Eupolis, Heilotes – Chrysoun genos (frr. 147–325). Translation and Commentary 9783946317029

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface
Εἵλωτες (Heilôtes)
Κόλακες (Kolakes)
Λάκωνες (Lakônes)
Μαρικᾶς (Marikas)
Νουμηνίαι (Noumêniai)
Πόλεις (Poleis)
Προσπάλτιοι (Prospaltioi)
Ταξίαρχοι (Taxiarchoi)
Ὑβριστοδίκαι (Hybristodikai)
Φίλοι (Philoi)
Χρυσοῦν γένος (Chrysoun genos)
Bibliography
Indices

Citation preview

Fragmenta Comica Eupolis Heilotes – Chrysoun genos Heilotes Prospaltioi Kolakes Taxiarchoi Lakones Hybristodikai Marikas Philoi Noumeniai Chrysoun genos Poleis

VerlagAntike

RZ_Titelei_FrC_Band_8.3_Eupolis_. 13.11.14 18:36 Seite 1

Fragmenta Comica · Band 8.2

RZ_Titelei_FrC_Band_8.3_Eupolis_. 13.11.14 18:36 Seite 2

Fragmenta Comica (FrC) Kommentierung der Fragmente der griechischen Komödie Projektleitung Bernhard Zimmermann Im Auftrag der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften herausgegeben von Glenn W. Most, Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, S. Douglas Olson, Antonios Rengakos, Alan H. Sommerstein und Bernhard Zimmermann

Band 8.2 · Eupolis frr. 147–325

RZ_Titelei_FrC_Band_8.3_Eupolis_. 13.11.14 18:36 Seite 3

S. Douglas Olson

Eupolis Heilotes – Chrysoun genos (frr. 147–325) Translation and Commentary

VerlagAntike

RZ_Titelei_FrC_Band_8.3_Eupolis_. 13.11.14 18:36 Seite 4

Dieser Band wurde im Rahmen der gemeinsamen Forschungsförderung von Bund und Ländern im Akademienprogramm mit Mitteln des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung und des Ministeriums für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kultur des Landes Baden-Württemberg erarbeitet.

Die Bände der Reihe Fragmenta Comica sind aufgeführt unter: http://www.komfrag.uni-freiburg.de/baende_liste

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

© 2016 Verlag Antike e.K., Heidelberg Satz Martin Janz, Freiburg Einbandgestaltung disegno visuelle kommunikation, Wuppertal Einbandmotiv Dionysos-Theater, mit freundlicher Genehmigung von Bernhard Zimmermann Druck und Bindung AZ Druck und Datentechnik GmbH, Kempten Gedruckt auf säurefreiem und alterungsbeständigem Papier Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-946317-02-9

www.verlag-antike.de

For Piero Totaro and Tiziana Drago

Contents Preface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Εἵλωτες (Heilôtes) (“Helots”)  . . . . . Testimonia  . . . Introduction  . . Fragments  . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

11 11 11 13

Κόλακες (Kolakes) (“Toadies”)  . . . . Testimonia  . . . Introduction  . . Fragments  . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

27 27 33 40

Λάκωνες (Lakônes) (“Spartans”)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

119 119 119

Μαρικᾶς (Marikas) Testimonia  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

121 125 129

Νουµηνίαι (Noumêniai) (“New-moon Days”)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

227

Πόλεις (Poleis) (“Cities”)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

228 228 230

Προσπάλτιοι (Prospaltioi) (“Men of Prospalta”)  . . . Testimonia  . . . . . . . Introduction  . . . . . . Fragments  . . . . . . .

314 314 315 316

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Ταξίαρχοι (Taxiarchoi) (“Taxiarchs”)  . . . . . Testimonia  . . . . . Introduction  . . . . Fragments  . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

365 365 366 372

Ὑβριστοδίκαι (Hybristodikai) (“Obstructers of Justice”)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

435 435

Φίλοι (Philoi) (“Friends”)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

438 438 440

Χρυσοῦν γένος (Chrysoun genos) (“The Golden Race”)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

460 460 462

Bibliography  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

515

Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

549

9

Preface This is the second volume of this edition of the literary remains of the comic poet Eupolis, Volume III (containing a text and commentary on the fragments without play-title) having already appeared in 2014. Volume I, including a general introduction to the poet, should be published sometime in late 2016. The vast majority of the work on Volume II was completed in Freiburg, Germany, during the 2014–2015 academic year. It is again a pleasure to acknowledge the support and input of my friends and academic colleagues there, Stelios Chronopoulos, Christian Orth and Anna Novokhatko, and to thank Bernhard Zimmermann for his overall leadership of the project. I also benefited from a seminar on some of the papyrological material treated in this volume organized for me in Oxford by Marco Perale; my heartfelt thanks to him and to all of those who participated. Finally, I would like to draw special attention to the contributions of Benjamin Millis, who asked me many hard questions, pointed out numerous errors and misjudgments in a whole series of drafts of the manuscript, and generally improved it immensely. I spent most of April 2014 in Bari, Italy, as a guest of the Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, working in the library and interacting with the students and faculty there. This book is dedicated to our wonderful, loving Bari friends Piero and Tiziana. May we spend much more time together in the years to come. Minneapolis, 20 October 2015

11

Εἵλωτες (Heilôtes) (“Helots”)

Testimonia test. dub. i VEΓθM

Σ Ar. Eq. 1225 µιµεῖται δὲ τοὺς εἵλωτας, ὅταν στεφανῶσι τὸν Ποσειδῶνα He imitates the helots when they garland Poseidon

Discussion Neil 1901 on Ar. Eq. 1225; Sommerstein 1980a. 51–3 Context A note on the words ἐγὼ δέ τυ ἐστεφάνιξα κἠδωρησάµαν (“And I garlanded you and gave you gifts”; Doric dialect), which Demos addresses to the Paphlagonian when he finally realizes that his slave has been taking systematic advantage of him. Interpretation Dindorf took the reference—which Holwerda reasonably characterizes as “obscura”—to be not to the helots generally, complaining that Poseidon has failed to honor requests they have made in cultic contexts, sc. at Taenarum, but to Heilôtes (cf. fr. 149). Were that true, the play would date to 425 BCE or earlier.

Introduction Discussion Mueller 1832. 488–90 = 1847. 468–70; Meineke 1839 II.483; Kaibel 1907 p. 1234.37–44; Crusius 1910. 99–101; Wilamowitz 1921. 385–6; Geissler 1925. 27; Schiassi 1944. 22–5; Schmid 1946. 113 n. 9; Storey 1990. 7; Storey 2003. 174–9 Title Heilôtes is presumably called after its chorus, representatives of an enslaved population in Laconia (and perhaps Messenia as well) subject not to individual Spartiates but to the Spartan state itself. For the helots, whose social and political status remains poorly understood due in the first instance to a shortage of ancient evidence, see Cartledge 1979. 160–95; Talbert 1989 (downplaying helot suffering, on the one hand, and their sense of group-identity, on the other); Ducat 1990; Cartledge 1991 (a reply to Talbert 1989); Luraghi 2002 (on the complexities of Messenian identity and the role helots may have played

12

Eupolis

in forming and transmitting it); Luraghi and Alcock 2003 (a collection of essays on the topic); Luraghi 2008. 173–208. Th. 4.41.3, 80.2; 5.14.3 makes it clear that the helots became increasingly restive after the Athenian capture of Pylos and the conversion of the place into an anti-Spartan Messenian stronghold in 425 BCE. Whether this was connected with Eupolis’ choice of them to make up his chorus is impossible to say. No other known comedy is entitled Heilôtes, but cf. Cratinus’ Drapetides, Callias’ Pedêtai and Pherecrates’ Automoloi, on the one hand, and Crates’ and Plato Comicus’ Metoikoi, on the other; and see on Lakônes. Note also Sophocles’ satyr play Epi Tainarôi or (Epitainarioi) Satyroi (frr. 198a–e). Content Nothing is known of the content of Heilôtes beyond the identity of the chorus (see Title) and the fact that it included at least one Doric-speaker as a character (frr. 147; 149; perhaps 151; note also fr. 154). In addition, ancient scholarship seems to have regarded the assignment of the play to Eupolis as problematic (only frr. 147; 150; 154; elsewhere “whoever wrote Heilôtes” or the like), meaning that we cannot be certain that the fragments of the play collected here actually belong to him. See Mueller 1847, who concludes “Ich gestehe, dass ich diese und andere Fragen mir viel leichter vorlegen als lösen kann” (p. 470). Storey 2003. 177–8 combines the notice at Hdt. 9.80 that helots sent to collect Persian spoils after the Battle of Plataea in 479 BCE stole as much of the money and other goods as they could; Thucydides’ observation (1.128.1) that sometime in the early 460s BCE the Spartans executed a group of helots who had sought sanctuary in Poseidon’s temple at Taenarum; what is likely a mention of the precinct of that temple in fr. 149; and the plot of Euripides’ suppliant drama Heracleidae to imagine “a comedy centred around a chorus of cunning slaves deceiving their less intelligent Spartan masters” that featured helots who sought help or safety at Taenarum. Like all such hypotheses, Storey’s is non-falsifiable; because Heilôtes is lost, any assertion about it might be true. But that is no reason to lend the thesis any credence or to treat it as the basis for further research and reconstruction. See further on Kolakes and Taxiarchoi, and cf. the general introduction in Vol. I on the question of reconstructing lost comedies. The following have also been assigned to Heilôtes: frr. 191 (Runkel); 372 (Kock); 398 (Meineke); 416 (Schiassi); 472 (Ahrens); 480 (Runkel). Date If Dindorf’s interpretation of test. dub. i is accepted, Heilôtes must date to between 429 and 425 BCE. The play is otherwise undated.1 1

Storey 2003. 179 (also 174; cf. Storey 1990. 7), following Kaibel, dates the play to

13

Fragments fr. 147 K.-A. (138 K.) αἴ κα γένηται τοῖσδε σάµερον κοπίς A

A

αἴ κα Bergk : καὶ Ath.    τοῖσδε Ath. : τοῦδε Kassel–Austin

if these people should have a kopis today Ath. 4.138e–f Πολέµων δ’ ἐν τῷ παρὰ Ξενοφῶντι κανάθρῳ (fr. 86 Preller) τοῦ παρὰ Λάκωσι καλουµένου δείπνου κοπίδος µνηµονεύοντα Κρατῖνον ἐν Πλούτοις (fr. 175) λέγειν·――. καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Εἵλωσι· ―― But Polemon in his The Wicker Carriage in Xenophon (fr. 86 Preller) (says) that Cratinus in Ploutoi (fr. 175) mentions the dinner the Spartans refer to as a kopis, saying: ――. Also Eupolis in Heilôtes: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

l|lk|l

klkl

Discussion Kock 1880. 294; Crusius 1910. 101; Schiassi 1944. 24; Tammaro 1990–3. 128–9, Colvin 1999. 271–2. Citation context The resumptive ταῦτα µὲν ὁ Πολέµων at Ath. 4.139c shows that all this material, including the description of the kopis quoted in Interpretation and Epich. frr. 34; 109 (which follow), is drawn from Polemon, where it was part of a discussion of the phrase ἀκουσάτω δὲ ὡς ἐπὶ πολιτικοῦ καννάθρου κατῄει εἰς Ἀµύκλας 〈ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτοῦ〉 (“and let him hear how 〈his daughter〉 used to go down to Amyclae in a wicker carriage like that belonging to any average citizen”; of someone who might doubt the simplicity in which the Spartan king Agesilaus lived) at X. Ages. 8.7. Text If Athenaeus’ καί is retained, the line is metrically deficient and the mood of γένηται is unexplained. Bergk’s αἴ κα (= Attic ἐάν) solves both prob429–426 BCE on the ground that the other surviving mentions of Gnesippus come from Chionides, Telecleides and Cratinus; see fr. 148 n. But at fr. 148.3 Gnesippus is referred as a figure from the past (ηὗρε), and the speaker’s complaint is best taken to be that his songs continue to be performed while true classics are ignored, as a consequence of which the reference tells us nothing about when Kolakes was performed.

14

Eupolis

lems and is attested in various Doric dialects at Epich. frr. 32.5; 158.3; Ar. Ach. 732, 835 (a Megarian); Th. 5.77.8 (a Spartan decree); Theoc. 1.4–5 (etc.). Kassel–Austin tacitly emend the paradosis τοῖσδε to τοῦδε (apparently intended as a genitive of place, “in this spot, here”), but the text is insufficiently problematic to require alteration. Interpretation Doric dialect and therefore presumably spoken by a Spartan (or a helot?), like fr. 149 and perhaps fr. 151. “They” (τοῖσδε) might be the Spartans, although in that case one would expect the speaker to know whether a kopis is being celebrated at home (see below), and if a particular kopis were in question, one would expect the definite article. Perhaps someone else—the Athenians?—is in question, and the speaker is using his own indigenous term to refer to a great public meal celebrated in a different place. The festival to which X. Ages. 8.7 refers (see Citation context) is the Hyacinthia, which was celebrated in Amyclae, a Spartan ôba (“village”) 5 km. south of the city of Sparta itself, in the sanctuary of Apollo Amyclaeus; cf. Epilyc. fr. 4 ποττὰν κοπίδ’, οἰῶ, σῶµαι / ἐν Ἀµύκλαισιν· πάρ᾿ Ἀπέλλω / βάρακες πολλοὶ κἄρτοι / καὶ δωµός τις µάλα ἁδύς2 (“I think I’ll go to the kopis in Amyclae; Apollo has many barley-cakes and loaves of bread and a very pleasant house”; Spartan dialect); Philyll. fr. 15; Molpis FGrH 590 F 1 (all preserved at Ath. 4.139f–40b, as part of what is characterized as Didymus’ critical response (Comic Vocabulary fr. 25, p. 44 Schmidt) to Polemon); and Polemon’s extended description of the event at Ath. 4.138d–9c. For the kopis (lit. “cleaver”, but in any case cognate with κόπτω), the feast held on the second day of the festival, cf. Cratin. fr. 175 ἆρ’ ἀληθῶς τοῖς ξένοισιν ἔστιν, ὡς λέγουσ’, ἐκεῖ / πᾶσι τοῖς ἐλθοῦσιν ἐν τῇ κοπίδι θοινᾶσθαι καλῶς; / ἐν δὲ ταῖς λέσχαισι φύσκαι προσπεπατταλευµέναι / κατακρέµανται, τοῖσι πρεσβύταισιν ἀποδάκνειν ὀδάξ; (“Can all foreigners who come there really, as people say, eat well at the kopis? And are sausages nailed up and hanging in the public halls for the old men to gnaw off with their teeth?”); Polycr. FGrH 588 F 1 ap. Ath. 4.139d–f (also from Didymus), who mentions in addition the elaborately decorated wicker chariots (κάν(ν)αθρα) in which Spartan girls rode at the festival;3 and see in general Paus. 3.18.7–19.6; Christesen 2012.

2 3

The text and punctuation of the fragment are disputed; Kassel–Austin place a half-stop before ἐν Ἀµύκλαισιν rather than after it. Hsch. κ 3558 κοπίς· µερίς, δεῖπνον, µάζα, ἄρτος, κρέα, λάχανον ὠµόν, ζωµός, σῦκον, τράγηµα, θέρµος and Phot. κ 945 κοπίδα· Σπαρτιᾶται τὴν θοίνην καὶ τὴν µερίδα must ultimately go back either to Athenaeus or to one of the sources he cites.

Εἵλωτες (fr. 148)

15

fr. 148 K.-A. (139 K.) τὰ Στησιχόρου τε καὶ Ἀλκµᾶνος Σιµωνίδου τε ἀρχαῖον ἀεῖσαι, ὁ δὲ Γνήσιππος ἔστ’ ἀκούειν, ὃς νυκτερίν’ ηὗρε † µοιχοῖς † ἀείσµατ’ ἐκκαλεῖσθαι γυναῖκας ἔχοντας ἰαµβύκην τε καὶ τρίγωνον A

A

2 ἀεῖσαι scripsi : ἀείδειν Ath.    3 ὃς Hermann : κεῖνος Ath.    ηὗρε HerACE A A werden : εὗρε Ath.    µοιχοῖς Ath. : µυχοῖς Hermann   4 ἔχοντας Ath.  : ἔχουσιν Herwerden

To sing the songs of Stesichorus, Alcman and Simonides is old-fashioned, but it’s possible to hear Gnesippus, who discovered night-time ditties † for adulterers † to call forth women, as they hold an iambukê and a trigônos Ath. 14.638e καὶ ὁ τοὺς Εἵλωτας δὲ πεποιηκώς φησιν· ―― And the author of Heilôtes says: ――

Meter A comic dicolon (x D x ith) also attested at frr. 250; 317; Cratin. fr. 360 (direct address of the audience); Pherecr. fr. 71; Ar. V. 1529–37 (pronounced along with the grand dance finale, as Philocleon and the “sons of Carcinus” lead the chorus out of the Theater); adesp. com. fr. 1105.70–103; Diph. fr. 12. See West 1982. 97, and in general fr. 395 n. on Meter.

l lkklkkl l lklklk l lkklkkl l lklkll l lkklk†ll† k lklkll k lkklkkl k lklklk Discussion Herwerden 1855. 24; Kock 1880 I.294–5; Wilamowitz 1921. 385–6; Rose 1942; Maas and Snyder 1989. 150–1; West 1992a. 76; Kugelmeier 1996. 77, 254; Davidson 2000. 41, 48–9; Storey 2003. 178–9; Prauscello 2006; Olson 2007. 181–2 (D13) Citation context One of a number of comic references to Gnesippus (preceded by Chion. fr. 4; followed by Cratin. frr. 104; 17; 276; Telecl. fr. 36) preserved at Ath. 14.638d–9a as part of a larger discussion of lewd poetry of all sorts, and presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. CE (the Epitome manuscripts) preserve only a very abbreviated version of the text of the Eupolis fragment.

16

Eupolis

Text As transmitted, 2 and 3 are unmetrical—i. e. they disagree with the pattern established by 1 and 4, as well as with the other comic passages cited in Meter—but are printed thus without obels by Kassel–Austin, who merely observe “numeri in v. 2 et 3 incerti”. Cf. Prauscello 2006. 64 n. 66, who argues that 2 and 3 are simply in a different meter from 1 and 4. Assuming that γν makes position, as at e. g. Ar. Nu. 169 πρῴην δέ γε γνώµην µεγάλην ἀφῃρέθη, 2 can be corrected by printing the aorist active infinitive ἀεῖσαι for the paradosis present active infinitive ἀείδειν (presumably written under the influence of ἀκούειν at the end of the line). In 3, Hermann’s ὃς for the hypermetrical paradosis κεῖνος solves the problem at the head of the line. Inscriptional evidence shows that verbs in ευnormally augment to ηυ- in the classical period (Threatte 1996. 482–3), hence Herwerden’s ηὗρε for the paradosis εὗρε. Herwerden proposed µυχοῖς for µοιχοῖς, but the word is difficult to construe without a preposition, and µοιχοῖς is likely a superlinear gloss that drove out the more obscure vocabulary item beneath it (e. g. λαγνοῖς or µυχλοῖς (the latter defined µοιχός at Hsch. µ 2004)). In 4, Herwerden proposed ἔχουσιν for the paradosis ἔχοντας in Ath.A, the antecedent of which must be dative † µοιχοῖς † in 3. But the word has simply been drawn into the normal case of a noun that serves as the subject of an infinitive (3 ἐκκαλεῖσθαι), and no emendation is required. Interpretation A lament over an alleged decline in musical tastes, most likely at symposia (see below) but perhaps in the contemporary city generally. For the theme, cf. fr. 398 with n.; Pl. Com. fr. 138 (on a similar supposed decline in standards for dance); Antiph. fr. 207 (from a different generation and thus with a different sense of what appropriate “classics” are). Of the poets listed and implicitly approved of in 1, the first was from the Greek West and composed in Doric; the second was a Spartan; and the third was associated above all else with commemoration of the Greek victories of the Persian War period. The argument is thus perhaps as much political as poetic, in that it recalls an idealized Panhellenic past and contrasts it with a much less satisfactory present; cf. Ar. Lys. 1128–34, 1137–46, 1149–56. The meter and content suggest direct address of the audience, most likely in a parabasis; cf. Prauscello 2006. 64–5. If so, it is striking that the Helots who made up the chorus do not use Doric dialect.4 Nothing is known of Gnesippus (PAA 279680; TrGF 27; Stephanis 1988 #556) beyond what the fragments preserved by Athenaeus and his com-

4

Prauscello 2006. 65 suggests that this may be “part of a broader strategy of [the chorus] rejecting its own ethnic and cultural identity”, which is too subtle by half.

Εἵλωτες (fr. 148)

17

ments on them tell us, which is that he was a παιγνιαγράφος τῆς ἱλαρᾶς µούσης (“author of light verse of a humorous character”) and that according to Telecleides (fr. 36) he περὶ µοιχείας ἀναστρέφεσθαι (“devoted himself to seducing women”; presumably a comment on the content of his poetry as also interpreted by Eupolis). Athenaeus—i. e. Athenaeus’ source—implicitly identifies Gnesippus with the tragic poet (PAA 279690) referred to only as “Cleomachus’ son” at Cratin. frr. 17; 276. The basis for this identification is obscure, but the name is extremely rare (only one other example in LGPN II, a mercenary soldier mentioned at X. An. 7.3.28). See in general Davidson 2000 (speculative); Hordern 2003; Prauscello 2006 (the latter two both disassembling much of Davidson’s thesis). For informal performances of lyric and elegiac poetry (including lyric sections from tragedy and comedy) at dinner parties and symposia, e. g. fr. 395.2 (Stesichorus); Pherecr. fr. 162.10–12 (Theognis); Ar. Eq. 529–30, quoting Cratin. fr. 70; V. 1222–48 (Alcaeus and several skolia) with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Amips. fr. 21 (a skolion); Lissarrague 1990a. 123–39; Csapo and Miller 1991. 381–2 (singers of lyric on Attic red-figure vases); Kugelmeier 1996. 72–82. 1 Στησιχόρου For the lyric poet Stesichorus of Himera (on the north coast of Sicily), who seems to date to the first half of the 6th century BCE, see in general fr. 395.2 n.; Hutchinson 2001. 113–19; Finglass, in Davies and Finglass 2014. 1–91; and the essays collected in Finglass and Kelly 2015. 325 fragments of his poems are preserved, mostly tiny bits and pieces of lines from the Oxyrhynchus papyri. The mention of him here = PMG 276(b). Ἀλκµᾶνος For the lyric poet Alcman of Sparta, probably active in the late 7th century BCE, see in general Hutchinson 2001. 71–6 (with older bibliography). 182 fragments of his poems are preserved (PMG 1–177; SLG 1–5). Aristophanes fr. 590.24–6 (a papyrus commentary) alleges a connection to one of his poems (SLG 2) in an unidentified comedy. Σιµωνίδου For Simonides of Ceos, who wrote both lyric and elegiac poetry and dates to the second half of the 6th century BCE and the first half of the 5th, see in general Slater 1972; West 1993; Rutherford 2001 (the latter two on the “New Simonides”); Hutchinson 2001. 285–91. Evaluation of the character of his poetry (fragments collected at PMG 506–653; IEG II.114–37; FGE 684–1039) is complicated by the fact that many of the epigrams in particular are unlikely to be authentic; see in general Petrovic 2007. 25–51. Simonides’ poetry is quoted or referenced in comedy also at Ar. Eq. 406 (PMG 512); Nu.

18

Eupolis

1356 (PMG 507), 1362; V. 1410–11; Pax 697–9 with Olson 1998 ad loc., 736–7 (IEG fr. 86); and perhaps Av. 682 (PMG 947b; see Dunbar 1995 ad loc.).5 2 ἀρχαῖον Also used in a pejorative sense at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 228; Ar. Nu. 915, 984, 1357 (of singing at a symposium), 1469; V. 1336; Pl. 323; fr. 30; Isoc. 4.30; Pl. Euthyd. 295c. ὁ … Γνήσιππος ἔστ’ ἀκούειν Literally “Gnesippus is [available] to hear”, i. e. “for hearing”;6 cf. Ar. Th. 800 βάσανός τε πάρεστιν ἰδέσθαι; Ephipp. fr. 15.5 κἂν κάραβός τις ᾖ λαβεῖν; A. Pers. 419 θάλασσα δ’ οὐκέτ’ ἦν ἰδεῖν; Rose 1942. 3–4 A slanderous expansion of the mention of Gnesippus in 2, the point being that such dubious material is now sung in place of the classics listed in 1–2. The idea is apparently that adulterers stand in the street outside individual houses, individually holding either an iambukê or a trigônon, and entice women to come outside to them. The passage thus combines more or less realistic fears about wives and daughters sneaking into the street to meet their boyfriends (cf. Ar. Pax 979–85 with Olson 1998 ad loc.) with the artistic representation of such events in paraclausithyra (for which, cf. Ar. Ec. 952–75 with Olson 1988; Cummings 2001; Cummings 2006; Prauscello 2006)—which are likely what Gnesippus wrote. 3 νυκτερίν(α) “(appropriate for) night-time”; colloquial late 5th-century vocabulary, attested in comedy (also Ar. Ach. 1163; Eq. 477; V. 2) and prose (e. g. Hp. Epid. I 4 = 2.618.8 Littré; Th. 4.128.4; X. HG 5.4.10; Pl. Sph. 220d), but absent from elevated poetry. Rutherford 1881. 124–5 discusses the formation and compares the even more emphatically prosaic ἡµερινός and χειµερινός. ηὗρε For the theme of the πρῶτος εὑρετής (“inventor”), see fr. 385.3 n. ἀείσµατ(α) First attested in this form here and at Hdt. 2.79.1, where the word is used of the Linos-song and similarly suggests sub-literary work (contrast the elevated ἀοιδή); in the contracted form ᾆσµα at Ar. Nu. 333 in the compound ᾀσµατοκάµπτας (contemptuous); Alex. fr. 19.2 (dismissive); and common in Plato (e. g. Prt. 339c, 342a). ἐκκαλεῖσθαι is middle, “to call forth to themselves”. 4 An ἰαµβύκη is a harp of some sort; cf. Maas and Snyder 1989. 184; West 1992a. 75–7. According to Phillis of Delos (undated) in his On Music (fr. 2, FHG iv.476 ap. Ath. 14.636b), “they referred to the instruments played when they sang iambic poetry as iambukes”. In fact, this a loan word from some Eastern language, an alternative form of which is σαµβύκη, as at e. g. Arist. Pol. 1341b1; Aristox. fr. 97 Wehrli (in both cases mentioned along with the τρίγωνον). Cf. σαµβυκίστρια (“girl who plays a sambukê”, sc. as hired entertainment at a 5 6

The Simonides mentioned at Pherecr. fr. 162.12 (quoting Theognis) is not the poet. Not “Gnesippus is the one I want to hear!” (Rusten 2011. 244).

Εἵλωτες (fr. 149)

19

party) at Philem. fr. 45.5; Ath. 14.637b; Poll. 4.59; Hsch. ι 49 ~ Phot. ι 6 = Suda ι 29; Suda σ 73; Masson 1967. 91–3. τρίγωνον Literally “three-corner”, another type of harp, mentioned also at fr. 88.2; Pherecr. fr. 47; Ar. fr. 255; Pl. Com. fr. 71.13 (a female entertainer at a symposium holds a trigônos and sings an “Ionian”—i. e. lascivious—song as she plays it); S. frr. 239; 412.1; Diog. Trag. TrGF 45 F 1.9; Pl. R. 399c; Maas and Snyder 1989. 150–1; West 1992a. 72, 73, 76–7.

fr. 149 K.-A. (140 K.) τέµενος Ποτειδᾶ ποντίω Ποτειδᾶ Kock : Ποτιδᾶ codd.

precinct of Poseidon god of the sea [Hdn.] Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 917.1–5 εἴρηται δὲ καὶ Ποτιδᾶς ὡς Κερκιδᾶς· ἔνθεν αἰτιατικὴ ἐν Κύκλωπι (Epich. fr. 70)· ――. Σώφρων (fr. 125) τε τὴν κλητικὴν ἔφη· ――. ὁ δὲ τοὺς Εἵλωτας 〈ποιήσας〉 (addidi) τὴν γενικήν φησι· ―― Potidas is also said, like Kerkidas; whence the accusative in Kyklôps (Epich. fr. 70): ――. Sophron (fr. 125) too uses the vocative: ――. And the 〈author of〉 (my supplement) the Heilôtes uses the genitive: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g.

rlkl

l|lkl 〈llkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.482–3; Hecker 1850; Crusius 1910. 100; Colvin 1999. 272 Citation context From a note on Doric forms of the divine name Ποσειδῶν. Interpretation Spoken by a Spartan (or a Spartan-speaking helot?), like fr. 147. For the Laconian forms, see Colvin. A τέµενος (cognate with τέµνω, “cut”; attested already in Mycenean) is a portion of land “cut out” for a deity, king or the like (e. g. Ar. Lys. 482, of the Acropolis; Ra. 219b, of Dionysus’ sanctuary ἐν Λίµναις; Il. 2.696 ∆ήµητρος τέµενος, “Demeter’s temenos”; 18.550 τέµενος βασιλήϊον, “royal temenos”; Asius fr. 13.2, p. 130 Bernabé Ἥρης τέµενος, “temenos of Hera”; Pi. P. 2.2 τέµενος Ἄρεος, “temenos of Ares”; N. 6.41 Ποσειδάνιον … τέµενος, “temenos of Poseidon”); see in general Latte 1934; Papazarkadas 2011. 2–13 et passim. As

20

Eupolis

Meineke saw, the title of the play, the Doric dialect and the connection with Poseidon combine to suggest a reference to the god’s sanctuary at Taenarum (modern Cape Matapan), located at the extreme southern tip of the Mani peninsula (Ar. Ach. 510 ὁ Ποσειδῶν, οὑπὶ Ταινάρῳ θεός, “Poseidon, the god at Taenarum”; Pi. P. 4.44–5; Th. 1.128.1, 133; Paus. 3.25.4–8; Str. 8.363; cf. Ar. Ra. 187 and Men. fr. 669 (an entrance to the Underworld thought to be located there; see Hecat. FGrH 1 F 27); Hdt. 1.24.6, 8 (the dolphin leaves Arion on dry land there, and Herodotus himself sees a statue of them); E. Cyc. 292 ἱερᾶς … Ταινάρου, “of sacred Taenarum”; Woodward 1906–7. 249–52; Waterhouse and Hope-Simpson 1961. 123–4). Sometime in the early 460s BCE, the Spartans removed a number of helot suppliants (presumably survivors of a failed revolt) from the temple there and executed them, and the massive earthquake that followed was blamed by them on Poseidon’s wrath for their desecration of his shrine (esp. Th. 1.128.1; Paus. 4.24.5–6; cf. Ar. Lys. 1141–2 with Henderson 1987a on 1137–42). There appears to be no evidence that the place functioned routinely as a sanctuary for helots, as opposed to the possibility that—like any sacred complex—it might do so occasionally. For Poseidon as πόντιος (high-style vocabulary), e. g. Ar. Th. 322 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; hHom. 22.3; Pi. Pae. 9.47; A. fr. **78a.18; E. Hel. 1585.

fr. 150 K.-A. (141 K.) ὀβολὸν τὸν καλλιχέλωνον the fair-turtled obol Poll. 9.74 καὶ µὴν τὸ Πελοποννησίων νόµισµα χελώνην τινὲς ἠξίουν καλεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ τυπώµατος· ὅθεν ἡ µὲν παροιµία τὰν ἀρετὰν καὶ τὰν σοφίαν νικᾶντι χελῶναι (Apostol. 12.31b), ἐν δὲ τοῖς Εὐπόλιδος Εἵλωσιν εἴρηται· ―― In fact some people thought it right to call Peloponnesian money a chelônê from the figure stamped into it; whence, on the one hand, the proverb turtles overcome virtue and wisdom (Apostol. 12.31b) and, on the other hand, it is said in Eupolis’ Heilôtes: ――

Meter If all three words printed above are given to Eupolis (see Text), dactylic hexameter, e. g. 〈ly ly l〉|r ll lr lk

Εἵλωτες (fr. 150)

21

Discussion Schiassi 1944. 24; Kaibel ap. K.-A. Citation context From a discussion of words for various types of coins. Hsch. κ 495 καλλιχέλωνος· ὁ ὀβολός. εἶχε γὰρ τὸ νόµισµα χελώνην ἐπικεχαραγµένην (“fair-tortoised: an obol; for the coin had a turtle impressed into it”); χ 343 χελώνη· … καὶ 〈νόµισµα〉 Πελοποννησιακόν (“turtle: … also a Peloponnesian 〈coin〉”) are derived from the same source, most likely a lost Atticist lexicographer. Text Kaibel raised the possibility that the words ὀβολὸν τόν might not be part of the quotation of Eupolis, who will then simply have used the adjective καλλιχέλωνος. In that case, however, one might have expected καλλιχέλωνον τὸν ὀβολόν (“Eupolis used ‘fair-turtled’ to refer to an obol”). Interpretation The references in Pollux and Hesychius to Aeginetan coins (which bore sea-turtles on their obverse) as “Peloponnesian” money tout court are generally taken to mean that they were extremely popular in the Peloponnese, although they seem not to have been struck during the Peloponnesian War years, the Aeginetans having been expelled in 431 BCE and replaced by Athenian kleruchs. The tone of the adjective is thus perhaps nostalgic, or (given the meter) this may be part of a mock oracle. For Aeginetan coins, cf. Diph. fr. 67.11–13; and see in general Head 1911. 394–8; Holloway 1971; Kroll and Waggoner 1984. 335–9. Kaibel suggested that καλλιχέλωνος (a nonce-word attested nowhere else; cf. Sarati 1996. 117) is an imitation of Homeric Καλλικολώνης (the name of a hill outside Troy), forms of which appear at line end at Il. 20.53, 151. As the supposed allusion has no obvious point, it is easier to think that this is merely a mock-epic adjective in καλλι- modeled on e. g. καλλιπάρῃος (at line end at Il. 1.143 etc.), καλλιγύναικος (at line end at Il. 2.683, etc.) and καλλικόµοιος (at line end at Il. 9.449, etc.). For allusions to or echoes of Homer in comedy, e. g. fr. 174.3 with n.; Cratin. fr. 352 (~ Il. 14.291); Pherecr. fr. 159.1 (~ Il. 9.270–1); Hermipp. fr. 63; and see the list of passages assembled at Olson 2007. 158. For χελώνη, used of any tortoise or turtle, see fr. 317 n.

22

Eupolis

fr. 151 K.-A. (142 K.) [Hdn.] Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 933.1–4 ἀθροῦν. οὐδὲν εἰς ουν λήγει ἐπίρρηµα, ἀλλὰ µόνον τὸ ἀθροῦν, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπεκτάσεσι ποιητικαῖς κέχρηται καὶ παραθέσει ἄρθρου ἑνικοῦ καὶ πληθυντικοῦ. παραιτοῦµαι δὲ τὸ † αἰσχοῦν †, ὃ εἴρηται παρὰ τῷ τοὺς Εἵλωτας † α ί µ η ν ἀ λ λ ὰ µ ι σ χ ο ῦ ν † κ α θ ή µ ε ν ο ι . ἐπεὶ ὀνοµατικά ἐστι lac. intra ἀθροῦν et ὅπερ indic. Ahrens athroun. No adverb ends in -oun except athroun, which is used with poetic lengthenings and with juxtaposition of a singular and a plural article. I exclude the word † aischoun †, which is used in the poet responsible for Heilôtes † a i m ê n † b u t s i t t i n g † m i s c h o u n †, since these are nominal

Discussion Storey 2003. 178 Citation context What appears to be parallel material is preserved at Theognost. 982 (An.Ox. II p. 162.19–20) εἰς υν λῆγον ἐπίρρηµα οὐδέν ἐστιν, εἰ µὴ τὸ βίσχυν βαρύτονον µόνον ὄν (“No adverb ends in -un except biskun, which is the only one with a recessive accent”; taken over by Lentz as Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 509.21); Hsch. β 638 βίσχυν· ἰσχὺν σφόδρα † ὀλίγον. Λάκωνες (“bischun: strength very much † little. Spartans”) (both cited by Kassel–Austin in their apparatus). Text The text is corrupt and unmetrical. By citing Theognostus and Hesychius, Kassel–Austin implicitly suggest reading βίσχυν for † µισχοῦν † (see Interpretation). Interpretation If βίσχυν is correct and Hesychius (see Citation context) rightly identifies the word as Laconian, the speaker is presumably either a Spartan or one of the eponymous helots. Cf. frr. 147; 149 (both Spartan dialect).

fr. 152 K.-A. (145 K.) Erot. η 4 ἡ δ ύ σ µ α σ ι · τοῖς χλωροῖς καὶ ξηροῖς ἀρτύµασι. Ἀττικὴ δὲ ἡ λέξις, ὡς καὶ A Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν Ἱππεῦσι (678) καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Εἱλώταις (Canter : κλωταῖς Erot. : HLMO κλοταῖς Erot. ) καὶ Μένανδρος ἐν ∆αρδάνῳ (fr. 104) s e a s o n i n g s : green and dried spices. The word is Attic, as also Aristophanes in A HLMO Knights (678) and Eupolis in Heilôtes (Canter : klôtai Erot. : klotai Erot. ) and Menander in Dardanos (fr. 104)

Εἵλωτες (fr. 152)

23

Citation context Originally a gloss on Hp. Salubr. 4 = 6.76.15–17 Littré τὰ ὄψα σκευάζειν σησάµοισιν ἢ ἡδύσµασι καὶ τοῖσιν ἄλλοισι τοῖσι τοιουτοτρόποισιν (“and to prepare their main dishes with sesame seed or seasonings and other items of this sort”) drawn from an Atticist lexicographer. Cf. Poll. 6.13 τὰ δ’ ἀρτύµατα ἡδύσµατα (“seasonings are spices”); Hsch. η 156 ἡδύσµατα· ἀρτύµατα (“seasonings: spices”); Σ Pl. R. 404c ἡδυσµάτων. ἀρτυµάτων (“seasonings: spices”; taken by Greene to be drawn from Diogenianus). Antiatt. p. 82.32 disputes the claim: ἀρτύµατα· οὐχ ἡδύσµατα. Σοφοκλῆς Φαίαξιν7 (“spices: not seasonings. Sophocles in Phaiakes”). Heilôtes is the only known Eupolidean title into which the confused paradosis κλωταῖς/κλοταῖς (whence Meineke’s Klopai, “Thefts”) can be easily corrected. Interpretation ἡδύσµατα is attested widely in both Attic comedy (also e. g. Pherecr. fr. 157.2; Telecl. fr. 1.11; Ar. V. 496, 499; Dionys. Com. fr. 2.16; Antiph. fr. 181.3; cf. fr. 99.49 with n.) and prose (e. g. X. Mem. 3.14.5; Pl. R. 332d), but is not found in tragedy. ἀρτύµατα, on the other hand, is attested in the tragic poets (A. fr. 306; S. frr. *328.1; *675; 709; perhaps all satyr play, making it clear that this is a low-style idea regardless of the register to which the word itself belongs), but in comedy only at Anaxipp. fr. 1.5, 8; occasionally in Hippocrates (Aff. 43 = 6.252.12 Littré; Int. 49, 51 = 7.290.16, 296.7 Littré); and never in Attic prose. Although ἡδύσµατα is found in Hippocrates as well (also Mul. I 37 = 8.90.8 Littré; Mul. II 202 = 8.386.17 Littré), therefore, Erotian would appear to be correct that the word has a distinctly colloquial Attic character. For what Ath. 2.68a explicitly identifies as a list of ἀρτύµατα, see Antiph. fr. 140 “a raisin, salt, grape-syrup, silphium, cheese, thyme, sesame, soda ash, cumin, oregano, chopped herbs, vinegar, olives, greens for a sour sauce, a caper, eggs, preserved fish, cress, fig leaves, rennet”; and cf. Alex. frr. 132.3–8; 179.4–7; Anaxipp. fr. 1.7–8; adesp. com. fr. 1073.13–14. Ath. 2.67f–8c and Poll. 6.65–8 preserve related discussions.

7

Probably a reference to S. fr. *675 καὶ βορᾶς ἀρτύµατα ap. Ath. 2.67f, which Radt assigned to Phaiakes on the basis of the note in the Antiatticist.

24

Eupolis

fr. 153 K.-A. (143 K.) Ath. 9.400b–c (λ α γ ώ ς , λαγός) δεῖ δὲ ὀξυτονεῖν τὴν λέξιν, ἐπειδὴ τὰ εἰς ος λήγοντα τῶν ὀνοµάτων ὁµότονά ἐστι, κἂν µεταληφθῇ εἰς τὸ ω παρ’ Ἀττικοῖς … οὕτως δ’ ἐχρήσατο τῷ ὀνόµατι καὶ Ἐπίχαρµος (fr. 53.1) καὶ Ἡρόδοτος (1.123.4, 124.1) καὶ ὁ τοὺς Εἵλωτας ποιήσας (l a g ô s, lagos, “hare”) One ought to accent the word with an acute on the final syllable, since nouns that end in -os have the same accent even if [the omicron] is changed to omega in Attic authors … Epicharmus (fr. 53.1), Herodotus (1.123.4, 124.1) and the author of Heilôtes handled the noun in this way

Discussion Schiassi 1944. 24 Citation context From a discussion of the accentuation of the word, traced by Athenaeus (9.400a) to Tryphon (fr. 19 Velsen), that also preserves fr. 174.2–3 (n.). Interpretation For the hare—a delicacy, although Eupolis might just as easily have been referring e. g. to its speed in flight (e. g. Posidipp. fr. 28.9) or its status as a standard hunting quarry (e. g. X. Cyn. 5; cf. fr. 339 n.)—see fr. 174.2 (where the word is again spelled with omega; part of a banquet catalogue) with n. λαγώς is traditionally understood as a bahuvrihi compound meaning “long ear”. For the variation in the form, see Schwyzer 1939 I.557–8.

fr. 154 K.-A. Zenob. Ath. 3.61 Λ ι µ ο δ ω ρ ι ε ῖ ς · µέµνηται ταύτης (sc. τῆς παροιµίας) Εὔπολις ἐν Εἵλωσιν. Αἰσχρίων δέ φησιν ὁ Βυζάντιος ὡς σιτοδείας ποτὲ γενοµένης ἐν Πελοπον〈ν〉ήσῳ ἐφόδιά τινες λαβόντες ἀπῆραν· πλανωµένους δὲ αὐτοὺς ὑπεδέξατο ἡ ἐν Ῥόδῳ τρίπολις. ἐκλήθησαν δὲ διὰ τοῦτο Λιµοδωριεῖς Εἵλωσιν. Αἰσχρίων Kugéas : ἰλωσίναις· χρίων A F a m i n e - D o r i a n s : Eupolis mentions this (proverb) in Heilôtes. Aeschrion of Byzantium says that at one point when there was a famine in the Peloponnesus, some people took travel-provisions and left; and the tripolis in Rhodes took them in in the course of their wanderings. On this account they were called Famine-Dorians

Meter Probably iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlkl xlk〉|l klkl

Εἵλωτες (fr. 154)

25

Discussion Crusius 1910. 101; Storey 2003. 178 Citation context From a collection of proverbs; manuscript A alone preserves the references to Eupolis and Aeschrion. Parallel material at [Plu.] Par. Alex. 1.34 (CPG I.326) is likely drawn from Seleucus of Alexandria (1st century CE; for his Περὶ τῶν παρ’ Ἀλεξανδρεῦσι παροιµιῶν, see Suda σ 200); cf. Hsch. λ 1041 Λιµοδωριεῖς· οὕτως ἐκλήθησαν οἱ ἀπὸ Πελοποννήσου, ἀφορίας χαλεπῆς ἐκεῖ γενοµένης, ἀποικισθέντες διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ κατοικήσαντες περὶ Ῥόδον καὶ Κνίδον. ∆ίδυµος δὲ τοὺς περὶ τὸ Κυτίνιον κατοικοῦντας οὕτως λέγεσθαι, διὰ τὸ λιµώττειν καὶ µοχθηρὰν ἔχειν ταύτην (“Famine-Dorians: this was the name for the people from the Peloponnesus who, when a difficult crop-failure took place there, emigrated for this reason and settled around Rhodes and Knidos. But Didymus says that those who settled around Kytinion are referred to in this way, because they are hungry and inhabit this miserable (place)”, where Didymus (Comic Vocabulary fr. 5, p. 34 Schmidt = On Proverbs fr. 4, pp. 397–8 Schmidt) is cited for a different opinion as to the place referred to); and the abbreviated version of the same note at Phot. λ 314 = Suda λ 555 Λιµοδωριεῖς· Πελοποννησίων οἱ διὰ λιµὸν µετοικήσαντες εἰς Ῥόδον καὶ Κνίδον (“Famine-Dorians: the Peloponnesians who moved to Rhodes and Knidos on account of famine”). Interpretation The Rhodian tripolis consisted of Lindos (IACP #997), Ialysos (IACP #995) and Kamiros (IACP #996); Knidos (mentioned by Hesychius in his more expansive description of the final destination of the Famine-Dorian refugees) was located on the coast of Asia Minor just north of Rhodes, which controlled it at times. Kytinion (IACP #392), to which Didymus refers, on the other hand, was located in Doris in central Greece and was a member of another Dorian tripolis (Andron FGrH 10 F 16a; cf. Th. 1.107.2), and it is here that [Scylax] Periplus 62.1 too locates οἱ Λιµοδωριεῖς καλούµενοι (“the socalled Famine-Dorians”). But the claim that Eupolis used the name as a proverb likely means in any case that he mocked a separate group of Dorians—the eponyous Heilôtes? the Megarians (cf. Ar. Ach. 532–5, 729–817)?—for their supposed hunger. Cf. fr. 435 n. for similar abusive terms containing a national or ethnic name. Aischrion of Byzantium is otherwise unknown.

26

Eupolis

fr. 155 K.-A. (144 K.) Poll. 10.98 καὶ τάγηνον δέ. ἀλλὰ µὴν καὶ τ ή γ α ν ο ν ἂν ἔχοις εὑρεῖν εἰρηµένον ἐν Εἵλωσιν Εὐπόλιδος, καὶ ἐν Τηλεκλείδου Ἀψευδέσιν (fr. 11)· ―― As well as a tagênon (skillet), although you could also find it in the form t ê g a n o n in Eupolis’ Heilôtes, and in Telecleides’ Apseudeis (fr. 11): ――

Discussion Schiassi 1944. 24; Sarati 1996. 109–10 Citation context From a catalogue of terms for cooking utensils that also includes fr. 21. Interpretation For the τάγηνον or τήγανον (“skillet”), cf. frr. [190] n.; 374 n.; 385.1; and the ταγηνίας (“skillet-cake”; see Phot. τ 4 = Synag. τ 2 for an abbreviated recipe) mentioned at e. g. Magnes fr. 2.1; Cratin. fr. 130; Metag. fr. 6.8; Nicopho fr. 6.3. The grammarians routinely attempt to distinguish between the two forms of the word, arguing that τάγηνον is Attic, although without agreeing on who uses τήγανον instead (Phryn. PS p. 112.11 τάγηνον οἱ Ἀττικοί· τήγανον οἱ ∆ωριεῖς, “Attic-speakers [use] tagênon; Doric-speakers [use] têganon”; Moer. τ 3 τάγηνον Ἀττικοί· τήγανον Ἕλληνες, “Attic-speakers [use] tagênon; Greeks generally [use] têganon”; Phot. τ 3 τάγηνον· τοῦτο Ἰώνων τινὲς τήγανον λέγουσιν, “tagênon: some of the Ionians pronounce this têganon”; cf. Hsch. τ 18). But τήγανον is attested also at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 109.1; Philonid. fr. 2; Nicostr. Com. fr. 6.2), and the difference may simply be a matter of occasional metrical convenience. See Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 34.4 (Text).

27

Κόλακες (Kolakes) (“Toadies”)

Testimonia test. i Hyp. Ar. Pax III.39–42 ἐνίκησε δὲ τῷ δράµατι ὁ ποιητὴς ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀλκαίου (422/1 BCE) ἐν ἄστει. πρῶτος Εὔπολις Κόλαξι, δεύτερος Ἀριστοφάνης Εἰρήνῃ, τρίτος Λεύκων Φράτορσι. τὸ δὲ δρᾶµα ὑπεκρίνατο Ἀπολλόδωρος † ἡνίκα ἑρµῆν λοιοκρότης †. τῷ δράµατι ὁ ποιητὴς fort. delenda The poet took a prize with the play in the archonship of Alcaeus (422/1 BCE) at the City Dionysia.8 Eupolis was first with Kolakes, Aristophanes was second with Peace, Leuco was third with Phratores. Apollodorus acted the play † when Hermes loiokrotês †

Discussion Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 61–5; Olson 2000. 65–6 Context A didascalic report—presumably drawn ultimately from official city records—preserved at the end of a long, plodding hypothesis to Aristophanes’ Peace (in manuscript V only) that otherwise consists mostly of plot summary and a few superficial remarks on the action. Text Aristophanes did not take the prize with Peace but instead placed second, and τῷ δράµατι ὁ ποιητής ought accordingly perhaps to be expelled as an addition by a confused copyist, along with the stop after ἐν ἄστει, allowing the text to read “Eupolis placed first with Kolakes”.

test. ii Herodicus ap. Ath. 5.218b–c ὁ ἐν τῷ Πρωταγόρᾳ διάλογος, µετὰ τὴν Ἱππονίκου τελευτὴν γενόµενος παρειληφότος ἤδη τὴν οὐσίαν Καλλίου, τοῦ Πρωταγόρου 〈µέµνηται〉 παραγεγονότος τὸ δεύτερον οὐ πολλαῖς πρότερον ἡµέραις (309c–d). ὁ δ’ Ἱππόνικος ἐπὶ

8

Not simply “in the city” (Rusten 2011. 244).

28

Eupolis µὲν Εὐθυδήµου ἄρχοντος (431/0 BCE) στρατηγῶν παρατέτακται µετὰ Νικίου πρὸς Ταναγραίους καὶ τοὺς παραβοηθοῦντας Βοιωτῶν καὶ τῇ µάχῃ νενίκηκε. τέθνηκε δὲ πρὸ τῆς ἐπ’ Ἀλκαίου (422/1 BCE) διδασκαλίας τῶν Εὐπόλιδος Κολάκων οὐ πολλῷ χρόνῳ κατὰ τὸ εἰκός· πρόσφατον γάρ τινα τοῦ Καλλίου τὴν παράληψιν τῆς οὐσίας ἐµφαίνει τὸ δρᾶµα. ἐν οὖν τούτῳ τῷ δράµατι Εὔπολις τὸν Πρωταγόραν ὡς ἐπιδηµοῦντα εἰσάγει, Ἀµειψίας δ’ ἐν τῷ Κόννῳ (test. ii) δύο πρότερον ἔτεσιν διδαχθέντι οὐ καταριθµεῖ αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ τῶν φροντιστῶν χορῷ. δῆλον οὖν ὡς µεταξὺ τούτων τῶν χρόνων παραγέγονεν The conversation in the Protagoras, which takes place after Hipponicus’ death, when Callias has already inherited the property, refers to Protagoras as having arrived for a second time only a few days earlier (309c–d). But Hipponicus was general in the archonship of Euthydemus (431/0 BCE) and was stationed along with Nicias opposite the men of Tanagra and the other Boeotians who came to their assistance, and he won the battle.9 He seemingly died shortly before the performance of Eupolis’ Kolakes in the archonship of Alcaeus (422/1 BCE), for the play makes it clear that Callias’ inheritance of the property is a recent event. In this play, then, Eupolis brings Protagoras on as being in town, whereas Amipsias in his Konnos (test. ii), staged two years earlier, does not include him in his chorus of thinkers. It is thus clear that he arrived between those dates Herodicus ap. Ath. 11.506f ὁ δὲ καλὸς αὐτοῦ Πρωταγόρας πρὸς τῷ καταδροµὴν ἔχειν πολλῶν ποιητῶν καὶ σοφῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκθεατριζόµενον ἔχει καὶ τὸν Καλλίου βίον µᾶλλον τῶν Εὐπόλιδος Κολάκων But [Plato’s] lovely Protagoras, in addition to disparaging numerous poets and other clever men, makes more of a theatrical spectacle of Callias’ lifestyle than Eupolis’ Kolakes does

Discussion Napolitano 2012. 109–12 Context Two separate fragments of Herodicus’ devastating attack on Plato’s chronological accuracy (ap. Ath. 5.218b–c) and moral and social decency (ap. Ath. 11.506f), from his To the Man Who Likes Socrates. Interpretation Although Herodicus may (or may not) have been the first to note chronological problems with the Protagoras, he was certainly not the last. In particular, Paralos and Xanthippos the sons of Pericles (d. 430 BCE; see frr. 110 n.; 192.158–69 n.) are still alive when the conversation takes place (Prt. 315a), and Alcibiades is a young man just getting a beard (309a–b), which puts the action in the late 430s BCE or so; but Callias clearly has full control of 9

In 426 BCE.

Κόλακες (test. iii)

29

the house, to the extent that he has cleared out a space that Hipponicus once used as a storeroom to house Prodicus (Prt. 315d), while Protagoras claims to have seen Pherecrates’ Agrioi (test. ii; Prt. 327d), which we know—once again from Herodicus, citing what look to be official didascalic records—was staged in 420 BCE (Agrioi test. i). Hippocrates (Socrates’ initial interlocutor in the dialogue) mentions another visit of Protagoras to Athens, seemingly 10–15 years earlier, when Hippocrates was a boy (Prt. 310e), and the only possible solution appears to be that there were in fact two visits, one in the late 430s BCE and another in the late 420s BCE; that Protagoras came to Callias’ house on his second visit; and that Plato has deliberately run the two together, in the process getting the date of Agrioi (which Protagoras could not in fact have seen onstage yet) slightly wrong. See Walsh 1984, esp. 104. The most natural reading of εἰσάγει would seem to be that Protagoras was a character in Eupolis’ play and not just someone mentioned in it (frr. 157a/b–8), but the verb need not imply so much and may simply mean “introduce, refer to”, as at e. g. ΣR Ar. Eq. 150 ἀλλαντοπώλην Ἀγοράκριτον εἰσάγει κατὰ παιδιάν (“he refers to the Sausage-seller as Agorakritos as a joke”); cf. fr. 137 with n.; Napolitano 2012. 110–12 (who is a priori disposed to accept the thesis that Protagoras was a character in Kolakes, even as he concedes the fragility of the evidence).

test. iii VM9ΓM

Σ Ar. Av. 283 ὁ Ἱππονίκου Καλλίας ἐδόκει τὰ πατρῷα διεσπαρκέναι [εἰς ἀσέλγειαν add. codd. : del. Renkema]. κωµῳδεῖται δὲ εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ ὡς ληφθεὶς µοιχεύων ἀπέτισε χρήµατα. κεκωµῴδηκε δὲ αὐτὸν ἱκανῶς Εὔπολις ἐν τοῖς Κόλαξι Callias the son of Hipponicus seemed to have dissipated his inheritance [“on wanton behavior” add. manuscripts : del. Renkema]. And he is mocked for his wantonness and for the fact that he was caught in adultery and had to pay money to get himself off. And Eupolis makes considerable fun of him in his Kolakes

Discussion Dunbar 1995. 235–6 Context A gloss on Ar. Av. 283–4, where the Hoopoe’s reference to “Hipponicus the son of Callias, and Callias the son of Hipponicus” leads Euelpides to comment “This Callias is actually a bird; since he’s losing his feathers”. ΣV∆ Luc. p. 83.25–7 (part of test. vi, where see n.) is a more specific version of some of the same material.

30

Eupolis

Interpretation Kassel–Austin compare Ath. 4.169a οἶδα δὲ καὶ ἄλλους ἀσώτους πολλούς, περὶ ὧν ὑµῖν καταλείπω ζητεῖν, πλὴν Καλλίου τοῦ Ἱππονίκου, ὃν καὶ οἱ τῶν παίδων οἴδασι παιδαγωγοί (“I also know of many other spendthrifts, but I leave it up to you to pose questions about them, except about Callias son of Hipponicus, with whom even the slaves who educate our sons are familiar”), which Wilamowitz 1900. 86 n. 1 in a passing comment identified as a reference to Kolakes (better put, to the tradition of vague “learned” references to the tradition of knowledge about Kolakes also represented by test. iv–viii). Despite Storey 2003. 180, the testimonium tells us nothing about the specific treatment of Callias in Eupolis’ play.

test. iv Max. Tyr. 14.7 (14.156–60, p. 124.1–5 Trapp) Καλλίαν µὲν ἐν ∆ιονυσίοις ἐκωµῴδει Εὔπολις, ἰδιώτην ἄνδρα ἐν συµποσίοις κολακευόµενον, ὅπου τῆς κολακείας τὸ ἆθλον ἦν κύλικες καὶ ἑταῖραι καὶ ἄλλαι ταπειναὶ καὶ ἀνδραποδώδεις ἡδοναί· τὸν δὲ δῆµον αὐτόν, τὸν τῆς Εὐπόλιδος στωµυλίας θεατήν, ποῦ τις ἐλθὼν κωµῳδήσει; At the Dionysia, Eupolis used to make fun of Callias, a private person surrounded by toadies at drinking parties, where the prize was drinking cups and courtesans and other base and slavish pleasures. But as for the people themselves, who watched Eupolis’ babble—where will someone go and make fun of them?

Context From a moralizing essay treating the distinction between a friend and a flatterer (κόλαξ). Interpretation The author does not obviously have any specific knowledge of Eupolis’ play, reference to which appears instead to function as a learned commonplace, as in test. v, vii–viii (although cf. fr. 174 for the details of Callias’ parties).

test. *v Philostr. VS 2.25.3 (p. 110.26–32 Kayser) τὸν γὰρ πατρῷον οἶκον βαθὺν αὐτῷ παραδοθέντα κατεδαπάνησεν οὐκ ἐς ἱπποτροφίας οὐδὲ ἐς λειτουργίας, … ἀλλ’ ἐς ἄκρατον καὶ ἑταίρους οἵους παρασχεῖν καὶ κωµῳδίᾳ λόγον, οἷον παρέσχον λόγον οἱ Καλλίαν ποτὲ τὸν Ἱππονίκου κολακεύσαντες

Κόλακες (test. *vi)

31

For he wasted the enormous paternal household he inherited not on raising horses or on liturgies … but on unmixed wine and the sort of companions who could actually furnish a plot for a comedy, the sort of plot that those who once toadied up to Callias son of Hipponicus furnished

Context From a moralizing account of the life of Hermocrates of Phocaea (known only through Philostratus). The rest of Philostratus’ account suggests that Hermocrates was in fact simply indifferent to money. Interpretation Neither the play nor the comic playwright who skewered Callias on account of his toadies is named here, and even if we—not unreasonably—take the reference to be to Kolakes, Philostratus does not obviously have any specific knowledge of Eupolis’ comedy, reference to which appears instead to function as a learned commonplace, as in test. iv, vii–viii (although cf. fr. 174 for the details of Callias’ parties).

test. *vi V∆

Σ Luc. JTr. 48 (p. 83.16–20, 25–7 Rabe) V∆ ∆ V ὁ µὲν Καλλίας οὗτος, ὡς Κρατῖνος Ἀρχιλόχοις (fr. 12) φησίν , Ἱππονίκου V∆ ∆ υἱὸς ἦν, τὸν δῆµον Μελιτεύς, ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης Ὥραις (fr. 583), πλούσιος καὶ πασχητιῶν καὶ ὑπὸ πορνιδίων διαφορούµενος καὶ κόλακας τρέφων … V∆ V κωµῳδεῖ δὲ αὐτὸν Κρατῖνος (fr. 81) καὶ ὡς Φώκου γυναῖκα µοιχεύσαντα V∆ καὶ τρία τάλαντα δόντα εἰς τὸ µὴ κριθῆναι V∆

∆

This Callias, on the one hand, according to Cratinus in Archilochoi  (fr. V∆ 12), was the son of Hipponicus, and from the deme Melite, according to ∆ Aristophanes in Hôrai  (fr. 583), wealthy, sexually passive, plundered by little whores, and someone who kept toadies in his house … But Cratinus (fr. 81) also makes fun of him for seducing the wife of Phocus and giving him three V∆ talents to avoid being found guilty

Text What is printed above is the punctuation of Kassel–Austin at Cratin. fr. 12 and Ar. fr. 583, and serves to make κόλακας τρέφων a reference not to the content of Aristophanes’ Hôrai but—at least potentially—to Kolakes. Word-order suggests taking ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης Ὥραις as referring instead to πλούσιος καὶ πασχητιῶν κτλ. Context From a well-informed note, also containing a reference to Men. fr. 77.6 and patently drawing on a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi, on the mention at Luc. JTr. 48 of Callias, Meidias and Sardanapallus as obscenely rich individuals

32

Eupolis

contemptuous of those beneath them. Test. iii is a less specific version of some of the same material. Interpretation Kassel–Austin treat κόλακας τρέφων alone as a reference to Eupolis’ play, although on their understanding of the evidence (i. e. that this is not the characterization of Callias offered in Aristophanes’ Hôrai), πλούσιος καὶ πασχητιῶν καὶ ὑπὸ πορνιδίων διαφορούµενος might easily belong to it as well. In any case, the note displays no obvious specific knowledge of Eupolis’ comedy (although cf. fr. 174 for the details of Callias’ parties).

[test. vii] Phryn. Ecl. 109 παρασίτους οὐκ ἔλεγον οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἐπ’ ὀνείδους, ὡς νῦν, ἀλλὰ κόλακας· καὶ δρᾶµα ἔστι Κόλακες τοιούτων ἀνθρώπων The ancients did not use the term parasitoi in reproach, as (we do) now, but kolakes; and there is a play called Kolakes that involves people of this sort

Context Athenaeus 6.236e, introducing fr. 172, appears to preserve another version of the same material, and this testimonium might better have been treated as an additional witness to that fragment.

test. *viii Liban. fr. 50 β 2.13–15 (XI p. 643.11–13 Foerster) τί δέ µε δεῖ λέγειν τὸν οἶκον τὸν Καλλίου καὶ τὴν Ἱππονίκου περιουσίαν, ἣν κατατέτριφεν οὗτος ἐν ταῖς µέθαις; Why need I mention Callias’ house and Hipponicus’ wealth, which [Alcibiades] demolishes in his drinking bouts?

Context From a fragment of a model speech perhaps set sometime in the late classical period; Eup. test. 32 follows shortly afterward. Interpretation Libanius—i. e. the imaginary individual supposedly making this speech—is attacking Alcibiades rather than Callias, and he makes no mention of Eupolis or Kolakes here (although Eupolis and Aristophanes, standing in for comedy generally, do come up a few lines later). The simplest interpretation of the evidence is that the reference is to Kolakes (thus already Meineke

Κόλακες (Introduction)

33

1839 I.136), in which Callias’ property appears to have been extravagantly consumed, and that Alcibiades was a character in the play; cf. fr. 171 n. But Alcibiades is prominent in Plato’s Protagoras, which is set in Callias’ house; and given that Libanius appears to have known Eupolis’ comedies only at second hand, he has just as likely mixed together several sorts of evidence in a way that served his argumentative purposes.

test. ix R

Σ Ar. Lys. 1189 ἀποκοπή ἐστι τοῦ ἄλλου χορικοῦ (Wilamowitz : χοροῦ Σ), ὡς παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Κόλαξι This is a part belonging to a second choral section (Wilamowitz : “chorus” Σ), as in Eupolis in Kolakes

Context A note on Ar. Lys. 1189–1215, a choral system consisting of two separate strophes that balances and recapitulates the metrical structure of another such pair of strophes at Lys. 1043–71. Text Although Lysistrata—like Eupolis’ Marikas—features two semi-choruses, they have been reconciled by this point in the play. Wilamowitz’s correction must therefore be right, and the paradosis χοροῦ likely reflects mis-expansion of an abbreviated χορ or the like. If the paradosis is retained, the implication is that Kolakes too had a divided chorus (thus already Meineke 1839 II.484; contrast Kock 1880 I.296–7, citing Enger).

Introduction Discussion Bergk 1838. 352–3; Meineke 1839 I.135–7, II.484; Töppel 1846. 9–15; Bothe 1855. 170–1; Kock 1880 I.296; Kaibel 1907 pp. 1232.67–1233.28; Dittmar 1912. 186–7; Norwood 1931. 190–2; Schiassi 1944. 88–95; Schmid 1946. 120–2; D’Agostino 1957; Pivetti 1982; Cassio 1985a. 113–16; Dorati 1995; Pawlak 1996; Carey 2000. 423–5; Napolitano 2001; Tylawsky 2002. 43–51; Storey 2003. 179–97; Napolitano 2005; Zimmermann 2011. 748; Napolitano 2012; Storey 2015 Title Eupolis’ Kolakes is called after its chorus of “toadies”, who describe their way of life at length in fr. 172: having almost nothing of their own,

34

Eupolis

they look for wealthy idiots whom they can flatter and entertain, in return for which they receive dinner invitations and sometimes other gifts or loans, such as the use of a slave-boy. κόλαξ (etymology uncertain) and its cognates are first attested in the final quarter of the 5th century BCE in comedy, and are always insulting. No real person would claim to be a κόλαξ, except perhaps in self-mockery, and the term instead reflects a hostile judgment applied to a social situation from outside of it: men whom (A) takes to be his friends, confidants, allies, intellectual partners and the like are described by (B) as mere κόλακες. (A) is convinced that these individuals have become part of his social or political circle because they share his beliefs or enjoy his company, and he therefore extends hospitality, support and patronage to them when he can. This differential of power and resources between (A) and his group is crucial to the situation, for (B) insists that such gifts are all that interest (A)’s companions, who are playing a cynical game and making (A) their fool. For the term and its history, see Ath. 6.234c–61e, esp. 248c–61a (preserving much of the most important ancient material, including fr. 172); Nesselrath 1985. 88–121; Brown 1992; Wilkins 2000. 71–86; Pernerstorfer 2010; Corner 2013 (all with further bibliography). Eupolis’ play may have featured as many as three separate groups of “toadies”: (1) the chorus; (2) individuals described as belonging to Callias’ circle who were not characters in the play, but who might e. g. have been described in a speech as participating in feasting and discussion within the house (cf. the description of the party at Ar. V. 1301–21, complete with guest-list); and (3) individual kolakes who appeared onstage in the course of the action, and who may therefore have been presented in complex, multi-faceted ways (cf. Napolitano 2012. 20–1, 112–13). Protagoras is said to be within the house at fr. 157a (cf. the retrospective description of his interaction with Callias at fr. 158) and seems to be referred to as a cynical glutton—i. e. an archetypal kolax—in fr. *157b, putting him at least in category (2). That he was an onstage character (3) is not apparent from the fragments, but is possible and seems generally to be assumed.10 More problematic are the tragic poet Melanthius (fr. 178), Orestes and Marpsias (fr. *179), and Chaerephon (fr. 180), who are described as kolakes of Callias (Melanthius, Orestes and Marpsias) or at least as being referred to

10

e. g. by Storey 2003. 184 “If Plato’s dialogue is any guide, Protagoras was more than an incidental member of Kallias’ ménage, and we should assign him a role of more than one scene, perhaps even as prominent as Sokrates in Clouds”—a particularly adventurous and ill-grounded reading of the evidence—; Napolitano 2012. 112–14. See on test. ii.

Κόλακες (Introduction)

35

as a kolax in the course of the comedy (Melanthius).11 If Eupolis’ play featured an individualized chorus, as Amipsias’ Konnos apparently did two years earlier (see test. ii), all these men might have been part of (1). If not, they may belong to either (2) or (3), and the issue can be resolved only by guessing—which is to say that it must be left open. Be all that as it may, the little we know shows that Callias’ “toadies” included, in one status or another, a professional teacher of rhetoric (Protagoras); a “sophist” (Chaerephon); a tragic poet (Melanthius); and a pair of far more dubious characters (Orestes, a professional mugger, and a man whose name means “Snatcher”). This is a reasonable (if mockingly somewhat more mixed) match for the group supposedly assembled in Callias’ house at the beginning of Plato’s Protagoras—which shows not that Plato modeled his story on Eupolis’ comedy, but that they shared a common sense of what Callias’ guest lists tended to be like12—and finds an echo in fr. 172.14–16, where the tragic poet Akestor is described as a failed (because insufficiently funny) toady at a dinner party. Content Hipponicus II (PA 7856; PAA 538910) son of Callias II of the deme Alopeke was born sometime in the first quarter of the 5th century and was regarded as the richest man in Greece (And. 1.130; Isoc. 16.31), with his personal worth running to hundreds of talents. His name reflects the family’s traditional interest (attested already in the mid-6th c. at Hdt. 6.122.1, although the passage is often judged an interpolation) in the extraordinarily expensive sport of horse- and chariot-racing; cf. fr. *164. Much of Hipponicus’ wealth came from mining—according to X. Vect. 4.15, he leased 600 slave laborers, who brought him a profit of a mina per day—but he also owned land (cf. fr. 163 with n.) and controlled the Eleusinian dadouchia, which must have brought in additional income on an occasional basis. Callias III (PA 7826; PAA 554500) son of Hipponicus II was likely born around 450 BCE, and when Hipponicus died in the mid- to late 420s BCE—at any rate, sometime before Kolakes was staged (test. ii)—Callias inherited the property (cf. Lys. 19.48). Around the same time, Alcibiades (see fr. 171 n.) married Callias’ sister Hipparete (cf. fr. 168 n.); whether Hipponicus was still alive when the marriage took place is unclear. Callias was also one of the principal targets of Autolykos I, which was staged around the same time as Kolakes, and seems to have been referred to in Aiges

11

12

There is no positive evidence that Socrates was among the group, although Bergk suggested that several unassigned fragments of Eupolis referring to him might belong to Kolakes. Pace Dorati 1995, who cites a series of vague, nominally comic elements in the Protagoras in an attempt to show that Plato refers specifically to Kolakes.

36

Eupolis

as well (fr. 20 with n.). See the introduction to Autolykos I/II and in general Meyer 1899. 28–32; Davies 1971. 259–63. Plato’s Protagoras seems to lack a single, fixed dramatic date (see test. ii with n.), but it does take for granted that Callias is in full control of his house, which he has filled with learned and influential men, including thinkers of every stripe (disparagingly referred to by Plato’s Socrates as “sophists”), including Hippias of Elis and Prodicus of Cos; politically and socially well-connected young men such as Alcibiades and Pericles’ sons Xanthippos and Paralos; the tragic playwright Agathon; and the famous rhetorician Protagoras and a train of his followers from other Greek cities (314c–16a). That all of this was expensive—Protagoras in particular notoriously charged large fees for his lessons—and that Callias provided appropriate hospitality for all his guests is beyond doubt. But Callias had enormous resources at his disposal, and unless one chooses to read the situation in a deliberately hostile manner (see below), his behavior seems reminiscent of the practice of other extremely wealthy men in the ancient world (normally tyrants or kings), who surrounded themselves not only with politically powerful and influential men but with the most brilliant intellectual and literary talents of their times, in the hope of enjoying the company and conversation of these men, catching a bit of reflected glory and perhaps learning something from them.13 By 387 BCE, according to Lys. 19.48 (cf. Ar. Ec. 810; And. 1.130–1; Heraclid. Pont. fr. 58 Wehrli = fr. 42 Schütrumpf), Callias was worth less than two talents. As Davies 1971. 261 notes, this collapse is traditionally blamed on his “urbane extravagance and aristocratic fecklessness” as put on display in Kolakes in particular. But even if Callias spent large amounts of money on sophists—as he apparently did (cf. X. Smp. 1.5; 4.62; Pl. Ap. 20a)—as well as on women, parties and other pleasures and problems (cf. Cratin. fr. 81; Ar. Av. 284–6; X. Smp. 2.2), this cannot be the root cause of his altered circumstances (despite test. iii in particular), which must instead be connected with the collapse of his mining interests after the Athenians lost access to Laurion after 413 BCE, and presumably with a downward spiral of called-in loans, seizures of mortgaged property, and the like that followed. Test. iii makes it clear that Callias was among the primary targets of Kolakes, and test. iv–vi (cf. test. *viii) suggest that Eupolis’ characterization of him emphasized his participation in 13

Cf. Callias’ own explanation of his spontaneous decision to invite Socrates and some of his acquaintances to the dinner in honor of Autolykos and his father at X. Smp. 1.4: “I think my arrangements would appear much more brilliant if my dining-room were ornamented with men with refined souls such as you rather than with generals, cavalry commanders and office-seekers”.

Κόλακες (Introduction)

37

extravagant drinking parties, a point fr. 174 seems to support. That the play presented Callias as taken advantage of by the “toadies”, including Protagoras, with whom he surrounded himself is also a reasonable interpretation of what survives of the text, given the eponymous kolakes’ report of their generic modus operandi in fr. 172, from the parabasis. Put another way, to the limited extent that the overall intellectual tendencies of Eupolis’ play can be reconstructed, a case can be made that it panders to the same sort of anti-intellectual rhetoric that characterizes the surviving version of Aristophanes’ Clouds (originally staged just two years earlier)—Callias is a fool for wasting his time and money on “babbling sinners” (cf. fr. *157b.1)—while simultaneously playing the class card by mocking Callias’ parties as profligacy and his guests as calculating, self-interested leeches (cf. fr. *157b.2), a critique eagerly taken up by later moralizing authors. Beyond the points noted above, all of them tentative in one way or another, we can say the following about the action of Kolakes: – Protagoras’ behavior offstage was described (frr. 157a; 158), leaving it unclear whether a character representing him took part in the action – Someone reported on his purchase—not necessarily with his own money— of a large quantity of expensive seafood (fr. 160) – Personal property of various sorts was catalogued onstage by at least two characters (frr. 161; 163–*4); some of the items are expensive enough to suggest that a wealthy man’s holdings—presumably although not necessarily those of Callias—are in question (esp. fr. *164) – Dinner and symposium expenses, the latter consisting of an allowance specifically for toadies, were calculated (fr. 165), although whether this happened before or after the festivities in question is unclear – Gluttonous drinking by an individual (apparently offstage) was described (fr. 166) – Gold and silver coins were stolen from “the house”, likely meaning “Callias’ house”, although nothing guarantees that (fr. 162); cf. the lament about a vanished washing vessel in fr. 169 – Someone was ordered to take a broom and sweep the hall (fr. 167) – Someone described how he extracted ten talents—an enormous sum of money—from another person (fr. 168) – A man ordered Alcibiades to “exit the women” (which is not enough to show that Alcibiades was a character in the play, although he might have been), and was told to go home to his wife (fr. 171) – There seems to have been a second parabasis (cf. fr. 173 with n.).

38

Eupolis

This is meager evidence, which offers very little access to what went on onstage in the course of Eupolis’ play,14 but which has nonetheless been assembled into a number of elaborate if largely arbitrary reconstructions of both larger and smaller portions of the action, including a prologue speech in which someone, perhaps a slave, describes the situation within the house; an accounting scene, in which Callias or another character tallies his inheritance, turns his property over to a creditor to finance a meal, or lists what has been or might be stolen from him; and messenger scenes addressed to unknown audiences for uncertain purposes at unidentifiable points in the action. Recent pride of place in this creative scholarly process goes to Storey 2003, who manages inter alia to divine Callias’ character as Eupolis presented it (p. 182 “we can visualize Kallias as the silly young aristocrat with more money than brains, so familiar from British comedy of the twentieth century”); to trace Socrates’ encounter with Callias’ doorkeeper at Protagoras 314c–e back to Eupolis (pp. 184–5); to invent a place in the action for Alcibiades (pp. 195 “perhaps we should imagine a scene after a symposium, like one of those that follow the party at the close of Wasps, an ideal place to introduce Alkibiades, dressed perhaps in his accustomed finery and rather the worse for wear, with the situation chez Kallias getting out of hand”); and to detect various influences of Aristophanes’ Wasps upon the action (p. 191). Napolitano 2012 is not far behind, discovering a Persian flavor to the presentation of Callias (pp. 23–5) and a critique of “Ionian softness” directed against Protagoras (pp. 26–8); reconstructing a two-character prologue reminiscent of Aristophanes’ Knights, Wasps and Peace (pp. 14–15), along with a paratragic messenger speech from the end of the play that announces the plundering of Callias’ house by his guests (pp. 15–16); and identifying the speakers and the individuals referred to in almost all surviving fragments, and assigning them their approximate place within the comedy. Both interpretations represent substantial imaginative acts—which is to say that they are fantasies pasted over an elaborate framework, some of it inherited or adapted from the work of earlier scholars, some of it freshly created—built up from guesswork and intuition, on the one hand, and a willingness to assume what is nominally being proven (including, in Storey’s case in particular, the relevance of comparative material with no obvious connection to Eupolis’ play), on the

14

Cf. Kaibel: “singulae fabulae scenae distingui possunt, sed quo ordine sese exceperint non liquet” (“individual scenes of the play can be distinguished, but the order in which they occurred is unclear”). It might be more accurate to say that we have a few tiny snippets of apparent action, but that how they relate to one another is obscure. For the chorus, see Title.

Κόλακες (Introduction)

39

other.15 Perhaps the most striking characteristic of readings of Kolakes since at least Meineke, however, is the consistent imposition on the fragments of an aggressive arc of justice focussed on Callias, which takes it for granted that his behavior in hosting parties and entertaining guests is misguided, and specifies either that he comes to his senses and drives the “toadies” out of his house, or that they plunder and humiliate him (cf. Carey 2000. 424, imagining various, shifting parallels to the plot of the Odyssey). The fragments—a tiny percentage of the text of the play, for not a single one of which, except the choral parts, can we identify either the speaker or the addressee—can be organized and read in ways that tell these stories and many others. But the moral pattern comes from elsewhere and seems to assume that what happened to the historical Callias over the course of the next thirty years played out in anticipatory fashion onstage in Kolakes in 421 BCE, even though the man remained rich and powerful for decades, and despite the fact that late 5th-century comedies did not always end so tidily.16 Perhaps the “hero” of the play (in the Whitmanesque sense), for example, was Protagoras, who staggered offstage at the end, gloriously drunk, wildly abusive and loaded with Callias’ possessions, and Callias himself was in this regard merely an afterthought. Or perhaps the supposed great party was little more than background action; another conflict of which we have no recognizable trace was at the true “center” of the story; and Callias and his guests, accompanied by the chorus, marched out triumphant together at the end, ready for yet another, even wilder party. Storey 2003 takes Kolakes to be essentially non-political, “a successful social comedy” with no larger interests. As Napolitano 2012 insists repeatedly throughout (esp. 32–42), however, even social comedies—perhaps especially social comedies—have political dimensions, in the case of Eupolis’ play likely involving questions about wealth and how it is to be properly safeguarded, used or “wasted”; the responsibilities of the economic and social elite in a democratic city; and the effects of the so-called “new learning” on traditional Athenian society.17 Pace Napolitano, however, the fact that we have almost no idea what went on onstage in Kolakes means that we cannot read the nuances of the play’s argument more closely than this, and in the absence of 15

16 17

The arbitrary character of the reconstruction process and its lack of mooring in real information about what went on in Eupolis’ comedy is particularly apparent in Storey 2015, where Storey responds to points at which Napolitano’s reading of the fragments differs from his own simply by insisting that he himself is right. Cf. Aristophanes’ Acharnians (425 BCE) and Birds (414 BCE), in both of which a not altogether admirable character ends up emphatically on top. Storey 2015. 13 seems to miss Napolitano’s point in this regard.

40

Eupolis

such information, the automatic—and in any case unavoidable—tendency is to impose our own interests and concerns upon it.18 For the play’s kômôidoumenoi, see Title. The following have also been attributed to Kolakes: frr. 191 (Runkel); 192.48 (Meineke); 218 (Kock); 341.1 (Kock); 360 (Meineke); 374 (Meineke); 375 (Meineke); 385 (Gelzer); 386 (Bergk); 388 (Kaibel); 395 (Bergk); 415 (Meineke); 428 (Meineke); 453 (Meineke). Date Test. i (seemingly based on official city records) informs us that Kolakes took the prize at the City Dionysia in 421 BCE; Marikas was staged in the same year and must accordingly have been put on at the Lenaea. In addition to Callias (for whom, see Context), known kômôidoumenoi in the play are: the tragic poet Akestor (fr. 172.14); Alcibiades (fr. 171.1; cf. test. viii), who was perhaps a character in the play; Chaerephon (fr. 180); Kleokritos (fr. 177); the tragic poet Melanthios (fr. 178); Protagoras (test. ii; frr. 157a/b–8), who was perhaps a character in the play; and individuals named Orestes and Marpsias, who are said to have been among Callias’ toadies (fr. *179).

Fragments fr. 156 K.-A. (154 K.) ἐκεῖνος ἦν φειδωλός, ὃς ἐπὶ τοῦ βίου πρὸ τοῦ πολέµου µὲν τριχίδας ὠψώνησ’ ἅπαξ, ὅτε τἀν Σάµῳ δ’ ἦν, ἡµιωβελίου κρέα That guy was tight with his money—he bought sardines just once in his life before the war, and when the Samian affair happened, chunks of meat for half an obol 18

I accordingly take Napolitano’s interpretation of Kolakes as a meditation on the bad behavior of a political and economic elite many of whose leading members seem more interested in riotous living than in serving the commonwealth, with the fantastically wealthy Callias as a leading example of the problem, to be above all else a reaction to and reading of the career of Silvio Berlusconi (Italian Prime Minister 1994–5, 2001–6, 2008–11) and its implications for modern Italian political society. This is a legitimate and interesting use of Eupolis’ play—not necessarily explicitly and consciously intended by Napolitano himself, and arguably more interesting if it was not—and I applaud it on those grounds. Most of the intellectual and moral content of the reading nonetheless comes from outside the fragments themselves, as a typical act of literary reception.

Κόλακες (fr. 156)

41

Ath. 7.328e τριχίδων δὲ Εὔπολις ἐν Κόλαξιν· ―― But Eupolis (mentions) sardines in Kolakes: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl llk|r klkl klrl l|rk|l llkl rlkl l|lkl rlkl Discussion Casaubon ap. Schweighäuser 1803. 463; Meineke 1839 I.136, II.493–4; Töppel 1846. 46–7; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 181; Napolitano 2012. 63–73, 78–9 Citation context From the long, alphabetically organized catalogue of fishnames that makes up much of Athenaeus Book 7 and that seems to be drawn mostly from Dorion. Interpretation A further description of a man mentioned earlier (hence 1 ἐκεῖνος) and now deceased (hence 1 ἐπὶ τοῦ βίου); the reference to “the Samian affair” as affecting his behavior in 3 suggests that he was Athenian. Meineke thought the person in question was Hipponicus, whose parsimony is thus presumably contrasted with Callias’ wild profligacy; Kaibel objected that something more like avarice than simplicity is described. That this is comedy means that wild, tendentious exaggeration may not be out of place—which does not prove, however, that Hipponicus is actually the individual under discussion, who might be anyone from the previous generation who lived a deeply (actually somewhat appallingly) self-denying life, despite Storey’s “almost certainly an allusion to the late Hipponikos”, which attempts to establish the interpretation by asserting it.19 Nor is there any a priori reason to take these remarks as praise; see 1 n. on φειδωλός. Since the man in question bought fish only once before the war (1–2), the point of 3 is not that he abruptly altered his shopping habits as a result 19

Napolitano 2012. 68–9 compares e. g. Ar. Ach. 708 and argues that ἐκεῖνος in 1 is pathetic, expressing regret and grief, confirming that the reference is to the now regrettably deceased Hipponicus. But the fact that ἐκεῖνος can be used in such contexts does not show that a similar context is in question here, meaning that the interpretation is a petitio principii. Napolitano 2012. 72 goes on to suggest that the speaker may be an old servant of Callias worried that he may be sold, should his new master fall deeply into debt. This is no more or less likely than a hundred other possibilities, and tells us nothing about what Eupolis wrote or the action in his play.

42

Eupolis

of the Samian Revolt (3 n.), switching away from sardines, but that he also made one exceptional purchase of meat at that time. Why he did so is unclear; perhaps he served as a hoplite or a rower during the campaign and wanted to keep his strength up for the fighting, or meat had for some reason been notoriously cheap at that point or the like. 2–3 as a whole, at any rate, must serve to set up some further contrast with the man’s behavior after the war began, and if the overall point is that he was extremely careful with his money (1 φειδωλός), what followed was perhaps a statement to the effect that once hostilities with Sparta began, he refused to indulge himself even in the minor ways he had before. 1–2 Cf. in general fr. 2 with n.; Men. fr. 390 φειδωλὸς ἦν καὶ µέτριος ἀγοραστής (“he was tight with his money and a modest shopper”). 1 In comedy in particular, φειδωλός and its cognates do not have unambiguously positive overtones and instead tend toward meanings such as “penny-pinching, cheap, tight”, in reference to someone who desires money for its own sake and does not know how to spend it “appropriately” for his own pleasure and that of others (Ar. Nu. 421, 835; Ec. 750; Pl. 237; Men. frr. 14.2; 176.3; cf. Pl. R. 548b, 554a–5a; Thphr. Char. 10 with Diggle 2004. 301–2). For the use of ἐπί + genitive in the sense “in the course of, during”, e. g. Pherecr. fr. 67; Ar. Ach. 211 ἐπ’ ἐµῆς γε νεότητος; Eq. 524 ἐπὶ γήρως, οὐ γὰρ ἐφ’ ἥβης; Ec. 985 ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας ἀρχῆς; Pl. Phdr. 242a; LSJ s. v. A.II.a; Poultney 1936. 171. 2 πρὸ τοῦ πολέµου * at Ar. Pax 893 (in reference to the Archidamian War, as presumably here). τριχίδες are small, inexpensive clupeoid fish of all sorts, including minnows, sprats and anchovies, called after their tiny hair-like (cf. θρίξ, τριχός) bones and identified with ἀφύαι (for which, see Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 11.1) at Ar. Eq. 645, 662, 666, 672; with θρίσσαι (for which, see Anaxandr. fr. 42.52 with Millis 2015 ad loc.) at Phot. τ 491 and Suda τ 1038; and with χαλκίδες and µεµβράδες (for which, see fr. 31 n.) at Hsch. τ 1466. At Ar. Eq. 662, an obol for one hundred τριχίδες is treated as an extraordinarily good price, but the basic point is that they were very cheap in any case. See in general Thompson 1957. 268–70; Davidson 1981. 41–8. Moer. τ 12 claims that the word is an Atticism (τριχίδες Ἀττικοί· τριχέαι Ἕλληνες, “Attic-speakers [use] trichides; the Greeks generally [use] tricheai”). ὠψώνησ(ε) Literally “purchased as opson”, i. e. as something to make the basic, grain-based portion of the meal (the sitos), more appealing, often with specific reference to fish (e. g. Ar. V. 495; Stratt. fr. 45.2 with Orth 2009 ad loc.; Anaxandr. fr. 40.6); cf. Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 9.2.

Κόλακες (fr. 157a)

43

3 τὰ (ἐ)ν Σάµῳ A reference to events in 440–439 BCE, when the island of Samos (IACP #864) revolted from the Athenian Empire and, after at least two large naval battles (one of them involving Phormio as general; see the general introduction to Taxiarchoi) and an extended siege, was forced to tear down its walls, surrender its ships and pay back the money the Athenians had spent on the campaign (Th. 1.115–17). See in general Ar. V. 282a–3a with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Shipley 1987. 113–22. ἡµιωβελίου κρέα Cf. Ar. Ra. 553–4 (with Dover 1993 ad loc.), where the angry Innkeeper accuses the gluttonous Heracles of having consumed, in addition to sixteen loaves of her bread and a large amount of garlic, κρέα … ἀνάβραστ’ εἴκοσιν / ἀν’ ἡµιωβελιαῖα (“twenty portions of stewed meat worth a half-obol apiece”), which suggests that this was a standard commercial serving size, but does not mean that it represented a substantial meal in and of itself. In 2 (n.), τριχίδες all by itself makes it clear that the man in question spent very little money on his one great treat. Here, by contrast, the genitive of price is added, since one could theoretically run through as much money as one liked on κρέα. Plural κρέα are specifically chunks of meat (including the flesh of birds but not of fish) of the sort used for roasting or stewing (e. g. Telecl. fr. 1.8; Ar. Ach. 1049, 1054; Nu. 339; V. 363; Pax 717; Nicopho fr. 21.3), as opposed to singular κρέας, which is “meat” in a more generic sense.

fr. 157a (157.1 K.-A. = 146a K.) ἔνδον µέν ἐστι Πρωταγόρας ὁ Τήιος θ

BPF

ἔνδον Cobet : ἔνδο D.L.

: ἔνδοθι D.L. vulgate

within, on the one hand, is Protagoras of Teos D.L. 9.50 Πρωταγόρας … Ἀβδηρίτης, καθά φησιν Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ Νόµων (fr. 150 Wehrli = fr. 31 Schütrumpf), ὃς καὶ Θουρίοις νόµους γράψαι φησὶν αὐτόν· ὡς δ’ Εὔπολις ἐν Κόλαξιν, Τήιος· φησὶ γάρ· ―― Protagoras … of Abdera, according to Heracleides of Pontos in his On Laws (fr. 150 Wehrli = fr. 31 Schütrumpf), who also reports that he drafted laws for the people of Thurii. But according to Eupolis in Kolakes, (Protagoras) was a Teian; for he says: ―― St.Byz. p. 620.3 Meineke (Τέως) τὸ ἐθνικὸν Τήιος, ἀφ’ οὗ (v. 1)· Πρωταγόρας ὁ Τήιος (Teos) The ethnic is Teian, whence (v. 1): Protagoras the Teian

44

Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

l|lrl

klkl

Discussion Porson 1812. 75; Meineke 1839 II.490–1; Töppel 1846. 37–9; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 70; Kock 1880 I.297; Schiassi 1944. 92; D’Agostino 1957. 72–3; Pivetti 1982. 248–9; Cassio 1986a. 113–14; Storey 2003. 184–7; Napolitano 2012. 97–115 Citation context The quotation in Diogenes Laertius comes at the very beginning of his treatment of Protagoras. Whether the source is the same as the one that lies behind this portion of Stephanus of Byzantium’s entry on Teos—heavily epitomized in the form in which it has come down to us—is impossible to say. Text The paradosis ἔνδοθι (thus the early printed versions of Diogenes; the manuscripts have only the abbreviated ἔνδοθ) is an epic form (e. g. Il. 1.243; Od. 2.315; Hes. Th. 964; hAp. 92; picked up by Hellenistic poets at e. g. Theoc. 5.146; Call. Del. 42; A.R. 1.235) not used in Attic, which has only Cobet’s ἔνδον (also found already in Homer). Interpretation Fr. 157a and fr. *157b were brought together by Porson, and are printed as three connected verses by Meineke and Kassel–Austin. But only fr. 157a is specifically attributed to Kolakes, and even if all three verses ultimately come from a common scholarly source and so belong together, there is no way of knowing whether another verse or more originally stood between them. They ought therefore to be printed separately, with a prefixed asterisk marking fr. *157b as only conjecturally assigned to this play. This appears to be information of the sort often offered e. g. by prologue-speakers in Aristophanes, and Meineke (followed by Kock) associated the combined fr. 157a–b with frr. 158; 166, as part of a single speech. Despite Napolitano 2012. 98–9, further speculation regarding who is speaking and at what point in the drama makes us no wiser. For the dates of Protagoras’ visits to Athens and his time in Callias’ house, see the general introduction to the play (Date). ἔνδον presumably means “within (Callias’ house)”, i. e. the stage house (e. g. Ar. Ach. 395; Nu. 1361; V. 70; Ra. 514); cf. fr. 158, which offers another glimpse of Protagoras, once again offstage. µέν suggests a contrast with someone else who is not within the house, perhaps one or more other guests who have not yet arrived. Abdera (IACP #640) was originally a Clazomenian colony, but according to Hdt. 1.168 was later reinforced by settlers from Teos (IACP #868); see in general Isaac 1986. 73–105, esp. 80–1, 87. The iota in Ἀβδηρίτης is long, making it impossible to refer to Protagoras as Ἁβδηρίτης here. Beyond that, however,

Κόλακες (fr. *157b)

45

the point of calling him ὁ Τήιος is unclear. Töppel 1846. 38 thought that Protagoras might have spoken in Ionic dialect when he appeared onstage in the play, hence the characterization, while Cassio (cf. Schmidt 1946. 121 n. 3, drawing a connection to Anacreon) took the toponym to allude to Protagoras’ “typically Ionian” taste for luxury. Lehrs 1902. 290 compared Ar. Nu. 830 Σωκράτης ὁ Μήλιος (“Socrates the Melian”).

fr. *157b (fr. 157.2–3 K.-A. = 146b K.) ὃς ἀλαζονεύεται µὲν ἁλιτήριος περὶ τῶν µετεώρων, τὰ δὲ χαµᾶθεν ἐσθίει 1 ἁλιτήριος Porson : ἀλιτήριος Eust.   2 χαµᾶθεν Porson : χθαµᾶθεν Eust.

who talks bullshit—the filthy bastard!— about what’s in the sky, but eats what comes from the earth Eust. p. 1547.51–4 = i.233.22–5 ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ὥσπερ ἐνταῦθα (Od. 5.490) τροπικῶς ἐρρέθη σπέρµα πυρός, οὕτω τέτραπται καὶ τὸ σπερµολογεῖν, ἐπὶ τῶν ἀλαζονευοµένων ἀµεθόδως ἐπὶ µαθήµασιν ἔκ τινων παρακουσµάτων. καθὰ ἐµφαίνειν Εὔπολις λέγεται τὸν φυσικὸν Πρωταγόραν διακωµῳδῶν ἐν τῷ· ―― It should be noted that just as “seed of fire” was used there (Od. 5.490) figuratively, so too spermologein (literally “to seed-pick”, by extension “to gossip”) is used figuratively in reference to those who talk illogical drivel on the basis of lessons got from talk they have misunderstood. This is how Eupolis is said to represent the natural scientist Protagoras, when he makes fun of him in the passage: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl klk|l klkl rlrl l|rkl klkl Discussion Porson 1812. 75; Töppel 1846. 39–40; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 70–1; Kock 1880 I.297; Schiassi 1944. 92; Schmid 1946. 122; D’Agostino 1957. 72–4; Pivetti 1982. 248–53; Carey 2000. 424–5; Storey 2003. 184–7; Napolitano 2012. 97–115, esp. 101–8 Citation context The use of σπέρµα πυρός at Od. 5.490 (what Odysseus resembles nestled in his bed of leaves on the Scherian shore) leads Eustathius to consideration of the similarly figurative verb σπερµολογέω. Although σπερµολόγος (first attested as an abusive term at D. 18.127) and its compounds were

46

Eupolis

of interest to the lexicographers (e. g. Hsch. σ 1468; Phot. σ 453 = Suda σ 922 = Synag. σ 176; Phot. σ 455 = Suda σ 922), none of the other notes we have precisely matches the other observations found in Eustathius. Text In 1, Porson’s ἁλιτήριος for Eustathius’ ἀλιτήριος is a matter of metrical necessity, and breathing marks and accents in manuscripts have in any case no authority. In 2, Eustathius’ χθαµᾶθεν is a clumsy, simple error corrected by Porson. Interpretation See fr. 157a n. 1–2 The basic joke seems to be the same as at Ar. fr. 691 (of some unidentified thinker; cited by Kassel–Austin) ὃς τἀφανῆ µεριµνᾷ, / τὰ δὲ χαµᾶθεν ἐσθίει (“who ponders what cannot be seen, but eats what comes from the earth”): no matter what Protagoras talks about, his real concern is with securing himself a dinner. Cf. fr. 386, which turns the idea the other way around: Socrates is too busy thinking to have considered where he will get his food. τὰ µετέωρα (literally “what is up in the air”) are properly celestial bodies and phenomena (cf. Ar. Nu. 225–30, 1279–84; Sosip. fr. 1.25–9) but by extension the gods and their origins, the nature of the Underworld, and the like (Ar. Av. 690–1), i. e. the sort of matters about which Protagoras is famously said to have claimed no knowledge whatsoever (80 B 4 D.–K.). Similar charges of an unhealthy interest in τὰ µετέωρα are leveled against Socrates in Aristophanes’ Clouds (e. g. 228, 490), in which case as well this may simply be a standard component of the popular late 5th-century picture of the depraved intellectual foisted onto someone who did not deserve it (cf. Pl. Ap. 23d, which does not necessarily represent a full and accurate account of the situation). Alternatively, the point may be that by claiming to know nothing of the gods, Protagoras was—in some people’s minds, at least—tacitly claiming to know that they did not exist, lending a concrete point to (ὁ) ἀλιτήριος (for which, see below) (thus Kock). In either case, the tone is hostile, and the speaker is either not Callias or is Callias only after he has somehow grown disillusioned with his famous guest. 1 ἀλαζονεύεται An ἀλαζών is a “charlatan” or “bullshit artist” (X. Cyr. 2.2.12; Arist. EE 1221a24–5; Thphr. Char. 23 with Diggle 2004 ad loc.; Ribbeck 1882, esp. 1–51; MacDowell 1990b; Griffith and Marks 2011, esp. 23–6). The word is first attested in the dubious Alc. fr. 403A (= Alc. Com. fr. dub. 37) and Aristoxenos of Selinus fr. 1, and then in the late 5th century (Hdt. 6.12.3; Cratin. fr. 375). Absent along its cognates from lyric and tragedy, it is common in comedy and 4th-century prose as an abusive colloquialism (e. g. Ar. Ach. 87 ἀλαζόνευµα; Anaxandr. fr. 50.1 ἀλαζών; Alex. fr. 2.9 ἀλαζονεία; Hp. Morb.Sacr. 1 = 6.354.14 Littré ἀλαζών; X. HG 7.1.38 ἀλαζονεία; Mem. 1.7.5 ἀλαζονεύοµαι; Pl. Euthyd. 283c ἀλαζών; Aeschin. 3.99 ἀλαζονεύοµαι).

