These notes represent a partial payment on a debt of gratitude owed to my late tutor John G. Griffith,

M.A. (Oxon), who was Public Orator of Oxford University as well as senior dean and classics tutor of

Jesus College.

Notes on the Σφῆκες of Aristophanes

For consistency of reference, the numbers and the extracts which follow take the Oxford Classical Text of

Hall and Geldart as their standard. My own preferred readings of the text are given in bold in the notes.

Those students coming to this play for the first time are advised to have a quantity of salt to hand, as some

of the views expressed in this commentary are unorthodox. The academic publications mentioned in the

commentary will be found listed in a bibliography at the end (pp. 188-90).

Prologue (Πρόλογος) 1-229

The setting of the drama is reminiscent of the previous year’s Νεφέλαι. The scene represents the house of

an ordinary, Athenian family. It is the middle of the night and the courtyard in front of the house is dark,

but two figures lie sleeping; one is a slave who snores by the house door; the other is the ‘Son’, wrapped

up in a sheep-skin cape on the roof of the annexe. The drama begins as a shadowy figure lurches onto the

stage; he carries a ‘spear’ and is wearing a ‘helmet’ as if mounting guard. We are told later that the slaves

“are keeping watch with roasting-spits” (364) and in Ὄρνιθες two Athenians armed with roasting-spits to

ward off the hostile birds also seek to protect their heads with kitchen-bowls (359-61). [Although there is

no explicit reference to headwear in this play, one may reasonably surmise that the slaves are portrayed as

wearing colanders, as devotees of Pastafarianism, possibly the earliest to be found in extant literature].

Note that my use of the word ‘stage’ is not meant to imply that there was a raised προσκήνιον in Comedy.

It seems probable that, at this period, the σκηνή was a (semi-) permanent, rear wall with openings through

which the actors could enter and exit. But, the drama would have been played out in the ὀρχήστρα much

of the time.

1. οὗτος

A line from a lost work of Eupolis aptly describes our opening scene, “this chap is asleep on guard-duty”

(frg. 340, οὗτος ἐν τοῖς φρουρίοις κοιτάζεται). The sleeping individual is quite likely to have been a slave,

since in Old Comedy it is usual for slaves to be represented as lazy, shifty and dishonest. At the opening

of Νεφέλαι the old master is irritated to find his slave asleep by the door. Here, the slave Sosias has come

looking for his fellow-slave named Xanthias and is annoyed to find him shirking his guard-duty, sleeping

by the door. His first word might have been taken demonstratively, οὗτος <ἐστιν> (‘there he is!’), but the

question which follows indicates that it is an exclamatory pronoun (cf. 144), as in the example provided

by Apollonios Dyskolos from a work of Kratinos (frg. 55, οὗτος καθεύδεις; “you there, are you asleep?”).

We are probably meant to supply σύ (cf. 144, 751, 854), or the ὦ as in ὦ οὗτος (cf. 1364).

ὦ κακόδαιµον

MacDowell and Sommerstein expostulate in unison, “You silly fool!” while Barrett calls Xanthias an “old

rascal”, because he will later identify him with his ‘Aged Slave’ (1292). But, Aristophanes usually means

κακοδαίµων literally as ‘someone who is afflicted by the working of an evil spirit’, an unlucky person, or

as Rogers translates, “ill-starred”. Compare the frequent complaint of οἴµοι κακοδαίµων (e.g. 207, 1417)

or Philokleon’s condescension towards his rival (1501), τίς ὁ κακοδαίµων ἐστίν; and the cry of Xanthias

later that δαίµων τις <κακός> has brought misfortune upon the household (1475). The slave is not simply

irritated at the other’s dereliction of duty, but worried that while Xanthias is ‘off-guard’, some malevolent

spirit might bring them bad luck. His superstitious mind fears that while his companion is asleep a dream

could presage bad luck (cf. 24-5) and he foresees unpleasant repercussions, if either one of them is found

asleep at their post (cf. 137). So, although Henderson’s use of American slang jars (“you damned jinx”), it

gives the exact sense required here.

2. καταλύειν...διδάσκοµαι

Τhe canny slave tries to put a positive spin on his clear neglect of duty by claiming that he is busy doing

nothing. He is not actually admitting to ‘neglect’ as LSJ suggest. The infinitive καταλύειν means that he

is trying to ‘dismiss’ the guard, i.e. himself (cf. Plato Νόµοι 762γ, τὴν φρουρὰν καταλύειν). It is tempting

to pun on ‘relieving the guard’ in English, but this would suggest that he is, a) taking the place of another

guard or, b) answering Nature’s call.

The joke resembles an anecdote (Plutarch περὶ ∆υσωπίας 7) about Diogenes begging alms from statues of

the dead. Asked to account for his bizarre behaviour, he explained that he was, ἀποτυγχάνειν µελετᾶν -

“practising how not to succeed”.

3. κακὸν...τι προυφείλεις µέγα

The reading of the codices, προὔφειλες, looks like the imperfect tense of the verb προοφείλω, except that

one would expect the regular form to be προώφειλες. So, for the last two centuries, editors have adopted

Elmsley’s proposal to substitute the present tense προυφείλεις. This, as MacDowell notes, is better suited

to English usage, but it is not certain that the present tense accords with Attic idiom, which is illustrated

by a similar phrase in a contemporary forensic speech of the orator Antiphon (περὶ τοῦ Ἡρῴδου φόνου

61), εἴπερ προωφείλετο αὐτῷ κακόν. Literally, this means ‘if there was owing to him beforehand an

injury’ (assuming that we should understand αὐτῷ to mean Lykinos) and ought to translate as, “if he had

an outstanding grudge <against Herodes>”. So here, the past tense would mean, ‘previously, you owed

your ribs some serious injury’, a debt which you have repaid by sleeping on duty. Therefore, there may be

grounds for reconsidering an irregular past form (which editors are happy to accommodate at 1481). At

any rate, it seems to be the slave’s sarcastic way of saying, ‘when you let yourself drop off, you had it in

for your ribs big time!’ Νεφέλαι 76 provides another example of an unexpected verb form which we now

prefer to correct (εὗρον becomes ηὗρον).

The joke appears to turn upon the absurdity of someone seeking to inflict punishment masochistically on

his own ribs for injury or pain they have caused him (as if one were to say ‘my feet are killing me’ and

then insist on having them clapped in irons for attempted murder).

ταῖς πλευραῖς

The anatomical reference is standard terminology for ‘a beating’. It frequently seems to be used without

any intention to localize the area of the blows, just as an American might say of someone beaten up, ‘he

got his ass kicked’ (cf. 1293-5).

The slaves’ concern that they could be beaten is a reminder that Athens was now at peace (temporarily)

with the Peloponnesians and so their master would be less likely to worry that they might abscond if he

physically abused them (cf. Νεφέλαι 6-7).

4. ἆρ(α) οἶσθά γ(ε) οἷον

The postponement of the particle is unusual, but is printed by MacDowell nonetheless. He does, however,

include the better reading of (J) οἶσθας οἷον in his apparatus. To my knowledge only Brunck has adopted

this form of the verb, although its use by other comic writers (e.g. Kratinos frg. 112) suggests that it was

the vernacular form. In Comedy the speech of slaves often vacillates between colloquial language and the

uncharacteristically high-flown phrases used by servants in tragic-drama (as exemplified in the following

line). Other vernacular usage occurs in this play in 222 and 1491.

κνώδαλον

They give the impression that they are guarding a “wild animal” with the characteristics of a brute beast,

such as guile, unpredictability and aggressive behaviour. Since their ward will turn out to be human after

all, and lacking any physical deformity or the power to terrify, “monster” (preferred by recent translators)

would seem to be less appropriate.

5. σµικρὸν ἀποµερµηρίσαι

The noun µέρµηρα is an early, poetic form of the Attic µέριµνα, meaning ‘care’ or ‘anxiety’ (cf. Hesiod

Θεογονία 55), and although it is not found in the Homeric poems, the verb µερµηρίζω is used in the sense

of ‘feel anxious’. The Roman, Atticist writer Loukianos considered that its use properly belonged only to

epic poetry, cf. Πῶς δεῖ ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν 22, ὁ στρατηγὸς ἐµερµήριζεν - “the general was agonizing

how… also ∆ὶς κατηγορούµενος 2 (quoting Ἰλιάς 2.3), µερµερίζω κατὰ φρένα.

The compound ἀποµερµηρίζω does not occur elsewhere in classical literature, and only crops up again in

an anecdote of the Roman historian Dio Cassius (55.14.2), who says of the emperor Augustus that, when

asked by his wife Livia why he could not sleep, retorted καὶ τίς ἄν…κἂν ἐλάχιστον ἀποµερµηρίσειε,

when beset by so many enemies. From these two instances, one may deduce that the verb was used in the

sense of to ‘dispel anxiety’ and hence, because worry prevents sleep (cf.1039), implied ‘going off to

sleep’. The scholiast’s claim that the verb could mean ὁ πρὸ ἕω ὕπνος - ‘sleeping before sunrise’ may

come from the belief that a person sleeps most deeply shortly before waking. So, the slave means that he

wishes to forget his responsibilities by taking a nap. Only, in the theatre would a slave be heard to employ

such a flowery periphrasis, and Xanthias is probably using a phrase borrowed from some tragic-drama,

akin to someone nowadays saying, “Be gone dull care”.

6. σὺ δ(ὲ) οὖν

The Ravenna codex reads σὺ δ’ αὖ, but δ’ οὖν is the usual expression of acquiescence, cf. 764, 1154 and

Νεφέλαι 39.

7. κατὰ τοῖν κόραιν ὕπνου...

The ‘sweet thing’ which is closing over Sosias’s eyeballs is indeed sleep, but this is a commonplace from

epic onwards (e.g. Ὀδύσσεια 2.395 γλυκὺν ὕπνον ἔχευε) and does not need to be stated. As MacDowell

notes, the word ὕπνου has been mistakenly incorporated into the principal codices, when it is really just a

gloss on τι…γλυκύ. Some later manuscripts have restored the original reading ἤδη, which sense requires.

What confuses his partner in crime is the melodramatic tone Sosias adopts. His words suggest something

deeper than sleep is about to suffuse his mind (cf. Euripides Ἱππόλυτος 1444, κατ’ ὄσσων κιγχάνει µ’ ἤδη

σκότος - “Now darkness descends upon my eyes” and Ἰλιάς 16.344, κατὰ δ’ ὀφθαλµῶν κέχυτ’ ἀχλύς -

“his eyes misted over”).

Hirschig corrected the reading ταῖν κόραιν of the codices, since in Attic the masculine form of the definite

article serves for all three genders (e.g. τοῖν γενεσέοιν, Plato Φαίδων 71ε).

8. Κορυβαντιᾷς;

Commentators seem to have agreed that Xanthias’s question has been prompted by some sort of frenzied

behaviour on the part of Sosias. Henderson suggests that he has begun “to thrash about”, while the slave

in Sommerstein’s translation asks whether his colleague has been having some sort of mad fit, or is “in a

Corybantic frenzy”? This interpretation is due to LSJ’s assertion that the verb is used “of a drowsy person

nodding and suddenly starting up”. But, in all probability, it merely indicates that Sosias is coming out of

a drunken stupor, since like a Corybant he is not in complete contact with his surroundings.

The Κορύβαντες were orgiastic acolytes (or priests) of Kybele and Dionysos (as the male counterparts of

female mainads), who communed with their divinity by means of ecstatic dances to the rhythmic beat of

drums. One might compare the whirling of Sufi dervishes or the ritual dancing of Native Americans, both

of which aim to induce a trance-like state in the participants. Xanthias’s query is therefore tantamount to

asking, “are you in a trance?” (cf. 119). The reason he asks it is because Sosias is not fully sober and has

just suggested that he is might still be having an out-of-body experience.

9. ἐκ Σαβαζίου

This is the earliest datable reference to the cult of the Phrygian god Sabazios (cf. frg. 578, τὸν Φρύγα τὸν

αὐλητῆρα τὸν Σαβάζιον), which was probably introduced at about this date by slaves or metics. His name

serves to indicate the foreignness of the two slaves just as, later on, the Phrygian names Midas and Phryx

will be used for other slaves (433). But, there is particular relevance to the immediate situation in the fact

that his cult involved ‘nocturnal vigils’ (Cicero de legibus 2.37, nocturnas pervigilationes) and although

Xanthias had first assumed that Sosias’s drowsiness was due to Corybantic practices, his brother-in-arms

is probably admitting that it is the result of his overindulgence in alcohol, i.e. he is ‘legless’, though not to

the same extent perhaps as the sleeping guard in Piero della Francesca’s Resurrection! Sommerstein notes

that the evidence connecting Sabazios’s cult with inebriation is solely based on his identification with the

god of wine, Dionysos. This is so, but any religious rite conducted at night was always open to charges of

dissolute or improper behaviour in Comedy, even if untrue. Such suspicions were a reflection of the often

fatal prudery found in the flawed heroes of Tragedy, e.g. Pentheus and Hippolytos (e.g. οὐδείς µ’ ἀρέσκει

νυκτὶ θαυµαστὸς θεῶν, Euripides Ἱππόλυτος 106).

10. τὸν αὐτὸν...Σαβάζιον

We should naturally translate this as ‘the same Sabazios’, but as MacDowell notes, the meaning is rather

the same person (or spirit), Sabazios. Consequently, van Herwerden may well be correct in his suggestion

that the text originally read σὺ δαίµονα and that the god’s name has been carried over from the previous

line accidentally.

11-12. ἐπεστρατεύσατο Μῆδός τις

By the time this play was presented in the winter of 422 B.C., the aged veterans of the battle at Marathon

(490 B.C.) would have been few in number and even the youngest of those who had fought at Plataia with

Aristeides (479 B.C.) were now entering their seventies. For the younger generation, the Persian invasions

had become little more than a figure of speech (cf. also 1124 and note). But, the readings of Herodotos’s

Ἱστορίες were doubtless fresh in men’s memories (there are a couple of details in Ἀχαρνεῖς from 425 B.C.,

which seem to allude to Herodotos’s work) and would have rekindled interest in the earlier ‘heroic’ wars.

νυστακτὴς ὕπνος

This unique adjective has been propagated from the verb νυστάζω - ‘to be drowsy, half-asleep’, but since

it is pleonastic to translate “drowsy sleep” (as if the poet had written νύσταξις and the slave had suddenly

fallen half-asleep), we might consider whether the poet intended the adjective to contribute an additional

idea. In form it resembles λιποτάκτης (‘one who leaves the ranks’), therefore it may have been coined to

give the slave the chance to justify his dereliction of guard-duty, by suggesting that Sleep, like an enemy

which he was trying to hold off, had caused him to become drowsy and so leave his post against his will.

13. ὄναρ

Xanthias quickly diverts attention from his lapse by mentioning that he had “seen a dream which left him

wondering”.

14. κἄγωγ(ε)

His colleague’s sudden shift of focus catches Sosias ‘off-guard’ and he admits to having been asleep too.

15-18. ἐδόκουν αἰετὸν

The dream which Xanthias recounts appears at first to be a perfectly normal scene from daily life; a large

bird of prey has swooped down on a snake. This would have been a relatively common sight in the fields

of Attika, where an eagle might often be spotted in the distance circling the mountain-tops. But the scene

is not set in the countryside; it is set in the heart of the city. Besides, the snake which the bird has seized

in its talons appears to be an Egyptian asp, not one native to Greece, only the adjective ἐπίχαλκον makes

it clear that the ἀσπίδα, which we took to be a snake, is actually a bronze shield. The word ἀσπίδα seems

to have been chosen to throw us off the scent (an action typical of the sub-conscious mind). Attempts at

reproducing the word-play have tended to be an unnecessary distraction for contemporary audiences and

though one could perhaps translate, “the bird seized an asp…-embossed shield in its talons”, the symbolic

significance of the dream is still lost in translation. In fact, Aristophanes leaves his audience to interpret

the dream for themselves. For the ‘clever ones’, at least, its elements would have been clear, since under

waking circumstances, the only αἰετός to be found in the Agora would have been an architectural feature,

the triangular gable-end of a temple (so-called from its resemblance to a spread-eagle). Moreover, bronze

shields were commonly to be found displayed as war-booty (or private dedications) in temples and public

colonnades. The great Ποικίλη stoa was one such building. Its columns bore the shields of Spartan POWs

brought back from Sphakteria by Kleon two years earlier (425/4 B.C.). Aristophanes had raised the subject

of their dedication at the time in Ἱππεῖς (846 ff.). Subsequently, more shields captured by Kleon at Skione

would be added (see Pausanias 1.16.5) and this passage may therefore be the earliest literary reference to

the stoa. [For some reason, Xanthias’s dream is illustrated on the coat of arms of Mexico.]

19. ταύτην ἀποβαλεῖν Κλεώνυµον

It is generally assumed here that Kleonymos is the great bird (the ‘dog of Zeus’), but this assumption may

not be warranted, because nothing indicates that the eagle became Kleonymos (Henderson), or turned into

Kleonymos (Barrett, Sommerstein). His role in dropping the shield may mean that he knocked it from the

eagle’s talons, since in Ἱππεῖς, it is in fact, Kleon (thinly disguised as ‘the Paphlagonian’) who is likened

to an eagle (197). If, however, we are meant to see Kleonymos himself as the eagle here, then we have to

assume that he may have been the one who moved the decree to dedicate the captured shields.

Aristophanes is continuing a running joke which had started among the comic-poets a year or two earlier

concerning an action by Kleonymos which they construed as ῥιψασπία. Some commentators consider that

this may have occurred in actuality when he dropped his own shield in the retreat from Delion in 424 B.C.

In Εἰρήνη (1295-1304) Aristophanes gives the impression that the confession of the poet Archilochos also

applied to Kleonymos, but, the inference that he had thrown away his shield when serving as a hoplite is

not entirely convincing, because he is said to have discarded his shield at sea also. Moreover, although the

mention of him as <ὁ> µέγας οὗτος Κολακώνυµος ἀσπιδαποβλής (592) sounds ironic, it is acknowledged

later that, even without his shield, he is a hero (822-3). See Appendix 2, ‘The Cowardly Hero’.

16. καταπτόµενον

The codices read καταπτάµενον for the aorist participle of καταπέτοµαι (‘fly down’) and as MacDowell

notes, we do not have sufficient reason to reject it for καταπτόµενον as Hall and Geldart have done. The

aorist is ἐπτόµην in the simple verb, but regularly changes to ἐπτάµην when compounded.

20-3. οὐδὲν ἄρα γρίφου...

Riddles were evidently a common form of amusement at drinking parties in fifth-century Athens (as later

in Anglo-Saxon halls). They would have helped to reinforce the urbane, educated ambience of a wealthy

elite. Only in a comic-drama would slaves have had the opportunity to retail such intellectual witticisms.

A standard riddle might have been, ‘What creature is found on land, in water and in the air?’ An educated

man would be expected to know that a snake could be located as part of a constellation in the night sky as

well as being a reptile on Earth. Here, Aristophanes offers his audience an alternative riddle to which the

answer is…the politician Kleonymos. But it is a matter for conjecture as to what exactly is meant by him

making the shield fall from the sky. He seems to be saying that the disgraceful loss of his ‘equipment’ at

Delion (or whatever constituted his ῥιψασπία) had served to diminish the triumphalism of Kleon’s faction

over their success at Pylos in 425. But, the fact that the captured shields remained prominently displayed

in the Agora shows that Kleon’s detractors had had to be satisfied with comedic gloating of this kind.

21. προσερεῖ τις

The codices offer us a choice between προερεῖ, ‘will declare beforehand’ (if this is the reading of R) and

προσερεῖ, ‘will speak out’ (VJ). MacDowell rules out the latter on the grounds that τοῖσι συµπόταις does

not suit it, but the dative can be taken with λέγων by removing the comma, i.e. “someone, addressing his

fellow-revelers, will declare…”

Blaydes’ proposal to read προβαλεῖ (‘will put forward <a question>’) makes sense, but is not supported

by the textual tradition.

22. « τί ταὐτὸν...

Cobet and Hirschig altered the reading of the codices, ὅτι ταὐτον... into direct speech, which happens to

be the form in which Athenaios quotes the riddle (453β). But, there is nothing against the indirect form,

and recent editions have preferred to stick with the codices.

24-5.

The Greeks followed the ancient Egyptian belief that dreams offered enigmatic guidance to future events;

generally warning of imminent misfortune, though they might also offer solutions for present adversity

(cf. Ἰλιάς 1.63, ἢ καὶ ὀνειροπόλον, καὶ γὰρ τὸ ὄναρ ἐκ ∆ιός ἐστιν). [A papyrus of the thirteenth century

B.C. from Deir el-Medina contains sections of the so-called Book of Dreams which offers a unique insight

into the practice of interpreting dreams. My particular favourite is the prediction that to dream of drinking

warm beer presaged pain. How very true!]

26. οὐδὲν...δεινόν

The dream does not presage bad luck (cf. Εἰρήνη 608, πρὶν παθεῖν τι δεινὸν - “before suffering a terrible

fate”).

27. ἀποβαλὼν ὅπλα

‘Weapons’ normally referred to the round shields carried by the ὁπλίτης, but here the poet makes them a

euphemism for a man’s sexual ‘tackle’ or ‘equipment’. The double entendre suggests that a man has been

castrated (cf. 822-3). Eupolis puts a different spin on the same event by emphasizing that Kleonymos had

used his hand to ‘toss off his tackle’ (frg. 352, ῥιψάσπιδόν τε χεῖρα τὴν Κλεωνύµου).

28. τὸ σὸν...ἔστιν µέγα

Sommerstein (1977 p. 263) makes the valid point that these words may well continue the crude ambiguity

of the previous line. The audience will understand that Xanthias is asking to hear about the dream, but the

slave may deliberately direct his gaze to Sosias’s groin. This would explain why Sosias emphasizes the

size of his ‘dream’.

29. τοῦ σκάφους ὅλου

The metaphor of the ‘ship of state’ is a natural one for a sea-faring people and is used already in the sixth

century B.C., in a fragment of a poem composed by Alkaios of Lesbos. Aristophanes introduces it here to

provide some incidental humour when Xanthias takes it literally. But possibly, Sosias has already raised a

laugh because of the sexual innuendo of σκάφος, which the Roman comic-dramatists imitated with navis.

It would be a variant on σκάφη, which Aristophanes uses with scurrilous intent in Ἱππεῖς 1315. He is said

by Tzetzes to have originated the expression τὴν σκάφην σκάφην λέγοντας, taken to be the equivalent of

our ‘calling a spade a spade’. But, the sexual meaning of the phrase becomes clear in the full expression

cited by Loukianos, τὰ σῦκα σῦκα, τὴν σκάφην δὲ σκάφην ὀνοµάσων (Πῶς δεῖ ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν, 41).

30. ἀνύσας

Recent editors have followed the advice of the Roman grammarian Herodian and aspirated the participle

as ἁνύσας.

31-6.

The dream of Sosias is another poke in the eye for Kleon, though the explanation is not confirmed until

we are given Xanthias’s reaction (38).

32. ἐκκλησιάζειν πρόβατα

Aristophanes elaborates on this image of the Athenian citizenry as docile sheep later on (954-5), when he

characterizes the political speakers as ‘sheep-dogs’. In Νεφέλαι, his character Strepsiades had mocked his

audience as gullible saps, πρόβατ’ ἄλλως (“just sheep”), who were penned by devious rhetoricians (1201-

3). There the contrast was drawn with the intellectual elite of the Sokratic School, who considered that the

‘common herd’ should be under their direction.

33. βακτηρίας

Quite how these sheep were able to wield ‘walking-sticks’ is not explained. MacDowell’s inference from

this line and the mention in Ἐκκλησιάζουσαι (74), that apparently “it was customary for Athenian citizens

to carry walking-sticks when they attended meetings of the assembly”, is unsafe. In fact, the opposite was

probably true. At Sparta, the ‘habit’ of carrying walking-sticks in assemblies was discontinued during the

period of Lykourgan reforms (cf. Plutarch Λυκοῦργος 11.4, τὸ µέντοι φέρειν βακτηρίαν ἐκκλησιάζοντες

οἱ Σπαρτιᾶται µετὰ τὴν συµφορὰν ἐκείνην ἀπέµαθον) to avoid ‘accidents’, when debates became heated.

The material point is that they were typically male accessories and the members of the Assembly were all

male. For this reason the women needed them to augment their disguise and, in this dream, sticks identify

the ‘sheep’ as assemblymen. In fact, the use of walking-sticks within the city would have been confined to

those farmers from the hilly districts that used them out of habit and to the older citizens who needed their

support. The walking-stick was a standard prop for old men on the comic-stage (cf. 1296 and Νεφέλαι 541

-2), while the use of sticks by beggars (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 448, πτωχικοῦ βακτηρίου) would have been required

similarly due to infirmity (or the pretence of it).

τριβώνια

The short, thin cloaks (the diminutive form of τρίβων) are used to identify the common citizen, especially

a member of the older generation. The old farmer in Νεφέλαι wears a good-quality ἱµάτιον to indicate his

improved social condition, though he shows it to demonstrate his impoverishment by his spendthrift wife.

In due course, the elderly Father in this play will be portrayed as loath to part with his τρίβων, claiming to

have had it since his youth, and an upper-class Athenian will be ridiculed for wearing one (cf. 1312).

34. τοῖς προβάτοισι

MacDowell follows the main codices in printing τοῖσι προβάτοις, which produces a fourth foot with three

consecutive short syllables, while Hall and Geldart have elected to print the rebalanced text of J resulting

in two short and a long. Either is possible.

35. φάλαινα πανδοκεύτρια

Just as in a modern compound such as ‘dog-fish’ or ‘sheep-dog’, one of the nouns must yield precedence

to the other. Here (due to the influence of line 39), the latter one invariably becomes the adjective which

might qualify the whale. Since a πανδοκεύτρια (landlady or innkeeper) literally ‘takes in all comers’, the

whale is thought of as being “all-receptive” (Rogers) bolstered by Hickie’s suggestion that Aristophanes

meant it as a criticism of Kleon’s ‘rapacity’ (see e.g. Ἱππεῖς 137, ἅρπαξ). Hence, we have “omnivorous”

(Sommerstein) or “voracious” (MacDowell).

However, though whales may sing, they are not generally heard to squeal. It seems preferable, therefore,

to dress Kleon up as a landlady, a female stereotype with which the members of the audience were well-

acquainted, and lay the emphasis on his famously strident voice (cf. 596, 1034) rather than his occasional

gluttony, since an inn-keeper would require powerful lungs to advertise her rooms to potential customers.

Her type is caricatured in Βάτραχοι 549-78, (where the long-deceased demagogue is imagined to be the

champion of inn-keepers in the Underworld). We might think of the fish-wife as a comparable stereotype,

but fish-sellers were male in Athens and Aristophanes wanted a female type to portray Kleon as a shrill

termagant (cf. Pherekrates frg. 70.5, ἰχθυοπώλαιναν). Here, the ‘whale’ epithet is used to suggest that she

was enormously fat, since the opposite ἀφύη (‘minnow’) was used jocularly to describe a very diminutive

prostitute (cf. Archippos frg. 19 and Hermippos frg. 14).

Recent editors prefer to print φάλλαινα (the spelling in the Ravenna codex), because there are instances

in verse in which the first syllable must scan long. LSJ argue that the Latin equivalent too is better written

with double ‘l’ (ballaena).

36. ἐµπεπρησµένης ὑός

This reading (notionally the perfect passive participle of ἐµπρήθω) is found in the Venetus and should be

translated as ‘bloated’ or ‘inflated’. It seems suitable to describe a ‘wind-bag’ like Kleon. In this case, his

voice is being likened to the squeal of a set of bag-pipes, since an ‘inflated sow’ (feminine to correspond

with the πανδοκεύτρια) is actually the pig-skin sack of the bag-pipes; a product of Kleon’s tanneries. But,

because the participle is not well-attested, all editors have preferred to follow the reading of the Ravenna

codex, ἐµπεπρηµένης, the perfect passive participle of ἐµπιµπράναι (cf. Νεφέλαι 1484), which translates

as ‘set on fire’ or ‘inflamed’. One may only speculate as to why the pig is on fire, but there are examples

of the verb’s use in later literature (Loukianos, Alkiphron) where it can be understood metaphorically to

mean ‘enraged’, which could also account for the squealing.

An additional source of confusion is the apparent use of the form ἐµπέπρησµαι as the perfect passive of

ἐµπιµπράναι by Herodotos (8.144), but this is best explained as a copying error.

38. ὄζει κάκιστον

Aristophanes is fond of this verb. He can use it concretely, but frequently employs it in metaphors, where

we might talk in terms of taste (‘it smacks of…’), e.g. Νεφέλαι 398, of an old man Κρονίων ὄζων - “with

the musty smell of a museum-exhibit”.

βύρσης σαπρᾶς

These words finally confirm everyone’s suspicion that Sosias too has been dreaming about Kleon. But,

the comic-poet does not mention him by name; he merely alludes to the tanneries which were the source

of his family’s wealth (cf. Ἱππεῖς 136, βυρσοπώλης ὁ Παφλαγών) by means of the ‘pig-skin’.

39. φάλαινα

Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) do occasionally find their way into the eastern Mediterranean;

one was spotted spouting off Porto Yermeno in August 2011. But, it is unlikely that Aristophanes or his

audience had ever seen a whale. Interpreting the word to mean a large, grey dolphin or grampus griseus

(Rogers) does not alter the situation. The word would have been used simply to connote something very

large and very scary; a source of nightmares.

39-41. ἵστη βόειον δηµόν

Having begun with surreal transformations, Aristophanes now moves on to another important feature of

‘dream-work’, namely word-play, of which Xanthias’s interpretation accords with best Freudian practice.

Kleon is seen in the dream to be holding a pair of scales with which he proceeds to weigh out portions of

what seems to Sosias to be “bovine fat”. Τhe adjective is doubtless suggested by Kleon’s background in

the tanning business and when the same phrase is employed in Ἱππεῖς (954) it can be understood to mean

‘cooking-lard’. Xanthias, however, spots the effort of the subconscious mind to hide the truth and reveals

that in reality Kleon is polarizing the city’s political life by separating out the brutish citizens of the δῆµος

into factions (i.e. separating the sheep from the goats).

42. Θέωρος

We know little about this man other than what Aristophanes tells us here, later (418-9, 599-600, 1220 and

1236-7) and in some other plays (Ἀχαρνεῖς 134, 155; Ἱππεῖς 608; and Νεφέλαι 400). He is lampooned as a

well-born political figure, associated closely with Kleon, who continually seeks to ingratiate himself with

the common people.

43. χαµαὶ καθῆσθαι

MacDowell rightly draws attention to this detail of the dream as it serves to pull together Theoros’s twin

identities as both a κόλαξ and a κόραξ. For, while it is only natural that a bird would settle on the ground,

an aristocrat would only do so of necessity. In his case, it probably hints that he has demeaned himself by

condescending to flatter the lower orders (cf. 599-600).

Note that he is imagined not as a crow, but a man with a crow’s head, in the manner of an Egyptian deity,

such as Thoth or Horus. Had these names suggested the transformation to the poet in the first place, since

Thoth was ibis-headed and Horus was falcon-headed? His human parts, along with the fact that he settles

beside ‘the ogress’ Kleon, are the necessary means to his identification.

44. Ἀλκιβιάδης

Alkibiades, son of Kleinias, was an Alkmaionid through his mother Deinomache, daughter of Megakles.

He lost his father, killed at the battle of Koroneia in Boiotia (447 B.C.), when he was only three or four,

and was taken in by his mother’s relations Perikles and Ariphron, sons of Xanthippos. With such heroic

and aristocratic forbears, a distinguished military and political career was his by right and he sought the

public’s attention early in life (as Thucydides says, ἀνὴρ ἡλικίᾳ µὲν ἔτι...ὢν νέος...ἀξιώµατι δὲ προγόνων

τιµώµενος - 5.43). Aristophanes, who was only a year or two younger, jokes about his sexual exploits in

his first play ∆αιταλεῖς, when Alkibiades was still in his early twenties (frg. 244). For recent studies of

Alkibiades’ career through Aristophanes’ eyes, see M. Vickers (2015) or, in German, J. Griesbach (2013).

εἶπε…τραυλίσας

Only in a dream would a prominent aristocrat like Alkibiades converse with a slave and even then, Sosias

admits, he only spoke πρός µε - “in my (general) direction” (cf. 335). But, the way in which he spoke has

attracted interest down the ages. Plutarch (Ἀλκιβιάδης 1) quotes line 46 to evidence the fact that the young

aristocrat had a lisp, but he is perhaps being a little naïve in taking Aristophanes at his word. He proceeds

to quote lines from Archippos, a later comic-dramatist, which ridicule the son of Alkibiades (also named

Alkibiades) for affecting a lisp and although he must have known that a speech impediment is seldom an

inherited trait, he did not stop to consider that Aristophanes may have been mocking the father for a lisp

which his son imitated. Aristophanes was not, in fact, making light of a speech impediment (even though

physical disabilities were grist to his mill), but deriding an affectation. The ridiculing of Pheidippides by

‘Sokrates’ for “talking in a soppy manner with quivering lips” - ὡς ἠλίθιον ἐφθέγξατο καὶ τοῖσι χείλεσιν

διερρυηκόσιν (Νεφέλαι, 872-3) may well have been aimed similarly at the lazy mode of speech affected

by Alkibiades and his circle (see also 199).

45. ὁλᾷς; Θέωλος...

Although he notes in his apparatus that Plutarch cites the words as ὁλᾷς Θέωλον; MacDowell elects not

to follow his example. But, dramatically it might be better to split the line in this way, since it allows the

actor to get a separate laugh from mimicking the pretentious speech affectation, before the rest of the line

delivers the knockout pun-ch. One may compare the likely speech-distortion in Νεφέλαι 394 and 870-2).

τὴν κεφαλὴν κόλακος

Aristophanes sees the chance to use Alkibiades’ speech affectation to make a pun between κόραξ (‘crow’)

and κόλαξ (‘flatterer’). It was an obvious play which reached its apogee in the words of ‘Antisthenes’ (or

‘Diogenes’), κρεῖττον εἰς κόρακας ἢ εἰς κόλακας ἐµπεσεῖν· οἱ µὲν γὰρ νεκρούς, οἱ δὲ ζῶντας ἐσθίουσιν -

“better to fall in with crows than flatterers; the former eat the dead, but the latter eat you alive”. Theoros

is again called a flatterer by the Chorus (418-9) and Aristophanes will boast later on of standing up to the

fearsome Hell-hound (Kleon) with his hundred-headed entourage of yes-men (1033). One may infer that

Theoros’s flattery could be taken in two ways, for he appears to have been both openly-obsequious in his

support of Kleon while also fawning on the common herd. Such toadying made the ardent supporters of

the principal, public figures an easy target for the comic-poets.The following year Eupolis would devote a

play to them, Κόλακες (which beat Aristophanes’ Εἰρήνη for first prize).

It is interesting to see that the usually sensible author of Palatinus 128 (J) insists on ‘correcting’ the text to

Θέωρος...κόρακος. The writer appears to have incorporated glosses, unless he simply missed the joke.

49. ἐγένετ(ο) ἐξαίφνης

Some have seen this ‘sudden transformation’ as inconsistent with Theoros having a crow’s head (43), and

then turning into a crow (48). But, the suddenness is relative to the dream. The slave dreamt that Theoros,

who had been a man when he last saw him, was being transformed into a bird, although only his head had

changed so far.

51. ἀρθεὶς...ἐς κόρακας οἰχήσεται

The middle voice of ἀείρω is particularly suited to describing birds ‘taking off’ (e.g. Sophokles Ἀντιγόνη

111, ἐφ’ ἡµετέρᾳ γᾷ...ἀρθείς, Euripides Ἀνδροµάχη 848, ποῦ δ’ ἐκ πέτρας ἀερθῶ) cf. Νεφέλαι 266, 276.

52-3.

In spite of the laudable efforts of Freud and other psychoanalysts to explain dreams as a function of the

human mind, Superstition still continues to insist that they are the product of metaphysical forces. From

ancient times religion has sought to offer metaphysical explanations and profit from providing the service

and, as these verses indicate, the market probably attracted private operators as well as priests. Plutarch

(Ἀριστείδης 27.3) mentions a man named Lysimachos (said to have been the grandson of Aristeides, but

probably the grandson of his son Lysimachos, in view of the chronology) who made a parlous living by

dream-interpretation in the late-fourth century. He had hung out his shingle (πίναξ) beside the so-called

Iakcheion (doubtless part of the temple of Demeter, mother of Iakchos). The possible significance of this

little-known divinity in divining the meaning of dreams is indicated in Βάτραχοι (341-2), in a hymn in

which the chorus hail him as a light illuminating the dark of night,

Ἴακχ’, ὦ Ἴακχε, νυκτέρου τελετῆς φωσφόρος ἀστήρ.

In a fictional letter by Alkiphron (3.59), set c. 300 B.C., a dream reading is to take place at the temple of

Dionysos; perhaps a nod to the surreal aspect of drama.

ὑποκρινόµενον σοφῶς ὀνείρατα

Most editors have accepted this reading from the codices (RV) over that of a later manuscript, σαφῶς οὐ

εἴρατα (J). But MacDowell has decided to cherrypick between them (σαφῶς ὀνείρατα) and lay emphasis

on Xanthias’s lucid exposition. He is not joined by either Sommerstein (1977) or Henderson, who prefer

to commend the slave’s ‘cleverness’. In a theatrical context, certainly, it is cleverness that counts.

The comic poet Magnes mentions together ‘dream interpreters’ (ὀνειροκρίταισιν) and ‘those who resolve

spells’ (ἀναλύταις), for dreams, like spells, could be harmful (cf. 24).

54. φέρε νυν

Xanthias calls a halt to their discussion and changes the subject (cf. 826, 848, 1497, and 1516). One might

almost say, “Moving on, then”.

κατείπω τοῖς θεαταῖς

While tragic-drama strictly maintains theatrical illusion and keeps the action separate from the spectators,

as if it were a virtual reality beyond a screen, Comedy presents a normal reality (albeit taken to extremes)

which the actors and spectators share in common. Comic convention allows for the so-called ‘fourth wall’

to be broken formally by the Chorus in the παράβασις, but the characters will show their awareness of the

audience from time to time, e.g. comic-dramas are usually set in contemporary surroundings and regularly

allude to public celebrities who are likely to have been present at the original performances. Aristophanes

uses a slave here to explain the plot as he had first done in Ἱππεῖς (36), and will do again in Εἰρήνη (50-3)

and Ὄρνιθες (30). In the previous year’s Νεφέλαι, the prologue took the form of a soliloquy by which the

protagonist explained the dramatic situation to the spectators. Later, when the two ‘sides of the argument’

clash, one tells the other to “take a good look at the audience” (1096-7) to prove a point (cf. also 58-9).

55. ὑπειπὼν...ταδί

The verb ὑπεῖπον indicates an aside, i.e. what he is about to say at the start (πρῶτον) should be considered

an aside. The poet makes the “following points” (ταδί) in the next ten lines in defence of his comic style.

56. µηδὲν...λίαν µέγα

Commentators generally assume that this expression refers to the intellectual sophistication exhibited in

the Νεφέλαι of the previous year, which some think may have contributed to its failure. Sommerstein, for

instance, maintains that the poet is warning the audience (in Starkie’s words) not to “expect anything too

grand”, citing both the political satire of Ἱππεῖς and the intellectual humour of Νεφέλαι as examples of the

‘grand’ style. Henderson, too, accepts that the poet is forswearing “anything terribly grand”. MacDowell

rather doubts whether µέγα should be taken to mean ‘high-brow’, but his translation “ambitious” is not far

off. Only Killeen (1971) has questioned whether Aristophanes would openly declare that he was setting

his intellectual bar lower. In the παράβασις of Νεφέλαι (525-7), the poet set forth his comedic manifesto,

to entertain intelligent spectators; these are the ones whom he strives to please and whose expectations of

him he will never betray. The one thing his work will never lack is intellectual sophistication. One might

assume, here, that the ‘slave’ is speaking tongue in cheek, but since there is no irony in the disavowal of

‘Megarian farce’, the promise of µηδὲν λίαν µέγα can probably be taken at face value too.

In Βάτραχοι, when ‘Euripides’ accuses ‘Aischylos’ of striking an aloof pose in his dramatic art, Dionysos

immediately fears what is coming and warns him (835), µὴ µεγάλα λίαν λέγε - “don’t say anything you’ll

regret” (though of course he does!). Evidently, the god of drama knows the poet’s character as well as his

work and is concerned that he will go ‘over the top’. So here, I think, we could take the slave to be telling

the audience that the poet will not carry his satirical sallies to excess, that is he will steer a cautious course

between over-mordant, comic abuse and toothless slapstick. This is consistent with other remarks later on

(1029-30) and his insistence elsewhere (Νεφέλαι 549-52) that he doesn’t kick a man when he’s down. It is

also possible, as Killeen suggested, that the slave gestures with his costume-phallos (cf. 28), as a reminder

that this is Comedy and so words may often carry more than one meaning.

57. γέλωτα Μεγαρόθεν κεκλεµµένον

The poet informs his audience that he does not intend to import “laughter stolen from Megara”. What this

means is open to interpretation and its ambiguity has helped to create uncertainty among commentators to

this day. Already, when Aristotle came to examine the origins of Old Comedy, the ambiguity was taking

effect. He writes (περὶ Ποιητικῆς 1448α) that “Comedy is claimed both by the Megarians here in Greece

and by the Megarians of Sicily”. The reference to the Greek-speaking people of the Sicilian Megara was

justified by the fact that Epicharmos (of Kos) produced there the earliest-known comic-dramas. It was

acknowledged that these pre-dated the works of Chionides and Magnes, the first practitioners of the art at

Athens. So, on one level Aristophanes is saying that his drama will be the genuine Attic article (albeit one

indebted to the genius of Epicharmos). But, Aristotle’s suggestion that Athens’ near neighbours of

mainland Megara may have had a hand in creating the form has provided scope for the hypothesis that

some kind of proto-comic drama had grown up there as well. Although this cannot be definitely ruled out,

one is bound to suspect that Aristotle has caught a red herring, because the only evidence he adduces is

the feeble etymology of the word κωµῳδία from the Doric word for ‘villages’ (κῶµαι). In fact, the more

likely root of κωµῳδία is the word κῶµος; the informal tomfoolery associated with religious celebrations

(κωµάζειν), in particular those involving processions (cf.230). So, Aristophanes is unlikely to be

claiming that his work will avoid ‘local Megarian farce’. What he is ruling out in this work are cheap

laughs from ‘farcical Megarians’ (of the type introduced in Ἀχαρνεῖς for instance). This view is not new,

for Starkie concluded long ago that, “The chief (so-called) Megarian poets Maeson and Mullus were but

characters in rustic farces”. For this reason, I think, Aristophanes promises to steer clear of γέλωτα, and

not κωµῳδία, Μεγαρόθεν.

His words seem to echo a similar sentiment from a work by an earlier comic-writer, Ekphantides (frg. 3),

Μεγαρικῆς κωµῳδίας ᾆσµα †δίειµαι†

αἰσχυνόµενος τὸ δρᾶµα Μεγαρικὸν ποιεῖν.

Here too, the comic-dramatist is probably employing ambiguity, but his meaning is obscured, in any case,

by probable textual corruption. [The verb δίειµαι is probably substituting another, possibly Doric form, at

which one can only guess. I have used διείρξω to obtain an approximate translation.] Ekphantides appears

to make a distinction between ‘Megarian Comedy’ (Μεγαρικῆς κωµῳδίας) and ‘Megarian comic-action’

(τὸ δρᾶµα Μεγαρικὸν). While he might mean that, “Since I would be ashamed to write ‘Megarian’ farce,

[I’ll avoid] an ode of Megarian Comedy” (i.e. the sense in which Aristotle would have taken it), he might

mean that he would not sink to using comic stereotypes and so will not even employ Epicharmian modes;

a non-sequitur which makes the claim funny.

It seems to me that ambiguous remarks like this one helped to mislead Aristotle into the belief that comic-

drama had originated in both Megarian communities. But, the poets of Old Comedy were sometimes too

clever for their own good. Ekphantides made, what he doubtless felt to be, a neat play on comic lyrics by

the Megarian Epicharmos and comic stereotypes from neighbouring Megara. Aristophanes, following in

his footsteps, suggests that his humour will be original Attic work and not derivative, but he is really only

saying that he will not demean his art (cf. 1028) by employing coarse buffoons. Had he not wanted to be

clever and allude to Epicharmos, he could have written ‘laughter from Boiotia’ to indicate another source

of ‘ethnic humour’. It is like an English author insisting that he does not stoop to caricature his Scottish or

Welsh neighbours, since that would be all too easy.

58-9. κάρυα ἐκ φορµίδος

It has been suggested that producers of comic-dramas curried favour with audiences by bringing on slaves

to distribute nuts or sweets of various kinds. But, unlike Roman audiences (or modernday cinema-goers

for that matter), the ancient Athenians did not attend the theatre with a view to snacking. Had they wished

to do so, they could have brought nuts with them. In this case, it is likely that archaeologists would have

unearthed amphitheatres filled with husks just as the floors of Jacobean theatres have been found buried

beneath layers of hazelnut shells. Attic patricians would not have wished to eat the figs and nuts tossed at

them, in any case. What seems to have happened is that when certain scenes called for the actors to scatter

nuts, comic-dramatists would usually involve the audience, as in pantomime nowadays. Our poet actually

tells us this in Πλοῦτος (795-801), when Chremylos’ wife wants to welcome her husband and his guest in

lavish style. They demur on the grounds that ‘showering them with gifts’ could easily look like a farcical

scene where the audience too is included in the shower of figs and sweets. Such cheap laughs have to be

avoided insists Aristophanes, although he had probably done something similar on numerous occasions.

In Εἰρήνη (962), for instance, a slave is told to sprinkle barley-groats over the spectators as if they were

acting the part of witnesses to the theatrical sacrifice. The context here indicates that the slaves scattering

the nuts were acting in character in a drama and their action was integral to a particular scene; possibly a

wedding. Besides, the poet’s choice of words may offer a clue to his intentions, because while in Εἰρήνη

the basket containing the barley-grains is called a κανοῦν, he refers here to a φόρµις, and the mention of

the two slaves showering nuts from a single basket suggests that the poet may be making a subtle attempt

to distance his own comedy from an earlier, simple style of comic-drama characteristic of his Syracusan

predecessor Phormis (cf. Σοῦδα φ 609, Φόρµος).

60. Ἡρακλῆς τὸ δεῖπνον ἐξαπατώµενος

It stands to reason that anyone who could undertake such heroic feats would have had a healthy appetite

and even in tragic-drama Herakles is portrayed as one who heartily enjoys a good meal (cf. Eur. Ἄλκηστις

747-72). Consequently, it comes as no surprise that comic-poets should have created para-tragic plots in

order to exagerate his appetite. The comic parody was already present in the earliest ‘Megarian’ comedy

of Epicharmos (Ἥβης γάµος). Although Aristophanes is true to his word in this play, and will even claim

in Εἰρήνη (741 and 3) that he is the only one to break with the comic stereotype, he happily follows form

in later works, e.g. in Ὄρνιθες 1574-1692 and Βάτραχοι 505-11. His rival Phrynichos acknowledges the

convention when one of his characters asks sarcastically what Herakles can be expected to achieve while

he is on a strict diet, ὁ δ’ ὀλιγόσιτος Ἡρακλῆς ἐκεῖ τί δρᾷ; (frg. 24) and Eupolis is said to have portrayed

Herakles going hungry (schol. Εἰρήνη 741β). See also Λυσιστράτη 928, Ἡρακλῆς ξενίζεται;

61. ἀνασελγαινόµενος Εὐριπίδης

The verb ἀσελγαίνω is used to signify actions that are excessive or wanton, and may often carry a sexual

connotation. In general, it is best understood as describing behaviour that is unrestrained in act or word.

The compound participle, however, occurs nowhere else and has been branded by Dindorf as unsuited to

this context (“neque aptum huic loco” cf. Wilson p. 81). Hermann’s alternative reading ἐνασελγαινόµενος

is less than helpful, as it is not found elsewhere either. At least, the prefix ἀν- serves to emphasize αὖθις,

whereas the prefix ἐν- leaves too much unexpressed.

Euripides had been producing dramas since before Aristophanes was born and even Ἄλκηστις, his earliest

extant play, had been performed in 438 B.C., so that the comic-poets would have had him in their sights

for many a year. But, until Aristophanes brings him on stage in Ἀχαρνεῖς we have little evidence of how

he was treated. The scene in that play (395-479) lampoons the language and conventions of Tragedy, and

no doubt borrows from the poet’s work as boldly as Dikaiopolis borrows from his props. It also gives us a

prime example of how the poet was seen in Comedy. ‘Euripides’ comes across as reclusive and brusque, a

man who does not suffer fools gladly, so that when the persistent Dikaiopolis addresses him (462), as, ὦ

γλυκύτατ’ Εὐριπίδη - “my honey-sweet Euripides”, we are ready to smile at the irony of the phrase. It is a

reminder of the affectionate terms used to describe the genuinely sweet-natured Sophokles and casts him

in contrast as a misanthrope, jealous of his privacy. A scholiast on this line tells us that Euripides had also

been portrayed by Aristophanes in the same way (εἰσῆκται οὕτως) in ∆ράµατα (a work possibly produced

at the Dionysia of 425) and in Προάγων which took first prize over Σφῆκες. So, here, instead of assuming

that Euripides might be “treated lewdly” (MacDowell), or be “wantonly abused” (Sommerstein), actions

for which extant comic-dramas provide no evidence, we may take the middle voice to apply to Euripides

himself and see him “becoming violently abusive…again”, since we have just heard (56) that this appears

to have been characteristic of him.

62. εἰ…γ(ε) ἔλαµψε

The metaphor is drawn from a celestial body which ‘shone resplendent’. We would say simply that Kleon

‘stood out’ or ‘distinguished himself’. The aorist tense suggests that the reference is to a specific occasion

in the recent past rather than to a steady preeminence which would be implied by the imperfect. The lustre

of his success at Pylos may still have been fresh in people’s minds, as indicated by the dream of Xanthias,

leading to his appointment as commander of the campaign on the Thracian front. Although Thucydides

describes this appointment rather coldly, “Kleon won over the Athenians” (Κλέων δὲ Ἀθηναίους πείσας,

5.2.1) and suggests that there had been little enthusiasm for the venture, “<recalling> how right from the

outset they had followed him reluctantly” (καὶ οἴκοθεν ὡς ἄκοντες αὐτῷ ξυνῆλθον, 5.7.2), he appears to

have enjoyed some initial success in Chalkidike. Cobet proposed reading ἀνέλαµψε to put emphasis on

the more recent victories and provide a lead-in for αὖθις in the next line, but the simple aorist would serve

to convey regular occurrence just as well.

There is, in any case, a possibility that the verb represents what is nowadays termed an ‘intertextual’ joke.

Kleon may have been portrayed as the sun-god Apollo in a recent comic-drama, and consequently could

have been said to have ‘shone’ in a theatrical sense (see the post-script to Appendix 5).

τῆς τύχης χάριν

MacDowell states that, “Aristophanes contemptuously assumes that any success of Kleon’s must be due to

luck.” However, while this is a natural inference for us to draw nowadays, it might misinterpret the point

being made, for which a fuller expression would have been δαίµονός τινος τῆς τύχης χάριν (cf. Euripides

Μήδεια 671). This is a reminder that in our modern world we allow for more unpredictability than ancient

Greek religion was willing to accept. We employ the words luck and chance to express the randomness of

events; the ancient Greeks tended to view the recipient of Fortune’s blessings as having been favoured by

divine intervention (cf. e.g. Thucydides 3.45.6). Consequently, one might read τῆς Tύχης χάριν, since for

the poet to say that Fortune had intervened in Kleon’s favour would not necessarily detract from the lustre

of his success at all. [See the retort of W.C.Fields, when asked whether the game of cards he was playing

was a ‘game of chance’.]

Once we drop the assumption that Aristophanes is scorning Kleon by ascribing his success to Fortune, we

can draw the inference that the audience had every reason to expect that Kleon would be lampooned again

in this play precisely because he has enjoyed the blessing of Fortune. For, while Good Fortune may lead

to human success, its corollary was divine resentment which comic-drama sought to avert. It is important

for us to keep this aspect of Comedy in mind, since one can easily be led astray into taking comic jibes at

face value. We tend to assume that what appears to be vicious, personal satire was solely the result of the

political conflicts at the time and overlook the apotropaic function of such mockery. Some malice may, of

course, have crept in to please a section of the audience, but we should not lose sight of the fact that these

dramas were performed at a religious festival. It is likely that, far from feeling slighted by Aristophanes’

attribution of his glory to Lady Luck, Kleon would have taken it as a simple statement of fact and would

only have felt aggrieved if the comic-poet had actually fulfilled his promise to go easy on him, since, to

paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the one thing worse than being ridiculed in comic-drama, would have been not

to be ridiculed. [n.b. Those excoriated by Don Rickles are said to bear his insults as a badge of honour.]

63. µυττωτεύσοµεν

This comic verb must mean that Kleon is not going to be drenched with µυττωτός, which the scholiast

explains as a culinary dressing containing garlic and leeks pounded in a mixture of vinegar, olive-oil, and

honey (he adds cheese, probably an inference from Εἰρήνη 250, but this is mentioned separately in Ἱππεῖς

771). One may perhaps take it that Aristophanes will refrain from ‘making a meal of him’ or ‘giving him

a dressing down’, but I have chosen to draw an analogy from the preparation of the relish (Ἀχαρνεῖς 174).

The audience would have taken the slave’s promise lightly and rightly so, as Kleon is mentioned by name

in Σφῆκες more times than in any other extant comic-drama.

65.

The dramatist butters up the spectators by praising their intellectual insight and saying in effect, ‘my plays

are sophisticated alright, but not more so than my audience’. He hoped that the compliment would inhibit

the spectators from complaining that they ‘don’t get it’. Yet he does not match the obsequious tone of his

rival Platon (frg. 96), χαῖρε παλαιογόνων ἀνδρῶν θεατῶν ξύλλογε παντοσόφων - “I greet this gathering

of venerable elders, capaciously-knowledgable spectators”. [An alternative approach to the humourless is

Jimmy Carr’s hint to a po-faced member of the audience, “There’s a minimum comprehension level; you

may be asked to leave”.]

68. ἅνω καθεύδων

Some editors incorporate the definite article (ὁ ἄνω), but others (MacDowell, Henderson) prefer to drop

it. The slave points up at a figure asleep on the roof of the annexe.

ὁ µέγας

As yet, all we see is a heap of blankets; it is not possible to make out the Son’s physical features. So there

seems no need to consider Van Herwerden’s proposal to emend µέγας to µέλας on the flimsy grounds that

the character is dark-haired (cf. Wilson p. 81), for that is a trait one could guess without being told. But, it

is not necessary to take the epithet as an indication of the Son’s physical size (Starkie translates “tall”, for

instance). He is certainly larger than his father, but not to an exaggerated extent. Physically, he need be no

more imposing than either of the slaves. So, in describing Bdelykleon as “the big guy” Xanthias is merely

pointing out that his master is the man in charge (“the big cheese”, if you like). His tone may be sarcastic,

hinting at the Son’s ‘self-importance’ (cf. 553, ἄνδρες µεγάλοι), i.e. he’s too big for his boots’.

71-3. νόσον...ἀλλόκοτον

The Father is said to be afflicted with a mysterious ailment, which the slave could just explain directly,

but instead, he invites the audience to guess. This parodies the technique of tragic-drama which attempts

to introduce an artificial element of suspense by having the chorus speculate as to the possible cause of an

illness, before the patient reveals it for themselves (e.g. Euripides Ἱππόλυτος 141-69). [A similar effect is

achieved in soap-operas by following-up a question with a protracted camera close-up.]

74. [Σωσίας]

I follow MacDowell in beginning Sosias’s interjections with this supposed suggestion from ‘a member of

the audience’. Opinions have varied regarding the distribution of lines 74-84 (see 77 note).

Ἀµυνίας...ὁ Προνάπους

MacDowell is commendably cautious over the identification of this man, who is satirized in Νεφέλαι (31,

686, 690-1) and again later in this play (1267-74), since all the manuscripts are agreed on the spelling of

his name as Ἀµυνίας. But, though all modern editors follow MacDowell (1965) and adhere to it, there are

compelling reasons for thinking that the name has been ‘corrected’ by a later hand. Dover (Νεφέλαι, p. 97

note) has observed that the name Ἀµυνίας “does not appear at Athens until the second century B.C.”, (but

it is found in Hellenistic inscriptions from Boiotia and Thessaly). On the other hand, the form Ἀµεινίας is

relatively common in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. and was in fact the name of the archon of 423/2

(cf. hypothesis 1 note). Not only would Aristophanes have been more or less obliged to take a tilt at such

a prominent figure in city-life, but he could have inserted the latter’s name, secure in the knowledge that

he was duty-bound to be present in the front row of the audience. The unusual patronymic Προνάπους

may have served to distinguish some lesser-known Ἀµεινίας from the archon, whose father’s name is not

known in any case. But, the poet may not be using the archon’s real patronymic here, for he will call him

‘the son of Sellos’ later (1267, cf. 325). Instead, he may be making another obscure joke (ὁ προνάπης)

regarding his home district (‘he who lives before the glen’), punning perhaps on Athena’s title (προνάου).

The earliest reference to him is probably Kratinos’ Σερίφιοι (frg. 227), produced possibly c. 427-5 B.C., in

which he is mocked as “a flatterer, poseur and malicious prosecutor” (κόλαξ...ἀλαζὼν καὶ συκοφάντης).

But, one may presume that Eupolis’ mockery of him as a peasant who apes the upper classes (cf. 1267) in

frg. 222, is roughly contemporary with Σφῆκες, since he seems to be imitating Aristophanes’ portrait of a

country yokel in Νεφέλαι (47-51, 138) to mock Ameinias. Hermippos’ description of him as “a female

who has been enslaved by the Spartans” (Ἰάµβοι 5, εἱλωτισµένην) may perhaps play on the same hair-

style which Aristophanes ridicules later (466, κοµητ-Ἀµεινία). See also Νεφέλαι 692 note.

76. ἀφ’ αὑτου...τεκµαίρεται

The individuals named as guessing an ailment have presumably been selected in order to imply that they

themselves suffer from the very same addictions. Ameinias’s ‘love of gambling’, implied by calling him

φιλόκυβον, could have been intended literally, but in the conventions of Old Comedy is more likely to

refer indirectly to a penchant for taking rash risks in public life or on the battle-field, since dice-playing

and ‘jacks’ were a poor man’s pursuits (cf. 295, 674).

77. οὔκ, ἀλλὰ

Because the line begins with οὔκ, ἀλλὰ..., Bergk supposed that it must have answered a further suggestion

from the audience which had been accidentally omitted in copying (cf. 9). MacDowell, following his lead,

prints a lacuna between lines 76 and 77. Recent editors have endeavoured to avoid this gap by adopting a

proposal by Stephanis (1980, p.48) to redistribute lines 74-84 between the two slaves. He would postpone

Sosias’ first interjection until 75 so as to leave Xanthias with 77-79a. Then, Sosias speaks 79b-80 as well

as 83-4. But, while I agree that we cannot assume the lacuna, the redistribution of lines is not satisfactory.

It seems rather more effective dramatically to keep Sosias as the ‘frontman’ consistently announcing each

suggestion to Xanthias. Therefore, I would retain MacDowell’s attributions with one exception, assigning

line 77 to Sosias instead of Xanthias.

Sosias first proposal (from the audience) comes in line 74. Xanthias then answers dismissively with ἀλλ’

οὐδὲν λέγει, adding the incidental remark that Ameinias must be talking from personal experience (76). If

one takes this line 76 as an aside, there is no need to jump to Bergk’s hurried conclusion that 77 answers a

new suggestion. It belongs naturally to Sosias and can be seen as a comment on the first part of Xanthias’

response alone (75b). He is saying in effect, “No, (although I agree with what you say about Ameinias’s

predilection for gambling, I hesitate to say that he’s talking complete nonsense), because the prefix ‘philo’

does actually have a bearing on the matter” (cf. 250, 634, for οὔκ, ἀλλὰ...). His qualification of the illness

as an addiction apparently serves to encourage ‘other members’ of the audience to suggest other manias.

78-9. φησι Σωσίας

According to our text, the slave has overheard someone in the audience named Sosias making a remark to

a companion named Derkylos. The people in question are not otherwise known to us from extant sources,

but were presumably prominent public figures at the time of the play’s first performance, who would have

been seated together in the front row(s) of the audience. The idea attributed to Sosias that the Father was a

heavy drinker (79, φιλοπότην) suggests that one or both of them were regular symposiasts, since the slave

pointedly adds that a weakness for wine can afflict “men of nobility” (80, χρηστῶν ἀνδρῶν). Although the

ancient commentators tried to identify the two men, they could not provide any concrete evidence beyond

the fact that Sosias was a name given to free-born citizens (sons of Pythis and Parmenon respectively). In

addition, a man mentioned by Antiphon (περὶ τοῦ Ἡρῴδου φόνου 70) is considered by MacDowell to be a

possible candidate, but the trial of the Ἑλληνοταµίαι, of whom he was one, must have taken place quite a

long time before, as the orator (born c. 480) says that “younger men like me know of the trial by hearsay”.

An altogether different avenue of enquiry is suggested by the later role of the name Sosias. Modern Greek

uses the word σωσίας to signify a ‘double’ (or doppelgänger), a usage which appears to have derived from

‘Sosia’ the name of the hero in Plautus’s ‘Amphitryon’, who plays a double role. Was this character based

on an earlier comic figure originally created in Old Comedy, like other Plautine figures? In which case,

the joke might be that the slave is confused by seeing his namesake, perhaps because he has just recently

drunk ‘a double’ himself? But, such a confrontation of two ‘Sosiases’ would only be material if the name

of the slave had already been mentioned and we are not given it until later (136). One could exchange the

name Χανθία in the opening line for Σωσία, but this hardly seems justified by the joke.

Consequently, the most plausible explanation is that Σωσίας is a marginal ghost, i.e. the character’s name

has been absorbed into the text by an oversight. It belongs in the middle of the following line to designate

the second speaker, not in the middle of this line where it has probably ousted the name of another public

figure, better-known to the audience. MacDowell’s suggestion Νικίας would be a credible replacement.

By an ironic coincidence, the best-known Sosias at this time was probably the Thracian who worked the

silver mines at Laurion with labourers hired from Nikias (Xenophon πόροι / περὶ προσόδων 4).

πρὸς ∆ερκύλον

An ancient commentator suggested that this man was a comic-actor; another claimed that he was a tavern-

keeper. Possibly, these were merely assumptions made from the occurrence of the slave’s name ‘Sosias’

in the text, or there might perhaps have been a comic-drama in which ‘Derkylos’ appeared in the guise of

of a wine-shop proprietor. At any rate, it seems likely that, probably owing to his geniality, Derkylos was

a welcome guest at symposia and could therefore be considered a ‘wine-lover’ on the comic-stage.

81-2. Νικόστρατος...ὁ Σκαµβωνίδης

MacDowell (1965) has argued cogently for identifying the ‘spectator’ with the currently-serving general.

Evidently the name Nikostratos ran in Aristophanes’ own family because one of his sons, who would in

due course become a comic-poet himself, was so named. But, at the time that Σφῆκες was produced this

Nikostratos (who belonged to the same northern city-deme, Skambonidai, as Alkibiades) was στρατηγός

of the tribe Leontis. He had not long returned from the Pallene peninsula in Macedonia (Κασσάνδρεια),

where he had served in joint-conmmand (along with Nikias) of the Athenian expeditionary force sent to

re-take the rebel towns of Mende and Skione. The campaign, as described by Thucydides (4.129-133),

met with only partial success, and with the onset of winter the generals were forced to return home and

leave part of the army to maintain the siege of Skione. Later, in 418, Nikostratos (together with Laches)

was to lead an Athenian contingent sent to support some Argive democrats against Sparta (Thuc. 5.61.1).

Both generals lost their lives at the battle of Mantineia (Thuc. 5.74.3). He was the son of Dieitrephes and

the father of another Dieitrephes, who would himself also become στρατηγός in 414-3 (cf. Ὄρνιθες 800).

φιλοθύτην…φιλόξενον

Prima facie, the epithets suggested by ‘Nikostratos’ could be taken as complimentary, therefore one must

assume that they have been carried to excess by Philokleon. The defendant in Antiphon’s First Tetralogy

(2.12) describes himself as being φιλοθύτην...καὶ νόµιµον among other virtues, i.e. he fulfils his religious

duties keenly and abides by the laws. So, MacDowell surmises that the real life Nikostratos could perhaps

be considered φιλοθύτης, since he “had been very lavish in celebrating a sacrifice on behalf of his deme”.

But, presumably, he is being mentioned because of his recent στρατηγία in the course of which he would

in any case have had to oversee regular sacrifices. As the chorus of Theban women in Aischylos’s Ἑπτὰ

ἐπὶ Θήβας (179) remind us, the city needs φιλοθύτων...ὀργίων - “sacred rites requiring sacrifices” more

in wartime than in times of peace.

But, the comedic reason for calling this noble Athenian φιλοθύτην was simply to indicate that his was a

familiar face at drinking-parties, for as Hesychios (α 8417) explained, Aristophanes used the phrase “we

ourselves are sacrificing”, to stand in for “we ourselves are drinking” («αὐτοὶ θύοµεν», ἀντὶ τοῦ «αὐτοὶ

πίνοµεν», frg. 167, from Γηρυτάδης). Because a sacrifice involved libations, the implication was that the

one sacrificing was also partaking too freely of the wine. According to the Σοῦδα (µ 688) Φιλοθύτης was

the title of a later comic-drama by Metagenes.

On the other hand, the epithet φιλόξενον (“hospitable”), while suggesting that Nikostratos was considered

to be a good host at symposia, was chosen to make fun of another well-known society figure whose name

this was.

83. µὰ τὸν κύν(α)

Xanthias avoids swearing by a named god; possibly out of a religious sensibility (as formerly one might

say ‘gadzooks’ to disguise ‘god’ or ‘cripes’ to hide ‘Christ’), or because he could not think of a particular

deity whose name might be appropriately co-joined with that of a κίναιδος. But, he is a slave and his oath

is therefore likely to reflect the language of the lower orders. Kratinos (frg. 231) pretends that in primitive

society binding oaths were made ‘by the dog’ or ‘by the goose’ (cf. Ὄρνιθες 521) instead of ‘by the gods’

and in Comedy the connotations of the word ‘dog’ are invariably coarse (cf. 1402); in oaths it represents

the penis. My paraphrase makes the slave too suave; a closer rendition would be “By my cock!”

84. Φιλόξενος.

In περὶ Μουσικῆς (30.1142α) (pseudo)-Plutarch mentions a dithyrambic poet named Philoxenos, who was

known for having introduced κρουµατικὰ (‘strumming’) into the music accompanying cyclic dances. He

adds that Aristophanes had referred to him in his plays. But, the famous and innovative dithyrambic poet,

Philoxenos of Kythera would have been far too young to have been the man pilloried here so that Plutarch

has probably confused two men who shared the same name. Philoxenos the poet and musician was better

known to later ages, but the audience would have recognized their fellow-countryman Philoxenos, of the

Attic deme Diomeia, who is mocked by Eupolis in his Πόλεις (frg. 249), ἔστι δέ τις θήλεια Φιλόξενος ἐκ

∆ιοµείων - “there is a certain feminine-type from Diomeia, Philoxenos”. For the confusion to have arisen

with his namesake, he had presumably been mentioned in connection with cyclic dances, but probably as

a noted performer rather than as a composer. The clue is in the crude accusation which Aristophanes hurls

at him. The word καταπύγων (‘an arse-banger’) is one which commentators assume to refer to his sexual

proclivities, because the brief mention of him Νεφέλαι (686) carries a hint of degeneracy and Eupolis says

he was effeminate. But, while the audience would find such a vulgar jibe hilarious, the poet could defend

himself from a lawsuit by pointing out that all he had done was to make a feeble pun on κτύπε πυγὰν, the

movement in which a dancer struck his buttock with his heel (cf. Λυσιστράτη 82), for Athenaios (6.246α)

refers to the fact that, Φιλόξενος δὲ ὁ παράσιτος Πτερνοκοπὶς δ’ ἐπίκλην - “the parasite Philoxenos was

called Heel-stamper”. The victim would have to curse the double misfortune of having a talent for dance,

which left him open to accusations of effeminacy through the execution of certain figures (cf. 1292 note),

and also of bearing a name which was open to misinterpretation (cf. 1277-8 note ξείνων δέκτρια). It was

merely his name which gave the comic poets, like Phrynichos in Σατύροι (frg. 49), license to claim that he

prostituted himself.

Storey (1995) has raised the possibility that Eupolis’s phrase ἐκ ∆ιοµείων may not mean that Philoxenos

was ‘of the deme Diomeia’, but rather that he was known to be associated with the cult of Herakles which

was located there, and is alluded to Βάτραχοι (650-1) and known from an inscription. Accordingly he lists

eight figures from other demes, one of whom might perhaps have been the κωµῳδούµενος ὀνοµαστί here.

It is just possible that Philoxenos of Kythera is the poet mentioned in Platon’s comic-drama Φάων (392/1

B.C.) frg. 189.4, but Athenaios (4.146f) is probably right to identify this author as yet another Philoxenos,

from Leukas.

86. σιγᾶτε νῦν

Sommerstein would keep the circumflex accent on νῦν, but I would be tempted to follow MacDowell’s

lead and remove it; though it is an even bet.

88. φιληλιαστής

Based on the previous examples, this specially-coined word must mean “addicted to jury-service”. “A

lawcourt-lover” says Rogers; MacDowell’s “trialophile” has a nice ring. For the Eliaia see note on 772.

90. (ἐ)πὶ τοῦ πρῶτου...ξύλου

He wanted to be in the first row of bench-seats to be able to watch and hear the ‘show’ well. In Ἀχαρνεῖς

(25), we hear about the scramble that commonly occurred for the front-row seats in the Assembly. In the

court-room these wooden seats may have been referred to as a σανίδες (cf. 349), but in lecture-rooms the

benches would usually have been termed, βάθρα (cf. Plato Πρωταγόρας 315γ, Diogenes Laërtios 7.1.22),

and so here too the ξύλον most probably refers to a βάθρον.

91. οὐδὲ πασπάλην

This metaphor is found nowhere else and may have been coined by Aristophanes. The word πασπάλην is

taken to be a variant of παιπάλη - “flour meal” which is used in a different metaphorical sense (Νεφέλαι

260-2) of an educated speaker to mean ‘finely ground’ or ‘subtle’ (as we might say ‘refined’). Lykophron

explained the expression, as equivalent to ‘οὐδὲ βραχὺ, ἐλάχιστον τι’, literally, ‘not even a speck’, though

the poet’s intention may have been to suggest that the old man’s senses were not even dulled like a haze

of flour dust, i.e. he did not even doze off.

92. ἢν δ(ὲ) οὖν καταµύσῃ κἂν ἄχνην

The adverbial phrase κἂν ἄχνην appears suspect. The unique use is taken to be analogous to phrases such

as κἂν σµικρὸν χρόνον (Πλοῦτος 126) or κἂν ἐλάχιστον <χρόνον> (cf. 5 n). But, this requires the noun to

carry an exceptional, metaphorical meaning, ‘a morsel / the least bit’ (LSJ), whereas its normal, concrete

sense is any light excrescence e.g. smoke (of a fire), fluff (of cloth), foam (on the sea), froth (on wine), or

down (on the skin of fruit). Furthermore, the juxtaposition of two conditionals in contracted form, ἢν for

ἐάν (“if”), and κἂν a crasis of καὶ ἐάν (“even if”), though certainly not impossible, is inelegant at any rate.

But, the suggested meaning of the phrase does not fit the logical progress of the passage, in any case, for

we are told that, during the night Philokleon gets not even a wink of sleep, but if his eyes shut “even for a

few seconds”, his imagination hovers

<ὅλην> τὴν νύκτα (“all night long”) around the clepsydra.” In this

context the phrase cannot be taken temporally, it could only mean lightly, i.e. “even if he should doze off”.

It would make more sense to say that he does not allow himself to sleep, but if he is overcome by sleep in

spite of himself, then…

Consequently, I suspect that a copyist, influenced by πασπάλην in the previous line, and knowing that the

word ἄχνην is used by Homer of ‘chaff’ had misread κατ’ ἀνάγκην which would give the required sense,

that weariness sometimes forced the old man to ‘pull down the shutters’ for the night, but he still attended

the court in his dreams.

93. ὁ νοῦς πέτεται

The old man is frequently likened to a bird, but when he is sleeping only his imagination takes flight and,

in the manner of birds, seeks a source of water.

τὴν νύκτα

The full phrase would be, τὴν νύχθ’ ὅλην - “all night long” (as in Νεφέλαι 36).

τὴν κλεψύδραν

In this case, the water-source is the water-clock, an essential feature of court-rooms (cf. 857-8), that was

used to put a time-limit on speeches (cf. 857-8). A clerk of the court would be tasked with keeping an eye

on the clock so as to inform the court-officer when the time allocated for each speaker was used up. This

did not mean, of course, that the speaker would immediately desist, but the jurors would be ‘watching the

clock’ attentively. The word is associated solely with timing court-room speeches. When it is used by the

comic-poet Euboulos as the name of his eponymous ‘heroine’ in Κλεψύδρα (Athenaios 567δ), he is being

facetious. He is taking to its logical conclusion the idea that a courtesan is selling her time, rather than her

body, to her client.

94. ὑπὸ τοῦ...ἔχειν εἰωθέναι

The prepositional clause explains the following line. He has been dreaming of trials and is just about to

cast his vote when he wakes up. We might have expected the preposition ἀπὸ (‘from’, in consequence’),

instead ὑπὸ is used to show that he is ‘under his habit’, i.e. his addiction overwhelms him (cf. 106).

95. ἀνίσταται

He “rises from his bed” with his thumb, forefinger and middle finger pressed together. [The same gesture

is used today by Greek soldiers taking their oath of allegiance.] The verb is used of his son (137) and his

fellow-jurors (217) later.

96. νουµηνίᾳ

The careful way in which he holds his ballot when voting could be compared to any number of actions in

which the fingers are pressed together, but the poet chooses the most relevant. The drama is in fact set on

the first day of the month, as we shall learn in due course (171), so this seeming-casual reference gives an

initial hint and there is another oblique allusion later (256-7). Possibly, the line is lent some humour by a

slave’s appearance holding a censer at just that moment.

97-99.

After his pun on δηµός/δῆµος, the poet goes a stage further with ∆ῆµος/κηµός. But, instead of repeating

δῆµος (‘the citizen-body’), which the old man revered, he introduces the proper name ∆ῆµος. The literal

translation is, “And should he happen to spot written on a door somewhere Demos <is> awesome”. The

καλός figure seems to have served as a convenient shorthand; perhaps not unlike our use of ‘I ♥ NY’ on

bumper-stickers, so I have replaced the original with a modern equivalent.

The text makes sense as it stands, but one would have expected the verb ἐπιγράφω, since graffiti were

more likely to be incised rather than spray-painted in the modern manner. Perhaps, the text might have

read γ’ ἐπιγεγραµµένον originally.

98. υἱὸν Πυριλάµπους

The absence of a definite article led Bentley to propose the reading τὸν τοῦ, and one manuscript (J) does

in fact prefer τὸν alone, which is adequate grammatically but not metrically. Thus, Bentley could be right

and υἱὸν may have intruded as a gloss. But, the definite article has been omitted elsewhere, e.g. Χαιρέου

υἱός (687), υἱός Καρκίνου (1501), so we cannot insist on it here. One might, in any case, interpret the text

by understanding υἱὸν <τινα>, for Pyrilampes had more than one son. His stepson, in fact, was the young

Plato, who would later become Sokrates’ most celebrated ‘pupil’.

∆ῆµον καλόν

His son may have been a rising star at the time, but it was Pyrilampes who was the better-known public

figure. He was a wealthy man, a well-connected aristocrat who had served as an ambassador. He had also,

according to Plutarch (Ἠθικά 581d-e), taken part in the battle of Delion and been wounded (Sommerstein

considers this unlikely in view of his age). But, the son’s name was a gift to a comedian and Aristophanes

had already made use of it in Ἱππεῖς (1321) where he conflated the proper noun with both common nouns

in a single line. It is worth noting the fact that a nobleman chose to name his son ∆ῆµος in the first place.

Pyrilampes was close to Perikles and if his son lived up to his name, the graffito would be an appropriate

comment on the popular party they supported.

ἐν θύρᾳ

Whereas, nowadays, graffiti artists (or vandals) consign their works to walls, the ancient Athenian had to

make do with doors, because walls (even if rendered) would have provided unsuitably rough surfaces and

were not whitewashed against vermin like buildings on the Greek islands nowadays. In Ἀχαρνεῖς (143-4)

we are told in jest that a Thracian ruler named Sitalkes showed his affection for the people of Athens by

inscribing Ἀθηναῖοι καλοί “on the walls”, but this probably refers to the interior walls of his own house.

Similarly, Plato’s reference (Νόµοι 785α) to, παραγεγράφθαι δ’ ἐν τοίχῳ λελευκωµένῳ seems to mean the

interior of a phratry-hall.

However, those who wished the record of their affections to endure could take the trouble to incise their

graffito, if they had the time and energy, and in this case stone walls would serve as well as wooden doors

[as Lord Byron demonstrated on Poseidom’s temple at Sounion].

The story of Aristeides and the ostrakon (Plutarch Ἀριστείδης 7.5-6) serves as a reminder that many of the

ordinary citizens were illiterate, so that the ‘vandals’ in ancient Athens were likely to have been the better

educated aristocrats themselves (cf. 1323-5).

παρέγραψε πλησίον

The old man had only to write a kappa next to the initial delta to ‘correct’ the meaning. [Such cures for

apparent dyslexia are found in modern graffiti e.g. “I like grils”, altered to “I like girls”, but inviting the

complaint “what about us grils?”]

κηµὸς

Originally, the word meant a ‘muzzle’ used to prevent a horse or dog from biting. But, in the dramas of

Aristophanes it is used metaphorically for a funnel of plaited osiers or reeds which would be set over the

mouth of a voting-urn, apparently to conceal the hand which held the pebble (cf. Ἱππεῖς 1150). It is

claimed that this allowed the voter’s intention to remain private, in which case the funnel must also have

served to muffle the pebble’s fall. I do not find this entirely convincing, but it is generally believed.

100. ᾖδ(ε)

In ancient Athens cockerels regularly ‘chant’ (cf. 817 ᾄδων) like the chanticleer of folk-tale.

101. ἀναπεπεισµένον

The verb ἀναπείθω often appears to be a euphemism for inducing someone to do something against their

better judgement by means of a bribe or a threat; here probably both.

103. ἀπὸ δορπηστοῦ

No sooner has he finished his evening meal after his day in court, than he is keen to get back to his pet

occupation.

κέκραγεν ἐµβάδας

We must understand some temporal phrase such as ‘on one memorable occasion’ as lead in for the perfect

tense where we would use the pluperfect “he had cried out for his walking shoes”. Presumably, he made a

subterfuge of wanting to take an evening stroll to aid his digestion, but in reality, he wished to be dressed

and ready to leave the house when no-one was looking.

104. προκαθεύδει

The verb is taken to indicate that ‘he sleeps in front of <the courthouse>’, but this is expressed later (337)

by πρόσθεν καθεύδων. Therefore, in view of what follows I prefer to see it in a temporal sense, “he grabs

some sleep beforehand”.

πρῲ πάνυ

This attaches closely to ἐλθὼν.

105. προσεχόµενος

Hirschig proposed reading προσισχόµενος, but the middle voice used here matches a similar phrase found

in Πλοῦτος (1096, ὥσπερ λέπας τῷ µειρακίῳ προσείχετο -“<the old biddy> was clinging to the youth like

a limpet”).

τῷ κίονι

The result of taking προκαθεύδει in a spatial sense is that “the pillar” must be located somewhere outside

the courthouse, and so recent editors have followed Rogers’ lead in assuming that it can be taken to mean

‘a doorpost’ or, since a single architectural feature is needed, ‘a column’ beside the door. MacDowell, for

instance, speculates that, “Perhaps each court had beside its entrance a pillar to which notices of the next

day’s cases were attached”. While this is a possibility to consider, the lack of any corroborative evidence

leads me to believe that we should assume the common meaning of κίων as an internal column supporting

a roof (e.g. Νεφέλαι 815, where eroding ‘the columns of Megakles’ would lead to his economic collapse).

In such case, we could read the enclitic τῳ κίονι - “some column” and take it that the old man entered the

court at night under cover of darkness and clung to one of its roof-supports, refusing to be dragged out by

the janitor. After all, he would have no reason to cling to a pillar outside the court (pace MacDowell).

106. ὑπὸ δυσκολίας

The slave portrays him as a cantankerous old so-and-so who votes for the stiffer penalty proposed “out of

cussedness” (cf. 1083, ὑπ’ ὀργῆς).

τιµῶν τὴν µακρὰν

The jurors had not only to decide the case, but also had to decide the penalty. When a defendant had been

found guilty he was obliged to choose his own punishment, which the prosecutor would usually object to

as too lenient and demand a stiffer penalty (cf. 897-8). Thus, it fell to the jury to decide between the two.

This they did by incising a line on the waxed surface of a wooden tablet or πινάκιον (cf. 167), which must

have been rectangular, because a long line, presumably drawn along the length of the tablet, represented a

vote for the prosecutor’s penalty, whereas a shorter one drawn across its width agreed to the defendant’s

more lenient proposal.

107. µέλιττ(α) ἢ βοµβυλιὸς

The image of the the worker-bee weaving its way back to the hive, attaches to the old jury-man returning

from his tour of duty, because beeswax clogs his nails and he has his pay as ‘pollen’. The addition of the

word βοµβυλιὸς, which according to Hesychios was ‘a big bee’ (µέλισσα µεγάλη) provides the sound of

the contented humming coming from the bumbling figure, since the lexicographer further states (with this

passage in mind, perhaps) that it is a ζῷον ἦχον τινα ποιοῦν τοῦ γένους τῶν σφηκῶν.

108. κηρὸν ἀναπεπλασµένος

The codices are agreed on the participle and the only textual variant, ὑποπεπλασµένος (J), is probably no

more than an example of a prefix attracted from a preposition (cf. 139). But, it seems to me impossible, in

good conscience, to extract the required sense from the verb ἀναπλάττω. LSJ take it to be a special case

of the passive, which is said to mean ‘plastered up’ (instead of the usual ‘restored’ or ‘remodelled’), while

MacDowell considers it the middle voice and translates “having <wax> plastered up”. These are worthy

attempts to defend the codices, but the peg still does not seem to fit the hole.

A more probable reading (which MacDowell mentions and dismisses without attribution) is the passive

aorist participle of the verb ἀναπίµπληµι, ἀναπεπληµένος. It is a verb Aristophanes uses and its meaning

“filled up” requires no special pleading. We would, however, require the genitive κήρου, but then that is

what one would have expected anyway if ἀναπεπλασµένος actually meant ‘plastered up’. Consequently, I

have preferred to translate κηροῦ (ἀ)ναπεπλαµένος.

110. αἰγιαλὸν ἔνδον τρέφει

Unlike Stephen Wright who leaves his vast sea-shell collection scattered over the world’s beaches (you

might have seen part of it?), the old man ensures his supply of pebbles (with which to cast his vote) by

storing ‘a beach indoors’. MacDowell finds humour in the use of the verb τρέφει to denote the care with

which he tends his collection “as if it were alive”. Certainly, the use of the verb to nurture of inanimate

objects is very bold and therefore rather suspect, but seems validated by a similar instance later, ὑπήνην

ἄκουρον τρέφων (476).

111-2. τοιαῦτ(α)...δικάζει.

Τhe incorrigible passion of the old man is comically compared to the infatuation of the matron Stheneboia

with the young Bellerophontes, with a parody of Euripides’ lines, τοιαῦτ’ ἀλύει· νουθετούµενος δ’ Ἔρως

µᾶλλον πιέζει - “so great is her passion; and Love, although warned away, oppresses her still more” (frg.

665). For the use of νουθετῶ cf. 254.

113. µοχλοῖσιν ἐνδήσαντες

MacDowell correctly defends the codices against the alternative reading ἐγκλείσαντες (J), which is only a

gloss to explain the more idiomatic ἐνδήσαντες. Although ἐνδέω means to ‘tie fast’, it is probably meant

in a metaphorical sense of ‘restraining’ or ‘restricting’, as we might say ‘I’m tied up’, or speak of a group

in combat as being ‘pinned down’. Wilson (p. 82) confirms Sommerstein’s observation that the reading of

Oxyrhyncus papyrus 4512 (Π75, 3^rd cent.), though incomplete, offers support for the codices.

The mention of the barred doors prepares us for a later scene (cf. 154-5) in which the locking mechanism

will be the source of a contrived joke.

114. βαρέως φέρει

To ‘take something hard’ is to be negatively-impacted emotionally (cf. βαρέως ἂν φέροις; 158). Here, the

joke lies in the fact that the Son is not just upset about his father’s mania, but is on the verge of a nervous

breakdown himself.

116. ἀνέπειθεν

He was “trying to talk him round” (cf. 101 ἀναπεπεισµένον; 568 ἀναπειθώµεσθα; Νεφέλαι 77) often by

offering some inducement.

τριβώνιον

The essential item of apparel for any self-respecting old codger in Comedy (cf. 33, 1131)

119-20. ἐκορυβάντιζ(ε)

In his efforts to cure his father’s compulsive behaviour, the Son has resorted to hypnotism by having him

take part in Korybantic rites, hoping that the trance-like state induced in the celebrants by dancing to the

insistent rhythm of the drum-beat would relax him and release his mind from his obsession. Plato, who is

our principle source for the rituals and their effects, mentions that the rites were indeed seen by some as a

possible cure for mental disorders (Νόµοι 790δ). For a recent discussion of the evidence see E. Wasmuth

(2015).

ὁ δ(ὲ) αὐτῷ τυµπάνῳ ᾄξας ἐδίκαζεν

The result of his initation is usually expressed as, “he rushed off, drum and all…and joined the jury.” In

other words, the hypnotic beat had no effect on him whatsoever and, as soon as he saw a chance to make

his getaway, he made a dash for it without even bothering to discard the drum he himself was carrying.

Now, it is reasonable to compare αὐτῷ τυµπάνῳ with the similar phrase αὐτοῖσι τοῖς κανθηλίοις, “along with

its panniers” (170) and so take it to mean, “with <the> drum itself”, though the omission of a definite article

is awkward and the same sense could have been expressed by ἔχων τὸ τύµπανο (“drum and all”). But, it is

surprising that the poet introduced the idea of the hypnotic trance only to completely ignore its comic possibilities.

We might do better, therefore, to translate the text as, “at the very (sound of) drumming”, or bettter, consider

setting the words out as, ὁ δ’ αὖ τῷ τυµπάνῳ.

In either case, the result is that Bdelykleon’s plan was at least partially successful. The hypnotic sound of

the ritual drumming did put his father into a trance, but it had an unexpected side-effect. The sound of the

drum became somehow associated in his unconscious mind with jury-duty. There is no specific reference

to drums being used in court procedure, but it is possible to infer from this passage and the mention later

of a σηµεῖον (cf. 690) that a drum was used to call the jurymen to order at the opening of a trial. Bearing

in mind the likely absence of an ancient Tannoy system, a drum might well have been necessary to call to

order a noisy assembly of several hundred jurors. So, we do not need to suppose that the old man carried

the drum himself during the Korybantic ritual. It was the sound of it which activated a mental mechanism,

setting his feet in motion in the direction of the court.

The verbs give a reminder of the old man’s bird-like nature. The sound of a drum used by beaters would

have served normally to raise wildfowl from their nests, but here instead of being startled, the old bird is

enlivened by it and heads back to his ‘roost’.

εἰς τὸ καινὸν ἐµπεσών

The most likely noun to be qualified by καινόν is δικαστήριον, but it is somewhat surprising that the old

juryman settles upon a particular court (one, indeed, of which no other mention is made) without further

explanation. Surely, it cannot have been inserted merely to meet the demands of metre? Besides, would

the audience be willing to ignore the fact that later in the play Philokleon is assumed to frequent various

other courts, but not this one? The audience might not have spotted the inconsistency, but they would still

have wondered why this court was selected for a nocturnal visit rather than another. MacDowell, perhaps

thinking of ‘New Scotland Yard’ maintains that a courtroom known as the ‘Καινόν’ is meant, although he

admits that, “the location of the New Court is unknown”. Henderson, on the other hand, while retaining

Kαινὸν in his text, translates the “Common Court”, as if he would rather have read Kοινὸν. But, this does

not take us very far either.

So, perhaps, we might consider instead the likelihood that the particular adjective may have been chosen

to fit the special situation. While καινόν normally means ‘new’, it may sometimes occur as a metrically-

convenient variant of κενόν (‘empty’), and one manuscript (J) actually gives the (unmetrical) reading ἐς

τὸ κενὸν. This would give a relevant sense here, for if Philokleon is still in a Korybantic trance and flies

off on automatic pilot to whichever courtroom he habitually attends, the mere fact that it was unoccupied

at such an hour might not register in his semi-conscious state. This is why he thinks he is attending a trial

(ἐδίκαζεν) and it is his delusion which gives the audience something to laugh at.

122. διέπλευσεν εἰς Αἴγιναν

The harbour town of Aigina (17 miles from Peiraeus) is visible from the southern districts of Athens on a

clear day and would have been only a few hours’ sail with a moderate breeze. The islanders had close ties

with the Peloponnese (cf. foll. note) and so when war broke out with the League of Peloponnesian States

in 431 B.C., the Athenians judged it prudent to deny their enemies a base of operations so close to home.

Accordingly, one of their first moves was the annexation of the island and the expulsion of its inhabitants

(Thucydides 2.27.1). It seems possible that among those Athenian citizens sent to occupy the island were

the parents of the teenage Aristophanes (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 652-4).

ξυλλαβὼν

Editors copy the codices in printing ξυλλ-, but a fifteenth-century manuscript (J) gives the spelling which

is usual elsewhere συλλαβεῖν (e.g. Πλοῦτος 1079, frg. 626) and seems supported by the variant σὺ λαβών

at Νεφέλαι 1169. We do not know what Aristophanes would have written.

123. εἰς Ἀσκληπιοῦ

The Athenians considered that the cult of the god Asklepios had originated at Epidauros in the Argolid

(cf. Pausanias 2.26.7). But, their first regular contact with its therapeutic practices was probably made on

the island of Aigina, where the cult had been established by Epidaurian settlers (cf. Herodotos 8.46.1,

Αἰγινῆται δὲ εἰσι ∆ωριέες ἀπὸ Ἐπιδαύρου). In describing the sights of Aigina town in his day Pausanias

noted (2.30.1), “The sanctuary of Asklepios is not here <in the town> but elsewhere. It has a marble

statue of the god seated.” [The site of the sanctuary has not yet been located. It may be presumed to lie

beneath a monastery, as the early-Christian monks were understandably loath to carry building material

any distance; cf. Synesios of Cyrene, Ἐπιστολή 126, dated c. 413 A.D.]. A fragment from the comic-poet

Telekleides quoted by Herodian (frg. 46), which mentions a red-faced man coming from Aigina may refer

to a patient who has just returned from an unsucessful visit to the shrine of Asklepios (cf. 1172).

With the annexation of the island, the worship of the god soon spread to Athens; no doubt assisted by the

arrival of the plague in 429 B.C. Aristophanes’ reference here shows that at this date no sanctuary of the

god yet existed in Attika. But, within a year or two of the first performance of Σφῆκες, sanctuaries of the

god had been established near the harbour of Zea at Piraeus and on the south flank of the Akropolis. The

latter actually abutted on the theatre of Dionysos and the tragedian Sophokles is said to have pronounced

the official hymn of welcome to the god (c. 421-20 B.C.).

νύκτωρ κατέκλινεν αὐτὸν

The phrase refers to the process of incubation (ἐγκοίµησις), by which cures were effected. Patients were

visited by the god in dreams at night as they lay asleep in the sanctuary and they awoke cured. In Πλοῦτος

(650 ff.) the eponymous god is cured of his blindness by a visit to the sanctuary of Asklepios.

[A recollection of the ancient practice seems to survive in the nocturnal rites employed on the eve of the

dormition of the Virgin (η κοιµησις της Θεοτοκου) on the island of Tinos, where the faithful come to be

cured and at which I once witnessed an attempted exorcism.]

124. ἐπὶ τῇ κιγκλίδι

Harpokration p.177.10 (Dindorf), αἱ τῶν δικαστηρίων θύραι κιγκλίδες ἐκαλοῦντο - “the doors of the law-

courts were known as κιγκλίδες”. Presumably, the word was cognate with δικλίδες - “folding-doors”. So,

the Father showed up “at the court doors” before the sun had risen. Only jurymen could go beyond these

lattice-work doors and they too would find their entrance barred once court-proceedings were underway

(cf. 775).

Recent commentators have assumed that, because Philokleon showed up at the gateway, and since they

take the pillar to which he clung earlier (105) to be outside the gate, he “must wait at the entrance until

the magistrate arrives” (Sommerstein). But, this is not a necessary deduction. The jurors were not about

to hang around outside in inclement weather. The magistrate’s role was simply to order the gate closed

when the court was in session (cf. 891-2).

125. ἐξεφρίεµεν

Hall and Geldart adopt Nauck’s proposal ἐξεφρίεµεν over ἐξεφρίοµεν, the reading of the codices, but as

MacDowell comments, this does not get us far, because neither form of the verb is attested elsewhere.

127. καὶ τῶν ὀπῶν

Τhe ‘beast’ (4) which they are guarding now appears small enough to slip through chinks. It is another

example of the old man’s exaggeratedly slight stature or ‘waspish’-ness. [The ability of comic characters

to defy the laws of Physics is preserved, as Sommerstein perceptively notes, in the world of the modern,

animated cartoon.]

129-30. ὡσπερεὶ κολοιὸς

Logically the phrase belongs at the end of the following line, because a bird could not be expected to fix

pegs in the wall. But, by bringing it forward the poet deliberately mixes up the characteristics of man and

bird in his simile (cf. 570, 977-8), while also allowing the isolated verb to have full effect; “he hopped it”!

In fact, the jackdaw has been selected because it could be tamed. The crow family are remarkable in their

ability to utilize ‘tools’, so if any bird could make use of pegs, it would be a jackdaw, albeit one too lazy

to actually fly over the wall (though perhaps we must assume its wings would have been clipped).

133-4.

The Father and Son are finally introduced by name for comic effect. The names serve only to define their

political affiliations. As the dream of Sosias had indicated, the demagogue Kleon has polarized the citizen

body, even setting Father against Son.

ναὶ µὰ ∆ία

The slave takes an oath that he is telling the truth because the audience would find it hard to believe that a

person older than Kleon could have been named for him. They could only take the name as a nick-name.

135. τρόπους φρυαγµοσεµνάκους

Xanthias has already pointed out his master as the figure beneath the blankets, sleeping on the roof. His

tone then was dismissive and now he prepares us for what to expect. The Son aspires to be an upper-class

gentleman and puts on airs as if he were one. The word which the poet concocts to express this provides

us with the image of a high-strung horse, nosing the air nervously and snorting disdainfully, because the

horse was emblematic of the aristocracy.

136. ὦ Χανθία

The formal mode of address would be inappropriate for calling to slaves (cf. 433, 456), unless we suppose

that is an example of their master’s superior manner, “O Xanthias and Sosias, dost thou slumber?” On the

other hand, the timing suggests that we could punctuate ὤ, Ξανθία so that the slave’s mention of his well-

bred master is comically interrupted by a raucous yell from above. A similar interjection in Ἀχαρνεῖς can

be interpreted in the same way (259-60, cf.243).

137. τί ἔστι;

Evidently, Sosias has dozed off again and awakes with a start.

138. δεῦρο

This word must have its usual meaning, “over here”, in spite of MacDowell’s denial. It indicates that the

Son has not been sleeping on the roof of the main building (which is roofed with tiles, cf. 206), but on the

flat roof of the bake-house, for warmth. So he is summoning one of the slaves over to the other side of the

stage.

139. εἰς τὸν ἰπνὸν εἰσελήλυθε

The manuscripts offer us a choice between εἰσελήλυθεν and ἐξελήλυθεν. MacDowell seems to me correct

in preferring the latter on the grounds that the prefix εἰς- is more likely to be the result of the influence of

the preceding preposition. It is also preferable for the practical consideration that, from his vantage-point

on the bake-house roof, Bdelykleon would only spot his father ‘emerging’ from the house. This, however,

begs the question of where Philokleon is going, if the ἰπνὸν is inside the house, as some have supposed?

For this reason, Sommerstein prefers to read εἰσελήλυθεν (RJ) - “he’s gone into the kitchen”. One has to

wonder, in this case, why Bdelykleon did not spot him in the courtyard before he ducked into the kitchen

and how he can see him scurrying around inside now. The more likely solution to the puzzle would seem

to be that the Father is only spotted as he emerges from the house and is clearly visible from the roof as

he scurries towards the ἰπνὸν (“baking-oven”). Our idea of a ‘kitchen’, as a separate room in the house

where all food preparation is carried out, has coloured our understanding of what is happening here.

Certainly, a fire would be kept burning in the hearth in winter-time, over which a cooking-pot would be

suspended or beside which items (marshmallows?) might be toasted, but roasting meat on a griddle or

baking bread and barley-cakes would require a closed oven, which generated greater temperatures (as

well as more smoke). Since this would also create a fire hazard, it would often be located against an outer

wall or in a covered area apart from the main building. Philokleon, therefore, is probably making a dash

for freedom towards the outhouse <in the courtyard> in the hope of getting over (or under) the outside

wall.

140. µυσπολεῖ τι

The phrase µυσπολεῖ τι (‘he is scurrying like a mouse a bit’) appears to have been coined by Aristophanes

to suit the situation. Our lexicon (LSJ) explains that the poet is punning on the verb µυστι̟ολεύει (‘he is

performing an initiation rite’) and although MacDowell finds the idea far-fetched, it is surely a possibility

worth considering, for even though the τι seems to attach rather better to the following word καταδεδυκώς

(“crouching a bit”), the coincidence of the syllables could have been quite evocative for his audience. The

Father’s movement may be mouse-like, but may have been reminiscent of the humble attitude adopted by

pious initiates. That said, I can see no way of reproducing the pun in English.

Rogers proposed reading the middle voice µυσπολεῖται which gives the same sense, but breaks the run of

short syllables that might have been intended to echo the meaning.

141. κατὰ τῆς πυέλου τὸ τρῆµ(α)

The usual meaning of πυέλος in comic-drama is ‘bath-tub’ or ‘trough’. It would be located in the annexe,

because the privy was often adjacent. Indeed, in another play, Aristophanes deliberately confuses an ἰπνός

with a privy (frg. 369, τὸν κοπρῶνα). So, in an age which lacked for toilet-tissue, the πυέλος might have

functioned as a kind of bidet. We do not need to find a specialized meaning (LSJ ‘vat’) on the assumption

that the ἰπνός was inside the house. The Son is concerned that his father will try to slip through the hole in

the outer wall through which the waste-water ran into the street!

142. σὺ δὲ τῇ θύρᾳ

Commentators have generally felt that one of the slaves must have exited to prevent the father’s escape by

guarding the rear of the house, and that the Son’s instruction is addressed to whichever of the two slaves

remains on stage. But if one is to remain, it becomes difficult to agree on which it is. Hall and Geldart call

him Sosias, but other editors follow Beer, who identified him as Xanthias. However, I do not feel that we

have to assume that the door here is the same door as that mentioned by the slave in line 152. In my view,

both slaves can remain on stage. The one addressed here is probably Sosias, who has only just woken up

and is content to guard the house (just in case), while his fellow-slave Xanthias hurries across to examine

the door of the bake-house.

ταῦτ(α), ὦ δέσποτα

The slave’s abbreviated reply (cf. 843, 851) shows him to be complying with the order speedily.

143. ἄναξ Πόσειδον

Bdelykleon hears a muffled noise reverberating from the chimney and at first, fears an earthquake; hence,

the invocation to Poseidon, the Earth-shaker. The chimney belongs, of course, to the baking-oven.

144.

The brief action on the ‘roof-top’ would only have been possible through the recent introduction of the

permanent, stone paraskenion. The father’s head would have been clearly visible to the whole audience

thanks to the slope of the theatre’s cavea. In Ἀχαρνεῖς (262), Dikaiopolis instructs his wife to watch the

Dionysiac rites from the roof-top.

145. ξύλου τίνος σύ;

In tragic-drama it was conventional to introduce a character on stage by asking them to give their ancestry

(cf. 185), but since it would make no sense to ask from whom ‘Smoke’ was descended, the Son turns the

convention on its head. It is a reversal of what is expected, reminiscent of Wilde’s quip about a character

“rising from the ranks of aristocracy”.

συκίνου

Commentators usually assume that any reference to ‘fig-wood’ is a weak pun on συκοφάντης, originally

denoting ‘one who informed on illegal exporters of figs’ but in Aristophanes’ day used of ‘someone who

makes malicious accusations’. So, we can take the old man to be saying that his livelihood as a juror is

supported by malevolent litigators (cf. 897).

The wood has very little use, and consequently perhaps the word is applied to ‘worthless’ people (σύκινοι

ἄνδρες) with the sexual connotation of men who are not much use as men. The fruit it bears (σῦκον) was

considered, when ripe, to resemble the female vagina, but the ‘male’ tree bears an early crop of false-figs

which never ripen, so that a play on words between ‘figs’ and ‘fags’ is hard to avoid in English.

147. ἐρρήσεις γε

The codices read εἰσερρήσεις (J) or ἐρρήσεις (R), but recent editors have agreed on ἐσερρήσεις, because

the prefix εἰς- does not scan. In either case, it would be the future tense of εἰσέρρω, a verb which is used

by Aristophanes elsewhere meaning ‘to go inside’ (cf. Ἱππεῖς 4, εἰσήρρησεν ἐς τὴν οἰκίαν - “he entered

the household”). Although this makes sense, it has led modern editors to try to capture the force of γε by

bringing a note of exasperation to the Son’s voice - “Get inside, damn you”! Whatever has become of his

vaunted manners?

An alternative emendation might substitute a humorous tone in keeping with the son’s earlier demeanour.

The verb εἰσρήγνυµι (-ρήσσω) would provide us with the reading εἰσερήσσεις, which even though not a

known constituent of Aristophanic vocabulary, could add a fresh connotation to the Son’s advice to his

father. Under normal circumstances a householder might seek to stop a burglar breaking into his house,

here it is the householder himself trying to break out. So, it is the Son’s polite suggestion that he should

kindly break back into the house. While the form διαρρήγνυµι would apply for ‘breaking and entering’,

we can presume that εῖσρήγνυµι would be suitable for simple ‘unlawful (or irregular) entry’.

Austin (1973) supports Wilamowitz’s proposal to read οὔτι χαιρήσεις γε, although this would duplicate

the expression used a little later (cf. 186).

τηλία

Once the Father’s head has ducked down out of sight, his son searches around to find a τηλία (‘a wooden

board with a raised rim’). In other contexts this object matches the description given it by a scholion here,

σανὶς βαθεῖα ἐν ᾗ τὰ ἄλφιτα ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ ἐπίπρασκον - “a wide board on which barley-groats were sold

in the market”, e.g. Pherekrates mentions a slave shopping from a number of ‘stalls’ or vendors’ ‘tables’,

ἀπὸ πολλῶν τηλίων (frg. 132). But it is hard to see how a flat, wooden board suitable for a breadseller’s

wares or dicing or the staging of a cock-fight would be of much practical use here. It is not unlikely that a

householder would cover his chimney-top in bad weather to prevent the ingress of rain, or snow or wind,

but, a wooden board would be liable to rot and would require weighting with a heavy object as a matter of

course, so as not to be blown away. If the fire were lit it would be at risk of charring, even if inverted on

its rim.

