δρωπακίζω, παρατίλλομαι, πιττοῦμαι
(Phryn. Ecl. 384, Poll. 7.165, Phot. π 319, Thom.Mag. 291.8–9)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus’ prescription (A.1), recalled with minor adjustments by Thomas Magister (A.4), deals with lexical and semantic issues relating to the verbs that express the act of depilation (on ancient hair-removal, its terminology, and its social values, see Kilmer 1982; Kilmer 1993, 133–54; Cootjans 2000). The two forms (παρατίλλεσθαι, πιττοῦσθαι) that are indicated as ‘ancient’ (ἀρχαῖος) and thus to be preferred do indeed present a classical pedigree (with a specific closeness to the vocabulary of Old Comedy, albeit with different degrees of evidence), while the rejected form (δρωπακίζω), described as ‘unapproved’ (ἀδόκιμος), betrays no connection with authors or genres that the Atticists regard as canonical.

παρατίλλω is almost invariably attested in the middle voice with the meaning of ‘to pluck hairs’ (the only relevant exceptions are Ar. Eq. 373, and Luc. Cat. 12–3, in which the active form παρατίλλω is used transitively to indicate a threat or a violent punishment; in this regard, Ar. Pl. 168 testifies to the practice of forcibly depilating adulterers’ anuses as a humiliating penalty, cf. Su. π 467, ρ 55; schol. Ar. Pl. 168; Sommerstein 2001, 144–5). In this meaning, the middle form παρατίλλομαι occurs exclusively in comedy (C.1, where the expression δέλτα παρατετιλμέναι alludes to a specific pubic hair style: see Bain 1982, 8–9; Henderson 1987, 85; Sommerstein 1990, 162; the other occurrences are Ar. Ach. 31, Eq. 373, Lys. 89, Ra. 516, Pl. 168; Pl.Com. fr. 188.14; Men. fr. 264.5; com. adesp. fr. 1105.99) before its resurrection by Lucian (Cat. 12–3, Ind. 23, Fug. 33) and several later prose writers of the imperial age (Clemens of Alexandria, Diogenes Laertius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoretus of Cyrrus). All other occurrences of παρατίλλομαι are limited to lexica (A.2), Byzantine scholarship (B.5, where Eustathius confirms a comic use of its semantic group; cf. Eust. in Il. 4.976.7–10) and, first and foremost, the scholia to Aristophanes. παρατίλλομαι’s comic pedigree is patent, therefore, and it is with all evidence on this basis that Phrynichus recommends its use; the same reason may also arguably be adduced for its revival in Lucian, whose adherence to the Attic models (above all, comic and Platonic) is well known (see Schmid, Atticismus vol. 1, 221–6, 428–32; Householder 1941, 41–56; Bompaire 1994, 67–72).

On a smaller scale, a similar situation may be observed for the rare derivative form παρατίλτρια, which refers to a female slave to whom is assigned the specific task of depilation (see Davies 1987). Indeed, this nomen agentis is found only once in comedy (Cratin. fr. 276.3) before it is reused in the imperial age by Flavius Philostratus alone (C.6; he uses it, in a similar context, also in VS 1.536) and reported and recommended by the lexicographers Pollux (A.2) and Photius (A.3). The former enlists παρατίλτρια in a catalogue of Attic terms pertaining to depilation along with its original verbal form and with πιττόω and its derivatives. The latter, remarkably, confirms the prescription found in Phrynichus (A.1). As Theodoridis points out in his apparatus, the prescription of παρατίλτρια against the otherwise-unattested δρωπακίστριαδρωπακίστρια is unparalleled (note that δρωπακήστρια is an itacistic spelling for δρωπακίστρια, preferred also in Porson’s and Naber’s editions of Photius’ lexicon; cf. the masculine form δρωπακιστής, attested in two imperial-age inscriptions, SEG 37.1434.2–3 [Apameia in Syria, 2nd century CE], SEG 45.1451 [Ostia, undated]: see below). However, Photius’ entry implicitly follows the same doctrine as Phrynichus’ in that it both rejects the noun derived from δρωπακίζω in favour of the synonym derived from παρατίλλω and explains the participle παρατιλλόμενος as a synonym of πιττούμενος. The latter form, which is also recommended by Phrynichus (A.1), is therefore also selected in Photius’ entry as another Attic verb that is used to indicate depilation.

