¹ Dover, K.J., Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge, MA, 1978), 204 Google Scholar.

² Ibid.

³ So Henderson, J., The Maculate Muse (Oxford, 1991), 247 Google Scholar. But see n. 11 below.

⁴ Sommerstein, A.H., Aristophanes Acharnians (London and Chicago, 1984 ²), 185 Google Scholar, note on line 592.

⁵ However, see n. 8 below. It seems that Sommerstein changed his mind about Plut. 267 ( Sommerstein, A.H., Aristophanes Wealth [Warminster, 2001]CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

⁶ In Sommerstein (n. 4), 93, it is a ‘bombustard’.

⁷ Forrest, Although W.G. (‘Aristophanes “Acharnians”’, Phoenix 17 [1963], 1−12)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for example, says that Dicaeopolis’ exchange with Lamachus does not constitute a ‘vicious attack’ (7), the argument herein makes it, perhaps, rather sharper than Forrest seemed to think.

⁸ Compare Lys. 979 and 1136, where the ones in that condition are Athenian men and so surely cannot be referring to their having been circumcised. See also Pax 903, Plut. 295. The circumcised Odomanti at Ach. 158 are not described this way. Rather, Dicaeopolis asks of them, τίς τῶν Ὀδομάντων τὸ πέος ἀποτεθρίακεν; In Av. 507, those described as ψωλοί are surely circumcised, given the Egyptian and Phoenician context (on which, see Hdt. 2.104). Other such descriptions are unclear (esp. Plut. 267: compare Sommerstein [n. 5], note on line 267, who denies that it denotes circumcision [but see n. 3 above], and Henderson [n. 3], 247, who thinks it does). See also the description of a comic phallus at Nub. 538−9, which might be understood either way.

⁹ So see Olson, S.D.: ‘Dik.’s point being that Lam. is sufficiently well-equipped either to circumcise him (with his sword) or excite him sexually (with his penis)’ (S.D. Olson, Aristophanes Acharnians [Oxford and New York, 2002], 226 Google Scholar, note on lines 591−2).

¹⁰ See e.g. Starkie, W.J.M., The Acharnians of Aristophanes (London, 1909), 123 Google Scholar and note on line 592.

¹¹ So see, too, Henderson's Loeb: Henderson, J., Aristophanes I: Acharnians Knights (Cambridge, MA, 1998), 129 Google Scholar. I mostly follow Henderson's translation in the one I offer below, and am grateful to him for help and encouragement on an earlier draft of this paper. This seems to reflect a change of opinion since he wrote Maculate Muse (see n. 3 above).

¹² Henderson (n. 3), 213−15 offers a striking list of 42 of those identified as pathics in Attic comedy. See also Hubbard, T.K., ‘Popular perceptions of elite homosexuality in Classical Athens’, Arion 6 (1998), 48−78 Google Scholar.

¹³ I am grateful to Alan Sommerstein for reminding me of these passages as pertinent here, as well as for more specific suggestions that inform the alternatives I propose herein.

¹⁴ There are, of course, many jokes that characterize important political and military figures as recipients of anal sex (see n. 12 above). But there are only very few instances in Attic comedy that accuse other men of being fellators (Henderson [n. 3], 185), so such an implication might be regarded as an even more aggressive insult. This specific insinuation may be supposed to flow out of another joke just two lines above the joke under interpretation herein. In line 589, Dicaeopolis invents a new kind of bird for the feathers on Lamachus’ helm: a κομπολακύθος. The joke in the next lines may suggest that Dicaeopolis is thinking about another use for Lamachus’ big mouth. I am grateful to James Robson for this suggestion, and also for reminding me that the way in which the two characters actually behave during this exchange would surely have played a significant role in the way the audience understood the joke.

¹⁵ I am grateful to Jeffrey Henderson, Gordon Kelly, Robert Kugler, Alan Sommerstein and especially James Robson, who graciously waived anonymity as the referee for CQ. The present version is the result of numerous changes in response to Robson's many and very helpful suggestions during the review process.