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

OXFORD CLASSICAL MONOGRAPHS Published under the supervision of a Committee of the Faculty of Classics in the University of Oxford

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

The Languages of Aristophanes Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical A ttic Greek

ANDREAS WILLI

OXTORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

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

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Poland Portugal Singapore Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Andreas Willi 2003 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) Reprinted 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover And you must impose this same condition on any acquirer ISBN 0-19-926264-0

To my Parents

Preface E V E N in classics bookshops linguistic titles do not appear on the bestseller lists, but knowing this and acting accordingly are different things: to write this book—and the doctoral thesis upon which it is based—was an act of self-indulgence. The choice of subject let me combine two of my greatest likings, that for language and that for entertaining literature. In addition, I enjoyed the privilege of declaring myself a linguist whenever I spoke to a classicist, and a classicist whenever I spoke to a linguist. There is no better way to be considered a 'specialist', to hide one's ignorance, and to obtain much-needed help. Of this I had no small share, and so my heartfelt thanks go to many people, only a few of whom I can mention here. No one . I should therefore start with my teachers Manfred Hauser, Christoph Jungck, Andreas Knecht, and Walter Wandeler at the Humanistisches Gymnasium Basel, who were the first to awaken my interest in the languages of classical antiquity. Later, I was taught by many inspiring scholars in Basel, Lausanne, Ann Arbor, and Fribourg, among whom I owe most to Joachim Latacz and Rudolf Wachter. The generous Charles Oldham Graduate Scholarship of Corpus Christi College Oxford allowed me to pursue my research without financial worries and in the most pleasant surroundings: those who know the College's wonderful library will understand what I mean. In the person of Ewen Bowie I had an ever-approachable college adviser, who is himself no stranger to Greek comedy. I also received much friendly and helpful advice from Angus Bowie, who acted as an interim supervisor in my second year at Oxford, and from John Penney and Peter Brown, who at various stages examined my progress on behalf of the Faculty of Literae Humaniores and who were thus forced to read two of my chapters in a less-thanfinal version. Richard Ashdowne, Peter Barber, James Henderson, Richard Hitchman, Philomen Probert, Elinor Reynolds, Elizabeth Roy,

viii

Preface

and Yashovardhan Shah all checked parts of what is presented here and made my English sound less Scythian. Helen Kaufmann did so too, and with immense patience pointed out to me where the logic of my argument was no logic yet. Even so, there were many things left to improve and in the final revision I was able to draw on a large number of suggestions made by my doctoral examiners Albio Cassio and Alan Sommerstein, who both sacrificed much of their time and shared much of their knowledge with me. After them, Lucy Qureshi, Enid Barker, Lavinia Porter, and Jenny Wagstaffe of Oxford University Press took care of the manuscript, and Julian Ward impressed me with his conscientious and circumspect copyediting. My greatest debts, however, are those to my parents, from whom I may well have inherited my love for language and languages, and those to my supervisor Anna Morpurgo Davies, who guided and supported my work in such an unsurpassable way that I feel almost sorry to have finished it now. A.W. Basel I July 2002

Contents

Texts, Translations, and Abbreviations

x

List of Figures

xii

List of Tables

xiii

1. Introduction

i

2. Religious Registers

8

3. Technical Languages

51

4. 'Scientific Discourse'

96

5. Sophistic Innovations

118

6. Female Speech

157

7. Foreigner Talk

198

8. Conclusion

226

Appendix: Aristophanes' Attic: A Grammatical Sketch

232

References 271

271

Index of Passages 305

305

Index of Greek 337

337

General Index 351

351

Texts, Translations, and Abbreviations

References to, and quotations from, the extant plays of Aristophanes are based on the Oxford editions by Dover (1968) and (1993) for Clouds and Frogs, Dunbar (1995) for Birds, Henderson (1987) for Lysistrata, MacDowell (1971) for Wasps, Olson (1998) for Peace, and Ussher (1973) for Ecclesiazusae, on Sommerstein's Warminster editions for Acharnians (19800), Knights (1981), Thesmophoriazusae (1994), and Plutus (2001). Aristophanic passages are cited by reference to the play alone (e.g 'Lys. 27' rather than 'Ar. Lys. 27'). The translations of the Aristophanic passages (except for the fragments, some single words, and certain instances where I want to bring out a particular point) either quote or closely follow those by Sommerstein in his complete edition: Sommerstein f Acharnians, (1981) for Knights, (1982) for Clouds, (1983) for Wasps, (1985) for Peace, (1987) for Birds, (1990) for Lysistrata, (1994) for Thesmophoriazusae, (1996) for Frogs, (1998) for Ecclesiazusae, and (2001) for Plutus. All the comic fragments and testimonies are cited according to Poetae Comici Graeci. The fragment numbering for the fragments of the Presocratics is that of Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. The abbreviations K[assel]-A[ustin] (PCG) and D[iels]-K[ranz] (FVS) have been omitted. Occasional references to other classical texts are based on the standard editions; abbreviations for these and for further corpora are as listed below. DGE Eduard Schwyzer (ed. and comm.), Dialectorum Graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora (Leipzig, 1923) FGrH Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, i-iii (Berlin and Leiden, 1923-58); with indexes by Pierre Bonnechere (Leiden, Boston, and Cologne, 1999) FVS Hermann Diels and Walther Kranz (ed. and trans.), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker6, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1952)

Texts, Translations, and Abbreviations

IG i3

xi

Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores3, fasc. I: Decreta et tabulae magistratuum (ed. David Lewis: Berlin and New York, 1981); fasc. 2: Dedicationes, catalogi, termini, tituli sepulcrales, varia, tituli Attici extra Atticam reperta, addenda (ed. David Lewis and Lilian Jeffery with the assistance of Eberhard Erxleben: Berlin and New York, 1994); fasc. 3: Indices (by David Lewis, Eberhard Erxleben, and Klaus Hallof: Berlin and New York, 1998). LSJ Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon9 (revised and augmented by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, with a revised supplement by P. G. W. Glare with the assistance of A. A. Thompson: Oxford, 1996). PCG Rudolf Kassel and Colin Austin (ed.), Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin and New York, 1983- ). PG Patrologia Graeca PMC Denos L.Page (ed),PoetaeMeliciGraeci(?Oxford,1962 SEg SupplementukEpighium?Grem(LeidenAl aan den Rijn, Germantown, Md., and Amsterdam, 1923- )• SIG# ilhelm Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum3 (indexes by Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen: Leipzig, 1915-24, repr. Hildesheim, 1960).

List of Figures

3.1 5.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

Models of technical language Nominalization and typicalization processes in Clouds Chapter 5 (argument structure) Chapter 6 (argument structure) Chapter 4 (argument structure) Chapter 7 (fallacy)

55 150 228 229 229 230

List of Tables

2.1 3.1

The most frequent epithets in Aristophanic hymns and prayers Legal terms in Wasps and other plays

20 73

3.2 3.3

Denniston's 'technical terms' Some pre-technical adjective usages in Frogs

89 93

5.1 6.1

Articular infinitives in classical Greek literature Distribution of women's lines in Aristophanes

151 174

APPENDIX

A.I

Frequency of 'Aeolic' and 'non-Aeolic' optative endings in Attic drama

246

A.2 Frequency of in Acharnians and Birds A.3 Substantive clauses after in classical Greek (%) A.4 Frequency of on and introducing substantive clauses in classical Greek A.5 Frequency of indirect questions in classical Greek A.6 Frequency of final conjunctions in classical Greek A.7 The construction of in classical Greek

255 262

A.8 Frequency of causal conjunctions in classical Greek

267

263 263 265 266

I

Introduction

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

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

What Dionysius was supposed to do was to read between the lines. He would of course have been naive, for instance, if he had inferred from Dicaeopolis' behaviour in Acharnians that every adult Athenian was allowed to make a private treaty with an enemy state. But he would have been correct if he concluded from the plot of Ecclesiazusae that women were not normally allowed to take part in the public decision-making process. Dionysius simply had 'to determine where reality ends and caricature or fantasy begins'. The last phrase is quoted from Victor Ehrenberg's groundbreaking 'sociology of Old Attic Comedy', The People of Aristophanes.^ Ehrenberg's project was similar to Dionysius' task, though with a wider scope. It was not just the organization of public life, i7-oAiT«ia, that interested Ehrenberg. He recognized that comedy is the most valuable literary source for reconstructing the 'atmosphere' of classical Athenian social and economic life as a whole: 'We shall best grasp and comprehend the "atmosphere" . . . 1 Ehrenberg (1962) 39. The following paragraph is based on, and quotes from, the introduction to that book (pp. 1-13).

2

Introduction

when a source answers our questions without intending to do so.' In most literary genres, matters of daily life are only introduced when they deserve particular attention, 'but in comedy . . . the facts of social and economic life [are] given merely as a background'. Sinc the comic author does not intend to inform his audience or readership about facts of daily life, he does so in the most immediate, unreflective—or should we say: honest—manner. In comedy, 'the reality of the people is not displaced by the myth, sacred or rationalized, a in tragedy, nor largely lost in the aloofness of the political historian as with Thucydides or in the abstractions of philosophy. In comedy it may be hidden, but it is never destroyed.' More than half a century after the first publication of Ehrenberg's book, it is a deliberate, though perhaps bold, act of intertextuality to entitle a book 'The Languages of Aristophanes'. I have done so because, in spite of my different aims, I have been guided by the same methodological convictions as Ehrenberg—or Dionysius, if he followed Plato's advice. Historical linguists, who are overwhelmed by the grammatical and dialectological evidence for classical Greek, often (and quite rightly) lament the almost complete lack of sociolinguistic data. The inscriptions, left untouched since antiquity, are the linguist's favourite sources, but their stylistic and thematic variety is extremely restricted. Poetry, including tragic poetry, deliberately differs from 'real' language. And even prose, though often acceptable as a substitute for the latter, still cannot provide us with firsthand evidence for oral styles. However, there is comedy. Just as this genre bristles with the socio-economic facts of daily life, so it glitters with linguistic variation. Styles, accents, dialects, sociolects—all intermingle. In sociolinguistics, 'linguistic varieties' is used as a cover term for these 'sets of communicative forms', which are restricted to a particular group of speakers, situational context, or thematic environment. 2 The comic mixture of linguistic varieties is a literary construct, no less than the language of tragedy or prose, but the ingredients, the single varieties themselves, are taken from 'real life'. This is no new insight. Without speaking of linguistic varieties, Kenneth Dover distinguished the main layers (or 'ingredients') of Aristophanic 2 See e.g. Saville-Troike (1989) 49-50; Hudson (1996) 22-4; Duranti (1997) 70-1.

Introduction

i,

language thirty years ago, and more recently Antonio Lopez Eire and Stephen Colvin have dealt with two major fields of variation in Aristophanes, the only author of Old Comedy whose plays have not been lost: Lopez Eire looked at colloquial language, Colvin at nonAttic dialects. 3 Both Lopez Eire's colloquialism and Colvin's dialectal divergences are extremely basic categories. Do we have to stop there, or is it possible to learn something about more fine-grained linguistic variation from Aristophanes' comedies? This main question unites the following chapters and guides us through them. They all look at variation in the Attic Greek of Aristophanes, but they can be read independently as they treat different aspects of this topic. Let me admit right at the beginning, the answer to the question I have just asked will not always be a positive one, even though I have chosen those aspects of variation which seemed most promising to me. But a negative answer can also be useful, for it may nevertheless teach us something about 'linguistic cultural history'. There are circumstances in which the absence of evidence is just as noteworthy as its presence. A comprehensive treatment of linguistic variation in Aristophanes was out of the question; the material is too abundant. Still, the range of topics presented here is meant to be representative and useful for further research along similar lines. My personal selection of varieties has been guided by an 'internal', subjective, and an 'external', objective, approach. 'Internally', I proceeded from the 'passive' observation (made in repeated readings of the Aristophanic text) that there are more or less systematic 'irregularities', i.e. bundles of similar features which seem to be thematically interrelated and thus constitute autonomous varieties. The most obvious example of a variety chosen in this way is the 'foreigner talk' (or broken Greek) of Chapter 7, but Chapters 4 and 5 on 'scientific discourse' and on sophistic language in Clouds belong here as well. 'Externally', I actively searched for linguistic varieties which have been extensively described in sociolinguistic literature on 3 Dover (1970) 7-8; Lopez Eire (19960), (1997), and (1998); Colvin (1999); see also Kloss (2001), who considers, from a more literary point of view, the comic pragmatics of several marked styles such as oracular language, the language of the bomolochos, or the language of foreigners. For further bibliography see Willi (20020), esp. 18-20 and 28-9.

4

Introduction

modern languages and whose existence in ancient Greek could be hypothesized on typological grounds. This is the basis of Chapter 2 on register variation (with religious language in hymns and prayers as a paradigmatic example), Chapter 3 on technical languages, and Chapter 6 on women's language or 'genderlect'. I should stress, however, that in their final form, nearly all chapters combine elements of the external and the internal approach. Once I had chosen the linguistic varieties to be analysed, the main task was to identify (and describe) their specific linguistic characteristics. Throughout, I have used the following three methods of identifying the relevant features. Again, internal and external aspects are closely combined. (i) Stylistic comparisons: In a given passage, a linguistic feature is stylistically marked if its stylistic level departs significantly from that of its context (i.e. if the occurrence of such a feature cannot be sufficiently explained by its other attestations in comedy or classical Greek literature in general). For instance, an epic word in a colloquial invective calls for an explanation. (2) Statistical comparisons: Even a linguistic feature which is not stylistically marked as such can be irregular if its frequency in a given passage or text sample is not pragmatically justified by the context or topic and differs significantly from the frequency of the feature in comparable passages or text samples. In order to guarantee a high degree of comparability, I have based most of my statistical comparisons on the Aristophanic corpus only. The crucial importance of statistical comparisons is due to Aristophanes' reluctance to depict a linguistic variety without disruption. 4 (3) Cross-linguistic comparisons: Linguistic features specific to certain varieties are sometimes found more easily if one takes into account what features characterize similar varieties in other (usually modern) languages. Obviously cross-linguistic comparisons play a major role in those chapters where the external approach described above is prominent (Chapters 2, 3, 6, and also 7), but even there they can only be a hermeneutic tool because the variety4 The discontinuity of linguistic characterization, for instance, was first stressed by Plut. Mor. 8s3C-d. More recently, it has been discussed by Dover (1976), Silk (1990) 153-4, ancl Silk (2000) 209-15, who nevertheless admits (p. 221) that 'most, if not all, of the characters in Aristophanes' earlier plays possess some semblance of realist continuity at least some of the time' (cf. e.g. Chs. 4, 5, 6); see also Katsouris (1975) 101-2; Del Corno (1997).

Introduction

5

specific nature of features identified in this way still needs to be proved by either stylistic or statistical comparisons within comedy and/or Greek literature in general. The concept of 'irregularity' or 'markedness', which is crucial for both stylistic and statistical comparisons, presupposes a complementary concept of 'regularity', 'normative usage', or 'unmarkedness'. It gradually became clear to me that my project would gain in usefulness if I drew a picture not just of linguistic variation qua deviation from the norm, but also of the Aristophanic norm itself: that is, if I made explicit what Aristophanes' language looks like when it is not employed to convey specific effects. In order to set this background of unmarkedness, I have added the Appendix, which presents a short outline and characterization of Aristophanes' linguistic (or more precisely, grammatical) norms and distinctive features (as far as they either depart from, or are at least not simply predictable from, the abstract 'Attic grammar' that has acquired quasi-normative status in post-Renaissance classical scholarship). Even so, it may be objected that it is naive to expect any sound results from a linguistic study of comic language. Is not parody omnipresent in comedy, and does not parody falsify every inference that is based on stylistic markedness? To some degree, this is true. We are moving on dangerous ground, and this explains why there are many 'mays' and 'mights' in my text. However, it is rare that we are completely uncertain whether, and in what respects, a passage is parodic or not: scholia and non-comic literature are there to help us. And more importantly, to study comic language is the only way of finding out anything substantial about those aspects of linguistic variation which are considered here. To brand comedy as unreliable means to surrender before defeat is certain. Moreover, parody can be an advantage. Parody distorts and exaggerates, but it does not invent. 5 In other words, the parody of a style or linguistic variety often highlights its peculiarities. Parody is not faithful in degree, but it is faithful in kind. Let us suppose for a moment that not a single line of Greek tragedy had survived. Let us then take just the following two lines of Acharnians, where Euripides is speaking (Ach. 432-3): 5 The concept of 'parody' as a parasitic form is discussed by Rau (1967) 7—18, who speaks of 'formale Anlehnung und Nachahmung' (p. i j).

6

Introduction

E U R I P I D E S : Give him the ragments, boy, of Telephus. They lie above the Thyestean rags. Since the speaker is the tragic poet Euripides, we would assume that stylistic deviations from the norm are paratragic. We would notice, by looking through the rest of the Aristophanic corpus, that is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, that on the whole there are very few (11) Aristophanic nouns in (only some of which have simple synonyms like pdnros beside pd/^.a and of possessive adjectives rather than possessive genitives was felt by Aristophanes to be common in tragedy or at least Euripidean tragedy. A second, and slightly more daring, conclusion would be that these two features were indeed common in tragedy. And finally we might venture a third, even bolder conclusion: that the lost genre of tragedy, which was apparently departing from regular linguistic usage in these two cases, was consciously employing a 'de-automatizing' poetic language also in other, though perhaps unknown, respects. Now, since tragedy is not lost, we know that our second and third conclusions are absolutely correct, and by implication the same is probably true for the first conclusion. The example shows that some characteristic features of tragic language are reconstructable on the basis of their comic reflection. There is no reason why a similar procedure should not lead to trustworthy results with other linguistic varieties, where the 'original' is really lost. This is not to say that every conclusion is of equal value. If we had concluded from our two paratragic lines that there are no possessive genitives in tragedy, we would have been wrong. Utmost caution is absolutely mandatory. We must distinguish between evidence which is certain (e.g. stylistic and statistical data describing Aristophanes' usage) and suggestions or conclusions based on the evidence which are only possible. This is why I am somewhat

Introduction

7

reluctant to write, as Ehrenberg did in his introduction, that 'this book is not a book on Aristophanes or on Old Comedy'. Most of the positive facts assembled in this book are facts concerning the language, or languages, of Aristophanes, and of Aristophanes only. They show what a complex texture comic discourse has, how literary styles are composed and configured, and where the potentials and limitations of our analytic methods lie. But all of the following chapters also at least try to place these positive facts in the wider perspective of Attic Greek and attempt, quite literally, to look behind the scene. Sceptics, I hope, will find in my book a range of useful observations on Aristophanes' verbal art, which can enrich the literary interpretation of his comic masterpieces. Those who are a bit more adventurous may take these observations merely as their base camp, venture beyond literature, and set out to explore, with the help of the sociolinguistic equipment provided in each chapter, some areas of Attic language and culture which so far are largely unknown.

2

Religious Registers

2.1. R E G I S T E R V A R I A T I O N Like any other natural language, Greek is not a homogeneous entity. Everyone who reads Homer alongside Aristophanes, or Sappho alongside Pindar notices that there are different varieties of Greek. The linguistic differences between these texts can be correlated with the differences between epigraphic texts from various regions of Greece. Such geographically defined language varieties are called 'dialects': the Ionic dialect of Homer, the Attic dialect of Aristophanes, the Aeolic dialect of Sappho, and the Doric dialect of Pindar. In a wider sense we can speak of dialects when varieties are socially denned (i.e. when social grouping is their basic parameter). Less ambiguously, such varieties are called 'sociolects'. For instance, in many modern languages it is possible to individuate certain linguistic characteristics of the speech of working-class people. An altogether different type of language variety is situationally defined (i.e. its basic parameter is the 'contextual situation'). A native speaker of a given language may be unable to change his or her sociolect or dialect, but no native speaker speaks in exactly the same way in all communicative circumstances. Thus, a scientist speaks in two different modes when he or she explains a new theory at an academic congress and when he or she has dinner at home. Such situationally defined varieties are called 'registers'.1 'Register' is a more precise term than 'style' because styles are not necessarily defined by a situation: it is possible to speak of the 'style' of an author or of a literary epoch. 'Register' should also be distinguished from 'genre' (even though the two terms are sometimes treated as synonyms). 'Register' is the linguistic code that is used in the creation of a text that belongs to a 'genre'. In other 1

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

Religious Registers

9

words, 'register' is the significant (e.g. the language used in a culinary recipe), 'genre' the signifie (the recipe itself).2 Register variation seems to occur in all languages although the number and range of registers may vary. 3 Systemic changes in register variation can even be a major factor in language change, for instance when a new field of technology generates a new technical register, whose terminology or syntactic preferences may eventually be absorbed into other registers as well.4 The recognition of a register is largely intuitive and based on non-linguistic criteria. In order to describe the linguistic characteristics of a register it is necessary to start from a corpus of texts or speech events which are grouped together because they fulfil similar functions and occur in similar situations (local settings, participant patterns). Obviously such a categorization can be more or less subtle. We could, for instance, establish a register of fictional prose, or divide the same text-corpus into different registers for folktales, nineteenth-century novels, science-fiction novels, etc. Both categorizations are valid, but the choice of one or the other influences the level of precision in the linguistic analysis. Depending on the choice we will find a register with greater or lesser inner variability, and with many or few 'subregisters'. A full register description therefore ideally indicates also how broad the 'internal variation' is.5 There are two basic types of synchronic monolingual register descriptions: descriptions of single registers and comparisons of two or more registers. In studies of single registers three major components can be distinguished: the description of the situation in which the register is used; the description of the linguistic characteristics of the register; the analysis of the functional or conventional associations between the situational and linguistic features.6 If linguistic features occur only in one register, they can be called 2 Cf. Biber (1988) 68; Biber (1994) 51-3; C. A. Ferguson (1994) 20-1, 28 n. 4; Biber (1995) 8-9. 3 Ure (1982) 5; Biber (1995) 54 Cf. Romaine (1980) and (1982), esp. on syntactic change (spread of whrelativization in Scots English); Ure (1982) 6; Biber (1995) 13 and 280-313. 5 Biber (1995) 7 and 133; cf. Duranti (1985) 203-20, Biber (1988) 28-33, Biber (1994) 39—44, and Saville-Troike (1989) 138-55 for situational parameters that can be used in the categorization (participant structure, relation between addressers and addressees, setting, channel, purposes, etc.); C. A. Ferguson (1994) 23-4. 6 Biber (1994) 33; Biber (1995) 10.

io

Religious Registers

'register markers'. However, this is very rare. Even a technical term like register variation could appear in several registers (e.g. in an academic article or in a university lecture). The peculiarity of registers therefore lies in the frequency of specific features and in the co-occurrence of entire clusters of features, which may belong to all linguistic levels (phonology, morphology, syntax, pragmatics, lexicon).7 2.2. R E G I S T E R D I M E N S I O N S When two or more registers are compared, the feature clusters can be grouped into 'dimensions of variation'. For instance, Douglas Biber has shown that oral and written registers differ crosslinguistically with regard to dimensions such as • 'interactiveness': e.g. conversation (with frequent first-person and second-person pronouns, questions, imperatives) vs. monologue • 'production circumstances': on-line production (e.g. with contracted forms, elliptical sentences, and parataxis rather than hypotaxis) vs. careful planning (with structural integration and elaboration, e.g. through frequent nouns, nominalizations, subordinate clauses, or precise lexical choices) • 'personal stance/involvement': linguistic encoding of commitment to a proposition or of attitudes towards a proposition or other participants (e.g. through use or absence of first-person pronouns and hedges) vs. informational focus (with increased referential explicitness and cohesion) • 'abstractness'8 Such dimensions of variation must be imagined not as either-or options, but as more-or-less continua: a personal letter shows more involvement than an article in a scientific journal but less involvement than a conversation at the pub next door. With Biber's dimensions, register studies become less atomistic since single linguistic features can belong to several dimensions 7

Cf. Biber (1988) 21-2, Biber (1994) 35—6, and Biber (1995) 29-30, after others. Biber (1995) 241-53; cf. Chafe (1982) 38—49 with the similar dimensions 'integration vs. fragmentation' and 'involvement vs. detachment'; Givon (1979) 103-6; Ochs (1979); 'planned' vs. 'unplanned' discourse. For the concept of 'stance' see Biber-Finegan (1989). 8

Religious Registers

11

and since various features can be grouped together into one dimension. However, without extensive statistical investigations on the entire register system of a language (e.g. Greek), it is still difficult to determine appropriate dimensions to which we can allocate isolated linguistic features if we describe just one or two registers (as we will do in this chapter). Fortunately, in a recent cross-linguistic study based on statistical register comparisons of English, Somali, Nukulaelae Tuvaluan, and Korean, Biber has discovered that certain dimensions are common to all of these genetically unrelated languages. They are therefore potentially universal or at least very widespread. Apart from three of the dimensions already mentioned (interactiveness, production circumstances, personal stance/involvement), which are often connected with orality and 'literacy' (including 'oral literature' 9 ), Biber also names • 'narrativity' (where narrative discourse can be marked by past-tense verbs, third-person pronouns, temporal adverbs and clauses, etc.), and • 'argumentation/persuasion' (marked by presence/absence of possibility modals, conditional subordination, concession conjuncts, etc.)10 In the following discussion we will see that several of Biber's 'universal' register dimensions are helpful for interpreting and classifying register features in ancient Greek. On the basis of Aristophanic material (and therefore from a purely synchronic point of view), we will deal with one aspect of register variation in Attic: discourse in a religious context. With this case study, the chapter will test the viability of a register-focused approach to linguistic variation in Old Comedy. 2.3. R E L I G I O U S L A N G U A G E 'Religious language' is often seen as one of the most basic or archetypal registers,11 perhaps because register studies originated in anthropological linguistics. 12 In some cultures, the religious code 10 " Cf. Chafe (1982) 49-52. Biber (1995) 236-70. " Cf. Crystal—Davy (1969) 146—7, recognizing different 'kinds of religious language'; Samarin (1976) 6-9; J. Webster (1988); Saville-Troike (1989) 76—8. 12 With the 'context of situation' of Malinowski (1923) 465-70: cf. Biber (1995) 6.

12

Religious Registers

is a completely different language (e.g. Latin for Catholics before the Second Vatican Council), but often it is just a separate register which is associated with religious purposes. Its register features frequently include conservative and archaic forms (cf. English thou, speakesi), a special lexicon (behold, disciples), or particularities of intonation, pitch, rhythm, and structure (repetitions). 13 In Seneca, a North-American Indian language, Chafe found that ritual texts were structurally more integrated and elaborated than conversational discourse, which in turn showed more personal involvement features. 14 Similar observations have been made in other oral cultures. 15 Religion was omnipresent in ancient Greece and there is no evidence for the use of a distinct hieratic language in Greek cult: no priest spoke Egyptian or Aramaic during a religious ceremony. But how much do we know about a distinct religious register? Did some kind of code-switching take place in religious contexts? Did the Greeks address the gods in the same way as they conversed with each other? In Aristophanic comedy humans and divinities often interact. On the one hand, there are divinities who appear as comically humanized stage characters. In such cases we should hardly expect that their human interlocutors change register in talking to them. On the other hand, there are also many hymns and prayers. Even if these frequently have a parodic slant, they may provide the answers to the questions just asked. As I have stressed in the introduction, parody exaggerates formal peculiarities. If a religious register existed at all, comedy is the literary genre in which it would be reflected most unambiguously. The language of Greek prayers and hymns as the two most prominent genres of religious discourse has been studied extensively. Ausfeld, Ziegler, and Keyssner compiled huge collections of (mainly lexical) constitutive elements in prayers and hymns throughout Greek literature. Norden concentrated on diachronic developments of formal structure. More recently, Pulleyn has included a chapter on language in his monograph on prayer in 13 Crystal-Davy (1969) 152-71; C. A. Ferguson (1973) 225; Crystal (1976); C. A. Ferguson (1986) 207; J. Webster (1988) 96-9; Saville-Troike (1989) 77. 14 Chafe (1982) 49-5 2. 15 See e.g. Gossen (1976) on formal religious language in a Maya community; Mitchell (1988) and Forth (1988) on ritual Sumbanese.

Religious Registers

13

Greek religion.16 The value of dramatic poetry was recognized by Dieterich, who demonstrated that Socrates' prayer in Nub. 264-74 echoes Orphic hymns, and encouraged the search for lost religious practices and texts in Greek drama. Adami compared several dramatic text samples with literary hymns in order to detect the 'formulae legitimae sermonisque sollemnis proprietates'.17 Similarly, by comparing the parodic prayers in Aristophanes with non-parodic material from other sources, Kleinknecht illustrated the validity of the principle that comedy can, to some degree and if treated with due caution, replace the missing real-life evidence. Horn subsequently discussed the function of parodic and nonparodic prayers in Aristophanic comedy.18 All of these studies contain valuable material. The present chapter intends to add to them in two ways. First, its limitation to the texts of one author allows a microscopic synchronic analysis of some of the linguistic material that had to be treated summarily in more comprehensive studies like those of Ausfeld, Keyssner, or Pulleyn. Second, the theoretical framework of register analysis enables us to find out whether, or in what sense, we may speak of a religious register in (Attic) Greek. The linguistic analysis will thereby contribute to the illumination of much more general aspects of cultural categorization.

2.4. PRAYERS AND HYMNS Religious language is most likely to occur in prayers and hymns. In other 'religious' texts such as solemn oaths or ritual formulae the interaction with the divine is less direct. Also, they are less frequent in comedy. Assertive idioms like have and 'secondary interjections' such as lost their original force even though secondary interjections often imply a passing request for assistance.19 A prayer is more explicit. 16 Ausfeld (1903); Ziegler (1905); Keyssner (1932); Norden (1956); Pulleyn (1997) 132-5517 Dieterich (1893); Adami (1901). 18 Kleinknecht (1937), esp. 62 for the methodological conclusion; Horn (1970); cf. Furley—Bremer (2001) i. 341-2. Conti Bizzarro (1998) is superficial. " On Aristophanic oaths see Ziebarth (1892) 6-14; Werres (1936); on the great oath in Lys. 212-36 Kleinknecht (1937) 51-2; on the boundaries between prayers and mere invocations Horn (1970) 2-3, referring to Blaszczak (1932) 1-2; on 'secondary interjections' Dittmar (1933) 17—20.

14

Religious Registers

For Plato euxcu 'prayers' are by definition 'requests to the gods'.20 Pure prayers of thanksgiving are rare in antiquity. 21 Prayers and hymns have several things in common. They are orally performed and share the same participant structure: a human being is the sender (addressor), a divinity, pragmatically if not grammatically, the addressee. The performative setting is often similar: hymns and communal prayers are part of religious festivals. Moreover, their purposes overlap to some degree. Both genres aim at communication with the gods in order to make them well-disposed to the sender(s). Hymns, like prayers, may contain a request, and frequently this is not just an embedded prayer but a central element: cletic hymns do nothing but ask for a divine appearance. For Plato, the essential difference is formal, not functional: hymns are sung prayers. 22 Unlike some prayers, hymns are not performed by individuals but 'sung in the participation of cultic performances by either the entire community or by a chorus of performers'. 23 However, Plato's equation is not entirely satisfactory on the functional side. A hymn is designed—just like a sacrifice—to win or retain divine favour (cf. Av. 855-6 so as to create conditions under which a prayer is likely to be heeded. The encomiastic or aesthetic element has therefore priority over the request. 24 In a prayer, on the other hand, the request is central and it usually depends far more on a specific situation. In our Aristophanic corpus, the use of spoken or recited, as opposed to sung, metres helps to distinguish hymns and prayers. Thus, Socrates' anapaestic words at Nub. 264-74 represent a prayer (cf. Nub. 263 although they contain elements that are typical of (cletic) hymns: the exalted Socrates prays in a hymnic style. Other passages are more ambiguous. The request in the choral song Pax 385—99 is so crucial and the aesthetic element so 20 PI. Leg. 8oia; cf. PI. Def. 415!); Euthphr. 140; Pulleyn (1997) 5-8, against Aubriot-Sevin (1992), esp. 172-4. 21 Ausfeld (1903) 509; Versnel (1981) 42—62. Instead, there are sacrifices and hymns: Versnel (1981) 53; Pulleyn (1997) 39-55. 22 PI. Leg. 7oob; on Plato's further classification see Bremer (1981) 193; Furley (1995)31—2; Furley—Bremer (2001) i. 10-13. 23 Bremer (1981) 193; cf. Rudhardt (1992) 185-7; Pulleyn (1997) 44. 24 Cf. Pulleyn (1997) 43-55; Furley-Bremer (2001) i. 3-4; pace Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 172.

Religious Registers

15

subordinated that the metre becomes an insufficient criterion. 25 The situational importance and the quantitative prominence of the request should therefore be taken into account too. In order to be as objective as possible, I have based the following observations on Horn's list and classification of Aristophanic hymns and prayers, which includes and discusses doubtful cases.26 While it is sometimes necessary also to distinguish communal and official prayers from private (or 'free') prayers, 27 no further attention will be paid to hymnic subgroupings (paeans, dithyrambs, processional hymns, etc.), except that one or two points concern only cletic hymns. Once we have recognized a partial overlap in the functions of hymns and prayers, the main question of this chapter becomes more complex. Instead of asking whether there is a religious register, we must now ask if we should speak of one religious register with two subregisters, or of two separate registers. Because the answer depends on the amount of linguistic similarity between the two genres, the following discussion will focus especially on similarities and differences between prayers and hymns. We will begin with two elements that are apparently the same in both genres: forms of invocation and epithets (§§ 2.5—2.6). We will see that prayers and hymns are linguistically rather diverse and that it makes more sense to speak of different registers. The same will appear in the following two sections (2.7-2.8) on lexical aspects and in a later section (2.11) on argument structuring. In between, we will look separately at some characteristic aspects of prayer syntax and hymn syntax (§§ 2.9-2.10). Finally (§ 2.12), we will briefly consider the question of internal variation mentioned in the first section.

25 Similarly Ran. 385—93, which is announced as a hymn (Ran. 383-4) but devotes eight lines to the formulation of requests; only Ran. 3856 avuTrapaarara. has something of a cletic imperative. For non-linguistic 'markers' (gestures) cf. Pax 56; Av. 623; Pulleyn (1997) 188-95; Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 125-45; Sittl (1890) 174-99; Van Straten (1995) 134-6. 2I> Horn (1970) 4—11; cf. also the hymn list in Furley-Bremer (2001) i. 337-8. 27 Ausfeld (1903) 506-7; cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 54; Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 34-5; Pulleyn (1997) 9.

16

Religious Registers

2.5. F O R M S OF I N V O C A T I O N Most communal and private prayers are introduced with w preceding the name of the divinity. 28 However, the vocative particle is not obligatory. Since there are (semi-)official prayers with w, it does not seem that the absence of u> marks formality or dignity. 29 Literary factors like metrical convenience may sometimes condition the use of , whereas in other cases the presence or absence of (5 is probably related to the emotional distance the speaker wants to create between himself or herself and the addressee.30 The only element that frequently precedes the vocative is a transitional dlAAa (or drap). This, too, may be conditioned by literary conventions rather than represent actual usage. 31 Prayers where the vocative is further postponed are extremely rare and not embedded in the action of the respective plays. 32 That the invocation is a crucial element of 'prayerness' is also shown by the fact that longer prayers tend to repeat it towards the end as if to ensure the attention of the divinity. 33 In a few prayers the divinity is addressed indirectly instead.34 Thesm. 296 and 331 and Av. 864 suggest that official prayers were dat often formulated by a leader and took the form of divinity>. 35 Such indirect formulations may have acquired an 28 Private prayers: Nub. 264, 429; Vesp. 389, 438; Pax 58, 62; Lys. 742, 833, 972 (if the prayer begins with a> Ztv Zev); Ran. 875; Eccl. 369; communal prayers: Ach. 247; Vesp. 869, 875; Pax 974. 29 Pace Schwyzer-Debrunner (1950) 61; cf. Dickey (1996) 199-206. Without a> e.g. Lys. 203, 317; Thesm. 286; Ran. 886, 892; there is not much 'formality' in Ach. 816 or Eccl. 882. Thesm. 315 is rather a cletic hymn, Ran. 3850 ambiguous. 30 Cf. Ellendt-Genthe (1872) 797: 'poetae . . . quando precibus instandum, minitatione terrendum, arnica admonitione castigandum, indignabundi aut repente territi vox promenda esset, [particula u>] abstinuerunt libenter'. 31 Cf. Denniston (1950) 15-16; Nub. 1478; Vesp. 323, 652 (drop), 1001; Thesm. 282; Ar. fr. 705 (if this is a prayer); similarly Eq. 634 after aye Si) (cf. Neil (1901) 95: 'I do not suppose [aye Sri] would be used in devout prayer'); Lys. 341 after a connective relative pronoun. 32 Ran. 1529 (closing prayer of the chorus); Eccl. 958 = 967 (refrain in a love song). In Pax 385 and 416, Hermes is present as an interlocutor. 33 Pax 1016; Lys. 341—9 (3 invocations); Thesm. 368-9. 34 Vesp. 368, Thesm. 1229—31, and Plut. 592 are wishes or curses rather than prayers. 35 In Pax 435 with fv\iii^.ia%a no addressee is named (but see 432 of Thesmm.311.Pax cf. also Thesm.Thesm. 352 352a Thesm. 331. Pa 1322-30 is, strictly speaking, only a description of a prayer.

Religious Registers

17

officious ring. With first-person verbs they came to be used by public orators as ceremonial introductions to their speeches (cf. Eccl. 171).36 As a private prayer, Cleon-Paphlagon's lines at Eq. 763—4 (rfi jj.ev SetTTTOiVj) Adrjvair] . . . fij)(O/j.ai

'I pray . . . to OUT Lady

Athena') are therefore exceptional and characterize the speaker as bombastic (cf. the 'hymnic' epithet peSeovaa 'sovereign' and the epic vocalism in Both types of invocation are exactly matched in hymns. Cletic hymns most commonly use direct imperatives like eA0e (often coupled with the cletic adverb SeOpo).38 Alternatively, the hymnic ode at Nub. 563-74 consists only of /axAijaKto 'I call' + a list of gods.39 The indirect formulation (xraAe'to, etc. + ace.) can alternate with a imperative in order to create poetic variatio (Thesm. 1136-59).40 It has been suggested that real cultic hymns, unlike 'epic hymns', employed the direct form, 41 but for instance Nub. 563-74 and the functionally parallel antode in Nub. 595-606 differ in this respect; dfjupt i"01 a#rc 'come close to me again' in the latter may have been another stereotypical direct invocation formula. 42 The prayer structure <evxeode + dat. of divinity> corresponds to hymns with choral response (Lys. 1280; Ran. 395). Direct vs. indirect forms of invocation indicate the degree of interactiveness. With regard to this register dimension, the same range of options is found in hymns and prayers. If we wanted to distinguish two registers on the basis of this feature alone, we would put together hymns and communal or official prayers but separate them from private prayers. 36 Cf. Dem. 18. i (with Wankel (1976) 105-6; according to Usher (1999) 271 simulating the opening of the people's assembly); Lycurg. i. i; Plut. Mor. Sojf; Ussher ( J 973) 99; Burckhardt (1924) 33—4. Plut. 771 is paratragic. 37 Affijvaia may still have been used beside Ad-qva.: cf. Neil (1901) 109; Threatte (1980) 271-4; App. § 2.1.4. On n«Se'ouaa cf. C. A. Anderson (1995) 16—22. 38 Imp. + Sevpo: Ach. 665; Eq. 559, 586, 591; Lys. 1263, 1271; Thesm. 319; for hymnic Bevpo cf. also Thesm. 1137, Ran. 395, the 'parahymnic' passages Eq. 148-9 and 1335, and the cletic prayers at Eccl. 882 and (with Sevpo alone: cf. Wackernagel (1926) 71) Ran. 1306. The replacement of SeOpo by e.g. eVOciSe is exceptional (Thesm. "59)39 KiKAijoKco is an Aristophanic hapax legomenon and Adami (1901) 221 cites only Orphic parallels; cf. with pedestrian KaXew Thesm. 1137, 1145. 40 Cf. Thesm. 101-29 with xa'Pe anc' indirect formulations like iirofuu K\jj£ovaa . . . Aprefiiv 'I follow glorifying . . . Artemis'. 41 H. Meyer (1933) 6-7; cf. Furley (1995) 35. 42 Cf. PMG 697 (Terpander fr. i Page); with d/icpi'(fioi) h. Horn. 7. i, 19. 1,22. i; also the verb aiiifiavaKTit,fiv in Ar. fr. 62; Cratin. fr. 72; Dover (1968) 175; Kretschmer (1894) 106.

18

Religious Registers

2.6. E P I T H E T S The function of divine epithets has been a matter of dispute. Ausfeld argued that they reflect the wish to find the 'right' name, by which the divinity will be magically attracted, but he acknowledged that honouring the god may be a positive side effect. 43 For Plato (Crat. 4006) the latter is more important:

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

Accordingly, the magical nature of divine epithets has been called into question. 'The enumeration of a god's names often had more to do with a desire to glorify that god by a rehearsal of his names and attributes. This fits in with what we saw of hymns, namely that they are a sort of x^p's-, intended to delight the god.'45 In several Aristophanic prayers an epithet is chosen to fit the dramatic situation of a speaker or group of speakers. The Megarian who has just sold his 'pigs' prays to Hermes ejuTroAafoy 'god of trading' (Ach. 816-17). The women's chorus of Lysistrata (341-9) invoke Athena as iroAiovxos 'guardian of the city' because they are concerned with saving the city, and as ^uju/uaxos 'ally' because a fight with the men's chorus is impending. 46 The chorus of initiates in Frogs call Athena (or Demeter, or Kore? 47 ) -Ton-eipa 'saviouress' as they hope for eternal salvation (Ran. 378; cf. 386), and Dicaeopolis, inspecting the holes in his new rag-costume, comically prays to Zeus SIOTTTI)? 'through-seer' (instead of firoirr-qs 'overseer') (Ach. 435)- 48

43 Ausfeld (1903) 518-20, referring to Schol. //. 5. 118; similarly Usener (1929) 336; Kleinknecht (1937) 19; Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 162. 44 Cf. Men. Rhet. 440. 13-15; Aesch. Ag. 160-2; Eur. fr. 912. 2-3 Nauck; PI. Phlb. 12c; Kleinknecht (1937) 131-2; Ausfeld (1903) 517—18. 45 Pulleyn (1997) 115; cf. also Graf (1991) 192. 46 Cf. Henderson (1987) 111-12; C. A. Anderson (1995) 46-7, also on 'golden-crested' and Tpnoyeveia 'Trito-born'. 47 Cf. Furley-Bremer (2001) it. 370. 48 On (TTOTTTTJS see Keyssner (1932) 99—101. The contextual appropriateness of epithets is a comic theme also in Pint. 1152-65.

Religious Registers

19

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

TRYGAEUS: And resolve our fights and our broils, that we may call thee Lysimache [Fight-resolver]. Here, the epithet is set out as a reward.49 Peace is not yet honoured as she will be if she acts in a way to deserve a hymn of thanksgiving. The x°-Pl$ conveyed by the epithet belongs to a hymn rather than to the present prayer. Despite these examples, the view that it was crucial to find the 'right' name in a prayer can be challenged. In the Aristophanic prayers (P) and hymns (H) collected in Horn's list, the epithets 'rank' as shown in Table 2.1 ('9 for 7' = '9 occurrences for 7 different divinities').50 The most frequent epithets are far more common in prayers than in hymns. This is all the more surprising because hymns tend to be extremely rich in epithets. Using just one out of the eight most common options, the short hymn in the parabatic ode of Clouds (Nub. 563-74) includes the following range of epithets. Zeus Poseidon

vi{iifj,fSwv 'high ruler', (9ea>i>) rvpawos 'sovereign', 'great' peyaadfvris 'great and mighty', rpiaivijs ra^ias 'warden of the trident',

Aither

Helios

'savage upheaver . . . of the earth and sea' 'Our ned', i^e'repos Tranj father', ae/nvdraTos 'most revered", 'nourisher of all living things' tTTwowu/iay 'charioteer', /xeya? (8a£fuav) ) 'great power' (+ a relative clause functioning as epithet)

Unlike prayers, hymns strive for the unusual and unpredictable. 49 Similarly d\e£iKa.Kos 'averter of evil' for Hermes in Pax 422; cf. Dover (1968) 255; Olson (1998) 162. 50 Leaving aside exclamations like Ran. 337-8 and certain other passages which do not, in my view, belong here. Comic fantasy often makes possible direct conversations with gods (note especially Pax 170—728) or addresses to humans that look like prayers; cf. Horn (1970) 46. Thus, in Eg. 148-9 one may recognize cletic elements (Seupo, ipaveis) but I hesitate to count (ptArare and aajrrjp as epithets. I am more willing to classify Ach. 566-71 as a (parodic) prayer: cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 77-9. Different decisions in single cases (Horn's list does not include Pax 1108, but see Olson (1998) 280) would not fundamentally alter the picture.

Religious Registers

20

TABLE 2.1. The most frequent epithets in A ristophanic hymns and prayers Epithet

Occurrences/ divinities

Individual references

1

io for 7

H: Eq. 551; Nub. 595; Thesm.

128

'lord'

P: Nub. 264; Vesp. 327, 438, 875-6 (2X); Pax 442; Av. 868 9 for 7

2.

'dear(est)'

H: £5. 562; Pax 582; ^4i>. 676, 677; Thesm. 978

P: ^c/z. 568; Nub. 1478; Pox 416; Thesm. 286 3.

8 for 7

P: Eq. 763; JVu6. 266; Pax 976 (2X); Av.876; Lys. 203, 317; TTzesra. 286

7 for 6

H: Thesm. 989 P: /left. 247; M/6. 264; Vesp.

'mistress' 4.

'master'

389, 875; Pax 385, 399 7 for 6

7 for 5 'much-honoured' 7-

H: Nub. 570; Thesm. 116, 322 P: N«6. 265; Pax 974b

4 for 3

H: Eq. 560, 585 P: Eq. 763; Lys. 834

3 for 3

H: Thesm. 123, 971 P:c Ran. 3856

-ovaa + gen. 'sovereign' 9. 'lady' peyas 'great' 'city-guardian'

Eccl. 369 (cf. Pax n08) H: Ran. 323/4, 398 P: Afaft. 269; Vesp. 1001; Pax 978," 1016; Thesm. 286

5 for 5 '(most) revered'

8.

H: Lys. 1286; Thesm. 1149

P: Pax 445, 975; Lys. 742, 833;

'lady'

3 for 3

H: Nub. 565, 573; Av. 1748

3 for i

H: Eq. 581; Afu6. 602 P: Lys. 344/5

a Note the feminine form TroAimjMJTi), perhaps a morphological licence in hieratic language: similarly Lys. 344/5 xpvaohoya; Thesm. 320 &i)po<pov-q 'beast-slayer'; also (iys. 347; Nub. 989) beside TpiToyfxTJ? (Eq. 1189); Eq. 1181 'Gorgon-crested'; Lys. 217 draupoiTT) 'virginal' in an oath (cf. araupuiTos Aesch. Ag. 244). b Also P/«i. 772, if this is classified as a prayer with Horn (1970) 11; Kleinknecht (1937)128. c Cf. note 25 above.

Religious Registers

21

The ranking further reveals that the most frequent epithets are applied almost every time to a different divinity. In other words they are as unspecific as possible. Epithets like or irorvta all express a general notion of ruling, 51 while whichdemNDSA SPICIFEINDICATIONOF sovereign's subject(s), is already less common in prayers: its nonAttic phonology (lack of contraction) marks it as poetic. occurs in an authentic cultic prayer (PMG 854 Page52) which is praised by Marcus Aurelius (5. 7) for its simplicity. TroAimV^ros even leaves open why the divinity is 'much-honoured'. A joke in Acharnians (758-9) implies that this adjective was considered to be a polyvalent standard epithet.53 The limited diversity of epithets in prayers makes it implausible that they were 'needed' in order to address a divinity with the 'right' name. If that had been the case, we should expect epithet accumulations as we get them in hymns—not least because we have seen that the request is more crucial in prayers than in hymns, so that it would be more damaging if the divinity did not listen. Thus, the Aristophanic statistics confirm the view that epithets are a way of pleasing and honouring the god. Since this is the main function of hymns (but not prayers), it is not surprising that epithets are accumulated there. Moreover, if epithets in prayers were more than superficial embellishments, they should figure prominently in elaborate official prayers. Yet, in the most official-sounding Aristophanic prayers, they play hardly any role. The professional priest who prays to a long list of bird divinities at the foundation of the bird city (Av. 864-88) gives none of them more than one (usually comic54) epithet. 55 As the list grows longer and longer the prayer 51

Eur. Ale. 1004-5 suggests that no-ma is a 'default epithet'; cf. for araf and Eur. Hipp. 88; Hemberg (1955) 9-12; Pleket (1981) 174-6. Scanoiva, when not applied to Kore, may be a recent development since it is first attested in Euripides: Ausfeld (1903) 521; cf. Usener (1929) 222—5; Henrichs (19760) 253—66. 52 Cf. Pulleyn(iQ97) 149. 53 In Ran. 851 and PI. Euthd. 2g6d 7roAuTi)n)Tos is ironically applied to humans (as is J> am (not: araf) in Eq. 1298): cf. Dover (1993) 299; Radermacher (1954) 186; Kleinknecht (1937) 23-4 n. 3; more examples in Adami (1901) 250-1; Keyssner (1932) 66; G. Meyer (1923) 76—7. 54 e.g. Av. 873 ypuyiAos Za.pd£ws 'chaffinch Sabazius' for 0pvyios £afjd£ios', cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 31. 55 Unlike Peisetaerus, who interrupts him in Av. 868 'echt hymnenmassig': Kleinknecht (1937) 31.

22

Religious Registers

becomes mere name-dropping without epithets (Av. 881-8). Apparently, the proprium of an official prayer was the endless enumeration of divinities, not the accumulation of epithets.56 The official character—as in the bird prayer enhanced by the insertion of a prose passage57—is even stronger in the prayers before the Thesmophoria assembly (Thesm. 295-311, 331-51). Again the enumeration is prominent, but epithets conspicuously absent, except for rather unspecific indications of origin or belonging . The contrast with the interceding cletic hymn, which consists almost exclusively of epithets, is obvious (Thesm. 312-30). To be sure, the above statistics also show that not every hymnic epithet had to be recherche.58 Nevertheless, the number and the inventive range of epithets in hymns is much greater than that in prayers. The most diverse types of word-formation are represented. Apart from simple adjectives there are very many 'verbale Rektionskomposita' in various shapes (e.g. xiaaoyopos 'ivy-bearing', 'horse-driving',ftpovTr/aiKfpawos'lightning-thundering'), Bahuvrihi compounds (xpvaoTptawos 'with golden trident', 'with great might', xpuaoAupas 'with golden lyre', etc.), compounds with gw- (gvnnaxos 'ally', gvyiciopos 'fellow reveller'), and local epithets59 in -(a)ios (repaumos, xOovios 'chthonic', -npoTrvXaios 'before the gate"). Patronymic epithets (Kpovi^-qs, TwSapiSai, ApaKovTiSys) are slightly rarer. Local and patronymic epithets can also be parapHARASED 'DWELLING ON THE ROCK OF pARANES SON OF 'GOD OF AMYCLE Cronus', zlids napde'voi 'daughters of Zeus'). 56 Cf. Pax 456; for similar lists outside comedy (e.g. SIG3 181. 6—9) see Kleinknecht (1937) 29—30. Despite the different context, Pax 50-3 may parody such a list: Kleinknecht (1937) 35 n. 3; Platnauer (1964) 72; Horn (1970) 45. Olson (1998) 78 stresses that lists are typical of Aristophanic style anyway (cf. Spyropoulos (1974), here 172-3), but the masculine endings -oiaiv and -ctcn in Pax 51 echo those of with the archaic feminine ending -aoi (Dunbar, against MSS -r)(i)oi); cf. Fehling (1969) 267. 57 Elsewhere in official texts such as laws and treaties: Av. 1035-6, 1040-2, 1046-7, 1049-50, 1661-6; Eq. 941; Archippus fr. 27; cf. Eupolis fr. 401; Kloss (2001) 80-95. I" Thesm. 331-51 the lack of resolution makes the trimeters monotonous. 58 Cf. pfyas, a(fu>as, Av. 1747 Seivos, Lys. 1300 ayaflos, and 'lazy' predications like Nub. 569 and Thesm. 315 jieyaAairu/ios 'with great names', Thesm. 320 'with many names', Thesm. 1156 voXvirorvios 'most sovereign". 59 For geographical determinations in hymns cf. Adami (1901) 227-31, 242-3; Ausfeld (1903) 523-5.

Religious Registers

23

None of these formations is absolutely excluded from prayers. Interestingly, superlatives are proportionally less frequent in hymns (cf. Eq. 562, Nub. 570, Av. 677) than in prayers (cf. Pax 392-3, 393-4, 974) although Keyssner has pointed out that hymns are in general full of hyperbolic elements (compounds with words like diet, fj.6vos, TT&S, etc.).60 Some of the differences in the use of epithets in hymns and prayers can be related to the dimension of 'production circumstances' (elaboration). Private prayers arose from momentary situations of need and were produced 'on-line' so that some even went without any epithet (Pax 58-9, 62-3, Lys. 972-9). Hymns were necessarily performed after deliberate preparation. Epithets which do not reflect the immediate context could therefore be chosen (or invented) more carefully in hymns (from where every now and then an ornamental epithet may have found its way also into a reallife prayer61). Similarly, the superlative as a grammaticalized form of hyperbole requires less planning and is more 'automatized' than, for instance, the composition of new words. Hymns may avoid this 'cheap' type of praise on purpose. But why are epithets less important in official prayers, which could be pre-planned? Possibly, hymns and prayers at official occasions concentrated on their primary generic functions: while prayers formulated requests, the accompanying task of honouring the gods could be delegated to a preceding or subsequent hymn. If this is so, it would be wrong to consider the partial overlap of hymns and prayers with regard to epithets as an argument in favour of a common religious register. The consideration of some other lexical aspects will corroborate this conclusion. 2.7. SPEECH-ACT VERBS 2.7.1. 'TO PRAY' Both hymns and prayers often contain self-referential verbs, by which the speaker describes his or her own activity ('I pray', 'I sing of). A fundamental difference between such speech-act verbs in hymns and prayers is their illocutionary force. A 'performative' speech-act verb is a verb which describes the activity of the speaker 60

Keyssner (1932) passim. As in Thesm. 282 TrepiicaAAij; 'most beauteous'; more negatively Pulleyn (1997) 51-5 61

24

Religious Registers

and at the same time constitutes it. When someone says 'I pray that we will be saved' the use of the verb 'to pray' automatically makes a prayer out of the declarative statement (contrast: 'I hope that we will be saved', which describes a mental state). In hymns, on the other hand, it is not sufficient to say 'I sing of Athena' to make a song out of the utterance. This difference correlates with the register dimension of personal stance: performative verbs like 'I pray' imply a greater commitment to the action than purely informational verbs like 'I sing of. 62 In addition, there is a qualitative difference of lexical stock in the speech-act verbs of Greek hymns and prayers. Various Greek verbs describe the act of praying: and iVereuai. In classical Attic eu^o^ai is the most general term for all kinds of prayers.63 Although dpdo^at has a broader meaning in Homer,64 in fifth-century Attic it means only 'to curse (formally)' (cf. Thesm. 350; elsewhere Aristophanes uses Ka.Tapa.opai, which is little more than a synonym of TovBopvfa 'to grumble': Vesp. 614).6S The non-Attic phonology of Aiooo^ai (-aa- < *-ry-) reveals that this verb was not an everyday verb of classical Attic.66 In Pax 382, its only Aristophanic occurrence, the preceding poetic forms AamjCTTjs, Aa«i}crofiai 'you shall/I'll cry aloud', Teroprjaco 'I'll proclaim in piercing tones', and a^aX^vvQ^ao^at 'I'll be annihilated' underline its special flavour.57 A secondary form AiVo^ai appears for the first time in Thesmophoriazusae, both at the beginning of the choral hymn in the opening ceremony of the women's assembly (313) and in the paratragic monody of the Relative (1040 AmyifW with 'Doric' vocalism). The variant AiVo^ai must have arisen from a misinterpretation of forms like the aorist optative Airot/ii/i' (Od. 14. 406) as a present optative. Thus, both its formation and its distribution mark the verb as artificial and literary. Similarly, avro^ai with its tragic meaning 'to be a suppliant' 68 occurs only twice in Aristophanes, both times in a hymn (Thesm. 977, 1155). 62 For the theory of 'speech acts' and the notions of 'performative verbs' and 'illocutionary force' see esp. J. L. Austin (1962) and Searle (1969). 63 Pulleyn (1997) 59-64 and 70-6, against Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 199-253; see also Corlu (1966) 23-118. 64 Cf. Corlu (1966) 251-9; Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 302-33; Pulleyn (1997) 74-6. 65 Similarly Nub. 871; Lys. 815; Ran. 746. 66 Pace Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 467-70, who, on the basis of Benveniste (1969) 247-9, suggests that Xiaaopai was a technical term for propitiatory prayers. 67 Cf. Rau (1967) 194; Olson (1998) 150. 68 Cf. Chantraine (1968-80) 92, s.v. avra.

Religious Registers

25

Finally, expressions like /uij 8fjd', iKtrevw ce 'please don't'69 appear in human conversation as well and show that ix-ereiico has completely lost its religious force. Like its synonym (cf.Eccl.915/17) it has no closer connection with prayers than English 'please' (although it can of course appear in prayers or hymns: Thesm. II59)- 7 0 Hence, in fifth-century Attic, ew^o/xai and its compounds 'to pray that not', fwcuxo/xcu 'to join someone in praying', etc.) are the only verbs used in spoken prayers to express the corresponding speech-act.71 The elevated synonyms AiVofiai and are confined to hymns.

2.7.2. 'TO SING A HYMN' With 'singing a hymn' the picture is different. u/Wcu itself is surprisingly rare. At Pax 799 (lyr.) it describes the activity of the lyric poet in general, without a specific reference to hymnic compositions. In the Laconian final song of Lysistrata, v^veui twice refers to the activity of the chorus (Lys. 1303/4, 1320/1). It may be a coincidence that there is no similar case in any of Aristophanes' Attic hymns.72 In his hymn in Thesmophoriazusae, Agathon uses the imperative of dyaAAco to encourage the singing of the chorus (128; cf. Pax 399 lyr.), but the verb covers a wider range of activities to 'honour a god'.73 Its tone is high-flown, and elsewhere Aristophanes has it only in a quotation from Archilochus (Pax 1298). Agathon's hymn illustrates with how much variation one and the same notion can be expressed. The references to Agathon's—or 69 Cf. Eq. 1100; Nub. 696; Ran. 11, 167; similarly Ran. 745 iVereucu 'I beg your pardon'. 70 Against Kleinknecht (1937) 80—i and Horn (1970) 10, Ran. 298—9 is not necessarily an 'inverse prayer' to a human being. 71 Cf. Eg. 764; Pax 435, 1016, 1322; Av. 864; Thesm. 296, 331, 350, 351, 714; Eccl. 171. -npoaKvvfui (e.g. Eq. 156; Plut. 771) designates not a prayer but some kind of salutation: Pulleyn (1997) 191-3; Neil (1901) 28. For euxofuu 'to vow' see Eg. 928; Av. 1619. In Thesm. 810 (anap.) has the archaic meaning 'to declare (solemnly)'. 72 On u/j.Wto/ufu'os throughout Greek literature see Lattke (1991) 13-79. 73 Cf. Theopompus Com. fr. 48; Olson (1998) 155. For the stylistic level of see Phot, a 164, s.v. dyijAai, who quotes Phrynichus (Praep. soph. fr. 6a):

if you were interested in archaisms and lexical grandeur, you might use this kind of words'.

26

Religious Registers

rather: the imagined chorus's—hymnic singing are so frequent that they may have been a characteristic and easily recognizable feature of Agathon's poetry. Apart from dyaAAcu, Aristophanes' Agathon also uses oAj3i'£o> (Thesm. 118 MSS; 107 is conjectural), /cAi^co (i 16), and aeiSaj (115). dAj3i'£co 'to praise' is absent from the rest of Aristophanes and has a more prosaic synonym in /na/cap^co.74 In Av. 1745 (anap.) the chorus exhort themselves with KAiycrare to sing the final hymn, and is a favourite of the exalted anonymous poet in Birds (905, 950/1). This character exceptionally uses /cAjj£co in an iambic line (Av. 921), no doubt because his ordinary speech is influenced by his poetic obsessions.75 The root of xA^cu also appears in K-AEUO and KfXaSfw. In Pax 778 KXftovaa is taken from Stesichorus, but in the Spartan hymn in Lysistrata it is again introduced freely (1298). KfXaSew (with its family: is normally used for indistinct noises of the sea or of twittering birds, 76 but it is an equivalent of xrA^uj in the choral passage at Ran. 384 (cf. Ran. 1527 anap.). K-eAaoVco does not appear in iambic trimeters. The same restriction applies to the hymnic root *melpunattested in other classical authors, is an Aristophanic hapax legomenon in the introduction to the Demeter hymn of Frogs (Ran. 379), the only play with the noun yuoAw^ (Ran. 370, 384, 1527). Its cognate ^eAwo) is confined to one choral hymn in Thesmophoriazusae (961, 970, 974, 989). All of these hymnic verbs are used by a chorus self-referentially, in self-exhortations, or in invitations to the Muse. None of them forms part of the pedestrian vocabulary in iambic or trochaic passages. When the singing of a hymn is described independently, qSw is used (cf. Ach. 261; Ran. 320).77 As mentioned above, the comic Agathon uses aSco in the poeticized, non-contracted form aelSw (Thesm. 115). 74 75

Cf. Vesp. 429, 588,1275. For /fAj)£oj in hymns cf. Adami (1901) 221, who also lists examples for and

76 Nub. 283, 284; Pax 801; Thesm. 44; Ran. 683. Despite its irregular vocalism, the connection of xe\a&(w with xAiJ^tu etc. seems certain: cf. Chantraine (1968-80) 485, s.v. 77 Cf. Ran. 874 viraBai; a8iu for non-hymnic lyrics: Ach. 1231, 1233/4; Nub. 1205; Lys. 1243; Ran. 1307; Ar. fr. 505. In Eq. 1266 aft&fiv echoes Find. fr. 8ga Snell-Maehler.

Religious Registers

27

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

2.8. R E G I S T E R - S P E C I F I C VOCABULARY IN PRAYERS If we diagnose a general divergence of hymns and prayers with regard to the dimension of planning, we must account for isolated poetic words appearing in prayers78 either as 'borrowings' from the register of hymns or as relics from an earlier stage when they were not yet ousted from everyday language. Either of these theories may for instance explain the occasional use of the archaic root in predications or that of epithets such as ava£/avaaaa and which no longer have an Attic referent outside the religious domain (cf. § 2.6). However, such an explanation is plausible only if our observations on epithets and speech-act verbs can be generalized, i.e. if there is no substantial group of other lexical elements which are common in prayers but excluded from 'everyday' language (for if there were such elements, we might just as well add -rrorvia and to them). By looking at a few more relevant items, this section will show that the Aristophanic comedies present virtually no evidence for a register-specific vocabulary of prayer. Let us start with a look at significant lexical gaps in our corpus. For instance, there are no special terms (a) for the 'help' of the divinity, (b) for his or her 'looking upon' or (c) 'listening to' the believer, nor (d) for the 'fulfilment' of a prayer. For (a) we find indiscriminately the common verbs |3oi}0efv, 78

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

28

Religious Registers

or fuyyiyvcotfcu,79 but the request for help can also be implicit in a rhetorical question (Vesp. 439-40) or in the wish not to be 'overlooked' (Eccl. 369-70). It is rare to ask for 'salvation' instead (Vesp. 393; Ran. 386).80 Both Kadopav/Kari&etv and ftpopav/eirtSfiv for (b) Can be

said of human beings just as well as of gods,81 and the same is true for the imperative of tW/couui (c).82 The concept of 8eoi ETTTJ/COOI is well known, and eirriKoos may be a piece of religious terminology, but in Aristophanes it occurs only in a hymn (Thesm. HS7). 83 For (d), (Thesm. 369) is isolated and reXew and epic xpaivw are absent. The imperative Si'Sou 'fulfil!' once summarizes a list of preceding wishes (Pax 1016), but elsewhere the concrete requests stand alone. Only re'Aeos 'successful' (* re'Aeos 'entire', as in Lys. 104) shows a remarkable repetition in prayer contexts (Thesm. 329, 35 353). where it may have been promoted by the existence of the epithet TeAetos/VeAet'a '(prayer-)fulfilling'.84 In other cases, the higher frequency of a lexical form in prayers is a simple consequence of the pragmatic situation. There are few communicative situations in which a speaker orders a human interlocutor to 'accept' a present or to 'appear'. So the imperatives of and <paiVo/j.cu are proportionally over-frequent in prayers (or hymns), but even in the limited Aristophanic corpus they are not exclusive to these genres.85 The adjective ev^ev-^s 'well-disposed' and the adverb 'with good fortune' are perhaps the best candidates for a distinct terminology of prayer. The latter occurs twice in Aristophanes, 79

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

80 Note how the growth of the cult of Zeus Soter is reflected in the increase of pertinent references in Aristophanic comedy: Thesm. 1009 (411 Be); Ran. 738, 1433 (405 BC); Eccl. 79, 761, 1045, 1103 (392 BC); Plut. 877, 1175, 1186, 1189 (388 BC); c R. Parker(1996) 238-41. 81 See Ach. 1156 and Eq. 75, 170, beside Nub. 289 and Ran. 876, 879.

82 Lys. 878 beside Ach. 405 (perhaps a prayer parody: Kleinknecht (1937) 79); Nub. 274; cf. Nub. 360; Pax 785; Dover (1968) 134. 83 On the fleoi ewijKoot see Weinreich (1912), and cf. e.g. Phrynichus fr. 72. In Nub. 263 (TraKovia 'to listen to' is said of a human being. 84 In Thesm. 973 for Hera as goddess of marriage but elsewhere also for other gods: Bruchmann (1893) 141; Keyssner (1932) 118-19. 85 Imp. of 8e'xo(iai in prayers: Vesp. 876; Pax 977, 978; Lys. 204; Thesm. 282; c Nub. 274; Kleinknecht (1937) 45 and Pulleyn (1997) 218 for non-Aristophanic paral lels; elsewhere: Eq. 909; Nub. 1103; Vesp. 735; Pax 1204; Lys. 603; Thesm. 779; Pl 63, 1147; on Vesp. 1225 see MacDowell (1971) 291. Imp. of
Religious Registers

29

both times in a communal prayer (Ach. 250; Thesm. 305). Thematically it is akin to the formulaic wish (eV) ayad-fj rvxy 'with good fortune' in two other Aristophanic prayers (Vesp. 869; Thesm. 86 283). The adjective fvpevys is not normally used of human beings in Attic, but it is applied to a goddess in an iambic prayer (Lys. 204). Possibly, iXews (fAaos) and evypaiv belong to the same genre-specific word-group (with clear restrictions in Attic prose), but Aristophanes has them only in hymns (Lys. 1282; Thesm. H48).87 Their 'human' and prosaic equivalent is irpodv^os (also in a hymn: Thesm. 979, 982). One lexical field where hymns and prayers share some common ground is the word-family of xatpw and xap's-88 Obviously, prayers rather ask for a favour (e.g. xap«7ao#ai 'to be gracious': Vesp. 327) and hymns think of the 'joy' they provide for the god (as with the ever-recurring imperative x a 'P e > which certainly featured also in non-literary hymns89), but the distinctions are sometimes blurred, as when prayers refer to past or future 'pleasures' for the god (Ach. 248; Nub. 274).90 However, since words of this family are extremely widespread in many other text genres too, they are neither register-specific nor usable as an argument in favour of a single religious register. Overall, then, lexical items (apart from certain epithets) are of marginal importance in the constitution of a distinct prayer register. Moreover, there is not sufficient evidence for lexical register markers in the Aristophanic prayers. Let us now turn to syntactic register features of prayers (§ 2.9) and hymns (§ 2.10) respectively. The following section will show how the syntactic formulation of the prayer request establishes various subregisters. 86 But occurs in other contexts too: cf. Av. 435, 675; Eccl. 131; Dunbar (i995) 3 O1 ; 'n inscriptions: Tracy (1994). 87 Cf. also Av. 930 nporfptav (lyr.); Ausfeld (1903) 537—8; Keyssner (1932) 87-93; Pulleyn (1997) 219. In Plul. 636 (v/j.evys is also said of a god, though not in a prayer, fujienjs is said of men in Ionic (Hdt. 7. 237. 3) and Doric (DGE 84. 11, Argos). 88 Pulleyn (1997), esp. 16-55, stresses the importance of \apis in prayers; cf. also Furley (1995) 32, 45-6; Furley-Bremer (2001) i. 61-3. 89 Cf. Pax 582; Thesm. i n , 129, 972; Ecphantides fr. 4; Ziegler (1913) 346-9; Calame (1995) 10-11; Wachter (1998) 72. 90 Further references to xa/w etc. in hymns and prayers include: Ach. 437 (according to Kleinknecht (1937) 80 and Horn (1970) 4 and 41,3 parodic prayer, but note the similar Vesp. 764-5); Vesp. 389; Pax 386; Thesm. 311, 314, 981, 982, 1231.

3O

Religious Registers

2.9. P R A Y E R SYNTAX Prayer requests take one of the following syntactic forms: (1) imperative aorist or present (2) optative aorist or present (3) infinitive aorist or present in a.c.z.-construction (4) indirect formulation with eiix0/""91 + infinitive (5) other indirect formulations Despite its range of possibilities, (5) is not well represented in Aristophanes. It may not have been common in real-life prayers either: (53) Sef + a.c.i.

£.7.59 1-4 (H) 'thou must bestow victory'

(sb) rhetorical questions

Vesp. 439 (P)92 'dost thou overlook me?'

cf. Pax 62 (P) 'what are you trying to do to our people?' vESP.327(7

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

'deign to be gracious to me' ( {MAKE} + a.C.i.

Ecd. 959 «= 968 (

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

conj.

'come that thou mayest keep united'

Apart from (53), 3 self-conscious demand in a hymn, all these constructions put the request into a more polite form, (sb) may reflect qualms to address a divinity with an imperative, but the frequency 91 92

Also Sfopai: Nub. 429. Cf. Ach. 55, perhaps to be added to Horn (1970) 4—11.

Religious Registers

31

of (i) and the imperatives of (50) to (50) show that such an attitude was not widespread.93 The imperatival formulation (i) is by far the most common type. Against complicated aspectual theories about imperatives in prayers, Pulleyn has recently argued that traditional views about aspect hold in this field too:94 the aorist imperative is appropriate when a request is looked at in a complexive manner, while the present imperative focuses on the action as a process (often with a 'durative' nuance, for instance when the lasting effect is stressed or when the fulfilment implies a temporal development). If we consider together requests in hymns and prayers, we may for once recognize a common 'religious' register feature. In conversations between human beings the (second-person) present imperative is more frequent than the aorist imperative: in Aristophanes 50.6% positive present imperatives stand against 49.4% positive aorist imperatives.95 In Aristophanic hymns and prayers, on the other hand, the aorist imperative is predominant with an approximate ratio of almost 2 : i (although the frequent present imperative e nas no aorist equivalent).96 The ratio fo cletic imperatives is even more revealing (9 : i). 97 There is a slight tendency to prefer the present imperative for negative requests, 93

But cf. Arist. Poet. i456bi5-18 (Protagoras test. 80 A 29); Zilliacus( 1946) 266-7. Pulleyn (1997) 221-6, against Bakker (1966), esp. 98-127. No theory can explain all unexpected aspect choices (does Pax 1016 Si'Sou subsume the preceding aoristic requests? does Thesm. 973 ojra£e agree with xaipe?), nor can Sicking (1991): if the aorist imperative is more focal, what about Thesm. 973 OTO£C VIKIJV 'bestow victory'? 95 Duhoux (2000) 246, after Kieckers (1909) n. In tragedy the aorist is even rarer (e.g. Euripides 66.3% : 33.7%), perhaps because the present imperative suits more emotional scenes; cf. also Post (1938). 96 Present imperatives (n = negated): (i) xaipe: Pax 582 (2x); Av. 868; Thes i n , 129, 972; cf. Eq. 1333; Pax 523; (ii)other imperatives: Nub. I478(n), 1479; AJX 59(n), 388(n), 78s(n), 787, 816/17, 979(n), g86(n), 1016; Lys. 834; Thesm. 107, 973, 987; Ran. 340/1, 351/2, 3856, 386, 399, 408 = 413. Aorist imperatives (n = jnj + aorist subjunctive, as equivalent of a negated aorist imperative): Ach. 405 (+ 438?), 567; Eq. 637; Nub. 274, 1479(1), 1481; Vesp. 324, 327, 329, 331, 332, 393 (2x), 876, 877, 1001; Pax 59, 39oa(n), 392, 400, (416), (417), 777, 78s-6(n), 977, 978, 987, 991, 993, 995/6, 998; Av. 905, 950/1; Lys. 204, 317, 742, 1247; Ran. 401, 1362, 1529; Eccl. 3&9(n), 958 = 967, 9590 = 9680. 97 Present imperatives: ffli: Lys. 1271; iJKfre: Thesm. 1148; cf. Eccl. 882 "re (P). Aorist imperatives: t\9t: Ach. 665, 673; Eq. 559; Thesm. 319; Ran. 326, 675; Thesm. 1155; cAflere: Ran. 879; a
32

Religious Registers

and sometimes the aspectual choice may be conditioned by the lexeme: Aristophanes never uses the imperative Duhoux convincingly interprets these facts: 'Fhomme est 1'inferieur social de la divinite. Lorsqu'il s'adresse a ses superieurs, il tend a exercer une pression basse et emploie des lors le ponctuel, ou la volonte s'exprime de facon minimaliste, grace a la non consideration des diverses phases du developpement de 1'action.'98 This also explains the aspect of xafpe and the rarity of 'rejoice' implies an advantage for the god who receives a hymn as a present, ij«-e 'come' (as a possible present counterpart of the aorist an advantage for the speaker who benefits from the god's presence. If we relate the point to the register dimension of 'personal stance', it seems that the speakers of the two religious genres take up a less pressurizing attitude towards their interlocutors than those involved in comparable interactions between human beings. With very few exceptions," wishes concerning the first or third person are not formulated with a cohortative subjunctive or thirdperson imperative. This is the domain of constructions (2) to (4), which are not normally applied to second-person requests. The optative construction (2) is regularly employed in prayers with a curse, no matter if that curse concerns the first or third person.100 In Eq. 763-8 this 'rule' leads to a switch of construction:

PAPHLAGON: I pray . . . to our Lady Athena . . . that I may dine in the Prytaneum for having done nothing; but if I hate you . . . then may I perish . . .

Similarly, Pax 435-53 starts as a prayer with construction (4) (which is typical of official prayers as discussed in § 2.5), but then turns into a curse and switches to the optative (which syntactically influences also the final request). 98 Duhoux (2000) 245. The predominance of the aorist imperative becomes even stronger in later Greek prayer: Bakker (1966) 128-41. 99 Ach. 570 (parodic 'prayer' to Lamachus); Ran. 1359 (paratragic monody), 1532; is Thesm. 311 x
Religious Registers

33

The few remaining examples of optatives for requests in prayers and hymns fall into two groups: prayer-like wishes, where a divinity is not directly addressed (cf. Thesm. 1229-31; Vesp. 368), and certain choral passages (though not necessarily hymns) where the optative may have been used because it was felt to be more poetic than the imperative or the infinitive; these instances are irrelevant for a reconstruction of real-life prayer language.101 Construction (3), the infinitive in an 'optatival' a.c.i.-construction, can be compared to jussive a.c.i.-constructions in formal contexts like laws or proclamations,102 but it must not be confounded with imperatival infinitives (where the addressee is the subject of the infinitive).103 There is no certain example of an imperatival infinitive in an Aristophanic prayer.104 Bdelycleon's prayer in Vesp. 875-84 illustrates construction (3):

BDELYCLEON: O Lord and King Agyieus, my neighbour . . ., accept the new rite. ... End that excessively harsh, oak-hearted disposition of his.... May he henceforward be gentle to all men, may he take pity on defendants . . . The infinitival construction is used both in elaborate prayers like Trygaeus' sacrificial prayer (Pax 974-1016) or Dicaeopolis" prayer before his private festival procession (Ach. 247-S2)105 and in short ad hoc prayers like Ach. 816-17.106 101

Lys. 341 1270 Thesm. 329 1266/7 (and 328 laxr/adfv), 369 Kvpaiafias, 1146 ^oAois; cf. Ar. fr. i n . 102 Kuhner—Gerth (1898/1904) 11/2. 22-3; Schwyzer—Debrunner (1950) 380—3; Cooper (1998) i. 767-9. MacDowell (1971) 184 refers to Vesp. 872, 879-84, 937, 1216; cf. Ach. 172, 1000-1; Pax 551-5; Av. 448-50, 1040-1, 1661-6; Eccl. 418-19. 103 cf Wackernagel (1926) 267; Bers (1984) 166; Pearce (1996) 292—5 on the authoritative tone of imperatival infinitives. On imperatival infinitives in Aristophanes see App. § 4.6.4.4 below. 104 In Vesp. 870-3 TO Trpaytia could be the subject of app.oaai 'to fit well, suit Pulleyn (1997) 152 n. 54 cites only six possible cases from other sources (e.g. PMG come, hero Dionysus!') 105 First-person subject: Ach. 250; Pax 1003, 1007; third-person subject: Ach. 252; Pax 1000, 1005, 1010, 1011 (2x), 1012, 1015. Cf. the parodic 'sacrificial prayer' at Thesm. 286-91 and the prayer/hymn at Ran. 387-93. 106 Cf. Ach. 435-6; Nub. 429-30; Lys. 317-18; Ran. 886-7, 892-4. In Lys. 346-9 depends on

34

Religious Registers

It has been argued that the independent infinitive results from an ellipsis of Soy 'grant',107 but the rarity of the periphrastic construction (sd) may speak against this. Another possibility would be an underlying verb evxopac, first-person a. c.i. -constructions would then represent an extension of an original third-person usage. However, a completely different explanation is suggested by the observation that infinitival constructions follow imperatival requests in several Aristophanic prayers (Vesp. 875-84; Pax 974-1016; Lys. 317-18; Ran. 385-93). The inverse is not the case.108 So the infinitival construction may have originated as a case of 'conjunction reduction',109 where the marking of the preceding imperative extended over the following 'zero-marked' infinitive (the infinitive being the least-marked verbal form). The phenomenon could thus be connected again with the register dimension of 'personal stance' and the preference for less pressurizing aorist imperatives in prayers: the unmarked infinitive would further reduce the amount of linguistic pressure by 'dispersonalizing' the speech event. At the same time, the infinitival construction would not reduce the urgency as much as the optative in curses,110 which may be treated as a separate subregister of the prayer register. Disregarding minor divergences caused by special circumstances, the following diagram summarizes the syntax of prayer requests. Of the four options, the infinitival construction appears to be the most distinctive syntactic register feature: optative —» curses (+ poetic prayers? 111 ) imperative —» second-person requests infinitive -* first-/third-person requests + inf. —» (semi-)official prayers 107 Wackernagel (1926) 267; Dittmar (1933) 93; Schwyzer— Debrunner (1950) 380; Horn (1970) 50 n. 76; Bers (1984) 166; but cf. Pulleyn (1997) 152 with n. 52. Note also «' yap (eK)yfvoiTo + inf. 'I wish it would happen that' in Ar. fr. 1 1 1 (as in Pax 346), and iroti + a.c.i. in Men. Epitr. 555—6. los pax joi6 Si'Sou summarizes the requests. 109 Cf. Kiparsky (1968); Bers (1984) 173 on jussive infinitives; Watkins (1967) and Renehan (1976) 1 1—22 on simplex verbs after compound verbs; Platt (1910) on the nominative + re after a vocative (App. § 4.1.1.1). 110 Aubriot-Sevin (1992), esp. 276 and 291, implausibly suggests that the optative is more authoritative than the imperative; see also Gonda ( 1 956) 54 n. i ; Bakker (1966) 108 n. 25; Pulleyn (1997) 151. 111 Frequent in tragedy: Pulleyn (1997) 151. The ratio imperative : optative is 72 : 20 in Homer, 30 : 16 in the lyric poets: Pulleyn (1997) 150.

35

Religious Registers

2.10. H Y M N SYNTAX The hymnic lexicon largely corresponds to the lexicon of lyric poetry in general. 112 We may therefore wonder if there is a similar overlap in the field of syntax or if there are syntactic features that are predominantly or exclusively hymnic. In order to answer this question we will look at the following three points, which Adami considered to be characteristic of hymn syntax:113 (1) avoidance of the article, (2) relative clauses (continuing a chain of epithets), (3) accumulation of finite verbs and participles. We will compare a set of Aristophanic hymns with some of Aristophanes' other lyric pieces. The following sample texts are all taken from non-parodic hymns, e.g. parabatic odes and antodes:114 (a) Eq. 551-64 parabatic ode 14 lines (b) Eq. 581-94 parabatic antode 14 lines (c) Nub. 563-74 parabatic ode 12 lines (d) Nub. 595-606 parabatic antode 12 lines (e) Lys. 1296-1315 20 lines (/) Thesm. 1136-59 24 lines 24.LINES (i) Avoidance of the article. It is not always possible to say whether a definite article would have been used in a prose paraphrase (cf. e.g. Thesm. 1143 Tvpawovs), but the use of the article is indeed restricted in most of the sample texts. The ratio between lack of the article and use of the article is approximately (a) 3 : i, (6)0:4, (c) 5 - i , ( « 0 7 : i , ( « ) a : i , ( / ) i 2 : i . The figures are similar in three non-hymnic choral passages from Birds: (g) Av. 227-62 (h)Av. 1058-71

the Hoopoe's song ode of the second parabasis

36 lines 14 lines

4:1 12:1

112 Diphilus fr. 29 associates hymnic style with (lyric passages of?) tragedy. NonAttic phonology (Doric a, uncontracted forms, aa) in Aristophanes is more frequent in hymns than elsewhere, thus illustrating the importance of 'de-automatization' and 'planning 1 (cf. App. §§2.1.1, 2.1.4, 2.2.1). 113 Adami (1901) 261-2, and for (2) and (3) also 242-3; Norden (1956) 166-72. 114 For the connection between hymns and parabatic odes see Gelzer (1960) 207 with n. 7; Eduard Fraenkel (1962) 191—215; Horn (1970) 12—21.

36

Religious Registers

(i) Av. 1088-1101 antode of the second parabasis

14 lines 10 : i

However, (g) is thematically similar to a cletic hymn (cf. Av. 252 Sevp' ire), and (h) and (i) are 'para-hymnic' self-praises of the birds.115 Choruses like Lys. 1043-71 or Eccl. 300-12, randomly chosen as examples of non-hymnic lyric pieces, present a different picture: (k) Lys. 1043-71 29 lines i : 5 (/) Eccl. 300—12 13 lines o : 5 Omission of the article characterizes other genres too (for instance some paratragic lines of the stage Euripides: cf. App. § 4.3). It is therefore no exclusive register marker. Nevertheless, Adami's observation might be correct—as long as the deviation of (b) can be explained. This hymn to Athena structurally corresponds to (a), a hymn to Poseidon. The stylistic difference mirrors the different character of the two gods. Poseidon is the aristocratic god of the Knights, Athena the tutelary goddess of the common demos. The prosaic use of the article makes the language of the hymn to Athena more 'demotic' since it comes closer to everyday speech, whereas the article was customarily omitted in the lyric traditions of the elite. (2) Relative clauses. A predicating relative clause occurs in all of the sample hymns though not necessarily in continuation of ornamental epithets as in (a), (c), and (/): in (d) the relative clause contains the epithets, and in (6) and (e) it predicates a divinity or locality which is not directly addressed. In (/) the relative clause of Av. 1089-90 has a similar predicating function. (3) Accumulation of finite verbs and participles. A comparison of (a) to (/) with (k) and (/) shows that the latter contain more finite verbs (and about as many participles). Even if Adami's generalization was meant for the predicating part of hymns only, the Aristophanic material does not support the idea that a concentration of finite verbs and participles was felt to be a typical hymnic feature. While it can be characteristic of a hymn (as in Ran. 323-36), we should expect a clearer tendency if it were essential. An example like the extended relative clause of Eq. 551-8 almost seems 115

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

Religious Registers

37

to avoid a second finite verb (beside dvSdvet 'pleases'). As to participial style, (d) has three predicating participles in twelve lines, but there is no sign of excessive accumulation. In general, adjectival epithets clearly outnumber the participles. The introduction of complex information in a subordinate clause makes the predicating relative clauses of hymns another signal of structural elaboration, reflecting a high degree of planning in the dimension of production circumstances. The omission of the article also belongs here because it opposes the natural flow of speech. At the same time, it reduces referential explicitness and cohesion so that poetic abstractness prevails over the informational focus. In comparison with other lyric registers, the predicating relative clause is the most distinct syntactic feature of hymns. 2. i i . A R G U M E N T STRUCTURE Ancient prayers and hymns are negotiations with the gods. Unlike Christian prayers they assume that divinities have personal obligations and interests. They regularly include an explicit or implicit argumentation. One may distinguish various structures:116 daquia-dedi; da-quia-dedisti; da-quia-dedit; da-ut-dem; da-ut-darepossim; do-ut-des. Such structures contain a considerable comic potential; da-ut-dem, for instance, is parodied in Vesp. 393—4:

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

Aristophanes would not have formulated Philocleon's comic prayer in this way if there had not been a well-established tradition of da-ut-dem prayers. The following argument structures are found in Aristophanes. (i) Implicit argumentation: (a) An advantage for the divinity is implied if the prayer is fulfilled: Ach. 248-9; Vesp. 389-90; Pax 63, 395, 781 (H). 116

Cf. Pulleyn (1997) p. xv.

38

Religious Registers (b) The advantage for the divinity lies in a sacrifice, libation, hymn, etc. (da-quia-dedi/do): Nub. 274; Pax 435, 977-8; Av. 903; Lys. 204; Thesm. 1230—1 (the play as a 'gift'); Ran. 674-5 (H); cf. the greeting xaipt: every hymn is per definitionem a present for a divinity. (c) Epithets (
(2) Explicit argumentation: (a) da ut dem: Ach. 277-8 'if you drink with us, . . . you shall slop down' Vesp. 393-4 'take pity and save me . . . and I vow never to piss' Pax 392-9 'be gracious . . . and we will glorify . . . you with sacrifices' Pax 400—4 'take pity . . . and I will tell you of something' Pax 416—24 'help us ... and we will hold the great Panathenaea in your honour' Thesm. 287-8 'grant that I may have ample possessions and sacrifice to you from them on many more occasions' (b) da quia dedisti (also veni quia venisti): Ach. 405 'answer my call, if ever thou didst answer any mortal' Eq. 591-4 (H) 'thou must . . . bestow victory, now if ever' Pax 775-81 (H) 'dance . . . with me . . . for these have been thy chosen themes from the first' Thesm. 1157-9 (H) 'if ever heretofore you have come in answer to our call, now too come'

Religious Registers

39

Ran. 403-7 (H) 'be with me as escort—for it was you who tore apart. . . and found a way' Cf. also Ach. 437—8; Nub. 356. In Nub. 595 (H) 'come close to me again', aiJre implies veni quia venisti. (c) da quia dedi: Eq. 763-6 'I pray i f . . . I have been the worthiest of all servants of the Athenian people' Pax 385-8 'do not . . . if ... you remember ever having eaten a young pig given by me' (3) No argumentation, but appeal for pity or forgiveness:117 Vesp. 327-8 'deign . . . to be gracious to me and pity my plight' Vesp. 439 'dost thou ignore my plight,. .. thus manhandled?' Vesp. 1001-2 'forgive me; I did it unintentionally'

Pax 58-9 'what on earth are you aiming to do?' Cf. also Vesp. 368; with both an appeal for pity and an argumentation: Vesp. 393-4 (cf. 2(0)); Pax 62-3 (cf. i(a)), 400-4 (cf. 2(0); pity requested on behalf of others). The absence of an explicit or implicit argumentation can easily be accounted for in short prayers which aim at conciseness (e.g. Eccl. 171-2, 369-71). It is more surprising in the communal prayers before the Thesmophoria (Thesm. 295-371), parts of which (295-311, 331-51) are likely to reproduce official prayers quite faithfully. 118 Here the lack of argumentation is probably due to the 117

Cf. Ausfeld (1903) 533, 541; Versnel (1981) 10 n. 30. e.g. the curse against those who betray the city to the Persians (as in Isocr. 4. 157); cf. the scholiast's remark on or aspires to rule as a dictator or to join in restoring the dictator' (similarly Andoc. Myst. 97; Arist. Ath. Pol. 16. 10); Burckhardt (1924) 29-31; Kleinknecht (1937) 33—7; Haldane (1965); R. Parker (1983) 193—4; Bowie (1993) 209. 118

40

Religious Registers

situational setting. Since the Athenian assembly—the model for the women's gathering—started with the sacrifice of a pig followed by the declamation of a prayer and a curse upon those speakers who would lead the audience astray,119 a sacrifice may have been represented on stage or left to the imagination of the audience. This sacrifice then, together with the interceding hymns, would count as an 'implicit' argumentation. Hence, the absence of an explicit argumentation follows again from the concentration on the request as central purpose of the genre (cf. § 2.6). The structure da-quia-dedisti (2(6)) occurs several times in hymns, once in a respectful address to the Clouds which is reminiscent of a hymn (Nub. 356 x and once or twice in a prayerlike request formulated by Dicaeopolis when he asks for Euripides' help. If the argumentation da-quia-dedisti was (or was considered to be) typical of hymnic requests,120 perhaps because a hymn represented a recompense for the earlier gift, Dicaeopolis' pseudoprayers may be hyper-characterized for dramaturgical reasons: a structure da-ut-dem, which would have been more common in prayers (see below), could easily be misunderstood by the audience as simple bargaining between two equal human beings. The self-assertive da-quia-dedi (2(c)) is very rare. In Pax 385-99 it is moderated by an implicit argumentation of type 1(0) and by the extensive da-ut-dem promise. The only character who impertinently relies on his 'merits' is Cleon-Paphlagon in Eq. 763-8: the structure of the prayer is part of the character portrayal. Another figure who prays in a characteristic manner is Philocleon in Wasps. He speaks four of the seven prayers that ask for pity or forgiveness (3), three times without another argument. Philocleon is presented as a weak and helpless puppet of demagogues, who is only superficially upheld by his power fantasies. The most frequent of the explicit argument structures in prayers is da-ut-dem (2(0)). Many of the promises (though not Ach. 277-8 and Vesp. 393-4) could occur in real prayers. Hence, da-ut-dem was probably seen as the archetypal prayer-form. 121

119 Cf. Hansen (1991) 142, referring to Aeschin. i. 23; Dinarchus 2. 141100)2. 16; Dem. 19. 70; see also Isocr. 4. 157; Dem. 23. 97; Kleinknecht (1937) 33—5. 120 Cf. Nub. 356-7, without a request. 121 Note that Greek evx/i 'prayer' is also the normal word for a 'vow', where the same idea of da-ut-dem is crucial.

Religious Registers

41

If we look at the linguistic structuring elements in the explicit argumentations of type 2, we observe a regularity that further corroborates the register typology established so far. Ausfeld pointed out that the argumentation of Greek prayers (which he called 'pars epica') often begins with a conditional clause introduced by ei as the divinity is reminded of his or her earlier services or of previous gifts from the believer.122 In fact, these «i-clauses are found in most examples of types z(b) and z(c)—but we have seen that z(c) is exceptional and z(b) characteristic of hymns rather than prayers. As an alternative, some examples of 2(6) employ a connective ydp, which is highlighted as a hymnic feature in Pax 582—600: in this hymn to Peace the chorus use ydp no less than five times within twelve lines when they explain their exultation (do-quiadedisti).123 Vesp. 1001-2, where ydp occurs in a prayer, is of a different argument type (3).124 Thus, since ydp and a (TTOT^TTOV) are predominantly 'hymnic', their use in literary prayers probably reveals more about religious attitudes than about the actual phrasing of real-life prayers. The typical prayer argumentation (2(0)) only once employs a subordinate clause. Instead, phrase coordination with
122 Cf. Ausfeld (1903) 526-8. For the tripartition invocatio-pars epica-preces see Ausfeld (1903) 514-15. H. Meyer (1933) 5 speaks of 'Hypomnese', and other terms are also used: Furley-Bremer (2001) {.51. 123 Cf. Eccl. 3—7 with three ydp in five lines in a 'para-hymnic' invocation: Kleinknecht (1937) 93-8; Rau (1967) 205-6; Horn (1970) n; on hymnic ydp also Norden (1956) 157. 124 In Ran. 1531 ydp explains the wish but is not part of an argumentation.

Religious Registers

42

2.12. I N T E R N A L V A R I A T I O N 2 . 1 2 . I . PROCLAMATION OF

I have mentioned in section 2.1 that a full description of a linguistic register should also point out how much internal variation the register allows, i.e. how broad the range of linguistic register features is, and how much standardization has taken place. This question is difficult to answer in a highly selective register study like the present one, in particular since our corpus includes parodic material. However, a short cut based on typological considerations may give us some clues. It has been noted that religious discourse is cross-culturally often marked by prescribed ritual openings and closings.125 If we subscribe to the hypothesis that the beginning and end of a ritual event (e.g. a prayer) is the most likely place for standardization, we can test the amount of standardization in a prayer register by concentrating on the opening and closing elements. The only condition is, of course, that they show some degree of uniformity. Fortunately, the Aristophanic corpus includes pertinent elements for both 'ends' of elaborated (often communal) prayers: the proclamation of fv
125 Crystal-Davy (1969) 169; C. A. Ferguson (1986) 205, 212; Saville-Troike (1989)77. 126

Other (possible) ritual formulae in Aristophanic comedy (cf. the commentaries ad loc.) include Vesp. 862 ~ Av. 903; Pax 433 ~ 1104; Pax 968; Pax 1334-5 ~ Av. 1736; Pax 1336 ~ Eccl. ii2<);Av. 864-75 ~ Thestn. 331-4; Lys. 834 ~ Ran. 301; Ran. 354-70; Ran. 479; Ran. 1462 ~ Ar. fr. 504. 14. 127 Cf. Eq. 1316; Thesm. 39-40. Pulleyn (1997) 184 stresses that the oXoXvyrj does not contravene the interdiction: cf. Pax 96-7; Aesch. Ag. 28, 595-6; Benveniste (1966) 308—10. On Av. 863 without a proclamation see Dunbar (1995) 542.

Religious Registers

1. Ach. 237 Ach. 241 (before Dicaeopolis' processional prayer) 2. Eg. 1316-17 (before the 'epiphany' of Demos)

43

'Speak fair, speak fair.'

'Let everyone speak fair and close his mouth, abstain from giving evidence and close the courts of law. . . .' 3. Nub. 263 (before Socrates' prayer)

4. Vesp. 868 (before Bdelycleon's prayer in the 'courtroom' scene) 5. Pax 96-101 (without a following prayer)

'Let the old man speak fair and listen to the prayer.' 'First let all now speak fair.'

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

6. Pax 434 (before Trygaeus' prayer and the rescue of Peace) 7. Pax 1318-22 (before the wedding prayer) 8. Av. 959 (before the sacrifice) 9. Thesm. 39-48 (before Agathon's hymn)

'Speak fair, speak fair.'

