μέθυσος, μεθύση, μεθυστικός
(Phryn. Ecl. 122, Poll. 6.25–6, Antiatt. μ 1, Moer. μ 13, [Hdn.] Philet. 2)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1), Pollux (A.2), the Antiatticist (A.3), Moeris (A.4), and the Philetaerus (A.5) discuss whether the term μέθυσος ‘drunken’ could be applied to a man as well as to a woman, and which form of the adjective – μέθυσος or μεθύση – should be used in reference to female individuals.

The term μέθυσος, which may be employed either as a noun or as an adjective, is derived from the root of the noun μέθυ ‘wine, alcoholic beverage’ (from PIE *médʰu: on which, see now Imberciadori 2022) and its denominal verbs μεθύω ‘to be drunk’, and μεθύσκομαι ‘to get drunk’. Regarding its formation, μέθυσος pertains to a group of recessively accented deverbal nouns and adjectives in -σος, belonging to the familiar register and often imbued ‘with a derogatory meaning’ (Van Beek 2022, 388), such as κόμπασος ‘braggart’ (< κομπάζω to ‘boast, to brag’) and πολλαγόρασος ‘who sells much’ (< ἀγοράζω ‘to buy’); on this category, see in detail Brugmann (1899, 183–9); Solmsen (1909, 232); Chantraine (1933, 433–6); and Schwyzer (1939, 516). These forms should be distinguished from other classes of adjectives in -σος, such as the oxytone forms that designate physical defects (on which, see Skoda 1991), which partly derive from o-stem possessive derivatives of s-stem nouns with double zero grade of the root and the suffix (see Höfler 2015, 35), such as ῥαμψός ‘crooked, curved’ < *u̯rm̥bʰ-s-ó- ‘having a curve’ from the s-stem noun *u̯rembʰ-os (cf. ῥέμφος ‘mouth, nose’). Meanwhile, the recessively accented appellatives in -σος appear to be connected with a class of personal namesProper names also in -σος that originated as hypocoristic forms of compound names with a verbal first member in -σι-: so-called ‘τερψίμβροτος compounds’ (on which, see Tribulato 2015, 169–83), e.g. Δάμασος from Δαμάσιππος. In particular, like the τερψίμβροτος compoundsCompounds, the nouns and adjectives in -σος typically appear alongside sigmatic aorists: μεθύω would fit this profile, although its aorist is attested relatively late (the inf. μεθύσαι in Alex. fr. 214.2).

The correct use of the various forms of μέθυσος was surely a contentious topic among scholars, as indicated by the fact that the adjective is discussed not only in most Atticist lexica but also in contemporary literary sources that exhibit an interest in linguistic matters, such as Lucian’s Soloecist (C.8) and Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists (C.9), in which it is presented as one of Ulpian’s typical preoccupations. According to Phrynichus (A.1) and Pollux (A.2), later followed by Thomas Magister (B.5), μέθυσος should be reserved for women (see also B.4), while other synonyms should be employed for men, with the most commonly recommended alternative being μεθυστικός (first in Pl. R. 573c.9), although the Philetaerus (A.5) offers the compounds οἰνόφλυξ (‘wine-bibber’, X. Ap. 19.6, etc.) and φιλοπότης (‘fond of drinking’, first in Hdt. 2.174, frequent in comedy). Pollux, in particular, advises against the use of μέθυσος in the masculine, stating that it should be left to Menander (C.7), an author whose usages are often – although not invariably – criticised in the Onomasticon (see entry Iulius Pollux, Ὀνομαστικόν (Onomasticon)). In Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica (B.1), the prescription extends even to the comic compound μεθυσοχάρυβδιςμεθυσοχάρυβδις ‘wine-charybdis’ (reminiscent of the ποντοχάρυβδις (‘sea-charybdis’) of Hippon. fr. 126.1 Degani and the γαστροχάρυβδις (‘with a charybdis of a belly’) of Phryn. PS 59.13Phryn. PS 59.13 = Cratin. fr. 428), suggesting that the stem μεθυσο- itself was perceived as properly associated with women. Nonetheless, one can hardly claim, with Rutherford (1881, 240), that ‘grammarians are in accord upon this point’: Moeris (A.4), for instance, appears to prescribe μέθυσος for men and μεθύση for women, apparently following a strict analogisticAnalogy reasoning according to which, if a feminine form μεθύση exists, then μέθυσος is an adjective of three endings (as expressly prescribed by several later grammatical sources: see below), meaning that the second-declension form μέθυσος should be restricted to masculine uses. However, the text of Moeris’ entry in cod. C (Par. Coisl. 345Par. Coisl. 345) attributes the above-mentioned usage to the ἝλληνεςἝλληνες, i.e. the users of (koine) Greek; were this reading genuine, the prescription could be read as implicitly recommending the opposite usage to Attic, in line with Phrynichus and Pollux. Moreover, a merely prescriptive entry without the proscription of a koine variant would be unusual for Moeris. Therefore, the possibility that cod. C preserves a text closer to Moeris’ original formulation should be seriously considered. The Lexicon Vindobonense (B.3) adopts yet another stance, one that considers μέθυσος to be appropriate for both men and women. The Philetaerus (A.5), in prescribing μεθύση for females and other lexemes for males, seems to implicitly discourage the use of μέθυσος with either referent. Regardless of the different stances on μέθυσος, a remarkable consensus exists regarding the fact that the feminine μεθύση is correctly used in reference to a woman. Individual lexica differ on – if anything – the relative admissibility of ἡ μεθύση and ἡ μέθυσος: Phrynichus treats the two forms as equally admissible, while the Lexicon Vindobonense and Thomas Magister regard μεθύση as the more appropriate option, and the Antiatticist (A.3) reports the claim that μεθύση is, in fact, the only correct form.

