creole Languages. London and New York.

ROSENKRANZ, BERNHARD (1930). 'Der lokale Grundton und die person-liche Eigenart in der Sprache des Thukydides und der alteren attischen

Redner'./F48: 127-78.ROSENKRANZ, MARIA LUISA (1964). 'Gli "atticismi" negli scoli ad

Aristofane'. Helikon, 4: 261-78.ROSENMEYER, THOMAS G. (i955). 'Gorgias, Aeschylus, and Apate', AJPh

76: 225-60.ROSENSTRAUCH, HENRYK (1961). 'Parodia jezykowych badafi sofistow w

Chmurach Arystofanesa'. Eos, 51: 45-54.Rossi, LUIGI ENRICO (1977). 'Un nuovo papiro epicarmeo e il tipo del

medico in commedia'. A&R, NS 22: 81-4.ROTHWELL, JR., KENNETH S. (1990). Politics and Persuasion in

Aristophanes' Ecclesiazusae (Mnemosyne Suppl. in). Leiden, NewYork, Copenhagen, and Cologne.

RUDHARDT, J. (1992). Notions fondamentales de la pensee religieuse et actes

constitutifs du culte dans la Grece classique (and edn.). Paris.RUSSELL, DONALD A. (1981). Criticism in Antiquity. London.RUTHERFORD, W. GUNION (1881). The New Phrynichus, Being a Revised

Text of the Ecloga of the Grammarian Phrynichus. London.(1903). 'Aristophanes, Knights 414: A Neglected Idiom'. CR 17: 249.

SAGER, JUAN C., DUNGWORTH, DAVID, and MCDONALD, PETER F. (1980).English Special Languages: Principles and Practice in Science and

Technology. Wiesbaden.SAMARIN, WILLIAM J. (1976). 'The Language of Religion', in William J.

Samarin (ed.), Language in Religious Practice. Rowley, Mass., 3-13.SANCHIS LLOPIS, JORGE L. (2000). 'La lengua de los medicos en la come-

dia griega postaristofanica', in Juan Antonio Lopez Ferez (ed.), La

lengua cientifica griega: Origenes, desarrollo e influencia en las lenguas

modernas europeas, ii. Madrid, 123-55.SAPIR, EDWARD (1929). 'Male and Female Forms of Speech in Yana', in

W. J. Teeuwen (ed.), Donum Natalicium Schrijnen. Nijmegen andUtrecht, 79-85; repr. in Edward Sapir, Selected Writings in Language,

Culture, and Personality (ed. David G. Mandelbaum, with a new epilogueby Dell H. Hymes). Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1985, 206-12.

References 295

2g6 References

SAUGE, ANDRE (2000). Les degres du verbe: Sens et formation du parfait engrec ancien. Berne.

SAVILLE-TROIKE, MURIEL (1989). The Ethnography of Communication: An

Introduction (2nd edn.). Oxford and Maiden, Mass.SCHADE, J. (1908). De correptione Attica. Diss. Greifswald.SCHAPS, DAVID (1977). 'The Woman Least Mentioned: Etiquette and

Women's Names'. CQ, NS 27: 323-30.SCHAUWECKER, YELA (2OO2). 'Zum Sprechverhalten der Frauentypen bei

Plautus'. Gymnasium, 109: 191-211.SCHIBLI, HERMANN S. (1990). Pherekydes of Syros. Oxford.SCHIPPAN, THEA (1984). Lexikologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache.

Leipzig.SCHMITT, RUDIGER (1967). Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermani-

scher Zeit. Wiesbaden.(1989). 'Die mitteliranischen Sprachen im Uberblick", in Riidiger

Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden,

95-ioS-SCHRECKENBERG, HEINZ (1964). Ananke: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte

des Wortgebrauchs (Zetemata, 36). Munich.SCHUCHARDT, HUGO (1909). 'Die Lingua Franca". Zeitschrift fur romani-

sche Philologie, 33: 441-61; Eng. trans, in Schuchardt (1980) 66-88.(1980). Pidgin and Creole Languages: Selected Essays (ed. and trans.

Glenn G. Gilbert). Cambridge.SCHWAB, OTTO (1893-4). Historische Syntax der griechischen Comparation

in der klassischen Literatur, 2 vols. (Beitrage zur historischen Syntax dergriechischen Sprache, 4). Wiirzburg.

SCHWEIZER, EDUARD (1898). Grammatik der Pergamenischen Inschriften:Beitrage zur Laut- und Flexionslehre der gemeingriechischen Sprache.Berlin.

SCHWYZER, EDUARD (1935). 'Zur Sprache', in Karl Deichgraeber,Hippokrates tiber Entstehung und Aufbau des menschlichen Korpers (neplaapxuiv). Leipzig and Berlin, 62-97.

0939)- Griechische Grammatik, i: Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre,Wortbildung, Flexion (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2.1.1).Munich.

(1940). 'Syntaktische Archaismen des Attischen'. Abhandlungen derPreussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische

Klasse, 7.-and DEBRUNNER, ALBERT (1950). Griechische Grammatik, ii: Syntax

und syntaktische Stilistik (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2.1.2).Munich.

SCOTT, JOHN ADAMS (1905). 'Additional Notes on the Vocative'. AJPh 26:

32-43-

References 297

SEARLE, JOHN R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy ofLanguage. Cambridge.

SEATON, R. C. (1889). 'The Iterative Use of Sa> with the Imperf. and Aor.Indie.'. CR 3: 343-5.

SEIBICKE, WILFRIED (1981). 'Fachsprache und Gemeinsprache', inWalther von Hahn (ed.), Fachsprachen. Darmstadt, 40-66; repr. fromMuttersprache, 1959, 70-84.

SHAW, MICHAEL (1975). 'The Female Intruder: Women in Fifth-CenturyDrama'. CPh 70: 255-66.

SHERZER, JOEL (1987). 'A Diversity of Voices: Men's and Women's Speechin Ethnographic Perspective', in Susan U. Philips, Susan Steele, andChristine Tanz (eds.), Language, Gender, and Sex in ComparativePerspective (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations ofLanguage, 4). Cambridge, 95-120.

SHIBAMOTO, JANET S. (1987). 'The Womanly Woman: Manipulation ofStereotypical and Nonstereotypical Features of Japanese FemaleSpeech', in Susan U. Philips, Susan Steele, and Christine Tanz (eds.),Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective (Studies in theSocial and Cultural Foundations of Language, 4). Cambridge, 26-49.

SICKING, C. M. J. (1962). Aristophanes' Ranae; Een hoofstuk uit degeschiedenis der Griekse poetica. Assen.

(1991). 'The Distribution of Aorist and Present Tense Stem Formsin Greek, Especially in the Imperative'. Glotta, 69: 14-43, I54~7°-

- and STORK, PETER (1996). Two Studies in the Semantics of the Verb in

Classical Greek (Mnemosyne Suppl. 160). Leiden, New York, andCologne.

SIER, KURT (1992). 'Die Rolle des Skythen in den Thesmophoriazusen desAristophanes', in Carl W7erner Miiller, Kurt Sier, and Jiirgen Werner(eds.), Zum Umgang mit fremden Sprachen in der griechisch-romischenAntike (Palingenesia, 36). Stuttgart, 63-83.

SIHLER, ANDREW L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek andLatin. New York and Oxford.

SILK, MICHAEL S. (1990). 'The People of Aristophanes', in ChristopherFelling (ed.), Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature.Oxford, 150-73.

(2000). Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy. Oxford.SITTL, CARL (1890). Die Gebdrden der Griechen und Romer. Leipzig.SLATER, NIALL W. (1995). 'The Fabrication of Comic Illusion', in

Gregory W. Dobrov (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes: Transition andDiversity in Greek Comedy (American Classical Studies, 38). Atlanta,

29-45-SLINGS, SIMON R. (1992). 'Written and Spoken Language: An Exercise in

the Pragmatics of the Greek Sentence'. CPh 87: 95-109.

298 References

SLOTTY, FRIEDRICH (1915). Der Gebrauch des Konjunktivs und Optativs inden griechischen Dialekten, i: Der Hauptsatz (Forschungen zur griechi-schen und lateinischen Grammatik, 3). Gottingen.

SNELL, BRUNO (1924). Die Ausdriicke fur den Begriffdes Wissens in der vor-platonischen Philosophic

(Philologische Untersuchungen, 29). Berlin.SNOW, C. E., and FERGUSON, C. A. (eds.) (1977). Talking to Children:

Language Input and Acquisition. Cambridge and London.SOBOLEWSKI, SERGIUS (1890). De praepositionum usu Aristophaneo.

Moscow.(1891). Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta: De sententiarum condi-

cionalium temporalium relativorum formis et usu. Moscow.SOLMSEN, FRIEDRICH (1975). Intellectual Experiments of the Greek

Enlightenment. Princeton.SOMMERSTEIN, ALAN H. (19800). Aristophanes: Acharnians (ed. with trans.

and notes). Warminster.(19806). 'The Naming of Women in Greek and Roman Comedy'.

Quaderni di Storia, 11: 393-418.(1981). Aristophanes: Knights (ed. with trans, and notes).

Warminster.(1982). Aristophanes: Clouds (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster.(1983). Aristophanes: Wasps (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster.(1985). Aristophanes: Peace (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster.(1987). Aristophanes: Birds (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster.(1990). Aristophanes: Lysistrata (ed. with trans, and notes).

Warminster.(1994). Aristophanes: Thesmophoriasusae (ed. with trans, and notes).

Warminster.('995)- 'The Language of Athenian Women', in Francesco De

Martino and Alan H. Sommerstein (eds.), Lo spettacolo delle voci. Bari,ii. 61-85.

(1996). Aristophanes: Frogs (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster.(1998). Aristophanes: Ecclesiazusae (ed. with trans, and notes).

Warminster.(2001). Aristophanes: Plutus (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster.

SPYROPOULOS, ELIE S. (1974). L'accumulation verbale chez Aristophane:Recherches sur le style d'Aristophane. Thessaloniki.

STEPHANOPOULOS, THEODOROS (1983). 'Drei alt- und neugriechischeBabyworter'. Glotta, 61: 12-15.

STEVENS, P. T. (1945). 'Colloquial Expressions in Aeschylus andSophocles'. CQ 39: 95-105.

(1976). Colloquial Expressions in Euripides (Hermes Einzelschr. 38).Wiesbaden.

References 299

STINTON, T. C. W. (1977). 'Interlinear Hiatus in Trimeters'. CQ, NS 2767-72.

SUTTERLIN, LUDWIG (1891). Zur Geschichte der Verba denominativa im

Altgriechischen, i: Die Verba denominativa auf -dm, -tai, -6m. Strasbourg.SVENNUNG, J. (1958). Anredeformen: Vergleichende Forschungen zur indi-

rekten Anrede in der dritten Person und zum Nominativ fur den Vokativ

(Acta Societatis Litterarum Humaniorum Regiae Upsaliensis, 42).Uppsala and Wiesbaden.

SWACKER, MARJORIE (1975). 'The Sex of the Speaker as a SociolinguisticVariable', in Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley (eds.), Language and

Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, Mass., 76-83.TAAFFE, LAUREN K. (1993). Aristophanes and Women. London and New

York.TAILLARDAT, JEAN (1965). Les images d'Aristophane: Etudes de langue et de

style (2nd edn.). Paris.TANNEN, DEBORAH (1982) (ed.). Spoken and Written Language: Exploring

Orality and Literacy (Advances in Discourse Processes, 9). Norwood, NJ.(1990). You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.

London.TAYLOR, A. E. (1911). Varia Socratica: First Series. Oxford.TEODORSSON, SVEN-TAGE (1974). The Phonemic System of the Attic Dialect

400-340 B.C. (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 32). Goteborg.(i977)- The Phonology of Ptolemaic Koine (Studia Graeca et Latina

Gothoburgensia, 36). Goteborg.(1978). The Phonology of Attic in the Hellenistic Period (Studia Graeca

et Latina Gothoburgensia, 40). Goteborg.(1987). 'Boeotian and Attic: Vowel Development Related?'. Verbum,

10: 199-209.THESLEFF, HOLGER (1966). 'Scientific and Technical Style in Early Greek

Prose'. Arctos, NS 4: 89-113.THORNE, BARRIE, and HENLEY, NANCY (1975). 'Difference and

Dominance: An Overview of Language, Gender, and Society', in BarrieThorne and Nancy Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and

Dominance. Rowley, Mass., 5-42.THREATTE, LESLiE(i98o). The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, \: Phonology.

Berlin and New York.(1996). The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, ii: Morphology. Berlin and

New York.THUMB, ALBERT (1901). Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des

Hellenismus: Beitrage zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der KOIV^.

Strasbourg; repr. Berlin and New York, 1974.and SCHERER, ANTON (1959). Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte:

Zweiter Teil (2nd edn.). Heidelberg.

3OO References

TODD, O. J. (1932). Index Aristophaneus. Cambridge, Mass.TODD, STEPHEN C. (1990). 'Lady Chatterley's Lover and the Attic

Orators: The Social Composition of the Athenian Jury'. JHS no:

I46-73-TRACY, STEPHEN V. (1994). '/G II2 1195 and Agathe Tyche in Attica'.

Hesperia, 63: 241-4.TRENKNER, SOPHIE (1960). Le style xa.i dans le recit attique oral. Assen.TROEMEL-PLOETZ, SENTA (1991). Review of Deborah Tannen, You Just

Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (London, 1990).Discourse & Society, 2: 489-502.

TRUDGILL, PETER (1972). 'Sex, Covert Prestige and Linguistic Change inthe Urban British English of Norwich'. Language in Society, i: 179-95.

(1974). 'Linguistic Change and Diffusion: Description andExplanation in Sociolinguistic Dialect Geography'. Language in Society,3: 215-46.

TSANTSANOGLOU, K. (1997). 'The First Columns of the Derveni Papyrusand their Religious Significance', in Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most(eds.), Studies on the Derveni Papyrus. Oxford, 93-128.

TURASIEWICZ, ROMUALD (1986). 'Zakres znaczeniowy aardos w komediiarystofanejskiej'. Eos, 74: 205-16.

UCKERMANN, WILHELM (1879). De Aristophanis Comici vocabulorum for-matione. Diss. Marburg.

UGOLINI, GIUSEPPE (1923). 'L'evoluzione della critica letterariad'Aristofane'. SIFC, NS 3: 215-46, 259-91.

URE, JEAN (1982). 'Introduction: Approaches to the Study of RegisterRange'. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 35: 5-23.

USENER, HERMANN (1929). Gotternamen: Versuch einer Lehre von derreligiosen Begriffsbildung (and edn.). Bonn.

USHER, STEPHEN (1999). Greek Oratory: Tradition and Originality.Oxford.

USSHER, R. G. (1973). Aristophanes: Ecdesiazusae (ed. with introd. andcomm.). Oxford.

VALDMAN, ALBERT (1977). 'L'effet de modeles culturels sur 1'elaborationdu langage simplifie (Foreigner Talk)', in S. P. Corder and E. Roulet(eds.), Actes du seme collogue de linguistique appliquee de Neuchdtel,20-22 Mai 1976: The Notions of Simplification, Interlanguages andPidgins and their Relation to Second Language Pedagogy. Neuchatel andGeneva, 114-31.

(1981). 'Sociolinguistic Aspects of Foreigner Talk', in Michael G.Clyne (ed.), Foreigner Talk (International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage, 28). The Hague, Paris, and New York, 41-52.

VAN BROCK, NADIA (1961). Recherches sur le vocabulaire medical du grecancien: Soins et guerison (Etudes et commentaires, 41). Paris.

References 301

VAN DER EIJK, PHILIP J. (1997). 'Towards a Rhetoric of Ancient ScientificDiscourse: Some Formal Characteristics of Greek Medical andPhilosophical Texts (Hippocratic Corpus, Aristotle)', in Egbert J. Bakker(ed.), Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts(Mnemosyne Suppl. 171). Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 77-129.

VANDER WAERDT, PAUL A. (1994). 'Socrates in the Clouds', in Paul A.Vander Waerdt (ed.), The Socratic Movement. Ithaca, NY and London,48-86.

VAN STRATEN, F. T. (1995). Hiera Kala: Images of Animal Sacrifice inArchaic and Classical Greece (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World,127). Leiden, New York, and Cologne.

VEGETTI, MARIO (1998). 'Empedocle "medico e sofista" (Antica medicina

20)'. Elenchos, 19: 345-59.VENDRYES, J. (1944). 'L'infinitif substantive dans la langue de Lysias'.

RPh, 3rd ser. 18: 113-33.VERDENIUS, W. J. (1981). 'Gorgias' Doctrine of Deception', in G. B.

Kerferd (ed.), The Sophists and their Legacy: Proceedings of the Fourth

International Colloquium on Ancient Philosophy (Hermes Einzelschr. 44).Wiesbaden, 116-28.

VERSNEL, H. S. (1981). 'Religious Mentality in Ancient Prayer', in H. S.Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality

in the Ancient World (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion, 2). Leiden,

1-64.VETTA, MASSIMO (1989). Aristofane: Le Donne all'assemblea (ed. with

introd. and comm.; trans. Dario Del Corno). Milan.(!993)- 'La voce degli attori nel teatro antico', in Roberto

Pretagostini (ed.), Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omeroall'etd ellenistica: Scritti in onore di Bruno Gentili, ii. Rome, 703-18.

VOTTERO, GUY (1998). Le dialecte beotien (~]e s.-2e s. av. J.-C.), i: L'ecologiedu dialecte (Etudes anciennes, 18). Nancy and Paris.

VOWLES, GUY RICHARD (1928). 'Studies in Greek Noun-Formation:Dental Terminations, V: Words in -ais and -ns'. CPh 23: 34-59.

WACHTER, RUDOLF (1998). 'Griechisch xaiPe: Vorgeschichte einesGrusswortes'. MH 55: 65-75.

WACKERNAGEL, JACOB (1887). 'Miszellen zur griechischen Grammatik'.KZ 28: 109-45; repr. in Jacob Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften.

Gottingen, 1953, i. 591-627.(1892). 'Uber ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung'. IF i:

333-436; repr. in Jacob Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften. Gottingen,1953, i. 1-104.

(1904). 'Studien zum griechischen Perfectum'. Programm zur

akademischen Preisverteilung, Gottingen, 3-24; repr. in JacobWackernagel, Kleine Schriften. Gottingen, 1953, ii. 1000-21.

3O2 References

WACKERNAGEL, JACOB (1912). 'Uber einige antike Anredeformen'.Programm zur akademischen Preisverteilung, Gottingen, 3-32; repr. inJacob Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften. Gottingen, 1953, ii. 970-99.

(1916). Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer (Forschungen zurgriechischen und lateinischen Grammatik, 4). Gottingen.

