lloyd-jones - review on the maculate muse

7/27/2019 Lloyd-Jones - Review on the Maculate Muse

1/5

The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy by Jeffrey HendersonReview by: Hugh Lloyd-JonesClassical Philology, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Oct., 1976), pp. 356-359Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/268770 .

Accessed: 22/10/2013 14:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.121 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:22:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/268770?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/268770?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/5

BOOK REVIEWSThe Maculate Muse:ObsceneLanguage in Attic Comedy.By JEFFREY HENDERSON.New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1975. Pp. xiii + 251. $15.00.

Classical scholars have by no means always declined the task of explaining theobscenities of ancient writers; but many of them annoyingly offer no comment onobscene passages, leaving the readerin the dark. K. J. Dover has set an admirableexample of honesty in this respect; so has Jean Taillardat in his remarkablebook,Les images dans Aristophane (Paris, 1962). Mr. Henderson is right in thinkingthere is need for a systematic treatment of the whole topic of obscenity in Atticcomedy. He could easily have persuaded us of the need without referring to Doverand Taillardat in a way which may not be intended to seem patronizing, but whichcertainly does seem so. They did not set themselves the same task, so that theycannot be blamed for not having done what H. has attempted. And it is a pitythat by depreciating them H. invites us to judge his work by their standards, sincehis own scholarship, while by current standards respectable, falls a long way shortof theirs. But he has produced a most valuable instrument of study, for which wemust be heartily grateful.Half of the book deals with obscenity in a general way; the second half getsdown to details. While cautious about the theory that the obscenity of comedydeveloped directly from that of the fertility cults, H. believes that the existenceof these permitted areas of freedom from the taboo against obscenity preparedthe way for the license permitted to the Old Comedy and to Ionian iambographybefore it. H. deals with the obscenities found in the remainsof the early (but notthe Hellenistic) iambographers;his treatment of satyric drama and of New Comedyis brief and inadequate; and he says nothing of painted vases. A glance at, say,Otto Brendel's contribution to Studies in Erotic Art (ed. T. R. Bowie and C. V.Christenson [New York, 1970]) will reveal the existence of an area of permittedobscenity all the more noteworthy because obscenities are found on vases whichwere presumably for domestic use. Yet in most literary genres, epic and tragedyfor example, obscenity was most carefully avoided.Dover has conclusively refuted the notion that "the Greeks lived in a rosy hazeof uninhibited sexuality, untroubled by the fear, guilt and shame which latercultures were to invent" (see GreekPopular Morality [Berkeley and Los Angeles,1974],pp. 205 f., with detailed evidence). H. does not lean so far in this directionas, say, the late Charles Seltman, but he draws a sharp distinction between theAthenian reason for maintaining taboos upon sexual and excretory matters andour own. We, he thinks, abhor obscenity because the objects and acts which itexposes are felt somehow to be dirty; the Athenians did so "out of respect andpropriety and not out of feelings of disgust, dirtiness or embarrassment"(p. 33).Why then, one may ask, did they feel that respect and propriety enjoined theavoidance of certain topics? Certainly their religion lacked the notion of originalsin, and the concept of the human body as a tomb in which the soul was imprisonedcame to them late, so that they did not think the body dirty and shameful in itself,as the early Christians did. Yet the belief in ritual pollution was deeply rooted in356

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/5

BOOKREVIEWS 357their culture. In early times physical dirt and spiritual dirt were not sharply dis-tinguished. No substances were thought more polluting than semen, menstrualblood, and excrement. The taboo upon a thing tended to take in the words whichname that thing; as the Latin terminology of the subject helps to show, obscenewords were at first also ill-omened words.With the advance of civilization, such taboos became less and less a matter ofreligion, more and more a matter of taste. Religion permitted at certain places andtimes a relaxation of taboos which was found to have an intoxicating effect. Afterthe diminution of the old religious terrors,the concept of such moments of releasewas carried over into social life. The Greeks did not maintain their taboos in theshamefast fashion of Christianity, but in origin they were not dissimilar. H. mighthave brought out the development more clearly by making more use of anthro-pology: Mary Douglas' Purity and Danger (London, 1966) is a useful work in thisconnection. Freud's belief that obscenity gives us pleasure because it recalls thepleasant and uninhibited life of infancy may be true, but it hardly explains every-thing. If the Greekshad had no taboos, or only weak ones, they would never haverelished obscenity as they did; their relish is better understood by Catholics insouthern Europe than by Protestants or atheists with a Protestant background.Modern puritans whose liberalism has led them to place a taboo on the taboosadhered to by their ancestors tend to approve of obscenity because it violates theancestral prohibitions. But in their permissive world obscenity is not keenly rel-ished, and the way in which it is relished in other worlds is not easily understood.H. devotes separate treatment to the part played by obscenity in the variousplays of Aristophanes, assigning it where possible a general significance within theaction. Thus the homosexual obscenities uttered by Dicaeopolis during the firstscene of the Acharnians are designed to expose the unnaturalness and corruptionof the city by comparison with the countryside. Cleon in the Knights is representedas both a pathic and a paedicator because he is an agent of corruption. The Cloudsis a disappointing play because Strepsiades lacks "the strongly developed senseof morality" (p. 72) of Dicaeopolis and Trygaeus; although "only rustics likeStrepsiades any longer believe in the old civic values," Strepsiades "is much toosimple and weak to change things" (p. 78). Accordingly, "the absence of anythingbut degraded sex and buffoonish scatology in the play means an absence of thatgaiety and freedom which characterize Aristophanes' best work" (ibid.). H. as-signs a special place to sexual symbolism in the Lysistrata,developing a suggestionof C. H. Whitman that "somehow the total symbol of the Acropolis is felicitouslyexpressive of feminine sexual attitudes"; it symbolizes the women's position, whichthe men are trying to violate by an act of sexual penetration (pp. 95-96). H. takesan unfavorable view of the Ecclesiazusae,where "in the absence of fantasy Praxa-gora'sschemes clash with reality" and in the end lead to "nauseating consequences"(p. 101). H. does not manage to find an architectonic significance for obscenity inall the plays, but he still achieves the remarkablefeat of making it seem a gooddeal more important than it is, as well as a good deal more serious. When he re-marks that "moralizing is no substitute for gaiety" (p. 78), one may feel that thisis less true of the Clouds, the work he has in mind, than of his own treatment ofthe poet.The second part of the book is a great deal more valuable than the first. It con-