Finally, a masculine ā-stem μεθύσηςμεθύσης is attested in Athenaeus (C.11) and criticised as incorrect in Lucian’s Soloecist (C.8). In the latter passage, Socrates of Mopsus promptly corrects an anonymous speaker’s mistaken use of μεθύσης as a masculine nominative (agreeing with ὁ δεῖνα) by supplying μητρός ‘of a mother’, which would permit its interpretation as a feminine genitive singular. The variant μεθύσης was likely formed on the model of deadjectival ā-stem nouns which can, in turn, be used attributively, such as λάγνηςλάγνης ‘lecher(ous)’ besides λάγνος (see entry λάγνης, λάγνος); in fact, we may not exclude the possibility that λάγνης, belonging to a similar semantic field, was the model for the creation of μεθύσης. Judging from the attestation in Athenaeus, μεθύσης must have been in use even among erudite speakers (from whom we might have expected the use of forms that were hallowed by tradition) in the 2nd century CE.

In fact, early attestations of μέθυσος in reference to women are surprisingly scarce and may be said to be almost non-existent prior to Luppe’s (1969) discovery of a fragment of Antiphon (C.2) preserved by a single MS in the Eclogue tradition (see F.1). Meanwhile, the first occurrence usually quoted in secondary literature (see e.g. LSJ s.v.) is a fragment of Hecataeus of Miletus (C.1); however, even if it preserves the historian’s precise words rather than a paraphrase, which is highly dubious, it would attest to an Ionic usage that Atticists would hardly have regarded as normative (cf. Phryn. Ecl. 189Phryn. Ecl. 189, where Hecataeus’ Ionic usage is contrasted with the proper Attic one). The usage that Phrynichus and other Atticists prescribed was imitated by later writers, such as Athenaeus (C.10) – who, however, does not appear to have been consistent in this regard (in addition to his already-mentioned use of μεθύσης, he employs μέθυσος as a masculine form in 10.442d and 10.453d) – and Libanius (C.12).

