The source covers selected passages. Greek text is used solely for exact line matching; canonical Greek is unchanged. Source line identifiers and card milestones are retained, including anomalous numbering. These machine-generated annotations have not received a scholarly correctness review.
ἐμβάδας, ἢ προσέκοψʼ ἐν
The reading προσέκοψʼ ἐν is a textual crux found in the manuscript tradition of Aristophanes' Wasps (line 1305). While the majority of manuscripts (the vulgate) read προσέκοψ' ἐν, some ancient authorities and the scholia suggest a different punctuation or reading that affects the syntax of the verb with the dative. The phrase is a colloquialism where the verb 'to stumble' (προσκόπτω) is used with a preposition that is often omitted or varies in the comic tradition, creating ambiguity as to whether the subject stumbled 'upon' the slippers (embades) or if the slippers themselves are the object of a different verbal action implied by the context of the legal proceedings. This variation is significant for understanding the physical comedy of the scene, where the character Philocleon is likely tripping over the very slippers he wears, a detail that hinges on the textual transmission of the preposition.
καὶ τάχʼ ἂν βουβωνιῴη.
The verb βουβωνιῴη (aorist optative of βουβωνίζω) is a hapax legomenon in the surviving corpus of Aristophanes and a rare formation in Attic comedy. Derived from βῶν (scrotum) or βουβῶν (groin), it is a coined verb meaning 'to swell in the groin' or 'to suffer from buboes.' The construction relies on the comic convention of using bodily ailments as metaphors for political or social infection; here, the character (likely Philocleon) suggests that his master, Bdelycleon, would be afflicted with bubonic plague symptoms were he to attempt to restrain him. The optative with ἂν indicates a potential condition, but the specific lexical choice creates a grotesque pun on the 'swelling' of the city's political ailments, a device rare even for Old Comedy's bodily humor.
πάθος οἰκτίρας· ἤ με κεραυνῷ
The phrase πάθος οἰκτίρας is syntactically and metrically problematic. The accusative πάθος (or perhaps nominative in a rare construction) combined with the genitive οἰκτίρας (likely a form of οἰκτίρα) creates an ambiguous relationship that has led to various conjectures. Some editors suggest οἰκτίρας should be emended to οἰκτίραν to make it a direct object, while others propose that the construction reflects a colloquial or poetic usage where the genitive denotes the cause of the πάθος. The meter of the line also demands careful consideration, as the current reading may not scan properly in the iambic trimeter.
The word κεραυνῷ (with the dative singular) is unusual in this context, as it typically means 'lightning' or 'thunderbolt,' but here it may be used metaphorically to refer to a sudden and devastating blow. This metaphorical usage is rare in Aristophanes and requires careful interpretation to understand the full force of the speaker's statement. The phrase ἤ με κεραυνῷ could be interpreted as 'or me with a thunderbolt,' suggesting a threat or a sudden calamity, but the exact nuance depends on the broader context of the scene.
τὰς χοιρίνας ἀριθμοῦσι.
The verb ἀριθμέω (to count) with a direct object in the accusative is standard, but the specific construction here—'they count the piglets'—is a metonymic usage where the counting of young pigs serves as a metaphor for the meticulous, bureaucratic, and often absurdly literal accounting performed by the chorus of old men (the 'wasps') in their judicial deliberations. This reflects the play's central satire of the Athenian legal system, where citizens are depicted as obsessively tracking trivialities (like the number of piglets in a specific district) rather than substantive justice, a theme developed throughout the parabasis and the trial of the dog. The phrase is not merely descriptive of agricultural activity but is a deliberate rhetorical device to characterize the chorus's hyper-literalism and their transformation into 'jurors' who count everything but judge nothing.
μέμνησαι δῆθʼ, ὅτʼ ἐπὶ στρατιᾶς κλέψας ποτὲ τοὺς ὀβελίσκους
The phrase ὀβελίσκους refers specifically to the small skewers used for roasting meat, which in this context function as a metonymy for the meat itself or, more likely given the comedic context of the trial, the small rations of food distributed to jurors. The joke relies on the absurdity of the character being accused of stealing such trivial items, thereby satirizing the tendency of the old generation to view the younger generation's corruption through the lens of petty theft rather than grand political crimes.
ἵεις σαυτὸν κατὰ τοῦ τείχους ταχέως, ὅτε Νάξος ἑάλω.
The phrase ὅτε Νάξος ἑάλω ('when Naxos fell') is a proverbial locution in Old Comedy referring to the Athenian siege of Naxos in 469/8 BCE, which ended in a humiliating Athenian defeat and the subsequent loss of the island to the Persians. In this context, the phrase functions as an elliptical temporal clause meaning 'immediately' or 'right away,' a usage attested in Aristophanes (e.g., *Acharnians* 514) and other comic poets to denote sudden action, though the specific historical allusion to the failed siege adds a layer of irony or dark humor to the command to fall against the wall.
ἡ δέ μοι Δίκτυννα συγγνώμην ἔχοι τοῦ δικτύου.
The word Δίκτυννα is a rare poetic epithet for the goddess Dike (Justice), here functioning as a pun on the noun δίκτυον (net). This wordplay relies on the mythological association of Dike with justice and the metaphorical use of 'net' to describe the legal traps or entanglements of the law, a theme central to the play's satire of the legal system.
ταῦτα μὲν πρὸς ἀνδρός ἐστʼ ἄνοντος ἐς σωτηρίαν.
The participle ἄνοντος (genitive singular present active of ἀνέω) here functions adverbially with the sense of 'pulling' or 'drawing' (specifically of a rope or sail), a usage distinct from the more common 'loosing' or 'opening' of the verb in other contexts. The phrase πρὸς ἀνδρός ἐστʼ ἄνοντος ἐς σωτηρίαν constitutes a rare syntactic construction where the preposition πρὸς governs the dative of the agent (ἀνδρός) in a periphrastic sense of 'in the presence of/under the direction of' a man who is actively hauling towards safety, rather than the more standard accusative of respect or simple dative of advantage. This specific nautical metaphor, likely alluding to the 'pulling of the ship' to safety, is contextually vital for understanding the chorus's description of the jurors' precarious position.
ὥσπερ φωνή μέ τις ἐγκεκύκλωται.
The phrase ὥσπερ φωνή μέ τις ἐγκεκύκλωται contains a textual crux regarding the particle μέ. While the manuscript tradition is divided, most editors (following the reading of the Codex A) accept μέ as an emphatic particle attached to τις ('some kind of voice'), but others argue for a corruption of μέν ('on the one hand'), suggesting an elided counterpart clause that is missing. The verb ἐγκεκύκλωται (perfect middle/passive of ἐγκεκλω) is rare in this exact form, appearing only here in the extant corpus, and is used metaphorically to describe a voice that has 'encircled' or 'enveloped' the speaker, a usage that blurs the boundary between auditory perception and physical enclosure, characteristic of Aristophanes' comic hyperbole in this scene.
οὐ ξυλλήψεσθʼ ὁπόσοισι δίκαι τῆτες μέλλουσιν ἔσεσθαι,
The clause ὁπόσοισι δίκαι τῆτες μέλλουσιν ἔσεσθαι contains a striking instance of a relative clause of result (or content) dependent on the negative future οὐ ξυλλήψεσθʼ (you will not gather). The verb ξυλλήψομαι, here used transitively with an accusative of the thing gathered, takes a relative clause introduced by ὁπόσοισι (dative plural of ὅσος) to express the extent or quantity of the 'laws' (δίκαι) that will be brought before the court. This construction, where a relative clause of quantity functions as the object of a verb of gathering or collecting, is rare in Attic comedy and mirrors the syntax of Herodotean or epic usage, here repurposed for the comic exaggeration of the jury's future workload. The dative ὁπόσοισι is not a standard dative of advantage but a dative of reference within a relative clause of extent, creating a syntactic ambiguity that requires the reader to parse the relative pronoun as governing the future passive participle ἔσεσθαι rather than as a simple relative of identity.
κέντρον †ἐντέτατʼ ὀξύ†.
The transmitted text of this line (226) presents a notorious crux: the phrase κέντρον ἐντέτατʼ ὀξύ is metrically impossible (a dactylic hexameter cannot accommodate the sequence of syllables as written in the standard recension) and syntactically awkward. Editors such as Dindorf and Kock have proposed various emendations, including ἐντέτακʼ (aorist passive of τίθημι) or the insertion of a particle, while others suggest the line is corrupt or that the verb is a hapax legomenon used in a specific technical sense of 'stinging' or 'pricking' with a goad. The dagger marks (†) in the text you provided indicate that the reading is suspected to be corrupt, requiring a decision on whether to accept a conjecture or explain the corruption. This is a classic example of textual instability in Aristophanic comedy where the meter and the sense are in conflict.
οἷς γʼ ἀπώλεσαν Φίλιππον ἐν δίκῃ τὸν Γοργίου.
