¹ The following works are cited by author's name and page number: Adams, J. N., The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London, 1982)Google Scholar, Dover, K. J., Greek Homosexuality (London, 1978)Google Scholar, Henderson, J., The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy (New Haven and London, 1975)Google Scholar, Jeffery, L. H., The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: revised edition with a supplement by A. W. Johnston (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar, Jocelyn, H. D., ‘A Greek Indecency and its Students: ΛAIKAZEIN’, PCPhS n.s. 30 (1980), 12–66Google Scholar, Lang, M., Graffiti and Dipinti: the Athenian Agora XXI (Princeton, 1976)Google Scholar, ‘Lenaiou, E.’ (C. Charitonidis) AΠOPPHTA (Thessaloniki, 1935)Google Scholar, Robert, L., Noms Indigènes dans l'Asie mineure gréco-romaine (Paris, 1963)Google Scholar, Schulze, W., Kleine Schriften (Berlin, 1935)Google Scholar, Shipp, G. P., Modern Greek Evidence for the Ancient Greek Vocabulary (Sydney, 1979)Google Scholar, Threatte, L., A Grammar of Attic Inscriptions (Berlin and New York, 1980– )Google Scholar, and Wackernagel, J., Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer (Göttingen, 1916)Google Scholar: Bull. Epigr. = Robert, L. and Robert, J., Bulletin EpigraphiqueGoogle Scholar (cited by item and year number in REG), DELG = + Chantraine, P., [Masson, O., Perpillou, J.-L., Taillardat, J.], Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots (Paris, 1968–1980)Google Scholar, DIEG = Delectus ex iambis et elegis graecis, ed. West, M. L. (Oxford, 1980)Google Scholar, FGE = Further Greek Epigrams, ed. Page, D. L. (Cambridge, 1981)Google Scholar, FMP = Fragmenta Mimorum Papyraceorum (in Cunningham, I. C., Herodas, Mimambi [Leipzig, 1987])Google Scholar, Garland = The Greek Anthology: the Garland of Philip, ed. Gow, A. S. F. and Page, D. L. (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar, HE = The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, ed. Gow, A. S. F. and Page, D. L. (Cambridge, 1965)Google Scholar, PGM = Preisendanz, K., Papyri Graecae Magicae (revised by A. Henrichs, Stuttgart, 1973)Google Scholar, PMG = Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. Page, D. L. (Oxford, 1960)Google Scholar, SB = Sammelbuch griechischen Urkunden aus Ägypten (Berlin, 1915– )Google Scholar, SH = Supplementum Hellenisticum, ed. Lloyd-Jones, H. et Parsons, P. J. (Berlin, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, TGrF = Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, various editors (Göttingen, 1971– ).Google Scholar

² Why such a common word took on its sexual meaning and became a quasi-obscenity in sexual contexts is problematic. See below, pp. 63f.

³ It is not absolutely certain that Hipponax used the word (Hipp. fr. 174 West is a quotation from Tzetzes mentioning a series of words for the female organ including κσθος: it ends κα ὅσα τοιατα Σώϕρων κα ʻIππναξ κα ἓτεροι λγουσι). The mime example occurs in the ‘adulteress mime’ (FMP 7.15: see below p. 55).

⁴ Wünsch 77b15. For modern Greek dialect reflexes of κσθος see Shipp 576 (compare also ‘Lenaiou’, 24).

⁵ Antipater of Thessalonica, Garland, 631. Lucian, Lexiphanes, 12 has the adjective πεώδης.

⁶ For the satyr name Πων see Schulze 716 and Fränkel, C., Satyr-und Bakchermamen auf Vasernbildern (Bonn, 1912), 24fGoogle Scholar. Wilamowitz rightly objected to the restoration πος in a bilingual Sicilian dedication to Priapus where the Latin has penis (SEG 2.533: see Die Heimkehr des Odysseus: neue homerische Untersuchungen [Berlin, 1927]), p. 179 n. 1).Google Scholar

⁷ 6.2 FMG (πορδ occurs several times in this mime). ποπρδομαι is found in a metaphorical use at Anth. Plan. 4.15. There are few reflections in prose. Lucian has the adjective πορδαλος (Lex. 10) and Epictetus apparently used the nickname Πρδων (Arr. Epict. 3.22.80).

⁸ 2.31.24. Alex. Aphr. Pr. 1.144 contains a reflection of πρδομαι, the only other medical or quasi-medical example apart from πρδησις in Hippocrates, Coan maxims, 1.100 Erm.: π πρδης, as the context makes clear, is a corruption of a noun in the nominative case, either ποπορδ or ποπαρδ (cf. ποπρδαξ): LSJ give παρδ as a variant. The word ϲιληπορδεῖν used by Posidonius (fr. 253 Edelstein–Kidd) probably has nothing to do with πορδ (see Maas, P., ZVS 54 [1927], 156–8Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften [Munich, 1973], pp. 215–18Google Scholar who points out that the meaning tamquam oppedens is ‘stilistisch unmöglich’).

⁹ πρδε is found in one of the recently published acclamations from Aphrodisias (Roueché, C., JRS 74 [1984], 181–99, 192Google Scholar; see Daniel, R. W., ZPE 61 [1985], 127–30, 130)Google Scholar and πρδον on a temple wall in Syria (Bull. Epigr. 1939.474 and Bain, D., ZPE 63 [1986], 104).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Hipponax 104, 32.

¹¹ Artemidorus 5.5 (303.8 Pack) and 5.68 (317.16). It has been conjectured twice in mime (6.4 and 6.17 FMG) and is found in prose elsewhere, [Lucian], Asinus 56 and Aeschines, epist. 77.27.

¹² The word is found in Leo Medicus, CMG 10.4.71. Either this is a grave stylistic lapse or by his time it had departed from the vernacular and had been revived as a learned term. In view of the presence of πρωκτς in a Byzantine apotropaic inscription (see the following note), the former seems the more likely supposition.

¹³ PGM 3.15 and the abusive epithets found in graffiti, εὐρπρωκτος (temple of Rameses II at Abydos – see Masson, O., CdE 51 [1976], 305–13)Google Scholar and λακκπρωκτος (Lang, C 23). πρωκτς is also found in a Byzantine apotropaic inscription (Schlumberger, G., REG 5 [1892], 73–93, 79 n. 8).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ See Lucian, , Alexander, 11Google Scholar and Diogenes, Epist. 35.3, 52.31. Phylarchus is cited by LSJ for the adjective ϲτυτικς (81 FGH 35b), but we cannot be sure that this is a verbatim quotation on the part of Athenaeus. The plant-name στυτς is acceptable to composers of materia medica and medical writers. The emendation στυκτα at Longus 4.12.4 is stylistically out of court and in any case does not give the required sense. Strato has ἄστυτος at AP 12.1.