(1925). 'Griechische Miszellen'. Glotta, 14: 36-67; repr. in Jacob

Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften. Gottingen, 1953, ii. 844-75.(1926). Vorlesungen Uber Syntax mil besonderer Beriicksichtigung von

Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch: Erste Reihe (2nd edn.). Basel.(1928). Vorlesungen iiber Syntax mil besonderer Beriicksichtigung von

Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch: Ziveite Reihe (2nd edn.). Basel.WALKER, R. JOHNSON (1894). 'Doric Futures in Aristophanes'. CR 8:

17-21.(1906). ' "Doric" Futures: Aristophanes and Plato'. CR 20: 212-13.

WANKEL, HERMANN (1976). Demosthenes: Rede fur Ktesiphon iiber den

Kranz (introd. and comm.). Heidelberg.WATHELET, PAUL (1974). 'Le nom de Zeus chez Homere et dans les

dialectes grecs'. Minos, 15: 195-225.WATKINS, CALVERT (1967). 'An Indo-European Construction in Greek

and Latin'. HSPh 71: 115-19.WEBER, PHILIPP (1884). Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtssatze, i: Von

Homer bis zur attischen Prosa. Wiirzburg.(1885). Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtssatze, ii: Die attische

Prosa und Schlussergebnisse. Wiirzburg.WEBSTER, JONATHAN (1988). 'The Language of Religion: A Sociolinguistic

Perspective', in Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Registers of Written English:

Situational Factors and Linguistic Features. London and New York,

85-107.WEBSTER, T. B. L. (1970). Studies in Later Greek Comedy (2nd edn.).

Manchester.WEINREICH, OTTO (1912). '&eol emJKooi'. MDAI(Ath), 37: 1-68; repr. in

Otto Weinreich, Ausgewahlte Schriften (ed. Giinther Wille).

Amsterdam, 1969, i. 131-95.WENDEL, THILDE (1929). Die Gesprachsanrede im griechischen Epos und

Drama der Blutezeit (Tubinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft, 6).Stuttgart.

WERNER, JURGEN (1983). 'Nichtgriechische Sprachen im Bewusstsein derantiken Griechen', in Paul Handel and Wolfgang Meid (eds.),Festschrift fur Robert Muth zum 65. Geburtstag (Innsbrucker Beitrage

zur Kulturwissenschaft, 22). Innsbruck, 583-95.WERRES, J. (1936). Die Beteuerungsformeln in der attischen Komodie. Bonn.WEST, MARTIN L. (1970). 'Three Greek Baby-Words'. Glotta, 47: 184-6.

(1971). Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. Oxford.

References 303

(1983). The Orphic Poems. Oxford.WHINNOM, KEITH (1977). 'Lingua Franca: Historical Problems', in Albert

Valdman (ed.), Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Bloomington, Ind. andLondon, 295-310.

WHITE, JOHN WILLIAMS (1912). The Verse of Greek Comedy. London.WiLAMOWlTZ-MoELLENDORFF, ULRICH VON (1927). Aristophanes:

Lysistrate (ed. with introd. and comm.). Berlin.WILLI, ANDREAS (2001). 'The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of

Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek'. D.Phil, thesis, Oxford.(20020). 'The Language of Greek Comedy: Introduction and

Bibliographical Sketch', in Andreas Willi (ed.), The Language of GreekComedy. Oxford, 1-32.

(20026). 'Languages on Stage: Aristophanic Language, CulturalHistory, and Athenian Identity', in Andreas Willi (ed.), The Languageof Greek Comedy. Oxford, 111-49.

- (forthcoming, 2003). 'New Language for a New Comedy: ALinguistic Approach to Aristophanes' Plutus'. PCPhS.

WILSON, JOHN R. (1971). "ToAâ and the Meaning of raAas'. AJPh 92:292-300.

WITKOWSKI, STANISLAW (1915). 'Beitrage zur griechischen Syntax'.Glotta, 6: 18-25.

WOLFSON, NESSA, and MANES, JOAN (1980). 'Don't "Dear" Me!', in SallyMcConnell-Ginet, Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman (eds.), Women andLanguage in Literature and Society. New York, 79-92.

WRIGHT, M. R. (1995). Empedocles: The Extant Fragments (ed. withintrod., comm., concordance, and new bibliography). London andIndianapolis.

WYCHERLEY, R. E. (1937). 'Aristophanes, Birds, 995-1009'. CQ 31: 22-31.ZACHER, KONRAD (1899). Kritisch-grammatische Parerga zu Aristophanes

(Philologus Suppl. 7: 439-530). Leipzig.ZANETTO, GIUSEPPE (1987). Aristofane: Gli Uccelli (ed. with comm.;

introd. and trans, by Dario Del Corno). Milan.ZEITLIN, FROMA I. (1981). 'Travesties of Gender and Genre in

Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae', in Helene P. Foley (ed.), Reflectionsof Women in Antiquity. New York, 169-217.

(1990). 'Playing the Other: Theater, Theatricality, and the Femininein Greek Drama", in John J. Winkler and Froma I. Zeitlin (eds.),Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context.Princeton, 63-96.

ZGUSTA, LADISLAV (1955). Die Personennamen griechischer Stddte dernordlichen Schwarzmeerkiiste: Die ethnischen Verhiiltnisse, namentlichdas Verhaltnis der Skythen und Sarmaten im Lichte der Namenforschung.Prague.

304 References

ZIEBARTH, ERICH (1892). De iureiurando in iure Graeco quaestiones. Diss.Gottingen.

ZIEGLER, KONRAT (1905). De precationum apud Graecos formis quaestiones

selectae. Breslau.(1913). 'Zum Zeushymnus des Kallimachus'. RhM, NS 68: 336-54.

ZILLIACUS, HENRIK (1946). 'Notes on the Periphrases of the Imperatives

in Classical Greek'. Eranos, 44: 266-79.ZIMMERMANN, BERNHARD (1992). 'Hippokratisches in den Komodien des

Aristophanes', in Juan Antonio Lopez Ferez (ed.), Tratados

Hipocrdticos (Estudios acerca de su contenido, forma e influencia): Actas

del Vile Colloque international hippocratique. Madrid, 513-25.

ZINI, SERGIO (1938). // linguaggio dei personaggi nelle commedie di

Menandro. Florence.ZUNTZ, GUNTHER (1971). Persephone: Three Essays on Religion and

Thought in Magna Graecia. Oxford.

Index of Passages

ACUSILAUS

fr. (FVS)9 B i: 107 n. 35

AESCHINESi. 23: 40 n. 119

AESCHYLUS

Ag.

28: 42 n. 127160-2: 18 n. 44244: 20595-6: 42 n. 127688-9: 97 n. 2912: 106 n. 301427: 106 n. 331671: 100 n. 9Bum.292—6: 48 n. 138588: 136 n. 39749: 136 n. 39Prom.488: 136 n. 39Sept.

29: 136 n. 39Supp.

162: 102715: 136 n. 39757: io6n. 331009: 136 n. 39

ALEXISfr. (PCG)125: 258 n. 137146:86164: 187 n. 125194: 93201: 116 n. 68223: 116 n. 68250: 216 n. 65317:243

AMEIPSIASfr. (PCG)

9. 2: 14217: 87 n. 90

ANACHARSIDIS EPISTULAEi. 2: 223 n. 82

ANAXAGORAStest. (FVS)59 A 12: 104 n. 2059 A 57: 104 n. 2059 A 88: 104 n. 2059 A 89: 139 n. 50

ANAXANDRIDESfr. (PCG)57.4: 152 n. 82

ANAXIMENEStest. (FVS)13 AS: 139 n. 50

ANAXIPPUSfr. (PCG)i. 36: 143 n. 596: 258 n. 137

ANDOCIDESMyst.97: 39 n. 118

ANTHOLOGIA PALATINA7. 746: 102 n. 169- 25: 94

ANTIPHANESfr. (PCG)4: 152 n. 8254. 3: 152 n. 82122. 11: 152 n. 82158: n6n. 68161.6: 187 n. 129189. 21: 89, 91

Index of Passages3°6

ANTIPHON SOPHISTAfr. (FVS)87 B 1—44: 118 n. i87 B 25: 105 n. 27

ARCHELAUStest. (FVS)60 A?: 139 n. 50

ARCHIPPUSfr. (PCG)27: 22 n. 57

ARISTODEMUSfr. (FGrH)104 F i. 13. i: 106 n. 33

ARISTOMENESfr. (PCG)9: 154 n. 91

ARISTONYMUSfr. (PCG)4: 136 n. 41

ARISTOPHANESAch.15: 84 n. 8044: 177 n. 81, 26454-5: 206 n. 2955: 30 n. 92, 25160: 181 n. 9885: 192 n. 153

89: 64 n. 36

93: 242 n. 54

95: 251, 252

101: 248

103: 94104: 201 n. 14, 207, 207 n. 33, 223 n. 83

106: 235 n. 11

108-9:95

129: 181 n. 98

13°:255136: 261

138: 192 n. 154

155:255160: 192 n. 154

166: 258 n. 139

172: 33 n. 102

204: 260 n. 150

211-15: 182 n. 104

211/2: 139 n. 51

218: 182 n. 104

222: 178 n. 87

226: 256

237: 43

241:43

247-52:33247: 16 n. 28, 20

248-9: 37248: 29

250: 29, 33 n. 105

252: 33 n. 105

254: 252 n. 103

257: 259 n. 149

261: 26

272: 142 n. 57

276—83: 240 n. 47

277-8: 38, 40

283:250

284: 251

295: 250 n. 93

307: 182 n. 104

336: 255

341: 181 n. 98

342: 181 n. 98

343: 247 n. 73, 258

364: 264 n. 168

368: 193 n. 160

398: 90

405: 28 n. 82, 31 n. 96, 38

411: 185 n. 116

413: 185 n. 116

425: 243

426: 6, 254 n. 118

432-3: 5-6

433:254

435-6: 33 n. 106

435: 18

437-8:39

437: 29 n. 90

438: 31 n. 96

444: 177, 177 n. 79

454:255458: 181 n. 98

462-3:255

462: 187 n. 126

467: 187 n. 126

470: 181 n. 98

475: 187 n. 126

479: 254 n. 118

480: 146 n. 68

500: 254

512: 152

522:175

540:178 n. 84


563: 184 n. 114566-71: 19 n. 50567: 28 n. 79, 31 n. 96

568: 20, 38

570-1: 260

570: 32 n. 99

595: 263 n. 164

608: 191 n. 150

662: 73

665: 17 n. 38, 31 n. 97

671: 247 n. 73

673: 31 n. 97

675: 38

679: 73692: 186 n. 120

693: 757oi:73703: 186 n. 120705: 75, 169 n. 48714: 73,76, 177 n. 79715:75716: 169 n. 48729-835: 253730: 264 n. 168743: 253751: 2400.47754: 247 n. 77758-9: 21758: 251 n. 101805: 260806—7: 254 n. 116

811: 93

816-17: 18,33

816: 16 n. 29

818: 251

862: 244

887: 251

904: 238-9

920-1: 182 n. 104

926: 75

930-1: 177 n. 79

938: 75956: 190 n. 146960: 255985: 2551000-1: 33 n. 102

1018: 2511022: 249 n. 851035: 181 n. 1001049: 2551060: 265 n. 172

1089: 152 n. 79

1096: 260

1099: 258 n. 137

1101: 258 n. 137

1122: 258 n. 137

1129: 76, 249

1132-3: 251

1 135: 82 n. 741136-7: 2511156: 28 n. 811164-8: 253 n. no1174: 2511182: 2521185: 235 n. 121191/2: 192 n. 158, 235 n. 12, 255

1210: 192 n. 1581212:471219: 84 n. 821231: 26 n. 771233/4: 26 n. 77Av.5—6: 2607-8: 260 n. 15210: 183 n. in

14: 64

31: 252 n. 10445: 238 n. 3746-7: 25357-60: 12711. 1360: 127 n. 1473: 259 n. 14175: 178 n. 8676-9: 178 n. 84

95: 253

105: 137 n. 45

109: 74

127: 182 n. 104

134: 181 n. 98

147: 75153: 264 n. 168164: 263 n. 164180: 259 n. 143195:258224: 192 n. 154227-62: 35238: 237 n. 31

239: 242

246/7: 235 n. 14

250: 237 n. 31

252: 36

268: 191 n. 149269-304: 69 n. 45285: 178 n. 86290: 136 n. 39

291: 136 n. 39

3o8 Index of Passages

ARISTOPHANES, Av. (cont.):

294: '75299: 263 n. 1643346: 267346: 250 n. 93

367: 254 n. 113368: 235 n. ii369: 252 n. 107425: 249430: 138 n. 47, 192 n. 153435: 29 n. 86448-50: 33 n. 102462: 256 n. 127475: 256 n. 125485: 64 n. 36494-503: 261 n. 159509:242511:247536: 262 n. 160

554: 236 n. 20567: 235570: 102,103 n. 17579: 238 n. 35

591: 238 n. 35608: 263 n. 164

623—4: 46 n. 131623: 15 n. 25652: 152 n. 82

655: 152 n. 79

665: 255667—8: 190 n. 143

670: 190 n. 143

674: 262 n. 160

675: 29 n. 86

676: 20

677: 20, 23

679: 242 n. 53

686: 238 n. 35

687: 108691: 107 n. 35, 115 n. 63692: ngn. 3693-702: 103,107693: 107, 107 n. 35, 115 n. 63694: 107 n. 35697: 104 n. 24, 249 n. 88698: 115 n. 63, 235 n. 14700:104701: 247 n. 77732: 139 n. 51

748: 264 n. 168755: 152 n. 80777: 247 n. 77813-14: 179 n. 90

820: 238 n. 37

822: 264 n. 168

828: 235

829: 182 n. 104

852: 132 n. 28

855-6:14

863: 42 n. 127

864-88: 21

864-75:42 n. 126

864: 16, 25 n. 71866: 22 n. 56868: 20, 21 n. 55, 31 n. 96873:21 n. 54876: 20878-9: 46 n. 131881-8: 22899: 191 n. 149903: 38, 42 n. 126904-53:255 n. 120

905: 26, 31 n. 96915: 185 n. 116

921: 26, 255

928-30:259 n. 144930: 29 n. 87

936-7: 255

939: 254941/2: 251 n. 100

950/1: 26, 31 n. 96

952: 251 n. 99

959: 43962: 152 n. 82971: 259 n. 149

972: 235 n. 12973: 255 n. 124, 259 n. 149

975: 259 n. 149

978: 235 n. 12

983: 261, 267

1000-9: 69

1000: 192 n. 1531005: 181 n. 981017-18: 182 n. 1041031:751035-6:22 n. 57

1040-2:22 n. 57

1040-1: 33 n. 1021042: 192 n. 1551046-7: 22 n. 571046: 741049-50: 22 n. 57

1058-71: 35, 234

1066: 242

1082: 132 n. 28

1088—1101: 36

Index of Passages 3°9

1089-90: 361110: 256 n. 125

1126-9: 182 n. 104

1147: 182 n. 104, 246 n. 72

1169: 252 n. 103

1193: 107 n. 35

1213-15: 173 n. 67

1214: 190 n. 146

1216: 187 n. 128

1225: 260 n. 153

1234: 263 n. 164

1239: 264 n. 170

1240: 177 n. 78

1254-5: 173 n. 671257: 187 n. 128

1274:2551288: 154 n. 91

1291: 152 n. 79

1292: 256 n. 127

1301: 152 n. 79

I3U: 255

13M: 258

1337: 233'338: 177 n. 80, 177 n. 81, 259 n. 142

13430; 252 n. 106

1355: 2671360: 187 n. 1281362: 184 n. 115

1366:255

1372-1401:255 n. 1201401: 252 n. 104

1412: 242 n. 53

1413: 184 n. 115

1422: 75

1424: 107 n. 34

1425: 741426: 75

1435: 123, 254

1454—6: 177 n. 81

1455:741456: 250 n. 93

1457: 177". 791467:251

1473: 152n. 83

1485: 264 n. 168

1506: 250 n. 93

1507: 62 n. 28

1509: 177 n. 81, 264

1524: 259 n. 142

I54i: 751549: 177 n. 81

1553-64:113

1556: 264 n. 168

1570: 2491580: 1261592—3: 182 n. 104

1603:76

1615: 201 n. 14, 224 n. 86

1619:25 n. 71

1626:76

1628-9: 201 n. 14, 224 n. 86

1649: 181 n. 100

1653: 74,235

1661—6: 22 n. 57, 33 n. 1021671: 252 n. 1031676: 761678-9: 201 n. 14, 224 n. 861678: 207 n. 331689—90: 179 n. 90

1725:255

1736:42 n. 1261745:261747:22n. 581748: 20, 235 n. 131763: 47Eccl.1-200: 1961-18: 196

3-7:41 n. 123

10: 83 n. 75n: 254 n. 118

16: 191 n. 151

29: 264 n. 170

31: 186 n. 118

33: 192 n. 152

37: 178 n. 86

39: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 154

46: 170 n. 54

49: 170 n. 54

51: 170 n. 54

55: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 154

57: 177 n. 81, 264

58:17561: 152 n. 79, 192 n. 155

63: 192 n. 15466: 192 n. 154

71: 184 n. 11575: 192 n. 155

79: 28 n. 80

104: 185 n. 118

106: 252 n. 104in: 183 n. in112:244113-14: 169 n. 45

114: 192 n. 156

"S: 175

3io Index of Passages

ARISTOPHANES, Eccl. (cont.):116: 249 n. 85117: 177 n. 78, 178 n. 83, 259 n. 141118: 182 n. 104119: i83n. in, 191 n. 151120: 169 n. 45, 187 n. 128, 191 n. 151

131: 29 n. 86132: 259 n. 148133: 187 n. 128

136: 181 n. 98139: 152 n. 79140: 191 n. 147

143: 206 n. 29

146: 186 n. 120149: 265155-60: 189 n. 140159: 179165: 189 n. 139

171-2:39

171: 17, 25 n. 71

173-240: 173 n. 68

179: 178 n. 84181: 249 n. 88iSg-gi: 189 n. 140190-2:173 n. 68197:178 n. 84204: 173 n. 68, 189 n. 139238: 169 n. 51, 246 n. 73245: 185 n. 116, 187 n. 128246: 171 n. 58251: 64257: 178 n. 86, 184 n. 115265: 246 n. 73282:176284: 181 n. 100285-6: 189 n. 139286:177 n. 80287:184 n. 1152910:742926: 252 n. 103297:177 "• 81299: 189 n. 139300-12: 36311: 181 n. 98318: 171 n. 61325: 190 n. 146332: 171 n. 61350: 260 n. 153355:132n. 28369-71: 39369-70: 28369: 16 n. 28, 20, 31 n. 96

374: 171 n. 61

395: 249 n. 85404: 256410: 239417:85418-19: 33 n. 102

431-2: 254 n. 117

433: 83 n. 76

437: 189 n. 138

448: 75

45i: 75452: 73458: 152 n. 79

488: 265 n. 171491: 171 n. 58493: 186 n. 120495: 265 n. 171500: 171 n.58504-10: 254 n. 117

507—8:255 n. 120

507: 250

509: 183 n. 107514: 259 n. 147518:181 n. 98520-1: 168 n. 39520:187 n. 128551-5:168 n. 3955i: 247571: 106597: 248622: 192 n. 156624: 265 n. 172629: 259 n. 14563:: 189 n. 141643: 249 n. 88654: 192 n. 156669: 192 n. 156

674: 135 n. 36, 176

688: 259 n. 145695: 186 n. 118700-1: 252 n. 106706: 76, 188 n. 135709: 188 n. 135713: 171 n. 60716:177 n. 79727: 170 n. 55, 171 n. 58732:177 n. 79746-7: 152752: 259 n. 145761: 28 n. 80, 263 n. 164762:126771-2:246 n. 73

773-6: 261781: 46 n. 131

Index of Passages

783: 265 n. 171

788—90: 260 n. 152800: 193 n. 160

816:76

835: 171 n. 58836-7: 177 n. 79838: 246 n. 73864: 74870: 171 n. 58875-6: 145 n. 64881: 177 n. 79, 259 n. 142882: 16 n. 29, 17 n. 38, 31 n. 97

891: 187 n. 130

895: 254 n. 119

898: 259 n. 143901: 254 n. 119906: 83 n. 78908: 188 n. 135

915/17: 25917: 177 n. 78, 259 n. 142934: 188 n. 136942: 188 n. 135957: 1320.28958: 16 n. 32, 31 n. 96

959: 3°9590:31 n. 96

967: 16 n. 32, 31 n. 96

968:30

9680: 31 n. 96

970: 152 n. 79

973: 190 n. 143

976-7: 127 n. 13

977: 127 n. 16

983: 73985: 187 n. 125

986: 73

994: 187 n. 128

997: 264 n. 170, 265 n. 171

1000: 258

1015-20: 188 n. 135

1019-20: 253

1030:253

1040:252 n. 1071045: 28 n. 80

1046: 187 n. 126

1057: 80

1058: 169 n. 48

1062: 188 n. 135

1086: 152 n. 821087: 170 n. 53

1090:175

1094: 152 n. 82

1096:252 n. 107

1099: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 154

1103: 28 n. 80

1106: 244

1107: 259 n. 149

ii n: 259 n. 149

1123: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 154

1126: 170 n. 55, 171 n. 58

1129: 42 n. 126, 187 n. 130

1131: 175, 243 n. 581139: I52n. 79

1146: 259 n. 1491147: 152 n. 79

1161: 249 n. 881179: 183 n. i iiEq.