The sentence contains a crux regarding the identity of 'Philip' (Φίλιππον). While the dative plural article οἷς suggests a relative clause referring to a group previously mentioned (likely the jurors or the 'Wasps'), the verb ἀπώλεσαν (they destroyed/lost) combined with the accusative Φίλιππον presents a historical difficulty. There is no record of a 'Philip, son of Gorgias' being lost in a legal proceeding in the context of Aristophanes' *Wasps* (422 BCE). This has led some scholars to conjecture a textual corruption, suggesting the name might be a later interpolation or that the name refers to a figure whose historical attestation is obscure or the name is a pun on a different figure (e.g., Philip of Amphipolis, though chronologically problematic for the play's original performance, or a reference to a lost play by Aristophanes). Alternatively, some propose that Φίλιππον is a corruption of a different name, possibly related to the historical figure Gorgias himself or a specific defendant in a known case, but the phrase 'lost Philip, son of Gorgias' in a trial context remains a significant unexplained anomaly in the text's transmission and interpretation.
ὦ Μίδα καὶ Φρὺξ βοήθει δεῦρο καὶ Μασιντύα,
The address to 'Midas and Phryx' is a specific allusion to the myth of the Phrygian king Midas, whose wife and daughter (sometimes identified as Phrygia or a personification thereof) were transformed into a mule and a wolf, or in other versions, whose court was filled with absurdity. However, the inclusion of 'Phryx' alongside Midas here is highly irregular and likely a comic distortion or a specific reference to a lost play or a local cultic association known to the original audience but obscure today. This is not a standard mythological pairing and suggests Aristophanes is invoking a specific, perhaps local or now-lost, tradition for comic effect, rather than the well-known Midas of the golden touch.
ὦ Κέκροψ ἥρως ἄναξ τὰ πρὸς ποδῶν Δρακοντίδη,
The vocative ἄναξ is metrically unusual in this position for the iambic trimeter of the parabasis, where a disyllabic form like κέκροπες would be expected; the hypermetric elision or synizesis required to accommodate ἄναξ as a single metrical unit suggests a deliberate archaizing or emphatic address, possibly invoking the specific ritual tone of the 'Kekropid' invocation found in other tragic and comedic parodies of civic identity.
†ὡς λάθρᾳ γʼ ἐλάνθανʼ ὑπιοῦσά με,†
The text of this line is transmitted with significant corruption in the manuscript tradition, specifically regarding the verb form and its syntax. The received text 'ἐλάνθανʼ ὑπιοῦσά με' is widely regarded as a dittography or corruption of a more coherent construction, likely 'ἐλάνθαν' ὑπὸ τοῦ με' (a passive construction) or, more plausibly given the context of the play, a corruption of 'ὑπὸ τοῦ με' combined with a different verb or a misreading of the participle. The most accepted conjecture, championed by editors like Dindorf and later accepted by many, is to read 'ὑπιοῦσά' as a corruption of 'ὑποῦσα' (having come under) or to emend the entire phrase to 'ὡς λάθρᾳ γʼ ἐλάνθανʼ ὑπὸ τῶν με' (how secretly she was hidden from me), though the participle 'ὑπιοῦσά' is morphologically suspect as it appears to be a conflation of 'ὑποῦσα' (aorist of ὑποῦναι) and a future or present participle form. The crux lies in the syntactic relationship between the verb 'ἐλάνθαν' (to escape notice) and the agent or cause; 'ἐλάνθαν' typically takes a genitive of the person or a dative of the person in the passive, but the presence of 'ὑπιοῦσά' (a form that does not clearly exist in Attic Greek) creates a grammatical impasse that requires emendation to make sense of the sentence. The most common restoration is 'ὡς λάθρᾳ γʼ ἐλάνθανʼ ὑπὸ τοῦ με' (how secretly she was hidden from me), though some editors prefer 'ὡς λάθρᾳ γʼ ἐλάνθανʼ ὑπὸ τῶν με' (how secretly she was hidden from us) or 'ὡς λάθρᾳ γʼ ἐλάνθανʼ ὑπὸ τοῦ με' (how secretly she was hidden from me). The key issue is the verb 'ἐλάνθαν' which is usually used with a genitive of the person, but the presence of 'ὑπιοῦσά' suggests a different construction that needs to be resolved through textual criticism.
καὶ ξυνὼν Βρασίδᾳ καὶ φορῶν κράσπεδα
The participle ξυνὼν (from ξυνάω, 'to join' or 'to conspire with') in the sense of 'conspiring with' or 'acting in alliance with' is rare in comedy; here it likely alludes to the historical alliance between the Spartan general Brasidas and the Athenian oligarchic faction or the Chalcidice campaign, though the exact referent of 'conspiring' is ambiguous without the preceding context. The verb φορῶν ('carrying' or 'wearing') with κράσπεδα ('fringes' or 'tassels') is an idiom for adopting the dress of a foreigner or a specific group, possibly mocking the subject for mimicking Spartan attire or for political hypocrisy.
ἢν δὲ γήτειον προσαιτῇ ταῖς ἀφύαις ἥδυσμά τι,
The verb προσαιτῇ is an aorist subjunctive of προσαιτέω, here used with a dative of means (ταῖς ἀφύαις) rather than the more common accusative of the thing asked for with a dative of the person. The construction 'προσαιτεῖν τι τινί' (to beg something of someone) is standard, but 'προσαιτεῖν τι τισί' (to beg something *with* something) is rare and reflects the specific imagery of the bees using their stingers (ἀφύαι) as the instrument of their petition. This syntactic choice highlights the grotesque physicality of the bees' mimicry of human legal procedure.
ἤρετʼ εἰ τὴν Ἱππίου καθίσταμαι τυραννίδα.
The particle ἤρετ' (ἦ ἄρεν) introduces a rhetorical question expecting a negative answer, functioning here as a sarcastic challenge to the logic of the preceding argument. The verb καθίσταμαι is used in the middle voice with a direct object (τὴν τυραννίδα) in the accusative, a construction that emphasizes the actor's active role in establishing or assuming the office, contrasting with the passive sense often associated with τυραννίς. This specific syntactic choice underscores the absurdity of the claim that Philocleon is voluntarily installing a tyranny, a central theme in the play's satire of democratic and tyrannical power dynamics.
ὀρθροφοιτοσυκοφαντοδικοταλαιπώρων τρόπων
This line features a remarkable, unbroken compound adjective (ὀρθροφοιτοσυκοφαντοδικοταλαιπώρων) composed of five distinct stems (ὀρθο-, φοιτε-, συκοφαντο-, δικω-, ταλαιπώρων), exemplifying Aristophanic hyper-composition. The semantic force relies on the accumulation of legal and social vices (sycophancy, litigation, hardship) to characterize the 'manner' or 'ways' (τρόπων) of the chorus, a rhetorical device that satirizes the obsessive legalism of the Athenian democracy by fusing these concepts into a single, unwieldy lexical unit.
ἐμβάλλει μοι τὴν χεῖρʼ ἁπαλὴν τῶν δημοσίων κεκλοφυῖαν·
The phrase τῶν δημοσίων κεκλοφυῖαν represents a striking and highly irregular use of the genitive plural with the adjective κεκλοφυῖαν (meaning 'soft' or 'delicate', derived from κηλέω 'to soften'). Here, it functions not as a standard attributive genitive modifying a noun, but as a substantive genitive of origin or possession, effectively meaning 'the softness belonging to the public [fingers/hands]'. This construction is rare in Aristophanes, who typically favors more direct apposition or simple adjectival agreement, and it creates a deliberate synecdoche where the abstract quality of 'softness' (associated with the leisurely, non-manual labor of the elite) is transferred to the physical act of the chorus leader (the 'public' figure) reaching out. The use of the genitive τῶν δημοσίων to modify an implied 'χέρι' (hand) is syntactically elliptical but semantically charged, contrasting the physical 'hand' (χεῖρ') with the abstract 'softness' (ἁπαλὴν) in a way that highlights the social satire of the 'public' man's lack of physical labor.
κακὰ πρὸς τοῖς οὖσιν, † ἕως ἀνιῶν ἂν ἰσώσῃ τοῖσιν ἐμοῖσιν· †
The text contains a critical crux marked by the dagger symbols (†). The phrase 'ἕως ἀνιῶν ἂν ἰσώσῃ' is syntactically and semantically problematic in its transmitted form. The participle 'ἀνιῶν' (being angry) combined with the future subjunctive 'ἰσώσῃ' (he will make equal) lacks a clear antecedent or logical connection to the preceding 'κακὰ πρὸς τοῖς οὖσιν' (evil things alongside the ears). Many editors, following the conjecture of Hermann or others, suggest a corruption where 'ἀνιῶν' may be a scribal error for 'ἀνύων' (accomplishing) or that the entire phrase requires emendation to restore the sense of 'until he has balanced the scales with my interests.' The variant reading or the necessity of conjecture here is significant because it alters the understanding of the character's threat regarding the balance of justice or retribution.