¹⁵ PGM 7.186. The satyr names Στωυ and Στσιππος are attested on vases (see Fränkel [note 6] and Schulze 716).

¹⁶ Babrius 40.2. χζω also occurs once in Epigram (AP 7.683) and is found no less than six times in the work known as Philogelos (on its vulgar character see below p. 55: significantly all but one of the occurrences are in direct speech). Similarly it is found six times in the G life of Aesop (Vit. Aes. 28 [the corresponding passage in Vita W also has the verb], 32, 67 [4 times]), on each occasion in direct speech. It is also found in a papyrus collection of anecdotes about Diogenes (Gallo, I., Frammenti biografici da papiri, ii [Rome, 1980], III.8 5a)Google Scholar. Plut, . apophlheg. Lacon. 232fGoogle Scholar. is a rare example of its use in a prose narrative, albeit prose of an anecdotal kind.

¹⁷ In the form of the word for a purgative plaster, χεζανγκη (Aetius 3.135, Paul. Aegin. 7.9).

¹⁸ SPAW, 1905, 536 = MAMA iii.214a (a Christian curse from Ephesus against those who defile grave stones). χζω and καταχζω are found in notices warning against defecation on holy ground: see Jouguet, P., BCH 20 (1896), 242–50, 246Google Scholar and Perdrizet, P.–Lefèbvre, G., Memnonion d' Abydos (Nancy, Paris and Strasbourg, 1919), no. 311.1.6ff.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The fictional river Ψωλιχóυ is found in mime (6.129 FMP). A puzzling semi-literate epigram on an ostracon contains the word ψωλ) (FGE 1688 = SH 975): this work must be classified as non- or sub-literary.

²⁰ Again the uncouth Leo Medicus (CMG 4.74). The word is also used in a Greek–Coptic glossary from late antiquity (Bell, H.-I.–Crum, M. E., Aegyptus 6 [1925], 177–226, no. 165).Google Scholar

²¹ There are a good many examples of this: a fifth century graffito from Panticapaeum (SEG 3.596); defixiones (Wünsch 77bl.5 bis); an obscene papyrus letter (P. Oxy. 3070); Pompeian graffiti (CIL 4.1363, 4142); a magic papyrus (see Maltomini, F., SCO 29 [1979], 55–124, line 161)Google Scholar. The scribe of P. Lond. 3.604 insults his readers with the marginal comment ψωλοκοπ τòν ναγιγνώσκοντα (3.604 B col. 7). Is ψνλοδϕον (Inschriften von Ephesus, 539 [Inschriften griechischer Stäte aus Kleinasien, Band 12, Teil 2]) a misspelling of ψωλοδϕων? The word survived in the vernacular (see ‘Lenaiou’, 38f., 66).

²² See DELG. The most popular etymon has been βα (Schwyzer i.300), not unreasonably given the nature of the verb (see below, p. 59), but it has not been convincingly established. Attempts to find a correspondence in other indo-european languages lack conviction (see Pokorny, J., Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [Berne, 1959–1969], p. 470)Google Scholar; the most recently proposed etymology, βι = ‘vivre’ (van Windekens, A. J., Dictionnaire étymologique comple'mentaire de la langue grecque [Louvain and Paris, 1986], p. 43)Google Scholar is most implausible. The existence of the form βεν (only attested in inscriptions) complicates matters. The quality of the vowel represented by its ε is uncertain, as is its relationship to βιν. Schwyzer postulates an intermediary form *βῐν (i.181 n. 2) while Threatte (138) suggests that the Attic form may at one time have been βειν. He guesses that some of the diphthongal spellings found in the papyri of the Roman period (e.g. in the Archilochus papyrus cited below p. 55) may represent the original spelling and not what they have hitherto been taken to exemplify, instances of itacistic error. It should be noted that by the time κιν began to be used as its synonym, the first syllable of βιν must have contained a long iota.

²³ Shipp 187f., Robert, L., RPh 41 (1967), 7–84, 77ffGoogle Scholar., Cameron, A., CQ n.s. 32 (1982), 162–73, 163fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. The fact that βιν occasionally receives a gloss in the medieval scholia to Aristophanes (e.g. Tzetzes on Frogs 422 and Birds 796), but never in the scholia uetera, is significant.

²⁴ Koukoule, P. E., ‘T οὺ ϕωνητ τν Bυζαντινν’ Athena 56 (1952), 85–124.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cicero in his famous letter to Paetus (ad Fam. ix.22.3) has an allusion to βιν which clearly indicates its disreputable character in his time (on the passage see Shackleton, Bailey ad loc. and Philologus 105 [1961], 263–72, 264ffGoogle Scholar.). Cicero is not referring to the Thracian city whose name Bine or Binai caused some hilarity in antiquity and the middle ages: cf. Tzetzes, , Chil. 1150ffGoogle Scholar. who invents a town called Βινηρα on the analogy of the noun πινηρα.

²⁶ The status of a corrupt citation in the Etymologicum Genuinum ὑπ δ στνϕας κα πλθονς ετν βινεῖν εἰργενον / εἴργονται (Berger, G., Etymologicum Genuinum et Etymologicum Symeonis β [Beiträge zur klassiche Philologie], 45.1972, 65)Google Scholar is uncertain. Some nonoccurrences of βιν and its cognates may also be noted here: βινητιν was once the vulgate at Lucian, Lexiphanes, 12, but rather than Seiler's conjecture, we want a word denoting characteristic behaviour such as Bekker's μἱνθων which is adopted by Macleod; βινι, the ghost word lemmatized in Stephanus, is found in a corrupt version of the proverb οὐδες κομτης ὅστις οὐ βινητιι (on which see below p. 62) where βινητιι is guaranteed by the metre (the nonce-word σκοτοβινι coined by Aristophanes to cap σκοτοδινι at Ar. Ach. 1221 does not confirm the existence of βινι); Herwerden, (Lexicon Graecum Supplementicium et Dialecticum [Leyden, 1910])Google Scholar interpreted βενσαι in John, Lydus, de mens. p. 116, 23Google Scholar as βινσαι; it is in fact Latin uenisse which John is etymologising from Venus; βιν is not, as Edmonds supposed (misleading Kormonicka, A., QUCC 38 [1981], 55–83, 70Google Scholar and Degani on Hipponax 84 [86]), one of the words glossed in P. Oxy. 1801.16ff.: see Luppe, W., Philologus 111 (1967), 86–109Google Scholar, and CGFPR 343. βινεῖ is probably an intrusive gloss on κεντεῖ at Mnesimachus, fr. 4.55 K.-A.

