"Hypo-" [Greek] in Aristophanes and "hypokrites" [Greek] Buttrey, T V Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1977; 18, 1; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 5

eY1tO- in Aristophanes and U1tOKPt'tllC 

T. V. Buttrey 

SOME THIRTY YEARS AGO Gerald Else proposed a new interpretation 
of the Attic dramaturgical term iJ7TOKPtT~C, 'actor'.! It had long 
been taken to signify 'answerer': so LS] S.V., and so Else, whose 

novel suggestion was that TpayC!!o6c was the proper term for the first 
actor in Greek tragedy, since originally author and actor were identi­
cal. Only the second actor (and subsequently the third, as the term 
became generalized) was properly iJ7TOKPtT~C, the 'answerer'. The 
clearest examples of the 'answerer-actor', as we might term him, are 
the messengers who bring to the scene information from without and 
who relate it in response to the queries of the first actor. 2 This inter­
pretation, if accepted, has several consequences for our picture of the 
development of tragedy. For example, Aristotle had always been 
understood to have attributed the introduction of the second actor to 
Aeschylus, the third to Sophocles-a source of difficulties since 
Aeschylus himself used a third actor. Else's interpretation permits 
that both the second and the third actors were Aeschylean innovations. 
The so-called third actor of Sophocles would then have been not the 
third speaking role but the substitute for the TpayC!!S6c when Sopho­
cles no longer played a part himself. 

This argument has not been generally accepted. Pickard-Cam­
bridge preferred the traditional interpretation; allowing uncertainly 
that iJ7TOKPtT~C might mean 'answerer', he nonetheless maintained 
that it was only the general term for actor and did not originally bear 
the specialized sense of 'second actor'.3 Lesky rejected the first term 
altogether: 'answerer', he argued, was not a proper gloss for inTo­

KPtT~C in any case.4 The Attic for 'to answer' was Ct1ToKptVEC8ctL, while 
iJ7TOKp{vEC8at properly means 'to interpret', and so ultimately by 
extension, 'to interpret a role, to playa part'. This would have been 
the primary sense until late times (p.473). The earliest occurrence of 

1 G. F. Else, "The Case of the Third Actor," TAPA 76 (1945) 1-10. 
2 G. F. Else, continuing the argument in "YJIOKPITHE," WS 72 (1959) 75-107, at 104-07. 
3 A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (Oxford 1953); cf. 126-27, 130-32 

of 2nd ed. (Oxford 1968). 
, A. Lesky, "Hypokrites," in Stttdi in Onore di Ugo Enrico Paoli (Firenze 1955) 469-76. 

5 



6 'YIIO- IN ARISTOPHANES AND YIIOKPITHE 

V7TOKPtT~C <actor' is in Aristophanes, Wasps 1279, produced in 422 B.C. 

(though its still earlier use is presupposed by the tJ7T6KptctC of P.Oxy. 
111408, a Pindaric fragment)-as <actor', but not as <answerer' (p.475). 
The actor was the <interpreter'; of what is another question (p.476). 

In 1957 Else reaffirmed his position in his study of the Poetics: 
HV7TOKPtT~C originally denoted the second member of the acting 
company, who was called into being as <answerer' to the first."5 But 
in the same year Koller attempted to refine Lesky's argument by a 
study of the occurrence of V7TOKp[vEC8at and V7TOKPtT~C in selected 
tt:xts from Homer to Plato.6 He repeated the assertion that the verb 
means <to interpret' and does not occur in Attic as <to answer'. V7TO­

KPtT~C itself is found in plato in conjunction with patP<p~JOt (Ion 532D) 
and is apparently conceived by Koller as an <explainer' of the poet, a 
stand-in who made clear to the audience what the poet had expressed 
hermetically. Thus the term would have been applied to the tragic 
actor who <explained' the matter of the play, an essential step in the 
development of tragedy: "Erst aus dem Zusammenstoss des Chores 
mit der fremden Gestalt des V7TOKPLT~C, des <Deuters', entfaltet sich 
die attische Tragodie" (pp.106-07). In support of this Koller argues 
that tJ7TO- itself developed a sense of <Begleitung, Vertretung' from the 
original local use. Thus, e.g. v7T~8Etv (Frogs 874), <an Stelle eines andern 
singen'; and so V7TOKp[vEc8aL, <an Stelle eines andern entscheiden, fur 
einen andern deuten' (pp.lOl-02). 

The Aristophanic instance is not at all persuasive. The text arguably 
means <sing to the Muses', <invoke the Muses', or <sing with the Muses', 
but not possibly <sing in lieu of the Muses'. Koster provided very few 
examples of this alleged sense of V7TO-, and in 1959 Else attacked the 
point in a detailed study of the element in Homer.' He argued that 
the contexts in which tJ7TOKptvEC8at occurs involve a challenge or 
problem, always concrete and practical. V7TO- indicates response, as 
against Lesky's <bringing out another level of meaning'; a verb com­
pounded with v7T6 will tend to denote activity as a reaction or re­
sponse. Else adduced some 55 V7TO- verbs in the Homeric poems which 
can be so explained, the reaction ranging from simple reply to 
accompaniment, deference, fear and so on, depending on the context. 

6 G. F. Else, Aristotle's Poetics: The Argument (Cambridge [Mass.] 1957) 167. Reiterated in 
Else, The Origin and Early Form of Greek Tragedy (= Marrin Classical Lectures 20, Cambridge 
[Mass.] 1965) 58-59, 86. 

8 H. Koller, "Hypokrisis und Hypokrites," MusHelv 14 (1957) 100-07. 
7 op.cit. (supra n.2). 



T. V. BUTTREY 7 

lnroKp{v€cOaL itself does not mean simply to give a reply, for it in­
volves a decision or judgement; nor does it mean simply the making 
of the judgement [for which Kp{VW serves] (pp.84-85). 

Else's catalogue of fnTO- 'in reaction' verbs is impressive and repre­
sents an important lexicographical contribution which has yet to be 
recognized-e.g., they are not included in the LS] Supplement (1968). 
Yet the weight of this evidence has been ignored. Schreckenberg does 
not even cite Else's earlier arguments on V1TOKPLT-ryC;8 while Zucchelli 
allows the Homeric interpretations hut denies their relevance to the 
particular case of V1ToKptV€COaL (and therefore to the Attic fifth­
century term 1I1TOKPLT-ryc).9 While favoring 'to interpret' as the Attic 
sense, he fails to investigate fJ1TO-, for which Patzer takes him to task 
(p.645).10 Patzer has rejected the whole 'interpret' argument, return­
ing to 'answerer' (pp.650-51)-'genauer also Bescheidgeber'-and 
himself opts for V1TO- as 'unterstutzend', both locally and metaphori­
cally, 'in support of, in aid of' (pp.645-46). Pohlenz too has reasserted 
V1TOKPLT-ryC as 'answerer' and emphasized Homeric V1TOKp{V€c()at as 
indica ting response. 11 

This paper comments on two points raised in this argument: V1TO­
as a compositional element indicating response, and the Attic for 
'to reply'. 

