26
Eupolis
the basis of language. What appear to be Attic colloquialisms, first of all, are
strewn throughout the fragments.* * * * * * * 21 Simple, bland oaths by Zeus of a sort
typical of Aristophanic comedy and likely common in normal conversation
are preserved in frr. 99.110; 192.130; 268.31; 270.2 (n.), as is an equally unre-
markable oath by Poseidon at fr. 286. Less common oaths appear at frr. 79 (“by
the almond tree”) and 192.170 (“by Diodes”) and may represent attempts to
characterize the speakers or their situations. The fragments also contain crude
sexual and excretory vocabulary of a sort again familiar from Aristophanes:
άναφλασμός, “make oneself hard” vel sim. at fr. 69; βινέω, “fuck” in fr. 385.2;
κινέω, “screw” and cognates in frr. 99.27; 104.2; 247.3; λακκωπρωκτία, “fag-
gotry” < πρωκτός, “asshole” in fr. 385.4; χέζω, “shit” in fr. 240. That there
are not more such items, and that those we have are relatively bland and
uninventive,22 might have to do with a lack of interest in (or even an active
distaste for) such words in our sources, or it might be that Eupolis’ poetry was
for some reason slightly less “dirty” than Aristophanes’. Additional but less
direct references to sex are preserved in frr. 54; 171.2; 221.2-3; 232. Abusive
references to or descriptions of other characters, as well as of real contempo-
rary persons, are common, and many of them are colorful.23
As in Aristophanes, this basic colloquial stratum is enlivened by striking,
witty language of all sorts.24 That the ability to produce this style of humor
was prized in Athens in the time of Aristophanes and Eupolis is beyond much
doubt (cf. Ar. V. 1287-9), so that in this regard as well comic characters likely
speak much like clever and amusing real Athenians did, i. e. as more average
1 e.g. frr. 3 deictic -i; 25 βαλλάντιον; 56 άτάρ; 76.1 ού γάρ άλλά; 84.2 πολλοϋ used
adverbially; 97 καπνοδόκη; 99.24 χθες και πρώην, 69 είπέ μοι as interjection, 73
αύτός εκείνος, 85 strings of nasty names with σύ, 91 exclamatory όσος, 103 τί
δε;, 107 main verb + βαδίζων in sense similar to English “go and ...”; *100.15 φέρ’
ϊδω; 143 θηρίον in the sense “animal, non-human creature”; 148.3 νυκτερινός;
152 ήδύσματα; 161.1 δή with imperative; 165.1 ιδού signalling compliance with
a request or order; 171.1 ληρέω; 172.3 ακόλουθος in sense “slave attendant”; 182
λευκή ήμέρα; 193.2 εναχχος; 328.2 ότιή; 384.2 σφόδρα as intensifier.
22 The two most striking sexual crudities (βινέω and λακκωπρωκτία) are used by the
same character in fr. 385 for abusive purposes, βινέω and κινέω are nonetheless
so easily confused in minuscule that a case can be made for printing either at any
point in the text.
23 E.g. frr. 9; 20; 35; 43; 49; 60 (an exchange between two characters); 88 (a descrip-
tion of an on-stage character?); 99.114-17; 103; 107; 112; *116-17; *126; 132; 157b;
172.14-16; 175; 195; 220; 222; 227; 232; 249; 253; 262; 295; 305-6; 318; 329; 331; 341.2;
352; 368.
24 E.g. frr. 42.3; 104.3; 120; 187; 190; 205; 220; 246.3; 247.4; 263; 300.2; 343; 379; 384.8.
Eupolis
the basis of language. What appear to be Attic colloquialisms, first of all, are
strewn throughout the fragments.* * * * * * * 21 Simple, bland oaths by Zeus of a sort
typical of Aristophanic comedy and likely common in normal conversation
are preserved in frr. 99.110; 192.130; 268.31; 270.2 (n.), as is an equally unre-
markable oath by Poseidon at fr. 286. Less common oaths appear at frr. 79 (“by
the almond tree”) and 192.170 (“by Diodes”) and may represent attempts to
characterize the speakers or their situations. The fragments also contain crude
sexual and excretory vocabulary of a sort again familiar from Aristophanes:
άναφλασμός, “make oneself hard” vel sim. at fr. 69; βινέω, “fuck” in fr. 385.2;
κινέω, “screw” and cognates in frr. 99.27; 104.2; 247.3; λακκωπρωκτία, “fag-
gotry” < πρωκτός, “asshole” in fr. 385.4; χέζω, “shit” in fr. 240. That there
are not more such items, and that those we have are relatively bland and
uninventive,22 might have to do with a lack of interest in (or even an active
distaste for) such words in our sources, or it might be that Eupolis’ poetry was
for some reason slightly less “dirty” than Aristophanes’. Additional but less
direct references to sex are preserved in frr. 54; 171.2; 221.2-3; 232. Abusive
references to or descriptions of other characters, as well as of real contempo-
rary persons, are common, and many of them are colorful.23
As in Aristophanes, this basic colloquial stratum is enlivened by striking,
witty language of all sorts.24 That the ability to produce this style of humor
was prized in Athens in the time of Aristophanes and Eupolis is beyond much
doubt (cf. Ar. V. 1287-9), so that in this regard as well comic characters likely
speak much like clever and amusing real Athenians did, i. e. as more average
1 e.g. frr. 3 deictic -i; 25 βαλλάντιον; 56 άτάρ; 76.1 ού γάρ άλλά; 84.2 πολλοϋ used
adverbially; 97 καπνοδόκη; 99.24 χθες και πρώην, 69 είπέ μοι as interjection, 73
αύτός εκείνος, 85 strings of nasty names with σύ, 91 exclamatory όσος, 103 τί
δε;, 107 main verb + βαδίζων in sense similar to English “go and ...”; *100.15 φέρ’
ϊδω; 143 θηρίον in the sense “animal, non-human creature”; 148.3 νυκτερινός;
152 ήδύσματα; 161.1 δή with imperative; 165.1 ιδού signalling compliance with
a request or order; 171.1 ληρέω; 172.3 ακόλουθος in sense “slave attendant”; 182
λευκή ήμέρα; 193.2 εναχχος; 328.2 ότιή; 384.2 σφόδρα as intensifier.
22 The two most striking sexual crudities (βινέω and λακκωπρωκτία) are used by the
same character in fr. 385 for abusive purposes, βινέω and κινέω are nonetheless
so easily confused in minuscule that a case can be made for printing either at any
point in the text.
23 E.g. frr. 9; 20; 35; 43; 49; 60 (an exchange between two characters); 88 (a descrip-
tion of an on-stage character?); 99.114-17; 103; 107; 112; *116-17; *126; 132; 157b;
172.14-16; 175; 195; 220; 222; 227; 232; 249; 253; 262; 295; 305-6; 318; 329; 331; 341.2;
352; 368.
24 E.g. frr. 42.3; 104.3; 120; 187; 190; 205; 220; 246.3; 247.4; 263; 300.2; 343; 379; 384.8.