πιττόω is never attested in classical texts (its first occurrence being in a fragment of Theopompus, C.5, if the passage of Athenaeus does indeed reproduce the ipsissima verba of the Hellenistic historian, which cannot be guaranteed: see Morison 2014 ad T 4) and its meaning is not limited to depilation: as a derivation of πίττα (‘pitch’), its most common meaning is that of ‘to pitch over’, in reference to various objects (ships, pottery, statues, etc.: see André 1964; for metaphorical and obscene uses of πίττα and several of its derivatives, see Henderson 1975, 145–6). Nevertheless, since its first occurrences, the verb also describes – primarily when used in the middle voice – the practice (similar to modern waxing) of removing hairs by means of a pitch-plaster (that of ‘pitch-plaster’ is the meaning of πίττα, for instance, in C.6; the same secondary meaning is borne also by the Latin resina and its derivative resinatus, see Cels. 3.27.1d; Mart. 12.32.21–2; Juv. 8.114–5). Aside from Theopompus’ fragment, this specific nuance of πιττόω is primarily attested in imperial-age authors, beginning with Dio of Prusa (31.116). A significant number of examples of this use is found in medical proseMedical literature (especially in Galen, where, however, πιττόω refers to a therapeutic practice known as πίττωσις – ‘pitching’ – and consisting in the application of warm pitch-plasters for the treatment of various rheumatic disorders: see below and B.1), but the verb in this meaning is found mostly in Lucian (C.3, C.4; see also Merc.Cond. 33, Pseudol. 31, Rh.Pr. 23). As in the case of παρατίλλω, this might confirm that Atticising authors used this verb inasmuch as they found it in (or saw it as typical of) canonical authors, possibly including authors of Old Comedy. The occurrence of πιττόω in Lexiphanes (C.3) lends support to this hypothesis, since the verb is there used by the helpless would-be-Atticist Lexiphanes, who on several other occasions draws on comic linguistic models (see e.g. Bompaire 1958, 634–6; Stifler 2023, 82–4; note that, in this passage, the verb is exceptionally used in the active, as required by the odd scene that portrays a man in the act of depilating his friend’s daughter). Furthermore, the idea of a comic pedigree for πιττόω with this value might find support in its rare compound πιττοκοπέωπιττοκοπέω, whose first meaning (attested in literature only in Thphr. HP 5.4.5 and more frequently in documentary papyri and inscriptions dealing with pottery or buildings, see e.g. P.Oxy. 50.3595.34–5 (= TM 15408) [243 CE]; BGU 6.1293.3–6 (= TM 4557) [unknown provenance, 1st century CE]; IG 2².1672.179 [Attica, 329/8 BCE]) is that of ‘to smear with pitch’ but which mostly occurs in the middle voice with the same meaning of ‘to have hairs removed by pitch-plasters’ (isolated exceptions are A.2, in which the active and middle forms are paired, and B.2, in which it is enlisted only as a synonym for δρωπακίζεσθαι; on compounds in -κοπέω, see entry πολιτοκοπέω). Aside from the above-mentioned exceptional passage of Theophrastus, literary attestations of πιττοκοπέω are limited to comedy (C.2 and com. adesp. 137.5; we also know of a lost play of Philemon entitled Πιττοκοπούμενος, frr. 66–7), in which it is invariably used in reference to depilation in the context of ridiculing effeminate men (see Henderson 1975, 220), and lexica (A.2, B.2). The passage of Pollux (A.2), in particular, which enlists the same two forms recommended by Phrynichus, pairs παρατίλλω with the derivative παρατίλτρια, discussed above, and πιττόω with πιττοκοπέω (coupled with the hapax legomena πιττοκόπος and πιττοκοπική).