Κόλακες (fr. *157b)

47

ἀλιτήριος (〈 ἀλιταίνω) and its cognates are very strong words that belong to the vocabulary of religious pollution and describe behavior that at least allegedly poses a danger to the whole community, although in comedy they are most often to be taken in a broader pejorative sense (“filthy bastard, scumbag” vel sim.), like θεοῖς ἐχθρός (e. g. Ar. Ach. 933–4; Eq. 34 with Neil 1901 ad loc. “a very familiar phrase of contemptuous dislike”). Cf. fr. 103.2; Ar. Eq. 445–6 with Neil 1901 ad loc.; And. 1.51 ἀλιτηρίους τῶν θεῶν (the men implicated in the religious scandals of 415 BCE); Lys. 6.52–3; Th. 1.126.11 ἐναγεῖς καὶ ἀλιτήριοι τῆς θεοῦ (the Alcmaeonids as a consequence of their complicity in the murder of the Cylonian conspirators); Eub. fr. 87.2; Men. fr. 608.3 οἷος δ᾿ ἀλαζών ἐστιν ἁλιτήριος (“What a bullshitter the dirty bastard is!”; of a kolax); D. 18.159; 19.226; Hatch 1908. 157–65; Vos 1955; Wankel 1976. 824–6; Tichy 1977. 169–73; Wankel 1984. 48–9; Napolitano 2012. 101–4; and for the idea of communal pollution in general, Parker 1983. 257–80.20 2 Moer. χ 22 calls χαµᾶθεν—attested only in late 5th-century comedy (also Cratin. fr. 328.2; Ar. V. 249; fr. 691.2 (quoted above)) and Herodotus (2.125.2; 4.172.4) until the Roman period, when Lucian picks it up (Ind. 9; Philops. 7)—a distinctly Attic form for the common χαµόθεν (and cf. A.D. Grammatici Graeci I.1 p. 187.7, although he identifies the alternative as χαµαῖθεν); see in general Lejeune 1940. For the suffix, see fr. 159.1–2 n.

20

Storey 2003. 187 suggests that the use of ἀλιτήριος here is to be explained by Andocides’ claim (1.130) that before Callias’ father died, a saying or rumor (κληδών) circulated in Athens to the effect that Ἱππόνικος ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἀλιτήριον τρέφει, ὃς αὐτοῦ τὴν τράπεζαν ἀνατρέπει (“Hipponicus is raising an ἀλιτήριος”— here “avenging spirit, poltergeist” or the like—“in his house that overturns his table”). Andocides, playing on τράπεζα in the sense “bank”, goes on to claim that this ἀλιτήριος has turned out to be the spendthrift profligate Callias (1.131). Storey takes Eupolis to be presenting Protagoras as the evil spirit, “leading Kallias astray on the path of expensive debauchery and upsetting (literally) the whole house. This time the ‘tables’ are … the furniture of the symposium. On this explanation fr. 157 should come from a scene with the noise and riot in the background”. This is extravagant and unnecessary, and the fact that the claim (repeated even more emphatically at Storey 2015. 14 “I stand by my contention”) cannot be proven wrong does not mean that it is to be taken seriously; see also Napolitano 2012. 103–4.

48

Eupolis

fr. 158 K.-A. (147 K.) πίνειν γὰρ 〈αὐτὸν〉 Πρωταγόρας ἐκέλευ’, ἵνα πρὸ τοῦ κυνὸς τὸν πλεύµον’ ἔκπλυτον φορῇ 1 〈αὐτὸν〉 Grotius : ὁ Plut. : om. Macr.   2 τοῦ Macr. Ath. Gal. : τὸν Plu.    πλεύµον’ Plu. : πνεύµον’ vel πνεύµονα Macr. Ath. Gal.   ἔκπλυτον Fritzsche : ἔκλυτον Ath. Gal. : ἔκλυρον Plu. : ἔκκλυστον Reiske

for Protagoras was urging him to keep drinking, so that before (the rising of) the Dog-star he could have a lung washed clean Plu. Mor. 698f–9a µάρτυρές γε τῷ Πλάτωνι πολλοί τε κἀγαθοὶ πάρεισιν. Εὔπολιν µὲν γάρ, εἰ βούλει, πάρες ἐν Κόλαξιν εἰπόντα· ――. πάρες δὲ καὶ τὸν κοµψὸν Ἐρατοσθένην λέγοντα (fr. 25, p. 65 Powell)· καὶ βαθὺν ἀκρήτῳ πλεύµονα τεγγόµενος. Εὐριπίδης δὲ σαφῶς δήπου λέγων (fr. 983)· οἶνος περάσας πλευµόνων διαρροάς, δῆλός ἐστιν Ἐρασιστράτου βλέπων τι ὀξύτερον Plato has many excellent witnesses available. For set aside, if you like, Eupolis when he says in Kolakes: ――. And also set aside the clever Eratosthenes when he says (fr. 25, p. 65 Powell): and moistening your deep lung with unmixed wine. But when Euripides quite clearly says (fr. 983): after the wine traversed the passages of the lungs, he is obviously seeing more clearly than Erasistratus Plu. Mor. 1047d Πλάτων µὲν ἔχει τῶν ἰατρῶν τοὺς ἐνδοξοτάτους µαρτυροῦντας, Ἱπποκράτην Φιλιστίωνα ∆ιώξιππον τὸν Ἱπποκράτειον, καὶ τῶν ποιητῶν Εὐριπίδην (fr. 983) Ἀλκαῖον (frr. 347.1; 352) Εὔπολιν Ἐρατοσθένην (fr. 25, p. 65 Powell), λέγοντας ὅτι τὸ ποτὸν διὰ τοῦ πνεύµονος διέξεισι Plato has the most distinguished physicians as witnesses: Hippocrates, Philistion, Dioxippus the student of Hippocrates, and of the poets Euripides (fr. 983), Alcaeus (frr. 347; 352), Eupolis and Eratosthenes (fr. 25, p. 65 Powell), who say that what one drinks exits through one’s lung Ath. 1.22f Εὔπολίς τε τὸν Καλλίαν φησὶν ἀναγκάζεσθαι ὑπὸ Πρωταγόρου πίνειν, (vv. 1–2) ἵνα … φορῇ And Eupolis says that Callias was compelled to drink by Protagoras, (vv. 1–2) so that … washed full Galen caus. procatarct. 38 (CMG Suppl. II p. 10.29–32) τίς δ᾽ ἐκελεύεν ἂν … (v. 2); Who would be urging us … (v. 2)?

Κόλακες (fr. 158)

49

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|lrl rlkl klkl llk|l llkl Discussion Meineke 1839 II.491–2; Töppel 1846. 40–2; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 71–2; Kock 1880 I.297–8; Schiassi 1944. 92; D’Agostino 1957. 74; Carey 2000. 424; Storey 2003. 187–8; Napolitano 2012. 172–205 Citation context The conversation at Plu. Mor. 698f–9a (from near the beginning of Book 7 of the Table Talk) is sparked by a quotation of Alc. fr. 347.1 τέγγε πλεύµονας οἴνῳ, τὸ γὰρ ἄστρον περιτέλλεται (“Moisten your lungs with wine! For the star is rising”) which turns rapidly into an argument about whether Plato’s discussion of the function of the lungs at Tim. 70c–d, 91a (for which, see Interpretation) deserves criticism. The problem is taken up again at Mor. 1047d, and the fact that Plutarch twice cites Alcaeus, Euripides, Eupolis and Eratosthenes together as proof-texts for the same point leaves little doubt that he was drawing on a pre-existing collection of selected poetic material rather than on the full text inter alia of Kolakes itself. At 1.22e–f, Athenaeus—preserved only in the Epitome at this point in the text, and thus incomplete—quotes not only Alc. fr. 347.1–2 but also the equally relevant Alc. fr. 352, along with Delphic oracle L103 Fontenrose (drawn, according to him, from Chamaeleon fr. 11 Wehrli = fr. 12 Martano) and the physician Mnesitheus of Athens (fr. 42 Bertier) immediately before offering most of the fragment of Eupolis. Athenaeus must thus have had access to the same source as Plutarch, and the fact that Galen quotes the second verse of the oracle and paraphrases Alc. fr. 347.1 before quoting the second verse of the fragment of Eupolis shows that that source was available to him as well.21 Macrobius 7.22–3 in pulmonem defluere potum nec poetae nobiles ignorant. ait enim Eupolis in fabula quae inscribitur Colaces: πίνειν γὰρ Πρωταγόρας ἐκέλευσεν, ἵνα / πρὸ τοῦ κυνὸς τὸν πνεύµονα ἔκλυρον ἔχῃ. et Eratosthenes testatur idem (fr. 25, p. 65 Powell): ――. Euripides vero huius rei manifestissimus adstipulator est (fr. 983): ―― is taken direct from Plu. Mor. 698f–9a. Macrobius’ readings are accordingly worth citing in the critical apparatus only when they are right (and thus confirm that something has gone wrong in the text of Plutarch since Macrobius saw it) or when they agree with other witnesses in

21

Athenaeus also quotes Alc. frr. 347.1–2 at 10.430b, along with a number of other fragments of Alcaeus having to do with drinking, again citing Chamaeleon (at 10.430a; fr. 12 Wehrli = fr. 13 Martano); both fragments of Chamaeleon are likely drawn from his On Drunkenness.

50

Eupolis

error against Plutarch (telling us something about the history of the language generally). Hsch. ε 1506 ἔκλυρον· χλωρόν. δίυγρον, ἢ νοτερόν, ἔνικµον, ὑγρόν (~ Phot. ε 78 ἐγλυρόν· τὸ δίυγρον καὶ ἔνικµον) is probably in origin a gloss on Plutarch’s version of 2. Text In 1, Grotius’ αὐτὸν—needed to fill out the meter—is better treated as a supplement than as an emendation of Plutarch’s ὁ, since the definite article is missing from Macrobius’ version of the text and may thus not have been found in the version of the Moralia known to him. In 2, τὸν κυνὸς in the text of Plutarch is the result of assimilation to the case of τὸν πλεύµον’ that follows. That Macrobius has the correct reading τοῦ makes it clear that Plutarch had the genitive as well and that the error in the manuscripts of the Moralia is to be traced to a careless scribe. Further on in 2, Plutarch’s πλεύµον’ is the original form of the word (cf. Latin pulmo and English “lung”; Moer. π 33 πλεύµων Ἀττικοί· πνεύµων Ἕλληνες, “Attic-speakers [use] pleumôn; the Greeks generally [use] pneumôn”; Suda π 1826), which was widely corrupted into forms in πν-, whence the presence of the variant not just in Athenaeus and Galen, but in Macrobius as well. Also in 2, ἔκλυτον, the reading in Athenaeus and Galen—ἔκλυρον in Plutarch and Hesychius must be an independent further corruption of the text—makes reasonable sense (LSJ s. v. III “relaxed, weak, watery”) and is metrical, since κλ makes position when the two consonants belong to different parts of a compound. But Fritzsche added a single letter to produce ἔκπλυτον, which means “washed out” (of a garment that fails to hold dye) at Pl. R. 429e22 and here seemingly refers to the positive hygienic effect that drinking wine before the summer heat begins will have on the lungs in preparation for the months to come (see Interpretation). The error can be analyzed as an example of a rare word driven out by a slightly more common one. Reiske’s ἔκκλυστον is not attested and is in any case a more difficult emendation. Interpretation A report of past events elsewhere, perhaps within the house (cf. fr. 157a ἔνδον with n.), and offered as an explanation of some previous remark (hence γάρ); Meineke (followed by Kock) associated the lines with frr. 157a–b (n.); 166. For Protagoras, see fr. 157a–b and the general introduction to Kolakes. The aorist infinitive πιεῖν (kl) would do just as well metrically in 1 as πίνειν, and the use of the marked form makes it clear that the addressee 22

Contrast the sense “capable of being washed clean” at A. Eu. 281; Pl. Lg. 872e; Poll. 1.44, and cf. the cognate verb ἐκπλύνω, “wash off, wash clean”, at e. g. Ar. Lys. 575; Pl. 1062, 1064; fr. 708.2.

Κόλακες (fr. 158)

51

is not just to drink but to start drinking, go on drinking, or the like, so as to achieve the goal defined in 2. This might be a scene from a symposium, and Kock took the fragment to show that Protagoras played the role of Callias’ symposiarch. But the action described might actually have occurred at any point when Protagoras and his host were together, including at some time in the past and in another place. That one ought to drink during the Dog days is a commonplace; in addition to Alc. fr. 347.1 (quoted in Citation context), cf. Thgn. 1039–40 (cited by Kassel–Austin) ἄφρονες ἄνθρωποι καὶ νήπιοι, οἵτινες οἶνον / µὴ πίνουσ’ ἄστρου καὶ κυνὸς ἀρχοµένου (“those people are thoughtless fools, who do not drink wine when the star and the Dog are waxing”). The same is true of the understanding of the function of the lungs on which the idea is based, which again underlies Alc. fr. 347.1 and is attested elsewhere in the classical period not only in Euripides but at Hp. Cord. 2 = 9.80.14–16 Littré; Pl. Tim. 70c–d—the passage Plutarch is defending—where the organ is said to be τὸ πῶµα δεχοµένη, ψύχουσα, ἀναπνοὴν καὶ ῥᾳστώνην ἐν τῷ καύµατι παρέχοι (“receptive of what one drinks and cooling, so that it can supply relief and rest in the heat”); and according to Plutarch in Philistion (fr. 7 Wellmann) and Dioxippus (i. e. Dexippus of Cos), who were rough contemporaries of Plato. Protagoras’ advice, however, is to drink before the Dog days in order that one’s lung can be “washed clean” (ἔκπλυτον) and thus presumably be prepared for even heavier drinking once the hottest days of summer come; cf. Delphic oracle L103 Fontenrose “For twenty days before the Dog-star rises and twenty days thereafter, use Dionysus as a physician in your shadowy house”. Given what seems to be the hostile characterization of Protagoras in fr. *157b (n.) as a conniving glutton, one might take his suggestion as merely an attempt to find an excuse to drink now,23 even if tradition does not call for such activity until the Dog-star has risen. The text itself, however, reports only that Protagoras urged drinking, not that he drank himself. How Athenaeus knows that the individual referred to as 〈αὐτόν〉 is Callias is unclear, given that none of the other sources for the fragment pass on the detail. This may thus merely be a deduction from the title of the play (removed from the text of the Deipnosophists by the Epitomator, as is his practice, but certainly preserved in the common source of Plutarch, Athenaeus and Galen). 1 ἐκέλευ(ε) The imperfect rather than the aorist of the verb is used routinely to refer to orders issued in the past without regard to whether the 23

Thus Storey’s “it may just be a variation on ‘any excuse for a drink’”, seemingly following Carey’s “he uses his influence and his claim to knowledge to secure wine for himself”—although this is not what the text says.

52

Eupolis

requested action was carried out; the request is what matters. Cf. fr. 99.88 with n.; Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 960 (with a full collection of Aristophanic examples); Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.143–4; Rijksbaron 1984. 18–19. 2 πρὸ τοῦ κυνός “The Dog” is Sirius, Orion’s dog (Il. 22.26–31), the brightest of the fixed stars, which first appears on the horizon just before dawn in mid-July and for about two months thereafter rises earlier every morning and proceeds progressively further up the sky before daybreak; cf. Peck 1970. 383–408; West 1978 on Hes. Op. 417; Kidd 1997 on Arat. 326–37, 332. The “Dog days” were thus the period of greatest heat during the year (cf. Hes. Op. 414–19, 582–4, 609–10; [Hes.] Sc. 152–3 (often deleted as spurious); Alcm. PMG 1.62–3; Archil. fr. 107; Thgn. 1039–40 (quoted above); A. Ag. 967; S. fr. *432.11 with Pearson 1917 ad loc.; E. Hec. 1102–3; Hp. Epid. I 7 = 2.640.3–5 Littré; Arist. Mete. 361b35–6 “after the solstice and the rise of the Dog”), meaning that one might be well advised to be as well-hydrated in advance as possible. φορῇ The verb is commonly used in comedy not just in reference to clothing one wears or accessories one carries about with one (e. g. Ar. Eq. 318, 872 (both of shoes); V. 116 (a robe), 475 (fringe on one’s robe); Av. 1283 (a staff); Pl. Com. fr. 46.8 (boots); Antiph. fr. 202.6 (rags); Eub. fr. 103.1–2 (a garland)), but also of body-parts or the like, generally with the implication that the feature is special or unexpected (e. g. Cratin. frr. 161 (two heads); 327 (a tongue full of lovely words); Telecl. fr. 33 (an udder); Ar. Eq. 757 (a fighting spirit); Av. 573 (wings); Pl. Com. fr. 200.3 (legs thin as cane); Anaxil. fr. 11 (a pig’s snout); Antiph. fr. 46.4 (a moustache); Aristopho fr. 11.8 (wings); Ephipp. fr. 23.2 (a left-handed tongue); Alex. fr. 103.21 (a particularly lovely mouth)).

fr. 159 K.-A. (156 K.) καὶ τὸν Κέκροπα τἄνωθεν ἀνδρός φασ’ ἔχειν µέχρι τῶν κοχωνῶν, τὰ δὲ κάτωθεν θυννίδος 1 τἄνωθεν ἀνδρός φασ’ Nauck et Fritzsche : φασι τὰ ἄνωθεν ἀνδρὸς Σ   2 θυννίδος Daremberg : θυµνίδος Σ : θυννιδοῦ vel θυννιδῶν Goettling

They say that Kekrops too had an upper portion belonging to a man as far as his butt-cheeks, whereas his lower portion belonged to a tuna RH

Σ Hp. Epid. V 7 = 5.208.2–3 Littré (Erot. fr. 17, pp. 103.22–104.6 Nachmanson) καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Κόλαξιν· ――. καὶ ἐν Βάπταις (fr. 88)· ―― Also Eupolis in Kolakes: ――. And in Baptai (fr. 88): ――

Κόλακες (fr. 159)

53

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkr rlkl

llk|l llkl l|rkl llkl

Discussion Fritzsche 1857/58. 6; Napolitano 2012. 206–13 Citation context From a well-informed note on the word κοχώνη, noting the opinions not only of Aristophanes of Byzantium (fr. 341) but also of the grammarians Glaucias, Ischomachus and Hipponax, and citing in addition Ar. fr. 558; Crates Com. fr. 34; Stratt. fr. 56; Eub. fr. 96. The same material, but with the references to primary sources and ancient scholarly opinions stripped out, is preserved at Hsch. κ 3886–7. For the misassignment of the fragment to Baptai, see Interpretation. Text In 1, the unmetrical paradosis φασι τὰ ἄνωθεν ἀνδρὸς was mended by Nauck and Fritzsche by means of a transposition of words. In 2, Daremberg’s θυννίδος is a simple correction of Σ’s nonsensical θυµνίδος. Kassel–Austin also record Goettling’s θυννιδοῦ or θυννιδῶν, which appears to assume an otherwise unattested nominative θυννιδός and thus deserves no consideration. Interpretation Ath. 4.183f assigns fr. 88.1–2 to Baptai, and the easiest explanation of the situation is that Erotian or his source transposed the titles of the two plays by Eupolis and that these words in fact belong to Kolakes. Kekrops, a legendary early king of Athens—usually said to be the first (Marm. Par. FGrH 239 A 1; [Apollod.] Bib. 3.14.1)—was autochthonous, and he was accordingly portrayed in art and literature as serpentine from the waist down (e. g. Ar. V. 438 ὦ Κέκροψ …, τὰ πρὸς ποδῶν ∆ρακοντίδη, “O Kekrops, Drakontides in your footward parts” (playing on the word δράκων, “serpent”, on the one hand, and the name of a contemporary Athenian, on the other); E. Ion 1163–4; Call. fr. 194.68); cf. fr. 259m n.; Kron 1976. 84–103; Rosivach 1987, esp. 294–6; Kearns 1989. 175–6; Gantz 1993. 234–9; LIMC VI.1.1084–5. Here his snaky part is replaced by a fish-tail in the course of comparing him to another individual (hence καὶ τὸν Κέκροπα, “Kekrops too”). µέχρι τῶν κοχωνῶν is in one sense an unnecessary expansion of τἄνωθεν, but it serves to lower the tone; and θυννίδος appears to be reserved for the end of 2 as an aprosdokêton punch-line. If the point of the comparison were simply that the other person in question was also half-man and half-animal, there would be no need to substitute “tuna” for “snake” in the description of Kekrops, meaning that being 50% θυννίς—or at least 50% fish—must be vital to the argument. But whether the idea is that by eating large quantities of tuna one almost turns into one, or that someone is carrying a large tuna over his shoulder and thus

54

Eupolis

looks like he is half-fish, half-man, or is doing a dance that involves moving like a fish or wearing clothing that somehow resembles fish-skin, is impossible to say. For the description, cf. Pl. Cra. 408d Πὰν …, τὰ µὲν ἄνωθεν λεῖος, τὰ δὲ κάτωθεν τραχὺς καὶ τραγοειδής (“Pan … hairless on top, but rough and goatlike below”). 1–2 ἄνωθεν, κάτωθεν For the suffix (Indo-European, and well attested already in Homer, even if these two particular adverbs are not), see Schwyzer 1939 I.627–8, and cf. frr. 87 (ἔ)µπροσθεν; *157b.2 χαµᾶθεν; 364 ὄπισθεν; 386.4 ὁπόθεν. For the sense “above” and “below” (as opposed to “from above” and “from below”), e. g. fr. 115 with n.; A. Ch. 834; Ar. Pax 313; X. Eq. 1.15. 2 µέχρι and the variant, non-Attic form µέχρις (cf. Phryn. Ecl. 6) are attested occasionally in early poetry (Il. 13.143; 24.128; Callin. fr. 1.1; in spurious passages at Archil. fr. 327.4; Thgn. 1299). But in the 5th and 4th centuries, µέχρι is confined to comedy (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 28.3; Ar. Eq. 964; V. 700; Anaxandr. fr. 42.7; Eub. fr. 87.3; Men. Dysc. 33; adesp. com. fr. 1000.32) and prose (e. g. Hdt. 1.4.1; Th. 1.13.4; And. 1.69; X. HG 1.1.5; Is. 8.5; in a spurious passage of tragedy at S. Ai. 571). τῶν κοχωνῶν Glossed “perineum” (i. e. the area between the base of the penis and the anus) by LSJ s. v. (following ΣVEΓΘM Ar. Eq. 424), but described by Erotian as τὰ σφαιρώµατα καλούµενα. σάρκες δ’ εἰσὶν αὗται περιφερεῖς, ἐφ’ αἷς καθήµεθα (“the so-called sphairômata; these are rounded bits of flesh, upon which we sit”), while Poll. 2.183 comments γλουτοῖς …, οἳ καὶ κοχῶναι καὶ πυγαὶ προσαγορεύονται, καὶ προχῶναι παρ’ Ἀρχίππῳ ἐν τῷ Ῥίνωνι (fr. 43) (“buttocks …, which are also referred to as kochônai and pugai (‘butts’), and as prochônai in Archippus in his Rhinôn (fr. 43)”), making it clear that the word was at least conventionally used by extension to mean “buttocks, ass cheeks” (thus also Gal. XIX p. 114.7–9 Kühn).24 It accordingly appears routinely in the plural or dual (in addition to the passages listed under Citation context, see fr. 88.3; Ar. Eq. 424, 484 (the place where the Sausage-seller hid stolen meat as a boy, prompting an observer to comment that he would eventually make a fine politician; both neuter rather than the normal feminine); fr. 496.2; Herod.

24

Henderson 1991 §444 claims that “κοχώνη almost always refers to anal intercourse”, which is not true. Of the passages cited in support of this claim, fr. 88.3 is not a “description of buggery” (see n. ad loc.); Ar. Eq. 424, 483–4 (cited above) is a joke that plays with the idea of anal intercourse, but does not actually refer to it; Ar. fr. 496 (“you need to draw together your ass cheeks”) is not obviously sexual; and Ar. fr. 558, although transmitted to us in a form too corrupt to be fully understood, is cited by Erotian as another example of the word meaning “ass cheeks” rather than “anus”.

Κόλακες (fr. 160)

55

7.48). Like πυγή, the word is not an obscenity. But it does refer to a body-part with the potential to be a locus of sexual desire, and moving one’s kochônai in the right way could, under certain circumstances, have a sort of vulgar appeal; cf. fr. 88.3 n. The θυννίς (in catalogues of seafood and the like at Epich. fr. 55.2; Cratin. fr. 171.49 (not gastronomic); Ar. fr. 430; Anaxandr. fr. 42.49; Mnesim. fr. 4.35; Archestr. fr. 38.1; and perhaps Hippon. fr. 36.2, where see apparatus) is distinguished from the θύννος at Arist. HA 543a12–13 by the observation that it has a πτερύγιον (“small fin” vel sim.) on its underbelly that the θύννος lacks, and Epicharmus (fr. 91), Cratinus (fr. 171.49–50) and Speusippus (fr. 13 Tarán), all ap. Ath. 7.303d, all allegedly distinguished between the two. But precisely what species of tuna is in question is impossible to tell, and Ath. 7.303c οὓς ἔνιοι θύννους καλοῦσιν, Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ θυννίδας (“which some call thynnoi, but the Athenians call thynnides”) makes it clear that the distinction was not always apparent even in the ancient world and may simply have been a question of dialect; cf. Strömberg 1943. 126–9 on the various names for the fish. For tuna and how they were caught, cooked and consumed, see Keller 1909–1913 II.382–93; Thompson 1957. 79–90; Davidson 1981. 125–9; Sparkes 1995; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 35.2. The word lacks an etymology and is probably substrate vocabulary.

fr. 160 K.-A. (150 K.) δραχµῶν ἑκατὸν ἰχθῦς ἐώνηµαι µόνον, ὀκτὼ λάβρακας, χρυσόφρυς δὲ δώδεκα 1 ἐώνηµαι Porson : ἐωνηµενος A : ἐωνήµην Jacobs : ἐωνηµένος post µόνον Fritzsche

For a hundred drachmas I’ve only bought fish: eight sea-bass and a dozen giltheads Ath. 7.328a–b χρύσοφρυς. Ἄρχιππος ἐν Ἰχθύσιν (fr. 18)· ―― … τοὺς δ’ ἰχθῦς τούτους φησὶν Ἱκέσιος καὶ τῇ γλυκύτητι καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ εὐστοµίᾳ πάντων εἶναι ἀρίστους … µνηµονεύει δ’ αὐτῶν καὶ Ἐπίχαρµος ἐν Μούσαις (fr. 45) καὶ ∆ωρίων ἐν τῷ Περὶ Ἰχθύων. Εὔπολις δ’ ἐν Κόλαξί φησιν· ―― Gilthead. Archippus in Ichthyes (fr. 18): ―― … Hicesius claims that these fish are the best there are for sweetness and general good flavor … And Epicharmus mentions them in Mousai (fr. 45), as does Dorion in his On Fish. And Eupolis in Kolakes says: ――

56

Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkr | llkl llkl llkl l|lkl klkl Discussion Jacobs 1809. 180–1; Porson 1812. 101; Meineke 1839 II.492; Töppel 1846. 43–5; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 73; Kock 1880. 298; Schiassi 1944. 90; Schmid 1946. 121; Napolitano 2012. 74–9, 81 Citation context From the long, alphabetically organized catalogue of fishnames that makes up much of Athenaeus Book 7 and that seems to be drawn mostly from Dorion. Omitted from the Epitome. Text For Kaibel’s attempt to append this fragment to fr. 165.1, see Text n. there. In 1, the unmetrical paradosis ἐωνηµενος represents a faulty expansion of an abbreviated ἐωνηµ vel sim.; the lack of accentuation in A reflects the scribe’s awareness that he was writing nonsense. Porson’s perfect ἐώνηµαι and Jacobs’ pluperfect ἐωνήµην are thus equally likely, although the former is a more common tense and thus to be preferred. Fritzsche proposed instead writing µόνον ἐωνηµένος, which solves the metrical problem but leaves the lines with no main verb. Interpretation Someone reports on the results of a very expensive shopping expedition; 2 might only be the beginning of his list of purchases. For the amount of money in question, see fr. 165.1 (where a hundred drachmas is specified—projected?—as the cost for an entire dinner, not just for the fish) with n. Meineke thought that the speaker might be a cook computing the expense of a meal he had prepared for Callias and his guests (thus also Kock, although he speaks only of a servus), as also in fr. 165. But cooks do not yet appear to be stock comic characters in the late 420s BCE (see in general Dohm 1964; Wilkins 2000. 367–414), nor is there any indication that the meal is over: the shopping—or at least the fish-shopping—is complete, but nothing suggests that the cooking is as well, hence the use of the perfect rather than the aorist in 1 (contrast e. g. Alex. fr. 15.8). This might accordingly just as easily be Callias himself (thus already Töppel 1846. 44), back from the market and boasting about the food he purchased there, which he has with him and is ready to hand over to the man who will do the kitchen work. Or perhaps the speaker is a slave, for example (B.) from fr. 165.1, who has for one reason or another failed to stay within his budget. Schmid imagined that the meal in question might be Hipponicus’ funeral banquet rather than an ordinary party. Napolitano 2012. 78–9 hypothesizes that this fragment, like fr. 156, comes from a prologue similar to the slave dialogues that begin Ar. Eq., V. and Pax;

Κόλακες (fr. 161)

57

this might—or just as easily might not—be true. For fish as a central feature of Callias’ feasts, cf. fr. 174.1–2 with nn. 1 For adverbial µόνον, see fr. *244 n. 2 is in apposition to ἰχθῦς in 1, with a single connective δέ (Denniston 1950. 164–5). Note the symmetical structure: number – fish-name – fish-name – number. The λάβραξ (Dicentrarchus labrax, L.; included in banquet catalogues and the like also at e. g. Epich. fr. 56.1; Ar. Eq. 361; fr. 380.1 (the head); Eub. fr. 109.4 (the head); Archestr. fr. 46.2 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.; also in the Akraphaia price decree (SEG XXXII 450; 2nd century BCE) at col. II line 10 (price not preserved)) is a large (up to a meter long), carnivorous fish frequently found—despite its English name—in the mouths of rivers and in lakes and generally regarded as excellent eating. Today many are farmed commercially. See Strömberg 1943. 34–5; Thompson 1957. 140–2; Davidson 1981. 68. The χρύσοφρυς (Sparus aurata, L.; included in banquet catalogues and the like also at Epich. fr. 45; Archestr. fr. 13.1 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.; Matro fr. 1.65), called after the gold band between its eyes, is a sea-fish that spawns in the wild near river mouths. The gilthead is generally regarded as the tastiest of the breams, and like the sea-bass is today widely farmed. See Keller 1909–1913 II.369–70; Strömberg 1943. 26 (on the name); Thompson 1957. 292–4; Davidson 1981. 75.

fr. 161 K.-A. (151 K.) ἄκουε δὴ σκεύη τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν παραπλησίως τε συγγέγραπται τἄπιπλα 1 κατὰ τὴν Phryn. : κατ᾽ Poll.   2 παραπλησίως τε Poll. : παραπλήσι᾽ ὄντα Becker : παραπλήσι᾽ ὄντως Fritzsche   συγγέγραπται τοῖς Poll. : τοῖς del. Runkel : σοι γέγραπται Bentley

Now listen to the objects in the house! and similarly the household items have been listed Poll. 10.10 αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ σκεύη καλοῖτ’ ἂν ἔπιπλα οἱονεὶ κούφη κτῆσις, τὰ ἐπιπολῆς ὄντα τῶν κτηµάτων. ὁ γοῦν Εὔπολις ἐν τοῖς Κόλαξι προειπών (v. 1)· ――, ἐπήγαγε (v. 2)· ―― This equipment would be called epipla, i. e. light property, being the superficial (epipolês) portion of someone’s goods. Eupolis in his Kolakes, for example, first says (v. 1): ――, and then continues (v. 2): ――

58

Eupolis

Phryn. Ecl. 310 ἐνδυµενία ἀµαθῶς, δέον διττῶς λέγειν ὡς Εὔπολις Κόλαξι (v. 1)· σκεύη … οἰκίαν, καί (v. 2)· ἔπιπλα endymenia (is used) out of ignorance, it being necessary to express this in two ways, as Eupolis (does) in Kolakes (v. 1): the objects … house, and (v. 2): epipla

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl llk|r rlkl k|lkl

llkl llkl

Discussion Pauw 1739. 148; Lobeck 1820. 335; Bentley 1824. 38; Runkel 1829. 130; Fritzsche 1835. 55–6; Meineke 1839 II.495–6; Bothe 1844. 16; Fritzsche 1845. 217; Töppel 1846. 51–3; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 69; Kock 1880 I.299; D’Agostino 1957. 71; Napolitano 2012. 80–92, esp. 84–6 Citation context From near the beginning of the long catalogue of equipment (σκεύη) of all sorts that makes up Book 10 of the Onomasticon, representing part of an initial attempt to describe and offer basic vocabulary for what Pollux himself at 10.10 calls σκεύη τὰ κατ’ οἰκίαν χρήσιµα καὶ κατ’ ἀγροὺς ἢ τέχνας (“equipment useful in a household and in agricultural work or crafts”). Related material is preserved at Poll. 10.18–19 τοὔνοµα δὲ ἡ ἀπαρτία ἔστι µὲν Ἰωνικόν, ὠνοµασµένων οὕτω παρ’ αὐτοῖς τῶν κούφων σκευῶν ἃ ἔστι παραρτήσασθαι, ᾗ διανοίᾳ καὶ τὰ ἔπιπλα ὠνοµάσθαι φαµέν (“The noun apartia is Ionian, this being their term for light possessions one can have as appendages, on which theory we say that they are also known as epipla”), to which cf. – Harp. p. 128.8–10 = Ε 109 Keaney ἔπιπλον· Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ πρὸς ∆ιοκλέα (fr. 28 Sauppe)25. τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν σκεύη ἔπιπλα λέγουσι, τὴν οἷον ἐπιπόλαιον κτῆσιν καὶ µετακοµίζεσθαι δυναµένην. Σοφοκλῆς Ἀθάµαντι (fr. *8) (“epiplon: Isaios in his Response to Diocles (fr. 28 Sauppe). They refer to domestic equipment as epipla, property that is as it were superficial (epipolaios) and capable of being transported. Sophocles in Athamas (fr. *8)”) – Hsch. α 5816 ἀπαρτία· τὰ ἔπιπλα (“apartia: epipla”) – Phot. α 2269 = Synag. B α 1636a 〈ἀπαρτία· …〉 κυρίως δὲ ἡ δυναµένη µετακοµίζεσθαι κτῆσις καὶ περιουσία. ἐφ’ ἧς καὶ τὰ ἔπιπλα λέγεται (“〈apartia: …〉 but properly property capable of being transported and plenty, in reference to which it is also called epipla”)

25

Also cited at Poll. 10.11, shortly after Eup. fr. 161, for the supposed use of the singular ἔπιπλον.

Κόλακες (fr. 161)

59

– EM p. 118.39–40 ἀπαρτία· ὁ κατὰ τὸν οἶκον κόσµος, τὰ λεγόµενα ἔπιπλα (“apartia: the furnishings in one’s house, so-called epipla”) Pollux’ source is likely identical with the one that lies behind the text of Phrynichus (known to us only in an epitome), given his condemnation of the term ἐνδοµενία that follows at 10.12 (τὴν δὲ τοιαύτην κατασκευὴν ἐνδοµενίαν οἱ πολλοὶ καλοῦσιν· ἐγὼ δὲ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ µὲν τοὔνοµα … κάλλιον δὲ ταύτην τὴν ἐνδοµενίαν παγκτησίαν ἢ παµπησίαν ὀνοµάσαι, ὡς ἐν Ἐκκλησιαζούσαις Ἀριστοφάνης (868), “Prevailing usage refers to such fittings as endomenia; but I do not recommend the noun … It is better to refer to this endomenia as panktêsia or pampêsia, as in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae (868)”), matching Phrynichus’ view in Ecl. 310. Cf. – Hsch. ε 2811 ἐνδοµενία· κτῆσις ἢ ἀποσκευή (“endomenia: property or household goods”) – Suda ε 1194 ἐνδοµενία. τὴν µὲν ἐνδοµενίαν26 ἅπασαν ἐκ τῶν οἰκιῶν ἐξήρπασαν. τὰ ἔπιπλα (“endomenia: on the hand, they snatched all the endomenia out of the houses; epipla”; a garbled reference to Plb. 4.72.1 οἱ δὲ Μακεδόνες εἰσπεσόντες τὴν µὲν ἐνδοµενίαν ἅπασαν ἐκ τῶν οἰκιῶν παραχρῆµα διήρπασαν, “The Macedonians burst in and immediately tore all the endomenia out of the houses”). Traces of another note or set of notes similarly attempting to explain the term ἔπιπλα etymologically are preserved at – Harp. p. 128.8–10 = Ε 109 Keaney (quoted above); cf. the Epitome of Harpocration at Phot. ε 1659 = Suda ε 2512 ~ EM p. 363.9–10 ἔπιπλα· τὰ ἐξ ἐπιπολῆς σκεύη, οἷον ἡ ἐπιπόλαιος κτῆσις καὶ ὅση δυνατὴ πλωΐζεσθαι, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔγγειος (“epipla: equipment that is on top (epipolês), i. e. property that is superficial (epipolaios) and can be transported by sea (plôizesthai), but that is not tied to land”) – Suda ε 2510 ἔπιπλα· ἡ µὴ ἔγγειος κτῆσις, ἀλλὰ ἐπιπόλαιος (“epipla: property that is not tied to land, but is superficial (epipolaios)”) – Suda ε 2511 ἔπιπλα· σκεύη τὰ µὴ ἔγγεια, ἀλλ’ οἷον ἐπιπόλαια. οἱ δὲ ἐπίπλεα27 αὐτά φασιν (“epipla: equipment that is not tied to land, but is, as it were, superficial (epipolaios); others say that this equipment is full (epiplea)”).

26

27

The manuscripts of the Suda have ἐνδυοµενία. τὴν µὲν ἐνδυοµενίαν, which represents two variant readings, one preserved via a single letter (upsilon or omicron) written in over the line that was later brought down into the text. Probably to be emended to ἐπίπλοα, in which case this is a reference to Hdt. 1.94.6.

60

Eupolis

Text As Kock noted, the two verses cannot be automatically assumed to have come one immediately the other, although he and Meineke both print them that way. In 1, Pollux’ κατ᾽ οἰκίαν is metrical, but yields an incomplete line without a normal caesura (klkl llrl kl〈kl〉) and seems merely to reflect Pollux’ own preferred phrasing (10.10 σκεύη τὰ κατ’ οἰκίαν χρήσιµα, 11 ἡ κατ’ οἶκον κατασκευή). 2 is garbled in Pollux, who offers the hypermetrical παραπλησίως τε συγγέγραπται τοῖς τὰ ἔπιπλα. τοῖς and τὰ must be variants, both of which have made their way into the text, with τοῖς intended to accommodate the prefix on συγγέγραπται, allowing ἔπιπλα to serve as the object of the verb. It is easier to take τἄπιπλα (written in scriptio plena in the manuscripts) as the subject, and the question then becomes how many additional emendations—if any—to accept. Bentley proposed σοι γέγραπται (“you have written down”; printed by Kassel–Austin), but this removes the caesura and should be rejected. While τε is problematic, in the sense that we do not know what παραπλησίως … συγγέγραπται τἄπιπλα is being linked to, that is not an obvious ground for altering the text. Interpretation 1 introduces the oral delivery of a household inventory to a single individual, while 2 announces that such an inventory has been completed (note the perfect form of the verb) in written form. That the inventories mentioned in these verses are connected with the orders in frr. 163 and *164 (assuming that the latter comes from Kolakes), and that they have to do with Callias’ property, are reasonable hypotheses although incapable of proof. Pollux implies that 1 originally stood shortly before 2 in the text, but there is no reason to believe that he had access to the text of Kolakes itself, meaning that no great weight should be given to the information. Meineke thought that the reference was to what he took to be the kolakes’ plundering of Callias’ house, and he associated frr. 170 and 183—along with, more tentatively, frr. 415 and 453—with this one, as items in a list of what was seized and carried off. Kock, on the other hand, hypothesized that the speakers were carrying out an inventory of Callias’ newly inherited property. 1 ἄκουε δή A common combination, not only in comedy (e. g. Ar. Eq. 1014*; Av. 1513* (both ἄκουε δή νυν); Pl. 76 ἀκούετον δή; Pl. Com. frr. 188.11; 189.5; Men. Sam. 305 ἄκουε δή νυν) but in tragedy (e. g. A. fr. **78a.4*; E. Hec. 833*; Supp. 857 (both ἄκουε δή νυν); [A.] PV 630) and in 4th-century prose attempting to imitate normal speech (e. g. X. Cyr. 2.1.4; Pl. Tht. 201d) as well. Cf. fr. 195.1 ἄκουε νῦν (or ἄκουέ νυν) with n. The use of δή directly after an imperative “is exceedingly common in Aristophanes … It is rare in tragedy,

Κόλακες (fr. 161)

61

and … appears to have been mainly colloquial in the fifth and fourth centuries. δή may usually be rendered here ‘come’ or ‘now’” (Denniston 1950. 216). For σκεύη τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν, see 2 n. on ἔπιπλα; frr. 191 with n.; 307 with n.; Ar. Th. 401–3 (a cookpot). Pollux includes beds and chairs in his discussion in Book 10 of σκεύη τὰ κατ’ οἰκίαν χρήσιµα (“equipment useful in a household”; see 10.32–6, 47–9, respectively), suggesting that furniture normally falls into this category, despite X. Oec. 9.6–7 (2 n.). 2 παραπλήσιος and cognates are late 5th- and 4th-century prosaic vocabulary (e. g. Hdt. 1.77.4; Hp. Epid. III 1.2 = 3.34.7 Littré; Th. 1.22.4; X. Mem. 3.4.12; Isoc. 1.27; Pl. Ap. 37a); attested elsewhere in poetry only at Cratin. Jun. fr. 1.5 (expelled by Dobree); Men. Asp. 3. συγγράφω is also late 5th- and 4th-century prosaic vocabulary (e. g. Hdt. 1.47.1; Th. 1.1.1; 8.67.1; X. HG 2.3.2), attested elsewhere in poetry only at Ar. Th. 432; Antiph. fr. 111.5, and perhaps Ar. Av. 805. At X. Oec. 9.6–7, the wealthy Ischomachus offers a catalogue of the ἔπιπλα (“moveable property, furnishings”, 〈 ἐπιπέλοµαι, “be in addition”; Attic–Ionic vocabulary, in an Attic inscription at IG II3 431.12) in his house, which include sacrificial implements; festival clothing for men and women; clothing men wear for war, i. e. armor and associated items; men’s and women’s shoes; weapons; spinning implements; bread-making and cooking equipment; and articles used for bathing, kneading and dining, all of which are utilitarian objects valuable in the first instance for the labor invested in manufacturing them rather than for the raw materials out of which they are produced. Animals and agricultural products are excluded from Ischomachus’ list, apparently being regarded as something more like commodities, as is—more surprisingly—furniture (but see 1 n. on σκεύη τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν, suggesting that furniture ought probably to be thought of as belonging to the category, and that its exclusion is merely a peculiarity of the construction of Xenophon’s narrative). So too ἔπιπλα are distinguished (a) from land, houses and cash at X. Mem. 2.7.2 and said to be the sort of thing one would sell to raise money to live on, if anyone were buying; (b) from a house, slaves and land at Isoc. 21.2; (c) from land, sheep, goats, a horse and “all the other κατασκευή he owned” at Is. 11.41; (d) from land and cash, on the one hand, and sheep, barley, wine and fruit, on the other, at Is. 11.43; (e) from a house, drinking vessels (ἐκπώµατα; presumably of too much intrinsic value to be included in the ἔπιπλα), the gold coins a woman wore as jewelry (cf. Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 258) and her himatia (i. e. festival clothing, treated by Ischomachus as ἔπιπλα), and cash at D. 27.10; and (f) from cash and land, on the one hand, and animals and slaves, on the other, at Arist. Rh. 1361a12–14.

62

Eupolis

fr. 162 K.-A. (155 K.) φέρουσιν, ἁρπάζουσιν ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας τὸ χρυσίον, τἀργύρια πορθεῖται 1 φέρουσιν Naber : φοροῦσιν Poll.    ἁρπάζουσιν del. Herwerden

they’re carrying off, they’re snatching the gold coinage from the house, the silver coins are being plundered Poll. 9.89–90 τἀργύρια … ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀργυρίου σπανίως ἄν τις εὕροι παρ’ αὐτοῖς, ἐγὼ δ’ εὗρον ἐν ταῖς Νήσοις Ἀριστοφάνους (fr. 412). εἰ δὲ ὑποπτεύεται τὸ δρᾶµα ὡς Ἀριστοφάνους οὐ γνήσιον, ἀλλ’ οὔτι γε καὶ οἱ Κόλακες Εὐπόλιδος, ἐν οἷς εἶπε· ―― One would only occasionally find argyria (pl.) in place of argyrion (sing.) in (ancient Attic authors), although I found it in Aristophanes’ Nêsoi (fr. 412). But if the play is suspected of not being a legitimate work of Aristophanes, the Kolakes of Eupolis is assuredly not also (regarded thus), in which (the author) said: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl llk|l llkl llkl lrk|l ll〈ckl〉 Discussion Meineke 1836 I.136–7, II.495; Töppel 1846. 49–51; Herwerden 1855. 24–5; Kock 1880 I.300; Naber 1880. 36; Schiassi 1944. 93–4; Pivetti 1982. 254–5; Storey 2003. 192; Pirrotta 2009. 152; Napolitano 2012. 214–21 Citation context Pollux quotes the fragment in the course of a discussion of various words for coins. According to the anonymous Life (= Ar. test. 1.60–1 K.-A. = anon. de Com. XXVIII.66–7 Koster), Aristophanes’ Nêsoi, whose authenticity Pollux acknowledges was open to doubt, was assigned by some authorities to Archippus. Very similar material—probably from the same source, given the overlapping references to Ar. fr. 412—is preserved at Poll. 3.86 τὸ δ’ ἀργύριον καλεῖται καὶ χρήµατα καὶ νόµισµα, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ χρυσίον. ἀργύρια δὲ κατὰ πλῆθος ἥκιστα λέγουσιν οἱ Ἀττικοί, εἴρηται δ’ ἐν Κωκάλῳ (fr. 368) καὶ Νήσοις (fr. 412) Ἀριστοφάνους (“The term argyrion is used of both money collectively and of an individual coin, as is the term chrysion. Attic-speakers rarely say argyria in the plural, but the form is used in Aristophanes’ Kôkalos (fr. 368) and Nêsoi (fr. 412)”); 7.103–4 ἀργύριον τὸ νόµισµα· εἴρηται δὲ καὶ ἀργύρια ἐν Ἀριστοφάνους Νήσοις (fr. 412) (“a coin is an argyrion; argyria (pl.) is also used in Aristophanes’ Nêsoi (fr. 412)”).

Κόλακες (fr. 162)

63

The word ἀργύριον was seemingly of interest to the Atticist lexicographers, further traces of whose treatment of it are preserved at – Antiatt. p. 79.20–1 ἀργύρια πληθυντικῶς, οὐχ ἑνικῶς. Πλάτων Κλεοφῶντι (fr. 63) (“agryria in the plural, not the singular. Plato in Kleophôn (fr. 63)”) – ΣE Ar. Nu. 756 οὕτως ἡ γραφὴ “ἀργυρίων” πληθυντικῶς παρὰ Φρυνίχῳ κεῖται. ὅτι οἱ κωµικοὶ πληθυντικῶς φασιν, οἱ δὲ ῥήτορες ἑνικῶς (“The reading is found thus, argyriôn in the plural, in Phrynichus (PS fr. *25). The comic poets use the word in the plural, the orators in the singular”) ~ EM p. 137.28–31 ἰστέον ὅτι πᾶν νόµισµα, εἴτ’ ἐν χαλκῷ, εἴτ’ ἐν ἀργύρῳ, εἴτ’ ἐν χρυσῷ, εἰώθασιν ἀργύριον καλεῖν· καὶ οἱ µὲν ῥήτορες, ἑνικῶς· οἱ δὲ κωµικοὶ, ἀργύρια, πληθυντικῶς (“It should be noted that they tended to call any coin, be it of bronze, silver or gold, an argyrion; and the orators use the singular, whereas the comic poets use the plural, argyria”) – Suda α 3789 = Synag. B α 2085 (= Phryn. PS fr. *257) ἀργυρίδιον· ὡς ἡµεῖς Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις (fr. 124)· ―― (“argyridion: Eupolis in Dêmoi (uses the word) as we do (fr. 124): ――”) – Suda α 3789 = Synag. B α 2086 ~ Phot. α 2784 (= Phryn. PS fr. *258) ἀργύριον καὶ τὸ λεπτὸν νόµισµα καλοῦσιν, ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης ∆αναΐσιν (fr. 273) (“they also call small coinage argyrion, as Aristophanes [does] in Danaides (fr. 273)”). Text ἁρπάζω and πορθέω are synonyms, leaving the paradosis φοροῦσιν (“bear”, generally in reference to habitual action and thus often of wearing clothes or the like; cf. fr. 158.2 n.) in 1 as odd man out. I print instead Naber’s φέρουσιν, a simple change that yields precisely the sense that is wanted (LSJ s. v. VI.2).28 Herwerden proposed deleting the second verb as a gloss on the first, but Kassel–Austin cite A. Pers. 463 παίουσι κρεοκοποῦσι δυστήνων µέλη (“they strike, they chop up the limbs of the miserable creatures”) as an example of a similar asyndeton; cf. Bruhn 1899. 86–7, with numerous other examples, including S. Ant. 1037; Garvie 2009 on Pers. 424–6; Napolitano 2012. 216–17, citing E. Hec. 1171 κεντοῦσιν αἱµάσσουσιν; HF 999 σκάπτει µοχλεύει. Interpretation Seemingly from a messenger speech or the like. “The house” in question is generally taken to be Callias’, the individuals doing the plundering to be his toadies (thus already Meineke, followed by Bothe, Kock and Storey

28

Napolitano 2012. 215 n. 583 argues against the change, citing as counter-examples Hes. Op. 38 ἁρπάζων έφόρεις and E. Cyc. 232 ἐφόρουν τά χρήµατα. As West 1978 ad loc. notes, however, in the first case “the frequentative … implies repetition”, as cannot be the case here; and the Euripides passage is better understood as another example of the same simple error as in Eupolis.

64

Eupolis

“The kolakes are very likely the subject”; cf. Napolitano 2012. 214 “la più chiara e diretta testimonianza de come … fosse fatto riferimento alle indiscriminate ruberie dei parassiti di Callia”). But these are merely modern interpretative commonplaces, and what is described is robbery (or at least theft) rather than simple exploitation and—at least in what we have of the narrative—involves money rather than food, suggesting that the situation in the house has got entirely out of hand, but also allowing for the possibility that the actions of some belligerent third party are in question, or that someone or something else is being attacked. Napolitano 2012. 217–19 takes the verbs to be historical presents, which would reinforce the paratragic character of the speech; cf. frr. 162; 166. Alternatively, the action might be going on offstage as it is described. Napolitano’s claim that the speech necessarily comes from the end of the comedy, informing us about its overall narrative arc, must be treated with similar caution; the lines might have come instead from the very beginning of the play, for example, setting up all the action to come. 1 ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας * at Ar. Nu. 123; Lys. 866; Ec. 65; Men. Sam. 382; fr. 296.3; Euphro fr. 1.3; cf. Anaxil. fr. 22.11; Men. Sam. 443, 469 (all line final). Otherwise prosaic. 2 Kock translates ἀργύρια as “vasa argentea” (“silver vessels”; endorsed without argument by Pirrotta (on Pl. Com. fr. 63) and half-heartedly by Napolitano 2012. 218 n. 590 “non si può escludere troppo recisamente”). But the word—generally used collectively in the singular (metrically impossible here), as the lexicographers note—always refers to silver money (particularly clear examples at IG I3 52.24; Ar. Eq. 1197 ἀργυρίου βαλλάντια, “purses full of money”; Nu. 1285–6 εἰ σπανίζετ’ ἀργυρίου, τὸν γοῦν τόκον / ἀπόδοτε, “if you’re short of money, at least pay back the interest”; Lys. 1051–4; Pl. 808–9 ἅπαντα δ’ ἡµῖν ἀργυρίου καὶ χρυσίου / τὰ σκευάρια πλήρη ’στίν, “all our vessels are full of silver and gold coins”; fr. 215 οὐδ’ ἀργύριον ἔστιν κεκερµατισµένον, “and there’s no money broken down into change”; And. 1.73 ἀργύριον ὀφείλοντες, “owing money”), or on rare occasions to silver fit for coining but not yet coined (e. g. Th. 6.8.1 ἀσήµου ἀργυρίου; IG II2 1388.72), just as collective χρυσίον is money made of gold (e. g. frr. 99.86, 89; 123; IG I3 52.24; Ar. Ach. 102; Eq. 472; Pax 645; Ra. 720; Pl. 808 (cited above); E. Cyc. 161), i. e. στατῆρες (cf. fr. 270.2 n.), or on occasion mintable gold. Gold and silver vessels, by contrast, are χρυσίδες and ἀργυρίδες, respectively (e. g. IG I3 310.32–3; 325.11–12; Cratin. fr. 132; Pherecr. fr. 135; Hermipp. fr. 38; Anaxil. fr. 39). For χρυσός, see fr. 123 n. πορθέω is common in tragedy (e. g. A. Ag. 342; S. Ant. 297; E. Supp. 1214; Ph. 570), but is also found in the 5th-century historians (e. g. Hdt. 1.162.2; Th.

Κόλακες (fr. 163)

65

7.29.4) and in 4th-century prose (e. g. X. HG 1.2.17; Isoc. 14.43; Pl. Lg. 806b). The use of the verb thus does not in and of itself mark this as paratragedy even if the language is strikingly violent.

fr. 163 K.-A. (153 K.) θὲς νῦν ἀγροὺς καὶ πρόβατα καὶ βοῦς Now put down fields and sheep and cows! Choerob. Grammatici Graeci IV.2 p. 238.30–5 ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι σπανία ἐστὶν ἡ χρῆσις τῆς βοῦς εὐθείας τῶν πληθυντικῶν, µᾶλλον δὲ οἱ βόες εὕρηται· ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ὁµοφωνούσης αὐτῇ αἰτιατικῆς, λέγω δὴ τῆς τοὺς βοῦς, πλατεῖά ἐστιν ἡ χρῆσις, ὡς ἐν Κόλαξιν Εὐπόλιδος· ――, καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ἡρακλείδῃ ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ τῆς Λέσχης (SH 476) It should be noted that the use of the nominative plural bous is rare, and that boes is found more often. But in regard to the accusative, which sounds the same as [the nominative plural]—I mean tous bous—the use is common, as in Eupolis’ Kolakes: ――, and in Heracleides at the beginning of the Leschê (SH 476)

Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g.

llkl

l|rk|l

l〈lkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.497; Töppel 1846. 54–5; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 69–70; Meineke 1847. 189; Kaibel ap. K.-A. fr. 165; Napolitano 2012. 80–92 Citation context From Choeroboscus’ commentary on Theodosius; part of a long discussion of vowel contraction in a class of nouns for which βοῦς serves as the paradigm. Thomas Magister p. 55.10–13, citing Ar. fr. 798, appears to be drawn from a similar source, perhaps to be identified as Phrynichus: λέγε ἐπὶ µὲν τῆς εὐθείας τῶν πληθυντικῶν βόες, εἰ καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης κἂν ἀναγκασθεὶς ἅπαξ βοῦς εἶπεν· ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς αἰτιατικῆς βοῦς (“Say in the nominative plural boes, even if Aristophanes had no choice at one point but to say bous; and in the accusative bous”). Text In an attempt to tie this line directly to fr. *164 (n.), Meineke proposed filling out the lacuna at the end with 〈ἢν ἰδοῦ〉 (cf. fr. 165.1 ἰδού / with n.; Ar. Pax 327; Ra. 1390) or 〈λέγ᾽ ἕτερον〉 (cf. Theophil. fr. 8.4; Alex. fr. 15.4*, 15*). Interpretation An order addressed to a single individual. The fragment was associated with fr. *164 (n.) by Runkel, and with fr. 165 (n.) by Kaibel. Here and in fr. *164, θές appears to mean “write down, list” (LSJ s. v. τίθηµι A.II.9.a;

66

Eupolis

cf. Eub. fr. 119; S. fr. 597 θοῦ δ’ ἐν φρενὸς δέλτοισι τοὺς ἐµοὺς λόγους, “write down my words for yourself in the tablets of your mind”), and fields, sheep and cows are easily understood as a generic inventory of rural property, whether belonging to Callias himself (thus Meineke, whose hypothesis has been accepted as the modern communis opinio; cf. fr. 161 with n.) or to some other person or entity. For land, oxen and πρόβατα as basic elements of an (often idealizing) view of life in the countryside, cf. Ar. Nu. 45 (sheep); Pax 535 (sheep); Av. 582–3 τῶν ζευγαρίων, οἷσιν τὴν γῆν καταροῦσιν, / καὶ τῶν προβάτων (“the plow-animals, with which they turn the soil, and the probata”); fr. 402.2, 4–5 οἰκεῖν µὲν ἐν ἀγρῷ τοῦτον ἐπὶ τῷ γῃδίῳ / … / κεκτηµένον ζευγάριον οἰκεῖον βοοῖν, / ἔπειτ’ ἀκούειν προβατίων βληχωµένων (“that this man live in the country on a little plot of land, … owning his own team of oxen; and then that he listen to the little sheep bleating”). For the economics of animal herding, see Hodkinson 1988; Rosivach 1994. 69–106; McInerney 2010. 173–95. ἀγροί are here specifically “fields, plots of cultivated land”, as at e. g. Ar. Nu. 1117; Av. 579; Pl. 224; Lys. fr. 287.2; Is. 5.43; Philem. fr. 105.1. Contrast the more general use of the word in both singular and plural to mean “countryside” (e. g. fr. 358; Ar. Ach. 250 τὰ κατ’ ἀγροὺς ∆ιονύσια, “the Rural Dionysia”; Eq. 1394; fr. 109.1 ἐξ ἄστεως νῦν εἰς ἀγρὸν χωρῶµεν, “let’s go now from the city into the countryside!”). Horses (cf. fr. *164) are not herd-animals and are therefore not included in the category πρόβατα (〈 προβαίνω, “walk in front”, sc. of a herdsman). Oxen are normally distinguished from πρόβατα as well, regardless of whether they are called βοῦς/βόες (as here) or ὑποζύγια (e. g. Th. 2.14.1; 7.27.5). As LSJ s. v. notes, πρόβατον is often used in comedy in ways that make it clear that the reference is specifically to sheep rather than to sheep and goats generally (e. g. Cratin. frr. 39.2 (sheared for wool); 45 (making the sound βῆ βῆ, “bê bê”); Ar. Av. 714 (producing wool); Pl. 293–4 (described as bleating and distinguished from αἶγες, “goats”); Antiph. fr. 21.2–5 (producing wool and lambs, and distinguished from an αἰγίδιον, “little goat”, which produces kids); Men. Theophor. fr. 1.3 (distinguished from a τράγος, “billy goat”), as routinely in non-Attic authors. It is nonetheless unclear that the distinction is consistently maintained in Attic prose, where the fundamental opposition seems to be between βοῦς and πρόβατον (e. g. And. fr. 3.4; Pl. Euthyd. 302a; R. 343b; X. Oec. 5.20; 10.7; An. 6.3.22; 6.4.22; 7.3.48; 7.7.53; Cyr. 4.1.9; D. 19.265; but note e. g. Is. 11.41, quoted in fr. *164 n.), raising the possibility that the latter term is sometimes used in comedy as well in an unmarked fashion to mean “sheep and/or goats”, as perhaps here. Cf. fr. 99.34 with n.

Κόλακες (fr. *164)

67

fr. *164 K.-A. (152 K.) ἵππον κέλητ’ ἀσκοῦντα θές Put down a racing horse in training! Phryn. PS p. 28.9–11 ἀσκεῖν καὶ ἀσκηταί καὶ ἀσκητικῶς (ἀσκητικός Schaefer)· τὸ ἀγωνιστικῆς ἐπιµελείας τυγχάνειν ἀσκεῖν ἐστιν. Εὔπολις· ――, οἷον ἀγωνιστήν askein (“to practice”) and askêtai (“practitioners”) and askêtikôs (“laboriously, athletically” : “athletic” Schaefer): askein is to be involved in a competitive pursuit. Eupolis: ――, i. e. one involved in competitions29

Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g.

llkl

llk|l 〈cxlkl〉

Discussion Runkel 1829. 170–1; Fritzsche 1835. 202 n. 31; Meineke 1839 II.497; Töppel 1846. 54–5; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 69–70; Kock 1880 I.299; Napolitano 2012. 80–92 Citation context An isolated Atticist note. The adverb ἀσκητικῶς is attested elsewhere before the late Roman period only at Poll. 3.145 µουσικῶς, ἀθλητικῶς, ἀσκητικῶς, ἀγωνιστικῶς (“musically, athletically, askêtikôs, competitively”; from a section on words having to do with athletic, dramatic and musical competitions), which might be drawn from the same source; note also Poll. 3.143 οἱ γυµνικοὶ … κυρίως ἀθληταὶ καλοῦνται καὶ ἀσκηταὶ καὶ ἀγωνισταί (“Those who participate in sporting events are properly called athlêtai, askêtai and agônistai”). But the adjective from which the adverb is formed is a a typical late 5th-century formation found already at Ar. Lys. 1085 (glossed “liable to afflict an athlete” by Henderson 1987a ad loc.); Pl. Lg. 806a; and see in general fr. 350 n. on πυκτικός. Text Joined to fr. 163 (where see Text) by Meineke. Interpretation An order addressed to a single individual. The fragment was assigned to Kolakes on the basis of its similarity to fr. 163 (n.; and cf. fr. 165) by Runkel, who argued that if the thesis is accepted, θὲς νῦν in fr. 163 (contrast simple θές here) suggests that that line originally followed this one.30 Kock 29 30

Rusten 2011. 164 mistakenly translates οἷον ἀγωνιστήν (“i. e. one for competitions”) as if it were part of the fragment. Hence the order of the fragments in Kock, reversed by Kassel–Austin.

68

Eupolis

compared in addition fr. 302; Ar. Eq. 21–4 λέγε … / … νῦν / … φάθι, / … νῦν … λέγε; Ra. 286–7.31 A horse is an exceptional item of property—cf. the estate described at Is. 11.41 as consisting in part of ἀγρὸν Ἐλευσῖνι δυοῖν ταλάντοιν, πρόβατα ἑξήκοντα, αἶγας ἑκατόν, ἔπιπλα, ἵππον λαµπρὸν ἐφ’ οὗ ἐφυλάρχησε (“cultivated land at Eleusis worth two talents, sixty sheep, a hundred goats, household furnishings, a splendid horse that he rode as tribal cavalry commander”). Why the fact that this horse is in training (ἀσκοῦντα) matters is unclear; perhaps others were mentioned that were not, or perhaps this is the one vivid detail that enlivens a list of otherwise generic items, as in Isaeus (above). But the fact that the items listed in fr. 163 are generic rather than specific does not automatically count against bringing the fragments together, even if this one only belongs to Kolakes by conjecture. A ἵππος κέλης is a race-horse on whose back a jockey rides, as opposed to one yoked to a cart (Od. 5.371 ἀµφ’ ἑνὶ δούρατι βαῖνε, κέληθ’ ὡς ἵππον ἐλαύνων, “he got astride a beam, like a man riding a race-horse”; Hdt. 7.86.1; Ar. Pax 900 and Lys. 60, both double entendres alluding to a sexual position in which the woman mounted and “rode” the man, as at Ar. V. 501; Pl. Lys. 205c; Antiph. fr. 88.4; cf. Campagner 2001. 186–8). For horse-racing, Bell 1989, esp. 177–81. For horse-owning generally—restricted to wealthy individuals—see Wyse 1904. 471–5. ἀσκοῦντα For the verb used absolutely in the sense “be in training, work out”, see LSJ s. v. II.4 (all examples prosaic); more often in comedy with an accusative of the skill or body part trained (e. g. Ar. Nu. 1058–9; Ra. 1025, 1030; fr. 205.8; see LSJ s. v. II.2). θές See fr. 163 n. fr. 165 K.-A. (149 K.) (Α.) δεῖπνον θὲς ἑκατὸν δραχµάς. (Β.) ἰδού (A.) κόλαξιν οἶνον θὲς ἑτέραν µνᾶν 1 δεῖπνον Poll. : δείπνου Herwerden   2 κόλαξιν del. Kock   οἶνον Poll. : οἴνου Herwerden 31

Ar. Ra. 286–7 is not obviously relevant, since νυν ἴθι is simply used twice in succession. But note with other verbs e. g. Ar. Ach. 449 ἄπελθε followed by 458 ἄπελθέ νύν µοι, 582–5 ἀπένεγκε followed by παράθες νυν, φέρε νυν and νύν … λαβοῦ; Eq. 170 κάτιδε followed by 173 ἔτι νῦν τὸν ὀφθαλµὸν παράβαλ’, 495 σπεῦδε followed by µέµνησό νυν, 1212 ξύλλαβε … καὶ βασάνισον followed by 1217 βάδιζέ νυν.

Κόλακες (fr. 165)

69

(A.) Count dinner as 100 drachmas! (B.) Done! (A.) Count wine for kolakes as another mina! Poll. 9.59 ἡ µνᾶ δ’ εἶχεν ἡ Ἀττικὴ δραχµὰς ἑκατόν, ὡς ἀκριβέστατα ἔστιν ἐν τοῖς Εὐπόλιδος Κόλαξιν (v. 1)· ――. εἶτα ἐπιφέρει (v. 2)· ――. δῆλον ὅτι µνᾶν εἴρηκεν καὶ τὰς ἑτέρας ἑκατὸν δραχµάς The Attic mina contained one hundred drachmas, as is particularly clear in Eupolis’ Kolakes (v. 1): ――. Then he continues (v. 2): ――. It is clear that he uses the term mina for an additional hundred drachmas

Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlk〉l l|rkl

klkl

l|rkl

klkl l〈lkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.492; Töppel 1846. 45–6; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 72; Herwerden 1864. 7; Kock 1880 I.298; Schiassi 1944. 89; Blank 1985. 5; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 182; Napolitano 2012. 80–92, esp. 86–8, 91–2 Citation context Cited by Pollux in the course of a discussion of words for various coins and units of weight that also includes frr. 123 and 270 (where see Citation context) for στατήρ, and taken over from Pollux in a slightly garbled and lacunose form by ΣΓCVOΩ∆ Luc. JTr. 25, p. 66.10–14 Rabe. Text Herwerden, comparing Ar. Nu. 31 τρεῖς µναῖ διφρίσκου καὶ τροχοῖν (“three minas for a small chariot and wheels”) and Eriph. fr. 2.4–5 τούτων µὲν ὀβολὸν … / τίθηµι (“I’m setting the price for these at an obol”), proposed emending the accusatives δεῖπνον in 1 and οἶνον in 2 to genitives, an inversion of the normal genitive of price attested also at e. g. Ar. Pax 848, 1214, 1217; Alex. fr. 15.6; cf. Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.378; Poultney 1936. 104). It is simpler to assume a different construction, with the accusatives in apposition to one another. In 2, Kock proposed expelling κόλαξιν as a repetition of the title of the play. But the alleged intrusion is so clumsy as to be difficult to explain, and since the word both scans and makes reasonable sense, there is no compelling reason to remove it. Kaibel wanted to combine 1 with fr. 160, with (A.) being a money-lender and (B.) being Callias, who protests that his need for funds is even greater than his interlocutor believes. ἰδού must then be taken as introducing a disgusted or angry quotation of something the other speaker has said which is nominally held up for inspection by a third party, as at Ar. fr. 205.2 ἰδοὺ

70

Eupolis

σορέλλη· τοῦτο παρὰ Λυσιστράτου (“Note ‘sorellê’; this is from Lysistratus”; the same use of the word at e. g. Ar. Eq. 344, 703; Nu. 818, 872, 1469; Lys. 441, and perhaps Pherecr. fr. 73.3). But δραχµῶν ἑκατόν alters both the case and the order of ἑκατὸν δραχµάς and integrates it into the syntax of Callias’ supposed reply (not “Note ‘a hundred drachmas’” but “Look here—for a hundred drachmas …”), none of which ought to happen with this use of ἰδού. Interpretation Regardless of what θές means in frr. 163–*4 (see fr. 163 n.), here with the double accusative the sense can only be as at LSJ s. v. τίθηµι A.II.9.b, “place to account, reckon”;32 cf. Pl. R. 539e πέντε θές (“Call [the number] five”); Anacreont. 14.7–9 ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν / ἔρωτας εἴκοσιν θές / καὶ πεντεκαίδεκ’ ἄλλους (“Count my loves from Athens as twenty, plus fifteen more”). (A.) is thus adding up the costs—perhaps afterward (thus Meineke, taking him to be a cook; cf. fr. 160 with n.), as at Alex. fr. 15, but more likely ahead of time, hence the guessing about precise numbers (~ budgeting), as at Ephipp. fr. 15—for a dinner party (1) and symposium (2). (B.) is doing the actual accounting, i. e. either entering the numbers (A.) comes up with on a writing tablet (cf. Strepsiades’ γραµµατεῖον at Ar. Nu. 19–23, 30–1, which shows who is owed money, what it was used for, and apparently both the interest rate and when the debt is due) or on a counting-board (cf. Alex. fr. 15.3; Thphr. Char. 23.6; Lang 1957. 275–82; Lang 1968), or alternatively is preparing a check-list for the marketplace. If (B.) is being sent off to do the shopping, he is presumably a slave; cf. fr. 160 with n. This does not mean that on that hypothesis (A.) must be Callias, and κόλαξιν in 2 in fact fits better in the mouth of a third party, who knows toadies for what they are and refers to them as such, at least to (B.). This is in any case an extremely expensive event, two mnai being equivalent to 1/30th of a talent, on the one hand, and to well over half a year’s wages for a skilled craftsman, on the other—nor is there any reason to think that what is preserved is a full accounting of the symposium expenses in particular. 1 ἰδού  (colloquial), properly “Behold!”, regularly signals compliance with a request or order (“There/here you go!, Voila!”), as at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 73.3; Ar. Ach. 583; Eq. 157; Men. Dysc. 909; cf. Stevens 1976. 35; López Eire 1996. 184–6. 2 µνᾶ is a Semitic loan-word, and its 60:1 relationship to the talent was taken over from that between the Sumero-Babylonian manu and biltu (Masson 1967. 32–4).

32

Scarcely “Give the toadies another mina for wine” (Rusten 2011. 246).

Κόλακες (fr. 166)

71

fr. 166 K.-A. (148 K.) λαφύσσεται λαφυγµὸν ἀνδρεῖον πάνυ Ald

λαφύσσεται Suda Σ

Matr

: φυλάσσεται Σ

he/she/it is engaged in profoundly vigorous gluttony VNMAMatr

Σ Ar. Nu. 52 VNMAMatr Matr λαφυγµὸς τὸ ἀπλήστως ἐσθίειν. Εὔπολις ἐν Κόλαξι· ―― VNMAMatr

laphygmos is eating insatiably.

Matr

Eupolis in Kolakes: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl

llk|l

llkl

Discussion Töppel 1846. 42–3; Schiassi 1944. 92; D’Agostino 1957. 74; Pivetti 1982. 253–4; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 188; Napolitano 2012. 223–8 Citation context A gloss on Ar. Nu. 52 δαπάνης, λαφυγµοῦ, Κωλιάδος, Γενετυλλίδος (“expense, gluttony, [Aphrodite] Kolias, the sex-goddesses”; part of a catalogue of items of which Strepsiades’ entrancing but spendthrift bride allegedly reeked). The note—including the quotation from Eupolis, otherwise preserved only in a single manuscript and the Aldine—has been taken over at Suda λ 156. Text φυλάσσεται in ΣMatr in place of λαφύσσεται in the Suda and ΣAld is an example of a common word driving out a more difficult one, in this case via a simple transposition of syllables. Interpretation Meineke (followed by Kock, Kaibel and Storey) compared frr. 157a–b (Protagoras said to be inside the house and to be fond of eating) and 158 (a retrospective description of Protagoras’ teaching in regard to drinking). Napolitano 2012, by contrast, associates this fragment with what he takes to be a paratragic messenger speech also represented by frr. 162; 169. All that really can be said is that the verse likely describes the wild feasting generally taken to have gone on in Callias’ house at some point in the play (esp. fr. 174; cf. frr. 187; 190), but that who is doing the eating remains obscure. For the figura etymologica λαφύσσεται λαφυγµόν, cf. fr. 192.2 ]ν̣ικας ἐν̣ίκα with n.; Homeric δαῖτα / δαίνυντ’ (e. g. Il. 1.467–8), κρητῆρα κεράσσατο et sim. (e. g. Od. 3.393), ποτὸν πίνων (Od. 9.354); and numerous other examples collected at Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.304–5; Fehling 1969. 156–8.

72

Eupolis

λαφύσσω (cognate with λάπτω, “lap up”, but not with λάφυρα, “plunder”) is Homeric vocabulary (Il. 11.176; 17.64; 18.583, all of a wild beast gorging on the blood and entrails of its victim) and is attested nowhere else before Lyc. 321, although cf. Hsch. δ 1581 διελάφυξας· διεφόρησας. ἀνήλωας· λαφυγµὸς γὰρ ἡ διαφόρησις ἢ διακένωσις (“you utterly gobbled: you tore in pieces, you used up; for laphygmos is dissipation or emptying (something) out”; = adesp. com. fr. *315). For the sense of the word, cf. Arist. EE 1232a16–17, where a λαφύκτης is defined as ὁ ἐν τῷ ἀτάκτως ἀναλίσκειν (“a man who spends money wildly”); Lyc. 215 κείροντ’ ὀδόντι καὶ λαφυστίαις γνάθοις (“cutting down with tooth and gluttonous jaws”). λαφυγµός is attested elsewhere only in the passage from Aristophanes’ Clouds the scholion on which preserves this fragment, but is presumably an Attic colloquialism. For the formation, cf. βρυγµός (fr. 375); κλωγµός (fr. 259.79); στυφελιγµός (Ar. Eq. 537); Chantraine 1933. 135–6 (“essentiellement un suffixe de verbes d’action … Le suffixe semble avoir été particulièrement usuel dans des mots expressifs désignant des bruits, l’agitation, la souffrance”). ἀνδρεῖον For the concept of “manliness” in Athens in this period, see Bassi 2003. 32–46. For the adjective in the sense “vigorous”, with the specific meaning depending on the word being modified, e. g. Ar. Eq. 453 παῖ’ αὐτὸν ἀνδρειότατα (“Hit him really hard!”); Pax 732 φυλάττετε ταῦτ’ ἀνδρείως (“Guard these items carefully!”); Ra. 372 χώρει … πᾶς ἀνδρείως (“Everyone go fast!”); and cf. the similar use of ἀνδρικῶς/ἀνδρικός (e. g. Ar. Pax 1307; Ephipp. fr. 8.5; Eub. fr. 11.1 (all of vigorous eating)). For πάνυ, see fr. 316.5 n.

fr. 167 K.-A. (157 K.) τουτὶ λαβὼν τὸ κόρηµα τὴν αὐλὴν κόρει Take this broom here and start sweeping the hall! Poll. 10.28–9 κόρηµα· καλεῖται δ’ οὕτω καὶ τὸ σκεῦος καὶ τὸ κάθαρµα τὸ κορούµενον. τὸ δὲ ῥῆµα κορεῖν ἂν λέγοις. καὶ τὸ µὲν σκεῦος κόρηµα ὑπὸ Εὐπόλιδος εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς Κόλαξι· ――. τὸ δὲ κορούµενον ἐν Σκηνὰς καταλαµβανούσαις Ἀριστοφάνους (fr. 490)· ―― korêma (“broom”): This term is used both for the item of equipment and for what is cleared away, the sweepings; and you would say korein for the verb. The item of equipment is called a korêma by Eupolis in his Kolakes: ――, while the sense “sweepings” [is found] in Aristophanes’ Skênas katalambanousai (fr. 490): ――

Κόλακες (fr. 167)

73

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

rlk|l

llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.490; Töppel 1846. 36–7; Schiassi 1944. 89; D’Agostino 1957. 72; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Napolitano 2012. 93–6 Citation context From a discussion of items having to do with doors, and specifically items used by doorkeepers, in the long catalogue of equipment (σκεύη) of all sorts that makes up Book 10 of the Onomasticon. Parallel material appears at 6.94 (after a list of food-related refuse, such as bones, shells and husks) ἃ καὶ κορήµατα κλητέον. παῖς ἐκκορείτω παρακορείτω, καθαιρέτω, καλλυνέτω, σαιρέτω, κορήθρῳ ἢ καλλύντρῳ· σάρον γὰρ ὡς ἐπὶ πολὺ τὸ ἐν τῇ ἅλῳ ἐκάλουν, ὡς τὸ ἐν τοῖς ἀλφιτείοις µυλήκορον (“which items are also to be called korêmata (‘sweepings’). Let a slave sweep out, sweep aside, cleanse, pretty up, brush clean, with a korêthron or a kallyntron; for by and large they referred to the item used on a threshing floor as a saron, just as to the one used in barley-mills as a mulêkoron”).33 Poll. 10.29 continues: εἰ δὲ καὶ καλλύνειν φαίης ἂν τὸ κορεῖν, ἦ που καὶ τὸ κόρηµα κάλλυντρον. εἰ δὲ καὶ σαίρειν φήσεις τὸν θυρωρόν, τί κωλύει κἀκεῖνο καλεῖν σάρον; (“But if you were to say that kallunein means korein, I suppose that a kallyntron is also a korêma. And if you will say that a door-keeper in fact brushes clean (sairei), what prevents us from also calling that object a saron?”), suggesting that he is drawing on the same source as the one that lies behind some or all of the following: – Phryn. PS p. 22.10–11 ἀνακαλλύνειν· τὸ σαίρειν, ὃ καὶ ἀνακορεῖν. ἐξ οὗ καὶ κάλλυντρον καὶ κόρηµα τὸ σάρον (“to pretty up: to brush clean, which is also anakorein. Wherefore kallyntron and korêma are both used for a saron”) – Hsch. κ 3612 κόρηµα· κάλλυντρον, ὅ τινες σάρον (“korêma: a kallyntron, which some (call) a saron”) ~ Phot. κ 964 κόρηµα· κάλλυντρον, ὃ ἡµεῖς λέγοµεν σάρον (“korêma: a kallyntron, which we refer to as a saron”) – Hsch. π 660 παρασαρῶσαι· † ἐροὴ † δὲ καὶ κάλυθρον ἢ κάλλυντρον τὸ σάρον. καὶ κόρηθρον καλεῖται (“to brush aside: but † eroê † a saron is a kalythron or kallyntron. It is also called a korêthron”) – Hsch. σ 225 σάρον· κάλ(λ)υντρον. Βυζάντιοι (“saron: kal(l)yntron. [Thus] the inhabitants of Byzantium”) 33

Note the echo of the final specification at Poll. 10.29, just after the material cited below, confirming the link between the passages: ἡ χρῆσις γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς ἅλω καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς οἰκίας ἄγει τοὔνοµα, ὥσπερ καὶ µυλήκορον ἄν τις αὐτὸ καλέσειεν (“for usage transfers the term from the mill into domestic contexts as well, just as one might also call the same item a mulêkoron”).

74

Eupolis

– Phot. α 1511 ἀνακαλλύνειν· τὸ σαίρειν, ὅπερ καὶ ἀνακορεῖν λέγουσι, καὶ εἰκότως· κάλλυντρον γὰρ καὶ κόρηµα καλοῦσι τὸ σάρον. Φρύνιχος Ποαστρίαις (fr. 39)· ―― (“to pretty up: to brush clean, for which they also use the term anakorein, and reasonably so; for they call a saron a kallyntron and a korêma. Phrynichus in Poastriai (fr. 39): ――”) – Phot. π 707 περικόρηµα· τὸ περισάρωµα· κόρηµα γὰρ λέγεται τὸ σάρον· ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ νεωκόρος ὁ τὸν ναὸν κορῶν καὶ σαρῶν (“perikorêma (‘a sweeping around’): perisarôma (‘a brushing around’); for a saron is called a korêma; whence also the person who sweeps and brushes a temple clean is a neôkoros”)34 – Phot. σ 28 σαίρειν, οὐ σαροῦν· µᾶλλον δὲ κορεῖν λέγουσιν· καὶ ἀκόρητον τὸν ἀσάρωτον· καὶ κορηθῆναι· καὶ τὸ σάρον κόρηθρον· καὶ κόρηµα τὸ κάθαρµα (“sairein, not saroun; but by preference they say korein. And what is un-korêton is un-sarôton; and korêthênai (‘to be swept’); and a saron is a korêthron; and what is cleared away is korêma (‘sweepings’)”) – Suda κ 2079 κόρηµα· τὸ σάρον, τὸ κόσµητρον (“korêma: a saron, a kosmêtron”) – EM p. 529.45–7 κορήσατε· σύρατε, † ποιήσατε †· κόρηµα γὰρ τὸ σαρόν· καὶ κορῶ, τὸ σαρῶ· καὶ περικόρηµα τὸ περισάρωµα (“sweep! (pl.): brush clean!, † do! †; because a saron is a korêma; and perisarôma (‘brushing around’) is a perikorêma (‘sweeping around’)”). Interpretation An order addressed to a male character (note masc. λαβών). Sweeping is properly work for slaves and was done first thing in the morning (e. g. Phryn. Com. fr. 39 σὺ δ’ εἰσιοῦσα δουλικῶς ἐνσκεύασαι / καὶ τἄνδον ἀνακάλλυνον, “Whereas you go inside, dress yourself like a slave, and sweep up the interior!”; E. Andr. 166; Hec. 363; Ion 112–24; Phaeth. 55–6 Diggle = fr. 773.11–12; D. 18.258; Thphr. Char. 22.12 with Diggle 2004 ad loc.; Luc. DDeor. 4.1). Meineke accordingly suggested that the house in question was Callias’ and was being readied for his guests, while Kaibel speculated that the person addressed might instead be Callias himself after he had been stripped of his property, sc. at the end of the action, as a final mark of ruin and disgrace. The former is a much safer guess, and this looks in any case like a line used to get the addressee offstage, e. g. at the end of the prologue, as the labor involved in launching whatever project was announced there is divided up. τουτί For the deictic suffix -ί (typical of colloquial Attic), see fr. 384.7 n.; Lopéz Eire 1996. 71; Willi 2003. 244–5, and cf. frr. 107.1 ταδί; 131.1 τασδί.

34

Cf. fr. 480 n.

Κόλακες (fr. 168)

75

λαβὼν τὸ κόρηµα Cf. Sophr. fr. 159 τὸ σάρον ἄνελε (“Pick up the broom!”). For λαβών + imperative, e. g. fr. 10 with the parallels cited there; Cratin. fr. 145; Ar. Ach. 130–1; fr. 235; Archipp. fr. 40. An αὐλή (cognate with ἰαύω, “sleep”)35 is properly a place where one passes the night (whence e. g. the adjective ἄγραυλος, “passing the night in the fields”), and the word thus comes to mean “walled courtyard (of a house complex)” (e. g. Ar. Av. 1085, the place where domestic birds are kept) and, even more specifically, “main interior room” of the house itself (e. g. Ar. V. 1215, where a guest at a dinner party is supposed to admire the tapestries in the αὐλή). For κόρηµα in the sense “broom”, cf. fr. 218.4; Ar. Pax 59; Napolitano 2012. 95–6. Contrast the sense “what is swept up, sweeping(s)” at Hermipp. fr. 48.10; Ar. fr. 490.2. For nouns in -µα, e. g. frr. 121 κροῦµα; 142 ἥσθηµα; 172.15 σκῶµµα; 192.7 [νόσ]ηµα; 385.6 εὐξεύρηµα; 441 γλύµµα; 445 διακόλληµα; and see in general Peppler 1916; Mawet 1983. 186–91; Willi 2003. 136–9.

fr. 168 K.-A. (317 K.) κατ’ ἀντιβολίαν δέκα τάλαντ’ ἀπετισάµην ἀπετισάµην Eust. : ἀπετεισάµην Kassel–Austin : ἀπετίσαµεν Cobet : ἀπετείσαµεν Nauck

pursuant to an antibolia I extracted a ten-talent payment Eust. p. 1406.27 = i.43.5 καὶ ἀντιβολία ἡ δέησις. Εὔπολις· ―― And an antibolia is a request. Eupolis: ―― Phot. α 2083 ἀντιβολία· Εὔπολις Κόλαξιν. σηµαίνει δὲ ἱκετείαν antibolia: Eupolis in Kolakes. It refers to a supplication Hsch. κ 1300 κατ’ ἀντιβολίαν· κατ’ ἀντιβόλησιν (Nauck : ἀντίβλησιν cod.) by means of an antibolia: by means of an entreaty (thus Nauck : antiblêsin cod.) 35

αὐλός (“pipe”) is not from the same root, despite the speculation at Ath. 5.189a–90a.

76

Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkr

l|rkl

rlkl

Discussion Cobet 1858. 160; Nauck 1894. 72; Renehan 1976. 84–5; Napolitano 2012. 241–8 Citation context Eustathius’ quotation of the fragment comes from a long discussion of compounds of βάλλω and cognates that begins with ἀνεβάλλετο at Od. 1.155; traced by Erbse to Aelius Dionysius (α 146). The more abbreviated citations of the verse in Photius and Hesychius likely come from the same source. Note also Phryn. PS p. 40.13–14 ἀντιβολία· ἡδὺ καὶ σεµνόν. σηµαίνει δὲ καὶ ἱκετείαν (“antibolia: a pleasant, elevated term. In fact it also refers to a supplication”), where the reference might be instead to Th. 7.75.4 πρὸς γὰρ ἀντιβολίαν καὶ ὀλοφυρµὸν τραπόµενοι (“turning to antibolia and lamentation”; the sick and wounded Athenians beg not to be left behind by the other surviving members of the Sicilian Expedition), the only other attestation of the noun before the Roman period. Text Cobet’s ἀπετίσαµεν for the paradosis ἀπετισάµην is an easy but unnecessary change. Interpretation According to [And.] 4.13 (seemingly the source of Plu. Alc. 8.3), when Alcibiades (frr. 171 n.; 385 n.) married Hipparete (PA 7590; PAA 537550) the daughter of Hipponicus and sister of Callias, she brought with her a dowry of ten talents, and Alcibiades later maintained that there had been an agreement that an additional ten talents would be paid to him upon the birth of a son. The marriage took place sometime in the late 420s BCE, making it just barely possible that the reference here is to ten talents paid upon the birth within a year or two after that date of an otherwise unnoticed son who died as a child, the birth of Alcibiades II (PA 598; PAA 121635) today generally being put in the mid-410s BCE; see in general Davies 1971. 19. But ἀποτίνοµαι—which ought to refer to recompense paid for a wrong that has been done one (LSJ s. v. II)—is a very odd verb to use for extracting money in such a way, even if Alcibiades’ claim to the additional ten talents was dubious, and there is no other solid evidence that he was a character in this comedy (although cf. fr. 171 with n.).36 For ἀντιβολίαν, see Citation context. 36

Despite Napolitano 2012. 241–2 (the fragment “è quasi certamente da associare a ciò che Plutarco e Pseudo-Andocide racconto”), which is merely an expression of assent to what the author takes to be a productive traditional hypothesis. Napolitano 2012. 243 n. 673 suggests that the ten talents in question may instead be the original dowry; in that case, ἀποτίνοµαι is even stranger.

Κόλακες (fr. 169)

77

fr. 169 K.-A. (168 K.) φροῦδον τὸ χειρόνιπτρον χειρόνιπτρον Poll. 10.90 : χερόνιπτρον Poll. 6.92

gone is the/my cheironiptron Poll. 10.90 καὶ χέρνιβα δὲ καὶ λέβητας καὶ πρόχους καὶ χερνίβιον … (e. g. Il. 24.304). ῥητέον δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ χειρόνιπτρον, Εὐπόλιδος εἰπόντος ἐν Κόλαξι· ―― Also washing-water and basins and pitchers and a chernibion (“hand-washing basin”) … (e. g. Il. 24.304). But the latter should also be termed a cheironiptron, given that Eupolis says in Kolakes: ―― Poll. 6.92 πρόχουν δὲ τὸ ὑδροφόρον ἀγγεῖον, λέβητα δὲ τὸ ὑποδεχόµενον. σὺ δ’ ἂν καὶ προχοίδιον εἴποις τὴν πρόχουν, καὶ λεβήτιον θάτερον, καὶ τὸ συναµφότερον ὡς Εὔπολις χ ε ρ ό ν ι π τ ρ ο ν The vessel in which water is brought is a prochous (“pitcher”), while the vessel that receives it is a lebês (“basin”). But you could also refer to the prochous as a prochoidion (“little pitcher”), and to the other vessel as a lebêtion (“little basin”), and to the two together as a c h e r o n i p t r o n, as Eupolis does

Meter Probably iambic trimeter, e. g. llkl klk|〈l xlkl〉 Discussion Töppel 1846. 57–8; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 73–4; Kock 1880 I.305; Napolitano 2012. 221–3 Citation context The citation of the complete text of this fragment comes from a section on vessels in the long, diverse catalogue of equipment (σκεύη) of all sorts that makes up Book 10 of the Onomasticon. Ath. 9.408b–d, citing fr. 129 (where see n.) as well as Il. 24.302–4 (cf. Pollux’ citation of the formular verse = Il. 24.304 here) and Epich. fr. 68.1–2, is likely from the same source. Whether the reference at Poll. 6.92 (in a discussion of names of cooking vessels and the like) is to this fragment or to fr. 129.1, 3, or perhaps to both, is unclear. Text χειρόνιπτρον (Poll. 10.90) rather than χερόνιπτρον (Poll. 6.92) is necessary for the scansion and is in any case the correct form for this period (Threatte 1996. 120–1).