T. 2568: 192 n. 15517-18: 182 n. 10436: 62 n. 28, 179 n. 9052: 179 n. go61:8571: 106 n. 3175: 28n. 8181: 265 n. 172

98: 257112: 265

"5: 257128: 263 n. 164148-9: 17 n. 38, 19 n. 50149: 31 n. 97156: 25 n. 71

163: 242 n. 51

170: 28 n. 81

207: 238 n. 37

225—6: 152 n. 82

228: 93

230: 152 n. 79

235: 184 n. 114

255:74

259: 75295: 169 n. 48

307: 73352: 243368: 73383:85386: 184 n. 115

391-2: 262

408: 47 n. 134

424: 244

437: 67 n. 41

442: 73, 76

456: 249

461—71: 91

311

312 Index of Passages

ARISTOPHANES, Eq. (cont.):462-3: 68464: 68468: 152484: 244487: 252 n. 104545: 184 n. 115551-64: 35551-8:3655': 20559: 17 "• 38, 31 n. 97560: 20562: 20, 23

565: 256

573: 239 n. 41581-94: 35581: 20585: 20

586: 17 n. 38, 31 n. 97591-4: 30, 38

591: 17 n. 38, 28 n. 85, 31 "• 97616: 46 n. 132625-82: 261 n. 159627: 134 n. 35631: 252 n. 103634: 16 n. 31636: 38637: 31 n. 96

641: 74662: 246 n. 72669: 174 n. 72, 259 n. 141671: 187 n. 128

675'- 73681: 192 n. 154698: 259 n. 144700: 259 n. 144719: 139 n. 51725-9: 127 n. 13728: 127 n. 14729: 128763-8: 32, 40, 48763-6: 39763-4: 17

763: 20

764: 25 n. 71776: 91798: 74805: 259 n. 145808: 76825:74828: 184 n. 114844: 133 n. 31, 152 n. 79854: 152 n. 83

855: 252 n. 103856-7: 182 n. 104893: 174 n. 72, 259 n. 141909: 28 n. 85918: 265 n. 172920-1: 145 n. 64926: 265 n. 172928: 25 n. 71935: 259 n. 142941: 22 n. 57969: 99 n. 6973:235 n. 131039: 255 n. 124, 259 n. 1491057: 257,259 n. 1431073: 263 n. 164noo: 25 n. 691128: 256 n. 1271131: 2451132: 139 n. 511137: 1390. 511150: 74,831151: 188 n. 1361158: 2601161: 259 n. 1481165: 2431181: 201182: 174 n. 72, 259 n. 1411187: 259 n. 1491189: 201191: 192 n. 1531203: 1370.451213: 193 n. 1601234: 2431242: 2471247: 2531252: 243 n. 581266: 26 n. 771273: 251 n. 1011284-6: 240 n. 461298: 21 n. 531312: 591316-17:431316: 42 n. 127, 751318: 471327: 46 n. 1321332:761333: 31 n. 961335: I? n- 38, 31 n-971337:187 n. 1281358:751361:751375-81:1391378-81: 144 n. 63

Index of Passages

1379-80: 1341381: 169 n. 48

1390: 190 n. 1431393: 174 n. 72, 259 n. 141

1394-5:253Lys.

1—200: 196

3: 182 n. 104

7: 187 n. 129

8: 190 n. 143

14: 184 n. 115

17-19: 187 n. 129

18: 255 n. 122

26-7: I52n. 79

26:152

29: 192 n. 154

38: 181 n. 98

42: 246 n. 72

47: 171 n. 61

48: 171 n. 61

56: 187 n. 128

63: 184 n. 112

65: 181 n. 98

68: 184 n. 112

70: 184 n. 114

72: 171 n. 61

74: 17579-80: 190 n. 14383: 190 n. 143

84: 264 n. 16888-90: 190 n. 143

89: 190 n. 144

96: 181 n. 98101: 152 n. 82, 255 n. 122

102—3: 187 n. 129102: 184 n. 112

104: 28

107: 181 n. 100

108: 248 n. 84, 255 n. 122

113: 182 n. 104

"4: 175115-16: 182 n. 103, 182 n. 104

125: 180, 181 n. 98126: 175138: 185 n. 116141: 182 n. 104

147-8:182 n. 104150: 171 n. 61

155: 184 n. 112157: 187 n. 128

164: 193 n. 160168: 256 n. 125172: 181 n. 98, 193 n. 160

175: 152 n. 79, 176 n. 76

182: 177 n. 79184: 171 n. 60

191: 182 n. 104202: 181 n. 98

203: 16 n. 29, 20204: 28 n. 85, 29, 31 n. 96, 38209: 254 n. 117212—36: 13 n. 19

217: 20

221: 177 n. 79

222: 177 n. 79

239: 177 n. 79

240-2: 46 n. 132

252—3: 182 n. 104262-3:250n. 93267-9:177n. 79268: 244270: 76, 170 n. 54

283: 189 n. 137

292-3: 145 n. 64

301: 256 n. 125

304: 252 n. 106

315: 259 n. 147

317-18:33 n. 106,34

317: 16 n. 29, 20, 28 n. 79, 31 n. 96

325: 188 n. 136341-9:16 n. 33, 18341: 16 n. 31, 33 n. 101

343: 27 n. 78

344/5: 20346-9:33 n. 106

346: 28 n. 79

347: 20355: 181 n. 101

356: 169 n. 47

358-9: 177 "• 79361: 182 n. 104

363: 188 n. 134

371: 189 n. 137

372: i88n. 136373-4: 178 n. 83

373: 259 n. 141

374: 259 n. 141

380: 74

384: 177 n. 78, 265 n. 171

397: 189 n. 137

416: 256 n. 125

418: 178 n. 86419: 177 n. 79425:177n. 79432: 252 n. 107433-62: 206 n. 29

313


ARISTOPHANES, Lys. (cont.):439—42: 188442: 169 n. 47471: 187 n. 128474: 181 n. 100485: 244 n. 60496—501: 145 n. 64500-1: 145 n. 64507-20: 168 n. 39510-19:182 n. 106521: 186 n. 122526: 249536: 259 n. 149539-40: 177 n. 79541/2: 182 n. 104547: 254 n. 119553: 85 n. 87, 175560: 262 n. 160567—86: 168 n. 42567: 247 n. 73572-3:182 n. 104580-1:259 n. 145603: 28 n. 85622/3: 189 n. 137625: 264 n. 168627: 169 n. 47635: 189 n. 137689/90: 177 n. 81698: 76707: 181 n. 98, 190 n. 143

715:85729—30: 152 n. 82742: 16 n. 28, 20, 31 n. 96743: 270.78744: 257 n. 133760: 193 n. 159762: 187 n. 130763: 254 n. 117774: 242 n. 53775: 242 n. 51776: 243

777: 94784-92:261 n. 159815: 24 n. 65821: 179 n. 90826: 178n. 87833: 16 n. 28, 20834: 20, 31 n. 96, 42 n, 126839: 259 n. 143, 259 n. 147842: 193 n. 160850: 181 n. 98851: 181 n. 98852: 240 n. 46

853: 184 n. 115854: 184 n. 115864: 181 n. 98872: 187 n. 126878: 28 n. 82882:255 n. 122889: 187 n. 125890:187 n. 125891: 186 n. 122895: 248 n. 81901: 236 n. 20902: 236 n. 20909: 181 n.98910:257917-18:258917: 189 n. 141918: 178 n. 87931: 171 n. 61935: 193 n. 160938: 179, 1790.90948: 186 n. 122951:76952: 249962: 188 n. 134970: 219 n. 75971: 219 n. 75972-9: 23972: 16 n. 28973~9: 32 n. 100987: 851003: 2491005: 259 n. 1451025—6:182 n. 1041037: 169 n. 501038: 152 n. 79, 184 n. 1151043-71: 361043-9: 189 n. 1371045: 2391050:2601070: 256 n. 1261074: 181 n. 981093—4: 264 n. 1701094: 265 n. 1711112: 184 n. 1151118: 186 n. 1201119: 188 n. 1351125: 184 n. 1151127:184 n. 1151131:251 n. 1011143: 237 n. 341144: 192 n. 1541145-6:2571148: 190 n. 143

Index of Passages

1157-8: 190n. 1431159: 192 n. 1561175: 2671183-4: 17711. 791189:171 n. 611223-4: 17711. 791228: 190 n. 1461243: 26 n. 771247:31 n. 961263-5: 301263: 17 n. 38, 31 n. 971265: 177 n. 801266/7: 33 n. 1011270:33 n. 1011271: 17 n. 38, 31 n. 971280: 17, 250 n. 931282: 291286: 201291:471296-1315:351297: 31 n. 971298: 26, 251 n. 1011300: 22 n. 581303/4: 25, 177 n. 801320/1: 25Nub.16: 12426: 1330. 3327:12430: 233,251 n. 9933: 133 "• 33, 187 n. 12836: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 15457: 181 n. 9860: 264 n. 16875: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 15483: 10194: 113, 127 n. 1295-7: 98, 116 n. 70101: 106, 127 n. 12103: 115105: 108 n. 43107: 181 n. 98in: 180116:181 n. 98118: 182 n. 104128: 127 n. 12133: 126135-7: 126-7, 128135: 127 n. 12136: 106, 127 n. 12137: 106, 127 n. 12140: 108142: 127 n. 12

'S3:139155: 127 n. 12, 137161: 107, 137 n. 43164: 107166: 137

167: 73, 76175: "5181: 127 n. 12182: 250 n. 94183:85185: 249 n. 88189: 127 n. 12191-202: 69192-3: 66 n. 38192: 106, 107, 122194:122195: 11411. 59205: 137 n. 42206: 180, 181 n. 98212-13: 66215: 127 n. 12219: 113-14223: 107225-6:66225: 106, 114, 123229: 106, 127 n. 12, 137232-6: 66233: 106, 127 n. 12236: 106, 127 n. 12247-8: 137, 138248: 138260: 138263: 14, 28 n. 83,43264-74: 13, 14,48, "5264-5: 251264: 16 n. 28, 20265: 20, 59266: 20, 28 n. 85, 31 n. 97, 127 n. 12268: 260 n. 152269: 20, 31 n. 97, 136 n. 39272: 251 n. 101274: 28 n. 82, 28 n. 85, 29, 31 n. 96, 38275-90:255 n. 120283: 26 n. 76, 137 n. 43284: 26 n. 76289: 28 n. 81291: 59297: 235 n. 13298—313:255 n. 120299/300: 251 n. 99

305: 137 n. 43306: 242 n. 51

315:59

3"5


ARISTOPHANES, Nub. (cont.):317-18: 67, 134,136320: 123327: 85331-4: 109, no332: ni, 115334:123335: 238 n. 35355: 185 n. 118356-7: 40 n. 120356: 39,40360: 28 n. 82361: 119 n. 3363: us, 123367: 258 n. 139376: 104377:i°4379: 104380-1: 101, 105380: 101383-94: 97384: 138393: 186 n. 120394: 97401: 235 n. 13, 238 n. 35

4°5: i°5406:138409: 262 n. 160414: 127 n. 12, 141, 254418: 186 n. 120420: 106, 127 n. 12422: 193 n. 160, 234 n. 7424: 115 n.̂ 3425: 182 n. 104427: 184 n. 114429—30:33 n. 106429: 16 n. 28, 30 n. 91432: 252 n. 107

433: "3447: 138456: 127 n. 12458: 184 n. 115481: 124482-4:141483: 144 n. 63488: 193 n. 160493: 258495: 74, 77497: 133 n. 33

503: "3505: 169 n. 48, 258 n. 139515-16: 256 n. 125539: 178 n. 83, 259 n. 141

559: 2420. 54562: 250 n. 91563-74: 17, 19, 35565: 20567/8: 237 n. 29569: 22 n. 58570: 20, 23

573: 2°

595-606: 17,35

595: 20, 39602: 20

604: 237 n. 34616: 184 n. 113624: 124, 262 n. 160627: 115, 128

638-45: 66651-3: 66658-92:118659-61: 66660-6: 99664: 263 n. 164668: 137 n. 42669-80: 99677: 263 n. 164681-92: 99689-91: 185690: 263 n. 164695: 127 n. 12696: 25 n. 69697: 127 n. 12700: 127 n. 12705: 137 n. 45709-15:261 n. 159722: 260 n. 153723: 127 n. 12724: 127 n. 12727-30: 141

727-9: 141 "• 54, 145-6, 148729: 138, 141 n. 54730: 137731: 141 n. 54735: 127 n. 12738: 131 n. 26739: 265 n. 172740: 106, 127 n. 12741: 106

743: 137747: 137, 142, 144758: 73762: 106, 127 n. 12764: 77, 134766—8: 100

77°: 73

Index of Passages

775:25577?:75780: 74, 77

782: 73790: 243792: 123, 250 n. 93

795:152814: 128

817: 184 n. 114

819: 260, 260 n. 152

821: 142

823: 62 n. 28

826: 151

828: 105, 128

830: 116 n. 71

840:182 n. 104845: 73, 78850-1: 128850: 259 n. 149

856-9: 128

857: 127 n. 12858: 128859: 128868: 108869:238 n. 37

871: 24 n. 65

874-5: 76-7, 134, 136

874: 73877: 193 n. 160

890: 178 n. 87905: 256 n. 125

911: 242

931: 169 n. 48

937-8: 177 n. 79

949—58:255 n. 120

951: 106, 127 n. 12

952: 106, 127 n. 12

966: 137 n. 42

967: 137 n. 43

968: 248

974: 17711. 78

983: 124

989: 20

994: 124

999: 124

1024—33:255 n. 1201039: 127 n. 12

1053: 169 n. 48

1056—7: 182 n. 104

1061-2: 149

1061: 1511065-6:131 n. 261067: 151

1071: 151

1080: 133 n. 33, 259 n. 149

1084: 151

1095: 131 n. 25

1103: 28 n. 85

i ii i: 193 n. 160

1122: 256

1129: 192 n. 152

1143: 131 n. 25

1144: 127 n. 12

1148: 131 n. 25

1150: 131 n. 25, 138

"5i: 73

"52: 75

"57: 258

1159: 257

1165: 254 n. 1181168: 2511172-3: 142, 144 n. 63

1178-1200: 98

1192: 187 n. 128

1193: 76

1199: 177 n. 78, 246 n. 72

1205: 26 n. 77

1218: 75

1221:74

1222: 75

1231: i37n-42

1250: 182 n. 104

1252: 260 n. 153

1258: 142

1266: 133 n. 33

1275: 190 n. 146

1277: 751286: 98

1297: 75

1303:1511313: 236 n. 23

1327: 242 n. 54

1338: 187 n. 128

1345: 127 n. 12, 259 n. 147

1357:1511373-6: 261 n. 159

1374:186 n. 1201379: 2571382-5:182 n. 1061396: 181 n. 1001397: 259n. 1471404: 106, 127 n. 121412:1511418: 186 n. 120, 252 n. 1061439: 186 n. 1201440: 250 n. 93

317

Index of Passages

ARISTOPHANES, Nub. (cont.):1461: 1770. 791465: 250 n. 941471: 105, 1331473: 1031477: 250 n. 941478: 16 n. 31, 20, 31 n. 961479: 31 n. 961481: 31 n. 96, 731482: 731483:1231484: 124 n. 81487: 127 n. 121494:259 n. 1471495:263 n. 1641496: 123, 123 n. 71497: 123, 1261498: 133 n. 331503: 106, 123PaxT. 192 n. 15321: 264 n. 16523: 252 n. 10627: 192 n. 15450-3: 22 n. 5650-2: 62 n. 2851: 22 n. 5656: 15 n. 2558-9: 23,3958: i6n. 2859: 31 n. 9662-3: 23, 3962: 16 n. 28, 30

63: 3768: 182, 182 n. 10483: 181 n. 9887: 181 n. 9895: 190 n. 14696-101: 4396—7: 42 n. 12797: 46 n. 132107: 73113: 186 n. 122121: 181 n. 100132: 262137: 187 n. 128140: 235 n. 10179-728: ign. 50179-81: 127 n. 13190: 93197: 152, 246 n. 73209: 246 n. 72218: 235

226: 259 n. 141251: 193 n. 159259: 187 n. 128271:235291: 257301: 260 n. 150310: 265 n. 171321: 182 n. 104331: 185 n. 118334:152n. 82346: 34 n. 107380: 187 n. 128382: 24385-99: 14, 40

