No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A NEOLOGIZING TAKE ON HIPPONAX, FR. 92.3 WEST
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 February 2019
Extract
‘When I use a word’, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
In his recent note on Hipponax in this journal, Joseph Cotter first offers ‘a revised version of LSJ's definition’ of ὄρχις. At LSJ (incl. Revised Supplement, 1996), s.v. ὄρχις I, ‘… testicle Hippon. 92.3 W. …’, he would delete the Hipponactean citation and rewrite the second definition, under ΙΙ (‘plant so called from the form of its root …’), to read: ‘from similarity of shape, 1 glans penis, Hippon. 92 (95 Degani), 2. <plant> from the form of its root …’. Cotter derives his new definition from his reading of that Hipponactean line (= fr. 95.3 Degani), καί μοι τὸν ὄρχιν τῆς φαλ[ … , which he supplements with the name of a marsh bird, φαλ[ηρίδος, also redefined. This supplementary ‘coot’ is said to mean ‘cock’, so that the narrator of the fragment's description of (probable) treatment for sexual impotence tells how a Lydian woman ‘thrashed with fig-branch (4, κ]ράδηι συνηλοίησεν) the glans of my cock’. We are presented, then, with two previously unattested meanings of two nouns, ὄρχις and φαληρίς, and an accommodating correction of LSJ. What—I have asked Cotter—might Henry Liddell have thought of these innovations, familiar as he undoubtedly was with Humpty Dumpty's semantics!
- Type
- Shorter Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2019
References
1 Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865).
2 ‘῎Ορχις: testicle, testiculate and glans penis’, CQ 67 (2017), 285–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Romagnoli, E., I poeti lirici, vol. 1 (Bologna, 1931), 231Google Scholar.
4 Cf. Strömberg, R., Griechische Pflanzennamen (Göteburg, 1940), 55Google Scholar.
5 Boardman, J., ‘The phallos-bird in archaic and classical Greek art’, RA 2 (1992), 227–42, at 228Google Scholar.
6 Holwerda, D. (ed.), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars iv: J. Tzetsae Commentarii. Fasc. ii: Commentarius in Nubes (Groningen, 1960), 553Google Scholar.
7 Koster, W.J.W. (ed.), Scholia recentiora in Nubes (Gronigen, 1974), 111Google Scholar.
8 I shall be expanding elsewhere on this possibility and may now note merely that the plant name ὄρχις was not coined by Theophrastus in the early third century b.c.e.; cf. Endersby, J., Orchid: A Cultural History (Chicago and London, 2016), 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 So Hansen, P.A. and Cunningham, I.C. (edd.), Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. 4 (Göttingen, 2009), glosses φ 103 and φ 104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Cotter, J., ‘Φαληρίς: coot, plant, phallus’, Glotta 90 (2014), 105–13, at 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Allen, A., ‘Cootish semantics’, Glotta 92 (2016), 16–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘An Attic coot for Hesychius’, RhM 159 (2016), 437–8Google Scholar.
12 Adler, A. (ed.), Suidas Lexicon (Leipzig, 1928–35), s.v. φ 48Google Scholar.
13 West, M.L., Greek Lyric Poetry. A New Translation (Oxford, 1994), 121Google Scholar.
14 Gutiérrez, D., ‘Commentario y traducción de un fragmento de Hiponacte’, Anales de Filologia Clásica 25 (2012), 61–78, at 65Google Scholar.
15 de Sousa Medeiros, W., Hipponactea (Coimbra, 1969), 200 n. 129Google Scholar, listing more than thirty examples and observing that such participles lend themselves agreeably to the limping metre (‘Expediente cómodo, afinal, para um coliambógrafo!’).
16 My thanks to the anonymous reader for comments.