²⁷ This is from the ‘adulteress’ mime. The relevant part is absent from GLP.

²⁸ See Bain, , LCM 6 (1981), 43–4 (at 43)Google Scholar, where it is pointed out that women do use βινητι.

²⁹ On this work see Parsons, P. J., BICS 18 (1971), 53–68Google Scholar. The metre of the relevant passage is Sotadean, well known as a vehicle for salacious writing. There are no examples of linguistic obscenity in our two extant fragments of Sotades.

³⁰ Edited by A. Thierfelder, Munich, 1953.

³¹ Compare note 16 and see Thierfelder, op. cit., p. 195 n. 13.

³² On this see Jocelyn 27. The second passage exploits terminology and doctrine which emanate from the Cyrenaeans, but it is clear that Lucian wishes to associate the views he is caricaturing with Epicurus: see Nesselrath, H.-G., Lukians Parasitendialog (Berlin, 1985), pp. 306f.Google Scholar

³³ The occurrences where no variation is found are CGFPR 76.10 (perhaps Cratinus' Dionysalexandrus - see Handley, E. W., BICS 29 [1982], 109–17)Google Scholar, Eupolis, fr. 385 K.–A., Ar. Ach. 1221, Kn. 1242, Birds, 560, 796, Lys. 715, 934, 1092, 1180, Thesm. 35, 50, 1206, 1225, Frogs, 427, 429, 740, Eccl. 228, 525, 706, 1090, 1099, Plato, fr. 188.21 K.-A.

³⁴ See the first volume of W. G. Arnott's Loeb edition of Menander, pp. 525ff. and the appendix to Sandbach's revised Oxford text of Menander (1990, p. 343).

³⁵ See Adams 219f. on Catullus and Martial and compare Wilamowitz (note 6): ‘Grobianismus ist der griechischen Literatur fremd. Der Gegensatz zu dem, was römische Ohren vertrugen ist gewältig’, a generalization which requires some modification.

³⁶ See Jocelyn 55 n. 168.

³⁷ I use the word in its non-technical sense.

³⁸ See Vinogradov, V. G., VDI 1969.3, 142–50, 147, 147 n. 55Google Scholar. I have not been able to trace the publication where this inscription first appeared (see Vinogradov 147 n. 54).

³⁹ On aggressive (non-literal), πνγζω see below p. 69.

⁴⁰ SB 6840 A 1. It was first published by Aimé-Ghiron, N., Annales du Services d' Antiquités de l' Egypte 23 (1923), 139–2.Google Scholar

⁴¹ For this kind of nominative compare Havers, W., IF 43 (1926), 207–57, 236Google Scholar and Langholf, V., Syntaktische Untersuchungen zu Hippokrates Texten (Mainz, 1977), pp. 54fGoogle Scholar.: it is very common in Hippocrates' Epidemiae.

⁴² A full discussion of this particular expression a n d of the disk in general was twice promised by Louis, Robert (l' Epigramme Grecque, Entr. Fond. Hardt, 14, 1967, 253 n. 1Google Scholar and CRAI 1974, 508–29, 527 n. 81 = Opera Minora Selecta v. 694 n. 81).

⁴³ On the Sardanapallus epigram, see Niese, B., de Sardanapalli epilaphio (Breslauer Program, Somersemester, 1880)Google Scholar, Blier, B., Philologus 63 (1904), 54–65Google Scholar, Dornseiff, F., Hermes 64 (1929), 270–1Google Scholar, Jaeger, W., Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his Development (Oxford, 1934), p. 252Google Scholar, Robert, L., Hellenica 13 (1965), 184ffGoogle Scholar., Bosworth, A. B., A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander, i (Oxford, 1980), pp. 193fGoogle Scholar., and Ameling, W., ZPE 60 (1985), 35–43 (especially 39).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ πρòς πολλ = πολλ (see LSJ s.v. πολλ C iii.8): cf. Cyranides 1.4.42.

⁴⁵ First edited (as P. Yale inv. 1206 col. vi.) by Parássoglou, G. M., Hellenika 27 (1974), 251–3.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See below, p. 59.

⁴⁷ On this verb see Edwards, G. P., ‘Meaning and Aspect in the Verb 'ΟΠΥΙΩ’, Minos 20–2 ( = Studies in Mycenaean and Classical Greek presented to John Chadwick), 1987, 173–81.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Henderson, J., LCM 5 (1980), 143.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ τ δʼ οὖν εὐδπανον τι Σλωνι κα ὑγρν πρς τν δαιταν, κα τ ϕορτικώτερον ἢ ϕιλοσοϕώτερον ν τοῖς ποιμασι διαλγεσθαι περ τν δονν, τν μπορικν οἴονται βον προστετρῖϕθαι(Plut. vit. Sol. 3).

⁵⁰ As does Henderson in his note on Ar. Lys. 715.

⁵¹ One might, for example, hazard the guess that βιν was put in the mouth of Solon appearing as a character in comedy or that, in a comic discussion of Solon's marriage legislation, someone used the word. For misunderstandings of a similar kind see Ruschenbusch's edition of Solon's legislation, p. 56. It is worth noting that Bentley in his ‘Epistles of Phalaris’ (Works, ii [1836], 6) accepted the authenticity of the report and defended βινεῖν = βιζεσθαι as an archaism, referring to Lysias 10.16–17, the locus classicus for the discussion of obsolete Athenian legal terminology.

⁵² Compare Jocelyn, H. D., LCM 6 (1981), 45–6Google Scholar and D. M. Bain, ibid. 4–3.

⁵³ Entered in the LSJ supplement as Inscr. Olymp. VII, it appears in many of the standard epigraphical and dialectal collections (for references see Bain and Jocelyn cited in the previous note): the most convenient access to the text is plate 42 no. 5 in Jeffery.

⁵⁴ So Comparetti, D., JHS 2 (1881), 365–79, 374CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Blass in SGDI 1156.