As far as μεθύση is concerned, the attestations in Old Comedy (C.3, C.4, C.5, and perhaps C.6, but see F.2) suffice to explain the lexica’s unanimous judgement that this form was good Attic. Nevertheless, μεθύση is not only unattested in the period between the comic poets and the Atticists’ time, but despite the purists’ support, it apparently failed to catch on. Indeed, the form μεθύση appears very seldomly and exclusively in erudite works, such as Phot. π 1123 (where the feminine noun πότις ‘drinker’ is glossed as ἡ γυνὴ ἡ μεθύση ‘the drunken woman’) and Eust. in Il. 2.526.6 (γυναικὶ μεθύσῃ ‘to a drunken woman’). It is possible that μεθύση was, in fact, an innovation of colloquialColloquial language Attic that was reflected in comedy but foreign to other dialects or genres (as would be proven by the feminine use of μέθυσος in early Ionic and Attic prose, as noted above). In support of this hypothesis, we may add that other adjectives -σος do not exhibit ā-stem endings in the feminine, although this is surely an argument from silence, since most forms in -σος are attested only in lexica or as (masculine) substantives. This caveat notwithstanding, cf. e.g. the syntagm βάναυσος τέχνη ‘mechanical art’ in Soph. Ai. 1120, Pl. Tht. 176c.7, Alc. 1 131b, R. 522b.3, etc. In late grammatical sources, μέθυσος, -η, -ον is treated as a three-ending adjective: cf. Hld.Gr. GG 1,3.85.32–3; Michael Syncellus Περὶ τῆς τοῦ λόγου συντάξεως 867–8 (§113).

Turning now to the use of μέθυσος in the masculine, it first occurs in Menander (C.7), and is then attested in the Septuagint (4x, besides one instance of γυνὴ μέθυσος in Si. 26.8) and in the New Testament (2x); Plutarch uses it in two passages (Cat.Mi. 24.3, Brut. 5.4) relating the same episode – namely, Cato’s words to Caesar ‘κράτει, μέθυσε’ (‘Take it, you drunk!’), in throwing back to him a letter exposing an affair between Cato’s sister Servilia and Caesar himself. Durham (1913, 78) collects other attestations of the masculine μέθυσος in post-classical authors. Interestingly, the Atticising authors did not eschew this usage, despite the lexicographers’ reservations; Schmid (Atticismus vol. 1, 315; vol. 3, 209) already observed that Lucian (Tim. 55.3) and Aelian (fr. 284) employed μέθυσος in the masculine against Phrynichus’ advice. This usage remains the norm in the Medieval period (see E.).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

μέθυσος remains in use during the Medieval period as an adjective and a masculine noun with numerous attestations across texts of different genres and registers, alongside other synonymous derivatives from the same root, such as μεθυστής, μεθύστακας (for males), and μεθύστρ(ι)α (for females) (see Kriaras, LME s.vv.). The attestations of the masculine μέθυσος in the Scriptures, as well as in reputable pagan authors, such as Plutarch or Lucian (see D.), likely guaranteed its acceptance despite the Atticist condemnation, which, moreover, was not unanimous. By contrast, the term μεθυστικός, recommended as an alternative by the stricter Atticists, did not enjoy any success in Byzantine times: Photius, for instance, uses it in the Bibliotheca (2x) with the meaning ‘intoxicating’ in reference to wine (which goes back to Arist. Pol. 1342b.25), as does Neophytus Ducas (Τετρακτύς 2.113) in the 19th century. The learned loan word μέθυσος ‘drunkard’ survives in Modern Greek as a more formal synonym of μπεκρής, borrowed from the Turkish bekri (see LKN s.v.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Phryn. Ecl. 122 (A.1)

Luppe (1969)    first drew attention to the version of this entry that is transmitted in cod. S (Vindobonensis phil. gr. 205Vindob. phil. gr. 205, 14th century; see Hunger 1961, 315–6), which was not considered in previous editions of the Eclogue, including those of Lobeck (1820)    and Rutherford (1881) . The gloss is closely connected with the Philetaerus’ entry (A.5) in quoting Ar. V. 1402 (C.5) for the correct use of μεθύση and in prescribing the forms οἰνόφλυξ and φιλοπότης as terms for a male drunk. While Luppe seems to treat the Philetaerus entry as dependent on Phrynichus, Fischer (1974, 114) suggests that cod. S expanded the gloss with material taken from the Philetaerus, which is transmitted in the same MS (see also Valente 2015, 56 n. 331). Cod. S also preserves a quotation from Antiphon (C.2) that is intended to exemplify the use of μέθυσος with a female referent, which is absent in all other testimonia of the Eclogue. Luppe argued that the source of the quotation must be Antiphon of Rhamnous, who, although otherwise absent from the Eclogue, Phrynichus in the Praeparatio sophistica likely considered to be an authority, since he was one of the earliest Attic orators (see entry κατηριστάω). According to Luppe (1969, 281), the quotations from Aristophanes and Antiphon constitute the remains of a larger Zitatennest (‘nest of citations’) in the unabridged redaction of the Eclogue, which may also have included other early attestations of μέθυσος/-η discussed elsewhere in lexicography: e.g. C.1 or C.4. Note, incidentally, the strikingly asymmetrical syntax in A.1: while the syntagm μέθυσος ἀνήρ appears in the nominative, γυναῖκα … μέθυσον καὶ μεθύσην is in the accusative, despite that fact that both are governed by ἐρεῖς. Might this represent a trace of abridgementEpitome from an earlier version that, like that of cod. S, exemplified the feminine form with a quotation in which it appeared in the accusative – perhaps precisely Antiphon’s μέθυσον … γυναῖκα?

