INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of die original
submitted.

The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand

markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

t . The sigh or'"target"·'for pages apparently lacking from the document

photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand comer o f a targe sheet and to .continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.

4. The majority o f users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as

received.

Xerox University Microfilms

300North Z « b Road
Aim Arbor. Michigan 48108
 7 6 -1 8 ,7 6 3
FENERON, John S ta n l e y , 1950-
SOME ELEMENTS OF MENANDER' S
STYLE.
S ta n f o r d U n i v e r s it y , P h .D ., 1976
L ite ra tu r e , c la s s ic a l

Xerox University Microfilms, Annαλογ.Michiflan4eioe

(c) Copyright 1976

by

John Stanley Feneron

11
 SOME ELEMENTS OF MENANDER'S STYLE /

A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS
AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

By
' John S ta n ley ^ eneron
December 1975
I c e rtify th a t I have read th is th e sis and th a t
In toy opinion I t I s fu lly adequate» In scope end
quality» as a d is s e rta tio n for the degree of
Doctor o f Philosophy.

I c e rtify th a t 1 ha
In my opinion I t I s fu lly adequate, in scope and
q u a lity , as a d is s e rta tio n fo r the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.

X c e rtify th a t I have read th is th e sis and th a t

in B y opinion i t I s fu lly adequate. In scope and
q u a lity , as a d isse rta tio n fo r the degree o f
Doctor of Philosophy.

Approved fo r the U niversity Committee

on the Graduate Division:

Dean of Graduate Studies

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I find th at w riting formal acknowledgements to th is d isse rta tio n is

more d if f ic u lt than the w riting o f much o f the d isse rta tio n i t s e l f , and I
hope to be forgiven i f I lack, the words to express adequately my sincere
g ratitu d e to Professor Webster and many who have helped and encouraged my work.
The th e sis combines in a sense my in te re s ts in both Greek Drama and
Greek Oratory, in spired during my undergraduate work a t University College
London by the teaching o f Miss M. Cunningham and Dr. S. Usher (of Royal
Holloway College London). I am also g ra te fu l to Professor E.W. Handley and
my teachers a t U niversity College, who did much to encourage my in te re s ts .
My work on th e th esis to p ic began e ffe c tiv e ly as the re s u lt o f a
seminar on Menaiider given by Professor T.B.L. Webster in the Autumn term
o f 1971, and subsequent tu to r ia ls with Professor Webster. I wish to take
th is opportunity to express my deep g ra titu d e to Professor Webster fo r the
lastin g influence o f h is advice and encouragement both as a teacher and
advisor, and fo r h is kindness throughout my stu d ie s. The th esis has bene­
f ite d considerably from h is advice and c ritic ism s , and what good i t may
contain I would a ttrib u te to h is guidance.
I owe much g ratitu d e also to P rofessor E.W. Handley, who provided me
the opportunity to present many o f the ideas expressed in Parts 1-3 o f the
th e sis in th e form o f a ta lk in January 1974 a t the In s titu te o f C lassical
Studies in London. I wish to express my sincere thanks to Professor Handley
and a l l who took p a rt. My p a rtic u la r thanks are due also to Professor W.G.
Axnott and Professor F.H. Sandbach who were kind enough to give me th e
b en efit o f th e ir advice on a ty p escrip t o f the ta lk , and again to Professor
Handley for much generous advice and c ritic ism on the expanded d ra ft o f
the same.
iii
 I owe thanks also fo r a number o f publications generously made
av ailab le to me, from which. I have p ro fite d g re a tly : to Professor Webster
fo r copies o f h is recent publications on Menander and fo r perm itting me to
see h is forthcoming An Introduction to Menander; to Mr. A.H. G riffith s
who generously sent me W. Lapp's valuable s t y l i s t i c survey o f Callimachus;
to Professor W.G. Axnott fo r providing me th e opportunity to see the two
volutes o f th e 1972 Leeds doctoral th e sis on Menander by Dr. A. K atsouris;
and to Dr. J.C.B. Lowe who kindly sent me copies o f h is a r tic le s on Greek
Comedy.
I am also g re atly indebted to Professor M.W. Edwards, to Professor
E.tf. Handley and to Dr. J.D. Moore who were kind enough to read and c r itic iz e
the fin a l d ra ft o f th is d isse rta tio n . I take f ü ll re sp o n sib ility , o f
course, fo r the present te x t. My fin a l thanks are due to my wife fo r much
patience gver the typing and retyping o f th e d isse rta tio n .

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
PART 1. VERBAL REPETITION
Introduction 3
(X) Anadiplosis 3
(2) Anaphora 6
(3) Antistrophe 10
(4) Symploke 11
(5) Anastrophe 11
(6) KO k X o c 12
(7) Ploke 14
Notes to P art 1 19
PART 2. ASSONANCE
Introduction 27
(1) Polyptoton 27
(2) Etymological figure 29
• (3) Paronomasia 31
(4) Rhyme 36
(5) Parechesis 47
(6) Repeated negatives SO
Notes to Part 2 55
PART 3. THE OATH (INVOCATION OF THE GODS IN OATH AND EXCLAMATION)
Oaths in Dyskolos 65
Oaths by: the gods generally 68
the Twelve Gods 72
Athena 72
Apollo 74
Asklepios 75
Aphrodite 75
Ge 76
Demeter 76
the Twin Goddesses 76
Dionysos 77
Zeus 78
Helios 79
Herakles 80
Hephaistos 81
Poseidon 81
others 81

Notes to P art 3 83

PART 4. SURVEY OF STYLISTIC CHARACTERISATION 91

Introduction 91
' Aspis 91
Georgos t 97
Dis Exapaton 98
v
 Page
Part 4. (cont'd)
' Dyskolos...... 99
Epitrepontes . 107
Misoumenos·· 112
Perikeiromene 113
Samia 116
Notes to Part 4 120
APPENDIX I : the two-line rhymesin Menander 138
APPENDIX I I : the oaths in Menander 141
BIBLIOGRAPHY 148

vi
 INTRODUCTION

The present d isse rta tio n takes as i t s sta rtin g point the enlightening
paper by Professor F.H. Sandbach in E ntretiens Fondation Hardt XVI (1969)
l l l f . , which provided the f i r s t comprehensive demonstration o f Menander's
manipulation o f language to characterise individuals. The d is s e rta tio n 's
o rig in al purpose was also to provide a so rt of concordance o f the some
110 rh e to ric a l devices in Menander, but i t soon became apparent th a t such
a survey, while useful in i t s e l f , would also prove something o f a
hindrance to useful discussion. While even a less comprehensive survey
along these lin e s necessarily involves a c e rtain amount of re p e titio n and
cross-referencing, i t i s hoped th a t the following plan has proved p r o f it­
able: P arts 1-3 deal only with what have seemed to me to provide Menander's
most reg u lar means o f expressing emotion, forms o f word re p e titio n , forms
o f sound re p e titio n , the oath. Something i s said of the nature o f these
devices and, where p o ssib le, o f th e ir importance in s t y l i s t i c ch aracteri­
sa tio n . On Professor Webster's advice, the la s t point was taken up more
generally in P art 4, a survey o f some o f the major characters in Menander
and some o f th e s t y l i s t i c features th a t seem to individualise them. I t is
tru e o f course th a t much o f what an individual says, and the way he says
i t w ill be d ictated by the situ a tio n s in which he finds him self; but i t
is equally tru e th a t i f a demonstration o f h is fondness fo r a p a rtic u la r
s t y l i s t i c device shows no more than th a t he i s , fo r example, co n sisten tly
emotional o r o ra to ric a l, th is i s nevertheless some so rt o f statement
about h is character.
While much o f the groundwork fo r the th esis was based on te x ts
available before the appearance of the Oxford C lassical Text o f Menander
(ed. F.H. Sandbach, Oxford 1972), the present survey is concerned so lely

1
with the remains contained in th a t volume (more or less the complete
papyrological remains) and with the book fragments contained in the
second volume o f the Teubner ed itio n by A. Korte - A. T h ierfeld er
CLeipzig 1959).
Works most relevant to s t y l i s t i c ch aracterisatio n in MenandeT are
cited in th e introduction to P art 4 on p. 91 and in n. 3 on p . 120f.
The bibliography (p. 148 f . ) comprises works c ite d in the th e s is th a t
re la te to comedy and/or s ty le and rh e to ric . Full bibliographies fo r
Menander may be found in volume 1 o f the Teubner ed itio n by A. Korte
(3rd e d ., Leipzig 1938; re p r. with additions by A. T h ierfeld er, 19S7),
2
in R.A. Pack's The Greek and Roman lite r a r y te x ts from Greco-Roman Egypt
(Ann Arbor 1962), in H.J. Mette*s bibliographies in Lustrum 1965/10,
1966/11, 1968/13, 1971-1972/16, RE Suppl. 12, 854-862, and in th a t o f
W. Kraus, AAW 26 (1973) 31 f.; and W.G. Arnott surveys the b a sic works on
"Discoveries since the Dyskolos" in Arethusa 3 (1970) 49ff. 2

2
 PART 1: VERBAL REPETITION

To begin th is survey o f elements o f Menander’s s ty le I choose to

deal with the most important forms o f verbal re p e titio n , in the f i r s t
case ordered re p e titio n (anadiplosis, anaphora and re la te d s t y l i s t i c
fe a tu re s), and secondly the variety o f re p e titio n th a t shows a sim ilar
form ality but th a t cannot be so s t r i c t l y categorised, and t h i s w ill be
covered under the heading 'p lo k e .'

A. The f i r s t section w ill in clu d e:1*

1. Anadiplosis, e .g . f r . 674, ηρωυ γάρ, ηρωυ.
2. Anaphora, e.g . Sa. 289-292, e i δεηοει . . . , . ε*ι κεραμάο 1 « * . . . ,
e t τουπτάυιου κατάοτεγον, ε ι τάλλ’ υπάρχει . . . .
3. Antistrophe, e .g . D. 833-834, . . . άξιου, . . . άξιου.
4. Symploke, e.g . f r . 303.3-4, ώ δ ε . . . άλλα \ή3υ· ουδέ . . . αλλά w v .
5. Anastrophe, e .g . Th. 1.2-3, . . . ecru* ε α ιι . . . .
6. Κυκλοο, e .g . D. 946-948, άλλοε . . . άλλοε.

(1) Anadiplosis
Although something of a trademark o f Demosthenes, anadiplosis was
reg u lar long before in tragedy, and i t i s generally used fo r emotional
e f fe c t, often generating a feeling o f urgency o r g ra v ity .23 Menander's
people have taken i t over, however, to express th e ir own everyday feelings
fa r removed from a tra g ic o r grave context. I t s use i s not lim ited to
individuals or characters. Most often i t i s a sign of annoyance, sometimes
in the fora of an in s is te n t question:
[D. 955, τ ί (Kn.)];* Sa. 324, ποι (p e .); 570, not (N i.)i E. 4 4 1 f.,

•Notes to P art 1 begin on p . 19.

3
 vac (On.)
The Sarnia examples are perhaps intended to be taken together, the
verbal echo reminding us o f the p a ra lle l between Chrysis* escape from
Nikeratos and th a t o f Pataikos from Demeas.* In the Epitrepontes
example, the form i s an in d icatio n o f Onesimos' boisterous manner. He
c a rrie s the device to i t s extreme a t 878-880 in h is outburst:
. . . vn τ ο ν ’Ανόλλω, μαίνεται
. . . μ αίνεται, vn tovjc Oeovc.
(c f. D. 82, P y .'s doubled μ α ίνετα ι), where one notes also the c h ia s tic
arrangement o f two oaths framing the repeated word. This combination o f
anadiplosis and oath i s doubly emphatic, perhaps too much so, and ra th e r
ra re . Whatever e ls e , i t cannot be said th a t the s la v e 's s ty le lacks
colour; both o f h is instances are exaggerated in th is manner.5
Under anadiplosis I would include the im patient phrase ν α ι, παΐδεε
and the lik e , spoken by two in p atien t old men; in such contexts a t le a s t
ναι must surely re ta in i t s force as a vocative* — and I would draw l i t t l e
d is tin c tio n between these instances (D. 911, M. 206 and probably D. 498,
912) and sim ilar cases o f anadiplosis proper:
E. 1076f., vendee, ναιδίον . . . , vaidec (Sm.; note the parechesis
w ith lin e 1075 in να ι- ητέα); Sa. 189, Παρμένων, wen. Παρμένων (De.)
The six instances are shared by three im patient old men and one emotional
cook, Sikon in the three Dyskolos examples. I t may therefore be charac­
t e r i s t i c o f Sikon, and th ere i s l i t t l e reason why he should not be given
both instances o f anadiplosis a t I). 915, 929 (Ic tiv ) .
The form again expresses annoyance o r emphatic in sisten ce in
imperative and fu rth e r exclamatory statem ents:
n a tu ra lly , the crowd a t S i. 225, λέγε; 2 5 7 f., "SpSuSc και δίκαι* ,
δρθωο," (the form supports OCT's punctuation) "αγε . . . αγε
 364, ΰδωρ (D r., with anxious in siste n c e ); D. S87, φευγ’ (Ge.,
the sane with. Somewhat le ss s in c e r ity ) ; Th. 2 9 f., εύγε . . . υττέρευγε
(Kl.)» Kol. f r . 2 .4 , ο?)(κ) (B i.); A. 4SS, cέ , cc, i s d if f ic u lt:
• Smikrines i s angry over vague information and c a lls back the doctor.
E specially possible or probable instances are:
A. 224f . , ταυταο (Ma.; Handley); 7 G. 2 9 f., γαμει (Phi·; to modify
th e suggestion o f Gomme-Sandbach a t 31 n .) ; £. 955, Tt (Kn.); Pk.
36 6 f., αφηκατε and 406, αιταγε (both s u it S o .'s manner): Sa. 675,
ce (P a .).*
The c lo se st to the grave Demosthenic use appears:
w ith the emphatic οβδ1. . . ο’ύπω γάρ (Habr.), E. 478-479; e t c e c r iv ,

( e \c (G e.), Kol. 85; ovik lc [ x t . . . άλλ* outc c [ cti (C h a i.), f r . dub.

(OCT, p. 300) 1.

Only in the following does the fig u re seem to have a tra g ic o r

emotional sig n ific a n c e :*
f r . 663, ω λαχηε, Λάχηο; f r . 674, ηρων γάρ, ηρων; Sa. 532, ω τάλαε
εγώ, τάλαε (N i.); perhaps also D. 5 9 6 f., [τάλαε] εγώ, ταλαε . . .
[ταλαο] (Kn. p aratrag ic; see Handley ad l o c . } . 10
Before giving the fin a l instance, i t i s worth noting a p a tte rn th a t
i s only hinted a t here, but th a t w ill become increasingly apparent as
the study progresses: Demeas, Menander's perhaps most emotional character,
i s th e Menandrian fondest o f the device (three o f 24 instances; he i s
equalled only — perhaps — by Sikoft qnd c e rta in ly by the οχλοο o f S i.) ,
and he provides the fin e s t example, where the repeated word i s long '
delayed, Sa. 551:
έμε γαρ υπονοεΐν τοιαΰτα τον piapbv εχρην, ε μ έ .115

5
(2) Anaphorat t
Anaphora i s reg u larly used to show extreme emotion, and i f we single
out the strik in g instances, the e ffe c t i s immediately apparent:
D. 191-192 (note the tra g ic m etre), ω (So. in love); 666, μά
(So. jo y fu l); Sa. 309f., μα four times (Pa. exasperated or
t e r r if ie d ; iraG· μηδέν ομνυ’ r e to r ts De.).
Sostratos* two instances o ffe r an amusing Menandrian co n tra st, occurring
a t what i s fo r the Knemon family something o f a moment o f c r is i s . (Such
instances are obviously meant to be hyperemotional. One can compare the
m ultiple invocations o f Antiphanes 296 K, Timokles 38, in parody o f
Demosthenes; or the young man o f Epikrates 9.2-4, who complains, in two
im itativ e anaphoric t r i p l e t s , o f an oathing procuress.) But most o f a l l ,
one no tices the instances o f Demeas (Sarnia), who not only has the
remaining re a lly strik in g examples but also has additional instances
th a t make him the Menandrian who makes g r e a t s use o f anaphora than a l l
o th ers, a feature o f h is s ty le appropriate to one now fig h tin g , now
giving way to strong emotion. He favours the trico lo n :
Sa. 21 1 f., ο . . . , ο . . . . Si . . . ; 276f., έίτ* (note the trico lo n
again arid tra g ic m etre); 317f., o n three tim es; 325f. ω three
tim es; 461f., τόυτο; 571, n ( v a ) ; 691f., τ ι .
I include here, as in keeping with th is feature o f D e.'s s ty le , h is use
o f co rre la tiv e s:
y y
268f., ειτ* (De. stunned); 273f., και a t lin e beginnings; 330f., t\
th ree times; and c f. also 343, 346, 347, ούδενί . . . , ούδ’ . . . , ού . . .
(the few remaining instances o f anaphoric ού are covered below,
w ith negatives generally, p . 52).
I t i s worth returning to Demeas1 most remarkable example, the
paratrag ic invocation a t 325f. (unique in Menander, in cid en tally , in
6
combining both anacolouthon and anaphora): 1*
S πολιομα Ke<poirioc χθονοο,
ω Totvaäc αιθήρ, S — τ ι , Δημεα, ßoaic;
τ ί ßoaic, άοοητε;
The re p e titio n o f the phrase τ ί ßoaic may u sefu lly be added to the examples,
and i t somewhat resembles h is use o f anadiplosis too. There are only three
o th er examples o f straightforw ard repeat o f a phrase. Again a t 470>471
(pemeas): τούο γαμουο εα ποεχν, | roue γαμουο έα με ποιε'ιν. This i s
p a ra lle le d only twice elsewhere, both times by another emotional character.
Sind che, (1) when she drops the rake in the w ell (D. 574), (2) when Knemon
has fa lle n in the well (620f.). One might also suggest fo r P.Ant. IS
SOf . , γρα[μματ’ έΤδον, ω τ]άλαν | τάδε,] γραμματ* ειδον, an appropriate
form fo r th e emotional context.
Another purely emotional instance o f anaphora belongs, su rp risin g ly ,
to N ikeratos, but i t i s in th at same emotional context th a t w ill cause
him to a l t e r h is staccato manner o f phrasing (see Sandbach, Hardt 121),
a t 495f. (anaphoric 3, followed by a m ilder instance a t 498, o f τοΟτ*) .
Most o f the remaining emotional examples take a standard form, the
angry or im patient question, with anaphoric τ ι , in the s ty le o f Demos-
/ ^ /
thenes' most wicked use o f the figure (18.121), τ ι ουκοφαυτειο; τ ι
Aoyouc πλάττειο; τ ί ςαυτον ουχ ελλεβορίζειο;
Η. 4f. (Ge. in p a tie n t); Μ. 216f. (Ge. angry); Sa. 360f. ( i r r it a b le
. cook); S i. 203f. ·(crowd); Th. 19f. , τ ί four times in a s trin g o f
angry questions; G. 84f. (Phi. im patient); [H. 931f.] (Char, angry);
H. 40 (Ge. im patient); Kol. 53f. (Gn. angry); Pk. 387f. (So. angry).
Compare also M. 211 (Kr. anxious);. E. 1126f., cu (Sm. angry; note
the assonance o f 1127); f r . 319, νΰυ (urgent command).

7
The f i r s t four instances are in the form o f tric o la . Another, with
anaphoric nuic, may1be H. 96-97, perhaps:
κα\ irt3]c το πράγμα γίν ετα ι; uSc λανθάνει
ο π]ρ[οο]πεοών εε; irtoc δ’ & π ε (...]ε; πηνίκα1*
«
At D. 209-210, anaphoric τ ι shows Oaos in d is tr e s s , but the anaphora
i s also explained by the prayer form; so a t:
Μ. A1-A2, co/έ ν coi; A4-A5, αρα (the new papyrus confirming Professor
Handley on lin e 4 ) ; '* f r . 287.1, 5 &c;le f r . 223.4, έφ’ ocov.
I t is not su rprising th a t the la s t four instances are marked by tra g ic
metre, whereas the less earnest Daos i s allowed to s lip in to comic
metre at 210.
This does not exhaust the 'emotional* instances o f anaphora: those
in the a rb itra tio n scene (E.) are unusual and b est reserved fo r the
summary of Daos* s ty le there (below, n. 56 on p. 132); sim ilar to Demeas'
contemptuous anaphoric repeat o f the a r tic le is Pk. 172f. (S o .), Pn. 17
(S o .?), and c f. Sa. 408.17 (Such instances as A. 253f., repeated to,

perhaps do not q u alify as anaphora — the two clauses are not coordinate
— and the repeat here may simply be clumsy and accidental o r emphasise
Sm.'s cu rt ph rasing.1*)
While the above examples show something o f the s ty le of th e ir
speakers, they are prim arily motivated by the emotional background: more
in te re stin g i s the conscious rh e to ric al use of anaphora, which most of
a l l in the case of three garrulous cooks, becomes a method o f 'ty p e '
ch a ra c te risa tio n :
(1) A. 216f., where a cook enters lis tin g h is grievances, using
c o rrelativ es η . . . n in terlaced with anaphoric ειτα (a unique a - , b -,
a - , b p a tte rn ).19 (Austin ad lo c .: 'paucis verbis sese optime depingit
esse cocus.'*0)

8
 (2) D. 49Sf. : Sikon lis tin g h is fla tte rin g approaches.
C3) Sa. 286f., which r e a lly is strik in g because o f the extent o f
the cook’s anaphora and because Parmenon im itates him in th is (besides
an ticip atin g h is cook metaphor):
Cook: ( I f I find out) how many tab les . . . , how many women
what time . . . . i f w e 'll need . . . a b u tle r, i f enough
p ottery . . . . i f the oven's covered, i f everything else
i s ready —
Parmenon: You're making mincemeat o f me with your c h a tte rr i f i t
escapes your n o tice, my good man.*1
I t i s worth noting also th a t the most remarkable instance of
anaphora in Middle or New Comedy also belongs to a cook; a t Alexis 174 K
3-10, anaphoric ol) (21 times repeated!) adds new l i f e and amusement to
the cook's tra d itio n a l asyndetic l i s t .
One can compare the following ir r i t a b l e l i s t s :
^ 9f
— f r . 209.6-8, ειτα three times plus επειτα (the content and
anaphoric ουκ o f f r . 208 may in d icate th a t i t belongs to the
same speaker);
— f r . 309.3-4, complaining l i s t (general to sp e c ific / connected to
asyndetic. Note the repeated δε'ΐττν-ον / -ε ιν / -ον, περίδειπνον);
— f r . 142, εηειθ’ . . . εΐθ ’ three times (anti-m arriage d ia trib e , in
which re p e titio n i s a regular featu re. I mention here the instance
o f ploke, f r . 59.1-3, ον γαμειε —. γεγόμπκα - . —γαμεΐν. lin e 9,
γημάΟ.
S im ilarly, anaphora i s used purely fo r display in a gnomic or sen­
tentious context:
E. f r . 7 .3, ιτλείονα, 1094f., outoc, £ . f r . 7, εν (asyndetic doublet
or p a ra ta c tic gnome), Kol. 8 7 f., Öcoc/Öcoi, f r . 620.9 f. , ov four times.
9
 %
(As M ill be seen belowj th is i s also th e most obvious function o f ploke.
Some instances might be mentioned here as a t le a s t approaching the more
formal anaphora:
£ r. 620.4-5, ουτοο/τουτωι; G. f r . 2 .1 ,3 , 6 ηδικηκάο . . . ο τι |
I τοΰτ’ ήδικηκεν; P.D. I 13-14, εετ-ω/-.’ (and cf. 15-16, 25-26);
a t E. 131-132, i t i s probably the sound re p e titio n th a t i s im portant,
oStoc/ tout’ , Chai. ir rita te d ? ))
L astly, I would simply draw passing a tte n tio n to the in s is te n t
re p e titio n over dialogue, in anaphoric form, by one speaker. Again, most
/ » *«
common is the in s is te n t question, τ ι , e .g . D. 82f. (with 86); th ere are
n atu ra lly numerous other instances too, but only Demeas so expresses h is
in sisten ce more than once and only he (with Smikrines o f Aspis 2i) repeats
a whole phrase in th is manner (see above): Sa. 313f., το παιδίσν rivoc
I c tiv (έρωτω). Cf.' Sa. 578f., τσυμόυ/έμόν.
The remaining re la te d forms o f re p e titio n a re , in th e ir pure forms,
almost wholly rh e to ric a l, often involving chiasmus and studied a n tith e sis.
In is o la tio n , i t cannot be said th at they are c h a ra c te ristic o f individuals,
except in th a t they are a featu re o f a high-flown o r pompous s ty le .

(3) Antistrophe
There are probably only two re a l (and very rh e to ric al) examples,
both emphasising a (positive/negatlve) a n tith e s is . Notable i s th a t o f
th e antithesis-m inded Gorgias (see p . 99 f . ) , D- 833f.:
Ιμαυτον είνα ι κέκρικ^ Itceivnc αξτον,
λαβε'ϊν δε νολλα μίκρ’ έχουτ’ ούκ άξιου.
>9 cf
Cf. f r . 489.2. One might also compare Gorgias' . . . εχε, . . . ε ζε ιε ,
D. 33 8 f., since such helpful re p e titio n s are th e key to Gorgias· whole
s ty le , and the feeling here i s again s t i l t e d and rh e to ric a l.

10
 But otherw ise, unless the word i s repeated in the same form, i t i s
the simple fa c t o f re p e titio n th a t i s important (e.g. Pan's churlish
remark a t D. 10). When they are upset, even Menandrians do not pause to
worry over the gracelessness o f th e ir re p e titio n s. Is th is the case a t
A. 224f. (the cook i s angry), o r i s th e repeat o f ταυταο in th is form
accidental? (But see above, and n. 7 ) . Two fu rth er uncertain instances
are: D. 802f., τ ιν ι a t lin e ends (So. lectu rin g ); E. 3S3f., ’cT tv/ecfiv
before the caesura (Sm. as judge).

(4) Symploke
This i s the ra re s t o f a l l p attern s o f re p e titio n , and only two
Menandrians use i t . The K itharistes example (S 5 f.), ε ι . . . έγω, e t . . .
έγω, belongs to an old man wonderfully fond o f studied and unnecessary
re p e titio n , and exaggerates h is tendency in an altogether unique manner;
lin es 59*63 (ουκ . . . ποέιν, ουκ . . . ’crty* οΐιθεν . . . ποει, . . . ecrtv)
almost give two fu rth er instances o f the uncommon p attern . The second
character i s the a n tith e tic a l old man o f f r . 303.2-4, άλλ* ούκ/ούδε . . .
&λλα νυν, three times (cf. 6, 7-8 — h is whole speech is tra g ic in m etre).

(5) Anastrophe
At Th. f r . 1 .2 f ., anastrophe i s merely one element o f Kraton's
rh e to ric , . . . ecru, i:cm . . . ; he i s fond of a n tith e s is , asyndeton and
repeat o f key words. This and f r . 223.2f. (δ εχ/δεΐ, in the context of
a mock-grandiloquent prayer; c f. the pun, Ά ναίδει . . . δ ει) are probably
the only re al examples, although the -a , a- shape i s a common enough
speech p attern ; one thought gives r is e to another:
E. 881-882, ( τ ι / τ ί (On.), D.E. 58, τ χ /τ ι (S .p .; compare S .p .'s
πρ)άττ[ων. ο] τ ι irparm tc, 90, with A. 468); c f. also the jin g le
 ιτοι-*έτο/-ετ, f r . 321.1, and the i r r i t a b l e epidiorthosis
. . . οχλωι· ίίχλωι λέγω o f D_. 8.

(6) κύκλοο
κύκλοc i s by nature c h ia s tic , and where i t occurs in an a n tith e tic a l
statem ent, i t s use i s consciously rh e to ric a l, since i t draws a tte n tio n
to the a n tith e s is :
D. 946-948, aXXoc (Sik. high-flown); f t . 578.2, κακόν
Sim ilar in th is resp ect, i f not s t r i c t l y κύκλοο, are E.. 277-279, α ξ ι-ο ΐ/-ω
(Da.) and Sa. 711-712, ού καλωο/καλόν (De.); in each example, the verb
i s supplied from the' f i r s t clause to the second. I suppose i t i s pure
chance th a t in the Dyskolos example, the sentence hinges on the word
κύκλιοι. KukXoc is f i r s t used by Hermogenes to describe the fig u re , but
who knows i f he derived the term from A risto tle or Theophrastos?2* Cf.
Ph. 5 2 f., κενόν . . . κενόν, . . . | νεριμαζάτωοάν . . . έν κύκλιοι | και
νεριθεωοάτωοαν. At Ε_. 1093f. (έκάστωι) κύκλοc i s curiously combined
w ith anaphora (ovtoc), and the unbalanced p attern (a -, b -, b - a) perhaps
marks Onesimos as a clumsy s t y l i s t in th is gnomic passage.
Cases lik e Sa. 259, ούκ . . . ούδεν, w ill be mentioned b rie f ly with
emphatic negatives, the instances M. 316, έλεειν . . . αντελέονθ5 , D. 125-
126, τυχόν . . . τετόχηκε, with paronomasia and ploke, respectively.
• · *

The e ffe c t o f these la s t figures has been observed to be prim arily

rh e to ric a l. Demeas (S a.), so fond o f other forms o f re p e titio n , has
nothing lik e th is . His s ty le gives no impression o f being prem editated,
but he does use what I suppose i s a ra th e r special form o f anastrophe.
This involves repeat o f more than one word in c h ia s tic form, in a highly
emotional context, and i t seems ra th e r c h a ra c te ristic o f Menander. (We

12
have'observed th e p a tte rn already- in On. 's outburst a t E. 878f.) A
strik in g instance belongs to. Deraeas, in h is p lea a t Sa. 465, Μοοχίων,
εα μ1 , εα με, Μοεχίων (note the p a th e tic assonance o f repeated μ ). I
suspect th a t a l l Demeas' strong expressions o f emotion, and th is one in
p a rtic u la r, would have been f e l t to be unbecoming to an old man.2e One
can compare Th. 1 7 f., "τάμα δώρο" . . . "τα δώρα" . . . "τάμα . . . " ( g irl
d istre sse d ). This and Simiche's unusual examples mentioned e a r lie r are
really- th e only examples of such strong emotional re p e titio n in Menander
th a t belong to women, and presumably they in d icate some lack o f d ig n ity .
In the Roman adaptations, the c lo se st p a ra lle l would be the comparatively
weak anime mi, <mi> Phaedria, Ter. Eun. 95 (and sim ilarly Eun. 455f.,
H.T. 406).
The other instances are:
Μ. A10, παρ* έμοι yap icrxv ένδον εξεοτίν τε μοι
(Thra. d istre sse d . Unfortunately the new papyrus disproves tfilam owitz's
suggestion and what the p a ra lle ls would suggest, . . . ένδον* ένδον . . . ) ;
Pk. 506f. Γλυκερά με καταλέλοιπε, καταλέλοιπε με | Γλυκερά
(Ρο. d istre sse d ; c f . 519, P o .'s oV · o la ). Also, P rofessor Handley
suggests fo r E. 956f. , comparing Pk. 506?., Παμφίλτμ: το τατδτον; |
I το πατδι]ον . . . Παμφίλικ; (Cha., perhaps not d istre sse d , but cer­
ta in ly highly emotional). The fin a l pure example o f th is form i s
curious, M. 139, τί'το ΰ το ; τούτο tic ιτοτ' έο τίν ;
(then a second speaker — amusedly? — picks up the phrasing with
εοτ\ γάρ I παρά Ttvoc outoc ...'),. (Cf. also the unnamed quibbier
over words o f f r . 269.3, λέγειν δεν . . . δ ει λέγειν, and w ith th is
rh e to ric a l example, Dionysios 2 K 3 f ., Ter. H.T. 206, Ph. 950.*7)13

13
B. Ploke
By ploke I mean re p e titio n of a word in d iffe re n t cases, modes,
tenses, e tc. or of words etym ologically r e la te d ,*' e.g . A. 15-16, την
ουχι ctiicacotv ce | ϋπο δέ cov οεαυμένην. The e ffe c t is always to amplify
a thought, so th a t the figure is very appropriate to emotional passages
lik e th is one, where Daos makes his statement both negatively and p o sitiv e ly ,
adding a p ath etic reproof of the sh ield . (Cf. e.g . Chaireas a t 294f.,
ο’ί εοθαι, with 291, 298, κατα vopooc/vopoc.2*)
I t is also appropriate to merely emphatic passages lik e A. 329-332
(παθοο), 402-403 (ειπήτττειυ), or vaguely sententious p a ra in e tic addresses
Ce.g. Gorgias at £. 296f. , αδικηθε\ο/άδικιαν, and S o strato s' reply a t 303,
έίδίκηρ’ . . . ήδίκηκ’ ) . Or again i t may be merely an in sig n ific a n t speech
p a tte rn , where a speaker, for no a r t i s t i c reason, simply repeats a word
since i t i s the f i r s t th a t occurs to him (e.g . A. 222-224, λαβε to c μαχαιραο
. . . έργου λαβών — the toJtcXoc shape has no sig n ific a n c e ).30
Nearly a l l characters employ ploke a t one time or another. There are
some 200 passages th a t involve ploke (and therefore many more actual
in stan ce s), and i t would be f u t i l e to discuss them a l l ; to ta ls show no
preferences among characters fo r use o f the figure. Therefore I sh a ll
simply make note o f the most strik in g and conscious examples (those th a t
form p a rt o f a la rg e r complex) and the characters who use them. (For
the most p a rt, I would exclude re p e titio n o f pronouns.)
The main characters to use such examples fo r purely emotional
e ffe c t are Thrasonides (Μ. A3-13, έρωτικοο, έρδν four tim es, έξε'ιναι
tw ice, ιτεριπατ-ω/-οο); Moschion (Pk. 530, ξένοι, and with abrupt change
from abuse to s e lf- p ity , 532-535, γίγνεσθαι, αθλιοο, νυν, each tw ice);
and the th ird d istracte d young man, in P.A. 15 3-9 (γεγαμηκα tw ice,
γαμουο, νυζ/Νοξ three tim es, γιγνεοθαι tw ice, ου . . . πώποτε/ουποτε).14

14
The re p e titio n f u l f i l s p art o f th e ir need to s ta te a t length and amplify
th e ir feelin g s, but i t also adds to the quiet form ality o f the passages:
the f i r s t and la s t are in prayer form, while Moschion's has a grand and
tra d itio n a l form (see Gomme-Sandbach ad lo c .; c f. f r . 422) whereby he
s e ts o ff h is own misery against th a t of a l l predecessors.
[Cf. On. a t H. 878f. and the cook a t Sa. 361f . , where astonishment
and annoyance lead to a dramatic re p e titio n o f μαίνεοθαι — ra th e r in
the manner of an a d ip lo sis.**]
O therw ise,'the conspicuous instances of ploke are prim arily favoured
by lecturing slaves in a purely fbxmal rh e to ric a l context, Syriskos and
Daos, Onesimos (E. 1086-1098, I kcictoc fiv e tim es, a Stichwort to t i e
‘t*
together the whole passage, lik e anaphoric oirroc, th ree tim es, a t 1094f.,
ο ικ εΐν twice, τφάττειν καλωο tw ice); Kraton (Th. f t . 1); slave (Ki. f r . 1
and 11-12?); slave (Kol. 8 6 f., seep . 3 9 f.); paidagogos (Ph. 5 0 f.), and
there are probably many more among the speakers o f the fragments.
One notes esp ecially Kraton's rh e to ric (Th. f r . 1): the rh e to ric a l
tone i s established a t once with the symploke a t 2-3, and the whole o f
h is wordy opening statement (1-7) i s outrageously am plified in to a se rie s
o f redundant examples; the speech i s concentrated with key words: o tt
(6w) β ο υ λ-η ι/-ει, κυων, ανθρωποε, xmroc, βι0Λ>αι/ζ(ίηον/ζωντεο, ειμαρμενον/
/sXou,KCUi-Qc/-ov, γένηχ/γενναίοο/αγεννηε/εύγενηc/γενει/γενεοθα ι.
The instances o f Syriskos and Daos are ra th e r d iffe re n t, since they
occur in a legitim ate rh e to ric a l debate. I t i s ploke a t 232f. th a t gives
one o f th e f i r s t h in ts a t Syriskos* eloquence, εν τταντχ δε*χ καχρωχ το
δτκαχον επικρατείν απανταχού, (καχ . . . ) εχεχν πρόνοιαν κοινόν έ σ η τωχ
$ίωι πάντων. *I‘ve tangled w ith a f a ir orator,* thinks Daos. 'Why did
I give him a share?' Daos him self uses ploke a t the conclusion o f h is 15

15
speech.. In emphasising h is main point th a t i t was the child Syriskos
wanted, and the child Syriskos received (277-279, άξχοΟν — a kuicXoc
* / C
shape, 278, 281, 284 (απο -/μετά-)λαμβαυειν , 282, 284 outoc — 'ray
opponent,' and 288f., with some assonance, εχ τοΰτ’ αρεοτον εοτί cox
. . . z\_ ouk άρεεκε χ ). Syriskos immediately picks up his form to re fu te
h is whole speech in what is perhaps a unique synchoresis, three times
repeated, in case i t should escape our notice a t 295f. His use o f syn­
choresis here is q u ite exceptional, since he does not merely concede h is
opponent a small p o in t, he concedes the accuracy o f h is whole speech, an
e ffec tiv e way o f saying th a t the speech may be ignored (hence the emphasis
o f the ploke:
1. ο νυν λεγεχ, όρθωο λεγεχ, . . .
2. ουκ &ντιλέγω . . .
3. οΛηθίχ γαρ λεγεχ . . . ) .
Of the fragments I mention only 714, since i t involves επιπλοκή
re ferred to the repeated word: the passage begins with ploke o f δαίμων
γενόμενοο, gxoc. aya0oc, kgkoc and then lin es 7 f . ,
oAX’ ox γευόμενοχ roxc τρόποχο αυτόχ κακοχ
πολλην δ* έπχπλοκην του βίου πεποημενοχ . .. .* *
Of th e others fond o f ploke the two important characters are
Habrotonon (below, p. 3Sf.) and the lady in P.D. I , whom I believe to
be Menandrian. The opening lin es e sta b lish the s ty le o f the whole
speech: the etymological figure λσγουο λέγω (lin e l ; c f. also the assonance
ου-ε-ω) i s followed immediately by λεγειυ once more a t 2, 3, 5. The
speech i s more abundant in re p e titio n s (especially 2 5 f., the a n tith e sis
λαμβάνεχν, μεροε)91 than any other in Menander, and th is i s an appropriate
featu re o f the sty le o f one unaccustomed to lengthy speeches.16

16
 I t Is a t th e same time emphatic and provides a verbal continuity* th a t
aid s the speaker in making the connections o f thought. A re la te d feature
i s the abundance o f helpful an tith eses (e sp ecially between 1st and 2nd
• p ers. personal pronouns and those with verbal re p e titio n , ετ μεν / e t δ ε,
6/8, τ δ ΐ/τη τ , I S f ., των/του, 2 5 f.), together with the few co rrelativ es
( l f „ Id , 2 2 f., 34). The re s u lt i s perhaps ra th e r a r t i f i c i a l , bu t i t i s
also simple and sincere and; a t f i r s t , reminds one most o f a l l o f Gprgias
o f Dyskolos, who has the same s o rt o f reserve and has to re ly on antitheses
and c o rre la tiv e s , with a c e rtain amount o f re p e titio n . What i s also very
noticeable i s the frequent re p e titio n o f the 1 st p e rs. personal pronoun
and th e address πάτερ — see n . 36 — (these are h e r wishes, she repeats
to her fath er) th a t add an almost ch ild lik e imploring n o te .1*
I sh a ll conclude b r ie f ly w ith some notes on the personal pronoun.
I t goes without saying, o f course, th a t repeated cu, άωτου, coc e tc .
i s lik e ly to in d icate fa m ilia rity , o v erfam ilia rity , an i n s u l t , ** e .g .
(fa m ilia r): 0 . 425 (Ge. f l a t t e r s S ik .), 799-810 (So. lectu res Ka., c f.
below, p . 4 8 ), S i. 138-140 (Py. sym pathetic), M. 305-308 (Thr. implor-
t
irtg );3t (overfam iliar): Pk. 398-399 (So. to Do., very much in keeping
with h is manner, c f. 402-403, 405, 406); ( in s u lt) : A. 264-266 (Cha. to
Sm.; c f . 461-463). But i t seems not to occur to Menander's women to use
cu in th is way, a t le a s t never when they are on stag e, and th is i s pre­
sumably an element in th e i r general sense o f p ro p rie ty .17
Repeat o f forms o f th e f i r s t person personal pronoun and possessive
ad jectiv e can also be s ig n ific a n t, most im portantly in the ploke o f P.D.
I (c f. esp. 7 f . , 43), where forms are repeated a l l o f 27 times in 44
lin e s ; th is would be unique in Menander, but the e ffe c t i s to add to the
pathos o f the speech and can be seen elsewhere on a sm aller s c a le , in

17
other passages w ith a tra g ic fe elin g , e .g . Pk. 790,
τάμα δε μ7 έρωτα, ρητά γαρ τοωτ’ e e n μοι
(c f. Pk. 787, D. 733-735, Μ. Α10-12, Sa. 210, 245-246, S i. 358).
In many cases the re p e titio n i s merely emphatic (e.g . Daos a t A.
191f., 198f., 2 0 8 f.), but fo r two characters i t i s an indication o f
conceit and selfish n ess. As Cohoon noticed,** one o f the most s trik in g
things about Daos' speech (E. 250-292) is h is overfondness fo r the f i r s t
person: c f. esp. the kukXoc , 2S3f., έμοί | τ ί παιδοτροφιαο και κακών;
ποθεν δ ’ εγώ | τοοαυτ’ άναλώςω; τ ί φροντίδων» εμοτ; and 279-285 (αυτοί:,
έγω, μέ, έμοί, εγώ). [The f i r s t person recurs 20 times in 40 lin e s ; the
regular average in Menander i s 8-9 in 40.] Compare Smikrines a t A. 182-
183, (έπενδη δ1 e c n v άλΧοτρίωο εχων)
npoc εμέ, ironcai ταυτ’ έγω· την ouciav
οΰχα καταλείψω την εμην . . .
Cf. 185f., 254f. , 433-435. He uses the f i r s t person twice as frequently
as anyone else in the Aspis.
Of many instances where other pronouns are repeated, only one
passage is re a lly s trik in g , E_. 384f. I t is d if f ic u lt to know exactly the
effec t Menander intended here, but he was c e rta in ly having fun with sound
rep etitio n ,an d the audience would derive some amusement:
_ ‘ \ ? . /
Sy. oUToex μεν εχναν φατνετατ
άλεκτρυών tic κα\ μαλα οτριφνοο* λαβέ.
τουτ\ δε διάλιθον τν_. πέλεκυο outoci.