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

44

Religious Registers

'Let all the people close their lips and speak fair; . . . let windless heaven restrain its blasts, let the blue waves of the sea make no noise; . . . let the tribes of birds be lulled to sleep, let the feet of the beasts that range the woods be bound fast in stillness . . . " 10. Thesm. 295 (before the Thesmo- 'Let all speak fair, let all speak fair.' phoria prayer) n. Ran. 354-70 (before the hymn of the initiates) 'Let all speak fair, and let these stand out of the way of our dances: whoever is unfamiliar with words such as these or has thoughts that are not clean', etc. Metrical needs are excluded in (i), where the imperative with sacral gemination128 stands extra metrum. The exact match in (6)—again extrametrical like the preceding OTTOV^ mrovS-q 'libation, libation!'—suggests that this was an established formula. However, the speaker of the non-metrical line (10) uses a different syntactical form in a scene where Aristophanes clearly wanted to imitate an official procedure as closely as possible; again there is a match in (8). Moreover, it is hardly a coincidence that (2), (3), (5), (7), and (n) all begin with the same fiKf^flv xpy, which is followed by and more precise indications about the following steps in the ritual. 129 There is a further parallelism between (2)

128

On this phenomenon see Norden (1957) 136—7; cf. e.g. Pax 433, 976, 1104; Pulleyn (1997) 133-4; Norden (1956) 169 n. i on doubled vocatives. would fit into the anapaestic tetrameters of (7) and (10).

Religious Registers

45

(5) The and (9) object of Imichftfiv in (5) is a coarse joke, and the phrase with auy/cAijeii' in (z) is a comic variation of the preceding ar6fj.a K\rjfti>, but the sense and the parallelism of (2) and (9) suggest that there was a regular formulation in which aro^a was the object of either or a compound of this verb. Obviously, there was no single liturgical formula for the proclamation of eiHprjfjiia, but the repetition of certain types of formulation in Aristophanes shows that some standardization must have taken place. There were at least three regular options—(a) , (b) repeated eu^ij/neiTe, (c) (repeated) but we would need additional material to know, for instance, if (c) was always used before the opening prayer of an assembly. The stem eixprjfj,- is used throughout. The fanciful descriptions of the projected ciVw"a by Agathon's servant in (9) were certainly not normal practice.130 The case illustrates how a fairly standardized formula is dramatically transformed for the sake of comic characterization.

2.12.2. ' A M E N ' The same 'limited diversity' is seen at the end of several Aristophanic prayers. The following list of the closing words of some of the more elaborate prayers shows the essential similarities: 1. Vesp. 874 (choral prayer before the courtroom scene) 2. Pax 453 (prayer before the rescue of Peace) 3. Pax 1016 (sacrificial prayer of Trygaeus)

130

likely.

'Hail, Paean.'

'But for us may there be blessings. Strike up the paean: hail!'

'All this, o most highly honoured one, grant us, we pray thee.'

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

46

Religious Registers 4. Thesm. 310—11 (prayer before the Thesmophoria) 'For this pray ye, and for their blessings upon yourselves. Hail Paean, hail Paean, hail Paean! May we fare well!' 5. Thesm. 350-1 (ditto) " . . . but to all you others pray that the gods may grant many blessings.' 6. Thesm. 368-71 (ditto, chorus) 'O almighty Zeus, we beg thee give effect to these prayers, so that the gods may be with us, women though we be.'

In some communal prayers Aristophanes may have left out the closing element because it was not essential for his dramatic purposes. The above passages fall into three groups: (a) recapitulation of the preceding requests with ravra: (3), (4), (6); (b) general requests for ayafla:131 (2), (4), (5); (c) the cultic cry with variation of the exact shape: (i), (2), (4). In both (a) and (b), a personal pronoun occurs in the dative, either in the first or in the second person depending on whether a leader formulates the prayer. The elements {TO.VTO.} , {pers. pron. dat.}, and {dya8d} are most freely combined. The cultic cry (c) is not restricted to prayers to Apollo (Paean) and there is no Aristophanic evidence for other cultic cries with the same closing function. 132 That 117 -no.ui>v was a regular ending of 131 Cf. Av. 623-4; Eccl. 781; Rudhardt (1992) 208 n. 2; Kleinknecht (1937) 31-2 on aatrripia. and uyiem in Av. 878-9 as in Men. Kol. fr. I. 7, where summarizes the preceding prayer; Ausfeld (1903) 542-6; Pulleyn (1997) 7-8. 132 e.g. the oAoAuyT), on which see Pulleyn (1997) 178-80; Olson (1998) 86; Rudhardt (1992) 178-80; Deubner (1941). Lys. 240-2 implies the use of the as a cry of joy and victory: similarly Eg. 616, 1327; Pax 97.

Religious Registers

47

prayers is also implied by other sources such as Thucydides (6. 32. 2).'" The same cultic cry occurs in other circumstances. In Ach. 12.12 it is a wailing invocation of the healing-god, in Lys. 1291 a cry of victory, and the context in Av. 1763 suggests a link with the 'wedding hymn' mentioned in Thesm. 1034-5. In Eq. 1318 and Pax 555, the verb •nauovil,ea> means 'to sing a song of celebration and thanksgiving'.134 Nevertheless, the cry is the closest pragmatic equivalent to our 'Amen' in response to a prayer recited by a leader. As an expression of joy it is reinforced by ^aipiatuv in (4)- 135 Both in the proclamation of euqn^ia and in the closing words of communal prayers there is just enough standardization to consider them as established register features. The range of variation in the actual wording suggests that the concept of a fixed liturgy was as foreign to fifth-century Athens as that of religious scriptures (and in fact, the two concepts may well be connected). Now if a fair amount of variation characterizes even the most standardized parts of the prayer register, this register must have been extremely heterogeneous as a whole. This heterogeneity resulted in the occasional overlap with the register of hymns, which we have observed earlier (cf. §§ 2.6 and 2.8). However, the two registers diverge so much with respect to several dimensions that it would be unwise to group them together as one religious register. Instead, the overlap should better be conceived of as 'functional transfer' from hymns to prayers. 136 2.13. C O N C L U S I O N The results of this chapter are threefold: (i) literary, (2) methodological, and (3) linguistic.

133

Cf. Herod. Mim. 4. 82, 4. 85; Xen. Anab. 3. 2. 9; Pulleyn (1997) 182. Cf. Eq. 408 iTjiraiomaai; Olson (1998) 190; Pulleyn (1997) 182—3; Kappel (1992), esp. 65-70; Kleinknecht (1939) 60; for the orthography Wackernagel (1925) 61-3. 135 Another response is Thesm. 312 StxojuefJa 'we say amen' (cf. e.g. Ran. 589): as in Thesm. 352 £weuxo'/«a0a, the congregation approves of the leader's prayer. 136 As described for religious discourse elsewhere by C. A. Ferguson (1986) 134

211-12.

48

Religious Registers

(i) On the literary level, we have several times touched upon the intersection of style, dramatic function, and characterization. As Dieterich saw first,137 Socrates' prayer in Nub. 264-74 is full of hymnic elements (cletic imperatives, elaborated ornamental epithets, a predicating relative clause, local predication with the hypotactic structure eir(e) . . . fir(f) . . . e?r(e) ... 17 ... i?138). The atypical prayer lends an air of comic solemnity to the selfappointed mystery-priest Socrates. In Eq. 763—8 Cleon-Paphlagon uncommonly uses the selfconscious da-quia-dedi structure, the indirect formulation eu^o/nai + dat., which was typical of official and ceremonious prayers, the hymnic epithet ^eSeouojj, and the epic form Myvaiy. This man has lost contact with the demos, in whose interest he claims to act. Conversely, Philocleon's prayers reveal his weakness as he continuously asks for pity and forgiveness. The two parabatic hymns of Knights are differentiated linguistically into a demotic one for Athena and an aristocratic one for Poseidon (use of the article). The great variety of hymnic speechact verbs in Agathon's hymn may be a parody of his style, just as the proclamation of aVw"'a by his servant contrasts with the common formulae and foreshadows the appearance of the exalted poetaster. (2) The results are encouraging also on a methodological level. The dimensional approach to register variation has provided a theoretical framework within which the findings can be interpreted straightforwardly. The cross-linguistic validity of the four basic dimensions 'production circumstances', 'interactiveness', 'argumentation/persuasion', and 'personal stance/involvement' has been confirmed. Furthermore, the correspondence of the linguistic material found in comedy both with these dimensions and with extralinguistic expectations (dramatic function of single characters, functional differences between hymns and prayers) demonstrates that comedy is a reliable source for register studies. A comprehensive register description of Attic Greek might well start here. 137

Dieterich (1893) 282-3; cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 22-5. Parallels in Adami (1901) 227-9; Ausfeld (1903) 525; Norden (1956) 144-7; non-hymnic examples (Aesch. Bum. 292—6; Theocr. i. 123-4) show hymnic influence on literary prayers. 138

Religious Registers

49

(3) On the linguistic level, we have seen that prayer language and hymn language are too different from each other to form a single religious register of Attic Greek. It cannot be said, as it can about 'religious English', 139 that 'religious Greek" was 'probably the most clearly marked variety of all'. The differences between the register of prayers and that of hymns are grouped with respect to several dimensions. Most prominently the two genres diverge in the dimension of production circumstances. The much smaller range of epithets and the lack of variation in speech-act verbs both reflect the more improvisational (on-line) production of prayers (which is in itself a remarkable cultural fact even though it seems normal to us because the Christian, especially Protestant, tradition encourages extemporary as well as institutional praying140). Moreover, there is little register-specific vocabulary in prayers. Exquisite lexical choices, structural elaboration (subordinate clauses, both relative and conditional), and 'de-automatizing' devices (lack of articles, decontraction) betray the careful planning of hymns. The lack of articles illustrates the reduced importance of referential explicitness. In the argumentation/persuasion dimension, logical cohesion seems stronger in hymns than in prayers since causal clause connections are made explicit. Prayers and hymns share some common ground in the dimensions of interactiveness and personal stance. In the former, both genres make use of direct and indirect modes of address, and differentiation rather occurs between subgenres of prayer (official/communal vs. private prayers). The interesting preference for aorist imperatives in addressing divinities is related to the dimension of personal stance: it appears to reduce the speaker's pressure upon the interlocutor. The dispersonalization of requests goes even farther in prayers where infinitival constructions camouflage the roles of addresser and addressee. An additional interest of register studies lies in their sociocultural implications. If we deny the existence of a single religious register in Attic Greek, we say something about cultural categorization. Religion was not perceived as one unified cultural domain 139

Crystal-Davy (i 969) 171. Cf. Samarin (1976) 10. Contrast e.g. the situation in Sumbanese, where ritual language is required: Mitchell (1988) 66. Similarly, prayers in Swiss German churches are usually said in Standard German. 140

SO

Religious Registers

with clear boundaries against other, 'normal', domains. The nonexistence of a single religious register and in particular the limited specificity of prayer language mirror the comparatively relaxed attitude towards the divine in the Greek world. The distinctiveness of hymn language, on the other hand, is that of lyric poetry in general, xapiy is created for gods and men alike.

3 Technical Languages

3.1. I N T R O D U C T I O N In the preceding chapter we saw how comic material can be used in historical register studies. We are now prepared to tackle the slightly more complex, but not dissimilar, issue of technical languages. Every now and then technical languages are 'discovered' in Aristophanes and Greek comedy in general.1 It is believed that the integration of technical languages into comedy shows Aristophanes' mastery of verbal art. Unfortunately, the methodological and theoretical issues that should form the basis of such discoveries have never been properly addressed. The aim of this chapter is therefore twofold. In the first place it seeks to provide the theoretical background for the study of technical languages in comedy (§§ 3- 2 ~3-3)- Secondly, some of the evidence collected by earlier researchers will be critically reviewed. I will argue that technical languages are far less prominent in Aristophanes' plays than is often assumed—an observation which does not in the least lessen the poet's linguistic achievements (§§ 3.5-3.8). I will also as why technical languages are such a marginal phenomenon. From a theoretical perspective there are two basic requirements when dealing with technical languages in comedy. We need (i) a suitable definition of technical language (§ 3.2) and (2) appropriate criteria for the identification of technical terms (§ 3.3). 3.2. D E F I N I N G ' T E C H N I C A L L A N G U A G E ' 3.2.1. TECHNICAL LANGUAGES AND REGISTERS

Even in linguistic literature, registers and technical languages are not always clearly distinguished. Let us therefore first look at the 1 Cf. in particular Denniston (1927), Miller (1945), and Byl (1990), but also e.g. Dover (1970) 7-8, where 'technical languages' are listed as one out of five stylistic categories in Aristophanes.

52

Technical Languages

fundamental difference between these two linguistic varieties. In the previous chapter (§2.1) we saw that the basic parameter of registers is their situational context (just as the basic parameter of sociolects is social grouping and that of dialects is geographic region). So what is the basic parameter of technical languages? In a recent discussion of medical Latin, Langslow has argued that the definition of a technical language has both a social and a contextual part. In Langslow's view all the spoken and written utterances of a defined group of specialists on topics related to their specialized field constitute a technical language.2 If technical languages were defined, like sociolects, through the group of speakers alone (i.e. Langslow's 'group of specialists') we should have to argue that a physician uses medical language when he or she buys food at a supermarket. The question is just whether we need a social specification at all. Is a word like polioencephalitis less technical when a butcher utters it than when a doctor does? To be sure, polioencephalitis is likely to occur more frequently in texts and utterances produced by doctors, but strictly speaking this is accidental. We may therefore regard topic (Langslow's 'contextual part') as the basic parameter of technical languages.3 Technical languages and registers partially overlap: the situational parameter of registers often implies a topical restriction. For example, if we study the language of legal contracts, this will be in the first place a register study: we are dealing with a genre that is created in a more or less well-defined situational context. At the same time we will find much technical (legal) terminology. However, this is accidental again. It is theoretically possible on the one hand to find the same terminology, perhaps even with the same frequency, in other situational contexts (e.g. in a lecture on contract law) and on the other hand to draw up a legal contract without using any legal terminology (for instance by replacing it with complicated paraphrases). The description of a given register (e.g. the register of instruction sheets) may point out that it is a characteristic feature of the register to include a large amount of technical vocabulary, but because topic, not situational context, is the basic parameter of a technical language, it would be mistaken to speak of the 'technical language of instruction sheets'. 2 Langslow (2000) 26—7. On the history of modern technical-language research see Hahn (1981). 3 Cf. Porzig (1957) 219; Hoffmann (1985) 30.

Technical Languages

53

3-2.2. TECHNICAL LANGUAGES AS TECHNICAL VOCABULARIES

A careful separation of registers and technical languages also explains why technical 'languages' regularly consist of vocabulary items ('terms') rather than morphological or syntactic features. 'The essence of a technical discipline is a structured set of objects and methods. . . . Because it names things which are not named in the language of every day, the lexicon of a technical language must be peculiar, but there is no corresponding functional need for the technical language to develop non-standard features in spelling, pronunciation, inflection, syntax, or style.'4 In fact, syntactic or stylistic features that are sometimes listed as 'technical' (e.g. th frequency of passive constructions, the rarity of personal pronouns, the prominence of nominal groups over verbal expression5) are not technical-language features but register features. They are not conditioned by the topic but by the situational context. The use of technical vocabulary ('terminology'), on the other hand, is often unavoidable when a special topic is dealt with. Unless I resort to extensive explanatory paraphrases, which substantially reduce clarity of communication, I cannot express without technical terms an observation like 'the o-grade of the root of ye'pcu can be seen in the verbal noun cpopoy'; but there is no intrinsic reason why I should not say, with alternative syntax, 'you can see the o-grade of the root of in the verbal noun <popos'. Or again, a doctor may write in a per sonal letter to a professional friend about a difficult case of polioencephalitis and produce a text which bristles with terminology but completely lacks any distinctive syntactic or stylistic features.6

4

Langslow (2000) 7; cf. Porzig (1957) 259; Seibicke (1981) 50. Cf. Sager-Dungworth—McDonald (1980) 186—229; Hoffmann (1985) 41—2, 136-41; Hoffmann (1986) 464 (which can be read as a brief register description of technical genres: note the reference to 'Textsorten'); Fluck (1996) 55-6. For the style (or register characteristics) of ancient Greek scientific genres see Thesleff (1966) and van der Eijk (1997). 6 The existence of an established terminology can of course influence the style of technical texts. Since there is a technical term appendicectomy a physician may replace a verbal phrase like after the appendix has been cut out by the shorter nominal phrase after the appendicectomy. 5

54

Technical Languages

3.2.3. G E N E R A L KNOWLEDGE AND SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION

Since technical languages are topic-based varieties, their existence is closely linked with the existence of specialized fields. We must not search for a technical language of a specialized field that did not exist as such in a professionally less diversified ancient society. For example, one may classify the verb to winnow as a technical term of agriculture in a modern industrial society. In an ancient agricultural society, where winnowing was part of daily life, the same classification would be problematic. The definition of 'technicality' is therefore always subjective and based to a large extent on fuzzy categories such as 'majority usage' and 'collective general knowledge' in a given society. It depends both on the fragmentation of a society into professional groups and associations and on the amount of shared education among the members of this society (no matter if that education takes an institutionalized form or not).7 Because 'collective general knowledge' is no hard and fast category, the validity of a horizontal opposition between 'technical' and 'general' language has sometimes been questioned. It has been argued that technical languages should be seen, in a vertical model, as a subcategory of general language.8 The question whether to winnow belongs to general or to technical language would then be wrong. By belonging to technical language the verb would also belong to general language. Just as every Greek utterance belongs to one or another Greek dialect every utterance would belong to one or another technical language. Figure 3.1 illustrates the two models. From a theoretical point of view the vertical model is unobjectionable, but it is counterintuitive. Who would classify as technical an utterance like / am going to buy an ice cream? The vertical model does not even eliminate the need for the native speakers' subjective judgements. Who, if not the native speakers, will decide where to set the boundaries between the different technical domains?9 7

Cf. Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 68-9, 98; Heller (1981) 225-8. Heller (1981) 220-2, Mohn (1981) 210, and Hoffmann (1985) 48-52, against e.g. Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 63-4 and Seibicke (1981) 51 (but note the postscript on p. 66). Reformatskij (1968) 121-2 ambiguously speaks of terminology as a 'subsystem' in the lexical system of a language, although he subscribes to the 'horizontal' model. 9 Cf. Hoffmann (1985) 53-7. 8

Technical Languages Horizontal model

Vertical model

Language A

Language A = GL

55

GLTL,TL 2 T L 3 - T L , T L 2 T L 3 Note. GL = general language; TL = technical language FIGURE 3.1. Models of technical language

Moreover, there is not more vagueness in a horizontal separation of general and technical language than in other 'horizontally separated' categories of variational linguistics. In dialectology isoglosses constitute geographical dialect boundaries wherever they form prominent isogloss bundles. Similarly, one may envisage the boundary between technical language and general language as a transitional zone in which every individual has his or her personal boundary. There will be a line where a (relative, if not absolute) majority of the individual 'technolect' boundaries coincide. This majority boundary can be regarded as the theoretical abstraction of the collective boundary between technical and general language. The horizontal model has a further advantage. Only if there are both technical and non-technical language features does it make sense to classify a given utterance or text as more or less technical. A text is more technical than another text if it shows more technical features or if its technical features are more unanimously recognized as technical (in linguistics, for example, Schwebeablaut is more technical a term than adjective). If texts—as in the functional stylistics of the Prague school10—are labelled as 'communicative', 'aesthetic', 'practically special', or 'theoretically special' (the two latter referring to technical texts), there must be some measure of technicality, especially because the differences between technical and non-technical discourse are differences in degree rather than in kind. 11 10

Cf. Hoffmann (1985) 31-3; Fluck (1996) 12-13. Cf. Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 17, 65; Fluck (1996) 15. The mutual exclusiveness of the aesthetic and the practically or theoretically special may have been less pronounced in classical Greek science: Lanata (1968). 11

56

Technical Languages

3.2.4. A D E F I N I T I O N OF

TECHNICAL LANGUAGE

On the basis of the preceding remarks, we can now formulate the following definition: a technical language is the sum of all the linguistic features (a) which are necessary for the formulation and labelling of concepts, ideas, and phenomena in what a given society perceives as a specialized area, but (b) whose active and passive handling does not form part of what that society acknowledges as the general linguistic knowledge and competence which every adult member is expected to have acquired in the process of his or her education. Since the formulation and labelling of specialized concepts, ideas, and phenomena does not usually necessitate non-lexical extensions of the linguistic system, technical languages regularly manifest themselves as technical vocabularies ('terminologies'12). The present chapter, like technical-language research in general, 13 therefore concentrates on the lexicon (and its extension through derivational morphology). 3.3. I D E N T I F Y I N G TECHNICAL TERMS 3.3.1. COMEDY AND THE NEED FOR CRITERIA OF TECHNICALITY

The reduction of technical language to technical vocabulary has practical consequences for the linguistic study of ancient comedy. Since technical terminology is independent of its situational context, a comic passage that does not parody a particular technical genre may nevertheless contain technical terms. Where there is no parody, for instance, of a medical treatise, a medical consultation, or a medical prescription, there may still be medical terminology. If this were not so, any search for medical terminology in 12

Including, in the terms of Soviet terminological research, both 'terminologies' and 'nomenclatures': terminological signs (terminy) are linked with the conceptual system of a specialized field, whereas nomenclature signs (nomenklaturnye znaki) merely label the ontological inventory of objects belonging to the field and cannot be defined because they lack a differentia specified: cf. Reformatskij (1961) 47-9; SeibickefigSi) 55-6; Hoffmann (1985) 162-3. Thus, amaryllid is a termin but snowdrop a nomenklaturnyj znak. 13 See e.g. Fluck (1996) 47; only the lexicological-terminological (Moscow) school of technical-language research acknowledges the special status of the lexicon from a theoretical point of view too: cf. Hoffmann (1985) 30 and (1986) 460-1.

Technical Languages

57

Aristophanes would fail a priori because there are no parodies of medical text genres in the Aristophanic plays.14 Hence, in order to study technical language(s) in comedy we need a catalogue of criteria by which technical words can be identified. In the following subsections I will first discuss such criteria as are valid for all literary genres (§ 3.3.2) and then highlight a few additional points which are more specifically linked with comedy (§ 3.3.3). At the end of each subsection, the discussion will be illustrated with comic examples. 3.3.2. G E N R E - I N D E P E N D E N T C R I T E R I A

3.3.2.1. Special reference, monosemy, and normalization In his book on Latin medical language Langslow discusses three possible criteria of technicality: '(i) the extent to which a word is generally understood in the linguistic community as a whole ("Allgemeinverstandlichkeit"); (2) the extent to which a word is related to a particular specialist or technical discipline ("Fachbezogenheit"); (3) the extent to which a word is normalized or standardized in its usage ("Normung").' 15 Of these criteria Langslow rejects (i) but retains (2) and (3). The need for criterion (2) is obvious. It would be absurd to suggest that a word x belongs to the technical terminology of field Y if the referent of x had nothing to do with the objects and ideas of Y. No one would suggest that apple is a technical term of medicine. Criterion (3), which demands consistent and regular usage by the specialists in a given field, is supported by the fact that technical terminology is meant to facilitate communication among specialists. Words that are ambiguous or polysemous within a specialized field are useless as technical terms (e.g. word in linguistics). Ideally, a technical term is precisely related to other terms within the same field, context-independent, and monosemous (but one and the same lexeme may of course act as a technical term with different meanings in different specialized fields: e.g. valency in linguistics and chemistry).16 14

Ran. 939—44 is at best a faint echo of a medical prescription. Langslow (2000) 13, based on Heller (1981). 16 Cf. Reformatskij (1961) 51-2; Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 75; Fluck (1996) 47; Langslow (2000) 8-9, who then refers (pp. 11-12) to a case of apparent polysemy in ancient medical terminology. On the problem of polysemy and lack of 15

58

Technical Languages

In the case of synonym pairs, a specialist community often uses (i.e. standardizes) only one of the two words because the technical lexicon also tends to be as economic and concise as possible.17 Example The concept of the metrical unit 'verse' is expressed with three different words in Frogs: eiros, pf/na, and <m'xo?. Very often it is not clear whether eVoy and pr^a refer to a single word, a phrase, a passage, or a verse: they show an ambiguity or polysemy that is typical for general-language words. In the verse-weighing scene (Ran. 1364-1413) there is less ambiguity because Aeschylus and Euripides put single lines, 'verses', onto the balance. Nevertheless, both tiros (Ran. 1381, 1387, 1388, 1407, 1410) and p-fjua (Ran. 1367, 1379) are used. In Ran. 1239, on the other hand, Euripides uses ai-i^os (although he might well say SXov TO
standardization in early anatomy see also Lanza (1979) 116-17 and Lloyd (1983) 153-4, 160-5. 17 Cf. Fluck (1996) 35; Langslow (2000) 16—22, 25. 18 Reformatskij (1961) 52-3; cf. Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 18, 81; Fluck (1996) 50. On polemical technical pamphlets in the 5th cent, see Thesleff (1966) 102-3.

Technical Languages

59

Example Denniston suggested that avOdoris (avda.86aToij.os) in Frogs (837, 1020) is a technical term of literary criticism.19 In later literary criticism (cf. Longin. 22. 3; Dio Chrys. 52. 4) aiida^s can in fact be expressively neutral and mean something like 'idiosyncratic, stylistically eccentric'. In Ran. 1020, however, avffdSws is more easily understood as 'arrogantly, stubbornly', and in Ran. 837 Euripides uses av6aS6arofj.os (together with dypiowoids 'savage-poet', etc.) in an invective against Aeschylus ('arrogant-speaking'). Since Euripides is not voicing any aesthetic objections to stylistic idiosyncrasy (avOaSem), the abusive force must lie in the lexeme itself. Hence, neither avBd&ws nor ai50aSd
Denniston (1927) 115. Langslow (2000) 14-15; similarly e.g. Seibicke (1981) 42. Somewhat surprisingly Langslow (2000) 9 writes of the 'danger that some Latin words which a contemporary would have taken to be technical medical terms may now not be identifiable as such', as if for him too the speakers' perception were the ultimate criterion. 21 Reformatskij (1961) 53; Schippan (1984) 246; Langslow (2000) 9 n. 32. 20

60

Technical Languages

etc.) in non-technical genres such as comedy. Simply to reject criterion (i) in an investigation of non-technical texts would be disastrous. The main interest in dealing with technical vocabularies in comedy lies in the individuation of those words which lack stylistic neutrality. There is no point in classifying as 'technical' every word that happens to be attested in technical texts as well—i.e. despite the fact that it occurs in comedy in a perfectly non-technical passage. If words like Qtptfa 'to vomit forth, disgorge', xaAapds 'slack', or 'wild pear' are listed as technical simply because they also occur in Hippocratic writings,22 it becomes even more difficult to draw a line between the technical and the non-technical. Which examples of thumb and liver are non-technical and which are technical—and technical in what field: anatomy, pathology, butchery? The sociolinguist rather wants to know when the comic writer made reference to a specialist discourse that excluded the general public. Thus, we must not reject criterion (i) if we want to define technical terms as words from a specialized field whose 'active and passive handling' is beyond the general linguistic competence of fully educated adult members of the community (cf. § 3.2.4). At the same time, our narrow concept of technical terminology suggests a slight modification. Because Greek, unlike most modern languages, did not develop its technical vocabulary with the help of foreign morphological and lexical material, almost all technical terms must have been analysable by native speakers. Even words that did not belong to the active lexical competence of the average Greek would often have been commonly comprehensible. In order to make the criterion more meaningful it should include an explicit reference not only to the 'passive' but also to the 'active' handling of words. Instead of asking whether a word was understood by the non-specialist (Langslow's 'Allgemeinverstandlichkeit') we may ask whether it was also usedby the non-specialist when he or she intended to refer to the relevant item or concept ('Allgemeingebrauchlichkeit'). Example The pseudo-doctor's ou ira^Trav ouVo's fan TOI {SuLaipos 'this man cannot at all expect to live much longer' in Men. Aspis 450 is plain enough, but 'normal' people might rather have said something like ou jSioiCTcrai or a-nodavfi-rai for 'he must die'; Piann/io? is 'allgemeinverstandlich' but not 'allgemeingebrauchlich'. 22 As in Miller (1945) 78 and By! (1990) 153-4. Dover (1997) 115 rightly refuses to classify thumb and liver as technical terms.

Technical Languages

61

3.3.2.4. Lexical distribution The criterion of 'Allgemeingebrauchlichkeit' or 'common usage' can only be applied if there is a way to reconstruct the general (or average) linguistic competence in classical Athens. The standard procedure for doing this consists in checking and interpreting the attestations of a given word. It is certainly insufficient for the classification of a lexeme like axpds 'wild pear' as a medical term to point out that it appears frequently in Hippocratic texts (and not just because not all the Hippocratic texts are technical writings intended for a specialist audience23). A minimum requirement is that the lexeme must not regularly occur with the same meaning in texts from non-technical (or different technical) fields. But even that is not enough. Classical Greek literature presents only a small fraction of what non-specialists talked and thought about. The absence or rarity of a word in non-technical texts is often easily explained by the thematic interests of extant literature. Nevertheless, such a rare word can be assumed to have belonged to general language if it denoted an object or phenomenon which any non-specialist would want to refer to every now and then.24 For example, reurAov 'beet' occurs in pre-Hellenistic times almost exclusively in comedy and scientific writing, but the frequency with which the word occurs in comedy shows that it was by no means unusual. Similarly, many anatomical and physiological terms of Greek were pre-scientific and belonged to everyday language, and the same must have been true for many words concerning health and illness.25 How often should we expect a word like 'toe' to appear in non-technical (e.g. historical) prose or in epic and tragic poetry? And yet, every child certainly knew how to refer to his or her toes. Here Dover's rule of thumb is useful: 'it is essential that before we label any phenomenon "technical" we ask ourselves "how else could it be expressed?'"26 23

Cf. Thesleff (1966) 107-12; Jouanna (1992) 85-105; van der Eijk (1997) 86-9. The fact that a word appears also in non-comic non-technical literature does not automatically preclude its existence as a technical term, but in such cases the context usually gives a hint at its technicality: cf. § 3.3.2.6. 25 Lanata (1968) 26 and 29, after Schwyzer (1935) 92; cf. Lanza (1979) 114-15; Lloyd (1983) 151-3; Langslow (1999) 184-6. 26 Dover (1997) 115 (see also p. 117; 'the mere fact that a lexeme is attested for the first time in such-and-such an author does not in itself tell us that the author coined it'). 24

62

Technical Languages

Example Dover's rule, which implicitly acknowledges the importance of common usage, still leaves cases of doubt. Were the extremely rare verbs rwT\dt,fiv "aKa-m^w d^WAous", i.e. 'to turn over the earth around vines (?)', and oiVapi£eiv 'to strip off vine-leaves' (Pax 1147-8) commonly used and understood? For the Aristophanic audience an exact comprehension of these words was not necessary since the context showed that the chorus were talking about some agricultural activity. In Ran. 1281-2 Euripides announces that he will present a ardais by Aeschylus. This phrase is attested nowhere else. In the scholia ardais fteAcyv is understood as a technical synonym of '(tragic) stasimon'.27 Elsewhere the songs of the two rivals are referred to simply as /u^'Ar) (Ran. 1255, 1261, 1262, 1297, 1307, 1326), which must have been the usual non-technical and somewhat loose way of referring to tragic songs. The scholiast's view is supported by the fact that ardais contains the suffix -ais, which was productive in the formation of systematic terminologies. The situation with Ran. 1122 ypdois TWV -npaypara>v 'exposition of the plot' is similar, fodais does not occur elsewhere before Aristotle (where it has a different meaning: 'style'). This is remarkable, even though the phrase TO wpdy^a ippd^etv 'to explain the (dramatic) situa tion/plot' had nothing technical about it.28 With both and ypaais the question remains if these were established technical terms of literary criticism or Aristophanic coinages meant to parody technical discourse. J.J.2.J. Necessary technical reference and determinologization There are words which have both a technical and a non-technical meaning. Sometimes the two meanings overlap (e.g. fruit in gen eral language and in botany). If such a word occurs in comedy, it should be classified as technical only if the non-technical meaning is insufficient. After all, the audience would first understand a word like fruit in the normal way, and only if that did not make sense would they look for an alternative meaning. As a consequence even 27 Cf. Cingano (1986) and Dover (1993) 347, with other explanations (to which my argument would still apply). On the term ordoipov /ie'Aos ('a tragic choral song which is neither a parodos nor a lyric dialogue with a stage character') see Dale

(195°). 28 Cf. Eq. 36; also Ttfay^ata. 'dramatic action' in Cratin. fr. 92, dramatic 'to explain the plot" in Pax 50-2, and TrpayfiO/Trpdy^a-ra in nondramatic contexts at Nub. 823 and Av. 1507.

Technical Languages

63

words that did belong to the active and passive vocabulary of the average Athenian can be technical if, in a specific context, they are necessarily associated with the written texts or oral discourse of a specialized field. Here the possibility of 'determinologization' must be taken into account. Wherever technical progress reaches the sphere of general consumption and changes the canon of common knowledge (for instance through the invention of commonly accessible technologies, but also through more institutionalized and canonized general education), formerly technical words tend to be taken over into general language (e.g. vitamin). Often determinologization and metaphorization go hand in hand (e.g. to overhaul).29 While technical terms typically have precise semantic relations with other terms in their field, they frequently lose this precision when they are determinologized. Similarly, the expressive neutrality may disappear (e.g. rich in vitamins implies a positive connotation of vitamin). It is not always possible to determine if a non-technical word is in origin a determinologized term or if, vice versa, a technical term is a terminologized general word (i.e. a word that has secondarily acquired a well-defined meaning in a specialized field30). From a synchronic perspective, it is fortunately unimportant whether a word was first non-technical and then technical or the other way round. Example Two comic examples for the non-technical usage of technical terms are orpOaX^ia and ^eAayxoAia.31 In medical writing the former is used as a cover term for a group of inflammatory eye diseases (e.g. Hp. Epid. 3. 7 otpQaXpiai vypai 'wet ophthalmies' (iii. 84 Littre), Aph. 3. 12 otpdaX^iai ^pai 'dry ophthalmies' (iv. 490 Littre)). In Plut. 115 the blind Plutus is said to suffer from 32 It is true that 6
64

Technical Languages

simply equivalent to o
Langholf (1990) 46—50 and 267—9. For the problem of distinguishing 'original' and common metaphors see Taillardat (1965) 15-24, who adopts a distributional approach along the line suggested here for technical terms. 35 Cf. Miller (1945) 80; Dover (1993) 310; Jouanna (2000) 191-3; on Collinge (1962) 54 n. 16 (borrowed by the doctors from general language). 36 Dover (1997) 115, referring to Diogenes of Apollonia fr. 64 B 6 (pp. 63. 11 and 65. 11-12 Diels-Kranz); cf. Schwyzer (1935) 91-2; Lasserre (1983) 166; Lloyd (1983) 154-5; but also n. 85 below. Similarly KaAeiv and equivalent expressions occur when (non-technical) items of foreign culture and provenance are named (Vesp. 1137; cf. Ach. 89; Av. 485). 34

Technical Languages

65

Example In Ran. 1120 TO irpwrov r>js rpayaiSiaj /ie'pos 'the first part of the tragedy' explains the preceding TrpdAoyos, although the latter is not introduced with KaAeiV or some such word. Ran. 1119 is the first attestation of wpoAoyos. Aristophanes has the word only in this scene, but here no less than ten times within 150 lines (Ran. 1119-1246). In ordinary speech it is sufficient to refer to the prologue of a play as its 'beginning' or 'first part'; so TrpdAoyoy may have been a technical term of literary criticism.37 3 - 3 - 3 - ADDITIONAL CRITERIA IN COMEDY

j.J.J.I. Comic misunderstandings Paradoxically comedy is in two respects an ideal genre to study ancient technical terminology. First, comedy is not written for a restricted audience like most classical Greek prose texts (except oratory). It is meant to be understood and appreciated by the entire speech community of Athens, not just by a limited number of welleducated people. Comedy therefore closely reflects the abstract concept of 'general linguistic competence', as was already acknowledged by Galen in the treatise On Medical Terminology (Ar. fr. 346). In order to demonstrate the nontechnicality of the lexeme ijTrt'aAoy 'shivering fit', Galen argues that Aristophanes used it in a comic parabasis talking to the audience about his own health: had ijTn'aAos been an unknown technical term like aKiv&atlios or fDdrvpi (both meaning no more than 'thingummy'), the comic poet would have avoided it. Secondly, because of the concentration on humorous entertainment, certain forms of implicit comment on the technicality of a given word are more likely to occur in comedy than anywhere else. The following three types can be used as additional criteria of technicality. First, there are comic misunderstandings. If one stage character misunderstands the words of another character, this may indicate that these words were felt to be technical, especially if the speaker is a specialist of some sort and talks about his field. Of course the audience must notice the misunderstanding and be able to infer the intended, technical, meaning from the context. Otherwise we must 37

Pace Lucas (1968) 136; note the use of /iepos both in Aristophanes and in Aristotle's definition (Poet. I452 b ig-2o: 'the entire part of a tragedy before the parodos of the chorus').

66

Technical Languages

assume that the words were not technical and that the scene focuses on the linguistic incompetence of the addressee rather than on the vocabulary of the speaker. Example In Nub. 225-6 Socrates' quasi-technical use of ('to think around, speculate about') is not understood by Strepsiades, who mistakes the word, in accordance with normal usage, for a synonym of v-n-cpypovu 'to despise". At the same time the plain compound structure of -rrepicppovw makes it easy enough for the audience to infer the (invented) technical meaning. In Nub. 638-45, 651-3, and 659-61 Strepsiades does not know the metrical and grammatical meanings of p-Vpov 'metre', • 'trimeter/tetrameter', 8a«TuAos 'dactyl', and 'masculine'. The audience, on the other hand, is expected to be acquainted with the special reference of these words, so that one may hesitate to classify them as technical. In the case of fxeVpov it is particularly obvious that Strepsiades is linguistically incompetent (as has already been shown in Nub. 212-13, where he misunderstands the straightforward Trapareiveiv 'to stretch out alongside', and in Nub. 232-6, where he does understand the word material but completely misunderstands the meaning of Socrates' utterance 38 ). 3.3.3.2. Accumulation of formally similar words A second comic criterion of technicality is the accumulation of formally similar words. Technical terminology tends to be lexically and morphologically systematic.39 Lexical systematicity means that the creation of one technical term often leads to the parallel creation of other terms as well, because most specialized fields operate with systematic structures like classifications, hierarchies, oppositions, etc.40 If there is a technical term prefix for a grammatical element added at the beginning of a word, it makes sense also to speak of a suffix for a grammatical element at the end of a word. Such lexical systematicity is often formally reflected in morph38

Possibly also in Nub. 192-3 with epej3oSiydoj 'to ereboscrutinize': Di Marco (1987) 56. Kloss (2001) 116-31 underlines the incompatibility of Socrates' discourse with that of simple men like Strepsiades throughout Clouds. 39 Cf. Reformatskij (1961) 54 and (1968) 123—4; Sager-Dungworth—McDonald (1980) 16; Langslow (2000) 24-5. 40 But ancient terminology may not have dreaded empty slots as much as modern terminology does: Hp. Prog. 25 (ii. 190 Littre); Lanza (1979) 115—16; Langslow (2000) n.

Technical Languages

67

ological systematicity (a pair prefix/suffix is more convenient than a pair prefixl*subjunci). Exclusively technical affixes (such as English -itis in pathology) did not exist in classical Attic.41 Nevertheless, the accumulation of a group of formally similar words, which all refer to one particular technical field, can be used by a comic poet to draw attention to the (perhaps excessive) linguistic systematicity in that field. Even invented words and words which are usually non-technical acquire a technical ring in such collocations. Since lexical systematicity is less obtrusive than morphological systematicity, it is more difficult, though not impossible, to achieve a similar effect by the accumulation of formally diverse words which all refer to a particular specialized field. Example In the initial scene of Wasps (Vesp. 71-88) the two slaves invite the audience to guess what mental derangement their master is suffering from. The suggestion that Philocleon could be 'philocubist (i.e. dice-addicted)' is answered with the words 'no, but the affliction does begin with "philo-"' (Vesp. 77).42 Subsequent guesses are ('drink addict'),
The suffix -Tri? occurs both in determinologized words from medicine 'pleurisy': cf. § 3.6) and in non-medical terms like ywanoui'rris 'women's apartments'. Synchronically monofunctional or oligofunctional suffixes such as -ous for various types of baking products (e.g. nhanovs 'flat cake', ariaapovs 'sesame cake'), -as for bird names (e.g. drrayas 'francolin', jSaoxds 'duck', comic 'Gobbler'), or -las for wind names (e.g. ovKoipavTias 'gale of indictments', comically modelled after Kaua'as 'north-easter' in Eg. 437) also occur in non-technical words. 42 Presumably a line which contained a further compound with 'women addict', (piAomu? 'boy addict'?) has fallen out before this reply: MacDowell (1971) 140.

68

Technical Languages

important role in the formation of technical vocabularies (on nouns in -CTIS- see also §§ 3.5 and 5.5). The accumulation of compound verbs in Thesm. 54—7, where Agathon's servant describes the poetic activity of his master, also leaves an impression of technicality (/coAAoneAea) 'to glue songs', 'to coin ideas', avrovo^a.t,ia 'to create metaphors', i 'to melt wax'; cf. Plut. 162-7 and 513-14 with compound verbs denoting specialist activities: § 5.3.2). The simultaneous use of the general-language verbs reKrcuW 'to build', yo/i<poto 'to nail', and «oAAao> 'to glue' in Eq. 462-3 leads to their association with a particular technical field (Eq. 464 'for god's sake, aren't you saying anything out of the wagon works?'). 3.3.3.3. Characterizing passages The third criterion of technicality that is specific to comedy is the occurrence of potentially technical lexemes in passages that have a characterizing function. Here it is not even necessary that the words of a stage figure are comprehensible to the audience. When the language of a stage character has no other function than to portray him as a specialist in a certain field (while the contents of the utterance are irrelevant), the comic playwright is free to introduce as many obscure technical terms as he likes—or to invent pseudoterms. Thus, if a word with a limited lexical distribution occurs in a characterizing passage, there is a good chance that the word is a technical term. In Menander's Aspis (446), for instance, it does not matter at all whether the spectators understand exactly what tppevtTis is, as long as the fake doctor sounds as medical as possible.43 Since interpreters do not always agree on dramatic functionality, it can be difficult to decide whether a passage is purely characterizing. The problem is most acute in Old Comedy where almost everything can be justified as 'comic incongruity'. However, if a word occurs several times in different contexts, this usually speaks against its technicality since it is unlikely that comic incongruity was repeatedly achieved by the same lexical means. Example There is one scene in which Aristophanes deliberately makes a character speak in an incomprehensible manner. The is identified as a technical term also by the preceding 'we (doctors) usually call (it)': cf. § 3.3.2.6.

Technical Languages

69

geometer Melon's presentation in Av. 1000—9 is so obscure that modern scholars do not agree on the 'correct' interpretation.44 Also, Meton's interlocutor Peisetaerus is by no means incompetent. Meton's vocabulary, however, is not at all technical. Words like Sia/lr/Tris 'compass' and KOVWV 'ruler' were certainly known to every Athenian. Meton's discourse sounds technical only because of the paradoxical and slightly incoherent interweaving of concepts like the baking-cover air, the crooked ruler, and the squared circle. The situation is slightly different when one stage character asks a specialist for the name of a technical concept or activity. When Strepsiades arrives at the (ppovriarrjpiov in Clouds, Socrates names at his request two technical activities ( 'to ereboscrutinize', 'to astronomize') and two technical devices ( and darpovofila, both referring to some tool: Nub. 191-202).45 Here the formal similarity of these derivations from verbal compounds also plays a role (cf. §§ 3.3.3.2 and 5.3). 3.3.4.

RECAPITULATION

The following criteria of technicality have been catalogued in this section. Technical terms are: related to a specialist discipline context-independent in meaning within that discipline standardized in usage and at least ideally monosemous expressively neutral in non-technical environments like comedy rare and unambiguously associated with a specialist field, and, most importantly not actively used (though possibly understood) by the nonspecialist, and therefore subjectively classified as technical by the average native speaker Because they do not form part of general language, technical terms are stylistically marked in comedy. Their markedness is exploited for comic (misunderstanding), stylistic (accumulation), and dramatic (characterization) purposes. A concept of technical language which takes into account the native speakers' perception of linguistic features as technical or 44 Cf. Wycherley (1937) 23-8; Gladigow (1968) 271-5; Zanetto (1987) 259; Dunbar (1995) 555-9. 45 Cf. the naming of the birds in Av. 269-304.

yo

Technical Languages

non-technical seems most appropriate in studying ancient comedy because comedy was written for a broad non-specialist audience. It is true that such an approach hardly ever leads to absolute certainty about the technicality of a word, but if we are able to declare which words were not technical, this is an important first step. To focus on the speakers' perception is of great historical interest. By establishing the subjective technicality or non-technicality of a group of lexemes, we learn which areas of life were or were not specialized, i.e. whether they formed part of common educational and cultural knowledge or not. (Of course, the absence of a given terminology in comedy never implies that it did not exist, only at best that it was not prominent enough to be satirized.) Since the social organization of a community influences the formation of technical languages, technical-language research can contribute to the reconstruction of social structures. In the following three case studies (§§ 3.5-3.7) we will also look at such historical implications. But let us first ask on what grounds we may assume that (subjectively perceived) technical languages existed at all in classical Greece. 3.4. T E C H N I C A L L A N G U A G E S IN CLASSICAL GREECE As varieties whose basic parameter is topic (rather than situational context or social class), technical languages presuppose the existence of specialized ('technical') fields, i.e. 'spheres of intellectually organized social activity'. 46 Hence, technical languages can be expected in all societies with an advanced stage of labour division. Since professional specialization certainly existed in classical Athens (as illustrated for instance by Plut. 160-7), it is apririori

plausible that there were also technical languages. However, the situation may have been similar to that of the European Middle Ages, when the number of 'theoretical' technical languages (i.e. technical languages that were used in theoretica and typically written, discourse only) was limited and when the narrower radius of social interaction allowed far more individualized communication than in modern industrial societies.47 46

47

Reformatskij (1961) 47.

Cf. Fluck (1996) 29; Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 38; Seibicke (1981) 62—3; on ancient Greece: Dover (1997) 116.

Technical Languages

71

Moreover, the boundaries between different specialist groups were fluid in antiquity. This could lead to terminological anarchy, as in (what we would call) the medical sciences where the social competition among the practitioners of medical art obstructed the formation of a unified technical discourse.48 Also, a real need for terminological precision arises only when a special subject is treated in writing. In oral teaching and discussion, specialists may rely on contextual specification of meaning. The transition to a written specialist discourse probably had not even started in many technical fields by the time of Old Comedy.49 Despite all this, there are some positive indications that technical languages did exist in classical Athens. The anonymous author of the Pseudo-Xenophontic Constitution of Athens mentions nautical terminology (i. 19), and Thucydides seems to refer to medical language in his discussion of the plague (2. 49. 3). Medical language is undeniably parodied later, in Menander's Aspis (431-64: note especially 445-6).50 A famous Aristophanic fragment from Banqueters (fr. 233) shows that by the 4203 certain old legal terms were understood only by a small group of specially trained Athenians. Interestingly, technical terminology and poetic (Homeric) language are treated as comparable kinds of specialist discourse: A. B.

A: Now, in addition, tell me some Homeric glosses: what does ['ship-sterns'] mean? . . . What does aiievqvd Kapijva ['feeble/fleeting heads/figures'] mean? B: In that case, let your son, my brother, explain what ISvoi ['witnesses'] means! . . . And what is omW ['to marry']?

In comedy the nautical language mentioned by the author of the Constitution of Athens is not (or at least not extensively51) reflected. 48 Lloyd (1983) 160-7; cf. Pohlenz (1938) too; Lloyd (1979) 86-98; Langholf (1990) 50-1; van der Eijk (1997) 84-5; Langslow (2000) 27—33. 49 Thesleff(ig66) 105-7. 50 See Dover (1997) 115-17; on medical language in tragedy Collinge (1962). 51 Words like Thesm. 52 Spvoxoi 'ship-framing props' (cf. Taillardat (1965) 442 n. i; I have not seen Camacho Maxia (1996)) are very rare and not necessarily technical.

72

Technical Languages

As for medical language, it has often been claimed that Aristophanes (like later comic writers) borrowed extensively from the technical discourse of his time.52 Similarly, the language of literary criticism has been an area of major interest. With an article on this topic Denniston initiated the study of technical languages in comedy.53 In the following sections I will review the lexicon of these two fields, but I will start with a case study on legal terminology. Each time, it will become clear that there is little truly technical material.

3.5. LEGAL L A N G U A G E Legal language has perhaps the most difficult task of all technical languages. It should ideally be comprehensible to a wide circle of non-specialists, but at the same time it must be extremely precise in order to exclude loopholes.54 The more sophisticated a legal system becomes, the harder it is to meet both demands. A society in which juridical tasks are widespread—for instance because many lawsuits are decided by non-specialist juries or because there are no professional lawyers—actively and passively handles more legal vocabulary than a society in which only carefully trained judges and advocates have daily contact with legal details. Classical Athens belonged to the first type of society. This is reflected in the attitude of comedy towards legal vocabulary. The Aristophanic fragment which cites the word l&vot as requiring specialist knowledge (fr. 233, quoted in § 3.4) is unrepresentative. 55 Because it is centred around the actions and manners of Philocleon and his elderly Athenian fellow jurors, Wasps is the comedy that contains the greatest amount of lexical material referring to legal matters and lawcourt proceedings.56 Table 3.1 lists

52 See esp. Miller (1945); Byl (1990); cf. Zimmermann (1992), who is more concerned with the dramatic function than with the linguistic status of pathological references; for later comedy Sanchis Llopis (2000). 53 Denniston (1927); cf. already Radermacher (1921) passim. 54 Fluck (1996) 41. 55 Their archaism rather than their technical meaning make t&voi or mrveiv 'incomprehensible'; for a similar idea see Lys. 10. 15—20. 56 On the general theme of Wasps see e.g. Dover (1972) 121-31 and MacDowell (1995) 150—79; on the meaning of the more specific words in Table 3.1, textbooks such as A. R. W. Harrison (1968) and (1971) or MacDowell (1978).

Technical Languages

73

TABLE 3.1. Legal terms in Wasps and other plays Lexeme

Meaning

Individual occurrences

'to be convicted'

Vesp. 893, 898; cf. Ach. 662, 701; Pax 1234; Plut. 481

'oath by the prosecuting Vesp. 544/5, 1041 (or defending) party before a process at law' 'not liable to an eSBwa'

Vesp. 587

'to defend oneself

Vesp. 778, 816, 944, 949; cf. Thesm. 188; Ar. fr. 101

'to acquit"

Vesp. 571, 988, 992, 1000

'to be acquitted'

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

'acquittal'

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

'to acquit'

Vesp. 922

'not having voted'

Vesp. 754

'(bill of) indictment'

Vesp. 842, 848, 894, 907; cf. Ach. 679, 714; Eq. 307, 442; Nub. 1481; Ar. fr. 289.

'to indict'

Vesp. 880, 894, 907; cf. Nub. 758, 770, 1482; Pax 107

'testament'

Vesp. 584, 589

'prosecutor'

Vesp. 902, 1207 (cf. Eq. 368; Eccl. 452; Ar. fr. 452 SIWKW; Nub. 1482 diutKaBui)

Vesp. 578 'to be examined for admission to the ephebes' 'lawcourt railing'

Vesp. 386, 552, 830; cf. Eq. 675

'to bring into court'

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

'to be acquitted'

Vesp. 157, 160, 994

'(the) Eleven' (police officials)

Vesp. 1108

74

Technical Languages TABLE 3.1. (cont.)

Lexeme

Meaning

Individual occurrences

'penalty, fine' Vesp. 769 'heiress'

Vesp. 583, 589; cf. Av. 1653

'to call to witness'

Vesp. 1437; cf. Nub. 495

'public examination of an official's administration'

Vesp. 571; cf. Eq. 825; Pax 1187

'to act as juror'

Vesp. 772; cf. Eq. 798; Lys. 380

'juror'

Vesp. 206, 891, 1340; cf. Eq. 255; Av. iog; Ar. fr. 216 (also Vesp. 88 (jpiATjAiaaT^s, 195 yc'pwv iJAiaarfKos)

'thesmothete' (archon Vesp. 775, 935; cf. Eccl. responsible for, and 2910 presiding over, various kinds of court proceedings) 'little jar' (used as voting- Vesp. 321-2, 853, 854; cf. urn) Ar. fr. 598 'to convene the court'

Vesp. 304-5

'(the) New Court'

Vesp. 120

'to bring before the court" Vesp. 1335, 1416, 1418, 1445; cf. Nub. 1221; Av. 1046, 1425, 1455; Eccl. 864 'to call on (a case)'

Vesp. 825, 830, 851, 1441; cf. Nub. 780

'to accuse'

Vesp. 489, 840, 842, 905, 932; cf. Thesm. 444; Ran. 996; Plut. 376,917, 1039, 1073 'wickerwork funnel at Vesp. 99, 755, 1339; cf. Eq. the opening of the voting- 1150; Thesm. 1031 urn' 'gate in the UpvyaKToS

Vesp. 124, 775; cf. Eq. 641; Ar. fr. 216

Technical Languages Lexeme

75

Meaning

Individual occurrences

'water-clock' (used to time speeches) 'to act as /fA7)Tijp'

Vesp. 93, 857, 858; cf. Ach. 693 Vesp. 1413; cf. Nub. 1218

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

Vesp. 695, 724; cf. Av. 1541

'(to award) the maximum penalty'

Vesp. 106

'testimony'

Vesp. 1041, 1439; cf. Eq. 1316

'to call to witness'

Vesp. 1436; cf. Ach. 926; Nub. 1222, 1297; Pa* 1119; Av. 1031; Ran. 528; Plut. 932; Ar. fr. 256

'witness'

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

'fee for a fwijyopos'

Vesp. 691

'official prosecutor at the evBwa

Vesp. 482; cf. /Jc&. 705, 715; Eq. 1358, 1361; Ar. fr. 205. 9,424 'tablet on which the jurors Vesp. 167 wrote their verdict' 'polemarch'(one of the archons)

Vesp. 1042

'to summon into court'

Vesp. 1334, 1406, 1417; cf. Nub. 1277; Av. 1426; Ran.

'judicial summons'

578 Vesp. 1041

'wooden boards' (inscribed Vesp. 349, 848 with notices on pending trials) 'to award the penalty'

Vesp. 106, 847

'penalty'

Vesp. 897; cf. Plut. 480

'an official who is liable to an f

259

Vesp. 102; cf. Ach. 938; Eq.

76

Technical Languages TABLE 3.1. (cont.)

Lexeme

Meaning

Individual occurrences

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

Vesp. 333, 349; cf. Eq. 1332

'to vote'

Vesp. 591, 756, 769; cf. Ach. 714; Av. 1603, 1626, 1676; Lys. 698, 951; Eccl. 706, 816 Vesp. 94, 109, 656, 675, 987 1207; cf. Eq. 808; Lys. 270; Ran. 1263

'pebble' (used for voting and counting)

in alphabetical order the relevant lexemes for procedures, legal parties and states, lawcourt implements, etc. in Wasps. Only the most general terms are omitted (S(Ka£cti> 'to judge', SiVij (-ISiov) 'lawsuit', SiKacmjpiov (-ISiov) 'lawcourt', (£vt>)SiKaarris '(fellow) juror', oStKcco 'to do wrong', KoAa£u> 'to punish'). Almost all of the lexemes in the table belong to large Greek word-families. For a Greek they would not produce the alienating effect that characterizes much of modern terminology (where foreign words are common). There are no comic misunderstandings and no obvious cases of dramatic characterization through the use of legal vocabulary in Wasps. The list also shows a remarkable lack of formal patterning. There are only two words in each of -ais, -ca, and -IKOS (respectively, one in -fj.a (rtfj.rifjia), and one in -rr/p («:Ai)Tr}p), while the formation of the rest follows less marked types. It may be argued that amoyfvgis and TrpooKhyais were subjectively perceived as technical. There is an Aristophanic passage where the systematic function of the suffix -ais in legal terminology is underlined by the creation of a comic lexeme that parallels two real terms. In Nub. 874-5 Socrates asks:

Technical Languages

77

SOCRATES: How is he ever going to learn effective forensic defence, or the summons, or persuasion by bombast? Similar pseudo-terms are coined in Nub. 764 (dydviats SiVijs58) and Thesm. 863 (Sowai •ywaiKioeius SIKIJV 'to pay the penalty for a female impersonation'). That -my was frequently employed in legal terminology is illustrated by the fact that there are over forty different nouns in -ens in the index to Harrison's textbook on Athenian law.59 irpoaKXijats is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes and rare elsewhere. In Vesp. 1041 it occurs in conjunction with dimoftoaia and fiaprvpla so that this line may be intended to highlight terminology through accumulation, dm>9>eu£i? occurs several times but—apart from the passage of Clouds just quoted—only in the mouth of Philocleon and the chorus of jurors. However, there are arguments against treating drroVcu^u and as technical terms. First, the formation of nouns in -ais was extremely productive not only in legal language. Any Athenian could have formed the two words on the spot from dwo^euyco and Neither dwoipeuycu nor Tf/xxncaAeofiai was reserved for communication among specialists. The latter is used by a female bread-seller in Wasps (1406) and by Plathane, another woman of low social standing, in Frogs (578); comic incongruity is not a sufficient explanation in either case. The same type of argument is applicable for KAr/rij/i (used by the bread-seller: Vesp. 1408), (Strepsiades: Nub. 495), KaXew 8t>cr)v (Strepsiades: Nub. 780), rinrjfj,a (Chremylus: Plut. 480), and even (small child: Vesp. 304-5). As for amoyevyai, the word occurs in non-legal contexts with a very similar meaning ('to escape'), and basic concepts like 'to acquit', 'to be acquitted', or 'to be convicted" must have formed part of general vocabulary anyway. Hence, we ask, 'How else could 57 According to Dover (1968) 206, xaiivioois 'puffing up' is 'the language of rhetoric, not of law', but the parallelism with dbroipeufis and KArjcns makes that doubtful; cf. also Holt (1941) 152 and, on K\f/oi.s, A. R. W. Harrison (1971) 85. 58 dtpdviois 'getting rid of in PI. Soph. 2596 and Dem. 33. 22 is a parallel coinage rather than an adaptation of an existing legal term; in Hdt. 4. 15. i the meaning is different ('disappearance'). 59 A. R. W. Harrison (1968) and (1971); on legal -ow-nouns see also Holt (1941) 156-7 and Handley (1953) 130-1, 139. On the increase of -ens-nouns in prose see Holt (1941) 158-65 and § 5.5.2.

78

Technical Languages

it be expressed?' There is a synonym eKcpfvyw, but this is less widespread and therefore more likely to have been technical (though I would also hesitate to label fKyxvyw as 'technical', since this compound verb too is very straightforward in meaning and formation). 60 Partial synonymity must also be taken into account. In Vesp. 824—6 Ka\Kw(v), i}Aia<mjs, K\r]r^p, gwrj-yopos, and

(»): would Aristophanes use these lexemes so often if they were restricted to a specialist discourse? Lexemes like d-noXoyeofiai, Karrjyopeai, ^aprvpofiai (often little more than 'help!'), pdprvs, ^cpi^o^ai occur in some contexts without any reference to lawcourt proceedings. At best they are determinologized terms and thus synchronically no longer technical. Other words designate items of everyday life whose use in the lawcourts is, linguistically speaking, accidental Finally, there are items and concepts which all Athenians, however little contact they had with the law, would have encountered, 60 In the use of anotpeirytu and tKipetryai (as well as dtroAiicu) legal vocabulary overlaps with the vocabulary of healing in medicine: van Brock (1961) 222—3 and 235.

Technical Languages

79

heard of, and referred to frequently in their personal lives. These are physical objects (SpvyaKros, TO Kcuvov,6* icty/cAi's), administrative functionaries (01 IvScKa, BeapoOtrris, KwhaKpfTrjs, irohfiiapxos), and general sociocultural phenomena (8ia6r/Ki), Soxri^a^o/iai (every freeborn Athenian boy underwent the process of One might certainly argue in favour of the technicality of some words listed in Table 3.1. For instance, (in a formal question of the beadle at Vesp. 754), and may well have been technical. Yet, it is clear that large proportions of the legal vocabulary even in such a topical play as Wasps did not belong to an exclusive specialists' discourse. This appears to be a consequence of the Athenian legal system, in which a large part of the citizens over thirty could and did serve as jurors. 62 As a consequence, a comparatively advanced mastery of legal vocabulary was recognized as the cultural standard. Of course Aristophanes may have preferred not to use many words exactly because they were too technical. But even that would point in the same direction: if Aristophanes, in a play centred on legal matters, did not make fun of legal vocabulary, this vocabulary was probably not regarded as technical. The democratic organization of the lawcourts prevented not only the creation of an inaccessible legal language, but also the folk-linguistic idea that legal language is hard to understand and employ. 3.6. M E D I C A L L A N G U A G E Medical language has been particularly attractive to Aristophanic scholars because we possess in the Hippocratic corpus an extensive medical documentation from ancient Greece. The oldest Hippocratic writings are roughly contemporary with Old Comedy and therefore easily comparable. 63 Also, the great practical impact of medicine on everybody's life might make the comic exploitation of medical terminology rewarding. 61

A proper name: cf. MacDowell (1971) 147. See S. C. Todd (1990), esp. 167-70, and MacDowell (1995) 156-7 for a discussion of how the juries were composed in practice (primarily old men with low cash incomes, perhaps mainly farmers). The orators seem to take it for granted that the jurors understand the regular features of court procedure. 63 On the dates of the various treatises see Jouanna (1992) 85-105, 527-63. The comparison of considerably later texts is of course problematic. 62

80

Technical Languages

On the other hand, the general importance of medicine means that medical terms are quickly taken over into general language. Since earlier Greek literature is less concerned with everyday life than comedy, it is not surprising that the lexical overlap of medical literature with comedy is greater than that with lyric poetry or tragedy. If an anatomical or physiological term first appears in comedy and in the Hippocratic writings, this does not automatically imply that medical discourse is the comic source.64 In this section I will discuss all those lexemes that have been classified as technical terms of medicine in two articles, one by Miller and one by Byl.65 The obvious non-technicality of some of them shows that these compilations were more than exhaustive. For reasons of space and because the context is of some importance in establishing the technicality of a word, I will disregard a few lexemes that occur only in the Aristophanic fragments. The general reservations expressed here would hold for those words as well. Miller and Byl proceed in a similar way, and Byl expressly states that he wants to complement Miller. Both collect those words which are attested in Aristophanes as well as in the Hippocratic corpus and which have some—though sometimes remote—connection with any field of medicine (especially anatomy and pathology). The banality of many of the words they discuss might suggest that Miller and Byl operate with a different definition of technicality from the one adopted here (or the one adopted by Galen in the fragment discussed in § 3.3.3.1). However, this is apparently not the case. Neither makes explicit methodological statements, but both occasionally note that a given word does perhaps not deserve inclusion in the list because it was also used in common language. Hence, the criterion of common usage and the dichotomy between general and technical language are implicitly acknowledged. Byl, for instance, concludes: 'il faut remarquer que le genial poete comique n'a pas cesse de recourir a un vocabulaire medical technique que seuls, sans doute, des inities pouvaient saisir (aTroTj-AijKTos, Guepes, 948; KorvXrj&wv, Guepes, 1495; are/nV7?. Thesmophories, 641; , Guepes, 810;
Technical Languages

81

Grenouilles, 236 . . .)-' 66 Thus, it is fair to subject Byl's and Miller's collections to a rigorous review and to wonder, for example, how many people would subscribe to the view that 'only initiates are able to understand' English words like paralysed, sterile, or blister—even though two of these plain English words probably sound more technical to the non-specialist than their Greek counterparts because of their foreign origin. Miller and Byl themselves doubt the technical status of a first group of words, whose frequency in non-technical Greek literature argues against their inclusion (translations in the following lists are mostly according to LSJ): 'to be angry' 'uncastrated', i.e. 'a real man' 'inborn' 'to vomit forth, disgorge' 'chest'67 'sweat' 'to break (the head)' 'excrement' 'deaf, dumb'

'to wash oneself'68 'to be mad' side (of a person)' 'nose' 'stupid, silly' 69 'blind' 'to blow up, distend' 'lame' 'to have the pains of childbirth' 70

To the anatomical items of this list (dwpat;, TrXevpd, pis) one may add the following words of a similar kind, which may be slightly less common in literature and which are therefore adduced by the two authors without reservation: 66 Byl (1990) 161— 2; cf. in Miller (1945) statements like 'not current outside medical literature', 'in medical writers only', 'fully technical'. Aristophanic and Hippocratic references for the words in the following lists are easily accessible via the two articles and the respective indexes or concordances. 67 There is no reason why Bdelycleon should be characterized by using medical terminology in Vesp. 1194; the misunderstanding of the word in the next line just supports a pun. 68 I do not understand why Byl (1990) 160 thinks that the verb ceases to be 'un verbe tout a fait courant" when 'il apparait dans un contexte de medecine religieuse' in Plut. 658; and if it did so, why does this not apply to vxpa 8a\aTTji 'cold sea water' in the same line? 69 From colloquial TV
8a

Technical Languages 'shin' 'sinew' 'belly,

'socket of a joint' 'vertebra' 'ankle' 71

abdomen" Of these, only KorvXyStav requires some anatomical knowledge to be used properly—in fact, too much knowledge for Philocleon: in Vesp. 1495, this character states that his KorvXrjSwv turns in his (not vice versa). Since the scene does not suggest in any way that Philocleon should appear as an incompetent quack because of his mistaken use of terminology, KOTV^WV must have belonged to general vocabulary. This does not mean that every Athenian knew precisely how a human joint worked.72 The other items presuppose an absolute minimum of anatomical knowledge and cannot have been restricted to technical discourse. A third group of words are attested in descriptions of medical treatment, without being confined to such contexts. To regard them as technical is like saying that camomile tea is a technical term because it can be used as a tonic: 'to deliver from, cure from' 'to (retire to) ease oneself 'privy' 'hellebore' 'to drop in' 'to make to miscarry' 73 'bandage' 'greasy wool' 'to lay hold of, touch' 'linen cloth'

'to drink' 74 'to heal' 'doctor' 'catmint' 'small reed' (used as a phial) 'to put in the probe' (in order to induce vomiting or to sound wounds) 'to plaster' (and compounds) 'to stir, mix'

71 Thesm. 509 tfrpov refers to the 'belly' of a pot, not to human anatomy. The primary reference of fmoydarpiov in Vesp. 195 is to the 'belly of a sea fish' as a delicacy (cf. Ar. fr. 380). 72 Despite //. 5. 305-7, where the mechanism is described; cf. Collinge (1962) 43. 73 Miller (1945) 77 admits that the medical writers of the Hippocratic corpus do not use this word (rather CKTITPOIOKCU). 74 Used in Ach. 1 135 and Pax 1286 without any medical idea of fortification but purely for the sake of the pun with fltup^ooo^oi 'to put on armour'.

Technical Languages 'to bend oneself back' 75 '(acid) fig juice' 'garlic' 'squill'

83

'to infer, conjecture' 'to anoint, spread like salve' 'drug, remedy' 'to grope about'

The only specific word in this group is Kara^Xcxa. In Eq. 1150 it is used metaphorically, which shows that it formed part at least of the passive vocabulary of the audience. Since pathology and symptomatology are more arcane disciplines of medicine, they might be a better source for technical terminology. But again a large part of the relevant lexemes denote the most basic and general symptoms and diseases, which every Athenian must have observed and talked about frequently. The few more specific (and therefore terminologically more suitable) lexemes constituted the only economic way of referring to the respective phenomena (e.g. fir/Trw, yXa/j.wv, /cuAAdy).76 Moreover, many of the following words are quite common in comedy: 'irascible' 'paralysed' 'not blinking/winking' 'to cough' 'pot-bellied' 'blear-eyed' 77 'to lie awake'

'boil' 'to suffer from a concussion of the brain' 'to become dizzy' 'to fall out'78 '(slight) sore' 'idiot'

75 Although AopSoofim rarely occurs outside the Hippocratic corpus, its obscene use by Aristophanes cannot involve a play with a technical term: otherwise the invented obscene name of the 'divinity' AopSwv (alongside KvflSaaos from 'stooping forwards') in PI. Com. fr. 188. 17 would be unduly obscure. The paratragic context in Eccl. 10 excludes a medical reference too. 76 Leaving aside patently non-medical words like Eccl. 433 avafiopfiopv^ia 'to grumble loudly' (with no reference to intestinal rumbling), Vesp. 1045 'fruitless' (of land). 77 In the Hippocratic corpus yAa/iupd?, not 78 The reference of eKirmrui in Eccl. 906 is not entirely clear, but (a) 'to fall out' works sufficiently well so that the principle applies that a technical meaning may be assumed only if the non-technical meaning is excluded, (6) a reference to the afterbirth is not appropriate, and (c) if fK-ni-nrui needed a special meaning, it would rather be the (hardly technical) meaning 'to be dislocated" (jocularly applied to rpr^a 'cunnus').

84

Technical Languages

'painful' 'well-coloured, of healthy complexion' 'shivering fit'79 'squint-eyed'80 'to itch' 'club-footed, bandylegged' 'to have a black eye' 'bent forwards, hunchbacked' 'numbness' 'disease' 'disease' 'to be half asleep, doze' 'to cause pain' pain' 'to swell, to be swollen'

'to be crazy' 'to maim, mutilate' 'fever'81 'to have a fever' 'to suffer from dizziness'82 'convulsion, spasm' 'barren, sterile' 'stomach-ache, colic'83 reravos 'convulsive tension, (hence:) erection' 'hard of hearing' i 'to get/be inflamed' 'blister' 'blister' 84 'slack, loose'

There are surprisingly few references to specific diseases in the Aristophanic comedies. In Ran. 1247 OVKO., some kind of growth on the eyelids, appears in a comic comparison and must therefore have been a commonly used word (despite Hp. Epid. 3. 7 (iii. 84 Littre) 'what is called aOwa'85). As for the rest, we observe at least some morphological systematicity in Aristophanes' medical lexicon with the following semantically comparable verbs in -aco and 79

Cf. Ar. fr. 346, discussed in § 3.3.3.1. In Ach. 15 Siearpdrpriv IBwv, the verb Siaarpfyofjiai does not refer to squinting eyes but (metaphorically) to bodily torture. Sommerstein correctly translates 'there was a sight this year that racked me to death'. 81 Also 8fp/j,a, nvp: for non-technical synonyms in this domain cf. English heat, temperature, fever. 82 In Ach. 1219 apparently more or less synonymous with the preceding 80

83 In Thesm. 484, as with rapa-nopai T-ffv •yaarepa 'to have an upset stomach', a reference to yaarrjp is needed: obviously, oTpdcpos alone was not terminologically precise. 84 Pace Miller (1945) 84, yiui's is not a less technical variant of cp^vKTaiva. but something different: yAuKraira is a blister caused, for instance, by rowing, ipco'is a blister caused by burning. 85 Against the 'rule of thumb' thatraAefi>and similar words often indicate the technical status of a word (cf. § 3.3.2.6), a avxa (Travopdlovaiv may rather point out to the reader that he or she knows the described object under the colloquial name av*
Technical Languages

85

'to suffer from swollen groins' (e.g. as a consequence of long walking) 'to be blear-eyed' 'to suffer from ophthalmia, to have eye problems' 'to suffer from gout' 'to suffer from strangury' '(of swine:) to have measles' Verbs in -idw often denote a state of physical or mental illness. Many of these were common in general language, where the suffix extended its domain and became comically productive (Eg. 61 'to suffer from oraculosis'; Nub. 183 /tad^nacu 'to suffer from pupilosis'; Lys. 715 fStvyTidw 'to suffer from fuckosis', etc.).86 Verbs like ovp^naw 'to feel the need to urinate' and x^Tidco 'to feel the need to ease oneself make it doubtful that -idco was by this time still felt to be exclusively medical and technical.87 There are no comic accumulations of such verbs in Aristophanes (though note at least Ar. fr. 322 with four illness verbs in is not introduced as a specialist's word in the mouth of the slave at Eq. 383. References to arpay-yovpia (Vesp. 810; Thesm. 616; Ar. fr. 371), to 6
86

87

For a complete list see Peppier (1921) 154-6.

Pace Jouanna (2000) 172—83; also, Lys. 553 poTraAiofios 'priapism' need not be a pseudo-technical term created by Aristophanes with a technical suffix -io/idr, as Zimmermann (1992) 517 argues.

86

Technical Languages

There is not a single Aristophanic passage that would require advanced medical knowledge to be fully understandable. 88 Of course many comedies are lost, but we should note that there is only a single fragment of Old Comedy in which a doctor appears. In Middle and New Comedy references to doctors and medical themes become quite common.89 The one fragment from Old Comedy is Crates fr. 46, where a doctor says: 'But I'll apply my cupping-instrument and if you like I'll open (the vein)'. What is striking is not the use of incomprehensible terminology but the use of a Doric dialect (because the great medical schools were in Doric-speaking Cos, Cnidus, and Sicily). The association of medical specialists with Doric Greek continued into Middle and New Comedy, as is shown by Alexis fr. 146 (cf. Men. Aspis 431-64):

If a local doctor says 'Give him a TpvfDdov ('bowl') of imaavi] ('barley gruel') in the morning', we immediately think he's worth nothing, but if he pronounces it -nri.aa.va. and Tpou(3Aioy, we're impressed. Or again, if he says ('beet'), we disregard it, but if he says aevrXov, we eagerly pay attention—as if a afvthov and a revrMov were not the same!

The fragment illustrates that the Athenian public did not regard the handling of obscure terminology as the distinctive sign of an accomplished physician. The point is not that a 'proper' doctor would replace Tmaam) etc. by more impressive lexemes, but that h would have a Doric accent. Perhaps Aristophanes might even have

88 The greatest amount of anatomical knowledge is probably required in Ran. 134, where e'yKeyaAouflpi'cuSvo 'the two fig-leaf pates of the brain' presupposes some idea of what a human brain looks like (but even this knowledge could be obtained from looking at animal brains, which were eaten as a delicacy: cf. e.g. Ar. fr. 128. 2; PI. Com. fr. 37). 89 Cf. Sanchis Llopis (2000), who underlines the frequency of the title '/arpo'f in Middle and New Comedy, after Gigante (1969) 302-3, Gil-Rodriguez Alfageme (1972), and Impero (1998) 63-75.

Technical Languages

87

Doricized90 an Attic word if he had wanted to present it as a med-

ical term.91 Since Thucydides (2. 49. 3) apparently knows of a specialized

medical discourse and since the initial scene of Wasps seems to

reflect an awareness of a (commonly understood) systematic terminology for mental illnesses (compounds with
88

Technical Languages

Aristophanes' Frogs stages a contest between Aeschylus and Euripides and thus reflects the new theoretical interest in literature. In the first extensive discussion of technical terminology in Aristophanes, Denniston argued that Frogs repeatedly draws on an established language of literary criticism or literary theory. 94 My third case study will review, and partially supplement, his evidence. Although the distinction between literary criticism and rhetoric is not always straightforward, I will concentrate on the former and not take into consideration words like aywv 'rhetorical or legal debate' (Ran. 785, 867, 873, 882/3).95 Denniston's selection of words is representative rather than exhaustive. Denniston's 'technical terms' (including his translations or interpretations) are set out and briefly commented on in Table 3.2 below. Denniston addsfiifiXiov'book' (Ran. 1114) to his list: 'the fact that an individual in fifth-century Athens was always seen with a book marked him out, even if you did not know what the book was, as a member of the "reading set" '. This does not make a 'technical term'. People who have got a swimming pool in their garden also belong to a certain 'set', but is 'swimming pool' therefore a technical term? At best jSijSAiov resembles words like 'tongue', AaAeiV 'to chatter', Aerr-roy 'refined', or 'idea'/'to reason', which are frequently associated in comedy with the sphere of sophistic intellectuals. 96 Denniston's method of identifying technical terminology is different from that employed by Miller and Byl, who collected the medical vocabulary. Denniston proceeded on a methodologically safer path insofar as he started to look for a technical meaning only when he thought an expression was too odd to be understood in a non-technical manner. The weakness with Denniston's approach is not that he classifies as technical words which are commonly used and commonly understood, but that he does not allow for the creation of original metaphors on the basis of general-language lexemes. At the same time he readily 'reconstructs' technical meanings, which are insufficiently or not at all paralleled in literary criticism. The result of both methods is similar: like Miller and 94

Denniston (1927); Corbato (1993) 124—5 is much more cautious. Cf. Murphy (1938) 80, and on agonistic words in general now Campagner (2001). 96 Cf. Denniston (1927) 117-20. 95

Technical Languages

89

TABLE 3.2. Denniston's 'technical terms' 'Technical' term/ meaning (according to Denniston)

Ran.

Commentary

904

837

Wrestling metaphors played an important role in sophistic teaching because the new education 'replaced' real wrestling exercises." However, itself is not attested in literary criticism and Aristophanes may just be playing with such imagery. See §3.3.2.2.

1020

See §3.3.2.2.

96

Heracles does not understand 'productive, fertile' in Ran. 98, but this need not indicate technicality. His reaction may simply show that the metaphor was new. The evidence for technical ydw/ios is poor: PI. Tht. isocand 1516 probably do not employ established terminology but extend a physiological birthmetaphor. The dependent genitives 'subtle rules' (956) and 'clever ideas' (1104) virtually exclude Denniston's technical suggestion (based on Antiphanes fr. 189. 21). In 1104 the common meaning 'attack' fits well, and if there is a more specific reference than 'insertion' in 956, it must be taken from the field of building and construction, not from literary criticism.13

'sanded floor of the wrestling-ring' (wrestling metaphors)

'presumptuous in speech' 'arrogantly' 'full of productive energy'

956, 1104 'opening (of a play)'

8966 'euphony'/'melodious recitation of lines'

A metaphor from the lively tragic dance
90

Technical Languages TABLE 3.2. (cont.)

'Technical' term/ meaning (according to Denniston)

Ran.

942 'elaborate messengerspeeches' (a la Euripides)

459 amateur poet

854 'keyword'

819 'linchpins'?

942 'pacing up and down of the characters on stage'

Commentary

the two tragic poets to override the principle that a technical meaning may be assumed only if a nontechnical meaning is excluded. Again a technical meaning is unlikely because the general meaning 'little phrases' (with a derogatory note) yields good sense (cf. Ach. 398; Pax 532). The technical meaning suggested by Denniston is not attested. The chorus attack public characters, not would-be poets, so that I'Sieora? means 'ordinary people' as opposed to generals and the like.c 'the sum or gist of the matter' (LSJ) occurs in Pindar, Thucydides, and Lysias, and the 'summing-up word", not paralleled elsewhere, need not be technical at all. d In Ran. 854 the pun on 'cornerstone' is central, not the imitation of technical terminology. The only evidence for a technical meaning of 7ra/>af<W»< 'linchpin' is the metaphorical phrase 'axles of rhetorical phrases' in Isaac Porphyrogennetus (twelfth century AD). Like a real cure, the quasi-medical treatment of tragedy by Euripides includes TrepiVarot 'walks'.

is used in Ran. 953 with a nontechnical meaning '(discursive) talking about sth.' which would also fit Ran. 942.

Technical Languages 'Technical' term/ meaning (according to Denniston)

9i

Ran.

Commentary

800

is a 'frame used for moulding and measuring bricks'. As such (cf. the measuring tools 'rules' and trr/xfis tnwv 'word measures' in Ran. 799) it is rightly called 'a kind of measuring tool' by the lexicographer Zonaras (-n 1555. 22), who is not thinking of metrics. In Pherecrates fr. 84 'folding (or: pocket-size) anapaests' (not: 'catalectic anapaests') are an ('new invention'). Probably new pocket-size items were le dernier cri, and 'pocket brick-frames' have more comic point than 'catalectic plaisia-metres'.

827

Unparalleled in literary criticism.

('comic jumble of two technical terms used by the metrists')

'artistic restraint' carpentering metaphors 799-801, 818-25

Carpentering metaphors (cf. Eq. 461-71; Thesm. 52-7) were used to describe poetic composition from Proto-Indo-European times onwards; they could hardly be regarded as a 'technical' usage of literary criticism (though literary criticism may of course have employed similar imagery)."

• Cf. Denniston (1927) 116; Bonanno (1983); O'SulIivan (1992) 65; O'Regan (1992) 11-13. b Cf. Dover (1993) 311; Slater (1995) 39 n. 28 notes that 'eiajSoAiJx [sc. in Antiphanes fr. 189. 21, A.W.] for "opening" seems deliberately vague': it may not even be technical there. c Cf. Dover (1993) 252-3; Eq. Tib; Pax 751. d Find. Pyth. 4. 116; Thuc. 4. 50. 2; Lys. 13. 33. ' See Schmitt (1967) 296-8 on *wek"os teks- 'to build/frame word(s)'; in Greek e.g. Find. Ol. i. 29, Pyth. 3. 113-14; Ugolini (1923) 261-5; Taillardat (1965) 438-9, 456; Angeli Bernardini (1967) 81 ('terminologia . . . che finisce col sembrare convenzionale'); Harriott (1969) 92-104; Niinlist (1998) 83-107; note also the common and its cognates: Lanata (1963) 229-30. For similar metaphors in early literary criticism see Democritus fr. 68 B 21; Lanata (1963) 262; O'SulIivan (1992) 140-1.

92

Technical Languages

Byl, Denniston is able to present an impressive list of 'technical' vocabulary, but only a small number of items bears closer scrutiny. Denniston's line was continued by other scholars who added words and phrases such as ra vevpa TTJS rpayojSias (Ran. 862, 'the sinews of the tragedy', taken as 'literary structure'), 97 crroijSij (Ran. 1178, 'padding (in a literary work)'), -napaKovdw (Ran. 1116, 'to sharpen, i.e. train, in rhetorics'), XijKudiov (Ran. 1200—47, 'oil-flask' > 'bombast'),98 or e^a-naraw (Ran. 910, 'to deceive' > 'to create dramatic arrar-q (illusion?)'). 99 The non-technical meaning of all these words suits the context and is sometimes even less obscure than the alleged technical sense. A number of adjectives acquired quasi-terminological precision in later literary criticism. In origin they belong to general language and their attestations in Frogs do not presuppose any specialist knowledge (see Table 3.3 below). I have argued in an earlier section (3.3.2) that Trpo'Aoyo? 'prologue', cm'xos 'verse', ordois fj.e\u>v '(tragic) choral song', and
Cf. Ugolini (1923) 266-7; Pohlenz (1920) 145; Corbato (1993) 125; Dover (<993)300-i.

98 Taillardat (1965) 293 on oroi/Jij, 297-8 on \i)Kvffwv, 467 on trapaKovaui; see also O'Sullivan (1992) 106-50 passim. 99 Pohlenz (1920) 158-62 and Ugolini (1923) 269-70, refuted by Pfeiffer (1968) 47. For the sophist Gorgias a-ndrij is a positive value, whereas it has negative connotations for the 'sophistic' stage-Euripides. What Gorgias meant by a.Tta-n\ is more difficult to ascertain: cf. e.g. Rosenmeyer (1955); Verdenius (1981).

Technical Languages

93

TABLE 3.3. Some pre-technical adjective usages in Frogs Adjective

Ran.

9010, 906 'witty, urbane'

'skilful'

(cf.

'slender'

'refined'

(cf.

'fine'

Commentary

aarfla 'urbanities' are mentioned as a stylistic feature in Aristotle's Rhetoric (141 ib2z-3), but aareios is, like English nice, a very unspecific adjective (cf. e.g. Ach. 811; Alexis fr. 194). No technical nuance is needed in Ran. 901 and 906 (cf. Ran. 5, where the slave Xanthias speaks of something aanwv 'witty')." 71, 1121, Every 'skilful' or 'clever' person can 1370 be called Se^ios, not just poets (cf. e.g. Eq. 228; Pax 190). The adjective is partly synonymous with, and ultimately replaced by, «ro/ii/ids.b (941) The 'lightest' style of rhetoric is called ioxv&s xapa/crTJp (Demetr. Eloc. 190-235), but laxvaivui in Ran. 941 belongs to a series of medical imagery. Also 'it is not surprising if two people talking about similar things use similar words', 0 and the idea of 'swollen' words and 'heavy style' is likely to be pre-technical. Perhaps the stylistic image even originated in comedy.d 967 In literary criticism 'elegance' is a feature of the (e.g. Demetr. Eloc. 36; Dion. Hal. Dem. 38 (p. 210. 10 Usener-Radermacher)), but in comedy KOTO'S has a much broader range of meanings ('elegant', 'clever', etc.). In Ran. 967 a politician is called xo^i/ids, not a writer. 1108, 1111 In Alexandrian literary criticism (828, 876) Aen-TOTT)? 'refinement' is a formal stylistic quality," whereas in Aristophanes metaphorical ALTO'S is (negatively) associated with 'subtle'

94

Technical Languages TABLE 3.3- (cont.)

Adjective

Ran.

Commentary sophistic thinking (and only secondarily with its verbal expression).

'plain, clear'

927,1434, The quality of aa^vna. 'clarity' is 1445 essential in the loxvos xapaxTTjp of rhetorical theory (cf. e.g. Demetr. Eloc. 191-203), but the meaning 'plain, clear" is common not only in rhetorical stylistics (e.g. Ach. 103; Lys. 777; Pint. 40). 1004,1496 See §3.3.2.2.

'grand' " Pace Radermacher (1954) 274; Turasiewicz (1986) 211. b Dover (1993) 13-14. c Dover (1993) 33 n. 65, also against the comparison of Ran. 941 |3apo9 'overweight' with fia.pvs/f$apvTT]s in Arist. Rhet. lyqi'z'j—8. d Cf. Sicking (1962) 155-6, Pfeiffer (1968) 47-8, 137-8, and dayman (1977) 33-4, against Taillardat (1965) 467-70. e See e.g. Call. Ait. frs. i. u, i. 24 Pfeiffer; Call. Ep. 27. 3; AP 9. 25; Pfeiffer (1968) 137-8; dayman (1977) 30.

Even if such a thing existed by 400 BC, only the well-educated fraction of Aristophanes' audience would have recognized pertinent references. Frogs stages, rather than laughs at, literary criticism. 3.8. C O N C L U S I O N In this chapter we have seen that technical languages are topicbased linguistic varieties, which manifest themselves almost exclusively in the lexicon. In order to distinguish technical language and general language we must take into account the native speakers' intuitive classifications and the criterion of common usage. This is crucial in studying a non-technical genre like comedy, where technical terms often appear in contextual isolation (i.e. in nontechnical passages). Research on the potentially technical vocabulary of comedy enables us to find out which sociocultural areas were or were not regarded as unaccessible to the non-specialist. Since comedy is written and performed for the whole demos, it reflects the classification of social domains as technical or nontechnical more closely than other literary genres. In other words,

Technical Languages

95

we are able to reconstruct interesting aspects of Athenian culture if we apply a strict definition of linguistic technicality. The two most 'scholarly' characters in extant Aristophanic comedy are the sophist Socrates and the geometer Melon. Interestingly they are not, or only marginally, characterized by the use of incomprehensible technical language. There is both a linguistic and a socio-historic reason for this. First, Greek technical discourse, unlike modern terminology, did not adopt much foreign word material and therefore remained relatively transparent. 100 Secondly, by the end of the fifth century theoretical technical discourse was only just developing and had not yet reached the cultural status it has in modern societies. Sophists like Prodicus and Protagoras were just starting to reflect on verbal precision and synonymy (opBor^s ovofj,a.Tu>v, 6p9of-rrfia), two issues that are fundamental in the creation of commonly recognized terminologies. To be sure, a practical technical discourse must have existed earlier on, for instance among artisans, but that discourse had a much closer link to daily life.101 Since non-specialists readily acknowledge the need for a practical technical discourse, it is not an ideal target for comic satire. The case of the legal vocabulary in Wasps illustrates the importance of social factors in the separation of technical and nontechnical fields. Despite the specialized reference of some lexemes, most words apparently belonged to general language, probably because the Athenian legal system was democratically organized. The almost complete absence of medical terminology in Aristophanes is more striking. I have suggested that in the fifth century the use of dialect (rather than 'technolect') constituted the distinctive mark of the medical specialist. Professional competition prevented the quick establishment of widely accepted doctrines. The resulting fragmentation of medical theories forced doctors to 'sell' their knowledge in an accessible manner and hindered the growth of a stable specialist terminology. 102 100 por these sources of modern terminology cf. Sager-Dungworth—McDonald (1980) 79-80, 251-87; Seibicke (1981) 43-50; Schippan (1984) 247-9; Hoffmann (1985) 153-8; Fluck (1996) 48-55. Loanwords are not so rare as designations (nomenclature signs) for items of foreign culture: cf. Langslow (1999) 190; in comedy e.g. Ach. 108-9 a^ovi; (a Persian measure); Vesp. 1137, 1149 Ka.vva.Kr) (a Persian cloak). 101 Mohn (1981) 208 sees in the separation of home and workplace an important factor for the development of distinct technical languages. 102

Cf. Lloyd (1983) 165-7.

4

'Scientific Discourse'

4.1. R E P L A C I N G T E C H N I C A L L A N G U A G E At the end of the last chapter we observed that the lack of technical terminology in Aristophanic comedy is nowhere as conspicuous as in the portrayal of those stage characters who correspond to the mad professors of modern farce. I assume that Aristophanes might have inserted a substantial amount of technical terminology into the language of a figure like Socrates in Clouds if the Athenian public had been as aware of restricted specialist vocabularies as modern audiences usually are. However, we would not do justice to the comic genius of Aristophanes if we contented ourselves with such a negative conclusion. By asking what Aristophanes might or might not have done if technical terminology had been prominent enough, we are focusing on comic technique rather than on the relationship between the comic text and linguistic reality. We will return to this relationship in the next chapter, but comic technique is worth having a closer look at as well. In this chapter we will see how Aristophanes is able to create in Clouds a distinct 'scientific discourse', even though he does not make use of technical language as such. I will argue that Aristophanes compensated for the absence of high-profile technical languages by substituting linguistic material taken from, or linked to, the tradition of Presocratic scientific poetry. Language plays an important role in Clouds. The comic Socrates and his students do not in every respect speak like normal Athenians. On the one hand, they explicitly develop linguistic theories which are based on abstract principles and therefore promote departures from normal usage. On the other hand, they are implicitly characterized by certain linguistic (mainly lexical) 'deviations' from standard Attic. These actual deviations are not simply illustrations of the accompanying theories, but there is a certain dramatic logic in the

'Scientific Discourse'

97

double departure from the norm. The theories demonstrate that Aristophanes' Socratics are voluntary linguistic outsiders, and the actual deviations concretely exemplify this outsider status. I will begin with a short presentation of Socrates' linguistic teachings in Clouds, but the main part of this chapter will be devoted to the actual deviations and their relation to Presocratic scientific discourse.

4.2. L I N G U I S T I C THEORIES IN CLOUDS 4-2.1. ETYMOLOGY

The linguistic interests of Socrates and his students lie in the fields of etymology and grammar. Let us first consider etymology. In Nub. 383-94 Socrates explains to his new student Strepsiades how the atmospheric phenomenon of thunder is produced. By way of illustration he compares thunder to a loud fart and concludes (Nub. 394)'

'That's why the two words sound alike, /Jpov-nj "thunder" and wopSij "fart".' For an ancient etymologist jSpoi/Tjj and TropSij might well have sounded similar enough to suggest a connection.1 In Plato's Cratylus there are etymological speculations that are no less absurd; even if they were meant to be parodies, it was not the technique of etymologizing that was criticized but rather the belief that more than plausibility could be reached.2 Aristophanes, on the other hand, laughs at the idea of 'looking behind' language as such, not just at its formal excesses: to establish a serious semantic link between 'thunder' and 'fart' contradicts common sense and is therefore unacceptable to an ordinary Athenian. // the search for fantastic etymologies derided in Clouds was inspired by one or two individual thinkers (rather than common scientific practice), 1 Dover (1968) 151 (whom I follow in attributing the line to Socrates) suggests that fipov-rri may have been pronounced as [|3op(>>)-nj]; however, 'it is doubtful whether the reverse metathesis CRVC -* CVRC can be found' in Attic inscriptions: Threatte(ig8o)476. 2 Baxter (1992) 87-8; O'Hara (1996) 17; cf. e.g. PI. Crat. 4006 (i/ivxij 'soul' from 'holds fast and keeps the nature'), 4O5b (AiroXXwv from "always shooting'). Literary etymologies occur early: Od. 19. 406-9 from oSvaaofiai 'to hate'); Aesch. Ag. 688-9 (EAtVij from eAc'va; 'capturing ships'); Marzullo (1953) 99-104; Lendle (1957) 117-21; O'Hara (1996) 7-18. Ran. 1478 (TrvciV/SeiTrveiV 'to breathe/dine') and other Aristophanic passages collected by Ferrante (1965) 483-8 parody this tradition.

98

'Scientific Discourse'

Aristophanes' point of reference was probably the school of Anaxagoras and Diogenes of Apollonia.3 Pheidippides, after his training in Socrates' school, explains to his father why he need not be afraid of the last day of the month, the eVq Tf «rai ve'a, on which he will be summoned into court for not having paid back his debts. Pheidippides implies that the name elnj T KO.I vta must refer to two days (the eWj and the vea), that one day cannot be two days, and that Strepsiades may therefore defend himself in court by claiming that his creditors deposited the fees for opening a lawsuit on the wrong day (the /vij instead of the vea), so that the lawsuit is null and void (Nub. 1178-1200).4 The sophistical reasoning again challenges the commonly established, though apparently illogical, acceptation of fV>j re xai vea as the designation of a single day. Similarly, in Nub. 1286 Strepsiades turns away a creditor by misunderstanding TOKOS 'interest' as TOKOS 'child, animal young' although only the former was commonly used and the latter was purely poetic.5 Finally, Aristophanes exploits the assonance of 'charcoal' with avdpomoi 'human beings' for a pun in Nub. 95-7. The philosopher Hippon's cosmological comparison of the sky with a baking-cover (wviyeus) is presented as if it had been suggested merely by the phonetic similarity between avdpoj-noi and The 'phrontistic' attachment to true meanings and etymological connections is so strong that it overrides all common-sense knowledge: the world (and its theoretical perception) must be adapted to language. 4-2.2.

GRAMMAR

As with etymology, Aristophanes makes Socrates run amok in the field of grammar. In this case Socrates adapts language to the world, a process that must have seemed no less absurd to those who had never thought about a possible link between the two (or indeed to those who were strict adherents of the view that language is not linked to the world by an inherent bond of nature, 3

For Anaxagoras' and Diogenes' use of etymology see e.g. Baxter (1992) 127-30; Funghi (1997) 33-4; Janko (1997) 80-1. 4 See Sommerstein (1982) 218 for this explanation. 5 The double meaning is also exploited in Thesm. 843—5.