(2)    Theopomp.Com. fr. 80 (C.6)

This list of terms used to refer to old women in Pollux (B.2) concludes with four derogatory terms – the first three all relating to drunkenness – introduced by a reference to the late Old Comedy poet Theopompus; however, it is unclear whether the entire list goes back to Theopompus (as assumed by Kassel and Austin, PCG vol. 7, 743) or only the first couple of terms. If all terms come from Theopompus, the quotation must be assembled from separate passages, since, as it stands, it is unmetrical. In keeping with Pollux’s praxis, the words might all derive from Theopompus but not necessarily from the same play. Note that, according to Pollux (A.2), Theopompus himself elsewhere (fr. 94) used μεθύστρια to refer to a (habitually?) drunk woman: see Farmer (2022, 211–2; 226). The anatomical term κοχώνηκοχώνη (variously spelled in the codd. of Pollux), although glossed by LSJ s.v. as ‘perineum’, is described in ancient scholarly sources as indicating the buttocks or ass-cheeks (cf. Erot. 103.13–8, quoting Ar.Byz. fr. 341; Moer. κ 55Moer. κ 55; Hsch. κ 3886, κ 3887; schol. Ar. Eq. 424a [VEΓΘΜ]; see Slater 1986, 115–6; Olson 2016, 54–5; 2017, 270; Miccolis 2017, 258–61); with this meaning, the term is frequent in comedy (Crates.Com. fr. 34; Eup. frr. 88.3, 159.2; Stratt. fr. 56; Ar. Eq. 424, 483–4, frr. 496.2, 558; Eub. fr. 96). Meanwhile, the lack of any attestation in the sense of ‘(drunk) old woman’ raises several difficulties in terms of its inclusion in this passage. Kühn’s emendation χώνη, the contract form of χοάνη ‘funnel’, is interesting, as the latter is indeed attested as a nickname for a heavy drinker – Diotimus of Athens – in Ath. 10.436f (= Polem. fr. 79). However, it should be noted that κοχώνη need not be an epithet related to drunkenness, as the three foregoing ones (φίλοινος, μεθύση, οἰνομάχλη) are. In fact, the quotation from Theopompus – whose extent is unclear in any case – occurs in a list of expressions referring to the different ages of women, and is both preceded and followed by more or less marked terms (γραῦς, γεραιτέρα, γραῖα […], ἐσχατογήρως, βαθυγήρως) for older women in general, not merely those who have a drinking habit. Meineke’s emendation κορώνη – literally ‘crow’ – would make sense in this context, given that the crow’s longevity was proverbial (cf. Hes. fr. 304.1; Ar. Av. 609; Arat. 1022; etc.); note that Martial (10.67.5) mocks an old lady as iam cornicibus omnibus superstes, ‘having by now outlived all the crows’, and Pollux himself has shortly before (2.16Poll. 2.16 = com. adesp. fr. 751) included the expression βεβιωκὼς ὑπὲρ τὰς κορώνας, ‘having outlived the crows’, among comic insultsAbuse (terms of) appropriate for old men (see entry τυμβογέρων). Nevertheless, emendation is not strictly necessary, since it is thinkable that the term κοχώνη ‘ass-cheek’ could, by extension, refer to an old woman as a ‘lard-ass’ or the like.