78

Eupolis

Interpretation This passage and fr. 129.1 (n.), 3 are the only attestations of χειρόνιπτρον (〈 χείρ, “hand”, + νίζω, “wash”) before the Roman period, and in the latter passage the word certainly refers to a vessel or set of vessels, as Pollux maintains, rather than to washing-water for one’s hands (thus Phot. (z) = Et.Gen. B = Synag. χ 49; cf. fr. 14 τὴν χέρνιβα with n.; Ar. fr. 319 ποδάνιπτρον, “washing-water for one’s feet”). Cf. fr. 162 (on the plundering of money from someone’s household) with n.; this might—or might not—be a description of or reaction to part of the same action. φροῦδον 5th-century poetic vocabulary, first attested at A. Supp. 863 (lyric, but the text is corrupt and the word might be intrusive) and subsequently common in tragedy (e. g. S. Ai. 735; El. 1152; E. Med. 139; Heracl. 703) and Aristophanes (often in paratragedy or lyric; see Austin–Olson 2004 on Th. 691). This might accordingly be paratragic lamentation, like Ar. Nu. 718–19 φροῦδα τὰ χρήµατα, φρούδη χροιά, / φρούδη ψυχή, φρούδη δ’ ἐµβάς (“Gone is my money, gone my skin-color, gone my soul, and gone my boot!”), and Napolitano takes the fragment to be part of a paratragic messenger speech another portion of which is represented by fr. 162.

fr. 170 K.-A. (170 K.) κεκρύφαλοί τε καὶ τύλη both hair-nets and a pillow Poll. 7.192 Εὔπολις δὲ Κόλαξι· ―― And Eupolis in Kolakes: ―― Poll. 10.39 καὶ τύλη δὲ παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι ἔστιν ἰάζοντι ἐν τοῖς Κόλαξιν· ―― And tulê, moreover, is in Eupolis, who uses the Ionic form in his Kolakes: ――

Meter Probably iambic trimeter, e. g. klkl k|lkl 〈xlkl〉 Discussion Meineke 1839 II.496; Töppel 1846. 53–4; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 74–5; Kock 1880 I.305; Heinimann 1961. 115 n. 44; Cassio 1986a. 114–15; Colvin 1999. 268–9; Napolitano 2012. 116–23

Κόλακες (fr. 170)

79

Citation context The citation of the fragment at Poll. 7.192 is part of a highly diverse catalogue of words all having to do in one way or another with occupations, here weaving. Antiph. fr. 213 (quoted in Interpretation) follows. The citation of τύλη at Poll. 10.39 is from a brief discussion of words for pillows. Interpretation The first word suggests a reference to women’s finery, the second to a banquet or symposium; perhaps two items in a catalogue. We know from test. ii and frr. 157a/b–8 that Protagoras of Abdera was a character in Kolakes or was at least treated as a local contemporary of the characters in the play, and Meineke took the point of the reference at Poll. 10.39 to τύλη as Ionic vocabulary to be that these words were spoken by him. Heinimann went one step further, attempting to connect the fragment with the claim at D.L. 9.53 (= 79 A 1, II.254.10 D.–K.) that Protagoras invented “the so-called τύλη, on which porters carry their loads”, which goes even further beyond the evidence, while Cassio interpreted the words as a part of an attack on Protagoras’ supposed “Ionian softness”. A κεκρύφαλος (probably substrate vocabulary; not cognate with κρύπτω) is a long band of cloth or light netting (“sprang”) that was wrapped around the head and tied, producing a sack that held the hair; cf. Ar. Th. 138 (part of Agathon’s effeminate costume), 257 (an item in the disguise Inlaw adopts in order to infiltrate the women’s assembly); fr. 332.6 (in a catalogue of women’s accessories); Antiph. fr. 187 (in a catalogue of women’s accessories); Il. 22.469 (part of Andromache’s costume); IG II2 1522.18; 1523.22; 1524.195–6, etc. (women’s dedications at Brauron); Posidipp. ep. 46.4 τρητῶν πλέγµατα κεκρυφάλων (“woven work consisting of kekruphaloi full of holes”); Antip. Sid. AP 6.206.3–4 = HE 200–1; Clark 1983 (on the weaving of sprang generally); Stone 1984. 203–4; Jenkins and Williams 1985. Moer. κ 42 identifies κνέφαλ(λ)ον (cf. fr. 218.3 n.) as the proper Attic term, sc. for a pillow, τύλη as the koinê equivalent (κνέφαλον Ἀττικοί· τύλη Ἕλληνες, “Attic-speakers [use] knephalon; the Greeks generally [use] tulê”), as does Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 pp. 319.18–19 τύλη, ὅπερ σύνηθες Ἀττικοῖς κνέφαλλον καλεῖν, ὁµωνύµως τῷ περιεχοµένῳ τὴν περιέχουσαν (“tulê, which is the customary Attic term for a knephallon, the external portion being homonymous with the internal portion”), 320.1–2 τὸ τύλη, ὅπερ οὐκ ἦν παρ’ Ἀττικοῖς (“the word tulê, which was not found in Attic authors”), while Phryn. Ecl. 145 expresses a preference for κνέφαλ(λ)ον, although he seemingly concedes that τύλη was found in what might otherwise be regarded as good sources (τύλην, εἰ καὶ εὕροις που, σὺ κνέφαλον λέγε, “as for tulê, even if you find it somewhere, you are to say knephalon”); cf. Hsch. κ 3095 κνέφαλλον· τύλη. ἣν δὲ ἡµεῖς τύλην, Ἀττικοὶ τυλεῖον (“knephallon: tulê. But what we call a

80

Eupolis

tulê, Attic-speakers call a tuleion”); and in a more condensed form Phot. κ 816 = Suda κ 1858 = Synag. κ 362 κνέφαλον· τύλη (= Ael. Dion. κ 32). Poll. 10.39, citing the word from Eupolis, also seems to regard it as non-Attic, calling it Ionic (for the potential significance of which claim in regard to the stage-action of Kolakes, see above). But τύλη is attested at Sapph. fr. 46 µολθάκαν / τύλαν (“a soft pillow”) in Aeolic, and in Attic also at Antiph. fr. 213 στρώµατα / κλίνας τύλας (“bedclothes, couches, pillows”; cited in the same section of Pollux), as part of the compound noun τυλυφάνται (“pillow-weavers”) at Hyp. fr. 125, and in the variant form τυλεῖον noted by Hesychius at S. fr. *468 λινορραφῆ τυλεῖα (“tuleia stitched together from linen”),37 all of which suggests that the lexicographers are being over-precise and that this is a less common but nonetheless entirely acceptable word for the same object. Cf. Pearson 1917 on S. fr. *468.

fr. 171 K.-A. (158 K.) (Α.) Ἀλκιβιάδης ἐκ τῶν γυναικῶν ἐξίτω. (Β.) τί ληρεῖς; οὐκ οἴκαδ’ ἐλθὼν τὴν σεαυτοῦ γυµνάσεις δάµαρτα; 1 ἐκ Ath. : οὑκ (i. e. ὁ ἐκ) Srebrny

(A.) Let Alcibiades leave the women’s ranks! (B.) What are you babbling about? Go home and put your own wife through her paces! Ath. 12.535a–b κεκωµῴδηται δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ Εὐπόλιδος ὡς καὶ (καὶ del. Meineke) ἀκόλαστος πρὸς γυναῖκας ἐν Κόλαξιν οὕτως· ―― He is also mocked by Eupolis in Kolakes for also (“also” del. Meineke) showing no self-control in regard to women, as follows: ――

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic.

lrkl llkl llkl kll llkl llkl llkl kll

37

Also in the related sense “callous” at Telecl. fr. 53; Ar. Ach. 860, 954 (a Boeotian is speaking). Cf. ἐντυλλίσσω, “wrap up”, at Ar. Nu. 987; Pl. 692; Diocl. Com. fr. 13.

Κόλακες (fr. 171)

81

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.494–5; Töppel 1846. 47–9; Kock 1880 I.300–1; Srebrny 1922. 86–7; Schiassi 1944. 94; D’Agostino 1957. 74–5; Gelzer 1960. 279; Littman 1970. 267; Storey 2003. 194–5; Napolitano 2012. 229–41, 253–6; Kidd 2014. 172–3 Citation context From a discussion of Alcibiades’ luxury and dissipation that extends from 12.534b–5e and begins with a quotation from Satyrus (fr. 20 Schorn), followed by one from Antisthenes (SSR V A 198) perhaps simply drawn from Satyrus. Pherecr. fr. 164 οὐκ ὢν ἀνὴρ γὰρ Ἀλκιβιάδης, ὡς δοκεῖ, / ἀνὴρ ἁπασῶν τῶν γυναικῶν ἐστι νῦν (“for although Alcibiades is no true man, it seems, he’s now the man/husband of all the women”) follows the quotation of Eupolis. Some of the additional material regarding Alcibiades at Ath. 13.574d–f (preserving adesp. com. fr. 123 Ἀλκιβιάδην τὸν ἁβρόν, ὦ γῆ καὶ θεοί, / ὃν ἡ Λακεδαίµων µοιχὸν ἐπιθυµεῖ λαβεῖν, “the handsome Alcibiades, by Earth and the gods, whom Sparta wants to get/catch as an adulterous lover”) is parallel to that at 12.534f–5a and thus likely comes from the same source. Whether that source is Satyrus or another author is unclear, but the comic fragments presumably go back ultimately to a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. See in general Schorn 2004. 402–3. Text In 1, Srebrny compared Ar. Nu. 1065 Ὑπέρβολος … οὑκ τῶν λύχνων (“Hyperbolos … the man from the lamp-market”); Av. 13 οὑκ τῶν ὀρνέων (“the man from the bird-market”), and suggested οὑκ for the paradosis ἐκ, the idea being that just as e. g. “the one from the lamps” means “the one who spends his time among the lamps”, so too “the one from the women” means “the one who spends his time among the women”. But the expression is not used so generally and would instead have to mean “the one who spends his time in the place where women are sold”, which will not do.38 Interpretation The meter and the argumentative tone led Gelzer to trace these verses to an agôn. Alcibiades (PA 600; PAA 121630) the son of Cleinias of the deme Scambonidae, and the ward of Pericles after Cleinias died, was born probably in 451/0 BCE; cf. Davies 1971. 18. Aristophanes ridiculed him as sexually overcharged and a clever speaker in 427 BCE in Banqueters (frr. 205.5–6; 244) and as a “wide-assed chatterer” in 425 BCE in Acharnians (716), and he must have been making a name for himself in politics already by the late 420s BCE, since

38

There was in fact a γυναικεία ἀγορά, although what was sold there and who shopped in it is unclear (see Diggle 2004 on Thphr. Char. 2.9), and the area is in any case nowhere referred to as αἱ γυναῖκες.

82

Eupolis

he is singled out for mockery in 422 BCE at Ar. V. 44–6 (cf. [And.] 4.11) and his first generalship came in 420/19 BCE, when he was barely 30 (Plu. Alc. 15.1). Alcibiades was also a target in Baptai, which likely dates to the mid-410s BCE, by which time he seems to have been one of the most famous—i. e. most notorious—people in Athens; see the general introduction to that play, as well as frr. 168 n.; 385 n. Kock thought that Alcibiades himself was (B.), in which case (A.)’s remark is addressed to someone else or perhaps to the world at large—but this is merely a guess.39 The suggestion in 2 is clearly intended to stand in contrast to the order in 1. Kassel–Austin take the point to be that (A.)’s wife is a reasonable substitute for Alcibiades—i. e. if (A.) wants sex, he should have it with her instead—and thus conclude that Athenaeus has mischaracterized the sense of the fragment, to whose complete original context he probably lacked access. Alternatively, (B.) may be saying that (A.) is a reasonable substitute for Alcibiades—i. e. that rather than worrying about what Alcibiades is doing with the women, (A.) should go have sex with his wife. Perhaps (B.) is in any case a bomolochus and thus deliberately misunderstanding (A.), who is attempting to group names or persons for some activity; the only reasonable female candidates for a part in the action of the play are the prostitute entertainers at Callias’ banquet mentioned in fr. 174.3 (cf. fr. 184). For Alcibiades’ reputation in the sexual sphere, cf. Pherecr. fr. 164 (quoted under Citation context); X. Mem. 1.2.24 (constantly seducing women and flattered by men); [And.] 4.10 (his seductions and rapes are too many to list); D.L 4.49 τὸν Ἀλκιβιάδην µεµφόµενος ἔλεγεν ὡς νέος µὲν ὢν τοὺς ἄνδρας ἀπάγοι τῶν γυναικῶν, νεανίσκος δὲ γενόµενος τὰς γυναῖκας τῶν ἀνδρῶν (“in reproach of Alcibiades, [Bion of Borysthenes; = fr. 60 Kindstrand] used to say that when he was a boy he distracted men from their wives, whereas when he was a young man he distracted women from their husbands”); Littman 1970; Gribble 1999. 69–78 (with further discussion and references).40

39

40

Despite Napolitano 2012. 235–6, whose “l’identificazione … resta, a mio parere, altamente probabile” is simply an assertion of belief, there being no positive evidence in favor of the thesis other than the mention of Alcibiades in 1 (but in the third person, making him prima facie the least likely person to identify as (B.)). Storey 2003. 196 n. 32 alleges a verbal echo of Ar. V. 1369 τῶν ξυµποτῶν κλέψαντα; πόθεν; αὐλητρίδα;. As there are no similarities between the two passages, this must be a bad reference (actually V. 1498–9?). Gribble’s book is cited in Vol. III as “Tribble 1999”, which would in another context be analyzed as a majuscule error (Τ having been written for Γ). My apologies to the author.

Κόλακες (fr. 172)

83

1 ἐκ τῶν γυναικῶν ἐξίτω Srebrny (followed by Napolitano 2012. 236– 7) took this to mean “Let him exit the house!”, where Alcibiades has allegedly been lurking in the women’s quarters, although this would be an unparalleled use of αἱ γυναῖκες.41 Töppel (cf. Sommerstein 1997. 54 n. 5) compared ἐξέρχεσθαι εἰς τοὺς ἐφήβους at X. Cyr. 1.2.8 and excedere ex ephebis at Ter. Andr. 5142 and took the sense to be instead “Let him leave the rank of woman”, sc. “and graduate to manhood”, which makes better sense. For τί ληρεῖς; (an expression of aggravation at the nominally unintentional obtuseness of another character), cf. Pherecr. fr. 117.1; Ar. Nu. 500, 829, 1273; V. 767, 1370; Lys. 744; Alex. fr. 25.1. The verb and its cognates are late 5th-century colloquial vocabulary and appear routinely in abusive contexts in comedy (also e. g. Cratin. fr. 208.1; Ar. Eq. 536) and to a lesser extent in prose (e. g. Isoc. 15.90; Pl. Phd. 72c), but are attested only once in tragedy (S. Tr. 435 with Davies 1991 ad loc.). 2 For οὐ + future indicative in a question as equivalent to an imperative, see fr. 334.1 n. γυµνάζω is “exercise, train”, properly because athletes trained and competed in the nude (γυµνός). But here the metaphorical sense of the verb—to “exercise” one’s wife is to have sex with her, as if she were a horse that needed riding (for the verb used this way, e. g. E. Hipp. 112; cf. X. Eq. 4.3)—is combined with the notion that she will be wearing no clothes during her “workout”. δάµαρ is elevated poetic vocabulary, attested elsewhere in Attic comedy only at Ar. Th. 912 (paratragic) and in prose only in the archaic law regarding the punishment of adulterers quoted at e. g. Lys. 1.30. See Stevens 1971 on E. Andr. 4 (but note that nothing else obviously marks this passage as paratragic).

fr. 172 K.-A. (159 K.)

5

41

42

ἀλλὰ δίαιταν ἣν ἔχουσ’ οἱ κόλακες πρὸς ὑµᾶς λέξοµεν. ἀλλ’ ἀκούσαθ’ ὡς ἐσµὲν ἅπαντα κοµψοὶ ἄνδρες· ὅτοισι πρῶτα µὲν παῖς ἀκόλουθός ἐστιν ἀλλότριος τὰ πολλά, µικρὸν δέ τι † κάµον † αὐτοῦ. ἱµατίω δέ µοι δύ’ ἐστὸν χαρίεντε τούτω,

Despite Napolitano 2012. 239 n. 656, Ar. Th. 90, 185 are not parallels for the proposed sense, since in both cases αἱ γυναῖκες are “the women assembled” not “the women’s quarters”. Napolitano 2012. 239 adds Hdt. 1.67.5 ἐξιόντες ἐκ τῶν ἱππέων.

84

Eupolis

10

οἷν µεταλαµβάνων ἀεὶ θάτερον ἐξελαύνω εἰς ἀγοράν. ἐκεῖ δ’ ἐπειδὰν κατίδω τιν’ ἄνδρα ἠλίθιον, πλουτοῦντα δ’, εὐθὺς περὶ τοῦτόν εἰµί. κἄν τι τύχῃ λέγων ὁ πλούταξ, πάνυ τοῦτ’ ἐπαινῶ, καὶ καταπλήττοµαι δοκῶν τοῖσι λόγοισι χαίρειν. εἶτ’ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ἐρχόµεσθ’ ἄλλυδις ἄλλος ἡµῶν

15

µᾶζαν ἐπ’ ἀλλόφυλον, οὗ δεῖ χαρίεντα πολλὰ τὸν κόλακ’ εὐθέως λέγειν, ἢ ’κφέρεται θύραζε. οἶδα δ’ Ἀκέστορ’ αὐτὸ τὸν στιγµατίαν παθόντα· σκῶµµα γὰρ εἶπ’ ἀσελγές, εἶτ’ αὐτὸν ὁ παῖς θύραζε ἐξαγαγὼν ἔχοντα κλῳὸν παρέδωκεν Οἰνεῖ ACE

ACE

2 ἅπαντα Hermann : ἅπαντες Ath.    3 ὅτοισι Porson : τοῖσι Ath.    4 τι A κάµον Ath. : τι κἀµὸν Hermann : τι κἀµὸς Bergk : τὸ κἀµνον Porson   5–6 τούτω, / ACE οἷν Porson : τούτοιν Ath. : τούτοιν / 〈οὖν〉 Grotius : τούτοιν / 〈συµ-〉 Kaibel   7 τιν’ CE A recc ACE Ath. : τι οὖν Ath.    11 ἐρχόµεσθ’ Ath. . : ἐρχόµεθ’ Ath.    13 εὐθέως Grotius A A : εὐθὺς Ath.    ’κφέρεται Bergk : φέρεται Ath.    15 ἶπ’ ἀσελγές Porson : εἶπας A A ACE ἔλεγες Ath.    θύραζε Morel : θύραζ᾽ Ath.    16 κλῳὸν Meineke : κλοιὸν Ath.

5

10

15

But we’ll describe for you how kolakes live; so listen to how we’re thoroughly elegant men! We who have, first of all, a slave attendant— generally belonging to someone else—and a little † kamon † of him. I also have these two lovely robes, one of which routinely changing for the other I march off to the marketplace. And when I spy someone there who’s a fool but rich, I’m immediately part of his entourage. If the rich guy happens to be speaking, I praise his remarks lavishly, and I act astounded, pretending to take delight in his words. Then we go off to dinner, each of us in a different direction, to get a foreign barley-cake, where the kolax must immediately offer many witty remarks, or else he’s dragged out. And I know that exactly this happened to the tattooed Akestor; for he told an offensive joke, and then the slave dragged him outside with a collar around his neck and handed him over to Oineus

Ath. 6.236e–7a οἱ δ’ ἀρχαῖοι ποιηταὶ τοὺς παρασίτους κόλακας ἐκάλουν, ἀφ’ ὧν καὶ Εὔπολις τῷ δράµατι τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν ἐποιήσατο, τὸν χορὸν τῶν Κολάκων ποιήσας τάδε λέγοντα· ―― But the comic poets referred to parasites as kolakes; Eupolis in fact took the title of his play from them, and represented the chorus of his Kolakes saying the following: ――

Κόλακες (fr. 172)

85

Poll. 3.109 ὁ δ’ Εὐπόλιδος π λ ο ύ τ α ξ (v. 9) πέπαικται But Eupolis’ p l o u t a x (v. 9) is a joke

Meter A combination of an anaclastic glyconic and an aristophanean, matching fr. 42.3. See in general West 1982. 95–6.

5

10

15

lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl lkklklkl

lkklkll lkklkll lkklkll lkk†lk†ll lkklkll lkklkll lkklkll lkklkll lkklkll lkklkll lkklkll lkklkll lkklkll lkklkll lkklkll lkklkll

Discussion Hermann 1796. 388–9; Hermann 1816. 584–5; Bergk 1838. 340, 352–3; Meineke 1839 II.484–6; Töppel 1846. 17–21; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 65–6; Kock 1880 I.301–2; Schiassi 1944. 90–1; Blank 1985. 6; Wilkins 2000. 75–7; Storey 2003. 190–1; Antonsen-Resch 2004. 6–7; Olson 2007. 113–15 (B45); Tell 2009. 19; Napolitano 2012. 136–50 Citation context Athenaeus’ quotation of this fragment is part of a long, synthetic discussion of the term παράσιτος (“parasite”, i. e. someone who eats “beside” another person) that begins with a quotation of Polemon (fr. 78 Preller) at 6.234d and continues until 6.248c, at which point the topic turns to κόλακες (“flatterers, toadies”). Kassel–Austin treat the Epitome of Athenaeus and Eustathius as if they were separate witnesses to 1–11 and 9, respectively. In fact, they are merely an independent, abbreviated strand of the same tradition. Phryn. Ecl. 109 = test. vii appears to be another version of the same material, but with the quotation from Eupolis stripped out. Pollux’ citation of πλούταξ from 9 comes in the context of a discussion of words having to do with wealth, greed, generosity and the like.

86

Eupolis

Text In 2, the paradosis ἅπαντες is unmetrical and represents assimilation to the case of κοµψοὶ / ἄνδρες. Hermann’s ἅπαντα is an easy fix. In 3, the paradosis τοῖσι is unmetrical, the indefinite relative form ὅτοισι (Porson; cf. S. Ant. 1335; Tr. 1119; Ar. Eq. 758) in place of the considerably more common but here impossible οἷστισι (e. g. Ar. Pax 1279) having proved too difficult for a scribe at some point. In 4, the transmitted µικρὸν δέ τι κάµον αὐτοῦ has never been convincingly explained or emended. With Hermann’s rearticulation κἀµὸν, the line is apparently supposed to mean “whereas what belongs to me is something minimal”,43 while with Bergk’s κἀµὸς (modifying an implied παῖς), µικρόν … τι must be adverbial (as nowhere else in comedy) and be opposed to τὰ πολλά (“but rather rarely he’s my own [slave]”). Porson’s τὸ κἀµνον for τι κάµον would mean “what causes him trouble”—i. e. “the burden he carries” in the sense “the personal effects I have him lug about for me”—“is rather minimal” but is difficult sense and further from the paradosis. CE omit µικρὸν … αὐτοῦ, which was the Epitome editor’s means of dealing with passages he regarded as incurably corrupt. A long syllable is missing at the beginning of 6; the demonstrative genitive/ dative dual (“of/to these two”) is not wanted at the end of 5; and a relative pronoun or the like is needed to link the two clauses, hence Porson’s τούτω, / οἷν in place of the paradosis τούτοιν, οἷν having been mistaken by a copyist for a variant ending for τούτω. Grotius’ τούτοιν / 〈οὖν〉 and Kaibel’s τούτοιν / 〈συµ-〉 require a stop after χαρίεντε rather than at the end of the line, which is awkward, as is the asyndeton in Kaibel’s τούτοιν / 〈συµ〉µεταλαµβάνων (the compound with two prepositions also not being attested before the Roman period). In 7, the Epitome manuscripts and A diverge, A having mistakenly expanded τιν’ to the unmetrical τι οὖν, and the Epitome alone preserving the correct text. In 11, the paradosis ἐρχόµεθ’ is metrically impossible and was corrected to ἐρχόµεσθ’ by an anonymous 15th-century editor. In 13, the paradosis εὐθύς is unmetrical, and Grotius substituted the less common form εὐθέως, which must have been driven out by the more common one. Further on in 13, the paradosis φέρεται scans, but Bergk’s ’κφέρεται not only improves the sense but is supported by the metrically guaranteed ἐξαγαγών in 16. 43

Cf. Il. 6.446 πατρός τε µέγα κλέος ἠδ’ ἐµὸν αὐτοῦ (“the fame of my father and my own”); Od. 2.45 ἐµὸν αὐτοῦ χρεῖος (“my own need”).

Κόλακες (fr. 172)

87

In 15, the paradosis εἶπας ἔλεγες (“you said you were saying”) is both unmetrical and nonsensical. Porson removed an epsilon and redivided the words to produce εἶπ’ ἀσελγές, the second word having apparently been rare enough to cause trouble. Further on in 15, Ath.A offers the elided form θύραζ᾽ before ἐξαγαγών in 16, the scribe having had no sense of where one line ended and the next began; Morel restored the omitted letter. In 16, Meineke’s κλῳόν is thought to be the old Attic form of the word, with the paradosis κλοιόν reflecting the pronunciation of the Roman period; see in general Threatte 1980. 223–9. Interpretation The combination of the meter and the subject matter—the chorus makes deeper, richer sense of its own identity for the audience in the Theater—leaves little doubt that this passage is from the parabasis, although whether it comes from the epirrhema (thus Bergk), the antepirrhema (thus Fritzsche) or the so-called parabasis proper (thus Koerte) is unclear; see discussion at Napolitano 2012. 137–40. Kassel–Austin aptly compare Ar. V. 1102–4 (the beginning of the parabasis antepirrhema), where the chorus explain how “waspish” they really are: πολλαχῇ σκοποῦντες ἡµᾶς εἰς ἅπανθ’ εὑρήσετε / τοὺς τρόπους καὶ τὴν δίαιταν σφηξὶν ἐµφερεστάτους. / πρῶτα µὲν γάρ (“if you look at it from every angle, you’ll find that we are in all respects particularly similar to wasps in our manners and way of life. For first of all …”); note also fr. 13 (the eponymous goats explain their dining habits). Throughout the passage, the chorus emphasize their own ability to see through other people (7–8) while they for their part simultaneously use a combination of clever words and misleading appearances to take them in (5–7, 9–12). The audience is thus offered a privileged, “insider” view of how kolakes supposedly operate, precisely as promised in 1–3. The remarks are full of sly verbal wit (e. g. 4, 6, 16) and acute, cutting observations about other individuals (8, 14–16), and thus amount to a concrete demonstration of what makes a gifted toady entertaining enough to be worth feeding. This is a craft, and a rewarding one; eloquent, agile shamelessness leads more or less directly to dinner (10–12) and by implication to longer-term access to goods of other sorts as well (3–4). But the existence described is also exceedingly precarious: the chorus have nothing of their own (5–6), and a failure to satisfy a patron can have disastrous consequences (12–16). Aristophanic epirrhemas and antepirrhemas are regularly either 16 or 20 verses long. While it is impossible to know if Eupolis’ practice was the same, we may accordingly have the entire section. Cf. fr. 392 (a parabasis epirrhema or antepirrhema, although less completely preserved).

88

Eupolis

1 ἀλλά probably marks the break-off from a different topic explored in the preceding section of the parabasis. δίαιταν ἣν ἔχουσ(ι) For the expression—equivalent in sense to πῶς διαιτῶνται (cf. Antiph. fr. 108.1)—cf. [A.] PV 490–1 καὶ δίαιταν ἥντινα / ἔχουσ’ ἕκαστοι (cited by Kassel–Austin); Hdt. 1.215.1; 3.102.1; 9.82.3; Th. 1.135.3; and further passages cited at LSJ s. v. δίαιτα I.1. δίαιτα (5th-c. vocabulary; first attested in Pindar (e. g. O. 2.65)) is 〈 αἴνυµαι (“take”) and commonly refers to what one “takes” as part of one’s existence, for example nourishment (e. g. Alex. fr. 223.12), a residence (e. g. Aristopho fr. 12.1) or a style of life (e. g. Ar. Ec. 673), but in technical Athenian legal language is also a decision “taken” by arbitrators (LSJ s. v. II). οἱ κόλακες For the significance and history of the term, see the general introduction to the play. ὑµᾶς For the audience in the Theater addressed thus, cf. frr. 246.2 with n.; 392.2. 2 ἀλλ(ά) articulates the transition from the proposal just articulated to a description of the action to be taken in response to it (Denniston 1950. 13–14). For the adverbial use of ἅπαντα or πάντα, e. g. Ar. Nu. 1430; Av. 1752 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; Antiph. frr. 27.2; 229.1; E. Med. 1157; Hec. 429; and cf. τὰ πολλά in 4. κοµψοί is “elegant, smart, clever”, often with a contemptuous tone (“over-clever”); see in general O’Sullivan 1992. 138–9; Beta 2004. 142–4; Biles– Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 1316–18. Here, on the other hand, the irony consists in part in the fact that the way of life the chorus describe is utterly degraded, even if they claim to be delighted with it and seem to anticipate the audience’s admiration for how neatly and resourcefully they operate. At the same time, their speech takes repeated witty or amusingly malicious turns (4 with n., 5–6 with n., 9 with n., 14–16 n.), not only suggesting that they are really just as charming as they claim to be, but also showing how that charm works. 3–7 πρῶτα µέν in 3 is balanced by δέ in 5. For the abrupt shift from plural in 3 to singular in 5, note the similarly abrupt shift back to plural in 11, and cf. fr. 173 with n. The two points touched on here—the speaker’s retinue (3–4) and the clothing he wears (5–6)—set up his visit to the Agora as described in 7–10, and both there and in his account of the dinner party that follows in 11–16 his emphasis is on how he makes himself appealing to a potential host. This is thus presumably the point of χαρίεντε in 5 in particular: the speaker’s clothing, like the fact that he has a servant with him, makes him look presentable not only to the audience in the Theater but also (and much more important, from his perspective) to any rich fool shopping for groceries

Κόλακες (fr. 172)

89

encountered in the marketplace, who must be quickly convinced on the basis of superficial considerations that the anonymous stranger will add a bit of extra cachet to the company that evening. Cf. χαρίεντα in 12. A παῖς ἀκόλουθος is the personal slave attendant who normally accompanied—i. e. trailed behind—any “decent” Athenian out in public, carrying personal supplies during trips around the city or baggage in the course of journeys out of town (e. g. Ar. Av. 73–9, where the same slave is an ἀκόλουθος and a διάκονος, and in the latter capacity runs errands for his master; Ec. 593; Lys. 32.16; fr. 61; X. Mem. 3.13.4, 6; Pl. Smp. 203c, where Eros is both the ἀκόλουθος and the θεράπων of Aphrodite, 217a–b; Chrm. 155b; Lg. 845a; Antiph. fr. 17.2 ἀξυνακόλουθος, “unaccompanied by an ἀκόλουθος”, of someone deeply impoverished; D. 54.4; Men. Epitr. 473; Thphr. Char. 9.3; 18.8; 21.4; 23.8; 30.7; and note Epich. fr. 32.8–10, where a Sicilian parasite complains that he lacks a παῖς, “boy/slave”, to accompany him with a light when he leaves a party at night). ἀκόλουθος (〈 copulative ἀ- + κέλευθος, literally “someone who shares a road”) is attested in dithyramb at Bacch. 15.55 and in tragic lyric at S. OC 719, each time in the sense “companion” (cf. ἀκολουθία at S. fr. 990), but is otherwise confined to prose and comedy, and in the specific sense “slave attendant” appears to be colloquial Attic. For the denominative verb ἀκολουθέω (“be a follower”, i. e. “follow”), attested already at Hippon. fr. 79.9 but absent from lyric and tragedy, cf. fr. 107.2; Ar. Ra. 521 ὁ παῖς, ἀκολούθει δεῦρο τὰ σκεύη φέρων (“Slave! Follow in this direction carrying the baggage!”; Dionysus to Xanthias); fr. 145 εἰ παιδαρίοις ἀκολουθεῖν δεῖ σφαῖραν καὶ στλεγγίδ’ ἔχοντα (“if one has to follow boys, holding a padded boxing glove and a scraper”; apparently describing the lot of a slave attendant who follows his master’s son to the gymnasium). 4 ἀλλότριος τὰ πολλά is reserved for the beginning of the line (enjambed) as a surprise that begins the process of deflating 2 κοµψοί. For the adjective in similar contexts, cf. Ephipp. fr. 20.2; Eub. fr. 137.3, and note 12 µᾶζαν ἐπ’ ἀλλόφυλον with n. For τὰ πολλά used adverbially to mean “by and large, generally”, e. g. Hdt. 2.86.6; E. Ba. 486; Th. 1.13.1, 78.2; and cf. ἅπαντα in 2. 5–6 Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 19 took the point to be that the speaker is wearing a single himation—which is what one would expect (see below)—but that by reversing it occasionally, he can make it seem as if he owns two; cf. Marikas test. i n. on Ar. Nu. 554. The deictic τούτοιν thus serves to make clear that this otherwise puzzling remark is a witticism: “these two” garments are actually only one. ἱµατίω The himation was a large, rectangular outer garment made of wool and worn during cooler times of the year by men and women of all social stations, either draped casually over the shoulders or more fastidiously

90

Eupolis

arranged over the left shoulder only; see Stone 1984. 155–60, and cf. in comedy e. g. Crates Com. fr. 35 (with a purple fringe); Cratin. fr. 222.2 (a bad himation, intended to keep out the cold North Wind but failing to do so); Ar. Pl. 530 (colorful himatia worn by brides in wedding celebrations), 982–3 (twenty drachmas as an apparently outrageous price for a young man’s himation); Philem. fr. 134 (Crates the Cynic wore a heavy himation in the summer and a ragged bit of cloth in the winter in order to learn self-control). For the use of the dual, see fr. 218.2 n. 6–7 µεταλαµβάνω is “take instead” and thus means “constantly trading them off, regularly switching between them”; cf. Anaxandr. fr. 54.5 µεταλαµβάνων ἐπιδέξι’ αὐτοῦ τὸν τρόπον (“changing his manner dexterously”, i. e. “cleverly adopting a new manner to fit altered circumstances”). The simplex does not appear to mean “wear (clothing)”, and the speaker must accordingly mean “taking the other garment”, sc. from the surface or peg on which he laid or hung it earlier, as at Ar. Ec. 317–18 λαµβάνω / τουτὶ τὸ τῆς γυναικὸς ἡµιδιπλοίδιον (“I took this hêmidiploidion belonging to my wife”). θάτερον = τὸ ἕτερον, the word originally having had an initial alpha (Kühner–Blass 1890 i.223). ἐξελαύνω adds an unexpected martial tone to the narrative; presumably another bit of wit, as the speaker momentarily represents his expedition as a march into battle. For the intransitive use of the verb, cf. E. Ph. 1190; LSJ s. v. I.3.b (with only prosaic examples), and cf. LSJ s. v. ἐλαύνω I.1.b and e. g. Ar. V. 684; Ec. 109 (both “drive [a ship]”, i. e. “row”). εἰς ἀγοράν is according reserved for the beginning of 7 as the second half of the joke; cf. 4 n. 7–8 Why the speaker goes specifically to the Agora to do his hunting is left unspecified, as is how he chooses his target, if any considerations are in play other than that the man needs to be both rich and a fool (7–8). Perhaps the point is simply that the Agora is the obvious place to find people in the city.44 But this does not explain how the speaker knows that a dinner party is in the offing, which is his fundamental consideration in choosing someone to approach, and it might be better to assume that εἰς ἀγοράν is intended to suggest that the second man is hiring a cook or buying groceries, and that this implied information colors everything that follows. Like Chaerephon at Alex. fr. 259, therefore, who hangs about the spot where pots are rented out to cooks who have been hired to prepare dinner somewhere, and who thus knows exactly where to go for a free meal, the speaker does not pick his victim randomly. Perhaps he also knows that the man is rich (πλουτοῦντα) from 44

Cf. Plaut. Capt. 478 accessi ad adulescentes in foro (“I approached the young men in the marketplace”; the parasite Ergasilus scrounging for a free meal).

Κόλακες (fr. 172)

91

the way he throws his money around, and that he is a fool (ἠλίθιον) from the fact that others are already taking advantage of him, sc. by charging him higher prices than anyone would normally pay. For “sun-burnt” parasites, i. e. those who hang out in the Agora waiting for a man to latch onto, cf. Alex. fr. 121.2–3 with Arnott 1996 ad loc. For the combination “rich but foolish” (setting up πλούταξ in 9, where see n.), cf. Ar. Eq. 264–5, 261 (the Paphlagonian’s choice of victims); Th. 289–90 καὶ τὴν θυγατέρα Χοιρίον ἀνδρός µοι τυχεῖν / πλουτοῦντος, ἄλλως δ’ ἠλιθίου κἀβελτέρου (“And may my daughter Pussy get a husband who’s rich but otherwise a fool and a nitwit”) with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc. on ἠλίθιος (etymology uncertain, but probably substrate vocabulary); X. Mem. 4.1.5. For expanded descriptions of individuals also called êlithioi, e. g. Cratin. fr. 45 ὁ δ’ ἠλίθιος ὥσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει (“the êlithios goes around saying ‘ba-ba’ like a sheep”); Ar. Th. 592–3 τίς δ’ οὕτως ἀνὴρ / ἠλίθιος ὅστις τιλλόµενος ἠνείχετο (“What man was so êlithios that he allowed his pubic hair to be plucked out?”); E. Cyc. 537 ἠλίθιος ὅστις µὴ πιὼν κῶµον φιλεῖ (“anyone who doesn’t like a kômos after he’s drunk wine is êlithios”); X. Mem. 3.9.8 (contrasted with someone φρόνιµος, “thoughtful”); [Pl.] Alc. II 140c τοὺς µὲν πλεῖστον αὐτῆς µέρος ἔχοντας µαινοµένους καλοῦµεν, τοὺς δ’ ὀλίγον ἔλαττον ἠλιθίους τε καὶ ἐµβροντήτους (“we call those who are more afflicted with folly insane, while those who are a bit less afflicted we call êlithioi and thunderstruck”; cf. fr. 278 n.). For the adverbial use of εὐθύ(ς), see fr. 392.2 n. περὶ τοῦτον εἰµί i. e. “I attach myself to him” and thus “I dog his tracks” (LSJ s. v. περί C.I.2). Cf. Anaxandr. fr. 35.7 ὄπισθεν ἀκολουθεῖ κόλαξ τῳ, λέµβος ἐπικέκληται (“a kolax trails behind someone—his nickname is Skiff”). 9–10 The second verse recapitulates the content of the first, but brings the speaker’s intentions and understanding of the situation, only implicit in ὁ πλούταξ (~ “the rich idiot”), into the open: the praise he offers is pure pretense. For the toady’s sycophantic praise of everything his host—in this case, his potential host—says, no matter how banal, ridiculous or offensive, cf. Epich. fr. 32.4 τὸν ἱστιῶντ᾽ ἐπαινέω (“I praise the host”; at the meal itself); Antiph. fr. 80.9 ἂν σκώπτῃς, γελᾷ (“if you make a joke, he laughs”; of a parasite); Axionic. fr. 6.12–13 πονηρὸς ὤν τε χρηστὸς εἶναί φησί τις· / ἐγκωµιάζων τοῦτον ἀπέλαβον χάριν (“and someone no good claims to be an excellent person; by lauding him I get my reward”; not specifically said to be praise of the host); Diod. Sin. fr. 2.34–40 (those invited to dinner are not the most accomplished individuals available but τοὺς δὲ κολακεύειν δυναµένους / καὶ πάντ’ ἐπαινεῖν, “those who can flatter and praise everything”—including the

92

Eupolis

supposedly delicious smell of the host’s belches and farts); Thphr. Char. 2.4 “When the man is saying something, he tells the others to be quiet and offers praise the man can hear;45 and whenever the man pauses, he observes ‘Quite right!’; and when the man makes a clumsy joke, he laughs at it and stuffs his robe in his mouth, as if he was actually unable to keep himself from laughing” (of the Toady); Ter. Eun. 250–3; and in general Nesselrath 1985. 23–9, esp. 25–6. For πλούταξ (picking up ἠλίθιον, πλουτοῦντα δ’ in 8), cf. Men. fr. 351.10 Ἰωνικὸς πλούταξ (“a rich Ionian guy”). For similar formations, routinely hostile or dismissive in tone, βάβαξ, “chatterer” (Archil. fr. 297); θαλάµαξ, “lower-bench rower” (Ar. Ra. 1074); κίνδαξ, “someone easily moved” (fr. 195.2 n.); µώµαξ, “fault-finder” (adesp. com. fr. 82); νέαξ, “youngster” (Nicopho fr. 18); στόµφαξ, “bombastic ranter” (Ar. Nu. 1367); φάσαξ, “denouncer, sycophant” (adesp. com. fr. 436); φέναξ, “cheat” (Ar. Ach. 89; Ra. 909); φόρταξ, “baggage bearer” (adesp. com. fr. 803); χάσκαξ, “pathic” (adesp. com. fr. *928); χλεύαξ, “jester” (adesp. com. fr. 812); ψίλαξ, “bald guy” (Ar. fr. 922), and from lexicographers and other late sources e. g. τρὐφαξ, “debauchee”; φλύαξ, “jester”; χαύναξ, “braggart, impostor”; ψόφαξ, “noisy guy”. See in general van Leeuwen 1900 on Ar. Eq. 361; Chantraine 1933. 380–2. For πάνυ, see fr. 316.5 n. καταπλήττοµαι Homer has κατεπλήγη at Il. 3.31, but the verb is otherwise prosaic. For δοκῶν in the sense “pretending”, e. g. fr. 194.2 with n.; Ar. Lys. 179 θύειν δοκούσαις (“pretending to be making sacrifice”); Ra. 564 µαίνεσθαι δοκῶν (“pretending to be out of his mind”); Xenarch. fr. 7.12 λιποψυχεῖν δοκῶν (“pretending to faint”). τοῖσι λόγοισι For the Ionic form of the words used metri gratia in place of the normal Attic τοῖς λόγοις, cf. fr. 281 ἐν ταῖσι … µάχαισιν. 11 For the abrupt shift to the plural, see 3–7 n. εἶτ(α) (characteristic of a naive, homely narrative style) marks the transition to the logical next step in the story, as again in 15. The invitation to dinner itself has been elided from the narrative, the references to the host as a fool, on the one hand, and to the speaker’s manipulative intent, on the other, in the immediately preceding verses being treated as enough to make what happened next clear. ἐρχόµεσθ’ For the metri gratia ending in -µεσθα rather than the more common -µεθα, see fr. 384.6 n.

45

Thus Diggle 2004 (“praises him so that he can hear”); the text is problematic.

Κόλακες (fr. 172)

93

ἄλλυδις ἄλλος is a Homericism (e. g. Il. 12.461 ἄλλυδις ἄλλη; 17.729 ἄλλυδις ἄλλος; Od. 5.71 ἄλλυδις ἄλλη; 14.25 ἄλλυδις ἄλλος, 35 ἄλλυδις ἄλλον; picked up later at e. g. Matro fr. 1.68 ἄλλυδις ἄλλον; Theoc. 22.20 ἄλλυδις ἄλλαι; Arat. 19 ἄλλυδις ἄλλοι; A.R. 2.980 ἄλλυδις ἄλλη); cf. Sarati 1996. 122–3. 12 Barley has relatively little gluten, and unlike wheat, which was baked into bread (ἄρτος), it was therefore simply kneaded together with water (and sometimes oil, wine or the like) in a κάρδοπος (“kneading-trough”; cf. fr. 218.1 with n.) to produce a µᾶζα (cf. fr. 269.3 n. with bibliography), which here stands via synecdoche for the meal as a whole. For the etymology of the word, see most recently Griffith 2007, arguing that it is cognate not with µάσσω, “knead”, as has been assumed since antiquity, but with Hebrew matsâh. For the use of ἐπ(ί), see LSJ s. v. III.1 “of the object or purpose for which one goes”. ἀλλόφυλον (literally “belonging to another tribe”, and thus “foreign”; first attested at A. Eu. 851 but otherwise prosaic) is an unexpectedly extravagant way of saying “belonging to another person”. Ribbeck 1861. 16 took the beginning of the line to be a reworking of the Homeric ἀλλότριον βίοτον (Od. 1.160; 18.280; of Odysseus’ estate, which the Suitors are consuming); cf. the Homeric note at the end of 11. It may be easier to think of this as simply a bit of silliness that inter alia offers an example of the sort of witty speech a kolax needs to offer if he intends to make himself welcome at a party (= the theme of the verses that follow). 13 For εὐθέως, see fr. 1.1 n. θύραζε is poetic vocabulary (e. g. Il. 18.416; Od. 9.418; Hes. Th. 750; Thgn. 468; Pherecr. fr. 162.6; Ar. Ach. 825; E. Ba. 331; Pl. Com. fr. 71.11), attested elsewhere before the end of the 4th century only in Hippocrates (e. g. Epid. V 4.3 = 5.206.1 Littré [text disputed]). 14–16 A concrete example of the general rule laid out in 12–13 οὗ δεῖ κτλ: 14 σκῶµµα … εἶπ’ ἀσελγές represents a failure to meet the standard of “making many witty remarks”, while 15–16 εἶτ’ αὐτόν κτλ is a vivid expansion of (έ)κφέρεται θύραζε (picked up by θύραζε / ἐξαγαγών), which adds a specification of the agent (ὁ παῖς), the condition of the unsuccessful kolax when he is tossed out of the party (ἔχοντα κλῳόν; how and when the collar is put around his neck is left obscure, i. e. up to the audience’s imagination), and a final, capping reference to his fate afterward (παρέδωκεν Οἰνεῖ; see 16 n.). 14 Ἀκέστορ(α) … τὸν στιγµατίαν The tragic poet Akestor (PA 474; PAA 116685; TrGF 25) is called a Mysian at Theopomp. Com. fr. 61 and is referred to as “Sakas” (i. e. a Scythian) at Call. Com. fr. 17 with Imperio 1998 ad loc.; Ar. Av. 31–2 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; Metag. fr. 14; note also Cratin. fr. 92,

94

Eupolis

where he is said to deserve a beating, and Ar. V. 1221, where the implication seems to be that he is not a full-blooded Athenian. The point might thus be that Akestor allegedly has decorative tattoos of the sort worn by some nonGreek peoples (e. g. Hdt. 5.6.2, of Thracians) or that he is not just a slave but a bad one, who has attempted to run away and been marked to make future attempts at escape more difficult.46 In the latter case, the anecdote might even serve to explain how Akestor came to be a slave in the first place (and thus eventually to be tattooed): he offended his host, was dragged out of the house and sold, and now has tattoos (sc. as a result of continuing bad behavior). For tattooing and its connections with slaves, cf. frr. 277 with n.; 298.2 n.; Asius fr. 14.1 χωλός, στιγµατίης, πολυγήραος, ἶσος ἀλήτῃ (“lame, tattooed, very old, resembling a beggar”; a description of a kolax who has come looking for a meal); Ar. Av. 760 δραπέτης ἐστιγµένος (“a tattooed runaway”); Lys. 330/1–2 δούλαισιν … / στιγµατίαις (“tattooed slave-women”); Hermipp. fr. 63.19 δούλους καὶ στιγµατίας (“slaves and people bearing tattoos”); Pl. Com. fr. 203.2; Men. Sam. 323 (although Sommerstein 2013 ad loc. thinks this is instead a threat to beat Parmenon black-and-blue); Diph. fr. 67.7–8; And. fr. 5 (Hyperbolos’ father is allegedly a tattooed slave working in the state mint); Aeschin. 2.79 ἐστιγµένος αὐτόµολος (“a tattooed deserter”); Herod. 5.65–6, 79 with Headlam 1922 ad locc.; and see in general Jones 1987. 142–51, esp. 147–8 (showing that the word and its cognates do not refer to branding); Gustafson 1997. For στιγµατίας, cf. µαστιγίας (see fr. 467 n.), on the one hand; πυρρίας (“red-headed person”; e. g. Ar. Ra. 730), πωγωνίας (“bearded person”; Cratin. fr. 485), σχιζίας (“tall, skinny person”; Cratin. fr. 496), ξυρίας (“shaved person”; Poll. 4.133) and γερανίας (“person with a neck like a crane’s”; adesp. com. fr. *583), on the other; and more generally e. g. βαδισµατίας (“walker”; Cratin. fr. 422) and φιλοπραγµατίας (“busybody”; Cratin. fr. 382). 15 σκῶµµα … ἀσελγές Cf. frr. 261.2 τὸ σκῶµµ’ ἀσελγές; 345 n. (on the adjective, here implicitly contrasted with χαρίεις in 12). σκῶµµα (〈 σκώπτω, “mock, jeer”) is attested in the 5th century only in comedy (also e. g. Ar. Nu. 542; Pax 750; later at e. g. Antiph. fr. 193.12; Men. fr. 608.2), but is common in 4th-century prose (e. g. X. Smp. 1.12; Pl. Euthphr. 11c; Aeschin. 1.126). For εἶτ(α), see 11 n. 16 If Oineus is a historical person, he is otherwise unknown—the name itself is attested twice elsewhere in Athens in the classical period—and Meineke took παρέδωκεν Οἰνεῖ to be a riddling reference to the tribe of Oineus, in a deme (Keiriadai) of which, according to AB p. 219.8–12, was located the βά46

An idea along these lines presumably lurks behind the obscure “Acestor (used to be a slave)” at Storey 2011. 145.

Κόλακες (fr. 173)

95

ραθρον (“ravine, pit”) into which individuals judged “enemies of the Athenian people” were sometimes thrown (Hdt. 7.133.1; Ar. Eq. 1362; Nu. 1449–50; Ra. 574; Pl. 431, 1109; X. HG 1.7.20; Pl. Grg. 516d–e; Alex. fr. 159.1 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Alciphr. 3.16.3; Harp. pp. 70.12–71.2 = Β 2 Keaney; Et.Gen. β 37; Phot. β 57 = Synag. β 20; Phot. β 58–9, 61 ~ Suda β 99–101; Suda κ 1212). A reference to a specific place by means of a tribe-name is unlikely, since tribes had no fixed geographic location, and as Napolitano 2012. 146–7 points out, Keiriadai seems in any case actually to have belonged not to Oineus but to Hippothontis (thus Phot. β 58 = Suda β 101, drawing on the Epitome of Harpocration; cf. Bölte 1921; Traill 1975. 51). If so, Oineus was just as likely a slave-dealer (cf. 14 στιγµατίαν with n.) or the proprietor of a ζήτρειον (cf. fr. 387.2 with n.) as an executioner or the like (thus Bothe 1855. 171 “intelligendus procul dubio est carceris publici tum custos”). Sommerstein 2000. 448–9 n. 33 suggests instead an allusion to the story of Periboia and Oineus ([Apollod.] 1.8.4). παρέδωκεν For the verb in the sense “surrender for (punishment, legal examination or the like)” (prosaic), cf. fr. 99.112; LSJ s. v. I.3. κλῳός/κλοιός can be applied to a dog-collar (X. HG 2.4.41) or anything similar worn about the neck (a sneering term for a pectoral necklace at E. Cyc. 184). But the word is used allegorically in reference to the proposed punishment for a thieving dog ~ politician at Ar. V. 897 τίµηµα κλῳὸς σύκινος (“Penalty: a fig-wood/sycophantic κλοιός”), while at adesp. com. fr. *618 ap. Phryn. PS p. 84.10–11 κλῳοµάστιξ· ὁ κλοιῷ δεδεµένος καὶ µαστιγούµενος (“klôiomastix: someone who is bound in a kloios and whipped”) it appears to be a neck-shackle reminiscent of the one sometimes put around a condemned man’s neck (cf. X. HG 3.3.11) or the stocks-like κύφων or ξύλον (literally “wood”) mentioned repeatedly in 5th-century texts (e. g. Cratin. fr. 123; Ar. Pax 479 with Olson 1998 ad loc.).47 Cf. fr. 259.38 (obscure).

fr. 173 K.-A. (160 K.) φηµὶ δὲ βροτοῖσι πολὺ πλεῖστα παρέχειν ἐγὼ καὶ πολὺ µέγιστ’ ἀγαθά· ταῦτα δ’ ἀποδείξοµεν 2 ἀποδείξοµεν codd. : ἀποδείξοµαι Bergk

47

Cf. Zenob. 4.7 (citing Epich. fr. 129 “any piece of wood can be made into a kloios or a god”, i. e. into something bad or something good), asserting that κλῳός was the Dorian word for a κύφων.

96

Eupolis

And I declare that I furnish mortals with by far the most and greatest goods; and we will make these known Heph. Enchiridion XIII.2, p. 41.4–6 Consbruch καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Κόλαξι· ―― Also Eupolis in Kolakes: ――

Meter Paeano-cretic.

lkkk lkkk

lkkk | lkkk lkkk | lkkk

lkl lkl

Discussion Bergk 1838. 416; Meineke 1839 II.486; Töppel 1846. 16–17; Whittaker 1935. 190; Schiassi 1944. 91; Storey 2003. 191; Napolitano 2012. 151–4; Storey 2015. 15 Citation context From a discussion of various types of paeano-cretic tetrameter; Ar. fr. 112 and V. 1275 precede the quotation, while Ar. fr. 113 follows. Text In 2, Bergk’s ἀποδείξοµαι in place of Hephaestion’s ἀποδείξοµεν brings the verb into conformity with the 1st-person singular φηµί in 1. It is difficult to explain the paradosis, however, as a misguided expansion of an ambiguous exemplar, the 1st-person singular being a far more obvious choice in such a situation. The switch from single to plural is thus better taken as a typical feature—admittedly odd to the modern ear—of choral parabatic address of the audience; see Interpretation. Interpretation Ar. V. 1275 is the first line of the epirrhema of the second parabasis, and since Bergk these lines have generally been taken to represent the beginning of a similar section in Kolakes (i. e. from a different parabasis than fr. 172). Whoever is speaking is at least mockingly claiming divine status (1 n.), and Bergk thought this was the poet reminding the audience of the favors he allegedly did them with his plays; cf. the chorus’ report of “Aristophanes’” claims in the parabasis at Ar. Ach. 633–58; V. 1017–59. Meineke, on the other hand, believed that the chorus was speaking for itself; cf. the promises made to the judges by the Clouds at Ar. Nu. 1115–20 and by the Birds at Ar. Av. 1102–13, both followed by matching threats. The occasional oscillation elsewhere between singular and plural when the chorus speaks for itself in parabases (cf. fr. 172.3 n.) argues in favor of the latter hypothesis, in which case the Toadies must have gone on to offer an amusing list of some of the ways in which their relentless sponging supposedly benefited mankind, or at least that portion of the human race they deigned to visit.

Κόλακες (fr. 174)

97

1 βροτοῖσι is poetic vocabulary (first attested in prose at Pl. R. 566d) and serves to distinguish mortals, on the one hand, from gods, on the other (see LSJ s. v.), making it clear that the speakers at least nominally number among the latter. 1–2 For the use of πολύ + superlative to mean “far and away the most”, see LSJ s. v. III.2.b πολύς; Thesleff 1955 § 52; and in comedy e. g. [fr. *101.5]; Hermipp. fr. 77.4; Ar. Ach. 650; Pl. Com. fr. 189.7–8. 2 For ἀγαθά generically as what the gods bestow on those they favor, e. g. Ar. Av. 586–7; Th. 310–11 with Austin–Olson 2014 ad loc.; Thgn. 171–2; E. Hel. 753–4; X. Mem. 1.3.2. τοῦτο would have done just as well metrically as ταῦτα here and would have been far clearer, if what was meant was “We’ll make this point clear”. The reference must accordingly be instead to the ἀγαθά mentioned in the first half of the verse, a catalogue of which presumably followed. ἀποδείξοµεν (5th-century vocabulary) is also used in the sense “make (something) clear, bring (something) to light, demonstrate (it)” at e. g. E. Or. 1062; Ar. Ec. 607; Antipho 6.48; Th. 8.89.2; Men. Pk. fr. 2.

fr. 174 K.-A. (161 K.) † παρὰ τῷδε Καλλίᾳ πολλὴ θυµηδία, ἵνα πάρα µὲν κάραβοι † καὶ βατίδες καὶ λαγῲ καὶ γυναῖκες εἰλίποδες 1 παρὰ 〈δὲ〉 τῷ γε Fritzsche   Καλλίᾳ] Καλλία Hermann : del. Dindorf   πολλὴ 〈δὴ〉 θυµηδία Hermann   2 ἵνα πάρα µὲν] ἵνα πάρ᾽ ἡµῖν 〈καὶ〉 Meineke   κάραβοι καὶ βατίδες καὶ λαγῲ Ath. 7.286b : βατίδες καὶ λαγῲ Ath. 9.400b : βατίδες καὶ λαγῲ καὶ κάραβοι Dobree

† At the house of this Callias there’s lots of merriment, where crawfish are present † and rays and hares and women who wrap their feet about you Ath. 7.286b Εὔπολις δ’ ἐν Κόλαξί φησι· ―― And Eupolis says in Kolakes: ―― Ath. 9.400a–b τῇ δὲ τὸν λαγὸν ἑνικῇ αἰτιατικῇ ἀκόλουθός ἐστιν ἡ παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ (fr. 111) … πληθυντικὴ ὀνοµαστικῆ … λαγοί. τῇ δὲ λαγὼν ἡ διὰ τοῦ ω παραπλησίως προσαγορευοµένη λαγῲ παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Κόλαξιν (vv. 2–3)· ――

98

Eupolis

The form of the nominative plural … used in Sophocles (fr. 111), … lagoi, … is consistent with accusative singular lagon. Whereas the form lagôi pronounced with an omega analogously with lagôn (is found) in Eupolis in Kolakes (vv. 2–3): ―― Hsch. γ 1013 γ υ ν α ῖ κ ε ς ε ἰ λ ί π ο δ ε ς· διὰ τὴν δέσιν τῶν σκελῶν καὶ πλοκὴν τὴν κατὰ τὴν συνουσίαν. καὶ Ἀνακρέων (PMG 439)· πλέξαντες µηροῖσι πέρι µηρούς e i l i p o d e s w o m e n : because of how their legs are attached and bend during intercourse. Also Anacreon (PMG 439): bending thighs around thighs Suda µ 1470 Εὔπολις ε ἱ λ ί π ο δ α ς ἀπὸ τῆς εἱλήσεως τῶν ποδῶν τῆς κατὰ µίξιν Eupolis (refers to prostitutes as) e i l i p o d e s because of how their feet are wrapped (around their partners) during intercourse Eust. p. 764.10–11 = II.763.5–6 εἰλίποδες δὲ εἰς τὸ πᾶν µὲν βοῶν ἐπίθετον, ἡ δὲ κωµῳδία καὶ γ υ ν α ῖ κ ά ς φησιν ε ἱ λ ί π ο δ α ς παίζουσα (δι’ Εὐπόλιδος add. codd. : del. van der Valk) τὰ ἑαυτῆς eilopodes is generally an epithet of cattle, but comedy also refers to e i l o p o d e s w o m e n , joking (“through Eupolis” add. codd. : van der Valk deletes) in its own style

Meter If these are Eupolideans (.. .. lxlkkl | .. .. lxlkl; thus Hermann, cf. frr. 89; 132, the former also corrupt), 1 and 2 as transmitted do not quite fit the scheme and only the first half of 3 is preserved. † kklklklllllkl kkkkllkl † | lkkllkl lklklkkl | 〈c.. .. lxlkl〉 See Text; Storey 2003. 389.48

48

Napolitano 2012. 156–8 takes this instead to be lyric: 〈l〉 παρὰ τῷδε Καλλίᾳ πολλὴ θυµηδία, ἵνα πάρα µὲν κάραβοι καὶ βατίδες καὶ λαγῲ 5 καὶ γυναῖκες εἰλίποδες

5

kkl klkl lll lkl krkl lkl lkkl lkl lklk lkkl

Κόλακες (fr. 174)

99

Discussion Hermann 1816. 581–2; Meineke 1839 II.488–9; Töppel 1846. 23–4; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 66–8; Kock 1880 I.303; Schiassi 1944. 90; D’Agostino 1957. 71–2; Beta 1995; Sarati 1996. 122–3; Storey 2003. 389; Napolitano 2012. 155–62 Citation context Athenaeus’ first citation of the fragment comes from his discussion of the βατίς in the long, alphabetically organized catalogue of fishnames that makes up much of Book 7 and that seems to be drawn mostly from Dorion. Athenaeus’ second citation of the fragment (only 2–3) is from a discussion of the accentuation of lagô / lagos that he traces to Tryphon (fr. 19 Velsen) and that also preserves fr. 153. The reference to the words γυναῖκες εἰλίποδες in 3 in Hesychius, the Suda and Eustathius is traced to Pausanias (γ 14) at Eust. p. 1394.41 = i.24.36 Παυσανίας δὲ λέγει καὶ γυναῖκας εἰλίποδας διὰ τὴν ἔνδεσιν τῶν µηρῶν (“But Pausanias says that women as well are eilipodes on account of how their thighs fit together”; the same gloss, but without reference to Pausanias, at Phot. γ 234; cf. the mention of εἰλίπους in a catalogue of words for prostitutes at Eust. p. 1922.1 = ii.275.33, traced by Taillardat to Suetonius περὶ βλασφηµιῶν 2.46). Text For 1 to work as a Eupolidean, a short syllable is wanted between παρὰ and τῷδε (hence Fritzsche’s παρὰ 〈δὲ〉 τῷ γε); something must be done with Καλλίᾳ, the final syllable of which scans long although what is wanted is a short (hence Hermann’s vocative Καλλία and Dindorf’s proposal to expel the word as a gloss on τῷδε that drove out another word or words it was written above); and a one-syllable word is wanted before πολλὴ (either short or long) or after it (long) (hence Hermann’s πολλὴ 〈δὴ〉 θυµηδία; easily explained as a majuscule error, ∆Η having been omitted after ΛΗ). Kassel–Austin misleadingly print the verse inset, as if it were merely metrically deficient at the beginning. ἵνα πάρα µὲν (kkkkl) at the beginning of 2 will not do (hence Meineke’s ἵνα πάρ᾽ ἡµῖν 〈καὶ〉 = kkklll), nor will κάραβοι with its initial long syllable (hence Dobree’s βατίδες καὶ λαγῲ καὶ κάραβοι = kkllklllkl), with the two proposals—the second considerably more believable than the first—combining to yield kkklllkkl | lklllkl. That the verse is cited in almost the same, deeply problematic form at both Ath. 7.286b and 9.400b, which appear to be drawn from separate sources, suggests either that Athenaeus found the passage in one source and imported it into the other, or that the corruption goes very far back, perhaps to the Library at Alexandria, which he analyzes as an eccentric mix of iambo-choriambic and cretics [sic] (cho ia, 2cho ct, ia cr, cho cr, 2cho B (wil)).

100

Eupolis

the meter being so tricky that even there the problems with the text were not detected (or at least not fixed). Interpretation Assuming that these are Eupolideans (see Text), they most likely come from a parabasis. Napolitano 2012. 161–2, by contrast, takes this to be a portion of a choral makarismos (doubtless ironic) sung shortly after the parabasis. Regardless of whether Καλλίᾳ is retained in the text, τῷδε makes it clear that Callias (for whom, see the general introduction to the play) was already mentioned in the portion of text that preceded this. The general description in 1 is followed by a specific list of symposium delicacies (each described with only a single word) in 2 and by a punning, mock high-style, two-word description of the female entertainment provided along with the food and drink in the first half of 3, all of which makes up the µέν-clause. A δέ-clause focussing on some other aspect of the event probably followed. 1 θυµηδία is attested only here in the classical period; next at Call. fr. 227.4, again as part of a description of a symposium. But the word is found repeatedly in Roman-era authors such as Lucian (e. g. Abd. 6), Plutarch (Mor. 713d), Galen (e. g. 9.269.6 K.) and Alciphro (3.13.3), and is glossed at Hsch. θ 876 θυµηδία· ἡδύτης, τέρψις, ἀρέσκεια. παρὰ τὸ ἡδύνειν and Phot. θ 260 = Suda θ 559 = Synag. θ 128 (traced by Cunningham to Cyril) θυµηδία· τέρψις, τρυφή, εὐφρασία, and included in a list of synonyms of χαρά at Poll. 3.97, all of which taken together suggests that the word was at some point identified as good Attic vocabulary. 2 The κάραβος (also in catalogues of seafood and the like at e. g. Call. Com. fr. 6.2; Ar. frr. 164; 333.7; 380.1; 640; Metag. fr. 6.6 with Orth 2014 ad loc.; Philyll. fr. 12.1; Pl. Com. fr. 102.3) is the crawfish, langoustine or Norway lobster (Italian scampo). Cf. Keller 1909–1913 II.491–3; Thompson 1947. 102–3; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 57; Olson–Sens 1999 on Matro fr. 1.66–7; Davidson 2002. 179. The βατίς (also in catalogues of seafood and the like at e. g. Ar. fr. 333.4; Call. Com. fr. 6.1; Metag. fr. 6.4) is a ray or skate of some sort. Cf. Strömberg 1943. 47 (on the name); Thompson 1947. 26–8; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 50.1; Davidson 2002. 33–6. λαγῴ The European hare (Lepus europaeus) is also included in banquet catalogues and the like at e. g. Hippon. fr. 37.1; Telecl. fr. 34; Ar. Ach. 1110; Nicostr. Com. fr. 4.2; Archestr. fr. 57 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc., and is generally treated as a delicacy. Cf. Keller 1909–1913 I.210–17; Kitchell 2014. 82–5; and see fr. 339 n. on hunting nets. For the word itself, see fr. 153 n. Despite Rusten 2011. 174, the reference is unlikely to be to “sea-hares” (LSJ s. v. III), i. e. sea-slugs, which are inedible.

Κόλακες (fr. *175)

101

3 εἰλίποδες is an epic epithet of cattle (e. g. Il. 6.424; Od. 1.92; Hes. Th. 290; Op. 795; fr. 204.50; h.Herm. 216), referring to how they “bring their feet around with a circling motion”; picked up at Emped. 31 B 60 D.–K. εἱλίποδ’ ἀκριτόχειρα (translated “with twisted feet and a hundred hands” at Inwood 2001. 123, and described as a laughably absurd expression—although clearly not intended as such—by Plutarch when he quotes it); [Theoc.] 25.99, 131; Mosch. 2.136. Here, on the other hand, the word is used—at least as Pausanias, or whoever is behind the various lexicographic notes on this verse, would have it—to mean “twisting their feet around (the men on top of them)”, the γυναῖκες in question being prostitutes hired for the party.49 For prostitutes, who often provided entertainment at symposia by dancing, playing instruments, doing gymnastic tricks or the like, cf. fr. 184 with n., and see Olson–Sens 1999 on Matro frr. 1.121 (where they are likewise mentioned only after the food that was served has been carefully catalogued); 6.2, with detailed discussion and bibliography); and in general cf. fr. 75 with n.

fr. *175 K.-A. (162 K.) οὐ πῦρ οὐδὲ σίδηρος οὐδὲ χαλκὸς ἀπείργει µὴ 〈οὐ〉 φοιτᾶν ἐπὶ δεῖπνον GA

1 οὐ Mor. 778d : οὔτε Mor. 50d : οὓς Meineke   οὐδὲ Meineke : οὔτε Mor. 50d : cett vl οὐ Mor. 778d et 50d . σίδηρος] σίδαρος Mor. 778d et 50d   2 οὐδὲ] οὔτε Mor. GA 50d    ἀπείργει Meineke : εἴργει Mor. 778d et 50d : ἂν εἴργοι Töppel   3 〈οὐ〉 add. Nauck

no fire or iron or bronze prevents from going constantly to dinner Plu. Mor. 778d τοὺς Καλλίου κωµῳδουµένους κόλακας γελῶσιν, οὓς ――, κατὰ τὸν Εὔπολιν They laugh at the toadies of Callias depicted in comedy, whom ――, as Eupolis puts it

49

“Women with a rolling walk” (Storey 2011. 145) is thus correct, in the sense that it translates the Homeric sense of the word, but misses what is generally taken to be the joke. Beta suggests that the reference is simply to dance, i. e. that the lexicographers have let their prurient imaginations run away with them.

102

Eupolis

Plu. Mor. 50d τοὺς ἀµφὶ πλουσίαν τράπεζαν ἐγκυκλουµένους, οὓς ―― those who form a ring around a wealthy table, whom ――

Meter Pherecrateans.

lllkkll lklkkll lllkkll Discussion Meineke 1839 I.136, ΙΙ.487; Töppel 1846. 21–2; Kock 1880 I.303–4; Nauck 1894. 71; Whittaker 1935. 189; Schiassi 1944. 90; D’Agostino 1957. 76; Blank 1985. 5; Storey 2003. 191; Tell 2009. 19; Napolitano 2012. 124–35 Citation context Plutarch cites the fragment twice, in That the philosopher must converse with political leaders in particular and How one can recognize a flatterer. The topic is κόλακες in each case; the quotations are essentially decorative; and the fact that Plutarch both times cites precisely the same lines suggests that he has drawn them from a pre-existing collection of thematically-linked material, which likely also included fr. 374 (similarly preserved in How one can recognize a flatterer, and again referring to supposed friends who crowd around food); and cf. Kolakes test. viii. Text In 1, οὐ is a matter of metrical necessity at the beginning of the line. σίδηρος in 1 and χαλκός in 2 are then simply additions to the list of items that do not restrain these men from going to dinner, with no sense that these items belong to a common set, meaning that οὐδέ rather than οὔτε50 is wanted with both. The Doric form σίδαρος (in tragic lyric at e. g. A. Th. 730; E. Ph. 350) would give the word a more emphatically elevated character than σίδηρος, but need not be printed on that account. In 2, the paradosis εἴργει is unmetrical, and Meineke’s ἀπείργει is a much easier fix than Töppel’s ἂν εἴργοι. After οὐ  … οὐδὲ  … οὐδὲ  … ἀπείργει, Nauck’s µὴ 〈οὐ〉 rather than the paradosis µή is needed in 3 (Kühner–Gerth 1898 ii.210–11). The words are pronounced together as a single syllable (as at e. g. Ar. Ach. 320; Av. 37; Ra. 68), and the supplement thus does not affect the meter. Kock proposed taking the citation context at Plu. Mor. 50d τοὺς ἀµφὶ πλουσίαν τράπεζαν ἐγκυκλουµένους as the remains of two iambic trimeter

50

“Neither fire nor sword” at Rusten 2011. 248 thus gets the sense wrong.

Κόλακες (fr. *175)

103

lines (τοὺς … ἀµφὶ πλουσίαν / τράπεζαν ἐγκυκλουµένους); see Napolitano 2012. 131–2. Interpretation Identified by Whittaker as drawn from the parabasis κοµµάτιον (the short lyric stanza that serves as a transition from the preceding scene). Storey takes the lines to be instead from the parodos, while Napolitano 2012. 126 assigns them to a parabasis ode or antode. The fragment is not expressly attributed to Kolakes by Plutarch, and the number thus requires a prefixed asterisk (omitted by Kassel–Austin), like fr. *179—although the assignment is reasonable enough, given the characterization of the content of the verses offered at Mor. 778d. Kock (followed by Storey and Napolitano) suggested that the chorus was speaking of itself, but they might be referring to the behavior of e. g. Callias’ other guests—or of any gluttons anywhere. Napolitano 2012. 127–8 compares Cratin. fr. 62.1–2 Λάµπωνα, τὸν οὐ βροτῶν / ψῆφος δύναται φλεγυρὰ δείπνου φίλων ἀπείργειν (“Lampon, whom no flaming ballot of mortals can bar from a dinner of his friends”). 1–2 In comedy, at least, πῦρ is fire burning in a hearth, carried in a pot or the like, but is not used with the extended sense “torch”; note esp. Antiph. fr. 269.2 καὶ δᾷδα χρηστὴν ἡµµένην χρηστῷ πυρί (“and a useful torch kindled with useful fire”). The point is thus not that the fire is imagined as a weapon brandished to keep someone at bay, but that it is an impossible barrier or irresistible hostile force, as at Ar. Lys. 133–4 κἄν µε χρῇ, διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς / ἐθέλω βαδίζειν (“and if I need to, I’m willing to walk through fire”), 1014–15 οὐδέν ἐστι θηρίον γυναικὸς ἀµαχώτερον, / οὐδὲ πῦρ (“there’s no beast more impossible than a woman, not even fire”); Cratin. Jun. fr. 8.4–5 ἔχει γὰρ χεῖρα κραταιάν, / χαλκῆν, … πολὺ κρείττω τοῦ πυρὸς αὐτοῦ (“for he has a hand that is powerful, brazen, … much stronger than fire itself”, although part of the joke is that the hand in question is capable of grabbing food hotter than anyone else can touch); S. Ph. 927 with Schein 2013 ad loc.; E. Andr. 271; fr. 429; and see LSJ s. v. II (middle of the entry), “as a type of things irresistible or terrible”, with further parallels. σίδηρος and χαλκός accordingly refer metonymically not to weapons (as at e. g. S. fr. 500 οὐ χαλκός, οὐ σίδηρος ἅπτεται χροός, “no bronze, no iron touches his skin”) but to shackles or chains, or perhaps simply once again to something proverbially harsh or impossible to resist (as at Hes. Th. 764–5 τοῦ δὲ σιδηρέη µὲν κραδίη, χάλκεον δέ οἱ ἦτορ / νηλεὲς ἐν στήθεσσιν, “but the heart of the other is of iron, and his brazen spirit is pitiless in his chest”; Pi. fr. *123.4–5; Ar. Ach. 491 σιδηροῦς τ’ ἀνήρ, “a man made of iron”, with Olson 2002 ad loc.). Meineke compared Hor. Sat. 1.1.38–9 cum te neque fervidus aestus / demoveat lucro, nec hiems, ignis, mare, ferrum (“since summer’s heat would not divert you from money, nor storm, fire, sea or iron”), Kock noted Carm. 1.16.11 nec saevus ignis, and Kassel–Austin add Pi. fr. 232

104

Eupolis

τὸ πεπρωµένον οὐ πῦρ, οὐ σιδάρεον σχήσει τεῖχος (“no fire, no wall of iron will restrain what is fated”). 2–3 ἀπείργει / µὴ 〈οὐ〉 φοιτᾶν For the construction, cf. E. fr. 88a.4 τὸν νοῦν τ’ ἀπείργει µὴ λέγειν ἃ βούλεται; Crit. TrGF 43 F 19.9–10 τἀµφανῆ µὲν οἱ νόµοι / ἀπεῖργον αὐτοὺς ἔργα µὴ πράσσειν βίᾳ (both without a negation and thus with µή alone before the infinitive); Hdt. 8.98.1 τοὺς οὔτε νιφετός, οὐκ ὄµβρος, οὐ καῦµα, οὐ νὺξ ἔργει µὴ οὐ κατανύσαι τὸν προκείµενον αὐτῷ δρόµον (with a negation and thus with µὴ οὐ before the infinitive). 3 φοιτᾶν refers to regular or repeated action; what is in question is not a one-time trip to dinner, but the constant and continual traffic in that direction typical of comic parasites. For ἐπὶ δεῖπνον (bathetic after the elaborate set-up that precedes the words),51 cf. fr. 172.11 with n. (again with a verb of motion, as at e. g. Il. 2.381 ἔρχεσθ’ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον; Cratin. frr. 46 φοιτήσας ἐπὶ δεῖπνον; 47 φοιτᾷς ἐπὶ δεῖπνον; Ar. Ach. 1085–6 ἐπὶ δεῖπνον … / βάδιζε; X. Mem. 3.14.1 συνιόντων ἐπὶ δεῖπνον).

fr. 176 K.-A. (163 K.) ὃς Χαρίτων µὲν ὄζει, καλλαβίδας δὲ βαίνει, σησαµίδας δὲ χέζει, µῆλα δὲ χρέµπτεται A

A

CE

1 µὲν ὄζει Porson : µε νοµίζει Ath.    3 δὲ χέζει Ath. 630a et 646f : ὄζει Ath. 646f

who smells of Graces, walks an ass-grab step, shits sesame-cakes, and hawks and spits apples Ath. 14.646f σησαµίδες. ἐκ µέλιτος καὶ σησάµων πεφρυγµένων καὶ ἐλαίου σφαιροειδῆ πέµµατα. Εὔπολις Κόλαξιν· ―― Sêsamides. Round pastries made of honey, roasted sesame seeds and olive oil. Eupolis in Kolakes: ―― 51

Cf. (with a slightly different effect but a very similar poetic and rhetorical structure) the song made famous by Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell, “Ain’t no mountain high enough, ain’t no valley low enough, ain’t no river wide enough—to keep me from getting to you, babe!”

Κόλακες (fr. 176)

105

Ath. 14.630a καλλαβίδων δ’ Εὔπολις ἐν Κόλαξιν· ―― And Eupolis (mentions) kallabides in Kolakes: ――

Meter Aristophaneans followed by a single dochmiac.

lkklkll lkklkll lkklkll lkklkl For the meter, cf. Ar. frr. 9; 715; and see in general Parker 1997. 82–4. Discussion Dobree 1820 Addenda p. 116; Meineke 1839 II.494; Töppel 1846. 25–7; Kock 1880 I.304; Schiassi 1944. 93; Storey 2003. 191; Napolitano 2012. 21–2, 23–5, 163–71 Citation context Ath. 14.646f is the beginning of an entry in the catalogue of cakes—perhaps taken more or less direct from Iatrocles’ περὶ Πλακοὐντων (On Cakes)—that extends from 14.644f–7c. Antiph. fr. 79 and a reference to Ephipp. fr. 13.3 follow. Cf. EM p. 697.27–8 πυραµίς· ἡ ἐκ πυρῶν καὶ µέλιτος, ὥσπερ σησαµὶς ἡ ἐκ σησάµων καὶ µέλιτος (“pyramis: a cake made of wheat (pyros) and honey, just as a sêsamis is a cake made of sesame-seed and honey”). Ath. 14.630a is part of a diverse discussion of dance that extends from 14.628c–31e and is embedded in a much longer discussion of music generally. The quotation from Eupolis serves as a gloss on the assertion a few lines earlier (14.629f) σχήµατα δέ ἐστιν ὀρχήσεως ξιφισµός, καλαθίσκος, καλλαβίδες, σκώψ, σκώπευµα (“Dance-steps include the sword-play, kallabides, scops owl, skôpeuma”; the penultimate point is echoed at 9.391a). Text In 5th-century comedy, plural Χάριτες is seemingly always best understood as a proper name referring to the Graces and thus as requiring a capital letter, as in 1 here; cf. Dover 1993 on Ar. Ra. 334/5, and more generally Petersen 1939. 21–50; Dover 1974. 141–4.52 At the end of 1, Porson’s µὲν ὄζει is a palmary correction (presumably inspired by the Epitome, which has omitted the first two verses but taken over ὄζει from 1 as the verb in 3) of the unmetrical paradosis µε νοµίζει.

52

Ar. Ec. 582 ὡς τὸ ταχύνειν Χαρίτων µετέχει πλεῖστον παρὰ τοῖσι θεαταῖς (“since haste enjoys the greatest share of the Graces among our spectators”, i. e. “is that which they favor most”) is no exception, although the emphasis there is on what the Graces represent.

106

Eupolis

For the Epitome’s reading ὄζει (unmetrical and inter alia probably an attempt to avoid use of the crude verb χέζω) in 3, see above. That the citations of the verse in A agree at 629f and 646f means that the variant has no chance of concealing a legitimate alternative reading. Interpretation A description of a man—Dobree (followed by Meineke, Kock and most modern commentators) took him to be Callias himself, but we actually have no idea who he is—even whose ugliest and most pedestrian activities supposedly have an unexpected aura of grace, beauty and attractiveness. Cf. fr. 204 ψάγδαν ἐρυγγάνοντα with n. (quoting Pherecr. fr. 138.1–4). The characterization is not obviously offered in criticism, but the actions described in 3–4 in particular are so coarse that it manages to be thoroughly unattractive. If the remarks are ironic—this is what the chorus say about someone, to win his patronage, regardless of what they actually think or what the audience in the Theater believes—there is no overt trace of that attitude in the preserved portion of the text. After the initial relative pronoun, all four verses have the same structure (noun in an oblique case + particle + verb), and 2–3 are perfectly symmetrical, with 4 disrupting the pattern. Storey takes the lines to come from the ode or antode of the parabasis. 1 For the Χάριτες, divine attendants of Aphrodite from Homer on and of victorious athletes in Pindar, and in any case symbols of grace and physical beauty, see MacLachlan 1993, esp. 41–55 (the Graces themselves), 73–86 (social charis), 87–125 (epinician charis); Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 41–2; LIMC III.1 pp. 191–3. For ὄζω + gen. in the sense “smell of” something, e. g. Hermipp. fr. 77.8; Ar. Ach. 190, 196; Eq. 1332; Alex. fr. 263.6; Poultney 1936. 93–4. 2 Whatever authority Athenaeus is relying on at 14.629f knows καλλαβίδες as the name of a dance, and apparently a comic dance, to judge from the only other information we have about it: Hsch. κ 378 καλαβίς· τὸ περισπᾶν τὰ ἰσχία (“kalabis: to stretch out one’s haunches”—i. e. to spread one’s asscheeks?); Phot. κ 104 καλλαβίδες· τὸ διαβαίνειν ἀσχηµόνως καὶ διέλκειν τὰ ἰσχία ταῖς χερσίν (“kallabides: striding around in a disgraceful fashion and spreading one’s haunches with one’s hands”).53 3 σησαµίδας Mentioned elsewhere only in the other passages referenced at Ath. 14.646f and at Stesich. fr. 3. Suda σ 341 attempts to distinguish between a σησαµοῦς (Ar. Ach. 1092; Th. 570 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.)

53

A highly speculative treatment of the word’s history at Latte 1913. 24–6; see the careful, critical discussion of Napolitano 2012. 166–9. Beekes 2010 s.v. takes it to be an item of substrate vocabulary.

Κόλακες (fr. 178)

107

and a σησαµῆ (Ar. Pax 869 with Olson 1998 ad loc.) by defining the former as “a type of πλακοῦς (cake)” and the latter as “what we call a σησαµίς”; cf. the abbreviated version of the note at Hsch. σ 529. That there is actually any difference between the two is unclear. For sesame generally, see Ar. V. 676 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Anaxandr. fr. 42.60 with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Nayar and Mehra 1970; Bedigian and Harlan 1986; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 132.3; Morelli 2004 (on sesame oil, with further bibliography); Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012. 112–13; Hawkins 2013. 145–9. χέζει See fr. 240 n. 4 µῆλα A generic term (no etymology) used for a variety of tree-fruits, including citrons (Ar. V. 1057a with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.) and apricots (Ar. Nu. 978 with Dover 1968 ad loc.), but most often for apples, as perhaps also at e. g. Cratin. fr. 116.3; Pherecr. fr. 113.26; Anaxandr. fr. 42.54. See in general Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 999–1002; Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012. 135–8. χρέµπτεται Coarse Attic-Ionic vocabulary (e. g. Ar. Pax 815 (compound in κατα-); Th. 381; E. Cyc. 626; Hp. Epid. V 78 = 5.248.15 Littré; Epid. VII 13 = 5.388.12 Littré (compound in ἀπο-)).

fr. 177 K.-A. (167 K.) RVEΓ

Σ Ar. Av. 876 (µῆτερ Κλεοκρίτου) Σύµµαχος προείρηκεν ὅτι ξένος καὶ τάχα ὑποκριτής. νῦν δὲ ἐµφαίνεται ὅτι καὶ τὴν ὄψιν στρουθώδης. ὁ δὲ ∆ίδυµος (Hypomnemata Aristophanous fr. 34, p. 254 Schmidt) … ὅτι ὡς γυναικίας καὶ κίναιδος κωµῳδεῖται … καὶ ἴσως ἕτερος ἂν εἴη τοῦ παρ’ Εὐπόλιδος ἐν ∆ήµοις (fr. 136) καὶ Κόλαξι (mother of Kleokritos) Symmachus says earlier that he was a foreigner and perhaps an actor; but now he indicates that he was also ostrich-like in appearance. And Didymus (Hypomnemata Aristophanous fr. 34, p. 254 Schmidt) (says) … that he is mocked as an effeminate and a faggot … And perhaps he would be someone other than the man from Eupolis in Dêmoi (fr. 136) and Kolakes

See fr. 136 n.

fr. 178 K.-A. (164 K.) RVΓ

Σ Ar. Pax 803 RVΓ RΓ Μόρσιµος µηδὲ Μελάνθιος· τραγικοὶ ποιηταὶ ἀµφότεροι … ὁ δὲ Μελάνθιος κωµῳδεῖται εἰς µαλακίαν καὶ ὀψοφαγίαν. καὶ πολὺ µᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς Κόλαξιν Εὔπολις ὡς RVΓ κίναιδον αὐτὸν διαβάλλει καὶ κόλακα

108

Eupolis RVΓ

RΓ

not Morsimos or Melanthios: [they are] both tragic poets … But Melanthios is mocked in comedy for effeminacy and gluttony. And Eupolis in his Kolakes slanders RVΓ him much more as a faggot and a flatterer

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.490; Töppel 1846. 32; Meineke 1847. 186; Napolitano 2012. 18 Citation context A gloss on a curse on Morsimos, Melanthios and Melanthios’ brother (who may or may not be Morsimos) in the parabasis antode of Aristophanes’ Peace; presumably drawn from a list of kômôidoumenoi. The scholion is taken over at Suda µ 1261 in slightly abbreviated form. Interpretation Melanthius (PA 9767; PAA 638275; TrGF 23) was mocked in all three comedies at the City Dionysia in 421 BCE (also Leucon’s Phrateres (fr. 3)). As Σ Pax observes, he is routinely made fun of for his allegedly immense appetite (see fr. 43 with n.), but Plato Comicus refers to him as a babbler (fr. 140; see Pirrotta 2009 ad loc.) and Aristophanes implies that he had some sort of skin-disease (Av. 151; cf. Call. Com. fr. 14) and insists that he stank (Pax 811–13). All of this proves very little except that Melanthius was enjoying a certain degree of professional success in this period and thus seemed worth attacking onstage. None of his poetry survives except for a parody of two lines supposedly from his Medea at Ar. Pax 1013–14. κίναιδος (etymology uncertain) is an abusive term for a man who not only allows himself to be penetrated sexually by other men, but desperately desires this; see in particular [Archil.] fr. 328; Winkler 1990. 46–54; Davidson 1997. 167–82; Fisher 2001. 272–3 (with further bibliography). The word is first secure elsewhere at Pl. Grg. 494e and then repeatedly in Aeschines (e. g. 1.181; 2.88), and Aristophanes regularly uses καταπύγων in what appears to be the same sense (e. g. Ach. 79 with Olson 2002 ad loc.). Perhaps the two terms were already in circulation together in the late 5th century. But the scholia claim often enough that various late 5th-century individuals were mocked as κίναιδοι 3 when the text itself uses a different word or a circumlocution (e. g. ΣVEΓ M Ar. Eq. 969; ΣENM Ar. Nu. 1022; ΣR Ar. Th. 805) that it seems likely that this is in fact a slightly later term used to gloss what Eupolis said rather than an exact report of his words. For the meaning of κόλαξ, see Kolakes Introductory note.

fr. *179 K.-A. (166 K.) Ael. fr. 107 Hercher ap. Suda β 374 Ὀρέστης, Μαρψίας, Καλλίου τοῦ Ἀθηναίου κόλακες σὺν ἑτέροις Orestes, Marpsias, flatterers of Callias of Athens along with others

Κόλακες (fr. 180)

109

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.490; Töppel 1846. 33–6; Dunbar 1995. 452–3; Napolitano 2012. 18–19 Citation context From a series of examples of men who “buzzed” around the tables of wealthy individuals and who thus offer a historical precedent for the behavior of Albius, the Roman flatterer of Antonius. The Suda offers this material (assigned to Aelian by Meineke) after—and thus seemingly as a gloss on—the phrase βοµβοῦσιν αἱ µέλισσαι, ὅταν τις προσίῃ µύρου ὄζων (“the bees buzz, whenever someone approaches smelling of perfume”) from Timaeus’ Lexicon on Plato (in reference to the buzzing appetites of R. 573a). Interpretation Although Aelian mentions Callias’ flatterers, he makes no explicit reference to Eupolis, hence Kassel–Austin’s *. The phrase “flatterers of Callias” is most naturally taken in apposition to the names that precede it (“Orestes [and] Marpsias, [who are] flatterers of Callias”), confirming that Eupolis’ characters were still well-known in general terms in the Roman period, while leaving open the possibility that Marpsias and Orestes are confused borrowings from elsewhere in Old Comedy (below). Marpsias (PAA 635505) is a very rare name (no other Athenian examples), and this is thus presumably the man referred to at Ar. Ach. 702 (425 BCE) as the sort of person who might insist on the fairness of the contemporary Athenian political and social system, despite all evidence to the contrary. A mugger named Orestes is mentioned in the same play (Ach. 1166–8) and again at Ar. Av. 712, 1490–3 (414 BCE; see Dunbar for exhaustive discussion of the point), but a man like this seems an unlikely guest at Callias’ house, and “Orestes” is transparently a nickname (~ “the madman”) in any case. Perhaps Aelian has simply jumbled various bits and pieces of literary tradition together, or Eupolis referred mockingly to someone else in this way.

fr. 180 K.-A. (165 K.) Areth.

Σ Pl. Ap. 20e (p. 421 Greene) (Χαιρεφῶν) Εὔπολις δ’ ἐν Κόλαξιν Καλλίου κόλακα λέγει (Chaerephon) And Eupolis in Kolakes says that he was a flatterer of Callias

Discussion Töppel 1846. 32–3; Napolitano 2012. 19 Citation context From the same note that preserves fr. 253, where see n. Interpretation For Chaerephon of the deme Sphettos (PA 15203; PAA 976060), see fr. 253 n. For the meaning of κόλαξ, see Kolakes Introductory note.

110

Eupolis

fr. 181 K.-A. (178 K.) VMEV57

Σ Ar. Ra. 415 ὅτι σύνηθες ἦν τοῦτο (sic Schuringa : τὸ codd.) ἐπιλέγειν ὁπότε ἐπαινοῖέν τι ἢ συνοµολογοῖεν. καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Κόλαξι It was customary to add this whenever they offered praise or agreement. Also Eupolis in Kolakes

Discussion Töppel 1846. 27 Citation context The precise location of the note varies in the manuscripts (hence Kassel–Austin’s assignment of it to Ra. 407), but is taken by Chantry 1999 to be a gloss on Xanthias’ κἄγωγε πρός (“Me too!”) in response to Dionysus’ announcement of his eagerness to dance with an attractive female member of the chorus of initiates. Interpretation Although the scholion identifies the phrase in question as “customary”, κἄγωγε πρός is attested nowhere else. Perhaps the reference is simply to ἔγωγε (“I do indeed!” vel sim.) at e. g. Ar. Ach. 777; Eq. 33; Pl. Com. fr. 102.3; Men. Asp. 83; Dysc. 788; Pl. Euthphr. 6e; X. Mem. 2.2.12.

fr. 182 K.-A. (174 K.) Phot. λ 218 = Suda λ 322 λ ε υ κ ὴ ἡ µ έ ρ α· ἡ ἀγαθή, καὶ ἐπ’ εὐφροσύνῃ. Εὔπολις Κόλαξιν a w h i t e d a y: a good one, and for happiness. Eupolis in Kolakes

Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlk〉l l|lkl 〈xlkl〉 Discussion Meineke 1839 II.498; Töppel 1846. 56; Kock 1880 II.306; Pearson 1917 I.6; Schiassi 1944. 90 Citation context An Atticist gloss preserved in the common source of Photius and the Suda conventionally referred to as Σ΄΄. Related material, perhaps all ultimately to be traced to the same source, is preserved at – Antiatt. p. 106.33 λευκὴν ἡµέραν· τὴν ἀγαθήν. Σοφοκλῆς Ἀθάµαντι (fr. 6) (“a white day: a good one. Sophocles in Athamas (fr. 6)”) – [Hdn.] Philet. 191 λευκὴν ἡµέραν διαγαγεῖν, τὴν ἡδεῖαν καὶ ἱλαράν (“to spend a white day, one that is pleasant and cheerful”)

Κόλακες (fr. 183)

111

– Hsch. λ 726 λευκὴ ἡµέρα· ἀγαθή (“a white day: a good one”) – Zenob. 6.13 καὶ Μένανδρος δὲ φησὶν ἐν Λευκαδίᾳ (fr. 260 Koerte–Thierfelder) τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἡµέραν λευκὴν καλεῖσθαι (“and Menander in Leukadia (fr. 260 Koerte–Thierfelder) says that a good day is called a white one”). Interpretation For λευκὴ ἡµέρα in the sense “a happy day”, apparently an Attic colloquialism,54 cf. (in addition to the fragments of Sophocles and Menander cited in Citation context) A. Pers. 301 καὶ λευκὸν ἦµαρ νυκτὸς ἐκ µελαγχίµου; Call. frr. 178.2 ἦµαρ … λευκόν; 191.37 λευκὰς ἡµέρας; Plu. Per. 27.2–3 (a silly explanation for the expression, which predates the events in question) with Stadter 1989 ad loc.; Suda λ 323 ~ τ 868 (another—even sillier—explanation, tracing the expression to the Scythians); Pearson 1917 I.6. Meineke suggested that the reference might be to the day when Callias’ dinner party was held—Kock added the idea that one of the kolakes was speaking—which is merely a guess.

fr. 183 K.-A. (171 K.) Poll. 10.96–7 καὶ κρατευτὰς δὲ καὶ κρατευτήρια ἐρεῖς, καὶ ὡς ἐν τοῖς ∆ηµιοπράτοις ἔστιν εὑρεῖν, µολυβδοκρατευτάς … ἐν δὲ ταῖς Ἀττικαῖς στήλαις, αἳ κεῖνται ἐν Ἐλευσινίῳ (Bergk : Ἐλευσῖνι codd.), τὰ τῶν ἀσεβησάντων περὶ τὼ θεῶ δηµοσίᾳ πραθέντα ἀναγέγραπται· ἐν αἷς ἄλλα τε πολλὰ σκεύη ἐστὶν ὠνοµασµένα καὶ µολυβδοκρατευταί· καὶ Εὔπολις δὲ ἐν τοῖς Κόλαξιν ἔφη µ ο λ υ β δ ί ν ο υ ς κ ρ α τ ε υ τ ά ς But you will also say krateutai (“spit-rests”) and krateutêria (“small spit-rests”), and as can be found in the Public Auction Lists, molybdokrateutai (“lead spit-rests”) … In the Attic Stelae, which are located in the Eleusinion (thus Bergk : “in Eleusis” codd.), the goods of those who behaved impiously in regard to the two goddesses that were sold at public auction are catalogued; many other utensils are named among them as well as molybdokrateutai (“lead spit-rests”); and Eupolis in his Kolakes also said m o l y b d i n o i k r a t e u t a i (“spit-rests made of lead”)

Meter Perhaps iambic trimeter, e. g. klkl 〈xl〉kl l〈lkl〉 Discussion Kock 1880 II.305; Töppel 1846. 54; Sarati 1996. 109–10; Napolitano 2012. 83–4 54

In origin in reference to a day on which the public notice-boards were white, i. e. featured no notices, meaning no trials, military call-ups or the like?