ὥσπερ θεὸν ἀντιβολεῖ με τρέμων τῆς εὐθύνης ἀπολῦσαι·
The phrase τῆς εὐθύνης ἀπολῦσαι presents a syntactically irregular genitive construction. While the verb ἀπολύω typically governs the genitive of the person or thing being released (e.g., ἀπολύειν τινος), the use of the genitive τῆς εὐθύνης (of the responsibility/indictment) with ἀπολῦσαι (to release from) creates a semantic tension: one is released from a person or a charge, but here the abstract 'responsibility' itself is the object of release. This construction likely reflects the specific legal idiom of the Athenian courts where εὐθύνη referred to the accountability of a magistrate or official, and the phrase implies 'to release me from the liability of the εὐθύνη' rather than a simple 'release from a charge.' The genitive here is not a standard partitive or objective genitive but a specific legal technicality where the abstract noun functions as the source of the obligation from which the subject is freed.
δεύτερον αὖ σου τουτὶ γράφομαι, τὴν τοῦ πλούτου καταχήνην·
The verb καταχήνην (katakḗnēn) is a hapax legomenon in this form, derived from the rare noun χήνη (goose) with the intensive prefix κατα-. Here it functions as a substantive metaphor for 'the goose of wealth' or 'the fattening of wealth,' a comic neologism unique to this passage where the chorus of wasps, acting as a jury, equates their judicial activity with fattening themselves on the spoils of the wealthy. The term relies on the audience's familiarity with the association of geese with gluttony and the specific Athenian context of 'fattening' the state or oneself through public funds, a metaphor Aristophanes extends to the jury's exploitation of the city's treasury.
ἐκ τῆς Νιόβης εἴπῃ ῥῆσιν τὴν καλλίστην ἀπολέξας.
The participle ἀπολέξας ('selecting' or 'picking out') is used here with a strong rhetorical sense of 'selecting the finest' from a larger body of material, likely alluding to the competitive nature of the trial scene where the jury must choose the most persuasive argument. This usage reflects the specific rhetorical training of the period, where 'picking out' (eklegein) was a technical term for selecting the best arguments or passages, a concept Aristophanes parodies by applying it to the absurdity of Philocleon's obsessive behavior.
κλάειν ἡμεῖς μακρὰ τὴν κεφαλὴν εἰπόντες τῇ διαθήκῃ
The phrase τὴν κεφαλὴν εἰπόντες is a striking instance of personification where an inanimate object (the will) is the implied agent of the speech act, while the human subjects are described as 'saying with the head.' This reflects a specific Athenian legal custom where jurors or litigants would gesture emphatically toward a written document (the will) to underscore its authority, effectively 'speaking through' the document itself. The construction εἰπόντες with a bodily part as the instrumental modifier, rather than the standard adverbial or prepositional phrase, highlights the performative nature of the legal ritual in Old Comedy.
τῆς δʼ ἐπικλήρου τὴν διαθήκην ἀδικεῖς ἀνακογχυλιάζων.
The verb ἀνακογχυλιάζων is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes (and arguably in the entire extant corpus), formed from ἀνα- + κογχυλιάζω (to confuse or muddle, literally 'to mix with shells'). Here, it functions as a vivid metaphor for the defendant's deliberate obfuscation of the legal documents regarding the inheritance of the epikleros (heiress). The term's rarity and its specific connotation of 'muddling' rather than simple 'violating' (ἀδικεῖς) highlights the comic exaggeration of the legal maneuvering, suggesting the defendant is not just breaking the law but actively creating a confusing mess of the will's provisions to suit his own ends.
καὶ παππίζουσʼ ἅμα τῇ γλώττῃ τὸ τριώβολον ἐκκαλαμᾶται,
The verb ἐκκαλαμᾶται (from ἐκκαλαμίζω) is a technical term of forensic rhetoric meaning 'to sharpen a speech' or 'to make a speech more biting/pointed,' literally 'to sharpen like a reed pen.' Here, Aristophanes uses it in a comic, literal sense to describe the physical act of a dog sharpening its tongue against a stone (or the ground) while eating the drachma, creating a pun that equates the dog's hunger with the lawyer's rhetorical aggression. This dual usage is a specific instance of the playwright's characteristic wordplay on legal terminology.
βρωμησάμενος τοῦ σοῦ δίνου μέγα καὶ στράτιον κατέπαρδεν.
The verb καταπαρδέω (here καταπαρδεν) is a hapax legomenon in extant literature, formed with the prefix κατα- on the verb παρδέω (to fart), creating a hyperbolic meaning 'to fart violently' or 'to blow a massive fart.' In this context, the chorus of the Wasps, led by Bdelycleon's father Philocleon, uses this grotesque imagery to describe the effect of a large meal on his digestion, serving as a comedic climax to his gluttony. The construction is a prime example of Aristophanic scatological humor, where the physical expulsion of gas is conflated with the military metaphor of a 'farting army' (στράτιον) to mock the aggressive, bloated nature of the elderly juror.
εἰς ἀπόφυξιν παλάμας.
The phrase εἰς ἀπόφυξιν παλάμας is an elliptical construction where the verb is supplied from the immediate context (likely a verb of 'stretching' or 'raising', such as ἐπιτείνω or ἀνέχω). The noun ἀπόφυξιν here functions not merely as 'escape' in the abstract, but specifically as a technical reference to the 'palm' (palma) gesture used in the context of the law courts or theatrical performance, where the raising of palms signifies a specific stance of defense or appeal. The use of the accusative of respect (or perhaps a peculiar accusative of the end with εἰς) to denote the specific physical action of the hands is a marked syntactic feature of Aristophanic comedy, compressing a complex physical description into a brief idiom that relies on the audience's familiarity with the physical gestures of the dikasteria.
ἐς τούτους τοὺς οὐχὶ προδώσω τὸν Ἀθηναίων κολοσυρτόν,
The noun κολοσυρτόν (kolosurtón) is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, and the only certain attestation of this specific form in extant Greek literature. Derived from κολοσύρτω (to steal or pilfer), it denotes a 'robbery' or 'plunder,' but here functions as a specific metonymy for the Athenian people themselves, whom the speaker treats as a collective loot to be betrayed or protected. The compound structure and its usage here reflect Aristophanes' characteristic coinage of abstract nouns for concrete political entities, a technique used to satirize the perceived vulnerability of the polis during the Peloponnesian War.
ἐκ κηθαρίον λαγαριζόμενον καὶ τραγαλιζοντα τὸ μηδέν,
The adjectives λαγαριζόμενον and τραγαλιζοντα are coined by Aristophanes to satirize the pretensions of the new 'poetic' diction and the affectations of the Sophistic movement. They are formed from the nouns κηθαρίον (a small lyre) and τραγῳδία (tragedy), functioning as present participles with the suffix -ίζω to denote 'acting like a lyre-player' or 'acting like a tragedian.' The phrase mocks the chorus of the play, the Wasps, for being distracted by trivial, performative distractions ('playing at lyre' and 'playing at tragedy') while neglecting their actual duty of judging the legal cases, a central theme of the satire on the Athenian jury system.
σοὶ δʼ ὧν ἄρχεις, πολλὰ μὲν ἐν γῇ πολλὰ δʼ ἐφʼ ὑγρᾷ πιτυλεύσας,
The participle πιτυλεύσας (from πιτυλεύω) is a hapax legomenon in extant Attic comedy and is almost certainly a coinage by Aristophanes, derived from πίτυς (pine). In this context, it functions as a metaphor for 'picking at' or 'picking over' legal documents or cases, evoking the image of a bird pecking at pine cones, thereby satirizing the jurors' tendency to obsess over trivial procedural details or the minutiae of the law rather than the substance of the case.
ὅταν εἰσελθὸν μειράκιόν σοι κατάπυγον, Χαιρέου υἱός,
The phrase μειράκιόν σοι κατάπυγον is a rare and vivid example of a 'dative of reference' or 'dative of interest' combined with a compound adjective that literally means 'butt-wearing' or 'having a prominent posterior.' While μειράκιον (youth) is standard, the compound κατάπυγος is exceptionally rare in extant comedy outside of this passage and its immediate scholia, functioning here as a specific insult implying effeminacy or a specific physical type associated with the 'eromenos' (beloved) in pederastic contexts, rather than merely describing a fat youth. The syntax places the dative σοι (to you) between the noun and its modifier, a hypermetric or emphatic arrangement typical of Aristophanic wordplay, where the physical description 'κατάπυγον' serves as a punchline to the legalistic setup of 'Χαιρέου υἱός' (son of Chaereus).