⁵⁵ For βν see Weber, L., Anacreontea, 97f.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ For the sexual nuance of βν cf. Anacreon 374.3, the scolion 902 PMG, and other passages adduced by Weber.

⁵⁷ Note, for example, the euphemisms in the Delphic decree in Salviat-Vatin, , Inscriptions de Grèce centrale (Paris, 1971), pp. 63ffGoogle Scholar. where the sexual offender is referred to as αἰσχνας (cf. Parker, R., Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Greek Religion [Oxford, 1983], p. 95 n. 84)Google Scholar and his victim as παθν. The journal's referee, however, rightly raises the possibility that βενω may have been an inoffensive word in the dialect of Elis, noting that ‘what is obscene in one region may be polite in another’. This calls into question the relevance of the document from Elis to the problem of the supposed occurrence of βιν in Solon's axones. It may be that βιν/βεν was offensive only in Ionic and Attic territory.

⁵⁸ On this sort of document see Roberts, C. H., Skeat, T. C. and Nock, A. D., ‘The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos’, HTR 29 (1936), 39–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar ≏ Nock, A. D., Essays on Religion in the Ancient World (Oxford, 1972), i.436ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ A more reticent version is to be found in P. Michigan 243.8ff.: ν τις τν ἕτερον ὑπονομεσηι ἢ οἰκοϕθορσηι.

⁶⁰ So, for example, LSJ and Henderson 151 (retracted in LCM 5 [1980], 143).

⁶¹ See Sommerstein, A. H., LCM 5 (1980), 47.Google Scholar

⁶² First published by d'Orsi, L., PP 23 (1968), 228–30Google Scholar: see Jones, C. P., HSCPh 75 (1971), 81–3Google Scholar, Bull. Epigr. 1973.552, and Gallavotti, C., MCr 13–14 (1978–1979), 363–9.Google Scholar

⁶³ Compare also πγισμα, Theocritus 5.43. Another nomen actionis from βιν, βῖνος, is almost certainly correctly restored in Plato, fr. 43 K.–A. by Wilamowitz (as βενου apud Kaibel, Athenaeus, Deip. 367c). Kaibel's manuscript note (cited by Kassel and Austin) aptly draws attention to the analogously formed βδος at Ar. Birds, 42.

⁶⁴ See D, D., Banner Jahrbücher 168 (1968), 56–111, 60Google Scholar, Kambitsis, S., BIAO 76 (1976), 212–23, 217–20Google Scholar, and Jocelyn 20f.

⁶⁵ Edited by Kambitsis, op. cit.

⁶⁶ Misspelled as λεικζω and as ληκζω: see below p. 77.

⁶⁷ The quantity of the ο in his name and the very mention of Favorinus rule out Meleagrian authorship. In the first line, contrary to Meleager's practice, Naeke's law is flouted. See HE ii.593 and the literature cited there.

⁶⁸ WZ Rostock 29 (1980), 77–88, 78.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Compare Jocelyn 154 n. 160.

⁷⁰ He is followed by Henderson 152.

⁷¹ ‘Wild’ according to Dr Colin Austin to whom I am grateful for correspondence on the textual problems in this line.

⁷² Compare also Eubulus, fr. 54.3 with Hunter's note and Carey and Reid on Dem. 54.40. For something similar in Latin compare aurum effutuisti said of Julius Caesar (Suet. Div. Iul. 51 = FPL, p. 92).

⁷³ See Shipp 149.

⁷⁴ For the form see Wackernagel 119: ‘ein Kontrast plebeischen Inhalt und vornehmer Form gesucht ist und sicher ein Mustervers aus einem ionischen oder tragischern Dichter vorschwebt’;. See also Neil ad loc. and Jebb on Soph. Ant. 950 to whose examples may be added TGrF Adespota, 268.

⁷⁵ See Dover 141, 141 n. 8.

⁷⁶ I exclude those instances where the verb is κιν. See below p. 64.

⁷⁷ Apart from the transferred ὑποβινητι mentioned above.

⁷⁸ It has often been stated that κινητιν is the reading here (Baldwin, B., AJPh 102 [1981], 79–80Google Scholar actually asserts that κινητιν and βινητιν are variants in this place). In fact, the sole witness for the text, the Marcianus of Athenaeus, has βινητιν, as is confirmed by Cobet (Variae Lectiones, 208) from autopsy and Sandbach (on Men. Dysc. 462) from microfilm.

⁷⁹ See below, p. 67 on πυγζω.

⁸⁰ See Dover 142 (wrongly indexed as 138). It is clear that Synesius understood that the proverb referred to a pathic (see below p. 67).

⁸¹ E.g. καπρ. See Shipp 150 and Bain, , ZPE 52 (1983), 56.Google Scholar

⁸² Cf. also Geoponica 1.4.22: κα αἶγες κα οἶες χευθεῖσαι, κα πλιν χεεσθαι βονλμεναι μακρτερον σημανουσι χειμνα (contrast 16.21.8 [Apsyrtus] οἱ μλλοντες χεειν νοι).

⁸³ Aristot. HA 510a3 (male bird as subject), HA 510b4 (bull), 545b3, 13–15 (goats, stallions).

⁸⁴ HA 500b12 (female elephant), 545b4, 14 (bitch [note νιαυσα], mare).

⁸⁵ HA 540a8f. (wolves, dogs), 545bIf., 3f., 21 (pigs, the dog, the ass).

⁸⁶ GA 718n17 (snakes), HA 491a4f. (mules) κα γενννται, 541b 20 (Crustacea). HA 575a30 (of the cow) is anomalous: χεει there must be corrupt (read χεεται?). Phlegon, Mir. iv.73–4 appears to use the active absolutely of the species snake.

⁸⁷ The dvandva compound (cf. MG νδργυνον ‘man and wife’) means ‘a couple of lizards, male and female’: cf. Maas, P., Kleine Schriften, p. 206.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ The passage, however, is obscure. See Davies, M.–Kathirithamby, J., Greek Insects (London, 1986), p. 112Google Scholar. As Dr Davies points out to me per litt, ‘πηνω as normally understood can't and don't copulate’.

⁸⁹ Adams 122.

⁹⁰ This is the practice advocated by Nauck, A., Mélanges Gréco-Romains (St Petersburg, 1891), 4.660.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See Headlam and Knox on Herodas 5.2 and Sternbach, L., Meletemata Graeca 1 (Vienna, 1886), 60ffGoogle Scholar. and WSt 8 (1886), 231–61, 236fGoogle Scholar. (cf. also van Leeuwen on Ar. Clouds 1102).

