Charlton C. Jernigan, Incongruity in Aristophanes, Menasha, Wis., George Banta Publishing Company, 1939

INCONGRUITY IN ARISTOPHANES
Buke University
INCONGRUITY
IN ARISTOPHANES
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR
OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
ARTS AND SCIENCES OF DUKE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF GREEK
BY
CHARLTON C. JIERNIGAN
Whe Qolleginte Prese

GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANY
MENASHA, WIS.
1939
ΡΑ3571
Το
Ο ΒΑΒΙΕΒ W. PEPPLER
CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION
II. DEGRADATION AND MAGNIFICATION OF PEOPLE .
III. ΠΑΡ’ TIIONOIAN.
IV. PARODY AND RELATED MATTERS .
V. LaNGUuaGE: Coumic COINAGES .
CHAPTER 1 ᾿ :
INTRODUCTION
MosT MASTERS of the comic in world literature are specialists in a

particular type of humorous effect; Rabelaisian exaggeration is well
known and the Voltaire of the Romans laughs in derision. The great-
est, however, portray a whole harmony of comic patterns. Aristoph-
anes’ versatility is seen in the astonishing variety of his fun which
ranges from the boldest ribaldry to a half-concealed playon words.
No device seems too great or too small for him to use 88 a means of
provoking laughter. And it is owing partly to the versatility of his
genius that many attempts have been made to study the fun of his
comedies.! Very helpful for this purpose is an ancient treatise on
comedy in a tenth-century manuscript in the de Coislin collection in
Paris, familiarly known 85 the Tractatus Coislinianus? The Tractate
enumerates various kinds of laughter by giving different sources of
comic effect. It does not seek to find a single underlying basis or source
of laughter. Laughter, the author says, arises from the diction (λέξις)
or from the contents (πράγματα), and then in his analysis of each of
these two main divisions he proceeds to list many of the outstanding
kinds of laughter, such as that springing from garrulity, paronyms,
homonyms, and the impossible. There is overlapping in some of the
items in this list as must inevitably happen in any classification of
humor. Certainly παρὰ προσδοκίαν in its narrower meaning, as being
the equivalent of παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν, overlaps the category ἀπάτη; and, on
the other hand, παρὰ προσδοκίαν in the broad sense of surprise may
be regarded as the necessary concomitant of every type of jest.t
1 These are to be found, first of all, in the ancient scholia on Aristophanes and in the
notes of modern commentators, which are largely based on the scholia, then in the more
general discussions of his plays and in the studies of special topics such 88 his mockery
of'gods, of poets, philosophers, and statesmen, his parodies of the poets, and his comic
use of language.
3 The Tractate has been treated appreciatively by Rutherford in his book A Chapter
in the History of Annotation, pp. 435 ., Starkie in the Introduction to his edition of the
Acharnians, and Lane Cooper in An Aristotelian Theory of Comedy, pp. 224 fi.
s See Lane Cooper, 0. cit. pp. 243-249.
4 See Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Roemer, Zweite Ausgabe, S. 239,
where the author in further criticism of the de Coislin Tractate goes on to say that these
categories are drawn from a superficial study of a few comedies.
[1]
2 INCONGRUITY IN ARISTOPHANES
Laughter, accordmg to Plato,® is a mixed feeling of pleasure and

Pain, afd afises from the sight of the misfortunes of one’s neighbors;
kind.of: nahcpor envy is the source of comic enjoyment. This theory
that derision'is the source of laughter was adopted by Aristotle. In
the lost portion of the Poetics® he had one or more chapters on jests
and the ludicrous, and must have discussed the causes and conditions
of laughter. In the extant part of the work” he has only a brief note to
the effect that comedy is a representation of people who are “worse
than most men, but only in one particular respect, as presenting a
certain harmless deformity or ugliness of character, which makes them
ridiculous only—not objects for blame or aversion.”® Cicero borrowed
from Aristotle his derision theory, though he did not think that
Aristotle had solved the problem of the source of laughter.? Some-
what in the manner of the Tractate he mentions a number of possible
reasons for laughter: derision, deceived expectation, odious compari-
sons, nonsense, and the like.!° Quintillian says," “I think that the true
cause of laughter has never been adequately explained by any one,
although many have attempted an explanation.” He like Cicero and
the de Coislin Tractate finds many sources of laughter.
There is a good reason why no satisfactory theory to explain all
laughter has ever been propounded. The response of laughter clearly
depends not only upon the exciting cause but upon factors present
in the spectator. If the corpse of a man of dignity and noble bearing
were exhibited in the lacy night-garments of a girl, one spectator who
disliked him might be driven to laughter at the spectacle; another
who loved him would react differently to the same spectacle, and
would feel only anger and resentment because of the insult to his
friend. In the second instance emotion has assumed such prominence
that the feeling of indignation quite overcomes the desire for laughter.
Yet the spectacle remains the same.
It is not the purpose of this study to seek to discover the underlying
cause of laughter, if there be only one. Such efforts belong more
properly to the field of psychology. The purpose is to study one uni-
s Philebus 47a-50c.
4 See Rhet. 1372a 1 and 1419b 5; Poetics 1449b 21.
7 Poetics 14492 32.
5 Bywater.
9 De Orat. 1, 217.
19 Ibid. ΤΙ, 235-242, 289.
1 De Inst. Orat. V1, 3, T: Neque enim ab ullo satis explicari puto, licet multi temp-
taverint, unde risus, qui non solum facto aliquo dictove, sed interdum quodam etiam
corporis tactu lacessitur.
INTRODUCTION 3
versally recognized source of laughter, incongruity, and to collect and

set forth the examples of incongruity that occur in the eleven plays of
Aristophanes. Only those jests are included in which the incongruity
is so manifest as to be immediately recognizable. The point of view
taken is, 80 far as the writer has been able to attain it, that of the
average Ath sitting in the theatre witnessing the play and laugh-
ing at the jests; it is not that of the psychologist who by painstaking
effort may be able to refer a much larger proportion of fun to incon-
gruity 85 its source. The spectator’s point of view seems to be the best
available because Aristophanes like a dramatist of today sought to
draw an automatic response from his audience, for it was their judg-
ment in the end that determined the success or failure of his play.
Accordingly, full use has been made of ancient and modern interpreta-
tions in an effort to discover the reaction to a jest which an intelligent
spectator might have felt. The work will then constitute another study
of the humor of Aristophanes from a literary point of view.
But first the question arises as to what incongru/i_y is. It would be
>
easier, perhaps, to give examples than to define.’For instance, the
appearance of the spindling and emaciated Dionysus with the lion
skin of the mighty Heracles thrown over his own effeminate yellow
robe made the huge god burst into Gargantuan laughter at the incon-
gruity (Ran.45-47). And when the filthy dung beetle 15 said to be fastidi-
ous and to give itself the airs of a lady, or when the coarse and vulgar
Sausage-seller is addressed as the mighty ruler of Athens, and is as-
sumed to be a descendant of the noble line of Harmodius, the audience
is quick to catch the incongruity of the conflicting elements. When the
ruler of high Olympus is pictured as dwelling in a hut or shack, when the
immortal gods are mentioned as keeping a bawdy house, and when
the Sausage-seller is told that he will lord it over the city, dominate
the state, and—wench in the City Hall: these are instances of in-
congruity. They all have this in common, that each brings before us in
one view two unlike and incompatible objects or pictures whose con-
flict produces the incongruity. Take, for illustration, Max Eastman’s
picture'? of an angel picking its feathers, “‘supposing it is enacted
with the perfect realism of the barnyard.” “It combines in a single
perception,” he says, “two groups of associated ideas and feelings so
lively and yet so incompatible, and it combines them with such irre-
sistible plausibility, that we can neither deny it nor receive it into the
existing habits of our mind.”
In the analysis of Aristophanes’ humor, one of the main difficulties
1 The Sense of Humor, p. Ἴ6.
is to decide what the principal cause of laughter is in situations

wherein it seems to arise from both incongruity and derision. Derision
of persons and of things intimately related to persons is one of the
most interesting and at the same time the most manifestly comic of
humorous devices from the point of view of the audience. In Aristoph-
anes more than in any other comic writer of equal scope, derision
looms large as a means of creating laughter.® The freedom of speech
which he enjoyed generally throughout his life led him to employ in
large measure this incitement of laughter. Now laughter is derisive
when it is accompanied by a definite feeling of emotion, that is, when
the interest of the spectator is directed sharply toward the degrada-
tion of an individual. Of course, derisive laughter may admit of de-
grees of malice. Thomas Hobbes felt this when he wrote his famous
theory of derision.* Aristophanes cannot be said to hate Socrates
when he presents him suspended in the air or stealing a cloak from
the palaestra. On the other hand, the quality of his attacks upon
Cleon shows strong personal animosity. In both instances the specta-
tor laughs from a feeling of superiority or derisionml'e derision
/-and incongruity are mingled in Aristophanes, the classification of a
jest is generally determined by the proportions in which the two ele-
ments are present.’® When the attention of the spectator is centered
upon the clash of incompatible elements in the situation, and when
there is no feeling of emotion and little thought for the degradation of
the person involved, then we say the laughter arises from the appre-
ciation of an incongruity. Individuals differ often in the importance
which they attach to one or the other element in the combination, and
so it has seemed best to limit the present discussion to cases in which
the incongruity is manifestly the preponderant element.
In many of the border-line cases'® which are particularly common in
13 This subject has been treated in numerous programs, dissertations, and articles in
periodicals which in various ways discuss Aristophanes’ ridicule of Socrates, Euripides,
and other poets and philosophers, his attacks on Cleon and the politicians, his laughter
at the expense of people of both high and low estate, and his mockery even of the gods.
1 Hobbes, Human Nature ix, and Leviathan vi.
15 Schopenhauer may indeed argue for the existence of an incongruity in all comic
situations or objects, but the value of his contention is lessened when one considers
that the spectator frequently is not even conscious of the incongruity but laughs from a
feeling of superiority or derision.
‘Throughout this treatise the terms derision and superiority have been considered
‘synonymous with respect to the type of laughter. Both terms signify that the laughter
emanates from 8 feeling of personal exaltation, and is directed at some person or ebject
of ridicule. .
18 Such cases are largely responsible for the difficulties of the theorists. Grieg, The
" INTRODUCTION 5
‘Aristophanes, the quality of the laughter arising from them depends

in the main on the characteristic attitude of the spectator toward the
object of laughter. As has been said, in the final analysis the laughter
in a given situation is determined by the sensibilities of the individual
example of the bewildering jest which all but defies analysis. The corpse
wants two drachmas for carrying the baggage of the god, but Diony-
sus will pay only nine obols. When the reply of the dead man comes,
his angry refusal is expected to take the form “May I be damned to
Hell, if I do.” In place of this, he says παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν “May I be damned
to life, if I do,” and instantly all reason flees before the storm of laugh-
ter. What is the cause of the laughter here? Certainly no single theory
seems to be a sufficient explanation of it. Surprise is uppermost; one
would expect any answer save the one given. But it has been pointed
out that surprise is a necessary concomitant of all true wit. The truth
of the matter is that both incongruity and derision are present. The
cool assumption of superiority by the dead man is' reflected in the
terseness of his words. His πόσ᾽ 477a becomes an open sneer in view of
his later words ὑπάγεθ᾽ ὑμεῖς τῆς ὁδοῦ, whether the command is addressed
to the νεκροφόρους or to Dionysus and Xanthias. This supercilious arro-
gance rises to unbelievable heights in the absolute refusal of his
ἀναβιῴην νυν πάλιν, and the vexed Dionysus can only exclaim, “What
airs (ὡς σεμνός) the scoundrel gives himself!”, Some members of the
audience would laugh at the incongruity of a dead man’s implying
that death is better than life. Still other spectators would go further
and would laugh at the derision aimed at the audience by the dead
man; each man, 80 to say, would laugh at his own expense. Aristoph-
anes presents a dead man; he lets the dead man speak in character;
and since, in order to be in character, the dead man naturally takes
the state opposite his own condition to be the worse, he outrages the
sense of the fitness of things for us who are alive. In the topsy-turvy
world of comedy, that which would be the best condition for a live
person becomes the worst condition for the corpse. Therefore, until
our harried minds can straighten out the mental entanglement, we are
conscious of surprise, incongruity, and derision of ourselves, all hope-
lessly confused.
Psychology of Laughter and Comedy, pp. 10-1, remarks, “Nearly all comic theorists are
comic monists. They do not agree among themselves what the formula for laughter
should be, but with one accord they turn away from pluralism in this branch of acs-
thetics at least, being altogether persuaded that laughter must have one cause and one
cause only. Unfortunately, no single formula for laughter has yet stood the test of pro-
longed criticism. . . . %
In the Ackarnians the ambassadors to the Great King of Persia