4/5

358 BOOK REVIEWSsists of a glossaryof sexualandscatologicalermsarranged lphabetically ndervariousmaintopics;an excellentndexmakes t easyto findone'swayabout.H. isnotquite so good a grammarians a man whowouldpatronizeDoverneedsto be.He thricewrites #L&AeLP (see indexs.v.) and twiceb7r7ro5pa/u.app. 165and 169);heseems to derive 'OpaoXoxosrom 6pO6s nd TKaXaOvpW from Oipa (p. 168); he takessopfsOp6OvAoso be an adjective of three terminations (p. 192); he confuses bLaXiyea0aLwith bLaX)yeLPp. 198); other errors will be mentioned presently. Although the titleof the book specifies "Attic Comedy," he has paid no attention to the occa-sional obscenities of the New Comedy, a genre with which he seems imperfectlyacquainted. He quotes a fragment of Menander from Kock instead of Korte-Thier-felder (p. 193) and is unaware that a fragment of "Aristophanes"(57 Demian'czuk)misprinted on page 166 has turned out to be identical with Dyscolus 514-15. Heis very prone to assume the existence of a play on words when it would be prudentat least to signal doubt. He has no interest in textual criticism, and seldom if everexplains hitherto unsolved problems, as Taillardat with his critical acumen sooften does.In compensation, he has solid virtues. He knows the literature specifically re-ferring to the Old Comedy (though not W. Headlam's Herodas [Cambridge, 1922]or A. S. F. Gow's Machon [Cambridge, 1965]; he might have made better use ofK. Latte's edition of Hesychius [Copenhagen,1966];C. Austin's ComicorumGraeco-rumfragmenta in papyris reperta [Berlin, 1972] reached him too late). He showscommon sense in choosing between known interpretations: on Nub. 978, he seemsright against Dover (p. 145), on Lys. 151, against Wilamowitz (p. 146); on page153, note 12, he seems right against Housman. He has worked his way assiduouslythrough the remains of Old Comedy, and has provided scholars with an instru-ment of study that will be invaluable in their researches. Good classical librarieswill need to have it, and students of Old Comedy will require their own copies.

Nowfor somepointsof detail.P. 9: H. believesAristophaneswhenhe tells us howmuchless vulgarhisjokesare than thoseofhis rivals;butthedirectevidencehardlysubstantiatesthe claim.P. 20: the wordsa7rvyosand 6yj.sosare wronglyinterpreted.P. 21: for e'XeLP,read e%XeamaL,nd TpAOels comes from TLTpWaKW. P. 22: what is xaa'p? P. 23, n. 89: howcan H. speakof Semonides'"unArchilochianffinitieswith elegiac,epicand fable litera-ture"?P. 26: the languageof the Diktyoulkois less chastethan H. thinks;see the lyricsat 786 f. (vol. 2 of the LoebAeschylus Cambridge,Mass., 1963])and the anapeststhatfollow them.At line787, TO OaXaKp6p s evidentlyusedin the sense of o OaXX6s, use con-firmedby Soph.Isthm.359 Pearson= 286 Page (add this to H.'s collectionon p. 112).P. 115: be,uasoes not mean "flesh."Pp. 134-35: the myrtlewas sacredto Aphrodite.P. 143: f therewereone reference o venerealdisease n OldComedy, herewouldbe sev-eralhundred;Aristophanes newno moreof thepoxthan of astrology,orChristianity seeHousman ap. Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 6). P. 145: for KEKapVKev/.aTa,ead -,uepaP. 147:Epicrates' xpression 5'ap''y Pj.VWPLca6)X77thesenouns areoxytone:see M. Scheller,DieOxytonierungergriechischenubstantiva uf -La [Zurich,1951]) s not well renderedby"she is all cunt";a mouse'snest has many differentapertures,and one remembers owTheodora"mostungratefullvmurmured gainst the parsimonyof nature."P. 153, sec.213: oX'L XcIK&a7e is not a curse,andshouldbe followedby a questionmark.P. 155: forthe usagementioned n sec. 229, compareAeschylus ragment175Nauck= 275 Mette;it belongsto the languageof high poetry, like the use of ueLyPvaTaLn sec. 235. P. 156:eLsTOI>Ov /.oXeXLP,yviaLKi) does not mean "to go into her."P. 170: 7rXa-yaLPacTaLAXf3eLV