112

Eupolis

Citation context From a collection of terms for cooking utensils. Interpretation For the objects in question, cf. IG I3 472.150; II2 1425.388, 415 (a Parthenon inventory; spelled κραδευταί in the second case); 1541.20 (an inventory from the temple at Eleusis; spelled κραδευταί); Poll. 6.89 κρατευτήρια δὲ σιδήριον ᾧ τοὺς ὀβελίσκους ἐπετίθεσαν πρὸς τὴν ὄπτησιν τῶν κρεῶν, ἐφ’ οὗ καὶ Ὅµηρος ἴσως εἴρηκε· κρατευτάων ἐπαείρας (Il. 9.214) (“krateutêria are a piece of iron on which they placed the spits for roasting the meat, in reference to which Homer perhaps says: ‘after lifting it off the krateutai’ (Il. 9.214)”); Chapouthier 1941. 12–14 (seemingly identifying some examples from the Minoan period). The etymology of the word is uncertain; Beekes 2010 s. v. takes the variation in form to suggest substrate vocabulary. For the adjective, cf. Cratin. fr. 357 (lead opposed to gold, in the sense “valueless”, as at Ar. Nu. 912–13); Hp. Mul. 133 = 8.290.10–11, 292.8.

fr. 184 K.-A. (169 K.) Phot. π 517 π ε ζ ὰ ς µ ό σ χ ο υ ς· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἑταίρας· ἐλέγοντο γάρ τινες οὕτως, ὡς Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῆι 〈 … 〉 (lac. stat. Kaibel) Πολιτείαι· τὰς χωρὶς ὀργάνων· Κάνθαρος Συµµαχίᾳ (Pl. Com. fr. 170)· αὐλητρίδα πεζήν. καὶ Εὔπολις Κόλαξι p e d e s t r i a n h e i f e r s: in place of “courtesans”—because some referred to them thus, as Aristotle does in the Constitution 〈of the … 〉 (lac. stat. Kaibel)—“without instruments”; Cantharus in Symmachia (Pl. Com. fr. 170): a pedestrian pipe-girl. Also Eupolis in Kolakes

Discussion Töppel 1846. 30; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 68; Napolitano 2012. 133–5 Citation context Traced by Cunningham to Diogenianus. Related material is preserved at – Oros ap. EM p. 658.36–7 πέζαι· ἑταῖραι αἱ χωρὶς ὀργάνων εἰς τὰ συµπόσια φοιτῶσαι. Ὦρος (“pedestrian women: courtesans who attend symposia without instruments. Oros”) – Hsch. π 1208 πεζὰς µόσχους· οὕτως ἐκάλουν τὰς µισθαρνούσας ἑταίρας χωρὶς ὀργάνου (“pedestrian heifers: this was their term for courtesans who worked for a wage without an instrument”) – Hsch. π 1211 πεζήν· τὴν συνήθη ἢ κοινήν (“pedestrian woman: a customary or common one”) – Phot. π 519 πεζῆ· … καὶ πεζῆ φράσαι, τὸ ἄνευ µελῶν· παῦσαι µελῳδοῦσ’, ἀλλὰ πεζῆ µοι φράσον,

Κόλακες (fr. 184)

113

ὁ κωµικός (Ar. fr. dub. 962)· τὰς ἑταίρας τὰς µὴ µουσικάς, ἀλλ’ ἄνευ ὀργάνων καὶ ψιλὰς πέζας καλοῦσιν (“pedestrian: … also ‘speak in a pedestrian way’, meaning unaccompanied by music: stop singing; speak instead to me in a pedestrian way, the comic poet (Ar. fr. dub. 962); they call courtesans who did not provide music, but who were without instruments and unadorned, pedestrian”) – Phot. π 524 (~ Hsch. π 1215) πεζῷ γόῳ· ἄνευ αὐλοῦ ἢ λύρας· ὡς καὶ πεζαὶ ἑταῖραι, αἱ χωρὶς ὀργάνων µισθαρνοῦσαι (“pedestrian lamentation: without a pipe or a lyre; also like pedestrian courtesans, those who work for a wage without instruments”) – ΣB E. Alc. 447 παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ ἐν Αἴαντι Λοκρῷ (fr. 16)· καὶ πεζὰ καὶ φορµικτά. καὶ πεζαὶ δέ τινες ἑταῖραι λέγονται, αἳ χωρὶς ὀργάνου εἰς τὰ συµπόσια φοιτῶσιν (“In Sophocles in Aias Lokros (fr. 16): both pedestrian and accompanied by a lyre. But certain courtesans were also referred to as pedestrian, those who attend symposia without an instrument”). The name of the city whose Aristotelian Constitution is referred to here has fallen out of the text. Kassel–Austin suggest that the reference might be to [Arist.] Ath. 50.2 τάς τε αὐλητρίδας καὶ τὰς ψαλτρίας καὶ τὰς κιθαριστρίας, although neither πεζαὶ µόσχοι nor ἑταῖραι appears in that passage. Interpretation µόσχος is used as a high-style term for a young woman at E. Andr. 711; Hec. 526; cf. Epicr. fr. 8.3–4 ὡς δάµαλις, ὡς παρθένος, / ὡς πῶλος ἀδµῆς (“how [the girl was] a heifer, a virgin, an unmastered colt”; a disappointed customer quoting the advertisement of a woman who set the liaison up); Pi. fr. 122.19 φορβάδων κορᾶν ἀγέλαν ἑκατόγγυιον (“a hundred-limbed herd of pasturing women”; of a group of Corinthian prostitutes); and the mix of language of horsemanship and recreational sex at fr. 171.2 and Ar. Pax 899–904. For courtesans, see fr. 174.3 n. For πεζός in the sense “pedestrian, plain, prosaic”, cf. Pl. Com. fr. 170; Ar. fr. dub. 962; S. fr. 16 (all quoted above); Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 213 αὐλητρίδας καὶ ψαλτρίας καὶ πεζὰς ἑταίρας (“pipe-girls and harp-girls and pedestrian courtesans”); Pl. Sph. 237a; LSJ s. v. II; Arnott 1990.55

55

Napolitano 2012. 134 argues that πεζός here plays further on what he takes to be the topos of the parasite-soldier present in fr. 175, an extremely tentative hypothesis.

114

Eupolis

fr. 185 K.-A. (175 K.) Antiatt. p. 96.17 ἐ φ ά π α ξ· Εὔπολις Κόλαξιν e p h a p a x: Eupolis in Kolakes

Citation context Presumably intended to defend the word against a strict Atticist who argued that only the more common εἰσάπαξ (e. g. E. Andr. 943; S. Ph. 122; [A.] PV 750; D. 21.131;56 cf. ἐσάπαξ at e. g. Hdt. 6.125.2; Hp. Ep. IV 9 = 5.148.21 Littré) was to be used.57 Phot. ε 2387 ἐφάπαξ λέγουσιν (“they say ephapax”) is likely another trace of the same original note. Interpretation ἐφάπαξ (“once and for all”) is attested nowhere else in the classical period, but is common in the Pauline epistles (e. g. Romans 6:10) and early Christian authors.

fr. 186 K.-A. (14 Dem.) Σ Lex. Cyrill. ap. Reitzenstein 1890/1891. 8 ζ ε ι α ί· ει, ὡς στεῖαι µνεῖαι χρεῖαι. ὡς ἐν Κόλαξιν Εὔπολις z e i a i : with ei, like steiai mneiai chreiai. As Eupolis in Kolakes

Discussion Reitzenstein 1890/1891. 8; Storey 2003. 181 Citation context A note on proper accentuation reminiscent of [Hdn.] Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 451.33–5 τὰ διὰ τοῦ εια δισύλλαβα µονογενῆ ἔχοντα τὸ α µακρὸν ὀξύτονα διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γράφεται ζειά, χειά, Φειά, µεθ’ ὧν καὶ τὰ βαρύτονα µνεία, χρεία (“two-syllable words of a single gender in eia with long alpha are written with the diphthong ei, (thus) zeia, cheia, Pheia, and along with them those with a recessive accent, (thus) mneia, chreia”). Attributed by Reitzenstein to Oros (but see the doubts expressed by Alpers 1981. 83–6). For στεῖαι as the plural of the word normally written στία, cf. Σ Nic. Al. 466c στεῖαι αἱ ψῆφοι τῆς θαλάσσης.

56 57

Presumably to be printed also at Th. 5.85.1 for the paradosis ἐσάπαξ. καθάπαξ is first attested in Attic only in Demosthenes (e. g. 18.197) and was thus probably not the preferred alternative form.

Κόλακες (fr. 187)

115

Interpretation ζειά (normally plural, as at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 201; Ar. fr. 428) is Triticum monococcum, einkorn (“single grain”) wheat; see Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012. 34–9 (“one of the founder grain crops of Neolithic agriculture in the Fertile Crescent and a principal component in the early crop assortment in Europe, especially in the Aegean region”; quote at p. 34). Unlike the other three words cited, ζειά has an oxytone accent, so the point must be that in the plural it is to be written ζειαί rather than ζεαί (as often in the Roman period), not that it ought to be ζεῖαι rather than ζειαί.58

fr. 187 K.-A. (172 K.) Ath. 3.100b (κ ο ι λ ι ο δ α ί µ ω ν ) Εὔπολις τοὺς κόλακας ἐν τῷ ὁµωνύµῳ δράµατι οὕτω κέκληκε· τὸ δὲ µαρτύριον ἀναβαλοῦµαι (k o i l i o d a i m ô n ) Eupolis refers to the flatterers in his homonymous play thus; but I will defer (quotation of) the citation Ael. fr. 109 Hercher ap. Suda ι 444 Ἰούνιος …, διὰ τὸ καὶ φαγεῖν ζῶν, συνήθης ἦν τρισὶ πλουσίοις, κ ο ι λ ι ο δ α ί µ ω ν τε καὶ ταγηνοκνισοθήρας ([fr. *190])· βούλοµαι γὰρ τὰ τῆς κωµῳδίας ἐς τοὺς τοιούτους εἰπεῖν Junius …, who lived to eat, was a close friend of three wealthy men, and was a k o i l i o d a i m ô n and a tagênoknisothêras (“hunter of the savory smell of the frying pan”) ([fr. *190]); for I want to use comedy’s terms for people like this

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.136; Töppel 1846. 28–9; Meineke 1847. 185; D’Agostino 1957. 76; Blank 1985. 5; Sarati 1996. 113; Storey 2003. 191 Citation context After Cynulcus angrily calls Ulpian a γάστρων … καὶ κοιλιόδαιµον ἄνθρωπε (“glutton and koiliodaimôn person”), Ulpian asks him where the latter word is attested. When Cynulcus is unable to answer, Ulpian cites a source, but fails to keep his promise to eventually quote the passage itself. That the same rare word is used by Aelian and then later at Clem. Al. Paed. II.1.15.4 suggests that it comes from a catalogue of colorful Atticisms like the one compiled by Phrynichus (cf. [fr. 190] n.).

58

Storey apparently takes the word traced to Kolakes to be χρεῖαι, which he interprets as evidence in favor of Kaibel’s thesis that Callias mortgaged his property in the course of the play; this is all extremely unlikely.

116

Eupolis

Interpretation κοιλιοδαίµων (presumably “one who makes his belly (κοιλία) his god”) is a hapax in the classical period and must be a nonce-word. Nauck 1894. 95 took it to be modeled on Homeric ὀλβιοδαίµων (Il. 3.182), like ὀλβιογάστωρ at Amphis fr. 10.2. But comedy offers a number of odd and amusing -δαίµων compounds—cf. Ar. Nu. 296 τρυγοδαίµων (“miserable comic poet”); adesp. com. frr. 433 τυραννοδαίµων (“a woman one would call not just a tyrant but a deity”; from Hesychius); 610 κρονοδαίµων (“someone old and foolish”; from Phrynichus); 660 σοροδαίµων (“someone who ought to be a deity in a coffin, because he is so old”; from Phrynichus); 749 βλεπεδαίµων (from Pollux; applied to Socrates’ students, according to Paus.Gr. β 11)—and it is probably better not to imagine a single, specific model for Eupolis’ coinage. For the idea, Kassel–Austin compare E. Cyc. 335 τῇ µεγίστῃ, γαστρὶ τῇδε, δαιµόνων (“the greatest of deities, my belly here”); Phil. 3:19 ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία (“whose god is their belly”).59

fr. 188 K.-A. (176 K.) Harp. p. 247.10–13 = Π 60 Keaney π ε ρ ί σ τ α τ ο ι· Ἰσοκράτης περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεως (15.269)· θαυµατοποιίαις ταῖς οὐδὲν ὠφελούσαις, ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀνοήτων περιστάτοις γινοµέναις, ἀντὶ τοῦ περὶ ἃς κύκλῳ ἵστανται οἱ θεώµενοι. τὸ ὄνοµα καὶ ἐν Ἀρχιδάµῳ (Isoc. 6.95) ἐστὶ καὶ παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Κόλαξιν p e r i s t a t o i : Isocrates On the Antidosis (15.269): jugglers’ tricks that do no one good, but that gather a crowd because of fools, meaning those that spectators stand in a circle around. The noun is also in Archidamus (Isoc. 6.95)60 and in Eupolis in Kolakes

Discussion Napolitano 2012. 131–2 Citation context Most of the same note, but omitting the reference to the Archidamus and Eupolis, is preserved at Phot. π 765 = Suda π 1297 (drawn from the Epitome of Harpocration). Note also Harp. pp. 247.14–248.3 = Π 61 Keaney (where περίστατον rather than περίστασιν ought perhaps to be read 59

60

Storey claims that the term “was coined for the chorus”, but it is impossible to know whether they are meant or whether the reference is to one of the characters like Protagoras who surrounded Callias in the play. ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ περίστατος ὑπὸ πάντων δι’ ἀρετὴν εἶναι περίβλεπτος ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐπὶ κακίᾳ (“rather than being surrounded by everyone on account of his virtue, to be stared at by them for his vice”).

Κόλακες (fr. 189)

117

in the fragment of Dinarchus); AB I p. 296.6–7 περίστατοι· οἱ περίβλεπτοι, ἐφ’ οἷς ἄν τις σταίη βουλόµενος θεᾶσθαι (“peristatoi: those who are stared at, next to whom one stands when wishing to look”), which perhaps ultimately goes back to the same source. Interpretation With a recessive accent, περίστατος has a passive sense (“stood around, surrounded”, not “standing around, surrounding”); cf. Plb. 6.44.8 ἀπερίστατος (“not stood around”, i. e. “unguarded”); Hp. Morb.Sacr. 1 = 6.358.7–8 Littré µετάστατος (“removed”, not “taking a different position”); Men. fr. 406 βοῶν ποιείτω τὴν πόλιν διάστατον (“by shouting let him make the city disturbed!”), and contrast the active sense when the word is oxytone, as at Theopomp. Com. fr. 42.3 περιστατὸν βοῶσα τὴν κώµην ποιεῖ (“by shouting she makes the village stand around [her]”). Napolitano suggests that the individual at the center of this attention might be Protagoras, which is merely a guess.

fr. 189 K.-A. (177 K.) Poll. 9.37 τοὺς µὲν δὴ γείτονας καὶ προσοίκους καὶ συνοίκους καὶ παροικοῦντας καὶ προσοικοῦντας, τάχα δὲ καὶ παροίκους καὶ ἀγχιθύρους ἐρεῖς, Εὔπολις δὲ ἐν Κόλαξι καὶ σ υ µ π α ρ ο ί κ ο υ ς εἴρηκεν You will refer to neighbors also as prosoikoi and synoikoi and paroikountes and prosoikountes, and perhaps also as paroikoi and anchithyroi, while Eupolis in Kolakes also uses the term s y m p a r o i k o i Poll. 6.159 Εὔπολις δὲ συµβίοτοι (fr. 484), σ υ µ π ά ρ ο ι κ ο ι , καὶ συνήλικες δ’ ὁ αὐτὸς (fr. 193.5) εἶπε Eupolis (used) symbiotoi (fr. 484) (and) s y m p a r o i k o i , and the same author also used synêlikes (fr. 193.5)

Discussion Töppel 1846. 55–6; D’Agostino 1957. 77 Citation context The first citation is from a list of terms for the various parts of a city, the second from a collection of συν-compounds. Interpretation πάροικος (“one who lives beside another”) and the cognate verb παροικέω are common 5th-century vocabulary (e. g. S. Ant. 1155; Th. 3.93.2, 113.6; E. Andr. 43; Diog. Ath. TrGF 45 F 1.7), as are σύνοικος (“one who lives with another”) and συνοικέω (e. g. Hdt. 1.37.3, 57.2; E. Andr. 1258; And. 1.121). συµπάροικος, on the other hand, is attested nowhere else, which must

118

Eupolis

be why it caught a lexicographer’s eye but does not mean that Eupolis coined the term. Presumably the sense is “fellow neighbor”, like συµπαραστάτης (“fellow assistant”) at Ar. Pl. 326. ἀγχίθυρος is almost certainly from Thgn. 302 λάτρισι καὶ δµωσὶν γείτοσί τ’ ἀγχιθύροις. For πρόσοικος and προσοικέω (prosaic), e. g. Th. 1.7.1; Pl. Ti. 22d.

[fr. *190 K.-A. (173 K.)] Aelian fr. 109 Hercher ap. Suda ι 444 Ἰούνιος …, διὰ τὸ καὶ φαγεῖν ζῶν, συνήθης ἦν τρισὶ πλουσίοις, κοιλιοδαίµων (fr. 187) τε καὶ τ α γ η ν ο κ ν ι σ ο θ ή ρ α ς · βούλοµαι γὰρ τὰ τῆς κωµῳδίας ἐς τοὺς τοιούτους εἰπεῖν Junius …, who lived to eat, was a close friend of three wealthy men, and was a koiliodaimôn (“one who makes his belly his god”; fr. 187) and a t a g ê n o k n i s o t h ê r a s ; for I want to use comedy’s terms for people like this

Meter Perhaps iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xl〉kl klkl k〈lkl〉 Discussion Kock 1880 II.306; D’Agostino 1957. 76–7; Sarati 1996. 108 Citation context Assigned to Aelian by Meineke 1839 II.487. Other abbreviated references to the same passage are preserved at Suda τ 11; φ 8. Interpretation Athenaeus traces κοιλιοδαίµων (fr. 187 with n.) to Eupolis, but (pace Kock) the Suda passage provides no substantial ground for taking ταγηνοκνισοθήρας to be drawn from him as well. This ought thus to be treated instead as an adespoton comic fragment, like ὀνοµατοθήρας (Ath. 3.98a; 14.649b) and perhaps χλαινοθήρας (Eust. p. 1863.59 = ii.201.20). For the τάγηνον (“skillet”), cf. frr. 155 n.; 374 n.; 385.1. For κνῖσα (the rich, fatty smell of roasting meat), e. g. Ar. Ach. 1044–6; Pax 1050; Ephipp. fr. 3.3; Matro fr. 1.82 with Olson–Sens 1999 ad loc. For elaborate comic compounds of this sort, see fr. 424 n., and cf. specifically Amphis fr. 10.1 κνισολοιχέ (“fat-licker”; also Antiph. fr. 65; Sophil. fr. 8); adesp. com. fr. *622 κνισοτηρητής (“one who keeps an eye out for κνῖσα”); Asius fr. 14.2 κνισοκόλαξ (“κνῖσα-flatterer”).

119

Λάκωνες (Lakônes) (“Spartans”)

Introduction Discussion Runkel 1829. 134; Meineke 1839 I.115; Kaibel 1907 p. 1231.10–11 Title Plays entitled Lakônes were written by Cratinus (supposedly; only one fragment survives), Plato Comicus (called Lakônes ê Poiêtai by the Suda), Nicochares and Eubulus (Lakônes ê Lêda). For similar titles, cf. Crates’ Samioi (“Samians”), Cratinus’ Seriphioi (“Men of Seriphos”), Apollophanes’ and Nicochares’ Krêtes (“Cretans”) and Strattis’ Makedones ê Pausanias (“Macedonians or Pausanias”). Content Every other comedy by Eupolis except the utterly vanished Noumêniai (where see n.) is represented by a least half a dozen fragments. It is accordingly difficult to believe that we have only a single trace of Lakônes, particularly since Erotian’s “Eupolis” might easily be a mistake for “Eubulus” in Erotian’s citation of [fr. 191] (Meineke’s explanation of the situation) or ἐν Λάκωσι might have been written for ἐν Κόλαξι (thus Runkel).

Fragments [fr. 191 K.-A. (179 K.)] τὰ σκευάρι’ ἐποίησε µυττωτόν πολύν A

HMLO

σκευάρι’ Erot. : συκάρι’ Erot.

he/she turned the equipment into a lot of myttôtos Erot. µ 4 µυττωτόν· οἱ µὲν Ἀττικοὶ ὑπότριµµά τι µετὰ σκορόδου γινόµενον λέγουσι. Εὔπολις δ’ ἐν Λάκωσι τὸ ἄµυλον λέγων φησί· ――. ἔνιοι δὲ πλακοῦντα διὰ λαχάνου συντεθέντα myttôtos: Attic authors use the word for a type of paste made with garlic. Whereas Eupolis in Lakônes speaking in reference to a wheat-pastecake says: ――. But others [say] it is a cake composed of vegetables

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkr

llk|l

llkl

120

Eupolis

Discussion Musolesi 1978–1979 Citation context A gloss on Hp. Epid. II 6.28 (5.138.6 Littré) µυττωτὸν δριµύν. Text Figs have nothing to do with either µυττωτός or ἄµυλοι (normally masculine), and the diminutive συκάριον is attested nowhere else. It thus seems better to print σκευάρι’ (Erot.A) rather than συκάρι’ (Erot.HMLO). Interpretation Erotian says expressly that the production of an ἄµυλος (“wheat-paste cake”, normally masculine; cf. Ar. Ach. 1092 with Olson 2002 ad loc.) is in question. This argues for taking τὰ σκευάρι’ as the subject of the verb rather than as its object;61 for understanding µυττωτός—properly a paste made of garlic (and at least occasionally including other ingredients, such as cheese) worked in a mortar (Anan. fr. 5.7–8; Hippon. fr. 36.2; Ar. Ach. 174; Eq. 771; Pax 227–88; Thphr. HP 7.4.11; Poll. 6.70; Villing and Pemberton 2010. 615–16); etymology uncertain—as meaning by extension “a paste”; and for taking πολύν as essentially adverbial (see fr. 15 n.), the quantity of “paste” produced not being the point. See in general Musolari. It is nonetheless odd to present culinary equipment as an agent, and it seems better to follow Edmunds 1957. 381 in thinking that Erotian has misunderstood the line, which he must have known without context. For the image (~ “smashed into tiny pieces, pounded to bits”), cf. Ar. V. 63 τὸν αὐτὸν ἄνδρα µυττωτεύσοµεν (“we’ll turn the same man into myttôtos”); Pax 247 καταµεµυττωτευµένα (“reduced to myttôtos”; punningly of a city). σκευάρι(α), like σκεῦος (frr. 161.1 with n.; 307 with n.), is a general term for “stuff” of all sorts, especially minor, moveable household equipment including kitchen utensils, furniture and vessels of all kinds (e. g. Crates Com. fr. 16.4–7; Ar. Pax 201–2; Th. 738; Ec. 730–45 with 753; Pl. Com. fr. 129; Alc. Com. fr. 27 σκευάρι’ οἰκητήρια with Orth 2013 ad loc.; adesp. com. fr. 1062.12 (distinguished from money); Aeschin. 1.59 συνέτριβον τὰ σκευάρια καὶ διερρίπτουν εἰς τὴν ὁδόν, “they smashed his household goods and threw them out into the street”). Petersen 1910. 263–4 calls this a “generalized” diminutive, meaning that there is no difference between one’s σκεῦος and one’s σκευάρι(α), except that with the latter word the equipment is presented as a collection of this and that rather than as a single mass.

61

Cf. Storey 2011. 191 “The utensils made up a mess of savoury paste”, although he inexplicably prints συκάρι’ rather than σκευάρι’ in his Greek text.

121

Μαρικᾶς (Marikas) Testimonia test. i Ar. Nu. 551–9 οὗτοι δ’, ὡς ἅπαξ παρέδωκεν λαβὴν Ὑπέρβολος, τοῦτον δείλαιον κολετρῶσ’ ἀεὶ καὶ τὴν µητέρα. Εὔπολις µὲν τὸν Μαρικᾶν πρώτιστον παρείλκυσεν ἐκστρέψας τοὺς ἡµετέρους Ἱππέας κακὸς κακῶς, προσθεὶς αὐτῷ γραῦν µεθύσην τοῦ κόρδακος οὕνεχ’, ἣν Φρύνιχος (cf. fr. 77) πάλαι πεποίηχ’, ἣν τὸ κῆτος ἤσθιεν. εἶθ’ Ἕρµιππος αὖθις ἐποίησεν εἰς Ὑπέρβολον, ἅλλοι τ’ ἤδη πάντες ἐρείδουσιν εἰς Ὑπέρβολον, τὰς εἰκοὺς τῶν ἐγχέλεων τὰς ἐµὰς µιµούµενοι

555

But ever since Hyperbolos gave them something to hold onto, they constantly trample the sorry creature, along with his mother. Eupolis dragged his Marikas onstage first by turning my Knights inside out—a bad job by a bad poet— adding to it for the sake of the kordax dance a drunk old woman, the one Phrynichus (cf. fr. 77) has written about long ago, whom the sea-monster tried to eat. Then Hermippus also wrote a play against Hyperbolos, and now all the others are pounding on Hyperbolos, imitating my comparison with the eels

Discussion Emonds 1941. 285–6, 290 Context From the parabasis of the revised Clouds (early 410s BCE). Interpretation “The poet” addresses the audience through his chorus, denouncing his rivals for their almost complete lack of originality, anything interesting they might have to say being stolen either from him or someone else. Knights, on which Marikas is here said to have been modeled (554; see on the Content of the play below), was staged at the Lenaea festival in 424 BCE. ΣRVBarb 88—although not referring to this passage—identifies the image of “turning inside out” as having properly to do with clothing, the idea being that one could wear e. g. a tunic one way around and then, when it got dirty, reverse it. Cf. fr. 172.5–6 n.; Ar. fr. 58 (“and making three small himatia from my chlamis”; from the parabasis of Anagyros and taken by Fritzsche to be a renewed reference to the same quarrel), where Kassel–Austin compare Lysipp. fr. 4; Taillardat 1962 § 773. The claim is thus that Marikas was not really a

122

Eupolis

new play, even if a careless spectator might be fooled into thinking that it was. Eupolis apparently responded to the attack (or some other attack much like it) in Baptai by claiming that he had actually helped Aristophanes write Knights (fr. 89 with n.). The play by Phrynichus mentioned in 556 is unidentified. But ΣREM claims— on the basis of what additional evidence, if any, we do not—that the scene with the old woman and the sea-monster was a parody of the Andromeda story, while ΣRVENM maintains that the old woman represented Hyperbolos’ mother. The play by Hermippus mentioned in 557 is apparently Artopôlides (“Female Bread-Vendors”) (thus ΣRVEM, partially corrupt), about which almost nothing else is known.62 The “image of the eels” mentioned in 559 is an allusion to Ar. Eq. 864–7 ὅπερ γὰρ οἱ τὰς ἐγχέλεις θηρώµενοι πέπονθας. / ὅταν µὲν ἡ λίµνη καταστῇ, λαµβάνουσιν οὐδέν· / ἐὰν δ’ ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω τὸν βόρβορον κυκῶσιν, / αἱροῦσι· καὶ σὺ λαµβάνεις, ἢν τὴν πόλιν ταράττῃς (“For your situation’s like that of people who hunt for eels. Whenever the lake’s calm, they don’t catch anything, whereas if they stir up the muck, they capture them. And you also get something, if you throw the city into disorder”; addressed to the Paphlagonian/Cleon). Perhaps the point is that this image was stolen and re-used by other comic poets (thus Dover 1968 ad loc., although he seems to imagine only a single, particularly injurious borrowing), or perhaps Aristophanes means something far more cutting: his rivals’ plays tear Athens up just as badly, and for just as parochial reasons, as Cleon’s politics do.

test. ii EM

Σ Ar. Nu. 549 ὡς περὶ ζῶντος αὐτοῦ διαλέγεται ἐν οἷς φησι (Ar. Nu. 591)· Κλέωνα τὸν λάρον. καὶ Ἀνδροτίων (FGrH 324 F 40) δέ φησιν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ Ἀλκαίου (422/1 BCE) τεθνάναι δυσὶν ἔτεσιν ὕστερον ᾽Ισάχρου (424/3 BCE), ἐφ’ οὗ (Kuster· Ἴσαρχος δὲ φησίν, ἀφ’ οὗ EM) αἱ πρῶται Νεφέλαι (test. viii) ἐδιδάχθησαν. πῶς οὖν δύναται καὶ τοῦ Μαρικᾶ µεµνῆσθαι, ὃς ἐδιδάχθη µὲν πρὸ τῶν Νεφελῶν, ὡς καὶ νῦν αὐτός φησιν, ἐκεῖ δὲ ὁ Εὔπολις ὡς τεθνηκότος Κλέωνος

62

That Hyperbolos’ mother was one of these bread-vendors, and thus that Hermippus’ satire presented her as working in a notoriously base profession, is generally taken for granted, although there is no specific evidence to that effect. Sonnino 1997. 46–7 points to the mention of the use of a τηλία (“tray”, sometimes specifically “bread-tray”) by Hyperbolos’ mother in fr. 209 and suggests that Hermippus may have taken the idea over from Eupolis.

Testimonia (test. iii)

123

µέµνηται (fr. 211); ἤ, ἐπεὶ οὐ φέρονται αἱ διδασκαλίαι τῶν δευτέρων Νεφελῶν, οὐδὲν δυνάµεθα διαρθρῶσαι· ἢ Εὔπολις ἐπλάσατο τὴν Κλέωνος τελευτὴν ἐν τῷ Μαρικᾷ He speaks of (Cleon) as if he were alive in the passage where he says (Ar. Nu. 591): Cleon the seagull. And Androtion (FGrH 324 F 40) as well says that (Cleon) died in (the eponymous archonship) of Alcaeus (422/1 BCE), two years after (the eponymous archonship) of Isarchos (424/3 BCE), in whose year (thus Kuster : “But Isarchos says from whom” EM) Clouds I (test. viii) was staged. How then is it possible that there is also a mention of Marikas, which was staged before Clouds, as (Aristophanes) himself actually says now, given that Eupolis refers to Cleon as having died (fr. 211)? Either we cannot make sense of the situation, since the didascalic records for Clouds II are not preserved, or Eupolis invented the death of Cleon in Marikas

Context A note on Ar. Nu. 549–50 (from the parabasis), where the chorus describe their poet as the man ὃς µέγιστον ὄντα Κλέων’ ἔπαισ’ εἰς τὴν γαστέρα / κοὐκ ἐτόλµησ’ αὖθις ἐπεµπηδῆσ’ αὐτῷ κειµένῳ (“who punched Cleon in the stomach when he was at the height of his power, but did not venture to stomp on him when he was lying there”). Interpretation The confusion expressed here, as also in test. iii (n.)—a more satisfactory version of very similar material (note the reference to Cleon’s death as acknowledged in Marikas in both)—merely reflects the fact that there were two versions of Clouds, which date several years apart.

test. iii RVENp

Σ Ar. Nu. 553 RVENp δῆλον ὅτι πρῶτος ὁ Μαρικᾶς ἐδιδάχθη τῶν δευτέρων Νεφελῶν. Ἐρατοσθένης (fr. 97, pp. 58–9 Strecker) δέ φησι Καλλίµαχον (fr. 454) ἐγκαENp λεῖν ταῖς διδασκαλίαις, ὅτι φέρουσιν ὕστερον τρίτῳ ἔτει τὸν Μαρικᾶν τῶν Νεφελῶν, σαφῶς ἐνταῦθα εἰρηµένου, ὅτι πρῶτος καθεῖται. λανθάνει δὲ αὐτόν, φησίν, ὅτι ἐν µὲν ταῖς διδαχθείσαις οὐδὲν τοιοῦτον εἴρηκεν· ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὕστερον διασκευασθείσαις εἰ λέγεται, οὐδὲν ἄτοπον· αἱ διδασκαλίαι δὲ δηλονότι τὰς διδαχθείσας φέρουσιν. πῶς δ’ οὐ συνεῖδεν, ὅτι καὶ ἐν τῷ Μαρικᾷ προτετελεύτηκε Κλέων (fr. 211), ἐν δὲ ταῖς Νεφέλαις λέγεται (581)· E εἰς τὸν θεοῖσιν ἐχθρὸν τὸν βυρσοδέψην; RVENp

It is obvious that Marikas was staged before Clouds II. But Eratosthenes (fr. 97, pp. 58–9 Strecker) says that Callimachus (fr. 454) criticized the didasENp calic records because they report that Marikas was staged two years after Clouds, even though it is clearly asserted (in Clouds) that (Marikas) was put on first. (Callimachus) fails to notice, (Eratosthenes) says, that he says nothing of

124

Eupolis the sort in the play that was produced, whereas if the remark is made in the play that was revised later on, there is nothing unusual; and the didascalic records obviously report on the play that was produced. But how did he not recognize that Cleon is already deceased in Marikas (fr. 211), whereas Clouds E contains the remark (581): to the leather-tanner hated by the gods?

Context A note on Ar. Nu. 553–4 (quoted as part of test. i). Cognate material is preserved at ΣEM Ar. Nu. 581 ἐκ τῶν πρώτων Νεφελῶν εἰσι ταῦτα· τεθνεὼς γὰρ ἦν νῦν Κλέων (“This material is from Clouds I; because Cleon was now dead”); ΣRE Ar. Nu. 591 ἢν Κλέωνα τὸν λάρον·R καὶ µὴν ὡς µετὰ θάνατον Κλέωνος φαίνεται γεγραφὼς τὸ δρᾶµα, ὅπου γε τοῦ Μαρικᾶ Εὐπόλιδος µέµνηται, ὃ ἐδιδάχθη καθ’ Ὑπερβόλου µετὰ τὸν θάνατον Κλέωνος. ταῦτα δὲ ὡς ἔτι ζῶντος Κλέωνος λέγεται.RE δῆλον οὖν, ὅτι µετὰ πολλοστοὺς χρόνους διεσκεύασε τὸ δρᾶµα· καὶ ταῦτα µὲν † οὐ πολλῷ ὕστερον, ἔν τισι δὲ † Εὐπόλιδος µέµνηται καὶ τῶν εἰς Ὑπέρβολον κωµῳδιῶνE (“if Cleon the seagull:R he in fact clearly wrote the play after Cleon’s death, mention having been made there of Eupolis’ Marikas, which was produced as an attack on Hyperbolos after Cleon’s death. But this passage speaks of Cleon as if he were still alive.RE It is therefore obvious that he revised the play after a number of years; and this passage, on the one hand, † not much later, but in some, on the other hand † mention is made of Eupolis and of the comedies directed against HyperbolosE”; traced direct to Eratosthenes by Strecker); ΣEMatr Ar. Nu. 591 ταῦτα ἀπὸ τῶν προτέρων Νεφελῶν· τότε γὰρ ἔζη ὁ Κλέων, ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων τέθνηκεν.EMatr καὶ γὰρ Εὔπολις µετὰ θάνατον Κλέωνος τὸν Μαρικᾶν ἐποίησενE (“This material is from Clouds I; for at that point Cleon was alive, whereas at this point he is dead.EMatr For Eupolis in fact wrote his Marikas after Cleon’s deathE”). Interpretation See on test. ii. Eratosthenes was Callimachus’ student; this fragment is presumably from his On Ancient Comedy.

test. iv RVEθBarbV57

Σ Ar. Ra. 570 Ὑπέρβολον· εἰς ὃν καὶ Εὔπολις ἔγραψε τὸν Μαρικᾶν Hyperbolos: against whom Eupolis as well wrote his Marikas

Context A note on Ar. Ra. 570–1 (“And you summon Hyperbolos for me, if you happen to meet him—so we can destroy him!”; the slave-woman in the Underworld to her mistress; 571 is an out-of-character throw-away line).

Μαρικᾶς (test. v)

125

Interpretation This note does not obviously show anything more than that its author (or his source) was familiar with test. i.

test. v Hsch. µ 283 Μαρικᾶν· κίναδον (Morgan : κίναιδον cod.). οἱ δὲ ὑποκόρισµα παιδίου ἄρρενος βαρβαρικόν Marikas: a rogue (thus Morgan : “a faggot” cod.). But others (explain it as) a barbarian pet-name for a boy Et.Gen. AB = EM p. 221.41–3 Γαριµᾶς· ἐκ τοῦ Μαρικᾶς· ἢ ἐκ τοῦ Γαριµᾶς τὸ Μαρικᾶς· βάρβαρον δὲ τὸ ὄνοµα, καὶ ἡ κλίσις καὶ ὁ τόνος. Ἡρωδιανὸς περὶ Παθῶν (fr. 624, Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 371.2–4) Garimas: from Marikas; or Marikas is from Garimas. But the word is nonGreek, as are the declination and the accent as well. Herodian On Modifications in Forms (fr. 624, Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 371.2–4) Choerob. An.Ox. II p. 295.12–15 τὰ εἰς ας ὀνόµατα, εἴτε περισπώµενα, εἴτε ὀξύτονα ἀρσενικά, οὐ θέλουσι τῇ διφθόγγῳ παραλήγεσθαι, οἷον … Μαρικᾶς Nouns ending in as, whether they take a circumflex accent on the final syllable or are masculines that take an acute on the final syllable, tend not to have a diphthong in the penult, as for example … Marikas

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.137–8; Cassio 1985b; Morgan 1986; Storey 2003. 198–9 Context Three grammatical notes on the word Μαρικᾶς (one of them specifically assigned to Herodian), not obviously drawn from the same source but grouped together by Kassel–Austin, presumably for convenience’s sake.

126

Eupolis

Introduction Discussion Fritzsche 1836. 127–41; Bergk 1838. 353–7; Meineke 1839 I.137–9; Struve 1841; Kock 1880 I.307–8; Zielinski 1931. 20–1; Kaibel 1907 p. 1232.46–66; Maass 1914; Norwood 1931. 192–3; Schiassi 1944. 81–8; Schmid 1946. 118–20; Perusino 1981. 410–13; Cassio 1985b; Morgan 1986; Heath 1990. 153–4; Storey 1993. 382–5; Sarati 1996. 114–16; Sonnino 1997; Sommerstein 2000, esp. 440–2; Storey 2003. 197–214; Sonnino 2006; Zimmermann 2011. 745–6 Title Marikas, like Autolykos I/II, is named after its central character, perhaps because it had a divided chorus, making their identity an impractical choice for a title (cf. Aristophanes’ Lysistrata). Cassio 1985b. 39–41 (cf. Morgan 1986) suggests that Μαρικᾶς is a Persian word meaning “young man” that made its way to Athens via the Ionian cities of Asia Minor, and that in a Greek context it had a strong pejorative sense, perhaps implying “slave”. Content Hyperbolos son of Antiphanes of the deme Perithoidai (PA 13910; PAA 902050), seemingly the main target of Marikas, was a wealthy lamp-maker (Cratin. fr. 209; Ar. Nu. 1065; Pax 690; And. fr. 5; cf. Ar. Eq. 738–40) who by the mid-420s BCE was prominent in the lawcourts (Ar. Ach. 846–7; Nu. 874–6; cf. Ar. Eq. 1358–63), the Assembly (Cratin. fr. 283; Ar. Eq. 1303–4; IG I3 82.5 (tentatively restored); 85.6) and Athenian politics generally (Ar. Eq. 738–40; Nu. 623–5; Pl. Com. fr. 182.7); after Cleon’s death in 422 BCE, he became the city’s leading demagogue (Ar. Pax 679–84). Sometime around 416 BCE (Woodhead 1949. 78–83 on IG I3 85), Hyperbolos was ostracized through the combined efforts of Nicias and Alcibiades (Th. 8.73.3; Plu. Nic. 11; Alc. 13; for ostraca bearing his name, see Lang 1990 #307–9) and went into exile on Samos, where he was murdered by oligarchs in 411 BCE (Th. 8.73.3). He was also the primary target of Plato Comicus’ Hyperbolos and Hermippus’ Artopôlides (for which, cf. test. i n.). Cf. fr. 252 with n.; Baldwin 1971; Davies 1971. 517; Wankel 1974. 87–9 (on the various slanderous comic attacks on his citizenship status); Olson 1998 on Pax 681; Storey 2003. 199–202 (with particular attention to his image in comedy). Aristophanes (test. i) denounced Marikas as a crude, obvious reworking of his Knights, although directed against Hyperbolos (sc. rather than Cleon). Fr. 192.118, 149–50 show that one of the characters was called the Master, who must be somehow equivalent to Aristophanes’ Demos63 and who interacts 63

Cassio 1985b. 41 suggests that Demos may have been represented as the King of Persia (hence the Persian name for his servant), but concedes that this is nothing more than a guess.

Μαρικᾶς (Introduction)

127

with another character whom the anonymous commentator calls Hyperbolos (fr. 192.149–50, 155; cf. fr. 192.120–1). That this Hyperbolos is actually Marikas, the title-character of the play, referred to for convenience’s sake by his “real” name, is confirmed by Quintilian (citing fr. 208); cf. the use of “Cleon” to refer to the Paphlagonian who stands in for him in Knights at e. g. ΣVEΓΘM Eq. 235. Hesychius and Et.Gen. AB = EM (test. v) identify Marikas as a “barbarian name” (see on Title), and Aristophanes’ complaint in Clouds II is thus easily understood to be that his own Knights and Eupolis’ Marikas shared a basic allegorical structure: foreign slave in his master’s house ~ ill-qualified (because inter alia allegedly non-Athenian) demagogue in the Athenian state. See Storey 2003. 202–4 (most of whose additional alleged parallels are either commonplaces or trivialities). For Hyperbolos called a slave, cf. Pl. Com. fr. 185 (a Phrygian). On Athenian slaves acquired from Asia Minor rather than Thrace, see Lewis 2011. How extensive any other similarities between the action of the two plays were is impossible to say. Aristophanes (test. i) notes that Eupolis added “a drunk old woman” to the plot “for the sake of the kordax dance”,64 and claims that she was somehow identical with a parodic Andromeda presented long ago by the comic poet Phrynichus. This woman is generally identified with the character representing Hyperbolos’ mother mentioned in fr. 209, lending a point to Aristophanes’ claim at Nu. 552 that both she and her son were constantly “trampled” by the poets. But she finds no parallel in Knights, suggesting that Aristophanes’ complaints as a whole are—unsurprisingly—exaggerated. Again unlike Knights, Marikas had a divided chorus, with one semi-chorus of poor men and another of rich men (fr. 192.98–9, 117–18, cf. 121, 186–7). At fr. 193.5–8 (n.), the semi-choruses seem to come into conflict about the validity of charges brought by Marikas/Hyperbolos(?) against Nicias, whom one group (speaking through its coryphaeus) defends at fr. 193.8 as an ἄνδρ᾽ ἄριστον (“excellent man”). Hyperbolos appears to have been a so-called “radical democrat” along the lines of Cleon (himself an enemy of Nicias), suggesting that the semi-chorus of poor men were Marikas’ partisans in Eupolis’ play, the semi-chorus of rich men his enemies. Fr. *203 leaves little doubt that there was a dispute within the play at some point about whether Marikas should be punished for an alleged misdeed, and it is in any case difficult to believe that if the comedy was similar enough to Knights to make Aristophanes’ charge worth articulating, it did not end in the slave’s/demagogue’s disgrace and dismissal from the house/state. Whether that means that the semi-chorus 64

For the kordax, the comic dance par excellence, cf. also Ar. Nu. 540; Nicopho fr. 26; Mnesim. fr. 4.18; D. 2.18; Thphr. Char. 6.3 with Diggle 2004 ad loc.

128

Eupolis

of rich men were essentially proven right in the end, or whether their initial political and social views were also shown to be extreme and thus in need of modification, we cannot know. But if the play did end in reconciliation on the choral level—like Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, the only comedy with a divided chorus we have complete—it must be because some nominally happy compromise was reached between the two parties, meaning that the “radical democratic” agenda was rejected in favor of a compromise with the contemporary Athenian 1% (necessarily entitled, in the ancient as in the modern world, to at least 50% of everything). The title-character of Marikas surely had an opponent or opponents, especially if the play actively recalled Knights. Bergk 1838. 355–6 (comparing fr. 193) took the opponent to be Nicias, whereas Kock 1880 I.308 (comparing fr. 195) thought he was Peisander. Fr. 192.100–5, on the other hand, suggests that the opponent was a young man—taken specifically by Sonnino 2006. 149 to mean “un impudico νεανίας”, which goes beyond the evidence. Fr. 201, spoken on behalf of two characters, is tentatively explained by Kassel–Austin as coming from the prologue (cf. the two-slave prologue of Knights). We also have what must be two bits of the parabasis (frr. 205–6). Beyond this, we know only that – Marikas’ triumphant arrival was announced at some point (fr. 207; but with hints of impending disaster via the echo of Aeschylus’ Persians?)65 – The play included the interrogation of a presumably innocent man by a demagogic accuser who may be Marikas himself (fr. 193) – Someone (Marikas again?) admitted that he picked up a great deal of learning by hanging about the barbers’ shops listening in on the conversations there (fr. 194) – Someone got good news and proposed making a sacrifice in celebration (fr. 196) – A meeting (συνέδριον) of some sort was prepared by the Master at the same time that Marikas visited the Assembly, both offstage actions seemingly being covered by the parabasis (fr. 192.147–50), making it likely that a report of the Assembly scene was offered after Marikas returned and that the Master’s meeting took place onstage. In addition to Hyperbolos and his mother, the play’s known kômôidoumenoi are:

65

Storey 2003. 214 converts this into a claim that “The comedy … seems to have had a military theme”, a hypothesis for which there is no other evidence.

Μαρικᾶς (Introduction)

129

– Alcmeon (fr. 192.90; perhaps merely a generic reference to the Alcmeonid family) – Cleon (fr. 211, where he is referred to as dead; cf. fr. 192.135) – Nikias (fr. 193) – Peisander (fr. 195) – and most likely Pericles II (fr. 192.166 with n.). The following have also been attributed to Marikas: frr. 327 (Bergk); 349 (Fritzsche); 351 (Kassel); 370 (Kaibel); 373 (Fritzsche); 384 (Austin); 439 (Fritzsche). Date Test. iii (citing Callimachus, and through Callimachus a didascalic notice for the play) dates Marikas to 421 BCE. As we know that Kolakes (test. i) took the prize at the City Dionysia that year, Marikas must have been performed at the Lenaea.

Fragments fr. 192 K.-A. (POxy. 2741 = CPFGR 95) Fr. 192 as printed by Kassel–Austin consists of sixteen scraps of papyrus from a commentary on Marikas found in Oxyrhynchus in Egypt and dated by Lobel, the original editor, to the second half of the 2nd or the first half of the 3rd century CE. Three of the sixteen scraps were brought together by Lobel as POxy. 2741 fr. 1, with which he also associated POxy. 2741 fr. 2 (portions of Eup. fr. 192.33–41) and POxy. 2741 fr. 3 (a few letters from Eup. fr. 192.36–7).66 In addition, Lobel brought together two additional scraps as POxy. 2741 fr. 5, yielding a nominal total of twelve fragments of the papyrus. The title of the play (added in a hand Lobel dated to the 3rd or 4th century CE) is written across the back of POxy. 2741 fr. 1a, and the identification is confirmed by overlaps between fr. 192.185, 187 and fr. 193.5, 7, and between fr. 192.195 and fr. 200 K.67 The papyrus is written in a severe style typical of the 2nd or 3rd century CE; see in general del Corso 2006. Many of the alphas are angular, others rounded.

66 67

Lobel does not state his grounds for placing POxy. 2741 frr. 2–3 precisely here; other arrangements may be possible. Fr. 198 also overlaps twice with material previously known only to be from Eupolis (without play title): fr. 192.48 ≈ fr. 354 K. and fr. 192.170 ≈ fr. 433 K.

130

Eupolis

The upper oblique of the kappa departs from the foot of the upright, while the lower oblique departs from the lower part of the upper oblique. The omicron tends to be particularly small and to lie in the upper part of the writing space. The number of letters per line is variable, the scribe occasionally enlarging or reducing letters toward line end in order to maintain a more precise margin. For the various marginal marks, see McNamee 2007. 252–3 (#376.1). POxy. 2741 fr. 1a and fr. 1c contain portions of two columns of text, while POxy. 2741 fr. 1b contains portions of three columns of text (including, however, only a few letters from the extreme right-hand side of a few lines of the first column). Lobel believed, but could not prove on the basis of the physical evidence, that these were in fact the remains of four original columns of text: – col. i = POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. i (Eup. fr. 192.1–41 K.-A.) – col. ii = POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. ii + fr. 1b col. i (left- and right-hand sides of the columns, respectively) (Eup. fr. 192.42–80 K.-A.) – col. iii = POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. ii + fr. 1c col. i (upper and lower portions of the column, respectively) (Eup. fr. 192.81–116 K.-A.) – col. iv = POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. iii + fr. 1c col. ii (upper and lower portions of the column, respectively) (Eup. fr. 192.117–57 K.-A.). Of the other fragments of the papyrus, only POxy. 2741 frr. 4–5 contain significant amounts of useful material. POxy. 2741 fr. 1 preserves upper and lower column margins and contains 41 lines. The only completely preserved line (Eup. fr. 192.89) contains 36 letters; a few others can be calculated at 33 (Eup. fr. 192.17, 48), 36 (Eup. fr. 192.92) and 38 (Eup. fr. 192.100) letters per line. “But the figures by themselves are deceptive, as the copyist uses blank spaces and enlarged letters (as well as ‘fillers’) to justify his lines” (Lobel 1968. 55). Lemmata are indicated with a diple obelismene (i. e. >――) above the first line that begins with a word from the lemma; the first letter of this line and of any subsequent line containing part of the lemma generally projects slightly into the left-hand margin. Other marginal marks include ζή(τει) or ζη(τεῖται) at Eup. fr. 192.73/4, 89/90, 100, 125, 152, and % at Eup. fr. 192.81, 86, 91, 98, 138/9, 195, 198. The title of the play is written on the back of POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. 1, which must therefore be from the beginning of the papyrus (sc. because it was on the outside when the papyrus was rolled up): ΕΥΠΟ[ΛΙ∆ΟΣ] / Μαρικᾶ[ (“Eupolis’ Marikas”). The missing portion of the subscription, however, extended further to the left, making it clear that POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. 1 was not the first column of text in the papyrus, but most likely the second. The observation at fr. 192.29 that “the entire chorus speaks from this point on” can scarcely refer to the action at the beginning of the play (at which point the chorus is unlikely even

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

131

to have been onstage), and POxy. 2741 thus likely represents fragments of at least the second roll from a multiple-roll commentary on Marikas. For the reader’s convenience, I refer throughout to the numbering used by Austin 1973 and taken over in Kassel–Austin. It is nonetheless the case that – within POxy. 2741 fr. 1, two lines of text are missing between Eup. fr. 192.41 and Eup. fr. 192.42, while within POxy. 2741 fr. 5, approximately 24 lines of text are missing between Eup. fr. 192.189 and Eup. fr. 192.190 – we know nothing about the physical relationship between POxy. 2741 fr. 1 (= Eup. fr. 192.1–157) and the other fragments of the papyrus (= Eup. fr. 192.158–274), except that the other fragments followed POxy. 2741 fr. 1, which comes from almost the very beginning of the roll – we also know nothing about the physical relationship between POxy. 2741 fr. 4 (= Eup. fr. 192.158–74) and POxy. 2741 fr. 5 (= Eup. fr. 192.175–203) in particular. Discussion Lobel 1968. 55–73 (editio princeps); Luppe 1971. 119–20; Austin 1973. 94–105; Tammaro 1973–1974b; Luppe 1975. 198–200; Tammaro 1975– 1977. 98–101; Luppe 1977. 91, 92–3, pl. II; Trojahn 2002. 85–101, 166–8; Storey 2003. 206–8; Sonnino 2006. 43–8 Interpretation 120–1, 149–50 show that Marikas—referred to in the commentary as “Hyperbolos”—and the Master are onstage during the portion of the text treated in POxy. 2741 fr. 1. At 29, the commentator notes that “from this point on the entire chorus speaks”, the simplest interpretation of which is that the immediately preceding lemmata belong to one of the two individual semi-choruses. Whether the “you” (pl.) in 13, 18 refers to the other semi-chorus or to the characters onstage is unclear, but the “you” (sing.) addressed in 18 and 47–9 is presumably either Marikas or the Master.68 The semi-choruses quickly break apart again, however, for the commentator notes additional changes of speaker at 98–9 (the semi-chorus of wealthy men is speaking) and 120–1 (an individual semi-chorus addresses Marikas), as well as at 75. Overall, this looks like a heated argument between the rich men and the poor men, on the one hand, and between Marikas and the Master, on the other—note the encouragement offered to one of the speakers at 84, and the reference to a back and forth exchange at 87–9—and the meter suggests an agôn (thus Sonnino 2006; cf. frr. 384–5).

68

Direct address of the audience appears to begin only at 156–7, after Marikas and the Master have gone offstage (147–50).

132

Eupolis

That Marikas is addressed at 120–1 suggests that he is the speaker of 124, hence the first-person singular ἀπολῶ. That 147 is also assigned to Marikas (but now said to be spoken to the Master, sc. rather than to one of the semi-choruses) makes it a reasonable assumption that 137–8 belong to him as well. Both characters then exit in different directions, and what follows in 156–7 must be the beginning of the parabasis. POxy. 2741 frr. 4–5 come from after fr. 1 in the papyrus, and are accordingly from post-parabatic scenes. fr. 192a = Eup. fr. 192.2 K.-A. νίκας ἐνίκα vel -νικὰς ἐνίκα He was prevailing or He was winning …-ic (victories) Meter Consistent with iambic tetrameter catalectic. E. g. reading νίκαϲ ἐνίκα: 〈xlkl〉 llkl l〈lkl reading -νικὰϲ ἐνίκα: 〈xlkl xlkl xl〉kl kll

kll〉, or

Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. i.2–6 = Eup. fr. 192.2–6 ]π̣ ατ̣ . γα[ ]ν̣ικας ἐν̣ίκα· ]τατ̣ . γαρτ [ νι]κ̣ ας ἐνίκ̣α  .  ̣ ]υσ̣ [] .  .  .  . [ ]εν ταῦτ’ ἐστ’ 5 ] . νεβρὸν̣[ λ]έων, ὃς ταῦτα ] .  .  .  .  . π̣ α . [ ]ε̣µ̣ε . αι· suppl. Kassel–Austin   2 fort. τά τε γάρ   6 e. g. [ν]έµε[τ]αι

5

]π̣ ατ̣ . γα[ ]τατ̣ . γαρτ  . [ ̣ ]υσ̣ [] .  .  .  . [ ] . a fawn (acc.)[ ] .  .  .  .  . π̣ α . [

] He was prevailing(?)· He was prevailing(?) ]εν these things are a lion (nom.), who these things (acc.) ]ε̣µ̣ε . αι·

Interpretation 2 νικας ἐνίκα is repeated in 3 [νι]κας ἐνίκα, leaving no doubt that 3 is commentary, while 2 is part of a lemma. Whether ]π̣ ατ̣.γ̣α[ at the beginning of 2 is also part of the lemma (as Lobel thought, and as the typography in Kassel 1973, followed by Kassel–Austin, suggests that they too believe) is unclear. If one reads νίκας ἐνίκα (“He was prevailing”), νίκας is an internal accusative (thus Kassel–Austin in their note ad loc. “νίκας ἐνίκα ut λαφύσσεται λαφυγµόν fr. 166”), and the words scan llkll and cannot stand at the end of an iambic tetrameter catalectic. In that case, the half-stop

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

133

after ἐνίκα might mark the end of the colon but not of the lemma, as in e. g. 147, and ]τατ̣ . γαρτ . [ (i. e. τά τε γάρ?) at the beginning of 3 might continue the citation from Eupolis. Alternatively, if -νικάς is taken to be the final portion of an -ικός adjective in the feminine accusative plural and -νικὰς ἐνίκα (“He was winning …-ic (victories)”) is printed, the words scan klkll (thus Lobel 1968. 58) and might be the end of an iambic tetrameter catalectic, making it more likely that this is the end of the lemma. If the end of 3 is printed as above—Kassel–Austin opt for ]εωνος ταῦτα—the elision may suggest that this too is lemma rather than text. The image of the fawn and the lion—i. e. of the hapless victim who falls into the hands of someone far more dangerous and powerful, appropriate in a context in which victory and thus inevitably defeat are being discussed—is attested in Greek literature already at Od. 4.335–9 = 17.126–30 (Menelaos’ image of the Suitors, should Odysseus unexpectedly return to Ithaca; cf. also Cydias PMG 714 ap. Pl. Chrm. 155d). Kassel–Austin, comparing Luc. DMort. 8.1 τὸ τῆς παροιµίας· ὁ νεβρὸς τὸν λέοντα (“the proverbial saying; ‘the fawn (overcame) the lion”), where the wit depends on the reversal of the expected order of things, accordingly suggest restoring the two animals’ names in what is likely a further portion of the commentary at 4–5, although they do not themselves adopt the conjecture. fr. 192b = Eup. fr. 192.7 K.-A.

xlkl [ὑ]µᾶς πάλι[ν νοσ]ή̣µαθ’ ὑποτροπάζει [ὑ]µᾶς vel [ἡ]µᾶς Lobel   πάλι[ν νοσ]ή̣µ̣ αθ’ suppl. Luppe : ]ή̣µαθ’ Lobel : ]η̣µατα pc ac pap.   ὑποτροπάζει pap. : ὑποτροπίζει pap.

xlkl you (acc.) again sicknesses recur Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic. 〈xlkl〉 llkl klkr

kll

Discussion Sonnino 2007. 31–5. Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. I.7–12 = Eup. fr. 192.7–12 ὑ]µᾶς πάλι[ν νοσ]ή̣̣µαθ’ ὑποτροπάζει ]ὑποτροπά̣[ζ χ]ε̣ῖ̣ρον διατιθέασιν ἐπα]ν̣ερχοµέ[ν ] καταλαµβάνουσιν 10 ] .  . []µ̣ενα̣[ ] . [] . αυτον τ̣[]ο ]ο̣ν̣[] . π . [] . δ̣[]η̣ σθενηκυ[ι ]ν̣υν πά̣λιν ] φησ[ι] καταπ[ο]ν̣εῖσθαι συ[µ]βησε

134

Eupolis

7 vide supra   8 suppl. Lobel   8–9 διατιθέασιν [ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπα]ν̣ερχοµέ[νων,] καταλαµβάνουσιν Luppe   9 suppl. Lobel, cf. Poll. 3.107 ἐπανῆλθε τὸ νόσηµα, ὑπετροπίασε τὸ νόσηµα (“the disease came back, the disease recurred”)   11  ἠσθενηκυ[ῖα] (“having grown weak/sick”) vel διησθενηκυ[ῖα] (“having grown thoroughly weak/sick”) Lobel   12 φησ[ι] καταπ[ο]νεῖσθαι suppl. Lobel   συ[µ] βήσε[ται] (“it will turn out”) vel συ[µ]βήσε[σθαι] (“to be going to turn out”) Lobel

10

you again sicknesses recur recur they make worse recurring ] they lay hold of ] . . []µ̣ενα̣ [ ] . [] . αυτον τ̣[ . ]ο ]ο̣ν̣[] . []π . [] . δ̣[]ησθενηκυ[ι ] now again he says … turn out to be beset

Interpretation The echo of 7 ὑποτροπάζει in 8 ]ὑποτροπά[ζ (cf. 7 πάλι[ν], 11 πάλιν) shows that 7 is lemma, 8 and following commentary. There is insufficient room to the left in 7 for the entire first foot of the line, which may therefore have been cited incomplete. “Sickness” is likely used as a metaphor for another problem or dysfunction that seemed to have passed (cf. fr. 192c) but is now allegedly returning. Cf. Taillardat 1965 § 307. Either [ὑ]µᾶς or [ἡ]µᾶς (both proposed by Lobel) might be right, but the second-person plural ἀ̣φε̣ ῖ̣ [̣ σθε] in fr. 192c argues for the former. If so, whoever is speaking must have presented this as a problem affecting his addressees rather than himself. Since ὑποτροπάζω/ὑποτροπιάζω seems elsewhere to be intransitive, Luppe suggested that a preposition must have stood before the word. Sonnino 2007. 32–3, by contrast, hypothesizes that the pronoun was governed by another verb (now lost) that preceded it. [νοσ]ή̣̣µαθ’ ὑποτροπάζει ὑπότροπος is “returned”, and Phryn. PS p. 120.16–17 offers the gloss ὑποτροπάζειν69· ὅταν πεπαυµένης τῆς νόσου πάλιν ἐπινοσῇ τις (“hypotropazein: when a person gets sick again after a sickness is over”, i. e. “suffers a relapse”), whence Luppe’s supplement of the papyrus’ scriptio plena ]ηµατα (]ή̣̣µαθ’ already Lobel). Elsewhere, the verb is routinely found in the form ὑποτροπιάζω, except at Phot. υ 266 ὑποτροπάζει· ὑποστρέφει (“hypotropazei: recur”), which may thus have originated as a note on this verse. νόσηµα is late 5th-century vocabulary, widely dispersed in both poetry (e. g. Ar. Th. 1116; S. OT 1293; [A.] PV 685; E. Ion 1524) and prose (e. g.

69

ὑποτροπιάζειν de Borries, comparing Ecl. 57 ἐπιτροπιάζειν· ἔτι καὶ τοῦτο διέφθαρται. καίτοι λεγόντων τῶν ἀρχαίων φανερῶς ὑποτροπιάζειν (“epitropiazein: this too is corrupt, although the ancients patently say hypotropiazein”).

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

135

Hp. Epid. II 3.2 = 5.104.10 Littré; Th. 2.51.1; Isoc. 10.34; X. Cyr. 6.2.27); cf. fr. 167 n. πάλι[ν] is apparently picked up in the comment νυν πάλιν in 11. fr. 192c = Eup. fr. 192.13 K.-A.

xl [πολὺ]ν̣ πο̣λ̣λοῦ χρό[ν]ον καὶ τόν̣[δ’] ἀ̣φ̣εῖσ̣ [θε] l l suppl. Lobel ex 17 πολὺν χρόνον ἀφεῖσθε

you were released for this very long time as well Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic. 〈xl〉kl llkl llkl

k〈ll〉

Discussion Cataudello 1975. 273–5 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. I.13–17 = Eup. fr. 192.13–17 [πολὺ]ν̣ πο̣λ̣λοῦ χρό[ν]ον καὶ τόν̣[δ’] ἀ̣φεῖσ̣ [θε] ] . τι . []π̣ αµπ̣[]υν .  ⟦ἡ δὲ µ[ετα]φ̣[ορὰ⟧ 15 ⟦ἀπὸ τῶν γ]ραµµατοδιδ[α]σκάλων  . [ ⟧ ] . τ̣ι⟧ .  ἡ δὲ µ[ετ]αφορὰ ἀπ[ὸ τῶ]ν γρα[µµατοδιδασκά]λων ‘πολὺν χρόνον ἀφεῖσθε’ 14 [ἀ]ντὶ [τοῦ] πάµπολυν Lobel

15

you (pl.) were released for this very long time as well ] . τι . [ . ]π̣ αµπ̣ [ . ]υν .  ⟦but the image⟧ ⟦ (is) from the schoolteachers. ⟧ ] . τ̣ι⟧· but the image is from the schoolteachers “You (pl.) were released for a long time”

Interpretation The commentary contains repeated text, the first instance of which (in 14–16) was cancelled by the original scribe when he realized his mistake. [πολὺ]ν̣ … χρό[ν]ον … ἀ̣φε̣ ῖσ[θε] i. e. “You had a long recess” from hard work or trouble of some sort (cf. fr. 192b), setting up the order in fr. 192d in a strikingly high-handed way. For this use of the verb, cf. Luc. Somn. 2 ἀφεθείην ὑπὸ τῶν διδασκάλων (“for whenever I was released by my teachers”); Phot. α 3305 = Suda α 4599 = Synag. B α 2503 ἀφεῖσθαι παίζειν· λέγεται ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς ἀργούντων καὶ πρὸς παιδίαν ἀφειµένων, µάλιστα δὲ ἐπὶ παίδων ἀφειµένων (“to be released to play: (the phrase) is used in regard to those who laze about at festivals and are released to play around, but especially in regard

136

Eupolis

to children given recess”; from the common source generally referred to as Σ΄, drawing on a lost lexicographer) (both cited by Tammaro 1975–1977. 99). For the adverbial use of πολλοῦ (patently colloquial), cf. fr. 84.2 πολλοῦ … δίκαια; Ar. Eq. 822 πολλοῦ δὲ πολύν µε χρόνον; Nu. 915 θρασὺς εἶ πολλοῦ; Ra. 1046 πολλὴ πολλοῦ; Poultney 1936. 110. καί “By an easy transition, the sense of addition sometimes recedes into the background, while the sense of climax predominates, a ladder of which only the top rung is clearly seen … καί is little more than a particle of emphasis” (Denniston 1950. 316–17, cf. 319–20); cf. Eriph. fr. 2.8–9 τρεῖς µόνας / καὶ τάσδ’ ἐκόµισας; (“Did you bring only these three?”). fr. 192d = Eup. fr. 192.18 K.-A. σ̣ ὺ̣ γοῦν, ἀλλ’ ἐξάλειφε ἐξάλειφε Luppe : ἐξαλείφετε pap.

you (sing.) for example, but wipe clean! Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic? e. g. 〈xlkl xlk〉l llkl

k〈ll〉

Discussion Cataudello 1975. 273–5 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. i.18–19 = Eup. fr. 192.18–19 18 ]σ̣ ὺ̣ γοῦν, ἀλλ’ ἐξαλείφετε τοῦτο δ’ ]ν ἐ̣σ̣τ̣ιν̣ · ‘λέαινε τὰς δέλτους’· 19 [ὃ λέγει τοιοῦτό]ν ἐ̣σ̣τ̣ιν̣ · (“what he says is something like:”) Luppe 18

you (sing.) for example, but wipe clean (pl.)! But this ]ν is “Smooth your writing tablets!”

Interpretation For δέλτοι (routinely plural in reference to a single two-part apparatus), see Pfeiffer 1968. 26; Payton 1991; Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 778–80 (the latter two with bibliography). To “wipe out” or “smooth” writing tablets is to erase the characters scratched into the wax that served as the writing surface; this is a different process than “wiping out” (i. e. erasing) ink, but the underlying idea of erasure is the same, which must the point of the gloss. The command in any case seems reminiscent of the reference to school-masters in fr. 192c: now that recess is over, it is time to get back to work. Luppe’s ἐξάλειφε for the papyrus’ ἐξαλείφετε makes the verb agree with the second-person singular pronoun σ̣ ύ̣ at the beginning of the preserved

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

137

portion of the line and is supported by the singular imperative λέαινε in the gloss in 19. There must in any case be punctuation between γοῦν and ἀλλ(ά), since the particles are not used together. If the verb that went with σ̣ ύ̣ was expressed or implied earlier in the sentence, therefore, there might be a change of subject, moving from a single addressee (a character in the play?) to a plural one (the other semi-chorus?), and one might even contemplate writing λεαίνε〈τε〉 τὰς δέλτους in 19. For ἐξαλείφω in the sense “erase”, e. g. Ar. Pax 1181 (of names on a draft-notice board); Men. Pk. 717 (figuratively of a memory); E. fr. 618.2 ὅν γ’ ἐξαλείφει ῥᾷον ἢ γραφὴν θεός (of happiness, “which a god erases more easily than a bit of writing”); Pl. R. 501b (the opposite of ἐγγράφω). For γοῦν used with a pronoun as “part proof”, see Denniston 1950. 451–2, 453–4. fr. 192e = Eup. fr. 192.20 K.-A. ]ον οὕτω φθέγξεται ε[ ]ον he/she/it will speak thus ε[ Meter Compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. 〈xl〉kl llkl x〈lkl kll〉 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. i.20–1 = Eup. fr. 192.20–1 20 ]ν[ ]ον οὕτω φθέγξεται ε[ ] . τότε δὴ µεῖζον φθε̣γ̣οµ̣α̣ι  ̣ . 20

]ν[

]ον he/she/it will speak thus ε[ then in fact I speak louder

Interpretation The echo of 20 φθέγξεται in 21 φθε̣γοµ̣α̣ι ̣ (i. e. φθέγγοµ̣αι) makes it clear that 20 is a lemma, 21 commentary on it. Lobel 1968. 59 comments, “There is presumably some relation between φθέγξεται and φθε̣.οµ̣α̣ι ,̣ but only one letter (γ or ξ) can be inserted between ε and ο, and I see no explanation of the difference of person”. The first problem can be solved by assuming a simple spelling variant. ]ν[ at the beginning of the line may be from Eupolis as well. φθέγξεται For the verb and its cognates, which can be used not just of human speech but of any potentially significant sound, including those produced by animals or musical instruments, see Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 776–7.

138

Eupolis

fr. 192f = Eup. fr. 192.22 K.-A. τοῖς ἐσχάτοις ενη̣[ to the final (masc./neut. pl.) ενη̣[ Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic? e. g. 〈xlkl〉 llkl kl〈kl

kll〉

Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. i.22–3 = fr. 192.22–3 K.-A. 22 ] . τοῖς ἐσχάτοις ενη̣[ ]κη καὶ τοῖς ἐσχάτ̣[οις 22

to the final ενη̣[ ]κη and/even to the final

Interpretation The echo of 22 ἐσχάτοις in 23 ἐσχάτ̣[οις] confirms that 22 is part of a lemma repeated in the explanation that follows, while also suggesting that the papyrus’ ambiguous τοις in 22 is a definite article rather than the final syllable of an adjective. ἐσχάτοις The adjective means “last, final” in the sense “furthest” (e. g. Ar. Eq. 704 ἐκ τῆς προεδρίας ἔσχατον, “further from the front row”; Antiph. fr. 285 ἔσχατον τοῦ δυστυχεῖν, “the furthest thing from misfortune”; Alex. fr. 42.1 περὶ τὴν ἐσχάτην … κερκίδα, “around the furthest section of seats”). Perhaps this is an explanation of how far the voice of the individual referred to in fr. 192e will reach: “even to the furthest …” fr. 192g = Eup. fr. 192.25 K.-A. ] . τ̣εδ[ ]ο προ̣[σφ ] . ν̣τ̣[ε suppl. ex 26, et προσφέροντες vel πρόσφορόν τε tent. Lobel

Meter With either of Lobel’s suggestions, consistent with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. 〈xlkl xlkl〉 τ̣εδ[ l ]ο l kll Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. i.25–6 = fr. 192.25–6 K.-A. 25 ] . τ̣εδ[ ]ο προ̣[σφ ] . ν̣τ̣[ε ]προσφ̣[  ] . ντε[   ]ο̣νδ[ Interpretation The echo of 25 προ̣[ ].ν̣τ̣[ε] in 26 ]προσφ̣[  ].ντε[ makes it clear that 25 is part of a lemma repeated in the explanation that follows,

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

139

allowing several letters to be provisionally restored in the text of Eupolis but not permitting any sense to be extracted from it. Neither προσφέρω nor πρόσφορος is attested before the 5th century. Cf. fr. 192.68 προσφερο[ (from a lemma). fr. 192h = Eup. fr. 192.27 K.-A. ]µεις κ[ ]νον[ et [ἡ]µεῖς vel [ὑ]µεῖς, et κ[αι]νόν vel κ[οι]νόν tent. Lobel

Meter Unknown. Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. i.27–9 = fr. 192.27–9 K.-A. 27 ]µεις κ[ . .]νον[ ]ετον . ´ιν̣[ . ] .  . οπο̣[ 5 ]ηµα ] ἀπὸ τούτ̣ου ὅλος ὁ̣ χορὸς λέγει  . [ 27 ]µεις κ[ ]νον[ ]ετον . ´ιν̣[ . ] .  . οπο[  ]ηµα from this point on the entire chorus speaks Interpretation The end of 27 has been left blank, suggesting that this is a lemma, as the typography in Austin 1973 (followed by Kassel–Austin) shows that he believed. What follows in 28 must accordingly be commentary, as the note in 29 certainly is. fr. 192i = Eup. fr. 192.30 K.-A. ]ω τέως vel ]ω τέως καὶ νῦν ]ω previously or ]ω previously and now Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic. lkl or lklll Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. i.30 = fr. 192.30 K.-A. ]ω τέως καὶ νῦν τ̣ὸ τέως ἀντὶ̣ [ ]ω previously: also in this passage “previously” is used in place of or ]ω previously and now: “Previously” is used in place of Interpretation τὸ τέως ἀντὶ is certainly commentary on τέως at the beginning of the line, and Lobel (followed by Austin 1973 and Kassel–Austin) took

140

Eupolis

καὶ νῦν to be commentary as well, translating “in this passage”. But among the various senses of τέως is “previously, in the past” (as opposed to νῦν, “now”), and τέως καὶ νῦν is perhaps better taken as all coming from Eupolis, with the commentary beginning only at τό. For τέως, cf. fr. 384.3 οὕτω τέως (which Lobel compared to this fragment) with n. fr. 192j = Eup. fr. 192.32 K.-A. ἅπασι τοῖς κ[ κ[ριταῖς] Fraenkel

to all the κ[ Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic.

klkl Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. i.32–4 = fr. 192.32–4 K.-A. 32 ]ω . [ ]ἅπασι τοῖς κ[ ]ουσκ̣[ ] . σ[ ]ν̣τα .  ἡ δ(ὲ) µε[ταφορὰ] ]ι̣σθ̣ . [ ]ν[ ] . ·εν . [ suppl. Lobel 32

]ω . [ ]ουσκ̣[ ]ι̣σθ̣ . [

] . σ[ ]ν[

] to all the κ[ ]ν̣τα. But the image ] . ·εν . [

Interpretation Assuming that Lobel’s supplement of 33 is correct (cf. 16), the end of the line must be commentary; and since 30 seems to be a short lemma and gloss, the second half of 32 is probably part of a lemma, particularly since it is compatible with iambs.  ]ω . [ near the beginning of 32 is thus likely from Eupolis as well. ἅπασι Despite their seeming metrical utility, the comic poets avoid the alternative forms ξύµπας/σύµπας (well-attested in tragedy (e. g. A. fr. 350.3; S. Ai. 1055; OT 752; E. Hipp. 1280; Hec. 757 (deleted by Nauck)) and common in prose; in comedy only at Ar. Nu. 204) and συνάπας/ξυνάπας (used by Herodotus and Plato, but absent from tragedy; in comedy only at Henioch. fr. 5.2; Alex. fr. 22.2). ἁπαξάπας, on the other hand, is almost exclusively comic (e. g. Ar. Eq. 845; Stratt. fr. 37.2 with Orth 2009 ad loc.; Pl. Com. fr. 15; Antiph. fr. 132.6; first elsewhere in the late 4th century).

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

141

Fraenkel compared Ar. Av. 445 πᾶσι νικᾶν τοῖς κριταῖς and Amphis fr. 21.3–4 καὶ τοῖς σοφοῖς / κριταῖς ἅπασιν and conjectured κ[ριταῖς]. But this is merely a guess, and the word seems in any case more concrete than metaphorical. The material at the top of the preserved portion of col. ii (POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. ii.3–6 = fr. 192.41–6) apparently represents commentary on a now-lost lemma: ] . α[ καὶ ταῖς ε . [ τοὺς Πέρσας [ 45 παρεδέξαντ̣[ο γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐπι[

45

] . α[ and to the (fem.) ε . [ the Persians (acc.) [ they received for to them (masc./neut.) ἐπι[ fr. 192k = Eup. fr. 192.47–9 K.-A.; οὐδὲν κενόν κτλ = fr. 354 K. ζητῶν γὰρ ω[ οὐδὲν κενὸν ⸤τρύπηµ’ 〈ἂν〉 ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις ἂν εὗρες⸥

〈ἂν〉 add. Porson : τρύπηµά γ᾿ Pierson   ἀνεῦρες Luppe

for when you sought ω[ you wouldn’t have found a single empty hole in their houses Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. ii.8–14 = fr. 192.47–53 K.-A. >―― ζητῶν γὰρ ω[ οὐδὲν κενὸν [ εὗρες τούτων [ 50 τοις ἀγαθοῖς τ[ κενὸν τρύπη̣[µ ο]ὐδεµία κε[νὴ .]ασαι· λέγει δὲ τ̣[ 51 Austin   52 κε[νὴ τρήµη] vel κε[νὴ τρύµη] suppl. Lobel

142

Eupolis

50

for when you (masc.) sought ω[ not a single empty you found. Of these (masc./neut.) [ τοις good (masc./neut. dat. pl.) τ[ or the good (masc./neut. dat. pl.) τ[ empty hole not one empty .]ασαι but he says τ̣[

Et.Gen. AB ~ EM p. 726.54–5 καὶ τὸ τρύπηµα δἐ, ὡς Εὔπολις· ―― And also trupêma, as Eupolis: ――

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. llkl 〈xlkl xlkl

llkl

klkl llkl

kll〉

kll

Context The entry in Et.Gen. ~ EM is an isolated lexicographic note on the word στειλειά (in origin likely treating Od. 21.421–2 πελέκεων δ’ οὐκ ἤµβροτε πάντων / πρώτης στειλειῆς, from the contest of the axes) defined as τὸ τρῆµα τοῦ πελέκεως, δι’ οὗ τὸ στελεὸν ἐνείρεται, ἣν τρήµην Ἀττικοὶ λέγουσι (“the opening in an ax-head, into which the handle is inserted, which Attic authors refer to as a trêmê”); Ar. frr. 750 and 713 come before this. Text The line as preserved in Et.Gen. ~ EM is metrically deficient—whether the missing word or syllable was included in the text as given in the papyrus is uncertain, although it could easily have been accommodated in what appears to have been the standard line-length—and Porson’s supplement makes easy palaeographic sense, ἄν having been accidentally omitted before ἐν. Pierson’s τρύπηµά γ᾿, on the other hand, is a clumsy, mechanical fix in which the particle serves no obvious purpose. Interpretation A diple obelismene between 46 and 47, together with the fact that 47 ζητῶν is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark 47 as part of a new lemma. As 51–2 are patently discussion of the second verse,70 49–50 must have treated the first, which in that case likely mentioned someone or something ἀγαθός.

70

Lobel suggested that 52 might refer to the word τρήµη/τρύµη (Ar. frr. 713; 750) mentioned immediately before this in Et.Gen. ~ EM.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

143

This is likely all a single thought—the search mentioned in the first verse took place in the houses mentioned in the second—addressed to a single male individual (hence ζητῶν) and explaining some previous remark (hence γάρ). A τρύπηµα ( 〈 τρυπάω, “bore, pierce”) is properly a hole produced by drilling or a similar process. The entry in Et.Gen. = EM is most naturally taken to mean that a hole in an ax-head is in question, although it is tempting to think that Eupolis’ language is figurative, as seemingly repeatedly in this passage (cf. 16–17, 33). At Ar. Ec. 623–4 προβεβούλευται γάρ, ὅπως ἂν / µηδεµιᾶς ᾖ τρύπηµα κενόν (“forethought has been taken to ensure that not a single woman’s trupêma is empty”), the word is used in an obscene sense (~ “vagina”), as τρῆµα seemingly is more allusively at Ar. Lys. 410; Ec. 906, while at Lys. fr. 463.5 (from Tzetzes; authenticity disputed) a prostitute conducts her business τριῶν ἐκ τρυπηµάτων. Herwerden 1886. 165 (followed by Tammaro 1975–1977. 100 and Henderson 1991 § 158) proposed taking the word in an obscene sense here as well, in which case the addressee was allegedly making an unsuccessful search for sexual opportunity or the like (and cf. fr. 64 n.). But there is also an—admittedly obscure—joke at Ar. Pax 1234 ἵνα µή γ’ ἁλῶ τρύπηµα κλέπτων τῆς νεώς (Trygaeus can put his hands through both armholes of the breastplate he proposes to shit on, “So that I wouldn’t be caught stealing an oar-hole of the ship”; see Olson 1998 ad loc.) that at least suffices to show that empty τρυπήµατα of another sort might be in question here instead. The repetition of ἄν is not unusual in and of itself (cf. fr. 221.2 with n.; Ar. Ra. 96–7), and the position of the second ἄν beside the main verb is unexceptional. The other standard position for the particle, however, is as the second word in its clause; perhaps οὐδὲν κενὸν τρύπηµ’ is here treated as a single connected idea for the purposes of such reckoning. fr. 192l = Eup. fr. 192.54 K.-A. [π]ε̣ριτµήµατα suppl. ex 56 Austin

trimmings Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic.

kklkx Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. ii.15–19 = fr. 192.54–8 K.-A. >―― [π]ε̣ριτµήµατα̣[

144

Eupolis 55

δερµάτων η[ τῶν περιτεµ[νοµένων τοι γὰρ ἀνθρω[ κολλητεο[

]σ

56 suppl. Austin

55

trimmings of skins η[ of the trimmed portions τοι for human must be glued(?)

]σ

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 53 and 54 marks 54 as part of a new lemma. If Austin’s supplement is correct, 54 περιτµήµατα must also have been set slightly to the left of the material above and below it. Lobel 1968. 59 compares Hsch. κ 3333 κόλλεα· περιτµήµατα δερµάτων, ἀφ’ ὧν ἕψεται ἡ κόλλα τοῦ βοός (“kollea: hide-trimmings, which are boiled to produce cow-glue”). For glue (produced by boiling any animal-part that contains collagen—cognate with Greek κόλλα—including not just hides, but bones, cartilage, tendons and ligaments as well) and gluing, see fr. 445 n.; Ar. Th. 54 κολλοµελεῖ (“he glues lyrics together”) with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc. Given fr. 192k, Phot. κ 494 may also be relevant: καττύν· ἀπότριµµα δερµατίου βαλλόµενον εἰς τὴν στειλειάν, ὅταν µὴ σφίγγῃ (“kattyn: a scrap of hide placed in the hole in an ax-head when it is not tight”). περίτµηµα (〈 περιτέµνω) is attested elsewhere before the Roman period only in inscriptions (e. g. IG II2 1436.61) and at [Pl.] Hp.Ma. 304a κνήσµατα … καὶ περιτµήµατα τῶν λόγων … κατὰ βραχὺ διῃρηµένα (“shavings and trimmings of words separated into little pieces”); for such formations, see fr. 167 n. fr. 192m = Eup. fr. 192.59 K.-A. ἕτερος δε[ fort. δὲ

another man δε[ Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic.

kklx

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

145

Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. ii.20–1 = fr. 192.59–60 K.-A. >―― ἕτερος δε[ 60 κακω[ 60

another man (nom.) δε[ bad(?)

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 58 and 59, together with the fact that 59 ἕτερος is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a new lemma. fr. 192n = Eup. fr. 192.61 K.-A. αλλεν[ (fort. ἀλλ᾿ ἐν) Meter Unknown.

lx Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. ii.22–9 = fr. 192.61–8 K.-A. >―― αλλεν[ σωµεν αυτη . [ ποιἠσωµεν . [ ] . τελευτα[ 65 διδόντες τ̣ . [ ρια νι̣κ̣[] . [ καὶ θεὸς [ προσφερο[

65

αλλεν[ let us  .  .  .  αυτη . [ let us make/do . [ ] . end[ giving (masc. nom. pl.) τ̣ . [ ρια νικ[] . [ and god (nom.) [ applied [

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 60 and 61, together with the fact that 61 αλλεν[ is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a new lemma.

146

Eupolis

The repeated use of the first-person plural subjunctive in the note suggests that the same form was found in the text of Eupolis commented on here; perhaps 62 -σωµεν is the end of the lemma. fr. 192o = Eup. fr. 192.69 K.-A. οἷά τ’ ἐσθ’ ἁ[ are able (neut. pl.) to ἁ[ Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic.

lklx Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. ii.30–4 = fr. 192.69–73 K.-A. >―― οἷά τ’ ἐσθ’ ἁ[ 70 το τοιουτο . [ δεύτερον[ υ . [] . νοι .  .  .  . [ αν ἀνθρωπο[ 72 fort. νοια̣ vel νοιο̣ν̣   73 vel ἀνάνθρωπο[ (“inhumane”)

70

are able (neut. pl.) to ἁ[ το something such  . [ second (masc./neut. sing.) [ υ . [] . νοι .  .  .  . [ αν human[ (or “inhumane”)

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 68 and 69, together with the fact that 69 οἷα is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, marks the beginning of a new lemma. fr. 192p = Eup. fr. 192.74 K.-A. τί τὸ κακόν; οὐκ̣[ What the hell? Not Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic.

kkkkl

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

147

Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. ii.35–8 = fr. 192.74–7 K.-A. >―― τί τὸ κακόν; οὐκ̣[ 75 τοῦτο λέγει µ[ α[ ]ρους λ . [ ροντο ὡς ἀντι[ 77 ρον τὸ ὡς ἀντὶ [ τοῦ tent. Lobel

75

What the hell? Not he/she says this µ[ α[ ]ρους λ . [ ροντο as ἀντι[

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 73 and 74, together with the fact that 74 τί is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a new lemma. Austin 1973 (followed by Kassel–Austin) treats οὐκ̣ not as part of the lemma but as the first word in the commentary. The name-character of Eupolis’ play is referred to elsewhere as “Hyperbolos”, so 75 is probably not to be restored Μ[αρικᾶς]. τί τὸ κακόν; An expression of unhappy, baffled surprise, as also at Ar. Pax 322; Av. 1213; Th. 610, 1080 τί κακόν;, 1085 τί κακόν;; fr. 621; Men. Dysc. 546; Asclep. XV.2 (although Sens 2011. 100 prefers to translate “Why this trouble?”); doubtless colloquial. fr. 192q = Eup. fr. 192.78 K.-A. ἀλλ’ ὦτα µὲν Μ[ίδα] Μ[ίδα] suppl. Fraenkel

but ears, on the one hand, of Midas Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. llkl kl〈kl xlkl kll〉 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1a col. ii.39–41 = fr. 192.78–80 K.-A. >―― ἀλλ’ ὦτα µὲν Μ[ίδα παρὰ τὴν παρ[οιµίαν 80 δῆµος αυτηµε . [ 79 suppl. Lobel

148

Eupolis

80

but ears, on the one hand, of Midas playing on the proverb people αυτηµε . [

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 77 and 78, together with the fact that 78 ἀλλ’ is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a new lemma. ὦτα  … Μ[ίδα] Although Herodotus 1.14.2–3 reports that Midas of Phrygia (generally placed sometime in the 8th century BCE) was the first barbarian king to make dedications at Delphi, this in fact appears to be a dynastic rather than a personal name. See in general Roller 1983 (on the various legends associated with Midas); Sarati 1996. 120–1; Miller, LIMC VIII.1 pp. 846–51 (on the visual evidence); Berndt-Ersöz 2008 (on the historical figure or figures and his/their dates). Midas’ fantastic wealth is referred to already at Tyrt. fr. 12.6 πλουτοίη δὲ Μίδεω καὶ Κινύρεω µάλιον (“and if he should be richer than Midas or Cinyras”; in a list of adynata); subsequently at e. g. Pl. R. 408b Μίδου πλουσιώτεροι (“men richer than Midas”); Lg. 660e; Call. fr. 75.47. The first secure literary mention of Midas’ donkey’s ears outside of this passage is at Ar. Pl. 286–7 (Χο.) ὄντως γὰρ ἔστι πλουσίοις ἅπασιν ἡµῖν εἶναι; / (Κα.) νὴ τοὺς θεοὺς Μίδαις µὲν οὖν, ἢν ὦτ’ ὄνου λάβητε (“(Chorus) Is it really possible for us all to be rich? (Carion) Yes, by the gods—(you can be) Midases, if you get donkey’s ears”), but they appear in vase-paintings already in the third quarter of the 5th century BCE (London, BM 51.4–16.9 (E 447); Syracuse, Mus. Reg. 4322B; Vatican, Mus. Greg. Etr. 16585). Why and how Midas got the ears may have been obscure already in antiquity (a punishment for crude stupidity at Clearch. fr. 43a Wehrli; more specifically a punishment for misjudging the musical contest of Apollo and Marsyas at Hyg. Fab. 191.2 and Ov. Met. 11.146–93, esp. 173–9; see Roller 1983. 308), making it impossible to know what the point 57 of mentioning them here was. ΣRVMEMMatrV Ar. Pl. 287 also refers to Midas’ ears as παροιµῶδες (“proverbial”) and explains ἤτοι ὅτι πολλοὺς ὠτακουστὰς εἶχεν, ἢ ὅτι κώµην Φρυγίας κατέσχεν, ἥτις Ὦτα ὄνου ἐλέγετο (“either because he had many eavesdroppers, or because he controlled a Phrygian village called Donkey’s Ears”)—suggesting that the author of the note was merely guessing as to the meaning of the proverb, but leaving open the possibility that someone in Eupolis’ play (Marikas?; cf. fr. 194 with n.) was presented as a persistent eavesdropper. For Midas and Silenos/the silen he captured, see Hdt. 8.138.2–3; X. An. 1.2.13; Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 75; Gantz 1993. 138.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

149

fr. 192r = Eup. fr. 192.81 K.-A. κυδῶντα δ’ οὐ κυ[δῶντα] κυ[δῶντα] scripsi

but kudônta (masc. acc. sing.) when not kudônta Meter Compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. xlkl xlk〈l xlkl kll〉 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. ii.1–3 = fr. 192.81–3 K.-A. 81 κυδῶντα δ’ οὐ κυ[δῶντα ἐπὶ δούλ]ων λέγεται τῶν ἀπαρνουµέν̣[ων δούλων γεγονέναι ἐ]πειδὰν ἐ λεύθεροι γένων[ται 81–3 suppl. Lobel   82 [δούλων γεγονέναι] : fort. [δεδουλἐσθαι] 81

but kudônta when not ku[dônta]. It is said in reference to slaves who deny that they have been slaves when they become free

Interpretation No diple obelismene marks the beginning of a new lemma, but 81–3 appears to be a gloss. The verb κυδάω is not attested elsewhere, and it is unclear whether it is to be connected with κῦδος (“glory”; long upsilon, like κυδαίνω) or κύδος (“reproach”; short upsilon, like κυδάζω); here both syllables are anceps. Freed slaves—admittedly restored at both points in the text, although 82–3 clearly implies a contrast between free and unfree status—were for legal purposes treated as a sub-type of metic and might have continuing obligations to their former owner. See Zelnick-Abramowitz 2005. 207–48; Kamen 2013. 32–6, 43–54, esp. 43–6, 53–4; and for a freedman eager to conceal the marks of his earlier enslavement, Diph. fr. 67.5–8. fr. 192s = Eup. fr. 192.84 K.-A. ἔξαι̣[ρ]ε̣̣ καὶ πρῴρ[αζ ἔξαι̣[ρ]ε̣ Luppe : ἔξα[γ̣]ε̣ Lobel   πρῴρ[αζ] (ex πρῳράζω) Luppe : πρῴρ[α] (ex πρῳράω) Lobel

raise and turn your prow!

150

Eupolis

Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic. Adopting Luppe’s supplements, e. g. llkl ll〈kl xlkl kll〉 Discussion Luppe 1975. 198–9; Sonnino 1997. 54–5 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. ii.4–6 = fr. 192.84–6 K.-A. >―― ἔξαι̣[ρ]ε̣ καὶ πρῴρ̣[αζ ]α̣ν ἀντίπρῳ85 ρον̣ τ̣ὴν γλῶττα[ν ] ̣αζε πρὸς τὸ λέγειν· πρῴρα γὰ̣[ρ71 4 ] ̣[ 4/5 ]ιάζου λέγεται· 84 fort. [γλῶττ]α̣ν   ἀντίπρῳ- Lobel : ἀντίπρω- pap.   85 τ̣ὴν γλῶττα[ν] suppl. Lobel   [ῥοθ]ίαζε Lobel : [πρώι]ραζε (i. e. πρῴραζε) Luppe   86 πρώιρα γὰ̣[ρ ἀντὶ το]ῦ̣[ ῥοθ]ιάζου Lobel : πρώιρα γὰ̣[ρ ἡ γλώτ]τ̣[α ῥοθ]ιάζου(σα) Luppe

85

raise and turn your prow! ]α̣ν your tongue prow-forward ] ̣αζε in reference to speaking; for a prow[ ] ̣[ ]ιάζου is called.