On. τ ί ταυτα;
Sy. woxpucoc δακτυλιόε tic ouroct
... Κλεόάτρατοο δε tic

... ca» δ* ε ι t ( c; On. ovrroc έοτν. Sy. t ic ;

Cf. Pk. 768f. »>18

18
 NOTES TO PART 1

1. References w ill be to Menandri Reliquiae Selectae (Oxford 1972)

o f P.H. Sandbach. [= OCT] for A[s p is ], Gfeorgos] , Dfyskolos] and other plays
represented in papyri; for the r e s t, when I quote with the simple p refix
' f r . , ' I am using the second volume of the Teubner edition by A.Körte -
A. T hierfelder (Leipzig, 1959). In abbreviations of character names I
conform to the p ra ctice o f OCT.
2. 6. Rönnet (Etude sur le sty le de Demosthene, Paris 1951, p. 69)
c a lls anadiplosis "sans doute la forme de re p e titio n la plus characteris-
tique de son s ty le ." As 'epanalepsis' i t occurs in T iberios' l i s t of
Demosthenic figures (περί των παρά Δημοοθένουε οχημάτων 26, Spengel i i i.7 0 ) .
Euripides also is p a rtic u la rly fond of the figure (see Aristophanes*
parody. Rah. 1336, 1352, 1354a). N. Dittmar, Sprachliche Untersuchungen
zu Aristophanes und Menander (Diss. Leipzig 1933) 47-54, has a b rie f
comparison of the use of the figure by the two dram atists.
3. For some Aristophanic occurrences, see E.W. Handley, Menander,
Dyskolos (London 1965) ad loc. (cited below as 'Handley*).
4. Cf. E.G. Turner, The Girl from Samos (Athlone Press, 1972) 5,
" . . . every situ a tio n th at has confronted Demeas recurs to confront
Nikeratos, and our recognition o f the echoes in words and action heightens
our p leasu re."
5. Oath is combined with anadiplosis otherwise only a t Kol. f r . 2 .4 f .,
Th. 2 9 f., f r . dub. (OCT p. 300) 1. The most obvious p a ra lle l to £. 878f.
i s Sa. 361f . (J. Werres, Die Beteuerungsformeln in der attischen Komödie,
Diss. Bonn 1936, 1 3 f.), i f not s t r i c t l y anadiplosis. Cf. Alexis 246 K 1,
Archedikos 1 .4 (?), Page, GLP 61.8 (= Edmonds' f r . adesp. l l S f .; c f. h is
te x t fo r Xenarchos 10.2), Ar. Eccl. 213. '

19
w

6. Μ. 216 i s perhaps the most decisive passage in favour o f the

claim o f C. Austin and tf.G. Arnott th a t irat may sometimes be a simple
exclamation and somewhat sim ilar to the American 'o h , hey,’ Gnomon 39
• (1967) 125 and 42, (1970) 26; sim ilarly , Sandbach a t £. 500n. (A.W. Gomme
and F.H. Sandbach, Menander, A Commentary, Oxford 1973; cited below as
'Gomme-Sandbach') and see h is Greek index, παΐ/παί. Professor Webster
noticed (BIOS 16, 1969, 103) th a t a t A. 257, to? may be spoken to a young
man, and elsewhere i t may also be spoken to a slave. Only a t M. 216 i s i t
- r e a lly d if f ic u lt to see how th is can be the case;,.at le a st i t would.<bor be
a natural assumption th a t: (a) Getas addresses him self here (although he does
so a t 160; c f. n. 19 on p. 125); 0r (b) veil, r t τουθ* belongs to Demeas.

I do feel th at i t is probable, however, th a t as he comes ou t, from behind

Krateia a l l Getas can see is the young woman embracing someone he assumes
to be a lover her own age; i t i s only at 219 th a t he expresses some sur­
p rise th at Demeas is γέρων ττολιέο.
7. BIOS 16 (1969) 103. I t i s d if f ic u lt to say how much the rhythm
should help in determining punctuation. Perhaps th a t o f OCT ( . . . tauxac
. . . tautac) makes fo r cu rter phrasing, and the cook's staccato manner a t
223-225 (and esp. 223-224) does seem to be exaggerated by metre (median
caesurae and d is tin c t iambs/spondees).
S. At D. 503, i t would be possible fo r ίάλ* αφεο, ίίφεο to belong to
one speaker — the whole lin e belonging to S ik.? (But c f . , most recen tly ,
A. B arigarzi, RFIC 102, 1975, 463.) I f th is were not to involve over­
rid in g a dicolon a f te r the f i r s t αφεο, the lower point would have to be a
high p o in t, and the higher point th a t resembles a d ia sto le , the upward
curve o f the sigma. This i s c h a ra c te ristic o f the papyrus' sigmas (38,
47), though not even a t lin e end (e.g. 18, 65) or in the case of a linking

20
curve (291, 294) is the curve so sharp. At lin e 19 (κακώς) however, the
c i s very sim ilar but transcribed by Martin without d ia sto le .
9. Demetrius, de El. 66, notes th a t anadiplosis may give a ce rta in
grandeur (ογκον τινά) to the s ty le .
10. One ought perhaps to mention the r itu a l phrase *^Τμην ω *Τμεναι ώ,
f r . 768. (Rather remoter is the cook's th ric e repeated σττονδη, Kol, f r . I ,
1-2, where the tone is lowered by comic asides and comic m etre.) ■Cf. PI.
Cas. 800, with C. Questa in E ntretiens Fondation Hardt XVI (1969),
' Menandre1 (° ' Hardt') 185. For f u ll references, P. Maas, Philologus
lxvi (1907) S90f.

11. For a f u ll discussion of the significance of the lin e , see now

J.C.B. Lowe, BICS 20 (1973) 96f.

12. Ju liane S traus, Terenz und Menander (Zurich 1955) 1-19 has an
excellent comparison o f the use o f anaphora in the two authors. In a
future study I hope to show th a t predictable as Terence is in h is use of
the fig u re, yet i t does serve sometimes to d istin g u ish individuals. (It
is in tere stin g th at he uses i t w ith markedly less frequency in the non-
Menandrian play s, as Straus h e rs e lf hinted, p. 11.)

13. For the combination o f anaphora and anacolouthon, c f. esp ecially

Ter. Em. 65f. On the Sarnia passage (and Ter. Ad. 7 8 9 f.), see J . S traus,
o p .c it., p. 6 (with her instances o f anaphoric £ at p. 8, n. 1; c f. PI.
Miles 1330). Demeas' less strik in g examples are Sa. 461f., 473f., 571, 691f.

\
21
 14. One should perhaps s tr e s s , however, the uncertainty of such
resto ratio n s in Menander, and make special reference in th is instance
to the p o s s ib ility of K örte's S’ o at the beginning of line 97 (Gomme-
Sandbach discuss the p o s s ib ility generally a t Pk. 351).
15. GRES non. 6 (1973) 48f. with ZPE 6 (1970) 97.
16. Cf. Antiphanes 94K 1-3 (6c).
17. Cf. Antiphanes 113K 3-5, S three tim es, emphatically at element 1.
18. Cf. D. 482-483, αν . . . , αν . . . . but here there are two degrees
o f subordination, and th is i s not anaphora. Kh.'s sentences are somewhat
clumsy, perhaps because he i s angry. ' ‘
19. The only instances I have found in Demosthenes and Terence are:
D. XVIII.48, μεχρχ τουτου . . . εωο . . . (three tim es); Ter. Eun. 501f.,
s i . . . u t . . . (twice) s i . . . .
20. C. Austin, Menandri Aspis e t Sarnia II (Berlin 1970).
21. Such double anaphora (both irocai and ε ι) becomes a mannerism
in Terence (Straus, o p .c i t., p. 10). With the cook's anaphora cf. esp.
Antiphanes 133K 7-9 (tup^c six times) and Damoxenos 2.55f. (δία three
tim es). For a sim ilar comment on the speaker's s ty le , e.g . PI. C is t.
287f. (a t 291f. the slave picks up, almost word fo r word, Alcesimarchos'
anaphora). Ter. Eun. 555-560, Ad. 425f. with 417f.
22. Cf. D. 409-413, four times (S ik .); 552 (Go.); E. 225-226 (Sm.);
Sa. 661-662 (P a.); f r . 745, m3c; f r . 286.6-7, την ναυν.
23. But th is is ra th e r d iffe re n t, A. 442f. (c f. 446), ταΰτα δηπου
μανθανω (amusingly re callin g 346-352). Of the o ther in stan ces, e.g . e sp .;
Kol. 96-98, irac (rh e to ric a l, sen ten tio u s); [c f. Kol. 68-69, Γνάθων (D a.)];
D.E. 14-15 (S.p. in s is te n t) . Cf. also E^. 394, 399 (S y .'s repeated command).
24. Or again, esp ecially : D. 169-170, TnJx-e'ivZ-n at lin e ends (Kn.
angry; th is i s emphasised also by repeated negatives and tra g ic metre.

22
He 'ta lk s a t ' So, — Handley ad lo c .) ; SI. 139, cou CP/· sympathetic?
cf. 138, 140); E. 1110-1111, cc/coi (On. angry* note the sigmatism o f
1110 and c f. 1109, 1114, 1087, 1101, and i f w ith OCT we give the lin e to
On., 1125); Sa. 44-45, tiv (a c ) at lin e endings (accidental or to show Mo.
to be nervous? Cf. the horaoioteleuton of lin es 46-48; a lso , a t 47-48,
the repeated αιοχυνομαι marking the double aposiopesis before Mo. can
fin a lly b lu rt out eicincev η ircivc, 49).
25. Hermogenes describes κίκλοο a t ιτερι ευρέοεωο 4.8 (sim ilarly
the anonymous rh e to ric ian a t Spenge1, Rhetores Graeci iii.1 1 6 and
E ustathius on Ilia d 10.466; for the a lte rn a tiv e names o f the fig u re , c f.
H. Lausberg, Handbuch der lite ra risc h e n R hetorik, Munich 1960, Vol. 1,
p. 317f.) . Before Hermogenes, the term seems to describe, in rh e to ric ,
only a formal period (e.g. Demetrius, de E l. 31). For rh e to ric a l terms
in comedy, esp ecially Kratinos (Kock ii.2 9 1 ) 7 .4 f. c f. Menander f r . 714,
c ite d on p. 16, and Pk. 366f. (n. 76 on p. 135).
26. Old N ikeratos, however, does have something sim ilar a t Sa.
535f./540f. Demeas belongs to the class o f 'vieux garpons' (J.-M. Jacques,
Menandre, La Samienne, P aris 1971, introduction p. 31).
27. I t would be in te re stin g to produce a survey o f formulaic
re p e titio n s fo r a sty lise d genre such as the I ta lia n lib r e tto (Luigi
D allapiccola has a nice account o f i t s formulaic nature in "Parole e
musica n e lla melodramma," Quaderni d e lla Rassegna Musicale 2, 1965).
The highly charged form o f anastrophe discussed above recurs reg u larly
in the te x ts o f Cammarano and the lik e , e.g . 'Ah, Lucia, muore, Lucia ah !'
(D onizetti, Lucia di Lammermoor H I 2); 'Ma son madre, madre io sono' (Verdi,
B attag lia di Legnano I 4) or M affei's 'F ie re umane, umane f i e r e ' (Verdi,
I Masnadieri I 1).

23
 28. I use *ploke' merely as a convenient descriptive term fo r forms
o f re p e titio n other than the above (1-6). One might a lso ’use diaphora,
an tim etathesis. sy n k risis. The rh e to ric ian s often define i t as involving
change o f meaning in the repeated words, but they are reg u larly a t a loss
to support th e d efin itio n w ith convincing examples (see the passages c ite d
by Guggenheimer, Rhyme E ffects and Rhyming Figures, The Hague 1972, 81 f.;
Lausberg, c ite d in n. 25 above, v. 1, 396f.)· The d efin itio n o f C om ificius
(IV.14.20) i s as good as any, *(T raductio): u t i cum idem verbum crebrius
ponatur, non modo non offendat aninum, sed etiara concinniorem orationem
re d d a t.’ This i s c ite d by E. Lenz, De T erenti Afri e t T. Macci P lau ti
Figur arum Phoneticarum Usu (Programma gymnasii Homani) 1910/11, 21.
The work attem pts to l i s t the instances o f ploke, paronomasia, polyptoton,
anaphora, ariadiplosis, e tc . in Terence and s ix plays o f Plautus, but
unfortunately i t cannot be tru ste d fo r completeness o r accuracy.
29. The others are: I). 735 (<au ζώ>· ζην), Pk. 521-523 (μόγεθοο).
S i. 372 (οώζεοθαι), P.G. I I 101-104 (θυγατερ), f r . 87.1,3 (ομνύω/όμωμοκως).
With A. 294f. cf. D. 825-826 (βούλομαι . . . βουλήθειο).
30. Cf. D. 458-459 ' . . . d istu rb the god's neighbours. By the gods . . .
31. See above on anadiplosis. The others are: Parmenon at Sa. 634f.
(οΰθέν οδικών | τ ι πεποηκωο; | αδικεί δηπουθεν ουδεν | H. ουκ a m o c | ουκ
εγιίι I τ ί II. πεποίηκεν κακόν; | ουθεν | τ ι εφυγεο;) and the homecoming
prayer, f r . 287 (1, 4, 5; 3, 6 ).
32. The others aTe: f r r . 148 (ταπεινόν 1, 3; αν 1, 2); 276 ( kckoc
2, 6; άγαθόο 4, 6, 9; λυπε'ϊν 3, 13, 15); 335 (ε ίν α ι, ßioc, μόροο, otitac),
337 (&καθόν 1, 3, 4; κακόν 3, 4; φυειν/φόοιο 2, 3, 4 ), 442.1-4; 417.1-4;
722.3-7. Among the old men are Knemon, as anger (D. 445f. παροικοΰο ...
μετοικοδομηοειν οικίαν) leads to m oralising (450f.· θεόο/επιτίθεοθαι). Cf.

24
Pa. in stru ctin g Po. (Pk. SO lf., α δικ εί, δίκην, Αδίκημα); f r . 210.1-6;
581 (2, 6; 8, 11; 14, 16, 17; 15-16), 718.5-10. Cf. fin a lly the young
man (or woman) of f r . 610 (γενοο 1-2, 5; δυο-/εύ-γενήο, γεγονωο 10-12;
λέγεΐν 8, 10, e t c .) . Remaining strik in g instances are P.D. X (below),
f r r . 223.1-3, 238.1-4, 667.1-3. Agnoia's repeat o f γίγνεοθαι (Pk. 124
tw ice, 128-129, 170 twice) is perhaps a reference to her ro le as Tyche.
33. Cf. J . S traus, o p .c i t., p. 27f. δειν 3, 8; δίκαιοο/άδικειν/δίκη
5-7, 13; hivat 11, 13-14; γυνή 11, 14; avnp eight tim es; πάτερ seven tim es;
εκεΐνοο 17, 18 (32); έτε’ρωι 31-32; δίδωμι (31), 35 , 36; e tc .
34. Nhile ploke i s fa r from uncommon in Menander, the pronounced -
(and purposeful) instances cited above suggest th at Professor Webster i s
rig h t in considering th a t the comic 'fla t-fo o te d n e ss' th a t characterises
such re p e titio n s in Philemon is not to be found in Menander: Studies in
2
Later Greek Comedy (Manchester 1970) [= SLGC], p . 129f.
35. See also p . 49.
36. With αντι&ολω Κράτειά es, μή μ’ ...» cf. E. 958, cAßp<no]vov,
ικετεύω cc, μη μ .... In such contexts, the vocative i t s e l f i s a s ta te ­
ment of emotion. Cf. D. 361f. (So. to Go.), Ter. Eun. 885, 888 (Chaireas
to Thais) — again the impatient young Menandrian's standard entreaty.
The character fondest o f repeated vocative is Demeas (Sa. 189, Pa.; 451-
452, 459, 465 twice. Mo.; 378, 382, 385, 392, C hr.). Cf. D. 92Sf. , 802,
806, H. 39, E. 1062f. (Sm. in su ltin g ly repeats the pronoun, twice speaking
of Sophrone in the th ird person), Pn. 3-4, f r . 663, P.D. I (above), P.G.
II 101-104, f r . 612.2,12.
37. M yrrhine's words are reported by Daos a t Pk. 320-321 and are
h is in terp re tatio n of her manner. 13. 875 shows ταλαο cu τοΰ τροιτου for
Simiche, and the form of address may admittedly s u it her unladylike
manner (cf. p. 7 ) .

25
r

38. J.ff. Cohoon, Rhetorical Studies in the A rbitration Scene of

Menander’s EpitTepontes (I)iss. Princeton 1915 = ΤΑΡΑ 45, 1914, 141f.),
173 and 185f.; and sim ilarly , B. Keulen, Studia ad Arbitrium in Menandri
Epitrepontibus Exhibitum (p iss. Leiden 1916), 74.
39. For comparable a llite r a tio n between two speakers, c f . p . 13
above, on M. 139f. Cf. the g lib and a llite r a tiv e cook a t IK 631f . , όλμον .
τιν* η λίθον τ ιν 5 η τοιοΰτό τ ι | άνωθεν evceicov λαβοΰοα. (The pattern
o f the l a s t i s common enough — c f. Antiphanes 78K, 129.3, 211.3-4,
Alexis 27.8, 108.3f. — but the a l lite r a tiv e e ffe c t does seem here to be
put to sp ecial use; one can compare A. 342f., between two speakers, p. 34
below.)

26
 PART 2: ASSONANCE

In th is section I sh all continue to deal with forms of re p e titio n ,

and while these w ill include some fu rth e r forms o f verbal re p e titio n ,
* (1) polyptoton, (2) etymological figure and C3) paronomasia, my intention
here i s to survey- what have seemed to be standard forms of assonance.
Assonance generally- i t was d if f ic u lt to survey system atically, and I hope
that in singling out some forms of C4) end-rhyme, CS) i n i t i a l assonance
Cparechesis) and C6) the repeated negative — fu rth er forms of assonance
th at b est seem to admit of some so rt of systematic study — the survey may
at le a s t show the kind of importance assonance may have in Menander's work.

Cl) Polyptoton Cjuxtaposition or near-juxtaposition of d iffe re n t

forms of (a.) the same adjective/adverb/noun,1* Cb) the same verb)

In general, th is figure so prominent in tragedy and rh e to ric a l prose

i s su rp risin g ly colourless in Menander. I t i s re s tric te d mainly to the -
a llite r a tiv e curse and to re p e titio n of the pronoun. I t is noticed mostly
in the cu rse,2 as a t A. 208, kcococ kckuj] c άττόλοιο C tr.). Cf. D. 442 CKn.),
S i. f r . 11.5 (Malthake), where i t i s probably f e l t to be appropriate to a
h e ta ira . Sostratos (D.E. 23, with anacolouthon or aposiopesis) fe els some
reserve in using i t o f a lady. The other regular form is th a t with the
3rd p ers. optative and invocation o f th e gods: D. 138f. Cwith fu rth e r
a llite r a tio n , k. k. amxvtec irroX^ceiav οι θεοί — S o.), 220 CDa.), 600f.
(Kn.), 926f. CRn.), E.. 424 CZeus invoked by Cha.), and c f. Si^. 194.* Of
nine instances, four belong to Knemon, an appropriate favourite phrase
lik e cwocve Csee Sandbach, Hardt 122). At D. 195, οπολεΤ κακ[ην kcucS c

•Notes to Part 2 begin on p. 55

27
i s 'th e generally despised* reading (Gomme-Sandbach). But i t i s not
Knemon’s daughter who re fe rs to Simiche in th is way: Knemon is to be
thought of as the speaker o f the curse.
The most conspicuous instances o f polyptoton are those where a word
i s more than twice re p eated ,11 as a t Kol. 88-89, τ]ουτ’ . . . | ταυταο Ü
νυν δια τούτον, from one of the most unashamedly- rh e to ric al speeches in
Menander, and the instance i s sig n ific a n t because of the context. Cf. Sa.
265f., αυτήν δ 5 εχουοαν αΰτο . . . | . . . καθ’ αυτήν (Demeas s t i l l fig h ts to
control h is an g er].5
But in ten tio nal instances o f polyptoton are more likely- to be those
involving repeat of words other than the pronoun. The solemn (old-
fashioned?) e ffe c t gives a m ildly tra g ic ring esp ecially a t A. 214 (Daos'
tra g ic address to Tyche):
οιωι μ* σΐου δε«τοτσυ παρεγγυαν
μέλλειc. τ ι c ’ ηδικηκα τηλικοΰτ’ εγω;*
Cf. D.E. 1S(?), D. 721, M. 234, Sa. 462. At Kol, f r . 1.4 i t characterises
a self-im portant cook in an exaggeration o f a regular re lig io u s formula,
Ολύμπιoic | ’Ολυμπιαιον, toci και iracaic.J
In most cases the context i s a gnomic one, and here most obviously
the e ffe c t sought i s one o f grandeur, e.g . Sa. 140:
ουθεν yevoc γενουε γαρ οιμαι διαφερειυ.
There are 13 in sta n c e s,5 and these include the one re a lly strik in g example
o f verbal polyptoton a lso , f r . 538.6 f . :
cc ί έ to κάκιοτον των κακών πάντων φθονοο
φθιοικον πεπόηκε κάΐ ποήοει καί πο ει, . . .
The T h e to ric is pure Gorgianic.28

28
 Other instances o f verbal polyptoton too have a sententious, rh e to ric a l
s p i r i t : f r . 22, ετρυφηοευ ucic μη πολυυ τρυφαυ χρόνου, and f r , 381.1-2
(εξαμαρτάυων/άμαρτάυει),* 618.
ln the remaining, the polyptoton should be considered as perhaps no
more than a normal speech-pattern: E_. SIS (Xef* o \ i y z i c ) , Ka. 14 Co" τι
Xerycic λεγειο ), Kol. 116 (ποει[ο π οειν), f r . 3S3.1 (α νυν xroicTc ποιε'ΐ) , 10
416.3 (άπηλθεν, οθευ ήλθεν), 16 (άπηλθεν έλθώυ).

(2) Etymological figure (combination o f verb and adjective o r noun

o f the same o r sim ilar root; the most regular combination i s v erb /d irect
object}
I am in tere ste d in the figure prim arily as a form o f assonance or
a llite r a tio n and exclude such instances as ζίίν βίου. The examples are
the following:
A. 5f. (ßioc), 357f. (ο ικ ία ), 424 (ctoc) ;
D. 156 (κτήμα), 83 (βώλον), 89 (ο ικ ία ), 36S (βώλον), 44S (οικ ία );
Ε. 433 (uxcoc), S56 (Xoyoc), 610 (apiotov), 692f. (ßxoc), 888
(Xoyoc), 895 (έργου), 1066 (Xoyoc);
[Kol. 87 (Xoyoc)];
M. A2f. (λόγοο);
Pk. 122f. (ο ικ ία ), 346 (περίπατοο), 7S3 (Xoyoc); 11
Sa. [136 (Xoyoc)], 292f. (περίκομμα), 422 (γεγουοο), 642 (έργου);
Si- 99. (λόγοο); LA- IS 5 CXoyoc); P^D. I 1 (λόγοο); ΡΛ). I I 2
(λόγοο); f r r . 312.1 CSaoXoc), 364 (αποφορά) [cf . 407.7 (λόγος)],
545.2 (ουκοφάυτηο), SSS (οτρατχωτηο), 560.2 (έργου), 600 (νόμοο),
623.1 (ο’ικ ία ), 630.3 (πτώμα).
The tone o f such examples i s a serious one and, in an emotional
s itu a tio n , of quiet emotion (e.g. Thrasonides'of M. o r the lady o f P.D· I)·

29
I t i s inappropriate to an emotional outburst; Demeas (S a.) , so fond o f
th e more dramatic forms o f re p e titio n , may have no examples· The most
common form of assonance i s the otherwise redundant λόγον/λόγουο λεγειν,
but th e re a lly sig n ific a n t instances are those where the assonance involves
the r a r e r words for where i t forms merely an element in a larg e r rh e to ri­
cal complex). The e ffe c t o f the stronger examples i s one o f (mock)
grandeur, most o f a ll fo r Moschion (Pk. 346): as ever, pompous and taking
him self too seriously, he plays on the Menandrian lo v e r's key-word (with
fu rth e r a llite r a tio n ) ,
ττεριττατε'ΐυ ποιεΤο με περίπατον πολόν τ ι να
We see sim ilar play on the cook's key phrase a t Sa. 292f., one-
upmanship by Parmenon over a vulgar cook as he both deprecates and im itates
h is s ty le (with fu rth e r assonance),
κατακόπτενε (γε με) | (ει λανθάνει γέ οε) . . . ere νερικομματα
(See above, ρ. 8 f.) In Smikrines' two examples a t E. 610, 692f., the
fig u re emphasises h is obsession with Charisios* h ig h -liv in g . Habrotonon's
μice? pTcoc i s probably one aspect o f an in te llig e n t h e ta ir a 's formal s ty le .
N ikeratos' anger a t Sa. 422f. does not cause him to abandon h is normal .
brusque phrasing, but he does momentarily allow him self to embellish h is
s ty le with a grand-sounding, a l lite r a tiv e etymological fig u re and emphatic
hyperbaton.l i
The tone o f other examples too may be o f seriousness in varying
degrees. This is emphasised by tra g ic metre as in two o f the Aspis
in stan ces11 or by rhyme1% as a t A. 4-5 (where βίωι/καταβiwcecOai provides
fu rth e r sound coincidence) or by fu rth e r sound-play, as a t Sa. 292f.
(above). 1*
Those fondest of the figure are Daos QA.) and Smikrines (E.) — each
w ith three instances. But Daos' examples are the more noteworthy:- he

30
alone in th e Aspis uses the fig u re ; h is f i r s t two instances are unusual in
being marked by a grand compound verb1* and by both rhyme and fu rth er sound·
play; h is f i r s t instance i s spoken in tra g ic s ty le to tra g ic metre, and h is
la s t i s a tra g ic quotation. I t may not be a fav o u rite fig u re o f Daos, but
i t i s c e rta in ly a fig u re c h a ra c te ris tic o f h is s ty le .
Perhaps i t i s also sig n ific a n t th a t a l l th e Dyskolos instances are
spoken e ith e r by Knemon fin complaint) o r by o th ers in complaint about
Knemon o r in warning .against h is manner. (Khemon's f i r s t instance occurs
in h is entrance lin e s .) I t may be th a t th e fig u re i s repeated as a s o rt
o f d elib erate verbal d u e in much the same way as avocioc i s repeated,
and th is i s c e rta in ly tru e o f the phrase βάλλε ιυ βώλοιc. P.D. I 1 was
mentioned among the examples o f ploke, which i s the key to the lady's
e n tire speech th ere (above, p . 16).

(S) Paronomasia
This fig u re involves words th a t have maximum change o f meaning with
minimum change in sound. The words may be (a) etym ologically related or
(b) u n re la te d ,17 e . g . , to give the two instances of epidiorthosis th at
show paronomasia,
(a) A. 200f. , περί δε κλήρου . . . | η vh Δι* επικλήρου
Cb) G. 2 8 f., Hy. — χαιρετώ. Phi. — τ ί χαιρετώ; οιμωζ^τω.
The e ffe c t i s to put great emphasis on the words in question, and
i t is often c h a ra c te ris tic .o f a grand o r sententious way o f speaking.
The form i s most common in a n tith e tic a l statem ents, e .g . (a) A. 34Sf.,
D a .'s
cu δ* έγκεκλείοαι . . . προκείοεται cou —
a pleasant c i d o c shape; (b) (perhaps the most remarkable instance, since
i t also causes the most strik in g end-rhyme in Menander), D. 253, G o.'s

31
 αλλ* έμποδών. τΰ ι μεν gigcacSai τον νόμον
ε χ ε ι μεθ’ αΰτου, τωι δε πεχοαι τον τρόπον«
Ccf. Sm .'s λάβω/άφω. A. 2 7 0 f.).10
The a n tith e sis is again sig n ific a n t in oxymoron, e .g . (a) f r . 23.3 f . ,
θαυατοο . . . εΐιθάνατοο or (b) E. 229f. where Smikrines throws up h is hands
in despair at th e incongruity- o f two countrymen indulging in a law-court
dispute, δικαο λεγοντεο . . . διφθεραο εχο ντεε.19
The other reg ular form i s n atu ra l in am plification, in giving two
aspects of a p a rtic u la r id e a ;20 the e ffe c t i s to put g re ater emphasis on
both words. (W h ere the words are o f a d iffe re n t ro o t, i t i s as though the
speaker i s saying th at they are synonymous.) E .g ., (a) Kn.’ s δ ε ι γαρ
είνα ι και πάρειναι or K a.'s νύμφην γαρ αμα και-νυμφίον Q). 717, 795);
Ο») D. 415, διφθεραν τε και δικελλαυ, 952, μέλλουοα και τρέμουοα, o r the
most strik in g instance a t 743-744, δικαοτηρία/δεομωτηρία.21
There remain many divergent examples th a t are more d i f f i c u l t to
categ o rise, where the etymological or.sound association simply suggests
to the speaker th a t they belong together. The connection may be s e l f -
conscious and lead to a mild pun, e .g . A. 232-233, αδειπναν . . . περιδενπνον
(c f. f r . 309.2-3), f r . 20.1, τα Ταντάλου τάλαντ*;22 o r the pun may have a
more serious gnomic sig n ifican ce, e .g . f r . 525, δέΐ roue <γε> πενομενουο
. . . πσνε'ιν, f r . 536, καν raTc ouropiaic ccO* δ xpncroc xpnciuoc; o r again
the sig n ifican ce may be le ss strongly f e l t and the in ten tio n merely
emphasis (such instances resemble ploke), e .g . D. 204,
πληγάο ληψομ’ cfo με καταλάβηι.2*
Characters fondest o f the fig u re — and i t i s a s trik in g and n o tice­
able fig u re —■are Syriskos and S ostratos (D.) w ith s ix , and Daos (A.)
with fiv e . Since they show th e most adequate numbers (and some o f the
\

b est examples), in completing the survey o f paronomasia, I s h a ll merely

32
summarise the examples of these individuals, to sh ok the e ffe c t o f the
fig u re in s t y l is t i c characterisatio n . [The remaining characters are
Gorgias (D.) w ith four or fiv e , Hahrotonon, Smikrines w ith four, Knemon,
Pataikos w ith th ree , Demeas w ith two. I have excluded Onesimos; he does
have fiv e examples, but they are mostly weak, and not such as would a ttr a c t
the audience's n o tic e .2*]
Paronomasia might be added to the l i s t o f rh e to ric a l devices noted
by Cohoon and Keulen2* through which Syriskos demonstrates h is su p erio rity
as a pleader over Daos (Daos has only one minor in sta n c e ),2* and o f course
i t is very appropriate to the rh e to ric a l s itu a tio n . He uses i t four
times in 40 lin es to emphasise h is key p o in ts:
(1) E_. 295-297 in the three-tim es repeated synchotesis (what he
says i s tru e , but (2) 304-306 (the child i s the p l a i n t i f f , c* α παιτεί,
and I speak for him, ουναπαιτω); (3) 319, in sum, ouy eupectc . . . ftXk1
αφαίρεοιο [the standard rh e to ric a l form]; (4) 331-334 in emphasising the
a n tith e s is between the mythological paradigm and the present situ a tio n
(εδωκε . . . ετ δ’ . . . Aaoc άπέδοτο). He then goes on to use paronomasia
again a t 337 in a phrase su itab ly impressive to describe the grand
personages o f tragedy, οι τηλικουτοι καί τοιουτοι τωι γ έ ν ε ι.27 But i t
i s a feature of h is sty le outside the a rb itra tio n speech too: the l a s t
occurs in h is parting remarks as he looks back on h is two a rb itra tio n
successes, 417f., πάντων δ7 άμεληοανθ7 . . . δει δίκαο μελετάν (and perhaps
we are meant to think back to Smikrines' comment a t 229f.).
Daos' instances in the Aspis are not so closely re la te d as those Of
some other characters but they do stand out as a figure appropriate to
h is grand s ty le as clever paidagogos; when he uses them he uses them to
maximum e ffe c t:

33
r
A. 3 1 f., 200f. (above, with, epidiorthosis) , 342, 345f. (above, w ith
a κυκλοο shape), 418 (quoting tragedy).
In two instances the sound is sp ec ia lly important. At 31f. h is n arrativ e
reaches i t s f i r s t climax in the vivid delineation o f the army’s a c tiv itie s ,
lin e 30 (το καταφρονετή* πολλοί γαρ έκλελοιποτεο)
τί>ν χάρακα toc κωμαο··έπάρθουν, roüc ctypovc
εκοπτον, αιχμάλωτ «επωλσυν, χρήματα
acacTOc είχε πολλ’ »άπελθών.
and the paronomasia (έπορθουν/επωλουν — both a t 7-9) emphasises the·
dramatic accumulation of im perfects, as p a rt o f the remarkable sound
•correspondence between these lin e s : parechesis a t 1-2 and 1, lin es 30-32,
32-33; repeated resolution a t 2 in lin es 30-31; h a ltin g e ffe c t as Porson
i s disregarded a t 31-32; emphatic median caesura a t 31-33. From anyone
but Smikrines th e in terru p tio n o f <Sc καλάν would have been an apt
s t y l i s t i c comment.**
In the second case, 342 (πλευρ-/φρεν-ιτιν) Daos animatedly, and with
some a llite r a tio n , assumes the tone o f the mock-doctor,
πλευρίτιν είναι το κακόν "η φρενΐτιν ^
/ Λ / J /
τούτων τ ι των ταχέως αναιρουντων . . .
—τ ί οδν; in te rje c ts C hairestratos, caught up in h is τραγικόν toOoc.**

For S o stratos, paronomasia seems to serve as p a rt o f h is s t y l i s t i c

ch aracterisatio n as clever city-dw eller. He has two o f the three instances
in Menander o f punning assonance on another's words: D. 293, picking up
Go.'s stern reproach w ith a commonplace etymological pun on 'A pollo/destroyer'
(Go. — . . . πράγμα θανάτων αξιον πολλών. So. —'λπολλον);30 319-320, in
answer to Go.'s δμομητριοο, κα\ χρηοιμοο (both a t 1-4). The other

'34 \
instances are, again in reply to Go., 309-310, in h is lecture to h is
fa th e r, 797, 811f. But c f. 537-538, where an aching Sostratos portrays
in sound and presumably in gesture the movement of the well beam, &va-/
κατα-κύπτοντ* (both at 3-5).
Enough has been said about the e ffec t o f paronomasia, but X should
lik e to conclude th is section with a note on two characters fo r whom i t
can be seen to be again s ty l is t i c a l l y appropriate, Gorgias and Habrotonon.
Gorgias uses i t f i r s t in perhaps the most self-conscious a n tith e sis in
Menander (253f. , above). Two more instances occur together in h is care­
fu lly worded formal lecture at S ostratos, and i t is in keeping with his
manner here: he proceeds with the aid of useful re p etitio n s and synonyms,
D. 274f. και τωι μεν εύτυχο'υντι μέχρι τούτου μένειυ
τα πράγματ^ εύθενοΰντ αει τα του βίου
^ocov αν χρονον φ^ρειν δύνηται την τύχην. 91
294 provides another of h is strik in g an tith eses, the oxymoron σχολη/αοχολ-
ουμ^νοιο, and in h is fin a l example (768-771, ύπο-/δια-μένειν), verbal
re p e titio n again provides a touch of dignity and a useful aid.
A ll Habrotonon*s instances are rather sim ilar to those of Gorgias in
th a t she only uses etymological paronomasia, and the e ffec t seems to be
only to emphasise the words in question (although she does not approach
Go. *s rh e to ric a l form ality), and to a fa r le sse r degree to play on th e ir
meaning; she probably has the most in te llig e n t, i f a r t i f i c i a l , instances
of ploke: 468f. τροφιμοο/τρεφομενον ('your master, and you'd see him
reared by someone e ls e ? ') (cf. Ph. 85); 499f. (i) an emphatic statement of
the case and fin a l assonance at SOOf., ( ii) ploke/paronomasia, 503f.,
αιτέβαλεν
ετεροο; κυβευων τυχόν icmc e ic cuygolac35

35
 υπόθημ’ εδωκ·*, n ευντιθέμενοο περί7 xivoc
ττεριείχετ’ , ε?τ εδωκεν
C iii) verbal repetition of 499f., Kith, further assonance, S08f. Ccf· P*
54); 523f. ploke/paronomasia o f λεγειν (below, p. 47). [Cf. 477f. , ttaiciv/
ουν]ετταιζεν, but 1 would not add th is to the instances of paronomasia.]
All th is is probably meant to be c h a ra c te ristic of an in te llig e n t h e ta ir a 's
speech.