A more practical solution would be a ceramic ‘chimney-pot’. It would take the shape of an inverted bowl

with perforations to allow smoke to escape and be sufficiently heavy to stay in place for the duration of

the bad weather, though it might well require additional weighting to prevent bodies of smoke escaping.

So, instead of τηλία, I would suggest reading, ποῦ ’σθ’ ἡ πηλίνη;

150-1. Καπνίου

Bdelykleon reflects that, since his father was pretending to be a plume of smoke in order to escape up the

chimney, people will start to call him the son of ‘Smoky’ (Καπνίας), which according to a scholiast, was

the sobriquet of an earlier comic-poet, Ekphantides (cf. 57 note). The pun is a simple one and would have

induced a satisfying groan from the audience. But, there was humour to be found also in the reluctance of

one of Aristophanes’ characters to be mistaken for one of his rival’s. MacDowell suggests that this might

have been because the older poet was “an inferior dramatist” and had earned his nick-name “because of

the obscurity of his writing”. He is adopting the view of Hesychios who had said that the poet was called

‘Smoky’, διὰ τὸ µηδὲν λαµπρὸν γράφειν (κ 716), “because he wrote nothing transparent”.

However, it is worth quoting the scholion: τὸν ὑπεκλυόµενον οἶνόν φασί τινες καπνίαν λέγεσθαι· ἐν δὲ

τοῖς περὶ Κρατίνου διώρισται, ὅτι τὸν ἀπόθετον ἢ καὶ παλαιόν. διὸ καὶ Ἐκφαντίδην «Καπνίαν» καλοῦσιν,

from which it is clear that the word ‘smoky’ is in fact being used in a technical sense to describe wine, so

that it can be interpreted either as ‘cloudy’ in appearance or ‘smoky’ in taste. But, commentators seem to

assume that, since the Son is complaining about the possibility of being related to Ekphantides, the nick-

name must have been used pejoratively, i.e. the cloudy look indicated that it had gone off. However, wine

is judged primarily on taste, and what we call ‘corked’ would likely have been called ‘vinegary’. It might,

in fact, have been an accolade for wine to be called ‘smoky’, just as it is for single-malt whiskies from the

isle of Islay nowadays. So, instead of interpreting the scholiast’s words in the sense that wine is “starting

to go off (ὑπεκλυόµενον), “discarded” (ἀπόθετον) and “too old” (παλαιόν), one might suppose the terms

to be meant approbatively.

“Some <sources> say that wine that has been reduced is called ‘smoky’, while in <commentaries> on

Kratinos’s <works> ‘smoky’ is defined as put by or vintage. This is why Ekphantides was nick-named

‘Smoky’.”

Of course, if Kratinos had coined the name for his contemporary, he may well have played on ambiguity.

A.M. Wilson (1973) has raised doubts over the relevance of the scholion, suggesting that the epithet was

used more widely to denote a person that gives himself airs. As we shall see later, the expression son of a

Sellos made a connection between smoke and boastfulness (cf. 324-5). But, although Bdelykleon may be

aiming above his social status, one can hardly call Philokleon ‘a vain-boaster’ and to say, as Sommerstein

does, that he himself had claimed to be a puff of smoke, defeats the supposed connection.

152. <ὅδε> τὴν θύραν ὠθεῖ

The first part of the line has raised problems. The codices have someone calling out, τὴν θύραν ὤθει -

“push the door!” But, it is unclear who is calling to whom and why. Also, we are missing half a metrical

foot into the bargain. The Aldine editor supplied an extra syllable, printing, παῖ, τὴν θύραν ὤθει - “push

the door, boy!” which left no doubt that the words were spoken by the Son to a slave. But, this raised the

question of how the Son could have known that the Father was pushing at the door. It was Hermann who

first realized that the verb could not be an imperative and suggested emending it to the indicative ὠθεῖ -

someone “is pushing the door” (the same error of accentuation occurs in Euripides Ἰφιγ. Ταυρ. 1395). To

make up the metre, he proposed substituting ὅδε for παῖ at the beginning. His proposal has been adopted

by Hall and Geldart, whereas Rogers supplied νῦν as an alternative to ὅδε.

MacDowell, however, saw that the Aldine editor had in fact preserved the original text, only instead of

the phrase being spoken by a single speaker, it could be split between two, neither of whom was the Son.

He gave the first word to the old man calling angrily to the slave from behind the closed door, while the

rest of the phrase is spoken by the slave suddenly waking up to the pressure on the door (cf. also 155n.).

Presumably, at some point, the word παῖ had been copied by mistake as παῖς and taken extra versum to

signify the speaker, only to be dropped later on when the presumed imperative made this attribution seem

inappropriate.

152-5.

The Son’s irritation had given way to weariness at the end of his previous speech. Now, the slave’s shout

from below has put him on his mettle again and he issues a series of rapid-fire instructions, καὶ...καὶ...καὶ

(cf. 198-202).

153. εὖ κἀνδρικῶς

At this point, when push comes to shove, the audience is reminded of two opposing hoplite lines pushing

against one another. This imagery gives rise to the otherwise unexpected εὖ κἀνδρικῶς, which is perhaps

an echo of the captain’s voice (from the rear) exhorting his men to give it all they’ve got? (cf. 450). There

is a similar exhortation in Βαβυλώνιοι (frg. 87), the nautical command, ἐς τὸν λιµένα, i.e. ‘put your backs

into it, because we’re almost home…and because people are watching us’.

154. κατακλῇδος

Sommerstein and Henderson accent proparoxytone, κατάκλῃδος, while MacDowell prefers the prosaic

Attic form κατάκλειδος. Regardless of orthography, I think the term must be understood to relate to the

‘method by which the door is closed’ rather than another separate ‘lock’ (as maintained by LSJ). Despite

the connecting particle, the following clause stands in apposition to it. Thus, the Son orders, “make sure

the door is securely barred…and (as an afterthought) make sure he doesn’t gnaw the pin out of the bar”.

Clearly, the door is barred and bolted from the outside, for were it otherwise, there would be no point in

Philokleon trying to push the door open. But, as commentators have noted, the door of a dwelling-house

would normally open inwards and be barred from the inside. Therefore, they conclude that Aristophanes

has chosen to reverse the situation for comic effect, in order to stress the extra measures taken to prevent

the old man’s egress. In such case, however, the barring would be of little effect. The most it could hope

to achieve would be to stop Philokleon bursting the door off its hinges. This, at least, is how Sommerstein

interprets the situation, following a suggestion by Bader (1971). Dale (1957) had already suggested that

the bar was only imaginary anyway.

But, there is no need to make excuses for an incongruity, if we take the Son’s instructions to the slave as

additional evidence that the father is trapped in the bake-house which contains the oven. As an annexe of

the main house the bake-house is shut from the outside and since its interior space is probably somewhat

limited, its door can swing outwards.

155. φύλατθ’ ὅπως

Hall and Geldart adopted Elmsley’s proposal to emend the reading of the codices φύλαττέ θ’ ὅπως, but

MacDowell, supposing the emendation to be based on metrical grounds, preferred to defend the codices.

However, (like Sommerstein) I think that Elmsley’s text reads better because it brings into clearer focus

the close relationship of the bar (µοχλοῦ) and pin (βάλανον) as in line 200.

τὴν βάλανον ἐκτρώξεται

The Son warns the slave to ensure that the old man does not gnaw at the pin which holds the bar in place.

His anxiety stems from a belief that his father resembles a rodent, an idea implanted in his mind when he

spotted him scurrying round the back of the bake-house. The absurd notion will be picked up again later

(204-5) and (367-71). Here the possibility is aided by the ambiguity of the word βάλανον which can also

mean an ‘acorn’; something that household vermin would chew through. But the overall sense is far less

innocent, because the βάλανον is only the ‘head’ of the locking-pin (cutting this off would cause the pin

to drop through and free the bar) and in the lect of Comedy the term conjures another meaning, the acorn-

shaped tip of a penis (cf. Λυσιστράτη 413, for a similarly-contrived crude joke). The Latin equivalent of

βάλανος provides us with our anatomical term ‘glans’ (cf. also 200).

However, in order to achieve his surreal pun the poet asks his audience to overlook the impracticality of

the action, for the bar is pinned on the outside, while the ‘mouse’ is on the inside. This obstacle could be

obviated by assuming that the door has an upper section which opens separately like a stable-door, or at

least a window through which the old man might stick his head to get at the lock-pin. The appearance of

Philokleon’s head at this opening would explain why the slave thought that he was pushing at the door in

the first place; a fact which would not have been immediately apparent otherwise. Furthermore, because a

net partially obscures this opening (cf. 164), the slave and the audience might not have spotted the head

unless it had spoken. Consequently, MacDowell’s perceptive attribution of παῖ to Philokleon becomes a

dramatic necessity.

156. ὦ µιαρώτατοι

As the plural verbs indicate, the old man is railing at all his persecutors, so a sudden switch to the singular

ὦ µιαρώτατε as Sommerstein prefers is not justified on the grounds of it being the lectio difficilior found

in one manuscript (J/Vp3).

157. ἐκφεύξεται ∆ρακοντίδης

The verb implies the defendant’s guilt, “he will get himself off” (i.e. escape punishment, since Philokleon

will not be in court to cast the crucial vote against him, (cf. 994).

We do not know why Philokleon mentions this particular public figure, but presumably he was a political

opponent of Kleon and a person over whom the members of the audience would be divided in their views.

Of the people bearing the name perhaps the most likely is a man from Aphidnai who is singled out by the

comic poet Plato in his Σοφισταί as a regular defendant in court, a man who held pronounced oligarchical

views (cf. frg. 148). Mattingly (1961) considered the candidates and suggested another individual.

However, the reason for mentioning ‘Drakontides’ here may have nothing to do with current litigation, as

is generally supposed, but be due to the aptness of his name (‘descendant of Drakon’) to one who escapes

punishment when his putative forbear had been notoriously harsh in his penalties, like Philokleon himself

(cf. 106). The second reference to him later (438) is certainly introduced as mere word-play on his name

and so here it may just be ‘the son of a snake’ who is wriggling out of his just desserts.

158-60. ὁ γὰρ θεὸς

The old man claims that ‘the god at Delphi’ (Apollo) had imposed upon him the religious duty of finding

every defendant guilty, presumably on the grounds that ‘all have sinned’. The poet seems to combine his

personal cynicism regarding traditional religion with a generally-held perception that courts erred on the

side of severity.

161. [Ξανθίας]

Though one codex (J) gives this line still to Philokleon, the main codices (RV) mark a new speaker for it.

It certainly reads better as a response from someone else commenting on his diminutive size and although

Hall and Geldart assign it to the Son, the proposal of Beer to put it in the mouth of Xanthias accords well

with the slave’s sarcasm elsewhere. For this type of mock horror cf. Ὄρνιθες 61, Ἄπολλον ἀποτρόπαιε,

τοῦ χασµήµατος - “Apollo preserve us, what a gaping maw!”

162. ἔκφρες

At first sight, the reading of the codices (ἔκφερε) seems an inappropriate thing for the old man to say, so

Buttmann’s alternative (ἔκφρες) has been adopted universally. But, the consensus of the codices ought to

give us pause to reconsider. In Comedy the persistent problem of the elderly is the tendency of their weak

bladders to intrude on the drama at inopportune moments and the Father’s anxiety here that he is about to

explode (µὴ διαρραγῶ) may not refer simply to his “passion” (as MacDowell felt), or his “frustration and

anger” (Sommerstein), but to the call of Nature. In which case, the continuing emphasis on his small size

suggests that perhaps the poet is resurrecting a comic situation from Νεφέλαι (1386-90) where another old

man complains that his adult son did not carry him outside when he was crying out to relieve himself, οὐκ

ἔτλης ἔξω ’ξενεγκεῖν...θύραζέ µ(ε). Moreover, the threat that he will lose his temper, if the slave does not

let him out, would carry little weight (cf. 198), whereas the thought of the mess he might have to clean up

could well serve as a more persuasive argument for a slave.

µὴ διαρραγῶ

We may compare Ἱππεῖς 701, κἂν...ἐπιδιαρραγῶ - “even if I burst”.

163. µὰ τὸν Ποσειδῶ

The slave will not be frightened by any violent eruption and calls the Earth-shaker to affirm his defiance.

164. δίκτυον

As we had been informed earlier (131), nets have been strategically spread around the courtyard to catch

the ‘bird’-man, if he takes flight. The fact that one is covering the bake-house door is an indication that

this avenue of escape has been foreseen, even though it seems hardly practicable to a logical mind and did

not stop him getting in.

165. οὐκ ἔχεις ὀδόντας

In view of his age it is hardly surprising that he is sans teeth, but his son’s fear that he is still capable of

gnawing away the head of the locking-pin will shortly be confirmed when he succeeds in chewing up the

netting (cf. 371).

166-7.

The Father makes a histrionic plea to an unseen (and imaginary) servant to bring him a weapon. Ηis plea

mirrors the action of tragic heroes (Sommerstein cites Klytaimestra in Aischylos’s Χοηφόροι 889), but his

weapon of choice turns out to be a legal instrument.

πινάκιον τιµητικόν

Having just learned that the old man consistently votes ‘guilty’, we are again reminded that he also votes

for the harsher penalty of the two. We had been told that his nails were regularly caked in beeswax from

the long lines drawn on his ‘tablet’ (106-8) and he now imagines himself taking revenge upon the slave in

a court of law.

168. δρασείει κακόν

The Son has now arrived on the scene and changes the course of the dialogue with an interjection echoing

his father’s paratragic tone. He may, actually, be quoting a well-known line from a tragic-drama. But, his

meaning fits the situation since he realizes that the old man is intent on escaping so that he can ‘do some

damage’ in the courtroom (cf. 322, κακόν τι ποιῆσαι).

169-71.

His plan to get out through the bake-house flue foiled and his plea to be allowed out to relieve himself

ignored, the old man hastily comes up with a pretext for being in the annexe. He claims that he wanted

only to take the donkey to market to sell.

170. αὐτοῖσι τοῖς κανθηλίοις

The panniers would not normally be sold with the beast, but the scheme he has in mind requires that they

be included in any deal.

171. νουµηνία γάρ ἐστιν

For the purposes of the drama it just happens to be the first day of the month when the monthly market in

slaves and livestock was held (cf. e.g. Ἱππεῖς 43-4, where we are told that ‘Mr Joe Public’ has just ‘bought

his new slave at the previous first-of-the-month’ - τῇ προτέρᾳ νουµηνίᾳ ἐπρίατο δοῦλον). Coincidentally,

it was also the day when the courts began hearing cases of unpaid debt and this is the real reason why the

old man is so keen to get out (cf. 96).

κἂν ἐγὼ αὐτὸν

The Aldine editor preferred to read κ’ αὐτὸς ἂν, but we are better served with the pronoun as the object.

173. ἔξαγε

MacDowell says that Philokleon addresses “a slave inside the house (invisible to the audience)”. But, he

is not in the house and we have no reason to suppose that he has company in the annexe. He is talking to

the slave outside and trying to get him to open the door on the pretext of letting the ass out.

174-5. πρόφασιν καθῆκεν

The metaphor here suggests that the Father is trying to turn the tables on his son, who has been acting like

a bird-catcher and using nets to trap him (cf. 131 and 164). He decides to ‘lower a decoy’, with the aim of

hoisting him in a net or catching him out with a trip-wire instead. For πρόφασιν see 468.

ἐκπέµψειας

The slave does not say that his master would ‘send out’ the donkey, but that he “would have him led out”.

The verb πέµπω, as often, is used in the sense of ‘accompany’ or ‘escort’ (cf. 299).

οὐκ ἔσπασεν

Commentators have drawn a comparison with a phrase used in Θεσµοφοριάζουσαι 928, ἡ µήρινθος οὐδὲν

ἔσπασεν - “the line has drawn nothing” which may be meant as a metaphor from fishing, suggesting that

the Father has lowered a baited hook, which the Son has declined to swallow. This seems quite possible,

although if we are meant to supply ἡ µήρινθος it is interesting that Homer uses the word for a cord which

tethers a bird (Ἰλιάς 23.854).

176. τεχνωµένου

The verb τεχνάοµαι, a constituent of tragic vocabulary (cf Sophokles Αἴας 86), is used in an active sense.

It represents Baldrick’s ‘cunning plan’.

177. εἰσιών µοι...δοκῶ

Although the Son has been ‘fooled’ into undertaking the sale of the donkey, the slave’s use of ἐκπέµψειας

should not be taken to imply that his master will lift a finger. It is the cocky slave who volunteers to go in

and fetch the animal so that ὁ γέρων (rather than ὁ πατήρ) does not slip out along with the donkey. It was

Beer who first suggested that this was more likely than the languid Son entering the work place to fetch a

beast of burden in person. He assigned 177-82 to Xanthias and, although the second couplet could belong

to the Son, he was correct about 177-8. MacDowell objects that “it would be inappropriate for a slave to

make a decision of this sort”, but the slave has to be ready to act on his own initiative; knowing that if he

doesn’t show willing, no-one else will (cf. 211).

ἐξάγειν

Elmsley proposed reading the future infinitive ἐξάξειν, which is apposite but not essential.

178. µηδὲ παρακύψῃ πάλιν

One would expect the slave’s aim to be that of preventing the Father from sneaking out, but he declares

instead that he will ensure that “he does not so much as peep out again” (cf. Εἰρήνη 982 and 985, where

the verb is used of adulterous wives peeping out to see if the coast is clear). But, it is difficult to see how

this could be achieved, short of tying the old man up hand and foot, so we must take his words as comic

exaggeration. An alternative might be to read παρακρύψῃ, making sure that “he does not conceal himself

from <us> again”.

179.

The practical presentation of this scene must have required some kind of stage property. Perhaps, a latter-

day Epeios was called upon to construct a wooden donkey beneath which Philokleon could be suspended.

Like the Trojan horse it would have needed wheels and the slave would have needed a strong arm to ‘lead

out’ the beast. A simpler alternative would have been for the donkey to comprise two silent actors (or not-

quite-silent actors!) with suitably hairy legs carrying a pole between them. Philokleon would have had his

legs wrapped around the pole, while hanging from it by his arms. A hair blanket (or σάγµα) flung over the

pole, along with the panniers mentioned in line 170, would have concealed all but his bald head, dangling

underneath. The physical constraints clearly indicate once again the need for an actor of small proportions

to fill the Father’s role.

181. [Σωσίας]

Since Xanthias has led out the donkey oblivious to the Father’s presence, it is likely that the other slave

(who remained on stage) spots the old man.

183. τουτονί

Brunck recognized that this word is an interjection by a slave. It could belong to either one of them, but I

have assigned it to Sosias, who first spotted the stow-away.

τουτὶ τί ἦν;

Both the hiatus and the imperfect tense arouse suspicion (one would expect τουτὶ τί δή). But, such hiatus

was admitted and the idiom occurs too often to be an error, e.g. Ἀχαρνεῖς 157, Ὄρνιθες 1495, Βάτραχοι

39. Apparently, where we would say ‘what is that?’ the Athenian said “what was this?” (cf. 1509).

184-5. Οὖτις

The spectators have already guessed that Aristophanes is parodying the scene in the Ὀδύσσεια where the

wily hero and his men make their escape from the cave of Polyphemos by clinging to the undersides of

the giant’s gigantic sheep. The old man naively believes that by claiming to come from Odysseus’s island

he can use the same ruse and get away. He concocts a fictional name Ἀποδρασιππίδης (‘son of get-away

horse’) to point up the fact that he is actually using what he hoped would have been a ‘get-away donkey’.

The text is based on Elmsley’s emendation.

187. ὦ µιαρώτατος

The speaker uses the nominative (cf. 900), and not the vocative, as a form of sarcastic expostulation. We

can understand the omega by crasis as, ὢ, ὁ µιαρώτατος - “Oh, the utter scoundrel!” The exclamation has

always been included in the Son’s speech, but such an impassioned epithet is better used of the Father by

one of the slaves.

188. ὥστ(ε) ἔµοιγ(ε)

This remark is held to be the continuation of the Son’s speech, but appears to come from another speaker

(cf. 642) and its coarseness suggests that it is more likely to come from the churlish Xanthias.

189. κλητῆρος...πωλίῳ

The word κλητήρ occurs four times in this play (cf.1310, 1408 and1416) as well as twice in Ὄρνιθες (147

and 1422). It relates to the legal procedure of a plaintiff lodging an official complaint against a defendant

in the presence of a ‘summons-witness’. The witness to the summons was called a κλητήρ and the act of

witnessing was denoted by the verb κλητεύω (cf. Νεφέλαι 1218, ἕλκω σε κλητεύσοντα - “I am dragging

you <along> to witness the summons”). These forms, like the verb προσκαλοῦµαι for ‘summonsing’ (cf.

1417), derive ultimately from καλέω. Hence, Plato speaks of προσκλήσεων καὶ κλητήρων (Νόµοι 846γ).

In the works of Aristophanes, however, the word has been invested with a secondary sense, which (as far

as we can tell) was his own innovation. It is not recorded in any ancient lexicon and consequently, has not

been picked up by the scholiasts. According to Vaio (1971), the first to appreciate the secondary meaning

was the poet and philologist Conz in his annotations (published posthumously in 1829). He discerned that

the word κλητήρ must apply to the donkey and drew the reasonable conclusion that the poet must equate

an ass with a sunmmons-witness, because they both ‘make a complaint’ (καλεῖ). Vaio (p. 341-2, note 29)

objects on the grounds that the verb καλέω is unsuited to animal sounds. His argument is open to question

in Comedy where pigs and cockerels ‘sing’, but is immaterial in any case since Aristophanes is not basing

his pun on καλέω but κλαίω. He has already flagged the joke from the start when the animal was led onto

the stage and the Son asked it why it was crying (179, κάνθων, τί κλάεις ;), so we can understand that his

pun is actually on κλητήρ with κλαυτήρ (‘one who cries or complains’). Consequently, whereas Vaio has

denied any secondary sense to κλητήρ and concluded that it “means only summons-witness”, I consider it

more likely that the word has been introduced to confuse the audience and that its original meaning is not

material. In the first place, there can be no doubt that the speaker is referring to the donkey and, whether

the animal’s bray is analogous to calling or crying, it has no connection with a ‘summons-winess’ who is

always silent in Aristophanes’ plays. Besides, whatever meaning we may assign to πωλίῳ, it is clear that

the word relates in some way to the donkey. Any attempt to make a connection with a summons-witness,

such as Sommerstein’s “the foal of a summoner-ass” (perhaps he meant summoner’s ass), leads us off on

a tangent. It is only the Father who has legal matters on the brain and we cannot assume that a summoner

or his witness invariably went mounted on an ass.

If, then, we translate the reading of the codices, the slave is observing that the donkey definitely seems to

be foaling. This may allude partly to the fact that the Father has no teeth and so is ‘unweaned’ like a new-

born foal. But, a suggestion by Bowie (1990) gives a further dimension to the humour. In suggesting that

Aristophanes may have written ψωλίῳ (‘circumcised pizzle’) for πωλίῳ, he raises the possibility that the

poet was trying to divide the audience. Those at the front would have heard the slave say ‘foal’ but some-

one further back might ask his neighbour, ‘did he say pole?’ The diminutive form of the word speaks to

the Father’s small stature and we can perhaps deduce his baldness from the comparison as well. In either

case, Sommerstein (addenda p.xxviii) is on shaky ground in arguing for Philokleon’s head being toward

the rear of the animal. For practical purposes this would make it hard for him to speak, but whatever the

comparison, the head of the foal or the pizzle must point forward.

190. µ(ε) ἐάσεθ’ ἥσυχον

After the imperative we must understand an infinitive (cf. 340, οὐκ ἐᾷ µε...δικάζειν - “he does not let me

serve in juries”, Νεφέλαι 38, ἔασον...καταδαρθεῖν τί µε - “let me get some sleep”; Νεφέλαι 932, τοῦτον δ’

ἔα µαίνεσθαι - “let this fellow go on raving”) and if one follows the Aldine editor in emending to ἥσυχον

<µένειν>, then the old man is telling his persecutors to let him stay where he is. But, ‘let me be!’ could be

expressed by µ’ ἐάσετε alone without the qualifying adjective (I do not suppose anyone means ἥσυχον to

be taken adverbially). The codices, on the other hand, read ἡσύχως, which presupposes a verb of motion

such as φεύγειν. This better expresses the Father’s ultimate aim, and so would make a pertinent addition.

191. µαχεῖ νῷν

MacDowell points to the use of the dual here as an indication that only one slave accompanies the Son at

this point. Although the dual is occasionally used as a convenient metrical alternative to the plural ἡµῖν, it

normally refers to two parties of whom the one is the speaker and the other is one or more persons being

addressed (cf. 307, 310, 316; Sophokles Ἀντιγώνη 3), i.e. ‘us’ in the sense of ‘you and I’ (and not ‘a third

party and I’). This means that a verb in the second person is awkward in itself. His father has just warned

that ‘we will come to blows’, to which the Son apparently replies ‘what will you fight with us about?’ But

the natural reply would be ‘what will we come to blows about?’ The Son is thinking about an argument

between his father and himself alone, therefore, I suspect that one should read περὶ τοῦ µάχη νῷν δῆτα;

(sc. ἔσται). The future form of the verb has been introduced to match the abbreviated future tense in the

previous line simply because the ellipse was not appreciated.

Of course, the Son is not about to fight his father, as µάχη can be used of a verbal altercation (cf. 471-2).

He would leave any physical persuasion up to the two slaves struggling to dislodge Philokleon (although

someone should really be holding the donkey’s tether to keep it from wandering off) and, in fact, I would

assign this line to one of the slaves anyway.

περὶ ὄνου σκιᾶς

The literal translation ‘to come to blows over a donkey’s shadow’ would convey very little to a modern

audience. It would suggest that perhaps the father has taken the role of shadow upon himself. However,

the phrase was proverbial and carried the sense of a pointless or trivial disagreement. It is used again by

Aristophanes in ∆αίδαλος (frg. 199). As a reference to the donkey needs to be kept for continuity, I have

suggested a different, contemporary usage.

192. πονηρὸς εἶ

The Son now seems to ignore the last three lines of dialogue altogether by suddenly breaking into a litany

of his father’s faults. Thus Barrett has, “You’re a rotten, devious, wayward old man”, and Sommerstein

proposes, “You’re a bad one you are - a real expert and a real daredevil.” But, such openly vituperative

remarks do not fit the context and nor do they seem to suit the Son’s mild demeanour. We might do better

to maintain his supercilious tone and to take these characterizations of the Father as a comparison relating

to the donkey standing between them. In this respect, the moral sense of πονηρὸς is less appropriate here

than the basic meaning of ‘oppressed’ or ‘burdened’. It is an epithet used by the Son again later when he

becomes annoyed with the obtuseness of his slaves (cf. 214, 223).

πόρρω τέχνης

The gloss provided by a scholiast οὐκ ἀπὸ τέχνης, which LSJ interprets as φύσει, would qualify πονηρὸς

to produce “naturally wicked”, but surely overstretches the text. In fact, instead of meaning “far advanced

in artifice” (Hickie) or “far advanced in skill” (MacDowell), i.e. ‘adroit’, the phrase may actually be used

to mean the opposite, ‘far off from skill’, i.e. ‘clumsy’. It may only be a verbal echo, but there appears to

be a correlation with a more prosaic phrase employed by Phrynichos, πονηρὸς εἶναι τὴν τέχνην - “being

inept at his craft” (frg. 56).

παράβολος

This adjective seems to confirm that the poet intended the audience to view the Son’s remarks in the light

of their animal associations. MacDowell correctly observes that the traditional translation of the adjective

‘reckless’ has no application here. We would need some suggestion of κίνδυνος to go with it. In fact, the

poet seems to be making a complex pun on παρ-ἄβολος, ‘an old horse that, like a foal that has yet to shed

its milk teeth, cannot shed what he has no longer got’. For good measure παράβολος may also refer to his

position on the ground, ‘like a bale of hay thrown beside an animal for fodder’.

So, we can take the Son to be using the presence of the donkey to pass critical, yet sympathetic, comment

on his father’s situation. But, there is undeniable ambiguity in the terms used and we appreciate why this

should be, when the Father responds, for it shows that the poet has deliberately sown confusion for comic

effect.

193-4. πονηρὸς ἐγώ;

Philokleon straightaway seizes on the first word, πονηρὸς, and assumes that it was meant pejoratively. He

objects that he is not “morally bad”. We know that he has taken it negatively, because he counters it with

ἄριστος, which can only be taken as ‘very good’. This reveals his inability to grasp his son’s meaning, for

πονηρός need not have a pejorative sense when coupled with ἄριστος. This is demonstrated clearly in two

fragments of Hesiod’s Μεγάλαι Ἠοῖαι, cf. Merkelbach & West, Hesiod’s fragments Oxford, 1970, frg.248

and frg.249; M.Hirschberger, ‘Γυναικῶν Κατάλογος καὶ Μεγάλαι Ἠοῖαι’ Leipzig, 2004, pp.149-50, frg.10

and frg.11, which refer to Herakles as πονηρότατον καὶ ἄριστον, ‘a man profoundly afflicted by troubles

yet outstandingly noble’. Τhe hero himself vouches for his tribulations in Euripides Ἡρακλῆς 1353, ἀτὰρ

πόνων δὴ µυρίων ἐγευσάµην.

The Father then proceeds to compound his error by misinterpreting ἄριστον as well. Instead of taking it in

the moral sense which he has just given to πονηρός, he uses it to boast of his excellent physical condition.

Thus, his mental disorder appears beyond cure and his son gives up the unequal struggle.

οὐκ οἶσθα σὺ

We can be sure that there is no final sigma (cf. 4, οἶσθας) because the iambic metre requires that the final

iamb has short, open syllable before σύ, so the Father’s diction is correct.

195. ὑπογάστριον

The old man can speak properly but sometimes he has to grope for the right word. Here, a thing one eats

would have been a ὑπογαστρίδιον (e.g. Athenaios 3.113, λευκῶν ὑπογαστριδίων - “white pork-bellies”),

but what he means is a belly-punch, as he will later demonstrate (1384-5). The irony, of course, is that at

the moment he himself is a donkey’s ‘underbelly’. The joke works differently in English when one says

‘you could eat a knuckle-sandwich’.

ἡλιαστικοῦ

The name of the court should be printed without aspiration (ἠλιαστικοῦ), cf. 772. The adjective is formed

like ἐκκλησιαστικός and is similarly used of pay received for attendance (e.g. Νεφέλαι 863, ὃν πρῶτον

ὀβολὸν ἔλαβον ἠλιαστικόν - “the first obol I got from serving in the Eliaia”). So, Philkleon is not simply

saying ‘from an old jury-man’ (γέρων ἠλιαστής) but stating defiantly that he is “an elder, a member of the

Eliaia”.

The Eliaia is mentioned here and at 88 (φιληλιαστής) and forms the basis of a pun later (772). Pausanias

(1.28.8) says that among the Athenian courts, “the greatest and the one at which the greatest number <of

jurors> meet to deliberate is called the Heliaia” (τὸ δὲ µέγιστον καὶ ἐς ὃ <οἱ> πλεῖστοι συνίασιν Ἡλιαίαν

καλοῦσιν). Levi’s “most used” is not justified by the verb σύνειµι. Pausanias clearly considered the term

topographical, but this may be due to a misunderstanding on his part.

196. ὤθει τὸν ὄνον καὶ σαυτὸν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν

At this point, the Son has lost patience with his father’s antics and apparently orders him to “shove the ass

and your ass into the house.” My objection to this on the grounds that the donkey has no business being

in the house would cut no ice with those who believe that he had just been led out from there. But, there

may be some who share my doubt as to whether the Father could or would shove ‘himself’ back into the

house. It is logical for him to ‘let himself down’, ἵεις σαυτὸν κατὰ (355), but not to ‘pick himself up’ (cf.

996, ἔπαιρε σαυτόν). Besides, the comparable phrase, οὐκ ἀποδιώξει σαυτὸν - “won’t you drive yourself

away?” (Νεφέλαι 1296), is Elmsley’s misguided correction of the reading of the codices, οὐκ ἀποδιώξεις

αὐτὸν, which orders another slave to ‘drive him away’.

Apart from the physical impossibility of pushing himself inside, Philokleon might baulk at a new-minted

colloquialism, and it seems unlikely that he would meekly obey and lead the donkey back inside. Indeed,

the next line shows that he is under restraint and not about to go quietly, so perhaps we should address the

Son’s instructions to the two slaves in turn by apostrophizing σ(ὺ) before αὐτὸν. This splits the action into

two parts, i.e. one slave will “shove the donkey <back where he came from>” while the other will “shove

him (Philokleon) into the house” (cf. 199). Or, is this making the action too neat?

197. ἀµύνατε

The old man takes advantage of the fact that he is briefly outdoors to summon his fellow-jurors. Another

old man calls his fellow-demesmen for help in similar fashion in Νεφέλαι (1322-3). In both cases the call

is purely for dramatic effect as no one (except the audience) is within earshot and no help arrives.

198. [Ξανθίας]

I break with tradition here to assign this line to the slave. It seems to suit his stroppy character better than

the mild-mannered Son.

199-202.

The Son now sets the two slaves to work, rattling off a list of orders (while doing nothing himself). These

actions buy time for the Father to reach the upper storey for the next part of the scene.

199. πολλοὺς τῶν λίθων

His first order is for one of them to pile a lot of stones against the door. Presumably, he means the stones,

small cobbles or aggregate, covering the surface of the courtyard. But ‘many of the stones’ is not quite the

same as ‘many stones’. He might have been referring originally to πολλοὺς πλίνθους, perhaps? In records

of the temple of Demeter at Eleusis mention is made of unused building material which was kept stored to

make repairs when needed, and wood was likely too valuable for a householder to discard (cf. 148, 201).

The Son’s speech is notably alliterative. Was this possibly an allusion to the lamdacism of the upper-class

acolytes of Alkibiades?

200. τὴν βάλανον ἔµβαλλε

This instruction may be directed at Sosias who is locking up the donkey, but is more likely a reminder to

Xanthias to lock the house-door securely after depositing Philokleon inside. The instruction to “insert the

pin” is a double entendre (cf. 155). Most of the codices read ἔµβαλε, but the editor of the Aldine edition,

Musouros, saw that the form was both unmetrical and ungrammatical (cf. 204).

201. τῇ δοκῷ προσθεὶς

If one accepts the dative of the codices, then the ‘timber’ should probably be understood to mean the door

itself (MacDowell). But, based on the scholia, Dobree thought that we might read τὴν δόκον προσθεὶς as

a separate instruction to, “set a timber-beam against <the bar>”.

τὸν ὅλµον τὸν µέγαν

Hesychios defines an ὅλµος as “a circular stone of crystalline rock” (περιφερὴς λίθος µάρµαρος). It was

used for milling corn (and perhaps also for kneading dough cf. 238), so it probably stood beside the bake-

house. MacDowell, however, describes it as a ‘mortar’ and thinks that it would normally have been kept

indoors. Sommerstein agrees. But, this raises the question of how to reach it now the doors are secured.

At any rate, its purpose is to keep the timber-beam wedged tight against the bar of the door.

202. προσκύλισον

The reading of the codices, προσκύλιε, creates a hiatus, which the Aldine editor avoids by augmenting to

προσκύλιέ γ’. But, editors have preferred Cobet’s proposal to read προσκύλισον, even though they offer

no explanation as to how the mistake came about. The compound form προσ-κυλίω appears only in late

literature e.g. προσκυλίσας λίθον (κατὰ Ματθαῖον 27.60), where another round stone is used to block up

an entrance rather than an exit.

203-6.

Xanthias, who is nearest the house-door, suddenly finds himself soiled by what appear to be droppings

from a bird or small rodent. Ancient audiences found such minor mishaps highly amusing. In Νεφέλαι

(172-4), a gecko is said to have defecated in Sokrates’ mouth. Here, the Son insouciantly suggests that a

mouse was responsible, but Sosias spies the culprit, a kind of bird which haunts the house-eaves like a

swift or a swallow, though this one usually haunts the law-courts (though not exactly a ‘legal eagle’).

ἄνωθεν...ποθεν

The phrase “from somewhere up there” directs the audience’s attention to the top of the παρασκήνιον

where some part of the father’s anatomy has just appeared fleetingly. As the upper window is covered by

a net, the old man may have had to wriggle into the gap under the roof-tiles where the eaves overhang the

top of the outside wall.

205-6.

I have assigned these lines to the second slave, who would be in a position to see what has just occurred.

We may not see the old man’s head, as he has evidently just defecated on the slave. Apparently, his claim

to be about to explode (162) was not entirely unfounded.

τῶν κεραµίδων...ὀροφίας

Commentators have seen no inconsistency between these roof-tiles and the fact that Bdelykleon has just

been portrayed as lying asleep on the roof.

207. στροῦθος ἁνὴρ γίγνεται

What had been merely an element of a disquieting dream in line 49, takes on a disturbing reality. We had

been warned too that the old man could ‘hop it’ like a jackdaw (129), but now he seems on the point of

taking flight like a sparrow.

208. ἐκπτήσεται

The son is becoming paranoid. The old man is only trying to relieve himself, but his son suspects that he

is capable of giving them the slip by wizardry, even though logically there is no way down from the roof.

[The impasse is mirrored in Paul Simon’s ‘Save the life of my child’ with its heart-rending, matter-of-fact

ending “he flew away”.]

There are two reasons why the comic poet kept harping on the old-man’s bird-like behaviour (just as with

the ‘eagle’ Kleon and the ‘raven’ Theoros). One was the puerile tendency of upper class Athenians to use

birds’ names as nick-names for one another; a tendency Aristophanes would later push to the logical limit

in Ὄρνιθες. The other was a desire to parody the frequently-expressed wish of characters in Tragedy to be

turned into birds in order to escape physical or mental torment (e.g. Euripides Ἱππόλυτος 732 ff.).

209. σοῦ, σοῦ

The scaring tactics evidently succeed. Is this because the old man reacts like a bird, as MacDowell says,

or simply because he does not want an audience and hurriedly cuts short his business? I suspect we must

take a hint from the slave’s later comment (221-2) and suppose that he takes a practical course of action.

µοι κρεῖττον ἦν

The potential ἄν is omitted, but the meaning is “I would have been better off…” The admission perhaps

begs the question of how he himself has avoided active service. Perhaps, Kleon had called for volunteers

in which case ‘Bdely-Kleon’ would have been understandably reluctant to support him. Or we might take

his comment meta-theatrically, since comic-poets and actors seem to have enjoyed exemption from some

military service. In which case, one comic character is so exasperated by the behaviour of another that he

wishes he was not an actor! (cf. 150-1)

210. τηρεῖν Σκιώνην

In the winter of 422 B.C. an Athenian force under Kleon was still laying siege to Skione on the peninsula

of Chalkidike in an effort to prevent a contingent of Spartan ‘military advisors’ from sowing disaffection

among Athenian allies in the region (cf. 475).

211-3. [Ξανθίας]

Xanthias would quite like to get some sleep and hopes that the rest of the night will be quiet now that the

old man has been locked up again (cf. 5).

213. ὅσον ὅσον στίλην

The phrase is unparalleled, but it is thought to be a vernacular expression of ὅσον χρόνου στιγµήν - “for

just a moment”, as a poem in the Anthologia Palatina (7. 472) employs the phrase ὅσον ὅσσον στιγµή.

214. ὦ πόνηρ(ε)

As we heard earlier (cf. 192-3), the Son uses this adjective to characterize a person who is an ass; one for

whom thinking is hard work (πόνος) and hence, slow on the mental draw. ‘Sokrates’ addresses his slow-

witted pupil similarly in Νεφέλαι 687.

216. ὄρθρος βαθύς

Xanthias, who likes to get his sleep at night, expresses disbelief about the early arrival of the chorus-men,

because normally he would not have been awake to witness it. There is no inconsistency with his earlier

account of the old man’s nocturnal activity (104-5), as MacDowell claims, because Philokleon had waited

for the household to go to bed before slipping out πρῷ πάνυ.

The day has not yet dawned, but night is beginning to recede and the outline of Mount Hymettos shows

against a lightening sky. The adjective is used in temporal phrases to describe a ‘defining moment’, here

“the very break of day”. Cf. Plato Πρωταγόρας 310α, τῆς παρελθούσης νυκτὸς...ἔτι βαθέος ὄρθρου.

217-21.

The Son knows how old men like his father are unable to sleep for very long at night. Whereas nowadays

an aged parent will wake early and switch on the radio, the jurors are accustomed to go around humming

old songs as they set off for the courts. Evidently, the Son’s sleep too has often been disturbed as a result.

217. γοῦν...νῦν

Hall and Geldart print Kuster’s compromise between the reading of the codices (γὰρ...νῦν), and that of

the later fifteenth-century manuscripts and the Aldine edition (γοῦν...γε). Sommerstein and Henderson

prefer to follow Porson’s variation γ(ε) ἆρ(α)...νῦν.

220. ἀρχαῖα

It is not certain whether Aristophanes intended the first word to comprise part of his tortuous compound

(ἀρχαιοµελι-) as recent editors prefer to suppose. Some manuscripts write the second component as µελη

under the influence of the previous verse, but the poet must have meant µελι- (which is corroborated in

the Σοῦδα), as he speaks of Phrynichos’s sweetness of tone in Ὄρνιθες 748-50, ὡσπερεὶ µέλιττα Φρύνιχος

... φέρων γλυκεῖαν ᾠδάν. The third element evidently refers to a popular choral ode about Sidon from a

tragic-drama entitled Φοίνισσες. Aischylos’s Πέρσαι (472 B.C.), which is said to have been based on this

work, concerns the destruction of the Phoenician fleet off Salamis and the receipt of the news at its home

port. Phrynichos career had begun in the previous century and he seems not to have outlived his success.

222. τοῖς λίθοις

These must be the stones which were to be piled against the door, but the street is also strewn with loose

stones (cf. 247).

βαλλήσοµεν

This form of the future is unique to this play (cf. 1491, βαλλήσει). In the mouth of the slave it might be

meant to signify coarseness (cf. 83).

223-7.

The Son prepares us for the entry of the Chorus by warning the slave to be wary of the old men’s waspish

nature.

224. ὅµοιον σφηκιᾷ

The noun is used as an alternative to ἑσµός (cf. 1107) to mean a “swarm” of wasps. When the poet makes

specific reference to their ‘nests’ later, he employs the word ἀνθρήνια (1080).

225. κέντρον ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος

It is MacDowell’s contention, based on this passage, that the “costume (of the chorus) is adapted to make

them look like wasps” (see p. 11 of his introduction). He maintains that this phrase means that they have a

sting “coming out of their backs”. Sommerstein and Henderson appear to take the same view as both talk

of a “sting sticking out from their rumps”. However, as MacDowell himself points out, the members of

the Chorus are not actually wasps; they merely possess some similar characteristics. One does not need to

suppose that the costume of the Chorus incorporated some pointy protrusion from their lower backs, since

they already have a strap-on phallos ‘protruding from their loins’ or lower abdomen, where a real wasp’s

sting would be. The poet’s point is that, in contrast to the fully-functional, abdominal appendage of much

younger men, these superannuated old men are merely metaphorically ‘prick’-ly.

228-9. ἐὰν ἐγὼ λίθους ἔχω

The slave assures the Son that the old jurymen will not be able to get near their fellow-juror, as long as he

does not run out of stones. The personal pronoun perhaps points to an anxiety he shares with the old man

that the stones necessary to his purpose may be in short supply (cf. 109-10). The fact that he expects to be

able to drive the jurors off with a shower of stones demonstrates that they are men not wasps. But, clearly,

Bdelykleon is not entirely reassured because instead of going back to his bed on the roof he finds himself

a makeshift bed in the yard, while the slaves settle themselves by the door and are soon fast asleep again.

Entry of the Chorus (Πάροδος) 230-272

230-47.

The Chorus is comprised of old soldiers. Alhough too young to have fought in the battles which repelled

the Persian invaders, they perhaps saw service in the post-invasion campaigns of Kimon and Xanthippos

against various Persian trading-posts. Some of the names chosen by Aristophanes were real names, but

they mean little to us and were probably picked more for their significance.

Their first appearance on stage is comically pathetic. Age has humbled these old warriors, but yet they are

eager to remind us of their glory days. Sadly, the military exploit which comes most readily to mind is the

apparent theft of a kitchen utensil, plundered from the riches of Byzantion.

In the dark, swaddled in their cloaks, the members of the Chorus show little sign of waspish aggression. It

is only the reference to Laches’ ‘moneycomb’ and Kleon’s status as ‘(wasp)-keeper’ that remind us that

they are merely dormant for the present. Their movements are sluggish. They probably stumble and bump

into one another.

Originally, these introductory lines could have been assigned entirely to a single speaker; the leader of the

chorus. I have indicated how they might be distributed among the other members of the Chorus to enliven

the proceedings. This is purely personal caprice.

The use of iambic tetrameters here may be due, as MacDowell suggests, to the metre being suited to the

halting pace of senior citizens, since it is also employed for the aged choruses in Λυσιστράτη and Πλοῦτος.

230.

MacDowell notes the preponderance of long syllables and concludes that, “the metre helps to convey the

impression that the old men are walking slowly”.

ὦ Κωµία

I agree with Sommerstein that this name probably relates to κῶµος, the riotous band of revellers in which

Κωµ-ῳδία is held to originate. But, it is interesting to note the variant reading ὦ ἀκµία in one manuscript

(J) which suggests that Aristophanes may have written Ἀκµαῖε (‘in the prime of life’) to provide a comic

counterpoint to the verb βραδύνεις (‘progress slowly’).

231. ἱµὰς κύνειος

The suppleness of a ‘dog-leash’ is axiomatic of his youthful agility.

232. Χαρινάδης

Whoever Charinades was, he evidently had some mobility issues. As a wasp he was unlikely to have been

particularly obese, but he may have been handicapped by a limp or been sight-impaired. He gets a passing

mention in the following year’s Εἰρήνη (1155).

233. ὦ Στρυµόδωρε Κονθυλεῦ

The name Strymodoros is a reminder of Kimon’s destruction of Eïon in Thrace, the Persian stronghold on

the river Strymon, nearly half a century earlier (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς, 273 - τὴν Στρυµοδώρου Θρᾷτταν as well as

Λυσιστράτη 259). The mention of his deme appears to indicate that he was a real person and the accolade

“best of jurymen” points to his enthusiastic participation in trials. Perhaps we are meant to see in him the

typical old juror that Aristophanes is satirizing in the character of Philokleon.

234.

The chorus-leader looks around to try to find two of the group who are lagging behind. I do not agree

with MacDowell that we have to assume that they are dead.

Χάβης ὁ Φλυεύς

Although Sommerstein came across the name Χάβας in a Tanagraian inscription, Χάβης occurs nowhere

else. It might therefore be worth considering the variant Χάρης found in one manuscript (J) cf. 230, note.

It is a name, mentioned by Dikaiopolis (Ἀχαρνεῖς 604), of an Athenian commander who had been serving

on campaign in 425 B.C.

The deme of Phlya lay outside the city itself to the North-East, in what is now the suburb of Χαλανδρι.

The noble clan of the Lykomidai held their religious gatherings at a τελεστήριον there. This building had

been restored in the 470’s after the Persian destruction. Since the restoration and decoration were funded

by Themistokles (cf. Plutarch Θεµιστοκλῆς 1.3), the architect of Athenian naval power, it may have been

decorated with scenes from the naval victory off Salamis. Chabes (or Chares) may have been chosen as a

person old enough to have served in the navy, back in the day.

236. ἐν Βυζαντίῳ

The recollection of service at Byzantion could be a reference to the actual siege c. 469 B.C. (cf. 354). The

later garrisoning of the city in 441-40 would have been too recent for these veterans (cf. Νεφέλαι 249 n.).

237. φρουροῦντ(ε)...περιπατοῦντε νύκτωρ

The two young marines were “on guard duty…carrying out night-patrols”. Similar youthful braggadocio

among the rank and file on guard in Cyzikos is satirized by Eupolis in Πόλεις (frg. 247).

238. τῆς ἀρτοπώλιδος...τὸν ὅλµον

The previous ὅλµος (201) was a ‘grinding-stone’, too heavy to lift. But this one can be carried away with

ease and, as the next line implies, must be made of wood since it could be broken up for firewood to cook

something. But, there is more to this escapade than meets the eye, because this ‘kneading trough’ belongs

to a woman. Whenever any grinding, kneading or pounding occurs in comic-drama one must suspect that

the utensils employed are surrogates for sexual activity. In Νεφέλαι (669-80), ‘Sokrates’ has to point out

to his elderly pupil that the gender of a ‘kneading trough’ (κάρδοπος) is actually feminine, so that if the

politician Kleonymos ‘grinds his barley-corns’ in one, his own gender is brought into question

The bread-seller, as we shall learn later (1388 ff.), was a woman who baked bread for sale on the streets.

Wandering the streets alone at all hours made her the subject of gossip and Aristophanes is quite willing

to shred her reputation to make coarse word-play. Here, the young men have ‘stolen her grinder-thing on

the sly’. The meaning of the participle λαθόντε is ambiguous here. It appears to mean that the ὅλµος was

taken ‘without her noticing’, but the subliminal message is that it was stolen ‘without anyone noticing’

239. τοῦ κορκόρου

Perhaps, there was some point to having the soldiers eat κόρκορος -‘blue pimpernel’ (anagallis foimina),

but frankly we do not know what that could have been. Was Aristophanes indicating that they were close

to starvation and reduced to eating wild-flowers? If that was the case, then the baker’s wife had no need

of her kneading-trough anyway. Did it require cooking over a fire, for MacDowell has them making “a

kind of porridge out of pimpernel seeds.”? Did the plant perhaps have medicinal properties? (When all is

said and done, why did Aristophanes not take the trouble to provide a glossary?) It seems most unlikely

that we have understood the text correctly, if we are left to guess wildly. My own wild guess would be

that an onomatopoeic word κοκκoρού might have preceded the contemporary usage κόκκορας (‘cockerel’) of

Modern Greek, so that the young men were ‘splitting apart her ὅλµος to cook some cock’. The genitive should be

taken as partitive to mean “a bit of…”

κατασχίσαντες

The verb is indicative of violence. Cf. Βάτραχοι 404-6 κατεσχίσω...τὸ σανδαλίσκον καὶ τὸ ῥάκος, “you

tore to shreds this dainty sandal and flimsy garment”; Xenophon uses it of ‘breaking down doors’. Thus,

whereas the men are thought to be claiming that they ‘chopped up completely’ the (wooden) kneading-

trough, they are actually letting it be known that they ‘tore apart’ the woman’s ὅλµον (i.e. she probably

resisted the rape).

240. ἔσται Λάχητι νυνί

The expression “it will be for Laches forthwith” can probably be taken to mean that ‘he will have his day

in court’, though the syntax is unusual. We must suppose that the phrase is an abbreviation of ἔσται <περὶ

τιµωρίας> Λάχητι νυνί - “it’s going to be pay-back time for Laches right now”. This may not be entirely

satisfactory, but it is not evidently implausible, as Wilson says (p. 83). He believes that the text is at fault

and proposes emending ἔσται to ἧπται (“Laches has been attacked”). He may be half-right.

Laches, son of Melanopos, was a prominent figure in Athenian politics at this time. He is mentioned by

Thucydides on a number of occasions and Plato gave him a central role in his eponymous dialogue. The

latter states (186c) that he was older than Sokrates (born 469), so he would have been in his mid-forties

perhaps when he assumed joint command of the first Athenian fleet sent to Sicily in 427 (cf.Thuc. 3.86).

Though a capable military commander, his forte seems to have been diplomacy. He had moved for a truce

with the Peloponnesians and negotiated first the armistice (Thuc. 5.19) and later the alliance (Thuc. 5.24),

to which he was one of the signatories. His influence and prominence were resented by Alkibiades (Thuc.

5.43), whose rise to power would have been aided by Laches’ death in battle in 418 (cf. 81-2, note).

242. ἐν ὥρᾳ

Anyone turning up late would be excluded by the court officials and would forfeit his daily fee (cf. 689-

90).

243. ὀργὴν...πονηρὰν

Just as soldiers called up to join a military expedition were expected to bring with them food sufficient for

three days (cf. Εἰρήνη 312), so the jurors were told to turn up with a supply of “grievous indignation” that

would serve to condemn the defendant. This does not mean, of course, that the trial was actually expected

to last for three days. Aristophanes attributes the vindictiveness of the jurors to a feeling of moral outrage,

instilled in them by the ruthless prosecutors. His claim is corroborated by an extant speech, in which the

prosecutor accuses the jury of insufficient outrage (Lykourgos κατὰ Λεωκράτη 27, ἥκιστα...ὀργισµένοι).

The poet will speak later (1030) of his own ‘Herculean sense of outrage’ against malicious prosecutors!

245. σπεύδωµεν

Hall and Geldart print the present subjunctive (J), while MacDowell supports the principal codices (RV),

which have the aorist subjunctive σπεύσωµεν. His argument, that the present, used in 240 and 246, would

hardly be deliberately altered to an aorist, is accepted by Sommerstein and Henderson. But, one could as

easily argue for the consistency of present tenses on grounds of accidental alteration. The present tense, it

seems to me, is used to express the potential rather than imminent movement, i.e. “let’s be getting a move

on” rather than “let’s move”. One may compare Strepsiades’ instruction to his slave to “get on and light a

lamp” (Νεφέλαι 18, ἅπτε...λύχνον) where ἅψον would be metrically sound.

247. λίθος τις

There is a variant reading λαθών τις to which MacDowell accords rather more space than it merits, since

it occurs in good manuscripts (RJ). The old man warns his companions to use their lamps to watch their

step, because rocks litter the unmade street and the old-timers could come a cropper as they shuffle along.

The alternative, the aorist participle of λανθάνω, reversing its usual sense, is said to mean ‘one who has

escaped notice’, e.g. (in this situation) ‘a mugger’. But, while stones have featured in the prologue already

and will continue to do so (cf. 275, 280), highway robbery has not been their concern. After all, until they

have been paid, the jurors have only their cloaks worth stealing and, in any case, the danger posed to each

of them individually by an undetected stone outweighs any possible threat to them collectively by a single

robber. Even if their lamps were to reveal a putative footpad, there would be little any one of them could

do. Since they could not run away, they would rely on their combined strength in numbers to deter him.

248. παῖς

The Chorus is accompanied by some young boys, traditionally referred to as the sons of the old men. This

strains credibility, because the sons would be co-evals of Bdelykleon and therefore of military age so that

many would be away on campaign. The boys are therefore grandchildren or great-nephews, just reaching

puberty. They may even be child-slaves, raised in the household as a future investment (but one creating a

present financial burden). The word παῖς can be a source of misunderstanding leading to misattribution of

speaking parts (e.g. Euripides Ἱππόλυτος 107, ὦ παῖ) or confused genealogy (cf. Euripides Ἱππόλυτος 534,

where Eros is referred to as ὁ ∆ιὸς παῖς; not a claim of paternity, but a statement of his august ancestry).

[ὤ.]

MacDowell reinstated this cry of surprise which earlier editors had deleted. It is extra versum (cf. 314).

τὸν πηλόν...φύλαξαι

There was a proverbial saying, αἴρειν ἔξω πόδα πηλοῦ (Σοῦδα) - “to lift one’s foot out of the mud”, i.e. to

keep out of trouble. This passage makes clear to us that it was the product of daily experience whenever it

rained on the mainly unmade roads of ancient Athens.

249. κάρφος...λαβὼν

The rough sense of this line is clear. Since the Chorus cannot see well enough to avoid the pitfalls of the

unmade street, they call for the boys to provide more light by extending the lamp-wicks marginally. But,

if they overdo it the lamps will burn the oil more quickly, so the cost-conscious old jurymen suggest that

a small wood-splinter be employed for the delicate operation.

λύχνον πρόµυξον

Recent editors have followed MacDowell in restoring πρόβυσον, the reading of the codices, which agrees

with the infinitive of the following line. But, it is far from certain that the same verb was intended in both

lines. Although Macdowell has marshalled the evidence expertly, he (like many before him) has given the

poet too little credit for subtlety. Instead of simply repeating the same phrase, Aristophanes would surely

have squeezed every potential drop of humour from his lines, and the dialogue may be more nuanced than

is generally thought. It is normally suggested that the reading of the codices can be translated as, “to push

up the wick of a lamp”. But, the compound verb προβύω occurs nowhere in any extant literary context, so

that we have had to rely on the explanation given by the second-century A.D. Atticist Phrynichos (in Κωµ.

ἀδέσποτα 644) who says that the phrase προβῦσαι φορτικὸν γέλωτα meant ‘getting a cheap laugh’ in the

manner of ‘pushing out <a lamp-wick>’. However, since the word ‘lamp-wick’ has to be supplied, he has

quite possibly drawn his own inference from the verb’s occurrence in the following line.

An alternative reading has been suggested by Scaliger (and adopted by Hall and Geldart) which is drawn

from a scholion in the Ravenna codex, προµύξον, ἐκ τῆς µύξης προάγαγε, “<the imperative> προµύξον

<means> bring forward out of the lamp-oil”. MacDowell takes the scholion to be a gloss on τὸν λύχνον

πρόβυσον, and assumes that προµύξον is added merely as a synonym, though one which in this case, is

just as obscure as the word it seeks to explain. He claims support for this interpretation from a comment

of the grammarian Polydeukes who states (6.103), τὸ δὲ πρόµυξον «τὸν λύχνον πρόβυσον» λέγουσιν -

“<classical writers use> τὸν λύχνον πρόβυσον for πρόµυξον”. But, the Roman grammarian is probably

passing comment on the present passage, in which case it could actually imply that πρόµυξον was in the

original text and that τὸν λύχνον πρόβυσον was interpolated as a gloss. I would go so far as to speculate

that the text was originally τοῦ λύχνου πρόµυξον.

What then, is the chorus-leader telling the boy? Notionally, the imperative πρόµυξον derives from a verb

προµύσσω, but if such a verb was actually in use, we are not meant to draw sense from it here, since the

scholiast has explained that the real root is µύξη. This does not actually mean ‘lamp-wick’, as our lexicon

says, or at least not a lamp-wick per se, as its primary sense was ‘mucous’. This was in fact the term used

in everyday speech to describe the green slime left after higher-grade olive oil had been decanted, which,

since it was unsuitable as foodstuff served as low-grade lamp-oil. [In Modern Greek a loan-word γλίτσα

or γλίντζα plays the same double role.] Another word, µυκτήρ, was similarly used by the comic-poets to

colour their language and could denote either a ‘nostril’ (cf. 1488), or a ‘nozzle’ when applied to a lamp

(cf. Ἐκκλησιάζουσαι 5). Thus, Aristophanes has possibly devised the verb himself to suggest that the boy

use a bit of wood ‘to extrude a tiny portion of the slime-covered wick from the lamp’s nozzle (like snot

from a nostril)’.

250. τῳδί…προβύσειν

Editors who (with MacDowell) have read <τὸν λύχνον> πρόβυσον in the previous line are content to read

<τὸν λύχνον> προβύσειν here. In both lines the phrase is understood to mean “push forward the <wick of

the> lamp” and translated as “trim the lamp”. An alternative proposed by Florent Chrestien was to derive

the infinitive προµύσσειν from the scholiast’s πρόµυξον, but as MacDowell points out, the Attic form of

the verb would surely have been προµύττειν. Moreover, the reading of the Aldine edition, προβύσσειν, is

more likely to be a simple typo for προβύσειν (not an attempt to read προµύσσειν). In any case, it may be

doubted that the verb προµύσσειν was ever used in the sense required of it here.

The old man’s instruction conveyed a rather revolting image which was intended to be funny in itself and

the boy’s reply provides a verbal echo of the phrase. But, only in sound, for his meaning is quite different.

Whereas the old man emphasised the verb, the boy’s similar-sounding phrase seems to lay more stress on

the lamp he is holding, so that his intention is “to boost the lamp with this…” suggesting that he can make

use of a hand for the job and we find that the lamp has suddenly taken on an altogether different meaning.

251. τί δὴ µαθὼν

This idiomatic phrase is commonly used where one might say in English ‘where did you learn to…?’, e.g.

Ἀχαρνεῖς 826, τί δὴ µαθὼν φαίνεις ἄνευ θρυαλλίδος; - “where do you get off shining light without having

a lamp-wick?” [n.b. In Νεφέλαι 1506, I read τί γὰρ παθόντες τοὺς θεοὺς ὑβρίζετε; - “why did you want to

go and start affronting the gods then?” in preference to the reading of the codices, τί γὰρ µαθόντες…]

When, the boy suggests that he can use his finger ‘to boost the lamp’ the old-man worries that he will not

be sparing with “the wick”. In Old Comedy, the poets could rarely see a piece of rope without feeling the

urge to urinate or copulate. In this case, a lamp-wick is the juvenile equivalent of adult rope (cf. 1342-3).

There are similar jokes in Νεφέλαι (56-9) where a lamp has run out of oil quickly because a thick wick is

used and in Ἀχαρνεῖς (just cited) where a sycophant is said to be ‘wick-less’.

252. τοῦ (ἐ)λαίου σπανίζοντος

The Peloponnesians had made a point of cutting down olive trees whenever they invaded and new-planted

trees took several years to fruit, so although a temporary peace had been signed there was still a shortage

of olive-oil. By the time the play was staged the olive harvest would have been gathered in and the olives

pressed, if sufficient labour had been available, so this comment can be taken to show that the results had

disappointed hopes.

253. οὐ...δάκνει σ(ε)

He resents the child’s irresponsible attitude to a matter which ‘hurts his pocket’. In Νεφέλαι, another old

man is similarly irritated because he is ‘being bitten all over by expenses’ (δακνόµενος ὑπὸ τῆς δαπάνης,

12-3). For the use of the verb as ‘to suffer pain’, see also 375 and note.

254-7.

The boy fears that the old man is about to give him a ‘knuckle-sandwich’ and warily begins to back away

(cf. Νεφέλαι 56-9, where similar threats prove comically ineffectual against an agile slave). He then issues

a counter-threat of his own which proves persuasive. The verb νουθετῶ can be taken in the sense ‘to give

someone a piece of one’s mind’.

257. ὥσπερ ἀτταγᾶς

The back-streets of Athens in winter are compared to swamps, which only a marsh-bird could negotiate.

It is usual to translate ἀτταγᾶς as a francolin, a member of the patridge family frequenting moorland, not

marshes. But, whatever it was, the bird is not only suited to the muddy conditions of Athenian streets in

winter but well-used to darkness, since a popular saying recollected that the ἀτταγᾶς keeps company with

the νουµήνιος, a bird which was identified with the new moon (cf. Diogenes Laërtios 9.114).

258. (καὶ ἑ)τέρους µείζονας κολάζω

The juryman tries to save face by pointing out his legal authority to ‘chastise’ those in high positions (cf.

406).

259. οὑτοσί...βόρβορος

The old man is suddenly aware that he has just trodden in something, and whatever it is, it’s not mud! The

distinction between ‘mud’ (πηλός) and βόρβορος is drawn with humour by Loukianos (Προµ. Ἐς, 1) and

Hesychios leaves no doubt with his definition of βόρβορος as, ὀχετὸς δυσώδης - “a malodorous sewer”.

The boy had earlier warned the old man to watch out for the mud (248) and then told him he would risk

wallowing in it if he was left in the dark (257). We may suppose therefore, that he has reached the place

underneath the eaves where Philokleon has recently defecated.

Hermann’s µάρµαρος supposes that the man has stubbed his toe on a piece of sculpted stone of some sort,

but its only support is the reading of the Venetus where the copyist wrote βάρβαρος in error as a result of

the poor lighting in his bibliotheca. The error is compounded in Ἀχαρνεῖς 172, despite the explicit nature

of the βόρβορον there.

260-1.

The man’s unfortunate accident is seized upon by one of his fellow-jurors as an omen…of the weather!

[For a modern reaction cf. the actor Michael Caine’s autobiography ‘An Elephant to Hollywood’ (2010)

p.22.] One might compare a piece of weather-lore provided by Herodotos (2.22), ἐπὶ δὲ χιόνι πεσούσῃ

πᾶσα ἀνάγκη ἐστὶ ὗσαι ἐν πέντε ἡµέρῃσι - “invariably there is bound to be rain within five days of a

snow-fall”. The most obviously amusing aspect of the lines is the literal reference to the rain-god, Zeus,

having to make (or as we would say “pass”) water; a vernacular expression which would resonate in the

minds of the elderly especially (cf. Νεφέλαι 373). In such expressions it is not even necessary to refer to

Zeus by name (cf. Εἰρήνη 1141, τὸν θεὸν δ’ ἐπιψακάζειν - “the god sprays over <the planted seeds>”).

262. τοῖσιν λύχνοις οὑτοιὶ µύκητες

The so-called ‘fungus’ refers to the sooty deposit called candle-snuff which forms on wicks. Kallimachos

refers to the glowing soot on a wick (Ἑκάλη frg. 269, ὁππότε λύχνου δαιοµένου πυρόεντες ἄδην ἐγένοντο

µύκητες), which according to ancient weather-lore presaged stormy weather. Virgil (Georgicon 1.390-2)

also refers to girls carding wool by lamplight “et putris concrescere fungos”.

The emphasis of οὑτοιὶ seems misplaced. Why would the old man refer to “this snuff here” on the lamps,

when he is not holding a lamp himself? Hermann, in fact, drew the inference that the line must be spoken

by one of the boys. But, since the remark is only significant if it is being made by one of the old men, it is

reasonable to suppose that he would be speaking about signs of damp on the lamps generally. Therefore,

although the codices are agreed on the deictic pronoun, it might make better sense to read τοῖσιν λύχνοις

αὐτοῖσι µύκητες - “fungal growth on the very lamps…” But, the remark might have been intended for a

different purpose. According to Hesychios, the word µύκης (‘fungus’ or ‘mushroom’) was used to make

fun of a small penis by Archilochos (a usage imitated recently by Stormy Daniels). So the old man could

be hinting that the wicks of the elderly jurors are growing mouldy (cf. 1343, σαπρὸν τὸν σχοινίον). [Why

does Dick Mushroom show up at every party? Answer: because he’s a fun guy.]

263. ὅταν τοῦτ(ο) ᾖ

Hall and Geldart have adopted the view of Florent Chrestien over the reading ὅταν ᾖ τοῦτὶ of the codices.

264-5. τῶν καρπίµων...πρῷα

As MacDowell comments, “The old man rambles on into irrelevance” and this is precisely why the lines

were expected to amuse the spectators. It is typical of old men to sit around exercising their tongues, often

with little intervention from their brains (cf. 1360). The weather is a perennial source of interest for them,

both because it is so hard to predict and because accurate prediction is so essential in agrarian economies.

The speaker is apparently providing a piece of weather-lore which the audience would appreciate, namely

that in order to be fruitful crops require the action of rain and wind. But, he qualifies this by suggesting

that these very same elements could be damaging to crops which have come on too early. Clearly there is

some innuendo lurking behind these meteorological observations, but no-one has yet explained exactly

what it is. At any rate, the poet seems to have revisited the idea in Λήµνιαι (frg. 389).

MacDowell suggests that the unseasonableness of the remarks was the source of humour, but a drought in

winter could be catastrophic when there are limited means of artificial watering. The role of the the north

wind was also critical. In Attika, northerlies bring clear skies and cooler temperatures. The rainless north

wind, colloquially known as the ξεροβόρι, can dramatically lower the temperature and blast winter crops,

while in summer the µελτέµι can blow furiously with equally devastating results. One need not infer that

the old-juryman has lost track of the season, or assume that Aristophanes “is indifferent to consistency in

such matters” (Sommerstein). The point that the poet is making seems to be that many of the jurors are in

fact former farmers, who still have one eye on the weather even though War and Infirmity have confined

them to city-streets.

265. κα(ὶ ἐ)πιπνεῦσαι βόρειον αὐτοῖς

MacDowell takes the prefix here in a temporal sense as, “to blow afterwards” (based on a unique instance

in Aristotle Προβλήµατα 945b1), leaving the pronoun as incidental (“for them”). But, it seems more likely

that the prefix would have been intended to govern the pronoun and relate to the action of the wind on the

crops. In which case, Herodotos’s use of the compound verb with a dative pronoun suggests that the sense

given would have been rather different. In his narrative (3.26.3) the meaning is patent, αὐτοῖσι ἐπιπνεῦσαι

νότον µέγαν τε καὶ ἐξαίσιον - “an extremely strong southerly blew down upon them”, but this is not really

suitable here, since all that the crops require is a northerly wind to “blow over” them. Consequently, one

probably ought to emend to αὐτούς (cf. Loukianos Χαρίδηµος 1).

The old man knows that crops need moisture to grow, but also that incessant rain could ruin them. Only if

they were blow-dried by the winds would they ripen fully. The idea of fructifying winds was preserved in

the Roman heirs of Attic literature, e.g. Loukianos refers to, τοὺς Ἀνέµους φυτουργοῦντας - “Winds that

tend the plants” (∆ὶς κατηγ. 1) and Ovid (Fasti 5.195ff) has transmitted the myth of Zephyros turning the

immature Chloris (Χλοή), into blossoming Flora [probably the very scene depicted in Sandro Botticelli’s

famous Primavera]. For a similar piece of weather-lore, see Pherekrates (frg. 24), where someone makes

a plea (presumably to Zeus) for snow (borne on the north wind) to help crops to become firmly-rooted.

266-72.

The elderly jurors of the Chorus have arrived at the door of Philkleon’s house. They customarily call for

him on their way to the court and the chorus-leader is surprised that he is not outside already waiting for

their arrival, because they are later than usual (218). But, as we were told earlier (103-4), he occasionally

goes on ahead in his eagerness.

S. Srebrny (1960) has proposed postponing these lines, together with the choral song which follows (273-

89), until after line 316. MacDowell is inclined to keep an open mind on the possibility, but I can find no

compelling reason for the transposition. He finds it odd that the chorus-leader decides to move on before

getting an answer from Philokleon, but the instruction to the boy (290) may not be an order to proceed.

Also, it seems unlikely on metrical grounds that this passage would be divorced from the preceding lines

As Griffith has written, “It is most improbable that the poet would revert to seven lines of the uncommon

syncopated iambic tetrameters after the ionics of 290-316”.

267. πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος

The word chosen to describe the chorus seems to exaggerate their numbers for comic effect (cf.1010). It

may be a further example, perhaps, of the old men’s sense of self-importance. It may, on the other hand,

be a nod to the mass of spectators, shattering the ‘fourth wall’.

268. οὐ µὴν πρὸ τοῦ γ(ε)...ἦν

The text reads well enough, “He decidedly was not…in time past, at any rate”. But, a better balance could

be struck with the following clause by reading οὐκ ἦν πρὸ τοῦ γ’...ἄν - “he would not have been… etc.”

(cf. Νεφέλαι 5, οὐκ ἂν πρὸ τοῦ, where the verb is dropped altogether).

269. ἡγεῖτ(ο) ἂν ᾄδων Φρυνίχου

Coming after πρῶτος ἡµῶν, ἡγεῖσθαι appears pleonastic, but could pass muster in the sense of ‘he used to

take the lead first’. But this is not far off saying πρῶτος ἤρξατο, in which case one expects ᾄδειν not ᾄδων

(e.g. Νεφέλαι 1353, πρῶτον ἠρξάµεσθα λοιδορεῖσθαι). Then too, the participle leaves us with an elliptical

phrase, which can only mean ‘singing <a piece by> Phrynichos’. This is a possibility, although the phrase

used later, ᾄδω…Ἁρµοδίου (1225), suggests that this would mean ‘singing a song about Phrynichos’. One

could, however, avoid ambiguity by replacing the participle ᾄδων with the missing noun, ἡγεῖτ’ ἂν ᾠδῶν

Φρυνίχου - “he would be the first among us to take the lead in songs of Phrynichos” (as the verb requires

a genitive, e.g. Ὀδύσσεια 23.133-4, θεῖος ἀοιδὸς...ἡµῖν ἡγείσθω...ὀρχηθµοῖο - “let the inspired bard lead

us in a dance-song”).

The chorus-leader confirms the Son’s words earlier (220), which are not only indicative of the jurors’ age,

but also probably prepare the audience for a parody of Phrynichos’s’old-time style in the following song.

270-2.

Although he speaks in the first person singular, he is speaking for the Chorus as a whole. Tragic-choruses

would often use the singular for plural in this way.

272. ἑρπύσῃ

The verb is used of old people walking with difficulty (cf. 552). The Chorus suspects that illness or injury

may have added to his mobility problem. See also προσέρπω 1509, 1531.

Choral Song (ᾨδή) 273-315

273-80.

His fellow-jurors are puzzled by Philokleon’s non-appearance and speculate on possible causes. The first

part of the song may involve miming the actions, according to one interpretation of line 279. The metre is

doubtful and provides a dubious criterion for establishing the veracity of the text. “Beginners had better

not trouble with its analysis”, is MacDowell’s sound advice.

273. πρὸ θυρῶν

Earlier a slave had been told to pile stones πρὸς τὴν θύραν (198-9). The use of the plural here is idiomatic

(as we say ‘outdoors’) and does not imply that the house has double doors (cf. Sophokles Ἠλέκτρα 108-9,

τῶνδε πατρῴων πρὸ θυρῶν - “at this, my father’s door”). The plural ἐπὶ ταῖσι θύραις (362) refers to more

than one door.

274. οὐδ(ὲ) ὑπακούει

The verb is used of ‘answering’ a knock on the door (cf. Plato Κρίτων 43α).

275. προσέκοψ(ε) ἐν τῷ σκότῳ

The manuscripts read προσέκοψε(ν) τῷ σκότῳ, which is satisfactory, although Bentley thought that the

phrase would be better written with a preposition, as in English (cf. 911).

277. βουβωνιῴη

The verb is an extension of the noun βουβών (‘a swollen lymph node’) which gives us our medical term

‘bubonic’. But, the idea that stubbing one’s toe, or too much walking (Λυσιστράτη 987-8) could lead to a

swelling in the groin’ or ‘a swollen bladder’ (Βάτραχοι 1280), was a comic conception. Here, the humour

lies simply in the accidental proximity of ambiguous words, δάκτυλον, a toe or finger: σφυρὸν, ankle or

hammer: βουβωνιῴη, a swelling (esp. in the groin), cf. Pherekrates frg. 28, µέχρι βουβώνων - “up to the

groin”.

278. ἂν ἐπείθετ(ο)

Given Aristophanes’ fondness for the compound verb in this play (cf. 101, 116, 568, 586), MacDowell is

certainly right in reading ἀνεπείθετ(ο) here.

279. κάτω κύπτων ἂν οὕτω

Either the phrase is elliptical, so that one must understand a main verb e.g. δράσειε - “lowering his head

(like a goat about to butt) he would do this”, in which case presumably they imitate the goat’s action. Or,

if one prefers to see ἂν as frequentative with ἔλεγεν then οὕτω must belong with it, i.e. “he used to speak

thus”. I do not think one can have it both ways as MacDowell suggests.

280. λίθον ἕψεις

“Boiling a stone (to make soup)” was tantamount to saying ‘you’re wasting your time’.

281. χθιζινὸν

The codices read χθεσινὸν here, which Hermann proposed emending to χθιζινὸν οn metrical grounds, and

although MacDowell argues that the form χθεσινóς is known to have been used by Aristophanes (as noted

by the grammarian Phrynichos, Ἐκλογή 295), the likelihood is that it was used in a non-lyrical passage we

no longer possess. Indeed, C.A. Lobeck, the editor of Phrynichus, offered the correspoding emendment of

χθεσινὸν to χθιζινὸν in Βάτραχοι (987). Austin and Sommerstein are among the supporters of emendation.

283. τἀν Σάµῳ πρῶτος κατείποι.

The ancient scholia tell us that the man “who first informed on (τὰ ἐν Σάµῳ) the situation at Samos” was

a certain Karystion. In recognition of his warning about the islander’s impending revolt against Athenian

hegemony, he was given citizenship. But, this was many years ago now (440 B.C.) and is only mentioned

because he had recently been impeached and pleaded his earlier services in exoneration.

284. κεῖται πυρέττων

It would have been easy for the jurors, sitting in the chilly, cramped conditions of the court-room for long

hours during wintertime, to catch any flu bug going. But they imagine that if he is confined to his bed, the

real cause of his fever will have been the sight of a defendant getting off. Unlike the facetious excuses of

mislaying his shoes or stubbing his toe that they first thought of, a fever would be a real obstacle to daily

attendance and result in loss of income (cf. 813).

286-7. µηδὲ...σεαυτὸν ἔσθιε

This expression is usually taken to correlate with the phrase δάκνων σεαυτὸν (778) which is used to mean

that someone is ‘becoming irritable’ (cf. 1083, τὴν χελύνην ἐσθίων). But, here, the Chorus is not trying to

mollify him (he is a wasp after all and so naturally irritable), instead they are telling him not to fret over a

defendant who got off.

288. ἀνὴρ παχὺς

As one of the wealthy elite (like Laches, cf. 241) the man was a ‘fat cat’, but may have been ‘fat’ as well,

since in Εἰρήνη (639) we hear of τοὺς παχεῖς καὶ πλουσίους.

τῶν προδόντων

Whenever politicians choose to pursue an aggressive foreign policy they will often try to deflect criticism

by branding their opponents as ‘traitors’. It appears that someone had had the temerity to oppose Kleon’s

campaign against the defectors in Skione and Mende. Though we cannot identify the individual who bore

the brunt of Kleon’s ire, it is most likely that the audience would have recognised him at once. It has been

suggested by Mastromarco (1979) that this is another reference to Laches, whom Kleon had had arraigned

for allegedly accepting bribes (240-1). Alternatively, it may have been a reference to the failure of Eukles

and Thucydides to hold Amphipolis.

290. ὕπαγε

It appears from this command that the Chorus, having achieved nothing with their singing, now decide to

continue on their way. Would they not first try knocking at the door? After all, they have already risked

waking the household with their serenade of Philokleon.

“Lead on!” or “Forward!” are certainly natural and suitable ways of translating the imperative here, but it

also has a legal use, ‘to impeach’ or ‘bring before the court’. It may be, therefore, that the chorus-leader is

adopting courtroom diction and instructing the boy in legalese to call out to their missing comrade. If this

is the case, we no longer need question the sequence of lines as Srebrny proposed.

291-2. ὦ πάτερ

The young (slave) boy uses a respectful form of address to an elderly man (cf. 556).

295-6. ἀστραγάλους

These are the small bones of the vertebrae (esp. in the neck), wrist or knuckle, or ankle (exclusively so in

modern, demotic Greek). Due to their small size these animal bones (cf. Eupolis frg. 47) could be used in

a childish pastime resembling our ‘jacks’ (cf. Plato Ἀλκιβιάδης Ι. 110β). But, they were essentially objets

trouvés; not so much cheap, as worthless. Consequently, the boy is most probably asking for a thing that

was ἀστραγαλώδες, possibly roasted chick-peas (colloquially-known as τά στραγάλια in current Greek),

which were normally called ἐρεβίνθοι before roasting. These could be considered an ancient equivalent of

chewing gum and as comestibles would have had some pecuniary value, albeit rather small.

There may be a double-entendre intended, since Aristophanes elsewhere (Βάτραχοι 545) gives an obscene

sense to ἐρέβινθος and the child’s reply here suggests as much (cf. 302)

297-8. ἰσχάδας

In summer, when figs (σῦκα) were on the trees, the boys could steal them for themselves. But through the

rest of the year they would have to look to others to supply them with “sun-dried figs”. Sun-dried grapes,

what we now call currants (from Corinth) and figs would have been important constituents of the winter

diet.

ὦ παπία

Bentley’s orthographic improvement ὦ παππία was considered unnecessary by MacDowell, but I agree

with Sommerstein that it is worth adopting, if only to help us remember that the first syllable scans long.

οὐκ ἄν, µὰ ∆ί(α), εἰ...

Here we can supply πριαίµην, “I wouldn’t <buy you figs>, not if…” For a similar ellipse cf. Νεφέλαι 108,

οὐκ ἄν, µὰ τὸν ∆ιόνυσον, εἰ δοίης γέ µοι… - “I wouldn’t <become a student>, not if you gave me…”

κρέµαισθέ

Hall and Geldart print Dobree’s correction of κρέµεσθε (V) and κρέµοισθέ (RJ). The chorus-leader adopts

the plural when he realizes that what one boy gets the others will want. Were the boys to threaten to hang

themselves, he might not be too bothered, except for the fact that it would surely get him into trouble with

the boys’ mothers.

299. προπέµψω

The verb probably contains the sarcastic implication of leading a funeral cortege. Cf. προποµποί, used by

Aischylos to describe women conducting the funeral of Polyneikes (Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας 1074); προποµπός is

also used of Hermes leading the dead to the underworld.

300. µισθαρίου

The old man reflects on the pitifully “small recompense” he receives for jury-service, cf. Phrynichos (frg.

70), τριώβολόν γ’ ὅσουπερ ἠλιάζοµαι - “three obols, precisely the amount I get for jury-service”, a paltry

sum, just enough to buy a pigeon for dinner according to another line (frg. 53).

301. ἄλφιτα...κὤψον

His meager income has to cover “barley-corns”, the staple of the ordinary citizen’s diet; “fire-wood” with

which to heat the home and cook food; and “something to taste” (καὶ ὄψον), some ingredient that gave the

everyday meal that bit extra, like the filling in a sandwich.

302. σῦκα

In Roman imperial times, asking for figs in wintertime was axiomatic of ‘wanting what you can’t have’. It

will have been derived from comic scenes such as this. But, ‘figs’ were not just fruit. Their metaphorical

meaning is made clear in Εἰρήνη 1351-2, where the phrase τῆς δ’ ἡδὺ τὸ σῦκον (“her fig is sweet”) gives

point to ἥδιον in 297. This was the kind of ‘fig’ which might have been costly (cf. also 1277-8 note).

Hermann proposed balancing the metre of 315 with the same exclamation ἒ ἔ at the beginning of the line,

but as it is extra versum there, there is no compelling reason for it here.

303-8.

The father’s angry refusal makes the child lose interest in treats and suddenly become concerned to know

where his next meal is coming from, for if the court is not convened today (perish the thought!), there will

be no pay to provide even the basic necessities.

303. ὦ πάτερ

Some consider that this form of address (cf. 248) can be used only by a son of his actual father, but it was

an honorific used for old men (cf. 556), and the many war-orphans would look to any older male relative,

uncle or grandfather or stepfather, as their surrogate ‘father’.

305-6. πόθεν ὠνησόµεθ(α) ἄριστον

Food shortage was a bitter reality for many, but a comic-poet could still find humour in the most serious

topics. In Νεφέλαι, we hear that the students of ‘Sokrates’ could be left hungry, ἐχθὲς…ἡµῖν δεῖπνον οὐκ

ἦν - “we had no dinner yesterday” (175). There the school treats austerity as a virtue and Strepsiades is

warned not to expect breakfast on a regular basis (416).

ἔχεις ἐλπίδα...τινα

The question brings to mind similar Euripidean lines, e.g. ἔχεις τινα...σωτηρίαν (Ὀρέστης 778).

307. νῷν

The dual shows his thoughts are confined to his immediate surroundings; it relates to his interlocutor and

ignores his mother

308. πόρον Ἕλλας ἱρόν

The phrase is lifted from a hymn of Pindar (frg.179), which speaks of the Hellespont, as the ‘sacred strait

of Helle’ (Ἕλλας πόρον ἱερόν). Hall and Geldart substitute Hermann’s suggested poetic form ἱρόν for the

ἱερόν of the codices. Aristophanes normally uses Attic forms and, in all probability, the codices’ reading

is just the result of a copyist ‘tidying up’ the text (cf. 1232-5, note). The constant current in a narrow strait

made it appear to be possessed of eternal motion and so divine like a river (cf. e.g. Euripides Μήδεια 410,

ποταµῶν ἱερῶν).

The boy’s speech is formulated to introduce a play on the word πόρος, which as well as ‘strait’ can mean

‘means’ or ‘resource’ (cf. εὔπορος). The sense is elliptical. Hall and Geldart adopted Blaydes suggestion

to insert <εὑρεῖν> at the end of the line to supply the missing verb which is needed in English, but might

have been sufficiently understood in Attic drama.

309. ἀπαπαῖ φεῦ

The elderly chorus-leader laments his parlous financial situation much as he sorrowed over the chorus’s

thinning ranks earlier (235). On Hermann’s advice, Hall and Geldart repeat the metron to achieve metrical

responsion with the strophe (297), but there are numerous instances in lyric passages where it appears the

music was left to finish the phrase.

310-11.

The old man’s melodramatic plaint that they could all go hungry if they fail to get their jury-fee is meant

to amuse, but it also serves to remind the audience that their poverty makes them open to exploitation by

unscrupulous demagogues.

312.

A scholiast informs us that this line is taken from Euripides’ Θησεύς (frg. 385), where it was spoken by

one of the youths devoted as a sacrificial victim to the Minotaur. The audience would not be required to

recognise the particular provenance, as it was a common lament in Euripidean tragedy, e.g. ὦ τάλαινα /

µᾶτερ, ἔτεκες ἀνόνατα - Euripides Ἱππόλυτος, 1144-5.

314. ἄρ(α) ὦ θυλάκιόν

This line continues the mock-tragic tone, briefly broken by the previous line’s aside. It is claimed that it

parodies another verse from the same Euripidean play (frg. 386), ἀνόνητον ἄγαλµα, πάτερ, οἴκοισι τεκών.

But, it can hardly have been spoken by Hippolytos in Crete, as the scholiast claims. It may derive, in fact,

from the original version of Ἱππόλυτος which is no longer extant.

The original line is altered to become a bathetic address to a bag. We need not, however, suppose that the

boy has brought a shopping-bag with him on the off-chance of meeting a woman selling bread, since the

point of the parallel is contained in the sophisticated double-entendre of θυλάκιον. In Euripides’ verse the

“pointless ornament” in the home is a ‘begetter’ (τεκών), probably his long-absent father, Theseus, while

here it seems to be a little bag, but will be undertsood as his scrotum. This, after all, is the significance of

the verb, for ‘holding the bag’ in his hands is concomitant with ‘pushing out his wick’ (cf. 251) and so we

can dispense with the discussion as to whether or not the boy’s ‘shopping-bag’ is dangling from his wrist

(Sommerstein, addenda p. xxviii). Neither the imagined bread-bag, nor the one he has been holding, serve

any purpose, since there may not be bread to eat and he will not be getting the figs he had hoped for either

(cf. 302).

A similar play on everyday items is evident in another Aristophanean couplet (frg. 557 from Τριφάλης),

ἔπειτ’ ἐπὶ τοὖψον ἧκε τὴν σπυρίδα λαβὼν

καὶ θυλακίσκον καὶ τὸ µέγα βαλλάντιον.

“Then he went off to the food market, after grabbing his basket and his little bag and his great big purse.”

The word for ‘purse’ here is probably chosen because it reminds one of βάλανον (cf. 155, 200).

Most recent editors follow Hall and Geldart in printing Hermann’s re-ordered line. MacDowell, however,

defends the reading of the codices, ἄρα σ’...γ’εἶχον. Being a curmudgeon I would prefer, ἀνόνητον ἄραγ’,

ὦ θυλάκιον, σ’ εἶχον ἄγαλµα; (cf. 4 note, and 1336).

ἒ ἔ.

The boy begins to wail. The noise (not a verse in itself) is usual for tragic-drama, e.g. Euripides Τρῴαδες

1302.

315. [Κορυφαῖος]

This remark is usually given to the child, but is not especially tragic in tone. The idea of a bag sharing in

the general despondency is certainly a comical one, but somewhat insulting to the high intelligence of the

spectators. The remark might have more point coming from the old man who laments both the possibility

of losing his daily income and the boy’s evident loss of his wits.

Song 316-333

316-33.

Hearing the commotion outside his door Philokleon decides to risk calling out to his brothers-in-arms to

prevent them leaving without him. In doing so he assumes the role of an imprisoned, tragic heroine. B.L.

Gildersleeve (1880) suggested that his situation mirrored that of Danaë imprisoned in her tower by her

father Akrisios. In which case, one might expect some musical parody of Euripides’ lost drama ∆ανάη,

which may therefore have predated our play. This supposition is perhaps more likely than a parody based

on ∆εσµώτις Μελανίππη, which been tentatively dated later c. 412 B.C.

317. τήκοµαι µὲν

The expression “I am dissolving” befits a female, e.g. the kidnapped Helen who bewails her complicity in

leaving her home, κλαίουσα τέτηκα - “I am dissolved in tears” (Ἰλιάς 3.176).

διὰ τῆς ὀπῆς

In the myth of Danaë the maiden’s ravisher Zeus gains access to her via ‘a chink’ by becoming a shower

of gold. In the comic-drama ∆ανάη by Sannyrion we find Zeus wondering how he might insert himself in

a chink - τί οὖν γενόµενος εἰς ὀπὴν ἐνδύσοµαι; and mulls the idea of turning into a sand-rat (γαλέη). But

here, Philokleon in the heroine’s situation is anxious to get out. He exaggerates his confinement, since the

comic-actor playing his role must have been visible while singing his plaint.

318-9.

He would like to sing, but cannot, so he does! His melodious non-singing puts one in mind of the chorus

of policemen in Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pirates of Penzance who sing loudly about how quiet they are.

321. ἐπὶ τοὺς καδίσκους

The ‘jars’ were used for casting votes for and against the defendant in courts (cf. 854). As the next line

clarifies, he is thinking of one jar in particular.

322. κακόν τι ποιῆσαι

To his fellow-jurors he is willing to admit that he aims ‘to do some mischief’, as his son suspected (165).

323. ὦ Ζεῦ

If a song from the ∆ανάη is indeed the source of parody here, there is particular irony in the trapped maid

appealing for rescue to the deity who would eventually ravish her.

µέγα βροντήσας

The reading of the codices is µέγα βρόντα, which if correct would better be understood as a single word, a

cult-title (‘Great Thunderer’), analogous to ὦ Ζεῦ κεραυνόβροντα - “Zeus of the thunder-crash” (Εἰρήνη

376). This is how recent editors have chosen to take it. But, Hall and Geldart print Dindorf’s emendation

(cf. 671), which I prefer (though I would delete ἢ in the next line). It makes better sense to me to translate

“O Zeus, thunder mightily and make smoke of me (with your lightning)”. For the desire to become smoke,

cf. Aischylos Ἱκέτιδες 779, µέλας γενοίµαν καπνὸς.

325-6. Προξενίδην

The title οf πρόξενος was conferred on foreign benefactors of Athens and those Athenian citizens who

acted as representatives of a foreign state at Athens or looked to Athenian interests as resident in an allied

community. Presumably, only a noble family with representation of this kind would adopt the name. We

have no specific information on this person, but he seems to have been known (cf. Ekphantides, 151) for

his smoke-like qualities. In his case, perhaps he had the ability to disappear when wanted, or get himself

out of trouble easily. He is mentioned again in Ὄρνιθες (1126) as ‘Proxenides of the deme Emptyvessel’,

a man who prided himself on his success in chariot-races and a scholion there adds that Telekleides had

ridiculed him (frg. 19) as someone “who had let his body relax” (παρειµένον τῷ σώµατι), i.e. ‘let himself

go’ perhaps.

τὸν Σέλλου

Recent commentators have agreed that what appears to be a proper noun ‘son of Sellos’ is actually ‘son of

a σέλλος’, a common noun. As there are no instances of this noun in extant literature, its meaning has had

to be inferred from a unique instance of a verb in a fragment (10) of the comic poet Phrynichos, ἄγαµαι,

∆ιονῦ, σοῦ στόµατος, σεσέλλισαι - “Your language astounds me, you effeminate creature, you’re utterly

brazen”. This, at least, is the interpretation placed on the verb by Hesychios, who glosses it - ἀλαζονεύει.

In Νεφέλαι, ἀλαζονεία is typified by the upper-class intellectuals of Sokrates’ school who stand out from

the ordinary citizens by their appearance and ‘give themselves airs’ (102). So, here, we can see somebody

whose prominent position in society confers upon them a reputation for Periklean aloofness. MacDowell

reasons that, since the expression (which he translates “son of Swank”) is applied again later on (cf. 1243,

1267) to two particular aristocrats, it may be used in this instance to point to a leading figure that would

have been present at the performance. He suggests that an obvious candidate would be ‘Amynias, son of

Pronapes’ (cf. 74). On the other hand, it may be taken simply as an open-ended expression which allowed

each spectator to draw his own conclusion as to whom he judged as pretentious.

Quite how the word came to mean this is a matter for speculation. But as the prayer is addressed to Zeus,

there may have been a connection with the priestly order, the Σέλλοι, who divined the god’s will through

the rustling of the leaves on his sacred oak at Dodona. A ‘branch’ of the cult may have existed at Athens,

centred on an oak in the precinct of Athena at Phaleron; reputedly established from Dodona (cf. Pausanias

1.36.3). In which case, the clan of the priesthood may have been ‘Selloi’ and the son of the current holder

could have been open to the comic criticism that he gave himself airs as a result, i.e. pontificated.

ψευδαµάµυξυν

The codices have ψευδο-µάµυξυν, but the Aldine editor corrected it as there is a word ἀµάµυξυς which is

said to mean ‘a vine supported on two poles’. I presume that two poles were needed because of its sturdy

early growth which promised a weighty harvest of grapes. This early promise, however, proves deceptive

(ψεύδει). So, a ‘son of Sellos’ is all talk, but does not follow through on what he promises the people. The

reason why Philokleon prays Zeus to make him like one of these men to escape his captivity is uncertain.

It may be that he wants to adopt their pompous tone with an attitude that says, ‘Do you know who I am?’

in order to get their way. He will himself succeed in behaving like a supercilious aristocrat in due course.

327-8.

His prayer displays the same whimpering tone and pleas for pity that he will later attribute to defendants

(555-6) when he himself assumes the role of Zeus (620-5).

οἰκτίρας

The regular form of the verb in manuscript codices is οἰκτείρας, but editors now follow van Herwerden

in printing οἰκτίρ- (see also 556) on the grounds that inscriptions represent the authentic, early spelling.

329. διατινθαλέῳ

Aristophanes intensifies an adjective, probably borrowed from an epic context and meaning ‘burning hot’,

to convey the “searing” intensity of the lightning-bolt. In later epic the simple adjective is applied mainly

to steam.

σπόδισον

The verb σποδίζω (cognate with σπονδιά ‘ashes’ and the Venetus gives σπόνδισον) is sometimes taken to

mean ‘burn to ashes’ but must in fact, in the light of what follows, have its usual meaning, to ‘toast beside

a fire’, or ‘singe’. Here there is a suggestion that he may be “baked in the ashes”, though spectators sitting

further back may have heard a part of the comic verb σποδέω and taken him to be asking for Zeus to ‘do’

him like Danaë.

330. ἀνελών µ(ε) ἀπεφυσήσας

Mention of ‘toast’ immediately turns his mind to the idea of food and he gives Zeus some guidance on the

requisite culinary procedure. The verb ἀποφυσάω, used only here in Comedy, seems to signify “blowing

away <ashes>”, in the way that Zeus might blow away clouds. But, once again the less cautious spectator

would merely hear a request for Zeus to ‘blow me off’.

In the Νεκρικοὶ διάλογοι of Loukianos the ghost of Empedokles, who according to legend was incinerated

in Mt Etna, is described as, ὁ δὲ σποδοῦ ἀνάπλεως καθάπερ ἐγκρυφίας ἄρτος - “covered with cinders just

like a loaf of bread baked in ashes” (416).

331. ὀξάλµην...θερµήν

He suggests dipping him in a ‘hot mixture of grape-vinegar and salt-water’ for extra piquancy (cf. 511).

333. τὰς χοιρίνας

Our knowledge of judicial procedures in Aristophanes’ day is patchy at best. He refers here to the use of

sea-shells as ballots instead of pebbles. As far as we know, either one of them could be dropped into the

urn for acquittal. It may be that the pebbles were simply called ‘shells’ by convention, either as a formal

term, or, if we may infer from this passage, as the technical term for the pebbles cast for a guilty verdict.

In line with Philokleon’s cantankerous character, one may presume that he wishes finally to be turned to

stone where the verdict of ‘guilty’ is recorded.

Symmetrical Scene 334-402

334-41.

The chorus-leader converses with the father in mock-heroic tone similar to that used with the boy before

Philokleon’s outburst. Certain phrases which do not seem especially relevant to the situation i.e. ὦ µάταιε

and µ’εὐωχεῖν ἔτοιµος suggest that the lines may parody a particular scene adapted from tragic-drama.

334. τίς γάρ...

In questions of this kind the particle often seems to express bemusement; a Gallic shrug of the shoulders.

We might say, “Who, in that case…?” (cf. e.g. Νεφέλαι 1506).

336-7. οὑµὸς υἱός...πρόσθεν καθεύδων

Since the end of the prologue Bdelykleon and the slaves have been lying asleep outside the house. While

the slaves are sitting by the door, their master has found a spot to lie down, probably in the stone trough

in the yard. The use of a trough as a makeshift bed (at least in Comedy) seems to offer an explanation for

the cryptic phrase used by Hermippos (frg. 56) νικᾷ δ’ ᾤα λιθίνην µάκτραν - “a sheepskin beats a stone

trough”.

338. ὦ µάταιε

Syntax points to Philokleon as the recipient of this remark (“you idle man!”) and MacDowell justifies it

as a sign of the Chorus’s impatience. But, it is surely directed at the sleeping Son who is not only idle but

also ‘vain’ in his attempt to confine their colleague. The reason that the poet uses the vocative instead of

the nominative (ὁ µάταιος) must derive, I think, from the context of the original line being parodied.

341. µ(ε) εὐωχεῖν ἕτοιµος

Because his son is prepared to look after him, the old man does not have to live hand to mouth like some

of his comrades (cf. 309-10). But, even so, he chooses the hard existence of a ‘wasp’ because he resents

being financially dependent on his son. As a result, he has become addicted to jury-pay.

342. ∆ηµολογοκλέων

The chorus-leader wonders what lies behind the detention of their colleague. They see his imprisonment

in political terms as the work of some ‘second-rate Kleon’. The real Kleon, having previously shut some

Spartans up on Sphakteria, now has some more besieged in Skione. The irony of the comparison seems to

be lost on the speaker, however.

As Wilson notes (p.84), our uncertainty about the precise meaning of δηµολόγος has encouraged various

emendations. But, I agree with MacDowell that the difficulty does not justify emendation. He reasonably

compares the dismissive use of δηµολογικός (‘speaking in public’) - the more usual δηµηγόρος (‘orating

in public’) is similarly pejorative - and translates a “soap-box Kleon”. But, as with Hermann’s proposed

emendation δεινολογο-, the emphasis is unlikely to be on Bdelykleon’s oratorical skills. It is more likely

that the Chorus is reflecting on the ineffectual rivals of Kleon who merely talk while he acts.

However, there is one rather interesting suggestion which recent commentators seem to have overlooked.

Thompson (1895) noted how bizarre it seems for the Chorus to accuse the Son of acting like Kleon and to

do so with a pejorative epithet. He suggested a simple rearrangement which has considerable merit. ταῦτ’

ἐτόλµησ’ ὁ µιαρὸς χανεῖν; ὁ ∆ηµολογοκλέων οἶδ(ε) ὅτι λέγεις τι περὶ τῶν νέων ἀληθές - “did the wretch

make these vain threats? The People’s spokesman Kleon knows that there is truth in what you say about

the young men” (my translation).

343. τῶν νεῶν

He speculates that Philokleon has been detained for telling the truth about τῶν νεῶν. This may be some

topical reference to naval matters of which we are ignorant and modern editors understand it so. But, it

seems unlikely that the Chorus would suspect the father of having made any general criticism of the fleet,

and far less of mentioning any particular scandal. ‘Betraying the fleet’ after all was the kind of charge that

they customarily dealt with (cf. 289). On the other hand, Bentley’s suggestion that his offence had been

criticizing τῶν νέων, the younger politicians (like Alkibiades and Euathlos), seems a more likely subject

for the two old men to agree upon.

345. ξυνωµότης

The Chorus’s instinctive reaction is to suspect that Bdelykleon’s confinement of his father forms part of a

wider plot to undermine democracy; suspicions which were doubtless aroused by Kleon’s inflammatory

rhetoric.

349. οὕτω κιττῶ

The verb (the Attic form of κισσάω) likens his passion for the courtroom to the craving felt by a pregnant

woman for a particular kind of food.

διὰ τῶν σανίδων

Strictly speaking the ‘boards’ were the official court-notices listing the order of the cases to be heard each

day (cf. 848), but here might refer to the benches on which the jurors were seated (cf. 90). However, there

is a scholion (V) which led Richter to suggest that σανίδες might mean the δρύφακτοι in this case. Starkie

rejected the suggestion categorically and subsequent editors have been satisfied with “notice-boards”, but

more recently Sickinger (1991) has made out a good case for accepting the scholion. He shows that, since

the fences (δρύφακτοι) which cordoned off the general public from the law-court were constructed out of

wooden planks (σανίδες) it would make sense to speak of passing through them, by synecdoche (cf. 386).

350. ὀπὴ...ἥντινα...διορύξαι

They imagine that he could find a small opening inside the house and ‘dig it out’. Some commentators

have objected that the verb is used of digging through an obstacle such as a wall, not excavating a hole.

Sommerstein, for instance, has chosen to adopt Hermann’s alternative διαλέξαι, on the basis of διαλέγων

τὴν ὀπήν - “picking out the hole” (in Λυσιστράτη 720). But, Hesychios actually glosses the latter verb by

διορύξαι and Homer shows that διὰ τάφρον ὀρύξας means to excavate a trench (Ὀδύσσεια 21.120).

This is a comic reversal of the means by which Odysseus and Diomedes got into Troy to steal the sacred

Palladion. According to a fragment (367) from a Sophoklean drama, they burrowed in through a drain or

sewer [much like David’s method of capturing Jerusalem]. The episode was probably derived from part

of the Μικρὰ Ἰλιάς, to judge from the epitome of Proklos.

351. πολύµητις Ὀδυσσεύς

The ‘resourceful’ hero Odysseus disguised himself as a beggar to spy on the Trojans (Ὀδύσσεια 4.244-5).

The episode was narrated in the section of the Μικρὰ Ἰλιάς entitled Πτωχεία. But whereas Philokleon had

drawn inspiration from the imaginative epic hero when he tried to escape clinging to the donkey, the idea

offered by the Chorus is again a comic reversal since it involved Odysseus getting into Troy, not out.

352. πάντα πέφαρκται

The reading of the codices, which Hall and Geldart (and Sommerstein) print, was considered the correct

Attic spelling by Herodian (2.384), but (with MacDowell) I would prefer to print πέφρακται which is the

more familiar form, as e.g. in δρύφρακτοι (abbreviated to δρύφακτοι).

353. ὀπίαν δ’ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι

The full phrase would be ὀπίαν τυρὸν δ’ οὐκ ἔξεστί µοι γενέσθαι - “I cannot possibly turn into cheese”.

For the construction cf. Thucydides 4.20, ἔξεστι ὑµῖν φίλους γενέσθαι. The conceit turns on the similarity

of the sound of ὀπίαν…ἔστι to the Chorus’s question ἔστιν ὀπὴ (350). There is no sense to be drawn from

the fact that “cheese does not generally slip through small holes” (MacDowell)! Cheese might well have

been strained with a cloth, but it’s the whey that drips through. Philokleon, as usual, has simply lost the

thread. Henderson found the apposite translation, “I can’t turn myself into runny whey”.

