However, this series of comparisons turns out to be a sequence of forced wordplays, containing incongruous associations and false etymology. Both the pun on Tereus, metrically supported by the repetition of a tribrach (resolution of the first long syllable of a trochaic foot: διὰ τί Τηρέα — διότι τηρεῖν), and that on Procne (πρό and κνῆν, "the one who scratches at the front"),19 supposedly arouse the reaction of the spectators and the characterisation of the joke as frigid (ψυχρόν).20 Such an onstage comment on a joke, which is evaluated on aesthetic terms through a metatheatrical device, including exchanges between characters and theatre audience, is very uncommon. The best explanation for rebuking such frigid jokes on stage is to avoid similar reactions from the audience; in order to prevent the audience from scolding frigid puns, it is the characters themselves who do so, and this preserves their dignity on stage.21 It seems, therefore, that here Timocles innovates, first by having his character coin far-fetched connections between historical and mythical names, and then

 **17** Cf. Ar. *Eq.* 765 and *Vesp.* 1032, where Cynna, "Bitch", a well-known prostitute, is mentioned.

**18** There is archaeological evidence of ithyphallic figures in front of an oven (Staatliche Μuseen zu Berlin, F683/757/829/822); cf. Apostolakis 2019, 163.

**19** This pun also calls to mind the Aristophanic wordplay on προκρούειν ("beat", here metaphorically "screw") and Προκρούστης in Ar. *Eccl.* 1015–1021.

**20** For "frigid" in comedy in the context of "bad joke", cf. Eup. fr. 261.3, σκῶμμα ψυχρὸν καὶ μεγαρικόν; as an aesthetic term of style, in connection with odd vocabulary and strained metaphors, cf. Arist. *Rh.* 1405b 34–1406b 19; Zink 1962, 65–73.

**21** Cf. Kidd 2014, 181–183. Here one may also recognise an Aristophanic metatheatrical technique, as exploited in *Frogs* 1–4, where Dionysus attempts to discourage Xanthias from telling jokes which cause disgust. Cf. *Lys.* 1218–1220; *Eccl.* 888–889.

by elaborating the mythical names through false etymologies. Moreover, in order to anticipate the audience's negative reactions, the poet activates a metatheatrical device through which he provides a safety valve for the joke.22

In Old Comedy, politicians, philosophers, and poets are often mocked within the frame of personal satire (*onomasti kōmōidein*) in contexts both central and peripheral to the plot, or just incidentally. Some poets of Middle Comedy adopt this technique, through which personal satire is introduced by the side door. One such structure is the self-imposed challenge pattern, which entails asymmetrical consequences. A typical example is Alexis fr. 149:

εἴ τινας μᾶλλον φιλῶ ξένους ἑτέρους ὑμῶν, γενοίμην ἔγχελυς, ἵνα Καλλιμέδων ὁ Κάραβος πρίαιτό με

If I love any other foreigners more than you, may I turn into an eel, so that Callimedon the Crayfish may buy me.

The pattern of this structure includes a transformation: "If I don't love A most of all, may I suffer a hateful transformation into a B".23 Here the speaking person wishes to suffer what an eel would suffer in the hands of the *opsophagos* Callimedon. The same pattern, expanded through an accumulation of names, is employed in Ephippus fr. 16:

Διονυσίου δὲ δράματ' ἐκμαθεῖν δέοι καὶ Δημοφῶντος ἅττ' ἐποίησεν εἰς Κότυν, ῥήσεις τε κατὰ δεῖπνον Θεόδωρός μοι λέγοι, Λάχητί τ' οἰκήσαιμι τὴν ἑξῆς θύραν, κυμβία τε παρέχοιμ' ἑστιῶν Εὐριπίδῃ

May I be forced to learn Dionysius' plays by heart and everything that Demophon wrote for Cotys, and may Theodorus recite speeches to me over dinner, and may I live next door to Laches, and may I supply Euripides with small drinking-cups, whenever I give a feast. 24

 **22** On this mechanism of pleasure and the psychogenesis of jokes, see Freud 1960, 143–170, who argues that the pleasure in a joke lies in its "nonsense". On the contrary, according to Aristotle, when the spectator gets the joke, he feels a pleasure which consists in this very learning of its content (*Rh.* 1410b 9–10).

**23** Cf. Arnott 1996, 439.

**24** Farmer (2017, 51–54) considers Ephippus' passage a sample of the ways in which the comic poets incorporate tragedy in everyday situations of their fellow-citizens. For a full discussion of this pattern, cf. Papachrysostomou 2021, 171–172.

This structure, which originated in epic poetry (e.g. Hom. *Il*. 2.258–261), also occurs in Aristophanes, again in a theatrical context.25 It appears that this pattern offered comic poets the possibility of mocking well-known persons of their time, including other playwrights, by inserting their names (and their activities or habits) into an irrelevant scene in progress.

### **2.2 Speaking names**

In Aristophanic comedy the fictitious characters bear significant names (e.g. Dicaeopolis, Trygaeus, Philocleon, Peisetaerus, Lysistrata etc.) which allude to emblematic characteristics; as the play unfolds, the true nature of these names is confirmed through the actions of the bearers.26 This tendency recedes in fourth-century comedy, although it does not disappear altogether. It is striking that an interest in the relationship of a name to the real nature of the bearer sometimes appears in scenes containing pseudo-philosophising discussions. In Alexis fr. 247 (from the play *Phaedrus*), the speaking character appears to investigate the real nature of Eros, and after the description he concludes with a comic remark that "he is close to the name of the demon".27

Amphis' title-character *Dexidēmidēs* is a strong candidate for a significant name, since such a historical name is unattested. It may allude, for example, to a wealthy citizen who receives and treats people with hestiasis.28 In the preserved fragments of Middle Comedy there are few speaking names of the Aristophanic type, and it is uncertain whether they are at the centre of the plot or constitute occasional wordplay. On the other hand, it is not always necessary for a poet to invent a significant name from scratch, since he can also semantically reload an existing one and turn it into a punning name.29 Moreover, some of the historical personal names which appear as titles in Middle Comedy may well hint metaphorically at some characteristic of the bearer, and in that sense it is not impossible that they also function as speaking names. For example, in Antiphanes the

**28** Cf. Papachrysostomou 2016, 86.

 **25** *Knights* 400–401, εἴ σε μὴ μισῶ, γενοίμην ἐν Κρατίνου κῴδιον / καὶ διδασκοίμην προσᾴδειν Μορσίμου τραγῳδίᾳ, "if I don't hate you, may I turn into a blanket in Cratinus' house and be coached by Morsimus to sing in a tragedy".

**26** For the function of speaking names in Aristophanes, cf. Kanavou 2011.

**27** Cf. Arnott 1996, 702 (*ad loc.*): "the speaker's conclusion is presumably intended as a comic dig at the triviality of some of the current theorising".

**29** For example the name Λάμαχος, which is associated with μάχη in Ar. *Ach.* 268–269; see ch. 4.1.

titles *Lampōn* and *Phaōn* may include connotations of a brilliant appearance or character, whilst the titles *Lykōn* and *Leōnidēs* may denote men of wolf-like or lion-hearted temperament,30 and Amphis' *Philetairos* might be a historical person and/or a sobriquet denoting the very nature of the main character.31

Alexis in fr. 19 seems to employ a strong metaphor to show that the poet Choronicus, "the poet who wins with his Chorus", is far better than the (musician) Argas.

 Χορόνικος <ὁ> ποιητὴς ὁδί. (Β.) τίνων ποιητὴς ᾀσμάτων; (A.) σεμνῶν πάνυ. (B.) τί πρὸς τὸν Ἀργᾶν οὗτος; (A.) ἡμέρας δρόμῳ κρείττων

(A.) The poet here's Choronicus. (B.) What sort of songs does he write? (A.) They're very distinguished. (B.) How does he compare to Argas? (A.) He's miles and miles better.

The name Choronicus, otherwise unattested, appears to be invented, as is perhaps the name Nausinicus in another play by Alexis titled *Kybernētēs* (fr. 121).32 The metaphorical description "a day's journey better" seems to retain the competitive vocabulary inherent in Choronicus' name and also has a flavour of Old Comedy.33

Also in Alexis, a father describes his son as a drunkard and compares him with notorious topers, both historical and mythical (fr. 113):

ὁ μὲν οὖν ἐμὸς υἱός, οἷον ὑμεῖς ἀρτίως εἴδετε, τοιοῦτος γέγονεν, Οἰνοπίων τις ἢ Μάρων τις ἢ Κάπηλος ἢ <καὶ> Τιμοκλῆς· μεθύει γὰρ, οὐδὲν ἕτερον

As for my son, as you've just seen, this is what he's turned into: an Oenopion, a Maron, a Capelus, or even a Timocles. Because he's drunk; that's all there is to it.

It is worth noting that at least two of the four persons mentioned bear significant names. Oenopion, the mythical son of Dionysus or Theseus, apparently functions here as a *nom parlant*, from the popular etymology οἶνον πιών, "one

 **30** Cf. Olson 2022, 143.

**31** Cf. Papachrysostomou 2016, 224–225.

**32** "Fortasse nomen est fictum, ut Agoracritus Aristophanis" (Kock). Cf. Arnott 1996, 19 and Kanavou 2011, 192.

**33** Cf. Ar. *Nub.* 430, ἑκατὸν σταδίοισιν ἄριστον; *Rαn.* 91, πλεῖν ἢ σταδίῳ λαλίστερα; and the famous compliment of Pericles in Eupolis fr. 102, ἐκ δέκα ποδῶν ᾔρει λέγων τοὺς ῥήτορας.

who has drunk wine", although it probably derives from οἶνοψ, "dark".34 On the other hand Capelus, either as a significant proper name or as a common name, "tavern keeper", is also quite relevant, while Maron is a hero associated with wine in *Od.* 9.197, and Timocles (perhaps, but not certainly, the comic poet) was a contemporary toper.35

Paratragedy combined with wordplay on proper names is another technique. In Antiphanes fr. 74, the speaking character informs his interlocutor about Laomedon, apparently explaining his name etymologically.36 In Philetaerus fr. 4, from the play *Achilleus*, by punning on *pēlos* ("mud"), the Iliadic hero Peleus becomes a potter:

Πηλεύς· ὁ Πηλεὺς δ' ἐστὶν ὄνομα κεραμέως, ξηροῦ λυχνοποιοῦ, Κανθάρου, πενιχροῦ πάνυ, ἀλλ' οὐ τυράννου νὴ Δία

Peleus; Peleus is the name of a potter — a skinny lamp maker called Cantharus, who's really poor. But it's not a tyrant's name, by Zeus!

This passage paratragically echoes Euripides' *Iphigeneia at Aulis* 701: Πηλεύς· ὁ Πηλεύς δ' ἔσχε Νηρέως κόρην. While, however, the tragedians, Euripides in particular, find in the heroes' names their fate and character,37 Philetaerus employs the comic practice of playfully using proper names as epithets. Such paratragic wordplay on mythical names originated in Old Comedy. Aristophanes, in particular, mockingly reproduces the tragedians' false etymologies.38

A wordplay on common and proper names also appears in Antiphanes fr. 278, φαινίνδα παίζων ᾔεις ἐν Φαινεστίου, "playing *phaininda* † you came † in Phaenestius' place". King Juba in Athenaeus identifies Phaenestius (*PAA*

 **34** Cf. Arnott 1996, 305. Oenopion is also a cupbearer in Lucian, *Pseudologista* 21.

**35** Cf. Apostolakis 2019, 9.

**36** Unfortunately, the text is corrupt. Kaibel read v. 3 as an etymology of Laomedon's name from stone ("tamquam λίθινον ἦτορ ἔχων"), but Seidler's correction ἀπ' ἀρχῆς "after his royal office" (μέδων τοῦ λαοῦ) is preferable; for a convincing defence of this solution, cf. Konstantakos 2000, 107.

**37** For example, Pentheus is associated with πένθος (*Bacch.* 367, 508), Polyneices with νεῖκος (*Phoen.* 636, 1493), Helen with ἑλεῖν (*Tro.* 891), Aphrodite with ἀφροσύνη (*Tro.* 990); cf. McCartney 1919, 348–349.

**38** Cf. Ar. fr. 373, ἐνταῦθα <δ'> ἐτυράννευεν Ὑψιπύλης πατὴρ / Θόας, βραδύτατος τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις δραμεῖν, "here reigned as king the sire of Hypsipyle, Thoas, the slowest runner of all mankind", an apparent comic inversion of Eur. *IT* 31–32, Θόας, ὃς ὠκὺν πόδα τιθεὶς ἴσον πτεροῖς / ἐς τοὔνομ' ἦλθε τόδε ποδωκείας χάριν, "Thoas who came into his name, because of his swift-footedness, for he runs with the speed of wings".

913300) as a physical trainer, but, since this name is otherwise unknown, Juba is probably guessing.39 In that case, Phaenestius might well be a name invented by the comic poet, suitable for a pun on this particular game: for instance, the addressee playing *phaininda* arrived at the place (*hestia*) of the man specialising in teaching (*phainein*) that game, i.e. Phaenestius. In any case, Antiphanes' practice recalls Aristophanes fr. 629, ὑπὸ γέλωτος εἰς Γέλαν ἀφίξομαι, "I'll go to Laughtown conveyed by laughter", included by Plutarch (*Mor.* 853a) in a list of wordplays and puns which were considered feeble and inopportune material for humour.

Antiphanes, again, creates characters with a surprising linguistic interest. Pistos is a slave-name attested not only in comedies (cf. Phot. *Bibl.* 532b 36) but also in real life (e.g. *IG* I3 421.28, Attica, 414 BCE).40 As a speaking character in the play *Boutaliōn*, he playfully modifies the meaning of ἀνθρωποφάγοι ἰχθύες, "man-eater fish", and Ἑλένης βρώματα, "the diet of Helen". Moreover, he sarcastically reacts to the hetaera's shopping instructions and says that the only way he knows to shop is with money (fr. 69.2–4).41

(Α.) σὺ δ' ἀγοράσεις ἡμῖν λαβών, Πίστ', ἀργύριον. (Πίστ.) ἄλλως γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταμαι χρηστῶς ἀγοράζειν.

(Α.)  (Pist.) That is the only way I know how to shop decently.

Pistos playfully associates his own name not with the obvious derivation πιστός, "faithful", but with the verb ἐπίστασθαι, "be versed in", through a mere assonance (fr. 69.2–4). In addition to turning the true meaning of the words upside down, Pistos appears to associate his name not with faith, but with inventiveness. Far from looking like a devoted (πιστός) servant, he rather seems to have the requirements to evolve into a cunning slave.42

Another sub-category of the comic slave is the type of *servus currens.* The significant name Dromon appears in Menander's *Sikyonios*, in Euangelus' *Anaka-*

 **39** Cf. Olson 2021, 246–247.

**40** A steward named Pistus is also mentioned in Plautus' *Mercator* by the old man Lysimachus, who instructs his slave to meet Pistus in person and deliver a mattock into his hand (277–288). The language used by the old man (*Pisto ipsi, coram, tradas in manum*) implicitly describes a trustworthy (πιστός) man.

**41** Cf. Konstantakos 2004a, 22–23; Konstantakos 2021, 147–148.

**42** Interpreting a name in a different way to that suggested by etymology is common in Plautus' comedy; cf. Fontaine 2010, 94–95.

*lyptomenē*, in Plautus' *Aulularia*, and in Terence's *Andria*, *Heauton timorumenos*, and *Adelphoe.* In Dionysius fr. 3, Dromon appears on stage probably as a slave of a cook, and is given instructions in a figurative language using military vocabulary,43 which contains some wordplay: Δρόμων ... κατάτρεχε, "Dromon ... run down". It appears that this is the earliest mention of this speaking name, which in the course of time would become a generic name for the *servus currens.*

Coining verbs from personal names is another practice. Unlike fourthcentury oratory, where the pro-Macedonians were described with the verb φιλιππίζειν, "to be Philip's followers" ([Dem.] 58.37; Aeschin. 3.130), Alexis has coined the verb φιλιππιδόω, with reference to the emaciated politician Philippides (fr. 148).

(A.) κακῶς ἔχεις, στρoυθὶς ἀκαρὴς νὴ Δί' εἶ· πεφιλιππίδωσαι. (Β.) μὴ σὺ καινῶς μοι λάλει. ὅσον οὐ τέθνηκα. (Α.) τοῦ ταλαιπώρου πάθους

(Α.)  You've Philippidised. (B.) Don't use newfangled vocabulary on me; I'm as good as dead. (A.)