I 
LS] s.v. V1T6 F.I-III allows three basic meanings for the preposition 

in composition, compendiose 'under', 'somewhat' and 'secretly'. The 
sense 'in response or reaction' is not specifically acknowledged, though 
a number of individual glosses elsewhere in the work assume this 
meaning, e.g. fl1Tayw, 'bring forward in reply'; v1TEpwTaw, 'reply by a 
question'; V1T'I1XEW, 'sound in answer'; V1TopXEoJLat, 'dance with or to 
music' (cf v1T~8w); v1TOctyaw, 'to be silent at or during'; V1TOTPOJLEW, 
'tremble before anyone'. The response, and the relation of responder 
to stimulus, can be on any of many levels, from cringing servility to 
compliance to outrage. These senses are an aspect of LS] F.r.3, 'under 
.. , the agency or influence', where however the lexicon adds 'to 

8 H. Schreckenberg, LlPAMA (Wiirzburg 1960) 111-22. 

e B. Zucchelli, 'Y7TOKptT1/C: origine e storia del termine (Genova 1962) 19: "Noteremo infine 
che l'interpretazione preposra dall'Else [of the Homeric uses of V7TOKp{vEc8aL] non pub 
spiegare il carattere solenne e definirivo dei giudizi espressi" -a petitio principii. 

10 H. Patzer, rev. of Zucchelli, in Gnomon 42 (1970) 642-52. 
11 M. Pohlenz, "Furcht und Mitleid ?," Hermes 84 (1956) 69 n.t. 



8 'YllO- IN ARISTOPHANES AND YllOKPITHE 

express subjection or subordination', an occasional but not at all a 
necessary concomitant of the sense: see the first four verbs listed 
above. The notion of response ought therefore to occur commonly in 
contexts involving interaction. But there is in LS] a wholesale appli­
cation of the other basic senses of V7TO- to such compounds in general, 
many of them a7Tcxg A€ybfL€VCX of uncertain nuance whose context 
often does not provide a clear meaning to the prefix. V7TO- 'somewhat' 
is so lavishly distributed that the LS] Supplement (1968) has had to 
withdraw some of the instances, e.g., V7TCXPYLAOC, "omit 'somewhat' "; 
tJ7T€KKCXAV7TTW, "delete 'from below or a little'." In consequence of the 
reglossing, some items compounded in tJ7TO- no longer differ in sense 
from the uncompounded: see the lemmata TpofLbC, 'trembling, un­
steady', and V7TbTpofLoc, 'quivering, shaking; somewhat afraid or 
timid', the latter now revised by the Supplement s.v., "omit 'some­
what'," so that the V7TO- is by implication otiose. 

Plainly the lexicography of tJ7TO- wants a thorough reworking. I here 
merely present a few verbs, Aristophanic examples of V7TO- 'in re­
sponse'. The advantage in investigating Aristophanic vocabulary is 
that it can reveal a standard fifth-century Attic response to imagina­
tive language. Some of the words noted below were as old as Homer, 
so that their repetition in later comedy does not prove an indepen­
dently perceived force of V7TO- 'in response'. But neologisms can be 
understood only by a prior grasp of the sense of their elements, if they 
be compounded, or their congeners, if they be formed by derivation 
or analogy. Compounds in V7TO- which show the sense 'to [do some­
thing] in reaction or in response' demonstrate the viability of the 
element in that meaning in fifth-century Attic. In the list below the 
double asterisk (**) indicates a7Tcxg A€YbfL€VCX in Aristophanes, the 
single asterisk (*) those not known to have occurred earlier. 

(i) V7TCXKOVW. LS] 1.2, 'answer when called'. 

Various senses of reacting to a call are widely attested in both prose 
and verse; see LS] S.V. I-III generally. One example in Aristophanes 
suffices. In the Wasps (273-74) the Chorus has come to meet philo­
cleon, but he is not about, contrary to their expectation: 

, " '8 -Tt 7TOT OV 7TpO vpWV 
"J..' ,JI, ~ '" f I 't" f I 'f'CXLV€T cxp TJ/LLV 0 Y€PWV ovo V7TCXKOV€L; 



T. V. BUTTREY 9 

In this case simply 'listen' or 'hear' would be pointless (for that sense 
see, e.g., Wasps 318); the question is not whether Philocleon can per­
ceive their coming, but why he is not coming himself to meet them. 
'Respond' is required by the situation and to correlate with cf>a{vETat : 

"Why ever does he not appear before the doors [apa= surprise that 
he doesn't], nor even respond?" Nor would the sense 'obey, submit' 
(LSJ 11.1, 3) fit the relationship of chorus and Philocleon. For IJ7TaKOlJw 

elsewhere in Aristophanes as reacting to a call see Acharnians 405, 
Clouds 360, Ecclesia{usae 515. 

(ii) ** V1Tf:pv(Jptaw. LSJ, 'grow rather red, blush a little'. 

The only occurrence in literature is at Plutus 702. Carion, approached 
by the god Asclepius and his daughters Iaso and Panacea, unexpectedly 
farted. "The god must have been disgusted." "No, but Iaso ImYJpv(J­

pLaCE and Panacea held her nose and turned away ... " "And the 
God?" "He didn't even notice." Asclepius' nonchalance is contrasted 
with the reactions of his daughters, and their response should be 
parallel. That Iaso should blush 'a little' is pointlessly weak when set 
against Panacea's defensive movements. The inadequacy of the gentle 
blush may well be the explanation for the textual variantv7TEpv(JPLaCE, 
corrected by Bergk (as a haplography of a compound in IJ7TEP- rather 
than V7TO-) to IJ7TEPYJpv(JpLacE. The sense is correct; the fart is meant to 
be astonishing and offensive. To blush 'a little', certainly in reaction to 
it, is out of keeping with the comic impetus of the passage. Cf Rogers, 
who prints V7TYJpv(JpLacE but translates 'blushed a rosy red'. Either 
Bergk's emendation should be accepted, or the V7TO- should be under­
stood as other than deprecating: 'her reaction was to blush'. In either 
case I take the verb to be a compound of the common €PV ()p LaW , not 
a construction upon V7TEPV(JpOC or V7TEpEpV()pOC. 

