¹ The locus classicus is Slater 12–13.

² This fact was pointed out by Paul Brandt (pseud. Hans Licht), Licht ii 223. The English trans. is based on the second, abridged version (1932): Sexual Life in Ancient Greece (New York 1963)Google Scholar. It is on this, where the crucial passage is omitted, that Slater (loc. cit.) bases his argument.

³ With the exception of Ach. 791–2, only literary sources cited by Slater and Licht have been treated here: if these do not support the thesis, further rebuttal should not be required.

⁴ The People of Aristophanes ² (Oxford 1951) 7–13Google Scholar; de Ste Croix, G. E. M., The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London 1972) 232–6Google Scholar. See also Dover, K. J., Aristophanic Comedy (Berkeley 1972) 38–41Google Scholar on sexual and scatological jokes.

⁵ Theopompus (ap. Ath. xii 517d) cites the Western Greeks' unusual use of pitch for depilation, saying that they learned it from the Etruscans. This was used on boys' legs only, and was not adopted in fifth-century Athens.

⁶ See Ussher, R. G., Ecclesiazusae (Oxford 1973)Google Scholarad loc. His remarks there refer to general depilation, not specifically to pubic hair. Thesm. 590, which he cites to support the suggestion that the two normal methods were singeing and plucking, could suggest that τίλλειν can mean ‘depilate’ without implication as to method: Mnesilochos had been singed and shaved, not plucked, At Thesm. 215–16, ἀποξυρεῖν ταδί, τὰ κάτω δ᾿ ἀφεύειν, Mnesilochos' beard (and chest hair?) are to be shaved, his lower parts singed: κέρκος, penis, 239; πρωκτός, anus, 242. See also Dover, GH 144Google Scholar on Agathon's self-depilation.

⁷ Henderson 135 no. 146.

⁸ Evidence for shaping could be gleaned from vase paintings; but it would be difficult to distinguish convincingly between artists' shorthand forms, and real fashion. Conclusions could only be tentative. Pace Henderson (146 no. 184), the object of such styling is clearly sexual attractiveness; and styling need mean no more than what is required to define shape: no ragged edges. See comments on Lys. 151, next in text, and nn. 9, 10. Cf. also Henderson 52, ‘styles of genital depilation practised by Greek women’.

⁹ The same point is made in Murphy's version of the line (An Anthology of Greek Drama, ed. Robinson, C. A. Jr, [New York 1949]Google Scholar): ‘My word! how neatly her garden's weeded’. This omits the pennyroyal, presumably on the assumption that Murphy's contemporaries do not know what it looks like. Use of the verb to mean ‘to weed’ (in the med.) is supported by the rather late Geoponica ii 38.2Google Scholar (cited LSJ s.v.); this also would imply partial removal. For other short plants and well-tended plots as metaphors for female genitals, see Henderson 46, 47; and nos 128, 130, 131, 133, 137, and 138.

¹⁰ Wilamowitz, was surely right to suggest that this refers to a pubic hair style (Aristophanes Lysistrata [Berlin 1927]Google Scholarad loc.). Henderson's comment on the ‘inappropriateness to the context’ (146 no. 184) seems to miss the point. The women intend to excite their men sexually, so that their ultimate refusal of intercourse, or limp compliance, will be as frustrating as possible.

¹¹ Slater 12–13; Henderson 131 no. 111.

¹² See Dover, K. J., Clouds (Oxford 1972)Google Scholarad loc. Licht ii 223 mentions use of hot ash as depilatory as though it were on a par with plucking and singeing with the lamp. These two passages—his most likely source—make that improbable.

¹³ Here, as at Thesm. 590 (see n. 6) τίλλειν might mean ‘depilate’ alone, without reference to method. This might also be inferred from Nub. 1083 (see n. 12). Slater also cites Thesm. 236–9 to support his contention. The implement brought out to depilate Mnesilochos' lower body is a torch (238), not a lamp, so that conclusions about real life can be only of the most hesitant. It must also be stressed that, at this point in the action of the play, the intention is to improve Mnesilochos' female disguise by general reduction of his body hair (see n. 6); the parallels to female toilet, though present, should not be taken as straightforward evidence.

¹⁴ Henderson 122 no. 58; 134 no. 125. Edmonds ad loc. The minor deities cited are of a sexual nature, so that there is no doubt about the implication of the double entendre, though the precise meaning is obscure. Since the myrtle is to be presented on a pinax, a flat dish, detached berries would be impractical. A colleague has suggested ‘a platter of pubic hair’; partially depilated genitals (some leaves, and perhaps the less desirable berries, removed from clusters of myrtle) are also possible. Probability need not be a strong factor in Comedy.

¹⁵ G. Hermansen has reminded me of the sailors' habit of singeing the beard with a candle. An essential accessory is a wet towel, applied quickly as the candle is pulled away. This may help to explain some of the sponges which appear as accessories in scenes of women's toilet on Greek pots.