have returned after four years’ absence (61 fi.). They tell a tale of
great luxury and easy living, but 50 reverse the situation in the telling
that it would appear to have been distasteful and wearisome to them.
There is a certain amount of incongruity in their picture of dying from
exhaustion while riding slowly over the plains in soft litters, of drink-
ing perforce sweet, pure wine from golden goblets, and of eating whole
baked oxen through coercion. On the other hand, a feeling of derision
would be felt by the audience toward the soft and luxury-loving
Persians. Such a feeling is not unlike that aroused by the gibes in early
American drama of the untutored but shrewd American farmer di-
rected at the polished city man or the suave Frenchman.”?
The dorestic trial scene in the Wasps (797-1008) is extremely de-
risive of the litigiousness of the Athenians. It is at the same time in-
congruous in that the customary dignity of the court is reduced to
absurdity when a dog is tried for stealing and when the court is placed
in the intimate surroundings of the home. The spectator is conscious
of both elements: the incongruity just mentioned and the general de-
rision of the Athenian weakness for going to law, which is strength-
ened by such recurrent notes of derision as the thrust at Cleonymus
{822-3), the recognition of Laches the general in the person of Labes
the accused dog, and of Cleon in Cyon (Κύων) the plaintiff. Philocleon,
who personifies the Athenian love of going to court, is so eager to
indict, that it is only through trickery that the defendant is set free.
‘The ληκύθιον ἀπώλεσεν scene in the Frogs (1206 ff.) likewise presents
a combination of fun elements. The poet’s purpose is to raise a laugh
by deriding the prologues of Euripides. Aeschylus substitutes the
phrase ληκύθιον ἀπώλεσεν for the Jast part of one of the lines in six of
Euripides’ prologues. The tragic tone of the prologues is ruined by this
phrase; the spectator for the moment feels superior to Euripides be-
cause of this exposure of the monotony of his prologues and the de-
gradation of tragedy to the level of everyday life. On the other hand,
a part of the laughter arises from the incongruity between so absurd
an ending of the line and the dignified and poetic parts that precede
it. The first prologue,!® for instance, runs as follows:
Eur: Αἴγυπτος, ὡς ὁ πλεῖστος ἔσπαρται λόγος,
ξὺν παισὶ πεντήκοντα ναυτίλῳ πλάτῃ
17 For instance, Adam Trueman and Count Jolimattre in the play Fashion, by Anna
Cora Mowatt (1845).
18 From the Archelaus (schol.). See also vv. 1211-3; 1217-9; 1225-6; 1232-3; 1238;
1240-1.
ν
INTRODUCTION 7
"Apyos κατασχών
Aesch: ληκύθιον ἀπώλεσεν.
It is quite unheroic for the famed Aegyptus with his fifty sons to
disembark at Argos only to “lose his little oil flask.” These heroes in
tragedy who are seeking to force marriage upon Danaus’ fifty daugh-
ters, are by the alchemy of the comic poet reduced to absurdity.
In addition to this merging of derisive and incongruous elementsin
the same jest, one finds incongruity and derision side by side in the
plot of the same play, both contributing to the comic effect of the
plot, one in one part, the oth ‘r'i_g another. For example/
the plot of
the Acharnians is comic on-dccount of the incongruity which arises
from the fact that a single individual, a private citizen, a farmer,
should in war time negotiate a pri.vatf, peace, treaty with Athens’
powerful enemy Sparta, and that‘t6o for himsélf aloné, while the rest
of his countrymen continued to be at war. This is the situation set
up in the first part of the play. In the second part Aristophanes de-
rides the less fortunate Athenians who are still at war, typified by
Lamachus and the Bridegroom, and their neighbors, the Megarian
and the Boeotian, who are still suffering from the deprivations caused
by the war. It is evident, therefore, that the poet uses the two devices
incongruity and derision, to create laughter in his effort to stop war
and obtain peace. And the derisivé ἷέιῖξ}ιὶεκ in the second part springs
from the incongruity of the first part.
In the Knights the rise of a coarse fellow from the gutter to the
helm of state is accomplished through surpassing vulgarity alone. The
obvious incongruity between his real character and the customary
dignity of a state leader is ever present in the mind of the spectator.
On the other hand, the Sausage-seller is an exaggerated imitation of
Cleon himself. In the play the coarseness of Cleon is intensified and
derided through the medium of the Sausage-seller, and the undoubted
shrewdness of Cleon in real life is given to the Sausage-seller rather
than to the Paphlagonian purely for the purpose of deriding Cleon.
The poet allows Cleon to be beaten by a man showing the same vul-
garity and unscrupulousness that Cleon in real life shows. The spec-
tator recognizes both elements of fun in the amusing spectacle. He
recognizes incongruity when such a man as the Sausage-seller takes
over the reins of government, and simultaneously feels sudden su-
periority over the discomfited Cleon.
The incongruity of the Lysistrata lies in the fact that in war-torn
Greece, when no human power seemed able to effect a reconciliation,
the weaker sex, hitherto timid and retiring women, should force the
two powerful enemies, Athens and Sparta, to make peace. And they
did it by enlisting the aid of Eros and the least militant of the gods,
Aphrodite.!® That a matter of as great magnitude and importance as
peace, which had become the supreme desire of all Greece, should be
brought to pass by means so domestic and vulgar as the boycott of
the men, is the height of incongruity. There is in the play, besides,
much derision of the women for their frailties, and of the men for their
inability to manage the affairs of state, and especially for their present
predicament, typified in the experience of Cinesias when in the pres-
ence of his wife.
In the Ecclesiazusae incongruity of situation is produced by
women taking the part of men; like men they hold the Public As-
sembly (ἐκκλησία) and take over the reins of government with a
woman as Chief Magistrate. On the other hand, derision of the men in
their ineffectiveness is implicit in this play as in the Lysistrata.
In treating the large number of cases of incongruity in Aristoph-
anes, some method of classification had to be followed for practical
reasons. The method adopted serves to put like jests with like. Spe-
cifically, those jests involving an incongruity and dealing with the
character or nature of a person ΟἹ a thing intimately connected with a
person, are classed together; again, parody and jests παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν
readily provide other subdivisions; and in the chapter on language are
grouped all those cases of one kind or another which have the com-
mon bond of depending mainly on a device of language for the in-
congruity. Overlapping has been unavoidable, but suitable cross-
references have been made where it was deemed necessary.
1 Homer, Iliad, v. 331-2.
CHAPTER Π
DEGRADATION AND MAGNIFICATION OF PEOPLE
CoMIc INTEREST centers around man and his activities.! Objects, too, .
may possess comic νξἓἆ when they are related to man. When
Aristophanes’ fun- efames ἃ man’s character or places him
in an undignified position, the source of the laughter is most often
found in derision. ‘This is true because the audience detects the poet’s
malice when he derides the character, and so in sympathy with the
poet feels superior and laughs with him in derision. When, however,
there is an absence of personal feeling in cases where the dignity of a
person is made to descend sharply, we feel that the laughter springs
from the spectator’s recognition of an incongruity and not from de-
rision.
There are a number of jests dealing with character wherein the in-
congruity seems to loom so large as to render secondary the feeling of
derision. In such cases careful discrimination is needed if we are to
discover the true quality of the laughter. When, for instance, in Ao.
288-9 the Hoopoe remarks of one of the birds, “This man is a glutton
(katwpayds),” and Peithetaerus asks, “Is there another glutton besides
Cleonymus?” the spectator laughs in derision of Cleonymus because
his gluttony was well known. On the other hand, consider Nub. 680_- 5. /.,
where Socrates has been trying to teach Strepsiades some of the sub-
tleties of grammar in the use of words masculine in form but femi-
nine in gender. The stupid old man Strepsiades finds it difficult to
understand, but suddenly sees the problem clearly by referring to
Cleonymus who has a huge, masculine body. In triumph he exclaims:
ἐκεῖνο 8 ἦν ἄν, καρδόπη, Κλεωνύμη.
Here the spectator is struck first by the incongruity of calling a man
a lady who was so masculine and animal-like in his habits. He was so
obviously the reverse of feminine that the incongruity is immediately
apparent; if he had possessed feminine characteristics, a feeling of de-
rision would inspire the laughter.? His hugeness is attested in Vesp.
1 Bergson, Laughler, p. 3.
1 For other examples of a jocular use of a feminine ending added to amasculine name,
where, however, the incongruity is not 80 marked because the characters are actually
feminine in their habits, see Nub. 691 τὴν ᾿Αμυνίαν who wore long hair (see also Vesp.
[9]
592 (uéyas), and in Av. 1470 where he is compared to a tree of gigantic

girth?
It is obviously true that the higher and more dignified the object
of the poet’s laughter is, the greater is the feeling of incongruity when
that object is reduced to an undignified position. Hence the humor is
immediately apparent in the ridiculous picture of the defecation of
the Great King of Persia in Ack. 81-3. The ambassador says of the
King, “But he had gone to the privy, and he took his army with him,
and he defecated for eight months on the Golden Hills.” To this
Dicaeopolis rejoins, “How long, then, did he take to close his anus?”
Incongruity here arises from the conflict between the regal splendor
of the Great King, enhanced on this occasion by the presence of his
whole army, and the lowly act lasting for the enormous period of eight
months in the privy.
It is seen from the two jests mentioned above that descending in-
congruity is laughable because, in the manner of Eastman’s angel, we
see in one view “two unlike and incompatible pictures”* which we can
neither deny nor receive into our minds. It is to be noted again in pass-
ing that the manifestation of dislike which usually accompanies de-
risory jokes is largely absent from these jests.
If the degradation of a noble man is felt to be incongruous, it fol-
lows that the lowering of the character of a god is all the more striking
466); and Σμικύθη for Σμίκυθοςin Eq. 969 where the scholiast mentions him as 8 κίναιδος.
Latin literature likewise furnishes examples of this usage in Egilia for Egilius (Cic.
De Orat., 2, 277), Pediatia for Pediatius (Hor. Sat. 1, 8, 39), and Gaiam Caesarem (conj.
in Tac. Ann. 6).
Tt is often difficult to determine the extent to which incongruity is responsible for the
laughter in this type of jest. Epigonus in Eccl. 167 is mentioned as a woman, but since
we know that he was actually considered a very efleminate person (schol.), the fun
arises from derision and not from an incongruity. On the other hand, in Th. 98 when
Mnesilochus says of the poet Agathon, ἄνδρ᾽ οὐδέν᾽ ἐνθάδ᾽ ὄντα, Κυρήνην δ᾽ ὁρῶ, a mild
feeling of incongruity may be present along with the stronger feeling of derision. The
jests are, perhaps, not so different in kind as in degree, for in spite of the fact that
‘Agathon, too, is anything but masculine in his vices, it is nevertheless true that he is a
well known and dignified man who has achieved 8 great name through his poetry; hence
it would seem a little more incongruous to call him “Cyrene,” than to speak of Epi-
gonus, who possesses small social stature, 88 a woman.
3 Generally the burden of Aristophanes’ fun concerning Cleonymus has to do with
his gluttony and cowardice. It is as a glutton that he appears in Eq. 958, 1293, and Av.
289 (see the schol. on these passages). In Ach. 844 his boorishness and roughness are
referred to. There he is depicted as a rough person who pushes lesser men aside at the
theatrein order that he may get a better seat (see the schol. and Ach. 24). For references
to his cowardice see Av. 289 and Vesp. 19, 822, and Pac. 673, 675, 1295.
¢ See above, p. 3.
DEGRADATION AND MAGNIFICATION OF PEOPLE 11
if there be no attendant feeling of sacrilege. Just as the Great King

falls the harder because he falls from a higher level, so in any jest
having to do with the gods, if there is incongruity, it is likely to be
rendered the greater because of the greater dignity and majesty of the
divine beings.
In the Birds after Peithetaerus has found the site for the bird-city,
Νεφελοκοκκυγία, he solemnly declares:
καὶ λῷστον μὲν οὖν
τὸ Φλέγρας πεδίον, 1’ ol θεοὶ τοὺς γηγενεῖς
ἀλαζονευόμενοι καθυπερηκόντισαν. (Av. 823-5).
Thus simply does Peithetaerus dispose of the battle of the gods and -,
giants on Phlegra Field; this, one of the mightiest battles of myth
and legend, is made a contest of empty bragging. Some light derision
may be present here, but the case is so palpably untrue that immedi-
ately one is aware of the incongruity of reducing the immortal gods to
the level of a troop of cheap braggarts.
In the Peace the gods are sent toppling from their accustomed ped-
estals once more with a casual statement. Trygaeus has brought from
heaven the two handmaids of Peace. His servant upon learning that
they have come from the abode of the gods, says in verse 848:
οὐκ &v ἔτι δοίην τῶν θεῶν τριώβολον,
εἰ πορνοβόσκουσ᾽ ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς οἱ βροτοί.
To this Trygaeus responds:
οὔκ, ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖ ζῶσιν ἀπὸ τούτων Tivés.
It is unfitting to speak of the gods as living in their high abodes and
making a business of harlotry; the fun lies in attributing one of man’s
lowest vices to the high immortals.
Dionysus the god is irked at having to walk to the house of Hades
when his servant is riding. He declares himself in mock dignity to be
Διόνυσος, vids Zrapviov, “Dionysus, son of—Old Beer-Barrel.” The ini-
εἴ
tial fun arises from the substitution παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν of Σταμνίου for Atbu\ ι
(schol.), and incongruity is apparent in the association of a lowly
name with a divine personage.® In like manner in Ran. 100, 311, he
speaks of “Ether, Zeus’ little cabin” (Swpérwv).® His cowardice is
shown amusingly in Ran. 297 when he implores:
& Σταμνίου is not the genitive of the diminutive Στάμνιον, but of Σταμνίας the char-
acter name, with the nickname-forming suffix -las. See Peppler, C. P. ii, 462.
¢ See below, p. 46.
ἑερεῦ, διαφύλαξόν μ᾽, W' & σοι ξυμπότης.