(iii) V7TOKWEW. LSJ, ' ... move a little'. 

The lexicon cites a number of passages in which the meaning of the 
word changes sensibly in relation to context. At Frogs 637-73 occurs 
the famous beating match, as Aeacus attempts to determine whether 
Dionysus or Xanthias is truly a god by pummeling them in turn, 
EL7TEP (JE6c yap ECTLV, OVK alc(J~cETaL (634). Aeacus must therefore 
strike with full vigor while his victims pretend not to notice: o7T6TEp6v 
,'I' ,.. t'~ '\' I " , I I Y av V4JV lOnc K avcaVTa 7TpOTEpOV YJ 7TpOTLf-LYJcaVTa TL TV7TT0f-LEVOV, 

ElvaL TOVTOV ~yov f-L~ ()E6v (637-39). Therefore when Xanthias says 



10 'YflO- IN ARISTOPHANES AND YflOKPITHE 

CKb1T£L VVV 7]v p.' iI1TOKLV.ryCCXVT' tSTJc (644), his point is not whether he 
moves a lot or a little under the blow, but whether he moves at all­
even perception of the blow would prove that he is not divine. The 
point is humorously repeated through the whole passage, as both 
Dionysus and Xanthias, in increasing distress, pretend not even to be 
aware of the beating. tJ1TOKLVEW must therefore mean here 'to move 
in response [to a blow]', and LS] should be emended. 

(iv) * tJ1TOKpOVW. LS] II, 'break in upon, interrupt'. 

The ambiguity of the English 'interrupt' may obscure the Greek. 
tJ1TOKPOVW does not refer to an unrelated intervention from without, 
as Coleridge was interrupted in the composition of Kubla Khan by the 
untimely arrival of the person from Porlock; but to a reaction to a 
speaker, a reply or retort in support, query or denigration of his 
argument. At the lowest level the 1mbKpovCLc could be non-verbal 
noise or disconnected cries; see, e.g., Ecclesiazusae 588, p..ry VVV 1Tp6T€­
pov p.7]S€k vp.wv aV7'€L1T'[} p.7]S' V1TOKPOVCTJ, where disapproval is 
expected-Rogers ad lac., 'heckling'. Praxagora foresees the inevitable 
interruption, but when it occurs it is not heckling, rather a naive and 
inoffensive question from Blepyrus in response to the point which she 
is making. 1TWC oJv €CTCXL KOLVOC a1TcxcLV; he asks. He should have 
waited to learn, ;cf>07]c p.' V1TOKPOVCCXC (595-96). 

The word had already occurred at Ecclesiazusae 256. Praxagora is 
asked how she will handle the reactions of the assembly: "What if 
Cephalus insults you?," "What if Neocleides reviles you?," "What if 
they interrupt (V1TOKpOVWCLV) you?" All these possibilities will be in 
reaction to her outrageous proposal, that women should rule the 
state. 

These three Aristophanic examples illuminate a fourth, at Plutus 
548, where LS] is desperately wrong: III in Med., 'find fault with, 
attack', otherwise unattested. The source of the gloss is presumably 
Pollux 9.139, 'APLCTOcf>&V7]C S' EV llAOVTCP Kcx2 T~ EmKpovccxCOCXL [EmKpou­
caL CL] €1T~ TOU vovOerijcaL KEXP7]TaL The relevance of this to our 
question is doubtful. The text of Plutus 548 is firmly V1TO-; of Pollux, 
firmly Em-. Emendation somewhere is required to bring the two 
passages into conformity. But there is no certainty that Pollux is 
referring to this Aristophanic text anyway. He does not cite it, but says 
that the word is found in the Plutus, which it is not in our texts, and 
one can as easily attribute it to the first, lost Piutus as force it into our 



T. V. BUTTREY 11 

text by emendation. Hall and Geldart (OCT) have it both ways, noting 
in their apparatus to Plutus 548 the word ~7TEKpOVCW as a variant 
derived from Pollux for the iJ7TEKPOVCW which they print in text; but 
giving €7TLKpovcac8at again as fr.448 attributed to the first Plutus. Third, 
the sense of 'beat, strike, hammer' is appropriate tobTLIlPOVW (LS] s.v.) 
but is not attested for V7TOKPOVW unless Pollux is emended. The gloss 
at LS] s.v. III results from a confusion of all these elements: it must 
derive from the Pollux passage, which it does not cite; it assumes 
against the texts as we have them that the reference in Pollux is to the 
surviving Plutus; and it applies his sense of €7TtKpovcac8aL (which is 
unexceptionable, though the middle is otherwise unattested) to 

Aristophanes' V7ToKpovcac8aL-as far as we can tell, applying the wrong 
meaning to the wrong word in the wrong play. 

But the meaning is still 'interrupt', and the middle voice indicates 
that the interrupter is furthering his own argument, not simply 
attacking or intervening in that of the speaker. 

456-86 Poverty and Chremylus quarrel over her benefits to 
mankind and agree to argue formally, stating a penalty 
for the loser. 

487-88 Choral introduction to the context. 
489-506 Chremylus poses the advantages of universal wealth. 
507-16 Poverty responds with the disadvantages of universal 

wealth. 
517-34 Discussion, ending in three lines wherein Poverty praises 

herself. 
535-47 Chremylus harshly retorts on the subject of physical 

misery, breaking the continuity of the contest: (1) these 
verses are in effect an answer to the case which Poverty 
has yet to present; (2) they are anyhow beside the point-

\ \ , , ,\ a' tI \.... ~~, 
CV /LEV OV 'TOV E/LOV fJLOV ELp'Y}Kac, 'TOV 'TWV 7T'TWXWV a 

V7TEKPOVCW, she says (548). 
548-97 Poverty attempts to make her own case while Chremy­

Ius and Blepsidemos interject snide remarks, and Pover­
ty complains that they will not be serious and dispute 
properly (557, 574-75). 

