μεῖραξ, μειράκιον
(Phryn. Ecl. 183, Moer. α 15, [Hdn.] Philet. 107, Thom.Mag. 231.16–232.5)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1) dedicates a short entry in his Eclogue to the term μεῖραξ (‘young girl’). The lexicographer’s chief interest apparently lies in establishing the term’s gender (i.e. feminine, as opposed to the derivative neuter μειράκιον, used for males) and in addressing its humorous usage in comedy (ἡ μὲν κωμῳδία παίζει τὰ τοιαῦτα). Moeris (A.2) presents the same gender distinction between μεῖραξ and μειράκιον, forcing it into the usual ‘Attic speakers vs. Greek speakers’ dichotomy.

In the extant literary evidence from the 5th and 4th centuries, μεῖραξ – by far the least frequently attested of the two forms – is invariably feminine (see Cratin. fr. 334, Ar. fr. 746, Th. 410, Ec. 696, 1138, Pl. 1071, 1079, Xenarch. fr. 4.3, Men. Per. 134, 264). Only in two cases could ancient readers plausibly have been in doubt with respect to the gender of μεῖραξ – namely, Ar. Ec. 611 (C.2, as shown also by the related Aldine scholium B.8) and Cratin. fr. 60 (C.1), which, deprived of its original context, does not clarify whether the referent of ὦ μεῖρακες is a group of girls or men. Several modern critics have sought to identify a masculine usage of μεῖραξ in Cratinus’ line, but this is almost surely erroneous (see Bianchi 2017, 350, 352–3), as suggested by the feminine ποδαπάς (if the group of people addressed as μείρακες were indeed men, one would expect ποδαπούς). The earliest examples of μεῖραξ used as a masculine noun are in the Septuagint (C.7, C.8): these occurrences demonstrate that μεῖραξ could be used to indicate a young male person in the ‘ordinary written Greek’ of the Hellenistic period (Horrocks 2010, 106) without any insulting connotations. It is precisely this gender shift (i.e., from the exclusively feminine usage of μεῖραξ to its subsequent extension to male individuals) that Phrynichus appears to dispute in his Eclogue (A.1). Indeed, according to Lucian’s Soloecista (C.9), during the Imperial age, highly educated individuals regarded the masculine use of μεῖραξ as a patent mistake (acceptable only if intended as a slur).

The earliest erudite discussion of the gender of μεῖραξ is found in DidymusDidymus (1st century BCE–1st century CE, see Montana 2022). The grammarian addressed the problem in two of his works – namely, a commentary on a play by Aristophanes (the Old age or the Anagyrus, see B.3) and the Miscellanea (B.2), a collection that may have been identical to the Conversations at table (Συμποσιακά, 337–43 Coward–Prodi), later epitomised by AlexionAlexion (on this grammarian, see Pagani 2022 with all the relevant bibliography). Herennius Philo’s entry that mentions Didymus’ Aristophanic commentary (B.3) also preserves the text of the line on which the grammarian commented (C.5). However, the wording is not wholly intelligible. What is clear is that the line describes an erotic encounter (on the sexual meaning of πληκτίζομαι, see e.g. Henderson 1975, 140) between a μεῖραξ and a μειράκιον. In his explanation of the line, Didymus highlighted that the term μεῖραξ was feminine, while the neuter μειράκιον indicated a male individual. At first glance, the grammarian’s statement does not seem particularly insightful, but it becomes significantly more salient when compared with his illustrious predecessor Aristophanes of ByzantiumAristophanes of Byzantium’s statement with regard to μεῖραξ and μειράκιον. His stance on the two terms is preserved both in several excerpts from the section of his Lexeis dedicated to the names of the ages (B.1) found in MS Par. suppl. gr. 1164Par. suppl. gr. 1164, and in the grammatical sources that ultimately depend on Alexion’s epitome of the Didymean Miscellanea, which quoted Aristophanes’ treatise (B.2). Aristophanes of Byzantium listed μεῖραξ and μειράκιον along with two other terms denoting young male individuals (i.e. νεανίσκοςνεανίσκος and νεανίαςνεανίας), but the precise relationship that he posits between the different age-names is difficult to establish, given that the sources offer slightly different wordings (see F.1). At any rate, what can be considered certain is that μεῖραξ and μειράκιον, like νεανίαςνεανίας and νεανίσκοςνεανίσκος, indicated young males according to Aristophanes of Byzantium.

