APPENDIX C΄ ON DEPILATION: BODY COSMETICS IN CLASSICAL ...

ON DEPILATION: BODY COSMETICS IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY 589
prostitution in order that her friends, rather than the prostitutes,
should enjoy ÙáÓ Ó¤ˆÓ Ùa˜ àÎÌ¿˜, the vigour of young men. And
then she adds (721 sqq.): ηd Ù¿˜ Á ‰Ô‡Ï·˜ Ôé¯d ‰ÂÖ ÎÔÛÌÔ˘Ì¤Ó·˜ /
ÙcÓ ÙáÓ âÏ¢ı¤ÚˆÓ ñÊ·Úapple¿˙ÂÈÓ K‡appleÚÈÓ, / àÏÏa apple·Úa ÙÔÖ˜ ‰Ô‡ÏÔÈÛÈ
ÎÔÈÌÄÛı·È (this is an example of ÎÔÈÌÄÛı·È as signifying coition, if
examples were needed) ÌfiÓÔÓ / ηوӿÎËÓ ÙeÓ ¯ÔÖÚÔÓ àappleÔÙÂÙÈÏ̤-
Ó·˜. XÔÖÚÔ˜ is of course the pudendum muliebre. But how is ηوӿ-
ÎËÓ to be construed? Mss. have ηوӿÎË and the vulgate ηو-
Ó¿ÎFË, which Brunck tried to justify by interpreting it as ¯¿ÚÈÓ ÙáÓ
‰Ô‡ÏˆÓ. K·ÙˆÓ¿ÎË was a coarse cloth worn by slaves, a kind of frock
with a lower border of sheepskin (οو + Ó¿ÎÔ˜). V. Hesychius s.v.
ηوӿÎË: îÌ¿ÙÈÔÓ ö¯ÔÓ âÎ ÙáÓ Î¿Ùˆ ÌÂÚáÓ Ó¿ÎÔ˜ appleÚÔÛÂÚ·Ì̤-
ÓÔÓ, ¬ âÛÙÈ ÌËψً. (Cf. also Moeris s.v.). It is true that the Etym. M.
expressly remarks p. 597.14, s.v. N¿ÎË: Ùe ·åÁÂÖÔÓ ‰¤ÚÌ·Ø Îˆ‰›· ηd
ÎÒ‰ÈÔÓ, Ùe appleÚÔ‚¿ÙÈÔÓ. ÔéÎ ôÚ· Ùe âÓ KfiϯÔȘ, Ó¿ÎÔ˜ ÚËÙ¤ÔÓ. ηÎá˜
ÔsÓ È̈ӛ‰Ë˜ Ó¿ÎÔ˜ ÊËÛ› (Fr. 39 (544) PMG Page). But this is at
best ultra-purism. For Homer’s Odyssey ξ, 530: àÓ ‰b Ó¿ÎËÓ ≤ÏÂÙ’
·åÁe˜ â¸ÙÚÂʤԘ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔÈÔ cannot be taken to imply more than that
Ó¿ÎË could be a goat-skin. The scholia have: Ó¿ÎËÓØ ‰¤ÚÌ· ·åÁe˜
‰·Û‡Ì·ÏÏÔÓ which suggests that the scholiast would agree to the
remark in the Etym. M. in which case we may trace the source of the
exclusive view to Alexandrian false scientifism. What the Etymologus
charges Simonides with, was committed by Lycophron, too; v.
Alexandra, 1310; and before him Pindar Pythia IV, 68: apple¿Á¯Ú˘ÛÔÓ
Ó¿ÎÔ˜ ÎÚÈÔÜ. Herodotus, as well, uses Ó¿ÎÔ˜ for sheepskin, even if not
in connection with the Argonautic expedition (II, 42). Theocritus, on
the other hand, uses the word for a goat-skin, Idyll V, 2 (cf. 9 and 11-
12); the scholia to this passage are instructive: one explains the word in
its present use, Ùɘ ·åÁe˜ Ùe ‰¤ÚÌ·; the other gives what was
obviously taken from a lexicographic work: ÎÒ‰ÈÔÓ, n ÌËψÙcÓ
ʷ̤Ó; and the last gives both meanings, with the information that
Zenodotus probably insisted on the “sheepskin view”. This view we
find in Photius (Ó¿ÎÔ˜Ø öÓÙÚȯÔÓ ‰¤ÚÌ· õÙÔÈ ‰ÔÚa appleÚÔ‚¿ÙÔ˘ - cf. also
s.v. Ó·ÎÔÙ›ÏÙ·È). Suda has both interpretations, considering goatskin
as the main one: Ó¿ÎÔ˜ öÓÙÚȯÔÓ ‰¤ÚÌ·, õÙÔÈ ‰ÔÚa appleÚÔ‚¿ÙÔ˘.
K˘Ú›ˆ˜ ‰b Ùe Ùɘ ·åÁe˜ ‰¤ÚÌ·, Îá·˜ ‰b Ùe ÙÔÜ appleÚÔ‚¿ÙÔ˘.
Hesychius explains as ÎÒ‰ÈÔÓ. ·úÁÂÈÔÓ ‰¤ÚÌ· ÌÂÙa ÙÚȯáÓØ thus also
providing both interpretations, though again he has Ó·ÎÔÙ›ÏÙ·ÈØ Ôî