Thus Chremylus has interrupted the course of the argument and 
proffered considerations of his own. Therefore the middle voice; cf 
the active at Ecclesiazusae 595-96, above, where Blepyrus in inter-



12 'YIIO- IN ARISTOPHANES AND YIIOKPITH£ 

ruption questioned Praxagora's proposal but did not make an attack 
on it nor present an alternative to it. 'Interrupt [a speaker], is exactly 
right for Plutus 548; in the middle voice, 'to make one's own argument 
in interruption'. The entire LSJ III entry should be deleted. 

(v) ** tnr07TEpoofLat. LSJ, 'break wind a little'. 

In the contest of the Frogs, Aeschylus complains that Euripides' 
tragedies produce worthless citizens and gives the specific example of 
h L d h . \ I~~"~' 1" .J..I ." 1 t e ampa ep ona, lIafL7Taoa 0 OVOELC OLOC 'TE 'f'EpELV V7T aYVfLvaCLac 

E'TL vvv{ (1087-88). This recalls to Dionysus a humorous experience 
of seeing an obviously untrained and inept runner in the torch race, 
being beaten by the crowd at the Thriasian gates: 

oi KEpafLfjc 

£v 'TaLCL 7TvAaLC 7Ta{ovc' av'TOV 
1 \ 1 \ 1 1 

yaC'TEpa, 7TIIEvpac, lIayovac, 7Ttry7}V' 
.~, 1 A \ 1 

o OE 'TV7T'T0fLEVOC 'TaLCL 7Tl\a'TEtaLC . ~ , 
V7T07TEpOOfLEVOC 

rpvcwv 'T~V AafL7TaO' ErpEvYE. 
1097 

Aeschylus' argument is ridiculous, Dionysus' confirmatory anecdote 
equally so. The picture of the pale, fat runner is enhanced by that of 
his beating at the hands of his fellow citizens, apparently a standard 
hazard in the torch race (see Rogers' note ad 10c.). Note that this 
runner is beaten not about the head and shoulders but in the middle. 
The fart which results is not only embarrassing in itself, but by 
extinguishing the torch it causes the runner and his tribe to lose the 
race-which is the real point of all this activity-for it was won by him 
who first arrived at the altar and lit the flame. 12 Joke is piled on joke; 
even the position of tnr07TEp8ofLEVOC as a single word forming the 
anapaestic monometer which so frequently introduces the paroemiac 
indicates a nicety of style on Dionysus' part completely at variance 
with the subject matter. In the face of all this LSJ's 'a little' is anti­
climactic, weakening the passage when in Greek it rises to final 
disaster in 1098. The inhabitants of the district may regularly have 
pummeled the runners who passed through the gates, but in this 
case the result was spectacular. Its recollection crowns the whole 

12 Daremberg-Saglio, s.v. "Lampadedromia." 



T. I V. BUTTREY 13 

anapaestic passage, the description of an event which had caused 
Dionysus to laugh himself dry (1089-90).13 

The LSj gloss is impossible: torches were large and were steeped in 
oil, pitch, resin or wax to guarantee a perdurable flame. It would take 
a tremendous wind to extinguish them, and that is just the point of 
the joke, that the runner, in being beaten, broke wind not a little but 
a lot, so prodigiously as to blowout his own torch. LSj should be 
corrected to read, 'break wind as a consequence'. 

(vi) *? tmoC'rEVW LSj, 'moan in a low tone, grumble'. 

See also imocTEva'w, LS j 'utter low moans', and {mocTEvaxt,w, 
LSj 'groan beneath'. This is not the place to disentangle all three verbs 
in the passages in which they appear; but Else (p.98) has already 
argued thatv7Tt:cTEVaXt'E, n. 2.781, signifies response, 'groaned (at the 
coming of)'. As tov7TocTEva~w, its sense at Ajax 1001 is surely moaning­
in-response-to: "A rumor said you were gone, ayw KAvwv ... V7TECTE­

va~ov." Teucer is shattered; 'utter low moans' is weakening here.14 
V7TOCTEVW also occurs at Acharnians 162, where again LSJ's 'grumble' 

weakens the comic effect, which from the beginning of the play has 
depended on exaggeration of situation and emotion. Thus, (1) no one 
at all has come to the Pnyx save Dicaeopolis, though it is the day of a 
Kvp{a €KKATJcLa; (2) when the citizens do arrive, it is all in a rush and a 
jumble; (3) the first speaker, Amphitheus, claims to be a god and is 
straightway hauled off by the archers amid great clamor; (4) the 
absurd Ambassadors appear, to tell a ludicrous story of their suffer­
ings during a lengthy, luxurious and expensive journey to Persia; 
(5) they introduce a fabulously costumed messenger from the King 
whose announcement is largely gibberish but can be interpreted to 

mean that the embassy was a complete waste of time and money (he 

13 Stanford takes cPvcwv otherwise, 'blowing his torch to keep it alight'. But cPvcaw at 
Theophr. De Igne 28 means 'to extinguish by blowing', and the whole point of this passage 
is Dionysus' agreement with Aeschylus' allegation that incompetence in the torch race is 
characteristic of today's spoiled youth. The greatest failure lies in letting the flame go out, 
the greatest incompetence lies in putting it out oneself, the greatest comic effect lies in 
farting it out. LSJ s.v. n.4 should be followed. 

14 I see no point in Jebb ad /Oc., "restraining the vehemence of his grief." One person 
might be so described by another (as Jebb describes Teucer), but he would hardly so des­
cribe himself: "I groaned, but not beyond the bounds of good taste," or the like. The case 
of Ajax 322 is different, the editors agreeing on 'low' as the sense, not 'in restraint'; and so 
at Electra 79. 



14 'ynO- IN ARISTOPHANES AND ynOKPITHE 

is nonetheless invited to dine at state expense); (6) another Ambassa­
dor arrives, from heavy drinking at the Thracian court, his journey 
too apparently lengthened because of his continuing pay; (7) he intro­
duces an unruly crowd of Odomantes who scrabble about altogether 
like Waugh's Welsh band in Decline and Fall and steal Dicaeopolis' 
lunch while he is debating (163-68). They also seem better suited to 
sexual attacks than to military (158, 161). And withal this worthless 
mob is offered to the Athenians by their ally Sitalces not as an earnest 
of his cooperation but on condition that they be paid two drachmas 
a day, TOUTOLC Suo SpaXJLac. Dicaeopolis is appalled and repeats the 
Ambassador's words in emphasis, exclaiming "Two drachmas -for 
these?!" The sum is enormous, twice as much as the maximum 
attested for military pay during the Peloponnesian War.l5 tnTOCT£VO' 
,dvTav 0 {}pav{TTJc Aewc (= 'our best men', see Rogers ad loe.) (162)­

surely not grumble, as LS], inappropriate both to the comic impetus 
of the passage and the logic of the argument. The Assembly scene 
uses strong language throughout, Sitalces' proposal is idiotic and 
insulting, and no regular military men, seeing double pay awarded 
the useless Odomantes, would 'grumble': they would employ loud, 
offensive and colorful language of the sort reserved to enraged sailors 
and special lexica. Aristophanes even here is incorrigible and in CT£VW 
(LS] 'bewail, lament') uses a term from Epic and Tragedy designed to 
give a ponderous solemnity to the justified outrage of the military. 
The term here is paratragic but is nonetheless forceful. It ought not 
to be weakened by a deprecatingv7To-. 'Moan in a low tone' and 'grum­
ble' spoil the point. 