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 83 and 84, together with the fact that 84 ἔξαι̣[ρ]ε̣ is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a new lemma. There appears to be a bit of extra space in 84 between ]α̣ν and ἀντίπρῳ-. If so, ἀντίπρῳ- is likely the beginning of the gloss, and ]α̣ν perhaps represents [γλῶττ]α̣ν, hence the gloss γλῶττα[ν] in 85. The image in the commentary—apparently reflecting and explicating that in the text of Eupolis—is naval, referring to how a fighting-ship’s prow was turned to face the enemy before a ramming operation (e. g. Hdt. 8.11.1; Th. 2.91.1; 4.8.7; X. HG 6.2.28). Whatever is concealed in the lacunae in 86 and 87,72 therefore, the addressee is told to offer a vigorous argument; cf. the collapse of naval and rhetorical imagery also at Ar. Eq. 432–4, 756–62, esp. 762 τοὺς δελφῖνας µετεωρίζου καὶ τὴν ἄκατον παραβάλλου (“raise your dolphins”—lead weights dropped on another ship to shatter its hull—“in the air and bring your boat”—for boarding the enemy—“alongside”; encouragement to the Sausage-seller before he speaks before Demos), 830 τί θαλαττοκοπεῖς καὶ πλατυγίζεις (“Why do you beat the sea and use the flat of your oar?”; to the Paphlagonian as he flounders with an argument); V. 479; Lys. 550; and on “the tongue” in general, see fr. 342 n. If ἔξαι̣[ρ]ε̣ and πρῴρ̣[αζ ] are

71 72

Kassel–Austin have the square bracket facing the wrong way—i. e. ] rather than [—in both their text and their apparatus. For ῥοθιάζω, forms of which Lobel wished to restore in both lines, see fr. 353 n.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

151

second-person singular imperatives, as is generally assumed, the latter must be 〈 πρῳράζω (thus Luppe; cf. 85 ] ̣αζε), which is also attested at Men. Sic. 421 πρῳράσατ᾿; Hsch. π 4151 πρῳράσαντες· κροτήσαντες. ἡ δὲ µεταφορὰ ἀπὸ τῶν νεῶν καὶ τῆς εἰρεσίας (“prôirasantes: crashing. The image is drawn from ships and rowing”).73 If so, πρῴρα in 86 must be a noun (thus Luppe) rather than an imperative (thus Lobel). Luppe’s ἔξαι̣[ρ]ε̣ (“Raise!, Arouse!”) requires a direct object, as Lobel’s ἔξαγ̣ε̣ (“March forth!”) does not. fr. 192t = Eup. fr. 192.87 K.-A. καὶ ταῖς οἰκίαις α[ and to the/their houses Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. 〈xlkl xlk〉l llkl k〈ll〉 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. II.7–9 = fr. 192.87–9 K.-A. >―― 87 καὶ ταῖς οἰκίαις α[ ]εἰρηκ[ότο]ς ἐκείνου τὰς οἰκίας ἐπὶ τῶ[ν ἐν α]ὐ̣ταῖς οἰκ̣ούντων οὗτος ἐπὶ τῶν οἰκοδοµηµάτων αὐτὸ τέθεικεν 87–8 suppl. Lobel 87

and to the houses α[ ]although that man uses “the house” in reference to those who live in them, this one employs the term for the dwellings

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 86 and 87 marks the beginning of a new lemma, although 87 καί is not set to the left of the material above and below it (despite the presentation of the text in Kassel–Austin), and 88 τὰς οἰκίας is clearly part of a gloss on 87 ταῖς οἰκίαις. As Lobel 1968. 63 noted, 87 ἐκείνος and 89 οὗτος are most naturally taken to refer to characters in the play, and thus presumably to the adversaries in the argument going on onstage, although this use of τέθεικεν is elsewhere unexampled. For οἰκίαι in the sense “houses”, cf. 48. For the word in the extended sense “household, family”, cf. fr. 384.5 with n.

73

Lobel takes the latter to be from the otherwise unattested πρῳράω, commenting “LSJ deduce πρῳράζω. I do not see on what grounds”.

152

Eupolis

fr. 192u = Eup. fr. 192.90 K.-A. φέρ’ ἴδω, τί Ἀλκµέων[k

l l] πρόθυρ’ ἐπωφέλ(ει) l

Ἀλκµέων[α νῦν τὰ] Austin : Ἀλκµέων[α λαµπρὰ] vel sim. Luppe   ἐπωφέλει Luppe : ἐπωφελεῖ Lobel

Let’s see—what good did forecourts do Alcmeon? Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. rlkl kl〈kl l〉rkl

kl〈l〉

Discussion Luppe 1975. 198–9 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. II.10–11 = fr. 192.90–1 K.-A. >―― 90 φέρ’ ἴδω, τί Ἀλκµέων[k l l] πρόθυρ’ ἐπωφέλ(ει) εὐγενής τις οὗτος [Ἁλκµέ]ων 91 suppl. Austin 90

Let’s see—what good did forecourts do Alcmeon? This [Alcme]on (was) someone well-born

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 89 and 90, together with the fact that 90 φέρ’ is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a new lemma. Lobel compares Ar. Nu. 648 τί δέ µ’ ὠφελήσουσ’ οἱ ῥυθµοὶ πρὸς τἄλφιτα; (“What good will meters do me where my barley-meal is concerned?”; Strepsiades protests the lack of practical utility of Socrates’ teaching); note also Nu. 1061–2 “To whom did you ever see anything good happen because he behaved modestly?” (Wrong’s cynical question to Right), 1442 δίδαξον γὰρ τί µ’ ἐκ τούτων ἐπωφελήσεις74 (“for teach me what benefit you’ll bestow on me by means of these things!”; Strepsiades asks Pheidippides how being offered yet another outrageous Socratic teaching will improve his situation). Α πρόθυρον is the area just outside the courtyard door of a house (e. g. Ar. V. 802–3; Pl. Smp. 175a). But some πρόθυρα were doubtless more elaborate than others, so perhaps the sense is “What good did fancy forecourts”—and

74

Ar. Nu. 1442 is the only other attestation of ἐπωφελέω in comedy. The fact that the compound is also found in Eupolis, however, shows that the concern about the verb expressed by Dover 1968 ad loc. (before the publication of the papyrus) is unwarranted.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

153

thus by extension “a fancy house”—“do Alcmeon?” (the crucial word having fallen into the lacuna), i. e. “What good did being rich ultimately do him (sc. since he is now dead, like everyone else from his time)?” Sonnino 1999. 332–3 takes the reference to be to the site of a performance of a paraclausithyron, although there is no obvious hint of this in the text itself. The name Ἀλκµέων seems to have been borne exclusively by members of the wealthy and powerful Alcmeonid family, the most obvious candidates for the individual mentioned here (PAA 122447 add.) being, in order of likelihood: – Alcmeon I (fl. 590s–580s BCE; PA 651 = PAA 122455; cf. Davies 1971. 371) – Alcmeon II (fl. late 6th/early 5th century; PA 647 = PAA 12430 ~ PA 652 = PAA 122465; cf. Davies 1971. 382) and – Alcmeon III (fl. mid-450s BCE and almost entirely obscure; PA 649 = PAA 122460; cf. Davies 1971. 29). But no particular person may be in question, the name simply being used to evoke the idea of riches and elevated social status, as with the reference to “Megacles son of Megacles” (also an Alcmeonid family name) at Ar. Nu. 46 with Dover 1968 ad loc. As none of the Alcmeones referenced above were contemporaries of Eupolis, I print Luppe’s ἐπωφέλει (imperfect) rather than ἐπωφελεῖ (present; thus Lobel, Austin 1973 and Kassel–Austin). The verb can take either an accusative (thus Ἀλκµέων[α]) or a dative (thus Ἀλκµέων[ι]); τί is an internal accusative. φέρ’ ἴδω is colloquial and is always accompanied by a question (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 6.1; Ar. Ach. 4; Eq. 119; Av. 1621; E. Cyc. 8; [Epich.] fr. 277.3; picked up as an Atticism by Lucian at e. g. Pisc. 48); cf. Stevens 1976. 42; López Eire 1996. 98–9. fr. 192v = Eup. fr. 192.92 K.-A. εἰδὼς ἐφ’ οἵων ῥηγµάτ[ων κα]ὶ̣ στιγµάτων k

l l

ῥηγµ- Lobel : ῥηµ- pap.   ῥηγµάτ[ων κα]ὶ̣ Lobel ex 93 ῥήγµατα   στιγµάτων πἀρ̣[εστιν] (et vide infra)

knowing (masc. nom. sing.) upon what sorts of fissures and marks Meter Compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. llkl llkl | llkl 〈kll〉 Discussion Luppe 1975. 198–9

154

Eupolis

Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. II.12–15 = fr. 192.92–5 K.-A. >―― εἰδὼς ἐφ’ οἵων ῥηγµάτ[ων κα]ὶ̣ στιγµάτων. πα[ίζων ῥήγµατα λέγει τ(ὰ) ὑπ(ὸ)[[περ]] [το]ῖ̣ς ποσί· ὀρειβατοῦντες γὰρ κόπτουσι ξύλα. ἔστιν [ ] παρὰ Μεν̣άνδρῳ (fr. 906) 95 τὸ τοιοῦτον 92 πα[ίζων] Luppe : παρ̣[ὰ τὰ] Lobel (et vide supra)   93 suppl. Lobel   ὀρειβατοῦντες Austin : ὀριβατοῦντες pap.   94 ἔστιν [καὶ] Luppe

95

knowing (masc. nom. sing.) upon what sorts of fissures and marks. Αs a joke he says “fissures” in reference to those beneath their feet; for they wander the mountains cutting wood. In Menander (fr. 906) there is something of this sort

93 contains an error and correction, ὑπὲρ having been mistakenly written for ὑπὸ and then scratched out. Interpretation A diple obelismene between 91 and 92, together with the fact that 92 εἰδὠς is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a new lemma. What 92 is saying is unclear; Sonnino 2007. 36 suggests that some verbal form other than εἰδώς originally governed ἐφ’ οἵων κτλ. As Kassel–Austin note, the point of the comment in 93–4 is that the feet of the individuals in question are cut on rocks or the like as they wander the mountains gathering wood. But πα[ίζων] in 92—if right—identifies this as a word play, suggesting that ῥηγµάτ[ων] (〈 ῥήγνυµι; 5th-century vocabulary) is supposed to be taken initially in a grander sense, “chasms, clefts” (sc. in the mountainside), with the meaning then corrected by the audience to “rents” (sc. in one’s flesh; for the word in this sense, e. g. Thphr. HP 9.9.5) when [κα]ὶ̣ στιγµάτων is added. The reference to “marks” and thus to “tattoos” suggests that slaves are in question (cf. fr. 277 n.); and wood-gathering, whether for commercial or household purposes (see in general Olson 1991), was generally servile labor (Ar. Ach. 272 with Olson 2002 ad loc.).75 See in general Sonnino 2007. 35–40. 75

Sonnino 2007. 39–40 notes that such work was often done by men with donkeys, and suggests an allusion to Peisander (cf. fr. 195. with n.). All of this in any case assumes that the commentator’s remarks about mountains, wood and feet are based on concrete reference to such objects in the text of Eupolis. If they are not—which is to say, if he is merely grasping for the point of a remark he does not

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

155

fr. 192w = Eup. fr. 192.96 K.-A. τοῦτ’ ἐκδανείζει καὶ κυκᾷς [τὸ]ν̣ ναυτικὸν α̣[l

l

[τὸ]ν̣ Lobel   ἀ̣[ριθµόν] Austin : δ̣[άνειον] Trojahn

You borrow this and stir up the nautical α̣[ Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. llkl llkl | llkl

k〈ll〉

Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. II.16–18 = fr. 192.96–8 K.-A. >―― 96 τοῦτ’ ἐκδανείζει καὶ κυκᾷς ̣ [τὸ]ν̣ ναυτικὸν α̣[ ἐπὶ τῷ πέµπτῳ µέρε[ι ] τοὺϲ τόκ[ουϲ οἱ ναυτικοί. ἡµεῖς δ’ ἄρ’ οἴκ[αδ’ ἄπιµ]ε̣ν. ὁ̣ τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ 96–7 suppl. Lobel  96 τοῦτ’ Lobel : τοῦτο pap.   κυκᾷς ̣ Lobel : κυκᾶς ̣ pap.    97 τῷ Lobel : τω pap.   [ ἐτέλουν ], [ διδόασι ] vel [ ἔφερον ] Harvey 96

You borrow this and stir up the nautical (masc. sing.) α̣[ at twenty percent[ ] the interest (acc.) the people involved in shipping (nom.). But we then will go home. The (masc. nom. sing.) of the (pl.)

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 95 and 96, together with the fact that space has been left empty after τοιοῦτον 95 and that 96 τοῦτ’ is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a new lemma. See in general Harvey 1976. This is the first literary evidence for bottomry loans, and X. Vect. 3.9—the source of the information in the commentary?— appears to suggest that twenty percent was something approaching an average rate (ὥσπερ ναυτικόν, σχεδὸν ἐπίπεµπτον, “like a bottomry loan, almost twenty percent”), although terms were certainly set individually in every case depending on the season, the itinerary, the political situation, the borrower’s degree of desperation and the like. In any case, whatever the individual addressed in the fragment of Eupolis has done in borrowing money, he has thrown the bottomry market into chaos—although all of this may merely be figurative language picking up e. g. on fr. 192s. For maritime loans generally,

understand—perhaps “rents (in one’s flesh)” are instead the result of being whipped by the same sort of master who applies tattoos.

156

Eupolis

see Calhoun 1930, esp. 574–9; de Ste. Croix 1974, esp. 43–52; Cohen 1989. 212–18; Millett 1991. 188–96; and for maritime trade generally, Reed 2004. ἐκδανείζει This is the earliest attestation of the verb not only in the middle meaning “borrow” (for which LSJ s. v. lists only SIG3 1068.15, an inscription from Samos dated ca. 200 BCE), but in any sense. κυκᾷς A culinary term (properly “stir”, hence κύκηθρον, “stirring utensil”, at Ar. Pax 654) also used colloquially to mean “stir up (trouble, commotion, confusion)” at [A.] PV 994, echoed at Ar. Eq. 251 and Pax 320; Cratin. Iun. fr. 7.3; Demad. frr. 75.20; 89.5; [Diph.] fr. 136.9; Men. Epitr. 428, 573; D. fr. 33; and cf. S. fr. 314.123 δεινὸς κυκησµός (“terrible confusion”); Taillardat 1967 § 597; Collard 2005. 369. For Trojahn’s [τὸ] ναυτικὸν δ̣[άνειον] at the end of the line, cf. Diph. fr. 42.21 λαλῶν τὰ ναῦλα καὶ δάνει’ ἐρυγγάνων (“chattering about passage-money and belching forth loans”; of a merchant-captain after a successful voyage). fr. 192y = Eup. fr. 192.98 K.-A. ἡµεῖς δ’ ἄρ’ οἴκ[αδ’ ἄπιµ]εν suppl. Fraenkel : ἔξιµεν Parsons

But we then will go home Meter Unknown; consistent with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. llkl rlk〈l | xlkl kll〉 Discussion Sonnino 2006. 45–8 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. II.18–19 = fr. 192.98–9 K.-A. 98 ναυτικοί. ἡµεῖς δ’ ἄρ’ οἴκ[αδ’ ἄπιµ]εν. ὁ̣ τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ πλουσίων λ̣έ̣γ̣ε̣ι ̣ χορός [ pc

ac

χορός pap. : χορόν pap. 98

involved in shipping (masc. nom. pl.). But we then will go home. The chorus of wealthy men says (this)

Interpretation No diple obelismene divides ἡµεῖς κτλ from the commentary that precedes it, but the identification of the speaker that follows leaves little doubt that this is again a lemma. Lobel 1968. 63 suggests: “since it does not start at the beginning of the line” (sc. in the papyrus), “perhaps the continuation of the preceding line which does so”, i. e. of fr. 192w. If so, the point of the emphatic contrast between what the group the speaker represents will do (note the personal pronoun—absent from Fraenkel’s parallels given below—

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

157

with ἄρ’ further marking a “lively feeling of interest”: Denniston 1950. 33–5) and what the addressee of fr. 192w might do is not obvious. Fraenkel restored the line on the basis of Ar. V. 255 ἄπιµεν οἴκαδ’ αὐτοί (“We’ll go home by ourselves”; the subsidiary chorus of boys threatens to desert their fathers); Av. 1636 ἀπίωµεν οἴκαδ’ αὖθις (“Let’s go back home again”; Poseidon urges his fellow-ambassadors to break off negotiations with Peisetairos). fr. 192z = fr. 192.100–2 K.-A. καὶ γὰρ αἱ γυναῖκ[ε]ς ὅσαι µ[ὲν ἂν] νεανίαις ξυνῶσ[ι] καταγελῶνται, [ὅσαι δ’ ] ̣[] καὶ δούλοισιν ὠφελοῦνται suppl. Lobel   102 [ὅσαι δ’ ὀνηλάταισι] Luppe, cf. 105

for also those women who spend their time with young men are laughed at, while those who and with slaves reap benefits Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic. 〈xlkl xlkl x〉lkl

kll llkl klkl | klkr kll kl〈kl xlk〉l | llkl kll

Discussion Cataudello 1975. 275–7 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. II.20–5 = fr. 192.100–5 K.-A. 100 καὶ γὰρ αἱ γυναῖκ[ε]ς ̣ ὅσαι µ[ὲν ἂν] νεανία̣ις ξυνῶσ̣ [ι] καταγελῶνται, [ὅσαι δ(ὲ) ]̣ ̣[̣] καὶ δούλοισιν ὠφελοῦνται· [] ̣[ ]σ̣ ισ ̣ ̣ υν̣[ νεανισκο[ ]δ̣ουλο[ 105 ]ο̣νη[ ]σ̣ 105 ]ο̣νη[λατ Luppe 100

105

for also those women who spend their time with young men are laughed at, while those who ]̣[̣] and with slaves reap benefits· [] ̣[ ]σ̣ ισ ̣ ̣ υν̣[ young men[ ]slave[ ]ο̣νη[ ]σ̣

158

Eupolis

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 99 and 100, together with the fact that 99 has been left blank after χορόϲ and that 100 καί is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a lemma. 103 νεανισκο[ patently recalls Eupolis’ νεανίαις, just as 104 ]δ̣ουλο[ recalls his δούλοισιν, and Luppe accordingly suggested that 105 ]ο̣νη[ might be the remains of ὀνηλάταισι (“donkey-drivers”), another group of rough but vigorous men referred to along with slaves as useful sexual partners for free women at Ar. Th. 491–2 (“(Euripides) doesn’t even mention how we are pounded by our slaves and muleteers, if we have no one else”; part of Inlaw’s ill-fated effort to argue on Euripides’ behalf before the city’s women) with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc. (and for muleteers and donkey-drivers, add fr. 195.2 (n.); Archipp. fr. 46.1 “shovel-men, gardeners and donkey-drivers”). This remark is made in justification of something said previously (1 γάρ), with women’s experiences in choosing lovers offered only as a point of comparison. 2 ξυνῶσ[ι] is ambiguous (see below), and 3 ὠφελοῦνται is a strikingly broad verb with once again no specifically sexual sense. The argumentative point must accordingly be that someone else risks being laughed at for choosing to associate with younger men, but stands to gain from having to do with slaves—all of which sounds like a tongue-in-cheek argument in favor of listening to Marikas rather than to his upstart opponent or opponents. See in general Sonnino 2006 (who suggests that “donkey-drivers” might be a way of referring specifically to Peisander; cf. fr. 195 with n.), and for the “young men” who supposedly pushed their way into Athenian politics in this period, cf. frr. 104.2; 133 with n.; 333.2. For married women taking νεανίαι (“young men”, i. e. “younger men”) as lovers, cf. fr. 109 with n. For the idea of slave-lovers servicing their mistresses, cf. also Ar. frr. 592.29–30; 715 ὅστις ἐν ἡδυόσµοις / στρώµασι παννυχίζων / τὴν δέσποιναν ἐρείδεις (“you who spend the night in sweet-smelling sheets, banging your mistress”); Herod. 5 with Headlam 1922. xlv–lxvi. For the idea of over-sexed, well-endowed tradesmen lovers taken by the wives of (implicitly wealthier) citizen-men, cf. also Ar. Lys. 407–19. 1 For καὶ γάρ, see Denniston 1950. 108–9. 2 καταγελῶνται refers to specifically hostile laughter of a sort one might expect from enemies, as at e. g. Ar. Ach. 76, 680, 1081; Eq. 161; Nu. 1238; Ec. 864; A. Ag. 1271; Hdt. 4.79.4. Cf. Lindblad 1922. 81–2 (comparing Ar. fr. 171 καταπαίζεις); Halliwell 1991b. 286–7; Halliwell 2008. 25–6; and more generally Rosen 2007, esp. 3–42. ξυνῶσ[ι] As Lobel 1968. 63 noted, the verb “is neutral, but here no doubt is to be taken in malam partem”, i. e. in the sense “have sex with”, as at e. g. Ar. Pax 863; Ec. 619, 898; Anaxil. fr. 22.12, 24; Timocl. fr. 16.6; cf. ξυνεγένου

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

159

τῷ Κλεισθένει; at Ar. Ra. 57 with Dover 1993 ad loc.; contrast the apparently non-sexual sense at e. g. fr. 367. fr. 192aa = fr. 192.120 K.-A. οὗτος, τί κέκυφας; You there! Why is your head bowed? Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. llrl x〈lkl xlkl kll〉 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. III.1–3 = fr. 192.117–21 K.-A. καὶ οἱ µὲν πένητε̣[ς οἱ δὲ πλούσιοι τῷ δεσ[πότῃ κοινῶς ὅτι ἐν τοῖς [ >―― 120 οὗτος, τί κέκυφας;[ πρὸς τὸν Ὑπέρβολον λέγει τὸ ἡµιχόρι[ον suppl. Lobel

120

and the poor men, on the one hand[ whereas the rich men, on the other hand, to the master in common that in the (masc./neut. pl.) [ You there! Why is your head bowed? The semichorus says this [to Hyper]bolos

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 119 and 120, together with the fact that 120 οὗτος is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a lemma. Cf. Ar. Eq. 1354 οὗτος, τί κύπτεις; (shame); Th. 930 οὗτος, τί κύπτεις; (shame, dejection, fear, or a mix of all three). “Hyperbolos” must mean “Hyperbolos’ representative onstage”, i. e. Marikas, who seems to have been temporarily bested. Despite 29, the chorus are once again divided at this point. οὗτος An abrupt, peremptory form of address, as at e. g. fr. 223.1 ὁ Φιλῖνος οὗτος with n.; Cratin. fr. 55; Pherecr. frr. 135; 142.1; Ar. Ach. 587; V. 1 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Pax 682 αὕτη; Lys. 437; Pl. Com. fr. 204.1; cf. Svennung 1958. 202–12; Stevens 1976. 37–8; Moorhouse 1982. 31; López Eire 1996. 112; Dickey 1996. 154–8; Jacobson 2015, esp. 197–8 (= his “call οὗτος”). κέκυφας The verb—seemingly too undignified for the tragic poets, although attested once in a compound in satyr play at E. Cyc. 212 ἀνακεκύφα-

160

Eupolis

µεν—is also used in the sense “cower, hang one’s head” at e. g. Ar. Nu. 509 τί κυπτάζεις ἔχων περὶ τὴν θύραν; (fear); V. 555 ἱκετεύουσίν θ’ ὑποκύπτοντες (a show of humility); fr. 410 ἐς τὴν γῆν κύψασα κάτω καὶ ξυννενοφυῖα (dejection?); Amphis fr. 30.6–7 ἔκυψεν ὥσπερ Τήλεφος / πρῶτον σιωπῇ (actually deliberate, rude disregard of an interlocutor, but described in what follows as appropriate behavior for a man who ought to be ashamed of himself, “for they’re all murderers”); Hdt. 3.14.3 ἔκυψε ἐς τὴν γῆν (dejection). κύφων (“stocks, pillory”, i. e. a device that holds a prisoner bent forward in a crouching position; e. g. Cratin. fr. 123; Ar. Pl. 476, 606) is a cognate. fr. 192bb = fr. 192.122–3 K.-A. Λακεδαιµονίους µεν . [ Spartans (acc.) µεν . [ Meter Unknown; consistent with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. rlrl x〈lkl xlkl kll〉 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. III.6–7 = fr. 192.122–3 K.-A. >―― Λακεδαιµονίους µεν . [ τας .  ἀπὸ κοινοῦ τ[ . ]υ̣λε .  Spartans (acc.) µεν . [ τας .  τ[ . ]υ̣λε .  is to be supplied here as well Interpretation A diple obelismene between 121 and 122, together with the fact that 122 Λακεδαιµονίους is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a lemma. 123 τας may represent the end of the lemma. ἀπὸ κοινοῦ is a common technical grammatical term used to indicate that a word or phrase that appeared earlier in the text should be supplied at this point as well (e. g. ΣVEΓΘM Ar. Eq. 1309 ἀπὸ κοινοῦ δὲ τὸ ἄρξει; ΣRE Ar. Nu. 1223 ἀπὸ κοινοῦ τὸ καλοῦµαι; ΣRVEΘ Ar. Nu. 1277 ἀπὸ κοινοῦ τὸ δοκεῖς; ΣVΓ Ar. V. 1267 ἀπὸ κοινοῦ τὸ σκαιός). The Spartans are referred to again at 182–3 (which might be either lemma or commentary), and cf. 128–9 with apparatus criticus.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

161

fr. 192cc = fr. 192.124 K.-A. ἀπολῶ γὰρ αὐτούς for I’ll destroy them Meter Unknown; consistent with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. rlkl l〈lkl xlkl kll〉 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. III.8–20 = fr. 192.124–36 K.-A. >―― ἀπολῶ γὰρ αὐτούς ω . [ 125 ρ̣υ προσχωροῦντασπ .  . [ ] .  . [ ἐπὶ δυεῖν τάττ[ε]ται [ ]τ[ . ] .   . υµν[ ] .  τοεν . [ ] . ουσ̣  .  .  . [ παραγεινέσθαι δεδ[ ους ἐφ’ ἡµᾶς  . [ ]α . [ 130 νὴ ∆̣ί̣α̣ δ̣εδ̣οι̣[κ γεµετουτε[ µειν πρ[ δεπελθοι̣[ κωσιν ει[ 135 Κλέων παφλ ̣ ̣[ παφλάζειν [ 125 et 130 suppl. Lobel   128 παραγεινέσθαι] i. e. παραγίγνεσθαι vel παραγενἐσθαι   128–9 [Λακεδαιµονί]ους tent. Lobel   133 “fort. δ᾿ ἐπελθ” Kassel– Austin   135 e. g. Παφλ̣[αγὼν λέγεται παρά τὸ] vel Παφλ̣[αγὼν λέγεται ἀπὸ µεταφορᾶς τοῦ] tent. Lobel : Παφλ̣[αγὼν λέγεται παρά τὸ τῇ φωνῇ] tent. Trojahn

125

130

for I’ll destroy them ω . [ ρ̣υ joining (masc. acc. sing./pl.) π̣  . . [ 2 ] . . [ used in two ways [ ]τ[ . ] .   . υµν[ ] .  τοεν . [ ] . ουσ̣  .  .  . [ to be present δεδ[ ους against/toward us  . [ ]α . [ (Yes), by Zeus afraid[ γεµετουτε[ µειν πρ[ δεπελθοι̣[ κωσιν ει[

is

162

Eupolis 135

Cleon παφλ̣ ̣ [ to splutter

The mark ωδ (taken by Lobel to mean ὠδή) stands in the margin at 138. Interpretation A diple obelismene between 123 and 124, together with the fact that 124 ἀπολῶ is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a lemma. I follow Kassel–Austin (p. 413) in taking 130 to be part of an additional lemma (= fr. 192dd). If Kassel–Austin’s δ᾿ ἐπελθ- is adopted in 133, those words too are likely part of a lemma. Extra space has been left between κωσιν and ει[ in 134, perhaps suggesting a transition within the text of the commentary there. ἀπολῶ … αὐτούς An over-the-top threat, as at Ar. Eq. 702; Nu. 891–2; Av. 1052. γάρ might mark this as either an explanation of some preceding remark (as in the translation offered above) or a colloquially abbreviated response to a statement by another character (“(Yes), for …” or “(No), for …”; cf. fr. 281 n.). fr. 192dd = fr. 192.130 K.-A. νὴ ∆ία δεδοι[κ suppl. Lobel

Yes, by Zeus, … afraid Meter Unknown; consistent with iambic tetrameter catalectic.

lrkl Context See fr. 192cc Citation context. Interpretation There is no diple between 129 and 130, and 130 νή is not set to the left of the material above and below it. As Lobel 1968. 64 notes, however, these words can scarcely be anything other than a quotation drawn from a comedy (cf. fr. 270.2 n.), most likely Marikas itself, and perhaps continuing directly from the text lemmatized in fr. 192cc (cf. fr. 192y n.). νὴ ∆ία See fr. 270.2 n. For the reference to Cleon—dead by the time Marikas was staged—in 135 (from the commentary on this fragment? or on another unmarked lemma?), cf. fr. 211 (which perhaps simply alludes to this passage). The image of Cleon as “Paphlagon” (or “splutterer”) is central to the plot of Aristophanes’ Knights, and either Eupolis borrowed or referenced the idea, or the commentator has chosen to mention it here for his own purposes; cf. test. 1.3–4 (= Ar. Nu. 553–4).

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

163

fr. 192ee = fr. 192.137–8 K.-A. ὥσπερ γενη[

]κως

just as γενη[

]κως

Meter Unknown; consistent with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. llkl 〈xlkl xlkl kl〉l Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. III.21–30 = fr. 192.137–46 K.-A. >―― ὥσπερ γενη[ κως ἐνίκα α[ οι χοροὶ ὅταν [ 140 ἀλλοτρίοις π[ πον στρατη[ [ἐθέλοµεν στ̣[ εστρατηγη[ ξας ἀλλα[ ] . [ 145 ]µοι ἐστιν  .  . [  . ταλλα[ ]ς µετατιθεσ̣ θ .  . [  . οπλ[ 139 fort. οἱ χοροὶ   141–2 [ἐθ]έλοµεν scripsi

just as γενη[ κως he was victorious α[ οι choruses (nom.) whenever [ 140 belonging to others (masc./neut. dat. pl.) π[ πον στρατη[ we wish στ̣[ εστρατηγη[ ξας ἀλλα[ ] . [ 145 ταλλα[ is to me  .  ]ς to be transformed  . οπλ[ Interpretation A diple obelismene between 136 and 137, together with the fact that 137 ὥσπερ is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a lemma. The typography in Austin 1973 and Kassel–Austin show that they regard 138 κωσ[ as part of the text of Eupolis (presumably the final syllable of the line), although it is omitted from their edition of the individual fragments on p. 413. Discussion of victory and choruses in 138–9 gives way in 141–3 to repeated reference to armies and/or generals, and ὥσπερ (also perhaps 146

164

Eupolis

µετατιθεσθ̣..) suggests that Eupolis’ character has used metaphorical language the commentator is attempting to unpack. fr. 192ff = fr. 192.147 K.-A. [κ]έ̣ρδ[ο]υ̣ς̣ ἕνεκα σὺ νῦν· ἐγὼ γὰρ ̣ ̣[ suppl. Lobel

you (do that) now for profit’s sake; for I Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. 〈xlkl〉 llkr klkl k〈ll〉 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1b col. III.31 + 1c col. II.4–7 = fr. 192.147–50 K.-A. >―― ]εγ . [ κ]έ̣ρδ[ο]υ̣ς̣ ἕνεκα σὺ νῦν· ἐγὼ γὰρ ̣ ̣[ εἰς ἐκκλησίαν ἕως οὗ οἱ συν̣α ̣ . [ ταί µοι, σὺ τὸ συνέδριον σκεύαζε .  [π]ρ̣ὸ̣ς̣ τ̣[ὸν 150 δεσπότην ὁ Ὑ̣π̣έρβολοϲ 148 συνδ̣ι [̣ κασ]ταί Kassel–Austin   149 suppl. Lobel

150

]εγ.̣ you now for the sake of profit· for I to (the) Assembly until the moment when the συνα̣ . [ ταί me (dat.), but you arrange the meeting. Hyperbolos (says this) to his master

Interpretation A tiny preserved portion of a diple obelismene between 146 and 147 marks the beginning of a lemma, although it is unclear whether it begins with [κ]έ̣ρδ[ο]υ̣ς ̣ ἕνεκα (thus Kassel–Austin) or with σὺ νῦν (thus Lobel). εἰς ἐκκλησίαν is inset and is thus not part of the lemma. 149 σὺ τὸ συνέδριον σκεύαζε76 is clearly an attempt to unpack the first preserved portion of the line, so 148–9 εἰς ἐκκλησίαν ἕως οὗ οἱ συνα . [ ]ταί µοι must explain what follows. Perhaps εἰς ἐκκλησίαν is intended to complete the sense of whatever originally stood at the end of the line, e. g. [εἶµι] (“for I’ll go: sc. to the Assembly, until …”). 76

For the language, cf. Pherecr. fr. 70.2–3 κατεσκευασµένον / συνέδριον τοῖς µειρακίοις (“a meeting-spot arranged for the young men”); Pl. Prt. 317d βούλεσθε … συνέδριον κατασκευάσωµεν, ἵνα καθεζόµενοι διαλέγησθε; (“Do you want us to set up a meeting, so that you can sit and talk?”).

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

165

Marikas (i. e. “Hyperbolos”) and his master are apparently arranging plans together, with Marikas taking charge of the public face of the action, while the Master makes private arrangements nominally intended to result in some great success. It is nonetheless clear that Marikas is the one in charge. Profit (κέρδος) is routinely presented elsewhere as an ugly motivation that drives men to actions and words to which they would otherwise never consider lowering themselves (e. g. Ar. Pax 699; Th. 360; Ra. 360; Demod. fr. 5.2; S. Ant. 1046–7; E. Supp. 235–6 with Collard 1975 ad loc.; Th. 3.43.1; Isoc. 21.6). For ἕνεκα, see fr. 222.3 n. ἐγώ stands in emphatic contrast to σύ (cf. fr. 192gg n.), and γάρ shows that the second clause is somehow an explanation of the order issued in the first. fr. 192gg = fr. 192.151 K.-A. ἦ µὴν ἐγώ σε σκέψοµαι γὰρ ἐ̣ν̣ ̣[ for you can be sure I’ll see you in(?) Meter Unknown; consistent with iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. llkl llkl | kl〈kl kll〉 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1c col. II.8–12 = fr. 192.151–5 K.-A. ἦ µὴν ἐγώ σε σκέψοµαι γὰρ ἐ̣ν̣ ̣[ ἦ µὴν ἐγώ σε ὄψοµαι ἀξιοῦντα̣ [ . ] .  . [ . ] . [ δ’ ἂν ἦσθα δεδεµένος ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ·  . [ τῶν γνωρίµων τινὰ καλ[ 155 ἑαυτὸν λέγει τοῦ Ὑπερβόλου κε̣[ 151 ἐ̣ν̣θ[̣ άδε] Austin

155

for you can be sure I’ll see you in(?) you can be sure I’ll see you thinking it right [ . ] .  . [ . ] . [ but you would have been bound in the stocks· someone (acc.) of his acquaintances καλ[ he says that he himself is Hyperbolos’ κε̣[

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 150 and 151, together with the fact that 151 ἦ is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, and that 152 ἦ µὴν ἐγώ σε ὄψοµαι is a paraphrase of 151 ἦ µὴν ἐγώ σε σκέψοµαι, mark 151 as a lemma. Presumably addressed by the master to Marikas, perhaps to the latter’s back as he leaves the stage.

166

Eupolis

The ξύλον (153), literally “wood”, mentioned in 153 is a punishment device similar to stocks (e. g. frr. 99.32 (conjectural) with n.; 192.112 (no context and probably part of a gloss); Ar. Eq. 367, 394, 705, 1049; Nu. 592; Pax 479 with Olson 1998 ad loc.); cf. Plu. Nic. 11.4 τῷ κύφωνι µᾶλλον προσήκων (“being more suited for the stocks”, of Hyperbolos facing ostracism; cited by Kassel– Austin). ἦ µήν “introduces a strong and confident asseveration … It is most frequently employed in oaths and pledges” (Denniston 1950. 350; elsewhere in comedy at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 5.1; Ar. Nu. 865, 1242; V. 258; Av. 1259; Antiph. fr. 185.3; Men. fr. 239.2). ἐγώ is emphatic, and the contrast with σε perhaps picks up σὺ … ἐγώ in 147. σκέψοµαι is first attested as the future of ὁρἀω here; at Ar. Eq. 154 προσκέψοµαι, 379; and in a compound at Hdt. 2.109.2 ἐπισκεψοµένους. In the classical period it is confined to comedy (also Ar. Pax 29; Ec. 749; Men. Asp. 95; fr. 349.2, 3) and prose (e. g. Th. 6.6.3, 6.40.2; X. HG 4.4.8; Mem. 3.4.11; Isoc. 15.130; Pl. Cra. 401a), aside from the appearance of the compound προσκέψοµαι at E. Andr. 257. The more common form—accordingly used in the gloss in the commentary—is ὄψοµαι (e. g. Il. 5.120; hDem. 36; Thgn. 570; A. Supp. 907; fr. **281d.2; Cratin. fr. 201.1; S. El. 1310; Hermipp. fr. 48.5; E. Alc. 506). γάρ generally stands in second position in its clause, but comedy offers numerous examples of similar delay (Dover 1985. 339–40 = 1987. 62–3). ἐ̣ν̣ ξ̣[ύλῳ] seems the obvious supplement (cf. 153), although Lobel insisted that the letter-traces rule it out. fr. 192hh = fr. 192.156 K.-A. λύω λέσχας I’m breaking off the conversation Meter Anapaestic.

llll Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1c col. II.13 = fr. 192.156 K.-A. >―― λύω λέσχας. ὁ χορὸς πρὸς τ[ τ[ὸ θέατρον] Lobel

I’m breaking off the conversation. The chorus to τ[

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

167

Interpretation “It may be worth while to remark that at this point the commentary may have reached the parabasis; both the lemma λύω λέσχας and, if it is a lemma, πρὸς τὸ θέατρον are compatible with the anapaests to be expected and are suitable in content” (Lobel 1968. 65). Cf. Pl. Com. fr. 244 ap. Diogenian. 6.32 λύω λέσχας· Πλάτων φησὶ λέγεσθαι ὁπόταν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα ἐξήρχοντο (“I’m breaking off the conversation: Plato claims this is said when they go off to their work”). Lobel 1968. 65 (followed by Kassel–Austin) suggested that the commentary identified this remark as addressed to the audience (πρὸς τ[ὸ θέατρον]). This seems odd and unnecessary if the next lemma (= fr. 192ii) is precisely πρὸς τὸ θέατρον, and it might be better to think of the remark as addressed e. g. to the master (πρὸς τ[ὸν δεσπότην]), with the turn to the audience coming only after he and Marikas are offstage. A λέσχη (etymology uncertain, but probably an Eastern loan-word), indifferently singular or plural, is a lounging spot (e. g. Od. 18.329; Hes. Op. 493, 501; Cratin. fr. 175.3; Poll. 9.49) and by extension conversation of the sort that goes on in one (e. g. A. Ch. 665; S. Ant. 160; Hdt. 2.32.1; E. Hipp. 384; IA 1001; cf. Thgn. 613 λεσχάζω). fr. 192ii = fr. 192.157 K.-A. πρὸς τὸ θέατρον to the audience Meter Anapaestic.

lrlx Context POxy. 2741 fr. 1c col. II.14 = fr. 192.157 K.-A. πρὸς τὸ θέατρον· ἐν µὲν τῷ ε̣[ to the audience: on the one hand, in the ε̣[ Wilson 1976b. 15 suggests that the odd marginal sign that stands in the left margin may be intended to mean ὡρ(αῖον) (“good point”; e. g. McNamee 2007 #2953 (Gaius)), “if it is not simply an attempt at decoration”, while McNamee 1981. 91 interprets it as perhaps standing for χρ(ηστόν). Interpretation For θέατρον (literally “theater”; 5th-century vocabulary) in the extended sense “audience”, e. g. Metag. fr. 15.2; Ar. Ach. 629 πρὸς τὸ θέατρον; Eq. 233, 508 πρὸς τὸ θέατρον; Pax 735 πρὸς τὸ θέατρον; Pl. Smp. 194a; and cf. frr. 205.1 n.; 392.1 n. (both on θεατής).

168

Eupolis

From POxy. 2741 fr. 4  Despite the impression created by the continuous numbering in Kassel–Austin, the relationship between the material commented on in POxy. 2741 fr. 4 and POxy. 2741 frr. 1 and 5 is obscure, except that the lemmata preserved in POxy. 2741 fr. 1 came earlier in the play, seemingly putting the material in POxy. 2741 frr. 4 and 5 after the parabasis. fr. 192jj = fr. 192.165 K.-A. ’ ἐκ πονηρῶν τῷ νόθῳ ]’ ἐκ pap. : [ἀλλ]᾽ ἐκ Austin

from base people/things to the bastard (masc.) Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic trimeter. e. g. 〈x〉lkl l|lkl 〈xlkl〉 Discussion Luppe 1975. 200–1 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 4.1–12 = fr. 192.158–69 K.-A. ]α̣ιδ̣ ̣ι ̣δ̣ω̣µ̣[ ]γ̣µατα [ ] λέγω . [ 160 ]ν̣υσιν φανερ̣α . [ δ[ ]ων κτ̣η̣µ[ οικ . [ ]να̣ . []ων̣ . [ φειν τὰς οἰκί[ας ]αιταν̣[ τὰ χρυσία τὰ ἀργυρ[ώµ]ατα καὶ τ[ 165 [ . ]υ̣ν̣ φησιν τωι ̣[ ] . λ . ι̣ὸυτω̣ α̣[ >―― ]’ ἐκ πονηρῶν τ̣ῷ ν̣όθῳ . [ ] Ἀ̣ σπασίας ἐπισκ[έ]ψ̣ασ̣ θαι δε[ ]ει ἢ Πάραλον· ἀµφότεροι γὰρ [ ] ἕτερος αὐτῶν µετήλλαχεν[ 162 [γυ]να̣ι[̣ κ]ῶν̣ tent. Lobel   163 suppl. Lobel   166 τ̣ω ν̣όθω pap.   166–7 [τῷ] | [ἐξ] Ἀ̣σπασίας Luppe   167–8 δε[ῖ πότερον Ξάνθιππον λέ|[γ]ει ἢ Πάραλον· ἀµφότεροι γὰρ [νόθοι] Lobel : δὲ [δεῖ, εἰ Περικλέα λέ|[γ]ει ἢ Πάραλον· ἀµφότεροι γὰρ [νόθοι] Luppe   169 [ὁ δ᾽] ἕτερος Luppe   µετήλλαχεν[ λοιµῷ νοσήσας] Austin : µετηλλαχέν[αι λέγεται] Lobel

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

160

165

169

]α̣ιδ̣ ̣ιδ̣ ̣ω̣µ̣[ ]γ̣µατα [ ] say . [ ]ν̣υσιν apparent δ[ ]ων possession οικ . [ ]να̣ . []ων̣ . [ φειν the houses ]αιταν̣[ the gold coins, the silver vessels and τ[ [ . ]υ̣ν̣ he says τωι ̣[ ] . λ . ι̣ὸυτω̣α̣[ ]’ from base people/things to the bastard (masc.) [ ] of Aspasia to consider δε[ ]ει or Paralos· for both (nom.) [ ] the other (nom.) of them was dead [

Interpretation A diple obelismene between 165 and 166 marks the beginning of a lemma. The material in 158–65, glossing at least one now-lost lemma preceding this one and perhaps containing fragments of the text of Eupolis, refers in 165 to various valuable commodities. Little more can be extracted from it; Lobel 1968. 67 compared fr. 162 (traditionally taken to describe the looting of Callias’ house by his guests). Given the reference to Aspasia (fr. 267 n.) in 167, the bastard (τῷ νόθῳ) in question must be Pericles II (PA 11812 = PAA 772650), her son by the Athenian statesman Pericles, also referred to as a bastard at fr. 110.1 (n.). The point of the note is presumably to distinguish Pericles II from one or the other of Pericles’ sons by his first marriage, Xanthippos (PA 11170 = PAA 730515) and Paralos (PA 11612 = PAA 765275), both of whom died of the plague in 430 BCE (Plu. Per. 36.4; Mor. 118e); see Davies 1971. 457–8. Pericles II, on the other hand, survived until 406 BCE, when he was among the generals executed in the aftermath of the naval disaster at Arginusae (X. HG 1.7.34; Plu. Per. 37.5). Cf. fr. 192kk n. fr. 192kk = fr. 192.170 K.-A. οἰσ⸥υουργῷ γ’ ἀνδρί, νὴ τὸν ∆ιοκλέα to a wicker-worker, at any rate, by Diocles Meter Iambic trimeter. e. g. 〈x〉lkl

llk|l

lrkl

170

Eupolis

Context POxy. 2741 fr. POxy. 2741 fr. 4.13–14 = fr. 192.170–1 K.-A. 170 οἰσ]υ̣ουργῷ γ’ ἀνδρί, νὴ τὸν ∆ιοκλέ[α κ]λεα προσθεὶς ∆ιοκλέα εἴρηκε . [ ]υουργῷ : ]υουργω pap. 170

to a wicker-worker, at any rate, by Diocles after adding -cles he mentions Diocles

Poll. 7.176 = Eup. fr. 433 K. τὸν δὲ οἰσυοπλόκον ο ἰ σ υ ο υ ρ γ ὸ ν καλεῖ Εὔπολις Eupolis calls a wicker-weaver a w i c k e r - w o r k e r

Citation context From a discussion of words having to do with weaving of all kinds. Interpretation While we cannot know how much text separated frr. 192jj, 192kk and 192ll, the presence of a masculine singular dative in each line suggests a common syntactic thread. Perhaps Pericles II (fr. 192jj with n.) is also the “wicker-worker” (cf. below on νὴ τὸν ∆ιοκλέα), in which case this must be an insult that recalls e. g. his ownership of a slave workshop producing such goods (cf. the sneering reference to politician “sellers” of this and that at Ar. Eq. 129–44) and sets up the sarcastic response in 192ll. οἰσυουργῷ οἰσύα appears to be another word for willow-branches (cf. Suda οι 182 οἰσύα· ἰτέα), which were woven into wicker-work shields (Th. 4.9.1; X. HG 2.4.25; Poll. 1.133) and various other goods; cf. Lycurg. 1.112 παρὰ τὴν κρήνην τὴν ἐν τοῖς οἰσύοις (“beside the spring in the wicker-work”, i. e. “the wicker-work market”); Aen. Tact. 19.11–12 ἀσπίδων ἐπεὶ οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ τρόπῳ ἐδύναντο ἑτοιµάσασθαι οὐδὲ εἰσαγαγέσθαι, πλῆθος οἰσυῶν καὶ ἐργάτας ἅµα τούτων εἰσηγάγοντο. καὶ ἐν µὲν τῷ φανερῷ ἄλλα ἀγγεῖα ἔπλεκον, ἐν δὲ ταῖς νυξὶν ὅπλα, περικεφαλαίας καὶ ἀσπίδας, ἔπλεκον (“when they were unable to prepare or import shields in any other way, they imported a large supply of willow-branches and workmen along with them. And when the sun was out (these men) wove vessels of other sorts, but at night they wove hoplite equipment, helmets and shields”). For basketry generally, see Forbes 1964. 180–6. οἰσυουργός is attested only here, which merely shows how thin our knowledge of certain types of vocabulary is; cf. the similarly ill-attested ἀγαλµατοποιός (“statue-maker”; Poll. 1.12), ἁµαξουργός (“wagon-maker”; Ar. Eq. 464), δακτυλιουργός (“ring-maker”; Pherecr. fr. 234; Philyll. fr. 14), δρεπανουργός (“sickle-maker”; Pherecr. fr. 137.2; Ar. Pax 548), κλινουργός (“couch-maker”; Pl. R. 597a), κρανουργός (“helmet-maker”; Poll. 7.155), νεουργός (“ship-maker”; Poll. 1.84), ξιφουργός (“sword-maker”; Ar. Pax

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

171

547), παλαιουργός (“cobbler”; Poll. 7.82), πεµµατουργός (“cake-maker”; Luc. Sat. 13), πλινθουργός (“brick-maker”; Pl. Tht. 147a), σηµατουργός (“shield-device-maker”; A. Th. 491) and σιδηρουργός (“iron-worker”; Thphr. HP 4.8.5). ἀνδρί When a particular individual is in question, Greek treats words designating occupations and the like as adjectives and adds ἀνήρ; cf. frr. 42.1; 117; 239 with n.; Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.271–2. νὴ τὸν ∆ιοκλέα Diocles was a legendary king of Eleusis who was driven out by either Theseus (Plu. Thes. 10.3) or Eumolpos (ΣK Theoc. 12.27–33) to Megara and was worshipped as a hero there (LSCG suppl. no. 10.71). Cf. Ar. Ach. 774 ναὶ τὸν ∆ιοκλέα (a Megarian is speaking) with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Gow 1952 on Theoc. 12.29; Richardson 1974 on hDem. 153. The commentary suggests that the oath is here an unexpected variant of the common colloquial νὴ τὸν ∆ία (“by Zeus”; cf. fr. 270.2 n.) via some sort of word-play on a name ending in -cles—doubtless “Pericles” (fr. 192jj with n.). fr. 192ll = fr. 192.192 K.-A. [δίδ]ωµι τῷ καλῷ τῷ Lobel : τω pap.

I offer to the handsome man Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic trimeter. e. g. 〈xl〉kl k|lkl 〈xlkl〉 Context POxy. 2741 fr. 4.15 = fr. 192.172–4 K.-A. ν 172 δίδ]ωµι τῷ καλῷ· σαρκάζω α[ ] . []νµ[ . ]ν µακρὸν ἔχει τοδ[ ] ὑπαλλαγῇ κέχρη[τ]αι τῷ [ 172

I offer to the handsome man; sneering (masc. nom. sing.) α[ ] . []νµ[ . ]ν he has this(?) great/large he has used a substitute term to/for the (masc./neut.)

Interpretation The sarcasm identified in 172 presumably consists in calling the individual in question (Pericles II?; cf. fr. 192kk n.) “handsome” when the speaker actually believes that he is not. This is different from the metonymy or periphrasis referenced in 194, which may have to do with whatever additional information is offered in 193 (concealing another lemma?). [δίδ]ωµι Cf. fr. 271.1 n., and note 158 ]α̣ιδ̣ ̣ιδ̣ ̣ω̣µ̣[ (suggesting that what is offered here is connected with the wealth of various sorts described at 164?).

172

Eupolis

From POxy. 2741 fr. 5 Despite the impression created by the continuous numbering in Kassel–Austin, the relationship between the material commented on in POxy. 2741 fr. 5 and POxy. frr. 1 and 4 is obscure, except that the lemmata in POxy. 2741 fr. 1 came earlier in the play, seemingly putting the material in POxy. 2741 frr. 4 and 5 after the parabasis. fr. 192mm = fr. 192.185, 187 K.-A. ⸤ἠκούσατ’, ὦ⸥ ξυνήλικες

⸤ὑµεῖς γά⸥ρ, ὦ φρενοβλαβεῖς Meter Iambic trimeter. = fr. 193.5, 7, where see n. This fragment is our only evidence for how closely the commentary treated the text of Eupolis, in this case skipping only a single verse between lemmata, thus suggesting that some of the material in 176–84—mostly so fragmentary that nothing can be made out, although there may be a reference to a king and to Sparta or Spartans—represents notes on fr. 193.1–4. fr. 192nn = fr. 192.190 K.-A. πρὸς τὸ δι̣δόµ[ενον] δι̣δόµ[ενον] scripsi

to what is offered Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic trimeter.

lkkkkk Context POxy. 2741 fr. 5 col. II.1–2 = fr. 192.190–1 K.-A. 190 πρὸς τὸ δι̣δοµ[ενον >―― Κορινθίων .α[ 190

to what is offered Corinthians (gen.) .α[

Interpretation A paragraphos between 190 and 191 (omitted by Lobel 1968 and Austin 1973, but included in Kassel–Austin) suggests that 191 is commen-

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

173

tary and thus that 190 is a lemma. The reference to the Corinthians (a Spartan ally) in 191 is likely connected somehow to the charge of treachery referenced in fr. 192oo. Although 24 lines of text are missing between 189 and 190, the accusation may nonetheless have followed up on the one being developed in fr. 193 (n.). fr. 192oo = fr. 192.192–3 K.-A. ὅστις προδοσίας τ̣[l

k l]κληθήσοµαι ac

pc

τ[ήµερον] Fraenkel : fort. τ[ῆς πόλεως]   κληθήσοµαι pap. : βληθήσοµαι pap. : [δια]βληθήσοµαι Lobel : fort. [προσ]κληθήσοµαι

(me), someone who will be indicted for treachery Meter Iambic trimeter. e. g. llrl

l|〈lkl〉

llkl

Context POxy. 2741 fr. 5 col. II.3–4 = fr. 192.192–3 K.-A. >―― 192 ὅστις προδοσίας τ̣[ κληθήσοµαι. εἰς δἰκ[ην δἰκ[ην] Trojahn 192

(me), someone who will be indicted for treachery: into court

For εἰς δἰκην in this sense, e. g. X. Mem. 2.9.5 προσεκαλέσατο εἰς δίκην δηµοσίαν; Pl. Lg. 767b ἄγων εἰς δίκην; Poll. 8.46; Harp. p. 261.1–2 = Π 103 Keaney πρόσκλησις· ἡ εἰς δικαστήριον κλῆσις. καὶ προσκαλέσασθαι τὸ παραγγέλλειν εἰς δίκην. Interpretation A diple obelismene between 191 and 192 marks the beginning of a new lemma. In contrast to ὅς (“who”), which provides straightforward factual information, ὅστις + first-person verb offers a characterization of the speaker (“the sort of person who, someone who” vel sim.; e. g. Ar. Eq. 353–5, 861–2; Nu. 1380; V. 518, 1167). προδοσίας … κληθήσοµαι For καλέω (or προσκαλέω) in the middle in the sense “summon into court, indict” (here passive, “be summoned”), see LSJ s. v. I.4.b. For the genitive of charge, cf. Ar. V. 1406–7 προσκαλοῦµαί σ’ … / … βλάβης τῶν φορτίων, 1417–18 προσκαλοῦµαί σ’ … / ὕβρεως; Av. 1046

174

Eupolis

καλοῦµαι Πεισέταιρον ὕβρεως; Poultney 1936. 101–2, esp. 102. διαβάλλω, to a form of which the papyrus has been corrected (“I shall be slandered”), does not appear to be used thus with the genitive.77 προδοσία is 5th-/4th-century vocabulary (e. g. A. fr. **132c.20; Hdt. 6.10; E. Hel. 1633; Th. 1.110.3; X. HG 1.7.33; Pl. Lg. 917c), but is attested nowhere else in comedy and in the 4th century is exclusively prosaic. fr. 192pp = fr. 192.194 K.-A. ἀγοραίων ἀγοραίων Tammaro : ἀγοράων pap.

market-folk (gen.) Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic trimeter.

kkll Context POxy. 2741 fr. 5 col. II.5 = fr. 192.194 K.-A. >―― ἀγοράων· τῶν κατα̣[ ἀγοραίων· τῶν κατ᾽ ἀ̣[γορὰν διατριβόντων (“market-folk: those who spend time in RΓ the marketplace”; cf. Σ Ar. Lys. 556 ἀγοράζοντας· ἐν ἀγορᾷ διατρίβοντας) Tammaro

marketplaces (gen.): those κατα̣[ Interpretation A paragraphos, seemingly produced by a different hand than that of the main scribe, divides 193 and 194 and marks the beginning of a new lemma; ἀγοράων is perhaps also set slightly to the left of the material above it in 193. The typography in Kassel–Austin suggests that they regard the word, like 195 προτελοῦσι, as drawn from Eupolis, although it is missing from their edition of the fragments on p. 413. The papyrus’ ἀγοράων is an epic form (Il. 2.275; Od. 4.818), which would be out of place here, and Tammaro 1973–1974b. 220 suggested a simple change to ἀγοραίων (5th-/4th-century vocabulary, e. g. Hdt. 1.93.2; X. HG 6.2.23; Pl. Prt. 347c). The word is likely uncomplimentary (“vulgar”), as at e. g. Ar. Eq. 218; Pax 750; Ra. 1015.

77

Nor with the accusative, for which προδοσίας might also be taken.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

175

fr. 192qq = fr. 192.195 K.-A. προσελοῦσι προσελοῦσι vel προυσελοῦσι Tammaro : προτελοῦσι pap. : προτέλ〈λ〉ουσι Luppe

they abuse Meter Compatible with iambic trimeter. rlk (or reading προυσελοῦσι, lklk) Context POxy. 2741 fr. 5 col. II.6 = fr. 192.195 K.-A. >―― 195 προσελοῦσι· προπη[λακίζουσι. αὐτοκάρδαλον· τινες γρά-] sic Tammaro : προτελοῦσι προπη[ pap. : προτέλ〈λ〉ουσι· προπη[δῶσι Luppe 195

they abuse: they mistreat. autokardalon: some authorities write

Interpretation A paragraphos divides 194 and 195 and marks the beginning of a new lemma—προτελοῦσι may also be set slightly to the left of the material below it in 196—while an extra letter-space between προτελοῦσι and προπη[ is perhaps to be taken as separating lemma and commentary. The typography in Kassel–Austin suggests that they regard προσελοῦσι (or whatever is to be printed), like 194 ἀγοραίων, as drawn from Eupolis, although the word is missing from their edition of the fragments on p. 413. Only three Greek verbs begin προπη- (προπηδάω, προπήγνυµι and προπηλακίζω), and προσελοῦσι (cf. Ael. Ep. 3 προσελούµενον, presumably a learned Atticism; in the form προυσελ- at Ar. Ra. 730; [A.] PV 438, the only other attestations), proposed by Tammaro 1973–1974b. 220–1 in place of the paradosis προτελοῦσι (“they pay in advance”), is supported by Hsch. π 3721 57 προσελεῖ· προπηλακίζει; ΣRVEθBarbV Ar. Ra. 730 ~ Suda π 2635 προσελοῦµεν· ἀντὶ τοῦ προπηλακίζοµεν, ἐλαύνοµεν, εἰσβάλλοµεν. fr. 192rr = fr. 192.195 K.-A. (fr. 200 K.) αὐτοκάρδαλον autokardalon Meter Compatible with iambic trimeter.

lklkx

176

Eupolis

Context POxy. 2741 fr. 5 col. ii.6–9 = fr. 192.195–8 K.-A. 195 προσελοῦσι· προπη[λακίζουσι. αὐτοκάρδαλον· τινὲς γρά-] >―― φουσιν αὐτοκάβδαλ̣[ον διὰ τοῦ β. αὐτοκάβ]δαλα λέγεται τὰ ἐπικαθ ̣[ ἅπερ ε]ἰώθασι κάπτειν αἱ ἀλετρί[δες ] ἐ̣κ195 προσελοῦσι· προπη[λακίζουσι] Tammaro : προτελοῦσι προπη[ pap.   [αὐτοκάρδαλον] scripsi, cf. Synag. : [αὐτοκάρδαλα] Kassel–Austin : [αὐτοκά.δαλα] iam Austin 1973   [τινὲς] Luppe   195–6 [γρά]φουσιν Lobel   196 αὐτοκάβδαλ̣[ον] scripsi, cf. Synag. : αὐτοκάβδαλ[α] Austin 1973   [διὰ τοῦ β] Luppe   [αὐτοκάβ]δαλα Austin 1973   197 [ἅπερ ε]ἰώθασι Austin 1973   198 ἀλετρί[δες] suppl. Lobel 195

they abuse: they mistreat. autokardalon: some authorities write autokabdalon [with a beta. autokab]dala is the term for the ἐπικαθ ̣[ which ] grinding-women are accustomed to gobble down (kaptein) ek-

Synag. B α 2471 α ὐ τ ο κ ά ρ δ α λ ο ν · Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ (Meineke : Μακαρικάσῃ Synag.) a u t o k a r d a l o n : Eupolis in Marikas (thus Meineke : Makarikasê Synag.)

Citation context An isolated lexicographic entry. Interpretation A diple obelismene between 195 and 196 marks the beginning of a new lemma. αὐτοκάρδαλον Austin 1973 (followed by Kassel–Austin) opted for the plural to agree with 196 [αὐτοκάβ]δαλα. Given that the Synag. offers αὐτοκάρδαλον, it seems easier to print the singular both here and in 196, and to assume a switch to the plural in the definition offered at the end of 196. αὐτοκάρδαλος is attested nowhere else and might simply be an error. The etymology of αὐτοκάβδαλος, with which αὐτοκάρδαλος is equated here, is uncertain; the attempt in 197–8 to derive the second element from κάπτω + ἀλετρίς is merely a wild, misguided guess. Elsewhere the word is used to mean “improvised” and thus by extension “not to be taken seriously”: – Arist. Rh. 1408a12–13 µήτε περὶ εὐόγκων αὐτοκαβδάλως λέγηται µήτε περὶ εὐτελῶν σεµνῶς (appropriate style is when “weighty matters are not discussed in an autokabdalos fashion, nor trivial matters in an elevated fashion”), 1415b38–1416a1 (a speech without a preface would seem αὐτοκάβδαλα), with anon. CAG XXI.2 p. 186.1–2 λέγεται δὲ καὶ αὐτοκάβδαλον τὸ ταπεινὸν καὶ εὐτελὲς καὶ αὐτόξεστον καὶ αὐτοσχέδιον (“what is base and cheap, extemporized and improvised is called autokabdalos”)

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

177

– Lyc. 745 ἀναυλόχητον αὐτοκάβδαλον σκάφος (“an ill-harboring, handmade hull” vel sim.; of the raft Odysseus fashions for himself on Calypso’s island) – Sosibius FGrH 595 F *7 = com. dor. test. 2 and Semus FGrH 396 F 24 ap. Ath. 14.621f–2b (groups of crude comic performers known inter alia as αὐτοκάβδαλοι;78 cf. Luc. Lex. 10; Hsch. α 8421 αὐτοκάβδαλα· αὐτοσχέδια ποιήµατα. εὐτελῆ, “autokabdala: improvised poems; cheap”) – Et.Gen. AB αὐτοκάβδαλον δὲ τὸ εἰκῇ καὶ ὡσαύτως καὶ αὐτουργὸν γεγονός. κυρίως δὲ ἡ λέξις ἐπὶ τῶν ἀλφίτων εἴρηται· τὸ ὡς ἔτυχεν φυραθὲν ἄλευρον αὐτοκάβδαλον (‘That which is produced randomly and any-which-way and with one’s own hands is autokabdalos”—glossing Lycophron—“but the word is properly used in reference to barley groats; flour that is carelessly milled is autokabdalon”). fr. 192ss = fr. 192.198–9 K.-A. ἐ̣κφατνίσµατα manger-droppings Meter Unknown; compatible with iambic trimeter.

lllkx Context POxy. 2741 fr. 5 col. II.10–15 = fr. 192.198–203 K.-A. κάπτειν αἱ ἀλετρί[δες ] ἐ̣κ>―― φατνίσµατα δὲ τὰ [ ]ό̣µε200 να, φρυά̣[µα ]̣̣ τρεφουσ̣ [ θαρτοι[ µη ̣ ̣ τ. [ 199–200 τὰ [ἐκ τῆς φάτνης ἐκβαλλ]ό̣µενα, φρυά̣[γµατα] Luppe   201–2 [ἀκά] θαρτοι Austin : fort. θ᾽ ἄρτοι[

200

78

grinding-women gobble down [ ekphatnismata are what is [ φρυά̣[γµ nourish[ θαρτοι[ µ̣η̣ τ. [

] But ]-ed ]̣̣

Beekes 2010 s. v. mistakenly attributes a use of the word in this sense to Eupolis.

178

Eupolis

Interpretation A small diple obelismene between 198 and 199 marks the beginning of a new lemma. A φάτνη (substrate vocabulary?) is a “crib, manger, feed-trough”, but the word is used in the extended sense “feeding place, source of food” at Eub. fr. 126.2; cf. colloquial English “put on the feed bag”. This is far and away the earliest attestation of ἐκφατνίσµατα, which refers to food that falls out of a manger when an animal is feeding, and thus by extension to scraps that drop from a dinner table, at: – Posid. FGrH 87 F 9a = F 61a Edelstein–Kidd (distinguished from what is consumed at a feast, on the one hand, and what is carried home from it, on the other) – Philostr. VA 1.19 (Damis’ collecting the sayings of Apollonius, recording even chance remarks, in his δέλτος ἡ τῶν ἐκφατνισµάτων compared by a hostile critic to how dogs eat what falls from a table) – Ath. 6.270d κἂν ἐκφατνίσµατά τινα ἄρτων ἔχῃς, δὸς τοῖς κυσίν (“and if you have any ekphatnismata of bread, give them to the dogs/Cynics”; probably a learned Atticism). Other definitions are offered at: – Poll. 10.166 ἐκφατνίσµατα δὲ αἱ σανίδες αἱ ἀναιρούµεναι ἐκ τῆς φάτνης ὡς καθαίρεσθαι τὰ περιττά (“ekphatnismata are the boards removed from a manger in order to clean the rest”; referring to an individual slat pulled out at the bottom? or simply a wild guess?) – Hsch. ε 1795 ἐκφατνίσµατα· τὰ ἐκβαλλόµενα, ὅτε καθαίρωσι τὰς φάτνας (“ekphatnismata: what is thrown out when they clean mangers”). What this has to do with 200 φρυά̣[γµα] (“snorting, whinnying”) is unclear— except that the latter word is used of high-spirited horses (esp. X. Eq. 11.12), which also feed at mangers.

From POxy. 2741 fr. 7 Despite the impression created by the continuous numbering in Kassel–Austin, the relationship between the material commented on in POxy. 2741 fr. 7 and the other fragments of the papyrus is obscure, except that the lemmata in POxy. 2741 fr. 1 came earlier in the play, seemingly putting the material in POxy. 2741 fr. 7 after the parabasis.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 192)

179

fr. 192tt = fr. 192.230–5 K.-A. 230

235

συ[ >―― ]υποτ[ προ[ ι̣· [ >―― φ . [ το[

Meter Unknown. Interpretation Nothing can be said of this material except that it represents the remains of a series of glosses and commentary on them, with transitions marked by paragraphoi.

From POxy. 2741 fr. 8 Despite the impression created by the continuous numbering in Kassel–Austin, the relationship between the material commented on in POxy. 2741 fr. 8 and the other fragments of the papyrus is obscure, except that the lemmata in POxy. 2741 fr. 1 came earlier in the play, seemingly putting the material in POxy. 2741 fr. 8 after the parabasis. fr. 192uu = fr. 192.237–42 K.-A.

240

240

] . ο . [ ] . ωντα[ . ]χαιρ . [ ]ειν· παρὰ τὸ Ἀρχιλ̣[οχ ]κ̣οισιν .  .  . [ ] . ποκα . [ ] . υ̣[ ] . ο . [ ] . ωντα[ . ]χαιρ . [ ]ειν· alluding to the Archilochean ]κ̣οισιν .  .  . [ ] . ποκα . [ ] . υ̣[

180

Eupolis

= Archil. fr. 260. Some of the material in 237–8 may be the lemma; perhaps 240–2 contained the Archilochus. Discussion Cataudello 1975. 277–9

From POxy. 2741 fr. 10 Despite the impression created by the continuous numbering in Kassel– Austin, the relationship between the material commented on in POxy. 2741 fr. 10 and the other fragments of the papyrus is obscure, except that the lemmata in POxy. 2741 fr. 1 came earlier in the play, seemingly putting the material in POxy. 2741 fr. 10 after the parabasis. fr. 192vv = fr. 192.247–57 K.-A.

250

255

>―― η[  . [ τα̣[ >―― µ[ [ στρ̣[ >―― αει[ >―― ε̣πε[ ο[ >―― σ[ δε̣[ >――

Meter Unknown. Interpretation Nothing can be said of this material except that it represents the remains of a series of glosses and commentary on them, with transitions marked by paragraphoi.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 193)

181

fr. 193 K.-A. (181 K.)

5

(Α.) πόσου χρόνου γὰρ συγγεγένησαι Νικίᾳ; (Β.) οὐδ’ εἶδον, εἰ µὴ ’ναγχος ἑστῶτ’ ἐν ἀγορᾷ. (Α.) ἁνὴρ ὁµολογεῖ Νικίαν ἑορακέναι. καίτοι τί µαθὼν ἂν εἶδεν, εἰ µὴ προυδίδου; (Χο. πενήτων) ἠκούσατ’, ὦ ξυνήλικες, ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ Νικίαν εἰληµµένον; (Χο. πλουσίων) ὑµεῖς γάρ, ὦ φρενοβλαβεῖς, λάβοιτ’ ἂν ἄνδρ’ ἄριστον † ἐν κακῷ τινι;

3 ἑορακέναι Runkel : ἑωρακέναι Plu.   4 µαθὼν Plu. : παθὼν Anon.   8 λάβοιτ’] fort. βάλοιτ’   ἐν Plu. : ἐπί Kaibel

5

(A.) So then—how recently have you spent time with Nicias? (B.) I never even saw him, except recently standing in the marketplace. (A.) The man admits that he’s seen Nicias! And what was he up to when he saw him—unless he was engaged in treachery? (Chorus of poor men) Did you hear, agemates, how Nicias has been caught red-handed? (Chorus of rich men) What? You fools, would you seize an excellent man † in some trouble

Plu. Nic. 4.3–5 οὐκ ὀλίγοι περὶ αὐτὸν ἦσαν αἰτοῦντες καὶ λαµβάνοντες. ἐδίδου γὰρ οὐχ ἧττον τοῖς κακῶς ποιεῖν δυναµένοις ἢ τοῖς εὖ πάσχειν ἀξίοις, καὶ ὅλως πρόσοδος ἦν αὐτοῦ τοῖς τε πονηροῖς ἡ δειλία καὶ τοῖς χρηστοῖς ἡ φιλανθρωπία. λαβεῖν δὲ περὶ τούτων µαρτυρίαν καὶ παρὰ τῶν κωµικῶν ἔστι. Τηλεκλείδης (fr. 44) µὲν γὰρ εἴς τινα τῶν συκοφαντῶν ταυτὶ πεποίηκε· ――. ὁ δ’ ὑπ’ Εὐπόλιδος κωµῳδούµενος ἐν τῷ Μαρικᾷ παράγων τινὰ τῶν ἀπραγµόνων καὶ πενήτων λέγει· ―― Many people surrounded (Nicias) asking for money and getting it. For he used to offer it as freely to those who were capable of doing him damage as to those who deserved good treatment, and in general his cowardice was as much a source of income to bad individuals as his kindness was to decent ones. Evidence regarding these matters is provided by the comic poets. For Telecleides (fr. 44), on the one hand, wrote the following in regard to one of the sycophants: ――. While the man mocked by Eupolis in his Marikas brings onstage someone apolitical and poor and then says: ―― POxy. 2741 fr. 5 col. i.11–15 = fr. 192.176–9 2 ]σ̣ κοσ[ ] .  ]και̣ . ω̣

182

Eupolis

180

µ 185

χόριον βεῖς

] . τιµην ] ]τινων .  ]ιλευσ ]α .  . ο̣ν Λακεδαι] ]µηνειστα ⸤ἠκούσατ’,] ὦ ξυνήλικες ] . ο̣ν̣ τ̣ὸ̣ ἡµιὑµεῖς γά]ρ, ὦ φρενοβλα] 5 ] .  .  . µε . ·[ ] .  .  .  . [ 2

180

185

chorus would you

]σ̣ κοσ[ ] .  ]και̣  . ω̣ ] . τιµην ] ]τινων· ]ιλευσ ]α .  . ο̣ν Sparta ] ]µηνειστα [Did you hear,] agemates, ] . ο̣ν̣ the semiWhat?], you fools ] 5 ] .  .  . µε . ·[ ] .  .  .  . [

Poll. 6.159 Εὔπολις δὲ συµβίοτοι (fr. 484), συµπάροικοι (fr. 189), καὶ σ υ ν ή λ ι κ ε ς δ’ ὁ αὐτὸς (v. 5) εἶπε Eupolis [used] symbiotoi (fr. 484) [and] symparoikoi (fr. 189), and the same author also used s y n ê l i k e s (v. 5)

Meter Iambic trimeter (1–4, 6, 8) and dimeter (5, 7).

5

klkl llkl llkr llrl llkl klkl klkl klkl

l|lrl llkl l|lk|l lrkl l|lkl krkl k|lk|l llkl klkl l|lkl llkl klkl klk|l klkl

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 193)

183

Discussion Bergk 1838. 355–6; Meineke 1839 II.500–1; Schiassi 1944. 85–6; Tammaro 1973–1974a. 188–90; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 207–8; Sonnino 2006. 48–9; Olson 2007. 215–16 (E23); Napolitano 2012. 52–4 Citation context Plutarch—presumably drawing on some pre-existing collection of material (cf. fr. 221 with n.)—cites this fragment along with Telecl. fr. 44, Ar. Eq. 358 and Phryn. Com. fr. 62 in support of his claim that Nicias was easily intimidated and thus open to extortion. At Nic. 8.2, Plutarch also cites Ar. Av. 639–40 (on Nicias as a ditherer); fr. 102 (on Nicias paying enormous bribes), likely from the same source. The material in 176–84 is likely a mixture of lemmata and commentary.79 Note in particular the reference to Sparta or the Spartans in 182–3, followed by the mention of the Corinthians in the commentary at 191. Pollux’ citation of συνήλικες in 5 comes from a collection of συν-compounds. Material similar to but more extensive than the first half of the note, and assigning the word συµπάροικοι specifically to Kolakes, is preserved at 9.37. Text In 3, the paradosis ἑωρακέναι is unmetrical and was corrected by Runkel to ἑορακέναι, which appears to be the correct form for this period in any case (also metrically guaranteed at e. g. Ar. Nu. 767; Th. 32; see Arnott 1996. 766 on Alex. fr. 274.1, with further bibliography). In 4, τί παθών; (“What was the matter with him?”) for the paradosis τί µαθών; cannot be right, because it makes (B.) a victim of circumstances rather than a conspirator, which is what (A.)’s argument requires. In 8, the paradosis λάβοιτ’ ἂν ἄνδρ’ ἄριστον ἐν κακῷ τινι; is difficult unless one takes ἐν κακῷ τινι to be a peculiar way of saying ἐν τοῖς κακοῖς (“among the bad”; LSJ s. v. ἐν A.I.5). Kaibel suggested that ἐν κακῷ τινι might mean ἐν ἑνὶ κριτῇ τούτῳ κακῷ ὄντι (lit. “in the same judgment with this man”—i. e. (B.)—“who is bad”), which seems more than the Greek can bear. Kaibel proposed emending ἐν to ἐπί; taking λαµβάνω in the sense “catch, detect” (LSJ s. v. A.I.4); and translating ~ “Would you charge a well-born man with any evil?”. An alternative is to emend λάβοιτ’ to βάλοιτ’ (a common error, here presumably under the influence of εἰληµµένον in 6); give ἐν + dative the pregnant sense “into” (LSJ s. v. ἐν A.I.8); and translate “Would you cast a well-born man into any trouble?” (for which cf. Ar. Nu. 1460 ἕως ἂν αὐτὸν ἐµβάλωµεν εἰς κακόν, “until we cast him into trouble”).

79

]µηνειστα in 184 does not match any portion of the text of Eupolis as transmitted by Plutarch and must accordingly be commentary on something else.

184

Eupolis

Interpretation Part of a confrontation between (A.), a loathsome character determined to twist his interlocutor’s words to build a case involving political treachery of some sort, and (B.), whom he is interrogating. But (A.)’s real, larger interest is in Nicias rather than in (B.) himself, and in appealing to the audience he addresses in 3–4, where (B.) is abruptly relegated to the third-person, as the reactions in 5–8, which ignore (B.) completely, and Plutarch’s characterization of the significance of the action (see Citation context) combine to make clear. γάρ in 1 (n.) shows that this is not the beginning of the conversation, and if its earlier stages proceeded more or less as this one does, (A.) has likely already “proven” (B.) guilty of something and is preparing to spread his net further so as to ensnare his next—and more significant—victim. The speakers in 5–8 react to what has been said in 1–4, but the exchange takes place on a different level: they argue among themselves about the implications of what they have heard, rather than engaging directly with (A.) and (B.). The interaction of (A.) and (B.) is reminiscent of courtroom behavior, with (A.) representing the prosecution, (B.) a witness he has forced to testify, so that the speakers of 5–8 stand in for the jury informally “chewing over” (cf. Ar. V. 779–83) what it has heard. Cf. the prologue slave’s description of the Paphlagonian/Cleon’s behavior at Ar. Eq. 264–5, 261–3 καὶ σκοπεῖς γε τῶν πολιτῶν ὅστις ἐστὶν ἀµνοκῶν, / πλούσιος καὶ µὴ πονηρὸς καὶ τρέµων τὰ πράγµατα. / κἄν τιν’ αὐτῶν γνῷς ἀπράγµον’ ὄντα καὶ κεχηνότα, / καταγαγὼν ἐκ Χερρονήσου, διαβαλών, ἀγκυρίσας, / εἶτ’ ἀποστρέψας τὸν ὦµον αὐτὸν ἐνεκολήβασας (“and you keep an eye out for any citizen who’s simple as a lamb, rich and decent and terrified of trouble. And if you recognize that someone’s an apolitical fool, you drag him back from the Chersonese, slander him, hook his foot, and then twist his arm backward and swallow him down”). Assuming that fr. 192.hh–ii represents the beginning of the parabasis, this fragment must come later in the play.80 Fr. 192.192–3, in which a man seemingly protests against being charged with treachery, followed shortly afterward, and the obvious candidate for the speaker there is (B.); note the echo of 4 προυδίδου in προδοσίας there. Plutarch claims that (A.) is “the man mocked by Eupolis in his Marikas”, which is most naturally taken as referring to the title character of the play, and that (B.) is “someone apolitical and poor” who has been brought onstage to be interrogated. But all of this might easily have been deduced from the text of the fragment itself, and as there is no reason to think that Plutarch knew Eupolis’ comedy at first hand, his identification of (A.) as Marikas should be regarded as a reasonable hypothesis but nothing

80

Thus rightly Storey 2003. 208.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 193)

185

more. The mention at fr. 192.186–7 of one of the two semi-choruses is likely intended to identify the speaker of 5–6 (as also at fr. 192.98–9, 120–1), i. e. as a coryphaeus. The fact that 7 began the next lemma in the commentary does not prove that that line too was quoted merely in order to identify the speaker (i. e. as the coryphaeus in charge of the other semi-chorus), although this might nonetheless be the case. For the considerations that suggest that 5–6 are spoken by the coryphaeus for the semi-chorus of poor men, 7–8 by the coryphaeus for the semi-chorus of rich men, see the general introduction to the play. The enormously wealthy Nicias son of Niceratus of the deme Kydantidae (PA 10808; PAA 712520) made his money from silver mines, which he worked with a gang of 1000 slaves he rented out en masse for one obol a day per man (X. Vect. 4.14),81 a disgusting detail in whose light everything else written about him must be read.82 As Davies 1971. 404 notes, this meant that Nicias was not a member of the traditional Athenian elite (as Alcibiades was), despite ἄνδρ’ ἄριστον in 8, but came from a background more like that of Cleon or Hyperbolos even if he had more substantial personal resources at his disposal than either of them did.83 Nicias was active in Athenian politics from at least 428/7 BCE, when he was general (Th. 3.51.1). He then served repeatedly as general in the years that followed (e. g. Th. 3.91.1; 4.27.5, 119.2; cf. Phryn. Com. fr. 23 “he’s far outdone Nicias in the number of his generalships”) and was among the men who swore to the ill-fated peace between Athens and Sparta in 421 BCE (Th. 5.19.2, 24.1) that eventually came to bear his name (Plu. Nic. 9.7;

81

82 83

Xenophon finds this an admirable idea, which is arguably all one needs to know about him as well. An Athenian juror in this period made three obols a day, which was apparently not much but enough for a small family to live on, and most of the single obol paid to the mine-slaves’ owner for their labor was presumably not spent on them. For an unappetizing attempt to excuse the situation (“the evils of their condition and treatment should not be too much exaggerated”), see Hopper 1961. 150–1 (written a few years before the author took on what must have been a brutal and dangerous post, doing hard physical labor in a dark, confined space and being underfed and beaten whenever it struck his supervisor’s fancy, for no pay and in the awareness that the only likely escape from his situation was death, as Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Sheffield). The family of Callias, one of the main targets of Kolakes, seems to have made much of its enormous fortune in the same ugly fashion. E. g. the self-conscious attempt at rehabilitation in Westlake 1941. According to Lys. 19.47, his estate was at least rumored to have been about 100 talents. See in general Connor 1971. 151–63. For Nicias’ brother Diognetus, see fr. 99.114 n.

186

Eupolis

Alc. 14.2). Thucydides reports that Nicias was an enemy of Cleon (4.27.5), to whom he was nonetheless convinced to surrender the command at Pylos (Th. 4.28.3). Later he and Alcibiades became open rivals, although they supposedly worked together to ostracize Hyperbolos in around 416 BCE (Plu. Nic. 11.1–4; Alc. 13.4; Arist. 7.4). Nicias was also one of the original generals chosen to lead the Sicilian Expedition in 415 BCE (cf. Ar. Av. 363, from 414 BCE, where he is called rich in devices) and surrendered to the Spartan commander Gylippus at the end of it in 413 BCE (Th. 7.85.1). The Syracusans executed him (Th. 7.86).84 1 πόσου χρόνου … συγγεγένησαι For this use of the genitive (of time within which) with the perfect, cf. Ar. Pl. 98 πολλοῦ γὰρ αὐτοὺς οὐχ ἑόρακ’ ἐγὼ χρόνου (“for I haven’t seen them for a long time”), 1045 ἔοικε διὰ πολλοῦ χρόνου σ’ ἑορακέναι (“he seems to have seen you after a long time”, i. e. “it’s apparently a long time since he’s seen you”); Pl. Phd. 57a οὔτε τις ξένος ἀφῖκται χρόνου συχνοῦ (“nor has any stranger come for a considerable time”); and see in general Kühner–Gehrt 1898 i.385–7, esp. 387. γάρ marks this as a request for supplementary information; the speaker, “having been satisfied on one subject, wishes to learn something else” (Denniston 1950. 81–5; quote from 81). 2 εἰ µή Similarly used to qualify a preceding, perhaps slightly overbroad statement at e. g. Ar. Ach. 684; V. 558; Av. 1681; Antiph. fr. 157.9. Contrast 4 with n. ἔναγχος Colloquial vocabulary (absent from tragedy and Thucydides), attested elsewhere in comedy at Ar. Nu. 639; Ec. 823; Men. Epitr. fr. 1.3, and in 4th-century prose (e. g. Lys. 19.50; X. Smp. 4.63; Pl. Tht. 147c), and picked up as an Atticism by Lucian (e. g. Hipp. 4; Philops. 7) and Alciphro (e. g. 1.15.1; 2.26.2). Cognate with ἄγχι. 3–4 ὁράω appears not to be used in the way English “see” colloquially can, to mean “spend time with” (e. g. “I saw my attorney yesterday”, “I’m seeing a beautiful young woman”), making (A.)’s interpretation of (B.)’s remark in 2 not a maliciously clever over-reading of its significance (“The man admits he’s spent time with Nicias”) but a patently wild leap to ugly—and ridiculous—conclusions. καίτοι “Used by a speaker in pulling himself up abruptly” (Denniston 1950. 557), as if the malicious question that follows were a new idea that 84

Timaeus FGrH 566 F 101 (ap. Plu. Nic. 28.5) offers a typically nasty correction of Thucydides’ account of Nicias’ death, claiming that he and Demosthenes were not actually executed, but managed to kill one another before the sentence could be carried out, and that their bodies were tossed out in the street for anyone to inspect who wanted to.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 193)

187

(A.)—modeling for his audience how they ought to interpret the testimony they are hearing—had only just hit upon. τί µαθών; See fr. 392.3 n. εἰ µὴ προὐδίδου For accusations of treachery and conspiracy as mainstays of public Athenian political discourse in the late 420s BCE, cf. Ar. Eq. 257, 452, 476, 628, 862 (Cleon/the Paphlagonian); V. 463–507, esp. 488–9; Roisman 2006. 66–8. εἰ µή similarly adds a suspicious final angle to a question at Alex. fr. 266.8. 5–8 The use in 5 of the term ξυνήλικες—probably to be taken to suggest that the addressees are all old, not simply that they are all of the same age (and thus potentially “equally young”)—amounts to an appeal to group solidarity on the basis of life-experience, a common attitude toward the plague of “young men” dominating political life in the city (cf. fr. 252 with n.), or the like. Whether this represents a tentative effort by the speaker to bring rich and poor men alike together in a united judgment on the situation—which is to say, whether these words are addressed to the chorus as a whole and intended to be persuasive, or are meant in the first instance for the speaker’s own semi-chorus and amount to an articulation of what he assumes they are thinking in any case—is impossible to say. In the latter case, the two semi-choruses may not be distinguished by socioeconomic status alone, and the rich men may be young, the poor men old. Nor can we know whether the abusive φρενοβλαβεῖς in 7 is addressed only to the poor men who make up the other half of the chorus and who the speaker assumes have already drawn obviously stupid conclusions, or if this is instead a preemptive characterization of anyone in the group who might be tempted to adopt the judgment articulated in 5–6, and thus assumes that all minds are open. Both assessments of the situation are in any case absurd: the first speaker leaps to the ridiculous conclusion that Nicias has been caught “red-handed” simply because (B.) has seen him in the Agora and (A.) has claimed that this necessarily points to treachery, while the second speaker merely insists that no one as socially distinguished as Nicias can possibly be held to have done anything wrong. 5–6 ξυνήλικες Attested elsewhere at A. Pers. 784 ἐµοὶ ξυνήλικες (Darius addressing the old chorus); Anaxil. fr. 6 (cited by the Antiatticist, presumably in order to show that the word was acceptable in Attic); Call. fr. 27.1. ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ with a form of λαµβάνω is something like a fixed phrase (e. g. Ar. Pl. 455 ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ … εἱληµµένω; Antipho 1.9 εἰληφότα ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ; 6.48 ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ ληφθῶσιν; X. Smp. 3.13 ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ εἴληµµαι; Pl. Ap. 22b ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ καταληψόµενος), the other verb used routinely being αἱρέω/ἁλίσκοµαι (e. g. Hdt. 6.72.2 ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ … ἁλούς; E. Ion 1214 ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρωι … ἕλοι; Pl. Lg. 942a ἁλίσκηται … ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ).

188

Eupolis

The phrase ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ (lit. “in the very act of theft”, i. e. “with one’s hand in the till” vel sim.) seems to have been used in Athenian law (Lys. 13.85; see Todd 2007. 115 with further bibliography). This does not make it technical legal language (see in general Willi 2003. 72–9), and here it is used in the extended colloquial sense “in the act”. 7–8 γάρ “The question is rhetorical, or, at least, surprised and incredulous, often ironical; and implies that the speaker throws doubt on the grounds of the previous speaker’s words. The tone is dissentient” (Denniston 1950. 77). φρενοβλαβεῖς Literally “brain-damaged”. But the word is also used in tragedy (adesp. tr. fr. 625.45 ἄ̣ νδρες ὦ φρενοβλαβεῖς; not obviously satyr play), by Herodotus (2.120.2: Priam was not so φρενοβλαβής, nor were his relatives, that they would have risked everything simply so that Paris could have Helen), and seemingly in lyric (PMG 1038.2 ]ρενοβλαβεσπα[), but nowhere else, making it clear that the tone is considerably more elevated than this.

fr. 194 K.-A. (180 K.) καὶ πόλλ’ ἔµαθον ἐν τοῖσι κουρείοις ἐγὼ ἀτόπως καθίζων κοὐδὲ γιγνώσκειν δοκῶν 1 ἔµαθον Bergk : ἀγάθ’ Σ (2) : ἀγαθ᾽ Σ (1)   κουρείοις Bergk : κουρίοις Σ (1–2)    2 γιγνώσκειν Synag. : γινώσκειν Σ (1–2) Phot.

and I learned a lot in the barbershops, sitting there unobtrusively and pretending not to be paying attention T

T

Σ (1) Pl. Sph. 239c (p. 43 Greene = 24, p. 77 Cufalo) = Σ (2) Pl. Phd. 60b (p. 8 Greene = 8, pp. 25–6 Cufalo) ἄτοπον τὸ θαυµαστόν … τάττεται δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀνυπόπτου· Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ· ―― atopos [means] amazing … But it is also used in reference to what escapes suspicion; Eupolis in Marikas: ―― Phot. α 3105 = Synag. B α 2357 καὶ ἀτόπως τὸ ἀσυνήθως καὶ ἀνεπιφάτως (v. 2)· ―― φησὶ Φερεκράτης (fr. dub. 285) and atopôs [means] contrary to custom and expectation (v. 2): ―― says Pherecrates (fr. dub. 285)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkr rlkl

llk|l llkl l|lk|l llkl

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 194)

189

Discussion Bergk 1838. 355; Meineke 1839 II.499–500; Schiassi 1944. 83–4; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Cassio 1985b. 41–2; Storey 2003. 211 Citation context A lexicographic note drawn from the common source of the scholia on Plato, Photius and the Synagoge generally referred to as Σ΄΄΄. The assignment of 2 to Pherecrates in Phot. = Synag. is probably to be explained as the consequence of a lost lemma (〈φησὶ Εὔπολις. καὶ ――〉 φησὶ Φερεκράτης), the passage in Pherecrates in question perhaps having been his fr. 96 ὡς ἄτοπόν ἐστι µητέρ’ εἶναι καὶ γυνήν (“how odd it is to be a mother and a woman”). Phot. = Synag. has also cut the note down so far that the point of the citation has been lost. Text 1 as transmitted is unmetrical and a main verb is wanted in any case, hence Bergk’s replacement of the paradosis ἀγάθ’ with ἔµαθον (which at least preserves a few key letters of the manuscript reading). Also in 1, κουρείοις (Bergk) rather than κουρίοις (Σ) ought to be the proper spelling in this period; cf. Threatte 1980. 190–8. In 2, the Synagoge’s γιγνώσκειν rather than the other witnesses’ γινώσκειν is the proper spelling in this period (Threatte 1980. 562) and is in any case a matter of metrical necessity. Interpretation Whoever the speaker is, he had no business in the barbershops, but nonetheless hung about in them to eavesdrop and learn from the ordinary Athenians there. Meineke accordingly suggested that this might be Hyperbolos (i. e. Marikas) explaining how he got his education, such as it was; Kock compared Ar. Eq. 411–12, 1235–42, where the Sausage-seller describes his own coarse, informal upbringing in the Agora—which prepared him perfectly to become a leading politician. For slaves unobtrusively listening in on the conversations of free persons, cf. Ar. Ra. 750–3; E. Med. 67–72. Cassio suggested a connection with fr. 192.78–80, where reference is perhaps made to Midas’ ears, which might once again suggest spying (sc. by Marikas as his master’s agent?). 1 ἐν τοῖσι κουρείοις For barbershops as informal gathering places and centers of gossip, see Ar. Av. 1440–5; Pl. 337–9; Men. Sam. 510–13; Lys. 23.3; Thphr. fr. 577 (Theophrastus called barbershops “wineless symposia” διὰ τὴν λαλιὰν τῶν προσκαθιζόντων, “because of the chatter of those who sat next to them”) ap. Plu. Mor. 679a; Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 283b; Plu. Nic. 30.1 (an anecdote set in 5th-century Athens); and see fr. 222 n. (on perfume-shops playing a similar role, with additional references). For barbers generally, see also fr. 300 with n.; Philyll. fr. 13 (in a list of simple occupations); Nicolson 1891; and more generally Boon 1991. The plural makes it clear that what is described is habitual behavior; the speaker did this not one single time, but again and again in different locations.