ἤν τίς τι διδῷ τῶν φευγόντων, ξυνθέντε τὸ πρᾶγμα δύʼ ὄντε
The phrase δύʼ ὄντε is a striking example of the 'dative of the participle' functioning as a predicative dative, agreeing with the dative plural subject of the main clause (implied 'you two' or the addressees). While the participle ὄντε is in the dative plural, the numeral δύʼ is in the accusative neuter dual, creating a syntactic tension where the numeral agrees with the implied number of the subject rather than the case of the participle. This construction, where the numeral stands in the accusative to denote the 'amount' or 'number' of the subject while the participle agrees in case with the subject, is a marked feature of comic Greek that compresses the logic of 'being two' into a dative absolute-like construction without the explicit 'with' preposition, emphasizing the shared state of the two men as the condition for the action.
ἐσπουδάκατον, κᾆθʼ ὡς πρίονθʼ ὁ μὲν ἕλκει ὁ δʼ ἀντενέδωκε·
The verb ἐσπουδάκατον is a rare, non-standard first-person plural aorist indicative form of σπουδάζω, appearing here with the augment and the specific ending -ατον (parallel to ἐφρόνηκατον in other comic usages) rather than the more common ἐσπουδάσαμεν. This morphological anomaly reflects the comic poet's license to manipulate verbal morphology for metrical convenience or to evoke a colloquial, rustic tone appropriate to the character Philocleon, while simultaneously adhering to the strict quantitative meter of the iambic trimeter.
καὶ στεφάνοισιν παντοδαποῖσιν καὶ πυριάτῃ,
The phrase πυριάτῃ (dative singular of πυριάτης) refers to a specific type of wreath woven from the fruit of the wild pear (Pyrus pyraster), a plant often associated with rustic or humble offerings, contrasting with the more common olive or laurel wreaths. Its inclusion here, alongside 'wreaths of every kind' (στεφάνοισιν παντοδαποῖσιν), likely serves a satirical function in Aristophanes' critique of the extravagant or indiscriminate rewards bestowed upon the jury-dog (Bdelycleon's father) in the play, highlighting the absurdity of honoring him with such varied, even lowly, tokens.
πλὴν κωλακρέτου γάλα πίνειν.
The compound adjective κωλακρέτης (here in the genitive κωλακρέτου) is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, constructed from κῶλον ('limb, joint') and κρέω ('to rub'), literally 'rubbing the joints.' In this context, it describes a dog that is rubbed down or anointed, a practice associated with pampered pets or hunting dogs. The term is semantically opaque without knowing the specific colloquialism of the time regarding the care of dogs in the Athenian household, where such anointing was a sign of excessive luxury or a specific training ritual for hunting dogs, contrasting with the wild nature of the 'wasps' (the chorus) who are otherwise associated with biting and fighting.
ἐλθὼν διεκερματίζετʼ ἐν τοῖς ἰχθύσιν,
The verb διεκερματίζετʼ (from κερματίζω, 'to cut into pieces' or 'to chop up') with the preposition ἐν ('among' or 'in the midst of') creates a vivid, grotesque image of the subject physically tearing apart the fish. This usage is characteristic of Aristophanic bodily humor and hyperbole, where the verb implies a violent, chaotic dismemberment rather than simple consumption, likely describing a gluttonous or frenzied feast scene.
κἄπειτʼ ἐνέθηκε τρεῖς λοπίδας μοι κεστρέων·
The noun λοπίς (lopis) is a rare hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, occurring here in the plural λοπίδας. While the word is generally glossed as 'splinter' or 'chip of wood,' in the context of the bee-simulation, it specifically denotes the wooden stings or darts used by the wasps (the chorus) to torment Philocleon, playing on the etymological connection to the wasp's sting (κέρας) and the physical reality of the 'wooden horses' or torture devices. The genitive κεστρέων (of the wasps) acts as a possessive, but the construction implies the wasps themselves are the source of these wooden projectiles, a metaphorical extension of their stinging nature into the domestic torture of the trial.
ἡ Θρᾷττα προσκαύσασα πρώην τὴν χύτραν —
The term Θρᾷττα (Thratta) is a specific designation for a Thracian slave, a figure type frequently employed in Old Comedy to represent the 'barbarian' household staff. In this context, the designation is not merely descriptive but functions as a metonymic marker for the character's role as a domestic servant who manages the household hearth (the 'cooking' of the pot), reflecting the Athenian anxiety and familiarity with the presence of non-Greek slaves in the oikos. The use of the aorist participle προσκαύσασα (having added fuel to) is syntactically standard for an action preceding the main verb, but semantically it highlights the immediate, active agency of the slave in the domestic sphere, contrasting with the passive role often assigned to female citizens in the same period.
χοιροκομεῖον Ἑστίας.
The phrase χοιροκομεῖον Ἑστίας ('the pig-shearing of Hestia') is a rare and jarring collocation. While χοιροκομεῖον (literally a place for shearing pigs, or perhaps a specific ritual cutting) appears elsewhere in comedy as a nonsense word or a pun, its attribution to Hestia is highly irregular. Hestia is the goddess of the hearth and domestic order, typically associated with the sacrificial fire and the domestic hearth itself, not the slaughter or shearing of pigs. This likely represents a comic distortion of the ritual of the 'Hestia' festival or a specific, perhaps local, sacrifice where a pig was offered, twisted by Aristophanes to sound like a bureaucratic or absurdly technical term for a specific, perhaps illicit, domestic activity. The phrase may also be a pun on the word χοιροκομεῖον as a place where pigs are 'shorn' (i.e., killed) for the hearth, playing on the double meaning of 'shearing' as both cutting wool and slaughtering animals in a comic, euphemistic sense.
ὁτιὴ ʼπελαθόμην τοὺς καδίσκους ἐκφέρειν.
The form ὁτιὴ is a crux of textual transmission. While some manuscripts (e.g., Venetus A) read ὁτιὶ or ὅτι, the reading ὁτιὴ (a dialectal or metrical variant of ὅτι with an aspirate) is attested in the tradition but widely considered a corruption or a scribal attempt to represent the colloquial pronunciation of the particle. The more robust textual tradition, supported by the context of the character Bdelycleon's mockery of his father's dialect, often favors ὅτι or the dative form ὅτινι in similar constructions, though the specific reading ὁτιὴ here highlights the play's engagement with phonetic variation in Attic speech.
ἐγὼ γὰρ εἶχον τούσδε τοὺς ἀρυστίχους.
The adjective ἀρυστίχους is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, derived from the verb ἀρυστός (drawn up) or potentially related to the noun ἄρυστος (drawn, as in a list). In the context of the play, where Bdelycleon is listing the crimes of the old men, this likely refers to the 'list of charges' or 'indictment' drawn up against them, playing on the technical legal sense of drawing up a bill of indictment (ἄρρησις). The term is highly specialized, marking the specific legal procedure of compiling a list of accusations, which is central to the satirical critique of the law courts in the play.
τὴν ἀκαλήφην ἀφελέσθαι.
The noun ἀκαλήφη (stinging nettle) is used here as a metaphor for the aggressive, stinging nature of the litigious citizenry (the 'wasps') or, more specifically, the malicious lawsuits brought against the elderly. The choice of this specific plant, rather than a generic term for harm, relies on its characteristic stinging hairs and the sudden pain it inflicts, mirroring the experience of being dragged into court by a pro-demos rhetorician. While the plant is common, its metaphorical application to legal harassment in Old Comedy is a specific rhetorical device of Aristophanes, contrasting the organic, natural sting with the artificial, man-made sting of the law.
κύων Κυδαθηναιεὺς Λάβητʼ Αἰξωνέα
The name Κυδαθηναιεὺς (Kudathenaieus) is a patronymic derived from the deme Kuda (or Kydathenaion), a common practice in Old Comedy to identify dogs by their owners' deme names rather than personal names. Here, it specifically refers to the dog Labes (Λάβητʼ, accusative of Λάβης), whose owner was the Athenian citizen of the Kuda-deme. The accusative form Λάβητʼ is a crasis of Λάβην, and Αἰξωνέα (Aixonea) is the accusative of Αἰξωνεύς, another deme name, indicating that the dog Labes is being associated with or perhaps having been taken to the deme of Aixone. This usage reflects the comedic trope of assigning human civic identities to animals, a device used to satirize Athenian social and political life.
τὸν Σικελικόν. τίμημα κλῳὸς σύκινος.
The phrase κλῳὸς σύκινος (a fig-tree's fleece) is a strikingly rare and ironic metaphor. The adjective σύκινος (from σύκον, 'fig') modifies κλῶν (fleece/wool) to denote a garment woven from the fibers of the fig tree, which was a known, albeit archaic or rustic, material in Greek tradition, often associated with the earliest, pre-wool clothing of heroes or a rustic simplicity. Here, it serves as a hyperbolic, mock-serious valuation of the Sicilian war's cost, reducing a massive military expenditure to the value of a humble, perhaps mythical, garment, highlighting the absurdity of the Chorus's (and the play's) obsession with petty financial details in the face of imperial overreach.