⁹² Cf. Reynolds, L. D.–Wilson, N. G., Scribes and Scholars: a Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature² (Oxford, 1974), p. 210.Google Scholar

⁹³ Pascucci, G. (A&R 4 [1959], 102–5)Google Scholar surprisingly does not mention it in his article dealing with the problem. Neither this passage nor the one in Dysc. is mentioned by B. Baldwin (see note 78), 79f.

⁹⁴ So Page in GLP.

⁹⁵ A second, possibly Menandrean, example of this verb may occur in the recently published papyrus mentioned above (p. 62): we cannot know whether βινηιν or κινηιν was intended.

⁹⁶ See Adams 195. The journal's referee draws my attention to the occurrence of the word ‘shove’ used of the sexual act in the mid-Victorian pornographic sexual autobiography My Secret Life (for which see Steven, Marcus, The Other Victorians: a Study of Sexuality and Pornography in Mid-Nineteenth Century England [London, 1966], pp. 82ff).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See Adams 194.

⁹⁸ So Headlam and Knox ad loc. They are followed by Cunningham.

⁹⁹ The distinction suggested by Pascucci whereby κιν denotes the act of beginning intercourse while βιν describes the completed act (see the article quoted in note 93 and Studi in onore di Vittorio di Falco [Naples, 1970], pp. 211f.Google Scholar) is unjustified. It is probably an accident that no aorist or perfective forms of κιν used sexually are attested.

¹⁰⁰ The other verb capable of suggesting βιν, διν (cf. Ar. Ach. 1221) was probably too restricted in use to take over its functions. Palmer's, L. R. attempt (Minos 5 [1957], 58–92, 62)Google Scholar to make an etymological connection between this verb and βιν has not found acceptance.

¹⁰¹ The appearance of the echt-Attic ς κρακας in Archilochus, fr. 196A 31 DIEG suggests, however, that caution is needed when making statements of this kind.

¹⁰² It is extremely unlikely that κιν has any sexual connotations in Hermippus, fr. 14 K.–A. There is one occasion where the manuscripts of Aristophanes offer us a choice between βιν and κιν when neither seems satisfactory: at Ar. Kn. 364, I would follow Jackson, J., Marginalia Scaenica (Oxford, 1955), p. 107Google Scholar, Degani, E., MCr 5–7 (1970–1972), 228–9Google Scholar, and Sommerstein, in his edition, in reading βυνσω rather than κινσω or βινσω.

¹⁰³ Toup's conjecture, accepted by West.

¹⁰⁴ The credit for this emendation should go to Sternbach.

¹⁰⁵ See Jocelyn, H. D., LCM 8 (1983), 48Google Scholar and the arguments to the contrary advanced by Bain, ibid. 93–4.

¹⁰⁶ Merkelbach (ap. Poliakoff, M., Studies in the Terminology of Greek Combat Sports² [Frankfurt am Main, 1988], pp. 102, 104ffGoogle Scholar.) conjectures κινο or κνησον for κομισον at [Luc.] Asinus, 10.

¹⁰⁷ See Andreotis, M., Lexicon der archaismen in neugriechischen Dialekten (Vienna, 1974) quoted by Shipp 152.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See Dover, K. J., Aristophanic Comedy (London, 1972), p. 161Google Scholar and Henderson on Ar. Lys. 1159.

¹⁰⁹ Cf. Dem. 56.16 τν μν συγγραϕν μ κινεῖν.

¹¹⁰ Cf. τν πατρδα κινεῖν in a decree ap. Plut. Mor. 851f.

¹¹¹ The demotic which precedes, Παιονδης, makes it clear that the name Cinesias has been chosen because of its sexual connotations. Wilamowitz is strangely imperceptive here. It is not Aristophanes' affection for the smaller demes that determines the choice of demotic: it is the link with the verb παω, for which see Henderson 171. Compare Whitehead, D., The Demes of Attica (Princeton, 1986), pp. 335, 335 n. 55.Google Scholar

¹¹² βινονθ' RΛ: κινονθ' Γ.

¹¹³ While it is obvious that Sebinus Anaphlystius is a comic creation (a Sebinus is also found in Plato com. [fr. 125 K.–A.]) rather than the product of two extremely innocent Athenian parents, I do not think that Ussher ad loc. is justified in assuming that Σεβῖνος is a name invented by Aristophanes. (He is certainly mistaken in adducing as a kind of hypothetical parallel for the assumption he rejects names and nicknames like Posthalion which are formed from words for intimate body-parts. These are common in, but not exclusive to Asia Minor in the imperial period: see Robert 17f. and Sherwin-White, S. M., ZPE 47 [1982], 551–70, 62fGoogle Scholar; and for MG parallels, Höeg, C., Les Saracatsans: Un Tribu Nomade Grecque, i [Paris, Copenhagen, 1925], p. 282Google Scholar who draws attention to putsará and even putsarina being formed from putsa. Such names are obviously affectionate which would hardly be the case with Sebinus). Sebinus, if it ever existed as a real name, would have been formed from σβω (cf. Charinus and Philinus).

¹¹⁴ According to Coulon's apparatus, in 877 we have κινουμνους in V (in ras.) R²VM²Γ¹, βινουμνους in R¹AΓ² Souda and in 879 κινουμνους in RM²Γ¹, βινουμνους in VAM¹Γ².

¹¹⁵ For a discussion of the variants in Ar. fr. 393 K.-A., see above p. 62.

¹¹⁶ See Henderson 151: he is followed by Baldwin (cited in note 78).

¹¹⁷ Including the ‘lioness on a cheese-grater’ posture which formed the subject of P. Jacobsthal's famous article in Athen. Mitt. 57 (1932), 1–7.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Taillardat, J., REA 58 (1956), 169–204, 190 n. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar takes προσκινν as ceuens with (presumably) σλινα the direct object and equivalent to πυγν. This is not convincing, but it must be conceded that the passage has sexual undertones.

¹¹⁹ Note, for example, the appearance of the phrase πρς πυγν πηδσαι in the Hippocratic corpus and of πυγηδν and ντπυγος in Aristotle.