To the best of my knowledge, πεφιλιππιδῶσθαι is the only instance in the preserved fragments of Middle Comedy of a verb formed from a proper name. However, such *hapax* coinings are not unknown in Old Comedy, for example μελλονικιᾶν (Ar. *Av.* 639) and ἐσωκράτων (Ar. *Av.* 1282), denoting a morbid condition of Nicias and Socrates respectively.44 The coining of πεφιλιππιδῶσθαι in the context of a deathlike condition is a step further on from exaggerated descriptions like ἰσχνότερον Φιλιππίδου (Aristophon fr. 8), where a character (probably Plato) asserts that he will make a member of the Academy thinner than Philippides.45 It also calls to mind a similar description of Chaerephon in *Clouds*, where Socrates promises Strepsiades that the latter will become indistinguishable from Chaerephon, and Strepsiades comments that he's going to become like

 **43** Cf. Orth 2020, 348.

**44** Such interesting plays on a character's proper name also appear in Plautus; see *Trin.* 975– 977, where a trickster invites the old man Charmides to become un-Charmides, i.e. to admit that he is not Charmides: *proin tu te, itidem ut charmidatus es, rursum recharmida*. Cf. *Pseud.* 585, *Ballionem exballistabo*, "I'll cannonball Ballio".

**45** Cf. Φιλιππίδου λεπτότερον ... νεκρόν, "a skinnier corpse than Philippides" (Menander, *Orgē*  fr. 266).

a half-dead man.46 What is worth noting in Alexis' passage is the comment of the interlocutor, who dismisses this kind of verbal coinage. Here, however, unlike the supposed metatheatrical comment in Timocles fr. 19 (see above on ch. 2.1), the critique remains within the bounds of theatrical convention.

Personal proper names are also turned into mocking epithets. Such is the compound epithet which occurs in Ephippus fr. 14.3, where a man from Plato's Academy is called τις τῶν Βρυσωνοθρασυμαχειοληψικερμάτων, "one of those taking coins like Bryson and Thrasymachus". The first component refers to Bryson of Heraclea, a pupil of Socrates, the second to Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, the sophist.47 This *hapax* recalls known Aristophanic hybrids, e.g. *Eccl.* 1169–1175; *Av.* 491.

# **Epithets**

### **3.1 Epithets as comic titles**

Given that in fourth-century comedy political and personal satire recedes and social and domestic themes and subjects prevail, contemporary people appear rather peripherally, while the dominant characters are cooks, parasites, pimps, soldiers, rustics, courtesans, spendthrifts, and other figures stereotypical in later comedy. It is unsurprising, then, that these comic characters are often qualified with epithets denoting or alluding to their main occupation, an idiosyncratic element, or a ruling sentiment of their personality. Such epithets, apparently attributed to the main character of the play, even appear as comic titles in Middle Comedy: *Agroikos*, "Boorish fellow" (Anaxilas, Antiphanes, Philemon), *Monotropos*, "Solitary Man" (Anaxilas; cf. Phrynichus), *Misoponēros*, "Hater of Wickedness" (Antiphanes), *Philetairos*, "Loyal Comrade" (Alexis, Amphis, Antiphanes), *Philomētōr*, "Mother's Boy", and *Philopatōr*, "Father's Boy" (Antiphanes), *Mempsimoiros*, "Fault-Finding Fellow" (Antidotus), *Dyskolos*, "Bad Tempered" (Mnesimachus; cf. Menander), *Polypragmōn*, "Busybody" (Timocles, Heniochus; cf. Diphilus), *Epichairekakos*, "The Spiteful Man" (Timocles), *Philodikastēs*, "The Man Who Loved Jury-Duty" (Timocles), *Malthakē*, "Soft Woman" (Antiphanes), *Aischra*, "Ugly Woman" (Anaxandrides). In some cases these epithets, associated with relevant characters, are already used in Old Comedy, and

 **46** Ar. *Nub.* 503–504: (ΣΩ.) οὐδὲν διοίσεις Χαιρεφῶντος τὴν φύσιν. / (ΣΤΡ.) οἴμοι κακοδαίμων, ἡμιθνὴς γενήσομαι.

**47** Cf. Papachrysostomou 2021, 152–153.

in that sense the poets of Middle Comedy receive and upgrade them as comic titles. Examples include *agroikos* in Ar. *Eq.* 40 (said of Demos) and *Nub.* 42, 46 (of Strepsiades); *monotropos* (already as a proper name and title of a comedy in Phrynichus); *dyskolos* (Ar. *Eq.* 41, of Demos); *polypragmōn* (Eupolis fr. 238); *philodikastēs* (cf. Ar. *Vesp.* 87, φιληλιαστής, of Philocleon). In some cases the formation of such epithets may have originated in periphrastic expressions: for example, the epithet *misoponēros* is modelled after the description of Timon the Misanthrope in *Lysistrata* 816–818, οὕτω 'κεῖνος ὑμᾶς ἀντεμίσει τοὺς πονηροὺς ἄνδρας ἀεί. Likewise, epithet-titles with φιλο- as the first component (*Philetairos*, *Philopatōr*) recall Aristophanes' *Wasps* 77–88, where a series of jokes includes epithets denoting an inclination to a practice: φιλόκυβος, φιλοπότης, φιλόξενος, φιλοθύτης.48 Since, however, such titles are relatively rare in Old Comedy, it seems that the poets of Middle Comedy are amplifying an existing practice.49 On the other hand, some of these epithet-titles indicate an association with fourth-century philosophical inquiry and contemporary oratory. For instance, *misoponēros* occurs in Demosthenes (21.218) and Aeschines (1.69; 2.171), while *philoponēros* is one of Theophrastus' characters (no. 29); the titles *Agroikos* and *Mempsimoiros* are shared by Theophrastus (*Char.* 4 and 17), and *epichairekakos* as a character is described in Arist. *Rh.* 1379b 17–19, τοῖς ἐπιχαίρουσι ταῖς ἀτυχίαις.

These epithets are apparently substituted for the main character's real name, although he probably also had a fictitious proper name.50 Sometimes the linguistic humour supports the representation on stage of such characters, who are given an epithet emblematic of their obsession. Antiphanes, for example, is a poet who tends to do this. In his play *Philomētōr*, "The Man who Loved his Mother", he associates the name of his title-character with food by means of an arbitrary etymology. In fr. 219, he crowns an accumulation of word-plays on μήτηρ, "mother" (ἔμμητρον ξύλον, "wood from the core of the tree", μητρόπολις, "mother-city"), with a pun on μήτρα, "womb", and Mητρᾶς (Metras of Chios).51 Also in his fr. 157 of *Misoponēros*, "The Hater of Knaves", the fierce

 **48** Cf. Simone Beta's chapter in the present volume.

**49** In Old Comedy, cf. Phrynichus' *Monotropos*, "Solitary"*.* Cf. Henderson 2014, 195, who recognises in Middle Comedy both amplifications of older elements and innovations.

**50** Such a practice is attested in New Comedy; for example, Cnemon is the real name of the main character in Menander's *Dyskolos*.

**51** μήτραν τινὲς πωλοῦσιν ἥδιστον κρέας. / Μητρᾶς ὁ Χῖός ἐστι τῷ δήμῳ φίλος, "some people sell sow's womb, the most delicious meat there is; Metras of Chios is a friend of the people". However, it is a matter of dispute whether the play was originally *Philomētōr* or *Philopatōr*; cf. Olson 2021, 116.

invective against different social and professional classes (Scythians, wetnurses, pedagogues, midwives, mendicant priests, fishmongers, and moneylenders) is quite compatible with the idiosyncrasy of a *misoponēros*, in fact a misanthrope. More particularly, the expressions γένος μιαρώτατον, "the foulest kind" (v. 8–9), and ἔθνος ἐξωλέστερον, "a more pestilential race" (v. 11–12), the patterns of syntax, and the rhetorical questions support an indignant tone and contribute to the depiction of this particular misanthrope.52 Moreover, at least one of Timocles' title-characters, named after an epithet, may be illustrated in the preserved fragments. In a play titled *Epichairekakos* (fr. 11), the speaking character narrates Corydus' behaviour in the fish-market. The sarcastic comment "What happened to him was ludicrous, alas!", about the destitute parasite whose mouth waters when looking at expensive fish, may well reveal a spiteful man, one who enjoys others' misfortunes.53

### **3.2 New epithets for stereotypical characters**

Apart from standard epithets for stereotypical characters in Middle Comedy (e.g. *opsophagos*, *parasitos*), the comic poets often use equivalent, descriptive ones which, in the course of time, also become emblematic of the characters to whom they are attributed. For example, a parasite is often called ἄκλητος, "uninvited" (e.g. Antiphanes frr. 193.7, 227.1–3), Lat. *invocatus* (Plautus, *Captivi* 69); ἀσύμβολος, "without paying his contribution" (Timocles fr. 10.4); κεστρεὺς νῆστις, "a hungry grey-mullet" (Alexis fr. 258); παραμασήτης, "fellow-chewer" (Alexis fr. 238.2; Timocles fr. 9.6). Some poets of Middle Comedy exhibit an inclination for epithets which are unusual, even unique in the existing literature. In the following lines I focus on inventive epithets used for gourmands and fish-eaters (*opsophagoi*), persons commonly satirised in Middle Comedy.

In Theophilus fr. 4.3–4, the *opsophagos* politician Callimedon is satirised for his inappropriate rhetorical style as ψυχρός, "cold". The mechanism of the wordplay is activated by means of the particular epithet, which on a first level is applied to a crayfish within a culinary context, and is turned through metonymy into an aesthetic term for Callimedon's rhetoric.54

 **52** Cf. the detailed analysis of Konstantakos 2021, esp. 167–176.

**53** Cf. Apostolakis 2019, 105–106.

**54** On ψυχρόν with aesthetic connotations, cf. Alexis fr. 184, (φρέαρ) ψυχρότερον Ἀραρότος;

Ar. *Thesm.* 170, ὁ δ' αὖ Θέογνις ψυχρὸς ὢν ψυχρῶς ποεῖ; and ch. 2.1 above.

Amphis, on the other hand, a poet who often employs *hapax* epithets in his poetry,55 uses in the same passage (fr. 10) the rare epithet κνισολοιχός, "fatlicker" (the only other instances where it occurs are Antiphanes fr. 64 and Sophilus fr. 8), 56 and the *hapax* ὀλϐιογάστωρ, "belly-blessed", to describe Eurybatus (it is not clear whether he is a historical or a mythical person). But while compounds with κνῖσα are always derisive (e.g. κνισοτηρητής, "fat-hunter", adesp. com. fr. 622), ὀλβιογάστωρ is an inventive adaptation of elevated epithets (e.g. ὀλβιοδαίμων, "of blessed lot", Hom. *Il.* 3.182; ὀλβιόδωρος, "bestowing bliss", Eur. *Hipp.* 750) to a comic situation.57

In Timocles, in a context of political satire from the play *Heroes*, the anti-Macedonian orator Hypereides is called *opsophagos* (fr. 4.9). In another of Timocles' plays (*Icarian Satyrs*), Hypereides' notorious appetite for fish is described in a more inventive style (fr. 17):

τόν τ' ἰχθυόρρουν ποταμὸν Ὑπερείδην πέρα ὃς ἠπίαις φωναῖσιν ἔμφρονος λόγου κόμποις παφλάζων †ἠπίοις† πυκνώμασι πρὸς παν ... δυσας ἔχει, μισθωτὸς ἄρδει πεδία τοῦ δεδωκότος

Then cross the fish-rich river Hypereides, who with mild sounds of prudent speech, blustering boastfully with † wheedling † rhetorical aggregations ... as a hired servant he waters his employer's fields.

The language of the first line indicates a parody of high poetry, the possible serious pattern being that of a person giving directions to a traveller. Such an example occurs in *Prometheus Bound*, when Prometheus gives instructions to Io and advises her to avoid dangerous crossings: 717–718, ἥξεις δ' ὑβριστὴν ποταμὸν οὐ ψευδώνυμον / ὃν μὴ περάσῃς, "You will then come to the Violent River, not inaptly named; do not cross it". Timocles seems to inverse the serious pattern when he has the speaking character instruct the traveller to cross the river, and, perhaps, by ascribing to the orator characteristics of a river, instead of having the river acquire human properties (cf. ὑβριστὴν ποταμόν). Besides, the *hapax* epithet ἰχθυόρρους, "a river flowing with many fish", actually an innovative variation on the stereotypical epic epithets ἰχθυόεις (Hom. *Il.* 16.747) and βαθύρρους (Hom. *Il*. 7.421), is clearly bathetic. The poet, by ascribing this new-

**57** Cf. Papachrysostomou 2016, 78.

 **55** Cf. Papachrysostomou 2016, 15–16.

**56** Perhaps surviving in Plautus' *nidoricupi*, "aroma greedling", said of Tranio, who hides in a kitchen (*Most.* 5); cf. Fontaine 2010, 172.

coined epithet to Hypereides, activates successive transformations of the fishriver Hypereides, who retains both human and riverine characteristics, into a tumultuous orator, who splashes on the model of the fifth-century demagogue Cleon, the Paphlagon of the *Knights*, 58 while in the final verse he becomes a paid (μισθωτός) gardener, who waters his master's fields.59 In Antiphanes fr. 104, probably in the epilogue of the play *Thamyras*, pronounced by a god, it is said that a river will be called in the future by the significant name (ἐπώνυμος, an epithet unique in comedy) Strymon, after the (otherwise unattested) King Strymon. The river, endowed with the largest eels (v. 3, μεγίστας ἐγχέλεις κεκτημένος), calls to mind the fish-river Hypereides and is also compared to a gardener, who waters the land (v. 2, κατάρδων).60

### **3.3 Divine epithets**

Traditional epithets from high poetry, adapted to comic situations, also appear in Middle Comedy.61 To this category belong the divine epithets, mostly of epic origin. Although stereotypical divine epithets do not usually offer many opportunities for comic exploitation, the poets sometimes exploit them inventively in new contextual circumstances.62 Such is their use in contexts of incongruous language. As a case study, I will consider the function of divine epithets associated with Hermes in Middle Comedy. Hermes' presence is well established in comedy since Aristophanes' time, as he was associated — perhaps more than the other gods — with everyday life, as his corresponding epithets denote: ἀγοραῖος (Ar. *Eq.* 297), ἐμπολαῖος (Ar. *Ach.* 816). Also, as a patron of tricks

 **58** Cf. Ar. *Eq.* 918, ἁνὴρ παφλάζει, "the man is splashing"; *Pax* 313–315, παφλάζων καὶ κεκραγώς, "plopping and screaming". It seems, however, that another passage of the *Knights* is also recalled, namely the mention of Cratinus, who in the parabasis is described as a rapid stream flowing against his opponents (526–528, cf. Bernhard Zimmermann's chapter in the present volume).

**59** The *opsophagos* Hypereides as a river rich in fishes perhaps finds a parallel in the parasite Neilus: Euphanes fr. 1.6, ποῦ Κόρυδος, ἢ Φυρόμαχος, ἢ Νείλου βία; "Where is Corydus, Phyromachus, the forceful Neilus?" Given that Neilus as a personal name is very rare (only one instance in the fourth century), it may be the nickname of a parasite, due to his impetuosity (cf. βία); cf. Mastellari 2016, 303. If so, then the impetuous river becomes a metonymy for an *opsophagos*, as well as for a parasite.

**60** For the parodic language of the passage cf. Olson 2022, 24.

**61** Cf. Anaxilas fr. 22.3–5, ἄμεικτος, πύρπνοος, τρίκρανος, which paratragically recalls Heracles' labours in Soph. *Trach.* 1089–1100; cf. Tartaglia 2019, 128.

**62** Cf. Willi 2002, 5.

(cf. Ar. *Thesm.* 1202, δόλιος), he is more often involved in comic situations. For all these reasons he has sometimes been considered a divine patron of comedy.63

This tradition may be echoed in Middle Comedy. Ιn Alexis' play *Thesprōtoi*, apparently in a scene of *nekyiomanteia*, personal satire occasionally intrudes, the target being the politician Philippides (fr. 93):

Ἑρμῆ θεῶν προπομπὲ καὶ Φιλιππίδου κληροῦχε, Νυκτός τ' ὄμμα τῆς μελαμπέπλου

Hermes, divine escort, to whom Philippides belongs by lot; and thou, eye of dark-robed Night.