385-8:39385: i6n. 32, 20386: 29 n. 90388: 31 n. 963900: 31 n. 96

392-9: 38

392-3: 23392: 31 n. 96

393-4: 23395: 37399: 20, 25400-4: 38,39400: 31 n. 96402: 243 n. 58413: 259 n. 142416-24: 38416: 16 n. 32, 20, 28 n. 79, 31 n. 96417: 31 n. 96422: 19 n. 49430: 184 n. 115432: 16 n. 35, 265 n. 171433: 42 n. 126, 44 n. 128

434: 43435-53: 32435: i6n. 35, 25 n. 71, 38442: 20

445: 20

450: 259 n. 144

453: 45456: 22 n. 56483:253523: 31 n. 96526: 187 n. 126532: 90539: 191 n. 151

551-5:33 n. 102555:47, 260 n. 150566: 152 n. 79582—600: 41

3i8

Index of Passages

582: 20, 29 n. 89, 31 n. 96

605-48: 261 n. 159

607: 249 n. 88

623: 1780. 86630: 187 n. 128

634: 178 n. 86639-47: 182 n. 1 06662: 243688: 264 n. 165701: 263 n. 164739: 186 n. 12075i: 9i759: 244 n. 60761: 186 n. 120

776-7: 38777: 31 n. 96778: 2678i:37785-6: 31 n. 96

785: 28 n. 82, 31 n. 96

787: 31 n. 96

79Q: 25801: 26 n. 76

816/17: 31 n. 96

826: 255

847: 244, 263 n. 164

857: 260 n. 153

880: 256 n. 125

884: 187 n. 128

900: 264 n. 1 68

922-3: 145 n. 64

926: 240 n. 47

968: 42 n. 126

974-1016: 33, 34

974: 16 n. 28, 20, 23

975: 20

976: 20, 44 n. 128

977-8: 38977: 28 n. 85, 31 n. 96

978: 20, 28 n. 85, 31 n. 96

979: 31 n. 96

986: 31 n. 96

987: 28 n. 85, 31 n. 96, 192 n. 153

991-2: 19

991: 31 n. 96

993: 31 n. 96

995/6: 31 n. 96

998: 31 n. 96

1000: 33 n. 105

1003: 33 n. 105

1005: 33 n. 105

1007: 33 n. 105

1010: 33 n. 105ion: 33 n. 1051012: 33 n. 1051015:33 n. 1051016: 16 n. 33, 20, 25 n. 71, 28, 31 n.94, 31 n. 96, 34 n. 108, 45

1018: 245 n. 661037: 2581054:2531057-8: 152 n. 791061: 2601063: 108 n. 431064: 235 n. 1210760/6: 2451098: 235 n. 141104: 42 n. 126, 44 n. 1281108: 19 n. 50, 201119: 751147-8: 621153: 259 n. 1491156:177 n. 811182: 2471184:252 n. 1031187: 741201: 238 n. 371204: 28 n. 851223: 181 n. too, 182 n. 1041234: 731242-4:253 n. 1101262: 254 n. 1161274: 250 n. 931276-92: 247 n. 771279: 2441286: 82 n. 74, 237 n. 311298: 251301: 242 n. 531305: 259 n. 1471318-22: 431322-30: 16 n. 351322: 25 n. 711334-5: 42 n- '261336: 42 n. 126Pint.

13: 264 n. 16717: 181 n. 10027: 24329: 24737: 190 n. 146, 239

40: 94

49: 152 n. 82

50: 190 n. 146

53: 191 n. 147

55: 256

319

775–81: 38


ARISTOPHANES, Plut. (cont.):63: 28 n. 8565: 250 n. 9373: 2540. 11477:152n. 79

83: 24389: 191 n. 148

98: 248

112: 177 n. 81, 264115: 63, 64, 85137-8: 182 n. 104138:239154: 191 n. 147160-7: 70161: 152 n. 79162-7: 68,124166: 238 n. 37182: 243225-6: 177 n. 79244: 181 n. 100258: 186 n. 120260: 191 n. 147274: 190 n. 146277: 252355: 190 n. 146

356: 190 n. 146361: 243362: 190 n. 146364: 190 n. 146368-73:133 n. 30371: 152 n. 80372-3: 129374: 259 n. 1433?6: 74402: 191 n. 150404: 185 n. 116413: 191 n. 150419: 252 n. 104424: 252 n. 103427: 171 n. 60429-30: 2540. 114438: 259 n. 143448: 249 n. 88454: 13811. 47471: 254 n. 114480: 75, 77481: 73482: 254 n. 114484: 254 n. 114485—6: 182 n. 104489: 261499: 75505: 246 n. 71

507: 190 n. 146509: 254 n. 114511: 182 n. 104513-14: 68,124517: 252 n. 104532: 254 n. 114559:85562: 254564: 139 n. 51, 191 n. 148565: 191 n. 148566: 191 n. 148571: 178 n. 87592: 16 n. 34593: 260 n. 152608—9: 254 n. 114622: 264 n. 170626: 152 n. 79636: 29 n. 87653-747: 261 n. 159658:81 n. 68662: 186 n. 120671: 191 n. 148680:247 n. 73695: 247709: 191 n. 148715: 1840. 115719: 248733-4: 254 n. 114735-6: 254 n. 114743: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 154747: 243755: 184 n. 115771: 17 n. 36, 25 n. 71772: 20822: 247833-8:261867: 152 n. 83870: 190 n. 146877: 28 n. 80

891:75917:74932:75933:75939: 252 n. 106941: 263 n. 164963: 142 n. 57978: 191 n. 148981: 184 n. 115982-6: 182 n. 106998: 263 n. 1641003: 184 n. 1151009: 191 n. 1471015:192 n. 154


1018: 190 n. 1431019: 238 n. 371020: 190 n. 1431025: 184 n. 113

1039: 741044:252 n. 1041060: 190 n. 1461066: 190 n. 1461073: 741097: 127 n. 13, 127 n. 141101: 1271115:2391122: 186 n. 1201147: 28 n. 851152-65:18 n. 481153: 2380. 371166: 185 n. 1161171: 264 n. 1651175:28 n. 801181: 731182: 2391186: 28n. 801189: 28 n. 801192: 152 n. 791196: 260 n. 1501208: 186 n. 120Ran.

i: 179

5: 936: 1797: 25511: 25 n. 6924: 259 n. 14234: 182 n. 10435—6: 152 n. 8237-9: 127 n. 1338-9: 127

4°: 25564: 179

7i: 9389-90: 152 n. 8291: 169 n. 48, 24392: 138 n. 4796—7: 182 n. 10496:8998: 89122: 257 n. 134127: 179 n. 90133: 259 n. 149134: 86 n. 88159: 184 n. 112167:25 n. 69169: 259 n. 149

192: 64, 85193: 250 n. 92198: 263 n. 164202: 258 n. 139209-49: 234213: 179 n. 91, 235 n. 13217: 247n. 77236:81

271:255289: 18411. 112

293: 184 n. 112298—9: 25 n. 70301: 42 n. 126302: 249303-4: 238320: 26, 184 n. 112323-36: 36323/4: 20326: 31 n. 97328:237n. 29337-8: 19 n. 50340/1: 31 n. 96, 237 n. 29, 257 n. 134351/2: 31 n. 96354-70: 42 n. 126, 44370: 26378:18379: 26383-4: 15 n. 25384: 26385-93: 15 n. 25, 343850: 16 n. 293856: 15 n. 25, 20, 28 n. 79, 31 n. 96386: 18, 28, 31 n. 96

387-93:33 n- i°5395: 17, 17 n. 38398: 20399: 31 n. 96401: 31 n. 96

403-7:39408:31 n. 96413: 31 n. 96416-17: 179 n. 90, 179 n. 91433: 152 n. 82445:237 n. 34459: 90464: 127 n. 13, 127 n. 14479: 42 n. 126482: 258 n. 137506: 19211. 153508—9: 258508: 189 n. 141509: 239519-20: 114 n. 60


ARISTOPHANES, Ran. (cont.):

528:75532: 193 n. 160

546: 178 n. 86

554: 256559-67: 183, 261

562: 252 n. 103

572—3: 182 n. 104

574: 259 n. 143

5?8: 75, 77581: 182 n. 104

585: 182 n. 104

589: 47 n. 135

590: 259 n. 147

5980: 184 n. 115

6030: 252n. 103,253

605-6: 254n. 113

614: 181 n. 100

652—8: 145 n. 64

671: 178 n. 86

674-5: 38674: 31 n. 97

675: 31 n. 97, 235 n. 13

680: 238 n. 35

683: 26 n. 76

695: 184 n. 113, 184 n. 115697:186 n. 120

708: 184 n. 115

715: 142 n. 57

720: 137

721: 152 n. 79

722: 137737: 250 n. 91738: 28 n. 80

741: 260 n. 152

745: 25 n. 69

746: 24 n. 65

751: 191 n. 151

752: 191 n. 151

761: 152 n. 79

766: 259 n. 142

778: 264 n. 168

785: 88

797:257799—801: 91

799: 91

800: 91

804: 252 n. 103

818-25: 91

819: 90

827: 91, 237 n. 32

828: 93, 123 n. 7

834: 134n. 35

837: 59, 89840: 170 n. 56

843: 184 n. 114

851: 21 n. 53

854: 90

862: 92

867: 88

872: 177 n. 79

873: 88

874: 26 n. 77

875: i6n. 28

876: 28 n. 81, 93

879: 28 n. 81, 31 n. 97

882/3: 88

886-7:33 n. 106

886: 16 n. 29, 38

892-4:33 n. 106

892: 16 n. 29, 38

8966: 89

898:237 n. 32

8990:184 n. 115

8996: 184 n. 115

900: 186 n. 120

goia: 93

904: 89

906: 93

910: 92

911-20: 182 n. 106

911: 191 n. 149

917: 169 n. 48

921: 251 n. 97

927: 94, 239930: 184 n. 113, 184 n. 115

939-44: 57 n. 14940:64

941: 64, 93,94

942: 64, 90

943: 64,155n. 92

947:252 n. 106

950: 182 n. 106

953: 9°954: 191 n. 151

956: 89

967: 93

986: 181 n. 98

992: 237 n. 32

996: 74

1004: 59,94

1009: 139 n. 51

1020: 59, 89

1023: 133 n. 31

1038: 248

1047: 250n. 93


io6o: 186 n. 1201069: 169 n. 481104: 891 1 06: 250 n. 931108: 93i no: 2651111:931113: 246 n. 731114: 881116: 92, 246 n. 731 1 19—1246: 651 1 19: 65, 921120: 651121: 93, 265 n. 1711122: 621142: 2541172: 237 n. 321178: 921181: 1391 190: 248 n. 841192-5: 261 n. 1591200-47: 92

1221: 2491239: 58, 192 n. 1531247: 841255: 621261: 621262: 621263: 761264-77: 2331280: 851281-2: 621281: 92, 259 n. 1451282: 133 n. 311297: 621306: 17 n. 381307: 26 n. 77, 621314: 237 n. 321318: 251 n. 1011326: 621331-63:23313390: 254 n. 1181340: 177 n. 811349: 237 n. 321351: 177 n. 78

1353: 235 n. '21359: 320.991362: 31 n. 961363: 177 n. 791364-1413: 58

1367:58'37°: 931379: 58

1381:581387:581388:581396: 152 n. 801399: 244 n. 601401: 259 n. 1481403: 251 n. 1011407: 581409: 155 n. 921410: 581418: 191 n. 1471419: 259 n. 1411423: 81 n. 701424: 263 n. 1641433: 28 n. 80H34: 94H4S: 941448: 245 n. 691450: 182 n. 1041462: 42 n. 1261467: 259 n. 1481478: 97 n. 21485: 250 n. 911492: 169 n. 481496: 941527: 261529: i6n. 32, 31 n. 961531: 41 n. 1241532: 32 n. 99Thesm.32-3: 24834: 260 n. 15339-50: 45 n. 13039-48: 4339-40: 42 n. 12739: 242 n. 5141: 254 n. 11844: 26 n. 7652-7: 9152: 71 n. 5154-7: 6854-6: 12475: 152 n. 7977: 152 n. 8284: 245 n. 66101-29: 17 n. 40, 233, 255 n. 120101: 234102: 237 n. 34107: 26, 31 n. 96108: 235 n. 12no: 251 n. 101n i: 29 n. 89, 31 n. 96, 235 n. 12

115: 26, 234


ARISTOPHANES, Thesm. (cont.):116: 20, 26118: 26122: 137 n. 44123: 20125:237126: 235 n. 12, 251 n. 101, 255 n. 124128: 20, 25129: 29 n. 89, 31 n. 96138: 191 n. 151143: 171 n. 61147: 136 n. 39154: 236 n. 20155:192 n. 156IS?: 259 n. 149183:254188:73192: 172 n. 63

196: 182 n. 104, 254203: 175, 252 n. 107236: 132 n. 28243:126267—8: 172 n. 63267: 191 n. 151

273: 252 n. 107

282: 16 n. 31, 23 n. 61, 28 n. 85

283: 29

285:177 n. 78286-91:33 n. 105

286: 16 n. 29, 20

287-8: 38

289: 181 n. 98

291: 181 n. 98

292: 171 n. 59

29S-37i:39,196295-311: 22, 39

295: 44, 196296: 16, 25 n. 71

305: 29

307-8:170

310-1i: 46

311: 29 n. 90, 32 n. 99

312-30: 22

312: 47 n. 135

313: 24314: 29 n. go315: 16 n. 29, 22 n. 58

319: 17 n. 38, 31 n. 97320: 20, 22 n. 58322: 20325: 235 n. 14338: 33 n. 101329: 28, 33 n. 101

331-51: 22, 22 n. 57, 39

331-4: 42 n. 126, 171

331: 16, 16 n. 35, 25 n. 71

335-6: 170 n. 57

346: 170 n. 57

350-1: 46

350: 24, 25 n. 71

35i: 25 n. 71

352: i6n. 35, 28, 47 n. 135

353:28

368-71:46

368-9: i6n. 33369: 28,33 n. 101

370-470: 196

370: 28 n. 79371: 178 n. 87372-3: 170 n. 57372: 196383: 261385: 193 n. 159387:170 n. 56393: 169 n. 45, 169 n. 47, 169 n. 51

394: 190 n. 146

397: 247 n. 73

405: 178 n. 84407-8: 178 n. 84

426: 175

429: 175, 191 n. 150430: 191 n. 150

431: 265 n. 171

432: 171 n. 59

440-1: 182 n. 103, 182 n. 104

444: 74452: 186 n. 118456: 178 n. 86462: 184 n. 115463-4: 184 n. 115

463: 137 n. 45

466-519: 173 n. 68476-89:261 n. 159483-5 : 169 n. 51484:84 n. 83490: 185, 185 n. 118

496: 185 n. 118

502—16: 169 n. 51509: 82 n. 71, 257 n. 133519: 252 n. 106526: 182 n. 104532: 175535:188 n. 136553: i?9 n. 90555:181 n. 101556: 185 n. 118


570: 249 n. go573: 191 n. 148582: 186 n. 120585: 259 n. 142586: 191 n. 147588: 259 n. 142594: 189 n. 140601-2: 177 n. 81605: I7on. 54615: 187 n. 128616: 85619: 170 n. 54, 263 n. 164627: 181 n. 98634: 187 n. 130636: 190 n. 146641: 80646: 250649: 251 n. 97653: 265,265 n. 171657: 235 n. 10658: 192 n. 152674-6: 253695:255 n. 120706: 132 n. 28710: 184 n. 115714: 25 n. 71715: 182 n. 103717: 169 n. 47722: 186 n. 120727: 126735: 243779: 28n. 85793: 252 n. 104801: 264 n. 165810: 25 n. 71

813:'75816-17: 243 n. 58830: 182 n. 104839: 186 n. 120843-5: 98 n. 5851: 192 n. 156852: 175853: 191 n. 148859: 184 n. 115860: i88n. 136

863: 77870: 260 n. 151

872: 259 n. 143874: 254 n. 118878: 251 n. 97880: 252 n. 104898: 170 n. 54919: 254

921: 185 n. 116938: 178 n. 87944: 259 n. 141

948:59961: 26962-5: 189 n. 137970: 26971: 20972: 29 n. 89, 31 n. 96973: 28 n. 84, 31 n. 94, 31 n. 96974: 26, 186 n. 120977: 24978: 20

979: 29

981: 29 n. 90982: 29, 29 n. 90987: 31 n. 96988: 237 n. 29989: 20, 26999: 237 n. 291001: 218 n. 701002: 205 n. 25, 215 n. 59, 2181005: 208, 218 n. 731006: 208 n. 36, 2161007: 208 n. 40, 209, 214 n. 58, 216, 217,218 n. 71

1009:28 n. 801013: 192 n. 156

1031: 741034-5: 471034:237 n. 341038: 192 n. 1581040: 241044: 235 n. 141045—6:251 n. 991046: 264 n. 1681052: 237 n. 321055: 251 n. 1011082:2191083: 191 n. 151, 204 n. 241084: 209, 211 n. 49, 2161085: 208 n. 38, 214 n. 581086: 202, 215, 216, 218 n. 701087: 191 n. 1511088: 218 n. 721089: 209, 2101092: 204 n. 21, 214, 215, 2181093:2171095:2191096: 2071097: 215 n. 601101-3:2191102-3:2:0


ARISTOPHANES, Thesm.(cont.):1102: 209 n. 42, 2101103: 2151104: 2141106: 264 n. 1681108-9: 191 n. 1511108: 205 n. 25, 215 n. 59, 2181109: 216 n. 66, 217, 218I in: 208 n. 37, 215, 218, 220

1112: 215 n. 611114: 205 n. 25, 208 n. 38, 215 n. 59, 2201119: 152 n. 79, 217, 218, 218 n. 701120: 216, 216 n. 65, 2171122: 235 n. 101123-4:215 n. 59,2171123: 215, 217, 218, 2191124: 215, 218 n. 70,2191125: 211 n. 491126: 216, 218 n. 70

1127: 216,218, 218 n. 701128: 2491133: 181 n. 98, 208 n. 40, 215, 215 n.S9,2i8

1134: 187 n. 1301135: 205 n. 25, 211 n. 51, 215 n. 61,217, 218, 220

"36-59: 17, 351137: 17 n. 38, 17 n. 391143: 28 n. 85, 31 n. 97, 351144: 186 n. 1201145: 17 n. 391146:33 n. 1011148: 29, 31 n. 97, 242 n. 511149: 201155: 24, 31 n. 971156: 22 n. 58"57-9: 381157: 281158: 31 n. 971159: 17 n. 38, 251175: 187 n. 1301176: 208, 216, 218 n. 1179: 210 n. 45, 218 n. 731180: 208 n. 40, 218, 2191183: 2191184: 215 n. 59, 217, 2191185-93:2111185: 190 n. 143, 205, 208 n. 37, 21561, 219