¹⁶ This to counter Licht i 33, and Slater's kysthophobia. For some Greek men, the beginning of growth of dark hair in the groin of the beloved boy was the signal for the end of the affair. See Dover GH 65. Id. 86–7, 144 and elsewhere provide references for the same negative rôle played by the hair of the beard.

¹⁷ The last line contains a religious joke: piglets are sacrificed to Demeter and Persephone, not to Aphrodite. Perhaps there is further play on the theme of prostitutes as ‘priestesses of Aphrodite’.

¹⁸ An early pelike, akin to the Nikoxenos Painter—Tarquinia, Museo Nazionale, unnumbered, from Tarquinia—shows an ithyphallic man looking at a woman's genitals, which we cannot see: ARV ² 224, 7; Boardman–La Rocca 106–7; Dover, GH R361 (no. ill.)Google Scholar; Mulas 50–1. Beazley (ARV ²ad loc.) sums up the pot in two words: (A) Inspection; (B) Penetration.

¹⁹ The majority of Attic erotic pots of known provenance come from Etruria, though statistics could at best be uninformative. A significant number of explicit paintings, however, come from Attic contexts. Vase painters of Greek origin—particularly, one would assume, those from Attica—would have shared the general phobia. How, and why, would they have overcome it? Vases made exclusively for the Etruscan market—e.g. Nikosthenic amphoras—have a high proportion of erotic content. Almost all of these are black figure pots, and thus cannot help determine an earlier Etruscan penchant for female pubic hair.

²⁰ For a very early red figure bather, with no pubic hair shown despite her exposed pelvis, see a plate at University of California, Berkeley, no. 8.5. H. R. W. Smith, CVA pl. 31, 1a and 1b, there attributed to the Cerberos Painter (Paseas). In ARV ², the museum number appears only in the index of locations, referred to p. 69, which would place it with works ‘near Oltos’ but unattributed.

²¹ Cup, fragment (whole tondo preserved?), lost, from Vulci., ARV ² 66, 121Google Scholar; Dover, GH R114 (no ill.)Google Scholar; Vorberg, , Gloss. 334Google Scholar.

²² The occasion shown here needs further investigation. This cup and at least one other, by the Nikosthenes Painter (see PLATE IIb), seem to represent entertainment at the ancient equivalent of a stag party, rather than masturbation for pleasure, which Greek vase painters knew could be achieved by much simpler and more comfortable methods. See also n. 23.

²³ British Museum E815; ARV ² 125, 15; Brendel fig. 18; Dover, GH R212Google Scholar (no ill.). Compare a cup by Epiktetos with very different treatment: Leningrad, Hermitage, no. 14611, from Berezan, —ARV ²75, 60Google Scholar; Boardman 71 (Beazley drawing); Dover, GH R 132Google Scholar (no ill.). A milder version (preparation) is found in a cup from the Lerici excavations, M. Abatone t. 561, in the Cerveteri Museo Nazionale, unpubl.

²⁴ The suggestion of an erotic dance is based on several clues provided by the painting. The posture of the woman, even granting some adjustment required by the bold but unsuccessful treatment of the legs, is compatible only with rapid movement. Muscular torso and arms suggest that the woman is an athlete: an acrobatic dancer with an unusual specialty. The distortion which makes her genitals visible may be attributed to two factors: inexperience in ‘life drawing’; and the desire to show them.

²⁵ Tarquinia, Museo Nazionale, from Tarquinia (perhaps formerly no. 2985, though no trace of this label remains: see Hoppin, J. C., Handbook of Attic Red-Figured Vases [Cambridge Mass. 1919] i 101Google Scholar); ARV ² 408, 36; Brendel fig. 23; Boardman–La Rocca 112–13; Dover, GH R543^*Google Scholar; Vorberg, Ars 17, 2Google Scholar. (Under this entry Beazley also cites fig. 18, 2. He does not cite the Naples cup [see n. 26] which might well be the one illustrated there: I have not seen this publication.)

²⁶ Naples, Museo Nazionale, Raccolta Pornografica, s.n., provenance unknown; omitted ARV ²; Grant, M., Eros in Pompeii (New York 1975) 102Google Scholar; Mulas 106; Vorberg, Gloss 686Google Scholar (not cited ARV ²); perhaps id.Ars 18, 2. Brendel (39 n. 41), citing Marcadé's, illustration (RA 38)Google Scholar of the Naples cup, remarks that it is identical to the cup in Tarquinia; i.e. that Marcadé is wrong to place the cup in Naples. The cup is in Naples, and, though perhaps not by the Briseis Painter, is close to him. The Naples cup is rather careless, and seems derivative of the other.

²⁷ On the difficulties of determining which is intended in specific cases, see Dover, GH 100Google Scholar. Another variant on this pose by the Briseis Painter is Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1967.306 (ex Beazley), from Cerveteri; ARV ² 408, 37; Para. 371; Boardman 272; Dover, GH R545^*Google Scholar. The embrace is rather more athletic, and seems to imply vaginal intercourse.