Hermes as a *psychagōgos* is said to have a claim on the dead-like Philippides, who was often compared with a corpse.64 This role is supported by the epithet "dark-robed", applied to Night, the appropriate time of action for the *psychagōgos* Hermes.65 The joke is constructed on the juxtaposition of the grandiose synapsis θεῶν προπομπέ and μελάμπεπλος νύξ on the one hand, and the unexpected Φιλιππίδου κληροῦχε on the other, which comically subverts the imposing style of the verse and the darkness of the whole scene, probably coming from the prologue of the play.66

In Eubulus fr. 95, Hermes, "the son of Maia", is described as λίθινος, "made of stone", polished with prayers till he shines in the *kylikeion* (ὃν προσεύγμασιν ἐν τῷ κυλικείῳ λαμπρὸν ἐκτετριμμένον). The apparently dignified address is brought down to earth when one realises that this is only a statuette kept in the cupboards, among kitchen utensils.67

Comic inventiveness also characterises another passage of Timocles (fr. 14), from his play *Heroes*:

Ἑρμῆς δ' ὁ Μαίας ταῦτα συνδιακτορεῖ ἂν ᾖ π[ρ]όθυμος· καταβέβηκεν ἄσμενος χαριζόμενός γ' Ἀριστομήδῃ τῷ καλῷ, ἵνα μηκέτ' αὐτὸν ὁ Σάτυρος κλέπτην λέγῃ

 **63** Cf. Moodie 2019; for Hermes in Old Comedy, see Beta 2019.

**64** θεῶν προπομπέ has rather a tragic tone (cf. πομπός, Aesch. *Pers.* 626; Soph. *OC* 1548). This formulation, however, causes textual problems, since Hermes appears in the epic tradition as *psychagōgos*, not as an escort of the gods, and Casaubon's correction of θεῶν into νεκρῶν might be correct; cf. Arnott 1996, 244–246.

**65** Cf. e.g. Hom. *Il.* 24.694–695, where Hermes as *psychagōgos* addresses Priam in the darkness of the night.

**66** Cf. Arnott 1996, 244–246.

**67** Cf. Beta 2019, 99.

Hermes, the son of Maia, aids in conducting these affairs, on condition that he is eager to do so. He has descended with pleasure, showing favour to Aristomedes the Handsome, so that Satyros will no longer call him a thief.

Here, too, the initial context suggests a grandiose intervention of the god. The (post-Homeric) formula "son of Maia", the echo of Hermes' epic epithet διάκτορος (an οbscure epithet, perhaps "messenger") in the verb συνδιακτορεῖ (Wilamowitz's correction of the papyrus' συνδιακτονεῖ), an inventive coining of a verb out of a traditional divine epithet, and the prayer-formula in the context of a *katabasis* (v. 2, καταβέβηκεν ἄσμενος), by which Hermes is described as a god eager (πρόθυμος) to assist, suggest a context of response to a prayer. But the last lines subvert the initial grandiose description, causing a comic incongruity. Hermes is now acting as a patron of thieves, by offering his help to his protégé Aristomedes, a supposed "thief", in return for sexual services (v. 3).68

### **Νicknames**

Unlike Aristophanic comedy, where the play on names mainly focuses on the "speaking names" of the main characters, invented by the poet, in Middle Comedy the stereotypical characters such as *alazones* (braggart soldiers), parasites, *opsophagoi*, and courtesans, when appearing on stage or just being mentioned, already have their well-established nicknames, by which they are known outside the theatre. The comic poets, in turn, exploit the possibilities offered by these nicknames by activating jokes which refer to the very mechanism of their creation. Sometimes, however, they invent themselves nicknames for their characters, which are strictly employed within the particular play or, possibly, within a particular context, in order to make fun of them.69 Some nicknames may actually have originated on the comic stage. A typical case is Antiphanes fr. 27 from *Halieuomenē*, where a fishmonger's on-stage association of well-known persons with special fishes, on the basis of common (actual or supposed) characteristics, may provide such material. More specifically, there are two parallel lists of fishes and names, each name (either a proper name or a nickname) corresponding to and being playfully identified with a fish, so that the exposition

 **68** For a discussion of this fragment, cf. Apostolakis 2019, 127–134.

**69** Cf. Millis 2015, 169, who considers the first type "permanent nicknames" and the second "isolated jests".

of the fishmonger's trade in the fish market is transformed into a list of *kōmōidoumenoi.*70

A common source of nicknames is the mocking association of a person with some material object indicative of his/her occupation. In this way, significant names are turned into standard nicknames in the course of time, and are recycled on the comic stage. In Philetaerus fr. 14, a cook is called *Pataniōn* (from πατάνιον "little flat dish").71 Already in Aristophanes (*Ran.* 549), a baking woman is called Plathanē (from πλάθανον, a dish for baking bread), while the similar name Scapha (σκάφη, "Trough") occurs in Plautus (*Most.* 158, 162). On the other hand, the courtesan Λοπάδιον (Timocles fr. 27) is apparently named after a small vessel for boiling fish (λοπάς), but this must be an already established nickname, not one invented by the comic poet. On the procedure of generating a nickname, a telling passage is that in Anaxandrides (fr. 35):

ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἀλλήλους ἀεὶ χλευάζετ ̓, οἶδ ̓ ἀκριβῶς. ἂν μὲν γὰρ ᾖ τις εὐπρεπής, Ἱερὸν Γάμον καλεῖτε· ἐὰν δὲ μικρὸν παντελῶς ἀνθρώπιον, Σταλαγμόν. λαμπρός τις ἐξελήλυθ ̓– ⏒ Ὄλολυς οὗτός ἐστι· λιπαρὸς περιπατεῖ ∆ημοκλῆς, Ζωμὸς κατωνόμασται· χαίρει τις αὐχμῶν ἢ ῥυπῶν, Κονιορτὸς ἀναπέφηνεν· ὄπισθεν ἀκολουθεῖ κόλαξ τῳ, Λέμβος ἐπικέκληται· τὰ πόλλ ̓ ἄδειπνος περιπατεῖ, Κεστρῖνός ἐστι Nῆστις. εἰς τοὺς καλοὺς δ ̓ ἄν τις βλέπῃ, καινὸς Θεατροποιός· ὑφείλετ ̓ ἄρνα ποιμένος παίζων, Ἀτρεὺς ἐκλήθη· ἐὰν δὲ κριόν, Φρῖξος· ἂν δὲ κῳδάριον, Ἰάσων

For you always mock one another, I know well. For if someone is attractive, you call him Sacred Marriage; and if he is an exceedingly small fellow, Drop. Someone has turned out comely [...] this one is Womanish; Democles walks about (over-)oiled, he has the name Soup; someone delights in being unanointed or dirty, he is clearly Dustcloud; a flatterer follows behind someone, he is called Skiff; whoever walks around generally dinnerless, is Starving Mullet. If someone stares at handsome boys, a new Theatre-maker; if he took a shepherd's lamb as a joke, he was dubbed Atreus; if a ram, Phrixos; and if a fleece, Jason. 72

In this catalogue it is possible to discern two sources of nicknames. The first is from everyday life, referring either to physical characteristics or to a particular

 **70** See Konstantakos 2000, 70–71, who convincingly remarks that Antiphanes may well have been inspired by an Old Comedy source, e.g. Archippus' *Fishes*, frr. 15–18. For comic descriptions of seafood as puns on the nicknames of some *hetairai*, cf. Lamari 2021.

**71** This *Pataniōn* might well be the ancestor of the cook Citrio (probably associated with χύτρα) in Plautus' *Casina.*

**72** Cf. Ar. *Av.* 1291–1299; Alexis fr. 183.3.

behaviour, such as Stalagmos, Zōmos, Ololys, Koniortos, Lembos, as parallels indicate; while the second is more sophisticated, including mythological parallels, and may well be the poet's inventive addition, in a comic culmination.73 At the same time, this fragment illustrates the process by which comic poets take popular jokes and turn them into useful comic material. The nickname Stalagmos, in particular, has its own history, since it survives as the name of a slave in Plautus' *Captivi*, and as the title of a play by Naevius, apparently the eponymous character.74 This might mean that this particular nickname was introduced to theatre at some point as the name of a comic character, and was subsequently adopted by the Roman comic poets. Finally, sometimes an existing nickname is used to stigmatise a particular behaviour of another person, by comparing the stigmatised person with the original bearer of the nickname. We can follow this process on stage in Timocles fr. 21, when the speaking character calls somebody "a Tithymallus and a parasite" (Τιθύμαλλον αὐτὸν καὶ παράσιτον ἀποκαλῶν), apparently because the person behaves like that notorious parasite by invading a dinner uninvited.75

### **4.1 Braggart soldiers**

While in Greek New Comedy and Roman comedy braggart soldiers are mainly mercenaries, the old type is a prominent public figure.76 In Timocles' *Heroes*  (fr. 12), Demosthenes is described as a *miles gloriosus*, and this description rather looks backwards, to the early history of this stereotypical character.

Οὐκοῦν κελεύεις νῦν με πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ προσόντα φράζειν. (Β.) πάνυ γε. (Α.) δράσω τοῦτό σοι. καὶ πρῶτα μέν σοι παύσεται Δημοσθένης ὀργιζόμενος. (Β.) ὁ ποῖος; (Α.) †ὁ Βριάρεως, ὁ τοὺς καταπάλτας τάς τε λόγχας ἐσθίων, μισῶν λόγους ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲ πώποτε ἀντίθετον εἰπὼν οὐδέν, ἀλλ' Ἄρη βλέπων

(Α.) I see what you mean; you ask me to tell anything except what is appropriate. (B.) Just the thing! (A.) I will do it for your sake.  For the "Aristophanic" technique of ending a list with an abbreviated form, cf. Spyropoulos 1974, 12–17; Millis 2015, 169 n. 62.

**74** Cf. Bechtel 1898, 11; Millis 2015, 169.

**75** Apostolakis 2019, 174–175.

**76** For a detailed discussion of the evolution of this character, see Konstantakos 2015.

with you. (B.) Who is Demosthenes? (A.) Briareos, who swallows catapults and spears, this hater of discourse, who never used a single antithesis in his speech but has a martial stare.

Τhe ironical game played on stage (*antiphrasis*) requires the replacement of the qualities belonging to a person with quite the opposite ones. In this context, the expression "he never used a single antithesis" alludes to the anti-Macedonian slogan "not give (*dounai*) but return (*apodounai*)" of the Halonnesus debate (342 BCE), in response to Philip's offer of Halonnesus to the Athenians. By this antithetical expression (actually a paronomasia), which was credited to Demosthenes, the Athenian orator proposed the rejection of Philip's offer, since the island had belonged to Athens in the past. Through this ironical device Demosthenes, the supposed fervent champion of war, is revealed to be a false Briareos, a braggart *miles gloriosus*, who exhausts his combative spirit in uttering warlike cries against the Macedonian king. Briareos, perhaps originating from βριαρός, "strong", might be a significant name for a terrifying fighter, as Demosthenes is ironically described. It is telling that Lamachus, the comic archetype of the *miles gloriosus*, is also associated with μάχη in Aristophanes (cf. Ar. *Ach.* 269–270, πραγμάτων τε καὶ μαχῶν καὶ Λαμάχων ἀπαλλαγείς). The description of the martial stare of Demosthenes (Ἄρη βλέπων) also recalls a similar description of Lamachus in *Acharnians* 566, ἰὼ Λάμαχ', ὦ βλέπων ἀστραπάς. Demosthenes' description, therefore, as a Briareos, has a rather Aristophanic flavour.77 Mythical figures as braggart soldiers also appear, as one would expect, in mythological burlesque. In Ephippus' *Busiris*, Heracles (fr. 2) boasts and asserts that he, as a Tirynthian Argive, fights all his battles drunk, but his claims are dismissed by his interlocutor, who remarks that this is why Tirynthians always run away.78

Given, however, that during the fourth century the role and number of mercenary soldiers dramatically increased, the braggart soldier became a stereotypical figure on the comic stage. Plays titled *Stratiōtēs* were written by Antiphanes, Alexis, and Xenarchus (and also Philemon and Diphilus), while Ephippus wrote *Peltastēs*. *Milites gloriosi* bearing speaking names are very common in Greek New Comedy and Roman comedy. These names either existed in real life, e.g. Bias, Polemon, and Stratophanes (Menander), or are invented, e.g. Hairesiteiches (Diphilus) and Pyrgopolynices (Plautus). On the other hand, we have only scanty

 **77** Cf. Hermippus fr. 47 and Cratinus fr. 300, where Pericles is described in similar terms to Demosthenes. Timocles fr. 12 also recalls Mnesimachus fr. 7, where a character boasts about his military abilities in similar terms. For further discussion of Timocles' scene, see Apostolakis 2019, 115–123.

**78** Cf. Konstantakos 2014, 172; Papachrysostomou 2021, 34–41.

evidence for Middle Comedy. Possible, but far from certain, instances are the comic titles *Thrasōn* in Alexis, and *Kleophanēs* and *Tychōn* in Antiphanes.79 However, sometimes we can trace the bombastic rhetoric of a *miles* in the preserved fragments*.*

In the following lines, I will consider the opportunities for jokes and wordplay offered by a nickname for a braggart soldier. In the unique preserved fragment by Heracleides (fr. 1), Chares is ironically described as liberal and magnificent, since he gave a splendid banquet to the Athenian people for an insignificant — and easily earned — victory over Adaeus, the commander of the foreign troops of Philip, who was known as "Rooster":

Ἀλεκτρυόνα τὸν τοῦ Φιλίππου παραλαβὼν ἀωρὶ κοκκύζοντα καὶ πλανώμενον κατέκοψεν· οὐ γὰρ εἶχεν οὐδέπω λόφον. ἕνα κατακόψας μάλα συχνοὺς ἐδείπνισεν Χάρης Ἀθηναίων τόθ', ὡς γενναῖος ἦν

He caught Philip's Rooster as he was squawking and wandering around early in the morning, and chopped him to pieces; because he didn't have a crest. Even though he only chopped up one Rooster, Chares fed an enormous number of Athenians dinner. What a generous guy he was!

Through an established nickname, the slaughter of Philip's official is inventively transformed into a culinary event. The nickname Ἀλεκτρυών, "Cock" or "Rooster", is further elaborated in two inseparable levels. Philip's braggart officer is seen as a cock crowing too early, i.e. selecting the wrong timing for the battle.  Moreover, the victor gave a dinner for the Athenians to celebrate his battle against Philip's mercenaries under Adaeus the "Rooster", who is said to have been chopped into pieces and offered as a meal. The joke is probably inspired from Aristophanic material. In *Birds* (v. 290), Euelpides comments on a bird's crest and alludes to Cleonymus having flung away his shield on the battlefield.80 Besides, the same culinary term (κατακόπτειν, "butcher") is applied in a feasting context both to Alectryon's slaughter in Heracleides and to birds butchered for a wedding feast in *Birds* (v. 1688).

 **79** For Thrason, see Arnott 1996, 249–250. Tychon (perhaps "Lucky') is an alternative title (Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων), and, since it is quite uncommon as an Athenian name, it might be a significant name for a *miles*; cf. Konstantakos 2000, 212–214; Olson 2021, 34.

**80** Cf. also *Birds* 1366, where Peisetaerus advises the man who strikes his father (*Patraloias*) to become a brave fighter: νομίσας ἀλεκτρυόνος ἔχειν τονδὶ λόφον.

### **4.2 Parasites and** *Opsophagoi*

Most parasites in fourth-century comedy bear nicknames. Interestingly enough, the very title *parasitos* seems to be a nickname, by which this particular character is introduced on the comic stage. The following fragment of Alexis (183.1–2) is telling:

καλοῦσι δ' αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ νεώτεροι Παράσιτον ὑποκόρισμα· τῷ δ' οὐδὲν μέλει.

All the young men call him "Parasite" as a nickname. But it doesn't bother him.