“Priest, protect me that I may get drunk with you.” Xanthias and
Dionysus have seen a monster which changes itself into various hide-
ous shapes. This so frightens the god that he rushes forward and ap-
peals to his priest for safety. Such totally unexpected action is
bewildering in that it is 566 unfitting, and the grovelling position
. assumed by the god before his own priest provides the amusement.
In contrast with the relatively small use of descending incongruity,
unmixed with derision, in Aristophanes, the poet frequently employs
what we may term ascending incongruity in jests relating to minor
personages. This is all the more striking in view of the fact that de-
scending incongruity is thought to be much more common than its
opposite.” Spencer’s theory of descending incongruity really amounts
to a theory of derision, and it is plain to see that in essence he is
merely stating in different terms Hobbes’ theory of superiority in the
spectator. It is quite erroneous in the cases now under consideration,
that is, those in which ascending incongruity is the source of laughter,
to pass them off with the term “irony.” Strictly speaking, irony is
- simply derision of a more subtle type because there is_malicein the
\;_‘ speaker’s mind. When, for example, Cleisthenes is called by way of
surprise the son of Sibyrtius (4ck. 118), our laughter springs from the
irony, which is derisive, even though it is based upon the incongruity
of associating Cleisthenes, the soft and effeminate debauchee, with
Sibyrtius, the famous gymnast, who must have been notably mascu-
line.® But in the development of the character of the Sausage-seller it
will be seen that many of the virtues attributed to him are humorous
because they are incongruous and not because they deride him. This is
true even though Aristophanes’ primary purpose in composing the
Knights was to deride Cleon. Irony would bespeak a desire on the
Υ̓ part of the other characters in the play to hurt the Sausage-seller, but
as a matter of fact they are eager to build him up until he is powerful
enough to overcome Cleon.
The Sausage-seller is perhaps the lowest and most vulgar major
character in all Aristophanes. His language is usually of the vilest
nature, and his thoughts belong to the gutter from which he springs.
Yet it is to this character as much as to any other single individual
that words of a high level are addressed. And since he is low and vul-
τϑρε Herbert Spencer, “The Physiology of Laughter” (1863), in Essays, vol. ii,
Ῥ. 115; and Grieg, 0. cit., p. 106.
® Plut. Aleib. 3, mentions him as the famous παιδοτρίβης.
gar, it follows that high language which tends to ennoble him is in-
congruous.
In Egq. 147-9 Servant ITaddresses him thus:
& μακάριε
ἀλλαντοπῶλα, δεῦρο δεῦρ᾽, & φίλτατε,
ἀνάβαινε σωτὴρ τῇ πόλει καὶ νῷν φανείς.
Such ennobling terms are unfitting, for by no stretch of the imagina-
tion could such a vulgarian become the savior of the state. φανείς is
similarly used in tragedy in lofty passages like Aesch. Prom. 613, Eur.
Andr. 891, Phoen. 310-11, Electr. 578-9, Or. 391. With Egq. 149 com-
pare v. 836 where the Chorus uses the same form of address to the
Sausage-seller:
& πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις φανεὶς μέγιστον ὠφέλημα.
This verse is in all probability a parody of Aesch. Prom. 613:
ὦ κοινὸν ὠφέλημα θνητοῖσιν φανείς.
Again in vv. 157-9 Servant I says eagerly:
& μακάρι᾽, & πλούσιε,
& νῦν μὲν οὐδείς, αὔριον δ᾽ ὑπέρμεγας,
ὦ τῶν ᾿Αθηνῶν ταγὲ τῶν εὐδαιμόνων.
The use of ταγέ here is particularly striking since it is ἃ highly poetic
word in Attic and is usually employed by Aeschylus to designate a
mighty ruler.® The incongruity is rendered the greater by the sharp
contrast of language in the Sausage-seller’s crude reply (160-1):
τί μ’, &yad’, ob πλύνειν ἐᾷς τὰς κοιλίας
πωλεῖν τε τοὺς ἀλλᾶντας, ἀλλὰ καταγελᾷς10
In Eq. 457-8: & γεννικώτατον κρέας ψυχήν 1 ἄριστε πάντων,
καὶ τῇ πόλει σωτὴρ φανεὶς ἡμῖν τε τοῖς πολίταις.
the second verse which has the same tragic tone 88 v. 836, quoted
above, becomes incongruous when it is made to follow the comic and
“absurd expression & γεννικώτατον κρέας, itself an incongruous expres-
sion.t
Of somewhat similar import are the words of the chorus in Eg. 1319:
& ταῖς lepals φέγγος ᾿Αθήναις kal ταῖς νήσοις ἐπίκουρε.
9 See Prom. 96; Pers. 324.

19 To complete the picture of the low level of this character see vv. 178-9:
εἰπὲ μοι, καὶ πῶς ἐγὼ
ἀλλαντοπώλης ὧν ἀνὴρ γενήσομαι; (see also v. 1255).
1 See p. 43 below.
The word φέγγος when addressed to a person usually has a high and
lofty tone.!? Here again the gulf between the Sausage-seller’s real char-
acter and the type of person whom ¢éyyos indicates makes for incon-
gruity. ᾿
Perhaps the height of incongruity in the case of the Sausage-seller
is reached when Demos in an excess of admiration for his new cham-
pion exclaims in Eqg. 786:
ἄνθρωπε, τίς εἶ; μῶν ἔγγονος el τῶν ‘Appodlov τις ἐκείνων;
‘When the nature of the trivial service is considered which the Sausage-
seller has rendered, namely, the furnishing of a cushion for Demos lest
he rub that which he wore down at Salamis (v. 785), the assumption
that he therefore must be a descendant of the line of Harmodius, one
of the saviors of democracy, becomes highly absurd and incongruous.
Similar to this is Cleon’s charge that the Sausage-seller belonged to
the great Alcmaeonid family and hence was subject to the divine curse
and retribution which followed that family (Eq. 445-6).
In Vesp. 620 Ε. Philocleon, the futile ᾖἷπιαπ who had previously
arrogated to himself the powers of Zeus, now compares himself with
the king of the gods. Hence in verse 652 Bdelycleon addresses him
with the lofty words:
ἀτάρ, & πάτερ ἡμέτερε Kpovidn.
It is extremely unfitting for the son to apply language 50 noble and
impressive to such a ridiculous figure as his father Philocleon. The
expression πάτερ ἡμέτερε Κρονίδη is Homeric,® and it serves to raise
Philocleon to the level of great Zeus himself, Philocleon who was con-
stantly made the tool of the demagogues and even now was kept a
prisoner in the house by his son.
In Vesp. 13967 a girl of lowly occupation with the name Muprla,
derived from μύρτον which is used for the pudenda muliebria,'* speaks
of herself in grand epic fashion by calling attention to her lineage:
Muprias
τῆς ᾿Αγκυλίωνος θυγατέρος καὶ Σωστράτης.
Of like nature is the incongruity of Οὗτις “Noman” in association with
the name ᾿Αποδρασιππίδου which has the sound and appearance of an
epic patronymic (Vesp. 185).1
13 For examples of φέγγος and φάος in this use see Blaydes k..
13 See 1. viii. 31; Od. i. 45; 81; xxiv. 473.
M See Lys. 1004,
Sec below, pp. 31, 45.
The fun is exceedingly mild in Th. 1015 where Mnesilochus as

Andromeda addresses the hostile women of the chorus, who are dis-
tinctly matronly, as φίλαι παρθένοι, φίλαι.
Likewise mild are three cases of ascending incongruity where the
magnification is self-uttered and where the claims made are utterly
at variance with the characters involved. They are Nub. 1202 where
the dullard Strepsiades classes himself among the wise men of earth;"”
Eq. 735 where the vulgar Sausage-seller puts himself among the
καλοὶ κἀγαθοί; and Ran. 756 where Xanthias inspired by the feeling of
good fellowship between himself and Aeacus, swears by great Zeus
and calls him their “fellow knave” (ὁμομαστιγία:).
An interesting comparison may be made between Ran. 45 ff., al-
ready noted,'® and Av. 1249 fi. In the one case the spindling Dionysus
appears with the lion skin of Heracles thrown over his own effeminate
yellow robe, and draws forth howling laughter from the giant demigod.
Compare with this the scene in the Birds when Peithetaerus states
that he will send against almighty Zeus six hundred Porphyrion rails
all dressed in leopard skins. The absurdity arises from the incongruous
picture of the small and inoffensive rails enveloped in the skins of the
ferocious leopard, and hoping, like Dionysus, to make all enemies
quake with fear. This picture gets added significance from the fact
that one of the chief antagonists of Zeus was the giant Porphyrion.
The fun is less striking by far than in the case of Dionysus, partly be-
cause Dionysus actually appears before the spectators and the rails
must be imagined, and also because he is a god and as such becomes
the more ridiculous when dressed in garments beneath his station.
There are a number of instances of ascending incongruity that re-
late to objects, animate or inanimate, which are closely associated
with persons. Such is Pac. 25-8 where the two slaves are busy molding
dung for the voracious beetle. Servant II is very much disgusted. In
a tone of righteous wrath he bursts forth:
ὁ δ᾽ ὑπὸ φρονήματος
βρενθύεταί τε καὶ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἀξιοῖ,
ἣν μὴ παραθῶ τρίψας &’ ἡμέρας ὅλης
ὥσπερ γυναικὶ γογγύλην μεμαγμένην.
The dung beetle, the lowest and most unaesthetic of creatures, is here
made to give itself airs and to appear very fastidious and lady-like in
1 See v. 1024.
17 See also Nub. 1207, 1241.
15 See above, p. 3.
its desires. A lady is afraid of appearing a glutton, says the scholiast,

and hence may be deemed more circumspect in her choice of food. To
say, then, that the dung beetle is fastidious and lady-like is to raise
the creature temporarily out of its muck to the scented rooms of the
hetaera. This is ascending incongruity.
The magnification continues in Pac. 76-7 in the words of Servant I,
who quotes Trygaeus:
& Πηγάσιόν μοι, φησί, γενναῖον πτερόν,
ὅτως πετήσει μ᾽ εὐθὺ τοῦ Διὸς λαβών.
In the first place Trygaeus glorifies the lowest and vilest of creatures
by calling him “‘Pegasus,” and secondly he bestows an affectionate
caress upon him in calling him Πηγάσιον “dear little Pegasus.” As
in v. 28 the beetle was given the fastidiousness of a lady, so here he is
identified with one of the most beautiful and poetic creatures in all
fable. In Pac. 154 ff. he is again equated with Pegasus:
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε, Πήγασε, χώρει χαίρων,
χρυσοχάλινον πάταγον ψαλίων
διακινήσας φαιδροῖς ὠσίν.
Here most of the words are tragic or poetic in tone.*® This renders the
address the more comic when the great gulf existing between the
_beetle and Pegasus is kept in mind. It is unfitting both to call him by
the name of the winged horse and to employ epic and tragic language
to address him.? In striking contrast are the words that occur im-
mediately before and after this highly tragic passage, words that are
low and vulgar because they describe the most lowly functions of the
body. These in relation to the highly tragic lines, 154-6, add greatly
to the incongruity; see v. 151:
μὴ βδεῖτε μηδὲ χέζεθ᾽ ἡμερῶν τριῶν,
and vv. 164-5:
ἄνθρωπε, τί δρᾷς, οὗτος & χέζων
ἐν Πειραιεῖ παρὰ ταῖς πόρναις;
In Av. 568-9 Peithetaerus is laying down laws for sacrificing to the
birds who are now rulers in place of the gods. Accordingly he says:
1 The active of χωρέω is used infrequently in classic Attic prose in the uncom-
pounded forms. It is frequent in poetry; cf. Π. xvi. 629; xvii. 533; Aesch. Eum. 180;
Theb. 476; Soph. EJ. 1432. χρυσοχάλινον is a poctic compound. For πάταγος cf. Π. xvi.
769; Aesch. Theb. 104; Soph. Tr. 517. For φαιδρός cf. Solon 4. 13; Soph. EJ. 1297;
Aesch. Ag. 520; Cho. 565.
39 The scholiast thinks the passage is from Bellerophon frg. 309.
κἂν Ad θύῃ βασιλεῖ κριόν, βασιλεύς ἐστ᾽ ὀρχίλος ὄρνις,

ᾧ προτέρῳ δεῖ τοῦ Διὸς αὐτοῦ σέρφον ἐνόρχην σφαγιάζειν.
Since it was customary to sacrifice to Zeus, father of gods and men, a
ram, a very masculine and fertile animal, men must now sacrifice a
gnat with generative appendages to King Wren. For the fun visualize
the insignificant gnat with huge testicles like an old ram’s.
Th. 647-8 is a ridiculous joke magnifying the πέος. Clexst.heneshas
discovered the sex of Mnesilochus and is trying to expose him to the
irate women:
᾿Ισθμόν τιν᾽ ἔχεις, ἄνθρωπ᾽" ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω
τὸ πέος διέλκεις πυκνότερον Κορινθίων.
While Mnesilochus is vainly trying to hide his masculine parts by
drawing his πέος back and forth through his crotch to appear like a
woman, Cleisthenes peers first on one side and then on the other to de-
tect him. It is both ridiculous and highly incongruous to compare the
πέος to a stately ship, and the crotch to the portage at the Isthmus of
Corinth, and to say that the πέος as it is drawn back and forth is like a
large ship being dragged across the portage.
CHAPTER ΠῚ
ΠΑΡ’ TIIONOIAN
παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν' is ἃ device that was frequently employed by Aristoph-

anes to evoke the laughter of the spectators. It consisted in setting
up in the mind of the audience so definite a train of thought that they
were led to expect a word or thought which would fit into the context,
and then substituting as a comic surprise a different word, one totally
unexpected and unsuited to the context. Consequently, in any case of
παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν surprise always looms large in the laughter. The conflict
between the surprise word and its surroundings gives rise to an incon-
gruity. In these jests incongruity is found in all degrees, from the most
extreme cases to examples in which it is very mild and can be felt only
after reflection.
But the laughter produced by the surprise word is not always due
to the recognition of an incongruity. In a large group of examples it is
plain that the poet’s purpose is to jeer at some one and to make sport
of him, and in these cases the audience laugh mainly in derision and
not primarily at the incongruity. Such a jest is found in Eccl. 97, where
Praxagora refers to the αἰδοῖα of one of the women as her Φορμίσιος,
obviously making a gibe at the hairiness of Phormisius. On the other
hand, there is real incongruity in the example of παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν in Ε.
164-7:
τούτων ἁπάντων αὐτὸς ἀρχέλας ἔσει,
καὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς καὶ τῶν λιμένων καὶ τῆς πυκνός"
βουλὴν πατήσεις καὶ στρατηγοὺς κλαστάσεις,
δήσεις, φυλάξεις, ἐν πρυτανείῳ λαικάσεις.
Here Servant I promises the Sausage-seller that he will be overlord of
the people and of the Agora, will trample upon the Senate, will im-
prison the generals, and will—wench in the City Hall. The people in
the theatre were led to expect either σιτήσει or δειπνήσεις, but to their
surprise heard the vulgar λαικάσεις. This word and the thought it ex-
1 The Greek phrase παρ’ ὑπόνοιαν will be freely used in this chapter as a noun. As
one of the σχήμματα or types of laughter listed, in the form παρὰ προσδοκίαν, in the de
Coislin Tractate on comedy, it stands by the side of such nouns as ὁμοίωσις, ἀπάτη, and
the rest, even though it itself is a prepositional phrase. Rutherford in his Chapler in
the History of Annolation, pp. 449-51, uses it in the same way.
[18]
ΠΑΡ’ TIIONOIAN 19
presses are highly inappropriate and utterly unlike the other acts
mentioned in the passage. Such an act of vulgarity and wantonness
in the Prytaneum is unthinkable. Moreover, the similarity in the
sound of the words in vv. 166-7, produced by the ὁμοιοτέλευτα in -σεις,
helps to make one expect a general likeness of meaning or at least a
harmony of thought; but when the surprise word λαικάσεις comes with
the same ending -oes, the listeners wake up with a start to a realiza-
tion of the utter discordance and clash of meaning.
Examples of παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν that are mainly derisive will therefore
be omitted, and only those examples will be considered that are en-
tirely incongruous or that have in them so much of the element of
incongruity that it cannot be ignored.
A number of instances of παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν occur in which, as in Eq. 167,
the surprise word comes at the end of a list of words. Another example
is πόρνην in Vesp. 739. Bdelycleon is willing to furnish his recalcitrant
father with all the pleasures of old age:
W
χόνδρον ᾿
λείχειν, χλαῖναν μαλακήν, σισύραν,
πόρνην, ἥτις 18 πέος τρίψει
καὶ τὴν ὀσφύν.
After the series of “necessities” (ὅσα ξύμφορα, ν. 738), πόρνην ἥτις τὸ
πέος τρίψει, κιτ.ἑ. is both unexpected and incongruous. The hearer ex-
pected some such word as ἐμβάδας “shoes,” but instead heard of a
matter quite unlike the other items in the list.
Eg. 1010: The Sausage-seller lists the contents of his oracles in his
contest with Cleon to win the favor of Demos. His oracles are:
περὶ ᾿Αθηνῶν, wepl φακῆς,
περὶ Λακεδαιμονίων, περὶ σκόμβρων νέων,
περὶ τῶν μετρούντων τἄλφιτ᾽ ἐν ἀγορᾷ κακῶς,
περὶ σοῦ, περὶ ἐμοῦ. τὸ πέος οὑτοσὶ δάκοι.
They include state interests and the things necessary for the comfort
of the citizen body. Consequently, when 78 πέος οὑτοσὶ δάκοι is substi-
tuted suddenly for περὶ ἁπάντων πραγμάτων, it is felt to be highly in-
congruous since it is of a totally different nature from the other items
in the list, and is on a very vulgar level. Derision of Cleon is present
also in the coarse surprise words and adds to the laughter.
Similar in type is Nub. 179. The student in the thinkshop is ex-
plaining matters to Strepsiades. He had gone hungry the night be-
fore, and Strepsiades wishes to know how Socrates the Master had
supplied food. The student in elaborate fashion begins a description

