Aristophanes Acharnians 750

Table of Contents

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

Acharnians. Aristophanes. . 2026-09-08.

Current edition Experimental

English (Sanjaya, generated; selected passages) (OCR draft) (English) (Source: pnadelofficial/aristophanes-sanjaya, commit c319590c139e5603e71f0699caa0663d823af8ad. Machine-generated source annotations retained; see Sanjaya import audit for coverage and limitations.)

Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.

Editions (1)
Ἀχαρνῆς Perseus (Aristophanes. Aristophanis Comoediae, Vol. 1. Hall, F. W. and Geldart, William M., editors. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906.) — 719-835 focus
Translations (1)
Acharnians (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Anonymous; Liveright, 192?). Migrated from Perseus legacy XML; source wording and notes retained. See TEI header and migration inventory.) — 750 focus

Commentary

Commentary (Sanjaya, generated; selected passages) (OCR draft) (Source: pnadelofficial/aristophanes-sanjaya, commit c319590c139e5603e71f0699caa0663d823af8ad. Machine-generated source annotations retained; see Sanjaya import audit for coverage and limitations.) focus

750b. mvp-tlg0019-tlg001-sanjaya-com-eng1-28

Line 750b

ἀγορασοῦντες ἵκομες.
The verb ἵκομες is an Attic contraction of ἵκομεν, the first-person plural aorist indicative active of ἵκω. While the uncontracted form ἵκομεν is standard in most dialects and later Attic prose, the contracted form ἵκομες is a distinctive feature of Aristophanic comedy, reflecting the poet's deliberate use of Doric or archaic forms to evoke a specific comic or rustic tone. This contraction is not merely a scribal variation but a metrically and stylistically significant choice that aligns with the play's linguistic playfulness.

759. mvp-tlg0019-tlg001-sanjaya-com-eng1-29

Line 759

παρʼ ἁμὶ πολυτίματος ᾇπερ τοὶ θεοί.
The phrase contains two notable dialectal features characteristic of the Doric and Boeotian dialects employed by the chorus of Acharnians: the preposition ἁμὶ (Attic ἡμῖν) and the dative plural article τοί (Attic τοῖς). While the Doric dialect is standard for the chorus in Old Comedy, the specific use of τοί here, rather than the more common Atticizing τοῖς or the Boeotian τῶν, reflects the local Boeotian identity of the Acharnians (who were technically from Attica but often associated with the broader Boeotian linguistic sphere in comic exaggeration or simply adhering to the strict Doric of the chorus). Furthermore, the verb form ᾇπερ is a Doric contraction of ἄγει (or related forms like ἄγουσι) with the enclitic particle περ, creating a specific rhythmic and dialectal texture essential for the choral song's meter and character, distinguishing it from the iambic trimeters of the dialogue.

772. mvp-tlg0019-tlg001-sanjaya-com-eng1-30

Line 772

αἰ λῇς, περίδου μοι περὶ θυμιτιδᾶν ἁλῶν,
The form θυμιτιδᾶν is a distinctive Doric dialectal variant of the Attic θυμιατηρίων (or θυμιατηρίων), meaning 'of the incense-burners' or 'of the places of burning incense'. This dialectal feature is characteristic of the rustic characters (the Chorus of Acharnians) in Aristophanes, who speak in a rough, Boeotian-influenced Doric, contrasting with the Attic of the urban characters. The specific genitive plural ending -ᾶν reflects the Doric treatment of the first declension, and the lexical choice θυμιτιδᾶν rather than a more generic term for incense highlights the specific ritual context of the scene, where the character is likely being asked to perform a ritual act or is being mocked for one.

773. mvp-tlg0019-tlg001-sanjaya-com-eng1-31

Line 773

αἰ μή ʼστιν οὗτος χοῖρος Ἑλλάνων νόμῳ.
The phrase Ἑλλάνων νόμῳ ('by the law of the Hellenes') is a hyperbolic legal fiction central to the play's comedy. Dicaeopolis is not merely stating a custom but invoking a 'law' that does not exist in reality; the humor derives from the absurdity of applying a pan-Hellenic legal standard to a trivial domestic dispute over a piglet, thereby satirizing the tendency of Athenian litigants to fabricate or exaggerate legal precedents to win their cases.

786. mvp-tlg0019-tlg001-sanjaya-com-eng1-32

Line 786

νεαρὰ γάρ ἐστιν· ἀλλὰ δελφακουμένα
The verb δελφακουμένα (delphakoumena) is a hapax legomenon in the extant corpus of Aristophanes and a rare example of a compound verb in the middle/passive voice with a reduplicated stem. While the root φαίνω (to show) is common, the prefix δελφ- is dialectal and likely derives from the Boeotian or Arcadian form of δελφίς (a type of bird, possibly the dove or turtledove), suggesting a meaning of 'cooing' or 'making the sound of a dove.' The reduplication (del-phakoumena) mimics the repetitive nature of the bird's call, creating an onomatopoeic effect that characterizes the young woman's nervous chatter or the fawning behavior of the suitors. This construction is a deliberate piece of comic wordplay, typical of Aristophanes' linguistic inventiveness, where the form itself enacts the semantic content of the passage.

798. mvp-tlg0019-tlg001-sanjaya-com-eng1-33

Line 798

ναὶ τὸν Ποτειδᾶν καί κʼ ἄνις γα τῶ πατρός.
The sentence contains a severe textual corruption: 'κʼ ἄνις γα τῶ πατρός' is nonsensical in standard Attic Greek. The transmitted text likely suffers from scribal error or corruption in the archetype. The phrase 'κʼ ἄνις' (and you will go?) is syntactically awkward with the oath, and 'γα τῶ πατρός' (to the father?) is ungrammatical. A plausible conjecture, supported by the context of the *Acharnians* where Dicaeopolis often swears by Poseidon and refers to his father, is that the text should read something like 'κἀγὼ ἄνισθαι' or a similar construction, or that 'γα' is a corruption of 'γὰρ' or a particle. More specifically, the phrase 'καί κʼ ἄνις' may be a corruption of 'καί κʼ ἄν' (and even if) followed by a verb, or perhaps 'κἀγὼ ἄν' (and I too would). However, the most widely accepted emendation for this crux, given the oath to Poseidon (Poteidan) and the context of Dicaeopolis's argument about his father's legacy or status, is to read 'κἀγὼ ἄν' (and I too would) or to recognize 'γα' as a corruption of 'γάρ' (for) which might introduce a clause explaining the oath. The phrase 'τῶ πατρός' is likely correct, but the preceding words are almost certainly corrupted. Some editors have suggested 'κἀγὼ ἄν' or 'καί κἂν' (and even if) as a possible reading, though the exact emendation remains debated. The presence of 'γα' is particularly suspect, as it does not fit the syntax of an oath followed by a conditional or explanatory clause. This is a genuine crux requiring textual criticism to resolve.