As Arnott speculates, this is the first time that this comic type, known during the fifth century as *kolax*, "flatterer", was launched in the comic theatre under this term, which had hitherto been reserved, both inside and outside the theatre, for men who offered their services to a cult and received free meals in return.81

Both Greek and Roman poets invent further nicknames for their comic parasites, and elaborate on them with various explanations, according to the special inclinations of their characters. Sometimes parasites themselves explain their own nickname when introducing themselves. In Aristophon (fr. 5.3), a parasite says that his name is *Zōmos*, "Broth", because he always arrives first at dinner.82 In Antiphanes' *Progonoi* (fr. 193), a parasite declares that he is ready to offer any kind of service to the patron without a second thought (ἀπρόσκεπτος). And that is why the younger men call him "Thunderbolt" (Σκηπτός). He even argues that mocking remarks don't bother him (οὐθὲν μέλει τῶν σκωμμάτων μοι). Τhe wordplay ἀπρόσκεπτος — Σκηπτός underlines the impetuosity of this particular parasite and his resolution to undertake any activity in order to help his patron. More importantly, this pattern of self-description survives in Roman comedy, in Plautus in particular (*Captivi* 69–76), where the parasite Ergasilus comically explains why the young people have named him "The Prostitute". The similarities between the two passages (e.g. καλοῦσί μ' οἱ νεώτεροι — *iuuentus nomen indidit*; ἄκλητος — *invocatus*; σκωμμάτων — *derisores*) leaves little doubt that

 **81** Arnott 1996, 543–544; Arnott 2010, 323. For the parasites, see Damon 1995.

**82** It is interesting that *Ζōmion* (apparently the nickname of a parasite) is the alternative title of a play by Philemon (Μετιὼν ἢ Ζωμίον).

Antiphanes' passage has influenced Plautus in the creation of inventive nicknames of comic parasites on stage.83

When parasites are nicknamed, either inside or outside theatre, the verb καλῶ, "call", is regularly used. In Anaxippus fr. 3.3–6, this use also explains the title of the play *Keraunos* with impressive metaphorical language:

 τοῦτον οἱ φίλοι καλοῦσί σοι νυνὶ δι' ἀνδρείαν Κεραυνόν. (B) εἰκότως. ἀβάτους ποιεῖν γὰρ τὰς τραπέζας οἴομαι αὐτόν, κατασκήπτοντα † αὐταῖς † τῇ γνάθῳ

(A.) Nowadays your friends call him Lightning-Bolt, because he's so brave. (B.) That makes sense; because I imagine he makes their tables sacred ground, by descending † on them † with his jaws.

The supposed impressive braveness of the parasite is undermined by the second interlocutor, who explains the nickname "Lightning-Bolt" with another elaborate wordplay. In fact, Anaxippus' wordplay is a variation on Antiphanes' ἀπρόσκεπτος – Σκηπτός, and adds a religious dimension to the joke. More specifically, the tables are struck by a thunderbolt which descends on them (κατασκήπτειν), and become ἄβατοι in both senses, i.e. "untrodden", and "not to be trodden", as places struck by lightning and therefore sacred. At the same time the sacred context is subverted by the remark that the parasite Lightning-Bolt's attack is made with his jaws (κατασκήπτειν τῇ γνάθῳ).

This passage might be indicative that at least some of the stereotypical names of parasites have their origin in fourth-century comic descriptions of this character. The parasite described in Anaxippus' passage might well anticipate the stereotypical parasite Gnathon, "Big Jaws", who appears in both Greek and Roman comedy (e.g. Menander, *Kolax*; Terence, *Eunuchus*; cf. Cic. *Phil.* 2.15). Indeed, γνάθος, "jaw", and the related σιαγών, "mandible", are often associated with the parasite's voracity. In Alexis fr. 185.3, a parasite is said to never have his jaws idle (ἀργοὺς ἔχειν μηδέποτε τὰς σιαγόνας). Moreover, parasites are often associated with biting and chewing food (μασᾶσθαι; cf. Hegesippus Com. fr. 2.5; Antiphanes frr. 202 and 253).84 The related term παραμασήτης, "fellowchewer" (Timocles fr. 9.6; cf. Alexis fr. 238.2), and the alternative παραμασύντης

 **83** Cf. Fontaine 2010, 230–233. Cf. also Plaut. *Men.* 77–78, *iuuentus nomen fecit Peniculo mihi, ideo quia ... mensam quando edo detergeo*, "The youngsters have given me the name 'Peniculus, the Brush' because ... when I eat I wipe the table clean".

**84** See Konstantakos 2000, 235. Cf. Timocles fr. 10.5, where the parasite Corydus is always ready to set his teeth in motion (κινεῖν ὀδόντας).

(Ephippus fr. 8.6 and Alexis fr. 224.8) also describe a typical activity of a parasite. Therefore, such connotations with *gnathos* in fourth-century comedy may have contributed to the creation of the generic name Gnathon for parasites.

Tithymallus ("Ruddy") is another notorious parasite, so nicknamed after the homonymous plant or bush ("spurge").85 He is a typical intruder at dinners, without paying his contribution. This practice is associated with his complexion in Dromon fr. 1, where a character says that he is embarrassed to go and eat dinner without contributing any money, and his interlocutor answers that Tithymallus also goes from house to house redder than a pomegranate seed (ἐρυθρότερος κόκκου), because he does not contribute to dinner either. Tithymallus' complexion, which accounts for his nickname, is now associated with his way of life and supports a joke on stage. What is surprising, however, is that the colour red, usually associated with the blush of modesty, is in Tithymallus' case ironically applied to his impudence.

Callimedon the *Karabos*, mentioned fifteen times in the preserved comic fragments, is the most famous *opsophagos* in Middle Comedy.86 The origin of the nickname *Karabos* is disputable.87 According to Athenaeus (3.104d), it is due to his predilection for crayfish. Also in Euphron fr. 8, it is said that once when a womb was served to him, it made him leap about as he ate it, whence he was called Crayfish (ὅθεν ἐκλήθη Κάραβος).88 His *opsophagia* is also stressed through a wordplay in Alexis' *Pontikos* (fr. 198), where the speaking character declares that Carabus is eager to die not for the sake of his fatherland (πάτρα), but for a womb (μήτρα). While, however, Callimedon is the consumer of fish, a typical *opsophagos*, sometimes, through a playful use of his nickname, he himself becomes food for others. In Antiphanes, in particular, this transformation takes place in an impressive inversion, performed on stage (fr. 27.7–8):

ὦ Καλλιμέδων, σὲ κατέδετ' ἄρτι τῶν φίλων; οὐδεὶς ὃς ἂν μὴ κατατιθῇ τὰς συμβολάς.

Which of your friends, Callimedon, is going to gulp you down any minute now? No one who doesn't contribute his share of the dinner expenses!

 **85** Theophr. *Ηist. pl.* 9.11.7, τῶν δὲ τιθυμάλλων ὁ μὲν παράλιος καλούμενος κόκκινον φύλλον ἔχει περιφερές; cf. Bechtel 1898, 41; Orth 2020, 442.

**86** Cf. Sommerstein 2019.

**87** Cf. Apostolakis 2019, 215.

**88** Cf. Antiphanes fr. 77; Eubulus fr. 8; Alexis frr. 57, 49, 249; Dioxippus fr. 3.

Here the play on names takes another form: instead of calling an *opsophagos* by the name of his favourite fish, it is the fish itself which is called by the *opsophagos*' proper name. This may be an amusing innovation by Antiphanes.89

On the other hand, ugliness is another source of mockery.90 Bechtel believes that Callimedon was nicknamed *Karabos* due to his squint eyes.91 Squint-eyed characters on the comic stage were a particularly welcome spectacle, especially if they aspired to attract others for political or erotic reasons, like the politician Callimedon and the *amator* Strabax in Plautus' *Truculentus*. 92 In fact Alexis, a poet with a strong inclination to linguistic humour, activates a wordplay on the squint-eyed man (fr. 117):

τῷ Καλλιμέδοντι γὰρ θεραπεύω τὰς κόρας ἤδη τετάρτην ἡμέραν. (Β.) ἦσαν κόραι θυγατέρες αὐτῷ; (Α.) τὰς μὲν οὖν τῶν ὀμμάτων, ἃς οὐδ' ὁ Μελάμπους, ὃς μόνος τὰς Προιτίδας ἔπαυσε μαινομένας, καταστήσειεν ἄν

(A.) I've been looking after Callimedon's pupils for three days now. (B.) You mean he had daughters? A. No — the pupils of his eyes. Not even Melampus, the only person who cured Proetus' daughters of their madness, could set them right.

The poet substitutes the nickname *Karabos* with a wordplay on the double meaning (daughters and eye pupils) of the word *korai.*  He seemed to be looking at me, but he was talking to someone else. Naturally I understood nothing of this; but I kept nodding my head vacantly. You see, his eyes look in a different direction than they seem to.

**91** Bechtel 1898, 23–24.

 **89** Cf. Konstantakos 2000, 75. Also in Philemon fr. 43, a certain Agyrrhius (apparently Callimedon's son) addresses a crayfish which was served to him with the words "Hail, dear papa"; cf. Theophilus fr. 4.

**90** *Est etiam deformitatis et corporis vitiorum satis bella materies ad iocandum* (Cic. *De or*. 2.59.239).

**92** The squint-eyed character also appears in Old Comedy (Eupolis fr. 298.3).

The fragment comes from the play *Polypragmōn*, "Busy-body". Callimedon, indeed, displayed some elements of a busy-body in his real political life, since he was an active supporter of the Macedonians, was involved in political trials, and also engaged in mine-enterprises. When the speaking character describes his squint-eyed stare, he may be alluding to his practice of acting for different goals at the same time, as a busy-body politician. However, it is quite uncertain whether he was the emblematic *polypragmōn* of the title. It seems more plausible that the play contains a series of episodes involving meddlesome persons, in which case Callimedon, the notorious *opsophagos* and squint-eye, is perhaps a fitting participant.93

### **4.3 Courtesans and lovers**

The "women most mentioned" in Classical Athens were by far the courtesans.94 However, it is not always possible to identify them with certainty, since their original names are often hidden under professional nicknames. Athenaeus in his thirteenth book has the grammarian Myrtilus deal with these names, which mainly occur in Middle and New Comedy, as well as in fourth-century oratory. Professional nicknames were the vehicle through which courtesans were fictionalised and turned into subjects and characters on the comic stage. Thanks to the second-century grammarians who dealt with glossing the courtesans' names — and Myrtilus represents a typical case — we are given a glimpse of these nicknames and their bearers. The problem is that this material is often decontextualised and adapted to the intellectual and literary environment of the late Classical period. On the other hand, we have many quoted comic fragments at our disposal, and in some cases it is possible to trace original techniques employed by the comic poets concerning the nomenclature of courtesans and their lovers. In this chapter I confine myself to a few typical instances in which these nicknames provide fodder for inventive jokes and plays on language in the preserved fragments of Middle Comedy.

Courtesans were often known by suggestive working names, some of which appear as comic titles: *Klepsydra*, "Water-clock" (Eubulus), *Neottis*, "Nestling, Little Bird" (Antiphanes, Anaxilas, Eubulus), *Pannychis*, "Vigil" (Eubulus, Alexis), *Kynagis*, "Huntress" (Philetaerus), *Malthakē*, "Soft" (Antiphanes), *Μelitta*,

 **93** Cf. Apostolakis 2019, 212.

**94** For naming a hetaera, cf. McClure 2003, 59–78; for courtesans in fourth-century comedy, cf. Henderson 2014, 190–194.

"Honeybee" (Antiphanes). These titles usually denote the main characteristic of the courtesan, whether she herself is the title-character of the play or another person is named after her, through a common dominant characteristic. The sympotic material provided by Athenaeus allows some speculation on the origin and function of these names. Such an instance is mentioned in *Deipnosophists* 6.245d, when the parasite Corydus asked the courtesan Gnome, "Opinion", to contribute not money, but "whatever the people thought fit" (Γνώμην δὲ συμβάλλεσθαι ὅ τι δοκεῖ τῷ δήμῳ). Moreover, in Machon's *Chreiae*, also preserved in Athenaeus, elaborations on hetaeras' nicknames are a favourite subject. A telling example is the explanation of the name of the courtesan Mania by her habit of crying "Crazy!" (μανία) whenever she wanted to approve or disapprove of something (fr. 14.204–210 Gow). Such punning explanations in Athenaeus echo the Alexandrian and Second Sophistic scholars' linguistic interest in these matters. Comic titles such as *Klepsydra* might allude (literarily or metaphorically) to the courtesan's sexual practices, i.e. allowing her clients to have sex as long as the water clock runs (Ath. 13.567c–d). It has also been suggested that Timocles' *Lēthē* might denote a courtesan, a name — or, more probably, a nickname — deriving from side-effects associated with sympotic activities and love affairs.95

On the other hand, nicknames denoting plants, birds, or fishes might be facilitated and/or explained as metaphors in existing comic passages. Concerning bird-titles (e.g. *Neottis*), birds were sometimes used as metaphors for female genitals.96 In Epicrates' *Antilais* fr. 3.11, the hetaera Lais is described in her youth as νεοττός, "a young chick". In Eubulus, courtesans are identified with decoy-birds, which attract other birds with their tuneful song (fr. 82, τὰς φιλῳδοὺς κερμάτων παλευτρίας).97 A different image occurs in Ephippus fr. 6, where the good courtesan kisses her lover "not with her lips squeezed together, as if he were an enemy, but instead with her mouth wide open just like baby sparrows do". Such images might have contributed to the creation of nicknames such as Στρουθίον, "Little Sparrow", in Lucian.98

 **95** Cf. Pherecrates' *Ἐπιλήσμων ἢ Θάλασσα* (where the title probably denotes a hetaera); and Μνησίς, the opposite of Λήθη, mentioned as a flute girl (αὐλητρίς) in Ath. 13.576f. Cf. Apostolakis 2019, 182–183.

**96** Cf. Ar. *Lys.* 770 (on χελιδών); Henderson 1991, 48.

**97** For a similar description of courtesans, cf. Amphis fr. 23, where Sinope, Lyca, and Nannion are described as παγίδες τοῦ βίου ("traps of life").

**98** On this description of the *bona meretrix*, cf. Papachrysostomou 2021, 89. On courtesans compared with predators, cf. Epicrates fr. 3.

Love affairs, a standard theme in Middle Comedy, and relationships between courtesans and lovers in particular, are often expressed metaphorically. In Ath. 13.582e–f (attributed to Machon), the nickname Aix, "Goat", is mentioned for the hetaera Nico, who supposedly devoured her lover Thallus, "Sapling", and the grammarian Myrtilus explains that goats delight in saplings (θαλλῷ χαίρουσιν αἱ αἶγες). In Eubulus fr. 54, Heracles describes a love affair with the courtesan Ocimon, "Basil", at Corinth in gastronomic terms, as a proverbial gluttonous hero: λάχανόν τι τρώγων ὤκιμον διεφθάρην, "eating an herb called Ocimon, I was destroyed". As a result, the hero lost his tunic. Perhaps the subsequent verses explained how this love affair was associated with the loss of the tunic.99 A plausible explanation is that this particular courtesan was very expensive.

The insatiable courtesan who consumes her lovers also appears in the context of fish-eating (*opsophagia*), in an interesting inversion of the pattern of "the *opsophagos* lover and the fish-courtesan".100 The emblematic *opsophagos* courtesan in Middle Comedy is the famous Pythionice. In Antiphanes fr. 27.22 (from *Halieuomenē*), Pythionice is mockingly said to have a taste for salt fish (ἐπὶ τὸ τάριχός ἐστιν ὡρμηκυῖα), the commodity which Chaerephilus, the father of her lovers, imported.101 Also in Timocles, she devours two *saperdai*, "Nile perches", also called *skombroi*, "mackerels", i.e. the sons of Chaerephilus. In fr. 15 she is said to be fond of salt fish (φιληδεῖν ταρίχῳ), and in fr. 16 she "keeps company with two Nile-perches" (σύνεστι σαπέρδαις δυσίν), an expression with sexual connotations. In this case it is not the courtesan herself who is nicknamed after her penchant for fish, but her victims.102

One of the most interesting couples of a profligate lover and his hetaera is mentioned in Axionicus fr. 1.

ὁ Πυθόδηλος οὑτοσὶ ὁ Βαλλίων προσέρχετ' ἐπικαλούμενος μεθύουσά τ' ἐξόπισθεν ἡ σοφωτάτη Ἀποτυμπανισχὰς κατὰ πόδας πορεύεται

Here comes Pythodelus, whose nickname's Ballion; and behind him, drunk, the clever Apotympanischas is dogging his steps.

 **99** Cf. Hunter 1983, 141.

**100** Courtesans nicknamed after fish: Aphye, "Small Fry" (Anthis, Ath. 13.586b); Saperdion, "Little Fish" (Phryne, Ath. 13.567e).