of the scientific method of finding supper:
κατὰ τῆς τραπέζης καταπάσας λεπτὴν τέφραν,
κάμψας ὀβελίσκον, εἶτα διαβήτην λαβών,
& τῆς παλαίστρας θοἰμάτιον ὑφείλετο.
The absurd ending is of course unsuited to the rest of the context. The
mysteries of the magician with the sprinkled ashes and the scientific-
looking compasses, suddenly resolve themselves into the stealing of
cloak from the gymnasium. The scholiast suggests as the expected
words either μετέβαχεν αὐτὴν ες τἄλφιτα or κατέγραψέ τι, ᾧ προσέχοντες
οὐκ ἐπεινήσαμεν.
Αυ. 1541: Prometheus advises Peithetaerus to demand of Zeus that
Βασίλεια “Miss Sovereignty” be given him in marriage. She it is
ἧἥπερ ταμιεύει τὸν κεραυνὸν τοῦ Διὸς
καὶ τἄλλ᾽ ἁπαξάπαντα, τὴν εὐβουλίαν,
τὴν εἰνομίαν, τὴν σωφροσύνην, τὰ νεώρια,
τὴν λοιδορίαν, τὸν κωχακρέτην, 78 τριώβολα.
It is ridiculous to attribute to the gods those traits of character and
activities of public life that belong peculiarly to the Athenians, as
Blaydes says. Four of them are mentioned, and then to our surprise
τὴν λοιδορίαν is suddenly inserted, a most undesirable characteristic.
The scholiast says of # λοιδορία that it is here set down as “one of
Basileia’s numerous prerogatives” in order to increase the fun of
comedy (els αὔξησιν τῆς κωμῳδίας) 5
" Nub. 1019: The Just Logic has argued the merits of his course of
training in an effort to convert Pheidippides. Finally, by way of sum-
mary he lists the effects of each mode of living. That advocated by
Unjust Logic will develop in the youth
στῆθος λεπτόν,
χροιὰν ὠχράν, ὥμους μικρούς,
λῶτταν μεγάλην, πυγὴν μικράν,
κωλῆν μεγάλην, ψήφισμα paxpby.?
He had already listed the good effects of right living, which in each
case were just the reverse of the corresponding characteristic in the
Ppresent passage, and nothing except personal physical attributes are
3 80 Blaydes and White think, but Rutherford regards this remark of the scholiast
as a comment on the word τριώβολα.
8 Buecheler's rearrangement.
ΠΑΡ’ ὙΠΟΝΟΙΑΝ 21
mentioned. Now the Just Logic suddenly uses at the end of the list
the expression ψήφισμα uaxpby.* This phrase is not suitable to the con-
text because it introduces a foreign element, a non-physical notion.
It has reference to the prolixity of the decrees in the Ecclesia. Only
some other physical characteristic would have satisfied the hearer’s
expectation.
Ran. 187: When the two adventurers, Dionysus and Xanthias, have
come to the lake which they must cross to reach the house of Hades,
Charon calls out the various stops that he is to make on his trip: “All
aboard for the Resting-places from pain and troubles, the Plain of
Lethe, the Land of Nowhere, the Cerberians, Hell, and Taenarum”:
τίς els ἀναπαύλας b κακῶν καὶ πραγμάτων;
τίς εἰς τὸ Λήθης πεδίον, ἣ 's ὄνου πόκας,
ἣ᾽ς Κερβερίους, 4 ᾿ς κόρακας, 4 ᾽πὶ Ταίναρον;
The whole passage is a jumble of names of imaginary places supposed-
ly in the abode of Hades until at the end of the list is added παρ᾽ ὑπό-
νοιαν the name of a real place Taenarum. Something of the same effect
would be produced if the conductor of a modern train were to call out,
““All aboard for New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Hell, and Chi-
cago.”
Ran. 151: When Heracles describes the horrors of the realms of
Hades to Dionysus, he tells of ἃ sea of mud and ever-flowing dung:
& δὲ τούτῳ κειμένους,
εἴ που ξένον τις ἠδίκησε πώποτε,
ἢ παῖδα κινῶν τἀργύριον ὑφείλετο,
ἢ μητέρ᾽ ἠλόησεν, " ἢ πατρὸς γνάθον
ἐπάταξεν, ἣ "wlopkov ὅρκον ὥμοσεν,
ἢ Μορσίμου τις ῥῆσιν ἐξεγράψατο.
Derision of Morsimus is prominent, but the incongruity is still the
chief source of fun. At the end of the list of crimes and misdemeanors
for which the punishment was immersion in the sea of mud and dung,
the hearer naturally expects in the last line some iniquity similar to
those that had preceded it, but finds to his surprise that to copy out
a speech of Morsimus is a crime fully equal to the worst social evils.
The last verse in the passage is added παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν.
Nub. 661: When Strepsiades is trying to learn the tricks of the
4 Similarlyin a previous line (1007) ἀπραγμοσύνης occurs in 8 list alongside of μίλακος
and λεύκης φυλλοβολούσης.
¢ Found in Suidas. The MSS. have ἠλοίησεν.
Sophists, Socrates in order to test him asks what four-footed animals

are masculine in gender, and farmer Strepsiades answers with com-
plete confidence:
ἀλλ’ οἶδ᾽ ἔγωγε τἄρρεν᾽, εἰ μὴ μαίνομαι"
κριός, τράγος, ταῦρος, κύων, ἀλεκτρυών.
The two-legged cock at the end of a list of quadrupeds is decidedly

out of its proper place. To include it is to produce both surprise and
incongruity. The joke is on Socrates, too, for he fails to notice his
pupil’s mistake in his own eagerness to discuss the technical fault of
not distinguishing genders in the use of ἀλεκτρυών.
Lys. 979: Cinesias has been driven to frenzy by his flirtatious wife.
When she leaves him the Chorus of Old Men call on Zeus to punish
her as follows:$
μιαρὰ μιαρὰ δῆτ᾽, & Zed.
εἴθ᾽ αὐτὴν ὥσπερ τοὺς θωμοὺς
μεγάλῳ τυφῷ καὶ πρηστῆρι
ξυστρέψας καὶ ξυγγογγύλας
οἴχοιο φέρων, εἶτα μεθείης,
ἡ 82 φέροιτ᾽ αὖ πάλιν εἰς τὴν γῆν,
κᾷτ᾽ ἐξαίφνης
περὶ τὴν ψωλὴν περιβαίη.
Such imprecations are rather common in tragedy. The earnestness of
the Chorus who sympathize with the injured husband lends a certain
dignity to the tone. Their words lead one to anticipate some dreadful
fate in store for her; then in the very last line, in place of the expected
curse (something like ἐξόλοιτο πεσοῦσα), comes the vulgar line:
περὶ τὴν ψωλὴν περιβαίη.
All of the instances cited thus far are examples of παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν in
which the incongruity comes at the end of a list of words or phrases.
Less obvious but none the less belonging to the same type of humorous
effect are those cases in which the incongruous element stands alone
and is incongruous either in relation to the context as a whole or to a.
single word in its immediate neighborhood.
Bdelycleon wishes to educate his father in the art of telling dignified
stories. “Tell how you were sent on a special mission as fewpés with
Androcles and Cleisthenes,” he orders in Vesp. 1187. The sudden
naming of two such notorious characters as fewpol is incongruous be-
¢ Sce page 32-3 below.
ΠΑΡ’ TIIONOIAN 23
cause the fewpds was naturally one of the most dignified citizens in the
city. Only those who were ἐπίσημοι would be considered for the posi-
tion, and both Androcles and Cleisthenes were scoundrels.”
Eq. 765 is similar to Vesp. 1187 in the unexpected substitution of
names of low people when dignified names were expected. In his pray-
er to Athena, mistress of the city, Cleon claims to have proved himself
in the interests of Demos “the best man in the city” except Lysicles,
a low-born demagogue, and Cynna and Salabaccho, two well known
harlots. The audience expected some such names as Pericles, Cimon,
‘Themistocles.®
In Nub. 859 the loss of a pair of shoes is made equivalent to the ex-
penditure of state moneys when Strepsiades explains his loss to his
son with the words:
ὥσπερ Περικλέης els 76 déov ἀπώλεσα.
The remark of Pericles had dignified associations since it referred to

statecraft; it is reduced to absurdity when used of so trivial a matter
as the loss of a pair of shoes. ἀπώλεσα is used παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν for ἀνήλωσα.
Av. 800: ξουθὸς ἱππαλεκτρυών, taken over from the Myrmidons of
Aeschylus (frg. 134), is here a surprise for βουλευτής. Diitrephes’ rapid
rise in office brought him finally into the Senate. He became “Colonel
Horsecock of the Buffs,” as Kennedy translates ξουθὸς ἱππαλεκτρυών.
The formidable sound of the Aeschylean word makes the name incon-
gruous when applied to this foreign-born upstart Diitrephes.
When the young bride in Ack. 1060 wishes to keep her husband
home from the wars, she sends a mission to Dicaeopolis with the re-
quest that he send her one drop of peace:
ὅπως ἂν οἰκουρῇ 76 πέος τοῦ νυμφίου.
She wishes to mount guard over, not her husband’s home (οἰκίαν), but
his πέος.
In Eg. 432 the Sausage-seller declares he will escape the gale which
Cleon threatens by shortening his—sausages (τοὺς ἀλλᾶντας for τὰ
ἱστία) and sailing away. τοὺς ἀλλᾶντας is used παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν with συστεί-
λας.
Demos in Eq. 873-4 praises the Sausage-seller for his value to the
state; when Agoracritus gives him shoes to wear, he gives it as his
judgment that the Sausage-seller is:
7 See Starkie’s note for information concerning them.
¢ This suggestion is made by W. K. Pritchett in his unpublished Master’s thesis,
ΠΑΡ’ TIIONOIAN in Aristophanes, Duke University, 1930.
εὐνούστατόν τε τῇ πόλει kal τοῖσι δακτύλοισιν.

The association of the two words, τῇ πόλει and τοῖσι δακτύλοισιν (per-
haps a surprise for τοῖσι δημόταισι) on equal terms is amusing because
they are not suited to each other.?
Plut. 27: Chremylus says that of all his servants he regards Cario
as πιστότατον καὶ κλεπτίστατον. ᾿
Th. 254: ποσθίου is used very unexpectedly for μύρου. The adverb ἡδύ
helps to make ποσϑίου incongruous. It is derisive, of course, of Aga-
thon’s habits.
Av. 35: When Peithetaerus and Euelpides have left home, like the
birds they fly away on their—feet. ποδοῖν is used παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν for
πτεροῖν.
Lys. 757: Lysistrata tells the woman who 15 caught running out with
a helmet under her mantle as if pregnant, to stay there and observe
the name-day of the helmet. τῆς κυνῆς 15 a surprise word for τοῦ παιδίου.
Three other examples of incongruity arising from surprise (wap’
ὑπόνοιαν) either have been discussed in the previous chapter or will be
treated in a subsequent chapter.!® For this reason a simple mention
here will suffice:
Ach. 81: ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἀπόπατον ᾧχετο, στρατιὰν λαβών.
ἀπόπατον is used in place of the expected πόλεμον.
Ach. 255: ὡς μακάριος
ὅστις o’ ὀπύσει, κἀκποήσεται γαλᾶς.
παῖδας is expected in place of γαλᾶς.
Ran. 22: Διόνυσος vids Σταμνίου.
Σταμνίου takes the place of the expected Διός.
9 Compare v. 1208 σὲ---γαστέρα, and v. 1034 τὰς λοπάδας καὶ τὰς νήσους.
1 See pages 10, 33, and 11.
CHAPTER 1V
PARODY AND RELATED MATTERS
- ONE_oF THE most fruitful sources of laughter for Aristophanes was