To sum up, both verbs recommended explicitly by Phrynichus (A.1) and Thomas Magister (A.4) and indirectly by Pollux (A.2) (and possibly also by Photius, A.3) exhibit a comic pedigree and find in it the reason for their recommendation by the Atticists. Both are prescribed as verbs indicating the act of depilation, although they express two different hair-removal techniques, with παρατίλλω referring to the practice of plucking and πιττόω to that of waxing with pitch-plasters. Both verbs are poorly attested in the texts of the imperial age in terms of expressing the act of depilating (with παρατίλλω being almost entirely absent), but it is worth noting that an eclectic and refined Atticist such as Lucian abides by this norm, reusing these uncommon forms to refer to depilation on many occasions (see, below, the discussion on C.4).

By contrast, δρωπακίζω, the verb that Phrynichus rejects, exhibits no classical pedigree. It is a derivative of δρῶπαξδρῶπαξ, a noun first attested in post-classical sources and indicating mainly a pitch-plaster (see DELG s.v.; different meanings are proposed in [Hdn.] Epim. 24.5 and Su. δ 1539). This verb is attested fewer than thirty times and never before the imperial age. Its first occurrences are in Arr. Epict. 3.22.10 and the medical treatise of Archigenes (24.11 Brescia). Later, it is found exclusively (with two single exceptions: see below) in medical proseMedical literature (where it refers to the therapeutic πίττωσις: see Archigenes 23.27–24.14; Gal. In Hipp. De off. med. comm. 18b.915.10–7 Kühn; Aët. 3.180) or in lexicographical works. This last category of texts proves useful in elucidating how δρωπακίζω was the common form in the imperial age to denote the act of depilation, both in general and with the specific nuance of πιττόω. As noted above, Photius (A.3) recognised παρατίλτρια and δρωπακίστρια as synonyms and yet condemned the second form on the basis that it derived from the post-classical δρωπακίζω. Photius (B.2) also testifies that δρωπακίζω – at least in the middle voice – was perceived as synonymous with a range of verbs signifying various hair-removal techniques, including the already mentioned πιττοκοπέω. Other sources confirm that δρωπακίζω was associated mostly with the practice of hair removal by means of pitch-plasters: the Suda (B.3), after enlisting other synonyms, describes it as a hair-removal technique that involved the use of plasters, and the scholion to a passage of Lucian (B.4, commenting on C.4, see below) explicitly explains it as equivalent to πιττόω in this precise meaning. An indirect proof of its wide diffusion comes from LatinLatin. The borrowing dropax, bearing the same meaning of ‘pitch-plaster’, is attested in Martial’s epigrams (3.74.1, 10.65.8; cf. Auson. Epigr. 100.1) and occurs regularly in Latin medical prose as well, along with the derivatives dropacista, dropacator, dropacismus and dropacare (see Goetz 1888–1923 vol. 2, 281, vol. 6, 325, vol. 6, 366; ThLL 5.1.2069; Solin 1995, 69–70). This would have not been possible if the Greek verb δρωπακίζω (along with the noun δρῶπαξ) had not been commonly used in the early imperial age, at least in the spoken language. Indeed, it was surely the common form in Post-classical Greek, but the proscription on the part of the lexicographers ensured that traces of its use survive only in non-literary texts, such as the medical treatises (which also preserve, alone, some extremely rare – when not hapax – derivatives such as δρωπακισμός, δρωπακιστός, and δρώπακος). The two above-mentioned exceptions also confirm this picture. Indeed, beyond its uses in lexica and medical treatises, δρωπακίζω occurs only in Lucian’s Demonax (C.4) and in Philogel. 64. The latter is a later para-literary text, in which transgressions of the Atticist prescriptions are fully expected (and it is worth noting that neither [παρα]τίλλω nor πιττόω/πιττοκοπέω with depilatory meaning occur across the entire Philogelos). In Lucian’s Demonax (C.4), δρωπακίζω occurs within the quotation of a salacious joke uttered by the philosopher Demonax in a context that mimics real-life conversation, while Lucian’s narrating a few lines before had used the regular πιττόω to express the same notion: the post-classical form δρωπακίζω is adopted by Lucian only and precisely for purposes of linguistic realism.

