Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T09:35:05.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MENANDER, DYSCOLVS 750: A NOTE ON STAGING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2017

David J. Jacobson
David J. Jacobson*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
*
davidj@berkeley.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent article, I discussed vocative uses of οὗτος in the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes, showing that there are two types of vocatives: ‘calls’, which are utterance-initial and directed at one whose attention is turned elsewhere, and ‘addresses’, which are non-initial, employed by a speaker who is already conversing with a hearer, and typically indicate a speaker's annoyance at the hearer. Menander uses οὗτος as a vocative in the same ways as the other dramatic poets, but there is one instance in Dyscolus that has been routinely misconstrued and merits clarification.

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , May 2017 , pp. 299 - 301
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2017 

In a recent article, I discussed vocative uses of οὗτος in the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes, showing that there are two types of vocatives: ‘calls’, which are utterance-initial and directed at one whose attention is turned elsewhere, and ‘addresses’, which are non-initial, employed by a speaker who is already conversing with a hearer, and typically indicate a speaker's annoyance at the hearer.Footnote 1 Menander uses οὗτος as a vocative in the same ways as the other dramatic poets, but there is one instance in Dyscolus that has been routinely misconstrued and merits clarification.

In Dys. 748–51 we find the following exchange between Gorgias and Cnemon:

Γο.  ἀλλὰ δέχομαι ταῦτα πάντα. δεῖ δὲ μετὰ σοῦ νυμφίον
ὡς τάχισθ’ εὑρεῖν <τιν’> ἡμᾶς τῆι κόρηι, σοὶ συνδοκοῦν.
Κν.  οὗτος, εἴρηχ’ ὅσ’ ἐφρόνουν σοι‧ μὴ ’νόχλει, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν. 750
Γο.  βούλεται γὰρ ἐντυχεῖν σοι—
Κν.              μηδαμῶς, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν.

Scholars and translators have consistently interpreted οὗτος at 750 as an address, with most of them reading it as an articulation of Cnemon's impatience with Gorgias,Footnote 2 but the utterance-initial position of οὗτος makes this reading untenable.Footnote 3 Since οὗτος is here an attention-getting device, we must imagine a blocking of the scene that requires Cnemon to regain Gorgias’ attention. This means that Gorgias turns away from Cnemon after speaking lines 748–9, and Cnemon, who has clearly decided that the discussion is over (746–7), willingly re-engages with him. Gorgias’ break in contact is dramatically unmotivated and difficult to justify, as is Cnemon's insistence on continuing a conversation he has just concluded quite emphatically.

This problem of staging is easily remedied by giving οὗτος to Gorgias and understanding it as a call aimed at regaining Cnemon's attention.Footnote 4 After Cnemon has finished his speech he turns away from his interlocutor, perhaps rolling onto his side with his back to Gorgias.Footnote 5 Gorgias, attempting to reclaim Cnemon's attention in order to shift focus onto Sostratus, who may have signalled to Gorgias just before 750 that he wishes to participate in this conversation, then calls to Cnemon with οὗτος. In a gruff reply issued without turning around, Cnemon reminds Gorgias that there is no more to say about the matter and that he does not want to be bothered any further (εἴρηχ’ ὅσ’ ἐφρόνουν σοι‧ μὴ ’νόχλει, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν, 750). Gorgias, still eager to get Cnemon to face him, then explains why he hailed him in the first place (βούλεται γὰρ ἐντυχεῖν σοι, 751).Footnote 6 We should thus divide the lines as follows:Footnote 7

Γο.  ἀλλὰ δέχομαι ταῦτα πάντα. δεῖ δὲ μετὰ σοῦ νυμφίον
ὡς τάχισθ’ εὑρεῖν <τιν’> ἡμᾶς τῆι κόρηι, σοὶ συνδοκοῦν.
οὗτος.
Κν.       εἴρηχ’ ὅσ’ ἐφρόνουν σοι‧ μὴ ’νόχλει, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν.
Γο.  βούλεται γὰρ ἐντυχεῖν σοι—
Κν.             μηδαμῶς, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν.
Go. Well, I accept all that. But with your help we must find a husband as quickly as possible for your daughter, if that seems good to you.
Hey!
Kn.       I've told you what I think. Stop annoying me, by the gods!
Go.  I must, since someone wants to meet with you—
Kn.                      No way, by the gods!