foundin the realm of tragedy and high poetry. He was fortunate here
in at least two respects: he had ready at hand a language rich in poetic
words, and above all he was able to count on an intimate knowledge
of the great tragedies and other great poetry on the part of the specta-
tors. These facts made it easy for the comic poet to insert suddenly in
the midst of a comic context a line or scene strongly reminiscent of
some familiar tragedy. Such lines or scenes the spectator was quick to
catch, and the resulting incongruity often caused amusement. The in-
congruity is usually of a descending nature, for with the discovery of
the presence of noble sentiments or words comes the feeling that they
have fallen from their former high level, and when this fall is accom-
panied by a feeling of amusement the result is descending incongruity.
Only those cases of parody or paratragedy will be treated in which
the incongruity is immediately manifest and plainly the cause of the
humor. If one must search to find the incongruity in a parody because
it is either very slight or not readily discernible, such a passage will be
left out of consideration. At times some other element of amusement
is present in such strength as to preclude the feeling of incongruity,
and all cases of this kind will be omitted, as for example Ran. 1475,
where the poet’s intention plainly was to deride. Here the decision of
Dionysus to give the prize of victory to Aeschylus had caused Euripi-
des deep chagrin and led him to ask Dionysus whether he dared look
him in the face after doing a deed so shameful. To this question the
latter retorted:
τί 8" αἰσχρόν, ἣν μὴ τοῖς θεωμένοις δοκῇ;
This is ἃ parody of a line in the 4eolus of Euripides (frg. 19) in which
the tragic poet had said of the incestuous relations of a brother and
sister:
τί δ᾽ aloxpby, ἣν μὴ τοῖσι χρωμένοις δοκῇ;
“What’s shameful, if it does not seem so to those who do it?” Its pur-
pose is to call attention to, and so hold up to ridicule, the low moral
tone of the sophistic doctrine, expressed in this verse, that man is the
[25]
measure of all things.! It is not, then, incongruity arising from the use
of a tragic line, but derision of Euripides that causes the amusement
here.
Among Aristophanes’ numerous parodies of Euripides one stands
out with special prominence, his parody of Euripides’ monodies in
Ran. 1331-63, where Aeschylus shows the triviality of their contents
by improvising a monody after the fashion of Euripides and in lan-
guage that recalls his turns of expression. A woman falls asleep while
spinning yarn for market and dreams a frightful dream boding evil,
only to discover on waking that her neighbor Glyce has stolen her
cock. Thus the subject-matter is commonplace, but it is clothed in
tragic language. Beginning with the extraordinary invocation
& Nukrds κελαινοφαὴς
ὄρφνα
“ὉΒ Gloom of Night whose light is darkness!” she tells of the dread
disaster, and in despair calls on the powers of heaven and earth, Po-
seidon, the mountain-born Nymphs, the Cretans, the huntress queen
Artemis, Hecate, and in the same breath her fellow slave Mania, to
help her find her lost cock. Here there is incongruity between the high-
ly tragic diction? and the ridiculously small and unimportant matters
under consideration, and between the awe-inspiring deities invoked
and the lowly task they are called on to perform. To a less degree there
is incongruity in coupling the slave girl Mania and the mountain-born
Nymphs;? in urging the great goddess of the chase, Artemis, daughter
of Zeus, to bring for the pursuit of the thief her κυνίσκας “puppies”
(this in place of her stately hounds); in the intrusion of the common-
place τοῦτ᾽ éeivo! in tragic surroundings; in the instances of oxymo-
ron® κελαινοφαής and ψυχὰν ἄψυχον; in “the general muddle of metres”;®
and in the picture of the grave and gloomy Aeschylus singing in the
réle of a woman and dancing 8 lively dance to accompany the song.
X Aristophanes parodied Euripides’ lost play Telephus’ to an un-
" precedented degree, and nowhere more often than in his Acharnians.
Dicaeopolis pleading for a hearing before the Acharnian charcoal-
1 See another parody of it in Athen. xiii, 582cd.
* See the comments of the editors on the tragic words and expressions.
3 From the Ξάντριαι of Aeschylus (frg. 168).
4 Cf. Ach. 41, 820; Pac. 289, 516; Av. 354; Lys. 240; Ran. 318; and see Kihner-
Gerth, Griech. Gram. 1. 650.
& See Blaydes on Ran. 1334 for a collection of examples of oxymoron in Euripides.
® See J. W. White, The Verse of Greek Comedy, p. 217 Ε.
7 See Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag3, ῥ. 579 ; Starkie, Ach. p. 248 Ε,
PARODY AND RELATED MATTERS 27
burners (vv. 326 fi.) adopts the device employed by Telephus before
the Greek chieftains assembled in the palace at Argos. The people
present at the performance of the Acharnians were familiar with the
scene in Euripides’ play in which Telephus when his death was de-
manded snatched the baby Orestes from its cradle in a near-by room,
and holding a knife to its throat threatened the instant death of the
child unless the Greeks healed his wound. When Dicaeopolis in imita-
tion of this scene seizes a coal-basket (λάρκος), so dear to the heart of
the Acharnian charcoal-burners, and with a menacing sword or carving
knife threatens the death of their beloved darling,® the substitution of
an inanimate object, a dirty coal-basket, for the baby Orestes as the
intended victim, and the bestowal by the Chorus of so much love and
affection upon it because of the threatened murder, are strikingly in-
congruous.
In the following scene (393 ff.) Dicaeopolis calls at the house of
Euripides to borrow a ragged costume that will excite pity for him
when he argues his case before the Acharnians, and this turns out to
be the rags of the arch-beggar Telephus. Here there is an incongruous
mixture of the colloquial speech? of Dicaeopolis and tragic words and
verses'® from the lips of Euripides.
Another parody of the scene in the Telephus occurs in Th. 689-764.
When Mnesilochus is detected in his disguise among the women, he
likewise seizes a “baby”” as a hostage, taking it from the arms of one
of them, and threatens to sacrifice it with his knife upon the altar if
his freedom is denied him. The bereaved mother weeps and wails and
calls for help, crying out in despair that he tore her darling baby from
her breast. In this case the “baby’’ turns out to be a wine-skin full of
wine (ἀσκὸς οἴνου πλέως), which the thirsty, tippling women love 50
dearly. The incongruity is of the same sort as in the λαρκίδιον scene in
the Acharnians, and in both cases the language is cast generally in a
tragic mould, which increases the feeling of incongruity.
# The diminutive of endearment which finds its proper place in the baby-talk of
parents to their children (cf. Bekk. Anecd. 47, 31) is fittingly used here by the charcoal-
burners in their outburst of affection for their dearest child (λαρκίδιον, v. 340).
9 Most of his requests are for diminutives, which belong to the sermo familiaris,
e.g., ῥάκιον 415, πιλίδιον 439, βακτήριον 448, σκευάριον 451, σπυρίδιον 453, κοτυλίσκιον 459,
χυτρίδιον 463, σπογγίον 463, cf. also 404, 412, 444, 447, 469, 475; note also & Χολλύδης
406, πτωχιστέρου 425.
19 χέλακας 410, τρύχη 418, and ῥακώματα 432 in reply to ῥάκιον 415; and such tragic
verses as 423, 426, 432, 445, 449, 454, 456, 460, 479. Euripides’ stately air matches his
tragic language. Note that Dicaeopolis too begins to infuse tragic expressions into his
speech when he gets possession of some of Euripides’ stage properties.
{ When a scene is taken out of a familiar tragedy and reproduced in

Ξ a comedy in the form of a parody, the effect of bringing it down from
the high level of tragedy to the low sphere of comedy, of taking it out
of its old associations which were grave, serious, and often tragic, and
giving it a new setting in the midst of surroundings that are gay,
frivolous, or ridiculous—the effect on the spectator is 8 feeling of in-
cpngxmty And one of the factors that enter into a determination of
"the amount of this incongruity in any given case is the degree of
divergence of the new setting from the old one. Transfer to comedy the
highly tragic scene in the Telephus in which Telephus threatens the
death of the baby Orestes in order to attain his purpose, and then in
the new setting let it appear that all the pity that was aroused in the
spectator for the intended victim was wasted on a coal-basket or wine-
skin: such a parody produces striking incongruity. On the other hand,
there is much less of it in the scene of the Thesmophoriazusae (765-84)
that follows the Telephus incident, a parody of a scene in the Pala-
medes of Euripides."! Mnesilochus while seeking a way of escape from
the clutches of the women indulges in a soliloquy. In imagination he,
the vulgar old man, is changed into Oeax the heroic brother of the un-
fortunate Palamedes. As Oeax inscribed on oar-blades the news of the
death of Palamedes and cast them into the sea for the waves to carry
them to his home, so Mnesilochus proposes to make known his plight
to Euripides in‘the same way. Unfortunately he has no oar-blades, so
he uses votive tablets in their stead, for they too are wood. The incon-
gruity is less striking here both because the contrast of the conflicting
elements is not sufficiently pronounced and because derision of Eu-
ripides is strong.
Incongruity, however, is prominent when Mnesilochus, who has
been unable to reach Euripides his rescuer by means of the poet’s
Palamedes, resorts next to his play the Helen (Th. 855 fi.). Here the
contrasting elements are so pronounced that the incongruity causes
laughter more than does the derision. Mnesilochus assumes the réle
of Helen while Euripides plays the part of Menelaus her husband.
Mnesilochus dressed in feminine clothes ostensibly has fled to the
altar for protection much in the manner of the tragic heroine, though
actually he is there under guard of the angry women until the police-
man arrives. The altar represents the tomb in the Helen. The majority
of the lines are identical with lines in the Helen, or changed only
slightly. All the passages put in the mouth of Mnesilochus prior to the
1 Nauck, 0. cit. p. 541.

appearance of Euripides (v. 871) are taken from the first sixty-seven
verses of the Helen.1
This wholesale appropriation of lines from tragedy in the construc-
tion of a comic scene, as well as the use of tragic language to set forth
a ludicrous matter in other parts of this scene, makes an incongruous
mixture of high and low. The climax is reached in Th. 910, where
Mnesilochus, as Helen, says that he recognizes Euripides ὅσα γ᾽ ἐκ τῶν
ἰφύων, that is, from the greens or potherbs out of the market garden
of his mother—a marvelous recognition device! This expression is the
only break in the complete identity of Th. 907-12 and Hel. 561-6, and
since it thus stands alone, its relation to its surroundings is made all
the more incongruous. Furthermore, throughout this scene the spec-
tators must have laughed hilariously to see Mnesilochus, who had
previously shown his masculinity too plainly for his own good, lan-
guishing in the réle of the sad heroine and sighing for the return of
Menelaus.
In the burlesque of Euripides’ Andromeda which follows in Th.
1015-1135, the fun springs from a double incongruity. Mnesilochus
now takes the part of Andromeda chained to the rock awaiting the
dawn and the coming of the monster. Actually he has been fastened
to a board (v. 930 ff.) and is watched over by the policeman. Then fol-
lows the piteous lament of Andromeda in which many prosaic phrases
are interpolated, indicative of his own immediate troubles. There is,
therefore, the visual contrast of the gross figure of Mnesilochus with
the beautiful form of the sad maiden, as well as the contrast of the
tragic heroine’s poetic expressions with his dull prose. For instance,
v. 1015 φίλαι παρθένοι, φίλαι is from the Andromeda (frg. 117), and vv.
1016-7 are concerned with Mnesilochus’ present troubles. Next fol-
lows frg. 118 of the Andromeda which ends with a wish on the part of
Mnesilochus to visit his wife in a conjugal relation. In addition to the
centrast of poetic with prosaic thought, several characteristics of the
sermo familiaris may be noted which clash in humorous fashion with
the poetic words and usages in the Andromeda parts; for example, the
preposition ὡς (1020) which occurs no less than forty-four times in the
eleven extant plays of Aristophanes; the word σαπρός (1025) which be-
longs to a low sphere; and ἀπωλόμην (1025), a comic surprise for
ἐσώθην (cf. schol.).
The next section of the Thesmophoriazusae (vv. 1056-1135) paro-
1 T, 855-7=Hel. 1-3, 859-60=16-17, 862=22, 864-5=52-3, 866=49, 868=56.
Other quotations or parodies are T, 871=Hel. 68, 874=460, 878=461, 886=466,
906=558, 907-12=561-6.
dies the introduction of Echo in the Andromeda and the rescue of the
heroine by Perseus. At the suggestion of Echo, Mnesilochus imperso-
nating the tender maiden chained to the rock pours forth a pitiable
cry of anguish and despair in an invocation to Night:
& Νὺξ ἱερά,
ὡς μακρὸν ἵππευμα διώκεις,
ἀστεροειδέα νῶτα διφρεύουσ᾽
αἰθέρος ἱερᾶς
τοῦ σεμνοτάτου &’ Ὀλύμπου. (νν. 1065-9)
This is the beginning of the prologue of the Andromeda (frg. 114), ac-
cording to the scholiast. Other passages in the Thesmophoriazusae are
quoted from the rescue scene (frgg. 123-5, 127-8). In the parody it is
not only that the vulgar buffoon Mnesilochus is an unlovely substi-
tute for the beautiful and delicate young girl Andromeda, but also
that a play as refined as the Andromeda, which so charmed the Diony-
505 of the Frogs (vv. 52 fi.) that he went down to the house of Hades
to bring its author back to earth again, should be associated with the
obscenities of verses 1114, 1119-20, and 1123-4.
’X Strepsiades in the Clouds is one of the most futile and ridiculous of
Aristophanes’ characters. Unable to comprehend the abstractions of
Socrates, his customary reaction is to speak and think on the lowest
physical plane. Hence he becomes a querulous old man forever suffer-
ing the extremes of emotional reaction to his surroundings, whether
they be of woe or exultation. Accordingly, when in the Clouds 706-22
he is bitten by bedbugs, his woeful cries fill the air, much to the disgust
of Socrates who has commanded him to lie down and concentrate. The
laments are couched for the most part in highly tragic language
strongly reminiscent of the tone of a tragic threnos, perhaps that of
Hecuba in Euripides’ play, vv. 154 ff. The metre is heavy, replete with
spondees. There is here not only the contrast of highly poetic and in-
tensely vulgar words in the same passage, e.g., the tragic ἀτταταῖ, δεί-
λαιος, ἐξέλκουσιν, and φροῦδος (five times in 718-21), and the epic dap-
δάπτουσιν, these in close association with kop[eis], and the obscene ὄρχεις
and πρωκτόν; but there is also the contrast between the tragic tone of
the passage parodied and the comic contents of verses 718-22Tn the
tragedy the bitter anguish of soul of that tragic figure Hecuba is due
to the impending doom of her dearly loved daughter Polyxena now
about to be sacrificed by the Greeks at the tomb of Achilles; in the
comedy the crude and rather vulgar experience of Strepsiades is an
obviously ridiculous cause for his tragic cries. Compare Nub. 718-19:
φροῦδα τὰ χρήματα, φρούδη χροιά,