'Scientific Discourse'

99

Socrates makes three points. First, after Strepsiades has included aheKrpvwv 'cock' in a list of male animals, Socrates objects that the hen is called aXtKTpvwv as well. In order to reflect the sex difference between the two, dAeVrcup (masc.) and (fern.) must be used from now on (Nub. 660-6). Secondly, Strepsiades inadvertently says r-qv KapBo-n-ov when he speaks of the 'kneadingtrough' and Socrates, taking for granted that the noun is feminine because of the article, postulates that it must rather be Strepsiades wittily concludes that the womanish Cleonymus has to be renamed as well: KXewnvfir] (Nub. 669-80). Finally, Socrates argues that names like Afieivlas cannot be masculine because of their vocative A^ivta (which would be the same if it came from a feminine nominative * Anemia). Again Strepsiades counters with a remark on the lack of manliness of one Ameinias, who failed to do military service (Nub. 681-92).6 This grammatical passage plays with the ideas of Protagoras, who had distinguished, probably for the first time in a systematic manner, the three grammatical genders of Greek.7 Protagoras developed rigid principles which he then applied to literary texts. For instance, he criticized Homer for treating ^Vjcis 'wrath' (in //. i. 1-2 fi-qviv . . . ovXopevyv 'accursed wrath') or mjATjl 'helmet' as feminine, not masculine, nouns. It is true that nouns in -f are very often masculine, but nouns in -is are more often feminine. Wackernagel therefore suggested that Protagoras applied semantic criteria: 'helmets' are worn by men, and 'wrath' is a heroic, 'male' feeling.8 However, the idea expressed in Aristotle's Poetics (i4s8B8-i7) that all nouns in -s (including those in -f and -0) should be masculine (or neuter, but not feminine) looks suspiciously similar: perhaps this goes back to Protagoras, whose views may have been more prescriptive, and less descriptive, than Wackernagel thought. In this case the prescriptive 'purism' of Aristophanes' Socrates was not so far removed from the actual grammatical theories of the day. This is not to say that there was no exaggeration: for instance, it would have been logically sufficient to invent a new name for either the male or the female aXex-rpvcav, but by introducing both dAeK-rpucuva (a 6

A similar joke occurs in Eq. 969; cf. Peppier (1918) 180-1. Protagoras test. 80 A 27 (= Arist. Rhet. i407b6-8); on Protagoras as a source for the scene cf. also Rosenstrauch (1961) 50-2. 8 Protagoras test. 80 A 28 (= Arist. Soph. el. J73 b 17-22); Wackernagel (1928) 4-57

ioo

'Scientific Discourse'

regular feminine formation beside a masculine word in -tav) and (a word well established in the poetic tradition) Aristophanes underlined Socrates' willingness to make language subservient to his theories rather than the other way round. 9 Ironically, one of Socrates'—the real Socrates'—last words was, according to Plato (Phd. i i8a), 4 - 3 - L I N G U I S T I C P R A C T I C E IN CLOUDS 4.3.1. DINOS

The treatment of etymology and grammar in Clouds illustrates Aristophanes' intention to portray Socrates as a linguistic manipulator. It is slightly disappointing that the theories put forward by the stage philosopher do not influence his linguistic practice. To give just one example, in Nub. 766—8 Strepsiades describes a burning-glass to Socrates, apparently without knowing the proper name for 'glass', uaAo?:

STREPSIADES: Have you ever seen that stone at the druggists', the beautiful transparent one they use to light fires? SOCRATES: Do you mean glass?

Since there is little comic point in Strepsiades' ignorance of the word JaAos, the lines look as if they were meant to feed a joke— which does not come. It would have been easy enough (and metrically possible) for Socrates to ask, on the model of feminine but he does not do so and it would be rash to emend the passage for the sole reason that it seems a little flat. Yet, there is one keyword of Clouds which may echo (or rather foreshadow) Socrates' grammatical theory. At the same time it leads our search for a linguistic characterization of the 'phrontists' 9 On aXtK-rpvaiva. and the suffix -atva see also § 6.6 and Peppier (1918) 179; Chantraine—Meillet (1932) 295; Chantraine (1933) 107-9; Eduard Fraenkel (1955) 42-5, on the Attic graffito xaTinrv-yaiva 'she-pathic' (SEG xiii. 32). For poetic (and dialectal?: Risch (1990) 236—7) d/W/crcop cf. e.g. Find. Ol. 12. 14; Aesch. Ag. 1671; Soph. fr. 851 Radt; Ar. Vesp. 1490; Cratin. fr. 279 (in prose only when the sex has some importance: Hp. Int. \. 32 (vii. 168 Littre); Arist. fr. 347 Rose).

'Scientific Discourse'

101

into a different direction. With the name of Socrates' 'god' Alvo's we enter the world of Presocratic science. Strepsiades is not satisfied with Socrates' teaching that thunderstorms are produced by clouds crashing into each other. He asks if it is not Zeus who drives the clouds. Socrates replies (Nub. 380): 'Not in the least; it's a celestial vortex'. For Socrates aiWpioy Sivos 'a rotation/whirl in the air' may simply be another atmospheric phenomenon, but Strepsiades (mis)takes for the name of a divinity (Nub. 380-1):

STREPSIADES: Vortex? That I hadn't realized, that Zeus is no more, and Vortex is now king in his place. Strepsiades' misunderstanding is favoured by two circumstances. (i) Instead of relational adjectives with the suffix -ios, like non-poetic Greek usually used genitival constructions (e.g. In classical Greek al6epios is restricted to poetic texts, for instance tragic lyrics. However, adjectives in -ios often served as divine epithets: xdovtos 'of the nether world', 8a\dooios 'of the sea', 'of horses' (e.g. Nub. 83). In one pseudo-Aristotelian treatise (Mw. 4
IO2

'Scientific Discourse'

Renaming Zeus with such a principle in mind had a certain tradition. The grammarian Herodianus writes (2. 911. 7-9 Lentz):

That the god has been named differently in ancient times I do not ignore: Dis and Zen and Den and Zas and Zes in Pherecydes according to a special declension pattern. It is not entirely clear which of these names Herodianus found in Pherecydes (i.e. where to put a comma: before rrapd, before before ml Zijs?). The paradigm Zas, Zavros is certainly attested in the fragments of this eccentric Eastern cosmogonic writer, who renamed other gods too, probably in order to reveal their 'true' names together with their 'true' histories that could not be found in Homer or Hesiod.12 If Herodianus did not find Afy and Zfy in Pherecydes as well, he may have taken the former from an epichoric dialect, 13 the latter from Aeschylus (Supp. 162). In the case of Z-fjv the etymologizing intention is quite obvious since the name of Zeus is explicitly linked with £ijv 'to live' in Plato (Crat. 3g6a-b).14 Esoteric speculations about divine names may also have been promoted by Pythagoras, allegedly a student of Pherecydes',15 and his followers. According to Pythagoras' biographer Porphyry (VP 17), the first line of an epigram which Pythagoras wrote while visiting the Idaean cave in Crete read: 16 16 'Here died and is buned Zan whom they call Zeus'. Though hardly authentic, the epigram may still be right in attributing to Pythagoras the claim that he knew the 'real' name of Zeus. In Av. 570 Euelpides unexpectedly uses the 12 Thus also 'Piy for'Pt'a, Xpovos for Kpovos, fiyijvos for 'iJvearas: Pherecydes test. 7 A Q, frs. 7 B 2, 9; cf. Schibli (1990) 17 n. 8 and 135-9; on Zos also West (1971) 51—2, who suggests that Pherecydes had in mind the Luvian god Santa. 13 Bile (1988) 145 n. 289 and 367 mentions a hyper-Doric nominative Tav on imperial Cretan coins from Hierapytna and Polyrrhenia; for spellings of the accusative as Ar)va/Tjjm in Crete see Wathelet (1974) 201-2 and Bile (1988) 202-3. 14 Baxter (1992) 119-22 sees Pherecydes as one of Plato's targets when Plato presents such (parodic) etymologies. 15 Cf. (sceptically) Schibli (1990) 11-13 and (confidently) Breglia (2000) 168-78. A connection between Pherecydes and Pythagoras is already established in the 5th cent, by Ion of Chios (fr. 36 B 4): Riedweg (1997) 87-8. 16 Cf. (with jue'yas 'great' instead of ffavwv) AP 7. 746; Cyrill. in lulian. 10, p. 342 (Migne, PG 76. 1028); loh. Chrysost. in epist. ad Titum cap. i, Horn. 3 (Migne, PG 62. 676).

'Scientific Discourse'

103

name Zdv. The Pythagorean theonym may prepare the way for the subsequent bird cosmogony with its Orphic allusions (Av.

693-702); Orphic and Pythagorean elements are not easily distinguishable for us and probably never were for outsiders such as the average Athenian theatre-goer.17 The name Ais, too, may have originated in Pythagorean circles since Herodianus found it in the third-century phlyax-writer Rhinthon of Tarentum, who is said to have been a Pythagorean.18 Thus, to those who were aware of the fact that such esoteric circles had a fashion of analysing names, Strepsiades' misunderstanding was perfectly reasonable. And yet, it remained a misunderstanding. Socrates had not meant to speak of a divinity called Dinos. Strepsiades did not know what at least the well-educated among Aristophanes' audience knew: that Slvrj as a 'whirl/eddy/rotation (in the air)' formed part of the latest scientific theories. According to Democritus, for instance, the atoms are sorted out according to size and shape by 'whirls' and he compares this concept to a rotating sieve. The word SiVos commonly denoted in Attic a certain type of vessel (allowing a further pun on divas in Nub. 1473), but in the passage from Democritus it may be a synonym of SiV^:19

Through the rotation of the sieve lentils are heaped up separately together with lentils, barleycorns with barleycorns. Whether Democritus also spoke of Sivr; as the whirling-force is not entirely clear, and whether his predecessor Leucippus had already used the words Slvos and Stv-rj in comparing cosmological processes to whirls is even less certain.20 For chronological reasons it is 17 Herodotus (2. 81) 'mentions Pythagorean and Orphic teaching in the same breath': Burkert (1972) 125-32; cf. Guthrie (1935) 216-21; on the bird cosmogony, Dunbar (1995)437-47. Dunbar (1995) 384 wants to see in Zdv atAv. 570 an 'Elean pronunciation of Zeus' name', but the -a- can be explained differently as an (archaizing) hyper-Dorism (cf. Wathelet (1974) 205) and no Elean nominative Zdv is attested. The accusative Zdva occurs repeatedly in the Derveni commentary on an Orphic cosmogony: Janko (1997) 62. 18 Hdn. Gr. 2. 675. 3 Lentz (cf. Eustath. 1387. 26 ad Od. i. 27 ff.). On Rhinthon's Pythagoreanism see Rhinthon test. 4. 19 Democritus fr. 68 B 164; cf. fr. 68 B 167 (Si'ros Travroiuiv iSetov 'whirl of various forms'?). 20 Cf. Democritus test. 68 A i, 69, 83 (where avdyK-rj 'necessity' and 8iV»j are equated), and fr. 68 B 5. i; Leucippus test. 67 A i (Bivrj), 24 (Sims). 'We cannot lay

IO4

'Scientific Discourse'

unlikely that Democritus is the source of inspiration for our passage in Clouds. A much better candidate is Empedocles: 'so far as we can see it was Empedocles who coined the concept of the SiVi?'-21 According to Empedocles a 'cosmic rotation' (Sivy) was responsible for the separating or coming together of the four 'roots' or elements, fire, air, water, and earth, depending on whether it was the turn of Love or Strife to be at the centre, i.e. in control, of the SiVij. In this sense the Blv-q was indeed the fundamental moving force of nature and comparable to a supreme god.22 That Aristophanes 23 was familiar with the work or thought of Empedocles may be indicated by the comic cosmogony in Birds, according to which TSptos 'Love' mixes together everything (Av. 700 awe^ei^v a-navTa) so that new beings come into life; the work of "Eptos here corresponds to the uniting and creative force of &MTTJS 'Love' in Empedocles.24 Whether the cuWpos Sivai mentioned in another Empedoclean fragment (31 B 115) are thought of as parts of the all-embracing cosmic 8iV>? is doubtful. Still, the wording is surprisingly close to Aristophanes' aiWpios Sfvos, not least because the Empedoclean SiVai are described in the same fragment also as alOepiov jueW 'celestial force' with the Aristophanic adjective. The wider context is the punishment for a soul that has defiled itself by (unwillingly) shedding blood—probably through eating meat—and that is now driven from one element to the next.25 The punishment is ordained by 'AvayKt} 'Necessity', another prominent cosmic force in Presocratic thinking that reappears in the passage from Clouds: the aldepios Stvos 'compels' (Nub, 376 avayxaadwai, 377 81' avdyKrjs, 379 ovoyKa^tov; cf.

any stress on Clement's use of the term [Sivot] in discussing Anaxagoras': J. Ferguson (1979) 357; cf. Anaxagoras test. 59 A 57 (SCros) as well as 12 and 88 ; J. Ferguson (1971) 104-6. 21

J. Ferguson (1971) 107-8. Cf. Empedocles fr. 31 B 35. 3-4 with the commentary by Wright (1995) 206-7. Arist. Cael. 295"3i-2 ironically comments on the importance of the Sivrj in Empedocles (cf. now also P. Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665-1666, a(ii) 4, a(ii) 19). 23 And others: Eur. Ale. 245 may reflect Empedocles' teaching: J. Ferguson (1979)358. 22

24 Cf. Zanetto (1987) 240; Dunbar (1995) 445-6; note further Av. 697 where Eros is ciKtos dvefioj/ceai Si'rais 'like to the swift eddies of the wind'.

25 The source (Hippol. Ref. Haer. j. 29. 22) regards the passage as an explanation for Empedocles' appeal to vegetarianism: cf. Empedocles frs. 31 B 136, 137, 139; Wright (1995) 284-7.

'Scientific Discourse'

105

405 VTT' avdyKr/s) the clouds to crash into each other.25 Of course, this particular Empedoclean fragment must not be regarded as Aristophanes' immediate source, but the intricate conceptual links show that Aristophanes is playing with the kind of discourse Empedocles was employing. In fact, the replacement of the usual word for 'whirl, rotation', by the unusual 27 masculine Stvos may point to Empedocles rather than to Presocratic scientific language in general. The morphological invention of a divine Slvos is reminiscent not only of the comic Socrates' etymological and grammatical theories but also of the real Empedocles' creation of a masculine 'sphere') to designate the divine 'universe'. It has even been suggested that Empedocles might have spoken of a more personal in a restored line of the new Strasbourg papyrus. 28 4.3.2. ECHOES OF SCIENTIFIC POETRY

Although its recurrence (Nub. 380-1, 828, 1471) makes SivorfAlvos a keyword for the parodic scientific theories developed in Clouds, and although SiVos is accompanied both by the adjective alOepios, which is frequent in Presocratic scientific poetry, and by the Presocratic concept of avayxri, one may still hesitate to recognize the Presocratic poets in general or even Empedocles in particular as a major source of linguistic inspiration for Aristophanes. Can such a thesis be corroborated by a study of other 'Socratic' keywords and key phrases? (i) The

sophist Socrates and his community live in the 'thinkery', the house where people are busy with 'thinking' and tppoim'Ses 'thoughts, reflections'.29 The noun

26 For dvayKr; etc. cf. Empedocles test. 31 A 32, 38, 45, 48, 49 (necessitas), and frs. 31 B 115. i, nd; P. Strasb.gr. Inv. 1665-1666, d 2; Dover (1968) 149-50, who also refers to two Parmenidean fragments mentioning avdyKrj (fr. 28 B 8. 30, 10. 6) as well as to testimonia for Parmenides, Leucippus, and Democritus (add Heraclitus: see the index in FVS iii. 41-2); Schreckenberg (1964) 103-22. 27 The use of Sfvos for SiVTjms 'whirling' in the sophist Antiphon is noted as exceptional by the grammarian Harpocration: Antiphon Soph. fr. 87 B 25. 28 Martin—Primavesi (1999) 305-6 on P. Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665-1666, d 8; for a<paipos see Empedocles test. 31 A 41, 52; frs. 318 27. 4 = 28. 2, 29. 3; Wright (1995) 188. In fr. 31 6 3 1 acpaipos is called a god. 29 Pace Goldberg (1976), the suffix -rfjptov does not necessarily convey the impression of an august location (cf. &taiuarrjpwv 'prison', auiippoviaTripwv 'house of correction', epyaemjpiov 'workshop/brothel', aTroSunjpiov 'undressing room'); the alternative local suffix -eiov was less compatible with the underlying agent noun 'thinker'.

io6

'Scientific Discourse'

occurs seven times in the play (Nub. 137, 229, 233, 236, 740, 762, 951) but only four times elsewhere in Aristophanes. In the other plays only the chorus uses it and the meaning tends to be 'care, concern' rather than 'thought, reflection" as in Clouds (and in Eccl. 571, where the context is again 'sophistic'). In the latter sense (ppovris is a poetic word found in tragedy, lyric poetry, and twice in the fragments of Empedocles (but not in the other Presocratic writers).30 Similarly, (ppovri^ta regularly means 'to be concerned, care' (cf. /ai) (ppovrtoris 'never mind') but in Clouds nearly always 'to think, reflect'.31 (2) The noun fiepipva is semantically close to (ppovris: Socrates and his students are p.epnt.vo the sun' (Nub. 225; cf. 741, 1503). Strepsiades mistakes ntpiypovw for a synonym of 'to despise', and with that meaning irtpiypoveiu does in fact occur, though rarely, in other classical authors. Socrates, however, means 'to think around/about (the sun)'. In this sense Trepiypovdw is unique but derivable from the adjective -ntpiypiuv 'concerned with, thoughtful'. 33 The latter is virtually confined to epic poetry, upon which Presocratic scientific poetry is modelled. (4) The Aristophanic coinage epcf}o8i
'Scientific Discourse'

107

the Socratics. The distribution of the second element suggests that it belonged to an informal register of Attic and thus created a comic dissonance with the high-flown first element.34 hardly ever found in prose, rarely in tragic lyrics, but frequently in epic poetry, occurs in Aristophanes only in, or with reference to, the bird cosmogony in Av. 693-702 with its curious mixture of Hesiodic, Orphic, and perhaps Empedoclean elements (but there four times).35 Av. 693 even groups together, like Nub. 192, "Epfjlos and Tdprapos. The compound epejSoSupaco in Clouds thus presents the Socratics as potential readers or composers of such cosmogonies, i.e. either as Orphic 'scholars' or, with a stronger scientific tinge, as cosmologists a la Empedocles, who used the same epic language.36 It is true ? is not attested in the fragments of any Presocratic philosopher, but the underworld was certainly a theme in Empedocles' writings: he discussed fires burning beneath the earth and promised to his student Pausanias the power to fetch the dead from Hades.37 (5) In Nub. 161 Socrates' student explains to Strepsiades how the sound of the gnat results from the wiwj 'blast (of air)' that streams through the insect's guts. The noun -nvo-f) is frequent in epic and tragic poetry but almost totally absent from classical prose (where meO^a. is used instead, as in Nub. 164). The (pseudo-)scientific context would again suggest a reference to scientific poetry. In the Presocratic philosophers TTVO(I)^ is attested only in Empedocles

(twice) and in a Pythagorean fragment. 38 (6) Because the very first words of a stage character often carry characterizing elements, Socrates' ri jut KO\W, w V1?/"^; 'Why dost thou call me, thou creature of a day?' in Nub. 223 is of particular 34 For (-)Sicpao) (despite Headlam (1922) 353 not necessarily 'Ionic') cf. Av. 1424; Cratin. fr. 2; Herod. 3. 54, 6. 73, 7. 78; Theophr. Char. 10. 6; Luc. Lex. 9. 35 Av. 691, 693, 694, 1193; on the complex influences in this passage see Guthrie ('935) 92-6; West (1983) 111-12 and 203, as well as 199-200 and 230 on Epe/Jo; in the Orphic cosmogonies (cf. 'Orpheus' fr. i B 13; Acusilaus fr. 9 B i); Dunbar (i995)437-4636 Cf. Diog. Laert. 8. 57 with Arist. fr. 70 Rose; Wright (1995) passim (see the index s.v. 'Homeric adaptation'). For a list of cosmogonic fragments in Empedocles see Wright (1995)79. 37 Empedocles frs. 31 B 52, i n . 38 Empedocles frs. 31 B 102 and i n . 4; Pythagorici fr. 58 B 30, where Arist. Phys. 2i3 b 24 refers to the same Pythagorean doctrine as Arist. fr. 201 Rose but uses instead of TTVOIJ: the difference suggests that Aristotle took the less usual word from the Pythagorean source.

io8

'Scientific Discourse'

interest. According to the scholiast eyij/uepe alludes to a Pindaric poem (Find. fr. 157 Snell-Maehler) in which the silenus Marsyas addressed the musician Olympus, but the difference of context is too great to make this plausible. After all, Aristophanes' audience sees Socrates as a scientist hanging in a basket high up in the air and intent on studying closely some physical phenomena; the spectators realize from his form of address that Socrates 'is looking down on Strepsiades as a god might look down from Olympos on a mortal'. 39 When applied to men both eyrj^epoy and its synonym 'short-lived' are almost exclusively poetic. In Aristophanes the only other occurrence is Av. 687, in the introduction to the bird cosmogony. And the figure of the scientific thinker with a godlike attitude who uses poetic language and sees his (potential) audience as t(p-q^fpioi has one striking parallel: Empedocles. In the introduction to his Physics Empedocles asks the Muse for permission to reveal
Dover (1968) 125. Empedocles fr. 31 B 3. 4; cf. 31 B 131. 1-2 with a similar contrast between

effyrfiAepLwv Tiy and the 'I' (^jite-repa? ^eAe'ra? 'our concerns'); Guidorizzi (1996) 221.

ftptlltepios/etpriiitpos 'mortal, short-lived' (cf. Dickie (1976)) does not appear in the other Presocratics. 41 Empedocles fr. 31 B 112. 4-5 /j.fra n-dai reri/icVos 'I move as an immortal god, not mortal any longer, honoured among you all'; cf. 31 B 113, the association of irjrpoi and fidvrets with the gods in 31

B 146, and perhaps 31 B 23. 11 9tov napa 'from a god', which is often taken to refer to the Muse (cf. Wright (1995) 181) although she would rather be fled; Kingsley (1995) 258-9. 42 Tsantsanoglou (1997) 125-6 suggests that Empedocles is imitating the beginning of an Orphic theogony. 43 Pax 1063 reflects the epicizing language of oracles; Nub. 105 is comically incongruent in the speech of the rustic Strepsiades.

'Scientific Discourse'

109

those who have no knowledge (yet) of his doctrines.44 Aristophanes may have preferred VTJWVTIOS to vrfnios because it belonged exclusively

to hexameter diction and could evoke scientific poetry more unambiguously. (9) There is a striking coincidence between the list of cloudworshippers that Socrates gives in Nub. 331-4 and the highest forms of human existence that Empedocles acknowledged and saw embodied in himself:

SOCRATES: Because you aren't aware that these goddesses sustain and nourish a whole host of 'experts', diviners from Thurii, professors of the medical art, long-haired do-nothings with onyx signet-rings; and composers of convoluted songs for dithyrambic choruses, men of airy quackery, they maintain in idleness doing nothing, because they poeticize about the Clouds.

Since (b), (c), and (d) are nouns used in apposition to the very general designation aotfimai (a), since (d) is a purely descriptive comic multiple compound, and since (/) stands in apposition to (e) (referring to the poetic 'flights' of dithyrambic poets), Socrates' list contains three concrete professions: hymnic (dithyrambic) poets (e), doctors (c),45 and '(Thurian) diviners' (b). Now compare Empedocles fr. 31 B 146, where he describes the last stage of the wise men's souls before they become gods:

But in the end they are diviners, hymnic poets, doctors, and chiefs among the men on earth, from where they then rise up as gods excelling in honour.

44

Empedocles frs. 31811.1 (vy-moi- ov yap acpw SoAixoppoW? ei'cri pepifivai 'fools! for they don't have far-reaching thoughts'), 137. 2; v-qmos also occurs in Heraclitus fr. 22 B 79 and Democritus fr. 68 B 76. 45 Rather than just 'writers of medical theory' (although someone like Empedocles might well pass as a 'theoretician of medicine'): cf. Dover (1968) 144 (also on the general use of

no

'Scientific Discourse'

One does not need to regard the Empedoclean fragment as the model on which Nub. 331-4 was directly based to admit that the conceptual world is similar but by no means conventional: earlier lists of the best types of human life make different choices.46 If we take into account that all the above features occur in comic dialogue, not in lyric passages, so that their stylistic markedness is quite prominent, and if we do not postulate that every 'Socratic' utterance in Clouds must reveal the same linguistic slant (in the sense of 'continuous characterization'), we may conclude that (i) the language of Socrates and his community in Clouds contains a significant number of uncommon poetic features (ii) these features are strongly reminiscent of scientific poetry in the Presocratic tradition (which is consistent with the portrayal of Socrates as a scientist) (iii) some of the features (just like the invention of the comic Sfvo?) find their closest parallel in the fragments of Empedocles, and (iv) if Empedocles was not himself the source of inspiration for Aristophanes, the comic poet must have been inspired by comparable authors or scientists whose writing and thinking formed part of the same intellectual discourse In the next section I will argue that Aristophanes may have had good thematic reasons for choosing Empedocles as his linguistic model. The preceding linguistic observations thus become part of a literary (and historical) analysis of Clouds. Since some parts of the next section are admittedly hypothetical, I should stress at this point that the conclusions reached above do not depend on the validity of the following suggestions.

4.4. THE B A C K G R O U N D OF 'SOCRATIC' LANGUAGE 4.4.1. EMPEDOCLES

Much of what we know about Empedocles' life is based on late sources such as Diogenes Laertius, and at least some of this material is probably based on deductions made from Empedocles' work. 46

Cf. Wright (1995) 291; Vegetti(i998) 354-5.

'Scientific Discourse'

Ill

The exact dates of his life are difficult to establish, but his 'working life covered a period between 477 and 432 BC1.47 Even if his travels may never have brought him from Sicily and South Italy to mainland Greece, except perhaps for one visit to Olympia, the fame of Empedocles' extraordinary exploits must have reached Athens easily, for instance by way of contacts with the colony at Thurii, which he visited shortly after its foundation in 444 BC. Empedocles was well-known enough to be singled out for attack by the author of the (early) Hippocratic treatise on Ancient Medicine.48 Moreover, Empedocles' student Gorgias had come to Athens in 427 BC, only

few years before the date of Clouds (423 BC).49 But what made Empedocles a more ideal target for stylistic parody than most other scientists was the accessibility of his work. According to the historian Dicaearchus, the rhapsode Cleomenes recited Empedocles' Kadappoi ('Purifications') in Olympia and similar recitals may well have taken place in Athens, the capital of Greek culture. 50 The objection might be made that there is no overt reference to Empedocles in Clouds. However, if these Empedoclean elements were introduced into the language of Socrates, it would have been difficult to refer to them as Empedoclean at the same time. Moreover, there is no overt reference to people like Hippon, Diogenes of Apollonia, or Protagoras either, all of whom undeniably contributed to the composite figure of Socrates.51 If Empedocles' stay in Thurii was protracted, the Athenians might even have associated him with that city, which would explain the curious 'profession' ©oupio'/iaims 'Thurian diviner' in Nub. 332 (but another possible explanation will be suggested in § 4.4.2). A series of miraculous legends was attached to Empedocles, and even if they were based on statements in his work rather than on actual facts, Empedocles himself may have had his share in 47

Wright (1995) 3. Hp. VM 20. i (i. 620 Littre); cf. Wright (1995) 13; Vegetti (1998) 347-52. For Gorgias as a student of Empedocles see Gorgias test. 82 A 2, 3, 10, 14; Classen (1959) 37-8; Kerferd (1985); Kingsley (1995) 220. For Empedocles' travels, his stay in Thurii, and his visit to Olympia (according to Timaeus FGrH 566 F 6 = Diog. Laert. 8. 71-2 he died on the Peloponnese, not in the Etna) see Empedocles fr. 31 B 112. 7; Diog. Laert. 8. 52, 8. 66; critically Wright (1995) 6. The information in the Suda (s.v. "A«fu>v) that Empedocles spent some time in Athens may be untrustworthy: Wright (1995) 17. 50 Athen. 14. &2od; cf. Diog. Laert. 8. 63. 51 Cf. e.g. Gelzer (1956) 68-9, 87; Dover (1968) pp. xxxvi-xxxvii, 107, 127-8; Vander Waerdt (1994), esp. 66-75. 48 49

112

'Scientific Discourse'

promoting such legends. Peter Kingsley has recently localized their roots in the Pythagorean tradition. Thus, Empedocles' semidivine status as a magic wonder-worker is consistent with the Pythagoreans' liking for magic; the story that Empedocles healed a madman by singing Homeric verses to the lyre corresponds to the Pythagorean practice of soothing affections with music; and the legend of Empedocles' death in the flames of Etna recalls the death of Heracles because the imitation of Heracles was important in Pythagorean tradition. 52 Empedocles shares the attitude of the Pythagoreans to non-initiates when he claims to reveal his 'magic' knowledge only to his student Pausanias; he seems to promote the Pythagorean doctrine of metempsychosis (and consequently also vegetarianism); and if he described an underworld journey, this would parallel the story of Pythagoras' katabasis.53 That Empedocles was a direct student of Pythagoras' and imitated his lifestyle, as the sophist Alcidamas and the historian Timaeus claimed, may be an invention, but it is plausible that he studied with some later Pythagorean, as the third-century historian Neanthes wrote.54 Both Timaeus and Neanthes agree that Empedocles was excluded from Pythagorean circles because of Aoyo/cAoma, i.e. because he had publicized in his work Pythagorean esoteric knowledge (which was not usually written down, or at least not made accessible to everyone55). We can now recognize two thematic parallels between Empedocles' picture of himself and the comic Socrates of Clouds. In fr. 31 B i i i Empedocles promises to Pausanias the power of controlling the winds: he may check them or summon them at his wish, so as to bring dry weather instead of rain and rain instead of drought. Also Pausanias will be able 'to lead up from Hades the strength (or life-force?: /aeVos) of a dead man'. 52 Cf. Dodds (1951) 145—6; Kingsley (1995) passim (e.g. 247-8, 274—7, 289—316), with references (and further bibliography: 1 12 n. i). 53 Empedocles fr. 3 1 B 1 1 1 . 2 (fiovvu> aoi 'to you alone'); cf. the initiation vocab ulary in fr. 31 B no (naBapos 'pure', eVowreueiv 'to behold'); Wright (1995) 259; Kingsley (1995) 219-21; for metempsychosis and vegetarianism see especially frs. 31 B 115, 117, 136-9; on the underworld journey Kingsley (1995) 225-6, but also Wright (1995) 271; on Pythagoras' katabasis Burkert (1972) 155-9. 54 Diog. Laert. 8. 54-6 (with Timaeus FGrH 566 F 14, who states that Empedocles fr. 31 B 129 refers to Pythagoras, and Neanthes FGrH 84 F 26). Empedocles' imitation of Pythagoras is conspicuous even if the doctrinal points of contact were superficial, as Casertano (2000) maintains. 55 Cf. Riedweg(i997).

'Scientific Discourse'

113

Wondering why Aristophanes chose clouds as the chorus of a play about intellectuals, Dover pointed out that clouds were regarded not as deities but 'simply as part of the mechanism by which Zeus sends rain' and hence 'suitable objects of worship for a man devoted to KO.IVO. Sai^dwa'.56 But there is more to it: whoever controls and directs the clouds is also empowered to control the rain. It is true that Socrates must use a prayer to make them appear—perhaps because Aristophanes did not want to give away the opportunity of introducing some Orphic elments (cf. § 4.4.2)— but essentially the clouds follow his wishes, as if he were Empedocles' Pausanias.57 Pausanias' second ability is mirrored more closely in Birds than in Clouds. In Av. 1553-64 Socrates is presented as a i/ni^aycoydy, who fetches the souls of the dead from the nether world.58 But in Clouds, too, the inhabitants of the ypovnarripiov are called tjivxai aoyat 'wise souls' (Nub. 94), and by implication Socrates is a i/jvxayaryos of men who are 'half-dead' (cf. Nub. 503 4 - 4 - 2 . P Y T H A G O R E A N CLOUDS

Clouds also contains several Pythagorean echoes. I have already mentioned the possible allusion contained in the 'renaming' of Zeus, but there are further aspects. (i) When Strepsiades first sees Socrates hanging high above the ground, he asks Socrates' student who that man is and gets a funny answer (Nub. 219):

STUDENT: Himself. STREPSIADES: Who himself? STUDENT: Socrates. STREPSIADES: Socrates! 56

Dover (1968) p. Ixviii. Cf. Bowie (1993) 120. According to Timaeus (FGrH 566 F 30 = Empedocles test. 31 A i, from Diog. Laert. 8. 60) and others, Empedocles once actually checked some harmful winds (by technical means) and was therefore called 'wind-checker'; cf. Wright (1995) 261-2. 58 Cavaignac (1959) 247 reads this as an allusion to Pythagorean metempsychosis. 57

ii4

'Scientific Discourse'

The indeterminate av-ros is reminiscent of the way in which the Pythagoreans used to refer to their spiritual master without naming him, perhaps out of quasi-religious awe (O.VTOS eya 'he himself said it').59 There is some evidence that it may not have been unusual for a Greek slave to speak of his or her master as auros.60 However, it is not a slave who is speaking in Nub. 219: the manuscripts designate the speaker as /xaflij-ny? 'pupil, student' and his knowledge of Socrates' research projects fits that role better. Moreover, if the audience could recognize in the word avros the normal term by which slaves referred to their masters, why does Strepsiades not understand who is meant? He knows perfectly well whose house he is in, and in everyday matters he is not stupid at all. Since the authoritarian way of thinking which underlies the 'argument' was established in Pythagoreanism by 400 BC at th latest, there is no reason why Nub. 219 should not contain a comic echo.61 But even if there is no direct reference, the student's expresses a hierarchical relationship between master and disciples which recalls the situation among the Pythagoreans. (2) The verb depoflaTai (based on an underlying noun 'air-walker') in Socrates' line Nub. 225 is likely to be an Aristophanic invention (reflected in PI. Apol. igc), but it closely resembles the surname of an alleged student of Pythagoras', Abaris, who was called cu'SpojScmjs- 'aether-walker' according to the Lives of Pythagoras by Porphyry and lamblichus. The source of the two writers added that 'some' say that Pythagoras himself had travelled through the air (aepo^aruiv -rpoirov Tivd 'somehow air-walking') when he appeared at two places far distant from each other on the same day. Whether Abaris' surname was already current in Aristophanes' time cannot be ascertained, but Herodotus did know of (and rationalize) Abaris' performance. 62 59

Diog. Laert. 8. 46 (cf. 8. 44). Kingsley (1995) 163 points out that Pythagorean informants of Socrates remain nameless in Plato. Socrates' student 'avoids' naming his master already in Nub. 195. 60 Ar. fr. 279, 942?; PI. Prot. 3Hd; Men. Sam. 256, 258; Theocr. 24. 50. In Ran. 519—20 Dionysus' ypdoov . . . airro? on a'orepx°f«" 'tell [them] . . . that the man himself will be making his entry" perhaps suggests an imagined direct formulation Cf. Dover (1968) 125 and for the (possible) origin of this Schwyzer/Debrunner (1950) 211. 61 Cf. also Marianetti (1992) 64. On the date of the dogmatic Pythagorean d/cova/tara see Burkert (1972) 91, 188. 62 Porphyr. FP2g; Iambi. VP 135-6 (cf. 91); Hdt. 4. 36; cf. Burkert (1972) 150.

'Scientific Discourse'

115

(3) Not only does Socrates' oath in Nub. 627, a 'by Respiration, by Void, by Air', contai another reference to the primeval divinity Chaos that played an important role in Orphic cosmogonies together with "Epefios and AWrip (cf. Aepa),6363 but the more remarkable Avam>ori coupled with A-TIP also connects the line to a work ascribed to Pythagoras and beginning with the words 'no, by the ai which I breathe'.64 It is not even necessary that this work itself was in circulation in Aristophanes' time: it is sufficient if its author quoted a typical Pythagorean oath, which was used already in the fifth century. This list can be supplemented with material of a more general type. (4) The way in which the Socratics in Clouds constitute a group of initiates recalls both Orphic mystery cults and the 'secretive' organization and teaching of the Pythagorean communities;65 the affinity between Orphism and Pythagoreanism (at least when looked at from outside) has already been mentioned (§ 4.3.1). (5) Socrates' prayer in Nub. 264-74 contains elements that are characteristic of Orphic hymns, as Dieterich showed more than a hundred years ago.66 (6) Since Orphism and Pythagoreanism were particularly of strong in Southern Italy, it is tempting to see in the Nub. 332 a reference to Orphic or Pythagorean seers or priests; some of the earliest Orphic gold leaves, datable to around 400 BC have been found precisely at Thurii. 67 (7) The asceticism of the 'phrontists' in Clouds (Nub. 103, 175, 363) has a parallel in Pythagorean lifestyle; this feature became 63 See West (1983) 70, 184-6, 198-201, 230-1. Av. 691, 693, 698 (bird cosmogony), and Socrates' Nub. 424 (containing another 'divine triad' and stressing the number '3' (rpia TOUTI), which was important already in early Pythagoreanism: Riedweg (1997) 88) are the only other passages in Aristophanes where the word Xdo; occurs. 64 Pythagoras test. 14 A 19; cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 86-7; Dover (1968) 177-8. 65 Cf. Dover (1968) p. xli, referring to Arist. fr. 192 Rose (Pythagoras test. 14 A 7) but maintaining that 'the analogy between initiation and admission to a course of instruction is an obvious one'; Taylor (1911) 129-77; Morrison (1958) 202—3; Marianetti (1992) 63-71. 66 Dieterich (1893) 282-3; cf. Ch. 2.13; Guthrie (1935) 2 '2-i3; Kleinknecht (1937) 21-6; Gelzer (1956) 68; Marianetti (1992) 50. 67 Cf.Zuntz (1971) 287-98.

n6

'Scientific Discourse'

central in the stereotypical picture of the Pythagorean in fourthcentury comedy.68 (8) Grote pointed out 150 years ago that the burning of the at the end of Clouds may have been inspired by the famous burning of the Pythagorean meeting-place in Croton, a little—but perhaps not much—earlier in the fifth century.69 4.4.3. A C O M P O S I T E S O C R A T E S

I have already mentioned that the concrete teachings of Socrates in Clouds are neither particularly Pythagorean nor close to Empedocles' views but rather connected with figures like Protagoras, Hippon, and above all Diogenes of Apollonia (a follower of Anaxagoras'), to whom Vander Waerdt wants to attribute all the physical theories upheld by Socrates in Clouds.70 In a rather schematic way the situation can be described as follows: Clouds stages a Socrates who holds Diogenean ideas, lives in a Pythagorean setting, and uses Empedoclean language. To be sure, such a composite picture is a result of much comic freedom. Nevertheless, it has an inner coherence. Janko has argued convincingly that the famous Derveni papyrus, which gives an allegorical interpretation of an Orphic cosmogonical poem, perfectly agrees with the doctrines of Diogenes of Apollonia and was perhaps written, if not by Diogenes himself, by one of his students, Diagoras of Melos.71 If this is correct, Diogenes' 'school' tried to connect, by means of allegorical interpretation, the exotic ideas of Orphism with the Ionic tradition of natural philosophy. Diagoras was even attacked, not unlike Empedocles, for revealing the Orphic logos.72 Not surprisingly then, Aristophanes turned to Diogenes for the 'scientific' part of his play. As a comic stage environment for such 68

Cf. Marianetti (1992) 64-5; Bowie (1993) 118. For later comedy cf. e.g. Alexis frs. 201, 223; Antiphanes fr. 158; T. B. L. Webster (1970) 53. 69 Grote (1847) 550 n. i; cf. Burkert (1972) 115-17, 291 n. 73; Marianetti (1992) 104. On the date see Musti (1990) 62-5. 70 Vander Waerdt (1994) 70—5, who admits, however, that the baking-cover heaven (Nub. 95-7) belongs to Hippon: cf. Cratin. fr. 167 (= Hippon test. 38 A 2); Dover (1968) 107. It may (but need not) be accidental that Hippon was a Pythagorean: Burkert (1972) 290 n. 62. 71 Janko (1997); note the link between Socrates and Diagoras in Nub. 830: Dover (1968) 200-1. 72 Athenagoras Suppl. 4. i; Janko (1997) 88-9, 92.

'Scientific Discourse'

117

theories, on the other hand, an Orphic or Pythagorean community was much more rewarding than the 'worldly' study-rooms of a Diogenes or Diagoras. A similar argument holds for Socrates' language. The prose of Diogenes of Apollonia, though nowadays worth taking notice of because of its curious mixture of Ionic and Attic elements, was not remarkable enough to allow substantial parody, and even if it had shown a more recognizable profile, only a tiny fraction of Aristophanes' audience would have been familiar with this style.73 Writings of Pythagoras himself, if they existed at all, were not known. Orphic cosmogonies could have been a substitute, but they would not have been associated with scientific writing. Hence, the ideal stylistic model for the portrayal of Socrates was Empedocles: a scientist with Pythagorean affiliation, perhaps already famous for divulging Pythagorean ideas, whose poetic writings were known, despite their secretive attitude, to large audiences throughout the Greek world and whose style was distinctive and eccentric enough to be parodied and recognized. Finally, we may even go one step further and relate these results to those reached in the preceding chapter on technical languages. If there had been, for instance in the work of Diogenes of Apollonia, a fully-fledged technical language of science, Aristophanes would probably have chosen this linguistic variety as his model.74 His choice of another type of scientific discourse may therefore be interpreted as an additional, indirect, argument against the existence of an established, unified, and 'exclusive' scientists' jargon. 73 On Diogenes' Ionic-Attic cf. Janko (1997) 84-5. The 'hymnlike elements' found by Deichgraber (1933) in Diogenes and Anaxagoras are not particularly strong. 74 Note that Socrates' sentences are not more complex than those of his interlocutors, even though sentence complexity is nowadays conventionally regarded as typical of scientific writing (and of academic writing in general).

5

Sophistic Innovations

5.1. SOPHISTS, CLOUDS, AND L I N G U I S T I C INNOVATION A linguistic discussion of Clouds would be incomplete if it were limited to an analysis of the 'scientific discourse' described in the last chapter. Whereas Aristophanes' 'phrontists' are presented as scientists in the Presocratic tradition of scholar-poets like Empedocles, they are also, and perhaps in the first place, sophists. This duality of character is reflected in a duality of expression. We will now turn to the sophistic layer of language in Clouds. The development of fifth-century Athenian culture was deeply affected by the sophistic movement. The sophists' comprehensive syllabus for professional education led them towards systematic studies in the most diverse intellectual fields. Thus, Protagoras' On Sciences or On Mathematics and Prodicus' On Nature dealt with scientific questions, Hippias wrote a list of Olympic victors to facilitate historical studies, and Protagoras' On Virtues as well as Antiphon's On Truth explored philosophical themes.1 Because all of these studies were ultimately propaedeutics to the successful study and use of rhetoric, language too was bound to become an important object for intellectual investigation. Gorgias developed a theory of speech figures. Protagoras, as mentioned earlier in our short discussion of the famous 'grammar scene' in Clouds (Nub. 658-92: § 4.2.2), treated grammatical topics like nominal gender, perhaps in his work on stylistics or opSoeWa; he also distinguished four types of speech acts (euxwAi? 'request' or 'prayer', 'question', anoKpiois 'affirmation' or 'answer', eVroA^ 'order')

and applied the classification to a literary interpretation of Homer. Prodicus investigated problems of semantic overlap and synonymy (ovofiaTutv opdoTrjs 'correctness of names'), which seem to have made 1 Cf. Hippias fr. 86 B 3; Prodicus frs. 84 B 3-4; Protagoras fr. 80 B 7 and test. 80 A i; Antiphon Soph. frs. 87 B 1-44.

Sophistic Innovations

119

him acknowledge dialectal and social factors in language.2 It was the first time that the Greek language was used and analysed so consciously and attentively. And since the wealth of new themes, thoughts, and concepts could only be adequately expressed if traditional language was substantially reshaped and enriched, it was probably also the first time that Greek underwent such fundamental linguistic changes within a few decades only. Aristophanes' comedy Clouds appears to reflect a widespread unease about the new intellectual climate, which undermined traditional values and questioned established hierarchies. Many Athenians would have shared Strepsiades' expectation that a proto-sophist like the comic Socrates3 could further any dubious objective—in Strepsiades' case, to win a lawsuit against his creditors, who rightly claim their money back. And once Strepsiades' son Pheidippides had learnt nothing but to disobey and maltreat his father, what traditionally-minded Athenian would have frowned when, at the very end, Strepsiades stopped the nightmare and set fire to Socrates' house? Given the prominent role of language in sophistic culture, it is not surprising that language is repeatedly thematized in Clouds. Throughout the play, there are scenes in which Aristophanes highlights various innovative features of word formation and morphosyntax, so as to create a sophistic 'atmosphere'. None of these features is exclusive to Clouds, and in some way Aristophanes' treatment of them seems paradoxical. On the one hand, the innovations are frequently employed elsewhere in comedy without any stylistic saliency, which suggests that they had already become perfectly acceptable in everyday language. On the other hand, their usage in Clouds is statistically or stylistically exceptional and contributes to the general sophistic theme of the play. However, this is only an apparent paradox. It results from a historical situation in which something like a sophistic Zeitgeist 2

Cf. Gorgias test. 82 A 2, 4; Protagoras test. 80 A i (with a variant adding 'narration', ciTrayyeAia 'report', K\fjais 'calling'), 27—9 (opdoe-ireta need not have been the title of Protagoras' work, but it was his slogan: Classen (1959) 34; Pfeiffer (1968) 280); Prodicus test. 84 A n, 13-19; on the recognition of dialectal and social factors see PI. Prot. 34ic (cf. 34&d-e); Pfeiffer (1968) 41; Solmsen (1975) 106-9 (in Thucydides?); on the sophistic contributions to philological and linguistic studies in general see Classen (1959); Pfeiffer (1968) 32-56. 3 A role also accorded to Prodicus: Nub. 361; Av. 692; Ar. fr. 506; cf. Dover (1968) pp. Iv—Ivi; Henrichs (19766) 21. There is probably not much of the historic

120

Sophistic Innovations

influenced Attic Greek as a whole deeply enough to bring along linguistic innovations. While the comic poet preferentially and consciously introduced such innovative features into a comedy depicting the sophistic world, where their growth had originated, he also started using them, unconsciously and like every speaker of Attic, in other unmarked contexts. I will first present and discuss the relevant data for each phenomenon separately. Although the phenomena seem unconnected at first sight, I will argue that all of them are symptoms of one general evolutionary trend in classical Attic Greek. Subsequently, I will show that Aristophanes' impressionistic presentation of these features as 'sophistic' agrees well with a typological explanation of the general trend, and that the roots of the trend must indeed be sought in the cultural revolution which Athens witnessed in the second half of the fifth century.

5.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: NOMINALIZATION ANDTYPICALIZATION The six linguistic phenomena that will be discussed in the main part of this chapter are too diverse to have an obvious common denominator. In order to demonstrate the intrinsic link between them, two theoretical concepts are essential: 'nominalization' and 'typicalization' (Typisierung). 'Nominalization' is defined as the 'derivation of nouns from another word class, e.g. from verbs (feeling vs. feel) or adjectives

(redness vs. red), but also from another noun (womanhood vs. woman).'4 In Greek, typical examples include the formation of verbal nouns in -m? (also -/^a) or the formation of abstract nouns from adjectives, e.g. nouns in -6rys. Within the verbal paradigm, Socrates in Clouds: cf., against readings like that by Gomperz (1924) 405-18, Dover (1968) pp. xxxii—Ivii. This may explain why, according to Dickey (1996) 119-27, Plato and Xenophon agree in making Socrates use friendship terms as forms of address all the time, whereas Aristophanes does not. I cannot detect, with Havelock (1972) 10-15, a 'Socratic' use of the reflexive pronoun in Clouds. 4 Bussmann (1996) 327. 'Nominalization' is sometimes understood even more comprehensively so as to include the embedding of a subordinate clause in (the syn tactic slot of a noun phrase in) a main clause: Lehmann (1982) 68. For the present context the narrower definition will do, but in a wider perspective the increasing sentence complexity in Attic Greek may well be related to the evolutionary trend observed in this chapter.

Sophistic Innovations

121

the formation of participles falls under this heading, too. A process of partial nominalization occurs for instance when a finite verb is replaced by a participial periphrasis In a nominalization hierarchy the periphrasis can be seen as the first step towards full nominalization Since the distinction between nouns and adjectives is problematic in many cases, 'adjectivization' should be treated as a subcategory of 'nominalization'. The participial example just given illustrates this: ypdycav is the syntactic equivalent of either an adjective or a noun. Hence, the formation of verbal adjectives as well as other deverbal adjectives belongs to the nominalization strategies of ancient Greek. 'Typicalization' is a slightly more complex concept. 'A prepositional act involves, apart from reference and predication, a series of further operations. These operations find their expression in categories which help to constitute the sentence: mood, aspect, tense, diathesis, person, case complements. The individuality of a proposition or thought consists in the specification of all of these categories. If they are neglected, the thought is generalized or "typicalized" (typisiert) and loses its individual character. Typicalization goes hand in hand with nominalization. The categories listed above as constituents of a proposition gradually disappear in the process of nominalization.' 5 Thus, in the verbal form ypafffi mood, aspect, tense, diathesis, and person are specified, but in the nominal form ypaipcvs none of them is. It is true that the copula of ypayfvs fan conveys some of the specifications, but a sentence like ZaiKp&Tris ypdtpei (or: ypdcperai.) yijs irepiooov 'S. is drawing a world map (for himself)' is nevertheless a more individualized proposition than ZWpanjs- y-ijs -rrepioSou ypacpevs Ian. The former describes a specific action in the present, whereas the latter only says that Socrates belongs to the category (or 'type') 'world-map drawer' and not, for instance, if (and for whom) Socrates is currently drawing a world map or if he did so in the past. In this case, typicalization (generalization/de-individuation) involves (i) a semantic reduction of the category 'tense' (and possibly 'diathesis'), and (2) a syntactic nominalization process.

5

Translated and paraphrased from Lehmann (1982) 68.

122

Sophistic Innovations

Typicalization and nominalization are connected by an implicational relationship. While typicalization does not necessarily take the form of nominalization, nominalization necessarily implies typicalization. Consequently, all the phenomena discussed in the following sections can be regarded as part of a comprehensive tendency towards typicalization, but this typicalization does not always manifest itself in the form of nominalization. We will start with non-nominalizing typicalization processes in the case of the creation of verbal compounds in -eu> and the so-called 'resultative' perfect, and then turn to nominalizing typicalization processes with the verbal nouns in -ms, the abstract nouns in -/xa, the adjectives in -IKOS, and the verbal adjectives in -reoj. Each of the sections is divided into two parts. First ('usage'), I will present the stylistically relevant passages from Clouds (and sometimes from other Aristophanic comedies as well). Secondly ('function and development"), I will illustrate the accelerated growth of the respective phenomena in classical Attic, explain them as symptoms of a general trend towards typicalization, and link them with the emergence of a 'sophistic' culture. 5.3. V E R B A L C O M P O U N D S IN -t'o, ( - d w ) 5.3.1. USAGE

When Strepsiades, led by Socrates' student, enters the ypovTiarripiov, he sees several people who are performing various strange activities. He asks his guide what they are all doing. In an earlier chapter (3.3.3.3) I have argued that Strepsiades' questions may serve to indicate the (pseudo-)technical character of some of the terminology with which he is now confronted. One group, he is told by the Student (Nub. 192), c'peffoSKpaiaty VTTO TOV Tdprapov 'are searching into the nether darkness below Tartarus'. Their backs, at the same time, 'are learning astronomy on their own account' (Nub. 194): auros K0.6' O.VTOV daTpot'Ofj.fLv SiSdo/cerai. Both (pefioBupdw* and darpovo^ftu* are hapax legomena in Aristophanes (as are all the words marked with an asterisk * in this section). They belong to a productive class of denominal verbs in -4u> (and more rarely -do>6) 6 Synchronically, the compound verbs in -dui (e.g. cpefio&Kfdui, presupposing an underlying a-stem *(ptf)oSt(f>-r)s) were apparently weaker than those in -ecu so that was replaced by -re'cu in e.g. depojSarT/? —* depo/Sare'tu (not: Siitterlin (1891) 18.

Sophistic Innovations

123

which are derived from compound nouns or adjectives. The underlying compounds are mostly verbale Rektionskomposita with a nominal first element and a verbal second element (VRK2' often the nominal element is the object of the verbal element), but other types of compounds occur as well: for instance, there are cases of 'inverted' VRK2, in which the verbal element precedes (e.g. 'to twist justice'), or of Bahuvrihi compounds (e.g. 'to give oneself airs'). The boundaries between the different types of compounds are fluid, so that it makes sense, at least from a synchronic point of view, to group together all the verbs in -eoi (-aw) that are derived from compounds with two autosemantic (i.e. verbal or nominal, but not prepositional) elements ('CP-fw verbs'). When Strepsiades first meets Socrates himself and when he has enquired what the latter is doing at the moment, Socrates replies (Nub. 225 — 15°3)° qgpoffaTcii KCU Trepuppovtu TOV TJXiov 'I walk the air and [speculate about] the sun'. Again, cie/>o|3aT
32O7), arevoXeaxeiv* 'to chatter

minutely' (Nub. 320), aTp&jiooiKeiv* 'to twist justice' (Nub. 433), and y\a>TToarpo
with the rafters of your house'. Once the ypovriarripiov is burning, another of the students exclaims full of horror (Nub. 1497): Cf. Nub. 1496 SiaAeTTToAoyou/xcu; Ran. 828

7

124

Sophistic Innovations ? 'Help, who's putting our house to the

flames?' 5.3.2. FUNCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

The frequency of CP-ew verbs in Clouds is not remarkable in itself. In Todd's Aristophanic index I have counted more than 150 items. In Clouds too, there are CP-ew verbs in non-sophistic contexts (e.g. Nub. 16 and 27 oveipovoXew 'to dream of sth.', 481 reixo^x^* ' to besiege', 624 le.pofj.vTniovew** 'to be sacred remembrancer"). Even the traditionalist Strong Argument uses several of them (983 'to eat dainties', 994 aKaiovpyew* 'to act rudely', 999 iwyaiKaKew 'to cast sth. in someone's teeth' and veoTTOTpoyew* 'to rear sb. from a nestling'). These words may contribute to the linguistic atmosphere of the play as a whole, but above all they show how the CPew verbs were multiplying at the time. 9 Nevertheless (and despite the fact that such things are difficult to measure), there seems to be no other Aristophanic play in which the thematic association of CP-ew verbs with one particular group of people is so constant. In the chapter on technical languages we have seen that this class of denominal verbs is typically used to denote specialist and professional activities (Ch. 3.3.3.2). This function is highlighted in the following accumulations: Thesm. 54-6 KoXXo^e\eia 'to patch verses together', 'to coin maxims', K-qpoxvTfw 'to mould in wax' Plut. 162—7 aKUTOTo/i«o 'to be a shoemaker', xPva°X°*w 'to be a goldsmith', AcuTroSureco 'to be a robber', 'to be a burglar', jSupaoSti/ie'co 'to tan hides' Plut. 513-14 vavmriyew 'to be a shipbuilder', rpoxonoifui 'to make wheels', aKVToronew 'to be a shoemaker', 'to make bricks', aKv^oSeijiew 'to tan hidesMany of the 'sophistic' CP-ew verbs in Clouds seem to be original Aristophanic creations since neither they themselves nor the underlying compounds (including further derivations, for instance 8

Strepsiades himself had spoken of tiiTnjj.Trpa.vai. rr/v ainiav in Nub. 1484. Debrunner (1917) 95, after Siitterlin (1891) 63, gives the following figures for new compound derivations in -ew. in Homer 20, in classical Greek 450, in postclassical Greek 600. At the same time the simplicia in -eta lose their productivity. 9

Sophistic Innovations

125

in -ia) are attested in other classical or Hellenistic authors and since they are not simply variations on such productive types as 'to walk the air',10 y\uiTroaTpo 'to be a verbal twister', 'to search into the nether darkness', aenvo-n-poacuireu) 'to give oneself airs', arevoXeax^ 'to chatter minutely', 'to twist justice'. The concentration is remarkable, for in the rest of the Aristophanic corpus there are only about three times as many further CP-eia verbs which fulfil these criteria of originality. Moreover, they are thematically much more diverse: 'to turn bread', y\umoTTOif
sea with the oar', KoivodvXaKeai 'to have a common purse', 'to patch verses together', KopTroXaKfw 'to be an empty braggart", Kpovai.S-qiJ.euj 'to cheat the people', KVK\oaofiew 'to whirl round", KwoKcmtw 'to beat like a dog", Aayofl^pe'cu 'to hunt hares', 'to get into dirty quarrels', povoKontiu 'to sleep alone", oiVrpoxoe'tu 'to pour fourth a piteous strain', •ny>a>KTorj)p£co 'to be an arse-watcher', avKoXoyew 'to gather figs', rpiifiijuepeai 'to waste the day'. Despite the general growth of the CP-ew class, we may conclude that the prominent role which these verbs play in Clouds is not coincidental. The question arises whether the statistical increase of CP-eai verbs in classical Attic was somehow connected with the sophistic movement. From a linguistic point of view, the formation of CP-e'ou verbs has two main functions: (1) 'Integration': Socrates could say */3a5t'£co Sia TOU aepos, and Strepsiades might wish to Sums o-rpeipeiv, but acpof}a.Tea> and present a more economic or concise way of expressing the imagined activity; a transitive or prepositional verbal phrase is condensed or 'integrated' into a single intransitive verb. (2) Typicalization: a slight semantic difference between for instance *"£pe/3oj oupdui and fptftooupaw results from the denominal origin of the latter. Strictly speaking, Ipfflooupdw is not an equivalent 10

PI. Apol. igc refers to, and quotes, Clouds.

126

Sophistic Innovations

of *'Eptf$o$ 8iT]s flfit.. It depicts the activity not as transitory or punctual, i.e. time-bound ('individuation'), but as time/ess, regular, or habitual ('typicalization'). This quality of the CP-eio verbs explains why they frequently refer to professional activities. Typicalization (as well as integration) is an essential characteristic of scientific and intellectual discourse, which focuses on general principles rather than on fragmented particularities. Lexical compounding became an important means for developing a descriptive and scientific Greek vocabulary. 11 Hence, the increasing frequency of CP-fw verbs in fifth-century Greek may in fact be related to the sophists' new and systematic way of looking at the world. Of course Aristophanes need not have recognized the reasons for the linguistic trend in order to locate its origins among those who promoted cultural change. However, Clouds does betray a remarkable linguistic awareness, for the Aristophanic comedies demonstrate elsewhere how fast the unconscious creation of CP-e'cu verbs became a fashion even in contexts that did not demand conciseness or typicalization. For example, we find in Vesp. 1254 6vpoKoir 'to bang against doors' (= 9vpas KOTTTW) or in Eccl. 762 neidapxeuj as a synonym of 'to obey'. The CP-e'cu verb -nvpiroXew 'to light a fire, burn (down)' was particularly successful, perhaps because of the paradigmatic difficulties which its equivalent eV^'V^P1?/" presented; is attested no less than five times in Aristophanes (Nub. 1497; Vesp. 1079; Av. 1580; Thesm. 243, 727).

5.4. T R A N S I T I V E ACTIVE PERFECT ('RESULTATIVE PERFECT') 5.4.1. USAGE

Strepsiades is not warmly welcomed when he knocks at the door of the (fpovTiarripiov for the first time. An enraged student of Socrates' appears with the words (Nub. 133) 'Oh, get stuffed! Who's been knocking at this door?' Strepsiades formally introduces himself with name, patronymic, and demotic. But the student continues to shout (Nub. 135-7):

11

See G. Meyer (1923) 24-46.

Sophistic Innovations

127

STUDENT: An ignoramus, for sure, the way you've kicked so hard at the door without circumspect cogitation, and rendered abortive an idea that had been discovered.

With (arrfp<.)iiepinvtos and ypovrts the student's rebuke is meant to evoke an intellectual way of expression. Both lexemes belong to a group of catchwords that reappear throughout the play wherever scientific or sophistic thinking and reasoning is referred to.12 Since this is the first appearance of one of the 'phrontists', it is to be expected that the passage contains characterizing linguistic material. Hence, another exceptional feature of the three lines calls for attention: the use of two transitive active perfect forms: XeXaKTixas and

Door-knocking scenes are a stock ingredient of Aristophanic comedy so that the passage in Clouds can easily be compared to similar passages in other comedies.13 The first question of Socrates' student (ris eod' 6 KOI/ICLS rr)v 9vpav;) is closely paralleled elsewhere.14 The subsequent use of the perfect, however, departs from the standard. It has been suggested that the perfect conveys a note of affective insistence corresponding to the anger of the student. 15 Yet, Carion in Plut. I IOI (av rr/v 8vpav CKOirrfS ovruial acpoSpa; 'Did you knock on the door so violently?' 16 ) and Heracles in Ran. 38-9 (ris 'Who knocked on the

door? He charged at it just like a centaur, whoever—') are highly 12 Cf. Ch. 4.3.2: for (ppovris, (ppofTi£eip, ; Ran. 464 TI'S otros; Plut. 1097 'who is knocking at the door?'. 15 Chantraine (1927) 173. 16 For this 'visualizing' imperfect cf. Eccl. 977 rrjv Bvpav ^parres 'you really bashed on my door': Schwyzer-Debrunner (1950) 276-7.

128

Sophistic Innovations

upset too, but they use an imperfect and an aorist respectively. The perfect may imply the notion of guilt and responsibility. 17 But again the indignant Demos in Eq. 729 uses an aorist under the same circumstances (TT)V tlpeaiwvTjv pov KaTfairapd^are 'y knocked my harvest-wreath to pieces!'). While both explanations certainly con tain some truth, the student's perfect remains remarkable and there must be more to it. The use of a transitive active perfect is highlighted again later in Clouds. Although Strepsiades has been expelled from Socrates' school because of underachievement, he shows off with his new knowledge before his son Pheidippides. He swears, like Socrates, by a meteorological phenomenon (Nub. 814/^(1 TIJV '0/iu'xA->)i< 'by Mist'; cf. Nub. 627), he exposes the Socratic theology of Aivos (Nub 828), and he even reproduces as much as he remembers about grammatical gender (Nub. 850-1). Pheidippides remains unimpressed (Nub. 856-9):

PHEIDIPPIDES: Oh, that's why you've lost your cloak, is it? STREPSIADES: I haven't lost it, I've invested it in knowledge. PHEIDIPPIDES: And what have you done with your shoes, you fathead? STREPSIADES: I lost them 'for essential purposes', as Pericles would have put it. Strepsiades' first reply is a typical example of sophistic and wojudruw opflorr;?. The old man replaces both the tense and the verb his son has used with such alternatives as he finds more fitting. By using the perfect Strepsiades focuses on his present cloakless state, not on the past action of losing or giving up his cloak. Because he prefers the positive verb KaTa^povrl^eiv to the negative the stress on the continuing effect of what he did makes Strepsiades' words sound rather proud. Not surprisingly, he later uses the punctual aorist when he speaks himself of a loss (859 . Pheidippides' TeV/xxpa in 858 ironically echoes Strepsiades' perfect forms. The crucial point is, as with Nub. 135-7 17 Chantraine (1927) 164-5, '75-8; cf. McKay (1965) 13; Rijksbaron (1984*) 409; Sicking-Stork (1996) 147: 'The Agent. . . has become . . . a "door-kicker" and an "abortionist".'

Sophistic Innovations

129

above, that the lines would be just as acceptable if the aorist were used throughout. Moreover, the only other Aristophanic passages where we find three transitive active perfect forms within two or three lines is Plut. 372—3, staged about thirty-five years later than Clouds. 5.4.2. F U N C T I O N A N DD E V E L O P M E N T

The Greek perfect originally expressed an intransitive present state of the verbal subject, which looks back to an action in the past (e.g. the state rlBv^Ko. 'I am dead' looking back to the action 'I died').18 In early Greek, transitive active perfect forms are relatively rare.19 In the fifth century, the transitive perfect suddenly expands very quickly. Traditionally the new transitive active perfect forms are labelled 'resultative perfect'. By 'resultative perfect' Wackernagel understood transitive active perfect forms which were no longer used to express the state of the verbal subject (as with the intransitive perfect), but which had come to express a state of the object.20 Such a definition must lead into serious difficulties because it is often a matter of textual interpretation whether the active perfect of a transitive verb refers to the state of the object ('resultative') or to the state of the subject. When Socrates' student says tppovTiS' tgrinflXwKas, is it more important that Strepsiades is an 'abortionist' or that the thought has been lost? Chantraine therefore tried to save the notion of a 'resultative perfect' by asking rather vaguely if there was a 'passage of the action onto the object' or if the object 'introduces the notion of a realization which is essential in the process that is envisaged'.21 More recently, the existence of the 'resultative perfect' has been denied. It has been maintained that all the occurrences of a transitive active perfect in classical Greek still describe the state of the subject.22 But although Wackernagel and Chantraine failed to 18 The recent argument by Sauge (2000) that the Greek perfect is causative and/or intensive rather than stative is unconvincing. 19 For Homeric examples see Chantraine (1927) 11-16 (e.g. 20 Wackernagel (1904) 4: '[eine Bedeutung], bei der das Perfekt von einer vergangenen Handlung gebraucht wird, deren Wirkung im oder am Objekt noch in der Gegenwart fortdauert'. 21 Chantraine (1927) 6 and 12. 22 Cf. McKay (1965); Rijksbaron (1984(1); Sicking-Stork (1996) 146—50; Duhoux (2000) 428.

130

Sophistic Innovations

explain clearly what was new, it is impossible to deny that there was something new about the perfect in fifth-century Greek. One must account for the sudden growth of transitive active perfect forms in the classical period. Chantraine gives the following approximate figures for his 'resultative perfect' in Attic drama and prose:23 Aeschylus Sophocles Euripides Aristophanes Thucydides Plato (early dialogues)

12-20 50 'many more' 200 35 125

These statistics do not lose their significance even if Chantraine's classification of any single transitive active perfect as resultative is contested. They indirectly reflect the growing frequency of the transitive active perfect in general. I believe that the concept of a 'resultative perfect' can (and should) be retained, even though the criticism of Wackernagel's and Chantraine's views is justified inasmuch as it attacks an alleged change from a 'state of the subject' to a 'state of the object'. Instead, more attention must be paid to the semantic tendencies of transitive and intransitive verbs as such. If the perfect of a verb x expresses a present state that looks back to an action in the past, there are two logically distinct types of perfect:24 (a) 'I started to x and have been x-ing until now' (i.e. the event/state x continues into the present) (~ English 'I have been reading") (b) 'I x-ed and from that moment on I have been someone who (once) x-ed' 23

Cf. Chantraine (1927) 123—38; the Platonic dialogues are Hippias Maior and Minor, Alcibiades, Apologia, Euthyphro, Crito, Charmides, Laches, Lysis, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno. Of course these figures are meaningful only if the overall length of the respective texts is taken into account; in the OCT editions, the corresponding approximate page totals are: Aeschylus 380 (c.8,000 verses), Sophocles 400 (c. 10,000 verses), Euripides 1,110 (c.26,000 verses), Aristophanes 590 (c.15,000 verses), Thucydides 600, Plato (selection) 530. For the statistics in §§ 5.7.2 and 5.8.2, I add the following OCT page totals: Herodotus 800, Lysias 270, Plato (entire) 2,500, Xenophon 1,400, Demosthenes 1,370. 24 If it were not so cumbersome, one might speak of 'non-terminative present situation' instead of 'present state' (in order to include 'durative/iterative actions').

Sophistic Innovations

131

(i.e. the result of the event x continues into the present) (~ English 'I have read') Let us assume that (a) is the original type. With stative and durative verbs like jSaaiAeuai 'to be king', the perfectfiepaaiXevKawould mean 'I started to be king and have been (being) king until now'. The meaning of this sentence is in many cases synonymous with variant (b) 'I was king and from that moment on I have been someone who was king'; both sentences are equivalent if the speaker is a king who is still ruling. With terminative verbs (in which the verbal action expressed by the verbal stem of the perfect has an inherent end-point, e.g. Si'Soi/i/Se'Scoxa25), on the other hand, (a) is semantically exceptional 'I started to give and have been giving until now' does not as a rule coincide with (b) 'I gave and from that moment on I have been someone who gave'. This is not to say that (a) is excluded: even when there have been continuous ('iterative') single acts of giving from the past right into the present, we may still speak of (a) ('I started to give and have been giving continously until now, first giving x, then giving y, then giving z, etc.').26 There is a tendency for intransitive verbs to be stative or durative, and for transitive verbs to be terminative. The difference between (a) and (b) is therefore less conspicuous with intransitive verbs. When perfects of transitive verbs start to be formed, however, this automatically strengthens variant (b), which is more 25 With the terminology 'terminative' vs. 'stative' and 'durative' I follow Rijksbaron (19840) 3—4 and 34-6: 'terminative' and 'durative' roughly correspond to 'telic' vs. 'atelic' in other models (e.g. Binnick (1991) 181). The question if the perfect stem is terminative can be difficult since the meaning of the present is not always decisive: with eyvuiKa (Nub. 1095; similarly fLefiaB-qicffv) in Nub. 1143, 1148, 1150), for instance, the present yiyvuiaKui ('to recognize") may be terminative because of the reduplicated formation and the aorist tyvw ('he recognized') may be terminative because of the punctual value of the aorist; the crucial point is whether the meaning of the root *gneh^~ is already terminative. 26 e.g. Nub. 738 dioJKoas [ivpiaKis ayai /3ouAo/«u 'you've heard a million times what I want', or ladha. eopye 'he has done good things' in //. 2. 272 (cf. Chantraine (1927) 13); even Nub. 1065—6 'We'pjSoAo? , . . Ta\avra TroAAci 8«i -rrov^piav 'Hyperbolus . . . has made a whole load of talents by being wicked' may belong to (a) rather than (b). This model of the perfect also explains the much-debated archaic 'intensive' perfect (e.g. fttflpvxo. 'to roar, bellow (intensely)' beside j8pu^ao/iai 'to roar, bellow'). In type (a) Pff3pvxe means 'he started roaring and has been roaring until now', thus adding an extended temporal dimension which the present Ppvx&rai 'he roars' does not have; the 'roaring' of a lion is more intense if it consists not just of one transitory act of roaring but if it has been continuous for some time.

132

Sophistic Innovations

common with terminative verbs. After some time, (a) becomes so rare in comparison with (b) that (6) is recognized as the new canonical type of perfect. This in turn further encourages the multiplication of active transitive perfects and a vicious circle is established. Since the event x in itself is located entirely in the past in the case of (b) (whereas in (a) the event x belongs to both past and present), (b) is much more similar to the aorist. Whether the aorist or the perfect is used does not depend any longer on the ontological ('objective') character of x, but on the way the speaker looks at x ('subjectively'). As a consequence, the perfect starts to encroach on the domain of the aorist. This is what happened in fifth-century Greek, although it still took at least another century until the boundaries between the perfect and the aorist began to disappear completely.27 Since only (b) is really interested in the result ofx and its continuation into the present, the traditional name 'resultative perfect' may be retained for (b). It is possible that Aristophanes highlights the use of the resultative perfect in Clouds simply because he feels its novelty and associates linguistic innovation as such with the sophists (even though he does not refrain from using the resultative perfect himself elsewhere28). But there may be a more specific reason for the connection of the new tense and the intellectual pursuits of these people. Strepsiades' statement illustrates that the coexistence of aorist and resultative perfect allows greater semantic precision (opdoetrfia). The difference between the aorist and the resultative perfect lies in the typicalization conveyed by the latter. An aorist exXeififv tmrov 'he stole a horse' individuates an event, a resultative perfect /ceVAoyev iTt-nov typicalizes it ('he is a person who has stolen a horse', which comes close to saying 'he is a horse-thief).29 Hence, the notion of guilt often accompanies the use of the perfect. It is a more general and therefore stronger statement to say of somebody 'he is a horsethief than to say 'he stole a horse'. In the former case the stealing 27

See e.g. McKay (1965); Horrocks (1997) 53 and 118—19. Unlike for instance Sophocles, Euripides, or Herodotus, who seem to avoid the resultative perfect by using the periphrastic expression «x
Sophistic Innovations

13 3

of horses is presented as a habitual occupation, whereas in the latter case there might be special or attenuating circumstances. So, the resultative perfect presented an ideal mode of expression in lawcourt oratory. In the Lysianic corpus, for instance, there are 36 examples of ireirol-qKa, 22 of ijftaprijKa, 22 of transitive eipyaafiai, ig of ijSiV^Ka, 16 of Se'Scoxa (often: 8iVr;r), and 5 of ijaejSrj/ca.30 In

Aristophanes, too, wewonj/ca (15 + 3 times transitive (18), and eipyaa/j-cu (6), together with 'guilt-verbs' like (6) and awoXw^fKa (6), are among the most frequent transitive perfects.31 Probably, the general trend started from this group of verbs. If the growth of the resultative perfect was initiated and furthered in lawcourt oratory, the connection with the rhetorical teaching of the sophists is straightforward. Interestingly, of the two extant set speeches by Gorgias (basically the only extensive sophistic texts that have survived), the epideictic praise of Helen contains, apart from oiSa, no transitive perfect forms, but the 'forensic' apology of Palamedes shows at least six relevant items.32 There are further examples of 'guilt' perfects in Clouds as well, but they—like most other transitive active perfects in the play, with the possible exception of the 'Socratic' dogma formulated by Pheidippides in Nub. 1471 (JiVo? /SamAeuei, rov A" efeAqAaKOK 'Vortex is king, having expelled Zeus')—are not highlighted and illustrate rather the general increase of these forms in contemporary Attic than sophistic style in particular. 33

30 Cf. also the striking accumulation of perfect forms in Lys. 14. 41-2; Ar. Plut. 368-73; Sicking-Stork (1996) 148; Rijksbaron (19846) 413: 'M.i. hangt de opkomst van het "Agens-gerichte" perfectum van transitieve werkwoorden dus direct samen met de opkomst van het concept van het individu.' 31 Cf. Chantraine (1927) 136; note that 3 of his 9 examples for flpyaapai are in reality passive (Eg. 844; Ran. 1023, 1282), and that the figure for (a^areprfKa is wrong (13 instead of i). The figures for Lysias are based on D. H. Holmes (1895). 32 Gorg. Pal. (— fr. 82 B I i a ) 5 TreironjKius, 21 Trfrronj/coTi, irapa&f&wKOTi, 24 36 TreTroiijKores, dnfKrovoTts', cf. 29 33 Cf. Nub. 26 airoXuiXeKtv 'it has ruined', 33 e'^ijAi/ra; 'you have rolled", 497 'I have done wrong', 1080 iJSi'mjKa? 'you have done wrong', 1266 'he has done', 1498 fiA^yare 'you have stolen'. Note also the apparently unnecessary transitive active perfects in Eupolis fr. 386, referring to Socrates.

134

Sophistic Innovations

5.5. VERBAL N O U N S IN -ois 5 . 5 . 1 . USAGE

In the chapter on technical languages (3.5) we have already seen how Aristophanes mocks the formation of legal terminology in -ois when Socrates asks (Nub. 874-5):

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

In Nub. 764, Strepsiades exclaims, full of pride about his own sophistic inventiveness, -qvprjK1 atpaviaiv T-ijs SIKIJS aoywartp 'I've found a really ingenious disposal method for that lawsuit'. But the best-known lines in which the coinage of verbal nouns in -oiy is parodied are Nub. 317-18. Socrates describes the blessings the Clouds bestow upon idle men:

SOCRATES: . . . who bestow on us intelligence and discourse and understanding, fantasy and circumlocution and incisive and repressive power.

That these words evoke the vocabulary of rhetoric becomes clear when Eq. 1379-80 is compared, where Kpovanxos 'incisive' and 'repressive' are joined in an unambiguous context (see § 5.7.1). JiaAe£is, attested only here in classical Greek, and a hapax legomenon, probably refer more generally to 'argumentations' and 'disputations', Kpovais and Kcn-aA^i/u? more specifically to rhetorical 'striking' and 'checking' the arguments of an opponent.34 The accompanying mind-words yvui^ and enhance the sophistic character of the passage since these lexemes appear several times in pertinent contexts in Aristophanes. 35

34 Cf. Dover (1968) 142—3; on Kpovais and KaraAiyi/ris also Borthwick (1959) 27-9, on TTepiXe-yeiv = TO irepifpx^0^1 TCO Aoyw Kai otov neptaaa Xeyciv Hermippus fr. 89. 35 See Handley (1956) 218-20; cf. also reparela 'talking marvels' in rhetorical criticism: Isocr. 12. i; Ar. Eq. 627; Ran. 834; Byl (1981) 118.

Sophistic Innovations 5.5.2.

135

FUNCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

Although verbal nouns in -ais were employed in more than one specialized field, the above passages show that Aristophanes established a particular link between them and sophistic discourse. In a discussion of the Aristophanic nouns in -an, Handley has distinguished three groups: (i) terms associated with the intellectual world of the sophists, (2) (pseudo-)poetic words, and (3) 'technical 'speech'; kitchen: ervripvais 'soup ladle"; warfare: ra£iy 'battle-order'; politics: airrjais 'public maintenance', etc.). Handley puts about a third (16) of the 53 Aristophanic nouns in -ais into the first 'sophistic' group, and he finds nearly all of them exclusively in the 'intellectual' plays Clouds, Thesmophoriazusae, and Frogs.36 To separate groups (i) and (3) may be slightly misleading. The sudden increase of nouns in -CHS in fifth-century Greek was mainly due to technical specialization and the only difference between spheres (i) and (3) is that between theoretical and practical specialization. Vowles gives the following figures for newly appearing nouns in -ens:37 Homer Hesiod

55 11

lyric poets (incl. Presocratic philosophy)

41

Aeschylus to Aristotle (excl. 1097 (of which Aristotle 275) medicine) medical writers 630 The medical authors together with the Presocratic philosophers may have been the first to promote the large-scale formation of nouns in -ms.38 But if the origin of the growth was in the intellectual spheres of Ionia, other areas were soon affected. In the index 36 Handley (1953), esp. 141 (the one exception is Eccl. 674 ot/ojois, but this need not be 'sophistic': cf. Hdt. 3. 102. 2; PI. Prat. J 2 i d ; IG i3. 48*". 5); cf. Holt (1941) H9-52. 37 Vowles (1928) 58; again (cf. n. 23 above), more precise figures would be preferable, but the general tendency seems clear enough. 38 Cf. e.g. Thales fr. i t B 3 (auympiai;, Trffyvvais, avaraais); Heraclitus fr. 22 B 55 (oi/ns, jaaffyois); Parmenides fr. 28 B 7. 2 (Sirens); Empedocles fr. 31 B 8 (nifu, SiaAAa^ts); Philolaus frs. 44 B 10 and 13 (eVcuai?, ovfjuppovyois, ataOrjais, pt^ojai?, avatpvais, yeWijats); Diogenes of Apollonia fr. 64 B 5 (poTjaiy, erepoi'axn?); for medical language see Chantraine (1933) 284-6; Holt (1941) 112-16.

136

Sophistic Innovations

to the Attic inscriptions of the fifth century, I have counted 42 nouns in -<w and it would be wrong to ascribe all of them to direct sophistic influence. Even in poetry the word class becomes larger, but here it has primarily stylistic functions: common words are replaced by formations in -CHS to achieve a 'de-automatizing' effect.39 The particular association in comedy of the verbal nouns in -au with the world of the sophists must be due to the role which the sophists played in promoting systematic enquiry in many specialized fields. Abstract thinking furthered abstract expression. Since 'the variant with a nomen actionis expresses the event less determinately—not so much as a factual one—but instead embraces a wider circle of possibilities',40 the increased creation of verbal nouns is a symptom of the general trend towards de-individuation or typicalization (including nominalization) in fifth-century Greek. This is most clearly seen when simple verbs like pavQavtiv are replaced by verbal phrases in which the verb has only auxiliary functions (fj.adt]ai.v TToifiaSai.*1). Thucydides' fondness for such constructions sufficiently indicates their stylistic level; as they are not even parodied in comedy, they may have been exclusively literary. But the nominalizing function of the nouns in -ots can also be observed in the passages quoted from Clouds. Both in Nub. 874-5 and in Nub. 317-18, alternative constructions would have been possible (e.g. and

5.6. ABSTRACT N O U N S IN -^a AND 5.6.1. USAGE

Beside the verbal nouns in -ais, the most important group of abstract nouns in Greek was formed by the neuter nouns in -fia. Like the class in -CHS, this nominal class is very old and many noun in -|U.a are common and stylistically unmarked (e.g. -npa-y^a. 'matter, 39

Already in Aeschylus: Bum. 588, 749; Prom. 488; Sept. 29; Supp. 715, 1009; cf. also the parodies in Ar. Av. 291 Adipwais (= 290 Xorpos); Thesm. 147 (Agathon, for aAyos); A. A. Long (1968) 32. Even Socrates' eVi'Sei|is 'presentation' in Nub. 269 may be poetic rather than sophistic, despite Handley (1953) 132 and Dover (1968) 135. 40 Translated from Porzig (1942) 21; cf. also Freundlich (1987) 127-36. 41 Thuc. i. 68. 2; cf. Aristonymus fr. 4; Denniston (1952) 24—5; Freundlich (1987)37-42.

Sophistic Innovations

137

thing', TTvevfj,a 'breath', etc.).42 In tragic poetry, nouns in -pa were frequently used to create unusual ('de-automatizing') variant forms (e.g. SoJpij/na for Scapov 'gift'). 43 Nevertheless there is at least one passage in Clouds where a noun in -fj.a has a particular stylistic value. In Nub. 247-8 Socrates laughs at Strepsiades because he is ready to swear an oath by the gods:

SOCRATES: What do you mean, swear by the gods? Apart from anything else, we don't credit gods here. The line feeds a pun on vo^w^a, which is misunderstood by Strepsiades as 'currency, coin', its normal meaning (cf. Ran. 720, 722). What Socrates wants to say is of course we don't believe in gods'. Other instances are less prominent, but it may be significant that Socrates' student uses the hapax legomenon ypovTiapa 'idea' when he speaks of his teacher's discoveries (Nub. 155) and that Strepsiades ironically praises one of those discoveries as Stevrfpevpa 'gutology' (Peppier) (Nub. 166). There is no verb *Sifi>Tfpfveii> and Dover has pointed out that formations in -^a with a prefix Sia- are rare before the end of the fourth century; the word must therefore lend an aura of sophistic solemnity to the rustic's phrase.44 The same highflown tone is present in Socrates' repeated use of vorma 'idea', especially in Nub. 743 (cf. Nub. 229), where Strepsiades has just used and is going to use again yvu>\t,i\ for the same concept (Nub. 730, 747). Elsewhere in Aristophanes, vdi)/j,a has a sophistic tone, too, at least when it is not used by a chorus.45 Finally, in a group of lines that is remarkable in other respects as well (see §§ 5.7.1 and 5.8.1) Socrates encourages Strepsiades to find 42 Also in Clouds: e.g. Nub. 205 00910/10 'device', 668 Si'Say/^a 'piece of instruction', 966 fio/M 'song', 1231 fidBrifia 'training', all with non-comic parallels. 43 Cf. A. A. Long (1968) 40-6; Peppier (1916) 459-60, with statistics (Aeschylus 218, Sophocles 188, Euripides 302); in comedy see e.g. Nub. 283 /ceAaSTjjia 'sound' for x-e'Aaoos; Nub. 305 Suipr/fia; inversely Nub. 161 Truer] for the com (ct. Ch. 4.3.2). Nub. 967 /Jdafia for (3oij is a quotation: Dover (1968) 215. 44 Dover (1976) 367. oiaro'ij/ia 'thought, idea' (cf. Xen. HG 7. 5. 19; Isocr. 3. 9; PI. Symp. 2iod) may have been the model of Sievrepev/j-a, but the only other lexeme with Sia—jua in Aristophanes is Agathon's Siavcv/iara 'nods' (Thesm. 122, if not ; differently Noel (1997) 178

45 Eg. 1203 (a la Euripides); Av. 195 (note KOIJU/IOS 'refined'); chorus: Nub. 705; Vesp. 1055; Thesm. 463.

138

Sophistic Innovations

an d7ratdAi?fia 'fraud' (Nub. 729) although the personified divinity Fraud is invoked elsewhere as MircuoAi; by the sophist himself (Nub. 1150). 5.6.2. FUNCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

The increase in productivity of the abstract nouns in -pa is less spectacular than that of the verbal nouns in -ats. They are most frequent in the Ionic dialect of Herodotus and the Hippocratic corpus, but they certainly had a continuous history from preliterary times onward in Attic as well.46 Even the metaphoric use of nouns in -jua as a contemptuous way of referring to people can be traced back as far as Homer and probably belonged to vernacular speech. Aristophanes turns it upside down when such words become laudatory through a sophistic perversion of values (Nub. 260 'cunning rascal', 447 -nepiTpifj.^ SIKWV 'pettifogger').47 In tragedy the abstract nouns in -pa acquired stylistic grandeur, especially when they were used in the plural. 48 Nearly all of the examples in Clouds can be interpreted in a similar manner. Here too, the nouns in -fia make the sophistic discourse more weighty. There is no passage in which the formation is highlighted as a feature of a peculiar sophistic style—with the exception of Nub. 247-8. But there, the point at stake is not so much the formation itself (vofjuapa is common enough) as the syntactic replacement of (normal) ou vofii£o/x<-i> by r^iv vo/iia/x* OVK eon. The full verb is transformed into an abstract noun supported by a copula, which constitutes a shift towards nominalization. If the copula were omitted, the clause would even be fully nominal. From a syntactic point of view, Nub. 248 therefore recalls the structural consequences of the multiplication of verbal nouns in -<ns. That a tendency towards abstract expression often contributes to syntactic nominalization may be illustrated further with Nub. 38 and 406, where Socrates twice explains a meteorological phenomenon with the prepositional phrase Sid rr/v nvKvor-qra 'owing to [their] 46 Ernst Fraenkel (1906) 225-33; Peppier (1916) 459 assumes an Ionic origin for the increase; cf. Chantraine (1933) 183-4; A. A. Long (1968) 19-20. 47 Also Av. 430; contemptuously Ran. 92; Plut. 454; Ar. fr. 686; Eupolis fr. 384. 8; Men. Sam. 481; Men. fr. 563; for Homer see e.g. II. 3. 50—1 (irrj/ia, xap/^a) and Porzig (1942) 146-8, for the orators MacDowell (1990) 400 (xraflap^a); cf. Peppier (1916) 460-1 ; A. A. Long ( 1 968) 42-3 and 1 1 4-25 . 48 Peppier (1916) 459-60; A. A. Long (1968) 43.

Sophistic Innovations

139

density'. In both cases, a subordinated clause would have been a feasible alternative, which ranges further down in a hierarchy of nominality.49 One should not read stylistic significance into every prepositional phrase containing an abstract noun, but in this case the repetition in the mouth of the 'sophistic' speaker is striking. Moreover, abstract nouns in -<myj are extremely rare in Aristophanes. There are only 6 different lexemes in -O'TTJ? with a total of 12 occurrences. Apart from TTVKVOTTJS 'density', a lexeme often found in scientific writing (Aristotle, Theophrastus, Hippocratic corpus, Plato's Timaeus),50 at least two more have distinct thematic affiliations with the sphere of the sophists in Aristophanic comedy: Nub. 153, where Strepsiades is impressed by Socrates' ACTI-TOTI?? 'subtlety', and Ran. 1181 'phraseological exactitude', which alludes to Protagoras' 51 or Prodicus'

5.7. A D J E C T I V E S IN -IK6S 5.7.1. USAGE

Eq. 1375-81 is the most famous Aristophanic passage in which an accumulation of adjectives in -IKOS occurs. Demos describes who will be most affected by the reforms he intends to introduce and the Sausage-seller echoes him in the function of the

DEMOS: I mean those adolescents in the perfume market, who sit and blabber things like this: 'Clever man, that Phaeax; ingenious, the way he 49

Cf. Lehmann (1982) 74. Also in the Presocratic testimonies: Anaximenes test. 13 A 5; Anaxagoras test. 59 A 89; Archelaus test. 60 A 7; Idaeus test. 63 A i; Diogenes of Apollonia test. 64 A 30; Metrodorus of Chios test. 70 A 15. 51 Beside AeTrroTTjs cf. the more common Sefidrijs 'cleverness' (Eq. 719; Vesp. 1059; Ran. 1009); in Eq. 1132 nvKvorys 'shrewdness' puns on 1137 HVKVI, Plut. 564 s 'decorum' occurs 35 years after Clouds, and VCOTIJ; 'youth' (Ach. 211/2; Vesp. 1199; Av. 732) is common already in Homer. See also Mignot (1972) 97-9; Mawet(ig83) 183-4. 50

140

Sophistic Innovations

escaped death! He's cohesive and penetrative, productive of original phrases, clear and incisive, and most excellently repressive of the vociferative.' SAUSAGE-SELLER: So I suppose you're give-the-finger-ative to that bletherative lot? The young men in the perfume market are discussing the rhetorical qualities of the politician Phaeax, but -IKOS is not only 'treated as characteristic of literary criticism, or rather, of judgements pronounced by people who regard themselves as cognoscenti'.52 At least the adjectiveflopujSijTixdsis not part of the rhetorical judgement and shows that the audience is meant to imagine these dandies employing such formations in different contexts as well. The passage suggests (i) that -i«rd? is a 'sociolectal' (rather than a 'technolectal') suffix, and (2) that the people who use -i/cdy are equated with those who discuss rhetorical issues, i.e. have some sophistic training. In Wasps, Bdelycleon instructs his father how to behave in fashionable society. Again, adjectives in -IK-OS play an important role in the advice: Vesp. 1132 TpiflcaviKais 'deftly', (1158 and 1162 'Laconian (shoe(s))'), 1199 avfrpixwrcnov 'bravest', 1204 'most mettlesome', 1208 fu^urcm/cds 'symposiastic', 1208 fwovaiaoTiKos 'socialite', 1212 yv^vaariKw? 'athletically', 1244 'cultured', (1259 AiawniKov 'a la Aesop', 1259 'Sybaritic'). In the following choral section Aristophanes qualifies certain people of the Athenian jet-set with the adjectives 'artistically highly skilled' (Vesp. 1276) and dvnoaoTa.Tov 'most talented" (Vesp. 1280). The generation gap involved in the issue is underlined in Vesp. 1197-1200, where Philocleon replaces the suffix -iK-dy in a reply to his son:53

52 53

Dover (1987) 229, translating Dover (1970) 13. Cf. Peppier (1910) 436-7; Chantraine (1956) 99.

Sophistic Innovations

141

BDELYCLEON: Tell me something else: if you were drinking with men you didn't know, what sort of thing you'd done do you think you'd mention as the bravest action of your youth? PHILOCLEON: That one, that one, was the bravest of my actions.

In Clouds there are not particularly many adjectives in -IKO'S but some are rather conspicuous and corroborate the sophistic connection hinted at in Knights. In Nub. 482-4, Aristophanes uses the same technique to highlight the suffix as in Vesp. 1199-1200. Strepsiades, as yet untrained by Socrates, answers his teacher's with p'ljju.un' (cf. in Nub. 414 the chorus's

SOCRATES: No; I want to find out a few things from you—such as whether you have a good memory. STREPSIADES: It works two ways, I tell you: if something is owed to me, it's very retentive.

And again in Nub. 727-30:

SOCRATES: You must not be soft, you must cover right up; for you have to think up a defraudative idea, a piece of chicanery. STREPSIADES: Ah, if only instead of lambskins someone would throw over me a lovely bit of ... fraudulent ingenuity!

Adjectives in -T/HS are by no means more common than adjectives in -ixrdf, 55 but the point is that Strepsiades uses a different, more 54 Since Socrates could silently walk up and down on the stage for a while between Nub. 729 and 731, Rodriguez Alfageme (2000) 34 is right to point out that Nub. 727-9 need not be given, with Dover (1968) 190 and other editors, to the chorus instead of Socrates (MSS); but even if the Clouds are speaking, they do so in a sophistic manner (as awoortpriTiKos and dmuoAr^a prove). 55 Excluding the compounds in -narpis, 19 out of more than too entries for in Buck-Petersen (1944) 426-7 are adjectival; only 7 of these are attested in classical or early post-classical writers (Aristophanes: a770<7Tep7)TpiV; Theopompus Com.: Apollophanes: oreyaviuTpis; Hippocrates: Siaerro^cuTpis; Herodotus: Demosthenes:

142

Sophistic Innovations

conservative, suffixation. When Strepsiades finally does have the required cunning idea, his success gives him the right to use the sophistic word (Nub. 747): ^Xw r°Kov yvain-qv a-nomt.pT]T(,K-t\v 'I have a defraudative device for avoiding interest'. After returning home from Socrates' school, Strepsiades displays his new knowledge and laughs patronizingly when his son swears by Zeus (instead of, 'your ideas are antiquated' (Nub. 821). Similarly, he derides a creditor who has no sophistic training in grammar (Nub. 1258), dm; VdAeaas evrj6iKai<; "nyy KapSoirov" 'because you were silly enough to speak of a cardopus'. When Pheidippides graduates from Socrates' school, Strepsiades finds that he looks 'deniative and contradictive' (Nub. 1172-3). Aristophanes may not have been alone in establishing a link between the spread of the suffix -t«ro? and the new sophistic education of young upper-class Athenians. The comic author Ameipsias competed in 423 against Aristophanes' Clouds with his own comedy on Socrates, and in one fragment the philosopher is addressed as KaprepiKos 'capable of endurance' (Ameips. fr. 9. 2).56 5.7.2.

FUNCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

In an article on the suffix -IKOS in Aristophanes, Peppier drew attention to the explosive increase of adjectives in -i«ro? especially in fourth-century Greek. Apart from ethnic adjectives (e.g. there are very few formations in -IKOS in Homeric epic and early lyric poetry (fiapfiaptKos 'barbaric', /J.OUCTIK-O? 'artistic', opyavtKos 'orphaned', 'boyish', TrapBtviKos 'maidenly'). Aeschylus is highly restrictive, too, but with Euripides a real vogue begins. So not every one of the c.ioo different non-ethnic adjectives in -IKOS which Aristophanes uses must be regarded as stylistically significant. 57 Peppier gives the following figures for newly appearing lexemes in 56

xapreptKos may not be a comic coinage like dwoffrepijTiKos (cf. Xen. Mem. i. 2. i; 3. i. 6; PI. Def. 4123; Isocr. 8. 109), but that does not invalidate the point since Kaprepos would have been an alternative. On -IKOS in Aristophanes see also Lopez Eire (19966) 31-4; Noel (1997) 175-6, 181. 57 Cf. e.g. fipyvtieos 'peaceable' in Ran. 715, and later in Isocr. 5. 3, PI. Rep. 39Qb, Xen. Oec. i. 17, etc.; copiicos in Ar. fr. 245 (from the early Banqueters), Ach. 272, Plut. 963, and Crates fr. 43. 58 Peppier (1910) 429-30; Dover (1997) 119 counts 34 in Thucydides. Cf. also n. 23 above.

Sophistic Innovations Aeschylus Sophocles Euripides Herodotus

12 8 24 13

143

Thucydides 3« I socrates 55 Plato 347 Aristotle > 6oo

In the fourth century, writers like Plato or Xenophon accumulate adjectives in -IK-OS without any parodic intention,59 and Peppier concludes that 'philosophy is the peculiar sphere of these adjectives in -KOS and their adverbs'. However, Dover points out that the Presocratic fragments, with the exception of one fragment ascribed to the fifth-century Pythagorean Philolaus (fr. 44 B 11), do not support the hypothesis of a philosophical origin. Instead, he stresses the frequent use of -IK-OS in fifth-century administrative inscriptions, which established the classificatory usage of the suffix.60 In the index to Inscriptiones Graecae i3 (i.e. to the Attic inscrip tions before 403/2 BC) I have counted 14 non-ethnic formations in with a total of 46 occurrences in 26 (out of c. 1,500) inscriptions. Leaving aside the common nouns /iouat/oj 'arts', 'navy',
62

Many of the ethnic and geographic adjectives in -IKOS qualify monetary terms '): cf. the index of IG i3, s.v.

