λάγνης, λάγνος
(Phryn. Ecl. 155, Poll. 6.188)

D. General commentary

Several Atticist lexicographers, including Phrynichus (A.1), Pollux (A.2), the author of the Philetaerus (B.3), and – probably – Orus (B.5), exhibit an interest in the adjective λάγνης ‘lecherous, lustful’ and its variant λάγνος, both of which are typical – albeit not exclusively so – of comic language. More precisely, from a linguistic perspective, λάγνης belongs to a class of ā-stem nouns, usually derived from adjectives, that may in turn be used as attributes, e.g. νεανίας ‘young, youthful; young man’ < νέος ‘new, young’; ἐτησίας [ἄνεμος] ‘periodic [wind]’ < ἐτήσιος ‘yearly’ (for the origins of this class see Höfler 2022, who traces it back to inherited thematic adjectives in which the suffix *-h₂ had a determining function). As Leukart (1994, 128–9) remarked, such forms occur frequently in nicknames and designations based on a characteristic feature (cf. μεθύσηςμεθύσης ‘drunkard’ from the adj. μέθυσος ‘drunk’, on which see entry μέθυσος, μεθύση, μεθυστικός). According to this derivational pattern, λάγνης should be considered a derivativeDerivatives of the thematic three-ending adjective λάγνος, -η, -ον. The latter is probably a formation in -no- from the root of λαγαίω ‘to release’, λαγαρός ‘slack, thin’, λαγγάνω ‘to slacken’, of uncertain etymology (we may compare potential Indo-European cognates, such as Latin laxus or English slack, but the pervasive a-vocalism supports the possibility of a pre-Greek origin: see EDG s.vv.).

Although λάγνος is arguably the derivational basis for λάγνης, the latter is attested first – not in a literary text but in an inscription in the Boeotian dialect on a skyphos-cup from around 500 BCE (C.1), which includes the gen. sing. λάγνᾱ (see Vermeule 1984). Turning to Attic literature, the attestations of either form in the classical period are relatively scarce, and partially problematic. In the 5th century BCE λάγνος occurs in the famous fragment of Critias criticising Archilochus’ self-representation (C.2), and was possibly used by Aristophanes as well (C.3; see F.2). From the 4th century onward, it becomes the favourite form in prose, with 15 occurrences in Aristoteles and the Aristotelic corpus, in which the term is applied to animals (e.g. C.7) as well as humans. The first attestations of λάγνης may date from Middle Comedy, but the textual evidence is not wholly unproblematic. In Anaxandr. fr. 61.2 (C.4), λάγνης clearly modifies γυναικός and must therefore be the gen. sing. fem. of λάγνος: Blaydes’ emendation to λάγνου is based on the conviction that λάγνης was the only genuine Attic form (see Millis 2015, 293–5). Eub. fr. 55 (C.5) probably has the voc. sing. λάγνα, but the text, transmitted by Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,1.164.14, is problematic, and one cod. has the gen. sing. λάγνου, which, in Attic, is ambiguous between o- and ā-stems (see Hunter 1983, 142). In Hellenistic and later authors, λάγνος is the norm, while λάγνης becomes extremely rare. Unsurprisingly, this word is not attested in official inscriptions; the only possible attestation on papyrus is the sequence ]λ̣α̣γ̣νο̣[ (or -ω̣[ ?) in BKT 9.160.1 (= TM 63978) [provenance unknown, 3rd century BCE], containing a fragment of a prose dialogue, but ἀλ]λ’ ἀγνω[, ]λα γνω[, and ]λα γνο[ντ- are other possible reconstructions (see Luppe 1995, 169; Ioannidou 1996, 201–2). In any case, the o-stem variant would be expected in a prose text from the Hellenistic period.