1187: 190 n. 143, 205 n. 25, 208 n. 38,215 n. 59, 217, 218, 218 n. 70, 236 n.20

1188: 215, 219, 219 n. 74

1192: 187 n. 126, 208 n. 40, 209, 21215, 218,218 n. 70, 219 n. 75

1193: 216 n. 65, 217 n. 691194: 2191195: 211 n. 48, 215 n. 59, 218 n. 731196: 217, 2191197: 208 n. 38, 218 n. 70, 2191198: 187 n. 129, 204 n. 241199: 215, 2181200: 215,2181201: 214 n. 58, 218 n. 731210—11: 208 n. 371210:216izi i: 18411. 1151212: 202, 215, 216, 218 n. 701213: 184 n. 114, 208 n. 371214: 204 n. 21, 209, 215, 218, 2191215: 205, 209, 218, 2191218: 217, 218,2191220: 208 n. 37, 215, 2181222: 218, 218 n. 70, 218 n. 711225: 216, 218 n. 711229-31: i6n. 34, 331230-1: 381231:29 n. 90Vesp.29:192 n. 15437: 257 n. 13448: 263 n. 16459: 25070: 259 n. 14171-88: 6772: 239 n. 4177:6788:7491: 181 n. 10092: 181 n. 100

93:7594: ?699: 74102: 75106: 75109: 76no: 259 n. 142113: 177 n. 81, 265120: 74124: 74127: 152 n. 79

133-5: 253138: 250, 250 n. 92141: 265147:235 n. 10151: 238 n. 37


155: 265157: 73, 249160: 73162: 264 n. 170

167: 75171-2: 182 n. 104

178: 177, 177 n. 79186: 184 n. 1 14

189: 75195: 74, 82 n. 71206: 74213: 181 n. 100222: 250244: 2492756: 183 n. i ii

2770: 85304-5: 74, 77313: 259 n. 141321-2:74323: 16 n. 31324: 31 n. 96327-8: 39327: 20, 29, 30, 31 n. 96329: 31 n. 96331: 31 n. 96332: 31 n. 96

333:76349: 75, 76352: 252368: i6n. 34, 33, 39372: 265386: 73, 259 n. 149389-90: 37389: 16 n. 28, 20, 29 n. go390: 76

393-4: 37, 38, 39, 4°393: 28, 31 n. 96422: 260 n. 150425: 177 n. 81429: 26 n. 74433: 254 n. 117437: 250 n. 93438: 16 n. 28, 20439-40: 28

439: 30, 39455: 252 n. 103472: 259 n. 143

482: 75

489: 74508-9: 182 n. 104510-11: 182 n. 104527/8: 265 n. 171541: 181 n. 100

544/5: 73550: 243 n. 58

552: 73558: 73, 247562: 73570: 238 n. 35

57i:73,74574: 248 n. 84577: 181 n. 98578: 73579: 73, 76583: 74584: 73587: 73588: 26 n. 74

589: 73, 7459I: 76605-12: 261 n. 159614: 24615: 235 n. 13635: 247643: 252 n. 103

645: 73650: 252 n. 106652: 16 n. 31656: 76

675: 76678: 238 n. 35691: 75693: 76695: 75701: 181 n. 100711: 251 n. 101717: 248 n. 84718:76

724: 75726: 250 n. 91, 259 n. 148735: 28 n. 85753: 233754: 73,79755: 74756: 76764-5: 29 n. 90769: 74, 76772: 74775: 74778: 73782: 75784: 250 n. 93797: 184 n. 115810: 80,85816:73824-6: 78


ARISTOPHANES, Vesp. (cont.):825: 74826: 73830: 73, 74

834: 67835: 260, 260 n. 152837: 238 n. 37

840: 73, 74

842: 73, 74847:73,75, 252 n. 103848: 73, 75851: 74853:74854: 74857: 75858:75862: 42 n. 126, 177 n. 79868: 43, 192 n. 156

869: 16 n. 28, 29

870-3: 33 "• I04872: 33 n. 102

874: 45

875-84: 33, 34875-6: 20

875: 16 n. 28, 20876: 28 n. 85, 31 n. 96877: 31 n. 96879—84:33 n. 102

879: 27 n. 78

880: 73,76

891: 74

893:73, 76

894: 73897: 75

898: 73899: 76

900: 251 n. 97, 252 n. 103902: 73

905: 74907: 73, 261922: 73, 78923: 243927-8: 182 n. 104

932: 74

935: 74936: 75937: 33 n. 102, 75

94i: 249942: 258

943: 76

944: 73947: 76

948: 80

949: 73962: 75

975-6: 254 n. 117

985: 73987: 76

988: 73

992: 73

994: 73

997: 731000: 73, 76

looi—2: 39, 41

1001: 16 n. 31, 20, 31 n. 96

1028: 259 n. 141

1041: 73,75,771042: 751045:83 n. 761055: 137 n. 45

1059: 139 n. 51

1068/9: 252 n. 107

1079: 126

1081: 237 n. 34

1105: 243

1107: 249 n. 851108: 731114: 247 n. 73

1118: 257

1119: 80

1132: 140

1135: 169 n. 48

1137: 64 n. 36, 95

1142: 249 n. 881149: 95, 252 n. 1071155: 245 n. 66

1158: 140

1162: 140

1187: 235

1194: 81 n. 671197-1200: 1401199-1200: 1411199: 139 n. 51, 1401204: 1401207: 73, 761208: 1401212: 1401216: 33 n. 102, 259 n. 149

1225: 28 n. 85

1244: 140

1254: 126

1259: 140

1270: 264 n. 168

1275: 26 n. 74

1276: 140

1280: 140


1290: 250 n. 931317: 190 n. 144

1334:751335:741339: 74134°: 741351: 1840. 1151388: 181 n. 98

1397: 2421400: 187 n. 1281406: 75, 771408: 75, 771413: 75, 249 n. 881416: 74,75

Hi?: 751418: 74

1436: 751437: 74H39: 751441: 74

H45: 74, 751490: 100 n. 91491: 250, 2571495: 80, 821502: 243

1503: 891526/7: 177 n. 78fr. (PCG)9: 185 n. 11622: 25626: 242 n. 5462: 17 n. 4274: 152 n. 82101: 73in: 33 n. 101, 34 n. 107128: 253128. 2: 86 n. 88132: 64, 85191: 191 n. 150194: 191 n. 150205. 9: 75207: 253

215: 152216: 74

233: 64, 7i,72245: 142 n. 57256: 75270: 243279: 1 14 n. 60

289: 73318: 242 n. 54322:85332. 15: 246 n. 71

346: 65, 84 n. 79

37i:85380: 82 n. 71

383: 256392: 169 n. 48

395: 258424: 75429: 251 n. 101452: 73466. 5: 216 n. 65504. 14: 42 n. 126505: 26 n. 77506: 119 n. 3, 155, 191 n. 150581. 6: 256598: 74602: 187 n. 129615: 249663: 249 n. 88664: 252684: 243686: 138 n. 47691: 106 n. 32701: 256705: 16 n. 31706: 160, 165712: 242 n. 54883: 199 n. 3920: 243942: 114 n. 60test. (PCG)i: i65: 232 n. 269: 232 n. 287: 232 n. 2Schol.Ar. Ach. 104: 223 n. 83Ar. Plut. 1 15: 64

ARISTOTELESAth.Pol.

16. 10: 39 n. 118Gael.

295°3i— 2: 104 n. 22HA538bi2-is: 172 n. 63Mu.

4Oiai7: 101Phys.

2i3b24: 107 n. 38Poet.

I452bi9-2o: 65 n. 37

I456b'5-i8: 31 n- 93i458"8-i7: 99

33° Index of Passages

ARISTOTELES, Poet, (cont.):1458*21: 59!458b3i-4: 257 n. 131Rhet.i39i"27-8:94I4o4

b8: 59i407b6-8: 99 n. 7i4iib22-3:93Soph. el.i73b'7-22: 99n. 8fr. (Rose)70: 107 n. 36192: 115 n. 65201: 107 n. 38347: 100 n. 9

ATHENAEUS14. 62od: in n. 50

ATHENAGORASSuppl.4. i: 116 n. 72

CALLIMACHUSAit. (Pfeiffer)fr. i. 11: 94fr. i. 24: 94Ep.

27- 3^ 94

CICEROde oral.3. 45: 165 n. 27de rep.2. 7: 159 n. 9

CRATESfr. (PCG)43: 142 n. 5746: 86

CRATINUSfr. (PCG)2: 107 n. 3472: 1711. 4292: 62 n. 28112: 247118: 27 n. 78167: 116 n. 70183: 246 n. 70279: 100 n. 94Si: 243475: 171 n. 59

CYRILLUSin lulian.10, p. 342 (Migne, PG 76. 1028):

102 n. 16

DEMETRIUSEloc.

36: 9396: 223 n. 80190-235: 93191-203: 94216:223 n. 80

DEMOCRITUSfr. (FVS)68 B 5. i: 103 n. 2068 B 21:9168 B 76: 109 n. 4468 B 164: 103 n. 1968 B 167: 103 n. 19test. (FVS)68 A i: 103 n. 2068 A 69: 103 n. 2068 A 83: 103 n. 20

DEMOSTHENES18. i: 170. 3619. 70: 40 n. 11923. 97: 40 n. 11933. 22: 77 n. 5859. 110-11: 168 n. 39

DGE84. n: 29 n. 87

DlNARCHUS2. 14: 40 n. 1192. 16: 40 n. 119

Dio CHRYSOSTOMUS

52- 4: 59

DIOGENES APOLLONIATESfr. (FVS)6485: 135 n. 3864 B 6: 64 n. 36test. (FVS)64 A 30: 139 n. 50

DIOGENES LAERTIUS8. 44: 114 n. 598. 46: 114 n. 598. 52: 111 n. 49

Index of Passages

8. 54-6: 112 n. 548. 57: 107 n. 368. 60: 113 n. 578. 63: in n. 508. 66: in n. 498. 71-2: in n. 49

DIOGENIANUS GRAMMATICUSfr. (Leutsch-Schneidewin)6. 24: 224 n. 85

DIONYSIUS HALICARNASSENSISDem.

13: 5938:93Thuc.10: 58

23: 59

DlPHILUS

fr. (PCG)29: 35 n. 112

EcPHANTIDES

fr. (PCG)4: 29 n. 89

EMPEDOCLESfr. (FVS)31 62: 106 n. 323183: 108 n. 4031 B8: 135 n. 3831 B 11: 106 n. 32, 109 n. 4431 B 23: 108 n. 4131 B 27: 105 n. 2831 B 28: 105 n. 2831 B 29: 105 n. 2831 B 31: 105 n. 2831 B 35: 104 n. 2231 B 52: 107 n. 3731 B 102: 107 n. 3831 B no: 106 n. 32, 112 n. 5331 B in: 107 n. 37, 107 n. 38, 112, 112

n- 5331 B 112: 108 n. 41, in n. 4931 B 113: 108 n. 4131 B 115: 101 n. 10, 104, 105 n. 26, 112

n. 5331 B 116: 105 n. 2631 B 117: i i 2 n . 5331 B 129: 112 n. 5431 B 131: 106 n. 30, 108 n. 40

31 B 134: io6n. 3031 B 136-9: H2n. 5331 B 136: 104 n. 2531 B 137: 104 n. 25, 109 n. 4431 B 139: 104 n. 2531 B 146: 108 n. 41, 109P. Strasb.gr. Inv. 1665-1666a(ii) 4: 104 n. 22a(ii) 19: 104 n. 22d 2: 105 n. 26d 8: 105 n. 28test. (FVS)31 A i: 113 n. 5731 A 32: 105 n. 2631 A 38: 105 n. 2631 A 41: 105 n. 2831 A 45: 105 n. 2631 A 48: 105 n. 2631 A 49: 105 n. 2631 A 52: 105 n. 28

ETYMOLOGICUM MAGNUM774. 41-6: 172

EUPOLISfr. (PCG)4: 181 n. 10099. 20: 181 n. 100116: 169 n. 48248: 175327:154384. 8: 138 n. 47386: 133 n. 33401: 22 n. 57

EURIPIDESAle.245: 104 n, 231004-5: 21 n. 51El.945-6: i88n. 134Hipp.88: 21 n. 51436: 106 n. 30Phoen.198-201: 169 n. 45Tro.654-5: i68n. 39fr. (Nauck)582: 245 n. 69885: 170 n. 56912. 2-3: 18 n. 44

33"


EUSTATHIUS

1387. 26 (ad Od. i. 27 ff.): 103n. 18

GORGIAS

fr. (FVS)82 E na(= Pal.): 133 n. 32test. (FVS)82 A 2: in n. 49, 119 n. 282 A 3: i i i n. 4982 A 4: 119 n. 282 A 10: in n. 4982 A 14: i i i n. 49

HERACLITUSfr. (FVS)22855: 135 n. 3822 B 79: IOQ n. 44test. (FVS)22 A 8: 101 n. 10

HERMIPPUSfr. (PCG)89: 13411. 34

HERODAS3. 54: 1070. 344. 82: 47 n. 1334. 85: 47 n. 1336. 73: 107 n. 347. 78: 107 n. 34

HERODIANUS GRAMMATICUS2. 675. 3 Lentz: 103 n. 182. 911. 7—9 Lentz: 102

HERODOTUS2. 81: 103 n. 173. 102. 2: 135 n. 364. 15. i: 77 n. 584. 36: 114 n. 624. 46: 223 n. 824. 127. 4: 223 n. 807. 237. 3: 29 n. 87

HESIODUSOp.77-9: 169 n. 51Sc.144: 146 n. 70161: 146 n. 70Th.310: 146 n. 70

fr. (Merkelbach-West)

343- 8: 175

HIPPIASfr. (FVS)8663: n8n. i

HIPPOCRATESAph.3. 12 (iv. 490 Littre): 63Coac.218-19 (v. 632 Littre): 63Epid.3. 7 (iii. 84 Littre): 63, 84Int.i. 32 (vii. 168 Littre): 100 n. 9Morb.i. 3 (vi. 144 Littre): 64Prog.25 (ii. 190 Littre): 66 n. 40VM20. i (i. 620 Littre): I n n. 48

HlPPOLYTUS

Ref. Haer.7. 29. 22: 104 n. 25

HIPPONtest. (FVS)38 A 2: 116 n. 70

HOMERUS//.1. 1-2: 992. 272: 131 n. 263. 50-1: 138 n. 474. 90: 242 n. 515- 305-7: 82 n. 72Od.i. 27 ff. : 103 n. 1814. 406: 2419. 406-9: 97 n. 2Schol.//. 5. 118: 18 n. 43

HYMNI HOMERICI7. i: 171.4219. i: 17 n. 4222. i: 17 n. 42

IAMBLICHUSVP83: 148 n. 74


91: 114 n. 62135-6: 114 n. 62

IDAEUStest. (FVS)63 A i: 139 n. 50

/Gi-1

48*". 5: 135 n. 36350. 82: 219597: 143 n. 61

IOHANNES CHRYSOSTOMUSin epist. ad Tituntcap. i, Horn. 3 (Migne, PG 62. 676):

102 n. 16

ION CHIUSfr. (FVS)36 B 4: 102 n. 15

I SOCRATES

3.9: I 3 7 n . 4 4

4- !57: 39 n- 118, 40 n. 1195. 3: 142 n. 578. 109: 142 n. 5612. i: 134 n. 35

LESBONAX GRAMMATICUSfr. (Blank)5: 152 n. 81

LEUCIPPUStest. (FVS)67 A i: 103 n. 2067 A 24: 103 n. 20

LONGINUS

22. 3: 59

LUCIANUS

Lex.9: 107 n. 34

LYCURGUSi. i: i?n. 36

LYSIAS10. 15-20: 72 n. 5513- 33: 9i14. 41—2: 133 n. 30

MARCUS AURELIUS5- ?: 21

MENANDERAsp.431-64: 71, 86445-6: 64, 71446: 68450: 60464: 87 n. 91Epitr.555-6: 34 n. 107Kol.fr. i. 7: 46 n. 131Sam.256: 114 n. 60258: 114 n. 60296: 219481: 138 n. 47fr. (PCG)351: 143 n. 59491:238 n. 38563: 138 n. 47

MENANDER RHETOR440. 13-15:18 n. 44

MESOMEDESSol.1-4:45 n. 130

METRODORUS CHIUStest. (FVS)70 A 15: 139 n. 50

NEANTHESfr. (FGrH)84 F 26: 112 n. 54

NlCOPHON

fr. (PCG)10: 154 n. 9:

NlCOSTRATUS COMICUS

fr. (PCG)29:58

'ORPHEUS'fr. (FVS)i B 13: 107 n. 35

PAPYRI OXYRHYNCHICI3840: 205,211,215 n. 61


PARMENIDESPAPYRI OXYRHYNCHICI28 B i: 101 n. 102887: 135 n. 3828 B 8: 101 n. 10, 105 n. 2628 B 10: 101 n. 10, 105 n. 26

PHERECRATESfr. (PCG)70: 171 n. 6084: 91152. 9: 248269: 171 n. 58

PHERECYDESfr. (FVS)782: 102 n. 12789: 102 n. 12test. (FVS)7 A 9: 102 n. 12

PHILIPPIDESfr. (PCG)5. 4: i88n. 134

PHILOLAUSfr. (FVS)448 10: 135 n. 3844 B n: 143, 144 "• 6344 B 13: 135 n. 38

PHILOSTRATUSVS2. 13: 203 n. 19

PHOTIUSBibl.158 (p. ioib4 Bekker): 232 n. 2Lexicons.v, dyTJAai: 25 n. 73s.v. <frapf4aKos: 203 n. 19

PHRYNICHUS ATTICISTAPraep. soph.fr. 6a: 25 n. 73

PHRYNICHUS COMICUSfr. (PCG)72: 28 n. 83

PlNDARUS

Ol.

I . 29:91

2. 6: 146 n. 7012. 14: 100 n. 9Pyth.

3. 113-14: 9i4. 116: 91fr. (Snell-Maehler)893: 26 n. 77157: 108182: 106 n. 30

PLATOAle. II2ob: 171 n. 62Apol.i j d : 223 n. 81igc: 114, 125 n. 10Ax.3723: 106 n. 33Crat.39&a-b: 10240ob: 97 n. 24006: 18405b: 97 n. 24i8b-d: 161-2Def.4123: 142 n. 564i5b: 14 n. 20Euthd.2g6d: 21 n. 53Euthphr.140: 14 n. 20Leg.7oob: 14 n. 228oia: 14 n. 209593: 58Men.99d: 171 n. 62Phd.

n8a: 100

Phdr.2373: 250248d-e: 143 n. 59, 144 n. 632666-2670: 87 n. 93Phlb.I2c: 18 n. 44Prot.3i4d: 114 n. 6032id: 135 n. 363410: 119 n. 234&d-e: 119 n. 2Rep.

399b: 142 n. 576070: 106 n. 32


Soph.2SQe: 77 n. 58Symp.

ziod: 137 n. 44

Tht.

1500: 89

1506: 127 n. 12

I5ie: 89

Schol.