354. τοὺς ὀβελίσκους

The Chorus recalls another great military exploit, similar to that at Byzantion (and from the same period,

c. 470 B.C.). Once again it concerns food, because we can assume that Philokleon had only stolen the spits

since they had meat on them. I do not share MacDowell’s view that he wanted to drive them into the wall

as pegs on which to secure ropes. The only reason spits are brought into it (rather than the meat on them)

is to provide a contrast to the ‘weapons’ being wielded by his captors (364).

355. ἵεις σαυτὸν...ταχέως

One of the earliest descriptions of abseiling (yes, the Greeks invented everything).

ὅτε Νάξος ἑάλω.

Thucydides places the capture of Naxos after the annexation of the island of Skyros and the Euboian port-

city of Karystos which were part of the Athenian strategy to secure the sea-lanes to the North Aegean and

Thrace. Some have dated these events as late as 469, but they were probably accomplished earlier c. 475-

73 B.C. Thucydides says that the Naxians had revolted from the ‘alliance’, the first to do so, and had to be

brought to heel and reminded of their obligations after a successful siege (1.98.4). The capture of Naxos,

in the Central Aegean made possible the campaign in Asia Minor and the victories at the river Eurymedon

c. 468, so it can loosely be dated 473-469 B.C.

Incidentally, though recent editors have agreed that the Chorus are putting their reminder in the form of a

question, this is not required syntactically. They are stating a fact, “you remember, of course…”, but this

is tantamount to a question in English anyway.

356-7. ἀλλὰ τί τοῦτ(ο);

Philokleon is puzzled by this reminder of his youthful exploit. His comrades were reminding him how he

had used ropes to descend a wall; only they had failed to mention the key-word, rope! Their reference to

his theft of spits was offered only incidentally to explain why he had needed to get down the wall quickly.

As a result, the old man comically misses the point (like MacDowell) and focuses upon the spits and his

talents as a thief (cf. 1200-1).

358-61.

He exaggerates for comic effect the military siege under which he is confined. The two slaves had already

emphasized this aspect in their opening dialogue. Here there is irony in comparing the Father’s past, when

he had escaped with skewers of meat, to his present situation in which he is treated as if he were a rat that

had pinched some meat, while others hold the skewers.

361. κατὰ τὰς διόδους

He claims that he is trapped by a military force that is guarding, not his exits, but the “mountain passes”.

The fact that those “keeping look-out” are actually asleep detracts somewhat from his claim.

362. τὼ δὲ δύ(ο)

Sosias and Xanthias, with their roasting-spit ‘spears’, have taken up their positions, asleep again by the

door (cf. 273 note). The Son is not armed, but is asleep as well; probably in the empty trough (cf. 336-7).

363. ὥσπερ µε

For the position of the pronoun µε one may compare the very similar usage in Νεφέλαι 257 (ὥσπερ µε τὸν

Ἀθάµανθ’ ὅπως µὴ θύσετε - “mind you don’t sacrifice me like Athamas”. There too, the person speaking

is concerned for his own immediate safety, so we may infer that the word order was intended to indicate a

state of heightened anxiety.

γαλῆν

A γαλέη is usually identified with a ‘weasel’ or ‘ferret’. Herodotos, when mentioning types of mice found

in North Africa, uses the name of rodents which lived wild in areas where laserwort (σίλφιον) was grown.

This suggests that he (or rather his informant) is referring to a ‘sand-rat’ or ‘desert-rat’. It is very doubtful

whether any Athenian would have kept one as a pet, but evidently they were to be found in Attica around

human habitation. The cognate Latin word glis was used of 'dormice, and so γαλέη may have referred to a

creature not so much a household pet as a household pest, one which would have every reason to be wary

of slaves hunting it with skewers. The existence of the word γαλεάγρα (frg. 576) for a ‘rat-trap’ indicates

that a γαλέη was considered vermin.

It was clearly a mistake to leave food unattended in an Athenian home, for either the dog would grab the

cheese (cf. 837-8), or a gerbil would gobble the meat (Θεσµοφοριάζουσαι 559, “then we say the sand-rat

<got it>” - ἔπειτα τὴν γαλῆν φαµεν …), under cover of darkness (cf. Εἰρήνη 1151, ἡ γαλῆ τῆς ἑσπέρας).

The prevalence of these gerbils would help to explain the spread of the plague at Athens as it is now said

that gerbils rather than rats were the source of later outbreaks of bubonic plague in Europe.

365. καὶ νῦν ἐκπόριζε µηχανὴν

They urge Philokleon to “come up with a bright idea”. There is irony in the ambiguity of µηχανή, since it

can also mean a ‘siege-engine’ i.e. a machine for breaking into a fortress, rather than out. Aristophanes is

always conscious of the ambiguity (cf. e.g. Νεφέλαι 479).

Dobree has suggested that καὶ νῦν should read καινὴν, which is an attractive idea, but I have to agree with

MacDowell that the received text works well enough, since time is of the essence.

367. ἕως γάρ

The sun is now rising and the ‘wasps’ are impatient to be off, since the court will soon be in session and

they do not wish to risk being shut out and losing their pay.

ὦ µελίττιον

Once again (cf. 107) we are shown that ‘wasps’ is a metaphor, which can easily be exchanged for another.

Commentators conflate “my little bee” with the idea of ‘honey’, taking it as a term of endearment. But the

point here, despite van Herwerden’s insistence (in Hermes xxiv), is that bees are known for their industry

and for the fact that they are up and doing at first light.

368. ∆ίκτυννα

The name of the goddess is invoked purely for the purpose of making a play on the word δίκτυον. It was

sufficient for Artemis to be associated with hunting to suggest the connection with nets. But, it is obvious

that the invocation has been made for the sake of the pun, for, if the goddess’s cult-title had been derived

from δίκτυον in fact, the humour of the situation would evaporate. Some later writers, however, took such

facile and facetious etymology at face value. Kallimachos, for instance, in his ode to Artemis (3. 188ff.),

tells the tale of a nymph who, pursued by King Minos, threw herself off a cliff, but was saved when some

fishermen caught her in their nets. Pausanias follows with his own version of the story, where the nymph

is deified by Artemis (2.30.3). In all likelihood, the name Diktynna derived from Mt Dikte in Crete where

it was her original cult-title - ‘Our lady of Dikte’ (cf. Euripides Ἱππόλυτος 145-50, where Diktynna is said

to fly on the southerly winds from Crete).

369. ἀνδρὸς...ἄνοντος

The Chorus applauds the plan, but as µὲν indicates, they clearly harbour doubts. “These are words typical

of a man who…, alright.” The antithesis δὲ remains unspoken.

But, can someone explain what the participle ἄνοντος is supposed to mean? Starkie says that it is an Ionic

form, which is used once by Plato (Κρατύλος 415α), and translates it as “making his way to…”, but, I find

this dubious. I note, however, that one manuscript (J) prints the main verb unelided, so I wonder whether

perhaps Aristophanes wrote, ἐστὶν ὄντως ἐς σωτηρίαν? This makes an ellipse, wanting the participle of a

verb of motion (e.g. εἰσίοντος), but its later inclusion as a gloss could help to explain how we arrived at a

false reading (cf. 190).

ἐς σωτηρίαν

Cf. Εἰρήνη 301, χωρεῖ...εὐθὺ τῆς σωτηρίας - “head straight for salvation”.

371. διατέτρωκται...γ(ε)

Evidently the netting put up little resistance to his toothless gums. Miracles can happen in Old Comedy.

µὴ βοᾶτε

At first, I assumed that this to be a parenthetic remark warning the members of the Chorus again to ‘keep

it down’ (cf. 335). But, this time, the Chorus has only been offering Philokleon gentle encouragement, so

Henderson is probably right to take the remark as a logical concomitant of the old man’s success and see

it as an indication that he is worried in case they greet it with shouts of ‘hooray’!

374-8.

The old men vent their indignation against a wrongdoer, and promise to punish one who dares to trample

on ‘divine ordinances’.

374. ἐὰν γρύξῃ τι

The subjunctive is preferred here, since the middle form served as the simple future, cf. Ἱππεῖς 294, εἰ τι

γρύξει - “if you so much as grunt” and Νεφέλαι 945, ἢν ἀναγρύξῃ - “if he utters a grunt”.

375. δακεῖν τὴν καρδίαν

As a bite (or sting) is painful, the main idea of the verb often becomes the pain itself rather than the action

that caused it, e.g. the opening line of Ἀχαρνεῖς declares the anguish felt by the hero Dikaiopolis who ‘has

been bitten in his heart’ (δέδηγµαι τὴν ἐµαυτοῦ καρδίαν). The ‘heart’ is the seat of any powerful emotion.

Here, the ‘wasps’ will make Bdelykleon feel a stinging pain in his senses; in his case, panic.

378. τοῖν θεοῖν ψηφίσµατα

The phrase ‘divine ordinances’ is puzzling and is complicated by textual variants, τῶν θεῶν (R) and ταῖν

θεαῖν (VJ). Hall and Geldart print Cobet’s compromise which attributes the decrees to the two goddesses,

the fertility goddess Demeter and her daughter Kore-Persephone. Sommerstein too believes that there is a

reference to the Eleusinian mysteries here, but prefers the spelling ταῖν θεαῖν found in the majority of the

codices (but cf. 7 note). He interprets the final word as “a surprise substitute for µυστήρια”. It is my view,

however, that the dual form is not especially relevant here and has arisen from an assumption made by an

ancient copyist.

The masculine form of the dual would usually be taken to mean Kastor and Polydeukes, the ‘two divine

heroes’, who were worshipped high on the northern slopes of the Akropolis with the cult-title of Ἄνακες.

Since they were considered as the patron gods of the cavalry (cf. Andokides περὶ τῶν Μυστηρίων 45, τοὺς

δ’ ἱππέας ...ἥκειν εἰς τὸ Ἀνάκειον), the Chorus would be unlikely to care about their pronouncements. On

the other hand, the feminine form of the dual would refer to the ‘great goddesses’ of Eleusis, and suggest

that the Chorus considered the son to be the kind of aristocrat who might as easily profane the mysteries,

if he prevents a juryman from going about his civic duties. This is not impossible, but the political furore

over the desecration of the Herms was still some years in the future (415 B.C.) and the supposed reference

to the ‘atheist’ Diagoras of Melos in the previous year’s Νεφέλαι (830) is not compelling evidence that the

possible profanation of the mysteries was already a topic of concern.

Consequently, I would follow MacDowell in accepting τῶν θεῶν. He notes that the same phrase is found

in a fragment (115) of the poems of Empedokles of Akragas, an early sophist thought to have taught, or at

least influenced, his fellow Sicilian Gorgias (cf. 421). The first line of the fragment states, “There exists

an oracular pronouncement regarding Necessity, an ancient divine decree” - ἔστιν Ἀνάγκης χρῆµα, θεῶν

ψήφισµα παλαιόν. cf. Kirk, G.S. and Raven J.E. - “The Presocratic Philosophers” (Cambridge, 1957) p.

351.

The city-gaol near the Agora was colloquially known as the Ἀναγκαῖον, as too was the prison at Thebes.

There may also be the intention on Aristophanes’ part to mock the use of ψήφισµα, as if the laws of the

Universe were voted on democratically by the divine powers.

379-80.

A close reading of this couplet suggests that common sense goes out the window along with Philokleon.

My translation restores logic, although I am far from certain that Aristophanes intended that. The Chorus

seems to be proposing that the old man takes a cord (καλῴδιον) from the severed net, rather than a more

substantial rope (σχοινίον) imagined by modern editors (which he would have to conjure out of thin air).

He is told to secure it and tie <one end> around his body. If he then launches himself from the window, it

is certain only Faith-in-Zeus (Diopeithes) can save him from the law of gravity (Ἀνάγκη).

Perhaps, the phrase ἐξάψας διὰ τῆς θυρίδος could be taken to mean ‘passing the cord around the window

frame’. This would at least make sense of Philokleon’s fears expressed in the following lines. But it may

be worth noting that the word θυρίς also has a special, technical meaning (‘a wasp’s cell’ or ‘an opening

in a bee’s cell’) which might be hinted at here, though if so, such a play on words would be too difficult

to recapture.

The name of Diopeithes is introduced (like that of Drakontides later, cf.438) simply for the sake of the

weak pun. It might be rendered (just as feebly) with the advice to “put your faith in universal law or Jude

Law”, though a modern audience would not stand for it. The suggestion that he was a “religious maniac”

is based on an overly-literal interpretation of comic caricature in other comedies and not worth the bother

of refuting here.

381. ἢν...τούτω

“These two” are the slaves. They are the ones who do the physical work, although the Chorus recognizes

that it is the man giving the orders that they must deal with.

383. πρινώδη θυµὸν

The holm-oak (πρῖνος), or quercus ilex, is a common, Mediterranean tree whose wood is dense and hard.

In Hesiod’s Ἔργα καὶ Ἡµέραι 429, we are told that, “The <wood of the> holm-oak makes the sturdiest

beam for a plough.” Consequently, the adjective πρίνινον is found signifying an ‘unbending’ or ‘hard’

character, as we would use ‘steely’ or ‘iron-willed’ (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 180-1, πρίνινοι...Μαραθωνοµάχαι and

877, πρίνινον ἦθος). Here, the ‘adjective’ πρινώδη, which does not occur elsewhere, is assumed to be a

synonym of πρίνινον, and to qualify the collective mind-set of the chorus, so that they are promising to

“summon up an indomitable anger or spirit”. Thus, Barrett and Sommerstein have recourse to Starkie’s

English metaphor “hearts-of-oak”.

It is perhaps too pedantic to observe that such a phrase, while applicable to the sea-farers of Old England,

whose naval superiority rested upon oak beams, would hardly strike a chord with the ancient mariners of

Athens, whose wooden walls were not oaken, but in any case, a reference to the Chorus’s oaken spirit, is

singularly ineffective in this context. It leaves us to conclude that the jurors have nothing better to offer

their comrade-in-arms than a fierce expression of solidarity? While this could be amusing if intended to

emphasize the old men’s powerlessness, it detracts from the menace displayed by the ‘wasps’ up till now.

Moreover, the following line suggests that they are offering more concrete assistance, for they confidently

refer to the fact that their action (τοιαῦτα ποιήσοµεν) will prevent the further detention of the aged juror.

Would any amount of “stubborn rage” or “heart-of-oak spirit” achieve that?

It seems to me more likely that the jurors are threatening to flex their legal muscles by issuing a summons

en masse (ἅπαντες καλέσαντες) to lift the restraint on the old man, a proposal which will be recalled later

in the play when ironically the father himself is threatened by a class-action suit (cf. 1332-4). The ‘oaken

spirit’, therefore, may not belong to the old men at all; instead, they are referring to the defendant in their

future suit, who will be τὸν πρινωδήθυµον son. The accusative case follows ἀµυνοῦµεν, for they promise

to defend the Father (dative σοι) from the Son (accusative) by summonsing the latter, αὐτὸν (understood

from τὸν πρινωδήθυµον). The neologism which Aristophanes coins to characterize Bdelykleon as “hard-

hearted” or “intransigent”, is formed in line with ὀξυθύµων - “irrascible” (455), βορβορόθυµος - “filthy-

minded” (Εἰρήνη 753) γλυκύθυµος - “sweet-natured” (Νεφέλαι 705) and βαρύθυµον - “resentful”

(Euripides Μήδεια 176). The meaning here of ‘harsh and unrelenting’ seems vouched for by στρυφνὸν

καὶ πρίνινον ἦθος, a phrase which ironically in the later instance is used by the Son himself of the Father.

This line corroborates the threat expressed in 1334, suggesting that an action could be initiated by a group

of litigants for a common end. The irony here, of course, is that the litigants would also be ‘the jury’.

385. µανθάνετ(ε)

Hall and Geldart follow Lenting’s proposal to treat the verb as an interrogative in parenthesis, “Are you

getting this?” This would be a natural interpretation if the word occurred in a Platonic dialogue, but here

MacDowell is probably right to see it as an imperative, “take note <of what I say>!”

386. ὑπο τοῖσι δρυφάκτοις

An ancient scholion tells us that, δρύφακτα ἐλέγετο τὰ ταβλώµατα τοῦ δικαστηρίου καὶ τὰ περιφράγµατα

διὰ τὸ ἐκ ξύλων καὶ σανίδων τῶν ἐκ δρυὸς εἶναι κατασκευασµένα - “the partitions and fences around the

law-court were called δρύφακτα because they were constructed from wood-<palings> and boards of oak”.

The word δρύφακτοι seems to have been a generic term used of the ‘picket-fences’ set up outside various

buildings in the Agora for crowd control. They were employed outside the Bouleuterion when the Boule

was in session (cf. Ἱππεῖς 675) as well as the law-courts, and also served to keep the tribes separate when

the votes for ostracism were being conducted. In all probability, therefore, they were erected temporarily.

The δρύφακτοι of the law-courts formed a corridor leading to the κιγκλίδες in order to allow the jurymen

easy access to the court-room, separated from the general public (cf. 552).

Philokleon’s desire for his mortal remains to be buried “under the court-railings”, reflects a natural wish

of one who feels his life at risk, like a soldier or traveller setting off on a perilous adventure, to be interred

in his homeland in a spot he holds dear and he so identifies with the court that even in death he wishes to

be near his favourite occupation and among friends. [One may recall the New York lady who wanted her

ashes to be scattered at the entrance to Bloomingdale’s, so that her daughter would visit her more often.]

But, in practice, no burials were permitted within the Agora. Since the turn of the century, only the bones

of the national hero Theseus had been allowed burial. Later, Theophrastos would desire that he be laid to

rest in the grounds of the Lykeion where he had spent his working life, but that lay outside the city-limits.

387.

They assure him that he will come to no harm, so he should not be afraid. We naturally reverse the order.

388.

Although they insist that he will be quite safe, they suggest that a prayer to his ancestral gods would be a

good insurance policy…just in case.

ὦ βέλτιστε

His companions recognize that, like Strymodoros in 233, he is devoted to his judicial duty.

τοῖσι πατρῴοισι θεοῖσιν

Not ‘your father’s gods’ but “the gods of our fathers”, i.e. the tutelary gods of Athens, who protected the

Athenians above all other Greeks.

389. ὦ Λύκε δέσποτα

The Chorus’s suggestion to invoke one of the tutelary gods of the Athenians has misled the audience into

expecting a prayer to Apollo, who was considered one of the city’s protectors (cf. Plato Εὐθύδηµος 302δ,

and the invocations at 869 and 875). But, instead of beginning ὦ Λύκειε, Philokleon proceeds to offer a

prayer to a local spirit whose shrine was located near the law-courts.

γείτων ἥρως

The phrase is in the nominative, rather than the expected vocative (cf. 875, ὦ...γεῖτον Ἀγυιεῦ), because it

is a parenthetic explanation of who the obscure spirit is. There are a number of figures in mythology with

the name Lykos; the most likely candidate here is the son of Pandion (II), one of the heroes who gave his

name to an Athenian tribe (Πανδιονίς). He had helped his elder brother Aigeos take back control of their

father’s kingdom and as an uncle to Theseus, the founding father of the city of Athens, probably merited a

heroön of his own.

Boegehold (1967), while recognizing that Lykos is merely a surprise substitute for Lykeion Apollo, put

forward the idea that γείτων ἥρως meant that Lykos was Apollo’s neighbour rather than Philokleon’s. He

suggested that there may have been a court adjacent to the sanctuary of Apollo Πατρῴος. But, this misses

the point that Lykos has been mentioned παρὰ προσδοκίαν, simply because his hero-shrine was located

next to the law-courts.

Some commentators (including MacDowell) have been misled by Polydeukes’ reference (8.121) into the

belief that there was a specific court, τὸ ἐπὶ Λύκῳ (‘the court at Lykos’). No-one else mentions it and it is

most probably just a misunderstanding of τὸ Ἐπιλύκειον, the official title of the Athenian polemarcheion.

There may, in fact, have been a statue of a wolf (λύκος) outside each Athenian court-house, since this was

the inference that Eratosthenes drew (in his περὶ τῆς ἀρχαίας Κωµῳδίας, quoted by Harpokration), Λύκος

ἐστὶν ἥρως πρὸς τοῖς ἐν Ἀθήναις δικαστηρίοις, τοῦ θηρίου µορφὴν ἔχων - “Lykos is a hero, in the shape

of the beast, close by the lawcourts at Athens” (cf. 552, 819).

390-2.

Philokleon takes the constant presence of Lykos outside the courts to indicate that he shares his interest in

what goes on there. As a man in wolf’s clothing, of course, Lykos’s interest may be rather different, for a

wolf is attracted by a bleating sheep with only one purpose in mind (cf. 570-2). But, then again, the jurors

may be just as ‘lupine’. See also 552, note.

τῶν φευγόντων ἀεὶ

It is usual to take ἀεὶ closely with the preceding words in the sense of ‘currently’, or ‘at the present time’,

but since there is clearly no reason for current defendants to be singled out, commentators generalize by

talking of “<those who are under prosecution> at any given time”, or “those who are on trial each day”,

which seems redundant. Although another instance of this special meaning is said to occur later (1318), it

is really no more than a postponement, distancing ἀεὶ from the verb which it emphasizes. Here it belongs

with κεχάρησαι, “you take continual delight in…”

393. τὸν...πλησιόχωρον

He does not say he is a ‘neighbour’, but that he occupies a contiguous area; hinting at their related spheres

of interest perhaps. Later, the idea of one’s space, or χῶρος, is developed for comic effect (cf. 834, 850).

394.

As consideration for Lykos coming to his rescue, Philokleon promises not to violate his territory.

παρὰ τὰς κάννας

Evidently, the boundary of each heroön would have been delineated by a line of dry reeds which formed a

makeshift fence separating it from the court nearby. Reeds are still planted along the edges of fields under

cultivation to prevent wind erosion and livestock from roaming. Such a feature could have been intended

to signify Lykos’s rural origins or been drawn from some part of his myth (cf. also Pherekrates frg. 63).

οὐρήσω µὴδ(ε) ἀποπάρδω

The future indicative tense of οὐρήσω, denotes a solemn promise, but the subsequent aorist subjunctive of

µὴδ’ ἀποπάρδω expresses a less confident hope. Aristophanes again makes light of the strangury endured

by old men. During the extended court-hearings older jurors would have to answer the call of Nature (cf.

807-10). As a ‘wolf-man’ Lykos might well take exception to a competitor encroaching on his territory by

urinating, so Philokleon promises that he will never do so. Then, to seal the bargain he expresses his hope

that he may “not even let one off”. In this case, Sommerstein’s alteration (2004, addenda xxv) of ‘fart’ to

‘shit’ is prejudiced by µηδὲ, “and not even”.

We may presume that at this point the stage-hands began to lower Philokleon with the κράδη.

396-8.

In detecting and foiling the attempted escape, the voices alternate rapidly, so the attribution of the lines to

speakers is uncertain.

396.

Recent editors let the Son continue speaking the first half of this line before they permit the slave to spot

the old man dangling over his head. But, I think Hall and Geldart are right to follow the lead of (J) which

reverses the split, so that the slave is comically unable to see the Father until the Son (from further away)

looks up and points him out. A similar, pantomime situation, where a character on stage is unable to see

what the audience can see, occurs in Νεφέλαι, when Strepsiades is looking all about for the approaching

Chorus. The first part of the line, in any case, is better spoken by the slave, since the expression “the old

feller” suits him rather than the Son (cf. 178, ὁ γέρων).

αὖ

The adverb is Dindorf’s addition to the text to make up the metre. It fits well enough, but the codices give

no hint of it; perhaps the gap is simply the result of a missing article, i.e. µὰ τὸν ∆ί’ οὐ δῆτ’ (cf. 169).

397. [Πατήρ] ὦ µιαρώτατε, τί ποιεῖς;

These words used to be assigned to a slave on the evidence of one manuscript (J). Thus, Hall and Geldart

make Xanthias the speaker. Though it is harsh language for a household slave to employ of the old man,

it has been spoken before by one of the slaves (cf. 187). On that occasion, however, it was used indirectly

in the nominative not the vocative case, implying heavy sarcasm. Porson suggested emending to ὦ µιάρ’

ἀνδρῶν on metrical grounds, but this does not soften the tone. Besides, van Leeuven’s proposal to assign

this cry to the Son fails to convince, although recent editors have followed him, because the Son regularly

displays more aplomb, even under provocation. On the other hand, his father has already called the slaves

µιαρώτατοι (156) and it must be Xanthias who is being abused again, as he has just been prodding the old

man with his skewer. For what it’s worth, the same question is posed by Philokleon later (1443).

MacDowell explains that emendation to remove the dactyl at the end of the second metron (-ώτατε) is not

required, as Porson had originally suggested, since the poet does seem to allow four consecutive syllables

to be short in his anapaestic tetrameters (cf. e.g. Νεφέλαι 916, διὰ σὲ δὲ).

[Χανθίας] οὐ µὴ καταβήσει;

The interpretation of this phrase as a question (or what MacDowell characterizes as “partly statement and

partly interrogative-imperative”) is unconvincing. I would read οὐ µὴν καταβήσει· as an asseveration by

the slave, “you won’t be coming down, that’s for sure”, as he brings his ‘weapon’ into play.

398.

At this point, Sommerstein has Xanthias climb up the outside of the house, while MacDowell prefers to

imagine the slave unbarring the door and disappearing inside. No such solution is required if we assume

that the first part of the line is still addressed to the Father and that only with καὶ ταῖσιν does Bdelykleon

begin a fresh idea directed at the slave.

καὶ ταῖσιν φυλλάσι παῖε

Obviously, the idea is that the slave will take down the harvest-dedications hanging over the door (for this

is still where garlands of spring flowers are hung on the first of May in Greece), and use them to persuade

Philokleon to go back up. So, we have to assume that ‘the leaves’ stand in for the olive-branches, though

by mid-winter the leaves would have withered and fallen off, and the slave would be left ‘holding out an

olive-branch’ to the old man.

399. πρύµνην ἀνακρούσηται

The codices read πρύµναν, which does not appear to scan, since the second syllable is required to be long

here. Consequently, Hall and Geldart prefer to print Elmsley’s emendation πρύµνην, which Sommerstein

also accepts. MacDowell, however, argues that the syllable could be lengthened in poetry and cites a line

from Sophokles’ Φιλοκτήτης (482), ἐς ἀντλίαν, ἐς πρῷραν, ἐς πρύµναν, ὅπου, where -ναν has to be long,

though Elmsley had proposed reading πρύµνην here too. It may be that the syllable could be lengthened

in verse, or at least that Byzantine scribes thought it might be, but emendation appears the most practical

solution. The alternative of keeping the short syllable in πρύµναν by switching its position with the verb

(as Henderson prefers) sidesteps the issue without explaining the Sophoklean instance.

In translation we do not need to faithfully reproduce the nautical metaphor of ‘backing water’, which was

necessary to communicate the idea of reversing direction to an Athenian audience, whose chariots had no

reverse gears and since horse dressage was unknown outside Magna Graecia.

ταῖς εἰρεσιώναις

An English-speaking audience will relate birch twigs to a thrashing more readily than the olive-branches

used for the εἰρεσιώναι. David Barrett (see Sommerstein’s note) pointed to the possibility that a pun over

the use of oars (εἰρεσία) in backing water lay behind the choice of the nautical metaphor.

400-2.

Unable to climb back up and reluctant to descend, the father is in a predicament from which only a court-

room sophist could extricate him.

401.

The names of the four men said to be about to bring prosecutions are probably disguised for comic effect.

It is superficial to assume that they belonged to known ‘sycophants’ who were expected to be involved in

actual upcoming cases, or even to people who appeared in court regularly for the prosecution. It is safer to

suppose that names suggestive of venality were chosen as being reminiscent of real names of real people.

Because no prominent individual can be identified among the four and no-one is mentioned by the ancient

scholiasts, we may suppose that each member of the audience was free to make his own connections from

among his circle of friends.

Σµικυθίων

The name may convey overtones of ‘cleaning up’ (σµήχω). Sommerstein notes that a man of this name is

mentioned in an inscription of 407/6 B.C. (IG. I³ 387.2) and Wilhelm has proposed reading Σµικυθίων for

the name Λικυθίων (IG. XII 9. 1049). See also Ἐκκλησιάζουσαι 46, and Pherekrates Γρᾶες (frg. 37).

Τεισιάδη

The name suggests ‘retribution’ (τίσις). H. van Herwerden rightly points out that the name would usually

have been written Τεισιάδης, but the sound makes the appropriate connection, so we probably do not need

to alter the text in the codices Τισιάδη.

Χρήµων

This suggests a love of ‘cash’ (χρήµατα) or ‘need’ (χρή) in general. The real name may have been either

Χρέµων (MacDowell), Χρῆµον (Dindorf), or possibly even Χρόµων (Sommerstein), from an inscription

IG. I³ 145.2.

Φερέδειπνε

The name ‘fetching dinner’ (φέρε-δεῖπνον) seems an obvious fiction, but a man named Εὔδειπνος appears

in an inscription found at Eretria (IG. XII 9. 360). Alternatively, the spectator may think of a Φερεκλείδης

Φερένικος, or Φερεκράτης.

402. ἄγεσθαι

Most commentators have concluded from this word (and the suggestion of ἐσκαλαµᾶσθαι earlier in 381)

that either Bdelykleon or one of the slaves must have left the stage after line 399 intent on hauling the old

man back in through the window. But, since the door has been barricaded and the Son has displayed little

enthusiasm for doing very much for himself, it is probably better that both of them remain on stage. One

of the slaves tries to deter the old man from descending by menacing him with his roasting-spit, while the

other has a go at forcing him to climb back up by actively beating him with the twigs. But ultimately they

let him slide down the rope. Consequently, both slaves and the Son remain on stage for the confrontation

with the ‘wasps’ in the next scene. If, as Sommerstein prefers, the Son were to enter the house in order to

drag his father back in at the window, he would still have to bring him outside in any case, so why did he

bother?

Symmetrical Scene 403-525

404. ἥνπερ

The relative pronoun requires us to supply a verb such as κινοῦµε in order to complete the sense.

ἡνικ(α) ἄν τις ἡµῶν

The chorus-leader’s words are a fulfilment of the Son’s earlier warning (223-4) of the perils of disturbing

the ‘wasp-swarm’. The position of the genitive pronoun is somewhat misleading, but matches the order of

ἡµῶν...τἀνθρήνια (1080). As the metre would not have been affected by moving it to its logical place, i.e.

τὴν ἡµῶν σφηκιάν, the poet must have preferred this arrangement for euphony.

405-7.

The chorus-leader issues a spirited call-to-arms. The rhythm of the trochaic tetrameters is used to impart a

sense of “urgency” and is “suitable for scenes of excitement” (MacDowell p. 25).

†νῦν ἐκεῖνο†

The obeli are mine, for though the metre is sound, the repetition seems suspect to me. To MacDowell, the

rhythmical effect produced by the repetition was a sign that, “the wasps are limbering up for action”, but

though it might underline the ‘wasps’ determination, it might just as easily signify their indecision, which

seems inappropriate. Similar repetition in Νεφέλαι (657), however, seems to be justified.

406. τοὐξύθυµον

The crasis of τὸ ὀξύθυµον is usually taken adjectively (cf. 455, 1105) as qualifying κέντρον, and although

its use in the sense of “sharp-spirited sting” (Sommerstein) is defended by MacDowell, the epithet is not

a logical one to apply to an unfeeling appendage. So, it might be better understood as a distinct adjectival-

noun (sc. ἦθος), the equivalent of ὀξυθυµία (as in Euripides Βάκχαι 671).

If one takes this path, then ἐντέτατ(αι) in the following line is unlikely to be its governing verb. It is more

likely that the second trochaic metron (the dubious repetition) of the previous line, originally comprised a

verb. It would probably have been an exhortation such as, νῦν ἐκεῖνο <κινέσωµε> τοὐξύθυµον (echoing

the assonance of κινεῖν ἐκείνην in 403), “let us now rouse that irascible nature <of ours>”.

407. κέντρον ἐντέτατ(αι) ὀξύ

Acceptance of the repetition in 405 has left editors with little choice but to assume that τοὐξύθυµον is an

adjective describing κέντρον, so the relative clause ᾧ κολαζόµεσθα has to be punctuated as a parenthesis.

As a result, however, the interpretation of ὀξύ becomes problematic. MacDowell has adopted a hands-off

approach, suggesting that one may treat the adjective predicatively and translate, “<our> sting has been

stretched to make a sharp point”. But, many editors have concluded that the syntax is defective here and a

number of remedies have been proposed. Bergk suggested ἐντέταται ὀξέως, Meineke has ἐντετάµεθ’ ὀξύ,

D.M. Jones proffered ἐντατέον ὀξέως and Sommerstein (1977) has conjectured ἐντέταται εἰς µάχην. None

of these imaginative emendations, however, restores the trochaic metre.

But if the initial exhortation is grammatically complete, then we can close the relative clause with a colon

or full-stop and treat the rest of the line as a fresh idea in apposition to what has gone before. The original

verse might have read more simply, -µεσθα· κέντρον / ἔντος (or given the present text) ἔντε(α) ὀξύ. So,

the chorus-leader is encouraging his companions to summon up the same spleen they customarily display

in the court-room… “That sharp stinger with which we are equipped”. The plural noun ἔντεα is an epic

usage and its use here would have been meant to lend a heroic tone to the speech (cf. e.g. Ἰλιάς 10.407,

ἔντεα...ἀρήια - “<Hektor’s> arms of war”, for the singular cf. Archilochos frg. 5.2 West).

In all likelihood, the text of the codices has resulted from a misconception. Because τοὐξύθυµον has been

tied to κέντρον, the words ἔντε(α) ὀξύ have made no sense alone and consequently some astute scholiast

has suggested that the poet had written ἐντέταται τόξα to create the image of the stingers drawn back like

arrows on taut bowstrings, ready to let fly. When this misconception became incorporated in the text, the

lively image it conveyed overruled both sense and scansion.

These words were added to make sure the spectator appreciated that the wasps’ stings stand as a metaphor

for the jurymen’s venomous anger. This is to prepare the ground for making the correlation between their

‘sting’ and their property-phalluses. Commentators have drawn the conclusion, based on the present text,

that the old men display their ‘stingers’ at this point, but this seems to me to be a premature extrapolation

(cf. 420-3).

408. θαἰµάτια βαλόντες

The codices and recent editors read λαβόντες, which gives us to understand that the old men are ready to

discard their cloaks for the fight. They tell the boys to ‘take’ the cloaks, before telling them to run off on

their errand. Quite apart from the fact that ‘handing over one’s cloak’ was actually used to symbolize an

act of submission in Νεφέλαι (1103), this makes little sense. Firstly, the jurors are not young athletes but

elderly men, so they are not about to catch a chill out of bravado. Nor do they need to display the physical

attributes of their ‘waspish’ character (e.g. MacDowell’s black and yellow tunics), since these are merely

a metaphor. On the contrary, it is the young boys who must ‘lay aside their cloaks’ so as to be able to run

as fast as their legs will carry them. (Henderson would have them ‘grab their cloaks’, possibly to prevent

them billowing out). So, as Hall and Geldart saw, we need the correction βαλόντες, which is superscribed

in the 16^th-century manuscript B. The verb is abbreviated from καταβάλλω (‘to lay aside’, cf. Hermippos

frg. 48, χλανίδες...καταβέβληνται - “cloaks have been laid aside”). If one is concerned that the discarded

cloaks would make the orchestra look untidy, then the boys can carry them off in their arms.

Although it is reasonable to have the boys remove their cloaks in order to run, one cannot help wondering

why Aristophanes bothered with such a mechanical detail. It is just a thought, unsupported by the shadow

of the slightest evidence, but were the boys perhaps revealed to be midgets under their cloaks? Dwarfs in

circus performances can still draw laughter by capering on stubby legs and the poet may have made the

‘boys’ rapid exit a comic surprise in this way. [Brad Williams ably demonstrates why this is funny.]

411. µισόπολιν

The lowest form of political animal is the ‘patriot’ who claims that his political viewpoint represents the

only true love of country and that any contrary opinion is inimical to it. Aristophanes here paints Kleon’s

supporters as ready to brand an opponent as ‘hating his country’ by daring to obstruct the daily function

of the courts. Hermann thought that we should read µισόδηµον (cf. 473), but at this stage the chorusmen

are making a more general accusation about their ‘homeland’.

413. λόγον εἰσφέρει

The detention of Philokleon is interpreted by his colleagues as an attempt to block the courts. They see it

as tantamount to “introducing a bill” in the Assembly to abolish trials!

The codices add the words ὡς χρὴ (‘to the effect that one must…’) to cover the perceived syntactical gap.

Modern editors consider them to be a gloss.

415. ὦ (ἀ)γαθοί

Seeing the old men’s determination to involve Kleon in the situation, the Son’s tone becomes emollient.

µὴ κεκράγετε

MacDowell follows the main codices and prints κεκράγατε, but admits that the evidence for this spelling

of the imperative is inconclusive. The Son tells the jurymen not to raise a hue and cry against him in the

manner of Kleon’s shouting and screaming. But they insist they will raise their cry for the gods to hear.

416. τοῦδ(ε) ἐγὼ οὐ µεθήσοµαι

MacDowell is right to support the reading of the codices, τόνδε. Porson proposed the emendation to the

genitive, but this presupposes that the Son is physically restraining his father, which is unlikely to be the

case. He is not saying ‘I won’t let go of him’, but rather “I won’t have him released” (cf. 437).

418. Θεώρου θεοισεχθρία

The members of the chorus make a para-tragic appeal to the sanctity of their homeland and gods, except

that “Theoros abominated by the gods” is substituted for θεοί. Bentley was responsible for correcting the

reading of the codices θεοσεχθρία, though the possibility remains that we should write θεοῖς ἐχθρία.

419. ἡµῶν κόλαξ

Most codices read ὑµῶν, a common copying error.

420. <ὦ > Ἡράκλεις

Herakles, the epitome of bravery, is invoked in situations where courage is needed (cf. Νεφέλαι 184).

οὐκ ὁρᾷς

Aristophanes is being deliberately ambiguous. The slave seems to be pointing out a physical characteristic

of the ‘wasps’, but the Son’s reply suggests that he has merely discerned a feature of their character.

421. ἐν δίκῃ

While this can mean ‘deservedly’ in some contexts, it does not seem particularly pertinent for the Son (or

Aristophanes) to pass such comment. Bdelykleon appears to be speaking ruefully about the inability of a

defence attorney to ward off the jurors’ hostility, so (along with MacDowell) I feel that it probably means

no more than “at trial” here.

τὸν Γοργίου

As Sommerstein rightly points out, Gorgias had no son, so there seems little point in him translating “son

of Gorgias”. Instead, we might take the characterization to mean that Philippos was the intellectual “heir

to Gorgias”. In Ὄρνιθες (1694-1705), the two orators are lampooned as verbose court-room practitioners,

who deserved to have their tongues cut out. According to an ancient scholion on Ὄρνιθες 1701 (frg. 118),

Philippos had also featured in Γεωργοί (c. 424/3), so we can presume that not long before Σφῆκες a jury

had ‘handed Philippos his hat’ when he had pleaded ineffectually in a high-profile court-case.

422-5.

The chorus ‘swarm’ in close-packed formation. This action replicates their massing together in the court-

room (1109-11) and their ‘aggression’ and ‘venom’ when hearing cases (prefigured in 243).

422. αὐτοῖς

The codices read αὖτις (RJ) or αὐτῆς (V). The first would be satisfactory in the sense of “in your turn”,

but there seems no justification for the Ionic form in preference to the usual αὖθις. The other variant must

stand for αὐτῆς <ὥρας>, “this very minute”, but the noun’s omission is awkward. Consequently, it is most

likely that the emendation proposed by Hirschig and by Holden, αὐτοῖς <κέντροις>, “with these pricks”,

is right, since that noun has already been expressed.

ἀλλὰ

He turns his attention away from threatening the enemy to issue a call to arms to his disordered comrades.

πᾶς ἐπίστρεφε

Hall and Geldart have preferred Dindorf’s ἀλλὰ πᾶς to the codices’ ἀλλ’ ἅπας, which recent editors print.

Τhe phrase looks as if it is borrowed from the parade-ground; something akin to ‘About…turn!’ Just as in

the court-room, the jurors need to be facing in one direction, all glaring intimidatingly upon the accused.

423. κἀξείρας τὸ κέντρον

There are two important points worth noting about this phrase, which MacDowell does not discuss. First

of all, we have to decide what each juror is expected to do with his stinger. Earlier, we had been informed

by Bdelykleon that the jurors ‘have stingers’ (225, ἔχουσι...κέντρον) and the slave has just acknowledged

the fact (420) after listening to the vindictive malice of their speech. Now, for the first time the Chorus is

about to display a physical attribute and the manner in which they do so should be noted.

Sommerstein, I think, jumps the gun by having the jurors “extend stings”. LSJ is misleading here because

the phrase chosen to exemplify the meaning ‘put forth’ is elliptical. Although we read of a horse’s groom

“putting forth his hand toward” a horse’s nostrils (Herodotos 3.87, ἐξείραντα τὴν χεῖρα προς...), it is clear

from the context that the hand was previously out of sight and that what he has done was to “draw out his

hand and <proffer it> towards” the horse. Therefore, we should understand that the ‘wasps’ are about to

‘draw out’ their stingers, like swords, rather than ‘extend’ them. The meaning is made clear by comparing

the use of the same participle in Ἱππεῖς (377-8), ἔνδοθεν τὴν γλῶτταν ἐξείραντες - “yanking his tongue

out of his mouth”.

The second point to consider is the location of the stinger. Those, like Sommerstein, who would have the

jurors equipped with additional ‘stingers’ protruding from their rumps have difficulty in reconciling this

instruction with the previous one. Since the ‘wasps’ are told to face in the same direction, each has to be

opening his cloak to reveal a stinger pointing menacingly toward Bdelykleon and the slaves. There should

be little doubt, therefore, where the stinger is located.

427. ὡς...δέδοικα

The slave’s former bravado (cf. 228) evaporates when faced with the actual ‘swarm’ and a real, physical

‘stinger’.

ἐγκεντρίδας

Polydeukes suggested (8.16) that there may have been a pun intended on the ambiguity of this word. He

thought that it could mean a stylus used by jurors for recording their sentence. MacDowell dismisses the

likelihood of the audience taking the word in this sense and, as Griffith noted, we can infer from line 108

that the jurors simply used their fingernails for that purpose. But, Polydeukes was right to point out that

ἐγκεντρίς did not mean specifically a wasp’s stinger, but any sharp-pointed object, e.g. a spur, spike, goad

or fountain-pen nib, so it was left to the audience to interpret its meaning in this situation.

429. τὰς χελώνας...τοῦ δέρµατος

The usual meaning of δέρµα is ‘skin’ or ‘hide’ and in Aristophanes’ dramas it is invariably associated in

some way with a beating (e.g. Εἰρήνη 746) or beating off (e.g. Ἱππεῖς 27). Therefore, I am loath to accept

the view of LSJ that in this instance it ought to be understood to mean ‘shell’. A later repetition (cf. 1292)

shows that the poet was quite capable of distinguishing between hide and shell.

430. σφῆκες ὀξυκάρδιοι

The epithet, a synonym of ὀξύθυµος (cf. 406) is used by Aischylos (Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας 907, ἐµοιράσαντο...

ὀξυκάρδιοι κτήµατα - “<the dead heroes had> divided their inheritance between them with eager hearts”.

433. ὦ Μίδα καὶ Φρύξ…καὶ Μασιντύα

These foreign names identify their bearers as household slaves. They are pet-names of the kind one would

give a dog and would presumably be reflected in their appearance on stage. The name ‘Midas’ does more

than just indicate the slave’s Phrygian origin; it would remind the audience of how the legendary king of

Phrygia had been cursed by Apollo to grow large, hairy ears to resemble a donkey. The ‘Phrygian’, could

probably be identified by his silly, Phrygian hat, while Masyntias, the ‘Chewer’, (perhaps meant to sound,

foreign, not unlike Μασίστιος the famed Persian cavalry commander). Hall and Geldart print Μασιντύα,

but we should read Μασυντία, since Hesychios gives the word µασύντης (for µασητήρ) as the nickname

of a parasite who must have appeared in another comic-drama. This slave would be recognizable from his

protruding lower jaw and large teeth. As with the earlier cry to alert the slaves (136), we might treat ὢ as

a separate yell.

βοήθει δεῦρο

Although the codices are agreed on the plural βοηθεῖτε, which one would expect, Bentley realised that the

metre would only admit the singular and also knew enough Greek to know that it was acceptable syntax

(cf. Ἐκκλησ. 293-4); both points I would have missed. The use of δεῦρο without a verb of motion makes

the expression almost a separate invocation, “Help! Come on!” (cf. Νεφέλαι 323, βλέπε…δευρὶ - “Over

here, look!”).

435. (ἐ)ν πέδαις παχείαις

The implication of these ‘thick’ leg-fetters seems to be that the slaves will be immobilized as if by a ‘ball

and chain’. Demosthenes (περὶ τοῦ στεφάνου 129) speaks of a slave wearing a wooden <yoke> and broad

shackles - χοίνικας παχείας ἔχων καὶ ξύλον which suggests a punishment akin to public exposure in the

stocks. Cf. also Πλοῦτος 275, αἱ κνῆµαι...τὶς χοίνικας καὶ τὰς πέδας ποθοῦσαι.

436. ἀκούσας...θρίων τὸν ψόφον

Fig-leaves fall, together with the temperature, in late-November and December. They curl up and remain

very brittle until rain softens them to mulch. We might assume, therefore, that the Son is using the sound

of dried leaves crackling underfoot as a cruel simile for his aged father’s ineffectual threats. A. Campbell,

however, suggested (1930) that this line is actually spoken by the chorus-leader wishing to demonstrate

his swarm’s determination. There are arguments on both sides. All modern editors have assigned the line

to the Son. MacDowell does so on the grounds that the Chorus has no reason to doubt the threat made to

punish the slaves. He takes the Son to be encouraging them, by insisting that the ‘wasps’ won’t sting. On

the other hand, if the Son is so dismissive of his father’s attempts at intimidation, why would he call for

reinforcements? Besides, as a derisive put-down it seems to me to sound marginally better coming from

an old man’s mouth. The desiccated leaf is a fig-leaf after all, and the chorus judges the younger man’s

calls for help to be a clear indication of his effeteness. Their put-down opens the way for them to make a

more immediate threat of their own.

There is, however, a third possibility to be considered. In view of Philokleon’s enthusiasm for inflicting

corporal punishment on the household slaves, he may be interjecting (for the exclamatory ὡς cf. 427) to

let the slaves know that his son is all talk (whereas he is not!).

At this point, it is generally agreed that the Son and Xanthias leave the stage to fetch certain items which

will be required in due course. The principal reason for this assumption is the verb ἐκδραµεῖν in line 452.

But, as this verb, or at least its interpretation, is highly dubious, there is no compelling reason for them to

absent themselves at this crucial stage in the confrontation. It is awkward to suspend the dramatic tension

by having the two go into the house and it is unusual to have the Son go in person to fetch any items that

a slave could, even though he will offer to do so later (cf. 798, 853).

437. ἔν τί σοι παγήσεται

The preposition acts as a prefix to the verb (ἐµπήγνυµι), which is in the future passive tense, and τί carries

a borrowed accent, so the chorus-leader is warning him that “something (I leave you to guess what) will

be stuck in you”. The singular σοι is similarly vague.

438-9. ὦ Κέκροψ ἥρως ἄναξ

Without needing any prompting, Philokleon invokes a second hero, the mythical founder and first king of

Athens. He was a talking snake, born of the earth, rather than a human and so was usually depicted as half

man, half-snake. The archaic temple known as the Hekatompedon on the Akropolis featured snakes in the

corners of the East pediment, one of which may have represented Kekrops.

Although it is not clear why he should choose this particular name-hero, I have assumed that it is because

of the snake’s ability to wriggle out of a tight spot. But, this slight justification was enough to introduce a

play on the name Drakontides? Perhaps too, he intended an echo of some tragic-drama based on his myth,

as suggested by the phrase ὑπ’ ἀνδρῶν βαρβάρων χειρούµενον. The foreign (to judge from their names)

slaves may have been brought on stage in order to introduce the specific quotation. Aischylos (Προµηθεύς

355) uses a similar phrase of a giant subdued by force (cf. 443, πρὸς βίαν χειροῦσιν).

τὰ πρὸς πόδων ∆ρακοντίδη

The audience would have been expecting the adjective δρακοντώδης (‘serpentine’).

440. τέτταρ(α) ἐς τὴν χοίνικα

The Attic χοῖνιξ (‘a quart’) was a unit of measure for dry commodities such as flour or corn. It comprised

four κοτύλαι (‘half-pints’). One quart was considered to be the amount of barley per day on which a man

could subsist or, in other words, a slave’s daily portion. When Kleon trapped the Spartan force at Pylos it

was agreed that they could be re-supplied daily with two quarts of barley per man, but only one quart for

each Helot (Thucydides 4.16, δύο χοίνικας ἑκάστῳ Ἀττικὰς ἀλφίτων...θεράποντι δὲ τούτων ἡµίσεα). So,

although a κοτύλη separately could be a liquid measure, there is no suggestion that it measures tears here.

Indeed, the use of the neuter plural (‘four parts’) seems to avoid reference to the ambiguity of the κοτύλη.

Four is the number of kotylai that a full (Attic) choinix should contain and therefore the phrase ‘four to a

choinix’ means simply ‘the full daily allowance’, i.e., their due, “as they deserved”.

441-7.

Despite the need for prompt action, the old men begin to lose their concentration once again and fall to

reminiscing about ‘the good, old days’. As is often the case, these turn out to have been not so good for

everyone concerned. After all, the reason that the slaves were provided with work-clothes, was because

they had to work.

[I have turned the Chorus’ statement (445-6) concerning provision of winter footwear, into a rhetorical

question. It can be accompanied by an indicative gesture, but I have also inserted an optional, additional

line for Chorus (B)].

444. διφθερῶν κἀξωµίδων

The old farmer in Νεφέλαι (72) had fondly imagined that his son would follow in his footsteps and herd

goats, διφθέραν ἐνηµµένος (“wearing a leather jerkin”). This was presumably a goatskin jacket with the

hair left on so that it could be worn on either side according to the severity of the weather.

As its name suggests, the ἐξωµίς left one shoulder bare to facilitate hard labour. The inadequate covering

it offered is emphasized in a fragment (8) from the lost Αἰολοσίκων.

445. κυνᾶς

The ‘leather cap’ was obligatory for the slaves at Sparta, while it was worn by farm-labourers generally at

Athens. In Νεφέλαι (268), the old farmer says that he usually wears one when rain is expected.

446-7.

The old men turn to expressing disapproval of the Father’s captors for failing to show reciprocal concern

for the welfare of his feet. Although τῶν παλαιῶν ἐµβάδων might be taken to mean the “former footwear”

of the slaves (Sommerstein, Henderson) one would have to construe αἰδὼς as if it were χάρις (‘a sense of

gratitude’) But, this interpretation really only springs from the a desire to echo the meaning of παλαιός in

τὸν παλαιὸν δεσπότην (442) and we are not required to use the same word to translate both instances. It is

far more likely that the second instance refers to the worn-out shoes still being worn by the old man, for it

is specifically ἐµβάδας which the Father shouts for when wishing to set out for court-room (103) and it is

the same καταράτους ἐµβάδας, which his son insists on him removing later (1157). Moreover, the whole

point of the phrase ‘shame in the eyes’ is that the slaves are displaying indifference to something that can

be seen; they are unmoved even by the sight of the old man’s worn slippers, so the additional words “at

the thought of” (Sommerstein) is a fudge.

The idea that a slave should have his owner’s best interests at heart was reinforced in tragic-drama, where

servants were regularly depicted as identifying themselves with the fortunes of their masters.

οὐκ ἔνι οὐδ(ὲ) ἐν ὀφθαλµοῖσιν

Hall and Geldart print the reading of the codices οὐδ’ ἐν, but MacDowell argues that this “is not likely to

be right”, since a proverbial expression quoted by Aristotle (ἡ παροιµία, «τὸ ἐν ὀφθαλµοῖς εἶναι αἰδῶ»)

gives us to understand that a sense of shame is necessarily registered in the eyes. Consequently, he prefers

to read οὐδὲν ὀφθαλµοῖσιν, ‘there is no shame at all to their eyes’. But, he seems to overlook the fact that

a sense of shame could be exhibited by word or deed. So, while one could dispense with the preposition,

as we have just seen (441), the point is that the slaves show no sign of conscience or embarrassment, even

in their look or, as we say, they are not even ‘shame-faced’. Sommerstein (1983) and Wilson (2007 p. 85)

agree, as does the oldest manuscript (Π), a fragmentary papyrus of the fifth century A.D.

448. οὐδὲ νυνί

The Chorus’s attempt to shame the slaves into releasing the old man has clearly fallen on deaf ears and he

expostulates incredulously, “not even now (after that moving homily)!”

449-50.

He tries to make them feel guilty about his detention by recalling another ‘service’ he once performed for

their benefit.

450. εὖ κἀνδρικῶς

His manly effort at flogging the slave was tantamount to a deed of daring (τόλµηµα) on the battlefield (cf.

153); yet another accidental admission of the lack of heroism in his past exploits. The phrase is similarly

misapplied to a dubious feat in Ἱππεῖς 379.

452. ἄνες µε καὶ σύ, καὶ σύ,

There are two slaves holding the old man, as the Chorus informed us (442-3). Having just reminded one

of them how splendidly he had been flogged for eating his master’s grapes and now he expects him either

to release him or face more of the same. He then turns to the other slave and tells him to release his hold.

The imperative is to be understood a second time. (The second exhortation is confirmed by the dual form

in the next line.)

πρὶν τὸν υἱὸν † ἐκδραµεῖν †

This phrase troubles me. By analogy with a later passage (cf. 1081, ἐκδραµόντες of the Athenian hoplites

‘sallying out’ from their city) it is understood to mean “Before the (i.e. my) son runs out <of the house>”.

But, Bdelykleon has not left the stage, and even supposing that he had, why would the Father expect that

his reappearance would prompt the two slaves to release him? What motive would the slaves have? There

is no suggestion that he is going to trample them underfoot as Kerberos-Kleon would do (cf. Εἰρήνη 319,

ἐκδραµὼν). A more effective threat would be to warn them that they would be left at his mercy if his son

were to be driven off by the ‘wasps’. I think, therefore, that the scribe who wrote ἐκδραµεῖν meant it to be

understood as “before my son runs away” (cf. Ὄρνιθες 991). But the sentiment, ‘let me go before you live

to regret it’, is not well expressed by the words πρὶν τὸν υἱὸν ἐκδραµεῖν. I suggest that a better verb would

be ἐκτράπειν, which would be a warning to the slaves to let him go “before <my fellow-jurors> turn my

son to flight” (cf. Βάκχαι 798-9, ἀσπίδας…ἐκτρέπειν - “to rout <bronze> shields <with thyrsoi>”). Thus,

after the Chorus’s efforts to appeal to the slaves’ better nature by comparing their master’s disgraceful old

footwear with their own weather-proof clothing (so they could work in all weathers), the old man seconds

their reference to his compassionate nature by giving an example of his strenuous efforts at improving his

slaves’ character and now, he suggests that he will continue this process of improvement once the ‘wasps’

have driven off their master with their stinging. Then, in the next line, the jurors will chime in with their

own warning of legal redress to reinforce his threat.

453. καλὴν δίκην

The slaves will be prosecuted and, when condemned (inevitably), they will pay ‘a fine penalty’ (fine from

the jury’s perspective, at any rate.

455. βλεπόντων κάρδαµα

Eating or smelling a sharp-flavoured herb can contort one’s facial features into a look that might (on such

a dark night) be mistaken for the menacing sneer of a mobster. Therefore, Aristophanes’ phrase ‘looking

nose-smart’ pokes fun here at the tough-guy pretensions of the Chorus. Their threats are merely pathetic.

Later on, however, he will remind us that there was a time when these feeble, old men would have been

genuinely dangerous to provoke (cf. 1082-3).

Aristophanes has a weakness for such herbal, verbal expressions that express facial expressions. A ‘sour’

aspect has him reaching for rennet (used to curdle milk) - βλέπων ὀπόν (Εἰρήνη 1184), a ‘sharp’ look is

produced by a piquant herb - βλέποντ’ ὀρίγανον (Βάτραχοι 603). Here, the plant in question is κάρδαµον

(lepidium sativum) - ‘garden cress’ or ‘peppergrass’, popularly called ‘nose-smart’ cf. Nεφέλαι 234. [Not

to be confused with the tropical plant καρδάµωµον, often called ‘cardamon’ but properly ‘cardamom’.]

456. ὦ Χανθία

Here, the formal vocative is an indication that the Son becomes histrionic in exhorting the slave to drive

away the ‘wasps’, while doing nothing himself. The slave’s bemused reply confirms the paratragic tone of

his master’s exhortation.

457.

Hall and Geldart assign the whole line to the slave, but (as Bergk saw) ἀλλὰ καὶ σὺ must mark a change

of speaker and come from Bdelykleon giving instructions to a second slave.

459. Αἰσχίνην...τὸν Σελλαρτίου

We will later be introduced to Aischines ὁ Σέλλου (1243-4), an upper-class symposiast who is said to be

both educated and accomplished. Here his patronymic may be contrived to resemble the name in real life,

(perhaps Φιλ-άρετος). At any rate, whereas ‘a son of Sellos’ would have been able to escape in a cloud of

smoke earlier (325), this one can produce a cloud of smoke to drive off the wasps. The poet is deliberately

confusing wasps with bees, which a bee-keeper smokes out from the hive to gather their honey (cf. 1079).

460. ἆρ(α) ἐµέλλοµεν

The speaker appears to be making a statement and yet, when the particle ἆρα stands at the beginning of a

phrase it normally indicates a question. Blaydes suggested that we avoid all doubt by starting the line with

ἀποσοβήσειν, but this is too radical a solution to what may be merely the poet’s attempt to signify a tone

of sarcasm. He has chosen to make the line a rhetorical question, but the sense does not differ appreciably

from Strepsiades’ sarcastic statement (Νεφέλαι 1301), ἔµελλον σ’ ἆρα κινήσειν ἐγὼ - “I knew I’d shift

you”.

Most editors follow Bergk’s lead in giving this line to the slave Xanthias, although Henderson prefers to

have it spoken by the Son and Wilson (p. 85) agrees. The latter opines that the self-satisfied sneer sounds

“better on the lips of the young master than coming from a slave”. Nonetheless, it was the slave who had

confidently predicted that he would drive them off (228-9) and the Son who had expressed misgivings.

461-2. Υἱός

In the oldest texts this couplet is differentiated from the previous verse, but is not assigned to a speaker.

Later hands suggest that the words are uttered defiantly by the Chorus, but this seems unlikely since they

would be speaking of themselves in the third person (ἔτυχον). This leaves us to choose between Brunck’s

attribution to Bdelykleon and N.G. Wilson’s (1972) to Philokleon. Though the latter’s argument has won

over Sommerstein and Henderson, the Father is unlikely to suggest that a training in the martial strains of

a younger, contemporary poet would have stood the jurymen in better stead than the music of good, old

Phrynichos. Also, the Son exhibits a healthy caution when dealing with the elderly jurors and had warned

the cocky slave earlier (223-7) about taking them for granted. So, it more likely to be the Son who is here

telling Xanthias to consider himself lucky that he got away by the skin of his teeth.

462. τῶν µελῶν...βεβρωκότες

Because of their age these ‘wasps’ have browsed on the honey (µέλι) of Phrynichos (cf. 220), but if they

had been younger, as human ‘jurors’ they might have grazed on the music (µέλεα) of Philokles.

Φιλοκλέους

The tragic-poet Philokles was the son of Aischylos’s sister by Philopeithes. Comic-poets had nick-named

him Ἁλµίωνος (‘son of brine’) because his verse left a bitter taste; a complimentary sobriquet because the

opposite of ‘salty’ was ‘insipid’ (µῶρος). In a hypothesis to Sophokles’ Οἰδίπους Τύραννος it is said that

the trilogy containing this masterpiece had placed second behind the work of Philokles; an event which in

view of this reference may have occurred quite recently (c. 428-23).

He is making the point that the younger generation, accustomed to a poetic diet of pickles (Heavy Metal

perhaps?) would have been much scarier to look at since their faces would be contorted after listening to

Philokles’ tragedies (cf. 455). Aristophanes mentions him again in Θεσµοφοριάζουσαι (167) and Ὄρνιθες

(279-83, 1245).

463. αὐτὰ δῆλα

Dindorf proposed αὐτόδηλα, since one manuscript indicates that the words should be treated as one idea

(‘self-evident’). But, the fact that Aischylos combines the words in a lyric passage (Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας 848),

does not mean that we have to ‘correct’ the text here.

465. λάθρᾳ γ(ε) ἐλάνθαν(ε) ὑπιοῦσά µε

If the text is right the Chorus is exclaiming that Tyranny “has crept up on me unawares by stealth”. I find

no problem with this, but MacDowell finds it “tautologous”. He prefers the reading ἐλάµβαν’ (R) which

he translates “was getting me in its grip”. But, the tautology does not arise since λάθρᾳ is to be taken with

ὑπιοῦσά. Also, I rather doubt whether we need the additional idea of Tyranny ‘trying to grab him’; to me

it seems sufficient that he finds himself suddenly confronted by the ogre. In fact, the curious word in the

line is the singular µε coming straight after the plural πένησιν.

It would be interesting to know the reading of Π, which is nowhere mentioned in the scholarly debate.

466. ὦ πονῷ πόνηρε

The expression (repeated in Λυσιστράτη 350) might have been understood as ὦ πονωπόνηρε, as has been

suggested by some ancient authorities and F. Wackernagel, but need not have been written so.

κοµητ-Ἀµυνία

He accuses Bdelykleon of imitating the haughty look of a typical, old-school aristocrat (cf. 74), who wore

his hair long as a display of patrician pride. The habit was perhaps intended to point a symbolic similarity

to their horses’ manes (cf. Νεφέλαι 14-5, ὁ δὲ κόµην ἔχων ἱππάζεται - “he rides his horse with his hair

billowing”). Some upper-class Athenians, like the son of Xenophantes, were so vain that they hardly cut

their hair at all and, as a result, ressembled centaurs when out riding (Νεφέλαι 348-9, κοµήτην ἄγριόν τινα

τῶν λασίων τούτων - “one of these wild fellows with long, shaggy hair”). Though younger men were less

keen on long hair now since they might be taken for Spartan-sympathizers, Ameinias may have continued

to wear his hair long, because he held a religious office like Kallias the ‘Torch-bearer’, who wore a head-

band to contain his long tresses (as mentioned by Plutarch in Ἀριστείδης 5.6).

The metre here is trochaic tetrameter so, as in 74, the second syllable of the name Amynias, or Ameinias,

must scan long.

467-70.

He claims that Bdelykleon is depriving them of their protection under the law in a dictatorial and arbitrary

way, instead of doing the same under the cover of specious pretexts, like a good democrat!

473. σοὐς λόγους

The subjunctive verb ἔλθωµεν, found in some manuscripts (RΓJ) as a variant for ἔλθοιµεν in the previous

line, may derive from a gloss on this phrase, for the sense must be σοί ἐς λόγους ἔλθωµεν; (“we…should

come to terms with…you?” But, although Aristophanes might omit the verb elliptically, the sense requires

the preposition. In consequence, the reading of the codices, σοὶ λόγους needs to be emended either with

Hirschig’s σοὐς or Bothe’s σοὶ ’ς.

ὦ µισόδηµε

This narrows down the former charge of µισόπολιν (411) to an accusation of anti-democratic tendencies.

It is the opposite of µισόχρηστος (‘one who detests the gentry’). Those with an aversion to the People and

the Assembly were assumed to be closet Spartan-sympathizers. As Aristophanes says of the Lakonian fig

(in Γεωργοί, frg. 110)

τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ σῦκον ἐχθρόν ἐστι καὶ τυραννικόν·

οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἂν µικρόν, εἰ µὴ µισόδηµον ἦν σφόδρα.

“This type of fig is aggressive and dominant; it would not be small, if it were not fiercely People-averse”.

µοναρχίας ἐραστὰ

The Son is said to “hanker after dictatorial rule”, a coded reference to Spartan fascism, although strictly

speaking the Lakedaimonian constitution was a dual kingship not a ‘monarchy’.

475-6. ξυνὼν Βρασίδᾳ

Losing all self-restraint, he hurls an accusation of collusion with the enemy. Brasidas was the Lakonian

counterpart of Kleon, a proponent of patriotic war who was using the period of truce to sow disaffection

among Athens’ allies in Northern Greece.

καὶ φoρῶν...τρέφων

Bdelykleon’s pro-Spartan sympathies are betrayed by the woolen tassels on his cloak and his aversion to

shaving. Since these features were intended to be humourous, one may assume that they were common

enough among Athenians who were just aiming for an old-school, aristocratic look rather than a coup d’

état.

478. ἦ µοι κρεῖττον

Such potential clauses may dispense with the particle ἂν (cf. 209, Νεφέλαι 1215), but the omission of the

main verb is unusual. I suspect one should rather read ἦν µοι κρεῖττον - “I would be better off…”

ἐκστῆναι...τοῦ πατρὸς

Whereas a citizen might normally deny paternity in the case of a bastard child, Bdelykleon contemplates

renouncing his own paternity. He wonders aloud whether he might in fact disinherit his father. It is a taste

of the comic reversal to come later.

479. κακοῖς...ναυµαχεῖν

The metaphor has the ring of tragic grandiloquence, which we can convey in translation by quoting from

a well-known tragedy of our own.

480. οὐδ(ὲ) ἐν σελίνῳ... ἐν πηγάνῳ

Despite the best efforts of the ancient commentators to explain this horticultural allusion, we still have to

guess what it conveyed to the Athenian audience and my guess is no better than anyone else’s. It is clear

from the context that the expression signified ‘to be starting out’, but the reasons given for its origin seem

faintly ridiculous; either that celery and rue are always planted at a garden’s edge and so they are the first

plants one comes across, or that babies were placed among celery (for some obscure magical properties it

may have conferred). But, it may not have been a proverbial expression at all. It may be another example

of inner feelings revealed by facial expressions which resemble the effects of eating certain herbs (cf. e.g.

455). The Chorus may simply be saying to the Son that, if he thinks he has problems now, he should wait

until he is ‘in among the celery and rue’, i.e. when their bitter taste will really bring tears to his eyes.

Some manuscripts mark this line as spoken by the semi-chorus and this is logical given the ‘aside’ of the

following line, which elaborates on it.

481. τῶν τριχοινίκων ἐπῶν

As we have seen (440), the ‘choinix’ was used to measure dry, agricultural produce, and though it seems

doubtful that celery and rue would be measured by the same unit, we have to assume that the expression

“three-choinix words” is introduced here because theoretically they might be. It is perhaps no different to

saying that a cowboy wears a ‘ten-gallon hat’. At any rate, three seems to be taken to indicate a generous

quantity, over and above what is normal, e.g. in Εἰρήνη 1144, ‘Chorus’ imagines a farmer instructing his

wife to “parch three quarts of beans” for a feast - ἄφαυε τῶν φασήλων...τρεῖς χοίνικας. Another passage

(frg. 481) quoted by Athenaios from Προάγων, plays obscurely on the measurement of corn:

ὁ δ’ἀλφίτων...πριάµενος τρεῖς χοίνικας κοτύλης δεούσας ἑκτέα λογίζεται.

As for the ἔπεα, they are both ‘proverbial phrases’ like that just uttered, and the ‘accusations’ which they

customarily fling in the face of the defendant in court.

483. σου καταντλῇ

The metaphor (found also in Plato’s dialogues) was probably vernacular. The prosecutor is said to ‘pour

down’ the identical accusations so as to drench the putative defendant (cf. κατὰ τοῖν κόραιν...καταχεῖται,

“my eyes are suffused” in line 7).

ξυνωµότας καλῇ

Why would they wait until the prosecutor “issues a summons to conspirators” in general (MacDowell)?

The old men are only concerned to threaten Bdelykleon by telling him that the public prosecutor will lay

to his charge the same facts, namely his long hair (466), his tasseled robes (475) and unshaven face (477),

before ‘calling him a conspirator’. The verb is active (cf. 1441) and Cobet’s emendation ξυνωµότην is

necessary. It is worth asking, perhaps, how the misreading arose, for it occurs to me that the original may

have been the Doric «ξυνωµόταν», to suggest that he had conspired with Brasidas.

485. δέδοκταί µοι δέρεσθαι

The personal pronoun is puzzling, because it would normally supply the subject of the impersonal verb, “I

have made up my mind to…” But, the invocation in the previous line has already furnished a more likely

subject for the verb, <θεοῖς> δέδοκται (“or have the gods seen fit…”), thus the pronoun appears to belong

with the dependent clause and Starkie (1897) accordingly translates, “(is it decreed) for me to be flayed”.

In this case, however, would we not expect δέδοκται to be followed by the objective pronoun µε? Weber

(1908) defended µοι as a ‘dative of disadvantage’, but only Sommerstein among recent editors (possibly

persuaded by Weber’s explanation of the pronoun) has followed Starkie’s lead. Incidentally, Weber had

suggested that the Chorus could be the unexpressed subject of the verb, so that the question being posed

is <ὑµῖν> δέδοκται (“have <you> decided that I…?”), but this too seems less likely.

Other scholars, however, have concluded that µοι can only be a copyist’s mistake, either a misreading, or

a deliberate attempt to attract the original accusative to the dative to serve as the verb’s subject. But, since

µε is unsuited to the metre, one can only view µοι as a copying error. Platnauer (1949) suggested that we

emend to τοι, and this is the simplest remedy (“or is it decreed, I should like to know…”). MacDowell, on

the other hand, proposed καὶ instead and this meets with Henderson’s approval.

But, emending µοι in this way leaves us with either one or two conjunctions, where we would rather have

none. Starkie long ago noted that reciprocal verbs are usually juxtaposed in asyndeton, e.g. δάκνειν,

δάκνεσθαι - “to bite and be bitten” (Βάτραχοι 861), ἄγοµαι, φέροµαι - “being borne to and fro” (Νεφέλαι

241) and πωλεῖν ἀγοράζειν - “buy and sell” (Ἀχαρνεῖς 625). Here, the conjunction can be justified if two

related actions are co-joined, rather than the same action being reciprocated. Consequently, we can infer

that the poet wrote not, µοι δέρεσθαι, but λοιδορεῖσθαι and translate, “or have the gods seen fit <for us>

to resort to verbal and physical abuse the day long?” The verb is used in a similar way in Βάτραχοι when

‘Dionysos’ tries to persuade the warring poets Euripides and Aischylos to restrain their volatile tempers,

λοιδορεῖσθαι δ’ οὐ πρέπει ἄνδρας ποητὰς ὥσπερ ἀρτοπώλιδας - “literary men ought not to rail at one

another like baker-women” (857-8) and is employed when Strepsiades and his son start the war of words,

ἠρξάµεσθα λοιδορεῖσθαι (Νεφέλαι 1353). This combination of verbal with physical abuse seems the norm

in comedy, e.g. Νεφέλαι 934, παύσασθε µάχης καὶ λοιδορίας.

Although this resolution of the problem appears to have been proposed by Hirschig (as Platnauer’s article

indicates in a footnote), his suggestion seems to have been overlooked or too casually dismissed.

487. <ὧδ’> ἐστάλης

Metrists have noted that there ought to be an extra syllable before the last word to maintain it as a cretic.

Hall and Geldart print Hermann’s proposal, while MacDowell adopts Meineke’s ἐξεστάλης.

488. τυραννίς...καὶ ξυνωµόται

This exchange reflects the paranoia stirred up by Kleon’s divisive oratory (cf. 41). We are told in Ἱππεῖς

how the demagogue used to accuse the upper classes of conspiring against the ‘democracy’ (ξυνωµότας

λέγων, 628).

490. οὐδὲ πεντήκοντ(α) ἐτῶν

The adverbial οὐδὲ is an asseveration of the previous οὐκ, “no, not even during these fifty years” or as we

would say “I have not heard for at least fifty years”. The reference (as Henderson’s note 36 points out) is

to the half-century or more that had elapsed since Athens’ ‘democracy’ was thrown into dire panic by the

Persian invasion which, it was later alleged (Herodotos 7.6) was bent on regime change. This, of course,

ignores the frequent recourse to ostracism in the intervening years. Since Bdelykleon is not old enough to

personally recall the events of the past half-century, the use of the first person (ἐγὼ οὐκ ἤκουσα) should

be taken as comic exaggeration, equivalent to οὐκ ἠκούσθη, “has not been heard”.

491. τοῦ ταρίχους...ἀξιωτέρα

The word ἄξιος belongs properly to the market-place where it refers to an item’s actual ‘value’ (lit. the

quality by which it tips the scales). But, the comparative form of the adjective introduces an ambiguity

between intrinsic and relative value, because it recognizes that a commodity’s value fluctuates according

to demand. Thus the more fish loading the scales at a given price, the “cheaper” they are. So, when the

Sausage-seller announces (Ἱππεῖς 645) that, “I’ve never before seen sprats cheaper” - οὐπώποτ’ ἀφύας

εἶδον ἀξιωτέρας, his words are received with joy by the councillors because the price of fresh fish, even

sprats, would normally be high due to the the stringent war-time conditions

Here, the Son takes salted fish (τάριχος) as an example of a price-sensitive commodity, since it is always

going to be worth less than fresh fish. Salt-fish were usually sold separately, as Theophrastos mentions

both ἰχθυοπώλια and ταριχοπώλια (Χαρακτῆρες 6.9). With the resumption of fishing under more normal

conditions, the customer can get more salted fish for his money, and even more “conspiracy theories”,

which have now become “two a penny”.

The neuter genitive ταρίχους (nominative τὸ τάριχος) seems to be the usual Attic form, but the masculine

ὁ τάριχος is found in the comedies of Kratinos and Platon.

492. ὥστε καὶ δὴ

He backs up his claim with evidence that his auditors are bound to appreciate; “witness the fact that…”

κυλίνδεται

The verb describes the motion of a wheel and is usually taken metaphorically to mean that Tyranny was

‘circulating’ and hence ‘is bandied about’, but the context suggests that we could take it concretely and

imagine that is not simply on sale at a single stall but “being trundled” throughout the market on a push-

cart in much the same way that the Sausage-seller in Ἱππεῖς hawks his wares around.

493. ὀρφῶς

In Turkish the name orfoz (ροφός in Modern Greek) is given to dark-coloured fish, akin to the Atlantic

perch, known as a ‘dusky grouper’ (epinephelus). Its tasty flesh makes it the quarry of spear-fishermen

and it is much in demand at fishmongers. Its rocky habitat in the Karpass peninisula of Northern Cyprus

is now ‘protected’.

496. ταῖς ἀφύαις ἥδυσµά τι

The Son visualizes a careful (or impoverished) shopper bargaining over the purchase of some sprats in the

hope of getting the fishmonger to throw in an onion to get the deal done. The tiny fish were harder to sell

because they required fiddly preparation and seasoning.

497. παραβλέψασα...θἀτέρῳ

The aorist participle indicates that she has “cast a sideways glance out of one <eye>”. (The phrase recurs

in Ἐκκλησιάζουσαι 498)

500-2.

The slave’s interjection immediately lowers the tension of the conversation. He recalls the reluctance of a

prostitute to take the dominant role in their sexual congress, the position known as ‘the racehorse’ which

requires rather more effort from ‘the jockey’. This may be why he mentions that the meeting took place at

midday, when presumably the heat was greatest (as McDowell thinks). However, it is more likely to be an

indication of Xanthias’s impecunity, as the demand for a prostitute’s services was greatest at night so that

the price was lower in the daytime. A passage in Demosthenes (18.129, where τοῖς µεθηµερινοῖς γάµοις is

a euphemism for visiting a prostitute) suggests that the lower classes frequented brothels during the day

(cf. also Xenarchos frg. 4.17). For a fuller discussion of work-shifts in brothels, see J.N. Davidson (1997)

83-91.

The point of the joke lies in the root of the name Hipp-ias which is here linked literally to the racehorse-

position. Hippias, son of Peisistratos, had ruled Athens as a virtual dictator, until overthrown by the other

aristocratic clans in the ‘democratic revolution’ of 511/10 B.C.

καθίσταµαι τυραννίδα

The verb here is a ‘conative present’ tense, “I’m endeavouring to set up a dictatorship”.

503. ταῦτα...ἡδέ(α)

Dindorf wanted to elide the ἡδέα of the codices, but a hiatus between two long syllables is not unknown

in Aristophanes’ verse and the ending -έα counts as a single long syllable here (cf. 743).

505. ὀρθροφοιτο-συκοφαντο-δικο-ταλαιπώρων

The manuscript reading ὀρθο- was rectified by Grynaeus. The Son is annoyed by the Father’s frequently-

noisy departure in the early hours. Thus, his father’s habits are viewed as a ταλαιπωρία to them both.

506. Μόρυχος

This contemporary Athenian is mentioned again later in this play (1142) for his elegant mode of dress. He

enjoyed a reputation as a bon viveur (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 887; Εἰρήνη 1008) and the scholia on both of these two

passages mention the fact that he wrote tragedies. Plato (Φαιδρός 227β) alludes to the fact that he lived in

an affluent district of Athens near the Olympieion. He was sufficiently distinguished that he drew the fire

of other comic-poets as well, e.g. Sophron (frg. 74), µωρότερος Μορύχου - “more dull than Morychos”

(which is probably no more than unkind wordplay) and Platon (frg. 106). A scholion on the later passage

asserts that he was ὠχρός (‘pale-skinned’),which suggests that he was being ridiculed as an intellectual,

although here again the epithet may be merely a play on his name.

508. ὀρνίθων γάλα

The phrase “birds’ milk” is axiomatic of ‘whatever delicacy one may imagine’ (cf. Ὄρνιθες 734, 1673).

[It has been revived in Modern Greek (και του πουλίου το γάλα) as an advertising slogan for a leading

chain of supermarkets.]

511. δικίδιον σµικρὸν φάγοιµ(ι)

For all his disavowal of comfortable living, any mention of food tends to lead the father’s thoughts off on

a tangent (cf. 331). The court-case is ‘small’ in the sense that it would be of short duration, because from

the start he is keen to cast his vote.

πεπνιγµένον

The participle (‘drowned’, ‘suffocated’) suggests respectively stewing, or baking in a closed dish though

it could also be a reference to dousing an open pan with a dash of wine or vinegar shortly before serving.

This process, known to contemporary Greek chefs as ‘extinguishing’ (σβήσιµο), is suggested by the high-

temperature cooking mentioned by Herodotos (2.92).

The reading πεπηγµένον of the Ravenna codex (‘fixed’, ‘frozen’ or possibly ‘curdled’) seems less likely,

but is not certainly wrong; it might be taken to signify the jurors’ conflicting interests and indecision.

514. πάντα ταῦτ(α)

The accusative is one of respect (“with regard to all these <matters>”), i.e. the accusations that have been

made, but chiefly his daily routine (505).

516. µόνον οὐ προσκυνεῖς

This may, as MacDowell notes, be the first instance in extant literature of the usage µόνον οὐ (“all but”),

an ellipse of ‘the only thing you do not do is…’ His point being that the jurors stand in awe of the leading

prosecutors who orate in courts.

520. σοι καρπουµένῳ

The pronoun belongs with (ἐ)στί, while the participle agrees with it and means “harvesting for yourself”.

There is perhaps a tinge of sarcasm to the expression as if Bdelykleon’s words echoed something Kleon

himself might have said.

521. τούτοισί γ(ε)

The Father wants to refer the case to his fellow-jurors and they do indeed deliver a verdict in due course

(725-7). As Sommerstein observes, this is the only ἀγών in Aristophanes’ plays in which the Chorus acts

as judges, but it is also the only drama in which they are actually judges. It is not necessary to suppose (as

MacDowell suggests) that “these men” refers to the audience, who will form their own judgement in any

case.

522. ξίφος γέ µοι δότε

As in epic poetry, or Wild West movie, one of the brawling antagonists has been restrained and disarmed

to avoid bloodshed. Now that tempers have cooled and the disputants have agreed to talk, someone says,

‘let him go and give him back his gun/sword’ (as a gesture of trust). After line 525 Sommerstein indicates

“A slave brings out a sword, puts it in Philocleon’s hand, and goes back into the house”. No, he does not.

MacDowell states, Philokleon’s words are “a melodramatic utterance, of which nobody takes any notice”,

just like his previous outburst (cf. 166). One may compare Νεφέλαι 907, δότε µοι λεκάνην. Austin (1973)

disagrees.

Incidentally, the words were long considered a continuation of the Son’s speech, but Bergler has pointed

out the likelihood that they belong to Philokleon (see MacDowell’s note).

523. περιπεσοῦµαι τῷ ξίφει

The only reason a sword has been mentioned is to introduce some black humour. Some five years before,

a military commander named Paches, who had subdued Mytilene for Athens (cf. Thucydides 3.28), had

died by his own sword. Plutarch’s record of the event states that he was undergoing examination over his

period in office (εὐθύνας διδοὺς τῆς στρατηγίας), when he drew his sword and killed himself ‘in the very

court-room’ (Νικίας 6.1-2). However, it is most unlikely that a defendant (or anyone else for that matter)

would be permitted to enter a court under arms. Presumably, Paches foresaw the likelihood that he would

be convicted by the councillors and decided to take his life beforehand to spare his family and property

from the consequences. Plutarch, or one of his less-discriminating sources, may well have taken a comic

scene such as this as evidence that the suicide might have occurred dramatically inside the court-room.

[A recent tragic parallel is the case of the Pennsylvania politician Robert Budd Dwyer, who convicted on

a charge of receiving bribes in office, took his own life before sentencing to preserve his wife’s right to

receive his pension benefits.]

524. τί δ(ὲ), ἢν - τὸ δεῖνα

A note of cynicism seems to enter his voice as he wonders half to himself, “but tell me <in that case >

what <forfeit would you pay> if (perish the thought!) you…” The idiomatic phrase τὸ δεῖνα occurs often

in Aristophanes’ verse, e.g. Εἰρήνη (268), Ὄρνιθες (648) etc.

τῇ...(ἐ)µµένῃς

The participants in an arbitration must agree beforehand to be bound by the decision. Here, Bdelykleon

prudently seeks to define a penalty for non-compliance. For the use of the verb in a legal context (“abide

by”) cf. Xenophon Ἀποµνηµονεύµατα 4.4.16.

It is worth observing, in light of a suggestion by Habertsma (cf. Wilson pp. 85-6) to transpose lines 522-3

until after 525, that far from ignoring Philokleon’s melodramatic threat as Wilson supposes, Bdelykleon’s

words have been prompted by it. The Son knows his father has no intention of taking the honourable way

out if he loses and he exacts a promise that, if his argument prevails, his father will forgo the courts. The

transposition has been rejected for good reason, since it is precisely this blasé promise (which will come

back to haunt him) that marks the ‘tragic’ climax.

525. ἀκράτου µισθὸν

Following their meal a group of symposiasts would begin the evening’s carousal by pouring a libation or

drinking a toast to the spirit of harmony. Thus, in Ἱππεῖς (85), one of the slaves proposes that “we ought to

<drink> neat wine for the spirit of blessing” - ἀλλ’ ἄκρατον οἶνον ἀγαθοῦ δαίµονος (cf. also Ἱππεῖς 105-

6). The tradition that only unmixed wine was used for the opening round was presumably based on some

religious, apotropaic dogma, since under normal circumstances one could hardly expect good fellowship

to be promoted by the strongest drink. This irony is brought out in the answer of the other slave (87-8).

Here Philokleon supposes that the same spirit of fellowship prevails among the jurors as a result of their

having imbibed neat “pay”, so editors now prefer to read ἄκρατον (Richter) to agree with µισθὸν. The

point of ‘unmixed’ may be that Philokleon’s pay is not shared, but his to spend as he please (cf. 785-6),

usually on wine!

Contest (Ἀγών) 526-724

526-45.

The opening to the ἀγών shows the psychological sparring prior to the beginning of the bout. Philokleon

is shown as about to engage in courtroom debate as if he were a boxer. The principal source of humour is

the rapid disintegration of the Chorus’s confidence in their counsel/fighter. They remind him that he bears

a heavy weight of responsibility for defeating the younger man. The interjections made by the Son and the

Father reveal that their minds are focused on their own preparations. [It is reminiscent of those nauseating

operatic scenes where soloist and chorus seem to sing at cross-purposes, and for this reason I have chosen

not to versify the exchange.]

The Chorus sing in iambic / choriambic meter (˗ ˗ or ˗ ˞ or ˞ ˗ followed by ˞ ˗), while the debaters interject

in iambic tetrameters. These lines form a strophe which is answered by the antistrophe of lines 631-47.

526. νῦν δὴ

Editors have preferred the temporal particle “now at this point” (J) over the ordinary connective particle

δὲ of the codices. MacDowell compares the same opening of the ἀγών in Ἱππεῖς (756), where the metre

requires δὴ.

527. γυµνασίου

His fellow-jurors speak of Philokleon as if he were an athlete trained at the same wrestling-school and the

simile is reinforced at various points in the debate.

δεῖ τι λέγειν καινόν

Hall and Geldart have adopted Porson’s suggestion to rearrange the word-order of the codices, λέγειν τι

δεῖ καινόν, but recent editors have preferred to accept the received text.

529. ἐνεγκάτω µοι...τις

Bdelykleon does not need to ‘shout into the house’, as there are slaves on hand to run and fetch what he

requires.

530. φανεῖ ποῖός τις ὤν

The previous line, spoken as an aside to one of the slaves, parried the encouragement being offered from

his opponent’s ‘corner’ by the chorus-leader. Now the Son turns abruptly to poke fun at his father’s ‘skill’

with words.

Willems felt that the lines have been muddled here and proposed a rearrangement in which 538 is brought

forward to precede 529 and 530 takes its place. Such a transposition breaks the close connection between

the chorus-leader’s φανήσει and Bdelykleon’s φανεῖ, which seems deliberate. But Willems is not alone in

finding the syntax strange. It looks as though the infinitive εἶναι has been dropped in colloquial speech, so

that the meaning is “he will show himself to be the kind of man he is” i.e. show his true qualities.

ἢν ταῦτα παρακελεύῃ

Sommerstein (1977, 265-6) adopted Srebrny’s proposal (though on different grounds) to shift the clause

from subjunctive into present indicative (εἰ ταῦτα παρακελεύει) and Henderson concurs. To be sure, since

the advice is being offered in the moment, it is hard to see why the subjunctive might be required. To try,

as MacDowell does, to justify the reading of the codices by saying that the exhortation will continue into

the future is unconvincing. But, one still has to wonder how the straightforward active came to be altered

to the subjunctive of our present text.

First of all, it is worth looking back at the textual tradition to note an earlier change made by the Aldine

editor, who chose to print ταῦτα in place of the codices’ reading ταῦτ’ αὐτὰ (on metrical grounds). This

decision to cut out the second pronoun focuses our attention on the advice being given to come up with

some fresh argument (δεῖ τι λέγειν καινόν), but the phrase ταῦτ’ αὐτὰ hints that the focus lies elsewhere.

We might consider whether the right subjunctive tense has been applied to the wrong action, for the verb

παρακελεύειν may be a red herring. Since the Son has just heard the Chorus urging his father to try a new

approach, he is less likely to be questioning what he has heard, or even the soundness of the advice, than

commenting ironically on the chance of his father doing this. One may be better off, therefore, seeking a

verb which fits the original text better. I suggest our poet may have written ἢν ταῦτ’ αὐτὰ παραλέγῃ, “if

<my father> is going to continue talking the same nonsense”.

531-2. µὴ...λέγων

The Chorus completes the phrase begun in 528, urging their champion “not to speak in the manner of this

youth here”. They seem to be disparaging the Son’s languid tone; an element of his classy manners (135).

The word νεανίας is often dismissive when used in tragic-drama, as when Theseus is told by the herald in

Euripides’ Ἱκέτιδες (580), νῦν δ’ ἔτι εἶ νεανίας - “you are still inexperienced”. Here, the Chorus is saying

that the Son displays the rashness of youth which is a product of his wilful character (383 πρινωδηθυµὸν).

This initial attempt to downplay his debating skills makes Bentley’s τονδὶ more likely than the codices’

τόνδε (RV).

The participle λέγων has been written by Hirschig to match ὤν in 530, but recent editors have recognized

that we need the infinitive λέγειν (RV).

533. σοι µέγας ἐστὶν ἁγὼν

Hall and Geldart follow Dobree in aspirating the noun (the codices read simply ἐστ’ ἀγὼν). The members

of the chorus realize that there is a lot riding on the outcome of this debate (cf. Νεφέλαι 957, ἐστὶν ἁγὼν

µέγιστος, Ἀχαρνεῖς 392, and 481, ἆρ’ οἶσθ’ ὅσον τὸν ἀγῶν’ ἀγωνιεῖ τάχα; also Βάτραχοι 883, frg. 331).

535-7. εἴπερ - ὃ µὴ γένοιθ’

Bdelykleon’s evident familiarity with the behaviour of leading counsel shakes the confidence of the jurors

and they begin to become anxious “in case he actually does beat…” Their εἴπερ represents a shudder; a

mix of bemusement and dread. (cf. Νεφέλαι 227, τοὺς θεοὺς ὑπερφρονεῖς...εἴπερ; - “you scorn the gods…

if you are actually daring that?”). Sommerstein (followed by Henderson) suggests we emend to εἰ γάρ, in

order to leave their phrase hanging open-ended at κρατῆσαι, but their thought will naturally run on in 540,

even without a grammatical conjunction.

The colometry is in doubt, so establishing the most likely text is tricky. Hall and Geldart print Bentley’s

γένοιθ’, οὗ/τος which makes the line correspond with 639, both composed of a choriamb (˗ ˞ ˞ ˗) followed

by a bacchius (˞ ˗ ˗). Only MacDowell ends the line (his 536) with a short, γένοιτο, as per the codices.

οὗτος <σ’> ἐθέλει κρατῆσαι

The codices read νῦν οὗτος ἐθέλει κρατῆσαι, but no-one is happy with this. Hall and Geldart drop νῦν and

insert the pronoun σε as first suggested by Porson. MacDowell follows Wilamowitz and drops οὗτος σ(ε),

retaining νῦν instead. But, the real problem is the verb ἐθέλει. Although Sommerstein (1977, 266) thought

initially that it could function with an infinitive as a future tense, he later revised his view (2004, xxvi). It

suggests that the meaning should be οὗτος σε µέλλει κρατῆσαι, but this reading would ruin the rhythm. In

fact, this later usage probably explains the corruption. A scribe, used to the later κοινή Greek had misread

the text, which Blaydes plausibly restored as οὗτος σε λέγων κρατήσει (in responsion to ὁδί µε τῷ λόγῳ

κρατήσῃ, 539). Wilson (2007, 86) joins Sommerstein in preferring this solution, in spite of its divergence

from the received text. Starkie’s bold effort to respect the codices with σ’ ἔθ’ ἕλοι κρατήσας, puts a strain

on syntax.

538. γράψοµαι (ἐ)γώ

MacDowell has the slave hand over the writing-box to the Son and leave. But, is it likely that Bdelykleon

will take notes for himself, if there is a slave on hand to do it for him? The middle voice indicates that he

intends ‘having his father’s words written down’ for him to consult if necessary (a possibility MacDowell

recognized). This, of course, presupposes that some slaves were literate (cf. Νεφέλαι 770, ἐγγράφοιτο).

In a contest between father and son, the slave plays the part of score-keeper. But, I doubt that the line can

be taken as evidence for the keeping of official court-proceedings. It may well reflect the fact, however,

that each advocate had a record kept of the opposing counsel’s arguments in order to answer them in his

own speech.

539. ἢν ὁδί µε τῷ λόγῳ κρατήσῃ;

The Son has just ‘parried’ the jurors remark with an aside, just as he did in line 529, but, before he is able

to redirect the chorus-leader’s words, he is forestalled by the Father’s indignant comment, “What are you

fellows talking about, ‘If he beats me in debate’?” But, somewhat reluctantly, I have come to think that a

better reading is that proposed by Thompson (1895). He argues from the responsion between strophe and

antistrophe that, just as the latter is interrupted by two couplets spoken by Philokleon (634-5, 642-3), so

we should expect the former to contain two interruptions from Bdelykleon (529-30, 538-9). Although the

argument of responsion would not normally sway me, I now think that (with Thompson’s emendation of

ἢν ὁδί µὴ τῷ λόγῳ) both lines belong to the Son. It is he who belatedly picks up the Chorus’s misgivings

and challenges them to consider the consequences of defeat. Like the earlier instance in 530, his κρατήσῃ

picks up on the chorus-leader’s last word κρατήσει.

540-45.

Briefly, the Chorus allow themselves to contemplate the possibility of the Father’s defeat. The prospect is

not one on which they wish to dwell. The θαλλοφόροι, the old men who took part in the state procession

of the pan-Athenaia, evoke the image of aged veterans laying wreathes at cenotaphs and perhaps serves as

a reminder that in their youth they would more likely have been ἀθλοφόροι. But, it also hints at another

group of religious celebrants, the φαλλοφόροι (cf. φαλληφόρια in Plutarch) of Dionysos, whom they may

be bawdily imitating at this point (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς, 260). Besides, the final phrase, ἀντωµοσιῶν κελύφη, is

more laughable than pathetic.

541. ἔστ(αι) οὐδ(ὲ) ἀκαρῆ

The verb must be the future tense rather than present. The neuter plural of ἀκαρής is used here adverbially

to modify χρήσιµος, “not even the slightest bit of use” (cf. 701).

542-3. δ(ὲ) ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς

The codices here mostly read δ’ ἂν ἐν ταῖσιν ὁδοῖσ(ιν) ἁπάσαις, but in order to achieve better responsion

between 542-5 and the parallel verses 645-7 editors have generally followed Porson’s lead in cutting the

text to δ’ ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς. As MacDowell explains, ἁπάσαις is probably a gloss to indicate that the poet did

not mean any streets in particular.

In his original edition, Sommerstein adopted an addition by Wilamowitz δ’ ἂν <αὐτίκ(α)> but decided to

revert to Porson’s emended text later (2004, xxvi), since it does nothing to improve the responsion.

544. καλούµεθ(α)

The codices read καλοίµεθ’, but this may be merely because ἂν had been mistakenly inserted before ἐν in

the previous line. At any rate, Porson chose to correct this to the future indicative “we will be called…”

545. ἀντωµοσίων κελύφη

The ‘pod’ of peas, the ‘peel’ of citrus fruit, or the ‘husk’ of grains of corn, having served their purpose,

are good for nothing. The old men are worried that, if all they contain are the statements made in court by

the parties, they will be seen as surplus to requirement. Fifth-century Athenian courts did not delve deeply

into the evidence offered by the two parties, because they lacked the tools of forensic science. Cases were

founded upon the oaths sworn by the accused and his prosecutor, in the belief that the gods would reveal

anyone taking their name in vain.

547. πᾶσαν γλῶτταν βασάνιζε

Commentators have assumed that the jurors are urging their spokesman to employ all his rhetorical skill

in the debate and in consequence have interpreted the phrase to mean “put all your eloquence to the test”.

It may be that the Attic form γλῶτταν is an indication that the expression was borrowed from vernacular

speech, but as MacDowell admits, there is no exact parallel in extant literature. Indeed, this interpretation

appears to reverse the usual sense, since normally, it was the tongue itself which ‘turns the screws on’ the

spoken word, ἐπῶν βασανίστρια, λισπὴ γλῶσσα - “a polished tongue, making the lines sing” (Βάτραχοι

826-7). Moreover, the fact that the ‘whole’ tongue is apparently being ‘put to the test’ should alert us to a

flaw in our current thinking. In a verse of Sophokles, Elektra cautions herself not to badmouth her mother

by “shooting out her whole tongue” at her, ἣ πᾶσαν ἵης γλῶσσαν ὡς τὴν µητέρα (Ἠλέκτρα 596); a phrase

which one understands as ‘speaking in an unrestrained manner’. This suggests that the Chorus is making

a rather different point and that the old men expect their spokesman to match the method of their

champion Kleon (cf. 596) by using forceful language. In which case, the received text must be suspect. If

we assign to the imperative its usual sense of ‘torture’ and if the tongue itself applies the torture then the

most likely object will be the Son. I suspect that the poet wrote πάσῃ γλώττῇ <sc. τοῦτον> βασάνιζε -

“flog him with the full force of your tongue” (give him a ‘tongue-lashing’), only to have a later hand alter

the dative to an accusative in order to supply the missing object which was thought to be essential (cf.

609). The phrase is used to hint at the pretrial ‘torture of witnesses’ in order to test their evidence, in

which his tongue will do the examining. Comparable phrases found in Νεφέλαι are, τῇ γλώττῃ πολεµίζων

(419) and ἀµφήκει γλώττῃ λάµπων (1160).

548-9. εὐθύς γ(ε) ἀπὸ βαλβίδων

The metaphor “from the starting-line” reflects the Chorus’s reference to their ‘training-ground’ (526-7).

ἀρχῆς...βασιλείας

Legal authority was traditionally vested in the monarch, but at Athens this power was held by the courts

of the citizens themselves. As we are reminded throughout the drama by the Chorus, the courts were often

all that stood between the ordinary citizen and oligarchic rule.

οὐδεµίας ἥττων

The equivalent to nulli secundus in Latin.

551. τρυφερώτερον

The juror is “pampered” (Sommerstein) like a pet animal or ‘dainty’ kept-female.

552. ἕρποντ(α) ἐξ εὐνῆς

The Father describes what appears to be routine behaviour on a trial day. To begin with he refers to the

typical juror, so that he (or rather Aristophanes) can deride his decrepit condition as “he crawls from his

(death)-bed” to attend court. The verb denotes clumsy or painful movement (cf. 272; 1531, προσέρπει). In

Aristophanes’ first play, ∆αιταλεῖς (frg. 216), another juror had crawled toward the door of the law-court,

ὁ δ’ ἠλιαστὴς εἷρπε πρὸς τὴν κιγκλίδα.

ἐπὶ τοῖσι δρυφάκτοις

This scene helps us to appreciate why he wanted his mortal remains buried here where he had enjoyed his

most fulfilling moments (cf. 386).

In his περὶ τῆς Ἀρχαίας Κωµῳδίας (frg. 89, quoted by Harpokration p. 86.2), Eratosthenes explained that

there was a proverbial phrase Λύκου δεκάς which referred to those who used to hang about the shrine of

Lykos outside the courts (cf. 389) in the hope of locating a venal juryman (οἱ δωροδοκοῦντες is probably

used of those offering rather than those willing to accept bribes). This is not to be taken literally to imply

that there were always ten men trying to corrupt the jury, but rather as some comic-poet’s feeble attempt

to pun on λύκου δέρας (‘a wolf-skin’) by suggesting that there were always tens of defendants willing to

offer an inducement the jurors.

553-4. τετραπήχεις

The adjective was not merely metaphorical as the families who traced their descent from the gods would

try to ensure that their physical stature was passed down the generations by interbreeding. “Superior diet

and systematic exercise in childhood” would have helped too, as Sommerstein oberves.

προσίοντι...µοι

He comically drops his guard (and again in line 558 ἐµ’...ζῶντα), as he imagines himself being accosted

at the court-entrance, and hints that he has not been averse to taking bribes from the accused. Some have

felt that the change from the third person of ἕρποντ(α) to this self-referential remark is too abrupt and, in

fact, Blaydes proposed rejecting µοι as a gloss; a suggestion which appeals to Wilson. Consequently, the

participle still applies to the typical juror (“as he approaches”). But, removing the pronoun deprives the

scene of its unexpected humour in the unguarded remark.

A separate issue (a clause seems to have dropped out of Wilson’s comment on p. 86) is the equally abrupt

shift from the plural ἄνδρες µεγάλοι to a singular verb ἐµβάλλει. As MacDowell notes, this switch can be

paralled in Aristophanes’ works, but continuity is certainly aided by Wilson’s idea to read προσιών τις...

(“one of them approaches and…”), although he himself does not choose to print it. This seems to me the

preferable reading, as against the natural interpretation of προσίοντι...µοι, “to me as I arrive”.

τὴν χεῖρ(α) ἁπαλὴν

‘Soft hands’ are characteristic of what we call white-collar criminals, though here they do not serve to

differentiate the man from the farmer or craft-worker so much as from the serving hoplite or rower (as

Philokleon had been formerly), whose hands are calloused (cf. 1119).

τῶν δηµοσίων

These words indicate that the defendant is a former public official who has been referred for trial because

of charges brought during his ‘audit’ (εὐθύνη) for misuse of public funds (cf. Νεφέλαι 351).

555. ὑποκύπτοντες

The plural participles refer back to the upper-class defendants, suggesting the tone in which they typically

implore his leniency. Instead of talking down to him as usual, these aristocrats are forced to “bend down”

to plead with him, so giving the impression that they are bowing to him.

τὴν φωνὴν οἰκτροχοοῦντες

This unique formation has raised questions. If the participle stood alone, it would be tempting to adapt the

the text to read οἰκτρογοοῦντες (“wailing piteously”), suggested by the example οἰκτρογοοῦντας cited by

Hesychios, which gives a more straightforward sense. Blaydes’ alternative οἰκτοχοοῦντες would mean an

‘outpouring of compassion’; the opposite of what is required here. Instead, the poet has made τὴν φωνὴν

the object of the verb, so that the defendants are pouring ‘words’ which arouse pity because they are also

pouring ‘tears’.

556. ὦ πάτερ

The one who has come forward addresses the old man respectfully; much as one might address a member

of the clergy nowadays (cf. Ἱππεῖς 725).

εἰ καὐτὸς

The defendant tries to mitigate his guilt by suggesting that everybody does it, “perhaps, even you yourself

have…”

557. (ἐ)πὶ στρατίας...ἀγοράζων

On military campaigns the army would be organized in companies who took their meals together as mess-

mates (ξυσσίτοι). Evidently, one soldier in each company was deputed to purchase the necessary supplies,

and might (it is alleged) strike his own deals with the suppliers in return for kick-backs. [Today’s soldiers

have made similar allegations over the poor quality of food supplied. But, the major source of corruption

nowadays seems to be weapons-procurement, which in ancient times was a matter for the individual.]

The variant ἀκµάζων (“in your prime”) found in one late manuscript (J) would leave us to understand that

the ἀρχὴν which he might have exercised also involved the public messes, but would require us to change

τοῖς ξυσσίτοις to the accusative case to follow ὑφείλου.

558. εἰ µὴ διὰ…

“Had it not been for…”

…τὴν προτέραν ἀπόφυξιν

Aristophanes raises a laugh by suggesting that the same officials came before the courts with predictable

regularity.

559.

The Son picks out points which have little relevance to the debate, but his remark serves to interrupt the

flow of his opponent’s rhetoric and so reduce its effectiveness. [Constant interruptions of this sort bedevil

political debates on Greek television still today.]

560-1.

Outside the court the typical juror (who is now identified with Philokleon himself) is full of sympathetic

understanding. His expression no longer betrays the outrage he feels for crimes against the public purse,

and he apparently promises to show leniency. But, once inside, his natural vindictiveness resurfaces.

562. πάσας φωνὰς ἱέντων

In Ἱππεῖς, the poet refers to the futile efforts of his aging rival Magnes trying to captivate his audience by

“loosing the full range of vocal styles at you” - πάσας δ’ ὑµῖν φωνὰς ἱέις (522). Here, in a similar manner,

the disputants are “utilizing every vocal technique” to obtain acquittal (e.g. raising or lowering their voice,

varying the speed of delivery etc.). The poet is making the still-pertinent point that political players do not

differ greatly from theatrical players.

Hickie (1853) suggested that the poet is employing para-tragic diction here, and compared, ὥστ’ ἀηδόνος

στόµα φθογγὰς ἱεῖσα (Euripides Ἑκάβη 338).