ὅστις περιπλεύσας τὴν θυείαν ἐν κύκλῳ
The phrase περιπλεύσας τὴν θυείαν is a comic hyperbole referring to the defendant's trial for the theft of sacred olive oil (or the olive trees themselves) from the sanctuary of Athena. The accusative τὴν θυείαν (the olive-tree) is the direct object of the periphrastic verb περιπλεύσας, implying a nautical journey around the tree, which is physically impossible and thus underscores the absurdity of the charge or the defendant's obsession with the case. This construction relies on the specific historical context of the 'Olive Oil' trial (likely alluding to the real trial of Cimon or a satirical fabrication thereof) where the defendant was accused of stealing sacred oil from the Acropolis, and the 'flight' around the tree is a metaphor for the legal maneuvering or the defendant's frantic defense.
Λάβητι μάρτυρας παρεῖναι τρύβλιον
The imperative λάβητι (from λαμβάνω) is a second-person singular aorist active imperative of the third (contract) verb class, exhibiting the Attic contraction of the stem vowel -ε- with the ending -τι to form -ητι. While this form is standard in Attic comedy, its occurrence here is syntactically notable because it governs a subjectless infinitive clause (παραῖναι) with an accusative object (τρύβλιον) that functions as the subject of the infinitive. The phrase τρύβλιον (a 'trouble' or 'trick', often referring to a specific legal maneuver or a physical object used in a trick) is used in a specialized legal context where the plaintiff is being told to 'take' (i.e., summon or produce) the witnesses as if they were a tangible object, reflecting the hyperbolic, comic reduction of legal procedure to physical possession. This construction highlights the play's satire of the hyper-litigiousness of the elderly, who treat the legal process as a game of physical objects rather than abstract truth.
κοὐκ ἐγχανεῖταί σʼ ἐξαπατῶν Ὑπέρβολος.
The verb ἐγχανεῖσθαι (from ἐγχανίζομαι) is a rare hapax legomenon in this specific form and sense, appearing only here in Aristophanes. It is a compound of ἐν- and χανίζω, where the latter is a derivative of χάος (chaos/abyss) or perhaps related to χάνειν (to swallow), suggesting a meaning of 'to be swallowed up' or 'to be engulfed' by deception. The construction with the participle ἐξαπατῶν is syntactically straightforward, but the lexical choice is highly distinctive and likely a comic coinage or a specific jargon of the legal sphere, reflecting the chaotic nature of the deception. The manuscript tradition is unanimous here, with no significant variants, making this a clear case of lexical rarity requiring explanation.
οὐκ † ἐκτελέσαι † φησὶν ἐπαρθεὶς οὐδʼ ὀγκῶσαι τὸ φρόνημα,
The verb ἐπαρθεὶς (aorist passive participle of ἐπαιρέω) is used here with a force distinct from its common meaning 'to lift up' or 'to raise'. In this context, describing the behavior of the chorus (the Wasps), it carries the specific connotation of 'to puff up', 'to swell with pride', or 'to become arrogant'. This semantic nuance is critical for understanding the psychological state of the characters who are being criticized for failing to act on their inflated self-importance. The construction relies on the understanding that the participle modifies the subject of the main verb (Pherecrates, though unnamed here, or the general 'he' implied in the context of the play's satire on the old men's delusions), linking the failure to 'complete' (ἐκτελέσαι) or 'swell' (ὀγκῶσαι) their spirit directly to the state of having been 'puffed up'.
θρασέως ξυστὰς εὐθὺς ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς αὐτῷ τῷ καρχαρόδοντι,
The participle ξυστὰς (from ξύω, 'to scrape' or 'to shave') is used metaphorically here with the adverb θρασέως ('boldly' or 'brazenly') to describe the aggressive, tooth-baring posture of the dog (the 'jagged-toothed one', καρχαρόδοντι). This is a rare and vivid metaphorical application of a verb typically associated with grooming or scraping surfaces, creating a specific image of a dog preparing to bite by baring its teeth with brazen aggression. The construction relies on the reader understanding the physical action of a dog scraping its lips back to reveal teeth, which Aristophanes renders with a verb that is otherwise unattested in this specific zoological context in comedy.
οὗ δεινόταται μὲν ἀπʼ ὀφθαλμῶν Κύννης ἀκτῖνες ἔλαμπον,
The genitive absolute construction 'ἀπʼ ὀφθαλμῶν Κύννης ἀκτῖνες ἔλαμπον' is syntactically elliptical, with the preposition 'ἀπʼ' governing 'ὀφθαλμῶν' while the subject 'ἀκτῖνες' stands in apposition to the implied source of the light, a usage that requires the reader to supply the implicit verb of emanation ('ἐξέπεμπον') to fully grasp the causal link to the preceding clause describing the judge's terrifying gaze. This construction is a marked example of Aristophanic compression where the physical description of the 'rays' (ἀκτῖνες) serves as the grammatical pivot for the hyperbolic characterization of Kynna's (or the judge's) stare, functioning not merely as a descriptive detail but as the syntactic engine for the comic exaggeration of the 'terrible' (δεινόταται) nature of the look.
περὶ τὴν κεφαλήν, φωνὴν δʼ εἶχεν χαράδρας ὄλεθρον τετοκυίας,
The phrase 'φωνὴν δʼ εἶχεν χαράδρας ὄλεθρον τετοκυίας' employs a striking personification where the 'voice' is described as having given birth to 'destruction' (ὄλεθρον). This is not merely a metaphor for a loud noise, but a specific hyperbolic image where the voice itself is the mother of annihilation. The participle τετοκυίας (perfect active, from τίκτω) modifies 'voice' in a way that suggests the voice is the source from which destruction has already been born and now exists, intensifying the comedic effect of the chorus's terrifying sound. This construction is a rare and deliberate rhetorical device characteristic of Aristophanic hyperbole, elevating a mundane complaint about noise into an apocalyptic event.
τοιόνδʼ εὑρόντες ἀλεξίκακον τῆς χώρας τῆσδε καθαρτήν,
The phrase 'καθαρτήν' (purifier/cleanser) functions as a substantive appositive to 'ἀλεξίκακον' (one who wards off evils), both in the accusative case governed by 'εὑρόντες'. While 'ἀλεξίκακον' is a standard epithet, 'καθαρτήν' in this specific context is a pointed political metaphor. In the play, the chorus of Wasps (old, hyper-zealous jurors) are praising the 'old man' Philocleon's ability to purge the city of 'evils' (which, in their view, are the younger generation and democratic reforms). However, the term 'καθαρός' and its derivatives often carry strong connotations of ritual purification, and here Aristophanes ironically suggests that the jury's verdicts are not just legal but a form of sacrificial cleansing of the polis, a concept that aligns with the play's broader satire of the legal system as a mechanism for social and political 'purification' through exclusion. The construction itself is syntactically straightforward, but the semantic weight of 'καθαρτήν' here is deeply ironic and specific to the play's political argument.
σχῆμα κεὐρυπρωκτίαν.
The phrase σχῆμα κεὐρυπρωκτίαν presents a crux of textual transmission and comic morphology. The first word σχῆμα (form/appearance) is standard, but κεὐρυπρωκτίαν is a hapax legomenon (or near-hapax) in this specific orthography. The form is a compound of εὐρύς (wide) and πρῶκτος (rump/anus), a grotesque physical description typical of Aristophanic caricature. However, the prefix κε- is highly irregular; it likely represents a corruption of the particle καί (and) due to the following vowel, or a dialectal/colloquial intensifier, though some editors have conjectured the text should read simply εὐρυπρωκτίαν or a related form like εὐρυπρωκτῆς. The syntactic construction functions as an accusative of exclamation or description directed at a character (likely Philocleon), where the adjective is nominalized. The combination of the abstract noun σχῆμα with the obscene, compound adjective creates a jarring comic effect, highlighting the absurdity of the character's physical transformation or behavior.
ἥτις ἡμῶν ἐστὶν ἡ ʼπίνοια τῆς ἐγκεντρίδος,
The noun ἐγκεντρίς (genitive ἐγκεντρίδος) literally denotes a 'fly' or 'gnat' but functions here as a technical term for the 'wasp' in the context of the play's title (Σφῆκες) and its central metaphor. The phrase 'the wasp of the fly' (or 'the fly-wasp') creates a deliberate taxonomic confusion that underpins the play's satire: the chorus of old men, who identify as wasps, are being reduced to the status of mere pests (flies) by the protagonist's legal manipulations, or conversely, the 'wasp' (the aggressive juror) is being defined by the 'fly' (the prey or the trivial matter). This usage relies on the semantic overlap and confusion between the two insects in Attic colloquialism and legal metaphor, where the distinction between the predator (wasp) and the nuisance (fly) is blurred to highlight the absurdity of the litigation culture.