²⁸ Berlin, Staatliche Museen, no. 3757, from Orvieto; ARV ² 404, 11; CVA pl. 24, 2; Dover, GH R531Google Scholar (no ill.). The erotic nature of this scene to a contemporary Greek audience is confirmed by a hydria in the Louvre, G51, by the Dikaios Painter or near him: ARV ² 32, 1; CVA 53, 1 and 4. Here a naked woman urinates into a shallow basin; a nude ithyphallic youth, playing the diaulos, watches her.

²⁹ Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum, 507; ARV ² 181, 1; Boardman 129.2; Dover, GH R 309Google Scholar (no ill.). Closest is the pubic patch of a flute girl by the Foundry Painter in the Lewis Collection, Cambridge University, provenance unknown; ARV ² 402, 11; Boardman 265.

³⁰ Paris, Louvre C9682, ex Campana; ARV ² 1028, 12; Boardman–La Rocca 126–7; Dover, GH R898Google Scholar (no ill.); Mulas 58–9; Philippaki 141–2 (no ill.).

³¹ A second stamnos is more problematical. Athens, National Museum, ex Dimitriou. Apparently not cited ARV ², omitted Philippaki. Boardman–La Rocca 122 (labelled hydria); Dover, GH R1151Google Scholar (no ill.); Marcadé, EK 137Google Scholar; Mulas 54; Vorberg Gloss. 42. The subject is unique: two men lower a nude hetaira onto the penis of their reclining friend. The hetaira is frontal, legs wide-spread; and she is blonde. Pubic hair is shown, but conceals nothing: the vulva, slightly misplaced upwards, is shown in considerable, and quite accurate, detail. In published colour photographs damage looks incompatible with normal red figure technique, with red flaking off an underlying glossy black surface. There may be good reason to suspect fairly recent (19th c.?) forgery, perhaps on a genuine Attic stamnos; but one does not lightly attack a piece accepted as genuine by Boardman. The anatomy of the male to left is peculiar: hips, waist, and genitals cannot be reconciled. If the piece is genuine, Boardman's proposed date (c. 430) seems sound; there would be some relation to the school of Polygnotos.

³² Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, F2412 (Marcadé, EK 152Google Scholar quotes 2414, whence Brendel, Dover), from Vulci; ARV ² 1208, 41; von Blanckenhagen 11b; Boardman–La Rocca 124–5; Brendel figs. 25, 26; Dover, GH R970^*Google Scholar; Mulas 56; Robertson 132c; Simon 211.

³³ 39–42. The relation to the choës, pointed out by Buschor in Furtwängler–Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei (Munich 1904–1932) II ii 316Google Scholar, leads Brendel to associate the event with the Anthesteria. The identification is tempting, and most attractively argued. See also von Blanckenhagen 37–41.

³⁴ At least one other vase painter, later in the same period, the Dinos Painter, found subject and presentation attractive enough to reproduce it with some important changes: bell krater, London, British Museum F65, from Capua; ARV ² 1154, 35; von Blanckenhagen 10a; Dover, GH R954*Google Scholar. As von Blanckenhagen points out, the participants are now both boys, their poses somewhat changed. Two spectators have been added: a bearded man, and a woman leaning on the closed lower half of a Dutch door. Dependence on the Shuválov Painter's oinochoë, besides the clear reminiscence of the principal figures, is confirmed by the attempted correction of the perspective of the highbacked chair. This correction is only partly a result of the slight change of viewpoint: there is conscious improvement of the original.

³⁵ Pubic hair under transparent chiton: Munich, Antikensammlungen, 2654, from Vulci; ARV ² 462, 47; Boardman 313; Boardman–La Rocca 30–1; Mulas 22–3. Chiton folds as substitute: New York, Metropolitan Museum, 06.1152, provenance unknown; ARV ² 463, 52; Brendel fig. 9; Marcadé, EK 88 (cited as in Munich)Google Scholar. Paris, Louvre G144, ex Campana; ARV ² 462, 43; Brendel p. 18 n. 16 (no ill.); Marcadé, EK 87Google Scholar; Dover, GH R619Google Scholar (no. ill.) is this, not New York, Metropolitan Museum 06.1152.

³⁶ Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 13.186, from Suessula; ARV ² 458, 1; Boardman 308; Charbonneaux et al. 403; Robertson 79; Simon 166. Knauer, E. R., Ein Skyphos des Triptolemosmalers (Berlin 1973) fig. 7, p. 15Google Scholar and n. 75, notes Beazley's comments on Aphrodite's rôle on the two sides of the skyphos (Beazley, , Boston iii 34–5Google Scholar); on which see also Simon, note to pl. 166.

³⁷ Naples, Museo Nazionale, 2422, from Nola; ARV ² 189, 74; Arias, P. E., Shefton, B., Hirmer, M., A History of 1000 Years of Greek Vase Painting (New York 1961) 125Google Scholar; Boardman 135; Charbonneaux et al. 386; Robertson 233–5; Simon 128–9.