190

Eupolis

2 As the scholia to Plato note (the point has been lost in Phot. = Synag.), ἀτόπως must mean not that the speaker seemed “out of place” (the ordinary sense of the word), i. e. “in the wrong place” and thus conspicuous, but that it was almost as if he were not there (“tamquam non adfuissem” Kaibel). The first half of the line thus sets up the second, which explains how the speaker made use of the opportunity his unnoted presence in the barbershops afforded him. For δοκῶν in the sense “pretending”, cf. fr. 172.10 with n. For use of the verb + οὐ/µή + infinitive, cf. Ar. Eq. 1146 οὐδὲ δοκῶν ὁρᾶν (“pretending not even to see”); Pax 1051 µὴ … ὁρᾶν δοκῶµεν αὐτόν (“Let’s pretend not to see him!”); Pl. 837 οὐκ ἐδόκουν ὁρᾶν µ’ ἔτι (“they pretended not to see me any longer”); Men. Epitr. 694 ἡµᾶς δ’ οὐδὲ γινώσκειν δοκῶν (“and pretending that he doesn’t even recognize us”); E. Med. 67 οὐ δοκῶν κλύειν (“pretending not to be listening”); Hipp. 463 µὴ δοκεῖν ὁρᾶν (“to pretend not to see”); X. HG 4.5.6 τούτους µὲν οὐδ’ ὁρᾶν ἐδόκει (“he pretended not even to see them”); Pl. Euthphr. 5c σὲ µὲν οὐδὲ δοκεῖ ὁρᾶν (“he pretends not even to see you”).

fr. 195 K.-A. (182 K.) (Α.) ἄκουε νῦν Πείσανδρος ὡς ἀπόλλυται. (Β.) ὁ στρεβλός; (Α.) οὐκ, ἀλλ’ ὁ µέγας, οὑνοκίνδιος RVE

Γ

Γ2

E

Γ

2 οὐκ Kuster : οὐ Σ : om. Σ , add. Σ    οὑνοκίνδιος Σ : ὁ ὀνοκίνδιος Σ : οὖν V R ὀκίνδιος Σ : οὖν ὁ κίνδιος Σ

(A.) Listen now to how Peisander’s had it! (B.) The wall-eyed one? (A.) No, the big one, the donkey-driver RVEΓ

Σ Ar. Av. 1556 δύο δέ εἰσι Πείσανδροι, καθάπερ Εὔπολις ἐν Μαρικᾷ φησιν· ――. καὶ Πλάτων ἐν Πεισάνδρῳ (fr. 108) περὶ ἀµφοτέρων λέγει But there are two Peisanders, as Eupolis as says in Marikas: ――. Plato in Peisandros (fr. 108) also mentions both men RΓ

Σ Ar. Lys. 490 ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλος Πείσανδρος, ὁ ὀ ν ο κ ί ν δ ι ο ς, ὡς Εὔπολις διακρίνει τὴν ὁµωνυµίαν ἐν Μαρικᾷ There is also another Peisander, t h e m u l e - d r i v e r, as Eupolis (calls him in order to) distinguish (the uses of) the shared name in Marikas

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 195)

191

Phot. σ 615 = Et.Gen. A σ τ ρ ε β λ ό ν · τὸν στραβὸν λέγουσιν· οὕτως Εὔπολις s t r e b l o s : this is their term for someone strabos; thus Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl llk|l klkl llkl l|rk|l klkl Discussion Fritzsche 1836. 137; Meineke 1839 II.501–2; Schiassi 1944. 86–7; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 213; Sonnino 2006. 41–2 Citation context ΣRVEΓ Ar. Av. 1556, which also preserves most of the other comic fragments cited below in Interpretation, is a gloss on the reference to Peisander’s visit to the land of the Shadowfeet to seek his lost soul in the abuse song at Av. 1556–61, and must be drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. ΣRΓ Ar. Lys. 490 and ΣRV Ar. Pax 395 ἦν δὲ δειλὸς καὶ µέγας, καὶ ἐκαλεῖτο ὀνοκίνδιος (“he was physically large and a coward, and was called onokindios”) are heavily condensed versions of the same material. 2 also attracted ancient scholarly attention for the use of (1) στρεβλός (in Phot. σ 615 = Et.Gen. A), a word treated in a very similar fashion at Phryn. PS p. 108.4 στρεβλός· ὁ διάστροφος τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ στραβός (“streblos: a man whose eyes are out of alignment, but not strabos”) and Poll. 2.51 διάστροφος, στρεβλός· ὁ γὰρ στραβὸς ἰδιωτικόν (“diastrophos, streblos; because strabos is an eccentric form”); Naber traced the entry in Photius to Aelius Dionysius (σ 36) (2) ὀνοκίνδιος, for which cf. Poll. 7.185 ἀστραβηλάται, καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ∆ωριεῦσιν ὀνοκίνδιοι καὶ κιλλακτῆρες (“muleteers, and in Doric authors onokindioi and killaktêres”); Hsch. ο 904 ὀνοκίνδιος καὶ ὀνοκίνδας· ἀστραβηλάτης. ὀνηλάτης (“onokindios and onokindas: muleteer, donkey-driver”) ~ Phot. o 348 = Suda o 368 = Synag. o 174 ὀνοκίνδιος· ὀνηλάτης, ἀστραβηλάτης (“onokindios: donkey-driver, muleteer”; traced by Cunningham to Cyril). Text For νῦν vs. νυν in 1, see fr. 10 n. In 2, Kuster’s οὐκ in place of the paradosis οὐ (ΣRVE; accidentally omitted in ΣΓ, but added by the corrector) is needed to avoid hiatus. οὑνοκίνδιος (ΣE) was sufficiently baffling to lead to various attempts to clarify the reading (ΣΓ) or redivide the letters (ΣRV).

192

Eupolis

Interpretation Peisander son of Glauketes of the deme Acharnae (PA 11770; PAA 771270; Nails 2002. 241–285), also mentioned in frr. 35 (a coward); 99.1–4 (a greedy, inhospitable glutton), and conjecturally placed in [fr. 101.7], was prominent in Athenian politics from at least the first half of the 420s BCE, when he was mocked in Aristophanes’ Babylonians (fr. 84; 426 BCE) for taking bribes, until 410 BCE, when he was condemned as a traitor, stripped of his property and sent into exile after the fall of the 400 (Th. 8.98.1; Lys. 7.4), whom he had been instrumental in bringing to power (Th. 8.67.1–68.1, 90.1). He was the title character—and doubtless the villain—of Plato Comicus’ Peisandros (see Pirrotta 2009. 220–2) and is attacked elsewhere in comedy at Hermipp. fr. 7 (corrupt, but apparently described again as µέγας, “big”, and connected with a donkey); Ar. Pax 395 (attempting to avoid military service); Av. 1556–8 (a coward, as also at X. Smp. 2.14); Lys. 490 (stealing public funds); Phryn. Com. fr. 21 (called a “great monkey” and perhaps a coward as well; see in general Stamma 2014 ad loc., esp. 153–4); adesp. com. fr. 119 (a glutton). For an overview of his career, Woodhead 1954, and see also Taylor 2002. The ancient scholar responsible for the prosopographical material preserved in ΣRVEΓ Ar. Av. 1556 took this passage and the reference in Plato Comicus (dropped from the text at some point in the course of the transmission of the material) to mean that there were two Peisanders, the other being PA 11769; PAA 771245. Kaibel thought that this was actually a joke, like the mocking confusion about which Agathon is being referred to at Ar. Th. 30–5, although the humor there depends on the mistaken description being flattering, as ὁ στρεβλός in 2 is not. The name is in any case rare: only two other examples in Athens before the very end of the 4th century BCE, one of them (the proposer of a decree honoring Lykon of Achaea at IG I3 174.4–5; = PA 11770; PAA 771265) quite possibly to be identified with Peisander the politician. 1 ἄκουε νῦν For similar calls for attention, cf. fr. 161.1 ἄκουε δή with n.; Cratin. fr. 316 ἄκουε νῦν καὶ τήνδε τὴν ἐπιστολήν (“Listen now also to this letter!”); Ar. Eq. 1014 ἄκουε δὴ νῦν καὶ πρόσεχε τὸν νοῦν ἐµοί (“Listen now in fact and pay attention to me!”); Av. 1513 ἄκουε δὴ νῦν (“Listen in fact now!”). For νῦν + imperative, see fr. 10 n. 85

Despite Nails 2002. 242, the mention of Peisander at IG I3 427 (among the epistatai of the statues for the Hephaestion; oddly mischaracterized by Nails as being “on the register”) does not attest to his wealth, although it does make clear that he was already politically well-connected at this point (414 BCE). Nails further cites “Eu. Mar. i”—presumably intended as a reference to test. i of this play—as supporting the claim that Peisander was “one of the advocates of the war”, which it does not.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 196)

193

ἀπόλλυται For the verb employed thus, with the present used to describe a future state that is already as good as accomplished, e. g. Ar. Ach. 163; Eq. 127 ἐνταῦθ’ ἔνεστιν, αὐτὸς ὡς ἀπόλλυται (“It’s in here, how he himself has had it”; referring to the prophecies that tell how the Paphlagonian will eventually be supplanted by someone even worse); Lys. 1136; E. Hipp. 47 (where Barrett 1964 characterizes this as a “‘prophetic’ present for future”); El. 660 ἐλθοῦσα µέντοι δῆλον ὡς ἀπόλλυται (“once she arrives, however, it’s clear that she’s had it”; Electra imagines Clytemestra’s situation after she is lured to the house, but before she has actually been killed). 2 For στρεβλός, see fr. 298.3 n. οὐκ, ἀλλ’ Cf. fr. 301.1 n. ὁ µέγας Perhaps “the important one”, as at e. g. Ar. Eq. 180, 982, in which case the abrupt contrast with the supplemental description that follows is part of the joke. ὀνοκίνδιος Cognate with κίνδαξ (glossed εὐκίνητος, “easily moved”, at Hsch. κ 2725); see in general Taillardat 1956, and cf. fr. 172.9 n. For the occupation, see fr. 192z n. For donkeys, see frr. 279 n.; 321 n.; 379 n.; 416 n. If this is a reference to Peisander the politician, it is presumably an insult, and although the point is obscure, the mention of a donkey in connection with him again in Hermipp. fr. 7 is intriguing. Perhaps Peisander or his family made their money in the cartage business, and it made nice comic slander to pretend that he actually drove the donkeys himself.

fr. 196 K.-A. (183 K.) ἀλλ’ εὐθὺ πόλεως εἶµι· θῦσαι γάρ µε δεῖ κριὸν Χλόῃ ∆ήµητρι L

R

M

1 εὐθὺ πόλεως Σ : εὐθυπότε Σ : εὐθυπόται Σ

But I’ll go straight to the Acropolis; for I need to sacrifice a ram to Demeter Chloê LRM

Σ S. OC 1600 εὐχλόου ∆ήµητρος ἱερόν ἐστι πρὸς τῇ ἀκροπόλει· καὶ Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ· ――. ἔνθα δηλοῦται ὅτι καὶ κριὸς θηλείᾳ τῇ θεῷ ταύτῃ θύεται· οὕτω δὲ τιµᾶται ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν καρπῶν χλόης· θύουσί τε Θαργηλιῶνος ἕκτῃ Demeter Euchloê has a temple on the side of the Acropolis. Also Eupolis in Marikas: ――. It is evident here that a he-goat is in fact sacrificed to this female goddess—she

194

Eupolis

gets this title from the green (chloê) of the crops—and they make the sacrifice on the sixth day of Thargelion86

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkr l|lk|l llkl llkl llk|〈l xlkl〉 Discussion Fritzsche 1836. 138; Meineke 1839 II.502–3; Schiassi 1944. 85; Storey 2003. 211 Citation context A gloss on the words εὐχλόου ∆ήµητρος … πάγον (“the hill of Demeter Euchloê”), describing the place from which Oedipus’ daughters fetch water to bathe him before he surrenders himself to the gods of the Underworld. Erbse traces the note to Pausanias (Paus.Gr. χ 13) drawing on Pamphilus, but very similar material at ΣR Ar. Lys. 835 makes it clear that the ultimate source of much of the material is Philochorus: Χλόης ∆ήµητρος ἱερὸν ἐν ἀκροπόλει, ἐν ᾧ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι θύουσι µηνὸς Θαργηλιῶνος, ὡς Φιλόχορός φησιν ἐν ἕκτῃ (“There is a temple of Demeter Chloê on the Acropolis, in which the Athenians make sacrifice during the month of Thargelion, according to Philochorus in Book 6”; = FGrH 328 F 61). Jacoby 1954. 335 takes the intermediary source in both cases to be Didymus and suggests that Θαργηλιῶνος ἕκτῃ in the scholion on Sophocles may be an error for Θαργηλιῶνος 〈ὡς Φιλόχορός φησιν ἐν〉 ἕκτῃ. In that case, it may be Didymus who added the detail about the goat-sacrifice, simply drawing it direct from this fragment. Text πόλεως in 1 was likely abbreviated in the exemplar of at least some of these notes, whence the errors in ΣRM. Interpretation Paus. 1.22.3 describes a joint sanctuary (ἱερόν) of Gê Kourotrophos and Demeter Chloê just below the entrance to the Acropolis, making it clear that the speaker of this fragment means that he or she is going to the Acropolis but not all the way up on top of it; cf. Ar. Lys. 835 (the shrine as a landmark as one approaches the Acropolis). Both the cult title and the association with Gê Kourotrophos suggest that Demeter Chloê was a fertility goddess; cf. fr. 119 n.; Corn. ND p. 55.12–16 περὶ δὲ τὸ ἔαρ τῇ Χλόῃ ∆ήµητρι θύουσι µετὰ παιδιᾶς καὶ χαρᾶς, ἰδόντες χλοάζοντα καὶ ἀφθονίας αὐτοῖς ἐλπίδα ὑποδεικνύντα (“Around springtime they make sacrifice to Demeter Chloê with celebration and joy, since they see (the world) turning green and offering them a glimpse of the hope of abundance”); Semus FGrH 396 F 23 86

Thargelion was the penultimate month in the Athenian year and thus normally roughly equivalent to our May.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 196)

195

(Demeter is sometimes called Chloê, at other times Ioulô, “Grain-sheaf”). That this connection has somehow motivated the speaker’s decision to make sacrifice is thus at least a reasonable assumption. For the goddess and her cult, see also IG II2 1356.16 (early 4th c. BCE); 1358.49 (400–350 BCE); 1472.39 (319/18 BCE). Fritzsche thought the speaker was Hyperbolos’ mother, although as Storey observes “there is nothing to indicate that the speaker is female or that the fragment has anything to do with the plot of the comedy” (by which he presumably means what is generally taken to be the central struggle in the play between Marikas and his rival). Cf. Hermipp. fr. 8 φέρε νῦν ἀγήλω τοὺς θεοὺς ἰοῦσ’ ἐγὼ / καὶ θυµιάσω τοῦ τέκνου σεσῳσµένου (“Come now, let me go and glorify the gods and offer incense on behalf of my child who has gotten away safely”; from Artopôlides, and sometimes taken to be spoken by Hyperbolos’ mother after a miraculous escape by her son). 1 ἀλλ(ά) Cf. Denniston 1950. 8 (on the use of the particle in continuous speech): “A particular variety of this use is with the future indicative. The speaker breaks off his reflections, and announces his plan of action. Especially with verbs of motion.” For εὐθύ + gen. meaning “straight to/toward”, e. g. fr. 54; Ar. Av. 1421 εὐθὺ Πελλήνης (“straight to Pellene”); fr. 166 ᾖσαν εὐθὺ τοῦ ∆ιονυσίου (“they went straight to Dionysius”); Th. 8.88.1 εὐθὺ τῆς Φασήλιδος (“straight to Phaselis”); Pl. Lys. 203b εὐθὺ Λυκείου (“straight toward the Lyceum”); Poultney 1936. 202. This is an Attic colloquialism and is accordingly picked up by Lucian (e. g. Nigr. 2 εὐθὺ τῆς πόλεως, “straight to the Acropolis”; Bis Acc. 8 εὐθὺ τοῦ Σουνίου, “straight to Sounion”) and Plutarch (Dem. 26.7 εὐθὺ τοῦ θανάτου, “straight to death”). Contrast the use of the word to modify verbs in frr. 172.8; 392.2 (n.). For πόλις used in comedy in the sense “Acropolis”,87 cf. (in addition to the references collected at LSJ s. v. I.1) e. g. Ar. Eq. 477; Nu. 69; Lys. 487, 912; Th. 812. 2 κριόν For rams—large and presumably expensive animals, marking this as a solemn and significant occasion—as sacrificial victims, cf. Ar. Av. 568 (for “Zeus the king”), 971 (for Pandora); Pl. 819–20 (a celebratory offering in a now-wealthy house that also features a pig and a he-goat); IG I3 5.4 (to Poseidon and Triptolemus; from Eleusis). For sacrifice generally and its place in Athenian civic ideology, see Naiden 2013; Bundrick 2014, both with extensive bibliography.

87

Not “town” (Rusten 2011. 252), as if the speaker were proposing to travel into the city from the countryside.

196

Eupolis

fr. 197 K.-A. (184 K.) κρούων γε µὴν αὐτὰς ἐωνούµην ἐγώ but I was knocking on them (fem.) as I purchased them Epim. Hom. ω 21 ὤθουν· τοῦτο καὶ ἐώθουν … τοιοῦτον δέ ἐστι καὶ τὸ ἐώνηµαι … τὸ ἐωνούµην Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ· ―― ôthoun: an alternative form is eôthoun … eônêmai is an example of the same phenomenon … Eupolis (uses) eônoumên in Marikas: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl | llkl

llkl

Discussion Herwerden 1882. 73 Citation context From an extended note on the handling of augments with verbs that begin with a long vowel; fr. 51 is preserved at the end. Traced by Lentz to Herodian (Grammatici Graeci III.2 pp. 169–70 on [12a]), although he notes that additional material from another source seems to be mixed in. Interpretation Herwerden explained the basic sense of the line by comparing [Pl.] Hp.Ma. 301b κρούετε … τὸ καλόν (“you test what is good”) and Suda κ pr 2487 (~ ΣM Ar. Nu. 318) κροῦσις· ἤτοι δοκιµασία· ἐπεὶ τὰ σαθρὰ τῶν σκευῶν κροτούµενα δοκιµάζεται (“knocking: that is, testing; since rotten vessels are tested by being knocked on”). Cf. also fr. 121 κρούµατα with n.; Ar. Ach. 932–4 (where the sycophant Nikarchos is packed up as pottery, despite the fact that he sounds like he has been broken in firing, sc. when Dicaeopolis strikes him) with Olson 2002 ad loc. Herwerden suggested that αὐτάς might be slave-women with whom the author had sex (cf. Antiatt. p. 101.25–7 καὶ κατὰ τοῦ κακεµφάτου ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ τὸ κροῦσαι κεῖται ἀντὶ τοῦ συγγενέσθαι, “krousai is also commonly used in a vulgar sense in place of ‘to have sex with’”; Henderson 1991 § 305, whose only good parallels are κρούµατα at Ar. Ec. 257 and κρούσῃς at Ar. Ec. 990). It is easier to assume that the verb has its normal sense here and that these are ceramic vessels (e. g. κύλικες) the speaker tests for soundness before buying them. γε µήν is most likely adversative (hence also the emphatic ἐγώ at the end of the line), balancing some other statement (see Denniston 1950. 348–9)—for example an observation that another party did not buy the objects in question, regarding them as obviously not worth the risk and therefore not bothering to test them.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 198)

197

ἐωνούµην To the list of examples of the imperfect of ὠνέοµαι with a syllabic augment in Attic offered in LSJ s. v. add e. g. X. Eq. 8.2; D. 38.8; Arist. Pol. 1268b41, and see frr. 296 n.; 385.1 n. (for the use of the verb in place of *πρίαµαι in the present, imperfect and future); Lautensach 1899. 16–18. Cf. also fr. 51 ἐνεούρησεν with n.

fr. 198 K.-A. (185 K.) τῶν γὰρ πονηρῶν µικρὸν † ἐπὶ † τοὐβολοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀβολοῦ codd. : ἐστι τοὐβολοῦ Portus : ἑπτὰ τοὐβολοῦ Kaibel

for a little of the worthless ones † in reference to † for an obol Phot. µ 451 = Suda µ 1050 µικρὸν τοῦ ὀβολοῦ· τίµιον. λέγεται δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν πονηρῶν. Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ· ―― a little for an obol: expensive. And it is said in reference to things that are worthless. Eupolis in Marikas: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

l|r † kk † lkl

Citation context A lexicographic note drawn from the common source of Photius and the Suda generally referred to as Σ΄΄; traced by Erbse to Pausanias (Paus.Gr. µ 19). Hsch. σ 1252 σµικρόν· µικρόν. ἢ τοῦ ὀβολοῦ· 〈οὐ〉 τίµιον (“smikron: little. Or for an obol; inexpensive”) likely derives from the same source. Note also ΣVEΓΘM Ar. Eq. 945 ~ Suda τ 1137 τοῖσι πολλοῖς τοὐβολοῦ· τοῖς εὐώνοις, τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις. οὕτως γὰρ λέγεται ἐπὶ τῶν πολλῶν τοῦ ὀβολοῦ πωλουµένων (“many for an obol: cheap, Athenian. For this is the term for items sold in large quantities for an obol”). Text Kassel–Austin print † ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀβολοῦ †, but there is no reason to regard the end of the line as corrupt even if the thought is obscure. Portus’ ἐστι τοὐβολοῦ requires scanning µικρόν as lk, and there seem to be no parallels for the use of ἐστι + gen. of price (which generally takes a verb meaning “to sell” vel sim.). Kaibel proposed ἑπτὰ τοὐβολοῦ and suggested that the idea intended was “pauxillum est si vel septem improbos obolo emas” (“It’s not much if you buy seven bad ones for an obol”), but the lemma in Photius = Suda seems to guarantee that µικρόν and τοὐβολοῦ are to be taken together.

198

Eupolis

Interpretation An explanation of some preceding remark, hence γάρ. This appears to be a paradoxical statement; who would want to spend any money at all for worthless objects, much less for a small quantity of them? But the fact that we do not know what commodity was in question, together with the corruption in the middle of the line, makes it impossible to understand the joke (if that is what it is). τῶν … πονηρῶν On the supposed distinction between πονηρός (“worthless”) and πόνηρος (“bad”), see fr. 346 n. For τοὐβολοῦ in the sense “for an obol, at the price of an obol”, see fr. 255 n.

fr. 199 K.-A. (186 K.) πότερ’ ἦν τὸ τάριχος Φρύγιον ἢ Γαδειρικόν; Was the saltfish88 Phrygian or Gadeiric? St.Byz. γ 11 (Γάδειρα) κτητικὸν Γαδειρικός. Εὔπολις ἐν Μαρικᾷ· ―― (Gadeira) The possessive adjective is Gadeirikos. Eupolis in Marikas: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkr

l|lr|l

klkl

Discussion Kaibel ap. K.-A. Citation context Traced by Lentz to Herodian (Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 152.15–16). Parallel material, perhaps deriving ultimately from the same source, is preserved at – Hsch. γ 25 Γαδειρικὸν τάριχος· τὸ ἀπὸ Γαδείρων κοµιζόµενον· ἐκεῖθεν γὰρ ἐκοµίζετο (“Gadeiric saltfish: that which is transported from Gadeira; because it used to be transported from there”) – Phot. γ 4 Γαδειρικὸν τάριχος· ἀπὸ Γαδείρων νήσων, ἐκτὸς τῶν Ἡρακλέους στηλῶν (“Gadeiric saltfish: from the islands of Gadeira, outside of the Pillars of Heracles”). Note also Poll. 6.48 ταρίχη Φρύγια, … ταρίχη Γαδειρικά (“Phrygian saltfish, … Gadeiric saltfish”), which probably also recalls this verse. 88

Not “Is this saltfish?” (Rusten 2011. 252), which not only adds a deictic but gets the tense of the verb wrong.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 199)

199

Interpretation Phrygia was a land-locked portion of Asia Minor, and “Phrygian saltfish” must be a joke. What Phrygia did supply Athens with was slaves (esp. Hermipp. fr. 63.18 ἀνδράποδ’ ἐκ Φρυγίας, “slaves from Phrygia”; cf. Ar. V. 1309 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.), and Taillardat 1965 § 434, comparing Ar. fr. 207 (“I won’t be ashamed to wash/abuse this saltfish with all the bad deeds I know it’s guilty of”), suggested that τάριχος could function as an insulting term for a person, sc. because actual saltfish was cheap, smelled bad (thus Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 43.2) or the like.89 Polyzelus (fr. 5) is supposed to have called Hyperbolos a Phrygian, and Kaibel accordingly proposed that the reference here might be to him. For other references in comedy to saltfish by its place of origin, Cratin. fr. 44 ἐν σαργάναις ἄξω ταρίχους Ποντικούς (“I’ll bring Pontic saltfish in baskets”); Hermipp. fr. 63.5 ἐκ δ’ Ἑλλησπόντου σκόµβρους καὶ πάντα ταρίχη (“mackerel and every sort of saltfish from the Hellespont”). For a saltfish dealer on a retail level, Nicostr. Com. fr. 5.4. For a saltfish importer, Alex. frr. 15.14; 77.2. τὸ τάριχος Properly fish that has been preserved by smoking, salting or a combination of the two; see in general Curtis 1991. 6–26; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 39.1–2; Ar. Ach. 967 with Olson 2002 ad loc. Γαδειρικόν Gadeira (modern Cádiz) was an 8th-century BCE Phoenician colony located on the Spanish Atlantic coast just outside the Straits of Gibraltar (e. g. Pi. N. 4.69 Γαδείρων τὸ πρὸς ζόφον οὐ περατόν, “what lies to the west of Gadeira cannot be crossed”; fr. 256; Hdt. 4.8.2 Γηδείροισι τοῖσι ἔξω Ἡρακλέων στηλέων ἐπὶ τῷ Ὠκεανῷ, “Gêdeira located outside the Pillars of Heracles on the Ocean”; Pl. Crit. 114b). See in general Ramirez Delgado 1982, esp. 21–7 (literary evidence), 95–131 (archaeological evidence); Lomas Salmonte 1991. For Gadeira as a source of saltfish, cf. Nicostr. Com. fr. 5.1–2 Βυζάντιόν 〈τε〉 τέµαχος ἐπιβακχευσάτω, / Γαδειρικόν θ’ ὑπογάστριον παρεισίτω (“and let a slice of Byzantine fish burst in like a bacchant, and a belly-slice from Cadiz enter next to it!”); Antiph. fr. 78 τάριχος ἀντακαῖον εἴ τις βούλετ’ ἢ / Γαδειρικόν, Βυζαντίας δὲ θυννίδος / † εὐφροσύναις † ὀσµαῖσι χαίρει (“if anyone wants sturgeon-saltfish or the kind that comes from Cadiz, and takes pleasure in † festivities † the smell of Byzantine tuna”); Hp. Int. 25 = 7.232.1 Littré, 30 = 7.244.25–246.1 Littré τάριχος Γαδειρικόν (“Gadeiric saltfish”); [Hes.] = Euthydemus SH 455.10–12; Theodorid. SH 744 θύννοι τε † δὴ οἴστρησοντι † Γαδείρων δρόµον (“and tuna † in fact [corrupt] † a Gadeiran course”); Ponsich and Tarradell 1965; Ponsich 1988; Muñoz Vicente, de Frutos Reyes 89

Note also D. 25.61, where a man who has been in jail for a while is mockingly described as τεταριχευµένος, “salted”.

200

Eupolis

and Berriatua Hernández 1988. 488–90; Lomas Salmonte 1991. 87–9; Lagóstena Barrios 2001. 98–119 (with extensive references to archaeological evidence and modern secondary literature); Munn 2003, esp. 207–9 (on the saltfish trade between Spanish producers and the major trading and distribution center of Corinth, noting that the fish used appears to have been primarily sea-bream, gilthead bream and tuna). For the form of the adjective, see frr. *22 n.; 66 n.

fr. 200 K.-A. (187 K.) περιήλθοµεν καὶ φῦλον ἀµφορεαφόρων καὶ περιήλθοµεν codd. : καὶ del. Pierson   ἀµφορεαφόρων Pierson : ἀµφορέα φέρων codd.

We made our way around the tribe of amphora-porters too Suda α 1785 ἀµφορεαφόρος· ὁ κεράµια µισθοῦ φέρων. ―― · Μένανδρος Ῥαπιζοµένῃ (fr. 326). καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης Ἥρωσι (fr. 310)· ―― . Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ· ―― amphoreaphoros: a man who carries ceramic vessels for a wage. ―― : Menander in Rhapizomenê (fr. 326). Also Aristophanes in Hêroes (fr. 310)· ―― . Eupolis in Marikas: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl

l|lk|l

krkl

Discussion Pierson 1759. 63; Bergk 1838. 355 Citation context From the second part of a long note made up out of bits and pieces of pre-existing material, the first being Moer. α 128 ἀµφορεαφόρους Ἀττικοί τοὺς µισθοῦ τὰ κεράµια φέροντας (“Attic authors [refer to] men who carry ceramic vessels for a wage as amphoreaphoroi”). Phot. α 1380 appears to be an abbreviated version of the same note. Note also Poll. 7.130 οἱ ἐξ ἀγορᾶς ἢ ἐκ λιµένος κοµίζοντες ἀχθοφόροι, ἀµφορεαφόροι, καὶ τὰ ῥήµατα ἀχθοφορεῖν καὶ ἀµφορεαφορεῖν (“Those who transport goods from the marketplace or the harbor are achthophoroi or amphoreaphoroi, and the verbs are achthophoreô and amphoreaforeô”), which perhaps derives from the same source. Text The initial καί in the Suda might theoretically have stood at the end of the previous line (“and we made our way around”), but is far more likely an unwanted addition to the text, as Pierson saw.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 200)

201

The paradosis ἀµφορέα φέρων (corrected by Pierson to ἀµφορεαφόρων to match the lemma in the Suda) is nonsense and likely reflects the influence of ὁ κεράµια … φέρων and ἀποφορὰν φέρων in the other poetic lines cited immediately before it. Interpretation A report on a portion of the peregrinations of a group that included the speaker. φῦλον + gen. is a high-style expression (see below), which is immediately deflated by the prosaic content of ἀµφορεαφόρων. The two comic fragments quoted by the Suda constitute our only other specific literary evidence for amphoreaphoroi (“amphora-porters”): Ar. fr. 310 τρέχ’ εἰς τὸν οἶνον, ἀµφορέα κενὸν λαβὼν / τῶν ἔνδοθεν καὶ βύσµα καὶ γευστήριον, / κἄπειτα µίσθου σαυτὸν ἀµφορεαφορεῖν (“Take one of the empty amphoras inside the house, a plug and a tasting bowl, and run off to the wine-market; and then hire yourself out as an amphora-porter!”, suggesting that customers who bought wine in the market90 did not necessarily purchase the jar in which it was contained as well, but might instead use one provided by the porter hired to get their goods home); Men. fr. 326 εἶτ’ ἀµφορεαφόρος τις ἀποφορὰν φέρων (“then some amphora-porter who paid a daily sum to his master”; a reference to a slave working independently and turning over a fixed amount of money to his owner each day). See also fr. 122 n.; Marx 1929, esp. 331–3 (but with attention primarily to the Roman world); Lawall 2000, esp. 73–80. For porters generally, see fr. 291 n. περιήλθοµεν For the verb, see fr. 327.2 n. φῦλον ἀµφορεαφόρων A poetic periphrasis for ἀµφορεαφόροι, like e. g. Il. 9.130 φῦλα γυναικῶν for γυναῖκες; 14.361 φῦλ’ ἀνθρώπων for ἄνθρωποι; Hes. Th. 212 φῦλον Ὀνείρων for Ὄνειρα, 965 θεάων φῦλον for θεαί; Ar. Th. 786 τὸ γυναικεῖον φῦλον for αἱ γυναῖκες (with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.). For the use of φῦλον + gen. to designate an occupation, cf. Od. 8.481 φῦλον ἀοιδῶν (“the tribe of bards”; cited by Kassel–Austin), and note Pl. Plt. 260d τὸ κηρυκικὸν φῦλον (“the heraldic tribe”, i. e. ~ “the tribe of heralds”). In the classical period, the expression is mostly used in reference to wild creatures 90

I.e. properly unmixed wine; cf. Thphr. Char. 30.5, where when the man devoted to shameful profit “works as a wine-vendor, he sells watered wine to a friend”. The tasting bowl (for which, cf. Pherecr. fr. 152.1–3) is used to assess the quality of the wine before it is purchased (cf. Ar. Ach. 186–200 with Olson 2000 on 186–7; Antiph. fr. 83.1; Ephipp. fr. 18) and would thus seem to be equipment for a vendor or a customer rather than a porter. But perhaps one engaged a porter as one began one’s marketing rather than afterward and made the rounds with him, and his services included supplying a mixing bowl; or perhaps the point of the fragment is more complicated than this.

202

Eupolis

(e. g. Pi. fr. 70b.21 φῦλον λεόντων, “the tribe of lions”; S. Ant. 342–3 φῦλον ὀρνίθων, “tribe of birds”; E. fr. 839.5 φῦλά τε θηρῶν, “and tribes of wild beasts”; Ar. Av. 231 φῦλα µυρία κριθοτράγων, “a million tribes of barley-eaters” (lyric) with Dunbar 1995 ad loc., 777 φῦλα … θηρῶν, “tribes of wild beasts” (lyric), 1088–9 φῦλον πτηνῶν / οἰωνῶν, “tribe of winged birds” (lyric); Pl. Ti. 91d τὸ … τῶν ὀρνέων φῦλον, “the tribe of the birds”). Moer. α 128 (also preserved in anonymous form at Hsch. α 4148 ~ Synag. α 444 = Suda α 1785.1) identifies ἀµφορεαφόρος—attested in the classical period only in the passages cited by the Suda here—as Attic vocabulary.

fr. 201 K.-A. (188 K.) πεύσεσθε· νὼ γάρ, ἄνδρες, οὔθ᾽ ἱππεύοµεν πεύσεσθε Rabe : πεύσεσθαι Oros : om. Apollon. Dysc.   οὔθ᾽ Oros : οὐχ Apollon. Dysc.

You will hear; given that the two of us, gentlemen, are neither horsemen Apollon. Dysc. Grammatici Graeci II 1.1 p. 85.12–22 = pp. 470–2 Brandenburg αἱ δυϊκαὶ … εὐθείας µὲν καὶ αἰτιατικῆς κοινῶς νῷ, σφῷ· Ἀττικαὶ δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν πτώσεων νὼ καὶ σφώ … γενικῆς καὶ δοτικῆς νῷν, σφῷν. µονοσυλλάβως Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ· ――. καὶ ἔτι ἐν Φίλοις (fr. 290)·―― The duals … of the nominative and the accusative are both nôi, sphôi; but the Attic forms of the same cases are nô, sphô … Of the genitive and the dative (the forms are) nôin, sphôin. Eupolis (pronounces them) monosyllabically in Marikas: ――. And furthermore in Philoi (fr. 290): ―― r

Oros, On Orthography (Lex. Mess. fol. 281 20–6 ap. Rabe 1892. 407) ~ fr. B 108 Alpers νώ χωρὶς τοῦ ι, ἡ εὐθεῖα χωρὶς ὁµοίως τῇ αἰτιατικῇ· ὡς καὶ τὸ σφώ … Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ· ――. καὶ ἐπὶ αἰτιατικῆς ὁ αὐτὸς ἐν Φίλοις (fr. 290). νῷν ἔχει τὸ ι ὡς καὶ τὸ σφῷν nô without the iota, the nominative without (it is) just like the accusative; as also sphô … Eupolis in Marikas: ――. Also the same author in the accusative in Philoi (fr. 290). nôin has the iota, as does sphôin as well

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

l|lk|l

llkl

Discussion Struve 1841. 42–5; Srebrny 1948–9. 56 n. 29; Kassel–Austin

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 201)

203

Citation context From Apollonius Dyscolus’ Pronouns, and seemingly taken over more or less direct from him by Oros in his study of iota subscript. Text Oros’ πεύσεσθαι (a phonetic error, as ε and αι eventually came to be pronounced alike) is unmetrical and was corrected to πεύσεσθε by Rabe. The word fell out of the manuscripts of Apollonius at some point. οὔθ᾽ (Oros) rather than οὐχ (Apoll. Dysc.) is the lectio difficilior, the variant representing an attempt to simplify the text after the verse was removed from its original context (which must have had another matching οὔτε). Interpretation Addressed to a group by someone speaking on behalf of himself and another character; a description of a second activity in which the speaker and his partner or partners also did not indulge must have followed.91 Kassel–Austin suggest that the line is from a prologue, comparing Ar. Eq. 40, where one of the two slaves who open the play prepares to address the audience: λέγοιµ’ ἂν ἤδη. νῷν γάρ ἐστι δεσπότης (“I’ll tell you now; because we have a master …”). Cf. Ar. V. 86–7 εἰ δὴ ’πιθυµεῖτ’ εἰδέναι, σιγᾶτε νῦν. / φράσω γὰρ ἤδη τὴν νόσον τοῦ δεσπότου (“If you actually want to know, be quiet now; for at this point I’ll identify our master’s sickness”; also one of two slaves onstage in the prologue); Av. 30–45 (addressing the audience as ὦνδρες); Pl. Com. fr. 182.6–7 ἐγὼ δ’ ὑµῖν τὸ πρᾶγµα δὴ φράσω· / Ὑπερβόλῳ βουλῆς γάρ, ἄνδρες, ἐπέλαχον (“I’ll describe the situation for you; because I’m Hyperbolos’ alternative for the Council”); Henioch. fr. 5.4–7 τάχ’ ἄν τις ὑποκρούσειεν ὅ τι πότ’ ἐνθάδε / νῦν εἰσι κἀνέροιτο· παρ’ ἐµοῦ πεύσεται. / τὸ χωρίον µὲν γὰρ τόδ’ ἐστὶ πᾶν κύκλῳ / Ὀλυµπία (“Perhaps someone would interrupt and ask what this is here; he’ll hear it from me. For the whole region on every side is Olympia”; seemingly from a prologue); and the choral self-descriptions likewise from seemingly near the beginning of the play at Cratin. frr. 151 σιγά νυν πᾶς, ἔχε σῖγα, / καὶ πάντα λόγον τάχα πεύσῃ· / ἡµῖν δ’ Ἰθάκη πατρίς ἐστι, / πλέοµεν δ’ ἅµ’ Ὀδυσσέι θείῳ (“Everyone be quiet now, be quiet, and you’ll soon hear the whole story. Our native land is Ithaca, and we’re sailing in the company of divine Odysseus”); 171.9–12 ὧν δ’ οὕνεκ’ ἐφήσαµεν [ … ] / πεύσεσθ’ ἤδη. / Τιτᾶνες µὲν γενεάν ἐσµ[εν], / Πλοῦτοι δ’ ἐκαλούµεθ’ ὅτ’ [ἦρχε Κρόνος] (“Why we said … you’ll hear now. We are Titans by ancestry, and we were called Wealth-gods when Cronus was king”). For the audience addressed as ἄνδρες, also e. g. fr. 239 with n.; Pherecr. fr. 84.1; Ar. Ach. 496 91

Srebrny compared fr. 214 (where see n.) and suggested οὔθ᾽ ἱππεύοµεν / 〈οὔτ’ lkl x|〉 έντεθετταλίσµεθα (“we neither serve in the cavalry 〈nor〉 do we wear a Thessalian chlamys”), a clever proposal incapable of being proved either true or false.

204

Eupolis

ἄνδρες οἱ θεώµενοι, 515; Pax 244, 1365–6; Anaxandr. fr. 6.3. But the same form of address might be used in a speech before e. g. the Assembly (Ar. Ach. 53), the Council (Ar. Eq. 654) or a lawcourt (Ar. V. 950). Srebrny suggested that the point was “We’re not doing Knights again”; cf. test. i. For νώ, see fr. 290 n. γάρ is likely anticipatory, meaning that the clause precedes the one it explains and which is in this case lost (Denniston 1950. 68–70). ἱππεύοµεν The verb means “ride a horse” (occasionally more loosely “drive a horse”, sc. as it pulls a chariot: e. g. Pi. fr. dub. 356; E. Ion 41 (both of the Sun); Ar. Nu. 1406) and thus sometimes by extension “serve in the cavalry” (e. g. X. HG 6.1.8; Eq. 2.1; Lys. 14.7; 16.6). For the Athenian cavalry, see frr. 257 with n.; 293 with n.; 343 with n.; and in general Bugh 1988.

fr. 202 K.-A. (189 K.) Ael. VH 12.30 ἐς τοσοῦτον δὲ ἄρα Κυρηναῖοι τρυφῆς ἐξώκειλαν, ὥστε Πλάτωνα παρεκάλουν, ἵνα αὐτοῖς γένηται νοµοθέτης. τὸν δὲ ἀπαξιῶσαί φασι διὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ῥᾳθυµίαν αὐτῶν. ὁµολογεῖ δὲ καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν τῷ Μαρικᾷ, ὅ σ τ ι ς α ὐ τ ῶ ν ε ὐ τ ε λ έ σ τ α τ ο ς , σ φ ρ α γ ῖ δ α ς ε ἶ χ ε δ έ κ α µ ν ῶ ν . παρῆν δὲ θαυµάζεσθαι καὶ τοὺς διαγλύφοντας τοὺς δακτυλίους The inhabitants of Cyrene ran so thoroughly aground on luxury that they invited Plato to be their lawgiver; but people say that he thought them unworthy of this, because of their disinclination to be governed. And Eupolis in his Marikas also agrees that t h e shabbiest among them used to wear signet rings worth ten m i n a s. Their signet ring-carvers also inspired admiration

Meter Perhaps iambic trimeter; see on Text. Discussion Meineke 1839 II.504 Citation context The expression ἐς τοσοῦτον … τρυφῆς ἐξώκειλαν is found also at Ael. VH 9.24 ἐς τοσοῦτον τρυφῆς ἐξώκειλε (of Smindyrides of Sybaris) and is apparently to be understood as a stylistic flourish recommended to Roman-era authors eager to produce “good Greek”; cf. Men. fr. 840.2–3 ὅ τε πλοῦτος ἐξώκειλε τὸν κεκτηµένον / εἰς ἕτερον ἦθος; Plb. 18.55.7 εἰς ἀσέλγειαν ἐξώκειλε καὶ βίον ἀσυρῆ; J. BJ 7.4.261 ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἐξώκειλαν ἀπονοίας; Ael. fr. 55.4 ἐς τοσοῦτον ἄρα φρονήµατος ἐξώκειλεν; Ath. 4.141f; 12.522a, 523c, 526a (all εἰς τρυφὴν ἐξώκειλαν vel sim.), etc.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 202)

205

Text Meineke restored the text ὅστις 〈γὰρ〉 αὐτῶν 〈ἐστιν〉 εὐτελέστατος, / σφραγῖδ᾽ ἔχει δέκα µνῶν (“for the shabbiest among them wears a signet ring worth ten minas”). But there is no way of knowing whether Aelian or his source is quoting carelessly (allowing the text to be at least conjecturally restored) or is merely summarizing what he takes to be the content of the passage. Interpretation Cyrene (IACP #1028), originally a Theran colony, controlled a enormous amount of fertile, well-watered land on the Libyan coast and was the leading Greek city in the region. See in general Laronde 1987, esp. 257–323. Cyrene is mentioned elsewhere in comedy at Hermipp. fr. 63.4 (a source of silphium stalk and cow hides); Alex. fr. 241 (full of party-crashers and their chariots). Ten minas is 1000 drachmas, an enormous sum of money. If σφραγῖδας is an accurate report of what Eupolis wrote, the plural is part of the hyperbole: the poorest Cyrenaean wore not a single signet ring but a number of them.92 Or perhaps this is merely loose writing: there are multiple rings because multiple people are under discussion, even though the subject is, strictly speaking, singular. εὐτελής and its cognates are 5th-century vocabulary, first attested at A. Th. 491 but otherwise confined to prose (e. g. Hdt. 2.86.2; Th. 2.40.1 εὐτέλεια; Pl. Cr. 45a) and comedy (also e. g. Ar. Av. 805 εὐτέλεια; Pl. Com. fr. 188.11 (superlative and corrupt)). For signet rings, see frr. 204 n.; 441 n. For ἔχω in the sense “wear”, cf. frr. 204 ἔχοντα τὴν σφραγῖδα; 298.6 n.; 350 n. For the word µνᾶ (“mina”), see fr. 165.2 n.

fr. *203 K.-A. (190 K.) ἀλλ’ οὖν ἔγωγέ σοι λέγω Μαρικᾶντα µὴ κολάζειν Nonetheless, I at least urge you not to punish Marikas Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 637.22–6, ap. Eust. p. 300.22–3 = I.464.23–6 ὁ δὲ Ἡρωδιανὸς τοῖς εἰρηµένοις παραπηγνὺς καὶ τὸν παρὰ τῷ κωµικῷ Μαρικᾶν (Ar. Nu. 533), τὸ βάρβαρον ὄνοµα διὰ τοῦ ντ κλιθῆναι λέγει, παραφέρων χρῆσιν ταύτην·

92

Storey 2011. 175 translates “has a ring”, as if the text read σφραγῖδα (as in Meineke).

206

Eupolis

But Herodian, after adding to the terms discussed also the word Marikas in the comic poet (Ar. Nu. 553), says that the barbarian name is declined in -nt-, citing the following use: ――

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic.

llkl

klkl | rlkl

kll

Discussion Bergk 1838. 356–7; Struve 1841. 7–8, 46–7; Zielinski 1931. 21; Whittaker 1935. 185; Schiassi 1944. 87–8; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Sonnino 1997. 53–7; Sommerstein 2000. 442 Citation context From a discussion of the place-name Ἀρκαδίη in Il. 2.603. Another version of the same material, but with no reference to Aristophanes or this fragment, is preserved at Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 636.26–7 (from the An.Ox.): τὸ δὲ Μαρικᾶς Μαρικᾶντος περιττοσυλλάβως κέκλιται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἰσοσυλλάβως (“Marikas (nom.) is declined with extra syllables Marikantos (gen.), but also isosyllabically93”). Interpretation Advice directed by the speaker, despite previously expressed reservations, to a single individual (σοι) with whom the ultimate decision about what to do with Marikas rests; likely from an agôn (thus Whittaker). ἔγωγε is emphatic, showing that the speaker is distinguishing his or her opinion on this matter from that of someone else who does want Marikas to be punished. As Struve (followed by Kassel–Austin) noted, this is unlikely to be part of a plea for mercy, because λέγω µή seems elsewhere to be used in a more authoritative manner, to offer admonitions and the like; cf. Pherecr. fr. 102.1–4 τοῖς δὲ κριταῖς / τοῖς νυνὶ κρίνουσι λέγω / µὴ ’πιορκεῖν µηδ’ ἀδίκως / κρίνειν (“I urge the judges who are now making a decision not to violate their oath or judge unfairly”); E. fr. 223.11–13 [σοὶ] … / [λέγω τ]οσοῦτον, µὴ γαµεῖν µὲν ἡδέως, / [γήµαντ]α δ’ εἶναι σοῖς τέκνοις [ἀνω]φελῆ (“I ask this much of you, that you not enjoy sleeping with a woman, but then when you marry be of no help to your children”; the key word is restored); Pl. Smp. 222b σοὶ λέγω, ὦ Ἀγάθων, µὴ ἐξαπατᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τούτου (“I urge you, Agathon, not to be taken in by this man”). For the sentiment, cf. also Ar. Ra. 628–9 ἀγορεύω τινὶ / ἐµὲ µὴ βασανίζειν (“I forbid anyone to torture me”; cited by Kassel–Austin). What followed in the next line might easily have given this advice a very different cast, if what the speaker said was e. g. “I at least urge you not to punish Marikas with a whipping but with death”.

93

i. e. yielding in the accusative both Μαρικᾶν and Μαρικᾶντα.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 204)

207

In comedy, at least, ἀλλ’ οὖν is used to acknowledge an objection, be it by another character or voiced by the speaker himself, but also to push through it (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 155.6, 13, 17; Ar. Nu. 985, 1002; V. 1190; Av. 1407–8 καταγελᾷς µου, δῆλος εἶ. / ἀλλ’ οὖν ἔγωγ’ οὐ παύσοµαι, “You’re obviously mocking me. But nonetheless I’m not going to stop”). γε often follows. See in general Denniston 1950. 442. ἔγωγε is emphatic; the speaker is well aware that someone else—perhaps even the addressee as he or she has been represented in the preceding remarks—might disagree. But the suggestion that follows is still, the speaker believes, the wisest course. κολάζω (〈 κόλος, “short, blunt, broken off”) is “rein in, check” and thus “chastise, punish”, the fundamental idea being that the person being punished has gone too far and grown undisciplined (ἀκόλαστος).

fr. 204 K.-A. (198 K.) ἔχοντα τὴν σφραγῖδα καὶ ψάγδαν ἐρυγγάνοντα ψάγδαν Ath. 15.690e et Phot. : σάγδαν Ath. 15.691b–c

wearing his/the signet ring and belching psagdan Phot. (z) ap. Tsantsanoglou 1984. 119–20 ψάγδας· µύρου εἶδος. Μαρικᾷ· ――. Ἐπίλυκος ἐν Κωραλίσκῳ (fr. 1)· ―― psagdas: a type of perfume. In Marikas: ――. Epilycus in Kôraliskos (fr. 1)· ―― Ath. 15.690e ψάγδης Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν ∆αιταλεῦσιν (fr. 213)· ――. Εὔπολις δ’ ἐν Μαρικᾷ· ψάγδαν ἐρυγγάνοντα Aristophanes in Daitaleis (fr. 213) (mentions) psagdê: ――. And Eupolis in Marikas: belching psagdan Ath. 15.691b–c τῆς δὲ λεγοµένης σάγδας, µύρον δ’ ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦτο, Ἐπίλυκος ἐν Κωραλίσκῳ (fr. 1)· ――. καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν ∆αιταλεῦσιν (fr. 213) καὶ ἐν Μαρικᾷ Εὔπολις “σάγδαν ἐρυγγάνοντα” λέγων. ὅπερ ὁ Θυατειρηνὸς Νίκανδρος (FGrH 343 F 18) ἐπὶ τοῦ ἄγαν χλιδῶντος εἰρῆσθαι ἀκούει, Θεόδωρος (FGrH 346 F 5) δὲ θυµίαµά τί φησιν αὐτὸ εἶναι Epilycus in Kôraliskos (fr. 1) (mentions) what is known as sagda; this too is a type of perfume: ――. Also Aristophanes in Daitaleis (fr. 213) and Eupolis in Marikas, saying: belching sagdan. Nicander of Thyateira (FGrH 343 F 18) takes this to be a reference to

208

Eupolis

someone who lives in excessive luxury, while Theodorus (FGrH 346 F 5) claims that (sagdas) is a type of incense Erot. ψ 2 ψάγδᾳ· µύρου εἶδος, οὗ µέµνηται καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Μαρικᾷ with psagdas: a type of perfume, which Eupolis as well mentions in Marikas

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic.

klkl

klkl | llkl

kll

Discussion Tsantsanoglou 1984. 119–20; Lorenzoni 1998. 70–1 Citation context The overlapping references to ancient authors in these notes leave little doubt that all of them go back to a single lexicographic source—perhaps Nicander of Thyateira, who seems to be glossing this passage at Ath. 15.691c, although Theodorus also produced a work on Attic vocabulary—additional reflexes of which (but with the poetic references stripped out) are preserved at – Hsch. σ 24 σάγδας· εἶδος µύρου. ἢ ψάγδας (“sagdas: a type of perfume. Or psagdas”; traced by Lentz to Herodian) – Hsch. ψ 1 ψαγδάς· ψάγδῆς. µύρον ποιόν (“psagdas: psagdês; some sort of perfume”) – Phot. σ 13 σάγδας· µύρον τι (“sagdas: some perfume”; traced by Theodoridis to Diogenianus) See Lorenzoni. Text For the spelling of ψάγδαν—as a loan-word, not necessarily stable in any period—see Interpretation. Interpretation A description of a man living an ostentatiously wealthy, luxurious lifestyle; cf. references to seal-rings in similar contexts at fr. 202; Ar. Nu. 332 σφραγιδονυχαργοκοµήτας (“seal-ring-onyx-lazy-longhairs”; in the catalogue of contemporary social frauds the Clouds support); Ec. 632 τῶν σεµνοτέρων … καὶ τῶν σφραγῖδας ἐχόντων (“of the very haughty and those who wear seal-rings”); Antiph. fr. 188.1–2 Εὔθυνος δ’ ἔχων / σανδάλια καὶ σφραγῖδα καὶ µεµυρισµένος (“and Euthynos, wearing little sandals and a sealring, and covered with perfume”; from Plousioi, “Wealthy Men”). Kassel–Austin cite fr. 202 in support of the claim that “σφραγίδι superbit Maricas”, which is a circular argument, since there as well we have no way of identifying the person referred to. If this were Marikas, however, Ar. Eq. 947–8 (also cited by Kassel–Austin) would be an interesting parallel, since it emerges there that among the powers the Paphlagonian has usurped in Demos’ house is

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 205)

209

control of his ring (in that case called a δακτύλιος) ~ the Athenian state seal (cf. Olson 1996). For ἔχω in the sense “wear”, cf. frr. 202 † σφραγῖδας εἶχε †; 298.6 n.; 350 n. τὴν σφραγῖδα For seal-rings, see also fr. 441 n.; Boardman 1970. 189–238, esp. 235–8; Austin–Olson 2004 on Th. 415 and Diggle 2004 on Thphr. Char. 18.4 (on sealing rooms and receptacles of all sorts). ψάγδαν ἐρυγγάνοντα The point is not that the subject’s belches smell like perfume, but that he is so full of perfume that it pours out of his every orifice; cf. fr. 176 with n.; Pherecr. fr. 138.1–4 ὦ µαλάχας µὲν ἐξερῶν, ἀναπνέων δ’ ὑάκινθον, / καὶ µελιλώτινον λαλῶν καὶ ῥόδα προσσεσηρώς· / ὦ φιλῶν µὲν ἀµάρακον, προσκινῶν δὲ σέλινα, / γελῶν δ’ ἱπποσέλινα καὶ κοσµοσάνδαλα βαίνων (“O you who vomit mallow, breathe hyacinth, chatter melilôt, grin roses! Who kiss marjoram, screw celery, laugh horse-celery and walk kosmosandala!”); Ar. Nu. 50–2; Diph. fr. 42.21 δάνει’ ἐρυγγάνων (“belching forth loans”). For the verb—a variant of the more common ἐρεύγοµαι (e. g. Ar. V. 913 ἐνήρυγεν with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Thphr. Char. 11.3; 19.5)—see also e. g. Cratin. fr. 62.3; E. Cyc. 523; Hp. Prorrh. II 4 = 9.16.13 Littré. ψάγδαν is identified by Poll. 6.104, seemingly referring to Eub. fr. 100 Αἰγυπτίῳ ψάγδανι τρὶς λελουµένη (“thrice bathed (fem.) in Egyptian psagdan”; the only other attestation of the word in the classical period) as Αἰγύπτιον … µύρον (“Egyptian perfume”). The name of the substance in fact appears to be an Egyptian loan-word; see Spiegelberg 1921, arguing that the Greek nominative was originally ψάγδαν rather than ψάγδας or ψάγδης, as some of the sources would have it, and that the initial pi-sound represents the Egyptian definitive article, so that σάγδαν is in this sense equally correct. For Egyptian loan-words into Greek (but without reference to this example, which falls into the category “characteristic products of the country”), see McGready 1968. On perfume generally, see fr. 222.2 n.

fr. 205 K.-A. (Cratin. fr. 306 K.) ἀφυπνίζεσθαι 〈 〉 χρὴ πάντα θεατήν, ἀπὸ µὲν βλεφάρων αὐθηµερινὸν ποιητῶν λῆρον ἀφέντα 2 αὐθηµερινὸν Bergk : αὐθηµερινῶν Aristid.

every audience-member must be awake, letting go from his eyelids the same-day babble of poets

210

Eupolis

Aristid. or. 28.91 ἀλλ’ ἔγωγε κωµῳδιοποιοῦ τινος ἤκουσα σεµνολογουµένου θαυµαστὰ οἷα. καίτοι ἐάν τις ἔρηται τοὺς τῆς κωµῳδίας ποιητὰς ἐφ’ ὅτῳ µέγα φρονοῦσι, φαῖεν ἂν, οἶµαι, ὅτι γέλωτα κινοῦσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ αὐτῶν τις ὡµολόγηκεν οὐδενὸς ἐρωτῶντος (Pl. Smp. 189b). ἀλλ’ ὅµως καὶ οὗτοι χωρὶς ἀξιοῦσιν εἶναι τά τε τῶν ἀστείων σκώµµατα καὶ τὰ τῶν πολλῶν· καί τις αὐτῶν ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ δράµατος µεγαλαυχούµενος ὡς προφήτης προαγορεύει τοιάδε (add. Paris gr. 3005 Εὔπολις λέγει τοῦτο ἐν τῷ Μαρικᾷ)· ――, ὥσπερ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ µέλλων ἅπαντας σοφούς τε καὶ σπουδαίους ποιήσειν. διδάξας δὲ τοὺς Χείρωνας προσπαραγράφει πάλιν αὖ µάλα ὑπερηφάνως ἐπὶ τελευτῆς· (Cratin. fr. 255) ―― But I myself heard a certain comic poet making marvellously haughty pronouncements. Although if one were to ask the comic poets what they are proud of, I imagine that they would say that they provoke laughter, just as one of them actually confessed, although no one was asking (Pl. Smp. 189b). But all the same, even they think it proper that the jokes of sophisticated people be different from those of the masses; and one of them at the beginning of his play, boasting as if he were a prophet, offers a prologue of the following sort (Paris gr. 3005 adds: “Eupolis says this in his Marikas”): ――, as if he was going to make them all wise and serious on that very day. And when he was staging his Cheirônes he again quite haughtily adds once more at the end: (Cratin. fr. 255) ――

Meter Anapaestic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. 〈tyty〉 rlll | 〈ty〉ll

rlrl

llrl | llll

rll

rll

Discussion Wilamowitz 1927. 11; Gelzer 1960. 279; Alfonsi 1962; Behr 1981. 385 n. 135; Storey 2003. 211–12; Lech 2012 Citation context Part of a long discussion, supported by literary examples drawn from numerous archaic and classical sources, to support the notion that there is nothing wrong with a just expression of pride in one’s own achievements; citation of Ar. V. 1030, 1043, 1046–7 follows. Aristides clearly thought that fr. 205 was from Cratinus, but a scholion in Paris gr. 3005 assigns it to Eupolis’ Marikas instead. It seems in any case more likely that all this material is drawn from a pre-existing, thematically organized compilation than that Aristides knew the plays at first hand. His claim that these verses come from a prologue is thus similarly not necessarily to be believed; see Interpretation. Text In 2, the paradosis αὐθηµερινῶν has been attracted into the case of the words that precede and follow it, and was corrected by Bergk to αὐθηµερινόν (agreeing with λῆρον). Interpretation As Wilamowitz argued, these lines seem more likely to be from a parabasis than a prologue, as Aristides claims, in which case the chorus

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 205)

211

is speaking for their poet or at least in his interest; cf. fr. 392.1–2 (quoted below) with n.; Pherecr. fr. 204 ἵν’ ἀφυπνισθῆτ’ οὖν ἀκροᾶσθ’· ἤδη γὰρ καὶ λέξοµεν (“Pay attention, therefore, so that you stay awake! For now we’re going to speak”; Eupolideans drawn from a parabasis). The claim is that bad poets—i. e. almost by definition all other comic poets competing at this festival—have nothing significant or of enduring value to say, and thus threaten to put the audience to sleep. The µέν in 2 likely anticipates a δέ-clause in what follows that calls for attention to Eupolis’ comments which—in alleged contrast with those of his rivals—are of real enduring value. The effect of Meineke’s and Kock’s retention of the paradosis αὐθηµερινῶν in 2, on the one hand, and of LSJ’s misdefinition of the adjective in this passage as “ephemeral” (see detailed discussion of the word below), on the other, has been to obscure the significance of this fragment for the history of the Athenian theater. The poets disparaged here can scarcely be all the dramatic poets at the festival, where the performances were necessarily spread out over a number of days, and are instead most naturally taken to be comic poets—i. e. Eupolis’ rivals, the men he had the most interest in attacking in a parabasis (cf. Ar. Eq. 519; V. 1018). If so, this fragment confirms the hypothesis of Luppe 1972. 70–3, 74 that the entire set of comedies entered in the competition were performed on a single day,94 hence the reference to the “same-day babble” of poets and the call to wake up and listen instead to Eupolis.95 Fr. 206 (also anapaestic tetrameter catalectic) likely comes from the same section of the play. 1 ἀφυπνίζεσθαι The compound is attested in the classical period only here, in Pherecr. fr. 204 (quoted above) and at [E.] Rh. 25 ἀφύπνισον, and is repeatedly identified as an Atticism (Phryn. Ecl. 195 ἐξυπνισθῆναι οὐ χρὴ λέγειν, ἀλλ’ ἀφυπνισθῆναι, “one should not say exypnisthênai but aphypnisthênai”; [Hdn.] Philet. 53 ἀφυπνίσαι µᾶλλον, οὐχὶ ἐξυπνίσαι, “by preference aphypnisai not exypnisai”; Moer. α 124 ἀφυπνίσαι Ἀττικοί· ἐξυπνίσαι Ἕλληνες, “Attic-speakers [use] aphypnisai; Greeks generally [use] exypnisai”), hence presumably the insistent use of it by “Second Sophistic” authors such as Aristides (also e. g. or. 26.69), Aelian (NA 11.22; VH 1.13) and Philostratus (e. g. VA 2.36).

94 95

See also Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 786–9. Thus already Storey 2003. 212, although he considers the possibility that the reference is to tragedy instead, which Lech shows is unlikely. Sommerstein 2009. 121–2, by contrast, argues that the point of the adjective is that the work of Eupolis’ rivals is completely slapdash, thrown together on the very day of the festival.

212

Eupolis

θεατήν Late 5th-century vocabulary, in comedy always of the actual audience in the Theater (e. g. frr. 308; 392.1 with n., with further examples of use of the word in parabases; Cratin. fr. 342.1; Ar. Ach. 442; Nu. 521, 890; V. 1013; Pax 732); elsewhere of various sorts of audiences at e. g. E. Supp. 652; Ba. 829; Th. 3.38.4, 7 ἀκοῆς ἡδονῇ ἡσσώµενοι καὶ σοφιστῶν θεαταῖς ἐοικότες καθηµένοις (“overcome by the pleasure of listening and resembling sophists’ seated spectators”); [And.] 4.20). Despite its etymology (〈 θεάοµαι; cf. fr. 302 θεῶ with n.), the noun and its theatrical cognates do not automatically privilege the idea of viewing onstage action, as opposed to hearing the words the actors/characters pronounce (e. g. fr. 392.1–2 ἀκούετ’, ὦ θεαταί, τἀµὰ καὶ ξυνίετε / ῥήµατ’, “Pay attention, spectators, ‘and hark unto my words’”; Ar. Eq. 36 βούλει τὸ πρᾶγµα τοῖς θεαταῖσιν φράσω;, “Do you want me to explain the situation to the spectators?”, 508 λέξοντας ἔπη πρὸς τὸ θέατρον, “in order to make a speech to the audience”; V. 54 κατείπω τοῖς θεαταῖς τὸν λόγον, “let me describe the situation to the spectators”). 2 ἀπὸ µὲν βλεφάρων evokes a well-established high-style image (set up by 1 ἀφυπνίζεσθαι) in which sleep sits, is poured, falls or the like upon eyelids, or vanishes from them: e. g. Il. 10.25–6 οὐδὲ γὰρ αὖ τῷ / ὕπνος ἐπὶ βλεφάροισιν ἐφίζανε (“for sleep again was not seated on his eyelids”), 187 ὣς τῶν νήδυµος ὕπνος ἀπὸ βλεφάροιιν ὀλώλει (“thus did sweet sleep perish from their eyelids”); 14.164–5 τῷ δ’ ὕπνον … / χεύῃ ἐπὶ βλεφάροισιν (“and sleep should be poured on his eyelids”); Od. 1.363–4 οἱ ὕπνον / … ἐπὶ βλεφάροισι βάλε (“she threw sleep on her eyelids”); 5.271 ὕπνος ἐπὶ βλεφάροισιν ἔπιπτεν (“sleep fell on his eyelids”); 12.366 µοι βλεφάρων ἐξέσσυτο … ὕπνος (“sleep fled from my eyelids”); Hes. fr. 294.3–4 οὐδέ οἱ ὕπνος / πῖπτεν ἐπὶ βλεφάροις (“nor did sleep fall upon his eyelids”); Alcm. PMG 3.7 [ὕπνον ἀ]πὸ γλεφάρων σκεδ[α]σεῖ γλυκύν (“will scatter sweet sleep from my eyelids”); cf. elsewhere in the classical period A. Th. 3 βλέφαρα µὴ κοιµῶν ὕπνῳ (“not lulling his eyelids in sleep”); Ag. 15 τὸ µὴ βεβαίως βλέφαρα συµβαλεῖν ὕπνῳ (“not to join one’s eyelids securely in sleep”); S. Tr. 989–91 µὴ σκεδάσαι / τῷδ’ ἀπὸ κρατὸς / βλεφάρων θ’ ὕπνον (“not to scatter sleep from his head and eyelids”); Bacch. Pa. 4.76–7 οὐδὲ συλᾶται µελίφρων / ὕπνος ἀπὸ βλεφάρων (“nor is honey-sweet sleep snatched from his eyelids”); Ar. V. 11–12 κἀµοὶ γὰρ ἀρτίως ἐπεστρατεύσατο / Μῆδός τις ἐπὶ τὰ βλέφαρα … ὕπνος (“for some Median sleep attacked my eyelids as well just now”); and later Theoc. 21.20–1 ἐκ βλεφάρων δέ / ὕπνον ἀπωσάµενοι (“and after thrusting sleep from their eyelids”). The bathetic λῆρον then deflates the language. For the adjective αὐθηµερινός, cf. [Thphr.] Weather Signs 10 (on evidence of rainy weather to come) ἑναργέστατον µὲν οὖν τὸ ἑωθινὸν ὅταν πρὸ ἡλίου ἀνατολῆς φαίνηται ἐπιφοινίσσον σηµεῖον· ἢ γὰρ αὐθηµερινὸν ἐπισηµαίνει

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 206)

213

ἢ τριῶν ἡµερῶν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ (“The clearest sign is the one that occurs at dawn, whenever a reddish sign appears before sunrise; for this generally indicates rain either on that day or within three days”);96 Job 7:1 LXX µισθίου αὐθηµερινοῦ (“a day-laborer”, i. e. someone hired and paid “on the same day” he does his work); Ptol. Gramm. κ 80 κραιπάλη καὶ µέθη διαφέρει. κραιπάλη µὲν λέγεται ἡ χθεσινὴ µέθη, µέθη δὲ ἡ αὐθηµερινὴ οἴνησις (“kraipalê and methê are different; for kraipalê refers to being drunk on the previous day”—i. e. to a hangover or the like—“whereas methê refers to intoxication on the same day (sc. as the one on which one does the drinking)”);97 the more common adverb αὐθηµερόν, “on the same day” (e. g. A. Pers. 456; Ar. Lys. 114; Th. 2.22.2; X. An. 4.5.1); and similarly formed adjectives such as ἡµερινός (“belonging to the daytime” or “quotidian”) and µεθηµερινός (“belonging to the afternoon”), and (without the nu) e. g. πανηµέριος (“all day long”) and ἐφηµέριος (“lasting a single day”). LSJ s. v. 1 (accepting the paradosis αὐθηµερινῶν) suggests “ephemeral”, but is unable to muster any parallels, marking the definition as a counsel of despair. λῆρος and its cognates are colloquial late 5th-century vocabulary and appear routinely in abusive contexts; common in comedy (e. g. fr. 171.1; Pherecr. fr. 117.1; Ar. Nu. 1273; Th. 880; Antiph. fr. 122.2, 5) and to a lesser extent in prose (e. g. Isoc. 15.83; Pl. Tht. 151c; D. 5.10), but attested only once in tragedy (S. Tr. 435 with Davies 1991 ad loc.). See in general Lech 2012.

fr. 206 K.-A. (191 K.) ὃς θυµήνας τοῖς στρατιώταις λοιµὸν καὶ ψῶζαν ἔπεµψεν λοιµὸν codd. : λιµὸν Toup

who (masc. sing.) in wrath sent plague and psôza on the soldiers

96

97

Sider–Brunschön 2007 print adverbial αὐθηµερόν (see their discussion of the text on p. 117), but nonetheless translate “this is usually an indication 〈of rain〉 either that very day or within three days”, which amounts to a tacit admission that their emendation yields unacceptable sense (~ “indicates on that day or within three days”). Note also [Apollod.] Epit. 1.6 παρὰ Μηδείας λαβὼν αὐθηµερινὸν προσήνεγκεν αὐτῷ φάρµακον, where the sense is less clear-cut but the adjective probably means “obtained on that same day”.

214

Eupolis

Phot. p. 657.2–5 = Suda ψ 128 ψῶζα· νόσος τίς. Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ· ――. οἱ δὲ φασὶ καὶ τὸ τῆς νόσου εἶδος, ὅτι κνησµὸς µετὰ δυσωδίας psôza: a disease. Eupolis in Marikas: ――. But some authorities also specify the type of disease, (saying) that it is itching and a foul smell

Meter Anapaestic tetrameter catalectic.

llll

lrll | llll

kkll

Discussion Toup 1790 II.398–9; Gomme 1956. 166; Storey 2003. 211; Telò 2005. 167 Citation context From the common source of Photius and the Suda generally referred to as Σ΄΄. Related material is preserved at – Hsch. ψ 309 ψώϊζος· ἄφοδος ὑγρά, ἢ ὄνθος, δυσωδία, καὶ ἣν καλοῦσι µίνθα〈ν〉· οἱ δὲ αὐχµὸν ἢ µόλυσµα (“psôizos: liquid excrement, or dung, a foul smell, and what they call mintha; but others (gloss the word) squalor or pollution”) – Hsch. ψ 310 ψώια· σαπρὰ δυσωδία (“psôia: a rotten smell”) – Theognost. Can. 84.9 Alpers ψῶζα· ἡ δυσωδία (“psôza: a foul smell”) – EM p. 819.41 ψῶα καὶ ψῶζα· ἀµφότερα τὴν δυσωδίαν σηµαίνει (“psôa and psôza: both words mean a foul smell”; followed by A.R. fr. 5.5, p. 5 Powell ὅπου Φινήϊα δόρπα / Ἅρπυιαι ἄτλητον ἐπὶ ψώαν πνείεσκον, “where the Harpies used to breathe an unbearable psôa on Phineus’ meals”). Text That Toup’s λιµόν (“famine”; the iota is long) for the paradosis λοιµόν might be right is no reason to emend. Interpretation See fr. 205 n. A relative clause, offering further information about someone mentioned earlier, presumably a god or a person imagined as acting like a god. As Kassel–Austin note, this almost automatically recalls Apollo’s attack on the Achaean army at the beginning of the Iliad (1.43–52, and note 61 πόλεµός τε δαµᾷ καὶ λοιµὸς Ἀχαιούς, “both war and plague subdue the Achaeans” (Achilleus’ characterization of the situation). ψῶζαν near the end of the line is in any case bathetic: “plague and a stench”. Gomme suggests an allusion to the outbreak of the plague among Athenian troops besieging Potidaea in Summer 430 BCE mentioned at Th. 2.58.2, although this was many years earlier and comedy otherwise steers clear of any reference to the plague. Telò claims that the line displays “an antimilitaristic attitude”, which is sheer invention, as also in regard to fr. 99.30–3 (n.). θυµήνας The verb is first attested at [Hes.] Sc. 262 and is used of divine wrath at Ar. Nu. 610 (the Clouds), 1478 (Hermes); cf. Orac. Sib. 14.239 θεοῦ

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 207)

215

µέγα θυµήναντος). Callimachus (frr. 24.2; 732) and Apollonius Rhodius (3.1326) both pick it up, presumably as an epic mannerism. But it is also attested in Hippocrates (Epid. VII 11.32 = 5.384.18 Littré; Int. 26.18 = 7.234.3 Littré; both omitted by LSJ) and is thus perhaps better thought of as an Ionicism. ψῶζαν Everything known about the word98 (etymology uncertain) comes from the note in Photius = Suda and the other lexicographic material collected in Citation context. ἔπεµψεν For the language, cf. e. g. Ar. Av. 576 ὁ Ζεὺς δ’ ἡµῖν οὐ βροντήσας πέµπει πτερόεντα κεραυνόν; (“Does Zeus not thunder and send the winged lightning bolt against us?”); Il. 15.109 ὔµµι κακὸν πέµπῃσιν ἑκάστῳ (“that he send trouble to each of you”; Hera, of Zeus); A. Ag. 55–6, 59 τις Ἀπόλλων / ἢ Πὰν ἢ Ζεὺς … / πέµπει … Ἐρινύν (“some Apollo, Pan or Zeus sends an Erinys”); E. fr. 506.7 πέµπειν ἑκάστῳ ζηµίαν (“to send a punishment to each”; of Zeus).

fr. 207 K.-A. (192 K.) πεπέρακεν µὲν ὁ περσέπτολις ἤδη Μαρικᾶς πεπέρακεν Aeschylus : πεπέρακε Σ

The city-sacking Marikas has now crossed, on the one hand M

Σ A. Pers. 65 κωµῳδεῖται ταῦτα. Εὔπολις ἐν Μαρικᾷ· ―― These words are parodied in comedy. Eupolis in Marikas: ――

Meter Ionics.

kkll kkll kkll kkl〈l kkll kkll〉

98

To be distinguished from ψώρα (cognate with English “psoriasis”; see Stamma 2014. 182 on Phryn. Com. fr. 27), with which the word is commonly confused, hence the translations “mange” at Storey 2003. 211 and Rusten 2011. 253 and “itch” at Storey 2011. 117.

216

Eupolis

Discussion Bergk 1838. 354; Meineke 1839 II.499, 503; Struve 1841. 40–1; Kock 1880. 311; van Leeuwen 1900. 222 (on Eq. 1303); Whittaker 1935. 184; Schiassi 1944. 84; Sarati 1996. 126–7 Citation context A comment on A. Pers. 65–6 πεπέρακεν µὲν ὁ περσέπτολις ἤδη / βασίλειος στρατὸς εἰς ἀντίπορον γείτονα χώραν (“The city-sacking royal army has now crossed, on the one hand, into the neighboring land on the opposite side of the strait”), the beginning of the chorus’ first song after the opening anapaests. Text This might be printed as a single line (4io^), as in Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin. But it seems more sensible to match the line-division in Aeschylus, particularly since the enjambment of Μαρικᾶς lends the word emphasis. In 1, the scholion has dropped the nu-moveable at the end of πεπέρακεν, which is necessary for the sake of the meter. Interpretation At this point in Aeschylus’ play, the chorus of Persian elders have no idea what has happened to Xerxes in his great expedition against Greece, but they are deeply anxious and well aware that the gods can crush all human planning. In the absence of any other information, it is a reasonable conclusion that Eupolis’ chorus is speaking here as well, and that they support Marikas in whatever nominally great venture he has undertaken, but are well aware that he may fail—as presumably he does.99 Kock (followed by Whittaker) took this to be the first verse of the parodos, as in the Aeschylean exemplar, and perhaps of the play as a whole. ὁ περσέπτολις For the adjective—perhaps an Aeschylean innovation, although used in the form περσέπολις in a fragment of lyric poetry (Lamprocles PMG 735) quoted at Ar. Nu. 967, as well as in what is supposed to be a fragment of Stesichorus (fr. 322a.3 Finglass)—see Garvie 2009. 72.

fr. 208 K.-A. (193 K.) Quint. Inst. Orat. 1.10.18 Maricas, qui est Hyperbolus, nihil se ex musice scire nisi litteras confitetur Marikas, who is Hyperbolos, admits that he knows nothing of music except his letters

99

Meineke took the chorus to be celebrating Hyperbolos’ return (“sunt chori verba Hyperbolum a nescio qua expeditione reversum esse gaudentis”), which might be true but does not match what is going on in the Aeschylean exemplar.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 209)

217

Discussion Bergk 1838. 354–5; Meineke 1839 II.499; Struve 1841. 3–6 Citation context See fr. 17 n. Interpretation The remark attributed to Marikas is virtually identical to what the Sausage-seller says of himself at Ar. Eq. 188–9 (οὐδὲ µουσικὴν ἐπίσταµαι / πλὴν γραµµάτων, “I don’t know mousikê except for letters”), either confirming Aristophanes’ complaint at Nu. 553–4 that much of Marikas was stolen direct from him (thus Meineke; cf. test. i n.) or suggesting that Quintilian did not know Eupolis’ play at first hand and is confused about who the line belongs to. For mousikê and Athenian education, see in general frr. 17 n.; 366 n. For the slippery concept of literacy in this period, Harris 1989, esp. 65–115.

fr. 209 K.-A. (194 K.) VEΘBarb

Σ Ar. Pl. 1037 (τηλία) σανὶς πλατεῖα, ἐφ’ ἧς ἀλφιτοπωλοῦσιν. ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑποµνήµατι οὕτως· τοῦτο τί ἐστιν οὐκ οἶδα· ὅτι δὲ συµβάλλεται πρὸς τὸ ἐν Μαρικᾷ Εὐπόλιδος, οἶδα· κἀκεῖ γὰρ τὴν Ὑπερβόλου µητέρα τηλίᾳ εἰκάζει, τῇ πλατείᾳ σανίδι· τινὲς δὲ τηλίαν ξύλον φασὶ πλατύ, εἰς ὃ τιθέασιν οἱ ἀρτοκόποι τοὺς ἄρτους ἐπὶ τῷ ξηραίνεσθαι (τηλία) τὸ πλατὺ ξύλον εἴτε µακρὸν εἴτε ἄλλο τι, ἐφ’ ἧς ἄλφιτα πωλοῦσι. ἔχει µέν τι καθ’ ἑαυτὸ ἄπορον· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐν Μαρικᾷ προσέλθῃ 〈τις〉, ἔνθα ε ἰ ς τ η λ ί α ν φησὶ (Musurus : φασὶ codd.) τ ὰ τ ο ῦ Ὑ π ε ρ β ό λ ο υ ὀ σ τ ᾶ ἐ µ β ε β λ ῆ σ θ α ι , ἀπορώτερον ἔσται. ζητητέον οὖν (têlia) A broad plank, upon which they sell barley groats. But in the commentary as follows: I do not know what this is; but I do know that it is connected with the passage in Eupolis’ Marikas. For there too he compares Hyperbolos’ mother to a têlia, a broad plank. But some authorities say that a têlia is a broad piece of wood on which bakers put their loaves to dry (têlia) Τhe broad piece of wood, whether long or of another shape, upon which they sell barley groats. (The passage) contains a puzzle. But if one also goes to the passage in Marikas where he says (thus Musurus : “they say” codd.) that H y p e r b o l o s ’ b o n e s h a v e b e e n t h r o w n o n t o a t ê l i a, it will be even more puzzling. Research is therefore necessary

Discussion Fritzsche 1836. 134; Meineke 1839 II.503–4; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Sonnino 1997; Sommerstein 2000. 442; Storey 2003. 204–5 Citation context A pair of closely related notes (preserving material from an older commentary) on Ar. Pl. 1036–7, where the Old Woman claims that she is so wasted away by grief that she could be drawn through a ring, to which Chremylus mockingly responds: “If it happened to be the ring of a têlia!”.

218

Eupolis

Interpretation If the references are to the same passage, and if both accurately report the action in Marikas, at some point in Eupolis’ play (1) Hyperbolos’ mother (cf. test. i n.) was compared to a têlia (because she was presented as a bread-woman, as perhaps a year or two later in Hermippus’ Artopôlides?; or because she was tall and flat-chested or the like?);100 (2) Hyperbolos was treated at some point in the play as dead; and (3) afterward his bones were cast on/onto his mother. Sonnino 1997. 53 takes the point to be that Hyperbolos found himself in a desperate situation (cf. fr. *203) and took his chances (i. e. “cast the dice”), and that his fate—called “his bones”, but with an allusion to the use of astragaloi (fr. 47 n.) in gambling—somehow depended on his mother. Alternatively, one might hypothesize that some or all of this information has been garbled in transmission, given that even the source that cites it seems unable to explain what it means. At Ar. Pl. 1037, a τηλία (etymology uncertain) resembles a ring (δακτύλιος) but is considerably larger, and the reference is generally taken to be to the outer frame of a flour-sieve (cf. Hsch. α 2904 ἀλευρόττησις· τηλία, εἰς ἣν τὰ ἄλευρα διασήθουσιν, “aleurottêsis: a têlia into which they sieve flour (aleura)” ~ Phot. α 931 = Synag. B α 964; Hsch. τ 772 τηλία· σηλία, ἐν ᾗ διαµάττεται τὰ ἄλευρα. ἢ περιφέρεια κοσκίνου, “têlia: a sêlia, in which flour is worked. Or the periphery of a sieve”). Elsewhere in the classical period, the word is used to refer to a board used to cover the smoke-hole in a roof (Ar. V. 147 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.); something—a counter or the like—from which one makes purchases (Pherecr. fr. 132 τὸ παιδίον / τὸ πολλαγόρασον κἀπὸ πολλῶν τηλιῶν, “the child / slave who buys a lot and from many têlia”; cf. Suda τ 496 (~ Phot. τ 246) τηλία· περίφραγµα σανίδων ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, ἐν ᾧ ἄλφιτα ἐπιπράσκοντο, “têlia: a framework made of boards in the marketplace, in which they used to sell barley groats”, i. e. a collapsible container rather than a mere board?); and a board or enclosure on or in which cocks were made to fight (Aeschin. 1.53; cf. Poll. 7.203; 10.150, where a τηλία is twice included in lists of objects associated with gambling; Phot. τ 246, which reports that it was used for cock-fighting; and Suda τ 496, which associates it instead with quail-fighting).

100

Sonnino 1997. 49 compares the mocking description of one of the three sexually aggressive hags at Ar. Ec. 991 as a κρησέρα (perhaps “flour-sieve”; see Poll. 6.74; 10.114), and suggests that Hyperbolos’ mother too wore a white mask.

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 210)

219

fr. 210 K.-A. (195 K.) Harp. p. 286.14–16 = Τ 2 Keaney εἰσὶ δέ τινες καὶ τῶν 〈ἱερῶν〉 τριήρων ταµίαι, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς φιλόσοφός φησιν ([Arist.] Ath. 61.7). ὅτι δὲ κ α ὶ τ ο ῖ ς τ ρ ι η ρ ά ρ χ ο ι ς π α ρ ε ί π ο ν τ ο τ α µ ί α ι δεδήλωκεν Εὔπολις ἐν Μαρικᾷ There are certain treasurers of the 〈sacred〉 triremes as well, as the same philosopher says ([Arist.] Ath. 61.7). And Eupolis in Marikas makes it clear that t r e a s u r e r s were also assigned to the trierarchs

Discussion Bergk 1838. 354; Davies 1971. 517 Citation context From a general note on Athenian ταµίαι (official state financial administrators, “treasurers”). The same material, but without the play-title, is preserved at Phot. τ 36 = Suda τ 59 = Et.Gen. AB (drawn from the Epitome of Harpocration). Poll. 8.116 ταµίας ἐκάλουν τοὺς ταῖς ἱεραῖς τριήρεσι λειτουργοῦντας, ἄλλους ἢ τριηράρχους, τούς τε ἐκ τῆς Παράλου καὶ τῆς Σαλαµινίας (“they used the term tamias for the men whose liturgy involved funding the sacred triremes, who were different from trierarchs, and for those from the Paralos and the Salaminia”) may well go back to the same source. Interpretation Harpocration apparently believed that there were both tamiai elected by the Athenian people to manage the two Athenian sacred triremes, the Paralos and the Salaminia, as [Aristotle] says (Ath. 61.7), and other men with the same title charged with supervising the wealthy citizens required to fund individual warships for a year (the city’s trierarchs). This is the only evidence for the latter sort of tamiai, and Harpocration or his source may well have misunderstood something Eupolis said about the commanders of the Paralos and the Salaminia and their relationship to the trierarchs. For the sacred triremes and their commanders, cf. Ar. Av. 147, 1204; Ra. 1071–2 (where the commanders whose authority the crews of the Paralos challenge are presumably the tamiai); Th. 3.33.1–2; D. 21.171–4 with MacDowell 1990a. 388–9; IG II3 299.7–8 (347/6 BCE); II2 1254 (4th c. BCE); 1623.225 (333/2 BCE); 1628.8, 79 (326/5 BCE); Harp. p. 159.3–5 = Ι 5 Keaney, citing Philoch. FGrH 328 F 47 and Androt. FGrH 324 F 24; Phot. τ 34; Böchk 1886 I.213 n. a; Busolt–Swoboda 1926. 1208; Dain 1931. 298 line 1; Jordan 1975. 153–83, esp. 181–3. For the trierarchs, [X.] Ath. 3.4; Gabrielsen 1994. 43–169; Bubelis 2010; Rutherford 2013. 178–82. Kassel–Austin follow Bergk and Davies 1971. 517 in interpreting the combination of this fragment, fr. 207 and Ar. Th. 836–45 to mean that Hyperbolos

220

Eupolis

served unsuccessfully as a trierarch during the closing years of the Archidamian War, which is a more elaborate conclusion than the evidence will support. fr. 211 K.-A. (196 K.) EM

Σ Ar. Nu. 549 ἐκεῖ δὲ ὁ Εὔπολις ὡς τεθνηκότος Κλέωνος µέµνηται But Eupolis mentions Cleon (in Marikas) as dead E

Σ Ar. Nu. 553 ἐν τῷ Μαρικᾷ προτετελεύτηκε Κλέων In the Marikas Cleon is already dead

Discussion Sonnino 2006. 42–3 Citation context From comments on the date of Aristophanes’ Clouds (= Marikas test. ii–iii), in the second case explicitly said to be drawn from Eratosthenes’ critical discussion of Callimachus’ position on the matter. Interpretation Cleon (PA 8674; PAA 579130), who emerged as Athens’ leading politician after the death of Pericles, died in the Battle of Amphipolis in summer 422 BCE (Th. 5.10.9). For his political career, see fr. 316.1 n. The mention of Cleon here is most economically understood as a reference to whatever text lies behind fr. 192.135, although he may of course have been discussed at greater length elsewhere in the play.

fr. 212 K.-A. (197 K.) Hsch. δ 2258 ∆ούλων πόλις· Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ ο ὐ κ ᾤ µ η ν ε ἶ ν α ι λέγει ∆ ο ύ λ ω ν π ό λ ι ν . ἔστι δὲ ἐν Κρήτῃ καὶ Λιβύῃ Εὔπολις Musurus : εὔποµα cod. Slave City: Eupolis in Marikas says: “I d i d n ’ t t h i n k t h e r e w a s a S l a v e C i t y ”. But it exists in Crete and Libya

Meter Anapaests (llll 〈lkk lx〉)

lllr) or dactyls (e. g. ll ll l|l lr

Discussion Fritzsche 1857/58. 6

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 213)

221

Citation context Related material, probably all drawn from the same source, is preserved at St.Byz. δ 117 (which offers a reference first to a Slave City in Libya and then to one in Crete, followed by a quotation of Cratin. fr. 223) and Phot. δ 729 = Suda δ 1423 (which also offers a reference first to a Slave City in Libya and then to one in Crete). Text ∆ούλων πόλιν appears to be a proper name here, and I accordingly use a capital (vs. Kassel–Austin’s δούλων πόλιν (“a city of slaves”)). The poet’s name is garbled in Hesychius, but the reference to Marikas leaves no doubt that Musurus’ emendation is correct. Interpretation Slave City seems to be a proverbial location where slaves are citizens (App. Prov. 2.84 ἔστι καὶ δούλων πόλις, “There is in fact a Slave City”), but is treated as a real place by e. g. Hecataeus (FGrH 1 F 345) and Ephorus (FGrH 70 F 50), both of whom put it in Libya; Sosicrates (FGrH 461 F 2) and Mnaseas (fr. 38, FHG iii.155–6),101 who put it in Crete; and Pliny (Nat. 5.104), who puts it in Caria. Cf. Anaxandr. fr. 4.1 οὐκ ἔστι δούλων, ὦ ’γάθ’, οὐδαµοῦ πόλις (“There’s no city of slaves anywhere, my friend”) with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Iordanov 1993. The speaker’s use of the imperfect ᾤµην must mean that he has been forced to put aside his earlier doubts about the existence of Slave City, presumably because he has discovered that some real place—Athens?— deserves the title.

fr. 213 K.-A. (199 K.) Antiatt. p. 79.10 ἁ µ α ρ τ ω λ ί α · Ἀριστοφάνης Εἰρήνῃ (415), Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ m a l f e a s a n c e : Aristophanes in Peace (415), Eupolis in Marikas

Citation context The manuscripts of Aristophanes and the Suda offer the dubious ἁρµατωλίας (“charioteering” vel sim.) at Ar. Pax 415, and ΣVΓ cites Herodian and Phrynichus (PS fr. *3) in support of the reading. Most likely either the Antiatticist was responding to Phrynichus or vice versa, and Eupolis was cited by the former in support of ἁµαρτωλίας, although the radically ab101

Mnaseas also quotes what scans as an iambic trimeter line οὐκ ἔστι δούλων οὐδ’ ἐλευθέρων πόλις (“It’s not a city of slaves or of free men”; included among neither the comic nor the tragic adespota) followed by the unmetrical ἐν ᾗ µόνος ἐλεύθερός ἐστιν ὁ τῆς Ἀρτέµιδος ἱερεύς (“in which the only free person is the priest of Artemis”).

222

Eupolis

breviated form in which the text of the Antiatticist has been transmitted to us makes it difficult to be certain about the final point. Phot. α 1141 ἁµαρτωλία· Ἀριστοφάνης is an abbreviated version of the Antiatticist’s note. Interpretation The concrete noun ἁµαρτωλή is attested in both Theognis (325, 327, 1248, 1281) and 5th-century tragedy (Phryn. Trag. TrGF 3 F 16c?; S. fr. 999 (both drawn from Phot. α 1142)), while the cognate adjective ἁµαρτωλός appears at Ar. Th. 1111 (see Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.) and the adverb ἁµαρτωλῶς is found at fr. 422 (n.). That the abstract ἁµαρτωλία is also preserved at Hp. Epid. II 1.8 = 5.80.4 Littré makes it clear that this too is an ordinary if ill-documented word. For the form, cf. παλιντραπελία (Poll. 3.132) and παλιντράπελος (Pi. O. 2.37) alongside παλίντροπος and παλιντροπία, and φειδωλία (Ar. Nu. 835; Ec. 750) and φειδωλός (fr. 156.1 n.) alongside φειδώ. For ἁµαρτία (“error” vel sim.) and cognates, see Bremer 1969. 24–47 (but without attention to the comic evidence); Stinton 1975.

fr. 214 K.-A. (201 K.) Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 443.15–17 ∆ωρίζω, Θετταλίζω, ἀφ’ οὗ τὸ ἐ ν τ ε θ ε τ τ α λ ί σ µ ε θ α παρὰ τῷ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Μαρικᾷ, τουτέστι χλαµύδα Θετταλικὴν φοροῦµεν Dôrizô (“I play the Dorian”), Thettalizô (“I play the Thessalian”), from which comes e n t e t h e t t a l i s m e t h a (“we’ve been turned into Thessalians”) in Eupolis in Marikas, i. e. “we’re wearing a Thessalian chlamys”

Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlkl x〉|lkl

klkl

Discussion Pearl 1940. 383; Srebrny 1948–1949. 56 n. 29 Citation context From a catalogue of verbs in -ίζω and within that category here of verbs formed from ethnics (also Σκυθίζω and Περσίζω). Herodian or his source is taken over and adapted by later authors at: – Poll. 7.46 ἐντεθετταλίσµεθα ἔλεγον τὸ χλαµυδοφοροῦµεν (“they expressed ‘we’re wearing a chlamys’ as ‘we’ve been turned into Thessalians’”) – Hsch. ε 3332 ἐντεθετταλίσθαι· ἐνκεχλαµυδῶσθαι. σύνηθες γὰρ Θετταλοῖς χλαµυδοφορεῖν (“to have been turned into a Thessalian: to be dressed in a chlamys; for the Thessalians customarily wore chlamydes”) – St.Byz. θ 36 λέγεται καὶ Θετταλίζω ὡς ∆ωρίζω, ἀφ’ οὗ τὸ ἐντεθετταλίσµεθα παρὰ τῷ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Μαρικᾷ, τουτέστι χλαµύδα Θετταλικὴν φοροῦµεν

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 215)

223

(“One can also say Thettalizô, like Dôrizô, whence entethettalismetha in Eupolis in Marikas, that is ‘we’re wearing a Thessalian chlamys’”) – Phot. ε 1027 ἐντεθετταλίσθαι· χλαµύδα ἔχειν· Θετταλῶν γὰρ τὸ φόρηµα πρῶτον. Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ (“entethettalisthai: to wear a chlamys; for the garment (was) originally (characteristic) of Thessalians. Eupolis in Marikas”). Interpretation Srebrny suggested that ἐντεθετταλίσµεθα might be the verb originally coordinated with ἱππεύοµεν in fr. 201, where see n. The word is attested nowhere else and is doubtless a nonce formation; cf. Sarati 1996. 117. θετταλίζῃ at Ael. VH 4.15 ποτὲ δὲ βοιωτιάζῃ τὸν τρόπον καὶ αὖ πάλιν θετταλίζῃ probably depends on the authority of this passage and of the source-text for adesp. com. fr. 875 βοιωτιάζειν. For the chlamys, a short cloak pinned with a brooch at the shoulder and worn by 4th-century Athenian ephebes ([Arist.] Ath. 42.5), on the one hand, and by horsemen and soldiers generally, on the other, cf. Ar. Lys. 987 (worn by Spartans); Pl. Com. fr. 228; Nicostr. Com. fr. 31.1–2 µειράκιον … / … κεχλαµυδωµένον (“a young man dressed in a chlamys”); Antidot. fr. 2.2 (diminutive χλαµύδιον); Antiph. fr. 16.1 (mentioned along with a spear); Philetaer. fr. 20 (“all white”); Philem. fr. 34 (mentioned along with a πέτασος, a traveler’s hat); Men. Asp. 88; Pk. 354; Sam. 659, 687, 716 (etc.); Bacch. 18.54 Θεσσαλὰν χλαµύδ’ (“a Thessalian chlamys”); X. Mem. 2.7.6 (a specialized chlamys-maker in late 5th-century Athens); Demad. fr. 44 (worn by a soldier on campaign); Poll. 10.124; Tarbell 1906; Gow 1938. 190–1; Robinson 1939; Pearl 1940. 383–90; Lattimore 1975; Stone 1984. 169; Rosivach 2005. The phrase Θετταλικὰ πτερά (“Thessalian wings”, referring to the corners of a chlamys), cited at Paus.Gr. θ 10 and Poll. 7.46 (along with what looks to be a reference to this fragment), is likely drawn from comedy as well.

fr. 215 K.-A. (202 K.) Antiatt. p. 99.11–12 θ ε ρ ι σ µ ό ν · ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀµητόν. Ἡρόδοτος τετάρτῳ (4.42.3), Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ t h e r i s m o s : in place of amêtós (“harvest”). Herodotus in Book 4 (4.42.3), Eupolis in Marikas

Discussion Latte 1968. 614 n. 11 Citation context A heavily abbreviated note, which in its original form likely included some of the following material as well:

224

Eupolis

– Hsch. α 3647–8 ἀµητός· θερισµός. ἄµητος· ὁ καιρός102 (“amêtós: harvest. ámêtos: the time (sc. of year)”; taken by Latte to be a gloss on Prov. 6:11a LXX, although there is no reason to believe that the material originated there – Phot. α 1192 = Synag. α 385 ἀµητός· αὐτὰ τὰ τεθερισµένα ὀξυτόνως. προπαροξυτόνως δὲ ὁ καιρὸς τοῦ θερισµοῦ, ὡς καὶ τρύγητος ὁ καιρὸς τοῦ τρυγᾶν (“amêtós: with an acute on the final syllable, the actual products of the grain-harvest. But with a recessive accent, the time of the harvest, just as trúgêtos is the time of the fruit-harvest (trugan)”) – EM p. 83.9–11 ~ An.Ox. II pp. 231.25–232.1 διαφέρει δὲ ἄµητος καὶ ἀµητός. ἄµητος γὰρ ὁ καιρὸς τοῦ θέρους, ἀµητὸς δὲ ὁ θερισµός, οἱονεὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ἀµώµενος καρπός (“ámêtos and amêtós are different; for ámêtos is the time of the summer harvest, whereas amêtós is the harvest, that is the reaped grain itself”). Interpretation Herodotus actually wrote µένεσκον τὸν ἄµητον· θερίσαντες δ’ ἂν τὸν σῖτον ἔπλεον (“they awaited the harvest (season) (ámêton); and after harvesting (therisantes) the grain, they would sail on”). While the Antiatticist clearly regarded the evidence of Eupolis as useful for making sense of the meaning of θερισµός, therefore, it is impossible to know whether the text of Marikas contained the noun itself (for which this fragment would then be the earliest attestation; subsequently at X. Oec. 18.3; for the form, cf. fr. 72 βιασµός with n.) or some cognate in combination with a form of ἄµητος or ἀµητός. fr. 216 K.-A. (203 K.) Antiatt. p. 111.5 ὀ φ λ ι σ κ ά ν ε ι ν · Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ (Meineke : µακαρισµῷ cod.) o p h l i s k a n e i n : Eupolis in Marikas (thus Meineke : makarismôi cod.)