(4) Rhyme
My excuse fo r inclusion of the minor form o f re p e titio n , rhyme, in
th is discussion i s th at i t s e ffe c t w ill be seen to be sim ilar to th a t of
the rh e to ric a l figures d e a lt with above’2; some of the examples w ill also
demonstrate Menander's m etrical e ffe c ts , f u ll study of which is beyond the
scope o f the d is s e rta tio n . 1 do not intend to study the forms o f re p e ti­
tio n homoioteleuton, homoiokatarkton, homoioptoton, although rhyme w ill
touch on these.
Before defining rhyme in Menander's work I note what is even at
f i r s t glance the most strik in g example - - in Knemon's great trochaic speech,
perhaps Menander's most affectin g and ca refu lly w ritten speech, a t D. 729-
733. Throughout the speech there have been a number of devices o f sound
re p e titio n th a t mark Knemon's risin g emotion (e.g. 714, avxoc auxapiaic,
717, δ ει γαρ ε*ιναι —και πάρει ν α ι, 721, εχερον έτερωι). The beginning of
the speech has been addressed to the company generally, but prompted by
Gorgias' u n selfish action. I t reaches something of a climax at 724f.:
τον γαρ ούκ έωντά <τ* α>ύτον irpocievcti <κα\> τΐμ θυραι
ου βοηθηοαντά <τ* α>υτωι ιτώποχ’ cic ούδέν μέροο, 725
ου προςειπόνχ’ , οι) Χαλήεανθ' ηδε'ωο, οέοωχ’ ομωο.
οπερ αν aXXoc κα\ δικαιωο· ’'ούκ caic με προοιέναι·

36
 » / 1 > »' < Λ / J \ /
ου προοερχο)/ · ουδεν ημιν γεγουαε αυτοε xpncipoc·
ουδ’ έγω coi νυν." τι' δ ' έ ο τι, μειράκιου; εάν <τ’> έγω
άποθάνω νΰυ — οίομαί δε, και κακωε ιοωε εχω — 730
αν τε περι<εωθ>ω, ποοΰμαι c ' bov, α τ ’ εχων τυγχάνω
πάντα εαυτοΰ νάμιεον ε ίν α ι, τηυδε coi παρεγγυω·
αυδρα δ’ αδτίιι ποριεον. ε ι γαρ κα'ι εφόδρ’ υγιαίνοιμ 5 εγώ.
Professor Handley- (in h is commentary) considers the co rrelativ es
ου . . . τε (twice) followed by anaphoric ου (twice) to in d icate risin g
emotion. These are grave lin e s: note the long s y lla b le s , ου, ω, 726; in
725 every anceps is lo n g .” At 727-729, Knemon's self-blam e becomes more
b i t t e r as, again with anaphoric ob, he quotes an imagined reproach in
four cu rt p a ratactic statem ents. At 729-731, anaphora again maintains an
emotional e ffe c t, when Knemon changes to a lower key o f s e lf - p ity with
the negative/positive doublet, εάν . . . άποθάνω / α ν περιοωθω. As he turns
to Gorgias fo r the f i r s t tim e, Knemon has reached the depths o f despair,
and sound has almost become more important than stru c tu re and content.
Not only i s the rhyme o f one long vowel a t five Successive line-ends
unique in Menander, but 732-733 also provide h is most strik in g example
o f a recurring sound p attern — between 1 and 8 (-άν-α -αυτ- . . . -ό-icov
ε ι- α ι/α ρ ) .”
Before going on to say th a t the re su ltin g emotional e ffe c t i s the
regular function of rhyme in Menander, one should perhaps now define rhyme
and the means of singling out the most 's tr ik in g ' examples.
Kith some c e rta in ty I would regard rhyme belonging to a sin g le speaker
as in te n tio n a l, where the 'rhyme' consists o f repeating o f:
i) Two or more fin a l vowels, regardless o f accompanying consonant,
accent, io ta in long diphthongs;37

37
 ii) A fin al long or a fin al long and consonant, regardless o f accent
c f. D. 729-733 — or io ta in long diphthongs;
iii) A fin al (natural) short and consonant(s), regardless o f accent.
The most strik in g examples would then be those (A) of rhyme over more
than two lines and (B) of more than two fin al vowels. There are 14
instances of each:
CA) CD CÜ) (iii)
5 11. D. Kn. 729
3 11. D. So. 522
Ae
So. 571 (below)
E. On. 446
•
Th. Th.? f r . dub. 21
Sa. Do. 269 Mo. 7 De. 266
De. 153 De. 328
Mo. 617
P.Gh. II Ph. 148
frr. 336.2 286.1
(B) Rhyme of more than two fin al vowels: D. 225 (Da.), D. 253 (£
fin a l vowels) (Go.), D. 571 (S o.), 743 (Kn.), E. 290 (Da.),
655 (Sm.), Kol. 89 (7), M. A4 (T hr.), f r r . 198.5, [451.4],
519, 526, 552, 581.10.
Such re s tric tio n s bring to lig h t some o f the most sig n ifican t in stan ­
ces of rhyme, and the e ffe c t of many, as in the Knemon example (with which
cf. D. 743-744), is to heighten emotion, notably in the unique consecutive
t r i p l e t s o f Demeas, a t Sa. 266f., 269f. (cf. the sound re p e titio n o f lines
266-267, a t 4, 5, 7, 8 — . . . αυτή- . . . - t - ου),*8 as he attempts to fig h t
down the rage th at r is e s a t 265ff. with his references to 'th e m istress.·
I t i s notable th a t rhyme begins both his f i r s t and second d istracte d
address to the audience C269, 328). Compare D_. 225 (Daos* anger), M. A4
(Thrasonides' d is tra c tio n ), P.Gh. II 148 (phaidimos* desperation).
I t i s sometimes d if f ic u lt to gauge the degree o f emotion: rhyme may
merely draw atten tio n to a passage as serious or pompous and vaguely
r h e to r ic a l.58 S ostratos' two examples form a nice sequence: D. 522f.,
en ter S ostratos d isp irite d and complaining about the Phylasians (a pleasant
t i e onto Sikon's parting remarks at 517f.)*7; at 571f., e x it with fresh
courage and pompous avowals,
. . . μαντεύομαι
τοΟτ’ άυτοο, 3 Παν· άλλα μην προοευχομαι
άει παριων cot — και φιλανθρωπευοομαι. 38
One o f the n icest examples o f pure pompous rh e to ric is Kol. 89.
S ty lis tic a lly , th is is Menander at h is most amusing: the slave adopts the
a ttitu d e o f a ta s te le s s opera-singer, emotionally carried away by the
sound o f h is own voice. One notices h is anadiplosis, s ic £cTiv, [sic (85),
asyndeton (8 7 ff.) and most o f a l l the jin g lin g ploke o f repeated forms o f
άπόλλυμι (86, 88, 93), o f ocac/öcoi, anaphorically repeated (87, 90), and
of outoc C88, 89, 93, 94), the la s t with polyptoton a t 88-89, where the
rhyme begins. The whole passage deserves quotation in f u ll:
j&c eextv, [s ic 85

δι* ού τά πάντ’ απόλωλε, τρόφιμε, πράγματα

άρδην, λέγω c[oi λόγο]ν oeqe άναοτάτουο
πόλειε κόρακα[c, τ ]οΰτ7 άττολωλεκεν μόνον
ταυτος ο νυν διά τούτον έξευρηκ’ εγω.
‘όοοι τύραννοι πωποθ^, octic Αγέρων 90
μέγαο, οατράπηο, φρουραρχοο, oikicttic τόπου,
Φτρατηγοο — ου[ ...3 άλλα τουο τελεως λέγω

39
 cnroXttAoTqc — [νυν τ ] οΰτ* άνιγιρηκεν μόνον
θ \ κόλακεο* οβτοι δ1 ε tciv cahoic ά θ λ ιο ι.34
Cf. also the re p e titio n o f μόνον C88, 93), dram atically placed άρδην 0*7) ·
the grand p erfect forms 0*8-89, 93), c o rrelativ es 0*8-89, 93-94), paren­
th e tic a l a n tith e sis (92-93); no wonder Pheidias* comment a t 95, coßapoc
& λόγοο} [The etymological fig u re , λέγω λόγουο, suggested fo r lin e 87 by
Sudhaus, is su rely the supplement most su ited to the rh e to ric a l context.]
I should lik e to think o f lin e 92 as a continuation o f the rhyme a t 89-90:
in 99-92, the man rushes through h is asyndetic l i s t , not pausing fo r breath
u n til he comes to a dead stop a t 92, where he eleg an tly picks up h is rhyming
p attern once again (τελεωε .λέγω; and cf. also 91-92, oikicttjc τόπου,
CTpcrrnyoc ου), and continues h is word-play generally. Compare E. 290-
291 (Daos' pompous epilogos), E_. 446,*° f r . 281.2 (c f. the tra g ic quote, .
lin e 1, the rhyme, lines 1-2, emotional 3 ). But the most remarkable
example (four fin a l vowels) belongs to Gorgias in one o f h is regular
an tith eses, Dy 253-254. Given the rh e to ric a l form, i t must be classed
as homoioteleuton.41
For th e r e s t, i t su ffic e s to say th a t the speaker i s taking him self
very serio u sly 42 and th a t most o f the examples so f a r lis te d occur in
careful monologues (one in a song) o f some length. ■
• * * -

Given the conspicuous examples o f rhyme noted above, the tw o-line

examples may now be considered w ith more confidence. [These are lis te d
in Appendix I . For two-line rhymes, fu rth e r s im ila r itie s between the
lin es are indicated there in the following manner: m = a repeated m etrical
e ffe c t (Person, median caesura, resolution of a p a rtic u la r element);
M ■ two e ffe c ts ; M3 = th ree ; r ■ a fu rth e r 'rhyme* a t a p a rtic u la r element;
R, R3 « two or th ree 'rhyming' elements, and so on.]

40
 These examples continue to express the range of mood noted above,
but before fu rth e r elaboration, i t is North considering the characters
who use rhyme. Obviously i t is not re s tr ic te d to c la ss, age-group or
in d iv id u al, and on the whole, the number of an in d iv id u a l's rhymes is
roughly proportionate to the length o f h is speaking p a rt. However, there
are some su rp rise s, notably Syriskos; the characters fondest o f rhyme are:
. 1. Demeas, 25 rhymes
2. Moschion (Sa.3, 11
SoStratos (D .), 11
4. Syriskos, 8
5. Knemon, 7
6. Onesimps, 6
Smikrlnes (E .), 6
8. Gorgias ( 0 . ) , 5

9. Daos (A .), 4
C harisios, 4
Daos (E .), 4
Getas (M.), 4
Moschion (P k.), 4
14. Smikrines (A .), 5
No ch aracter even approaches Demeas fo r frequency o f rhyme, and i t
s u its a l l h is moods: eager fo r the m arriage, 112, 149, 153-155 [152-153
εοττουδακωο; c f . 219 ύττερεοπουδακωο); struggling w ith despair, in both h is
f i r s t [six examples) and h is second address to the audience; angry and
abusive o f Chrysis, 390; angry and despairing o f Moschion, 472, 474, 487;
indignant w ith N ikeratos, 553; and fin a lly , w ith a solution to problems
in s ig h t, lig h t-h earted and a t r i f l e pompous w ith N ikeratos, 588, 602,
609. When he reaches the height o f emotion, he produces the unique

41
sequences of Thyme over three lin es noted above, and there there are
fu rth er sound-effects Cf°r the assonance o f 275f. see Gomrae-Sandbach).
That no character even approaches Demeas fo r frequency o f rhyme i s
larg e ly because no other character i s so frequently on the point o f despair
C harisios' examples belong to h is declarations o f self-blame and to
the imagined reproaches of him self and Smikrines.' E_. 895 and 908 follow
n icely upon one another: the f i r s t ends C harisios1 self-reproach speech
as reported by Onesimos, and i t i s in fa c t with the second emotional rhyme
th at he ac tu a lly makes his entry onto the stage to continue in th is vein.
I think th a t th is is certain ly delib erate and th a t Menander was having fun
here. Compare the d istractio n o f the young man over an unwanted wedding,
G. 7, 12; o f Thrasonides over K rateia, M. A4, A6; o f Daos on the a l t a r ,
Pn. 8. Knemon's examples, lik e his whole speech, are a l l the more effec­
tiv e because unexpected.
Rhyme is appropriate to other v o la tile characters too. Getas* four
instances (M.) are a l l spoken in anger, on finding K rateia in Demeas*
arms and then over the cruel treatm ent o f h is m aster. Cf. Smikrines, A.
270 (his remaining rhymes indicate serio u sn ess). Smikrines, E. 1073,
Smikrines, S i. 151, 153. Or again rhyme merely indicates seriousness:
fo r example, Pyrrhias sympathetic in h is trochaic scene with Stratqphanes,
S i. 133, 138 (c f. the repeated c6 , 138f.)** and perhaps S i. 297 in the
recognition scene.
The reason fo r Syriskos* large number o f examples, putting him next
only to Demeas and Moschion, i s his mock law-court speech, where s ix of
h is examples occur, E. 294-352 Call o f Daos* examples occur in h is p re­
ceding speech), and the device probably resembles homoioteleuton: are we
to think o f the o ra to r's use o f the device, th a t o f playing on the
emotions as a means o f persuasion?** And does Syriskos resume h is o ra to r 's
42
a ttitu d e in h is parting words to Onesinos at 410, 414?
Por the th ree young men fondest o f the device, rhyme/homoioteleuton
i s probably a feature o f th e ir general pomposity. This is ce rta in fo r
Moschion (Pk.) — e.g . 530, h is vaunt over h is enemies, and 538 (c f. the
e ffe c t o f ουδευ . . . ουδέ . . . ου) and i t is probably tru e o f Moschion
(Sa.) and Sostratos (see above; c f. also D. 614, 872, h is indignation a t
Go., and 862, where he i s "turning a fin e ph rase," Gomme-Sandbach).
Compare Daos a t G. 60 Cthe beginning o f the almost unique example
in Menander o f as many as s ix main clauses in asyndeton)*6 and Onesimos
a t E. 446-448 (pompous w ith Syriskos; a l l a n c ip itia are long), a t 572
(grandiloquent), 1088 (sententious and r h e to r ic a l), 1111 (concluding h is
p arain esis a t ’Smikrines), and a t 1123 (sententious and quoting tragedy).
F in ally , I would note Habrotonon's example a t E. 500: w ith the standard,
and more or less ce rtain re sto ra tio n a t 499, lin e s 499-502 show a unique
abba rhyme in i t s most s trik in g form, form ( i ) , which I would regard as
preparatory to the rh e to ric th a t i s to follow.
D. S22f., Sa. 269f., 328f. were noted above as beginning a speech
or section o f a speech. Compare now th a t rhyme th a t provides a s ta te ly
opening to the speeches o f Tyche, A. 97; S o strato s, D. 179; C harisios,
E_. 908; Moschion, Ki. 66; Stratophanes, S i. 246 (and add also Habrotonon
a t E. 499-502). In four o f the cases, the character enters the stage on
rhyme, and a t D. S71f., Ki. 64 and Ph. 91 he makes h is e x it w ith i t . * 7
In i t s e f fe c t, rhyme resembles Menander's use o f tra g ic metre,**
and i t i s sometimes used in conjunction w ith tra g ic metre (e .g . Da. a t
A. 5 , 164, 388, Thras. a t Μ. A4-7), A sim ilar solemn e ffe c t i s sometimes
achieved by i t s use w ith th e long anceps option (e sp ecially a t E. 242-
243; in f a c t, in lin es 241-245, a l l a n c ip itia are long).

. 43
 Menander w ill sometimes draw atten tio n to rhyme with, fu rth er
s im ila r itie s between lin e s , s im ila ritie s in metre (homoioptoton?) or in
sound (parechesis** a t corresponding elements in the lin e s ) , and these
have been indicated in Appendix I.
Metre; E ffects may- co n sist of repeated: resolution o f a p a rtic u la r
element (e .g . o f 8 a t A. 97-98); disregarding o f Porson (e.g . A. 281);
median caesura (e .g . D. 872). See especially* I:. (1070)-1074,
(μεταπειοον αΰτην όταν ιδηιε· ουτω τ ι μοι)
άγαΟον γένοιτο Σωφρόνη γάρ, οΐκαδε/
απιων — το τέλμ’ ειδεε παριοΰε’ ; ένταμθο ce
την νύκτα βαπτίζων « ολην άποκτενω,
καγω οε τάΟτ* έμοι «· φρονείν αναγκάοω.
Sound and metre emphasise Smikrines' angry, d isjo in ted phrasing.se
At G. 7-8, an anapaestic movement (and rhyme) emphasises a young
man's a g ita tio n ,
κατιων υ]ττο νιίκτα γιυομευουο έτερουε γαμουε
καταλαμ]βάνω μ οι, τουε θεουε ετεφανουμενουε.
Sound: The two re a lly strik in g examples, D. 732-733, Sa. 266f.,
have been commented on. There are 22 fu rth e r strong instances (instances
th a t show correspondence o f two o r more fu rth e r elements — see Appendix
I ) , 51 and o f these one might single out G. 7 (above), Getas' examples a t
M. 219 Cat 1-2, ε-ω) and 318,
ουδέ λαγόν υμών ουδ) επιστροφήν εχω.
οι)[κ εστί] co i; τ ι δ ’ ; ουθέν άτοπου, we |_γω
•·«
and Moschion's a t Pk. 313,
ε ι ciovt1 ευθυε φιληαη_ δει μ’ , αυακτήοαοθ’ 'όλωε,
sic το κολακευειν τραπέεθαι, ζην τε προε ταυτηυ άπλωε.
44
The la s t example re a lly does remind us o f the rh e to ric a l homoiokatarkton
and homoioteleuton.
Rhyming lin es in dialogue: The instances are the following:
A. CD 273, 380, 466; & D 18£. 255 CR), 443
G. CD 54
D. CD 144, 258, 379r, 430, 574, 635; C Ü ) 429, 634CR), 904
E. CD 441r, 602, 609, 864, 1125R; G D 383, 467Qt); C iü) 141. S34r

H. C Ü ) 95
M. CÜ) 234, 296
Pk. CD 151, 778, 818 ; ( i i ) 391; C U D ?81r
Sav Ci) 311rCR), 226, 287Cr); CÜ) 388Cr), 430, 432CD, 4S9R;
C iii) 130r, 300m, 493
S i. Ci) 379mR;· CU) 380
P .I. Ci) 40
P.G. II CÜ) 79r
References th a t are underlined are those where the lin e s form p a rt o f
a wider rhyming p a tte rn . To take, fo r example, A. 273f. At 269-272,
Smikrines, in a ra re display o f extreme emotion, expresses him self with
both verbal and sound re p e titio n (he does th is only a t 177f., 185f. and
h e re ):
irpoc θεών, Μελιτίδτμ
λαλετν ίπτείληφαο; τ ί φτήο; έγω λαβω
την ovctav, τουτωι δέ την κόρην αφω
tv*, $ν γενηταχ ναχδίον, φεύγω δίκην
)Ι ν /
εχων τα τούτον;
Smikrines has changed the mood o f th e conversation, and C hairestratos
- abandons h is former d id actic tone to jo in him.

45
 —τούτο 6* δ ιε ι; κατάβαλε.
Sra. — . " ο ίε ι;" λεγειο; τον Δαου toe με πεμψατε
/ \
• .. Cha. — τ£ χρη,
and the te x t breaks o ff , and perhaps the rhyme continued (a. unique
sequence in Menander of seven lin e s , abbacca). Once again we see how,
even in dialogue, Menander w ill use rhyme to underline a p a rtic u la rly
emotional passage. When the tex t resumes, Smifcrines has l e f t behind a
dejected C haixestratos, who makes h is e x it a fte r a short monologue; and
rhyme now underlines h is despondency (280f. , [χ. oueme]/kupiodc/ t . βίου/
αλτήρα).
The other instances are A. 185-190 (Sm.: abab. Da.: b a ); 253-256
(Sm.: aab, Cha.: b ); D. 429-431; 633-636; E_. 1123-1126 (On.: aab, Sm.: b );
Pk. 776-779 (Mo.: aab. P a.: b); Sa. 430-433 (Ni.: a, Mo.: ab, N i.: a ).
Si. 379-381.
These are the most strik in g in stan ces, and the e ffe c t is generally
to underline the mood governing the s itu a tio n , ranging from the b i t te r
atmosphere o f the Smikrines episodes to the tra g ic tone of the Perikeiromene
recognition scene. Much, o f course, w ill have depended on an a c to r's
d elivery, but in p ra c tic a lly a ll instances i t is the assonance i t s e l f th at
i s important and can be simply amusing, much in the manner o f the dialogue
o f p ra c tic a lly any comic opera, o r to take the nice exchanges o f Act 1 of
P u ccin i's Boheme, 'Chi e lä ? ' 'B enoit' . . . 'Uscio sul muso.' 'Non e 'e
nessuno.· Έ ch iu so .' 'Una p aro la ' 'S o la l'
E.g. D. 430f., So. m. — q6n τεθυκεναι
€ A A/-
lUiac εοεν.
Kn. — τουτ\ το κακού τ ι βούλεται;
Pk. 18 1 f., Do. — εγω ττροελθουο1 οψομαι, κεκτπμέυη.
So. —η Αωρίς. ο ία γεγονευ, ωc δ ’ έρρωμενμ.

46
 CS} Parechesis*2
By parechesis I mean repeat o f a sound in two or m ore.closely placed
words, esp e cially o f the i n i t i a l vowel.
(A) This may be due to a repeated preposition Cthere are some 90
examples}; the most common form (a th ird o f the instances} consists of
repeat o f the preposition in i t s prepositional phrase and in the govern­
ing verb, e.g . D. 758, linemen's ειαα>]κλέιτ1 eickj με, or i t may recur in
d is tin c t verbs, prepositional phrases, e t c . , as in Daos' angry entrance
phrase, D. 206, διατριβω coi διακόνων ναλαι.
Such re p etitio n may be almost too common to deserve mention, and in
many cases w ill be simply necessary or even accidental, but p a rtic u la rly
in the more obvious cases, where the preposition is in a short space
repeated more than twice, there is a good diance th a t th is i s no t so. .
(There are nine instances.)
The most remarkable instance belongs to Habrotonon, E. 523-525,
I irporcpoc . . . Ίτροπετωο . . . | προεομολογηεω . . . | πρότερα . . . . Sound
i s important here (c f. also the ploke o f λεγειν in a form resembling
icuicXoc; λεγηι . . . λέγουεα gives also an etymological paronomasia with
προοομολογηοιΐ). This i s surely in ten tio n al rh e to ric : Habrotonon i s
earnest and emphatic, and she adopts the manner and s ty le th a t she w ill
actu ally use before Charisio's. Onesimos' remark υν/ρευγε νη του^Ηλιον
i s as much a comment on her sty le as on her cleverness (and i t ju s t
misses matching the rhythm established in 523-524 — resolution a t one
and seven).
Of the remaining examples, only Pk. 299-301 approaches th is -one. '
The lin es admirably s u it the pompous sty le of the here a llite r a tiv e
Moschion,

47
 περίπατων δε προεμενω εε, <Δάε>, πράεθε των θυρων,
. . . προεηλθεν εεπεραε. | προεδραμοντ . . .
c f. also Η. 380-381,
την άποφοραν άποδόντεο . . .
πρώτ’ άπαριθμηεαι . . .
The unnecessary' sound-play and unique resolutions (Gomme-Sandbach on 381)
would probably be an a c to r's key to Syriskos' brusque delivery a t th is
p o in t.5*
The most s trik in g compounds used in th is way belong to K allippides
a t D. 813f. , α ευνελεξάμην / ου ευγκατορυξω. The second compound forms
a pleasant paronomasia in answer to S o strato s' κατορυζαε (812), 5H and
the play with sound here is in fa ct merely one element in the s ty le in
which Kallippides amusedly answers h is son's own persuasive sound-play.
Cf. in S o strd to s' speech:
th e paronomasia, 797,
περί χρημάτων λαλεΐο, αβέβαιου nperyporoc
and assonance generally, esp. ου, ε ι , . 806-807, 810, ταυτο τούτο,
and fin a lly the etymological paronomasia, 811f., εμφανηο/άφανι{ο.
In Kallippides* rep ly , 813f.:
assonance, otcO’ oioc . . . ταυτ’ εμαυτωι,
and the concluding etymological paronomasia, δίδου, μεταδιδου.
But the repeated preposition is also in keeping w ith the s t y l i s t i c
ch aracterisatio n o f Kallippides: in h is short speaking p a rt he is probably
more co n sisten tly fond of compound verbs than any other character in
Menander (775, 776, 786, 790, 813, 814, 815, 818 (b is ), 837, 838, 840,
848, 859).55
(B) There are some 80 instances o f assonance th a t conform to
Hermogenes' examples of parechesis (note 52 above, i n i t i a l assonance /
48
/ a llite r a tio n o f a vowel and consonant in verbs etym ologically un related ).
Given the number and the fa c t th a t many instances must n ec essarily be
due to chance, I note only- the more remarkable examples and some where a
p a r a lle l e ffe c t can be said to be achieved elsewhere in Menander.
I t i s n atu ra l in commonplace phrases fo r s ta tin g strong feelings
— the curse (κακόν kokwc) onrgvrec απολεοειαν οι θεο/, the hopeful paren-
Λ ' /
th e s is , αν θεοί θελοιεν — and in p a rt an explanation o f the currency o f
such p h ra ses.56 But in cases too when le ss common words are employed,
th is w ill have been prompted by consideration o f the emphasis thrown on
a whole phrase by assonance or a llite r a tio n , e .g . Habrotonon's q u iet
reproach, Pk. 718, ϋαταικε, και cu ταυτα ουμπεπειομενοο . . . . [For sim ila r
emphasis on the cu -, e .g . Smikrines* angry ταυτα ουμπείθειο με' cu; a t E.
1067. Cf. G e .'s <cu> cuveirißaivs CD.
*
9?5); Sa.' 142g, cu cuXX[
· · (α ιγχ],
··

Turner) — Mo. admonishing De., lik e So. at-D. 797f., o r De. gently
indignant a t h is so n 's advice; 329, De.’s cuvotcda cu; a sympathetic
slav e’s <cu δε δη>. τ ι cuvvouc, f r . 722.1 .57]
In the two cases where ά3μα/αίιςειν are closely connected, i t i s
su re ly the s im ila rity in sound th a t suggested the connection: esp e cially
a t H. 338f., το μέν cSp5 έκτρέφειν | έμε . . . την [δέ] . . . ine corrnpiac
I ελπίδα . . . άφανιοατ — th is comes close to punning assonance.s* Cf.
also f r . 62.2.
In three examples o f με- parechesis, i t i s the p ath etic assonance
o f rep eated 'μ th a t is im portant, most o f a l l a t Pk. S22-523, one o f the
most sig n ific a n t cases, since only here are two instances nearly ju x ta­
posed,55 Polemon's
αλλά τ{ φέρω νυν c ic μεεον
το μεγεθοο, cyfSpovTryroc, υπέρ άλλων λάλων
5 /'

Outside P.P. I 25, there are only· three (?) occasions where
parechesis i s three tin e s repeated, and these occur in the Dyskolos
(perhaps the most sig n ific a n t examples, though one a t le a s t o f these
i s somewhat u n certain). The most obvious example occurs, appropriately,
during the banter o f the ragging scene, 926f., άπαλλάγτντε . . . κακού δε
I κακώς <c’> grravte c απολεοειαν . . . , while a t 929f . πατριδιον i s a
p lau sib le emendation of P. Bodmer’s παιδιού in OCT’s I c tiv υμΐυ, e c tiv
. . . J to παραπεταςμα, παππια, πατρίδιον.*1 Again a t 804 (where the
uncertain words are παρελομενη and πάντα), S o strato s' a l l i te r a t i v e advice
as p rin ted in OCT would well s u it a speech notable fo r i t s sound p lay
(see above):
παρελομενη coO πάντα itpocOncei παλιν.
For th e r e s t, 1 note only the example where fu rth e r assonance i s
most prominent: th e sententious fa th e r.o f f r . S81.14f.,
ο ι Ρουλομενοι ταυτην λαβε'ιν
λαλεΐτε. προοκοπειοΟε πηλ/κον κακόν
ληψεοθ’ ;**

(6) Repeated Negatives

In discussing sound re p e titio n and word re p e titio n ohe should perhaps
say a word about repeated negatives. The main forms are:
(i) ou . . . ούδειο/ούθείο,
(ii) οΰ . . . οί>δέ/συτε . . . ,
C iii) οΰδε/ουτε . . . σΰδέ/ουτε . . . ,
(iv) anaphoric ου.
I t would be f u tile to tr e a t a ll the examples. I sh all make a few obser­
vations merely on each form, singling out some of the more s trik in g
in stan ces before commenting on th e ir significance in conclusion.

50
 Ci) Double Negative.*3 The most emphatic single form o f denial
occurs 59 times in Menander, and the grave vowel re p e titio n i s obviously
important. [In form, ou . . . ου—, i t ra th e r resembles κυκλοο, and at
D.E. 54, S o strato s' emphatic denial may a c tu a lly take th a t form, ουδειο]
wapupync9 ουδ* έιτεβουλευο’ ούδέ e tc .] I t can be said to be used s e lf ­
consciously when em phatically used w ith fu rth e r forms o f repeated negative
Csee below). For Knemon i t i s a favourite phrase, used six times by him,*%
and the only Menandrian to approach him is Demeas (of Sarnia) with five
Cand a s ix th in quoting the θερατταννιδt ον).* s For Demeas, however, i t is
not to be thought o f as a favourite phrase; ra th e r as a key-phrase of ■
Demeas in the context o f the play. The complications in the Sarnia a rise
from the characters* unwillingness to be honest, and for Demeas the
re p e titio n o f the emphatic negative phrase provides only a verbal pointer:
we f i r s t hear the phrase "οΰκ άκηκο’ οϋδέν" as he quotes, the nurse, and
i t i s the n u rse 's words th a t lead to h is b i t t e r resolve on secrecy, ούκ
cbcoucac ούδέυ. This gradually becomes something o f an obsession: ούκ
αγανακτάλ» ούδέπω, (to Apollo) γενωμαι μη -ιτίδηλοο μηδ[ευι, (to Moschion)
ούκ άκουοσμ* ούδεν, (to Nikeratos) μη 3voyXiicac μηδέν.
Cü) ου . . . ουδέ . . . /μη . . . μηδέ . . . e tc , closely approaches a
rh e to ric a l fe e lin g , since fo r Menandrians i t generally involves am plifica­
tio n : characters who use i t do not stop a t sta tin g a fa c t negatively,
they expand on th a t negative fa c t. [Amplification may be from general to
sp e c ific Ce.g. A. 300, ούκ e'er’ άθυμεχν ουδέ κ εΐοθαί), sp e c ific to general
(e .g . f r . 215.4 f . ) , o r i t may involve merely two aspects o f the negative
idea Ce.g. A. 42 4f., ούκ . . . ειπεΤυ eiroc f ουδέ ιτάθοο) or near-synonyms
(e .g . JJ. 290, μηδέν αδικεί μηδ’ έλαττού).] In two cases however, the
second negative answers the f i r s t in a c u rt, p a ra ta c tic reply (D. 728f.,

Pk. 7 1 6 f.).

51
 There are 46 instances o f th is negative,*® but i t seems to be
c h a ra c te ristic o f no individual; no one uses i t more than tw ice. Nikeratos'
two examples are unusual, however; only a t Sa. 508f. and 558f. i s a second
subject added, by means o f ουδέ, to an already completed subordinate
clause Cas an angry afterthought in both cases?), and perhaps th is is
meant to be c h a ra c te ristic o f Nikeratos.
C iii) C orrelatives ούτε . . . ούτε . . . /μήτε . . . μήτε . . . e tc .
This negative approaches the rh e to ric a l in much the same way as the
preceding, th e more so because o f the nature o f c o rre la tiv e clauses. There
are 18 instances,*7 four o f which belong to Gorgias, and th is i s charac­
t e r i s t i c o f him: i t is in keeping w ith h is manner th a t he a n tic ip a te s a
whole sentence, in th is way, a t i t s very beginning. [But h is form ality
does not extend in these cases to the more liv e ly a n tith e s is , αλλα/δε . . . ,
th a t regularly follows negative c o rre la tiv e s .] Knemon again shows h is
fondness fo r the negative statement w ith three instances.
(iv) Anaphoric ου68
The 12 examples leave l i t t l e to add to what was said above on
anaphora generally. I t is again used by people seen to be p a rtic u la rly
fond o f anaphora and related fig u re s, Demeas, the remarkable old man in
the K ith aristes, and the clamorous crowd (Sikyonios). The remarkable
examples belong to Gorgias (giving a four-colon e f f e c t) , f r . 267 ( t r i ­
colon) and to Knemon (two instances immediately following one another).
The addition of a second subject to an in f in itiv e clause (with anaphora
only at Sa. 510-511) i s perhaps again c h a ra c te ris tic o f N ikeratos.
Assonance and the negative:
I t i s b est to consider the most strik in g occurrences o f the repeated
negative together, since they generally- involve combination o f form (i)
\

w ith any o f the other forms. There are 18 instances o f t h i s , and sound52

52
 re p e titio n i s always important: sometimes i t is a p a rt of or an ticip ates
•rhyme' or fu rth e r sound-play. Cin the following examples, underlined
sy llab les are those th a t correspond between consecutive lin e s; where
• there seems to be fu rth er sound-play, the relevant words are in parenthesis.)
φ
a. A, 117f. (Tyche angrily describes Smikrines), (-εν ovtoc)
ούτε . . . /ούτε . . . Cot dev) ουδέ (των εν τωι ßtun / αιοχρων) . . .
ουδεν.
[This leads to the rhyme a t 120f.] The passage i s probably a d eliberate
an ticip atio n o f Smikrines* entry:
b. 150f. (Enter Smikrines who t e s t i l y denies Tyche's alle g a tio n s),
ουκ . . . /ουδέ . . . οΰδ* . . . /οΰδενοο.
[This leads to the rhyme a t lS 2 f.ss ]
c. 424f. (Da. quoting tragedy), οδκ . . . ουδεν . . . /ουδέ . . . .
d. P.E. 54 (So. emphatic), οωδειο] . . . συδ’ . . . ούδέ . . . . Cf.
e. £ . 169f. (Knemon angry), οΰκ . . . οΰδάμου . . . /ουδ3 cro . . . .
f. D. 384f. (Sostratos love-sm itten), . . . μη . . . (ή κόρη)/(τεθραμμευη)
μηδ3 . . . (των εν τώι βιωι)/(τούτων κακών) μηδέν . . . .
[This leads to the rhyme a t 38$f.]
g-h. 505f. (Knemon angry), ουκ . . . / ούτε . . . ούτε . . . ούθ . . . /
οι?τ . . . ουτ* ,(αλλ’ ) ουδεν, (άλλ*4) . . . .
This gives Knemon the most remarkable instance o f repeated co rrelativ e
ούτε, a ll of fiv e tim es.70
i. 724f. (The most outstanding complex of repeated negatives any­
where in Menander, i t gives also one o f the re a lly strik in g examples o f
anaphoric οΰ. The whole passage is discussed above in the context o f the
speech, p. 36f. ) ,
. . . ουκ (έωντά <τ* αυτόν) . . . /ου (βοηθηοαντά <τ* α>ϋτωι)
. . . ουδεν . . . /ου . . . , οΰ . . . (ήδέωο, εε^εωχ3 oyuc)/ . . . οΰκ
53
 . . . /ου . . . ο«δεν . . ./ουδ* »»»*
[This leads to the most strik in g instance o f rhyme in Menander a t 729f.]
For the r e s t , Γ mention only·
J. E. 508f. QIabrotonon serious and coolly lo g ic a l),
(πριν ειδεναι δέ τον άδικοΟντ') οΐ> (βούλομαι)
(ζητειν εκείνην) ούδέ (μηνυενυ έγω)
(τοιουτον) ούδεν.
Cf. k. 897f. (Char, 's rhyming lin es)
l. Pk. 537f. (M°. ’s rhyming lin es)
m. Sa. 264 (which leads to D e .'s rhyme a t 266f.)
n. 630f. (which leads to Mo.'s rhyme a t 632f.)
o -r. f r r . 267, 466, 603, 671
For the most p a rt, the assonance n atu ra lly involved in emphatic
negations is expressive simply of seriousness o r, p a rtic u la rly in the
more dramatic instances noted above, of emotion ranging from anger to
despair, and so i t occurs in passages marked by fu rth e r conscious sound-play.
But i t is co n sisten tly used to in d iv id u alise a character only in the
cases of Gorgias and Knemon. Gorgias i s seen to p re fer ούτε co rrelativ es
and to have the most strik in g example o f anaphoric ου, and th is matches
h is way of speaking: he finds h is way through a sentence by means o f
e ith e r sy n tactic balance or helpful re p e titio n s. Knemon i s seen to have
a p a rtic u la r fondness fo r the f i r s t and th ird forms o f denial and to
have many o f the most strik in g examples; no character in Menander, in
fa c t, is qu ite so fond o f negatives as Knemon, and th is may be regarded
both as a mannerism of h is speech and as a feature of what Professor
Amott c a lls h is "p redilection for ab so lu tes."7154