PI. Tht. 1780: 186 n. 124, 187 n. 127

PLATO COMICUSfr. (PCG)37: 86n. 88188. 17:830.75

PLUTARCHUSMor.1420—d: 168 n. 39

8o3f: 17 n. 36

8s3c-d: 4n. 4, 172

PMG697: 17 n. 42791. 150-61: 201 n. 14854: 21871: 33 n. 104

PORPHYRIUSVP17: 10229: 114 n. 62

POSIDIPPUSfr. (PCG)i. 7: 143 n. 59

PRODICUSfr. (FVS)84 B 3—4: 118 n. itest. (FVS)

84 A n: 119 n. 284 A 13-19: 119 n. 2

PROTAGORASfr. (FVS)8067: n8n. itest. (FVS)80 A i: 118 n. i, 119 n. 280 A 27-9: 119 n. 280 A 27: 99 n. 780 A 28: 99 n. 880 A 29: 31 n. 93

PYTHAGORAStest. (FVS)14 A 7: 115 n. 6514 A 19: 115 n. 64

PYTHAGORICIfr. (FVS)58 B 30: 107 n. 3858 B 37: 101 n. 10

QUINTILIANUS10. i. 65—6: 232 n. 2

RHINTHONtest. (PCG)4: 103 n. 18

SEGxiii. 32: 100 n. 9

SEMONIDESfr. (West)7. 90-1:169 n. 45

S1G3

181. 6-9:22 n. 56

SOPHOCLESAi.293: i68n. 39or67: 106 n. 30fr. (Radt)476: 177 n. 80493: 260 n. 151851: 100 n. 9

SOPHRONfr. (PCG)

33: 17234: 172

STRATO COMICUSfr. (PCG)i. 30: 143 n. 59

STRATTISfr. (PCG)42: 27 n. 78

SUDAs.v. "AKftav: I I I n. 49

336

Index of Passages

THALESfr. (FVS)1183: 135 n. 38

THEOCRITUSi. 123-4: 48 n. 13824. 50: 114 n. 60

THEOGNIS689: 146 n. 70

THEOPHRASTUSChar.10. 6: 107 n. 34

THEOPOMPUS COMICUSfr. (PCG)48: 25 n. 7379: 154 n. 91

THUCYDIDESi. 25. 4: 106 n. 331. 68. 2: 136 n. 412. 45. 2: 168 n. 402. 49. 3: 71, 874- 5°- 2: 9i6. 32. 2: 477. 60. i: 146 n. 68Schol.Thuc. i. 30. i: 232 n. 2

THUGENIDESfr. (PCG)4: 260 n. 151

TlMAEUS

fr. (FGrH)566 F 6: ii i n. 49566 F 14: 112 n. 54566 F 30: 113 n. 57

XENOPHONAnab.

3. 2. 9:47 n. 133Ath. Pol.1. 19: 712. 8: 159-60HG

7. 5. 19: 137 n. 44Mem.i. i. 7: 143 n. 59, 144 n. 63i. 2. i: 142 n. 563. i. 6: 142 n. 56, 143 n. 59, 144 n. 63Oec.i. 17: 142 n. 573. 12: 168 n. 397. 5: i68n. 397. 20-5: 164 n. 22

ZONARAS

77 1555. 22:91

Index of Greek

29

22 n. 58, 46, 18625-6

14316 n. 31

25559

16125688

76, 133184

26-723

106, 114, 123, 125114, 122 n. 6

242 n. 53"5

17,48,235, 241241 n. 50

192101, 104, 105

"5114

100 n. 9, 171

22

239,241-2, 245, 250

135 "• 37168, 188

240 n. 40

140184

176

181

114 n. 61, 148

83136 n. 39

136 n. 39

99, 100 n. 9

99-100

99-100

19 n. 49

252

89

73183, 260

16, 178 n. 84236 n. 25

215256

127 n. 12

133220

99242 n. 50

1937i

191256

17,3917 n. 42

249191

176-7, 181-2, 193-4, 216 n. 61, 236,258-9, 264-8256

83 n. 76104

103 n. 20, 104-583 n. 76

20—i, 279i

"5"5

2O-I, 27

135". 37140, 144140, 144

235187

9898, 187

2582

145142, 144-5

24-5

338 Index of Greek

6873, 70-7, 7973, 79

233iig n. 2

138138, 141 n. 54, 145

82, 24802176184

106, 12725

64172, 173 n. 64

220 n. 80105 n. 20

216118

128, 133,248,250

97 n. 2

73,78

73,78

8280,83

133". 3'.

H4-5, 15°144141, 142, 144-5, 150

14128 n. 85

73, 77, 78 n. °°, '5°

73,76-7, 134, 15°

24H3

82

187187

66214 n. 58

125142, 144

14467 n. 41, 233

13383

i37n. 4210993, «6i

162, 169, 17569, 122

69 252,26860

1985

24788,155

249»3

187242 n. 5667 n. 41

131224 n. 8694

9494

159 n. 9, 223 n. 81142

n. 19, 240 n. 47, 250

129224 n. 86

248

84-5, 122-3, 24573,79

2566o, 6195 n. too

823' ". 97

73,78

77, 134

267

114113-14, 243, 256

39

261236, 240-1, 256 n. 125

'7559,89

59,89

59

233 n. 83184 n. 114208 n. 40, 20967 n. 41

246, 250

250

178, 194

20

16246

161

Index of Greek 339

65137 n. 43

137 n. 4327, 240 n. 47

85'79,

193, 218 n. 73, 240, 240

97, i°i22

131 n. 26

237124

'39

238238

4741, 261

84 n. 83

83182-3, '91, '93, 261

•83183183

233135 n. 37

22

186-7, 21 S-l6, 2l8, 22O

69

249

131 n- 2583 n- 77

83218. 219 n. 75

187, 219 n. 75187 n. 12588

125123, 125

127 n. 12, 134, 137, 145, 150127 n. 12

68, 124139

203, 215 n. 61203. 215 n. 616889

20209 n. 42

184 n. 112, 260219

171171

186,215,21873,78

73,78181219

140172 n. 63

77172n. 63

67 n. 41

187184 n. 112

18761,66

243143

260261

249 n. 8830, 145, 146, 148, 150, 252248

22 n. 5897 n. 2

242

93139 n. 51

30 n. 91105 n. 29

20-120-1

17, 19 n. 50, 31 n. 97, 3628,470. 135

18322, 171

2O4

38102260

261

175137

6983

73,79191 n. 151

67, 134123

135 n- 37249

137 n-44137 n. 44240 n. 47

340 Index of Greek

240 n. 47

HI n- 5584 n. 80

'37". 4228, 31 n. 94,

34, 131, 133,248, 251

'33

137135 n. 37HQ n. 2

76

184,25476

76

76

H376

76

123

101, 103-5105 n. 27

101, 103-5, IIO> I28,142

18

266-7, 268103

107256

' 7373,78

83250

73,7979

22

250

133

7i n- 5i73, 74, 79

24818481 n. 7081

137137

178, 235, 240, 266

236, 240-1, 256

125257

83210 n. 43

183,216

'83, 193248

41, 178, 183, 217

133, 247, 249,

2519i186, 193

83, 84 n. 82152-3, 176

n. 76, 178, 192, 218, 239, 247, 251,252,257

31 n. 97,36247

234105 n. 29

249252142 n. 57

234-5,257256

155, 191, 19473,

7889,91

48176

168 n. 39, 255

8382 n. 73

73,78242 n. 56

249208 n. 40, 218

97 n. 297 n. 2

17,31 n. 97, 32

8382

256

8389260

179-80,194,256175184

124 n. 8, 12618250

73,79208 n. 38

249

234172

Index of Greek 34»

98168

17 n. 38244264 n. 168

257191 n. 1508182

25°81

n8135 n. 37

256267

26782, 127 n. 12, 129

92

142, 144-560. 81

214 n. 589i

252i86n.

120, 249129 n. ig, iii n. 26

184 n. 114

28 n. 83267

26728

25731 n. 97, 144

144143, '44

74,7928136 n. 3982216 n. 61, 217, 220

4574,79

24374, 77-8

249188

84H2 n. 53

1858,92

64, QO

84

133

105 n. 29

181

66 n. 38, 69, 106-7, 122,125, 150, 154

122 n. 6, 126

107, 125-6, 150, 154

143 n. 62

82

64

32104

118234

256240 n. 46

135 "• 37238 n. 38

"35185

25°184 n. 114143 n. 62142

144257, 268

73, 74, 7528-9

240

44-542-5, 47, 48, 192 n. 15629

14, 40 n. 121

16-17, 24-5, 27, 30, 34,48

84118

82108107-8

28132 n. 28, 250,

256, 257122-6, 250

256, 267

103102

101

IO2

27 n. 78, 101162102

171 n. 61

342 Index of Greek

252, 261, 268264260

183242 n. 56

31 n. 97, 32

7474,78

74162

171 n. 61

H382

178, 183, 217, 235, 240, 266267264 n. 168

65,8427 n. 78

235242 n. 54

82 n. 71242 n. 56

101

125238 n. 38

108 n. 41248 n. 79108

235189 n. 137

108 n. 41840. 81

74,7920

139-40

IOQ, III, IIS

242

219

6140

12681

82

244-5, 25176, 125

23382223 n. 83

67 n. 4182, 86 n. 89, 108 n. 41, 109

109

84-5235 n. II171

18790

8164, 71,72 n. 55171171

235124

46-7248

47 "•'3424-5, 218

76, 122, 139-45, 15029, 242

8441, 176-8, 209, 217, 264-5101 n. 11187101

141n. 61101

19, 22

82

9985 n. 87

243,251247, 249

18164, 93, 233

93,9487 n. 9067 n. 41, 85, 87 n. 90

171 n. 60

242-3242-3

'43

74,78192, 194138 n. 47H2n. 53

248247, 248

74, 77, 24828

41, 44, 261

183183 n. 107

18367 n. 41

Index of Greek 343

74,79178, IQ4178,183

18.1186, 208 n. 36, 210, 251 n.

97175, 176, 184

8282

74,78

n. 49, 21617, 26 n. 75, 64-5, 84 n. 85, 211

74, 77-8242 n. 56

184,218

2356g, 8g, gi171171

2ig99, 100

143 n. 62142

142 n. 56181

262201, 219

81139

144123 n. 7

134, '39, 14467, 13482-382100 n. 9

189,

243126

242m n. 60

128

74,7828

67 n. 4195 n. 100210 n. 43170 n. 55, 171 n. 58

26

26, 137 n-43

137 n-4390

90 67, 134125

87 n. 92102 n. 1222

171 n. 61252

242249

242 n. 50240 n. 47

2880,82139 n. 51, 191 n. 148

igi, 1947i

224 n. 86, 23481

9393, 137 n. 45, 190

125

26168, 124, 125

6876, 249

125

82i7S

23323384

45

75, 76-875

77, ngn. 2, 134, 135235

2699

75,78132-3,154

215 n. 61, 24326

218 n. 72, 236242

22

17, 26 n. 7574,79

171 n. 6068, 124

go74

252219

344

Index of Greek

'34. 139i88n. 135831-75

83 n. 7582

12583-4

84125175

28220

84

2IQ

75,79"3n. 57

81

125140

88, 169, 191, 194, 216 n. 66,217-18, 219

139165, 169, 191

169, 215 n. 60.

243256

249169 n. 48, 191, 194, 210-11, 219,

262, 267

171 n. 6093, '23

88, 89, 93, 127 n. 12

93, 139242

92

85143 n. 61

HI "• 55H3H3

25324-5

112

62 n. 28

83

12419

136 n. 39136 n. 39141 n. 558183 n. 75

237, 256243

65 n. 37106, 127 n. 12

106 n. 32106, 127 n. 12

183112

242

260

183, 26l

210, 221

26

62, 92

248, 251, 257-8, 268

2352IO-II, 215, 221

63-4

64, 81187

242 n. 56245, 250

17, 2O-I, 27, 48

19, 22

16, 183, 20719-20, 22 n. 58, 102 n.

251 n. 101

19, 22 n. 58235

220

87 n. 9275,78

75,78

75, 70-7252

108 n. 41, 109150

131 n. 25, 136,125

175, 176, 208, 24375

187 n. 13026

23885

114

135 n. 37, 136

I37n.42

171 n. oo189

13128

7O, I2O, 122, 136—8, 150

Index of Greek 345

257log

25266256

175, 176 n. 74, 203 n. 25, 258, 260n. 151, 264-5

183181

239•8399

171186, 207, 208 n. 40, 218184220

218 n. 73, 265

135 n- 37243

141, 144141, 144

124

17527 n. 78

2626

125125

2-1, 112 n. 53, 234

243243179-80, 194, 216, 256

143140, 14212319

175181

224 n. 86238

219, 261

84237124

'43140

1871390. 51

124

92188 n. 134

242 236 n. 25, 26462

192245

125175

135 n. 36, 176245

64,84264

235

97 n. 297 n. 2

8484

244244, 255

255

202, 215, 2l8, 244, 254-5

140

75,78

75,76

25,4711. 135

23»

76

238

238

22, 237-8, 241; see also237-8, 256

9i

14018, 22, 28 n. 79, 14414327

22

28

144, 223 n. 81, 234143

84

247134, 14584

84, 87 n. 91137, 138, 143, 15°137, 130, ISO'35 n. 37137

143 n. 62108-9

108-913

346 Index of Greek

23g, 241, 245,250200

26

188

242 n. 56

184

260 n. 153175

24842 n. 127, 46 n. 132,

168192, 194

25222, 171

248

2S6

178

124

215

68 n. 4331 "• 94

264264264

83264

267264152 n. 79

7i,72n. 55

41, 176-8, 194, 258, 259, 262

264-5,268

248185, 193,

95, 118, 119 n. 2, 128, 132,

'39

13995, 118, I2», 139

127 n. 12, 104 n. 113, 209253

235 "• 'i142218 n. 73

180 n. 134263,264

244, 264244, 263-4,

268233

267120, 136, ISO

245, 262-3, 266-7

244-5 126

257

181'4' "• 55

242n. 5419

181

23, 192, 233, 260, 26823714264,84

66

929027

224 n. 86

216 n. 65, 217 n. 69, 256

257

18923

47

46-7

240 n. 46

187,255

240 n. 40142

319 n. 75

124135"- 37

64,8563-4, 85

219244

218,244,25546,

239

67 n. 41,23585

125175,234

183

183,211 n. 48, 260

184 n. 114239

101, 194, 2&O-I

239". 41183

258

176 n. 74, 181, 184-5

236 n. 23236 n. 23

264

Index of Greek 347

1262S6

240 n. 466

178 n. 87210 n. 44, 257

23 n. 61

235134 n. 3467, 13464, 90

13866, 106, 123

106249

250135". 37

99138 n. 4784

9i75,79

249 n. 909i67 n. 41, 235

252242 n. 568167 n. 41, 85

83124

107, 13797 n. 2, 249

98107, 137 n. 43

139 n- 51

8585

202

236 n. 25

13634 n. 107,

133,236-7,240

125

9'75,79

12518, 20240

I184

2322 n. 58 135

58257

102 n. 126

6233184 n. 113

125124. 126

84

84

235

840. 81138-9,150

'39, 15°251 n. 101

22, 171217, 219

243

86242 n. 53

243125

21929 n. 87

24325 n- 7'75- 76-7

75, 77-8252

256-722

65,92

29

255

259, 267

186242 n. 54

18462, 92, 136

41, 183, 19320-1, 27

243

41

219

97, i°i

143 n. 62186

22 n. 58140

20-1, 189 n.

348

Index of Greek

171

135 n. 37250

Si236 n. 25

«5 n. 87237

27 n. 78

i88n. 135238

24675.2IQ

23694

94236, 256

246

123, I2519-20, 22 n. 58,

59. 94HI n. 5567 n. 41

23885

62, 67-8, 76-7, 92, I 2O, 122,

134-6, 138, 150

'35

124

143 n. 62249

2406523383

84171 n. 60

223 n. 80124

220

124

214. n. $8. 216259

179-80, 194179-80, 194, 2H n. 49,

21689, 13711. 42109

235"384240i88n. 135

238254

105 n. 2946 n. 131

19 n. 5018

83236 n. 23

82109

82219254

i°5105

135 "• 37139

237-8, 241;237-8,256

'351- 37

15 "• 25

248

249

67 n. 41

84, 220125

135 "• 37

45

235 n. ii205, 219

14084

171 n. 61181123, 125

249

170, 171

17185

80,85

92

236 n. 2558,92

Hi n. 5580,84

123, 125'4' n- 55

62, 92

62

35 n. 112, 237, 239,24144

Index of Greek 349

143 n. 62186-7, I92<

194, 233 n. 5

233 n. 5102 n. 13

'3584 n. 83

253107

243122 n. 6

34 n. 109, 26112483

18768143

282828

122, 145-8, 150, 259, 260

I34n- 3584129 n. 19

6686

61,86122 n. 676

105 n. 29244-5*251

245 n. 66

247, 248

257"- 1337575, 76-776

2140. 58, 244, 245, 251,

255, 263-4, 268191, 244, 253, 260, 268

171 n. 61, 219255260

243-4124

242 n. 539830, 217

25524243

zi6, 25083 n. 78 83

240 n. 4731 n. 97,215 n. 59

19 n. 50, 28,

84iQ

249

82 n. 71250 n. 93

25675

66, 106192, 1948328

25626 n. 77

16125 n. 72

10925, 26 n. 75

242172, 175, "90, 194

46 n. 131190 n. 146

100

2522829 n. 86

81 n. 6981

8181

1925°, 257

6222

188142

86124125

20

18 n. 46, 20187 n. 130

14113866140

'9

115 n. 63

350 Index of Greek

146 n. 70184

23353,210-11,258

76,78, 249

181, 194216, 217188

67,7467,87

07 n. 4267676767 n. 4267

19 n. 50, 20-1, 38, 186104678480,84

125208 n. 40, 209

53, 1436262, 926888, 105-6, 127 n. 12, 265

88, 105-6, 127, 129127 n. 12, 137

69, 105, 113, 116,122-•*, I2O, 127 n. 12

105 n. 29, 127 n. 1221 n. 54

242 n. 54265

81

'4398

84143 n. 62

14.1 n, 62202, 215

17 n. 40, 29,31-2, 38,40, 47, 184 n. 114

8560,84

91IIS

29, 211 n. 48, 218 n. 73191 41, 182 n. 103, 265-6, 268

264 n. 168219

262-8176-7, 178, 194, 204, 209, 257,

142 n. 57I7S

13

100245

6102 n. 12245

8123318713, 16 n. 2020 n. 53251

97 n. 2, 113"3

21907 n. 9276,78

76,7883

243

181

2568164

12422

22

18 n. 46, 20143 n. 62102 n. 1218444, 145, 140-8, 248

76,78

171 n. 61171 n. 61

22, 101242 n. 53

18-19, 29, 50138 n. 47

77, '3485

249, 257140

242 n. 56

General Index

Abaris 114accent, pitch vs. stress 209, 238accentuation 238accommodation, linguistic 199accumulation 21-2, 35, 37, 66-8, 69,