**101** Cf. Konstantakos 2000, 87–91.

**102** Cf. Apostolakis 2019, 141–142.

Both the hetaera and her lover probably enter on stage at the moment of their presentation (cf. οὑτοσί, προσέρχεται), although it is not clear whether they play an important role in the play or participate in a short episode.103 Pythodelus is nicknamed (ἐπικαλούμενος) Ballion, "Big Dick", from βαλλίον "phallus". This nickname became a generic name for pimps in later comedy.104 On the other hand, Apotympanischas is an *ad hoc* invented name for the courtesan nicknamed Ischas.105 This seems an appropriate nickname for a courtesan, since ἰσχάς, "dry fig", indicates the female genitals.106 Although it is not attested in this sense in Attic Comedy until Axionicus, it already appears in Hipponax (fr. 124 West), in a description of cunnilingus. If this allusion is accepted, it is interesting that both the profligate *amator* and the drunkard courtesan are nicknamed here after their genitalia. On the other hand, it is not clear why Ischas is associated with a particular method of execution, crucifixion on a plank (*tympanon* or *apotympanismos*). Perhaps, according to the speaking character, she deserves such torture for the damage she causes her lovers.

Courtesans and lovers also appear in paraepic and paratragic contexts. In Anaxilas fr. 22, whether the *persona loquens* is a young lover or a father or old friend who warns the young man about courtesans' greed and infidelity, wellknown nicknamed courtesans are called a "criminal bunch" (κατάπτυστον γένος) and compared with mythical monsters: Chimaera, Charybdis, Scylla, Sphinx, Hydra, and Siren.107 This long collective type of invective, which addresses a specific group of men or women, here the courtesans, derives from Euripides. There are also indications of an intertextual dialogue with epic and tragic poetry.108 In fact, this type of comparison leads in some cases to a third level of qualification. The poet takes established nicknamed courtesans of the time and further elaborates their characteristics by associating them with

 **103** For a full analysis of the scene, cf. Orth 2020, 169–174.

**104** Cf. Plautus, *Pseudolus* and Cicero, *Pro Roscio* 20, *Ballionem illum improbissimum et periurissimum lenonem*.

**105** Cf. Menander, *Colax* fr. 4.1; perhaps it is the same person as that mentioned in Axionicus; cf. Orth 2020, 173.

**106** Henderson 2014, 118.

**107** See the analysis of Tartaglia 2019, 120–156. For such corresponding parallel lists as material for comic accumulation, cf. Ar. *Av.* 565–569, 760–767, 1136–1157; Timocles fr. 6; Anaxippus fr. 1.28–49; see Konstantakos 2000, 71.

**108** Chimaera: Hom. *Il.* 16.328–329; Sphinx: Eur. *Phoen.* 806–811; Clytaemnestra as Scylla: Aesch. *Ag.* 1231–1236; as a viper: *Cho.* 246–249; Medea as a lioness and Scylla: Eur. *Med.* 1342; cf. Tartaglia 2019, 125. Also Stuligrosz (2017, 17–27) discusses the reworking of mythical motifs and characters from Homer and their adaptation to everyday situations.

mythical figures. Eleven courtesans are also paratragically described as Furies in Timocles' *Orestautokleidēs* fr. 27, probably because Autocleides, being a pederast, has usurped their privileges. Courtesans are given real names (Pythionice), nicknames (Lopadion), and generic or common names (Plangon, Lyca, Myrrhine, Chrysis).109

# **Conclusion**

The poets of Middle Comedy often play with proper names, nicknames, and accompanying epithets. In the preserved fragments, characters bearing historical names sometimes appear in the frame of personal satire and are often compared with mythical figures, in order to highlight their true character. Invented speaking names of the Aristophanic type and relevant wordplay also appear in Middle Comedy, but less frequently. Moreover, the poets of Middle Comedy show a notable inventiveness in adapting traditional epithets or transforming them into new-coined ones in order to describe their characters, most often in parodic passages. Antiphanes, Alexis, and Timocles are poets with a tendency to employ wordplay in connection with names, and show a notable versatility in creating innovative epithets which aid the comic subversion of a seemingly serious situation.

On the other hand, it seems likely that some techniques characteristic of the comic language of New and Roman Comedy can already be traced in Middle Comedy. More specifically, parasites, courtesans, and gourmands are mainly presented on stage or mentioned with their established nicknames which, however, still offer an opportunity for comic exploitation. They are often further elaborated through wordplay and metaphorical language, and in a sense they anticipate the generic names of the stereotypical characters of New Comedy. Finally, as far as the fragmentary status of Middle Comedy allows us to say, nomenclature in Middle Comedy is a combination of Aristophanic "Cratylism" and the "Hermogenean" stance of Menander. It includes both earlier comic elements and innovative amplifications, and prepares the way for New Comedy, where the comic characters acquire typical names and nicknames in the same way as type-masks.

 **109** Plangon and Myrrhine are also names of free women. Cf. Apostolakis 2019, 204.

### **Bibliography**

Apostolakis, K. (2019), *Timokles*. *Translation and Commentary*, Fragmenta Comica 21, Göttingen. Arnott, W.G. (1996), *Alexis: The Fragments. A Commentary*, Cambridge.

Brown, P.G.McC. (1987), "Masks, Names and Characters in New Comedy", in: *Hermes* 115, 181–202.

Cartlidge, B.J. (2019), "Language of New Comedy", in: A.H. Sommerstein (ed.), *The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy*, vol. II, Hoboken, 485–486.

Konstantakos, I.M. (2000), *A Commentary on the Fragments of Eight Plays of Antiphanes*, PhD Diss., Cambridge.

# Antonis K. Petrides **Strategies of Verbal Humour in Menander's**  *Dyskolos***: From Linguistics to Dramaturgy**

**Abstract:** This chapter uses the advances in Humour Studies to examine Menander's techniques of verbal humour in his play *Dyskolos*. Menander's credible pretensions to linguistic naturalism render his scripts privileged data pools for studying Greek conversational humour in the late fourth century BCE. However, in Menander, the nature and the distribution of the various verbal humour mechanisms and idiosyncrasies to a play's characters transcends naturalism, constructing an artificial theatrical discourse of ethical and thematic import. The chapter's main points are the following: (a) that on the surface, Menander uses verbal humour *naturalistically*, mirroring its occurrence and function in natural conversational contexts; (b) that dramaturgically speaking, Menander's conversational humour is *characterisational* and *relational*, contributing to the construction and individualisation of character and drawing connecting lines between various *dramatis personae*; and (c) that its function is also *thematic*, distributed to characters in such a way as to bolster the fundamental dichotomies of the play (city/country, rich/poor, slave/free).

# **Introduction**

Humour Studies, an aspect of which is the linguistic analysis of verbal humour primarily from a semantic and pragmatic viewpoint, is a rapidly growing field.1 The notion of verbal humour comprises the linguistic (lexical/stylistic/pragmatic) resources and techniques of inciting laughter. Although verbal humour can circulate in the form of canned jokes (indeed, such jokes provided the initial stimulus to the linguistics of humour), it is primarily interactional/conversational

 **1** For overviews of Humour Studies, see Raskin 2008; Attardo 2014; Attardo 2017. For the linguistics of humour particularly, a firm starting point is provided by Dynel 2008a; Attardo 2008; and Attardo/Raskin 2017. In humour semantics, the most influential theories have been the so-called "Semantic Script Theory of Humour", proposed by Victor Raskin (1985) and developed by Raskin and Salvatore Attardo into a "General Theory of Verbal Humour" (Attardo/ Raskin 1991; Attardo 1994; Attardo 2001). For the pragmatics of humour, that is, humour in interaction, see Norrick/Chiaro 2009 and the special issue on humour of the journal *Lodz Papers in Pragmatics* (issue 4.1, 2008).

Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111295282-012

in nature; therefore, it is best observed and studied in pragmatic contexts. In these contexts, laughter is a reflex reaction to a semantic incongruity and/or a breach of the "cooperative principle" that governs everyday conversations,2 produced by one speaker and perceived as mirthful by another, either the direct addressee or a third party — for instance, a theatre audience — if the direct addressee being the "butt" of the joke is not amused. 3 As such, verbal humour is differentiated from laughter produced — in the ancient comic performances that concern this chapter — by visual or other means, such as outrageous imagery (sexual images, bodily deformities, and the like), caricatures/jesting mimesis of comportment, voices etc., gestures, slapstick, and any other nonverbal/nonrhetorical medium.

Taxonomies of verbal humour vary widely in content and inclusivity. The consensus, however, is that conversational humour ranges from humorous units produced within a single word or utterance to more extended exchanges between speakers. The shorter units may comprise puns based on sound play (phonemic puns) or semantic ambiguity (e.g. homophony or homonymy puns); "lexemes", e.g. humorous neologisms such as coining, derivation, compounding, blending, acronyms etc.; or "phrasemes", humour produced by syntactical and stylistic play, such as surprising juxtapositions of semantic elements, witticisms, simile, metaphor, hyperbole, paradox etc. Verbal humour unfolding in extended dialogue includes sarcasm, retort, teasing, banter, putdown humour, allusions (ironic echoes), distortions, quotations etc.4 On the contrary, one should not count irony among the subcategories of conversational humour. Although aspects of irony are certainly verbal — for instance, "aggressive" irony/ sarcasm — others are more far-reaching (tonal, structural, even philosophical) and not by necessity humorous in nature; thus, they exceed the purview of humour studies and constitute an independent field.5

 **2** On H.P. Grice's "cooperative principle" and the "maxims" governing it, see Grice 1989. Humour is commonly perceived as violating the cooperative principle; see Attardo 2008, 115, with bibliography.

**3** Several theories have been propounded on the provenance and purposes of laughter, the most prominent of which are the superiority/disparagement theories, various psychophysiological approaches, and the incongruity theories (the latter focus on the linguistic and cognitive aspects of humour). For a neat summary, see Larkin-Galiñanes 2017.

**4** For a useful taxonomy and a bibliography on the various levels of verbal humour, see Dynel 2009.

**5** Useful guides to Irony Studies are Muecke 1969; Muecke 1982; Hutcheon 1994; Colebrook 2004; Kreuz 2020.

This chapter uses the advances in Humour Studies to examine Menander's techniques of verbal humour in his play *Dyskolos* (produced in 317/316 BCE). As such, this study differs from the three major strands of Menandrian humour studies that have so far seen the light of day; namely, (a) works fleshing out the ancient observations vis-à-vis the difference between Menandrian and Aristophanic humour to construct general typologies of laughter;6 (b) examinations of particular humorous phenomena, such as double entendres7 or plot-building techniques;8 or (c) syntheses on Menander's perception of laughter chiefly from a psychological perspective.9 Halliwell's study (2008), by far the most sophisticated treatment of Menandrian laughter as a tool for manipulating audience response and generic boundaries, turns on the cognitive phenomenon Halliwell terms "perspectivism", the schism between character and audience evaluations of stage events. This, I would argue, is but one of several facets of Menandrian irony. Α complete examination of this broad phenomenon should incorporate Menander's metatheatrical, intertextual, and other situational ironies, not the least of which is the technique I called elsewhere Menander's "pseudo-happy ends".10 Aspects of these techniques have been explored,11 although a comprehensive study of Menandrian irony remains a desideratum — and falls outside this chapter's scope.

Menander's credible pretensions to linguistic naturalism render his scripts privileged data pools for studying Greek conversational humour in the late fourth century BCE.12 However, as I hope to show, in Menander the nature and especially the distribution of the various verbal humour mechanisms and idiosyncrasies to a play's characters transcends naturalism, constructing an artificial theatrical discourse of ethical and thematic import.

I expanded on Menander's "departure from realism", the trajectory from realism to (inter)textuality, cardinal for understanding Menander's dramaturgy,

 **6** Arnott 1997; Hunter 2000; Gantar 2005. See also the chapters in Mureddu/Nieddu 2006.

**7** Craik 2001; Rampichini 2002.

**8** Stoessl 1973; Borgogno 2003.

**9** Halliwell 2008.

**10** Petrides, forthcoming a.

**11** *Exempli gratia*: metatheatrical irony, Gutzwiller 2000; intertextual and intervisual irony, Petrides 2014.

**12** Menander's language reflects the colloquial discourse of fourth-century Athens, including elements soon to crystallise into the Hellenistic Koine: see mostly López Eire 2002; Cartlidge 2014; and Hurst 2014, with earlier bibliography cited there. For the ancient, mostly Atticistic, perceptions of Menander's language as "non-Classical", one may start from Lamagna 2004 and Tribulato 2014.

in Petrides 2014. My emphasis there was on plot and character rather than language. Menander, I argued, constructs fictional "possible worlds" from realistic points of departure:

The overall realistic ambience, the very fact that the play begins from a realistic point of departure, and the way it resolves its plot by abandoning verisimilitude so palpably in the end, invites an inescapable comparison between historical reality and its fictional analogue in Menander's denouements.13

*Mutatis mutandis*, a comparable effect is produced by Menander's ostensibly realistic representation of contemporary oral discourse. Linguistic realism only serves as a foil for observing the dramaturgical significance of non-realistic/ comical configurations, such as that comparable linguistic tics connect characters of the same household or that "antagonists" share the same penchant for, say, hyperbole or, more subtly, that the characters of a play — in this chapter, *Dyskolos —* are neatly divided in terms of their share in the production of verbal humour along the drama's primary socio-political fault lines, namely rustic/ poor/agelastic, on the one hand, and urban/rich/gelastic, on the other.

My goal, therefore, is to offer a comprehensive study of verbal humour in a single drama of Menander's, hoping to establish that for this playwright, verbal humour is not an end in itself — as it is for Aristophanes as a rule — but one of several instruments in his dramaturgical toolbox, organically interwoven with the play's characterisation and ideology*.* Section 2 of this chapter catalogues and annotates from a semantic and pragmatic viewpoint14 the most notable instances of verbal humour in *Dyskolos*, organised by utterer and tagged by category (or categories). The catalogue includes instances explicitly intended as humorous either by the speaker (character-controlled verbal humour, CCVH) or the playwright (authorially-controlled verbal humour, ACVH). Thus, the selection is not mechanical: for instance, both Knemon and Sostratus resort to hyperbole, but whereas Sostratus' utterances are undoubtedly meant to make us smile, Knemon's crazed cries and excessive reactions are more complex in meaning and import (see section 3.5). The examples are consecutively numbered and arranged in descending sequence, starting from the characters most given to utterances perceived as humorous, namely, Getas and Sikon, who together

 **13** Petrides 2014, esp. 10–83. The quotation is from p. 3.

**14** Pragmatic approaches to Greek drama have been accumulating in recent years, but the field is still in its preliminary stages of development: see the introduction and the essays in Martin/Iurescia/Hof/Sorrentino 2021, and for Greek and Roman New Comedy, Sorrentino 2013; Barrios-Lech 2016; and Barrios-Lech 2021.

count for more than two-thirds of the examples listed. In each example, the commentary unpacks the joke in terms of humour theory (hopefully, without too much tedious technicality), furnishing relevant *realia* wherever necessary and contextualising its humorous import. Wherever other considerations do not prevail, instances of the same humorous mechanism used consistently by a character (for instance, sarcasm) are bundled, and a character's most common humorous techniques are placed at the top of the catalogue.

In section 3 of the chapter ("Compendium of lessons learned"), the findings are integrated and expanded upon to verify a threefold working hypothesis: (a) that Menander uses verbal humour *naturalistically*, mirroring its occurrence and function in natural conversational contexts; (b) that dramaturgically, Menander's conversational humour is *characterisational* and *relational*, contributing to the construction and individualisation of character and drawing connecting lines between various *dramatis personae*; and (c) that its function is also *thematic*, distributed to characters in such a way as to bolster the fundamental dichotomies of the play (city/country, rich/poor, slave/free). This very distribution, I postulate, in its palpable artificiality, acquires humorous resonances at a higher level and constitutes a "departure from realism" equivalent to a similar effect on the level of plot design. The following sections 2 and 3 can be perused in the order presented or the reverse.

# **Verbal humour in Menander's** *Dyskolos***: an annotated corpus**

### **2.1** *Getas*

(1) Act II, 402–404 (hyperbole-backfiring/stock comic scene/ironic echo)

 τεττάρων γὰρ φορ[τίον ὄνων συνέδησαν α<ἱ> κάκιστ' ἀπολού̣ [μεναι φέρειν γυναῖκές μοι. 15

I start the Getas catalogue with this example because the humour in it rests on a combination of this slave's most characteristic ethical idiosyncrasies (namely, his dramatic fondness for hyperbolic grumbling and his tendency to lash out at

 **15** The *Dyskolos* text is quoted from Petrides, forthcoming b.

his masters, especially the women — see further below) with a stock comic scene: the overloaded slave reeling under the weight he is carrying.

