Aristophanes Thesmophoriazusae 1001

ed. F. W. Hall, ed. William M. Geldart

Table of Contents

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

View: By Card
← Previous Next →

Thesmophoriazusae. Aristophanes. ed. F. W. Hall, ed. William M. Geldart. Oxford. 1907.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by The Annenberg CPB/Project.

Current edition Perseus

Θεσμοφοριάζουσαι (Greek) (Aristophanes. Aristophanis Comoediae, Vol. 2. Hall, F. W. and Geldart, William M., editors. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907.)

Translations (2)
Thesmophoriazusae (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Anonymous; 1938 compilation). Migrated from Perseus legacy XML; source wording and notes retained. See TEI header and migration inventory.) — 1001 focus
English (Sanjaya, generated; selected passages) (OCR draft) Experimental (Source: pnadelofficial/aristophanes-sanjaya, commit c319590c139e5603e71f0699caa0663d823af8ad. Machine-generated source annotations retained; see Sanjaya import audit for coverage and limitations.) — 1001 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

1007. mvp-tlg0019-tlg008-sanjaya-com-eng1-30

Line 1007

πέρʼ ἐγὼ ʼξινίγκι πορμός, ἴνα πυλάξι σοι.
The sentence presents a notorious crux of textual criticism and dialectal phonology. The text as transmitted in the manuscripts (often cited as 'πέρ' ἐγὼ ʼξινίγκι πορμός, ἴνα πυλάξι σοι') is widely regarded as corrupt or heavily distorted by comic distortion. The phrase 'ἐγὼ ʼξινίγκι πορμός' (literally 'I am an ox-nickel stone' or similar nonsense) has no coherent meaning in standard Attic or the expected Doric of the chorus. Scholars such as Kock, Mastronarde, and others have proposed various emendations, including readings involving 'ξυλίνγην' (wooden) or 'ἐξινίγκω' (I am driven out), but the exact wording remains a subject of debate due to the heavy comic distortion of the Doric dialect used by the chorus of women. The phrase 'ἴνα πυλάξι σοι' similarly suffers from dialectal compression and potential corruption, with 'πυλάξι' possibly representing a Doric form of 'πυλῶν' (gates) or a metaphorical 'locks', but the syntactic connection to the preceding clause is obscured by the textual corruption.

1039. mvp-tlg0019-tlg008-sanjaya-com-eng1-31

Line 1039

ἀπὸ δὲ συγγόνων τάλανʼ ἄνομα πάθεα,
The phrase τάλανʼ ἄνομα πάθεα presents a striking syntactic and semantic anomaly. While τάλαντα (talents) is the standard plural for the weight/currency unit, the singular accusative τάλανʼ (elided from τάλαν) functioning as a substantive modifier for 'sufferings' (πάθεα) is highly irregular. More critically, ἄνομα (without a name) typically modifies a noun directly, yet here it creates a 'zeugmatic' or 'hendiadys'-like tension with the monetary metaphor: the 'sufferings' are not merely unnamed, but are metaphorically quantified as a 'talent's worth of unnamed sufferings.' This compression of a monetary valuation with an abstract emotional state, using the singular of a weight unit as a quantifier for plural abstract nouns, is a deliberate Aristophanic distortion of Attic prose syntax to heighten the comic exaggeration of familial debt or grief.

1040. mvp-tlg0019-tlg008-sanjaya-com-eng1-32

Line 1040

φῶτά τε λιτομέναν, πολυδάκρυτον Ἀίδα
The vocative 'Ἀίδα' is the standard form in Attic comedy for addressing the underworld god, distinct from the genitive singular 'Ἄιδου' found in prose and epic. Here, the epithet 'πολυδάκρυτον' (tearful) functions as a substantive adjective modifying the addressee, creating a striking personification of Hades as the recipient of mourning rather than the cause of death, a rhetorical device characteristic of Aristophanic invective and the play's domestication of chthonic powers.

1041. mvp-tlg0019-tlg008-sanjaya-com-eng1-33

Line 1041

γόον †φεύγουσαν†
The text presents a clear crux: the reading φεύγουσαν ('fleeing') is widely rejected by modern editors as a corruption. The participle is syntactically anomalous here, as it appears to describe the subject of γόον ('mourning'), yet the context of the Thesmophoriazousai suggests a scene of lamentation rather than flight. Most scholars, following the conjecture of Porson or similar emendations, propose that the original reading was likely γόον κωλύουσαν ('preventing mourning') or a similar construction, or that φεύγουσαν is a dittography or scribal error for a word like φθορούσαν ('destroying') or a reference to a specific mythological figure fleeing a specific act. The manuscript tradition is corrupt at this point, and the reading φεύγουσαν creates a semantic dissonance that requires textual intervention to restore the sense of the passage.

1050. mvp-tlg0019-tlg008-sanjaya-com-eng1-34

Line 1050

εἴθε με πυρφόρος αἰθέρος ἀστὴρ—
The phrase πυρφόρος αἰθέρος ἀστὴρ is a periphrastic description of the sun, a common poetic convention in tragedy and comedy, but here it is used ironically by the chorus of women to express a wish for destruction (a 'star that bears fire') rather than the life-giving light typically associated with the sun in this context. The construction relies on the genitive of material or characteristic (αἰθέρος) modifying the adjective πυρφόρος, which is rare in this specific collocation in Aristophanic comedy, where such elevated diction is usually reserved for parodying tragic style.

1055. mvp-tlg0019-tlg008-sanjaya-com-eng1-35

Line 1055

νέκυσιν ἐπὶ πορείαν.
The phrase 'νέκυσιν ἐπὶ πορείαν' presents a syntactic and semantic tension characteristic of Aristophanic comedy. The dative plural 'νέκυσιν' ('to the dead') functions as a dative of direction or purpose, yet it is coupled with 'ἐπὶ πορείαν' ('on a journey'), a phrase typically reserved for the living. This oxymoron encapsulates the central conceit of the play's prologue: the chorus of women, disguised as men and pretending to be dead or in mourning, are actually embarking on a 'journey' to the Thesmophoria, blurring the boundary between the world of the dead and the living. The construction is not merely a standard dative of reference but a deliberate rhetorical device highlighting the absurdity of the situation.