54
 NOTES TO PART 2

1. On th e h isto ry o f th is form o f polyptoton, see B rig itte Gygli->

Wyss, Das nominale Polyptoton in alteren Griechisch (Gottingen, 1972).
For polyptoton in tragedy and the sophists, see her p. 106f.
2. See Gygli-Wyss, p . 80f.
3. Cf. also the two instances o f έξωληο απόλοιο, Sa. 367, f r . 142.1.
4. There i s however nothing in Menander to match the remarkable
sequences o f Antiphancs 300K.
5. Also: D. 778 (αυτίκ οώτωι tout’ , ’are we to t e l l him th is now?') .
Other polyptota w ith the pronoun are A. 129, D. 210, 263 (cf. 327, in
anaphoric form), 610, 714, E. 329, 491, 626f., P.Ham. 16, 19, f r r . 36,
186.3. ’Εγω: E. 287, [Ki. 37]. Cu: D. 587.
6. See Austin ad loc. fo r p a ra lle ls .
7. Goodwin a t Dem. XVIII.1, "A slig h t extension o f the solemn
formula iraci και iracaic becomes absurdly comic," quoting A. Av. 866
COXuimoic και Όλυμιήηιοι iraci και iracrnctu).
8. D. 128 (a gnome unfortunately ignored by Pyrrhias, Getas and
Sikon in th e ir meetings with Knemon; cf. 56), Ki. 78?, f r r . 12, 77.1,
179 b , 210.2, 300.2, 538.6 f ., 603.2, 651, 661 (and cf. 181.2). In
Menander I notice no instances o f what seems to be Comedy's most codmn
form o f polyptoton, ’ico v /ian i (Alexis 58K, 230.2, Aristophon 14.3,
Sophilos 3, Xenarchos 9, Timokles 20.1).
9. On etymological paronomasia, see below.
10. Handley (on P. Oxy. 2943, 41, 1972) suggests fo r Sa. 136 λεγων
. . . Xe^eic. The d istin c tio n i s perhaps more or less a rb itra ry , but
sim ilar p attern s where th e word is repeated in d iffe re n t forms, in more
o r le s s d is tin c t clauses, have been classed with the forms o f verbal

55
 9 9 9
re p e titio n above (Part 1) — e.g . D. 46, βουλεοθε· βουληθη,τε δε.
11. πολεμειέ τον πόλεμον i s a strong p o s s ib ility a t Pk. 478, and
i t has th e a ttra c tio n o f reinforcing the probable name pun Ccf. n. 22
below), as urged by E.G. Turner, on P.Oxy. 2830 (p. 29). To the objec­
tio n o f Gonne-Sandbach ad lo c ., H. Lloyd-Jones re p lie s th a t "an audience
th a t fa ile d to n o tice such, a pun would be more Boeotian than Athenian,"
ZPE IS (1974) 211.
12. Hyperbaton emphasises etymological figure a t Sa. 292f. and in
a milder form a t A. 4 f . , £. 8 9 f., 12. 692f.
13. Also E. 433, 556 (both Habrotonon's in stan ces), 1066, Μ. A2-3,
Pk. 753, S i. 99, FMh I , PJ). I I , f r r . 552, 560.
14. Also A. 356f. , D. 365f. , Pk. 752f., f r . 623.1.
15. Esp. A. 357f. ( ι - e i, ων), D. 36Sf. (both end-ihyme and in tern a l
rhyme — 366, 367).
16. For th e strengthening o f the noun by etymological paronomasia,
c f . D. 445, E. 89S, Pk. 122f. (and with emphatic preposition before the
noun also) Sa. 292f. , f r . 630.3.
17. E.g. Alexandros περί οχημάτων (Spengel I I I , 36.13), quoting
Thucydides' μτι φρονηματι άλλο κοταφρονήματι and Demosthenes' λαγοί
κατάλογοι. For paronomasia involving otherwise unrelated words, e.g.
Zonaios (Spengel I I I , 168.29) quoting οι) την υλακήν, άλλα την φυλακήν.
For the d is tin c tio n , c f. C.A. Robinson, The Tropes and Figures o f Isaeus
(Princeton, 1901), 23f·. The most famous instance of etymological
paronomasia i s probably th a t spoken by Demosthenes in h is quibble with
P h ilip over Halonnesos, parodied by the comic poets (e.g . Anaxilas 9K,
μα την ϊή ν , μη cu γε δωιε, άλλ’ άπόδοο); see Webster, SLGC 44f.
IS. Also Ca) A. 418, D. 445f., S37f., 8 | l f . , E. 295-297, 331-334,
417f. , H. 4 2 f., Th. f r . l . I S f . , M. 316f., Pn. f r . 5 .I f . , Sa. 229-233,

56
619f, , 656, f r r . 56.2, S27, 619, 8 0 0 . (b) A. f r . 2, E. 135, 1077,
Kl. f r . 12.2, Pk. 475, 503, f r r . 291, 3Q3.
19. (a) D. 6, 294, f r r . 79.I f . , 497, 630.3. 00 Cf. Th. f r . 1.18,

f r . 336?
20. Cf. (a) D· 309-310, 818, E. 304-306, 656, 798-800, 111. 2 9 f.,
Ki. 71f. , f r r . 5S.2, 521.I f . , 566, 595.1, 595.Sf. (b) A. 3 1 f., E. 337,
Ki. f r . 1.2-4? (ου οτενειν . . . obS’ "οιμοι" λ εγειν ), 9-10, Μ. 320, [Pk.
290], Ph. 54-56, ] \£ . II 12-13, f r r . 128, 359.1. Amplification i s also
a reg u lar function in the a n tith e tic a l instances cited above in n. 18.
For a l i s t o f some instances in tragedy and comedy, see A. Katsouris,
Some o f the Influences o f Greek Tragedy -on Menander (Diss. Leeds, 1972)
763f. For th e form in Euripides, c f. W. R itchie, The A uthenticity o f
th e Rhesus (Cambridge 1964) 240, c itin g J'f. Breitenbach, Untersuchungen
zur Sprache der Euripideischen Lyrik (S tu ttg a rt, 1934) 223f.
21. Only at D. 743-744 and A. 270f., £ . 2S3f. (above) does paronom­
a s ia lead to rhyme. [Guggenheimer, cited above (PaTt 1, n. 28), p- 49,
" . . . puns (» paronomasia) never occur in sequences of repeated rhymes.” ]
Cf. Oionysios 3K 1 3 f., Timokles 18.2 f. , P h iletairo s 3.2, Epikrates 22.26f.
Philemon 136, 148, Diodoros 2 .2 6 f., f r . adesp. 1725. Cf. n. 41 below.
Paronomasia a t corresponding elements occurs at I). 274f. , 318f. , 537f. ,
Sa. 395f. , f r . 800 only.
[For re p e titio n o f (forms of) the same word a t corresponding elements
c f . A. 4 f. (the delayed etymological fig u re ), 280f. (? ); E_. 308f., 359f.
(emphasising the a n tith e s is ), 4 4 6 f., 888-890, 1083f.; Pk. 529f. ; f r . 8 .I f .
and P.Oxy. 2658, col. i i 21f . (?PerikeiTonene — c f. E.G. Turner ad loc.
and T.B.L. Webster, Class, e t Med. 9, 1973, 133f. Might the emphatic
re p e titio n o f οφόδρ3 oütoc be added to the s lig h t indications o f the

57
id e n tity 'o f the play On Polemon's ' sphodrotes, ' see W.W. Fortenbaugh,
Phoenix 28. 1974, 4 3 : / .) . R epetition o f Cforms of] the sane word a t con­
secutive lin e ends occurs a t A. 42, 442; D. 45, 169, 458, S33, 750, 802,
833, 911, 954; DJi. 59; E. 136, 139, 268, 316, 389 , 653, 927; Ki. 36, SS,
f r . 1 .4 , f r . 1.8 C°ver th ree lin e s ] ; Kol. 68; M. 288; Pk. 400, 548, 779,
824; Pn. 3; Sa. 44, 47, 113, 245, 465, 545, 612, 664; S i. 23; Ph. 38, 40
Cover th ree l i n e s ] ; P.G. I I 163; f r r . 163, 333.15, 581.15, 596, 626,
635.1, 678, 718.4.]
22. Cf. e.g . Kock's f r . adesp. 602 o r Epichaimos 68, τα Τάνταλου
τάλαντα τανταλτζετατ. Suidas: ή παροιμία παρά την ομοιότητα των ονομάτων
είρητα ΐ. Cf. D. 293, 319-320, 797, 812-814, Ε. 468f., 907, Pk. 164-165,
517, 523, 1018, Sa. 554-555, S i. 118, Ph. 85, f r r . 256.5, 395.3, 486.1-2,
507.2, 678.1-2, 680.1-2. [K atsouris, o p .c it. pp. 754-763, l i s t s the
name-puns in tragedy and comedy: Aeschylus 5 , Sophocles 3, Euripides 22,
Aristophanes 19, Menander Pn. 3, A. 230f. Add E_. 352-353, and probably
Pk. 478 (c f. n . 11 above and n. 30 below). Is i t po ssib le th a t Kock's
f r . adesp. 630, εγώ τοι πάντα ποιηοω Ocpoc, i s spoken by a p a ra site
Theron? (On the p a r a s ite 's fondness fo r word-play, see pp. 104-105 and
n o te s .)] For th e p o s s ib ility o f a pun a t Sa. 554f. (υτδουν όπτωμενον
οψοματ), see E. Keuls, ZPE 10 (1973) 14, n. 46. (One might compare
Antiphanes 177K 2-3, . . . εψσντα . . . ϋψοματ.) W.G. A rnott has some
remarks on puns in Menander in G and R 15 (1968) 15.
23. D. 221-222, 274-275, 276, 768-771, E. 2 7 8 f., [6 9 3 f.], 1089-
1093, 1108f. , Kol. 118f., Pk. 124, 501-502, Sa. 282, P.D. I 5-6, f r r .
153.4-5, 155.6, 612.10-11, 6 2 0 .4 f., 718.6-8 (c f. 380.1-3?). These are
best considered as ploke. Cf. also the instances o f etymological figure
(n. 16 above).
24. E. 878-879, 907, 1087f., 1097, 1108.

58
 25. Cited above. P art 1, n. 38.
26. E. 278f. See above, p. 15£
27. Cf. P.D. II 12-13; Pk. 165, (οΰ 4>vce\) τοιουτον όνια τούτον, a
mild pun to make the audience take note o f the φυοιο commonplace; o r
Aeschines' t r i v i a l word-play (2.21), npoc δε τουτοχο ουκ έν τοισυτοχο
ήμεν Xoyoic.
28. Daos began a t 23 in tragic-m essenger s ty le , but does Menander
also have in mind the dramatic δτατυπωειε o f the orator? Perhaps even
the most quoted example, D. XVIII.169f. (? ), which i t s e l f begins with
i t s tra g ic messenger. The sty le s are ra th e r sim ila r, and c f. w ith A. 45,
‘Εατερα μέν γαρ ημ . . . cktivwv (there w ith a d iffe re n t referen ce). Else­
where rhythm continues to be important to D a .'s dramatic delivery: 39-41
(median caesura; assonance o f ε-ω a t 4 ); 75-77 as he ta lk s b i t t e r l y o f
h is general. Rhyme has l i t t l e p a rt in the speech; assonance i s most
prominent a t 55f. (-ων . . . α-των), the second climax in the n a rra tiv e , as
Da. resumes h is διατύπω νε.
29. Cf. p. 18 above and n. 39 th ere .
30. Cf. A. Ag. 1081f. , 'Άττολλον,’'ΑτΓθλλον, Άγυχατ> άιτόλλων έμοο·
άκώλεεαο γαρ . . . ( c it . Gygli-Kyss, op. c i t . , p . 80, n . 3). See Praenkel
ad loc. fo r fu rth e r p a r a lle ls . Perhaps wrongly, he sees no etymological
pun at Pk. 1018 (cf. n. 22 above). Cf. E. 907, Ζευ cSrrep, . . . άΐιζε μ ε,
P.Ham. 9-10.
31. So. answers him, 299, wnuc ευτυχοχπο. Por the paronomasia a t
the corresponding elements o f consecutive lin e s , c f. n. 21 above.
32. fo r rhyme in tragedy, see P. Herrmanowski, Do Homeoteleutis
Quihusdara Tragicorum e t Consonantiis Repetitione Eiusdem Vocabuli ab
Aeschylo E ffectis (B erlin, 1881). His conclusion i s th a t rhyme i s
sp ec ia lly appropriate to gnomic passages (th erefo re, reg u larly concluding

59
a speech.] and to humorous .passages , macabre (as In the Bakchai) o r comic,
as in the most famous Euripidean rhyme, Aik. 782f. (the drunken Herakles),
ßpototc ctTröct κατθανειν οφείλεται,
κουκ c e rt θυη,τών octvc έξεπνοτατατ
την <ωριον ρελλουοαν ζι βτωοετατ*
το τπο τύχηο γαρ αφανεο ο\ irpoßricerai.
33. See Handley at D. 735f., with some b asic references on assonance.
On the importance of sounds (and ihythn): Dionysius o f Halicarnassus,
de Comp. Ch. 14f. (and 1 7 f.).
34. Knemon's fiv e -lin e rhyme i s also unparalleled among Menander's
contemporaries and immediate predecessors, except where there is agreement
of case endings (see n. 38, below). In Middle and New Comedy I have not
found a sim ilar instance over more than three lin e s (e.g . Antiphanes S3K
2-4), or one th at shows more than two fu rth e r corresponding elements (e.g.
Nikolaos l .I S f .) .
35. The rhyme e ffe c t i s lo s t, o f course, i f the varian t reading o f
C i s retain ed at 266, but ed ito rs are probably rig h t to accept the reading
o f B (see, e .g ., Gomme-Sandbach ad lo c .). J.-M. Jacques notes, in h is
ed itio n o f Sarnia (Introduction, p. LXXIII) th a t " lo r s q u 'il s 'a g i t . . . de
variantes v e rita b le s, B affirm e presque partout sa su p e rio rite su r C."
He c ite s as h is f i r s t example, in f a c t, lin e 266 (= 438, Jacques).
36. I t i s b e tte r to c a ll such rh e to ric a l rhyme 'hom oioteleuten.·
See Norden, Ant. Kunstpr. 832 fo r th e rh e to ric a l element in Euripides'
rhymes.
37. See It.G. A m ott, BIOS 19 (1972) 60.
38. Syntactic correspondence a t line-ends was most common in fourth
century comedy fo r asyndetic l i s t s (.that often show fu rth e r homoioteleuton)
notably in Mnesimachos 4K (1 2 f., 4 1 f., 5 2 f., 61 f . ) and (six lines)

60
Antiphanes 148.1; (fiv e) Alexis 141.9; (four) Anaxandrides 41.49;
Anaxilas 18.1. Cf. (a t penthemimeral caesura) Euboulos 15.3-9.
39. Gomme-Sandhach well compares Diphilos f r . 24K ,w ith the remark,
"How much tamer than Menander 1"
40. 'Now look here, youl' Sandbach tra n s la te s άνθρωπε-
41. For the paronomasia th a t causes th is rhyme, see n. 21 above.
For some p a ra lle ls in Sophocles and Euripides, see R. P fe iffe r, S itz b .
Bayer. Akad. 1950, Heft 6 ("Ein neues Inachos·Fragment des Soph."), p . 14£.
(On the subject of end-rhyme he c ite s Bruhn, Soph.-Anhang, 142f.). I am
g ra te fu l to Mr. A.H. G riffith s fo r th is reference.
42. E.g. see Moschion's am plification, Sa. 7-9, Gomme-Sandbach at
Sa. 617.
43. The average o f the following characters would have some 6.53
rhymes in 100 lin es (that admit rhyme), and most approximate to th is ,
but Demeas has 9.36, Daos 2.38. At the former extreme are also : C harisios,
11.76; Getas (M.), 10.25 (but adm ittedly th e ir samples are sm all); and
Moschion (S a.), 8.87. At the o ther extreme are the less emotional
Smikrines (A .), 3.94, and Gorgias (D.) , 4.13. This does n o t, however,
take in to account the nature o f the rhyme, strik in g o r otherwise.
44. For repeated cii, see p. 17f. above.
45. I am g rateful to Professor Webster fo r th is and other suggestions
on rhyme. On appeal to the emotions in the A rbitration scene, see Cohoon,
op. c i t . , passim, and c f. A risto tle , Rhet. 1356a 1 4 f., on p ath e tic proof.
46. Cf. D. 547f. and Sa. 123f.
47. Some instances of rhyme in Euripides are: (beginning a speech)
Med. 214, 1293, Ba. 178, 358, 642, 859, 1216; (ending a speech) Med. 315,
408, Ba. 356, 459, 517, 859; (three lin es) Med. 549, Ba. 32, 205, 859.
Cf. 1064, 1066, 1068.
61
 48. On Menander's use o f tra g ic m etre, see T.B.L. Webster, An
Introduction to Menander (Manchester 1974) 60£.
49. I have used Hermogenes' term very loosely. See n. 52 below.
50. L.A. P ost, remarking also on Smikrines* "rude use o f the short
indignant q u estion," observed on the opening lin e s o f the same speech
(1062-1066) th a t "rhythm th a t in d icates th a t he shakes old Sophrona as
he drags h er along," TAPhA 65 (1934) 22.
51. At P.Ant. 15 1 2 f., the correspondence (-ouca-) a t elements 8-9
perhaps suggests a rhyme a t line-ends a lso , e.g . enrAeSc (Lloyd-Jones) a t
lin e 13.
52. I have used Hermogenes' term ra th e r broadly to describe the
forms of assonance mentioned below. Hermogenes (ed. H. Rabe, S tu ttg a rt
1913) περί ευρεεεωε D 169.7: Ilopnxncxc δε e c tt κάλλος όμοιων ονομάτων
> / / 9 \ .> f
εν διαφορωι γνωοει τούτον ηχουντωυ. His, examples are more revealing
than h is remarks: e.g . Horn. Z.202,
ήτοι ο εο πεδιον το Αληιον oioc αλατο
ον θυμόν κατεδων, πάτον ανθρώπων άλεειυων.
I
All h is examples show re p e titio n of i n i t i a l vowel and consonant.
53. The remaining instances are Ki_. f r . 1 .8 f ., M. 68-70, Pk. 284-6,
Sa. 156-7, Ph. 54f. (cf. p. 12), f r . 794. The la s t a t le a s t is ce rtain ly
in te n tio n a l: th re e , possibly four ep ith ets in asyndeton w ith privative
alpha, which gives the passage a tra g ic feelin g . (The trico lo n with
p riv ativ e alpha i s p a rtic u la rly Euripidean; see G.W. Bond, Eurpides,
Hypsipyie, Oxford 1963, on Hyps, f r . 1 iv .1 7 .) The only comparable
in stances are the assonance o f Cha.'s self-reproach, E. 910, ακέραιος,
άνεπιπληκτοο, and D a.'s tra g ic quotation, A. 413 (with 409). The remain­
ing emphatic instances of-repeated p riv ativ e alpha are D. 645, E. 914,
Sa. 341, £rr. 335.4, 6, 7. Repeat of the preposition is twice used in
62
linking asyndetic co la, and in two of th e most remarkable in stan ces,
Sa. 123f. Csix c o la ), f r . 656.4f. (five cola).
54. Cf. also S o .'s re p e titio n of forms of cv/εαυτόν, 798-812,

ten times. (Cf. pp. 17 and 34f.)

55. Cf. Katsouris, op. c i t . , p. 608, "A c h a ra c te ris tic o f K allippides'
d ictio n i s the frequent use of the past p erfec t ten se, often of compound
verbs"; th ere are seven instances, fiv e with a compound verb.
56. D. 139, 220f. , 601, 926f.; M. 1S5, G. 4 4 f., f r . 39 (and again
fo r the l a t t e r , c f. Alexis 231K 4, 247.1).
57. Cf. H. 6-7 (with lin es 4, 8, 9 , 10), E. 922, perhaps 306-307.
Also Sikon's ιεροευλε cu, D. 640. Cf. D e .'s έμβλεπων έμ οί, Sa. 105, 483.
58. On Syriskos' fondness fo r paronomasia, see above, p . 33.
59. But c f. Sikon's parechesis, with repeat o f p riv a tiv e alpha, '
and fu rth e r assonance, as he proudly extols him self (D. 6 4 4 f.),
. . . υπέρ έμου δικαιακ:· ουδέ eic
μάγειρον άδικηέαο άθωιοο διεφυγεν
(ιεροπρεπής trSc έστιν ήμων η τέχνη.)
A lso 0 . 684-686.

60. Parechesis o f με- also a t £ . 585, Th* ^Γ· *·

61. Does th is sound more lik e Sikon (e.g. 494, πατέρα καν πάππαν)
than Getas? Getas elsewhere has no assonance or a llite r a tio n q u ite lik e i t .
62. Remaining instances are the following (instances involving the
a r tic le , p a r tic le s , prepositions, e tc . are fo r the most p a rt excluded;
fu rth er assonance is marked with an a s te r is k ):
(αγ) Kol. 18, f r . 243*; (αλ) A. 327, E. 260, Sa. 329*; (απ) D. 263*;
(cip) f r . 338.1*; (κα) Dl E. 106, Sa. 8 1 (f.)* , f r r . 422, 471.2, 666 (πα)
D. 733, 7 8 4 f.* , 7 9 S f.* , 8 5 6 f.* , E, 4 3 5 f.* ; (εκ) D. 336*, E. 334; (επ)

D. 528, U F a .1 -2 ; (εχ) S i. 7-8*; (δε) P.Ham. 13; (θε) D. 458-460*;

63
(με) D. 585*; Cn) £. 903f., U. 24f.*; (δει) f r . 94; (ευ) f r . 294.3f.*;
C«0 E. 255; (τ ι) E.· 488, H, 4; (wo) E. 309-310; (προ) Ki. 4 9 f., S i. 246;
0 « ) D. 9 4 7 f., Pn. f r . 4.
63. Including ού . . . ουδεπω, o0 . . . ούδάμου, μη . . . μηδειο e tc .
64. D. 169, SOSf., 507, 512f. , 725 , 734f. The point i s taken up
below. Remaining Dyskolos examples are 121 (Py.) , 385f. (S o.), 566
(Ge.), 642 (S ik .), 902 (Ge.).
65. Sa. 259, 264 (quoting 259; so the b i t t e r reference to 'th e
m is tre s s ,' 265, also looks back to 257), 271, 448, 521, 585. Remaining
Sarnia instances are 10 (Mo.), 198 (P a .), 626f. (Mo.), 631f. (Mo.), 671

(P a.).
66. A. 117, 150f. , 290f., 300, (342), 423f., G. 3, DJi. 54, D. 384f.,
470, 711, 728f. , 755, 784f., E. 290, 508f. , 897f. , Ki. f r . 1 .2 f ., Pk. 148,
302, 379f. , 537, 716f., Sa. 264, 507f. , S58f. , 631, 633, 671, S i. 81,
I7 6 f., PJ). I 28, f r r . 59.7, 208, 215.5f., 451.6, 612.6, 7 14.4f., 161,
178.I f . , 198, 295.3 f ., 410, 466, 476.I f . , 577.3.
67. A. 117f. ( T y .), D. 2 5 0 f. , 2 8 4 f. , 324 f. , 8 25f. (G o .), S 0 6 f.,

725, 743f. (Kn.), E. 720 (Sm.), M. 318 (Ge.), ΡΛ3. II (Pha.), f r r . 335.3,
581.6, 528, 603, 667.3, 671, 687.
68. A. 178, D. 329, 726, 727, t t . 58, Pk. 537f. , Sa. 473f., 510f.,
S i. 265, f r r . 208, 267, 743.1, 3.
69. I t i s also one o f the most emphatic single instances o f ου . . .
ούτε . . . (a trico lo n o f synonymous clau ses), with A. 290f. and probably
f r . 59.7 (trico lo n o f near-synonyms). Example n. Q5a. 631f.) i s also
s trik in g , since two instances follow consecutively.
70. The others are D. 743f. (again Knemon) and f r . 671.
71. G and R 17 (1970) 56.

64
Tpöc θεών X«.- U..H 1 x C _ u _ u ' Χι~ u - ι
ι ι ·
vpoc των θεών L» « U
_. ( * U ~ ' X - U -»
^ % / 5 It
μα touc θεουε .X - Μ ~ X - Μ ~t
* . / 1 Sa. 283 *
νη touc θεουε [X ·* U ~ i * X - U - »1 X -> U - f
1 It
Γ feel th a t here and in other in s ta n te s , the p re ferred p o sitio n s are
s u ffic ie n tly apparent fo r us to be able to say th a t when an exaaple goes
against a tre n d , there is lik e ly to be a good reason f o r t h i s . In the
ease o f th e o ath la st eonsidered, only one oath obviously stands a p a rt,
at Sa. 283, where the p o sitio n o f th e oath and re s u ltin g lack of caesura
serve to exaggerate Parmenon's angry and emphatic hyperbaton:
μάγειρ>, εγώ, μα τουε θεουε, συκ οΤδά ευ
έφ’ ο τι μαχαιραε χεριφερειε.*·
The Twelve Gods
Men: Oaths

Senes 1
Lenones 1 (Total * 2]
The oath occurs only fiv e tin e s in extant Greek l i t e r a t u r e , once in
Aristophanes, twice in Menander, once in a possibly Menandrian fragment
(Page, CLP 70 8 ), once in Alkiphron in a passage connected w ith Menander.
Vright was su rely correct in assuming that i t was probably c h a ra c te ristic
o f Menander (or his age). All examples are spoken by men, but a ll th a t
can be s a id i s that i t is a ra re and probably a solemn o a th , reserved
fo r n egative statem ents.
Athena
Men: Oaths
Senes 4
M ilites 2

72
Mm; Oaths

Adulescentes 4
P a ra s itt 1
In c e rti 1 [Total ■12]
Wright t e l l s us th at in Menander, as elsewhere, only- men swear by
Athena, and th a t she i s g e n e ra lly sworn by in Menander as th e goddess o f
knowledge/wisdom/truth. The new Menander bears th is o u t. But i t secns

th a t in a l l .'lenandrlan contexts i t i s the notion o f 'tru th * th a t i s

s p e c ia lly re lev an t (tra n sla te th e o a th , then, as 't r u l y ') . A rnett17
sees th e o a th a t A. 317 as s p e c ia lly appropriate, an invocation to
Athena as goddess of wisdon, b u t t h i s nay sake sense only h e r e .1* There
are now two possible exanples where th e reference o f th e o a th extends
also to A thena's function as p ro te c tre s s of Athens: Sa. 213, Deaeas
p a tr io tic (? c f . lO lf., 32S), and S i. 116, Stratophanes o r sonecne con­
cerned fo r Stratophanes' c itiz e n s h ip (cf. 144). Goane-Sandbach would
r e s t r i c t th e p rayer/exclanation, deciroiv* Άβηυα to Athenian citizen s
(note to Kol. 23, so excluding Oaos and Doris; Doris i s fu r th e r excluded
as a woaan); t h i s nay be tru e o f th e Athena oath g en e rally (see n. 17:
i f one coapares the other oaths f o r «Aich a conparable number i s preserved,
then i t does seen doubly rem arkable, even fo r Menander alone th a t not one
in stan ce o f t h i s oath i s spoken by a slav e), so th a t B ias, f o r example,
in the Kolax, should be an A thenian. In the Sikyonios exanples, of course,
i t is th e dram atic situ atio n t h a t req u ires the invocation o f Athena, and
utteran ce o f h er nane may t e l l us nothing about the s ta tu s o f the speaker.
The form o f th e oath, in vpbc tn c ’ADnvSc, is again h e lp fu l: Körte f r .
127.1-2 should now be punctuated as a question (above, p . 6 8 ); so Kock,
c itin g T er. Ucaut. 61. >

73
 Apollo
Hen: Oaths
Senes 9
• Scrvi 11
H illte s 2
Adulesccntes 4

Coqul 3
P a ra sit1 1

In c e rtl 2 [Total ■32]

The newer exaaples confirm th a t the oath — never spoken by a wonan

— νη/μα τον'Απόλλω, is no nore than emphatic exclamation 't r u l y ' (for

Apollo as th e god of tru th , c f. e sp e c ia lly D. 151-152). T his o f course
explains i t s frequent use by sla v e s. Half the instances a re in answer to
a question. The oath is almost always placed so th a t th e l in e reaains to
be conpleted by a c re tic : τσυτονί, in reference to the g o d 's a l t a r on
s ta g e ,1* o r και θεουο (also μ α ίνετα ι, τα ΰτά γε): 13 tim es, assuring lo ck 's
lin e d iv isio n fo r Körte f r . 801. The one exception occurs a t Sa. 455 (at
1 o f a tro ch aic tetram eter), where one notices the d is jo in te d syntax of
454- 456, emphasised by coincidence o f word-group and metron beginning,
455- 459.**
In Epitrepontes Onesimos alone swears vn τονΆπόλλω (in fa c t, he
has th ree o f th e five Menandrian occurrences). The chances t h a t th is
night be a favourite oath are perhaps remote, but i f we look a t the nine
instances o f th e Apollo oath a ttr ib u te d to old men, fiv e (o r four?) belong
to Deaeas o f Sarnia. The dubious example occurs in the famous entrance
scene o f Demeas and Nikeratos. The papyrus a ttrib u te s th e opening ten
lin es to Demeas, but Professor Sandbach noticed th at th e c u r t, clipped

74
phrasing o f 9 8 f. re ally does sound more like Nikeratos than Dcmcas (see
below, p . 119). I t is good to see th e lines given to N ikeratos in OCT,
but I an a ls o g re atly a ttra c te d to th e idea o f re ta in in g th e homecoming
address to Apollo for Demeas. Apollo w ill be o f great importance to him
l a t e r , h is so lo a lly almost, when a l l others have deserted him. *Απολλσν,
μονομαχηοω τημερον night almost serve as his motto: he invokes him in
oath four tim es (4SS, S67, 570, 596), and twice he d ir e c tly c a lls on him
fo r support (444, 474). One n ig h t re a d ily accept P rofessor Sandbach's

a ttr ib u tio n in OCT but then assuae th a t Demeas breaks in w ith *Χνολλον,
. . . . a t 1 0 0 f.21
Asklepios
Men Oaths
Senes 1
S ervi 2
Adulescentes 1
In c e rti 1 [Total »5]
The oath always indicates d e n ia l. The im plication o f healing is
perhaps re le v a n t: metaphorically a t D. 160, 666, while fo r th e slaves
a t Pk. 336 and Sa. 310, the reference would be to the b e a tin g s they expect
to re ceiv e.
Aphrodite
Women: Oaths
Her e tr ic e s 1
A nclllae 1 [Total ■ 2]
The new Menander gives no new examples. The connection w ith love i s
evident in b oth instances which are sta te d by women (one appropriately a
h e t a i r a ) .22 Wright: usually the o a th is re stric te d to women.

75
Ge
Men: Oaths

Senes 2
Coqui 1 [Total » 3]
Only one new instance has appeared since W right's stu d y , and there i s
s t i l l no example o f a woman ever using the oath. I t i s one o f the ra re r
oaths, and nay have been f e l t to be ra th e r pompous,* 1 a fe e lin g which
would s u i t th e speakers Sikon and Dcmeas (in Sania) and so perhaps Laches
o f Pabula I n c e r ta , who also swears by llestia. Wilaaowitz (c ite d above,
a . 1) thought h e r relevant as " a supreme witness over a l l in d iv id u a ls,
lik e th e s u n ."
Demeter
Men: Oaths Women: Oaths

Servi 1 M eretrices 1
Adulcscentes 2 [Total - 1]
Miles 1
[Total - 4]
As Gomme-Sandbach note (a t E. 855), '*nen and women a l i k e swear by
Demeter, b u t women always add th e e p ith e t φίλην."1' W right: no extant
exaople o f use o f the oath by a free-born Athenian lady. But th is nay
sinply be p a r t o f a tren d , in t h a t respectable women in Menander avoid
such expressions o f emotion, as w ill be noticed in the ca se o f the next
oath too.
The Twin Goddesses
Women: Oaths
Anus 3
Ancillae 1

76
Venen: Oaths
M etetrlces 1

Incertae 1 [To*·1 “ 6]
The well-known fact o f t h i s o a th being lim ited to women (e.g. Schol.
to Ar. E. 1SS) i s of some use in u n certain passages (M. 176, S i. 33). It
is used tw ice by Philinna (G.) and i s appropriate to h e r emotional s ty le ,
aid by someone presumably lik e h e r in M. 176, by the em otional Simlche
and by a h e t a i r a , so th a t a t £i_. 33 i t would a t le a s t be appropriate to
Kalthake. The oath μαΛ>Π τω θεώ i s placed in the follow ing p o sitio n s:

r ------ *----1
. X - u - 11 X - ,u - 1 X ->U -
1 2
This seems odd i f one compares th e positioning o f p a /^ l tcwc θεουε,
e sp e cially sin ce i t occurs tw ice a t 7 , where one le a s t expects i t . This

may be pure chance or perhaps wonen are simply in c o n siste n t over such d e ta ils .

Dionysos
Men: Oaths
Senes 1
Servi 1
Adulescentes 3
Coqul 1 [Total *6]
Wright (who had only Sa. 309, 668): the oath — n ever spoken by
women — r e f e r s in Menander to Dionysos as 's a v io u r ,' Moschion (of Sarnia)
perhaps appealing to him as p atro n o f the a r ts a lso , t o loosen his tongue.
Dionysos nay also be thought o f as 'sa v io u r' a t A. 347 and Sa. 139, but
the n o tio n s u its well only the context o f Sa. 309. I t i s always an
emphatic o a th , but otherwise i t i s perhaps risk y to sp e c u la te over i t s
exact sig n ific a n c e in Menander: perhaps the idea o f Dionysos as patron o f
the th e a tr e might f i t , so th a t a l l the speakers o f th e o a th might be

77
appealing to th e audience in using i t . At Sa. 309f. th e sequence would
then be: appeal to the god o f th e th e a tr e , appeal to A pollo, then appeal

to Zeus p re s e rv e r (and in case th e se f a i l , to Asklepios as h e a le r).