φρούδη ψυχή, φρούδη δ᾽ ἐμβάς,
with Hecuba 161:
φροῦδος πρέσβυς, φροῦδοι watdes.?
A similar instance is Nub. 1165-6. Strepsiades in joyful accents is
calling forth his son who has now received the education of the Soph-
ists:
& τέκνον, & παῖ, ἔξελθ᾽ οἴκων,
ἄιε σοῦ Tarpbs
These words echo the tragic cry of Hecuba (171 fi.) when she calls
her unfortunate daughter out of the house to tell her of her doom:
& τέκνον, & wal
δυστανοτάτας parépos, ἔξελθ᾽
ἔξελθ᾽ οἴκων᾽ ἄιε ματέρος
αὐδάν, & τέκνον, κιτ.ἑ.
And 80 the overjoyed father welcomes his newly-graduated son with

the words of the grief-stricken mother summoning her daughter to a
death on the altar of sacrifice. This is incongruity.
Vesp. 179-89 is a parody of the Οὗτις incident and the scene of the
escape from the cave of the Cyclops in the Odyssey.® In 8 desperate
attempt to get out of the house the old man Philocleon hides himself
under the belly of an 858 in imitation of Odysseus clinging to the ram’s
belly, and gives his name as Οὗτις ᾿Αποδρασιππίδου Ἴθακος, “Utis, Fitz-
Runaway’s son, the Ithacan.” Thus the device that saved the life of
Odysseus and his companions when they faced certain death in the
cave of the Cyclops is copied by the foolish old man in this ridiculous
fashion, with the substitution of a κάνθων for the ram; the heroic
achievement of the πολυμήχανος ᾿Οδυσσεὺς has 85 its counterpart here
the silly effort of a he]pless old dicast
than a particular scene. The mock-anagnorisis in Eg. 1229-53" is

made manifest by the fidelity with which it follows the general out-
1 See also Andr. 1078.
M ἀίω is an epic word, often found in the lyric parts of tragedy, and is used about
a dozen times by Euripides.
1 ix. 360 , 446 . See also 1. O. Schmidt, Ulizes Comicus, in Fleckeisens Jahr-
buccher, Suppl. XVI, S. 384.
The strictly legal form of a man’s name in Athens.
1 See Bakhuyzen on £q. 1232,
lines of a tragic anagnorisis and by the use of tragic language'® and,

for the most part, of tragic rhythm.! Besides, several verses® are
plainly parodies of tragic lines, some of which are mentioned by the
scholiast. Against the background of the momentous recognition
scenes of tragedy stands this recognition scene in which the Sausage-
seller is shown to be the new savior of the State by the following tokens
of identification: his school was the singeing pits of the hogs; at the
trainer’s he learned to steal and then to lie with a straight face; and
when grown he sold sausages—and himself—on the streets of the city.
Th. 331-51 is a burlesque of the ᾿Αρά or curse which the herald in
opening the meetings of the Assembly and Senate always invoked
upon the enemies of the State, upon those who by their speeches tried
to deceive the people or those who had been bribed to do this.? In the
parody just enough of the original is retained to make it humorous;
under the appearance of a formal ᾿Αρά Aristophanes manages to reveal
the better known sins of the women. The “heraldess” pronounces a
curse upon those seeking tyranny, those in league with Euripides
against the women, informers on wives who palm off the children of
others as their own, false go-betweens, false paramours, scheming old
women who use their riches to get young men, and those who give
short measure to women tipplers (Th. 335-48). In place, then, of the
solemn and dignified ᾿Αρά that formed a part of the religious ceremony
with which every session of the governmental bodies was opened,
there is here an imprecation on those who divulge the immoralities of
women, an incongruous substitute.
Lys. 972-9, too, has the form of a solemn curse. This one is of a
purely personal, private nature. It is a prayer to Zeus uttered by the
Chorus of Old Men? after Myrrhina has tempted her husband beyond
endurance. Their leader calls on mighty Zeus to carry her off in a
whirlwind and hurricane, tossing her and whirling her and carrying
her high till he drops her to earth—to bestride his waiting penis. The
surprise at the end, caused by the use of παρ᾽ dwérorar,? 15 one element
in the laughter; another is the incongruity in the sudden descent from
18 For example, ξυνοίσεις τοῖς ϑεσφάτοις, 1233, ἐκπειράσομαι, 1234, ἅπτεται φρενῶν,
1231.
19 Only a few lines are not in tragic rhythm, less than ἃ half-dozen, and these are
used mostly by the Paphlagonian.
0 vv. 1240, 1243 b, 1244, 1248, 1250-2, 1253.
# See Dem. XVIII 282; XIX 70; XXTII 97; Deinarch. 1. 47; Π. 16.
2 So reads the Ravennas followed by Coulon and Wilamowitz, whereas the Lauren-
tian gives these lines to Cinesias.
# See above p. 22.
the high level of the prayer to the vulgar κᾷτ᾽ ἐξαίφνης mepl τὴν ψωλὴν
περιβαίη.
Similarly, Vesp. 389-94 15 a deep-felt prayer from Philocleon to his
patron god Lycus. The pathos of the prayer is rendered absurd by the
last line (394), and this makes for incongruity:
Kob μή ποτέ gov παρὰ Tds κάννας οὐρήσω μηδ᾽ ἀποπάρδω.
Nub. 1259 Ε. is an imitation of ἃ tragic threnody. Amynias, a credi-

tor of Strepsiades, comes in wishing to collect his money now long
overdue. The incongruity lies in assuming so tragic an air in so mun-
dane a matter. In his effort to collect his money he parodiesthe
Licymnius of Xenocles (schol. 1265). Beginning with the tragic ἰώ pot
μοι he goes on to bewail his dreadful misfortune and unhappy fate
in tragic® language:
& σκληρὲ δαῖμον" & τύχαι θραυσἀάντυγες
ἵππων ἐμῶν' & Παλλάς, ὥς μ’ ἀπώλεσας.
Ach. 247 fi. is parodic of the phallic procession in the celebration of

the Rural Dionysia. Dicaeopolis is celebrating his own festival in
honor of his private “Thirty Years’ Peace.” Starkie notes “the mock
grandeur of the passage, which owes its humour to the formality of the
language, and the homeliness of the sentiment.”? The procession is
made up of himself, his daughter, and two slaves. With elaborate
orders the procession gets under way with a devout prayer to Diony-
sus. The language used contains solemn and dignified expressions,”
some of them Homeric. Over against the grandeur of these words note
the reference to connubial relations and reproduction (255), and such
words as βδεῖν and ὄχλῳ, the latter used here of only one person, his
wife.
Eccl. 1 ff. is a humorous situation depending for its fun mainly on
the incongruity between the tragic tone and vulgar contents. Praxag-
ora hangs up her lamp as a signal to the women who are to hold an
assembly. She apostrophizes the lamp while waiting for the women.
The tone and language are reminiscent of tragic addresses to the sun
For ἰώ μοί μοι see Aesch. Prom. 742; Soph. Aj. 333, 891, 937, 939, 974; Eur. Med.
97; Hipp. 1384; ΕΙ. 1167. For σκληρὲ see Eur. Andr. 98; Alc. 500. θραυσάντυγες is tragic
in form, see χρυσάμπυκες Pind. P. 3, 89; Bacchyl. 5, 13. For &s μ ἀπώλεσας see Eur.
Or. 130, 586; Hipp. 311.
See his note on Ack. 255.
Kexapuopévos and ὀπύω are epic, the latter being found also in the Gortynian code.
The use of the infinitive ἀγαγεῖν in a wish or prayer is Homeric, see Kuehner-Gerth,
Griech. Gram. Τ. 22b. The rare word τυχηρός occurs also in Aesch. Ag. 464.
or moon or other divinity. Note the appeal to the Sun in Sophocles’

Ajax 845:
σὺ &', & τὸν αἰπὺν οὐρανὸν διφρηλατῶν
Ἔλιε,
and Euripides’ Phoen. 1-3:
& τὴν & ἄστροις οὐρανοῦ τέμνων ὁδὸν
καὶ χρυσοκολλήτοισιν ἐμβεβὼς δίφροις
Ἔλιε, θοαῖς ἵπποισιν εἱλίσσων φλόγα.
According to the scholiast, however, Aristophanes is here parodying
some passage in a tragedy of Agathon or Dicaeogenes. Especially
striking is the mock-heroic language in & λαμπρόν Supa (1), εὐσκόποισι
(2), γονάς (3), and μυκτῆρσι λαμπρὰς ἡλίου τιμὰς Exes (5), which last isa
magnification of a small object. By contrast note the intimate nature
of the matters under consideration which belong to the privacy of the
home. She hangs up her glorious lamp, having the powers of the sun.
She will tell its lineage and its fortunes. It alone has seen the love
mysteries which go on in the bedroom, nor does it tell them to the
world. It has seen the hidden recesses of the body, has depilated the
secret places, has helped the wife in stealing corn and wine, and tells
nothing.
Ran. 479 is incongruous because it brings down a dignified religious
formula from the high plane of ritual to the low level of the ἀπόπατος.
Aeacus has so scared Dionysus that his bowels are moved. To Xan-
thias’ inquiry, he replies ἐγκέχοδα" κάλει θεόν. “I’ve defecated; call upon
God.” The familiar religious formula, ἔγκέχυται" κάλει θεόν, which was
always spoken at the conclusion of the ceremony of the drink-offer-
ing,?" is here adapted in ridiculous fashion to the needs of the moment,
and it is somewhat incongruous to represent a god, even such a traves-
ty of deity as Dionysus, as having 50 remarkable an experience.
There are several short parodies in which the incongruity is striking
enough to warrant inclusion here. Some of these have been mentioned
incidentally in other chapters. The line used by the First Servant in
Eq. 16:
πῶς ἂν σὺ μοι λέξειας ἁμὲ χρὴ Neyew;
is from the Hippolytus of Euripides, v. 345, where Phaedra hesitates
to speak her mind to the nurse. In Eg. 16 it is made incongruous by
reason of its surroundings. The two slaves wish to escape the hard lot
7 See the scholiast.
which is theirs. They wish to discuss desertion, but each is afraid to

speak the word. Suddenly in mock-tragic tones the First Servant re-
peats the above line from the Hippolytus, and the fall from its former
high tragic level to the comic level of the desertion of two slaves con-
stitutes the fun.
When an inferior creature is addressed with high and tragic lan-
guage, the incongruity is amusing. The hitherto lowly being is sudden-
ly endowed with a personality and a dignity that becomes ludicrous
in view of the conflict between the lowly creature and the lofty lan-
guage used to address it. In Pac. 722 Hermes says that the dung beetle
ὑφ᾽ ἅρματ᾽ ἐλθὼν Ζηνὸς ἀστραπηφορεῖ, and in 50 speaking he raises the
obscene beetle to the clouds where Pegasus the winged horse soars.
The line is a parody of the Bellerophon of Euripides, frg. 312 (schol.).
A similar effect is gained when Trygaeus in Pac. 1013—4 bewails the
loss of an eel boiled in beetroot, and employs a lament for a beloved
woman:
ὀλόμαν, ὀλόμαν ἀποχηρωθεὶς
τᾶς ἐν τεύτλοισι λοχευομένας.
The words are quoted from the Medea of Melanthius.?® Not only is a
lowly creature thus endowed with all the charms of a mistress, but the
language, too, gains added dignity since it is used in a prayer to Peace.
In like manner when the Boeotian in the Acharnians comes to sell eels
to Dicaeopolis, the latter is overjoyed at the prospect of eating such a
delicacy and so calls it “the most delightsome thing on earth,” using
the poetic τερπνότατον. Now the Boeotian realizing their true worth
addresses one of the eels with the tremendous words (883):
πρέσβειρα πεντήκοντα Κωπάδων κορᾶν.
This is a parody of Aeschylus frg. 174, where Thetis is addressed as

δέσποινα πεντήκοντα Νηρήδων κορῶν. The substitution of πρέσβειρα for
δέσποινα and the use of the Doric κορᾶν make the line even more gran-
diloquent, and it is the grandeur of language that strikes the reader as
incongruous when addressed to so lowly an object as an eel. But Di-
caeopolis, not to be outdone, expresses his devotion to the eel in words
even more redolent of high tragedy. In vv. 893-94 he parodies a well
known line from the Alcestis (367) with the words:
38 Fritzsche in his note on Ran. 151 conjectured that the Medea here parodied was a
play of Morsimus, brother of Melanthius, and that the latter merely acted ἃ part in
the play.
μηδὲ γὰρ θανών ποτε

σοῦ χωρὶς εἴην ἐντετευτλιωμένης.39
In the Alcestis Admetus had addressed his noble wife who was dying
for him thus:
μηδὲ γὰρ θανὼν ποτε
σοῦ χωρὶς εἴην, τῆς μόνης πιστῆς ἐμοί.
The utter tragedy of these words becomes entirely ridiculous when
they are addressed to a mere eel. On the one hand, the grief-stricken
husband expresses eternal constancy to the woman who has been his
life-companion and who is now laying down her life for him; on the
other, a hungry farmer in comedy utters pseudo-tragic devotion to his
dinner. The incongruity is intensified by the comic formation évrerev-
τλιωμένης which though tragic in form is comic in meaning.
How incongruous the quotation of a single tragic line in comic sur-
roundings may be is seen in Th. 194. Euripides has asked Agathon to
dress like ἃ woman and go into the Thesmophorion to speak in his be-
half—a very dangerous undertaking! Agathon refuses and quotes
from Eur. Alc. 691 the words of Pheres to his son Admetus when the
latter asks him to die in his stead:
χαίρεις ὁρῶν φῶς, πατέρα δ᾽ ob xalpew δοκεῖς;
In the Alcestis it was a question of very serious import, ἃ real case of
life and death; here in the comedy it is no more serious than mas-
querading as a woman among women, and this comic situation makes
the use of the tragic line incongruous.
The last words of the Paphlagonian when the Sausage-seller finally
triumphs, are an address of farewell to his crown (Eg. 1250-2):
& στέφανε, χαίρων ἄπιθι, . . . .
. σὲ δ᾽ ἄλλος mis λαβὼν κειτήσεται,
λέπτης μὲν οὐκ ἂν μᾶλλον, εὐτυχὴς δ᾽ ἴσως.
This is a parody on Alcestis’ farewell to her marriage-bed (Eur. Alc.
179 8):
ὦ λέκτρν . . . e e e e e
DN
... σὲ δ᾽ ἄλλη τις γυνὴ κεκτήσεται.
σὤφρων μὲν οὐκ ἂν μᾶλλον, εὐτυχὴς δ᾽ ἴσως.
Blaydes’ conjecture for ἐντετευτλανωμένης of the Mss. Compare ἐγκεκοισυρωμένην
(from Κοισύρα) Nub. 48, ἐγκεκορδυλημένης (from κορδύλη) Nub. 10, ἐντεθριῶσθαι (from
ϑθρῖον) Lys. 663, and see Blaydes’ notes k.. For the present purpose it matters little
whether the manuscript reading or the conjecture is adopted.
Against the background of the tragic death of the grief-stricken wife

as she mourns over her marriage-couch, comes the Paphlagonian’s
forced surrender of his crown (and therefore his political death be-
cause of his thievery). The personification of the couch in the one in-
stance has nobility and pathos in it, but to use almost the same words
in regard to the Paphlagonian’s sorry crown is to portray a grief that
is at once lugubrious and absurd. Similarly in Eccl. 392-3 the grief of
Blepyrus at being too late to collect the three obols for attendance on
assembly leads him to employ a parody of lines from the Myrmidons
of Aeschylus:
᾿Αντίλοχ᾽, ἀποίμωξόν με τοῦ τριωβόλου
τὸν ζῶντα μᾶλλον.
The original lines, uttered by Achilles when Antilochus brought news
of Patroclus’ death, are rendered absurd through the use, παρ᾽ ὑπόνοι-
av, of τοῦ τριωβόλου for τοῦ τεθνηκότος. The mind of the spectator tries
vainly to comprehend the clashing concepts, namely, the epic grief of
the mighty warrior at the death of his friend as over against the whin-
ing accents of an old man whose wife has stolen his clothes and who
has missed his fee through an urgent call to defecation. The juxtaposi-
tion of the great Achilles and the senile Blepyrus, and of Patroclus the
stricken hero and a mere three-obol piece, so that we see them with all
their conflicting elements in one view, constitutes a large part of the
incongruity.
The language employed generally by Lamachus in the Acharnians
has much tragic coloring and in places seems certainly parodic of a
tragic original. In verse 1072 he asks the servant
7ls ἀμφὶ χαλκοφάλαρα δώματα κτυπεῖ35
In verse 1078 he exclaims:

ἰὼ στρατηγοὶ wheloves ἢ βελτίονες,
which Bentley thinks was taken from the Telephus. See further ex-
amples in Ach. 5724, 1124, 1184-5. It seems unfitting that Lama-
chus should use such tragic language in view of his poverty, his lack
of political power, and the fact that he was at the beck and call of the
generals.®
Eq. 1056-7: The Sausage-seller in his mock-oracle ascends to the
30 Bakhuyzen remarks: gravia verba, quibus gravitatem et magnificentiam Lamachi

Iudibrio habet poeta.
ἄ See vv. 1073-7, 1174 .
high level of the dactylic hexameter in a parody of the Little Iliad

(schol.), only to descend abruptly with a word typical of his own vo-
cabulary:
xal ke γυνὴ φέροι ἄχθος, ἐπεί κεν ἀνὴρ ἀναθείη"
&N’ οὐκ & μαχέσαιτο' χέσαιτο γάρ, εἰ μαχέσαιτο.
In Eq. 1203 he has stolen a hare for Demos. Cleon accuses him of the
theft and he replies:
τὸ μὲν νόημα τῆς θεοῦ, τὸ δὲ κλέμμ᾽ ἐμόν.
This seems certainly a parody of some tragic original,® and it would
appear to be incongruous when used here of a trivial incident.
Vesp. 1160: Philocleon’s mock-horror at having to put on luxurious
shoes at his son’s behest is expressed in language reminiscent of Eurip-
ides’Heracleidae 1006. He wishes to know if he is “‘to put on the hated
soles of the enemy” (ἐχθρῶν . . . δυσμενῆ καττύματα).
A comic device occurring frequently in the plays of Aristophanes is
to insert a highly poetic word in the midst of a vulgar context. This is
akin to parody in the sense that there is often a feeling of incongruity
in the contrast of words belonging to very different levels of thought.
Usually the humor is mild in such cases, but each instance adds ma-
terially to the fun of the passage as a whole.
Strepsiades in Nub. 176 is much impressed by the student’s recital
of the wonders of science and by the intellectuality of his surround-
ings; hence when the student remarks that they had all gone supper-
1685 the night before, he asks how Socrates had managed supper for
them, and uses the tragic word ἐπαλαμήσατο alongside of the prosaic
word ἄλφιτα “victuals.” The contrast between the high word and the
low one is comic and shows the amusing eagerness of Strepsiades to
impress the student, since he himself is an applicant for admission to
the “think-shop.”
In Nub. 1206-8 Strepsiades who has failed in his attempt to get an
education is overjoyed at his son’s success, for now he will not have to
pay his debts (1155 ff.). Therefore he feels inspired to break into exult-
ant song over his good fortune, and calls himself μάκαρ (1206), an epic
15 Compare Aesch. Prom. 619, Eur. Or. 1235, Cydl. 285, Alc. 182.
8 καλαμάομαι was used by Euripides in frg. 918 (sce Nauck, h..) which was parodied
by Aristophanes in Ach. 659 (sce Starkie, h.1.). Again in Pac. 94 Aristophanes employed
itin a paratragic passage (sec Bakh.). Both Forman and Starkic think it an Euripidean
word. παλάμη (τ- μηχανή) is found often in Pindar, and in Aesch. Suppl. 865, Prom.
165, Soph. Phil. 177, Eur. Andr. 1026. See van Herwerden on Pac. 94.
and tragic form* for μακάριος, and employs the poetic word ἔφυς for
el. μάκαρ is used frequently by Homer and Hesiod of the gods and of
the dead. This high lyric quality becomes humorous in view of the
sordid reason for his happiness—that his son will free him of the ne-
cessity of paying his just debts. And in the midst of this high poetry
he inflects his own name wrongly, using Στρεψίαδες for the normal
Στρεψιάδη; this because it reflects his real ignorance is in sharp con-
trast with the high poetry of the rest of the passage, and hence is felt
to be incongruous.
Eg. 626-31: When the Sausage-seller returns from his victory over
Cleon in the Senate, he describes the “thunder-rolling” words his an-
tagonist poured forth in his eruptions before the Senate. After em-
ploying such poetic language® as ἐλασίβροντ᾽ ἀναρρηγνὺς ἔπη and κρη-
μνοὺς ἐρείδων, he uses the comic terms Ψευδατραφάξυος πλέα and ἔβλεψε va-
πὺυ (630) to describe the Senate’s reaction.® Merry notes the “inten-
tional incongruity” between the two passages. It is, however, very
mild, since the two lines are some distance apart.
Ach. 664: At the very end of a bit of tragic diction (vv. 659 ff.), per-
haps a parody of the Telephus, comes a word which in sound seems to
belong to the higher level of language too, but in meaning is utterly re-
moved from it. This word is λακαταπύγων" } “excessively lewd” (com-
pare van Leeuwen). In the same passage are such tragic words as
παλαμάσθω, τεκταινέσθω, and 70 b.3® λακαταπύγων is incongruous both
because it is unsuited to its surroundings, and because of the con-
trast between its impressive sound and its obscene meaning.
In Ach. 119 Dicaeopolis addresses Cleisthenes the debauchee with
the sharply contrasting words:
& θερμόβουλον πρωκτὸν ἐξυρημένε.
κ See Hom. I1. i. 339; Od. x, 299; Hes. ΟΡ. 135; Aesch. Cho. 476, etc. μακάριος is
‘mostly used in prose, though it occurs occasionally in the poets, particularly in Eurip-
ides. Compare Plat. Rep. 354a; Aristot. Ε. N. . 10, 14, 16, etc.
For &us used for εἶ, see Soph. Pk, 558, 1244, An. 79; Aesch. Prom. 969; Pers. 157.
* The scholiast says that ἐλασίβροντ᾽ “thunder-rolling,” is from Pindar frg. 108, a
word used there of Zeus. For ἀναρρήγνυμι see Il. xx, 63; Pindar frg. 172, Theocr.
xxii, 172, etc.
Blaydes in his note on Ach. 95 gives a large number of expressions like ἔβλεψε νᾶπυ
from Greek comedy. ψευδατράφαξυς is a comic coinage of Aristophanes.
1 Compare παγκαταπύγων Lys. 137, λακατάρατος Phot., Δακρατείδης Ach. 220,
Abpaxos Ach. 270, 1071.
For παλαμάσθω see above . 38, n. 33; for τεκταίνομαι see Eur. I. T. 951, frg-918;
and for τὸ εὖ compare Acsch. Ag. 125, 145, etc. (ed. Weckl.-Zomar.); Soph. Ph. 1140,
‘The poetic θερμόβουλον and ἐξυρημένε᾽9 are ill-suited to the company of

the vulgar πρωκτόν.
Th. 39-50: The servant of Agathon delivers a highly poetic ode. It
depicts a world listening quietly to the song of poetry and falling to
sleep under its calming influence. The ode is full of poetic words, but
the fine poetry is interrupted at intervals by Mnesilochus with the
harsh and vulgar βομβάξ, βομβαλοβομβάξ, and especially the words
μῶν βινεῖσθαι.
Somewhat the same contrast occurs in Ran. 337-8 when Xanthias
the slave exclaims:
& πότνια πολυτίμητε Δήμητρος κόρη,
ὡς ἡδύ μοι προσέπνευσε χοιρείων κρεῶν.
From the high, religious and poetic level of the first line the poet drops
abruptly to the material plane of roast pork in the second line. The
incongruity though mild is manifest.
39 θερμόβουλον “hot-tempered” parodies Eur. frg. 858. ξυρέω for xelpw is tragic.
Sophocles uses it, see 4;. 786, and Herodotus has it several times, see ii. 65; v. 35; it oc-
curs only once in classical prose, Plat. Rep. 341c. Bakhuyzen thinks v. 120 parodic of
Archilochus: τοιήνδε δ᾽, & πίθηκε, τὴν πυγὴν ἔχων.
CHAPTER V
LANGUAGE: COMIC COINAGES
ARISTOPHANES often coined words to make fun. The basis of this fun,
aside from the inherent surprise, is sometimes sheer exaggeration and
therefore comic nonsense, as in the case of the long word of 167 letters
in Eccl. 1169, and sometimes derision, as, for example, in Nub. 332—
3 where Socrates names the devotees and dependents of the cloud-
deities, Θουριομάντεις, ἰατροτέχνας, perewpopévaxas, ἀσματοκάμπτας, σφρα-
γιδονυχαργοκομήτας. The compound in each instance selects a person or
a group for derision. While these coinages are not incongruous, there
are others that are felt to be 50 either because there is manifest con-
flict of meaning within the word, between its component parts, or an
outer conflict between the meaning of the coinage as a whole and some
other word or thought in the passage.
Ran. 499: Xanthias the slave has taken over the accoutrements of
Heracles from Dionysus. Now with the club and lion skin in his pos-
session he proudly cries:
καὶ βλέψον els τὸν Ἡρακλειοξανθίαν.
The combination of two such unlike names into one, that of Heracles
the bravest of heroes, later deified, and that of Xanthias the lowly
slave, like the picture this name suggests of a servile creature dressed
in the lion’s skin and the club of the mighty Heracles, tends to be in-
congruous.
Pac. 42: The two slaves attending the dung-beetle wonder which
god’s visitation the monster represents. It surely does not belong to
Aphrodite nor the Graces. It must be the sign of Zeds Σκαταιβάτης,
“Zeus descending in dung.” Surprise is prominent in the laughter here
because of the pun on a well known phrase Ζεὺς καταιβάτης, “Zeus de-
scending in lightning”’; but there is plain incongruity too in attributing
ordure-like qualities to Zeus, and in making the great Lord of the
lightning the Lord of—dung.
‘When Cleon in Eg. 1241 asks the Sausage-seller what trade he pur-
sued when he became a man, he uses the tragic and Ionic expression
ἐξανδρούμενος; and the Sausage-seller, triumphant in his victory, an-
swers in like vein with the epic and Ionic formation βινεσκόμην. While
141
the use of the epic suffix -ox-, the omission of the augment as in the
epos, and the tragic rhythm, all elevate the tone, the vulgar and ob-
scene meaning of the verb Swkw lowers it, and the result is incongrui-
ty.!
Aristophanes frequently employed the suffix -ua, especially in the
form -evua, in order ο lend mock dignity to a word of trivial or vulgar
meaning.? These suffixes add length and abstractness to an otherwise
ordinary word, and in such coinages it is the contrast between the im-
posing form and unimpressive meaning that creates incongruity. Such
words are διεντέρευμα (&repa “guts”) Nub. 166 “gutology”; κυβαλικεύ-.
para (κόβαλα “knavish tricks”) Εφ. 332 “knavishment”; βωμολοχεύματα
(βωμολοχίαι) Eq. 902, Pac. 748 “foolishments,” “low ribaldry”; repa-
τεύματα (τερατεῖαι) Lys. 762 “juggling tricks,” “impostures”; ἀλαζονεύ-
ματα (ἀλαζονεῖαι “impostures”) Ack. 63, 87 “imposturements”; χορδεύ-
ματα (xopdal “guts”) Εᾳ. 315 “gutments”; and ζωμεύματα (ζωμός “soup”
Eq. 219.
The suffix -δών often indicates some sort of disease,? 85 -itis does in
English. Yet in Ach. 4 it is added to the word xapé “joy,” making
χαιρηδὼν “joyitis,” instead of being attached to a stem that would
make it signify a sickness. The coinage creates incongruity because of
the conflict of meaning of stem and suffix.
A. ADJECTIVES IN -kbs*
When the intellectual life of the Athenians was quickened and en-
larged by their great victory over the Persians, they welcomed the
new thought that was brought to them by the philosophers and soph-
ists. This “New Culture” demanded an increased vocabulary for the
expression of new ideas. One of the most notable additions to their
language at this time was the use of a large number of derivative ad-
1 See C. W. Peppler’s article in 4. J. P. 39, 178. Much of the work in this chapter on
incongruity in language necessarily covers the same material treated by Peppler in his
“Comic Terminations in Aristophanes and the Comic Fragments” (Baltimore, 1902)
and subsequent articles in the American Journal of Philology. His work shows that
Aristophanes frequently changed the ending of words for comic purposes. The present
writer has endeavored to point out the words which are rendered incongruous by these
endings and has summarized the material 88 far 88 possible and made due acknowledg-
ment of indebtedness.
* See A. J. P. 37, 450-65. These -ua formations, just 88 in the case of -uxés words be-
low, are in no single instance extremely comic, but each example adds its small quota to
the whole, 5o that the total number of these formations adds materially to the fun
of the plays.
24.7.P,39,176.
CA.J.P.,31,428444.
LANGUAGE: COMIC COINAGES 43
jectives in -κός (usually -wsés). The new teachers employed them in