The Didymean gender distinction between μεῖραξ and μειράκιον is found in other lexicographical and grammatical sources: of these, Ammonius (B.5), Phrynichus’ Eclogue (A.1), Pollux (B.4, who inserts μεῖραξ in a list of nouns referred to young women ready for marriage), and Moeris (A.2) are of the greatest antiquity. The pseudo-Herodianic Philetaerus (A.3) is particularly interesting, in that the standard gender distinction (μειράκιον καὶ μεῖραξ διαφέρει· μειράκιον μὲν ὁ ἄρρην … μεῖραξ δὲ ἡ θήλεια) is supplemented with further information: first, μειράκιον is defined as ἡλικίαςἡλικία ὄνομα and the text quotes a fragment of Menander in which the noun occurs after ἔφηβοςἔφηβος and before ἀνήρἀνήρ within the description of a man’s lifespan (cf. C.6: παῖς γέγονεν, ἔφηβος, μειράκιον, ἀνήρ, γέρων. Here, the word μειράκιον thus appears to designate a man who is older than eighteen but not yet old enough to be regarded as a fully mature man (i.e., an ἀνήρ). See also B.2, where the ἔφηβοι are discussed immediately before μεῖραξ and μειράκιον, and B.7, where the lexicographer says that μεῖραξ indicates ‘the girl from fifteen to twenty-two years of age’). Second, the text states that μεῖραξ could be used with specifically disparaging intent to refer to a man in comedyComedy (ἢν δέ ποτε λεχθῇ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἄρρενος ἐν τῇ κωμῳδίᾳ τὸ τῆς μείρακος ὄνομα, δῆλον ὡς κωμῳδεῖται εἰς κιναιδίαν ὁ ἄρρην), a concept already present in Phrynichus (cf. A.1: μείρακες καὶ μεῖραξ· ἡ μὲν κωμῳδία παίζει τὰ τοιαῦτα) as well as in Lucian (C.9), although no clear evidence exists to prove that μεῖραξ could be used as an insult for men in comedy. The only extant comic line in which the gender of μεῖραξ is not unequivocal (but is nonetheless almost certainly feminine) is indeed C.2 (ἢν μείρακ’ ἰδὼν ἐπιθυμήσῃ καὶ βούληται σκαλαθῦραι κτλ). The associated scholium (B.8, only attested in the Aldine edition) does in fact express some doubt, which may theoretically recall the reservations of an earlier commentator (yet later than Ammonius). Nonetheless, the idea – attested in Phrynichus (A.1), Lucian (C.9), the Philetaerus (A.3) and the Aldine scholium (B.8) – that μεῖραξ could be used in comedy as a homosexual slur may originate from one or several comic passages that are now lost. In this respect, Phrynichus’ general reference to ‘comedy’ (cf. A.1: ἡ μὲν κωμῳδία παίζει τὰ τοιαῦτα) may signify the epitomisationEpitome of more specific references to comic playwrights, although such indications are not infrequent in the Eclogue and in the Praeparatio (for κωμῳδία, see Ecl. 200Phryn. Ecl. 200 with entry ἀλεκτορίς, and 288Phryn. Ecl. 288, 299Phryn. Ecl. 299, 353Phryn. Ecl. 353; for ἀρχαία κωμῳδία, see Ecl. 24Phryn. Ecl. 24, 255Phryn. Ecl. 255 with entry βρέχει, 304Phryn. Ecl. 304, PS 74.6Phryn. PS 74.6, 91.11Phryn. PS 91.11; for νέα κωμῳδία, see Ecl. 332Phryn. Ecl. 332, 358Phryn. Ecl. 358). However, other elements of A.1 suggest that the text, in its extant form, is abbreviated. In particular, the presence of the plural μείρακες before μεῖραξ, in both the lemma and the explanation, is not easily understandable, unless it resulted from the entry’s original discussion of occurrences of both the singular and the plural. Furthermore, the explanation also appears to have been abridged: the text refers to the fact that μεῖραξ and its plural μείρακες are used humorously, but the nature of the joke (i.e., the use of the feminine μεῖραξ in relation to men, as an accusation of effeminacy, see A.3, B.8) is left implicit, and the entry merely clarifies that μεῖραξ and its plural are feminine, while the neuter derivative μειράκιον is used to refer to males.

