¹ So Whitman, C., ‘ΛΗΚΥΘΙΟΝ ΑΠΩΛΕΣΝ’, HSCP lxxi (1969) 109–12;Google ScholarGriffith, J. G., ‘ΛΗΚΥΘΙΟΝ ΑΠΩΛΕΣΝ: a Postscript’, HSCP lxxiv (1970) 43–4;Google ScholarHooker, J. T., ‘Αὐτολήκυθοϛ’ RhM cxiii (1970) 164Google Scholar n. 4; Penella, R. J., ‘ΚΩΙΔΑΡΙΟΝ in Aristophanes’ Frogs', Mnemos ⁴ xxvi (1973) 337–41;CrossRefGoogle Scholarid.‘ΚΩΙΔΑΡΙΟΝ: a comment’, Mnemos ⁴ xxvii (1974) 295–7; and Snell, B., ‘Lekythion’, Hermes cvii.2 (1979) 129–33Google Scholar. The case against them is put by Henderson, J., ‘The Lekythos and Frogs 1200–1248’, HSCP lxxvi (1972) 133–43,Google Scholar and ‘ΚΩΙΔΑΡΙΟΝ: a reply’, Mnemos ⁴ xxvii (1974) 293–5Google Scholar. In my view Snell has more than concluded the case for obscenity; but unawareness of Henderson has allowed him to remain imprecise about the doubles entendres in question; and that has to be settled before we can apply it to the problem in Demosthenes liv. (The above contributors are referred to hereafter by surname, with year where applicable).

² Henderson (1972) 138–41; 135–7.

³ The equation had been made by van Lennep, D. F. W, ‘Atheense nozems’ in Hermeneus xxx (1962) 192,Google Scholar who links the passage with the phallic alabastron at Ar. Lys. 947. Henderson seems unduly restrictive in his definitions of the lekythos: Daremberg–Saglio iii.2 1023 s.v ‘lecythus’ already warns against too rigid a classification of such objects, and not all the literature Henderson cites in support of his claims turns out to endorse them: see Quincey, J. D., ‘The metaphorical sense of ΑΗΚΥΘΟΣ and Ampulla’, CQ xliii (1949) 35Google Scholar. But I accept Henderson's challenge that a common shape and function of lekythion are needed.

⁴ Snell 129 equates θυλάκιον with ‘Hodensack’ and simply retains lekythion as nothing more specific than ‘fläschchen’. Henderson (1974) 293–4 wrongly dismisses the evidence of Hippiatrica Berolinensia 50.1 f. explaining θυλάκη as scrotum; the late date of the treatise does not matter, provided that the meaning is not simply deduced from, or twisted to fit, that of lekythion.

⁵ Snell points out in a postscript that an aryballos of sheeps’ testicles has actually been reported, by H. Hommel. ‘Bocksbeutel und Aryballos’, Sitz. Heidel. Akad. Wiss. phil.-hist. Kl. (1978) 21 n. 53. This weakens Henderson's contention that no literary parallels to the sexual identification of a lekythion have been advanced. It also encourages one to retain the meaning ‘sheepskin’ for κῳδάριον,, which Penella (1973) stretches to mean ‘foreskin’: Henderson (1974) 294 rightly objects.

⁶ Griffith 43; Hooker 164 n. 4; Penella (1973) 338.

⁷ Henderson (1974) 142–3.

⁸ Penella (1973) 341; (1974) 295. Harpocration s.v. αὐτολήκυθοι offers both an obscene meaning and one connected with poverty: ἀντὶ τοῦ εὐζώνους τινας καὶ ἑτοίμους πᾶν ὁτιοῦν ποιεῖν καὶ ὑπομένειν,ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ πένητας καὶ μηδὲν ἄλλο κεκτημένους ἢ ληκύθους. It is obviously the first of these that corresponds to the hints in Demosthenes: but it is even more vague.

⁹ For Hooker 164 n. 5 this is ‘a passage abounding in rare and extravagant formations’, but that does not deprive the αὐτολήκυθοι themselves of meaning or precision. For Penella (1973) 339 n. 1 the term is ‘an imperfectly understood revival of the censorious Attic epithet’. But that remains to be seen.

¹⁰ E.g. Lex. 12: Δίωνα τὸν καταπύγονα καὶ λακκοσχέαν, ἀναφλῶντα καὶ βλιμάζοντα,ἤν τινα πεώδη καί πόσθωνα αἴσθηται; Ibid.. 9 ἄχρηστα ἱμάτια: not just unused, unworn cloaks, but immoral ones (!)

¹¹ This is the reading of E and N printed by Harmon; Ω's ἐγκαμψικίδαλος is unintelligible, while Γ's ἐγκαμψικίδαλος ‘bending the cock inwards’ does not correspond to an obvious sexual activity. LSJ's needless ἐγκαμψικίδαλος would also have the same connotation: πηδάλιον carries this sense at Luc. Pseudolog. 27: ὥσπερ ἡ Χάρυβδις αὐτοῖς ναύταις καὶ πηδαλίοις καὶ ἱστίοις ὅλον ζητῶν καταπιεῖν τὸν Οὖτιν.

¹² Verdenius, W. J., ‘Αὐτολήκυθοι’ in Hermeneus xxx (1962) 225;Google Scholar Hooker 164; Penella (1973) 339.

¹³ The labels would be equally pointless if ἰθύφαλλοι were to initiate ἰθύφαλλοι and αὐτολν´κυθοι αὐτοκηυθοι: there would then be complementary roles within both classes. Dover, K. J., Greek Homosexuality (Oxford 1978) 87Google Scholar n. 48 compares a scene of group activity; but the posture he describes would not readily occur to any accuser who truthfully professed respectable ignorance of such activities; and it does not enhance our knowledge of the meaning of αὐτολήκυθος.

¹⁴ Quincey (n. 3) notes the same analogy with the lips and cheeks and the aryballos, and uses it to account for the well-attested metaphor of lekythoi for inflated rhetoric.

¹⁵ This suggestion is consistent with both halves of Harpocration's gloss (n. 8).

¹⁶ Pliny Ep. viii 1.2; Philostr. VS 490.