270.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg007-sanjaya-com-eng1-1
Line 270
πάσας, ὑπὸ ψήφου μιᾶς, πρώτην δὲ τὴν Λύκωνος.
The phrase ὑπὸ ψήφου μιᾶς (by a single vote) is a pointed allusion to the procedural mechanism of ostracism or, more likely in the context of the play's climax, the specific, singular vote of the Athenian assembly that determines the fate of the peace treaty. The construction emphasizes the precariousness of the decision, reducing a monumental political outcome to a single ballot, a rhetorical device Aristophanes uses to satirize the volatility of Athenian democracy. The addition of 'first of all' (πρώτην δὲ) followed by 'that of Lykon' (τὴν Λύκωνος) identifies Lykon as the specific individual whose vote was decisive or perhaps the one whose proposal was accepted first, serving as a satirical jab at a real political figure known for his involvement in the peace negotiations or the oligarchic factions, though the text does not specify the exact historical moment without further context from the play's performance date.
274.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg007-sanjaya-com-eng1-2
Line 274
ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ Κλεομένης, ὃς αὐτὴν κατέσχε πρῶτος,
The relative clause ὃς αὐτὴν κατέσχε πρῶτος refers to Cleomenes seizing the Acropolis (αὐτήν) in 404 BCE. The use of the aorist κατέσχε (from καταλαμβάνω) is precise: it denotes the initial, successful seizure of the citadel by the Spartan general under Lysander's command, an event that marks the transition to the rule of the Thirty Tyrants. The adverb πρῶτος emphasizes that this was the first Spartan occupation, distinguishing it from the earlier, failed attempts or the subsequent, more oppressive garrisoning. This specific phrasing relies on the audience's knowledge of the immediate post-war political landscape of Athens.
275.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg007-sanjaya-com-eng1-3
Line 275
The particle ἀλλʼ here introduces a correction or contrast to the preceding clause. While often translated simply as 'but', in this context it signals a shift from the description of the character's arrival ('she came from there without being touched') to the revelation of her actual state or a counter-intuitive fact that follows. The elision of the alpha in 'ἀλλʼ' before the vowel 'α' of the following word is a standard prosodic feature, but the syntactic force of the particle is crucial for understanding the dramatic irony: the speaker's initial claim is immediately qualified or contradicted by what follows.
279.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg007-sanjaya-com-eng1-4
Line 279
The participle ῥυπῶν (stinking, foul-smelling) modifies the subject of the sentence, describing the state of the person drinking. This is a striking and grotesque detail in the context of the play, where Lysistrata and the women are withholding sex from the men as part of their peace protest. The men, in their desperation, are depicted as so desperate and uncouth that they are drinking from a cup while emitting a foul odor, highlighting the absurdity and degradation of their situation.
313.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg007-sanjaya-com-eng1-5
Line 313
τίς ξυλλάβοιτʼ ἂν τοῦ ξύλου τῶν ἐν Σάμῳ στρατη γῶν;
The phrase τῶν ἐν Σάμῳ στρατηγῶν refers to the Athenian generals stationed at Samos following the expedition of 440/439 BCE. While the specific individuals are not named here, the reference relies on the audience's knowledge of the political tension between the democratic faction in Athens and the oligarchic sympathizers among the army at Samos, a context that became explosive during the Peloponnesian War. The genitive construction τῶν στρατηγῶν depends on the implied context of the 'wood' (ξύλου), likely a reference to the timber used for building ships or fortifications, or metaphorically to the 'wooden wall' of the fleet, though the specific crux here is the genitive of the generals as the possessor or subject of the action regarding the wood. The syntax τῶν στρατηγῶν is a genitive of the persons concerned, a construction that requires the reader to infer the relationship between the generals and the 'wood' without an explicit preposition, a nuance that is not immediately obvious without knowledge of the specific historical situation at Samos.
318.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg007-sanjaya-com-eng1-6
Line 318
τοῦ νῦν παρεστῶτος θράσους θέσθαι τροπαῖον ἡμᾶς.