Meter The word scans klkl, so if Eupolis used this form of it (see Interpretation), likely iambic trimeter. Citation context A heavily abbreviated note that in its original form must have taken a position in the lexicographic debate discussed in Interpretation.

102

I have reversed Latte’s accents on ἀµητός and ἄµητος to match the definitions offered by Photius = Synagoge and the EM (below).

Μαρικᾶς (fr. 217)

225

Interpretation Whether ὀφλάνω, ὀφλισκάνω and ὄφλω were all legitimate present active indicative forms of verbs meaning “be liable, owe” (cf. frr. 99.109 ὀφείλειν; 230 ὤφειλ(ε), “he should have”) was debated by ancient lexicographers. Additional scattered traces of the discussion are preserved at – Hsch. ο 1970 ὀφλάνειν· ὀφλισκάνειν, ὀφείλειν (“ophlanein: ophliskanein, opheilein”) – Phot. ο 715 ὀφλάνειν· ἀντὶ τοῦ ὀφλισκάνειν (“ophlanein: rather than ophliskanein”; traced to Diogenianus by Theodoridis) – Suda ο 1018 ὀφλίσκουσι καὶ ὄφλουσι … καὶ ὀφλισκάνω (“ophliskousi and ophlousi … and ophliskanô”) – EM p. 644.12–14 ὄφλω· σηµαίνει τὸ χρεωστῶ· καὶ γίνεται κατὰ συγκοπὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀφείλω· ὅθεν καὶ βαρύνεται.  ὄφλειν, ὀφείλειν· ἐκ καταδίκης χρεωστεῖν (“ophlô: means ‘I owe’, and is produced via syncopation from opheilô, as a consequence of which it has a recessive accent. ophlein, opheilein: to be liable as a result of losing a lawsuit”). Neither ὀφλάνω nor ὄφλω is attested outside such notes, and the latter appears to be based on a misinterpretation of the aorist active infinitive ὀφλεῖν (e. g. fr. 377; E. Med. 404; Th. 5.101; Lys. 10.8; Pl. R. 451a; D. 23.143) as a present active infinitive ὄφλειν; cf. Phot. ο 714 = Suda ο 1013 ὄφλειν· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἡττᾶσθαι ἐν δικαστηρίῳ (“ophlein: in place of ‘to lose a case in court’”;103 traced to Timaeus by Theodoridis); Phot. ο 716 ὄφλειν καὶ ῥόφειν· τὰς πρώτας συλλαβὰς τῶν τοιούτων οἱ Ἀττικοὶ ὀξύνουσιν (“ophlein and rhophein: Attic authors put an acute on the initial syllable of words such as these”; traced to Ael. Dion. ο 44 by Erbse). Cf. fr. 99.108 ὀφλήσεις with n., and see in general Schwyzer 1939. 700; Hamp 1982. 227–8.

fr. 217 K.-A. (204 K.) Poll. 10.73 Εὔπολις δ’ ἐν τῷ Μαρικᾷ καὶ σ τ α µ ν ά ρ ι ο ν εἴρηκεν Eupolis in his Marikas uses the term s t a m n a r i o n as well

Discussion Sarati 1996. 109–10 Citation context From a collection of words for wine vessels, including stamnos (cited from Ar. fr. 546). Something has gone wrong just before this in the 103

Adler in her edition of the Suda accents the word ὀφλεῖν, but it ought to match present tense ἡττᾶσθαι.

226

Eupolis

text of Pollux, since τὰ Θάσι’ ἀµφορείδια from Ar. Ec. 1119 is cited at 10.72 as drawn from Acharnians. But the discussion has to do in any case with whether stamnos and stamnion can be used only of vessels containing Chian wine or are applicable to those that hold Thasian wine as well, and similar material is preserved at Phot. σ 498 σταµνία· τὰ Θάσια κεράµια· οἱ δὲ καὶ τὰ Χῖα καὶ τὰ Μενδαῖα (“stamnia: Thasian pots; but others [claim the word can be used] also for Chian and Mendaian [pots]”); ΣRΓ Ar. Lys. 196 (Θάσιον οἴνου σταµνίον, “a Thasian stamnion of wine”) ἐπιεικῶς λέγουσιν οἱ Ἀττικοὶ τὰ Θάσια κεράµια σταµνία (“Attic-speakers use stamnia properly for Thasian pots”). Hsch. σ 1634 σταµνίον Θάσιον· κεράµειον ἀγγεῖον (“a Thasian poet: a terracotta vessel”) was originally a gloss on the same line. Interpretation Phryn. Ecl. 378 σταµνία· οἱ µὲν ἀµαθεῖς ἐπὶ τῶν ἀµίδων τάττουσιν,104 οἱ δ’ ἀρχαῖοι ἐπὶ τῶν οἰνηρῶν ἀγγείων (“stamnia: uneducated people apply the word to piss-jars, whereas the ancients applied it to wine vessels”) implicitly treats diminutive stamnion (also Ar. Lys. 196, 199; Men. Dysc. 448; cf. Ar. Ra. 22 “Dionysus son of Stamnios”) as Attic vocabulary; cf. ΣRΓ Ar. Lys. 196 (quoted in Citation context); Alciphr. 3.2.2. Both σταµνίον and στάµνος (e. g. [Hes.] fr. 372.12; Hermipp. fr. 77.7; Ar. Pl. 545; Pl. Com. fr. 205.1; Alex. fr. 179.10; [D.] 35.32) are in any case confined to comedy, prose and inscriptions (e. g. IG I3 421.117–24; 422.132–3 (the household goods of the Hermokopidai)) and absent from elevated poetry. In the inscriptions, stamnoi are used to store wine, vinegar and olives, but are distinguished from amphorae, which also hold vinegar and wine. See in general Amyx 1958. 190–5, who concludes (195): “ancient nomenclature, with respect to this as to other vase-shapes, could not have been very exact”.105 The name is cognate with ἵστηµι (“stand”), which suggests that the vessel had a flat base. Diminutive σταµνάριον is attested only here and at Ephipp. fr. 24.2 σταµνάριά τ’ οἴνου µικρὰ τοῦ φοινικίνου (“and little stamnaria of Phoenician wine”). For the form (typical of colloquial Attic), cf. e. g. βιβλιδάριον (Ar. fr. 795), ἐσχάριον (Ar. fr. 529), κυνάριον (Theopomp. Com. fr. 93), κωδάριον (Cratin. fr. 48), οἰκάριον (Lys. fr. 298), ὀρνιθάριον (Anaxandr. fr. 42.63), πλοιάριον (Ar. Ra. 139), σηπιδάριον (Philyll. fr. 12.1), ψυχάριον (Pl. Tht. 195a); Petersen 1910. 268; contrast fr. 470 µισθάριον (probably deteriorative) with n. 104 105

Cf. Hsch. α 3679 ἀµίς· σταµνίον (“piss-pot: a stamnion”), apparently a fragment of a note representing the view against which Phrynichus is reacting. Cf. Moer. α 91 ἀµφορέα τὸν δίωτον στάµνον Ἀττικοί· στάµνον Ἕλληνες (“Atticspeakers (refer to) a two-handled stamnos as an amphoreus; Greeks generally (use) stamnos”), which at least shows that the words were understood to refer to similar but distinct vessels.

227

Νουµηνίαι (Noumêniai) (“New-moon Days”) test. i Hyp. Ar. Ach. I.32–4 ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Εὐθύνου (Εὐθυµένους RΓ : Εὐθυµένου E) ἄρχοντος (426/5 BCE) ἐν Ληναίοις διὰ Καλλιστράτου· καὶ πρῶτος ἦν· δεύτερος Κρατῖνος Χειµαζοµένοις· οὐ σώζονται (post Νουµηνίαις transpos. Elmsley). τρίτος Εὔπολις Νουµηνίαις (οὐ σώζονται add. Kaibel) The play was staged in the archonship of Euthynos (Euthymenes RΓ : Euthymenos E) (426/5 BCE) at the Lenaia, with Callistratus as producer, and it placed first. Second (was) Cratinus with Cheimazomenoi; the play is not preserved (transposed to after “Noumêniai” by Elmsley). Third was Eupolis with Noumêniai (Kaibel added “the play is not preserved”)

Discussion Schiassi 1944. 57–8 Interpretation This notice—describing Aristophanes’ Acharnians, which took the prize—must be based on official city records, probably known in Alexandria through Aristotle’s Didaskaliai. No other trace is preserved of Noumêniai, which—like Cratinus’ Cheimazomenoi—apparently never made its way to the Library. For “New-moon day”, i. e. the first day of the month, which was inter alia a public holiday and a market day (Ar. Eq. 43–4; V. 169–71) and an occasion for private rites and festivals (e. g. Ar. V. 96; Theopomp. Com. fr. 48; Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 344), see Mikalson 1972. 291–6; Olson on Ar. Ach. 999; Diggle 2004 on Thphr. Char. 4.13. For the title, cf. Crates’ and Plato Comicus’ Heortai, on the one hand, and Cratinus’ and Aristophanes’ Hôrai, on the other.

228

Πόλεις (Poleis) (“Cities”)

Introduction Discussion Raspe 1832. 81–4, 87–8, 89; Meineke 1839 I.140–4, II.507–8; Kock 1880 I.314; Kaibel 1907 p. 1232.26–46; Norwood 1931. 193–7; Schiassi 1944. 70–80; Schmid 1946. 118; Edmonds 1957. 386–97; Cassio 1985a. 118; Storey 1990. 18–20; Sidwell 1994. 98–104; Rosen 1998; Storey 2003. 216–30; Kidd 2014. 79–81 Title The cities in question are generally taken to be the subject-states of the Athenian Empire (for this use of the word, e. g. fr. 316.1; Telecl. fr. 45.1; Ar. Ach. 506, 636), including the elaborately costumed female figures representing Tenos, Chios and Cyzicus referred to in frr. 245–7 (nn.).106 What attitude the play adopted toward the treatment of the allies is impossible to say, despite the conviction of many modern critics that its guiding purpose must have been to turn the Athenians away from their cruel handling of their subjects (thus already Raspe 1832. 83 “in vero exhortatum esse Athenienses, ne diutius avare crudeliterque consulerent in socios”).107 Nor is there any evidence—except for fr. 243 (n.), which might be connected with almost any part of the play—that the action ended with a marriage of Athenian men and personified cities, as Norwood 1931. 196 fancifully proposed. Plays entitled Poleis were also written by Philyllius (frr. 9–16; alternatively attributed to Eunicus or Aristophanes; date unknown), Anaxandrides (fr. 40; 370s or 360s BCE) and perhaps Heniochus (cf. fr. 5). For other titles in which the chorus represent generic political or geographical units, cf. Dêmoi; Telecleides’ Amphiktyones (“Amphictyonies”, or perhaps “Amphictyonic Delegates”); Aristophanes’ or Archippus’ Nêsoi (“Islands”); Plato Comicus’ Hellas ê Nêsoi (“Greece or Islands”); and perhaps Plato Comicus’ Symmachia (“Alliance”) and Cantharus’ Symmachiai (“Alliances”).

106

107

Note also the reference to the cities bringing their tribute to Athens at Dionysiatime in fr. 254, which would provide a reasonable excuse for their initial arrival onstage in Eupolis’ play, and cf. Ar. fr. 410 ὡς ἐς τὴν γῆν κύψασα κάτω καὶ ξυννενοφυῖα βαδίζει (“How stooped down toward the ground and gloomy she makes her way!”; from Nêsoi, and taken by Bergk to be a description of one of the eponymous Islands). References to more recent authorities collected at Storey 2003. 219.

Πόλεις (Introduction)

229

Content Beyond what can be posited regarding the identity of the chorus and the occasion for their entry (see under Title), nothing is known of the action of Poleis except that Adeimantos son of Leukolophides (fr. 224 with n.) and the seer Hierocles of Oreus (fr. 231) were characters—although they may only have been “blocking characters” in the second half of the action, like those who frequently appear in Aristophanic comedies, especially given that Adeimantos seems to have felt himself abused. In addition, the action appears to have included an argument or debate of some sort (fr. 228) and probably a prayer (fr. 250), and someone spoke despairingly on behalf of old men (fr. 237). Date The reference in fr. 252 to Hyperbolos as politically active suggests that Poleis belongs to the late 420s BCE at the earliest; cf. the mentions of the city of Heracleia (added to the Athenian Empire in 424 BCE, when Lamachus also lost ten ships there) in fr. 235 (n.); of Simon’s theft of public funds (also referenced in Aristophanes’ Clouds in 423 BCE) in fr. 235; and of Amynias’ embassy to Thessaly (seemingly treated as a roughly contemporary event in Aristophanes’ Wasps in 422 BCE) in fr. 222. A terminus ante quem for the play is fixed by the references to the seer Stilbides (d. August 413 BCE) as still alive in fr. 225, and to Chios as obedient in fr. 246.3 (dating the play to before the island revolted in 412 BCE). If we knew that Theramenes (mentioned in fr. 251) only became active in Athenian politics in the late 410s BCE, when he is first attested elsewhere, this would argue for a late date for Poleis. But Theramenes was already a general by then, meaning that his political career likely began many years earlier. The following have also been attributed to Poleis: frr. 330 (Raspe); 338 (Schmid); 382 (Kock); 423 (Meineke); E. frr. 611108 (Nauck) and 622109 (Nauck).

108

109

άντεµµάσασθαι (“to return an injury”; ap. Hsch. α 5343, where the word is glossed άνταποδοῦναι, ἐπιπλῆξαι. Εὐριπίδης πολίασιν, “to repay in turn, to punish; Euripides in † poliai †”). πάρεσµεν· ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ᾐσθάνου παρόντα µε (“We are here; but you did not realize I was here”) ap. Et.Gen. AB s. v. ἦσθα.

230

Fragments fr. 218 K.-A. (228 K.) καρδόπους δέκα, κρατῆρας ὀκτώ, δέχ᾽ ὑδρίας, δύο τρυβλίω, κνέφαλλα δέκα, θέρµαυστριν, ἓξ θρόνους, χύτραν, κάννας ἑκατόν, κόρηµα, κιβωτόν, λύχνον L

1 δέκα Bekker : τε καὶ Poll.   2 δέχ᾽ ὑδρίας Kaibel : δὲ χυδρίας Poll. : δὲ χύτρας FSB A L SB A LBA Poll. : χύτρας Poll.    3 δέκα Poll. : τε καὶ Poll. : om. Poll.    χύτραν Poll. : S BA om. Poll. : σκάφην vel λὐραν Bentley : δίφρον Kock   4 κάννας Poll. : κλίνας LS Poll.

ten kneading-troughs, eight mixing-bowls, ten water-jugs, two bowls, ten pillows, a warming-pot, six chairs, a cookpot, a hundred reed mats, a broom, a storage box, a lamp Poll. 10.192 σκευῶν δὲ ἐν Εὐπόλιδος Πόλεσι κατάλογος· ―― And (there is) a catalogue of equipment in Eupolis’ Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xlkl xlk〉|l

klkl llkl l|rkl rlkl klkr llk|l klkl llrl klk|l llkl

Discussion Raspe 1832. 98–100; Meineke 1839 II.520–1; Kock 1880 I.320; Schiassi 1944. 74 Citation context These are the final words in the Onomasticon and the conclusion of the long, diverse discussion of σκεύη of all sorts (supposedly improving on Eratosthenes’ Σκευογραφικόν, but probably also incorporating parts of it, in particular the references to the Attic Stelae110) that makes up Book 10. Text For a possible division of the lines between two speakers, see Interpretation. 110

See Pippin in Pritchett–Pippin 1956. 318–28, esp. 323–4.

Πόλεις (fr. 218)

231

In 1, δέκα is Bekker’s emendation of the paradosis τε καὶ, and depends on the observation that every other object mentioned in the plural in the fragment is modified by a numerical adjective. For the error, cf. 3, where Poll.L alone preserves δέκα, the other manuscripts again offering τε καὶ (which is there metrically impossible). In 2, δέχ᾽ ὑδρίας is Kaibel’s rearticulation of the meaningless δὲ χυδρίας in Poll.L. The other manuscripts have δὲ χύτρας (Poll.FSB; Poll.A omits the particle), but χύτραν appears at the end of 3, and the word is not wanted here. At the end of 3, Bentley proposed σκάφην (“a bowl”) or λὐραν (“a lyre”) in place of the paradosis χύτραν, while Kock suggested δίφρον (“a stool”). But the text is unobjectionable in and of itself, and the suggestions merely represent ways to resolve the problems the word poses by emending it away. In 4, either κάννας (Poll.BA) or κλίνας (Poll.LS)—in origin a majuscule variant, ΚΑΝΝΑΣ vs. ΚΛΙΝΑΣ—might be correct, although “one hundred couches” seems out of proportion to the number of pillows (ten) and chairs (six) specified in 3. Interpretation An eclectic catalogue most easily understood as a list of household goods belonging to a wealthy individual reminiscent of the Attic Stelae (i. e. the sale-lists of the confiscated property of the men caught up in the religious scandals of 415 BCE), or perhaps a comic version of a temple inventory, a shipping manifest or the like. Alternatively, this might be part of a catalogue of objects needed for a drinking party (cf. Eub. fr. 119), although in that case the food, wine, guests and slaves are all left unmentioned in what is preserved of the text, along with other standard symposium goods such as drinking bowls, incense, garlands and a pipe-girl, while the presence of chairs—not among the standard fixtures for a dinner or drinking party in archaic or classical Athens, and seemingly absent from the Athenian vision of the ideal sympotic past as well (Topper 2012. 13–22)—rather than couches is odd, as is the oscillation between the call for e. g. eight mixing-bowls (enough for an enormous party) but a single cookpot. If this is in fact a list of household goods, the owner is implicitly characterized as rich and as enjoying parties, and an implicit narrative logic having to do with symposium practices might perhaps be detected in the order of the items: barley cakes are made ahead of time (1); the wine is mixed with water (2; cf. Ar. Ec. 677–8 τοὺς κρατῆρας καταθεῖναι / καὶ τὰς ὑδρίας, “to set down the mixing bowls and the hydria”; among the preparations for a great public feast); the guests take their place on chairs (but why?) and mats (3–4); and afterward the room is swept and valuable vessels stored away in boxes by lamplight (4). Or perhaps there are two speakers, each referencing a different event or different aspects of the same event, as at Ar. Pl. 189–93, e. g.

232

Eupolis

(Α.) καρδόπους δέκα, κρατῆρας ὀκτώ, δέχ᾽ ὑδρίας—(Β.) δύο τρυβλίω— (Α.) κνέφαλλα δέκα, θέρµαυστριν, ἓξ θρόνους—(Β.) χύτραν— (Α.) κάννας ἑκατόν—(Β.) κόρηµα—(Α.) κιβωτόν—(Β.) λύχνον In any case, the catalogue gradually accelerates via the omission of quantities for the individual items mentioned (offered for all items in 1–2; for two out of four in 3; and for only the first out of four in 4) and by the use of an increasing number of disyllabic rather than trisyllabic noun-forms (all trisyllabic in 1–2 vs. only two of four trisyllabic in 3–4). Kock, comparing frr. 161; 170; 183, suggested that the fragment might actually be from Kolakes, Πόλεσι having been accidentally written for Κόλαξι. But this is not an obvious, easy scribal error, nor do we know enough about the content of Poleis to arbitrarily eliminate the possibility that such a list might be at home in the play. 1 καρδόπους See fr. 20 n. 2 κρατῆρας … ὑδρίας For mixing bowls and hydriai, see Amyx 1958. 198–9, 200–1; Lissarrague 1990b. 196–209. For a mixing bowl in a temple inventory, e. g. IG I3 1455.4 (Aegina). τρυβλίω Small, flat bowls used to store food, mix ingredients, eat out of and the like (e. g. Ar. Ach. 278 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Av. 77 (used to fetch anchovies); Antiph. frr. 71.2 (in a catalogue of cooking supplies); 143.3 (used to hold honey); Eub. fr. 37.1 (in a catalogue of kitchen vessels); Alex. fr. 146.2 (used to hold pea soup); Diph. fr. 64.2 (used to hold bean soup))—but seemingly not for drinking. The accent is disputed; see LSJ s. v. Use of the dual with or without δύο is typical of colloquial Attic (e. g. frr. 172.5; 201; 372 δύο κύβω; Pherecr. fr. 177 θύµω δύο; Ar. fr. 362.2 δίφρω δύο; IG I3 78a.49 ἐν στέλαιν δυοῖν); the plural τρυβλία could have been used just as easily here. 3 κνέφαλλα Precisely what the difference is between a κνέφαλ(λ)ον (also mentioned at Alc. fr. 338.8, in the form γνόφαλλον; E. fr. 676.2; Pl. Com. fr. 104; cf. Eub. fr. 4) and a προσκεφάλαιον (a considerably more common term for a pillow: e. g. Hermipp. fr. 63.23; Ar. Ach. 1090 (in a catalogue of symposium goods) with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Eub. fr. 119.3; Mnesim. fr. 7.7) is unclear, but the two are distinguished at Ar. fr. 18, as well as in the Attic Stelae. See in general Pritchett in Pritchett–Pippin 1956. 247–8, 253–4. κνέφαλ(λ)ον (cognate with κνάπτω and κναφεύς) is repeatedly described by the lexicographers as Attic vocabulary, the common equivalent supposedly being τύλη. But this is likely incorrect, at least for the classical period, and Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 pp. 319.18–19 suggests that the κνέφαλ(λ)ον is properly the flock or stuffing,

Πόλεις (fr. 218)

233

the τύλη the exterior wrapper of the pillow; see fr. 170 n. (with citation of the ancient sources). Poll. 10.66 includes θέρµαυστρις in a list of terms associated with drinking and in particular with warming water (τραποµένῳ δ’ ἐπὶ τὸ πίνειν, ἵνα µὲν τὸ ὕδωρ θερµαίνεται, θερµαντῆρες, θερµαστρίς, θέρµαυστρις, χαλκία θερµαντήρια, “if one turns to drinking, where water is warmed: thermantêres, thermastris, thermaustris, thermantêria kettles”). Cf. IG I3 421.97–8 (one of the Attic Stelae), although the stone there offers [θέ]ρµαυστις. Contrast θέρµαστρις/ θερµαστρίς (“smith’s tongs”; e. g. Hsch. θ 359) and the use of one word or the other as the name for a type of dance (e. g. Luc. Salt. 34; Poll. 4.102, 105; Ath. 14.629e; Phot. θ 120), and see in general Amyx 1958. 219–21; Stamires 1958 (a comprehensive collection of the attestions of θέρµαυστρις and similar words, with corrections of and additions to Amyx 1958); Sarati 1996. 109–10. In literary sources, a θρόνος is not an ordinary chair but a seat of honor, on which a god might sit (Il. 8.442; Pi. O. 2.77; E. HF 1127; Ar. Av. 1732; Ra. 765; adesp. lyr. PMG 1018.2) or that might be occupied by a member of a royal family or be found in his or her house (e. g. A. Ag. 260; Hdt. 1.14.3; E. Med. 1163; El. 315); cf. Ath. 5.192e–f (distinguishing between the θρόνος, a “free” seat equipped with a footstool; a κλισµός, a light chair with a back, which is more sumptuous and inclined; and the humble δίφρος, normally a backless stool, although see fr. 66 with n.); Pritchett in Pritchett–Pippin 1956. 217–20; Richter 1966. 13–33, esp. 13–15; Andrianou 2009. 22–31 (on chairs generally, as opposed to couches). But a thronos is mentioned at two separate points in the Attic Stelae (IG I3 422.160, 287), making it clear that one might be found in a wealthy house at least, and a set of six also appears repeatedly in the Parthenon accounts (e. g. IG I3 356.41–2; II2 1394.16), while another set of ten is included in a temple inventory from Aegina (IG I3 1455.31–2). The word (whence English “throne” via Latin thronus) is attested already in Mycenean Greek and is likely substrate vocabulary. χύτραν A round-bottomed, narrow-mouthed earthenware pot used to heat water or to stew meat or vegetables (e. g. Epich. fr. 30; Crates Com. fr. 16.8; Ar. Eq. 1174; Pax 202 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Av. 78; fr. 606; Alc. Com. fr. 24; Antiph. fr. 71.1; Anaxandr. fr. 42.28; Hp. Morb. II 56 = 7.88.9 Littré; X. HG 4.5.4; Amyx 1958. 211–12). The word is too undignified for lyric or tragedy; cf. Anaxandr. fr. 6.2–3 (Timotheus allegedly used a periphrasis). 4 κάννας Lit. “reeds” (a Semitic loan-word; cf. Lat. canna, English “cane”; Hsch. κ 458 κάννα· κάλαµος, “canna: reed” (taken by Latte as a reference to Cratin. fr. 210); Masson 1967. 47–8) and thus by extension matting woven out of reeds and used as fencing or the like (Cratin. fr. 210; Pherecr. fr. 69; Ar. V. 394 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; cf. Hippon. fr. 163 † καννηνοποιόν †, “reed

234

Eupolis

mat-maker”; Poll. 10.166, 183; Phot. κ 159 κάνναι· πλεκτά τινα ἐκ καλάµων, “kannai: objects woven out of reeds”). Cf. κανοῦν, “reed basket” (e. g. Ar. Ach. 244 with Olson 2002 ad loc.); κάνης (“reed mat”; third-declension and thus impossible here) at Sol. fr. 72c Ruschenbusch (used by women at a festival); Crates Com. fr. 14 ὁ κάνης δὲ τῆς κοίτης ὑπερέχειν µοι δοκεῖ (“The kanês appears to me to be getting the best of the bed”; glossed as meaning that what is less important is preferred to what is more important); IG I3 1455.16 κανᾶ σχ̣οίνινα hεννέα (“nine reed mats made of rushes”; in a temple inventory from Aegina); Suda κ 307 κάνης· ὁ ψίαθος.111 κόρηµα See fr. 167 n. A κιβωτός (included in catalogues of household items at Thphr. Char. 10.6) is a wooden (e. g. Arist. Met. 1044a26, 1049a19–20; Thphr. HP 5.7.5 (diminutive)) storage chest with a hinged lid that might be equipped with a lock (D. 25.61). κιβωτοί were used to hold e. g. clothing (Ar. V. 1056), documents (Ar. Eq. 1000), money and the equivalent (Lys. 12.10–11; cf. fr. 123 n.), professional supplies (Ar. Pl. 711–12; belonging to Asclepius as divine physician) and weapons (Aen. Tact. 29.4, 8). Cf. Pritchett in Pritchett–Pippin 1956. 220–5; Richter 1966a. 72–6; Andrianou 2009. 111–12. λύχνον Included in a catalogue of items to be prepared for a dinner-party at Antiph. fr. 150.2 and in a catalogue of kitchen supplies at Antiph. fr. 71.1 (both plural); in the singular in a list of vessels at Axionic. fr. 7.2. For Athenian lamps in this period, see Howland 1958; Olson on Ar. Pax 688–92.

fr. 219 K.-A. (205 K.) οὓς δ’ οὐκ ἂν εἵλεσθ’ οὐδ’ ἂν οἰνόπτας πρὸ τοῦ, νυνὶ στρατηγοὺς 〈 l k 〉 ὦ πόλις πόλις, ὡς εὐτυχὴς εἶ µᾶλλον ἢ καλῶς φρονεῖς 2 στρατηγοὺς Ath. : στρατηγοὺς 〈ἔχοµεν〉 Hermann : στρατηγοῖς 〈χρώµεθ᾽〉 E V Dobree : στρατηγἠσουσιν; Austin   ὦ πόλις πόλις Ath. : ὦ πόλις Σ : om. Σ Suda    111

A ψίαθος is a mat for sleeping or reclining on the ground at Ar. Lys. 921–2, 925 (used for lying down to make love); Ra. 567 (among the furnishings of an inn; Dover 1993 ad loc. mistakenly offers “cups” as a gloss); Philem. fr. 26.1; Hyp. fr. 165 (among the tools of a prostitute’s trade); Arist. HA 559b2–4 (used to recline on while drinking), but is properly made of bulrushes or similar plants rather than of reeds. In practice, the two terms may not always have been sharply distinguished; cf. Thphr. HP 9.4.4 ψιάθους ἐκ φοινίκων πεπλεγµένας (“psiathoi woven out of palm-fronds”).

Πόλεις (fr. 219) V

E

3  εὐτυχὴς εἶ Ath. : εὐτυχήσει Σ : εὐτυχεῖς Σ : εὐτυχεῖν Suda VE φρονεῖν Suda κακῶς Σ

235 καλῶς Ath. Suda :

but men you (pl.) wouldn’t have chosen previously even to be wine-inspectors, now generals 〈 l k 〉 Oh city, city! How lucky you are, rather than clever Ath. 10.425a–b τοσαύτη δ’ ἦν ἡ τῶν παλαιοτέρων τρυφὴ περὶ τὰς πολυτελείας ὥστε µὴ µόνον οἰνοχόους ἔχειν ἀλλὰ καὶ οἰνόπτας. ἀρχὴ γοῦν ἐστιν οἱ οἰνόπται παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις, ἧς µνηµονεύει ἐν ταῖς Πόλεσιν Εὔπολις ἐν τούτοις· ――. οἱ δὲ οἰνόπται οὗτοι ἐφεώρων τὰ ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις, εἰ κατ’ ἴσον πίνουσιν οἱ συνόντες. καὶ ἦν ἡ ἀρχὴ εὐτελής, ὡς ὁ ῥήτωρ φησὶ Φιλῖνος ἐν τῇ Κροκωνιδῶν διαδικασίᾳ (II.319 Baiter–Sauppe)· καὶ ὅτι τρεῖς ἦσαν οἱ οἰνόπται, οἵτινες καὶ παρεῖχον τοῖς δειπνοῦσι λύχνους καὶ θρυαλλίδας. ἐκάλουν δέ τινες τούτους καὶ ὀφθαλµούς The luxury the ancients enjoyed was so extravagant that they had not only wine-pourers but also wine-inspectors. In Athens the wine-inspectors were a class of magistrate, at any rate, which Eupolis mentions in his Poleis in the following lines: ――. These wine-inspectors supervised what went on at their dinner-parties, watching whether the guests drank equal amounts. And the office was an undistinguished one, as the orator Philinos reports in his Lawsuit involving the Croconidae (II.319 Baiter–Sauppe); he adds that there were three wine-inspectors, who also supplied the dinner-guests with lamps and wicks. But some people referred to them also as “eyes”112 VEMatr

Σ Ar. Nu. 587 ἀποτυχόντα φασὶ Ποσειδῶνα τῆς χώρας τὸ κακῶς βουλεύεσθαι ἐνσκῆψαι αὐτοῖς, τὴν VEMatr δὲ Ἀθηνᾶν παρασχεῖν δωρεὰν τὸ κακῶς βουλεύεσθαι µέν, ἐκκλῖναι δὲ καλῶς. καὶ VE ἦν τοῦτο λεγόµενον ἐπιχώριον· καὶ Εὔπολις (vv. 2–3)· ὦ ―― φρονεῖς They say that when Poseidon failed to get control of the land, he imposed bad decision-making on them, but that Athena made them the gift of reaching bad decisions VEMatr but having them turn out well. And this was a local saying; also Eupolis (vv. 2–3): VE Oh ―― clever

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl llk|l llkl llkl l|〈lk〉|l klkl llkl l|lk|l klkl 112

I.e. as “lookouts, spies”; cf. the Eye of the King at Ar. Ach. 92 with Olson 2002 ad loc.

236

Eupolis

Discussion Raspe 1832. 97–8; Meineke 1839 II.510–11; Schiassi 1944. 75–6; Storey 2003. 223; Olson 2007. 199–200 (E5) Citation context Athenaeus cites this passage as part of a discussion of the alleged luxury of the ancients, which may thus be drawn from the same source as 1.24b–5f (preserved only in the Epitome). Poll. 6.21–2 καὶ οἰνόπτης ὁ τὸν οἶνον ἐπιβλέπων· οὗτος δὲ καὶ λύχνους καὶ θρυαλλίδας παρεῖχε, καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἴσου πόσιν ἐφεώρα (“And an oinoptês is the man who keeps an eye on the wine; this person also supplied lamps and wicks, and supervised the equality of the drinking”) is another version of the same material, at least some of which appears to go back to Didymus (cf. Phot. ο 127 οἰνόπται· ἐπιµεληταὶ τοῦ τοὺς φράτορας ἡδὺν οἶνον ἔχειν. ∆ίδυµος (Comic Vocabulary fr. 14, pp. 38–9 Schmidt) οὕτως ἀποδίδωσιν· εὐτελὴς ἀρχή τις Ἀθήνησιν, “oinoptai: men charged with ensuring that the phratry-members have good wine. Didymus (Comic Vocabulary fr. 14, pp. 38–9 Schmidt) glosses it thus: ‘an undistinguished office in Athens’”). Cf. fr. 130 n. (on sumptuary legislation connected with feasting on the deme-level), and note also – Hsch. ο 332 οἰνόπται· ἀρχὴ εὐτελής, καθ’ ἣν θρυαλλίδας καὶ λύχνους καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα δεῖ τὸν αἱρεθέντα ἄρχοντα παρέχειν (“oinoptai: an undistinguished office, in connection with which the man elected as magistrate had to supply wicks, lamps and the like”) – Phot. ο 126 οἰνόπται· εὐτελὴς ἀρχὴ Ἀθήνησιν παρέχουσα λύχνους καὶ θρυαλλίδας ἐν ἑορταῖς τισιν (“oinoptai: an undistinguished office in Athens that supplied lamps and wicks at certain festivals”) – ΣV Ar. Pax 1178 οἰνόπτας τοὺς οἰνοφύλακας (“oinoptai are those who guard the wine”). The second citation of the passage—although in this case of only part of the text and in reference to a different issue, so likely from a separate source—is in a note on the final portion of Ar. Nu. 586–9 οὐ φανεῖν ἔφασκεν ὑµῖν, εἰ στρατηγήσοι Κλέων. / ἀλλ’ ὅµως εἵλεσθε τοῦτον· φασὶ γὰρ δυσβουλίαν / τῇδε τῇ πόλει προσεῖναι· ταῦτα µέντοι τοὺς θεούς, / ἅττ’ ἂν ὑµεῖς ἐξαµάρτητ’, ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον τρέπειν (“[The Sun] said he would not shine for you, if Cleon were general. But nonetheless you elected him; for they say that bad decision-making is endemic to this city, but that whatever errors you make, the gods cause them to turn out better”). An abbreviated version of the same material is preserved at Suda α 732. Text In 2, the paradosis is metrically deficient; the conjectures recorded in the apparatus are merely exempli gratia examples of how the line might be filled out. If the lacuna did not contain a verb, εἵλεσθε must be supplied from 1.

Πόλεις (fr. 219)

237

At the end of 2, the second πόλις (preserved in Athenaeus) has been lost via haplography in ΣE. ΣV and the version of the text that lies behind the Suda simply dropped the entire second half of the verse. 3 caused trouble for the scribes who produced the three surviving versions of the scholion on Clouds, inter alia because some of them inherited κακῶς for the correct καλῶς, and they variously wrote: — ὡς εὐτυχήσει µᾶλλον ἢ κακῶς φρονεῖς (ΣV) — ὡς εὐτυχεῖς µᾶλλον ἢ κακῶς φρονεῖς (ΣE) — ὡς εὐτυχεῖν µᾶλλον ἢ καλῶς φρονεῖν (Suda). Interpretation For the complaint in 1–2 and for the elective office of general, cf. frr. 49; 104; 132 with n.; 133 with n.; 384 (esp. 7–8) with nn.; Ar. Ra. 727–33, esp. 732–3 οἷσιν ἡ πόλις πρὸ τοῦ / οὐδὲ φαρµακοῖσιν εἰκῇ ῥᾳδίως ἐχρήσατ’ ἄν (“men whom the city previously would not even have lightly used as scapegoats”); and note Cratin. fr. 17.2–3 (of a poet allegedly not deserving a chorus); Anaxandr. fr. 66. The overall point is not that Athens is doing badly, but that the city is doing well despite its terrible choice of leaders. For the popular tradition behind Ar. Nu. 587–9 and this fragment, cf. Ar. Ec. 473–5 λόγος γέ τοί τις ἔστι τῶν γεραιτέρων, / ὅσ’ ἂν ἀνόητ’ ἢ µῶρα βουλευσώµεθα, / ἅπαντ’ ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον ἡµῖν ξυµφέρειν (“There is in fact a saying among the elders, that whatever thoughtless, stupid decisions we make, they all turn out for the best for us”; Ussher 1973 ad loc. compares Ar. Eq. 1055 Κεκροπίδη κακόβουλε, “Ill-counseled son of Cecrops”; E. Supp. 321 ἄβουλος ὡς κεκερτοµηµένη, “reproached as lacking in (good) counsel”; of Athens); Wankel 1976. 1111 (on Athens’ proverbial τύχη). 1 εἵλεσθ(ε) For αἱρέοµαι (lit. “choose for oneself”) in the sense “elect (sc. to public office)” (LSJ s. v. B.II.3), e. g. fr. 384.8; Ar. Nu. 587 (quoted in Citation context); V. 668; Ec. 247; fr. 156.3; Archipp. fr. 14.1; Men. fr. 769.1; And. 1.81; Th. 2.65.4; Lys. 12.54; and cf. fr. 99.33 with n. οἰνόπτας The scholarly traditions regarding this office (see Citation context) appear to go back to a very limited number of texts that connected it with ensuring the presence of supplies for a night-time drinking party and seeing that those supplies were distributed equitably among the guests; see Lambert 1993. 154–5. Phot. ο 127—presumably based at some point on hard evidence, since there is no obvious motivation to invent the detail—suggests that these celebrations took place on the level of the phratry rather than of the city as a whole. πρὸ τοῦ i. e. πρὸ τούτου τοῦ χρόνου. Used thus also at e. g. [fr. *101.9]; A. Ag. 1203; E. Andr. 734; Ar. Nu. 5; Hdt. 1.103.1; Th. 1.118.2; Pl. Phd. 96c. 2 For νυνί with deictic iota (colloquial Attic), see fr. 384.7 n.

238

Eupolis

ὦ πόλις πόλις (nominative for vocative for metrical reasons; see Mastronarde 1994 on E. Ph. 884) is likely paratragic (cf. Ar. Ach. 27*), although not necessarily a specific allusion to S. OT 629*; cf. Dawe 1982 ad loc. and e. g. S. Ph. 1213. 3 ὡς is exclamatory. καλῶς φρονεῖς is elevated poetic style (e. g. A. Pers. 725 µὴ φρονεῖν καλῶς; S. Tr. 442 οὐ καλῶς φρονεῖ; E. Hipp. 1318 φρονῶν καλῶς; [A.] PV 1012 τῷ φρονοῦντι µὴ καλῶς; attested occasionally in 4th-century prose, e. g. D. 19.270); contrast the less elevated εὖ φρονεῖς (e. g. Ar. Nu. 817).

fr. 220 K.-A. (207 K.) Συρακόσιος δ’ ἔοικεν, ἡνίκ’ ἂν λέγῃ, τοῖς κυνιδίοισι τοῖσιν ἐπὶ τῶν τειχίων· ἀναβὰς γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸ βῆµ’ ὑλακτεῖ περιτρέχων E

Γ2

Γ

V

VEΓ

1 λέγῃ Σ : λέγει Σ : λέγουσιν Σ : λέγ(–) Σ    2 τοῖσιν Bentley : τοῖς Σ

But whenever Syrakosios speaks, he resembles the puppy-dogs on our courtyard walls; because after he gets up on the speaker’s stand, he runs around barking RVEΓM

Σ Ar. Av. 1297 VEΓM V οὗτος γὰρ τῶν περὶ τὸ βῆµα, καὶ Εὔπολις ὡς λάλον ἐν Πόλεσι (Kuster: πύλεσι Σ  : EΓ RM RVEΓM VEΓ πύλεις Σ : om. Σ ) διασύρει· ―― VEΓM

Because this man (was) one of those who frequented the speaker’s stand, and ΣV ΣEΓ Eupolis excoriates him as a blatherer in Poleis (thus Kuster : Pylesi : Pyleis : omitted VEΓ RM RVEΓM by Σ ): ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klrl klk|l klkl lrkl k|lk|r llkl rlkr kl|kl lrkl Discussion Raspe 1832. 103; Meineke 1839 II.511; Schiassi 1944. 79; Storey 2003. 225

Πόλεις (fr. 220)

239

Citation context A note—highly abbreviated in ΣR, as often113—on the words Συρακοσίῳ δὲ κίττα (“Jay [is the nickname] for Syrakosios”) at Ar. Av. 1297. Phryn. Com. fr. 27 follows. Didymus and Didymus’ excerptor Symmachus are cited repeatedly in the immediately preceding scholia, and one of them is probably the source here as well, with the material itself going back to an earlier catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Text The ending of the final word in 1 was abbreviated in the exemplar of the various surviving versions of the scholia (as in ΣV). Of the scribes who attempted to fill the word out, only that of manuscript E guessed correctly. In 2, Bentley’s τοῖσιν is an easy correction of the unmetrical paradosis τοῖς. Interpretation An abusive comparison reminiscent of the symposium game of “likenesses” (for which, see Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 1308–13). The criticism is in the first instance of Syrakosios’ lack of public decorum, recalling that charged at [Arist.] Ath. 28.3 to Cleon, ὃς δοκεῖ µάλιστα διαφθεῖραι τὸν δῆµον ταῖς ὁρµαῖς, καὶ πρῶτος ἐπὶ τοῦ βήµατος ἀνέκραγε καὶ ἐλοιδορήσατο, καὶ περιζωσάµενος ἐδηµηγόρησε, τῶν ἄλλων ἐν κόσµῳ λεγόντων (“who appears to have most damaged the people by his impetuosity, and who first shrieked and shouted abuse on the speaker’s stand, and wrapped his robe around himself as he addressed the Assembly, whereas the others spoke in an orderly way”). But the comparison to a puppy running about on top of a courtyard wall, barking furiously at everyone it sees, also suggests the pointlessness of Syrakosios’ rhetoric, and perhaps the extent to which he overestimates his own significance; it may thus pick up on the image Cleon apparently cultivated of himself as “watchdog of the people” (Ar. Eq. 1017 with Sommerstein 1981 ad loc.). The politician Syrakosios (PA 13041; PAA 853435) is known only from the passage of Birds (414 BCE) and the fragments of Eupolis and Phrynichus Comicus’ Monotropos (also 414 BCE) cited in the scholia there (although cf. fr. 99.23–34, where Koerte wanted to see another reference to him). The citation of Phryn. Com. fr. 27 (likely corrupt) is followed by the dubious—and patently tentative—claim that “it seems” (δοκεῖ) that Syrakosios introduced legislation that curtailed the right of comic poets to attack whomever they liked by name. For discussion of the supposed decree, see Halliwell 1984. 87 (the ban is an ancient scholarly invention for which the only evidence was the fragment of Phrynichus); Sommerstein 1986 (the ban was real and intended to turn individuals involved in the religious scandals of 415 BCE into “non-persons”); 113

Srebrny 1939 unwisely attempts instead to convert the material in ΣR into a separate joke of a different sort, attacking Syrakosios for his depraved “Sicilian” manners.

240

Eupolis

Atkinson 1992. 61–4 (the ban was real and intended to protect individuals falsely implicated in the religious scandals of 415 BCE); Sommerstein 2004 (Syrakosios had deprived Phrynichus of potential comic targets by bringing about their death or exile).114 2–3 For the comparison, cf. X. Oec. 13.8 καὶ τὰ κυνίδια δὲ πολὺ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῇ γνώµῃ καὶ τῇ γλώττῃ ὑποδεέστερα ὄντα ὅµως καὶ περιτρέχειν καὶ κυβιστᾶν καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ µανθάνει τῷ αὐτῷ τούτῳ τρόπῳ (“Puppy-dogs, in fact, although far inferior to human beings in intelligence and their ability to speak, nonetheless learn to run around and turn somersaults and many other things in this same way”). 2 τειχία are not city walls115 but house or building walls, or walls erected alongside a road or between fields (see LSJ s. v., and add to the references collected there X. Eq.Mag. 8.3; Pl. R. 496d, 514b–c; Hsch. τ 369 τειχίον· Ἀττικοὶ τὸν περίβολον τοῖς χωρίοις, “teichion: Attic authors (use the word for) an enclosure wall for fields”). The κυνιδία—a homely diminutive 〈 κὐων, attested elsewhere before the Roman period only in comedy (Ar. Ach. 542; Pax 482, 641) and Attic prose (e. g. X. Oec. 13.8; Pl. Euthyd. 298e; Arist. HA 612b10–11)—are thus presumably running around on top of the courtyard walls of their houses, patrolling their territory and barking at everyone who passes by in the street. For domestic dogs, see Thompson 1949; Diggle 2004 on Thphr. Char. 4.9; Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 957–8; Kitchell 2014. 47–53. Dogs appear to have been eaten occasionally, but did not make up a significant part of the Athenian diet; see Snyder and Kippel 2003; Roy 2007. 3 A βῆµ(α) (cognate with βαίνω) is a speaker’s stand, most often in the Pnyx (e. g. Ar. Eq. 77; Pl. Com. fr. 201.3; Timocl. fr. 18.8; X. Mem. 3.6.1) but also in the bouleuterion (Antipho 6.40) or a lawcourt (e. g. Ar. Ec. 677; Is. 5.25 with Wyse 1904 ad loc.) or the like (Th. 2.34.8). Speaker’s stands were large enough to hold several people (e. g. Ar. Pl. 382–3; Antipho 6.40; cf. Ar. Ec. 677–8, where one is imagined as providing enough space for several mixing bowls and water-jugs), or in this case to pace about upon. ὑλακτεῖ Used of a dog’s barking, snarling or howling at e. g. Il. 18.586; Sophr. fr. 9; Ar. V. 1402; X. Cyn. 3.5; Isoc. 1.29); by extension of a harsh or grating human voice at e. g. S. El. 299 with Finglass 2007 ad loc.; E. Alc. 760; IT 293 κυνῶν ὑλάγµατα; fr. 907.2. Kassel–Austin compare Cic. De orat. 3.138 114

115

Stamma 2014. 181–2 unwisely cites—and thus lends implicit approval to—the claim of Trevett 2000 that “Phrynichus is alluding not to Syrakosios but to the Syracusans” (quote from p. 599). Thus Rusten 2011. 255, who in addition translates “at city walls” (as if the noun were in the accusative).

Πόλεις (fr. 221)

241

ad clepsydram latrare (“to bark against the water-clock”; from a discussion of 5th-century Athenian oratory with reference to its image in comedy); Brut. 58 latrant enim iam quidem oratores, non loquuntur (“for nowadays some orators do not speak but bark”). Cf. the similar use of βαΰζω at Ar. Th. 173 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc. περιτρέχων For the compound meaning “run in various directions”—in this case “back and forth”—rather than specifically “in a circle”, e. g. Cratin. fr. 56; Hermipp. fr. 73.3 περιτρέχων τὴν γῆν ἁπαξάπασαν (“running around the whole world”); Ar. Eq. 65; Av. 842; Pl. Tht. 202a; and cf. fr. 327.2 n.

fr. 221 K.-A. (208 K.) κακὸς µὲν οὐκ ἦν, φιλοπότης δὲ κἀµελής· κἀνίοτ’ 〈ἂν〉 ἀπεκοιµᾶτ’ ἂν ἐν Λακεδαίµονι κἂν Ἐλπινίκην τῇδε καταλιπὼν µόνην 2 κἀνίοτ’ 〈ἂν〉 Porson : κἀνίοτ’ Plu. : κἀνίοτε δ᾽ Reiske   3 τῇδε Meineke : τήνδε Plu.

He wasn’t a bad man, but he liked to drink and was careless; and sometimes he used to sleep away from home in Sparta even if this involving leaving Elpinike behind alone here Plu. Cim. 15.3–4 τοῦ Κίµωνος … κατεβόων συνιστάµενοι καὶ τὸν δῆµον ἐξηρέθιζον, ἐκεῖνά τε τὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἀνανεούµενοι καὶ Λακωνισµὸν ἐπικαλοῦντες. εἰς ἃ καὶ τὰ Εὐπόλιδος διατεθρύληται περὶ Κίµωνος, ὅτι ―― They got together and tried to denounce Cimon and to stir up the people, renewing the notorious charges involving his sister and accusing him of Spartan sympathies. The famous verses of Eupolis refer to these charges, specifically: ―― AB

Σ Ael. Arist. III p. 515.14–15 Dindorf ∆ίδυµος (Life of Thucydides fr. 5, p. 324 Schmidt) δέ φησιν οὐχ ὅτι ἐλακώνιζεν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι Ἐλπινίκῃ τῇ ἀδελφῇ συνῆν. αἴτιοι δὲ τῆς διαβολῆς οἱ κωµικοί, καὶ µάλιστα Εὔπολις ἐν Πόλεσι And Didymus (Life of Thucydides fr. 5, p. 324 Schmidt) says that the point was not that he was pro-Spartan, but that he slept with his sister Elpinike. But the comic poets are responsible for this slander, and in particular Eupolis in Poleis

242

Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|rkl klkl lrkr llk|l rlkl llkl l|lk|r klkl Discussion Meineke 1839 II.512–13; Meineke 1847 I.196; Meyer 1899. 53; Goossens 1942; Schiassi 1944. 76–7; Blamire 1989. 161–2; Mülke 1996. 38–9; Storey 2003. 223 Citation context Plutarch is drawing on some pre-existing collection of spicy, hostile material regarding Athenian statesmen similar to or incorporating the pseudo-biographical pamphlet On Themistocles, Thucydides and Pericles by the acid-tongued Stesimbrotos of Thasos (FGrH 107; see Stadter 1989. lxii–lxiii); cf. fr. 193 with n., and in general Delvaux 1996. The scholion on Aelius Aristides (a summary of the career of Cimon as described in On Defense of the Four (or. 3.128–49))—which merely alludes to the passage of Eupolis, rather than citing it—appears to rely on a similar source; cf. frr. 102–3 with nn. Text In 2, the paradosis is metrically defective, hence Porson’s supplement 〈ἂν〉. The error is best analyzed as a deliberate attempt to remove what looked to be an extraneous word from the text, as also at e. g. fr. 192k; Anaxil. fr. 23. In 3, τῇδε (Meineke) has been attracted into the case of  Ἐλπινίκην … µόνην. Interpretation Nominally a blandly positive assessment (µέν) of Cimon (PA 8429; PAA 569795) son of Miltiades that in the δέ-clause nonetheless uses a series of qualifications of the initial remark to articulate nasty personal and political slanders of him and his sister. The litotes κακὸς … οὐκ in 1 perhaps marks this as a response to someone who claimed that Cimon was κακός; the speaker rejects the charge, but only in order to offer additional remarks that support it.116 τῇδε in 3 puts the action in Athens. Cimon (born ca. 510 BCE) was one of Athens’ most important military and political leaders in the 470s and 460s BCE; inter alia, he captured Skyros in 476/5 BCE and brought back what were supposed to be Theseus’ bones to Athens (Plu. Thes. 36.1; Cim. 8.6; cf. fr. 229 n.). For more on the family, see introductory note to Dêmoi (on Miltiades). Cimon was closely associated with Sparta, e. g. leading a large contingent of Athenian hoplites sent to help put down a Messenian uprising at Mt. Ithome in the late 460s BCE—the 116

Storey’s claim that “The passage … probably went on to say that for all these personal shortcomings, Kimon was still a leader far superior to the modern degenerates” is merely an extension of his preconceived notion that the fragment must fit the schema “politicians old and new, to the detriment of the latter”.

Πόλεις (fr. 221)

243

Athenians were ultimately sent away (cf. Ar. Lys. 1144–5 with Henderson 1987 on 1137–48)—and serving as a Spartan proxenos in Athens, in which capacity he helped arrange a five-year truce between the two powers in 451 BCE. Indeed, the connection was intimate enough that Cimon even named one of his sons Lakedaimonios. Cimon was ostracized in 461 BCE, in the aftermath of the Ithome fiasco, but was recalled four years later on Pericles’ motion; he died while serving as general during a military expedition to Cyprus in 450/49 BCE. The speaker of Cratin. fr. 1 mentions him fondly after his death (esp. 2–3 ἀνδρὶ θείῳ καὶ φιλοξενωτάτῳ / καὶ πάντ’ ἀρίστῳ τῶν Πανελλήνων, “a divine and extremely hospitable man, in every way the best of the Panhellenes”); he is also referred to at Cratin. fr. 160 † ἐν τοῖς Κιµωνιοις ἀνεριπια †; Alex. fr. 25.12 (in a catalogue of great heroes from the past now dead). See in general Davies 1971. 302–5. Cimon’s sister or half-sister Elpinike (PA 4678; PAA 387165) married Callias II son of Hipponicus probably in the early 480s BCE, although the fact that she was buried along with her birth-family (Plu. Cim. 4.3–4 ἐν τοῖς Κιµωνείοις  …  παρὰ τὸν Ἐλπινίκης τῆς Κίµωνος ἀδελφῆς τάφον, “in the Cimonian burial area … beside the grave of Elpinike the sister of Cimon”) is sometimes taken to suggest that the couple eventually divorced (Davies 1971. 258–9). Elpinike is also accused elsewhere of having slept with Cimon (Antisth. Socr. fr. 35 Caizzi = SSR V A 143 ap. Ath. 13.589e; Plu. Cim. 4.6, 8 = Stesimbr. Thas. FGrH 107 F 4), and supposedly with Pericles (Antisth. Socr. fr. 35 Caizzi = SSR V A 143 ap. Ath. 13.589e–f) and the painter Polygnotus as well (Plu. Cim. 4.7). But this is all crude and malicious slander (cf. fr. 232, on Lykon’s wife), which infected the Hellenistic biographical tradition but cannot be treated as serious evidence for the historical Elpinike’s behavior, especially given that Eupolis’ play was composed a generation or more after the supposed events in question. Elpinike was also said to have arranged Cimon’s return from exile by serving as an intermediary with Pericles (Plu. Per. 10.5–6; Cim. 14.5), another dubious anecdote. She can be named here—in contrast to the ordinary taboo on naming free citizen women onstage—because she is dead, as is her brother and anyone else who might be interested in protecting her reputation; cf. Halliwell 1991a. 51 (on freedom to slander the dead generally). But doing so is nonetheless easily read as disrespectful; see in general Schaps 1977, esp. 327–8. For contemporary views of brother-sister incest, see in general Ar. Nu. 1371–2 (Strepsiades expresses horror at the content of a Euripidean song about “how a brother screwed his sister”); Ra. 1078–81 (Euripides accused of writing plays in which, among other grotesqueries, women had sex with their brothers); Pl. Lg. 838a–c; Mülke 1996 (discussing whether the practice was formally

244

Eupolis

prohibited by law or merely regarded as morally beyond the pale); cf. E. Andr. 173–6 (such norms do not prevail among the barbaroi). 1 φιλοπότης While eulogies of excessive drinking abound (e. g. Archil. fr. 120; Thgn. 477; Ar. Eq. 91–4; Alex. fr. 285; Amphis fr. 33), they are generally couched in terms that point to a broadly held belief that such behavior leads to negligence, distraction, recklessness or even criminality (e. g. Ar. Eq. 97; V. 1252–5; E. fr. 183; Hdt. 2.174.1 (see below)). The adjective is first attested here and at Ar. V. 79 (an audience suggestion attempting to identify the “sickness” from which Philocleon suffers); Hdt. 2.174.1 (Amasis before he became king of Egypt was φιλοπότης, fond of jokes and not the least bit serious); Antipho Soph. 87 B 76 D.–K. µήτε φιλοπότην κληθῆναι καὶ δοκεῖν τὰ πράγµατα καταµελεῖν ὑπὸ οἴνου ἡσσώµενον (“nor to be referred to as philopotês and to seem to neglect one’s business because one is overcome by wine”; connected with this fragment by Goossens and taken by him to be a specific reference to Cimon); Hp. Aer. 1 = 2.12.20–1 Littré φιλοπόται καὶ ἀριστηταὶ καὶ ἀταλαίπωροι (“philopotai, inclined toward eating a full lunch and hostile to hard work”; contrasted with people who are fond of exercise and hard work, and who eat and drink in moderation). Greifenhagen 1975 publishes a late 4th-century “phlyax-vase” that depicts a comic reveler, complete with wine-jug and torch, with the inscription ΦΙΛΟΠΟΤΗΣ. ἀµελής The adjective is first attested at A. Supp. 1034, but is otherwise confined to comedy (Ar. Nu. 989; Lys. 882; Antiph. fr. 268.1) and 4th-century prose (e. g. Isoc. 19.32; X. Mem. 1.2.55; Pl. Smp. 197d). 2 κα(ὶ ἐ)νίοτ(ε) As if this were only an occasional, incidental failing, barely worthy of notice—although it then receives two full lines of discussion, full of pointed, allusive detail. ἐνίοτε is late 5th-century vocabulary, first attested here, at E. Hel. 1213 and in Hippocrates (e. g. Aer. 15 = 2.62.9 Littré), and subsequently restricted to comedy (e. g. Polioch. fr. 2.4; Ar. Pl. 1125; Antiph. fr. 149.2; Ephipp. fr. 15.7) and prose (e. g. Isoc. 14.8; X. HG 6.3.10; Pl. Ap. 26d). For the repeated ἄν (here of repeated action in the past under fixed circumstances; see Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.211–12), e. g. fr. 192k with n.; Ar. Ach. 218 οὐδ’ ἂν ἐλαφρῶς ἂν ἀπεπλίξατο with Olson 2002 ad loc., 307 πῶς δ’ ἔτ’ ἂν καλῶς λέγοις ἄν, 709 οὐδ’ ἂν αὐτὴν τὴν Ἀχαιὰν ῥᾳδίως ἠνέσχετ’ ἄν; Eq. 1108 ὁπότερος ἂν σφῷν εὖ µε µᾶλλον ἂν ποιῇ; Nu. 840 τί δ’ ἂν παρ’ ἐκείνων καὶ µάθοι χρηστόν τις ἄν; Phryn. Com. fr. 15 with Stamma 2014 ad loc.; Antiph. fr. 174.1–2; Epicr. fr. 3.13; and cf. Slings 1992. 102–5. ἀπεκοιµᾶτ(ο) Also used in the sense “sleep away from home, away from where one ought to/is expected to sleep” at Pl. Lg. 762c νύκτα ἀποκοιµηθείς; cf. fr. 431 ἀποκαθεύδουσιν· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀποκοιτοῦσιν (“they lie down to sleep elsewhere: in place of ‘they go to bed elsewhere’”) with n. For the force of the

Πόλεις (fr. 222)

245

prefix, cf. ἀποδηµέω (“be away from home, away from where one normally lives”). 3 The nasty implication—that Cimon shared Elpinike’s bed—lurks just below the surface of the text, which properly says only that he slept elsewhere and she was left behind. κἄν = κα(ὶ ἐά)ν. τῇδε See fr. 381 n. καταλιπὼν µόνην The adjective adds a pathetic note, as at S. Ph. 809 µή µε καταλίπῃς µόνον (“Don’t leave me behind alone!”; Philoctetes begs not to be abandoned); Men. Dysc. 443 καταλιπεῖν … µόνην τὴν οἰκίαν (“to leave the house all unattended”), 617–18 µηδαµῶς µόνην τὴν µητέρα / οἴκοι καταλείπων (“Leaving my mother all alone at home? Impossible!”).

fr. 222 K.-A. (209 K.) χὠµυνίας ἐκεῖνος ἀµέλει κλαύσεται, ὅτι 〈ὢν〉 ἄγροικος ἵσταται πρὸς τῷ µύρῳ † ὅτι θεῶν εἵνεκα † ἔπλευσε, κακὸς ὢν εἴσεται Γ

τ

V

2 ὅτι 〈ὢν〉 Dobree : ὅτι Σ : ο Σ : ὅτι 〈τ᾽ ὢν〉 Hermann : ὅτι 〈ὡς〉 Reuter   µύρῳ VΓ Γ V Dobree : µορίῳ Σ    3 ὅτι θεῶν εἵνεκα ἔπλευσε Σ : ὅτι θεῶν εἵνεκεν ἔπλευσε Σ : ὅτι ὧν ἕνεκεν ἔπλευσε Hermann : θεῶν ἕνεχ᾽ ὡς ἔπλευσε Hermann

The famous Amynias will certainly also be sorry, because, although he’s a bumpkin, he stands in the perfume market † that on account of the gods † he sailed, he’ll know he’s no good VΓ

Σ Ar. V. 1271 καὶ Εὔπολις ἐµφαίνει τὴν πρεσβείαν ἐν ταῖς Πόλεσιν· ―― Eupolis too offers information regarding the embassy in his Poleis: ―― VEM

Σ Ar. Nu. 691 VEM Κρατῖνος δὲ ἐν Σεριφίοις (fr. 227) ὡς ἀλαζόνα καὶ κόλακα καὶ συκοφάντην· Εὔπολις VE VEM δὲ ὡς παραπρεσβευτήν, ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς Σφηξὶ φαίνεται But Cratinus in Seriphioi (fr. 227) (describes Amynias) as a bullshitter, toady and inVEM VE former; and Eupolis (describes him) as a dishonest ambassador, which is also VEM apparent in the Wasps

246

Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl klk|r llkl rlkl k|lkl llkl †kkkllkk† klk|r llkl Discussion Meineke 1839 II.513; Fritzsche 1845. 448; Herwerden 1864. 7–8; Kock 1880 I.315–16; Herwerden 1886. 164; Headlam 1899. 5; Schiassi 1944. 78; Edmonds 1957. 388–9; Storey 2003. 225–6 Citation context The fragment is quoted in a gloss on Ar. V. 1271a–4b (part of the second parabasis ode) ἀλλὰ πρεσβεύων γὰρ εἰς Φάρσαλον ᾤχετ’· / εἶτ’ ἐκεῖ µόνος µόνοις / τοῖς Πενέσταισι ξυνῆν τοῖς / Θετταλῶν, αὐτὸς πενέστης / ὢν ἐλάττων οὐδενός (“But he went off as an ambassador to Pharsalos; and he was alone there together with the Thessalian Penestai, being no less of a pauper (penestês) than any of them”) and is alluded to in a gloss on Ar. Nu. 689–92 ((Σω.) πῶς ἂν καλέσειας ἐντυχὼν Ἀµυνίᾳ; / (Στ.) ὅπως ἄν; ὡδί· “δεῦρο δεῦρ’, Ἀµυνία”. (Σω.) ὁρᾷς; γυναῖκα τὴν Ἀµυνίαν καλεῖς. / (Στ.) οὔκουν δικαίως, ἥτις οὐ στρατεύεται;, “(Socrates) How would you call to Amynias if you encountered him? (Strepsiades) How would I? Like this: ‘Hey Amynias, get over here!’ (Socrates) You see? You called him a woman, ‘Amynias’ (fem.). (Strepsiades) Isn’t that right, since he doesn’t serve as a soldier?”). Both notes are likely drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Text 2 is metrically deficient, hence Dobree’s ὅτι 〈ὢν〉. Reuter’s ὅτι 〈ὡς〉 might just as well be right, in which case the text would mean “because he stands in the perfume market like a bumpkin”. In 3, εἵνεκα is a 4th-century form, οὕνεκα or ἕνεκα being appropriate for the 5th century; see Threatte 1996. 668–9. The fragment as preserved says nothing about Amynias’ embassy to Pharsalos, although ΣVΓ Ar. V. 1271 offers this as the reason for citing it. It is accordingly tempting to think that θεῶν in the corrupt and unmetrical 3 might originally have been Θετταλῶν (abbreviated and then misunderstood). Interpretation Apparently following up on a claim that trouble is coming for another individual, hence the καί (in crasis) with which the line begins (“Amynias also”). The corruption in 2–3 makes it difficult to grasp the point. Regardless of how 2 is supplemented, however, the verse articulates a paradox—Amynias is cloddishly out of place, like a peasant-farmer in the perfume market—that forms the basis for the eventual punishment imagined in 1. The final verse describes how or why Amynias will suffer, i. e. when he realizes the truth, which is that he is bad/base but has nonetheless sailed (sc. as ambassador to Pharsalos?).

Πόλεις (fr. 222)

247

Amynias the son of Pronapes (PA 737; PAA 124575) must have come from a wealthy family, if his father (PAA 789550) is correctly identified as the Pronapes (PAA 789545 ~ 789555 ~ 789575) who set up a dedication on the Acropolis for panhellenic victories with the four-horse chariot and/or served as hipparch; see Davies 1971. 471. He ought therefore to have known his way around the perfume market, and the characterization of him here amounts to saying that he is not as sophisticated as he should be (or pretends to be). Amynias is accused of evading military service at Ar. Nu. 692 (quoted in Citation context); said to be addicted to gambling at Ar. V. 74–6, and called impoverished at adesp. com. fr. 244; recklessly charged with pro-Spartan tendencies by the chorus of old jurors at Ar. V. 466, apparently because he wore his hair long (cf. Ar. V. 1267); and included among the contemporary targets attacked at Ar. V. 1267–74, where the central claim is that he is desperately hungry and impoverished (sc. because he has thrown away his fortune playing dice?); cf. Ar. Nu. 31 (a man named Amynias among Strepsiades’ creditors). We know nothing else of the embassy to Pharsalos (IACP #413), an important city in central Greece and an Athenian ally in the Peloponnesian War (Th. 2.22.3, cf. 1.102.4). But the appointment and the repeated mentions of Amynias in comedy leave no doubt that he was a prominent political and social figure in the late 420s BCE and possibly both earlier and later. 1 For ἀµέλει (colloquial; see Lopez Eire 1996. 104–5) used thus with the future, cf. Ar. Ach. 368; Nu. 1111; Lys. 172, 842; Ec. 800; [D.] 52.11. For ἐκεῖνος used with a personal name in the sense “the famous, the wellknown”, e. g. Ar. Ach. 708 ἐκεῖνος ἡνίκ’ ἦν Θουκυδίδης; Eq. 786 τῶν Ἁρµοδίου τις ἐκείνων; Nu. 180 ἐκεῖνον τὸν Θαλῆν, 534 Ἠλέκτραν κατ’ ἐκείνην; Pax 313 ἐκεῖνον τὸν κάτωθεν Κέρβερον; Av. 1702–3 τῶν Ἐγγλωττογαστόρων ἐκείνων τῶν φιλίππων; Th. 161 Ἴβυκος ἐκεῖνος; Antiph. fr. 166.7 ὁ Πυθαγόρας ἐκεῖνος; Men. Dysc. 153–4 ὁ Περσεὺς … / … ἐκεῖνος; cf. fr. 99.48 ἥβης τ’ ἐκείνης νοῦ τ’ ἐκείνου καὶ φρενῶν; Pherecr. fr. 74.3 ἐν τοῖς Μαριανδυνοῖς ἐκείνοις βαρβάροις; Ar. Th. 806 ἐκείνην τὴν Μαραθῶνι; Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.650. κλαύσεται Also used in the sense “he’ll be sorry!” at e. g. Ar. V. 1327; Pax 255 κλαύσει; Lys. 436*; Th. 916; Pl. 174*; Men. Mis. 220; cf. frr. 99.110 κλάοντα; 268l κλαίειν with n. 2 ἄγροικος is literally “from the country” and thus by extension “ignorant, crude, boorish” (e. g. Ar. Nu. 628; V. 1320; Pl. 705; fr. 927; Apollod. Car. fr. 5.5, 14; Strato Com. fr. 1.25; cf. generally Konstantakos 2005; Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. Agroikoi). πρὸς τῷ µύρῳ For individual areas in the Agora called after the commodity sold there, see fr. 327 n. Perfume-stands in particular—like barbershops (see fr. 194 n.)—are characterized a number of times as popular places for

248

Eupolis

Athenian men to hang around talking: Pherecr. fr. 70.1–3 κᾆτα µυροπωλεῖν τί µαθόντ’ ἄνδρ’ ἐχρῆν καθήµενον / ὑψηλῶς ὑπὸ σκιαδείῳ, κατεσκευασµένον / συνέδριον τοῖς µειρακίοις ἐλλαλεῖν δι’ ἡµέρας; (“And then, what could a man be thinking to sell perfume while sitting haughtily under a parasol, furnishing a gathering-place for young men to chat all day long?”); Ar. Eq. 1375–6 τὰ µειράκια ταυτὶ λέγω τἀν τῷ µύρῳ, / ἃ τοιαδὶ στωµύλλεται καθήµενα (“I’m talking about these young men in the perfume market, who sit there and produce this sort of chatter”); Philem. fr. 41.1–2 πρὸς τῷ µυροπωλίῳ γὰρ ἀνθρώπων τινῶν / ἤκουσα Χαλκοῦν περιπατεῖν κλέπτην τινά (“for at the perfume-stall I heard from some people that a thief named Chalkous was wandering about”); Lys. 24.20 ἕκαστος γὰρ ὑµῶν εἴθισται προσφοιτᾶν ὁ µὲν πρὸς µυροπώλιον, ὁ δὲ πρὸς κουρεῖον, ὁ δὲ πρὸς σκυτοτοµεῖον, ὁ δ’ ὅποι ἂν τύχῃ (“for each of you is accustomed to frequent the perfume shop, on the one hand, or the barbershop, on the other, or the cobbler’s shop, or wherever he chooses”); Thphr. Char. 11.9 καὶ διηγεῖσθαι προσστὰς πρὸς κουρεῖον ἢ µυροπώλιον, ὅτι µεθύσκεσθαι µέλλει (“and standing at the barbershop or the perfume shop, he describes how he’s going to get drunk”; of the Repulsive Man) with Diggle 2004 ad loc.; D. 25.52 οὐδὲ προσφοιτᾷ πρός τι τούτων τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει κουρείων ἢ µυροπωλίων ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ἐργαστηρίων οὐδὲ πρὸς ἕν (“and he doesn’t even frequent any of the barbershops or the perfume shops in the city or even one of the other workshops”; of a social outcast); 34.13; Philodem. On Anger fr. 17 col. 21.31–2; Lewis 1995. For perfumed oil and how it was produced and sold, see also Pherecr. fr. 2.2 ἐν τῷ µύρῳ (“in the perfume market”); Ar. Lys. 946 ἑψήσας µύρον (“boiling”—i. e. producing—“perfume”); Ec. 841 αἱ µυροπώλιδες (“the female perfume-vendors”); Polyzel. fr. 12.3; Anaxandr. fr. 41.1 µύρῳ δὲ παρὰ Πέρωνος (“with perfume from Peron”) with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Antiph. fr. 37.1; Brun 2000, esp. 281–2; and more generally Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 60.3.

fr. 223 K.-A. (206 K.) ὁ Φιλῖνος οὗτος, τί ἄρα πρὸς ταύτην βλέπεις; οὐκ ἀπολιβάξεις εἰς ἀποικίαν τινά; 1 Φιλῖνος Runkel : Φίλιννος Synag.   2 ἀπολιβάξεις Fritzsche : ἀπολιβάζεις Synag.

Hey Philinos! Why then are you staring at her? Slip off to some colony!

Πόλεις (fr. 223)

249

Synag. B α 1890 ἀπολιβάξαι· τὸ ἐκρυῆναι, ἀπὸ τῆς λιβάδος. ἄλλοι δὲ τὸ πόρρω ἀπελθεῖν, παρὰ τὴν Λιβύην· πόρρω γὰρ ἡ Λιβύη. οἱ δὲ ἀπορρῖψαι καὶ ἀποφθείρειν. Φερεκράτης ∆ουλοδιδασκάλῳ (fr. 47)· ――. Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― apolibaxai: to flow away, from libas (“stream, trickle”). But others (gloss it) “to go far away”, referring to Libya; for Libya is far away. And others (gloss it) “to cast out” and “to go to hell”. Pherecrates in Doulodidaskalos (fr. 47): ――. Eupolis in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl lrkl

l|rkl llkl l|lkl klkl

Discussion Raspe 1832. 91–2; Kock 1880 I.314–15; Schiassi 1944. 74; Rosen 1998. 158–60 Citation context Perhaps in origin a note on Ar. Av. 1467 οὐκ ἀπολιβάξεις, ὦ κάκιστ’ ἀπολούµενος;, hence the failure to cite that verse, which is the only other attestation of ἀπολιβάζω outside of the lexicographers. Very similar material, but without reference to Eupolis, is preserved at Phot. α 2545 ἀπολιβάξαι· ἀπορρῖψαι. καὶ ἀπολιβάζειν· ἀποφθείρειν. Φερεκράτης (fr. 47) (“apolibaxai: to cast out. And apolibazein: to go to hell. Pherecrates (fr. 47)”), 2546 ἀπολιβάξαι· τὸ ἐκρυῆναι, ἀπὸ τῆς λιβάδος. ἄλλοι δὲ τὸ πόρρω ἀπελθεῖν, παρὰ τὴν Λιβύην (“apolibaxai: to melt away, from libas (‘stream, trickle’). But others (gloss it) ‘to go far away’, referring to Libya”). Note also – Hsch. α 6441 ἀπολιβάξαι· ἀπολεῖψαι. ἐκνοτίσαι. ἄλλοι πορρωτέρω ἀπελθεῖν (“apolibaxai: to run away, to drip away. But others (gloss it) ‘to go quite far away’”) – Hsch. α 6445 ἀπολιβάσαι· ἀποπεσεῖν (“apolibasai: to fall away”) – ΣRVENeapM Ar. Av. 1467 οὐκENeap ἀπολιβάξεις;·RENeap λιβὰς ἡ σταγών, ἧς οὐδὲν ταχύτερον ἐν τῷ πίπτειν. ἢ οὐκ ἐς κόρακας καὶ Λιβύην ἀποφθερεῖ RVENeapM (“Won’tENeap you apolibazô?RENeap: A libas is a drop, than which nothing falls more rapidly. Or ‘Won’t you go the hell away to the ravens and Libya?’RVENeapM”; ~ Suda α 3392; ο 856) – Et.Gen. A α 1064 ἀπολιβάζω· ἀπέλθω, ἀποδράµω· παρὰ τὴν λιβάδα· καὶ γὰρ λιβάς ἐστι ῥευµάτιόν τι, ἵν’ ᾖ κυρίως ἀπορρεύσω. ἢ εἰς τὴν Λιβύην ἀπελεύσῃ, ὅµοιον τὸ εἰς κόρακας, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ. ἢ παρὰ τὸ λι, τὸ σηµαῖνον τὸ λίαν, καὶ τὸ βαδίσαι, τὸ ταχέως ἀπελθεῖν ἐκδεχόµεθα (“apolibazô: I should go off, I should run off; from libas, for a libas is in fact a little trickle, so that properly it would be ‘I should dribble away’. Or ‘might you go off to Libya’, like ‘to the ravens’, meaning ‘into oblivion’. Or we take it to be from li, which means lian (‘great, in excess’), and badisai (‘to go’), (so) ‘to quickly go away’”; ~ EM p. 127.1–6).

250

Eupolis

Text In 1, epigraphic evidence shows that Runkel’s Φιλῖνος rather than the paradosis Φίλιννος is the proper spelling of the name. In 2, the idiom requires the future form ἀπολιβάξεις (Fritzsche) rather than the present ἀπολιβάζεις (Synag.); see Interpretation. Interpretation Philinos (PAA 927515) is otherwise unknown. PAA suggests that he might be identical with the man prosecuted by Antiphon (6.12, 21, 35; = PAA 927510), but the name is common (almost 50 other 5th-/4th-century examples in LGPN II) and there are no substantial grounds for the connection. Kock argued that Philinos was a member of the audience singled out for his supposed reaction to onstage events, like Ariphrades at Ar. Pax 883–4, who according to Trygaeus’ slave signals his eagerness to take charge of the beautiful Theoria. It is impossible to say who or what ταύτην in 1 is, but Raspe 1832. 91 not unreasonably suggested that this might be an individual city (played like Theoria by a mute character costumed as a naked woman?). If so, εἰς ἀποικίαν τινά at the end of 2 builds on the idea, and Philinos is being told to turn his attention toward a place (~ someone) likely to be more open to his advances (“quae quasi µέτοικοι sunt inter urbes” Kock). The more significant point, however, is surely that Philinos is being asked (i. e. ordered) to get out of town. Rosen 1998. 159 suggests that the speaker might be another member of the chorus, and thus that these words represent an example of “small scale rebellion against male attitudes”; but this is merely a guess. 1 The curt, aggressive form of address οὗτος (cf. fr. 192aa with n.; nominative for vocative)—or αὕτη, when the individual in question is female, as at e. g. fr. 81; Crates fr. 16.6 (αὐτή Kassel–Austin); Ar. Pax 682—is occasionally filled out with a bit of extra information, so as to leave no doubt about who is being addressed or what the speaker thinks of him or her (οὗτος σύ, “Hey you!”, at e. g. Ar. Ach. 564, 577a; V. 854; αὕτη σύ at e. g. Ar. Av. 1243; Lys. 728; cf. Ar. V. 1232–3 ὦνθρωφ’, οὗτος ὁ µαιόµενος τὸ µέγα κράτος, “You, sir, the one aiming at great power!”, 1364 ὦ οὗτος οὗτος, τυφεδανὲ καὶ χοιρόθλιψ, “Hey you, you, you lunatic cunt-rubber!”; Pax 164–5 οὗτος ὁ χέζων / ἐν Πειραιεῖ παρὰ ταῖς πόρναις, “Hey you, the one shitting in Piraeus where the whores are!”) and can be used even when the addressee’s name is known (e. g. Av. 57, 225; Lys. 878, 880; Ra. 312). For οὗτος combined with the personal name, as here, cf. also Ar. Ra. 851 ἐπίσχες οὗτος, ὦ πολυτίµητ’ Αἰσχύλε (“Hold on, you, much-honored Aeschylus!”; specifying one addressee out of several possibilities); Ec. 520 αὕτη … Πραξαγόρα; Anaxandr. fr. 52.1 οὗτος Σύρε; Nicoch. fr. 2.1 Οἰνόµαος οὗτος with Orth 2015 ad loc. In a question following an interrogative, ἄρα “strictly speaking, … forecasts the effect of the enlightenment which the answer will bring  … But,

Πόλεις (fr. 223)

251

in effect, the particle does little more than add liveliness to the question” (Denniston 1950. 39). Together with τί in the sense “Why?” or “How?” in comedy (always with another word or two intervening) also at Ar. V. 143, 273; Pax 1048, 1240; Ec. 231 and perhaps Ec. 91.117 πρὸς ταύτην βλέπεις Of an erotic glance also at Ar. Pl. 1014 προσέβλεψέν µέ τις (“someone stared at me”; of a woman attracting the attention of a man in the course of a public procession). πρός and εἰς have different metrical values and cannot always be substituted for one another. But with βλέπω the former seems properly to refer to staring a person in the face or looking intently at a particular object (e. g. Ar. Pax 635; Strato Com. fr. 1.5), whereas the latter means to look in a general direction (e. g. Ar. Nu. 193 εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν βλέπει, “it looks toward heaven”; Av. 309 βλέπουσιν εἰς σὲ κἀµέ, “they’re looking toward you and me”). 2 Kassel–Austin compare the similarly colorful Ar. Nu. 1253–4 οὔκουν ἁνύσας τι θᾶττον ἀπολιταργιεῖς / ἀπὸ τῆς θύρας; (“Hurry up and pack yourself off quickly from my door!”), 1296 οὐκ ἀποδιώξει σαυτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας; (“Prosecute yourself away from my house!”); Av. 1020 οὐκ ἀναµετρήσει σαυτὸν ἀπιὼν ἀλλαχῇ; (“Measure yourself off somewhere else!”). For a form of οὐ + second-person future indicative in a question as equivalent to an imperative, cf. frr. 334 n.; 359. ἀπολιβάζω (cognate with λείβω, “pour, drip”, and thus with e. g. λοιβή, “libation”, and λιβάς, “spring”) is attested only here; at Pherecr. fr. 47 οὐκ ἀπολιβάξεις καὶ τριγώνους καὶ λύρας; (lit. “Slip off along with your triangles and lyres!”; also quoted at Synag. B α 1890); and at Ar. Av. 1467 οὐκ ἀπολιβάξεις, ὦ κάκιστ’ ἀπολούµενος; (lit. “Slip off, you bastard!”). With σαυτόν to be supplied as the object of the verb, this is apparently a colloquial way of saying “go to hell”, like ἀποφθείρω (fr. 372 n.); cf. fr. 397 n. on κλαίω; βάλλ’ ἐς κόρακας (lit. “Throw (yourself) to the ravens!”) at e. g. Ar. Nu. 133. εἰς ἀποικίαν τινά Athenian colonies in this period included Aegina, founded in 431 BCE (Th. 2.27.1); Potideia, founded in 429 BCE (Th. 2.70.4); and Scione (Th. 5.32.1). See in general Figuera 2008, esp. 435–62. For the term ἀποικία and its cognates, see Casevitz 1985. 114–35, 120–30.

117

Similarly with τί in the sense “What?” at Call. Com. fr. 14.1; Ar. Eq. 119 τί ἄρ’ ἔνεστιν αὐτόθι;; fr. 420 τί ἄρα πείσει τηµέρον;; Epicr. fr. 10.18; Philem. fr. 108.1; Men. Asp. 430.

252

Eupolis

fr. 224 K.-A. (210 K.) οὐκ ἀργαλέα δῆτ’ ἐστὶ πάσχειν τοῦτ’ ἐµέ, τὸν Λευκολοφίδου παῖδα τοῦ Πορθάονος; R

VEΘ

RVEΘ

1 ἀργαλέα Σ : ἀργαλέον Σ    τοῦτ’] τοῦτο Σ : ταῦτ’ Meineke   2 ΛευκοREΘ V VEΘ λοφίδου Meineke : Λευκολόφου Σ : ἐλευκολόφου Σ    τοῦ Πορθάονος om. Σ

Is it not hard that I—the child of Leukolophides son of Porthaon—am enduring this? RVEΘ

Σ Ar. Ra. 1513 καὶ Εὔπολις µέµνηται ἐν Πόλεσιν οὕτως περὶ τοῦ Ἀδειµάντου· ―― Eupolis in Poleis also makes mention of Adeimantos, as follows: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkr l|lk|l llkl klkr l|lk|l llkl Discussion Raspe 1832. 92–3; Meineke 1839 II.513–14; Fritzsche 1845. 447–9; Kock 1880 I.316; Schiassi 1944. 78; Edmonds 1957. 388–9; Storey 2003. 227–8 Citation context A gloss on Ar. Ra. 1511–14 στίξας αὐτοὺς καὶ συµποδίσας / µετ’ Ἀδειµάντου τοῦ Λευκολόφου / κατὰ γῆς ταχέως ἀποπέµψω (“I’ll tattoo them and shackle them together with Adeimantos son of Leukolophos and send them off underground”; part of Hades’ threat to various contemporary politicians), presumably drawing on a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Text Like Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin, I print ἀργαλέα (ΣR) rather than ἀργαλέον (ΣVEΘ) in 1 on the grounds that the version of the text preserved in ΣR is better in other respects (preserving τοῦ Πορθάονος at the end of 2, as ΣVEΘ do not); that the alternative reading in ΣVEΘ is more easily explained as an error (assimilation of the adjective to the case of τοῦτ(ο)); that the distinction between singular and plural serves to make the sense more immediately comprehensible; and that the singular is more common (see below) and thus more likely to be introduced in place of the plural than vice versa. For the latter, cf. Ar. Eq. 810 οὔκουν δεινὸν ταυτί σε λέγειν δῆτ’ ἔστ’ (“Isn’t it awful (sing.) in fact that you’re saying these things (pl.)?”), 820 οὔκουν ταυτὶ δεινὸν ἀκούειν … ἐστίν µ’ (“Isn’t it awful (sing.) that I’m hearing these things (pl.)?”), 878 οὔκουν σε ταῦτα δῆτα δεινόν ἐστι πρωκτοτηρεῖν; (“Isn’t it awful (sing.) that you’re engaging in this asshole-guarding (pl.)?”); Lys. 608, where Wilson prints Wilamowitz’s οὐχὶ δεινὸν ταῦτα πάσχειν ἔστ’ ἐµέ; (“Isn’t it awful (sing.) that I’m suffering these things (pl.)?”) rather than οὐχὶ δεινὰ ταῦτα

Πόλεις (fr. 224)

253

πάσχειν ἔστ’ ἐµέ; (Blaydes for the paradosis οὐχὶ ταῦτα δεινὰ πάσχειν ἔστ’ ἐµέ;). Meineke’s ταῦτ’ is thus no improvement. Leukolophides118 is known to have been the name of Adeimantos’ father (see material cited in Interpretation), hence Meineke’s correction in 2 of the unmetrical paradosis Λευκολόφου (ΣREΘ : ἐλευκολόφου ΣV), which reflects the influence of the abbreviated form of the name in the line being glossed (Ar. Ra. 1512). Interpretation Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Ra. 21–2 εἶτ’ οὐχ ὕβρις ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ καὶ πολλὴ τρυφή, / ὅτ’ ἐγὼ µὲν ὢν ∆ιόνυσος, υἱὸς Σταµνίου; (“So is this not outrage and enormous luxury, when I, despite being Dionysus, son of Wine-jar …?”). The emphatic ἐγώ there matches ἐµέ here—τοῦτό µε would have done just as well metrically—while the significant mock-patronymic (Dionysus is actually a son of Zeus, but uses the invented name to emphatically associate himself with his own personal sphere of power) leaves little doubt that Adeimantos’ claim to be “son of Whitecrestson son of City-sacker” is tied to the objection he is voicing: someone is treating him as less than the martial hero he believes himself to be. Nothing more, however, can be said of the part he took in the action.119 Cf. on 2 παῖδα for the pretentious air of the self-identification. δῆτ(α) “denotes that the question springs out of something which another person (or, more rarely, the speaker himself) has just said” (Denniston 1950. 269). Plato (Prt. 315e) claims that Adeimantos son of Leukolophides of the deme Skambonidae (PA 202; PAA 107965) was a student of Prodicus (who probably first came to Athens ca. 430 BCE; see the general introduction to Kolakes), seemingly while still a young man. We first hear of him elsewhere when he was caught up along with Alcibiades in the religious scandals of 415 BCE (And. 1.16), and the records of the public sale of his property (e. g. IG I3 426.10–22, 43–51, 141–2, 185–90; 430.10–12, 27–9) make it clear that he was well-to-do. Adeimantos also served several times as general in the final years of the war (X. HG 1.4.21 (with Alcibiades), 7.1 (with Conon); D. 19.191) before being captured in the disaster at Aigospotamoi in 405/4 BCE, where he was spared execution, leading to accusations that he had betrayed Athens’ forces to the Spartans (Lys. 14.38; Paus. 10.9.11). For his military career and his complicated 118 119

Not Leucolophidus, as in Rusten 2011. 255 (where the speaker’s personal name “Adeimantus” has also infiltrated the translation). Storey 2003. 228 maintains that Adeimantos need not have been a character in Poleis because “there is also the possibility that Adeimantos is merely being quoted by a character on stage”, which is true but a desperate—and thus unhelpful and so pointless—objection.

254

Eupolis

relationships with some of the other major figures of the time, see Strauss 1983. 29–30; Nails 2002. 4–5.120 There appears to be no evidence to show that he was related to Alcibiades, although Burnet 1914. 154,121 followed e. g. by Dover 1998 on Ar. Ra. 1512, claimed that there was. 1 οὐκ ἀργαλέα … ἐστί; cf. Ar. Ach. 1079 οὐ δεινὰ µὴ ’ξεῖναί µε µηδ’ ἑορτάσαι (“Isn’t is awful that I’m not even able to celebrate the festival?”); Eq. 875 οὐ δεινὸν οὖν δῆτ’ ἐµβάδας τοσουτονὶ δύνασθαι (“Isn’t it in fact awful then that shoes have so much power?”); cf. the use of ἀργαλέον (routinely singular rather than plural, as here, and generally not in questions) at e. g. Il. 12.176; Od. 16.88–9; 19.221–2; Thgn. 625; Ar. Pl. 1–2; X. Hiero 6.4; and cf. fr. 111.1 οὐ δεινόν;; Ar. V. 1279 ἀργαλέον ὡς σοφόν (“It’s hard to say how wise he is”, i. e. “he’s extraordinarily wise”; sarcastic) with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Philipp. fr. 2.1 οὐ χαλεπόν ἐστι;. 2 πάσχειν τοῦτ(ο) Cf. fr. 84.1 ἀνόσια πάσχω ταῦτα with n. In Aristophanes, the use of a form of παῖς (sc. rather than υἱός) + genitive of the father’s (rarely the mother’s) name is an elevated poetic mannerism (see Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 1113–14 with examples, to which add Ar. Lys. 1314 (lyric)), as presumably here. Cf. also fr. 112.1 with n.; Cratin. fr. 147.1 (parody of the Odyssey); Pl. Com. frr. 143 (paratragic); 200.2 (a description of a dithyrambic poet; corrupt); Henioch. fr. 1.3 (elevated style). τοῦ Πορθάονος Porthaon (lit. “Sacker”, sc. “of cities”), a mythological figure (Hes. frr. 10(a).50; 26.5; 259b.3; E. fr. 515.3–4; Pherecyd. fr. 123 Fowler with Fowler 2013. 138–9; see Gantz 1993. 168), was inter alia the father of Leukopeus ([Apollod.] Bib. 1.7.10), which may have been a factor in Eupolis’ decision to present him as Adeimantos’ grandfather. For similar mock-patronymics and the like (in this case a grandfather’s name) used to characterize an individual or—as here—to present an implicit mini-autobiography, e. g. fr. 248 n.; Ar. Ach. 1131 Λάµαχον τὸν Γοργάσου; V. 325–6 Aeschines τὸν Σέλλου, 421 Φίλιππον … τὸν Γοργίου.

120 121

Nails 2002. 5 misinterprets this fragment, taking Leukolophides rather than Adeimantos to be the speaker. Miscited at Davies 1971. 332 as Burnet 1914. 190, with the miscitation taken over by Nails 2002. 4.

Πόλεις (fr. 225)

255

fr. 225 K.-A. (211 K.) ὡς οὖν τίν’ ἔλθω δῆτά σοι τῶν µάντεων; πότερος ἀµείνων, Ἀµφοτερὸς ἢ Στιλβίδης; V

Γ

Γ

2 Ἀµφοτερὸς Herwerden : ἀµφότερος Σ : ἀµφοτέρων Σ    Στιλβίδης Σ : V Στιλβιάδης Σ

To which of the seers, then, should I in fact go on your behalf? Which of the two is better, Amphoteros or Stilbides? VΓ

Σ Ar. Pax 1031 ὁ Στιλβίδης εὐδόκιµος καὶ περιβόητος µάντις τῶν τοὺς παλαιοὺς χρησµοὺς ἐξηγουµένων … ὅν φησι Φιλόχορος (FGrH 328 F 135) ἀκολουθῆσαι ἐν Σικελίᾳ (ἐν Σικελίᾳ del. Kaibel : σὺν Νικίᾳ Jacoby), ἡνίκα ἐπολέµουν Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ εἰς Σικελίαν ἐστράτευον. µέµνηται δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― Stilbides was a well-respected, famous seer among those who expounded the ancient oracles … Philochorus (FGrH 328 F 135) says that he followed in Sicily (“in Sicily” del. Kaibel : “with Nicias” Jacoby) when the Athenians were at war and were mounting an expedition to Sicily. Eupolis also mentions him in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|lkl llkl krkl l|lkr llkl Discussion Raspe 1832. 104; Herwerden 1855. 26; Kock 1880 I.316; Nauck 1894. 71; Edmonds 1957. 388–9 Citation context A note on Ar. Pax 1031 (421 BCE) ἡ σχίζα γοῦν ἐνηµµένη τὸν Στιλβίδην πιέζει (“The kindled firewood, at any rate, is making life difficult for Stilbides”; see Olson 1998 ad loc.), presumably drawing on a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Text In 2, Ἀµφοτερός is Herwerden’s interpretation of ΣV’s ἀµφότερος. ἀµφοτέρων in ΣΓ reflects the influence of the immediately preceding word ἀµείνων. Meineke and Kock printed instead πότερος ἀµείνων ἀµφοτέρων; ἢ Στιλβίδης;, which would have to mean “Which of both is better? or Stilbides?” (scarcely “Which of the two is better?”) and thus seems impossible. ΣV got the spelling of the name at the end of the line slightly wrong (Στιλβιάδης for ΣΓ’s Στιλβίδης). Interpretation The speaker has undertaken to provide a service for the individual being addressed, who must be confronted with some puzzling and

256

Eupolis

important decision and has accordingly sought guidance in carrying out his mission. For the function of οὖν, which makes it clear that the speaker accepts what his interlocutor has said and wants to build on it (“in that case”), see fr. 111 n. Amphoteros (PAA 126308 add.) is otherwise unknown, and the name is attested elsewhere in Athens only at IG II2 238 fr. bc.9, where it is borne by the father of a certain Drakontides of Andros honored in 368/7 BCE; perhaps this is a member of an earlier generation of the family. The seer and oracle-monger Stilbides (PAA 835500) is similarly described by Plutarch—also drawing on Theopompus—as taking part in the Sicilian Campaign as a close companion of the chronically superstitious Nicias, and as dying there shortly before the fateful eclipse of 27 August 413 BCE (Nic. 23.7; cf. Th. 7.50.4). For seers (who e. g. read the entrails of sacrificial animals and interpreted bird-signs), see in general ThesCRA III (2005) 4–9, 14–16 (Burkert); Parker 2005. 116–22; Dillery 2005; Flower 2008a, esp. 72–103; Flower 2008b; Johnston 2008. 109–43. For other references to seers in comedy, Cratin. fr. 171.38; fr. dub. 505; Ar. Pax 1026 with Olson 1998 ad loc., 1046; Av. 593–7, 719; Archipp. fr. 15; Alex. Manteis; fr. 160.7; Men. Pk. 371–2; Smith 1989. 141–3; and cf. fr. 231 n. (on oracle-mongers). 1 For ὡς as a preposition + acc. (normally of a person rather than a place), e. g. Ar. Ach. 65, 394; Ec. 1088; Dionys. Com. fr. 1.3; E. Heracl. 187; cf. LSJ s. v. C.III. οὖν … δῆτα For the combination of particles (otherwise almost entirely confined to Aristophanes), e. g. Ar. Nu. 87 τί οὖν πίθωµαι δῆτά σοι;; Av. 969 τί οὖν προσήκει δῆτ’ ἐµοὶ Κορινθίων;; Th. 211 πῶς οὖν ποιήσω δῆτα;; Denniston 1950. 272. fr. 226 K.-A. (214 K.) (Α.) ὄρτυγας ἔθρεψας σύ τινας ἤδη πώποτε; (Β.) ἔγωγε µίκρ’ ἄττ’ ὀρτύγια. κἄπειτα τί; 1 ἔθρεψας Schweighäuser : θρεψας Ath.   2 µίκρ’ ἄττ’ Porson : µίκρα γ’ Ath.