(vii) vcpap7Ta~OJLaL. LS] to Clouds 490, Med. 'snap up the meaning of a 
sentence'. 

The gloss misses the ambiguity and therefore the joke in the text. 
Socrates is attempting to introduce Strepsiades to the Phrontisterion. 
"Tell me your ways so that I can knowledgeably proffer you new 
devices" (iva ... JLTJxavac ... Ka,vac 7TpOCCP£pw, 478-80). Strepsiades 
wrongly understands him to speak in military terms, JLTJxavac 7TPOC­
CP£PHV= 'bring siege equipment against': "For God's sake, do you 

15 w. K. Pritchett, Ancient Greek Military Practices (Berkeley 1971) 14-24. The evidence 
varies, as did the rate of pay, but the absolute maximum in our sources for an individual 
(i.e., without Wr£p£rr]c) is one drachma per day. This passage, not cited by Pritchett, is good 
evidence for two drachmas as wildly high. 



T. V. BUTTREY 15 

intend to besiege me?" (481). The joke lies in Socrates' use of philo­
sophic terminology which is taken quite otherwise by the naive 
Strepsiades (though another level of the joke may be the imposition 
of this terminology on Socrates, for p:rJxav7} in Plato is sometimes 
disparaging, e.g. Laws 908D coifJ"TCJJV p:TJxava{). Socrates tries again, but 
Strepsiades' inability to comprehend reappears several lines later 
(488ff) : 

S " "" f3'\ .l.' OCR. ayE vvv 01TWC OTav n 1TpO al\W COt CO"{JOV 
,~ , '(} , '.l. I 1TEpt TWV JLETEWpWV, EV EWC V"{Jap1TaCEt. 

S ,~ , ~ , \ .l. ' , 
TR. n oat; KVVYJOOV T7}V cO"{Jtav nTYJCOJLat; 

Here too Socrates uses the terminology of philosophical discussion in 
1Tpof3aAw: LS] 'propose a question', cf 1Tp6f3AYJJLa, and urges Strep­
siades to seize on what he is about to say. And again Strepsiades hears 
the words differently, as 1Tpof3aAAw 'throw before' (n.h., 'throw before 
dogs' in Hdt. 9.112), and vcpapmxsw, LS] 'snatch from under, take away 
underhand', i.e. V1TO- as 'under' or 'secretly'. With the image in his 
mind of a scrap of food thrown to a dog, he replies, "What in the 
world? Am I to gobble wisdom like a dog?" Socrates in exasperation 
at Strepsiades' inanity exclaims, (lV(}pW1TOC aJLa(}~c othod Ka~ f3apf3apoc 
(492); that is, he does not reply to him directly, for the simplest 
attempt at philosophic statement will be misunderstood. LS] renders 
f3apf3apoc in this passage as 'brutal, rude' (s.v. II), Rogers as 'savage'. 
But the word specifically indicates incapacity in Greek, LS] "non­
Greek ... 2, esp. of language," and Socrates' complaint is precisely 
Strepsiades' blockheaded perversion of language: "This man's a 
dunce, and he can't understand Greek"- a hyperbole with which one 
can sympathize. Now since Strepsiades'· dog simile is wrong-its 
wrongness is the joke itself-it cannot have been intended in Socrates' 
original statement; had it inhered in vcpap1TaCEt, then that statement 
would have been gibberish, for1Tpof3aAAw is a term of art and the two 
verbs would make no sense together. Therefore Socrates' philosoph­
ical vocabulary must include both verbs, and so must Strepsiades' 
misunderstanding. It is precisely because the joke lies here that 
vcpap1TfxcEt as used by Socrates cannot mean what LSJ suggest. Just what 
Socrates meant is a matter of surmise since the word occurs rarely in 
the philosophical texts-once in Plato, Euthydemus 300D, as 'interpose'. 
I suggest that in our passage Socrates is saying, "when I put forth 
something clever, you [in response, lmo- ] seize it." The LS] gloss, 



16 'YIIO- IN ARISTOPHANES AND YIIOKPITHE 

'snap up .. .', represents not what Socrates said but Strepsiades' mis­
understanding of it. (Nor should the rest of the gloss, ' ... the meaning 
of a sentence', stand uncorrected. Socrates is not beginning an analytic 
dialogue in these lines; rather, having just undertaken to help 
Strepsiades [478-80J but discovering that he is weak in both memory 
and address [483-87], Socrates will simply present him with clever 
devices: "When I pose something clever, see to it that you straightway 
seize it." Strepsiades has to grasp not the 'meaning' of anything, but 
COcp6V n itself. Cf the post-parabasis passage from v.627, where 
Socrates' disgust with Strepsiades derives not from the latter's inabili­
ty to comprehend but simply to remember the smallest matter.) 

LS] s.v. vcpap7TCx{w 2.Med. should be corrected to 'respond by seiz­
ing'; and s. v. f3apf3apoc move the reference to Clouds 492 from II to 1.2. 

This assortment of V7TO- words from Aristophanes illustrates the 
persistence of the sense 'in response or reaction'. There are in fact 
dozens of instances, in prose and verse, from many authors over the 
centuries. These examples suffice, for they show that this sense still 
obtained in the fifth century, in words which Aristophanes' audience 
had never previously used or even heard. 'In response' was for them 
one regular meaning of t)7TO-, and to that extent is justified the rendi­
tion of VTTOKptT7JC as 'responder, answerer'. 