The humour here is authorially-controlled: Getas is entirely serious in denouncing the women and their tendency to overburden him; however, the facts work against him. Slaves who enter carrying heavy loads while complaining and making crude jokes had been a stock scene since Old Comedy.16 Traces of the motif can also be found in Men. frr. 315–316.17 Part of the humour in these scenes is that playwrights debunk the slaves' complaints. For example, in Aristophanes' *Frogs*, most if not all of the weight is carried not by Xanthias but by a donkey (*Ran*. 25–30). In *Dyskolos*, too, Sikon expresses ironic astonishment at the number of rugs Getas is bringing: as the sacrifice is designed only for the inner circle of Sostratus' family, these must not indeed be that many (ex. 16). Getas' hyperbole backfires, as his sarcastic comments usually do (see the examples below).

More subtly, the audience might notice that in calculating the weight, Getas, just as hyperbolically, echoes the words of Sostratus a few lines above (390–391): ἀλλ' ἡ δίκελλ' ἄγει τάλαντα τέτταρα αὕτη, a clear exaggeration by a soft urban man who knows nothing of hard manual labour. From his first words, hyperbole, a linguistic trope usually functioning as an (over)emotional marker,18 binds this slave with his young master more closely than any other character in the play. This binding, of course, only serves to highlight the differences between the two, which are as telling as their similarities: far from being a grumbler, Sostratus is indefatigable in his perseverance.

(2) Act II, 407–409 (sarcasm — against his mistress/backfiring/hyperbole)

<ἐ>ὰν ἴδῃ γὰρ ἐνύπνιον τὸν Πᾶνα τὸν Παιανιοῖ, τούτῳ βαδιούμεθ', οἶδ' ὅτι, θύσοντες εὐθύς.

Getas' first utterance (ex. 1) was hyperbole-*cum*-grumbling; his second is hyperbole-*cum*-sarcasm. This is his general tenor in the play: Menander encapsulates his entire character in just six lines.

 **16** Cf. Ar. *Ran*. 1–34, mentioning similar vignettes in other comic playwrights.

**17** Depictions of such scenes in vase-paintings and terracotta figurines are discussed by Bieber 1961, fig. 147, 153, 154, and Biers/Green 1998.

**18** McCarthy/Carter 2004; Norrick 2004, with bibliography.

Ex. 2 provides the first of several cases where Getas' sarcasm backfires. The slave means to undermine his mistress (CCVH), but he deflates himself (ACVH).19 The sarcasm lies in that Paiania and Phyle lie at opposite ends of Attica. Getas presents his mistress as a religious nut. Sostratus' portrait of her was not entirely dissimilar (260–263), but the range of Mother's sacrificial fervour now balloons from τὸν δῆμον κύκλῳ to the whole country. As in ex. 3, Getas' sarcasm reflects comically on the speaker rather than his target. Having been visited by a disquieting dream, Sostratus' Mother is neither unreasonable in her solicitude nor excessive or self-serving in her offerings (as Knemon thinks all sacrificers are, 447–453), despite her financial capabilities. Getas attempts to trivialise his mistress' worry through sarcastic misrepresentation of her religious habits, but he only achieves to expose himself, yet again, as an obnoxious moaner.

In *Dyskolos*, the characters who primarily seek recourse to sarcasm — verbal irony geared towards causing pain20 — and other forms of aggressive humour (for instance, putdowns) are the two urban slaves, Getas and Sikon. Their sardonic darts aim mainly at their masters. It is ironic that outsiders hurl sarcasm at insiders, given that most superiority theories of humour21 consider sarcasm as a method of exercising social control.22 With sarcasm, Getas and Sikon, normally controllees rather than controllers, produce a carnivalesque microcosm within the world of the play. The audience will witness the fulfilment of this linguistic quasi-rebellion in the final scene where Getas and Sikon abuse Knemon verbally and physically, overturning the power dynamics of the door-knocking scenes in Act III. The two slaves fruitlessly claimed power over their masters through sarcasm throughout the play. They finally achieve their goal in Act V at least superficially.23 Until then, Getas' and Sikon's inferior position in the play's hierarchy is reflected by the fact that in their attempts to sneer at the masters, they unwittingly render themselves the joke's butt. "Backfiring" sarcasm is Getas' manner of doing so; Sikon's will be inane self-aggrandisement.

(3) Act III, 434 (sarcasm — against his mistress/backfiring)

νὴ Δί' ἀπεσώθητέ γε.

 **19** Cf. section 3.3.

Here is another case of Getas' "backfiring" sarcasm. As a house slave, Getas has a particular bone to pick with the women to whom he is often more than discourteous (cf. 403–404, 438–439, 456 ff., 563–570). ἀποσῴζομαι suggests arrival after a perilous journey,24 but, of course, for Getas, the delay was only due to sluggishness. γε adds a touch of contemptuous impatience, reinforced further by the oath.25

The following fact reveals an additional level of humour. In 145, Pyrrhias addresses Sostratus with the phrase: ὕπαγ', ὦ βέλτιστε, σὺ δὲ τούτῳ λάλει. βέλτιστε is not a common way for a slave to address his master. 26 Handley (1965, *ad loc.*) assumes that Pyrrhias' verbal boldness is because he is "different from the ordinary household slave": he is Sostratus' συγκυνηγός, addresses his master by name, never using terms such as τρόφιμε or δέσποτα, and he is not afraid of being ironic. However, the similarities with Getas' impertinence to his mistress here and elsewhere show that Kallippides' household is liberal enough towards its slaves for them to be at ease with their masters to the point of disrespect.27

(4) Act III, 563–570 (*para prosdokian*/sarcasm — against his masters in general, the women in particular/hyperbole-extreme case formulations/comic stereotypes/ proverbial expression)

τί φῄς; ἐπ' ἄριστόν τινας παραλαμβάνειν μέλλεις πορευθείς; ἕνεκ' ἐμοῦ **τρισχίλιοι γένοισθ'**· ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ πάλαι τοῦτ' οἶδ', ὅτι οὐ γεύσομ' **οὐδενός**· πόθεν γάρ; συνάγετε πάντας. καλὸν γὰρ τεθύκαθ' ἱερεῖον, πάνυ ἄξιον ἰδεῖν. ἀλλὰ <τὰ> **γύναια** ταῦτά μοι (**ἔχει γὰρ ἀστείως**) μεταδοίη γ' ἄν τινος; οὐδ' ἄν, μὰ τὴν Δήμητρ', **ἁλὸς πικροῦ**.

There is fine, concentrated humour in this passage, expressed in various ways. Already at the start, one comes across a subtle *para prosdokian*. Getas' surprise articulated by the exclamative τί φῄς; — is not caused, as one would expect, by the news of Sostratus' wedding or the mention of "this young guy here" (559;

 **24** Cf. Xen. *Hell*. 1.3.22: ἀπεσώθη εἰς Δεκέλειαν.

**25** Cf. Ar. *Vesp*. 903–904, 1387; *Nub*. 1064; *Av*. 176–177.

**26** Gomme/Sandbach 1973, *ad* 142–146. This, however, should not make us doubt that line 145 is spoken by Pyrrhias. βέλτιστε is used in the same sarcastic tone by Getas at 476 (ἀλλ᾽ εὐτύχει, βέλτιστε): Knemon may be a disagreeable stranger, but he is still a social better. For ironic uses of βέλτιστε, see Dickey 1996, 139.

**27** Cf. section 3.4.

Getas does not know Gorgias, yet he remains unconcerned who he is). Getas is nonplussed because Sostratus invites even more people the slave will have to serve.

More humour still turns on Getas' tendency to utter hyperbole (τρισχίλιοι γένοισθε), "extreme case formulations" (οὐ γεύσομ' οὐδενός, οὐδ᾽ ἁλὸς πικροῦ),28 disparaging diminutives (τὰ γύναια; cf. ex. 9), and sarcastic irony (καλὸν ... ἱερεῖον, ἔχει γὰρ ἀστείως) to express excessive annoyance and impatience. His hostility is directed chiefly at his favourite target, the women.

οὐδ᾽ ἁλὸς πικροῦ is Getas' second proverbial expression within a few lines (cf. ex. 12). It reminds one of his likewise hyperbolic quip against Knemon at 475: οὐδὲ κοχλίαν ἔγωγέ σε. 29 The use of proverbs is another connector between Getas and Sikon (cf. the commentary on ex. 21).

This passage's verbal humour is capped by Getas' inadvertently aligning himself with the comic stereotype of the esurient slave, which Sikon had used to put Getas down at 423–424 (ex. 17). Once again, Getas' verbal stings bite him rather than his targets in the buttocks.

(5) Act II, 425–426 (sarcasm — against Sikon, backfiring?)

ἐπαινέτης οὖν εἰμί σου καὶ τῆς τέχνης ἔγωγ' ἀεί ποτ' — οὐχὶ πιστεύω δ' ὅμως.

Getas' utterance can be read in two ways which need not be mutually exclusive: (a) ironically, Getas pretends to be admiring Sikon, lauding his "art", and then debunks him *a parte* as the cook disappears first into Pan's cave; (b) the second part of the utterance is not an aside: Getas is indeed appreciative of Sikon's art; what he does not believe is that the cook will indeed be able to quench his hunger: the sacrificial animal is too scrawny and the women too unwilling to leave much for their slave. The audience, of course, could understand that such a person is impossible to satisfy with anything — in which case, Getas' taunt at Sikon would again turn out to be self-undermining.

 **28** Extreme case formulations are studied by Norrick 2004.

**29** Proverbial phrases such as οὐδ᾽ ἅλα δοίης (Hom. *Od*. 17.455) *vel sim.* ascribed to the sharing of salt the symbolism of essential human friendship and hospitality; cf. Arist. *Eth. Eud.* 1238a 2–3; *Eth. Nic.* 1156b 26–28.

(6) Act III, 473–476 (sarcasm — against Knemon/comic stereotype)

(Κν.) θύειν με βοῦς οἴει ποεῖν τε ταὔθ' ἅπερ ὑμεῖς ποεῖτε; (Γε.) οὐδὲ κοχλίαν ἔγωγέ σε.

Getas' sarcasm is predicated on hyperbole and an "extreme case formulation" as in ex. 4.  At 566–570, Getas hurls the same accusation of pettiness against the women, suspecting they do not intend to cut him a share of the sacrificial meat. Getas is correct in neither of these assessments; the problem lies elsewhere. However, one cannot characterise this sarcastic instance as "backfiring": Knemon himself is responsible for the misconceptions regarding his character and *Weltanschauung.*

(7) Act III, 600–606 (sarcasm — against Knemon/self-sarcasm/*para prosdokian*/ hyperbole)

(Κν.) κακὸν κάκ[ιστά σ' οἱ θεοὶ ἅπαντες ἀπολέσειαν εἴ τί μ[οι λαλεῖς. (Γε.) καὶ μάλα δι[καίως. εἰσ]πεπήδηκεν πάλιν. τοῦτ' ἐστὶν εἰλικρ[ινὴς] γεωργὸς Ἀττικός· πέτραις μαχόμ[εν]ος θύμα φερούσαις καὶ σφάκον ὀδύνας ἐπισπᾶ[τ' ο]ὐδὲν ἀγαθὸν λαμβάνων.

A double sarcasm, of which the first part (καὶ μάλα δι[καίως) is probably uttered in Knemon's presence and the second (εἰσ]πεπήδηκεν πάλιν) while the oldster is moving back to his house.

With καὶ μάλα δι[καίως, Getas (self-sarcastically in part) bewails his illadvised offer of help to Knemon (599–600), who is still as disagreeable as ever in his hour of need. Still, right below, he will utter words of apparently genuine commiseration (603–606). These last comments are a *para prosdokian*: instead of ranting against Knemon's ingratitude, as one might expect, Getas resumes the words of Pan (3–4), Chaereas (129–131), and Gorgias (285, 295–298, 326–331, 342–343) on the harsh and bitter life of the Attic farmer. However, it would not be amiss to suspect that the actor's delivery may connote an air of superiority, problematising the degree of sympathy indeed expressed. This urban slave knows nothing of the farmer's hardship, and he is the kind of man that would sympathise only from the safe distance of his comfortable lifestyle.

Getas' second sarcastic jibe rests on the hyperbolic description of Knemon's movements. The verb εἰσπηδάω describes jerky, rushed action, often under the influence of overpowering emotion.30 Knemon's quick getaway here contrasts sharply with his inability to move in the final scene.

(8) Act IV, 574–583 (sarcasm — against Simiche, backfiring/hyperbole/debunking/self-undermining)

```
Σιμ. ὦ δυστυχής, ὦ δυστυχής, ὦ δυστυχής.
(Γε.) ἄπαγ' εἰς τὸ βάραθρον· τοῦ γέροντός τις γυνὴ
προελήλυθεν.
(Σιμ.) τί πείσομαι; τὸν γὰρ κάδον
ἐκ τοῦ φρέατος βουλομένη τοῦ δεσπότου,
εἴ πως δυναίμην, ἐξελεῖν αὐτὴ λάθρᾳ,
ἀνῆψα τὴν δίκελλαν ἀσθενεῖ τινι
καλῳδίῳ σαπρῷ διερράγη τέ μοι 580
τοῦτ' εὐθύς.
(Γε.) ὀρθῶς.
(Σιμ.) ἐνσέσεικά θ' ἁθλία
καὶ τὴν δίκελλαν εἰς τὸ φρέαρ μετὰ τοῦ κάδου.
(Γε.) ῥῖψαι τὸ λοιπόν σοι σεαυτήν ἐστ' ἔτι.
[...]
(Σιμ.) ζητεῖ βοᾷ τε — καὶ ψοφεῖ γε τὴν θύραν.
Γε. φεῦγ' ὦ πονηρά, φεῦγ'. ἀποκτενεῖ σε, γραῦ.
μᾶλλον δ' ἀμύνου.
Κν. ποῦ 'στιν ἡ τοιχωρύχος;
(Σιμ.) ἄκουσα, δέσποτ', ἐνέβαλον.
(Κν.) βάδιζε δὴ
εἴσω.
(Σιμ.) τί πο<ι>εῖν δ', εἰπέ μοι, μέλλεις;
(Κν.) ἐγώ; 590
δήσας καθιμήσω σε.
(Σιμ.) μὴ δῆτ', ὦ τάλαν.
(Κν.) ταὐτῷ γε τούτῳ σχοινίῳ, νὴ τοὺς θεούς.
<Γε.> κράτιστον, εἴπερ ἐστὶ παντελῶς σαπρόν.
```
Funnily enough, Getas has no words of compassion for Simiche's (superlatively and undeservedly) harsh life as he will have for Knemon's self-imposed one, nor does he reserve a sliver of solidarity for his social peer: Getas' "class conscious-

 **30** Cf. Men. *Sam*. 563–564; Philemon fr. 3.11–13; Ar. *Eq*. 363; Dem. 21.78.

ness" is exhausted in comments about the unfairness of the masters to himself. Getas reacts to the old woman's outburst with the most hyperbolic malice. Having first called for the "poor wretch" to run for her life (586), in a burst of momentary, almost involuntary sympathy (as connoted by the *correctio* in μᾶλλον δ᾽, 588), Getas displays his full mean streak against Simiche once again. He derides her plight (μᾶλλον δ' ἀμύνου, "or rather, stay and defend yourself" — so that he beats you to death and we are done with you!), eventually expressing compassion for her tormentor (603–606)! Getas' mood swings and misplaced sentimentality are especially amusing. On a metatheatrical level, his sarcasm debunks Simiche's *air tragique*, 31 but again (cf. ex. 3), it is the slave himself who bears the brunt, his character tarnished by his wit.

(9) Act III, 460–463 (comic stereotype/hyperbole/scurrility/ψόγος)

θεραπαινίδια γὰρ ἀθλιώτερ' οὐδαμοῦ οἶμαι τρέφεσθαι. παῖδες. οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν κινητιᾶν ἐπίσταται — παῖδες καλοί καὶ διαβαλεῖν, ἐὰν ἴδῃ τις.

In his denunciation of slave women, Getas employs a threefold strategy. He energises a comic stereotype (the purported promiscuity and mendacity of θεραπαινίδια — note the disparaging use of the diminutive, a standard impoliteness marker),32 which he presents with his usual hyperbole (a stream of his favourite "extreme case formulations" using the adverbs οὐδαμοῦ and οὐδέν) and punctuates with a scurrilous term (κινητιᾶν). The overall humour of the scene is augmented by the fact that Getas interrupts his (Knemon-like) rant to knock on Knemon's door.