144

Sophistic Innovations

While Dover is certainly right that the suffix -i/co's was not exclusively philosophic or sophistic, one must also take into account the crucial differences between the epigraphic and the literary (Aristophanic) material, as follow. (i) The monothematic association of -i«ds with economics is absent in comedy. (2) Non-ethnic adjectives in -IKOS are never applied to persons in the fifth-century inscriptions, but this is very frequent both in fourth-century prose and already in Aristophanic comedy.63 (3) The replacement of non-suffixal variants, or the exchange of suffixation, as highlighted by Aristophanes, has no parallel in the inscriptions (e.g. IAVTJ/AOVIKOS for ^vq^wv, avopiKwrarov for apXauKa. for

(4) All the epigraphic lexemes in -ncds are clearly denominal. Formally speaking, the same is true for the Aristophanic examples because -IKOS is a denominal suffix. However, there is a difference between a denominal adjective whose underlying noun is lexicalized (e.g. ewi/SaTr/y, £evos, £u/ufiaxos) and one where this is not the case, so that the deverbal character of the underlying noun itself is much stronger. Thus, it could be argued that airoa-rfp^Ti.^ is formed on the basis of a-noarfprj^, but the Aristophanic context suggests a direct derivation from an-ocr-repe'co. The vovs curoCTTep^TiK-ds is an 'idea which defrauds (dnoarepfi)', and Phaeax is KaTaAiyn-riK-ds because he is a person 'who checks (KaraXa^dvet) his opponent' (cf. in Clouds also whereas the inscriptional e-mficniKov is the 'payment for the f-ni^araC, not the *'payment which emjSaiW. Of course, some comic examples are not 'deverbal' in this sense, but those which are show that the linguistic fashion depicted by Aristophanes went beyond the traditional applications of the suffix in administrative usage. The last point is the most interesting in the present context. Paraphrasing quasi-deverbal adjectives in -IKOS with the generalizing present does not fundamentally alter their meaning. The formations in -IKOS take over some of the functions of relative clauses. Compare for instance Nub. 747 e^cu TOKOV •yvca/j.Tjv aTroarfp-qriK^v with a

synonymous

alternative formulation:

63 e.g. Eg. 1378-81, Nub. 483, 1172-3, and other passages referred to above; again Xen. Mem. i. i. 7, 3. i. 6, and PI. Phdr. 248d-e; even in Philolaus fr. 44 B 11 the 'nature of the number' is quasi-personal.

Sophistic Innovations

145

, The adjectival variant is more concise and it presents the 'defraudatory' quality of the yvwp-q not so much as a means to an end in one concrete case but as an unalterable attribute. Similarly, when Pheidippides has become e$apvr)riKos KavriXoyiKos he is not just able to deny and to contradict (*a.vnXf-ytiv SiWrcu): he is 'deniative' and 'contradictive'. In this extended function, which Aristophanes highlights as fashionable and sophistic in Knights and Clouds, the adjectives in -IKOS contribute to the general typicalization (de-individuation) and nominalization of Attic Greek. The innovative application of the suffix -IKOS led to a considerable increase in productivity, which in turn further supported the growth in the original denominal domain.

5.8. VERBAL ADJECTIVES IN S . 8 . I . USAGE

The lines Nub. 727-9, which have already been discussed because of the presence of the nominal phrase vovs dTroCTTepryriKos and the verbal noun (XTratdArj^a (§§ 5.6.1, 5.7.1), contain a further exceptional phenomenon, the accumulation of three verbal adjectives in

SOCRATES: You must not be soft, you must cover right up; for you have to think up a defraudative idea, a piece of chicanery. Such an accumulation is unique in Aristophanes' comedies. There are five cases of two verbal adjectives within two lines, but the shortest sequences of three verbal adjectives in a row span six or seven lines.64 On the whole, verbal adjectives in -re'os are not very frequent in Aristophanes: I have counted 63 examples.65 Obligation66 is normally expressed by Set (c.iso examples) or 64 Lys. 496-501; Ran. 652-8; for two verbal adjectives within two lines see Eq. 920—1; Pax 922—3; Lys. 292-3, 500-1; Eccl. 875—6. 65 Bishop (1899) i t and Moorhouse (1982) 171-2 exclude ambiguous (personal or impersonal) cases in their figures of 6 personal and 46 impersonal examples; Poultney (1963) 376 counts 61 examples. 66 The verbal adjectives in -re'o; express obligation rather than necessity: Bishop (1899)7.

146

Sophistic Innovations

(c.i6o examples). Moreover, Nub. 727-9 is remarkable (a) because the impersonal plural verbal adjective in -rea (occurring only 10 times in all the comedies, and only about 35 times in the whole of classical Greek67) is nowhere else doubled in Aristophanes, and (b) because the copula is nearly always expressed with impersonal (although the ratio with the singular -T/-T(OS is only about i copular : 2 non-copular verbal adjectives).68 S.8.2. FUNCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

It must be admitted that the use of verbal adjectives is not conspicuous in other parts of Clouds (or any other comedy). If Nub. 727-9 were not marked as sophistic by other means, we might hesitate to see in the uncommon accumulation of verbal adjectives an indication of 'sophistic' style. However, the phenomenon fits in well with the tendencies observed elsewhere in this chapter. The omission of the copula with -re'a (where it is usually expressed) and the repetition of verbal adjectives both enhance the nominal character of the sentences at Nub. 727—9. Of the three main variants for deontic statements, verbal adjectives in and xp*)> the first is the most nominal one from a synchronic point of view. It is true that xpn is in origin nominal too, but the existence of the augmented form expr)v in Aristophanic comedy shows that it was by that time perceived as an impersonal verb and a syntactic equivalent to the genuinely verbal Set.69 The verbal adjectives in -T«os/-T<:a appear late in Greek literature. The first examples are rrrj^avrfov 'to be injured' in Theognis and 'to be proclaimed' in Pindar. 70 Unfortunately, there are 67

Cf. Bishop (1899) 126-9, wim examples from Sophocles, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plato (the impersonal plural verbal adjective is not found in the Attic orators, Xenophon, or Menander). 68 The only other omission of the copula with impersonal -re'a in Aristophanes is Ach. 480 (and Thucydides shows a similar reticence with 12 impersonal -re'a, but only one non-copular example: Thuc. 7. 60. i); cf. also Bishop (1899) 249 and 129: comedy uses the copula more often than other genres, for the overall ratio is about i : 4; Lasso de la Vega (1952) 319-25; Poultney (1963) 376. 69 Augmented (xp"i)v does not occur in comic lyrics (nor in tragedy), but in Aristophanes' spoken lines there are 16 metrically guaranteed cases: Lautensach (1899) 152-9; Platnauer (1942); Barrett (1964) 361-2. 70 Thgn. 689; Find. Ol. 2. 6; the use is impersonal in Pindar, ambiguous in Theognis: cf. Bishop (1899) 10. The exact relationship of the verbal adjectives in with Mycenaean qe-te-jo and Hesiodic yareios (Hes. Th. 310; Sc. 144, 161) is unclear: see Schwyzer (1939) 811 and the literature cited by Meier-Briigger (1992) 164.

Sophistic Innovations

147

no exact figures for the subsequent increase. Even Bishop, who collected and analysed all the verbal adjectives in in Greek literature between Theognis and Dinarchus, is not explicit about the figures although he must have had them since he speaks of an exact total of 1,831 verbal adjectives (1,076 of which are used impersonally). 71 It is possible, however, to extrapolate some raw statistics from his discussion and supplement them with a few personal counts based on the electronic database of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (*): Tragedy

c.no (Euripides around 70%, Aeschylus less than i o% of the examples) Comedy £.67 (Aristophanes 63*) Herodotus 22* Thucydides 31* Xenophon c.i6o Plato c.i,040 Oratory ^.230 (of which Lysias 5*, Demosthenes 97*) However imprecise these figures may be, they allow two observations. First, there is a continuous increase of verbal adjectives throughout the fifth and fourth centuries. Secondly, no other writer is so fond of them as Plato, which may reflect a predilection in fourth-century spoken Attic. A colloquial origin is suggested by the gradual increase in tragedy, the greater frequency in comedy than in fifth-century historical prose, and the reservations of even a rather informal orator like Lysias. The origin of the verbal adjectives in -Te'os/-T
Bishop (1899) 4 and 14; for the significance of the following figures cf. n. 23 above. 72 Cf. e.g. Rix (1992) 237; Sihler (1995) 623.

148

Sophistic Innovations

verb) and Set. Compare the following two sentences: (a) Variant (b) literally means 'the horse is one which has the quality of having to be yoked', whereas (a) simply means 'one must yoke the horse'. The nominal character of (b) makes the statement more universal. The verbal adjectives are better able than their syntactic alternatives to express general truths and theorems, especially when they occur in nominal sentences (i.e. without a copula), which tend to be used in the formulation of timeless statements anyway (even though other factors such as metrical convenience, speed and economy of expression, or stylistic variation also influence the omission or retention of the copula).73 The generalizing and didactic value of the verbal adjectives in -Tcos/-T
Sophistic Innovations

149

5.9- FURTHER N O M I N A L I Z A T I O N PROCESSES ( A R T I C U L A R I N F I N I T I V E , VERBAL PERIPHRASIS) The nominalization and typicalization processes that have been described in the preceding sections are summarized in Figure 5.1. I should stress again that the observation of a general trend towards typicalization in fifth-century Attic does not depend on the interpretation of the examples cited from Clouds. The same observation could have been made by simply looking at the statistical increase of transitive active perfects, verbal nouns, or verbal adjectives without paying attention to a precise literary context. In fact, there are at least two further phenomena which are not highlighted in Clouds, but which form part of the same linguistic tendency. (i) In the nominative and accusative (i.e. with TO, but without preposition), the articular infinitive is a traditional syntactic feature and frequent in tragedy. In the genitive and dative, however, the articular infinitive only gradually becomes common in classical Greek. Moreover, subordinate clauses are now increasingly replaced by prepositional phrases containing an articular infinitive. Thus, in Nub. 1061-2 the Weak Argument asks:

WEAK ARGUMENT: For who is there that you have ever yet seen to derive any benefit from being modest?

The obvious syntactic alternative to this fully nominal articular infinitive would include a full verb, a copula, or at least a participie: The increasing frequency of articular infinitives in the genitive and dative or after prepositions further supports the general nominalization of fifth-century Attic. The statistics collected by Birklein and Burguiere show a spectacular growth both of the absolute numbers of the articular infinitive as a whole and of the proportional share of the nontraditional articular infinitives (columns II and III of Table 5.i). 75 75 Birklein (1888) n, 22, 32, 38, 46, 66-70, 75-80, 84; Burguiere (1960) 121-4; cf. Duhoux (2000) 263-4. I n J ust 2,000 lines of Menander, Aalto (1953) 33 counts 23 examples (i case in every 87 lines): 11 nom./acc. (47.8%), i dat., 8 gen. (together 39.1%), 3 prepositional (13.0%).

individuation < (verbal)

» typicalization (nominal)

Note. The diagram shows the morphosyntactic phenomena discussed in Ch. 5 positioned on a scale (1-9) ranging from full individuation (verbal) on the left to full typicalization (nominal) on the right. For each nominalization/typicalization phenomenon a more verbalized/individualized alternative is suggested between curved brackets. Phrasal and contextual complements are added in square brackets. The numbering and positioning in the above diagram identify individual words as follows: Position i: Finite (simplex) verbs (pres./aor., with or without nominal object) Position 6: 'Deverbal' adjective in Position 2: 'Resultative perfect' Position 7: Adjective (with copula) Position 3: Denominal compound verb expressing habituation Position 8: Verbal nouns in Position 4: Verbal infinitive Position 9: Abstract noun in Position 5: Verbal adjective in -re'os FIGURE 5.1. Nominalization and typicalization processes in Clouds

Sophistic Innovations

151

TABLE 5.1. Articular infinitives in classical Greek literature

Aeschylus Sophocles Euripides Aristophanes Herodotus Thucydides Plato Xenophon Demosthenes

I. nom./acc.

II. gen./dat.

III. with prep.

Ncx

%

No.

No.

44 82 74 39 35 63 932 539 361

86.33 84.5 79.66 60.0 71.4 21.4 45-9 41-3 31.9

4 7 H 9 5 69 480 252 372

% 7-8 7.2

15-1 13.8 10.2 23-4 23.66

20. o

32.9

3 8 5 17 9 163 620 515 397

% 5-9 8.2

5-4 26.2 18.4 55-3 30-5 39-4 35-i

TOTAL 5i 97 93 65 49 295 2032 1306 1 130

The high figures for Thucydides are hardly surprising given the well-known sophistic strand in his language. Those for Aristophanes illustrate that the new constructions76 were gaining territory in colloquial language as well, even though they may still have been bookish because of their abstractness: 94% of all attestations in the literature of the fifth and fourth centuries occur in prose, only 6% in drama.77 The fact that there is a particularly noticeable concentration of articular infinitives in the second half of Clouds with 8 cases within 600 lines need not be significant. In Nub. 1061 and 1071 the sophistic Weak Argument is speaking (echoed by the Strong Argument in Nub. 1067) and in Nub. 1412 the articular infinitive occurs in a sophistic argument, but the other cases seem less remarkable (Nub. 826, 1084, 1303, 1357). There is an exceptionally high incidence of

76 Overall, the articular infinitive is more common in Aeschylus (i case in every 159 lines) and Sophocles (1/106) than in Euripides (1/269) or Aristophanes (1/238), but this results from the frequency of the old nominative-accusative usage in the early tragedians: Birklein (1888) 33-4; Burguiere (1960) 118. The replacement of a final clause by an articular infinitive in the genitive (without preposition) is not attested in comedy. 77 Burguiere (1960) 120; Duhoux (2000) 264. Vendryes (1944) 129 observes that the articular infinitive is an elevated feature in Lysias; on the abstract (or 'typical') character of the articular infinitive, which does not express gender or number, see Denniston (1952) 37-8; Kurzova (1968) 69-83.

152

Sophistic Innovations

articular infinitives also in Wasps (as well as Plutus, but by that time the usage was firmly established anyway). 78 (2) In the third person plural of the medio-passive perfect and pluperfect, Attic Greek regularly used a periphrastic expression with a participle and the copula elaiv (e.g. Pax 197 'they have moved out' for unpronounceable *e'£u>iaavTai; cf. App. § 3.4.1.4). Perhaps starting from possessive constructions with the copula (e.g. Ach. 512 KOL^OI yap fanv ap.ijf\ia KeKo^eva 'I too have had vines cut down'; Nub. 795; Ar. fr. 215?), the periphrastic perfect gradually intruded into the singular as well, especially, but not exclusively, with neuter plural subjects.79 Almost half of the Aristophanic cases for the extended use of the periphrasis occur in the last two plays. The transition from, for instance, 'a thing has been examined' to thing is examined" (cf. Lys. 26) is again a step towards nominalization of a verbal phrase. This is particularly clear where the perfect participle parallels an adjective; here, the periphrastic expression supports syntactic integration (cf. Eccl. 746-7 Til be an absolute loser and have very little sense rather than KCLKO&aifiwv avfjp eooftat KCLI vovv o\iyov KC/CTTjaojU-ai). 80

Mutatis mutandis the same thing happens in the case of the socalled schema Chalctdicum,81 where a present verb form is replaced by a periphrastic construction of present participle + copula (e.g. Eq. 468 ravra fan av^cfvatii^tva 'that plot's welded together' for , Again a possessive notion accounts for some but not all cases.82 The figure also occurs with active perfect participles. 83 78

Cf. Birklein (1888) 38; Vendryes (1944) 131. Ntr. pi.: Ach, 1089; Av. 1291; Eccl. 139, 458, 970; Plut. 161, 626; ntr. and other genders: Eq. 230, 844; Vesp. 127; Pax 566; Av. 1301; Lys. 26-7, 175, 1038; Thesm. 75 (and cf. 1119); Ran. 761 (and cf. 721); Eccl. 61, 1139, 1147; Plut. 77 (is person!), 1192; also a future perfect in Av. 655 foeoBov fTTTtptufievui 'you'll b winged'. The 'Latinate' -rawrayi fanv o-ma 'these are roasted' in Pax 1057—8 is exceptional. 80 Similarly with present participles Av. 755; Ran. 1396; Plut. 371; cf. Bjorck (1940)32. 81 Lesbonax Gramm. 5 Blank. 82 Pax 334; Av. 652; Lys. 101, 729—30 (both possessive); Thesm. 77 (paratragic); Plut. 49; Ar. fr. 74 (possessive?); later e.g. Antiphanes frs. 4, 54. 3, 122. n; Anaxandrides fr. 57. 4. In passages like Av. 962, Ran. 35-6, 80-90, or Eccl. 1094, the participle stands for a relative clause and does not go with the copula: similarly 225-6; Ran. 433; Eccl. io86;cf. Bjorck (1940) 15, 102-3. The frequent type 'who is calling?' with an articular participle is idiomatic: Bjorck (1940) 89-92. 79

83

Eq. 854; Av. 1473; Plut. 867.

Sophistic Innovations

153

It is true that the aspectual motivation for both types, part. pres. and etvai + part. perf. pass., is sometimes strong, that the periphrasis may involve a 'Verlegung des Schwergewichts von der Handlung auf das Eigenschaftliche' or a 'partialisierende Schau', and that in translation adverbs like 'actually, indeed' may help to render the exact semantic nuance.84 However, a purely semantic explanation does not do justice to the fact that the usage is not predictable, that it becomes more common in fourth-century prose as compared with fifth-century literature, 85 and that it seems at least as strong in literary as in spoken registers since neither Old nor Middle and New Comedy employ it more frequently than other contemporary genres.86 The verbal periphrasis and the articular infinitive share two essential features. Both involve a nominalizing process which (a) gradually increased in frequency during the fifth and fourth centuries, and (b) was firmly rooted in cultivated or literate registers. If Aristophanes was right in associating the nominalizing and typicalizing processes discussed earlier with the spread of sophistic culture, both (a) and (b) also apply to all of them. That he was probably right becomes clear if we now look at these developments from a typological perspective. 5.10. N O M I N A L I Z A T I O N , T Y P I C A L I Z A T I O N , A N D LITERATE C U L T U R E It has long been observed that languages which know both oral and written registers always have a very clear divide between the two.87 Recently Biber has shown that, although the distinctions between oral and written registers vary from language to language, they all resemble each other since most of the language-specific distinctions can be grouped together into a few universal register dimensions: interactiveness, production circumstances, personal stance.88 Biber's approach has been presented in more detail in 84

Bjorck (1940) 28; Coseriu (1975) 16-18; Rutherford (1903) 249. 86 Aerts (1965) 25-6; Dietrich (1973) 201-9. Bjorck (1940) 36. Even though the distinction is not absolute, as Biber (1988), esp. 160-4, stresses. For further literature on oral vs. written registers see e.g. the contributions in Tannen (1982) and the references in Biber (1995) 12-15. 88 Biber (1995) 236—53. 85

87

154

Sophistic Innovations

Chapter 2. Here I will concentrate on the dimension of production circumstances in the differentiation of oral and written registers. As we have seen in Chapter 2, the dimension of production circumstances has similar structural correlates across all languages. In oral registers with 'on-line' production, elliptical sentences, parataxis, or contracted forms are frequent, whereas written registers with 'planned' production show extensive structural integration and elaboration. Concretely, this means more hypotactic structures, more precise lexical choices, and above all a high degree of nominalization: frequent nouns, derived nominal forms, attributive adjectives, and prepositional phrases.89 Moreover, structural integration can involve typicalization processes other than nominalization: compare the integrated d/je/foSiyaw with a non-integrated or the integrated perfect KeVAoya with a non-integrated Consequently, a shift towards nominalization and typicalization is, typologically speaking, the grammatical manifestation of a shift from a more 'oral' towards a more 'literate' mode of expression. If the literate mode becomes influential and prestigious enough to leave its imprint on the oral mode, such a development can affect the entire system of a language.90 In practical terms, nominalization and typicalization processes are therefore to be expected wherever (i) literacy is spreading and (2) literate culture is gaining sociocultural prestige. That (i) literacy was spreading quickly in late fifth-century Athens can be inferred for instance from the fact that we first hear at this time of an established Athenian book market (Eupolis fr. 327).91 And as for (2), with their new intellectualized form of education the sophists both promoted, and profited from, a changing social evaluation of 'bookish' culture and an increasing apprecia89

Biber (1995) 259—60; cf. Givon (1979) 82—3, 103-6; Chafe (1982). Biber (1995) 300 suggests that written registers evolve in three stages: ( i ) genesis (written registers enter a language and are already quite different from typical spoken registers), (2) early development (written registers become more sharply distinguished from spoken registers, extending the range of register variation), (3) split between popular and specialized registers (the former becoming more similar to oral registers). This model treats oral registers as static, but since stage (3) occurs when the literate public is widening, the convergence which takes place is likely to be mutual in both literate and oral registers. 91 Also Av. 1288; cf. Aristomenes fr. 9; Nicophon fr. 10; Theopompus Com. fr. 79; Harris (1989) 84-5, and for the spread of literacy in general 65-115. 90

Sophistic Innovations

155

tion of literary learning. In other words, we could have predicted on typological grounds exactly those grammatical trends which we actually observe in Aristophanes' sophistic comedy. In this sense— because it illustrates so well how literate expression and sophistic teaching went hand in hand—a fragment from Aristophanes' Tagenistae is perhaps the best key to the linguistic world of Clouds (Ar. fr. 506; note the resultative perfect and the modern cf. Ch. 6.8.2):

Either a book or Prodicus or one of those babblers has corrupted this man. 5.II.

CONCLUSION

In this chapter we have seen how a close analysis of stylistically marked passages in Aristophanic comedy can throw new light on linguistic change. The observation that the phenomena considered here are spreading during the classical epoch is not new in itself, but the particular co-occurrence of these phenomena in Aristophanes' Clouds allows us to reconstruct their position in the sociolinguistic system of Attic Greek, to link their spread to the emergence of a new cultural movement, and to recognize their common foundation in a general trend towards nominalization and typicalization. The validity of Aristophanes' implicit indications about their 'sophistic' nature has been corroborated by typological arguments. Since nominalization and typicalization processes generally characterize shifts from oral to literate modes of expression and since the sophists were the most prominent promoters of a change from a traditional oral culture to a new literate culture, it is plausible to see in the verbal play of Clouds not just a literary construct (as in the case of the 'scientific discourse' described in the preceding chapter) but a comic reflection of an actual diachronic development with a sociolinguistic background. On the basis of an entirely different body of material and with more emphasis on the typological aspect, the next chapter on 92

Cf. further Denniston (1927) 117-18, also on Ran. 943, 1409; Pfeiffer (1968) 27-32-

156

Sophistic Innovations

female speech in Aristophanes will further elaborate on this connection between comic representation, cultural change, and sociolinguistic variation.

6

Female Speech

6.1. I N T R O D U C T I O N The study of gender-specific language has been one of the most thriving fields of sociolinguistics over the past few decades. At least since the seventeenth century it has been known that there are nonEuropean cultures whose languages mark the speaker's gender obligatorily in their grammar. North American languages became the focus of interest after the work by Sapir on the Indian Yana language in Northern California.1 These languages fundamentally differ from those of an Indo-European type where the only form of morphological gender-marking does not depend on the sex of the speaker. However, Jespersen noted early that in European cultures, too, women do not speak exactly like men. His 1922 chapter on women's language contains some crude generalizations, but it is also a rich source of contemporary and historical material from various cultures and highly valued as the starting-point of modern gender linguistics.2 In the 19703 the works of Labov, Lakoff, and Trudgill provided new stimuli. 3 Here were made some of the statements which gender-linguists still position themselves for or against. Certain fundamental notions even reached a non-specialist audience and contributed to a general interest in the matter.4 Perhaps the most fascinating (and most controversial) finding was that men almost universally use more stigmatized or non-standard linguistic 1 Sapir (1929); later Haas (1944); Flannery (1946); cf. Bodine (1975) with a survey of further studies; more recently e.g. Bradley (1998) on an Australian aboriginal language. On early reports see Jespersen (1922) 237-8; Coates (1998) 7. 2 Jespersen (1922) 237-54, with statements like 'the vocabulary of a woman as a rule is much less extensive than that of a man' (p. 248). Even earlier, Frazer (1900) had discussed the topic: cf. Bodine (1975) 130. A first reaction by a classicist was the chapter on 'II linguaggio delle donne' in Menander by Zini (1938) 57—80. 3 Labov (1972); Trudgill (1972); Lakoff (1973). 4 Reflected for instance in the hotly debated book by Tannen (1990): cf. Troemel-Ploetz (1991).

158

Female Speech

features than women.5 Most researchers agree that the reason must be a social one and that gender-based differences in language are not conditioned by biological factors (although women may have an innate biological superiority in language acquisition and use).6 The nature of the ancient evidence did not facilitate genderlinguistic research by classical scholars. Nevertheless, the issue was soon taken up. In a first step, Gilleland collected secondary evidence: statements by ancient grammarians and other authors. Next, it was recognized that comedy and mime might yield something comparable (in type if not in quality) to modern collections of oral data. Since the comic poets were all men, the material must of course be treated with extreme caution; it certainly encodes folklinguistic notions about gender-specific language as well as linguistic realities. Still, the articles by Bain on New Comedy and by Adams on Roman Comedy have demonstrated that a substantial number of plausible facts can be gathered. Whereas Bain had consciously neglected Old Comedy because of its discontinuous and often unrealistic mode of characterization, which might falsify the results to an even greater degree, Sommerstein showed that certain stereotypes about women's language were recoverable there too, and that some of them were probably based on real gender differences in classical Greek.7 Sommerstein's observations, mainly on oaths, address forms, and the use of affective adjectives and obscene language, were a reliable starting-point for my own investigations. 8 Of course, my primary aim is not merely to recapitulate Sommerstein's list of female-speech features in Aristophanes. I rather want to relate his data (as well as additional material) to modern gender-linguistic theories. In order to do so, I will first discuss a range of basic concepts in sociolinguistic research on 5

Cf. e.g. Coates (1986) 57—78; Nordberg (1975) 596, with further references. Cf. Maccoby-Jacklin (1975) 75-85; Chambers (1992) 199-204; critically Macaulay (1978); James (1996) 118. 7 Gilleland (1980); Bain (1984); Adams (1984); Sommerstein (1995). The (good) investigation on women's language in Euripides by McClure (1995) turned out to be less rewarding. On Roman comedy see also Schauwecker (2002). 8 Eugenia Lopez-Garcia kindly allowed me also to use her unpublished Cambridge M.Phil, thesis: Lopez-Garcia (19980) and (19986). Further points are made by Nieddu (2001), but few of these are supported by a quantitative analysis, so that the classification of his 'locuzioni e giri di frase che nella loro particolare modulazione appartenevano . . . all'universo femminile' (p. 218) remains entirely subjective. 6

Female Speech

159

women's language and situate the Athenian linguistic world in this framework (§§ 6.2-6.7). Next, I will give a catalogue of genderspecific features in Aristophanic language (§ 6.8). Finally I will interpret these features with the help of the concepts presented in the first part (§§ 6.9-6.10), before ending with a few remarks on dramatic technique (§ 6.n).

6.2. STANDARD, P R E S T I G E , AND I N N O V A T I O N If we start from the observation that men use more stigmatized and non-standard features than women we soon encounter the first difficulty. The observation presupposes the existence of a linguistic 'standard', from which speakers can depart. In most modern literate societies it is easy to establish what is standard since our societies tend to be 'literarized': the grammar of the 'standard' language regularly coincides with that of cultivated writing, and as such it has great cultural prestige. Athens in the fifth century was not an illiterate society, but written standards could not have the same regulatory function. Literature was accessible only to a minority, and, more importantly, literary standards that could become prestige varieties were only just developing. Authors like Thucydides or Gorgias still belonged to an era of literary experimentation. In the period of Old Comedy, Athens underwent deep changes. Through its empire it had lost the innocence of the archaic citystate. Its political leadership unavoidably led to a growing internationalism of the population. During the Peloponnesian War (which revealed that non-Athenian ways of life were not always inferior) allies were gained and lost. Athens was a hub for visitors and settlers from all parts of the Greek world. All this fluctuation left its imprint on the Attic language. Linguistic change was omnipresent. With the new internationalism the roots of Koine Greek were growing. In such periods of accelerated linguistic change some people are inevitably less happy than others. The 'Old Oligarch', who wrote, perhaps in the 4205, the Pseudo-Xenophontic Constitution of Athens, was probably9 one of those who had uneasy feelings about the development of Attic Greek (2. 8): 9 Despite the hardly laudatory mention of /3apj3apoi at the end of the passage (cf. Cic. de rep. 2. 7), Frisch (1942) 254 rightly warns that 'it should . . . be kept in mind that we are here in the middle of an enumeration of "advantages" of the naval superiority'.

160

Female Speech

Moreover, because they heard all kinds of languages and dialects, [the Athenians] selected one thing from this variety and another from that. In fact, all the other Greeks prefer their own dialects, ways of life, and manners, but the Athenians have a mixed language with elements taken from all the other Greeks as well as from the barbarians.

For people like the 'Old Oligarch" pure Old Attic would have been the ideal 'standard', the most 'prestigious' form of Attic. On the other hand, there was a long tradition of ennobling Attic with foreign elements. Tragedy had always borrowed features of the literary language of Ionia. Ionic influences are equally obvious in early Attic prose. And Lopez Eire has argued that the emergence of Koine Greek in the fourth century was essentially the consequence of an lonicization of Attic.10 Since Ionia also played a central role in the establishment of the common cultural heritage of Greece, such an lonicized Attic could easily acquire social prestige. Hence, for a second group of Athenians 'prestige' Attic would have meant an Attic more open to linguistic innovations. Through what channels would these innovations creep in? In Greek dialectology most emphasis is usually laid on wavelike linguistic spread. Modern studies of linguistic innovation show that a better analogy than that of the wave would be that of a stone skimming across a pond. The spread of uvular /r/ in Europe, for instance, started in Paris around 1600, and subsequently invaded the German and Scandinavian linguistic area by jumps from one urban centre to the next. Minor jumps from these centres first affected smaller towns, then villages, but many less urbanized patches remained unaffected. 11 Thus, we would expect innovations from outside to start off in Athens (or maybe the Piraeus), and to reach more remote parts of Attica only slowly. A famous Aristophanic fragment may confirm this scenario (fr. 706):

10

Lopez Eire (1993), after others like Meillet (1965) 262—4. Chambers-Trudgill (1998) 166-86; details for the spread of uvular /r/ in Trudgill(i974)2i8-2i. 11

Female Speech

161

[him] whose language is the average style of the polis, neither urbane and slightly womanish, nor vulgar and somewhat boorish. The fragment is difficult to interpret, but it clearly distinguishes three sociolectal strata in Attic. One of the two negative extremes is labelled 'rustic, boorish' and thus associated with the dypds 'countryside' (cf. inraypoiKOTtpav), the other is called 'urbane' and associated with the aarv 'city' (cf. dcn-eiW). In view of the stone-skimming model for linguistic diffusion, the 'urbane' style must be the one more open to innovation. Cultivated lonians would visit the city of Athens rather than the rural deme of Acharnae. The 'urbane' variety is further characterized as 'womanish'. Apparently, (over)refined language was folk-linguistically associated with an unmanly or 'female' style of speaking. 12 How did this association come along? Were Athenian women among those promoting linguistic innovation? The idea is not implausible. In many traditional societies women are the main caregivers for small children, whose language acquisition is therefore biased in favour of the women's norm. When the children (or at least the boys) grow up, they may redefine their linguistic models, but the initial advantage for women's language remains.13 Even in English, a language with a recognized standard, women observe the 'standard' only with regard to stable variables (i.e. variants that have coexisted for a long time, like walkin' vs. walking), but they are less conservative than men in the case of variables which reflect change in progress (like the American raising of [se] in words like rat).14 A well-known passage from Plato further supports the view that Athenian women formed part of the linguistic avant-garde. In the Cratylus, Socrates observes that women retain best what he takes to be the ancient pronunciation of /<ei> and <£> (PI. Crat. 4i8b-d):

12 Cf. the association of (Euripidean) tragedy with cultural 'feminization1: Zeitlin (1981) 2io-i i; Zeitlin (1990) 88-95; Taaffe (1993) :39; Hall (1998) 29-33. 13 Cf. Labov (1972) 302-3; Lakoff (1973) 47 n. i; Thorne-Henley (1975) 23-4; Labov (1990) 219-20. 14 Labov (1972) 243, 301-4; Labov (1990) 210-18; Eckert (1998) 66.

162

Female Speech

You know that our ancestors used the iota and the delta in a very correct way, especially the women, who best preserve the ancient pronunciation But nowadays, people change iota into epsilon or eta, and delta into zeta because they sound more impressive. . . . Thus, the most ancient speaker used to pronounce rmtpa as i^tpa, a bit later they made it epepa, and today they say riiitpa. . . . Similarly, you know that our anscestors said Svoyov for

The fact that Plato was no great historical linguist does not diminish the value of his observations on synchronic pronunciation variation. The passage shows that women were among the promoters of an iotacistic pronunciation [i:] for /<ei>. For <£> the implications are less obvious, but <Suoyw> for <1,vy6v> may be an attempt to reproduce a pronunciation [S£] for traditional Attic [£8]. In both cases, then, the female pronunciation of Plato's day was to become common by the end of the fourth century. Sommerstein suggests that these pronunciations originated in Boeotian, and that 'women were more ready than men to adopt innovations from this low-prestige source'.15 However, there is no evidence for Boeotian influence on Attic: the change [e:] > [i:] may have taken place independently, and Boeotian <8S> for <£> is not what we find in later Attic. 16 And why should women have taken up a low-prestige pronunciation? When low-prestige features are adopted, they regularly have 'covert' prestige (see § 6.3), and that is extremely unlikely in this cultural constellation. Instead, we may tentatively assume (i) that women prominently furthered linguistic innovation in Attic 17 because they regarded the innovatory variety as prestigious, and (2) that this variety had prestige connotations also for those (male) social groups who aimed at cultural refinement (doreKmjs) although that meant to be on the 'female' side of the established gender-model. 15

Sommerstein (1995) 83, who interprets the anlaut of <Suoydv> as [d-], so that the women's pronunciation would have been ephemeral; for the pronunciation of <£> and the transition [zd] > [dz] (> [z]) in 4th-cent. Attic see Allen (1987) 56-9. Female iotacism is also plausible from an anatomical viewpoint, since 'the shorter length of women's vocal tracts does predict higher formant positions': Labov (1972) 303-

16 17

Conversely, Boeotian is influenced by Attic: cf. Vottero (1998) 137-40. Cf. already Duhoux (1987) 190-5.

Female Speech

163

6.3. L A N G U A G E LOYALTY Athenian women led a more restricted life than Athenian men and were thus less directly exposed to innovatory influences from outside, e.g. from the cultural prestige area of Ionia. Hence, one might object to hypothesis (i) in the preceding section that women should not be expected to have innovated more than men.18 At this point we need to distinguish different types of societies. The social network theory of J. and L. Milroy predicts that people who have all their social relationships within a narrowly defined community, a tight 'social network', are more likely to use nonstandard or non-prestigious speech variants.19 In communities where women are more 'domestic' than men and less involved in close-knit peer groups that form at places of employment or on street corners, women are more open to elite norms and less constrained by vernacular norms which are maintained by peer monitoring.20 A study by Holmquist in a modern Spanish village found that, although men were much more exposed to standard Spanish because of their jobs, women's speech was significantly closer to standard Spanish and therefore more innovative than that of men, who kept to the traditional local patois.21 Borker has pointed out anthropological similarities throughout Southern Europe, where the separation of women's and men's domains are a prominent feature of social life. Her description of the prevalent cultural system in these countries could be a description of the cultural system that characterized most ancient Greek societies. It is based on oppositions of public and private, honour and shame, male and female: 'The domestic domain here is not just the home, nor is it a neutral analytical construct but a conceptualization that is grounded in a specific cultural tradition that privatizes and spatializes it. This culturally specific concept of the domestic domain sets it in 18

The real seclusion of women may have been less complete than the idealized seclusion: cf. Richter (1971); Gould (1980)46-9; Just (1989) 105-25; Fanthametal. (1994) 106—9; Blok (2001) 97-100 and 109—16. 19 Milroy (1980) 177—8; cf. James (1996) 100—2. 20 Hill (1987) 157, after Cheshire (1978) 66-7 and Milroy (1980) 80-1, 155-7. 21 Holmquist (1985) 198—202; similarly Gal (1978) on a bilingual Hungarian village where (young) women prefer the socially higher classed German to the 'lower' Hungarian because the latter is associated with a peasant lifestyle; cf. James (1996) 103-4, with further examples.

164

Female Speech

opposition to an equally culture-bound public domain, and associates the domestic domain with women.' 22 Typologically, it is therefore plausible to find in ancient Athens a situation which is similar to that in the modern Spanish village. The concept of 'language loyalty' further clarifies the issue. However close-knit women's social networks are, women may feel little loyalty to the traditional culture embodied in traditional language. They may expect a real or symbolic bettering of their lives and social positions from the culture that is associated with the new language. In this situation the two languages or styles often represent a 'power code' (the 'code' which promises a better life by challenging existing structures from above or outside while being supported by a socio-economic strength that is not regulated by the community itself) and a 'solidarity code' (which is regulated by the community to enforce cohesion in face of the threat from above or outside).23 The question is whether Athenian women could expect to better their lot in life through the adoption of the new code. Certainly it was a time when men in intellectual circles began to reflect on the respective positions of women and men: Bruns went as far as to speak of 'Frauenemancipation', and he saw in a comedy like Lysistrata the reaction to such ideas.24 Moreover, it might have been sufficient for women to be regarded as more refined, which would have enhanced their self-esteem as well as their symbolic social status (even if their practical status remained the same). It has been suggested that women in modern Western societies use fewer non-standard or stigmatized features because unlike men they are mainly judged by superficial criteria such as appearance and behaviour. Since women do not have the means of securing material capital in the same way as men, they are forced to accumulate symbolic capital in order to become respected.25 Again much depends on the kind of community, but the extent to which women use standard or prestige language as a strategy for gaining 22 Borker (1980) 37; cf. Reiter (1975) 254-73; for the basic dichotomies male/female and public/private in ancient Greek gender-construction cf. Xen. Oe 7. 20-5; Foley (1981) 140-61; for the Spartan exception to the rule see Cartledge (1981); Fantham et at. (1994) 56-67. 23 Cf. for 'power code' vs. 'solidarity code' Hill (1987) 128; for 'language loyalty' James (1996) 103-4. 24 Bruns (1900); cf. also Rothwell (1990) 21—3. 25 Trudgill (1972) 182-3; Eckert (1998) 73.

Female Speech

165

respect seems to be inversely related to the level of their participation in public life. 26 The far-reaching exclusion of women from public life in Athens would then corroborate the idea that they 'had to' turn to a prestige language which was distinct from the traditional solidarity code.27 But why would men not seek the same symbolic capital in addition to their material capital? Labov and Trudgill point out that non-standard speech is often associated with showing independence from social constraints and that this is a characteristic feature of the gender construction of 'masculinity' (whereas 'femininity' encourages conforming to social rules). Stigmatized male language therefore has 'covert prestige', as opposed to the 'overt prestige' of standard language.28 Of course, it would be exaggerated to think of the traditional Athenian solidarity code (i.e. the Old Oligarch's ideal Attic: cf. § 6.2) as stigmatized. However, we had good reasons to suppose that the cultivated Athenian elite attached overt prestige to a linguistically innovative (lonicizing) form of Attic. Thus, showing independence could mean opposition to the linguistic fashions of this elite, fashions which the average male citizen did not have under his control, both because they came from 'outside' (e.g. from Ionian culture) and because they were supported 'inside' mainly by members of more intellectual social strata (e.g. the sophistic circles). This again reminds us of the contrast between 'feminine' cultivated urbanity and 'masculine' rustic boorishness in Aristophanes fr. 706 (quoted in § 6.2), and also of the comic 'feminization' of intellectuals like Socrates, Euripides, and Agathon. The allegedly pathic homosexual Agathon is most clearly linked with femininity, 29 but 'feminine' features are also attached to Socrates, whose followers spend their lives indoors rather than in the agora, and to Euripides, who is said to teach women not to conform with male-imposed norms and whose linguistic behaviour is characterized as Aa/W 'chatter' just like that of women.

26

James (1996) no. Cic. de oral. 3. 45 notes the conservative pronunciation of Roman women: perhaps overt prestige here implied traditionalism (mos maiorum); cf. Gilleland (1980) 180-1; Adams (1984) 44. 28 Trudgill (1972) 183-4; James (1996) 113-15. 29 Cf. McClure (1999) 222. 27

166

Female Speech

6.4. P O L I T E N E S S In connection with 'masculine' and 'feminine' gender regulations, politeness (in the widest sense, i.e. including features like the use or non-use of strong words and obscenity30) is a crucial point. According to Brown and Levinson, politeness essentially consists in respecting other people's feelings and attending to their 'face needs' (i.e. their natural wish not to be offended, but to be respected or liked). 'Positive' politeness strategies aim at disarming threats to positive face needs by showing support, approval, and interest in the interlocutor. Typical linguistic features of this type are terms of endearment and compliments. 'Negative' politeness strategies are based on avoidance and assure the addressee that the speaker will not interfere with his or her freedom of action or opinion; typically—and usually more often in female than in male speech—'hedges' are used to limit the force of a speech-act (words like 'maybe', questions instead of assertions, tag questions to seek agreement, etc.).31 Moreover, various modern studies have shown that women develop a cooperative speech style and observe social rules of politeness better than men.32 The drawback is that women's language thereby becomes less straightforward, which leads to the folk-linguistic notion of female insincerity. 6.5. STEREOTYPING AND D R A M A T I C R E A L I S M Despite the cross-cultural similarities of women's speech, which result from the subordinated status of women in most societies, the need to consider the potentially relevant socio-economic factors of each culture individually has been subsumed in the sociolinguistic slogan 'think practically, look locally'.33 If anywhere, this is crucial 30 On (the absence of) female swearing and obscenity in modern (Western) culture see e.g. Jespersen (1922) 245-7; Lakoff (1973) 50-1; Coates (1986) 108-9; McClure (1999) 208 n. 7; for Latin see Adams (1984) 45-6. 31 Brown (1980) 114-17; cf. Brown-Levinson (1987) 70; Coates (1986) 109—12; Coates (1988) 113-18; J. Holmes (1995) 72-114; similarly in Latin: Adams (1984) 55-68. 32 Cf. Lakoff (1973) 56-7; Brown (1980) 119-33, on Tzeltal; M. H. Go (1980), on boys and girls in Philadelphia; Shibamoto (1987) 28—9, on Japanese; Coates (1986) 114-17; Coates (1988) 118-19; J- Holmes (1998) 467-8. 33 In the title of Eckert—McConnell-Ginet (1992); cf. Sherzer (1987) 117; James (1996) 119.

Female Speech

167

in the case of an ancient society like classical Athens, where we are facing the additional problem that all our evidence is filtered through male perception and stereotyping. Perhaps the best modern analogue to our investigation is Shibamoto's study on the depiction of female speech in (male-centred and male-written) Japanese television soap operas. Shibamoto found that stereotypical features of women's language are accumulated in these soap operas, since women are expected to behave more womanly (and men more manly) than in reality. 34 An essential difference between the Japanese soap operas and the Aristophanic plays lies in the fact that men played all the female roles in Greek comedy. We might therefore fear to find only stereotypical features in Aristophanes, but these in an exaggerated frequency. However, a male playwright does not just sprinkle a few 'female' features over an essentially male script in order to reproduce 'typically female' language. He rather operates with an intuitive concept of what women's conversation sounds like, without being able to pin down the exact features that produce the desired effect. For instance, if the author had heard female speakers use conservative morphology a thousand times, he would automatically introduce a larger amount of conservative morphology into his representation, even though he might occasionally give the same forms also to a male speaker and be unable to analyse grammatically what makes his female discourse 'female'. In such cases we are dealing with (subconscious) 'indicators' rather than (conscious) 'stereotypes' or 'markers', 35 but since a neat separation is rarely possible, the catalogue in section 6.8 will consider them together. 6.6. F O L K - L I N G U I S T I C N O T I O N S A N D 'SEXIST' L A N G U A G E In order to assess the gender-linguistic material we actually find in comedy, we need to be aware of the major folk-linguistic ideas 34 Shibamoto (1987) 40-7; for a disagreement between folk-linguistic thinking and linguistic reality see Hill (1987) 121; for the methodological problems with ancient languages also Bain (1984) 24-5 and Adams (1984) 43—4. 35 Cf. for this distinction Saville-Troike (1989) 72-3, after Labov (1972) 237—8. In the present context it is unnecessary to distinguish (inaccurate) 'stereotypes' and (accurate) 'markers': since we will never know how women really spoke, 'stereotype' is the safer label.

168

Female Speech

about female speech in classical Greece. This section briefly reviews the relevant data. McClure has recently discussed the range of verbal genres which are associated with women in the Greek literary tradition: ritual lamentation, ritual obscenity (aio^poAoyi'a), ritual cries like the female choruses, gossip, and seductive persuasion.36 Many of these are typically assigned to the domestic or private sphere (whereas public speech-making is a male domain), and most of them are closely paralleled by similar 'female' genres in other traditional cultures. Among the Kuna Indians of Panama, public verbal genres are 'male', but women perform the private genres of lullabies, tuneful weeping, and lamentation. 37 Among the Araucanians in Chile, women are responsible for laments but expected to be taciturn and submissive, whereas men are trained for public speaking.38 The same division characterizes the Athenian household, where women are told to shut up when they want to discuss politics with their husbands and ideally keep silent anyway. 39 In public, women must not only not speak themselves, but not even be spoken of, as Pericles implies in his funeral oration. Also, orators avoid naming respectable women in forensic speeches and this rule of etiquette may well have been observed in other social contexts as well.40 A Mediterranean areal pattern makes women domestic storytellers.41 Even in comedy, Lysistrata presents a major part of her political vision in an extended wool-working metaphor drawn from domestic life.42 One of the most persistent cross-cultural notions about women is the idea that they are gossips. Only recently has the socio36 McClure (1999) 32-8, and 40—7 on lamentation; cf. also Blok (2001) 104-9 and Lardinois (2001) 80-91 on ritual lamenting and singing, Deubner (1941) on the and O'Higgins (2001) on 37 Gal (1991) 182; Sherzer (1987) 98 and 112, also on other non-industrial societies; McClure (1999) 32-8, esp. 35. 38 Sherzer (1987) 100-1; McClure (1999) 35. 39 Lys. 507-20; cf. Eccl. 520-1 (where Blepyrus does not accept his wife's 'that's none of your business'); Xen. Oec. 3. 12, 7. 5; Soph. Ai. 293; Eur. Tro. 654-5; Pl ut Mor. I42c-d; Gilleland (1980) 182. The reality may have been more like Eccl. 551—5, where a husband wants to talk to his wife about the results of the cf. Dem. 59. 110-11; Gould (1980) 50. 40 Thuc. 2. 45. 2.; Schaps (1977); cf. Sommerstein (19806) with similar evidence from comedy. 41 Harding (1975) 296-7; Reiter (1975) 264-5; Sherzer (1987) 98. 42 Lys. 567—86; cf. Henderson (1987) 129; Foley (1982) 14—21, on Praxagora's OiAos-centred political system in Ecclesiazusae.

Female Speech

169

psychological function of 'chatting' in all-female settings been reevaluated,43 The association of women and gossip is reported in rural communities of the entire Mediterranean.44 In ancient Greece pertinent references are widespread, especially in drama. 45 The distribution of the verb XaXelv 'to chatter' in comedy reflects this stereotype.46 In Aristophanes, AaAeiV (and AaAia, AaAo?) frequently denotes women's speech and conversation. Most of the time it has unmistakably negative connotations.47 In view of the association of women with (over-)refined discourse (§ 6.2), it is significant that the only other social group to whom AaAetV constantly refers in comedy is the club of sophistically trained fops a la Euripides.48 Again people who seek (exaggerated) aarfioT-rjs are thrown together with women. This may betray a certain fear of a general feminization of society, as the sociocultural balance shifted from the public towards the domestic sphere during and after the Peloponnesian War. 49 The transition from Old to Middle Comedy is one of the symptoms of an increasingly 'privatized' and domesticized Athenian world. The idea that women use language for tricking and cheating is equally common. Sometimes this takes the form of seductive persuasion,50 but comedy also imputes to women the betrayal of secrets and straightforward lying51—another parallel between women and the sophistically educated and supposedly effeminate elite politicians.52 43 Swacker (1975) 76; Harding (1975) 297-302; J. Holmes (1998) 461; cf. Johnson—Aries (1983). 44 Borker (1980) 32; also in Roman culture: Adams (1984) 46. 45 Outside comedy cf. e.g. Semon. 7. 90-1 West; Eur. Phoen. 198-201; McClure (5999) 56-62; in comedy e.g. Thesm. 393; Eccl. 113-14, 120. 46 Cf. Taaffe (1993) 86, 116; McClure (1999) 60. 47 Lys. 356, 442, 627; Thesm. 717; cf. Thesm. 393. 48 Ach. 705, 716; Eg. 1381; Nub. 931, 1053; Ran. 91, 917, 1069, 1492; Ar. fr. 392. When AaAefp is said about other people who are 'chattering' (frequently with the implication that they should 'shut up': Eg. 295; Nub. 505; Vesp. 1135; Eccl. 1058), it is not associated with a particular style of talking. For the contrast \a\dv 'to chatter' vs. Ae'yfii/ 'to speak' see Eupolis fr. 116. 49 Cf. e.g. Zeitlin (1981)210-11. 50 Rothwell (1990) 28-9, 35-7; McClure (1999) 62-8; cf. Lys. 1037 'born cajolers'. 51 Thesm. 393, 483-5, 502-16; Eccl. 238; cf. already Hes. Op. 77-9 on Pandora. 52 Cf. the references in Jocelyn (1980) 53 n. 145; Rothwell (1990) 77-81; McClure (1999) 221.

170

Female Speech

On a different level, attitudes towards women are expressed by language itself. Apparently harmless linguistic features like the generic function of masculine forms in present-day European languages (and in ancient Greek 53 ) may not be recognized as 'sexist' by everybody. Under the assumption that a language becomes sexist only when its speakers are aware of, and exploit, its discriminating potential, 'linguistic sexism' can be a problematic term for a cultural context where the matter was not on the agenda. Interestingly, however, Aristophanes does betray an awareness of some pertinent issues. First, the unambiguous identification of a woman includes a reference to her husband (or in the case of an unmarried woman to her father). The complete naming pattern for a woman consists of her first name, her husband's (or father's) name in the genitive, and the deme to which she belongs through her husband (or father): for instance, KplrvXAa Avnde'ov rapyijTrd^.54 After the women have taken over power in Ecclesiazusae, the pattern is inverted: Blepyrus gets excited about being o rrjs aTpaTr/yoC 'the [husband] of the (she-)general'. 55 In Thesmophoriazusae, a woman inverts the patronymic naming-convention and speaks of 'Euripides the son of the (she-)greengrocer'. 55 Secondly, in the women's assembly of Thesmophoriazusae the formulaic language of a real (male) assembly is modified by the women. In the initial prayers the formula becomes -ntpl rov STJ^OV rov Adr/valcav KO.I rov TWV ywaiKwv 'for the people

of the Athenians and for the people of the women' (307-8),57 and 53 Even on the morphological level, for in the nominative and accusative dual of feminine -yr-stem participles, the masculine form often replaces the feminine one: cf. e.g. Eccl. 1087; Lautensach (1921) 248-51. 54 Thesm. 898: AvriSfos may be the father, but in Thesm. 605 Mica presents herself as KXfuivvjiov yw?j 'wife of Cleonymus'; Eccl. 46 270; Eccl. 49, 51. In Thesm. 619 the disguised Relative is asked for his/her husband's name. 55

56

Eccl. 727; cf. Eccl. 1126 d avrfp r-ijs KeKTi^tcVr;? 'the husband of the mistress'.

Thesm. 387; cf. Ran. 840 (where the exception is necessary for the modificatio of Eur. fr. 885 Nauck). 57 Loraux (1993) 88, 116-18, and 151-2 (cf. p. 247) exaggerates the significance of the parallelism between Athenian men and ethnically unspecified women (cf. Thesm. 335-6, 372-3). Sommerstein (1994) 177 rightly points out that 'Ar. coul not write . . . "the people of the male Athenians and of the female Athenians", because in the relevant grammatical case (genitive) the phrases denoting male and female Athenians would have been identical'. In Thesm. 346 the original 'betraying the city' becomes n-poSiSouoa TOV cplhov 'betraying the boyfriend'.

Female Speech

171

the women do not only pray but also 'to the gods, to the Olympians and the Olympianesses, to the Pythians and the Pythianesses, to the Delians and the Delianesses' (331-4), although of course there are not two or more Delian and Pythian goddesses. Thirdly, one may note the deliberate hesitation regarding nominal motion (i.e. the creation of female counterparts of male designations) when 'male' offices are renamed in Ecclesiazusae. Although it would be simple to create a-rpar^y'6s/'a^partis after ing pairs like xraTr^Aoj/xawTjAi?, Praxagora at first remains (-q) 58 The same reluctance is seen with other words without an established female equivalent: 77 ypa/^narevs (not, after 59 On the other hand, when a separate female variant does occur, the suffix -aim rather than -18- is often used and it is possible, though not certain, that -aiva had comic or derogatory overtones.60 Both the lack and the exaggeration of distinctively feminine forms linguistically reinforce gender roles. A certain paternalistic attitude towards women is even inherent in the fact that women's attributes like clothing have a tendency to appear in the 'homely' diminutive. 61 Unfortunately, the ancient sources hardly ever spell out generalizations like 'women's speech is conservative, colloquial, polite, etc.' The Platonic passage cited in section 6.2 probably does not imply anything like that: seems to refer to the specific point of the pronunciation of and . 62 Aristotle notes the obvious point that female voices are higher and weaker. A comic actor playing the part of a 58 Eccl. 246, 491, 500, 727; crrpaTijyt'y 'lady general': Eccl. 835, 870; cf. Pherecrates fr. 269; Eccl. 1126 i; xexTTj/itn; 'mistress'; Taaffe (1993) 187 n. 32. 59 Thesm. 292 (TCUV prfTopuiv refers to female speakers), 432; Cratin 60 Lys. 184 SttvOiuva 'Scythianess'; Eccl. 713 K-rjpvKaiva 'heraldess'; cf. Pherecrates fr. 70 /tayeipaiya 'cookess', ix8vo-na>\atva 'fish-selleress' (contrast Plut. 427 AeiaOoTruiAi; 'peasepudding-seller'); on -aiva, which is common in female animal names, see Chantraine (1933) 107-9; Eduard Fraenkel (1955) 44—5. 61 Cf. Lys. 47, Eccl. 332 KpoKun&iov 'saffron gown'; Lys. 48, 150, Eccl. 374 'tunic'; Lys. 72 l,aiviov 'waistband', with the note by Henderson (1987) 76; Lys. 931 'breastband'; Lys. 1189 x\av!&iav 'dress clothes'; Eccl. 318 'semi-foldover'; also Thesm. 143, etc. rn&iov 'breast'; Mawet (1983) 185-6. 62 Pace Bain (1984) 28-9 and McClure (1999) 33, 39; if a generalization were meant, Plato might have inserted something like KCU rd aAAa or Travrais (though of course he did not have to do so). Further details are observed in PI. Men. ggd and PI. Ale. 1 I2ob: cf. Bain (1984) 29.

172

Female Speech

woman may have spoken with a falsetto voice at least for the first few lines, even though nothing in the text makes that explicit.63 In his comparison of Aristophanes and Menander, Plutarch complains that Aristophanes did not give his characters appropriate speech styles (Plut. Mor. 853C-d):

Even though his style is so varied and uneven, he does not attribute the appropriate peculiar tinge to each character: for instance gravity to a king, rhetorical force to an orator, simplicity to a woman, ordinary speech to a normal person, or vulgarity to a working-class character. The testimony is of course late, but it is based on the text of Attic comedy so that Plutarch must have observed aTrAoVr/s in the speech of Menander's women; at least for Menander's time the stereotype that women's language was 'simple' may be extrapolated. The same idea is possibly attested even earlier. A passage of the Etymologicum Magnum, based on Philoxenus, reports two fragments of a women's mime by Sophron (Et. Mag. 774. 41-6, Sophron frs. 33 and 34):

Sophron's vytwrtpov KoboKvvTas ('healthier than a pumpkin') is problematic. Why does he not say vyiearfpov? It must be stressed that he made that mistake on purpose in order to imitate the simple-minded style of women. In the same way he also introduced the barbarism Tarw/ieVa TOV KITWVOS 'being deprived of her dress' instead of eV'xupa Btiaa 'having pawned [her dress]': 'the interest has ruined her', ([source:] Philoxenus)

If we can trust the explanation, Sophron deliberately introduced certain solecisms like vyuaTtpov when a woman was speaking. However, there is nothing to complain about in the second fragment, except perhaps that the technical expression fvf\vpa nOeVcu is avoided. It would be bold to infer from Sophron that fifth-century 63

Arist. HA 538bi2—15; Ar. Thesm. 267-8 (where ™ ifSf-y^an •yvvaiKi^etv 'to put on a woman's voice' probably refers to the pitch of the voice); McClure (1999) 38-9; for the question of falsetto voices cf. Taaffe (1993) 105; Vetta (1993) 716; Thesm. 192 (Agathon is ywaiK-dycuro? 'female-voiced').

Female Speech

173

Athenians, too, regarded women's speech as simple or grammatically incorrect, but the possibility should be borne in mind.64

6.7. METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS Some preliminary remarks are necessary before we catalogue female speech features in Aristophanes. Most of Aristophanes' 'female' features are gender-preferential (i.e. used more frequently but not only by female speakers), and only few are genderexclusive.65 Hence, we must often operate with statistics. Sommerstein has calculated that in the eleven complete Aristophanic plays (with a total of c. 15,300 lines) there are about 2,670 women's lines if women's lines are 'all those lines which contain something, even a monosyllable, uttered by a female speaker'.66 In most plays women have little to say, and those who have are usually goddesses, not 'typical' women.67 In the canonical three 'women's plays' female speakers posing as men may be excluded and male speakers in the role of women should be included.68 Sommerstein's figures, reproduced in Table 6.1, take these special cases into account. Thus, a feature is probably 'female' when the percentage of occurrences found in female lines 64 On female airXoTijs see also Nieddu (2001) 203-4; for non-linguistic comic stereotypes about women (liking wine, sex, etc.) cf. Just (1989) 153-93. 65 Adams (1984) 44, after Bodine (1975) 131, speaks of 'sex-exclusive' and 'sexpreferential', but 'gender-exclusive/-preferential' underlines the sociocultural aspect of the differentiation even when socially defined 'gender' and biological 'sex' coincide: cf. Labov (1990) 209; Chambers (1992) 174-7; Taaffe (1993) 15—16. 66 Sommerstein (1995) 62, after Bain (1984) 31. 67 But the goddess Iris in Birds, for instance, is conceptualized (or 'sexualized') as a woman: Av. 1213—15 with Dunbar (1995) 619-20 and Henderson (2000) 137; Av. 1254-5; on the Clouds cf. Taaffe (1993) 32-3. 68 Thus, Praxagora's speech at Eccl. 173-240 (except 190—2 and 204) can be considered as 'male', and Thesm. 466-519 is 'female' although it is spoken by Euripides' Relative. Despite the objections of McClure (1999) 209 n. 15 and despite Taaffe (1995) passim (esp. chs. 3 and 4), who focuses on continuous gender-shifting, this is the only practicable way of dealing with the material. To count quasi-sexless characters like the Clouds as female speakers makes the statistics conservative. Let us suppose that a feature A occurs 50 times in the 17.4% female lines (i.e. about once in every 50 lines) and 50 times in the 82.6% male lines (i.e. about once in every 250 lines). Now, if quasi-sexless 'women' have no female accent but account for approximately 500 lines, this means that A occurs with the low 'male' frequency also in these 500 lines (i.e. c.2 times) and that the preferential use of A is even more noticeable in the 'real' women's lines (£.48 times in c.2,200 lines, i.e. about once in every 45 lines). Moreover, the fact that 'mixed' lines are counted as 'female' lines works in the same conservative direction.

174

Female Speech TABLE 6.1. Distribution of women's lines in A ristophanes

Play

Women's lines % No.

Lys. Thesm. Eccl.

768

S 8.I

708

Other plays

560

57-7 53-8 4-8

2,672

17-4

TOTAL

636

is significantly 69 higher than 17.4%. If we find only one feature with which, say, 30-40% rather than 15-20% of all the Aristophanic examples occur in the mouth of a woman, caution is necessary. If we find a whole group of features with an increased frequency in women's speech and if all of them point in a similar direction, the chances that these features add up to a 'female' style are better. All the 'women's plays' belong to the second half of Aristophanes' extant work: Lysistrata and Thesmophoriazusae both date from 411 BC, Ecclesiazusae from around 392 BC (with only Frog of 405 BC in between and Plutus of 388 BC afterwards).70 Hence, if a feature is particularly frequent in women's lines, it might just be a general linguistic innovation. One option would therefore be to look only at the last five plays, but that would reduce our basis of comparison too much. Luckily, the linguistic differences between the earliest and the latest plays (with the possible exception of Plutus, which does look more recent in some respects71) are not particularly big. The linguistic character of a play is rather determined by its theme. Knights, for instance, has a high proportion of colloquial (and sometimes apparently 'late') features. 72 The danger of raw statistics is best illustrated with an example: 69 In a non-statistical sense: both the size of the corpus and the frequency of the features discussed here allow no meaningful application of statistical significancetests. 70 On the history of female characters in Old Comedy see Henderson (2000). 71 Cf. Willi (forthcoming, 2003).

72 A syntactic example: 4 out of 14 Aristophanic cases of a subjunctive (instead of an oblique optative) in a final clause after a secondary tense belong to the second half of this play: Eq. 669, 893, 1182, 1393. All of these lines can be explained by the context, but the optative would be possible; cf. App. § 4.6.4.2; Weber (1884) 120—1; Poultney (1963) 369-73.

Female Speech

175

The idiomatic expression wpa ( owe*a 'for a short time': only here for Lys. 114 and Thesm. 813 avO^epov. for rfj avrfj r/fiepa, male only at Ach. 522. Lys. 126 fioifj.va.Te 'to make fit': an onomatopoeic verb of a colloquial type found only here; similarly other colloquial verbs used only by women: KotKvXXw 'to look gaping about' (Thesm. 852), 'to plot' (Thesm. 429, 852). Is this a parallel to Sophron's Lys. 553 efWfjj 'engender': in an anapaestic tetrameter, the sigmatic aorist is not necessarily a female solecism like Sophron's the only parallel occurs in Hes. fr. 343. 8 Merkelbach-West. Thesm. 426 oiKorpiifi 'family-destroyer': only here in Aristophanes. Thesm. 532 KO.KIOV 'worse': like tvT^r) not pure Attic, but possibly felt to be poetic; in Aristophanes KO.KLOV is also used by the effeminate Agathon (Thesm. 203; elsewhere e.g. Eupolis fr. 248). Another irregular comparative is the female servant's oXfiiwTfpos 'more blester' in Eccl. 1131. Eccl. 58 avXXeXeypfvas 'assembled': a rare participial form (for cf. Av. 294), used probably for metrical convenience rather than as analogical regularization like /caxriov, evT^ij, or cf. Eccl. 1090 8iaXf\T)fj.fj,evov 'seized' (male, for Eccl. 1 15 17 firi ffiTTfipia 'inexperience': a negated abstract noun, a frequently in Thucydides (influence of 'sophistic' dcrmd-nys?) but 73

Ussher (1973) 82 suggests that the form lends formality to Praxagora's address.

176

Female Speech

nowhere else in Aristophanes; cf. Praxagora's sophistic (?) 'home' at Eccl. 674.74 Note the quasi-litotic structure of the syntagma, which equals •?) d-n-eipia: cf. observation (xi) in section 6.8.1 below. Eccl. 282 impersonal euoBt 'it is usual': unique in Greek (though natural enough75); again the depiction of female oVa/a'a is not ruled out. 6.8. C A T A L O G U E OF F E M A L E F E A T U R E S For the sake of structural clarity, I have arranged Aristophanes' 'female' features under the headings of 'syntax and pragmatics' 6.8.1) and 'idioms and vocabulary' (§ 6.8.2), but the categories overlap. I have not found any evidence for gender-specific phonetics or phonology (for instance in the form of puns illustrating Plato's remarks on iotacism). Apart from the isolated items mentioned in section 6.7 there is no morphological deviation either. 76 6.8.1. SYNTAX AND P R A G M A T I C S

(i) Final clauses. By far the most widespread final conjunction in Aristophanic comedy is Zvo, but owcos (av) is still a common alternative. In tragedy, ws (av) is strongest, followed first by omx>s (av), later by "va. In Thucydides and in the Attic inscriptions of the fifth century, OTTCUS is stronger than tva, but in the Attic orators and Plato prevails. Obviously older STTWS (av) is gradually replaced by which is predominant in Herodotus and may have infiltrated Attic from Ionia.77 o>s (av) was at best a marginal option in non-literary Attic around 400 BC. In the inscriptions and in Thucydides on-coy (av) is frequent 74 Cf. Denniston (1952) 28 with n. i; Wackernagel (1928) 265; Vetta (1989) 154; note the (younger) use of ftij, where Thucydides uses ov: Moorhouse (1959) 38, with Platonic parallels. 75 Ussher(i973) 114. 76 Lopez-Garcia (19980) 2 wrongly states that 'dual forms are much more frequently employed by women than by men". In the complete plays, 5 out of 22 examples of periphrastic instead of synthetic forms in the (plu-)perfect passive (e.g. Lys. 175 tan TrapfOKfvaa/j.fvoi' 'has been provided for' for TrapeaKevaoTai) are female (22.7%), but 3 of them belong to Ecclesiazusae, and the two 4th-cent. plays contain almost half of the total (10). 77 For exact figures, mainly based on Weber (1884) and (1885), see App. § 4.8.6.

Female Speech

177

out of stylistic conservatism. Although Sirws (av) is missing in Lysias, many of the comic occurrences do not look artificial (cf. e.g. Ach. 444; Vesp. 178) and it is still found in Plato. In comedy, final OTTCOS is mainly construed with (a) the future indicative, (b) the subjunctive (or occasionally optative), (c) the subjunctive (or sometimes optative) + av. (a) is distributed evenly, but 5 (6?) out of 8 (9?) examples (62.5% (66.7%?)) of (b) are in women's lines,78 and 12 out of 25 examples (48.0%) of (c) are female.79 The long-lasting predominance of ws (av) in tragedy was certainly helped by the fact that it was a convenient metrical alternative to OTTCOS (av). Of the 3 Aristophanic examples for cos + subj 2 occur in a Laconian chorus and may be a dialect characteristic. The third is female.80 cos av is regularly construed with the subjunctive once with the optative: 5 out of 14 examples (35.7%) are in female lines.81 The higher frequency of both OTTCOS (av) and cos (av) with female speakers in Aristophanes can be interpreted in two ways. If we assume that cos (av) is an older variant for oVcos (av), which survived longest in tragedy because it was metrically convenient, the increased use of these conjunctions would be a conservative feature. Alternatively, women's speech is more subjective. OTTCOS (av) is semantically distinguished from fva by an additional hint at subjectivity, uncertainty, or restriction to particular circumstances, whereas iva is more unconditional.82 This explanation is supported by the fact that owcos + fut. ind., which is the most categorical of the 78 Based on the index by O. J. Todd (1932) 181 (in many cases the transmitted text is changed by modern editors); female: Av. 1240 (MSS); Lys. 384 (MSS); Ran. iT,5\;Eccl. 117, 917 (MSS; perhaps av must be inserted so that the example belongs to(c)); possibly Thesm. 285; male: Nub. 974, 1199; Vesp. 1526/7. 79 Female: Nub. 937—8, 1461; Lys. 182, 221 = 222 (counted once), 239, 358—9, 539-40, 1183-4; Ran. '363; Eccl. 716, 836—7, 881; male: Ach. 444, 714, 930-1; Vesp. 178, 862; Av. 1457; Lys. 267-9, 4'9> 4Z5. 1223-4; Ran. 872; Eccl. 732; Plut. 225-6. 80 Laconian: Lys. 1265, 1303/4; female: Eccl. 286. Cf. also Av. 1338, here classified as cue an (MSS), but perhaps to be taken as simple ais in a (Doricizing) quotation from Sophocles (fr. 476 Radt): Dunbar (1995) 653—4. 81 Female: Lys. 689/90; Thesm. 601—2; Ran. 1340; Eccl. 57, 297; male: Ach. 44; Vesp. 113, 425; Pax 1156; Av. 1338 (opt.), 1454-6, 1509, 1549; Plut. 112. If only the plays from Lysistrata onwards are taken into account, 5 out of 6 examples (83.3%) are female. 82 Amigues (1977) 105-6.

ij8

Female Speech

oTrojj-constructions and therefore semantically closest to iVa, is distributed evenly.83 (ii) Conditional clauses. In comedy, as elsewhere, conditional clauses are usually introduced by either el + ind. or edv/fy + subj. An old variant possibility to express a conditional relation is the paratactic juxtaposition of two main clauses. It may be assumed that this was more frequent in the colloquial registers of Greek since spoken language favours parataxis. Even in comedy, however, the examples are few. I am aware of 5 Aristophanic cases, 2 of which are female (40%); 2 more are spoken by Praxagora posing as a man, and one by a male slave.84 (iii) Participial constructions. Depending on their context Greek participles can have causal, temporal, final, conditional, or concessive functions. These functions can be clarified by the addition of particles: v); Eccl. 37 (not un>), 257; male (* = spoken by a slave): Pax 623, 634; Av. 75*, 285; Lys. 418; Ran. 546, 671*. 87 Female: Lys. 826 (also o/*cuj), 918; Thesm. 371; male: Nub. 890; Thesm. 938; Pint. 571; cf.Ach. 222

Female Speech

179

cal authors (Eccl. isg). 88 The use of all these particles to specify the modal force of participles represents a linguistic trend that was going to gain strength in the fourth century. (iv) povXei/flovXeaOf + subj. Both in Attic from the fifth century onwards and in Koine Greek the deliberative subjunctive is often replaced by a periphrasis withftovXei/ftovXfadf+ subj.89 There are 9 such cases in the Aristophanic comedies, 3 of which occur in female speech (33.3%).90 Although this was a common way of formulating an utterance like Lys. 938 /SouAei ^vpiaw ae; 'shall I perfume you?', and although the bare deliberative subjunctive was more easily used in questions introduced by an interrogative pronoun, there are cases where the deliberative subjunctive is found in exactly the same type of question (e.g. Ran. i, 6, 64). Moreover, the formulation withftovXei/flovXeadecould be replaced by a positive assertion and vice versa many positive assertions (or cohortative utterances) could in theory be made more politely or submissively by using the |3ouAei-type.91 It is therefore revealing that two of the male examples are spoken by slaves, and none of them by a major figure who directs the action. The pragmatic function of eliciting the addressee's support is typical for a cooperative, polite, and somewhat self-subordinating style. (v) Possessive adjectives and personal pronouns. It has been suggested that Aristophanes' women indicate possession more frequently than men with the enclitic genitive /xou/aou.92 Eventually, the possessive adjectives e'fids/<jo's will give in to the construction with pov/aov, which becomes standard in Koine Greek.93 The claim that women are more innovative here is not unambiguously supported by statistics. In the eleven plays I count 57 /ion + 53 aov (= no) against 130 epos + 56 ad; (= 186), taking into account only those cases where both would be grammatically possible. The 88 Boiling (1935) 261-2: Praxagora's 'syntax reveals her sex'; cf. Denniston (195°) 559; Ussher (1973) 97-8. 89 Cf. Jannaris (1897) 446-7; Kiihner—Gerth (1898/1904) ii/i. 221—3; Schwyzer—Debrunner (1950) 318; Stevens (1976) 60—i; Blass—Debrunner (1979) 295-6; Cooper (1998) i. 677-9; this point is based on Lopez-Garcia (19980) 9. 90 Female: Lys. 821, 938; Thesm. 553; male: Eg. 36, 52 (both slaves); Av. 813—14 (Peisetaerus' assistant Euelpides), 1689-90 (Heracles, a comic buffoon); Ran. 127 (Heracles), 416-17. 91 Contrast for instance Ran. 416—17 fiovXeaBe aKuii/im^fi'; 'shall we make fun?' with Ran. 213 ytfeyfuj^W ''et us utter'. 92 93 Lopez-Garcia (19980)4-7. Blass-Debrunner (1979) 235.

180

Female Speech

possessive adjectives are more frequent than the enclitic pronouns in all the plays except Knights with its bawdy tone and the late Plutus. This may be a symptom of Aristophanes' syntactic conservatism (cf. App. § 4-9).94 In total, 23 of the 110 examples of (20.9%) and 43 of the 186 examples of e/j.6s/a6s (23.1%) are used by female speakers, which shows that women indicate possession slightly more often than men but do not prefer the modern and more colloquial pov/aov. In the three women's plays the picture is not essentially different, except for Thesmophoriazusae.95 Here all 5 examples of pov/oov occur in women's lines, against only 11 out of 19 examples of ep6s/o6s (57.9%, an excellent match for 57.5% female lines).96 In this play at least, the use of pov/aov does contribute to a colloquial colouring of women's speech. It is also possible that was felt to be more affective than (vi) Ethic dative. A speaker can use the dative of a personal pronoun in the first and second person either to display his or her own affective involvement or to prompt that of the interlocutor. 97 Such pronouns are logically superfluous, but they stress the interactive character of a conversation or mitigate the force of imperatives and imperatival utterances such as Lys. 125 r( /M.OI fj.(TaaTpe
Female Speech

181

are in the mouth of a woman (40%).98 The women-only scene at the beginning of Lysistrata presents no less than 5 good examples in 200 lines. (vii) Expressions for minimal quantities. In colloquial language quantitative expressions like 'much', 'little', or 'nothing' are often intensified by the use of hyperbolic metaphors (which eventually lose their original meaning: cf. French ne . . . pas 'not a step'). In Aristophanic comedy, women (together with unpretentious speakers like slaves) are fond of such metaphorical expressions for minimal quantities." Again their language may be depicted as more affective and less referential than men's. The following expressions for 'no/nothing/not at all' occur in Aristophanes: OV&'/OVK d/capij ('a tiny bit': 3X), ouSe ypv ('grunt'), oi5o" fpefStvdov ('chick-pea'), ('fig'), firjSc Kapyos ('twig'), ovSe TracnraAiji1 ('finest meal"), ('peg'), ouSe OTpifaXiKiyg ('tweet'), ouSe (pe(fid\v£ ('spark'),

('drop'). 100 Some of these may be Aristophanic creations, and certainly all of them belong to an expressive, colloquial register. Just 3 out of the 12 occurrences are given to women (25%). However, we may add the two Aristophanic examples of the similar intensified minimal expression ov&e rqv nvpLoarrjv ^olpav and 'not the ten-thousandth part', both being female (and increasing the percentage to 35.7%).10] The point supports other indications that Aristophanes' women use a more expressive or colloquial register than men. (viii) Double av. In main clauses with a counterfactual indicative or a potential optative (^ovXoi^v av) the modal particle av is obligatory in Attic. Sometimes, especially in longer clauses, is repeated. This has been explained as a pragmatic feature to reduce the amount of information the listener has to process.102 98

Female: Vesp. 1388; Lys. 38, 65, 125, 172, 202, 707; Thesm. 289, 291, 627 Eccl. 136, 518; male: Ach. 60, 129, 341, 342, 458, 470; Nub. 57, 206; Vesp. 577; Pa 83, 87; Av. 134, 1005; Lys. 909, 1074 (mixed chorus); Thesm. 1133? (the Scythian's syntax is unclear); Ran. 986; Eccl. 311. Further ambiguous cases include Nub. 10 116; Lys. 96 (female), 850, 851 (female), 864 (female): the percentage remains sim ilar with a less strict classification. 99 Cf. Lopez-Garcia (19986) 2-5. 100 Ach. 1035; Nub. 1396; Vesp. 91 (slave), 541, 701; Pax 121, 1223; Av. 1649; Lys. 107, 474 (both female); Eccl. 284 (female); Pint. 17 (slave); cf. also Vesp. 92, 213; Ran. 614; Plut. 244 (all slaves); Eupolis frs. 4, 99. 20; Taillardat (1965) 125—8. 101 Lys. 355; Thesm. 555; cf. Prato (2001) 256. 102 Slings (1992) 102-5; f°r trie repetition as a consequence of Wackernagel's Law see Wackernagel (1892) 399; Eduard Fraenkel (1977) 46.

182

Female Speech

However, this can only be part of the explanation since the repetition also occurs in short sentences like Pax 68 'how could I go all the way right to Zeus?', in which the double S.v simply reinforces the modal aspect. Thus, double av is not only a sign of pragmatically conditioned redundancy but serves as a 'hedge' and further diminishes the assertive force of a potential or counterfactual clause. In the eleven Aristophanic comedies I have counted 10 counterfactual and 39 potential sentences in which one finite verb is accompanied by two intances of av.103 Of these 49 examples, 17 are spoken by women (34.7%). Even more significantly, 14 of the 16 examples in the three women's plays are female (87.5%).104 (ix) Iterative indicative + av. From the fifth century onwards, the repetition of a past action could be expressed by the indicative of a past tense accompanied by the particle av. (In earlier literature, iterativity was expressed by the simple imperfect indicative.) In prose, Herodotus uses the construction more frequently than Thucydides; perhaps it originated in Ionia. Statistics show the conversational character of the syntagma. It is almost completely absent from tragedy but omnipresent in Aristophanes.105 On the whole, women do not use the construction more often than men, but 2 of only 5 passages where such indicatives + av form a long string (with at least 4 av within 10 lines) are spoken by women.106 (x) Particles. It has long been noticed that the particle ye is excessively frequent in the scene with the two female innkeepers in Frogs 103 This is the most objective criterion since a second av is not necessary even if a participle 'justifies' it. Lys. 115-16, where the finite verb eWAoi|iu is implied, and Thesm. 440—1, where double av accompanies a (potential) infinitive after wore, are included (but not, for instance, Thesm. 715). 104 pernaie: Lys. 3) t I 3 i 115-16, 141 (MSS), 147-8, 191, 252-3, 541/2 (conjectural), 572-3, 1025-6; Thesm. 440-1, 526, 830; Ran. 572-3; Eccl. 118; Pint. 485-6 (?), 511; male: Ach. 211-15, 218, 307, 920-1 ;Eq. 17-18, 856-7; Nub. 118,425, 840, 1056-7, 1250; Vesp. 171-2, 508—9, 510-11, 927—8; Pax 68, 321, 1223; Av. 127, 829, 1017-18, 1126-9, "47. 1592-3; Lys. 361; Thesm. 196; Ran. 34, 96-7, 581, 585, 1450 (conjectural); Plut. 137-8. 105 Stevens (1945) 103-4, a ft er Seaton (1889): Aeschylus o, Sophocles 3, Euripides i (?), Thucydides i, Aristophanes > 50 (and 'several' examples in the orators and Plato); cf. also Duhoux (2000) 205. 106 Female: Lys. 510-19 (Lysistrata: 7 av); Plut. 982-6 (Old Woman: 4 av); male: Nub. 1382-5 (Strepsiades: 5 av); Pax 639-47 (Hermes: 5 av); Ran. 911-20 (Euripides: 4 av, but going on until 950 with 5 more av).

Female Speech

183

(especially in Ran. 559—67 with 5 ye within 9 lines). Sommerstein observes that this is not typical for women elsewhere: 'at most we could say that Aristophanes thought that this habit of repeatedly bestowing special emphasis on a word or phrase . . . was a good way of comically characterizing elderly women of low social status'. Instead, he notes a disproportionate female use of heavier adversative particles In the women's plays there are 24 female and just 3 male examples (88.9%). According to Sommerstein this may reflect the stereotype that women are unable to make up their minds. 107 The essential force of the particle ye lies in the concentration on a single idea. The intensive or emphatic function is only one side of the coin. Concentration can also entail limitation. 108 For instance, means something like 'I at least' and implies 'but others (perhaps) not'. Thus, eycoye is slightly less assertive than eyoJ, and serves as a hedging particle. If the scene in Frogs is significant, the function of ye as a hedge could help to explain the increased use by women. This interpretation may find additional support in Aristophanes' use of e'yojye and of the particle TTOV, another hedging device, which conveys a speaker's uncertainty. 109 To start with the latter, -n-ov is distributed evenly in most Aristophanic contexts. It nearly always occurs together with conjunctions or other particles Typically TTOV gravitates to an early position in the sentence since its function is to throw doubt on the whole sentence, not on individual words. Only rarely is TTOV the last word in a sentence. In these cases doubt is thrown in as an afterthought. 110 I have found 5 cases in Aristophanes, in two of which TTOV is arguably a local particle, not a hedge. The other three are all female. 111 As for eywye (ejuoiye, e/ie'ye), there are 109 Aristophanic examples, of which 28 are in the mouth of a woman (25.7%). With a total of 17.4% women's lines, this is not breathtaking, but it is remarkable that there are no fewer than 7 cases of eycuye in the first 100 lines of the women-only scene at the beginning of Ecclesiazusae. If 107 Sommerstein (1995) 81; cf. also the unique unseparated Kai fieVroi in Eccl. 509: Ussher (1973) 146. 108 109 Denniston (1950) 114-15. Denniston (1950) 490—i. 110 Denniston (1950) 493. 111 Eccl. i n , 1:9, 1179; possibly local: Vesp. 2756; Av. 10.

184

Female Speech

occurred with that frequency everywhere in Aristophanes, there should be a total of more than 1,000 examples. 112 (xi) Indirect and litotic expressions. Indirect expressions and the rhetorical figure of litotes are a further hedging strategy. It is 'less unconditional' to say 'not bad' (with a stress on both words) for '(very) good'. To define what counts as litotic or indirect is not always easy. The most obvious cases include a double negation ( 'not ill-timed' = '(very) well-timed'). We may further include those cases where the negated term has a restrictive or negative semantic shade itself: OVK oAi'yoi 'not few', ov KO.KOS 'not bad'. With positive terms the matter is much more complicated. We tend to classify them as primary [x] and their negative opposites as secondary [—x] even when they are not linguistically marked: 'not good' is less likely to be felt as a litotic or indirect expression than 'not bad'. Probably our perception has something to do with frequency. Since oAi'yoi 'few' is a common word itself, ov 77-oAAoi 'not many' is more readily perceived as an indirect expression. Similarly, ov SiVcuoy 'not just" can easily function as an indirect expression because it is synonymous with the well-established aStKos 'unjust'. In the following statistics I have tried to apply as much common sense as possible. 113 In the eleven complete plays, 15 of the £.33 adjectival 114 instances (ov KaKos/tpavXos 'not bad' = xpTJT°s/Ka^os, ov woAAoi 'not many' = oAi'yoi, OVK omeipos 'not inexperienced' = 'not small' = u-eya.*;, ov ovaKoXos 'not unfriendly' = Trpaoc, etc., including derived adverbs) are spoken by women (45.5%). 115 112 Similarly, 4 of the 55 Aristophanic occurrences of the hedging particle (Laconian y
Female Speech

185

(xii) OVK eroj. The semantic structure of the idiom OVK ITOS + finite verb 'not in vain, not for nothing" is similar to these indirect expressions ('that is why' being an assertive variant). Outside comedy OVK (TOS is found only in Plato; it may have been colloquial. In the Aristophanic plays there are 8 examples of OVK erds, 3 of which are spoken by women (37.5%). The context of one more example in a fragment reveals that a woman is speaking (raising the percentage to 44.4%). l16 Moreover, two of the five male examples are in the late Plutus, and the rest are used to contrast a poet's high-flown register with colloquial speech. (xiii) 'Tag questions'. Research on modern female speech has shown that women use more 'tag questions', which stimulate listener response and create an interactive or supportive speech atmosphere. 117 Obviously, tag questions ('you would never do that, would you?') are much more frequent in English than in ancient Greek, but we do find a similar phenomenon there. A speaker can insert a syntactically unconnected opasfoparc; into his or her utterance. In modern editions this is usually marked off by dashes or periods (Thesm. 490: 'Euripides never said that, did he?'). This must be distinguished both from independent questions in which the verb has the primary meaning 'to see' (not: 'to agree') and from 'triumphant' 'you see!, there you are!', which stands independently, often in direct reply to a preceding remark or action of the interlocutor (Nub. 689-91: 'If you happened to see Ameinias, how would you call him?—How? Like this: "Come here, come here, Ameinia."—You see!? you're calling her a woman, "Ameinia".'). There are 6 paratactically inserted, agreement-seeking instances of opaj/o/HiTe; in Aristophanes; 4 of them are uttered by 'female' speakers (66.7%): i by a woman and 3 by Euripides' Relative who has to adopt a female style when he delivers his speech at the Thesmophoria.' 18 116 Female: Lys. 138; Thesm. 921; Eccl. 245; Ar. fr. 9; male: Ach. 411, 413; Av. 915; Pint. 404, 1166. 117 Cf. Lakoff (1973) 53-5; Coates(i986) 103-5;). Holmes (1995) 79-91, also on the pragmatically similar English you know. 118 Female: Thesm. 490, 496, 556; Eccl. 104; male: Nub. 355; Pax 331 (perhaps 'triumphant' opdre?). Speaker-listener solidarity is also created by the use of the 'sociative' plural (pluralis modestiae), on which Schwyzer-Debrunner (1950) 243

186

Female Speech

(xiv) An utterance is less imposing when it refers to shared opinions of speaker and listener. By adding 'it is natural/likely/reason able that' or 'as is natural/likely/reasonable' a speaker implicitly asks for the listener's assent as he or she suggests that his or her views are based on the common ground of sound logic.119 In the eleven comedies the expression eiVds/-oTa (lanv) occurs 23 times, 8 of which are female (34.8%). The female chorus of Thesmophoriazusae has 3 of the 6 cases where s parenthetically inserted like an assent-seekin g particle. 120 (xv) Forms of address. The differences between female and male forms of address have been discussed by Sommerstein. 121 He observes that 'when one's audience is wholly female . . . both the most disdainful and the most deferential expressions are avoided'. Men do not normally address women with vocative expressions imputing misfortune or stupidity (KaKoSai^ov, Tromjpa, etc.), 122 but genuinely rude forms of address are used by men towards women 'louse', etc.). Possibly only the use of half-affective 'mock insults' was inappropriate for men. Honorific or complimentary epithets (dya0e 'good sir', etc.) are not usually addressed to women at least not by men other than their husbands. The male age-terms are respectful, the female ypav is disparaging. 123 Forms of address that are used only or predominantly by women are those involving adjectives like raAas 'poor, dear' (both to men and women: all 6 examples of (a)) rdXaiva and all 9 examples of rdXav are female124), yi'Aos- 'dear' (voc.: 19 male, 15 female = 44.1%; note that 'in der Tragodie und Komodie sprechen in diesem Plural bes[onders] Frauen, in Verbindung mil dem allgemeinen, d.h. maskulinen Genus adjektivischer Bestimmung'. From comedy they cite only Eccl. 31, but cf. Tkesm. 452 and Eccl. 695. At least in Eccl, 31 and 695, however, the plural fits the context quite naturally. 119

Cf. ]. Holmes (1995) 9^ on English of course as a negative politeness device. Female: Thesm. 722, 974, 1144; male: Nub. 1374; Plut. 258, 662 (slave); elsewhere female: Nub. 418; Lys. 1118; Thesm. 582, 839; Eccl. 493; male: Ach. 692, 703; Nub. 393, 1418, 1439; Pax 736, 761; Ran. 697, 900, 1060; Plut. 1122, 1208. Eccl. 146 (MS) eoiKt 'apparently' has 8 male parallels. 121 Sommerstein (1995) 73-8. 122 Sommerstein (1995) 74 lists only 4 cases in Aristophanes (total: 99): Pax 113 (addressing girls); Lys. 891, 948; Lys. 521 is erroneously included. 123 Cf. the 'defeminization' of old women in many cultures: Brown (1980) 118—19; Bowie (1993) 266; McClure (1999) 211 and 254—5. 124 Sommerstein (1995) 69-70 and Dickey (1996) 162—3, after Bain (1984) 33 and Schol. PI. Tht. 1786: the vocative ra\avraT(/Ta)tavra-n], too, is used only by women (5 examples). 120

Female Speech

187

vocative of the superlative: 20 male, 14 female = 41.2%), 'sweet' (almost exclusively from woman to woman when it has no erotic connotations125). TaXas/rdXatva has feminine associations in other respects as well: see section 6.8.2, observation (xxviii). Men use yAvKvs in the vocative only when they address women for whom they feel intense desire; Dicaeopolis' entreating use of vocatival towards Euripides is meant to sound ludicrous. 126 The vocative i' 'sweetie' is 'less amatory than admonitory': Sommerstein (1995) 71. It may be face-threatening; cf. Bain (1984) 36-7. 126 Ach. 462, 467, 475; for 'erotic' yAuKiis see Pax 526; Lys. 872; Thesm. 1192; Eccl. 1046; cf. Sommerstein (1995) 70—1. 127 Schol. PI. Tht. i78e; cf. Gilleland (1980) 181. 128 Female: Vesp. 1400; Av. 1216, 1257; Lys. 56, 157, 471; Thesm. 615; Eccl. 120, 1 33, 245, 520; male: Eg. 671, 1337; Nub. 33, 1192, 1338; Pox 137,259, 380,630,884; Av. 1360; £«/. 994. 129 Cf. Sommerstein (1995) 75-6, after Wackernagel (1912) 25; Bain (1984) 27 and 38-9; Dickey (1996) 65-71, 225—6; Antiphanes fr. 161. 6. TCKVOV is used by the Scythian (Thesm. 1198; Ar. fr. 602 is paratragic). Calonice addresses Lysistrata as (Lys. 7) although she cannot be an old woman: cf. Lys. 17—19, 102—3; Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1927) 123; Henderson (1987) 68. 130 Sommerstein (1995) 76-8, noting as exceptional Eccl. 891 'piper sweetie'; Thesm. 634 K\tio8tvts, 1134 Fltpatv (paratragic), 1175 Lys. 762 Sai^ovuu 'dear ladies'; Eccl. 1129 jia/rapie «ai rpiooXfiie 'blest and threetimes-happy'.

188

Female Speech

restrictions fit into the framework of politeness-theory as all of the forms are potentially face-threatening: the speaker presents himself as superior, condescending, and in a position to make judgements.131 (xvi) Obscenity. The use of obscene language by men and women has been treated by Sommerstein and McClure. 132 The latter establishes a link between obscenity and the gender-construction of masculinity. Women's 'need' for obscenity was channelled into religious festivals where alaxpoXoyia had an established function. 133 Sommerstein defines as a ('primary') obscenity 'a word which directly denotes some sexual or excretory organ, state or activity' and which is almost entirely absent from the higher literary genres (tragedy, oratory, philosophy, historiography) but frequent in Old Comedy, satirical or subliterary prose, as well as non-literary texts like graffiti, curse tablets, and magical spells.134 In the three women's plays Sommerstein finds 16 such words with a total of 75 occurrences. Only 20 of these are uttered by women (26.7%, while women speak more than half of the lines). Moreover, women do not normally use them in front of men. In Lys. 439-42, the use of 'you'll shit' clearly violates a norm and theproboulos is duly taken aback.135 (xvii) Terms of abuse. In Aristophanes, only (old) women employ the metaphorical personification SXedpos 'plague' as a term of abuse (3 times). Abusive ydopos 'pestilence' is once used by a woman and only once more by a man. The metaphorical ru/j./3e 'tomb' occurs in the mouth of the female chorus of Lysistrata.}3f> Because of their abstractness these terms may have been rather mild (in comparison 131

Cf. Wolfson-Manes (1980) 89-91 on the use of (English) terms of endearment as address-forms. 132 Sommerstein (1995) 78-80; McClure (1999) 205—59: female obscenity is mainly heterosexual and apolitical. 133 Cf. O'Higgins (2001); McClure (1999) 47-52 and 215-18; Sommerstein (1995) 78 n. 50. 134 Sommerstein (1995) 78-9, based on Bain (1991) 53; note Philippides fr. 5. 4 with the euphemism vitppoi 'kidneys' for op^ei; 'testicles' (but in Lys. 962 old men use this euphemism and in Lys. 363 old women speak of opxfts)', Eur. El. 945—6. 135 Sommerstein (1995) 80 lists as exceptions Eccl. 706, 709, 1062, in the women's new society; add Lys. 1119 aaSijs 'prick', Eccl. 908, 942 airoStiV 'to fuck', and in the women's decree (Eccl. 1015—20) Kpoveiv 'to bang" and tmoSeiv; cf. McClure (1999) 253-8. 136 oXfdpos: Lys. 325; Thesm. 860; Eccl. 934;
Female Speech

189

with words like Kara-n-vyuiv 'pathic') and more appropriate for female decorum. 137 The unspecific term of abuse -n-avovpyos 'criminal' is also frequently used by women: 11 out of 39 Aristophanic examples are female (28.2%).138 (xviii) Oaths. The women's assembly-rehearsal in Ecclesiazusae shows that oaths could be linguistic markers. Apart from obvious slips like mistakes of grammatical gender and wrong forms of address,139 oaths are the only gender-linguistic feature that is explicitly commented upon. When one of the women swears by Demeter and Kore (/id TW dfu>), she is reprimanded by Praxagora and corrects herself with an oath by Apollo. Later on, another woman inadvertently swears by Aphrodite. 140 Sommerstein notes that Aristophanic women swear more often than men, with one oath in every 23 lines (men: i oath in every 35 lines). Women's speech thus becomes more affective or emotional. The most frequent oath for women and men is that by Zeus, but apart from that, women swear mostly by goddesses (especially 'the two goddesses', Aphrodite, Artemis, and Hecate/Phosphorus), and men by gods (and Demeter).141 There is no other area in which linguistic segregation is so clear cut, and the separation remains essentially the same (or becomes stronger) until the time of Menander. 142 Women have a powerful role in linguistic change as far as subconscious indicators are concerned, but they have little 137 Cf. Sommerstein (1994) 219 on Thesm. 962—5: 'choral interludes in the latter part of an Old Comedy were often devoted to satire on individuals. . . . Here, as in Lys. 1043-9, the chorus announce they will not do this. The explanation that it is improper for "a woman . . . to speak abusively of men" may seem disingenuous in view of much that has been said by women . . . earlier in the play; it may nevertheless be significant that the two choruses which explicitly reject satire of individuals are respectively all-female and half-female in role.' Old men are fond of as term of abuse: Lys. 283, 371, 397, 622/3, 635. 138 Including Ecd. 437, a reported female utterance. 139 See Ecd. 165, 299; cf. Ecd. 204, 285-6. 140 Ecd. 155-60, 189-91; cf. Ziebarth (1892) 11-13; Kleinknecht (1937) 84. For an inverse joke see Thesm. 594: the invocation c! TroAurifiijToi 0eoi 'glorious gods!' is purely male in comedy (Sommerstein (1995) 65 n. 13) and the disguised Relative only just diverts into a 'more female" u> iro^vTipyrw 6ew. 141 Sommerstein (1995) 64-5, with nn. 12 and 14, counts 117 female and 447 male oaths (female: Zeus 63, the two goddesses 16, Aphrodite 13, Artemis 8, Hecate/Phosphorus 7, etc.; male: Zeus 295, Apollo 30, Poseidon 23, Demeter 23, 'the gods' 23, Dionysus 14, Hermes 7, etc.). On the exceptional female oath by Apollo (Lys. 917, also Ran. 508 and Ecd. 631?) see Sommerstein (1995) 66 n. 16. 142 Sommerstein (1995) 65-6.