ἐμαχόμεσθʼ αὐτοῖσι, θυμὸν ὀξίνην πεπωκότες,
The adverb ὀξίνην (from ὀξύς, 'sharp' or 'bitter') is a rare poetic form here functioning as a predicate adjective or adverbial modifier with πεπωκότες ('having drunk'), describing the quality of the 'wine' or the resulting state of the drinkers. While ὀξύς is common, its use in this specific compound construction with the perfect participle of a drinking verb to denote a state of intense, 'sharp' anger (θυμός) is a distinctive Aristophanic usage, blending the sensory experience of wine with the psychological state of the jurors. The phrase effectively personifies the anger as a potent, fermented substance.
εἶτα δʼ εἱπόμεσθα θυννάζοντες ἐς τοὺς θυλάκους,
The participle θυννάζοντες is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, derived from θύννος (tuna). While literally meaning 'acting like a tuna,' the context of the passage (a parody of a legal trial where the chorus mimics bees) suggests a specific comedic connotation: either the 'stinging' behavior of the bees or the frenzied, chaotic movement of tuna schools. The verb is rare enough that its exact nuance—whether describing the physical motion of the 'bees' (the chorus) or their aggressive, swarming intent—requires specific attention to the comic imagery of the scene.
οἱ μὲν ἡμῶν οὗπερ ἅρχων, οἱ δὲ παρὰ τοὺς ἕνδεκα,
The phrase 'οἱ δὲ παρὰ τοὺς ἕνδεκα' is a metonymy referring to the Eleven (οἱ ἕνδεκα), the board of officials responsible for the execution of prisoners and the management of the state prison (the Demosion). In the context of the *Wasps*, where the chorus consists of old men obsessed with litigation and the courts, this reference specifically evokes the harsh, punitive aspect of Athenian justice, contrasting with the first clause which alludes to the general populace or the jurors ('those under whose command we are'). The use of the preposition 'παρά' here indicates subordination or service under their authority, a specific legal and administrative relationship distinct from the more general 'ἄρχων' (ruler/commander) in the first clause.
καὶ γὰρ πρότερον ἐπανθρακίδων ἐμπλήμενος
The genitive plural ἐπανθρακίδων is a hapax legomenon in the Aristophanic corpus (and rare in general Attic), deriving from the adjective ἐπανθρακίτης (a 'soot-seller' or one who deals in charcoal). Here it functions as a substantive in the genitive of content (or measure), paralleling constructions like πλήρης ὕδατος. The term is significant for the comedic context of Philocleon's delirious transformation into a wasp, where he imagines himself as a creature of the earth or perhaps alludes to the soot-stained, subterranean conditions of the wasps' nest or the underworld, contrasting with the 'bright' civic life of the jury courts. The form is morphologically regular but semantically opaque without the specific lexical knowledge of the compound.
ἐν Ἐκβατάνοισι γίγνεται κρόκης χόλιξ;
The phrase ἐν Ἐκβατάνοισι (in Ecbatana) is a hyperbolic geographical marker rather than a literal claim of agricultural practice. Ecbatana, the capital of Media, was famous in Greek literature for its cold climate and distance from Attica, making the cultivation of χόλιξ (a type of wild lettuce or thistle) there absurd. Aristophanes uses this impossible pairing to satirize the obsessive nature of the juror Philocleon, suggesting that his desire to judge cases is so intense that he imagines it occurring even in the most remote and unsuitable locations, thereby exaggerating the ubiquity of the legal process.
ὡς θερμὸν ἡ μιαρά τί μου κατήρυγεν.
The verb κατήρυγεν (aorist of κατάρωμαι) here takes a direct object in the accusative (μου) with a predicate adjective in the nominative (θερμὸν ἡ μιαρά), a construction that reflects the specific syntax of curses in Attic comedy: the curse is not merely 'upon' someone but 'to be' something, effectively predicating the quality of the curse itself onto the addressee. While the aorist participle ὡς θερμὸν might suggest a temporal or causal clause ('as soon as the wretched one cursed me to be hot'), the context of Bdelycleon's speech suggests a rhetorical inversion where the 'heat' is the result of the curse, a syntactic ambiguity that Aristophanes exploits for comic effect, contrasting the literal heat of the fever with the metaphorical heat of the curse.
τασδὶ δʼ ἀνύσας † ὑπόδυθι † τὰς Λακωνικάς.
The phrase '† ὑπόδυθι †' is a textual crux; the verb ὑπόδυθι (aorist imperative of ὑποδύω, 'to put on') is metrically impossible in this position within the iambic trimeter and creates a sense of 'putting on' the 'Laconics' that is semantically awkward. Editors have variously conjectured the text, with most accepting the emendation ὑπόδυθι for the transmitted reading or suggesting a corruption where the verb should be something like ὑποδύου (present) or a different verb entirely, such as ὑποδύειν (to undergo) or perhaps a reference to the 'Laconian' style of speech or dress which the character is being told to adopt. The specific issue is the lack of a clear antecedent for what 'Laconics' refers to in this context, leading to the emendation of the verb to make sense of the action.
πρῶτον μὲν ὡς ἡ Λάμιʼ ἁλοῦσʼ ἐπέρδετο,
The phrase 'ὡς ἡ Λάμιʼ ἁλοῦσʼ ἐπέρδετο' functions as a proverbial allusion to the fall of Lamia in 323 BCE, where the city was captured by Antipater and subsequently subjected to a humiliating defeat. Aristophanes employs this historical reference metaphorically to describe the state of the defendant or the situation in the courtroom, suggesting a moment of disgrace or defeat. The use of the aorist participle 'ἁλοῦσʼ' followed by the aorist verb 'ἐπέρδετο' (a vulgar term for 'farted') creates a comic juxtaposition of a serious historical event with bodily functions, characteristic of Old Comedy's tendency to debase high concepts.
ἔπειτα δʼ ὡς ὁ Καρδοπίων τὴν μητέρα.
The phrase ὡς ὁ Καρδοπίων functions as a comparative clause introducing a simile, yet it lacks an explicit main clause or verb of saying/thinking in the immediate text. This ellipsis is characteristic of Aristophanic comedy, where the dramatic action (the judge's reaction or the chorus's interjection) is implied by the preceding context rather than stated, forcing the audience to supply the missing predicate (e.g., 'he was like' or 'he became') to understand the comparison being drawn between the judge and Cardopion's mother.
Ἐφουδίων παγκράτιον Ἀσκώνδᾳ καλῶς,
The proper noun Ἀσκώνδᾳ (Askōnda) refers to a specific individual, likely a reference to a real person known for his prowess or perhaps a specific anecdote involving the pankration. In the context of Aristophanes, such names often serve as targets of satire or allusions to contemporary figures whose reputations were well-known to the original audience but are obscure to modern readers without specific prosopographical research. The dative case here may indicate the person to whom the action is directed or the person being addressed in a boastful or ironic manner.
ὅτʼ Ἐργασίωνος τὰς χάρακας ὑφειλόμην.
The phrase τὰς χάρακας refers to the wooden palisades or fortifications of the workshop (ergasterion) of Ergasios, a specific location in Athens. The verb ὑφειλόμην (aorist passive of ὑφίημι) here carries the technical sense of 'borrowing' or 'taking on a debt' in a commercial context, but the object τὰς χάρακας suggests a physical act of taking possession of or perhaps damaging the structures as a form of security or theft, a detail crucial for understanding the comic exaggeration of the character's financial desperation and the specific legal or social friction regarding property in the workshop district.
ἀλλʼ Ἀμυνίας ὁ Σέλλου μᾶλλον οὑκ τῶν Κρωβύλων,
The phrase οὑκ τῶν Κρωβύλων relies on a specific comic convention where the genitive plural of a deme name (Κρωβύλων, from Κρωβύλος) functions as a shorthand for 'a man from the deme of Kroboulos.' This construction is standard in Old Comedy for identifying characters by their deme (a form of prosopographical shorthand), but the elision of the preposition ἐκ or the article οἱ before the genitive is a metrical necessity here, not a generic grammatical feature. The reference to Amynias, son of Sello, specifically contrasts his identity with the notorious Krobouloi, a deme known in Aristophanic comedy for producing litigious or unruly characters (cf. Lysistrata 126, where the Krobouloi are mentioned in a similar context of civic friction). This is not merely a geographical tag but a loaded allusion to the specific social reputation of the Krobouloi within the Athenian political imagination of the 5th century BCE.
δειπνοῦντα μετὰ Λεωγόρου·
The participle δειπνοῦντα ('dining') is in the accusative case, functioning as a supplement to the implied subject of the surrounding context (likely a participle of perception or a verb of motion/state in the missing antecedent clause). This construction, where the accusative participle denotes an action simultaneous with the main verb's subject, is standard for Aristophanic dialogue but requires attention to the elided verb of the main clause to identify the actor. The specific pairing with Λεωγόρου (the genitive 'of Leogoras') indicates a meal shared with this prominent Athenian, whose political career and subsequent trial for impiety (c. 415 BCE) provide a sharp satirical edge to the scene, contrasting the domestic intimacy of the dinner with the public danger Leogoras faced.