77, 85, 133 n. 30, 139, 143, 145-6,196

Acharnae 161Acharnians i, 5, 21, 191, 225, 236,

239, 241, 255, 257characters: Dicaeopolis i, 18, 40,

43, 187; Euripides 5-6, 36, 40,187; Megarian 18, 253; Persian207, 223-4

Aeolic (dialect) 8Aeschines 262Aeschylus 102, 106 n. 33, 130, 135,

136 n. 39, 137 n. 43, 142, 147, 151,182 n. 105, 238—9, 246, 247 n. 76,252 n. 106, 253, 258 n. 136, 262-3,264 n. 167, 266-7

see also Frogs, charactersaffective language 158, 180, 181, 186,

189, 193-5, 229Agathon (poet) 26, 165

see also Thesmophoriazusae,characters

GutrxpoAoyia 168, 188Aither 19Alcidamas 112allegory 116Ameinias 99Ameipsias 142Anacharsis 223dvayKi) 104—5analogy, see morphology, analogical

formationsAnaxagoras 98, 104 n. 20, 116,

"7n- 73Andocides 248, 249Antiphon 262Antiphon the Sophist 105 n. 27, 118aitari) (dramatic illusion) 92, 225Aphrodite 189

Apollo 46, 189Apollophanes 141 n. 55Arabs 212Araucanians 168Archilochus 25Areopagus 206 n. 28Aristotle 62, 65 n. 37, 93, 99, 107 n. 38,

135, '39, 143. <48 n- 74, '71Artemis 189asceticism 115Asia Minor 203aspect, see syntax, aspectAthena 18, 36, 48, 235Attica 160Atticists 268Australia 157 n. i

baby talk 198-9see also registers, simplified

Balkan languages 212Banqueters 71, 142 n. 57Basel 268 n. 180Birds 26, 35, 113, 255, 257

bird cosmogony 102, 104, 107, 108,115 n. 63

characters: anonymous poet 26;Euelpides 102, 179 n. 90;Heracles 179 n. 90; Hoopoe 35,253; Iris 173 n. 67; Meton 69, 95;Peisetaerus 21 n. 55, 69;Triballian god 201 n. 14, 207, 224

Black Sea 203 n. 20, 204 n. 22,223 n. 82

Boeotian (dialect) 162, 237bomolochos 3 n. 3, 139book market 15'bottom-up changes' 194broken language 3, 198—201, 202—3,

207, 213 n. 56, 216, 221, 223, 230see also foreigner talk; registers,

simplified

California 157Cappadocianism 203 n. 19

352 General Index

carnival 268characterization, linguistic 4 n. 4, 48,

68—9,76, 100, 107, no, 127, 158,183, 226-7

Chile 168Cleomenes (rhapsode) inCleonymus 99Clouds 3, 19, 66, 69, 77, 96-117,

118-56, 226, 228-9, 236, 241, 253,257

characters: Clouds 40, 113, 123,134, 141 n. 54, 173 n. 67, 173 n.68; Pheidippides 98, 108, 119,128, 133, 142, 145, 180; Socrates13, 14, 43, 48, 66, 67, 69, 76, 95,96—101, 103,105-6,108-17,"9.123, 125, 128, 134, 136 n. 39,i37~9. H1-2, '80, 226, 229-31;Socrates'student 107—8,113—14,122-3, 126-9, 137,180;Strepsiades 66, 69, 77, 97-101,103, 106-8, 113-14, 119, 122-3,124 n. 8, 125, 126, 128-9, '32,'34. '37. '39. 141—2, 182 n. 106;Strong Argument 124, 151; WeakArgument 149, 151

Cnidus 86Cockney English (dialect) 206code-switching 12colloquial language 3, 4, 84 n. 85, 85,

138, 147, 148, 151, 171, 174, 175,178, 180, 181, 185, 190-1, 193-5,207, 216—17, 219-20, 226, 229,232, 233, 243, 245-6, 248, 250-2,257-8, 260-1, 265, 266 n. 177,267-8

complimenting 166, 186-7, '9°.

'93conservatism, linguistic 232, 236,

241-2, 244, 246-8, 251-2, 254,258, 261, 263, 267-8

Cos 86Cratinus 247Crete 102Croton 116curses 16 n. 34, 32, 34, 39 n. 118, 40

see also defixiones

'de-automatization' 6, 35 n. 112, 49,

136, 137. 2SSdecrees, see lawsdeep structure, linguistic 214 n. 57defixiones 188, 221

deixis, see morphology, pronouns,deictic -i; syntax, deixis

Demeter 18, 26, 189Democritus 103-4, IO5 n- 26Demosthenes 130 n. 23, 141 n. 55,

147, 151, 234, 252 n. 106,258 n. 136, 261

deontic expressions 146-8Derveni papyrus 103 n. 17, 116Diagoras of Melos 116-17dialectology 55diathesis, see syntax, diathesisDicaearchus illdidactic literature 148 n. 73Dinarchus 147Diogenes Laertius noDiogenes of Apollonia 98, in, 116-17Dionysius of Syracuse i, 2Dionysus 189 n. 140SoKi/iaaia 79door-knocking scenes 127-8Doric (dialect) 8, 29 n. 87, 86-7,

102 n. 13, 103 n. 17, 177 n. 80,223 n. 83

Ecclesiazusae i, i68n. 42, 170, 171,i?4, '75, 176 n. 76, 180 n. 95, 183,189—92, 196, 226, 257

characters: Blepyrus 168 n. 39, 170;female servant 175; Praxagora168 n. 42, 171, 173 n. 68, 175 n.73, 176, 178, 179 n. 88, 189

eVicAijcFia 17 n. 36, 40, 168 n. 39, 170,189, 196, 206

Elean (dialect) 103 n. 17emancipation 164eVfWAf ia (tragic dance) 89emotional language, see affective lan-

guageEmpedocles 101, 104-13, 116-17, "8,

229-30emphasis 183, 258English (language) n, 49, 81, 84 n. 81,

161, 185 n. 117, 186, 119,188 n. 131, 203, 206, 213,216 n. 64

epic language, epicisms 4, 28, 48, 61,71, 106-7, io8n. 43, 109,234,235. 237, 242 nn. 51 and 53, 245,247-8,258

epithets, see hymns, epithets; prayers,epithets

Eros 104

General Index 353

ethnocentricity 201, 222-4Etna in n. 49, 112Etymologicum Magnum 172etymology 97-8, 101—2, 105eu^rjfii'o 42—5, 47, 48, 192 n. 156euphemism i88n. 134euphony 232Euripides 6, 90, 130, 132 n. 28,

137 nn. 43 and 45, 142-3, 147,151, 158 n. 7, 161 n. 12, 165,169, 182 n. 105, 194 n. 161, 236,238-9, 245 n. 69, 246-9, 252-3,258 n. 136, 263, 264 n. 167, 266-8

see also Acharnians, characters;Frogs, characters;Thesmophoriazusae, characters

'face needs' 166, 187 n. 125, 188, 190,

193, 195falsetto voices 172female speech 4, 155—6, 157—97, 226,

229,231in Rome 165 n. 27

figurae etymologicae 252figures of speech 118,184foreigner talk 3, 197, 198-225, 227,

230, 235 n. 11,257function 222—3, 225lexicon 213, 214, 219-20, 221-3morphology 214, 215-17, 219,

222-3, 224 n. 86; see alsomorphology

phonology 202-11, 214, 219, 220,222; see also phonology

primary 201,214,217secondary 199-201,202,214,217,

221, 222-3, 225 n- 89, 230syntax 214, 217—19, 222-3; see a'so

syntaxforms of address 120 n. 3, 158, 186—8,

189, 193French (language) 206-7, 2II> 2I2Frogs 18, 26, 58, 59, 88-94, 135, 174,

182—3, 184 n. 112characters: Aeschylus 58, 59, 62, 88,

92; Euripides 58, 59, 62, 64, 88,90, 92, 182 n. 106, 191; Heracles89, 127; Plathane 77; Xanthias93, 184 n. 112, 191

Galen 65, 80Gastarbeiterdeutsch (language) 212'genderlect', see female speech

genres, literary 8-9, 148 n. 73, 168,

i9SGerman (language) 49 n. 140, 160,

163 n. 21, 203, 212, 217-18Giraldus Cambrensis 212gnomic literature 148 n. 73, 261 n. 158Gorgias 92 n. 99, in, 118, 133, 159gossip 168—9, '95Greek, Medieval and Modern (lan-

guage) 206 n. 30, 212

Hades 107, 112, 113hapax legomena 6, 17 n. 39, 26, 58, 77,

108, 122-3, I24-S. '34, 137Harpocration 105 n. 27Hecate 189hedges, hedging 10, 166, 182—4, 191,

193, 195Hegelochus 238Helios 19Hera 28 n. 84Heracles 112

see also Birds, characters; Frogs,characters

Heraclitus 101, 105 n. 26Hermes 18, 19 n. 49, 189 n. 140

see also Peace, charactersHerodes Atticus 203 n. 19Herodianus 102-3Herodotus 103 n. 17, 114, 130 n. 23,

132 n. 28, 138, 141 n. 55, 143,146 n. 67, 147, 151, 176, 182,252 n. 106, 257 n. 135, 258 n. 136,262-4, 266—7

Hesiod 102, 107, 135, 146 n. 70,261 n. 158

Hierapytna loan. 13Hippias 118Hippocrates, see Hippocratic corpusHippocratic corpus 60, 61, 63—4, 67,

79-80, 81 n. 66, 82 n. 73, 83 n. 75,83 n. 77,87, in, 138, 139,141 n. 55

Hippon 98, in, 116Homer, Homeric language 8, 24,

34 n. 111,99, 102, 112, 118,124 n. 9, 129 n. 19, 135, 138,139 n. 51, 142, 192 n. 157

see also epic languageHungarian (language) 163 n. 21hymns 4, 12-50, 227, 231, 234, 237,

242 n. 51, 255argument structure 37—41

354 General Index

hymns (cont.):cletic hymns 14, 15, 17, 22, 36cultic hymns 17dithyrambs 15epic hymns 17epithets 15,17-23,27,36-7,38,

48-9, 101hyperbole 23invocations 15-17,41 n. 123lexicon of 35, 49paeans 15processional hymns 15speech-act verbs (performative/

illocutionary verbs) 23-7,48-9

syntax 15, 35-7, 41, 49, 255

lamblichus 114Idaean cave 102illusion, dramatic, see avarr)imagery, see metaphorsincongruity, comic 68, 77'indicators', linguistic 167,189Indo-European (languages) 157initiation 115 n. 65innovation, linguistic 118—56,

159-62, 163, 174, 179, 193-4,229, 232, 245, 246, 248-9, 261,268

insults, see terms of abuseintensification, linguistic 181, 194,

213, 219, 239, 243, 250, 252interjections 13, 232internal reconstruction 228internationalism 159, 194invectives 4invocations 13 n. 19, iSgn. 140

see also hymns, invocations; prayers,invocations

Ion of Chios 102 n. 15Ionic (dialect) 8, 29 n. 87, 87 n. 90,

107 n. 34, 117, 135, 138, 160, 163,165, 176, 182, 192, 233-5, 237,249, 263-4,266

East Ionic 204, 234, 237West Ionic 237

Ionic alphabet 202, 205iotacism, see phonology, iotacismIranian (languages) 203, 209 n. 41Isaac Porphyrogennetus 90Isocrates 143, 258 n. 136, 261, 262isoglosses 55Italian (language) 206—7, 212

Japanese (language) 166 n. 32, 167,194 n. 161

katabasis 112Knights 48, 141, 145, 174, 180, 236,

241, 257characters: Cleon-Paphlagon 17, 40,

48, 227; Demos 43, 128, 139;Knights 36; Sausage-seller 139,192

Koine Greek (dialect) 159, 160, 179,195, 206 n. 30, 230, 242, 256, 268

Kore 18, 21 n. 51, 189Korean (language) 11Kuna Indians 168

Laconian (dialect) 177, 184 n. 112,223 n. 83

lamentation 168, 195language acquisition 158,161language change 9, 155, 159, 161, 189,

190, 194language loyalty 163-5Latin (language) 12, 52, 59, 166 n. 31,

i94n. 161,212laws (and decrees) 22 n. 57, 33, 188 n.

135, 192, 267see also technical languages, legal

languageLeucippus 103, 105 n. 26libation 38Lingua Franca, see Sabirlists 22 n. 56, 28, 251literacy 154literary criticism, see technical lan-

guages, language of literary criti-cism

litotes, see syntax, litotic expressionsloanwords 95, 219lullabies 168Lysias 90, 130 n. 23, 133, 147,

151 n. 77, 177, 245, 249, 2&J-4,266-8

Lysistrata 18, 26, 164, 174, 177 n. 81,180 n. 95, 181, 184 n. 112, 188,190, 196, 223 n. 83, 226

characters: Calonice 187 n. 125,190 n. 143; Lysistrata 168,182 n. 106, 187 n. 125, 197,267

magic, magical texts 112, 188Marcus Aurelius 21

General Index 355

markedness/unmarkedness 5, 59, 69,no, 136, 148, 155, 184, 213 n. 57,232, 235,245, 251,256

see also zero-markingmarkers, linguistic 167, 189—90, 196,

226see also registers, register markers

Marsyas 108Maya (language) 1211.15Mediterranean area 168—9,212Megarian (dialect) 253-4Menander 68, 71, 146 n. 67, 149 n. 75,

157 n. 2, 172, 189, 195, 196, 239,241, 259, 261

metaphors 63 n. 30, 64, 88—9, 91,93, 138, 168, 181, 188, 232,

233 n- 3metempsychosis 112, 113 n. 58metre:

anapaests 14, 91, 175, 202, 235, 236,238-9, 242, 246, 248, 259

hexameters 242, 243 n. 59, 244, 245,247, 261

iambic trimeters 26, 235, 236,238—9, 242, 248, 257, 264

prose passages 22resolution 22 n. 57trochaic tetrameters 26, 238

metrical lengthening 243 n. 59Middle Ages 70, 212Middle Comedy 86, 116, 143 n. 59,

153, 169, 244, 245 n. 67, 246,247 n. 76, 248-9

Middle Iranian 209 n. 41mime 158, 172monologue 10morphology

analogical formations 175, 233, 235,237, 244, 247, 250

comparatives: analytical 243; in-larepos 243, 251; irregular 243;stems 242-3, 251

derivational 56; see also wordformation

Lautensach's Law 250nouns: ace. sg. of s-stem names 250;

Attic declension 242; dat. pi.in -aai 22 n. 56, 241; dat. pi.in ~i]ai/-aLai(v)/-ats 239, 241—2,245, 250; dat. pi. in -otai(v)/-ot$239, 241, 245, 250; dat. sg. ofa-stems 239-40; declension of uios242; declension of Ztvs 101;

heteroclitic declensions 242;nom. pi. in -eiV-rjf 240; vocativein -o 99

participles: nom./acc. dual fem.

i?°n- 53pronouns: bisyllabism 244, 264, 266;

deictic -i 244-5, 251; dual of a-stem pronouns 244; nom./acc. sg.ntr. in -o/-ov 243-4; reflexive 236

simplified 215-17superlatives 23, 243thematization 215,248,251verbal adjectives in -TO;, -re'os, see

syntax, verbal adjectivesverbs: 'Aeolic' optative 246, 251;

aorist stems 248-9,250-1,258 n. 137; aspirated perfect 249;augment 146, 247—8, 250-1;contracted future 249; 'Doric'future 249; tj vs. jjv 247,251;future stems 249-50, 258; impera-tives 28, 247, 248, 257-8, 260;-jtefla vs. -lieaSa 245, 250; middleoptative in -aro vs. -VTO 246, 250;optative of contracted verbs 245;perfect stems 249; perfect sub-junctive/optative 247 n. 73; per-fect reduplication 131, 247—8;pluperfect endings 247; presentstems 248, 251; syntheticperfect/pluperfect 152, 176 n. 76,246, 247 n. 73; 3rd pi. perf./pluperf. med.-pass. 152, 246;tmesis 250, 251

see also syntax; word formationmos maiorum 165 n. 27Moscow school of linguistics 56 n. 13Mycenaean (dialect) 234

names, naming 170, 187, 204 n. 22,250

see also toponyms; word formation,names in -/cAijs

Neanthes 112New Comedy 86, 143 n. 59, 153, 158,

244, 245 n. 67, 246, 247 n. 76,248-9

nominalization, see syntax,nominalization

Nukulaelae Tuvaluan (language) 11

oaths 13, 115, 158, 189, 194,196 n. 166, 258

356

General Index

obscenity 158, 166, 168, 188, 193, 195,219, 232, 233 n. 3

Old Attic 160'Old Oligarch" (author of Constitution

of Athens) 71, 159-60, 165Old Persian, see PersianoAoAvyTJ 42 n. 127, 46 n. 132, 168Olympia inOlympus (musician) 108oracular language 3 n. 3, 108 n. 43,

242 n. 51, 242 nn. 51 and 53,255 n. 124, 259 n. 149, 261, 267

Orphism, Orphic hymns/cosmogonies13, 17 n. 39, 103, 107, 108 n. 42,113, 115,116-17

opBofrreia. 95, 118, 119 n. 2, 128, 132,

139Oxyrhynchus 221

Paean 46Panama 168Pandora 169 n. 51Papua New Guinea 212parabasis 65, 231, 244parabatic odes 35—6, 48paratragedy 6, 24, 36, 83 n. 75, 180 n.