The ancient grammatical tradition approached these forms from two perspectives: first, the question of whether λάγνης or λάγνος was the correct inflection; second, the question of whether the word was appropriate for use in reference to a woman. The two issues are connected, of course, since only λάγνος, -η, -ον had a distinct feminine form but, as noted above, the thematic adjective is extremely rare in classical texts. The rarity of the feminine form may have influenced authorities such as Herodian (whose doctrine is transmitted in the epitome by pseudo-Arcadius, B.6) to claim that it was non-existent (see Roussou 2018, 456). Herodian’s interest in this word stems from its recessive accentuationAccent, which he related to its lack of a feminine form. Indeed, λάγνος is one of the few Greek adjectives in -no- that are not finally accented; as Probert (2006, 265) observes, ‘[t]he word was on the way to becoming a noun meaning ‘lewd man’, and this incipient substantivization may have contributed to its losing the accent of the adjectival suffix -νο-’, tracing a comparison with the similar case of λίχνος ‘gluttonous’. The Philetaerus (B.3) prescribes the two-ending thematic adjective μάχλος, -ον as the correct form with which to describe a lascivious woman. In fact, as Cassio has recently demonstrated (2019, 31–5; 2021), μάχλος (first attested in Hes. Op. 586, but cf. μαχλοσύνη ‘lewdness’ already in Hom. Il. 24.30), due to its likely etymology (‘running’, i.e. ‘wet’), was indeed a specialised term for the wetness linked to female sexual arousal; its use in reference to male characters (Paris in Il. 24.30, Ares in Aesch. Supp. 636) should be understood within the framework of ancient Greek mentality, according to which adulterous behaviour was perceived as a stereotypically feminine trait.

The Atticists exhibit divided opinions on λάγνης and λάγνος: Phrynichus (A.1) and Orus (in an entry preserved in Photius’ lexicon through the Synagoge tradition, B.5; see Alpers 1981, 65, 232, who ascribed it to Orus due to its anomalist point of view) prescribed λάγνης (cf. also B.4). Based on the surviving textual evidence and allowing for the possible loss of loci classici, it can hardly be claimed that this was the earliest or most widespread form in canonical literature. By contrast, λάγνος was doubtlessly more common in post-classical authors, and this fact alone may have oriented some purists towards the competing form in -ης. The notion that the adjective should only be applied to male referents, as advocated by Herodian and possibly other grammarians, would have served as a further basis for the noun’s prescription against the three-ending adjective. Nevertheless, given the mixed distribution in classical texts, it comes as no surprise that other lexicographers admitted of both alternatives, as is the case for Pollux (A.2) and the Philetaerus, who quotes Aristophanes (C.3) in defence of the form λάγνος. This is among several cases in which the Philetaerus and Phrynichus’ Eclogue address the same form and giving conflicting prescriptions, which led Argyle (1989) to argue that the two works were intimately connected (though see entries Διόσκουροι, Διόσκοροι, Διοσκόρω and [Herodian], Φιλέταιρος (Philetaerus) on the problematic aspects of Argyle’s thesis). In any case, as noted above, the debate surrounding λάγνης/λάγνος was by no means restricted to these two lexica.

Grammarians and lexicographers also discussed the comparative λαγνίστερος and the superlative λαγνίστατος: Pollux mentions the latter (A.2), while Photius includes the former in a lemma (B.1) that goes back to the 1st-century-BCE grammarian Philoxenus, together with other Attic comparativesComparatives in -ιστερος that are derived from nouns (that could be used adjectivally) expressing unpleasant qualities. Indeed, the gradation forms in -ιστερος/-ιστατος have pejorative connotations and are typical of comic language (see Leumann 1945, 10–4).

Both λάγνης and λάγνος are only rarely attested in Atticising authors of the imperial period, with most occurrences come from AelianAelian, whose MSS transmit a slight majority of o-stem forms (VH 10.13 = C.2; NA 3.16, 8.16; fr. 106.7) in addition to two instances of the ā-stem variant, one of which is textually insecure (Ep. 10.1 λάγνην, NA 4.41 λάγνης [: -ος codd. LAH]); more often than the positive degree, however, Aelian uses the superlative λαγνίστατος (8x), which is first attested in Aristotle (HA 575b.30; cf. Schmid, Atticismus vol. 3, 39). One may conjecture that in writing about animals, Aelian was influenced by Aristotle’s usage: as remarked above, the latter only attests the o-stem forms and is the first author to employ the term in reference to male animals. Among other 2nd-century CE Atticising authors, only Alciphron employs the term once in Ep. 1.6.4 λάγνος (: -ης fam. x¹).