Getas' employment of offensive language is especially notable. Modern pragmatics shows that offensive language is gender- and culture-specific.33 Menandrian scurrility is still predicated on the same patriarchal attitudes towards passive sexuality (female or homosexual male) as that of Aristophanes.34

 **31** The metre (a three-word trimeter, rare in Comedy) and the fact that she is bursting in unannounced (Frost 1988, 12, 54) accentuate Simiche's high emotion and the impact her entrance is supposed to make; cf. Plaut. *Trin*. 1094–1095. Simiche's anguish reminds the audience of Daughter's in 189: we understand how Knemon could make the life of anybody in his household ἐπίπονον καὶ πικρόν (21).

**32** Cf. Schneider 2017, esp. 349–350.

**33** For the pragmatics of swearing, see Jay/Janschewitz 2008.

**34** Cf. Henderson 1991. Menander's audiences would not be surprised by a foreign slave appropriating the Greek axiology, as such attitudes were considered "natural" (i.e. universal).

The very rarity of offensive language in later comedy drives Getas' ψόγος home. Based on Plutarch's *Comparison of Aristophanes and Menander* and similar sources, it is generally assumed that swearing is reduced in Menander because of a newfangled aversion to coarseness in late-Classical society. This need not be correct. Hunter (2000) shows how the *Comparison*, which harks back to fourth-century BCE philosophy, reflects elite politics and aesthetics. However, Menander's primary concern in constructing his dialogues was dramatic rather than aesthetic or ideological. The rule of thumb is that vulgarity in Menander is never wanton as it often is in Aristophanes. This is strictly in keeping with New Comedy's imperative for linguistic and psychological naturalism. As in modern everyday conversational contexts, Menandrian characters (slaves and old men more than others) swear sparingly to express strong emotion (frustration here; indignation in ex. 10). Anything else would be unrealistic.35

(10) Act V, 891–892 (scurrility/sexual double entendre?)

(Γε.) τιμωρίαν [βούλ]ει λαβεῖν ὧν ἀρτ̣ί̣ως ἔπασχες; (Σικ.) ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἔπασχ[ον ἀ]ρτίως; οὐ λαικάσει φλυαρῶν;

With ὧν ἀρτ̣ί̣ως ἔπασχες, Getas refers to Knemon's treatment of the cook in Act III. Sikon is offended because of his puffed-up ego. It is not necessary, but neither is it impossible to interpret ἔπασχες as a sexual double entendre denoting passive homosexuality. Some assume that crude gestures accompany this dialogue, illuminating the double meaning. 36 Anyhow, the scurrility (λαικάσει) brings forth Sikon's indignation. Its semantics and pragmatics are the same as in ex. 9.37

 Moreover, the assimilation of foreign slaves to the value system of their masters is the New Comedy standard (cf. Petrides 2017).

**35** See further in section 3.2.

**36** Jocelyn 1980, 40–41; Rampichini 2002, 167–168. For the use of πάσχω in erotic contexts, cf. Aeschin. 1.41; [Arist.] *Pr.* 879b 31; Plut. *Mor*. 768e; Luc. *Dial. meret.* 5.2 etc. Rampichini (2002, 168 n. 18) reminds us of the similar meanings of the Latin *patior*: Plaut. *Capt*. 867; Catull. 16.2, 57.2, 112.2; Juv. 2.99; Petron. 86.1, 87.7. Also in Latin, *pathicus* is the passive homosexual.

**37** Strictly speaking, the *vox propria* for fellatio, λαικάζω, a vulgar word ("suck dick"), developed into a generic term of verbal aggression and abuse; cf. Ar. *Eq.* 167; *Thesm.* 57; Cephisodorus fr. 3.5; Straton fr. 1.36 etc.; Jocelyn 1980. Elsewhere Menander uses λαικάστρια, "whore" (*Pk.* 485).

(11) Act II, 409–410 (pun/polysemy/witticism/sarcasm — against Sikon, backfiring)

(Σι.) τίς δ' ἑόρακεν ἐνύπνιον; (Γε.) ἄνθρωπε, μή με κόπτε.

Getas is punning on the double meaning of κόπτω ("to cut to pieces" and "to bother excessively") to cast an aspersion at the pestering cook's persistent questioning. The joke is old and ostensibly outworn (cf. ex. 13). The comic cook's employers can hardly bear his fussiness or arrogance, and μή με κόπτε is their usual response.38 Menander᾽s humorous novelty lies neither in the utterance nor its butt but in the utterer. Unlike his forebears, the cook Sikon is *not* fussy about the party's needs: he is naturally intrigued by Getas' revelation that the sacrifice was motivated by a dream. Continuing his string of sarcastic utterances that backfire, Getas rehashes an old comic trope to express annoyance, but he achieves to expose himself — here like elsewhere — as a moaner.

(12) Act III, 550–551 (proverbial expression/witticism)

 τούτοις ὄνος ἄγειν δοκῶ μοι τὴν ἑορτή[ν.

Getas, ever the grumbler, complains of "playing the donkey's part in this celebration of theirs". He is doing all the work without even a flimsy share in the meal; cf. 565–569.

The paroemiographer Apostolius (12.75, *CPG* II, 563) glosses the proverb as follows: ἐπὶ τῶν παρ᾽ ἀξίαν τι πραττόντων· τοῖς γὰρ μυστηρίοις ἐξ ἄστεος εἰς Ἐλευσῖνα διὰ τῶν ὄνων ἔφερον τὰ εἰς χρείαν· ὅθεν καὶ ἡ παροιμία, διὰ τὸ κακοπαθεῖν μάλιστα τοὺς ὄνους ἀχθοφοροῦντας. ὡς ἂν οὖν ὅμοια πάσχων τῷ πιέζεσθαι τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ ἄχθει τὴν παροιμίαν μίγνυσιν ὁ Ἀριστοφάνης. 39 Donkeys are commonly used in proverbs: see, for instance, Apostolius 12.75–87, 89–92 (*CPG* II, 563). In most cases, their assumed attribute is obtuseness and naiveté. Getas' comment, however, is not meant as self-sarcasm so much as an incrimination against his masters for reducing him to this barely human status. Getas is incapable of the sort of self-sarcasm Sikon displays.40 Even compared to the

 **38** For the joke, cf. *Sam*. 283–293 (with Sommerstein 2013, *ad loc.*); Alexis fr. 177.12; Anaxippus fr. 1.23 etc.; Dohm 1964, 213, 218–219; Krieter-Spiro 1997, 136–137.

Sikon's monologue upon his first entry combines sneering humour with two attempts at cracking a witty joke and a forced metaphor. If grumbling and sarcasm are Getas' linguistic tics, Sikon's is frigid witticisms, florid language, and self-aggrandisement (common to the comic cook's type), punctuated by moments of self-recognition and self-irony (unique to this Menandrian instantiation of this stock character). As with Getas, the cook's opening monologue circumscribes his character and linguistic habits in just a few lines.

First, Sikon sneers at the sheep in a way that mixes contempt for the sacrificial animal (and those who purchased it?) with self-commiseration. καλόν could refer to the sheep's physical appearance (a sacrificial victim had to look "uncommonly fine", but this does not). However, in this context, the phrase could translate "what a remarkable blessing this sheep has been [sc. to me]"41 — clearly ironic, as the animal has been tormenting Sikon. For the reverse play with καλός/κακός, cf. 661: εὔχεσθε τὸν γέροντα σωθῆναι — κακῶς, where both the cook's wish for Knemon to be saved and his qualification κακῶς (instead of καλῶς) are comical *para prosdokian* jests. Self-commiseration is a trait Sikon shares with Getas — only in Sikon, it is much less pronounced.

Next is an etymological pun: πρόβατον ... οὐ προέρχεται. Arnott (1997, 68) comments:

 **41** Aristophanes uses ἀγαθόν in similar sarcastic utterances four times: *Eq*. 186–187; *Pax*  369–370; *Thesm.* 22–24; *Plut.* 546–547.

The word for sheep in contemporary Attic Greek was πρόβατον, literally "an animal that walks in front" (viz., of larger animals in mixed flocks). Here the cook complains that his "front walker" just "doesn't walk forward" (οὐ προέρχεται, v. 397).

An audience's reactions to such jokes can widely diverge, as evinced by modern assessments of this one. Arnott finds Sikon's wisecrack "delightful"; Rampichini (2002, 169) sees in it a "raffinata figura etymologica", whereas to my taste, the joke is frigid (ψυχρόν). My assessment, of course, does not imagine Menander's comic art to be failing; Menander uses frigidity as a characterisation touch. Sikon would love to be but is not the urbane (ἀστεῖος) kind of cook. His jokes are, as a rule, hackneyed and unoriginal. The κατακέκομμαι-joke that follows is a case in point. Instead of cutting the sheep into portions of meat, Sikon himself is being "cut up" by it: Getas will throw the joke at Sikon's face a few lines below (ex. 11). If "Menander has given new life to an old joke",42 it is by having the cook unwittingly turn it against himself in a moment of self-recognition. By recycling a timeworn quip right after a dry etymological pun, Sikon fails to live up to the expectations of wit that come with the territory of his comic type and this is precisely what is funny.

Beyond his dubious attempts at witty humour, Sikon is aligned with the linguistic norm of cooks in terms of his "picturesque language"43 and "peculiar vocabulary", which "unlike that of Getas, consists mainly of words found elsewhere in authors with some claims to style".44 In this respect, he is being more original. The best example is 946–953 (ex. 22). Already here, however, with νεωλκῶν τὴν ὁδ[όν, Sikon uses a metaphor from seafaring to describe his arduous land journey to the Attic interior. The inappropriateness is indeed amusing, and it is no doubt reinforced by stage action: rather than "marching forward", the πρόβατον is hauled by Sikon "like a ship overland".45 Sikon's hyperbolic image aligns well with his propensity for drama and vividly evokes the sheep's resistance. It is notable that except for his symposion description in Act V (946–953), Sikon's most colourfully metaphorical language underlines moments of self-mockery such as this. Further down, in his rueful admission that his self-professed and haughtily heralded mastery of door knocking has miserably failed, Sikon piles up two colourful metaphors from boxing (βεβωλοκόπηκεν, 515; σφαιρομαχοῦσι, 518).

 **42** Gomme/Sandbach 1973, *ad loc.* On the joke, cf. n. 38 above.

**43** Giannini 1960, 190.

**44** Sandbach 1970, 119–120.

**45** As at the Isthmus (Thuc. 3.15.1; Strab. 8.2.1; Plin. *HN* 4.10) and elsewhere.

(14) Act III, 507–509 (witticism/ambiguity)

(Κν.) εἴρηχ' ἁπλῶς μὴ προσιέναι μοι πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν τῷ τόπῳ. (Σι.) ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐκ εἴρηκας. (Κν.) ἀλλὰ νῦν λέγω.

Cracking another arguably feeble witticism, Sikon exploits the ambiguity in Knemon's πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν τῷ τόπῳ: he is not from around there! The humour relies on Knemon's earlier, thoughtless identification of Sikon with the preceding knocker, Getas (πάλιν αὖ σύ; 500).46

(15) Act III, 512–513 (witticism/retort/polysemy/ambiguity)

(Κν.) ἔτι μοι λαλήσεις; (Σι.) χαῖρε πολλά. (Κν.) οὐ βούλομαι χαίρειν παρ' ὑμῶν οὐδενός. (Σι.) μὴ χαῖρε δή.

Here, too, Sikon's humour, based on the polysemy of χαίρειν (a salutation and a wish for happiness), is probably meant to sound trite. The joke is certainly not restricted to Menander, and it was probably not his invention, although the best parallels postdate him.47

(16) Act II, 404–406 (sarcasm — against Getas)

 πολύς τις ἔρ[χεται ὄχλος ὡς ἔοι[κε· στρ]ώματ' ἀδιήγηθ' ὅσα φέρεις.

See the comments on ex. 1.

(17) Act II, 423–424 (putdown/comic stereotype)

καὶ τὰς ὀφρῦς ἄνες ποτ', ὦ τρισάθλιε· ἐγώ σε χορτάσω κατὰ τρόπον τήμερον.

 **46** Cf. Petrides 2004.

**47** Cf. Plaut. *Truc*. 259; Callimachus, *Anth. Pal.* 7.318.

Sikon's putdown implies that Getas' irritability is due to the esurient slave's stereotypical hunger and gluttony (cf. exx. 4–5). The cook's utterance is reinforced by a term of abuse (τρισάθλιε) 48 which has the illocutionary force of an exhortation and the projected perlocutionary effect of the addressee being shamed into changing his attitude (which Getas, of course, does not). The following utterance's positive content ("I will fill your belly") hedges the "face-threatening" element of the abuse.49

Moreover, as Marta Dynel clarifies, putdown humour is a "way to exert power over the hearer of a lower status".50 This is precisely what Sikon is attempting to do over Getas: notice the strongly emphatic ἐγώ at the beginning of 424. Sikon's authority over Getas' belly is extended to symbolise his overall superiority. Sikon will engage in a similar speech act at 486–499, where he decries Getas' inexpertness in the art of knocking. The audience will notice the ironic reversal of the power dynamics between Getas and Sikon in the final scene, where Getas takes the lead in exacting vengeance over Knemon.

The humorous import of an exhortation "to relax one's eyebrows" would be increased by the irony of such a feature being a fixed sculptural trait of Getas' mask — thus, impossible to relax! This is indeed the case for the ἡγεμὼν θεράπων (Pollux mask no. 22) and the ἐπίσειστος ἡγεμών (Pollux mask no. 27), the two likeliest candidates for Getas' πρόσωπον. 51

(18) Act IV, 630–631 (*Schadenfreude*/possible mimesis of high style/ironic echo)

ὦ φιλτάτη γραῦ, νῦν σὸν ἔργον ἐστί. (Σιμ.) πῶς; (Σικ.) ὅλμον τιν' ἢ λίθον τιν' ἢ τοιοῦτό τι ἄνωθεν ἔνσεισον λαβοῦσα.

After Getas' sarcasm, Simiche now has to endure Sikon's untimely humour, too. Far from willing to rescue Knemon, the cook asks Simiche to finish the old man by hurling a mortar on his head. His *Schadenfreude* prepares the audience for his monologue at 639 ff. and for the vengefulness he and Getas will display

 **48** As a term of abuse in the vocative, τρισάθλιε is not attested prior to Menander (cf. Dickey 1996, 291). Knemon will also use it in 466.

**49** For the pragmatics of verbal abuse, Jucker/Taavitsainen 2000.

**50** Dynel 2008b, 249–250. For putdown humour, see also Zillmann/Stocking 1976.

**51** Poll. 4.149–150. The ἡγεμὼν θεράπων σπεῖραν ἔχει τριχῶν πυρρῶν, ἀνατέταται τὰς ὀφρῦς, συνάγει τὸ ἐπισκύνιον. The similar ἐπίσειστος ἡγεμών ἐοίκοι ἂν τῷ ἡγεμόνι θεράποντι πλὴν περὶ τὰς τρίχας, which in his case are not "braided in a roll" but "flowing".

against Knemon in the final scene. The humour here is subtle, but like Getas' backfiring sarcastic comments, it is authorially- rather than charactercontrolled. For one, in Sikon's ἔνσεισον, the audience might catch an ironic echo of Simiche's ἐνσέσεικα (581), which referred to the mattock. Additionally, line 630 is a probable paratragedy.52 Recognising greater forces at work in his favour as he shall soon proclaim (639–647), Sikon puts on airs by imitating high style. νῦν σὸν ἔργον is a common tragic expression, but *Dyskolos* may evoke specifically the *Bacchae*: Διόνυσε, νῦν σὸν ἔργον ... τεισώμεθ' αὐτόν (847–849), followed by suggestions — in the imperative as in *Dyskolos —* on the manner of the punishment.53

(19) Act III, 515–516 (self-sarcasm/sexual double entendre?)

 καλῶς γέ με βεβωλοκόπηκεν. οἷόν ἐστ' ἐπιδεξίως αἰτεῖν· διαφέρει νὴ Δί'.

For Sikon's endearing ability to cast sarcasm upon himself when nobody is around to witness his weakness, see ex. 13 above. Menander's tendency to create ironic echoes of earlier passages is at work here, too: ἐπιδέξιος was also Pyrrhias' word of choice for the way he approached Knemon (105). In both cases, the result was the same: βωλοκοπεῖν here, literal bombardment with βῶλοι there.

βωλοκοπέω means literally "to break clods of earth", i.e. to dig the land.54 With the possible exception of Ar. fr. 800, the *Dyskolos* passage appears unique in supporting the metaphorical sense "to smack, to pound someone" (not listed in LSJ). Rampichini (2002, 170) sees in βεβωλοκόπηκεν a possible sexual double entendre, citing *IG* IX.12 (2) 253: ἐγὼ τόδε πρὸς Κύπριν οὐ κακόσιτος [ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἡ]λικίαν βωλοκοπεῖν δυνατός. 55

(20) Act IV, 660–662 (*para prosdokian*/malapropism)

ὑμεῖς δ' ὑπὲρ τούτων, γυναῖκες, σπένδετε. εὔχεσθε τὸν γέροντα σωθῆναι — κακῶς, ἀνάπηρον ὄντα, χωλόν.