¹²⁰ There are several καταπγων-graffiti from the Athenian agora (Lang, C 12, C 18, C 24, C 25, C 26, C 27). For such other such graffiti from Attica see Blegen, C. W.AJA 38 (1934), 10–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Milne, M. J. and von Bothmer, D., Hesperia 22 (1953), 215–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There is also an early Sicilian example (from Akrai: see Manganaro, G., Helikon 2 [1962], 485–501, 493ff.Google Scholar). A full collection of such inscriptions has now been set out by M. Lombardo apropos of a recently discovered graffito from Metapontum, (see PP 40 [1985], 294–307Google Scholar: for κατπυγος see Johnston, A., PP 45 [1990], 41Google Scholar who refers to Cambitsoglou, A. and Trendall, A. D., The Red-figured Vases of Apulia II [Oxford, 1982], p. 510, no. 131)Google Scholar. For prose-literature LSJ have the entry ‘Lucian, Tim. 22, Alciphro. 3. 45 etc. [compare above p. 51]’: to the Lucian examples may be added Adv. ind. 23 and Lex. 12 (Jocelyn, 51 n. 114). Lucian also uses καταπνγοσνη (Gall. 32).

¹²¹ See Wackernagel 224ff.

¹²² See Roscher, W., RM 53 (1898), 169–204, 184Google Scholar and the testimonia gathered in Die Inschriften von Ephesos vii.1.104ff. (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 17.1 [Bonn, 1981]).

¹²³ Shipp 138. His collection of literary occurrences is not complete. He does not mention the example from Athenaeus (where incidentally and mystifyingly Doric forms are found in the account of the passage from Diphilus) and omits two further instances in the Palatine Anthology, AP 12.240 and 245.3 (both from Strato and discussed above, p. 59).

¹²⁴ This graffito (see also SEG 31.824) was first published by Manganaro, G., Kokalos 14–15 (1968–1969), 195–202Google Scholar, but misunderstood until Forssman, B., Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 34 (1976), 39–46Google Scholar. and Gallavotti, C., QUCC 20 (1975), 165–91, 172ffGoogle Scholar. independently, and more or less simultaneously, put forward the correct interpretation of its content. It h a s been edited afresh by Masson, O. and Taillardat, J., ZPE 59 (1985), 137–40, 140.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ For these see Forssman, op. cit. and Adams 125.

¹²⁶ For νανμω, a Doric word meaning ‘read’, compare Parthenius, , SH 606Google Scholar and the annotation there (see also ΣP. Isth. 2.68).

¹²⁷ VDI 1949, 155–61, 159 fig. 1. See Bull. Epigr. 1952.107.

¹²⁸ See Lazaridis, P., PAAH (Πρακτικ), 1979, 71–9, 74 (cf. SEG 31.622)Google Scholar. The words on the tile seem to be written at random. I confess I cannot make out πυγζω from the photograph in Lazaridis's article.

¹²⁹ Servais, J., Aliki 1 (Etudes Thasiennes 9)Google Scholar Ecole Française d'Athènes, 1980, 48 n. 4 (compare SEG 31.764).

¹³⁰ See Pouilloux, J., Recherches sur l'histoire et les cultes de Thasos (Paris, 1954), i.223 n. 5Google Scholar (plate xviii 4) who corrects the dating suggested in IG 12 suppl. 702: ‘la date est indéterminée’.

¹³¹ See SEG 27.240 and Bull. Epigr. 1979.252.

¹³² Catalogue of the Collection of Ancient Rings E. Guilhou, Sotheby's, 12 xi.1937, no. 402.

¹³³ Väänänen, V. (general editor), Graffiti del Palatino i.230 (Ada Instituti Romani Finlandiae iii, Helsinki, 1966).Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Re-edited by Solin, H., Arctos 7 (1972), 163–205, 195Google Scholar: see Rea, J., ZPE 36 (1979), 309–10.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ See above p. 59. CIL iv.2425 cited above provides a parallel for ἔδωκε πυγσαι. Compare also Plaut. Cos. 362 comprime istunc. :: immo istunc qui didicit dare, occurring in a context of homosexual innuendo.

¹³⁶ Compare above p. 53 n. 21 and see Bain, D., ZPE 30 (1978), 36Google Scholar and C. Gallavotti (note 62).

¹³⁷ Mouterde, R., Mélanges Beyrouth 36 (1959), 53–87Google Scholar (Bull. Epigr. 1961.785–6).

¹³⁸ Edited by Solin, H., Glotta 62 (1984), 167–74Google Scholar. My interpretation of this inscription, which differs somewhat from Solin's, is this: the writer, Eutyches, hopes that his friend Gamos will remember him (or else announces his wish that Gamos be remembered) and, at the same time, warns him not to indulge in cunnilinctio, threatening him with buggery and irrumation if he continues to do so. The text ends εἰ δ κα θλει ‘λ’ χειν, κα πυγιζσθω ἢ ληικαζτω[sic].

¹³⁹ As it is designated in SEG 27.240.

¹⁴⁰ See the works referred to in note 125.

¹⁴¹ See Adams 125.

¹⁴² Preisigke, F.–Spiegelberg, W., Ägyptische und griechische Inschriften und Graffiti a. d. Steinbrüchen des Gebel Silsile (Oberägypten) (1915), no. 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar: similar uncertainty attends Lang, C12.

¹⁴³ For these words see Bull. Epigr. 1955.156.

¹⁴⁴ See also Dunbabin, K. M. D. and Dickie, M. W., ‘Inuida Rumpantur Pectora; the Iconography of Phthonos/Inuidia in Graeco-Roman art’, JAC 26 (1983), 7–37Google Scholar, 13 n. 3 for apotropaic inscriptions where the verb is used to express the hope that envious people may burst.

¹⁴⁵ Björck, G., Das Alpha Impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache (Uppsala, 1950), p. 56Google Scholar. His remains the basic discussion of the two verbs.

¹⁴⁶ The Ravennas actually has κινιμεθα, with κιν written in rasura. Kassel and Austin are doubtful about the status of the Pherecrates fragment and suggest that only the occurrence of the verb ληκ is attested by Pollux. L. Sternbach (note 91 [WSt], 237), defends κινομεθα in the Ravennas, arguing that the Souda citation is a contamination of the two passages.

¹⁴⁷ Hesychius iii.286: see Lobeck, , Rhematicon, 320.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ See Dawson, C. M., AJPh 67 (1946), 1–15, 5.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Epicurus, fr. 414 Usener = Cleomedes, de motu circ. 2.91 (p. 166 H. Ziegler).

¹⁵⁰ See above, pp. 59, 65.