563. φέρ(ε) ἴδω, τί γὰρ...

The expression is used to indicate a rhetorical question which the speaker poses to himself, equivalent to

“what, I wonder…?” (cf. 145).

564-5.

The defendants seek to avoid the imposition of a heavy fine by pleading poverty, to the extent that a naïve

juror could come to believe that they are actually worse off financially than he is.

ἀνιῶν ἀνισώσῃ

This is the reading of the Venetus; the other codices omit ἀνιῶν altogether and read ἂν ἰσώσῃ. Paley tries

to broker a compromise by writing ἂν ἰὼν ἀνισώσῃ which MacDowell and Sommerstein print, but this is

unsatisfactory. The basic problem is that it introduces an awkward progression from the plural of οἱ µέν...

προστιθέασι to the singular ἀνισώσῃ, which has to be taken as ‘each man…equates’. A further difficulty

is that, though the compound ἀνιῶν can be taken to mean ‘continuing to speak’ (cf. Νεφέλαι 1058, ἄνειµι

δῆτ’ ἐντεῦθεν - “I move on, then, from that topic”), the simple verb does not appear to be used in just this

sense. Platnauer (1953) proposed a solution to both problems by deleting ἰὼν altogether and reading ἄν

πως ἀνισῶσιν “until they seem somehow to equate...” But, Dover (1957) saw that the singular verb came

into its own once the singular participle was removed, because taken intransitively, it would depend on

the neuter plural noun κακά. So, Henderson prints ἄν πως ἀνισώσῃ - “their troubles somehow seem as

bad as...” This works, but does not account for the textual variants. In fact, Meineke had already spotted

that the verb should depend on the neuter noun and suggested that the changes stemmed from a copying

error. He proposed reading κακὰ πρὸς τοῖς οὖσι κακοῖσιν, ἕως ἂν ἰσώσῃ τοῖσιν ἐµοῖσιν. Wilson (p. 87)

notes that this very plausible scenario had been outlined still earlier by Karl Erfurdt.

The pronounced sigmatism found in line 565 may be neither indicative of the father’s bitterness (Starkie),

nor accidental (MacDowell), but rather just an echo of the defendants’ blubbering creeping into his voice.

My alliteration tries to reproduce this.

566. λέγουσιν µύθους

Just as ‘telling stories’ usually means for us ‘retailing fictitious tales’, so a ‘myth’ would not be believed

by all. But, the defendants were “telling stories <from Homeric epics>’ which would be cited as parables

of morality. In Νεφέλαι (1061-70), Aristophanes makes fun of such simple, self-serving sermons.

Αἰσώπου τι γέλοιον

The animal stories traditionally ascribed to Aesop were folk-tales told to point a moral and amuse at the

same time. They might be introduced to divert the jurors much as they were used to entertain company at

a symposium (cf. 1259). Philokleon will later try to exculpate himself with a tale of his own contrivance

(cf. 1401, 1446).

568. τὰ παιδάρι(α)...ἀνέλκει

The defendant is speaking from a rostrum and he “hauls up” his young children beside him so that the

jurors can see they exist. Later on, some ‘children’ are summoned to take the stand (977, ἀναβαίνετε...).

570. ἅµα βληχᾶται

The children may “start howling all together” like a flock of sheep bleating or a litter of pigs squealing.

But, the readings ἀποβληχᾶτ’ found in the Venetus and ἀποβληχ[.. preserved in Π suggest that we should

take the children to be ‘bleating in his defence’, ἀποβληχᾶται, a comical substitute for ἀπολογεῖται. This

could very well be the correct text, despite MacDowell’s reservations. He takes the Father to be trying to

protect the children, but the man does not speak ‘in their defence’ (ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν) but “for them”, since they

can only yowl, being too young to articulate their parent’s defence in words. For other “bleating children”

one may look to Eupolis’s description of the sons of Hippokrates (frg. 112, βληχητὰ τέκνα).

571. τῆς εὐθύνης ἀπολῦσαι

Strictly speaking the process of εὐθύνη was one of ‘being held to account’. The jurors were called upon to

examine specific allegations of ‘irresponsible’ action by the outgoing public official. So here, they are not

being asked to “discharge the defendant from the audit” as such, because, judging from the remorseful

tears being shed, his guilt can be presumed already. Rather, the jurors have to consider whether to let him

off lightly on the penalty, in recognition of the many mouths he has to feed.

572. ἀρνὸς φωνῇ

The variant reading ἀνδρὸς φωνὴν (J) is simply a gloss seeking to point out the double entendre of ἀρνὸς,

which is actually the genitive of ἀρήν (‘lamb’), but suggests it might be the genitive of ἄρρην (‘male’).

The dramatic immediacy of the man’s plea would be lost if Platnauer’s (1949) proposal to emend the line

into indirect speech were to be accepted.

ελεήσαις

The verb is considered as a contracted form of the optative mood i.e. ἐλεήσειας. There are parallels which

support this view (cf. 726), but it is noteworthy that in each case a simple future could be inserted. Indeed,

in Εἰρήνη 405, ἴσως γὰρ ἂν πείσαις ἐµέ - “you might perhaps persuade me”, Hirschig recommended that

we read ἀναπείσεις.

573. τοῖς χοιριδίοις

The piglets are mentioned to illustrate the squeal of the man’s young daughter, but when comic dramatists

introduce little piggies, they expect their audience to think of pigs’ snouts and imagine (“in the customary

Greek way”, cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 771-3) the pudenda of pre-pubescent girls. It takes all sorts.

574. τόν κόλλοπ(α) ἀνεῖµεν

The precise metaphor intended is to “loosen the string” (of our highly-strung emotion) by slackening the

peg. But, the poet chooses to use the less accurate phrase, to ‘loosen the peg’ This may have been chosen

simply to suggest a ridiculous pun, τόν κόλπον ἀνίεσθαι, drawn from a dramatic scene in epic, (cf. Ἰλιάς

22.80, τόν κόλπον ἀνιεµένη - “baring her breast”), which serves as a metaphor for the jurors’ emotional

vulnerability.

575. τοῦ πλούτου καταχήνη

A comic-drama entitled Καταχῆναι is credited to Lysippos, an older contemporary of Aristophanes, who

uses the word again himself in Ἐκκλησιαζούσαι (631). It clearly signifies “mockery” or “derision” and my

translation assumes that it would have been accompanied by a rude gesture. But, it could have conveyed a

particular sound, for its derivation from the verb χάσκω (cf. 695, 721, 1493) connects it to the word for a

goose (χήν). A similar word, χήνηµα, which Hesychios glosses as ‘a mocking open-mouthed laugh’, hints

that we are probably meant to hear a goose’s cackle which has a mocking sound and is delivered with the

beak wide-open. So, here, we could probably translate “a derisive cackle at wealth”.

576. γράφοµαι

The codices read γράψοµαι but Brunck’s view that the present tense serves better to interrupt the flow of

the old man’s speech is supported by the reading of Π (γραφο[...).

577. τἀγαθά...ἅχεις

Here τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἃ ἔχεις is equivalent to τὸ ὄφελος ὃ ἔχεις, a sense most commonly contained in the phrase

ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ - “beneficial to…” (e.g. Βάτραχοι 1487, 1488), but repeated at 601.

578.

The δοκιµασία was a process of assessment which Athenian boys underwent to gauge whether they were

physically fit to be entered in the lists as adolescents (ἐφήβοι) in their respective demes. Roman sources,

drawing on evidence from fourth century B.C. literature, believed that this occurred at age eighteen, but it

may have been earlier, as by this age they would already be due for military service. We do not know for

certain what part jurors played in the process, but Philokleon is claiming here to have served as a witness

to the physical exam. His interest in teenage boys is satyric, for the purposes of Comedy, as shown by his

equal enthusiasm for young women later on. The Athenians took both homosexuality and paedophilia as

naturally-occurring, sexual phenomena, but did not condone either. In Comedy they are treated as deviant

behaviour deserving of ridicule. The old school-master in Νεφέλαι, for instance, is assumed to be a closet-

paederast by virtue of his vocation.

579. Οἴαγρος

The introduction of a particular citizen suggests an identifiable situation which may have resulted (or may

be imagined to result) in his arraignment and trial. We know nothing about him and the name is otherwise

only found in mythology, where the legendary musician Orpheus was the son of Oiagros and the nymph

of epic poetry, Kalliope. But, Philokleon’s boast, that he would be compelled to parrot the finest passage

from a tragic-drama, should not be taken to prove that Oiagros was himself necessarily a noted performer

of Tragedy.

580. ῥῆσιν...ἀπολέξας

The satirical point being made is that defendants with little right on their side would drag out proceedings

with ethical homilies drawn from the epic and tragic canon. Oiagros was probably a young man educated

in the ‘Sokratic’ school with a large repetoire of sententious, Euripidean quotes. The older generation had

not felt the need to fill their memories with such ‘learning’ (cf. 1095). Moreover, the mention of ‘Νιόβη’,

points up a fondness for Aischylean plays among Philokleon’s contemporaries. In Βάτραχοι, ‘Euripides’

ridicules Aischylos’s audience as θεατὰς...µώρους…παρὰ Φρυνίχῳ τραφέντας (909-10) - “dull-witted

<like infants> brought up on Phrynichos” (cf. 220, 462), because his dramas were still heavily-weighted

toward the sound and spectacle of their lyric choruses. The same difference in musical taste is highlighted

in Νεφέλαι (1365-72), where father and son come to blows over their partiality for Aischylos or Euripides.

In the case of Oiagros, however, there may be more than merely malicious pleasure in making him resort

to old-style tragic-verse to gain acquittal. The mention of a specific work may be intended to suggest that

a trial involving Oiagros would follow this particular heroine’s story. Her tale begins with arrogant boasts

about her children, but ends with her bitter loss of them all. If Oiagros is acquitted, therefore, it may be of

small comfort to him. Though he begin with an arrogant defence, the jury will make him ‘sing a different

song’ before the trial is over. Or, there may be a suggestion that his καλλίστην ῥῆσιν will be rather hard to

find, since we know (again from Βάτραχοι, 911-20) that Niobe spent a great part of Aischylos’s play with

her head covered and not speaking, which suggests a situation similar to that of another defendant who is

referred to later (946-8).

However, although the drama is most likely to be that of Aischylos, Aristophanes does not mention him

by name, so there is some possibility that he could be alluding to Sophokles’ version. This is not extant

either, so it is a matter of speculation. One piece of information, given us by Athenaios (13.601β), might

indicate a feature of Sophokles’ Νιόβη suited the context here since the poet introduced ἐν τῇ Νιόβῃ τὸν

τῶν παίδων (ἔρωτα) and as a result his play gained notoriety by an alternative title, the Παιδεράστρια.

581. κἂν αὐλητής γε δίκην νικᾷ

Again Philokleon imagines his personal satisfaction, this time from being piped out of court by a grateful

flute-player. This suggests some ceremonial honour, not unlike the modern-day naval tradition of piping

officers aboard ship, and may reflect the actual, musical ritual by which a successful actor was hailed in a

dramatic competition (cf. 582). The reference to ‘a fluteplayer’ may be a running joke among comic-poets

referring to a particular political figure regularly lampooned in this way (cf. 687 re. Ὄρνιθες 858).

582. ἐν φορβειᾷ

The flute-player’s “<leather> mouth-strap” served principally to hold his lips tightly to the mouthpiece

and constrict his cheeks from ballooning. This meant, in effect, that the player could exert more pressure

for longer, giving his playing particular intensity. So, the implication is that the flute-player would have

had to work really hard to show his appreciation. An additional benefit was that the strap left his hands

free to move easily up and down the instrument. Knowing Aristophanes, we should probably not enquire

too closely into what he was insinuating.

MacDowell cites a fragment of Sophokles (768),

φυσᾷ γὰρ οὐ σµικροῖσιν αὐλίσκοις ἔτι

ἀλλ’ ἀγρίαις φύσαισι φορβειᾶς ἄτερ.

Although he takes this to mean that “a louder and more violent kind of playing” was achieved without a

mouth-strap, I think that ἀγρίαις must be used here in the sense of ‘uncultivated’ or ‘undisciplined’. There

is a useful illustration of a piper wearing a strap on a fragment of a red-figure, Attic vase which was found

at Olbia in 1962 and is dated stylistically to 430-20 B.C. The fragment, which also depicts male dancers in

costume, wearing white-face ‘female’ masks, has been published by Braund and Hall (2014).

ἔξοδον ηὔλυσ(ε)

In Aristophanes’ day, pipers were used to set the pace of processions and military marches, and did in fact

pipe to accompany the ἔξοδος of a chorus. In a fragment of Kratinos (308) a flute-player talks of wanting

to pipe-out a chorus (τοὺς ἐξοδίους ὑµῖν ἵν’ αὐλῶ τοὺς νόµους). Presumably, the ‘finale’ was marked by a

climactic intensity in the music, which required strenuous effort (cf. 1346). Because his fellow-jurors are

actually the chorus of this drama he seems to be integrating them into the imagined, judicial scene in their

theatrical persona and compromising the reality of the performance. It is reminiscent of the clouds-chorus

in Νεφέλαι (1115-30) threatening the judges of the drama-contest with bad weather.

583. παῖδ(α) ἐπίκληρον

The old man salivates over another area in his legal duties which allegedly might offer him the chance to

gratify his voyeuristic appetite. To begin with, one might assume that the διαδικασία (‘adjudication of the

will’) involves a boy who has inherited his father’s estate, but it soon becomes evident that this time he is

talking about a young, female heiress. On her father’s demise, an unmarried daughter would be entitled to

a share in his property as dowry and it would fall to the courts to prove the father’s will, or, if he had died

intestate, to assign both the girl and her portion of the estate to a guardian, usually a close male relative.

Under normal circumstances her legal examination would not mean a physical inspection, but a situation

might arise which allowed the jurors to exploit her (perhaps her virginity might be called into question).

Philokleon hints that as a juror he might be willing to vote to override a specific stipulation of the will in

return for the girl’s offer of sexual favours.

584. κλαίειν...µακρὰ τὴν κεφαλὴν

Some scholars take κεφαλὴν literally and explain the phrase as implying that someone might get beaten

about the head, but as we have seen it is the ribs which usually bear the brunt of corporal punishment. A

more likely explanation seems to me to be that the expression is a variation in the active voice of the more

common use in the reflexive voice (e.g. Εἰρήνη 255, κλαίσει µακρά - “you’ll cry for yourself a long time”

and Νεφέλαι 58, διὰ τί δῆτα κλαύσοµαι - “what reason do I have to cry for myself”). The English idiom

‘to be sorry for oneself’ would perhaps be equivalent. This interpretation is supported by the use of same

phrase in Θεσµοφοριάζουσαι (211-2), <τοῦτον> µακρὰ κλάειν κέλευ(ε) - “Tell <Agathon> to go weep at

length <over himself>”, where we have to understand τὴν κεφαλὴν. Here, the jurors would treat the will

as the reincarnation of the deceased and tell him to “go into extended mourning for himself”. Ultimately,

the whole verse is merely a periphrasis for ‘laying aside the will’.

585. τῇ κόγχῃ τῇ...ἐπούσῃ

Τhe innocuous remark that they disregarded “the official-looking shell-case (τῇ κόγχῃ) which enclosed

the seals”, is clarified in the Son’s reply (589).

587. ἀνυπεύθυνοι

Aristophanes makes an important point regarding the power of the jury. The jurors could not be censured

for possible corruption and their decision was final, since there was no appellate court.

τῶν δ(ὲ) ἄλλων οὐδεµί(α) ἀρχή

Aristophanes’ concise expression leaves room for ambiguity. We suppose (and I have translated) that he

meant [ἀνυπευθύνη δρᾷ] τῶν ἄλλων [ἀρχῶν] οὐδεµι’ ἀρχῆ, taking ἀρχή in the sense of ‘state institution’.

There is, however, some question as to whether a board of jurors constitutes such an institution. Besides,

until now, we have met ἄρχω and ἀρχή with the meaning of ‘rule’ or ‘dominion’. It is possible, therefore,

that he is drawing a broader comparison, to exaggerate the jurors’ power, and saying “our dominion

answers to no-one, unlike any other among the Greeks.” His son has already referred to the jurors’ power

over the Greek ‘nation’ in lines 520 and 577. The father’s exultation at the exercise of arbitrary power is

especially ironic coming from one of those who repeatedly accuse the Son of dictatorial tendencies.

588. σεµνόν

Only Henderson actually prints Reiske’s proposed emendation σε µόνον, though other editors have found

it attractive. But, there is nothing uniquely compelling about the particular example, it is simply ‘a point

worthy of consideration’. The variant σεµνῶν (R) supports the reading σεµνόν (V), since it seems to have

been mistakenly attracted to the genitive by the words that come after. Nevertheless, Reiske was right to

question the awkward absence of the personal pronoun and I think Wilson’s τούτων σ’ ὧν provides a very

plausible remedy.

589. ἀνακογχυλιάζων

His comment explains why the seemingly-otiose details of line 585 were introduced. By adding them the

Father provides the Son with the opportunity to slide in a sly innuendo. He hints that jurymen might have

interfered with the labia of the young woman’s shell-like vagina. The innuendo of κόγχη is vouched for

by the use of concha in Plautine comedy (e.g. Rudens 3.3.42) as Griffith noted [and seems to have been

taken up by Spanish, to judge from a placard at a Trump protest ‘non me agarres la concha’]. Athenaios

(87α) quotes a similar joke by Telekleides (frg.20) κόγχη διελεῖν - “to prise open a conch-shell”. It also

occurs in Phrynichos Σάτυροι (frg. 51).

592. Εὔαθλος

This man had been singled out for criticism in Ἀχαρνεῖς (703-12) as “that public prosecutor, the babbling

son of Kephisodemos” (τῷδε τῷ Κηφισοδήµου, τῷ λάλῳ ξυνηγόρῳ) whose fluency and almost ‘Scythian’

aggression in court had left an elderly defendant, Thucydides son of Melesias, floundering. He could well

be the same Euathlos who is described as a pupil of Protagoras (Diogenes Laërt. 9.56). In Aristophanes’

play Ὀλκάδες, which must be closely contemporary with Σφῆκες, an elderly character refers to Euathlos

as a devious archer, another jibe at his Scythian ancestry (a comedic fiction based on his tendency to hit

and run); ἔστι τις πονηρὸς ἡµῖν τοξότης συνήγορος / ὥσπερ Εὔαθλος παρ’ ὑµῖν τοῖς νέοις - “We <older

men> have a certain prosecutor, an underhanded bowman; just like you young men have Euathlos” (frg.

424).

Κολακ-ώνυµος

The poet conflates κόλαξ and Κλεώνυµος, cf. δηµολογο-Κλέων (342), κοµητ-Αµυνίας (466)

ἀσπιδαποβλής

It is feasible to aspirate to introduce the definite article by crasis, as Bachmann (1879) suggested, but not

essential as the earlier article (καὶ ὁ µέγας) is sufficient.

596. Κλέων ὁ κεκραξιδάµας

We have already been told about Kleon’s vociferous domination of the Assembly (35-6) and here the poet

coins a word to suggest that he tames his auditors with his screaming rants. MacDowell draws attention to

similar poetic formations used in Pindaric odes, but the difference here is that a λεοντοδάµας (lion-tamer)

may master lions, but Kleon is not taming screamers, instead he tames others, especially sheep (cf. 34-5),

with his vocal chords (as in Ἱππεῖς 137, where he is called a κεκράκτης).

597. διὰ χειρὸς ἔχων

Van Leeuven sees the phrase as depicting Kleon in the guise of wet-nurse suckling the jurors like babes in

arms. This maintains the female persona and lower-class status already assigned to the politician (35-6). It

does not exclude the possibility (felt by MacDowell) that the phrase was also intended to suggest a degree

of manipulative control.

599. καίτοὐστὶν

The crasis represents καίτοι ἐστὶν, “and yet he is…”

Εὐφηµίου

Names ending in -ιος only became popular from the 3^rd century A.D., as Schulze (1958) showed. Thus, the

form ‘Euphemios’ has probably replaced the original name ‘Euphemos’, which is well-attested at Athens

in the fifth century B.C. The change may have been an early attempt to mend the metre, because Εὐφήµου

alone would not scan and Blaydes conjectured that the text could have read Εὐφήµου γ(ε), but Meineke’s

Εὐφηµίδου, ‘son of Euphemos’ already offered a better emendation paleographically (cf. Wilson p. 87).

The man named may be introduced simply because Aristophanes intended to pay Theoros a back-handed

compliment in describing him as, “no lesser man than Mr Well-spoken-of”, i.e. as well-reputed as the next

man, perhaps. If, on the other hand, he had a particular person in mind, the man could hardly be “a person

of no importance at all”, as MacDowell suggests, otherwise the audience could not have been expected to

recognize him. So, Theoros is probably being compared to another prominent figure in Athenian political

life whose reputation, ironically, was currently tarnished.

The father’s name crops up in a comment of Antisthenes who critized one of Perikles’ sons for his ‘close

intimacy’ with a certain Euphemos (Athenaios 5. 220δ) and Andokides mentions one of his relatives who

would later figure among those charged with desecrating the Herms in 415 (περὶ τῶν Μυστηρίων 40, 47).

It is even possible, though hard to justify, that Theoros is being compared to the lyric-poet Stesichoros, as

he was also the ‘son of Euphemos’ according to Plato (Φαῖδρος 244α)

600. περικωνεῖ

It is not surprising that Aristophanes’ word-play baffles us sometimes. According to the lexicon known as

the Etymologicum Genuinum (τὸ Ἐτυµολογικόν), the verb κωνᾶν meant ‘to turn’ (στρέφειν), based on the

fact that pine-cones (κῶνοι) share their shape with spinning-tops (βέµβικες, cf. 1531). The compiler of the

lexicon thought that this accounted for the poet’s use (in Ταγηνισταί) of the verb κωνῆσαι in the sense of

‘to rotate’, since the verb’s principal meaning was ‘to apply pitch to pottery’ (τὸ τὸν κέραµον πισσῶσαι).

However, the actual connection is not likely to have been with the spinning of the potter’s wheel and the

pine-cone’s shape, but with a product cognate with the pine-cone, namely κῶνα (‘pine-pitch’ or ‘resin’),

otherwise πίττα (cf. 1374-5). Consequently, although the compound περικωνεῖ is not found elsewhere, it

is reasonable to suppose that the menial task which Theoros is imagined to have been performing for the

jurors somehow resembles ‘blacking’ their shoes, perhaps to waterproof them, or possibly to stiffen and

protect the soles, so helping the old men keep a footing on wet and slippery pavements. In this way, the

jurors are being protected from the elements as well as from ‘flies’.

One may only speculate as to the services actually performed by Theoros that might have been conflated

with the jurors’ shoe-care. MacDowell denies the possibility of metaphor, but there may be some obscure

play on κώνειο (‘hemlock’), which hinted at capital prosecutions initiated by him. In Aristophanes’ work,

words seem to take on a life of their own. The only thing we can be sure of is that, once again, Theoros is

visualized as squatting on the ground (cf. 43, χαµαὶ καθῆσθαι) in the service of the People.

601. µ(ε) ἀπὸ...οἷων ἀποκλῄεις

The syntax appears awkward but it is merely a truncated version of, σκέψαι οἷα εἶναι τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἀφ’ ὧν µ’

ἀποκλῄεις.

603-4. [Ξανθίας]

Although editors have always assigned this couplet to the Son, the coarseness of the comment is unsuited

to his character, which is patronizing but respectful throughout the debate. It would appear to be better as

an intervention from the surly slave.

605. οὗ...(ἐ)πελελήσµην

He pretends to have all but forgotten the actual, personal benefits from his jury-service.

607-8. ἀσπαζῶνται

The verb implies a ‘warm’ welcome (cf. Νεφέλαι 1145, Στρεψιάδην ἀσπάζοµαι, where the door-keeper

greets the old farmer like a long-lost brother).

διὰ τἀργύριον

The obols were the smallest silver coins in circulation. His fond recollection of his homecoming helps to

exaggerate the paltry sum involved. Photios (a 2784) may have had this passage in mind when he noted

the use of τὸ ἀργύριον by Aristophanes (cf. frg. 273). The reaction of the Chorus in lines 300-2 displays

a similar respect for small sums.

ἡ θυγάτηρ µε ἀπονίζῃ

It might be pedantic to point out, but his daughter does not bathe him and then anoint his feet. He is quite

capable of bathing himself. Reaching down to his feet, however, after a hard day on the benches, is not so

easy for him. Therefore he is glad that his daughter sits him down straightaway to wash and then anoint,

µε...τὼ πόδ(α) - “me, in respect of my two feet”. The washing would be carried out using a ποδονιπτήρ, a

‘foot-bath’ (cf. frg. 843 and 319) Anointing the feet with (scented) olive-oil, probably accompanied by a

relaxing foot-massage, would usually be carried out by a servant-girl (cf. Antiphanes, frg. 152), although

a hetaira (idem, frg. 101) might provide the service for the upper-classes.

609. παππίζουσ(α)

The codices read παππάζουσ’, the form found in epic poetry (Ἰλιάς 5.408), but Eustathios (565.32) states

that the comic form was παππίζω (cf. 297, where the boy παππίζει and 655 where Bdelykleon imitates his

sister’s wheedling, despite having been told not to in 652).

τῇ γλώττῃ

I concur with Sommerstein’s view that these words do not need to attach literally to ἐκκαλαµᾶται, though

some in the audience may take them that way in view of the fact that poor people were said to carry small

coins in their mouths, and Philokleon himself evidently does so in line 791. Is it any wonder then that the

plague of 429 B.C. spread so fast?

610. φυστὴν µᾶζαν

Though it is a fascinating thought, I doubt that ‘puff pastry’ can be accounted one of the Athenians’ many

gifts to posterity. On the contrary, a µᾶζα seems to have been a very basic foodstuff, just a lump of dough

made from pounded barleycorns and wine, which might even be eaten uncooked. As such it was the basic

constituent of a poor man’s diet. In the aptly-titled comic-drama Πτωχοί, attributed (rather doubtfully) to

Chionides, a menu of plain dishes served at a Θεοξένια in the Prytaneion (as a reminder of simpler times,

τῆς ἀρχαίας ἀγωγῆς) includes µᾶζα (frg. 7, τυρὸν καὶ φυστὴν δρυεπεῖς τ’ ἐλάας καὶ πράσα - “cheese and

barley-cake, ripe olives off the tree and leeks”, Athenaios 4.137ε). Even its preparation required the bare

minimum of kneading (φυστὴν <µᾶζαν> τὴν µὴ ἄγαν τετριµµένην, Athenaios 3. 114f). At the opening of

Εἰρήνη we meet two slaves kneading such ‘cakes’ to feed a giant dung-beetle, but upon closer inspection

they turn out to be pats of donkey-droppings. The point here is not that the mother is offering her husband

the product of her skills as a patissière; instead she is baking him a plain biscuit over the fire. The precise

meaning of the word φυστὴν is uncertain, but it may merely indicate that bellows had been used to bring

the griddle to the required temperature, or that the barley-cake was baked in ashes (cf. 330, ἀποφυσήσας).

In any case, it is not so much the hot biscuit and the bit of fruit as his dessert which the father relishes so

much as his wife fussing over him. Old men may lose their interest in food, but they never tire of getting

their wives’ attention.

612. κοὐ µή µε δεήσῃ

The earliest ms. gives καὶ for κοὐ (Dobree’s emendation). MacDowell rightly points out that in this case

we would expect µή to be followed by the optative. An alternative reading might be κ’ὅσον µή µε...to

provide the sense, “I take pleasure in these things only provided that I don’t have to rely on you”.

613-4. ἐς σὲ βλέψαι

Not ‘to look at you’ but “to look to you”.

τὸν ταµίαν...τονθορύσας

His mention of the “surly steward” is payback for the comment Xanthias had just made (603-4); it would

have little dramatic point unless he was on stage to hear it. I wonder too, whether the use of ταµίας might

be meant to score a point off the Son’s social pretensions. The household appears to be reasonably well-

to-do, to judge from the number of slaves, but it would have to be quite a large establishment to justify a

steward. Even the upwardly mobile Strepsiades handles his own account-ledgers. Here ‘Philokleon’ may

be thinking of the ‘quartermaster’ who managed affairs on board each trireme, but we would understand

him to be pointing sarcastically to ‘your butler’.

ἀλλ(ὰ) ἢν

The majority of codices have ἄλλην. Only one (Γ) has the correct reading, which Hall and Geldart print,

which has since been confirmed by an Oxyrhyncus papyrus (Π).

615. πρόβληµα κακῶν

He considers τάδε <νοµίσµατα> ‘these coins’ to be his insurance policy, like a shield (κυκλωτῷ σώµατος

προβλήµατι, Aischylos Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας 540) against the arrows of misfortune. A πρόβληµα was any kind

of defencework which was ‘thrown forward’ to create a barrier or problem to impede the enemy’s assault.

σκευὴν βελέων ἀλεωρήν

MacDowell is surely right to suspect that this phrase had been lifted from epic poetry. One might borrow

from Psalm 46, “a very present help in trouble”.

616-8.

MacDowell’s description of τὸν ὄνον τόνδε as a small wine-flask with two relatively large handles seems

a credible explanation of the ‘donkey’. But, just how it can be said to break wind in the direction of the

empty wine-cup requires further investigation. If the fart is truly “loud and warlike”, as editors agree it is,

it can hardly emanate directly from a tiny bottle. (Indeed, MacDowell can extract no more than a gentle

‘glob-glob-glob’ from it). Such a clarion call could only be emitted by the exuberant Philokleon himself;

perhaps under the influence of the bottle’s contents. Besides, we are probably looking at an example of

the verb in its wider sense of ‘to emit a noise like a fart’ (cf. e.g. Νεφέλαι 9), because in this case one must

envisage the flatulence as issuing from the beast’s front end, for even if the flask is not actually a ‘rhyton’

it owes its name to the fact of its being in the shape of a donkey’s head. So, the action which Philokleon is

performing on behalf of the ‘donkey-flask’ is rather what we would term ‘blowing a raspberry’. Donkeys,

in my experience, can do this very well and the sound would be quite as insulting to a wine-cup as a fart,

if not more so.

The bizarre idea of a wine-flask putting on airs at the expense of a wine-cup is exquisitely surreal even for

Aristophanes. One wonders whether the notion was the product of his own inebriation, or if perhaps he is

actually engaging in self-deprecatory humour, after his Νεφέλαι had been bested in competition by Πυτίνη

(‘Wine-flask’) of Kratinos in the previous year (cf. 675).

στράτιον

The adjective ‘of an army’ suggests to me that the ‘donkey’s’ insulting gesture is modelled on the kind of

scornful battle-cry that might precede a military engagement. [The mock-French taunt ‘I blow my nose at

you’ in Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes close to matching it for contumely.]

619. τοῦ σοῦ δίνου

A δῖνος was a wide-mouthed goblet, which may have got its name from the way wine could be swilled in

it. The statue of Dionysos in the theatre probably held one (cf. Νεφέλαι 1473 n.).

620. ταὔθ’ ἅπερ Ζεύς

The phrase is elliptical. He hears “the same <comments> which Zeus <hears>”.

623. βροντᾷ

MacDowell righly observes that this appears to be a unique instance of the verb being used as a metaphor.

We may speak of ‘thunderous’ applause, but the jurors would not normally ‘raise a hubbub’, as I have felt

constrained to translate. They might, however, ‘fart en masse’. It seems to me that Aristophanes may well

be replaying a joke from his previous production (cf. 162). In Νεφέλαι, he had made a crude pun, which is

still misunderstood, between βροντή and βορντή (394). The latter, a vernacular word, should be printed in

the text, instead of πορδή, which it closely resembles in sound. It is quite possible that the original text of

Σφῆκες also contained the vernacular metathesis βορντᾷ to emphasize how the jurymen might have been

‘thudnering’ (sic).

625. ποππύζουσιν

This onomatopoeic word was probably used in much the same way as some present-day Greeks still use

the word πώπω to ward off misfortune (as MacDowell surmised). It is an imitation of the sound made by

pursed lips when spitting, an action believed by the superstitious to discourage the Evil one.

[It is demonstrated to an exaggerated extent in the marriage scene of “My big, fat, Greek Wedding”.]

629. νὴ τὴν ∆ήµητρα

Why does he invoke the Earth-Μother? Could it be that he sees her as the protecting deity of the people,

given that some explained her name as a conflation of ∆ῆµος with Μήτηρ?

630. εἴ σε δέδοικα

MacDowell rightly transfers the emphasis onto the pronoun, εἰ σέ δέδοικα.

631-3. οὐ πώποθ’...ἠκούσαµεν

The duplication of negatives is comically emphatic, cf. Νεφέλαι 637, οὐκ...πώποτε οὐδέν.

ξυνετῶς λέγοντος

The jurors are impressed by their colleague’s “clever arguments”, proving that they are easily swayed by

courtroom orators.

634. ἐρήµας...τρυγήσειν

The phrase ἐρήµας <ἀµπέλους> τρυγήσειν - “to strip vines of their grapes while they are unguarded”, is

a metaphor for ‘gathering the fruits of victory unopposed’ (i.e. ‘a walkover’) cf. Ἐκκλησιάζ. 885-6, ᾤου δ’

ἐρήµας οὐ παρούσης ἐνθάδε ἐµοῦ τρυγήσειν - “you thought you could pick grapes while I’m not here?”

635. ταύτῃ κράτιστος

MacDowell misses the point here, which is that Philokleon is talking at cross-purposes. In claiming to be

“the champion in this respect” he appears to be affirming the Chorus’s assessment of his oratorical skills,

but he is only boasting of his habit of pinching other people’s grapes. It is the same misunderstanding as

his earlier reference to theft (356-9); a habit which is confirmed again later (1201).

His boast would not endear him to much of the audience who as land-owners would have been frustrated

as their vines were rifled at the end of each growing season. Vineyards are large, open spaces difficult to

protect. [I believe that in France guards mounted on horses are employed to patrol.]

636. ἐπελήλυθεν

Porson wanted to evict an unwanted glyconic by emending to ὡς δ’ ἐπὶ πάντα ἐλήλυθεν. MacDowell says

this would mean ‘leave nothing untried’, which would be unsuitable, because it implies that most of the

points are wide of the mark (which in fact they are). He cites κἀπὶ πάντ’ ἀφίξοµαι (Soph. Οἰδ.Τύρ. 265),

which certainly carries that sense, but is not an exact match. This meaning is more regularly attached to

ἐπεξέρχοµαι (e.g. Aischylos Προµ. 870, Thucydides 1.22.2). Nevertheless, modern editors have preferred

to ignore the irregular scansion and, it must be admitted, that the text as printed provides perfectly

satisfactory sense, “he’s covered every point thoroughly and omitted nothing”. It looks to me to be a

goalless draw. Parker (1997 p.238), however, is prepared to take the metrical benefits offered by Porson’s

emendation.

639-40. (ἐ)ν µακάρων...νήσοις

Ancient Greek merchants had heard tell of distant islands where the inhabitants lived carefree lives with

their every need provided by Nature. Priests explained that such islands were reserved for those who had

revered the gods and were ‘blessed’ with a new life after death. So, the chorus-member imagines that he

must have been miraculously transported to these islands, where he resumes his favourite pursuit, albeit

with a better standard of oratory.

642. ὡς

This is Dindorf’s alteration of ὥσθ’, the reading of the codices. It has been adopted by Hall and Geldart

(and Sommerstein), but Philokleon’s exultant exclamation follows on from the hyperbole of the chorus.

‘How beautifully he spoke’… ‘That’s right, just look at the effect my words have had!’ Emendation was

unnecessary, as MacDowell has said.

οὐκ ἐν αὑτοῦ

MacDowell takes this phrase to mean that he is “unable to control himself” and Sommerstein translates

“beside himself”. But, when Philoktetes says, ἀλλὰ νῦν ἔτ’ ἐν σαυτοῦ γενοῦ (Sophokles Φιλοκτήτης 950)

he seems to be trying to regain his confidence rather than his composure. Thus, we must take Philokleon

to be gloating because his son ‘looks deflated’.

643. σε...σκύτη βλέπειν ποιήσω

The phrase βλεπόντων κάρδαµα (455) compared the fierce look on the jurymen’s faces to that of a person

who had been eating piquant herbs. So, it is assumed that the old man’s threat to make his son ‘see whips’

means that he intends to make him look like a man who has just been beaten. MacDowell interprets this

phrase as tantamount to saying ‘I’ll make you look whipped’ and Sommerstein translates, for instance,

“I’ll put a whipped look on your face”. But, this presupposes that the Athenians spoke of whipping their

opponents in debate. It is true that the chorus had urged their champion at the outset ‘to flog his son with

his tongue’ (547), but the analogy there was with judicial interrogation, whereas the running metaphor of

the debate is with athletic competition.

The phrase σκύτη βλέπειν seems to have occurred in different contexts, so that Zenobios (6.2) considered

it proverbial. He cites, for example, a verse from a work by Eupolis, ἀτεχνῶς µὲν οὖν τὸ λεγόµενον σκύτη

βλέπει (frg. 304) - “so, as the saying goes, he simply sees whips”, and explains it as ‘to view impending

trouble with suspicion’ i.e. apprehensively. If we apply this interpretation to athletic contests, we catch a

slightly different inflection to the old man’s remark, for in wrestling bouts, whips were brandished by the

umpires in order to encourage reluctant combatants to engage. So, Philokleon’s threat is to give his son

such a verbal drubbing that he will have no comeback and the umpires will have to use their whips simply

to get him to continue.

The phrase also crops up in Athenaios (xiii. 568e) where the narrator states, “your father the boot-maker

tried to knock some sense into you and taught you to see whips” - διδάξαντος σκύτη βλέπειν. The source

in this case is not quoted, but is probably another comic verse, in which the proverb is used for its literal

meaning of σκύτη (‘leather strap’) since the father is a ‘leather-worker’.

644-5. παντοίας πλέκειν παλάµας

Although commentators like to take this phrase metaphorically, e.g. Henderson’s “weave every wile in the

book”, one ought perhaps to keep in mind the literal meaning. Since Philokleon has just intimated that the

umpires may have to step in keep his opponent committed to the bout, the chorus now urges Bdelykleon

to use what skill he has and to get to grips as being the only way out. The legal application of ἀπόφυξιν

(‘acquittal’) is secondary here.

646-7.

The old jurors candidly admit that, from the moment they enter the court-room, they are biased in favour

of one party; in this case it is their fellow-juror.

<νεανίᾳ>

Porson’s addition to the text to aid responsion is approved by Sommerstein and Henderson, but otherwise

dismissed as not essential by recent editors.

µὴ πρὸς ἐµοῦ

Someone who speaks “from a standpoint I don’t favour” will have their work cut out to conciliate jurors

who already hold strongly-entrenched prejudice (cf. 243).

648. µύλην ἀγαθὴν...καὶ νεόκοπτον

Whereas we would naturally think of a whetstone being used to hone the jurors’ anger to a sharp edge and

MacDowell makes a comparison with retreading tyres, Aristophanes suggests that a mill-stone would be

required to ‘blunt’ their prejudice. To do its work the stone should be “serviceable” and “newly-chiselled”

and the arguments of the Son will need the same characteristics.

ὥρα...σοι

The main verb ἐστι has to be understood.

649. ἢν µή τι λέγῃς

Only the protasis of the conditional sentence is expressed. We have to understand some unspoken thought

such as ‘you’ll be wasting your breath’ or ‘you’ll not persuade us’. The protasis itself is understated since

the ‘something’ he needs to say is a convincing argument that will act like a millstone to mollify them, cf.

Herodotos, ἐπιστάµενος ὅτι, ἢν µὴ αξιόχρεον πρόφασιν προτείνῃ, οὐκ ἀναπείσει µιν - “aware that he was

not going to persuade him, unless he put forward a credible proposal” (1.156.1).

650. χαλεπὸν µὲν

Bdelykleon begins his counter-argument in conventional, court-room manner, by protesting the difficulty

of pleading his case. Whereas his father’s generation had seen the debate in physical terms like a contest,

the younger man is evidently schooled in the intellectual wheeling of the court-room’s legal eagles. Since

he is parodying a typical opening argument by a rhetor, the expression is elliptical. The full phrase would

be, χαλεπὸν µὲν <τὸ ἔργον ἐστιν>, καὶ <δέον> δεινῆς γνώµης καὶ µείζονος <γνώµης> ἢ ἐπὶ τρυγῳδοῖς.

δεινῆς γνώµης

The task before him requires “a terribly clever argument”, which he, of course, is about to make. The use

of the adjective δεινός, which in the context of speaking means ‘awefully <clever>’, is perhaps a recall of

Hermippos’ criticism of Aristophanes’ pacifist stance (frg. 47, λόγους...δεινοὺς - “terribly clever things

you say” about the war), which in turn pick up the words of ‘Dikaiopolis’ in Ἀχαρνεῖς 501, ἐγὼ δὲ λέξω

δεινὰ µέν, δίκαια δέ. See Appendix 4 and post script.

µείζονος ἢ (ἐ)πὶ τρυγῳδοῖς

In this line we seem to be hearing the poet himself speaking through the persona of the Son. This allusion

to “comic actors” reminds the audience that they are watching a play and that ‘Bdelykleon’ is making the

same point as ‘Dikaiopolis’ in Ἀχαρνεῖς 497-500.

651. ἐντετοκυῖαν

It is natural for us to use the metaphor ‘innate’ or ‘endemic’ of a disease, but to achieve that meaning here

we would have to take the perfect participle in a passive sense. Some editors are content to do so and find

parallels in the intransitive use of γεγονώς and πεφυκώς. Reiske, however, proposed reading ἐντετακυῖαν

which he offered as the active perfect participle of ἐντήκω and translated passively as ‘penetrated deeply

into’. Wilson (p. 88) sees this as an improvement, as there is evidence that the active voice could be taken

passively in Sophokles’ Ἠλέκτρα (1311), µῖσός τε γὰρ παλαιὸν ἐντέτηκέ µοι. But Sommerstein points out

that the perfect participle ought therefore to be ἐντετηκυῖαν. One might also object that the preposition is

otiose (cf. Plato Μενέξενος 245δ, τὸ µῖσος ἐντέτηκε τῇ πόλει).

These problems do not arise if we stop to wonder what gave birth to the disease and consider that perhaps

we are meant to understand that “the ancient disease (i.e. class rivalry) brought forth <the jury-courts> in

the city”. In which case, I suggest that the better reading would be ἐκτετοκυῖαν which remedies both the

problem of the voice and the awkward repetition of the preposition.

652. ὦ πάτερ ἡµέτερε Κρονίδη

The current consensus seems to be that the Son’s appeal to Zeus is a genuine invocation of the kind with

which an orator would begin his address to the court; a respectful nod to the god of Justice. The Father’s

interruption, therefore, is taken to indicate that he has airily assumed the guise of Zeus (in his own mind).

I think, however, that while the formal invocation is certainly borrowed from the law-courts, here the Son

intends it as a parody. In sarcastically hailing the old man as ‘son of Kronos’, he is pretending to show the

fear which his father had imputed to him in 628-30. Since the Father had claimed Zeus-like qualities, his

son is taking him at his word.

In this case, the Father’s response is not so much an interruption of a speech as a desire to avoid a charge

of blasphemy to which the former interpretation lays him open. He tells him straight to stop addressing

him in a sacrilegious way (παῦσαι). Then, he makes a second, distinct objection, to the use of the word

‘πάτερ’.

653-4.

The reason why he does not wish to be reminded that his adversary is his son, is that he will have to kill

him if he fails to prove his case! Or such, at least, is the traditional interpretation of these lines. “You will

have to die for sure, even if it means me having to abstain from <participating in> sacrificial rites”. It is

said that Philokleon would be able to claim justifiable homicide because his son had become a tyrant, but

he would nonetheless be excluded by blood-taint from sharing in religious feasts. Moreover, according to

Sommerstein’s reading, he brandishes a sword at this moment, to persuade him of the truth of his words.

This all seems a little far-fetched. To begin with we can dispense with sword-waving. The Father’s earlier

request for his sword to be brought (in line 522, echoing the mock-heroic demand of line 166) was purely

to allow him to make an exaggerated, histrionic gesture. No slave in his right mind would have acceded to

either request (cf. 714). Nor, is it likely that he would be prepared to ‘execute’ his son for losing a family

argument. A more straightforward interpretation would be that he is assuming that the court would vote

for the death penalty, because Bdelykleon had endeavoured to obstruct the divinely-ordained jury-courts.

In such case, his father tells him not to refer to their consanguinity, because judgement would have to be

carried out, “even though I would be obliged to forswear my paternal feelings”.

τεθνήξεις

I agree with MacDowell that Elmsley has probably been hasty in emending the τεθνήσει of the codices

(cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 590 and scholion).

655-62.

In this speech the Son begins his reasoned rebuttal. The substance of the speech makes a serious point and

it may be, therefore, that we are hearing the voice of the poet. However, Aristophanes is aware that when

comic-dramatists become didactic they risk losing the goodwill of their audience, so he does what little he

can to keep the pot on the boil. Nevertheless, the speech contains very little to amuse and distract. Firstly,

Bdelykleon ignores the Father’s objection and continues the sarcastic charade of his invocation. He asks

‘Zeus’ to un-knit his furrowed brow and stop looking like thunder (his habitual aspect, e.g. Ἰλιάς 1.528).

He then seems to detract from the solemnity of the debate by addressing his father with the affectionate

diminutive, ὦ παππίδιον, for in spite of his supercilious tone he sincerely wants his father to lay aside his

characteristic rancour and to pay attention to what he’s going to say (compare his emollient appeal to the

jurors in lines 471-2).

655. ὦ παππίδιον

The codices read παπίδιον, but Hall and Geldart print the reading of the Σοῦδα which agrees with the verb

παππίζω (609).

656. ψήφοις

The word brings to mind ‘voting-pebbles’ (109), but actually means stones used in arithmetic calculations

(perhaps on some kind of abacus). The comment serves as a reminder that the debate is informal, since in

a formal, forensic context precise calculations would be made.

659. µισθοὺς καὶ

He runs through some of the main revenue-streams flowing into the state-treasury each year. But, µισθοὶ

seem out of place, as they are usually ‘allowances’ or ‘pay’ meted out by the state (cf. 664). So, Bergk’s

suggestion to read µισθώσεις seems preferable. These “rents” refer to state-income earned on rentals of

state-property by private individuals. [The fact that the Greek Ministry of Defence pays rental on some of

its military bases shows how far the modern state has deviated from sound economic principals.]

660. δισχίλια

Is this an accurate assessment of the state’s total revenue or a nice round number selected arbitrarily? It

could be either or both, or it may simply have been chosen for its sound. The poet may have wished to

create an image of money piling up in the treasury, like a bowel constriction, in the word δυσκοίλια (as

distinct from δυσκολία, cf. 106).

662. ἕξ χιλιάσιν

This was the full complement of the Eliaia. The jurors were enrolled to serve for a year out of the citizens

who volunteered and were passed fit, both mentally and physically.

The poet adapts a literary quotation to express the sarcastic view that Athens has more jurors than any one

city can usefully accomodate.

665. ποῖ τρέπεται

We would ask, ‘what becomes of the the rest of the money?’ but in Greek it appears to divert itself, like

Strepsiades’ debts (cf. Νεφέλαι 40). Compare Euripides Ἱππόλυτος 1066, ποι τρέψοµαι; - “where am I to

turn for help?”

666-7.

Populist politicians through the ages have always claimed to be ‘the voice of the people’ and their ready

slogans usually serve to distract attention from their lack of concrete policies. Here Aristophanes pours

scorn on their claims by subtly altering them.

κολοσυρτόν

‘They’, of course, are upper-class and the sly substitution of the word “rabble” for ‘people’ reveals their

thinly-disguised disdain for those they claim to be representing. Like the government minister who called

a policeman ‘plebeian’ not long ago (allegedly).

µαχοῦµαι περὶ τοῦ πλήθους

In Ἱππεῖς (764), Kleon’s alter ego ‘Paphlagon’ maintains that he has devoted himself to the service of the

people (περὶ τὸν δῆµον), and so here we expect the people’s champion to promise to ‘do battle on behalf

of the people’ (ὑπὲρ τοῦ πλήθους), but another slip of the tongue shows that he was only ‘fighting <with

rival claimants> over the people’ (cf. 191, περὶ τοῦ µαχεῖ, or µάχη). [In the present day, political parties

still claim that their share of the votes cast constitutes a λαϊκή ἐντολή - ‘a mandate from the People’, but

show little regard for the people’s interest in practice once elected.]

668. τούτοις τοῖς ῥηµατίοις

The jurors are not won over ‘by these slogans’, but “by slogans like these”, so we should read τοιούτοις

ῥηµατίοις or perhaps even τούτων τοῖς ῥηµατίοις, “the slogans of these politicians”.

περιπεφθείς

The codices read περιπεµφθείς, but some medieval scholar spotted that we need the verb περιπέττω here.

Henderson’s “buttered up” is probably the closest we can come to the metaphor in English.

672. τοὺς ἀργελόφους περιτρώγων

The point is that the politicians devour the tasty, lean meat, leaving the lamb’s sinewy leg and foot for the

common people to chew on (cf. Ὄρνιθες 901-2). [Anyone who has shared a plate of παïδακια at Vlachika

would understand.] It is tempting to translate “left-overs”, but the closest equivalent in English would be

“humble-pie”, since this recalls the ‘nombles’, or deer offal, which was the poor man’s portion out of the

rich man’s deer-hunt. There is irony in the application to the jurors of the same verb which they had used

earlier (596) of Kleon.

673. τὸν…σύρφακα τὸν ἄλλον

The repetition of the definite article requires us to take the two nouns in apposition as: ‘They perceive the

rubbish, the rest of the <citizen body>…as nothing’, but in English one may fuse the two. A comic-drama

by Platon entitled Σύρφαξ survives only in seven brief fragments.

674. ἐκ κηθαρίου λαγαριζόµενον

It is difficult to know for sure what Aristophanes intended with this verse, because it contains three words

of uncertain meaning. Firstly, the noun κηθάριον and the participle τραγαλίζοντα are found nowhere else,

while the participle λαγαριζόµενον occurs only once. The scholiast is evidently puzzled too, as he offers

two possible interpretations. Assuming that the participle is cognate with λαγαρός (‘emaciated’), he gives

us the image of the jurors ‘becoming skinny out of’ a κηθάριον, which is, either ‘a funnel of a voting-urn’

(synonymous with κηµός, cf. 94) or ‘a small dish’. His suggestions should probably be taken with a pinch

of salt, though modern commentators have followed his lead and concluded that, as the Father receives a

pittance as jury pay, he is “being fed a starvation diet from a voting-urn funnel” (Sommerstein). Perhaps,

he is ‘barely scraping a living out of the voting-urn funnel’ (‘urning very little’). In which case, one might

conjecture that the word κηθάριον was preferred over the usual κηµός to suggest the wasp’s honey-comb

(ἐκ κηρίου).

The only other instance of the verb, found in Pherekrates (frg.126), offers scant guidance. It may be used

to describe other ‘wasps’ or ‘ants’ (in human form) and has been assigned to his play Μυρµηκάνθρωποι.

So, although Storey prefers to translate λαγαριζόµενοι “swarming together”, there may be some common

ground in the description (perhaps ‘thin-waisted’) to lend support the scholiast’s theory. But, it seems that

ultimately only the context can decide the issue.

καὶ τραγαλίζοντα τὸ µηδέν

This verb is not found elsewhere either, but might be derived from τράγηµα as MacDowell says and give

the sense “feasting on nothing”. Sommerstein follows his lead with “regaling themselves”. Alternatively,

one might relate it to τραγανός, a late usage for something ‘edible but full of gristle’ and hence meaning

“chewing patiently on nothing”. However, this interpretation seems to do no more than repeat the earlier

comment about τοὺς ἀργελόφους περιτρώγων and it lays too much emphasis on the jurors’ insignificant

recompense, whereas the Son’s point is surely that the jurors themselves are held in disdain by the allies.

Consequently, I have come to believe that we need to put the scholia to one side and reexamine the text.

While τὸ µηδέν appears to be the object of τραγαλίζοντα, the verb itself is suspect. Possibly, one ought to

take τὸ µηδέν directly with ᾔσθηνται to mean that the common herd are ‘a big zero’. By freeing the verb

from its supposed object, we are freed from any preconceptions and can draw other inferences from other

parts of the line.

The noun κηθάριον is more likely to be meant as a diminutive form of κηθίς (‘a dice-box’), another form

of which (κήθιον) is employed by Hermippos (frg. 27, καὶ πρὸς κύβους ἕστηκ’ ἔχων τὸ κήθιον - “and he

stood by the dice holding the dice-box”). This suggests that we might consider emending τραγαλίζοντα to

another verb which is used elsewhere. Kratinos speaks of the age of Kronos “when they used to play dice

for bread” - ὅτε τοῖς ἄρτοις ἠστραγάλιζον (frg. 176), consequently I propose we might read, τὸ...ἄλλον,

ἐκ κηθαρίου λαγαριζόµενον κἀστραγαλίζοντα, τὸ µηδέν. As Kratinos’s verse suggests the dice-players

were playing for (surely not ‘with’) bread, perhaps for want of money. Therefore the point here could be

that the allies’ ambassadors despise the old men they see sitting around playing knuckle-bones, supposing

that they have nothing better to do with their time, or that they have turned to gambling to supplement a

meagre diet (emphasized earlier, cf. 300-11).

According to Herodotos, games of dice and knuckle-bones were invented by the Lydians during a period

of famine (1.94.3, ἐξευρεθῆναι...τῶν κύβων καὶ τῶν ἀστραγάλων). They wanted something to while away

the hours and take their minds off thoughts of food.

[In modern Athens it is still the pensioners and lower-income workers who habitually gamble; the better-

off have the stock exchange, of course.]

675. Κόννου ψῆφον

The second-century B.C. scholar Kallistratos of Alexandria explained this enigmatic phrase by the equally

obscure Κόννου θρῖον, which he stated to have been axiomatic for ‘a thing of little importance’. As we

have no inkling of the origin of the proverbial expression, it seems futile to speculate why Aristophanes

chose to alter it. That should not stop us trying.

Firstly, it occurs to me that Κόννου θρῖον sounds like κώνου θρῖον ‘a pine-cone scale’, which would have

even less value than a whole pine-cone, and so might at least account for the meaning which Kallistratos

offers us. But, for θρῖον to have been replaced by ψῆφον, we would expect there to be some relationship

between the two words, and in fact, we find that θριαί was used of pebbles tossed into a different kind of

urn; one used in divination. An ancient method of telling fortunes by pebbles devised by Athena had been

largely superceded by the oracular responses of Apollo, who is said to have derided its efficacy with the

words, “many pebbles are thrown, but there are not many prophets” (Apollodoros Βιβλ. 3.10.1). So, it

may be that Konnos was a soothsayer whose predictions were not thought reliable, so that when he uses

the phrase ‘Κonnos’s pebble’ to describe his father, Bdelykleon is suggesting that his voting-pebble is

similarly of little use. In the process he alters θρῖον to ψῆφον to make the point clear. The difference all

this makes to our understanding of the line is negligible. It may, perhaps, point to the phrase signifying

‘ineffectual’ rather than ‘worthless’.

An actual individual named Konnos is mentioned twice by Plato (Ἐυθύδηµος, 272c; Μενέξενος, 235e) as

the music teacher of Sokrates (for unlike Lamachos in 959, Sokrates κιθαρίζειν ἐπίσταται). He may be the

individual mocked by Aristophanes in Ἱππεῖς (534), but we know nothing else about him and he cannot be

connected to the proverb in any way. There is, however, an intriguing coincidence in the occurrence of

the name Κόννος as the title of a comic play by Ameipsias which had been preferred over Aristophanes’

own Νεφέλαι in competition the previous year. The defeat had rankled with Aristophanes (cf. 1044-50)

and this may have been partly due to the fact that the winning play had dealt with a similar subject, but

possibly in a more traditional way. Perhaps, after all, Kallistratos was mistaken about this phrase relating

to a proverb. Aristophanes may simply have intended Κόννῳ ψῆφον to suggest a (wasted) vote for the

other (inferior) play!

679. τοῖς ἑψητοῖσι

Small, bony fish of secondary quality were considered unsuitable for grilling or baking, but they could be

boiled for soup. Once the liquid had been strained to remove the bones, any available vegetables, onions

for instance, might be added to enhance flavour. If no fresh onions were to be had, then a clove of garlic

would be a possible substitute, though it might risk overpowering the taste of the fish.

680. καὐτὸς

The Son’s argument has been addressed grammatically to his father throughout (σύ, σε, σοι) but logically

concerns jurors as a class. The Father’s response follows this logic, and applies his personal experience to

illustrate the general course of events. Sommerstein, however, adopts Zacher’s proposal κἀχθὲς, which he

translates “only yesterday”.

All recent editors have chosen to drop the particle γ(ε). Perhaps, as Wilson notes (p. 88), they find that the

emphasis on the number (a rare occurrence according to Denniston) appears unjustified. The fact that all

the codices include it, however, means that Blaydes was probably right to conclude that it was misplaced

and to suggest reading γ’ αὐτὸς, instead of καὐτὸς.

Εὐχαρίδου

We cannot identify this man, but the audience would recognize him as a member of the moneyed elite, for

it is no more likely that he was a greengrocer than that Euripides’ mother had sold parsley in the market

(cf. Comic Adespota 421). What is amusing, after all, in sending out to fetch garlic from a ‘greengrocer’?

One can hardly suspect ‘product placement’. So, in all likelihood Eucharides was present in the audience,

in one of the better seats. If he had any connection with actual trade, we can suppose him to have been a

large landowner or import-merchant. The real Eucharides would not have given the old jury-man the time

of day, let alone three cloves of garlic. Another mention of the sale of garlic is made by Hermippos in frg.

11.

It is an intriguing thought that the man in question might, in his younger days, have been the subject of

the inscription on a fine ὑδρία, the name-vase of the eponymous painter (Getty museum, no: 86 dated c.

480 B.C.).

681. αὐτήν µοι τὴν δουλείαν

He is representing quotation marks in the air with his fingers; “this <so-called> slavery of mine”.

οὐκ ἀποφαίνων

The verb provides the subject of the participle, “by <your> failure to make clear”.

ἀποκναίεις

The verb κνάω means ‘to scrape’ or to ‘scratch’, and mainly occurs in compounds, e.g. κατέκνησας (965),

where cheese is being grated. So, the meaning here must be metaphorical and commentators suppose the

ellipse of the personal pronoun µε. MacDowell says, “you’re wearing me out” and Sommerstein suggests,

“you’re getting on my nerves”. Their conclusion may be justified, but it is just as likely that we are meant

to understand τὸ πρᾶγµα, ‘you are scratching <the surface of the matter>’, instead of ‘grinding down the

jury’s anger’ (646), i.e. so far you have said nothing material to the case.

684. ἐλαύνων

One might drive a horse or chariot, but in this context he is said to have driven a ship by “rowing” (as in

Ὀδύσσεια 12.109, νῆα...ἐλάαν).

685. πολιορκῶν

Since the successful siege of Eïon under Kimon’s command (c. 475-0), the Athenians had become adept

at siege-warfare. Though they did not always succeed, they had the resources to carry out long-distance

operations like the current campaign in Chalkidike, throughout the winter months. Such warfare could be

carried on more easily by the generals who enjoyed many home comforts while the common soldiery had

to endure exposure to harsh conditions, poor food, irregular bivouacs, boredom and disease.

686. ὃ µάλιστα

Like MacDowell I think we are meant to see the relative clause as a comment on the first part of the line,

rather than as a lead-in to the next line as Sommerstein and Henderson prefer, since this would require an

additional conjunction.

µ(ε) ἀπάγχει

The literal meaning of the verb ἀγχειν is ‘to strangle’ (cf. 1039), but the compound is usually employed as

a metaphor, for ‘exasperating’. The idea being that strangulation brings the same flushed appearance to a

man’s face as anger might, just as we say ‘choking with anger’, (cf. Νεφέλαι 988, ὥστε µ’ ἀπάγχεσθαι -

“so that I am choked <with anger>”).

687. Χαιρέου υἱός

We cannot identify Chaireas, but it is safe to assume that he was a ‘well-born’ Athenian. The fact that he

is ridiculed by Eupolis (frg. 90) as a ‘foreigner’ in Βάπται, along with Alkibiades, can be taken as proof of

his unassailable lineage. His son’s name is not known, but this passage makes clear that he was serving as

a public prosecutor (συνήγορος) at the time and his rhetorical style involved a good deal of εὐρυπρωκτία

(cf. Νεφέλαι 1089-90). His pedigree is clear from the fact that he can be identified by his father’s name, as

a noble family stressed bloodline over deme (cf. Νεφέλαι 349, τὸν Ξενοφάντου).

A certain Χαιρέαν...τὸν Ἀρχεστράτου, ἄνδρα Ἀθηναῖον is mentioned disparagingly by Thucydides (8.74)

as having been active in fomenting democratic revolt in Samos after the murder of Hyperbolos in 411. An

ancient scholion (on Ὄρνιθες 858) happens to mention that the ‘piper’ Χαῖρις was actually Chaireas who

was lampooned also in Kratinos’ Νέµεσις.

688. ὡδὶ διαβὰς

Aristophanes is not averse to utilizing visual humour to get a laugh. The son demonstrates how the young

prosecutor “stands with his legs apart like this”. The pose resembles a wrestler’s stance (cf. Νεφέλαι 178-

9), and is mocked for offering an invitation to homoerotic thoughts, to those so-inclined.

καὶ τρυφερανθείς

This verb is not found anywhere else, and nor is τρυφερωθείς, a variant reading in some late manuscripts.

689-91.

He points out the ‘injustice’ of jurors being refused jury-pay if they turn up late, while a prosecutor is still

paid if he is tardy (because, of course, the trial cannot begin without him).

690. τοῦ σηµείου

In Θεσµοφοριάζουσαι (277-8), ‘Euripides’ urges his aged relative to make haste, “because the signal for

the assembly can be seen on the Thesmophoreion” - ὡς τὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας σηµεῖον ἐν τῷ Θεσµοφορείῳ

φαίνεται. In this case, the ‘signal’ is a visible sign hoisted over the shrine of Demeter Thesmophoros so as

to indicate when her votaries should convene. The jurors, on the other hand, do not need to be told when

the courts are in session. Consequently, their signal is more likely to have been audible as it indicates the

start of the proceedings after they have already gathered. Hence, we may suspect that the earlier reference

to a drum-beat (119) was an allusion to this signal of commencement.

691. δραχµήν

The exact amount of the fee is mentioned only because a silver drachma, the equivalent of six obols, was

exactly double the amount received by a juror. So, the prosecutors received better recompense which, of

course, they thoroughly deserved. Cf. also 786 for the jurors’ pay.

692-4.

These lines contain logical and grammatical anomalies which deserve more attention than they have been

given hitherto. MacDowell provides a standard translation (which of itself indicates that he was not quite

happy with the text as it stands),

“And sharing with one of his fellow officials (i.e. the other nine advocates) whatever any accused man

gives him, the two of them arranging the affair between them…”

κοινωνῶν

The variants here, κοινωνος (V) κοινωνὸν (J) κοινῶν ὄντων (Γ), show that scholars had some difficulty

understanding what was being said. The consensus at present is that the singular participle stands in for a

dual subject.

693. ξυνθέντε τὸ πρᾶγµα δύ’ ὄντε

In the light of the previous line, the two are both prosecutors who are said to “fix the case between them”,

but the next line puts this interpretation in doubt.

694. ἐσπουδάκατον

The import of this verb, as MacDowell explains, is that the two speakers both “look and speak seriously”.

In Βάτραχοι (813) the slaves decide to make themselves scarce, because their masters “make it look like

they mean business” - οἱ δεσπόται ἐσπουδάκωσι. Similarly, Sokrates puts on a look of mock indignation

or seriousness when ridiculed, ἐσπουδακότι τῷ προσώπῳ (Xenophon Συµπόσιον 2.17) and Meidias was

said by Phrynichos (frg. 43) to have been a keen fan of cock-fights, περὶ ἀλέκτορας αὐτοῦ ἐσπουδακότος.

The dual form of the verb is used for the two litigants rather than the singular ἐσπουδάκαται (J) to refer to

the prosecutor alone.

ὡς πρίονθ’

The manuscript variants πρίων, πρίον’ and πρίονες were clarified by Reisig (and Dobree) as πρίοντε, the

dual form of the present participle of πρίω, ‘to cut with a saw’.

ἀντενέδωκεν

The codices read ἀντανέδωκεν, but Dobree proposed the present reading which occurs in one 15^th-century

ms. (H). Both ἐνδίδωµι and ἀναδίδωµι are used. Aristophanes has added a further prefix to mean “in his

turn”. The point is that, contrary to expectation, one of the two sawyers, instead of pulling the court back

over to his side (ἀνθέλκει), simply “gives way”, conceding the argument.

The interpretation of this passage is determined by its opening line in which the prosecutor is said to share

a bribe received from a guilty defendant with another public official who serves with him. The description

is taken as evidence that there could be a prosecution team of two speakers. But, this may be the product

of an ancient scholar’s mistaken inference, for the reading is open to two objections. Firstly, the ungainly

syntax and prosaic expression of line 692 are out of place. We are told that the prosecutor shares the bribe

before we are informed that it has been offered. Secondly, the simile does not appear to match the actions

very accurately. The picture of two sawyers at work with a two-handled saw seems designed to illustrate

the cut and thrust of judicial argument as each of two opposing speakers in turn pulls the court his way.

But, the final word gives an unexpected twist to the comparison, when one of the two speakers concedes

the point. How are we to understand that the joint-prosecutors sabotage their own case without attracting

a charge of incompetence? One might suppose them to present conflicting evidence or to somehow speak

at cross-purposes, so that while the first speaker argues effectively, the second ‘throws’ the case. But why

share the bribe, unless both were to mishandle the case? Is it simply that the presence of two speakers will

allay suspicion? Surely, the second prosecutor’s ineptitude would attract adverse comment anyway? The

only way one can envisage such a combination of speakers would be if the lead prosecutor was to obtain a

conviction by pulling on the saw robustly (ἕλκει), only to have his colleague let the defendant succeed in

his plea for leniency later. But, however one interprets the prosecutors’ actions, one would expect both to

be pulling at the same end of the saw.

To my mind, the theory of prosecutors doubling up is not proven, for the simile only seems to work if we

take the two ‘sawyers’ as being defendant and prosecutor. I suspect, therefore, that line 692 is the result of

a scholion which has been interpolated to explain (mistakenly) an ancient scholar’s assumption that more

than one public official could prosecute each case. Probably the only part of the line which belongs in our

text is the conjunction καὶ, which provides κἂν as the opening of 693.

695. χασκάζεις

This unique verb is clearly a frequentative form of χάσκω. Bdelykleon wants to show that the jurymen sit

open-mouthed, i.e. with a vacant expression, because instead of paying attention to the case, their minds

are routinely focused on the three obols they expect to collect.

696. θῖνα ταράττεις

The word θίς denotes mud or sand, particularly when piled up by the action of wind and wave. While it

could perhaps be applied to the sediment of the sea-floor or river bed (and so be conveniently confused in

English with sentiment), this seems inappropriate here, since there is no emphasis on ‘depth’ of emotions.

The father will certainly begin to redirect his irritation in due course, but for now he is simply starting to

waver in his convictions. So, the phrase ‘disturbing the sand’ provides us with an image of a sand-dune

blown by the wind or a sand-bank stirred up by the action of waves, so as to indicate his confusion in the

face of powerful, elemental forces; namely his son’s diatribe. The point seems to be that sand-dunes and

sand-banks can be relocated particle by particle.

697. προσάγεις µᾶλλον

As MacDowell observes, it is difficult to extract any relevant sense from προσάγεις, though he prints it

nonetheless. Blaydes offered two thoughts, either of which would be an improvement. He suggested that

we might drop the first sigma and read προάγεις (attested by a 15^th century ms. G), or the second sigma

and read the middle voice προσάγει. The latter option seems the better as it indicates that the Father sees

the force of his son’s argument, “you are bringing my thinking over to your side”.

χρῆµα

The phrase following on seems to mean “I don’t know what thing you are making of me”. I wonder if we

might not consider κρῆµα (for κρᾶµα ‘mixture’) in place of the vaguer χρῆµα? It would indicate that the

father still holds to his views, but is being forced to consider new ones as well.

699. τῶν ἀεὶ δηµιζόντων

If τοὺς µὴ Μηδίζοντας are “those who do not support the Medes” (Herodotos 4. 144), these men must be

“those who continually side with the people”. The verb appears to have been coined by the poet as a form

of comic metathesis.

οὐκ οἶδ(α) ὅπῃ

Bdelykleon sees through the specious, political slogans and is at a loss to understand why his father is so

gullible; reading ὅπῃ (Σοῦδα) for the ὅποι of the codices.

ἐγκεκύκλησαι

There is no parallel for the meaning of ἐγκυκλέοµαι, but it could be another example of the metaphor of

the naïve citizenry being herded like sheep by the wily demagogues, so that they are seen as rounded up

by them ‘in a circle’. However, the Father had demanded to know in what respect he was enslaved (653),

so the verb may have been chosen to suggest that the jurymen are like slaves who were put up for sale (cf.

Σοῦδα quoting Harpokration, κύκλοι ἐκαλοῦντο οἱ τόποι ἐν οἷς ἐπωλοῦντό τινες· ὠνοµάσθησαν δὲ ἀπὸ

τοῦ κύκλῳ περιεστάναι τοὺς πωλουµένους - “the areas where some were sold <into slavery> were called

‘rings’; a name they took from the <buyers> standing around those being offered for sale in a circle”). In

such case, we can take the jurors to have been ‘encircled’. This latter explanation can draw some support

from a scholion on Ἱππεῖς 137, which connects Kleon to ‘the ring’, ἔνιοι δέ, τόπος κυκλοτερής, ἐν ᾧ τὰ

ὤνια ἐπωλοῦντο, ἃ ἐσφετερίζετο ὁ Κλέων - “some <sources explain that the ring was> a circular space

in which chattels were sold, which Kleon appropriated”. It is worth noting that the relative pronoun in the

plural refers to the chattels themselves, whereas one would expect the singular ὃν in reference to the area

the demagogue was exploiting.

700. πόλεων ἄρχων πλείστων

Taken literally this phrase would be a gross exaggeration and even the most jingoistic citizen would have

found it a bit much to swallow. It seems likely that we should understand it in the same sense in which the

name Πλείσταρχος was used, i.e., ‘having widest dominion’ (ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἄρχων).

Πόντου...Σαρδοῦς

It seems likely that during the sixth century Athenian merchants had penetrated the Black Sea as far as

Kerch and the extention of Athenian hegemony to the Hellespont during the fifth could have led to closer

commercial ties with other coastal cities. But, Athens’ maritime empire hardly extended past Byzantion.

In the West, Athens traded with southern Italian and Sicilian cities, but we have no evidence for Athenian

contact with Sardinia (Σαρδώ), although Gelon’s military success over the Carthaginians at Himera may

well have reopened direct Greek trade with settlements established by Phokaians which had latterly fallen

under Phoinician control.

701-2.

It is clear that the ancient Greeks had not yet provided medical science with the intravenous drip, because

Aristophanes would surely have used it in place of the obscure comparison here. As it was, he had to have

recourse to a simile which would bring home to his audience the measured and niggardly disbursement of

jury-pay. He takes as his example olive-oil, a basic staple of the Athenian diet; something essential to life.

The ancient commentator suggested that the poet had in mind the use of a ball of wool dripping drops of

oil into someone’s ear to mollify an inflammation. But, though it is a treatment that Greek grandmothers

are still apt to recommend nowadays, it is hardly pertinent to draw a comparison between an earache and

penury. The poet must have had some more general application in mind and one possibility is that matted

wool was used to filter crude olive-oil, so that he gives the homely picture of the pay being dispensed like

drops of clear liquid oil percolating slowly through the lint.

ἀκαρῆ

The Σοῦδα reads ἀκαρές to agree with τοῦτο, but the adverbial use of the neuter plural is preferable here.

The meaning “hardly at all” derives from new stubble which is not worth putting a razor to.

703. τοῦθ’ ὧν οὕνεκ(α)

Bentley corrected the τούτων of the codices, which also read εἵνεκ’ (so MacDowell and Henderson), but

as Barrett has argued (commentary on Euripides Ἱππόλυτος 456) the native Attic form in Old Comedy is

οὕνεκα.

704. οὗτος γ(ε) ἐπισίξῃ

The verb σίζω is onomatopoeic (like our ‘sizzle’) and is used of a hissing or whistling sound. The comic-

poet Epicharmos (frg. 21) describes how Herakles wheezes through his nostrils (σίζει δὲ ταῖς ῥίνεσσι) as

he eats. This compound form of the verb is unique, but ancient scholiasts, adducing instances in the works

of Eratosthenes and Lykophron, maintained that it could be used transitively in the sense, ‘to set a dog on

somebody by whistling’. Most editors accept this view and Meineke has even suggested emending γ(ε) to

σ(ε) to provide a direct object. Wilson notes his suggestion approvingly. But, I agree with MacDowell’s

view that the pronoun would need to be in the dative (cf. Theokritos 6.29, σίξα...τᾷ κυνί). Sommerstein’s

italicized ‘he’ indicates that the particle would normally serve to emphasize οὗτος, but as the pronoun is

sufficiently emphatic as it stands, the stress can be transferred to the verb instead.

In fact, due perhaps to the influence of the following line, it has been too readily assumed that the prefix

of the verb has the same adversative force as the preposition. Instead, it seems that the compound ἐπισίζω

should be taken to mean “whistle for” (much like ἐπικαλέω, ‘call up’, ‘summon’). We could even perhaps

place a comma after ἐπισίξῃ to make clear that the preposition ἐπὶ in the next clause is merely assonance.

Although the aorist tense ἐπισίξῃ has been preferred by modern editors, it is worth noting that some of the

manuscripts read the present ἐπισίζῃ. Wilson (p. 89) finds this more vivid, although the aorist tense would

suit the implied repetition.

705. ἐπιρρύξας

In line with the interpretation suggested by the scholia for ἐπισίξῃ, ἐπιρρύξας should mean ‘setting a dog

on somebody by growling’ (for ῥύζω means ‘to growl’ or ‘snarl’), but in this case it is obviously the dog

doing the growling. The snarling is directed at “one of his enemies” while the pouncing encompasses the

enemies as a group (αὐτοῖς). Accordingly, I suspect that we ought to read ἐπιγρύξας here. Aristophanes

uses the verb γρύζω of people ‘grumbling’ or ‘muttering under their breath’ (cf. 741, Νεφέλαι 963), but it

is applied by later Atticists to dogs ‘growling’ (e.g. Alkiphron 3.73), suggesting that they recalled its use

in such ambiguous instances as this.

707. πόλεις χίλιαι

“A thousand cities” is a comic exaggeration, chosen as a round number to make the arithmetic easy even

for the most slow-witted member of the audience. The actual number was around three hundred and thirty

according to Gomme (on Thucydides IV, 51 p.504), but we can understand the phrase to mean ‘countless

cities’.

708. ἄνδρας βόσκειν

The idea of ‘feeding’ or ‘looking after’ is often detached from the original sense of ‘tending’ (cf.313), but

here Bdelykleon is hinting at the similarity of the poorer citizens to sheep.

709. δύο µυριάδ(ε) ἂν

The codices read δύο µυριάδες, but Dobree, perceiving the need for the particle, modified the noun to the

dual in order to accommodate it. Like πόλεις χίλιαι, “twenty thousand” is a convenient round number, to

illustrate in an exaggerated way how the wealth could be redistributed. It is like saying, “Think of a large

number, then double it”.

τῶν δηµοτικῶν

He is referring not simply to τῶν δηµότων (“ordinary citizens”) but to the indigent, working-class man,

whom the demagogues would classify as ‘the People’ (cf. Νεφέλαι 205, where an instrument apparently

intended to allot land to the impoverished is considered a σόφισµα δηµοτικόν).

λαγῷοις

There was not much meat in the average Athenian’s diet. Domesticated animals were kept mainly for the

milk or fleeces they provided. When they went for slaughter it was most often as sacrificial victims. Thus,

the best cuts went ultimately to the best people - the ‘parasites’ (παρασίτοι). The little meat available to

the ordinary people would have come on feast days, from domestic pigs or fowl, or else from game which

they hunted for themselves in the meantime. Hares were prized for their tasty flesh, and not least because

they were very difficult to catch (cf. 1203). In Ἀχαρνεῖς (878), a Theban brings some to war-time starved

Athenians.

710. καὶ πυῷ καὶ πυριάτῃ

This was probably a standard expression which I have translated into a similarly standard expression of

our own. Literally, it is the first milk produced by a mammal after giving birth, drunk fresh or warmed

over a fire. The farmer’s term for such milk is beestings, which would surely be confusing to a ‘wasp’.

712. ἐλαολόγοι

He illustrates the jurors’ servility by comparing them to “olive-pickers”, unskilled, seasonal workers who,

with employment for at most a couple of months a year, are dependent on their employers. He does not so

much picture them queuing up to receive their pay, as Barrett supposes, but rather shows them at the beck

and call of their paymasters. The phrase χωρεῖτε ἅµα describes the movement of the olive-pickers / jurors

“in a group for the man holding their pay”; the jurors are assigned to courts just as the others are sent out

to the fields.

713. τί πέπονθ’; ὡς

A creeping numbness is descending on him just as sleepiness was overcoming Sosias earlier (7). Austin

takes this as an indication that he must actually be waving a sword in his hand, but I have to agree with

MacDowell on this. Hall and Geldart (followed by Sommerstein) have chosen to adopt a variant reading

found in the Σοῦδα, τί πέπονθ(α); But, this expands the line requiring the excision of a syllable elsewhere

and so they print Kuster’s ὡς for ὥσπερ. Blaydes dropped µου and Meineke cut out the preposition κατὰ.

However, I think MacDowell is right to support the codices, since their reading τί ποθ’ ὥσπερ is unlikely

to be the result of miscopying while πέπονθ’ may have started out as an explanatory gloss.

714. τὸ ξίφος

As in earlier references, the mention of a sword is purely for dramatic effect. In this case, however, the

actor may actually take his property-phallus in hand to give additional force to the line and account for

the subsequent wobbling of his knees. Figuratively, of course, the words mean that he’s no longer sure

whether he can continue to hold up his end of the argument. The ambiguity of µαλθακός is brought into

play to describe both his emotional ‘mellowing’ and his physical ‘flaccidity’; he is losing his sting!

715. τὴν Εὔβοιαν

It is unnecessary to translate ‘the whole of Euboia’. The demagogues are promising to allocate the grain

quota supplied by this particularly productive island, as we might say ‘all the tea in China’. As the island

had been an Athenian dependency for many years it is unlikely that they were promising fresh allotments

of land as a scholion suggests.

718. ξενίας φεύγων ἔλαβες

The implication is that collecting welfare was made as difficult as possible in order to curtail the expense.

His father stands in for the average, needy citizen who has to jump through bureaucratic hoops to prove

his entitlement with doubts raised over his civic status along the way.

The ἔλαβε of the codices has been corrected in the Aldine edition on the basis of the pronoun σοι in the

previous line.

719-20. σ(ε)...βόσκειν

The Son indicates his willingness to take care of his father like a good shepherd would (cf. 707).

721. ἐγχάσκειν σοι

This form of the verb χάσκω (cf. 695) is used to show that the politicians are “laughing at you” (cf. 575).

στοµφάζοντας

Their political masters use high-sounding phrases to bamboozle them. Their rhetoric is often compared in

comedy to the grandiloquence of tragic-drama, so Aischylos in Νεφέλαι (1367) is derided as a στόµφακα

κρηµνοποιόν for his “incomprehensible bombast”.

722. ἀτεχνῶς

Τhis word is usually accented περισπωµένως to mean ‘simply’ (as in line 810). But, here, I would prefer

to accent on the penultimate syllable (ἀτέχνως) to give the sense “without artifice”, since such a phrase is

typically added to formal promises; see e.g. the words of Kroisos’ emissary to the Spartans expressing the

wish to be their friend ἄνευ τε δόλου καὶ ἀπάτης - “without guile and deceit” (Herodotos 1.69.2).

724. γάλα πίνειν

The old jurors are treated like babies weaned on their mother’s milk, a metaphor of their dependency on

the pittance received from jury-service.

Choral Song (ᾨδή) 725-59

725-6.

The chorus-leader draws an adage from the well of popular wisdom like a character from a tragic-drama,

e.g. Phaidra’s nurse advises ‘moderation in all things’ adding, “and wise folk would agree with me” - καὶ

ξυµφήσουσι σοφοί µοι (Euripides Ἱππόλυτος 266).

οὐκ ἂν δικάσαις

The optative is contracted from δικάσειας, “you should not make a judgement”.

727. τὴν ὀργὴν χαλάσας

The righteous indignation typical of the juror (cf. 243) has worn off due to the convincing arguments put

before him (cf. 646-7).

σκίπωνας καταβάλλω

As the chorus-members were in fact carrying staffs (or walking-sticks), Sommerstein suggests that they

are metaphorically ‘disarming’. In support of this interpretation he provides comparable instances from

other comic-dramas of the chorus laying down arms.

But, I believe MacDowell must be correct in taking this phrase as the equivalent of our ‘throwing in the

sponge’, though for a different reason. I think the explanation might be that the chorus-leader is putting

himself in the position of trainer to his contender in the debate. When athletic competitions are depicted

in vase-paintings the trainers are often distinguishable by their cloaks and staffs. So, we might draw the

inference from this passage that a trainer would throw his staff down to stop the bout, if he saw his man

getting too badly-beaten.

728. ὦ...ἡµῖν...συνθιασῶτα

A θιασώτης was properly a participant in a religious rite, especially one of an orgiastic nature. The word

θίασος was commonly used of those celebrating the nocturnal revels of Dionysos, among them centaurs

and satyrs, so that it came to be used to describe a troupe of actors who performed under his auspices. It is

used in this way by the chorus-members in Βάτραχοι (327) who invite Iakchos to join them as ὁσίους εἰς

θιασώτας. Here too, in applying the term “fellow-reveller” to his fellow-juror the chorus-leader seems to

step out of character. He does so because the jurors, like the members of a θίασος, tended to be roughly

coevals (cf. ἡλίκων θιάσους, Euripides Ἰφ. ἡ ἐν Ταύροις 1146). So, although the genitive τῆς ἡλικίας...τῆς

αὐτῆς would normally apply to the deity who is the subject of the ritual celebration, the whole verse is no

more than a periphrasis for ὦ συν(οµ)ήλικε θιασῶτα.

731. κηδεµὼν

The wish for a ‘guardian’ sounds patently absurd at his advanced age (unless he is anticipating dementia).

But, the word harks back ironically to line 242 where the Chorus had mentioned Κλέων, ὁ κηδεµὼν ἡµῖν.

734.

Editors now follow MacDowell’s colometry, and take line 735 in Hall and Geldart’s text as the second

half of line 734.

735. παρὼν δέχου

In Ὄρνιθες (548), the birds urge their visitor, ἀλλ’ ὅτι χρὴ δρᾶν, σὺ δίδασκε παρών· “but stay and teach

us what we need to do”. So, here, one may take the participle to imply that Philokleon, as Sommerstein

puts it, is withdrawing into himself or even perhaps physically backing away. But, the imperative seems

to need qualification because in English one can hardly avoid accepting ‘something’ or ‘in some way’. It

is likely that the ‘wasps’ are calling upon him to accept his son’s overtures with a positive attitude rather

than sulking, as he seems to be doing. While it may be that παρὼν could carry this sense idiomatically, it

is possible that, despite MacDowell’s efforts to justify the repetition from 733, the participle is a copyist’s

error for πρόφρων (Kock) “accept readily” (cf. Ὄρνιθες 930), as Wilson (p.89) thinks. There is, however,

a simpler emendation παρὸν (Seager) which provides an object. While the plural (τὰ παρόντα) would fit

in the sense of “accept the situation”, the singular παρὸν (free of the definite article) could be understood

to mean ‘a thing which is available’ i.e. “a bird in the hand”. I have emphasized παρὸν in my translation,

but incorporated the possibility of παρὼν in parenthesis because the use of the participle looks idiomatic.

736. θρέψω γ(ε) αὐτὸν

As the examples which follow show, the Son is not only intent on ‘feeding’ his father but “maintaining

him in fact”, as if he himself was his foster-father (τροφεύς). His promise sets the scene for the later role

reversal (cf. also 1004, θρέψω καλῶς).

737-8. χόνδρον λείχειν

Like a baby an old man would find his diet limited by his lack of teeth. Either he would have to “slurp

gruel” or he would “lick a block of salt (ἁλὸς χόνδρον)” to make his insipid food more appetizing. The

verb suggests the latter as the appropriate word for ‘swilling’ porridge or soup is ῥοφεῖν (cf. 812). Also,

as the parabasis of Ἀχαρνεῖς (521) indicates, rock salt was a Megarian product and so would have been

hard to come by until the recent truce.

χλαῖναν µαλακήν

He will later attempt to replace his father’s threadbare, old cloak with just such a comfy, woolen cloak to

keep him warm in winter.

σισύραν

Like the leather jerkin (444), the σισύρα was an outer garment which protected the wearer in all weathers.

It also made a warm bed-cover on winter nights (cf. Νεφέλαι 10).

739-40. πόρνην

In addition to the creature comforts that “befit an old man”, the Son suggests that he will provide a hooker

to give him a sensual massage. This seems excessive in view of the fact that he has a wife and daughter at

home (607-12) and that he appears ready to take liberties with the serving women (cf. 768-9). However, it

is something which a considerate foster-father might provide for an adolescent son (cf. 1004-5).

741-2. σιγᾷ κοὐδὲν γρύζει

Bdelykleon seems surprised to find that his offer is met by a stony silence from his father. Philokleon had

already told his fellow-jurors that he valued his judicial role above life’s luxuries (341), but now he is at a

loss to reply because he faces a dilemma of heroic proportions, and this lends para-tragic overtones to his

silence.

τοῦτ(ο) οὐ δύναται µε προσέσθαι

In Πλοῦτος (842), Karion asks, τὸ τριβώνιον τί δύναται; “what’s the meaning of this shabby cloak?” and

so we might expect the Son to express misgivings over his father’s silence with the words, “this <silence

of his> does not bode <well>”. But, the infinitive gives us little help. It is said to be the contracted middle

of προσίηµι (normally προσίεσθαι) which ought to mean ‘it is not possible for me to accept this’, but the

occurrence of the phrase ἓν δ’ οὐ προσίεταί µε (“one thing does not please me”) in Ἱππεῖς (359) is offered

as reason to translate the infinitive here as “I cannot say that pleases me” (Sommerstein) and “I can’t help

being displeased” (Henderson). Not only is this a poor fit; it does not seem to be the right type of shoe. A

variant reading, δύναµαί τε (Γ) suggests another approach. The change of person removes the need for the

pronoun and as the τε is out of place, a more likely particle would be γε. As to the infinitive my best guess

would be προγιγνώσκειν and I tentatively suggest reading τοῦτ’ οὐ δύναµαί γε <προγνῶσθαι>, “I really

cannot <fathom> this <silence>”.

743-9.

Since the Son is at a loss to explain his father’s silence, the Chorus steps forward to clear up the mystery.

They have already acknowledged the cogency of the Son’s arguments and urged their fellow-juror to do

the same. Now, they sense that he too has come around, but is not ready to admit defeat. In fact, he is not

ready to accept the implications of defeat. The repetition of ἐπείθετο...πείθεται...πειθόµενος emphasizes a

turning point in the battle of wills.

πράγµαθ’, οἷς

The codices read πράγµατα, οἷς a hiatus which Dindorf insisted on eliding. Whether the poet would have

felt the same need, we do not know.

744. τότ(ε) ἐπεµαίνετ(ο)

The Chorus acknowledges that their colleague “formerly used to have a mania for…” The metaphor can

be taken in a positive or a negative sense; here it is used negatively, later it will be used positively (cf.

1469). In a neutral context it may equate to our expression ‘to get worked up about something’.

745. ἁµαρτίας

Thus, the Chorus acknowledges on the Father’s behalf the truth of the Son’s promise (514) that he would

show him the error of his ways (ταῦθ’ ἁµαρτάνεις).

748. µεθιστὰς...τὸν τρόπον

This phrase is elaborated later in lines 1451-2, µετέστη ξηρῶν τρόπων καὶ βιοτῆς.

749. πιθόµενος

Hall and Geldart print Brunck’s emendation of the codices’ πειθόµενος, to obtain closer responsion with

the strophe (735). But, like MacDowell, I do not consider this essential and prefer to stress the repetition

of πειθ- to emphasize Philokleon’s submission (but cf. 761).

750. ιώ µοί µοι

The father has not spoken since he began to feel faint in line 714. He lacks the strength to comment on his

son’s closing remarks and it is left to the Chorus to concede the contest. They suggest he too should admit

defeat, rather than maintain, what they consider to be, his obdurate silence. Already (at line 728), we have

crossed over into a tragic convention; the ‘heroic’ silence. The Chorus offers a rational explanation for his

loss of words, but the para-tragic nature of his silence is made clear when he does speak. This line and his

subsequent speech are couched in language typical of tragic-drama.

751. οὗτος

As in the opening line of the play this word very often indicates that the speaker has just had his attention

drawn away. The Son had been addressing the Chorus, but now turns to hear what his father has to say.

752. κείνων ἔραµαι

Like a character in a Euripidean tragedy he longs to be elsewhere; specifically the law-courts. The kind of

language he uses is reminiscent of Admetos in Euripides’ Ἄλκηστις, who longs to follow those who have

died, ζηλῶ φθιµένους, κείνων ἔραµαι, κεῖν’ ἐπιθυµῶ δώµατα ναίειν (866-7). The protest itself is probably

a conventional trope in Comedy where, unlike Tragedy, the hero is trying to get a worse deal, cf. similar

language used in Νεφέλαι 433.

754. κῆρυξ

The ‘herald’ is a further indication of the para-tragic context. We can probably assume from this passage

that he stands in for some humble court-official whose duties included, bringing the jurors to order at the

outset by drum-roll, and calling for ‘last votes, please!’ The court-crier’s words mark a sudden falling off

from the elevated tone. It is as if a disembodied voice has broken in over the PA system to announce that

the flight will soon be closing.

755-6. ὁ τελευταῖος

He likes to savour his power by waiting to cast his vote after everyone else, thinking perhaps that his vote

may prove decisive and so count for something.

757. πάρες, ὦ σκιερά…

The tragic tone is emphasized by what appear to be a couple of direct quotations from Euripidean dramas.

The first is not known, but the second is identified by an ancient commentator as having been taken from

the tragedy of Βελλεροφόντης (Euripides frg.308). In it the hero, mounted on his flying horse Pegasos, has

just taken off from a forest-clearing and calls upon the trees to move their branches out of his flight-path.

Πάρες, ὦ σκιερὰ φυλλάς - “make way, o shadowing…foliage!” Aristophanes probably selected the scene

for its fundamental absurdity. The following year in Εἰρήνη, he was to introduce the preposterous idea of

manned flight again, substituting the magic horse with a ‘beetle-steed’ (ἱπποκάνθαρος). The justification

for the quotation is that the father seems about to take flight in his imagination (as we are told he had been

used to doing before, in lines 93 and 120).

Barrett saw this as a good opportunity for Philokleon to start wielding his sword again, and Sommerstein

concurs. But, even assuming that he actually has a sword to play with, he has already mentioned that his

arm would be too weak to raise it. I have to agree with MacDowell, that the humour lies in the dramatist

purloining tragic tones to colour the hero’s desperation. To actually put a sword into Philokleon’s hand

would risk turning the scene into something akin to Victorian melodrama (or Megarian farce).

758-9.

The “shadowing foliage” parts as instructed and Philokleon/Bellerophon emerges suddenly into the clear

light of understanding. He declares his immediate conversion and accepts that Kleon has been just as keen

to defraud the state-treasury as those he accused. Yet, in the same instant, he realizes that, if his longing to

return to the law-courts is now fulfilled, he will face the prospect of having to try his ‘keeper’ for misuse

of public funds. Deprived of the comfort of his illusions, he languishes in a state of despair.

Ἐπεισόδιον 760-862

761. τί σοι πίθωµαι;

The codices read πείθοµαι (‘why do I obey you?’), but sense and metre require Tyrwhitt’s correction to

the subjunctive πίθωµαι, “what might I obey you in?” Curiously, the same error crops up in a very similar

phrase in Νεφέλαι 87, τί οὖν πίθωµαι δῆτά σοι; where the earliest manuscripts have πείθοµαι, corrected to

πίθωµαι in a Thoman copy.

763. Ἅιδης διακρινεῖ

Despite accepting defeat Philokleon is unwilling to be held to his vow and insists that he would rather die

than live without the joy of jury-duty. The phrase “Hades will decide between <us>” implies that his son

would have to use lethal force.

764. τοῦτο κεχάρηκας ποιῶν

The perfect tense can convey the continual delight felt.

767. ταὔθ’...πράττεται

Boissonade saw that the reading ταῦθ’ in the codices needed to become “the very things which…” This

mistake had led some copyists to write πράττετε.

768. ὅτι

The full espression might be, ‘<When someone alleges> that…

τὴν θύραν ἀνέῳξεν...λάθρᾳ

When not working, the womenfolk, slave and ‘free’, were kept confined in their separate quarters. If the

door (there would be only one) were to be found ajar, accusations of adultery could be made and blame

would attach to the servant whose duty it was to keep it closed. An open door would attract comparison

with the door of a brothel which was always left open, cf. Philemon, ἡ θύρα ’στ’ ἀνεῳγµένη (frg. 3.12).

There may have been a suggestion (as Henderson has noted [1991] p. 137) that the housemaid had ‘left

her door ajar’ [i.e. direct sexual innuendo like that in Pink Floyd’s ‘Run like Hell’, “if they catch you in

the back seat trying to pick her locks”.]

ἡ σηκίς

This rare word is confined to Comedy. In a brief passage from Pherekrates (frg. 10) it appears to be used

as a proper noun (οὐ γὰρ ἦν τότ’, οὔτε Μάνης οὔτε Σηκίς, οὐδενὶ δοῦλος - “since no-one had a house-

slave then; no Manes, no Sekis”) and the same may be the case here, because presumably Father and Son

would refer to the house-maid by her name between themselves. Polydeukes (3.76) states that the word,

as a cognate of σηκός (‘a pen where young animals were reared’) and σηκίτης (‘a young lamb still being

weaned’), denoted a female slave raised in the household. Therefore, we might print Σηκίς and take the

Son to be talking about ‘Ewe-lamb, the maid’.

769. ἐπιβολὴν...µίαν µόνην

We can also detect a double meaning in ‘imposing a single penalty on her’, which Barrett brightly tries to

capture with ‘imposing a stiff…sentence”. Sommerstein takes µίαν µόνην to mean, “to fine her just one

<drachma>”, but this seems unlikely of a slave. It is probably intended to point up the insinuation that it

would be ‘a singular or unique imposition’.

In most cases of sexual innuendo we must fall back on gestures to underline the action which is hinted at.

No doubt the ancient actors emphasized it in the same way.

770. ταῦτ(α) ἔδρας

“You used to act like this” i.e. he routinely voted for the harsher penalty in trials (as was implied in 108).

771-2. καὶ...νυν εὐλόγως,

The punctuation of these two lines has been questioned. Platnauer (1953) suggested breaking the first line

with a colon after εὐλόγως· This is the course adopted by Sommerstein who translates, “well, that works

reasonably”. MacDowell prefers to avoid splitting the line and instead (reading νῦν for νυν) translates,

“and this judging you’ll naturally do in the sunshine now”.

My own solution is to combine the two approaches with νῦν εὐλόγως· “and now <you’ll be doing this>

in a common sense way”. This leaves the conditional clause to expand upon the advantages of the sensible

way.

Philokleon would benefit from being outdoors in the fresh air when the weather was clement. Courtyards

would have been oriented toward the sun (cf. Eupolis frg. 410, αὐλὴ πρόσειλος - “a courtyard facing the

sun”), cf. also 869.

ἢν ἐξέχῃ ἕλη κατ(ὰ) ὄρθρον

This phrase has created needless problems. Starkie thought that it must stand in opposition to the previous

clause and so inserted δὲ in response to µὲν (ἢν δ’ ἐξέχῃ). Only Sommerstein has been led astray by this,

which is a pity as he alone of recent editors has seen the necessity of correcting the codices’ κατ’ ὄρθρον

to κατ’ ὀρθὸν. If, like MacDowell, one takes the text as it stands, the imagined situation is in the height

of summer where, “If it looks like being warm, even before the day has dawned…” But, in this case, there

is a heat-wave and the juror might be expected to prefer shade, rather than sit out in the sun (πρὸς ἥλιον).

In fact, the situation becomes clearer when a comma is placed after ἕλη, because one can now appreciate

that he is talking about a winter’s scene in which the juror does not have to be cooped up inside if it looks

like being a warm day. Philokleon could picture himself outside in the warm, fresh air, and not having to

sit near a brazier in a chilly courtroom, rife with flu germs.

MacDowell makes a sound case for reading εἴλη as the correct Attic form of ἕλη.

The phrase κατ’ ὀρθὸν is suggested by an ancient scholiast and although not common (it is used by Plato

in Τίµαιος 44β), would add something pertinent to the following clause, where our poet draws an artificial

connection between the verb ἠλιάζοµαι and the sun (ἥλιος), by pointing out that in this circumstance the

two words would be “properly” connected for once. The wordplay was tempting for a comic-poet, since it

was all too easy to confuse ἠλίασις (‘sitting in court’) with ἡλίασις (‘sunbathing’). In English it is difficult

to do justice to the pun, but Barrett’s “summery justice”, is a smart atempt. Aristophanes’ words show that

comic-poets regularly exploited the similarity of the two words, and it was doubtless such punning which

misled later commentators into assuming that both were aspirated. The judicial term Ἠλιαία is aspirated

by Roman writers (thereby risking confusion with the Ἡλιαῖα, the festival of the Sun) and consequently,

there are still those who would write Heliaia where one should write Eliaia. H.T. Wade-Gery has pointed

out the error (1940, p.265 n.3) and MacDowell supports his conclusion here by leaving the verb ἠλιάσει

unaspirated (as does Dover on Νεφέλαι 863).

773. ἐὰν δὲ νείφῃ

Snow did not prevent judicial proceedings, but it would have made the trip to and from the courthouse a

tricky one for city-dwellers and impossible for those living in the outlying districts.

774. ὕοντος εἴσει

Civil cases were heard in closed buildings, but the jurors risked getting wet on the way there and having

to sit through trials in damp clothes. At home, Philokleon would stay dry indoors.

775. οὐδείς...θεσµοθέτης

There were six judicial archons, or “law-givers” appointed annually. Just like high-court judges nowadays

their role was to keep order in the court and perhaps also to verify points of law. It is difficult to avoid the

usual translation ‘<presiding> magistrate’, but we should keep in mind that the θεσµοθέτης did not in fact

decide cases as an English magistrate does.

778. δάκνων

Although the passive participle δακνόµενος would be natural here, because it is hunger that is gnawing at

him, the active is employed so that it can also be applied to the defendant. Thus, ‘biting himself’ is used

somewhat awkwardly to express his mounting irritation (cf. 1083) in order that the same verb can vividly

describe his desire to ‘put the bite on the defendant’ (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 375-6, <οἱ γέροντες> βλέπουσιν...ψήφῳ

δακεῖν).

780. τὰ πράγµατ(α)

“The matters” are actually ‘the cases being tried’, the object of διαγιγνώσκειν καλῶς. But, by positioning

them near the participle µασώµενος (whose object is not expressed) they provide a false balance with the

phrase τὸ πράγµ(α)...ἀναµασώµενοι (783).

781. πολλῷ γ(ε)

The old man’s question did not expect a yes / no answer, so his son is not saying ‘yes’, “contradicting an

implied denial” (MacDowell). For an example of an affirmative answer, cf. Νεφέλαι 1335, πολύ γε, καὶ

ῥᾳδίως. Here, on the other hand, we need a simple conjunction πολλῷ δ(ὲ) ἄµεινον.

783. ἀναµασώµενοι

The glissade from ‘chewing one’s food’ (µασώµενος) to metaphorically ‘ruminating’ on a case is so easy

in English that we can just as easily glide over the real joke which is pointed up by the variant reading in

the Σοῦδα. There, the double sigma indicates that the ‘chewing over again’ (ἀναµασάοµαι) would have

been heard as part of ἀναµάσσοµαι, suggesting that the jurors were enlightened in the course of ‘kneading

their πράγµα’ (the matter in hand?). The sexual implications of kneading bread or grinding barley-corns

have surfaced already in the bakerwoman’s ὅλµος (238) and are illustrated most explicitly in the case of

Kleonymos’s καρδόπην (Νεφέλαι 669-80).

784. ἀνά τοί µε πείθεις

The metrical convenience of splitting a compound verb is shown by a similar tmesis in Euripidean verse,

ἔκ τοί µε τήξεις - “you’ll dissolve me <in tears>, for sure” (Ὀρέστης 1047).

786.

It appears that the jurors were usually paid in pairs; a silver drachma between them. This may have been

due to a shortage of small change, or else the paymaster may simply have been issued only drachmas by

the treasurers to avoid error and to speed the disbursement.

787. Λυσίστρατος

Aristophanes does not idly pull names out of a hat. Usually, he means them to have particular relevance

to his plot (e.g. ‘Λυσιστράτη’ or ‘Λάβης’). Besides, it’s worth noting that even in these instances there is

usually an oblique reference to a real person. Thus, when he uses a particular name, it will generally refer

to a well-known Athenian. In Aristophanes’ first play ∆αιταλεῖς (frg. 205), a certain Lysistratos is said to

have coined a new word for ‘coffin’ to deride someone who ‘has one foot in the grave’. Two years later, a

Lysistratos “who is a disgrace to the deme of Cholargos” (Ἀχαρνεῖς 855-9), is making fun of people in the

Agora. He is said to be “well-known…for his miserable condition, shivering in the cold and going hungry

thirty-two days in every month”. Later on, in Ἱππεῖς (1267), the chorus decides to abstain from ridiculing

him, inferring that this was common practice in comic-drama. In this play, Aristophanes depicts him as a

poor man (scraping by on juror’s pay) and a practical joker, but as this is satire we can safely assume that

he was was in fact well-off and notoriously lacking a sense of humour. This appears to be confirmed later

in the play, when he is mentioned again in high-class company (1302, 1308). After Σφῆκες, Aristophanes

does not target him, although another man of the same name crops up in Λυσιστράτη (1105).

789. ἐν τοῖς ἰχθύσιν

Sellers of particular commodities congregated in separate areas of the Agora, which took their name from

each type of goods, according to a scholion on Aischines, κατὰ Τιµάρχου 65, ἀπὸ τῶν πιπρασκοµένων ἔν

τινι τόπῳ ἐκάλουν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τὸν τόπον. Fish were sold in the part of the food-market known as τοὔψον.

Antiphanes (frg. 125) comments on the extravagant claims of vendors ἐν τοῖς ἰχθύσιν who might be heard

boasting that their whitebait was ‘sweeter than honey’. Similar cries can be heard today in Athens’ street-

markets.

790. κἄπειτ(α) ἐνέθηκε…µοι

The readings of the codices, κάπειθεν ἔθηκεν (V) and κἄπειτ’ ἐπέθηκε (RJ) have been emended by Bergk,

since it is likely that Lysistratos “put <the scales> in my hand”. The fish-scales are round and silvery, but

their lack of weight would betray them and coinage was basically a matter of weight.

791. (ἐ)νέκαψ(α)

MacDowell rightly objects to the translation ‘gulp down’ (LSJ). The point of the joke is that Philokleon

greedily “gobbled up” the fish-scales without looking at them properly (cf. Εἰρήνη 7, ὅλην <τὴν µᾶζαν>

ἐνέκαψε).