The construction θέσθαι τροπαῖον (to set up a trophy) with τοῦ παρεστῶτος θράσους (of the present boldness) is a striking metonymic inversion: the abstract quality of 'boldness' is treated as the enemy force defeated, rather than a physical army. In standard military usage (e.g., Thucydides), trophies mark the defeat of a specific opposing army or fleet; here, the 'trophy' is erected against the audacity of the Peloponnesians themselves. This reflects the play's comic logic where the 'war' is sexual and domestic, yet Aristophanes employs high-register military terminology to elevate the stakes of the women's strike, effectively treating the 'boldness' (θράσος) as the tangible enemy entity to be vanquished.
336.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg007-sanjaya-com-eng1-7
Line 336
The verb ἔρρειν is the present active infinitive of ῥέω, but here it is used in a rare, violent sense of 'to fall' or 'to be cut down' (parallel to the usage of ῥέω in the sense of 'flowing' blood or 'falling' in battle contexts, cf. Il. 16.437), rather than its standard meaning of 'to flow' or 'to melt'. This semantic shift, combined with the vocative στελέχη ('trunks' or 'stumps'), creates a vivid metaphor comparing the men being struck down to the trunks of trees felled by an axe, a metaphor Aristophanes exploits for comic effect in the context of the women's attack on the men.
361.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg007-sanjaya-com-eng1-8
Line 361
ἔκοψεν ὥσπερ Βουπάλου, φωνὴν ἂν οὐκ ἂν εἶχον.
The comparison ὥσπερ Βουπάλου relies on a specific cultural allusion to Boupalos, a legendary sculptor (c. 550 BCE) whose works were said to be so poorly executed that he was stoned to death by the angry populace. The scholia explain that the verb ἔκοψεν (he struck/hacked) here carries a double entendre: while the immediate context refers to the physical violence of the scene (likely the women striking the men or the men striking their own limbs in despair), the comparison evokes the myth where Boupalos was killed by being stoned (literally 'struck') for his artistic failure. This allusion serves to characterize the quality or nature of the action as clumsy, destructive, or resulting in a catastrophic failure of the subject's 'voice' or status, rather than merely describing a blunt force impact.
391.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg007-sanjaya-com-eng1-9
Line 391
ἔλεγε δʼ ὁ μὴ ὥρασι μὲν Δημόστρατος
The phrase ὁ μὴ ὥρασι μὲν Δημόστρατος contains a crux of textual transmission and syntax. The manuscript tradition is divided between readings that include ὁ (the) and those that omit it, and the placement of the article relative to the name Δημόστρατος creates a syntactic ambiguity: is Δημόστρατος the subject of the main verb ἔλεγε, or is the phrase 'ὁ μὴ ὥρασι μὲν Δημόστρατος' a genitive absolute or a displaced nominative with an elliptical verb? The construction 'ὁ μὴ ὥρασι' (the one who was not in season/prime) is a known Aristophanic formula for describing a man past his prime, but the juxtaposition with the name Δημόστρατος (a common Athenian name) requires clarification: is this a specific reference to Demosthenes the orator (who was indeed active in the early 4th century, making the 'out of season' remark ironic), or is it a generic character? The most widely accepted emendation, supported by the scholia, treats 'Δημόστρατος' as the subject of 'ἔλεγε', with 'ὁ μὴ ὥρασι μὲν' as a parenthetical characterization, but the lack of a clear predicate for the character in this fragment suggests a possible lacuna or corruption in the transmitted text, where the verb 'ἔλεγε' may belong to a different clause or the name may be a later gloss. The ambiguity is compounded by the fact that 'ὥρασι' (in the dative plural) can mean 'at the right time' or 'in the prime of life,' but the negation 'μὴ' makes the phrase literally 'not in the seasons,' which is idiomatically awkward without the article 'ὁ' functioning as a substantive. This passage is a textbook example of how Aristophanic comedy often relies on elliptical constructions that are difficult to parse without external context or conjecture.