190

Female Speech

chance to influence a male-dominated society with regard to conscious markers. (xix) Complimenting. The exchange of compliments is a striking feature of the first, women-only, scene in Lysistrata. As in modern societies, men in Greek comedy do not praise each other for their appearance. They can express appreciation about the looks of a woman (especially when they sexually desire her) but, with the possible exception of love scenes, these are comments about, not compliments to a woman. The women in Lysistrata compliment each other in an ordinary conversation.143 To be called «ro/j.i/ids 'elegant' is complimentary for women but depreciatory for men. 144 Complimenting is a prime strategy to respond to 'positive faceneeds'.145 6.8.2.

IDIOMS AND VOCABULARY

Short-term diachronic developments in a language are most easily observed in the lexicon. For Aristophanes there is a major dividing line between the plays up to Ecclesiazusae and the late Plutus, but gradual changes are also seen. Caution is therefore even more necessary in this field. Nevertheless, a few observations may be relevant to our discussion. Several of them take into account the break between Ecclesiazusae and Plutus. Words or expressions that will become prominent only in the last play are sometimes used more often by women than by men in the earlier plays. (xx) The colloquial idiom ov( t>ev )/y,-i]( 8eV ) uyi^s/Ws 'crazy' occurs 7 times in Plutus, 4 times in the earlier plays; 2 of the 4 earlier attestations are female.146 The idiom is reminiscent of the indirect or 'litotic' structures discussed in section 6.8.1, observation (xi).

143 Lys. 79-80, 83, 88-90; cf. Calonice's advice in Lys. 8 (and 707). Male compliments in amatory contexts are implied in Plut. 1018, 1020 (cf. Eccl. 973); for comments about women see Eq. 1390; Av. 667—8, 670; Lys. 1148, 1157-8; Thesm. 1185,

1187. 144

145 Contrast Lys. 89 with Vesp. 1317. Cf. J. Holmes (1995) 115-53. Female: Thesm. 394, 636; male: Ach. 956; Eccl. 325; cf. Plut. 37, 50, 274, 355, 356, 362, 870; Stevens (1976) 25-6. For similar expressions with the verb see (female) Av. 1214 (rhetorical question), Plut. 507, 1060, 1066, and (male) Nub. 1275, Pax 95, Lys. 1228, Plut. 364. 146

+Female Speech

191

(xxi) The postposition x^PiV in the prospective sense 'for the purpose of appears 4 times in Plutus, 3 times earlier. Of the 3 earlier instances, 2 are female.147 (xxii) The adverb KOO^LWS 'orderly, properly' occurs 5 times in Aristophanes: 3 times in Plutus (the only play where the corresponding adjective Koapios is found) and twice in Thesmophoriazusae in the mouth of a woman.148 (xxiii) At some point the numeral els followed by the particle ye was added to the indefinite pronoun rts to form the new indefinite collocation efy ye' TI? 'someone'. Without the particle ye, the original force of ef? is still observable (ef? ns 'a single, unnamed individual'149), but & ye' TIS with ye is synonymous with T« alone; the expressivity of the new idiom points to a colloquial origin, and similar forms appear 5 times in Aristophanes, twice in the late Plutus, twice in undated fragments with unknown speakers, and once in the mouth of the disguised Relative in Thesmophoriazusae. Here it is immediately preceded by the formally and etymologically related adverb a^wayf-nuts 'somehow'. In Acharnians a^ye-rry 'somewhere' occurs once. Thus, 2 of the 3 attributable 'intensified' indefinite pronouns and adverbs before Plutus belong to a speech in which a man tries to sound as woman-like as possible.150 The feature may be regarded as a further strategy for increased hedging. (xxiv) The comic association of women with AaAia 'chattering' has already been mentioned (§ 6.6). However, AaAeiV is not always used negatively. A few neutral passages foreshadow the later replacement of Ae'yccv by AaAeiV 'to speak'. In these passages the speakers are the modernist Euripides (whose neutral or even positive use of is due to his 'perverted' social norms: 2X), the slave Xanthias in Frogs (2X), and the women in Ecclesiazusae (3X). 151 147

Female: Thesm. 586; Eccl. 140; male: Ran. 1418; cf. Plut. 53, 154, 260, 1009. Female: Thesm. 573, 853; Plut. 978; male: Plut. 671, 709 (both slaves); cf. for ; Plut. 89, 565, 566; also Plut. 564 Koa/iiOTTjs (female). 149 Av. 899 (also conjectured for Av. 268 by Hall-Geldart (1906)); Ran. 911; cf. in general Kuhlmann (1997/98) 90-1. 150 'Female': Thesm. 429, 430; male: Ach. 608; cf. Plut. 402, 413; Ar. fr. 191 (mentioning women and probably late because of the young word tViWe in fr. 194 from the same play), fr. 506. 151 Euripides: Thesm. 267; Ran. 954; Xanthias: Ran. 751, 752; women: Eccl. 16, 119, 120; perhaps also Thesm. 1083, 1087, 1108-9 (all spoken by the Scythian). Thesm. 138 AaAef (if correctly transmitted) creates a comic incongruence in the paratragic passage, and Pax 539 AaAeiK 'to chat' equals SiaAe'yetrOai 'to have a conversation', not 148

192

Female Speech

(xxv) In later Greek the adjective 6'Aos 'entire' begins to supplant 'whole'. Already in classical Attic there are contexts in which and iras are interchangeable: it is, for instance, possible to say and both are equally comprehensive.152 In the Aristophanic plays there are about 18 instances where oAos could be replaced by miy since the notion of entirety is not necessary in the context (although it does lay stress upon the syntagma). 153 Of these, 8 are spoken by women (44.4%) and many of the rest by low characters like slaves or the Sausage-seller.154 (xxvi) In fourth-century Greek, possibly intruding from Ionia, 'like' spreads as a comparative conjunction equivalent to Attic 'officialese' used it earlier. In Aristophanes occurs 4 times, once in its old domain in a legal text, once spoken by a slave, and twice used by women in the initial scene of Ecclesiazusae.*55 Their speech may be ahead of its time. (xxvii) From the late fifth century onwards, virapxu 'to exist' gradually loses its original force and eventually becomes synonymous with In Aristophanes, tWpxoi occurs 9 times: 4 times used by men, always in paratragic or highly solemn contexts, 5 times by women, apparently without stylistic distinction.156 (xxviii) The sex-differentiated use of the adjective 'poor' has been discussed by Sommerstein.157 Only men exclaim in distress or alarm o"/zo« (or aifiof) rdAas 'poor me!' (28 times), whereas women use rdAaiv' dyai as an equivalent (6 times); the masculine appears only in paratragic lyrics. 158 In other contexts, too, the adjective is mostly paratragic (for rdXaivo/TaXav in the vocative see § 6.8.1, observation (xv)). Of the 3 instances where the adjective 152 Contrast Nub. 1129, Thesm. 658, and Eccl. 33 (maav) with Nub. 36, 75, Eccl. 39, 55, 1099, 1123, and Plut. 743 (oArjv). 153 But not in Eq. 1191, Pax 7, 987, and Ran. 1239, where oAos 'the entire x' contrasts (implicitly) with 'only part of x', nor in Ach. 85, Av. 430, 1000, and Ran. 506 without the definite article. 154 Female: Lys. 29, 1144; Eccl. 39, 55, 63, 66, 1123; Plut. 1015; male: Ach. 138, 160; Eq. 681; Nub. 36, 75; Vesp. 29; Pax 27; Av. 224; Eccl. 1099; Plut. 743. 155 Female: Eccl. 61, 75; male: Av. 1042 (decree); Eq. 8 (slave). 156 Female: Lys. 1159; Eccl. 114, 622, 654, 669; male: Vesp. 868 (proclamation of Thesm. 155 (Agathon), 851, 1013 (Euripides' Relative, about to 'become' a tragic heroine). 157 Sommerstein (1995) 68-70; cf. Wilson (1971) 294—5 on (exclusively female) v in Homer; Bain (1984) 33-5; McClure (1995) 45-8. 158 Ach. 1191/2, 1210; Thesm. 1038.

Female Speech

193

is used as a parenthetic expression of pity or self-pity, 2 are spoken by women, to whom the social code of behaviour may have allowed greater emotionality.159 (xxix) The fossilized imperative dfte'Aei, colloquially used as a particle of emotional support ('don't worry, never mind'), occurs 4 out of 12 times in the mouth of Aristophanic women (33.3%).160

6.9. SUMMARY AND C L A S S I F I C A T I O N OF FEATURES The gender-preferential features of the preceding catalogue are summarized and classified in the following lists under the three headings 'politeness', 'colloquialism', and 'innovation'. In section 6.10 each group will be interpreted separately. Politeness Negative politeness is enacted when a speaker mitigates the force of an utterance by (sometimes cumulative) hedging, so that the addressee feels not (or less) imposed upon. Women do this more often than men with (iv) 'cooperative' jSouAei,-, (viii) double av, (x) restrictive (Hya>)ye/iTov, (xi) indirect ('litotic') expressions, (xv) avoidance of face-threatening forms of address, and (xvi) avoidance of obscenities. The gender-preferential use is particularly strong with (viii), (xi), and (xv). Positive politeness takes the form of (xiii) elicitation of agreement (opas/opdre;), (xiv) references to shared opinions , (xv) affectionate address forms among women, (xix) compliments, and (xxix) the (at least originally) confidence-inspiring particle d/j.e'Aei. Complimenting and affectionate addresses are almost gender-exclusive and therefore easier to observe, but on the whole negative politeness strategies are just as well represented in Aristophanes' female speech as positive ones. Colloquialism A second group of gender-preferential features create a warm and collaborative interactional atmosphere (and are thus loosely related to positive politeness strategies): (i) preference for the 'subjective' 159

Female: Lys. 760; Thesm. 385; male: Pax 251. Female: Lys. 164, 172, 842, 935; male: Ach. 368; Eq. 1213; Nub. 422, 488, 877, 1111; Ran. 532; Eccl. 800. 160

194

Female Speech

final conjunction OTTWS/WS (av), (vi) ethic dative, (xv) and (xxviii) Such 'affective' features often belong to an informal or colloquial register. They may therefore be classified together with some other gender-preferential colloquialisms: (ii) paratactic conditional constructions, (v) possibly pov/aov instead of e^dy/ads, (vii) intensified negations (ovSe
Female Speech

195

Attic deme. They accompanied a parallel change towards a slightly more liberal and open society and ultimately led to the formation of Koine Greek. In this respect, the Athenian gender-linguistic situation of around 400 BC was similar to that of the modern Spanis village in which the socially confined women promote the spread of standard Spanish (associated with social progress) against the local dialect. The interpretation of the second group of features ('colloquialism') is ambiguous. If we believe in a high degree of accuracy in Aristophanes' representation of female speech, we may account for it by observing that Athenian women had little access to intellectual education with its higher stylistic registers. Alternatively, these features may reflect male stereotypes about women's language. Not only could colloquialisms hint at the alleged 'simplicity' of women's speech, which Plutarch praised in Menander's comedies,163 but they were appropriate to depict female language as gossip. The affectiveness of some features matches the genderconstruction of a society in which lamentation and persuasive seduction were female speech-genres. Perhaps the most interesting group is the first one ('politeness'). I cannot believe that Aristophanes was consciously aware of politeness differences in male and female speech. However, the comic material matches modern observations about the importance of or inattention/indifference to politeness strategies among women and men respectively so well that similarities like the taboo on obscenity and the various hedging strategies are hard to dismiss as coincidental. Classical Attic can therefore be added to those languages where we have evidence for a more cooperative and face-respecting female style of conversation. In fact, the subordinate social status of women almost had to provoke this linguistic reaction. The typological similarity of the ancient and modern data is also valuable because it confirms the legitimacy of using, with much caution, Aristophanic comedy as a surrogate for the missing sociolinguistic evidence from fifth-century Athens. 164 163

In Sanskrit drama women talk in ('lower') Prakrit, men in Sanskrit: Jespersen (1922) 241-2. 164 Occasionally I have drawn attention to a parallelism between women's and sla\'es' language. According to O'Barr-Atkins (1980) 109-10, social status is more important than gender in determining the amount of subordination and politeness; cf. Ochs (1987) 58-70 and Bing-Bergvall (1996) 5, with further literature, on the intersection of gender and other sociolinguistic factors. A sociolinguistic chapter

196

Female Speech 6 . i i . THE LITERARY DIMENSION

Our results also have a literary dimension. Both Adams and Bain have observed the tendency of ancient comic writers (Terence in one case, Menander in the other) 'to accumulate markers of feminine speech (especially at the beginning of a speech)'.165 If we list all the female examples of the gender-preferential features of our catalogue, we find not only—as we would expect—that they are most widespread in the three women's comedies of Aristophanes but also that their density is unequal. When we look at units of 100 lines, the following three passages are most densely 'female': the first 200 lines of Lysistrata; the first 200 lines of Ecclesiazusae (excluding the paratragic soliloquy in lines i-i8); t66 lines 370—470 of Thesmophoriazusae. These passages are similar in two respects: (i) All of them are the first 'women's scenes' in these plays. In Thesmophoriazusae women's lines start in 295, but 295-371 consist of a parodic prayer-ceremony, which is modelled upon the (male) public prayers before a meeting of the people's assembly.167 The 'free' action of the women starts in Thesm. 372. (2) All of them are exclusively female, with no (undisguised) man being present. The differences between men's and women's language may have been too small to be comically contrasted with each other in a male-female dialogue, but they were sufficient for the creation of a purely female atmosphere, where they could be accumulated without distraction by a male voice. Moreover, language and theme interact. Female features occur with about the same proportional frequency in Lysistrata and Ecclesiazusae, but they are significantly less frequent in Thesmophoriazusae. In both Lysistrata and Ecclesiazusae the action is based on the antagonism of the sexes.168 This is not so in Thesmophoriazusae: the women are opposed first to Euripides and subsequently to Euripides' Relative, but the action does not pivot on an institutionalized sex-struggle. It was therefore less important for the comic poet to make the women sound as female as possible. could probably be written on slaves' language too: cf. Zini (1938) 23-55 ar>d more guardedly Krieter-Spiro (1997) 201-33. 165 Bain (1984) 32; Adams (1984) 75. 166 Also, this scene explicitly refers to female and male speech differences (oaths). 167 168 Cf. Haldane (1965). Cf. e.g. Shaw (1975) 264-5; Foley (1982).

Female Speech

197

These literary aspects indirectly confirm the validity of the linguistic results. It is no coincidence when statistical observations neatly correlate with thematic considerations although they are independent of each other. Some realism there must have been in Lysistrata's language. Exactly how much, we cannot tell. The next chapter on Aristophanes' 'foreigner talk' will bring out even more clearly that this uncertainty is the price we have to pay for working with literature.

7

Foreigner Talk

7.1. S I M P L I F I E D R E G I S T E R S A N D ' F O R E I G N E R TALK' In Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae a Relative of Euripides' intrudes, on Euripides' request, into a women-only festival in order to defend the tragic poet against the hostile plots of the Athenian women. Despite his disguise, the Relative is soon detected, arrested, and placed under the custody of one of those Scythian archers who were employed as policemen in classical Athens. The final scenes of the play involve extensive dialogues both between the Scythian and his prisoner and between the Scythian and Euripides, who wants to rescue his Relative, first (unsuccessfully) by re-enacting various tragic scenes, later (successfully) by distracting the Scythian's attention with the help of a pretty prostitute. For us, these scenes are of particular value because Aristophanes makes the Scythian speak broken Greek and thus produces the most extensive ancient example of a 'simplified register'. Since the study of 'simplified registers' is a relatively recent field of sociolinguistics, the Aristophanic evidence has so far not been looked at from this angle. Simplified registers are more or less conventionalized linguistic varieties which are used by fully competent speakers of a given language to address people whose knowledge of that language is felt to be less than normal. 1 The two most common simplified registers are 'baby talk' (adults to small children) and 'foreigner talk' (native speakers to foreigners). Those who use baby talk or foreigner talk (implicitly) assume that small children and foreigners find it easier to understand a primitivized form of language. 1 Cf. Ferguson—DeBose (1977) 100. The concept of 'foreigner talk' goes back to Schuchardt (1909): Ferguson—DeBose (1977) 103.

Foreigner Talk

199

There are different ways of primitivizing or simplifying a language. Baby talk, for instance, is characterized in various culturally independent societies by a slow or exaggerated enunciation, a higher pitch, short sentences with little or no embedding, the avoidance of inflection, or the use of diminutive and hypocoristic formations. It is mostly conventional or language-specific in its phonology and lexicon, whereas prosodic and syntactic features tend to be more universal. 2 The evidence for ancient baby talk is limited and mainly lexical.3 Like baby talk, foreigner talk is a widespread phenomenon. It has even been suggested that such a register exists in all languages.4 This idea is supported by the fact that foreigner talk, too, though being conventionalized and language-specific in some respects, apparently follows language-independent rules of structural simplification. Typically, grammatical words and function words are omitted, short sentences predominate, repetitions are frequent, and a special lexicon is created.5 As a possibly universal register, foreigner talk is of some interest also to the historical sociolinguist, not least because of the changes register systems usually undergo. 6 It is therefore most unfortunate that there is no pertinent ancient evidence. The grammarians are silent, and in comedy Greek people address foreigners and fellow Greeks in the same way. In Thesmophoriazusae, it is the Scythian, not his Greek interlocutors, whose language is simplified. When the foreigner's language is simplified, we are dealing with two different kinds of simplification: 'broken language" and 'secondary foreigner talk'. 7.2. B R O K E N L A N G U A G E A N D ' S E C O N D A R Y FOREIGNER TALK' Since native speakers use foreigner talk to address non-native speakers, this can be regarded as an accommodation phenomenon. Every learner of a foreign language, at every stage of the learning process, operates with a somewhat simplified grammar of the 2

Ferguson-DeBose (1977) 102-3. West (1970) 184-5; Stephanopoulos (1983) 15; Golden (1995): e.g. Ar. fr. 883. On modern baby talk see C. A. Ferguson (1964) and Snow—Ferguson (1977). 4 C. A. Ferguson (1971) 143. 5 Ferguson—DeBose (1977) 104-5 speak of 'widespread' features; cf. Hinnenkamp (1982) 15—22; Muhlhausler (1986) 106. 6 C. A. Ferguson (1981) i i . 3

zoo

Foreigner Talk

target language.7 Until the language acquisition is finished, the learner is forced to converse in 'broken language' with the native speakers of his or her target language. The native speakers, in turn, notice the foreigner's incomplete command of their own language, decide to reduce its complexities, and switch to foreigner talk. Thus, broken language and foreigner talk are likely to occur together. Their interaction might even be the ultimate source of pidgin languages (i.e. simplified languages designed to make a rudimentary form of communication possible between the speakers of two different languages). In situations where speakers of a language A are subordinated to speakers of B, who place little value on the knowledge of A, the speakers of the 'lower' language A make themselves understood as best they can (by using broken B), whereas the speakers of the 'higher' language B 'condescend' to them (by using simplified or foreigner-talk B). Both groups meet somewhere in the middle, and if the contacts are regular enough broken and simplified B become a pidgin language.8 Because they usually co-occur, broken language and foreigner talk mutually influence each other. That broken language is modelled, at least to some degree, upon foreigner talk is suggested by the fact that people from the most diverse linguistic backgrounds share many features when they attempt to speak the same target language.9 Conversely, the conventional or language-specific features of foreigner-talk registers must reflect particular cultural settings, in which native speakers assimilate their foreigner talk to the 'rules' of the broken language of their foreign interlocutors.10 Hence, there is only a small (mainly phonetic or phonological) difference between foreigner talk on the one hand and conscious (usually comic) imitation of broken language by native speakers on the other hand. Such conscious imitation has been called 'secondary foreigner talk'. 11 Although this terminology is somewhat confusing, it correctly reflects the large overlap between 'secondary for7

Cf. Ferguson-DeBose (1977) 107. Bloomfield (1935) 473; cf. Romaine (1988) 72—4. 9 Clyne (1968) 137—8. Some of the similarities between broken language and foreigner talk may also result from a universal knowledge of how to simplify properly: cf. Romaine (1988) 76-7 and 211. 10 Cf. Ferguson-DeBose (1977) 109-10. " Hinnenkamp (1982) 40-1, after C. A. Ferguson (1975) 2. The first studies of secondary foreigner talk include C. A. Ferguson (1975), Corder (1975), and Valdman (1977) and (1981) 47-9; cf. Hinnenkamp (1982) 196—7. 8

Foreigner Talk

2OI

eigner talk' and 'primary foreigner talk' (as described in § 7.1), both of which are simplified registers used by native speakers. In sociolinguistic literature, the two varieties of foreigner talk are not even always clearly distinguished. 12 Unlike primary foreigner talk, both broken language and secondary foreigner talk are known to us from ancient Greek sources. Wherever the Greek of a given text is so bad that its author cannot have been a native speaker, we are facing broken language. This situation is virtually excluded in literary works.13 Secondary foreigner talk, on the other hand, typically occurs in literature, and here Aristophanic comedy is our most important source.14 The 'grammar' of Aristophanes' secondary foreigner talk in Thesmophoriazusae has been carefully described by Friedrich and Brixhe. 15 In section 7.3 I will have to re-evaluate some of the material, but this is not my main objective. Both Friedrich and Brixhe have treated the Scythian's Greek as indirect evidence for grammatical developments in substandard (but native) Greek. One of my aims is to show that such attempts are misguided because they overlook the somewhat artificial simplification that is typical of foreigner-talk registers. Instead, a comparison of the characteristic features of Aristophanic foreigner talk with the findings of sociolinguistic research on modern foreigner talk reveals some interesting similarities and differences, which add a diachronic dimension to this branch of sociolinguistics and thus enrich the debate about the universal and/or conventional bases of foreignertalk registers. At the same time, the cross-linguistic approach sheds new light upon the sociocultural system of ancient Athens and modifies certain traditional views about Greek ethnocentricity.

12

Cf. e.g. Meisel (1977) 97. Cf. Teodorsson (1977) 23 n. 72 (on Ptolemaic papyri): 'Examples of insufficient command of Greek are mostly found in private correspondence.' 14 Cf., apart from Thesmophoriazusae, Ach. 104 (Persian), Av. 1615, 1628—9, 1678-9 (Triballic god), and Timotheus' dithyrambic poem Persai (PMG 791. 150—61). These are different from passages written in (real or invented) barbarian languages, on which see Hall (1989) 38—9 and Colvin (1999) 39—89, 287-95. 15 Friedrich (1918); Brixhe (1988). 13

2O2

Foreigner Talk

7.3- A P H O N O L O G I C A L R E C O N S T R U C T I O N OF ARISTOPHANES' F O R E I G N E R TALK 7.3.1. VOWEL QUANTITY

Before we can compare the Aristophanic material in Thesmophoriazusae with modern foreigner talk, we must outline the basic phonology of the Scythian's Greek. This involves a certain amount of 'dry' textual criticism, but until we have a clear idea about the phonological principles applied by Aristophanes, we are unable to deal with morphological and syntactic phenomena. Without a sound phonology we cannot know what range of correct forms may be read into any given solecism, so that we might, for example, misinterpret a phonological mistake as a syntactic one. Let us start with a relatively simple issue: vowel quantity. In Thesm. 1086, the manuscripts read naiTe TO TTCOVIJ; ('Where dat voice from?'). This must represent irodev r/ existed).17 The metre is anapaestic. Hence, if the manuscripts' TO is shor the first vowel of noQev must be long and the transmission ' is correct. The implication is that the Scythian gets some of his quantities wrong—hardly a surprising feature of broken language and secondary foreigner talk. There is no need to 'justify' this, as Brixhe does, with the later loss of vowel-quantity opposition among native speakers of Greek, and it is even more incautious to infer from our passage that the Athenian lower classes had lost this opposition by the end of the fifth century. 18 Such a view only 16

Friedrich (1918) 284. " Colvin (1999) 92-100. Brixhe (1988) 127—8, according to whom this confirms the view of Teodorsson (1978) 94-8 that by 350 BC a large group of Attic speakers no longer distinguished 18

Foreigner Talk

203

obscures the relation between cause and event. Confusion between long and short vowels probably originated in the broken Greek of people from regions like Asia Minor, where some linguistic substrates did not (phonologically) distinguish short and long vowels. 19 7 . 3 . 2 . A S P I R A T E D STOPS A N D A S P I R A T I O N

Aspirated stops and word-initial aspiration are another straightforward issue. Most Attic voiceless aspirated stops (9,
204

Foreigner Talk

words from languages where the phonemic distinction does exist).21 To be sure, there must have been some foreigners (and even some Greeks, such as East lonians) who would pronounce to? as [o:s] instead of [ho:s], but that does not settle the matter. If Scythian had word-initial [h-] in its phonological system, a Scythian foreigner would have had no difficulty with this sound in Greek. To introduce smooth breathings into the text only covers up our ignorance. Without positive evidence (or rather against it: see § 7.3.4), it is unfair and dangerously misleading to assume that Aristophanes made all his foreigners speak with the same accent, no matter where they came from. 22 7.3.3. I O T A C I S M The Scythian does not properly conjugate his verbs. At least in the present tense, he uses a passepartout ending -i (certainly in the first- and third-person singular, but probably also in the second person: cf. § 7.3.5). This further illustrates his indifference towards vowel quantity, even though the manuscript readings are somewhat muddled. Usually the ending is -ei/-ei? when the metre demands a long syllable (17*) and -i/-i? when the syllable is short (i4X). However, there are cases where the reading is -ei, although the vowel is metrically short. An actor certainly pronounced [i] in these cases too, and for our understanding of Aristophanes' foreigner talk it is again unimportant to know what was actually written in the actor's text (if he used a written text at all). 23 Conversely, there is one case where the manuscript reading -i is metrically long and another one where, in a long position, both -eu and -is- are found in R(avennas), our main source.24 The situation is best explained if we assume that the forms with simple -i were originally written everywhere, and that those which 21 The manuscript readings in Thesm. 1092 (TTOV 'ad' rj fiiapd; 'Where is she, de villain?', with -6' before j}) and 1214 (airdrpex' eus Ta/acrra 'run fast as you can', with -K' before
[h-]). 23 24

For the forms see Friedrich (1918) 283—4. Thesm. 1198 aKoXovri 'follow (me)', 1083

Foreigner Talk

205

stood in long positions were later changed by a conscientious scribe (who overlooked only one or two cases) into forms with - () and but instead by <ei> and <<•>. Thus, the Scythian's universal verbal ending -i(s) further illustrates the lack of quantitative vowelopposition, and it shows that his speech was characterized by an iotacizing pronunciation of long [e:]. Now, as early as the fifth century the Attic inscriptions present numerous examples of written for [e:] (i.e. in the Ionic alphabet <ei>), and even written for [E:] (i.e. , which the Scythian seems to retain, despite the isolated pun with 'arrow-case' and Karaflivfca 'to fuck away' at Thesm. 121 s 25 ). Because of this overlap between the epigraphic evidence and Aristophanes' foreigner talk, Brixhe concludes: 'L'etranger ne cree done pas. II s'empare d'une variation basse, a la generalisation de laquelle il va contribuer.' 26 25 The only good example of written for <•>;> is Thesm. 1108 fit - /J.TJ, against more than 40 counter-examples (e.g. Thesm. 1002, 1114, 1187 ^-f\, as well as all the forms of the feminine article). It is therefore dangerous to assume original , and Thesm. 1108 («' may be a scribal error (cf. the 'hypercorrect' Thesm. 1135 in R ante correcturam). 26 Brixhe (1988) 126; on early Attic iotacism see Teodorsson (1987) and Duhoux (1987).

206

Foreigner Talk

As in the case of the Scythian's indifference towards vowelquantity, we must ask if such a conclusion is warranted. There are two objections. First, it is possible, but by no means certain, that a Scythian public slave (8rj/j.oaios), 'tout naturellement, en apprenant le grec, . . . va s'emparer d'une variante basse autochtone'.27 The Scythian archers were stationed in ghetto-like barracks,28 where they must have continued to speak Scythian and where their social contacts with both upper- and lower-class Athenians were limited. On duty, as we know mainly from comedy, 29 they accompanied magistrates and kept order at the people's assembly, so that they were not more exposed to lower-class speech than to educated Attic. Secondly, and more crucially, let us consider a simple modern parallel. Native speakers of Italian or French often have difficulties with pronouncing English word-initial [h-], e.g. in have or help. In an English comedy, a French or Italian character would therefore pronounce these words as 'ave [ae:v] and 'elp [elp]. But the same transcription would be valid for a native speaker of Cockney English. Are we then allowed to conclude that the French or Italian speaker has 'adopted' a Cockney pronunciation? Surely not: the only reasonable inference is that French and Italian do not know word-initial [h-]. Similarly, the Scythian's vocalism may indicate that he grew up with a language which did not make a distinction between fe:] and [i:], but it does not teach us anything about lowerclass Attic.30 7.3.4.

LOSS O F F I N A L - v

The type of inference we have just dismissed is already found in Friedrich's discussion of the Scythian's loss of word-final -v. 'Da 27 28

Brixhe(i988) 128. First in the agora, later on the Areopagus: Jacob (1928) 54-5; Ba'bler (1998)

166. 29 Apart from Thesmophoriazusae see Ach. 54-5; Lys. 433-62; cf. Eccl. 143; Hall (1989) 45—6; Ba'bler (1998) 167-9. O n the Scythians' functions see Plassart (1913) 192—4; Jacob (1928) 57—64; Hunter (1994) 145—7: 'they had virtually none of the functions and powers that have come to characterize police since the nineteenth century'. 30 Pace Brixhe (1988) 136: 'Cette forme d'attique presente un interet incontestable pour 1'histoire de ce dialecte et de la koine: . . . a la fin du Ve siecle, le vocalisme, par exemple, d'une partie des hommes et des femmes vivant en Attique et parlant 1'attique est deja, pour 1'essentiel, celui du grec moderne.'

Foreigner Talk

207

auch die altattische Volkssprache auslautenden Nasal vor Konsonanten oft nicht bezeichnet, . . . liegt die Annahme nahe, dass Aristophanes hier eine Eigenttimlichkeit der in Athen gesprochenen Volkssprache wiedergibt.' 31 Since the broken Greek of the Persian in Acharnians and that of the Triballian god in Birds show the same feature, Friedrich argues that this loss of -v cannot have been realistic (for real Triballians, Persians, and Scythians would have had different accents) but must have been a conventional stereotype of foreigners' speech, which was based on substandard Attic usage. Although it seems convincing at first sight, this argument, too, is invalid. First of all, we do not know how phrases like Thesm. 1096 were actually pronounced on stage. Two for fundamentally different phonetic realities may stand behind such a graphic representation: either a complete loss without trace of the final -v or a loss that resulted in the nasalization of the preceding vowel (the latter being more likely in the case of the Persian's for xpv°°v at Ach. 104 because Persian probably had such nasalized vowels 32 ). Furthermore, even if all three stage foreigners pronounced this feature in the same way, this would still not prove that Aristophanes was satisfied with just one type of foreigner talk. On the English stage, both the French and the Italian drop their initial [h-], but this does not imply that they have the same accent. In such cases, the differences are more important. Whereas the Scythian has no problems with Attic [e:] (), the Triballian replaces it by a more open [a:] (), and while the Scythian is unable to pronounce the aspirated sounds [th, ph, kh] (<6, ), the Persian has xpw°-33 Obviously, they do not share a purely conventional accent. As with the iotacizing spellings, the manuscript readings in Thesmophoriazusae are not consistent with regard to forms with and without -v. We have already seen in section 7.3.2 that we must pay more attention to those forms which differ from the standard (i.e. those without -v) because an actor follows the general indications of his script, not every single letter; in fact, it would be 31

Friedrich (1918) 286; cf. Brixhe (1988) 128-9. As may be inferred from the fact that Persian writing did not express wordfinal nasals and nasals before stops: cf. Kent (1950) 39. 33 Ach. 104; for the Triballian cf. e.g. Av. 1678 32

208

Foreigner Talk

extremely difficult sometimes to pronounce the final -v and sometimes not. 34 Moreover, the chaos in the manuscripts is only apparent. In the Scythian's lines there are 50 cases of -ov or -yv where the final nasal could be dropped. In 30 of these the loss is indicated in the manuscripts, and in one more (Thesm. 1005 /^dAAo) the metre requires the loss.35 Of the remaining 19 forms with-v, 15 occur either at the end of a line or between vowels.36 It looks as if -v was written in intervocalic position in order to prevent the elision of the vowel before, or the prodelision of the vowel after, -o (or -17). Only at line-end is the variation between the two graphic variants truly unpredictable. If hiatus was tolerated in the unmelodious foreigner's speech,37 there is only one case in which the final -v is metrically guaranteed and therefore less likely to be of secondary origin. 38 Alternatively intervocalic word-final -v may represent a real connecting sound (similar to a v ephelkystikon) so that only line-final -v would be purely graphic. 7 . 3 . 5 . LOSS O F F I N A L -;

Word-final -? is apparently lost as well, although we cannot know exactly how often: since the Scythian does not always choose the correct nominal gender, a form in -o may stand for a neuter (-ov) or a masculine (-os) nominative. 39 The following considerations on the textual history of intervocalic -s make even cases like Thesm. 1176, KU^O TIS dveyefpi fioi 'some rev'llers wakin' me up', ambiguous. A nominative singular in -os does occur four times in the manuscripts.40 In three of these, -os stands in prevocalic position, where 34 The requirement of consistency is less strong with morphology or syntax because phonology is an extremely 'automated' linguistic layer. 35 Friedrich(i9i8) 285-6. 36 The same is true for -v after vowels other than 17 and o. In Thesm. 100 scribal interference is obvious because R first had 37 Elision of the new final vowel is found only in Thesm. m i , 1185, 1210-11, 1213, and 1220; the metre never excludes final -o with hiatus; cf. also Prato (2001) 33438 Thesm. 1187 (e)vSov: graphic vSo would no longer be recognizable as tvSov. The few cases of final -v before consonant are easily explained as orthographic inconsistencies (Thesm. 1085, 1114, 1197). 39 Because the nominative and the oblique cases are kept apart in the consonant stems (§ 7.5.2), the forms in -o probably do not represent accusatives in the function of nominatives. 40 Thesm. 1007 iropfids — <pop/id? 'mat', 1133 [itapos, 1180 ehairpos ~ tXatppos 'nimble', I I Q 2 ATTIKOS.

Foreigner Talk

209

-s may have been inserted to prevent hiatus or elision (as with final -v: cf. § 7.3.4). In the fourth case (Thesm. 1192 ATTIKOS), -s is metrically required in order to form position, but since some of the Scythian's vowel quantities are wrong (and since incorrect lengthening could be favoured by the accent on -os, at least if the Scythian pronounced the Greek pitch accent as a stress accent41), the original might have omitted -s even here. As -? is more consistently written after the long vowels in Thesm. 1084 TrpvTaveis, 1214 s, and 1215 opdws (all before consonant), it is possible that the loss of final -? was restricted to the position after a short vowel (as in the nominative singular of o-stems); but there at least we must postulate phonetic consistency if we assume that Aristophanes created his foreigner talk for a free actor, not for a slavish reader. Fortunately in this case there are three strong arguments to support the claim that word-final -s was secondarily introduced at some point in the textual transmission. First, there is one case where word-final -s seems to have been erroneously inserted. In a text full of grammatical errors it is of course difficult to say what is and what is not an original (i.e. intended) mistake. But if a mistake is exceptional even though the author could have introduced it frequently, it probably did not belong to the original version. The Scythian often forms his nominatives incorrectly, but he hardly ever uses them for a wrong case (other than the vocative; cf. § 7.5.2). One of just two exceptions occurs in Thesm. 1007: 'Ere, let me bring out a mat, so I guard you' (— ytp', tyui '^fvtyKw <popfj.6v, i'va ere).42 Since Aristophanes could easily have made the Scythian use the nominative instead of the accusative (or genitive or dative) more often, we may assume that Thesm. 1007 originally had -nopij.6 (i.e. the syntactically correct accusative) and that -s was inserted in order to avoid the hiatus before iW. The second-person singular present of thematic verbs corroborates this theory. Mostly these verbal forms contain their final -s, but in Thesm. 1089 the manuscript reading is KaKKtiaKi /^.oi 'you make 41 We do not know anything about the nature of the accent in Scythian or other Old Iranian languages, but (Western) Middle Iranian had a stress accent; Mayrhofer (1989) 12; Schmitt (1989) 98. 42 Friedrich (1918) 287. In Thesm. 1102 a genitive Fopyovo should be read: the Scythian does not care about the correct declension of the name AJpyos after he has just heard

2io

Foreigner Talk

fun at me'.43 //there was a stage at which second-singular endings in -i were 'corrected' into -is, KOLKKOLOKI may have remained unaffected because of its obscurity: after all, an interpretation as a middle second person was not excluded. Now, Thesm. 1102 strongly suggests that there was such a stage. In the second half of this line, and -nf.pl must stand for Ae'yeis and yc'peis.44 In R, the main manuscript source for Thesmophoriazusae, Thesm. 1102-3 were erroneously omitted and later, by a corrector (R 2 ), reinserted in the bottom margin. Whether Ra did this on the basis of an independent exemplar we do not know, but it seems an odd coincidence that two (except for Thesm. 1089, isolated) second-singular forms without -y occur precisely in such a 'lost' line. As both the first- and the third-singular forms end in -i anyway, it does in fact make sense that the second singular agrees with this: why should the Scythian be unable to keep the first and third persons apart but distinguish the second person (all the more since -et? and -). If anything, we might therefore expect */i
Foreigner Talk

211

tion of final -s. And indeed, /ne'Ai is now read in the oldest source for Thesm. 1185—93, the fourth-century papyrus P.Oxy. 3840.48 7.3.6. THE O R I G I N S OF M O D E R N F O R E I G N E R T A L K ?

The argument that word-final -s and -v must have been dropped consistently at least in a stage version of Aristophanes' foreigner talk allows an interesting new interpretation of the Scythian's generalized verb form in -c. wuAafi, irepi, Ae'y', etc. Obviously, a form like could stand for an iotacized third-singular Ae'yei as well as for an iotacized second singular with loss of final -;, Ae'yw- The only form that needs a special explanation is the first singular, where the replacement of Ae'yco by Ae'yi is less straightforward. 49 There are two plausible theories. Brixhe compares the formation of the French future, in which foreigners and young children sometimes model the first person after the second and third persons: the final vowel ofparler-ai is replaced by that of parler-as and parler-a.50 However, there remains a small difference between the French and the Greek cases. In French, parler-as and parler-a are in fact phonetically identical so that the pressure to generalize the ending is strong. In Greek, on the other hand, Ae'yw and Ae'yei are identical only when the Scythian foreigner pronounces them, not when he hears them. Brixhe's explanation therefore implies that the foreigner aligns the first singular on the basis of his own articulation rather than on the basis of a real morpho-phonetic merger of two adjacent forms. Alternatively, we may look for the origin of the ending -i outside the singular paradigm. According to the phonetic rules of Aristophanes' foreigner talk, -i may stand for -i, -tv, -«, or Hence, the underlying form of \eyi may be an infinitive 48 In Thesm. 1195 Kapiao aov TOVTO is interpreted as ^apiao^ (with mistaken genus rerbi) av TOVTO 'do me dis favour' by Friedrich (1918) 299. Since there is no other indication that the Scythian pronounces Attic as [u], Friedrich postulates (with Brunck) Kapiao av TOVTO for the original but leaves it open why av should have become aov. The difficulty may be removed if we assume another incorrect insertion of intervocalic -s in an original Kapiao (for xapiaov) of (= oSv) TOVTO. 49 Pace Friedrich (1918) 293, there is only one certain first-singular form in -w. Thesm. 1084 KaXeaui. In Thesm. 1125, fiaoTiyaiaapa may stand for (fut.) rather than for /^acmyuj a' apa (pres.: 'den I whip you'), and other apparent exceptions can be explained similarly. 50 Brixhe (1988) 133-4. 51 In Thesm. 1135 Aa/SeiV, word-final -vis written (or added?) because it is line-final.

212

Foreigner Talk

The advantage of this theory lies in the wide range of modern typological parallels. In simplified registers, finite verb forms are replaced by the present infinitive all across the world: in Gastarbeiterdeutsch, simplified Italian, Turkish foreigner talk, West African Pidgin English, Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea, the Spanish contact language on the Philippines, and Tay Boi, a French pidgin in Vietnam.52 The history of foreigner talk is largely unknown. However, we have seen in section 7.2 that foreigner talk is likely to be one of the sources in the formation of pidgin languages. It is therefore revealing that the use of the infinitive as an all-purpose form reaches back several centuries in some of the varieties just listed. Moreover, the persistence of this simplification feature is illustrated by its recurrence in the earliest well-attested pidgin. The so-called 'Lingua Franca' or 'Sabir', 'a go-between language, formed out of Romance lexical material, which appeared in the Middle Ages among Latins and Arabs, later even among Turks' and which continued to be used at least until the nineteenth century in the Mediterranean ports, already replaced inflected verb forms by the infinitive. 53 And still earlier, in the twelfth century, Giraldus Cambrensis met an uneducated anchorite who knew just enough Latin for the most essential purposes, but used it 'per infinitivum nee casus servabat'. 54 Of course, these early parallels are still separated by a large timegap from the language of Aristophanes' Scythian. But we should note that the infinitive has such a prominent role in more recent simplified registers because it has a special status in the verbal systems of the respective medieval and modern languages, and in this respect classical Attic Greek closely resembles languages like medieval Romance or modern German (more than, for instance, medieval Greek, which lost the infinitive together with the other Balkan languages): among other things, the infinitive carries the main verbal force in constructions with modal verbs, it can be used 52 Cf. Hinnenkamp (1982) 19 and 155; Clyne (1968) 132-4; Ferguson—DeBose (1977) 104; Valdman (1981) 48. 53 Schuchardt (1980), especially 67—70 and 74-87. 54 Brewer (1861) 90—1 (cited by C. A. Ferguson (1975) 14 n. 5). In Giraldus' example, the infinitive is the only simplified feature and the anchorite does observe case-forms: cf. e.g. 'Ego . . . ire Hierosolymam et visitare sepulchrum Domini mei; et quando redire, ego ponere me in hoc carcere pro amore Domini mei qui mori pro me.'

Foreigner Talk

213

in imperatival function (at least under certain circumstances),55 and it is the 'most nominal' of all verb forms so that it is convenient for foreigner-talk systems, which often prefer nominal to verbal sentences.56

7.4. FEATURES OF MODERN FOREIGNER TALK By speculating about the origin of the Scythian's verbal paradigm, we have already started to compare ancient and modern foreigner talk. We will now pursue this comparison more systematically and look for further points of contact between Aristophanes' foreigner talk and similar registers in modern languages. Ferguson and DeBose have compiled the following list of features that are widespread in foreigner-talk registers: (1) slow and exaggerated enunciation as well as great overall loudness (2) use of full forms (instead of contractions, etc.) (3) use of short sentences and parataxis rather than hypotaxis (4) repetition of words and use of invariable tag questions (5) use of analytic paraphrases for certain lexical items and grammatical constructions (6) reduction of inflection (often by selection of one or two allpurpose forms) (7) omission of function words (such as articles, prepositions, auxiliaries) (8) avoidance of dialectal or slang forms in favour of standard forms (9) phonological simplification (e.g. by addition of a vowel to final consonants) (10) use of a special lexicon of quantifiers, intensifiers, and modal particles (u) use of foreign or foreign-sounding words (e.g. English savvy)5757 55 The imperatival force of the infinitive (cf. App. § 4.6.4.4) is important for its role in foreigner talk: Schuchardt (1980) 70 n. 7. 56 On nominal sentences in foreigner talk and broken language cf. (apart from the locus classicus 'Me Tarzan, you Jane') C. A. Ferguson (1971) H5~7; C. A. Ferguson ('975) 4-5; Clyne (1968) 131; Valdman (1981) 48; Hinnenkamp (1982) 52-3 and

I 12.

57 Ferguson-DeBose (1977) 104; cf. also Meisel (1977) 90-1. Hinnenkamp (1982) 15—31 distinguishes the following types of simplification: loss of markedness,

214

Foreigner Talk

Although this list is designed for primary foreigner talk, it can serve as a point of reference for secondary foreigner talk, too. Whereas (i), for instance, is more likely to be a feature of primary foreigner talk (which is irretrievable in a written text anyway) and (8) presupposes the native speaker's competence to make a choice, the rest of the list is comprehensive enough to cover secondary foreigner talk as well. I have already noted (in § 7.1) that the Scythian's interlocutors do not use a (primary) foreigner-talk reg ister when they speak to him, but this need not mean that Greek did not possess such a register. Aristophanes may have neglected it in order to create a greater linguistic contrast between the barbarian and the Greek. The eleven points in the above list concern phonetics and phonology (i, 2, 9), morphology (6, 8), syntax (3, 4, 5, 7), and the lexicon (5, 8, 10, n). The following analysis is arranged according to these categories but discusses each point separately. 7.5. A N C I E N T F O R E I G N E R TALK IN THESMOPHORIAZUSAE 7.5.1. PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

(i) Not applicable (see § 7.4). (2) If the occasional writing of final -v (and -y) is only graphic and does not represent a connecting sound between vowels, full forms prevail over elided forms at least occasionally; but elision does occur elsewhere, and even aphaeresis (Thesm. 1092) and erasis (Thesm. 1104) are found. (9) The loss of some final consonants produces more syllables of a CV-type, but since other closed syllables are not simplified, this is an accidental development. However, the dropping of final consonants belongs itself to the category of phonological simplification, together with the loss of distinctive vowel-quantity and the replacement of aspirated by non-aspirated voiceless stops.58 morphophonemic reduction, impoverishment of the lexicon, approximation to the deep structure of language, and functional reduction of language. 58 There are further isolated phonological changes: Thesm. 1007 'feiviy/a is read by the editors as 'fiviyxi = e^tveyKui, and Thesm. 1085 eri KUKOV is explained as by the scholiast ('is bad for you'); the suggestion of Friedrich (1918) 285 is not more plausible (01 = TI). On Apra/iov^ta (Thesm. 1201, etc.) see Friedrich (1918) 286 and Hall (1989) 40.

Foreigner Talk 7-5-2.

215

MORPHOLOGY

(6) Together with the Scythian's inability to cope with grammatical gender (cf. § 7.5.3), the reduction of nominal and verbal inflec tion probably constitutes the most prominent feature of Aristophanes' foreigner talk. The all-purpose verbal form in -i has been discussed earlier (§ 7.3.6).59 In the paradigm of the o-/a-stem nouns, the loss of final consonants produces a (graphically) indistinguishable common form for the nominative and the accusative. The rest of the paradigm is not attested with sufficient certainty, but Thesm. 1103 TO represents a genitive, so that the whole declension may have been imagined as unified. 60 (The articles in Thesm. 1092 ij and 1214 6 (in crasis) are morphologically correct, and in Thesm. 1212 TO yfpovr(o) 'de ol' man' is equally correct as the accusative article, even though the accusative itself is syntactically wrong; note, however, that ye'pcov is feminine in Thesm. m i , 1123, 1199, and 1220: see further § 7.5.3.) In the consonantal declension, the Scythian usually distinguishes the nominative (Thesm. m i yepwv, 1124 rpijaas 'boring a hole', 1133 dAcomyf, Il88 TOCTKijjua= a^iy/ia, 1192 /ne'Ai, I2OO

1214 ypaus; 1212 ytpovrfa) is probably an accusative: cf. 1086 and § 7.3.1) from the casus indefinitus in -o, which stands for the other cases and whose morphological origin is unclear. Thematization must be excluded because the nominative is not affected.61 Possibly, the genitive in -05 stands behind -o,62 but it is a bit surprising that the genitive (and not the syntactically important accusative) should be generalized. The levelling of the nominal paradigm is mainly a morphological process. Friedrich's claim that the case forms are completely 59 Correct verbal forms occur for instance with Thesm. 1114 or with the aorist imperative in -ao(v) (Thesm. 1123-4, 1184, 1195). Thesm. 1002 must be changed into -01 because of the metre, which also demands Thesm. 1108 AaAijai (= AaATjaj;?), another second-singular form without -s. One may wonder whether Thesm. 1187 fieVrjs with -s is original. In Thesm. 1133 -i perhaps represents a secondary ending: R has «ViT7)/a'£ei (em0TJia£e), but the final syllable must be short. 60 Thesm. 1097 AaAo KO.I Karaparo yvvaiKo 'damn jadderbox of a woman!" stands for a genitive or an accusative. 61 Against Brixhe (1988) 132-3 and Friedrich (1918) 287-8, in Thesm. 1135 the variant reading /no<my' a(v) is plausible if emrvfj.! (mss. eViru/ieiV) replaces an optative. Thesm. 1112 icAeVro represents /cAeVn;?, and Thesm. 1185 is now disproved by P.Oxy. 3840 (cf. § 7.3.3). 62 Brixhe (1988) 132.

216

Foreigner Talk

mixed up in their usage is exaggerated.63 With one or two exceptions of doubtful interpretation (Thesm. ii2Oayon>;on Thesm. 1007 cf. § 7.3.5), the nominative does not appear in the function of an oblique case (other than the vocative: Thesm. 1006 and the only nominal evidence for syntactic confusion of the other cases is Thesm. 1086 TO TTOIVIJ and 1212 TO yfpovT(o), where an accusative (probably) stands for a nominative. Of course the case mixture might be more ubiquitous without the morphological syn cretism. In the pronominal paradigm, the Scythian tends to generalize the fullest form, the datives («V°'' and ooL Such a choice is typical of broken languages and foreigner talk. 64 The formal 'dative' stands for a genitive (Thesm. 1210) or an accusative (Thesm. 1007, 1176). The correct accusative pronouns («)/*«' and at appear just once (or possibly twice65) in a wrong function (Thesm. 1126, for a dative or genitive). The stems of nouns and verbs are mostly correct (e.g. future and aorist stems like Thesm. 1120 ewTovT)a(a) (from
63

Friedrich (1918) 290. Cf. the use of the possessive adjectives moja and tvoja for the personal pronouns ja and ty ('I'/'you') in pidgin Russian: Nichols (1980) 398. The same tendency towards fuller forms may explain why me replaces / in English foreigner talk: cf. C. A. Ferguson (1975) 7. 65 If tpBovtw cannot be followed by an a.c.i. in Thesm. 1120; cf. Friedrich (1918) 288. Thesm. 1193 nap' E/J.C stands apart because dialects other than Attic prefer + accusative (cf. also Ar. fr. 466. 5; Alexis fr. 250): Buck (1955) 108—9. Moreover, errors of prepositional government do not indicate that a foreigner is unable to handle the case system as a whole. 66 Thesm. 1109 AaAds may be influenced by roXpas in the same line; cf. also § 64

7-5-3-

Foreigner Talk

217

dass Aristophanes sich hierin an die einheimische Volkssprache angeschlossen hat'. 67 7.5.3. SYNTAX (3) The Scythian's sentences are short, but not noticeably shorter than those of his interlocutors. There is little opportunity to replace hypotactic by paratactic structures. In Thesm. 1123-4 the Scythian should better have used an infinitive depending on 'you want (to)', not the aorist imperative 7ruy«jo(v) 'bugger!'. In Thesm. 1120 we find a paratactic replacement if we accept (or TTvyi^s) for the original, but if the final -s was inserted secondarily, irvytt,i could represent an infinitive depending on 'I would grudge'. Thesm. nog is puzzling because of the solecism AaAdy '(you) dalk'. If the final -s stood in the original, we would have a paratactic construction replacing an infinitive after ToA/ta? 'you dare'. Note that the paratactic solution is really ungrammatical only in Thesm. 1109 and 1120, which are less certain than 1123-4. On the other hand, there are some cases where correct hypotaxis is either attempted (Thesm. 1119 ei) or actually found (Thesm. 1007 1123 fl, and 1187 TIV ji-fj). In Thesm. 1135 a correct infinitive construction is transmitted. (4) Both tag questions and word repetitions are more typical of primary than of secondary foreigner talk so that their absence is not surprising. When the Scythian repeats a word, he does so, like a native speaker, because he is excited (Thesm. 1093, 1184, 1196, 1218). (5) The Scythian does not use periphrastic constructions in order to avoid grammatical difficulties. (7) The fact that the Scythian does not omit function words like prepositions and articles contrasts quite remarkably with the situation in German secondary foreigner talk, for which a study showed that articles (and sometimes prepositions too) are nearly always omitted.68 Prepositions are followed by the correct case more often than not,69 and the Scythian's mistakes with regard to the article are mistakes of selection rather than mistakes of simplification: because he is uncertain about nominal gender (as is also 67 69

6S Friedrich (1918) 290. Hinnenkamp (1982) 52-3. On Thesm. 1193 napd + ace. see n. 65 above.

218

Foreigner Talk

revealed by adjectival (in)congruence: Thesm. 1127 TOUTOI, 1133 I l 8 o e'Aaupds, 1187 KaAd, I I Q 2 yAuKepd; cf. 1109

he often chooses the wrong article. The form TO (= TO or TOV) is slightly predominant, but it is not a universal default form like the feminine die in German foreigner talk. 70 Since the Scythian's prisoner, Euripides' Relative, is still dressed up as a woman, the comic force of the foreigner talk with its female ycpw (Thesm. 1111, 1123, 1199, 1220) and male ypavs (Thesm. 1214; cf. 1218 avro, 1222 is particularly strong. Absence of copula, too, is extremely widespread in modern foreigner talk. It is interesting to see how this issue is handled in Greek, where copula-less nominal sentences are grammatical. Since the Scythian does use V in Thesm. 1092, m i , 1200, and 1215, the copula-less variant was not as generalized as in modern foreigner talk. Nevertheless, one or two examples of sentences where a native speaker of Greek would not have omitted the copula show that the tendency is the same in ancient and modern foreigner talk. In Thesm. 1180 (as e'Aairpds' 'ow nimble she is!' may still be acceptable as a copula-less exclamation, but fy is clearly missing in the counterfactual sentence at Thesm. 1119 «' TO •npiaxro SeOpo TTcpiearpa^./j.e'i'ov 'if 'is arse'ol was durned roun' dis way'. Apparently this syntactic feature of simplified registers is not just a conventional stereotype in languages which do not admit copula-less nominal sentences. The Scythian's use of verbal mood and gender should also be mentioned in connection with syntax. In Thesm. 1187 the manuscripts have a correct subjunctive pfvys, but in Thesm. 1002 and 1108 the subjunctives iVtTeuo-ij and AaArj? must probably be changed metri causa into mood-indifferent iVeTtOo-i and AaATyo-i. 71 An optative is perhaps intended, though not marked, in Thesm. 1135. 72 The middle is sometimes, but not always, replaced by the active, whereas the inverse does not occur.73 70 Cf. Ferguson-DeBose (1977) 104. The Scythian's TO stands for 6 (Thesm. 1119, 1176, 1212 (or for TOV: cf. § 7.5.2)), r; (Thesm. 1086 (or for TIJV?), 1127, 1187, 1192), and ri]v (Thesm. 1126, 1197), but there are also cases of correct article usage (e.g. Thesm. 1001, 1124, i222ry(v)). 71 Cf. n. 59 above; for the subjunctives in Thesm. 1007, 1222, and 1225, the Scythian uses his forms in -i (here = Attic -w). 72 See n. 61 above; in Thesm. 1088 the unmetrical «Aauaaifii is best changed into Friedrich (1918) 280. 73 Friedrich (1918) 292: Thesm. 1179 opx-jjo-i 'she (will) dance', 1195 Ka.piao(v) (for 1201 nepv-ijai (for fte^njao/uai); also 1005 /JouAi? (= /SouAei) if the final -? is

Foreigner Talk

219

On the whole, syntactical mistakes are far less characteristic of the Scythian's speech than phonological and morphological blunders. Syntactic irregularity is more prominent in morphosyntax (gender agreement) than in sentence structure (parataxis, lack of copula). 7-S-4- LEXICON (5) The Scythian does not use analytical paraphrases to describe difficult lexical items.74 His vocabulary is quite impressive (cf. e.g. Thesm. 1124 aav&o 'board', nSo^uAAo 'flea'). In Thesm. 1101-3 he misunderstands Euripides(-Perseus) but correctly 'translates' the high-flown Kapa into KecpaAiJ.

(8) The range of the Scythian's vocabulary is particularly wide on a vulgar level. Obvious vulgarisms (Thesm. 1123 -nvyiao 'bugger', 1124 irp(UKTioo(v) 'fuck', 1215 K-aTa/fyvrjai 'fuck away') stand side by side with informal words such as AaAetV (1082) and •ypv&iv (1095) for Moreover, the Scythian frequently uses diminutives (Thesm.

Il8o

KaiSto — KtaSiov, 1184 Tuydrpio(v) = OuyaTptov, 1188 Troario(v} = TToaBiov, \ 194 etc. ypa8io(v)).

1185

(10) The Scythian does not have a special lexicon of quantifiers, intensifies, and modal particles. He correctly employs Thesm. 1123 O7rd8p(a) — O(f>6Spa or 1214 <•"? raKiara — cos ra\ima (not e.g.

(?)). He is the only Aristophanic character who uses the intensified affirmative particle VO.IKI (= va^, formed after Thesm. 1183, 1184, 1196, 1218), but the word does occur elsewhere in Greek literature (e.g. Men. Sam. 296) and must have been lin guistically acceptable; it may be an expressive colloquialism. (n) We do not know if au^ijvTj 'arrow-case' (Thesm. 1197, 1215) was an unusual (though comprehensible) foreign word. It is first attested on an Attic inscription of 427/6 BC (IG i3. 350. 82) but absent from classical literature. original. Sier (1992) 68 suggests that popular Attic was the source even for these mistakes. 74 Or does Thesm. 1188 TO aK-fffia wepl TO TTOOTIOV refer to the female body ('de blace aroun' de willy')?

75 Cf. also Thesm. 1192 yAuxepd 'sweet'; this word recurs in Aristophanes only once, at Lys. 971, where the men's chorus echoes the women's jrayyAux-e'pa of Lys. 970. The thematic alternative to yAwus is welcome to the foreigner, but its use by women may also hint at informality.

22O

Foreigner Talk

In Thesm. 1114 there are two words that are even more obscure: (* 'mixed') and OKVTO. ^KTOV might be a distortion of either or a colloquial by-form JUKKOV, and OKVTO has been changed into Kvaro 'pudenda muliebria' by Scaliger and into OVKO 'fig' (= female genitals) by Sommerstein. In either case, a word of the 'savvy'-type is not totally excluded. The lexical side of Aristophanes' foreigner talk is unremarkable, even though some nuances may simply be lost to us. Would a native speaker ever have spoken of a d^aprcoAos yepuuv ('wicked old man'; cf. Thesm. n i l ) or did it sound wrong to say ('you fancy getting the whip': cf. Thesm. 1135)? 7.6. C O N C L U S I O N S 7.6.1. T E X T U A L C R I T I C I S M

The conclusions which can be drawn from the preceding discussion fall into three groups. I will start with a summary of my observations on the textual criticism of Thesmophoriazusae, then turn to the linguistic results, and finish with some literary and sociocultural aspects. I have stressed that we must not rely too much on the textual transmission when dealing with a passage representing foreigner talk. The Aristophanic text began as the script for a dramatic performance. An actor did not read out exactly what was written but created his own version of a foreign accent. Our text gives only the most basic indications for the principal phonological features of 'Scythian' Attic. It was sufficient if these indications were given a few times since the actor would automatically generalize them. We must therefore pay most attention to those spellings which indicate a deviation from the phonological norms of Attic, even if there are many regular forms beside them. If an iotacizing pronunciation is indicated in some cases, we may assume that it is meant to occur in all comparable contexts (as long as there are no strong counterindications like metrical demands). Nevertheless, the distribution of iotacizing and diphthongal forms in the Scythian's verbal paradigm suggests that a more thoroughly iotacizing text was altered at some point in the transmission by the reintroduction of graphic diphthongs . A similar intervention may have taken place with the insertion of word-final -v

Foreigner Talk

221

between vowels (although it must be admitted that the intervocalic pronunciation of -v could have differed from that before consonants). The best evidence for a post-Aristophanic 'correction' of the manuscripts is available in the case of final -s: two lines which were temporarily lost but soon recovered preserve the original form without -s in the second singular of the verbal paradigm, and a fourth-century papyrus scrap from Oxyrhynchus now shows that the manuscript reading /ue'Ais for /WAi is secondary as well. 7.6.2. L I N G U I S T I C S Since earlier studies of Aristophanes' foreigner talk have operated with a problematic methodology, perhaps the most important linguistic conclusion of this chapter is a theoretical one. The Aristophanic scene is structurally comparable with secondary foreigner-talk passages in modern literature and should be treated in the same way. The barbarisms of the Scythian do not reveal hitherto unknown sociolectal features of the Athenian lower classes. If there are overlaps, they are accidental and can only be detected by studying independent evidence for sociolinguistic variation in fifth-century Athens (e.g. defixiones, dipinti, and graffiti on vases).76 Although it sounds paradoxical, it is methodologically safer to make inferences about the unknown mother tongue of the Scythian from his attempts at speaking Greek. If Aristophanes' reproduction of the Scythian's broken language is reasonably faithful to reality, we may for example hypothesize that fifth-century Scythian did not have a phonemic distinction between aspirated and non-aspirated voiceless stops or between closed [e:] and [i:], and that it did not know word-final [-n] and [-s] (except perhaps before a vowel). Moreover, Thesmophoriazusae adds a new diachronic dimension to our knowledge of foreigner-talk registers. Certain general parallelisms between ancient and modern secondary foreigner talk are obvious, but the Aristophanic play also shows that the use of analytic paraphrases, the omission of function words like articles and prepositions, or the existence of a distinctive lexicon of quantifiers are not universal features of simplified registers (or, to be more 76

Sier (1992) 67 notes that 'auf den Fluchtafeln und den Vaseninschriften findet sich . . . nichts, was dem Idiom des Skythen entsprechen wurde'.

222

Foreigner Talk

cautious, universal features of the way in which simplified registers are perceived by native speakers). Modern foreigner talk—at least in the major languages of Western Europe—is much more concerned with syntactic and lexical phenomena, whereas phonological and morphological features clearly predominate in Thesmophoriazusae. This divergence is certainly due above all to the extraordinary morphological variety of ancient Greek, but it may also have something to do with a difference in thinking about language. It may be that language or a language was conceived of in classical Athens, as in many other ancient societies, as a set of words which are translatable one by one into any other language. With such a concept in mind, people would be less ready to register and imitate mistakes that affect syntactic structures (these being thought to be identical in all languages). 7.6.3. L I T E R A R Y T E C H N I Q U E AND SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXT

There has been some debate about the function of foreigner-talk registers. Some hold that foreigner talk is created in order to convey an ethnocentric feeling of superiority to the native speaker, whereas others maintain that the native speakers' primary goal is to facilitate communication with non-native speakers.77 With secondary foreigner talk the second explanation can be disregarded: after all, the addressees are native speakers themselves. There may be cases in which secondary foreigner talk represents a cultural superiority of the foreigner, but they are exceptional and possible only in settings where the native speaker is not at home.78 The situation in Thesmophoriazusae is not one of these. Aristophanes' foreigner talk is a literary expression of Greek ethnocentricity. However, this statement must be clarified somewhat. The Scythian's poor Greek does not prove that the Greeks were excessively ethnocentric and contemptuous of foreign languages and cultures.79 Secondary foreigner talk is a common literary 77 See Hinnenkamp (1982) 172-85 and 191; also Valdman (1977) 127-8; Meisel (1977) 98. 78 Cf. Nichols (1980) 405 on the interaction between Russians and native Siberians in Russian fictional and ethnographic works. 79 As seems to be implied e.g. by Halliwell (1990) 71-2, and MacDowell (1995) 271 ('Many Athenians probably thought patronizingly that a man must be stupid if he could not speak Greek properly'). Kloss (2002) 77 exaggerates the contrary ('bei genauerem Hinsehen ist nicht die unvollkommene Sprachform selbst lacherlich').

Foreigner Talk

223

device also in societies which are comparatively open-minded (like our own). Even if the basic image of the Scythian was that of an uncultivated savage,80 there may have been other images of 'the Scythian'. When we laugh at the representation of a foreigner's broken language, we do not necessarily imply that there is something wrong with his or her culture.81 In the (admittedly exceptional and half-legendary) figure of the Scythian prince Anacharsis, who became famous for his wisdom when he visited Greece in the sixth century, fifth-century Athens did in fact possess an alternative image of 'the Scythian'. 82 The broken language of the Scythian is more broken than that of the Persian in Acharnians (who nasalizes word-final -v and has a possibly iotacized wrong vowel-quantity in the ending of the verbal form A-iji/ifi, but whose morphology, syntax, and lexicon are impeccable83). Such a differentiated reproduction of various broken accents is again paralleled in modern literary foreigner talk. The degree of linguistic simplification in secondary foreigner talk is related to the degree of cultural acceptance of the respective 80 T. Long (1986) 106-7; Hall (1989) 52. aKv9if,fiv is a metaphor for incomprehensible neologisms in Demetr. Eloc. 96, and ano SKV^UIV pr/ats 'speech Scythian' (e.g. Demetr. Eloc. 216) was an idiom for harsh outspokenness: cf. the insult in Hdt. 4. 127. 4 and Gartner (1990) 220 n. 26; also Hall (1989) 40—1. After Jacob (1928) 73-6 and Janssens (1952) 458-9, Sier (1992) 72 n. 28 thinks that Aristophanes' Scythian could be a caricature of a policeman rather than of a barbarian, but in a city without native policemen the distinction is irrelevant. Ridiculing the Scythian may have had a political dimension if the play was performed in 410: Hall (1989) 53—4; Sier (1992) 82; but cf. MacDowell (1995) 272. 81 In PI. Apol. i?d Socrates takes it for granted that foreigners are not ridiculed because of their 'unfamiliar' language, but he is speaking of £evot rather than and may have in mind non-Athenian Greeks; the beginning of the first 'Letter of Anacharsis' (3rd cent.?) suggests that laughter was not uncommon as a reaction: cf. Ba'bler (1998) 172. 82 The 'myth' of Anacharsis does not make him a perfect speaker of Greek: cf. Kindstrand (1981) 7 and the sentence from the first 'Letter of Anacharsis' cited by Werner (1983) 594 (Anacharsidis Epistula i. 2: 'Anacharsis uses broken language among the Athenians— and the Athenians among the Scythians'). For a positive attitude towards Scythian culture see Hdt. 4. 46, where the Scythians are distinguished from the 'most uncivilized people' of the Black Sea region; cf. alsoT. Long (1986) 9 and 16-17; Hall (1989) 38 n. 2. 83 Ach. 104: ou Aiji/ri (MSS unmetrically also 'You not vill get goldo, you open-arsed laonian.' The final letters of 'laovav can be taken as av and be given the same emphatic force as in the Laconian passages of Lysistrata (on which see Colvin (1999) 234): cf. Schol. Ar. Ach. 104 'as a barbarian he used the ou, which is Doric but not common Greek').

224

Foreigner Talk

foreigners.84 Thus, the Scythian's and the Persian's Greek become valuable sources for our knowledge of Greek attitudes towards 'barbarians'. They demonstrate that the dichotomy between 'Greeks' and 'barbarians' was a fundamental but not an exhaustive classification.85 Some barbarians are seen as more civilized than others. It may be significant that the Persian is allowed to say a sentence in his own mother tongue (no matter if it is real Persian or not) so that the tables of communicative superiority are turned: in their own interest, the Athenians struggle to understand the foreigner's words. If the Scythian therefore occupies a particularly low position on the Athenian scale of cultivation (though perhaps still a higher one than the Triballian god of Birds86), this may be relevant for the interpretation of Thesmophoriazusae, a play in which the respective roles of tragedy and comedy are central. His imperfect handling of Athenian language and culture makes the Scythian immune to Euripides' attempts at rescuing his Relative through re-enacting tragic scenes. The contrast between tragic and barbarian language is a source of humour, but at the same time it makes the audience realize what would happen if the Scythian were an ordinary Athenian and therefore able to enter Euripides' tragic fictions: he would be duped by Euripides' tragic language.87 Euripides' failure to deceive the Scythian by cultural means therefore draws attention to tragedy's usual success in deceiving its non-barbarian audience. 84 Cf. Valdman (1977) 122-5; Valdman (1981) 44-9: 'The lower the status of a group of foreigners, the more stereotypic the FT used to portray their approximation to the target language'. 85 For the basic opposition Greek vs. 'barbarian' see Werner (1983), and for a ranking of the 'worst' barbarians Diogenianus Gramm. 6. 24 LeutschSchneidewin, cited by T. Long (1986) 142. 86 Cf. Dunbar (1995) 702; in Av. 1678-9 the Triballian's words, 'Pitty tall gelly Pincess ah hand over to buds', are easy to understand and even contain some correct morphology (most notably wapaSi'Swjut), but this may be due to the dramatic situation which necessitates a clear verdict: the interpretation of Av. 1628-9 basha hide wit steek?" (?) is far less obvious (cf. Dunbar (1995) 728) and in some respects the Triballian's Greek is distinctly inferior to that of the Scythian (note the absence of definite articles, the pronunciation of Attic 17 as a, or the morphologic treatment of the o-stem j3aKTijpiov and of the a-stems mprj and (3aoi'Aeia). Against Sommerstein (1987) 304, I do not think that the Triballian's vafiaiaarpev in Av. 1615 represents a Triballian phrase rather than a barbarized version of cf. Dunbar (1995) 724-5, after Bayard (1920) 30. 87 Cf. Hall (1989) 49-52; Sier (1992) 71-2 and 78; Kloss (2001) 46-8; Kloss (2002) 76-8.

Foreigner Talk

225

The Scythian's broken language may be primitive, but its counterpart, Euripides' tragic language, is treacherous. In an interpretation of Aristophanes' Acharnians, Foley has suggested that the comic poet constructs an opposition between tragedy as a dramatic genre that depends on illusion and hides the truth, and comedy as one that reveals the truth and thereby frustrates the intrigues of tragedy.88 With the above reading of Thesmophoriazusae we reach the same point. In this sense, the foreigner-talk scene has a dramatic as well as a comic function. It reminds the Athenian people of Aristophanes' ceterum censeo: comedy is on their side and laughs with them at both the savage and the intellectual.89 88

Foley (1988), esp. 44. The dramatic function explains why secondary foreigner talk does not occur more often in comedy, for instance in the mouth of slaves: Aristophanes wanted it to be more than comic farce. As always, we do not know what has been lost: cf. Colvin (2000) 292-3; Sier (1992) 73 n. 33; Hall (1989) 38; T. Long (1986) 157-60. 89

8

Conclusion

With the language of Aristophanes' Scythian we have reached the fringes of linguistic variation in Attic Greek. It is now time to pull together the threads of the preceding chapters. The most important result reached in the six Aristophanic case studies is basic but promising. It has become clear that it is feasible to operate with categories of variation which are more finegrained than the well-known ones of 'foreign dialect', 'paratragic style', or 'colloquial language'. The universally recognized absence of linguistic continuity in Aristophanes, and above all the lack of continuous linguistic characterization, should not discourage us from analysing ^continuous varieties: first, because variation is an interesting topic in its own right and secondly because linguistic characterization—if we do want to look for it—is possible even in a discontinuous mode. Let me start with the latter point. In Chapters 4 and 5 on the 'scientific' and the 'sophistic' languages of the Socratics in Clouds we saw how two completely different varieties can complement each other and highlight different thematic aspects of one and the same play. That both are discontinuous is a necessary consequence of their complementary use. The essential condition for a variety to assume a dramatic function is just that there are sufficient markers either (i) to make it conspicuous in one or two particular scenes or (2) to let it constantly reappear throughout an entire play, though with less prominence in any single scene. We saw an illustration of type (i) in Chapter 6 with the distribution of women's speech in Lysistrata, Thesmophoriazusae, and Ecclesiazusae, where the initial women-only scenes show the greatest density of female features so as to set a 'female atmosphere'. Type (2) is the technique observed in Chapters 4 and 5, where both words drawn from or alluding to the vocabulary of scientific poetry and nominalizing or typicalizing syntactic structures were repeatedly associated, in a statistically unusual manner, with the comic Socrates and his students. Such

Conclusion

227

intermittent characterization is different in degree, but not in kind, from the continuous characterization exemplified by the Scythian's foreigner talk discussed in Chapter 7. Moreover, Chapter 2 showed that even a variety which is not speaker-specific can acquire characterizing functions if particular individuals deviate from the regular usage within that variety (for instance when 'Cleon' prays in an unusually bombastic style and Philocleon constantly appeals for pity in his prayers). However, questions of dramatic functionality and linguistic characterization take a secondary role in this study. In the first place we have been looking at linguistic variation in its own right. Our primary interest was to find out if, or how much, a careful analysis of Aristophanic language can refine our knowledge of variation in Attic Greek as a whole. A negative answer to this question was given in Chapter 3, which aimed at correcting the widespread view that Aristophanes' vocabulary is interspersed with technical terms from the most diverse special fields. Although there is independent evidence for the incipient formation of technical terminologies in fifth-century Greek, comedy does not reflect these new varieties. Probably the Athenian folk-linguistic consciousness had not yet developed a stereotypical image of 'technolects' which could have served as the playwright's basis for successful parody. At the time, only the language of Presocratic scientific poetry was distinctive enough to function as a partial substitute in the depiction of the theorizing (and slightly esoteric) intellectual (Chapter 4). Chapters 2 and 5 to 7 gave more positive answers to our main question. In Chapter 2 we saw how at least parts of the register system of Attic Greek can be reconstructed from their reflection in comedy. All we need is enough textual material to allow meaningful comparisons. With just one prayer and one hymn it would have been hard to establish what linguistic features are register-specific, how much overlap there is between the registers of prayers and hymns, and if we should or, as I have argued, should not, speak of a unified religious register. We also saw that the parodic nature of Aristophanes' prayers and some of his hymns is no serious obstacle to such a reconstruction since parody usually maintains or exaggerates formal characteristics, although it combines them with incongruous content. The crucial task is to 'subtract' the parodic element in order to recover the recurrent underlying structures: if

228

Conclusion

two parodic prayers are built as (a + b + c + x) and as (a + b + c + y) respectively and if a non-parodic prayer (a + b + c + z) would be conceivable, it is reasonably safe to conclude that (a + b + c) are invariant elements typical of the register of prayer. Mutatis mutandis this method is comparable to the method of 'internal reconstruction' in historical linguistics. Now, if a variety is not, like a register, tied to a textual genre, it is far more difficult to recognize such invariant elements. This is why the typological perspective became more important in Chapters 5 and 6. In both cases we had only one (relatively limited) set of data—in Chapter 5 a group of nominalization and typicalization features and in Chapter 6 a cluster of gender-preferential features—but linguistic typology supplied virtual additional, and independent, sets of data. When our comparisons are thus based on material extracted from external sources (in the form of either typological parallels or evidence from other ancient texts), our method may be called 'external reconstruction'. Because typology teaches that the transition from oral to literate modes of communication is regularly accompanied by nominalization and typicalization processes, we were able to interpret the data of Chapter 5. Essentially, we simply acknowledged the striking coincidence between the linguistic situation in Clouds (3 in Figure 8.1) and the combination of a historical and a typological factual premise, which are both completely independent of the Aristophanic play (i and 2). Aristophanes may have been (partially) aware of the link between the emergence of 'sophistic' culture and the gradual transition from an oral towards a literate society (premise i), but he was certainly not aware of the typological premise (2), which predicts a shift towards syntactic typicalization. Hence, he would not have reached conclusion (3) if he had not been able to reach this conclusion independently: from his own observation of his contemporaries' sociolinguistic habits. A modern historical typologist, on the other hand, might have reached exactly that conclusion without even looking at Aristophanes' Clouds. This parallelism strongly suggests that the sophistic vari(1) History: (2) Typology: (3) Clouds:

WHEN sophistic culture WHEN sophistic culture

THEN oral -» literate WHEN oral —* literate

THEN typicalization THEN typicalization

FIGURE 8. i. Chapter 5 (argument structure)

229

Conclusion

ety described in Chapter 5 had a foundation in linguistic reality, quite unlike Socrates' 'scientific' style of Chapter 4. The usefulness of typological comparisons was further illustrated in Chapter 6. Again we can formalize the basic argument (Figure 8.2). What made the discussion slightly more complex was the fact that principle (i) is not universally applicable and that we first had to consider whether ancient Athens belonged to those societies in which it does apply. Also, we had to be particularly cautious because of the many stereotypical notions about women which were circulating in classical Athens and which may have influenced the depiction of women's speech (for instance by increasing the poet's use of affective and colloquial features). (1) Typology:

WHEN women speak

(2) Aristophanes:

WHEN women speak

THEN they use more innovative features/politeness THEN they use more innovative features/politeness

FIGURE 8.2. Chapter 6 (argument structure)

We should note that the way in which the argument of Chapters 5 and 6 proceeded is logically very similar to the traditional argument structure of Chapter 4. There, too, we compared an Aristophanic set of data with an independent set of data (Figure 8.3). From this we concluded that Aristophanes wanted to make his Socrates speak in the way in which Presocratic philosophers such as Empedocles wrote their poems. (1) Presocratic poetry: (2) Aristophanes:

WHEN Empedocles wrote WHEN Socrates speaks

THEN he used terms x,y, a THEN he uses terms x, y, z

FIGURE 8.3. Chapter 4 (argument structure)

Yet, the similarity may be deceptive. There is an important difference between the method followed in Chapter 4 and that of Chapters 5 and 6. In Figure 8.3 only the two THEN clauses are identical. By contrast, in Figures 8.1 and 8.2 the WHEN clauses also match. Moreover, in Figures 8.1 and 8.2 one specific statement about Aristophanes is added to a statement of much greater generality. It is this statement which validates the realistic interpretation of Aristophanes. In Figure 8.3, on the other hand, we are simply comparing two statements which are equally specific.

230

Conclusion

Consequently Figure 8.3 cannot lead to the same type of conclusions as Figures 8.1 and 8.2. Neglecting this fundamental difference made some scholars misinterpret the evidence looked at in Chapter 7 (Figure 8.4). It does not automatically follow from statements (i) and (2) in Figure 8.4 that 'Scythian' Greek is the earliest form of Koine Greek. Such a conclusion would be legitimate only if it were plausible that Aristophanes modelled the Scythian's Greek upon the initial stages of Koine Greek in Athens (just as the conclusion of Chapter 4 is legitimate only as long as it is plausible that Aristophanes modelled Socrates' 'scientific discourse' upon Empedocles' style). However, the comparison with modern evidence shows that secondary foreigner talk is a literary phenomenon, which is independent of sociolectal variation among native speakers. Typology thus reveals the fallacy of connecting the two sets of data set out in Figure 8.4. Of course, this does not diminish the historical interest of foreigner-talk passages. Since they reflect the sociocultural attitude of native speakers towards non-native speakers, such passages should be taken into account in discussions of identity and 'otherness'. (1) Historical linguistics: (2) Thesmophoriazusae:

WHEN Koine WHEN'Scythian'Greek

THEN loss of final -c, iotacism, etc. THEN loss of final -K, iotacism, etc.

FIGURE 8.4. Chapter 7 (fallacy)

Summarizing the preceding remarks, we can distinguish two methods by which a (partial) reconstruction of 'real' varieties is possible on the basis of their literary reflections in comedy: 'internal reconstruction', especially in the case of well-attested situational (and thematic) varieties such as registers; and 'external reconstruction' with the help of comparative material from other ancient sources or, in the case of virtually irrecoverable sociolectal variation, from typological studies on modern languages. Finally, it is also instructive to have a look at the linguistic composition of Aristophanes' varieties. We may roughly arrange them in three groups. A first group consists of the most easily identifiable varieties which are characterized mainly by phonological and morphological deviations from normative Attic (e.g. the Scythian's

Conclusion

231

Greek, but also all the non-Attic dialects in Aristophanes). In a hierarchy of stylistic saliency they are followed by a second group of varieties which are marked out by a peculiar vocabulary (e.g. the 'scientific' language of Socrates and at least in theory all technical languages, but also other literary styles such as paratragic or hymnic language). The third and last group contains those varieties which are distinguished by little more than a particular range of syntactic and pragmatic preferences (e.g. the register of prayers or sociolects such as the speech of women and sophists). For the latter two groups especially, much research remains to be done. It would be rewarding to undertake a comprehensive description of Aristophanes' registers and to pin down, for instance, the finer differences between parabatic language, lyric language, and dialogue language. Similarly, one might discuss further sociolinguistic issues: for example, whether some linguistic features are more common in the mouths of slaves and servants or whether older and younger people are linguistically differentiated Presumably the answer to these questions would again reveal some fascinating facts of language, literature, and social history. After all, we have only just started to translate the languages of Aristophanes.

Appendix Aristophanes' Attic: A Grammatical Sketch

i. P R E L I M I N A R Y REMARKS An exhaustive Aristophanic grammar remains a scholarly desideratum. The following pages cannot fill this gap. Their aim is to present those linguistic features which are of particular diagnostic value in deciding for Aristophanes' language as a whole—but especially in the stylistically unmarked passages—(i) how conservative or innovative, and (2) how literary ('artificial') or conversational ('realistic') it is. In other words, this summary treats only those grammatical areas in which Aristophanes' usage does not correspond to that of other classical Attic writers or, more frequently, where a normative grammar of classical Attic Greek (as represented in our standard handbooks) allows several possible ways of expression to stand alongside each other. Such parallelisms of two or more competing forms (e.g. older and younger variants) are of particular diagnostic interest and demand frequent statistical references. When neither of the two forms is stylistically marked (i.e. when the choice is determined by criteria such as metrical need or euphony), we may speak of 'polymorphy'. The rarer form is called the 'recessive variant'. 1 Much of the statistical evidence presented in this appendix has been collected by others, who were working on specific grammatical phenomena. Their data are here supplemented and integrated into a comprehensive picture of Aristophanic grammar. We must not expect spectacular results from such a collection of material. It largely confirms a view which has been held since antiquity: Aristophanes writes in an extremely pure and somewhat conservative form of Attic Greek.2 Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to point out on what factual basis such intuitive notions as Aristophanic purity and conservatism rest. Pragmatic or interactional features (e.g. the use of ellipses, anacolutha, deixis, interjections, etc.) and the peculiarities of Aristophanes' lexicon (figurative language, obscenity, vulgarism, diminutives, comic word formation, etc.), which contribute much to the colloquial appearance of Aristophanic language, have been left aside almost completely since the 1

For this terminology see Bjorck (1950) 84-91. Cf. e.g. Ar. test. 65 (Quint. 10. i. 65-6), test. 69 (Phot. Bibl. 158, p. ioi b 4 Bekker), test. 87 (Schol. Thuc. i. 30. i). 2

Aristophanes'Attic

233

inclusion of such features would not have been of great value for the intended diagnosis; many of them occur mainly or exclusively in comedy and their use can therefore not be compared to that in other texts.3 Even in the three traditional areas of grammar (phonology/phonetics, morphology, syntax), the treatment is necessarily selective.4 However, it is unlikely that a different range of material would have led to divergent general conclusions.

2. PHONOLOGY AND PHONETICS 2.1. VOCALISM 2.1.1. Long a

It is a characteristic feature of the Ionic-Attic dialect group that original long a is changed into TJ. In Attic this change does not take place after Long a in other positions occurs in Aristophanic comedy: (1) as a product of vowel contraction or compensatory lengthening (e.g. (2) in some analogical formations (aorists in -am like "a^vava after aorists of verbs in (3) in a few word-formation suffixes (bird names in -as, colloquial e.g. ytvat; 'quack'), (4) in some colloquial words which may have a non-Attic origin (e.g. , 'noble', KodAe/io? 'blockhead', xo/kAo? 'imp', aiciVaAos 'saucy'), (5) with speakers of dialects other than Attic,6 (6) in quotations (e.g. Nub. 30; Vesp. 753; Av. 1337), (7) in parodies of other literary genres (e.g. tragic lyrics: Thesm. 101-29; Ran. 1264-77, 1331-63),

3 These aspects are treated extensively by Lopez Eire (19960), (1997), and (1998); cf. already Lottich (1881). On Aristophanic imagery see Taillardat (1965); on obscenity Henderson (1991), Dover (2002), and the literature cited by Willi (20020) lo-i i; on comic word formation Uckermann (1879), the articles by Peppier (1910), (1916), and in particular (1918), (1921), as well as, for the compounds, G. Meyer (1923) 119—32, and Costa Ramalho (1951). 4 For even more eclectic (but good) surveys see Anagnostopoulos (1925), Hoffmann—Debrunner—Scherer (1969) 116—26, Hiersche (1970) 163—77, an d Lopez Eire (1986). Most of the material presented here was first collected in Willi (2001) 168-97. 5 Also in u> rav 'my friend', which may originally be, with Kretschmer (1909) 58, an allegro variant of <J raAa»; but cf. also Dickey (1996) 159-60. 6 Cf. for (2) Lautensach (1911) 200-2; for (3) Chantraine (1933) 31-2 and 380-2, Petersen (1937), and Bjorck (1950) 260—74; for (4) Bjorck (1950), esp. 46—56; and for (5) Colvin(i999) 137-4°-

234

Appendix

(8) without consistency in some lyric passages of particular solemnity (often in hymnic songs performed by non-human choruses: e.g. Av 1058-71; Ran. 209-49). 2.1.2. Compensatory lengthening In some non-Attic dialects (e.g. East Ionic), the loss off in the groups and Af was 'compensated' by lengthening the vowel of the preceding syllable. In tragedy forms like £firas and Kovprj are used as recessive variants, but they are not allowed into comedy except for parodic purposes (e.g. Thesm. 101 /coupon 'maidens', but cf. Thesm. 115 Note. The evidence of Mycenaean Greek e-ne-ka (without -zv-) suggests that cvfKa/fivfica does not go back to *eVfe/
A ristophanes 'Attic

235

'be hanged!'). Other comic occurrences of e? (of which only the prevocalic cases are significant) are paratragic or non-Attic.10 2.1.4. Vowel contraction Attic Greek eliminated word-internal hiatus more consistently than other dialects, most notably also in groups like to and tui (though not in bisyllabic words or when a digamma had separated the two vowels). Uncontracted vocalism in comedy usually 1 ' indicates parody of tragic, lyric, and epic poetry, 12 or it serves as a literary embellishment in anapaests and lyric metres.13 Thus, the uncontracted suffix -deis appears only in a few lyric, epic, or para-epic passages,14 whereas the contracted variant -ouj is commonly used in names for cakes and pastry (fiehiTovs 'honey cake', 'flat cake', nvpanovs 'wheat cake', etc.). Stylistically unmarked polymorphy exists in a few particular cases. ( i ) The name of the goddess Athena occurs both as Alhivaia (Pax 271; Av. 828, 1653) and as M-qva (Pax 218) in Aristophanic trimeters. In the Attic inscriptions, too, ABrfvala continues to appear, even in private dedications, down to the fourth century. 15 (2) Names in -K^S also occur in the uncontracted form -icAe'i;;. The nominatives FI(piKXei)s, SoffoK\(ijs, J(poK\eris, and MeyaK-AeTjs stand against and HpaxArjs, and the dative HpaKAe'ei (Av. 567, anap.) differs from Avl>poK\fl (Vesp. n87).16 The uncontracted forms do not necessarily reflect an earlier state since they may have been recreated in analogy with the genitive in -K&OVS (which is not further contracted).17 2.1.5. It is sometimes claimed that the conditional conjunction TJK for tan is Ionic rather than Attic. 18 In reality, it is the regularly contracted Attic form. Whereas em< is usual in the inscriptions, 19 it is the recessive variant in Aristophanes, who has £.70 lav and £.270 f/v. The crasis form xav (= 10 e.g. Pax 140; Thesm. 1122; cf. Rutherford (1881) 432 n. i; Sobolewski (1890) 34-63; Coulon (1908) 91; C. Austin (1973) 133 on the possible exceptions at Vesp. 147 and Thesm. 657; Colvin (1999) 207. 11 But note the common opvcov 'bird'; Av. 368 avyytvee (trim.) is suspect and Ach. 106 '/aora; imitates the foreigner talk of Ach. 104. 12 e.g. Ach. 1185, 1191/2; Pax 1064; Av. 972, 978; Thesm. 108, i n , 126; Ran. 135313 e.g. Eg. 973; Nub. 297, 401?; Vesp. 615; Av. 1748; Ran. 213, 675. 4 e.g. Pax 1098; Av. 246/7, 698; Thesm. 325, 1044. 5 Cf. Threatte(i98o)27i-4. 6 Cf. Anagnostopoulos (1925) 16; Lupa§ (1972) 42. 7 Cf. Kretschmer (1888) 479; Threatte (1996) 183. 8 Buck (1955) 106; correctly B. Rosenkranz (1930) 147-8; Thumb-Scherer (1959) 296—7; Hoffmann-Debrunner—Scherer (1969) 111. 19 Threatte (1996) 672-4.

236

Appendix

c.jo examples) must not be used as evidence for a third variant av, although this is occasionally found in the inscriptions.20 2.1.6. The short variant avr-faavT- of the reflexive pronoun reflects an allegro pronunciation rather than a regular contraction. In the eleven complete plays I have counted the following figures (the numbers for trimeters only are in brackets): tav-r- 23 (6); avr- 44 (23); aeour- 25 (16); aavr- 71 (44). Obviously the long forms are the recessive variants. The small number of in trimeters suggests that eavr- may not have been heard very often in ordinary speech. In anapaests (avr- and avr- are distributed equally (n : 12), but caw- occurs 7 times at the 'dactylic' line-end where divergences from real-life language are most common. The comparison of Aristophanes' early and later comedies does not provide evidence for a gradual replacement of the longer variants by the shorter forms. The Attic inscriptions prefer tavr- throughout the fifth and fourth centuries. 21 Surprisingly, tragedy (especially Euripides) favours the shorter variants more clearly than (Aristophanic) comedy.22 This may be a sign that Aristophanes is phonologically conservative.23 2.1.7. Prevocalic m, ei, and 01 often lose their i in classical Attic orthography (even when originally the i was followed by *F). Presumably the second element of these diphthongs was not always pronounced, even if it was written. This is certain when the quantity of the 'diphthong' syllable is affected (but not in pairs like K\aiui/K\a.ui where the first syllable is always long24). The most frequent case in comedy is the parallelism of •noiius and How to spell this verb in modern editions is a secondary question, but the alternation between a long and a short first syllable is a linguistic fact. Taking Acharnians, Knights, and Clouds as a sample, I have counted the following figures: rta(i)- long, 21; TTO(I)- short, 58; no(i.)- ambiguous, 3. Given that 33 out of 39 unambiguous occurrences in iambic trimeters are short, long rro(i)- must be regarded as an artificial conservatism for metri20 The manuscripts have dV in Av. 554; Lys. 901, 902; Thesm. 154, 1187: Sobolewski (1891) 13; cf. Arnott (2002) 193-4. 21 Threatte (1996) 315-17. 22 According to the statistics in Lupa? (1972) 42. 23 Unlike the inscriptions and Thucydides (cf. Schwyzer (1939) 607; Threatte (1996) 314) Aristophanes never uses the older ayuiv avruiv instead ofeavrtav, nor the indirect reflexive pronouns ov/ov, oi/ol, etc. on their own, except in Nub. 1313 (lyr.); cf. Kallenberg (1925) 64-79. 24 Lupas(i972)48-g. 25 Cf. Lupa? (1972) 49—52, also on ofos, etc.; Ussher (1973) 170—1 on aroid 'hall', 'pomegranate', nota 'grass'; Dover (1993) 209 on ijAdrjaeK 'threshed, struck'; for later comedy Arnott (aooia).

A ristophanes 'Attic

237

cal convenience. Despite the epigraphic convention of writing iro- only before £ and 17,26 the following vowel does not seem to influence the length of the syllable. 2.2.

CONSONANTISM

aa VS. TT

In Attic (as in Boeotian and West Ionic), original groups like and sometimes *ry and *6y develop into TT, not aa (as for instance in Eas Ionic).27 Unlike tragedy, comedy adopts Attic TT. Some scholars have wondered whether aa and TT were just spelling variants for the same sound This is not only unlikely28 but virtually excluded by the manuscripts of comedy where an does appear in the same well-defined environments as long a: in words of foreign stock (e.g. >
Mutatis mutandis the preceding remarks on TT are also valid for Atti from original pa (which was retained in Ionic and other dialects but in Attic only under analogical pressure, e.g. in the dative plural of r-stems). Because this group is infrequent anyway, comic examples of non-Attic pa are extremely rare. They do occur in the foreign word /3upaa 'leather' and its derivatives as well as in the parody of Agathon's lyrics (Thesm. 125). 2.2.3. In the Attic inscriptions of the late fifth century, the preposition or preverb aw(-) predominates over £vv(-). Similarly aw(-) is about three or four times as frequent as its older variant fw(-) in those Aristophanic passages in which the metre allows a decision.33 As a preposition (6v/avv (instead of /ieTa) occurs only in the same elevated contexts as aa or long a34 and in a few 26

27 Threatte (1980) 326-9. Buck (1955) 69-70. Cf. Allen (1987) 61 and Colvin (1999) 266, against (e.g.) Platnauer (1964) 71. 29 e.g. Nub. 567/8; Thesm. 988, 999; Ran. 328, 340/1. 10 31 See Colvin (1999) 166-7. e.g. Pax 1286; Av. 238, 250. 12 e.g. Ran. 992, 1172, 1314; in monodies: Thesm. 1052; Ran. 1349; occasionally elsewhere with reference to tragedy: Ran. 827, 898. 33 Sobolewski (1890) 32-4: auv is demanded by the metre 6 times, fuv 2 times, aw- 86 times, fuv- 23 times; cf. Colvin (1999) 209—10; for the inscriptions Threatte (1980) 553-4. 34 e.g. Nub. 604; Vesp. 1081; Thesm. 102, 1034; Ran. 445. Lys. 1143 is exceptional. 28

Appendix

238

idiomatic expressions (fw oirAois 'under arms', (\>v ffeois 'with the gods', 'wisely'). Here the old form may have been fossilized so that the coexistence of aw(-) and fw(-) is not a case of true polymorphy with two exchangeable variants. 2.3.