The above factors confirm that δρωπακίζω was indeed commonly used in the imperial age, and that its scattered occurrences in literature must be ascribed to the specific prescriptions of the Atticists. In this regard, the testimony of GalenGalen (B.1) is of particular interest. In discussing πιττοῦντα φάρμακα (i.e. various medical devices used for the therapeutic πίττωσις: see above) he enlists a series of current names for them (πιττωτά, δρωπακιστά, πίτανα, δρώπακα; each of these forms poses different lexical or textual problems: see F.1). Although the passage is not focused on depilation, these nouns all connect to the same lexical groups of πιττόω and δρωπακίζω. Some derive from the form prescribed by Atticists, others from the later and rejected form but, for Galen, they are all perfectly interchangeable. Indeed, he explicitly expresses his intolerance for the Atticists’ strictness regarding the choice of these terms (as he does on many other occasions: on his attitude towards Atticism, see Swain 1996, 56–63; Morison 2008, 137–48; Manetti 2009; cf. Gal. De san. tuenda 6.8.4 Koch = 6.416.6–7 Kühn: ὁ καλούμενος ὑπὸ τῶν νῦν Ἑλλήνων ‘δρῶπαξ’, ‘what contemporary Greeks call δρῶπαξ’) and thus confirms that this prescription was primarily concerned with (and exerted an actual impact on) the literary register exclusively.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In the Byzantine age, both the ancient and prescribed παρατίλλω and πιττόω and the later and rejected δρωπακίζω – already barely attested in the classical and imperial age due to their limited and specific meaning – fall out of use. After Hesychius’ lexicon, in which it occurs four times (never as the lemma), παρατίλλω is found only in a few texts between the 9th and the 15th centuries (Hippiatr.Ber. 94.2; Gp. 2.38.2; Nicetas Choniates Historia 647.13 van Dieten; Charitonymus Hermonymus Prosphonema ad Bessarionem 8). πιττόω occurs more frequently within the same time span but only with the original meaning of ‘to pitch over’ (referring mostly to pottery and ships) and never with that of ‘to remove hairs’ (while πιττοκοπέω completely disappears from literary texts and is used only in some late-antique documentary papyri in its non-depilatory sense: see e.g. P.Bastianini 26.19 (= TM 703020) [Oxyrhynchos, 575–579 CE]; P.Oxy. 58.3942.23 (= TM 17923) [606 CE]; P.Prag. 1.46.8 (= TM 15303) [Antinoupolis, 522 CE]). Similarly, δρωπακίζω survives in only a few medical treatises dating between the 7th and the 9th centuries CE (Paulus of Aegina 3.61.4, 4.1.2; Paulus of Nicaea 69.26 Ieraci Bio; Leo Medicus 2.15 Ermerins) and in two later passages of Byzantine prose (Nicephorus Blemmydes Orationes de vitae fine 2.3.27 Lackner [13th century] and Mazaris Peregrinatio ad inferos 1.44.11 Barry–Share–Smithies–Westerink [15th century]). Beyond these scattered occurrences, the main sources for these verbs in the Byzantine age remain the already discussed lexicographical and erudite texts (A.3, A.4, B.5 for παρατίλλω; A.3, A.4, B.4 for πιττόω; A.4, B.2, B.3, B.4 for δρωπακίζω), to which one may add several passages from the Suda (α 3506, δ 201, ε 28, π 467, ρ 55), Eustathius (in Od. 1.119.34, 2.119.15), and other lexicographical collections (EM 238.51; [Zonar.] 972.12–3) quoting or commenting on the occurrences of παρατίλλω in Aristophanes. This confirms that, at the time, not only the old Attic forms recommended for high-level Greek but also the later and prohibited verb were all perceived as outdated and warranting explanation.

Later Medieval Greek and Modern Greek preserve no traces of παρατίλλω and δρωπακίζω. Only πισσώνω survives as a derivative of πισσόω, but it bears the limited meaning of ‘to anoint/smear with pitch’ (see Kriaras, LME s.v.), while the simple form τίλλω refers somehow to hair only in the idiomatic and expressive locution τίλλω τας τρίχας τής κεφαλής μου (‘I tear my hair out [in despair]’, see Babiniotis, ΛΝΕΓ s.v.). The general action of depilation is instead expressed by verbs such as αποτριχώνω (with the specific technique of waxing referred to called κερί αποτρίχωσης), which is a new compound that recalls late-antique forms such as ἀπότριχος and ἀποτρίχωσις, and μαδώ, which preserves the ancient μαδάω, attested already in Hippon. fr. 24 West and used in the scholia to Lucian (B.4) to explain the – by then obsolete – πιττοῦσθαι and δρωπακίζεσθαι.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Gal. In Hipp. De off. med. comm. 18b.894.7–17 Kühn (B.1)