792. ὀσφρόµενος

Editors have preferred this spelling over the variant ὀσφρώµενος. Unfortunately, the relevant fragment of

the oldest papyrus is illegible here. At any rate, the meaning is that he “catches the <fishy> smell” on his

fingers.

795. καθέψεις

The ancient commentators thought that the point here was that cockerels could digest just about anything

and it is tempting to assume that the verb (literally ‘boil down’) should be interpreted as ‘digest’, although

the normal way of expressing digestion would be the verb καταπέσσω (Hirschig actually suggests reading

καταπέψεις). But, patently Philokleon did not swallow the fish-scales; he spat them out. Perhaps then, the

precise point being made is that domestic fowl often seem to gobble up anything before them, regardless

of whether or not they can digest it. So, the verb may be used metaphorically to mean that, just as one can

evaporate water by ‘wholly boiling it away’, Philokleon “makes ‘the money’ disappear”. Sommerstein is

probably on the right track when he suspects that the verb could also be taken to mean ‘to squander’, but

one does not need to accept the comic pretence of Lysistratos’s poverty to appreciate the joke. It is rather

an expression of disdain for a paltry sum, as one might say ‘don’t blow it all at once’.

ἦ δ(ὲ) ὃς λέγων

The main verb is ἦ (for ἔφη) and the phrase ἦ δ’ ὃς “said he” is a rather coy, conversational usage, which

is borrowed from epic verse. Therefore, the participle λέγων seems to be redundant. There are two ways

of remedying this. Either, we can try to save the participle by reading ὃς δὴ λέγων - “saying in his typical

way” (and hope no-one asks for a main verb), or since ἦ δ’ ὃς is used by other comic-poets (e.g. Kratinos

frg. 192), we could adopt Tyrwhitt’s simple metathesis ἦ δ’ ὃς γελῶν, which adds a comic touch, coming

from the famously humourless Lysistratos.

798. ταῦθ’

Hoekstra and Wilamowitz have noted the vagueness of ταῦτα (‘these things’) and suggested that perhaps

something has dropped out of our text. Given the suddenness of the Son’s exit and the lack of explanation

for it, it seems most likely that at least one line has been lost. If the missing words preceded this line, then

ταῦθ’ could stand, but if the lacuna followed it, then we might do better to accent paroxytone ταύθ’ (for

ταύτῃ) “in this spot” and question the verb.

799-804.

While his son goes off-stage to fetch the items necessary to transform the courtyard into a court-room, the

old man recalls certain ‘prophecies’ he has heard. These are not oracular pronouncements, but the kind of

prediction which is recognized only on fulfilment.

799. ὅρα τὸ χρῆµα

Philokleon is left to talk to himself. The imperative is really an exclamation, “Will you look at that!”

τὰ λόγι(α)

The future is unknowable, but people of faith cling to the belief that not only do their gods know what is

going to happen, but that they will disclose this information if politely requested to do so. For the ancient

Athenians these divine revelations of specific future events were made in the form of oracles (χρησµοί)

which, given the mysterious nature of divine beings, tended to be obscure (and frequently in poetic form).

Fortunately, a group of practitioners skilled in the interpretation of these arcane oracles grew up, known

as χρησµολόγοι - nowadays, we might think of them as ‘technical stock-analysts’. These were the ones

who formulated the λόγια (usually, but not always, in prose) which rationalized, or ‘made sense’ of the

χρησµούς. In Ἱππεῖς (115-47), the two slaves try to interpret a χρησµόν on their own and end up trying to

take it literally.

800-1.

ἠκηκόη

The codices agree on the form ἠκηκόειν which MacDowell and Henderson print, but Brunck’s suggestion

that Aristophanes would have preferred the archaic pluperfect ἠκηκόη, since it is found in other passages

(e.g. Εἰρήνη 616), is reasonable. The reading of the codices may be the result of a learned scribe trying to

harmonize the text with contemporary works by Herodotos and Xenophon (Οἰκ. 15.7).

The prediction he had heard was really just a figure of speech which dismisses something as impossible,

as if one were to say ‘Hell will freeze over before people stop suing each other’.

δικάσοιεν

Editors have always favoured the strong aorist optative over the weak aorist ending δικάσειεν (J), which

was good enough for them in 726.

802. (ἐ)ν τοῖς προθύροις

The space πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν (“in front of the door”) could have been in the open street, but often, as here, it

was a yard set back from the thoroughfare (cf. 875).

ἐνοικοδοµήσοι

The Ravennatus reads ἀνοικοδοµήσει (‘will reconstruct’), but the more likely reading is ἐνοικοδοµήσει

in the Venetus, meaning “construct in”. Hall and Geldart print Dobree’s suggested optative to match the

mood of δικάσοιεν, but, as MacDowell shows, the future indicative can be used with the optative.

804.

It was usual for small shrines to be set up by the householder to honour particular deities. In Νεφέλαι, we

find an equine statuette outside Strepsiades’ house in honour of his son’s favourite god, Poseidon, while a

‘Herm’ (the overseer of commercial deals) graces the entrance to the school of ‘Sokrates’. For Philokleon

to comment that Hekate’s shrines were everywhere suggests that there had been a recent mushrooming of

these particular objects of veneration, for which the audience would appreciate the cause. Possibly, it was

the result of Athens’ annexation of Aigina at the outset of the war, since she was held in high regard there

(cf. Pausanias 2.30.1). The cult of Hekate was pre-Olympian, but she appears to have been absorbed into

the Greek pantheon as the deified form of Iphigeneia, who represented a facet of the Moon goddess. This

information was contained in Hesiod’s αἱ Ἠοῖαι (Catalogue of Women), according to Pausanias (1.43.1),

and the poet also pays her particular attention in his Θεογονία.

Ἑκάταιον

There is no agreement over the correct spelling (cf. Wilson p. 89). Hall and Geldart stick to the reading of

most codices, and the adjectival form seems apposite for a statuette (Ἑκάταιον <ἄγαλµα>), which is how

the shrines of Aphrodite and Artemis before the palace-gates are understood in Euripides’ Ἱππόλυτος. The

variant Ἑκαταῖον risks confusion with the logographer Hekataios of Miletos, while the alternative reading

Ἑκατεῖον and its variant Ἑκάτειον (Σοῦδα on Λυσιστράτη 64) would seem better suited to a sanctuary or

precinct. In fact, it is unusual to hear of temples or sanctuaries of Hekate. Pausanias mentions a precint at

Argos (2.22.8), but at Athens the goddess was chiefly venerated at roadside shrines. Her most noteworthy

dedication was a statue in triple form executed around this time by Alkamenes which was erected beside

the temple of Victorious Athene on the Akropolis.

805-6.

These remarks reinforce the suspicion that something has dropped out of the text at line 798. Bdelykleon

is anxious to show his father that his court will lack for nothing.

807-8. ἀµὶς µέν

This is not mere lavatory-humour. Bdelykleon is showing his concern for his father’s weak bladder, and

making the provision of toilet facilities a priority. In a real law-court, a lengthy trial would have required

much coming and going of senior citizens (cf. 394). The addition of ἐγγὺς lays stress on the chamber-pot

being ‘handy’.

ἐπὶ τοῦ παττάλου

The chamber-pot would not normally need to be hung up and there is the practical consideration of where

to stick the peg. Sommerstein finds a solution to the question by supposing that a screen with pegs affixed

to it is set up behind Philokleon to represent the courtroom wall, but if the old juror is seated by the yard-

wall there may still be pegs sticking in it which he himself had hammered in during his earlier attempts at

escape (cf.129-30). In any case, the real reason for having the pot hung up is simply to introduce the word

πάτταλος and the ambiguous expression, ‘hang it on your peg!’ (cf. Ἐκκλησιάζουσαι 1020).

809-10.

The Father’s grateful acknowledgement of his son’s thoughtfulness is Aristophanes’ subtle way of hinting

that the old men’s discomfort may account to some extent for their ‘waspishness’.

811. πῦρ...τουτί

He indicates a brazier (ἐσχάρα) which has evidently been brought on by one of the slaves (as in Ἀχαρνεῖς

888), so that his father can keep his hands warm; a comfort not available to him in the drafty court-room.

φακῆν

Lentil soup is appreciated by the old man because it is a staple of his plain diet. More well-off Athenians

would have scorned such simple fare (e.g. frg. 23, ὅστις φακῆν ἥδιστον ὄψων λοιδορεῖς - “you who rail

against lentil soup, that most delicious comestible”), because it usually needs to be eaten with something

more savoury, e.g. sardines and olives. The attentive spectator will have observed that the soup is brought

on with the brazier, but is placed near it (προσέστηκεν) not on it, as might have been expected.

813. κἂν γὰρ πυρέττω

He reminds himself that, if laid up with flu from sitting in a crowded, drafty, poorly-heated court-room,

he would not receive the three obols on which he depends (cf. 284).

815. τί...ἐξηνέγκατε;

The plural shows that the old man is addressing the slaves, who have brought out a (stuffed) cockerel in a

wicker cage; probably the same one used in the previous year’s performance of Νεφέλαι (847-53).

816. ἀπολογουµένου τινός

His son knows that the old man generally pays little attention “while a defendant is pleading his case”.

817. ᾄδων ἄνωθεν

Cockerel’s like to crow from an elevated position (dung-hill, farm equipment etc.,) so we have to assume

that the bird’s cage has also been hung from a peg on the wall to be out of the way.

818. τὸ τί;

In the vernacular the question, τὸ <ἓν> τί <ἐστιν>; is frequently condensed to its essentials.

819. Λύκου

As we understood from Philokleon’s earlier invocation (cf. 389), a statue of the name-hero Lykos in the

form of a wolf was to be found outside Athenian law-courts. So, the old man feels that the domestic court

requires its own ‘heroön’ for verisimilitude. His request for his son to “bring the shrine out” of the house,

raises a laugh, because his naïve assumption that some item of household furniture could resemble it is so

patently absurd. The audience would be agog to see how the Son will deal with the seemingly impossible.

It is interesting to note that Herodian quotes a strikingly similar line which he attributes to Eupolis, ἡρῷον

εἴ πως µοι κοµίσαιο τοῦ Λύκου. MacDowell assumes that the grammarian has simply misattributed a line

which he has poorly-remembered, but the comic-dramatists accused each other of stealing one another’s

material and so this quotation may actually be an example of plagiarism or parody. The latter seems a real

possibility if Aristophanes’ line had got a good laugh here and become a popular expression as a result.

820. πάρεστι τουτί

The ancient scholiast was evidently as perplexed as we are over the Son’s response. He conjectured that

he must have brought with him a painting of the hero on a wooden or clay tablet (πινάκιον κοµίζει ἐν ᾧ

γεγραµµένος ἦν ὁ Λύκος). But this literal interpretation of the Father’s request hardly amounts to a show

of native wit (cf. 859). Modern scholars have dismissed the conjecture and concluded instead that the Son

first points to an inanimate object (τουτί) already on the stage which could serve as the heroön and then

indicates a figure nearby, perhaps an actor (οὑτοσί), who can stand in for the hero himself. A suggestion

by H. Comfort (1931) that a suitable substitute for Lykos’ heroön would have been “a grotesque Herm”,

was matched by L.A. Post (1932) with the thought that, since Kleonymos is ridiculed for effeminacy (in

Νεφέλαι 673), a shrine of Hekate would have brought out the comparison with him in the following lines

more appropriately. Either of these cult-objects might be found outside an Athenian’s door, but the poet

has not alerted us to their presence hitherto, unless one takes the reference to the statuette of Hekate (805)

to be a signal. In Νεφέλαι, both the equine statuette which stands outside Strepsiades’ door (83) and the

Herm in the street near the Φροντιστήριον (1478) are introduced in unambiguous terms. Similarly, it may

be objected that there has been no previous mention of “a small altar” which MacDowell suggests stood

in the yard. In any case, even supposing the presence of one or other of these holy objects on stage, one is

bound to question whether it would provide a humorous counterpart for a sacred heroön. Rather than have

one sacred object stand in for another, it seems to me more likely that we are expected to see an ordinary

feature of the courtyard taking on the sacred role. For the purpose I nominate the well-head at or near the

centre of the stage. It need be no more than a low, stone socle with a wooden cover (or a damaged shield)

over the well-shaft to prevent people or things falling into it (cf. 855).

As for the identity of the ‘hero himself’, commentators generally agree that the Son picks out one of the

slaves for his lupine appearance. MacDowell would have a slave sit on the altar as if it were the pedestal

of Lykos’ statue. This seems unduly sacrilegious and Sommerstein merely has him stand beside the altar

in order to make the connection. It seems safer to have him ‘resting’ on the well-head, where Philokleon

will later be standing. At this point, Bdelykleon must be pointing across at one of the slaves who has been

busy with the props behind Philokleon’s back, because it is clear that his father has not seen ‘Lykos’ for

himself. A possible candidate for the role of the wolf-man would be Midas, who is hairy enough, but his

long ass’s ears probably disqualify him, so a better candidate would be Masyntias, whose teeth protrude

alarmingly and who is in need of a haircut as well.

An alternative solution worth considering is that Aristophanes may simply be indulging in wordplay and

Bdelykleon may be pointing to something called a ‘wolf’ in everyday language. According to Hesychios,

among the objects commonly referred to by the word λύκος was the knocker or knob of a door. The level

of humour implied would be rather puerile, akin to suggesting in English that a bee could be represented

by a ‘buzzer’, but a far-fetched comparison cannot be ruled out in this fantastic context.

821. ὡς χαλεπὸς...ἦσθ’ ἰδεῖν

Τhe humour of this line stems primarily from the fact that Philokleon had been slow to notice the ‘wolf’

because the slave was standing behind him and this, to anyone acquainted with the proverb λύκον ἰδεῖν,

could have proved a fatal fault. If a hunter, in pursuit of a wolf which had been harrying his flock, were to

suddenly find the wolf itself watching him, the realization could leave him dumb with fright. Philokleon’s

words imply that he has just got a shock from seeing ‘Lykos’ right behind him and staring craftily at him.

Τhe construction of similar passages, e.g. Εἰρήνη 819, ὡς χαλεπὸν ἐλθεῖν ἦν ἄρ’ εὐθὺ τῶν θεῶν - “it was

really hardgoing to head straight for the gods”, suggested to Post (1932) that one should read χαλεπὸν...

ἦν σ’ ἰδεῖν. While this would be satisfactory in the primary sense of “it was really difficult to spot you”,

the text as it stands, as Sommerstein rightly points out, leaves it open to doubt whether the difficulty the

old man has is in spotting ‘Lykos’ or in looking at him and the ambiguity is useful for appreciating the

next line.

822. [Σωσίας]

It should be noted that in the main codices this line is not securely assigned. It was Bergk who first put it

in the mouth of Bdelykleon and attributed the following line to the Father. But, the codices give 823 to an

οἰκέτης and the exchange in these two lines is so tangential to the subject in hand that one could well take

them to be a comic aside spoken by Sosias and Xanthias, the same characters who had shown an interest

in Kleonymos’s tackle earlier (27). Thus, the exchange between Father and Son would terminate when the

old man suffers a minor heart attack on seeing ‘Lykos’, while the slaves’ incidental comments would buy

time for him to recover his composure. The disrespectful nature of the comments would seem to militate

against the likelihood of the Son making them.

οἷόσπερ ἡµῖν

Sommerstein is doubtless correct to maintain the text of 821 and so emphasize the ambiguity contained in

the word χαλεπὸς, but to my mind he reverses the natural contrast between the wolf having been difficult

to spot and Kleonymos being difficult to look at. He follows MacDowell’s suggestion that the slave who

stands in for Lykos ought to be portrayed as grossly obese, since Kleonymos is ridiculed as a glutton and

could therefore have been overweight. But, his gluttony appears to be a metaphor for an acquisitive streak

(Ἱππεῖς 956-8, 1290-9) and conversely, it is difficult to imagine how any slave could become obese on the

starvation diet he received. So, one should probably take it that as a political orator Kleonymos had much

the same effect on his audience as that which ‘Lykos’ has just had on the old man.

At the same time, it is worth bearing in mind that Kleonymos may be a wolf in wolf’s clothing. The slave

may be hinting that the politician not only resembles Lykos in his shaggy, wolf-man form, but possesses a

similarly rapacious nature with his gluttonous tendencies.

823. οὔκουν ἔχει...ὅπλα,

Α scholiast tells us (Aristophanes frg. 240) that, “the heroes wore full armour too” (εἶχον δὲ καὶ οἱ ἥρωες

πανοπλίαν), referring perhaps to the statues of the eponymous heroes which stood in the Agora. The joke

here is that Kleonymos is still considered a hero even though he lost his ὅπλα. Most commentators have

assumed that Kleonymos had lost his shield as a hoplite in the retreat from Delion, the supposition which

earlier served to explain the pun on ὅπλα in line 27. But, it is difficult to see how someone who discarded

his shield could still be considered a hero. Consequently, the real explanation for the joke may simply be

that the politician had suffered an embarassing groin injury in the battle which left him less of a man but a

hero nevertheless (cf. Εἰρήνη 675, where he is said to be ψυχήν γ’ ἄριστος - “most noble in spirit”). It is

possible that the poet was alluding to the fact that a shield lost unavoidably brought no dishonour, since it

is said that the Spartan Brasidas was hailed as the hero of Pylos, despite the loss of his shield when it fell

into the sea (Diodoros 12. 62. 4-5).

It is my understanding that, since the previous speaker casually sashayed into the comparison of the slave

with the political figure, this speaker is now referring solely to Kleonymos. The point he is making is that

the hero Lykos in human form would normally be represented with his ὅπλα, but in his heroön (where he

is shown in his animal shape) he has none. So, by a verbal coincidence, the ‘hero’ Kleonymos is said (for

whatever reason) to lack his ὅπλο. Recent commentators, however, have taken Philokleon’s words to be

still comparing Kleonymos with the slave and have justified this assumption by further assuming that he

is a eunuch and (as MacDowell suggests) does not sport the actor’s property-phallos. But if, on the other

hand, the comparison is made directly with the hero Lykos, such assumptions become superfluous.

824-5. ἐκαθίζου σύ

Evidently, the old man has started to leave his chair (821), or fallen off it, so that his son has to tell him to

get back to his seat.

δίκην εκάλουν

The Son assumes the role of the court official who will “call the case”, i.e. summon the parties involved.

πάλαι

Trying to ignore his run-in with ‘Lykos’, he pretends to have been seated all the time.

826-7.

The Son wonders aloud what ‘case’ to call. Some member of the household is bound to have committed a

misdemeanor (κακὸν).

828. Θρᾷττα

A domestic servant of Thracian origin (and so not the girl who left the door open) is accused of neglecting

the cooking pot. Slaves are often named for their physical attributes, but if bought as captives of war, the

only identification accorded them was their ethnic origin (cf. 433, Φρύξ, Ἱππεῖς 44, Παφλαγών). The maid

‘Thracia’ is ubiquitous; known for getting herself into trouble and suffering sexual harassment as a result

(see e.g. Ἀχαρνεῖς 273, Εἰρήνη 1138).

τὴν χύτραν

The pot has suffered first-degree burns; the sooty marks [the πρόσκαυµα χύτρας referred to in the Παλαιὰ

∆ιαθήκη] disfigure it and could be cited in evidence. There may be a sly allusion to this maid’s love-life

in the mention of the χύτρα. The handles on either side of it suggested an expression for a passionate kiss

in which the partner is grasped by the ears (cf. Polydeukes 10.100).

829. ὡς ὀλίγου µ(ε) ἀπώλεσας

This is a common expression (e.g. Ἀχαρνεῖς 381-2, ὥστε ὀλίγου πάνυ ἀπωλόµην - “so that I very nearly

died”). The adverbial component is an abbreviation of a genitive absolute ὀλίγου δέοντος (cf. the phrase

οὐδὲν δέον).

830. ἄνευ δρυφάκτου

Earlier (386), the old jury-man had expressed a wish for his mortal remains to be interred under the court-

railings, which defined the boundary between the jurors and the gallery. Now, the sudden thought that his

court lacks one scandalizes him. We are shown that the appurtenances of the court matter to him as much

as, if not more than, the case itself (cf. 834, ἡ φιλοχωρία).

831. πρῶτον...τῶν ἱερῶν

This comparison of the law-courts with the Eleusinian mysteries comes unexpectedly (cf. 140, 1363), but

it shows Philokleon’s obsession to be rooted in an almost-religious fervour for court-room practices. The

court-railing is considered the first holy object to be revealed, because it marked the physical boundary of

the ‘sanctum’ and thus was the first part of the court one met with. But, the language of ritual is parodied

elsewhere, cf. Νεφέλαι 368, ἔµοιγ’ ἀπόφηναι πρῶτον ἁπάντων, where Strepsiades asks ‘Sokrates’ (in the

role of hierophant) to reveal the mysteries of meteorological phenomena.

832.

Bdelykleon has to admit his oversight, but before he can remedy it his father, not wishing to be surprised

by his son’s ingenuity again, insists on going inside to fetch a suitable partition for himself.

834. ἡ φιλοχωρία

As MacDowell observes, this line buys time for the Father to exit and the slave to rush on. In the interval,

the Son speaks to himself, or to the audience. The remark ostensibly concerns the Father’s pathological

attachment to the courtroom which he haunted even in his dreams. It may, however, also be meant to be

taken more generally as a comment on fervent patriotism which Aristophanes appears to have disdained.

835. τοιουτονὶ τρέφειν κύνα

The slave (Xanthias) rushes in uttering curses. His haste and exasperation cause him to mince his words.

What MacDowell calls an ‘infinitive of exclamation’ is a grammatical ellipse for τὸ τρέφειν...οὐχ ἡµῖν

100

ξυµφέρει. Similarly, Νεφέλαι 819, τὸν ∆ία νοµίζειν ὄντα τηλικουτονί - “<it’s ridiculous> at your age to

believe that Zeus exists”.

836. Λάβης

Aristophanes combines the politician’s name (Λάχης) with the notion of theft (λαβεῖν), as we once used

to satirize another political figure with the rhyme, ‘Margaret Thatcher - milk snatcher’. His joke is neater,

but difficult to match in English. A few years ago it would have been easy enough to re-name the dog and

accuse it of drinking a bowl of milk. But, any present-day, political assembly will provide corresponding

examples.

837. παρᾴξας ἐς τὸν ἰπνὸν

The dog has “darted past” those who should have stopped him and got into the annexe, where the food

was stored and prepared, just as Philokleon had done earlier (for the verb cf. 988).

ὑφαρπάσας

The codices read just ἁρπάσας, but that is to prejudge the case. The point is that both the dog Labes and

the general Laches were thought to have stolen or embezzled, so Elmsley’s emendment is necessary to

make it clear that the cheese was stolen while no one was looking.

838. τροφαλίδα τυροῦ Σικελικὴν

In order to complete the allusion to the politician Laches, the dog has to steal something Sicilian, because

the στρατηγός was suspected of having turned a profit out of a campaign in that island. But, can we take

this line as evidence that the dog has stolen a cheese actually imported from the island? Commentators are

often ready to take comedic references to Sicilian cheese (e.g. Antiphanes 236, Hermippos 63, Philemon

76) at face value, instead of treating them as comic metaphors as in this instance. It is true that one of the

original factors which impelled the Athenians to engage in hostilities with the Peloponnese was their hope

of reopening westward trade, but cheese is not a very likely product to be shipped from Sicily, especially

in time of war, and has only been chosen here as an item that might be expected to be of interest to a dog.

MacDowell calls a τροφαλίς ‘a cheese’; so the mention of τυρός as well is puzzling? Henderson chooses

to translate a ‘wheel of cheese’ (perhaps seeing a similarity with τροχός), while Sommerstein (citing the

definition of Hesychios) translates “a long…cheese”. However, he also refers to a passage from the work

of Alexis (frg. 178.11-2), a reference to someone frying τυροῦ τροφάλια χλωρὰ Κυθνίου, which suggests

that a τροφάλιον must be ‘a slice (of fresh Kythnian cheese)’, because this is how cheese is still prepared

‘in the pan’ (τυρί σαγανάκι) today. Therefore, we can take it that a τροφαλίς is probably a “fat slice” cut

from a block of cheese (cf. Eupolis frg. 299).

840. σὺ δὲ κατηγόρει παρών

For the idiom cf. 735.

843. ἄγ(ε) αὐτὼ δεῦρο

He bids the slave “bring the two of them out here”, since they are ‘dogs’. Actually, they will come out on

their own, since they are men in the guise of dogs. Given that Theoros was visualized as a raven-headed

man earlier, one may take it that the two political leaders are portrayed as dog-headed.

ταῦτα χρῆ ποιεῖν

The full phrase registers the slave’s formal compliance; almost ‘thy will be done!’

844. χοιροκοµεῖον Ἑστίας

In Χρυσοῦν Γένος (frg. 301) Eupolis says, οὐκ ἀλλ’ ἔθυον δέλφακ’ ᾠδὸν θἠστίᾳ, καὶ µάλα καλήν - “but

instead they were sacrificing a squealing sow to Hestia; a really fat one too”. (Although Storey opts for

Kock’s emendation, ἔνδον, I prefer the manuscripts’ reading ὠδὸν for if cocks can chant, pigs may sing.)

Athenian householders would raise pigs in the yard, as geese or turkeys are nowadays, in readiness for a

special, celebratory feast. A χοῖρος was fattened on grain until fully-grown when, ready for slaughter, it

was termed a δέλφαξ. A sow intended for household consumption would be dedicated to Hestia, goddess

of the home. But, one cannot assume that all pigs reared were destined for the family dinner-table or were

devoted to Hestia, so there has to be a joke in there somewhere. Besides, one has to wonder what business

a ‘pig-pen’ had being inside the house, even if it were sacred to Hestia. If the Athenian householder were

to admit first donkeys and now pigs indoors, the squalor of his home does not bear thinking about.

It is evident that χοιροκοµεῖον must mean a section of the ‘enclosure where pigs were kept’, although the

word is not found elsewhere in this sense. Hesychios (followed by the Σοῦδα) defines it as a synonym of

the more usual words used to describe a pig-sty, χοιρόσακον and χοιροτροφεῖον. However, the fact that

Aristophanes does not proceed to riff on pigs or their snouts in the following lines is an indication that the

101

‘pig-pen’ is not his leading idea and his choice of this uncommon word suggests that he has preferrred it

over others for its sound. My guess is that the audience would understand the old man to be muddling his

words; substituting a word he knows for a more technical term he does not, χωροκοπεῖον (‘a partition’ or

‘space-divider’). He must be referring to the small screen placed across the hearth which defined the area

of the sacred fire (and also prevented members of the household from stepping into the fire by accident).

The poet wanted to develop the idea of the law-court as a ‘home-space’ for the old man, an idea already

introduced with the word φιλοχωρία in 834 (where Bowie, applying the same logic in reverse, suggested

that we might read φιλοχοιρία).

I can only exemplify the wordplay with “Hestia’s boar-rier”, or should that be “sow-er-curtain”? Neither

however would help the audience appreciate that what he meant was simply a ‘fireguard’.

845. ἰεροσυλήσας

The Son is anxious that removing Hestia’s fireguard could be construed as sacrilege, because an accident

could occur as a result of its removal.

846. ἀφ’ Ἑστίας ἀρχόµενος

His father justifies the ‘theft’ by pointing out that his intention was to put the goddess first in their ritual;

her rightful position, since the court is being held at home. Krates uses a similar line in one of his works,

ἐξ Ἑστίας ἀρχόµενος εὔχοµαι θεοῖς - “I pray to the gods, starting with Hestia” (frg. 44).

[Vestiges of the custom survive in cutting the βασιλόπηττα at New Year, for the second piece (after that

in honour of the Christ) is dedicated to the home.]

847. ἐγὼ τιµᾶν βλέπω

The use of the verb βλέπω with an infinitive is often equivalent to our expression “I have an eye to…”

Here his vindictive nature resurfaces as he looks forward to voting for the punishment.

848. τὰς σανίδας καὶ τὰς γραφάς

Philokleon had earlier expressed his desire to be διὰ τῶν σανίδων (349), which meant that he wished to be

back ‘among the jurors’ benches’ or within the area cordoned off for the jurymen. But, the addition of the

word γραφαί here constitutes a legal phrase, for the words ‘boards’ and ‘writing’ combine to denote “the

wooden boards which list the cases due to come before the court in a session”. [The variety of meanings

conveyed by the two nouns has caused some to overlook their specific legal combination. Art historians

have long discussed the possibility that the paintings in the Ποικίλη stoa were executed on wooden tablets

simply because Synesios of Cyrene mentions in two of his letters (54, 135) that “the proconsul took away

the boards to which Polygnotos consigned his art” (i.e. τὰς σανίδας with their γραφάς). He had failed to

realize that the stoa must have continued to function as a venue for trials up until the fourth century A.D.]

849. τριψηµερῶν

A unique instance of a verb which must mean ‘wasting away the day’.

850. ἀλοκίζειν...τὸ χωρίον

Philokleon wants to get down to his work, which he describes as “ploughing my area (i.e., plot of land)”.

The Son’s recent use of the word φιλοχωρία (834) has provided us with the intended meaning of χωρίον.

Having just been shown that the boundaries of the court are defined by the fence from the hearth of the

house, we understand the court of law can be equated with the old man’s ‘plot of land’. Bentley acutely

perceived that the ploughing metaphor provided a secondary image of ‘scraping a furrow’ in the juror’s

κηρίον (cf. 107-8). But, it is not necessary to emend χωρίον as he suggested because the joke is a similar

play on words to χοιροκοµεῖον and does not need to be stressed.

In any case, since the ploughing metaphor does not lend itself to a legal context in English. I have chosen

simply to use it as an expression of Philokleon’s malicious intentions. Also lost in translation are possible

sexual connotations of ploughing one’s χωρίον. The word χώρα is used to refer to a horse’s genitals in a

compilation on the care of horses (Ἱππιατρικά 33) and may have taken on some of the connotations which

the word area seems to have acquired in N. American slang (as in the phrase ‘Sandra Bullock has a tattoo

on her area’). Certainly, the occurrence of περὶ τὸ χωρίον in Ἀχαρνεῖς (998) comes in a passage otherwise

laden with innuendo.

851. ταῦτα δή

His father is impatient to get on with it, but the Son is not in a rush and replies that he has the matter in

hand, ταῦτα δή <ποιήσω> (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 815).

τίς οὑτοσὶ

102

The codices mark a change of speaker here, which Hall and Geldart ignore. Lowe (1967) saw that it was

essential to assign these words to Philokleon in order to reverse the speakers of the following lines 852-9.

The humour of the exchange lies in the Father’s mounting irritation at, what seems to him, unnecessary

procrastination. Dutta (2007), however, retains the order of the Oxford text (1906) from Barrett’s 1964

translation.

The presence of οὑτοσὶ raises questions. It suggests that the old man has gone over to scrutinize the list of

indictments himself and is trying to make out a defendant’s name. But, this would not be amusing, merely

absurd, because nothing is actually written on them. All he needs to do at this point is ask the court officer

to have the first charge read out, i.e. ‘who is it that is to be the first defendant?’

854. ἐπὶ καδίσκους

A κάδος was principally a ‘wine-jar’ holding the equivalent of an ἀµφορεύς and a καδίσκος was usually

just a smaller version of it (cf. frg. 598, ‘honey-pot’ and Kratinos frg. 206). So, the Son is going into the

house to look for some small wine-jars to stand in for the voting-urns needed to record the verdict. From

later sources it appears that the word καδίσκος was used in judicial contexts to denote the urns in which

ballots were to be cast, and certainly the earlier use of ἐπὶ τοὺς καδίσκους (321) must have been intended

in this sense. But this may have been a jocular usage and here, the absence of the definite article suggests

that, while the audience would probably appreciate that he was off to fetch jars to stand in for the voting

urns, Bdelykleon is only talking about “fetching <wine-jars>”. The disconnect is what makes the phrase

amusing.

855. ἀρυστίχους

Following the citation of this line by Athenaios (424γ) with the mention by Phrynichos (frg. 42) of ‘a cup

for drawing off’ wine from a mixing-bowl, commentators take this adjective as standing in for <κύλικες>

ἀρυστίχους, synonymous with the later usage ἀρυτήρας, and suppose that they were ‘ladles’ provided for

Philokleon to sup his soup. But, ladles do not seem very credible substitutes for voting-urns and why the

old man might need two is a mystery. On the other hand, later dialogue suggests that there is a well in the

courtyard (cf. 1342-3) and this would make it likely that there were also <καδίσκους > ἀρυστίχους or pots

standing ready to draw water from it, which inspired Philokleon with the idea of using them for voting-

urns (cf. Pherekrates frg. 194). The variant ἀρυστικοὺς found in the Ravenna codex seems to be a later

spelling.

858. ἡδὶ...κλεψύδρα;

The deictic pronoun (“this here”) confirms Philokleon as the speaker. We understand him to be nodding

at his chamber pot (ἀµίς), ‘whose’ gender requires τίς. He suggests that it would serve the same function

as a court-clock as he steadily fills it up, though the water-clock actually counted time as it emptied.

860. [Πατήρ]

These lines are universally attributed to the Son and this is quite possibly right, but as the boss he usually

issues direct orders. Consequently, the suggestion may come from the Father who, aware of the necessary

formalities, is simply demonstrating his impatience once more.

πῦρ τις ἐξενεγκάτω

Why does [Philokleon] order someone to “bring out fire”, when a brazier stands beside him, warming the

‘court-room’? Was the brazier unlit or has it gone out? The likely explanation is that he wants to fulfil his

pledge made earlier to begin the prayers with Hestia, who protects hearth and home, so he calls for a fire-

brand lit directly from the hearth, or some glowing embers, with which to burn the incense.

MacDowell has the action centre upon an altar, on which until recently his ‘Lykos’ had been sitting. But,

no such paraphernalia need complicate the proceedings. All that is needed is for the slave to return with a

censer which he holds while another wafts about the aroma of the frankincense with the myrtle leaves.

861. µυρρίνας

Wreathes of myrtle symbolized the bonds of brotherhood and were customarily worn at symposia when

reciting or singing.

862.

It has been assumed that a similar liturgy preceded regular court sessions. The Athenians would certainly

have opened proceedings with an acknowledgement of the divine presence, Apollo (the all-seeing) would

be invoked to witness oaths, and Zeus might be invoked in a preamble to a forensic speech (cf. 652). But,

this ritual with frankincense and myrtle is more likely to have been a typical act of purification after the

home had been sullied by dissension (cf. 866-7); a practice continued in certain Athenian homes today.

103

Choral Song (ᾨδή) 863-90

864. σπονδαῖς

Since no mention has been made of φιάλες for the libations, some commentators have preferred to apply

the extended meaning of σπονδαί, “reconciliation” (MacDowell) or “peace agreement” (Sommerstein).

But, it is still possible that we are meant to take it in the literal meaning of “libations” (Barrett), in view

of the pairing with εὐχαῖς. One may compare the prayer of ‘Sokrates’ in Νεφέλαι when he calls upon the

goddesses to accept his sacrifice (274, δεξάµεναι θυσίαν), even though Strepsiades has not actually been

sacrificed, as the old farmer feared he was going to be.

865. φήµην ἀγαθὴν λέξοµεν ὑµῖν

LSJ paraphrase these words, εὐφηµίαν παρέξοµεν, the intended translation probably being “we shall utter

for you an auspicious song” (Sommerstein). But, this would anticipate the Son’s call for auspicious words

in 868 (εὐφηµία…ὑπαρχέτω), so I would rather read ἕξοµεν with the principal codices. This is to indicate

that the Chorus has reconciled with the Son because he and the Father have made peace, literally ‘we will

have a good word to say for you’, i.e. you’ll be in our good books from now on. Henderson translates

λέξοµεν like the others, although in fact he prints ἕξοµεν in his text.

867. ξυνεβήτην

Hall and Geldart print Elmsley’s emendation ξυνέβητον (R) the dual of the aorist of συµβαίνω, “you have

both settled…” The Venetus codex has ξυνεκτον, which makes no sense (and a subsequent copy offers

ξυνίετον).

868.

Bdelykleon puts on a myrtle wreath as he assumes the role of a hierophant in calling for silence before a

prayer. A slave holds the censer.

869. ὦ Φοῖβ(ε)

Wherever possible a courtyard would be oriented to the south to obtain maximum sunlight for working in.

In any case, Apollo is invoked as the all-seeing eye who witnesses men’s misdeeds.

871-2. ἅπασιν...ἁρµόσαι

The Chorus expresses the hope that the gods will bless the experiment so that everyone can set up such

private courts and stay home.

873. παυσαµένοις πλάνων

If the idea proves a success, they will copy it, and they will cease to go back and forth to the court each

day. The metaphor is taken from the weaver’s shuttle which passes to and fro in a regular pattern (hence

πλάνητες). There is also a metaphorical hint that they will be abstaining from ‘error’ or even ‘madness’.

874. ἰήιε Παιάν

They sing, “Praise be to the healer <of evils>”. Prima facie they mean that the god has restored peace in

the home, but he could be the healer of the entire city, if only litigious strife could be cured. Aristophanes

puns on the phrase in Εἰρήνη (453-4) pretending that the word Παιάν derives from the verb παίειν.

875. ὦ δέσποτ(α) ἄναξ

Ηe adopts ritual language (cf. Nεφέλαι 264) typical of divine invocations in tragic-drama (e.g. Euripides

Φοίνισσαι 631, καὶ σύ, Φοῖβ’ ἄναξ Ἀγυιεῦ...χαίρετε).

γεῖτον Ἀγυιεῦ

The Athenians considered that their city was second only to Delphi in the importance attached to Apollo’s

cult. In Euripides Ἴων, when Kreousa daughter of Erechtheus visits Delphi, her maidservants are amazed

to find that the Delphic sanctuary contains displays of devotion to the god to rival that of their hometown,

οὐκ ἐν ταῖς ζαθέαις Ἀθάναις εὐκίονες ἦσαν αὐλαὶ θεῶν µόνον, οὐδ’ ἀγυιάτιδες θεραπεῖαι - “it is not only

in fervently religious Athens that there are fine-colonnaded courtyards of deities or women who tend the

street shrines” (184-6). At Athens, the god’s chief role was to watch over the streets and so the Athenians

placed short obelisks outside their houses at the roadside to symbolize his presence. Our principal source

is a scholion on this line: κίονας εἰς ὀξὺ λήγοντας ὡς ὀβελίσκους - “pillars coming to a point like spits”.

The knowledge that altars occasionally accompanied the obelisks suggested to Polydeukes (4.123) that an

altar of Apollo was represented on stage and modern commentators have drawn the same conclusion due

to the reference to burning incense. But, there is no need to assume that there was either a pillar or an altar

on stage; they are probably only inferred from scenes such as ours here. An altar of Dionysos was situated

in the theatre, but would not have been co-opted into the dramas for the benefit of other deities.

104

τοῦ (ἐ)µοῦ προθύρου προπύλαιε

The vocative προπύλαιε has been restored by Bentley from the reading of the codices προσπύλας, or that

of the Aldine edition πρὸς πύλας, words which sought to explain the term they had ousted.

There is a distinction to be drawn between προθύρου ‘that which lies before the door’ and προπύλαιε ‘he

who stands before the gate’. The first part of the phrase may sometimes mean that there is a ‘porch’, but

here it means little more than ‘outdoors’, while the second part refers to the obelisk of Apollo by the gate.

The Son is hailing Apollo as his ‘neighbour’ because the court has been set up outside and its boundary is

marked by the fire-screen, placed by the gate near which the god’s pillar defines the public thoroughfare.

876. δέξαι τελετὴν καινὴν

He asks the god to “receive a new form of ritual” as if domestic courts were a religious innovation rather

than a civic one. This takes up the earlier point in 846 that Hestia takes precedence in the new location.

877. τοῦτο τὸ λίαν στρυφνὸν

If one accepts the reading of the codices, τουτὶ, one is bound to scan the first syllable of λίαν short. While

that would be possible in tragic-verse (or in para-tragic perhaps), in comic-verse this is a unique instance.

Although most recent editors have retained the deictic form of the pronoun, Elmsley’s simple proposal to

read τοῦτο has been adopted by Hall and Geldart. Wilson too (p. 90) supports the change, pointing to the

intrusion of deictic forms elsewhere, e.g. Νεφέλαι 847 where τοῦτον τίνα is the better reading for τουτονὶ

τίνα of the codices.

πρίνινον ἦθος

The Son’s prayer provides an ironic echo of the word πρινωδήθυµον used by the Chorus to describe him

(383).

878. ἀντὶ σιραίου…παραµείξας

“This line is puzzling”, Wilson notes, and translators have certainly made heavy work of it. Henderson

gives a typical version of the line, “infusing his dear little heart, like syrup, with a bit of honey”; a result

which seems fey even for the pretentious Son. If one follows the consensus view, we end up sweetening

something which according to Polydeukes (6.16) is sweet already (σίραιον δ’ ἐκάλουν τὸν ἐκ γλεύκους

ἡψηµένον γλυκύν - “they used the name σίραιον for the sweet <product> made from boiling <sweet>

new wine,”). Thus, if one were to take an already-sweet wine, boil it until it became condensed (before it

evaporated completely that is) so that it became even sweeter, it could be mixed with honey to sweeten it

still more! I think Polydeukes was groping in the dark here. He should have asked an Anglo-Saxon to tell

him how to make mead and to explain the benefit of ‘mulling’ (rather than ‘boiling’) alcoholic beverages.

However, the real problem lies elsewhere. Because the sweetness of honey is proverbial, one has to “infer

that there is a reference to something less sweet” (Wilson) that stands as a metaphor for the cantankerous

character of the old man. What this is, must be conveyed in the noun θυµιδίῳ, and although we assume it

to refer to the Father’s “dear little soul” (Sommerstein), this diminutive form of θυµός (‘heart’ or ‘soul’)

does not occur in any extant work by Aristophanes (or anyone else). Consequently, the diminutive could

just as easily be a familiar form of θύµον, used in Πλοῦτος (253) to describe a blend of grape-vinegar and

thyme that was all that poorer Athenians had to drink. In such case, the Son is praying to Apollo to add a

bit of honey (‘sweetness and light’) to an otherwise bitter drink of corked wine so that it resembles a fine

dessert wine. The choice of θύµον over plain, fermented wine must be intended to play on the words for

anger (θυµός) and thyme (θύµος), cf. 1082. But, it results in thyme playing an unexpected role, since the

finest honey was produced by bees which fed on thyme.

As MacDowell notes, the preposition ἀντὶ may be understood as tantamount to “just like”, but there is one

other word which still needs to be explained. The word µικρὸν (RV) or σµικρὸν (ΓJ) is superfluous, since

the partitive genitive (cf. 239) µέλιτος is sufficient to convey “a drop of honey”. So, it might be preferable

to reinforce both the ‘bitterness’ of the drink and the old juror’s ‘vindictive’ character with πικρῷ.

παραµείξας

Editors accept Starkie’s change of spelling over παραµίξας which is found in all manuscripts back as far

as the fifth century A.D.

879-84.

In prose one would write ὥστε before each infinitive clause.

885-6. ταὖτά

Hall and Geldart print Reisig’s supplement to the metre; MacDowell prints Dindorf’s ταῦτά.

νέαισιν ἀρχαῖς

105

Both datives are governed by the single verb. The phrase could be written σοι ᾄδοµεν ἐπὶ νέαισιν ἀρχαῖς,

i.e. ‘we sing for you on the occasion of, or in honour of’. The preposition in ἐπινίκειος has the same force.

The ἀρχαί could be taken to mean ‘new magistracies’, i.e. the newly-established tribunal, alternatively, it

could refer to ‘the fresh start’ due to the reconciliation of Father and Son.

890. τῶν γε νεωτέρων

Reisig saw that the γενναιοτέρων of our text concealed an afterthought. The Chorus has now realized that

Bdelykleon is more supportive of the People than anyone else…“of the younger men at any rate”.

<ἰήιε Παιάν>

Meineke’s proposal to repeat the salutation to the god of reconciliation has been dropped by most editors,

but as Wilson observes it provides neat responsion to 870-4 and fitting closure to their prayer.

Ἐπεισόδιον 891-1008

891. ἠλιαστής

This line can be taken as proof, if any were needed, that the Eliaia was not a court but a register of jurors.

Bdelykleon, in his role as court-official, presumes that some jurors may have popped out for a quick pee

and warns them that the doors are about to be closed so that the session can begin. In fact, his father will

be the sole juror, although this is not generally acknowledged during the trial.

892. λέγωσιν

The subject has to be understood as ‘the defendant and the prosecutor’.

οὐκ ἐσφρήσοµεν

The subject is the court-officer and his assistants, in this case Bdelykleon and the slaves.

893.

Like Hall and Geldart, I follow Dobree in splitting this line between the Father and Son. MacDowell and

subsequent editors have preferred to give the whole line to Philokleon, persuaded by the objection made

by Lowe (1967) that ‘Labes’ is not seen on stage until line 899. But, like Barrett, I feel he must have just

been brought on at the opening of the line, as he should certainly be present while the charge is read out.

894-7.

In a number of manuscripts these lines have been assigned to a slave. It is likely that the presiding official

would have called upon an assistant to read out the charge-sheet and I have given the job to Xanthias.

895. Κύων Κυδαθηναιεὺς

The prosecutor is a caricature of Kleon, whose name could be mistaken for Κύων, and whose deme just

happened to be Kydathinaion.

Λάβητ’ Αἰξωνέα

The general Laches belonged to the coastal deme Aixone. It can be loosely equated with the present-day

municipality of Glyphada, of which the most easterly district on Mt. Hymettos retains the ancient name.

896. ἀδικεῖν

The present tense is used because having committed a crime he is “held to be guilty in that he did eat” (cf.

591). The use of the verb is perhaps equivalent to our saying ‘he is in the wrong’.

ὅτι µόνος κατήσθιεν

The malice of the accusation is revealed by the resentment contained in this phrase (cf. 923).

897. τίµηµα κλῳὸς σύκινος

The statutory punishment is stated in advance, but evidently this was not binding and might be amended

by the court.

Fig-wood is a popular type of wood in Aristophanes’ plays. Not only can it produce an acrid smoke, as

we have seen (cf. 145), but here it is considered suitable for dog-collars. I have not found the first to be

true, although its pliant branches might be bent into makeshift dog-collars, tied with leather leashes (231).

But, while a ‘collar’ is mentioned here because Labes is a dog, the point is that we are meant to envisage

Laches in the stocks, normally referred to by the generic ξύλον (cf. 435). At the same time, it is possible

that the ‘dog-collar’ may refer to a sentence of exile, since Wilson notes (p. 91) that when the scapegoat

was to be expelled from the city he would wear such a collar. However, the φαρµακός (cf. Βάτραχοι 733)

might be a criminal condemned to be ritually executed and as the Father’s counterproposal to execute the

dog in the next next line negates the possibility of exile, the scapegoat theory is not very compelling. On

the other hand, it is usually assumed that whenever comic-dramatists mention fig-wood, their audience

was bound to think of a συκοφάντης. The term was held to derive from a law of Solon which embargoed

106

the export of most agricultural produce, including figs, to keep a lid on domestic prices. As a result, it was

believed that someone who informed on illegal attempts to export produce would have been called a ‘fig-

exposer’, although in the late-fifth century the alleged, original connection with figs no longer applied. In

Ἀχαρνεῖς (818) a συκοφάντης actually threatens to inform on illegal, Megarian imports.

It is unclear what Aristophanes finds amusing in the idea of fig-wood collars. Perhaps, he is implying that

the defendant is being fitted-up by a sycophant-prosecutor. But he may be doing no more than conflating

two laws coincidentally juxtaposed in the first table of Solon’s laws, for, along with the ban on exporting

figs, the legislator had also proposed that dogs prone to biting should be fitted with huge, wooden collars

(see Plutarch Σόλων 24.1).

898. θάνατος...κύνειος

The call for a “dog’s death”, which was axiomatic of a miserable end, conceals a veiled threat to Laches

that he would deserve a θάνατος κώνειος, or death by hemlock poisoning, the form of capital punishment

administered to aristocrats.

µὲν οὖν

This combination of particles is used when a previous assertion is contradicted (e.g. Νεφέλαι 220, Ἱππεῖς

911, ἐµοῦ µὲν οὖν). It may be a curt form of οὐ µὲν οὖν - “on the contrary” (cf. Βάτραχοι 556).

900. καὶ κλέπτον βλέπει

As MacDowell says, the internal accusative here can only be a neuter participle, i.e. “he has the look of a

thieving thing” (cf. 933). Perhaps, we are meant to supply for ourselves a word such as κνώδαλον (cf. 4).

901. σεσηρὼς

Apparently, Laches is being equated with a Welsh-border collie, which is a dog known for its ‘sheepish’

grin, (especially when accused of spending the night on the tiles with a neighbour’s Labrador bitch, but I

digress).

902. ποῦ δ’ <ἔσθ’> ὁ διώκων

After ποῦ δ’ the codices offer either, ὁ διώκων (R) or, οὐδιώκων (V). The former does not scan, and the

latter is ungrammatical. Hall and Geldart print Toup’s emendation, which is the most straightforward of

those based on the Ravenna’s reading; others include Dobree’s variations ποῦ ’στιν ὁ, or ποῦ ποῦ ’σθ’ ὁ,

Dindorf’s ποῦ µοὐ (for µοι ὁ), Reiske’s ποῦ δ’ αὖ ὁ (which assumes hiatus) and MacDowell’s ποῦ δ’ ὅ γε.

Florent Chrestien, however, adheres closer to the Venetus text with his proposal ποῦ δ’ οὑκδιώκων, but as

MacDowell observes, ἐκδιώκω does not carry the meaning of ‘prosecute’ elsewhere. Scaliger and Bentley

both adopted it anyway. But, the verb ἐκδικέω can mean ‘aggressively prosecute’ and ποῦ δ’ οὑκδικῶν,

ποῦ δ’ ὁ Κυδαθηναιεὺς κύων; may be appropriate here.

903-4. πάρεστιν [οὗτος]

Hall and Geldart print οὗτος, as written in the Ravenna codex, but this appears to be a copyist’s mistake.

ἕτερος οὗτος

Though usually attributed to Philokleon, these lines seem inappropriate coming from an ardent supporter

of ‘Barker / Kleon’. Hall and Geldart try to mitigate the damage by giving 904 to the Son, but his abrupt

intervention in the next line clearly suggests he has not been speaking. Indeed, if his instruction κάθιζε is

directed at Philokleon, we need to explain why the old man has left his seat again. MacDowell is less than

convincing when he suggests that “he has been walking around looking at the two dogs”. Barrett, at least,

has him patting the ‘dog’ while giving him some soup! But, Rogers found the most satisfactory solution,

assigning the criticism of the ‘dog’ to Xanthias, who after all should know. His “saucy interpellation” has

since been adopted by Sommerstein and Henderson.

The comparison with Labes is a comical inversion of an expression of admiration, ἄλλος οὗτος Ἡρακλῆς

- “he’s a second Herakles” (cf. Plutarch Θησεύς 29.3).

The criticism of Kleon as a well-fed watchdog matches the picture of him painted by the sausage-seller in

Ἱππεῖς 1030-4.

905. ἀναβὰς καταγόρει

He invites the ‘dog’ to mount the podium (βῆµα) of the court to make the speech for the prosecution. We

can assume that there is some piece of stage-property which is used for the purpose, since there has been

no mention of anything brought on to represent it. I propose making use of the well-head which I had had

constructed out of wood and papier-mache for just such an eventuality. It will be utilized in due course for

further stage-business. There is no danger of anyone falling down the well, because it is covered (with an

107

old, rusted shield) when not in use (cf. frg. 306, τὴν δ’ ἀσπίδα ἐπίθηµα τῷ φρέατι παράθες εὐθέως). Such

a cistern-lid has been found in the Agora excavations, see Hesperia VI (1937) 348.

906. τήνδ(ε)

Presumably ‘this’ refers to the lentil-soup (φακῆ) provided earlier (811). The Father wants to get it while

it is hot (cf. 918). Barrett says he ladles some out, while MacDowell has him pour some into a cup. But, if

they want two ladles (or cups) to be standing in for voting-urns (cf. 855), then a third ladle (or cup) will

be required here - a case of too many cooking utensils spoiling the broth, I suspect. As Philokleon is less

sophisticated than his son, he need only tip the bowl and swill its contents. But, if we desire him to show

better manners and use a ladle, then we have all the more reason to use water-pots to stand in for voting-

urns.

κἀγὼ ῥοφῶ

The moment is opportune for the old man to start on his soup, since he normally ‘laps up’ everything that

the prosecutor says as well.

907.

Since the dog Labes does not speak for himself, Hall and Geldart have assigned the part of the other dog

to Sosias to speak on his behalf. But, it is more likely that the ‘dog’ actually speaks in order to convey an

impression of Kleon’s style of speech when haranging courts or assemblies.

908. ἄνδρες δικασταὶ

He addresses Philokleon as if speaking to a full jury, though as Wilson notes, when he does so again later

(950) he uses the formal vocative ὦνδρες. The omission of the particle does not seem significant and may

be no different from an attorney varying his address between ‘members of the jury’ and ‘gentlemen of the

jury’. The difference is less a matter of respect as the degree of pomposity.

909. τὸ ῥυππαπαῖ

In Βάτραχοι (1073), we hear ‘Aischylos’ maintain that back when he was alive Athenian sailors only had

enough breath left from their exertions to call for their hardtack and to call out ῥυππαπαῖ -“yo-heave-ho”.

This may have been intended, like a sea-shanty, to help them keep time and synchronize their breathing.

Here, ‘Barker’ is referring to his most vocal supporters in the Assembly, the old men who had been in the

ships and now identify with the poor rowers who have been short-changed by their general Laches, just as

he himself has been left without his due by Labes. The expression was probably a recognized one and not

Aristophanes’ own coinage. Although it sounds amusing, it is unlikely to have been thought a demeaning

term and certainly not as derisive as words Kleon might have used in private to describe them (cf. 666-7).

910. τυρὸν πολὺν

The cheese stolen by the dog Labes is money for Laches. Had the dog stolen a loaf of bread, then perhaps

the general could be accused of taking ‘a lot of dough’.

911. κατεσικέλιζε

Aristophanes fabricates a bogus verb to maintain the allusion to Laches’ embezzlement in Sicily. It takes

the place of the usual καταβροχθίζω - ‘to gulp down’. Similarly, one could coin a verb ‘en-guzzle’, or as

Hickie has it, “Sicelize”.

[Criminologists may like to note that in the annals of cheese-stealing the Sicilian connection continues to

this day. The late mobster Gerlando Alberti had confessed that his first test for admission into the Sicilian

mafia was the theft “of an entire cheese”. In 1980, when he was arrested and charged with belonging to a

criminal organization, he famously remarked, “Mafia? What’s that, a kind of cheese?”]

ἐν τῷ σκότῳ

The theft takes place during the hours of darkness to avoid detection by the all-seeing Apollo, cf. νύκτωρ,

Ἱππεῖς 1034.

914. αἰτοῦντί µοι

The real basis for Barker’s complaint, hinted at in the indictment (cf. 896, µόνος κατήσθιεν) and again in

909 (κἀµὲ), is revealed. He is less concerned with the theft than the fact that he was not cut in on it.

915-6.

Greeks have always taken the realistic view that politicians are in it for what they can get for themselves,

yet manage to convince themselves that their rapacious fellow-citizens will be content with mere scraps.

917. οὐδὲ τῷ κοινῷ γ’ ἐµοί

The old juror reinforces his earlier hint (553-4) that he is quite as open to bribes as the prosecutor, if only

someone will offer. However, he seems to forget that the cheese was his in the first place. Perhaps, it was

108

this consideration which caused some copyists to assign the line to one of the slaves, but I think Tyrwhitt

was probably right to give it to Philokleon after all.

Although I share Dobree’s misgivings over the construction, I doubt that we need to emend to τῶν κοινῶν

ἐµοί, as he proposed. It is probably enough to introduce ‘the citizenry’ as a parenthesis (οὐδὲ, τῷ κοινῷ

γ’, ἐµοί), since his complaint is, “nor did I…that is to say the public, get any share”.

918. θερµὸς

Standing at the opening of the line for emphasis (cf. 952), the adjective has a lot of work to do. It must

qualify a dog, a man and a bowl of soup. Not surprisingly, it is difficult to turn the same trick in English

with a single word. Little leeway is obtained from soup; we are restricted to ‘hot’. But, by inserting ἁνὴρ

Aristophanes must intend the word θερµὸς to apply primarily to Laches. So, it is natural to translate ‘hot-

tempered and fiery’ (Barrett), ‘hot-headed’ (MacDowell) or ‘hot-stuff’ (Sommerstein). This leaves us to

assume that the dog Labes is ‘fierce’.

But, this interpretation is open to two criticisms; firstly it is difficult to reconcile with the Son’s comment

in the next line, and more importantly it is not funny. What we need from θερµὸς is some characterization

which clearly reinforces the father’s prejudice for Labes’ guilt. Sommerstein notes that in Πλοῦτος (415)

Aristophanes uses θερµὸς to mean ‘audaciously wicked’ and a similar sense is apparent in a passage of

Aischylos’s Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας, ναύταισι θερµοῖς καὶ πανουργὶᾳ τινὶ (603) describes a ship’s crew bent on

piracy. This approach works as a lead in for Bdelykleon’s plea, though the implication of ‘guilty as hell’,

only attaches tenuously to the previous complaints regarding the dog’ greediness. The bowl of lentils, we

must assume, is still piping hot (like the soup in frg.514 from Ταγηνισταί).

But, what if the soup has grown cold? What if Philokleon is speaking sarcastically? It may be that, one is

meant to interpret Labes’ failure to share the stolen cheese as a lack of generosity, or ‘warm nature’, and

so the verdict becomes, “since the man has all the warmth of this bowl of soup!”

919-20.

He warns him not to prejudge the issue. Like his fellow-jurors he should be open to reason (cf. 725).

921. αὐτὸ γὰρ βοᾷ

Sometimes an opportunity just cries out to be exploited and Aristophanes does not pass up his chance to

puncture the grandiloquence of tragic-dramatists who make inanimate objects ‘howl’ and ‘scream’, e.g.

βοᾷ, βοᾷ δέλτος - “the writing-tablet shrieks <its message> aloud” (Euripides Ἱππόλυτος 877). Here, of

course, his parody is especially apt, since both Κύων and Kleon do in fact howl. We would naturally say,

‘it’s patently obvious’ or ‘the facts speak for themselves’. For other animated objects, see also 937.

922-6.

The confusion between Labes and Laches becomes complete here. Dog and man become one, so that the

animal sails around the (cheese)-bowl and the man chews the rind off the Sicilian cities. I have attempted

to mirror the ambiguity, substituting ‘cheese-board’ for ‘seaboard’.

923. µονοφαγίστατον

The superlative is not found elsewhere, but Ameipsias (frg. 23) has somebody cursed as a thief (µονοφάγε

καὶ τοιχωρύχε) who fails to share the swag.

924. τὴν θυείαν

This was some kind of bowl, used as a mortar (cf. Βάτραχοι 124); its relevance here being simply that the

dog found the cheese in it, not that it was shaped like the island of Sicily.

925-6. τὸ σκῖρον

Eating the cheese rind can be taken easily enough as a metaphor for Laches ‘skimming’ the contributions

from allied cities, but the play on σκῖρον (‘rind’) and σκίρρος, which according to the Σοῦδα can mean

γύψος (‘plaster’) and hence perhaps πηλός (‘putty’ for mending a water-pot), is a pun too far for English.

927-8.

This Freudian slip reveals that Barker’s intention in bringing the charge was really to eliminate a rival. An

ancient scholion informs us that the proverb should have read, οὐ τρέφει µία λόχµη δύο ἐριθάκους - “one

thicket does not feed two robins”. But Barker unconsciously substitutes κλέπτα - “thieving <creatures>”

(cf. 900, 933), which Henderson has neatly rendered as, “one copse can’t support two robbers”.

929. ἵνα µὴ κεκλάγγω...ἐγώ

The verb is the perfect tense of κλάζω (‘bark’). Kleon makes a virtue of his loud barking in contrast to the

furtive, underhand deals of his rival.

931. ἰοὺ ἰού.

109

This exclamation is said to represent a cry of either grief or joy. That the exact same words do service for

two opposite seems very unlikely. It is possible that a similar sound could express different emotions with

different modulations of the voice (after all, ‘Oh!’ can be taken as an exclamation of surprise or a cry of

pain according to circumstances) and a scholion on Εἰρήνη 345 draws a distinction between ἰοὺ ἰού (grief)

and ἰοῦ ἰοῦ (joy). But, this distinction is regularly ignored in the codices. Based on Plutarch’s explanation

of ἰοὺ ἰού as a ritual cry registering confusion and shock, I would rather print only ἰὼ ἰώ for cries of grief,

in imitation of tragic verse (cf. Nεφέλαι 1, and note), and ἰὴ ἰή here for whoops of delight.

933. κλέπτον τὸ χρῆµα τἀνδρός

Such expressions probably suppose an imperative as in 799 (literally, ‘<see> the thieving sort of man <he

is>’) and so are best taken as exclamatory, “what a thieving rascal the man is!” (c.f. Νεφέλαι 2, Ὄρνιθες

826, and Λυσιστράτη 83).

934. ὦ (ἀ)λεκτρυών

Earlier (100-1) a cockerel had been accused of having been bribed to assist the defendants, but this one is

more tactfully siding with the prosecution.

935. ὁ θεσµοθέτης

The audience would be amused by the notion of an aristocratic officer of the law being asked to perform a

menial task, which even Bdelykleon shirks.

936. αὐτὸς καθελοῦ

The omission of the personal pronoun in reflexive commands is rare; more usual is the similar instance in

Νεφέλαι (220), αὐτὸς...σὺ κάλεσον - “call him yourself”. So, possibly, we might read σ’ αὐτὸς καθελοῦ.

937.

In tragic-drama, when suspicion fell upon an innocent individual who lacked an alibi, it was common for

him or her to call vainly upon inanimate objects to bear witness. Thus, in Euripides Ἱππόλυτος the young

hero seeks to rebut the charge of having seduced his step-mother Phaidra by insisting that the walls of the

palace could testify on his behalf (1074-5). Aristophanes parodied this trope in ∆αναΐδες (frg. 256) when

he called upon household pots to bear witness, µαρτύροµαι δὲ Ζηνὸς ἑρκείου χύτρας / µεθ’ ὧν ὁ βωµὸς

οὗτος ἱδρύθη ποτέ, while here he goes a step further by summoning the ἀφώνους µάρτυρας to physically

take the stand on stage.

938-9.

To appreciate this roll-call of seemingly innocent kitchen utensils we must enrol Rowan Atkinson in the

Son’s role, for the comic effect of his roll-call of schoolboys with suggestive names has its counterpart in

the sexual innuendo of kitchen utensils. Griffith (1988), has noted a similar list in Αἰολοσίκων (frg.7), one

of Aristophanes’ last plays, and suggested that the mention of each implement would have been greeted

with nudges and winks. Already in Ἱππεῖς (984), Kleon had been likened to a ‘pestle’ (δοῖδυξ) and though

the scholiasts did not pick up on it there, the scurrilous inference is clear. Plutarch, in faithfully recording

the story that the father of the rhetor Phokion had been a ‘pestle-maker’ (Φωκίων 4.1) failed to appreciate

that the description originated in comic-drama. [The significance of pestles and mortars is demonstrated

by Boccaccio in Il Decamerone, 8.2.]

Apart from using the similarity in sound between ‘pestle’ and ‘pizzle’, we can do little to show the comic

effect of these lists. But, the actors portraying or carrying the items could doubtless provide some discreet

illustration of their use in practice, just as the ancient extras might have done.

προσκεκαυµένα

As MacDowell notes, the word anticipated by the audience would be προσκεκληµένα - ‘summonsed to

attend’, which Dobree had proposed to print. Aristophanes substitutes “burnt black” (cf. 828) which may

perhaps carry the additional implication that the witnesses had been compelled to appear under torture (as

Sommerstein suggests).

940.

The old man has got up to relieve himself. The interruption is necessary to pave the way for the following

line’s scatological joke.

941. τοῦτον...χεσεῖσθαι

Once again, he shows his bias against the defendant who, he suggests, will shortly be suffering from the

‘nervous diarrhoea’ so familiar to us from Hollywood thrillers (cf. Νεφέλαι 296).

944. τί σεσιώπηκας;

110

The dog’s silence is a dramatic necessity in order to allow the Son to make the case for Laches / Λάχης,

one of the outgoing ἄρχοντες who was being ‘hounded’ by Kleon and his confederates.

945.

The old juror is biased against and attributes his failure to speak up to a dearth of arguments in his

defence rather than his characteristic, aristocratic aloofness.

946-8. Θουκυδίδης

It has always been assumed that the person who ‘put up no defence’ was an elder statesman, Thoukydides

the son of Melesias, who is thought to have become tongue-tied due to the vigorous prosecution mounted

by a young adversary named Euathlos. But, it is possible that the defendant in this instance is the historian

Thucydides, who had recently served as στρατηγός. See Appendix 4, ‘Silence in court’.

949. πάρεχ(ε) ἐκποδών

The Son continues to speak roughly to the dog as a master would (cf. 944). Often, ἐκποδών can be taken

metaphorically - ‘out of my way’ (cf. 1325), but here it is obviously meant to be taken literally, “get out

from under my feet”.

ἀπολογήσοµαι

Although it was usual for the defendant to make his own defence, provision must have been made for a

practiced sophist to speak for him if necessary, as the present case shows (cf. 951).

950. χαλεπὸν µὲν

He begins as he did before (650) in a conventional manner. The speech for the defence does not directly

address the accusation of theft. The facts are not in dispute. The trial is concerned only to verify the prior

representations and the accused is considered guilty unless proven innocent.

ὦνδρες

Once again, he pretends to be addressing a full jury (cf. 975-6).

διαβεβληµένου

If Laches was the only one on trial here, it would be natural for the verb’s metaphorical sense (‘slander’)

to take the lead, but since the defendant is the dog Labes, the concrete sense of ‘having had things thrown

at him’ is probably paramount. So, whereas a luckier dog might have scraps thrown for it, ἅττα διαβάλοι

τις (Εἰρήνη 643), in this case we must picture the dog being pursued by a hail of stones. It is unlikely that

Bdelykleon would use the word ‘slander’ directly, as in fact he seems to accept the likelihood of Laches’

guilt (cf. 958).

951. ὑπεραποκρίνεσθαι

The only other extant instance of this verb is in Θεσµοφοριάζ. (186), where Euripides entreats Agathon to

defend him, ὑπεραποκρίνῃ µου. It implies the existence of the term ὑπεραποκριτής (‘one who answers on

<another’s> behalf’).

952. ἀγαθὸς

In this context the adjective is primarily a judgement on his abilities as a sheepdog, but it has a secondary

meaning that he has a good pedigree, since Laches was an aristocrat.

953. µὲν οὖν

Philokleon loudly disagrees (cf. 898), declaring that not only is the dog a κλέπτης but that the general is a

ξυνωµότης (cf.345).

954.

His son counters that he is at least the best dog (i.e. general) they have, for the time being.

955. πολλοῖς προβατίοις ἐφεστάναι.

Αt this point, he may again gesture expansively in the direction of the audience (cf. 31-6).

956.

Alright, he may be good at his job, Philokleon admits, but that does not justify his stealing what belongs

to his masters (i.e. himself) like a slave who pinches grapes.

958. ὑφείλετο

Unable to decide between the two meanings of the verb, I’ve used them both. As both Labes and Laches

have been detected in their thefts, it is awkward to translate ‘filch’, i.e. ‘steal secretly’ (cf. 1201, 1345).

959. κιθαρίζειν

The literal sense is that Laches was not a cultured man, and consequently could not be expected to discern

right from wrong. However, the argument that a man who has learned to play a musical instrument would

111

not ‘fiddle’ his tax return is not one that a prudent advocate would advance. So, the mitigating claim here

is primarily referring to the dog, who stole because he had not been properly trained (cf. 989).

The tradition relayed by Plutarch that certain leading figures in Athenian politics were untutored in music,

a primary study, may well have sprung from similar comedic roots (cf. Θεµιστοκλής 1.3, Κίµων 4.4).

962.

The Ravenna codex assigns this instruction to ‘Barker’, but it must surely belong to the presiding officer.

963. ἀνάβηθι τυρόκνηστι

The word ‘cheese-grater’ is rarely needed in the vocative, but here the utensil has to be called to the stand.

The idea of kitchen utensils magically responding to commands occurs in a fragment from Krates’ comic-

drama Θηρία (frg. 16, πρόσεισιν αὔθ’ ἕκαστον τῶν σκευαρίων, ὅταν καλῇ τις). It includes the instruction,

ἀνάβαινε µᾶζα. - “get up on <the table> barley-cake”)

964. ταµιεύουσ(α) ἔτυχες

Since the female cheese-grater is the logical utensil to dispense cheese, ‘she’ must have been responsible

for distributing the captured loot to the army. Bdelykleon is defending Labes from the most damning part

of the indictment, namely that he consumed the cheese on his own. The evidence of this ‘quartermaster’

will prove crucial.

Eupolis made it clear in his Μαρικᾶς (frg. 210) that each trireme in the fleet had its own quartermaster.

966. φησὶ

The cheese-grater is only required to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so the actor playing the part nods. Cf. Νεφέλαι

1483 where Strepsiades hears an answer from Hermes’ effigy. These are after all ‘silent’ witnesses.

967. (ἐ)λέει τοὺς ταλαιπωρουµένους

The received text makes perfect sense, but does not scan (unless we can take -έει as a monosyllable). In

the fifteenth century Triclinius tried to remedy this by omitting the definite article, a solution which Hall

and Geldart preferred over Bentley’s ὦ δαῖµον, ἐλέει τοὺς. But, Starkie proposed a better solution which

is to assume that the offending word is a gloss on another word requiring elucidation. He proposed that

we read ὦ δαιµόνι’, αἰδοῦ τοὺς ταλαιπωρουµένους. The verb gives a very similar sense, “have a regard

for those who are under duress”. Wilson too (p. 91) supports the emendation.

968. καὶ τραχήλι(α) ἐσθίει

This argument for the defence applies to the dog only, because Laches the general as a παράσιτος would

normally eat the best cuts from sacrificial meat, whereas the dog “eats even offal”. Hirschig was probably

right to suspect that the conjunction (καὶ) has evicted the definite article (τὰ) denoting a generic plural.

969. ἐν ταὐτῷ µένει

The dog may not wander far, but the general is always on the move and constantly campaigning overseas.

970. οἰκουρὸς µόνον

The other ‘dog’ is a domestic animal who hangs around the house. This criticism must reflect the fact that

Kleon was usually reluctant to let his name go forward for military command, preferring to maintain tight

control of the political front at home. But, given his political gamble at Pylos and his commanding role in

Thrace, it is perhaps an unjust exaggeration.

972. εἰ δὲ µή, δάκνει

The present prosecution is proof of the charge that the ‘dog bites’, if he does not get his share.

973. αἰβοῖ

Philokleon appreciates the force of this argument and groans in dismay.

τί κακόν ποτ(ε)

MacDowell notes that κακόν τι in the next line presupposes a less definite term here which it clarifies. He

suggests that κακόν in this line, or the (unmetrical) τὸ κακόν of the codices, have ejected the simple τόδε.

The emendation seems reasonable and recent editors have approved it.

975-6.

His plea is an ironic call-back to the tearful entreaty of the defendant awaiting trial (556). He uses plural

imperatives, since his father represents the full jury.

977-8. κνυζούµενα...δακρύετε

The παιδία are both children and puppies, for they cry tears like children, but whimper like puppies. It is

not known whether the στρατηγός himself had young children, but, the humour of the scene would not be

affected one way or the other. MacDowell nicely points out that the imperatives mock the ability of such

witnesses to cry on demand (like professional mourners).

112

αἰτεῖτε

Hirschig suggested that the middle αἰτεῖσθε would have been more likely, but there is no reason that I can

see to alter the active voice.

979. κατάβα...καταβήσοµαι

As each puppy jumps up at him, the Father tells it to get down. But, on hearing each singular imperative,

the Son mistakenly assumes that it applies to him and that his father is telling him to ‘step down’ having

heard enough. He believes that his best efforts on his client’s behalf have been a failure.

980-1. τὸ «κατάβα» τοῦτο

The cries of ‘stand down’ from the jurors recognized that this final appeal to their better nature was a last,

desperate gasp of the defence case. We can well imagine that advocates in court would often hear the cry

from jurors who felt that their patience had been tried enough.The Son points out, however, that the word

could and probably had been mistaken by defendants as indicating that their time was up. In fact, the joke

is that their time is up, in more ways than one.

982-4.

Commentators have taken the Son’s comment differently, assuming that the defendant was standing down

under the impression that “the jury was convinced by the speech” (MacDowell). But, it would have been a

very self-confident or naïve defendant who believed such a thing. In fact, the Father’s sudden expletive is

proof that this was not normally the case. His concession to sentimentality is uncharacteristic not only of

him but of Athenian juries generally (cf. 574) and so, because it is unexpected, it is funny.

Philokleon tries to blame the wave of emotion washing over him, and weakening his resolve, on the effect

of the lentil-soup he has been swilling, probably because too much onion was added in its preparation. He

is so much a stranger to human sentiment that he thinks that his tears must be the result of spicy food.

983. ἀπεδάκρυσα νῦν γνώµην ἐµὴν

In 882 we heard Bdelykleon pray that his father might ‘be moved to tears’ (ἐπιδακρύειν) when defendants

pleaded for leniency, which suggested to Hirschig that perhaps we should read ἐπεδάκρυσα νῦν here. This

would mean treating γνώµην ἐµὴν as a separate, elliptical clause <κατα γε τὴν> γνώµην ἐµήν, which is a

bit abrupt, but occurs in Εἰρήνη (232). Sommerstein adopts the emendation, translating it as, “I just burst

into tears and in my opinion…” This is certainly a possibility and Wilson (p.91) finds it “very attractive”.

But, the received text reads more coherently giving the sense “I just now wept away my resolve (or maybe

even verdict)”.

984. οὐδέν ποτ(ε) ἀλλ(ὰ) ἢ

The codices have ποτέ γ(ε) ἀλλ(ὰ), which MacDowell and Henderson accept. On the other hand, Hall and

Geldart, followed by Sommerstein, drop the particle γε as proposed by Invernizi. The syntax of this line is

unusual in any case. Unless one takes the phrase to be dependent on <κατα τὴν> γνώµην ἐµὴν <ὅτι>, then

it is part of the participial clause it precedes and one should read οὐδενός γ(ε) ἀλλὰ ἢ, ‘since I am full of

nothing but…soup’. However, what we need to see is a phrase which means ‘the only explanation can be

that I am full of soup’ and MacDowell’s limiting accusative does not seem to me to produce this. So, I

suggest that we might try, οὐδέν ἐστ’ ἄλλο γ(ε) ἢ - “<my tearful state> is really nothing other than my

being full of soup”.

ἐµπλήµενος

Aristophanes normally makes use of the shortened perfect in preference to ἐµπεπλησµένος (J). The verb

brings out the incongruity of the idea that the soup has filled his eyes with tears, whereas in tragic-drama

the tears would spring from genuine emotion, e.g. Euripides Ὀρέστης 368, where the news of his brother

Agamemnon’s murder fills Menelaos with tears, δακρύων ἔµπλησεν ἐµέ

985. οὔκουν ἀποφεύγει δῆτα

Since his father claims that his tears are solely due to the soup, Bdelykleon is despondent, fearing that his

client Labes “is not, in that case, being let off”.

986. ὦ πατρίδιον

MacDowell terms this a “wheedling diminutive”, and so it is, prima facie. It will be copied by later comic-

poets (Theophilos, Xenarchos) in the sense “daddy dear”. But, why has Aristophanes preferred this form

over the earlier one that served him just as well before (cf. 655, ὦ παππίδιον)? Could it be that he is using

someone else’s words? He may be parodying a passage in which πατρίδιον was used as a dimunitive, not

of πατήρ but of πατρίς, in order for the actor to pass an additional message to his audience; a plea for “the

beloved fatherland” to change its ways and vote for a better future. [A softening of the aggressively male

113

sound of ‘fatherland’ was achieved recently by the Greek Defence minister who referred to the defence of

the “µητέρα πατρίδα”.]

987. τηνδὶ...τὴν ψῆφον

The Son apparently provides his father with a pebble from among those lying on the ground which had

earlier been intended for warding off jurymen.

ἐπὶ τὸν ὕστερον

The Son fully expects his father to stick to his usual habit of voting to condemn the accused, but is hoping

against hope to dissuade him, consequently we can infer from his words “head for the latter” that usually

a verdict of ‘not-guilty’ would be recorded by dropping the pebble in the second urn. Phrynichos (frg.33)

distinguishes the two voting-urns in this way,

ἰδού, δέχου τὴν ψῆφον· ὁ καδίσκος δέ σοι

ὁ µὲν ἀπολύων οὗτος, ὁ δ’ ἀπολλὺς ὁδί.

“Here you are, take your voting-pebble. That there is the urn for you to acquit, and this here is the one to

condemn.”

988. µύσας παρᾷξον

Philokleon could not normally be expected to shut his eyes before dashing across to the urns, so that one

would usually take the verb in the sense of, ‘do it without thinking’, but the humour here lies in the fact

that he takes the instruction literally.

989.

He cannot bring himself to vote for acquittal and claims that he lacks the training for it; the same pretext

his son had used to defend Labes earlier (959).

990. τῃδὶ τὴν ταχίστην

He offers to lead him round “by this route, the quickest” (sc. ὁδὸν) and proceeds to take him behind the

well-head so that they arrive at the water-jars in the reverse order.

991. ὅδ(ε) ἔσθ’ ὁ πρότερος;

Beer (1844, p.154) suggested that this would read as well coming as a statement from the Son (ὁδὶ ἐσθ’ ὁ)

“this one is the first”, but as Philokleon has had his eyes closed it is reasonable to have him ask about the

‘voting-urn’ in front of him when they stop. He is seeking the first urn of the two in order to vote ‘guilty’.

(ἐ)νταῦθ(α) ἔνι

MacDowell prefers the reading of the main codices αὕτη (ἐ)ντευθενί, which he translates “away it goes!”

But, in such case, ‘hence’ must really mean ‘from my hand’, whereas Aristophanes only uses ἐντευθενί of

place (Ὄρνιθες 10, Λυσιστράτη 92). So, Hall and Geldart are probably right to print Dobree’s emendation,

which translates, “this ’ere <pebble> belongs in ’ere” (cf. Νεφέλαι 211, ἐνταῦθ’ ἔνεισιν).

992.

In a whispered aside Bdelykleon admits to having tricked his father into voting for an acquittal.

993. φέρ(ε) ἐξεράσω

He uses a bombastic phrase ‘so, let me disgorge’, when all he means is “I’ll tip out the ballot-pots, then”,

(cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 341, τοὺς λίθους...χαµᾶζε...ἐξεράσατε - “disgorge your stones upon the ground”). He then

proceeds to ‘empty’ the water-pots on the stone well-head to count the ‘ballots’ (cf. 332-3).

994. δείξειν ἔοικεν

MacDowell notes that this phrase, “I think it will become clear”, is an abbreviated form of a typical legal

periphrasis; comparing Demosthenes’ (2.20) δοκεῖ δ’ ἔµοιγε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, δείξειν οὐκ εἰς µακράν

- “I think, gentlemen, that it will shortly become apparent”.

ἐκπέφευγας

In his capacity as presiding officer, he announces the verdict to the defendant. But, instead of telling him

that he has been acquitted (ἀποπέφευγας), he says “you’ve got off”, which may seem just another way of

saying it, but could also imply that the Son thinks that he has escaped his just desserts (cf. 157 and 160).

995. οἴµοι. ποῦ (ἐ)σθ’ ὕδωρ;

The sudden cry of dismay as he turns around indicates that all is not right with the old man and so he cries

out for a slave to fetch some water with which to revive him. Reckford (2009) has observed that there is a

convenient source of ‘water’ to hand, i.e. the ‘water-clock’.

996. ἔπαιρε σαυτόν

In Euripides’ Ἀνδροµάχη (1077), Peleus has just received the tragic news of his grandson’s death and falls

in a faint, unable to stand or speak (though he manages to describe this fact well enough). He is hardly in

114

a position to “lift himself up” as the messenger seems to be telling him. Here, Philokleon appears to have

fainted and is slumped in his chair; he too is unlikely to be able to follow the same instruction. The most

either old man could do without help, would be to ‘raise’ his head or some other part of his body. But, in

both cases, attendants are on hand, so both the messenger in Euripides’ drama and the Son here are more

likely to be giving their peremptory orders to a slave, ἔπαιρε σ(ὺ) αὐτόν - “lift him up, you!” (cf. 196).

997. οὐδέν εἰµ(ι)

Barrett notes the para-tragic tone and compares the scene in Euripides’ Ἀνδροµάχη.

998. ἀλλ(ὰ) ἀνίστασο

This is our expression “pick yourself up” (which was thought to apply in 996). Although one might take it

metaphorically, ‘pull yourself together now’, it is probably meant literally here since the slave has helped

him to sit up already.

999. ἐµαυτῷ...ξυνείσοµαι

Where another would lose sleep over having voted ‘guilty’, he wonders how he will square the verdict of

‘not guilty’ with his conscience. The same sort of reversal is found in Ἱππεῖς 184, ξυνειδέναι τί µοι δοκεῖς

σαυτῷ καλόν - “you appear to have some good deed on your conscience”.

1000. τί ποτε πείσοµαι;

Perhaps recalling the prophecy of Apollo (158-60) he is anxious lest divine punishment awaits him. The

future of πάσχω is often used to indicate that something bad is in store.

1002. ἄκων...τοῦ (ἐ)µοῦ τρόπου

He claims that his ‘misdemeanour’ was involuntary and that it was “out of character” i.e. up until now he

had had a clean record of condemning every defendant.

1003-4. θρέψω καλῶς

Having promised earlier that he would supply the luxuries commensurate with an old man’s needs (736-

8), he now makes clear (what had been hinted at in 739-40) that he will treat him like a ‘son’ who has at

last ‘come of age’.

As he leads his dejected parent toward the house, the Son tries to comfort him by promising ‘to take good

care of him and to take him everywhere he goes’. Brunck’s emendation πανταχοῖ (“whithersoever”) is an

improvement upon the πανταχοῦ of the codices (cf. 1188).

1005.

The humour of this line derives from the fact that the ‘Son’ will treat the ‘Father’ as an adult and take him

with him to places that grown-ups go, i.e. dinner-parties, symposia and festivals.

ἐπὶ θεωρίαν

The word θεωρία is used of attendance at public gatherings associated with religious festivals i.e. athletic

games, theatrical performances etc. In Εἰρήνη (523), ‘Theoria’ is hailed as the personification of ‘Public

Holidays’. Here, we can probably take it to mean τοῦ ∆ιονύσου ἡ θεωρία and comic-drama in particular.

There is a clear implication that ‘children’ were not permitted to attend such adult performances.

1007.

The Son’s intention will be to keep the old man occupied and so distract him from the law-courts where

prosecutors like the young Hyperbolos would lead him on and continue to make a laughing-stock out of

him. It seems a curious interjection with little dramatic justification, but appears genuine.

1008. ταῦτά νυν

The codices do not indicate a change of speaker here, and it is conceivable that Bdelykleon is saying ‘this

is what we’ll do then, if you agree’, leaving the old man still despondent and lost for words. But, it seems

more likely to represent Philokleon’s final acquiescence, “do so then, if you like”.

Valediction (κοµµάτιον) 1009-14

The brief choral song (κοµµάτιον) breaks the fourth wall between stage and audience again. The Chorus

flatters the spectators (cf. 64-6) to prepare the ground for the long speech which is to follow. It is possible

at this point that there was a short interval. After all, audiences in ancient Athens might have appreciated

a rest to stretch their legs just as much as a modern one. The main actors have already left the stage and

the following speech does not require the members of the Chorus to remain in the orchestra. The fact that

the next speech begins with a repetition suggests resumption after a pause.

1009. ἀλλ(ὰ) ἴτε χαίροντες

115

The members of the Chorus salute the departing actors before turning to address the spectators directly.

The customary form of words used in the κοµµάτιον, cf. ἀλλ(ὰ) ἴθι χαίρων in Ἱππεῖς 498, Νεφέλαι 510,

Εἰρήνη 729, signals the break in the drama and the short introduction gives the actors time to get their

props and themselves off the stage to take a breather.

1010. ὦ µυριάδες ἀναρίθµητοι

This reference to the spectators as “countless myriads” was presumably a borrowed quotation which the

audience might have been expected to recognize. Perhaps, those originally addressed were the numberless

stars, though the dramatist may have had in mind a comparison far less flattering to the audience. He may

have been thinking about ants (as in Theokritos 15. 45, µύρµακες, ἀνάριθµοι καὶ ἄµετροι) and alluding to

Pherekrates’ Μυρµηκάνθρωποι or else he may be addressing a global audience, as when a slave in Ἱππεῖς

points to the myriads of spectators in the theatre as representative of the greater population of Athens and

its dependencies. Perhaps, it is comic exaggeration in anticipation of a good turn-out after his unjustified

failure the previous year? Or does the poet’s own awareness that his true audience is circumscribed by the

intellectual demands of his comic wit bring out his sarcasm? In the realm of meta-theatre the possibilities

are infinite.To be sure, Plato copies it in Νόµοι (804ε) and Θεαίτητος (175α).

1011-3. νῦν µὲν...εὐλαβεῖσθε

This preliminary advice is straightforward, in all but syntax and metre. Without a by-your-leave, we slip

from anapaests into iambic metre before turning to trochaics (1013-4). Hall and Geldart choose to make

1011-2 trochaics by following Burges proposal to drop µὲν. This seems a viable solution, although one is

hard put (as MacDowell cautions) to explain how it came to be there in the first place. The real problem,

however, lies in the postponement of εὐλαβεῖσθε, or at least in making the whole passage dependent on it.

It is alright to take εὐλαβεῖσθε µὴ πέσῃ as “take care they don’t fall”, but if the phrase τὰ µέλλοντ(α) εὖ

λέγεσθαι is to mean “the things which are going to be said well <by me>” (i.e. the good advice I’m about

to give you), it raises questions. Why is it isolated from the governing imperative and why does the poet

risk being labeled as conceited from the outset?

A better balance could be obtained if we read τὰ µέλλοντ(α) εὖ λέγεσθε and understand <ὥστε> µὴ πέσῃ

φαύλως χαµᾶζ(ε), “gather up carefully what you are about to hear so as not to let it fall to waste on the

ground”. This leaves εὐλαβεῖσθε to stand alone as a reminder to the audience that they must be attentive.

MacDowell notes that the metaphor recurs in Plato’s Εὐθύφρων (14δ), οὐ χαµαὶ πεσεῖται ὅτι ἂν εἴπῃς.

Excursus (Παράβασις) 1015-1121

1015-59.

This next speech is delivered by the chorus-leader alone. It marks a clear departure from the development

of the plot. Leaving the farce and satire of the previous acts, the poet tries his hand at ‘stand-up’, relying

on word-play and surreal imagery. He could, like many a modern comic, have taken a safer course by self

-deprecation, but as he identifies with his message, he takes the riskier route of deprecating his audience.

From the start he justifies his stance by pointing out that he is giving it to them straight (“like a pear-cider

made from a hundred per cent pears”, not like some glib-talking κόλακες he could mention!). Even so, he

is aware that he treads a fine line and he takes his precautions. Firstly, he speaks through the mouth of an

older man so that he can refer to himself in the third person; a prudent step for a writer who is still in his

twenties, addressing an audience whose average age was likely to be considerably higher. The same point

is made by Stephen Fry in The Fry Chronicles (Michael Joseph, 2010) 334-5.

The customary metre of the παράβασις was anapaests, as Aristophanes himself tells us in Ἀχαρνεῖς (627),

τοῖς ἀναπαίστοις ἐπίωµεν - “let us launch out upon the anapaests” (cf. also Ἱππεῖς 505, Εἰρήνη 735).

1015. νῦν αὖτε, λεῴ

Like a town-crier (now, hear this!) the chorus-leader uses a formal phrase to draw the audience’s attention

(cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 1000, where a herald calls ἀκούετε λεῴ).

προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν

I am more relaxed about resolution of long syllables (προσέχετε) in anapaests than in the final metron of a

trochaic tetrameter (cf. Νεφέλαι 575), but even so I am very tempted by the aorist προσσχετε which might

have caused a copyist to write πρόσχετε (B) here as well as there (CtI, Vc I).

καθαρόν τι

What he is going to say will be ‘direct’ and ‘without poetic subterfuge’.

1016. µέµψασθαι...τοῖσι θεαταῖς

116

As he is about to criticize the spectators for something that happened in the past, the year before in fact,

we understand that he considers himself to be addressing the same people.

1017. ἀδικεῖσθαι

We would expect him to say ‘I have been wronged’, but the present tense indicates that he is complaining

of ‘being treated unfairly’. This suggests that he considers that the benefits of a victory or, in his case, the

ignominy of a defeat stays with the dramatist from one competition to the next.

φησιν

The poet refers to himself (and the audience) in the third person, even though, at the original performance

he might have been delivering the speech himself.

πρότερος

The adjective normally means ‘first of two’ (cf. 991) and so here commentators are agreed in taking it as

‘without provocation’, i.e. ‘I am being mistreated first (of us) before I have done anything to offend you’.

But he is not saying that and the audience could hardly be expected to buy it anyway. Grammatically, the

comparative adjective belongs with the participle and we should probably print πρότερον, as the sense is

equivalent to the adverb (cf. 781 and Ἱππεῖς 1355, αἰσχύνοµαί τοι ταῖς πρότερον ἁµαρτίαις).

πολλ(ὰ) αὐτοὺς εὖ πεποιηκώς

In general, εὖ ποιέω can be translated simply as ‘to treat well’, in which case we can understand πολλὰ as

having an adverbial function. Sommerstein’s “doing them many favours” and Henderson’s “treated them

abundantly well” are both ways of doing so. But, what are these favours and how did he treat them well?

Presumably, he means that he benefited them through his dramas, but then why does he not say so? Τhis

may have been his intention, for if we consider the verb in concert with ὁ ποιητὴς from the previous line

we may be meant to take πολλὰ as an adjective describing his κωµῳδικὰ δράµατα and understand that he

“created many fine comic-dramas” (cf. Βάτραχοι 1021, δρᾶµα ποήσας). The question then becomes what

to make of the accusative αὐτοὺς. What may have happened is that the poet wrote, πολλὰ <sc. δράµατα>

αὐτοῖς εὖ πεποιηκώς, only to have a copyist mistake the indirect object for a direct object.

1018. τὰ µὲν

MacDowell calls this an adverbial accusative, but it can be taken to follow on from the πολλὰ (δράµατα).

ἐπικουρῶν...ἑτέροισι ποιηταῖς

In military terms, ἐπίκουροι were auxiliaries who supported the main force, either as allies or sometimes

as paid mercenaries. In Λυσιστράτη (110), σκυτίνη ἐπικουρία is provided by a dildo. Here Aristophanes is

telling his audience that he served his apprenticeship writing for other comic-poets. We might say “giving

back-up”. Whether he was paid for this or if it was an unpaid internship, we do not know.

This passage has stirred scholarly debate, because he mentions ‘different poets’ and not the sole poet with

whom we know him to have collaborated, Kallistratos. Starkie’s proposal to treat the plural as ‘generic’ is

“not entirely convincing” (MacDowell) and, in any case, as Griffith noted, it is doubtful whether we could

justifiably call Kallistratos a poet for acting as χορηγός, (though Philonides, who produced other works of

Aristophanes, was himself a comic-poet, and so Kallistratos may have been a poet too).

The suggestion that Philonides had in fact produced Νεφέλαι the previous year seems to me unlikely and

in any case Aristophanes’ collaboration with the other poets must surely predate the production of Ἱππεῖς,

since he seems to have produced that play in his own name (cf. 1021). So, the only reasonable inference

one can draw is that he contributed to other people’s works as well as composing his own.

1019. τὴν Εὐρυκλέους µαντείαν

Eurykles was a medium who gave credibility to his ‘voices’ by using ventriloquism to make it seem that

they came from others. A ventriloquist’s predictions come by definition from his own stomach (not from

the stomachs of others, regardless of what Plato says and Plutarch repeats). He could throw his voice, so

that the words appeared to come from the mouths of other people.

1020. εἰς ἀλλοτρίας γαστέρας...χέασθαι

Plutarch’s belief (Ἠθικά 414ε) that ‘people like the ventriloquist Eurykles of old’ (τοὺς ἐγγαστριµύθους

Εὐρυκλέας) spoke from the stomachs of others is probably the result of his having misconstrued this line.

He has understood Aristophanes to be saying that Eurykles appeared to have entered into other people’s

bodies (ἐνδυόµενον εἰς τὰ σώµατα) because the poet uses the same participle ἐνδὺς here of himself. But,

the joke in the comparison is that while the fraudulent seer spoke from his own stomach without moving

his lips, Aristophanes made his comedy pour out from other people’s stomachs, as if he was inside them.

In fact, the purpose of the comparison is twofold. Not only is the poet ‘giving his voice’ to others, as any

117

dramatist may be said to do, but he is making other poets fertile. By playing with the second meaning of

γαστέρας, ‘wombs’, he could say that he was using surrogates to bring forth his comic works. He is using

a similar metaphor to that employed in Νεφέλαι (530-1) where he had claimed that his earlier works were

produced by “some other woman” (ἑτέρα τις) because as “a virgin” (παρθένος) it was not possible for him

to give birth himself.

The lack of a specific noun with κωµῳδικὰ leaves open the possibility that his comedies caused laughter

to pour forth, so that we could have the first instance of a comic-writer inducing a belly-laugh? The idea

of comic inspiration issuing from stomachs may have been suggested by the famous opening of Hesiod’s

poem where the Muses berate the boorish peasantry for being ‘mere stomachs’ (Θεογονία 22f.)

1021. κινδυνεύων

The poet risked critical failure in the drama-competition, but he also liked to make out that his satire put

him in danger of the opprobrium of the powerful political figures he pillories.

καθ’ ἑαυτόν

In the παράβασις of Ἱππεῖς (513) the chorus-leader says that the poet is often asked why in the past he did

not apply for a chorus “in his own right” (καθ’ ἑαυτόν), giving the impression that for that play at least he

had found the confidence to do so. This is certainly the inference drawn by the scholiast on this line.

1022. οἰκείων Μουσῶν

Literally, “putting bridles in the mouths of my own Muses instead of those of other people”. MacDowell

compares Βάτραχοι where Euripides is spoken of as having a personal Muse. The image of ‘harnessing

the Muses to his chariot’ is parodying Pindaric elements, such as ‘yoking oxen to plough in the Graces’s

field’ and ‘chariot-songs’. But, whereas Pindar’s Muses can be presumed to be driving the chariot-song,

Aristophanes has them pulling his. Here, he can be taken to mean that he is ‘giving free rein to original,

comedic ideas of his own’ rather than writing scenarios based on the ideas of others.

1023. ἀρθεὶς δὲ µέγας

The verb ἀείρω is used metaphorically as in Aischylos’s Χοηφόροι 262, ἀπὸ σµικροῦ δ’ ἂν ἄρειας µέγαν

δόµον - “<I pray> you may exalt <our> dynasty from its mean <status>”.

τιµηθεὶς...ἐν ὑµῖν

In priding himself on his past successes, Aristophanes seems to become a ‘son of Sellos’. We may try to

justify his boast with the supposition that, when he took first prize at the Lenaia of 424 B.C. with Ἱππεῖς,

on his directorial debut, he may have been feted for the achievement because he was still considered very

young. Sommerstein (addenda p.xxix) has suggested that perhaps he was uniquely celebrated because he

had achieved ‘a double’; victories at the City Dionysia in 426 (Βαβυλώνιοι) and at the subsequent Lenaia

in 425 (Ἀχαρνεῖς).

1024. οὐκ ἐκτέλεσαι

Hall and Geldart rightly obelize the infinitive; it does not mean ‘turn out’ or ‘become’ as we would like it

to. Nor can it stand adverbially for ‘completely’; while the actual adverb ἐκτελῶς is not found until much

later. But, the likelihood is that it has replaced an adverb, since (like MacDowell) a copyist was under the

imression that it must be an infinitive of indirect speech like those which follow. In fact, the best solution

is to emend ἐκτέλεσαι to an adverb qualifying the participle. My suggestion would be either ἐντελεχῶς, a

rarity found in Plato (Νόµοι 905ε) or better ἐντελές τοι.

Wilson (p.92) mentions an alternative proposal ἐκγελάσαι (“laugh out loud”) along with a suggestion of

his own ἐκχαλάσαι. Both are palaeographically feasible, but neither fits the context well. Wilson’s verb,

which is exceedingly rare, is said to translate as, “he did not slack off”, but as it could no more be taken

intransitively than ἐκτέλεσαι, one has to assume an ellipse such as he did not slacken his effort to amuse.

This is a possibility and Dutta’s “resting on his laurels” appears to derive from this idea. Alternatively,

one could understand ἐκχαλάσαι <τὴν ὀργήν> (cf. LSJ), but this would prefigure line 1030 and so seems

premature at this point.

ἐπαρθείς

MacDowell manages the word-play of ἀρθεὶς - ἐπαρθείς neatly with, “though raised…he didn’t get above

himself”. The qualifying adverb is a tacit admission that he was in fact affected by his celebrity status.

ὀγκῶσαι τὸ φρόνηµα

The verb, though transitive (‘to magnify his self-importance’), is best taken intransitively in English. It is

equivalent to saying “became conceited”. So, although he might have become a bit big-headed, he didn’t

let it go to his head!

118

1025. περικωµάζειν πειρῶν

The first verb was used of religious processions in which the celebrants would sing hymns in praise of the

deity whose image they carried. Alkiphron (56) shows that its use could be extended to serenading lovers.

So, the readings of the codices περιών (V) or περιιών (RΓJ) seem redundant and Brunck’s emendation of

the participle to πειρῶν looks to be necessary. The verb πειράω here means “courting” or “attempting to

seduce” (cf. Ἱππεῖς 517, πολλῶν...πειρασάντων αὐτὴν - “though many have tried to get her into the sack”,

referring to the Muse of Comedy).

The poet’s protestation of his modest and decorous behaviour is a kind of standing joke in which a comic-

poet plants an idea in the minds of his audience that might not have occurred to them otherwise, while at

the same time boastfully proclaiming his lack of conceit. He repeats the claim in the parabasis of Εἰρήνη

using similar words (762-3, οὐχὶ παλαίστρας περινοστῶν παῖδας ἐπείρων). A scholiast thought that these

claims were made to counter Eupolis’s criticism of him for doing precisely that (Eupolis frg. 65), περιῄει

τὰς παλαίστρας σεµνυνόµενος καὶ τοῖς παισὶν ἑαυτὸν δῆλον ποιῶν τῆς νίκης ἕνεκα - “he goes around the

wrestling-schools with his nose in the air, making the boys notice him, because of his victory”, but in fact,

his rival is using his own words against him. Eupolis’s mockery is said to come from his play Αὐτόλυκος,

which, if Arethas’ scholion (Eupolis frg. 62) is correct, must have been produced after Aristophanes had

won first prize with his Εἰρήνη in 421.

1026. κωµῳδεῖσθαι παιδίχ’ ἑαυτοῦ

The spiteful lover wants ‘his boyfriend’ to be subjected to the comic poet’s satiric jibes, but Aristophanes

is above such demeaning behaviour. He is pointedly suggesting that these kinds of backroom deals might

be done, so as to plant the suspicion among his audience that his rivals were cutting them. Some consider

that he was fingering Eupolis’s Αὐτόλυκος which satirized Leagoras’ handsome son, but this is unlikely to

be the case (see previous note). There would have been other dramas, however, to which this mud might

have stuck.

µισῶν

The ‘hatred’ is really self-loathing for desiring someone undeserving, as in the use of the word µισήτη for

a woman who prostitutes herself. The participle is an abbreviation of ‘feeling angry towards his boyfriend

and wanting to revenge himself on him’.

ἔσπευσε πρὸς αὐτόν

Some 15^th century manuscripts and the Aldine edition read the imperfect ἔσπευδε, but the aorist is better

here for a repeated action, “He kept egging him on”.

1027. πιθέσθαι

As often the codices confuse πείθεσθαι with πιθέσθαι (cf. 761).

1028. αἷσιν χρῆται

The phrase “those women he employed” or “with whom he had dealings” clearly carries sexual overtones.

τὰς Μούσας...προαγωγοὺς ἀποφήνῃ

The eponymous ‘Kindly spirits’ in Aischylos’s Εὐµενίδες begin their dance of death with ominous words,

ἐπεὶ Μοῦσαν στυγερὰν ἀποφαίνεσθαι δεδόκηκεν - “seeing that we have resolved to manifest our hellish

music” (309). The active of ἀποφαίνω differs little from the middle voice. The aorist subjunctive becomes

ἀποφάνῃ later on.

There is a niggling doubt over the exact interpretation of this line. Were he to accede to the urging of the

angry lover he might reasonably be said to “prostitute the Muse” (Dutta), but in this case he would be in

the role of ‘procurer’ himself (τῶν Μούσων προαγωγὸς). Instead, his Muses are acting as ‘procuresses’

and the only way they could do that is by running an extortion racket, i.e. by threatening the youth with

comic ridicule unless he goes back to the lover. In denying that he is meretricious, of course, the poet is

letting it be known that he might be open to offers.

1029. πρῶτον γ(ε) ἦρξε

MacDowell’s reservations concerning this phrase are justified, but as he says, we would be unlikely to get

a different meaning out of whatever original text it glosses. Hirschig had proposed reading ἤρξατο ποιεῖν,

which back-dated the claim to artistic integrity to his earliest work, but he did not have artistic control at

that period, so I prefer Wilson’s ὅτε πρῶτον ἐπῆλθε διδάσκων - “when he first came forward to direct”

(p. 92), which also fits the textual tradition better.

διδάσκειν

119

The deceptively easy word διδάσκειν is awkward to translate. Its basic sense is ‘to teach’; hence it is used

of a theatrical producer training a chorus. So, we could supply here ‘χορούς’ and translate, “when I began

producing”. Aristophanes, however, was not a producer in the contemporary sense (unless of a television

production, perhaps); we would more readily call his position as chorus-trainer, directorial. This passage,

however, indicates that he is attaching a greater significance to his role than to say simply, “when I began

to direct plays in my own name”, because he touches on certain specific responsabilities. He has already

told us that he always declined to make fun of individuals on behalf of others (suggesting that this was in

fact done), and he now states that he does not make personal attacks on ordinary people, but instead only

goes after the most powerful. It is clear that he considered himself on a par with the tragic-poets and that

his job entailed more than simply teaching a chorus; he was teaching a city.

ἀνθρώποις φήσ(ι) ἐπιθέσθαι

Conze thought that one ought to read ἀνθρωπίσκοις ἐπιθέσθαι, because in a similar passage in Εἰρήνη the

poet denies “ridiculing ordinary little people or womenfolk”, οὐκ ἰδιώτας ἀνθρωπίσκους κωµῳδῶν οὐδὲ

γυναῖκας (751). However, although he may mean ‘little people’ here, the actual poetic comparison being

made is between ‘human beings’ and ‘wild beasts’.

1030-7.

Aristophanes reworked these lines for the παράβασις of Εἰρήνη (752-9) produced in the following year.

Biles (2006) suggests that the poet’s duel with Kleon is modelled on the confrontation between Glaukos

and Diomedes in Ἰλιάς 6.