SUPRASEGMENTAL FEATURES

2.3.1. Accent The accentuation of our texts was introduced long after the time of Aristophanes. Hence, little can be said about how regular or irregular comic pronunciation was in this respect. The sneering reference at Ran. 303-4 to the tragic actor Hegelochus' slip of saying ya\fjv 'weasel' instead of YaXjjv' 'calm (of the sea)' suggests, however, that the traditional pitch accent (and not the stress accent that came to be used in later Greek) was still the norm in both comic and tragic speech. 2.3.2. Correptio Attica A short-vowel syllable before most groups of plosive + liquid or nasal (i.e. muta cum liquida) is short in Attic (correptio Attica). In lyric metres and in anapaests non-observance of correptio Attica is quite common. 35 Correption is usual in both tragic and comic trimeters (76.5% observance in Aeschylus, 69.7% in Sophocles, 69.2% in Euripides), but comedy is stricter (86.5% observance in Aristophanes' trimeters and tetrameters).36 Since some groups (/3A, yA, yv, y/n, Sv, Sp) regularly break the rule and shoul therefore be disregarded, the real figures may be even clearer. There is only a handful of non-parodic comic trimeters in which correptio Attica is not observed.37 2.3.3. Avoiding hiatus: crasis, elision, prodelision With crasis, elision, and prodelision, comedy is more tolerant than tragedy. Presumably this reflects the usage of spoken Attic.38 In comedy, unlike tragedy, verbal forms in -ji
35

e.g. Nub. 335, 401; Vesp. 570, 678; Av. 579, 591, 686; Ran. 680; more exam ples in White (1912) 365, and L. P. E. Parker (1997) 92-3. 36 Figures based on Allen (1987) 109, who refers to Schade (1908). 37 Thus Eq. 207?; Nub. 869?; Vesp. 151?, 837; Pax 1201; Av. 45, 820?; Pint. 166, 1019, 1153; cf. White (1912) 364-5. 38 Widespread crasis is suggested not only by metrical considerations and the manuscript transmission but also by the fossilization of a crasis form in o darepos (Men. fr. 491; cf. Qartpov = TO erepov).

Aristophanes'A ttic 904)* Trtpioi/Ktyia-TrcAfloW' (~ rapioi/iofiat airfXdovr',

Ran.

239 5^9)> *-*r

Eccl. 410). I am not aware of any comparative statistics.39 According to Platnauer, there are 2.3 cases of prodelision in every 100 lines of Aristophanes (as against 0.4 in Aeschylus, 1.3 in Sophocles, and 0.6 in Euripides).40 Platnauer observes that prodelision becomes rarer in Aristophanes' last plays (and even more so in Menander). While hiatus is mostly avoided, it is tolerated (or rather created) in where it strengthens the expressive force of this variant for The gradual spread of ouSe «fs is reflected in Aristophanic comedy, the hiatus form first occurs in Lys. 1045 and Ran. 927, but it is common only in the last play (Plut. 37, 138, 1115, n82). 41 2.3.4. " ephelkystikon With certain inflectional forms, most notably the dative plural in the third plural in -ova, fari/tint, and the aorist and imperfect third singular in -t, hiatus can be avoided not only by elision but also by the addition of a y ephelkystikon. This device, in Aristophanes apparently more common in anapaestic metres than in iambic trimeters, is increasingly frequent in fourth-century Attic.42 If we take the occurrences of can' vs. tariv according to Todd's Aristophanic index as one sample and the first 500 lines of Acharnians as another, it seems that forms with and without v ephelkystikon are distributed almost equally, though perhaps with a slight predominance of the shorter forms. 2.4. V A R I A 2.4.1. Phonological uncertainties With some of the phenomena discussed here one has to rely entirely on the transmitted orthography. As long as two variants are well differentiated and the transmission does not contradict our expectations, this procedure is relatively safe (cf. e.g. aa vs. TT). In other cases we have to admit our ignorance. Take for instance the ending -rji (-TJ) of the a-stem dative singular and of the second-person middle. The Attic inscriptions show some attestations of an a-stem dative 39

Kriiger (1879) 23—30 gives an extensive list of examples; cf. also Lopez Eire (19960)79-84. 40 Cf. Platnauer (1960) 140. 41 Menander has more than 30 cases of ovSf efs; cf. in general Wackernagel (1928) 114, 268-9; Moorhouse (1962) 245—6. Separated ov&' av eis occurs already in Eq. 573 and Vesp. 72. See also Stinton (1977) on interlinear hiatus, where Aristophanic comedy is much freer than Euripidean and Sophoclean (but not Aeschylean) tragedy. 42 Cf. Zacher (1899) 465-73; Thumb-Scherer (1959) 293; Threatte (1980) 640-3.

Appendix

240

in -ft as early as the fifth and fourth centuries. This may suggest that some people pronounced this ending as [ei] (or [e:]?), but we do not know whether most of them did. Somewhat inconsistently modern editors often prefer -ti for middle forms such as <j3ouA«> 'you want' (or the dative rather than <jro'Ar/i> although the latter is the regular orthography of the inscriptions before £.370 BC) but not for 'to the girl'. 43 Similarly, at the time of Old Comedy the standard ending for the nominative plural of words in -eu; was -T/S if the inscriptional spellings are taken as a guideline.44 But how can we know that this was not actually pronounced in the same way as the later -eis? A comparable problem of consonantism is the 'correct' spelling of words beginning with either o
2.5. CONCLUSION: PHONOLOGY AND PHONETICS Where it is possible to make a judgement, the phonetic and phonological level of Aristophanic grammar corresponds well with the classical Attic system. Deviations are nearly always introduced for precise stylistic reasons (e.g. in lyric parts and literary parody). Polymorphy with two stylistically equivalent variants occurs only in a few marginal cases and quite possibly both variants were used alongside each other even in non-literary Attic. The case of 4avT-/avT- (and that of 43 Cf. Threatte (1980) 377-83 and (1996) 213; the middle ending is absent from the relevant inscriptions (see Threatte (1996) 451-2), but Zacher (1899) 473-84 argues for -ei in Aristophanes; similarly Arnott (20016) 40 for later comedy. 44 See Threatte (1996) 239-42. 45 Hiersche (1970) 165—6 makes a good case for OH-/OK-. 46 Perpillou (1984): because of the sexual meaning of waiW 'to bang", (Lys. 852) need not evoke TTCO; 'penis', and in Eq. 1284—6 there is no link at all between aioxpais 'obscene' and laxapas 'hearths'. See also Ch. 7.3.3 on the pronunciation of ei.

47 e.g. Ach. 276-83 $oA^(«pai)i-dAi)?/SdAA^3aAfrs; Ach. 751 cf. the warning by Merry (1893) about the use of Pax 926fioiffimflftfiv)as an argument for early iotacism.

A ristophanes' A ttic

241

may point to a certain phonetic conservatism (or aim for careful speech), but artificial archaizing is absent (cf. £vv-/aw-). Only with does tragedy seem to be statistically closer to what one might expect in 'real-life' Attic (contrast e.g. aa/rr, correptio Attica).

3. M O R P H O L O G Y 3.1. N O U N S

3.1.1. Dative plural of o-stems Throughout the fifth century the Attic inscriptions show infrequent examples of the long dative plural ending -OKH(K) rather than the usual -ois. The last securely dated examples of -oim(v) in public documents appear around 420 BC, but because official inscriptions are often conservative it is safe to assume that the long form had disappeared from spoken Attic long before.48 In Aristophanes -ois is far more common already in the earlier plays, but -oiai(v) does exist, also in the late plays, as a recessive variant. In Acharnians, Knights, and Clouds, I have counted 271 -ois against 104 Even if the 88 cases of prevocalic -ois are disregarded (since they might be interpreted as -oio'), -ois is twice as strong as Nevertheless, it is a revealing sign of morphological conservatism in Aristophanes if an old, and probably lost, form like -oiai(i') has such a strong position. Metrical reasons alone are no sufficient explanation since Menander manages to write his plays virtually without -oioi(x).49 There is no significant difference between the treatment of the dative plural endings in nouns and pronouns. 3.1.2. Dative plural of a-stems Although the situation is not exactly the same, the Aristophanic treatment of a-stem and o-stem dative plurals is more or less identical. The original ending of the a-stem dative plural was -7701 (or -aoi after e, i, o). This end ing is regular in the inscriptions until around 420 BC, when it is quickl replaced by -ais.50 In Acharnians, Knights, and Clouds there are 122 forms in -ais (of which 36 are prevocalic) and 39 in -aioi(t-). Where the longer form occurs, we might wonder whether Aristophanes wrote -aicu(v), as transmitted, or -i)oi(v), as on the inscriptions (where -aicn is very rare). On the whole, the case for -aim(v) seems stronger: with -i)o-i(n) we would have to assume a somewhat gratuitous extensive orthographical revision of the text. In any case the strength of -aiai(v) in Aristophanes reflects literary 48

Cf. Dover (1981) 4, 14 n. 10; Lopez Eire (1993) 49; Threatte (1996) 25-32. For the handful of exceptions see Gomme-Sandbach (1973) 735. 50 Only the locatival use (AB-ffv^ai) remains current: see Threatte (1996) 96-101, 374-549

242

Appendix

convention rather than the real frequency of the long endings in late fifthcentury spoken Attic. 3.1.3. Attic declension The so-called Attic declension (e.g. in i>«is, Aeuls, TAeaJs), which disappeared in Koine Greek, is alive and well in Aristophanes. Forms like rads or Aads are stylistically conditioned. sl MeWAaos once occurs at the hexameter-like end of an anapaest (Av. 509). 3.1.4. Irregular declension forms In Aristophanes, as elsewhere in classical Attic, the word m'ds has an o-stem nominative and accusative singular, but w-stem forms in the other cases.52 Similarly, forms such as SevSpfai (Av. 1066), KAaSeoi (Av. 239), and (Nub. 911) are 'regular' within their heteroclitic declension patterns. Irregular declension forms of other stems either have a distinctive stylistic function 53 or belong to marginal and (synchronically) irregular words where people may have been uncertain about the 'correct' forms. 54 The only truly surprising metrical licence is the stylistically unmarked genitive Suyarc'pos in a trimeter (Vesp. 1397). 3.2. A D J E C T I V E S 3.2.1. Comparative stems

In classical Attic the comparatives in -(()e$/-(i')ovas (nom./acc. pi. masc./fem.) compete against remnants of the older i-stem declension: -(t)v,56 Aristophanes uses both variants with the same frequency. The longer forms are slightly predominant with -ova/~ui (27 : 51

Nub. 306 (alongside 'Doric' a); Lys. 775 ('para-epic' oracle); Thesm. 39 (Agathon's servant), 1148 (hymnic). Eq. 163 Xaaiv (not guaranteed by the metre) may allude to //. 4. 90: Neil (1901) 29. 52 Cf. La Roche (1893) 222-6. 53 e.g. Pax 1301 Tonkas 'parents' (para-epic); Av. 679, 1412 (lyric voc. 'nightingale', x^AiSoi 'swallow'); Lys. 774 -nrtpvyfaaiv 'wings' (mock oracle). 54 e.g. Ach. 93 Trpe'ajSetus 'ambassador' (not TrpeajSfuToii); 7V»6. 559 eiVoiis 'similes' (ace. pi., after the s-stem comparative?); Nub. 1327 -narpaXoia 'father-beater' (voc.); Ar. fr. 26 like the inscriptions: cf. Dover (1981) 4),

Aristophanes' Attic

243

2i), the shorter ones with -oves/-oi>as/-ovs ( 4 : 5 : 15). It is just possible that one variant (presumably the older and shorter variant rather than the younger and longer one) was purely literary, but the comic text suggests that both were commonly used. 3.2.2. Comparatives and superlatives in Since the comparative and superlative are highly expressive linguistic categories, their intensifying character is frequently strengthened, especially in colloquial language, through peculiar morphological developments. One possibility is the use of the suffix often with a pejorative connotation. In words such as noTiararos 'great boozer' (Thesnt. 735) and perhaps even KXcnriaraTos 'most thievish' (Plut. 27), which are based on adjectival irons and KA«rrr)s respectively, the suffix may have been regarded as semi-regular. From here it was transferred to some other stems (mostly o-stems): nrcuxiarfpos 'more beggarly' (Ach. 425), nopoyayiVaTos 'most alone-eating' (Vesp. 923), iuaoiropirai<(oTaTos 'most shield-band-hating' (Pax 662), AaAiWepos 'more talkative' (Ran. 91, Ar. fr. 684), i/KvSioraTos 'most lying' (Ar. fr. 920).5? Where it borders on word formation, comic morphology is somewhat colloquial. 3.2.3. Irregular comparatives and superlatives There are a few cases of analytic comparatives (Vesp. 1105 'more sharp-spirited'; Plut. 747 fiaX^ov rv
PRONOUNS

3.3.1. Neuter singular In Old Comedy the neuter pronominal forms TO.VTOV, TOIOVTOV, roaovrov virtually never occur without the final -v: in Aristophanes, Eq. 1234, where the manuscripts have TOOOVTO, is metrically ambiguous, but Plut. 361 TOWVTO 57

Cf. Peppier (1918) 183; Leumann (1945) 10-14. Cf. further Eg. 1252; Vesp. 550; Pax 402; Thesm. 816-17. On Eccl. 1131 see Ch. 6.7. 59 The latter might parody metrical lengthening in a hexameter. For irregular comparatives and superlatives in other comic poets see Peppier (1918) 181—3. 58

244

Appendix

need not be changed.60 Since forms like TOIOUTO appear quite often in Middle (and New) Comedy, they may have been used occasionally by 400 BC. If so, this would be an additional indirect argument for Aristophanes' morphological conservatism. 3-3-2. Dual of a-stem pronouns Whereas nominal a-stems regularly have a dual in -a, pronominal dual forms in -a (rd, ram-a) are not attested in the Attic inscriptions of the classical period, and -ro.lv is exceedingly rare. 61 It therefore depends on our belief in the transmission whether we allow forms like rd and raw into the Aristophanic text (or replace them by TO>, T, it may also be dangerous to excise ra where it is backed by some manuscripts (Eq. 424, 484; also Pax 847 TOUTO?). In the genitive and dative, TOIK is hardly ever found instead of ralv in the transmitted text (also Eccl. 1106). Analogical pressure may well have led to the creation of such forms in spoken Attic, even if they were not recognized as correct by those who wrote epigraphic texts.62 3-3-3. Tendency towards bisyllabism (TOV vs. TIVOS, Srov vs. ou-riros, etc.) In the interrogative pronoun the shorter and older forms TOU; (33 exx.) and TOI; (26) are still more frequent than their polymorphic variants TWOS; (17) and TIM; (4). In the indefinite pronoun, nraj (12) and iW (i i) have already overtaken TOU (9) and TW (9) (which remain predominant in the inscriptions until around 350 BC63). However, Aristophanes never uses OUTIVOS, utnvi instead of (oicmai occurs once in a parodic hexameter: Pax 1279). Morphological conservatism may here be coupled with a preference for bisyllabic pronominal forms, which yielded the best equilibrium between the two competing forces of linguistic economy, clarity and effort. The tendency towards bisyllabism also explains the occasional replacement of olnvf^amves by oaoi/oaai (Ach. 862; Lys. 268; Eccl. 112). 3.3.4. Deictic Many personal pronouns and certain adverbs are reinforced by the addition of a deictic -I (6St, OVTOOI, ffBaSi, etc.). There are more than 600 examples of deictic -i in Aristophanes (though very few in the parabasis and 60 In Ran. 1399 both TOIOUTO and roioinov are transmitted, and in Pax 759 and Lys. 485 the transmitted form in -o is metrically impossible. 61 62 Cuny (1906) 14; Threatte(i996) 91-3. Cf. Cooper (1972). 63 Threatte (1996) 340-2; the Aristophanic figures are based on the index compiled by O. J. Todd (1932) and therefore refer to the edition by Hall—Geldart (1906) and (1907).

Aristophanes' Attic

245

lyric or paratragic parts),64 whereas it is virtually absent from the official inscriptions, from tragedy, and from Thucydidean prose. The distribution shows that deictic -I was particularly strong in colloquial Attic but avoided in more formal text genres. According to Dover's statistics, the ratio between forms with -i and forms without -I is i : 4 in Aristophanes (contrast e.g. Lysias with i : 17 and Plato with i : 30).65 Similarly, comedy often reinforces with an added particle both interrogative causal TI; 'why?' and the conjunction on, mainly in its causal use: TIIJ;, OTIIJ. Since ni}; occurs already in epic poetry, such 'strenghtened' variants must have had a long subliterary history and should not be regarded as recent morphological innovations.66

3.4. VERBS 3.4.1. Endings 3.4.1.1. -fj.eBa. VS. -fieoflo The most frequent case of verbal polymorphy is that of the first-person plural middle and passive endings -pe8a and -neaOa. It is very unlikely that -peaBa was used in spoken Attic, but in Aristophanic comedy it is a common recessive variant (76 -fifoffa : 177 -fifda). Although the tolerance for -fitada seems greater in lyric passages, it is not confined to them. In later comedy, -^eafla gradually disappears like the dative plural in -o«n/-ai<ji.67 3.4-1 • 2. Optative of contracted verbs The old set of singular optative endings for contracted verbs -of, and, for verbs in -aw, -<jv", etc.) is replaced in Attic by the remodelled set -ou;v, -on;;, -OIT; (after athematic forms like SiSoiVi f°r verbs in etc.). In tragedy the endings of the former set still serve as recessive variants, but in Aristophanes there are only two well-attested examples in stylistically marked contexts (Eq. 1131, lyr.; Pax io-j6a/b, para-epic hexameter).68 Aristophanes never uses plural forms with the optative marker -IT;-, not even with athematic verbs or in the aorist passive.69

64

Martin de Lucas (1996) 161-3. Dover (1997) 64; cf. Threatte (1996) 411-12. 66 Cf. Denniston (1950) p. Ixxvi, 287; nij; is further strengthened as Vesp. 1155; Pax 1018; Thesm. 84. 67 For the figures see Lautensach (1896) 26-8 (who counted 9 -fifada : 62 -^efla in the then accessible fragments of Middle and New Comedy). 68 See further La Roche (1893) 138-48; Lautensach (1916) 104-10, with statistics. 69 Ran. 1448 aw6ftrj/j.ev 'we would get saved', if correct, probably quotes Euripides (fr. 582 Nauck). 65

246

Appendix

3.4.1.3. 'Aeolic' optative In the active aorist optative the endings for the second and third singular and third plural are either 'Aeolic' -(a)fias, -(a)fie, -(a)eia^ or 'non-Aeolic' Statistics show that the 'Aeolic' forms were regular in fifth-century Attic (Table A.i). 70 The Aristophanic manuscripts never have -(a)a.i.fv (but 6 times -(a)fiav) nor an entirely certain case of -(a)ai (but 44 times -(o)ete).71 Real polymorphy seems to exist only in the second singular (13 -(a)eias : 8 -(a)ais). In Middle and New Comedy, -(a)a« takes over completely, but Aristophanes is conservative: 2 out of 8 -(o)ais in Aristophanes belong to the late Plutus, and 3 of the earlier examples stand in anapaests where -(a)ois may be regarded as a poetic licence rather than as a colloquial innovation. TABLE A.I. Frequency of 'Aeolic' and 'non-Aeolic' optative endings in Attic drama 'Aeolic' Aeschylus Sophocles Euripides Aristophanes Old Comedy (except Ar.) Middle/New Comedy

23 50 78 63 8 3°

'non-Aeolic' 7 2 10 IO

— 15

3-4-1-4- Middle optative (and third-plural perf. med.-pass.): The third-person plural of the middle optative presents a further case of true polymorphy in Aristophanes. In Aeschylus and Sophocles -man still predominate over -OII>TO/-TO, but with Euripides and Aristophanes a reversal takes place (Aristophanes: 16 -vro : 5 -aro).72 It is impossible to say how often, if at all, the forms in -a.ro could still be heard in spoken Attic. In the medio-passive third-person plural of the perfect and pluperfect, the endings -cmu/-aTo are not found in Aristophanes. Instead, periphrastic forms or, in the case of verbal stems ending in a vowel or diphthong, forms in -VTOI are used.73 70 Lautensach (1917) 169-80 (but note Cratinus fr. 183 d^waiv?); cf. La Roche (1893) 132-7; Duhoux (2000) 224-5. 71 Plut. 505 (anap.) is doubtful and in Ar. fr. 332. 15 Ae'fai? is now retained. 72 -an: Eq. 662; Nub. 1199; Pax 209; Av. 1147; Lys. 42; cf. Lautensach (1916) 113—16; Wackernagel (1916) 89-93. 73 e.g. Pax 197; Eccl. 238, 771-2, 838; also Eccl. 265 etBia^fvai toptv 'we are used to'. Note Ran. 1113 coTpareujieVoi tlaiv 'they are old campaigners' vs. Ran. 1116

A ristophanes' A ttic

247

3.4-i-5- ^ vs- ^"'. pluperfect endings; oioBa In the first-singular imperfect of tlpi, the later form fy is guaranteed (since it prevents hiatus) only in Plutus (29, 695, 822). Of course, this need no imply that Aristophanes, unlike for instance Euripides, never used before. 74 In the first-singular pluperfect both -ij and -«.v seem to occur: in Av. 511 'I knew' is certain (against some of the manuscripts), but in Vesp. 558, 635, and Pax 1182 the later -ew stands before a vowel. In the second person ijSrjaOa (or -fiada) is once guaranteed (Eccl. 551), fiSfis never (though transmitted). 75 Unlike Cratinus (fr. 112), Aristophanes does not use (nor oiSas) instead of olaOa. 3.4.1.6. Imperative endings With certain athematic verbs such as larafiai or n'tfe/nai the middle imperative occurs in a contracted ("aria, rtffov, also raflou 'sit down') and an uncontracted (taraao, TiBeao, also ica^ero) form. In the latter, the original intervocalic -a- has been retained or analogically restored. Surprisingly, Aristophanes and Euripides do not share the preference of both early tragedy and comedy for the contracted variants. 76 Whether Aristophanes' treatment was conservative or not, it may show some concern for morpho logical clarity. There are no Aristophanic examples of the third-plural active imperative -rwaav, which replaced -vrwv in later Greek. 3-4-2. Augment and reduplication The augment is omitted in comic dialogue only once in Aristophanes, in the para-epic verb jSiveoxo^v 'I used to fuck' (Eq. 1242). Elsewhere omission occurs in para-epic hexameters and in some parodic or high-flown lyric passages.77 'they are sharpened'; similarly Vesp. 1114 eunx eyKaOrn^fvoi. vs. Ach. 343 eyKaSrjvTai 'they sit inside'; cf. La Roche (1893) 171-2; Lautensach (1896) 29; Kontos (1898) 270-9, with a list for the classical Attic writers. In the active perfect subjunctive and optative, non-periphrastic forms like TrevoiSoii] and KtK\6
248

Appendix

With fie'AAcu, jSouAojucu, and Swa^cu, fourth-century Attic began to use an augment i}- on a regular basis, but Aristophanes has only rjfteAA- (Ran. 1038 and Eccl. 597, against 7 examples of c/xcAA-), never i)j3ouA- and and eSw- being common).78 Since at least ij|3ouA-, which is modelled upon T/0eA- from eWAco,79 is found as early as the fifth century, this is another indication of morphological conservatism. With KaS^ai, Ka0e'£o^at, and initial and interior augment coexist even in trimeters (though exaO- is normal).80 The perfect of 6pdu> is eopaKa, not e'uJpara (e.g. Thesm. 32-3; Plut. 98). On augmented fxftv see Chapter 5.8.2. 3.4.3. Verbal stems 3.4.3.1. Present: thematization of athematic verbs The thematization of athematic verbs such as which is frequent in Middle Comedy, is found only in the late Aristophanes (Plut. 719 avfnrapa^ef/muiv; cf. his older contemporary Pherecrates' fr. 152. 9 and further instances even in writers like Thucydides and Andocides).81 The only case where (something like) thematization is frequent is the imperative of verbs in -fiatvw with either athematic (aoristic) -f)i)6t or quasithematic -)3o (as if from *-fiau>; cf. Si'Sou, riBei, r«). Among the tragic writers only Euripides uses these forms, which may have been colloquial standard.82 3.4.3.2. Aorist From the middle of the fourth century onwards, the Attic inscriptions show the aorist marker -K- of the reduplicated athematic verbs and iTjfu also in the plural (i.e. eStuxav for eSoaav, etc.). Considering that epigraphic conventions are usually conservative, such forms may already have been in widespread use by 400 Be; they are preferred to the older ones in Middle and New Comedy.83 In Aristophanes there are only two cases and one of them reflects the free use of such forms in epic poetry rather than linguistic innovation (Nub. 968 TrapeSwKav at the end of an anapaestic tetrameter, leaving only Ach. 101 fwrjieaB' as a 'recent' form). 84 78

Cf. Lautensach (1899) 2-3; Duhoux (2000) 96-7; Arnott (2002) 196-8. In Aristophanic comedy 9i\u> is only used in the idiomatic rjv 6(&s OfXfi 'god willing', etc. 80 Cf. Lautensach (1899) 131-5. 81 Cf. La Roche (1893) 155-60; for the sth-cent. prose writers B. Rosenkranz (1930) 152. Lys. 895 SioTiflei? (MSS) must stand for Sum'fli;?. 82 Cf. Lautensach (1911) 4-5 and (1917) 190-1. 83 Threatte (1996) 600-2, 615-17; Lautensach (1911) 118-19. 84 Contrast Vesp. 574, 717; Lys. 108; Ran. 1190. 79

A ristophanes' A ttic

249

In tragedy, presumably under Ionic influence, weak aorists sometimes replace strong aorists in the passive voice. In Aristophanic comedy, Thesm. 1128 arpecpBui (paratragic) and Lys. 526 auAAai/(otK, Kpffj.u>, ire™, or tighten rather than loosen their grip on Attic over time. When Aristophanes has fifiw (Av. 425, 1570; the Attic writers Andocides and Lysias use /9i$aa-) and, despite the ample attestation of Ko\daw/-ofi.ai in classical Attic, even KO\UI^
Contrast e.g. Ach. 1022; Vesp. 1107; Eccl. 116, 395. 87 Cf. Lautensach (1911) 101-15. Lautensach (1911) 165-6, with statistics. 88 Compare e.g. Nub. 185, Eccl. 1161, and Av. 697 with Vesp. 1142, 1413, and Ar. fr. 663; similarly StSoiKtu? (Pax 607; also Eccl. 181 ScSoiVarf) vs. SeSuus (Eccl. 643; Plut. 448). For more detail, also on the following points, see Lautensach (1921) 231-48. 89 Cf. Schwyzer (1939) 785; Hauri (1975), esp. 171-2. 1)0 Excessive regularization, as promoted by Walker (1894) anc< (1906), is dangerous. The model •n'ania/ neaovnai/fTrfaov must account for the aorist fxf<""> (Thesm. 570); cf. Schwyzer (1939) 786. 86

Appendix

250

In analogy to TTOTTJCTU) and Trcuijacu, the future of |8aAAcu is either (Vesp. 222, 1491) or /JaAeO (Ach. 283; compound verbs). Similarly, competes with occasional Somjaoj.91 The verb pmrw can be treated as a verb in -fw even in the present (Vesp. 59; Eccl. 507). Like ?x
MORPHOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTIES

As with phonology, there are cases of uncertainty in morphology. Apart from those mentioned already, they include the accusative singular of sstem personal names, where the inscriptions suggest that -r/v was normal by 400 BC and need not be changed into -i;,94 the aorist of WTOJLUII (bot and firranyv occur in the manuscripts),95 or the controversial 'Lautensach's Law', according to which compound verbs starting with ev'well, good" have no temporal augment rju-. 95

3.6. C O N C L U S I O N : MORPHOLOGY Formal variation is more frequent in Aristophanes' morphology than in his phonology. In some cases it is likely that one of the two variant forms was not used in contemporary spoken Attic (-oi<7i/-aiai, -pfoSa, perhaps -aro). Elsewhere the parallelism of two forms is not 'artificial' but points to the existence of synchronic variation also in 'real' language. Here, 91

Nub. 562; Ran. 737; cf. Vesp. 726 SeSoxijaai; Ran. 1485 Contrast e.g. Ran. 193 with Vesp. 138; Humbert (1960) 153 sees here a 'futur determine' and a 'futur indetermine'. 93 In trimeters: Nub. 792; Vesp. 784; Av. 1456, 1506; Pint. 65; elsewhere: Ach. 295; Nub. 1440; Vesp. 437; Pax 1274; Av. 346; Lys. 262-3, 1280; Ran. 1047, 1106?; cf. Wackernagel (1928) 172—4, also on the origin of VTTO TI 'a little' (Vesp. 1290); Morpurgo Davies (rgSs) 86—8; Dunbar (1995) 697. 94 e.g. Nub. 182, 1465, 1477; cf. Threatte (1996) 173-6. 95 Cf. Dunbar (1995) *52> against Lautensach (1911) 10-11. 96 Lautensach (1899) 47-9, 146-9, rejected by Mastronarde (1989). 92

Aristophanes' Attic

251

Aristophanes does not usually show a clear preference for the younger variants (cf. e.g. comparative stems, ^o\l•j^^p•„ 'Aeolic' optatives, augment with ne'AAcu, first singular TJ")- A conservative attitude is indicated by the absence or rarity of certain features (e.g. aorists like tSuiKav, ofaflas, thematized athematic verbs, weak instead of strong aorists). Of course this does not preclude the use of colloquial features since 'colloquial' is not always the same as 'recent' (cf. deictic -I, TU},-, tmesis, probably comparatives and superlatives in -(aT(pos/-ioTaros). Generally speaking, Aristophanes seems to exploit variation (or synchronic 'irregularity') more readily in verbal than in nominal morphology, but obviously the rich verbal system of classical Greek also provided him with more numerous opportunities to do so. 4. SYNTAX 4.1. N O U N S

4.1.1. Case 4.1.1.1. Nominative and vocative Nub. 1168 and Av. 1467 may be interpreted as containing a nominative instead of a vocative, but apparent cases elsewhere must be taken as exclamatory nominatives.97 The switch from a vocative to a nominative in a list of addressees is very old, but it is not a strict rule (contrast Nub. 264-5 •withAch. 55). The vocative is preceded by u> much more frequently than not, but the two variants are essentially equivalent (compare e.g. Ach. 95 and 818, 284 and 1018, 887 and 1174, 1132-3 and 1136-7).98 4.1.1.2. Accusative Directional accusatives without a preposition are always stylistically marked in Aristophanes and extremely rare even in parody.99 The same is true for the non-prepositional ablatival genitive100 and local dative101 97 Pace La Roche (1893) 215-17: Vesp. goo; Thesm. 649, 878; Ran. 921; cf. exclamations like xoKoSai'/iojv eyai 'poor me!': Dittmar (1933) 22—4. 98 Cf. Dickey (1996) 199—206: Aristophanes has <J with 80% of his vocatives (cf. orators ^.90%, Thuc. 85%, but later Men. 12%), but the view of Scott (1905) 39-41 that omission of u> in Aristophanes regularly indicates elevation of style is unfounded (cf. also Ch. 2.5). 99 Av. 952; Thesm. 1045-6; non-parodic: Nub. 299/300 (lyr.); quotation: Nub. 30; cf. Bers(i984)73. 100 Perhaps Av. 941/2 dAdrai arparujv 'he is an outcast from the host' (?): cf. Bers (1984) 100; Dunbar (1995) 537. 101 Nub. 272; Lys. 1298; Thesm. no, 126, also 1055?; quotations: Ran. 1318, 1403; note locatival Mcyapoi (^4c/i. 758) and fIvBol(Lys. 1131 * Eg. 1273 rJvBwn) but also eV MapaBwvi (Vesp. 711; Ar. fr. 429); cf. Bers (1984) 95-8.

252

Appendix

although the latter is fossilized in forms like MapaOwvi, 'OAu^m'am, (which are comparable to a directional 'A^owrdSt or an ablatival Participial absolute accusatives are relatively rare (cf. Euripides with 16 i£6v/irap6v). Adverbial 'perhaps' is not yet found. There is a remarkable, probably traditional,102 extended usage of such absolute accusatives (or nominatives?) with a personal subject (Ach. 1182; Plut. 277?; Ar. fr. 664). A typically comic, presumably colloquial, type of inner accusative is represented by Ach. 95 vavyapKrav pheneiv 'to look like a warship", etc.103 The inner accusative offigurae etymologicae is used as a means of intensification (e.g. Kpayov xeKpayeVai, Aijpov Aijpcfv).

4.1.1.3. Genitive105 The frequency of the absolute genitive in Aristophanes suggests that this was no purely literary construction (£.85 examples, more or less equally divided between early and late plays). The genitive of comparison (c.izo examples) is hardly ever challenged by the alternative construction with TJ (/cpei'moi* rj avr/p vs. Kff'nruw av&pos). In some cases ^ is of course necessary, for instance when an adverb, an adverbial phrase, a preposition, a full clause, or an infinitival construction follows;106 also -nXfiv is always accompanied by fj. Elsewhere the genitive of comparison is replaced by the construction with rj mainly for the sake of greater clarity.107 The usual preference for the genitive is a sign of syntactic conservatism. Vesp. 352 OVK eoTtv omjs 'there isn't enough of a hole' preserves an archaic syntagma with a partitive genitive instead of a nominative after a negative substantive verb.108 Apparently this construction had survived in colloquial language. Another colloquial feature is the frequent use of exclamatory genitives; again, this may be old.109 102

Cf. M. L. Rosenkranz (1964) 271-3. Cf. Ach. 254; Eq. 631, 855; Vesp. 455, 643, 847, 900; Pax 1184; Av. 1169, 1671; Ran. 562, 6030, 804; Eccl. 2926; Plut. 424. 104 e.g. Eq. 487; Av. 31, 1401; Thesm. 793, 880; Eccl. 106; Plut. 419, 517, 1044; cf. Vetta (1989) 153. 105 See the comprehensive study by Poultney (1936), with lists for all the usages. 106 e.g. Nub. 1418; Vesp. 650; Pax 23; Lys. 304; Thesm. 519; Ran. 947; Plut. 939; note Eccl. 700-1 irpdrepov au-rijs for -n-pdrepoy -i) Tap' avrf). A substantivized infinitive in the genitive of comparison occurs only once: Av. 13430, For general statistics see Schwab (1893-4) 'i- 42—3, 78, and 92 (where the ratio of 9.8 gen. : i rj in comedy would be even more in favour of the genitive if irhtiv T/ had been excluded; cf. e.g. Aesch. 35.5 : i, Soph. 9.4 : i, Eur. 11.5 : i, Hdt. 19.8 : i, Thuc. 11.6 : i, Xen. 3.8 : i, Plato 7.6 : i, Dem. 3.9 : i). 107 Nub. 432; Vesp. 1068/9, "49; Av. 369; Lys. 432; Thesm. 273; Eccl. 1040, 1096. A possible exception is Thesm. 203 with r; av instead of aou. 108 Cf. Schwyzer (1940) 10. 109 Examples in Dittmar (1933) 24-5; Poultney (1936) 125-6. 103

A ristophanes' Attic

253

4.1.1.4. Dative The dative, which was lost in later Greek, is as strong in Aristophanes as elsewhere in classical Attic. The switch, with predicative participles, from the dative to the nominative (Vesp. 133-5: 'the . . . son . . . is called . . . Bdelycleon: he's got some rather haughtifalutin ways'; Av. 46-7) or to the accusative (Eq. 1394-5; Thesm. 674-6; Eccl. 1019-20: the older women shall

be permitted, without penalty, to drag the young man away, taking hold of him by the peg') may be a first symptom of weakening, but such phenomena are not uncommon in other writers either.110 4.1.2. Gender Nominal gender is a topical issue in Clouds (see Ch. 4.2.2) and in the 'women's plays' (see Ch. 6.6, especially on nominal motion). As in othe languages with such a grammatical category, there are a few words with variable gender: rapi^os 'dried fish' masc. (Ar. fr. 207) vs. rdpix°s ntr. (Eq. 1247), opiyavos 'origanum' fern. (Eccl. 1030) vs. optyavov ntr. (Ran. 6030; Ar fr. 128), Aijuds 'hunger' fern. (Ach. 743: Megarian) vs. Aijuo? masc. (Pax 483). 4.1.3. Number During the fourth century the dual completely disappears from Attic Greek, first in the verbal system, later also with nouns.111 Somewhat paradoxically, the dual is stronger in Euripidean tragedy than in Aeschylus, presumably because Euripides' language is more open towards spoken Attic than the literary register of Aeschylus. It is clear from Aristophanic comedy that the dual was very much alive in fifth-century Attic. The difference between Aristophanes' language and that of his younger contemporary Plato is striking: whereas Plato uses the dual in about 25% of all cases in which he could have used it, the corresponding Aristophanic figure is 57%.112 In the verbal paradigm the dual seems even stronger than in the nominal paradigm (c.75% observance). Many apparent exceptions are easily explained by the context (e.g. Pax 1054; Av. 95: the Hoopoe cannot know the number of people who are looking for him; also Ach. 729-835 i

110 These sentences are not anacolutha like Ach. 1164-8 or Pax 1242-4: for the latter cf. Slings (1992) 96-101. The complete loss of the dative occurs much later: see Humbert (1930). 111 Cf. in general Hasse (1891) and Cuny (1906); for the Attic inscriptions Meisterhans-Schwyzer (1900) 199—201. 112 Cuny (1906) 94, 163-4; c f- Bers ('984) 59~6o; Duhoux (2000) 131-4. Lopez Eire (1991) 21—6 exaggerates the weakness of the Aristophanic dual because he does not compare it with other writings.

254

Appendix

Megarian).113 A tendency towards the loss of the dual can only be seen in the gradual increase of incongruous agreement, for instance between a dual subject and a plural verb; there are particularly many instances in the lateP/uto.114 Since the dual is far less common in oratory than in comedy and consciously avoided in a writer like Thucydides (whose rate of observance is about 5%), it seems to have borne the stigma of Attic parochialism.115 Hence, Aristophanes' syntax is both conservative and dialectally purist with regard to the dual. The <jx%m ATTIKOV (ntr. pi. subject agreeing with singular verb) is firmly observed.116 Occasional variation between singular and plural in other contexts reflects the freedom of lively spoken language.117 Poetic plurals 118 and the pluralis maiestatis (Thesm. 183, 196) are exclusively parodic. 4.2. ADJECTIVES There is only a handful of examples of a singular neuter adjective with the article in the function of an abstract noun (e.g. Nub. 414 'endurance', anap.; Plut. 562 TO atfr/KuiSes 'waspishness', anap.); only the common TO SIKO.WV 'justice' occurs in iambic dialogue (Ach. 500; Av. 1435).119 The neuter participle is not used in this way at all. The replacement of a possessive genitive by an adjectival construction is parodic (e.g. Ach. 433 TUIV &vioTetun> paKwv 'of the Thyestean rags'; Av. 939; Thesm. 919; Ran. 1142). 4.3.

ARTICLE

Aristophanes often omits the article in parodic passages (paratragedy, lyric parody) and less frequently in non-parodic lyrics with a solemn tone (e.g. 113

But metrical need can be a determining factor, too: e.g. Av. 367 Ran. 605—6 114 Plut. 73, 429—30, 471, 482, 484, 509, 532, 608—9, 733~4> 735—6; cf. Poultney (1963) 363-7115 Meillet (1965) 218. 116 Cf. Kuhner-Gerth (1898/1904) ii/i. 64-6 (also on 'regular' exceptions with personal subjects, as in Ach. 806—7); Wackernagel (1926) 101—3; Poultney (1963) 362-3. In Pax 1262 the plural verb is due to the separation from its subject. 117 e.g. Vesp. 433, 975—6; Lys. 209, 763; Eccl. 504—10; cf. the construct™ ad sensum in Eccl. 431—2. On singular vs. plural verbs used by/to the chorus see Kaimio (1970) 36-157: in the first person Aristophanes makes the chorus use the plural more often than the tragic writers. 118 e.g. Ach. 426, 479; Nub. 1165; Thesm. 41, 874; Ran. 13390; Eccl. n. 119 Elsewhere e.g. Eccl. 895 TO aofof 'expertise' (cf. Lys. 547); Eccl. 901 TO rpvyepov 'voluptuousness'.

Aristophanes' Attic

255

hymns); there is nothing comparable with the constant tragic omission for the sake of 'de-automatization'. 120 With certain nouns like e'/ocAijm'ai' or the omission of the article (e.g. ets tKK\-qalav, but tv TTj/cxAijaia121) is paralleled in prose so that it is difficult to find instances where the article is dropped metri gratia only. 122 With oSe and OUTOS, however, the rules are less strict. The type S&f/oSros avr/p is certainly less common than in tragedy, but it does occur, especially with SSe, even in (apparently non-parodic) comic dialogue. In Acharnians and Birds I have counted the figures set out in Table A. 2 (which are approximate only since it is sometimes difficult to decide whether stands in an attributive relationship to a neighbouring noun). TABLE A. 2. Frequency ofSSe and otros in Acharnians and Birds

Type Ach. Av. a b c

16 15

28 33

4a 6C

4b —

Ach. 336, 454 (paratragic, trim.), 985? (trim.), 1191/2 (paratragic). Ach. 130, 462—3, 960, 1049 (all trim.). Av. 921 (trim.), 936-7?, 1274 (trim.), 1313, 1366 (trim.), 1725.

Particular uses of the article, which without doubt belonged to spoken Attic, include the address to slaves (e.g. Ran. 40 6 mis; Ran. 271; also to other subordinated persons: Ach. 155 01 Spo/ccs; Av. 665 ?) UpoKvif) and the strengthening of™'; in TO rl; (Nub. 775; Pax 826; Ran. 7, 40).123 As a relative, anaphoric, or demonstrative pronoun, the article is not used in Attic (except in idioms such as 6 fj.ev/6 Se, TOV xal rov, irpo TOU); accordingly, it is restricted in Aristophanes to passages in other dialects.124

120 e.g. Nub. 275-90, 298-313 (but not Nub. 949-58, 1024-33); Av. 904-53 pas sim, 1372-1401 passim; Thesm. 101-29, &95 (paratragic); Eccl. 507-8 (paratragic); cf. also Ch. 2.10. On tragic 'de-automatization' or 'defamiliarization' see Bers (1984) 190-4. 121 Cf. Ussher (1973) 94, 108, 112; in general Cooper (1998) i. 390-1. 122 Anagnostopoulos (1925) 16 adduces Lys. 18, 101, 882, where the omission is in fact surprising, but all of these passages would mean something slightly different if there were an article; note however Lys. 108 MiXr/aiai. 123 Cf. Wendel (1929) 8; Svennung (1958) 214-24; TO ti;\ Humbert (1960) 51-2. The type d nais is not 'solemn' as Del Corno (1985) 158 claims. 124 Cf. Witkowski (1915) 24-5; Colvin (1999) 226-7; also Eq. 1039 and Av. 973 (mock oracles); Thesm. 126 (Agathon's song).

Appendix

256

4-4- PRONOUNS

The variation between the older possessive construction 6 fftos irarr/p and the younger A mrqp pov is a clear case of syntactic polymorphy in Aristophanes. The older variant is still predominant (186 : i io).125 Further details are given in Ch. 6.8.1. The non-reflexive possessive construction rarely replaces the reflexive , etc., and when it does, there may be metrical reasons (Eq. 565; Plut. 55). Unlike tragedy and occasionally prose, Aristophanes has no example for the change from tfnavrov, atavrov to a generalized reflexive pronoun which became more common in Koine Greek.126 It is doubtful if there is an Aristophanic example for the later use of as indefinite pronoun (= ris).127 4.5.

PREPOSITIONS128

As in Attic prose, but not in tragedy, aw/fw is not used alongside turd as a comitative preposition (see above, App. § 2.2.3). 129 When a person is accompanied and when simultaneity is emphasized, apa + dat. 'together with' is an alternative (also sociative OUTO'S: Eq. 7 auraf? Sia/3oAaf? 'together with his lying-tales'). The participial construction with e^oji/Aa^cup is very frequent, too. The prepositional adverb 6/j.ov is common in food and cooking contexts (Eccl. 404; Ar. frs. 22, 383, 581. 6, 701). The prepositions and prepositional adverbs an
125 A certain reluctance towards the younger construction may account for the irregular replacement of juou by t^ov in Lys. 301 and for the intrusion of the enclitic personal pronoun into the position of the possessive adjective (Av. 11 io; Lys. 168, 416). Conversely, the reflexive possessive genitive aurou/aimjj can stand in enclitic (or proclitic) position: Nub. 515-16, 905; Pax 880; Av. 475. 126 Cf. Schwyzer—Debrunner (1950) 197—8; Lys. 1070 comes closest. 127 Cf. Eq. 1128; Av. 462, 1292; Wackernagel (1928) 318. 128 For more detail see Sobolewski (1890). 129 Cf. Mommsen (:8gs) 1-9, 634-60.

Aristophanes' Attic

257

In addition to the directional prepositions els, o>?, im, and Aristophanes has almost half of all the classical Attic examples of gen. 'straight to'; possibly this prepositional adverb had a colloquial touch.130 Directional uis, which is rare in tragedy, becomes increasingly frequent in the two fourth-century comedies (Eccl., Plut.: 18 examples, against only 16 in the six extant comedies written down to 414 BC: Ach Eq., Nub., Vesp., Pax, Av.). Except in the case of we/w, the postpositional use of prepositions with anastrophe is parodic or consciously high-flown (e.g. Vesp. 1118; Lys. 1145-6).131 The same applies to the positioning of the preposition between an attributive adjective or pronoun and its noun (e.g. Nub. 1159 SoJ^aai 'within these halls'). However, anastrophic ^E'TO, napa, and eVi can be used, even in comic dialogue, as adverbial equivalents of fie'-recm, etc. 4.6. V E R B S 4.6.1. Diathesis Like nominal gender, verbal gender (diathesis) is comically exploited (Eq. 115 peyKfrai, 1057 x
133

Cf. also Lys. 744 rcfofiai vs. Thesm. 509 re^cw. e.g. Vesp. 37; Ran. 122, 340/1; cf. Wackernagel (1926) 122; SchwyzerDebrunner (1950) 224; MacDowell (1971) 132. 135 For the perfect (and pluperfect) see the list in Kontos (1898) 287—304, with many examples also from the tragedians, Herodotus, and Thucydides. 134

258

Appendix

prefer the construction with a future infinitive, whereas in Aristophanes, as in later Greek, that with a present infinitive is much more frequent (except after the past tense e^fXXov).136 4.6.3. Aspect A remarkable aspectual distribution exists in the imperative, where the present imperative is slightly predominant in human conversation (though less clearly than in tragedy), but the aorist imperative is preferred in addressing gods: see Ch. 2.9 for more details. The (epic) imperative oiV 'bring!', which is apparently built on the future stem and probably a comically pathetic form rather than a colloquial archaism, is aspectually isolated.137 4.6.4. Mood 4.6.4.1. Indicative The use of av with the indicative of a past tense to indicate a habitual or repeated action is much more widespread in Aristophanes than in other fifth-century authors. It is therefore presumably colloquial but not necessarily as recent a development as its visible history might suggest (see further Ch. 6.8.1). It is disputed whether a modalized future indicative + av for emphatic future statements should be recognized as genuine (cf. e.g. Nub. 1157; Vesp. <)42;Av. 1314).l38 Emphatic prohibitions with ov ^ + fut. ind. 139 are so common that the indicative occasionally spreads even into the domain of ov fi-fi + subj. in emphatic denials (Pax 1037; Ran. 508-9). The use of + ind., which is characteristic of oaths (Av. 195; Lys. 917-18; Eccl. 1000; Ar. fr. 395), must be distinguished from (om«s) \u\ + ind. after explicit or implicit expressions of fear (Ach. 343; Nub. 493?). For moods in final clauses see below, App. §§ 4.6.4.2. and 4.8.6. 4.6.4.2. Optative Given the retreat of the optative in post-classical Greek, Aristophanes' observance of the oblique optative in final clauses after a secondary tense shows his syntactic conservatism. The oblique optative is here used 40 136 See Basset (1979) 132-6, and Duhoux (2000) 161, with statistics: Aristophanes 18 fieAAoj + fut. inf. vs. 41 /ic'AAoi + pres. inf. vs. 2 f«r'AAcu + aor. inf. (cf. Aeschylus 6-3-1; Sophocles 11-12-0; Euripides 29-34-13; Herodotus 74-36-2; Thucydides 77-41-5; Isocrates 67—37-0; Demosthenes 106-0.0-2 or 3). 137 Ach. 1099, noi, 1122 (where olat is misleadingly counted as an aorist-stem imperative by Nickau (1993) 163); Ran. 482; cf. Alexis fr. 125; Anaxippus fr. 6; Leumann (1953) 211 n. 2. 138 See Moorhouse (1946). 139 e.g. Ach. 166; Nub. 367, 505; Ran. 202; cf. Ktihner—Gerth (1898/1904) ii/2. 222-3; Schwyzer-Debrunner (1950) 293; Cooper (1998) i. 653-6.

A ristophanes' A ttic

259

times and neglected 14 times (74%). While this figure is similar to that of contemporary oratory, a complete reversal has taken place by the time of Menander (c.27%).140 Moreover, the irregular use of the subjunctive is always due to the agent's continued interest in the accomplishment of the action, so that the past tense in the main clause does not adequately express the true temporal relationship.141 The strength of the oblique optative is also obvious in its occasional intrusion into final clauses without a preceding past tense, mainly when the context of the main clause suggests some reference to the past. 142 Very rarely the potential optative occurs without the particle av, a phenomenon that is 'excluded only from the most rigid and fastidious sorts of writing'. 143 4.6.4.3. Subjunctive Unlike the omission of av with the potential optative, the absence of av in conditional, relative, or temporal clauses with the subjunctive is usually due to a pompous or parodic context;144 in anapaests and with Trpiv it is slightly more common.145 4.6.4.4. Imperative The function of the imperative is often taken on by other constructions such as rhetorical questions,146 indirect formulations (e.g. inf. 'it is up to you to', often used by the chorus;147 independent emeus + ind. fut.: cf. below, App. § 4.8.6), the potential optative,148 the imperatival infinitive, 149 or constructions with the verbal adjective in -TC'O- (cf. Ch. 5.8). 140 Cf. Ch. 6.7; Weber (1884) 120-1; Poultney (1963) 369-73; Duhoux (2000) 231-40. 141 Eg. 669, 893, 1182, 1393; Nub. 539; Vesp. 70, 313, 1028; Pax 226; Av. -73; Lys. 373 (contrast 374); Thesm. 944; Ran. 1419; Eccl. 117. 142 Vesp. no; Av. 1524; Ran. 24; cf. Eq. 935; Ran. 766 (but not Eccl. 881, 917, where the optative may be potential; Thesm. 588 depending on 585 avoTrc^i/iai; Pax 413 and Av. 1338 with attraction of mood). 143 Bers (1984) 135; cf. Hale (1893) 180-3, 202; Slotty (1915) 139-42; Wackernagel (1926) 236—7: Vesp. 472; Av. 180?; Lys. 839?; Thesm. 872 (paratragic); Plut. 374?, 438?. In Eq. 1057, Ran. 574, and Eccl. 898 the drof the preceding potential optative may 'count'. 144 Eq. 698, aped in Eq. 700; Pax 450; Av. 928-30: all can of course be 'corrected'; cf. Sobolewski (1891) 16-19; Bers (1984) 158-61. 145 Eq. 805; Lys. 580-1, 1005?; Ran. 1281; Eccl. 629, 688, 752. 146 Cf. in general Zilliacus (1946); for rhetorical questions Dittmar (1933) 37-41 (more than 80 examples in Aristophanes). 147 e.g. Nub. 1345, 1397, 1494; Pax 1305; Lys. 315, 839; Ran. 590; Eccl. 514. 148 Eq. 1161; Vesp. 726; Ran. 1401, 1467; Eccl. 132. 149 Often in oracles: Eq. 1039; Av. 971, 973, 975; elsewhere (often after a full imperative): Ach. 257; Eq. 1187; Nub. 850, 1080; Vesp. 386, 1216; Pax 1153; Lys. 536; Thesm. 157; Ran. 133, 169; Eccl. 1107, n n , 1146?; contrast the 'optatival' infinitive (Ch. 2.9) and cf. Dittmar (1933) 92; Bers (1984) 168-82.

Appendix

260

Some colloquial usages of the imperative are particularly frequent in Aristophanes. For instance, a second-person imperative often 'agrees' with wd^/rif150 although T« is used even more frequently in the 'correct' way with a third-person imperative in an address by a master to his slaves (e.g. Ach. 570-1, 805, 1096; cf. Lys. 1050 with rrds). Another idiomatic usage is the rhetorical question o?o0' o Spdaov; 'do you know what you should do?', which contains, at least in synchronic terms, the aorist imperative (e.g. Eq. 1158; Pax io6i). 151 4.6.5. Nominal forms of the verb Exclamatory infinitives are far more common in Aristophanic comedy than in other genres. Like the genitive of exclamation they certainly belonged to colloquial Attic (e.g. Av. 5-6 'To think, wretched me, that I've gone around and about for more than a hundred miles of travelling, at the bidding of a crow!').152 Most of the exclamatory infinitives are preceded by the article (exceptions: Nub. 819?; Vesp. 835). On 'optatival' infinitives see Ch. 2.9, on 'imperatival' or 'jussive' infinitives App. § 4.6.4.4 above, on the articular infinitive Ch. 5.9. Both the articular and the absolute infinitive (e.g. l^ol &OKCIV 'it seems to me') are more common in literary prose than in comedy. Aristophanes has about four examples of the absolute infinitive. 153 On the verbal adjectives in -reo- see Ch. 5.8. 4.7.

PARTICLES

According to Denniston, particle usage in Aristophanes and in the orators is more purely Attic than that in the tragedians, Plato, Xenophon, and sometimes Thucydides.154 For instance, 'ancillary' ovv with other particles (except in the combinations <JAA' ovv, yow/, 8' oSv, and ptv oZv) or ouSe withou a preceding negative phrase are rare among the 'pure Attic' authors. Differences between Aristophanes and tragedy must be due to the diverging stylistic levels of the two genres. Thus, Sr/vov and TOI'VW are frequent in comedy (and prose) but rare in tragedy, whereas interrogative ?} is 150

e.g. Ach. 204; Vesp. 422; Pax 301, 555; Pint. 1196; cf. Coulon (1908) 193-4; Wendel (1929) 25; Svennung (1958) 220-1. 151 The origin of this aorist imperative may be gerundival: Kretschmer (1919). Hence, it is not used with the imperatival negation /nj (Thesm. 870 is a quotation of an irregular use by Sophocles, fr. 493 Radt; cf. Thugenides fr. 4). 132 See further Nub. 268, 819; Vesp. 835; Av. 7-8; Ran. 741; Eccl. ?88-<)o; Pint. 593; cf. A. R. Anderson (1914) 74-5; Dittmar (1933) 91-2; Bers (1984) 183-6. 153 Nub. 1252; Pax 857; Av. 1225 (conjectural); Eccl. 350; cf. Thesm. 34; also Nub. 722 oAiyou (sc. Bfiv). 154 Denniston (1950) pp. Ixx—Ixxii; for a detailed discussion of various colloquial particles in Aristophanes see Lopez Eire (19960) 119-33.

Aristophanes' Attic

261

far more usual in tragedy than in Aristophanes.155 Only the base Scythian uses i/aiKi (= i«u'x<) as an emphatic assentient particle (cf. Ch. 7.5.4). In certain passages Aristophanes mocks a current fashion of particle usage (Eccl. 773—6 assentient yap; Plut. 833—8 KoiuSfj fiev olv 'absolutely'; on Ran. 559-67 see Ch. 6.8.1) or uses a particular particle for a stylistic end (airrdp in a hexametric oracle: Av. 983; fie'v at the beginning of a speech: Ach. 136; Vesp. 907; Thesm, 383; Plut. 489). The widespread view that a high frequency of particles was typical of spoken and more colloquial Attic has recently been modified by Duhoux. 156 Whereas in fifth-century drama (both tragedy and comedy) particles constitute only about 13% of all words (Menander c.io%), the corresponding figure for Plato's and Xenophon's dialogues is £.17-18%. Within Aristophanes there is no general statistical difference between dialogic and non-dialogic passages, but ye or Srj-ra are especially strong in dialogue, S
4.8.1. Nominal sentences Nominal sentences are more frequent in Aristophanes (Lys.: 60.0% nominal sentences : 40.0% copular sentences) than in Plato (Symp.: 53.6% nominal sentences), Lysias (i, 7, 10, Eroticus: 58.7%), Demosthenes (De corona: 46.7%), or Isocrates (Paneg.: 50.6%), but less frequent than in tragedy (Soph. OT: 72.3%) and Thucydides (bk. 2: 77.8%).157 Obviously nominal sentences were perfectly common in spoken Attic and not confined to particular genres or authors. 158 It is impossible to state confidently how 'conservative' or 'innovative' Aristophanes was: his percentage seems high in comparison with fourth-century prose, but this may be explained by the difference of text genre. 4.8.2. Parataxis The high incidence of parataxis in comedy certainly reflects the general preference of spoken language for paratactic (and sometimes asyndetic) sentence structures. Even in comedy, however, parataxis with KOI, Se, and other simple connective particles is used in particular to produce simple and unpretentious narratives.159 From such passages, connecting 155

Denniston (1950) p. Ixxv, 282 n. i, 568; on roiWv Lopez Eire (19960) 52-5. Duhoux (1997), correcting e.g. Denniston (1950) pp. Ixxii-lxxiii; Schwyzer-Debrunner (1950) 556. 157 Figures based on Lasso de la Vega (1952) 320-5. 158 But of course they are frequent in gnomic writers (e.g. Hesiod) or tragic choruses: Guiraud (1962) 158; Bers (1984) 195-6. 159 e.g. Eq. 625-82; Nub. 709-15, 1373-6; Vesp. 605-12; Pax 605-48; Av. 494-503; Lys. 784—92; Thesm. 476-89; Ran. 1192-5; Plut. 653—747; cf. Trenkner (1960) 4-5, Dover (1997) 76, and Ch. 6.8.1 above on paratactic conditional clauses. 156

262

Appendix

was transferred into the position between a conjunct participle and the main verb, a construction that is quite frequent in comedy (e.g. Eq. 391-2 TOIOUTOS cuv . . . K&T' dvrip fSo^fv efrai 'having been that sort of character, he's now managed to pass for a man').160 4.8.3. Substantive clauses Declarative verbs like Ae'y
TABLE A.3. Substantive clauses after \iyia in classical Greek (%)

inf. Aeschylus Sophocles Herodotus Thucydides Aristophanes Plato Antiphon Lysias I socrates Aeschines

87.5

12.5

7i.4 86.6 62.3 29.2 35-2 21.4 ii.i

28.6

4-5 7-7

13-4 37-7 70.8 64.8 78.6 88.9 95-5 92.3

160 Cf. Nub. 409, 624; Av. 536, 674; Lys. 560; Denniston (1950) 308-9; Trenkne (1960), esp. 8, 12—13, and 52—3. 161 Cf. Kurzova (1968) 64-6; Crespo (1984) 7-10; Delaunois (1988) 143; Cooper (1998) ii. 1040—2. 162 Fournier (1946) 149; cf. Duhoux (2000) 265.

A ristophanes' A ttic

263

TABLE A.4. Frequency of on and ws introducing substantive clauses in classical Greek

Aeschylus Sophocles Euripides Aristophanes Herodotus Lysias

8

28

35

56 95 85 271 135

12

79 IIO

293

semantically interchangeable (Table A.4).163 Apparently, o>? was an Ionic (Herodotus) and poetic (tragedy) form, which was not very common in unpretentious Attic, as the figures for Lysias suggest. The relative frequency of u>s in Aristophanes must then be explained by the fact that such a metrical alternative was extremely convenient. 4.8.4. Indirect questions In classical Attic indirect *who?'-questions are introduced most commonly by Sorts, more rarely by os. Later, the direct interrogative pronoun rts becomes predominant. The distribution in different authors is shown in Table Aj.164 The fact that rk is quite common in Lysias but absent from Aristophanes illustrates again Aristophanes' conservatism. With indirect TABLE A. 5. Frequency of indirect questions in classical Greek

Aeschylus Sophocles Euripides Aristophanes Lysias Herodotus

163

10 29 35 118 33 78

3 J3 19 ii

8 23

4 5 — —

12 I

Monteil (1963) 356, and 399 for the statistics; cf. Fournier (1946) 155. Monteil (1963) 145, 150, 154, who understands passages like Thesm. 619 or Plut. 941 and 998 as direct questions. In 'answering questions' (rt voifis,—o n 'What are you doing?—What am I doing? [I am x-ing]') both interrogative pronouns are used but the direct one less often (Nub. 664; Pax 847; Av. 608, 1234; Ran. 1424; Eccl. 761 vs. e.g. Ach. 595; Eq. 128, 1073; Nub. 677, 690, 1495; Vesp. 48; Pax 701; Av. 164, 299; Ran. 198). 164

264

Appendix

questions other than Sans/ris the direct interrogative pronoun is found in Aristophanic comedy as well.165 4.8.5. Relative clauses166 In relative clauses with defining value (i.e. where the subordinate clause defines a conceptual class to which the antecedent belongs), both Sans and os can be used, but again the preference for ocms is much stronger in comedy than in other genres, including the speeches of Lysias.167 Since o? is particularly frequent in Herodotus, it may have been prominent in Ionic and spread from there into Attic. Aristophanes would then keep his Attic pure again. In addition, the preference for bisyllabic pronouns (cf. above, App. § 3-3-3) supported Sans. Accordingly, ofos/oaos are more frequent than o-rroios/oTroaos (but among the relative adverbs, the short forms ov/tyo' predominate over oTTi/owot/oVoi).168 Of course, the semantic context also plays a role in all these cases, and the differences between the various genres are insignificant. 4.8.6. Final clauses The frequency of ovuis (ai>), ws (av), and !va in introducing final clauses has been discussed in Ch. 6.8.1. The figures shown in Table A.6 have been counted by various scholars.169 In the present context, the most important observation is that Aristophanes, unlike Lysias, still uses the traditional Attic omos (av) beside !va. Even more surprisingly, 0>s av is occasionally found in non-parodic trimeters (e.g. Ach. 44; Eccl. 57; Plut. 112); without doubt, this is at least partly due to metrical convenience. In negative final clauses, !va ^ (47 exx.) easily surpasses fn} alone (7), (6), and tus (av) ^rj (Av. 1509). In iambic trimeters there are only 3 cases of ^ and STTOJS /«j respectively.170 However, simple ^-q is normal 165

e.g. Pax 21, 688; Thesm, 801; Plut. 1171. See in general Sobolewski (1891) 157-79. Monteil (1963) 135-6: Aeschylus o os : 3 OOTI?; Sophocles 14 : 10; Euripides 13 : 47; Aristophanes 7 ; 44; Lysias 17 : 42; Herodotus 41 : 24. Note OCTTIS in a nondefining relative clause at Plut. 13: Lopez Eire (1991) 37. 168 Statistics in Sobolewski (1891) 177. Relative ev6fi> and evfla occur only in lyric passages: Av. 748, 1485, 1556; Lys. 625; Thesm. 1046. Note that Aristophanes uses local fi/orrg and local iva (Pax 900; Av. 153, 822; Ran. 778), which are both extremely uncommon in Lysias. Very rarely (Ach. 364; Vesp. 1270), except in dialect passages (e.g. Ach. 730; Lys. 84), j5i7£f/
167

265

A ristophanes' A ttic TABLE A.6. Frequency affinal conjunctions in classical Greek

Aeschylus Sophocles Euripides Aristophanes Herodotus Thucydides Inscriptions Plato Ten Orators

ii 3i 19 18 13 114 9 23 42

S 2

7 24 S — 73 2S

12

23 52 182

3 16 i — i 3/4

ii 5 27 14 ii i — — —

2 H 71

l83 107 52 II 368

579

with verbs of fearing and verbs of caution/intention/effort (which have OTTOJS as their positive conjunction): 29 examples of f«j stand against oirws nrf (Eq. 112, after a verb of fearing; Vesp. 141, 155, 372; Thesm. 653) and i of (is ^rj (Vesp. 113). With verbs of intention and effort (, , n([ivijo8ai) the use of fut. ind. is regular. From here, the future indicative spreads occasionally—but in comedy more frequently than in prose and tragedy—into final clauses in a strict sense.171 Conversely, a subjunctive after occurs after verbs of intention and effort.172 Such grammatical flexibility is characteristic of spoken language. Imperatival independent subordinate clauses introduced by owcos (e.g. Eccl. 149 OTTOJS eptk 'make sure that you speak') are extremely common in Aristophanes, who has c.^o out of the 80 examples in classical Greek. Obviously this was a colloquialism. 173 4.8.7. Consecutive clauses Consecutive u>s (for ware), which is common in tragedy, is found only once in Aristophanes (Ran. mo). The usual wart is construed with either an infinitive or a finite verb (mostly the indicative either as realis or as irrealis with ax, but also the potential optative). The infinitive construction presents the consequence in a more abstract manner than the vivid and 171

Vesp. 527/8; Pax 310, 432; Lys. 384?, 1094; Thesm. 431, 653; Ran. uzi; Eccl. 783, 997; cf. Eccl. 488, 495 with rf; see further Ch. 6.8.i; Weber (1884) 122; W. W. Goodwin (1897) 115-16; Amigues (1977) 79—82; Duhoux (2000) 457—8. 172 Ach. 1060; Eq. 81?, 918, 926; Nub. 739; Eccl. 624; W. W. Goodwin (1897) 125—6. 173 Amigues (1977) 69; cf. Weber (1884) 124-5; W. W. Goodwin (1897) 94; Kalen(i94i) 98-137.

266

Appendix

concrete personal mode,174 but the semantic difference does not fully explain the wide divergence between tragedy and literary prose (Herodotus) on the one hand and Aristophanes and oratory (Lysias) on the other. The variant with the personal mode must have been predominant in spoken Attic (Table A.?).175 TABLE A.7. The construction of uiarf in classical Greek

Aeschylus Sophocles Euripides Herodotus Aristophanes Lysias

+ inf.

+ pers. mode

94-7 37-9 84.0 63.3 24.1 17.0

62.1 (!) 16.0 36.7 75-9 83.0

5-3

4.8.8. Conditional clauses On the variation between lav, rjx, and S.v see App. § 2.1.5 above, on paratactic conditional clauses see Ch. 6.8.1. The various (regular) hypotactic types in Aristophanes have been listed and discussed by Sobolewski.176 4.8.9. Causal clauses Statistics for the use of the causal conjunctions on, to?, and own have been compiled by Monteil (Table A.8).177 The easiest way to interpret these figures and to relate them to the use of STI/OJS as substantivizing conjunctions (cf. above, App. § 4.8.3) is to assume that Attic originally used only u>; in causal clauses, but in substantivizing clauses both on. and us, whereas Ionic preferred substantivizing u>s and causal on. The two conjunctions became completely interchangeable with the growing influence of Ionic on Attic (and vice versa) although, to judge from Lysias, on. was generally preferred in simple and non-literary Attic (in accordance with the tendency towards bisyllabic conjunctions). If this is correct, both the high number of causal cas and the avoidance of the recent variant Start in Aristophanes again 174

175

Cf. Kurzova (1968) 49; Delaunois (1988) 148-9; Duhoux (2000) 274-5.

Statistics based on the figures in Monteil (1963) 350. Sobolewski (1891) 13-120. 177 Monteil (1963) 401; he regards (p. 358) causal ws as a recent development originating in colloquial Attic, but this does not explain its use in Aeschylus and Sophocles and its almost complete absence from Lysias. 176

Aristophanes' Attic

267

TABLE A. 8. Frequency of causal conjunctions in classical Greek

Aeschylus Sophocles Euripides Herodotus Aristophanes Lysias

i i H 63 65 42

14 56

IOO

— — — 9 —

5

10

120

8

underline his conservatism, especially when his usage is compared with that in the unpretentious oratorical prose of his contemporary Lysias. Aristophanes also has c.$o examples of causal e-net and £.30 examples of causal 4.8.10. Temporal clauses The most common temporal conjunctions in Aristophanes are Sre/Srav (48/83 CXX.), TyviVa (av) (25/17), cVeiSij/eimSav (9/15), onoTf/o-ncnav (2/12), (4/3), ecu? (av) (6/l8),
C O N C L U S I O N : SYNTAX

To paint a coherent general picture for Aristophanes' syntax is more difficult than for his phonology and morphology. Some syntactic features are introduced for parodic purposes and can be discarded in our context (poetic plurals, omission of the definite article). Among the rest there are no features whose existence in spoken Attic is entirely implausible, but it is likely that the frequency of Ae'yw with the infinitive or of ; in final clauses, omission of av with the subjunctive and potential optative). There is a series of characteristics that are more common in comedy than in other literary genres. These illustrate the colloquial layer in Aristophanes' language (e.g. frequency of exclamatory genitives and 178

Cf. Dunbar (1995) 265; statistics after Sobolewski (1891) 120-57, wr>o further discusses the different types of temporal clauses.

268

Appendix

exclamatory infinitives, frequency of paratactic structures, predominance of wart + personal mode, imperatival independent oiro>?-clauses, second-person imperative, past indicative + av for habitual actions, gen. '(straight) to', inner accusatives withfi\f-nu>).None of these features, however, is necessarily recent. The innovative features in Aristophanes' syntax (growing frequency of transitive active perfects, /w'/Uaj + pres. inf.) are easily outnumbered by the conservative features in other areas (frequency of dual, strength of oblique optative, genitive of comparison rather than ij, retention of final frequency of causal ci? and absence of causal Sidn, absence of rk in indirect questions). In the use of the dual, syntactic conservatism goes hand in hand with a certain Attic purism (cf. also particle usage, preference for OOTI? in 'defining' relative clauses).

5. GENERAL C O N C L U S I O N The preceding tour d'horizon of Aristophanic grammar has shown that the same general tendencies prevail in all three classical areas of grammar: phonology, morphology, and syntax. Given that Aristophanes was regarded as the comic author par excellence by the ancient grammarians and Atticists, it is not surprising that linguistic conservatism and dialectal purism are the two most outstanding features of his language. It is important to keep this in mind when searching, for instance, for the first symptoms of Koine-ized Greek. While it is true, as Lopez Eire has shown,179 that some early evidence for later linguistic phenomena comes from the comedies of Aristophanes, these plays are also our first extensive source of colloquial Attic, a linguistic stratum which must have contributed its share to the formation of Koine Greek. Since colloquial features are not necessarily innovative features, it would be wrong to conclude that Aristophanes' Attic is in any sense 'later' or more 'diluted' than that of contemporary writers such as Euripides, Thucydides, or Lysias. In fact, most of our evidence, in the form of both grammatical material and ancient opinion, suggests the exact opposite. Moreover, there is an anthropological point to this. More than any other literary genre in fifth-century Athens, comedy reflected, and contributed to construct, the local citizens' corporate identity. In this function Old Comedy parallels carnivalesque genres in other cultures, where in-group language often enforces social cohesion.180 Aristophanes wrote as an 179 Lopez Eire (1986), esp. 249—57, and (1991). Lopez Eire does not always take into account how common a feature is in other sth-cent. literature. 180 Cf. Willi (20021!)) 112-25; personally I am most familiar with the Fasnacht (= carnival) in Basel (Switzerland) where satirical texts are composed in an extremely conservative (but colloquial) version of the local dialect, which only very few

Aristophanes' Attic

269

Athenian, for Athenians, and on Athenian matters. Could there have been a more suitable medium than the purest Athenian language?

speakers would use with similar 'purity' in other contexts (cf. Universitat Basel press release of 19 April 2002, referring to research conducted by a team of students under the direction of Prof. Heinrich Loffler).

References Journals are abbreviated according to L'Annee Philologique. Editions and commentaries of non-fragmentary ancient texts are cited under the name of the modern editor and/or commentator. AALTO, PENTTI (1953). Studien zur Geschichte des Infinitivs im Griechischen (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, 880.2). Helsinki. ADAMI, FRIEDRICH (1901). 'De poetis scaenicis Graecis hymnorum sacrorum imitatoribus'. Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie: SupplementBand, 26: 213-62. ADAMS, J. N. (1984). 'Female Speech in Latin Comedy'. Antichthon, 18: 43-77AERTS, WILLEM JOHAN (1965). Periphrastica: An Investigation into the Use of flvai and exeiv as Auxiliaries or Pseudo-Auxiliaries in Greek from Homer up to the Present Day. Amsterdam. ALLEN, W. SIDNEY (1987). Vox Graeca: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek (3rd edn.). Cambridge. AMIGUES, SUZANNE (1977). Les subordonnees finales par 3-rrws en attiqueclassique (Etudes et commentaires, 89). Paris. AMMANN, A. N. (1953). -i/co? bei Platan: Ableitung und Bedeutung mil Materialsammlung. Freiburg/CH. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS, G. P. (1925). 'Apiaroyavovs'. Athena, 36: I-6o.

ANDERSON, ANDREW RUNNI (1914). 'Studies in the Exclamatory Infinitive'. CPh 9: 60-76. ANDERSON, CARL A. (1995). Athena's Epithets: Their Structural Significance in Plays of Aristophanes (Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 67). Stuttgart and Leipzig. ANGELI BERNARDINI, PAOLA (1967). 'Linguaggio e programma poetico in Pindaro'. QUCC4: 80-97. ARNOTT, W. GEOFFREY (20010). 'Some Orthographical Problems in the Papyri of Later Greek Comedy I: m>(t)ei> (along with Compounds and Congeners)'. ZPE 134: 43-51. (20016). 'Some Orthographical Problems in the Papyri of Later Greek Comedy II: -ei or -77(1) as the Ending of the Second Person Singular Middle and Passive in the Present and Other Tenses of Verbs in -u)'. ZPE 135: 36-40.

272

References

ARNOTT, W. GEOFFREY (2002). 'Some Orthographical Variants in the Papyri of Later Greek Comedy", in Andreas Willi (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy. Oxford, 191-217. AUBRIOT-SEVIN, DANIELE (1992). Priere et conceptions religieuses en Grece ancienne jusqu'd la fin du Ve siecle av. J.-C. (Collection de la Maison de 1'Orient Mediterraneen, 22). Lyons. AUSFELD, KARL (1903). 'De Graecorum precationibus quaestiones'. Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie: Supplement-Band, 28: 503-47. AUSTIN, COLIN (1973). Review of Douglas M. MacDowell, Aristophanes: Wasps (ed. with introd. and comm.: Oxford, 1971). CR, NS 23: 133-5. AUSTIN, J. L. (1962). How to do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955 (ed. J. O. Urmson). Oxford. BABLER, BALBINA (1998). Fleissige Thrakerinnen und wehrhafte Skythen: Nichtgriechen im klassischen Athen und ihre archdologische Hinterlassenschaft (Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 108). Stuttgart and Leipzig. BAIN, DAVID (1984). 'Female Speech in Menander'. Antichthon, 18: 24-42. (1991). 'Six Greek Verbs of Sexual Congress . CQ, NS 41: 51-77.

BARKER, WILLEM FREDERIK (1966). The Greek Imperative: An Investigation into the Aspectual Differences between the Present and Aorist Imperatives in Greek Prayer from Homer up to the Present Day. Amsterdam. BARRETT, W. S. (1964). Euripides: Hippolytos (ed. with introd. and comm.). Oxford. BASSET, Louis (1979). Les emplois periphrastiques du verbe grec Etude de linguistique grecque et essai de linguistique generate. Lyons. BAXTER, TIMOTHY M. S. (1992). The Cratylus: Plato's Critique of Naming (Philosophia Antiqua, 58). Leiden, New York, and Cologne. BAYARD, L. (1920). 'Aristophane, Oiseaux, 1615—1616'. RPh, NS 44: 30. BENVENISTE, EMILE (1966). Problemes de linguistique generate, i. Paris. (1969). Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-europeennes, ii: Pouvoir, droit, religion (summaries, table, and index by Jean Lallot). Paris. BERS, VICTOR (1984). Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age (Yale Classical Monographs, 5). New Haven and London. BIBER, DOUGLAS (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge. (1994). 'An Analytical Framework for Register Studies', in Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. New York and Oxford, 31-56. ( I 995)- Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge. and FINEGAN, EDWARD (1989). 'Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect'. Text, 9/1: 93-I24-

References

273

(1994). 'Situating Register in Sociolinguistics', in Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. New York and Oxford, 3-12. BILE, MONIQUE (1988). Le dialecte cretois ancien: Etude de la langue des inscriptions, recueil des inscriptions posterieures aux 1C (Ecole francaise d'Athenes: Etudes cretoises, 27). Paris. BING, JANET M., and BERGVALL, VICTORIA L. (1996). 'The Question of Questions: Beyond Binary Thinking', in Victoria L. Bergvall, Janet M. Bing, and Alice F. Freed (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice. London and New York, 1-30. BINNICK, ROBERT I. (1991). Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. New York and Oxford. BIRKLEIN, FRANZ (1888). Entwickelungsgeschichte des substantivierten Infinitivs (Beitrage zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache, 3.1). Wiirzburg. BISHOP, CHARLES EDWARD (1899). 'The Greek Verbal in -reo'. AJPh 20: i—2i, 121-38, 241-53. BJORCK, GUDMUND (1940). *Hv Si&daiaov: Die periphrastischen Konstruktionen im Griechischen (Acta Societatis Litterarum Humaniorum Regiae Upsaliensis, 32.2). Uppsala and Leipzig. (1950). Das Alpha impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache: Attische Wort- und Stilstudien (Acta Societatis Litterarum Humaniorum Regiae Upsaliensis, 39.1). Uppsala, Wiesbaden, and Leipzig. BLASS, FRIEDRICH, and DEBRUNNER, ALBERT (1979). Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (i$th edn.: rev. by Friedrich Rehkopf). Gottingen. BLASZCZAK, W. (1932). GdtteranrufungundBeteuerung: Untersuchungen zu volkstiimlichen Ausdrucksformen in der griechischen Literatur. Diss. Breslau. BLOK, JOSINE H. (2001). 'Virtual Voices: Toward a Choreography of Women's Speech in Classical Athens', in Andre Lardinois and Laura McClure (eds.), Making Silence Speak: Women's Voices in Greek Literature and Society. Princeton and Oxford, 95-116. BLOOMFIELD, LEONARD (1935). Language. London. BODINE, ANN (1975). 'Sex Differentiation in Language', in Barrie Thome and Nancy Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, Mass., 130-51. BOLLING, GEORGE MELVILLE (1935). Review of J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (ist edn.: Oxford, 1934). Language, n: 260-2. BONANNO, MARIA GRAZIA (1983). 'Aristoph. fr. 198 K. MCr 18: 61-70. BORKER, RUTH (1980). 'Anthropology: Social and Cultural Perspectives', in Sally McConnell-Ginet, Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York, 26-44.

274

References

BORTHWICK, E. K. (1959). '/faraATji/ns: A Neglected Technical Term in Greek Music'. CQ, NS 9: 23-9. BOWIE, ANGUS M. (1993). Aristophanes: Myth, Ritual and Comedy. Cambridge. BRADLEY, JOHN (1998). 'Yanyuwa: "Men Speak One Way, Women Speak Another" ', in Jennifer Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford and Maiden, Mass., 13-20. BREGLIA, LUISA (2000). 'Ferecide di Siro tra orfici e pitagorici', in Marisa Tortorelli Ghidini, Alfredina Storchi Marino, and Amedeo Visconti (eds.), Tra Orfeo e Pitagora: Origini e incontri di culture nell'antichita. Naples, 161-94. BREMER, J. M. (1981). 'Greek Hymns', in H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion, 2). Leiden, 193-215. BREWER, J. S. (1861). Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, i. London. BRIXHE, CLAUDE (1976). Le dialecte grec de Pamphylie: Documents et grammaire. Paris. (1988). 'La langue de 1'etranger non grec chez Aristophane', in Raoul Lonis (ed.), L'etranger dans le monde grec: Actes du colloque organise par I'Institut d'Etudes Anciennes. Nancy, 113-38. BROWN, PENELOPE (1980). 'How and Why are Women More Polite: Some Evidence from a Mayan Community', in Sally McConnell-Ginet, Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York, 111-36. and LEVINSON, STEPHEN C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universal in Language Usage (znd edn.: Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 4). Cambridge. BRUCHMANN, C. F. H. (1893). Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas Graecos leguntur (Supplement of Ausfuhrliches Lexikon der griechischen und romischen Mythologie, ed. W. H. Roscher). Leipzig. BRUNS, Ivo (1900). Frauenemancipation in Athen: Ein Beitrag zur attischen Kulturgeschichte des funften und viertenjahrhunderts. Kiel. BUCK, CARL DARLING (1955). The Greek Dialects: Grammar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary. Chicago. and PETERSEN, WALTER (1944). A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives Arranged by Terminations with Brief Historical Introductions. Chicago. BURCKHARDT, AUGUST (1924). Spuren der athenischen Volksrede in der alten Komodie. Diss. Basel. BURGUIERE, PAUL (1960). Histoire de I'infinitifen grec (Etudes et commentaires, 33). Paris. BURKERT, WALTER (1972). Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (trans. Edwin L. Minar, Jr.). Cambridge, Mass.

References

275

BURNET, JOHN (1924). Plato's Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates and Crito (ed. with notes). Oxford. BUSSMANN, HADUMOD (1996). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (trans, and ed. by Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi). London and New York. BYL, SIMON (1981). 'Le vocabulaire de la metis dans les Nuees d'Aristophane'. AC 50: 112-20. (1990). 'Le vocabulaire hippocratique dans les comedies d'Aristophane et particulierement dans les deux dernieres'. RPh, 3rd ser. 64: 151-62. CALAME, CLAUDE (1995). 'Variations enonciatives, relations avec les dieux et fonctions poetiques dans les Hymnes homeriques'. MH 52: 2-19. CAMACHO MAXIA, JESUS (1996). El lexico marinero en Aristofanes. Diss. Valencia. CAMPAGNER, ROBERTO (2001). Lessico agonistico di Aristofane. Rome. CARTLEDGE, PAUL (1981). 'Spartan Wives: Liberation or Licence?'. CQ, NS 31: 84-105. CASERTANO, GIOVANNI (2000). 'Orfismo e pitagorismo in Empedocle?', in Marisa Tortorelli Ghidini, Alfredina Storchi Marino, and Amedeo Visconti (eds.), Tra Orfeo e Pitagora: Origini e incontri di culture nell'antichitd. Naples, 195-236. CASSIO, ALBIO CESARE (1985). Commedia e partecipazione: La Pace di Aristofane (Forme materiali e ideologic del mondo antico, 24). Naples. CAVAIGNAC, E. (1959). 'Pythagore et Socrate (A propos d'Aristophane, Oiseaux, v. 1553-1564)'. RPh, 3rd ser. 33: 246-8. CHAFE, WALLACE L. (1982). 'Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature', in Deborah Tannen (ed.), Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy (Advances in Discourse Processes, 9). Norwood, NJ, 35-53. CHAMBERS, J. K. (1992). 'Linguistic Correlates of Gender and Sex'. English World-Wide, 13/2: 173-218 and TRUDGILL, PETER (1998). Dialectology (2nd edn.). Cambridge. CHANTRAINE, PIERRE (1927). Histoire du parfait grec (Collection linguistique, 21). Paris. (1933)- La formation des noms en grec ancien (Collection linguistique, 38). Paris. (1956). Etudes sur le vocabulaire grec (Etudes et commentaires, 24). Paris. (1968-80). Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue grecque: Histoire des mots. Paris. and MEILLET, ANTOINE (1932). '©e'aiva et les derives grecs en RPh, 3rd ser. 6: 291-6.

276

References

CHESHIRE, JENNY (1978). 'Present Tense Verbs in Reading English', in Peter Trudgill (ed.), Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English. London, 52-68. CINGANO, ETTORE (1986). 'II valore dell'espressione UTO.OIS ^fXuiv in Aristofane, Rane, v. 1281'. QUCC 53: 139-43. CLASSEN, CARL JOACHIM (1959). 'The Study of Language amongst Socrates' Contemporaries'. PACA 2: 33-49; repr. in Carl Joachim Classen (ed.), Sophistik (Wege der Forschung, 187). Darmstadt, 1976, 215-47CLAYMAN, DEE LESSER (1977). 'The Origins of Greek Literary Criticism and the Aitia Prologue'. WS 90: 27-34. CLYNE, MICHAEL G. (1968). 'Zum Pidgin-Deutsch der Gastarbeiter'. Zeitschrift fur Mundartforschung, 35: 130-9. COATES, JENNIFER (1986). Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Sex Differences in Language. London and New York. (1988). 'Gossip Revisited: Language in All-Female Groups', in Jennifer Coates and Deborah Cameron (eds.), Women in Their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex. London and New York, 94-122. (1998). 'Part I: Gender Differences in Pronunciation and Grammar, Introduction', in Jennifer Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford and Maiden, Mass., 7—11. COLLINGE, N. E. (1962). 'Medical Terms and Clinical Attitudes in the Tragedians'. BICS 9: 43-55. COLVIN, STEPHEN (1999). Dialect in Aristophanes and the Politics of Language in Ancient Greek Literature. Oxford. (2000). 'The Language of Non-Athenians in Old Comedy', in David Harvey and John Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy (with a foreword by Kenneth Dover). London and Swansea, 285-98. CONTI BIZZARRO, FERRUCCio (1998). 'Sull'impiego di forme inniche nella commedia greca', in Elsa Garcia Novo and Ignacio Rodriguez Alfageme (eds.), Dramaturgia y puesta en escena en el teatro griego. Madrid, 251-8. COOPER, III, GUY L. (1972). 'In Defense of the Special Dual Feminine Forms of the Article and Pronouns rd, raw, ravra, ravraiv, KT\. in Attic Greek'. TAPhA 103: 97-125. (1998). Attic Greek Prose Syntax, 2 vols. (after K. W. Kriiger). Ann Arbor. CORBATO, CARLO (1993). 'Alia ricerca di un linguaggio tecnico nella critica letteraria greca', in Sergio Sconocchia and Lucio Toneatto (eds.), Lingue tecniche del greco e del latino: Atti del I" Seminario internazionale sulla letteratura scientifica e tecnica greca e latina. Trieste, 123-7.

Reference

2777

CORDER, S. P. (1975). 'The Language of Kehaar'. Work in Progress: Department of Linguistics (University of Edinburgh), 8: 41-52. CORLU, ANDRE (1966). Recherches sur les mots relatifs a I'idee de priere, d'Homere aux Tragiques (Etudes et commentaires, 64). Paris. COSERIU, EUGENIO (1975). 'Der periphrastische Verbalaspekt im Altgriechischen'. Glotta, 53: 1—25. COSTA RAMALHO, AMERICO DA (1951). AarXa ovo^aranoestilodeAristofanes. Coimbra. COULON, VICTOR (1908). Quaestiones criticae in Aristophanis fabulas. Strasbourg. CRESPO, EMILIO (1984). 'On the System of Substantive Clauses in Ancient Greek'. Glotta, 62: 1-16. CRYSTAL, DAVID (1976). 'Nonsegmental Phonology in Religious Modalities', in William J. Samarin (ed.), Language in Religious Practice. Rowley, Mass., 17-25. and DAVY, DEREK (1969). Investigating English Style. London. CUNY, ALBERT (1906). Le nombre duel en grec. Paris. DALE, A. M. (1950). 'Stasimon and Hyporcheme'. Eranos, 48: 14—20. DEBRUNNER, ALBERT (1917). Griechische Wortbildungslehre (Indogermanische Bibliothek, 8). Heidelberg. DEICHGRABER, KARL (1933). 'Hymnische Elemente in der philosophischen Prosa der Vorsokratiker'. Philologus, 88: 347—61. DELAUNOIS, MARCEL (1988). Essai de syntaxe grecque classique: Reflexions et recherches (Publications des Facultes Universitaires Saint-Louis, 44). Brussels and Louvain. DEL CORNO, DARIO (1985). Aristofane: Le Rane (ed. with introd., trans., and comm.). Milan. (1997). 'La caratterizzazione dei personaggi di Aristofane attraverso i fatti di lingua e di stile', in Pascal Thiercy and Michel Menu (eds.), Aristophane: La langue, la scene, la cite. Bari, 243-51. DENNISTON, J. D. (1927). 'Technical Terms in Aristophanes'. CQ 21: 113-21. (1950). The Greek Particles (2nd edn.: rev. by K. J. Dover). Oxford. (1952). Greek Prose Style. Oxford. DEUBNER, LUDWIG (1941). 'Ololyge und Verwandtes'. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische Klasse, i. DICKEY, ELEANOR (1996). Greek Forms of Address from Herodotus to Lucian. Oxford. DICKIE, MATTHEW W. (1976). 'On the Meaning of eyripepos'. ICS i: 7-14. DIETERICH, ALBRECHT (1893). 'Ueber eine Scene der aristophanischen Wolken'. RhM, NS 48: 275-83.

278

References

DIETRICH, WOLF (1973). 'Der periphrastische Verbalaspekt im Griechischen und Lateinischen'. Glotta, 51: 188-228. Di MARCO, MASSIMO (1987). "Epeflo&i.
References

279

ECKERT, PENELOPE (1998). 'Gender and Sociolinguistic Variation', in Jennifer Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford and Maiden, Mass., 64-75. and McCoNNELL-GiNET, SALLY (1992). 'Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice'. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21: 461-90. EHRENBERG, VICTOR (1962). The People of Aristophanes: A Sociology of Old Attic Comedy (3rd edn.). New York. ELLENDT, FRIEDRICH, and GENTHE, HERMANN (1872). Lexicon Sophocleum adhibitis veterum interpretum explicationibus, grammaticorum notationibus, recentiorum doctorum commentaries (and edn.). Berlin. FANTHAM, ELAINE, FOLEY, HELENE P., KAMPEN, NATALIE B., POMEROY, SARAH B., and SHAPIRO, H. A. (1994). Women in the Classical World: Image and Text. New York and Oxford. FEHLING, Detlev (1969). Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch vor Gorgias. Berlin. FERGUSON, CHARLES A. (1964). 'Baby Talk in Six Languages'. American Anthropologist, 66/2: 103-14. (1971). 'Absence of Copula and the Notion of Simplicity: A Study of Normal Speech, Baby Talk, Foreigner Talk, and Pidgins', in Dell Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of the West Indies. Cambridge, 141-50. (1973). 'Some Forms of Religious Discourse'. International Yearbook for the Sociology of Religion, 8: 224-35. (1975). 'Toward a Characterization of English Foreigner Talk'. Anthropological Linguistics, 17: 1-14. (1981). 'Foreigner Talk as the Name of a Simplified Register', in Michael G. Clyne (ed.), Foreigner Talk (International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28). The Hague, Paris, and New York, 9-18. (1986). 'The Study of Religious Discourse', in Deborah Tannen and James E. Alatis (eds.), Languages and Linguistics: The Interdependence of Theory, Data, and Application (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 1985). Washington DC, 205-13. (1994). 'Dialect, Register, and Genre: Working Assumptions about Conventionalization', in Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. New York and Oxford, 15-30. and DEBOSE, CHARLES E. (1977). 'Simplified Registers, Broken Language, and Pidginization', in Albert Valdman (ed.), Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Bloomington, Ind. and London, 99-125. FERGUSON, JOHN (1971). 'Afros'. Phronesis, 16: 97-115. (i979)- 'Abos in Aristophanes and Euripides'. CJ 74: 356-9. FERRANTE, DOMENICO (1965). 'Immagini etimologiche nei poeti greci dell'eta ionico-attica'. Rendiconti dell'Istituto Lombardo, 99: 453-89.

z8o

References

FLANNERY, REGINA (1946). 'Men's and Women's Speech in Gros Ventre'. International Journal of American Linguistics, 12: 133-5. FLUCK, HANS-R. (1996). Fachsprachen: Einfuhrung und Bibliographie (sth edn.). Tubingen and Basel. FOLEY, HELENE P. (1981). 'The Concept of Women in Athenian Drama', in Helene P. Foley (ed.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity. New York, 127-68. (1982). 'The "Female Intruder" Reconsidered: Women in Aristophanes' Lysistrata and Ecclesiazusae'. CPh 77: 1-21. (1988). 'Tragedy and Politics in Aristophanes' Acharnians'. JHS 108: 33-47; repr. in Erich Segal (ed.), Oxford Readings in Aristophanes. Oxford and New York, 1996, 117-42. FORTH, GREGORY (1988). 'Fashioned Speech, Full Communication: Aspects of Eastern Sumbanese Ritual Language', in James J. Fox (ed.), To Speak in Pairs: Essays on the Ritual Languages of Eastern Indonesia. Cambridge, 129-60. FOURNIER, H. (1946). Les verbes 'dire' en grec ancien (Collection linguistique, 51). Paris. FRAENKEL, EDUARD (1955). 'Neues Griechisch in Graffiti'. Glotta, 34: 42-7. (1962). Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes. Rome. ( r 977). Due seminari romani di Eduard Fraenkel: Aiace e Filottete di Sofocle (ed. by some participants, preface by L. E. Rossi; Sussi Eruditi, 28). Rome. FRAENKEL, ERNST (1906). Griechische Denominativa in ihrer geschichtliche Entwicklung und Verbreitung. Gottingen. FRAZER, JAMES GEORGE (1900). 'A Suggestion as to the Origin of Gender in Language'. Fortnightly Review, 73: 79-90. FREUNDLICH, RAPHAEL (1987). Verbalsubstantive als Namen fur Satzinhalte in der Sprache des Thukydides: Bin Beitrag zu einer Grammatik der Nominalisierungen im Griechischen (Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie, 152). Frankfurt a. M. FRIEDRICH, JOHANNES (1918). 'Das Attische im Munde von Auslandern bei Aristophanes'. Philologus, 75: 274-303. FRISCH, HARTVIG (1942). The Constitution of the Athenians: A PhilologicalHistorical Analysis of Pseudo-Xenofon's Treatise De Re Publica Atheniensium. Copenhagen. FUNGHI, MARIA SERENA (1997). 'The Derveni Papyrus', in Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most (eds.), Studies on the Derveni Papyrus. Oxford, 25-37. FURLEY, WILLIAM D. (1995). 'Praise and Persuasion in Greek Hymns'. ^5115:29-46. and BREMER, JAN MAARTEN (2001). Greek Hymns, \: The Texts in Translation, ii: Greek Texts and Commentary (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 9/10). Tubingen.

References

281

GAL, SUSAN (1978). 'Peasant Men Can't Get Wives: Language Change and Sex Roles in a Bilingual Community'. Language in Society, 7: 1-16. (1991)- 'Between Speech and Silence: The Problematics of Research on Language and Gender', in Micaela Di Leonardo (ed.), Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 175-203. GARTNER, HANS (1990). 'Demetriana varia'. Hermes, 118: 213-36. GELZER, THOMAS (1956). 'Aristophanes und sein Sokrates'. MH 13: 65-93(1960). Der epirrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes: Untersuchungen zur Stmktur der attischen alien Komodie (Zetemata, 23). Munich. GIGANTE, MARCELLO (1969). 'II ritorno del medico straniero'. PP 24: 302-7. GIL, Luis, and RODRIGUEZ ALFAGEME, IGNACIO (1972). 'La figura del medico en la comedia atica'. CFC 3: 35-91. GILLELAND, MICHAEL E. (1980). 'Female Speech in Greek and Latin'. AJPh 101: 180-3. GIVON, TALMY (1979). 'From Discourse to Syntax: Grammar as a Processing Strategy', in Talmy Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York, San Francisco, and London, 81-112. GLADIGOW, BURKHARD (1968). 'Thales und der SiajSip-^'. Hermes, 96: 264-75. GOLDBERG, SANDER M. (1976). 'A Note on Aristophanes' ypoi>Ti<mjpioi>'. CPh, 71:254-6. GOLDEN, MARK (1995). 'Baby Talk and Child Language in Ancient Greece', in Francesco De Martino and Alan H. Sommerstein (eds.), Lo spettacolo delle voci. Bari, ii. 11—34. GOMME, A. W., and SANDBACH, F. H. (1973). Menander: A Commentary. Oxford. GOMPERZ, H. (1924). 'Die sokratische Frage als geschichtliches Problem'. Historische Zeitschrift, 3rd ser. 33: 377-423. GONDA, J. (1956). The Character of the Indo-European Moods with Special Regard to Greek and Sanskrit. Wiesbaden. GOODWIN, MARJORIE HARNESS (1980). 'Directive-Response Speech Sequences in Girls' and Boys' Task Activities', in Sally McConnellGinet, Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York, 157-73. GOODWIN, WILLIAM WATSON (1897). Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (enlarged edn.). London. GOSSEN, GARY H. (1976). 'Language as Ritual Substance', in William J. Samarin (ed.), Language in Religious Practice. Rowley, Mass., 40-60.

