140

Μελίλωτος (Melilotos)
(‘Melilotus’)

Discussion Meineke 1839 1.371; 1840 III.173; 1847. 580; Bothe 1855. 423;
Kock 188411.145; Edmonds 1959 II.56-7; Masson 1986.178-9 (= 1990 II.502-3);
Kassel-Austin 1991 11.251; Sanchis Llopis et al. 2007. 252
Title The title is probably a personal name derived from the name of a plant;
cf. Pherecrates’ Petale·, Koriannd. For the use of names as titles, cf. Sdsippos·,
Breitenbach 1908. If the title connotes only the flower, it is unparalleled unless
it refers to some sort of token (e. g. Daktylios by Alexis and others; cf. Arnott
1996 ad loc.) or an object crucial for the denouement (e. g. Plautus’ Rudens).
Masson’s suggestion (at 1986. 178-9 = 1990 11.502—3) that the title is a
proper name is likely correct. His main evidence, the use of the word as a
Roman cognomen at I.Eph VII 1687 (14).4 (first century BC) and CIL VI 26939
(first century AD; cf. Solin 1996 11.519; 2003 11.1197), is sufficient to establish
the existence of the (masculine) name, even if it sheds little light on fourth
century Athenian practice. For a possible feminine form, see Bechtel’s deriva-
tion (1917. 596) of the name Μελώτα from *Μελιλώτα in an inscription from
Tanagra (IG VII1200; Hellenistic). Nevertheless, names derived from plants are
a standard feature of Greek onomastics in all periods and places; see Bechtel
1902. 100-10; 1917. 592-7 (595-7 for women’s names); Solin 1996 11.511-26;
2003 11.1152-1200. Since the name of a plant is unparalleled as a comic title,
while the use of a name is well paralleled, the latter is preferable here. Hetaira
names derived from plants are a well established group (cf. fr. 9.6 Ώκιμον with
n.); worth considering is emending the title to Μελιλωτώ (i. e. emending the
two citations in Athenaeus from Μελιλώτω to Μελιλωτοϊ).
Arnott 1985 conclusively demonstrated that μελίλωτος is to be identified
with one of the species of modern melilot as opposed to trigonella graeca
(so e.g. ESJ following Hort’s Eoeb edition of Thphr. HP). Melilot is an herb
(Hsch. μ 712) known for its sweet smell (e.g. Thphr. CP6.14.8, 11; Dsc. 3.40;
cf. Pherecr. fr. 138.2 and its use for garlands at Cratin. fr. 105; Alex. fr. 119)
and medicinal qualities (e.g. Hipp. Ulc. 19 [VI.422 Littre]; Gal. XII.70 Kuhn;
Dsc. 3.40); see in general Arnott 1985 (concise summary at Alex. fr. 119). Pace
Bothe’s assertion that the neuter must be read here because the masculine is
‘nomen viri, qui nullus fuit’, the masculine is well attested from an early date
(e.g. Sapph. fr. 96.14; Thphr. HP7.15.3), while the neuter is not (Peripl.M.Rubr.
49; first century AD).
Content of the comedy Of the two fragments, one comments on extra-
vagant expenditure, the other mentions a piece of household furniture. The