II 
There remains the other argument indicated above, that V7TOKp{V€­

c(Jat means 'to interpret' in Attic. One can of course maintain, as does 
Zucchelli, that Else's demonstration of the sense 'in response' for 
V7TO- in any number of Homeric words does not prove that sense of it 
in V7TOKp{V€c(JaL. And one could accept 'in response' without taking 
the verb as 'to answer', e.g. 'to interpret [e.g. an oracle] in response to 

one who inquires about it'. It is impossible to deny this gloss since the 
Homeric contexts in which the verb appears allow it. But that it 
should mean this in Homer does not require that it mean the same 
everywhere, and Lesky has overstated his case when it comes to 
V7TOKPLT7JC. His position has two facets to it: 

(1) V7TOKp{V€c(JaL, common as 'to answer' in Ionic, does not 
mean that in Attic; [a fortiori iJ7TOKPLT~C cannot mean 
, answerer'] 



T. V. BUTTREY 

(2) cX7roKpLvEc()aL is the Attic for 'to answer'; [had the Athen­
ians wished to denote the actor as 'answerer' they would 
have used *a7ToKpLT~C vel sim.] 

17 

These assertations have been repeated in the more recent literature. 
I would argue that the first is incorrect, the second m.isleading. 

(1) tmOKpLvEc()aL LSJ Med., 'reply, make answer'. 

It is said that this sense does not apply in Attic, yet there are several 
examples of it, whose significance is simply denied in the most casual 
way. 

a. Thucydides 7.44.5. In the dark confusion of the battle of Epipolae 
the soldiers asked each other the password, EL 0' athol. J.L~ tmoKpL­

VOLVTO, OLEcp()ELpOVTO. The readingv7To- is found in all the major manu­
scripts and is a key reading in the tradition of the archetype. Modern 
critics either deprecate it as an Ionicism or alter it. The variant a7To­

first appears in f2, which is no earlier than the eleventh century and 
at least three steps removed from the archetype according to Klein­
logel's stemma.16 Presumably the variant was an intended correction 
or an integrated gloss. Hude (Teubner) and Bodin/de Romilly (Bud e) 
have kept to the manuscript tradition, V7TOKPLVOLVTO; Jones/Powell 
(OCT) read a7ToKpLvOLVTO, probably to regularize the text to what is 
assumed to be standard Thucydidean style. Now as will be seen below, 
the latter verb has a special nuance of the giving of a considered 
answer, where the former has to do with a declarative statement in 
answer to a question of fact. And it is just in this passage that we want 
'to respond to an inquiry': the situation is dramatically charged, but 
the question is one of fact, "What is the password?" The answer does 
not require rumination, philosophical examination or self-justifi­
cation; the password is a given, and either you know it or you don't. 
a7ToKpLvOLVTO would be quite the wrong word here; V7TOKPLVOLVTO 

must be the right one. The editions should stand with the manu­
scripts. 

b. Euripides, Iphigeneia in Aulis 1354. Achilles relates to Clytaemnestra 
his treatment by the army when he forwarded his claim to Iphigeneia. 
To his report of the taunt of unworthiness brought against him, 
Clytaemnestra asks, V7TEKPLVW OE TL ;-"What was your reply?" V7TEK­

pLVW is found in both Land P, i.e., it is as certain as anything in the 

16 A. Kleinlogel, Geschichte des Thukydidestextes im Mittelalter (Berlin 1965) 29, 132. 



18 'yno- IN ARISTOPHANES AND ynOKPITHl: 

manuscript tradition. But it does not appear in some of our texts 
(e.g. Murray's OCT) since it was edited away by Triclinius, who altered 
to a7TEKptvW. Now the original situation in which Achilles found him­
self may have been tense, and his response to the army considered; 
but Clytaemnestra is here asking for the facts. She is not asking, «On 
what grounds did you defend yourself?" but «What did you say?" The 
alteration is unnecessary; here too the editions should stand with the 
manuscripts. 

c. Aristophanes fr.585 Kock. 

ff JI _ I "t' ~, f , 

aKWV KTEVW CE. TEKVOV· 0 0 V7TEKPLVETO 
.. , '[J--" t". '" .,., '" I '" ' ., E7TL aN\aOLcp Tap. W 7TaTEp. OWCELC OLK'Y/V. 

The context is unknown. The manuscripts read as here; some editors, 
most recently Edmonds, have arbitrarily altered to a7TEKptvaTo. The 
father does not pose a question in the text as we have it, though it is 
possible that his four words were originally the end of a query now 
invisible. At any rate the boy responds with a fact; indeed the fact is 
the reason we have the fragment at all, for it is preserved in Eustathius 
1419.52 as an illustration, £stKa~ov Se KaT<X IIavcavtav £KE'i aKovclovc 

cp6vovc oi £cperaL. The joke may even lie in the choice of iJ7TEKptVETO 

rather than a7TEKpLvETO, that is that the response of the child is not 
defensive or pleading or accusatory but incredibly dispassionate, even 
pedantic in the face of disaster. There is no reason to alter the text. 

d. IG 12 410, a fifth-century inscription. 

- "" () I [] h ' h ' '[]-7TaCLV LC av P07TOL C V7TOKpLVOJLaL. OCTLC E P OTaL· 

hI' , 'f) "'" - 'A A.. I '" I OC JL aVE EK avopov VTL't'aVEC oEKaTEV. 

Lesky (473-74), Koller (101 n.3) and Zucchelli (23) reject this evidence 
out of hand. The inscription is Athenian, but the language of an 
elegiac couplet is taken by them as suspect: "nella lingua della poesia 
epigrammatica, com'e da tutti ammesso, l'influenza dell'epica e 
troppo vasta per consentirci trarre qualche conclusione." That is true 
for much of elegiac, but the language of this couplet is otherwise 
prosaic Attic. £pwTaw does not occur with the short first syllable in 
Epic or fifth-century Ionic; and when it is found in epic hexameters 
with ELP-, it never falls in final position in the line. 



T. V. BUTTREY 19 

Note that here too a7ToKp{vOftCu would be out of place. The answer 
is a matter of fact, HAntiphanes dedicated me as a tithe." There is no 
reason to reject this evidence beyond an insistence on forcing it to fit 
a theory. 