282

References

GOULD, JOHN (1980). 'Law, Custom and Myth: Aspects of the Social Position of Women in Classical Athens'. jfHS i oo: 38-59; repr. in John Gould, Myth, Ritual Memory, and Exchange: Essays in Greek Literature and Culture. Oxford, 2001, 112-57. GRAF, FRITZ (1991). 'Prayer in Magic and Religious Ritual', in Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. New York and Oxford, 188-213. GROTE, GEORGE (1847). History of Greece, iv. London. GRUBE, G. M. A. (1965). The Greek and Roman Critics. London. GuiDORlZZl, GIULIO (1996). Aristofane: Le Nuvole (ed. with comm.; introd. and trans, by Dario Del Corno). Milan. GUIRAUD, CHARLES (1962). La phrase nominate engrec d'Homere a Euripide (Etudes et commentaires, 42). Paris. GUTHRIE, W. K. C. (1935). Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement. London. HAAS, MARY R. (1944). 'Men's and Women's Speech in Koasati". Language, 20: 142-9. HAHN, WALTHER VON (1981). 'Einfiihrung: Zur Forschungsgeschichte', in Walther von Hahn (ed.), Fachsprachen. Darmstadt, 1-14. HALDANE, J. A. (1965). 'A Scene in the Thesmophoriazusae (295-371)'. Philologus, 109: 39-46. HALE, WILLIAM GARDNER (1893). ' "Extended" and "Remote" Deliberatives in Greek". TAPhA 24: 156-205. HALL, EDITH M. (1989). 'The Archer Scene in Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae'. Philologus, 133: 38-54. (1998). 'Ithyphallic Males Behaving Badly; or, Satyr Drama as Gendered Tragic Ending', in Maria Wyke (ed.), Parchments of Gender: Deciphering the Bodies of Antiquity. Oxford, 13-37. HALL, F. W., and GELDART, W. M. (1906). Aristophanis Comoediae, i: Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes, Vespae, Pax, Aves (ed. with critical apparatus; 2nd edn.). Oxford. (1907). Aristophanis Comoediae, ii: Lysistrata, Thesmophoriazusae, Ranae, Ecclesiazusae, Plutus, Fragmenta, Index nominum (ed. with critical apparatus). Oxford. HALLIWELL, STEPHEN (1990). 'The Sounds of the Voice in Old Comedy', in E. M. Craik (ed.), 'Owls to Athens': Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover. Oxford, 69-79. HANCOCK, IAN F. (1977). 'Recovering Pidgin Genesis: Approaches and Problems', in Albert Valdman (ed.), Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Bloomington, Ind. and London, 277-94. HANDLEY, ERIC W. (1953). '-sis Nouns in Aristophanes'. Eranos, 51: 129-42. (1956). 'Words for "Soul", "Heart" and "Mind" in Aristophanes'. RhM, NS 99: 205-25.

References

283

HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN (1991). The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles, and Ideology. Oxford and Cambridge, Mass. HARDING, SUSAN (1975). 'Women and Words in a Spanish Village', in Rayna R. Reiter (ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York and London, 283-308. HARRIOTT, ROSEMARY (1969). Poetry and Criticism before Plato. London. HARRIS, WILLIAM V. (1989). Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, Mass, and London. HARRISON, A. R. W. (1968). The Lam of Athens, i: The Family and Property. Oxford. (1971). The Law of Athens, ii: Procedure. Oxford. HARRISON, E. (1942). 'Attic ij and fy, "I Was" '. CR 56: 6-9. HASSE, ERNST (1891). Ueber den Dual bei den attischen Dramatikern. Programm Bartenstein. HAURI, HANS WALTER (1975). Kontrahiertes und sigmatisches Futur: Einflusse von Lautstruktur und Aktionsart auf die Bildung des griechiscken Futurs (Zeitschriftfur Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, Erganzungsheft 24). Gottingen. HAVELOCK, ERIC A. (1972). 'The Socratic Self as it is Parodied in Aristophanes' Clouds'. YCS 22: 1-18. HEADLAM, WALTER (1922). Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments (ed. A. D. Knox). Cambridge. HELLER, KLAUS (1981). 'Der Wortschatz unter dem Aspekt des Fachwortes: Versuch einer Systematik', in Walther von Hahn (ed.), Fachsprachen. Darmstadt, 218-38; repr. from Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universitat Leipzig, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 19, 1970, 531-44. HEMBERG, BENGT (1955). ^Iraf, araoaa und ara«? als Gotternamen unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der attischen Kulte. Uppsala and Wiesbaden. HENDERSON, JEFFREY (1987). Aristophanes: Lysistrata (ed. with introd. and comm.). Oxford. (1991). The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy (2nd edn.). New York and Oxford. (2000). 'Pherekrates and the Women of Old Comedy', in David Harvey and John Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy (with a foreword by Kenneth Dover). London and Swansea, 135-50. HENRICHS, ALBERT (19760). 'Despoina Kybele: Ein Beitrag zur religiosen Namenkunde'. HSPh 80: 253-86. (19766). 'The Atheism of Prodicus'. Cronache Ercolanesi, 6: 15-21. HIERSCHE, ROLF (1970). Gmndsuge der griechischen Sprachgeschichte bis zur klassischen Zeit. Wiesbaden.

284

References

HILL, JANE H. (1987). 'Women's Speech in Modern Mexicano', in Susan U. Philips, Susan Steele, and Christine Tanz (eds.), Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language, 4). Cambridge, 121-60. HINNENKAMP, VOLKER (1982). Foreigner Talk und Tarzanisch: Eine vergleichende Studie iiber die Sprechweise gegenuber Auslandern am Beispiel des Deutschen und des Turkischen. Hamburg. HOFFMANN, LOTHAR (1985). Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache: Eine Einfuhrung (2nd edn.: Forum fiir Fachsprachen-Forschung, i). Tubingen. (1986). 'Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede in den Fachsprachen'. Zeitschrift fiir Germanistik, 7: 459—67. HOFFMANN, O., DEBRUNNER, A., and SCHERER, A. (1969). Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, i: Bis sum Ausgang der klassischen Zeit (4th edn.). Berlin. HOLMES, DAVID H. (1895). Index Lysiacus. Bonn; repr. Amsterdam, 1962. HOLMES, JANET (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London and New York. (1998). 'Women's Talk: The Question of Sociolinguistic Universals', in Jennifer Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford and Maiden, Mass., 461-83. HOLMQUIST, JONATHAN C. (1985). 'Social Correlates of a Linguistic Variable: A Study in a Spanish Village'. Language in Society, 14: 191-203. HOLT, JENS (1941). Les noms d'action en -at; (-TIS): Etudes de linguistique grecque (Acta Jutlandica, 13.1). Aarhus and Copenhagen. HORN, WILHELM (1970). Gebet und Gebetsparodie in den Komodien des Aristophanes (Erlanger Beitrage zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft, 38). Nuremberg. HORROCKS, GEOFFREY (1997). Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers. London and New York. HUART, PIERRE (1973). rw>/«j chez Thucydide et ses contemporains (Sophocle—Euripide—Antiphon—Andocide—Aristophane ): Contribution a I'histoire des idees a Athenes dans la seconde moitie du V" siecle av. J.-C. (Etudes et commentaires, 81). Paris. HUDSON, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics (2nd edn.). Cambridge. HUMBERT, JEAN (1930). La disparition du datif en grec (du I" au Xe siecle) (Collection linguistique, 33). Paris. (1960). Syntaxe grecque (3rd edn.: Collection de philologie classique, 2). Paris. HUNTER, VIRGINIA J. (1994). Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420-320 B.C. Princeton. IMPERO, OLIMPIA (1998). 'La figura dell'intellettuale nella commedia

References

285

greca', in Anna Maria Belardinelli, Olimpia Impero, Giuseppe Mastromarco, Matteo Pelegrino, and Piero Totaro, Tessere. Frammenti della commedia greca: Studi e commenti. Bari, 43-130. JACOB, OSCAR (1928). Les esclavespublics a Athenes. Liege and Paris. JAMES, DEBORAH (1996). 'Women, Men, and Prestige Speech Forms: A Critical Review', in Victoria L. Bergvall, Janet M. Bing, and Alice F. Freed (eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice. London and New York, 98-125. JANKO, RICHARD (1997). 'The Physicist as Hierophant: Aristophanes, Socrates and the Authorship of the Derveni Papyrus'. ZPE 118: 61-94. JANNARIS, A. N. (1897). An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity down to the Present Time Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek. London. JANSSENS, EMILE (1952). 'Les etrangers cornme element comique dans les comedies d'Aristophane', in Melanges Georges Smets. Brussels, 455-60. JESPERSEN, OTTO (1922). Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London. JOCELYN, H. D. (1980). 'A Greek Indecency and its Students: AaiKa£ei»'. PCPhS,NS2b: 12-66. JOHNSON, FERN L., and ARIES, ELIZABETH J. (1983). 'The Talk of Women Friends'. Women's Studies International Forum, 6: 353-61. JOUANNA, JACQUES (1992). Hippocrate. Paris. (2000). 'Maladies et medecine chez Aristophane', in Le theatre grec antique: La comedie, Actes du io'me colloque de la Villa Kerylos. Paris, 171-95JUST, ROGER (1989). Women in Athenian Law and Life. London and New York. KAIMIO, MAARIT (1970). The Chorus of Greek Drama within the Light of the Person and Number Used (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, 46). Helsinki. KALEN, TURE (1941). Selbstandige Finalsatze und imperativische Infinitive im Griechischen (Acta Societatis Litterarum Humaniorum Regiae Upsaliensis, 34.2). Uppsala and Leipzig. KALLENBERG, H. (1925). 'Bausteine fiir eine historische Grammatik der griechischen Sprache'. RhM, NS 74: 64-114. KAPPEL, LUTZ (1992). Paian: Studien zur Geschichte einer Gattung (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, 37). Berlin and New York. KATSOURIS, ANDREAS G. (1975). Linguistic and Stylistic Characterization: Tragedy and Menander (Dodone Supplement, 5). loannina. KENT, ROLAND G. (1950). Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven, Conn.

286

References

KERFERD, GEORGE B. (1985). 'Gorgias and Empedocles', in Luciano Montoneri and Francesco Romano (eds.), Gorgia e la Sofistica: Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Siculorum Gymnasium, NS 38). Catania and Lentini, 595-605. KEYSSNER, KARL (1932). Gottesvorstellung und Lebensauffassung im griechischen Hymnus (Wiirzburger Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft, 2). Stuttgart. KIECKERS, E. (1909). 'Zum Gebrauch des Imperativus Aoristi und Praesentis'. IF 24: 10-17. KINDSTRAND, JAN pREDRlK (1981). Anacharsis: The Legend and the Apophthegmata (Studia Graeca Upsaliensia, 16). Uppsala. KINGSLEY, PETER (1995). Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition. Oxford. KIPARSKY, PAUL (1968). 'Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax'. Foundations of Language, 4: 30-57. KLEINKNECHT, HERMANN (1937). Die Gebetsparodie in der Antike (Tiibinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft, 28). Stuttgart and Berlin. ( J 939)- 'Die Epiphanie des Demos in Aristophanes' Rittern'. Hermes, 74: 58-65. KLOSS, GERRIT (2001). Erscheinungsformen komischen Sprechens bei Aristophanes (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, 59). Berlin and New York. (2002). 'Sprachverwendung und Gruppenzugehorigkeit als Thema der Alien Komodie', in Andrea Ercolani (ed.), Spoudaiogeloion: Form und Funktion der Verspottung in der aristophanischen Komodie (Drama, 11). Stuttgart and Weimar, 71-88. KONTOS, KONSTANTINOS S. (1898). '*iAoAoyiKai 7rapcm)pJ)aeis'. Athena, IO: 261-324.

KRANZ, WALTHER (1919). 'Die Urform der attischen Tragodie und Komodie'. Neue Jahrbucherfur das klassische Altertum, 43: 145-68. KRETSCHMER, PAUL (1888). 'Uber den Dialekt der attischen Vaseninschriften'. KZ 29: 381-483. (1894). Die Griechischen Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach untersucht. Giitersloh. (1909). 'Zur Geschichte der griechischen Dialekte'. Glotta, i: 9-59. (1919). 'Der griechische Imperativus Aoristi Activi auf -aov. Glotta, 10: 112—22. KRIETER-SPIRO, MARTHA (1997). Sklaven, Koche und Hetdren: Das Dienstpersonal bei Menander. Stellung, Rolle, Komik und Sprache (Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 93). Stuttgart. KRUGER, K. W. (1879). Griechische Sprachlehre fur Schulen, ii: Ueber die Dialekte, vorsugsweise den epischen und ionischen, i: Formenlehre (sth edn. by W. Pokel). Leipzig.

References

287

KUDLIEN, FRIDOLF (1971). 'Hippokrateszitate in der altgriechischen Komodie?'. Episteme, 5: 279-84. KUHLMANN, PETER (1997/98). '£fc als Indefinitpronomen im Griechischen in diachroner Sicht'. Glotta, 74: 76-93. KUHNER, RAPHAEL, and GERTH, BERNHARD (1898/1904). Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, ii/i-2: Satzlehre (3rd edn.). Hanover and Leipzig. KURZOVA, HELENA (1968). Zur syntaktischen Struktur des griechischen Infinitiv und Nebensatz. Amsterdam and Prague. LABOV, WILLIAM (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia. (1990). 'The Intersection of Sex and Social Class in the Course of Linguistic Change'. Language Variation and Change, 2: 205-54. LAKOFF, ROBIN (1973). 'Language and Woman's Place'. Language in Society, 2: 45-79LANATA, GIULIANA (1963). Poetica pre-platonica: Testimonianze e frammenti, testo, traduzione e commento. Florence. (1968). 'Linguaggio scientifico e linguaggio poetico: Note al lessico del "de morbo sacro" '. QUCC 5: 22-36. LANGHOLF, VOLKER (1990). Medical Theories in Hippocrates: Early Texts and the 'Epidemics' (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, 34). Berlin and New York. LANGSLOW, DAVID R. (1999). 'The Language of Poetry and the Language of Science: The Latin Poets and "Medical" Latin', in J. N. Adams and R. G. Mayer (eds.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry (Proceedings of the British Academy, 93). Oxford, 183-225. (2000). Medical Latin in the Roman Empire. Oxford. LANZA, DIEGO (1979). Lingua e discorso nell'Atene delleprofessioni. Naples. LARDINOIS, ANDRE (2001). 'Keening Sappho: Female Speech Genres in Sappho's Poetry', in Andre Lardinois and Laura McClure (eds.), Making Silence Speak: Women's Voices in Greek Literature and Society. Princeton and Oxford, 75-92. LA ROCHE, J. (1893). Beitrage zur griechischen Grammatik, i. Leipzig. LASSERRE, FRANCOIS (1983). 'Sociolectes hippocratiques dans le traite Des lieux dans I'homme', in Francois Lasserre and Philippe Mudry (eds.), Formes de pensee dans la collection hippocratique: Actes du IVe collogue international hippocratique. Geneva, 163-72. LASSO DE LA VEGA, JOSE SANCHEZ (1952). 'Sobre la oracion nominal en atico'. Emerita, 20: 308-36. LATTKE, MICHAEL (1991). Hymnus: Materialien zu einer Geschichte der antiken Hymnologie (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, 19). Freiburg and Gottingen. LAUTENSACH, O. (1896). Grammatische Studien zu den griechischen Tragikern und Komikern, i: Personalendungen. Programm Gotha.

288

References

LAUTENSACH, O. (1899). Grammatische Studien zu den griechischen Tragikern und Komikern: Augment und Reduplikation. Hanover and Leipzig. (1911)- Die Aoriste bei den attischen Tragikern und Komikern (Forschungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik, i). Gottingen. (1916). 'Grammatische Studien zu den attischen Tragikern und Komikern: Konjunktiv und Optativ'. Glotta, 7: 92-116. (1917). 'Grammatische Studien zu den attischen Tragikern und Komikern: Optativ [und Imperativ]'. Glotta, 8: 168-96. (1918). 'Grammatische Studien zu den attischen Tragikern und Komikern [Imperativ: Nachtrag]'. Glotta, 9: 69-94. -(1921). 'Grammatische Studien zu den attischen Tragikern und Komikern: Infinitive und Partizipien'. Philologus, 77: 46-76, 228-55. LEHMANN, CHRISTIAN (1982). 'Nominalisierung: Typisierung von Propositionen", in Hansjakob Seiler and Christian Lehmann (eds.), Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenstdnden, i: Bereich und Ordnung der Phdnomene. Tubingen, 66-83. LENDLE, OTTO (1957). Die 'Pandorasage' bei Hesiod: Textkritische und motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Wiirzburg. LEUMANN, MANU (1945). 'Unregelmassige griechische Steigerungsformen'. MH2: 1-14; repr. in Manu Leumann, Kleine Schriften. Zurich and Stuttgart, 1959, 214—29. ('953)- ' "Aoristi mixti" und Imperative vom Futurstamm im Griechischen'. Glotta, 32: 204-13; repr. in Manu Leumann, Kleine Schriften. Zurich and Stuttgart, 1959, 234-41. LLOYD, G. E. R. (1979). Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origin and Development of Greek Science. Cambridge. (1983). Science, Folklore and Ideology: Studies in the Life Sciences in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. LONG, A. A. (1968). Language and Thought in Sophocles: A Study of Abstract Nouns and Poetic Technique. London. LONG, TIMOTHY (1986). Barbarians in Greek Comedy. Carbondale and Edwardsville. L6PEZ EIRE, ANTONIO (1986). 'La lengua de la comedia aristofanica'. Emerita, 54: 237-74. (1991)- Atico, koine y aticismo: Estudios sobre Aristofanes y Libanio. Murcia. (1993). 'De 1'attique a la koine", in Claude Brixhe (ed.), La koine grecque antique, i: Une langue introuvable? (Etudes anciennes, 10). Nancy, 41-57. (19960). La lengua coloquial de la Comedia aristofanica. Murcia. (19966). 'L'influence de 1'ionien-attique sur les autres dialectes epigraphiques et 1'origine de la koine', in Claude Brixhe (ed.), La koine

References

289

grecque antique, ii: La concurrence (Etudes anciennes, 14). Nancy and Paris, 7-42. (1997). 'A propos de 1'attique familier de la comedie aristophanienne', in Pascal Thiercy and Michel Menu (eds.), Aristophane: La langue, la scene, la cite. Bari, 189-212. (1998). 'Sobre el atico coloquial de la comedia aristofanica', in Juan Antonio Lopez Ferez (ed.), La comedia griega y su influencia en la literatura espanola (Estudios de filologia griega, 3). Madrid, 137-75. LOPEZ-GARCIA, EUGENIA (19980). 'Aspects of Colloquial Syntax in Aristophanes: Levels of Language, Characterization and Language Change'. Cambridge M.Phil, thesis. (19986). 'Indirect and "Less than Literal" Expressions in Comedy'. Cambridge M.Phil, thesis. LORAUX, NICOLE (1993). The Children of Athena: Athenian Ideas about Citizenship and the Division between the Sexes (trans. Caroline Levine, foreword by Froma I. Zeitlin). Princeton. LOTTICH, OTTO (1881). De sermone vulgari Atticorum maxime ex Aristophanis fabulis cognoscendo. Diss. Halle. LUCAS, D. W. (1968). Aristotle: Poetics (ed. with introd., comm., and appendixes). Oxford. LUPA$, LIANA (1972). Phonologie du grec attique (lanua Linguarum, 164). The Hague and Paris. MACAULAY, RONALD K. S. (1978). 'The Myth of Female Superiority in Language'. Journal of Child Language, 5: 353-63. McCLURE, LAURA (1995). 'Female Speech and Characterization in Euripides', in Francesco De Martino and Alan H. Sommerstein (eds.), Lo spettacolo delle voci, Bari, ii. 35-60. (1999). Spoken like a Woman: Speech and Gender in Athenian Drama. Princeton. MACCOBY, ELEANOR EMMONS, and JACKLIN, CAROL NAGY (1975). The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford, Calif, and London. MAC Do WELL, DOUGLAS M. (1971). Aristophanes: Wasps (ed. with introd. and comm.). Oxford. (1978). The Law in Classical Athens. London. (1990). Demosthenes: Against Meidias (Oration 21) (ed. with introd., trans., and comm.). Oxford. (1995). Aristophanes and Athens: An Introduction to the Plays. Oxford. McKAY, K. L. (1965). 'The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect down to the Second Century A.D.'. BICS 12: 1-21. MALINOWSKI, BRONISLAW (1923). 'The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages', in C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning.- A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the

290

References

Science of Symbolism (with introd. by J. P. Postgate and supplementary essays by B. Malinowski and F. G. Crookshank). London and New York, 451-510 (loth edn.: London, 1949, 296-336). MARIANETTI, MARIE C. (1992). Religion and Politics in Aristophanes' Clouds (Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien, 24). Hildesheim, Zurich, and New York. MARTIN, ALAIN, and PRIMAVESI, OLIVER (1999). L'Empedocle de Strasbourg (P. Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665-1666) (introd., ed., and comm.). Strasbourg, Berlin, and New York. MARTIN DE LUCAS, ISABEL (1996). 'Los demonstratives con -icpidictica en Aristofanes'. Emerita, 64: 157-71. MARZULLO, BENEDETTO (1953). 'Strepsiade'. Maia, 6: 99-124. (!973)- 'Aristophanes, Nub. 652-4'. Philologus, 117: 130-3. MASTRONARDE, DONALD J. (1989). 'Lautensach's Law and the Augment of Compound-Verbs in eu-'. Glotta, 67: 101-5. MAWET, FRANCINE (1983). 'La formation nominale dans VAssemblee des Femmes d'Aristophane'. Glotta, 61: 182-92. MAYRHOFER, MANFRED (1989). 'Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen; Uriranisch', in Riidiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden, 4-24. MEIER-BRUGGER, MICHAEL (1992). Griechische Sprachwissenschaft, i: Bibliographic, Einleitung, Syntax. Berlin and New York. MEILLET, ANTOINE (1965). Apercu d'une histoire de la langue grecque (8th edn. with bibliog. by Olivier Masson: Etudes et commentaires, 55). Paris. MEISEL, JURGEN M. (1977). 'Linguistic Simplification: A Study of Immigrant Workers' Speech and Foreigner Talk', in S. P. Corder and E. Roulet (eds.), Actes du $eme colloque de linguistique appliquee de Neuchdtel, 20-22 Mai igj6: The Notions of Simplification, Interlanguages and Pidgins and their Relation to Second Language Pedagogy. Neuchatel and Geneva, 88-113. MEISTERHANS, K., and SCHWYZER, EDUARD (1900). Grammatik der attischen Inschriften (3rd edn.). Berlin. MERRY, W. W. (1893). 'Aristophanes and the "Erasmians" '. CR 7: 32-3. MEYER, GUSTAV (1923). Die stilistische Verwendung der Nominalkomposition im Griechischen: Bin Beitrag zur Geschichte der Snr\a om^ara (Philologus Suppl. 16.3). Leipzig. MEYER, HERBERT (1933). Hymnische Stilelemente in der fruhgriechischen Dichtung (Diss. Cologne). Wiirzburg. MlGNOT, XAVIER (1972). Recherches SUr le Suffixe

-rqs, -nrras (-ras, -TO.TOS) ,

des origines a la fin du IV" siecle avant J.-C. (Etudes et commentaires, 76). Paris. MILLER, HAROLD W. (1945). 'Aristophanes and Medical Language'. TAPhA 76: 74-84.

References

291

MILROY, LESLEY (1980). Language and Social Networks (Language in Society, 2). Oxford. MITCHELL, DAVID (1988). 'Method in the Metaphor: The Ritual Language of Wanukaka', in James J. Fox (ed.), To Speak in Pairs: Essays on the Ritual Languages of Eastern Indonesia. Cambridge, 64-86. MOHN, DIETER (1981). Tach- und Gemeinsprache: Zur Emanzipation und Isolation der Sprache', in Walther von Hahn (ed.), Fachsprachen. Darmstadt, 172—217; repr. from Walther Mitzka (ed.), Wortgeographie und Gesellschaft: Festgabefiir Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 60. Geburtstag. Berlin, 1968, 315-48. MOMMSEN, TYCHO (1895). Beitrdge zu der Lehre von den griechischen Prapositionen. Berlin. MONTEIL, PIERRE (1963). La phrase relative en grec ancien: Sa formation, son developpement, sa structure des origines a la fin du Ve siecle a. C. (Etudes et commentaires, 47). Paris. MOORHOUSE, A. C. (1946). 'ov with the Future". CQ 40: i-io. (1959). Studies in the Greek Negatives. Cardiff. (1962). 'ef olSa and ouSe ef?: Cases of Hiatus'. CQ, NS 12: 239-47. (1982). The Syntax of Sophocles (Mnemosyne Suppl. 75). Leiden. MORENILLA-TALENS, CARMEN (1989). 'Die Charakterisierung der Auslander durch lautliche Ausdrucksmittel in den Persern des Aischylos sowie den Acharnern und Vogeln des Aristophanes'. IF 94: 158-76. MORPURGO DAVIES, ANNA (1985). 'Mycenaean and Greek Language', in A. Morpurgo Davies and Yves Duhoux (eds.), Linear B: A 1984 Survey (Bibliotheque des Cahiers de 1'Institutde Linguistique de Louvain, 26). Louvain-la-Neuve, 75-125. MORRISON, J. S. (1958). 'The Origins of Plato's Philosopher-Statesman'. C0,Ns8: 198-218. MUHLHAUSLER, PETER (1986). Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Oxford and New York. MURPHY, CHARLES T. (1938). 'Aristophanes and the Art of Rhetoric'. HSPhw. 69-113. MUSTI, DOMENICO (1990). 'Le rivolte antipitagoriche e la concezione pitagorica del tempo'. QUCC 65: 35-65. NEIL, ROBERT ALEXANDER (1901). The Knights of Aristophanes (ed. with introd. and comm.). Cambridge; repr. Hildesheim, 1966. NICHOLS, JOHANNA (1980). 'Pidginization and Foreigner Talk: Chinese Pidgin Russian', in Elizabeth C. Traugott (ed.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam, 397-407. NICKAU, KLAUS (1993). 'Zum Verbalaspekt der Imperative in Aristophanes' Acharnern 1097-1142'. Glotta, 71: 158-66. NIEDDU, GIAN FRANCO (2001). 'Donne e "parole" di donne in Aristofane'. Lexis, 19: 199-218.

292

References References

NOEL, MARIE-PIERRE (1997). 'Mots nouveaux et idees nouvelles dans les Nuees d'Aristophane'. Ktema, 22: 173-84. (2000). 'Aristophane et les intellectuels: Le portrait de Socrate et des "sophistes" dans les Nuees', in Le theatre grec antique: La comedie, Actes du ioime colloque de la Villa Kerylos. Paris, 111-28. NORDBERG, BENGT (1975). 'Contemporary Social Variation as a Stage in a Long-Term Phonological Change', in Karl-Hampus Dahlstedt (ed.), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics, 2: Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics. Stockholm, 587-608. NORDEN, EDUARD (1956). Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religioser Rede (4th edn.). Stuttgart. (19S7)- P- Vergilius Maro: Aeneis Buck VI (4th edn.). Darmstadt. NUNLIST, RENE (1998). Poetologische Bildersprache in der friihgriechischen Dichtung (Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 101). Stuttgart and Leipzig. O'BARR, WILLIAM M., and ATKINS, BOWMAN K. (1980). ' "Women's Language" or "Powerless Language"?', in Sally McConnell-Ginet, Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York, 93-110. OCHS, ELINOR (1979). 'Planned and Unplanned Discourse', in Talmy Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York, San Francisco, and London, 51-80. (1987). 'The Impact of Stratification and Socialization on Men's and Women's Speech in Western Samoa', in Susan U. Philips, Susan Steele, and Christine Tanz (eds.), Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language, 4). Cambridge, 50-70. O'HARA, JAMES J. (1996). True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay. Ann Arbor. O'HiGGiNS, D. M. (2001). 'Women's Cultic Joking and Mockery: Some Perspectives', in Andre Lardinois and Laura McClure (eds.), Making Silence Speak: Women's Voices in Greek Literature and Society. Princeton and Oxford, 137-60. OLSON, S. DOUGLAS (1998). Aristophanes: Peace (ed. with introd. and comm.). Oxford. O'REGAN, DAPHNE ELIZABETH (1992). Rhetoric, Comedy, and the Violence of Language in Aristophanes' Clouds. New York and Oxford. O'SULLIVAN, NEIL (1992). Alcidamas, Aristophanes and the Beginnings of Greek Stylistic Theory (Hermes Einzelschr. 60). Stuttgart. PARKER, L. P. E. (1997). The Songs of Aristophanes. Oxford. PARKER, ROBERT (1983). Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford. (1996). Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford.

References

293

PEARCE, T. E. V. (1996). 'The Imperatival Infinitive in Homer, with Special Reference to A 20'. Mnemosyne, 4th ser. 49: 283-97. PEPPLER, CHARLES W. (1910). 'The Termination -K6s, as Used by Aristophanes for Comic Effect'. AJPh 31: 428-44. (1916). 'The suffix -fta in Aristophanes'. AJPh 37: 459-65. (1918). 'Comic Terminations in Aristophanes: Part IV. AJPh 39: 173-83. (1921). 'Comic Terminations in Aristophanes: Part V. AJPh 42: 152-61. PERPILLOU, J.-L. (1984). 'La diphthongue ai en Attique'. Glotta, 62: 152-7PETERSEN, WALTER (1937). 'The Greek Masculines in Circumflexed -as'. CPh 32: 121-30. PFEIFFER, RUDOLF (1968). History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford. PHILIPS, SUSAN U., and REYNOLDS, ANNE (1987). 'The Interaction of Variable Syntax and Discourse Structure in Women's and Men's Speech', in Susan U. Philips, Susan Steele, and Christine Tanz (eds.), Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language, 4). Cambridge, 71-94. PLASSART, A. (1913). 'Les archers d'Athenes'. REG 26: 151-213. PLATNAUER, MAURICE (1942). 'Xp-fiv -. exw'- CR 56: 2-6. (1960). 'Prodelision in Greek Drama'. CQ, NS 10: 140-4. (1964). Aristophanes: Peace (ed. with introd. and comm.). Oxford. PLATT, ARTHUR (1910). 'On n etc. with Vocatives'. CR 23: 105-6. PLEKET, H. W. (1981). 'Religious History as the History of Mentality: The "Believer" as Servant of the Deity in the Greek World", in H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion, 2). Leiden, 152-92. POHLENZ, MAX (1920). 'Die Anfange der griechischen Poetik'. NGG 142-78; repr. in Max Pohlenz, Kleine Schriften, ii (ed. Heinrich Dorrie). Hildesheim, 1965,436-72. (1938). 'Hippokratesstudien'. NGG 67-101; repr. in Max Pohlenz, Kleine Schriften, ii (ed. Heinrich Dorrie). Hildesheim, 1965, 175-209. PORZIG, WALTER (1942). Die Namenfiir Satzinhalte im Griechischen und im Indogermanischen (Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft, 10). Berlin. (1957). Das Wunder der Sprache: Probleme, Methoden und Ergebnisse der modernen Sprachwissenschaft (and edn.). Berne. POST, L. A. (1938). 'Dramatic Uses of the Greek Imperative'. AJPh 59: 3'-59-

294

References

POULTNEY, JAMES WILSON (1936). The Syntax of the Genitive Case in Aristophanes. Baltimore. (1963). 'Studies in the Syntax of Attic Comedy'. AJPh 84: 359-76. PRATO, CARLO (2001). Aristofane: Le Donne alle Tesmo/orie (ed. with introd. and comm.; trans. Dario Del Corno). Milan. PSICHARI, JEAN (1908). 'Sophocle et Hippocrate: A propos du Philoctete a Lemnos'. RPh, NS 32: 95-128. PULLEYN, SIMON (1997). Prayer in Greek Religion. Oxford. RADERMACHER, LUDWIG (1921). Aristophanes' 'Frosche' (ed. with introd. and comm.: Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 198.4). Vienna. (1954). Aristophanes' 'Frosche' (2nd edn. by Walther Kraus). Vienna. RAU, PETER (1967). Paratragodia: Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aristophanes (Zetemata, 45). Munich. REFORMATSKIJ, A. A. (1961). 'Cto takoe termin i terminologija", in Voprosy terminologii: Materialy vsesojuznogo terminologiceskogo sovescanija. Moscow, 46-54. (1968). 'Termin kak Clen leksiCeskoj sistemy jazyka', in Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki 1967. Moscow, 103-25. REITER, RAYNA R. (1975). 'Men and Women in the South of France: Public and Private Domains', in Rayna R. Reiter (ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York and London, 252-82. RENEHAN, ROBERT (1976). Studies in Greek Texts: Critical Observations to Homer, Plato, Euripides, Aristophanes and other Authors (Hypomnemata, 43). Gottingen. RICHARDS, H. (1901). 'On a Greek Adverb of Place'. CR 15: 442-5. RICHTER, DONALD C. (1971). 'The Position of Women in Classical Athens'. CJ(>T. 1-8. RIEDWEG, CHRISTOPH (1997). ' "Pythagoras hinterliess keine einzige Schrift"—ein Irrtum? Anmerkungen zu einer alten Streitfrage'. MH 54: 65-92. RIJKSBARON, ALBERT (19840). The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek. Amsterdam. (19846). 'Het Griekse perfectum: subject contra object'. Lampas, 17: 403-19. RISCH, ERNST (1990). 'Zu Wackernagels Einleitung in die Lehre vom Genus (Syntax 2.iff.): Die Bezeichnungen des Haushahns', in Heiner Eichner and Helmut Rix (eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie: Jacob Wackernagelunddielndogermanistikheute. Wiesbaden, 234-49Rix, HELMUT (1992). Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und Formenlehre (2nd edn.). Darmstadt.

References

295

RODRIGUEZ ALFAGEME, IGNACIO (2000). 'La structure scenique dans les Nuees d' Aristophane', in Le theatre grec antique: La comedie, Actes du iofme colloque de la Villa Kerylos. Paris, 25-45. ROMAINE, SUZANNE (1980). 'The Relative Clause Marker in Scots English: Diffusion, Complexity, and Style as Dimensions of Syntactic Change'. Language in Society, 9: 221-47. (1982). Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge. (1988). Pidgin and Creole Languages. London and New York. ROSENKRANZ, BERNHARD (1930). 'Der lokale Grundton und die personliche Eigenart in der Sprache des Thukydides und der alteren attischen Redner'./F48: 127-78. ROSENKRANZ, MARIA LUISA (1964). 'Gli "atticismi" negli scoli ad Aristofane'. Helikon, 4: 261-78. ROSENMEYER, THOMAS G. (i955). 'Gorgias, Aeschylus, and Apate', AJPh 76: 225-60. ROSENSTRAUCH, HENRYK (1961). 'Parodia jezykowych badafi sofistow w Chmurach Arystofanesa'. Eos, 51: 45-54. Rossi, LUIGI ENRICO (1977). 'Un nuovo papiro epicarmeo e il tipo del medico in commedia'. A&R, NS 22: 81-4. ROTHWELL, JR., KENNETH S. (1990). Politics and Persuasion in Aristophanes' Ecclesiazusae (Mnemosyne Suppl. in). Leiden, New York, Copenhagen, and Cologne. RUDHARDT, J. (1992). Notions fondamentales de la pensee religieuse et actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grece classique (and edn.). Paris. RUSSELL, DONALD A. (1981). Criticism in Antiquity. London. RUTHERFORD, W. GUNION (1881). The New Phrynichus, Being a Revised Text of the Ecloga of the Grammarian Phrynichus. London. (1903). 'Aristophanes, Knights 414: A Neglected Idiom'. CR 17: 249. SAGER, JUAN C., DUNGWORTH, DAVID, and MCDONALD, PETER F. (1980). English Special Languages: Principles and Practice in Science and Technology. Wiesbaden. SAMARIN, WILLIAM J. (1976). 'The Language of Religion', in William J. Samarin (ed.), Language in Religious Practice. Rowley, Mass., 3-13. SANCHIS LLOPIS, JORGE L. (2000). 'La lengua de los medicos en la comedia griega postaristofanica', in Juan Antonio Lopez Ferez (ed.), La lengua cientifica griega: Origenes, desarrollo e influencia en las lenguas modernas europeas, ii. Madrid, 123-55. SAPIR, EDWARD (1929). 'Male and Female Forms of Speech in Yana', in W. J. Teeuwen (ed.), Donum Natalicium Schrijnen. Nijmegen and Utrecht, 79-85; repr. in Edward Sapir, Selected Writings in Language, Culture, and Personality (ed. David G. Mandelbaum, with a new epilogue by Dell H. Hymes). Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1985, 206-12.

2g6

References

SAUGE, ANDRE (2000). Les degres du verbe: Sens et formation du parfait en grec ancien. Berne. SAVILLE-TROIKE, MURIEL (1989). The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction (2nd edn.). Oxford and Maiden, Mass. SCHADE, J. (1908). De correptione Attica. Diss. Greifswald. SCHAPS, DAVID (1977). 'The Woman Least Mentioned: Etiquette and Women's Names'. CQ, NS 27: 323-30. SCHAUWECKER, YELA (2OO2). 'Zum Sprechverhalten der Frauentypen bei Plautus'. Gymnasium, 109: 191-211. SCHIBLI, HERMANN S. (1990). Pherekydes of Syros. Oxford. SCHIPPAN, THEA (1984). Lexikologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig. SCHMITT, RUDIGER (1967). Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. (1989). 'Die mitteliranischen Sprachen im Uberblick", in Riidiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden, 95-ioSSCHRECKENBERG, HEINZ (1964). Ananke: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Wortgebrauchs (Zetemata, 36). Munich. SCHUCHARDT, HUGO (1909). 'Die Lingua Franca". Zeitschrift fur romanische Philologie, 33: 441-61; Eng. trans, in Schuchardt (1980) 66-88. (1980). Pidgin and Creole Languages: Selected Essays (ed. and trans. Glenn G. Gilbert). Cambridge. SCHWAB, OTTO (1893-4). Historische Syntax der griechischen Comparation in der klassischen Literatur, 2 vols. (Beitrage zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache, 4). Wiirzburg. SCHWEIZER, EDUARD (1898). Grammatik der Pergamenischen Inschriften: Beitrage zur Laut- und Flexionslehre der gemeingriechischen Sprache. Berlin. SCHWYZER, EDUARD (1935). 'Zur Sprache', in Karl Deichgraeber, Hippokrates tiber Entstehung und Aufbau des menschlichen Korpers (nepl aapxuiv). Leipzig and Berlin, 62-97. 0939)- Griechische Grammatik, i: Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2.1.1). Munich. (1940). 'Syntaktische Archaismen des Attischen'. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 7. -and DEBRUNNER, ALBERT (1950). Griechische Grammatik, ii: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2.1.2). Munich. SCOTT, JOHN ADAMS (1905). 'Additional Notes on the Vocative'. AJPh 26: 32-43-

References

297

SEARLE, JOHN R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge. SEATON, R. C. (1889). 'The Iterative Use of Sa> with the Imperf. and Aor. Indie.'. CR 3: 343-5. SEIBICKE, WILFRIED (1981). 'Fachsprache und Gemeinsprache', in Walther von Hahn (ed.), Fachsprachen. Darmstadt, 40-66; repr. from Muttersprache, 1959, 70-84. SHAW, MICHAEL (1975). 'The Female Intruder: Women in Fifth-Century Drama'. CPh 70: 255-66. SHERZER, JOEL (1987). 'A Diversity of Voices: Men's and Women's Speech in Ethnographic Perspective', in Susan U. Philips, Susan Steele, and Christine Tanz (eds.), Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language, 4). Cambridge, 95-120. SHIBAMOTO, JANET S. (1987). 'The Womanly Woman: Manipulation of Stereotypical and Nonstereotypical Features of Japanese Female Speech', in Susan U. Philips, Susan Steele, and Christine Tanz (eds.), Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language, 4). Cambridge, 26-49. SICKING, C. M. J. (1962). Aristophanes' Ranae; Een hoofstuk uit de geschiedenis der Griekse poetica. Assen. (1991). 'The Distribution of Aorist and Present Tense Stem Forms in Greek, Especially in the Imperative'. Glotta, 69: 14-43, I54~7°- and STORK, PETER (1996). Two Studies in the Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek (Mnemosyne Suppl. 160). Leiden, New York, and Cologne. SIER, KURT (1992). 'Die Rolle des Skythen in den Thesmophoriazusen des Aristophanes', in Carl W7erner Miiller, Kurt Sier, and Jiirgen Werner (eds.), Zum Umgang mit fremden Sprachen in der griechisch-romischen Antike (Palingenesia, 36). Stuttgart, 63-83. SIHLER, ANDREW L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York and Oxford. SILK, MICHAEL S. (1990). 'The People of Aristophanes', in Christopher Felling (ed.), Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature. Oxford, 150-73. (2000). Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy. Oxford. SITTL, CARL (1890). Die Gebdrden der Griechen und Romer. Leipzig. SLATER, NIALL W. (1995). 'The Fabrication of Comic Illusion', in Gregory W. Dobrov (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy (American Classical Studies, 38). Atlanta, 29-45SLINGS, SIMON R. (1992). 'Written and Spoken Language: An Exercise in the Pragmatics of the Greek Sentence'. CPh 87: 95-109.

298

References

SLOTTY, FRIEDRICH (1915). Der Gebrauch des Konjunktivs und Optativs in den griechischen Dialekten, i: Der Hauptsatz (Forschungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik, 3). Gottingen. SNELL, BRUNO (1924). Die Ausdriicke fur den Begriffdes Wissens in der vorplatonischen Philosophic

(Philologische Untersuchungen, 29). Berlin. SNOW, C. E., and FERGUSON, C. A. (eds.) (1977). Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition. Cambridge and London. SOBOLEWSKI, SERGIUS (1890). De praepositionum usu Aristophaneo. Moscow. (1891). Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta: De sententiarum condicionalium temporalium relativorum formis et usu. Moscow. SOLMSEN, FRIEDRICH (1975). Intellectual Experiments of the Greek Enlightenment. Princeton. SOMMERSTEIN, ALAN H. (19800). Aristophanes: Acharnians (ed. with trans. and notes). Warminster. (19806). 'The Naming of Women in Greek and Roman Comedy'. Quaderni di Storia, 11: 393-418. (1981). Aristophanes: Knights (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster. (1982). Aristophanes: Clouds (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster. (1983). Aristophanes: Wasps (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster. (1985). Aristophanes: Peace (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster. (1987). Aristophanes: Birds (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster. (1990). Aristophanes: Lysistrata (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster. (1994). Aristophanes: Thesmophoriasusae (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster. ('995)- 'The Language of Athenian Women', in Francesco De Martino and Alan H. Sommerstein (eds.), Lo spettacolo delle voci. Bari, ii. 61-85. (1996). Aristophanes: Frogs (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster. (1998). Aristophanes: Ecclesiazusae (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster. (2001). Aristophanes: Plutus (ed. with trans, and notes). Warminster. SPYROPOULOS, ELIE S. (1974). L'accumulation verbale chez Aristophane: Recherches sur le style d'Aristophane. Thessaloniki. STEPHANOPOULOS, THEODOROS (1983). 'Drei alt- und neugriechische Babyworter'. Glotta, 61: 12-15. STEVENS, P. T. (1945). 'Colloquial Expressions in Aeschylus and Sophocles'. CQ 39: 95-105. (1976). Colloquial Expressions in Euripides (Hermes Einzelschr. 38). Wiesbaden.

References

299

STINTON, T. C. W. (1977). 'Interlinear Hiatus in Trimeters'. CQ, NS 27 67-72. SUTTERLIN, LUDWIG (1891). Zur Geschichte der Verba denominativa im Altgriechischen, i: Die Verba denominativa auf -dm, -tai, -6m. Strasbourg. SVENNUNG, J. (1958). Anredeformen: Vergleichende Forschungen zur indirekten Anrede in der dritten Person und zum Nominativ fur den Vokativ (Acta Societatis Litterarum Humaniorum Regiae Upsaliensis, 42). Uppsala and Wiesbaden. SWACKER, MARJORIE (1975). 'The Sex of the Speaker as a Sociolinguistic Variable', in Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, Mass., 76-83. TAAFFE, LAUREN K. (1993). Aristophanes and Women. London and New York. TAILLARDAT, JEAN (1965). Les images d'Aristophane: Etudes de langue et de style (2nd edn.). Paris. TANNEN, DEBORAH (1982) (ed.). Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy (Advances in Discourse Processes, 9). Norwood, NJ. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. London. TAYLOR, A. E. (1911). Varia Socratica: First Series. Oxford. TEODORSSON, SVEN-TAGE (1974). The Phonemic System of the Attic Dialect 400-340 B.C. (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 32). Goteborg. (i977)- The Phonology of Ptolemaic Koine (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 36). Goteborg. (1978). The Phonology of Attic in the Hellenistic Period (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 40). Goteborg. (1987). 'Boeotian and Attic: Vowel Development Related?'. Verbum, 10: 199-209. THESLEFF, HOLGER (1966). 'Scientific and Technical Style in Early Greek Prose'. Arctos, NS 4: 89-113. THORNE, BARRIE, and HENLEY, NANCY (1975). 'Difference and Dominance: An Overview of Language, Gender, and Society', in Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, Mass., 5-42. THREATTE, LESLiE(i98o). The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, \: Phonology. Berlin and New York. (1996). The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, ii: Morphology. Berlin and New York. THUMB, ALBERT (1901). Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus: Beitrage zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der KOIV^. Strasbourg; repr. Berlin and New York, 1974. and SCHERER, ANTON (1959). Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte: Zweiter Teil (2nd edn.). Heidelberg.

3OO

References

TODD, O. J. (1932). Index Aristophaneus. Cambridge, Mass. TODD, STEPHEN C. (1990). 'Lady Chatterley's Lover and the Attic Orators: The Social Composition of the Athenian Jury'. JHS no: I46-73TRACY, STEPHEN V. (1994). '/G II 2 1195 and Agathe Tyche in Attica'. Hesperia, 63: 241-4. TRENKNER, SOPHIE (1960). Le style xa.i dans le recit attique oral. Assen. TROEMEL-PLOETZ, SENTA (1991). Review of Deborah Tannen, You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (London, 1990). Discourse & Society, 2: 489-502. TRUDGILL, PETER (1972). 'Sex, Covert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban British English of Norwich'. Language in Society, i: 179-95. (1974). 'Linguistic Change and Diffusion: Description and Explanation in Sociolinguistic Dialect Geography'. Language in Society, 3: 215-46. TSANTSANOGLOU, K. (1997). 'The First Columns of the Derveni Papyrus and their Religious Significance', in Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most (eds.), Studies on the Derveni Papyrus. Oxford, 93-128. TURASIEWICZ, ROMUALD (1986). 'Zakres znaczeniowy aardos w komedii arystofanejskiej'. Eos, 74: 205-16. UCKERMANN, WILHELM (1879). De Aristophanis Comici vocabulorum formatione. Diss. Marburg. UGOLINI, GIUSEPPE (1923). 'L'evoluzione della critica letteraria d'Aristofane'. SIFC, NS 3: 215-46, 259-91. URE, JEAN (1982). 'Introduction: Approaches to the Study of Register Range'. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 35: 5-23. USENER, HERMANN (1929). Gotternamen: Versuch einer Lehre von der religiosen Begriffsbildung (and edn.). Bonn. USHER, STEPHEN (1999). Greek Oratory: Tradition and Originality. Oxford. USSHER, R. G. (1973). Aristophanes: Ecdesiazusae (ed. with introd. and comm.). Oxford. VALDMAN, ALBERT (1977). 'L'effet de modeles culturels sur 1'elaboration du langage simplifie (Foreigner Talk)', in S. P. Corder and E. Roulet (eds.), Actes du seme collogue de linguistique appliquee de Neuchdtel, 20-22 Mai 1976: The Notions of Simplification, Interlanguages and Pidgins and their Relation to Second Language Pedagogy. Neuchatel and Geneva, 114-31. (1981). 'Sociolinguistic Aspects of Foreigner Talk', in Michael G. Clyne (ed.), Foreigner Talk (International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28). The Hague, Paris, and New York, 41-52. VAN BROCK, NADIA (1961). Recherches sur le vocabulaire medical du grec ancien: Soins et guerison (Etudes et commentaires, 41). Paris.

References

301

VAN DER EIJK, PHILIP J. (1997). 'Towards a Rhetoric of Ancient Scientific Discourse: Some Formal Characteristics of Greek Medical and Philosophical Texts (Hippocratic Corpus, Aristotle)', in Egbert J. Bakker (ed.), Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts (Mnemosyne Suppl. 171). Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 77-129. VANDER WAERDT, PAUL A. (1994). 'Socrates in the Clouds', in Paul A. Vander Waerdt (ed.), The Socratic Movement. Ithaca, NY and London, 48-86. VAN STRATEN, F. T. (1995). Hiera Kala: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 127). Leiden, New York, and Cologne. VEGETTI, MARIO (1998). 'Empedocle "medico e sofista" (Antica medicina 20)'. Elenchos, 19: 345-59. VENDRYES, J. (1944). 'L'infinitif substantive dans la langue de Lysias'. RPh, 3rd ser. 18: 113-33. VERDENIUS, W. J. (1981). 'Gorgias' Doctrine of Deception', in G. B. Kerferd (ed.), The Sophists and their Legacy: Proceedings of the Fourth International Colloquium on Ancient Philosophy (Hermes Einzelschr. 44). Wiesbaden, 116-28. VERSNEL, H. S. (1981). 'Religious Mentality in Ancient Prayer', in H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion, 2). Leiden, 1-64. VETTA, MASSIMO (1989). Aristofane: Le Donne all'assemblea (ed. with introd. and comm.; trans. Dario Del Corno). Milan. (!993)- 'La voce degli attori nel teatro antico', in Roberto Pretagostini (ed.), Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all'etd ellenistica: Scritti in onore di Bruno Gentili, ii. Rome, 703-18. VOTTERO, GUY (1998). Le dialecte beotien (~]e s.-2e s. av. J.-C.), i: L'ecologie du dialecte (Etudes anciennes, 18). Nancy and Paris. VOWLES, GUY RICHARD (1928). 'Studies in Greek Noun-Formation: Dental Terminations, V: Words in -ais and -ns'. CPh 23: 34-59. WACHTER, RUDOLF (1998). 'Griechisch xaiPe: Vorgeschichte eines Grusswortes'. MH 55: 65-75. WACKERNAGEL, JACOB (1887). 'Miszellen zur griechischen Grammatik'. KZ 28: 109-45; repr. in Jacob Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften. Gottingen, 1953, i. 591-627. (1892). 'Uber ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung'. IF i: 333-436; repr. in Jacob Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften. Gottingen, 1953, i. 1-104. (1904). 'Studien zum griechischen Perfectum'. Programm zur akademischen Preisverteilung, Gottingen, 3-24; repr. in Jacob Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften. Gottingen, 1953, ii. 1000-21.

3O2

References

WACKERNAGEL, JACOB (1912). 'Uber einige antike Anredeformen'. Programm zur akademischen Preisverteilung, Gottingen, 3-32; repr. in Jacob Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften. Gottingen, 1953, ii. 970-99. (1916). Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer (Forschungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik, 4). Gottingen. (1925). 'Griechische Miszellen'. Glotta, 14: 36-67; repr. in Jacob Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften. Gottingen, 1953, ii. 844-75. (1926). Vorlesungen Uber Syntax mil besonderer Beriicksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch: Erste Reihe (2nd edn.). Basel. (1928). Vorlesungen iiber Syntax mil besonderer Beriicksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch: Ziveite Reihe (2nd edn.). Basel. WALKER, R. JOHNSON (1894). 'Doric Futures in Aristophanes'. CR 8: 17-21. (1906). ' "Doric" Futures: Aristophanes and Plato'. CR 20: 212-13. WANKEL, HERMANN (1976). Demosthenes: Rede fur Ktesiphon iiber den Kranz (introd. and comm.). Heidelberg. WATHELET, PAUL (1974). 'Le nom de Zeus chez Homere et dans les dialectes grecs'. Minos, 15: 195-225. WATKINS, CALVERT (1967). 'An Indo-European Construction in Greek and Latin'. HSPh 71: 115-19. WEBER, PHILIPP (1884). Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtssatze, i: Von Homer bis zur attischen Prosa. Wiirzburg. (1885). Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtssatze, ii: Die attische Prosa und Schlussergebnisse. Wiirzburg. WEBSTER, JONATHAN (1988). 'The Language of Religion: A Sociolinguistic Perspective', in Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Registers of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic Features. London and New York, 85-107. WEBSTER, T. B. L. (1970). Studies in Later Greek Comedy (2nd edn.). Manchester. WEINREICH, OTTO (1912). '&eol emJKooi'. MDAI(Ath), 37: 1-68; repr. in Otto Weinreich, Ausgewahlte Schriften (ed. Giinther Wille). Amsterdam, 1969, i. 131-95. WENDEL, THILDE (1929). Die Gesprachsanrede im griechischen Epos und Drama der Blutezeit (Tubinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft, 6). Stuttgart. WERNER, JURGEN (1983). 'Nichtgriechische Sprachen im Bewusstsein der antiken Griechen', in Paul Handel and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Festschrift fur Robert Muth zum 65. Geburtstag (Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Kulturwissenschaft, 22). Innsbruck, 583-95. WERRES, J. (1936). Die Beteuerungsformeln in der attischen Komodie. Bonn. WEST, MARTIN L. (1970). 'Three Greek Baby-Words'. Glotta, 47: 184-6. (1971). Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. Oxford.

References

303

(1983). The Orphic Poems. Oxford. WHINNOM, KEITH (1977). 'Lingua Franca: Historical Problems', in Albert Valdman (ed.), Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Bloomington, Ind. and London, 295-310. WHITE, JOHN WILLIAMS (1912). The Verse of Greek Comedy. London. WiLAMOWlTZ-MoELLENDORFF, ULRICH VON (1927). Aristophanes: Lysistrate (ed. with introd. and comm.). Berlin. WILLI, ANDREAS (2001). 'The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek'. D.Phil, thesis, Oxford. (20020). 'The Language of Greek Comedy: Introduction and Bibliographical Sketch', in Andreas Willi (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy. Oxford, 1-32. (20026). 'Languages on Stage: Aristophanic Language, Cultural History, and Athenian Identity', in Andreas Willi (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy. Oxford, 111-49. - (forthcoming, 2003). 'New Language for a New Comedy: A Linguistic Approach to Aristophanes' Plutus'. PCPhS. WILSON, JOHN R. (1971). "ToA^a and the Meaning of raAas'. AJPh 92: 292-300. WITKOWSKI, STANISLAW (1915). 'Beitrage zur griechischen Syntax'. Glotta, 6: 18-25. WOLFSON, NESSA, and MANES, JOAN (1980). 'Don't "Dear" Me!', in Sally McConnell-Ginet, Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York, 79-92. WRIGHT, M. R. (1995). Empedocles: The Extant Fragments (ed. with introd., comm., concordance, and new bibliography). London and Indianapolis. WYCHERLEY, R. E. (1937). 'Aristophanes, Birds, 995-1009'. CQ 31: 22-31. ZACHER, KONRAD (1899). Kritisch-grammatische Parerga zu Aristophanes (Philologus Suppl. 7: 439-530). Leipzig. ZANETTO, GIUSEPPE (1987). Aristofane: Gli Uccelli (ed. with comm.; introd. and trans, by Dario Del Corno). Milan. ZEITLIN, FROMA I. (1981). 'Travesties of Gender and Genre in Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae', in Helene P. Foley (ed.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity. New York, 169-217. (1990). 'Playing the Other: Theater, Theatricality, and the Feminine in Greek Drama", in John J. Winkler and Froma I. Zeitlin (eds.), Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context. Princeton, 63-96. ZGUSTA, LADISLAV (1955). Die Personennamen griechischer Stddte der nordlichen Schwarzmeerkiiste: Die ethnischen Verhiiltnisse, namentlich das Verhaltnis der Skythen und Sarmaten im Lichte der Namenforschung. Prague.

304

References

ZIEBARTH, ERICH (1892). De iureiurando in iure Graeco quaestiones. Diss. Gottingen. ZIEGLER, KONRAT (1905). De precationum apud Graecos formis quaestiones selectae. Breslau. (1913). 'Zum Zeushymnus des Kallimachus'. RhM, NS 68: 336-54. ZILLIACUS, HENRIK (1946). 'Notes on the Periphrases of the Imperatives in Classical Greek'. Eranos, 44: 266-79. ZIMMERMANN, BERNHARD (1992). 'Hippokratisches in den Komodien des Aristophanes', in Juan Antonio Lopez Ferez (ed.), Tratados Hipocrdticos (Estudios acerca de su contenido, forma e influencia): Actas del Vile Colloque international hippocratique. Madrid, 513-25. ZINI, SERGIO (1938). // linguaggio dei personaggi nelle commedie di Menandro. Florence. ZUNTZ, GUNTHER (1971). Persephone: Three Essays on Religion and Thought in Magna Graecia. Oxford.

Index of Passages ACUSILAUS

fr. (FVS) 9 B i: 107 n. 35

AESCHINES i. 23: 40 n. 119 AESCHYLUS Ag. 28: 42 n. 127 160-2: 18 n. 44 244: 20 595-6: 42 n. 127 688-9: 97 n. 2 912: 106 n. 30

1427: 106 n. 33 1671: 100 n. 9

9. 2: 142 17: 87 n. 90 ANACHARSIDIS EPISTULAE

i. 2: 223 n. 82 ANAXAGORAS test. (FVS) 59 A 12: 104 n. 59 A 57: 104 n. 59 A 88: 104 n. 59 A 89: 139 n.

20 20 20 50

ANAXANDRIDES fr. (PCG) 57.4: 152 n. 82

Bum. 292—6: 48 n. 138 588: 136 n. 39 749: 136 n. 39 Prom. 488: 136 n. 39 Sept. 29: 136 n. 39 Supp. 162: 102 715: 136 n. 39 757: io6n. 33 1009: 136 n. 39 ALEXIS

fr. (PCG) 125: 258 n. 137 146:86

ANAXIMENES test. (FVS) 13 A S : 139 n. 50 ANAXIPPUS fr. (PCG) i. 36: 143 n. 59 6: 258 n. 137 ANDOCIDES Myst. 97: 39 n. 118 ANTHOLOGIA PALATINA 7. 746: 102 n. 16 9- 25: 94

164: 187 n. 125 194: 93

201: 116 n. 68 223: 116 n. 68 250: 216 n. 65 317:243 AMEIPSIAS fr. (PCG)

ANTIPHANES fr. (PCG) 4: 152 n. 82 54. 3: 152 n. 82 122. 11: 152 n. 82 158: n 6 n . 68 161.6: 187 n. 129 189. 21: 89, 91

3°6

Index of Passages

ANTIPHON SOPHISTA fr. (FVS) 87 B 1—44: 118 n. i 87 B 25: 105 n. 27 ARCHELAUS test. (FVS) 60 A?: 139 n. 50 ARCHIPPUS fr. (PCG) 27: 22 n. 57 ARISTODEMUS fr. (FGrH) 104 F i. 13. i: 106 n. 33 ARISTOMENES fr. (PCG) 9: 154 n. 91 ARISTONYMUS fr. (PCG) 4: 136 n. 41 ARISTOPHANES Ach. 15: 84 n. 80 44: 177 n. 81, 264 54-5: 206 n. 29 55: 30 n. 92, 251 60: 181 n. 98 85: 192 n. 153 89: 64 n. 36 93: 242 n. 54 95: 251, 252 101: 248 103: 94 104: 201 n. 14, 207, 207 n. 33, 223 n. 83 106: 235 n. 11 108-9:95 129: 181 n. 98

13°:255 136: 261 138: 192 n. 154 155:255 160: 192 n. 154 166: 258 n. 139 172: 33 n. 102 204: 260 n. 150 211-15: 182 n. 104 211/2: 139 n. 51 218: 182 n. 104

222: 178 n. 87 226: 256 237: 43 241:43 247-52:33 247: 16 n. 28, 20 248-9: 37 248: 29 250: 29, 33 n. 105 252: 33 n. 105 254: 252 n. 103 257: 259 n. 149 261: 26 272: 142 n. 57 276—83: 240 n. 47 277-8: 38, 40 283:250 284: 251 295: 250 n. 93 307: 182 n. 104 336: 255 341: 181 n. 98 342: 181 n. 98 343: 247 n. 73, 258 364: 264 n. 168 368: 193 n. 160 398: 90 405: 28 n. 82, 31 n. 96, 38 411: 185 n. 116 413: 185 n. 116 425: 243 426: 6, 254 n. 118 432-3: 5-6 433:254 435-6: 33 n. 106 435: 18 437-8:39 437: 29 n. 90 438: 31 n. 96 444: 177, 177 n. 79 454:255 458: 181 n. 98 462-3:255 462: 187 n. 126 467: 187 n. 126 470: 181 n. 98 475: 187 n. 126 479: 254 n. 118 480: 146 n. 68 500: 254 512: 152 522:175 540:178 n. 84

Index of Passages 563: 184 n. 114 566-71: 19 n. 50 567: 28 n. 79, 31 n. 96 568: 20, 38 570-1: 260 570: 32 n. 99 595: 263 n. 164 608: 191 n. 150 662: 73 665: 17 n. 38, 31 n. 97 671: 247 n. 73 673: 31 n. 97 675: 38 679: 73

692: 186 n. 120 693: 75 7oi:73 703: 186 n. 120 705: 75, 169 n. 48 714: 73,76, 177 n. 79 715:75 716: 169 n. 48 729-835: 253 730: 264 n. 168 743: 253 751: 2400.47 754: 247 n. 77 758-9: 21 758: 251 n. 101 805: 260 806—7: 254 n. 116 811: 93 816-17: 18,33 816: 16 n. 29 818: 251 862: 244 887: 251 904: 238-9 920-1: 182 n. 104 926: 75 930-1: 177 n. 79 938: 75

956: 190 n. 146 960: 255 985: 255 1000-1: 33 n. 102

1018: 251 1022: 249 n. 85 1035: 181 n. 100 1049: 255 1060: 265 n. 172 1089: 152 n. 79 1096: 260

1099: 258 n. 137 1101: 258 n. 137 1122: 258 n. 137 1129: 76, 249 1132-3: 251

1 135: 82 n. 74 1136-7: 251 1156: 28 n. 81 1164-8: 253 n. no 1174: 251 1182: 252 1185: 235 n. 12 1191/2: 192 n. 158, 235 n. 12, 255

1210: 192 n. 158 1212:47 1219: 84 n. 82 1231: 26 n. 77 1233/4: 26 n. 77 Av. 5—6: 260 7-8: 260 n. 152 10: 183 n. in 14: 64

31: 252 n. 104 45: 238 n. 37 46-7: 253 57-60: 12711. 13 60: 127 n. 14 73: 259 n. 141 75: 178 n. 86 76-9: 178 n. 84 95: 253 105: 137 n. 45 109: 74 127: 182 n. 104 134: 181 n. 98

147: 75 153: 264 n. 168 164: 263 n. 164 180: 259 n. 143 195:258 224: 192 n. 154 227-62: 35 238: 237 n. 31 239: 242 246/7: 235 n. 14 250: 237 n. 31 252: 36

268: 191 n. 149 269-304: 69 n. 45 285: 178 n. 86 290: 136 n. 39 291: 136 n. 39

307

3o8

ARISTOPHANES, Av. (cont.): 294: '75 299: 263 n. 164 3346: 267 346: 250 n. 93

367: 254 n. 113 368: 235 n. ii 369: 252 n. 107 425: 249 430: 138 n. 47, 192 n. 153 435: 29 n. 86 448-50: 33 n. 102 462: 256 n. 127 475: 256 n. 125 485: 64 n. 36 494-503: 261 n. 159 509:242 511:247

Index of Passages 820: 238 n. 37 822: 264 n. 168 828: 235 829: 182 n. 104 852: 132 n. 28 855-6:14 863: 42 n. 127 864-88: 21 864-75:42 n. 126

864: 16, 25 n. 71 866: 22 n. 56 868: 20, 21 n. 55, 31 n. 96 873:21 n. 54 876: 20 878-9: 46 n. 131 881-8: 22 899: 191 n. 149 903: 38, 42 n. 126

536: 262 n. 160

904-53:255 n. 120

554: 236 n. 20

905: 26, 31 n. 96

567: 235

570: 102,103 n. 17

915: 185 n. 116 921: 26, 255

579: 238 n. 35

928-30:259 n. 144

591: 238 n. 35

930: 29 n. 87 936-7: 255

608: 263 n. 164

623—4: 46 n. 131 623: 15 n. 25 652: 152 n. 82 655: 152 n. 79 665: 255 667—8: 190 n. 143 670: 190 n. 143 674: 262 n. 160 675: 29 n. 86 676: 20 677: 20, 23 679: 242 n. 53 686: 238 n. 35

939: 254 941/2: 251 n. 100 950/1: 26, 31 n. 96 952: 251 n. 99 959: 43

962: 152 n. 82

971: 259 n. 149

972: 235 n. 12 973: 255 n. 124, 259 n. 149 975: 259 n. 149 978: 235 n. 12 983: 261, 267 1000-9: 69

687: 108 691: 107 n. 35, 115 n. 63 692: ngn. 3 693-702: 103,107 693: 107, 107 n. 35, 115 n. 63 694: 107 n. 35 697: 104 n. 24, 249 n. 88 698: 115 n. 63, 235 n. 14 700:104 701: 247 n. 77

1000: 192 n. 153 1005: 181 n. 98 1017-18: 182 n. 104 1031:75

732: 139 n. 51

1049-50: 22 n. 57 1058-71: 35, 234 1066: 242 1082: 132 n. 28 1088—1101: 36

748: 264 n. 168 755: 152 n. 80 777: 247 n. 77 813-14: 179 n. 90

1035-6:22 n. 57 1040-2:22 n. 57

1040-1: 33 n. 102 1042: 192 n. 155 1046-7: 22 n. 57 1046: 74

Index of Passages 1089-90: 36 1110: 256 n. 125 1126-9: 182 n. 104 1147: 182 n. 104, 246 n. 72 1169: 252 n. 103 1193: 107 n. 35 1213-15: 173 n. 67 1214: 190 n. 146 1216: 187 n. 128 1225: 260 n. 153 1234: 263 n. 164 1239: 264 n. 170 1240: 177 n. 78

1254-5: 173 n. 67 1257: 187 n. 128 1274:255 1288: 154 n. 91 1291: 152 n. 79 1292: 256 n. 127 1301: 152 n. 79 I3U: 255 13M: 258 1337: 233 '338: 177 n. 80, 177 n. 81, 259 n. 142 13430; 252 n. 106 1355: 267

1570: 249 1580: 126 1592—3: 182 n. 104 1603:76 1615: 201 n. 14, 224 n. 86 1619:25 n. 71 1626:76 1628-9: 201 n. 14, 224 n. 86 1649: 181 n. 100 1653: 74,235

1661—6: 22 n. 57, 33 n. 102 1671: 252 n. 103 1676: 76 1678-9: 201 n. 14, 224 n. 86 1678: 207 n. 33 1689—90: 179 n. 90 1725:255

1736:42 n. 126 1745:26 1747:22n. 58 1748: 20, 235 n. 13 1763: 47 Eccl. 1-200: 196 1-18: 196 3-7:41 n. 123

1360: 187 n. 128

10: 83 n. 75

1362: 184 n. 115 1366:255

n: 254 n. 118 16: 191 n. 151 29: 264 n. 170 31: 186 n. 118 33: 192 n. 152 37: 178 n. 86 39: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 154 46: 170 n. 54 49: 170 n. 54 51: 170 n. 54 55: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 154 57: 177 n. 81, 264 58:175 61: 152 n. 79, 192 n. 155

1372-1401:255 n. 120 1401: 252 n. 104 1412: 242 n. 53 1413: 184 n. 115 1422: 75 1424: 107 n. 34 1425: 74 1426: 75 1435: 123, 254 1454—6: 177 n. 81 1455:74 1456: 250 n. 93 1457: 177". 79 1467:251 1473: 152n. 83 1485: 264 n. 168 1506: 250 n. 93 1507: 62 n. 28 1509: 177 n. 81, 264 1524: 259 n. 142 I54i: 75 1549: 177 n. 81 1553-64:113 1556: 264 n. 168

63: 192 n. 154 66: 192 n. 154

71: 184 n. 115 75: 192 n. 155 79: 28 n. 80 104: 185 n. 118

106: 252 n. 104 in: 183 n. in 112:244 113-14: 169 n. 45 114: 192 n. 156 "S: 175

3°9

3io

Index of Passages

ARISTOPHANES, Eccl. (cont.): 116: 249 n. 85 117: 177 n. 78, 178 n. 83, 259 n. 141 118: 182 n. 104 119: i83n. in, 191 n. 151 120: 169 n. 45, 187 n. 128, 191 n. 151

131: 29 n. 86 132: 259 n. 148 133: 187 n. 128

136: 181 n. 98 139: 152 n. 79 140: 191 n. 147 143: 206 n. 29

146: 186 n. 120 149: 265 155-60: 189 n. 140 159: 179 165: 189 n. 139 171-2:39 171: 17, 25 n. 71 173-240: 173 n. 68

179: 178 n. 84 181: 249 n. 88 iSg-gi: 189 n. 140 190-2:173 n. 68 197:178 n. 84 204: 173 n. 68, 189 n. 139 238: 169 n. 51, 246 n. 73 245: 185 n. 116, 187 n. 128 246: 171 n. 58 251: 64 257: 178 n. 86, 184 n. 115 265: 246 n. 73 282:176 284: 181 n. 100 285-6: 189 n. 139 286:177 n. 80 287:184 n. 115 2910:74 2926: 252 n. 103 297:177 "• 81 299: 189 n. 139 300-12: 36 311: 181 n. 98 318: 171 n. 61 325: 190 n. 146 332: 171 n. 61 350: 260 n. 153 355:132n. 28 369-71: 39 369-70: 28 369: 16 n. 28, 20, 31 n. 96

374: 171 n. 61

395: 249 n. 85 404: 256 410: 239 417:85 418-19: 33 n. 102 431-2: 254 n. 117 433: 83 n. 76 437: 189 n. 138 448: 75

45i: 75 452: 73 458: 152 n. 79

488: 265 n. 171 491: 171 n. 58 493: 186 n. 120 495: 265 n. 171 500: 171 n.58 504-10: 254 n. 117 507—8:255 n. 120 507: 250

509: 183 n. 107 514: 259 n. 147 518:181 n. 98 520-1: 168 n. 39 520:187 n. 128 551-5:168 n. 39 55i: 247 571: 106 597: 248 622: 192 n. 156 624: 265 n. 172 629: 259 n. 145 63:: 189 n. 141 643: 249 n. 88 654: 192 n. 156 669: 192 n. 156 674: 135 n. 36, 176

688: 259 n. 145 695: 186 n. 118 700-1: 252 n. 106 706: 76, 188 n. 135 709: 188 n. 135 713: 171 n. 60 716:177 n. 79 727: 170 n. 55, 171 n. 58 732:177 n. 79 746-7: 152 752: 259 n. 145 761: 28 n. 80, 263 n. 164 762:126 771-2:246 n. 73

773-6: 261 781: 46 n. 131

Index of Passages 783: 265 n. 171

788—90: 260 n. 152 800: 193 n. 160 816:76

835: 171 n. 58 836-7: 177 n. 79 838: 246 n. 73 864: 74 870: 171 n. 58 875-6: 145 n. 64 881: 177 n. 79, 259 n. 142

1099: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 154 1103: 28 n. 80 1106: 244 1107: 259 n. 149 ii n: 259 n. 149 1123: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 154 1126: 170 n. 55, 171 n. 58 1129: 42 n. 126, 187 n. 130

1131: 175, 243 n. 58 1139: I52n. 79

1146: 259 n. 149

882: 16 n. 29, 17 n. 38, 31 n. 97 891: 187 n. 130 895: 254 n. 119

1147: 152 n. 79

898: 259 n. 143 901: 254 n. 119 906: 83 n. 78 908: 188 n. 135 915/17: 25 917: 177 n. 78, 259 n. 142 934: 188 n. 136 942: 188 n. 135 957: 1320.28

Eq.

958: 16 n. 32, 31 n. 96

81: 265 n. 172 98: 257 112: 265

959: 3° 9590:31 n. 96 967: 16 n. 32, 31 n. 96 968:30 9680: 31 n. 96 970: 152 n. 79 973: 190 n. 143 976-7: 127 n. 13 977: 127 n. 16 983: 73 985: 187 n. 125 986: 73 994: 187 n. 128 997: 264 n. 170, 265 n. 171 1000: 258 1015-20: 188 n. 135 1019-20: 253 1030:253

1040:252 n. 107 1045: 28 n. 80 1046: 187 n. 126 1057: 80 1058: 169 n. 48 1062: 188 n. 135

1086: 152 n. 82 1087: 170 n. 53 1090:175 1094: 152 n. 82 1096:252 n. 107

1161: 249 n. 88 1179: 183 n. i ii T. 256

8: 192 n. 155 17-18: 182 n. 104 36: 62 n. 28, 179 n. 90 52: 179 n. go 61:85 71: 106 n. 31 75: 28n. 81

"5: 257

128: 263 n. 164 148-9: 17 n. 38, 19 n. 50 149: 31 n. 97 156: 25 n. 71 163: 242 n. 51 170: 28 n. 81 207: 238 n. 37 225—6: 152 n. 82 228: 93 230: 152 n. 79 235: 184 n. 114 255:74 259: 75

295: 169 n. 48 307: 73 352: 243 368: 73 383:85

386: 184 n. 115 391-2: 262 408: 47 n. 134 424: 244 437: 67 n. 41 442: 73, 76 456: 249 461—71: 91

311

312

Index of Passages

ARISTOPHANES, Eq. (cont.): 462-3: 68 464: 68 468: 152 484: 244 487: 252 n. 104 545: 184 n. 115 551-64: 35 551-8:36 55': 20 559: 17 "• 38, 31 n. 97 560: 20 562: 20, 23 565: 256

573: 239 n. 41 581-94: 35 581: 20 585: 20

586: 17 n. 38, 31 n. 97 591-4: 30, 38

591: 17 n. 38, 28 n. 85, 31 "• 97 616: 46 n. 132 625-82: 261 n. 159 627: 134 n. 35 631: 252 n. 103 634: 16 n. 31 636: 38 637: 31 n. 96

641: 74

662: 246 n. 72 669: 174 n. 72, 259 n. 141 671: 187 n. 128 675'- 73 681: 192 n. 154 698: 259 n. 144 700: 259 n. 144 719: 139 n. 51 725-9: 127 n. 13 728: 127 n. 14 729: 128 763-8: 32, 40, 48 763-6: 39 763-4: 17 763: 20

764: 25 n. 71 776: 91 798: 74 805: 259 n. 145 808: 76 825:74 828: 184 n. 114 844: 133 n. 31, 152 n. 79 854: 152 n. 83

855: 252 n. 103 856-7: 182 n. 104 893: 174 n. 72, 259 n. 141 909: 28 n. 85 918: 265 n. 172 920-1: 145 n. 64 926: 265 n. 172 928: 25 n. 71 935: 259 n. 142 941: 22 n. 57 969: 99 n. 6 973:235 n. 13 1039: 255 n. 124, 259 n. 149 1057: 257,259 n. 143 1073: 263 n. 164 noo: 25 n. 69 1128: 256 n. 127 1131: 245 1132: 139 n. 51 1137: 1390. 51 1150: 74,83 1151: 188 n. 136 1158: 260 1161: 259 n. 148 1165: 243 1181: 20 1182: 174 n. 72, 259 n. 141 1187: 259 n. 149 1189: 20 1191: 192 n. 153 1203: 1370.45 1213: 193 n. 160 1234: 243 1242: 247 1247: 253 1252: 243 n. 58 1266: 26 n. 77 1273: 251 n. 101 1284-6: 240 n. 46 1298: 21 n. 53 1312: 59 1316-17:43 1316: 42 n. 127, 75 1318: 47 1327: 46 n. 132 1332:76 1333: 31 n. 96 1335: I? n- 38, 31 n-97 1337:187 n. 128 1358:75 1361:75 1375-81:139 1378-81: 144 n. 63

Index of Passages 1379-80: 134

175: 152 n. 79, 176 n. 76

1381: 169 n. 48

182: 177 n. 79

1390: 190 n. 143

184: 171 n. 60

1393: 174 n. 72, 259 n. 141

191: 182 n. 104

1394-5:253 Lys. 1—200: 196 3: 182 n. 104 7: 187 n. 129 8: 190 n. 143 14: 184 n. 115 17-19: 187 n. 129 18: 255 n. 122 26-7: I52n. 79 26:152 29: 192 n. 154 38: 181 n. 98 42: 246 n. 72 47: 171 n. 61 48: 171 n. 61 56: 187 n. 128 63: 184 n. 112 65: 181 n. 98 68: 184 n. 112 70: 184 n. 114 72: 171 n. 61

202: 181 n. 98

203: 16 n. 29, 20 204: 28 n. 85, 29, 31 n. 96, 38 209: 254 n. 117 212—36: 13 n. 19 217: 20 221: 177 n. 79 222: 177 n. 79 239: 177 n. 79 240-2: 46 n. 132

252—3: 182 n. 104 262-3:250n. 93 267-9:177n. 79 268: 244 270: 76, 170 n. 54 283: 189 n. 137 292-3: 145 n. 64 301: 256 n. 125 304: 252 n. 106 315: 259 n. 147 317-18:33 n. 106,34 317: 16 n. 29, 20, 28 n. 79, 31 n. 96

74: 175

325: 188 n. 136 341-9:16 n. 33, 18

83: 190 n. 143

341: 16 n. 31, 33 n. 101 343: 27 n. 78 344/5: 20 346-9:33 n. 106 346: 28 n. 79 347: 20 355: 181 n. 101 356: 169 n. 47 358-9: 177 "• 79 361: 182 n. 104 363: 188 n. 134 371: 189 n. 137

79-80: 190 n. 143 84: 264 n. 168 88-90: 190 n. 143 89: 190 n. 144

96: 181 n. 98 101: 152 n. 82, 255 n. 122

102—3: 187 n. 129 102: 184 n. 112 104: 28 107: 181 n. 100 108: 248 n. 84, 255 n. 122 113: 182 n. 104 "4: 175 115-16: 182 n. 103, 182 n. 104

125: 180, 181 n. 98 126: 175 138: 185 n. 116 141: 182 n. 104

147-8:182 n. 104 150: 171 n. 61

155: 184 n. 112 157: 187 n. 128

164: 193 n. 160 168: 256 n. 125 172: 181 n. 98, 193 n. 160

372: i88n. 136 373-4: 178 n. 83 373: 259 n. 141 374: 259 n. 141 380: 74 384: 177 n. 78, 265 n. 171 397: 189 n. 137 416: 256 n. 125

418: 178 n. 86 419: 177 n. 79 425:177n. 79 432: 252 n. 107 433-62: 206 n. 29

313

314 ARISTOPHANES, Lys. (cont.): 439—42: 188 442: 169 n. 47 471: 187 n. 128 474: 181 n. 100 485: 244 n. 60 496—501: 145 n. 64 500-1: 145 n. 64

507-20: 168 n. 39 510-19:182 n. 106 521: 186 n. 122 526: 249 536: 259 n. 149 539-40: 177 n. 79 541/2: 182 n. 104 547: 254 n. 119 553: 85 n. 87, 175 560: 262 n. 160 567—86: 168 n. 42 567: 247 n. 73

572-3:182 n. 104 580-1:259 n. 145

603: 28 n. 85 622/3: 189 n. 137 625: 264 n. 168 627: 169 n. 47 635: 189 n. 137 689/90: 177 n. 81 698: 76 707: 181 n. 98, 190 n. 143 715:85 729—30: 152 n. 82 742: 16 n. 28, 20, 31 n. 96 743: 270.78 744: 257 n. 133 760: 193 n. 159 762: 187 n. 130 763: 254 n. 117 774: 242 n. 53 775: 242 n. 51 776: 243 777: 94

784-92:261 n. 159 815: 24 n. 65 821: 179 n. 90 826: 178n. 87 833: 16 n. 28, 20

834: 20, 31 n. 96, 42 n, 126 839: 259 n. 143, 259 n. 147 842: 193 n. 160 850: 181 n. 98 851: 181 n. 98 852: 240 n. 46

Index of Passages 853: 184 n. 115 854: 184 n. 115 864: 181 n. 98 872: 187 n. 126 878: 28 n. 82 882:255 n. 122 889: 187 n. 125 890:187 n. 125 891: 186 n. 122 895: 248 n. 81 901: 236 n. 20 902: 236 n. 20 909: 181 n.98 910:257 917-18:258 917: 189 n. 141 918: 178 n. 87 931: 171 n. 61 935: 193 n. 160 938: 179, 1790.90 948: 186 n. 122 951:76 952: 249 962: 188 n. 134 970: 219 n. 75 971: 219 n. 75 972-9: 23 972: 16 n. 28 973~9: 32 n. 100 987: 85 1003: 249 1005: 259 n. 145 1025—6:182 n. 104 1037: 169 n. 50 1038: 152 n. 79, 184 n. 115 1043-71: 36 1043-9: 189 n. 137 1045: 239 1050:260 1070: 256 n. 126 1074: 181 n. 98 1093—4: 264 n. 170 1094: 265 n. 171 1112: 184 n. 115 1118: 186 n. 120 1119: 188 n. 135 1125: 184 n. 115 1127:184 n. 115 1131:251 n. 101 1143: 237 n. 34 1144: 192 n. 154 1145-6:257 1148: 190 n. 143

Index of Passages 1157-8: 190n. 143 1159: 192 n. 156 1175: 267 1183-4: 17711. 79

1189:171 n. 61 1223-4: 17711. 79 1228: 190 n. 146

1243: 26 n. 77 1247:31 n. 96 1263-5: 30 1263: 17 n. 38, 31 n. 97 1265: 177 n. 80 1266/7: 33 n. 101 1270:33 n. 101

1271: 17 n. 38, 31 n. 97 1280: 17, 250 n. 93 1282: 29 1286: 20 1291:47 1296-1315:35 1297: 31 n. 97 1298: 26, 251 n. 101

1300: 22 n. 58 1303/4: 25, 177 n. 80 1320/1: 25 Nub. 16: 124 26: 1330. 33 27:124

30: 233,251 n. 99 33: 133 "• 33, 187 n. 128 36: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 154 57: 181 n. 98 60: 264 n. 168 75: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 154 83: 101 94: 113, 127 n. 12 95-7: 98, 116 n. 70 101: 106, 127 n. 12 103: 115 105: 108 n. 43 107: 181 n. 98 in: 180

'S3:139 155: 127 n. 12, 137 161: 107, 137 n. 43 164: 107 166: 137 167: 73, 76 175: "5

181: 127 n. 12

182: 250 n. 94 183:85

185: 249 n. 88 189: 127 n. 12 191-202: 69 192-3: 66 n. 38 192: 106, 107, 122 194:122 195: 11411. 59 205: 137 n. 42 206: 180, 181 n. 98 212-13: 66 215: 127 n. 12 219: 113-14 223: 107 225-6:66 225: 106, 114, 123 229: 106, 127 n. 12, 137 232-6: 66 233: 106, 127 n. 12 236: 106, 127 n. 12 247-8: 137, 138 248: 138 260: 138 263: 14, 28 n. 83,43 264-74: 13, 14,48, "5 264-5: 251 264: 16 n. 28, 20 265: 20, 59 266: 20, 28 n. 85, 31 n. 97, 127 n. 12 268: 260 n. 152 269: 20, 31 n. 97, 136 n. 39 272: 251 n. 101

274: 28 n. 82, 28 n. 85, 29, 31 n. 96, 38 275-90:255 n. 120

116:181 n. 98 118: 182 n. 104 128: 127 n. 12 133: 126 135-7: 126-7, 128

283: 26 n. 76, 137 n. 43

135: 127 n. 12

298—313:255 n. 120 299/300: 251 n. 99 305: 137 n. 43 306: 242 n. 51 315:59

136: 106, 127 n. 12 137: 106, 127 n. 12 140: 108 142: 127 n. 12

3"5

284: 26 n. 76 289: 28 n. 81 291: 59

297: 235 n. 13

316

ARISTOPHANES, Nub. (cont.): 317-18: 67, 134,136 320: 123 327: 85 331-4: 109, no 332: ni, 115

334:123

335: 238 n. 35 355: 185 n. 118 356-7: 40 n. 120 356: 39,40 360: 28 n. 82 361: 119 n. 3 363: us, 123 367: 258 n. 139 376: 104 377:i°4 379: 104 380-1: 101, 105 380: 101 383-94: 97 384: 138 393: 186 n. 120 394: 97

401: 235 n. 13, 238 n. 35 4°5: i°5 406:138 409: 262 n. 160 414: 127 n. 12, 141, 254 418: 186 n. 120 420: 106, 127 n. 12 422: 193 n. 160, 234 n. 7 424: 115 n.^3 425: 182 n. 104 427: 184 n. 114 429—30:33 n. 106

429: 16 n. 28, 30 n. 91 432: 252 n. 107 433: "3 447: 138 456: 127 n. 12 458: 184 n. 115 481: 124 482-4:141 483: 144 n. 63

488: 193 n. 160 493: 258 495: 74, 77

497: 133 n. 33 503: "3 505: 169 n. 48, 258 n. 139

515-16: 256 n. 125 539: 178 n. 83, 259 n. 141

Index of Passages 559: 2420. 54 562: 250 n. 91 563-74: 17, 19, 35 565: 20 567/8: 237 n. 29 569: 22 n. 58 570: 20, 23 573: 2°

595-606: 17,35 595: 20, 39 602: 20

604: 237 n. 34 616: 184 n. 113 624: 124, 262 n. 160 627: 115, 128

638-45: 66 651-3: 66 658-92:118 659-61: 66 660-6: 99 664: 263 n. 164 668: 137 n. 42 669-80: 99 677: 263 n. 164 681-92: 99 689-91: 185 690: 263 n. 164 695: 127 n. 12 696: 25 n. 69 697: 127 n. 12 700: 127 n. 12 705: 137 n. 45 709-15:261 n. 159 722: 260 n. 153 723: 127 n. 12 724: 127 n. 12 727-30: 141 727-9: 141 "• 54, 145-6, 148 729: 138, 141 n. 54 730: 137 731: 141 n. 54 735: 127 n. 12 738: 131 n. 26 739: 265 n. 172

740: 106, 127 n. 12 741: 106 743: 137 747: 137, 142, 144 758: 73 762: 106, 127 n. 12 764: 77, 134 766—8: 100 77°: 73

Index of Passages 775:255 77?:75 780: 74, 77

782: 73 790: 243 792: 123, 250 n. 93 795:152 814: 128 817: 184 n. 114 819: 260, 260 n. 152 821: 142 823: 62 n. 28 826: 151 828: 105, 128 830: 116 n. 71

840:182 n. 104 845: 73, 78 850-1: 128 850: 259 n. 149 856-9: 128

857: 127 n. 12 858: 128 859: 128 868: 108 869:238 n. 37 871: 24 n. 65 874-5: 76-7, 134, 136 874: 73 877: 193 n. 160

890: 178 n. 87 905: 256 n. 125 911: 242 931: 169 n. 48 937-8: 177 n. 79 949—58:255 n. 120 951: 106, 127 n. 12 952: 106, 127 n. 12 966: 137 n. 42 967: 137 n. 43 968: 248 974: 17711. 78 983: 124 989: 20 994: 124 999: 124

1024—33:255 n. 120 1039: 127 n. 12 1053: 169 n. 48 1056—7: 182 n. 104 1061-2: 149

1061: 151 1065-6:131 n. 26 1067: 151

1071: 151 1080: 133 n. 33, 259 n. 149 1084: 151 1095: 131 n. 25 1103: 28 n. 85 i ii i: 193 n. 160 1122: 256 1129: 192 n. 152 1143: 131 n. 25 1144: 127 n. 12 1148: 131 n. 25 1150: 131 n. 25, 138 "5i: 73 "52: 75 "57: 258 1159: 257

1165: 254 n. 118 1168: 251 1172-3: 142, 144 n. 63 1178-1200: 98 1192: 187 n. 128 1193: 76 1199: 177 n. 78, 246 n. 72 1205: 26 n. 77 1218: 75 1221:74 1222: 75 1231: i37n-42 1250: 182 n. 104 1252: 260 n. 153 1258: 142 1266: 133 n. 33 1275: 190 n. 146 1277: 75 1286: 98 1297: 75 1303:151 1313: 236 n. 23 1327: 242 n. 54 1338: 187 n. 128 1345: 127 n. 12, 259 n. 147 1357:151 1373-6: 261 n. 159

1374:186 n. 120 1379: 257 1382-5:182 n. 106 1396: 181 n. 100 1397: 259n. 147 1404: 106, 127 n. 12 1412:151 1418: 186 n. 120, 252 n. 106 1439: 186 n. 120 1440: 250 n. 93

317

3i8 ARISTOPHANES, Nub. (cont.): 1461: 1770. 79 1465: 250 n. 94 1471: 105, 133 1473: 103 1477: 250 n. 94 1478: 16 n. 31, 20, 31 n. 96 1479: 31 n. 96 1481: 31 n. 96, 73 1482: 73 1483:123 1484: 124 n. 8 1487: 127 n. 12 1494:259 n. 147 1495:263 n. 164 1496: 123, 123 n. 7 1497: 123, 126 1498: 133 n. 33 1503: 106, 123

Pax T. 192 n. 153

21: 264 n. 165 23: 252 n. 106 27: 192 n. 154 50-3: 22 n. 56 50-2: 62 n. 28 51: 22 n. 56 56: 15 n. 25 58-9: 23,39

58: i6n. 28 59: 31 n. 96 62-3: 23, 39 62: 16 n. 28, 30 63: 37 68: 182, 182 n. 104 83: 181 n. 98

87: 181 n. 98 95: 190 n. 146 96-101: 43

Index of Passages 226: 259 n. 141 251: 193 n. 159 259: 187 n. 128 271:235 291: 257 301: 260 n. 150 310: 265 n. 171 321: 182 n. 104 331: 185 n. 118 334:152n. 82 346: 34 n. 107 380: 187 n. 128 382: 24 385-99: 14, 40 385-8:39 385: i6n. 32, 20 386: 29 n. 90 388: 31 n. 96 3900: 31 n. 96 392-9: 38 392-3: 23 392: 31 n. 96 393-4: 23 395: 37 399: 20, 25 400-4: 38,39 400: 31 n. 96 402: 243 n. 58 413: 259 n. 142 416-24: 38

416: 16 n. 32, 20, 28 n. 79, 31 n. 96 417: 31 n. 96

422: 19 n. 49 430: 184 n. 115 432: 16 n. 35, 265 n. 171 433: 42 n. 126, 44 n. 128 434: 43 435-53: 32

435: i6n. 35, 25 n. 71, 38

96—7: 42 n. 127

442: 20

97: 46 n. 132 107: 73 113: 186 n. 122 121: 181 n. 100 132: 262 137: 187 n. 128 140: 235 n. 10 179-728: ign. 50 179-81: 127 n. 13 190: 93 197: 152, 246 n. 73 209: 246 n. 72 218: 235

445: 20

450: 259 n. 144 453: 45 456: 22 n. 56 483:253 523: 31 n. 96 526: 187 n. 126 532: 90 539: 191 n. 151 551-5:33 n. 102 555:47, 260 n. 150 566: 152 n. 79 582—600: 41

Index of Passages 582: 20, 29 n. 89, 31 n. 96 605-48: 261 n. 159 607: 249 n. 88

623: 1780. 86 630: 187 n. 128

634: 178 n. 86 639-47: 182 n. 1 06 662: 243 688: 264 n. 165 701: 263 n. 164 739: 186 n. 120 75i: 9i 759: 244 n. 60 761: 186 n. 120 775–81: 38

776-7: 38 777: 31 n. 96 778: 26 78i:37 785-6: 31 n. 96 785: 28 n. 82, 31 n. 96 787: 31 n. 96 79Q: 25 801: 26 n. 76 816/17: 31 n. 96 826: 255 847: 244, 263 n. 164 857: 260 n. 153 880: 256 n. 125 884: 187 n. 128 900: 264 n. 1 68 922-3: 145 n. 64 926: 240 n. 47 968: 42 n. 126 974-1016: 33, 34 974: 16 n. 28, 20, 23 975: 20 976: 20, 44 n. 128 977-8: 38 977: 28 n. 85, 31 n. 96 978: 20, 28 n. 85, 31 n. 96 979: 31 n. 96 986: 31 n. 96 987: 28 n. 85, 31 n. 96, 192 n. 153 991-2: 19 991: 31 n. 96 993: 31 n. 96 995/6: 31 n. 96 998: 31 n. 96 1000: 33 n. 105 1003: 33 n. 105 1005: 33 n. 105 1007: 33 n. 105

319

1010: 33 n. 105 ion: 33 n. 105 1012: 33 n. 105 1015:33 n. 105 1016: 16 n. 33, 20, 25 n. 71, 28, 31 n. 94, 31 n. 96, 34 n. 108, 45 1018: 245 n. 66 1037: 258 1054:253 1057-8: 152 n. 79 1061: 260 1063: 108 n. 43 1064: 235 n. 12 10760/6: 245 1098: 235 n. 14 1104: 42 n. 126, 44 n. 128 1108: 19 n. 50, 20 1119: 75 1147-8: 62 1153: 259 n. 149 1156:177 n. 81 1182: 247 1184:252 n. 103 1187: 74 1201: 238 n. 37 1204: 28 n. 85 1223: 181 n. too, 182 n. 104 1234: 73 1242-4:253 n. 110 1262: 254 n. 116 1274: 250 n. 93 1276-92: 247 n. 77 1279: 244 1286: 82 n. 74, 237 n. 31 1298: 25 1301: 242 n. 53 1305: 259 n. 147 1318-22: 43 1322-30: 16 n. 35 1322: 25 n. 71 1 334-5: 42 n- '26 1336: 42 n. 126 Pint.