1030. ἀλλ(ὰ) Ἡρακλέους

In comparing himself to Herakles, the benefactor of mankind, the poet considers himself ‘courageous’ in

tackling dangerous animals (and indeed he uses θρασέως in the next line), just as the heroic son of Zeus is

said to “have made mortal existence tranquil by his labours, having destroyed beasts that instilled fear”,

µοχθήσας τὸν ἄκυµον θῆκεν βίοτον βροτοῖς πέρσας δείµατα θηρῶν (Euripides Ἡρακλῆς, 699-700). But

initially he is more likely to be using ὀργήν τιν’ ἔχων in its usual sense to express the ‘anger’ or ‘outrage’

which motivates him.

τοῖσι µεγίστοις ἐπιχειρεῖν

He is “tackling the very big <beasts>”. We do not need θῆρσι µεγίστοις or Meineke’s imperfect ἐπεχείρει.

The missing noun can be variously supplied as ‘beasts’ in the case of Herakles and ‘prosecutors’ for the

poet. The parallel passage in Εἰρήνη (752) shows that τοῖσι µεγίστοις was sufficient to express the duality.

In supporting Meineke’s emendation of the infinitive here Wilson seems to overlook the fact that the verb

is in the imperfect tense in Εἰρήνη because direct speech is used, whereas we are still in indirect speech in

this line.

1031-2. τῷ καρχαρόδοντι

Having previously compared Kleon to a dog in the court-scene, Aristophanes goes a step further and casts

him as Kerberos to his own Herakles. This is suggested by the play on Κύννης (the courtesan Kynna) and

Κυνὸς (‘of the Dog-star’), as well as the ring of cronies surrounding him. Additionally, Mastromarco has

noted that the epithet καρχαρόδους (‘shark-toothed’) had been applied to Kerberos by Bakchylides (5.60).

In Ἱππεῖς 1030-4, the connection of the watchdog Kleon with Kerberos was made clear, so that here (and

in Εἰρήνη 313, where ἐκεῖνον τὸν κάτωθεν Κέρβερον is particularly apt now that Kleon has ‘gone below’)

there was no need to mention Kleon by name.

ἀπ(ὸ) ὀφθαλµῶν Κύννης

The Dog-star, Sirius, was believed to emanate harmful rays when it rose. The inhabitants of the island of

Keos held sacrifices to propitiate it and used it as an emblem on their coinage. Here, the poet substitutes

the name of a well-known prostitute, whose name is suggestive (perhaps she did it ‘doggy-style’). Again,

the connection had already been made in Ἱππεῖς, where Kleon’s alter ego ‘Paphlagon’ claims that he has

become the “best man for servicing the Athenian public after…Kynna” (765). The δεινόταται ἀκτῖνες are

a reference to the female’s sultry look, intensified by her otherwise veiled face, which had seduced many

and brought about their financial ruin. My translation is an attempt to express the complex of ideas which

the poet weaves out of the simple threads of sound. The Greek word for ‘bitch’ is actually Κυνώ, which is

found in Herodotos (1.110), where it is also the name of a prostitute (cf. 1402)

1033. ἑκατὸν...κεφαλαὶ

Hesiod describes Kerberos as “the bronze-voiced hound of Hades, brazen, brawny, with its fifty heads”

(Θεογονία 311).There is no need to quibble over the number of heads, for who ever counted the heads of

120

Kerberos and lived? In any case, Kleon’s entourage of yes-men outdoes the mythical monster for yapping

heads.

κολάκων οἰµωξοµένων

The prosecutor’s supporters ‘wail’, but since both he and they are canine, they are imagined in the guise

of hunting dogs “baying” for blood.

1034. χαράδρας ὄλεθρον τετοκυίας

The sound of her voice was like the loud roar of a mountain torrent in spate; and like a torrent it brought

with it the threat of death and destruction.

1035. Λαµίας δ(ὲ) ὄρχεις

The ogress Lamia had once been a beautiful, mortal woman wooed by Zeus. When the jealous Hera killed

her children, she went mad and took her revenge on the children of others. The myth of Lamia is referred

to by Stesichoros and was evidently a subject of tragic-dramas. Euripides had brought her on stage in one

of his tragedies (frg. 472) in which she calls herself ‘Lamia of Libya’. From some such tragic inspiration

Krates had created a comic-drama, of which a fragment (24) refers to a female character able or trying to

imitate a man’s voice, ἀνδριστὶ µιµεῖσθαι φωνήν. This may help to explain why ‘she’ is considered to be

transgender here. Sommerstein suggests that ‘the balls of Lamia’ may be meant to imply that Kleon, as a

female, had ‘no balls’, but in that case one has to wonder why Aristophanes would have given such non-

existent testicles a qualifying adjective. In later literature she becomes a by-word for filthiness and this is

probably due to her treatment in Old Comedy (cf. 1177).

πρωκτὸν δὲ καµήλου

The Σοῦδα, referring to this passage (π. 2950. πρωκτός), provides a variant reading, πρωκτὸν...καµίνου,

which, though at variance with all the manuscripts, seems quite as likely. Although the genitive would

have to be construed awkwardly as meaning ‘like a furnace-flue’ the simile might be thought apt enough.

However, the manuscript reading fits the outlandish list and presumably would have struck a chord with

some of the spectators.

MacDowell compares the poetic rhythm of this line with the description of the fantastical Chimaira in the

Ἰλιάς 6.181.

1037. µετ(ὰ) αὐτὸν

The codices read µετ’ αὐτοῦ, i.e. ‘along with Kleon’, but Bentley thought, I think correctly, that we ought

to understand “after Kleon”, because the poet is moving on to mention his targets in the previous year and

although Kleon is bound to have been satirized at some point in 423 given his prominent political role, we

have no extant mockery of him other than some incidental remarks in the παράβασις of Νεφέλαι (586-94).

So, with Kleon out of the frame, the progression of Aristophanes’ account becomes clearer. Nevertheless,

it may be that the codices have preserved the original reading, since Aristophanes is frequently elliptical.

In Νεφέλαι, where the codices read µετὰ τὸν Πασίαν (30), we are clearly meant to understand µετὰ τοῦ

Πασία <τὸ χρέος> - “after Pasias’s (debt)”, and so here we should retain µετ’ αὐτοῦ, and take him to be

saying, “after his (come-uppance)”, for which one may compare the similar ellipse ἔσται Λάχητι (240).

1038. τοῖς ἠπιάλοις ἐπιχειρῆσαι

A scholion (frg.399) explains that an ague (ἠπίαλος) was a medical term for τὸ πρὸ τοῦ πυρετοῦ κρῦος -

“the cold sweats preceding a fever”. Aristophanes himself says as much in his Θεσµοριάσασαι (frg. 346),

ἅµα δ’ ἠπίαλος πυρετοῦ πρόδροµος. So here, the combination of ἠπίαλος and πυρετός seems to indicate

metaphorically the cold fits of shivering followed by sweating brought on by thoughts of having to face

legal prosecution.

The verb may have been selected as a play on the phrase πηδαλίοις ἐπιχειρῆσαι (cf. Ἱππεῖς, 542) - ‘to set

one’s hand to the helm’, i.e. “I turned my hand to...” At the same time, Aristophanes conflates the noun

ἐπιάλης, which Hesychios (ε 4612) glosses as ἐφιάλτης - “nightmare”, with the name of one of Herakles’

adversaries, the nightmarish ogre Epiales (Ἠπιάλης or Ἠπιόλης), for which there was a precedent in the

mimes of Sophron (frg. 68) Ἡρακλῆς Ἠπιάλητα πνίγων.

Additionally, Storey points to the possibility that there could be a meta-theatrical reference to Phrynichos’

comic-drama Ἐφιάλτης on the presumption that Aristophanes had recently competed with it at the Lenaia

of 423 (Fragments of Old Comedy vol. III p. 49).

πέρυσιν

This reference to a play from the previous year, which tackled the ‘heebie-jeebies’ has produced feverish

speculation among scholars. Since we know that Νεφέλαι had been produced at the City Dionysia in 423,

121

scholars have turned the spotlight on the stage of the Lenaia in that year and tried to guess which of the

lost works of Aristophanes may have been put on there. Meineke originally speculated that the putative

drama could have been Ὁλκάδες and Platnauer (1949) later supported his view. The idea is based upon a

comment in a hypothesis (iii) of Εἰρήνη that Ὁλκάδες was one of three plays of around this period, which

favoured making peace (the other two being Ἀχαρνεῖς and Ἱππεῖς). But, that does not take us very far. We

are looking for a theme which, unlike the constant, overhanging dangers of war, generated bouts of fever

sporadically. Consequently, we have concluded that these distempers were the result of the συκοφάνται,

who embroiled citizens in the courts (often on specious charges) ‘along with’ the legal harrassment of his

political foes by Kleon.

However, there is no need to speculate as to whether Ὁλκάδες was performed at the Lenaia of 423 (or if

Γεωργοί, as Willems suggests, was produced at the Dionysia of 424), nor indeed whether either of these

plays satirized Kleon, for even if the performance dates are right and Kleon was again subjected to comic

barbs, Bentley’s interpretatation of µετ’ αὐτοῦ renders such conjectures irrelevant. The poet has moved

on from his earlier assault on Kleon and is now turning his attention to those whose ‘sophistry’ lay behind

the plethora of prosecutions. The horror of the obvious often bedevils scholarly investigation and fixated

on the συκοφάνται, commentators have ignored the play which we know to have been performed in 423.

The principal targets of Νεφέλαι were the ‘chills and fevers’, people like Sokrates and Chairephon whose

‘school’ had been burned down in the previous year’s play for having turned out so many of the ‘lawyers’

that caused these nightmares. It is because we insist on seeing them as aimiable intellectuals attending the

literary symposia of Plato and Xenophon that we often fail to see them in the light in which Aristophanes

portrayed them, as the root cause of aggressive litigation.

1039. ἦγχον…ἀπέπνιγον

It seems necessary to emphasize that the poet is using metaphor here, a poetic technique which appears to

have caught some commentators off guard. Initially, the ‘shivers / nightmares’ get fathers in a wrestling

hold (not necessarily by the throat). In Ἱππεῖς (775), Aristophanes uses it of creditors ‘putting the squeeze

on’ their debtors and, of course, it carries through, via Latin anxius, to our word ‘anxiety’. But, whereas

fathers are immobilized by night-terrors, the grandfathers of the second part of the metaphor are finished

off by respiratory failure and so collapse gasping for air.

The first part of the phrase seems to be a call-back to the opening scene of Νεφέλαι, in which the father,

Strepsiades, is anxiously pacing the floor unable to sleep because of the menace of pending prosecutions.

But there, the old man was being hounded through the courts for his son’s debts, whereas the poet seems

to be suggesting here that the younger generation were using their new education to turn on parents and

grandparents in the courts (as Pheidippides had ultimately turned his debating skills against his father).

The whole idea of nightmares choking anxious parents appears to derive from the Syracusan Sophron, in

one of whose mimes the phrase ἠπιάλης ὁ τὸν πατέρα πνίγων occurs (frg. 67).

1040. κατακλινόµενοί τ(ε) ἐπὶ ταῖς κοίταις

The idea that the ἠπίαλοι are συκοφάνται makes the thought of them ‘lying down on the beds’ with their

victims too hard for some to visualize. Wilson (pp. 92-3) goes so far as to recommend an emendation by

Hamaker (κατακλινοµένους ἐν ταῖς…) so that the victims are abed alone. But, what is so difficult about

nightmares or illnesses sharing one’s bed metaphorically?

τοῖσιν ἀπράγµοσιν ὑµῶν

He appeals to (the majority of) the audience who are not legal experts and would be easily intimidated by

the officious authority of court documents.

MacDowell draws attention to a useful study by Ehrenberg (1947) on the positive, political connotations

of ἀπραγµοσύνη in contrast to the πραγµοσύνη of sycophants and demagogues.

1041. συνεκόλλων

Like goblins the ‘nightmare’ creatures of the courts “were cobbling together” legal documents. So too, in

Νεφέλαι, the harassed father expresses his desire to become a lawyer, ψευδῶν συγκολλητής, “a cobbler of

lies” (446).

1042. ἀναπηδᾶν

In terror “they leap out of bed”; cf. Ὄρνιθες 490, ἀναπηδῶσιν πάντες - “all <working men> leap out of

bed <at dawn>”.

ὡς τὸν πολέµαρχον

122

We can only speculate why the oppressed litigants would have had recourse to this particular archon. In

spite of his title, his function was now primarily religious and, as this passage suggests, legal. MacDowell

notes that the polemarch was involved in the legal process in cases involving non-citizens and, since he

assumes that the poet is referring solely to pernicious prosecutions by συκοφάνται, draws the conclusion

“that many συκοφάνται were not citizens but metics”. So, as Sommerstein puts it, “those harried by the

συκοφάνται are envisaged as going to the polemarch to demand that their tormentors produce sureties

for their appearance in court”. But, even if the fourth-century legal speeches on which these theories of

the polemarch’s role are based can be taken as evidence of fifth-century practice, there is nothing to say

that the archon’s legal remit was limited to dealing with the unenfranchised. Also, Aristophanes clearly

wishes to show that the polemarch can provide some form of legal assistance, he is not trying to brand the

prosecutors (whether συκοφάνται or those with a genuine grievance) as metics.

1043. ἀλεξίκακον...καθαρτὴν

Aristophanes uses of himself epithets which would normally be applied to a hero like Herakles since he

“wards off evil<doers>” and “cleans out” the Augean stables of Athenian political life.

1044. πέρυσιν

This time commentators agree that he is talking about Νεφέλαι which placed third at the Dionysia of 423.

It may be that he had also entered a play at the Lenaia, but if so, that too had failed to carry off a prize.

καινοτάταις...διανοίαις

Aristophanes prided himself (justifiably or not, it is hard to know) on “always introducing fresh kinds of

<comic situations>” - ἀεὶ καινὰς ἰδέας εἰσφέρων (Νεφέλαι 547). Here, he complains that he has been let

down by an audience who failed to appreciate his cutting-edge comedy.

Hall and Geldart have remained faithful to the codices, but the syntax is open to question. Evidently, he is

telling the spectators that “you completely betrayed (καταπροδίδωµι) the poet (αὐτὸν) last year when he

had sown (variants: σπαίροντ’, σπαίροντες, σπαίροντας) his spanking-new ideas”. But, where were these

ideas sown and why are they in the dative case? Two alternative emendments have been offered. Hecker

proposed reading σπείραντ(α) αὐτὴν <sc. τὴν χώραν τήνδε > διανοίαις - “having sown the land with…”

But, editors have preferred to adopt Bothe’s correction to the accusative καινοτάτας...διανοίας, in which

case, the ideas had presumably been sown in the audience’s minds.

1045. ἀναλδεῖς

This word, rare for us, but probably heard commonly enough by an audience with roots in the Attic soil,

extends the metaphor of planting ideas. The verse mirrors the biblical parable of seed falling on infertile

ground, which in this case signifies the dull-witted philistines, some of whom (as Stewart Lee might say)

might need to raise their game.

1046. σπένδων πόλλ(α) ἐπὶ πολλοῖς

To interpret repeated libations as reinforcing the solemnity of an oath misses the crucial consideration that

Aristophanes is swearing by Dionysos, the god of wine as well as drama. It is equivalent to raising a glass

to someone’s health so frequently that one’s own health is jeopardized.

1047. ἔπη...κωµῳδικὰ...ἀκοῦσαι

At the beginning of the παράβασις (1017) he had spoken about the overall quality of his comic invention

in the dramas; now he emphasizes the originality of his poetry.

1049. παρὰ τοῖσι σοφοῖς

He butters up the spectators once again by suggesting that a discerning audience would recognize his wit.

1050. εἰ παρελαύνων

The reading of the codices εἴπερ ἐλαύνων was a copying error. Bothe saw that the real text was cited in a

marginal note. The poet resurrects the metaphor of the ‘chariot-song’ (1022) to explain that he had only

crashed out of the race (i.e. dramatic competition) by virtue of trying to overtake his rival poets in wit. He

is alluding to his ‘disastrous’ result in the previous year’s dramatic competition when he was placed as

second runner-up to Kratinos.

τὴν ἐπίνοιαν ξυνέτριψεν

Thompson (1895) had a keen appreciation of the demands that our poet made on his audience and thought

it likely that there was a pun hidden in ἐπίνοια (“his inventiveness which came a cropper”). He suggested

that the word ἐπιχνοία (derived from χνόη, Ionic χνοίη, ‘axle-box’) may have existed to describe the ends

of an axle (or hub-caps, perhaps).

1051-9.

123

The regular tetrameter verses come to an end and the chorus-leader winds down his diatribe with a run of

eighteen anapaestic metra in what is called the πνῖγος. MacDowell compares the effect to that of the Lord

Chancellor’s patter song ‘When you’re lying awake’ in act 2 of Gilbert and Sullivan’s Iolanthe.

τὸ λοιπὸν

Forgetting his grudge he advises the audience “for the future” (cf. Εἰρήνη 222).

1054. θεραπεύετε

The verb has a wide range of connotations. It is used primarily of medical attendants ‘nursing’ a patient,

but can also be applied to ‘looking after’ or ‘cultivating’ land, people, faculties or divinities. Here the poet

seems to be thinking of “nurturing” talent.

1056. εἰς τὰς κιβωτοὺς

The Chorus advises the audience to remember what they’ve heard and in a month or two, when they put

their winter cloaks in store, they should preserve the poet’s observations in the same way they look after

their clothes. The word µῆλα normally requires qualification, which Aristophanes purposely omits, since

on its own it is often used to suggest immature, female breasts. The audience, however, would understand

from the context that he was referring to dried, citrus peel, used as we use lavender or pot pourri, to deter

moths and mice and to lend the garments a pleasant aroma. (Not the whole fruit, which would quickly rot

in the summer heat.)

We have already heard the son call for τὴν κίστην, a small box or basket for storing bric-a-brac. The item

of furniture mentioned here, ἡ κιβωτὸς, a large box or chest was a familiar receptacle for clothes or linen

long after the introduction of the wardrobe. Its storage function made it suitable for expressing the ark of

Moses and its shape for describing the ark of Noah (cf. myths of Danaë and Thoas).

1057. ποιῆθ’

It is worth noting that the codices agree on ποῆθ’, a form sometimes used by Aristophanes, even though

the first syllable is required to scan long here.

δι(ὰ) ἔτους

The spectators are not told to leave their clothes in store ‘for a year’, taking them out “after a year”, since

they will need them again once summer ends. The preposition seems analogous to the American usage in

the phrase ‘Monday through Friday’, and here can be assumed to mean “until next year”. The Athenian

administrative year changed in midsummer, when a new archon took office, so the clothes would be ‘in

the closet’ from spring until autumn during the changeover of the official year.

1059. ὀζήσει

The impersonal use of the verb with a double genitive produces, “there will be an aroma of wit for your

cloaks”.

1060-1121.

The second half of the παράβασις marks the return of the Chorus. The old men have been forced to accept

their decrepitude in the battle to free their fellow-juror as well as their subservience to the demagogues.

But now they wish to remind the audience that they were once a force to be reckoned with. The sentiment

is found in a traditional, choral ode sung by elderly men at Spartan festivals (Plutarch, Λυκοῦργος 21.2),

ἄµµες πόκ’ ἦµες ἄλκιµοι νεανίαι (ἡµεῖς πότε ἦµεν ἄλκιµοι νεηνίαι) - “once we were valiant young men”.

1060. ὦ πάλαι ποτ(ε)

An ancient scholiast says that Aristophanes is parodying a proverb, πάλαι ποτ’ ἦσαν ἄλκιµοι Μιλήσιοι -

“Milesians were valiant once upon a time” which was used when one wanted to express the opinion that

we live in degenerate times. But, the ‘proverb’ probably originated in a song, perhaps telling of the tragic

fate of Miletos (ἡ Ἅλωσις Μιλήτου) by Phynichos. So, there is irony in the fact that the Chorus lays claim

to a heroic past in words that may have been used originally to deplore the Milesian’s failure to withstand

Persia.

The metre used here is trochaic tetrameters, the preferred rhythm of Phrynichos (cf. Σοῦδα) and the same

(with the addition of ὢ) as that employed in the ‘proverb’.

ὄντες ἡµεῖς

We are asked to accept the participle in lieu of a main verb in a past tense. MacDowell compares a phrase

from a speech of Andocides (περὶ τῶν Μυστηρίων 51), ὢ πάντων ἐγὼ δεινοτάτῃ συµφορᾷ περιπεσών, but

this seems to me an ellipse of, “oh, <wretched me for> having fallen into this most terrible of dilemmas!”

Here, the present participle jars in a past context, so I would read ὄντως and leave the verb as understood.

124

This would break exact responsion with the sixth syllable in 1091, but already the eighth syllable does not

correspond. A literal translation would be, “oh yes, we <were> indeed…”

ἄλκιµοι…ἐν χοροῖς

The adjective is normally used of ‘showing strength’ in fighting, and I wonder whether perhaps the order

of µάχαις and χοροῖς may have been reversed in the original text, since the verse being parodied and 1062

both refer to the Milesians and Athenians putting up valiant resistance to existential threats. This mention

of their ‘stamina’ in dancing, given that the speakers are in fact dancers, calls attention to their endurance,

encumbered as they are with masks and costumes. Besides, this particular chorus is composed of old men,

so they are quick to point out that ‘in their younger days’ their performance would have been much more

energetic than at present.

The correlation between dancing in a chorus-line and fighting in a battle-line is no poetic fancy. We hear

from Athenaios (628ε-ϝ) that the choreography was aligned with the movements of armed warriors and he

cites Sokrates’ verse which asserted that “those who can best honour the gods in choruses make the finest

fighters” (οἱ δὲ χοροῖς κάλλιστα θεοὺς τιµῶσιν, ἄριστοι ἐν πολέµῳ).

1062. κατ(ὰ) αὐτὸ <δὴ> τοῦτο

The third activity in which they claim to have shown their stamina was “in regard to this thing here”. We

can presume them to be indicating their ‘stingers’, the property-phallos worn by each dancer, with which

they terrorized defendants in court metaphorically, and bread-sellers in unlit streets at night physically.

Hall and Geldart print δὴ before τοῦτο, which seems to have been inserted by a fifteenth-century scholar,

presumably intending to remedy a perceived metrical problem. It is found in the citation of these lines by

Apostolius and in the Aldine edition. Recent editors delete it as otiose.

µόνον

Griffith suggested µοῦνον. The Ionic form suits the epic tone and improves the scansion by removing an

intrusive paeon, one of MacDowell’s ‘reduced metra’ (so − ˞ ˞ ˞ becomes − ˞ − ˞). The sense “uniquely”

attaches to the following adjective.

ἄνδρες ἀλκιµώτατοι

The reading in the codices ἄνδρες µαχιµώτατοι does not scan (because the first word is a spondee) and we

owe our present text to Bentley. We can only assume that µαχιµώτατοι had been a gloss which ousted the

original, though why the superlative required further elucidation is a puzzle. Aristophanes uses the word

µαχιµώτατον to describe the Thracian race as ‘bellicose’ in Ἀχαρνεῖς (153) and it would not be unsuitable

here. But, as MacDowell comments, the repetition in ἀλκιµώτατοι does make a fitting climax.

1064-5. κύκνου τ(ε) <ἔτι> πολιώτεραι...

According to a scholiast, Didymos had identified these words as parodying lyrics of the fifth-century poet

Timokreon of Rhodes. Aristophanes’ lines make clear that the comparison with swans is restricted to the

whiteness of old men’s hair resembling the bird’s white plumage. It is a comparison which sounds faintly

mawkish here, but could have been intended as self-flattery by the original chorus. The opportunity for a

chorus of old men to preen themselves on their age, rather than regretting it, may have accounted for the

popularity of the poetic trope which developed. There are other examples of chorus-members indicating

their advanced age by noting the whiteness of their hair. In Euripides’ Ἡρακλῆς, for instance, a chorus of

Theban elders vow to Apollo that, παιᾶνας...κύκνος ὣς γέρων ἀοιδὸς πολιᾶν ἐκ γενύων κελαδήσω - “in

our dotage we shall sing hymns out loud as a choir from beards as white as swans” (691-4). However, in

these verses the positioning of κύκνος ὣς leaves open the possibility that the old men are like aged swans

in their singing and this perception has given rise to the ‘swan-song’. In fact, swans do not sing (which is

why, after all, they are called mute).

Hall and Geldart print Reisig’s additional ἔτι, but more recent editors remain unconvinced. The line may

be meant to respond to 1095, but on this analysis the final δὴ should be a short syllable and in any case it

seems a mere fill-in (Sommerstein translates “truly”).

…ἐπάνθουσιν τρίχες

For white hairs blossoming on an old man’s pate, compare Iokaste’s description of Laios in Sophokles’

Οἰδίπους Τύραννος, χνοάζων ἄρτι λευκανθὲς κάρα - “white down just blossoming on his head” (742).

The same metaphor is used in Ἐκκλησιάζουσαι 13, τὴν ἐπανθοῦσαν τρίχα.

1066-7. ῥώµην νεανικὴν σχεῖν

The reading of the codices, ἔχειν, was emended to σχεῖν by Reisig, since the old men are not ‘possessed

of’ youthful vigour; rather they feel the need to “get” some. Given the Ionian tone of this ode the spelling

125

of νεανικὴν might be better as νεηνικὴν (and also νεηνιῶν in 1070), since both words must be scanned as

amphimacers and the first two vowels are run together.

1067-9. τοὐµὸν...γῆρας...κρεῖττον

Although they regret their grey hair and lack of energy, they can still sneer at the degenerate youths who

lounge around all day and spend their time at the barber’s, having their hair elaborately styled. Inevitably,

old age envies youth for habits it can no longer cultivate.

1070. σχῆµα κεὐρυπρωκτίαν

As MacDowell rightly observes the word σχῆµα can refer both to dress and posture, but its combination

here with “wide-arsedness” indicates that it is primarily intended to indicate stance. The younger upper-

class Athenians are mocked in Νεφέλαι for hanging around the Agora chattering when they should be

engaged in manly sports. To the old men their relaxed poses are an indication of their sexual orientation,

just as lawyers, tragic-actors and political orators are said to be ‘wide-arsed’ due to the histrionic poses

they strike (cf. Νεφέλαι 1089-1100).

The crasis κεὐρυ- in our text is Kuster’s correction of the reading found in the codices (κηὐρυ-), but when

the Σοῦδα cites the line the words are not run together and it is possible that Aristophanes’ own text read

καὶ εὐρυπρωκτίαν, so that the singers were left to fit the verse to the music as phrasing dictated.

1071. τὴν ἐµὴν...φύσιν

Until now the resemblance of the old jurymen to wasps has been shown mainly by their malevolence and

aggression; their only point of physical similarity has been their ‘stinger’. But, their waspishness is also

evident in another trait of their “physical appearance”.

1072. διεσφηκωµένον

The participle puns on διεσφιγµένον (‘drawn in tight’), making the old men “narrow-waisted like wasps”.

Before the First World War upper-class ladies wore tight-fitting corsets called ‘waspies’ to emphasize the

fullness of bosom and buttock. But these former naval oarsmen were naturally broad in the torso and thin-

waisted. It was suggested earlier (partly in jest) that their narrow waistline was due to a lack of nutrition

(cf. 674).

1073. ἡ (ἐ)πίνοια τῆς ἐγκεντρίδος

You may be wondering, he says, what is ‘the thinking behind’ my stinger, i.e. what purpose does it serve?

1074. ἄµουσος

The phrase is quoted from Euripides’ Σθενεβοία (frg.663), ποιητὴν δ’ ἄρα Ἔρως διδάσκει, κἂν ἄµουσος

ᾖ τὸ πρίν - “Love teaches one to be a poet, even if one has had no prior training in poetry” (cf. 111). The

use of the phrase here suggests that it had become well-worn in everyday speech. It is the old man making

another dig at educated youth. The older generation, men like Laches (959) and Philokleon (989), had not

had the benefit of a liberal education, as they had been too occupied fighting for their country (“up to our

necks in mud and bullets”, as Steptoe senior used to remind his son).

1075. τοῦτο τοὐρροπύγιον

Aristophanes always employs the innocent word ὀρροπύγιον (‘abdomen’) in crasis so that it appears to be

formed from οὖρον and πυγίδιον (cf. Νεφέλαι 158, 162, used of a mosquito).

1076. αὐτόχθονες

The Athenians believed, as Thucydides writes, that the relative scarcity of arable land in Attika had made

it unattractive to invading migrants, so that “the same people had always occupied it” (ἄνθρωποι ᾤκουν

οἱ αὐτοὶ αἰεί, 1.2.5).

1078-9. ἡνίκ(α)...πυρπολῶν

The Medes’ attempt at regime change had been beaten off at Marathon, but when the Persians decided to

eliminate the Athenian nuisance once and for all they came in overwhelming force. This time, the ‘wasps’

abandoned their homes and took to their ships, so that although Xerxes destroyed the ‘nest’, he failed to

exterminate the pests.

τῷ καπνῷ τύφων

The poet pictures the smoke hanging over the burning city as a Persian effort to ‘smoke out’ the wasps.

But, although setting fire to a nest would eliminate real wasps, smoke would only annoy them and they

would return like bees to the hive (cf. 459).

1080. ἐξελεῖν...τ(ὰ) ἀνθρήνια

Strictly speaking, he is talking of hornets’ nests, but throughout the play no distinction is made between

hornets, bees and wasps (cf. 229, 1082).

126

1081. εὐθέως...ἐκδραµόντες

One might be forgiven for thinking here that they had taken the offensive against Xerxes, and had “sallied

forth immediately” as hoplites, but the following lines are actually a reference to the battle at Marathon.

ξὺν δορὶ ξὺν ἀσπίδι

Bearing in mind that this is comic-chorus, the quotation of a well-worn phrase from tragic-drama cannot

be mere embellishment. The words, said to be taken from the play Μῶµος by Achaios of Eretria (frg. 29),

apply to warriors advancing into battle. But, in this case, the old men are armed only with the weapons of

Eros (cf. 1062), which they probably display. Aristophanes uses the phrase agin in Εἰρήνη 356.

1082. θυµὸν ὀξίνην πεπωκότες

As soldiers ready for battle they are psyched up into an impassioned rage (cf. Sophokles Οἰδ. ἐπὶ Κολώνῳ

1193, θυµὸς ὀξύς) against the invading Medes, but, as they are ‘wasps’, they are thought of as having fed

on the nectar of ‘sharp-tasting thyme’, the herb favoured by honey-bees. However, the adjective indicates

that the literal meaning of the words is that the men have been drinking the poor-man’s wine, sour grape-

vinegar, which was mulled with an infusion of the same herb. Since the verb ‘to drink’ is combined with

an adjective (‘tart-tasting’) used of drinks (e.g. Hermippos frg. 88, ὀξίνης <οἶνος>) it is clear that the poet

intended us to read θύµον ὀξίνην. The audience would be reminded here of Bdelykleon’s prayer that his

father’s bitter nature (πικρῷ τῷ θυµιδίῳ) be sweetened with honey (878).

1083. παρ(ὰ) ἄνδρ(α)

The Ravenna codex offers πρὸς instead, which would mean ‘hand-to-hand combat’. But, clearly, the poet

is describing how they were ranged ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ in the battle-line.

τὴν χελύνην ἐσθίων

The phrase “chewing on our lip out of anger” indicates that their faces were contorted by the intensity of

their feelings. This was the genuine ardour which they had been feebly trying to summon up earlier when

βλεπόντων κάρδαµα (455). The expression derives from Homeric epic, e.g. in Ὀδύσσεια 1.381, οἱ πάντες

ὀδὰξ ἐν χείλεσι φύντες, describing the suitors’ anger when Telemachos openly criticises them (cf. 778).

1084. ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν τοξευµάτων

The Greek hoplite was well-protected by his shield and armour from the Persian artillery of archers and

javelin-throwers as long as the battle-line was maintained. Accordingly, Greek accounts of battles against

the invaders could play down the barrage of “missiles”, as in Herodotos’s story of Spartan bravado before

Thermopylai (7.226). But, once the wall of shields came down and the hand-to-hand mêlée ensued, it was

a different story; witness the grisly end of the Athenian polemarch, Kallimachos (Plutarch Παράλληλα 1).

For the repetition of the same preposition with a different sense cf. 704-5.

1085. ξὺν θεοῖς

Athenian accounts of the Persian invasions placed emphasis on the divine intervention, which helped to

characterize the wars as a Hellenic crusade. The old men were clear that, when defending Attic soil from

foreigners, they had ‘God on their side’, whereas in the recent hostilities Athens could not claim to have

had the gods’ unanimous support against fellow-Greeks.

1086. γλαῦξ

The owl signalled the presence of the Athenians’ patron-goddess. It probably figured in the depiction of

the battle by Panainos, which adorned the so-called ‘Painted’ (Ποικίλη) stoa, because the goddess Athena

herself was represented there. The story (preserved by Plutarch Θεµιστοκλῆς 12.1) that an owl alighted on

the rigging of Themistokles’ flag-ship before the naval engagement off Salamis was probably the product

of some similar pictorial symbolism, possibly to be found in the decoration of the chapel at Phlya (234).

1087. θυννάζοντες...θυλάκους

The poet pictures the Athenians spearing their Asiatic enemies ‘like fish in a barrel’. This seems to be a

reference to a particular element of the battle of Marathon not found in the account given by Herodotos,

but rather influenced by Panainos’s great fresco. The most complete description of the work is provided

by Pausanias (1.15.4), who mentions that the foreigners were shown in a part of the painting, trapped in

marshland, at the mercy of the better-informed, local fighters. The word θυλάκους is evidently used here

of loose-fitting trousers (‘Oxford bags’ or more recently ‘baggies’), which is another detail drawn from

the stoa-painting. The Roman poet Persius (3.53-4) refers to “the stoa of learning painted with trousered

Medes” (sapiens bracatis inlita Medis porticus). But the word was also the term applied to the egg-sacks

of tunnies and would have suggested θυλάκια to some (cf. 314).

1088. τὰς γνάθους καὶ τὰς ὀφρῦς

127

Jeffrey (1965 p. 44) astutely observed that this absurdly literal mention of wasp-stings about the faces of

the enemy may also be a reference to the pictorial representation of the battle of Marathon in the stoa. She

suggested that the headdress of certain native contingents shown in the great fresco might have given the

impression that their faces were swathed in bandages. It would have required a sophisticated audience to

spot such a reference, but a similar allusion is made (cf. Λυσιστράτη 677-9) to the Amazonomachy in the

same stoa and so this may well be the right explanation here.

(ἀντιστροφή)

1091. ἆρα δεινὸς ἦ τόθ’

Standing first in a phrase ἆρα is usually interrogative, although in English one would naturally begin with

a statement of fact. I take it as equivalent to a rhetorical question (cf. 460), i.e. “I inspired fear back in the

day, wouldn’t you say?” The single letter ἦ can stand as the first person singular of the imperfect but since

a second letter is indicated by the Venetus (ῆι), we should probably accept ἢν (R).

πάντα µὴ δεδοικέναι

It is difficult to justify the text as it stands. We seem to hear the Chorus saying, ‘back then, I inspired fear,

with the result that I was unafraid of everything’. MacDowell thought that the periphrasis was tantamount

to saying “to fear nothing”. But, it is ungainly and fails to develop the notion of δεινὸς in the first part of

the line. Suggested emendations have improved the sequence, but at a cost. Starkie had offered πάντ’ ἐκεῖ

(“everyone over there”), but this is superfluous since ἐκεῖσε will be used two lines later. Sommerstein has

adopted Dobree’s, πάντα µ’ ἂν (“so that anyone would have feared me”), which at least adds emphasis to

the opening phrase, but ἂν with the infinitive is usually used for an unlikely contingency, not an assertion.

Henderson preferred an alternative emendation proposed by Hirschig, πάντας ἐµὲ (“so everybody feared

me”). Although this reads well, Wilson (p. 93) questions how it could have produced our present text and

points out besides that there is no reason to lay emphasis on the pronoun. His own explanation, however,

that πάντα was miscopied for ταῦτα introduces fresh ambiguity.

My explanation would be that the text results from scholarly efforts to mend an elliptical phrase. The poet

intended his audience to understand the obvious, i.e. ‘everybody was in fear of me’, but omitted both the

subject and the pronoun; instead he inserted an additional idea πανταχῇ (‘<they> feared <me> on every

side’). Aristophanes regularly uses the form, e.g. Ἱππεῖς 695, Θεσµοφοριάζουσαι. 660, Ὄρνιθες 165.

1093. πλέων ἐκεῖσε

He is referring to the protracted naval campaigns that the Athenians undertook during the period 479-50,

firstly under Perikles’ father Xanthippos, and afterwards under Miltiades’ son Kimon, to establish control

of the Aegean. Their crowning achievement was perhaps the destruction of the Persian forces by land and

sea at the river Eurymedon in 468 B.C. The point of the adverb “thither” must surely be that they took the

fight to the enemy. Barrett’s contention that the Chorus is pointing to Salamis seems improbable.

1094-7. οὐ γὰρ ἦν...φροντίς

The word-order becomes highly ‘poetic’ with key words τότε and φροντίς postponed until after clauses

which logically follow them. The sense is, “in those days, we were not bothered about how we were to

recite a passage well or how we were to involve someone in vexatious litigation”.

Τhe change to the plural ἡµῖν from the singular ἐµὲ (1091) need not be significant, but I have assigned the

opening lines to the chorus-leader anyway.

ῥῆσιν εὖ λέξειν

This phrase is always taken closely with what follows in the sense “to make a good speech”, e.g. in court.

But, in Aristophanes the words normally mean ‘to recite verses’ (cf. 580, Νεφέλαι 1371, Εὐριπίδου ῥῆσιν

τινα and Βάτραχοι 151, Μορσίµου...ῥῆσιν), so the old men are referring, ostensibly, to their lack of high-

brow education, which is daily demonstrated in court by the younger prosecutors and defendants like the

followers of Gorgias (cf. 421) and the ‘learned’ Oiagros (cf. 579). On another level, however, they seem

to be momentarily breaking character to recall their fictional youth when they did not have to learn their

lines as actors.

ουδὲ συκοφαντήσειν τινὰ

Resuming their persona as elderly jurors they admit that they have colluded with malicious prosecutors.

1097. ἀλλ(ὰ) ὅστις…ἔσοιτ(ο)

Elmsley deleted a superfluous ἂν which was added after ὅστις in the codices. The optative is used for an

indirect question, “but as to who might be…”

ἐρέτης...ἄριστος

128

It is faintly ridiculous for an oarsman to contend to be better than others, since a rowing crew is required

to concert its effort (at Oxford, anyhow).

1098. πολλὰς πόλεις Μήδων

This line seems to corroborate the conclusion that ἐκεῖσε referred to Thrace and the coast of Asia Minor,

because a number of Persian trading posts had been taken over a prolonged period, 479-49. MacDowell’s

view, based on the reference to tribute-paying ‘allies’ which follows (1099-1100), that this phrase should

be taken to refer to the “Greek cities…which were overrun by the Persians before 479” limits the navy’s

contribution unnecessarily.

1101. οἱ νεώτεροι

They complain that the subsequent generations have appropriated the spoils of their endeavour. The very

idea of a pirate being robbed kindles outrage, but Aristophanes slyly exposes the older men’s resentment

of their plunder (cf. 1115-6) benefiting the young. This was precisely what Bdelykleon had been arguing.

1102. πολλαχοῦ

It is clear from the context that we are meant to understand the sense “from many points of view”, which

Sommerstein (addenda, xxvii) considers would be better expressed by πολλαχῇ, noting that a papyrus of

the fifth century A.D. (Π76) contains πολλαχη. This is well-worth considering.

εἰς ἅπανθ’

This phrase, “in every way”, qualifies τρόπους and δίαιταν.

1103. τοὺς τρόπους καὶ τὴν δίαιταν

The accusatives limit ἐµφερεστάτους, “in respect of our nature and habits”.

1106. τἄλλ(α)...πάντα

Having just made it clear that the point of comparison (at this point) is limited to their ‘nature and habits’,

there seems little sense in saying “we devise everything else…” Possibly, we should consider ταὐθ’ ὅµοια

πάντα, “everything exactly like wasps”.

1107. ὡσπερεὶ τἀνθρήνια

Hall and Geldart have retained the reading of the codices, but as we have seen (cf. 1080), τὰ ἀνθρήνια are

“hornets’ nests”, not hornets and although Weber (1908, pp. 154-5) argues that we could understand them

to mean ‘nests of hornets’, the specific mention of ἑσµοί (‘swarms’) would render this phrase redundant.

The word for hornets is ἀθρῆναι (cf. Νεφέλαι 947, ὥσπερ ὑπ’ ἀνθρηνῶν), but this would be out of place

here and would require the connective particle τε to avoid elision. As a result, editors now adopt Kock’s

emendation ὥσπερ εἰς ἀνθρήνια - “as if into hornets’ nests”. So, the chorus-men are not comparing them

-selves directly to wasps or hornets, but merely picturing themselves crowding into the law-courts, their

‘habitats’. This mirrors the earlier use of the metaphor by the slave Xanthias, πολλῶν δικαστῶν σφηκιὰν

(229).

1108-9. οἱ µὲν ἡµῶν...δικάζουσ(ι)

Note that Greek uses a verb in the third person here - “some of us they judge”, where we adapt the verb to

agree with the first person contained in ἡµῶν.

These lines are crucial to our understanding of the Athenian judicial system in the last quarter of the fifth

century B.C. We are told that in this period juries sat at three locations.

a) The ‘court where the (chief)-archon sat’, which must have been located in a capacious, public building

somewhere in the Agora. The ‘Painted’ stoa (dating from 457-5 B.C.) is a possible candidate.

b) The ‘court in the presence of the Eleven’. The headquarters of the eleven police commissioners was a

building on the Akropolis, but their daily sessions (what is nowadays called the Αὐτόφωρο) would have

been held somewhere in the lower city, where their court seems to have been called the Parabyston. We

do not know its exact location or precisely how the building got its name but it was probably somewhere

in the Agora and may owe its name to the fact that it was an annexe of a larger structure squeezed into the

narrow space beside it. In Antiphon’s περὶ τοῦ Ἡρῴδου φόνου (10), the defendant protests that a charge of

murder cannot be appropriate, since his case is being tried ‘in the Agora’, evidently at the Parabyston.

c) The Odeion, a Themistoklean building reconstructed in Perikles’ time was actually located next to the

theatre of Dionysos, on the S.E. slope of the Akropolis. When not functioning as a court-room it housed

music concerts.

It should be noted that one class of criminal offence, homicides, were not judged in court-rooms at all.

For religious reasons these cases were conducted in the open air (cf. Antiphon περὶ τοῦ Ἡρῴδου φόνου,

11) and we hear of various locations being used for the purpose.

129

οἱ δὲ πρὸς τοῖς τειχίοις

The manuscript reading would have given us a fourth court, but Starkie’s emendation of οἱ δὲ to ὧδε is

convincing. It makes better sense of the following line and saves us from fruitless speculation regarding

specific walls, of which there is no mention elsewhere. We can also note here that the supposed Καινὸν

<δικαστήριον> (120) receives no mention, so that it too was probably a red herring.

1110. ξυµβεβυσµένοι

It is possible that Aristophanes is punning here. All the court rooms would have been a tight fit and jurors

were probably crammed to the rafters, not just πρὸς τοῖς τειχίοις. But, the Parabyston may have been a bit

smaller than the other two buildings with the result that jurors there were παρα...(ξυµβε)-βυσµένοι πυκνόν

- “packed in together tightly with” the Eleven, like wasps in a nest.

1112-3. πάντα...ἄνδρα

They see themselves as performing a service to the state by condemning every defendant brought before

the courts, on the presumption that the accused is always guilty.

1114-21.

The chorus-men now compare themselves to bees and complain that there are drones sitting among them,

who have no stinger.

1114. κηφῆνες

There might have been an extra edge to this patently derogatory term as Herodotos (7.61) says that it was

also the name used of the Persians, whose luxurious lifestyle was supported by their vast dominions.

1115-6. οἳ µένοντες

Used in the sense of ἀποµένοντες, “those remaining behind”. In Ἀχαρνεῖς (1052), a bridegroom expresses

the wish that “instead of going on campaign he might stay home and have sex <with his new bride>”, ἵνα

µὴ στρατεύοιτ’, ἀλλὰ κινοίη µένων.

τοῦ φόρου τὸν πόνον

Hall and Geldart, along with Bergk, adopt Dobree’s proposal to emend to πόνον here, based on Pindar’s

description of a ‘honeycomb’ as µελισσᾶν τρητὸν πόνον (Πυθ. 6.54). It gives the sense which we would

expect, i.e. “the tribute resulting from our hard work”. MacDowell, however, prefers the reading of the

codices γόνον, which he translates as “our produce (or yield), namely the tribute”. But, while this could

be taken metaphorically (he notes Aischylos’s use of the word to mean ‘the product’ of the silver-mines,

γόνος…πλουτόχθων, in Εὐµενίδες 946), it would normally be construed literally when used of insects to

mean their ‘grubs’. So, as the drones are consuming their ‘honey’, the emendation appears to be justified.

The antithesis provided by οὐ ταλαιπωρούµενοι reinforces the likelihood of τὸν πόνον. The codices have

simply absorbed a scholiast’s careless gloss found in the Ravenna (τὸν γόνον τῶν µελισσῶν).

Sommerstein appears to have come round to this view (cf. addenda xxvii) after taking Borthwick’s (1990)

arguments under consideration (cf. also ξουθᾶν τε πόνηµα µελισσσᾶν Euripides Ἰφιγένεια ἡ ἐν Ταύροις

165).

1117-9.

He expresses resentment, no doubt widely-shared, for those who had dodged the draft. But, there is irony

in the fact that members of tragic-choruses (and possibly comic-choruses too) were exempt from military

service.

1118. ἐκροφῇ

Hall and Geldart, along with all recent editors, have accepted Reiske’s suggestion ἐκροφῇ for the reading

of the codices ἐκφορῇ. The metathesis is plausible, since the metaphor of “gulping down a bowl of pay”

occurs in Ἱππεῖς (905, µισθοῦ τρύβλιον ῥοφῆσαι), although the only instance of the compound ἐκροφῶ in

Aristophanes’ work is in line 701 of the same play where Bothe has credibly restored κἂν ἐκροφήσας. But

the alteration merely repeats the earlier metaphor κατεσθίουσιν (1116) used of the drones consuming the

tribute money as if it were honey, while refracting the image of wasps ‘drinking’ bitter nectar (1082) and

although the idea of ‘guzzling pay’ fits with Philokleon’s admission that he readily ‘snapped up’ (791) his

obols with his lips, the drones do not necessarily follow his example. So, neat as it is, the emendation may

not be required, since the drone is simply “carrying off” his undeserved reward. Aristophanes often uses

the form ἐκφέρῃ, which Cantarella has suggested printing here, but as this always means ‘carry (or bring)

outside’, the form found in the received text should probably stand.

1119.

µήτε φλύκταιναν λαβών

130

With the first two nouns, κώπην and λόγχην, we must understand <χειρί> λαβών, “grasping neither oar

nor spear”. But, the participle is used in a different sense with the third noun, i.e. “getting a blister <for

one’s pains>”, since it is the memory of incurring such blisters which further elucidates τοῦ φόρου τὸν

πόνον. Thompson’s [1895] emendation of the final µήτε to µηδὲ helps to make the zeugma clear, but his

proposal to alter κώπην and λόγχην to genitives dependent on φλύκταιναν (‘a blister neither from oar nor

spear’) would contradict it (cf. 394, µήποτε...µηδὲ).

Ἐπεισόδιον 1122-1264

1122-73.

Father and Son re-emerge accompanied by a slave, who carries a pair of boots and a cloak. The following

scene satirizes the fashion-conscious, young aristocrats. A recent Athenian production of the play actually

brought on a rather camp stylist to assist the Son in persuading his father to adopt the new fashions.

1122. τοῦτον

The article of clothing is not identified as being the old man’s thin cloak until line 1131.

1123. µόνος µ(ε) ἔσωσε

The old cloak ‘saved him single-handed’. He defends his garment like an old comrade who stood by him

in his hour of need, although in fact, a τρίβων offered poor protection from the cold, as a fragment from a

a play (Μυρµηκ-Aνθρώποι) by Pherekrates confirms (124), καὶ τριβώνιον πονηρὸν οἷον ἐνριγισκάνειν -

“and the sort of worn-out, old cloak you can catch your death of cold in”.

παρατεταγµένον

Wilamowitz conjectured παρατεταγµένος (‘in the ranks beside <me>’) which would extend the idea that

the cloak served in the army with him. This is a possibility worth considering, but the image of the cloak

‘at his side’ suggested by the verb seems at variance with the fact that it must be wrapped ‘around’ him.

1124. ὁ Bορέας ὁ µέγας

The phrase is a comic substitute for ὁ Bασιλεὺς ὁ µέγας, (i.e. ‘the Persian king’). A generation has passed

since Athenians had fought the Persians and few of the old warriors were still around to boast about it. As

a result, Aristophanes does not shy away from poking fun at those who exaggerate their military record or

revel in the reflected glory of their fathers. But, the proud claims of the Chorus (1071-90) and the Son’s

reference to the battle of Marathon (711) make clear, he does not make light of the actual achievements of

the earlier generations.

1126.

The oath and the duplicated negatives make his denial vehement and the illogicality of his response all the

more comic. But Aristophanes knew that many in the audience harboured the superstitious view that one

must expect good fortune to be resented by the gods. This is the moral of the story about Polykrates’ ring

as told by Herodotos (3.40.2, τὸ θεῖον…ἔστι φθονερόν). We might compare Herakles’ wish for his friend

Admetos, in Euripides’ Ἄλκηστις (1135), φθόνος δὲ µὴ γένοιτό τις θεῶν - “May the gods bear you no ill-

will” <for your happiness at the return of Alcestis>.

1127-8. καὶ γὰρ πρότερον

He recalls an incident which seems to justify his reluctance to accept good fortune, but he leaves it to the

audience to make the connection between a good meal and the hefty bill (a whole day’s pay) for cleaning

his soiled clothes.

τῷ κναφεῖ

The codices read γναφεῖ, but Dindorf emended to κν- on the grounds that this was the usual spelling in

the fifth century. Most scholars have followed his lead, although Wilson (p.93) does so with misgivings.

With Henderson, I would stick with the traditional γν-, since MacDowell cites epigraphical evidence for

its use before 400 B.C.

1129. πεπειράσθω γ(ε)

The perfect passive gives us, “let <it> at least be tried”.

1130. εὖ ποιεῖν

In contrast with the previous use of this phrase (1017) the object is a person (σε), so it can be taken in the

usual sense of “to treat <you> well”.

1132. ἀναβαλοῦ

Here, and again in 1135, most manuscripts have ἀναλαβοῦ, but in both lines modern editors prefer to read

ἀναβαλοῦ, a variant found in a latish, sixteenth-century manuscript. I think they are partly right, since the

131

variant is definitely required in 1135 (as in 1152), but here I would accept the principal codices. The Son,

seeing his father reluctant even to remove his old τρίβωνα, is simply suggesting that his father “take up”

the χλαῖναν which is being offered to him by the slave, in order to examine the material in his hands. He

wants his father initially to ἀναλαβοῦ, i.e. ‘just feel the width’.

τριβωνικῶς

The adjective τρίβων describes someone who has by long practice has become ‘expert’ in a thing. It came

to be applied to a cloak, which by long use had become ‘worn’. The poet deliberately conflates the two in

his fabricated adverb, which means “in an expert manner”, but sounds as though it ought to mean ‘like an

old cloak’.

The adverb reinforces my suspicion that he is only talking about examining the material “expertly” rather

than about wrapping the cape around him “capably” (MacDowell). It is a pity that the admirable efforts to

capture the pun were directed at the wrong verb.

1134. µε...ἀποπνῖξαι βούλεται

He protests that his son is trying to suffocate him, just as litigants were trying to choke their grandfathers

earlier (cf. 1039).

1135. ἔχ(ε)

At this point the Son probably takes hold of part of the cloak from the slave and proffers it to the old man,

saying, “Here you are!”

ἀναβαλοῦ τηνδὶ λαβών

The codices repeat ἀναλαβοῦ from 1132, but in this instance, it is clear that their reading is a mistake as

two separate actions are involved, ‘taking it’ and ‘putting it on’.

µὴ λάλει

The verb again indicates the old man’s bird-like nature. It is used of swallow-song as well as the chirp of

crickets. [Nowadays, it would admirably translate as to ‘tweet’.]

1137. Περσίδ(α)

The adjective alone would normally be taken to mean ‘a woman from Persia’, but Aristophanes chooses it

to qualify χλαῖνα instead of the usual Περσική, because he wants a word-ending which will correspond to

the adjective Θυµαιτίδα in the next line.

καυνάκην

According to LSJ (addenda) the word derived from a Persian word for a ‘rug’ or ‘bedcover’.

1138. σισύραν...Θυµαιτίδα

Philokleon takes the cloak to resemble a sheepskin cape of a type evidently produced, or commonly worn,

in Thymaitadai, an Attic deme situated on the coast between Piraeus and Eleusis. Without the addition of

σισύραν the word Θυµαιτίς would presumably have been understood, by correspondence with Περσίς, to

mean ‘a woman from Thymaitadai’. The toponym occurs in an inscription which apparently refers to the

phratry associated with the deme, cf. Hedrick (1988). Plutarch (Θησεύς 19.5), recording the tradition that

Theseus founded the Athenian navy by setting up shipyards at Thymaitadai, says that the area lay “off the

tourist trail” (µακρὰν τῆς ξενικῆς ὁδοῦ), indicating that it was an industrial area and a cultural backwater.

One may infer that the Attic σισύρα was worn by working men interested in its protective quality rather

than making a fashion statement. The difference in quality must have been obvious to the eye, just as one

can distinguish between a Persian rug and a flokati, but in this case the old man confuses the two simply

because both were the same colour. See also Νεφέλαι 730 for a similar personifying noun for a blanket.

1139. ἐς Σάρδεις

At the beginning of the fifth century an expeditionary force of Athenian and Eretrian troops had trekked

inland, burnt the famous, old city of Sardis and lived to regret it. Now, few Athenians would have left the

coastal plain of Ionia to make the journey up the valley of the Hermos to visit the new city, which appears to

have served primarily as a regional administrative centre. MacDowell must be right therefore, in seeing a

reference to Athenian embassies. Presumably, the Son has heard accounts of such diplomatic missions to

Sardis from his upper-class friends. Some ambassadors may have been seen around town dressed in such

heavy, woollen capes, presented to them by their hosts. By comparison with this soft, warm apparel, local

Attic garments made of goat-hair must have appeared coarse indeed.

We can infer that recent embassies had ‘made headlines’, both from Aristophanes’ own allusions and the

fact that one of the plays competing at the same festival, and which took third place, was the Πρεσβεῖς of

Leukon. Aristophanes rarely misses an opportunity to criticize ambassadors (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς) and their ready

132

tendency to acquire personal wealth from their conduct of state business (e.g. 676-7, 1246-8, 1271-4). He

was probably voicing a widely-held prejudice.

1140. ἔγνως γὰρ ἄν

The condition is not expressed; <if you had been to Sardis>, “you would recognize <it>”.

νῦν δ(ε) οὐχι γιγνώσκεις

He appears to be declaring, “But now (i.e. since you have not been to Sardis) you do not recognize <it>”,

which is both forced and redundant. The situation is best mended by posing a question, as Wilamowitz

suggested, “Do you not recognize <its quality> now <that I’ve pointed it out>?” which makes better use

of νῦν. MacDowell objects that a question would be illogical, because the Son has just explained that his

father could not be expected to know what it was, but he could appreciate the remarkable workmanship.

Philokleon’s response seems to make a question the more likely solution. Hall and Geldart compromise

instead by placing a question mark after ἐγώ, but this still fails to make the previous phrase convincing as

a statement.

1141. τοίνυν

In English we place the inferential particle first, since it picks up νῦν from the Son’s question. The effect

is to make the audience think that he will answer in the affirmative, i.e. “now <that you tell me> I do…”

But, some scholars have preferred to change the text to a straightforward denial, οὐκ ἔγωγ(ε) (Blaydes),

οὔτοι νῦν γ(ε) (Starkie), οὐ τανῦν γ(ε) (Palmer), οὐδὲ νῦν (Wilamowitz). See Wilson’s note (p. 94).

1142. Μορύχου σάγµατι

We have met this gentleman already (506) typifying an Athenian who apparently lived in some style. He

was possibly a rather fashionable man-about-town who drew attention to himself by his ample cloak. To

Philokleon’s untutored eye this stylish piece of clothing looks a lot like a blanket. The σάγµα (οr its later

variant the σάγος) was a large piece of coarse cloth which might be used to cover an animal’s back prior

to loading baggage or to mounting. Clearly, it was not normally considered an item of clothing. The idea

that the σάγµα could have been some kind of “knapsack” (Barrett), or “pack” (MacDowell) derives from

the mention of its use as a ‘case’ for Lamachos’ shield in Ἀχαρνεῖς (574), taken together with a definition

given by Polydeukes (7. 157 = frg. 881, καὶ τὸ σάγµα τὸ ἔλυτρον τῆς ἀσπίδος, σαγὴν δὲ τὴν πανοπλίαν).

But, Lamachos’s shield-case is only likened to a knapsack because his particular shield was embossed

with a Gorgon emblem and such a bag was said to have been carried by Perseus to bring back the head of

Medousa. The comparison is intended to be humorous. A shield would normally have been kept wrapped

in an old cloak rather than stored in some special case. Similarly, Menelaos’s armour-case in Euripides’

Ἀνδροµάχη (617) need only have been some soft material, to ensure that the armour returned from its visit

to Troy as unmarked as the Spartan king himself. We do not need to suppose that it was kept in purpose-

made bags.

The conviction that Morychos’s poncho should be considered as a ‘shield-case’, has led some scholars to

give free rein to their imagination. Crosby (1915) suggested that since Morychos appears to have been a

gourmand (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 887; Εἰρήνη 1008), his pot-belly was the shield that needed to be covered. Thus,

Sommerstein calls the σάγµα a “pot-warmer”. Though Polydeukes seems confident in his claim, I rather

doubt that σάγµα by itself would have been understood as the covering for a shield, unless accompanied

by specific mention of a shield.

MacDowell takes the σάγµα as a military pack and, by combining Morychos’s reputation as a bon viveur

with the mention of χόλιξ, imagines “some sausages hanging from his pack”, which he likens to… I can

only say, πόθεν, ὦ ‘γαθε;

1143. ἐν Ἐκβατάνοισι

The kings of Persia had their summer residence at Ecbatana, capital of Media, which has been identified

with the site at Tell-Hagmatana in the Zagros Mountains of western Iran. According to legend it had been

founded by the first Median king, Deiokes (cf. Herodotos 1.98.3) at the beginning of the seventh century

B.C., though archaeology has yet to provide proof of it. Herodotos’s transliteration Ἀγβάτανα is probably

more accurate.

Like Sardis, the city is imagined as an exotic location that only aristocrats on diplomatic missions would

have set eyes on, cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 613, εἶδέν τις ὑµων τ’ Ἐκβάταν(α); - “has any among you seen Ekbatana?”

1144. κρόκης χόλιξ

Certain kinds of animal-gut were utilized for stringing musical instruments or might be made into a tough

thread for binding things together. Although the intestines of sheep or pigs could be utilized for sausage-

133

skins, I doubt that we are meant to see tufts of wool dangling from the cloak ‘like sausages’. Rather, he is

referring to the thick weave (the κρόκη is strictly speaking the ‘woof’) of the woollen cloak which needed

an extra-thick (‘wool-rich’ in the jargon of today’s retailers) yarn. I take γίγνεται κρόκης to mean “is used

for weaving”.

1145-6. ὦ (ἀ)γάθ(ε)

This expression is used when a speaker gently remonstrates at another’s naiveté. Here, the Son metes out

the same condescension addressed to him by the Father (cf. 920).

τοῦτο τοῖσι βαρβάροις ὑφαίνεται

For (“this article is woven by the natives”), I would prefer to read τοιοῦτο τι βαρβάροις (“an article such

as this is woven by foreigners”) in view of the fact that αὓτη (“this one”, sc. καυνάκη) is used in the next

line.

1147. ἐρίων τάλαντον

He exaggerates by suggesting that it is worth its weight in precious metal. Sommerstein is right in stating

that a τάλαντον was basically a unit of weight, but it was used primarily of gold and silver so that we may

understand that the speaker is referring to the value of the wool. The phrase is so constructed that ἔριον is

used in the genitive plural in order to make the (weak) pun in the next line with ἐριώλην.

1148. ἐριώλην

In Ἱππεῖς (511), Aristophanes had described the powerful politicians to whom he faced up in his comedies

as “Typhoon and Tornado” (πρὸς τὸν Τυφῶ...καὶ τὴν ἐριώλην). Here the point of the pun is that the frugal

Philokleon, clinging to his old cloak, considers this extravagant use of wool as akin to a ‘natural disaster’.

One may compare the protests of Strepsiades (‘the son of Thrift’) in Νεφέλαι (54-5) at his wife’s prodigal

waste of thread.

1149. ἔχ(ε)

The Son could be understood as telling the Father to ‘keep still’ (sc. ἠρέµα), as MacDowell says, or ‘keep

quiet’ (sc. ἡσυχίαν), but as στῆθι (“stand <still>”) is added in the next line, he is probably just calling for

his attention, “hold on!” (cf. 1135), suggesting that Philokleon has turned his back on him.

1150. καὶ στῆθ(ι) ἀναµπισχόµενος

This compound form of the verb ἀµπίσχω is not found elsewhere but must mean “while being enveloped

again”. This might be possible if the slave has succeeded in getting the cloak around him at any time, but

I would be tempted to substitute ἐναµπισχόµενος (not used elsewhere either) by analogy with ἐνδύοµαι. A

more drastic alteration suggested by Wilamowitz, στῆθ’ ἀτρέµας ἀµπισχόµενος, is also feasible, although

the easiest solution would be a reading found in some manuscripts, στῆθι γ’ ἀµπισχόµενος.

1151-3. θερµὸν...κατήρυγεν

The cloak’s insulating property is compared to a fire-breathing monster which has just “exhaled a burst of

hot <air>”, and then to an oven which radiates warmth. The Father has shown himself to be very reluctant

to put on such a superior garment, since his old, threadbare cloak had served him well in the past (1123-4)

and the new one looks large enough to smother him (1133-4). He now fears being overcome by the cloak

and its unaccustomed warmth, and claims that his son is killing him with kindness.

By his obstinate refusal to don the coat, he displays exaggerated dread that the garment would finish him

off. Quite probably, his reaction parodies a tense scene in Tragedy in which a character shows reluctance

to put on a garment which will prove to be fatal; either accidentally (to Herakles in Sophokles’ Τραχίνιαι),

or deliberately (to Jason’s new bride, Glauke in Euripides’ Μήδεια). The idea that a woollen cloak could

be deadly is the result of wordplay, deriving from poetic flights of fancy such as Bakchylides’ description

of Theseus’s “Thessalian cloak of wool” - οὔλιον Θεσσαλὰν χλαµύδα (ᾨδή, 18.53-4), where usually the

adjective would have meant ‘deadly’.

1154. σε περιβαλῶ

Ι follow MacDowell in preferring the aorist subjunctive περιβάλω over the future indicative after φέρε,

“come now, let me wrap it round you”.

σὺ δ(ὲ) οὖν ἴθι

Most editors have taken this phrase to be the Son’s dismissal of the slave, “You can go then”, as he takes

the cloak from him. But, although this is quite possible, it is not usual to dismiss a slave merely to free up

the stage. Moreover, with the slave gone, the Son will be left to help the Father on with the boots as well.

Therefore, I think that Sommerstein’s decision to assign the phrase to Philokleon (as suggested in Γ) may

134

be preferable. We may understand σὺ δ’ οὖν ἴθι <πειροῦ> - “come on then, try it on” (cf. Βάτραχοι 1170,

ἴθι πέραινε σύ - “come on, get on with it”).

1155. κρεάγραν

In advising his son to have a “meat-hook” handy, the Father is carrying his comparison of the cloak with

an oven to its absurd conclusion. The idea of human flesh being cooked derives from myths such as that

of Melikertes and Ino (cf. Aischylos frg. 2, ἐξαυστῆρσιν ἐξαιρούµενοι - “removing with flesh-hooks”).

1156. πρὶν διερρυηκέναι

The literal sense of the verb διαρρέω is ‘to flow through’, but as with καταρρέω (‘flow down’ hence ‘fall

to pieces’ or ‘crumble away’), it seems to be used of things physically or metaphorically ‘dissolving’. We

can understand him to be saying “before I am turned to soup completely”.

1157. ἄγε νυν

The Son turns our attention away from the cloak to a fresh topic of interest, namely the boots (cf. 1174).

ὑπολύου

The codices read ὑποδύου which the Aldine editor altered to ἀποδύου (on the basis of ἀποδύον in J), but

Hirschig’s conjecture is clearly correct. He is instructing him to “untie” his shoes or let <the slave> untie

them for him.

ἐµβάδας

The Son is tired of seeing his father wander around in his worn-out, outdoor shoes which he wears day-in

day-out (103), since they are a disgrace to look at (447).

1158. ὑποδύθι

The usual verb for ‘putting on’ (i.e. fastening) shoes is ὑποδέοµαι and so some editors have cavilled at the

unique use of ὑποδύοµαι here. Hall and Geldart have obelized the verb and Hirschig proposed emending

to ὑποδοῦ λαβὼν ἐµβάδας. However, as MacDowell observes, the text can be justified by considering τὰς

Λακωνικάς as boots rather than shoes, so that he is being invited to slide his foot down into them. Wilson

remains dissatisfied with the lack of a preposition and proposes reading ὑποδοῦ σύ.

1159-60. ὑποδήσασθαι

Philokleon initially objects to donning the boots because he assumes that ‘Lakonian’, which refers to their

style, means that they have been manufactured in Lakonia.

MacDowell reinstates the reading of the codices ὑποδύσασθαι, and some might argue that the verb should

correspond to the instruction of the previous line, but I think that Scaliger’s emendation can be justified in

this case. Opinion remains equally divided.

1161. ἔνθες ποτ(ε)

The particle can be taken as an indication of the Son’s impatience, i.e. “put <a foot> in sometime”, which

is adequate (cf. 1168). But, Brunck’s proposal to read, ἔνθες πόδ(α), is more attractive.

κἀπόβαιν(ε) ἐρρωµένως

The verb’s usual meaning is to ‘disembark’, but commentators have been content to take it in the sense of

to “step out” (MacDowell). If this is the case, however, the adverb is unsuitable, as one cannot step out of

ones shoes ‘firmly’. We would have to assume that the Son is saying ‘step out <of your old shoes and put

your foot down> firmly into…’, as Sommerstein appears to do. Rather than assume an ellipse of this kind,

however, it might be better just to say καὶ πρόβαιν’ ἐρρωµένως (cf. 230), since the alteration to ἀπόβαιν’

could have been due simply to the influence of ἀποβιβάζων in 1163. But, the more suitable verb would be

κἀπίβαιν(ε) ἐρρωµένως, which means to ‘set foot upon’. This would normally be followed by a genitive

(e.g. Xenophon Ἑλληνικά 7.4.6, τῆς Λακωνικῆς ἐπὶ πολέµῳ -“set foot on Lakonian territory with hostile

intent”) but the play on words requires the addition of the preposition in the following line for the sake of

ambiguity. The aptness of ἐπίβαινω to the circumstances seems to be corroborated by its use in a passage

of Loukianos (cf. 1164 note).

1162. ἐς τὴν Λακωνικὴν

We are asked to supply a noun such as ἀρβύλην, but Philokleon completes the phrase with the more usual

γῆν (cf. Εἰρήνη 245), since he had been expecting τῆς Λακωνικῆς <γῆς> after the imperative.

1164. φέρε

As MacDowell notes, the lack of some word like δεῦρο prevents us from taking the imperative with the

noun. So, the comma is necessary, since the Son is saying, “come along, <put in> the other foot too”.

καὶ τὸν ἕτερον

135

It is clear that, despite his protests, Philokleon is now wearing the first boot, but has not yet removed his

other shoe. He is in the situation of having different footwear on each foot and no doubt he tries to move

about to emphasize how ridiculous he looks. The scene may have prompted an analogy in a satire by the

Atticist Loukianos (Πῶς δεῖ ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν, 22) which pictures an actor “with one foot planted in a

high buskin and the other fastened in a sandal” (τὸν ἕτερον µὲν πόδα ἐπ’ ἐµβάτου ὑψηλοῦ ἐπιβεβηκότι,

θάτερον δὲ σανδάλῳ ὑποδεδεµένῳ). Although his text specifies that the actor is a τραγῳδός, we probably

ought to read τρυγῳδός, since the situation is quintessentally comic (cf. 650). It seems to me quite likely

that Loukianos’s text has been ‘corrected’ to bring it into line with another passage in Τὰ πρὸς Κρόνον 19,

in which he refers to a τραγικὸν ὑποκριτὴν with one foot in a buskin and one unshod; the slight difference

in the situation suggesting that the scene here might have been intended to parody one in a tragic-drama,

perhaps the young Peleus arriving at court wearing only one sandal.

1165. µισο-Λάκων

The term φιλο-Λάκων was an established part of political debate at Athens, originally applied to the party

of Kimon son of Miltiades in the period of embittered, factional rivalry (465-50). “Lakonian-hating” may

well have been coined as a counter-weight for the Periklean faction, although this is its first occurrence in

extant literature. Clearly, the word has been chosen to reinforce the Father’s contention that to wear shoes

known as ‘Lakonians’ would be ‘unpatriotic’. As ridiculous as this may sound to us, we might like to bear

in mind that it was once suggested that American patriots should abstain from ‘French’ fries or that a true

British patriot could not listen to German music. But, his attitude is probably only the pretext for the joke.

Aristophanes expected more from his audience and we can assume that he would have meant them to hear

some similarly-sounding word bearing a closer relation to feet. They might, for instance, have heard µισο-

λάκκον (‘hating puddles’). But, in any case, one has to wonder why only one toe was truly patriotic while

the other four were seemingly willing to fraternize with Lakonians. Perhaps, the smallest toe feared that it

would become cramped and was µισο-λαγόνα (‘hated the side of the shoe’)? Frankly, we just don’t know.

But, it could be that the subject of footwear gave the poet an opportunity to allude to some recent political

speech in which the orator had unwisely referred to the balance of the state being rendered unsteady due

to foreign policy disagreements among the toes (i.e. ‘a foot divided against itself cannot stand’).

Eupolis’s phrase (frg. 350) µισῶ Λακωνίζειν meant something altogether different (cf. 1169 n.).

1166.

This line is borrowed from Νεφέλαι 698.

1167. ἐπὶ γήρως

Hirschig restored the right genitive form from the γήρω of the codices, but the more likely reading would

be γήρᾳ (vulg.), which is not simply ‘in my old age’, but “for my old age”. His old, worn walking-shoes

may have been open-toed sandals and so would have given him the opportunity to get a chilblain, a thing

which he could cherish, i.e. moan about, in company with his co-evals. Contrast the genitive ἐπὶ νεότητος

in 1199.

1168. ὑποδησάµενος

There is the same uncertainty between this reading (B) and ὑποδυσάµενος in the main codices, but it is

likely that he has the boot on by now and is having it laced on his leg.

1169. ὡδὶ

While the slave is fastening the buskins the Son demonstrates how an aristocrat would walk in them.

διασαλακώνισον

This compound verb found in the received text is a unique form and though both Dindorf and Bothe have

proposed emending it, by analogy with σαυκωνίσαι (‘to move’) in fragment 882, to διασαικώνισον, there

is support for the codices in the apparent use of the simple verb in a fragment (71) by Hermippos, restored

to σεσαλακωνισµένη. The meaning must be to “move in a thoroughly pretentious manner”, to judge from

the adjective σαλάκων (‘a snob’).

There are, however, two variants contained in the scholia, which I used to discount, but which I now feel

deserve fuller consideration. Their existence provides a good illustration of Aristophanes’ multi-layered,

‘sophisticated’ technique. It seems more likely that he would have written a verb of his own coinage and,

although διασαλακώνισον might appear newly-minted to us, it is formed in a regular way and even if not

in common use would have been commonly understood. On the other hand, a verb such as διαλυκώνισον,

unlike the alternative διαλακώνισον (which might just be a shrewd scholiast’s guess), would have to have

been made up.

136

It seems likely that Aristophanes coined the compound-verb to make a pun on δια-Λακωνίζω (‘to behave

in a thoroughly Spartan fashion’). According to an entry in the Σοῦδα (λ. 62), the ‘Spartan way’ involved

paederasty (Λακωνίζειν· παιδικοῖς χρῆσθαι, frg. 358 from Θεσµοφοριάσασαι). Because Philokleon is

wearing Λακωνικαί, the audience would have expected διαλακώνισον, but been surprised to hear δια-

Λυκώνισον (‘move like Lykon’). Not having heard Maroon Five, they would search for a related verb

from which to interpret the movement and see that σαλακώνισον lay behind the instruction to Philokleon

to “move in a thoroughly pretentious manner like Lykon” (cf. 1301). The concentration of short syllables

here might be indicative of the mincing gait affected by wealthy snobs.

Another comic poet provided a similarly-contrived compound verb with διακυσοσαλεύων qualified by

the adverbial σεµνὸν, which may have been intended to convey much the same (see P.Oxyrh. 2743.96).

1172. δοθιῆνι...ἠµφιεσµένῳ

MacDowell and Sommerstein follow Holzinger’s lead in supposing that Philokleon is being described as,

“a man who has put a garlic dressing on a boil”. Their interpretation derives from the perception that his

attempt to walk elegantly results in jerky movements as if he is wincing every time he puts a foot down. It

is a comic image, certainly, but leaves the garlic as a redundant ‘dressing’. In fact, Aristophanes does not

speak of ‘a man’ or ‘feet’ at all. He likens Philokleon directly to a boil which has been clothed (‘cloved’?)

in garlic. The Son’s use of the word ‘boil’ is probably a common comic characterization of someone with

a red or swollen face (cf. Telekleides frg.46, ὁ δ’ ἀπ’ Αἰγίνης νήσου χωρεῖ δοθιῆνος ἔχων τὸ πρόσωπον -

“the fellow coming from the island of Aigina with a face like carbuncle”); someone the Son often wishes

he could be rid of. But clearly Aristophanes has only introduced the simile here because the garlic used to

treat it resembles the cloak in some way. We can picture the Persian coat billowing about the old man like

a white drape (perhaps, with three or four pleated sections sown together to resemble a bulb of garlic). So,

the leading thought in the image is the σκόροδον, rather than the δοθιήν, and he resembles “a carbuncle

dressed in a garlic poultice”. The voluminous coat has turned the skinny, old man into another Morychos,

smothering his best efforts at a sophisticated gait.

1173. σαυλοπρωκτιᾶν

Aristophanes is sending up the affectation of the upper-class Athenian, who used his stance and leisured,

exaggerated way of walking to differentiate himself from the lower orders. While his lazy stance may be

εὐρυπρωκτίαν (1070), his walk is σαυλοπρωκτίαν. The former is a position taken by a lounger, leaning on

a stick or convenient column, to throw out the hip. The latter produces the same result when walking by

squeezing the buttocks tightly together. The term was used of courtesans and prancing horses; we might

think of fashion models on the catwalk, or the horses of the Spanish Riding School. With a little practice

any contemporary college professor should be able to master it in no time at all.

1174-1264.

Having dealt with the fashionistas, Aristophanes turns his attention to the sophistication, or affectation of

aristocratic soirées. To have drawn such a precise picture, he was doubtless a regular symposiast himself.

Indeed, he seems to admit it in Εἰρήνη (770-4) and Plato later suggested as much by including him in his

fictional Συµπόσιον.

1177. ἡ Λάµι(α)...ἐπέρδετο

Lamia’s action makes clear that Philokleon is better acquainted with the comic parody of the unfortunate

ogress than with her original, tragic myth (cf. 1035 and Krates frg. 20, σκυτάλην ἔχουσα ἐπέρδετο).

1178. Καρδοπίων

This supposedly ‘mythological’ figure may be no more than a comic etymology of καρδοπεῖον - ‘a cover

for a kneading-trough’, which (in common with most other kitchen implements) could assume salacious

overtones. The only instance in which Aristophanes uses the word is, ἢ καρδοπείῳ περιπαγῇ τὸν αὐχένα -

<someone> “may find his neck fixed in the cover of a kneading-trough” (frg. 313), hinting at a thigh-hold

perhaps. The κάρδοπος (‘kneading-trough’) itself (cf. Βάτραχοι 1159), is invested with sexual meaning in

Nεφέλαι 668 ff., by being transposed into feminine form as καρδόπη.

1179. µὴ (ἐ)µοιγε...

Exasperation is revealed again by elliptical expression. The full expression would be µὴ ἐµοιγε <λέγε οὐ

ἀνθρωπίνους> µύθους, ἀλλὰ <λόγον> τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων - “don’t go telling me superhuman myths, tell me

instead a tale of human affairs”.

τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων

137

Meineke proposed emending to ἀνθρωπικῶν having noted that Phrynichos explains Aristophanes’ use of

the phrase ἀνθρωπικὸς µῦθος (picked up later by Photios, cf. frg. 35, ὁ περὶ ἀνθρωπείων πραγµάτων ἔχων

τὴν ὑπόθεσιν). Van Leeuwen supported the idea that the comment was based on our passage by emending

Photios’s text, but even if the ancient scholars had been referring to a different instance, we are entitled to

infer that the poet preferred that expression. My only qualm is the case, since one would have expected to

find τοὺς ἀνθρωπικοὺς <µύθους>, instead of a partitive genitive.

1180. κατ(ὰ) οἰκίαν

He means something one could talk about at home, not barracks’ humour, suited only to the comic-stage.

1182.

Philokleon misconstrues κατ’ οἰκίαν and understands a γαλῆ κατοικίδιος, a nuisance found in the home.

1183-4. ὦ σκαιὲ κἀπαίδευτε

Bdelykleon’s patience is being sorely tried by his father’s lack of sophistication, but one should take care

not to assume that this phrase is an intemperate outburst, because the words are clearly intended to be an

aside. The poet lets us know at once that they are words formulated by a mind every bit as refined as that

of the suave Son’s.

Θεογένης…τῷ κοπρολόγῳ

Theogenes was a leading politician in this period, who was commissioned along with Kleon to report on

the state of operations at Pylos, where an Athenian fleet had trapped a Spartan force on Sphakteria (Thuc.

4 27.3). Brunck wanted to alter the name to Θεάγενης and MacDowell, who has an expanded note on the

identity of the man in question, considers that spelling a possibility. All the manuscripts of our play agree

on the form Θεογένης, but Thucydides’ better codices have µετὰ Θεαγένους.

A scholiast informs us that Aristophanes made the connection between the politician and κόπρος again in

Ὥραι, where he remarks that ὃν καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ µεγάλα ἀποπατεῖν κωµῳδοῦσιν - “<comic poets> made fun of

him for defecating copiously” (fr.582). This strongly suggests that the politician’s argument with a ‘dung-

collector’ took place only on the comic-stage. But, for the caricature to stick his behaviour in real life may

have reflected his delicate sensibilities. This may explain why Eupolis (frg. 99.10) could raise a laugh by

saying that he “had spent the entire night farting”.

καὶ ταῦτα λοιδορούµενος

If Theogenes was being abusive, why does the Son rudely equate his father with the dung-collector in this

roundabout way? On the other hand, if the politician actually referred at sometime to a κοπρόλογος as an

uneducated boor, it would surely only be stating the obvious. Perhaps, this was characteristic of him. But,

an idea put forward by Wilson (p. 94) seems to me to offer the best explanation of this interjection. If one

takes the participle as passive, i.e. Theogenes himself had been the target of the other’s crudity, then his

reply should be seen to demonstrate aristocratic reserve and this would be consistent with the Son’s own

mannered aplomb.

1185. ἐν ἀνδράσιν

The moral tales of Aesop might be alright for instructing women and children, or diverting a hostile jury,

but they will not hold the attention of “grown men” or “men of the world”.

1187. ξυνεθεώρεις

In the higher social circles of the symposium it would be common to find men who had served as “official

observers” at the major religious festivals such as Eleusis or Delos, or the various pan-Hellenic games at

Olympia, Delphi etc.

The two men who make up the triumvirate of θέωροι are presumably mentioned because their names had

been put forward for some prestigious, state role in recent times. Perhaps they had been excluded from the

short-list on political grounds, or, as MacDowell surmises, they may in fact have been chosen to serve as

official representatives, but been widely perceived as undeserving of the honour. Certainly, some political

in-fighting must lie behind the reference. In Νεφέλαι (623-4), there was a similar topical reference to the

appointment of the demagogue Hyperbolos to a sacred office, which was vitiated on technical grounds.

Ἀνδροκλεῖ

This is the only reference to Androkles in the extant work of Aristophanes, but he was a prominent figure

in political life to judge from the attention given to him by other comic poets. He was probably politically

-aligned with Kleon at this point and he is named by Plutarch as one of the lead prosecutors in the judicial

campaign against Alkibiades in 415 on religious grounds (Ἀλκιβιάδης 19.1). A scholion mentions that the

138

same man may have been the subject of a crude jibe in Ὥραι (cf. 1238). According to a comic-fragment

of unknown provenance (951), he served as πολέµαρχος during a period of political crisis (cf. 1042).

Κλεισθένει

Kleisthenes is another politician whose prominence is vouched for by comic ridicule meted out in nearly

every surviving work of Aristophanes. He is usually mocked for ‘effeminacy’ because he did not grow a

beard.

1188-9. τεθεώρηκα πώποτ(ε)

Philokleon has never taken part in a state mission, neither as an official observer at athletic games nor to

consult an oracle. He can recall, however, taking part in an expedition to the island of Paros, since he was

paid a small sum for it. It is not likely to have been a naval campaign, since he would have been a baby at

the time of the abortive assault on Paros that followed Marathon. Probably, he is claiming to have served

as an oarsman on the state trireme which conveyed a delegation of Athenian women on one of the regular

pilgrimages to the sanctuary of Demeter Θεσµοφόρος, in propitiation of its violation by Miltiades and his

troops.

οὐδαµοῖ

This (“not to anywhere”) is Bekker’s plausible correction of the codices’ οὐδαµοῦ (cf. 1004, πανταχοῖ).

δύ(o) ὀβολὼ φέρων

He “got paid two obols” (cf. 1121, µὴ φέρειν τριώβολον), a trifling amount for the hard work involved.

1190-1. ἐµάχετο γ(ε)...καλῶς

When this contest is recalled later (1383) the tense is changed to the aorist and Dobree proposed reading

the same here, ἐµαχέσατ(ο)...καλῶς. Wilson (p. 94) is unhappy with the imperfect too and questions the

suitability of the particle’s position, but I do not see a compelling reason to emend. The emphasis is on

the fact that “he was putting up a good fight at any rate”, despite the age difference.

Ἐφουδίων

According to the scholiast this Arkadian athlete had won a victory at Olympia as long ago as 464 B.C. At

one time he had been reigning champion of his event at all four major meets (cf. Hesychios ε 7567). But,

the inference that he beat his Boiotian opponent on this occasion may be unsound. The imperfect ἐµάχετο

suggests otherwise. It leads one to conclude that there was room for recognition of a ‘good loser’ among

fight aficionados and offers a counterpoise to Pindar’s assertion that winning is everything.

Ἀσκώνδᾳ

The name Askondas sounds Theban. It was the name of the father of Krates, the Cynic philosopher, who

came from a distinguished Theban family (cf. Diog. Laërtios 6.85). It is conceivable that Krates’ habit of

working-out at the gym (Kynosarges gave the Cynics their popular name) was instilled in him as a family

tradition, if in fact he was a descendant of the famous athlete.

1192.

The older symposiasts would recall the celebrated sporting events they had witnessed, while their younger

companions would feign interest and get on with the drinking. The fact that Ephoudion’s hair was already

greying (πολιός, cf.1064) seemed at odds with his still-powerful physique.

1193. πλευρὰν βαθυτάτην

The adjective ‘deep’ caused some uncertainty among copyists (with variants βαρυτάτην and καθυτάτην),

but it must be equivalent to our saying very “broad”-backed.

1195. θώρακ(α) ἔχων

Starkie’s suggestion that there was some connection to be made with drinking seems unlikely. Philokleon

is well-acquainted with the word θώρακα as an item of military equipment, but not as an anatomical term.

The inability of the older generation to understand the new, scientific uses of familiar words is a source of

amusement elsewhere in Aristophanes’ work (e.g. Nεφέλαι 478-81). Barrett comes close to matching the

pun in English with a neat play on ‘arms’ and ‘armed’, but we can exploit an old man’s occasional loss of

hearing instead.

1196. νοµίζουσ(ι) οἱ σοφοί

Men who know about these things “are in the habit of” discussing them like this.

1199. ἐπὶ νεότητος

He is asked to recall an exploit “from your youth”.

1201. χάρακας

139

The Father gives the impression that he took part in an assault on an enemy camp ringed with a palisade.

But, in mentioning a particular name he reveals that he had not in fact been tearing up pointed stakes, but

a neighbour’s vine-poles. The name Ergasion is a real one and may have drawn attention to a well-known

citizen, but it has probably been selected here for its sound because (being formed from ἐργασία) it serves

to emphasize the fact that Philokleon was too lazy to make supports for his own vines. Other instances of

names seemingly chosen for their convenient sense occur in our play (380, ∆ιοπείθης; 438, ∆ρακοντίδης)

and other dramas (cf. Νεφέλαι 25, Φίλων).

An example of the name ΕΡΓΑΣΙΩΝ is found as an epitaph in IG. XII. 9. 354.

1206. Φάυλλον

After Bdelykleon has prodded him to come up with an account of some physical exploit such as a hunting

trip or a torch-race, that an aristocrat might recall, the old man calls to mind how he once bested a famous

runner. Phaÿllos of Kroton is an athlete mentioned by Pausanias (10.9.1) as having won three victories in

the Pythian games; two in the pentathlon and one in the 200-yards sprint. He crowned his athletic success

with a statue at Delphi of which the fragmentary inscription has been found. He was also remembered in

an epigram for his prowess in the long jump and discus, but he was most renowned for having manned a

trireme of his own with some fellow-expatriates in order to participate in the battle of Salamis (Herodotos

8.47). There is an inscribed base from a dedication on the Akropolis which probably commemorated this

action.

In Ἀχαρνεῖς (214), the aged chorus-leader regrets that he no longer has his youthful turn of speed when he

was able to “keep up with a Phaÿllos” (ἠκολούθουν Φαΰλλῳ τρέχων).

βούπαις

The prefix βου- was used to ‘beef’ up adjectives, because an ox was the largest animal that the Athenian

would have met with. So here, one may translate “a strapping lad”. The hypothesis that ἱππο- was used in

a similar way (cf. LSJ ἵππος, VII) is erroneous.

His somewhat implausible claim to have had an impressive physique lays shaky foundations on which the

audience build their anticipation of his ‘youthful feat’.

1207. εἷλον διώκων

Expectations begin to waver with the ambiguity of the phrase “I chased after him and caught him”, since

it turns out that he is using the words in a legal sense and what he actually means is “I avidly followed his

prosecution and got him convicted”. He was not in fact acting as prosecutor.

λοιδορίας

It seems highly unlikely that ‘verbal abuse’ could be grounds for a court action and I suspect that there is

a pun intended on the verb λορδόω (Ἐκκλησιάζ. 10, frg. 147), which means ‘to bend over backwards’, as

that is something a long-jumper or discus-thrower would regularly do (cf. frg. 630). Aristophanes usually

gives sexual connotations to his use of the verb, but here the pun would be equivalent perhaps to “aweful

discus-sing”. The genitive (of accusing) can be rendered as “<on a charge> of…” (cf. Νεφέλαι 845).

ψήφοιν δυοῖν

The jury was almost equally divided on the issue, but narrowly convicted the athlete from Kroton “by two

votes”.

1208. δευρὶ κατακλινεὶς

He indicates a spot in the centre of the stage and tells him to lie down there. There does not need to be a

couch for him to recline on. Sommerstein (addenda xxx), notes that the situation is mirrored by a scene in

Euripides’ satyr-play Κύκλοψ (543) where the uncivilized Cyclops is told to lie on the ground in order to

learn how to behave as a symposiast.

προσµάνθανε

The verb is used by the poet in Θεσµοφοριάζουσαι (20 and 24) with the meaning of ‘add to one’s store of

knowledge’ or ‘acquire additional learning’. There is no real objection to this sense here, but Dobree has

suggested προµάνθανε (cf. Νεφέλαι 966) as a possible alternative (which Starkie adopted).

ξυνουσιαστικός

The adjective is chosen (perhaps coined) to chime with ξυµποτικός. The noun συνουσία served to denote

“intellectual intercourse through conversation” and was used especially of discussions between teachers

of philosophy and their students. In the passage of Θεσµοφοριάζουσαι just mentioned, Mnesilochos refers

sarcastically to the benefits of αἱ σοφαὶ ξυνουσίαι - “conversing with intellectuals”. So here, along with a

talent for drinking (responsibly) the symposiast was required to engage in ‘learned conversation’. This, at

140

least, is the image of symposia fostered by Plato and Xenophon, which Athenaios later parodied. The poet

gives an example of the kind of knowledge that would enable a farmer “to fit into sophisticated company”

(εἶναι κοµψὸν ἐν συνουσίᾳ) in Νεφέλαι 647-9.

1211. ὡδὶ

The old man has no idea how ‘the other half’ disport themselves at drinking parties. His interpretation of

εὐσχηµόνως evidently involves drawing his knees up, as the next line shows.

1213. ἐν τοῖς στρώµασιν

The imaginary couch is covered with folded blankets or cushions, doubtless some of the προσκεφάλαια

received as gifts (cf. 676), which are mentioned to draw attention to the fact that Philokleon, lying on the

ground, clearly lacks such comforts.

1214. ἐπαίνεσόν τι

The Son gives him an introductory lesson in good manners, “say something complimentary about…”

τῶν χαλκωµάτων

In Πελαργοί, Aristophanes again mentions χαλκώµατα, together with προσκεφάλαια (frg. 451), possibly

in relation to a symposium (cf. frg. 444), but it is not clear what precisely these ‘bronze or copper objects’

were. Were they ornamental statuettes or perhaps cauldrons displayed on tripods? Sometimes, weapons

were hung up on walls in public stoas, but it would have been tempting providence to have them around

where alcohol was being consumed. In his play Φορµοφόροι (frg. 65), the comic-poet Hermippos uses the

generic words χαλκίδια and χαλκία to denote the symposiasts’ wine-ladle and bronze cups, as well as the

bronze lamp-stand (λυχνίον), Eupolis (frg. 95) speaks of a bronze bowl used in playing kottabos (χαλκῷ

περὶ κοττάβῳ), and Strattis (frg. 62) mentions the theft of “a bronze wine-ladle” (κύαθον χαλκοῦν), and

so one may presume that Aristophanes probably had such utensils in mind here.

1215. ὀροφὴν θέασαι

This instruction suggests that, in the home of a wealthy family at least, there would be a wooden ‘ceiling’

over the dining-hall which might bear painted decoration (cf. Plato Πολιτεία 529β). This may be why, in

Βαβυλώνιοι (frg. 70), the poet refers to “how well <someone> has covered the ceiling of his dwelling”.

But, on the other hand, these words could simply mean that the ‘roof’ of the house had been sheathed in

planks, since in some passages it is made clear that the roof-beams would normally be visible, e.g. in the

same play (frg. 69) someone asks, πόσους ἔχει στρωτῆρας ἁνδρὼν οὑτοσί; (“how many rafters does this

dining-room have?”). So what is the point of telling the old man to look up at the roof? It may relate to a

standing joke among symposiasts whereby, to ensure that each guest was sober when he arrived, his host

might ask him to count the rafters, because according to Theophrastos a man was considered drunk when

he was no longer able to do so (περὶ αἰσθήσεων, εἴλιγγος 12).

κρεκάδι(α) αὐλῆς θαύµασον

This phrase is peculiar in more ways than one. Firstly, the verb which would normally take a genitive and

mean to ‘wonder at’, here, governs the accusative (unless we understand ὀροφὴς κρεκάδια, which nobody

has yet suggested). Since the object must be the accusative κρεκάδια, the verb is simply a variation for the

previous ἐπαίνεσον, so that he is being invited to “comment admiringly on the…”

Then, the word κρεκάδια, which occurs only here, is of uncertain meaning. Starkie suggested that it was

only written in error for ῥέγµατα, a rare word meaning ‘dyed material’ which he translated as “carpets”.

Subsequent editors have not conceded defeat so readily and propose deriving the word from κρέκω (‘to

weave’) as signifying ‘tapestries’ or ‘curtains’. The usual word for a curtain is αὐλαία and to judge from a

technical, military usage where it is applied to a protective screen hung over a city-wall, it might be used

to denote a tapestry too. But, even if κρεκάδια (‘weavings’) could be taken as a synonym of αὐλαία, there

is no mention of such wall-hangings as early as the fifth century. The only comparable textiles are richly-

embroidered drapes called παραπετάσµατα which are mentioned as features of Persian luxury, e.g. τοῖσι

παραπετάσµασιν τοῖς Μηδίκοις (Βάτραχοι 938) and παραπετάσµασι ποικίλοισι (Herodotos 9.82.1). If this

is what is meant by κρεκάδια, then they may refer here to the embroidered coverlets on tables or couches,

although we have been given the word στρώµατα already for the latter.

But, it is the third word which poses the biggest problem. The items listed have given the impression that

the symposium takes place indoors, where there are bronze or copper ornaments, a decorated ceiling and

some kind of textiles, perhaps curtains which might have been hung over doors and windows to exclude

draughts. The word αὐλή, however, requires us to imagine the symposium outside in a courtyard, since an

αὐλή cannot be an interior space. MacDowell states correctly that an αὐλή, “is a large space surrounded

141

by walls”, but in consequence he translates it “hall”. Sommerstein agrees, while Henderson also refers to

the dining-“room”. But, this stretches the meaning of ‘courtyard’ too far (cf. 131).

It is worth remembering that the Attic climate allows much more extramural activity than most Europeans

are used to, and that in the summer dining al fresco is not only a pleasure but often a necessity. This helps

to explain Comedy’s preference for exterior scenes, and the location of the Father and Son here outside in

their courtyard makes it easy to visualize the imagined feast out in the open-air too. The reference to the

ὀροφὴν does not rule out the possibility of the dinner being held outdoors, because the ‘ceiling’ could be

that of a colonnade around the outside of a court, e.g. Νεφέλαι (171-3) describes a nocturnal scene where

‘Sokrates’ is said to have been ‘under a ceiling’ while studying the movements of the moon. Therefore,

we could perhaps imagine the κρεκάδια αὐλῆς as an ‘awning’.

But, as the action is set in wintertime, I think that the symposium would certainly be taking place indoors.

Philokleon is being invited to praise the lavish decorative elements of the host’s dining-area, but this third

feature is not material, rather it is a part of the acoustic environment. In Ὄρνιθες (682), the verb κρέκω is

used metaphorically of ‘weaving a tune on a pipe’ (ὦ καλλιβόαν κρέκουσ’ αὐλὸν), in this case applied to

the trilling of bird-song. I suggest, therefore, emending κρεκάδι’ αὐλῆς to κρεκάδι’ αὐλοῦ. The diners are

not outside, but inside listening to “variations on the pipe”.

1216. ὕδωρ κατὰ χειρός

This line is quoted by Athenaios (14. 641δ), while mentioning a comparable scene of an imaginary meal

in a satyr-play by Achaios. Since they ate with their fingers the ancient diners were accustomed to wash

their hands both before and after the meal. The Son first instructs the slave to “<pour> water over our

hands”, before the food is served. The instruction is given more fully in Ταγηνισταί (frg. 516), φέρε, παῖ,

ταχέως κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ, παράπεµπε τὸ χειρόµακτρον - “quickly fetch water <to pour> over our hands,

boy, <and> pass round the hand-towel” (cf. Eupolis frg. 320, κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ).

τὰς τραπέζας εἰσφέρειν

Commentators assume that the dishes were brought in along with the tables, so that calling for tables to

be set up was equivalent to saying ‘serve the food’, but this assumption overlooks the fact that the guests

brought food with them (cf. 1251). Side-tables were brought in and set beside the reclining symposiasts

so that they could place their σπυρίδια on them with whatever snacks had been packed. In this way there

could be no complaints about the inadequacy of the meal.

The ‘tables’ may have been trays which were carried in and rested upon trestles, as in Γεωργοί (frg. 127),

the poet refers to a τραπεζοφόρον, an item of furniture rather than a person, upon which rested the table

with ‘the myrtle-wreaths for the magistrates’.

1217. ἀπονενίµµεθ(α)

Once the meal is over the guests wash their hands in finger-bowls; a far more thorough process than the

cursory rinsing beforehand.

σπένδοµεν

The meal over, the wine (or port) is brought in, but before anyone could start drinking it was customary to

pour out the first drop as a libation. It is still usual, in polite society, for the host to give the go-ahead by

proposing a toast to everyone’s ‘good health’.

1219. αὑλητρὶς ἐνεφύσησεν

As the drinking begins “the flute-girl has begun to blow into <her pipes>”. The verb ἐµφυσάω is usually

applied to ‘inflating’ or ‘inspiring’ and although it seems a logical choice for playing the pipes, it is not in

fact found elsewhere in this sense. Instead, the verb used by Athenaios (8.351ε) is ἀναφυσάω and Blaydes

has proposed reading ἀνεφύσησεν here. I would follow his lead, since the prefix indicates that the flute-

girl takes up her pipes ‘again’ after playing the guests in earlier (1215).

The instrument being played is the double-pipe (always in the singular αὐλός), rather than what we know

as a flute, but it has become customary to translate αὑλητρὶς as a “flute-girl” instead of a ‘girl-piper’. So,

the music strikes up and it soon puts the guests in the mood for some karaoke. Well, not quite, but the girl

would move gracefully while she played and another girl (ὀρχηστρίς) might be brought in to dance more

provocatively so that the spirits of Dionysos and Aphrodite united the company (cf. Xenophon Συµπόσιον

2.1). It was this combination of sensory delights that, Plato says, made Aristophanes a regular symposiast.

1220.

Four of the upper-class συµπόται turn out to be the same men who habitually ‘side with the people’. The

names of three of them have been mentioned already, Theoros (42), Aischines (459) and Kleon (passim).

142

The fourth man Phanos is mentioned in Ἱππεῖς (1256) as ὑπογραφεὺς δικῶν - “one who puts his name to

indictments <on Kleon’s behalf>”.

MacDowell expresses surprise that figures on the popular wing of politics should have been picked out to

represent a typical symposium. The possible explanations he offers are all valid, but the fundamental fact

to keep in mind is that, regardless of their constituency, all members of the political elite in Athens were

drawn from the same social class; they were all plutocrats. [It is the Attic model of ‘democracy’, after all,

which has been adopted by the United States and not the modern, isocratic reformulation.]

1221. ξένος τις ἕτερος

The fifth member of the company is described as “another foreigner”, insinuating that the last-mentioned,

Kleon, was of foreign origin too. This is a call-back to the imputation in Ἱππεῖς that he was Paphlagonian.

Jibes about the foreignness of certain aristocrats are usually found to be baseless. They amount to a comic

trope, which seems to have amused Athenian audiences. It did not prevent later Roman biographers (and

some modern historians) from taking the mockery seriously. It is quite possible that the jibes could have

been damaging to their targets’ political standing despite the fact that most people realized their absurdity.

‘Some mud sticks’ justifies mud-slinging. [We might consider the fact that opinion polls have shown that

many Americans continue to believe that President Obama was born outside the U.S. despite evidence to

the contrary.]

πρὸς κεφαλῆς Ἀκέστορος

The codices read ἀκέστερος, which Bentley corrected to the proper name Ἀκέστορος on the basis of the

scholia. We know from ancient comments on this line (and on Ὄρνιθες 31) that there was a tragedian of

this name and there is no reason to suppose that he would have been out of place among political figures,

as Sommerstein surmises, since both Sophokles and Karkinos (cf. 1501) held high political office as well

as serving the Tragic Muse. We are told that Akestor was lampooned by other comic dramatists (Kratinos

frg. 92, Kallias frg. 17, Theopompos frg. 61, Metagenes frg. 14 and Eupolis frg. 172), usually on grounds

of his alleged connections with the Mysians or the Sakai.

However, the line as it stands is problematic. Leaving aside the absence of a conjunction which English

demands, we appear to have an unnamed fifth guest (“another foreigner”) who is positioned ‘toward the

head of Akestor’. This will not do. Why introduce a fifth guest who is not named, but is imagined to be

placed in a particular relationship to a sixth, who is named?

The problem is due once again to a logical ellipse and the best solution has been provided by Dindorf’s

recognition of crasis in Ἁκέστορος (i.e. ὁ Ἀκέστορος - “the son of Akestor”). Firstly, we do not need to

have one guest’s position defined in relation to another’s; that is immaterial. The phrase πρὸς κεφαλῆς

expects us to understand σου, so that Philοkleon can picture Akestor’s son to one side while Theoros is

said later (1236, again with σου understood) to be behind him. Dutta’s translation assumes that Κλέωνος

is to be understood, but this seems less likely, because Aristophanes is trying to place Philokleon among

the carousers, not to arrange them in any particular order. Secondly, the mention of the other foreigner is

a clear pointer to the son of Akestor, since the scholiast says that the comic poets “also mocked Akestor

himself as a foreigner”. The whole purpose of the line seems to be to mock Kleon’s ‘foreign’ antecedents

by introducing yet another known foreigner to the company. It is safe to presume that the son of Akestor

(whatever his name) was a close confidant of Kleon and of impeccable pedigree. Starkie says that he may

have been the man alluded to in Ἀχαρνεῖς (203), Τεισαµενός of Paiania.

Finally, there is the little matter of the missing conjunction, which is best remedied by Palmer’s proposal

to take the line as a fresh start and make it a rhetorical question. So, I translate ξένος τις ἕτερος <ἐστιν>

πρὸς κεφαλῆς <σου>, ὁ Ἀκέστορος;

1222. τὰ σκόλι(α)

Drinking parties were a rich man’s preserve. Participation was limited to a select elite and, as this passage

shows, the form of entertainment was conservative and traditional. Songs were sung extolling events that

belonged to an earlier, parochial age; one in which the noble clans were united against a common enemy,

Change, (as in the Tea Party slogan, “I’ll keep my money, you keep the change”). The songs, sung in rote

as the myrtle-branch passed from hand to hand, were sung as a kind of male bonding ritual. Their subjects

were traditional and some popular verses would have been standards composed by well-known poets, e.g.

Ion of Chios, but talented guests might well have improvised their own lines (cf. 1244).

ὅπως δέξει καλῶς

143

Each participant in the round, as he took the myrtle-spray as his cue from the previous singer, was said to

‘receive’ the song. Here we understand Bdelykleon to be warning his aged father to “<make sure> that

you cap their verses well”.

1223. ἄληθες;

The old man is indignant that his musical ability should be doubted (cf. Νεφέλαι 841, Βάτραχοι 840). The

single word conveys a dumbfounded expression and a hopeless gesture. There are a variety of phrases in

English expressive of incredulity; one has only to supply a suitable verb, e.g. ‘are you really suggesting I

could not?’ However, this seems to leave a logical gap with the rest of the line, i.e. <I could certainly do

it> better than… Starkie produced a smoother sequence by assigning καλῶς to the Father and ἄληθες to

the Son thus,

Υἱός: τὰ σκόλια πῶς δέξει; (‘how will you cap the songs?’) Πατήρ: καλῶς (‘Neatly’)

Υἱός: ἄληθες; (‘Really?’) Πατήρ: ὡς οὐδείς ∆ιακρίων δέξεται (‘As neatly as any Diakrian will.’)