5/5

BOOK REVIEWS 359(yvvaZKa) does not mean "to strike downwards on a supine woman." P. 174: bevrepdt4ewcarries no metaphor from wine-pressing, as H. infers from the Johannine word bevreplasprinted in his text without its iota. P. 180: in sec. 362, Cratinus does not liken girls totables, but tables to girls, and Anaxilas' delicate allusion to the riddle of the Sphinx isneither fully nor correctly elucidated. In sec. 364, the words Trovputov make a differenceto the quotation from Eq. 263. P. 186: 1OLVLKitU is a misprint for VOLMKLOTTS.P. 192: insec. 415 OKa-Tac44yoss not used in its primary sense but as a synonym for &vcadoOiros:eeAustin (Menandri Aspis et Samia, vol. 2 [Berlin, 1970]) on Samia 427 for this usage, aninteresting exception to the general tendency noted by H. at the top of p. 40. P. 194: atAntiphanes 126, the scatophagous habits commonly attributed to cows in Cyprus are ex-plained by the hypothesis that Aphrodite has transferred to them the habits usually at-tributed to pigs because in her Cyprian cults the pig is a sacred beast. P. 197: Pax 175should not be quoted without 4th, and in quoting Antiphanes 177. 3 H. should have madeit clear that the subject must be supplied from TO Ka6KP. P. 198: 6cwrvlos appeptOiXvsdoesnot mean "the same for men and women." P. 199: for this use of OpL-YK6s, compare nowthe Cologne fragment of Archilochus. P. 203: on Theodorus, see J. Jackson, MarginaliaScaenica (Oxford, 1955), pp. 92 f. P. 211: to sec. 465 add Menander Sic. 200 (with R. Kas-sel's note, Menandri Sicyonius [Berlin, 1965], p. 16) and 258. P. 220: to sec. 486, add Me-nander Sic. 201, and to sec. 487, add Sic. 201 and 264.

Hugh Lloyd-JonesChrist Church, Oxford

Titi Livi "Ab urbecondita," tomus I: libri I-V. Recognovit et adnotatione criticainstruxit ROBERTUSMAXWELLOGILVIE.Scriptorum ClassicorumBibliothecaOxoniensis. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press,1974. Pp. xxiv + 391. ?2.50 (in U.K.), $8.00.This new Oxford text of Livy 1-5 is splendid. There are two chief reasons. Themore important is the editor himself, an accomplished Latinist with a finely de-veloped sense of Livian usage and idiom. The second has to do with the optimalconditions under which the text has been produced: fifteen years of study duringwhich the editor has had the benefit of his own continuing research and that of

other scholars.In the late 1950s Ogilvie established on a firmbasis the first complete stemma ofBooks 1-10 (CQn.s. 7 [1957]: 68-81). Fifty years before in the same journal (CQ2[1908]: 213) Walters had asked "'Stemmata quid faciunt?' except much stereo-typed mischief." The result was that the apparatus of his and Conway's Oxfordtexts was overly large and the information hard to evaluate; the chief reason wasthat scarcely any differentiation had been made among the manuscripts of the Xand -X amilies of the Nicomachean group. 0. has fixed the priorities. R, D, L, A, F,and B have been banished: "Secondary manuscripts ... are to be entirely dis-regarded except for the intrinsic merit of individual emendations.... Picking andchoosing among manuscripts without a stemma is simple nonsense" (CQ n.s. 9[1959]: 269). The result is a tighter, more comprehensible apparatus: for 5. 19-20it requires but seven lines, for example, whereas Conway needed twenty-three.Next came O.'s fine Commentaryon Livy: Books 1-5 (Oxford, 1965), on almostevery page of which he had new and important things to say about the text basedon a personal examination of all the major manuscripts: "Omneshos codices et ipsemeis oculis perlegi et ex tabellis photographicis denuo contuli" (p. xiii). Unfortu-


lloyd-jones - review on the maculate muse

Documents