96, 187 n. 129, 191 n. 151, 192,196, 226, 231, 235, 237, 244,

254-5, 259 n- "43, 262Paris 160Parmenides 101, 105 n. 26parochialism, linguistic 254parody 5-6, 12, 42, 48, 56-7, 97, 105,

in, 117, 136, 143, 227-8, 233-5,237-8, 240, 243 n. 59, 244, 247,251, 254-7, 259, 264, 267; see alsoparatragedy; prayers, parodic

particles 182-4, 213, 219, 250, 260-1,268

added to participles 178—9adversative 183'ancillary' oSv 260assentient yap 261connective 41,261—2double av, see syntax, double aa>

frequency 261hymnic yap 41transitional aAAd 16vocative particle 16,251see also hedges; interjections; syntax,

omission of oV and omission ofgrammatical/function words; 'Indexof Greek' for individual particles

Pausanias (Empedocles' student) 107,112, 113

Pausanias of Caesarea 203 n. 19Peace 257

characters: Hermes 16 n. 32,182 n. 106; Peace 19, 41, 43, 45;Trygaeus 19,43,45

Peloponnese 111 n. 49Peloponnesian War 159,169people's assembly, see eWAijai'aPericles 168Persian (language) 207, 224Persians 207Phaeax 140, 144Pherecrates 248Pherecydes 102Philadelphia 166 n. 32Philippines 212Philolaus 143Philoxenus 172phonology

apurum 233allegro forms 233 n. 5, 236anastrophe 210 n.44, 257aphaeresis, see below prodelisionaspirated stops 203-4, 207, 214, 221aspiration 203—4, 206compensatory lengthening 233,

234-5contracted/uncontracted forms 10,

21, 26-7, 35 n. 112, 49, 154,213-14, 233, 235-6, 247

correptio Attica 238, 241crasis 214, 215, 235, 238—9digamma 234, 235, 236'Doric' a 24, 35 n. 112, 233-4, 237,

242 n. 51elision 208, 209, 214, 238—9gender-specific 176hiatus 208, 209-10, 235, 238-9,

247iotacism 162, 176, 203, 204-6,

207, 211, 220, 223, 230,240 n. 47

loss of final -v 202, 203, 206-8, 211,214-15, 220—i, 223, 230

loss of final-s 208—11,214-15,217,218-19 n. 73, 221

muta cum liquida 238v ephelkystikon 208, 239nasalization 207, 223prevocalic at, ei, 01 236prodelision 208, 214, 238-9

General Index 357

pronunciation of cu 240-pa- vs. -pp- 237sandhi 234simplified 214<7<^-/<7X- VS. OTT-faK- 24O

-act- vs. -TT- 24, 35 n. 112, 237, 239,241

uvular /r/ 160vowel quantity 202-3, 204—6, 209,

210, 214, 223see also accent; accentuation

pidgin languages 200, 212, 216 n. 64Pindar 8, 90, 108, 146Piraeus 160Plato 1-2, 14, 18, 97, 100, 102,

114 n. 59, 119-20 n. 3, 130, 139,143, 146 n. 67, 147, 151, 161-2,171, 176-7, 178 n. 85, 182 n. 105,185, 187, 194, 245, 252 n. 106,253, 257 n. 130, 260-2

Plutarch 172, 195Plutus 64, 152, 174, 180, 185, 190—1,

246, 247, 254,257characters: Carion 127; Chremylus

77; Old Woman 182 n. 106;Plutus 63

politeness 166, 179, 188, 193, 195, 229polymorphy 232, 234, 235, 238, 240,

244-6, 249Polyrrhenia 102 n. 13polysemy, see technical terms/vocabu-

lary, monosemy vs. polysemyPorphyry 102, 114Poseidon 19, 36, 48, 189 n. 141'power code' 164pragmatics 3 n. 3, 10, 176, 178, 179,

194, 231,232Prague school of linguistics 55Prakrit (language) 195 n. 163prayers 4, 12—50, 113, 115, 170—1, 196,

227-8, 231argument structure 37-41closing words/'Amen' 45—7epithets 15, 18-23, 27-9, 38, 48, 49,

101invocations 15—17literary 48official/communal 15, 16—17, 21—3,

29, 32, 34, 39, 42, 46-9parodic 13, 19 n. 50, 22 n. 56,

28 n. 82, 29 n. 90, 32 n. 99,33 n. 105,37, 196

pars epica 41

poetic words 27private 15, 16-17, 23, 49specific vocabulary 27—9, 49speech-act verbs (performative/

illocutionary verbs) 23—5, 27, 49syntax 15, 30-4,49see also eu^/iio

Presocratics, Presocratic poetry 96-7,101, 104-7, 108 n. 40, no, 118,135, 139 n. 50, 143, 227,229

prestige, linguistic 154, 159—60, 162,

163-5proclamations 33Prodicus 95, 118, 139Protagoras 95, 99, in, 116, 118,

i i g n . 2, 139Proto-Indo-European 91, 203 n. 20Proto-Indo-Iranian 203 n. 20Proto-Iranian 203 n. 20puns 176, 240purism, linguistic 232, 254, 264,

268-9Pythagoras 102, 112, 114—15, 117Pythagoreans, Pythagoreanism 101,

103, 107, 112, 113-17, 143, 148

Ravennas (manuscript) 204, 208 n. 36,210, 215 n. 59

realism, dramatic 166-7realism, linguistic 197, 207, 221, 229,

232, 236, 250redundancy, linguistic 194registers, linguistic 8—50, 51—3, 199,

227—8, 230—1'context of situation' nn . 12internal variation 9, 15,42-7on-line production 10,23,27,49,

154oral 2, 10—n, 153-5, 262register dimensions 10-11,153;

abstractness 10, 37; argumenta-tion/persuasion 11, 41, 48-9; inte-gration/fragmentation ion. 8, 12,154; interactiveness 10,17,48-9,'53, J8s; involvement/detachment10 n. 8; narrativity 11; personalstance/involvement 10-11,12,24,32, 34, 48-9, 153; planned/unplanned discourse, planning 10n. 8, 23, 27, 35 n. 112, 37, 41, 49,154; production circumstanceslo-ii, 23, 27, 37,41,48-9, 153-4

register markers 10, 29, 36

358 General Index

registers, linguistic (cont.):simplified 198-201,212,218,221—2;

see also baby talk; foreigner talkwritten 10, 153-4see also subregisters

religious language 4, 8-50, 227rhetoric, rhetorical theory 88, 90,

93-4, 118, 133, 134, 140see also technical languages, language

of rhetoricRhinthon 103ritual formulae 13, 29, 42 n. 126, 44-5,

48, 170—1Roman Comedy 158Romance languages 212Russian (language) 216 n. 64, 222 n. 78

Sabir (language) 212sacrifice 14, 38, 40, 42, 43saliency, stylistic 231Sanskrit (language) 195 n. 163Santa (Luvian god) 102 n. 12Sappho 8Scandinavian languages 160scholia 5, 62, 63 n. 32, 108, 187,

210 n. 43, 214 n. 58scientific language/discourse 3, 53 n. 5,

55 n. 11,61,71, 96—117, i18, 126,'39. '55. 226-7, 229-31

Scots English (dialect) 9 n. 4Scythian (language) 204, 206,

209 n. 41, 221Scythians 203 n. 20, 204, 206, 207, 223

see also Thesmophoriazusae,characters

Second Vatican Council 12Seneca (language) 12sexism 167, 170Siberians 222 n. 78Sicily i, 86, insimplification, linguistic, see morphol-

ogy, simplified; phonology,simplified; registers, simplified

soap operas 167social networks 163-4sociolects, sociolectal variation 2, 8,

52, 119, 140, 148, 161, 221, 230—1Socrates 100, 106 n. 32, 113, i19 n. 3,

127 n. 12, 133 n. 33, 142, 161, 165,223 n. 81

see also Clouds, characterssolecisms 172, 175, 202, 217'solidarity code' 164-5

sophists, sophistic culture 87-8, 106,118-56, 228

and language 3, 58, 88, 118-56, 165,169, 175-6, 226, 231

Sophocles 130, 132 n. 28, 137 n. 43,143, 146 n. 67, 151, 177 n. 80,182 n. 105, 238-9, 246, 247 n. 76,252 n. 106, 258 n. 136, 261-3,264 n. 167, 266-7

Sophron 172, 175South Italy in, 115Southern Europe 163Spanish (language) 163-4,195,212speech acts 118, 166

see also hymns, speech-act verbs;prayers, speech-act verbs

standard, linguistic 157-8, 159—62,163-5, '95. 207. 2I3. 240, 248

stereotypes 87, 116, 158, 166-73, 183,195, 207, 218, 224 n. 84, 227, 229

Stesichorus 26stigmatization, stigmatized forms

157-8,159,164-5styles, stylistics 8, 51 n. i, 118, 172subjectivity, linguistic 177-8, 193-4subregisters, linguistic 9, 15, 29, 34substrate, linguistic 203Sumbanese (language) 1211.15.

49 n. 140swearing 166 n. 30, 189Swiss German (dialect) 49 n. 140syntax

accusative: absolute 252; directional251—2; inner 252,268

adjectivization 121agreement, see below congruenceanacolutha 232, 253 n. no'answering questions' 263 n. 164aorist, punctual 128, 131 n. 25, 132article usage 254—5, 260; see also

below omission of definite articlesaspect 31-2, 121, 153, 258asyndeta 261attraction of mood 259 n. 142causal clauses 266—7; conjunctions

234 n. 7, 245, 266-7, 268concessive clauses 11conditional clauses 11, 41, 49, 178,

194, 261 n. 159, 266; conjunctions235-6, 266

congruence 218-19, 254, 260, 268'conjunction reduction" 34consecutive clauses 265

General Index 359

copula 121, 138, 146, 148, 149, 150,152, 218—19, 261

dative: ethic 180-1, 194; local 251;loss 253; of interest 180

declarative verbs 262-3deixis 232; see also morphology,

pronouns, deictic -Idiathesis (genus verbi) 121, 211 n.

48, 218, 257double av 181—2,193dual 176 n. 76, 253-4, 268durative verbs 131elliptical sentences 10, 154, 232final clauses 174 n. 72, 258—9,

264-5, 268; conjunctions 176—8,193-4, 264—5, 267,268

genitive: ablatival 251—2; absolute252; exclamatory 252, 260, 267; ofcomparison 252, 268; partitive252; possessive 6, 254, 256 n. 125

grammatical gender 90-100, 118,128, 151 n. 77, 157, 189, 202, 208,210, 215, 217-19, 253,257

hypotaxis 10,41,154,213,217,266

imperative 180, 258, 259—60, 268;cletic 15 n. 25, 17, 19 n. 50, 28,30-2, 48; in prayers 30-4, 49, 258

indicative: future indicative + av258; in final clauses 265; iterative182, 258, 268; (ou) îr) + indicative258

indirect questions 263—4, 268individuation/de-individuation 126,

132, 136, 145, 150infinitive: absolute 260; articular

149-53, 252 "• IQ6, 260; exclama-tory 260, 268; for finite verbs212-13; imperatival 33,213,259,260; 'jussive' 33, 34 n. 109,259 n. 149, 260; loss 212;'optativaP 33—4, 49, 260

integration 125—6, 152, 154litotic expressions 176, 184-5, 190,

193+ inf. 257—8, 268

nominal sentences 138, 146, 148,213, 218, 261

nominalization, nominal style 10,53, 120-2, 136, 138, 145, 147, 149,150, 152—5, 226, 228

nominative: exclamatory 251; forvocative 216, 251, 255

omission of av 259, 267omission of definite articles 35-7,

48-9, 213, 217, 221, 224 n. 86,254-5, 267

omission of grammatical/functionwords 199, 213, 217, 221; see alsoabove omission of av

optative: in prayers 30, 32-4;oblique 174 n. 72, 258-9, 268;potential 181-2, 215 n. 61, 218,259,265, 267

parataxis 10, 41, 154, 178, 194, 213,217, 219, 261-2, 266, 268

participial constructions/style 35—7,121, 178-9, 262

passive constructions 53perfect: intensive 129 n. 18, 131 n.

26; resultative 122, 126-33, '49.15°, '55, 257,268

periphrasis 217; ejfai + part. aor.132 n. 28, 257; participial 121,152-3, 176 n. 76, 246, 247 n. 73,

257pluralis maiestatis 254poetic plural 254, 267possessive adjectives 6, 179—80, 194,

216 n. 64, 256possessive constructions with copula

152possibility modals 11postpositions 191,234,257prepositions, prepositional usage

213, 216 n. 65, 217, 221, 234,237—8, 251, 252, 256—7; see also'Index of Greek' for individualprepositions

pronouns: anaphoric 255; demon-strative 255; enclitic 179—80, 250,256 n. 125; indefinite 191, 194,256; interrogative 263-4, 2f>8;personal 10, n, 53, 179-80,180-1, 194, 216, 256; reflexive120 n. 3, 256; relative 255, 264,268

relative clauses 144, 152 n. 82, 264,268; predicating 35—7, 48-9

rhetorical questions 28, 30,190 n. 146, 259—60

sacral gemination 44 254

schema Chalcidicum 152—3sentence length/complexity 117 n.

74, 120 n. 4, 199, 213, 217, 262

360 General Index

syntax (cant.):sociative plural 185—6 n. 118stative verbs 131subjunctive: after verbs of inten-

tion/effort 265; deliberative 179;for oblique optative 174 n. 72,259; in final clauses after sec-ondary tense 174 n. 72, 178 n. 83;(ou) ju.rj + subj. 258

substantive clauses 262—3, 266,267

substantivized adjectives 254tag questions 166, 185, 213, 217telic vs. atelic verbs 131 n. 25temporal clauses 11, 267; conjunc-

tions 264 n. 167, 267tense 121, 128; see also above aorist

and perfectterminative verbs 131—2typicalization 120-2, 125-6, 132,

136, 145, 147, 149, 150, 151 n. 77,IS3-5, 226,228

verbal adjectives 121, 122, 145-8,149, 150, 259, 260

verbs of caution/intention/effort 265verbs of fearing 265'visualizing'imperfect I27n . 16vocative, doubled 44 n. 128; see also

above nominative, for vocativeWackernagel's Law 181 n. 102ware + infinitive/finite verb 265-6,

268see also hedges; morphology;

particles; word formation

Tagenistae 155Tarzan 213 n. 56technical languages 4, 9, 51—95, 96,

117, 124, 134,227,231and comedy 56-7, 59-60, 61, 64,

65-70, 72, 94and general language 54—6, 58, 61,

62-3, 64 n. 35, 68, 69, 77-8, 80-3,85, 88, 92, 94

and syntax 53definition 52, 56in ancient Greece 58 n. 18, 66 n. 40,

70-2language of agriculture 54, 62language of literary criticism 58, 59,

62, 65, 87—94, 140language of rhetoric 67, 77 n. 57, 88,

"34, HO

legal language 52, 71, 72-9, 95,I34-S,192

medical language 52, 56—7, 59, 61,63-4, 65, 67, 71-2, 79-87, 88, 95,135

nautical language 71see also technical terms/vocabulary

technical terms/vocabulary 9,10,51-95, 96, 122, 172, 227

and subjective perception 54-6,59 n. 20, 69-70, 94

and word formation 62, 66—8, 69, 76common comprehensibility/usage

57, 59—60, 61—3, 65-6, 69, 80-1,87, 88, 94

context-independence 57-8, 69criteria of technicality 56-70, 94determinologization 62—4, 67 n. 41,

78, 81 n. 69, 85expressive neutrality 58-60, 63, 69foreign words 60, 76, 81, 95metaphorization 63—4monosemy vs. polysemy 57—8, 69'nomenclature signs' 56 n. 12,

95 n. 100standardization 57—8, 69systematicity 66—7, 84, 87see also technical languages

'technolects', see technical languagesTerence 196terminology, see technical terms/

vocabularyterms of abuse 186,188-9textual criticism 202, 203, 220-1, 244Theognis 146—7Theophrastus 139Theopompus Comicus 141 n. 55Thesmophoria 22, 39, 44, 46, 185Thesmophoriazusae 25—6, 135, 170,

174, 180, 186, 191, 196, 198—225,226, 230

characters: Agathon 25—6, 43, 48,136 n. 39, 137 n. 44, 175,192 n. 156, 255 n. 124; Agathon'sservant 45, 48, 68, 242 n. 51;Euripides 191, 196, 198, 219,224—5; Euripides' Relative170 n. 54, 173 n. 68, 180 n. 96,185, 189 n. 140, 191, 192 n. 156,196, 198, 218, 224; Mica170 n. 54; Scythian 181 n. 98,187n. 125, 191 n. 151, 198—225,226-7, 230, 261

General Index 361

Thucydides 2, 47, 71, 87, 90, 119 n. 2,

130, 136, 142 n. 58, 143, 146 n. 67,146 n. 68, 147, 151, 159, 175, 176,178, 182, 236 n. 23, 245, 248,252 n. 106, 254, 257 n. 130,257 n. 135, 258 n. 136, 260, 262,268

Thurii in, 115

Timaeus 112, 113 n. 57Timotheus 201 n. 14tmesis, see morphology, verbsTok Pisin (language) 212toponyms 237tragedy 2, 5—6, 62, 198, 224-5

language 2, 6, 31 n. 95, 34 n. i u,35 n. 112, 61, 80, ioj, 106, 107,137-8, 146 n. 69, 147, 149, 160,176-7, 178, 182, i86n. 118, 187,

188, 224-5, 233-8, 241, 245,247-9, 254 n. 117, 255-8, 260-1,263, 265-6

see also Aeschylus; Euripides;paratragedy; Sophocles

Triballian (language) 224 n. 86Triballians 207

see also Birds, charactersTurkish (language) 212Turks 212typicalization, see syntax, typicalization

underworld, see Hades

vegetarianism 104 n. 25, 112Vietnam 212vulgarisms, see obscenity

Wackernagel's Law, see syntax,Wackernagel's Law

Wasps 67, 72-9, 87, 95, 140, 152, 257characters: Bdelycleon 43, 78,

81 n. 67, 140; bread-seller 77;Philocleon 37, 40, 48, 67, 72, 77,82, 140, 227

West African Pidgin English(language) 212

women's language, see female speechword formation

adjectives: comparatives/superlativesin -tareposf-iaTaTos 243 > 251;deverbal 121, 144; in-(a)ioj 22;

in -IKOS 76, 122, 139—45, 150;in -ios 101; in -deis 235; in -rpis141; patronymic (-18175) 22

comic 232, 233 n. 3compounds: Bahuvrihi 22, 123; in

-Trarpis 141 n. 55; multiple 109;'verbale Rektionskomposita" 22,123; with ftn>- 22, 237-8; withTtav-JTroXv- 23; with </>i\o- 67,

87diminutives 171, 187, 199, 219,

232names in -K\rjs 235nominal motion 171, 253nouns: in -aiva 99-100, 171; in -of

233; in -as 67 n. 41, 233; in -efox105 n. 29; in -ia 76, 124—5; >n -'Qs67 n. 41; in -iS- 171; in -is 99;in -lo/tos 85 n. 87; in -ms 67 n. 41,85, 87 n. 90; in -fta 76, 120, 122,136-8, 145, 150, see also below in-aijua; in -| 99; in -O'TTJS 120, 136,138-9, 150; in -ous 67 n. 41, 235;in -s 99; in -ois 62, 67-8, 76-7, 92,120, 122, 134—6, 138, 150, 176;in -TTJP 76; in -rripiov 105 n. 29;in *-tu- 147; in -ijj 99; in -wpio 6;in -un> 100

verbal nouns, see word formation,nouns in -fia, in -ois, in *-tu-

verbs: compound verbs in -fat, -aa>68, 69, 122—6, 150; in -laiVtu233; in -(i)aoj 84-5; in -paivui233; onomatopoeic 175;simplex verbs in -cut 124 n. 9,

25°see also morphology; syntax

Xenophon 119-20 n. 3, 130 n. 23,143, 146 n. 67, 147, 151, 178 n. 85,252 n. 106, 257 n. 130, 260-1

Yana (language) 157

zero-marking 34Zeus 18, 19, 101-2, 113, 142,

189Zeus Soter 28 n. 80Zonaras 91