This is probably the best solution for interpreting the existing text, since ἄληθες coming from the Son has

the same tone of disbelief as the later instance (coming from the Father) in 1412. If, on the other hand, it

is heard from Philokleon here, then it must express his indignation ἀληθές· “Certainly!” There is another,

similar case of affirmation in Νεφέλαι (841).

∆ιακρίων δέξεται

Our manuscripts agree in reading ὡς οὐδείς γε διακρίων δεδέξεται, (‘as noone at any rate of the diakrians

will have followed on’), which makes sense, but does not run on seamlessly from ἄληθες; (perhaps this is

the point?). Also, the genitive διακρίων after ὡς οὐδείς seems unusual, for similar phrases (e.g. 88, 150)

lead us to expect the nominative. So we would have to assume an ellipse of <ἀνὴρ τῶν γε> διακρίων (cf.

889-90, ὡς οὐδείς ἀνὴρ τῶν γε νεωτέρων), as e.g. Νεφέλαι 917, οὐδεὶς ἐθέλει τῶν µειρακίων. The main

problem, however, is simply that the line is too long and does not scan.

Hall and Geldart have adopted the solution of Florent Chrestien to drop the particle and reduce the future

perfect tense to the simple future. This has the effect of turning the phrase into a potential clause (cf. 209

for the omission of ἂν in potential clauses). Alternatively, von Bamberg (1865) suggested retaining the γε

and replacing δεδέξεται, which he considered a gloss, with the personal pronoun ἐγώ. This rather drastic

solution has been adopted by all subsequent editors, although not everyone is entirely happy. MacDowell

considered it is “probably right”, but Wilson accepts reluctantly, as he finds it difficult to assume that the

verb was the result of a gloss. I share his doubt, because it seems to me that (with minor surgery) the text

of the codices forms a complete line, which might have been copied as, ὡς οὐδέ τις διακρίων δεδέξεται,

but had originally been a potential clause with the simple future tense, ὡς οὐδέ τις διακρίων γε δέξεται -

“not even a highland shepherd would follow on in the manner I could”. I suspect that the confusion in the

text arose from a copying error ὡς οὐδὲ εἷς, which could have stood unelided, had not a well-intentioned

scribe altered it to οὐδ’ εἷς to avoid hiatus (cf. Ἱππεῖς 573-4, οὐδ’ ἂν εἷς τῶν πρὸ τοῦ).

The hasty progression in our text makes me suspect that, since ὡς…δέξεται constitutes a complete line, it

may have been grafted on to ἀληθές· after the accidental omission of the original phrase. I would suggest

that we leave a lacuna after ἀληθές· which I have tried to fill in translation.

So, who are these διάκριοι and what does Philokleon mean? The word ‘Diakrians’ is used by Plutarch to

denote one of the three main, political factions in Solon’s age (Ἠθικά 805ε). In Σόλων 13.1, he describes

them as being the most democratically-inclined (ἦν γὰρ τὸ µὲν τῶν ∆ιακρίων γένος δηµοκρατικώτατον),

adding (Σόλων 29.1) that many were θῆτες, or journeymen who like jurymen worked for a day’s pay and

bitterly resented the idle rich (ὁ θητικὸς ὄχλος καὶ µάλιστα τοῖς πλουσίοις ἀχθόµενος). Their ringleader

was Peisistratos, a former tribal στρατηγός (προειστήκει...Πεισίστρατος δὲ τῶν ∆ιακρίων). His source for

this information, in part at least, is the author of Ἀθηναίων Πολ. (esp. 13.4). He himself casts doubt on the

terminology by having referred to the same faction as ἐπάκριοι earlier (Ἠθικά 763δ), which probably was

better used to describe those ‘on the mountain-tops’ to judge from the temple of Zeus (Polyzelos frg.8,

Ἐπακρίου ∆ιός).

Herodotos, however, uses a different term, calling the supporters of Peisistratos ὑπεράκριοι. He speaks of

the future tyrant “gathering the rebels together and making himself the spokesman for the men beyond the

hills” (συλλέξας δὲ στασιώτας καὶ τῷ λόγῳ τῶν ὑπερακρίων προστὰς, 1.59.3). If he is correct in using the

word ὑπεράκριοι, and Stanton (1990, p.87 n.2) supports this viewpoint, then the words διάκριοι / ἐπάκριοι

may have meant no more than ‘hill-men’ and been used in error by later historians, confused by passages

such as this one. Here, an allusion to the tyrant’s supposed supporters would be so at odds with the spirit

144

of ‘democratic’ unity that the sing-along was intended to foster, that Bdelykleon would have had to call

him out if that was understood to be the case.

Another hypothesis, supported by Sommerstein, proposes that the διάκριοι was a specific reference to the

inhabitants of the area of Diakris, which Traill (1978) identifies as a trittys of the Leontis. Sommerstein

fancies that they “had a reputation as fine singers”. Apart from the fact that such folk would more likely

have called themselves ∆ιακρεῖς (or even ∆ιακρῆς), I would object that claiming to sing ‘as well as any

Welshman’ would not be funny, merely a pathetic boast.

The point of the remark is that διάκριοι were ‘hill-dwellers’ who, like the shepherds of Sardinia and parts

of the Canaries today, were able to communicate with one another over distance by vociferating, so that

Philokleon knows how to pass along a song, because he can ‘yodel’ as well as the next man. He is surely

thinking of hill-farmers like Strepsiades in Νεφέλαι, who kept sheep (45) and tended goats on the rocky

hillsides of Phelleus (71). The joke is that the musical high-brows are put on a par with yodelling yokels.

It is akin to the comparison of symposiasts to slave-women who sing while doing the housework and to

cicadas (Νεφέλαι 1358-60).

1224. ἐγω εἴσοµαι

The future of εἴδω means or “I will look into...” or “see for myself”. The words are run together to form an

iambic metron.

καὶ δὴ γάρ

Recent translators have chosen variations on, “just suppose that…”which is a reasonable paraphrase. But

the words generally serve to catch one’s attention, i.e. “look here” (cf. 1324, 1483 and 1484).

1225. δέξαι δὲ σύ

Hall and Geldart read the imperative (V) in preference to the future δέξει (RΓ). Although subsequently all

editors have elected to print the future, it may simply have been copied from line 1222.

Ἁρµοδίου

In 514 B.C., during the ‘tyranny’ of the Peisistratid Hippias, a group of conspirators succeeded in stabbing

to death the tyrant’s younger brother Hipparchos while he was overseeing preparations for the procession

of the pan-Athenaia at the Leokorion building. The conspirators later turned out to be only two in number

and, as Thucydides is at pains to clarify (6.53.3-59.1), they may have acted from personal motives and not

been aiming for political change. On the other hand, his version of events seeks to credit the Alkmaionids

with the eventual expulsion of the Peisistratids in 511, so he may be deliberately underplaying the role of

Harmodios and Aristogeiton three years earlier.

Nonetheless, after the revolution a statue-group was dedicated to the heroic pair in the Agora (near where

they stabbed their victim and where Harmodios was belatedly struck down by Hippias’s bodyguard) and

this exceptional honour clearly indicates that their action had assumed considerable political significance.

Cf. Stanton (1990) 115-120.

One may surmise that the singing of the ‘Harmodios ballad’ would set the tone for the company. Whereas

a gathering of old nobility (with Thucydides present) would treat it as a tragic love-triangle, the imagined

group in which Kleon participated would perhaps see it as the first blow struck for ‘democracy’. Plato’s

symposiast ‘Phaidros’ (p.48) combines the two elements. The four versions of improvised σκόλια which

are preserved by Athenaios (15.695 α-β) all exemplify the heroic aspect.

A scholiast (on 1238a) quotes an interesting couplet from a later play Πελαργοί,

ὁ µὲν ᾖδεν «Ἀδµήτου λόγον» πρὸς µυρρίνην,

ὁ δὲ αὐτὸν ἠνάγκαζεν Ἁρµοδίου µέλος.

“He began to sing the ‘story of Admetos’ to the myrtle sprig,

But the other made him sing the ‘Harmodios’ song.”

We can only speculate why the first song was deemed unsatisfactory. The ‘Admetos’ told a story where

friendship in the service of love triumphs over death, while the ‘Harmodios’ tells of heroism that lives on

in song after death. The former celebrated the values of the καλοὶ κἀγαθοί (a brotherhood of the elite and

the religious); the latter seems to have been a hymn to ἰσονοµία and deliverance from oligarchic not just

tyrannical rule. On the other hand, the objection may not have been political, one might surmise that the

singer was being discouraged from celebrating heterosexual devotion (represented by the tale of Alkestis

and Admetos), in favour of a song that hymned alleged homosexual love.

1226. « οὐδεὶς πώποτ(ε)...

145

I think it reasonable to assume that he signs to the slave to accompany him on the flute before he begins

to sing.

ἔγεντ(ο) Ἀθήναις

The codices read ἐγένετ(ο) ἀθηναῖος (“an Athenian there was”), which Bentley emended employing the

metrically-convenient contraction ἔγεντο to produce the hendecasyllabic verse common in σκόλια.

1227. <οὐδὲ>

Philokleon chooses to continue the song with a line which appears just something he has made up on the

spur of the moment, but it is more likely to have been borrowed from another σκόλιον less suitable to the

occasion (as the metre, repaired by Hirschig’s insertion of οὐδὲ, is appropriate). The result is that his ‘rap

disses’ the revolutionary hero.

1228. τουτὶ σὺ δράσεις;

Bdelykleon is aghast at his father’s mistake, since the other guests may be presumed to revere Harmodios.

παραπολεῖ βοῶµενος

The passive verb and participle leave us to understand that there will be a violent reaction from the guests,

among whom Kleon will be to the fore, as he is notorious for his lung-power (cf. 36, 1287).

1229-30.

If the Son is not quoting Kleon’s actual words, he is giving the flavour of his ‘thundering’, threatening his

opponents with death and destruction or exile.

1231. ἕτερ(α) ἀντᾴσοµαι

Recent editors have reverted to the reading of the codices ἑτέραν <sc. ᾠδὴν> ᾄσοµαι, understanding that

the old man will ‘sing a different <tune>’ if Kleon makes threats. But, Hall and Geldart printed Dobree’s

emendation, which matches the construction used in Ἐκκλησιάζ. 887, ἐγὼ δ’, ἢν τοῦτο δρᾷς, ἀντᾴσοµαι,

and therefore should probably be preferred (cf. 1244).

1232-5. ὦ (ἄ)νθρωφ’, οὗτος

This couplet is borrowed, with minor alterations, from the opening lines of a poem by Alkaios (frg. 141

3-4, ὤνηρ οὗτος ὁ µαιόµενος τὸ µέγα κρέτος, ὀντρέψει τάχα τὰν πόλιν· ἁ δ’ έχεται ῥοπᾶς) which seems

to have been selected, a) because the words were originally addressed to a tyrant (the sixth-century ruler

of Mytilene, Pittakos) and b) because they warn Kleon that public opinion is shifting.

The original poem uses the Aeolic dialect and speaks of the ambitious politician in the third person, ὤνηρ

instead of ὦ ἄνθρωπε and ὀντρέψει for ἀντρέψεις. As MacDowell observes, the change into Attic dialect

is the kind of thing a copyist might do. I suspect that the direct accusation against Kleon may also be due

to a later hand. Greek political sparring is frequently allusive. One rarely hears any Member of Parliament

suggest that a political opponent is in need of psychiatric help, but rather that ‘some people maintain that

a more rational policy would be…’ Here, the change in person is metrically-equivalent and need not have

been made by Aristophanes.

ἀντρέψεις ἔτι

It may be that Philokleon is supposed to be reciting the Lesbian’s lines in his naturalized Attic idiom, but

if Bentley has had to correct the text to ἀντρέψεις ἔτι from the codices ἀνατρέψεις ἔτι for metrical fidelity,

there is reason to suspect that the received text offers an explanatory gloss, not of ἀντρέψεις ἔτι, but of the

original ὀντρέψει τάχα. Aristophanes uses the verb normally in Νεφέλαι (e.g. 884, ἀνατρέπει and 901).

ἁ δ(ὲ) ἔχεται ῥοπᾶς

“She (the city) is tipping”. The image of a pair of scales counterbalances the dream of Sosias (cf. 38-9).

1236.τί δ(ὲ),

The usual ellipse is τί δράσεις, but here we can understand τί δ’ <ᾄσει>;

πρὸς ποδῶν κατακείµενος

Barrett and Sommerstein borrow Κλέωνος from the next line, but Theoros is surely lying at Philokleon’s

feet (cf. 1221). His position symbolizes his political role as Kleon’s ‘right-hand man’ who (in Comedy at

least) demeans himself by soliciting the popular vote (cf. 43).

1237. λαβόµενος τῆς δεξιᾶς

The gesture of grasping a person by the right hand indicates that one is about to plead someone’s case, or

to beg a favour (cf. Nεφέλαι 81).

1238. Ἀδµήτου λόγον...φίλει

I follow recent editors and take this line to be 1238 / 39 (so that Hall and Geldart’s 1240 becomes 1241).

In the original drinking-song it was a single verse, metrically a greater asclepiad. The scholiast attributes

146

its composition to Praxilla of Sikyon and quotes the next line as, τῶν δειλῶν δ’ ἀπέχου γνοὺς ὅτι δειλῶν

ὀλίγα χάρις - “keep clear of cowards, for there’s little joy to expect from them”. The poetess advises her

listeners to learn the moral lesson of Admetos’s story. He was the legendary king of Thessaly, whose wife

Alkestis was ready to die in his place. In Euripides’ version of the myth, the hero Herakles visits Admetos

and, exhibiting his usual appetite for the good things of life (cf. 60), expects to be wined and dined by his

friend. But, his visit is opportune for, when he learns of the death of his friend’s wife, he does not shrink

from wrestling Death to rescue her from his grip. The moral of the myth is that one should never give up

hope, but trust to the staunch friendship of decent men.

The point of having Theoros sing this particular σκόλιον may be the irony implicit in the second verse, or

it may paint Theoros as the female poet who reminds Kleon that a dutiful wife would die for her partner.

ὦ (ἑ)ταίρε

The term translates formally as ‘close associate’. It was used by leading patricians from different families

to indicate their shared interests e.g. Aristeides is called ἑταῖρος of Kleisthenes (Plutarch Ἀριστείδης 2.1).

This form of address would have provided justification for referring to any female present at the table as a

ἑταίρα, but conversely the euphemistic use of the latter term may have undermined the respectability of

the masculine form. So, in Comedy at least, there may be some sexual connotations that allow another dig

at Kleon (or Theoros), this time for effeminacy? Our poet seems to have used the verb ἑταιρέω in similar,

ambiguous terms of the upper-class Androkles to suggest that his membership of an aristocratic club may

have involved the use of his member, ἡταιρηκότα (see scholion on 1187).

1240. ᾠδικῶς ἐγώ

Sommerstein prints Dindorf’s emendation ὡδί πως (“something like this”), but the text of the codices is a

more pertinent response. “In a lyrical way”, indicates that he will not respond with a usual drinking-song

but change the rhythm to that of lyric verse. Antiatticist (116.31) describes one singing in tune as ᾠδικός,

(cf. frg. 155).

1241. ἀλωπεκίζειν

In conservative circles the phrase‘to play the fox’ would have been a coded reference to their bogeyman

Themistokles, son of Neokles, who was called the “Fox” for allegedly always maintaining a back-channel

with the Medes while directing the war against them, (cf. Plutarch Θεµιστοκλῆς 21.5, quoting a drinking

song by Timokreon of Rhodes). There could also be a punning reference to Ἀλωπέκη the home deme of

his arch rival Aristeides (cf. Plutarch Ἀριστείδης 1.1). The historian Lewis (1963) suggested that the verb

“refers as much to the political shifts of the men of Alopeke and their leader Megakles as to the cunning

of the fox”, but it is possible duplicity among the populists that is pertinent to these party-goers.

MacDowell notes that the metre used, the Aeolic metre, is typical of some choral songs (e.g. in Euripides’

Μήδεια 151-8).

1244. κᾆτ(α) ᾄσεται

This phrase (‘and then he’ll sing’) is in the codices and is generally accepted. But, the Ravennatus reads

καταίσεται which opens the possibility that a different letter has dropped out. Consequently κἀντᾴσεται,

Dobree’s proposed emendation, would be just as likely and, coming after µετὰ τοῦτον, avoids repetition.

1246. Κλειταγόρᾳ

Aischines contribution is likely to remain a bit of a mystery. The Kleitagora-song is mentioned elsewhere,

but lines 1245-7 are all we possess of it. An ancient commentator claimed that the subject of the song was

a Thessalian poetess, while the commentator at Λυσιστράτη 1237, agreeing that she was a poetess, claims

(frg. 271) she was Lakonian, adding that Aristophanes mentioned her also in ∆αναΐδες. Probably they are

both merely guessing based on her name (‘renowned for declaiming’). In Νεφέλαι, her name appears in a

list of ‘well-known’ women who are paradigms of the female sex (684), from which one may reasonably

assume that she was most likely to have been an educated courtesan.

The name is found inscribed (ΚΑΛΕ ΚΛΕΤΑΓΟΡΑ) on a red-figured κάλπις acquired by the University

of Mississippi in 1955, as well as a bronze πυξίς and an Attic tomb-stele (IG iv, suppl.ii, 3858b, published

by Conze. See Robinson (1956).

It would be nice to have some background information, but failing that we would benefit from knowing

the subject and main verb. Faced with only the direct objects given in the original text, χρήµατα καὶ βίαν,

and the indirect objects, Κλειταγόρᾳ τε κἀµοι, we are left to surmise that, “<someone> - along with the

Thessalians - <used> bribery and force on both Kleitagora and me”. An alternative approach would be to

adopt Tyrwhitt’s emendation of βίον and conclude that the pair was given “wealth and livelihood”. But it

147

is worth noting that, although βίαν appears less relevant, it has been used in a similar context in Ἀχαρνεῖς.

There (73), an ambassador claims that he and his fellow-emissaries had had to drink fine wine from cups

of gold and crystal ‘under duress’ (πρὸς βίαν). Perhaps, therefore, the poet is repeating his sarcasm here?

The Thessalian ruling families seem to have had a reputation for using their wealth diplomatically. It is

recorded by Plutarch that Kimon, when accused of having taken bribes from the Macedonians, defended

himself, οὐκ...ἔφη προξενεῖν Θεσσαλῶν, πλουσίων ὄντων, ἵνα θεραπεύωνται καὶ λαµβάνωσιν - “saying

that he was not to be courted and bribed like the representatives of wealthy Thessalians” (Κίµων 14.3).

1248. πολλὰ δὴ διεκόµπασας σὺ κἀγώ

The verb in the codices is διεκόµισα /διεκόµισας, but as a scholion describes Aischines as a κοµπαστής,

Tyrwhitt (and Burges) have conjectured that a compound form of the verb κοµπάζω existed, which might

have meant ‘competed in boasting’. But probably the scholiast was as mystified by Philokleon’s response

as we are and was attempting to draw some relevance from Aischines’ reputation for vanity (as indicated

by his comic patronymic ὁ Σέλλου and the earlier mention τὸν Σελλαρτίου in 459). The verb, in any case,

is the second person singular only, while the subject (σὺ κἀγώ) appears to be plural. It makes no sense to

read “you competed in boasting about a lot, indeed, as did I”, although it might, if we had the rest of the

verse. I think, therefore, that the scholion should be viewed as unreliable.

We are better advised to stick with the manuscripts as far as the verb is concerned and to try and apply it

to Aischines’ song by relating the verb to the two subjects. So, I would suggest πολλὰ δὴ διεκόµισες σ’,

οὐκ ἐγώ - “you certainly carried off a good deal, I didn’t <benefit>”. This would make his reply a call-

back to Philokleon’s earlier expression of regret that he had not got any personal gain from Laches’ graft

in Sicily (917).

Thus, the joke in Philokleon’s reply would be the suggestion that the politician had brought back ample

reward for his putative embassy to Thessaly (with Kleitagora!), while the citizens had not profited at all.

1250. ὅπως…ἴµεν

The syntax is doubtful here. Although scholars offer parallels for the future indicative, one would rather

have the subjunctive ἴωµεν as in 1264, “<It’s time> we were going” (cf. Βάτραχοι 812, ἀλλ’ εἰσίωµεν).

1251. τὸ δεῖπνον…συσκεύαζε νῷν

They are off to a real party at the home of a wealthy man, yet the Son seems worried that the host may not

have any food in the house and we all know the risks associated with drinking on an empty stomach. So is

the instruction merely intended to raise a smile at the parsimony of an aristocrat? As MacDowell observes

“the evidence is sparse”. But, there is a similar scene in Ἀχαρνεῖς 1085-1142, and Athenaios (8.365α-β)

certainly believed that the σύνδειπνον was customary,

(τὸ ἀπὸ σπυρίδος δεῖπνον, ὅταν τις αὐτὸς αὑτῷ δεῖπνον καὶ συνθεὶς εἰς σπυρίδα παρά τινα δειπνήσων ἴῃ)

In evidence he quotes a fragment from the fifth-century comic-writer Pherekrates (frg. 57) which refers to

‘packing a dinner’ (συσκευασάµενος δεῖπνον εἰς τὸ σπυρίδιον). We find further hints of the practice later

in the fourth century. Antiphanes is said to have explained that someone who had shared the expenses for

a meal with his friends was in a better position to appreciate his comic-dramas than a king like Alexander

(Athenaios 13.555α, quoting from Lykophron of Chalkis, περὶ Κωµῳδίας: cf. also, Alexis frg.18). A later

remark suggests that there was a variety of food on offer, possibly an indication that the guests shared

their food with one another (cf. 1304), just as a group pick-nicking tends to do nowadays.

Philoktemon sounds fictitious, but he may not be. Sommerstein suggests that his namesake mentioned in

a fourth-century speech of Isaios may have been his grandson

Χρυσέ

The manuscript reading can be taken (like ‘Ξανθίας’) as a reference to the slave’s fair hair and delivered

in an effete tone as ‘Treasure’. Stephanis (1980) has actually suggested that it is a pet name for Xanthias,

but this seems to me less likely than Wilamovitz’s suggestion, Κροῖσε, which introduces another member

of the household, one probably of Lydian origin. Wilson notes that the name is listed twice in the Lexicon

of Greek personal names, although neither instance identifies a slave.

1252. µεθυσθῶµεν

The verb is used of drinking heavily, and usually implies intoxication (cf. 1322).

διὰ χρόνου

Aristophanes often uses this phrase, “at long last”, e.g. Εἰρήνη 570, 710, to convey the sense that up until

now there has been a period of abstinence (‘a dry spell’) and so emphasize the character’s relief (cf. 1476,

διὰ πολλοῦ χρόνου).

148

1253. κακὸν τὸ πίνειν

Philokleon has nothing against drinking as such. Remember his little donkey-flask! His objection is only

to drinking excessively, which only wealthy men can afford to do. The slaves Sosias and Xanthias were

both a little light-headed from their alcohol consumption at the start of the play, but they pointed out then

that Philokleon was not φιλοπότην, as this was a dependency rather more common among the better-off

(78-80).

The roots of Comedy are exposed in this sententious remark, which echoes Epicharmos’s “wine produces

riot and legal redress” (cf. Athenaios 2.3).

1254. θυροκοπῆσαι

The cause of Philokleon’s concern is made clear. Drinking to excess goes beyond personal enjoyment and

turns the drinker into a public nuisance. He pictures the typically boisterous symposiast, making his noisy

way home in the small hours, “banging on doors” (rather than ‘breaking down’ doors, cf. Νεφέλαι 132-3,

κόπτω τὴν θύραν...ὁ κόψας τὴν θύραν), on the premise ‘he is awake, so others should be’. Such behaviour

could be construed as ‘disturbing the peace’ and land one in trouble (cf. Antiphanes frg. 239, θυρoκοπῶν

ὦφλεν δίκην - “by banging on doors he incurred a penalty”).

πατάξαι καὶ βαλεῖν

The party-goer rowdily assaults passers-by, knocking them down (rather than throwing objects about, cf.

1422). The reading of the codices, κατάξαι (from κατάγνυµι - ‘break in pieces’), is not necessarily wrong

but Aristophanes invariably uses the verb of a particular object (e.g. 1428 τῆς κεφαλῆς, 1436 ἐχῖνον) and

the pairing here suggests a regularly-used, legalistic phrase (cf. 1422).

1255. ἀποτίνειν ἀργύριον

Those mistreated by the revellers and any who have suffered damage to their property are likely to bring

charges of disturbing the peace and seek payment of compensation. His fears will be shown to have been

prescient later on.

ἐκ κραιπάλης

The results of excessive drinking are firstly ‘drunken behaviour’ then ‘a hangover’ (cf. Plato Συµπόσιον

176δ, ἄλλως τε καὶ κραιπαλῶντα ἔτι ἐκ τῆς προτεραίας - “especially when he is still hungover from <the

binge> the day before”). The preposition determines which is meant here, for although recent translators

have preferred, “while you are hung over”, this would probably be expressed by ὑπὸ κραιπάλης, whereas

what we are given is “as a result of behaving in a drunk and disorderly fashion” (see also Ἀχαρνεῖς 277).

1256. παρῃτήσαντο

The full phrase would be παραιτεῖσθαι <ἐπιεικείαν>, to “appeal to the man’s better nature”. The aorist is

used of a repeated action.

1258. λόγον...ἀστεῖόν τινα

Knowing that it is hard to retain one’s anger while laughing, the revellers would try ‘cracking a joke’, just

as the defendants in court had done earlier (567).

1259. Αἰσωπικὸν

The tales typical of Aisop (cf. 566) usually pointed morals by attributing human characteristics to the rest

of the animal kingdom in Disneyesque style.

Συβαριτικόν

The safest form of ethnic humour was to tell stories at the expense of the Sybarites whose city had been a

major trading hub until a social war combined with competition from its neighbours to destroy its control

of commerce in Magna Graecia (c. 510 B.C). Athenian attempts to resettle the city finally succeeded when

the colony of Thourioi was established on part of the former territory of Sybaris in 444 B.C.

1260. ὧν...συµποσίῳ

The symposiasts would tell ‘Sybarite’ anecdotes while they were drinking. They probably filled the same

function as limericks do nowadays for making crude jokes. If Aristophanes’ examples are indicative, the

typical story involved a degree of black humour, but this may be the poet’s own distortion of the custom.

1261. ἀποίχεται

Cobet’s suggested emendation ἀπέρχεται should be accepted. The man does not ‘depart <this life>’ (cf.

Βάτραχοι 83, ἀπολιπών µ’ ἀποίχεται - “he has gone and deserted me”, and also frg. 504.12, ὁ µακαρίτης

οίχεται), unless he dies laughing of course. Aristophanes uses ἀπέρχεσθαι for the literal sense of ‘going

off’, e.g. Ἀχαρνεῖς 689, κᾆτα...ἀπέρχεται - “whereupon he leaves <court>”.

1262. µαθητέον τἄρ(α) ἐστὶ

149

The codices read variants of ἄρα or γ(ε) ἄρα, but Hermann’s proposal (seconded by Elmsley) to read τἄρ’

(i.e. τοι ἄρα) is an improvement, since no particular emphasis is required on the first word.

1264. ἄγε νυν

All recent editors give this line to the Father, since the majority of codices do not differentiate it from the

preceding couplet. MacDowell concludes that the old man is now keen to be going. But, this interjection

often marks a change of speaker (e.g. 211) and one codex (R) assigns the line implausibly to the Chorus. I

have to agree with Bergk that nothing has changed in the Father’s demeanour and this line is more suited

to the Son. Philokleon’s reluctance and his son’s enthusiasm are dramatically necessary, since the comedy

of the former’s ‘conversion’ later on will depend upon it.

µηδὲν ἡµᾶς ἰσχέτω

The phrase, previously used in Ἱππεῖς 724, is presumably borrowed from Tragedy, “let nought detain us”.

It is a clear indication that the Son is the speaker.

Minor Excursus (∆ευτέρη Παράβασις) 1265-91

The Chorus takes time out beginning the second parabasis with a pair of odes (metrically a στροφή and an

ἐπίρρηµα) concerning some well-known figures in public life. But we have difficulty understanding these

passages, because their interpretation requires vital information we lack. The fact that the scholiasts seem

to know little more is small consolation.

Barrett’s original translation transposed this passage to a later position following 1449. But, it is required

here to occupy the period of the supposed symposion and Dutta has restored it to its traditional position.

1265-74. (Στροφή)

The first ode pokes fun at three men, who had served on various diplomatic missions, possibly together;

Ameinias, son of Pronapes; Leogoras, son of Andokides; and Antiphon, son of Sophilos. They were all

aristocrats. Although it is evident that Aristophanes is poking fun at their personal foibles, the real point

of his jibes is not clear. On the face of it, the poet’s chief target is Ameinias, who as we were told earlier

(74-6) was an inveterate gambler, a fact which Barrett seizes upon to produce a competent and coherent

verse narrative of Ameinias’s fall into penury due to this addiction. The other two noblemen do not figure

in Ameinias’s downfall in this translation, but the sense and verse are fluent, a consistency that is lacking

in Aristophanes’ text.

MacDowell and Sommerstein have provided full and fascinating notes on the little we know (or think we

know) of the three diplomats, but still they can wring little sense from the ode. The latter makes a resolute

effort to charge the plain text with meaning, but still one is left with a suspicion that a literal interpretation

is probably the least likely to be right.

1267. Ἀµυνίας ὁ Σέλλου

We know that ‘Ameinias’ was assumed to be in the audience at the original performance, which suggests

that he held public office in 422 B.C. His current social standing is vouched for by the simple fact that this

is the third reference to him in the drama (cf. 74-6, and 466); or possibly the fourth if τοῦ Σέλλου (325) is

a further reference to him, as MacDowell suggests. In this passage he is said to have been on a diplomatic

mission to the Thessalians.

µᾶλλον

MacDowell considered that this means ‘all the more stupid’, but it must surely be praising the astuteness

of old ‘Ameinias’. The γὰρ in the final clause (1270) explains why he should be considered clever.

οὑκ τῶν Κρωβύλων

MacDowell notes that the singular κρωβύλου, found in R, is more likely to have been corrupted to match

the plural article τῶν and so we could read “one of the hair-bun fraternity”. However, the word occurs as

a proper noun in a later comic-drama (Alexis frg. 5) and in a speech by Aischines, where Demosthenes’

colleague Hegesippos is called ο Κρωβύλος ἐκεῖνος (3. 118). This suggests that ‘a Krobylos’ was meant

to describe ‘a fogey’ (cf. 1480), so I would follow Hall and Geldart and print the plural (from the Venetus

and a citation in the Σοῦδα).

The word signified a bun in which long hair was gathered for convenience. Commentators have compared

the style to the hair-bun or chignon in which ‘Victorian’ ladies wound their long tresses, but this properly-

speaking was a chignon du cou which covered the nape of the neck. On the other hand, when Thucydides

remarks that the older members of wealthy families had only recently abandoned the hair-style, he speaks

of them tying their hair up in a bun on their head, rather than behind it in the female fashion (οὐ πολὺς

150

χρόνος ἐπειδὴ...ἐπαύσαντο...κρωβύλον ἀναδούµενοι τῶν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ τριχῶν (1.6.3). If we are meant to

take his words literally, then the more appropriate comparison might be the chonmage (‘top-knot’) of the

Japanese samurai, a traditional style epitomizing a warrior caste. Its original purpose was twofold. Firstly,

it prevented an enemy seizing hold of the long hair in a mêlée and secondly it provided a padding of hair

to stabilize the warrior’s helmet and to cushion a blow to the top of the head.

1268. οὗτος ὅν γ(ε)

Τhe relative pronoun reads better than the participle ὢν (V), “the very man indeed whom I once saw…”

ἀντὶ µήλου καὶ ῥοᾶς

Commentators have inferred that, as it is differentiated from ‘dining with Leogoras’, who was a paradigm

of opulent living, the fruit could be considered a “cheap…food, such as a poor man might eat”. But, fruit

of all kinds was a welcome delicacy, even for the rich, so it is hardly likely that Aristophanes intended his

audience to take “an apple and a pomegranate” in its literal sense. The reference to fruit is more likely to

be symbolic. The ῥοαῖ which are associated with the goddess of the Underworld, are symbols of fertility;

while the µήλα which Herakles brought back from the garden of the Hesperides, have been interpreted in

various ways, but were certainly valuable and significant.

I would be inclined to dissociate the fruits from the joke about Ameinias’s supposed poverty in the verses

following and look for another explanation for the contrast between ‘dining <well>’ and his normal fare.

A possible explanation may be found in the supposition that sacerdotal duties (cf. note on 466) involving

ritual offerings of an apple (to Aphrodite), or a pomegranate (to Persephone), occasioned the reference.

According to Athenaios (650ε), the comic poet Epilykos used the expression <…> µῆλα καὶ ῥόας λέγεις -

“you are talking…apples and pomegranates” (frg. 2, from Κωραλίσκος). Nobody, I think, knows exactly

what this means. But, in Comedy the sexual connotations of fruit abound, e.g. τὰ τιτθί(α) ὥσπερ µῆλα ἢ

µιµαίκυλα - “her nipples resemble apples or strawberries” (Krates frg. 43).

1270. πεινῇ γὰρ ᾗπερ

He explains that Ameinias “goes hungry in the same way” that Antiphon goes hungry. Presumably, both

aristocrats held priestly offices and would dine well at public feasts in their role as παράσιτοι, though they

might get less sex than they did in their younger days.

Ἀντιφῶν

Storey (1985) makes the case for identifying this Antiphon with the son of Lysidonides, whom Kratinos

had satirized in competiton the previous year, but it was the son of Sophilos who was Aristophanes’ butt

in Νεφέλαι, that same year (although he is not mentioned there by name).

1274. αὐτὸς πενέστης ὢν

Τhe suggestion that he had been impoverished by gambling cannot hold water. It is evident that, as he had

the wherewithal to hold the office of στρατηγóς, a position which belonged exclusively to men of wealth

and noble birth, he was far from being reduced to sponging off his friends. Moreover, talk of an addiction

to gambling is more likely to be a reference to political actions rather than to private habits, which even if

rumoured could not be generally known. (A similar comic charge is laid by Kratinos against Kallias, son

of Hipponikos, when he accuses him of being branded like a slave, simply because he has an outstanding

mortgage which was a matter of public record.) Consequently, his penury probably comes down to mere

wordplay. Aristophanes presumably wanted to squeeze in a topical reference to Ameinias and noted that

his recent visit to Thessaly is likely to have brought him diplomatic presents (though there is no evidence

that Attic law required any declaration for tax purposes). Lines 1243-8 might have been making a similar

point more obliquely. His mission would have entailed him mixing with the ordinary citizens of Thessaly,

who, I theorize, were known at Athens as Πηνέσται (because the Peneios was the chief river of Thessaly),

and this opened the way for the poet to make a play on πένητες - ‘day labourers’ (the kind of person with

whom Ameinias would not normally have had any contact), since the relative forms were πενέστερος and

πενέστατος. Subsequent writers, such as Plato and Xenophon, evidently took Aristophanes’s joke literally

and understood Πενέσται to refer to the peasant-class, the πένητες, of Thessaly and by the Roman era the

meaning of the word was set in stone (cf. Athenaios 6.85).

In his closely-contemporary Πόλεις, Eupolis also mocks Ameinias as a peasant with patrician habits when

he describes him hanging round the perfume-sellers stalls (frg. 222).

χἀµυνίας ἐκεῖνος ἀµέλει κλαύσεται

ὅτι <ὢν> ἄγροικος ἵσταται πρὸς τῷ µύρῳ.

151

“And Ameinias there will regret it, you can be sure, because he stands by the perfume-sellers, though he’s

a yokel…”. Presumably, like Strepsiades, he hailed from a country district (cf. Νεφέλαι 47, ἄγροικος ὢν)

and ought to be unfamiliar with such luxuries, like the farmer’s aristocratic wife (51, ἡ δ’ αὖ µύρου).

In view of the earlier reference to Bdelykleon as a “long-haired Ameinias” (466), it seems fair to assume

that there was a topical, political significance to this ode. For, there, the Chorus suggested that it was clear

to them as working men (τοῖς πένησιν) that they were being deprived of the protection of the law in some

way (467-70); a comment which could be directed at some recent legislation instigated by the aristocratic

Ameinias.

ἐλάττων οὐδενός

Bentley proposed emending to ἐλάττον to mean, I suppose, ‘a lesser thing than nothing’. But, the phrase

is the equivalent of the Latin nulli secundus, i.e. ‘second to none’, ‘as good as any’ (cf. 599).

1275-83. (Ἐπίρρηµα)

The second ode is addressed to Automenes and is used by the poet to poke fun at a family with no known

involvement in politics. Beyond such references by Aristophanes (Ἱππεῖς, 1277-89; Εἰρήνη 885; Ἐκκλ.129

and frg. 926) we know little about them. Aristotle mentions a comic dramatist named Ariphrades and the

poet himself elsewhere names the lyre-playing brother as Arignotos.

As entertainers they enjoyed a degree of public recognition, though their private lives were not the subject

of public interest to the same extent as similar celebrities in our own decadent age, nor does Aristophanes

seek to encourage a prurient interest in the sexual proclivities of such people. His audience is not required

to take it as fact that one brother has homosexual tendencies and that another indulged in cunnilingus. He

is aiming instead at sophisticated mockery within the conventions of comic-drama, so his descriptions of

the sons’ abilities are deliberately ambiguous.

The metre used in this song suggests the light trilling of the flute. The first seven lines 1275-82, excluding

1281, are in a rather rare metre known as paeonic tetrameter (in this case the paeon scans - ˞ ˞ ˞, and there

are three paeons followed by an amphimacer, - ˞ -), while the final line (1283) rounds off the song with a

regular trochaic tetrameter. The metre may have been chosen because the song is in the form of a speech

such as an orator might declaim. The paeon (and especially a first paeon in which the long syllable comes

first) was thought suitable for a declamation that would come trippingly off the tongue without sounding

as if it were a straight, poetic recitation (cf. Aristotle περὶ Ῥητορικής 3.8.5).

ὦ µακάρι(ε) Αὐτοµένες

The address (to a man who is otherwise unknown) is mock-epic (cf. Ἰλιάς 3.132, ὦ µάκαρ’ Ἀτρεΐδη). The

epithet is usually reserved for the gods or the ‘blessed’ dead (cf. 639-40). Automenes would have to spit

against the omen, since he was probably still alive at the time (cf. 1510 and Νεφέλαι 1206).

σε µακαρίζοµεν

These words are reminiscent of Solon’s account of the priestess of Argive Hera whose two sons, Kleobis

and Biton, were such a credit to her that, αἱ δὲ Ἀργεῖαι τὴν µητέρα αὐτῶν <ἐµακάριζον> - “the women of

Argos congratulated their mother” (Herodotos 1.31.3). The story illustrates the maxim ‘call no-one happy

(or blessed) until they are dead’, as it will excite the envy of the gods.

1276. χειρο-τεχνικοτάτους

The sons are “clever with their hands”, which sounds innocent enough, but requires clarification in case a

member of the audience should misinterpret it.

1277. ἅπασι φίλον

The first-born son is “everybody’s friend”. He is the lyre-playing Arignotos mentioned in Ἱππεῖς (1277-9),

where it is said that ‘anyone who can tell good music from bad knows Arignotos!’ His dexterity accounts

for his exceptional musicianship (κιθαραοιδότατον), but may also account for his having χάρις ἐφέσπετο

(“pleasure or <self> gratification attend upon him”). His celebrity makes him popular and Aristophanes

too (Ἱππεῖς 1277) claims to know him well (as Steve Martin insisted, “he is a ‘personal’ friend of mine”).

By calling him everybody’s friend, the poet appears to pay him a compliment, but it is worth noting that,

behind her back, the good citizens of Miletos referred to the notorious ἑταίρα Plangon as Πασιφίλη. This

nickname was doubtless also the work of a comic-poet, whose mockery, attributed (probably erroneously)

to Archilochos, is quoted by Athenaios (13. 594γ-δ),

συκῆ πετραίη πολλὰς βόσκουσα κορώνας

εὐήθης ξείνων δέκτρια Πασιφίλη

152

“A fig-tree on rocky ground that looks after many a ravenous bird, good-natured Pasiphili entertains

strangers.”

The male form Πάµφιλος appears to be used at Athens as a perfectly reputable name, but it is inscribed on

a cup salvaged from the Antikythera wreck which bears an incised, erotic scene.

1278. κιθαραοιδότατον

For the uncontracted form of the adjective, see also Eupolis frg. 308.

1279-80.

Although I have translated the text as it stands, there seems to be an anomaly, for if the text is correct, we

have three sons. First of all (πρῶτα µὲν), there is the lyre-player, whom we know to be Arignotos; then, a

second son (τὸν δὲ…ἕτερον) who is an “awfully-talented actor” and after him (εἶτα) comes the somewhat

disreputable Ariphrades. It seems curious that we should have two brothers whom we can name and who

are both ridiculed, while a third who remains anonymous is let off in a single line with unqualified praise.

I suspect that this white sheep of the family is the product of a textual error and would obelize εἶτα. This

would allow τόν...ἕτερον to take its more usual sense of ‘the other of two’ and would leave us with only

the two brothers who were mentioned previously in Ἱππεῖς, Arignotos and Ariphrades. Assuming that the

Ariphrades in question is the comic-dramatist mentioned by Aristotle (περὶ Ποιητικῆς 1458β 31), it would

not be unusual for him to have got his start as a performer, as others (e.g. Myllos, Krates and Pherekrates)

had before him and as Aristophanes probably did too (cf. Appendix 3).

Elmsley wanted to read Ἀριφράδη for Ἀριφράδην, but the codices and the citation in the Σοῦδα agree on

the latter spelling.

θυµο-σοφικώτατον

Ariphrades’ outstanding skill (yet to be defined, but ostensibly thespian) is born of a genuine passion for

what he does. Like φιλο-σοφικός the epithet θυµο-σοφικός appears to be a unique coinage (cf. Νεφέλαι

877).

1281. ὅντινά ποτ(ε) ὤµοσε

Prima facie this means “whom <Automenes> once swore that…”, but there is no reason why the parent

should vouch for his son’s self-taught skill with a solemn oath and, on the basis of the vocative and the

second person verb in the opening lines, one would expect ὤµοσες (which does not scan). Sommerstein

feels that we can take the verb’s subject to be ‘his father’. On the other hand, if one wanted Ariphrades

himself to swear that he is self-taught, which seems more logical, we would have to alter ὅντινά to ὅστις.

1282.

Most editors follow Bothe in excising this line on the grounds that it merely repeats the previous lines in

different words and could therefore have originated from a marginal gloss. Additionally, the removal of

one line would bring the ode into balance with lines 1284-91.

The reasoning is sound, but if I had to reject a line I would excise 1281, since µαθόντα παρὰ µηδενὸς is a

more credible gloss on αὐτόµατον ἐκµαθεῖν than vice versa. Also, as outlined in the previous note, I find

the opening of 1281 unconvincing. Therefore, I prefer to retain this line with ὥστ’ replacing ἀλλ(ὰ) and

delete 1281 instead.

Van Leeuven preferred to retain both lines, but to maintain balance with 1284-91 by assuming the loss of

a line after 1286. This seems to me to be a less viable solution.

ἀπὸ σοφῆς φύσεος

Bothe’s suspicions were aroused by the unmetrical reading of the codices, φύσεως, but Bentley corrected

this with φύσεος, from a 14^th-century ms. (Vaticanus Graecus 2181). Although some have argued that this

phrase merely repeats the idea of θυµοσοφικώτατον, it should be seen as an expansion of it, to judge from

θυµόσοφός...φύσει in Νεφέλαι (877). We can take it that Ariphrades was “(passionate about acquiring his

skills) with the result that he was entirely self-taught from his innate talent”. Compare Νεφέλαι 1075 for

φύσεως, where φύσεος would not scan.

1283. γλωττοποιεῖν

Only with the final line does the mask of approbation seem to fall away as he states unambiguously that

one son has a unique talent at “plying his tongue whenever he goes into a brothel”. The audience would

certainly have understood this phrase in an obscene sense, but as Sommerstein (1977) perceptively notes,

the ancient auditor would have made the connection between γλωττοποιεῖν and Ariphrades’ professional

skill as a comic-dramatist, understanding γελωτοποιεῖν. The use of the verb γλωττοποιεῖν is justified by

the mention of Ariphrades’ acting talent at the outset.

153

The reference to the brothers in Ἱππεῖς is couched in similarly vituperative terms (especially 1288-9) and

as a result a number of modern scholars have taken Aristophanes at his word, suggesting that he detested

Ariphrades, because he was a rival dramatist, or even because he held different philosophical or political

views. Sometimes, I despair. I doubt that the poet’s personal relationship with the sons of Automenes was

genuinely antagonistic; it is actually quite likely, that as fellow-entertainers the brothers would have been

invited to the after-party and as a fellow-comic Ariphrades would have relished the word-play. If he had

been foolish enough to protest that his ‘using his tongue’ (as an actor) could be misinterpreted as ‘licking

prostitutes’ (again), Aristophanes would have been able to exculpate himself by pointing out that he must

have misheard, for what he had actually said was that Ariphrades ‘made the girls laugh’ or ‘was sending

them up’ (as a comic poet).

(Ἀντιστροφή)

At this point, one would expect to hear an ode responding musically to the opening στροφή, so it is likely

that ten lines are missing from our text. This, at least, was the view of Heliodoros an ancient commentator

quoted in the scholia. The codex Venetus has seven lines which give no sense. Sommerstein suggests that

Aristophanes may have deleted the song himself prior to production.

1284-91. (Ἀντεπίρρηµα)

In the original παράβασις the chorus-leader referred to the poet in the third person, whereas these lines are

notionally spoken by the poet himself and all verbs and personal pronouns are in the first person. Opinion

differs as to what this change of person signifies. One might surmise that such speeches which are spoken

in first-person are the poet’s later interpolations in the written text added as a kind of literary aside, rather

than parts of the original performance. But, scholars are content to suppose, either that by convention the

chorus-leader was expected to speak for the poet, or conversely, that perhaps these speeches were spoken

by the poet himself in sua persona, when undertaking the role of chorus-leader (see Appendix 5).

1284. εἰσί τινες οἵ...

Who exactly does he mean here? Note that the poet does not say simply that ‘there was a rumour’ (φασι).

When political figures refer vaguely to ‘certain people’, they usually do so knowing that their audience is

well-aware who they mean. So, Aristophanes (if he is the one speaking) makes this slighting reference to

his detractors, as if to say, “You know who you are”.

καταδιηλλάγην

The idea of reconciliation crops up frequently when there has been comic disagreement. In Ἀχαρνεῖς 988-

9, the Chorus hails ∆ιαλλαγή as the companion of Aphrodite. Earlier we heard the Son plead with the old

men of the chorus to discuss matters and be reconciled (472) and shortly we will find Philokleon himself

proposing to ‘come to terms’ with an antagonist (1394-5). He uses the normal verb διαλλάσσοµαι, while

here the unique compound form of the verb is probably intended to stress ‘complete reconciliation’.

1285. Κλέων µ(ε) ὑπετάραττεν ἐπικείµενος

Here Kleon is “harrying and shaking up” the poet, but in Ἱππεῖς it was the leader of the cavalry who was

inciting his mounted troops to, τάραττε...κἐπικείµενος βόα - “shake up and lay into <Paphlagon - Kleon>

with a whoop” (251-2).

The codices read ὑπερτάραττεν which gives good sense (‘shake up tremendously’) but is not evidenced in

extant literature and gives an unwanted long syllable (-ερτ-).

1286. καί µε κακίσταις ἔκνισε

Hall and Geldart obelize the first three words but hesitate to alter them in the face of the unanimity of the

codices. The problem is metrical since, in order to conform to the paeonic metre, the third word ought to

be an anapaest. Editors have agreed that the most likely emendation is Briel’s κακίσας (with long ultima),

which they translate as “stung me with abuse”. Handley has suggested τι κακίσας to avoid the repetition

of the pronoun (cf. Wilson p. 96). But, the emendation can be questioned on two grounds. First, as Zacher

pointed out, the aorist participle is unsuitable here. Starkie disagreed, but his argument rests on a doubtful

emendation of his own in 535/6 (κρατήσας). Secondly, the verb κακίζω (‘abuse’, ‘rebuke’) does not make

a good match with κνίζω, a much milder word which is usually taken to mean ‘scratch’, ‘tickle’ ‘chafe’ or

‘chide’; all comparitively gentle terms.

In reviewing the debate over this line I was bemused to find that apparently no-one had considered a very

obvious solution, κακίαις. But, in fact, this was an early suggestion of Florent Chrestien which no recent

apparatus has included, perhaps due to Starkie’s stark verdict that it “is not Greek”. Nonetheless, Brunck

and Rogers have disagreed. The difficulty is probably down to how one interprets the word and here the

154

translation offered by Rogers seems to me to be at fault. His interpretation, “made me smart with injury”,

does not convince. Instead, if one keeps an open mind regarding the overall meaning of this passage, it is

possible to see the phrase in a different light. The word κακίαι is picked up by Loukianos later to describe

the defects of mediocre writers, νῦν δὲ τὰς κακίας...ὁπόσαι τοῖς φαύλως συγγράφουσιν παρακολουθοῦσιν

(πῶς δεῖ ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν 6) and accordingly I would translate it as, “he chided me for my <literary>

failings”.

ἀπεδειρόµην

Aristophanes comically compares himself to the satyr Marsyas who was flayed alive by Apollo as a result

of a lost bet. He had played on the double-pipe in competiton with the god’s lyre and, even though he had

captivated his audience, fell victim to the god’s deceit. The ‘flaying’ is a comic exaggeration justified, of

course, by the fact that Kleon’s family owned tanneries (cf. 38).

Whereas he had used δέρειν earlier (485), the poet lengthens the stem of the verb to -δειρ - whenever it

suits his metre, especially in compounds.

1287. οὑκτὸς…θεώµενοι

We cannot be sure precisely what this line was meant to convey, but the general consensus is that “those

who were not involved” (MacDowell) or “the spectators standing outside” (Sommerstein) were onlookers

at his trial (see Appendix 3), who took pleasure at his discomforture when Kleon was raging at him (µέγα

κεκραγότα). This is fine and dandy, but the text has had to undergo some tweaking to arrive at the desired

translation. The earliest reading seems to have been ἐκτὸς ἐγέλων µέγα κεκραγότα µ’ οἱ θεώµενοι, where

the addition of µ(ε) οἱ clarifies the sense but disturbs the metre. The definite article was evidently judged

to be misplaced, rather than a gloss, so that the Aldine editor corrected to, οἱ (ἐ)κτὸς, which Dindorf (as

usual) preferred in crasis, οὑκτὸς (risking confusion with the singular). Consequently, the only difference

of opinion between recent editors has been over the first words: ἐκτὸς (Sommerstein), οὑκτὸς (Hall and

Geldart), or οἱ (ἐ)κτὸς (MacDowell and Henderson). This leaves a far from satisfactory verse.

The initial assumption that µέγα κεκραγότα must refer to Kleon would seem obvious, given the continual

references to his loud voice throughout the plays. But, there is nothing to corroborate this here. Moreover,

the use of the first person pronoun in the earlier texts suggests that the loud cries are in fact coming from

the poet in this case. Since he is being flayed, this should not surprise us. Consequently, I would replace a

surplus adverb µέγα with the relevant pronoun ἐµὲ to make this clear. This interpretation seems heretical

nowadays but was preferred by Hickie (1853) and Graves (1894) who translates “seeing me screaming so

loudly” (p. 212). Cf. also 198, where κέκραχθι is addressed to the Father.

Then too, the term οἱ ’κτὸς leaves too much work for the imagination. The only occurrence of οἱ ἐκτὸς in

a legalistic context is when Plato makes a distinction between internal, civil wars and those waged against

other races and alien people πρὸς τοὺς ἐκτός (Νόµοι 629δ). Although the poet says that he stood accused

of disparaging Athens ξένων παρόντων in Ἀχαρνεῖς (501), it is hard to see the relevance of ‘foreigners’ or

‘strangers’ here. So, commentators usually conclude that οἱ (ἐ)κτὸς must mean ‘by-standers’, “those who

were not involved” (MacDowell) on the basis of such phrases as τοῖς ἔξωθεν in Νεφέλαι 974, “people who

drop by”, or τῶν ἔνδοθέν τις in Πλοῦτος 228 “one of the slaves inside”.

On the other hand, the word θεώµενοι is regularly applied to ‘spectators in a theatre’ but not to the gallery

of a law-court. If these spectators are attending a court of law, why must they be ‘outside’ to take sadistic

pleasure in the tongue-lashing? I suspect that ἐκτὸς was simply a desperate guess made where the text had

become illegible due to age. The definite article is not usually separated from its participle to this extent

(cf. Βάτραχοι 2), so the likelihood is that the relative pronoun from 1284 was repeated here. I suggest that

the line might be restored as, οἳ κατέγελων ἐµὲ κεκραγότα θεώµενοι - “those watching were deriding me

for bawling my head off”.

1288. οὐδὲν...µέλον

The subject is ‘those watching’ so we must understand αὐτοῖς with the neuter participle, “who, seemingly,

cared not a jot about me”. Plato uses the same construction, οὐδὲν αὐτῷ µέλον τοῦ τοιούτου (Φαῖδρος

235α).

1289. θλιβόµενος ἐκβαλῶ

Though Dr Chasuble might have missed it, the metaphor probably derives, as MacDowell surmises, from

fruit. When squeezed most fruits exude juice and we can see here that the verb had come to be applied to

people in a predictable manner. The audience would have expected the poet to exude δάκρυα, but instead

155

they get σκωµµάτιον (and may perhaps hear ὀµµάτιον). Modern Greek has inherited the metaphor in such

words as θλίβερος (‘sad’) and θλίψη (‘sadness’).

1290. ταῦτα κατιδὼν

The codices reading ταυτὶ, i.e. “these particular goings-on”, but the second syllable of a paeon is short so

the ταῦτα found in later manuscripts is likely to be correct. It is used adverbially (“that’s why”) and is not

meant as the object of the participle which follows, although one naturally supplies one to fill the ellipse,

which is doubtless how ταυτὶ got into the line to begin with (cf. 1358).

The verb καθοράω emphasizes that he “saw clearly” <what they were doing> (cf. 1493 and Νεφέλαι 526).

ἐπιθήκισα

The copyists had trouble with this verb, perhaps mistaking it for a compound with the prefix ἐπι-, but this

aorist of πιθηκίζω is probably the right form. Normally, the verb means ‘to monkey around’, i.e. ‘to play

tricks on someone’, as is shown by the noun πιθηκισµός (Ἱππεῖς 887). But, here, it probably means simply

‘to lie’, since monkeys were deemed ‘tricky’. In Hippokrates (ἐπιδηµίαι 3, case-studies 1.8 and 1.12), the

‘Liars’ market’ (ψευδέων ἀγορή) is said to have been a place where monkeys were on sale. The image of

a πίθηκος was perhaps chosen also for physical appearance, so that the poet could be likening himself to a

harmless, bald simian dancing around a large and fearsome beast.

1291. εἶτα νῦν ἐξηπάτησεν

The combination of temporal particle with an aorist seems awkward (“Thereupon, <it> now deceived…).

So, I would be inclined to read the enclitic (‘whereupon then’), though both forms usually scan long and

in either case a short syllable is needed here.

ἡ χάραξ τὴν ἄµπελον

Here, we can understand Aristophanes to be saying that he has played a trick on Kleon by pretending that

he will leave him alone. This he had promised to do in lines 62-3, but clearly he had difficulty in keeping

his word, so the vine has been cheated by the pole which was supposed to be holding it up off the ground.

Philokleon has already told how he left Ergasion’s vines without support and now the poet seems to have

done the same to Kleon. Both represent pay-back for the vines which were earlier said to have deceived

the poles which supported them (cf. 326, ψευδαµάµυξυν).

Ἐπεισόδιον 1292-1449

1292-6. [Κροῖσος]

With the ending of the choral interlude, a slave comes hobbling onto the stage, moaning, and clutching at

various parts of his body. He may be one of the two slaves, who were guarding Philokleon at the opening

of the drama and all modern editors assign the part to Xanthias. However, in view of the emphasis placed

on his advanced age (1297), it seems likely that he is thought of as being another unnamed slave. Perhaps,

as Stephanis (1980 p.52) suggested, he is the same slave who was instructed to fetch the packed lunch and

who may therefore have accompanied his masters to the symposium (1251). In any case, nothing prevents

an actor who had taken an earlier role from doubling in this slave’s part.

ἰώ· χελῶναι

Note that I print the first word separately; it is an exclamation of pain rather than an address (ὦ χελῶναι).

Human suffering is a source of comedy from Homer onwards. Aristophanes, like Chaplin, knew that the

spectator, while empathizing with the downtrodden, will instinctively laugh at his discomforture. Thus, he

will often bring on a character who bemoans his plight, e.g. the slave at the opening of Ἱππεῖς, Strepsiades

(Νεφέλαι 1; 1321), Ameinias (Νεφέλαι 1259) etc. The slave’s remark is an ironic reminder of the Chorus’s

prescient warning earlier (429) that someone would get stung.

1293. καὶ τρὶς µακάριαι...τοῦ...τέγους

In most codices the line is incomplete and efforts to complete it in some manuscripts with the addition of

ἐµαῖς are not convincing. The Ravenna codex, however, does offer a complete line with the word στέγειν

at the end, which makes good sense (“you lucky tortoises, you have a <thick> skin, and you are doubly

lucky for having protection for your ribs!”). But, Bentley saw that στέγειν was probably the product of a

scribe’s error (cf.1295) and proposed emending to τοῦ...τέγους which introduces a poetic metaphor (“for

the roof <you have> over your ribs”). This reading of the text makes clearer the distinction, obscured by

current translations, between the hide of the tortoise and its carapace. Hickie got it right, though.

Modern editors, however, have ignored the distinction, chosing to obelize or omit the line; a view which

can be traced back to a fourteenth-century manuscript (Γ). They consider that the line serves merely as a

156

gloss to clarify the following couplet and has been inserted accidentally. However, the opening of the line

shows that it did not originate as a gloss. If anything, they are putting the cart before the horse, as the two

lines which follow could be seen as explaining this one. Indeed, the Ravenna codex appears to accept this

possibility by relegating them to the margin. This line, at any rate, should be retained.

It is not possible to say for sure whether the ordinal number was considered one with the adjective, but in

epic verse at least it appears to be separate (cf. Ὀδύσσεια 5.306). Nevertheless, the two words are always

written as one by copyists. For the construction cf. Νεφέλαι 166, ὦ τρὶς µακάριος τοῦ διεντερεύµατος).

1294-5. κατηρέψασθε…κεράµῳ τὸ νῶτον

These two lines expand on the idea that tortoises have “a roof over their ribs” (and not just their heads) in

a somewhat tortuous manner. In fact, I have only recently managed to convince myself that Aristophanes

wrote them. This is the first appearance of the verb which is not found elsewhere prior to the Ἀργοναυτικά

where Apollonius describes the heroes as ‘covering themselves with their shields, like householders with

a tiled roof who are protected from a hailstorm’ (2.1073). There too, the singular noun κεράµῳ is used for

the plural, but here we appear to have not one but two collective nouns, giving the translation “you roofed

over your back<s> with tile<s>”.

εὐ...καὶ νουβυστικῶς

The slave is an early proponent of Intelligent Design, but it is the tortoises themselves who came up with

the “absolutely sensible” solution of constructing a shell for their own protection, not Providence.

ὥστε τὰς πληγὰς στέγειν

Most manuscripts here read τὰς πλευρὰς στέγειν, which all recent editors print. This is a pity, because it is

the result of a miscopy. The verb στέγειν can indeed mean ‘to protect’, but its primary meaning is ‘to fend

off’ or ‘repel’. One late manuscript (B) contains the correct reading, which Hall and Geldart have printed.

The excission of this line from the Ravenna codex shows how the confusion arose. The copyist there had

been faced with two earlier errors. In 1293 he read (ἐ)πὶ ταῖς πλευραῖς στέγειν, which seemed to read well

enough, while here he found τὰς πλευρὰς στέγειν, which as obvious reduplication, had to be omitted. But,

in fact, one error had sprung from the other. The verb in 1295 had pushed out the noun τέγους in 1293, so

that it was easy for a succeeding hand to write πλευρὰς in 1295 where πληγὰς rightfully belongs.

1296. στιζόµενος βακτηρίᾳ

A runaway slave was branded to show that he belonged to someone. Here the slave appears to be tattooed

by reason of the welts and bruises inflicted on him by the old man’s walking stick. The tattoo was usually

on a slave’s forehead so the victim here is presumably displaying a bruise painted on his mask. (cf. 33, for

the use of walking sticks by old men.)

1297-8. ὦ παῖ; παῖδα γάρ...

Aristophanes has referred twice already (3, 450) to punishing slaves with a beating. The Chorus laughs at

the slave’s sorry condition, as evidently he is no longer young. Their comment is sarcastic, but it suggests

that to beat an elderly slave was not considered ‘the done thing’, although it was only to be expected from

the nouveaux riches (cf.1309). Sosias warned Xanthias earlier that he could get a beating for having fallen

asleep at his post, and the latter had sided with youth against age in the confrontation with the aged jurors,

so the likelihood is that Xanthias at least is comparatively young.

MacDowell observes that the lines probably parody a dramatic convention found in Tragedy, comparing a

similar remark in Θεσµοφοριάζουσαι (582-3).

1300. πολὺ παροινικώτατος

Normally, one would expect πολλῷ, since the next line shows that the sense must be “by far the most…”

Perhaps we may understand <παρὰ> πολὺ. The adjective may have been coined (as a pun on πάροικος) to

express the idea of the verb παροινέω ‘to have more wine than you can handle and become quarrelsome’,

cf. Ἐκκλησιάζουσαι 143.

1301. καίτοι

There is a note of disbelief in the slave’s voice, for one would hardly have expected Philokleon to have

been the worst-behaved in this particular company!

παρῆν Ἵππυλλος

This guest-list at Philoktemon’s party might represent a cross-section of ‘Who’s who in ancient Athens’,

but two of them are totally unknown to us. This may be because they were not all active in public affairs.

The first name, Hippyllos (Barrett, for some reason, prefers Hypillus) is unknown. Sommerstein observes

that the actual name does occur, but in an inscription of uncertain date, while Storey (1985) suggests that

157

he may have been a relative of Philonides, in whose family the name Ἵππυλλα occurs. But, in any case,

according to the Σοῦδα, the name should be Ἱππόλυτος.

Ἀντιφῶν

This man is presumed to be the same one mentioned briefly as a fellow ambassador of Ameinias (1270).

As we have seen, the best-known and most likely target is the rhetorician Antiphon, son of Sophilos.

Λύκων

The Lykon included in the party will be the same man, the father of the handsome pankratiast Autolykos,

who is guest of honour in the fictitious Συµπόσιον of Xenophon. He was a wealthy man (chided for being

poor by Kratinos, frg. 214), and an aristocrat (described as a foreigner by Eupolis, frgg. 215, 273), whose

swaggering gait was thought by scholiasts to be the origin of the verb διασα-Λυκωνίζω (cf. 1169). Some

have identified him with Lykon of Thorikos, who is mentioned by Plato as supporting the prosecution of

Sokrates in 399 (Ἀπολογία 23ε, 26α). This is not out of the question, since although Plato and Xenophon

portray the fictional Sokrates as being on intimate and friendly terms with Lykon and Kallias in the 420’s,

their relationship may well have soured in the political turbulence of the intervening period.

1302. Λυσίστρατος

Lysistratos of Cholargos is the aristocrat mentioned earlier (787).

Θούφραστος

The name (contracted from Θεόφραστος) is not found elsewhere in this period, but the man’s aristocratic

lineage will be betrayed by his haughty demeanour in due course.

οἱ περὶ Φρύνιχον

Along with Henderson and MacDowell, I take the words “the Phynichos set” in apposition as comprising

those already named. To my mind, the lack of a conjunction militates against Sommerstein’s translation

which takes this ‘set’ as an additional group, whose names are not mentioned because they formed a well-

known coterie. Rather, the poet is making the point that although these men were well-known figures in

their own right, the public saw them as the entourage of the most prominent figure, Phrynichos (cf. Ἰλιάς

3.146-7, οἱ δ’ ἀµφὶ Πρίαµον καὶ Πάνθοον...). He is thought of as an éminence grise who is not actually

present (although Barrett understands him to be).

There were a number of men who bore the name Phrynichos. The poet of Tragedy whose songs were still

popular with the elderly jurymen (cf. 220, 269) belonged to an earlier generation and the poet of Comedy

belonged to Aristophanes’ age-group and would have been out of place in this august company. Thus, the

figure-head of this social clique must have been the son of Stratonides, who was an active political figure

and lawyer. His rank is proven by the fact that, ten years later as a στρατηγός, he was appointed alongside

Alkibiades to command the fleet at Samos. Thucydides praises his strategic sense and says that “in every

office he held he displayed great sagacity” (8.27.5, ἐς ὅσα ἄλλα Φρύνιχος κατέστη, οὐκ ἀξύνετος εἶναι).

Later he mentions too his leading role, along with Antiphon, in the oligarchic coup of the ‘Four hundred’

(8.68.3). The two were among those who tried to broker a peace-deal with Sparta (8.90.2). The murder of

Phrynichos near the Βουλευτήριον soon after his return from this embassy marked the beginning of the

end for the short-lived junta (8.92.2).

Storey (1985 pp. 325-30) has proposed an alternative candidate for ‘Phrynichos’, a cousin of the oligarch-

rhetor Andokides who was one of the men denounced over the desecration of the Mysteries (Andokides

περὶ τῶν Μυστερίων 47) in 415 B.C. He is named in our texts as Φρύνιχος ὁ ὀρχησάµενος, which is taken

to mean ‘Phrynichos the ex-dancer’, but Wilhelm has pointed out the correct reading Ὀρχησαµενοῦ, ‘son

of Orchesamenos’. Although Sommerstein (1987) found this identification plausible, the traditional view

that the son of Stratonides is meant still seems more likely.

In passing, it is perhaps worth mentioning an additional factor which would have restricted the numbers

at a symposion, namely the confined space of an interior dining-room. The home of a wealthy citizen like

Philoktemon may have enlarged the space available with internal columns; this may be the construction to

be put on Strepsiades’ resentful remark regarding his brother-in-law’s κίονας in Νεφέλαι 815 (cf. 105n.).

A larger than usual gathering could in any case spill over into another room as the comic-poet Phrynichos

indicates (frg. 69), ἑπτάκλινος οἶκος ἦν καλός, εἶτ’ ἐννεάκλινος ἕτερος οἶκος - “it was a fine seven-couch

dining-room, then came another dining-room with nine”. Such lavish houses could have accommodated a

further ‘set’ of diners, but Aristophanes portrays more intimate soirées. Like the earlier group of revellers

around Kleon these symposiasts would have been seven in all once Philokleon and their host joined them,

so there is no need to suppose an additional group composed of ‘Phrynichos’ cronies’ in another room. A

158

greater number of revellers could only have been accommodated in an imaginary space, such as the head

of Perikles, as indicated by Telekleides (frg. 47) ἐκ κεφαλῆς ἑνδεκακλίνου - “from a head holding eleven

couches” (presumably a reference to the ‘Eleven’ couched in comic periphrasis).

1303. ὑβριστότατος

This reinforces the imputation contained in καίτοι (1301) that the whole company was drunk and behaved

badly, just that Philokleon surpassed them all.

1304. πολλῶν κἀγαθῶν

Did all this food come from one little basket, or did they share out their ‘loaves and fishes’ in democratic

fashion, so that all ate a bit of each other’s food to enhance the brotherly atmosphere?

1305. ἐνήλατ(ο)

Our codices agree on the verb ἐνήλατο (aorist of ἐνάλλοµαι) and although LSJ suggest that it could mean

to ‘jump about’, it clearly does not mean that on the only other occasion it crops up in Aristophanes’ work

(Βάτραχοι 39, <τὴν θύραν> ἐνήλαθ’ ὅστις - “someone leapt upon the door”). So, recent editors are right

to adopt Lenting’s ἀνήλατο (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 668, φέψαλος ἀνήλατο - “a spark leapt upwards”).

ἐσκίρτα

The verb σκιρτάω is used particularly of animals ‘capering’ or ‘gamboling’ and prepares us for the simile

of an untamed ὀνίδιον, or jackass.

(ἐ)πεπόρδει

If with the codices we read the pluperfect of the simple verb πέρδοµαι, it must be treated as equivalent to

an imperfect, but I wonder whether sense might be better served by another aorist, (ἀ)πέπαρδε (from the

compound ἀποπέρδοµαι), since there is a limit to how long one can fart, (although others may disagree).

κατεγέλα

Aristophanes normally uses this verb of ‘making fun’ of people. Here we can understand that Philokleon

“was making fun <of the others>” or simply that he “began to laugh loudly” (amused by his own fart).

1308. αὐτόν ὡς εἶδ(ε) ᾔκασεν

We are not, Ι think, meant to take ὡς temporally, i.e. ‘when he saw him, he made a comparison’…, which

suggests that Lysistratos awoke from a drunken stupor and noticed Philokleon cavorting, but by taking ὡς

for ὅπως to understand, “he drew a comparison how he saw him”.

1309. νεοπλούτῳ τρυγὶ

The manuscript reading, which Hall and Geldart print, has the literal meaning ‘unfermented grape-juice’

(cf. Νεφέλαι 50, ὄζων τρυγός) and could be used metaphorically of ‘an immature young man’. But some

scholars deny that this interpretation is possible here. Austin (1973) rejects it as “gibberish” and promotes

Φρυγὶ, the emendation of Kock which Sommerstein adopts (“a recently-enriched Phrygian”). They object

to the metaphorical use of τρύξ on the grounds that in Πλοῦτος (1085-6) it appears to mean the opposite.

In this passage a young man is told that he will have to sample ‘the new vintage’ before he can satisfy his

thirst for a young girl. Since an old woman is clearly past her best, the word τρύξ is taken to mean dregs.

But, one has to appreciate Chremylos’ sarcasm. For, when he tells the young man that he must taste first

some ‘vin nouveau’ (or as we might say, ‘mutton dressed as lamb’), the reply that he gets is that she must

be ‘vintage vin nouveau’ (τρύξ παλαιά). Although he appears to accept that τρύξ can mean ‘dregs’ in the

later passage, at least MacDowell rightly rejects the interpretation ‘old man or woman’ which is given by

LSJ. The point is not that Philokleon can be compared to a Phrygian who has come into money (which is

ironic since the formerly wealthy Phrygians were now better-known as a source of slaves), but that he is

behaving like a youngster who has just come into an inheritance and lacks the social graces and the table

manners of ‘old money’. What more appropriate metaphor to signify immaturity at a drinking-party than

“new wine”? One should, in any case, be skeptical of the notion that fifth-century Athenians manumitted

their slaves and bequeathed their property to them in the manner of Romans in later ages, e.g. the newly-

enriched servant scorned by Loukianos (πῶς δεῖ ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν 20), or Trimalchio in Satyricon.

1310. κλητῆρί τ(ε) εἰς ἀχυρµὸν

Diogenianos of Herakleia (6.91) gives the phrase ὄνος εἰς ἄχυρα as axiomatic of a person who obtains his

heart’s delight, and clearly this is what ‘Lysistratos’ has in mind. So, by substituting κλητήρ Aristophanes

seems to be playing with the sound of words once again (cf. 189). The duller members of the audience are

left with the impression that a summons-witness is taking his ease on a bran-heap, but those who recalled

the earlier pun could have explained that they should have understood ‘brayer’ to fit the proverb, instead

of a word like mayor. The idiom “an ass in a bran heap” seems to correspond to our expression ‘a pig in

159

clover’, since bran was used to stuff mattresses (cf. frg. 78, ἔχεις ἄχυρα καὶ χνοῦν - “you have bran and

down”).

The main codices read ἀχυρὸν here, and while MacDowell is doubtless correct in saying that the second

syllable scans long, I can see no objection to printing Dindorf’s emendation (on the basis of the Homeric

usage ἀχυρµιαί, cf. Ἰλιάς 5.502) which serves to remind us that a long syllable is required by metre. The

form ἀχυρὸν may be due to Byzantine scribes, since we find it written by Photios when citing a line from

∆αιταλεῖς (frg. 234, καὶ καιόµενον τὸν ἀχυρόν).

ἀποδεδρακότι

The alert spectator will have appreciated the irony of Lysistratos’s comparison, in recalling the old man’s

earlier attempt to escape by means of a donkey (cf. 185, Ἀποδρασιππίδου).

1311. ἀνακραγὼν

The aorist participle of ἀνακράζω is used to show that far from being cowed by the company in which he

found himself, he impertinently “raised his voice”.

ἀντῄκασ(ε)...πάρνοπι

Philokleon responds to Lysistratos, “by comparing him to a locust”. The ordinary ’hopper, which is seen

commonly around Attika, is a nuisance to gardeners, but when conditions permit the population to swell

and swarm it takes on the name of locust and becomes a serious threat to agriculture. One may speculate

that such conditions may have arisen during the war years, when farmland had been left deserted, so that

a surge had occurred. A plague of locusts probably occurred in the recent past because Pheidias had been

commissioned to execute a statue honouring Apollo Παρνόπιος (‘destroyer of locusts’), which Pausanias

saw standing across from the Parthenon (1.24.8).

The comparison perhaps served to describe his stern, desiccated appearance and to suggest that he used to

devour everything in his path.

1312. τὰ θρῖα τοῦ τρίβωνος

Just as Kleonymos was said to have ‘discarded his equipment’ (19-27, ἀποβαλεῖν...ὅπλα), so Lysistratos

is described as an insect that has “sloughed the fig-leaves of <its> thin cloak”. It is a strange comparison.

Commentators assume that the fig-leaves mean the insect’s wings; but if this were so, why not say wings?

Moreover, the grasshopper does not shed its wings, which are acquired only in the last stage of its growth.

In any case, I have to disagree with MacDowell’s claim that fig-leaves resemble orthoptera wings in some

way, since they are particularly large for leaves, whereas ’hoppers have the wings of ‘choppers’. Despite

this oversight, however, MacDowell’s interpretation of the simile is substantially correct. He conjectures

that Lysistratos “was in the habit of going about inadequately dressed” and that (like Philokleon himself

until recently, cf. 1123), he wore only a τρίβων in wintertime, which provided poor protection against the

elements, when any self-respecting patrician, like Morychos, would be warmly wrapped up in a χλαῖνα.

The comparison of Lysistratos, therefore, tallies with the decription of him in Ἀχαρνεῖς as, “always cold

and hungry” (857, ῥιγῶν τε καὶ πεινῶν ἀεὶ).

But, where I think we have been tripped up in our analysis is in failing to spot that Aristophanes is mixing

his similes as lightly as some mix their metaphors. We have seen him sometimes purposely confuse bees

with wasps in order to achieve his simile. So, here, after using locusts to portray Lysistratos as constantly

eating, he now switches to crickets to make a second comparison, for crickets, the Athenian cicada among

them, shed their outer skin as they outgrow it. Thus, the point being made is not only that the man wears a

“thin cloak” in winter, but that cricket-like he sheds even this “barely-adequate covering” in the summer.

The cicada sheds its outer layer, or ‘shirt’ (πουκάµισο), in the baking heat of summer, which gives rise to

the Modern Greek saying σκάει ο τζίτζικας, to indicate a heatwave. The audience would have picked up

on the switch from grasshopper to cricket easily enough because old men had been compared to crickets

in Homeric verse (cf. Ἰλιάς 3.151, τεττίγεσσιν ἐοικότες, in describing the Trojan elders) and Aristophanes

had used the simile in Νεφέλαι (1360, ὡσπερεὶ τέττιγας).

The casual mixing of similes in Aristophanes’ writing is well-exemplified in this play as the old jurors are

likened to bees and wasps indiscriminately. In the original version of Νεφέλαι (frg. 393) he had compared

the intellectual figure of Chairephon to a moth (for his supposed nocturnal pursuits) or a mosquito (for his

skinny physique and mordant wit).

As we have already seen (e.g. 1131-2), the τρίβων is often presented in Comedy as inadequate protection

against the elements, so that we seem to have an early instance of the metaphorical sense of the ‘fig leaf’,

with which we have been accustomed to clothe our shame (and nude art works) ever since the Garden of

160

Eden (see Γένεσις 3.7). The joke is that despite his age Lysistratos wears only the thinnest of cloaks in the

cold of winter and during summer discards even this item to exercise half naked. His display of Lakonian

hardihood is probably intended to mark him out as an associate of Sokrates.

1313. Σθενέλῳ...διακεκαρµένῳ

Having made the familiar jokes that Lysistratos is ‘hungry’ because he eats like a locust and ‘cold’ since

he dresses in Spartan style, Aristophanes draws a third comparison, which likens him “to Sthenelos when

shorn of his trappings”. There are a number of figures in mythology named Sthenelos, including a king of

Mycenai, the father of Eurystheus, and one of the Ἐπίγονοι, Sthenelos son of Kapaneus. But, none of the

mythological figures seems to connect with the Athenian aristocrat in any way.

An ancient scholiast informs us that Sthenelos was a tragic-poet (or tragic actor) who failed professionally

and, being unable to make ends meet, had to sell off his stage-costumes (frg. 158a). If there is any truth to

this, then Lysistratos was being ridiculed for dressing no better than a poor man. But, although this seems

to gel with the previous jibes, it could be no more than a guess, since the tragedian’s career seems to have

continued well beyond this date. Harpokration confirms that a poet named Sthenelos appeared in the lists

of successful tragic-dramatists, but was mocked by Platon (frg.72) in Λάκωνες for having plagiarized the

work of others and a scholion (on 1312) quotes another disparaging remark of Platon (frg. 136).

A more likely point of comparison can be inferred from Aristotle’s view that the poet wrote ‘undignified’

tragic-dramas (ch.22 Ποιητικά 1458α 20) and Athenaios quotes from Γηρυτάδης (frg. 158b), a later work

of Aristophanes, where the man’s verse is described as ‘flavourless’ (i.e. lacking in feeling). So, I share

Sommerstein’s conclusion that the point of comparison is likely to have been the “artistic nakedness” of

the tragedian Sthenelos when stripped of his theatrical accoutrements, suggesting that Lysistratos was not

a stimulating dinner-companion; rather his wit and conversational skills were on a par with the works of a

somewhat tedious tragedian.

That said, this is Comedy and Aristophanes is satirizing both the tragic-poet and the noble symposiast for

traits which might well be seen favourably outside the theatre. Moreover, comments such as this probably

helped Aristotle reach his verdict on the work of Sthenelos and contributed to his own idiosyncratic view

of what constituted poetry. In criticizing the works of Sthenelos (and Ariphrades) for their use of prosaic

diction, he could have been dismissing an ancient Chekhov for his lack of theatricality. In which case, we

can form an image of the aristocratic Lysistratos, as plain-spoken and lacking in mannerisms, like a work

by Sthenelos.

1315. διεµύλλαινεν

The verb may well have been coined by Aristophanes. Hesychios states that it meant ‘to purse and twist

the lips in a disdainful manner’ (τὰ χείλη διεκίνει καὶ διέστρεφε µυσαττόµενος). We can guess, from the

knowledge that µύλλον means ‘lip’, that Thouphrastos is pulling a sour face by ‘pouting’. As the gesture

is one of disdain we might say he ‘wrinkled his nose at…’ For the Athenian audience, the humour of the

line lay mainly in the fact that µύλλον could also be applied to the female ‘labia’ (cf. µυλλός and µυλλάς).

1317. κοµᾷς

Literally, “you wear your hair long”. The term is used to mock the indolent, upper-class gentleman whose

leisure-time was allegedly spent tending his stylish tresses.

1318. ἀεί

This is invariably taken to refer to τὸν εὖ πράττοντα in the sense of ‘at the present time’. But, it seems to

me that it is the consistency of Thouphrastos’ behaviour which is being mocked, rather than the fleeting

nature of his attachments. The special meaning of ἀεί is due solely to its position in the line, but as with

the similar instance in 390 it carries its usual meaning and has simply been postponed for emphasis and

metrical convenience (cf. 1458).

1320-1. λόγους...τῷ πράγµατι

Despite his son’s earlier advice (1174-5) the old man has been telling irrelevant jokes, “not at all suited to

the subject under discussion”.

1322-3.

We learned from the Chorus in the parodos that the unmade roads of Athens were difficult to negotiate at

night. But, we are now provided with evidence of additional dangers. As Philokleon himself (1252-5) had

predicted one could have the misfortune to run into a symposiast returning home the worse for drink. The

streets of eighteenth-century London held similar risks, with groups of drunken Mohocks ready to assault

anyone they came across.

161

1324. ὁδὶ…καὶ δὴ

Some noise offstage, probably the sound of flute-music, interrupts the slave’s narrative and he directs the

spectators’ attention to the wings, “…and look, here he is!” (cf. 1360).

σφαλλόµενος

The middle participle ‘tripping himself’ (i.e. “tripping over his own feet”) is a seemingly incidental detail,

but is added to make clear to the audience that Philokleon will enter in a very drunken state. According to

tradition the first comic poet to bring a character on stage in this inebriated condition had been Krates (cf.

testimonium iv), although it is said that Epicharmos had set the precedent already in ‘Megarian’ comedy

(Athenaios 10.429α).

1325. ἐκποδὼν ἄπειµι

The old slave hears the sound of flute-music marking Philokleon’s approach, taking it as his cue to leave

in order to avoid another beating (cf. 1296-8). For the construction cf. frg. 686, κἀκποδὼν ἡµῖν ἄπει;

1326-31.

An ancient commentator (on Νεφέλαι 542) observed that Aristophanes employed the κόρδαξ in this play.

If this was true, then it would probably have been danced by Philokleon at some point on his return from

the symposium. The slave’s prediction that he would shortly appear, drunk on wine and tripping over his

own feet, makes it very likely that the drunk’s dance was employed at this point. For the κόρδαξ see JHS

3 (1882) 54.

1326. ἄνεχε, πάρεχε

Commentators imagine that an inebriated Philokleon enters holding a blazing torch. At his side, possibly

supporting him, is a half-naked αὐλητρίς, whom he has abducted from the symposium. This construal is

based on interpreting the two commands as, ‘Hold on and stand aside!’ which appears consistent with the

earlier instruction used by the Son (949), πάρεχ’ ἐκποδών - “Out of the way, stand aside!” But there, the

command was addressed to a single individual, whereas here we would have expected a plural imperative

addressed to wayfarers in general, especially as the pair will be seen to have a crowd at their heels. So it

might be better to assume that the singular imperatives are directed toward the silent actor at his side, with

δᾳδά understood as their object. Consequently, Philokleon does not enter holding the torch (which is just

as well as he might have set the city on fire by now), instead, the torch is held aloft by the flute-girl and

the aged reveller must have his hands free as he weaves his unsteady way along the street since I imagine

him to be attempting to dance his κόρδαξ as he enters; the girl is presumably still playing her pipes with

her other hand. When, at last, he tires of his performance he turns to address the girl roughly, telling her

first to hold the torch high to illumine the angry mob and then to hand it over so that he can use it himself

to threaten them.

In Euripides Τρῳάδες (308), the same words are used by Kassandra envisaging the torch-light procession

with which her marriage will be initiated. In her case the words probably have a ritual significance as the

celebrants raise their torches to light them in turn (passing the sacred flame from one to another like the

ἅγιο φῶς of Orthodox Easter celebrations today). So, Aristophanes is probably parodying wedding ritual

(not, of course, Euripides’ play which would not be presented until seven years later).

1327. κλαύσεταί τις

His reason for taking over the torch becomes clear by his threat that “someone is going to regret…” (cf.

Νεφέλαι 933, κλαύσει - “you’ll regret it”).

1331. φρυκτοὺς

This word appears to be used of meat or fish roasted over an open fire, or indeed, the burning wood used

to roast them. Here, accompanied by σκευάσω, it seems to be equivalent to saying, “I’ll barbeque you”.

1332. [Ὀργιζόµενος Ἀνήρ]

The codices mistakenly assign the next three lines to the Son. But, Hall and Geldart give them to a figure

in the dramatis personae called a symposiast (ξυµπότης). It is clear, however, that the injured party is not

one of Philokleon’s fellow-revellers but one of those unfortunate individuals who happened to be out on

the street on this inauspicious night. Tyrwhitt seems to have been the first to recognize this.

αὔριον

As soon as day dawns they will lay a charge of assault with the ‘Eleven’ police commissioners.

1333. κεἰ...εἶ νεανίας

In the darkness, the man has taken Philokleon to be a ‘young’ hooligan.

1334. ἁθρόοι…σε προσκαλούµενοι.

162

The threat recalls that of the jurors earlier to prosecute Bdelykleon in a body (cf. 383-4).

1335. ἰὴ ἰεῦ

This exclamatory combination does not occur elsewhere, but the context indicates that it denotes sarcasm.

Henderson adopts West’s reading ἰηῦ (for ἰεῦ), comparing ἰηῦ ἰηῦ ἰηῦ in Εἰρήνη 195, but the codices have

ἰὴ ἰὴ ἰή there and ἰὴ ἰεῦ here, so the change seems hard to justify.

καλούµενοι

He throws their words back at them in derision. In his drunken state he now holds in contempt the power

of the courts which he had extolled before. Aristophanes usually echoes a compound verb with the simple

form, leaving the force of the preposition to be carried over in the inner ear.

1336. ἀρχαῖά γ(ε) ὑµῶν

There is an ellipse such as “your <words are> really out-of-date” (cf. Νεφέλαι 984, ἀρχαῖά γε <τὰ λόγια>

...καὶ τεττίγων ἀνάµεστα).

1338. ἰαιβοῖ αἰβοῖ

The repetition emphasizes his ‘nausea’.

1339. τάδε µ(ε) ἀρέσκει

We can understand that he attempts to fondle the flute-girl’s breasts, (Βάτραχοι 103, σὲ δὲ ταῦτα ἀρέσκει;

- “what, you like these <poetic phrases>?”).

βάλλε κηµούς

This from the man who was said to have scrawled κηµὸς καλός on doors (cf. 97-9). Wilamowitz saw the

possibility of a play on the other meaning of κηµός (‘muzzle’), but it is doubtful whether the flute-girl’s

φορβειά (‘mouth-band’, cf. 582) would be so understood.

1340. οὐκ ἄπεισι;

Philokleon becomes somewhat incoherent as he raves at his pursuers. He first asks a question in the third

person, which might be addressed to himself, to the flute-girl or the audience, “Is he not going to leave?”

The change to ἄπει (‘are you not going to leave?’), proposed by Weise and adopted by all recent editors,

does not improve the situation, as the singular (whether first person or second) is anomalous. Philokleon

is confronted by a group of would-be litigants and wants them all to go away.

ποῦ (ἐ)στιν <ἡµῖν> ἡλιαστής; ἐκποδών.

It is usual to treat this phrase as a question separate both from what precedes and what follows it. Hall and

Geldart adopt Hermann’s interpolation <ἡµῖν>, (‘where can we find a juryman?’), but this has no textual

support and is considered superfluous by recent editors. MacDowell treats it as a rhetorical question, ποῦ

(ἐ)στ’ ἠλιαστής; equivalent to saying, ‘there’s no juror here’. Sommerstein takes it ironically as, “where is

there a juror?” (i.e. ‘so far as I’m concerned there are no such things as lawcourts’). But, phrases like this

seem to be used idiomatically to mean ‘go and find a juror’ (cf. 995, ποῦ (ἐ)στ(ι) ὕδωρ;).

I suspect, however, that the original text was more coherent and that its fractured state results from efforts

to mend an ellipse. Since the final word requires an imperative anyway (cf. 949, πάρεχ’ ἐκποδών) we may

be meant to supply one out of ἄπεισι, i.e. <ἀπέλθετε>, though, ultimately I surmise that the verb itself was

only inserted as a gloss, probably influenced by ἐκποδὼν ἄπειµι (1325) and taking its form from the word

it expelled, οὐκ ἐκεῖσε ποῦ (ἐ)στιν ἠλιαστής ἐκποδών <sc. ἄπιτε>; “won’t you <be off> out of my way,

and find a juryman?” For a similarly elliptical construction, compare Nikophon frg. 2, οὐκ ἐς κόρακας τὼ

χεῖρ’ ἀποίσεις ἐκποδὼν - “won’t you keep your hands off… and bugger off out of it”.

1341. ἀνάβαινε

It has been argued that Philokleon’s instruction to the flute-girl must mean that some part of the stage was

raised. But, the evidence is inconclusive, perhaps illusory. There may have been a step in front of the door

and Sommerstein visualizes a flight of steps with a rope hand-hold. One might suppose that the main door

of the dwelling was on the first floor, reached by steps built into the lower wall, but this would have made

the slaves earlier attempts to block it with stones rather pointless. However, since I have had the foresight

to provide a covered well-head at the centre of the courtyard, the old man can hop up onto that. This gives

more point to the wordplay on σχοινίον which follows. The humour of this passage is made up of a run of

double-entendres, beginning with ἀνάβαινε (‘mount’, cf. frg. 344).

This scene may have inspired the comic-poet Platon for a similar situation in his Φάων (392/1 B.C.), when

an old man is rejuvenated by Aphrodite (Κουροτρόφος - ‘nurturing youth’) and falls for a flute-girl. In an

incomplete fragment (195) he refers to her golden tiara (or possibly her bra) and to her sweet embrace (ὦ

163

χρυσοῦν ἀνάδηµα...ὦ γλυκὺς ἀγκών). The latter phrase appears to derive from a wrestler’s hold that one

cannot, and in this case, would not wish to break.

χρυσοµηλ-ολόνθιον

It is a fair assumption that the endearment has been coined to suggest the old man’s lecherous intent. The

previous year, in Νεφέλαι, Aristophanes had used the word µηλολόνθη (764) with the supposed meaning

of a captive ‘beetle’, on a piece of thread. Consequently, commentators have assumed that this neologism

is an expansion of the word (in a diminutive form) and translate it as, “my little cockchafer” (Barrett), and

“my golden, little cockchafer” (Sommerstein). But, is the girl’s servile status sufficient alone to justify the

comparison with an insect? The English translation works well as double-entendre, but the innuendo does

not derive from the Greek. Besides, in what sense is the flute-girl ‘a golden beetle’?

An alternative approach would be to drop our assumptions based on the concocted word from the earlier

drama and consider the new-coined word independently. Thus, instead of taking χρυσο- as a prefix, one

could take χρυσόµηλο(ν) as a distinct unit (“a quince”) and ολόνθιον as the diminutive form of ὄλονθος

(“wild fig”), in which case the tactile and geustic attributes of fruit are standing in for the lusciousness of

the youthful, female form. Later, the girl’s curvaceous figure will be suggested by an echo from Homeric

verse (cf. 1371). In Philokleon’s inebriated state anything seems possible. The poet may be playing with

the additional idea of the girl being ‘golden-haired’, χρυσóµαλλος, although she appears to be a brunette a

little later. At any rate, one might translate “my sweet-smelling, juicy sex-pot”.

1342. τοῦ σχοινίου

We should have no difficulty appreciating which piece of rope is on offer. The sexual undertones of rope

are exploited by a number of comic-dramatists, though Aristophanes’ use here is among his most explicit.

If we assume that Philokleon has perched atop a well to rest and possibly to gain height, the ambiguity of

σχοινίον can be brought out by the proximity of the well-rope (ἱµονιά), although the latter is in itself quite

a risqué word in refined company, due to its becoming taut whenever it plunges deep inside the shaft of a

well (φρέαρ).

1343. σαπρὸν

The old man admits that the well-rope has ‘rotted’ (cf. 38, “rotting leather”, Menandros copies the use for

a well-rope in frg. 109.4), but is also hinting that his member is ‘past it’ too, a fact which Bdelykleon will

shortly corroborate (cf. 1380).

1345. ὡς δεξιῶς ὑφειλόµην

Philokleon once again admits to a talent for surreptitious theft (cf. 1201).

1346. µέλλουσαν ἤδη

He kidnapped her ‘when she was just about to…’

λεσβιᾶν τοὺς συµπότας

Hall and Geldart choose to print Blaydes emendation, the future infinitive of λεσβιάζω, in order to bring

the verb into line with Aristophanes’ usage in Βάτραχοι (1308, ἡ Μοῦσα οὐκ ἐλεσβίαζεν). But in recent

years editors have restored the spelling in the codices λεσβιεῖν (the future infinitive of the verb λεσβίζω).

This seems to me the better course, since it is not safe to assume that the two forms were synonyms. Both

are used ambiguously, so it is not easy to be sure, but in Βάτραχοι it seems that the leading idea is ‘to act

like a Lesbian’ i.e. behave like a slut and perform fellatio. The scholiast on that line quotes Pherekrates

(frg. 159),

δώσει δέ σοι γυναῖκας ἑπτὰ Λεσβίδας.

καλόν γε δῶρον ἕπτ’ ἔχειν λαικαστρίας.

“(A) He’ll give you seven women from Lesbos. (B) Seven tarts, that’s a really nice present to get.”

Of course, the scholiast’s claim that the women of Lesbos devised the practice of fellatio should be taken

with a pinch of salt, since he is basing his inference on a passage from Theopompos (frg. 36),

ἵνα µὴ τὸ παλαιὸν τοῦτο καὶ θρυλούµενον

δι’ ἡµετέρων στοµάτων ❬ ..... ❭

εἴπω σόφισµ’, ὅ φασι παῖδας Λεσβίων εὑρεῖν.

“Not to mention that legendary <amorous> technique we have of old of using our mouths, a trick said to

have been discovered by the maids of Lesbos”.

This interpretation is probably based on comic-parodies of myth in any case, but on the basis of the use of

λεσβιάζω in Βάτραχοι, translators take this to be the primary meaning here too.

164

But, were the noble symposiasts really expecting to round off their evening in quite this way? There is no

doubt that Philokleon has this plan in mind, but just because the flute-girl’s job was to blow, it is not the

same as saying that she gave blow-jobs. It is more likely that the verb λεσβίζω was coined (like µεγαρίζω,

λακωνίζω, σικελίζω etc.) to convey an innocent scenario which in Comedy took on dubious connotations

through its similarity to the sexually-loaded λεσβιάζω. A tale by Loukianos (Ἁρµονίδης ὁ αὐλητής), hints

as to what the primary meaning of the verb might have been. He tells of an ambitious, young flute-player

who burst a vein and died in his first Dionysiac competition. So, perhaps the verb was intended to convey

an intensity of playing which required strenuous effort. Consequently, the audience might have thought at

first that Philokleon claimed to have saved the girl from some hard blowing, only to realize belatedly that

the old rascal had a different style of blowing in mind. The ambiguity is hard to replicate in English, but

we might say that the girl was on the point of having to “f’llute” the carousers.

Archilochos refers to the Lesbian flute (frg 76, αὐτὸς ἐξάρχων πρὸς αὐλὸν Λέσβιον παιήονα), but it is not

possible to tell which side of the equation this represents.

1347.

This line suggests that the girl has not succeeded in climbing up, as commentators have assumed, because

she needs to be on a lower level to accomplish what Philokleon has in mind.

1348. ἐφιαλεῖς

Aristophanes uses the verb ἐφιάλλω only here and in Εἰρήνη (432), although the form ἐπιαλῶ was used in

Νεφέλαι (1299). Like ἐπιχειρεῖν it means to ‘take a hand in’ or ‘put one’s hand to…’

οἶδ(α) ὅτι

The humour in his disappointed hopes is brought out by the parenthetic remark (abbreviated from εὖ οἶδα

ὅτι...), “as I know <all too well>”.

1349. κἀγχανεῖ τούτῳ µέγα

The future middle of ἐγχάσκω carries the usual meaning ‘taunting’ someone or something (in the dative),

cf. Ἱππεῖς 1313, οὐ...ἐγχανεῖται τῇ πόλει - “he will not make the city a laughing-stock”), but this meaning

of laughing at or mocking derives from opening one’s mouth wide (cf. 575), and it is in this original sense

that Philokleon is chiefly using the verb, as the next line shows.

1350.

He implies that the girl has teased others before him by opening her mouth wide instead of adopting the

proper embouchure for playing the flute (or in Modern Greek, πίπα).

1351. µὴ κακὴ νυνί γυνή

He tries coaxing the girl into changing her behaviour, “If, in the present situation, you behave like a really

good girl…” [The lyricists of “Blurred Lines” clearly owe some royalties to Aristophanes.]

1352.

Under the influence of too much wine, he adopts the role of the young man he imagines himself to be and

assumes that his son, in order to have become head of the household, must have overtaken him in age.

1353. λυσάµενος ἕξω

Once again (cf. 1309), it would be misleading to speak of manumission. He is not promising to purchase

her freedom, but rather to buy her as his own personal property.

ὦ χοιρίον

As MacDowell so delicately puts it, the diminutive is used as synecdoche. In saying ‘piglet’ Philokleon is

thinking of one porcine part in particular. But, it cannot be the same part denoted by χοιρίδιον (Ἀχαρνεῖς

521, 806), for the image of the ‘snout’ would imply either that the girl is pre-pubescent, which she clearly

is not, or that she had removed her pubic hair to appear younger than she is. This possibility is also ruled

out by later dialogue (cf. 1374-5). The alternative is that he is reminded of a pig’s plump hind-quarters as

the flute-girl bends over.

1354-5. τῶν ἐµαυτοῦ χρηµάτων

MacDowell considers that the wording should be taken to mean that Philokleon has an inheritance which

he is still too young to hold in his own right. This he finds inconsistent with the claim in 1352 that the old

man is waiting for his son to die to inherit from him. But, there is no real inconsistency since either he has

been bequeathed money from another relative or he simply thinks that the money which is presently held

by his son will come to him by rights.

In Νεφέλαι, the old farmer Strepsiades is still responsible for the financial debts of his son Pheidippides

who is in his late teens and has not yet come of age financially.

165

1356. τὸ...ὑίδιον

He uses the affectionate diminutive just as his son had used παπίδιον earlier when addressing him (655).

τηρεῖ µε

There is an intentional ambiguity here. He wants to make the point that for the time being he depends on

his son, as is in fact the case. Thus, I translate, “he supports me”. But, he is also alluding to his previous

captivity, when he was kept under guard and under observation.

δύσκολον

He complains of his son’s ‘peevishness’ just as his son had complained of his (cf. 942).

1357. κἄλλως

Following καὶ in the previous line this phrase is emphatic, “and above all…”

κυµινοπρίστο-καρδαµογλύφον

As far as we can gather this mouthful (‘cummin-splitting, cress-licking’) amounts to little more than ‘very

miserly’. The latter compound may, however, be meant to indicate ‘austerity’ given that it lends the eye a

fearsome aspect (cf. 455). Garden herbs seem to have lost much of their entertainment value since ancient

times.

1358. ταῦτ(α) οὖν

My son is ‘a hardened skin-flint’ and “as a consequence…”

µὴ διαφθαρῶ

He is afraid “that I will go off the rails”.

1360. ὁδὶ δὲ καὐτός

His speech to the girl is interrupted by the appearance of Bdelykleon, “and here is the man himself!” (cf.

1324; Ἀχαρνεῖς 1189; Νεφέλαι 219).

ἐπὶ...θεῖν

The verb is compound in tmesis, and means “to chase”.

1361. ὡς τάχιστα

This is another clear example of word-order dictated by metre, since the phrase attaches to the participle

in the next line (cf. 104, 1318 etc.)

στῆθι

As with his son’s instruction to him earlier (1150) the imperative implies “stand <still>”. Philokleon has

been holding the torch since he took it from the flute-girl at 1326.

1362. τωθάσω νεανικῶς

Philokleon is about ‘to play a childish trick’ on his son as if he was a young man. This is a reversal of the

usual situation whereby a parent tricks a credulous child, or would be, were he not actually the parent.

1363. οἵοις ποθ’ οὗτος ἐµὲ

It is hard to keep one’s feet on the ground as reality is upended. The old man pretends that he has already

been initiated into the Mysteries (as a youth) by his parent (in this case his son). As a result, he intends to

make a fool of his ‘parent’ “using the manner of conduct” (οἵοις <τρόποις>) formerly employed on him.

πρὸ τῶν µυστηρίων

This probably means “in the run-up to the Mysteries”, rather than “beforehand”, since τωθασµός appears

to have been part of the preparation for the initiation ritual. The little we know about these arcane rites is

often gleaned from later imitations. There seems to have been a mock execution, or sacrifice, preceded by

the ritual humiliation of the candidate (cf. κατὰ Μᾶρκον 15, 16-20). The situation here seems to suggest

that the purpose of the raillery and mockery was to create a diversion, since Philokleon wants to distract

his son from his purpose.

1364. ὦ οὗτος οὗτος

The double demonstrative occurs in Tragedy in moments of high drama (e.g. Οἰδίπους ἐπὶ Κολωνῷ 1627,

where a divine power summons Oidipous, ὦ οὗτος οὗτος, Οἰδίπους - “Avast there, O Oidipous!” or Αἴας

89, ὦ οὗτος Αἴας - “You there, Ajax!) Here, however, the august tone seems inappropriate and I take the

phrase to be an exclamation distinct from the ensuing vocative. I would emend in line with Ἀχαρνεῖς 280

(οὗτος αὐτός ἐστιν - “that’s the man himself!”) to ὢ, οὗτος αὐτός <ἐστιν>· - “ah, there he is in person!”

(cf. 1 and 187, ὢ µιαρώτατος).

τυφεδανὲ και χοιρόθλιψ

After spotting his father with the flute-girl centre-stage, he calls out to him directly. Neither epithet occurs

anywhere else; both may be neologisms. The first presumably derives from τῦφος and it can probably be

166

understood to mean ‘out of one’s senses’ or ‘delusional’. The suggestion found in the Σοῦδα that it might

be written στυφεδανὲ seems less likely. For the origin of the other adjective cf. 1353.

1365. ποθεῖν ἐρᾶν τε

Editors have generally retained the reading of the Ravenna codex (‘you seem desirous of loving…’), but

the Venetus and the Σοῦδα read ποθεῖς, which supports the suggestion of van Herwerden (1869) that one

should read ποῖ θεῖς; This requires the omission of τε (proposed by T. Kock), or better the insertion of γε

(Bothe) instead. There is a similar protest from a woman in Θεσµοφοριάζουσαι (689), ποῖ σὺ φεύγεις; and

Philokleon had used it earlier (853).

ὡραίας σοροῦ

The audience expect the Son to say, “you look as though you are infatuated with a beautiful <young girl>,

κόρης, for which Aristophanes substitutes “an attractive cinerary urn”, which is better-suited to the aged

Father, since sexual intercourse at his age could prove fatal. To which the Father ought to reply, “Well, if

she dies, she dies!”

1366. µὰ τὸν Ἀπόλλω

He invokes Apollo as the all-seeing sun-god who throws light on criminal actions.

1367. ἐξ ὄξους δίκην

There is an ironic call-back to 510-1, where Philokleon had declared his preference for a well-cooked trial

of short duration, δικίδιον σµικρὸν. By way of contrast, the δίκην here is pickled in vinegar, because the

outcome would leave his son ‘embittered’. There is a deliberate irony in the contrast between ἡδέως and

ὄξους.

1368-9. οὐ δεινὰ τωθάζειν σε…κλέψαντα

It is unlikely that τωθάζειν is meant to refer to Philokleon’s trickery of his fellow συµπότες (MacDowell),

since he has just said that he was going to ‘put one over on’ his son. So, most translators accept that these

lines can only mean “it’s disgraceful, you making fun of me” (Sommerstein), but this sense requires us to

strain syntax. Although δεινόν is commonly employed with an infinitive, it is not usually followed by an

infinitival clause. Moreover, while the subject of the infinitive (σε) goes without saying, one would have

thought that the object (µε) deserved a mention. I suspect, therefore, that the latter was in the original text

but was miscopied as σε, with the result that the participle had to be changed into the accusative to match.