E itrea a ttr a c tiv e ly sees a referen ce to Dionysos as vine-god a t 639,

taking th e o ath closely with ε κ ν ιθ ι το Φρέαρ' eiarccwv.** What I do not

understand i s why (or i f ) Dionysos i s f e l t to be s p e c ia lly appropriate to
Santa, where fo u r of the six in sta n c e s occur.
Zeus
The o ath by Zeus a f te r th a t by th e gods gen erally i s th e aost popular
in Menander.
Men: Oaths «fernen: Oaths

Senes 19 Anns 1
Servl 23 Katronae 1
H ilite s 2 M eretrices 1
Adulescentes 23 [Total - 3]
Cogui 2
P arasit! 4 Sex uncertain 7
Nantae 1
Vulrus 1
'N u itiu s' 4
In c erti 3
[Total - 79]
N rig h t: th e oaths utyvh (τον) Ala are always c o lo u rle ss and weak, as
shown by the reg u lar omission o f th e a r tic le (Gorgias o f Dyskolos always
omits th e a r t i c l e ) ; they are solenn only when strengthened b y a t i t l e ;
they are used by both sexes and a l l classes without d i s tin c tio n ; they are
always conservative. There i s r e a l l y l i t t l e to add to th e se statea en ts.
Examples as they now stand do show a remarkable c o n tra st in ntmbers o f men

78
and Konen who use the oath. In fa c t Menander's women have no certain
examples. The (probably Menandrian) lady of P.D. I exclaims Ζευ φνλ’;
\ \ \ /
but i f we look a t the oath proper» μα/vri (τον) Δια, i t may w ell be th a t
Paos i s s ta r tin g up in G. 34 (c f. 63)» and even a t Pk. 7S7» C lykera's
\ / ££
v]n Δια i s not completely c e rta in .
The o a th i s a strong one where an ep ith et i s added to th e god's
name» as in f r . 333.13, μα τον Δ. τον ^Ολυμπον» in the co n tex t o f Laches'
elevated speech, spoken for the most p a r t in tra g ic m etre. He i s only
invoked in a sp e c ific role when addressed Curnp, as in th e two instances
th a t emphasise the role through a m ild etymological p u t, P.Ham. 9*10,

E. 907.17 (At £ . 3S9 the reference i s as vague as 'God h elp me' may be
in E n g lish .) Perhaps th is is th e reference too o f 'Zeus father* at D_.
191 where he i s invoked with Phoibos Paian and the Dioskouroi (sc. as
h e lp e rs ).* '
Helios
Hen: Oaths
Senes 2
Servi 4

Adulescentes 3
P a ra s iti 2
In c e rtl 1 (Total *12]
V right: H elios — whose o ath i s not re s tric te d elsew here to sex or
class — i s sworn by as the god who sees a l l , from whom nothing can be
concealed. The notion su its very n ic e ly the new examples, M. 2SS, S i.
273. For E. S25 (fright saw him as re lev an t in being th e god who w ill
bring the m ystery to lig h t, and t h i s would work fo r S i. 117. (Translate
the oath as 't r u l y . ') This would explain why the oath occurs in the
form vrt τον ‘Ή ., ομνύω τον ‘Η., ομνυμί co\ τ&ν *'Η. Perhaps lik e the

79
oath by E a rth , th is is meant as one o f the more im pressive oaths; i f so,

i t i s ap p ro p riate to a l l who use i t : Daos o f Aspis (tw ic e ), Onesimos,

the p a r a s ite s Gnathon and Thcron, Getas of Hisounenos, Demeas o f Sarnia
Ctwico).1*
Herakles
Men: Oaths
Senes 9

S e rrl 10
Adulescentes S
Cogu l 3

P a r a s itl 1 [Total »28]

The n atu re of the god i s im portant here, I f e e l, not th e nature o f
th e sp eaker, except th a t the speaker oust be male. The reference o f the
oath (perhaps tra n s la te 'o u tra g e o u s') is always to some a c t o f violence,
re a l o r metaphorical (e .g . to S o s tra to s ' lack o f t a c t in sending h is
slav e t o Knemon at D. 74, o r Sm ikrines' apiracpa — whatever th is la s t
nay be ~ a t E. 1082): so in th e Sarnia, for in stan ce, we have a nice
sequence as we see the cook (360), Nikeratos (405, 408) and Moschion
(435) su ccessiv ely voicing t h e i r puzzlement a t Demeas* v io le n t behaviour.
The referen ce to violence perhaps suggests something f o r uncertain
passages. A. 528 should be someone (perhaps m istakenly) upbraiding Daos
fo r h is m achinations. H. 44 would be most appropriate to Laches,
e s p e c ia lly i f we accept P rofessor Webster's idea o f an expulsion scene
h ere, s i a d l a r to the expulsion o f C h ry sis.’* At Sa. 178, Demeas blames
N ikeratos fo r the delay (le ss probably Nikeratos is indignant over Deneas*
h aste o v er th e marriage p re p ara tio n s)? The conjecture ‘ HpaicAcic would
s u it b o th th e cook and the context a t Sa. 384.11

80
Hephaistos

Men: Oaths
Senes 3 [Total - 3]
There i s l i t t l e to say except th a t the oath is more than a strong
assev erativ e in Menander; at Sa. 5S2, Wright thought him sp e c ia lly
relevant as a patron god o f Athens, and i f th is is t r u e , i t would s u it
a l l the speakers, Demeas, K allippidcs and Kichesias.
Poseidon

Men: Oaths
Senes 4
Send 1
Adulescentes 1
Coqui 2 [Total - 8]
Wright: the oath expresses su rp rise , i t i s used on ly by men and
e sp e c ia lly by old men. This remains true fo r Menander: o f the eight
examples, four are spoken by old men, and three by men who are ce rtain ly
not thought o f as young (the cooks, D. and S a ., and G e ta s, D .); the
remaining ch aracter i s Gorgfas, an old young man in h i s ways.
Others
Remaining individual oaths may be considered b r i e f ly . We have
noticed th a t many of the above oaths tend to re fe r to a god in a special
ro le , so th a t the chances are th a t th is may be s p e c ia lly tr u e of the
less common o a th s .*5 Dysholos gives us one example o f th e oath by Artemis
a t 874, which could perhaps be appropriate to Simiche as a country woman
(P hilinna po ssibly invokes h er a t £ . 113). Perhaps Simiche is also
motivated by the hope th at the m arriage may be f r u i t f u l . (For Artemis
as goddess o f ch ild b irth , c f. f r . 35 with K orte's re fe re n c e s th e re .1*)

81
I t i s d i f f i c u l t to see the sig n ific a n c e of the oath by Ouranos at 0.
629 (c f. P.A nt. 15 2), but i t s extravagance is presumably intended to
seem ap p ro p riate to Sikon, ju s t as ω daiuovec at A. 399 i s meant to be
ia p re ssiv e and appropriate to the paidagogos, in intro d u cin g h is para-
tra g ic p ra y e r. The oath by H estia i s spoken in something o f a tragic
context by the lady of P.D. I (39), appropriately enough as goddess of
the h e a rth th a t she does not wish to leave; by Laches, newly returned
home in Fabula Incerta 64; and perhaps she i s s p e c ia lly appropriate at
I.A .P . a 11, as addressed to a cook w ith s a c r if ic ia l d u tie s . ** Like an

endangered mariner, Sostratos in h is m ultiple oath a t D_. 191 calls on the Dios-
j as helpers to save him from h is lo v e's beauty. ** S ostratos' fond­
ness fo r oaths was noted above, and th is la s t sequence, l i k e th at o f D.
666f. , g iv es him two o f the most remarkable sequences a ls o ; the others
belong to Demeas and Pataikos in th e memorable invocations o f Sa. 309f.
and 3 2 5 f., and the instances serve to distinguish a l l th re e individuals
as h ig h ly emotional characters. **

82
 NOTES TO PART 3

1. For f u ll references, see Appendix II below. Oaths o f course

fo n t one o f th e s ty lis tic c r i t e r i a in Professor Sandbach's Hardt paper.
They are now covered more fu lly by Professor Kebster, who aakes then the
s ta rtin g p o in t of his treatm ent o f s t y l is t i c c h a ra c te risa tio n (cited
above in P art 2, n. 48). The J u s tif ic a tio n of ay own comments is th at
they nay provide a support and addendum to those s tu d ie s . S. E itrea,
in h is in te re stin g discussion o f the Dyskolos oaths (Symbolae Osloenses
35, 1959, 134f.) reminds us o f N ilanow itz's concent (Pas Schiedsgericht,
p . 6 8 ), "je d e neue Beteuerung v e rla n g t an sich oder an d e r einzelnen
S te lle E rklärung." See also n o te 6 below. [For appeals to witnesses
o th er than th e gods, c f. J . Rea in ZPE 16 (1975) 129 (and f o r less formal
p a r a l l e l s , L. Koenen, ib id . 134, c itin g Austin a t Sa. 5 7 6 ).)
2. See F. Stoessl, Henander, Dyskolos (Paderborn 1965), notes a t
D. 177-178 and passin; oaths ch a ra c te rise his 'h e lp le s s n e s s .' At 689-
690, "Wie so o f t, bei S o strato s, au ssert sich seine in n ere Bewegung auch
h ie r durch ein e Gotteranrufung." [Cf. his Personenwechsel in Menanders
Dyskolos (S itz . Österreich. Akad. , p h il. h ist.-K la sse , 234, 5 , 1960) 29.]
He probably goes too fa r (at 666) in attrib u tin g th is to th e young nan's
'p i e t y ' — in fact Sostratos h im self finds h is m other's s a c rific e s t i r e ­
some, 260f. (On the s e lf-c h a ra c te risa tio n in these rem arks, c f. W.G.
A rnott, Phoenix 18, 1964, 113.) But his large number o f oath s renains
rem arkable, and Stoessl makes th e fu rth e r nice observation th a t Sostratos
i s t r u l y h is mother's son. This i s perhaps not wholly irre le v a n t.
3. D. 6 9 0 f., the genitive o f exclamation (έκτόπου - 'wondrous,'
'rem ark ab le,' rather than 's tra n g e '? ) I take as a re fere n ce nost of
a l l to th e beauty of Knemon's daughter (as well as to th e s ig h t of

83
Knemon, however he is brought onto th e stage). I t i s su re ly the

daughter, r a th e r than the f a th e r , even in th is scene Ccf· 701-7021),

who o o st preoccupies S o strato s. I take the e p ith e t, Οωτηρ, to be a
referen ce to th e g i r l 's beauty h e re . Just as in Act 1 we saw Sostratos
invoke Zeus, Apollo, the D ioskouroi, to save hin fron th e g i r l 's κάλλοο
j/
αμαχον. S o stra to s voices stro n g emotion with the oath store than any

o th er c h a ra c te r in Menander, and t h i s and h is "constant and re p e titiv e

q u a lify in g o f h is renarks" (Handley; see p. 101 below) are perhaps the
two key elem ents o f h is s ty le .
4. There is l i t t l e to add to what the coanentators say on the iambic
te tra m e te r scene. I t is adm ittedly bizarre and somewhat old-fashioned,
in i t s n o isy a c tiv ity , in i t s a c tio n to flu te accompaniment, and in i t s
m etre. But I have wondered i f two additional minor p o in ts are relevant:
(1) Is Getas* c a ll to 'Sikon* o ffsta g e an amusing rem iniscence o f the
su m m in g o f tho satyrs in S a ty r P lay and the succeeding scene a rem inis­
cence o f th e boisterous a c tiv ity o f Satyr Play? (2) Is th e name, 'S ik o n ,'
merely ano th er element in the fantasy? Should the Dyskolos cook be named
a t a ll? Assuming th at 'Sikon* i s merely archetypal cook (see Handley a t
M 9 ), does th e summons 'Come, S ik o n ,' mean no more th a n , 'Appear, Master
Cook'? At any r a te , i t i s p o ssib le th at the Poseidon o ath i s appropriate
to th e old-fashioned nature o f the scene (see below on th e Poseidon o ath ).
For something sim ilar, c f. lie b ste r, SLCC 66, on the name 'G laukias' in
A lexis 124K, where he tra n s la te s lin e 13 'w ell cured, H ippocrates.'
5. Gonae-Sandbach ad lo c . But cf. the remarks on a ttrib u tio n a t
t h e i r p . 41 and especially J.C .B . Lowe's paper in BICS 9 (1962) 2 7 f.,
quoted th e re in n. 1.
6. F. Warren Wright, S tudies in Menander (D iss. Princeton 1910)
1-SS. C f. more recently: (on the vocative exclam ations) W. Dittmar

84
 (cited in P a rt 1 , n. 2) 17f. and (on o ath s, with μά/νη o r a verb) J.

Wertes (c ite d in Part 1, n. 5 ).

7. Wright quotes Porson a t E. Med. 325, who clained t h a t the

a r tic le h ere was always omitted in tragedy.

/
8. See above, on anaphoric τ ι , p . 7.
9. For th e reverse tr a n s itio n c f . D. 45Sf. or P.Ant. 15 4 (άφ·* fjc

γεγαμηκα vuktoc —ώ δεαιοινα Νύζ).

10. The f i r s t convincing s o lu tio n to A. 319 i s given by J.C.B. Lowe,
BICS 20 (1973) 95, "[319] is here le s s appropriate to Davus than to
O u i r e s tr a t u s , who seems to be saying something lik e 'f o r heaven's sake,
i f any remedy fo r th is s itu a tio n has occurred to you, t e l l u s . " ' On
Pk. 751-753, see now J . Rea, ZPE 16 (1975) 131f. , "one might hazard a
guess th a t Pataecus continued h is appeal with an im perative lik e
νείο]θητω ."
11. For something sim ila r, c f . P art 4, p, 97 (and n . 17), 112.
12. Goeae-Sandbach c ite N ik o strato s, f r . 5JC; the o ath i s not a weak
one, and th e whole phrase — 2 Γη και θ εο ί, ταριχοπωλου νάνυ καλού τε
κάγαθοΟ — should probably be construed in p aren th esis, as a sin g le
exclam ation.
13. R. Kauer, »’jen er Stud. 26 (1904) 205, Capps and o th e rs suggest
giving th e lin e to Moschion (c f. a sim ila r situ a tio n a t T er. Heaut. 1061,
rufaane illa m v lrg in ea / c a esiaa, sp arse ore? non possum, p a te r ) . Webster
2
(Studies in Menander , Manchester 1960, 16, n. 1) and Gomae-Sandbach
object th a t Moschion has not been announced on stage and suggest Polemon
and P ataik o s. But i f the exclamation refers to something already said on
stage (and adm ittedly, i t may n o t) , then i t can only be spoken by Moschion.

85
 14. Ph. 6 also nay p o ssib ly be spoken by a woman, P heidias' step -

n o th e r, and th e supplicatory tone i s ce rtain ly ap p ro p riate to one deeply

concerned f o r h in . I t is good to have lines 26f. as th e opening scene
(E.C. T u rn e r, CRBS 10, 1969, 3 1 1 f.), but i t would be a t t r a c t iv e to see
th e a d v is e r a t lines I f . as th e paidagogos s t i l l , although a divine

prologue n ig h t conceivably, f o r conic e ffe c t, swear by th e gods.

15. Sc. p o s s ib ilitie s th a t allow for the ao st blam eless metre and
do n o t to o g re a tly r e s tr ic t th e choice of preceding and following words.
This i s n o t a subject I wish to tak e up in d e ta il. J.C .B . Lowe has a
good exam ination of the p o sitio n o f the oath in a sentence in Hermes 93
(1967) 6S f. J.G . G rif fith , in C& N.S. 18 (1968) 9, n o te s th a t phrases
lik e (S i νόνηρε cu always end a trim e te r (but the shape and fin a l short
open vowel make i t d if f ic u lt to p lace i t elsewhere in a trim e te r). Oaths
th a t always end the lin e in Menander are: ω νολυτίμητοι θεοί (e ig h t),
w φ ίλο ι θ . , ω Γη και θ. (? ), μα τ . δώδεκα θ. (two; c f . Handley, Dyskolos
p. 6 8 ), (o n ly three o f the fiv e cases o f ω θ ε ο ί), th e fo u r Asklepios
o a th s, (te n o f the twelve oath s by H elios). The two o ath s by Aphrodite
and th e fo u r by Demeter begin th e lin e .
16. In the iambic te tra m e te r scene o f Dvskolos. we have an amusing
rhythm as word-groups f a ll w ith in metra and two oaths emphasise isocolon
a t 0. 908, (S ik .) και μη ψόφει, irpoc των θεάΚι. (Ge.) αλλ' ου ψοφώ, μα ιην
Γην. There a re only two in stan ce s o f ’'λκολλσν και θεοί (E. 396 and P.Hib.
8 ), b u t b o th occur at 3 ra th e r than a t 7 where they would end the lin e
(c f. p reced in g note and esp. μα to u c δώδεκα θεούε — e s s e n tia lly the sane
p a tte r n ) . A p a r tia l explanation in both cases nay be th e following
exclam atory g en itiv e, which may perhaps be taken c lo s e ly w ith the oath
as a s in g le phrase.

86
 17. Gnomon 42 C1970) 2 1 . Ho would give the oath to D a o s, b u t as
Go—e-Sandbach· p oint out, i t nay be unparalleled fo r a sla v e to swear by
Athena (a Phrygian slave a t th a t! } . Sandbach docs n o te, however (addenda

p . 742) PS1 1175 (6ctXo]c e i , vh τ η ν 'A ., fieiXoc ε ι , lin e 8 ) , which nay,

o r may n o t, be spoken by one slav e to another, and Philemon, f r . 79.3K,
spoken by a cook. In the former, the speaker's id e n tity i s uncertain,

while in th e l a t t e r there is nothing t o indicate th a t th e cook i s not an

Athenian c i t i z e n , lik e the cook in A lex is' Lebes (Athenaeus XIV 661d,
wokvntc t i c owe im vnc. Cf. a lso Athenaeus' testimony t h a t in Conedy,
slave cooks are found only in P oseidippos). At any r a t e , i t i s likely
th a t the oath by Athena i s more o r le s s re stric te d to Athenian citizen s
in A ttic Comedy, and th is cannot be disproved from the m ajor Comic te x ts :
th e most u n certain instance, perhaps, occurs in th e anonymous papyrus.
Page CLP 63, lin e 26, which belongs to a young nan who should not be a
n ativ e o f th e town where the a c tio n tak es place (Wehster, SLGC 172), and
who nay w e ll, w ith his helper Demeas, be an Athenian.
18. In th e New Comic fragm ents, th e notion seems to f i t only Philemon
f r . 79.3K, where the cook extols h is a r t .
19. See f o r example Gönne-Sandbach a t D. 6S9.
20. In iambics >(Αιτολλον occurs only a t 3 (nine ti n e s ) and 1 (four
tim es); in t roch ales only a t 6 (th re e tim es).
21. At 474, where Demeas f e e ls doubly betrayed, he addresses Apollo
as 'L o x ia s .' For the homecoming address to Apollo, c f . P.Oxy. 2825 (38,
1972) fir. c . The suggestion th a t 'A pollo' might be a fa v o u rite phrase
o f Demeas was made by the reviewer o f Wright in JHS 31 (1911) 329, who
also noticed Habrotonon's fondness fo r ταλαν and invocation o f the gods,
22. In Alkiphron, 'by A phrodite' is the h e t a i r a 's stan d ard oath
(X 36.3, 39.4, i i 1.1, 1.3, 2 .2 , 2 .6 , f r . 4, f r . 5 .2 , and th e re are

87
also the p ra y e rs, i 32.1, fr . 6.S ; in f r . 6.7, 17, however, th e oath

is 'by Z eus.'
23. See K ebster, SLGC 44f. (on Demosthenes parodied fo r h is use

of the o a th ).
24. Menandrian usage does n o t support the claim o f S to e ssl (in h is
coosentary, c ite d above, n. 2) th a t G etas' instance a t D. S70 i s to be
taken c lo s e ly w ith γύναια and th a t "verächtlich HelberstImme nachahnte.''
25. S. E ltre a (cited above in n. 1 ), p. 13S. For th e o a th in
reference to Dionysos as wine-god, c f . Xenarchos 9K. There i s l i t t l e to
remark on th e positioning of the o ath : i t occurs three tim es a t 1 (includ­
ing Sa. 668, where the th rice -reso lv ed lin e , introduced by ο μα τον Δ .,
seems to mark Moschion's a g ita tio n ); twice at 3; once a t S (D. 639, no
caesura).
26. Glykera nay also have an example in P.Oxy. 2658. On the possi­

b i l it y th a t th e papyrus i s P erikeironene, see T.B.L. K ebster, Acta

C lassic· e t Mediaevalia 9 (1973) 133f.
27. See above. Part 2, n. 30 (and 22).
28. There i s l i t t l e in the way o f n e tric a l e f fe c ts th a t a rise s
from the p o sitio n in g of the oath, μά τόν Δια occurs m ostly a t 9 (seven
tim es); when i t occurs at 7, in A. 37S, μά is the second sh o rt o f a
resolved s h o rt, as Chaireas, in a c u rt reply, almost snatches the line
away from Daos. μά Δία always allow s blameless m etre, except a t D. 85,
where the e lid e d oath and nedian caesura seem to suggest an in te rru p tio n ,
v. t. Δ. occurs mostly a t 1 (nine tim es); v. Δ. mostly a t 10 (nine tim es,
ending th e lin e ) and 6 (ten t in e s ) . A ll eight in stances o f th e expanded
oath, μα/νη τον Δια τάν . . . occur a t 1, but Currnpa i s once e lid e d , allow­
ing a t E. 359 th e median caesura th a t in both 359 and 360 emphasises

Daos' angry, staccato phrasing.

88
 29. A ll but two o f the o ath s end the lin o . Sa. 323 and S i . 273
begin a t 4 , so th at the lin e lack s a caesura, which perhaps enphasises

the anger o f th e speakers.

30. Webster (cited above, n . 13), p. 33; c f. however JHS 93 (1973)
196. Goaane-Sandbach (p. 394) o b je c t th a t such a scene i s hard to reconcile
with S γ υ ν α ι, ύ Μυρρίνη; but one can compare Dcneas' r e p e titio n of Chrysis*
name as he expels her in Sania 378f.
31. ‘HpcncXeic ends the lin e e ig h t tin e s, ώ ‘Ηράκλειο th re e tin es.
The l a t t e r begins the lin e e ig h t t i n e s . None o f the lin e s i s a t a ll
unusual in n e tre except fl. 43S (w ith median caesura) where th e oath is
re sto red .
32. Cf. Sud. s. ναι μα τον· . . . o‘t αρχαίοι ου wposerwe κατά των
θεών άμνυον, άλλα κατα των νροστυγχανόντων, in c itin g f r . 801.
33. The significance o f th e o a th in Kock's f r . adesp. 421, εγώ μεν
HpicTHca, vr) την "λρτεμιν, μάλ’ rjdcuc i s d if f ic u lt to determ ine i f the oath
belongs to th e opening scene o f CuvapicrtScai, as T h ie rfe ld e r a ttra c tiv e ly
suggests (S t. Urbinatl 35, 1961, 1 1 3 f.).
34. For Hestia invoked a t th e beginning o f a s a c r i f i c e , Schol.
At . At . 864.
35. One can conpare Ar. Ek. 1069, where the young nan c a lls on
Herakles, Pans and Korybantes, and f in a lly the Dioskouroi to protect
h in fron th e ugliness of the th ir d hag.
36. The passages were d iscu ssed above, p. 6 f. end n . 13 there.
Straus c ite d th ere refers to sone discussions of the tr a g ic nature of
Denea s ' o ath . Incidentally, fo r tr a g ic p a ra lle ls fo r the apostrophe to
n atu re , one n ig h t note the l i s t s o f A.P. Nagener in TAPhA 6 (1931) 81f.
and 96f. Perhaps the most anusing o f a ll the sequences o f oath in

89
Greek drana belongs to Silenos in H. Kyhl. 262f., who swears 'by
Poseidon, by g reat Triton and Nereus, by Kalypso and the daughters of
Nereus, by the holy waves — and a l l the fishes in the s e a .'

90
 PART 4: SURVEY OF STYLISTIC CHARACTERI SATI ON

Some o f the main s t y l i s t i c devices employed by Menander in portraying

eootion have been discussed above, and th is has enabled us to demonstrate

also p o in ts o f s t y lis tic c h a ra c te risa tio n . I hope merely th a t these
stu d ie s provide some understanding o f some of the s p e c ific s o f Menander's
s t y l i s t i c technique, and th at th e following w ill be taken as something of
a conclusion to the foregoing and as an i n i t i a l , te n ta tiv e attempt at a
■ore general survey.1* I sh a ll attem pt to look b rie fly a t th e styles of
some o f Menander's characters, those who show what are arguably individual­
is in g s t y l i s t i c features. Some reference back [p a rtic u la rly in the cases
o f Gorgias and Sostratos of Dyskolos and Deraeas o f Sarnia) to what has been
s a id above w ill be necessary, to draw together some o f the strands o f
e a r l i e r arguments. I shall deal only with what have seened to me to be
th e most obvious features o f s t y l i s t i c c h a ra c te risa tio n , in the plays Aspis,
Georgos. P is Exapaton, Dyskolos. E pitrenontes, Misour.enos, Perikeironene
and Sarnia. Professor Sandbach's Hardt paper must be th e s ta rtin g point fo r
any discu ssio n o f Menander's s t y l e , and ad d itio n ally we now have the
im portant study in Professor h eb st e r 's Introduction to Menander, 99ff. * In
th e comments below I have avoided th e d if f ic u lt area o f study of language.*

Aspis
In s p ite o f h is large speaking p a rt (roughly th e sane as that o f So.,
D ., and exceeded only by De., S a .) , DAOS did not fig u re prominently in the
discussion o f principal emotional elements of s ty le : he does not use
anaphora o r related figures o r to any great ex ten t, rhyme o r the oath.
I t is in te re stin g to observe, th en , in Daos' p art some o f the other

•Notes to P art 4 begin on p. 120.

91
s t y l i s t i c elem ents that Menander m ay bring to the fore·
A n tith e sis has also been touched on above, but th is again is not
prom inently used by Daos. There are instances, but these are closely tie d
to th e most immediately apparent fe a tu re of his sty le , am plification,

p a r tic u la rly in the fora o f Coften synonymous) doublets. I mean that for
Daos, a simple statement is not enough; he takes pains to elaborate every­
th in g he say s, and his favourite way o f doing so i s to give two aspects
o f an id ea, whether divergent o r n e a rly synonynous.
Ve see t h i s , for example, as soon as the te x t opens, 1-7:
] ήμερου ayu
2 τρόφιμε, την ν υ ν , ουδέ διαλογίζομαι
wapaslnc’ ώc τσ τ’ n i s t e ' έζορμωμενοο
tin μην γαρ εΰδ[οξ]ουντα ra t εωθέντα εε
από crpatetac εν βιω\ τ ’ εΰοχημονι 5
ηδη το λοιιτον καταβιωοεςθαί τ ιν ι
CTporrrryov η σύμβουλον ώνομαεμενον,
and th e sentence continues. 1-3, he sta te s the facts p o s itiv e ly and
n eg a tiv e ly and then elaborates through reference to d iffe re n t elecents, in
two p a r tic ip le s ; (4; followed by a th ird element synonymous with the f i r s t ,
> ' f
5) and again two nouns (7). Cf. the negative/positive ουχι cwcacav . . .
/ yt y t
ceauMCvnv (I S f.) and the near synonymous οιχεχ . . . avnpsocot 0 3 ) talso
th e a n tith e tic adding s ty le , 4-12, Ί thought th at you . . . and your
s i s t e r . . . and th at 1 . . . ’ — one o f the longest sentences in Menander
— 1 3 f.}.* Smikrines momentarily echoes the sty le a t 1 9 f., sue . . . η τ ίν ι
τρόχωι. Daos has more instances o f th is ’doubling’ than any other Men-
a n d ria n .5 O ften, as in the above passage he uses them in s ta tin g emotion,
but they are probably meant as a feature of his flu en t s ty le as paidagogos.92

92
on· o f th e few ornaments to h is ε\ρσμόνη s ty le , and one t h a t h e does not
drew a tte n tio n t o , as Corgi as does Q ).), with c o rre la tiv e s o r studied

a n t i t h e s i s .*
His o th e r reg u lar s t y l i s t i c fe a tu re is frequent asyndeton (of
lo g ic a lly consecutive clau se s, noims, ep ith e ts), which he uses with
g re ater frequency than a l l o th er Menandrians, regular 1y in d isp lay of
eaotion — and notably a t the two climaxes to h is messenger speech, 30ff.

(quoted above, p . 34) and 5 6 f.,

άκσυω θόρυβον οιμωγην δρόμον
όδυρμόν, cnmcaXoGvrac carrcwc σνόματι.
He has 18 in sta n c e s7; they resemble h is use o f doublets in th a t they

serve to accumulate aspects o f a s itu a tio n , and the e f f e c t o v erall i s to

give a fe e lin g o f ra p id ity and spontaneity to h is s ty le . I t i s worth
quoting 3S6f. : only here in Menander i s there rapid asyndeton in te r­
lacing th re e elements o f a sentence, and Daos almost p aro d ies h is own s ty le ,
την τ* οικίαν
Vacav δ ιο ικ ή ο ει, irep ieici κλειδιά
ίχων, ένιβάλΧων τα'ιο θυραις α τμ ε ι', όναρ
νλσυτΰν (— ?)
Would he have continued with t h i s c h ia stie arrangement i f C hairestratos
had not in terru p ted ?
He i s also the Menandrian fondest of gnomic statem ents (14 instances)*
and was seen above to be fond o f etymological figure and paronomasia
(pp. 3 0 f ., 3 2 f. ) . All these elements o f his sty le are ap p ro p riate to the
clev er paidagogos versed in the s ty le of tragedy, and i t i s sig n ific a n t
th a t a l l occur in the tra g ic quo tatio n s that he speaks a t Smikrines:*
e . g . » ’D oublet1 and etymological fig u re , 424f.,93

93
 "οΰκ e c tiv ουδεν δ εινόν ωδ ‘ είιτέΐν cvoc
οΰδε ιτάθοε
Asyndeton, 415, "άττιετον, άλογον, δ ειν ό ν ." (Cf. 422f., χολή, λυ»ιχ t ic ,

CKCTocic φρένων, w ify o c .) Gnome/Parononasia, 418, "τον εΰτνχη τιθηει

δ ίκ τ υ ά θ εό ε," echoing 2 7 f., Ί^ν δ * wc έοικε και τό yh ηάντ’ εντυχείν
χρή ορον.
An asyndetologist o f a d if f e r e n t v arie ty i s the COOK. We have seen
above how h is entrance lin e s show an anaphoric p a tte rn unique in Menander
and lin k h ie w ith other cooks ( p . 8 { . ) . I t also foreshadows the sty le of

h is sh o rt but highly colourful speech (221-233), th a t c o n s is ts alaost

e n tir e ly o f s h o rt, curt phrases w ith auch 'a g ita te d asy n d eto n .· 11 In
t h i s re sp e c t, the TRAPEZOPOIOS i s very auch lik e hin (and he even produces
s ia d la r staten e n ts in sim ilar form: the entrance lin e s 2 3 3 f./2 1 6 f., both
w ith complaining conditional; 2 3 9 f./2 2 6 f., both with asyndeton). But h is
a g ita te d asyndeton is nore pronounced — frequent c u r t statem ents, many
e l l i p s e s , l i t t l e subordination — and he is less wordy and s t i l l wore
brusque than the cook: 233, t a s t e l e s s κοντέiv pun; 2 3 9 f f ., curse, oath,
in s u ltin g p erip h rasis; 2 4 2 f., e l l i p t i c a l in s u lts , v aunt, o ath , e x it.
With t h i s nan, even Daos becomes monosyllabic.
Another sharply contrasted p a i r are Daos and SMIKRINES in Act 1. In
c o n tra s t to Daos' elaborate expression o f g r ie f , S aik rin es u tte rs only one
abrupt exclanation, tfic άνελντετου Tjync (1 8 f.), and f o r th e renainder
o f th e scene p ra c tic a lly everything he says co n sists o f abrupt question
o r exclam ation, but no longer in sympathy o r g r ie f , h u t in comment on
Daos' n a rra tiv e or in enquiry a f t e r the c e rta in ty o f K leostratos* death
and th e goods that he, S aik rin es, w ill in h e rit; and in a sh o rt space he
I t , /
has ch aracterised him self as Tyche's ο παντ ανακρινων (114). This is 94

94
S n ik rin es' ch a rac te r, but I should lik e to think th a t Menander has not

yet given th e f u l l account. Snikxines does not haye a s t y l e th a t

in d iv id u a lise s h i n ,11 but I fe e l th a t he does mich to d is p e l our i n i ti a l
tdkolly n eg ativ e impression by h is general manner and re a c tio n s to situ a ­
tio n s , and perhaps by the occasional s t y l is t i c expression to o .
But f i r s t , to continue w ith the negative asp ects, we have noted h is
over-fondness fo r the f i r s t person pronoun (p. 18); he continues to avoid
d isp la y o f sympathy for others and shews emotion only r a r e l y , and then

only in expressing indignation and talking of h im self, e .g . h is one

in stan ce o f anaphora, 176f. (with assonance),
croei S x S o v c ο ν κ ο ιδ ’ οτωι <rny> ιταρθενον
ουκ ενανενεγκων, ούκ έρωτήραρ ε μ έ . 11

Yet h is self-centredness d o e s have one hopeful aspect: he i s anxious to

avoid d isp lay in g one aspect o f h is n ature th a t fo r o th e rs has become the
r e a l i ty o f h is nature, and th is alone is s u ffic ie n t t o c o n tra d ic t Tyche's
a lle g a tio n s (118f.) th a t he does not even care i f he a c ts shamelessly.
In fa c t he i s obsessed with o th e rs ' opinion o f him self (149, 'so th at
no one s h a ll say 153, 'th e y are always saying 392 , 433f.),
and he i s repeatedly making excuses fo r him self: e .g . h is emphasis on
th e l e g a lity o f his actions (1 5 6 f., 170, 186f.) o r h is fondness for
explanatory (even apologetic, Ί mean, . . . ' ) γάρ clau ses (153, 154, 161, 163,
186, 2S3, 397). There i s no way o f te llin g whether Saiikrines was fin a lly
received back, into the family o r allowed a Knemonic ap o lo g ia , but the
above h in ts may point in th at d ire c tio n , and i t i s d i f f i c u l t to believe
th a t Menander, of a ll d ram atists, would allow him to remain povorposoc.11
Of th e remaining c h a rac te rs, "Cha ire as is an o rd in ary young man in
love. C h airestratos is c o lo u rle ss ." 1 * Nor i s th ere much to d istin g u ish 95

95
th e · s t y l i s t i c a l l y . CHAIRESTRATOS i s the no re in te re stin g o f the two for
the way he i s contrasted with Sm i.trines. At le a s t we can say o f the l a t t e r

th a t when he fe e ls him self wronged he 1$ p ersisten t in h is attem pts to

remedy th a t s itu a tio n ; in C h a ire s tra to s ' case i t is amusing, i f a l i t t l e
frig h te n in g , to observe how a combination o f Saikrines and h i s own melan­
c h o lic n a tu re (e .g . 338f. o r h is in d ifferen ce to D a .'s remarks a t 353f.)
ra p id ly transform him in to th a t co lo u rle ss character. In h is scene with
S aik rin es ( 2 S lf f .) , he assumes a fin e imposing manner, an a u th o rita tiv e ,
d id a c tic tone e x p lic it in frequent imperatives and ex h o rta tio n s (once with
a fo rc e fu l in stance o f the ra re f ig u r e , spocoxn, 263f., r t o3v λέγω; OJ
yi)6cv CmnoG),1* and frequent v o ca tiv e s (2S1, 2S6, 261; c f . repeated cG
a t 264-266). And yet one indignant tira d e by Saikrines d e f la te s hia so
com pletely th a t he never quite re co v ers. (In th is scene assonance marks
a change o f mood from the in d ig n atio n o f So. to the q u ie t d e sp a ir o f Cha.
— above, p. 4 5f. — which, coupled with resigned in d ig n a tio n , remains
th e keynote o f h is speech.) The vocative is no longer d id a c tic but
d esp a irin g (305f . , Δαε ποίι, kokSc 2χω. μελαγχολώ t o i c ιτραγμαοιν . . . owe
ειμ* έν έμαυτοδ) and Saikrines i s now referred to only in p e rip h ra sis,
ο raXoc άύελφός, b xaibc KayaOo'c (308, 311). He contents him self a fte r
308 fo r th e most part with b r ie f exclamations and q u estio n s, and i t is a
n ice touch th a t the only active p a r t he now plays in th e drama is to
p lay dead.
I t i s a shane that there i s l i t t l e of the role o f KLEOSTRATOS. All
th a t is c le a r i s his a f fin ity w ith th e other young men (S o stra to s, D.,
C h arisio s, E ., Thrasonides, Polcaon) in his s ty lis h expressions of emotion:
th e homecoming address, 491, ω φιλτάτη [γη (which presumably included
anaphora and assonance, as M. A l f f . ) , and asyndetic ex clan ato ry trico lo n
(504., e .g . ο\μο\ τάλαο· 2 θ ε \’· άν[ηκε'ςτου τΰχηο or iraöaoc). 1*

96
Ceorgos
In h er sm all speaking p a rt th e old servant PIULIXNA i s b rie f ly
characterised (lik e Simicho) as someone low on the s o c ia l s c a le by her
abundance o f emotional expressions th a t women tend to avoid: three oaths

(24, 54, 109, 112?), emotional rhyme C24), angry e p id io rth o sis (2 8 f.).
in su ltin g p erip h ra sis and curse (27, 30, S3}, anaphora and possibly ana-
d lp lo sis ( 8 4 f .; 2 9 ff., γαμεΐ | o utapoc oSroc ndmpoic την κόρην, | γα μ ει;).
She i s a ls o given a favourite expression: i t is a r e a l i s t i c touch th at the
old serv an t i s repeatedly, i f c a s u a lly , professing h e r devotion to the
household, « τ έ κ ν ο » , φ ίλ ο ν τ ε κ ν σ ν , τέκνον, φίλη (25, 6 3 , 84, 87, 109).'*
DAOS' s t y l e , as observed in h is one surviving scene, appears to be
ra th e r s im ila r to that o f Daos o f th e Aspis in i t s tendency to am plifica­
tio n , e s p e c ia lly with asyndeton and doublets, o ften tr ith some assonance:
e .g ., th e hoooioteleuton o f the asyndetic clauses a t S 9 ff. (note also the
•rhyme,* S 9 f.) ,
voptcac έαυτοΰ πατέρα, *o[inc]ac [a δ ε ι,
ηλειφεν, έξετριβ εν, αηένιςεν, φαγε'ιν
»ροοεφερε, ηαρεμυθεΐτο, new φαόλοκ έ χ ε ιν
βΙοΚΙαΙντ* aveeme* . . .
(c f. S 6 f., 76; the only p a r a lle ls foT the sheer msober o f clauses a t 60ff.
in Menander are D. 547ff., Sa. 1 2 3 ff.). Again, the d o u b le t, 73, yovoc
T* «V κα\ γέρων (cf. 36-38, 38, 38-39, 42, S6, 6S, 78). A ll th a t can be
said i s th a t in his one scene Daos i s reaarkably (perhaps in te n tio n a lly
and a r t i f i c i a l l y ) conspicuous in h is fast-moving, i n t e l l i g e n t sty le . A
fin a l i l lu s t r a ti o n w ill s u ffic e , h is flo rid greeting t o MyTrhine, which
best dem onstrates his lik in g fo r doublets (4 2 ff., and c f . th e epidiorthosis
at 4 3 f., exaggerating h is importance as bringeT of good new s). 97

97
 ■»' / V \ /
ου cz καθεωρων, ycwi.icq. και icocpia
/ t * / ί /
γυναι. τ ι ττοαττειο; βούλομαι, c αγαθών λόγων»
μάλλον δε ,αζεων c’coyevuw, cw οι θεοί
θέλωει, y. χ ] α ι και φθάεαι πρώτο[c φράοαο.

Dis Exapaton
SOSTRATOS Is worth sons costacnt since he provides a unique example
o f how Menander can depict the change and developacnt o f a ch a ra c te r's
eao tlo n al s t a t e . Ke see hin in th re e successive scenes. 1 8 f f .. 4 9 ff.(
9 1 f f .; in two, agitated asyndeton ch a rac te rises him as a re g u la r eaotlonal
young nan, but each scene also shows a strik in g change. His silence a t
l l f f . was probably nost expressive (lik e that o f C h at., A. 299-327)
he i s caught up in an ugly, confused dreaa, and in a aonologue th at would
have shocked a fifth -c en tu ry audience, he deoonstrates, when l e f t alone,
j u s t how eao tlonal a young Menandrian can becone. He opens in a tra g ic /
*»/ ^ A
Euripidean nood with ηδη *cnv ouroc φρουδοε, but then q u ite suddenly,
as he tu rn s from Moschos to C hrysis h is thoughts b lu r and sentences tumble
out a t random, often incomplete — and fin a lly , to Moschos again, lin e s
1 8 ff. a re almost unique fo r t h e i r abundance and accum ulation o f almost
every conceivable Menandrian device to depict u tte r d is tr a c tio n : violent
changes o f su b je c t, anacoloutha, self-ad d re ss and reproach, address and
reproach to th e absent C hrysis, and reference to h im self in th e th ird
p erso n .1*
With h is father a t 4 7 f f ., he remains in a d is tra c te d mood and sparing
o f connectives. At b est he is fa r fron cordial and unknowingly expresses
h is anger ag ainst his fa th e r in indignant repeat o f h i s words (56), an
emphatic negative (54; p. 51), seven im peratives.1'

98
 At 9 1 ff. , he resumes h is tir a d e against Chrysis. However, his anger
i s now co ld er: without asyndeton now, he maintains a d is jo in te d sty le to

99, w ith frequent parentheses; but th e re arc no more anacoloutha, and his

sentences are sustained and grammatical. His thoughts a r e now ordered,

and th is draws from him a t 99ff. h is most balanced sen ten c e, i f s t i l l
hig h ly emotional with i t s interwoven antitheses and in te rla c e d hyperbaton

ClOOf.),
και τα μεν εγων’ οργίζομαι,
τα δ’ ουκ εκείνον του γεγονστοο α ίτιο ν
αβικηματοο νενομικά, την δ ’ ίταμωτατην

m cujv o c c tv n v ·
Polemon (Pk.) and Deneas (Sa.) also have emotional anacoloutha (De. also
s e lf-a d d re s s ), but these two speeches are unparalleled i n Menander for
th e violence and accumulation o f a l l these emotional f e a tu r e s , and are
more n a t u r a l is t i c . The monologue o f Moschion, however, i s designed to
win him sympathy (cf. the audience-address, 405) and to a id the tra n sitio n
from Moschion as in terferin g young dandy to sympathetic young nan, much as
th e emotional anagnorosis o f Perikeiromene must have le d to a sim ilar
tra n s itio n in another Moschion (though prim arily serving th e sequence,
Glykera ■ sympathetic he t a i r a through Glykera » tra g ic young lady and
f in a lly resp ectable married lady21).

Dyskolos
The a p tly named CORGIAS has the most c o n sisten tly rh e to r ic a l sty le
o f any c h a rac te r in Menander. P rofessor Sandbach (Hardt 116) notes th a t
h is s ty le i s a r t i f i c i a l in th a t he w ill habitually foreshadow the outcome
o f a sentence a t the o u tset; Gorgias 'ta lk s lik e a b o o k .' He has the
most s trik in g examples and is fond o f a n tith esis and c o r r e la tiv e ούτε . . .