πεινῇ γὰρ ᾗπερ Ἀντιφῶν·
The name Ἀντιφῶν (Antiphon) is the crucial crux here. The text likely refers to Antiphon of Rhamnus (the orator and sophist, executed in 411 BCE), whose reputation for extreme frugality and rigorous self-denial was proverbial in Athens. The comedy relies on the audience recognizing that the character Philocleon (the 'old man' suffering from his obsession with jury duty) is being compared to a man known for his severe, almost pathological, poverty and hunger. This identification is essential because the joke is not merely that someone is hungry, but that they are hungry in the specific, notorious manner associated with this specific historical figure, whose very name had become a byword for ascetic deprivation.
εἶτʼ Ἀριφράδην πολύ τι θυμοσοφικώτατον,
The adjective θυμοσοφικώτατον is a hapax legomenon in extant Greek literature, coined by Aristophanes to describe the character Aritophanes. The compound combines θύμος (passion/spirit) and σοφία (wisdom) with the adjectival suffix -ικός, forming a satirical neologism that characterizes Aritophanes as a 'passionate wise man' or one whose wisdom is driven by fiery temper. This lexical invention serves the play's comic purpose by mocking the pretensions of the Sophists and the legal eagerness of the older generation, particularly in the context of the character's role as a juror.
† καί με κακίσταις † ἔκνισε· κᾆθʼ ὅτʼ ἀπεδειρόμην,
The text exhibits a clear crux at the beginning of the sentence. The transmitted reading is corrupted by the inclusion of the dagger symbol (†) in many critical editions, indicating a lacuna or a severe textual corruption. The verb ἔκνισε (he crushed/bruised) requires a direct object, which is missing if we take the text literally as 'and he crushed me with the worst things.' The most widely accepted conjecture, proposed by scholars such as Dindorf and adopted by most modern editors (e.g., K. J. Dover, A. M. Dale), is that the text should be restored as καί με κακίστ' ἔκνισε (and he crushed me with the worst [words/acts]), where κακίστ' is an adverbial accusative of quality or a shortening of κακίστοις λόγοις. However, some editors, noting the parallel with the later clause, suggest the corruption might involve the omission of a noun like 'words' or 'blows'. The presence of the dagger in the prompt indicates a recognized textual uncertainty that requires critical resolution before syntactic analysis can proceed with certainty.
καὶ τρὶς μακάριαι τοῦ ʼπὶ ταῖς πλευραῖς τέγους.
The phrase 'Ἐπὶ ταῖς πλευραῖς' (on the sides) is a technical architectural term referring to the lateral walls of a house, specifically the walls supporting the roof tiles (τέγους). In the context of the play, the chorus of wasps, who have been trained to act as jurors, ironically applies the language of domestic architecture to their own 'nest' (the jury court), highlighting the comic conflation of the wasps' hive and the Athenian law courts. The genitive 'τέγους' is a partitive genitive dependent on the implied 'οἰκίας' (house) or 'οἴκου' understood from the context of the 'sides' being the walls of a roofed structure.
ὡς εὖ κατηρέψασθε καὶ νουβυστικῶς
The adverb νουβυστικῶς is a hapax legomenon derived from νουβύσσις (or νουβύσσω), a term of uncertain etymology but clearly carrying the sense of 'slyly,' 'cunningly,' or 'with a sly wink.' In this context, the character Bdelycleon uses it to sarcastically praise his father's ability to 'dig' (κατηρέψασθε) into the affairs of the jury, implying that the old man has mastered the art of the 'sly dig' or 'cunning probing' characteristic of a professional informer or a shrewd litigant. The word is a comic coinage, likely reflecting the specific jargon of the courtroom or the street, and its rarity makes it a prime example of Aristophanic neologism.
κἄτυπτεν ἐμὲ νεανικῶς παῖ παῖ καλῶν.
The adverb νεανικῶς ('youthfully') is a rare hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, occurring only here. While the standard adjective νεανικός is common, the adverbial form is unusual in this context of physical violence. The term likely carries a specific connotation beyond mere 'youthful energy,' possibly implying the reckless, unreflective, or perhaps even 'inexperienced' manner of the beating, contrasting with the calculated violence of an adult or the specific aggression of the 'dog' in the play's metaphors. The repetition of παῖ ('boy') as a vocative intensifier, combined with the adverb, creates a complex characterization of the aggressor as both a youthful peer and a figure of specific, perhaps mocking, aggression.
ἀνάβαινε δεῦρο χρυσομηλολόνθιον,
The adjective χρυσομηλολόνθιον is a coined compound (a hapax legomenon in this specific form) functioning as a vocative of address to the dog Labes. It is a satirical neologism combining χρυσός (gold), μήλον (apple), and λόνθιον (a diminutive of λόνθος, a type of fig or perhaps a corruption of λῶνθος/λόνθος meaning 'fig' or 'morsel'). The term is not a standard epithet but a comic invention by Aristophanes to mock the dog's supposed value or appetite, treating a scavenger dog as if it were a precious, golden-fruit-eating creature. The construction relies on the reader recognizing the compound's components to grasp the absurdity of the address.
μέλλουσαν ἤδη λεσβιᾶν τοὺς ξυμπότας·
The adjective λεσβιᾶν (Lesbian) here is not a generic ethnic descriptor but a specific cultural signifier in Old Comedy, referring to the reputation of Lesbos for erotic license and, crucially in this context, the association with the 'Lesbian bed' (a metaphor for sexual promiscuity or, in the case of a woman, for being a courtesan or having illicit relations). In Aristophanes, this term often functions as a loaded insult implying that the woman in question is already 'taken' or 'ruined' by the symposiasts' revelry, playing on the stereotype of the 'Lesbian' as a woman of loose morals or a specific type of sexual encounter. The participle μέλλουσαν (about to become) combined with ἤδη (already) creates a temporal paradox: she is simultaneously 'already' the object of the symposiasts' attention and 'about to' be labeled a 'Lesbian' in the colloquial sense of the term, highlighting the rapid degradation of her reputation in the comic narrative.
κἄλλως κυμινοπριστοκαρδαμογλύφον.
The hyper-correction of the article (κἄλλως instead of καὶ ἄλλως) reflects the comic tendency to mimic or parody the inflated, pedantic speech of the older generation, here specifically the 'Sycophant' class who are obsessed with precise, often unnecessary, technical detail. The adjective is a rare, coined compound (hapax legomenon in this specific form) meaning 'a grinder of cumin and caraway,' illustrating Aristophanes' characteristic use of grotesque, multi-syllabic compounds to satirize the pretensions of the older, litigious generation who reduce life to a series of minute, commercial calculations.
τῆς Ἀγκυλίωνος θυγατέρος καὶ Σωστράτης,
The phrase lists two daughters of the same father, Ankylios, using a singular genitive (τῆς Ἀγκυλίωνος) governing two nominative subjects. This construction, where a single genitive of relationship applies to multiple coordinated nouns without repetition, is a standard feature of Greek syntax but requires attention here because it clarifies the familial relationship between the two women in the context of the trial narrative. The mention of Sosstra as a daughter of Ankylios is significant for understanding the social standing and potential connections of the characters involved in the satire of the lawcourts.
Λᾶσός ποτʼ ἀντεδίδασκε καὶ Σιμωνίδης·
The verb ἀντεδίδασκε (imperfect middle/passive of ἀντιδιδάσκω) is used here in a specific sense of 'countering' or 'replying to' a teaching or argument, a usage attested in Old Comedy but distinct from the more common ἀντιλέγειν. The construction with a proper name as the subject in the imperfect suggests an iterative or habitual action in the past, implying that Simonides was known for repeatedly refuting the lessons of the 'Láos' (interpreted by some ancient scholia as a specific, perhaps fictional or allegorical, teacher of the people, or a corruption of Λαῖος). The phrase serves as a comic analogy, equating the old man's stubbornness in the play with the poetic tradition of Simonides engaging in intellectual dispute.
The term Λᾶσος (Láos) is a crux in this passage. While the scholia offer various explanations, some identifying it with a specific historical figure or a metaphorical 'people', the most compelling interpretation in the context of Aristophanic satire is that it refers to a specific, now obscure, figure of authority or a corrupted reference to the 'laos' (people) in a way that plays on the idea of the common man teaching the poet. The ambiguity of Λᾶσος as a proper noun versus a common noun (with a potential textual corruption) makes this a significant textual issue.
γυναικὶ † κλητεύειν ἐοικὼς † θαψίνῃ,
The text presents a crux involving the hapax legomenon θαψίνῃ (thapsinē). While the scholia interpret this as a corruption of ταψίῃ (related to the baking-pan ταψίας, implying a woman 'like a baking-pan' or perhaps 'like a woman who bakes'), the manuscript tradition also preserves θαψίνῃ with a variant reading θαψινῇ. The adjective likely derives from θάψις (a digging or burial), suggesting the simile 'like one who buries' (referring to the woman's tendency to bury her husband or his property, or perhaps the act of digging a grave), but the textual corruption is so severe that the exact meaning remains debated among editors. This requires a choice between emending to ταψίῃ (a baking-pan) or retaining θαψίνῃ (a burier) based on the context of the play's satire on the old man's domineering wife.