13: 264 n. 167 17: 181 n. 100 27: 243 29: 247 37: 190 n. 146, 239 40: 94 49: 152 n. 82 50: 190 n. 146 53: 191 n. 147 55: 256

320

ARISTOPHANES, Plut. (cont.): 63: 28 n. 85 65: 250 n. 93 73: 2540. 114 77:152n. 79 83: 243 89: 191 n. 148 98: 248

112: 177 n. 81, 264 115: 63, 64, 85 137-8: 182 n. 104 138:239 154: 191 n. 147 160-7: 70 161: 152 n. 79 162-7: 68,124 166: 238 n. 37 182: 243 225-6: 177 n. 79 244: 181 n. 100 258: 186 n. 120 260: 191 n. 147 274: 190 n. 146 277: 252 355: 190 n. 146

356: 190 n. 146 361: 243 362: 190 n. 146 364: 190 n. 146 368-73:133 n. 30 371: 152 n. 80 372-3: 129 374: 259 n. 143 3?6: 74 402: 191 n. 150 404: 185 n. 116 413: 191 n. 150 419: 252 n. 104 424: 252 n. 103 427: 171 n. 60 429-30: 2540. 114 438: 259 n. 143 448: 249 n. 88 454: 13811. 47 471: 254 n. 114 480: 75, 77 481: 73 482: 254 n. 114 484: 254 n. 114 485—6: 182 n. 104 489: 261 499: 75 505: 246 n. 71

Index of Passages 507: 190 n. 146 509: 254 n. 114 511: 182 n. 104 513-14: 68,124 517: 252 n. 104 532: 254 n. 114 559:85 562: 254 564: 139 n. 51, 191 n. 148 565: 191 n. 148 566: 191 n. 148 571: 178 n. 87 592: 16 n. 34 593: 260 n. 152 608—9: 254 n. 114 622: 264 n. 170 626: 152 n. 79 636: 29 n. 87 653-747: 261 n. 159 658:81 n. 68 662: 186 n. 120 671: 191 n. 148 680:247 n. 73 695: 247 709: 191 n. 148 715: 1840. 115 719: 248 733-4: 254 n. 114 735-6: 254 n. 114 743: 192 n. 152, 192 n. 154 747: 243 755: 184 n. 115 771: 17 n. 36, 25 n. 71 772: 20 822: 247 833-8:261 867: 152 n. 83 870: 190 n. 146 877: 28 n. 80 891:75 917:74 932:75 933:75 939: 252 n. 106 941: 263 n. 164 963: 142 n. 57 978: 191 n. 148 981: 184 n. 115 982-6: 182 n. 106 998: 263 n. 164 1003: 184 n. 115 1009: 191 n. 147 1015:192 n. 154

Index of Passages 1018: 190 n. 143 1019: 238 n. 37 1020: 190 n. 143 1025: 184 n. 113 1039: 74 1044:252 n. 104 1060: 190 n. 146 1066: 190 n. 146 1073: 74 1097: 127 n. 13, 127 n. 14 1101: 127 1115:239 1122: 186 n. 120 1147: 28 n. 85 1152-65:18 n. 48 1153: 2380. 37 1166: 185 n. 116 1171: 264 n. 165 1175:28 n. 80 1181: 73 1182: 239 1186: 28n. 80 1189: 28 n. 80 1192: 152 n. 79 1196: 260 n. 150 1208: 186 n. 120 Ran.

i: 179 5: 93 6: 179 7: 255 11: 25 n. 69 24: 259 n. 142 34: 182 n. 104 35—6: 152 n. 82 37-9: 127 n. 13 38-9: 127 4°: 255 64: 179 7i: 93 89-90: 152 n. 82 91: 169 n. 48, 243 92: 138 n. 47 96—7: 182 n. 104 96:89 98: 89 122: 257 n. 134 127: 179 n. 90 133: 259 n. 149 134: 86 n. 88 159: 184 n. 112 167:25 n. 69 169: 259 n. 149

321

192: 64, 85 193: 250 n. 92 198: 263 n. 164 202: 258 n. 139 209-49: 234 213: 179 n. 91, 235 n. 13 217: 247n. 77 236:81 271:255 289: 18411. 1 1 2

293: 184 n. 112 298—9: 25 n. 70 301: 42 n. 126 302: 249 303-4: 238 320: 26, 184 n. 112 323-36: 36 323/4: 20 326: 31 n. 97 328:237n. 29 337-8: 19 n. 50 340/1: 31 n. 96, 237 n. 29, 257 n. 134 351/2: 31 n. 96 354-70: 42 n. 126, 44 370: 26 378:18 379: 26 383-4: 15 n. 25 384: 26 385-93: 15 n. 25, 34 3850: 16 n. 29 3856: 15 n. 25, 20, 28 n. 79, 31 n. 96 386: 18, 28, 31 n. 96 387-93:33 n- i°5 395: 17, 17 n. 38 398: 20 399: 31 n. 96 401: 31 n. 96 403-7:39 408:31 n. 96 413: 31 n. 96 416-17: 179 n. 90, 179 n. 91 433: 152 n. 82 445:237 n. 34 459: 90 464: 127 n. 13, 127 n. 14 479: 42 n. 126 482: 258 n. 137 506: 19211. 153 508—9: 258 508: 189 n. 141 509: 239 519-20: 114 n. 60

322

ARISTOPHANES, Ran. (cont.): 528:75 532: 193 n. 160 546: 178 n. 86 554: 256 559-67: 183, 261 562: 252 n. 103 572—3: 182 n. 104 574: 259 n. 143 5?8: 75, 77 581: 182 n. 104 585: 182 n. 104 589: 47 n. 135 590: 259 n. 147 5980: 184 n. 115 6030: 252n. 103,253 605-6: 254n. 113 614: 181 n. 100 652—8: 145 n. 64 671: 178 n. 86 674-5: 38 674: 31 n. 97 675: 31 n. 97, 235 n. 13 680: 238 n. 35 683: 26 n. 76 695: 184 n. 113, 184 n. 115 697:186 n. 120 708: 184 n. 115 715: 142 n. 57 720: 137 721: 152 n. 79 722: 137 737: 250 n. 91 738: 28 n. 80 741: 260 n. 152 745: 25 n. 69 746: 24 n. 65 751: 191 n. 151 752: 191 n. 151 761: 152 n. 79 766: 259 n. 142 778: 264 n. 168 785: 88 797:257 799—801: 91 799: 91 800: 91 804: 252 n. 103 818-25: 91 819: 90 827: 91, 237 n. 32 828: 93, 123 n. 7 834: 134n. 35

Index of Passages 837: 59, 89 840: 170 n. 56 843: 184 n. 114 851: 21 n. 53 854: 90 862: 92 867: 88 872: 177 n. 79 873: 88 874: 26 n. 77 875: i6n. 28 876: 28 n. 81, 93 879: 28 n. 81, 31 n. 97 882/3: 88 886-7:33 n. 106 886: 16 n. 29, 38 892-4:33 n. 106 892: 16 n. 29, 38 8966: 89 898:237 n. 32 8990:184 n. 115 8996: 184 n. 115 900: 186 n. 120 goia: 93 904: 89 906: 93 910: 92 911-20: 182 n. 106 911: 191 n. 149 917: 169 n. 48 921: 251 n. 97 927: 94, 239 930: 184 n. 113, 184 n. 115 939-44: 57 n. 14 940:64 941: 64, 93,94 942: 64, 90 943: 64,155n. 92 947:252 n. 106 950: 182 n. 106 953: 9° 954: 191 n. 151 956: 89 967: 93 986: 181 n. 98 992: 237 n. 32 996: 74 1004: 59,94 1009: 139 n. 51 1020: 59, 89 1023: 133 n. 31 1038: 248 1047: 250n. 93

Index of Passages io6o: 186 n. 120 1069: 169 n. 48 1104: 89 1 1 06: 250 n. 93 1108: 93 i no: 265 1111:93

1113: 246 n. 73 1114: 88 1116: 92, 246 n. 73 1 1 19—1246: 65 1 1 19: 65, 92 1120: 65 1121: 93, 265 n. 171

1122: 62 1142: 254 1172: 237 n. 32 1178: 92 1181: 139 1 190: 248 n. 84 1192-5: 261 n. 159 1200-47: 92 1221: 249 1239: 58, 192 n. 153 1247: 84 1255: 62 1261: 62 1262: 62 1263: 76 1264-77: 233 1280: 85 1281-2: 62 1281: 92, 259 n. 145 1282: 133 n. 31 1297: 62 1306: 17 n. 38 1307: 26 n. 77, 62 1314: 237 n. 32 1318: 251 n. 101 1326: 62 1331-63:233 13390: 254 n. 118 1340: 177 n. 81

1349: 237 n. 32 1351: 177 n. 78 1353: 235 n. '2 1359: 320.99

1362: 31 n. 96 1363: 177 n. 79 1364-1413: 58 1367:58 '37°: 93 1379: 58

1381:58 1387:58 1388:58 1396: 152 n. 80 1399: 244 n. 60 1401: 259 n. 148

1403: 251 n. 101 1407: 58 1409: 155 n. 92 1410: 58 1418: 191 n. 147 1419: 259 n. 141 1423: 81 n. 70

1424: 263 n. 164 1433: 28 n. 80 H34: 94 H4S: 94 1448: 245 n. 69 1450: 182 n. 104 1462: 42 n. 126 1467: 259 n. 148 1478: 97 n. 2 1485: 250 n. 91 1492: 169 n. 48 1496: 94 1527: 26 1529: i6n. 32, 31 n. 96

1531: 41 n. 124 1532: 32 n. 99

Thesm. 32-3: 248 34: 260 n. 153 39-50: 45 n. 130 39-48: 43 39-40: 42 n. 127 39: 242 n. 51

41: 254 n. 118 44: 26 n. 76 52-7: 91 52: 71 n. 51

54-7: 68 54-6: 124 75: 152 n. 79 77: 152 n. 82 84: 245 n. 66 101-29: 17 n. 40, 233, 255 n. 120 101: 234 102: 237 n. 34 107: 26, 31 n. 96 108: 235 n. 12 no: 251 n. 101 n i: 29 n. 89, 31 n. 96, 235 n. 12 115: 26, 234

323

324

Index of Passages

ARISTOPHANES, Thesm. (cont.): 116: 20, 26 118: 26 122: 137 n. 44 123: 20 125:237 126: 235 n. 12, 251 n. 101, 255 n. 124 128: 20, 25 129: 29 n. 89, 31 n. 96 138: 191 n. 151 143: 171 n. 61 147: 136 n. 39 154: 236 n. 20 155:192 n. 156 IS?: 259 n. 149 183:254 188:73 192: 172 n. 63

196: 182 n. 104, 254 203: 175, 252 n. 107 236: 132 n. 28 243:126 267—8: 172 n. 63 267: 191 n. 151 273: 252 n. 107 282: 16 n. 31, 23 n. 61, 28 n. 85 283: 29

285:177 n. 78 286-91:33 n. 105 286: 16 n. 29, 20 287-8: 38 289: 181 n. 98 291: 181 n. 98 292: 171 n. 59 29S-37i:39,196 295-311: 22, 39 295: 44, 196 296: 16, 25 n. 71 305: 29 307-8:170 310-1i: 46 311: 29 n. 90, 32 n. 99 312-30: 22 312: 47 n. 135 313: 24

331-51: 22, 22 n. 57, 39 331-4: 42 n. 126, 171 331: 16, 16 n. 35, 25 n. 71 335-6: 170 n. 57 346: 170 n. 57 350-1: 46 350: 24, 25 n. 71 35i: 25 n. 71 352: i6n. 35, 28, 47 n. 135 353:28 368-71:46

368-9: i6n. 33 369: 28,33 n. 101 370-470: 196

370: 28 n. 79 371: 178 n. 87 372-3: 170 n. 57 372: 196 383: 261 385: 193 n. 159 387:170 n. 56 393: 169 n. 45, 169 n. 47, 169 n. 51 394: 190 n. 146 397: 247 n. 73

405: 178 n. 84 407-8: 178 n. 84 426: 175 429: 175, 191 n. 150 430: 191 n. 150 431: 265 n. 171 432: 171 n. 59 440-1: 182 n. 103, 182 n. 104 444: 74

452: 186 n. 118 456: 178 n. 86 462: 184 n. 115

463-4: 184 n. 115 463: 137 n. 45

466-519: 173 n. 68 476-89:261 n. 159 483-5 : 169 n. 51 484:84 n. 83 490: 185, 185 n. 118 496: 185 n. 118

319: 17 n. 38, 31 n. 97 320: 20, 22 n. 58 322: 20 325: 235 n. 14 338: 33 n. 101

502—16: 169 n. 51 509: 82 n. 71, 257 n. 133 519: 252 n. 106 526: 182 n. 104 532: 175 535:188 n. 136 553: i?9 n. 90 555:181 n. 101

329: 28, 33 n. 101

556: 185 n. 118

314: 29 n. go

315: 16 n. 29, 22 n. 58

Index of Passages 570: 249 n. go

921: 185 n. 116

573: 191 n. 148

938: 178 n. 87 944: 259 n. 141 948:59 961: 26

582: 186 n. 120 585: 259 n. 142 586: 191 n. 147 588: 259 n. 142

594: 189 n. 140 601-2: 177 n. 81 605: I7on. 54 615: 187 n. 128 616: 85 619: 170 n. 54, 263 n. 164 627: 181 n. 98 634: 187 n. 130 636: 190 n. 146 641: 80 646: 250 649: 251 n. 97 653: 265,265 n. 171

657: 235 n. 10 658: 192 n. 152 674-6: 253

695:255 n. 120 706: 132 n. 28 710: 184 n. 115 714: 25 n. 71 715: 182 n. 103

717: 169 n. 47 722: 186 n. 120 727: 126 735: 243 779: 28n. 85 793: 252 n. 104 801: 264 n. 165 810: 25 n. 71 813:'75 816-17: 243 n. 58 830: 182 n. 104 839: 186 n. 120 843-5: 98 n. 5 851: 192 n. 156 852: 175 853: 191 n. 148 859: 184 n. 115 860: i88n. 136 863: 77 870: 260 n. 151 872: 259 n. 143 874: 254 n. 118 878: 251 n. 97 880: 252 n. 104 898: 170 n. 54 919: 254

325

962-5: 189 n. 137 970: 26 971: 20 972: 29 n. 89, 31 n. 96

973: 28 n. 84, 31 n. 94, 31 n. 96 974: 26, 186 n. 120 977: 24 978: 20 979: 29

981: 29 n. 90 982: 29, 29 n. 90 987: 31 n. 96 988: 237 n. 29 989: 20, 26 999: 237 n. 29 1001: 218 n. 70 1002: 205 n. 25, 215 n. 59, 218 1005: 208, 218 n. 73

1006: 208 n. 36, 216 1007: 208 n. 40, 209, 214 n. 58, 216, 217, 218 n. 71 1009:28 n. 80 1013: 192 n. 156 1031: 74 1034-5: 47 1034:237 n. 34 1038: 192 n. 158 1040: 24 1044: 235 n. 14 1045—6:251 n. 99 1046: 264 n. 168 1052: 237 n. 32 1055: 251 n. 101 1082:219 1083: 191 n. 151, 204 n. 24 1084: 209, 211 n. 49, 216 1085: 208 n. 38, 214 n. 58 1086: 202, 215, 216, 218 n. 70 1087: 191 n. 151 1088: 218 n. 72 1089: 209, 210 1092: 204 n. 21, 214, 215, 218 1093:217 1095:219 1096: 207 1097: 215 n. 60 1101-3:219 1102-3:2:0

326

Index of Passages

ARISTOPHANES, Thesm.(cont.): 1102: 209 n. 42, 210 1103: 215 1104: 214 1106: 264 n. 168 1108-9: 191 n. 151 1108: 205 n. 25, 215 n. 59, 218 1109: 216 n. 66, 217, 218 I in: 208 n. 37, 215, 218, 220

1112: 215 n. 61 1114: 205 n. 25, 208 n. 38, 215 n. 59, 220 1119: 152 n. 79, 217, 218, 218 n. 70 1120: 216, 216 n. 65, 217 1122: 235 n. 10 1123-4:215 n. 59,217 1123: 215, 217, 218, 219 1124: 215, 218 n. 70,219 1125: 211 n. 49 1126: 216, 218 n. 70

1127: 216,218, 218 n. 70 1128: 249 1133: 181 n. 98, 208 n. 40, 215, 215 n. S9,2i8 1134: 187 n. 130 1135: 205 n. 25, 211 n. 51, 215 n. 61, 217, 218, 220 "36-59: 17, 35 1137: 17 n. 38, 17 n. 39 1143: 28 n. 85, 31 n. 97, 35 1144: 186 n. 120 1145: 17 n. 39 1146:33 n. 101 1148: 29, 31 n. 97, 242 n. 51 1149: 20 1155: 24, 31 n. 97 1156: 22 n. 58 "57-9: 38 1157: 28 1158: 31 n. 97 1159: 17 n. 38, 25 1175: 187 n. 130 1176: 208, 216, 218 n. 1179: 210 n. 45, 218 n. 73 1180: 208 n. 40, 218, 219 1183: 219 1184: 215 n. 59, 217, 219 1185-93:211 1185: 190 n. 143, 205, 208 n. 37, 215 61, 219 1187: 190 n. 143, 205 n. 25, 208 n. 38, 215 n. 59, 217, 218, 218 n. 70, 236 n. 20 1188: 215, 219, 219 n. 74

1192: 187 n. 126, 208 n. 40, 209, 21 215, 218,218 n. 70, 219 n. 75 1193: 216 n. 65, 217 n. 69 1194: 219 1195: 211 n. 48, 215 n. 59, 218 n. 73 1196: 217, 219 1197: 208 n. 38, 218 n. 70, 219 1198: 187 n. 129, 204 n. 24 1199: 215, 218 1200: 215,218 1201: 214 n. 58, 218 n. 73 1210—11: 208 n. 37 1210:216 izi i: 18411. 115 1212: 202, 215, 216, 218 n. 70 1213: 184 n. 114, 208 n. 37 1214: 204 n. 21, 209, 215, 218, 219 1215: 205, 209, 218, 219 1218: 217, 218,219 1220: 208 n. 37, 215, 218 1222: 218, 218 n. 70, 218 n. 71 1225: 216, 218 n. 71 1229-31: i6n. 34, 33 1230-1: 38 1231:29 n. 90 Vesp. 29:192 n. 154 37: 257 n. 134 48: 263 n. 164 59: 250 70: 259 n. 141 71-88: 67 72: 239 n. 41 77:67 88:74 91: 181 n. 100 92: 181 n. 100 93:75 94: ?6 99: 74 102: 75 106: 75 109: 76 no: 259 n. 142 113: 177 n. 81, 265 120: 74 124: 74 127: 152 n. 79 133-5: 253 138: 250, 250 n. 92 141: 265 147:235 n. 10 151: 238 n. 37

Index of Passages 155: 265 157: 73, 249 160: 73 162: 264 n. 170 167: 75 171-2: 182 n. 104 178: 177, 177 n. 79 186: 184 n. 1 14 189: 75 195: 74, 82 n. 71 206: 74 213: 181 n. 100 222: 250 244: 249 2756: 183 n. i ii 2770: 85 304-5: 74, 77 313: 259 n. 141 321-2:74 323: 16 n. 31 324: 31 n. 96 327-8: 39

327: 20, 29, 30, 31 n. 96 329: 31 n. 96

331: 31 n. 96 332: 31 n. 96 333:76 349: 75, 76 352: 252

368: i6n. 34, 33, 39 372: 265 386: 73, 259 n. 149 389-90: 37 389: 16 n. 28, 20, 29 n. go 390: 76 393-4: 37, 38, 39, 4° 393: 28, 31 n. 96 422: 260 n. 150 425: 177 n. 81 429: 26 n. 74 433: 254 n. 117 437: 250 n. 93 438: 16 n. 28, 20 439-40: 28 439: 30, 39 455: 252 n. 103 472: 259 n. 143 482: 75 489: 74 508-9: 182 n. 104 510-11: 182 n. 104 527/8: 265 n. 171 541: 181 n. 100

544/5: 73 550: 243 n. 58 552: 73 558: 73, 247 562: 73 570: 238 n. 35 57i:73,74

574: 248 n. 84 577: 181 n. 98 578: 73 579: 73, 76 583: 74 584: 73 587: 73 588: 26 n. 74 589: 73, 74

59I: 76 605-12: 261 n. 159 614: 24 615: 235 n. 13 635: 247 643: 252 n. 103 645: 73

650: 252 n. 106 652: 16 n. 31 656: 76 675: 76 678: 238 n. 35 691: 75 693: 76 695: 75

701: 181 n. 100 711: 251 n. 101 717: 248 n. 84 718:76

724: 75 726: 250 n. 91, 259 n. 148 735: 28 n. 85 753: 233 754: 73,79 755: 74 756: 76 764-5: 29 n. 90

769: 74, 76 772: 74 775: 74 778: 73 782: 75 784: 250 n. 93

797: 184 n. 115 810: 80,85 816:73 824-6: 78

327

328

Index of Passages

ARISTOPHANES, Vesp. (cont.): 825: 74 826: 73

949: 73 962: 75 975-6: 254 n. 117

830: 73, 74 834: 67

985: 73 987: 76 988: 73 992: 73 994: 73 997: 73 1000: 73, 76 looi—2: 39, 41 1001: 16 n. 31, 20, 31 n. 96 1028: 259 n. 141

835: 260, 260 n. 152 837: 238 n. 37 840: 73, 74

842: 73, 74 847:73,75, 252 n. 103 848: 73, 75 851: 74 853:74 854: 74 857: 75 858:75 862: 42 n. 126, 177 n. 79 868: 43, 192 n. 156 869: 16 n. 28, 29

870-3: 33 "• I04 872: 33 n. 102 874: 45 875-84: 33, 34 875-6: 20

875: 16 n. 28, 20 876: 28 n. 85, 31 n. 96 877: 31 n. 96 879—84:33 n. 102 879: 27 n. 78 880: 73,76 891: 74 893:73, 76 894: 73 897: 75 898: 73 899: 76

900: 251 n. 97, 252 n. 103 902: 73 905: 74 907: 73, 261 922: 73, 78 923: 243 927-8: 182 n. 104 932: 74

935: 74 936: 75 937: 33 n. 102, 75 94i: 249 942: 258 943: 76 944: 73 947: 76 948: 80

1041: 73,75,77 1042: 75 1045:83 n. 76 1055: 137 n. 45 1059: 139 n. 51 1068/9: 252 n. 107 1079: 126 1081: 237 n. 34 1105: 243

1107: 249 n. 85 1108: 73 1114: 247 n. 73 1118: 257 1119: 80 1132: 140 1135: 169 n. 48 1137: 64 n. 36, 95

1142: 249 n. 88 1149: 95, 252 n. 107 1155: 245 n. 66 1158: 140 1162: 140 1187: 235

1194: 81 n. 67 1197-1200: 140 1199-1200: 141 1199: 139 n. 51, 140 1204: 140 1207: 73, 76 1208: 140 1212: 140 1216: 33 n. 102, 259 n. 149 1225: 28 n. 85 1244: 140 1254: 126 1259: 140 1270: 264 n. 168 1275: 26 n. 74 1276: 140 1280: 140

Index of Passages 1290: 250 n. 93 1317: 190 n. 144 1334:75 1335:74 1339: 74 134°: 74 1351: 1840. 115 1388: 181 n. 98 1397: 242 1400: 187 n. 128

1406: 75, 77 1408: 75, 77 1413: 75, 249 n. 88 1416: 74,75

Hi?: 75

1418: 74 1436: 75 1437: 74 H39: 75 1441: 74 H45: 74, 75 1490: 100 n. 9 1491: 250, 257 1495: 80, 82 1502: 243 1503: 89 1526/7: 177 n. 78 fr. (PCG) 9: 185 n. 116 22: 256 26: 242 n. 54 62: 17 n. 42 74: 152 n. 82 101: 73 in: 33 n. 101, 34 n. 107 128: 253

128. 2: 86 n. 88 132: 64, 85 191: 191 n. 150 194: 191 n. 150 205. 9: 75 207: 253 215: 152 216: 74 233: 64, 7i,72

245: 142 n. 57 256: 75 270: 243

279: 1 14 n. 60 289: 73 318: 242 n. 54 322:85

332. 15: 246 n. 71

346: 65, 84 n. 79 37i:85 380: 82 n. 71 383: 256 392: 169 n. 48 395: 258 424: 75

429: 251 n. 101 452: 73 466. 5: 216 n. 65 504. 14: 42 n. 126 505: 26 n. 77 506: 119 n. 3, 155, 191 n. 150

581. 6: 256 598: 74 602: 187 n. 129 615: 249 663: 249 n. 88 664: 252 684: 243 686: 138 n. 47

691: 106 n. 32 701: 256 705: 16 n. 31 706: 160, 165 712: 242 n. 54 883: 199 n. 3 920: 243

942: 114 n. 60 test. (PCG) i: i 65: 232 n. 2 69: 232 n. 2 87: 232 n. 2 Schol. Ar. Ach. 104: 223 n. 83 Ar. Plut. 1 15: 64 ARISTOTELES Ath.Pol. 16. 10: 39 n. 118 Gael. 295°3i— 2: 104 n. 22

HA 538bi2-is: 172 n. 63 Mu. 4Oiai7: 101 Phys. 2i3b24: 107 n. 38 Poet. I452bi9-2o: 65 n. 37 I456b'5-i8: 31 n- 93 i458"8-i7: 99

329

33° ARISTOTELES, Poet, (cont.): 1458*21: 59 !458b3i-4: 257 n. 131 Rhet. i39i"27-8:94 I4o4b8: 59 i407b6-8: 99 n. 7 i4ii b 22-3:93 Soph. el. i73 b '7-22: 99n. 8 fr. (Rose) 70: 107 n. 36 192: 115 n. 65 201: 107 n. 38 347: 100 n. 9 ATHENAEUS 14. 62od: in n. 50 ATHENAGORAS Suppl. 4. i: 116 n. 72 CALLIMACHUS Ait. (Pfeiffer) fr. i. 11: 94 fr. i. 24: 94 Ep. 27- 3^ 94 CICERO de oral. 3. 45: 165 n. 27 de rep. 2. 7: 159 n. 9 CRATES

fr. (PCG) 43: 142 n. 57 46: 86 CRATINUS

fr. (PCG) 2: 107 n. 34 72: 1711. 42 92: 62 n. 28 112: 247 118: 27 n. 78 167: 116 n. 70 183: 246 n. 70 279: 100 n. 9 4Si: 243 475: 171 n. 59

Index of Passages CYRILLUS in lulian. 10, p. 342 (Migne, PG 76. 1028): 102 n. 16 DEMETRIUS Eloc. 36: 93 96: 223 n. 80 190-235: 93 191-203: 94 216:223 n. 80 DEMOCRITUS

fr. (FVS)

68 B 5. i: 103 n. 20 68 B 21:91 68 B 76: 109 n. 44 68 B 164: 103 n. 19 68 B 167: 103 n. 19 test. (FVS) 68 A i: 103 n. 20 68 A 69: 103 n. 20 68 A 83: 103 n. 20

DEMOSTHENES 18. i: 170. 36 19. 70: 40 n. 119 23. 97: 40 n. 119 33. 22: 77 n. 58 59. 110-11: 168 n. 39

DGE 84. n: 29 n. 87

DlNARCHUS 2. 14: 40 n. 119 2. 16: 40 n. 119 Dio CHRYSOSTOMUS 52- 4: 59 DIOGENES APOLLONIATES

fr. (FVS) 6485: 135 n. 38 64 B 6: 64 n. 36 test. (FVS) 64 A 30: 139 n. 50 DIOGENES LAERTIUS 8. 44: 114 n. 59 8. 46: 114 n. 59 8. 52: 111 n. 49

Index of Passages 8. 54-6: 112 n. 54 8. 57: 107 n. 36 8. 60: 113 n. 57 8. 63: in n. 50 8. 66: in n. 49 8. 71-2: in n. 49

DIOGENIANUS GRAMMATICUS fr. (Leutsch-Schneidewin) 6. 24: 224 n. 85 DIONYSIUS HALICARNASSENSIS Dem. 13: 59 38:93 Thuc. 10: 58 23: 59 DlPHILUS

fr. (PCG) 29: 35 n. 112 EcPHANTIDES

fr. (PCG) 4: 29 n. 89 EMPEDOCLES

fr. (FVS) 31 62: 106 n. 32 3183: 108 n. 40

31 B8: 135 n. 38 31 B 11: 106 n. 32, 109 n. 44 31 B 23: 108 n. 41 31 B 27: 105 n. 28 31 B 28: 105 n. 28 31 B 29: 105 n. 28 31 B 31: 105 n. 28 31 B 35: 104 n. 22 31 B 52: 107 n. 37 31 B 102: 107 n. 38 31 B no: 106 n. 32, 112 n. 53 31 B in: 107 n. 37, 107 n. 38, 112, 112 n- 53 31 B 112: 108 n. 41, in n. 49 31 B 113: 108 n. 41 31 B 115: 101 n. 10, 104, 105 n. 26, 112 n. 53 31 B 31 B 31 B 31 B

116: 117: 129: 131:

105 n. 26 i i 2 n . 53 112 n. 54 106 n. 30, 108 n. 40

31 B 134: io6n. 30 31 B 136-9: H 2 n . 53 31 B 136: 104 n. 25 31 B 137: 104 n. 25, 109 n. 44 31 B 139: 104 n. 25 31 B 146: 108 n. 41, 109 P. Strasb.gr. Inv. 1665-1666 a(ii) 4: 104 n. 22 a(ii) 19: 104 n. 22 d 2: 105 n. 26 d 8: 105 n. 28 test. (FVS) 31 A i: 113 n. 57 31 A 32: 105 n. 26 31 A 38: 105 n. 26 31 A 41: 105 n. 28 31 A 45: 105 n. 26 31 A 48: 105 n. 26 31 A 49: 105 n. 26 31 A 52: 105 n. 28 ETYMOLOGICUM MAGNUM 774. 41-6: 172 EUPOLIS fr. (PCG) 4: 181 n. 100 99. 20: 181 n. 100 116: 169 n. 48 248: 175 327:154 384. 8: 138 n. 47 386: 133 n. 33 401: 22 n. 57 EURIPIDES Ale. 245: 104 n, 23 1004-5: 21 n. 51 El. 945-6: i88n. 134 Hipp. 88: 21 n. 51 436: 106 n. 30 Phoen. 198-201: 169 n. 45 Tro. 654-5: i68n. 39 fr. (Nauck) 582: 245 n. 69 885: 170 n. 56 912. 2-3: 18 n. 44

33"

332 EUSTATHIUS

1387. 26 (ad Od. i. 27 ff.): 103 n. 18 GORGIAS

fr. (FVS) 82 E n a ( = Pal.): 133 n. 32 test. (FVS) 82 A 2: in n. 49, 119 n. 2 82 A 3: i i i n. 49 82 A 4: 119 n. 2 82 A 10: in n. 49 82 A 14: i i i n. 49

Index of Passages fr. (Merkelbach-West) 343- 8: 175 HIPPIAS fr. (FVS) 8663: n8n. i HIPPOCRATES Aph. 3. 12 (iv. 490 Littre): 63 Coac. 218-19 (v. 632 Littre): 63 Epid. 3. 7 (iii. 84 Littre): 63, 84

HERACLITUS fr. (FVS) 22855: 135 n. 38 22 B 79: IOQ n. 44 test. (FVS) 22 A 8: 101 n. 10

Int.

HERMIPPUS fr. (PCG) 89: 13411. 34

20. i (i. 620 Littre): I n n. 48

i. 32 (vii. 168 Littre): 100 n. 9 Morb. i. 3 (vi. 144 Littre): 64 Prog. 25 (ii. 190 Littre): 66 n. 40

VM

HERODAS 3. 54: 1070. 34 4. 82: 47 n. 133 4. 85: 47 n. 133 6. 73: 107 n. 34 7. 78: 107 n. 34 HERODIANUS GRAMMATICUS 2. 675. 3 Lentz: 103 n. 18 2. 911. 7—9 Lentz: 102 HERODOTUS 2. 81: 103 n. 17 3. 102. 2: 135 n. 36 4. 15. i: 77 n. 58 4. 36: 114 n. 62 4. 46: 223 n. 82 4. 127. 4: 223 n. 80 7. 237. 3: 29 n. 87

HESIODUS

HlPPOLYTUS

Ref. Haer. 7. 29. 22: 104 n. 25 HIPPON test. (FVS) 38 A 2: 116 n. 70 HOMERUS //. 1. 1-2: 99 2. 272: 131 n. 26 3. 50-1: 138 n. 47 4. 90: 242 n. 51 5- 305-7: 82 n. 72

Od. i. 27 ff. : 103 n. 18 14. 406: 24 19. 406-9: 97 n. 2 Schol. //. 5. 118: 18 n. 43

Sc.

HYMNI HOMERICI 7. i: 171.42 19. i: 17 n. 42 22. i: 17 n. 42

144: 146 n. 70 161: 146 n. 70

IAMBLICHUS

Op. 77-9: 169 n. 51

Th.

VP

310: 146 n. 70

83: 148 n. 74

Index of Passages 91: 114 n. 62 135-6: 114 n. 62

MARCUS AURELIUS

IDAEUS test. (FVS) 63 A i: 139 n. 50

MENANDER Asp. 431-64: 71, 86 445-6: 64, 71

/Gi- 1 48*". 5: 135 n. 36 350. 82: 219 597: 143 n. 61

446: 68 450: 60 464: 87 n. 91 Epitr. 555-6: 34 n. 107 Kol. fr. i. 7: 46 n. 131 Sam. 256: 114 n. 60 258: 114 n. 60 296: 219 481: 138 n. 47 fr. (PCG) 351: 143 n. 59 491:238 n. 38 563: 138 n. 47

IOHANNES CHRYSOSTOMUS in epist. ad Titunt cap. i, Horn. 3 (Migne, PG 62. 676): 102 n. 16 ION CHIUS fr. (FVS) 36 B 4: 102 n. 15 I SOCRATES

5- ?: 21

3.9: I37n.44

4- !57: 39 n- 118, 40 n. 119 5. 3: 142 n. 57 8. 109: 142 n. 56 12. i: 134 n. 35

LESBONAX GRAMMATICUS fr. (Blank) 5: 152 n. 81 LEUCIPPUS test. (FVS) 67 A i: 103 n. 20 67 A 24: 103 n. 20 LONGINUS

22. 3: 59 LUCIANUS

Lex. 9: 107 n. 34

LYCURGUS i. i: i ? n . 36 LYSIAS 10. 15-20: 72 n. 55 13- 33: 9i 14. 41—2: 133 n. 30

MENANDER RHETOR 440. 13-15:18 n. 44 MESOMEDES Sol. 1-4:45 n. 130 METRODORUS CHIUS test. (FVS) 70 A 15: 139 n. 50 NEANTHES fr. (FGrH) 84 F 26: 112 n. 54 NlCOPHON

fr. (PCG) 10: 154 n. 9: NlCOSTRATUS COMICUS

fr. (PCG) 29:58

'ORPHEUS' fr. (FVS) i B 13: 107 n. 35 PAPYRI OXYRHYNCHICI 3840: 205,211,215 n. 61

333

334

Index of Passages

PARMENIDES PAPYRI OXYRHYNCHICI 28 B i: 101 n. 10 2887: 135 n. 38 28 B 8: 101 n. 10, 105 n. 26 28 B 10: 101 n. 10, 105 n. 26 PHERECRATES fr. (PCG) 70: 171 n. 60 84: 91 152. 9: 248 269: 171 n. 58 PHERECYDES fr. (FVS) 7 8 2 : 102 n. 12 789: 102 n. 12 test. (FVS) 7 A 9: 102 n. 12 PHILIPPIDES fr. (PCG) 5. 4: i88n. 134 PHILOLAUS

fr. (FVS)

448 10: 135 n. 38 44 B n: 143, 144 "• 63 44 B 13: 135 n. 38

PHILOSTRATUS

VS 2. 13: 203 n. 19

PHOTIUS Bibl. 158 (p. ioi b 4 Bekker): 232 n. 2 Lexicon s.v, dyTJAai: 25 n. 73 s.v.
fr. 6a: 25 n. 73 PHRYNICHUS COMICUS

fr. (PCG) 72: 28 n. 83 PlNDARUS Ol.

I. 29:91

2. 6: 146 n. 70 12. 14: 100 n. 9 Pyth. 3. 113-14: 9i 4. 116: 91 fr. (Snell-Maehler) 893: 26 n. 77 157: 108 182: 106 n. 30

PLATO Ale. I I2ob: 171 n. 62 Apol.

i j d : 223 n. 81 igc: 114, 125 n. 10

Ax. 3723: 106 n. 33 Crat. 39&a-b: 102 40ob: 97 n. 2 4006: 18 405b: 97 n. 2 4i8b-d: 161-2 Def. 4123: 142 n. 56 4i5b: 14 n. 20 Euthd. 2g6d: 21 n. 53 Euthphr. 140: 14 n. 20 Leg. 7oob: 14 n. 22 8oia: 14 n. 20 9593: 58 Men. 99d: 171 n. 62 Phd. n8a: 100

Phdr. 2373: 250 248d-e: 143 n. 59, 144 n. 63 2666-2670: 87 n. 93 Phlb. I2c: 18 n. 44 Prot. 3i4d: 114 n. 60 32id: 135 n. 36 3410: 119 n. 2 34&d-e: 119 n. 2 Rep. 399b: 142 n. 57 6070: 106 n. 32

Index of Passages Soph. 2SQe: 77 n. 58 Symp. ziod: 137 n. 44 Tht. 1500: 89 1506: 127 n. 12 I5ie: 89 Schol.

PI. Tht. 1780: 186 n. 124, 187 n. 127

PLATO COMICUS fr. (PCG) 37: 86n. 88 188. 17:830.75 PLUTARCHUS Mor. 1420—d: 168 n. 39 8o3f: 17 n. 36 8s3c-d: 4n. 4, 172

PMG 697: 17 n. 42 791. 150-61: 201 n. 14 854: 21

PYTHAGORAS test. (FVS) 14 A 7: 115 n. 65 14 A 19: 115 n. 64

PYTHAGORICI fr. (FVS) 58 B 30: 107 n. 38 58 B 37: 101 n. 10 QUINTILIANUS 10. i. 65—6: 232 n. 2

RHINTHON test. (PCG) 4: 103 n. 18 SEG xiii. 32: 100 n. 9

SEMONIDES fr. (West) 7. 90-1:169 n. 45

S1G3

871: 33 n. 104

181. 6-9:22 n. 56

PORPHYRIUS

SOPHOCLES Ai. 293: i68n. 39

VP 17: 102

29: 114 n. 62 POSIDIPPUS

fr. (PCG) i. 7: 143 n. 59

PRODICUS

fr. (FVS)

84 B 3—4: 118 n. i test. (FVS) 84 A n: 119 n. 2 84 A 13-19: 119 n. 2

or

67: 106 n. 30 fr. (Radt) 476: 177 n. 80 493: 260 n. 151 851: 100 n. 9 SOPHRON fr. (PCG) 33: 172 34: 172

STRATO COMICUS PROTAGORAS

fr. (FVS)

8067: n 8 n . i test. (FVS) 80 A i: 118 n. i, 119 n. 2 80 A 27-9: 119 n. 2 80 A 27: 99 n. 7 80 A 28: 99 n. 8 80 A 29: 31 n. 93

fr. (PCG) i. 30: 143 n. 59 STRATTIS fr. (PCG) 42: 27 n. 78

SUDA s.v. "AKftav: I I I n. 49

335

336

Index of Passages

THALES fr. (FVS) 1183: 135 n. 38

THUGENIDES fr. (PCG) 4: 260 n. 151

THEOCRITUS i. 123-4: 48 n. 138 24. 50: 114 n. 60

TlMAEUS

THEOGNIS 689: 146 n. 70 THEOPHRASTUS Char. 10. 6: 107 n. 34 THEOPOMPUS COMICUS fr. (PCG) 48: 25 n. 73 79: 154 n. 91 THUCYDIDES i. 25. 4: 106 n. 33 1. 68. 2: 136 n. 41 2. 45. 2: 168 n. 40 2. 49. 3: 71, 87 4- 5°- 2: 9i 6. 32. 2: 47 7. 60. i: 146 n. 68 Schol. Thuc. i. 30. i: 232 n. 2

fr. (FGrH) 566 F 6: ii i n. 49 566 F 14: 112 n. 54 566 F 30: 113 n. 57

XENOPHON Anab. 3. 2. 9:47 n. 133

Ath. Pol. 1. 19: 71 2. 8: 159-60 HG 7. 5. 19: 137 n. 44

Mem. i. i. 7: 143 n. 59, 144 n. 63 i. 2. i: 142 n. 56 3. i. 6: 142 n. 56, 143 n. 59, 144 n. 63 Oec. i. 17: 142 n. 57 3. 12: 168 n. 39 7. 5: i68n. 39 7. 20-5: 164 n. 22 ZONARAS 77 1 5 5 5 . 2 2 : 9 1

Index of Greek 89 73

29

22 n. 58, 46, 186

183, 260

25-6

16 n. 31 255 59 161 256 88

16, 178 n. 84 236 n. 25 215 256 127 n. 12

143

133 220

76, 133

184

99

26-7 23

106, 114, 123, 125 114, 122 n. 6 242 n. 53

"5

17,48,235, 241 241 n. 50 192 101, 104, 105

"5

114 100 n. 9, 171

22 239, 241-2, 245, 250 135 "• 37 168, 188 240 n. 40

140 184 176 181

114 n. 61, 148 83 136 n. 39 136 n. 39 99, 100 n. 9 99-100 99-100 19 n. 49

252

242 n. 50 193 7i 191 256 17,39 17 n. 42 249 191 176-7, 181-2, 193-4, 216 n. 61, 236, 258-9, 264-8 256 83 n. 76 104 103 n. 20, 104-5 83 n. 76 20—i, 27 9i "5 "5 2O-I, 27

135". 37 140, 144 140, 144 235 187 98 98, 187 25 82 145 142, 144-5 24-5

338

Index of Greek

68

161 246

73, 70-7, 79

16

73, 79 233

20

iig n. 2 138 138, 141 n. 54, 145 82, 248

02 176 184

250 246, 250 67 n. 41

208 n. 40, 209 184 n. 114 233 n. 83

106, 127 64

178, 194

59

25

59,89 59,89

172, 173 n. 64

220 n. 80 105 n. 20 216 118 128, 133,248, 250

'75 236, 240-1, 256 n. 125

261 39 113-14, 243, 256

114 267

97 n. 2 73,78 73,78

77, 134 73,78 3' ". 97

82

82

80,83

95 n. too

133". 3'.

6o, 61 256

H4-5, 15°

144 141, 142, 144-5, 150

73,79 84-5, 122-3, 245

141

28 n. 85

248 224 n. 86

73, 77, 78 n. °°, '5° 73,76-7, 134, 15°

129 n. 19, 240 n. 47, 250

24 H3

142 159 n. 9, 223 n. 81

82

187 187

66 214 n. 58

125 142, 144 144 67 n. 41, 233

i37n. 42

94 94 94

224 n. 86 131 67 n. 41 242 n. 56 187

133 83

109 93, «6i 162, 169, 175 69, 122 69

»3

249 88,155 247 85

19 60 252,268

Index of Greek

339 186,215,218 73,78 73,78

65 137 n. 43 137 n. 43 27, 240 n. 47 85

181 219

140

'79, 193, 218 n. 73, 240, 240 97, i°i 22

131 n. 26 237 124 '39

172 n. 63 77 172n. 63 67 n. 41 187 184 n. 112 187

61,66 243 143 260

238 238 47 41, 261 84 n. 83 83 182-3, '91, '93, 261 •83 183 183 233 135 n. 37 22 186-7, 21 S-l6, 2l8, 22O 69 249

131 n- 25 83 n- 77 83 218. 219 n. 75 187, 219 n. 75

187 n. 125 88 125 123, 125 127 n. 12, 134, 137, 145, 150

261 249 n. 88 30, 145, 146, 148, 150, 252 248 22 n. 58 97 n. 2

242 93

139 n. 51

30 n. 91 105 n. 29 20-1 20-1 17, 19 n. 50, 31 n. 97, 36 28,470. 135 183 22, 171 2O4

38

102 260 261

127 n. 12

68, 124 139

203, 215 n. 61 203. 215 n. 61

68 89 20 209 n. 42

184 n. 112, 260 219 171 171

175 137 69 83 73,79

191 n. 151 67, 134 123 135 n- 37 249 137 n-44 137 n. 44 240 n. 47

Index of Greek

340 240 n. 47 HI n- 55 84 n. 80 '37". 42

'83, 193 248 41, 178, 183, 217 133, 247, 249, 28, 31 n. 94,

34, 131, 133,248, 251 '33 137 135 n. 37 HQ n. 2 76 184,254 76 76 76 H3 76 76 123

101, 103-5 105 n. 27 101, 103-5,IIO> I28,

251

9i

186, 193

83, 84 n. 82

152-3, 176

n. 76, 178, 192, 218, 239, 247, 251, 252,257 31 n. 97,36 247 234 105 n. 29

249 252

142 n. 57 234-5,257 256 155, 191, 194 78

142

18

266-7, 268 103 107 256 ' 73 83

73,

89,91 48

176

168 n. 39, 255 83

73,78 250

73,79 79 22 250 133

7i n- 5i 73, 74, 79 248 184 81 n. 70 81 137 137

82 n. 73 73,78 242 n. 56 249

208 n. 40, 218 97 n. 2 97 n. 2 17,31 n. 97, 32 83 82 256 83 89 260

179-80,194,256

175 184

124 n. 8, 126 18 250

178, 235, 240, 266

236, 240-1, 256

125

257

73,79 208 n. 38

83

210 n. 43 183,216

249 234 172

Index of Greek

34»

98

105 n. 29 181

168 17 n. 38 244

66 n. 38, 69, 106-7, 122, 125, 150, 154

264 n. 168 257

122 n. 6, 126 107, 125-6, 150, 154 143 n. 62 82 64 32 104

191 n. 150 81 82 25° 81 n8 135 n. 37

256

118 234

256 267

240 n. 46 135 "• 37 238 n. 38 "35 185 25°

267 82, 127 n. 12, 129 92 142, 144-5 60. 81

214 n. 58 252

184 n. 114 143 n. 62 142 144

9i

i86n. 120, 249

257, 268 73, 74, 75 28-9 240

129 n. ig, i i i n. 26 184 n. 114

28 n. 83 267 267 28

44-5

42-5, 47, 48, 192 n. 156 29

257

14, 40 n. 121 16-17, 24-5, 27, 30, 34,

31 n. 97, 144 144 143, '44 74,79 28 136 n. 39 82 216 n. 61, 217, 220 45

48 84

118 82 108 107-8 28 132 n. 28, 250, 256, 257

74,79 243 74, 77-8 249 188 84

122-6, 250

256, 267

103 102

H2 n. 53

101 IO2

18 58,92

27 n. 78, 101 162

64, QO 84

102

133

171 n. 61

Index of Greek

342 252, 261, 268

264 260

183

242 n. 56 31 n. 97, 32 74 74,78 74 162 171 n. 61 H3 82 178, 183, 217, 235, 240, 266 267 264 n. 168 65,84 27 n. 78 235 242 n. 54 82 n. 71 242 n. 56

84-5 235 n. II 171 187 90

81 64, 71,72 n. 55 171 171 235 124 46-7 248 47 "•'34 24-5, 218 76, 122, 139-45, 150 29, 242 84 41, 176-8, 209, 217, 264-5 101 n. 11 187 101 141n. 61 101

101 125 238 n. 38 108 n. 41 248 n. 79 108 235 189 n. 137 108 n. 41 840. 81 74,79 20 139-40 IOQ, III, I I S 242 219

6 140

126 81

82

244-5, 251 76, 125 233 82 223 n. 83

67 n. 41 82, 86 n. 89, 108 n. 41, 109 109

19, 22 82

99

85 n. 87

243,251 247, 249

181 64, 93, 233 93,94 87 n. 90 67 n. 41, 85, 87 n. 90 171 n. 60 242-3

242-3 '43

74,78 192, 194

138 n. 47 H2n. 53 248 247, 248 74, 77, 248 28 41, 44, 261 183

183 n. 107 183 67 n. 41

Index of Greek 74,79 178, IQ4 178,183 18.1 186, 208 n. 36, 210, 251 n.

343 219 252

go 74

68, 124 171 n. 60

97

175, 176, 184 82 82 74,78

74,79

17, 26 n. 75 22

17, 26 n. 75, 64-5, 84 n. 85, 211 n. 49, 216 74, 77-8 242 n. 56

242 218 n. 72, 236

26

215 n. 61, 243 132-3,154

184,218

235 6g, 8g, gi 171 171 2ig

75,78 99

26

235 77, ngn. 2, 134, 135 75 75, 76-8 45

99, 100 143 n. 62 142 142 n. 56

84 233 233 i7S 82

181 262 201, 219 81

125

139 144 123 n. 7 134, '39, 144 67, 134 82-3 82 100 n. 9

68, 124, 125 261 125 93, 137 n. 45, 190

81

93

189, 243

126 24 2m n. 60 128 74,78 28

224 n. 86, 234 7i

igi, 194 139 n. 51, 191 n. 148 80,82

28

240 n. 47 242 n. 50

67 n. 41 95 n. 100 210 n. 43 170 n. 55, 171 n. 58 26 26, 137 n-43 137 n-43 90 90

76, 249

68

249 242 252 171 n. 61 22 102 n. 12 87 n. 92 125 67, 134

Index of Greek

344 '34. 139

i88n. 135 831-75 83 n. 75 82 125 83-4 84 125 175 28

7O, I2O, 122, 136—8, 150

128 13

189 171 n. oo I37n.42 135 n. 37, 136 114

85

238

26

187 n. 130

220

75

84 2IQ

81

175, 176, 208, 243

75,79 "3n. 57

125 131 n. 25, 136,

150

125 140 88, 169, 191, 194, 216 n. 66, 217-18, 219 139 165, 169, 191

108 n. 41, 109 252 75, 70-7 75,78 75,78 87 n. 92 220

169, 215 n. 60.

243 256 249 169 n. 48, 191, 194, 210-11, 219, 262, 267

235 19, 22 n. 58 251 n. 101 19-20, 22 n. 58, 102 n.

16, 183, 207 19, 22

171 n. 60 93, '23 88, 89, 93, 127 n. 12 93, 139

242 92 85 143 n. 61

235 248, 251, 257-8, 268

62, 92 26 210, 221

24-5 112

187 64, 81 63-4 2IO-II, 215, 221

HI "• 55 H3 H3 253 62 n. 28 83 83 n. 75 81 141 n. 55 136 n. 39 136 n. 39 19 124

17, 2O-I, 27, 48

245, 250 242 n. 56

183, 26l 260 242 112

183 106, 127 n. 12 106 n. 32 106, 127 n. 12 65 n. 37 243 237, 256

Index of Greek 257 log 252 66 256 175, 176 n. 74, 203 n. 25, 258, 260 n. 151, 264-5 183 181 239 •83 99 171 186, 207, 208 n. 40, 218 184

345

13 108-9 108-9 143 n. 62 137 '35 n. 37 137, 130, ISO 137, 138, 143, 15° 84, 87 n. 91 84 134, 145 247 84

143

144, 223 n. 81, 234

220

218 n. 73, 265

28

135 n- 37

22

243

141, 144 141, 144 124 175 27 n. 78 26 26 125 125 2-1, 112 n. 53, 234 243 243 179-80, 194, 216, 256

27 143 18, 22, 28 n. 79, 144 140 9i 237-8, 256 22, 237-8, 241; see also 238 238 23» 76

25,4711. 135 75,76 75,78

143

140

140, 142

123 19

175

202, 215, 2l8, 244, 254-5

255

244, 255

181

244

224 n. 86 238

219, 261 84

237 124 '43 140 187

1390. 51 124

188 n. 134 242

92

84 84 97 n. 2 97 n. 2 235 264 64,84 245 135 n. 36, 176 175 125 245 192 62 236 n. 25, 264

Index of Greek

346

23g, 241, 245,250 200 26

188 242 n. 56 184

260 n. 153 175

248 42 n. 127, 46 n. 132, 168 192, 194 252 22, 171 248 2S6

264 236 n. 23 236 n. 23 176 n. 74, 181, 184-5 258 183 239". 41 101, 194, 2&O-I

239 184 n. 114 183,211 n. 48, 260 183 175,234 125 85 67 n. 41,235

239

178

46,

124 215

68 n. 43 31 "• 94

264 264 264 83 264

64,85 135"- 37 124

267

264

218,244,255 244 219 63-4, 85

152 n. 79 7i,72n. 55 41, 176-8, 194, 258, 259, 262 264-5,268 185, 193, 248 95, 118, 119 n. 2, 128, 132, '39 139 95, 118, I2», 139

127 n. 12, 104 n. 113, 209 253 235 "• 'i 142 218 n. 73 180 n. 134 263,264 244, 264 244, 263-4, 268

319 n. 75 142 240 n. 40 187,255 240 n. 46 46-7 47

23

189 216 n. 65, 217 n. 69, 256 257 224 n. 86 92 90 27 66 64,84 142 237 23, 192, 233, 260, 268 181 19

267

120, 136, ISO 245, 262-3, 266-7 244-5

242n. 54

233 '4' "• 55 181 257 126

Index of Greek

347

126

20-1, 189 n. 140

2S6

240 n. 46 6 178 n. 87 210 n. 44, 257 23 n. 61 235 134 n. 34 67, 134 64, 90 138

22 n. 58

186 143 n. 62 97, i°i 219 41 243 20-1, 27

41, 183, 193 62, 92, 136

66, 106, 123 106 249 250 135". 37

184 242 n. 54 186 259, 267 255

99

29 65,92 22

138 n. 47 84 9i

75,79 249 n. 90

256-7 252 75, 77-8

9i 67 n. 41, 235 252 242 n. 56 81

75- 76-7 25 n- 7' 243

29 n. 87 219

67 n. 41, 85 83 124 107, 137

125 243 242 n. 53 86

97 n. 2, 249

98 107, 137 n. 43 139 n- 5 1 85 85

251 n. 101

'39, 15° 138-9,150 840. 81

202

236 n. 25 136 34 n. 107,

133,236-7,240 125 9' 75,79 125 18, 20 240 I 184 23 22 n. 58

243

217, 219 22, 171

235 84 84 124. 126

125 184 n. 113 233 6 6 102 n. 12 257 58 135

Index of Greek

348 171

44

35 n. 112, 237, 239,241

135 n. 37 250

62 62, 92 '4' n- 55

Si 236 n. 25

123, 125 80,84 Hi n. 55 58,92 236 n. 25

«5 n. 87 237 27 n. 78

i88n. 135 238

92

246

80,85 85 171 170, 171 249 123, 125 181

75.2IQ 236 94 94 236, 256

246

171 n. 61

123,I25 19-20, 22 n. 58,

84

140 205, 219 235 n. ii

59. 94

HI n. 55

67 n. 41

238

45 135 "• 37 125 84, 220 67 n. 41 249

85 62, 67-8, 76-7, 92, I 2O, 122, 134-6, 138, 150 '35 124

143 n. 62 249 240 65 233 83 84 171 n. 60 223 n. 80 124 220 124

214. n. $8. 216 259 179-80, 194 179-80, 194, 2H n. 49, 216 89, 13711. 42 109 235 "3 84 240 i88n. 135

248 15 "• 25 '351- 37

237-8,256 237-8, 241; 139 135 "• 37 i°5 105 254 219 82

109 82

236 n. 23 83

18 19 n. 50 46 n. 131 105 n. 29

238 254

Index of Greek 143 n. 62

349

115 n. 63

186-7,I92<

140 66 138 141

194, 233 n. 5

233 n. 5 102 n. 13 '35 84 n. 83 253 107 243 122 n. 6 34 n. 109, 261 124 83 187 68 143 28 28 28

'9

187 n. 130 18 n. 46, 20 20

125

124 86 142

188 22

62

25°, 257

122, 145-8, 150, 259, 260

I34n- 35

84 129 n. 19

66

19 81 81 81 81 n. 69 29 n. 86 28 252

86

61,86 122 n. 6 76 105 n. 29 244-5*251 245 n. 66 247, 248 257"- 133 75 75, 76-7 76 2140. 58, 244, 245, 251, 255, 263-4, 268 191, 244, 253, 260, 268

171 n. 61, 219 255 260 243-4

124 242 n. 53

98 30, 217 255 24 243

83 n. 78

100 190 n. 146 46 n. 131 172, 175, "90, 194 242 25, 26 n. 75 109 25 n. 72

161 26 n. 77

256 28 83 192, 194 66, 106 75

256 250 n. 93 82 n. 71 84 iQ

249

19 n. 50, 28, 31 n. 97,215 n. 59

zi6, 250

240 n. 47 83

Index of Greek

350

146 n. 70 184

18-19, 29, 50

138 n. 47 77, '34 85

233

53,210-11,258 76,

249, 257 140

78, 249

181, 194 216, 217 188 67,74 67,87 07 n. 42 67 67 67 67 n. 42 67 19 n. 50, 20-1, 38, 186 104 67 84 80,84 125 208 n. 40, 209 53, 143 62 62, 92 68 88, 105-6, 127 n. 12, 265 88, 105-6, 127, 129 127 n. 12, 137 69, 105, 113, 116, 122-•*, I2O, 127 n. 12

105 n. 29, 127 n. 12 21 n. 54 242 n. 54 265 81 '43

98

242 n. 56 242 n. 53 22, 101 171 n. 61 171 n. 61 76,78 44, 145, 140-8, 248

184 102 n. 12 143 n. 62 18 n. 46, 20 22 22

124 64 81 256

181 243 83 76,78 76,78 07 n. 92 219 "3 97 n. 2, 113 251 20 n. 53 13, 16 n. 20

187 233 81

84

245 102 n. 12

143 n. 62

14.1 n, 62 202, 215

6 100

17 n. 40, 29,31-2, 38, 40, 47, 184 n. 114 85 60,84 91 IIS

29, 211 n. 48, 218 n. 73 191

245

13 I7S 142 n. 57

176-7, 178, 194, 204, 209, 257, 262-8 219 264 n. 168 41, 182 n. 103, 265-6, 268

General Index Abaris 114 accent, pitch vs. stress 209, 238 accentuation 238 accommodation, linguistic 199 accumulation 21-2, 35, 37, 66-8, 69, 77, 85, 133 n. 30, 139, 143, 145-6, 196 Acharnae 161 Acharnians i, 5, 21, 191, 225, 236, 239, 241, 255, 257 characters: Dicaeopolis i, 18, 40, 43, 187; Euripides 5-6, 36, 40, 187; Megarian 18, 253; Persian 207, 223-4 Aeolic (dialect) 8 Aeschines 262 Aeschylus 102, 106 n. 33, 130, 135, 136 n. 39, 137 n. 43, 142, 147, 151, 182 n. 105, 238—9, 246, 247 n. 76, 252 n. 106, 253, 258 n. 136, 262-3, 264 n. 167, 266-7 see also Frogs, characters affective language 158, 180, 181, 186, 189, 193-5, 229 Agathon (poet) 26, 165 see also Thesmophoriazusae, characters GutrxpoAoyia 168, 188 Aither 19 Alcidamas 112 allegory 116 Ameinias 99 Ameipsias 142 Anacharsis 223 dvayKi) 104—5 analogy, see morphology, analogical formations Anaxagoras 98, 104 n. 20, 116, "7n- 73 Andocides 248, 249 Antiphon 262 Antiphon the Sophist 105 n. 27, 118 aitari) (dramatic illusion) 92, 225 Aphrodite 189

Apollo 46, 189 Apollophanes 141 n. 55 Arabs 212 Araucanians 168 Archilochus 25 Areopagus 206 n. 28 Aristotle 62, 65 n. 37, 93, 99, 107 n. 38, 135, '39, 143. <48 n- 74, '71 Artemis 189 asceticism 115 Asia Minor 203 aspect, see syntax, aspect Athena 18, 36, 48, 235 Attica 160 Atticists 268 Australia 157 n. i baby talk 198-9 see also registers, simplified Balkan languages 212 Banqueters 71, 142 n. 57 Basel 268 n. 180 Birds 26, 35, 113, 255, 257 bird cosmogony 102, 104, 107, 108, 115 n. 63 characters: anonymous poet 26; Euelpides 102, 179 n. 90; Heracles 179 n. 90; Hoopoe 35, 253; Iris 173 n. 67; Meton 69, 95; Peisetaerus 21 n. 55, 69; Triballian god 201 n. 14, 207, 224 Black Sea 203 n. 20, 204 n. 22, 223 n. 82 Boeotian (dialect) 162, 237 bomolochos 3 n. 3, 139 book market 15 'bottom-up changes' 194 broken language 3, 198—201, 202—3, 207, 213 n. 56, 216, 221, 223, 230 see also foreigner talk; registers, simplified California 157 Cappadocianism 203 n. 19

352

General Index

carnival 268 characterization, linguistic 4 n. 4, 48, 68—9,76, 100, 107, no, 127, 158, 183, 226-7 Chile 168 Cleomenes (rhapsode) i n Cleonymus 99 Clouds 3, 19, 66, 69, 77, 96-117, 118-56, 226, 228-9, 236, 241, 253, 257 characters: Clouds 40, 113, 123, 134, 141 n. 54, 173 n. 67, 173 n. 68; Pheidippides 98, 108, 119, 128, 133, 142, 145, 180; Socrates 13, 14, 43, 48, 66, 67, 69, 76, 95, 96—101, 103,105-6,108-17,"9. 123, 125, 128, 134, 136 n. 39, i37~9. H1-2, '80, 226, 229-31; Socrates'student 107—8,113—14, 122-3, 126-9, 137,180; Strepsiades 66, 69, 77, 97-101, 103, 106-8, 113-14, 119, 122-3, 124 n. 8, 125, 126, 128-9, '32, '34. '37. '39. 141—2, 182 n. 106; Strong Argument 124, 151; Weak Argument 149, 151 Cnidus 86 Cockney English (dialect) 206 code-switching 12 colloquial language 3, 4, 84 n. 85, 85, 138, 147, 148, 151, 171, 174, 175, 178, 180, 181, 185, 190-1, 193-5, 207, 216—17, 219-20, 226, 229, 232, 233, 243, 245-6, 248, 250-2, 257-8, 260-1, 265, 266 n. 177, 267-8 complimenting 166, 186-7, '9°. '93 conservatism, linguistic 232, 236, 241-2, 244, 246-8, 251-2, 254, 258, 261, 263, 267-8 Cos 86 Cratinus 247 Crete 102 Croton 116 curses 16 n. 34, 32, 34, 39 n. 118, 40 see also defixiones 'de-automatization' 6, 35 n. 112, 49, 136, 137. 2SS decrees, see laws deep structure, linguistic 214 n. 57 defixiones 188, 221

deixis, see morphology, pronouns, deictic -i; syntax, deixis Demeter 18, 26, 189 Democritus 103-4, IO 5 n - 26 Demosthenes 130 n. 23, 141 n. 55, 147, 151, 234, 252 n. 106, 258 n. 136, 261 deontic expressions 146-8 Derveni papyrus 103 n. 17, 116 Diagoras of Melos 116-17 dialectology 55 diathesis, see syntax, diathesis Dicaearchus ill didactic literature 148 n. 73 Dinarchus 147 Diogenes Laertius no Diogenes of Apollonia 98, i n , 116-17 Dionysius of Syracuse i, 2 Dionysus 189 n. 140 SoKi/iaaia 79 door-knocking scenes 127-8 Doric (dialect) 8, 29 n. 87, 86-7, 102 n. 13, 103 n. 17, 177 n. 80, 223 n. 83 Ecclesiazusae i, i68n. 42, 170, 171, i?4, '75, 176 n. 76, 180 n. 95, 183, 189—92, 196, 226, 257 characters: Blepyrus 168 n. 39, 170; female servant 175; Praxagora 168 n. 42, 171, 173 n. 68, 175 n. 73, 176, 178, 179 n. 88, 189 eVicAijcFia 17 n. 36, 40, 168 n. 39, 170, 189, 196, 206 Elean (dialect) 103 n. 17 emancipation 164 eVfWAf ia (tragic dance) 89 emotional language, see affective language Empedocles 101, 104-13, 116-17, "8, 229-30 emphasis 183, 258 English (language) n, 49, 81, 84 n. 81, 161, 185 n. 117, 186, 119, 188 n. 131, 203, 206, 213, 216 n. 64 epic language, epicisms 4, 28, 48, 61, 71, 106-7, io8n. 43, 109,234, 235. 237, 242 nn. 51 and 53, 245, 247-8,258 epithets, see hymns, epithets; prayers, epithets Eros 104

General Index ethnocentricity 201, 222-4 Etna in n. 49, 112 Etymologicum Magnum 172 etymology 97-8, 101—2, 105 eu^rjfii'o 42—5, 47, 48, 192 n. 156 euphemism i88n. 134

euphony 232 Euripides 6, 90, 130, 132 n. 28, 137 nn. 43 and 45, 142-3, 147, 151, 158 n. 7, 161 n. 12, 165, 169, 182 n. 105, 194 n. 161, 236, 238-9, 245 n. 69, 246-9, 252-3, 258 n. 136, 263, 264 n. 167, 266-8 see also Acharnians, characters; Frogs, characters; Thesmophoriazusae, characters 'face needs' 166, 187 n. 125, 188, 190, 193, 195 falsetto voices 172 female speech 4, 155—6, 157—97, 226, 229,231 in Rome 165 n. 27 figurae etymologicae 252 figures of speech 118,184 foreigner talk 3, 197, 198-225, 227, 230, 235 n. 11,257 function 222—3, 225 lexicon 213, 214, 219-20, 221-3 morphology 214, 215-17, 219, 222-3, 224 n. 86; see also morphology phonology 202-11, 214, 219, 220, 222; see also phonology primary 201,214,217 secondary 199-201,202,214,217, 221, 222-3, 225 n - 89, 230 syntax 214, 217—19, 222-3; see a'so syntax forms of address 120 n. 3, 158, 186—8, 189, 193 French (language) 206-7, 2II> 2I2 Frogs 18, 26, 58, 59, 88-94, 135, 174, 182—3, 184 n. 112 characters: Aeschylus 58, 59, 62, 88, 92; Euripides 58, 59, 62, 64, 88, 90, 92, 182 n. 106, 191; Heracles 89, 127; Plathane 77; Xanthias 93, 184 n. 112, 191 Galen 65, 80 Gastarbeiterdeutsch (language) 212 'genderlect', see female speech

353

genres, literary 8-9, 148 n. 73, 168, i9S German (language) 49 n. 140, 160, 163 n. 21, 203, 212, 217-18 Giraldus Cambrensis 212 gnomic literature 148 n. 73, 261 n. 158 Gorgias 92 n. 99, i n , 118, 133, 159 gossip 168—9, '95 Greek, Medieval and Modern (language) 206 n. 30, 212 Hades 107, 112, 113 hapax legomena 6, 17 n. 39, 26, 58, 77, 108, 122-3, I24-S. '34, 137 Harpocration 105 n. 27 Hecate 189 hedges, hedging 10, 166, 182—4, 191, 193, 195 Hegelochus 238 Helios 19 Hera 28 n. 84 Heracles 112 see also Birds, characters; Frogs, characters Heraclitus 101, 105 n. 26 Hermes 18, 19 n. 49, 189 n. 140 see also Peace, characters Herodes Atticus 203 n. 19 Herodianus 102-3 Herodotus 103 n. 17, 114, 130 n. 23, 132 n. 28, 138, 141 n. 55, 143, 146 n. 67, 147, 151, 176, 182, 252 n. 106, 257 n. 135, 258 n. 136, 262-4, 266—7 Hesiod 102, 107, 135, 146 n. 70, 261 n. 158 Hierapytna loan. 13 Hippias 118 Hippocrates, see Hippocratic corpus Hippocratic corpus 60, 61, 63—4, 67, 79-80, 81 n. 66, 82 n. 73, 83 n. 75, 83 n. 77,87, i n , 138, 139, 141 n. 55 Hippon 98, i n , 116 Homer, Homeric language 8, 24, 34 n. 111,99, 102, 112, 118, 124 n. 9, 129 n. 19, 135, 138, 139 n. 51, 142, 192 n. 157 see also epic language Hungarian (language) 163 n. 21 hymns 4, 12-50, 227, 231, 234, 237, 242 n. 51, 255 argument structure 37—41

354

General Index

hymns (cont.): cletic hymns 14, 15, 17, 22, 36 cultic hymns 17 dithyrambs 15 epic hymns 17 epithets 15,17-23,27,36-7,38, 48-9, 101 hyperbole 23 invocations 15-17,41 n. 123 lexicon of 35, 49 paeans 15 processional hymns 15 speech-act verbs (performative/ illocutionary verbs) 23-7, 48-9 syntax 15, 35-7, 41, 49, 255 lamblichus 114 Idaean cave 102 illusion, dramatic, see avarr) imagery, see metaphors incongruity, comic 68, 77 'indicators', linguistic 167,189 Indo-European (languages) 157 initiation 115 n. 65 innovation, linguistic 118—56, 159-62, 163, 174, 179, 193-4, 229, 232, 245, 246, 248-9, 261, 268 insults, see terms of abuse intensification, linguistic 181, 194, 213, 219, 239, 243, 250, 252 interjections 13, 232 internal reconstruction 228 internationalism 159, 194 invectives 4 invocations 13 n. 19, iSgn. 140 see also hymns, invocations; prayers, invocations Ion of Chios 102 n. 15 Ionic (dialect) 8, 29 n. 87, 87 n. 90, 107 n. 34, 117, 135, 138, 160, 163, 165, 176, 182, 192, 233-5, 237, 249, 263-4,266 East Ionic 204, 234, 237 West Ionic 237 Ionic alphabet 202, 205 iotacism, see phonology, iotacism Iranian (languages) 203, 209 n. 41 Isaac Porphyrogennetus 90 Isocrates 143, 258 n. 136, 261, 262 isoglosses 55 Italian (language) 206—7, 212

Japanese (language) 166 n. 32, 167, 194 n. 161 katabasis 112 Knights 48, 141, 145, 174, 180, 236, 241, 257 characters: Cleon-Paphlagon 17, 40, 48, 227; Demos 43, 128, 139; Knights 36; Sausage-seller 139, 192 Koine Greek (dialect) 159, 160, 179, 195, 206 n. 30, 230, 242, 256, 268 Kore 18, 21 n. 51, 189 Korean (language) 11 Kuna Indians 168 Laconian (dialect) 177, 184 n. 112, 223 n. 83 lamentation 168, 195 language acquisition 158,161 language change 9, 155, 159, 161, 189, 190, 194 language loyalty 163-5 Latin (language) 12, 52, 59, 166 n. 31, i94n. 161,212 laws (and decrees) 22 n. 57, 33, 188 n. 135, 192, 267 see also technical languages, legal language Leucippus 103, 105 n. 26 libation 38 Lingua Franca, see Sabir lists 22 n. 56, 28, 251 literacy 154 literary criticism, see technical languages, language of literary criticism litotes, see syntax, litotic expressions loanwords 95, 219 lullabies 168 Lysias 90, 130 n. 23, 133, 147, 151 n. 77, 177, 245, 249, 2&J-4, 266-8 Lysistrata 18, 26, 164, 174, 177 n. 81, 180 n. 95, 181, 184 n. 112, 188, 190, 196, 223 n. 83, 226 characters: Calonice 187 n. 125, 190 n. 143; Lysistrata 168, 182 n. 106, 187 n. 125, 197, 267 magic, magical texts 112, 188 Marcus Aurelius 21

General Index markedness/unmarkedness 5, 59, 69, no, 136, 148, 155, 184, 213 n. 57, 232, 235,245, 251,256 see also zero-marking markers, linguistic 167, 189—90, 196, 226 see also registers, register markers Marsyas 108 Maya (language) 1211.15 Mediterranean area 168—9,212 Megarian (dialect) 253-4 Menander 68, 71, 146 n. 67, 149 n. 75, 157 n. 2, 172, 189, 195, 196, 239, 241, 259, 261 metaphors 63 n. 30, 64, 88—9, 91, 93, 138, 168, 181, 188, 232, 233 n- 3 metempsychosis 112, 113 n. 58 metre: anapaests 14, 91, 175, 202, 235, 236, 238-9, 242, 246, 248, 259 hexameters 242, 243 n. 59, 244, 245, 247, 261 iambic trimeters 26, 235, 236, 238—9, 242, 248, 257, 264 prose passages 22 resolution 22 n. 57 trochaic tetrameters 26, 238 metrical lengthening 243 n. 59 Middle Ages 70, 212 Middle Comedy 86, 116, 143 n. 59, 153, 169, 244, 245 n. 67, 246, 247 n. 76, 248-9 Middle Iranian 209 n. 41 mime 158, 172 monologue 10 morphology analogical formations 175, 233, 235, 237, 244, 247, 250 comparatives: analytical 243; in -larepos 243, 251; irregular 243; stems 242-3, 251 derivational 56; see also word formation Lautensach's Law 250 nouns: ace. sg. of s-stem names 250; Attic declension 242; dat. pi. in -aai 22 n. 56, 241; dat. pi. in ~i]ai/-aLai(v)/-ats 239, 241—2, 245, 250; dat. pi. in -otai(v)/-ot$ 239, 241, 245, 250; dat. sg. of a-stems 239-40; declension of uios 242; declension of Ztvs 101;

355

heteroclitic declensions 242; nom. pi. in -eiV-rjf 240; vocative in -o 99 participles: nom./acc. dual fem. i?°n- 53 pronouns: bisyllabism 244, 264, 266; deictic -i 244-5, 251; dual of astem pronouns 244; nom./acc. sg. ntr. in -o/-ov 243-4; reflexive 236 simplified 215-17 superlatives 23, 243 thematization 215,248,251 verbal adjectives in -TO;, -re'os, see syntax, verbal adjectives verbs: 'Aeolic' optative 246, 251; aorist stems 248-9,250-1, 258 n. 137; aspirated perfect 249; augment 146, 247—8, 250-1; contracted future 249; 'Doric' future 249; tj vs. jjv 247,251; future stems 249-50, 258; imperatives 28, 247, 248, 257-8, 260; -jtefla vs. -lieaSa 245, 250; middle optative in -aro vs. -VTO 246, 250; optative of contracted verbs 245; perfect stems 249; perfect subjunctive/optative 247 n. 73; perfect reduplication 131, 247—8; pluperfect endings 247; present stems 248, 251; synthetic perfect/pluperfect 152, 176 n. 76, 246, 247 n. 73; 3rd pi. perf./ pluperf. med.-pass. 152, 246; tmesis 250, 251 see also syntax; word formation mos maiorum 165 n. 27 Moscow school of linguistics 56 n. 13 Mycenaean (dialect) 234 names, naming 170, 187, 204 n. 22, 250 see also toponyms; word formation, names in -/cAijs Neanthes 112 New Comedy 86, 143 n. 59, 153, 158, 244, 245 n. 67, 246, 247 n. 76, 248-9 nominalization, see syntax, nominalization Nukulaelae Tuvaluan (language) 11 oaths 13, 115, 158, 189, 194, 196 n. 166, 258

General Index

356

obscenity 158, 166, 168, 188, 193, 195, 219, 232, 233 n. 3 Old Attic 160 'Old Oligarch" (author of Constitution of Athens) 71, 159-60, 165 Old Persian, see Persian oAoAvyTJ 42 n. 127, 46 n. 132, 168 Olympia in Olympus (musician) 108 oracular language 3 n. 3, 108 n. 43, 242 n. 51, 242 nn. 51 and 53, 255 n. 124, 259 n. 149, 261, 267 Orphism, Orphic hymns/cosmogonies 13, 17 n. 39, 103, 107, 108 n. 42, 113, 115,116-17 opBofrreia. 95, 118, 119 n. 2, 128, 132, 139 Oxyrhynchus 221 Paean 46 Panama 168 Pandora 169 n. 51 Papua New Guinea 212 parabasis 65, 231, 244 parabatic odes 35—6, 48 paratragedy 6, 24, 36, 83 n. 75, 180 n. 96, 187 n. 129, 191 n. 151, 192, 196, 226, 231, 235, 237, 244, 254-5, 259 n- "43, 262 Paris 160 Parmenides 101, 105 n. 26 parochialism, linguistic 254 parody 5-6, 12, 42, 48, 56-7, 97, 105, i n , 117, 136, 143, 227-8, 233-5, 237-8, 240, 243 n. 59, 244, 247, 251, 254-7, 259, 264, 267; see also paratragedy; prayers, parodic particles 182-4, 213, 219, 250, 260-1, 268

added to participles 178—9 adversative 183 'ancillary' oSv 260 assentient yap 261 connective 41,261—2 double av, see syntax, double aa> frequency 261 hymnic yap 41 transitional aAAd 16 vocative particle 16,251 see also hedges; interjections; syntax, omission of oV and omission of grammatical/function words; 'Index of Greek' for individual particles

Pausanias (Empedocles' student) 107, 112, 113 Pausanias of Caesarea 203 n. 19 Peace 257 characters: Hermes 16 n. 32, 182 n. 106; Peace 19, 41, 43, 45; Trygaeus 19,43,45 Peloponnese 111 n. 49 Peloponnesian War 159,169 people's assembly, see eWAijai'a Pericles 168 Persian (language) 207, 224 Persians 207 Phaeax 140, 144 Pherecrates 248 Pherecydes 102 Philadelphia 166 n. 32 Philippines 212 Philolaus 143 Philoxenus 172 phonology apurum 233 allegro forms 233 n. 5, 236 anastrophe 210 n.44, 257 aphaeresis, see below prodelision aspirated stops 203-4, 207, 214, 221 aspiration 203—4, 206 compensatory lengthening 233, 234-5 contracted/uncontracted forms 10, 21, 26-7, 35 n. 112, 49, 154, 213-14, 233, 235-6, 247 correptio Attica 238, 241 crasis 214, 215, 235, 238—9 digamma 234, 235, 236 'Doric' a 24, 35 n. 112, 233-4, 237, 242 n. 51 elision 208, 209, 214, 238—9 gender-specific 176 hiatus 208, 209-10, 235, 238-9, 247 iotacism 162, 176, 203, 204-6, 207, 211, 220, 223, 230, 240 n. 47 loss of final -v 202, 203, 206-8, 211, 214-15, 220—i, 223, 230 loss of final-s 208—11,214-15,217, 218-19 n. 73, 221 muta cum liquida 238 v ephelkystikon 208, 239 nasalization 207, 223 prevocalic at, ei, 01 236 prodelision 208, 214, 238-9

General Index pronunciation of cu 240 -pa- vs. -pp- 237 sandhi 234 simplified 214 <7<^-/<7X- VS. OTT-faK-

24O

-act- vs. -TT- 24, 35 n. 112, 237, 239, 241 uvular /r/ 160 vowel quantity 202-3, 204—6, 209, 210, 214, 223 see also accent; accentuation pidgin languages 200, 212, 216 n. 64 Pindar 8, 90, 108, 146 Piraeus 160 Plato 1-2, 14, 18, 97, 100, 102, 114 n. 59, 119-20 n. 3, 130, 139, 143, 146 n. 67, 147, 151, 161-2, 171, 176-7, 178 n. 85, 182 n. 105, 185, 187, 194, 245, 252 n. 106, 253, 257 n. 130, 260-2 Plutarch 172, 195 Plutus 64, 152, 174, 180, 185, 190—1, 246, 247, 254,257 characters: Carion 127; Chremylus 77; Old Woman 182 n. 106; Plutus 63 politeness 166, 179, 188, 193, 195, 229 polymorphy 232, 234, 235, 238, 240, 244-6, 249 Polyrrhenia 102 n. 13 polysemy, see technical terms/vocabulary, monosemy vs. polysemy Porphyry 102, 114 Poseidon 19, 36, 48, 189 n. 141 'power code' 164 pragmatics 3 n. 3, 10, 176, 178, 179, 194, 231,232 Prague school of linguistics 55 Prakrit (language) 195 n. 163 prayers 4, 12—50, 113, 115, 170—1, 196, 227-8, 231 argument structure 37-41 closing words/'Amen' 45—7 epithets 15, 18-23, 27-9, 38, 48, 49, 101 invocations 15—17 literary 48 official/communal 15, 16—17, 21—3, 29, 32, 34, 39, 42, 46-9 parodic 13, 19 n. 50, 22 n. 56, 28 n. 82, 29 n. 90, 32 n. 99, 33 n. 105,37, 196 pars epica 41

357

poetic words 27 private 15, 16-17, 23, 49 specific vocabulary 27—9, 49 speech-act verbs (performative/ illocutionary verbs) 23—5, 27, 49 syntax 15, 30-4,49 see also eu^/iio Presocratics, Presocratic poetry 96-7, 101, 104-7, 108 n. 40, no, 118, 135, 139 n. 50, 143, 227,229 prestige, linguistic 154, 159—60, 162, 163-5 proclamations 33 Prodicus 95, 118, 139 Protagoras 95, 99, i n , 116, 118, i i g n . 2, 139 Proto-Indo-European 91, 203 n. 20 Proto-Indo-Iranian 203 n. 20 Proto-Iranian 203 n. 20 puns 176, 240 purism, linguistic 232, 254, 264, 268-9 Pythagoras 102, 112, 114—15, 117 Pythagoreans, Pythagoreanism 101, 103, 107, 112, 113-17, 143, 148 Ravennas (manuscript) 204, 208 n. 36, 210, 215 n. 59 realism, dramatic 166-7 realism, linguistic 197, 207, 221, 229, 232, 236, 250 redundancy, linguistic 194 registers, linguistic 8—50, 51—3, 199, 227—8, 230—1 'context of situation' n n . 12 internal variation 9, 15,42-7 on-line production 10,23,27,49, 154 oral 2, 10—n, 153-5, 262 register dimensions 10-11,153; abstractness 10, 37; argumentation/persuasion 11, 41, 48-9; integration/fragmentation ion. 8, 12, 154; interactiveness 10,17,48-9, '53, J8s; involvement/detachment 10 n. 8; narrativity 11; personal stance/involvement 10-11,12,24, 32, 34, 48-9, 153; planned/ unplanned discourse, planning 10 n. 8, 23, 27, 35 n. 112, 37, 41, 49, 154; production circumstances lo-ii, 23, 27, 37,41,48-9, 153-4 register markers 10, 29, 36

358

General Index

registers, linguistic (cont.): simplified 198-201,212,218,221—2; see also baby talk; foreigner talk written 10, 153-4 see also subregisters religious language 4, 8-50, 227 rhetoric, rhetorical theory 88, 90, 93-4, 118, 133, 134, 140 see also technical languages, language of rhetoric Rhinthon 103 ritual formulae 13, 29, 42 n. 126, 44-5, 48, 170—1 Roman Comedy 158 Romance languages 212 Russian (language) 216 n. 64, 222 n. 78 Sabir (language) 212 sacrifice 14, 38, 40, 42, 43 saliency, stylistic 231 Sanskrit (language) 195 n. 163 Santa (Luvian god) 102 n. 12 Sappho 8 Scandinavian languages 160 scholia 5, 62, 63 n. 32, 108, 187, 210 n. 43, 214 n. 58 scientific language/discourse 3, 53 n. 5, 55 n. 11,61,71, 96—117, i18, 126, '39. '55. 226-7, 229-31 Scots English (dialect) 9 n. 4 Scythian (language) 204, 206, 209 n. 41, 221 Scythians 203 n. 20, 204, 206, 207, 223 see also Thesmophoriazusae, characters Second Vatican Council 12 Seneca (language) 12 sexism 167, 170 Siberians 222 n. 78 Sicily i, 86, in simplification, linguistic, see morphology, simplified; phonology, simplified; registers, simplified soap operas 167 social networks 163-4 sociolects, sociolectal variation 2, 8, 52, 119, 140, 148, 161, 221, 230—1 Socrates 100, 106 n. 32, 113, i19 n. 3, 127 n. 12, 133 n. 33, 142, 161, 165, 223 n. 81 see also Clouds, characters solecisms 172, 175, 202, 217 'solidarity code' 164-5

sophists, sophistic culture 87-8, 106, 118-56, 228 and language 3, 58, 88, 118-56, 165, 169, 175-6, 226, 231 Sophocles 130, 132 n. 28, 137 n. 43, 143, 146 n. 67, 151, 177 n. 80, 182 n. 105, 238-9, 246, 247 n. 76, 252 n. 106, 258 n. 136, 261-3, 264 n. 167, 266-7 Sophron 172, 175 South Italy i n , 115 Southern Europe 163 Spanish (language) 163-4,195,212 speech acts 118, 166 see also hymns, speech-act verbs; prayers, speech-act verbs standard, linguistic 157-8, 159—62, 163-5, '95. 207. 2I 3. 240, 248 stereotypes 87, 116, 158, 166-73, 183, 195, 207, 218, 224 n. 84, 227, 229 Stesichorus 26 stigmatization, stigmatized forms 157-8,159,164-5 styles, stylistics 8, 51 n. i, 118, 172 subjectivity, linguistic 177-8, 193-4 subregisters, linguistic 9, 15, 29, 34 substrate, linguistic 203 Sumbanese (language) 1211.15. 49 n. 140 swearing 166 n. 30, 189 Swiss German (dialect) 49 n. 140 syntax accusative: absolute 252; directional 251—2; inner 252,268 adjectivization 121 agreement, see below congruence anacolutha 232, 253 n. no 'answering questions' 263 n. 164 aorist, punctual 128, 131 n. 25, 132 article usage 254—5, 260; see also below omission of definite articles aspect 31-2, 121, 153, 258 asyndeta 261 attraction of mood 259 n. 142 causal clauses 266—7; conjunctions 234 n. 7, 245, 266-7, 268 concessive clauses 11 conditional clauses 11, 41, 49, 178, 194, 261 n. 159, 266; conjunctions 235-6, 266 congruence 218-19, 254, 260, 268 'conjunction reduction" 34 consecutive clauses 265

General Index copula 121, 138, 146, 148, 149, 150, 152, 218—19, 261 dative: ethic 180-1, 194; local 251; loss 253; of interest 180 declarative verbs 262-3 deixis 232; see also morphology, pronouns, deictic -I diathesis (genus verbi) 121, 211 n. 48, 218, 257 double av 181—2,193 dual 176 n. 76, 253-4, 268 durative verbs 131 elliptical sentences 10, 154, 232 final clauses 174 n. 72, 258—9, 264-5, 268; conjunctions 176—8, 193-4, 264—5, 267,268 genitive: ablatival 251—2; absolute 252; exclamatory 252, 260, 267; of comparison 252, 268; partitive 252; possessive 6, 254, 256 n. 125 grammatical gender 90-100, 118, 128, 151 n. 77, 157, 189, 202, 208, 210, 215, 217-19, 253,257 hypotaxis 10,41,154,213,217, 266 imperative 180, 258, 259—60, 268; cletic 15 n. 25, 17, 19 n. 50, 28, 30-2, 48; in prayers 30-4, 49, 258 indicative: future indicative + av 258; in final clauses 265; iterative 182, 258, 268; (ou) ^ir) + indicative 258 indirect questions 263—4, 268 individuation/de-individuation 126, 132, 136, 145, 150 infinitive: absolute 260; articular 149-53, 252 "• IQ 6, 260; exclamatory 260, 268; for finite verbs 212-13; imperatival 33,213,259, 260; 'jussive' 33, 34 n. 109, 259 n. 149, 260; loss 212; 'optativaP 33—4, 49, 260 integration 125—6, 152, 154 litotic expressions 176, 184-5, 190, 193 + inf. 257—8, 268 nominal sentences 138, 146, 148, 213, 218, 261 nominalization, nominal style 10, 53, 120-2, 136, 138, 145, 147, 149, 150, 152—5, 226, 228 nominative: exclamatory 251; for vocative 216, 251, 255

359

omission of av 259, 267 omission of definite articles 35-7, 48-9, 213, 217, 221, 224 n. 86, 254-5, 267 omission of grammatical/function words 199, 213, 217, 221; see also above omission of av optative: in prayers 30, 32-4; oblique 174 n. 72, 258-9, 268; potential 181-2, 215 n. 61, 218, 259,265, 267 parataxis 10, 41, 154, 178, 194, 213, 217, 219, 261-2, 266, 268 participial constructions/style 35—7, 121, 178-9, 262 passive constructions 53 perfect: intensive 129 n. 18, 131 n. 26; resultative 122, 126-33, '49. 15°, '55, 257,268 periphrasis 217; ejfai + part. aor. 132 n. 28, 257; participial 121, 152-3, 176 n. 76, 246, 247 n. 73, 257 pluralis maiestatis 254 poetic plural 254, 267 possessive adjectives 6, 179—80, 194, 216 n. 64, 256 possessive constructions with copula 152 possibility modals 11 postpositions 191,234,257 prepositions, prepositional usage 213, 216 n. 65, 217, 221, 234, 237—8, 251, 252, 256—7; see also 'Index of Greek' for individual prepositions pronouns: anaphoric 255; demonstrative 255; enclitic 179—80, 250, 256 n. 125; indefinite 191, 194, 256; interrogative 263-4, 2f>8; personal 10, n, 53, 179-80, 180-1, 194, 216, 256; reflexive 120 n. 3, 256; relative 255, 264, 268 relative clauses 144, 152 n. 82, 264, 268; predicating 35—7, 48-9 rhetorical questions 28, 30, 190 n. 146, 259—60 sacral gemination 44 254 schema Chalcidicum 152—3 sentence length/complexity 117 n. 74, 120 n. 4, 199, 213, 217, 262

360

General Index

syntax (cant.): sociative plural 185—6 n. 118 stative verbs 131 subjunctive: after verbs of intention/effort 265; deliberative 179; for oblique optative 174 n. 72, 259; in final clauses after secondary tense 174 n. 72, 178 n. 83; (ou) ju.rj + subj. 258 substantive clauses 262—3, 266, 267 substantivized adjectives 254 tag questions 166, 185, 213, 217 telic vs. atelic verbs 131 n. 25 temporal clauses 11, 267; conjunctions 264 n. 167, 267 tense 121, 128; see also above aorist and perfect terminative verbs 131—2 typicalization 120-2, 125-6, 132, 136, 145, 147, 149, 150, 151 n. 77, IS3-5, 226,228 verbal adjectives 121, 122, 145-8, 149, 150, 259, 260 verbs of caution/intention/effort 265 verbs of fearing 265 'visualizing'imperfect I 2 7 n . 16 vocative, doubled 44 n. 128; see also above nominative, for vocative Wackernagel's Law 181 n. 102 ware + infinitive/finite verb 265-6, 268 see also hedges; morphology; particles; word formation Tagenistae 155 Tarzan 213 n. 56 technical languages 4, 9, 51—95, 96, 117, 124, 134,227,231 and comedy 56-7, 59-60, 61, 64, 65-70, 72, 94 and general language 54—6, 58, 61,

62-3, 64 n. 35, 68, 69, 77-8, 80-3, 85, 88, 92, 94 and syntax 53 definition 52, 56 in ancient Greece 58 n. 18, 66 n. 40, 70-2 language of agriculture 54, 62 language of literary criticism 58, 59, 62, 65, 87—94, 140 language of rhetoric 67, 77 n. 57, 88, "34, HO

legal language 52, 71, 72-9, 95, I34-S,192 medical language 52, 56—7, 59, 61, 63-4, 65, 67, 71-2, 79-87, 88, 95, 135 nautical language 71 see also technical terms/vocabulary technical terms/vocabulary 9,10, 51-95, 96, 122, 172, 227 and subjective perception 54-6, 59 n. 20, 69-70, 94 and word formation 62, 66—8, 69, 76 common comprehensibility/usage 57, 59—60, 61—3, 65-6, 69, 80-1, 87, 88, 94 context-independence 57-8, 69 criteria of technicality 56-70, 94 determinologization 62—4, 67 n. 41, 78, 81 n. 69, 85 expressive neutrality 58-60, 63, 69 foreign words 60, 76, 81, 95 metaphorization 63—4 monosemy vs. polysemy 57—8, 69 'nomenclature signs' 56 n. 12, 95 n. 100 standardization 57—8, 69 systematicity 66—7, 84, 87 see also technical languages 'technolects', see technical languages Terence 196 terminology, see technical terms/ vocabulary terms of abuse 186,188-9 textual criticism 202, 203, 220-1, 244 Theognis 146—7 Theophrastus 139 Theopompus Comicus 141 n. 55 Thesmophoria 22, 39, 44, 46, 185 Thesmophoriazusae 25—6, 135, 170, 174, 180, 186, 191, 196, 198—225, 226, 230 characters: Agathon 25—6, 43, 48, 136 n. 39, 137 n. 44, 175, 192 n. 156, 255 n. 124; Agathon's servant 45, 48, 68, 242 n. 51; Euripides 191, 196, 198, 219, 224—5; Euripides' Relative 170 n. 54, 173 n. 68, 180 n. 96, 185, 189 n. 140, 191, 192 n. 156, 196, 198, 218, 224; Mica 170 n. 54; Scythian 181 n. 98, 187n. 125, 191 n. 151, 198—225, 226-7, 230, 261

General Index Thucydides 2, 47, 71, 87, 90, 119 n. 2,

130, 136, 142 n. 58, 143, 146 n. 67, 146 n. 68, 147, 151, 159, 175, 176, 178, 182, 236 n. 23, 245, 248, 252 n. 106, 254, 257 n. 130, 257 n. 135, 258 n. 136, 260, 262, 268 Thurii in, 115 Timaeus 112, 113 n. 57 Timotheus 201 n. 14 tmesis, see morphology, verbs Tok Pisin (language) 212 toponyms 237 tragedy 2, 5—6, 62, 198, 224-5 language 2, 6, 31 n. 95, 34 n. i u, 35 n. 112, 61, 80, ioj, 106, 107, 137-8, 146 n. 69, 147, 149, 160, 176-7, 178, 182, i86n. 118, 187, 188, 224-5, 233-8, 241, 245, 247-9, 254 n. 117, 255-8, 260-1, 263, 265-6 see also Aeschylus; Euripides; paratragedy; Sophocles Triballian (language) 224 n. 86 Triballians 207 see also Birds, characters Turkish (language) 212 Turks 212 typicalization, see syntax, typicalization underworld, see Hades vegetarianism 104 n. 25, 112 Vietnam 212 vulgarisms, see obscenity Wackernagel's Law, see syntax, Wackernagel's Law Wasps 67, 72-9, 87, 95, 140, 152, 257 characters: Bdelycleon 43, 78, 81 n. 67, 140; bread-seller 77; Philocleon 37, 40, 48, 67, 72, 77, 82, 140, 227 West African Pidgin English (language) 212 women's language, see female speech word formation adjectives: comparatives/superlatives in -tareposf-iaTaTos 243 > 251; deverbal 121, 144; in-(a)ioj 22;

361

in -IKOS 76, 122, 139—45, 150; in -ios 101; in -deis 235; in -rpis 141; patronymic (-18175) 22 comic 232, 233 n. 3 compounds: Bahuvrihi 22, 123; in -Trarpis 141 n. 55; multiple 109; 'verbale Rektionskomposita" 22, 123; with ftn>- 22, 237-8; with Ttav-JTroXv- 23; with i\o- 67, 87 diminutives 171, 187, 199, 219, 232 names in -K\rjs 235 nominal motion 171, 253 nouns: in -aiva 99-100, 171; in -of 233; in -as 67 n. 41, 233; in -efox 105 n. 29; in -ia 76, 124—5; > n -'Qs 67 n. 41; in -iS- 171; in -is 99; in -lo/tos 85 n. 87; in -ms 67 n. 41, 85, 87 n. 90; in -fta 76, 120, 122, 136-8, 145, 150, see also below in -aijua; in -| 99; in -O'TTJS 120, 136, 138-9, 150; in -ous 67 n. 41, 235; in -s 99; in -ois 62, 67-8, 76-7, 92, 120, 122, 134—6, 138, 150, 176; in -TTJP 76; in -rripiov 105 n. 29; in *-tu- 147; in -ijj 99; in -wpio 6; in -un> 100 verbal nouns, see word formation, nouns in -fia, in -ois, in *-tuverbs: compound verbs in -fat, -aa> 68, 69, 122—6, 150; in -laiVtu 233; in -(i)aoj 84-5; in -paivui 233; onomatopoeic 175; simplex verbs in -cut 124 n. 9, 25° see also morphology; syntax Xenophon 119-20 n. 3, 130 n. 23, 143, 146 n. 67, 147, 151, 178 n. 85, 252 n. 106, 257 n. 130, 260-1 Yana (language) 157 zero-marking 34 Zeus 18, 19, 101-2, 113, 142, 189 Zeus Soter 28 n. 80 Zonaras 91