99
ο0τε ( ib id .) · in fa c t, he i s in the whole of Menander, th e character
fondest o f re a l antitheses and c o r re la tiv e s , both in dialogue and in
Baking a speech: h is favourite forms are wx . . . άλλα, ούτε . . . cine,
c o rre la tiv e forms of obroc ( e .g ., τούτο . . . onwc, αν . . . . tcaho ...) .* *
Such s triv in g a f te r balance leads to a certain amount o f rh e to ric a l
assonance, th e oxymoron 294, the ra re rhyming paronomasia o f 2S3, 274,
SIS (c f. p . 3S).
His sentences stc secure, se n sib le , and purely rh e to r ic a l — helpful
t o one w ith auch to say, but lacking the resources to say i t in a flexible
Banner. This explains also h is fondness for ploke, w ith etymological
paronomasia (discussed above) and fo r (near-)synonyms (e .g . 233f.,
vapepyuc . . . φαυΧωο τε).**
He does not use word r e p e titio n (ploke, an tistro p h e only; cf. p. 10)
o r assonance (as noted above) f o r emotional e ffe c t as exist characters do,
and th is lack o f emotional colour has also been observed in h is conserva­
tism in o ath nuking (see p. 67 above). All these elements o f h is sty le
give i t a form al, old-fashioned aspect. Ne can add: h is use o f the
Poseidon oath (p. 81); h is use o f old-fashioned εθέλω (Hardt 118f.; but
Cf. W.G. Axnott, Phoenix 18, 1964, 117); and h is use o f χροοοχη. The
r a r i t y o f t h is la s t formal device in Menander has been noted above, p. 96
and n . IS (p. 123), yet Gorgias has two instances, 284f. ( τ ί ούν λέγω;
μη wtercue , . . ) , 823f. (τ ί ούν; εγω . . . νπτολαρβάνω), again in anticipa­
tio n o f what he is about to say.
SOSTRATOS is notable p rim a rily for h is absurd number o f oaths (p. 66f.)
in a l l s itu a tio n s , and th is i s th e most strik in g expression o f his
u n re strain ed emotionalism: we note also the curse, fo r example (138f.),
self-ap o stro p h e (214), self-im precation (311f.), nine f u r th e r exclamations.10

100
and th e frequent addresses to the audience (214, 194, 666) . Such,
exaggeration and audience-address allow us to feel sympathy and amusement.**
He shows no prominent s t y l i s t i c featu res, but in bo th d isp lay of
«notion and s ty le Menander obviously took great delight in contrasting hin
v iv id ly w ith Gorgias. His sty le i s comparatively free o f rh e to ric a l
devices, and the contrast between hin and Gorgias in th is re sp ect is
sim ila r to th a t between the young a r is to c r a t of Lysias XVI and the a n ti­
th e tic a l pro secu to r of XXXI. ** S o stra to s' speech co n trasts in i t s variety:
i t ranges fr o · the short p a ra ta c tic statements o f, fo r example, 145-50
(eleven sentences in six lin e s, w ith e llip s e at 149; c f. 1 7 9 ff.) to the
easy flow o f e . g ., 2S9ff., a s e r ie s o f infonral a n tith e se s, 'As for Getas
. . . . b at ay mother . . . — I d o n 't know . . . — but she does th is every
day . . . — (she) sent him . . . But . . . ' (cf. e .g ., 284-289 and Webster IM
1 0 S f.).
P ro fesso r Handley provides th e clue to at le a st one aspect o f the
'inform al s tru c tu re ' of SostTatos' sentences in h is comments on 666-690
(Handley a t 683f. and Hardt 137), noting there the " re p e titio n o f coamon
q u alify in g p h rases." In addition to h is two aajo r parentheses (261f.,
5 7 1 ff.), h is sentences are b r is tlin g w ith minor qualifying parentheses,
such as MTUC eirruyoinc, which Daos immediately draws a tte n tio n to (299f.),
*1 know,* 'know w e ll,' 'you know' (185, 326; 313; 61S), Ί mean, why not
admit i t ? · (1S2; cf. 304 , 6 7 2 f.), νλϊρ> . . . (304, 673, 679) o r 782, ένδον
sep tp ev etc, ου γάρ; This is one o f the ways in which S o s tra to s ' clauses
are co n stan tly looking back, ra th e r than forward lik e those o f Gorgias:
he i s re g u la rly adding to what he has said before, even to what others
have s a id befo re (55, διοιτερ 68 , και μόλ’ ε0, 270, 320).**

We have observed h is fondness fo r word-play (above, p. 3 4 f.) three

times in a good rh eto rical context (Gorgias would not have shunned th is ) .

101
but th ree tin e s also lig h t-h e a rte d ly (293, 320, S37f.)· I an not sure
whether th e irony is p rim arily th a t o f Menander or S o s tra to s , but i t
provides a t l e a s t a p ointer to S o s tra to s ' relaxed manner o f speaking, and
we see s im ila r ly ironical statem ents a t his own expense elsewhere (e.g.
I S l f ., ' I ' a a coward. I mean, why no t be honest about i t ? ' ; 213f., 'F are­
w ell, and take care of your f a th e r . Alas, woe is me — cease th is d irg e,
S o s tr a to s '; c f . Conme-Sandbach p . 170).
To conclude the discussion o f Gorgias and S o stra to s, I should lik e
to take up again lines 318-321. I believe th a t in th e repeated assonance
a t 1-4 in fo u r consecutive lin e s (unparalleled over more than two lines
in Menander), Menander has in mind again the co n trast between the two
youtg men: f i r s t Gorgias' standard a n tith e sis and paronomasia, caxc
AXlorptoc . . . &λλ’ . . . bpoprytpioc; then S o strato s' paronomasia, και
Xpnctuoc and Gorgias' puzzled t t yonciuoc; Besides marking a difference
in s ty le s , th e lines emphasise an important tT a it o f S o s tra to s : h is
f r u itle s s dependence on o th e rs. C f. S61f. (ypnctpurcpoi . . . αίμμαχοι) and
h is dependence successively on Chaireas (5 5 ff.), P ythias (7 0 f f.) , Getas
( l S l f f .) and Gorgias and Daos (3 2 1 f., 561f. )· The o p p o site extreme, o f
course, th a t o f Knemon (c f. 7 2 8 f., ουδεν ήμιν γτγοναο curoc xpnetpoe), is
proved to be equally misguided . 27
The two key elements in KNEMON's sty le have been p o in ted out by
P rofessor A rnott and Professor lie b ste r. The f i r s t i s h is "predilection
fo r ab so lu tes" (cfeac, απανταχού, ούδείο, ούδαμού e t c . ) . 2' The second is
the way he "concatenates long sen ten ces," p a rtic u la rly a t 7 0 8 ff., where
"he works w ith a sort of continuing a n tith esis" (IM 1 0 8 f.). Ve have also
observed h is fondness fo r and accumulation o f negative clau ses (pp. 51,
S2, S 3 f.) , 102

102
 There i s l i t t l e more one need say on how Knemon's s t y l e i s individual
ised throughout, but i t is also worth comparing the s ty le o f h is iambics
with th a t o f h is trochaics. The iambic speeches give us only h a lf the
p ic tu re , and th ere his m isanthropic tendencies are exaggerated by frequent
re p e titio n o f h is favourite p h ra ses, th e insulting vocative periphrases
(άν& ΐε i s h is standard term, Hardt 122; cf. also 466 , 473, 481, 702), the
Knemonic kckoc kcucwc . . . (above,p. 2 7 f .) ,th e angry ph rase, 'Do/Don't you
think »I to ld you . . . · (173, 474 , 484 , 50S, 507; c f . 115, 511), and
much e ls e , a l l spoken in reproach o f o th e rs .2*> Menander convinces us th a t
he has given us a complete p ic tu re o f the conventional m isanthrope.
R ep etitio n s of word and sound a re also important in h is expressions
o f h o s t i l i t y : verbal re p e titio n — 1 5 3 ff., ε ι τ ’ . . . ‘ixx . . . ειβ* ότι . . . ;
1 7 4 ff., cow . . . αν . . . ; 44Sf. ; 4 5 0 ff. ; sound/sound and v erb al re p e titio n
— etym ological figure, 156; freq u en t polyptota, the c u rse kcdcoc kcbcwc ...
rhyme 1 6 0 f.; in te rn a l assonance 1 5 3 f., a t 5 and 12. More im portant, p e r­
haps, are th e m etrical e ffe c ts th a t emphasise h is a g ita tio n ( 1 ) through
m etrical correspondence between lin e s a t 153-154, 155-156 (10 resolved,
then 2 reso lv ed ) and 174f., 4 2 7 f., 4 8 4 f., 595f. (median ca esu ra );
(2) through sudden reso lu tio n , 447-451 (tra g ic lin e , t r a g i c lin e , tra g ic
lin e tw ice resolved, then toOt* έλαβεν b Ococ c*\ to irup onrav έ ιιτε θ ε ν ;
c f. 161-165).
What makes Knemon a re al c h a ra c te r is Menander's suddenly shocking
us in to r e a lis in g that h is c h a ra c te r is no t, a f te r a l l , t o be judged by
outward expression. In the tro c h a ic scene, in h is e x p o sitio n o f the
motives behind h is behaviour ( 7 0 8 f f.) , Knemon ceases to s t r i k e us as a
s u p e rfic ia l fig ure of fun and causes us to fe el the re v e rse o f th is
sen tim en t.* ' He maintains h is in siste n c e on absolutes ( e .g . 713f.,

103
rv . . . τάλ» απάντων . . . αυτός αυτάρκης . . . ουδενός e t a . ) , but e l l is now
expressive o f In n er feelings. Because he can blame o th e rs , he can also

blaae h in s e lf . The importance o f sound, rhythm and word re p e titio n s in th is

speech was discussed e a r lie r (p. 3 6 f.} , and Just as Knemon's b r ie f comment
on h is fe e lin g s a t 17ff. prepared us fo r the complete statem ent o f th is
monologue (Handley ad lo c .), so th e indignant e ffe c ts o f sound and rhythm
summarised above prepare us fo r h is turning them p a th e tic a lly against
him self. Of the other s t y l i s t i c c h a ra c te ris tic s shown by Knetaon in the
iambic p assag es, a ll th a t remains is th e insu ltin g p e r ip h r a s is , now aimed
a t h in s e lf (747), ό χαλεπδο δύςχολόο τε γέρων.
CHAIREAS i s characterised by h is se lf-d e sc rip tio n and h is sty le as a
conventional p a ra s ite (see Handley a t 57ff.).* * There i s l i t t l e more to
say. C h a ra c te ris tic of p ra c tic a lly a l l p a ra site s in Creek Comedy is th e ir
loquaciousness (iro n ic a lly , the unfortunate speaker o f A lexis f r . 19SK
complains o f playing p a ra site to a non-A ttic speaker), and th is i s usually
narked by ra p id enumerations (as a t , e . g . , Alexis 201K 1-5, κρειττσν nv
τωι Πηγάςωι η το ΐο Βορεάδαιο η ε ι τ ι θ α ττο ν __ η . . . . o r in the form o f
d o u b le ts), frequently with a n tith e s is (ούκ/άλλά, ο υ /δέ, ο μέν / ο δέ e t c .) .
They a ls o lik e w ord-repetition (e .g . Antidotos 2.1, c ra c iv . . . ctavrec).
Most c h a ra c te ris tic of the p a r a s i te 's enumerations i s h is use o f asyndeton
(post s tr ik in g a t Antiphanes 195.3-9, th irte e n verbs in asyndeton), and
i t s most ty p ic a l m anifestation i s th e p a ra ta c tic c o n d itio n a l ('X does th is ;
I do th a t* ) , e .g ., Timokles 8.6-7 (w ith the p a r a s ite 's word re p e titio n ):
. - \ -> ./ ·
epaic; cuvepacrnc cmpo<JacicTOc γ ίν ε τ α ι.
πράττεic τ ι ; πραζει ουμπαρων ο τ ι άν δ ε η ΐ . ’*
C haireas shows a ll these c h a ra c te ris tic s : n otably, th e p a ra sitic
co n d itio n al (and fu rth er asyndeton), 58-60,104

104
 . . . ιαραλαμβάνει τ vc tim φίλων
έρων ctaipac* ευθυο apnacac φέρω,

μεβυω, κατακάω, λόγον ολωο οΰκ ανέχομαι.

(so 6 4 -66), a n tith e sis (and w o rd -rep e titio n ), 62-63,
t i μεν βραδυνειν γαρ τον ερωτ’ ανζει πολύ,

έν τωι ταχέως 6 * ε ν ε ς τ ι woucacOai ταχύ.

( c f . 1 2 5 f., τυχόν . . . τετυχη<ε, a κυκλοε shape; 12Β, ιτράγματ’ . . . *ρακ-
τικωτερον; 1 3 0 f., ου/δε a n t i t h e s i s ) .* ’
. /
A f u r th e r indication o f h is ra p id delivery i s th e postponeoent o f γαρ
(67) t o seventh positio n : e tc . . . χρόνον so "forms a s in g le u n it o f expres­
sion" (Handley ad lo c .).
[When S o stratos nuses a t 862f. , αλωτα γίνετ* έ ν ιμ ελ εία ι καί wovon
he r e je c ts C haireas' gnome a t 1 2 8 f.; Menander probably has in mind also
, / . /
the p a r a s i t e 's notion (Antiphanes 144.5) o f ενιμελεια και vovoc as a
bad th in g .]
In th e Menander papyri and fragments the p a ra s ite s ty le i s obvious
otherw ise only in Kolax, Gnathon's enumerations: 4 1 f., 3 0 f ., S lf f . (asyn­
deton and a t 5 3 f. , anaphora); 4 4 f ., ό.μέν / ό 6ε ; S trouthias* enuneration
(in asyndeton), f r r . 4, 7 (and c f . T er. Eun. 251-2S2, quidquid dicunt laudo;
id rursum s i negant, laudo id quoque; / negat qu is: nego; a i t : aio).**
But Sikon a ls o uses the p a ra s ite s ty le , at 4 9 2 ff.: δε? γαρ ε'ινοι κολακικον
. . . , in s e d ia te ly followed by p a r a ta c tic conditionals ( t h i s and the cook's
anaphora; above, p. 8 f . ) , as does th e cook a t f r . 397.10 ( c f . n. 15 on
p. 123).
In d ealin g with SIKON and GETAS, I must re fe r to P ro fe sso r S a n d b a r's
e x c ellen t summary (Hardt 119-120): fo r Sikon the e s s e n tia ls a re ouch
highly p o e tic language w ith unusual words3* and metaphors (preparing us
fo r h is f lo r id speech a t 9 4 6 ff.) and an abundance o f o a th s; by co n tra st.

105
Getas has a number of rare words, but l i t t l e o f the cook's grand diction.
P rofessor Axnott makes a sim ila r p o in t on Sikon's d ic tio n and notes also
h is verbal w it (e .g . 393-397, το υ τι το νροβατον . . . οΰ ν ρ οερχετα ι). ’*

I t i s good to look b rie fly a t the two characters to g eth er. They are
scarcely ch aracterised , but provide th e inconsequential comic element in
Pyskolos which nevertheless has th e fin a l word. S ty l i s t i c a l l y they are
also narked o f f fron the r e s t by t h e i r consistently c u rt phrasing with

auch asyndeton, both ag itated and formal Ce.g·» the p a r a ta c tic p a irs,
(S ik .) 394ff. , 4 1 6 ff., (Ge.) 4 7 7 ff. w ith S63-56S; o r the (threatening)
asyndetic t r i c o l a , 623, 899); and in th is respect they a re o fte n so sim ilar
th a t they might both be cooks. But comparisons o f a few p la c e s where
G etas' s ty le clo sely approaches th a t o f Sikon are s u f f ic ie n t t o show the
cook's s u p e rio rity : i f one compares, e . g ., his own t i r e d κοντέiv pun a t
410 w ith th a t o f Sik. a t 398;17 h is complaining co n d itio n al (407f.) with
th a t o f S ik . (3 9 4 ff.); 462 w ith th e more imaginative indecency o f 892;
o r th e use o f th e curse οπταγ' e tc το βαρα9ρον straig h tfo rw ard ly a t S7S
w ith 393f. , where Sikon also b rin g s sound and rhythm in to p la y ,
\ \ o ' ; > > \ \ *
to u rt το τροβατόν . c c rtv ου το τυχόν καλόν.
αναγ’ e tc το βάραβρον :
But fo r a l l t h a t , Getas' sentences a re the more fle x ib le . Sikon produces
h is e f fe c ts through parataxis and a general avoidance o f a d v e rsitiv e or
explanatory connectives (e .g . 3 9 7 f., ox) νροερχεται. τουναντίον δη γεγονε·
/ _ βV
κατακεκορν' εγω . . . ) . Getas* s ty le knows parataxis and asyndeton too
(esp. S 4 7 ff., seven verbs in asyndeton — which is u n p a ra lle le d in
Henander — as he assumes the a t t i tu d e of ir r ita b le cook), but also
g re a te r v a rie ty , and one fe e ls th a t Getas is perhaps th e more emotional
ch a ra c te r, le s s conscious o f the ro le he is conforming to . The aost
notable symptom of th is sty le i s th e use o f hyperbaton (he i s the
106
ch aracter fondest of i t in Dyskolos; whether by s tra in in g o f word-order
( e .g ., th e emphatic in terlac in g o f h is entrance lin e s , 4 0 2 ff. ,
/ \ . t
τετταρων γαρ —φορτιον —
όνων cw eiqcav — αν kcucict’ αττολουμεναι
/ Λ /
φερειν —Ytjvaitccc — μ οι)
o r a sep aratio n (generally o f a verb from i t s noun) by p a re n th e tic s ta te ­
ment, v o cative or oath (e .g . 456, το λεβιίτιον, φτίιο, ειτιλέλη[οθ]ε;). The
l a t t e r kind i s unremarkable and m erely a n a tu ra lis tic form o f enphasis;
but hyperbaton i s something Sikon tends to avoid, and even h is frequent
oaths tend to cap, rather than d e la y , a statem ent.3' Sikon would also
Λ , 4/ 1/
have avoided th e co rrelativ es (418, 565, τουθ ιν α /ο τι) and such subordina-
/ / » /
tlo n as th a t a t 605f., 965 (νετραιο μαχομενοε θύμα φερουεαιε, and
cuvncOcvtec «rrrrpuvt cuevote ) . 33
[Features o f the sty le s o f Simiche and K allippides are discussed
above, pp. 7 , 48. On P yrrhias, see Handley at £. 81; A m o tt, GSR 17
(1970) 56; Webster, IH 103.]

E oitrepontes
The ch a rac te r with the la rg e s t speaking p a rt is ONESIMOS, who is
s t y l i s t i c a l l y one of Menander's most d if f ic u lt c h a rac te rs, prim arily
because o f h is s h ifts from the high-flown to the vulgar. He can quote
tragedy and o ften seems to see h im self as a tra g ic c h a ra c te r (e.g. his
Medea-like indecision, 422f., 473f. (E. Med. 1044f.); 905 (E. Med. 386ff.))
o r h is e n tre a ty at 933f. (otherwise standard to Menander's earnest young
men — above, n . 36 on p. 25); he a lso has a good pseudo-philosophical
p a ra in e s is 1*' a t 1092f. with some ploke (above, p. 15). Yet h is style is
not r e a lly grand or tra g ic ; he aims to score h is p o in ts p rim a rily on
unusual vocabulary or expression, as in the tric o lo n , 893, βρυχθημοο

107
ένδον, tiX poc, CKcracic συχνή ( c f . th e risin g tric o lo n a t S6 I — tra g ic

in fo ra, b u t vulgar in tone — 's n iv e lin g , thunderstruck, ab solutely

lacking in fo re sig h t' ;* ' or again h is use of word r e p e titio n th a t codbines
a sense o f s ty le with a c e rta in boorishness, 4 4 lf ., sue αν obv, vpoc των
6e w , vwc α ν, ικετεύω; SIS, λεγ* o Xeycvc, 8 7 8 f.).

The two elements th at most obviously in d iv id u alise Onesimos* sty le

are h is unique fondness fo r nouns and adjectives with term inations -yoc,
-ttKoc (as Professor Sandbach shows, Hardt 134ff.)** and a ls o fo r metaphors.
He is th e ch aracter fondest o f them in Menander (approxim ately one in six
lin e s ), and they add colour to h is speech; but save in th e c i t y comparison
G087ff. and 1093ff., τον τρόπου cuv(«i>iKtcav] φρουράρχου, 1090, 1101
ε ν ιτ ρ ιβ ε ιν , cuvtpvfeiv), they do n o t dignify i t ; they a re m ostly common­
place (399, 'p la y ·; 422, 904, 's i n k · ; 428, S7S, ' s t i r ' ; e t c . ) , o r i f
s trik in g , then vulgarly so (S61, 's n iv e lin g '; S76f., 'c u t ou t one's te e th '
(? see Gomme-Sandbach ad lo c .) ; 1114, 'th ic k -sk in n e d ').* * The term th a t
most pro p erly describes Onesinos' s ty le is simply 'w ordiness , 1 and
probably th e b est and most concise, overall i l lu s t r a ti o n o f t h i s i s h is
use o f adverbs. I t is not so much th e fact th a t he uses them more
frequently than others,** as th a t he is immeasurably f r e e r in h is use o f
them: even in h is commonplace q u a lific a tio n o f verbs he stan d s out fo r
h is accumulation of adverbs (e .g . 540, Χυεετ’ ευθυο δηλαδή);*’ they appear
in h is e l l i p t i c a l comments in dialogue (notably 535, πανουργως και
KOCoqOuc, 1080, καν, μαλ’ όρθωε: ten instances, nore than h a l f the to ta l
in the p la y ); only Onesimos uses them with nouns (422, 569), and he uses
then w ith uncommon frequency w ith adjectives and adverbs;** and even h is

adverb/verb periphrases nay appear sig n ific a n t when i t i s noticed th a t of

th irte e n instances in the p lay , a l l o f ten belong to him . * 7 The e ffe c t 108

108
Is achieved sim ply through accumulation and a number o f n o tab le individual
conglomerations o f as many as th re e adverbs in succession Can expedient
deemed unnecessary by his less loquacious colleagues): h is opening remarks
a t 383f., τη νικα υτ' έχθέο πάλαι ε π ιν ο ν , 883f., ffpoc raTc θυραιο γαρ ένδον
apTtidC πολυν χρόνον διακόπτω, 904, διόπερ υπεκδεδυκα δευρ* εξω λάθραι,
932, «Μ ) κακωο εχω εφόδρα.
The a r b itra tio n speeches o f Epitreoontes have received a f u ll study
in th e e x c e lle n t thesis by Cohoon, who demonstrated S7RISKOS* su p erio rity
over DAOS in use o f figures o f thought, presentation o f argument and
arrangement o f h is speech,M and a lengthy discussion o f th e scene would
be out o f place here. Syriskos i s characterised as the su p e rio r of the
two even befo re the speeches beg in , o f course, in taking th e i n i ti a t i v e
over the a r b itra tio n and in approaching Snikrines over th e m atter; Daos
i s merely o ciunrwv (239). I t i s S y risk o s’ a b ility to g e n e ra lis e the
situ a tio n through a series of gnomic remarks th at prompts Daos* comment,
/ / ^/
μετριωι γε ουμπεπλεγμαι ρητορι (236), a rheto rical g e n e ra lisa tio n noticed
again a t 343f. and in his tra g ic paradigms at 325-337, 341-343 (Professor

Webster a ttr a c tiv e ly suggests th a t Sy. was once a paidagogos);** the

c lo se st Daos comes to th is is th e ra th e r redundant σπερ cnraci γ ίν ε τ α ι, 252.
S yriskos’ in tellig ence i s a lso re fle c te d in h is s t y l e g en erally . He
shows g re a te r lik in g than Daos fo r am plification and b alan ce: 323, 341f.
(asyndeton, fo u r and three c o la ), 2 9 5 f., 297, 321f., 337 (doublets; out­
side h is speech, cf. 230f., 2 3 2 f., 376), 304f. (p o sitiv e /n e g a tiv e
a a p lific a tio n ; c f . 231f., 403), 3 3 8 f., 319 (μέν/δε, ουκ/άλλά an tith eses;
c f. 386f. ) , 293, 308f., 313f. (c o rre la tiv e s; c f. 4 0 8 f .) ,se 317, 346
(hypophora). Notice has been taken above of h is elab o rate synchoresis
a t 294-298 (p. 16) and h is e ffe c tiv e use of assonance, b o th in h is speech109

109
and beyond (pp. 33, 42f.).One n o tices a lso his frequent, re sp ectfu l

address to the 'ju d g e' (πάτερ, Β ελτιοτε, 224 , 232 , 296 , 301, 308 , 320,
340 , 344; Daos remembers th is only a t 244), and his re v ersal o f the
courtroom commonplace at 302*1 Cthe ch ild not only gains him sympathy,
the ch ild i s presented as the wronged p arty ). Unlike Daos, he also
remembers to disarm Smikrines' p re ju d ic e against him self, 328, έχων otav
cyw νυν διφθεραν** (Daos presumably hoped to prejudice Smikrines a t 2S7,
c c ti δ ’ άνθρακευο, forgetting th a t to Smikrines they are both διφθεραε
εχσντεε, 2 2 9 f.). While Syriskos' speech begins with sh o rt sentences,
th ese disappear almost completely by 320f., and overall he uses more
subordination than Daos,** and unlike the l a t t e r uses not only an adding
but also a p erio d ic s t y l e .**
Daos1 s ty le , on the other hand, i s rather more marked by 'agitated*
asyndeton, and h is sentences tend to be shorter; where he attem pts longer
sentences, he does so f i r s t through abundant d ire c t quotation (260-268)
and, appro p riately as he reaches the conclusion o f h is speech, through an
adding s ty le , 2 7 5 f., 280f. (consecutive subordinations), 2 8 3 f., 28Sf.,
288f. His parentheses, perhaps, show a certain lack o f s t y l e (252, 257,
276f. ; c f . the awkward changes o f subject at 272, 279),** and w hile he
produces some good e ffe c ts, these are rath er sparse: a f a i r tric o lo n
(250f. ) , doublets (271, 290, 240, 281) and an e ffe c tiv e anaphora (266f.).**
While i t Is dangerous to attem pt to judge SMIKRINES* s ty le from the
com paratively scanty remains o f h is speaking p a r t, one has th e general
impression th a t he is characterised by a lack c f any marked s ty le . He
does, however, tend to be a man o f sh o rt sentences, employing only few
connectives, except in introductory statem ents, and minimal balance and
subordination . * 7 Lines 133-137 a re f a ir ly ty p ic a l, where, fo r example,
a t 13Sf., in stead of the natural ουκ . . . . άλλα a n tith e s is we find two

110
p a ra ta c tic statem ents»
j o \ / , « \ » '
Λ tnc γυυαικοο νενομ ιχ αυτόν οικετην·
9 t · t «g
cnroicotToc e c u .
The same p a r a ta c tic tendency may be f e l t p a rtic u la rly a t 752f. and 1062f.
(h is in v e c tiv e against Sophrone; p . 44 and n. SO on p . 6 2 ). **
Enough, remains of CUARISIOS' speaking p art (as re p o rted by Onesimos,
W i t . , and in h is speech, 9 0 8 f.) fo r us to see him firm ly characterised as
one o f Menander's extravagantly emotional young men. This i s not demon­
s tra te d however in strong em otional verbal re p e titio n s , no t on stage, a t
le a s t (423, λ έ γ ε ι γαρ ένιεικωε m x v a , 894f., νυκυον νόνυ ελεγευ), but in
another form o f re p e titio n , in a remarkable accumulation o f am plifications.
Lines 908-911 show the sty le in i t s most exaggerated form, four lines fo r
«dial amounts to εγω t i c αναμάρτητοι spoenrovrue μοι κεχρηται το δαιμονιον:
εγω t i c άναμάρτητοο, εϊο δόξαν βλεηων
και το καλόν ο τ ι *ότ’ έετι και taicxpbv ckoiiuv,
άκεραιοο, άνενιιιληκτοε auxoc τωι βιωι —
<? I . » /
ευ μοι κεχρπται και ιτροατκοντωο ra w
το δαιμόνιου . . .
P ra c tic a lly every phrase i s l i t t l e more than a q u a lific a tio n o r expansion
(almost an emotional re p e titio n ) o f what has gone b e fo re . He is par­
t i c u l a r l y remarkable in h is fondness for doublets, whether (near-)synonyms
(as h e re , 908, 908-909, 910, 911 and 398f., Sapßapoc αυηλεήο τε, 913,
918, 931), o r expressive o f c o n tra stin g aspects o f th e same notion (909
and 897, 9 1 6 f.) . His over-fondness (unique in Menander) f o r compounds
formed from p riv a tiv e alpha enhances the tra g ic tone o f h is am plifications
(even in h is some 30 lin es he has te n instances, more than any other
ch a ra c te r in Menander).**

111
 To conclude b rie fly w ith HABROTONON, as night be expected o f the
i n t e l li g e n t h e ta ir a , she is both f r e e in her expressions o f emotion and
good with, words. The former is m anifested most obviously in h e r endear-
n e a ts , both vocative and d e s c rip tiv e : in her over-fondness f o r (ιΐ) τάλαν/
toXoc (434 , 436 , 439 , 466, 547 , 853, 970; cf. 592) and γλυκύτατε/γλυκεΐα
(143, 865, 953). Webster d escrib es h e r as a h e ta ira who uses ’’nursery
endearm ents . " * 1 Her lack, o f in h ib itio n is apparent too in h e r freed on with
oath» (484, 489, 548; 543, 9SS) and exclamations (466, 468, S28f. , 856).12
l a s p ite o f h e r comparatively s h o rt speaking p a r t, a f a i r number of
r h e to r ic a l devices emerges to o , to mark the f a c i l it y o f th e speaker:
etym ological fig u re (433, 5S6; c f . p . 30), paronomasia and ploke (477f.;
4 6 3 f ., 4 9 9 f., 5 0 3 f.; c f. p. 3 5 f . ) , rh e to ric a l assonance (S 2 3 f.; cf. p. 47)
and such fe a tu re s as a grave an a d ip lo sis (478f.; c f. p . 5 ) , a p a rtic u la rly
form al a n tith e s is in oUX ινα / ά λ λ ' ινα ( 868f . ; c f. 4 3 4 f.) o r the court­
room commonplace of . . . καύκ αν i i m u c atoöavoxc (470).*’

Mlsoimenos

The remains o f Hisoumenos allow us a c le a r glimpse only o f the s ty le s

o f Thxasonides and his slave C etas. The sty le s o f both a re consistent to
two h ig h ly emotional ch a ra c te rs, and they d if f e r only in th e expression o f
th e »notion. For THRASQNIDES, th e more high-flown o f th e two (one notes
e s p e c ia lly h is fa ir ly co n sisten t use o f tra g ic m etre, A lf f . , 2S 9ff.,
SSB ff.**), we have noticed above how th is is re fle c te d in th e prologue
through th e use of some forms o f assonance and verbal r e p e titio n (pp. 8 ,
13, 42, 4 3 ). He displays h is tr a g i c despair most c o n s is te n tly through
th e use o f am plification, accum ulation of synonyms and near-synonymous
p h ra se s, u su a lly doublets (o ccasio n ally statin g a concept i n terns of
two o p p o site s, as at 260, η μακάριον η τριοαθλιωτατον): h is 15 instances 12

112
 (seven in th e prologue alone} account fo r tw o-thirds o f th o se in the
play, in fa c t.* *

GETAS' e x c ita b ility is less form ally expressed through h is consistent

tee o f 'a g it a t e d ' asyndeton. This and other featu res o f h is s ty le are
c le a r from h is speech a t 284f., and Professor Kebster has re c e n tly pointed
these fe atu res out and demonstrated how they thoroughly confirm the
a ttrib u tio n o f 158f. to Getas a ls o : "The elenents o f t h i s s t y l e are
staccato , asyndeton, se lf-a d d re ss, speaking o f others in th e second as
w ell as th ir d person, d ire c t q uotation o f th e ir words, in te rsp e rse d with
commentary and an animal comparison, 305" (sc. w ith 1 6 1 ).'* There is
l i t t l e to add. Getas' constant use o f asyndeton (esp. 1 5 8 f f ., 216ff.,
297f f . , 3 0 2 ff., 313ff.) is ap p ro p riate to h is excited s t a t e throughout
th e play, a demonstration of a g ita tio n brought out a lso by h i s fondness
fo r fin a l assonance (above, p. 42 and n. 43 on p . 6 1 ). And th e sa n e 'is
tru e o f h is fondness fo r the stro n g e r oaths:ώ πολυτίμητοι θεοί (16S), 3
Ζευ πολυτίμητε . . . νη του'Ηλιου (284-285, a c h ia s tic e f f e c t around the
exclamatory g en itiv e, sim ilar to th a t produced by Onesimos a t E. 878f.;
c f . p. 4 ), and (ω) 1 HpoucXeic (286, 302 , 43S; c f . h is o ath s by the gods
and by Apollo, and possibly ώ Ζευ τροπαιε, AIS, 314, 4 5 ). His animal
metaphors (i)c, 161, ovoc, 295, u c , 303, λέαινα, 311)*7 p o s s ib ly re fle c t
a gnomic s ty le : one can compare 166, f r . 7 (an answer t o Getas* gnomic
remarks; c f . 39Sf., f r . 8 ?) and A1S (Professor T urner's τό λεγομ]ενον
i s convincing; c f. Getas' το του λσγου, 166, 303).

Perikelromene *13

The M0SCHI0N of th is play i s probably the most lik a b ly ridiculous

ch aracter in Menander. In h is attem pts to sound grand — and i t i s the
accumulation o f 'grand* e ffe c ts th a t gives H osdiion's s t y l e i t s

113
 distinctiveness — he ra re ly f a ils to r a is e a sn ile . He speaks only 57
foil lin e s, but h is style is c le a r. He i s p a rtic u la rly fond o f a n tith e sis
(οΰκ/άλλά, fo u r times — four times in one scene, in fa c t; μ ε ν /δ ε , six
times):** he even stakes h is f i r s t en tra n ce with a double a n t i t h e s i s , 267f.:
Dak, xoXxiac μέν ηδη irpoc μ ’ άπτίγνελκαο λσγουε
ουκ άληθεΐε, άλλ’ άλαζωυ teat Ocotctv έχθροε e t .

e t δε κα\ νυν . . .
I t i s amusing that in the scenes w ith h is master (and only in those
scenes), Daos too picks up something o f Moschion's fondness f o r an tith e sis
(they alone, s ix times in Pcrikeirom ene, use the form of a n tith e s is
CMc/άλλά). * * Lines 267f. fu rth e r demonstrate Hoschion's c h a ra c te ris tic
fondness fo r am plification (cf. a ls o th e doublets a t 279-280, 290, 512)
and assonance. His accumulation o f strong fores o f assonance and a l l i t e r a ­
tion (discussed individually above) i s consistent with h is s triv in g a f te r
grand e f f e c ts : a singular etym ological figure (346; p . 3 0 ), and parechesis
(299f. ; p. 4 7 f.),b o th with fu rth e r π- a ll i t e r a ti o n , repeated negative (S37f.;
p. 54), and f in a l assonance (3 1 3 f., 5 2 9 f., 538f., 776f.; pp. 43, 4 4 f .) · 7*
All four in stan ce s of the la s t show fu rth e r sound correspondence . 71
This g eneral pomposity i s f u r th e r marked by Moschion's overfondness
for m ilita ry metaphors (279f., picked up by Daos a t 281; 295, 527, S 28f.),
by the rh e to ric o f his three r is in g t r i c o l a , e.g . 296f., τ ι π ο ιε ί, που
’e n v η μηΤΠΡ, culminating in th e unique and ridiculous circum locution,
εμέ I c lc to προο5οκαυ εχουοι nwe; (c f. 312f . , 537f.; perhaps 7 9 2 f.),
by his nany hyperboles (e .g ., 279, πραγμάτων‘Ελληνικών, 2 9 5 f., τΟν ‘άλων
πραγμάτων, 527, λσγχαο εχοντεο εκπεπτιδηκα«), and by h is am p lificatio n s
(notably S 3 2 ff., beginning with fo u r lin e s to convey th e statem ent th at
he is the wretchedest man in G reece). Ife can v e il b eliev e Moschion when
he confides th a t he has been p ra c tis in g a l i t t l e speech (550).

114
 POLEMON, th e other young man o f th e play, even i f we allow fo r his

small speaking p a r t, is probably the most consistently emotional young aan

i> Menander. Me have noted above h is strik in g emotional r e p e titio n s ,
5 0 6 f., S19, 981f. The contorted w ord-order of 506f. can a ls o be noticed
in th e dramatic in terlaced hyperbaton o f 493f., τουτι με τ£η> | πάντων
Ι ε ΐ ή η η κ μαλιοτ 7 εΐπων. Ve also n o tic e h is overfondness f o r th e vocative
(Παταικε s ix tin e s in one scene; Δωρι th ree tines in one scene ) . 72 I f
H oschion's s ty le i s remarkable fo r i t s accinulatlon o f r h e to r ic , th at of
Poleaon i s distinguished by the accumulation o f expressions o f emotion:
he a lso has the most singular anacolouthon in Menander (th re e consecutive
aaacoloutha, 514-516),71 and every o th e r statement is exclam atory (e.g.
4 7 1 f., ήττον; oc νεπωκ’ lave, 488, oiov Acyctc, ΙΙαταικε) , 7% so th a t his
p h rases tend to be short and c u rt and never re a lly reach even a second '
degree o f subordination.7*
Polemon's slave, SOSI AS, i s n o tab le for his brusque manner (he is
r a th e r sim ila r to Getas and Sikon o f Dyskolos): fo r example, in the
anaphora o f h is opening lin e s, 172-173, o cofapoc . . . και π ο λ εμ ικ ο ί
o t a c yuvaucac ουκ εων έχειν τριχαο; in the anadiplosis o f 366-367,7*
406. I t i s probably his e x c ita b ility throughout the play th a t accounts
f o r h is tendency to be high-flown (e .g . 174-176, a l l i t e r a t i o n o f κ(ατα)-,
i n i t i a l assonance of ow n-; the unusual constructions o f 176-177, 179-
108; 183, th e redundant compound καταφαίνεται), and such e f f e c ts are
probably intended to be f e l t as spontaneous. He is free w ith h is abuse,
and i t is in te re stin g th a t th is and h is overfondness fo r m ilita r y
n etap h o rs , 77 matched by no other Menandrian, ch aracterise S osias rather
than h is m aster as the miles g lo rio su s o f the play. He i s a ls o one of
only four men in Menander to use indecent language,7* and we have noticed 15

115
 U s o v erfam iliar use of cu (p. 1 7 ; only he too p a r a lle ls Smikrines a t
E. 1126f. in h is near-anaphoric, and therefore most in s u ltin g fo n t o f
repeated cu, 398-399).