References

1 Jacobson, D.J., ‘Vocative ΟΥΤΟΣ in Greek drama,’ CPh 110 (2015), 193–214 Google Scholar.

2 E.g. van Groningen, B.A., Menander Dyskolos (Leiden, 1960), 45 Google Scholar; Treu, M., Menander Dyskolos (Munich, 1960), 69 Google Scholar; J.-M. Jacques, Ménandre, tome I2: Le Dyscolos (Paris, 1963), 109; Handley, E.W., The Dyskolos of Menander (Cambridge, MA, 1965), 262 Google Scholar; Casson, L., The Plays of Menander (New York, 1971), 34 Google Scholar; Gomme, A.W. and Sandbach, F.H., Menander A Commentary (Oxford, 1973), 248 Google Scholar; Arnott, W.G., Menander I (Cambridge, MA, 1979), 305 Google Scholar; Miller, N., Menander Plays and Fragments (London, 1987), 42 Google Scholar; Balme, M., Menander The Plays and Fragments (Oxford, 2001), 32 Google Scholar; Ferrari, F., Menandro e la Commedia Nuova (Turin, 2001), 157 Google Scholar. Some choose to leave οὗτος untranslated, implying, I believe, that the address is in some way redundant with the second person of σοι and/or ’νόχλει, e.g. Vellacott, P., Menander The Bad-Tempered Man, or The Misanthrope (London, 1960), 36 Google Scholar; D'Atri, S., ‘The Grouch’, in Slavitt, D.R. and Bovie, P. (edd.), Menander (Philadelphia, 1998), 53 Google Scholar.

3 While the verb ἐνοχλέω unequivocally expresses annoyance, οὗτος does not, on which see Jacobson (n. 1).

4 Diano, C., Note in margine al Dyskolos di Menandro (Padua, 1959), 61–2Google Scholar also gives οὗτος to Gorgias, but for a very different reason. He argues that Gorgias gestures toward Sostratus as he begins the sentence οὗτος βούλεται ἐντυχεῖν σοι, but Cnemon interrupts him after the first word. The paragraphos and the abbreviation ΚΝΗΜ in the margin at 750, on which see Martin, V., Papyrus Bodmer IV (Geneva, 1958), 78 Google Scholar and plate 16, do not necessarily indicate that there is a change of speaker at the beginning of 750, for there are other instances in the papyrus where a paragraphos, sometimes coupled with a speaker's name in the margin, indicates a new speaker within the line. On the imprecision of paragraphoi, see Martin (this note), 10 and Pope, M., ‘Changes of speaker in Papyrus Bodmer IV’, AClass 3 (1960), 40–52 Google Scholar.

5 What Cnemon is sitting on is not explicitly defined by text, and so interpretations vary widely. For the most up-to-date discussion of this issue, see O'Bryhim, S., ‘Conveying Knemon (Menander Dyskolos 758)’, CPh 109 (2014), 263–6Google Scholar, who makes the interesting suggestion that Cnemon has been wheeled out on a cart used for transporting manure.

6 It is possible that Gorgias speaks the first half of the line (οὗτος, εἴρηχ’ ὅσ’ ἐφρόνουν σοι), the final four words referring to the sentiments expressed in 748–9, and that Cnemon completes the verse. This could add some humour to the scene as Cnemon's three successive replies to Gorgias would all be negative (μὴ ’νόχλει, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν, 750; μηδαμῶς, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν, 751; οὐδὲν ἔτι τοιούτων μοι μέλει, 752). A potential objection to this is Menander's preference for varying where in these antilabic trochaic tetrameters there is a change of speaker, on which see Gomme and Sandbach (n. 2), 248.

7 I would like to thank the anonymous reader of CQ, whose helpful suggestions improved this paper.