Regarding later sources, the presence of the gender distinction between μεῖραξ and μειράκιον (and between the diminutives μειρακίσκη and μειρακίσκος) in the lexicon ascribed to Zonaras (B.7) led Alpers (1981, 182–3) to surmise that it was originally found in the Atticist Orus (fr. A 64). Further late sources that mention the distinction include B.6 and B.9. Interestingly, B.6 and B.7 preserve a paretymologyPara-etymology that links μεῖραξ to ἱμείρωἱμείρω (‘to desire’), thus implying that the term indicated a girl who was sufficiently mature for marriage (which is what Pollux, B.4, also suggests). A wholly different take on the two terms is found in the Eclogue of Thomas Magister (A.4), who contrasts the rhetors’ unanimity (πάντες οἱ ῥήτορες) with Aristophanes’ isolated usage (μόνος Ἀριστοφάνης), therefore advising the reader to avoid using μεῖραξ completely on the grounds that it is a hapax in favour of using μειράκιον to refer to young girls as well as to boys.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

The Atticists’ aversion to the masculine use of μεῖραξ is perpetuated in grammatical and erudite sources as late as Gennadius Scholarius (15th century, see B.5). Nevertheless, the word’s extension to the masculine gender became increasingly widespread from the late imperial period onwards – initially attested mostly in novels and ecclesiastic-hagiographical literature (see e.g. Hld. 4.19.4.3 Lumb–Maillon–Rattenbury; Gr.Naz. MPG 37.740.4) – and later also in high prose and poetry of the Byzantine era (see e.g. Anna Comnene, Alexias 3.9.1.13 Kambylis–Reinsch; Nicetas Choniates, Orationes 14.145.20 van Dieten). The neuter μειράκιον – the predominant form throughout Greek literature of all periods – is preserved in Modern Greek μειράκιο only as a high-register internal borrowing: it is always used ironically to denote a boy carrying connotations of immaturity and frivolity (‘brat’; see also LKN s.v.) and would not be used to denote any boy.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Ar.Byz. frr. 51–4 (B.1), Herenn.Phil. 42 (B.2)

Aristophanes of Byzantium listed μεῖραξ and μειράκιον along with νεανίσκοςνεανίσκος and νεανίαςνεανίας in his discussion of age-names. The sequence of the four terms, however, shows slight discrepancies in the different testimonies – that is, in the excerpts of the Lexeis of MS Par. suppl. gr. 1164Par. suppl. gr. 1164 (B.1) and in the numerous sources that ultimately rely on Alexion’s epitome of Didymus’ Miscellanea, in which Aristophanes was quoted (B.2, with all the parallels listed in the apparatus). In particular, in B.1 μειράκιον precedes the triplet μεῖραξ-νεανίσκος-νεανίας, which appears to indicate an individual of the same age (μειράκιον· εἶτα μεῖράξ τε καὶ νεανίσκος καὶ νεανίας, ὁ αὐτός), with the implication that μειράκιον indicates an individual younger than one who might equally be called μεῖραξ, νεανίσκος or νεανίας. Meanwhile, in B.2 μεῖραξ and μειράκιον are presented as synonyms, followed by the couple νεανίσκος-νεανίας (μειράκιον ἢ μεῖραξ, εἶτα νεανίσκος καὶ νεανίας). Moreover, in [Ammon.] 117 (~ [Ptol.Ascal.] Diff. 60 Palmieri, 404.1–6 Heylbut)[Ammon.] 117 (~ [Ptol.Ascal.] Diff. 60 Palmieri, 404.1–6 Heylbut), the four terms are all separated by εἶτα (μειράκιον, εἶτα μεῖραξ, εἶτα νεανίσκος, εἶτα νεανίας), suggesting that they defined different, progressively older ages (see Palmieri 1988, 87). Finally, Et.Gud. d¹ 307.1–15Et.Gud. d¹ 307.1–15 reads μειράκιον ἢ μεῖραξ, εἶτα νεανίσκος, εἶτα νεανίας.