In the case of PATAIKOS, c h a ra c te risa tio n i s e ffe c te d store exclusively

by Manner than s ty le (his grand language in the recognition scene is no
•o re than standard to such a sc e n e ), and he is ch a rac te rised p risia rily by
a cool lo g ic . He Is ju s t the s o r t o f nan to consider th a t to do other
than abandon U s children would have been άβουλου παντελωο άυδρόε (812);
i t i s h is courtroom manner and in s iste n c e on Polesion's le g a l situ a tio n
t h a t prompt th e young man's o u tb u rst a t S06f.; and i t seems th a t he has
been equally ta c tle s s in dealing w ith Glykera a t 708f. — where the lady
must re fu te him with a courtroom hypophora ('B ut was i t because . . . ? No.
Then because . . . ? No. Then . .. T P ataikos, did you come h e re convinced
o f th is ? ·).
I t i s only in his scene w ith Polemon th a t Pataikos* c h a ra c te ris tic s
are fin e ly alluded to through any marked sp ec ific s o f s t y l e , th e repeated
ς» I , „
synchoresis in preface to h is remarks (473, ευ λ ε γειε, 475, opOuc μ
έρωταic , 490, 494-495, 500-501) and a nunber o f o th er c a lc u la te d e ffe c ts:
c o rre la tiv e s (486-487), lito te s (492), rh e to ric al questions (496-497),
and a t le a s t one very conscious a n tith e s is (emphasised by paronomasia,
503). A moderate fondness fo r a n tith e s is by Pataikos (as compared to
o th ers in Perikeiromene) i s perhaps th e only co n sisten t p o in te r to his
general fo rm a lity . 7’

Sarnia
I t has been su ffic ie n tly demonstrated in the e a r l i e r chapters o f
t h i s d is s e rta tio n that DEMEAS o f Sarnia is the ch a rac te r most consistent
in U s fondness for the emotional forms of both verbal (pp. 5 , 6 f . , 12)

116
and sound (pp. 28, 38f . , 41f.) r e p e t i ti o n , while completely avoiding
rh eto rical forms o f these sane d e v ic e s. *® His volüble em otional s ta te

is fu rth er suggested by h is frequent addresses to the audience (216f.,

269, 329), self-ad d ress (326 , 349) and addresses to h is patron-god
(p. 74f . ) . * 1 Professor Sandbach (Hardt 122) has noted a f u r th e r s t y l is ­
t i c p o in t th a t distinguishes Demeas, h i s unique fondness f o r th e phrase
ετνε pox.*2 I have wondered i f t h i s i s ju s t one element i n th e p a tte rn ,
however. Aaong the characters o f Sarnia, Deaeas i s in fa c t tstiquely fond
o f p are n th e tic a l remarks g en erally — whether th is i s a mark o f poaposity
o r m c e rta in ty I an not su re, bu t i t i s probably the l a t t e r , h i s unneces­
sary (though n a tu ra lis tic ) parentheses providing hin the opportunity to
decide what he w ill say next: he has 15 instances a d d itio n a l t o those o f
txvc pox, including four o f uc εοχκε and seven v a ria tio n s on Ί know'/'you
know.' This would be unrenarkable, were i t not fo r the f a c t th a t there
i s p ra c tic a lly no suggestion a t a l l o f th is t r a i t aaong th e o th e r characters
o f the p la y , except in three in sta n c e s in the prologue, where a redundant
wc ετυχε, οιον eitcoc, ο’χραι (39, 42, 43) provide a nice suggestion o f
Moschion's nervousness, as he reaches the point where he Bust reveal to
th e audience h is aisconduct with Plangon.**
MOSCHlON's sty le is ra th e r no re d if f ic u lt. One cannot p o in t to any
recurring elements in h is speech t h a t individualise h i a , b u t perhaps i t
i s t h is very fa c t that does c h a ra c te ris e h is s ty le , h is v a r ie ty and com­
p a ra tiv e avoidance of rh e to ric a l devices (something we n o tic e d in the
case o f S o strato s in Dyskolos).** I t i s th is th a t d is tin g u is h e s h is fron
Gorgias, say , in Dyskolos, or b e t t e r Moschion's bombastic namesake in
P erikeiroaene: Moschion o f Sania i s garrulous too (e .g . 19-20), but worries
ra th e r about what he says than about how he says i t . He d i f f e r s from th a t

117
other Moschion in th at when he r e t i r e s to p ra ctice h is l i t t l e speech, i t
is because he has l i t t l e confidence in h is eloquence ( 9 2 f .) , j u s t as he

lacks re so lu tio n to face prob le a s.

In h is opening scenes h is on ly consistent s t y l i s t i c device i s
asyndeton. Which he uses when nom entarily d istracte d fr o · h is αμάρτημα
by oore p leasa n t thoughts: e .g . 13*16, h is f a th e r 's b en ificen ce and his
own splendid re tu rn , 4 S f., h is e x c ite d description o f th e f e s ti v a l
— abruptly cu t short a t 47 — o r most rcaarkable, h is alm ost unique six -
colon a t 123f. , a s he daydreams o f th e wedding — a re v e rie again cut
sh o rt, but iam ediately re«Maed in th e s a a e b re a th a t 126f. That he is
capable o f pure rh e to ric i s suggested, however, by th e p a r a in e s is to h is
fa th e r, iam ediately following a t 180f. (both polyptoton and a n tith e sis)
and confirmed by h is speech a t 6 1 6 f., where he nom entarily assumes the
a ttitu d e o f outraged son. The speech probably affo rd s M enander's most
remarkable study in am plification, where nothing i s sa id once i f i t can
be said tw ice. Basically i t c o n sists o f nothing but d o u b le ts, whether
in simple re p e titio n (617f., rryaimca καί τοΰθ* ικανόν εύτυχημ* . . .
/ C / pf / X / /
γεγονεναι υττελαβον, 619f. ewouc γίνομ α ι και λαμβάνω λογιομον, 620-621,
623-624, 631-632, 633) o r in a n tith e tic a l* * restatem ents (th e long clauses
μεν/βέ, 6 1 6 f.. 622f., ούκ/οίλλά. 6 2 6 f., 6 3 1 f.).* ‘
This l a s t speech provides a n ic e contrast w ith th a t o f PARMENON,
iam ediately following a t 6 4 1 f., a speech which i s wholly c h a ra c te ris tic
of th is sla v e in i t s c u rt, p a r a ta c tic (lack of) s tru c tu re and ceeplete
avoidance o f an tith e sis and balance Cone can conpare 7 0 ff. and 67S ff.).
Parmenon, one suspects, i s the s o r t o f man who never u tte re d an a n tith esis
in h is l i f e . Only at 670f., where he enters a f te r pondering h i s thoughts,
does he attem pt to o ffer h is m aster a l i t t l e persuasive am plification

118
(near-synonymous phrases a t 670-671, 672, and a nice four-colon at
673-674).
Rather sim ilar to Pamenon i s o ld NIKERATOS, whose fondness for sh o rt,

d isjo in ted sentences is well brought out by Professor Sandbach (Hardt 120f.),
who in OCT Modifies received a ttrib u tio n of Sa. 98f. accordingly (cf. p.
74f. above). Sandbach fu rth e r observes how a t 5 0 7 ff., extreme annoyance
gives h is th e power of extended speech. There i s a fu rth e r departure
from h is re g u la r manner of ta lk in g a t 399f. In h is opening scenes Niker-
atos wasted no words, and seemed re lu c tan t to allow h is sentence even one
degree o f subordination, yet h ere he enters w ell-prepared w ith a good,
lengthy a n tith e s is , appropriate connectives and even se v e ra l p a rtic ip ia l
statem ents. As Professor w ebster noted (Bl 104), X ikeratos has here had
time to c o lle c t his thoughts on the way from th e m a rk e t-p la c e ;'7 i t may
also be th a t he is allowed to approach the garrulous cook's s ty le here
because o f th e presence of the sheep, so th at in a sense he both defeats
and f u l f i l l s the audience's expectations at the sane tim e.
This l a s t passage of N ikeratos may be an appropriate example on
which to conclude, since i t i l l u s t r a t e s perhaps one o f th e main problems
in a th e s is o f th is kind, in th a t not everything a c h a rac te r says need
be c h a ra c te ris tic of h is s ty le . I have trie d to bear t h i s in mind both
in Parts 1-3 o f th is survey, where concerned w ith the e f f e c ts o f indi­
vidual elements of Menander's s ty le and with t h e ir use in s t y l i s t i c
c h a ra c te risa tio n , and in P art 4 , vhere concerned p rim arily to make more
general comments on the sty le s o f the more important in d iv id u a ls in
Menander; and I have attenpted to remark only on sty le s o r sp e c ific s of
sty le th a t a re used with some consistency by individuals in Menander.

119
 NOTES TO PART 4

1. I an not yet confident th a t any survey I night produce could

even approach th e succinct observations o f Professor Sandbach' s Hardt
paper. Work on th e d isse rta tio n has caused ae to feel in c re a sin g ly th at
s t y l i s t i c study o f an author sould be a task o f several y ea rs (perhaps
even the work o f a team, as re c e n tly suggested by Dr. S. U sher, JHS
93, 1973, 225).
2. C ited in th is chapter as IM.
3. On Menander's s ty le and d ic tio n , the corsaentaries o f Handley and
Gönne-Sandbach a re p a rtic u la rly u s e f u l. Sergio Z in i's I I linguaggio del
personaggi n e lle conned!e di Mcnandro (Firenze 1938) has such th a t is
v alu ab le , d e s p ite the ju s tif ie d re serv atio n s o f L.A. Post (CW 33, 1939,
105). I have been able to make only minimal use o f Dr. C h ristin a
D edoussi's im portant commentary on th e Sarnia (Μενάνδρου Eoqnot, Athens
1955) in d e a o tic Greek. W.G. A m ott a ls o has a number o f valuable obser­
v atio n s on s t y l i s t i c ch a ra c te risa tio n in Menander in a number o f a r tic le s
c ite d below. See also h is discussions o f the technique in P lautus and
Terence (B1CS 19, 1972, S 4 ff.; G5R 17, 1970, 3 2 ff.). I have a lso p ro fited
f r o · a n in b er o f observations made by L.A. Post, e sp e cially in h is a r tic le s
"Menander in cu rren t c ritic ism ," TAPhA 65 (1934) 13ff. and "The v is o f
Menander," TAPhA 62 (1931) 203ff.
Both s ty le and i t s sig n ifican c e f o r ch aracterisatio n in New Comedy
were taken in to account as ea rly as Donatus' commentary on Terence, e .g .
a t Ter. Ad. 427 (on Syrus' s a p ie n tia : h is style is d istin g u ish ed by the
use o f ra re words). He discusses such topics as assonance (both for the
sake o f elegance and in expression o f emotion) and d ic tio n ; th e relevant
passages a re u sefu lly collected by L. Madyda, "De Donato s t i l l Terentiani

120
 iudice," C h a ris te ria Thaddaeo Sinko (Warsaw 1951), 183ff. A. Katsouris

op. c i t . 592ff. assembles a number o f the main observations p u t forward

on s t y l i s t i c ch a rac te risatio n in Menander, but in adding p o in ts o f h is
* own tends to f a l l into the trap o f assuming th a t everything a character
says m ist be c h a ra c te ris tic o f h i s s ty le . Perhaps th e most valuable study
of s t y l i s t i c ch a rac te risatio n in re c e n t years i s th a t o f S. Usher,
"Individual ch a rac te risatio n in L y sias," Eranos 63 0 9 6 5 ) 9 9 ff.
4. On 4 f . , cf. Webster, IM 107.
5. C f. 84, 200f. , 206ff. , 300, 301, 325, 340, 341, 409, 411.
6. Even in h is n a rra tiv e , he has " l i t t l e in the way o f figures o f
speech," Sandbach, Hardt 134.
7. C f. 3 4 f., 88, 199f., 2 4 8 f., 299f. (three clau se s addressed to
O ta.), 300f. (th re e clauses to C h a i.) , 303f. (three c la u se s t o C ha.),
323f., 356f. , 359f. , 371f., 3 9 9 ff., 415, 422. Daos i s unusual in h is
avoidance o f most forms o f assonance, but emotion does cause him to use
mild h o o o io teleu ta in th e asyndetic clauses a t 30ff. , 5 6 f ., 61, 358.
8. 2 0 f ., 27, 164f., 190f. , 248f. (cf. 300), 336f. , 407, 411, 4 1 2 f.,
416f., 424 , 425 , 432. Cf. Cohoon (c ite d in n. 38 on p . 26), p . 160 and
a . 43 on th e use o f gnomes to ennoble a ch a rac te r's s t y l e .
9. In addition to h is fa m ilia r ity with tragedy one might also note
his knowledge o f medical terminology (on which cf. L. G il, Cuad. F il.
C las.2, 1971, 127f., on A. 341f. , and 129, on A. 3 3 8 f.).
10. P ro fesso r Webster's p h ra se, ΓΜ 103, is useful to d istin g u ish
asyndeton o f d is tin c t clauses from th a t ascribed to Daos above. For
fu lle r d is tin c tio n s (unhelpful f o r t h i s survey), see F.W. W right, op.
c i t . , 8 6 ff. (c itin g Kuhner-Gerth I I 339ff.).

121
 11. He does have more re a l a n tith e se s than' others in th e Aspis
Cesp. ου/δέ. 1 7 5 f., 182f.; ουκ/Ολλά, 254, 395» 449; μ έ ν /δ ε , 156f.» 160f.,

2S5f.)t but I cannot see th a t t h i s i s s ig n ific a n t.

12. Cf. 2 6 9 ff., h is only s tr ik in g instance, otherw ise, o f assonance.
13. But c f . W.T. MacCary, "Menander's old men," TAPhA 102 0971)
503ff. Even he, with h is re fre sh in g ly sympathetic consents on Sn. (E .),
p. 307f., says o f our Snikrines th a t " i t is d i f f i c u l t to have even a
grudging re sp ect fo r (him),” p. 310. He takes Tyche a t h e r word; yet Pan
proved n islead in g over Knenon. Were we forewarned o f P a n 's preju d ice,
however, a t D. 30f. in the oxymoron, ο γέρων δ ' εχων την θυγατέρ’ outoc

Cn t uovoc και Ypca)v θεράιταιναν? Cf. A. 121. [A note on MacCary p. 323,

" . . . no h in t o f a senex lib id in o su s in M. . . . o r T er." I s th e re a t le a st
a h in t o f th is in Ter. Andr. ? With stock comic c h a rac te rs m e expects to
be able to pick out gradually sm all h in ts th a t prove re le v a n t to our
building up o f a p icture o f th a t ch aracter. At Andr. 73 Sino consents on
the beauty o f Chrysis; 115, he atte n d s the funeral supposedly ou t of
respect f o r h is so n 's fe e lin g s; 1 1 9 ff., G lyceriiai's beauty leaves him
speechless. But in Ter. the t r a i t i s not developed; in M. Pn. the
comments would have been doubly amusing as addressed t o "Sim o's" wife
and nay have been fu rth e r developed. On the scene, c f . T.B.L. Webster,
Studies in Menander 7 7 f.; on T erence's decorum in choice and adaptation,
W. Ludwig, ORBS 9 (1968) 170f.]
14. Webster, SLCC 93. On Chai. as a conventional d is tr a c te d youth,
see JM 106. Of h is s ty le , one can only say th a t i t knows enuaeration,
but l i t t l e e ls e : h is rare άπαρίθμηριε (below, n. 22) το μεν cov νρωτον
. . . δεύτερον δε τρόμον gives advance warning o f what i s to follow (290)

ov . . . ούδ* . . . ουδ* . . . . (377) κα\ . . . και . . . και . . . . (285 , 296f.)

clerical και δακρΰοαι, ο\ηθε\ε . . . και vpocäoicncac.
122
 IS. A Demosthenic figure (T ib e rio s, *ερ\ των παρα Δημοοθενουο

οχημάτων, Spengel iii.6 4 , 30 f . ). Other instances in M. (always appropriate

to the s ty le o f th e speaker) belong only to the formal prologue o f Tyche
(A. 147f.), Gorgias of Dyskolos (above, p . 10(9, the o ra to r ic a l Syriskos
(E. J13f.) and p o ssib ly Onesimos (n. 40 below). Another in sta n c e almost
certainly belongs to the cook a t f r . 397.1, as A. B arigazzl n o tic e s ,
kFK 102 (1974) 4 7 1 f., in h is defence o f K orte-T hierfelder's te x t here;

harigazzi's p a r a l l e l s , D. 5 7 f., 4 9 3 f., f r . 397.10, are r a th e r d iffe re n t,

however (see pp. 104-10S and n. 32 below ). [Cf. Sotades 2.34 K (a
garrulous cook, Theophilos 1.1; Gomme-Sandbach (D. 823 n .) adduce
Sosipatros 1 .4 3 .] 1 would omit such instances as D. 363 (again Go.),
since th ere th e question has already been posed: such re p e a ts in dialogue,
where a speaker repeats h is in te r lo c u to r 's question before answering i t
(τ ι/τι γαρ; i s th e regular form) a re common enough in Menander. The
effect i s s im ila r to that of spocoyn, in that they make th e speaker sound
pompous, but they are more co llo q u ial than rh e to ric a l and a re more
s tric tly a sig n o f impatience. The o th e r instances in M. a re A. 171
(S ·.), G. 85 (M y.), D. 553 (G e.), 625, 636 (Sim.), 691 (K n .), E. 261
(Da.), 955f. (H abr.), Pk. 490 (P o .), Sa. 69f. (P a .). 129, 303f. , 481,
485 (De.), 431 (N i.), 452f. (Mo.), Ph. 49 (P a.). I suppose th a t Demeas*
frequent use o f th e fora in Sania might be suggestive o f h i s s t y l e .
[I had once, wondered i f , in fa c t, re p e titio n s in dialogue g e n e ra lly were
a sig n ific a n t element in s t y l i s t i c c h a ra c te risa tio n , but now I believe
that th is i s not the case. In ad d itio n to the form mentioned above, the
forms of r e p e titio n in dialogue tend to belong to two f u r th e r cla sse s:
(A) a speaker w ill repeat an o th er's statem ent in question form ( τ ί or n3c
regularly emphasises the question), in such a way as to show t h a t he is

123
 / v / /
puzzled (e .g . -* κότα τροπον - κατα τροπσν τ ι , D. 215; 39 examples), or
that he disagrees (e.g. the e p id io rth o sis of G. 28; 15 examples); (B) he
v ill answer another speaker’s qu estio n , command or suggestion with that

speaker's words, whether in assent (e .g . —cuffuc —cvdvc, D. 52; 34

examples] o r disagreement (e.g . Pk. 769; nine examples). I f a l l three
v arie tie s are taken together, Deneas again shows the g re atest number of
examples (Sa. 129 , 303f., 481, 48S; 134, lS2f., 320f., 468, 151f., 467,
561; 194f. , 520f. ) ; but the reason i s simply that such re p e titio n s are
natural to a play such as the Santa ( i t contains one th ird o f the
instances in Menander), notable fo r i t s innumerable misunderstandings
among a ll th e characters. Many o f th e instances natu rally belong to
Deneas who i s th e centre o f confusion in the play. After Demeas, others
who use the form frequently a re: Pa. (Sa. 69f.; 194 , 306f., 323, 659f . r
312, 320, 688); Ni. (Sa. 434; 513, 71S, 722, S87f.; 604, 613f., 524);
Go. (D. 362f. ; 320f., 635, 773f.; 349, 832f.); Mo. (Sa. 452f.; 130f.,
466 , 688 ; 7 1 8 f.); Kn. (0. 691, 4 7 2 f., 503, S95, 841f.)]
16. Or b e tte r άνελιηοτσυ τυχηο, in echo o f and contrast to Saikrines
a t 18. Such an exclamation would also ca ll to mind the motivation of the
■s ^ ^
p lo t (ju s t as Daos' address ώ Τύχη, 213, or that of Knemon's daughter, ω
φίλτατατ Νυμφατ, D. 197). [For another possible p a ra lle l, though not a
probable one I fe e l, cf. A. Guida, S1FC 46 (1974) 211, n. 1: while the
\ \ /
p a ra lle l would be an a ttra c tiv e one, the standard woman's oath μα τω θεω
a t S i. 33 i s c e rta in ly not evidence fo r the id en tity of the speaker of
the preceding prologue (?Demeter, / an Eleusinian; Lloyd-Jones, GRBS 7,
1966, 55). Guida c ite s, in addition to the Aspis and Dyskolos instances
above, If. Ludwig's comments on P I. C is t. 671, in Hardt 68.] On the tragic
ταλαο (504) in comedy, C. Dedoussi, c Ελληνικά 18 (1964) I f f .

124
 17. But perhaps th is Is reading too much in to what i s a com m
technique in ch a rac te risatio n : c f . Habrotonon, and G r y llis ' fondness for
(w) TQCVOV (Hds. 1, 13, 21, 59, 61, 85, 88) and th a t o f th e 'l a d i e s ' in
Hds. IV and VI f o r φίλη. [I.C . Cunningham is surely wrong to provide us
with a c h a ra c te r naned 'P h ile ' f o r Mine IV, his e d itio n o f Herod as,

Oxford 1971; c f . CC^n.s. 16 (1966) H 9 .J

18. C f. J.-M . Jacques, B ull. Assoc. Bude, 4 se r. (1968) 221, n. 2
(coopering P la u tu s ' adaptation): " . . . 1 'acquiescement de Mnesiloque (Ba.
495) ne correspond ä ricn chez Sost r ä t e dont le a u tis a e , d 'a i l l e u r s , a
des j u s t i f i c a t i o n s psychologiques."
19. S elf-apostrophe: c f. D. 214 (So.), E. 913, 922 (C h a r.). 982
(C h ai.), M. 160 (Ge.), 383ff. (T h ra .), Sa. 326 (D e.), 6S3 ( P a .) , S i. 397
(Mo.). See Webster, CR 15 (1965) 17f. (the objection o f Goane-Szndbach,
E. 912 n . , to th e in te rp re ta tio n o f E. 913f. as s e lf- a d d re s s , seeas too
s u b je c tiv e ), SLGC 186, 201ff. (on monologues g e n e ra lly ), IM 106, C lass,
e t Med. 9 (1973) 137 (on G etas), CRBS 14 (1973) 298 (on T hrasonides).
K atsouris (op. c i t . , 681 i f . ) l i s t s self-apostrophes fro n Aeschylus to
Terence. Reference to s e l f in t h ir d persion: c f . A. 203 (D a .), D. 693
(K n.), M. 263 (T hra.), Sa. 647ff. (P a .). Apostrophe to ab sen t person:
Cf. A. I f f . , 2 8 4 ff., 504, D. 220, (442), (888), (Pk. 526), M. 168
(ifebster. C lass, et Med, loc. c i t . ; c f . JHS 93, 1973, 196 (on G. 69)).
Ota tpoOdoc: Page at E. Med. 722; R itc h ie , op. c i t . 185. The only speech
comparable to th a t of So. i s th a t o f Mo., S i. 397ff.
20. I an not sure o f P o s t's d ivisions and su b -d iv isio n s o f Greek
ia p e ra tiv e usage (L.A. P ost, AJPh 59, 1938, 3 1 ff .). H is general th e sis
th a t th e a o r i s t forn implies hu m ility and the p re se n t, g e n e ra lly haughti­
ness would be well illu s tra te d h ere. He argues th a t when a o r is t and

125
 preseat are juxtaposed, the f i r s t im perative i s emphasised. He Bakes a

■ice point (49) th a t "strong and s e lf- a s s e rtiv e ch a rac te rs" use the present

■ost frequently (e .g . Eteokles, P h ., Lykos, H.P. ) , but th e c a te g o risatio n

seeded to account for exceptions leaves one cautious.
21. lie b s te r, SLGC 137f., n o tes Menander's departure from convention,

to strengthen a love natch, in such scenes, comparing the unhappy narriages

in Philemon (138 and n. 1; c f. however IM 36).
22. όύκ/άλλά: 24Sf., 2 5 0 ff., 298 , 318, 322f., 329ff. , 3S8, 617f.,
734f., 704 ( c f . 846). Cf. μη/ου . . . δ ε: 284ff., 322f., 3 3 8 f., 348,
349f.(? ). F u rth er parallelism : 2 S 3 f., 274ff. (rut μεν . . . TOic/τω ι δε . . . ) ,
> / ^ \ ^
297 (■ cnrapiOunctc: πρώτον μεν . . . ε ίτ α . . . ) . The fin a l a n tith e s is (823-
825, . . . μεν . . . δε) is comparatively weak. C orrelatives οΰτε . . . cure . . .
were discussed above (p. 5 2 ); G o .'s renaining c o rre la tiv e s a re (with
fores of (5noc) 24 3 f., 257» 2 7 4 ff., 2 8 4 f., 315f., 767f. and 277f. (τουθ’
or αν . . . ενταύθα . . . ) , 336 (τότε . . . n v ix ' cw).
(asapiOpDcic i s coanon enough in th e orators (see S. Usher, CR 16,
1966, 11); in Menander i t i s com paratively ra re , and the r e a l l y rh e to ric a l
examples s t i l l ra re r. The standard Menandrian form i s πρώτον (μεν) . . .
είτα . . . . A. 80, D. 294 (above), 897, Sa. 276ff., P J). I 10, f r . 667.2 f f .;
and c f. A. 28 4 ff. (above, n. 14) and D. 532f. (το πρώτον . . . u c δέ . . . ) .
A. 2S1 i s in te rru p te d . Of th ese, a t le a s t three are c e r ta in ly meant to
be c h a ra c te ris tic o f the a n tith e tic a l sty le o f the speaker, th o se o f
Corgi a s, th e lady of P.D. I (on h e r a n tith e tic a l s ty le see S tra u s, op. c i t .
2 7 f.), and f r . 6 6 7 .2 ff.. πρώτον . . . ε’ντα . . . όίηε . . . w r e . . . αλλα . . . ) .
23. 2 3 3 f., 272, 273, 280-282, 2 9 0 ff., 317, 3S 6f.. 824.
24. E xclasations: 183, 669, 690; 203 , 341f.; 194, 214, S23. Cf.
the emotional vocatives, 54, 342, 359 and his standard lo v e r 's impatience

126
(363, 364, 370, 374 , 377; 841, 8 5 0 ff.; c f. Sa. 428f f . ) . Audience-address
in Menander: c f . also K örte-T hierfelder I I , p. 388 and (excluding divine
prologues) D. 659, Sa. 5, 447, S i . 405. See h’c b ste r, SLCC 2 0 1 ff.,

Goame-Sandbach 14f.
25. On th e Lysianic M antitheus (comparable to So. a lso in h is s e lf-
confident hunour, e.g. XVI 1, 17), see S. Usher, Eranos 63 (1965) 108f.;
cf. 116f. on Lysias XXXI. [XVI 2 would serve as a good comment on
Sostratos' f i r s t meeting with Corgi a s. ] On the s t y l i s t i c ch aracterisatio n
of So., c f . P. Flury, Liebe und LiebessPTache bei Menander, Plautus und
Terenz (Heidelberg 1968), 36ff. On th e more general c o n tra st between So.
and Go., c f . W.G. Arnott, Phoenix 18 (1964) I f f . Arnott n o tes also the
visual c o n tra s t, emphasised by G orgias' reaction to S o s tra to s ' appearance
(cf. n. 52 below ), D. 257, ο ττρ χλοτυίδ ’ εχων (c f. Handley a t 257 and
370, and S. M ag istrini, Pioniso 44, 1970, 88). The passage, o f course,
merely dem onstrates the countryman's natural prejudice a g a in st the smart
town-dweller, and i t finds i t s c lo s e s t 'Menandrian' p a r a lle l perhaps in
Ter. Ad. 63 (Micio is blamed by th e r u s tic Demea fo r indulging Aeschinus
in extravagant clothing). V.J. Rosivach, in CP 70 (1975) 1 1 8 f., suggests
an in te re s tin g emendation to th e Terence passage, but th e word he wishes
to emend i s v e s titu ; he su rely m isses th e point when he argues th a t
"nowhere e ls e in Ronan Comedy i s excessiveness in clothing a v ic e of
adulescentes . . . [ i t is] associated only with m e re trices." [K ith his
examples a t nn. S-7, one can compare Pk. S16-525, though h e re , o f course,
there i s a sp e c ia l dramatic s ig n ific a n c e .] On the suspicion o f countrymen
for town 'd a n d ie s ,' cf. Alkiphron i i i 14 and 25; some general p a ra lle ls
for the a sso c ia tio n of fine c lo th es w ith luxury are given by Headlam-Knox
an Hds, I I 21-23.

127
 26. Further p a re n th e tic remarks by So.: 74 ( octic ιτοτ’ e c tiv ), 179
(uc εμοι δοκει), 360, 361, 382, SS3, 803. For Go., I n o tice an ε’ι νέ pot
it ^
C233), a o e n c hot’ nv (235), but oaths ap a rt, l i t t l e e ls e . Cf. S o .'s
q u a lific a tio n s at 314 (τεταραγμ’ . . . ουδέ μετριωε), 797, 803.
27. On xpnctiioc, c f . M. Anderson, G5R 17 (1970) 202 (and c f. the
comparable repeats in D. o f α ζιοο, άνάζιοο). Although i t occurs only four
tim es in Pyskolos ypncipoc may be said to be one o f th e p la y 's key words.
28. GW 17 (1970) 56.
/ w
29. Cf. his exaggerated ώ ΐΓολυπληθειαε οχλου and fu rth er genitive
exclanations 166, 435, 514; re p e titio n o f κακόν as adverb or substantive
(178, 431, 444, 514) and o f ενοχλεί v/oyXoc (157, 166, 432). On the con­
v en tio n al misanthropic statem ents of 153f., see Handley ad loc.
30. Alaost a Pirandello-esque reversal. (L. P irandello has some
n ice remarks on the d is tin c tio n between the s u p e r fic ia l conic approach
to ch aracterisatio n and t h a t which demands the au d ien c e's re flectio n and
causes " i l sentimento del c o n tra rio ," in L'Unorisno, Florence 1920, 1 7 8 ff.).
Khemon somewhat resembles th o se o f P iran d ello 's c h a rac te rs who have found
i t convenient to liv e down to th e standards o f th e so c ie ty they despise
(ib id . 2 0 9 ff.), except th a t f o r Khemon i t i s a means on ly o f keeping th at
so c ie ty a t bay.
31. Ibid, fo r referen ces and bibliography. Cf. Webster, SLGC 65,
IM 18; Axnott, BIOS 19 (1972) 6 4 ff. and n. 35.
32. In the follow ing, reference i s made (1) to th e f i r s t p a ra site ,
Epicharm. fr . 35 Kaibel, and to the most extensive p a ra s ite group in
Edmonds, Fragments of A ttic Comedy vol. 2, (2) Anaxandr. 10; (3) Antiph. 80,
(4) 144, (5) 195; (6) A lexis 116, (7) 195, (8) 201. (9) 202, (10) 231,
(11) 261; (12) Aristophon 4; (13) Antidotes 2; (14) Axionikos 6;
(15) Timokles 8.

128
 Simple emaseration: (3) 2 , 7, (4) 1-2, 5, 6, (6) 4 , 6, 8, (8) 1-3,

CID I f f . , (13) 2, 4-5, (14) 3 -4 , 10f., (IS) 11 (c f. th e co rrelativ es,

(I) I l f . » (4) 3. (5) 1-2).

A n tith e sis: (p o sitlv c /n e g a tiv o ) (1) 1-2, (5) 1 3 ,(μέν/δε) (6) 11-22,

(o pr'v / o ie ) (6) 11-12, 13, ( 9 ) . (οΰ/βε, ούκ/άλλά) (1) 12, (3) 6-7,

(5) 2. (11) 3-7.

Word-repeat: (1) I f . , (2) (A risto tle 's comment im plies some for* o f
p lo k e ), (3) 2-4 (etym. paronom asia), (4) 3-5, (5) 2 (polyptoton), 3-4,

(6) 1 and S, (10) 3-4, (13) 2 (etymological fig u re ).

Simple asyndeton: (3) 7 -9 , 10-11. (4) 3-4, 8, (S) 3-9, (6) 6,
( I I ) 2, 9-10, (14) 9-15.
P a ra ta c tlc c o n d itio n al: (12) 3-4, 5, S-6, 6 , 7 (b is ) , (14) 9 f . ,
1 2 f ., (15) 6, 7 (c f. s im ila r conditionals, (1) 5 f . , lO f. , (4) 3, (6) 1-2)

33. Chaireas' r e p e titio n s are noted by S to e s s l, op. c i t . (196S)

a t D. S3; Amott GSR 15 (1968) 14; 17 (1970) SS (he comments th at Chai.
i s perhaps "mimicking contemporary speech h ab its" o f a p a rtic u la r c la s s ) ;
K a tso u ris, op. c i t . 607.
34. One also n o tic e s "G natho's” use of asyndeton (236, 242, 2 5 6 f.),

a n tith e s is (243), polyptoton (232) and ploke (234).

35. Cf. L.A. Post AJPh 84 (1963) 37f. One can compare the cook o f
S tra to n 1 K, icat\u ρήματα ireiropicjicvoc (3-4).
36. GSR 17 (1970) S6, c itin g also 398, 513, 6 3 0 ff., 661f., 965f.
C f. G etas' word-play a t 4S8-4S9, 609. (On Sikon and cooks generally,
W ebster, SLCC 65f. , IM 102f. ; H. Doha, Mageiros (München 1964), esp. 9 3 f.
A. G iannini, Acme 13 (1960) 135-216, esp. 186f.]
37. On the κ ώ π ε ιν jo k e , see E.W. Handley, Hardt 10 and 15 and
Goame-Sandbach, pp. 82, 197, S72.

129
 38. G etas' hyperbata: (through in te rla c in g ) 402, 567, 583; (through
p aren th esis) 456, 962, 569, S87 (see Handley ad l o c .) ; (oath o r vocative)
S70, 462, 546, 660, 966f. Sikon has only 622 (o a th ), 659 (vocative and
• o a th ), 660 (vocative). Getas is fu rth er d istin g u ish ed from Sikon by h is
freq u en t parentheses: in addition to the above, 405, 408, 459, 895, 900,
90S. (Sikon: only 908.)
39. The instances are in themselves unremarkable, but G etas' sen ten ­
ces do reach a second degree o f subordination fiv e times (also 41Sf.,
4 0 7 f., S63f.), those o f Sikon only a t 895.
40. I an in clin ed to agree th at i t would be in keeping with
Onesimos' manner to assign 1090-1091 (mac; λεγειο γαρ eirwovov . . . ) to him
r a th e r than to Smikrines ("Der aufgebrachte Sm. i s t gewiss n ich t zu
philosophischen Disputen au fg eleg t," R. K assel, ZPE bd. 12/1, 1973, 6 ).'
For c e rta in instances o f νροοοχη in Menander, c f . n . IS above.
41. Cf. Capps and Gocme-Sandbach ad loc.
42. Noting also h is fondness fo r rare words generally. See fu rth e r
Gomae-Sandbach a t 557, 893, 1081, 1121. The p o in t about On.'s ad jec tiv e s
i n -TiKoc was made o r ig in a lly by L.A. Post, TAPhA 62 (1931) 231, in an
e x c e lle n t discussion o f the character (230-232).
43. Also 427, 546, 557, 5S9f. , 561, 565, 572 (Gomae-Sandbach are
s u re ly rig h t in taking the verb to be ocveueiv r a th e r than tra g ic έ κ ν ε ΐν ),
88, 940, 1120. Cf. h is sim ile 1116 and aninal comparison 1006 (in the
aanner of Da. (? ), A. 372, G e., M., above, p. 113).
44. Some 85 in stan ce s as opposed to 30 belonging to both Habrotonon
end Syriskos and a t o t a l o f approximately 240 in th e play.
45. S44f., 572, 883f. , 892 (c f. 720, 2S S f., 2 6 3 f., 29S f., 410, 911»
916 .]

130
 46. TVclve o f 19 in sta n c e s in the play: 4 2 0 f., 429, 456, 561, 1081;

419 , 420f. , 423, 449, 894 , 932, 1080.

47. 427, 4 5 2 f., 546 , 578 , 580f., 902 , 932, 1097f. 0>is), 1099;

Cf. 338, 721, 1068.

48. Cited above, n . 38 on p . 26. Keulen, c ite d ib id , adds com­

p a r a tiv e ly l i t t l e .
49. IN 107; one can compare h i· to Daos in Aspls (above, p. 93f.

and n . 8 ). -
50. On the prosoche o f 3 1 3 f., see n. IS above.
51. The locus c la s s ic u s should probably be P la to (Apology) 34C.
C f. Cohoon, op. c i t . , 201 f . A. Gulda has a re p re se n ta tiv e co llectio n o f
re fe re n c e s in SIFC 48 (1974) 221. n. 4.
52. Cf. the ta c tf u l ύτερ foac . . . ίηεροφετοη τα υ τ’ , 321 f . For
p re ju d ic e against the speaker in court fo r h is appearance, e.g . Lysias
XVI 18-19. Cf. S ostratos a t 0 . 301, re fe rrin g back to Daos* renarks a t
258. (Cf. n. 25 above.)
53. In th e ir resp ectiv e speeches Syriskos employs 1.16 subordinate
verbs p e r main verb, Daos, .73.
54 . 299f., 307-313, 3 1 3 f.. 323-330, 331f., 3 3 4 f., 348-352.
SS. 283-286 also sounds lik e something o f a διαλημμα gone wrong
(but c f . Cohoon, op. c i t . 1 8 8 f.). The lin e s could have been no re form ally
ex p ressed , in fa ct the whole o f 275-290 could have been more concisely
ex p ressed , in a standard statem ent such as: I f /s in c e he had no share in
fin d in g the c h ild , he has no reason to complain; i f he shared in finding
th e c h ild , he s t i l l had no reason to complain. Is th e re some awkward­
n e ss to o about 221f. (an apparent μεν/δε a n tith e s is , bu t in fa c t μεν
s o l i t a r i u a immediately followed by the connective) and 291 (the imbalance
o f th e a n tith e sis)?
131
 56. Daos* fondness f o r anaphora (263, 2 6 6 f., 359f.) should probably

not be f e l t to be c h a r a c te r is tic of him, except perhaps as suggesting h is

g eneral cu rtn ess, as a marked form of ag itated asyndeton. 266f. i s in

any case a nalicious q u o tatio n o f Syriskos* words ("seine gehässig nach­
äffende Mimik," S traus, op. c i t . 3). A ppropriately enough, Syriskos
s im ila r ly echoes (a t 3 2 9 f.) Daos' anaphora of 263 (so Cohoon, op. c i t .
215 and n. 130), though in a rattier more in te llig e n t manner, implying an
immediate contrast between the 'tr a g ic ' shepherd o f h is paradeiga and

th e avaricious Daos.
57. Even i f we ig n o re iso la te d remarks in d ialogue, 70% o f his
sentences open without connective, and roughly th e same proportion are

s in g le clauses.
58. He has only one formal an tith esis (μ έυ/δε, 6S 8f.), but two

c o r re la tiv e clauses (720, 1128).

59. Be may also have something o f a fa v o u rite phrase (comparable
to Knemon's hvocic) in οιμώ ζει« (μακρά), Coome-Sandbach a t 159-160.
60. 898, 899, 908, 910 (b is ). 914, 917, 918 ( b is ) , 921. Cf.
n. S3 on p. 62. Gomme-Sandbach ad loc. compare £ . 910 (cocepaioc,
ανενιχληκποο) with E. Or. 922.
/
61. DC 102. γλυκυο, he notes, i s Habrotonon's word, JHS 93 (1973)
197, n . 4. Cf. p. 97 above and n. 17 above, (hie n o tices too her inform al
address to Pamphile on f i r s t meeting h er, φιλτατη (862, 865; c f. 856, u
φίλτατον, addressed to th e c h ild ).
7 » /
62. On her use o f ω θ ε ο ί, cf. p. 70 above.
63. Cf. e .g . Dem. 18.217, 19.110. [Perhaps G lykera's expert
o ra to r ic a l hypophora a t Pk. 709ff. is sim ila rly suggestive of her s ta tu s
as in te llig e n t (p seu d o -)h etaira.]