One other example in fifth-century Attic is possible but uncertain: 

e. Aristophanes, Acharnians 401. Dicaeopolis marvels at Cephisophon's 
reply to his question, "Is Euripides within?" CEPH., "He is not within, 
being within." DIC., "How is he within, yet not within?" CEPH., "His 
mind is without, etc., and he is within writing, etc." DIC., 0 80VAOC 

ollTwd coc/>wc tmoKp{vETm (396-401). The Ravenna MS. reads thus, the 
others a7ToKp{vETat. Even if the text as above is correct, as I believe it 
to be, the meaning of the verb is not certain and may be deliberately 
ambiguous. Rogers ad loc., "the cleverness of Cephisophon seems to 
consist in his giving such an ingenious answer, OUK Ev8ov, Ev80v 

€CTtV, rather than in interpreting his own enigmatic utterance." But 
that requires understanding Dicaeopolis' IJ7TOKp{vETat as referring to 
Cephisophon's first reply at 396, not the one just uttered at 397-400. 
Further, the second answer is a witty (ovTwd coc/>wc) interpretation of 
a conundrum which Cephisophon has himself posed. It may even be 
that V7TOKp{vETat is here used absolutely as 'acts': even Euripides' 
assistant plays the part of a Euripidean actor. A certain solemnity 
would have to be made evident in the performance of the role of 
Cephisophon, but the sentiments which he expresses here are appro­
priate to the extremes of Euripidean rationalization, and his utterance 
of them is couched in the tragic rather than the comic trimeter. Thus 
'interpret', 'answer' and 'act' are all possible senses of the verb in this 
passage. 

Here then are four instances of V7TOKp{vEc()at 'to answer' in fifth­
century Attic, in four authors, in prose and verse. Editors have tried 
to eradicate each of the first three by altering the texts; the fourth, on 
stone, is said not to matter. The whole procedure is Procrustean: 
having resolved that the verb does not have the sense 'to answer' in 
Attic, they remove the offending word wherever it appears in Attic, 
to preserve the theory rather than the texts. And this is done in a 
completely offhand way. Thus Zucchelli (p.32), who finding the word 
"exceptional" in this sense in Attic, prefers 'to interpret' and cites 
Wasps 53 in support. He neglects to emphasize that the citation is 
unique and therefore still more exceptional than 'to answer'. He con-



20 'YllO- IN ARISTOPHANES AND YllOKPITHl: 

cludes, "per V7TOKp{vEcOa, 'interpretare' i documenti, per quanto non 
abbondanti [!-there is one only] appaiono piu sicuri" [scil. than for 
'rispondere'], and further that this was probably the sense of the word 
"nell'attico piu antico," for which there is no evidence whatever, only 
the presumption of a monosemantic continuity stretching back to 
Homer and the occurrence of the word in that sense, correctly, in the 
later Atticizers. Such disinclination to face the evidence is outdone by 
Koller, who simply announces that V7TOKp{vEcOaL 'to answer' is re­
stricted to Ionic and dismisses the entire matter of the Attic occur­
rences in a two-sentence footnote (101 n.3). 

A problem still remains. It was the very rarity of the word in Attic 
which made scholars distrust the few instances in which it occurs and 
which led to the conclusion that it should be accepted only as Ionic. 
Inquiries and answers abound in Attic Greek; if V7TOKp{vEcOaL is Attic 
'to answer', why is it so uncommon, and what other word did the 
Athenians use? Curiously, the evidence is very sparse. aJ-LE{{3EcOaL and 
aV'TLcpwvELV are found in the tragedians but almost never in prose; 
aVTaJ-LE{{3EcOaL is even rarer; a7TaJ-LE{{3EcOaL, so common in Homer, 
apparently occurs only once in Attic: Xenophon, Anabasis 2.5.15, 

where it has a Homeric flavor, for it introduces Tissaphernes' long 
speech in answer to Clearchus' long speech; aV'TL"\E'YELV and aVTEL-

7TELV include the element of contradiction or disputation. The re­
markable fact is that there was no word at all in common use mean­
ing 'to answer an inquiry'; the prosaic Attic is simply a form of "\E'YELY, 
cp&.vaL or Ei7TELV. There must be hundreds of examples. Thus from 
the Anabasis, (a) Xenophon asked, "Why did you call me?" 0 Se "\E'YEL 
aUTcp .•• (3.4.39). (b) Asked what he needed, the Rhodian replied, 
"Skins."-JpwTu)J-LEVOC Se 6TOV SEOLTO, 'ACKWV, ECPT} (3.5.9). (c) A man 
asked where he might find Proxenus- .. . 7TOf} av iSoL IIpagEvov •.. 

E7TE/. Se IIpaeEvoc el7TEV 6'TL aUTac ElJ-LL OV ~T}TELC, •.. (2.4.15-16). 
What then of a7ToKp{vEcOaL ? 

(2) a7ToKp{vEcOaL. LSJ Med., 'give answer to, reply to a question'. 2. 
'answer charges, defend oneself'. 

The second sense, 'answer charges', is well enough attested; of the 
first too there are many occurrences, yet when it is considered care­
fully in context, a certain tone begins to emerge, as I have suggested 
above. For examples, LSJ cite Thucydides 1.90.2-3: the Spartans 
demanded that the Athenians not rebuild their walls, the which in 



T. V. BUTTREY 21 

response (a7ToKpLvaf-tEvoL) they refused. At Thucydides 3.61.1, to the 
Spartans' deadly question, "What good have you done the Lacedae­
monians in this war?," the plataeans replied (a7T€Kptvavro) in self­
defense. At Thucydides 5.42.2 the Athenians in fury sent away the 
messengers who had come about Panactum, thinking themselves 
ill-used (xaAE7Tll}c a7TOKpLVaf-tEVoL a7TE7TEf-tl{;av). At Thucydides 8.71.1, 
to envoys of the Four Hundred seeking a peace treaty, Agis gave no 
encouraging response (OUO€V ~vf-tf3aTLKOV a7TEKptvaro). In each case 
the answer responds to some kind of pressure-a threat, an offer, a 
plea-and in each case the response is considered. It reveals a decision 
taken, an attitude held or a judgement made by the responder; 
insofar as the responder is involved in the matter at hand it is self­
interested, and even life or death can hang upon it. On the response 
(a7ToKpLCLC) of the Plataeans to the Spartans qepends their very survi­
val. The last case is hardly different from LS) S.v. 2, 'answer charges, 
defend oneself and reveals that this second sense is only a category of 
the first. When all the instances of a7ToKptV€COaL and a7ToKpLcLC are 
vetted, the results are the same. The Boeotians' response to the Athen­
ian herald's request in Book 4, the MeHan response to the Athenian 
threat in Book 5, the Camarinean response to the Athenian proposal 
in Book 6, Astyochus' response to the sailors' demands in Book 8-
these and the other Thucydidean examples all show in a7ToKp{vEcOaL 

a reaction to pressure and the assumption of a position. 
The word occurs as well in Tragedy and Comedy .. In Eqripides' 