Interestingly, according to Photius’ testimony (B.5), some unknown grammatical authorities defended an (unattested) acc. sing. λάγνητα based on analogy with ēt-stem nouns (mostly personal names) such as Μάγνης, -ητος ‘Magnes’, which shared with λάγνης the nom. sing. -ης and the general prosodic shape (two syllables, a cluster of voiced stop and resonant before the ending, recessive accent. On the opposite analogical process, by which an original ēt-stem such as μύκης ‘mushroom’ developed ā-stem forms, see AGP vol. 2, Nominal morphology, forthcoming). Choeroboscus rejects the analogy between λάγνης and ēt-stem nouns (B.8) based on the etymologicalEtymology analysis of λάγνης as a syncopated form of a hypothetical compound *λα-γυνης, with the intensive particle λᾱ- as a first member and γυνή ‘woman’ as the second member. The ancient grammarians (e.g. Hsch. λ 1), followed by modern scholars (see Taillardat 1992; EDG s.v. λα-), recognised an intensive prefixPrefixes λᾱ- in forms such as λακαταπύγων ‘very lewd’ (Ar. Ach. 664), λακατάρατοι ‘very accursed’ (com. adesp. fr. 513 = Phot. λ 42), and λάφονοι ‘very murderous’ (Hsch. λ 434). However, Le Feuvre (2007) has convincingly argued that the first member of λακαταπύγων is a non-Attic contraction of λᾱ(ϝ)ο- ‘people’, with the result that the term denotes a ‘public male prostitute’ as a play on the name Λάμαχος. According to Le Feuvre, the alleged intensive prefix was the product of a reanalysis on the part of scholars who no longer understood λακαταπύγων and similar compounds. We may note that λάγνης belongs to the same semantic field as λακαταπύγων, which would have invited an etymological analysis along similar lines.

This etymology permitted the interpretation of *λα-γυνης as an ā-stem masculine compound noun derived from an ā-stem feminine simplex, in the vein of ἑλλανοδίκης ‘chief judge at the Olympic games’ from δίκη ‘judgement’ (despite the fact that γυνή was not, in fact, normally inflected as an ā-stem noun: see entry γυναί). This ancient folk-etymology competed with that (reported in the Philetaerus, B.3; see also B.9) which derived the second compound member from γόνος or γονή ‘procreation’; Suetonius (B.2) mentioned both derivations (see F.1). Moreover, the etymology from λᾱ- and γυνή may have been perceived as justifying the restriction of the term λάγνης to males.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

λάγνος remained in use throughout the Byzantine period together with its gradation forms and the adverb λάγνως (see LBG s.vv.), whereas λάγνης is not attested outside lexica and erudite sources, thereby perpetuating the trend already seen in the koine (see D.). It may be the case that the scarce occurrences in classical texts together with the lack of consensus among Atticist sources meant that the more classicising authors were not compelled to resort to the variant λάγνης. Additionally, as an adjective λάγνος, -η, -ον was doubtlessly perceived as more regular, given the marginal and morphologically ambiguous status of masculine ā-stem adjectives. Modern Greek has the learned terms λάγνος ‘lustful, who overindulges in sexual pleasures’ and λαγνεία ‘lust, sexual desire’ (see ILNE s.vv.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Suet. Blasph. 18 (1.7–8) (B.2)

This entry in Suetonius’ treatise Περὶ βλασφημιῶν, transmitted in a highly abridged form in cod. M (Par. suppl. gr. 1164), was heavily integrated by Taillardat (1967, 118) based on comparison with Eustathius’ commentary on the Odyssey (B.9, B.10). However, although Taillardat was inclined to trace the discussions of terms of abuse found in Eustathius back to Suetonius (see Taillardat 1967, 11–26), not all words in the explanations offered by Eustathius should be automatically included in Suetonius’ text, since Eustathius often made his own additions (see Fiorentini 2022, 195–202, who advocates a more cautious approach). In this particular case, although Eustathius was likely dependent on Suetonius, it is risky to rely too much on the former to reconstruct the exact wording of the gloss, not least because Eustathius may have had other sources at his disposal. It is also worth noting that a similar doctrine on the etymology of λάγνης/λάγνος is stated more clearly in the Philetaerus (B.3); thus, we may not wholly exclude the possibility that the pseudo-Herodianic lexicon and Suetonius ultimately relied on a common source.

(2)    Ar. fr. 534 (C.3)

This fragment is reconstructed on the basis of entries in Cyril’s lexicon (B.7), in which Cyril attributes the use of λάγνος to Aristophanes’ Frying-pan Men (Ταγηνισταί), and in the Philetaerus (B.3), who claims that Aristophanes used λάγνος, though without specifying in which play (see Bossi 1980–1982; Bossi 1983; Tosi 1988, 179). An attempt on the part of Latte (1942, 87) to identify the fragment with com. adesp. fr. 512 (C.6) is unconvincing, as the quotation would not align with Cyril’s definition of the term: see Kassel, Austin PCG vol. 3,2.277–8; Pellegrino (2015, 307); Bagordo (2020, 103–4).