 **52** Gomme/Sandbach 1973, *ad loc.*

**53** On *Bacchae* as one of several tragic "mirrors" of *Dyskolos*, see Petrides 2014, 53–58.

**54** [Hippoc.] *Ep*. 17; Ael. *Ep*. 19.

**55** Cf. Henderson 1991, 166.

See the comments on ex. 13. The misuse of the word κακῶς instead of καλῶς is an intentional "malapropism", functioning as a *para prosdokian*. 56

(21) Act IV, 633 (proverb-stock conversational witticism/rhetorical question/ sarcastic retort)

 Πόσειδον, ἵνα τὸ τοῦ λόγου πάθω, ἐν τῶι φρέατι κυνὶ μάχωμαι;

Not all proverbs can be categorised as verbal humour — even if in a comedic frame such as Menander's, they retain a humorous ring. The cook rejects Simiche's pleas to go down the well and save Knemon by employing a proverb functioning as a "stock conversational witticism". Proverbs are especially useful for humorous/sarcastic utterances because they are "fairly generally known, if not regularly used, by all members of the linguistic community or peer group in question".57 As Neal Norrick (1985) has shown, in conversations, proverbs imply an evaluation of previous utterances by the speaker, who fortifies his position by invoking traditional wisdom.58

The customary meaning or, in Norrick's terminology, the "Standard Proverbial Interpretation" (SPI) of the proverb ἐν φρέατι κυνὶ (or κυσὶ) μάχεσθαι (or κυνομαχεῖν) refers to people forced to deal with something disagreeable they cannot avoid.59 Alternatively, the proverb could be related to, or even originate from, Aesop, fable 120 Perry, specifying "an ungrateful man harming his benefactors":

κηπουροῦ κύων εἰς φρέαρ ἔπεσεν. ὁ δὲ ἀνιμήσασθαι αὐτὸν βουλόμενος ἐπεκατέβη. ὁ δὲ κύων ἠπορημένος, ὡς προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ, οἰόμενος ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ βαπτίζεσθαι ἔδακεν αὐτόν. καὶ ὃς κακῶς διατεθεὶς ἔφη· "ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ ἄξια πέπονθα. τί γὰρ σοῦ ἑαυτὸν κατακρημνίσαντος τοῦ κινδύνου σε ἀπαλλάξαι ἐπειρώμην;"

 **56** For malapropisms, see Zwicky 1982.

**57** Norrick 1984.

**58** On the use of proverbs by Menander, see Quinn 1949; Tzifopoulos 1995; Leurini 2006; Schirru 2009; Tosi 2014; cf. Cusset/Lhostis 2011 (on γνῶμαι, which are often but not by necessity coextensive with proverbs).

**59** Zenobius 3.45 (*CPG* II, 68), ἐπὶ τῶν μοχθηρῶς τινι προσπαλαιόντων καὶ ἀποφυγεῖν μὴ δυναμένων; cf. Suda, Hesychius etc., *s.v.* ἐν φρέατι κυνὶ μάχωμαι; Gregorius Cyprius 2.43 (*CPG* I, 362); Gregorius Cyprius (Mosq.) 3.16 (*CPG* II, 111); Apostolius 7.40 (*CPG* II, 405).

The reaction of Aesop's gardener reminds one of Getas' καὶ μάλα δικαίως (*Dys.* 602). In this light, the proverb can be paraphrased as "inconveniencing oneself to provide services to a person who is not appreciative".

A proverb's SPI, Norrick writes,

may coincide with the literal reading of the proverb, in which case the proverb is said to be *literal*. The proverb "Like father, like son" counts as literal because its SPI coincides with its literal reading "father and son are alike". But the SPI may also differ from the literal reading, in which case the proverb is said to be *figurative*. The proverb "No rose without a thorn" counts as figurative because its SPI "there is no pleasant thing without some unpleasant aspect" differs from its literal reading "there is no rose without a thorn".60

Sikon's witticism acquires extra humorous force by uncommonly *combining* the literal and figurative SPIs of the proverb ἐν φρέατι κυνὶ μάχεσθαι. Sikon is asked *literally* to go down a well to grapple with Knemon, a *figurative* "dog". Knemon's dog-like qualities derive both from his attitude towards strangers, especially those approaching his door, but also from the fact that his life mantra had been the Cynic ideal of αὐτάρκεια.

Neal Norrick categorises proverbs into two main groups: "evaluative comments with a didactic tone" and "evaluative arguments".61 "Evaluative comments" have a didactic tone (they constitute a form of *argumentum ex auctoritate*), whereas "evaluative arguments" state or support positions. Sikon's proverb functions clearly as an "evaluative argument", supporting his rejection of Simiche's plea. The humour turns on the way Sikon exploits the "inventorised" nature of the proverb as "an escape route from a double bind situation",62 in which he has to deny assistance to a man in life-threatening danger. Pragmatic research shows how modern speakers "cite proverbs to avoid personal commitment and refutation".63 Sikon does something of the sort: using a proverb whose SPI invokes a disagreeable service to a thankless recipient, the cook waives responsibility for his response, masking its moral depravity with a piece of time-tested wisdom.

It is ironic that in *Dyskolos*, verbal humour in the form of proverbs is uttered by two slaves. A proverb's primary pragmatic value, at least in modern linguistic communities, is to "signal group membership": in *Dyskolos*, proverbs are cited by outsiders, acculturated in the ways and the language of the master

 **60** Norrick 1985, 1–2 (Norrick's emphases).

**61** Norrick 1985, 13.

**62** Norrick 1985, 27.

**63** Norrick 1985, 27, with bibliography; cf. Norrick 1981.

class but far from included in its inner circle. The irony is redoubled if we also accept that such utterances "can lead to bonding between people".64 Bonding is anything but Sikon's intention here. By repudiating Simiche's entreaty, he moves to the other extreme, denying the most basic solidarity to another human being. In this respect, it is significant that the cook phrases his answer as a rhetorical question fortified by an invocation of the divine as a marker of great surprise. Schaffer (2005), unpacking the pragmatics of rhetorical questions, displays how effective they can be as sarcastic retorts to questions (or here, requests) that the addressee considers obtuse. Sikon's rhetorical question implies that the answer to Simiche's plea should have been obvious: Knemon has relinquished the right to human fellowship because he has not been behaving like a human being but rather like a dog.

(22) Act V, 946–953 ("torture with/by style")

ἄλλος δὲ χερσὶν Εὔιον γέροντα πολιὸν ἤδη ἔκλινε κοῖλον εἰς κύτος, μειγνύς τε νᾶμα Νυμφῶν ἐδεξιοῦτ' αὐτοῖς κύκλῳ, καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶν ἄλλος. ἦν δ' ὥσπερ εἰς ἄμμον φοροίης· ταῦτα μανθάνεις σύ; καί τις βραχεῖσα προσπόλων εὐήλικος προσώπου 950 ἄνθος κατεσκιασμένη χορεῖον εἰσέβαινε ῥυθμὸν μετ' αἰσχύνης ὁμοῦ μέλλουσα <καὶ> τρέμουσα, ἄλλη δὲ συγκαθῆπτε ταύτῃ χεῖρα κἀχόρευεν.

Knemon's punishment by the two slaves in the final scene of the play unfolds in three stages: first, the old man relives the door-knocking sequence, only the circumstances now are reversed (910–930); then, he is forced to sit through a description of the symposion inside Pan's shrine (931–953); and finally, he is made to join initially the dance on stage and afterwards the party itself (954–969). The humour here unfolds on two levels, which cross-pollinate: (a) the "paradithyrambic" style65 debunks the cook himself and his lofty pretensions;66

 **64** Norrick 1985, 25.

**65** This is a singular instance of a Menandrian μάγειρος taking a leaf straight out of his counterparts' book in earlier comic drama. Middle Comedy cooks commonly wax poetic in an affected style parodying that of the "New Dithyramb". The New Dithyramb was characterised by a language not simply ornate but riddling and deliberately contorted (συστρέφειν πυκνά: Antiphanes fr. 55). It was a language full of obscure tropes, conceited descriptions of everyday objects and situations, and a fascination for strings of words arranged in asyndeton, particularly compound adjectives, often neologisms of the poets (Zimmermann 1992, 118–121; cf. Zimmermann's chapter in the present volume). Sikon's style certainly presents some of these elements (946, 950, 951), thrown into relief by their very discordance from their textual sur-

(b) the very floridness of the language is meant as punishment for Knemon, who cannot tolerate regular conversations with most people, let alone a laughably flowery description such as this. In other words, Menander's cook consciously instrumentalises his generic ancestry not to sound more important himself but to strike his victim a blow: this is torture *with* and, more importantly, *by* style!

### **2.3 Sostratus**

(23) "Affective surplus"

Accumulation of all sorts (of oaths, invocations of the divine, interjections, politeness mitigators etc.) is the trademark of Sostratus-related humour in *Dyskolos*. It functions as the rhetorical signifier of an outflow of energy and emotion — an "affective surplus", one might say — which the audience knows is not natural but the result of Panic possession. I describe this attribute of Sostratus with the term "affective surplus": it is both a character trait67 and a verbal humour technique — again, an authorially-controlled one since Sostratus' intentions in producing this effect are not humorous.

(23a) Act I, 192–194 (accumulation of interjections)

 ὦ Ζεῦ πάτερ, καὶ Φοῖβε Παιάν, ὦ Διοσκόρω φίλ[ω, κάλλους ἀμάχου. [...] (Σω.) ἄνδρε[ς, τέρας!

Sostratus is so overwhelmed by the girl᾽s marvellous beauty that he invokes not one but three apotropaic gods in sequence: Zeus, Apollo, and the Dioscuri, capping his invocation with a *genitivus exclamativus* (κάλλους ἀμάχου),68 before

 roundings. Nonetheless, compared to Middle Comedy, this cook is much more restrained and lucid ("eine gedämpfte Reminiszenz an die Mese", Nesselrath 1990, 265).

**66** "Dithyrambising" cooks usually exalt the culinary wonders they worked (Nesselrath 1990, 257–267). However, in Eubulus fr. 56, the speaker describes, in Sikon's manner, a "Thericlean" cup used in a σπονδή.

**67** The classic reference for Sostratus as an "overactive" lover is Zagagi 1979.

**68** Cf. Sceparnio's reaction at Ampelisca's sight (Plaut. *Rud.* 415–416). At *Rud.* 420–423, Sceparnio, unlike Sostratus who refrains from any indecency, expresses his appreciation of Ampelisca's beauty in a fashion too tactile for her liking.

returning with another exclamation of wonder ("man, what a marvel", 194).69 Apotropaic gods guarded against "dangerous intrusions upon the normal tenor of life".70 For Sostratus, the threat is the sudden onset, not so much of love (this has already happened) as of a powerful sexual temptation in a milieu brimming with opportunity. For Stoessl, Sostratus' repeated appeals to the divine in this form or that of oaths (ex. 23b) indicate this character's inability to act.71 If so, this helplessness is nothing if not advantageous in this situation, preventing Sostratus from crossing the boundaries of decency and the law. The anaphoric ὦ expressing strong sentiment is paralleled in *Sam*. 325–327: ὦ πόλισμα Κεκροπίας χθονός, / ὦ ταναὸς αἰθήρ, ὦ... In both examples, the device has a tragedic ring — indeed, in *Samia*, the phrase is an actual tragic quotation.

(23b) Act IV, 666–667 (accumulation of oaths)

ἄνδρες, μὰ τὴν Δήμητρα, μὰ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν, μὰ τοὺς θεούς...

The triple anaphora of μά in 666–667 intensifies further the pattern of ex. 23a.72 Moreover, stringing multiple oaths together is a remarkably forceful rhetorical device. Here, it expresses excitement beyond ordinary measure (but not for suggesting that Sostratus shared some of his mother's excessive religiosity, as Stoessl has it).73 The use of such a device by Menandrian characters is very infrequent. The closest parallel is Parmenon's μὰ τὸν Διόνυσον, μὰ τὸν Ἀπόλλω τουτονί, / μὰ τὸν Δία τὸν σωτῆρα, μὰ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν (*Sam*. 309–310), where rhetorical exuberance masks guilt (311).74

 **69** τέρας is a supplement by Bingen, which expresses eloquently Sostratus' wonder at a beauty that is almost metaphysical to his eyes. In 677–678, he will describe the girl as ἄγαλμα οὐ τὸ τυχόν.

**70** Parker 1983, 220.

**71** Stoessl 1965, *ad loc.*

**72** On anaphora in Menander, see Feneron 1974, 85–86.

**73** Stoessl 1965, *ad loc.*

**74** For other examples of stringed oaths, cf. Aesch. *Ag*. 1432–1433; Trag. Adesp. fr. 123a (supposedly cited by Demosthenes in a speech and parodied by Antiphanes fr. 288); Ar. *Eq*. 941; and the reported oath in Aesch. *Sept*. 45–46. The aura of solemnity about this device is easily given to comic parody: *Av*. 194; *Nub*. 627. Multiple swearees were common in formal contexts such as the Hippocratic Oath (ὄμνυμι Ἀπόλλωνα ἰητρὸν καὶ Ἀσκληπιὸν καὶ Ὑγείαν καὶ Πανάκειαν καὶ θεοὺς πάντας τε καὶ πάσας), the Ephebic Oath (ἵστορες τούτων Ἄγλαυρος, Ἐνυάλιος, Ἄρης, Ζεύς, Θαλλώ, Αὐξώ, Ἡγεμόνη), and other official instances of oath-taking.

(23c) Act II, 299–300 (accumulation of politeness mitigators)

μειράκιον, οὕτως εὐτυχοίης, βραχ[ύ τί μου ἄκουσον –

Sostratus scrambles to secure Gorgias' attention to clear himself of the horrible accusations levelled against him while not offending his interlocutor further. His urgency is graphically expressed by the unusual accumulation of as many as three "politeness mitigators" preceding the imperative ἄκουσον. Αn initial address in the vocative (μειράκιον), establishing a connection between the speakers ("positive politeness") by recalling the term Gorgias had used in his opening address at 269, is accompanied by two expressions observing the necessary respectful distance between them ("negative politeness").75 Sostratus' politeness strategy thus mirrors and intensifies that of Gorgias, who also accompanied μειράκιον with a negative-politeness mitigator (ἐθελήσαις ἄν...).

(24) Act IV, 667–669 ("affective surplus"/paradox/humorous repetition)

 οὐπώποτ' ἐν τὠμῷ βίῳ εὐκαιρότερον ἄνθρωπον ἀποπε<π>νιγμένον ἑόρακα μικροῦ. τῆς γλυκείας διατριβῆς.

In this example, Sostratus' penchant for the *genitivus exclamativus* (τῆς γλυκείας διατριβῆς, 669; cf. ex. 23a) is coupled with the paradox of a man "drowned in the most opportune moment — well, almost"! The delayed addition of μικροῦ, which qualifies ἀποπεπνιγμένον (Knemon can only "almost" drown in a comedy!),76 has a distinct humorous effect. Sostratus repeats the adverb three times in this speech (cf. 681, 687). Undoubtedly, the actor was expected to stress it accordingly in his delivery.

ἑόρακα — perfect in the place of an aorist77 — also carries humorous overtones. In Menander, this kind of perfect tends to be used "en particulier, quand

 **75** On the terms "positive" and "negative politeness", and generally on the diverging politeness strategies employed by Sostratus and Gorgias in this scene, see Sorrentino 2013, 212–213, 259–260, 272.

**76** Norrick (1989) identifies paradox as follows: "an initial contradiction resolves itself into a consistent proposition at some higher level". He identifies three major pragmatic strategies of resolving paradoxes in discourse: (a) separating frames of reference, (b) averaging opposites, and (c) modifying one term. Sostratus' paradox clearly belongs to the last category.

**77** "Ein schönes Beispiel der sich in der hellenistischen Zeit vollziehenden Angleichung des Perfekts an den Aorist" (Radt 1972, 144).

un personnage s'exprime avec force ou avec passion", for instance in *Her*. 41–43 (ἐγκεχείρηκ᾽).78 This is undoubtedly the nuance in Sostratus' speech, too — his "affective surplus" is expressed with a different grammar.