Iphigeneia in Aulis, Clytaemnestra insists that Agamemnon reveal his 
purpose: "Did you intend to kill our daughter?" Agamemnon, 
evasively, " ... You suspect what you ought not." Clytemnestra, 
" .•• a7ToKpLvaL !" (1131-3). For attitude and intent see also Suppliants 
516. The notion of self-revelation, without subjection to attack, is 
found at Bacchae 1271, Cadmus gently to Agave, "Can you answer 
(a7ToKptvaw) clearly [coming from your trance]?" Finally the apo­
thegm of fr.977, ~ yap CLW7T~ rOLc cocpoLcLv a7T()KpLCLC, plainly implies an 
involvement in the situation on the part of the wise; an answer to a 
plain question of fact-"What time is it?"-would make no sense 
here. So too in Aristophanes, where &7TOKp tvEc()aL occurs ten times, 
always with the note of judgement in reply. In five of these passages 
the imperative means either 'give a considered opinion' or 'make your 
case'; in Thesmophoria:{usae 740, virtually -'tell the truth!'. 

In fourth century prose a7ToKptvEcOaL continues to have this preg-



22 'YllO- IN ARISTOPHANES AND YllOKPITHl: 

nant significance. In Isocrates see, e.g., 6.58, "those who oppose me 
demand that I answer (a:rroKpivacBat) where I think aid will come 
from"; and a:rr6KptctC means such a considered answer or a decision 
(8.62, 12.170). In plato and Aristotle the word has a coloring appro­
priate to a philosophical setting, 'to answer the problem (when put as 
a question) being ~ epcfJTTJctC, T!) epwTcfJJLEVOV or T!) epwTTJB€v (e.g., 
PI. Resp. 487E, Arist. Metaph. 1007a9-11). 'To answer' here is to state 
one's position in dialectic; in fact the phrase at epWT~c€tC Kat ac. cX7TOKpi­
CHC means 'dialectic', Isocrates 15.45. But the association of the two 
terms goes back to the fifth century when cX7TOKpivECBat as 'to answer' 
first appears. At Thucydides 3.61.1, "the Plataeans answered the 
question" [viz:. "What good have you done the Lacedaemonians?"J­
TO epwTTJBEV cX7TEKpivoVTO. And in Clouds 345, Socrates is parodied 
saying to Strepsiades, presumably characteristically, cX7T6Kptvai vvv 
&TT' av €pwJLat, effectively "Give me a serious answer." The dialecti­
cal situation is free from threats and pleas, but the question put is 
often a challenge, and the answer is seriously considered and assumes 
the personal commitment of the answerer. 

Therefore the assertion that 'to answer' in Attic was cX7TOKpivECBat 

is too casual. The word always connotes the personal involvement of 
the answerer and is not used for a factual answer to a simple inquiry, 
"What is your name?," "Which is the road to Delphi?" But it is this 
sense which 'answerer' in tragedy demands. As Else has shown, the 
messenger is the character best identified as 'answerer', for it is he who 
brings information to the play from outside and who delivers it in 
response to inquiry. The inquiry of itself does not bear on him per­
sonally. For this kind of response cX7TOKpivEcBaL does not serve, which 
is why *cX7TOKPLT~C is unknown, not because the actor is no answerer, 
but because cX7TOKpivEcBai is the wrong word here. 

It is especially instructive to note instances in which 'to answer' is 
supplied by both Ae'YHV K.T .A. and cX7ToKpivecBaL, depending on the 
sense required. In Xenophon, Anabasis 2.3.4-7, messengers from the 
Persian King came to Clearchus, who was wary of them. He asked 
them what they wanted. They replied with the fact ( €Aeyov) that they 
had come to negotiate a truce. Clearchus countered, calculating his 
position, and sent them away-o SE cX7TeKpivaTo, "First we must fight 
since we've had nothing to eat." The messengers subsequently 
returned from the king and promised to lead the men to provisions 
under a truce. Clearchus asked whether the truce applied to some of 



T. V. BUTTREY 23 

his men or to all; oi. 8E, "A7TaCLv, €cpacav. Clearchus' answer to the 
offer of truce was a decision based on consideration, Ct7TEKp{vaTo. The 
messengers' answers were statements of fact which they simply 
conveyed, €),EYOV, €cpacavP For another good example of the dis­
tinction between the two expressions 'to answer', see the trial of 
Orontes at Anabasis 1.6.7-8. 

In sum, 
I. Ct7TOKp{VEc8aL as 'to answer' in Attic has the specialized connotation 
of responding to a threat, challenge, charge, plea or proposal; and 
indicates that the answerer takes a position or makes an evaluation. 
The verb does not mean 'to answer an inquiry' on a question of fact. 
II. V7TOKp{vEc8m does indeed mean 'to answer' in Attic, specifically 
'to answer an inquiry' on a question of fact. 
III. The rarity of InroKp{vEc8aL is not owing to its being foreign to 
Athens. Rather, all such words are comparatively uncommon, owing 
to a disinclination in Attic to use any word at all specifying simply 
verbal response to inquiry. The usual Attic is just a verb of 'saying', 
"'YEtV, cpavaL or eL7TElV. 

IV. *Ct1TOKpLT*, implying self-interested response, would have been 
inappropriate for the 'answerer' of early tragedy. 
v. V7TOKPLT~C is perfectly satisfactory as 'answerer' in Attic, particu­
larly in view of the practical difficulties in devising a nomen agentis 
with such a meaning from "'YEW K.T.". 

The objections brought against lJ7TOKPLT~c 'answerer' do not stand. 
Whatever the sense of V7TOKp{vEc8aL elsewhere, in fifth-century Attic 
it occurs most frequently-indeed almost exclusively-as 'to answer', 

h t I' , 18 
W ence V7TOKpLTTJC answerer. 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

January, 1977 

17 Cf Thuc. 7.10.1, where the ITlessengers sent to Athens by Nicias (;ca T€ a7To 
YAdJcCTJC €ifYTITO a~To,c €11'0l' Kat £r Tlc TL Jl'TJp6JTa al'€Kpll'ono--i.e., they announced that which 
they had been told to say, and in answer to questions on these matters (lm·) they replied 
with their own judgements (as against those things which they conveyed from Nicias). 

18 I am grateful for the criticisms of the anonymous reader, who has helped to improve 
the Aristophanic readings above without agreeing with them.