¹⁵¹ Seager (cited below in note 160), 140 quite unjustifiably rejects the possibility that λκημα has any link with ληκω. The bluntness of Epicurus' language was often remarked upon in antiquity (see Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa [Berlin, 1898], 124).Google Scholar

¹⁵² The inscription was first published in Hogarth, D. G., JHS 8 (1887), 376–400, 386 no. 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Steinleitner, F., Die Beicht in Zusammenhang mil der sakralen Rechtspflege in der Antik. Ein Beitrag zur näheren Kenntnis kleinasiatischer-orientalischer Kulte der Kaiserzeit (Diss. Leipzig, 1913), no. 26Google Scholar, MAMA iv no. 283, and SEG 6.251.

¹⁵³ The suggestion was made by Ellis, R., J Phil 17 (1888), 128–41, 139Google Scholar. Surprisingly it is accepted by Björck, op. cit. 56.

¹⁵⁴ See Ramsay, W. M., Philologus 47 (1889), 754–5.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ So Ramsay (cited in the last note). On the inability of foreigners to handle the genera of the Greek verb see Wackernagel, J., Vorlesungen über Syntax (Basel, 1925), i. 123.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ See DELG.

¹⁵⁷ Compare Henderson 170ff. There is some plausibility in the suggestion that the Latin primary obscenity futuo had such an etymology: see Adams 118.

¹⁵⁸ νελκησα· ἔπληξα, ψϕησα (Hesychius ε 2893: cf. also Phot. ined. Zav. = Crat. fr. 169 K.–A.).

¹⁵⁹ ληκώ· τ μριον (Hesychius iii.34): τ μριον λγουσι τ νδρεῖον (Photius [ii.385 Naber]). Sütterlin, L., Zur Geschichte der Verba denominativa (Strassburg, 1891), p. 24Google Scholar derives ληκω from ληκώ, implausibly connecting it with verbs of sickness ending in -ν.

¹⁶⁰ Seager, R., ‘Aristophanes, Thesm. 493–6 and the comic possibilities of garlic’, Philologus 127 (1983), 139–42.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Cf. Plut. Quaest. nat. 36, Columella 9.14.5, Geoponica 15.2.15. On links between garlic and the requirement of sexual abstinence in cult observance see Burkert, W., CQ n.s. 20 (1970), 1–16, 10fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. and Homo Necans (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1983), 145Google Scholar (on garlic eating at the Scira).

¹⁶² Cf. Hor. epod. 3.19f. and Watson, L. C., Philologus 127 (1983), 80–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶³ See above p. 71.

¹⁶⁴ Ar. Frogs, 1208, 1213, 1219, 1226, 1233, 1238, 1241.

¹⁶⁵ On ληκθιον πώλεσεν see Bain, D., ‘ΛHKΥΘION AΠΩΛEΣEN: Some Reservations’, CQ n.s. 35 (1985), 31–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar (for a bibliography of recent discussions of the question see 31 n. 2) where it is argued that the context positively excludes the possibility of any sexual innuendo. αὐτολκνθοι almost certainly means ‘carrying one's own oil flask’ (cf. αὐτϕορτος at Aesch. Cho. 675, ‘carrying one's own luggage‘): see Carey and Reid ad loc.

¹⁶⁶ The anecdote about Diogenes breaking up a pompous seminar by spraying the participants with salt fish and proclaiming triumphantly τν Ἀναξιμνους διλεξιν βολο τριχος διαλλυκεν (D.L. 6.57) is relevant to our understanding of the humour of the Frogs-scene (see Bain, op. cit. 36f.: cf. also Ar. Kn. 682).

¹⁶⁷ So Carey and Reid.

¹⁶⁸ See Willetts, R. F., The Law Code of Gortyn (Kadmos, Supplement i [Berlin, 1967]), II.3, II.17CrossRefGoogle Scholar (see the same author, Kadmos 7.2 [1964], 170–6).

¹⁶⁹ See Jeffery 195.

¹⁷⁰ IG xii.3.536, 537, 538, 539. A reading which involves a sexual nuance extracted from 553a (Kretschmer, P., Philologus 58 [1899], 467–9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar is highly dubious.

¹⁷¹ For the anomalous οἶχε (Toup's certain conjecture), created to match the other imperative, see Wackernagel 253 (an addendum to 63 n. 1).

¹⁷² Plut, . Vit. Pyrrh. 28.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ On this misspelling (ϕ for θ) see Langdon, M. K., ZPE 33 (1979), 180–2Google Scholar. The κα that follows has been interpreted by some (implausibly) as κα(ταπγων): see, for example, Lombardo (note 120), 299 n. 22.

¹⁷⁴ See Kretschmer, P., JÖAI 4 (1901), 142–4Google Scholar and IG xii.5, 97: for the form compare μαινλης and see Lehnus, L., Scripta Philologica [Università degli Studi di Milano, Istituto di Filologia] ii (1980), 159–74, 162fGoogle Scholar. Lehnus discusses at length the Hesychian lemma οἰϕλις and suggests that the entry o 435 may contain an undetected Archilochean fragment, οἰϕλς γυν.

¹⁷⁵ See Oikonomides, A. K., Kυκλαδικ 5 (1956), 245–7Google Scholar. A recently published vase inscription from Berezan has the words το οἰϕώλη [sic] added to the owner's name: see SEG 32.724 and 35.858. The form of the genitive is extremely surprising in an inscription from the archaic period (for the η genitive see Dieterich, K., Zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache von der hellenistischen Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrhundert n. Christ [Leipzig, 1898], pp. 170f.Google Scholar) and it therefore seems questionable whether it has been read or interpreted correctly.

¹⁷⁶ Archilochus, fr. 251.5. See West, M. L., Studies in Early Greek Elegy and Iambus (Berlin and New York, 1974), p. 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Webster, T. B. L. ap. Pickard-Cambridge, A. W., Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy² (Oxford, 1962), p. 196.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ See Schulze, 716 and Fränkel (note 6), 37.

¹⁷⁸ See Szádocsky-Kardass, S., Acta des IV Int. Kongr. f. griech. u. lat. Epigraphik (Vienna, 1962), pp. 379–85Google Scholar and Miscellanea Critica, Teil I (Berlin, 1964), 271ff.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ See Kassel, R., RhM 112 (1969), 97–103, 97f.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ See, for recent expressions of this view, Graf, F., MH 36 (1979), 1–22, 13Google Scholar and Patzer, H., Die griechische Knabenliebe (Wiesbaden, 1982), pp. 84ffGoogle Scholar. For the contrary opinion, see Dover 123 and The Greeks and their Legacy (Oxford, 1988), 125fGoogle Scholar. (part of an essay questioning the validity of the initiation-theory as an explanation of the origins of Greek male homosexuality), and Bain, D., CR n.s. 34 (1984), 86–9, 88Google Scholar where I might have mentioned, as a further parallel for frivolous inscriptions located in sacred spots, the stone from Hellenistic Thasus referred to above (p. 68).