This passage poses several problems on both the linguistic and the textual levels. First, a correction was required by the form πιττόντων that was printed by Kühn on both its occurrences. All evidence points to its being an error that may be traced back to the editors of the Aldina (1525)    and Basileensis (1538)    editions, on which Kühn based his own edition (see Kühn vol. 1, CLXXXIV), whereas the MSS (Par. gr. 1849 and Marc. gr. Z 279 [= 705]) report πεττόντων. This last form is not incorrect and, in another passage, Galen speaks of πεπτικὰ φάρμακα (i.e. ‘digestive medicaments’, from πέττω, ‘to digest’) in terms of πέττοντα φάρμακα (Meth. med. 10.981.11–982.11 Kühn). However, this meaning is clearly unsatisfactory here and, given that Galen will shortly proceed to describe this practice using the participle πιττούμενον, it is reasonable to conclude that the transmitted πεττόντων is the result of confusion or misspelling of the participle of πιττόω on the copyist’s part. Similarly, the correction πιττόντων that modern editors propose is unacceptable. No other occurrence of the verb πίττω is attested anywhere else, and, in many other cases, Galen uses the verb πιττόω, always with the correct contracted spelling (see e.g. De usu part. 11.14 Helmreich = 3.902.9 Kühn: πιττοῦνται, In Hipp. Epid. comm. 4.11 Wenkebach = 17b.164.14 Kühn: καταπιττοῦσι and, immediately after this passage, the already quoted In Hipp. Off. med. comm. 18b.895.7 Kühn: πιττούμενον); therefore, it seems clear that the earlier correction must, in turn, be corrected to πιττούντων.

Subsequently, in the list of possible terms for the πιττοῦντα φάρμακα, besides πιττωτός (a rare but regular derivative of πιττόω that is used only in medical prose and only in connection with φάρμακα: see Gal. Ad Glauc. de med. meth. 11.106.18 Kühn; Orib. Syn. 5.42.3; Aët. 6.10), two of the other synonyms require further explanation. The adjective δρωπακιστός, indeed, is a hapax that derives from δρωπακίζω; it is formed in the same way as the previous πιττωτός and, despite its rarity, is unproblematic. Moreover, πίτανα is also a hapax but poses serious problems. It corresponds to the form printed by Kühn, who in turn derived it from the previous editions, while the two already-mentioned manuscripts report πίτταν. The presence of a noun such as πίττα interrupts the sequence of adjectives (πιττωτά, δρωπακιστά, implicitly related to φάρμακα), and this may be the reason for the correction of modern editors, who attempted to restore a hypothetical adjective deriving from πίττα; however, dubious as the choice of this correction may be, a form like πίττανα or πιττανά would be more suitable as a derivative from πίττα than πίτανα (cf. πιττάνια, another hapax deriving from πίττα attested in Poll. 1.84Poll. 1.84 – but only reported by the manuscripts of the third family of Pollux’s Onomasticon). However, considering the following δρώπακα (another noun, unless we take it for an anomalous adjective in the neuter plural, which would be unattested and difficult to justify), it seems more likely (though not completely certain, which explains the decision to abide by Kühn’s text) that πίτταν was the correct form and that something else in the text may have gotten lost in the transmission of this problematic – and at times obscure – passage.

(2)    Alex. fr. 266.1–5 (C.2)

In my translation, I decided to refer the participles πιττοκοπούμενον and ξυρούμενον directly to τινα (i.e. the individual ridiculed by the persona loquens), whereas Arnott (1996, 744–5) believes that both refer to the beard mentioned in l. 4. His reading might be plausible in the case of ξυρέω (‘to shave’), but the same cannot be said of πιττοκοπέω. Indeed, as we observed, this verb indicates a hair-removal technique that involves the use of pitch-plasters and that is suitable only for waxing the body, certainly not for shaving the beard.