Ἰνοῖ κρεμαμένῃ πρὸς ποδῶν Εὐριπίδου.
The participle κρεμαμένῃ (feminine dative singular) agrees with an implied or contextually supplied noun, likely referring to the 'net' (δίκτυον) or 'trap' alluded to in the surrounding lines, where the character Philocleon compares his own entrapment to a net hung at the feet of Euripides. This construction relies on a metaphorical reading of 'hanging at the feet' as a sign of subservience or entrapment, which is a deliberate rhetorical device (metaphor) rather than a literal description of physical positioning.
οὕτω δὲ καὶ σὺ παράτρεχʼ ἐς τὰ Πιττάλου.
The proper noun Πιττάλου is the genitive of Πίτταλος, referring to Pittalacus, a well-known Athenian flute-girl (hetaera) associated with the symposia of the late fifth century. In this context, the verb παράτρεχʼ (run alongside/across to) functions as a comic euphemism for sexual intercourse or, more specifically, for visiting a prostitute, a common trope in Old Comedy where characters are urged to 'run to' a woman's house. The specific reference to Pittalacus likely alludes to a contemporary scandal or a specific reputation of hers that would have been immediately recognizable to the original audience, serving as a punchline to the preceding dialogue about the old man's behavior.
ἄκουε, μὴ φεῦγʼ. ἐν Συβάρει γυνή ποτε
The imperative φεῦγε (contracted here as φεῦγʼ) is an elliptical form of φεῦγε, meaning 'flee' or 'run away.' In this context, the speaker (Bdelycleon) is commanding his father (Philocleon) not to flee from the trial or the situation, playing on the physical act of fleeing as a metaphor for avoiding responsibility or the judicial process. The contraction φεῦγʼ is a standard crasis in the imperative, but the imperative itself is a key rhetorical device in the play, as Philocleon is often depicted as trying to escape the constraints of his son's authority and the city's laws.
The phrase ἐν Συβάρει refers to the city of Sybaris in southern Italy, which was famously known for its wealth and, in Greek comedy, for its inhabitants' extreme effeminacy and luxury. The reference to Sybaris here is a cultural allusion, implying that the woman in question is so luxurious or effeminate that she would be found in Sybaris. This allusion serves to highlight the contrast between the woman's behavior and the traditional Greek ideals of virtue and simplicity.
The word γυνή (gynē) is used here in a specific context where it refers to a woman who is the subject of a story or a moral lesson. In this case, the woman is being described as someone who is so luxurious or effeminate that she is associated with Sybaris. The use of γυνή in this context is a deliberate choice by Aristophanes to emphasize the contrast between the woman's behavior and the traditional Greek ideals of virtue and simplicity.
κατέαξʼ ἐχῖνον.
The verb κατάαξω (here contracted to κατέαξʼ) is a rare hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, formed from κατά + ἀξόω (to whet or sharpen). In this context, it is a metaphorical compound meaning 'to sharpen' or 'to make eager,' specifically describing the activation of the dog's predatory instinct. The construction relies on the specific comedic convention of personifying the dog as a legal instrument or a hound of the law, a usage that requires the audience to recognize the semantic shift from physical sharpening to the metaphorical 'sharpening' of the dog's appetite for prosecution.
οὑχῖνος οὖν ἔχων τινʼ ἐπεμαρτύρατο·
The verb ἐπεμαρτύρατο is a deponent middle form of μαρτυρέω, here used with an accusative object (τινʼ) to mean 'he gave testimony against someone' or 'he swore to the guilt of someone.' While μαρτυρέω often appears with a genitive of the person accused in other contexts, the accusative construction here is standard for the specific forensic sense of 'bearing witness against' in Attic tragedy and comedy, though the middle voice emphasizes the personal involvement of the witness in the act of accusation. The phrase οὑχῖνος (a rare form of οὐχὶ ὅς, or possibly a textual corruption of οὐχὶ ὅσος) requires scrutiny: if read as οὐχὶ ὅς, it introduces a rhetorical question meaning 'Is he not the one who...?', but if it is a corruption of οὐχὶ ὅν (accusative), it would mean 'Is he not the one who...?', which fits the accusative object τινʼ. The most likely reading, supported by some manuscripts, is οὐχὶ ὅς, where the relative pronoun is attracted to the case of its antecedent implied in the context, or it is a crux where the relative pronoun refers to the subject of the main clause. The construction is syntactically complex and has been the subject of textual debate, with some editors proposing οὐχὶ ὅν or οὐχὶ ὅς depending on the intended meaning.
Αἴσωπον οἱ Δελφοί ποτʼ —
The fragment refers to the fable of Aesop and the Delphians, a specific literary allusion where Delphi is portrayed as the city that executed Aesop (often attributed to a decree for 'sacrilegious' acts or simply political expediency). In the context of Aristophanes' *Wasps*, this allusion serves as a satirical parallel between the Delphic execution of a foreigner and the Athenian jury's harsh treatment of its own citizens, specifically targeting the procedural excesses of the dikasteria. The abrupt ellipsis 'ποτʼ —' (once —) is a deliberate rhetorical device, mimicking the interrupted speech of a character (likely Bdelycleon or a chorus member) to evoke the notorious 'Delphic decree' story without fully recounting it, relying on the audience's familiarity with the fable tradition to complete the analogy of unjust judicial murder.
τἀρχαἶ ἐκεῖνʼ οἷς Θέσπις ἠγωνίζετο·
The pronoun οἷς is a dative plural relative pronoun referring back to τἀρχαῖα (neuter plural), yet it governs the verb ἠγωνίζετο, which is singular. This creates a syntactic anomaly where the relative pronoun, functioning as the subject of the relative clause, agrees in number with the antecedent (neuter plural) but the verb is singular. This construction reflects a common phenomenon in Attic comedy where the relative pronoun is attracted to the case of the antecedent (dative) but the verb remains singular due to the collective or abstract nature of the antecedent, or as a result of the 'attractio inversa' where the relative pronoun takes the case of the antecedent but the verb agrees with the relative pronoun in number, though here the verb is singular while the relative is plural. This is a notable instance of syntactic flexibility in Aristophanes, highlighting the colloquial and dynamic nature of his language.
ἀπολῶ γὰρ αὐτὸν ἐμμελείᾳ κονδύλου.
The phrase ἐμμελείᾳ κονδύλου ('with a well-measured blow of the club') relies on a specific comic hyperbole characteristic of the 'old comedy' period, where the abstract noun ἐμμέλεια (measure, rhythm, proportion) is used ironically to describe a violent physical act. This construction is a rare instance of the dative of means being qualified by an adjective that typically governs artistic or musical performance, here subverted to describe the rhythmic precision of a beating, reflecting the play's central theme of the 'measured' justice of the jury versus the chaotic violence of the street.
προσέρχεται γὰρ ἕτερος αὖ τῶν Καρκίνου.
The phrase ἕτερος αὖ τῶν Καρκίνου refers to a specific character in the parabasis or the play's dramatic action, distinct from the 'other' (ἕτερος) previously mentioned or implied. In the context of Aristophanes' *Wasps*, this likely points to a specific instance of character doubling or a reference to a minor character associated with the 'Crab' (Καρκίνος), a figure known in the comic tradition or perhaps a punning reference to a real Athenian. The use of αὖ here emphasizes a return or an additional entry, which is crucial for tracking the sequence of entrances in the play's complex staging.
καὶ θῖνʼ ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτου,
The phrase ἀτρυγέτου (genitive singular of ἀτρυγέτος) is a hapax legomenon in the surviving corpus of Aristophanes and a rare poetic adjective elsewhere, literally meaning 'unharvested' or 'unreaped.' Here it functions as a substantive metaphor for the sea, characterizing it as a field that yields no crops. This oxymoronic usage relies on the metaphorical equation of the sea with a fertile plain (a common motif in the play's depiction of the jury's insatiable appetite), but the specific formation and application to the sea in this context are unique enough to warrant noting its lexical singularity and the specific metaphorical logic it employs within the parabasis.
καὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ ποντομέδων ἄναξ πατὴρ προσέρπει
The epithet 'ποντομέδων' (pontomedōn, 'ruler of the sea') is applied here to Zeus, a usage that, while attested in other contexts (e.g., Aeschylus), is striking in Aristophanic comedy. It reflects the poet's tendency to conflate the Olympian hierarchy with the archaic, Homeric theogony, specifically echoing the Iliadic description of Zeus as 'ruler of the sea' (Iliad 1.398, 15.194) to heighten the absurdity of the old man's delusion that he is presiding over a trial of cosmic proportions. This specific epithet is not a generic synonym for Zeus but a deliberate archaizing allusion that underscores the character's confusion between the mundane Athenian legal system and the primordial order.