¹⁸¹ See Parker (note 57), 74, 74 nn. 3, 4.

¹⁸² ϕιλοιϕ is to be found at Theocr. 4.62 (cf. the scholion ad loc.). For ϕλοιϕος see Suet. π. βλασϕημιν β 16 Taillardat: it has been restored in a Byzantine poem where its appearance must have been brought about by its author's love of obscure and antique words (see Sternbach, L., ‘Ein Schähgedicht von Michael Psellos’, WSt 25 [1903], 10–39, 17Google Scholar: line 119 of the poem). For κρσοιϕος see LSJ s.v. κρνϕος III. Oἶϕε has sometimes been read at Theocr. 5.43. Gow demonstrates that the correct reading there is ὑβ.

¹⁸³ See ΣTheocr. 5.43.

¹⁸⁴ See Jocelyn 18 and 48 n. 66.

¹⁸⁵ See Shipp, G. P., Antichthon 11 (1977), 1–10, 1fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Shipp was the first to draw the attention of scholars to the significance of the first of these love charms. He was apparently unaware of the second passage which was first adduced by Jocelyn 20. Jocelyn's article provides exhaustive coverage of the interpretation of the word from antiquity to the present day, thereby making possible a relatively brief treatment here and less full reference to sources and secondary literature than has been made elsewhere in this article. Even so, all examples known to me from literature and epigraphy are taken into account. For λαικζω in ancient grammarians and lexicographers see Jocelyn 18ff., 2Iff. and 24ff.

¹⁸⁶ SB 7452.9–10.

¹⁸⁷ συνμιγναι. has sexual connotations here: Wilhelm's attempt (Wilhelm, A., Anz. Wien. 1937, 39–57Google Scholar = Akademieschriften zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde ii.582ff.) t o deny such a use for the compound as distinct from the simple verb, which is extremely common as a verb of intercourse, is only a partial success. It is clear that by late antiquity no such distinction existed. Compare also Aristaenetus 2.8.14 Mazal (see Arnott, W. G., YCS 27 [1982], 291–320, 312 n. 60).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ For this text see Martin, J., Genava, Bulletin du Musée de Genève 6 (1928), 56–64.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ See Jocelyn 20 and for further references 50 n. 83.

¹⁹⁰ IG iv.313: for further references see Jocelyn 46 n. 31.

¹⁹¹ Jocelyn 17.

¹⁹² Lang, C 33.

¹⁹³ IG i².921.

¹⁹⁴ Lang, C 34.

¹⁹⁵ First published by Ziebarth, E., SPAW 1934.1023–4 (no. 1)Google Scholar. See Robert, L., Collection Froehner I Inscriptions grecques (Paris, 1936), 14Google Scholar and Bull. Epigr. 1938.24 and 1961.199.

¹⁹⁶ On the interpretation of this fragment see Jocelyn 39f. The future is attested here and in Strato and Menander with a middle form. At Ar. Kn. 167 the better attested active λαικσεις may represent deliberately bad grammar motivated by a desire for assonance (Sommerstein prefers it). However that may be, the word comes as a παρ προσδοκαν insult of a type common in Old Comedy. Such gratuitous insults of persons whose support and favour the speaker should be seeking are quite commonly ignored by their victims: see K. J. Dover (see note 108), 60 and Bain, D., Actors and Audience² (Oxford, 1987), pp. 88f., 88 n. 4Google Scholar. Jocelyn's sociolinguistic inferences are therefore misplaced.

¹⁹⁷ AP 5.38.4. This epigram is not the work of the more distinguished epigrammatist of this name (see HE 2.425).

¹⁹⁸ See Jocelyn 27. None of the other conjectures suggested to replace the MS' δικσεται is really satisfactory. λειχσεται (Toup) is unacceptable since the word does not enter the Greek vocabulary until later (see Heraeus, W., RhM 70 [1915], 1–41, 38 n. 2Google Scholar). A conjecture on the same lines, λιχσεται (Brunck), is stylistically acceptable, but the parallels for this manner of speaking of fellatio are as yet confined to Latin (for these see Adams 135f.).

¹⁹⁹ The conjectures mentioned by Jocelyn 55 n. 177 are uniformly unappealing.

²⁰⁰ On Aristaenetus' decorum see Arnott (note 187), 31 Off.: he notes that the use of προσεμβατεω (2.22.1 Mazal) as a verb of (human) intercourse looks like a miscalculation.

²⁰¹ Despite Jocelyn's assertions, 23, some of the explanations of λαικ- words found in the grammatical tradition strongly suggest that the words had become obscure in late antiquity. The two glosses found in the Aristophanic scholia (λαικστς· πρνους Ar. Ach. 79, λαικασρας· πρνας Ar. Ach. 537), unless we interpret them as being deliberately intended to explain an indecency in the mildest possible way, are cases in point.

²⁰² Compare Adams 134 and Kay on Martial 11.58.12. In view of the difficulty noted by Adams of assessing ‘how important the cognitive element in a sexual term is to its user’, Jocelyn's statement ‘affective use cannot be said to have obliterated the denotative force of the verb’ is too sweeping. His rigid adherence to this doctrine in dealing with some passages of comedy (compare his view, discussed in note 196, of Ar. Kn. 167) leads to interpretations that are scholiastic in character and insensitive to the dramatist's intention. This is especially true of Men. Dysc. 888-92 (Jocelyn 40f.), where there is no need (or warrant) to postulate obscene gestures by the actors or to see one character trying to outdo the other in a contest of sexual insult. The explanation offered by Sandbach ad loc. is perfectly adequate. Getas innocently uses the expression ὧν ρτως ἔπασχες with reference to Sicon's earlier discomfiture at the hands of Cnemon. The slightly inebriated cook mistakenly thinks that πσχω is intended as a sexual insult and angrily responds with the abusive words οὐ λαικσει ϕλναρν Likewise I see no need to stress the technical implications of λαικαστρα at Men. Perk. 485 where it is simply a term of abuse (contra Jocelyn 15, 46 n. 29).