The speech could have been written as, οὐ δεινὰ <ἐστιν>; τωθάζεις µε, τὴν αὐλητρίδα…κλέψας - “Are

these not unconscionable acts! First you abduct the flute-girl…then you taunt me” (cf. 27).

1369. ποίαν αὐλητρίδα;

A happy consequence of altering the participle to the nominative case is that an irregularity in the metre is

removed. Metrists have had palpitations over the split anapaest (-α ποίαν) and a number of attempts have

been made to remedy the anomaly (cf. Wilson p. 96), all of which involve emending ποίαν. But, none of

the emendations improve on the sense and the phrase matches similar scornful expressions elsewhere in

the play (cf. 1202, 1378), so it is best left unaltered.

1370. ἀπὸ τύµβου πεσών

Plato (in Νόµοι, 701γ-δ) cites a proverbial expression ἀπ’ ὄνου πίπτειν, which he uses to describe the state

of someone who ‘loses the thread’ of an argument. The ‘proverb’ was probably drawn from comic scenes

in which a donkey was actually involved. In Νεφέλαι (1273), for instance, Strepsiades chides his creditor,

ληρεῖς ὥσπερ ἀπ’ ὄνου καταπεσών - “you’re raving, as if you’d just taken a fall from a donkey” The idea

is ‘you’re talking nonsense, so you must have just taken a nasty fall and hit your head’ (as we might have

said once, ‘you’re out of your tree’). The joke seems to have gone down well and we will meet it again in

expanded form later in this play (1415-41). Here, Philokleon adapts the phrase to his needs and suggests

that the cause of his son’s delirium is ‘a tumble from his tomb’ or as we would say, he has one foot in the

grave because he has lost his wits.

Eupolis has his own variation on the expression (frg. 379), “like <someone> who’d fallen off a wine-jar”

- ὥσπερ ἀπὸ χοὸς πεσὼν.

1371. πού (ἐ)στί σοί γ(ε)

I doubt that I am the only one to find this line muddled. The codices read τοι which the Aldine editor saw

fit to replace with σοι. But, this is hardly an improvement and does not help us understand why γε is out

of position. I feel that the line needs rebalancing and, although the change may be rather radical, the best I

can suggest would be, νὴ τὸν ∆ί’, οὐ πάρεστιν ταύτ’, ἡ ∆αρδανίς; - “In heaven’s name, surely this is the

Dardanian girl standing right there!” (cf. 832).

167

ἡ ∆αρδανίς

The word is chosen to signify that the girl is another Phrygian slave, since it is used in epic poetry of “the

full-breasted Trojan and Dardanian women” (Ἰλιάς 18.122, Τρῳάδων καὶ ∆αρδανίδων βαθυκόλπων). But

it also suggests by its sound ‘a woman holding a torch’.

[One still hears the expression νταρντανογυναίκα used of a full-figured, statuesque woman and, although

it is said to derive from an Italian word (tartana) for a galleon, which puts one in mind of a Joyce Grenfell

song, it matches the picture of the buxom ‘Dardanis’ here. Is it really just a coincidence?]

1372. ἐν ἀγορᾷ

The mention of the Agora comes as something of a surprise, but it need not be taken as an indication that

the scene has shifted there, as Sommerstein thinks. Philokleon’s insistence that the slave-girl is actually a

sacred torch requires her to be located in the Agora, and the fact that they are in their own courtyard only

makes his claim even more outlandish. The old man’s imagination had been fertile even before he took to

heavy drinking (e.g. his earlier claims to be a plume of smoke or a nonentity) and, while he had been in a

Korybantic trance (120), he had imagined himself to be sitting in a court-room.

τοῖς θεοῖς δᾲς κάεται

This line is evidence that slow-burning firebrands were set before shrines or public buildings in the Agora

for some ritual purpose. It suggests a religious practice, perhaps similar to the dedication of candles in the

Orthodox tradition, though in a pre-electric age torches would have been necessary at night anyway. It is

clear that if Philokleon is hoping to pass the girl off as a ‘sacred flame’, these firebrands must have been

quite tall; probably set on stands (δᾳδοφόροι). The epithet ‘torch-bearing’ used of Hekate could be due to

the use of her ubiquitous statues as torch-holders (cf. 804).

The verb must form an amphimacer, so I would be inclined to spell it καίεται as a reminder of the fact.

1373. ἐστιγµένην

I am reluctant to let go of the manuscripts’ reading (printed by Hall and Geldart), in favour of Meineke’s

emendation ἐσχισµένην, even though the alteration has been almost universally accepted. There is no real

reason to reject the verb στίζω, which can be applied equally to the slave-girl and the torch. Furthermore,

the translation “branded” is too convenient a pun to lightly discard. The description ἐστιγµένην assumes

that the slave-girl had once tried to run away (cf. Ὄρνιθες 760) and bore a tattoo to show it. The torch too

would certainly show “scorch-marks” (Barrett opts for “markings”) which would be akin to tattoos, since

what we refer to as a ‘tattoo’ was actually a brand-mark burnt onto the skin. In contrast, the past participle

of σχίζω does not match the slave-girl very well, for although MacDowell argues that, “a torch would be

made of several pieces of split wood bound together”, this does not correlate with any examples of female

anatomy uncovered in my painstaking researches (but he was better-informed about bondage, perhaps).

1374. τὸ µέλαν τοῦτο

Bdelykleon is pointing to the girl’s pubic hair, which suggests that she was not a natural blonde (1341).

1375. ἡ πίττα

The ‘black area’ is said to be ‘pitch’ (proverbial for blackness since Homer, cf. Ἰλιάς 4.277), although we

would call it “pine-resin” when it oozes from burning wood.

1378. οὐκ εἶ δεῦρο σύ;

A rhetorical question addressed to the slave-girl, “won’t you come over here?” He evidently means to take

her back to Philoktemon’s house.

1380. ἀφελόµενός σε

The verb ἀφαίροµαι is used here in a technical sense of a person claiming right of ownership over a slave

against another.

σαπρὸν

Compare Εἰρήνη 698, γέρων ὢν καὶ σαπρὸς - “though old and decrepit”.

1381. κοὐδὲν δύνασθαι δρᾶν

Bdelykleon is suggesting that his father is ‘sexually impotent’.

1382. ἐθεώρουν ἐγὼ

In his befuddled state the old man imagines that he must have been a member of an official delegation to

the Olympic Games.

1383-4. ἐµαχέσατ(ο)...καλῶς

Philokleon recalls the story he was told almost verbatim (cf. 1191). The change of the verb into the aorist

alerts us to expect a twist to the tale, “he did put up a good fight”.

168

1384-5. εἶτα...τὸν νεώτερον

But, whereas Bdelykleon’s earlier story had cast Ephoudion as the underdog and left the outcome of the

fight unclear, his father rewrites sporting history by having the younger man floored with a ‘low punch’,

precisely the kind of devious blow he had threatened earlier (cf. 195, ὑπογάστριον). It is obvious from his

son’s reaction that Philokleon demonstrates the punch on him. This loosens his grip on the slave-girl who

takes the opportunity to run off, still carrying her torch.

Here Philokleon may be said to take revenge on one of Kleon’s antagonists (‘Bdelykleon’ / Aristophanes)

for past mistreatment. The previous year in Νεφέλαι, the poet had boasted of belly-punching Kleon (549,

ὃς µέγιστον ὄντα Κλέων’ ἔπαισ’ εἰς τὴν γαστέρα).

1386. τηροῦ...ὑπώπια

The ‘things under your eyes’ (ὑπώπια) can refer to ‘bags’ from lack of sleep (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 551), but here

are clearly ‘bruises’. The line (omitted in the Penguin translation) shows that Philokleon is sparring with

his son, since now that the younger man is bent double by the belly-blow, his head is within the old man’s

reach. The joke lies in him telling his son to “watch out” (i.e. use his eyes) in case his eyes get blacked.

1387. ἐξέµαθές γε τὴν Ὀλυµπίαν

Bdelykleon is ruefully forced to admit that his father “learned the Olympian <skill> well”. Normally, one

would understand τὴν Ὀλυµπίαν <χώραν>, but here the poet intends us to supply another noun e.g. τέχνη,

since, although the old man had not taken to heart the moral lesson, he had picked up some boxing skills.

1388-1414. Ἀρτόπωλις

Enter a female bread-seller who alleges that she has been assaulted by the old man. She carries an empty

basket and is accompanied by a tall, spindly figure with a ghostly-pale complexion. It seems to have been

usual for women to hawk bread in the early hours. We had been given the impression that one of the boys

acting as guides for the Chorus of jurors had a shopping-bag to hand to carry bread and some of the jurors

had mentioned a nocturnal encounter with a breadwoman, many years before (cf. 237-9).

1388. ἴθι µοι

The woman has been hurrying ahead in search of her quarry and turns to motion to the ‘ghost’ to keep up.

She begs her companion to “stand by her” (παράστηθι) both literally and metaphorically.

Although the apparition is not introduced until later in the scene (1412), the audience would have guessed

who it was and enjoyed the implication that he was out wandering the streets at all hours, ostensibly to

study the motions of the moon and stars.

1389-90. κἀξέβαλεν ἐντευθενὶ

The woman points to Philokleon as the culprit. He had done her harm by hitting her with his torch and by

tipping her loaves of bread out of her basket (i.e. ‘from in here’).

In Γῆρας, a later, lost work of Aristophanes (frg. 129), there appears to have been a similar scene in which

an ἀρτόπωλις accuses the old men who make up the chorus of behaving like young hooligans. There too,

their rowdiness is probably attributable to the undue influence of wine (cf. frg. 135). The dramatist drew

humour from the idea of old men acting like delinquent juveniles, just like the Father here. The recurrent

theme suggests that disorderly behaviour among the young was in fact an occupational hazard for street-

vendors.

1391. κἀπιθήκην τέτταρας

The natural interpretation of ἐπιθήκη is ‘something which is placed on top of something else’, so that it is

generally treated adverbially (‘in addition’). This has produced the consensus “loaves worth ten obols and

four <loaves> in addition”. But this seems a curious circumlocution. MacDowell thought that it could be

explained by supposing that the value of the four extra loaves did not come to a round figure in obols, yet

it is strange that the bread-seller, in quantifying her loss, gives a monetary value to some loaves, but not

to others? Dobree saw that the meaning must be “ten obols’ worth of bread and four obols besides” and

accordingly proposed emending τέτταρας to τεττάρων. This seemed pointless to MacDowell because he

was still thinking in terms of extra loaves. The copyist who altered τεττάρων to τέτταρας was evidently of

the same mind, but they miss the point that it is not extra loaves worth four obols, but an ἐπιθήκη of that

value. The humour of the situation lies in the fact that the bread-seller is threatening legal action against

the old man to obtain financial damages for the loss of her goods, but she nonchalantly adds to her claim

an amount which she terms an ἐπιθήκη. Initially, one might suppose that she is using a commercial term

and take her to be stating firstly, her loss ‘at cost’ (ten obols), and secondly, an amount to cover her ‘loss

of profit’ (four obols). This is how we are probably meant to understand the term. It is not, however, what

169

she means. She is a street-vendor and to some degree part of the ‘black economy’, so the bread she sells

will have a face-value of ten obols but she will have inflated this by adulterating the product or swindling

on the weight. Her ἐπιθήκη (or ‘added value’) is shamelessly included in her claim for compensation as if

the illegal income was hers of right. Another example of underhand dealing is highlighted in Νεφέλαι 640.

[Compare the Modern Greek phrase, πουλάει ψωµιά µε καπέλο - “she sells bread with a hat” to express

price-gouging]

Wilson too (p. 96), dissatisfied with the conventional analysis, suggests that possibly ἐπιθήκη might have

been used as a variant for ἐπίθηµα, meaning ‘a lid’ (cf. frg.306), which had covered the tray of loaves, or

perhaps even the tray itself (usually τηλία).

1392. πράγµατ(α)...καὶ δίκας

The Son is anxious that his father’s disorderly behaviour will lead to “trouble and law-suits”, which were

just what the Father had predicted (1253-5) after all. Anxiety and Confidence trade places from the scene

before the symposium when the Son had been mollifying a worried Father.

αὖ δεῖ...ἔχειν

The syntax is suspect. Firstly, because δεῖ <ἡµᾶς> ἔχειν is prosaic, but mainly because the Son seems to

be saying ‘we have to have fresh problems as a result of…’ although both he and his father will do their

best to avoid the problems. It seems more likely that the Son would continue to direct his criticism at his

father in the second person. So, I think that the original text would have read αὖ δὴ…ἔχεις stating simply,

“now you’ve got fresh problems”. The error probably arose from the fact that δεῖ was usually written δῇ in

comedic codices. Once the copyist had mistaken δὴ for δῇ the verb ἔχεις would have had to be altered to

the infinitive. It is still possible that the poet wrote αὖ δὴ…ἔχειν (sc. µέλλοµεν), “now we are in for fresh

problems”, but the indicative verb in the second person gives better continuity.

1393. διὰ τὸν σὸν οἶνον

The phrase “because of your drinking” is spoken scornfully (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 93, τόν τε σὸν τοῦ πρέσβεως).

1394. διαλλάξουσιν αὐτὰ

He is confident that if he follows his son’s earlier advice he can effect reconciliation, “clever arguments

will settle these <difficulties>”.

1395. ταύτῃ διαλλαχθήσοµαι

He claims to have thought of a way by which he “will be reconciled with this woman”. This is probably

more likely than taking ταύτῃ locatively and having him say ‘on the spot’.

1396-7. Μυρτίας

By stating her name and parentage, the bread-woman wants it understood that she is not to be trifled with.

The fact that both her parents have Greek names suggests that she is native Athenian. But, evidently, she

is a spinster, otherwise we would have been told her husband’s name. MacDowell sees the parents’ names

as “ordinary Athenian ones” and certainly Aristophanes uses Σωστράτη in three other works (cf. Νεφέλαι

678; Θεσµ. 375; Ἐκκλ. 41). Sommerstein, however, notes that Ἀγκυλίων is really quite rare. He points out

too that both names are adopted by later comic-dramatists. It is possible that the parents’ names hark back

to comedic archetypes drawn from an earlier comedy and that, Aristophanes raised a laugh by making the

bread-seller a member of a ‘famous’ family. Her parents might have been the equivalent of our Punch and

Judy. As Sommerstein says, she may actually be “undercutting her own respectability”. Her respectability

was a doubtful commodity, in any case, if one is to judge from the simile in Βάτραχοι 858.

The name Myrtia is not found at this time. Hesychios says that it was another form of µύρτος (‘myrtle’), a

plant sacred to Aphrodite with some obcene connotations (cf. µύρτον, µύρρινον, µυρτόχειλα). The normal

proper noun was Μυρτώ, of which the best-known bearer was the (grand)-daughter of Aristeides, who

was reputed to have become the second wife of Sokrates (Diogenes Laërtios 2.26).

µὰ τὼ θεὼ

She swears a woman’s oath by the two divinities, Demeter and her daughter Persephone.

θυγατέρος

The usual genitive form is θυγατρός and it may be that Aristophanes is merely employing a lengthened

alternative to fit the metre, as most recent editors assume. MacDowell notes that θυγατέρος appears to be

the accepted form in Euripides’ Ὀρέστης 751 (var. θυγατρός, θυγατέρας) and the borrowed, tragic usage

might be thought suited to the bread-seller’s pretensions. But, Wilson thinks it could result from a gloss

and prefers Richards’ proposal to read γενοµένης. One might, however, expect the gloss which ejected

170

this to be θυγατρός, so one would still have to account for the lengthened form. A case of one step being

better than two steps, perhaps?

1398. ἐµοῦ τὰ φορτία

Her loaves, which were spoiled on the muddy ground when Philokleon upset her basket, are referred to as

“my merchandise”, (cf. Ἀχαρνεῖς 910, ταυτὶ τίνος τὰ φορτί’ ἐστί; - “whose merchandise is this?”).

1399-1400. λόγον...λέξαι χαρίεντα

He proposes to tell her a “witty” anecdote, one that will ‘cheer her up’. The usual formula for introducing

a ‘moral tale’ (αἶνος) would have alerted the audience to expect a funny story where an animal represents

some characteristic human behaviour. Storytellers had been telling their listeners that, ‘this one will make

you laugh’, since the days of Hesiod, long before Aisop. Archilochos, for instance, tells a friend (frg. 162)

...χρῆµα τοι γελοῖον ἐρέω...τέρψεαι δ’ ἀκούων - “I’m going to tell you a funny story…you’ll be amused to

hear it” (cf. also frgs. 168, 188).

1401. Αἴσωπον...βαδίζοντ(α)

The old man vaguely recalls his son’s advice (1259) to imitate the tactics of beleagured defendants (566)

and disarm criticism with Αἰσώπου τι γέλοιον, but instead of narrating one of Aisop’s witty fables he tries

to tell a story in which he casts himself in the role of ‘Aisop’.

ἑσπέρας

One used to say in English “of an evening”, now it would be “one evening”.

1402. µεθύση τις...κύων

He imagines that it is the bread-woman who is inebriated, rather than he himself.

1405. ἄν µοι δοκεῖς

In English this becomes, “it seems to me that you would…”

1406. προσκαλοῦµαί σ(ε)

It seems reasonable to infer that Myrtia’s summons against her male persecutor reflected actual practice

and that a woman could initiate action, at least in the commercial court, provided a male witness seconded

her summons. MacDowell is probably correct in saying that “a woman could not conduct her own case in

court”.

1407. τοὺς ἀγορανόµους

A market, i.e. an agreed set of standards and rules, constitutes the foundation of a stable, civil society and

Athenian hegemony was founded upon her market regulations and reliable coinage just as much as on her

triremes. The ἀγορανοµία was the authority charged with enforcing these rules and rectifying breaches of

them. [In a similar currency union today the policing role is undertaken by the toothless European Central

Bank.] We have little information regarding the functioning of the ἀγορανόµοι prior to the fourth century

B.C., but in Ἀχαρνεῖς (723-4), Dikaiopolis proposes setting up his private market under the control of three

officers of the market-police appointed by lot as a means of ensuring their independence (ἀγορανόµους δὲ

τῆς ἀγορᾶς καθίσταµαι τρεῖς τοὺς λαχόντας).

βλάβης τῶν φορτίων

The double genitives signify “<on a charge> of” (cf. 1207, 1418) and damage “to” my merchandise.

1408. κλητήρ(α) ἔχουσα

Having issued her summons the woman indicates the witness she has brought along (cf. Νεφέλαι 1218).

Τhis appears to be the one instance in the play when the word κλητήρ is used solely in its legal context to

mean a “summons-witness”, but then again, bearing in mind the ambiguity created around the word by the

earlier puns (in 189 and 1310), perhaps not.

Χαιρεφῶντα τουτονί

The introduction of Sokrates’ companion Chairephon could have been owed to some topical event which

would be well known to the audience. But, we have no idea why he should be satirized for supporting the

bread-seller’s claim, unless perhaps he had in fact recently taken up a woman’s case in court. He is called

a malicious prosecutor in a later work of Aristophanes, Τελεµησσεῖς (frg. 552), so he may have instigated

proceedings against a prominent figure based upon a woman’s accusation (#metoo?).

1410. Λᾶσος

Lasos of Hermione was among the poets invited to reside in Athens by Hipparchos son of Peisistratos in

the period 527-14, when the tyrants were striving to turn the city into a centre of learning and culture. He

composed lyrics and music for the popular dithyrhambic competitions and was said to have been an early

171

innovator in musical theory. He was also a music theorist and is said in the Σοῦδα (λ 139) to have written

the first scientific treatise on music. See Porter (2007) for a recent study of his innovations.

Σιµωνίδης

Simonides of Keos was one of the most celebrated names in poetry (i.e. music). He had come to Athens at

the invitation of Hipparchos, but his career really took off after the ‘democratic’ revolution and lasted into

the fifth century. He is estimated to have died c. 468. He seems to have been prolific and very successful.

His lyrics had become standards, which now seemed old-fashioned to younger people (cf. Νεφέλαι 1356).

Both Simonides and Lasos were the subjects of monographs by Chamaeleon, which have not survived.

1411. ἔπειθ’ ὁ Λᾶσος εἶπεν

“Then, Lasos said…” When did Lasos say this and in answer to what? It is apparent that something must

have fallen out of the text after 1410. Palmer is the only one who has tried to remedy the loss with, νικᾶν

δ’ ἔκριναν οἱ βραβῆς Σιµωνίδην - “the judges awarded the prize to Simonides”. Certainly, the repetition

of the poet’s name would help explain how the line came to be omitted. But, Palmer’s proposed solution

would leave Philokleon expressing indifference to the outcome of the lawsuit; whereas we would expect,

I think, some expression to indicate that he is not fazed by the likely opposition of Chairephon, just as the

poet Lasos was not intimidated by Simonides’ reputation. So, I suggest that the sense of the missing line

should be something like, ἔφη τις (γυνὴ ὅτι) µέγας ἐστὶν ἀγὼν ἐς Σιµωνίδην - ‘some woman said you’ve

got an uphill fight against Simonides’. (cf. 532-3).

ὀλίγον µοι µέλει

The audience would have been expecting some witty retort, a typical ‘Lasisma’ (according to Hesychios),

but Philokleon’s punch-line shows that the story merely served as a pretext for him to thumb his nose at

the unfortunate bread-woman.

1412-4. ἄληθες, οὗτος;

Editors usually follow Tyrwhitt in assigning the first part of 1412 to the bread-woman, since it is thought

to express her indignation at Philokleon’s insolent reply. But, I find this feeble. On the contrary, his rude

gesture really brooks no reply and ought to mark the end of the scene. Therefore, I suggest that these lines

rightfully follow 1408 and belong wholly to the old man.

Χαιρεφῶν

In Comedy it is not surprising to find Chairephon wandering the streets at night. According to a scholion

on Plato Ἀπολογία 20ε (frg. 584), Aristophanes had referred to him in Ὥραι as νυκτὸς παῖδα, which meant

no more than that he was a ‘night-owl’ (though he may have been alluding too to the real Nυκτὸς παῖδες,

cf. Aischylos Εὐµενίδες 416). Elsewhere, he calls him a thief (frg. 295, κλέπτην), another jibe at his night-

time activities, perhaps. There were two reasons for representing him as a creature of the night. Firstly, as

a close associate of Sokrates, he would have studied the night-sky regularly, then secondly, he was noted

for his complexion, which was ‘a whiter shade of pale’ (cf. Νεφέλαι 504, where he was said to resemble a

corpse because of his sallow skin). It may be that his complexion was naturally pale; perhaps the result of

some medical condition such as jaundice, but he was probably just a studious type who spent a lot of time

indoors, so that “his natural colour had worn off” (Νεφέλαι 120, τὸ χρῶµα διακεκναισµένος).

Ἰνοῖ

Here, because of his pallor, he is likened to a mythical heroine, Ino. On the tragic-stage all such heroines

would be portrayed in white face-masks, but there was additional significance in the choice of Ino in that

she was later transformed into a sea goddess with the title Leukothea (cf. Ὀδύσσεια 5. 333-4, Κάδµου

θυγάτηρ, καλλίσφυρος Ἰνώ, Λευκοθέη -“daughter of Kadmos, slender-ankled Ino, the White goddess”).

Although her myth is set at Thebes, her cult as a sea-spirit originated at Megara (cf. Pausanias 1.42.8), so

Chairephon may have been involved in the reestablishment of commercial relations with that city.

κλητεύειν ἐοικὼς

The infinitive in the codices is due to the mistaken belief that it depends on the participle (‘you appear to

be acting as a witness’) whereas in fact the participle governs only the noun. The mistake reinforces the

likelihood that the participle itself was originally ἔοικας as Reiske suggested. One could follow all recent

editors and adopt the reading κλητεύεις (B) ἐοικὼς - “you are acting as a witness looking like…”, though

since in any case they render the text as, “in acting as a witness for a woman you resemble a pasty Ino”, it

makes sense to print Dobree’s logical emendation κλητεύων ἔοικας.

κρεµαµένῃ...Εὐριπίδου

172

Prima facie, the main (perhaps the only) reason that the ghostly figure of Chairephon has been brought on

to witness the summons is that Aristophanes can have fun at his expense by drawing a comparison with a

scene in Euripides’ drama Ἰνώ. But, as it stands, the text is obscure and the joke is not clearly articulated.

Philokleon seems to reverse the roles of Myrtia and Chairephon. On the strength of his feminine paleness

Chairephon is said to resemble a tragic heroine who is clinging to Euripides’ feet in supplication. Why is

Chairephon the one grovelling at the feet of Euripides, whereas just now we heard the female bread-seller

beseeching his help? (I take MacDowell’s point here, “Εὐριπίδου, because of its position must go with

ποδῶν, not with Ἰνοῖ,” so no other interpretation can be placed on the received text.)

This role reversal seems nonsensical. MacDowell has an ingenious dramatic solution to the problem. He

has the woman turn so suddenly when she expresses her disgust (ἄληθες, οὗτος), “that she collides with

Khairephon…and sends him sprawling at her feet”. It is an ingenuity born of desperation, one suspects. I

can only assume that our text is at fault. I think what has happened is that a word (or words) has dropped

out of 1414 and that Εὐριπίδου, a marginal gloss intended to explain whose version of Ino’s story is being

referenced, has been absorbed into the line in error. In one manuscript (J) the name εὐριπίδης is actually

written in the margin against lines 1417-8.

It is clear from the surviving extracts from Hyginus’s Fabulae (1-4) that Euripides’ drama reworked the

myth of Ino. In setting her marriage to Athamas before that of her rival Themisto the dramatist seemed to

be trying to ‘whiten’ her character in order to bring out the complex tragedy of the human condition, as he

seems to do with his Μήδεια and Ἑλένη. So, this situation in which the bread-seller is asking Chairephon

to help her presumably mirrors a twist in the myth derived from Euripides’ version. Indeed it may be that

the bread-seller’s name was not haphazardly chosen, but that the dramatist had created a character named

Myrtia who, at some point, had had to beg Ino for her help. In which case, we would see, not Chairephon

grovelling at the feet of Euripides in the guise of Ino, but Myrtia hanging on to Ino’s feet. Thus, we might

make better sense of the scene by restoring the line with a genitive absolute, κρεµαµένης πρὸ ποδῶν σου

Μυρτίας - “with her, Myrtia, clinging about your feet”. Philokleon, would be trying to make the allusion

clear for those not sufficiently astute to have caught the reference for themselves, while at the same time

demonstrating that he could match the urbane mockery of his dinner companion Lysistratos (cf.1308-10).

After emending what seems to me to be a gloss in line 1414 and reordering the lines, I have translated the

speech of Philkleon on the basis of the following text,

ἄληθες, οὗτος ; καὶ σὺ δή µοι, Χαιρεφῶν,

γυναικὶ κλητεύ[ω]ν, ἔοικ[α]ς θαψίνῃ

Ἰνοῖ, κρεµαµένη[ς] πρὸ ποδῶν [σου Μυρτίας].

µὰ ∆ί’, ἀλλ’ ἄκουσον, ἤν τί σοι δόξω λέγειν.

Λᾶσός ποτ’ ἀντεδίδασκε καὶ Σιµωνίδης·

[µέγας ἐστὶν ἀγὼν, ἔφη τις, ἐς Σιµωνίδην]

ἔπειθ’ ὁ Λᾶσος εἶπεν· « ὀλίγον µοι µέλει ».

Euripides’ lost work Ἰνώ was evidently produced in the mid-420’s to judge from this reference and others

in Ἀχαρνεῖς (434) and Νεφέλαι (257).

1416. κλητῆρ(α) ἔχει

The Son sees a man approaching who is obviously the worse for wear and he guesses immediately that he

is another victim of his father’s rowdyism. But can he assume that he is intent on making an accusation

against his father simply because he is accompanied by another person who might conceivably be brought

along to serve as a summons-witness? Or, could it be that he is simply making an ironic pun on κλητῆρα

seeing that the man is leading a donkey? Like Chairephon in the previous scene the ‘witness’ is silent and

the victim’s remark in 1434 could be an appeal to the Son, or he could even be talking to the donkey like

the Son earlier (cf. 179). We cannot match the pun in English, but we have a donkey standing by and I for

one would be quite happy to see him back again in the role of the (more-or-less-silent) witness. If this is

the case then we have another instance of the comic-poet reviving a humorous situation from the previous

year’s drama (cf. 162). There, one creditor appeared at Strepsiades’ door with a silent summons-witness,

who was followed by a second creditor whose ‘witness’ was probably a complainant donkey too, since he

is said to have fallen from one (cf. Νεφέλαι 1273).

1417. [Κατήγορος]

We have Tyrwhitt to thank again for the designation of this character as an ‘accuser’ to fill the gap in the

codices. One manuscript (J) has ἀνήρ τις, which seems more fitting, since at this point his intent has only

173

been surmised by the Son and for the audience he is simply ‘someone off the street’ (cf. Eupolis frg. 408,

ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ὁδοῦ), who has evidently been injured.

MacDowell observes that a fourth actor is required for this speaking role and even though my reordering

of lines 1409-14 would allow for the bread-woman to exit a little earlier, there is still insufficient time for

‘her’ to change into ‘him’, unless the Chorus were to intervene with an impromptu dance.

ὦ γέρον

Unlike the previous complainant (cf. 1333), this one has no problem recognizing that his assailant was an

elderly man

1418. µὴ καλέσῃ

The codices mistakenly read καλέσῃς, but Reiske corrected to the middle voice, which is usual in issuing

a summons and follows on from προσκαλοῦµαι in the previous line. Although MacDowell maintains that

the active voice can be supported by comparison with κάλῃ in 483, there the verb is active, ‘to call’ (cf.

1441).

1419. δίκην δίδωµί σοι

The present tense here means, “I am prepared to compensate you”.

1420. χάριν προσείσοµαι

One is tempted to read this phrase as χάριν προσοίσοµαι (future middle of προσφέρω), ‘I shall thank you

into the bargain’, but the expression χάριν προσειδέναι is found in Plato’s Ἀπολογία (20α) so that we can

take him to mean, “I will feel gratitude in addition”.

1421-5.

The old man appears to sober up and proposes to settle ‘out of court’. He admits his guilt, and offers to

compensate his victim, even suggesting that he will let him assess the damages. The alternative would

have been to seek arbitration (cf. frg. 278 from ∆ράµατα).

1422. πατάξαι καὶ βαλεῖν

He confesses to assaulting the man in the formal terminology of the courtroom (cf. e.g. Antiphon 4.3.4, ὁ

πατάξας - “the man who struck the blow”). In everyday speech one takes βάλλειν to mean that he ‘pelted’

his victim (cf. 221, τοῖς λίθοις βαλλήσοµεν and 1491, τάχα βαλλήσει), but in this more high-flown diction

βαλεῖν (cf. Ἰλιάς 8.156, ἐν κονίῃσι βάλες - “you laid <their husbands> in the dust”) would imply that he

“knocked him down” (presumably using the torch again).

1423. ἐλθὲ δευρί

He takes the man aside to prevent his son butting in.

πότερον

Bentley has corrected the πρότερον of the codices to provide a necessary antecedent to ἢ in 1425.

1424. ἀποτείσαντ(α)

The codices read ἀποτίσαντα (cf. 401), but van Leeuven’s emendation usefully points up the lengthened

syllable.

τοῦ πράγµατος

He suggests that he will compensate him “for the trouble”. One manuscript (B) reads τραύµατος, which is

probably a gloss (i.e. ‘the injury he has suffered’), but could be an intelligent scribe’s emendation. Wilson

(p. 97) sets out the palaeographical implications for rejecting Triclinian authorship of B.

1425. εἶναι φίλον

If the man accepts Philokleon’s offer of compensation, they will be reconciled and ‘become friends’.

ἢ σύ µοι φράσεις;

He suggests that his accuser name a sum (φράσεις πόσον) which would be adequate compensation for his

pains.

1426. δικῶν...οὐ δέοµ(αι)

The injured man sensibly admits to having enough on his plate without “lawsuits and bother” (cf. 1392).

1427. ἀνὴρ Συβαρίτης

Instead of offering a sum of money, Philokleon launches into a Sybaritic anecdote (cf. 1259, Συβαριτικὸν

γέλοιον). It seems to have little bearing on the present situation, until we take the donkey’s presence into

account. He is suggesting that, like the Sybarite who sustained a head injury by falling out of his chariot,

his alleged victim has actually hit his head by falling from his donkey (ἔπεσε ἀπ’ ὄνου). As a result, his

mind is unbalanced and he is making baseless accusations. Cf. 1370 note.

1428. µέγα σφόδρα

174

This unusual combination of adverbs meets the sense required of “very forcibly”, but the reading of the

principal codices µεγάλ’ σφόδρα suggests that σφόδρα may only have been inserted as a gloss. Perhaps,

therefore, we should read the less common µεγάλ’ ἁδρά (cf. Βάτραχοι 1099, ἁδρὸς ὁ πόλεµος - “violent

warfare”).

1429. οὐ τρίβων...ἱππικῆς

He draws a parallel for the injured man, brazenly suggesting that just as the charioteer crashed through his

lack of skill in handling his horses (sc. ἱππικῆς <τέχνης>), so the man’s injuries result from his inability to

stay on his own mount.

1430. ἀνὴρ…φίλος

Philokleon takes the man’s acceptance of his offer (1426) to mean that they are now buddies, so he casts

himself in that role of the ‘friend’ to provide some friendly advice.

1431. ἔρδοι τις...

The moral of his tale is delivered in a portentous tone like a precept handed down from a higher power.

The verb occurs in epic verse and Tragedy. The lesson does not in fact apply to the man who fell off his

donkey, but to the ‘friend’. The point of the apothegm “Let each one do what he doth best”, is explained

by the next line.

1432. ἐς τὰ Πιττάλου

His advice is to pull himself together and to seek medical treatment “at Pittalos’s clinic”. This gentleman

seems to have been in charge of the casualty-department in the city of Athens. He is mentioned twice in

Ἀχαρνεῖς (1032, κλᾶε πρὸς τοὺς Πιττάλου - “tell your sob-story to Pittalos’s <interns>” and 1222, when

Lamachos asks to be carried “to the healing hands of Pittalos”). The words used in Ἀχαρνεῖς 1030 would

also serve to point the moral of Philokleon’s tale here, οὐ δηµοσιεύων τυγχάνω - “I do not happen to be a

paramedic”.

1433. [Κατήγορος]

This line is normally taken to be Bdelykleon venting his frustration at the Father’s behaviour, but he has

been sidelined ever since his father took the victim to one side (1423) to placate him. The remark makes

better sense coming from the injured man. He it is who feels let down and who is bound to reply angrily

to Philokleon’s provocation.

τοῖς ἄλλοις τρόποις

The poor man is outraged that Philokleon has added insult to injury, matching his “previous behaviour”,

i.e. injurious deeds (ὕβριστον ἔργον) with insolent words (ὑβριστικὸς λόγος).

1434. αὐτὸς

If the Son had spoken the previous line it would be reasonable to think that these were the victim’s words

to him, ‘Remember for yourself…’ But, would he tell Bdelykleon to keep his father’s insolence in mind?

Does he intend to call him as a witness? MacDowell explains that he is appealing to the Son’s conscience

so that he will not challenge the true version of events in court. This is reasonable, but devoid of humour.

As I see it, the unfortunate man has just been kicking himself for his gullibility and turns for consolation

to his traveling companion as his only witness. To my mind, the fact that his witness is a not human does

not detract from the humour of the situation one whit (cf. 180).

MacDowell, perhaps because he disliked the word-order, chose to ignore a proposal by Meineke to read

οὗτος ἁπεκρίνατο (“what this fellow said in answer”). But, it has a better claim than the redundant αὐτὸς,

and it is easy to see too how uncertainty over word division might have caused the error (µέµνησο/οὗτος

became µέµνησο/αὐτὸς before being elided).

1435. µὴ φεῦγ(ε)

The injured man has started to lead away his companion ‘witness’ because Philokleon asks him (singular)

to stay. Once more the credulous man stops, believing that his attacker has finally had a change of heart.

ἐν Συβάρει γυνή ποτε

Looking for an excuse to assault his victim again, Philokleon makes up a Sybaritic story of his own. His

only purpose is to let him trounce his accuser in the same manner that the woman of Sybaris smashed her

jar. The audience fully expected him to pull a fast one on the man, but he reaches the ‘punch-line’ before

they are ready for it.

1436. κατέαξ(ε) ἐχῖνον

The original meaning of the word ἐχῖνος was ‘sea-urchin’. One can assume that it came to be applied to a

jar from some physical resemblance. But, the connection is not obvious. Harpokration (143.11) says that

175

Aristophanes referred to an ἐχῖνος again in ∆αναΐδες (frg. 274), but the definition he gives, “a vessel used

to store written records relating to court trials” (ἄγγος τι εἰς τὰ γραµµατεῖα τὰ πρὸς τὰς δίκας ἐπίθεντο),

may be drawn from a different source. He presents us with a kind of ceramic pot, in which rolled papyri

were stashed, as in an umbrella stand. If these court documents included indictments then they might stick

out like the spines of sea-urchins and inflict pain on a defendant and perhaps Philokleon hoped to scatter

the indictments by destroying the jar and so escape prosecution. Although this seems too far-fetched, the

idea that the ‘sea-urchin’ is troublesome does at least give us a basic point of comparison with the victim.

Another consideration is the shape of the jar. I have described the man as being ‘squat and rather tubby’,

because the word ἐχῖνος was used to describe an architectural member; the marble ‘cushion’ at the top of

a Doric capital. The similarity in shape only becomes apparent when, out of water, the sharp spines of the

urchin drop off, leaving a convex exo-skeleton. If the jar looked like the architectural feature then it was

presumably squat with a wide mouth and no neck. This suggests someone with ‘a head on his shoulders’.

What might such a jar be used for? If we take into account the fact that Philokleon is telling a ‘Sybaritic’

joke on his way home from a drinking-party, we open the door to the following hypothesis. The Sybarites

were reputed to have been always striving to make life more comfortable, and one of the innovations they

pioneered was the chamber-pot, πρῶτοι δὲ καὶ ἀµίδας ἐξεῦρον, ἃς εἰσέφερον εἰς τὰ συµπόσια - “They

were the first to invent chamber-pots and to introduce them to symposia (Athenaios 519ε). Although it is

only a conjecture, an ἐχῖνος would seem to be ideally suited for use as such a chamber-pot. So, I surmise

that the communal ἀµίδες at Athenian symposia were known colloquially as ἐχῖνοι, both because of their

shape, but also because as ‘urchins’ or ‘hedgehogs’ they were things one should avoid stepping on. One

can appreciate that the point of the joke is not conveyed by the old man’s words so much as by his action.

When he tells us bluntly that the woman from Sybaris “smashed the pot”, he means us to understand that

she accidently knocked it over with her foot and broke it, whereas he himself is about to deliberately ‘kick

the piss-pot’. What implications this may have for the ‘cushions’ at the top of Doric columns, is a matter

for speculation.

µαρτύροµαι

The unfortunate man calls the donkey (and the audience) to be his witnesses.

1437. οὑχῖνος

Philokleon makes it clear that his victim represented the ‘pot’ in his Sybaritic tale

1438. ναὶ τὰν Κόραν

Now he reveals himself in the role of the Συβαρῖτις. The oath is appropriate to the gender and provenance

of a speaker from Doric Sybaris (cf. 1396), but it may serve to suggest that since Kore (Persephone) was

abducted and taken to the Underworld, the ‘jar’ should take care of his health, before he considers taking

legal action.

1441. ὕβριζ(ε)

As he limps off, the victim petulantly warns Philokleon that he will meet his come-uppance. He utters the

common cry of the defiant underdog, e.g. Euripides Μήδεια 603, ὕβριζ’, ἐπειδὴ σοὶ µὲν ἔστ’ ἀποστροφή -

“go on mistreating <me>, since you have somewhere to turn to”.

τὴν δίκην ἅρχων καλῇ

The presiding magistrate is going to call the case as Bdelykleon did earlier (cf. 824-5).

1442. µὰ τὴν ∆ήµητρ(α)

We may assume that his invocation of Demeter answers the old man’s mention of Kore (1438), but it may

also serve to suggest that his next action is a comic parallel of the mythical rape of Persephone by Boreas.

1443. ἀράµενος οἴσω σε

Does the Son tell the Father, “I’ll pick you up and carry you”? Wilson wonders whether the original text,

ἀράµενος ἔγωγε may have been preserved by a single manuscript (B). There is no need for Bdelykleon to

add οἴσω σε, since that would make both his father’s question and his own explanation otiose. All he need

be saying is “for my part I’ll pick you up…” The ellipse seems to me to be proven by the context, and the

words οἴσω σε are merely scholarly marginalia to explain it.

1446-7. οἱ ∆ελφοί ποτ(ε)…τοῦ θεοῦ

In legend Aisop was put to death by the Delphians who tended Apollo’s sanctuary for the alleged theft of

a sacred, golden chalice, which they themselves had planted among his belongings in order to incriminate

him.

[In the Loeb edition 1446 is accidentally numbered 1445. Correct numbering is not restored until 1465.]

176

1448. ὁ κάνθαρός ποτε

Before his death Aisop told his persecutors a cautionary tale about a dung-beetle, which took its revenge

on a much stronger adversary. The fable of the eagle and the beetle was used again in Εἰρήνη (130-4) the

following year. Presumably, Philokleon sees himself as the brave beetle and his son as the proud eagle.

1449. ἀπολῶ σ(ε) αὐτοῖσι τοῖσι

The Son has been sorely provoked by his recalcitrant parent, but to threaten to do away with him would

be uncharacteristically forthright. Reiske’s emendation, ἀπολῶ σ’ is not in keeping with the Son’s patient

character. The reading of the codices (ἀπολεῖς) follows naturally from his despairing cry of οἴµοι and is

consistent with his attitude of weary resignation. MacDowell points to a similar line of Pherekrates (frg.

108), οἴµ’, ὡς ἀπολεῖς µ’ ἐνταῦθα διατρίβουσ’ ἔτι and in line with this Blaydes proposed ἀπολεῖς µε τοῖσι

σοῖσι. Sommerstein prints Blaydes’ version substituting συ for µε, but I would settle for the consensus of

the codices with the addition of the pronoun, ἀπολεῖς µ(ε) αὐτοῖσι τοῖσι...

κανθάροις

Commentators have ignored the possibility of a pun on the meaning of this word. It appears to have been

used jocularly of a kind of drinking cup with two large handles, which resembled the shape of a beetle’s

head with antlers (cf. Ameipsias frg. 2, φέρ’ ὀξύβαφα καὶ κανθάρους - “bring saucers and cups”). Thus,

the Son is annoyed not only with stories about heroic beetles but also with the heavy drinking which had

inspired them. He is saying that his father has been to a ‘stag (beetle) party’, perhaps? There may even be

a slighting jibe at a comic-rival, Kantharos, who produced a play at the City-Dionysia in the same year.

Choral Song (ᾨδή) 1450-73

In the past, some editors have found the sentiments expressed in the song inappropriate to this point in the

drama and moved it to an earlier slot (1265-91). But, a song is needed to give Philokleon time to catch his

breath before his energetic finale and the sentiments of the Chorus seem suitable. First, they express their

envy of their colleague’s good fortune, and then they praise his son’s filial piety. Although they claim to

have been impressed by the Son’s arguments, they are actually envious of Philokleon’s comfortable life.

(Στροφή)

1450. ζηλῶ γε

Far from being dismayed by their colleague’s legal problems, the old jurymen wish that they could share

them. Their changing attitude was already apparent earlier (731-2), when they envied the fact that he had

a son who wanted to look to his welfare. The particle indicates a sheepish confession ‘I do envy’.

1452. ξηρῶν τρόπων

The adjective is two-edged. On the one hand, the old man has left behind his “frugal life-style”, but as far

as his coevals are concerned he has broken ‘a dry spell’ (cf. 1252, ἵνα...µεθυσθῶµεν διὰ χρόνου) and they

would like to be in a similar position and be given the opportunity to drink their fill too.

1453. ἕτερα...ἀντιµαθὼν

The first word carries a weight of envy. ‘In place of’ his frugal existence Philokleon ‘has learned different

ways’, which appeal to the old jurymen, i.e. he dresses warmly, wears proper boots, parties like there’s no

tomorrow and keeps company with young sluts.

1454. µέγα τι

This is an adverbial accusative which we could translate as “big time” (cf. 3).

µεταπεσεῖται

The codices read µεταπείσεται which does not scan. Bentley altered to µεταπεσεῖτ’ and Bergk corrected

to µεταπεσεῖται. The verb, the irregular future of µεταπίπτω, is used as a metaphor borrowed from a game

of potsherds or counters which ‘bounce’ or ‘flip over’. So, Philokleon is seen as likely to fall ‘sunny side

up’.

1455. ἐπὶ τὸ τρυφῶν

On the basis of ἐπὶ τὸ ῥυφᾶν (V) Bergk proposed ἐπὶ τὸ τρυφᾶν, which is possible, but recent editors have

preferred Dindorf’s reading as suggested by ἐπιτρυφὸν (R).

1456. τάχα...οὐκ ἐθέλοι

There is little point in the Chorus congratulating their colleague on his radical change in life-style only to

add that ‘he may not wish it, perhaps’. The transformation is certainly complete, even though Bdelykleon

may not have achieved exactly what he had hoped for. So, I cannot share MacDowell’s view that “there is

177

still room for doubt” whether the old man will choose to revert to his former lifestyle in the future. This is

a logical inference from the present tense of ἐθέλοι, but there is no indication of any potential for further

opposition. The old man’s resistance to change lies in the past and so the Chorus can only be reflecting on

his earlier opposition. Thus, the optative should be in the past tense, ἠθέλοι, “perhaps, he might not have

been willing” to change his ways (and he did put up quite a fight), but like many another he was won over

by sound arguments in the end.

1458. φύσεος

MacDowell and all subsequent editors print the reading of the codices φύσεως, but this was corrected by

Kuster (cf. 1282).

ἣν ἔχοι τις ἀεί

MacDowell is right to place a comma before ἀεί, because it belongs with χαλεπὸν <ἐστι>, rather than the

parenthetic ἣν ἔχοι τις (“one’s innate <character>”). For the postponement, cf. 390, 1318.

1460. ξυνόντες γνώµαις

We might have expected here ξυνίοντες, in view of the clash of opinions, rather than the passive ‘keeping

company with’, but at any rate, we have to understand an ellipse of <σοφωτέραις> γνώµαις - “shrewder

opinions” ( or perhaps, as they are jurors, <ἀρίσταις> γνώµαις).

(Ἀντιστροφη)

1462. πολλοῦ δ(ὲ) ἐπαίνου

The Chorus turns to praising Bdelykleon’s informed concern for his father. The genitive depends on the

participle τυχὼν.

1464. ἄπεισιν

The Son has made his final exit in the drama, but he “will depart” later as an actor from the competition.

1465. φιλοπατρίαν

LSJ take this unique coinage as synonymous with φιλόπατρις (sc. πόλις), ‘loving one’s ancestral city’, but

Aristophanes is punning on φιλόπατριν and must intend the epithet to mean “filial affection” (cf. 986).

1467. οὐδενὶ...ἀγανῷ

Sommerstein finds this “truly a preposterous epithet” and infers that Aristophanes uses it ironically. But,

to the contrary, it proves that the poet is consistent in his portrayal of character. It is true that the Son has

kept his father confined and instructed a slave to discourage him from climbing out of the house, but his

every action has been motivated throughout by concern for his well-being, for curing his ‘addiction’ and

showing him that the other half enjoy the finer things of life. The adjective fits him like a glove, for he is

patient, suave and above all “mild-mannered” (cf. 135).

1469. ἐπεµάνην

The aorist has an approbative sense “I am enthused about <his manners>”, in contrast with the pejorative

sense given earlier by the imperfect (cf. 744).

ἐξεχύθην

The metaphor is rather obscure, but like the previous verb it probably originates in a sexual context. This

lends their words an underlying sexual ardour which is funny coming from a group of old men. Although

I have translated the ostensible meaning, the Chorus would have indicated to the audience by gestures and

tone of voice that their words could be taken differently. The fine manners of Bdelykleon are said to have

been making them excited to the point where they gushed in praise. The subtext could be better translated,

“For no-one with whom I consorted was ever so considerate; I was never so aroused or made to gush so

as I am by what he did”.

The form ἐκχύνειν is criticized by Loukianos (ὁ Ψευδής 29). Polybios gives the game away in observing

how wealth ‘was dissipated’ on courtesans, οἱ δ’ εἰς ἑταίρας ἐξεκέχυντο (31.25.4).

1470. τί γὰρ...οὐ κρείττων ἦν

One can only interpret this as a vernacular expression, since syntax seems to be of secondary importance.

‘For what counter-arguing was he not superior?’ Presumably, one has to understand οἷς τρόποις for τί.

1472-3. σεµνοτέροις κατακοσµῆσαι

The adjective ensures that the metaphor is one of a (nude) statue being draped with more decorous robes,

rather than ‘equipping’ someone with arms. Parker (1997), however, has suggested (p. 257) that the verb

may not be right, since she finds it unmetrical.

178

Finale (Ἔξοδος) 1474-1537

1474-81.

A slave emerges from the house to inform the audience what has been happening since the Son carried his

father off. The codices do not identify him, but Brunck suggested that he could be the same Xanthias who

was at loggerheads with the old man earlier on. The surly, sarcastic tone certainly fits.

1474. νὴ τὸν ∆ιόνυσον

The slave appeals to the Spirit of the vine in whose honour the dramatic festival was being celebrated and

whose presence was signified by the statue which stood in the theatre (cf. Νεφέλαι 91 and 1473 note).

ἄπορα...πράγµατα

Since these “insoluble problems” are the result of Philokleon’s drunkenness, the poet hints that δαίµων τις

of the next line is Dionysos himself.

1475. δαίµων τις εἰσκεκύκληκεν

This is less likely to be a reference to stage machinery ‘wheeling’ the father into the house (Sommerstein)

than a metaphor of the ‘cycle of Fortune’. The play opened with the anxious cry of Sosias concerned that

Xanthias was under the influence of a κακὸς δαίµων and now his chickens have come home to roost, as it

were. There is a similar expression of ‘Good Fortune’ entering a home cited in the Σοῦδα (δ 1144), ἔλεγε

δὲ δαίµονα ἀγαθόν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν εἰσεληλυθέναι, while Homer has “a god rolling calamity upon the sons

of Danaos” in Ἰλιάς 17.688, πῆµα θεὸς ∆αναοῖσι κυλίνδει.

1476. ἔπιε διὰ πολλοῦ χρόνου

The slave seems to imply that the old man cannot hold his drink because he is not used it. In which case,

he only has himself to blame for not supplying his needs earlier (cf. 616).

1477. ἤκουσέ τε αὐλοῦ

The old man had not had much opportunity to hear the pipes since the piper’s trial, but the symposion has

awakened an interest in music, which has developed into a new passion. We can presume that he has been

dancing to the playing of the flute-girl, as Bdelykleon was too tired to return her to Philoktemon’s house.

Starkie’s comment on the inextricable link between wine and dancing ignores the power of music to keep

inebriated people on their feet. [Nowadays, the music of the κλαρίνο has taken the place of the αὐλός and

produces the same happy feet.]

1477. περιχαρὴς τῷ πράγµατι

We are meant to understand <καλῷ>, “delighted at the good thing” or, “the opportunity” (cf. Εἰρήνη 323,

πρᾶγµα κάλλιστον).

1478. ὀρχούµενος τῆς νυκτὸς οὐδὲν παύεται

All editors print the present tense, which is taken to imply that “all night he has not stopped dancing”, but

this would imply that the second day of the drama has dawned. As, ideally, the drama takes place within a

notional twenty-four period, I would prefer the reading of the oldest codex (R), the future tense παύσεται.

This appears to be Barrett’s view too, since he translates “it looks as if he’ll go on dancing all night”.

1479. τἀρχαῖ(α) ἐκεῖνα

The missing noun is probably µέλη (µέτρα is a less likely possibility). He dances to the “old-style tunes”,

specifically ‘choral lyrics’ (cf. 220). The adjective is frequently used derogatorily e.g. Νεφέλαι 1469, ὡς

ἀρχαῖος εἶ - “how out-of-date you are”.

Θέσπις

Thespis was reputed to have been the winner of the first competition for tragic-drama in the year 534 B.C.

He may have helped create the genre by introducing a solo performer to interact with the other members

of a tragic-chorus. The slave’s words indicate that his name was still remembered, but cannot be taken as

evidence that his antique style of choeography was known or still practised.

1480. τοὺς τραγῳδούς...κρόνους

For Philokleon, who still considers himself a member of the ‘now generation’, the so-called avante-garde

of younger tragic-poets are ‘old hat’. He intends to demonstrate that they are pre-historic, belonging to the

age of Kronos. Along with Sommerstein and Henderson I would treat Κρόνους as a proper noun (as with

Κρωβύλων in 1267).

1481. τοὺς νῦν

Bentley (1713) has rightly emended τὸν νοῦν of the codices in order to denote the tragic-poets “of today”.

διορχησάµενος

179

Editors have not questioned the past participle in the codices even though διωρχησάµενος would be more

regular. I would just as soon follow the Σοῦδα’s citation and print the future διορχησόµενος (cf. 1499).

1482. τίς...θάσσει;

Philokleon’s utterances, here and in 1484, heralding his reappearance, are manifestly para-tragic in tenor.

Similar phrases are used in works by Sophokles and Euripides. The elevated tone introduces us to his new

persona as a tragic-actor, who is about to demonstrate his youthful talent as a dancer. He may be quoting a

line from a recent tragic-drama, in which case the audience would be expected to know who was actually

“seated at the gates”.

Commentators wonder whether Xanthias carefully shut the door behind him when he left the house. Some

think he did and Barrett has him open it again after Philokleon calls out (1484). But, one should note that

the question here relates to the courtyard gate which notionally lies between the players and the audience,

but in Philokleon’s mind has become the familiar ‘palace-gate’ of Tragedy.

1483. τουτὶ καὶ δὴ χωρεῖ τὸ κακόν

Given the para-tragic context, it is reasonable to suppose that this line has been lifted from a recent tragic-

drama. Its use the previous year in Nεφέλαι (907) certainly leads one to this conclusion. It suggests that he

is using an ominous expression along the lines of “Look, something wicked this way comes”.

1484. κλῇθρα χαλάσθω τάδε

In Euripides Ἱππόλυτος, Theseus returns home to find the palace-gates unattended and calls to his servants

to unbolt them, χαλᾶτε κλῇθρα...πυλωµάτων (808).

The mention of the outer gate may serve as a mocking reminder to Xanthias that he had promised never to

let the old man out again, as he celebrates his new-found freedom to behave badly. Also, bearing in mind

that the Father is far from sober, his words may be heard to contain a subliminal message that he is about

to take the stage in a dramatic competition through the use of αὐλείοισι and κλῇθρα suggesting αὐλαία

(‘curtain’) and κλῄζω (‘applaud’).

καὶ δὴ γὰρ

He announces the opening of his tragic-dance, “here goes!” (cf. 1224)

1485. σχήµατος ἀρχὴ

A σχῆµα is the posture adopted by the dancer (cf. Εἰρήνη 323, διὰ τὰ σχήµατα), but here he is referring to

‘the series of steps’ which constitute the dance-movement or figure.

1487. ὑπὸ ῥώµης

With Sommerstein, I prefer Lobeck’s proposed emendation ὑπὸ ῥύµης over the merely adequate reading

of the codices.

There have been overly-ambitious attempts to identify the steps which Philokleon describes with specific

dances. But, we need to keep in mind what the old man is trying to do and the condition in which he does

it. The spectators are not misled into thinking “that the movements…were used by Thespis” (MacDowell).

It was the sarcastic Xanthias who suggested that Philokleon could be old enough to remember the original

solo dances, but the old man himself is intent on bringing back the old-time dancing from the days of his

youth, when he admired tragic-actors like Phrynichos. So, while Xanthias had suggested he would model

himself on Nijinsky, he himself intends to dance like Gene Kelly.

1489. πῖθ(ε) ἑλλέβορον

Xanthias advises Philokleon to take an infusion of hellebore, which might cure his insanity. MacDowell

notes this as the earliest mention of the plant’s medicinal use, which later became a trite way of alluding

to mental instability (cf. Loukianos Ἡ εὐχαῖ, 45).

1490. πτήσσει Φρύνιχος

Commentators have drawn attention to a line from an unknown source which Plutarch quotes three times,

ἔπτηξ’ ἀλέκτωρ δοῦλος ὣς κλίνας πτερόν - “like a beaten cockerel trailing its wing, he cowered”. If this

was taken from a work by Phrynichos (and Nauck attributes it to him as frg. 17), then one might presume

that Aristophanes is parodying it. In which case, Philokleon is imagining himself crouching down in the

attitude of a cockerel in a cockfight so that his audience may be deceived into thinking that he is cowering

in defeat, but, since the verb does not necessarily entail a fearful attitude (cf. Θεσµοφοριάζ. 36, ἐκποδὼν

πτήξωµεν - “let’s stand back out of the way”), he is imitating Phrynichos coiling like a spring and about

to leap in the air.

180

However, the parody may go beyond this. Although Bentley’s suggestion of πλήσσει appears wide of the

mark, it is not totally out of the question that ‘Phrynichos’ may shock, or ‘astound <the spectators>’ like

some feisty cockerel suddenly wielding its spurs. Only the inertia of tradition prevents its adoption.

1491. τάχα βαλλήσεις

The old man’s mental aberration seems to have infected the copyists and some scholars here. The codices

have the active βαλλήση (R), or βαλλήσεις (VJ), which could be taken as the slave promising Philokleon,

‘you will soon fling out <your leg>’. This would not only pre-empt the old man’s next words, but actually

requires that we incorporate σκέλος as part of the slave’s speech to provide an object. The missing object

might be provided internally by supposing, with Platnauer (1951), that the poet intended the future middle

βαλλήσει σ(ύ) to be used in the same active sense.

But MacDowell rightly objected to the idea of Xanthias commenting on the old man’s dance-style at this

juncture. He points out that throughout the scene the slave reiterates his view that Philokleon’s actions are

proof of his derangement and therefore he adopts the suggestion of Dindorf that we read the future middle

βαλλήσει, but take it in the passive sense, “you will be pelted”. The slave is simply warning the old man

that any passers-by witnessing his performance might be tempted to stone him as a madman. In Ὄρνιθες,

the birds are reminded that, “nowadays <farmers> throw <stones> at you just as one does at madmen” -

ὥσπερ δ’ ἤδη τοὺς µαινοµένους βάλλουσ’ ὑµᾶς (524-5).

Moreover, bearing in mind that the dance-contest is actually taking place in a theatre, we could perhaps

interpret the slave’s words meta-theatrically as a warning that in Philokleon’s case there is another more

immediate danger. According to Polydeukes (2.197, 4.122), it was usual for theatre audiences to express

disapproval by ‘stamping their feet’ (see LSJ, πτερνοκοπέω), but Athenaios (6.245ε) indicates that in the

period of New Comedy at least, jokes were made about ‘stoning’ mediocre performers, he also tells a tale

from Chamaeleon (περὶ τῆς ἀρχαίας κωµῳδίας 6) about the comic-dramatist Hegemon emptying into the

orchestra some stones he had been carrying in his cloak and telling the bemused audience, λίθοι µὲν οἵδε·

βαλλέτω δ’εἴ τις θέλει - “here are some stones; anyone who wishes may throw them!” So, Xanthias fears

that the audience might be tempted to throw anything that comes to hand to show their displeasure at his

crazy performance.

1492. οὐράνιόν γ(ε) ἐκλακτίζων

The codices read οὐράνιον, to which someone has added the particle to make up the metre. But, Meineke

used Hesychios’s definition of οὐρανίαν (o 1830) and the verb οὐρανιάζω to maintain that the adverbial

accusative οὐρανίαν ought to be read here. The term was a borrowing from ball games, in which the ball

was sent ‘skyward’, as we might say “he skied that one” (so, should we add rugby to Greek inventions?).

Hesychios also gives a definition of ἐκλακτισµός as, “a sharp or spontaneous movement of choral dance”

(σχῆµα χορικὸν ὀρχήσεως σύντονον). Polydeukes (4. 102) adds the interesting detail, that an ἐκλάκτισµα

was a movement particularly associated with women’s dances. MacDowell considers this irrelevant to the

old man’s dancing as he is imitating Phrynichos, but as a tragic-actor Phrynichos would doubtless have to

interpret female roles. Thus, the humour of the scene might well be enhanced by Philokleon’s attempts to

imitate a ‘prima donna’.

We can only guess what actual movement is being attempted. The cockerel can levitate with its wings in

order to strike out at its opponent, so Philokleon may jump up and kick out with one leg. Or, given that he

is possibly essaying a ‘female’ action, it could be a high kick (or even a grande jeté perhaps). Borthwick’s

suggestion (1968) that these actions (including ‘throwing the leg’ in 1491) could describe a Pyrrhic dance

does not seem borne out by what little we know of the war-dance which was performed for the goddess at

her regular festivals. However, that is not to preclude the possibility that the choreography of Phynichos’s

‘tragic’ dances borrowed from military movements (cf. 1060-1), for these lines invariably conjure images

in my mind of the impressively choreographed ballet of the flag-lowering ceremony at the Wagah border-

crossing between Amritsar and Lahore, and high-kicks in combination with foot-stomping are a feature of

some traditional women’s dances in kwaZulu-Natal.

1493. πρωκτὸς χάσκει

Aristophanes here supplies a likely explanation of the tragic-actor’s εὐρυπρωκτίαν (cf. Νεφέλαι 1091-2).

κατὰ σαυτὸν ὅρα

For the tmesis of καθοράω, cf. Ἰλιάς 16.646, κατ’ αὐτοὺς αἰὲν ὅρα - “he was watching them intently all

the time”. In Νεφέλαι (326-7) and Ἱππεῖς (953), the compound verb seems to mean ‘to see well’ or ‘make

181

out’ (cf. also 1290). Here, we can probably translate, “take a good look at yourself” (i.e. ‘it’s not a pretty

sight’).

MacDowell thinks the phrase can mean “Look after yourself”, and Sommerstein (addenda xxxi) expands

this to “Mind you don’t get buggered” (i.e. commenting on the opportunity afforded by πρωκτὸς χάσκει),

but I cannot find a parallel for καθοράω in the sense of ‘looking out for <oneself>’ or ‘being careful for

oneself’ (Barrett). Starkie’s “Look where you are going”, for which he claims support from κατὰ σεαυτόν

νυν τρέπου (Νεφέλαι 1263), does not seem at all likely in sense or syntax.

1494-5. ἐν ἄρθροις

Clearly the socket (κοτυληδών) cannot revolve in the joints, so unless one assumes that anatomical terms

are being deliberately muddled for comic effect (cf. 1195, 1312), we might have to think about emending

to ἐπ’ ἄρθροις. The use of the plural ἡµετέροις suggests that the couplet was adapted from a choral song

in a tragic-drama, as does the metre. The run of anapaests begun at 1482 ends here.

1496. οὐκ εὖ;

Some of the codices (RJ) assign these words to the Son giving his verdict on his father’s dance, but there

is no need for him to be present. They form Philokleon’s breathless question to the slave at the conclusion

of his spectacular entrance.

µὰ ∆ί(α) οὐ δῆτ(α)

Hall and Geldart follow those codices which assign the rest of the line to the Son. But, MacDowell notes

that if Bdelykleon was present he would not stand by and calmly watch such antics. Recent editors follow

Beer’s lead (1844) and assign these words to the slave.

1497. ἀνείπω κ(αὶ) ἀνταγωνιστὰς καλῶ

The aorist subjunctive in our text is adequate, ‘let me proclaim’, but sits awkwardly with the conjunction

and present or future indicative of καλέω (the aorist subjunctive would be καλέσω). I would rather read

ἀνειπὼν ἀνταγωνιστὰς καλῶ - “I invite competitors by proclamation”.

1500. γ(ε) ἐκεινοσὶ

The slave points to the wings as a dancer emerges, “yes, <there’s> that one alone”. Sommerstein includes

the stage direction, “A dancer costumed as a crab enters from the side” and Henderson assumes the same.

Subsequent references to the dancers’ appearance and movements (1509), along with Philokleon’s joking

talk of ‘consuming’ his competitors (1502, 1506, 1515), could lead one to share their assumption, but he

will also describe them as birds (1513). The humour of this scene is merely derived from an extended pun

on the name Karkinos (crab). It is no more probable that the ‘sons of Crab’ were attired in shell-costumes

and waved claws than that the ‘waspish’ old men of the chorus required ‘fancy dress’ to emphasize their

insect-like qualities.

1501. υἱὸς Καρκίνου

Thucydides mentions Karkinos, son of Xenotimos, as one of three commanders of the one hundred ships

sent by Athens to harry the Peloponnesians during the first invasion of Attika in 431 B.C., ἐστρατήγει δὲ

Καρκίνος τε ὁ Ξενοτίµου (2.23.2). He is mentioned again by Aristophanes in Νεφέλαι (1260-1) as some-

one who has brought ‘divine spirits’ on stage ‘lamenting their lot’. This reference is taken to mean that he

himself wrote tragedies and a scholion Εἰρήνη 794 claims that he wrote a work with the rather improbable

title (for a tragic-drama), Μύες. However, I share Dover’s doubts in this regard, since the evidence points

to his son Xenokles being the tragic-poet (cf. 1511). Nonetheless, recent commentators have accepted that

he himself was a dramatist and Sommerstein adduces epigraphical evidence that a work by him had won

first prize at the City Dionysia in 446 (IG ii² 2318.81).

MacDowell notes that in Εἰρήνη (781-6) the following year, Aristophanes pointedly advises the audience

never to dance with the sons of Karkinos, if asked to do so by their father, even if payment is offered. He

takes this as proof that “the sons of Karkinos appeared in person in the original performance” of Σφῆκες

and that they had let the show down by dancing badly. But, as Philokleon made clear in his challenge, the

reason for introducing tragic-actors into ‘Comedy’ is to allow him to out-dance them. The dancers are no

more the actual sons of Karkinos than ‘Chairephon’ was played by the intellectual himself. Aristophanes’

introduction of ‘tragic-actors’ into his comic version of ‘Dancing with the Stars’ used comic-actors in the

guise of these ‘celebrities’. In this way, he can boast afterwards that he has made the accomplished tragic-

performers look ridiculous. Sommerstein surmises that the same actors who played the roles of the ‘boy-

guides’ earlier could well have been re-employed in this scene.

1502. ὁ µέσατος

182

If this word means the “midmost” son, as commentators believe, it must be a contracted form of the more

usual superlative µεσαίτατος. The latter is actually found in the codex Ravennatus, but is probably just an

intrusive gloss.

There are two problems with the current interpretation. Assuming that Karkinos fathered three sons, why

does Aristophanes introduce the second son first? On the other hand, a passage from Pherekrates cited by

a scholion on this line seems to indicate that there may have been four sons (frg. 15, µὰ τὸν ∆ία, οὐ τρεῖς

τε ἐκεῖνοί εἰσιν οἱ τέσσαρες, in which case there was no ‘middle’ son.

Griffith noting that Μέσατος occurs as a proper name in P.Oxy. 2265, suggested that one of the sons was

named, or nick-named, Mesatos. This is made more likely by the occurrence of the name among the poets

of Tragedy in the 460’s. A Μέσατος is listed as prizewinner c. 466-4, between two victories of Aischylos.

He could have been an older relative of Karkinos, perhaps his father-in-law after whom the eldest son was

named in the hope he would carry on the family’s musical tradition.

1502. καταποθήσεται

The passive future of καταπίνω is used concretely by Philokleon because Mesatos is a ‘crab’s offspring’

who “will be swallowed whole”, just as the victorious poets ‘swallowed down fillets of mullet’ in Νεφέλαι

(338-9, κατέπινον κεστρᾶν τεµάχη), but his tragic-poetry will be “absorbed” metaphorically, in the same

way that Euripides’ poetry has been imbibed by Dikaiopolis in Ἀχαρνεῖς 484, οὐκ εἶ καταπιὼν Εὐριπίδην;

1503. ἐµµελείᾳ κονδύλου

In the context of tragic performance (and Philokleon’s display is tragic) ἐµµέλεια must refer to a dance.

The old man seems to be threatening to physically assault his rival, just as the chorus-leader’s warning to

the boy had been interpreted as an offer to box his ears (cf. 254, κονδύλοις νουθετήσετε). But, obviously,

“Ι will destroy him with a dance of the knuckle” can only be treated as a metaphor in the sense, ‘delivering

a knock-out dance’.

1504. ἐν τῷ ῥυθµῷ

This line seems to be left up in the air as a free-floating afterthought, “because his metre is hopeless”, but

in fact it is added to confirm the gist of the wordplay in the previous line. Since he is talking about ῥυθµός

the phrase ἐµµελείᾳ κονδύλου can be seen as substituting for ἐµµελείᾳ δακτύλου. The joke lies in the fact

that he ‘abbreviates’ the ‘finger-style’ dance rhythm, (cf. Νεφέλαι 651-2, κατὰ δάκτυλον, which measured

- ˞ ˞ - ˞ ˞ -) to ‘knuckle-style’. This may be reflected in his furious dance-interpretation.

ᾦζυρέ

Aristophanes inserts this epithet (ὦ οἰζυρέ) on four other occasions (cf. 1514, Νεφέλαι 655, Ὄρνιθες 1641

and Λυσιστράτη 948) and although the usual translation is, “you poor fool” (Sommerstein) this does not fit

all contexts. In Νεφέλαι, for instance, it would be inappropriate for Strepsiades to address ‘Sokrates’, his

teacher, in that way. MacDowell concludes that the interjection merely serves to mark disagreement with

what’s just been said and Barrett omits it altogether. The adjective is normally applied to things which are

‘wearisome’ or ‘dreary’, so it could be used to indicate the speaker’s exasperation with the other’s words,

either emphatically, “You irritating man!” or to remonstrate weakly, “for crying out loud!”

The epithet may have special relevance to the present situation because Hesiod used it as a proper noun to

denote ‘a daughter of Night’.

1505. ἕτερος...Καρκινίτης

The adjective is formed as if it denoted the actor’s place of origin (or the crab’s habitat), in the same way

that a man from Sybaris was called a Συβαρίτης (1427).

1506. ὠψώνηκ(α)

The codices are agreed on ὀψώνηκα (past perfect of the verb ὀψωνεῖν, cf. 495), and the regular augment

first appears only in the printed Aldine edition. It may be that in some verbs formed from nouns it was not

usual to lengthen the opening syllable in past tenses (cf. 1481, where διορχησάµενος has been accepted).

1507. οὐδέν γ(ε) ἄλλο πλήν γ(ε)

There is no absolute objection to the repetition of the particle (MacDowell points to Εἰρήνη 19 and 675),

but Badham saw that the second probably resulted from an absent-minded copyist inserting the numeral

γ΄ instead of writing τρεῖς in full.

1509. τουτὶ τί ἦν;

The phrase, used earlier (183), expresses bewilderment, something between ‘what is this?’ and ‘what was

that?’

ὀξὶς ἢ φάλαγξ;

183

On the face of it, the received text seems nonsensical. The words ὀξὶς (a ‘vinegar-container’) and φάλαγξ

(a ‘spider’, which usually hangs its web in Attic houses, cf. Platon frg. 21) are inappropriate. Therefore,

MacDowell has boldly adopted the emendations to ὦτος and σφάλαξ (the codex Ravennatus has φάλαξ)

proposed by Borthwick (1968). His justification is that the third son has a wide-eyed, owlish appearance

and performs an ‘owl-dance’ (σκώπευµα) as he enters. The objections to this imaginative hypothesis are

that, (a) the three brothers have not yet begun to dance, indeed the verb shows that this son at least comes

“crawling on” (προσέρπον), (b) if the poet had meant us to understand that the owl-dance was about to be

performed, why did he not write σκώψ (which is the smaller of the two types of owl anyway and takes its

name from its eyes rather than its ears)? (c) the Athenians were ridiculed for being the most ‘gullible’ of

Greeks - µόνοι ὦτοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων (Comic Adespota 209), (d) why would a copyist have altered ὦτος to

ὀξὶς in the first place?

The emendation to σφάλαξ is more credible palaeographically given the mistake in the Ravennatus. But a

‘mole’ is no less absurd in this context. The ground-dwelling σπάλαξ (modern τυφλοπόντικος) is a rarity

in Attika and figures among the imports brought to market by the Theban merchant in Ἀχαρνεῖς where it

is actually called a σκάλοψ (879). It would surely make its entry by a trap-door, in any case?

It is better to keep the received text and remember that everyday objects often undergo metamorphosis in

comic-verse. We have seen beetles become cups and hedgehogs become potties, based on their shape, so

could not the reverse be true? Sommerstein suggests that the form of the word ὀξὶς, rather than the shape

of the object, could stand in for some sea-creature with sharp spines, a ‘spiny’ crayfish perhaps. In which

case, the φάλαγξ should also be taken to describe a marine animal, rather than Sommerstein’s ‘tarantula’.

Also I suspect that, if he wanted to draw an analogy with a sharp-spined creature, the poet would not have

chosen a receptacle for grape-vinegar (containing acetic acid). But, Sommerstein is on the right track. The

poet was intent on likening his tragic-rival to a crawling creature, small in size and venomous (in so far as

his dramas left a bad taste). But, though the pint-sized tragedian is a ‘crab’, it is not necessary to presume

that he is being compared to other marine animals. We find that when Aristophanes uses the same word in

a similar metaphor it relates to a land-locked city (frg. 709, ἐν δὲ Κλεωναῖς ὀξίδες εἰσι - “there are cruets

of vinegar at Kleonai”). One would be lucky to come across a spiny crayfish in the vineyards of Kleonai,

but “a scorpion” (as Henderson translates) could be under any stone. Meeting one could be as unwelcome

an experience as having to sit through a performance by Xenokles.

In view of the fact that the word φάλαγξ came to be used to describe a formation of massed infantry one

may assume that it is used here of another land-based creature, equally noxious, but probably with many

more legs than a spider. The best candidate, it seems to me, among such creepy-crawlies is the millipede,

commonly found in Attika lurking in damp places under stones and flower-pots. It may be that they were

even thought to be amphibious like the scolopendra cataracta recently observed in Thailand. Aristotle, in

fact, does mention a sea-millipede.

Both the scorpion and the millipede can give one a painful bite and are equally unpleasant, so the thought

of them doubtless causes the old man to pull a sour face (behind his mask).

1510. ὁ πινοτήρης

Aristotle explained that the “pinna-guard” (also, πινοφύλαξ) was a minuscule crab which co-habited with

the pinna mollusc (πῖνα), warning it of imminent danger. The relevant characteristic here is its diminutive

size, which suggests that one of the midgets from the earlier scene might have been employed in the role.

1511. ὅς τὴν τραγῳδίαν ποιεῖ

This line has the appearance of being an interpolation, and Hamaker proposed its deletion, but it is worth

keeping anyway, since it identifies the small crab with the tragic-poet Xenokles.

In Θεσµοφοριάζουσαι (441), the female chorus declares that, even the verbal skills of a talented poet like

Xenokles, son of Karkinos, would be no match for the woman they have just heard speaking.

1513. ὀρχίλων

These would-be contenders in the dance-competition strike Philokleon as being rather small for their age.

This justifies his weak pun on ‘a flock of small birds (perhaps wrens)’. The scholiast is doubtless correct

to suggest that the idea of ὀρχησταί underpins the pun. We need not suppose that ὀρχίλοι are ‘song-birds’,

as the ‘crabs’ are not required to sing as well. The fact that the poet casually switches his description from

crabs to birds is proof (to me at least) that his talk of ‘crabs’ is no more than word-play.

In Εἰρήνη (787-90), the sons of Karkinos are called ὀρτύκια (‘quails’). Such jocular references to people

in the public eye might have sprung from their physical traits, or as with the ὀρχίλοι may have originated

184

in the poet’s desire to play with words (cf. τριόρχεις in 1534). Aristophanes is especially fond of making

comparisons with birds and may have been the one who nick-named his comic-rival Kallias as, σχοινίων

(‘reed-warbler’), for some personal or professional trait (cf. Σοῦδα, κ 213). The tradition that his father

had been a σχοινοποιός carried the tag to its illogical conclusion (σχοινίον - ‘little rope’, cf. 1342)

1514. καταβατέον

The announcement that he has decided “to go down” to meet his competitors has suggested to some that

he is physically descending from a stage into the orchestra. But, the the idea of descending into the arena

is a metaphor which denotes that he is ‘entering’ a contest. There are additional implications here that he

is compelled to ‘go down’ to the sea because his rivals are beach-dwellers and that he is condescending to

compete with inferiors.

µ’· ᾠζυρέ

Does the old man throw Xanthias’s irritable phrase (1504) back at him? It does not seem to fit well here

and we can obtain a more satisfactory translation from Hermann’s neat alternative µοι· σὺ δὲ instead. The

only objection to the emendation among recent editors is Wilson’s reservation about the postponement of

the enclitic µοι (p. 98).

1515. ἅλµην κύκα

Confident of victory against his smaller opponents, Philokleon instructs the slave to “mix salt water” with

a view to cooking the crabs, i.e. he intends to ‘make a meal of them’.

1516-37.

The finale of the play consists of a dance-off between Philokleon and three celebrated tragic-actors. All of

these parts are being played by comic-actors, so we cannot expect the choreography to adhere to the high

standards expected of tragic-drama; this is ‘Strictly Com(ic) Dancing’. The point of the competiton is to

show how even an inebriated and arthritic old man can outperform some of the finest young dancers that

Tragedy and Dithyramb can provide…in Comedy at least.

Our ignorance of the ancient forms of dance and their musical accompaniment is clearly exposed here; we

can only speculate about the movements of the performers in line with the advice being given to them by

the Chorus. MacDowell has suggested that the type of dance utilized here for the finale was the κόρδαξ

(cf. 1326). But, this is unlikely given Philokleon’s declaration (1503) that he would defeat his tragic rival

with an ἐµµέλεια κονδύλου, an abbreviated form of an ἐµµέλεια δακτύλου, from which we must conclude

that true to his word he intends to beat his opponent on his home ground, because the word ἐµµέλεια was

applied to the stylized dance-forms of tragic-drama.

Loukianos (περὶ Ὀρχήσεως 22) states that, τριῶν γοῦν οὐσῶν τῶν γενικωτάτων ὀρχήσεων, κόρδακος καὶ

σικιννίδος καὶ ἐµµελείας - “there are three most basic dance-forms <in Dionysiac rites>, the kordax, the

sikinnis and the emmeleia”. He further explains (26) that, οἷον τραγικὴ µὲν ἡ ἐµµέλεια, κωµῳδικὴ δὲ ὁ

κόρδαξ - “the emmeleia was the form used in tragic-drama while the kordax was a comic form”. This is

corroborated by Athenaios (14.631δ, ὁ µὲν κόρδαξ...φορτικός, ἡ δὲ ἐµµέλεια σπουδαία).

The more likely form of the dance is one which might imitate the distinctive motion of crabs. Since crabs

scuttle sideways, we may presume that these tragic-dancers are drawn up in a line. In a traditional Greek

συρτός the head of the line leads the dance by, as it were, ‘dragging’ the others along, improvising as he

does so, various bravura figures like those already demonstrated by Philokleon, such as crouching down

to touch the ground with one hand, then leaping into the air, twisting in a pirouette and high-kicking. This

style seems appropriate here, although I am not suggesting that Phrynichos actually originated the syrtaki.

1516. ξυγχωρήσωµεν

The chorus-leader proposes that the whole Chorus closes ranks in order to leave space for the dancers to

perform. Up until now they were spread out across the orchestra. Their drill is carried out to the marching

rhythm of anapaestic tetrameters.

1517. ἐφ’ ἡσυχίας

The phrase does not imply that they will remain quiet, merely that they will not ‘get in the way of’ the

other performers.

βεµβεκίζωσιν ἐαυτούς

The verb does not occur elsewhere, but is intended to describe the movement of a βέµβιξ (‘spinning top’),

which is used metaphorically of a ‘tornado’ (Hesychios), or of a ‘whirlpool’ (Oppian Ἁλιευτικά).

1518-27.

185

The Chorus now extends Philokleon’s pun on the dancers’ family name, by singing a ‘Hymn to marine

life’ to encourage the three tragic-actors to demonstrate their dancing skills.

The colometry of these lines is generally translated into a strophe (1518-22) and antistrophe (1523-7) with

the remainder unbroken archilocheans. This arrangement leaves us with the impression that much of what

the Chorus has to say (if not all) is addressed to the tragic-actors, but one must remember that the old man

is also taking part and indeed will eventually outdance his younger rivals.

From extant evidence, it appears to be unusual to employ the archilochean metre in this sustained manner.

It derives of course from Archilochos and his style was provocative, confrontational. This may be why it

was thought suitable for a unique contest of this sort. Sommerstein notes (addenda xxxi) that the metre is

used by the tragedian Phrynichos (cf. frg. 13), which may be an additional reason for its use here.

1518. ἄγ(ε), ὦ µεγαλώνυµα τέκνα

The imperative remains singular in spite of the plural noun, because it represents a call for attention such

as ‘hey!’ (cf. 381). To catch the crabs’ attention, a nautical term seems appropriate. The phrase ‘renowned

children’, however, might have seemed somewhat grandiose for the sons of Karkinos although, of course,

it may be intended ironically. They may simply be the words of some tragic (or epic) verse which is being

parodied here (cf. ὁ ποντοµέδων ἄναξ in 1532/3). There is a similar, fanciful address to other denizens of

the deep in a line of the comic-poet Phrynichos (frg. 52, ὦ χρυσοκέφαλοι βεµβράδες θαλάσσιαι - “o

golden-headed anchovies of the sea”), which suggests ‘crowned’ heads.

1519. τοῦ θαλασσίου <θεοῦ>

The codices read only θαλασσίου, which is unmetrical without Bergk’s addition of θεοῦ. But no addition

is required to give meaning to the epithet, which is clear from the identical pun in Platon’s Σοφισταί (frg.

143), where the tragedian is called Καρκίνου…τοῦ θαλαττίου - “the marine Crab”, because he had seen

service at sea. Since Platon’s drama mentions Drakontides in a similar, judicial context to Aristophanes’

mention of him (cf. 157), it may well have been closely contemporary. The metre can be restored simply

by emending to the epic form θαλασσίοιο proposed by Burges.

1520. παρὰ ψάµαθον

Sea crabs would naturally scuttle over a sandy sea-bed, but these land-crabs “leap across the sand” which

presumably covers the orchestra.

1521. ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτου

Hall and Geldart print Dindorf’s ‘correction’ of another epic epithet ἀτρυγέτοιο to describe the salt-sea.

In the Homeric poems we take it to be drawn from ἀ-τρυγάω (cf. 634), i.e. ‘not harvested’, but a comic-

poet might have squeezed other meanings from it. From ἀ-τρυγέω he might have suggested ‘not-dried’,

and from ἀ-τρύγη ‘not comedic’.

1522. καρίδων ἀδελφοί

MacDowell mentions a suggestion from Debidour that the audience would have heard a pun on Χαρίτων

ἀδελφοί - “brothers of the Graces”, a suitable accolade for accomplished dancers. He objects that καρ-

scans long whereas Χαρ- is short, but Griffith noted that with puns the quantity is often immaterial.

1523. ταχὺν πόδα κυκλοσοβεῖτε

The manuscripts’ reading πόδ(α) ἐν κύκλῳ σοβεῖτε (and the variant στροβεῖτε in V) do not scan and have

been emended by Dindorf to the imperative of a conjectured verb κυκλοσοβέω, which can be understood

to mean “make <rapid> circular movements <with your leg>”.

1524. τὸ Φρυνίχειον

The Chorus challenges one of the modern dancers to perform the high kicking style “in the Phrynichean

manner” which Philokleon had talked about (1490).

1527. ω-ὤζωσιν οἱ θεαταί

The first syllable is artificially lengthened to fit the music, so that the spectators go “ooh-ah!”

1528-30.

The instructions now change into the singular and, though MacDowell declines to attach any significance

to it, the change must imply that the Chorus turns to address Philokleon, who begins to move away from

the three brothers to demonstrate his moves. We may suppose that the Chorus encourages him to give a

masterly demonstration of his Terpsichorean abilities.The suggested movements are στρόβει <σεαυτόν>

(“whirl yourself around”), παράβαινε κύκλῳ (“move to the side in a circle”), γάστρισον σεαυτόν (“slap

your stomach”), and ῥῖπτε σκέλος οὐράνιον (“kick your leg up high”), all of which may well have been

chosen to beat ‘Crabs’ at their own crab-like activities.

186

γάστρισον σεαυτόν

The action of ‘slapping one’s stomach’ is one that may have been selected as characteristic of a crab (held

up out of water). Although it seems rather a bizarre gesture for a dancer to make, one might say the same

of Tyrolean dancing after all. MacDowell says that it is depicted in vase-paintings. I wonder whether the

verb might have been meant to pun on γαυριόω, which would suggest a more dignified bearing.

βέµβικες ἐγγενέσθων

“Let there be whirling motions” may be an instruction to Philokleon again, suggesting that he pirouette.

On the other hand, its vagueness may be taken to imply a more general appeal such as, “let whirlpools be

created”.

1532-3. καὐτὸς...πατὴρ

As the dance-contest reaches its climax, the dramatist springs a surprise on the audience when ‘Karkinos’,

the “ruler of the waves” himself, makes a guest appearance. The title ποντοµέδων ἄναξ was one normally

reserved for the sea-god Poseidon (cf. Αischylos Ἕπτα, 131), but here it is accorded to the former naval

commander for his successes at sea (cf. 1501). It is no more likely that he is costumed to look like a crab

than his sons are. The dancer who took his role would have worn a mask which somehow approximated

to his facial features. As a former στρατηγός he might have been portrayed wearing a myrtle wreath. The

fact that he is said to crawl on (προσέρπει), is only a further reminder that his name is funny, but may hint

that he was getting on in years too (cf. 552).

1534. τοῖς τριόρχοις

After first likening the ‘Crabs’ to ὀρχίλοι (1513), the poet now refers to them as τριόρχεις (‘buzzards’ or

‘hawks’). The ostensible reason for doing so is that they are now whirling like dervishes with their arms

outstretched so as to resemble birds of prey wheeling on high, but he has chosen a word which suggests

τρεῖς ὀρχησταί (‘three dancers’), while also coarsely insinuating that they are ‘three-testicled’, or ‘sex-

crazed’.

As MacDowell observes (p. 330), “Some of the dancing may have been accompanied by music without

words”, and it is probable that at this point the musical finale accompanying the dancers’ display carried

on without lyrics.

1535-6. ἀλλ(ὰ) ἐξάγετε...ἡµᾶς ταχύ

The Chorus has seen enough to declare the winner of the dance-off. Their call for the tragic-actors to lead

the way out of the orchestra acknowledges the defeat of modern dance-styles (cf. Νεφέλαι 524-5, where

Aristophanes speaks of his own departure from a dramatic competition in defeat, ἀνεχώρουν...ἡττηθεὶς).

None can compete with Philokleon’s comic dance-technique.

1537. ὀρχούµενον...τρυγῳδῶν

The very last line of Aristophanes’ play, presents us with one final conundrum. What was the innovation

of which the Chorus boasts? The codices provide disparate evidence. Sommerstein, like Hall and Geldart,

prints the reading of the Venetus. This translates as, “to send a comic chorus dancing off” (Sommerstein).

MacDowell and Henderson follow the Ravennatus which substitutes the nominative ὀρχούµενος, so that

his achievement is to “dismiss a comic-chorus dancing” or “take a comic-chorus off in dance”. But, does

this claim have any merit? Was it in any way unusual for the comic-chorus to dance away? MacDowell

says that he is prepared to accept the claim as it stands, although it cannot be substantiated. To my mind,

it seems most unlikely.

We have three plays of Old Comedy produced before 422 B.C.; all by Aristophanes, of course. His earliest

extant drama is Ἀχαρνεῖς, which ends with the protagonist Dikaiopolis calling upon the Chorus to follow

him out singing as they go. Must we presume that the aged Acharnians process with grave dignity toward

the exodos, because they no longer have the energy to dance? In the following year, the Chorus of Ἱππεῖς

barely get a word in edgeways in the closing scene, so we might conclude that they remain on stage at the

end. But, there are doubts about this, since scholars suspect that that a choral finale has gone missing. The

third play Νεφέλαι, produced the year before Σφῆκες, does close with the actors leading the Chorus out in

dance, but, according to ancient commentators, this ending was a later revision and we are led to believe

that the finale of the original production had been very different. Even so, a fragment of the first version

(frg. 394) describes the chorus of clouds leaving in a black mood and this could have been a detail drawn

from their grumbling exit. Either way, the members of a chorus are by definition ‘dancers’ and we cannot

rule out the possibility that they danced their way out more often than not in Old Comedy.

187

If, then, the comic-chorus customarily danced their way out of the orchestra, or had at least done so on a

previous occasion, what novel twist had Aristophanes found for this drama? The answer, it seems to me,

must be inferred from the particular action. We have heard Philokleon, drunk on wine and invigorated by

the seductive strains of the flute, issue a challenge to any contemporary tragic-actor to match his old-style

dance moves (1481-2). The sons of Karkinos, who represent the avant-garde of modern dance, rise to the

challenge but cannot hold a candle to the old man’s ‘virtuoso’ performance and are judged to have lost to

him. Consequently, one would expect the chorus to make some specific reference to the fact that the old-

time ‘dancer’ has sent his rivals packing, instead of the χορὸν τρυγῳδῶν, “a chorus of comic-singers”. In

my view, these last two words are unlikely to be correct. Almost all the codices agree on the wording, but

a single fifteenth-century manuscript (J), reads ἀπήλλαξ’ ἐχθρὸν τραγωδόν (for τραγῳδόν) - “he has got

rid of a rival tragic- performer”.

On this basis, by altering just one letter, we can reconstruct a more credible denouement. The original text

could have read ὀρχούµενον ὅστις ἀπήλλαξ’ ἐχθρὸν τρυγῳδῶν. The replacement of ἐχθρὸν with χορὸν

might have been due simply to miscopying, since a theta might easily be mistaken for an omicron, but I

suspect that it was in fact a deliberate ‘correction’. Firstly, because the scribe may not have realized that

ἐχθρὸν stood in for ἀντίπαλον or ἀνταγωνιστὴν. It is the same hyperbole used by Aristophanes in Ἱππεῖς

(526-8) to describe Kratinos’ river of panegyric which, like a torrent in spate, used to carry all before it,

including “firmly-rooted trees and well-established rivals” (τὰς πλατάνους καὶ ἐχθροὺς προθελύµνους).

But also, because he assumed, as we have done, that τρυγῳδῶν must be the genitive plural of τρυγῳδός,

cf. 650 and frg. 156.8 (from Γηρυτάδης), so that χορόν seemed necessary to complete the sense. But, if we

read ἐχθρὸν, and assume that the addition of τραγῳδόν in (J) is merely an explanatory gloss, then we can

understand τρυγῳδῶν to be the present participle of the verb τρυγῳδέω (as recorded by Hesychios). Thus,

the comedic innovation which the poet introduced could have been to have his comic ‘hero’ “out-dance a

rival in comic style”.

Although I am inclined to go along with the gloss in (J) and assume that Karkinos was a writer of tragic-

drama (τραγῳδός), like his son Xenokles (cf. 1501), the term ἐχθρὸς used here would better suit a comic

rival and it may be that his ‘wailing spirits’ (cf. Νεφέλαι 1260-1) had appeared in an earlier comic-drama.

MacDowell makes the point (p. 326) that “it is not clear what kind of plays he wrote” and draws attention

to the title of one of his plays Μύες (mentioned in a scholion on Εἰρήνη 794). He, at any rate, is the ‘rival’

who is out-danced by Philokleon.

The comic finale is contrived to give Philokleon his illusory ‘triumph’. The parts of the στρατηγός and his

dancing sons are played by comic-actors and so their Terpsichorean efforts are played just for laughs. The

Chorus has to admit that, in spite of his inebriated state Philokleon is just as good as these midget ‘sons of

Karkinos’ and so awards him victory. He does not lead the others off, as some have suggested (e.g. Vaio,

p. 351 says, “As the initiator of the final action, he rightly takes his place at the head of the exiting band

of chorus and dancers”), rather he carries on dancing, revelling in his self-delusion.

Select Bibliography

Austin, Colin - review of MacDowell’s edition (1971) in Classical Review 23 (Oxford, 1973) 133-5

Bader, B. - ‘The ψόφος of the house-door in Greek New Comedy’ in Antichthon 5 (1971) 35-48

Bamberg, A. von - De Ravennate et Veneto Aristophanis codicibus (1865)

Barrett, David - translation of Wasps in ‘Aristophanes - Frogs and other plays’ (Penguin Books, 1964) -

revised translation with new introduction and notes by Shomit Dutta (2007)

Beer, C. - ‘Über die Zahl der Schauspieler bei Aristophanes’ (1844)

Bergk, Theodor - ‘Aristophanes’ (3^rd edition, 1872)

Beta, Simone - ‘Madness on the comic stage: Aristophanes’ Wasps and Euripides’ Heracles’ in Greek,

Roman and Byzantine Studies 40 (1999) 135-57

Biles, Zachary P. - ‘A Homeric allusion at Aristophanes’ Wasps 1029-37’ in The Classical Journal 101

(2006) 245-52

Blaydes, Frederick H. M. - ‘Aristophanes - opera omnia’ with critical notes (1886)

Boegehold, Alan L. - ‘Philokleon’s court’ in Hesperia xxxvi (1967) 111-20

Borthwick, E. Kerr - ‘The dances of Philocleon and the sons of Carcinus in Aristophanes’ Wasps’ in

Classical Quarterly 18 (1968) 44-51

188

Borthwick, E. Kerr - ‘Bees and drones in Aristophanes’ in Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 37

(London, 1990) 57-62

Bowie Ewen L. - in ‘Owls to Athens’ edited by E.M. Craik (Oxford, 1990) 33.

Braund, David and Hall, Edith - ‘Gender, role and performer in Athenian theatre iconography: a masked

tragic chorus with καλος and καλη captions from Olbia’ in Journal of Hellenic Studies 134 (2014) 1-11

Campbell, A.Y. - ‘Note on Wasps 436-7’ in Classical Review 44 (1930) 216

Comfort H. - ‘Problems in Aristophanes’ Vespae 818-213’ in American Journal of Philology 52 (1931)

362-9

Conz, Karl Phillip - ‘Notae in Aristophanem I.’ (London, 1829)

Crichton, Angus - ‘The old are in a second childhood: age reversal and jury service in Aristophanes’

Wasps’ in BICS 38 (1991-3) 59-80

Crosby, Henry Lamar - ‘An unappreciated joke in Aristophanes’ in Classical Philology 10.3 (1915) 326-

30 (Chicago University Press)

Dale, A. Marjorie - ‘An interpretation of Aristophanes’ Vespae 136-210’ in Journal of Hellenic Studies

77 (1957) 205-11

Davidson, James N. - ‘Courtesans and Fishcakes’ (London, 1997)

Dover, Kenneth - in Lustrum 2 (1957) 84

Ehrenberg, Victor - ‘Polypragmosyne: a study in Greek politics’ in Journal of Hellenic Studies 67 (1947)

46-67

Frost, Frank J. - ‘Pericles and Dracontides’ in Journal of Hellenic Studies 84 (1964) 69-72

Gildersleeve, Basil L. - in American Journal of Philology (1880) 457-8

Graves, Charles E. - ‘The Wasps of Aristophanes’ (Cambridge, 1894)

Griesbach, Jan - ‘Alkibiades in der Komodie’ (Munich, 2013)

Griffith, John G. - ‘The witnesses at the trial of the dog Labes in Aristophanes’ Wasps’, in Festinat Senex

(Oxbow Books, Oxford, 1988)

Hall, Frederick W. and Geldart, William M. - ‘Aristophanis Comoediae’ 2^nd edit. (Oxford, 1906)

Hedrick (jr), Charles W. - ‘The Thymaitian phratry’ in Hesperia 57 (1988) 81-5

Henderson, Jeffrey - ‘The Maculate Muse: obscene language in Attic comedy’ (Oxford, 1991)

Henderson, Jeffrey - ‘Aristophanes, volume II - Clouds, Wasps, Peace’, edited and translated for the

Loeb Classical Library (Harvard, 1998 reprinted 2005)

Herwerden, H. van - ‘Studia Thucydidea’ (Utrecht, 1869) 164

Hickie, William J. - ‘The Comedies of Aristophanes’ vol.1 annotated, literal translation (London, 1853)

Jeffrey, Lillian Η. - ‘The battle of Oinoe in the stoa Poikile’, in Annual of the British School at Athens, 60

(1965)

Kallet, Lisa - ‘The origins of the Athenian economic ἀρχή’ in Journal of Hellenic Studies 133 (2013)

Kassel, Rudolph and Austin, Colin - ‘Poetae Comici Graeci’ volume III.2 (Berlin, 1984)

Killeen, J. F. - ‘The comic costume controversy’ in Classical Quarterly 65 (1971) 51-4

Leeuwen (jr), J. van - ‘Aristophanis Vespae’ (Leiden, 1899)

Lewis, David M. - ‘Cleisthenes and Attica’ in Historia xii (1963) 22-40

Lowe, J. C. B. - ‘Some questions of attribution in Aristophanes’ in Hermes xcv (1967) 53-71

Mattingly, Harold B. - ‘Athens and Euboea’ in Journal of Hellenic Studies 81 (1961) 124-32

MacDowell, Douglas M. - ‘Nikostratos’ in Classical Quarterly 15 (1965) 41-51

MacDowell, Douglas M. - ‘Aristophanes’ Wasps’, edited with introduction and commentary (Clarendon

Press, Oxford, 1971)

Mastromarco, Giuseppe - ‘Storia di una commedia di Atene’ (Florence, 1974)

Meinek, Peter - ‘Aristophanes, volume 1. Clouds, Wasps, Birds’ annotated translation with introduction

by Ian Storey (Indianapolis and Cambridge, 1998)

Meineke, August - ‘Aristophanis Comoediae’ (Berlin, 1860)

Morrison J. S. - ‘Brasidas intrigues with the Penestae’ in Classical Quarterly 36 (1942) 64

Parker, Laetitia P.E - ‘The Songs of Aristophanes’ (Oxford, 1997)

Platnauer, Maurice - ‘Three notes on Aristophanes, Wasps’ in Classical Review 43 (1949) 6

Platnauer, Maurice - ‘Two notes on the text of Aristophanes’ in Classical Quarterly 1 (1951) 167-8

Platnauer, Maurice - ‘Two notes on Aristophanes, Wasps’ in Classical Quarterly 3 (1953) 53-4

Porter, James I. - ‘Lasus of Hermione’ in Classical Quarterly n.s. 57 (2007) 1-21

189

Post, L. A. - ‘Note on Aristophanes’ Vespae 818-23’ in American Journal of Philology 53 (1932) 266

Reckford, Kenneth J. - ‘Aristophanes’ Old-and-New comedy’ (University of North Carolina, 2009) 259

Robinson, David M. - ‘Unpublished Greek vases in the Robinson collection’ in American Journal of

Archaeology 60 (1956) 21-2, no. 22

Rogers, Benjamin B. - ‘The Comedies of Aristophanes, volume II Clouds and Wasps’, revised text with

translation, introduction and commentary (London, 1916) - translation reprinted in ‘Five comedies of

Aristophanes’ by Doubleday Anchor Books (New York, 1955)

Schulze, W. - ‘Orthographica et Graeca Latina’ - Sussidi Eruditi 14 (Rome, 1958) 95-6

Seeger, Ludwig - ‘Aristophanes, vol. II, Die Wespen’ (Frankfurt, 1846)

Sickinger, James - ‘A note on Wasps 349’ in Classical Quarterly n.s. 41 (1991) 529-32

Sidwell, Keith - ‘Was Philokleon cured? : The Νόσος theme in Aristophanes’ Wasps’ in Classica et

Mediaevalia 41 (1990) 9-31

Sidwell, Keith - review of Meinek and Storey (1998) in Classical Review n.s. 51 (2001) 382-3

Sommerstein, Alan H. - ‘Notes on Aristophanes, Wasps’ in Classical Quarterly 27 (1977) 263-4

Sommerstein, Alan H. - ‘Aristophanes’ Wasps’, edited with translation and notes (Aris & Phillips,

Oxford, 1983) - Reprinted with addenda by Oxbow Books (2004)

Sommerstein, Alan H. - ‘Phrynichus the dancer’ in Phoinix 41 (1987) 189-90

Stanton, Greg R. - ‘Athenian Politics c.800-500 B.C.’ (London & New York, 1990)

Starkie, William J. M. - ‘The Wasps of Aristophanes’, introduction, text and commentary (London, 1897)

Stephanis, J. - ‘Ο δούλος στις κωµωδίες του Αριστοφάνη’ (Thessaloniki, 1980)

Storey, Ian C. - ‘The symposium at Wasps 1299 ff.’ in Phoinix 39 (1985) 319-22

Storey, Ian C. - ‘Philoxenos, of doubtful gender’ in Journal of Hellenic Studies 115 (1995) 182-4

Storey, Ian C. - ‘Fragments of Old Comedy’ in 3 volumes (Harvard University Press, 2011)

Thompson, E. S. - ‘Notes on the Wasps of Aristophanes’ in Classical Review ix (1895) 306-7

Todd, Stephen C. - ‘The Social composition of the Athenian jury’ in JHS 110 (1990) 146-73

Traill, John S. - ‘Diakris, the inland trittys of Leontis’ in Hesperia 47 (1978) 89-109

Tyrwhitt, Thomas - ‘Conjecturae in Aeschylum, Euripidem et Aristophanem’ second edition (1822)

Vaio, John - ‘Aristophanes’ Wasps: The relevance of the final scenes’ in Greek, Roman and Byzantine

Studies (1971) 335-51

Wade-Gery, H. Theodore - ‘Themistokles’ archonship’ in Annual of the British School at Athens xxxvii

(1940) 265 (footnote 3)

Wasmuth, Ellisif - ‘The Corybantic rites in Plato’s dialogues’ in Classical Quarterly 65 (2015) 69-84

Weber, Hans - ‘Aristophanische Studien’ (1908) 132

Willems, Alphonse - ‘notes supplémentaires sur les Guêpes d’Aristophane’ (Brussels, 1901) 1-32

Willems, Alphonse - ‘Aristophane - tome I’ traduction avec notes et commentaires critiques (1919)

Wilson, Allan M. - ‘Not Callias but Ecphantides?’ in Classical Review 23 (Oxford, 1973) 126-7

Wilson, Nigel G. - ‘Aristophanes, Wasps 461-2’ in Classical Review 22 (Oxford, 1972) 313

Wilson, Nigel G. - ‘Aristophanes Fabulae’ (Oxford Classical Text, 2007)

Wilson, Nigel G. - ‘Aristophanea: Studies on the Text of Aristophanes’ (Oxford, 2007)

Additional reading material may be found in Sommerstein’ (2004) addenda xxiv, select bibliography.

The following more recent works were not available to the author when preparing these notes.

Biles, Zachary P. and S. Douglas Olson - ‘Aristophanes Wasps’ edited with introduction and commentary

(Oxford, December 2015)

Farmer, Mathew C. - ‘The man is obsessed with song: a contest of genres in Wasps’ in ‘Tragedy on the

comic stage’ (Oxford, 2017) 117-54

Rusten, Jeffrey and Henderson, Jeffrey (editors) - ‘The birth of comedy: texts, documents and art from

Athenian comic competitions 480-280’ (October, 2016)

Telo, Mario - ‘Aristophanes and the cloak of Comedy: affect, aesthetics and the canon’ (University of

Chicago press, 2016)

Vickers, Michael - ‘Aristophanes and Alcibiades: echoes of contemporary history in Athenian comedy’

(De Gruyter, 2015)

190