their lectures, and their pupils and followers were quick to adopt them.
Accordingly, the sphere in which they were used in the beginning was
philosophy,® and consequently words in -wés always had a learned
sound, as -ist does in English. The rich young men who as pupils
followed the lectures of the philosophers and sophists made these
forms in -wés the vogue in fashionable society. Aristophanes ridicules
the fad in Eg. 1375-81 by using eight extraordinary adjectives in -ικός
in four consecutive verses.
For the present purpose it is sufficient to note that, while Aristoph-
anes’ chief concern is to deride this innovation of the “New Cul-
ture,” it is frequently true also that the learned termination -wés is
added to words of ordinary or vulgar meaning, and the result is a
humorous combination of vulgarity or mediocrity of meaning on the
one hand and the philosophic suffix on the other. This makes comic
incongruity within the word itself, however mild it is in some cases.
Furthermore, words in -wés are felt to be incongruous at times when
they are used by persons of a low or ignorant type who are accustomed
to employ the popular language of the streets. Examples follow:
It is rather inappropriate that the country bumpkin Strepsiades,
himself dismissed from school on account of his dullness, should greet
his son, now a full-fledged graduate of the φροντιστήριον, with such
learned words 85 ἐξαρνητικὸς κἀντιλογικός (Nub. 1172-3). Still more in-
congruous is it to hear the words καταδακτυλικὸς τοῦ λαλητικοῦ (Egq.
1381) from the lips of the low and vulgar Sausage-seller, especially as
he adds the learned suffix to an obscene word.
In the words & yewwwdrarov kptas® (Eq. 457) with which the Chorus
addresses the Sausage-seller, the inappropriateness of the adjective as
a modifier of the grossly material word κρέας is increased by the so-
phistical suffix -ικός.
Comic coinages and words that denote tradespeople, workmen, and
the common things of daily life, and are far removed from the realm
of philosophy, are so ill-adapted to have the learned -wés termination
attached to them that they create a feeling of incongruity, e.g., πολε-
μολαμαχαϊκός Ach. 1080, κομψευριπικῶς Eq. 18, δειπνητικῶς Ack. 1016,
μελλοδειπνικός Eccl. 1153, μαγειρικῶς Ack. 1015, Eq. 216,376, Pac. 1017,
τριβωνικῶς Vesp. 1132, ἐριοπωλικῶς Ran. 1386, σκυτοτομικός Eccl. 432,
® At a later time these forms are found in great abundance in the philosophers Plato
and Aristotle. The former has between three and four hundred, the latter between six
and seven hundred.
¢ Compare & δεξιώτατον κρέας 421.
δημιουργικῶς Pac. 429, καπηλικῶς Plut. 1063, παιδοτριβικῶς Eq. 492.

Similarly νουβυστικός Vesp. 1294, Eccl. 441, from the vulgar word βύω,
“cram,” “plug,” “bung,” and βαδιστικός Ran. 128 “walkist’’ from
βαδίζω “trudge,” are incongruous because the sophistic suffix is not
suited to their meaning.
Β. PaTrONYMICS”
It confers honor upon 8 man to add to his name the name of his
father,® since this calls attention to his lineage as being worthy of
mention. The common patronymic suffix is -δης. Its sphere of use is
epic poetry and its imitations. Hence the addition of such a patro-
nymic to a man’s name not only gives him the distinction of belonging
to a great house, but the association of the patronymic with epic
poetry adds further dignity to the name. The aristocrats and those
who had pride of ancestry used these longer names as being more
noble; the poor and the slaves had short names.
When the patronymic termination -δης, belonging 85 it does to the
high sphere of dignified epic poetry, is added as a name-forming suffix
to a word that describes a lowly or perhaps vulgar quality or char-
acteristic of a man, the high sound and the low meaning are at variance
and the result is incongruity. The incongruity is rather mild in the
name Μαριλάδης Ack. 609 (from μαρίλη “charcoal dust”) applied in fun
to one of the charcoal-burners, and in the name ᾿Αχαρνηίδαι Ach. 322
“sons of Acharneus” given to the humble Acharnian charcoal-burners
(properly ᾿Αχαρνῆς), as if their lineage could be traced back to some
great mythical ancestor ᾿Αχαρνεύς. Similarly Σπουδαρχίδης Ach. 595
“Office-seeker,” Σρατωνίδης 596 “Son of Mars,” and Μισθαρχίδης 597
“Big-pay Office-holder” are long and pretentious names with more
sound and bombast in them than their meaning justifies. The name
Φειδιππίδης in the Clouds is made up of mildly conflicting elements, the
first one φείδεσθαι implying frugality, the second part of the compound
τιππ- indicating that the bearer of the name belonged to the aristo-
cratic Knights, and the suffix marking his high lineage. There is greater
conflict in the parts and hence greater incongruity in πανουργιππαρ-
χίδαι Ach. 603 “the race of reprobate hipparchs.” Long, trailing com-
pounds get dignity merely from their length; then, when their mean-
ing is low or silly, outward form and inner meaning are not in accord,
and incongruity is the result; e.g., στωμυλιοσυλλεκτάδης Ran. 841 “Gos-
7 See Peppler, Com. Term., pp. 44-53.
8 See Hom. II. χ. 68.
LANGUAGE: COMIC COINAGES 45
sip-catcher,” ῥακιοσυρραπτάδης 842 “Rag-patcher,” σαλπιγγολογχυπη-

νάδαι 966 “the noble race of trumpets, lances, and long beards.”
᾿Αποδρασιππίδης Vesp. 185 is made up of ἀποδρᾶσαι “to run away,”
the aristocratic name-element -ἰππ-, and the patronymic ending. The
length of the name and its epic surroundings in addition to the aris-
tocracy implied in -ἰππ- and -ἰδὴς give it the appearance of a mighty
name of some great personage; but the meaning of the first part of
the name, “to run away,” “escape,” plainly suggests the act of a
slave. This conflict makes a clear case of incongruity.
Tawvidns® Κινησίας Lys. 852 is the name of the ardent husband of
Myrrhina. It appears that he comes from the Attic deme Παιονίδαι of
the tribe Leontis. His long, rolling name has a dignified sound, but on
the other hand Παιονίδης suggests παίειν (-Ξεβινεῖν) just as Κινησίας sug-
gests κινεῖν (Ξ βινεῖν), so that the dignity of sound stands over against
the vulgarity of contents.
C. DIMINUTIVES'®
Diminutives of endearment belong primarily to the nursery, being
the baby-talk of parents to children.!! Then, since the pet-names of
the nursery are employed by lovers, these diminutives have a place
in the language of love.? When, however, such baby-talk and love
language is used by an inferior to a superior, the effect is incongruity,
because it reverses the usual situation. For example, when the plain
farmer Dicaeopolis wishes to obtain the accoutrements of the hero
Telephus from the great tragic poet Euripides, he addresses him with
the endearing diminutive Εὐριπίδιον Ach. 404, 475, the diminutive suf-
fix being reinforced in the latter passage with yAvkbrarov kal ¢iArarop.
The scholiast on Ack. 404 makes the tone of the diminutive here very
plain when he says: épwrikds μιμεῖται φωνάς. ol yap ἐρῶντες εἰώθασι Tods
ἐρωμένους ἐρωτικῶς δι᾿ ὑποκοριστικῶν καλεῖν. Similarly, the philosopher
Socrates is called Σωκρατίδιον Nub. 223, 237, 746, and that by a crea-
ture-of-a-day (ἐφήμερος) ; and the god Hermes is addressed as 'Ἑρμήδιον
Pac. 382 by the vine-dresser Trygaeus. So also the low and vulgar
* The Ravennas scholiast read Πεονίδης, and so derived it from πέος through the as-
sumed form Πέων. He says παίζει πρὸς 70 wéos, ὡς ἀπὸ δήμου τινός. Whatever the spell-
ing of the name, the incongruity is the same.
19 Peppler, op. cit., pp. 7, 10, 18-21, 24, 27.
1 Phrynichus, Anecd. Graec. Bek. 47, 31.
Ar. Pit. 1010-11.
15 See also νν. 462, 467.
U & Σωκρατίδιον φίλτατον.
Sausage-seller calls Δῆμος who is the personification of the people of

Athens & Δημίδιον Eq. 1199, & Δημίδιον, & φίλτατον 726, & Δημακίδιον 823.
These diminutive forms (ὑποκοριστικά) have the effect of pulling down
the persons addressed from their own high level to the level of chil-
dren (κόροι). On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate and not at all
incongruous for Strepsiades to call his son Pheidippides Φειδιππίδιον in
Nub. 80. But to bestow love on a dung-beetle calling it & Πηγάσιον
Pac. 76, or on a coal-basket λαρκίδιον Ack. 340 (cf. 326), or on a law-
suit δικίδιον Vesp. 511, or on a court of justice δικαστηρίδιον 804, is to
go about as far below the level of children to find an object of one’s
affection as the previous examples were above that level; and this too
produces incongruity.
Λαμαχίππιον Ack. 1206. Lamachus was a poor man of lowly birth;
the aristocratic name element -ἰππ- here raises him to the nobility,
then follows the diminutive suffix which has in it all the easy familiar-
ity of the conversation of daily life, and it robs him of the dignity that
τιπτ- had conferred, thus making him ridiculous.
When a diminutive is attached to a dignified word or occurs in a
stately passage, the effect is incongruous because the diminutive car-
ries with it the stamp of the sermo vulgaris; but when it occurs in a
parody the feeling of incongruity is much increased because of its un-
suitability in the midst of tragic surroundings. For example, Diony-
sus in Ran. 100, 311, parodying Euripides frg. 487:
ὄμνυμι δ᾽ ἱερὸν αἰθέρ᾽, οἴκησιν Διός,
changes οἴκησιν ἴο the diminutive δωμάτιον “Jove’s cabin,” which is
not a suitable abode for the king of gods and men. Similarly, in an
imitation of Euripides’ monodies Artemis is invoked to come with her
pups (κυνίσκας Ran. 1360) instead of her stalwart hounds, such as a
goddess would have. Finally, in Ran. 1477-8 Dionysus again jeers at
Euripides by parodying one of his famous sayings (frg. 638), and in-
troduces 8 diminutive of contempt κῴδιον to make the effect more ludi-
crous:
τίς οἶδεν €l 78 ζῆν μὲν ἐστι κατθανεῖν,

τὸ πνεῖν δὲ δειπνεῖν, τὸ δὲ καθεύδειν κῴδιον;
INDEX
PAGE PAGE
ACHARNIANS: Knicats: (Cont'd):
1
223,237, 746.
3323
48 INDEX
PAGE PACE
: (Cont’d): ‘THESMOPHORIAZUSAE: (Cont’d]
‘THESMOPHORIAZUSAE : PruTus:
39-50.
98..

Charlton C. Jernigan, Incongruity in Aristophanes, Menasha, Wis., George Banta Publishing Company, 1939

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charlton C. Jernigan, Incongruity in Aristophanes, Menasha, Wis., George Banta Publishing Company, 1939

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INCONGRUITY IN ARISTOPHANES

Whe Qolleginte Prese

MosT MASTERS of the comic in world literature are specialists in a

Laughter, accordmg to Plato,® is a mixed feeling of pleasure and

versally recognized source of laughter, incongruity, and to collect and

is to decide what the principal cause of laughter is in situations

‘Aristophanes, the quality of the laughter arising from them depends

In the Ackarnians the ambassadors to the Great King of Persia

DEGRADATION AND MAGNIFICATION OF PEOPLE

592 (uéyas), and in Av. 1470 where he is compared to a tree of gigantic

if there be no attendant feeling of sacrilege. Just as the Great King

ἑερεῦ, διαφύλαξόν μ᾽, W' & σοι ξυμπότης.

9 See Prom. 96; Pers. 324.

The fun is exceedingly mild in Th. 1015 where Mnesilochus as

its desires. A lady is afraid of appearing a glutton, says the scholiast,

κἂν Ad θύῃ βασιλεῖ κριόν, βασιλεύς ἐστ᾽ ὀρχίλος ὄρνις,

παρ᾽ ὑπόνοιαν' is ἃ device that was frequently employed by Aristoph-

supplied food. The student in elaborate fashion begins a description

Sophists, Socrates in order to test him asks what four-footed animals

The two-legged cock at the end of a list of quadrupeds is decidedly

The remark of Pericles had dignified associations since it referred to

εὐνούστατόν τε τῇ πόλει kal τοῖσι δακτύλοισιν.

PARODY AND RELATED MATTERS

- ONE_oF THE most fruitful sources of laughter for Aristophanes was

{ When a scene is taken out of a familiar tragedy and reproduced in

1 Nauck, 0. cit. p. 541.

φροῦδα τὰ χρήματα, φρούδη χροιά,

And 80 the overjoyed father welcomes his newly-graduated son with

than a particular scene. The mock-anagnorisis in Eg. 1229-53" is

lines of a tragic anagnorisis and by the use of tragic language'® and,

Nub. 1259 Ε. is an imitation of ἃ tragic threnody. Amynias, a credi-

Ach. 247 fi. is parodic of the phallic procession in the celebration of

or moon or other divinity. Note the appeal to the Sun in Sophocles’

which is theirs. They wish to discuss desertion, but each is afraid to

This is a parody of Aeschylus frg. 174, where Thetis is addressed as

μηδὲ γὰρ θανών ποτε

Against the background of the tragic death of the grief-stricken wife

In verse 1078 he exclaims:

30 Bakhuyzen remarks: gravia verba, quibus gravitatem et magnificentiam Lamachi

high level of the dactylic hexameter in a parody of the Little Iliad

‘The poetic θερμόβουλον and ἐξυρημένε᾽9 are ill-suited to the company of

LANGUAGE: COMIC COINAGES

jectives in -κός (usually -wsés). The new teachers employed them in

δημιουργικῶς Pac. 429, καπηλικῶς Plut. 1063, παιδοτριβικῶς Eq. 492.

sip-catcher,” ῥακιοσυρραπτάδης 842 “Rag-patcher,” σαλπιγγολογχυπη-

Sausage-seller calls Δῆμος who is the personification of the people of

τίς οἶδεν €l 78 ζῆν μὲν ἐστι κατθανεῖν,

You might also like