132
 64. Cf. Webster IM 64. For the trag ic invocation of Night a t A lf .,
c f. the numerous p a r a lle ls c ite d by Gonune·Sandbach ad loc. Philemon
(P I. »lore. 4 f.) talk s o f those who aut nocti aut d i i aut Soli aut Lunae
' m iseries narrant suas, and presumably the Greek o rig in a l of th is followed
c lo se ly a f te r e ith e r Misouncnos (305, Webster, 10, GRBS 14, 1973,
290f.) o r P.Ant. , more probably the former. [On Philemon's chronology,
see Webster, SLGC 126. The o rig in a l of M ostellaria i s there dated to
317/307, since 941 probably re fe rs to the gynaikonomoi; might th is also

be the reference of D iphilos' ' Rudcns' 9 ff. (sc. Ju p p ite r - Demetrius)?]

Philemon again, in the S tr a tio te s (again sh o rtly a f t e r 305?), f r . 79 K,
p arodies the device, s p e c if ic a lly as used in E u rip id e s' Medea; c f. Webster,
SLGC 128, and for fu rth e r p a r a lle ls . Page a t E. Med. 57f. One can com­
pare also the invocation evidenced by the scholium a t Theokr. 2.10, i n ’
2
the prologue (?) to E u rip id es' f i r s t Hippolyt os (= p . 491 N'auck ) . [Another
p a r a lle l between Misoumenos and the f i r s t Hippolytos could be the impor­
tance o f the sword (Webster, IM 59 and GRBS lo c . c i t . , 292; on the sword
in the f i r s t Hipp. , c f. A.D. Trendall and T.B.L. Webster, Illu s tra tio n s
o f Greek Drama, London/New York 1971, p. 88).)
65. Al-2. A2-3, A4-S, A9. A10, A12-13, A14 , 260 , 262 , 265, 266,
267-268, 306-307, 307-308 , 360-361 [c f. 133-134, 134-13S, 221, 258, 284-28S,
295, 318, 320]. One might note also the young lo v e r 's hyperbole o f 260
(c f. Pk. 532f. , Sa. 9 0 f., P.Ant. IS I f . , Ter. Eun. 1031f.), h is reference
to him self in the th ird person (263 and s im ila rly in the synecdoche, 267)
and th e imploring young m an's standard formula, 305f. (cf. n. 36 on p. 25),
th e re p etitio n of the second person rath er re c a llin g the prayer fora o f
A lf. [With h is th re a ts o f suicide (f r. 2, 443f. suppl. Webster) c f.
those of the young men a t Pk. 506, 976, 988, Sa. 91 and in the o rig in a l

133
o f T er. Ad. (Donatus at 275), c ite d in K orte-T hierfelder I I , p. 14): on
th e l a s t see 0. R ieth, Der Kunst Menanders in den "Adelphen'1 des Terenz
(H ildershein 1964), 40f. , and W. Ludwig, fiRBS 9 (1968) 176.]
66. Classica et M ediaevalia 9 0973) 136.
67. For p a ra lle ls to G etas' animal metaphors, see Gonune-Sandbach
a t 295, 303, 311 (also E.R. Dodds at E. Ba. 987-990). Cf. n. 43 above.
G etas' metaphor a t 321 (Ελεπε; δε πυρ) is also in keeping with the s ty le .
68. 267f. , 289f. , 301, 302f.; 292f. , 300(7), 3 1 1 f., S44f. (c f.
777, 786).
69. ουκ/αλλά: 333f. , 337f. (cf. 328f., 3 4 0 f.7 ); Doris, however.
Λ ' ϊ / > ^
does have the more conversational ρα την Αφροδιτην, άλλα . . . . 991.
Moschion's antitheses are given in the preceding n o te . Daos' other
(standard) antitheses a re : (ό μεν / ό δε) 273, 305f. , (μεν/δε) 291, 325.
Of th e others in P erikeironene, the formal Pataikos has six antitheses
(n eg ativ e/p o sitiv e: 5 0 2 f., 720; μεν/δε: 495, 800, 803f. , 1021); Agnoia,
n o t unnaturally fo r a formal prologue, has three (n e g ativ e/p o sitiv e:
1 4 7 f.; (ο) μεν / (ό) δε: 145, 159); Sosias has one (μεν/δε: 398).
70. The probable paronomasia (Sudhaus's r e s to r a tio n ) of 290 would
a ls o be appropriate to M oschion's sty le . On the ch a ra c te risa tio n o f an
o ra to r through a n tith e s is , etymological fig u re, paronomasia, e tc . (esp.
in Lysias XXXI), c f. S. Usher, Eranos 63 (1965) 1 1 6 f., 117f.
71. Two, perhaps th re e , show i n i ti a l assonance o f ε ι - , depending
on the re sto ra tio n o f 776f. , e . g .:
ειδυϊαν άφέΐοθαι θυγατέρ’ αυτίμ γενομενην*
ε\ δε γεγενητ]αι τοΰτ’ , αδελφή δ ’ εοτ * εμη . . .
72. 488, 507 (with Γλυκερά, Παταικε cf. Ε. Hyps, f r . 64.95, ρίχτερ,
π α τ ή ρ - ) , 512 (b is ), 517, 523 (c f. 1024); 977, 983, 989 (Δωρ\ φιλτάτη).
On th e repeated vocative, c f . n . 36 on p. 25.

134
 73. One can compare th e young Phacdria a t T er. Hun. 65f. (egon

illa m , quae ilium , quae me, quae non . . . t sine oodo mori me malim). Cf.
th e distrau g h t young man o f D.E. (above, p. 9 8 f.) .
74. Even many o f h is seemingly m ilder statem ents should probably

be delivered with s im ila r forcefulness: e.g. a t 489 th e position o f έγω

suggests the emphasis to be given that statem ent, so th a t Pataikos can

p ro p erly reply, μη ßoaic.

75. Unless one considers the parenthesis o f 502. [On Polemon's
'sp h o d ro tes' g en erally, see W.W. Forthenbaugh, Phoenix 28 (1974) 435f.]
76. On the form o f t h is statement (-a , . . . , a-) might Daos* re actio n
a t 367-368 be in te rp re te d as an apt s t y l i s t i c comment (άναοτρεφη ανθρωχοο
όργιζόμενοο)?

77. 376-377, 388-390, 392, 39S, 466, 476 , 478-479 , 480, 482-483.
(Polemon has only one m ild m ilita ry metaphor a t 985.)

78. Sandbach, Hardt 115 (cf. Gomme-Sandbach a t Pk. 485). With

D. 462, 892, S i. 266, c f . Th. 19. [Although th e in te rp re ta tio n is re je c te d
by Sandbach, the p o ssib le double-entendre a t E_. S20 (see Gomme-Sandbach
and Nilamowitz ad lo c .) would be appropriate to th e slave Onesimos. Less
ap p ro p riate, I f e e l, i s th e double-entendre th a t C. G allav o tti would
a ttr ib u te to the educated paidagogos, Daos, a t A. 310-311 (Boll. Con. Ed.
Naz. Class, greci e l a t i n i XVIII, 1970, 89).]
79. See n. 69 above.
80. 1 noted above, however (p. 6 ), Demeas' fondness not only fo r
anaphora, but also t r i c o l a in his anaphoric statem ents (211f., 276f.,
3 1 7 f., 325f.; c f. 3 3 0 f.). I have wondered i f t h i s i s a mark o f h is
sense o f sty le (even when he is being em otional). He has fu rth er
asyndetic tric o la a t 190, 222, 238f., 356f., SSO, 6 0 6 f., 703 (with which

13S
c f . Dem. 19.109, eincTcuc' , εξαπατηθην,‘ήμαρτον, ομολογώ). Other examples

belong to Moschion, 14f. ( ? ) , 4 5 f ., 728f., Parmenon,· 7 1 f ., 7 4 f., and

N ik erato s, 98f. , 424f., 713. Cf. also h is use o f a n tith e s is (n. 85 below).
81. One can compare h is emotional addresses to Chrysis (see n. 36

on p . 25) and h is mixed (?) metaphors at 266f.

82. I t is l i t t l e more than a p o ssib ility t h a t we are meant to fe e l
t h a t i t i s consistent fo r h is son too to use the phrase at 677. (At any
r a t e , i t is only spoken by these two characters in Sarnia.) In addition
to th re e instances o f ουκ . . . , άλλα . . . a n tith e s is ( c f . n. 85 below),
Demeas also has the only instances in Sarnia o f th e abbreviated ουκ/ουθεν,
άλλα . . . , 110, 214 , 372 (h is instance at 532 i s n a tu ra lly excluded). C f.
E. Keuls, ZPE 10 (1973) 9 , f o r the p o s s ib ility t h a t νουν cyeic may also

be a favourite expression o f Demeas (471, 60S, 611, ?187).

83. Demeas' in sta n c e s: oncp c'ikoc, 225, toe ο ιο μ α ι, 371, etc εοικ ε,

130, 132, 163, 571 (c f. 109 - N i.), (icO’) άκριβωο (i'cO t), 173, 600, cine
o\<$' οποί, 261, ο’ι β ’ ( ό τ ι) , 477, 396, ηιοθημαι, 308, όραθ’ , 461, ικετεύω,
204, 518 (cf. 719 » Mo.). (Cf. his μή φοβου, 599, νανθαν-ω/-ειο, 37S *
cook, 378?)
84. Ne may also be surprised at an almost complete absence o f
emotional forms of assonance and re p etitio n . [Perhaps the best account
o f th e dramatic c h a ra c te risa tio n of Moschion (and o f Demeas too) i s th a t
o f J.-M . Jacques, Menandre, La Samienne, in tro d u ctio n p. 2 8 f.]
85. I t i s perhaps worth noting th at ju s t as in Perikeiromcne.
numbers of antitheses provided at le a st a suggestion o f the more formal
s ty le s of Moschion and P ataik o s, so in Sarnia, t h i s i s true fo r Moschion
and Demeas: of formal μ εν/δε antitheses. Mo. has 4 , De. 8, Ni. 1 (3 9 9 f.,
) I >
see above, p. 119); ουκ/αλλα. Mo. 5, De. 3, Ni. 1. The only passages

136
concentrated with, an tith eses are appropriately enough, th a t of Moschion,
h ere, and th a t of Deneas (594f. , 596f., S99f., h is advice to N ikeratos).

86. I t is probably a s ty le th at surprises even Moschion, and i t

disappears as his resolve breaks down. His bravado remains at 664f. and
i s marked by anaphora, but alre ad y his sentences have become p a ra ta c tic
and unsure. One might next compare 682f., with t h e i r nervous, short
u n its , parentheses and s h i f t s o f thought.
87. One can compare, e . g . , Gnathon a t Ter. Eun. 232f. who enters
with a sp e c ific comment on h is pondering his thoughts. This would
account f o r the frequency w ith which a newly arriv ed character opens,

lik e N ikeratos, with a μέν/δε a n tith e sis (Sandbach, Hardt 117f.).

APPENDIX I (to Part 2): the tw o-line rhymes in Menander,
See p. 40 fo r explanation of symbols.

Play (i) CÜ) (iii)

A. Ty. 97m Da. 164r Da. 5R
Sn. 154 Da. 338m Da. 57r
ck. 230 Ty. 109
Sm. 253 r Da. 388m
Sa. 270r
Cha. 281mr
Chai. 287r
G. My. 23 y .a. 7mR3
T f r . 5.1 [MR4]
y .a. 12r
Phi. 27
Da. 60
TK1. f r . 1.2xm

D.E. So. 97 So. 20r

Mo. 102 So.p. 61

D. Pv. 107 So. 179r Chai. 65

Kn. 160 Go. 249 So. 614
So. 216 Go. 281
Go. 3S4 So. 307
Da. 365 So. 387mr
Ge. 603 Kn. 508
Sik. 633m Ge. 607
Go. 695 So. 863R
So. 872a

E. Da. 242 r Da. 2S8r 9 " ·/ 897R3

Da. 249r Sy. 308r Cha.
Sy. 306mr Sy. 323R3 ?Chai. 982
Sy. 331 Sy. 410
Sy. 337mR Sy. 414a
Sy. 347r On. 572mr
Habr. SOOMr Sa. 593
? 629 Sa. 694
Sa. 1071m Sa. f r . 7.1
On. llllr Cha. 908a
Cha. 913a
Cha. 929
Habr. 952
Sa. 1073mr
On. 1088
On. 1123
H. Da. 14 Da. 11

138
 (1) d i) (H l)
Play
Kr. f r . 1 .1 3r 7 3 TTh. f r . dub
Th.
TTh. f r . dub. 24 7 5
TTh. f r . dub. 22

la. 7 4R
7 11

Mo.p. 64 Mo. 66a

IL·
Kol. Ph. 5
Po. 123

M. T 133r Thr. A6 7 179

Ge. 217 7 20 Ge. 310
Ge. 219R 7 181
Ge. 318R4 De. 192
De. 231

Pk. Po. S ll r Agrt. 124r Agn. 138

Mo. S38r Agn. 128R So. 482
Pa. 7S2 Mo. 313R3 [Pa. 802]
Mo. 776mR Mo. S29r
Pa. 810 Gl. 789

Pn. Da. 8 7 fr. 4

7 f r . 3 .3
Sa. Mo. 12 Mo. 46 Mo. 36r
Mo. 26 De. 101 De. 112
Mo. 33 De. 149 Mo. 141
[De. 167] De·/ 249 [De. 455]
De. 219 o.w. De. 5S3R
De. 274 De. 390
De. 279 De. 474
De. 346r
Ni. 402
De. 472
De. 487
Ni. S78
De. 588
De. 602
De. 609
Mo. 632
Pa. 653
De. 736
SI T 86 Py. 133 7 52
Th. 112 S*. 151 Py. 127
Th. 115 Bl. 189r Sa. 153
Th. 131* (Bl.) 246b

139
Play ( i) CÜ) (iil)

(Sa.) Py. 138r 7 297

7 f r . 1.2

Ph. Th. 15 7 9
y.m. 91R3 7 60

£ ·!· 7 40 ?Chai. 22r

P. D. 1 y.w. 22
y.w. 39

P. D. II y.m. 12K

P. Gh. 11 slave 74 slave 74

Ph. 148

P. Hib S tr . 4r

Two lin e rhymes in the fragm ents:

(i) 24.2, 5 5 .1 , 83.1, 180, [208-209], 258.1, 294.1, 303.4m, [325-326], 333.5,
338, 359, 409, 416.1, 418.1, 4 4 2 .1R, 451.4-5+, 474, 511, 553.2, 543.1, 552.1-
2*. 568.5, 598.2, 656.4r.
( i i ) 14.1, 9 7 .1 , [179.b -c ], 218R, 252m, 309.2 r, 333.9R, 451.9, 56S.2R3, 611,
612.12, 617, 714.7m, 776.2M, 794.1
( i i i ) 1.3R3, 177.2, 287.5 r, 349, 4 0 7 .3R, 417.6R, 452.2, 503.2, 508, 546.1,
559, 739r, 754.4R

140
APPENDIX I I ( to P art 3 ): th e o a th s in Menander.

The gods g en erally and the twelve gods

(μα toils 0 . ) : A. 306, 314 (senex C h a .); D. 459 (servus Ge. ) , 544 , 667

(aduloscens S o .); £. 935 (servus O n.); Μ. A15 (servus G e.) ; Sa. 283 (servus
P a .), 422 (senex N i.), 565 (senex P e .) [T otal » 10]

(μα τον'Απόλλω και Θ.): D. 151 (adulescens So.) [T otal ■ 1]

(vrI toils Θ .): D.E. 95 (adulescens So. » "m eretrix ’C h ry sis* "); D. 182
(adulescens S o .). 592 (senex K n.), 675 (adulescens S o .), 788 (senex Ka.);
E. 879 (servus On.); Sa. 272 (senex D e.), 286 (coquus), 515 (adulescens Mo.);
Ph. 44 (senex P a.), 90 (servus ? ? ); F. I . 54 (senex K l.); P.H eid. 1 (coquus L ib .);
f r . 171.1 (servus) [Total ■ 14; one belongs to a woman]

(vn tov*Aπάλλω και θ .) : E. 400, [951] (servus On.) [T otal » 2?]

(\i| to o ΠοσεΓύω και Θ .): Sa. 427 (senex Ni.) [T otal - 1]

(xpos θ . ) : A. 205, 269 (senex S a .) , 319 (servus D a.); D. 201 (v irg o ); 411,
657 (coquus S i . ) . 9S6 (senex K n.); E. f r . 1.1 (coquus K a .), 232 (servus S y.);
Kon. 18 (T T); Pk. 375 (servus S o .). S17, 979 (miles P o .); S a. 303, 322
(servus P a .) , 520 (adulescens Mo.); S i. 58 (servus? D r.? ); P.G. 11.169
(senex C h a.); f r . 745.2 (" p a ra s itu s " )
[Total ■ 19; one belongs to a woman]

(epos θ . και δαιμόνων): D. 622 (coquus S i.) ; E. 1083 (senex S a.)

[Total > 2]

(epos των 0 . ) : A. 220 (servus D a .). 261 (senex C ha.); D.E. f r . 1.1 (? ? );
D. 341 (adulescens S o .), 468 (servus Ge.), 503 (coquus S i . ) . 750, 751

141
(senex Kn.), 908 (servus C e.); E. 223 (servus S y .). 441 (servus On.); H. 14
(servus D a.); Pk. 481 (miles Po. - OCT; Habr. - W right), 752 (senex P a.);
Sa. 137 (adulescens Mo.)» 720 (senex D e.); Si. 382 (servus D r.); Ph. 6 (7 7

%overca" - OCT); P.Gh. II 186 C? ?) [Total » 19]

(ω Θ .) : E. 484 , 489 , 548 (cieretrlx H ab r.); Pk. 807 fps, -r.e re trix G l.), 827

(p s.-m eretrix Gl. or Mo.7) [Total » 5; a l l ( ? ) women]

(ω πολυτίμητοι Θ .): A. 408 (servus Da. ) ; D. 202, 381 (adulescens S o.), 479

(servus Ge.) : M. 16S (servus G e .); F. 1. 56 (senex L a.); f r r . 97.2 (? 7),

718.5 (7 7) [Total - 8]

(S φίλοι Θ.): f r . 362 (7 7) - [Total ■ 1]

(^Απολλον tcai θ .) : E.396 (servus S y .): P.Hib. 8 (servus S tro b ilo s)

[Total » 2]

(J Γη και Θ .): [Pk. 1026 (adulescens Mo. - Wright; Pa. - OCT)]

[T otal - 17]
(*ΗρακλεΤδαι κβι Θ.): f r . 730 (7 7) [Total - 1]

(Ποσειδου και Θ.): A.423(senex Sn. ) [Total « 1]

(μα tous δώδεκα 9eous): Kol · 127 ( le n o ) ; Sa. 306 (senex De.)
[Total - 2]
Wright quotes the remaining e x ta n t examples: Ar. E^. 235 (the Paphlagonian
curses D ikaiopolis and the s a u s a g e -s e lle r); Alkiphr. 4 .18.8 (Menander t e l l s
Glykera th a t he w ill c e rta in ly not go to Ptolemy's c o u rt). Austin (at Sa.
306 adds Page GLP 70.8 (Noumenios refuses his slave h is freedom).

142
 Athena

Οιά την ’A.) ; Kol. f r . 2 .5 (m ile s B ia s ); Pk. 303 (adulescens Mo.); Sa. 213

(senex D e .); -Si. 116 (p aras i t us T h e .? ); f r . 333.14 (senex ’L aches'), 656.1

(a d u le sc e n s) [Total « 6]

(νή την ' Λ . ): A. 319 (sencx C h a .) ; P.G. 11 128 (adulescens P h a.); f r . 407.1

(in c e rtu s ) (Total » 3)

(xpos tns ’A .): f r . 127.1 (senex) [T otal ■ 1J

(όεσηοιν ‘A . ) : Kol. 23 (ad u lesc en s P h e i.) ; Sl_. 144 (p a r a s itu s T h e.): both

are s t r i c t l y p ra y e rs , but th e f i r s t i s also exclam atory. [Total ■ 1]

(5μνυω . . . ) : fr. 87.2 (m ile s?) [Total · 1J

Apollo
(μα το ν Ά . ) : D. 151 (ad u lescen s S o .) ; H. 39 (servus G e .); M. 33 (senex D e.).
314 (s e rv u s G e .); Pk. 328 (se rv u s D a .); Sa. 309 (servus P a .) , 455, 596

( senex D e .); Ph. 90 (s e rv u s ); f r . 801 (in c e rtu s) [Total » 10J

(vh το ν *A-) : D. 659 (coquus S i k . ) ; E. 400, 878, 9S1 (serv u s On.); Pk. 362
(se rv u s Da. ?) [Total - 5]

(*λιτολλον) : A. 85 (senex S m .), 244 (coquus); D. 295 (adulescens S o .), 415

(coquus S i k . ) ; E. 396 (serv u s S y .) ; Pk. 1018 (a il es. P o .); Sa. 100 (senex
D e .? ), 127 (adulescens M o.), 567, 570 (senex De·); Si.· 116 (£ arasitu s T he.);
Ph. 87 (a d u le s c e n s ); F . I . 57 (sen ex K l.); F .I.A . 8 (serv u s S tro b .); f r .

334.4 (s e n e x ), 423.1 (in c e r tu s ) [Total * 16]

c f . D. 192. ώ Φοίβε Παιάν (a d u le scen s S o .), Sa. 474, μαρτυρομαχ σε, Λοξία

(senex D e .).

143
Asklepios
(μα τον *Α·): £· 160 (senex K n.), 666 (adulescens S o .); Pk. 336 (servus D a.);

Sa. 310 (servus P a.); f r . 85 (in c e rtu s ) (T otal ■ 5]

Aphrodite
(μα τήν *A.): E. 480 (m eretrix H a b r.); Pk. 991 (a n c illa Do.)
(T otal - 2]

Ge
(μά την γ · ) : D. 908 (coquus S ik .) (T otal ■ l j

( ω γ .) : Plc. 1026 (senex Pa.? adulescens Mo.?); F . l . 63 (senex La.)

(T otal - 2]

Demeter
(μά την Δ .) : D. 570 (servus G e .), 666 (adulescens S o .); Pk. S05 (miles P o .);

P.A. IS 2 (adulescens) (T otal » 4]

(vn την φίλην Δ .): E. 9S5 (m eretrix Habr.) [Total ■ 1]

The twin goddesses

(μα τω 0 . ) : £ . 109 (anus P h i.); Μ. 176 (anus ?); Si_. 33 (in cg rta )
[Total - 3]

(vn τω 0 . ) : G. 24 (anus P h i.); D. 878 (an cilla S im .); £ . 543 (meretrix

Habr.) (Total - 3]

Dionysos
(μα τον Δ .): A. 347 (adulescens C h a i.); D. 639 (coquus S ik .) ; Sa. 139
(adulescens Mo.), 309 (servus P a .) , 668 (adulescens Mo.) [Total * 5]

144
 (νή τον Δ .): Sa* 112 (senex N i.) [Total - 1]

Zeus
(μα τον Δ .): A. 167 (senex S a.) , 375 (adulescens Chai. ) ; I). 148 (adulescens

50. )» 437 (servus C e.); Pk. 317 (servus D a.), S24 (senex P a .) ; Sa. 310
(servus P a .) ; Si_. 176 ( ' n u n tiu s* Blepes); P.A. IS 35 (ad u lescen s); f r . 87.1
(■ lies?) . 215.4 (servus?) , 333.13 (senex La.) [Total ■ 12]

(μ α Δ .): D. 85 (adulescens S o .) , 142 (servus P y .). 3S8, 826 (adulescens Go.)

Js. 355 (senex S a.); M. 65 (in c e r tu s ) , 133 (servus C e .); S a. 715 (senex De.);
51. 265 (v u lg u s); F .I . 52 (senex K l.) [Total - 10]

(vn τον Δ .) : A. 370 (senex C h a.), 430 (servus D a.); G. 63 (servus 0 a .);
D. 83S (senex Ka.); t . 359 (servus D a.); Pk. 759 (senex P a .) , 99S (a lle s
P o .); Sa. 442, 548 (senex De.) , 641 (servus P a .); S i. 157, 216 ( ' nuntlus'
Blepes); P.G. 11 194 (?); P.Ham. 10 (? ); P.Oxy. 10 17 (s e rv u s ); f r . 127.4
(senex C h r.), 439 (parasitus7) [Total « 17]

(νπ Δ .): A. 201 (servus D a.), 238 (coquus), 393 (senex S a .) , S27 (? );
G. 34 (anus P h i.? ); D. 94 (servus P a .), 162 (senex K n.), 234 (adulescens
Go.), 320 (adulescens S o .), 434 (servus Ge.), 467 (senex K n.), 516 (coquus
S ik .), S31, 681 (adulescens S o .), 774 (adulescens G o.); H. 69, 72 (senex
L a.?); Th. 29 (adulescens K l.); M. 271 (adulescens K l.);P k . 757 (m eretrix
Gl. );S a . 12, 490, 521 (adulescens Mo.), 680 (servus P a . ) , 686 (adulescens
Mo.); !U. 111, 114, 365 (parasitu s T he.); F .I . 21 (adulescens Cha.?); f r .
100.1 ( in c e r tu s ) , 303.5 (in c e rtu s) [Total > 31]

(ομνύω σοι το ν Δ. τον Ολύμπι ον) ; f r . 87.2 (miles?) [Total « 1]

(μαρτύρομαι τον φίλιον Δ .): f r . 49 (?) [Total - 1]

14S
 (u Z .): A · . S06 (servus D a .); M. 210 (senex D e.); Pk. 779 (scncx P a .);

Sa. 487 ( De.) [Total - SJ

(ω κράτισ '■■■> θεών, an e x c la n a tio n ? ): P. Hib. 10 (servus Strop.)

[Total - 1]

One can c .ire: ω Z. aarcp, D. 192 (adulescens S o .); ω Z. τροναΐε (7),

M. 45 (s De. 77); ώ Z. »ολυτίμητ , Μ. 284 (servus C e .), f r . 289(7),

937 (Inc is); ώ Z. φ»ν , P.D. I (watrona 'P ao p M la'?); Z. Σωτερ, D. 690
(adulesc S o .), f r . 581.2 (se n c x ); cf. fr . 842 (Harpocr. 70.11:
ΐλευ θ ερ \ ζευ$· . . . οτι δέ έχιγτττραπται Γωτηρ ονομάζεται δε και Ελευθέριο*,
δηλοΐ kü Μένανδρο»).

Helios
(νη τόν *Η.): Α. 399 (servus D a .), 529 (servus Da. ag a in ? ); E. 525 (servus
On.), 6 3 2 (adulescens Chai. ? ); M. 285 (servus Ge.); Sa. 323 (senex De.);

S i. 117 (p arasitu s T h e.), 273 (adulescens Mo.7); F. 1. 25 fadulesccns Chai.7)

[Total ■ 9[

(αμνύω/ομνυμί σοι τον *'«.): Kol. 46 (parasitus G n.?); Sa. 323 (senexDe.);
f r . 279 (in certu s) [Total * 3]

Herakles
(*H.): D. 74 (parasitus C h a i.); E. 532, 1082 (sem is O n.); Η. 41 (servus
D a.); M. 287, 435 (servus G e .); Pk. 352 (servus D a.); Sa. 360, [3S4J (coquus),
405 (senex N i.), 435 (adulescens Mo.), [454], 552 (senex D e.); P.C. II 100
(senex); P.Haa. 6 (adulescens?) [Total ■ IS]

146
(‘Η. αυαζ): D. 621 (coquus S ik .) (Total ■ 1]

(ώ *H.): D. 435 (senex K n.), 612 (adulescens S o .); £· 363 (servos P a .),
630 (servus O n.); H. 5S (senex L a .); Ü· 302 (servos G e .); Sa. 178 (senex
De.)» 408 ( senex M .) ; S i. 1S8 (senex S · .) ; I.A .F. b 3 (adulescens)
(Total - 10]

(vrj τον *H .): A. 528 (adulescens C hai.?) [Total « 1]

Cf. th e in stan ce o f 'ϋρακλεΐδ&ι -<οι θεοί, f r . 730 (7 7 ).

Hephaistos
(μα τον *Η·): D. 718 (senex K n.); S1. 317 (senex K i.7 o r parasltos The.)
[Total - 2]

(vf) τον *H.): Sa. 552 (senex D e.) (Total » 1)

Poseidon
(νη τον Π .): 87 (senex L a.7 ); Sa. 363 (coquus), 427 (senex Hi.)
(Total - 3]

(Π.): A. 423 (senex S n .); D. 633 (coquus S ik .) , 777 (adulescens Go.)

(Total » 3]

(ω Π .): I). 889 (servus G e .); Pk. S18 (senex Pa.) (Total · 2]

147
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, M., "Kneraon's h am artia," GSR 17 (1970) 199ff.

A rnott, W.G., "The co nfrontation o f Sostratos and G o rg ia s," Phoenix 18

0 9 6 4 ) HOff.

—, ’M enander, qui v ita e o s te n d it vita»,·· GSR IS (1968) I f f .

—. "Phormio P ara situ s,” GSR 17 (1970) 32ff.

—, " T a rg e ts , techniques and tr a d i t i o n in P lautus’ S tic h u s ,” BICS 19

(1972) 32ff. ------

A ustin, C ., e d ., Menandri Aspis e t Sania. 2 v o ls. (B e rlin 1969/1970)

B arlgazzi, A ., Review o f Menandri Reliquiae S clectae (ed. F.H. Sandbach) and
Menander. A Commentary (A.W. Gonaae and F.H. Sandbach), RF1C 102 (1974) 4S9ff.

Capps, E ., e d .. Four Plays o f Menander (Boston 1910)

Cohoon, J . K . , Rhetorical S tudies in the A rb itratio n Scene o f Menander's
E pitrepontes (Diss. P rinceton 1915; * ΤΑΡΑ 4S, 1914, 141ff.)
Cunningham, I .C ., e d ., Herod as (Oxford 1971)
D allap icco la, L ., "Parole e musica n e lla nelodranma," Quadcrwi d e lla
Rassegna Musicale 2 (1965) 117ff.
Dedoussi, C ., MevdvSpoo Caufa (Athens 19SS)
"S tu d ies in comedy,"‘Ελληνικά 18 (1964) I f f .
D itta a r, W., Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu A rist ophanes und Menander (Diss.
L eipzig 1935)
Doha, H ., Mageiros (München 1964)
Edmonds, J.M ., The Fragments o f A ttic Comedy, 3 v o ls. (Leiden 1957/1961)
Eitrem, S ., "T extkritische Bemerkungen," Symbolae O sloenses 3S (1959) 130ff.
Flury, P ., Liebe und Liebessprache bei Menander. P lau tu s und Terenz
(Heidelberg 1968)

Fortenbaugh, K.H., "Menander’s Perikeiromene: m isfortune, vehemence, and

Polemon," Phoenix 28 (1974) 430ff.

G iannini, A ., "La figura del cuoco n e lla commedia g re c a ," Acne 13 (1960) 135ff.
G il, L ., "Menandro, Aspis 439-464,” Cuad. F il. C las. 2 (1971) 12Sff.

148
 G one, A.W. and F.H. Sandbach, Menander, A Commentary (Oxford 1973)

G r if f ith , J .G ., "A yocative expression in Greek Comedy," N.S. 18 (1968) 9

Guggenheimer, E.H., Rhyme E ffe c ts and Rhyming Figures (The Hague 1972)

Guide, C ., "Note sul S icionio d i Menandro," S1FC 46 (1974) 211ff.

Gygli -Wvss, B.f Das nominale Polyptoton in alteren G riechisch (Gottingen

1972)
Handley, E .H ., "Menander's Aspis and Saala," B1CS 16 (1969) 102ff.

—, e d ., Menander, Dyskolos (London 1965)

—, "Notes on the Theophoroumene o f Menander," BtCS 16 (1969) 88ff.

—, "The prologue to Menander's Misoumenos," ZPE 6 (1970) 97

Headlam, K. and A.D. Knox, H erodas, the Mimes and Fragments (Cambridge 1922)

Hernnanowski, P ., De Homoeotcleutis Quibusdan Tragicorun e t Consonantiis

R ep etitio n e Eiusdeia Vocabuli ab Acschylo E ite c tis (B erlin 1881)
Jacques, J .-M ., 'TIenandre i n e d it: la Double Fourberie e t la Sanienne."
B u ll. Assoc. Bude, 4 s e t . (1968) 21Sff.

—, e d ., Mdnandre, la Sanienne (P a ris 1971)

Kassel, R ., ed ., Menandri Sicyonius (Berlin 1965)

"Neuer und a lte r Menander," ZPE 12 (1973) I f f .

K atsouris, A ., Some o f the In flu en ces of Greek Tragedy on Menander

(D iss. Leeds 1972)
Keulen, B ., Studia ad A rb itriu a in Menandri Epitrepontibus Exhibitum
(D iss. Leiden 1916)
Keuls, E ., 'The Sania of Menander: An in te rp re ta tio n o f i t s plot and
them e," ZPE 10 (1973) I f f :
Kock, T . , Comlcorum A tticonrn Fragment a , 3 vols. (L eipzig 1880/1888)
Körte, A ., e d ., Menandri quae supersunt: pars p rio r3 (Leipzig 1957)
— and A. T h ierfeld er, e d ., Menandri quae supersunt: p a rs a lte r a 3
(L eipzig 1959)
Lapp, F . , De Callimachi Cyrenaei Tropis et Figuris (D iss. Bonn 1965)
Lausberg, H ., Handbuch der lite ra r is c h e n Rhetorik, 2 v o ls . (München 1960)
Lenz, E ., "De Terenti Afri e t T. Macci Plan»i figuraruia phoneticarum
u su ," Programms gymnasii Homani 39 (1911) S ff.

149
 L lo y d -J o n e s , H ., "Notes on M enander's P erikeirom ene, " ZPE IS (1974) 209ff.

Lowe, J . C . B . , "The m an u scrip t evidence fo r changes o f speaker in

A r is to p h a n e s ," 8ICS 9 (1962) 2 7 ff.

— , "Some q u e s tio n s o f a t t r i b u t i o n in A risto p h a n e s," Hermes 95 (1967) 5 3 ff.

Ludwig, W., "The o r i g i n a l i t y o f Terence and h is Greek m odels,” GRBS 9 (1968) 169ff.
H acC ary, W .T ., "M enander's o ld m en," ΤΑΡΑ 102 (1971) 3 0 3 ff.

Madyda, L . , "De Donato s t i l i T e r e n tia n i iu d ic e ," C h a r i s t e r i a Thaddaeo

S in k o (Warsaw 1951) 1 8 3 ff.

M a r tin , V ., Papyrus Bodmer IV , Menandre: Le P yscolos (Cologny-Cenevre 1958)

K e in e k e , A ., Fragmenta Coaicorum Craccorum, 5 v o ls . (B e r lin 1839/1857)

N o rd en , E .» Der an t i ke K u n stp ro sa, .2 y o ls. ( S tu ttg a r t 1958)

P ag e, D .L ., Greek L ite r a r y P a p y ri (London 1950)

P f e i f f e r , R ., "E in neues In a c h o s -Fragment des S o p h o k le s," S itzb . Bayer.
A kad. 1958, H e ft 6

P i r a n d e l l o , L ., L'Umorismo (F ire n z e 1920)

P o s t, L .A ., "D ram atic uses o f th e Greek im p e ra tiv e ," AJP 59 (1938) 31ff.

— , "M enander in c u r re n t c r i t i c i s m , ” ΤΑΡΑ 65 (1934) 1 3 ff .

"Some s u b t l e t i e s i n M enander's D yscolus," AJP 84 (1965) 36ff.

— , "T he v i s o f M enander." ΤΑΡΑ 62 (1931) 2 0 3 ff.

R abe, K ., e d . , Hermogenes ( S t u t t g a r t 1913)

R ea, J . R . , "Notes on Menander’s P erikeirom ene," 2PE 16 (197S) 12Sff.

Rhys R o b e rtso n , W., e d ., D io n y siu s o f H a lic a rn a ssu s, On L itera ry Composition

(London 1910) ----------------------------------

R ie th , O . , Der Kunst Menanders in den "Adelphen" des T eren t (Hildersheim 1964)

R o b in so n , C .A ., The Tropes and F igures o f Isaeus (P rin c e to n 1901)

R ö n n et, G ., Etude su r le s t y l e de Deraosthene (P a ris 1951)

150
 Sandbach, F.H., Menander, R eliquiae Selcctae (Oxford 1972)
Spengel, L. von, Rhetores G ra e c i, 3 vols. (Leipzig 1853/1856)

S to e s s l, F ., e d ., Menander, Dyskolos, Kommentar (Paderborn 1965)

- - , Personenwechsel in Menanders Dyskolos (S itz. Ö sterreich . Akad., P h il.
. h is t.-K la s s e , 234 , 5 , 1960)

S tra u s, J . , Terenz und Menander (Zurich 1955)

T h ie rfe ld e r, A., "De P la u ti C is te lla r ia ," S t. U rbinati 35 (1961) 113ff.
T urner, E.G., The G irl from Samos (Athlone Press 1972)
e d ., "Menandre," E n tretien s Fondation Hardt XVI (1969)
—, 'T he papyrologist a t work," GRBS non. 6 (1973)

—, "The Phasna o f Menander," GRBS 10 (1969) 307ff.

Usher, S ., "Individual c h a ra c te risa tio n in_ L ysias," Eranos 63 (1965) 9 9 ff.

—, "The speech against Pancleon," CR 16 (1966) lO f.

Hagener,A.P., " S ty lis tic q u a litie s of the apostrophe to nature as a d ran atic
d ev ice," ΤΑΡΑ 6 (1931) 78ff.

Webster, T.B.L., An Intro d u ctio n to Menander (Manchester 1974)

—, "Notes on Menander,” Acta C lassica e t M ediaevalia 9 (1973) 132ff.

—, "Self-apostrophe in Menander," CR 15 (1965) 17f.
2
- - , S tudies in Later Greek Comedy (Manchester 1970)
2
—, S tudies in Menander (Manchester 1960)
—, "Three notes on Menander," JHS 93 (1973) 196ff.
— , "Woman hates s o ld ie r: A s tru c tu ra l approach to New Comedy," GRBS 14
(1973) 287ff.

N erres, J . , Die Beteuerunesformeln in der a ttisch en KonSdie (Diss. Bonn 1936)

Wilaaowitz-Moellendorff, υ . von, Menander, das S chiedsgericht (B erlin 1925;
new inpression 1958)
W right, F.W., Studies in Menander (Diss. Princeton 1910)
Z in i, S ., II linguaggio dei personaggj n e lle comwedie d i Menandro
(Firenze 1938)

151