(A.) Did you ever at any point raise some quail? (B.) I (did) indeed, some tiny little quail. Why, then? Ath. 9.392e ὑποκοριστικῶς δὲ Εὔπολις ἐν Πόλεσιν αὐτοὺς κέκληκεν ὀρτύγια λέγων οὕτως· ―― Eupolis in Poleis refers to them with the diminutive ortygia, putting it as follows: ――

Πόλεις (fr. 226)

257

Meter Iambic trimeter.

lrkl l|rk|l llkl klkl l|lkr llkl Discussion Raspe 1832. 96–7; Meineke 1839 II.512; Kock 1880 I.317 Citation context From a diverse collection of material on quail—here the original source appears to be a grammarian—which makes up part of the extended catalogue of birds in Book 9 of the Deipnosophists. Antiph. fr. 5 (quoted in Interpretation) follows. Text In 1, the scribe left θρεψας unaccented to mark his recognition that the text was defective. Schweighäuser’s ἔθρεψας is an easy correction. In 2, the paradosis µικρά γ’ is not impossible (see Denniston 1950. 144 on emphatic and limitative γε in close proximity to one another). But µικρά does not obviously require emphasis before diminutive ὀρτύγια, and I adopt Porson’s simple µίκρ’ ἄττ’, with the problem to be analyzed as in origin a majuscule error (Τ mistaken for Γ). Interpretation σύ in 1 is emphatic and must be intended to place the behavior of (B.)—soon to be attacked for some distorted reason?—in contrast with that of another person. Meineke suggested that Demos’ peacocks (fr. 227 n.) were in question, in which case (A.)’s point is presumably that (B.)’s domestic habits are not much different from those of Demos, and (B.)’s response brings out a hole in the argument, since quail are tiny and peacocks are enormous. 1 ὄρτυγας Quail (Coturnix coturnix) are in fact tiny creatures (cf. 2 µίκρ’ ἄττ ’ ὀρτύγια), which were doubtless eaten occasionally (cf. Hdt. 2.77.5 (Egyptians); Epich. fr. 42.2 (a fantastic banquet catalogue)) but appear to have been used primarily for bird-fighting and “quail-tapping” (fr. 269 with n.; Aeschin. 1.59 συνέτριβον … ἀστραγάλους τέ τινας διασείστους καὶ φιµοὺς καὶ κυβευτικὰ ἕτερα ὄργανα, καὶ τοὺς ὄρτυγας καὶ τοὺς ἀλεκτρυόνας, οὓς ἠγάπα ὁ τρισκακοδαίµων ἄνθρωπος, ἀπέκτειναν, “they smashed some knucklebones used for casting and dice-cups and other gambling equipment, and killed the quail and roosters the miserable fellow loved”). For domesticated quail, cf. Ar. Pax 788/9; Av. 707 (a love-gift); Antiph. fr. 203.2 (described as extremely numerous); Pl. Lys. 211e; and see in general Thompson 1936. 215–19; Arnott 2007. 161–3. ἔθρεψας The verb is used routinely of “keeping” or “raising” domestic animals or other creatures (LSJ s. v. II.2; cf. in comedy e. g. frr. 41.1 (a peacock); 99.4 (n.); Ar. Nu. 109 (pheasants), 1407 (horses); V. 835 (a dog), 1133 (children); Av. 1084–5 κεἴ τις ὄρνιθας τρέφει / εἱργµένους ὑµῶν ἐν αὐλῇ, φράζοµεν µεθιέναι, “and if one of you keeps birds shut up in his courtyard, we say to

258

Eupolis

set them free” (the chorus issues demands to the audience); Th. 417 (a dog); Ra. 1431a–b (a lion-cub); Alex. fr. 58 (pigeons); Anaxandr. fr. 29.1 (a peacock); Epigen. fr. 2 (a goose); Eub. fr. 114 (a goose, a sparrow or a monkey)). For herd animals and the like—which do not live within the walls of the house itself or its courtyard—e. g. βόσκω is used instead. See in general Moussy 1969, esp. 43–70. ἤδη πώποτε is Attic conversational idiom, consistently as part of a question (also e. g. Pl. Com. fr. 102.1 (with aor.); Amphis fr. 27.4 (with perf.); Alex. fr. 275.1 (with perf.; ἤδη was added to the text by Dobree); Men. fr. 69.1 (with aor.); X. Mem. 2.2.7; 4.2.24, 5.9 (all with aor.); Pl. Phd. 65d (with aor.); picked up as such at Aristid. or. 3.348; 33.10 (both with aor.)); cf. ἤδη ποτε similarly used at e. g. Ar. Nu. 346; Ra. 62; Amphis fr. 9.1; X. Mem. 2.1.7, and ἤδη alone at e. g. Magnes fr. 2.1; Hermipp. fr. 37; Ar. Ach. 610; Nu. 386; fr. 198. Together with τινας, the words add a searching quality to the question. 2 ἔγωγε in emphatic response to a question is common in comedy (e. g. Ar. Eq. 33, 172; Nu. 769, 1410; V. 1176; Pl. Com. fr. 102.3; Men. Asp. 83) and 4th-century prose (X. Mem. 2.2.1, 12; Pl. Euthphr. 6e, 10c; Ap. 24d) but rare in tragedy (S. Ai. 104, 1347; Tr. 1248), and appears to be colloquial. ἄττα (= τινα) and ἅττα (= ἅτινα) are common in comedy (e. g. fr. 260.20; Cratin. fr. 6.1; Pherecr. fr. 161.2; Ar. V. 264; Av. 1389 ἀέρια καὶ σκότι’ ἄττα καὶ κυαναυγέα; Th. 423 Λακωνίκ’ ἄττα) and Attic prose (e. g. Th. 1.113.1; 2.100.3; X. Cyr. 2.2.13 οἰκτρὰ ἄττα; Pl. Phd. 95c πολλὰ ἄττα) but absent from tragedy, and must have been regarded as colloquial. ὀρτύγια The only other attestation of the diminutive in the classical period is at Antiph. fr. 5 ὡς δὴ σύ τι / ποιεῖν δυνάµενος ὀρτυγίου ψυχὴν ἔχων (“as if you in fact are able to do anything, since you have the soul of a little quail”; cited immediately after this fragment by Athenaeus)—which is sufficient, however, to suggest that Eupolis did not coin the form. κἄπειτα marks this as a surprised or indignant question (e. g. Ar. Ach. 126; Av. 963 κἄπειτα πῶς; with Dunbar 1995 on 103; Lys. 985; Th. 637; E. Med. 1398; Hipp. 330, 440; Andr. 605; X. Smp. 4.2; Cyr. 2.2.31). Likely colloquial; see Denniston 1950. 311; Stevens 1976. 47. fr. 227 K.-A. (213 K.) καὶ τῷ Πυριλάµπους ἆρα ∆ήµῳ κυψέλη ἔνεστιν; 1 ἆρα ∆ήµῳ Meineke : ∆ήµῳ ἆρα Σ   2 ἔνεστιν Σ : ἐν ὠσίν Meineke : ἔνεστιν 〈ἐν τοῖς ὠσίν〉 Kock

Πόλεις (fr. 227)

259

So is Demos son of Pyrilampes also a dimwit? V

Σ Ar. V. 98 τὸν Πυριλάµπους· µέµνηται τούτου καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Πόλεσιν· ―― the son of Pyrilampes: Eupolis as well mentions him in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llrl l|lk|l llkl klk〈l xlkl xlkl〉 Discussion Raspe 1832. 94–5; Meineke 1839 II.515; Kock 1880 I.317; Edmonds 1957. 390–1; Storey 2003. 226 Citation context A gloss on Ar. V. 97–9, where Philocleon’s crazed devotion to the lawcourts is illustrated by the fact that when he sees a bit of graffiti praising the beauty of Demos son of Pyrilampes, he scratches it out and writes κηµὸς καλός (“the voting funnel is cute!”); presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Text The paradosis ∆ήµῳ ἆρα in 1 is unmetrical, and Meineke reversed the order of the words (which has the further advantage of moving ἆρα forward in the clause). In 2, the paradosis ἔνεστιν must be understood as a brachylogy for ἔνεστιν ἐν τοῖς ὠσίν (“is in his ears”; cf. Diph. fr. 54 κυψέλην δ’ ἔχεις / ἄπλατον ἐν τοῖς ὠσίν, lit. “You’ve got an enormous quantity of wax in your ears”; Luc. Lex. 6 σὺ δὲ κυψελόβυστα ἔοικας ἔχειν τὰ ὦτα, “But you seem to have your ears stuffed with wax”), hence the emendations of Meineke and Kock. Interpretation Presumably following up on another character’s description of a different person, who is definitely a dimwit, with that description set in terms that potentially allow the characterization to be extended to Demos son of Pyrilampes as well. Edmonds suggested that the contrast was with the Athenian dêmos, which he took (1957. 237) to have appeared onstage as a character in the play, as in Aristophanes’ Knights. For the likely form of the response (“No, because Demos son of Pyrilampes …”), see on 1 ἆρα below. 1 τῷ Πυριλάµπους … ∆ήµῳ Pyrilampes son of Antiphon (PA 12493; PAA 795965), a descendant of Solon and a relative of Plato, was born ca. 480 BCE and was politically active in the second half of the 5th c. He served on a number of embassies to the East and especially to the Persian King (perhaps in connection with peace negotiations in 449 BCE), in the course of which he acquired peafowl that were a sensation in Athens for decades (Pl.

260

Eupolis

Chrm. 158a; Antipho fr. 57 Thalheim; cf. Ar. Ach. 63 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Braund 1994. 42–3). Pyrilampes’ son Demos (PA 3573; PAA 317910)—the name itself represents a very public claim on the father’s part to good “democratic” credentials—is treated at Ar. V. 97–8 as notoriously good-looking, and Plato (Grg. 481d with Dodds 1959 ad loc., 513b) reports that Socrates’ interlocutor Callicles of Acharnae (PA 7927; PAA 556065) was infatuated with him. Demos received a gold cup from the King at some point (Lys. 19.25; cf. Vickers 1984 [1990]), and he too must accordingly have visited Persia as an ambassador. Demos also inherited and continued to display Pyrilampes’ peacocks (Antipho fr. 57 Thalheim); cf. fr. 226 n. Nothing is heard of him after 390 BCE, when he served as trierarch in a failed expedition to Cyprus (Lys. 19.25–6; X. HG 4.8.24). Cf. Davies 1971. 329–30; Hofstetter 1978 #82, 278 (with further bibliography). “Strictly speaking, ἆρα does not imply any expectation of a positive or of a negative answer. Practically, however, … the mere putting of a proposition in an interrogative form implies, in certain contexts, a doubt of its truth, and ἆρα, by itself, often has a sceptical tone” (Denniston 1950. 46). A κυψέλη (etymology uncertain; probably substrate vocabulary) is a large storage vessel (S. fr. **441a.5; Hdt. 5.92.δ–ε; Ar. Pax 631 ἑξµέδιµνον κυψέλην, “a kypselê that could hold six medimnoi”; adesp. com. fr. 612 κυψέλαι φρονηµάτων, “kypselai of thoughts”, ap. Phryn. PS p. 81.12–13 et Phot. κ 1278; Paus. 5.17.5; Philox. Gramm. fr. 531 κυψέλη· πλεκτὸν ἀγγεῖον, “kypselê: a woven vessel”; Poll. 6.13; 10.92; cf. κυψέλιον, “bee-hive”, at Arist. HA 627b2; κυψελίς, “swallow’s nest”, at Arist. HA 618a34). But the word is also used of the ear canal and the wax that accumulates there, sometimes called κυψελίς instead (e. g. Philox. Gramm. fr. 531; Poll. 1.47–8; 2.82, 85; Hsch. κ 4760), so that to have κυψέλη/κυψελίς in one’s ears is to be unable to hear and thus figuratively to be a blockhead or fool. Cf. Diph. fr. 54; Luc. Lex. 6 (both quoted under Text), 22; Pearson 1917 on his S. fr. 858.2; Lloyd-Jones 1963. 81.122

122

Storey suggests that “all that Eupolis may be saying is that there was a storage jar of some sort in Demos’ house”, and translates (p. 21) “And does Demos … have a chest?”. But this is impossible with ἔνεστιν, which requires that the κυψέλη (whatever it may be) be inside Demos himself, not inside Demos’ house.

Πόλεις (fr. 228)

261

fr. 228 K.-A. (219 K.) ὡς ὑµῖν ἐγὼ πάντ᾽ ἀποκρινοῦµαι πρὸς τὰ κατηγορούµενα 2 πάντ᾽ ἀποκρινοῦµαι πρὸς Meineke : πάντως ἀποκρινοῦµαι πρὸς codd. : πάντως ἀποκρίναι πρὸς Fritzsche : πρὸς πάντ᾽ ἀποκρινοῦµαι Dobree

as I will offer you (pl.) a complete defense against the charges that are being brought Harp. pp. 46.22–47.2 = Α 189 Keaney ἀπόκρισις· ἡ ἀπολογία … Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― answer: a defense speech … Eupolis in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xlkl xlk〉|l

lrkl

l|lrl

llkl klkl

Discussion Raspe 1832. 93–4; Meineke 1839 II.510, V.38; Fritzsche 1855. 19–20; Storey 2003. 229 Citation context From a note that also includes references to Lys. fr. 475 and D. 19.120. Suda α 3367 = Synag. B α 1870, presumably drawing on the Epitome of Harpocration, is a separate version of the same material, which contains a reference to Antiphon (fr. 154) but omits the passage of Eupolis. Cf. also Hsch. α 6412 ἀπόκρισις· ἀπολογία (“answer: defense speech”); Phot. α 2531 (an abbreviated version of the material in Suda = Synag. B). Text The paradosis πάντως ἀποκρινοῦµαι πρὸς in 2 is hypermetrical, and of the various emendations proposed, Meineke’s πάντ᾽ ἀποκρινοῦµαι πρὸς fixes the problem at the lowest cost. Interpretation ἐγώ is emphatic, as is ὑµῖν as a consequence of its position at the beginning of the clause: the speaker’s proposal to offer the addressees a response to whatever charges are brought (sc. against him) is set in contrast (ὡς, implying οὕτως vel sim. earlier) to another, equally complete action to be undertaken by some other party—presumably the addressees themselves, who will be put on the spot by his forthright, systematic willingness to confront the attack (sc. that they are proposing to mount?). Assigned to the parabasis by Meineke 1839 II.510 (who took the meter to be Eupolideans); the suggestion is withdrawn at V.38.

262

Eupolis

2 πάντ(α) is better taken as an internal accusative with ἀποκρινοῦµαι (with the caesura dividing the thought from what follows) than as modifying τὰ κατηγορούµενα. ἀποκρίνοµαι in the sense “answer” and thus by extension “answer (charges), offer a (defense) speech” is an Atticism (e. g. Pherecr. frr. 28.1; 56.2; Ar. Nu. 345; V. 964; Ra. 1008; E. IA 1133; Th. 1.54.1; X. Mem. 4.2.10; Pl. Ap. 25a; Is. 6.12; Diph. fr. 67.9; Men. Kol. 52). πρὸς τὰ κατηγορούµενα For the language, cf. Lys. 12.38 πρὸς µὲν τὰ κατηγορούµενα … ἀπολογεῖσθαι; 26.3 ὑπὲρ µὲν τῶν αὐτοῦ κατηγορουµένων … ἀπολογήσεσθαι.

fr. 229 K.-A. (225 K.) κακὰ τοιάδε πάσχουσιν, οὐδὲ πρᾶσιν αἰτῶ A

A

1 κακὰ τοιάδε] κατὰ τοιάσδε Poll.    2 πάσχουσιν] πάσχουσα Poll. : πάσχουσα µηδὲ πρᾶσιν αἰτῶ Bekker

they suffer such evils, but I do not request a sale Poll. 7.13 ὃ δ’ οἱ νῦν φασὶ τοὺς οἰκέτας πρᾶσιν αἰτεῖν, ἔστιν εὑρεῖν ἐν ταῖς Ἀριστοφάνους Ὥραις (fr. 577)· ――. ἄντικρυς δ’ ἐν ταῖς Εὐπόλιδος Πόλεσι· ―― But as for what people today say, that slaves “request” a sale, the term “find” can be found in Aristophanes’ Hôrai (fr. 577): ――. But conversely in Eupolis’ Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xlkl xlkl〉

llkl

k|lk|l

rlkl l〈lkl〉

Discussion Raspe 1832. 90; Meineke 1839 II.520; Schiassi 1944. 74; Rosen 1998. 164; Storey 2003. 220 Citation context From a long discussion of words having to do with selling, prices and the like. Text Bekker᾽s πάσχουσα µηδὲ πρᾶσιν αἰτῶ (which takes as its starting point a variant reading in Poll.A) converts an otherwise mysterious fragment into

Πόλεις (fr. 229)

263

something directly relevant to what little else can be surmised about the plot of Eupolis’ play: one of the eponymous Cities implicitly acknowledges her servile status and complains “Given that I suffer such evils, should I not request a sale?” (i. e. by going to the Theseion to ask for asylum and the opportunity to move on to a master other than the Athenian people) (thus Raspe). But Poll.A’s mishandling of 1 (unmetrical κατὰ τοιάσδε for the other manuscripts’ κακὰ τοιάδε) does not inspire confidence in its unique version of 2, and the need to convert the paradosis οὐδὲ to µηδὲ to avoid hiatus after πάσχουσα also makes it difficult to accept Bekker’s reworking of the text. Interpretation κακὰ τοιάδε must be resumptive, recalling a catalogue of injustices offered in the preceding lines. Raspe (arguing for emending to a single iambic trimeter κακὰ τοιάδε πάσχουσ᾽ οὐδὲ πρᾶσιν ᾐτίσω;) took the speaker to be one of the eponymous Cities, while Rosen 1998. 164 (accepting the text as printed by Kassel–Austin) suggested that the reference was to the suffering of the chorus generally. The text itself contains no hint as to the gender of anyone involved in the action; and see the dubious comments of Storey. A slave in Athens who found his relationship with his master intolerable could go to the Theseion—apparently located north-east of the Acropolis—and declare himself to be seeking a buyer, i. e. to be offering himself as Theseus’ suppliant until someone would purchase him. Christensen 1984 [1990]. 25 suggests that a trial of some sort may have taken place in the Theseion, at least when a charge of hybris on the master’s part was involved, to determine the justness of the slave’s claim and thus whether the request for πρᾶσις would be granted. If so, the slave (as a non-citizen) will have needed a citizen advocate, who might be the person speaking here, in this case on behalf of multiple potential claimants to the right to be sold under Theseus’ protection. For this function of the Theseion, see – Ar. Eq. 1311–12 ἢν δ’ ἀρέσκῃ ταῦτ’ Ἀθηναίοις, καθῆσθαί µοι δοκῶ / εἰς τὸ Θησεῖον πλεούσας ἢ ’πὶ τῶν Σεµνῶν θεῶν (“If this is what the Athenians prefer, I think we should sail to the Theseion or the shrine of the Reverend Goddesses and sit there”; one of the Athenian triremes voices her disgust at 2 having to serve under Hyperbolos’ command) with ΣVEΓ ΘM εἰς τὸ Θησεῖον· ἐνταῦθα οἱ καταφεύγοντες τῶν οἰκετῶν (ἱκετῶν Kuster) ἀσυλίαν εἶχον (“to the Theseion: any slaves (‘suppliants’ Kuster) who took refuge there were inviolable”) – Ar. fr. 475 Θησειότριψ (glossed “someone who spends his time in the Theseion”, presumably referring to a slave who ran off there again and again, or who found himself marooned in the sanctuary because no one would have him)

264

Eupolis

– Ar. fr. 577 ἐµοὶ κράτιστον εἰς τὸ Θησεῖον δραµεῖν, / ἐκεῖ δ’, ἕως ἂν πρᾶσιν εὕρωµαι, µένειν (“My best option is to run to the Theseion and to stay there until I find a sale”, i. e. “until someone agrees to buy me”) – Philoch. FGrH 328 F 177 (reporting that the Theseion served as a place of refuge not only for slaves but for suppliants of any sort; ap. EM p. 451.41–3), whence apparently Plu. Thes. 36.4 ἔστι δὲ φύξιµον οἰκέταις καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ταπεινοτέροις καὶ δεδιόσι κρείττονας, ὡς καὶ τοῦ Θησέως προστατικοῦ τινος καὶ βοηθητικοῦ γενοµένου καὶ προσδεχοµένου φιλανθρώπως τὰς τῶν ταπεινοτέρων δεήσεις (“[The Theseion] is a place of refuge for slaves and for all those who occupy a particularly humble station and fear more powerful individuals, on the ground that Theseus was in fact someone protective and helpful who generously accepted the petitions of people of particularly humble station”; note also Plu. Mor. 166d) – ΣmgVxLSf Aeschin. 3.13 νόµος δ’ ἦν τοὺς ἀποφυγόντας τῶν οἰκετῶν (ἱκετῶν Dilts ex Suda) εἰς τὸ τοῦ Θησέως τέµενος ἀτιµωρήτους εἶναι (“There was a law that any slaves (‘suppliants’ Dilts from the Suda) who fled to the precinct of Theseus could not be punished”) – and a set of closely connected lexicographic notes perhaps all going back to a single source: Hsch. θ 553 Θήσειον· νεὼς Θησέως, ἐφ’ ὃν οἱ ἀποδιδράσκοντες κατέφευγον (“Theseion: a temple of Theseus, to which those who were deserting their master used to flee”); Phot. θ 173 Θησεῖον· τὸ Θησέως ἡρῷον, ὃ τοῖς οἰκέταις ἄσυλον ἦν (“Theseion: the hero-shrine of Theseus, which was a place of asylum for their slaves”); EM p. 451.39–41 Θήσειον· τέµενός ἐστι τῷ Θησεῖ, ὃ τοῖς οἰκέταις ἄσυλον ἦν … ἢ ναὸς τοῦ Θησέως, ἐφ’ ὃν οἱ ἀποδιδράσκοντες δοῦλοι προσέφευγον (“Theseion: this is a sanctuary belonging to Theseus, which was a place of asylum for their slaves … or a temple of Theseus to which slaves deserting their masters used to flee”); Et.Gud. col. 262.56–7 τὸ δὲ Θήσειόν ἐστι ναὸς τοῦ Θήσεως, ἐν ᾧ οἱ δοῦλοι προσέφευγον (“But the Theseion is a temple of Theseus, in which their slaves used to find refuge”). See the general discussion of the evidence, with comparison to similar slave-refuges elsewhere, in Christensen 1984 [1990]. 23–6. For what else is known of the Theseion, where the bones of Theseus were supposedly kept (D.S. 4.62.4; Paus. 1.17.6; Plu. Thes. 36.1–4; cf. fr. 221 n.; Plu. Cimon 8.6–7), and the festivals and other events associated with it, see Wycherley 1957. 113–19 (a collection of the ancient literary and epigraphic sources); Koumanoudes 1976 (a separate collection and consideration of the ancient literary, epigraphic and archaeological sources); Bugh 1990 (on the Theseia festival in the late Hellenistic period).

Πόλεις (fr. 230)

265

πρᾶσιν Colloquial 5th-century vocabulary, also attested in comedy at Hermipp. fr. 63.15 and common in prose (e. g. X. Vect. 3.12; Pl. R. 371d; Lg. 849b; Aeschin. 1.115; Arist. EN 1131a3), but attested in tragedy only in the sneering S. fr. 909 ὠνὴν ἔθου καὶ πρᾶσιν, ὡς Φοῖνιξ ἀνήρ, / Σιδώνιος κάπηλος (“you’re accustomed to buying and selling, like a Phoenician, a Sidonian merchant”).

fr. 230 K.-A. (15 Dem.) ὤφειλ’ Ὑάκινθος ἀποθανεῖν ἀµυγδάλῃ ὤφειλ’ Reitzenstein : ἀµυγδαλῇ Phot.   ἀµυγδάλῃ vel 〈ὑπ᾽〉 ἀµυγδαλῇ Reitzenstein

Hyakinthos should have died by means of an almond! Phot. α 1286 ἀµυγδαλῆ· περισπᾶται τὸ δένδρον, ἀµυγδάλη δὲ ὁ καρπὸς παροξυτονεῖται. Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― amygdalê: The tree has a circumflex accent on the ultima, whereas the fruit has an acute accent on the penult, amygdálê. Eupolis in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llrl

k|rkl

klkl

Citation context Closely related material is assigned to Pamphilus (fr. 1 Schmidt) at Ath. 2.52f–3a (quoting fr. 79) and Lex. Syn. α 16 Palmieri (without reference to Eupolis), and further fragments of the same source appear to be preserved at [Ammon.] Diff. 33 (quoting fr. 271.1). Hermipp. fr. 63.20, Philem. fr. 48 and Diph. fr. 80 (offered as evidence for ἀµύγδαλα as another word for the nut; cf. Antiatt. p. 82.19 ἀµύγδαλα· Ἕρµιππος Φορµοφόροις (fr. 63.20), “amygdala: Hermippus in Phormophoroi (fr. 63.20)”) follow. Suda α 1665 ἀµυγδαλῆ· τὸ δένδρον. ἀµυγδάλη δὲ ὁ καρπός (“amygdalê: the tree; whereas the fruit is amygdálê”) is an abbreviated version of the same note, as perhaps is also Hsch. α 3823 ἀµυγδαλη (sic)· τὸ δένδρον. καὶ τὰ τραγήµατα (“amygdalê (unaccented): the tree. Also the snacks”). Text The paradosis ὀφείλειν is unmetrical and nonsensical, hence Reitzenstein’s ὤφειλ’. Many of the verb’s principal parts resemble one another, and some have multiple forms (for the first aorist ὠφείλησα used occasionally in

266

Eupolis

place of the normal second aorist ὤφελον, see Ar. Av. 115123; Th. 8.5.5; Aeschin. 1.100; and cf. Interpretation). It seems to have confused copyists (see fr. 216 n.)—and likely native speakers in the classical period as well. The final word might be accented either ἀµυγδαλῇ (in which case the idea is presumably that Hyakinthos should have hung himself) or ἀµυγδάλῃ (in which case the idea must be that he should have choked on an almond, as Sophocles supposedly did on a grape). The fragment is obscure in any case, and there is accordingly no reason to follow Reitzenstein in supplementing the text. Interpretation Hyakinthos was a beautiful young man loved by Apollo but accidentally killed by him with a discus (Hes. fr. 171; E. Hel. 1469–75 with Kannicht 1969 on 1471–5; [Apollod.] Bib. 1.3.3; 3.10.3; Ov. Met. 10.162–219); his blood was transformed into the homonymous flower (Euphor. fr. 40, p. 38 Powell; [Palaeph.] 46). The νθ-element in the name marks him as preGreek in origin. The cult of Hyakinthos was closely associated with Sparta and especially with the site of his supposed tomb at Amyklae (Hdt. 9.7.1; Th. 5.23.5, 41.3; X. HG 4.5.11; Plb. 5.19.3; Polycr. FHG iv.480–1; Paus. 3.19.3–4), but was widespread in Dorian cities. See in general Mellink 1943; Dietrich 1975; Villard, LIMC V.1 p. 546. That anti-Spartan sentiment is lurking behind the remark (patently hostile; see on ὤφειλ(ε) below) seems likely. But why Hyakinthos in particular is attacked, and why an almond is part of the curse, is obscure; probably one or both were mentioned in a positive fashion in the immediately preceding lines, and this is a response. For Hyakinthos in comedy, cf. Anaxilas’ Hyakinthos pornoboskos (“Hyakinthos the pimp”). The imperfect ὤφειλ(ε)—used here metri gratia in place of the more common second aorist ὤφελον—plus aorist infinitive articulates a wish that an event had occurred in the past that in fact did not;124 similarly used as something approaching a curse at e. g. S. OT 1157 ὀλέσθαι δ’ ὤφελον τῇδ’ ἡµέρᾳ (“I ought to have died on that day!”); E. Cyc. 186–7 µηδαµοῦ γένος ποτὲ / φῦναι γυναικῶν ὤφελ’ (“Would that there had nowhere been a race of women!”); Med. 1 = Ar. Ra. 1382 εἴθ’ ὤφελ’ Ἀργοῦς µὴ διαπτάσθαι σκάφος (“If only the Argo’s hull had never been laid out!”); Ar. Nu. 41 εἴθ’ ὤφελ’ ἡ προµνήστρι’ ἀπολέσθαι κακῶς (“If only the matchmaker had died a miserable death!”); Th.

123 124

Misnumbered in Wilson 2007. Not a wish for the future, as translated at Rusten 2011. 256 (“I wish Hyacinthus would be killed”). Contrast the use with a present infinitive to refer to something the speaker wishes were currently the case but is not (e. g. Ar. V. 731–2; Pax 1068–9).

Πόλεις (fr. 231)

267

865; Ra. 955 ὡς πρὶν διδάξαι γ’ ὤφελες µέσος διαρραγῆναι (“I wish you had exploded before staging a play!”); cf. LSJ s. v. ὀφείλω II.3. ἀµυγδάλῃ For almonds, see fr. 271 n.

fr. 231 K.-A. (212 K.) Ἱερόκλεες, βέλτιστε, χρησµῳδῶν ἄναξ V

Γ

χρησµῳδῶν Σ : χρησµῳδον Σ

Hierocles, best of men, king of oracle-mongers! VΓ

Σ Ar. Pax 1046 Ἱεροκλέης· οὗτος µάντις ἦν καὶ χρησµολόγος … καὶ Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― Hierocles: this man was a prophet and an oracle-monger … also Eupolis in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

krkl

llk|l

llkl

Discussion Raspe 1832. 104–5; Kock 1880 I.316; Flower 2008a. 62–3 Citation context A note on Ar. Pax 1046–7, where Trygaeus identifies the man who appears onstage as he is roasting sacrificial entrails as Ἱεροκλέης / … ὁ χρησµολόγος οὑξ Ὠρεοῦ (“Hierocles the oracle-monger from Oreus”). Presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Text βέλτιστε is a form of address in and of itself and is accordingly better set off with commas than understood as modifying ἄναξ. χρησµῳδον in ΣV is unmetrical, and the lack of an accent suggests a problem with the exemplar. Interpretation The vocative is most naturally interpreted as suggesting that a character representing Hierocles appeared onstage in Poleis, as in Aristophanes’ Peace (421 BCE).125 Dindorf, followed by Sarati 1996. 127, took the verse to be a parody of A. Th. 39 Ἐτεόκλεες, φέριστε Καδµείων ἄναξ (“Eteocles,

125

Thus “settling the date of Poleis would  … settle who borrowed from whom” (Storey 2003. 224). But direct dependence—as if two poets could not bring the same kômôidoumenos onstage without the second having been inspired by the first—need not be in question.

268

Eupolis

most excellent king of the Cadmeians!”; the Scout’s greeting). Be that true or not, the language is distinctly high style/paratragic. Hierocles (PA 7473; PAA 532080) is mentioned in IG I3 40.64–6, where he is designated to supervise sacrifices made in accord with oracles—pronounced by Hierocles himself?—at Chalkis on Euboea; that Aristophanes identifies him as “from Oreus”, if not simply a joke we are no longer able to appreciate (cf. fr. 157a with n.), may suggest that he held a kleruchy on the island. Although the inscription has traditionally been associated with the Euboean Revolt suppressed by Pericles in 446/5 BCE, Mattingly 2002 argues on prosopographic and epigraphic grounds for placing it in 424/3 BCE instead, much closer to the date of Eupolis’ play. At Pax 1084, Trygaeus notes that Hierocles had the right to eat in the Prytaneion, presumably as an interpreter of the sacred law (cf. fr. 319 n.), while at Pax 1087 he accuses him of misleading the Athenian people, sc. by using his religious authority to argue for continuing the war. Hierocles must thus have been actively involved in Athenian political life in the late 420s BCE and quite possibly both earlier and later. See also frr. 225; 249 n. βέλτιστος as a superlative of ἀγαθός is Attic vocabulary (first attested at A. Ag. 378); for βέλτιστε as a component in a colloquial, generally friendly form of address, e. g. Ar. Ach. 948 ὦ ξένων βέλτιστε (“O best of foreigners!”); V. 233 βέλτιστε συνδικαστῶν (“best of our/my fellow-jurors!”); Pl. Plt. 263a ὦ βέλτιστε ἀνδρῶν (“O best of men!”); Men. Dysc. 496–7 with Handley 1965 ad loc.; Dickey 1996. 113, 119, 136. χρησµῳδῶν Oracle-mongers (also χρησµολόγοι)—individuals who controlled and quoted selectively from collections of written oracles supposedly passed down from ancient times—are attested in Athens already in the mid-6th century BCE (Hdt. 1.62.4; 7.6.3) and appear to have exercised considerable influence over political decision-making in the city in the 5th century (Hdt. 7.143.3; Th. 2.21.3; 8.1.1). See Fontenrose 1978. 145–65; Smith 1989. 141–7 (with particular attention to the Aristophanic evidence); Shapiro 1990 (discussing the 6th century); Olson on Ar. Pax 1045–7; Flower 2008. 60–5. ἄναξ is a high-style word, generally restricted in comedy to prayers, imprecations and the like (e. g. fr. *104; Cratin. fr. 361.1 εὔιε κισσοχαῖτ’ ἄναξ χαῖρ’ (addressed to Dionysus); Ar. Ach. 94 ὦναξ Ἡράκλεις; Eq. 551 ἵππι’ ἄναξ Πόσειδον; Nu. 264 ὦ δέσποτ’ ἄναξ, ἀµέτρητ’ Ἀήρ; V. 438 ὦ Κέκροψ ἥρως ἄναξ, 877 (of Apollo Agyieus); Av. 867 ὦ Σουνιέρακε, χαῖρ’ ἄναξ Πελαργικέ; Pl. 438 ἄναξ Ἄπολλον καὶ θεοί; Antiph. fr. 27.1 Ἡράκλεις ἄναξ), and thus sits in odd and pointed contrast to βέλτιστε. Cf. the similarly parodic Pl. Com. fr. 130 ἄναξ ὑπήνης Ἐπίκρατες σακεσφόρε (“king of the beard, Epicrates bushbearer!”); Garvie 2009 on A. Pers. 378.

Πόλεις (fr. 232)

269

fr. 232 K.-A. (215 K.) ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τὴν Λύκωνος ἔρρει πᾶς ἀνήρ R

Γ

ἔρρει Σ : συνέρρει Σ

just as every man makes his way to Lykon’s wife RΓ

Σ Ar. Lys. 270 Γ τὴν Λύκωνος· τὴν Ῥοδίαν λέγει οὕτω καλουµένην, τὴν Αὐτολύκου µὲν µητέρα, RΓ γυναῖκα δὲ Λύκωνος, ἐπ’ αἰσχροῖς κωµῳδουµένην. Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― Γ

Lykon’s wife: he means the so-called Rhodia, the mother of Autolykos and wife of Lykon, who is mocked in comedy for her shameless behavior. Eupolis in Poleis: RΓ ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

lrkl

klk|l

llkl

Discussion Raspe 1832. 92, 113 n. 13; Edmonds 1957. 390–1; Storey 2003. 227 Citation context A gloss on Ar. Lys. 269–70, where the male semi-chorus announce their intention of burning the women barricading the Acropolis alive, “beginning with Lykon’s wife”. Presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi; ΣAreth. Pl. Ap. 23e (p. 422 Greene; preserving fr. 61) may go back to the same source. Text The compound συνέρρει (attested nowhere else) in ΣΓ in place of the simplex ἔρρει in ΣR is metrically impossible. Interpretation For Lykon (PA 9271; PAA 611820) and his wife (not actually named Rhodia), see the general introduction to Autolykos I; frr. 61 n.; 295 n. Here the point of the comparison is that everyone visits her for sex, although the speaker’s real topic is another object or destination that gets similarly relentless—and similarly ill-intentioned?—traffic. For slanders of this sort, see fr. 221 n. ἔρρει See fr. 237 n. Edmonds suggested that the joke was that “Lykon’s wife” was “a comic perversion of ‘the crows’”, i. e. “to hell”.

270

Eupolis

fr. 233 K.-A. (216 K.) ὃς τὴν Μαραθῶνι κατέλιφ᾽ ἡµῖν οὐσίαν τὴν ἐν Μαραθῶνι codd. : ἐν del. Porson

κατέλιφ᾽ Porson : κατέλιπεν codd.

who left us the property at Marathon Phot. ο 690 οὐσίαν· τὰ χρήµατα, ὡς ἡµεῖς. Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― property: possessions, as we (use the word). Eupolis in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llrl

k|rk|l

llkl

Discussion Raspe 1832. 101; Meineke 1839 II.516–17; Kock 1880 I.317; Schiassi 1944. 76 Citation context An isolated lexicographic entry; Ar. Pl. 754 (quoted in the form κοὐσίαν τ’ εἶχον συχνήν, “and they used to have substantial property”; the initial κ(αί) is superfluous) follows. Text Although ἐν is routinely added in manuscripts—in this case against the meter, leaving no doubt that it must be expelled from the text—before Μαραθῶνι (also e. g. Ar. Ach. 697; Eq. 1334; V. 711; fr. 429), the latter word is a locative dative and thus requires no preposition; cf. Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.441–2; Threatte 1996. 379–83. Scriptio plena κατέλιπε must have been written in an early copy of Photius, with ν subsequently added to avoid hiatus, yielding the paradosis κατέλιπεν; Porson’s κατέλιφ᾽ restores the meter. Interpretation A characterization of an individual man. Without specific evidence to the contrary, any mention of Marathon in a 5th-century source is most easily taken to refer somehow to the Athenian defeat of a Persian invasion force there in 490 BCE, particularly in a play that apparently took the Empire as its basic subject or starting point. It nonetheless seems odd to call that victory “property at Marathon”, since what the Athenians acquired as a result of the battle was not Marathon itself but—on the local understanding of matters, at least—a claim to preeminence among the Greek cities and thus to the right of protecting (i. e. controlling) them. Meineke accordingly proposed that νίκην be supplied with τὴν Μαραθῶνι and that the verse be taken to mean “who left us”—i. e. the Athenian people collectively—“the victory at Marathon as

Πόλεις (fr. 233)

271

an inheritance”.126 This allows the subject of κατέλι(πε) to be understood as the Athenian general Miltiades (PA 10212; PAA 653820; d. 489 BCE), who was widely credited with having won the battle, and who was thought to feature prominently in the painting of it in the Stoa Poikile (Aeschin. 3.186; Paus. 1.15.3) and had an individual monument on the battlefield itself, at least by the time of Pausanias (1.32.4) in the mid-2nd century CE. Cf. fr. *106 with n. and the description at Ar. Eq. 814–15 of Themistocles, ὃς ἐποίησεν τὴν πόλιν ἡµῶν µεστὴν εὑρὼν ἐπιχειλῆ, / καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἀριστώσῃ τὸν Πειραιᾶ προσέµαξεν (“who found our city almost full and filled her up, and on top of that he kneaded in the Piraeus for her when she was having lunch”). But ἡ Μαραθῶνι (νίκη) is not a normal periphrasis, and either the key word was used just before this, making it easy to supply; or—a more appealing interpretation—the imagery is merely a bit loose (the “property at Marathon” is “the property, a claim to which was established at Marathon”); or—less interesting, but not necessarily wrong on that account—the verse has a more pedestrian sense and refers to real property left to a real family that includes the speaker (“us”). For Miltiades, see the general introduction to Dêmoi (in which Miltiades was one of four Athenian politicians called back from the dead); fr. 104.1 (paired with Pericles); Ar. Eq. 1325 (paired with Aristeides). For the Battle of Marathon itself, see Krentz 2010 with extensive bibliography. For the reception of the battle in the ancient world, including in Athens in the Peloponnesian War years, see Evans 1993; Jung 2006. For the various 5th-c. Athenian monuments erected to recall it, see Paus. 1.32.3–4; Whitley 1994; Matthaiou 2003; Steinhauer 2009; Butz 2015. οὐσία (5th-century vocabulary; first attested in Herodotus) is like English “property”, in that it refers primarily to the “substance” of a person’s wealth (as opposed to e. g. the money in his pocket) and thus in particular to an inheritance (e. g. Ar. Ec. 729, 811, 855; Pl. 829 οὐσίαν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, “property from my father”; Anaxandr. fr. 46.2 τὴν πατρῴαν οὐσίαν, “the property he got from his father”; Alex. fr. 110.2 τὴν πατρῴαν οὐσίαν, “the property he got from his father”; Diph. fr. 31.7).

126

Raspe compares Nepos, Epaminondas 10: when Pelopidas criticized him for not leaving behind a son, Epaminondas responded: ex me natam relinquo pugnam Leuctrinam, quae non modo mihi superstes, se etiam immortalis sit necesse est (“I leave behind, as a daughter born from me, the Battle of Leuctra, which is certain not only to outlive me but to be immortal”).

272

Eupolis

fr. 234 K.-A. (217 K.) τί δ’ ἔστ’ Ἀθηναίοισι πρᾶγµ’ ἀπώµοτον; UM

Ἀθηναίοισι Suda Synag. : Ἀθηναῖος D.Chr. : Ἀθηναῖος τὸ D.Chr. ΒM U Synag. : ἀνώµοτον D.Chr. : ἀνώµωτον D.Chr.

B

ἀπώµοτον Suda

And what’s forbidden to the Athenians? Phot. α 2758 = Suda α 3672 = Synag. B α 2068 ἀπώµοτον· ἀπηγορευµένον, φευκτὸν καὶ ἀποίητον. ―― (τί … ἀπώµοτον om. Phot.)· Εὔπολις ἐν ταῖς Πόλεσιν (ἐν ταῖς Πόλεσιν om. Phot.) apômoton: forbidden; to be avoided and left undone. ―― (quote omitted by Phot.): Eupolis in his Poleis (“in his Poleis” omitted by Phot.) D.Chr. or. 32.6 τοῖς ποιηταῖς ἐπέτρεπον µὴ µόνον τοὺς κατ’ ἄνδρα ἐλέγχειν ἀλλὰ καὶ κοινῇ τὴν πόλιν, εἴ τι µὴ καλῶς ἔπραττον· ὥστε σὺν πολλοῖς ἑτέροις καὶ τοιαῦτα ἐν ταῖς κωµῳδίαις λέγεσθαι· (Ar. Eq. 42–3) ――. καί· ―― (The Athenians) allowed their poets not only to find fault with particular individuals but also with the city as a whole, if they behaved badly somehow. Wherefore among many other examples remarks of the following sort are made in their comedies: (Ar. Eq. 42–3) ――. And: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl

llk|l

klkl

Discussion Raspe 1832. 90–1; Kock 1880 I.318; Schiassi 1944. 78; Storey 2003. 220 Citation context The line is preserved twice, first in the common source of Photius (who here offers only an abbreviated version of the text, without the passage from Eupolis or the title of the play), the Suda and the Synagoge generally referred to as Σ΄. Erbse traced this note to Aelius Dionysius (α 167). But Phryn. PS p. 34.7–8 ἀπώµοτον πρᾶγµα· ὃ ἄν τις ἀποµόσειε µὴ ἂν γενέσθαι (“an apômoton thing: what one would swear is not the case”) is likely citing Eupolis as well, and the overlap between what survives of his note, Hsch. α 6908 ἀπώµοτον· φευκτέον ἢ ὅπερ ἄν τις ἀποµόσειεν (“apômoton: something one must avoid or that one would reject with an oath”) and EM pp. 133.57–134.1 ἀπώµοτον· ὃ ἄν τις ἀποµόσειε γεγονέναι ἢ µὴ γενέσθαι· ἔνιοι ἀνέλπιστον. ∆ιογενιανός (“apômoton: what one would swear has not happened or is not the case; some say what is unexpected. Diogenianus”), on the one hand, and between Hesychius and Photius = Suda = Synagoge, on the other, suggests that

Πόλεις (fr. 234)

273

an unabbreviated version of the Praeparatio Sophistica is the ultimate source of the material in Σ΄. The Second Sophistic author Dio Chrysostom (late 1st/early 2nd century CE, and thus slightly earlier than Phrynichus) also cites the fragment, along with Ar. Eq. 42–3 ∆ῆµος πυκνίτης, δύσκολον γερόντιον, / ὑπόκωφον, “Demos of the Pnyx, a difficult old man, half deaf”) near the beginning of his To the Alexandrians as part of an attempt to encourage his audience to listen to his advice on the ground that the Athenians paid attention to similarly pointed criticism from their comic poets. Dio seems to have had little use for 5th-century comedy, claiming to prefer the more edifying Menander (cf. or. 18.6–7), and it is tempting in any case to think that both quotations are drawn from a pre-existing, thematically organized collection of material, inter alia because Dio seems unaware that ∆ῆµος in Ar. Eq. 42 does not mean “the Athenian people” but is the name of one of the play’s central characters. Text The variants in the text of the fragment preserved in the manuscripts of Dio Chrysostom are best dismissed as crude copyists’ errors. Interpretation If Dio Chrysostom’s understanding of the fragment is correct—which is to say, if it was correctly associated with Ar. Eq. 42–3 by whoever created the collection of material on which he was drawing—this is a hostile remark, the point of which is that the Athenians are willing to do almost anything.127 But the verse might actually be wild demagogic encouragement: the Athenians have never surrendered any rights and are thus free to do whatever they like, e. g. in their capacity as masters of the Empire. Ἀθηναίοισι The Ionic ending is used for metrical convenience, as at frr. 13.2; 99.43; 172.3, 10; 173.1; 194.1; 220.2. ἀπώµοτος is 〈 ἀπόµνυµι and thus refers both to what one has sworn not to do or touch (cf. LSJ s. v. ἀπόµνυµι 1), as seemingly here, and to what one swears is not the case (cf. LSJ s. v. ἀπόµνυµι 2), as at Archil. fr. 122.1–2 χρηµάτων ἄελπτον οὐδέν ἐστιν οὐδ’ ἀπώµοτον / οὐδὲ θαυµάσιον (“nothing is unexpected or to be denied or amazing”; a reaction to a solar eclipse); S. Ant. 388–9 ἄναξ, βροτοῖσιν οὐδέν ἐστ’ ἀπώµοτον· / ψεύδει γὰρ ἡ ’πίνοια τὴν γνώµην (“Your majesty, mortals should call nothing impossible; for reflection gives the lie to their judgment”), 394 ἥκω, δι’ ὅρκων καίπερ ὢν ἀπώµοτος (“I’ve come back, although I swore I wouldn’t”).

127

The translation at Rusten 2011. 257 (“What subject is to be abjured in Athens?”) thus misses the point.

274

Eupolis

fr. 235 K.-A. (218 K.) ἐξ Ἡρακλείας ἀργύριον ὑφείλετο ἐξ Ἡρακλείας codd. : ἐξ Ἡρακλέους γὰρ van Leeuwen

he filched money from Heracleia RVE

Σ Ar. Nu. 351 R κατίδωσι Σίµωνα· σοφιστὴς (νοσφιστὴς Iacobi) ὁ Σίµων ἦν καὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ RVE διαπρεπόντων τότε καὶ † πάντως † τῶν δηµοσίων τι ἐνοσφίσατο χρηµάτων. µνηµονεύει δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Πόλεσι διαβάλλων αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐγκλήRE E µασιν, ἐν τούτοις· ―― R

they catch sight of Simon: Simon was a sophist128 (“an embezzler” Iacobi) and one of the people who were prominent in politics at the time, and † altogether † he embezzled RVE a portion of the public funds. Eupolis too mentions him in Poleis, abusing him for RE E his crimes, in the following passage: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

l|lkr

klkl

Discussion van Leeuwen 1888. 259; West 1935. 75–6; Schiassi 1944. 79; Edmonds 1957. 390–1; Storey 2003. 226 Citation context A prosopographical note, presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi (cf. Suda σ 447, quoted in Interpretation), on a passage from Aristophanes’ Clouds in which Socrates is explaining the various shapes clouds take by claiming that they imitate whatever they see at the moment. When Strepsiades asks what happens when they spot Simon the ἅρπαγα τῶν δηµοσίων (“snatcher of public funds”), Socrates tells him that they turn into wolves. Only manuscript E preserves the quotation from Eupolis. Unless σοφιστής is right, the note does not obviously preserve any information that could not easily be extracted from (or guessed at on the basis of) the passages cited. Text Van Leeuwen᾽s ἐξ Ἡρακλέους γὰρ (“for from Heracles”) for the paradosis ἐξ Ἡρακλείας is unnecessary.

128

Perhaps an over-literal translation of a passage such as [fr. *126] σοφὸς γὰρ ἁνήρ, τῆς δὲ χειρὸς οὐ κρατῶν (“for the man is clever, but he lacks control of his hand”; of some thieving politician, but just as likely of Simon as of Themistocles).

Πόλεις (fr. 236)

275

Interpretation Simon (PA 12686; PAA 822065) is also known from Ar. Nu. 399–400, where Socrates asks Strepsiades why, if Zeus punishes those who swear false oaths by blasting them with lightning, he fails to blast Simon, Cleonymus and Theoros (two other contemporary politicians), all of whom are patent perjurers; and from a proverb cited (along with the two passages from Aristophanes but not the fragment of Eupolis) at Suda σ 447 Σίµωνος ἁρπακτικώτερος (“more rapacious than Simon”). The Heracleia in question is presumably Heracleia Pontica (IACP #715), a 6th-c. BCE Megarian or Megarian-Boeotian colony on the southern coast of the Black Sea; cf. fr. 302 n. (on the enslavement of the local Mariandynoi by the colonists). Heracleia seems to have been added to the Athenian Empire in 424 BCE (IG I3 71.IV.127), and Lamachus lost ten ἀργυρολόγοι (“money-collecting”) ships with which he was gathering funds in a flash-flood there that summer (Th. 4.75.2), which shows that the Athenian population generally was aware of the existence of the place by then at the latest. See in general West 1935. 74–6, discussing IG I3 74 and suggesting both that the honorand may have assisted Lamachus’ men, and that Simon may have been the secretary of the Boule at the time the decree was passed; Burstein 1976. 32–4. For Heracleia, see in general Hoepfner 1966. 1–37; Burstein 1976; Erçiyas 2007. That Aristophanes and Eupolis are referring to the same incident is a reasonable assumption, in which case the money in question was probably tribute. But precisely what Simon was supposed to have done—to say nothing of whether he really did it—is impossible to know. For ἀργύριον, cf. frr. 124 τἀργυρίδιον; 162.2 τἀργύρια with n. ὑφείλετο Used of a crooked political-military leader extorting funds from an allied state and pocketing them at Ar. V. 958* (Labes/Laches in Sicily); of more pedestrian forms of filching money or other valuables in comedy at Hermipp. fr. 38 (a drinking vessel); Ar. Nu. 179* (a robe); Ra. 148 τἀργύριον ὑφείλετο* (cheating a boy one has paid for sex), 1242* (Oineus is robbed of his lêkythion).

fr. 236 K.-A. (220 K.) ὃν οὐκ ἀνέῳξα πώποτ’ ἀνθρώποις ἐγώ A

ὃν Synag. : ὧν Phot. : οἳ Suda : οἳ δ᾽ Suda Bernhardy

cett.

: ἥδ᾽ Suda ed. pr., unde ἣν Porson, ἣν δ᾽

which (masc.) I never at any point opened up for human beings

276

Eupolis

Phot. α 1905 = Suda α 2282 = Synag. B α 1338 ἀνέῳγεν, οὐχὶ ἤνοιγε … Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― aneôigen (he/she opened up), not ênoige … Eupolis in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klrl

k|lk|l

llkl

Discussion Raspe 1832. 98; Storey 2003. 230 Citation context A well-informed note (preserving also Pherecr. fr. 91; Men. frr. 170; 184) drawn from the common source of Photius, the Suda and the Synagoge generally referred to as Σ΄, in this case taking over material from Oros (fr. A 6b). Text The sources are divided regarding the relative pronoun with which the fragment begins. Assuming that the fragment was syntactically complete when cited, however, as seems normally to be the case, the Synagoge’s ὅν must be right. Porson’s ἥν (based on the conjecture ἥδ᾽ in the editio princeps of the Suda, and thus supported by no manuscript authority) likely reflects a judgment that the object in question is a door (θύρα), as at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 91; Ar. Ach. 1189; fr. 385; Alex. fr. 207.1. Interpretation An emphatic denial. ἐγώ suggests a contrast with someone else who did open up the place or object in question, while the juxtaposition with ἀνθρώποις at least leaves open the possibility that the speaker is not a human being but e. g. a personified city or a god. Norwood 1931. 196 took the object in question to be the Acropolis treasury.129 For Eupolis’ aorist ἀνέῳξα, cf. e. g. Od. 10.389; Ar. V. 768; Th. 2.2.2; Lys. 1.14. Oros fr. A 6a refers specifically to imperfect active ἤνοιγε and middle-passive ἠνοίγετο and perfect middle-passive ἤνοικται—which he says were widely used in his own time (the 5th century CE)—as δεινῶς βάρβαρα (“terribly barbarous”). Xenophon, however, uses both ἤνοιγον (HG 1.1.2, 6.21) and ἀνέῳγον (HG 6.4.7; An. 5.5.20), as well as both aorist ἤνοιξα (HG 1.5.13) and ἀνέῳξα (HG 5.1.14, 4.8), while Hp. Ep. VII 80 = 5.436.12 Littré offers διηνοιγµένα rather than the expected διανεῳγµένα. Perhaps the problem is in the manuscript tradition of these authors. But Oros himself, comparing inter alia Ar. fr. 820 ἐπροτίµων (for expected προυτίµων) and Nicostr. Com. fr. 34.2 ἐδιακόνεις (for expected διεκόνεις), concedes that ancient usage was irregular in such regards, and more likely forms such as ἤνοιγον were colloquial already in 129

I.e. the opisthodomos; Norwood himself merely speaks vaguely of “the inmost sanctuary” where the tribute was stored.

Πόλεις (fr. 237)

277

the classical period. See in general Verdejo Manchado 2014. For the dative of interest (ἀνθρώποις) with the verb, e. g. Th. 5.10.5 τάς τε πύλας τις ἀνοιγέτω ἐµοί (“let someone open up the gates for me!”); X. HG 6.5.8 ἀνοίγουσι τὰς πύλας αὐτοῖς (“they open the gates for them”); Men. Dysc. 427 γραῦ, τὴν θύραν κλείσασ’ ἄνοιγε µηδενί (“Old woman, after you lock the door, don’t open it for anyone!”). πώποτ’ adds force to the negation, as at e. g. Ar. Eq. 283 οὗ Περικλέης οὐκ ἠξιώθη πώποτε (“which Pericles never approved”), 569–70 οὐ γὰρ οὐδεὶς πώποτ’ αὐτῶν τοὺς ἐναντίους ἰδὼν / ἠρίθµησεν (“for none of them ever counted the enemies when he saw them”); Nu. 637 ὧν οὐκ ἐδιδάχθης πώποτ’ οὐδέν (“of subjects about which you never learned anything at all”); Stratt. fr. 34.2–3 οἷον οὐ Μέγαλλος πώποτε / ἥψησεν (“such as Megallos never ever cooked”); Antiph. fr. 86.1–2 οὐδεὶς πώποτε, / ὦ δέσποτ’, ἀπέθαν’ ἀποθανεῖν πρόθυµος ὤν (“No one ever, master, died because he was eager to die”).

fr. 237 K.-A. (221 K.) ὡς µόλις ἀνήρρησ᾽· οὐδέν ἐσµεν οἱ σαπροί ἀνήρρησ᾽ Porson : ἀνήρρησαν codd.

How close I/he came to ruin! We old men are powerless Phot. α 1936 = Suda α 2434 = Synag. B α 1381 ἀνήρρησεν· ἀνεφθάρη· ――. Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν anêrrêsen: he came to ruin: ――. Eupolis in Poleis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

lrkl

l|lkl

klkl

Discussion Porson 1812. 285; Raspe 1832. 95–6; Meineke 1839 II.517; Kock 1880 I.318; Edmonds 1957. 392–3; Moorhouse 1965. 33; Storey 2003. 229 Citation context From the common source of Photius, the Suda and the Synagoge generally referred to as Σ΄. Hsch. α 5089 ἀνήρρηξα (cod. : ἀνήρρησα Schmidt)· ἀνελεξάµην ἐµαυτὸν ἐκ τόπου (“anêrrêxa: I collected myself from a place”130) glosses the same verb, but seems to be from a different source (or at least a different section of the same source). 130

Obscure; Kaibel suggested emending τόπου to πόνου, κόπου or the like: “I recovered from trouble/sickness”.

278

Eupolis

Text The paradosis ἀνήρρησαν (“They made their way back”) is unmetrical and likely reflects the influence of the plural in the second half of the line. Porson’s ἀνήρρησ᾽ restores the correct form of the verb from the initial lemma. Interpretation A specific observation about either the speaker or a third party (depending on whether ἀνήρρησ᾽ is taken to represent ἀνήρρησ(α) or ἀνήρρησ(ε)), followed by a generalized expression of despair. Kock took the line to be mockery of Euripides for repeatedly bringing old men onstage complaining about their difficult lives. But the sentiment is perfectly at home in comedy as well (e. g. Ar. V. 230–7); see below on οὐδέν ἐσµεν κτλ.131 ὡς is exclamatory (LSJ s. v. D.I) and emphasizes the word that follows it. µόλις is a predominantly Attic form (e. g. A. Ag. 1082; Cratin. fr. 255; S. Ai. 306; E. Supp. 172; Ar. Ach. 890; Th. 1.12.4; X. HG 3.3.4) used in place of predominantly non-Attic µόγις. ἀνήρρησ(α?) is 〈 ἀνέρρω, which is otherwise known only from the note in Hesychius quoted in Citation context. But the simpleχ ἔρρω and the compound ἄπερρω (less common) are widely attested in the sense “wander off”, sc. “to destruction” (e. g. Il. 9.377 ἐρρέτω; Archil. fr. 5.4 ἐρρέτω; Thgn. 601 ἔρρε; Cratin. fr. 129 οὐκ ἀπερρήσεις;; Pherecr. fr. 76.5 ἔρρ’ ἐς κόρακας; E. Med. 114; fr. 1125 ἔρρ’ ἰών; Ar. Nu. 783 ἄπερρ’; Pax 500 οὐκ ἐς κόρακας ἐρρήσετε;; Amips. fr. 23 ἔρρ’ ἐς κόρακας; Pl. Com. fr. 182.6 ἄπερρ’; cf. Wilamowitz 1927 on Ar. Lys. 335 “Immer ein Weg, den man nicht gehen mag oder gehen sollte”), which seems to be the sense here as well. οὐδέν ἐσµεν οἱ σαπροί Cf. fr. 478 n. (on σαπρός); Ar. Ach. 681 οὐδὲν ὄντας (“being nothing”; a description of men too old to defend themselves in court); Eq. 1243; V. 1504 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Ec. 144; E. HF 314 νῦν δ’ οὐδέν ἐσµεν (“now we are nothing”; the chorus of old men comment on their inability to protect Megara and her children); Lync. fr. 1.15; Moorhouse 1965. 31–4.

fr. 238 K.-A. (222 K.) οὐ γὰρ πολυπράγµων ἐστίν, ἀλλ’ ἁπλήγιος οὐ γὰρ Synag. : οὔτ᾽ ἂρ Suda

for he’s not a meddler, but uncomplicated 131

Storey 2003. 229 proposes “a scene where the speaker is an old man from whom someone has escaped, perhaps one of the chorus”, which is merely a wild guess.

Πόλεις (fr. 238)

279

Phot. α 2441 = Suda α 3227 = Synag. B α 1797 ἁπλήγιος· δασέως, ἁπλοῦς. Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― (οὐ … ἁπλήγιος om. Phot.) haplêgios: with a rough breathing, simple. Eupolis in Poleis: ―― (quote omitted by Phot.)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llrl

l|lk|l

klkl

Discussion Raspe 1832. 100; Meineke 1839 II.518; Kock 1880 I.318–19; Storey 2003. 223–4 Citation context Although Photius omits Πόλεσιν … ἁπλήγιος, all three notes are presumably drawn from the common source generally referred to as Σ´. An abbreviated version of the same material is preserved at Hsch. α 6230 ἁπλήγιος· ἁπλοῦς. Text The Suda’s οὔτ᾽ ἂρ is a majuscule error (Γ mistaken for Τ). Interpretation An explanation or justification of some preceding remark (hence γάρ). πολυπράγµων and its cognates occasionally have a positive sense (“intellectually active, energetic”; cf. Ar. Av. 471 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; Th. 6.87.3). But far more often this is a negative term, referring to someone who becomes involved in affairs where he is judged to have no proper business (~ “meddling”): e. g. Pherecr. fr. 163.2 µὴ πολυπραγµόνει (“Don’t meddle!”; advice to someone who “appears very clever”, and opposed to paying attention and listening); Ar. Pax 1058 πολλὰ πράττεις (“You’re a busybody!”; said to someone making a nuisance of himself); Lys. 1.16; Isoc. 8.26 (πολυπραγµοσύνη opposed to ἡσυχία), 58 (πολυπραγµονεῖν opposed to σωφρονεῖν); Pl. R. 433a (πολυπραγµονεῖν opposed to τὰ αὑτοῦ πρἀττειν, “to mind one’s own business”). Cf. frr. 82 ἀντιπράττει with n.; 99.26 ἀπραγµόνων with n.; Ehrenberg 1947; Dover 1974. 188–9; Adkins 1976. Although ἁπλήγιος is attested nowhere else, it is apparently formed from ἁπληγίς (cognate with ἁπλοῦς, “single, simple”), a word for a simple, unfolded himation (S. fr. 777; Ar. fr. 58 ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἐµῆς χλανίδος τρεῖς ἁπληγίδας ποιῶν, “making three haplêgides from my cloak” (of Eupolis’ supposed reworking of Knights to produce Marikas?); Hsch. α 6229; Phot. α 2441; Et.Gen. AB α 1027 = EM p. 123.14–17) called an Atticism at Moer. α 162; Poll. 7.47, although Herodas uses the term as well (5.18). The contrast with πολυπράγµων suggests that it is to be taken in a positive sense here. Or perhaps neither word is a compliment, and ἁπλήγιος is reserved for the end of the line as a joke: the

280

Eupolis

man in question is not a trouble-maker only because he lacks the intellectual capacity that playing that role requires.

fr. 239 K.-A. (223 K.) ἄνδρες λογισταὶ τῶν ὑπευθύνων χορῶν auditors of the scrutinized choruses Harp. p. 194.7–9, 12–14 = Λ 24 Keaney λογισταί … · ἀρχή τις παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις οὕτω καλουµένη· εἰσὶ δὲ τὸν ἀριθµὸν δέκα, οἳ τὰς εὐθύνας τῶν διῳκηµένων ἐκλογίζονται  … µέµνηνται τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ οἱ κωµικοί· Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― logistai … : an Athenian magistracy by this name; they are ten in number, and they calculate the accounts of individuals who handle state funds … The comic poets also mention the office; Eupolis in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

l|lkl

klkl

Discussion Raspe 1832. 100; Meineke 1839 II.518–19; Kock 1880 I.319; Storey 2003. 229 Citation context An abbreviated version of the same note (lacking the reference to Eupolis) is preserved at Phot. λ 376 = Suda λ 651 ~ EM pp. 391.53–392.2 (drawn from the Epitome of Harpocration). Related material (likewise drawn from lost Atticist sources) is preserved at – Hsch. λ 1211 = Phot. λ 377 = Suda λ 653 = Synag. λ 131 λογιστής· κριτής, δοκιµαστής, ἐξεταστής (“logistês: a judge, examiner, auditor”; traced by Cunningham to Cyril) – Phot. ε 2205 = Suda ε 3511 = Synag. ε 946 = Et.Gen. = Lex.Rhet. AB I p. 245.6–10 εὔθυνα· κυρίως ἣν εἰσάγουσιν οἱ λογισταὶ πρὸς τοὺς δόξαντας µὴ ὀρθῶς ἄρξαι τῆς πόλεως ἢ πρεσβεῦσαι κακῶς· καὶ τὰ δικαστήρια µὲν οἱ λογισταὶ κληροῦσι, κατηγορεῖ δὲ ὁ βουλόµενος· καὶ τοῖς δικασταῖς ἐφεῖται τιµᾶσθαι τοῖς ἁλοῦσιν (“euthyna: properly the case the logistai bring into court against individuals who seem to have abused city office or to have done bad service as ambassadors. And the logistai select the lawcourts by lot, whereas anyone who wishes prosecutes; and the jurors have the responsibility for punishing those who are convicted”)

Πόλεις (fr. 239)

281

– Phot. ε 2207 = Suda ε 3513 = Synag. ε 942 εὐθῦναι· ἐξετάσαι, ὀρθῶσαι (“euthynai: to audit, to set straight”; traced by Cunningham to Cyril) – Phot. ε 2210 = Suda ε 3512 = Synag. ε 944 εὐθύνας· δίκας, τιµωρίας (“euthynai: trials, punishments”; traced by Cunningham to Cyril). Interpretation Probably direct address of the audience or the judges (cf. Pherecr. fr. 102)—or both (cf. Ar. Av. 445–6 πᾶσι νικᾶν τοῖς κριταῖς / καὶ τοῖς θεαταῖς πᾶσιν, “to take the prize with the support of all the judges and all the spectators”; cited by Kassel–Austin). An Athenian who held public office was ὑπεύθυνος, meaning that at the end of his term he was required to submit a written account of his service and in particular of any public funds he may have handled; any citizen who wished (ὁ βουλόµενος) could then prosecute him for misconduct on that basis. Cf. fr. *104 n. (on Athenian ἀρχαί); IG I3 52.27 (434/3 BCE); A. Pers. 213 (the first attestation of ὑπεύθυνος); Ar. V. 102 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; And. 1.78 with MacDowell 1962 ad loc.; [Arist.] Ath. 48.3–4; 54.2 καὶ λογιστὰς δέκα καὶ συνηγόρους τούτοις δέκα, πρὸς οὓς ἅπαντας ἀνάγκη τοὺς τὰς ἀρχὰς ἄρξ[αντ]ας λόγον ἀπενεγκεῖν. οὗτοι γάρ εἰσι µόνοι 〈οἱ〉 τοῖς ὑπευθύνοις λογιζόµενοι καὶ τὰς εὐθύνας εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον εἰσάγοντες (“also ten logistai and ten assistants for them, to whom all those who held an office must render an account (logos); for these men are the only ones who audit those who are subject to examination, and who bring the audits into court”) with Rhodes 1981 ad loc. Properly, the financial accounting was the logos and the men who examined it (chosen by lot from the members of the Council) were the λογισταί—this passage is the earliest evidence for the office, which scholars occasionally claim is attested only in the 4th century132—while the general inspection of service was the euthynai and was carried out by the euthynoi (also chosen by lot from the members of the Council). But the terms are not always carefully distinguished, as both [Aristotle] and the sources cited under Citation context show. Here, at any rate, the point is that festival choruses—presumably comic choruses in particular—enjoy a public trust supported by public funds, and that they ought accordingly to be held accountable for what they do. For the judges and judging procedures at the Athenian dramatic competitions, see the sources collected at Csapo and Slater 1994. 157–65; Marshall and van Willigenburg 2004. For the seemingly superfluous ἄνδρες, see fr. 192kk n.; and cf. e. g. fr. 117 ἀνὴρ πολίτης; Ar. Ach. 328 ἄνδρες δηµόται, 497 ἄνδρες οἱ θεώµενοι; V. 908 132

E. g. O’Sullivan 2001. 54.

282

Eupolis

ἄνδρες δικασταί; Pax 9 ἄνδρες κοπρολόγοι, 500 ἄνδρες Μεγαρῆς; Lys. 1074 ἄνδρες Λάκωνες; Pl. 254 ἄνδρες φίλοι καὶ δηµόται; Alex. fr. 116.7 ἄνδρες συµπόται; and fr. 201 n.

fr. 240 K.-A. (224 K.) ἐµοὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστ’ οὐδὲ λάσαν᾽ ὅπου χέσω ἔστ’ Moer. : ἔνεστι Σ Plu.   λάσαν᾽ Raspe : λάσανον Moer. Σ Plu.

For I don’t even have a stool where I could shit Moer. λ 20 λάσανα καὶ τοὺς χυτρόποδας καὶ τοὺς δίφρους, ὡς Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― lasana (is a word used for) both pot-stands and toilet stools133, as Eupolis (uses it) in Poleis: ―― Σ Plu. Mor. 182b (λασανοφόρος) τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποπάτων ἔοικε λέγειν. λάσσανον γὰρ ὁ δἰφρος ἔνθα θακεύουσιν οἱ ἀποπατησόµενοι, ὡς Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― (lasanophoros) He is likely referring to the (stool) used for defecation. For a lassanon is a stool where people who want to defecate sit, as Eupolis (says) in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl

l|lkr

klkl

Discussion Raspe 1832. 89; Meineke 1839 II.519; Schiassi 1944. 74; Storey 2003. 220–1 Citation context The note in Moeris is an Atticist gloss; similar material is preserved at – Phryn. PS p. 88.2–3 λάσανα· ὡς ἡµεῖς, ἐφ’ ὧν ἀποπατοῦµεν (“lasana: as we (use the word), what we defecate on”) – Antiatt. p. 106.30–2 λάσανα· ἐφ’ ὧν ἀποπατοῦµεν. Πλάτων Ποιητῇ (fr. 124). µετενήνεκται δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς µαγειρικοὺς βαύνους (“lasana: what we defecate on. Plato in Poiêtês (fr. 124). From this (the term) has been transferred also to cooking supports”).

133

Not “a standing jar or a chair”, as in Rusten 2011. 257.

Πόλεις (fr. 240)

283

Note in addition – Hsch. θ 685 θρανίον· δίφρος  … καὶ λάσανα (“thranion: a stool  … also lasana”) – Hsch. λ 352 λάσανα· χυτρόποδες … καὶ τὰ βάθρα, τοὺς ἀφοδευτηρίους δίφρους (“lasana: pot-stands … also benches, stools for defecation”) – Lex. Rhet. 204 Naoumides τὰ λάσανα· τοὺς χυτρόποδας (“lasana: potstands”; taken by Naoumides to be a gloss on Ar. Pax 893) – Phot. λ 106 λάσανα· χυτρόποδες κυρίως· ἤδη δὲ καὶ τὸ παραπλήσιον, ἐφ’ ὧν ἄν τις ἰπνὸν ἐπιστήσειεν ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων καὶ τῶν ὁµοίων, ἐφ’ ὧν ἕψεταί τι καὶ φρύγεται· καὶ ἐφ’ ὧν ἀπεπάτουν ἔλεγον. οὕτω Φερεκράτης (fr. 93) (“lasana: properly pot-stands; but now also a similar object, upon which one might set a lamp, or something of this type or similar to it upon which something is stewed and fried; they also used the word for what they defecated on. Thus Pherecrates (fr. 93)”) – Suda α 3246 ἀποβάθρας· καὶ τὰ λάσανα, ἃ λέγονται οἱ χυτρόποδες (“apobathras: also lasana, which are called pot-stands”) (~ β 325 ~ λ 133). The scholion on Plutarch (glossing the crucial word in a story according to which Antigonos responded to a bit of poetic flattery that referred to him as “child of the Sun” by remarking “The man who fetches my lasana wasn’t aware of that”) is of Byzantine date and is probably drawing on a lost source directly dependent on Moeris (hence the error λάσανον for λάσαν᾽ in both). Text The nonsensical ἔνεστι in Σ Plu. reflects the influence of dative ἐµοί at the head of the line. λάσανα rather than λάσανον (Moer. and Σ Plu.) is the proper form of the word, and Raspe’s λάσαν᾽ has the further advantage of rendering the meter easier. Interpretation An explanation or justification of some preceding remark (hence γάρ). ἐµοί is emphatic and draws a contrast with another person, who e. g. owns a fancy couch or chair, whereas the speaker has almost nothing; cf. Philocleon’s aggravated response when told that Labes/Laches has nibbled the rind off the Sicilian cities at Ar. V. 926: ἐµοὶ δέ γ’ οὐκ ἔστ’ οὐδὲ τὴν ὑδρίαν πλάσαι (“Whereas I don’t even have enough to mend a pot”); colloquial English “He doesn’t have a pot to piss in”.134 Storey suggests that the line was inspired by Ar. fr. 477 (quoted below; from Proagôn; Lenaia 422 BCE), which

134

As Kassel–Austin note, despite the seeming echo at Men. Phasm. 42–3 τὸ δὴ λεγόµενον, οὐκ ἔχεις ὅπο[ι χέσηις] / ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγαθῶν (“as the saying goes, ‘You’ve got nowhere to shit’ because of your advantages”), the sense there is very different.

284

Eupolis

is an extravagant conclusion, particularly since the supposed connection does not enrich the reading of either passage. As the material quoted in Citation context makes clear, λάσαν(α) (etymology unknown) is used of both (1) a stool upon which one sat to defecate, sc. into a chamber pot (σκώραµις) set beneath it (cf. Pherecr. fr. 93 πρὸς τῇ κεφαλῇ µου λάσανα καταθεὶς πέρδεται, “he set down a lasana next to my head and is farting”; Ar. fr. 477 οἴµοι τάλας, τί µου στρέφει τὴν γαστέρα; / βάλλ’ ἐς κόρακας. πόθεν ἂν λάσανα γένοιτό µοι;, “Miserable me, why’s my stomach churning? Damn it! Where could I get a lasana from?”; e. g. Hp. Fist. 9 = 6.456.17–18 Littré ὅταν δὲ θέλῃ ἀφοδεύειν, ἐπὶ λασάνοισιν ὡς στενοτάτοισιν ἀφοδευέτω, “whenever the patient wishes to defecate, let him do so on the narrowest lasana possible”; Superf. 8 = 8.480.24–482.1 Littré ἢν δὲ µὴ δύνηται καθῆσθαι ἐπὶ τοῦ λασάνου, ἐπ’ ἀνακλίτου δίφρου τετρυπηµένου καθήσθω, “but if the patient is unable to sit on the lasanon, let her sit on a reclining stool with a hole drilled through it”; cf. Poll. 5.91; 10.44; Latin lasanum; and see fr. 53 n.) (2) props used to support cookpots over a fire (Diocl. Com. fr. 9 ἀπὸ λασάνων θερµὴν ἀφαιρήσω χύτραν, “I’ll remove a hot cookpot from the lasana”; Ar. Pax 892–3; see Morris 1985; called χυτρόποδες, literally “cookpot feet”, at Hes. Op. 748; Alciphr. 3.2.3). The vital point of comparison is that both items use a set of legs to allow a large object to be balanced over a central hole. χέσω Coarse colloquial vocabulary (also e. g. fr. 176.3; Ar. Ach. 82; Pax 164; Stratt. fr. 54.1; Eub. fr. 52.4 χεζητιῶν (the desiderative form); cf. Henderson 1991 § 399), saved for the end of the line as a climactic obscenity.

fr. 241 K.-A. (226 K.) καὶ Χαόνων καὶ Παιόνων καὶ Μαρδόνων and of Chaones and Paiones and Mardones St.Byz. µ 66 Μαρδόνες, Ἠπειρωτικὸν ἔθνος. Εὔπολις Πόλεσι· ―― Mardones, a people in Epirus. Eupolis in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

l|lkl

llkl

Πόλεις (fr. 241)

285

Discussion Raspe 1832. 106; Meineke 1839 II.519 Citation context An isolated lexicographic entry. Interpretation A list of fierce, northern tribal peoples. For the structure of the line, Raspe compared Ar. Pax 291 ὡς ἥδοµαι καὶ χαίροµαι κεὐφραίνοµαι (with the same caesura). Kassel–Austin add Ar. Eq. 165 καὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς καὶ τῶν λιµένων καὶ τῆς Πυκνός; Nu. 686 Φιλόξενος, Μελησίας, Ἀµυνίας; Ra. 608 ὁ ∆ιτύλας χὠ Σκεβλύας χὠ Παρδόκας, 1203 καὶ κῳδάριον καὶ ληκύθιον καὶ θυλάκιον. Note also fr. 242 (corrupt); Ar. Ach. 606 (quoted below); Eq. 100 βουλευµατίων καὶ γνωµιδίων καὶ νοιδίων; fr. 258.2 ὀσµύλια καὶ µαινίδια καὶ σηπίδια. Χαόνων The Chaones (also mentioned in comedy at Ar. Ach. 604, 613; Eq. 78) were a non-Greek (“barbarian”) people who inhabited the Pindus mountains and were regarded as the fiercest of the Epirote tribes (Th. 2.81.4). Thucydides tells us that the Athenians, with Phormio as general, and the Acarnanians were involved in hostilities with the Chaones in 429 BCE (Th. 2.80–2), and the Chaones must have taken part in the fighting that continued in the area throughout the mid-420s BCE, especially given the repeated Aristophanic references (above) to Athenian diplomatic contacts with them in this period. See in general Hammond 1967. 487–508, esp. 503–8; Hammond 2000, esp. 347–8. Παιόνων The Paiones, mentioned already in Homer (e. g. Il. 2.848–9, where they live along the Axios River, the modern Vardar), were a Thracian or Thracian-Illyrian people who inhabited the mountains in what is today Macedonia. Many of them were in this period subjects of Sitalces king of the Odrysians (Th. 2.96.3), for whom see Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 134–5. Μαρδόνων Nothing else is known of the Mardones, but Stephanus must have had some ground for thinking that they were from Epirus, perhaps because they were named in Rhianus’ Thessalika; cf. St.Byz. α 284  Ἄµυµνοι· ἔθνος Ἠπειρωτικόν, Ῥιανός (fr. 35, p. 14 Powell), 433 Ἀρκτᾶνες· …. ἔθνος Ἠπειρωτικόν· Ῥιανὸς ἐν δ Θεσσαλικῶν (fr. 26, p. 14 Powell), and see in general Hammond 1967. 701–4. Alternatively, the third name might be a nonsense cap to the other two, like ἐν Καµαρίνῃ κἀν Γέλᾳ κἀν Καταγέλᾳ (“in Camarina and Gela and Katagela”, i. e. “Mockery”) at Ar. Ach. 606.

286

Eupolis

fr. 242 K.-A. (227 K.) ἄνευ καλαθίσκων καὶ † πόρων † καὶ πηνίων AC

FS

B

πόρων Poll. : ὁ πώρων Poll. : πἠρα Poll. : πόκων Meineke : fort. πόκου A ΒC FS Poll. : πηνίον Poll. : τηνίων Poll.

πηνίων

without little baskets and † porôn † and thread-spindles Poll. 7.29 ταλασία … τάλαρος. καὶ καλαθίσκος, Εὐπόλιδος εἰπόντος ἐν Πόλεσιν· ―― Wool-spinning … wool-basket. Also kalathiskos, which Eupolis used in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klrl

l|lkl

llkl

Discussion Meineke 1847 I.200; Kock 1880 I.319; Schiassi 1944. 74; Edmonds 1957. 393 Citation context From a long discussion at Poll. 7.28–36 of vocabulary related to wool-working and weaving; cognate material is preserved elsewhere in Pollux at 7.173 πλέκειν … ταλάρους καὶ καλαθίσκους καὶ ταρσούς (“to weave talaroi and kalathiskoi and drying racks”); 10.125 ταλάρους καὶ καλάθους, οὓς καὶ καλαθίσκους ἐροῦµεν, καὶ ταλάρια δὲ καὶ καλάθια (“talaroi and kalathoi, which we will also refer to as kalathiskoi, and mini-talaroi and mini-kalathoi”). The source may well be Apollon. Soph. Lex. p. 148.31–5, which in the epitomized version preserved for us begins τάλαροι· κάλαθοι and goes on to explain that the word τάλαρος can be applied to various vessels, including those used to store wool (ὁ καλαθίσκος τῶν ἐρίων), make cheese and gather fruit. Note also – Hsch. ε 3315 ἐν ταλάροισι· τοῖς κοφίνοις, τοῖς καλαθίσκοις (“in talaroi: baskets, kalathiskoi”; originally a note on Il. 18.568) – Phot. τ 23 = Synag. τ 14 τάλαρος· καλαθίσκος, κόφινος (“talaros: a kalathiskos, a basket”; cf. Suda τ 38; EM p. 744.56); traced by Cunningham to Cyril and identified by Erbse as Paus.Gr. τ 5. Text The second item in the list was corrupt already in the common exemplar of the surviving manuscripts of Pollux, which may have offered πόρων (adopted by Poll.AC) as an alternative for πώρων via a superlinear omicron, hence the nonsensical combined reading ὁ πώρων in Poll.FS. Meineke’s πόκων (“sheared wool”) seems an obvious correction, except that the word is normally used in

Πόλεις (fr. 243)

287

the singular rather than the plural (e. g. Il. 12.451; Cratin. fr. 388; Ar. Av. 714; Lys. 574). Interpretation Edmonds suggested that the reference might be to Miletus (sc. as one of the eponymous Cities), which was famous for its wool (Ar. Lys. 729; Amphis fr. 27.1; Eub. fr. 89.2–3; Timae. FGrH 566 F 50; Ctes. FGrH 688 F 10; Poll. 9.125 (the tortoise game)). For similar strings of three terms, cf. fr. 241 with n. A καλαθίσκος—diminutive of κάλαθος—is a “little basket” used to hold carded wool at Ar. Lys. 535, 579 (cf. Ar. Th. 822), as apparently here; a fish-basket at Theoc. 21.9.135 Simple κάλαθος seems to be used for the same item at Nicarch. AP 6.285.3 = HE 2739 τὸν κάλαθον τά τε πηνία, and the term kalathos is applied by modern archaeologists to the large, flower-pot shaped vessel routinely shown in weaving and spinning scenes in 5th- and 4th-century vase-paintings; see in general Bundrick 2008, esp. 305 n. 65, with further bibliography.136 A πηνίον, meanwhile, is a spindle or spool onto which spun thread is wound, and which in the case of woof thread is then shuttled back and forth between the warp threads in the course of the weaving process; cf. fr. 270.1 n.; Il. 23.762 πηνίον ἐξέλκουσα παρὲκ µίτον (“pulling the pênion out along the warp thread”, of a woman); Ar. Ra. 1315 ἱστότονα πηνίσµατα (“loomstretched threadings” vel sim.) with Dover 1993 ad loc.; Leonid. AP 6.288.5–6 = HE 2217–18 with Gow–Page 1965 ad loc.; Hsch. π 2212 ~ Phot. π 864 = Suda π 1530 = Synag. π 465 πηνίον· ὁ ἄτρακτος, ἐν ᾧ εἱλεῖται ἡ κρόκη (“pênion: the spindle on which the woof thread is wound”; traced by Cunningham to Cyril).

fr. 243 K.-A. (229 K.) ἔχω γὰρ ἐπιτήδειον ἄνδρ’ αὐτῇ πάνυ for I have a man who’s absolutely appropriate for her Phot. ε 1754 ≈ Et.Gen. AB ἐπιτήδειος· φίλος, εὔνους. γνώριµος, συνήθης· λέγουσι δὲ καὶ ὡς ἡµεῖς τὸ ἁρµόττον ἐπιτήδειον. Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― 135 136

The word is used as the name of a dance at Apollophan. fr. 1; cf. Poll. 4.105; Ath. 14.630a. A κάλαθος is used at Ar. Av. 1325 to hold bird-wings; for its role in ritual, see Hopkinson 1984. 41–2, and note Eubulus’ Kalathêphoroi (“Basket-bearers”) with Hunter 1983. 130.

288

Eupolis

epitêdeios: friendly, well-disposed. An acquaintance, companion; but they also refer, as we do, to what is appropriate as epitêdeios. Eupolis in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkr

llk|l

llkl

Discussion Nauck 1894. 71; Norwood 1931. 196; Schiassi 1944. 74; Schmid 1946. 118 n. 7; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Rosen 1998. 160; Storey 2003. 218–19 Citation context The entry in Photius appears to combine material from two separate sources: – the initial gloss φίλος, εὔνους is preserved also at Suda ε 2687 = Synag. ε 757 = EM p. 366.18 (followed in both the Suda and the EM by additional material) and must be drawn from the common source generally referred to as Σ΄; cf. also Poll. 3.61 φίλος, ἑταῖρος, συνήθης, ἐπιτήδειος, γνώριµος; Hsch. ε 5333 ἐπιτήδειος· ὁ φίλος; ΣO Th. 2.4.4 λέγουσι γὰρ ἐπιτηδείους τοὺς φί[λ]ους; ΣABCFM Th. 4.78.2 ἐπιτήδειος· φίλος; while – γνώριµος κτλ, including the quote from Eupolis, is preserved also in the Et. Gen. (which does not offer φίλος, εὔνους) and must come from elsewhere. Interpretation An explanation of some preceding remark (hence γάρ). Schmid and Kaibel (followed by Norwood) suggested that a husband was being sought for one of the eponymous Cities, which goes well beyond the evidence.137 But the remark is in any case appropriate for a προµνήστρια (female matchmaker; see fr. 346 n.). ἐπιτήδειον The adverb ἐπιτηδές (“advisedly, with an eye to best advantage”) is found already at Il. 1.142; Od. 15.28, although the cognate adjective is attested only in the 5th century (primarily prosaic; elsewhere in comedy at Ar. Pax 1228 ἐπιτήδειος πάνυ, 1254; Av. 836; Ra. 1307; Ec. 79, always in the sense “appropriate, fitting”, as here; preserved in tragedy only at A. fr. 164 (corrupt); E. Ba. 508). πάνυ See fr. 316.5 n.

137

Despite Rosen’s “We may be fairly certain that this fragment does highlight a particular attitude of the male Athenian actor(s) toward the female chorus”, where the phrase “we may be fairly certain” merely serves to mark the fact that this is bald assertion.

Πόλεις (fr. 243)

289

fr. *244 K.-A. (230 K.) πεφυτευµένη δ’ αὕτη ’στίν, ἢ ψιλὴ µόνον; δὲ αὕτη ἐστίν Phot. : corr. Porson   〈φράσον µοι〉 post µόνον add. Raspe

Has this one (fem.) been planted, or is it/she simply treeless? Phot. p. 654.21–2 ψιλὴ γῆ· ἡ µὴ πεφυτευµένη· ―― · Πόλεσιν bare ground: that which has not been planted: ――  ; in Poleis

Meter Iambic trimeter (although see Text and fr. 245 n.).

rlkl

llk|l

klkl

Discussion Porson 1823. 566, 662; Raspe 1832. 87, 112 n. 5; Meineke 1839 II.509; Meineke 1847. 195; Kock 1880 I.320; Storey 2003. 229 Citation context An isolated lexicographic note; perhaps in origin a gloss on Pl. Criti. 111d ἀπὸ ψιλῆς τῆς γῆς or Lys. 7.7 καὶ ἡ γῆ ψιλὴ γεγένηται. Text Photius’ δὲ αὕτη ἐστίν is scriptio plena and was corrected by Porson. Raspe’s 〈φράσον µοι〉 at the end was intended to convert the line into an iambic tetrameter, to match frr. 245–7. Interpretation The fragment is assigned only to Poleis (author unspecified) and might accordingly belong to Philyllius or Anaxandrides, although the resemblance to frr. 245–7 (see fr. 245 n.) suggests that it is better assigned to Eupolis (thus Porson). The subject must in any case be some particular γῆ, χώρα or νῆσος; Meineke, comparing what is now adesp. tr. fr. 393 (which he and Kock took to be from comedy) σκληρὰν ἄκαρπον καὶ φυτεύεσθαι κακήν, suggested Seriphos. Storey claims that “The metre suggests an episode later in the comedy”; in fact the line could come from anywhere in the play. The contrast between ψιλή (literally “bare”) land and πεφυτευµένη (“planted”) land (also at D. 20.115; Arist. Plt. 1258b18) is specifically that between land that has no trees, even if it is cultivated with other crops (esp. X. HG 3.2.10 πολλὴν δὲ κἀγαθὴν σπόριµον, πολλὴν δὲ πεφυτευµένην, “much good plowland and much planted land”), and land that has been been planted with olive trees, fruit trees or nut trees. For ψιλός of land meaning “treeless”, e. g. Il. 9.580; Hdt. 4.19, 21; X. An. 1.5.5; Thphr. CP 3.6.5; LSJ s. v. I (which offers no support for Storey’s claim that the word can have “a sexual innuendo such as our ‘virgin territory’” and that it “can also be used of women in the sense

290

Eupolis

‘scantily clad’”).138 For πεφυτευµένος meaning “planted (with trees)”, e. g. Pi. fr. 52s.2; Hdt. 2.138.3; X. Oec. 4.21; D. 55.13, 14. µόνον is adverbial, as at e. g. fr. 160.1; Ar. Nu. 931; V. 516; Pl. Com. fr. 136.1.

fr. 245 K.-A. (231 K.) (Α.) Τῆνος αὕτη, πολλοὺς ἔχουσα σκορπίους ἔχεις τε. (Β.) συκοφάντας RVV57

EΘBarb

V

   2 ἔχεις τε συκοφάντας post σκορπίους praeb. Σ : 1 αὕτη Σ 57 : δὲ αύτὴ Σ REΘBarbV om. Σ : πολλοὺς τε συκοφάντας Wilamowitz : συκοφάντας / 〈λέγεις〉 Sansone

(A.) This is Tenos, full of numerous scorpions and vipers. (B.) Sycophants! REΘBarbV57

Σ Ar. Pl. 718 ὅτι ἡ Τῆνος θηριώδης δοκεῖ εἶναι. δηλοῖ καὶ Εὔπολις Πόλεσι (vv. 1–2)· Τῆνος  … σκορπίους Tenos appears to be infested with wild beasts. Eupolis in Poleis as well makes this clear (vv. 1–2): This is Tenos … scorpions RV

Σ Ar. Pl. 718 RV σκόροδα Τήνια εἶπεν ἀντὶ τοῦ δηκτικά· παρὰ τὰ θηρία. δηλοῖ καὶ Εὔπολις Πόλεσι· V ―― . καὶ Ἀντίµαχος (fr. 91 Matthews)· Τήνου τ’ ὀφι〈ο〉έσσης RV

He said “Tenian garlic” in place of “(garlic) that bites”; referring to the wild beasts. Eupolis in Poleis as well makes this clear: ――. Also Antimachus (fr. 91 Matthews): and V of serpent-filled Tenos

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic. 〈xlkl xlkl xlk〉l

llkl 138

klkl | klkl

kll kll

Storey further cites the use of the word “in suggestive contexts involving women” at Ar. Lys. 827–8; Th. 538, 583. In the first passage, ἀπεψιλωµένον means “plucked smooth” in reference to an old woman’s crotch exposed by a high kick during a street-brawl; in the second, ταύτης ἀποψιλώσοµεν τὸν χοῖρον is a threat; and in the third τὰς γνάθους ψιλὰς ἔχῃς refers to Cleisthenes rather than a woman. None of this is sexually suggestive in the sense Storey appears to intend.

Πόλεις (fr. 245)

291

Discussion Dobree 1820. 90; Raspe 1832. 84–5, 112 n. 4; Meineke 1839 II.508; Wilamowitz 1880. 73; Whittaker 1935. 183; Schiassi 1944. 73–4; Wilson 1977. 282–3; Storey 2003. 229; Olson 2007. 96 (B27); Sansone 2011 Citation context From a small cluster of notes, variously arranged in the manuscripts, on a mention of Tenian garlic at Ar. Pl. 718 (smeared inside Neokleides’ eyelids by Asclepius to make him suffer). ΣV is far more full than the others, including not only the second half of 2 but Antimachus fr. 91 Matthews as well. ΣV also offers ὅτι ἡ Τῆνος, νῆσος µία τῶν Κυκλάδων, θηριώδης δοκεῖ εἶναι (“Tenos, one of the Cycladic islands, appears to be infested with wild beasts”; a slightly longer version of the first half of the note 57 57 in ΣREΘBarbV ) separately, while ΣEΘNBarbV adds the note ὅτι ἐν τῇ Τήνῳ, µιᾷ τῶν Κυκλάδων νήσῳ, ὄφεις καὶ σκορπίοι δεινοὶ ἐγίνοντο (“On Tenos, one of the Cycladic islands, there were terrible snakes and scorpions”). Text The line-division is that of Sansone, and serves to make sense of the otherwise difficult final word in 2 by converting it into the beginning of a bomolochic response. ΣV alone preserves ἔχεις τε συκοφάντας after σκορπίους in 2. Perhaps the words were deliberately omitted by another scribe or set of scribes when ἔχεις was mistaken for a form of ἔχω,139 making the line seem to be nonsense. Interpretation Frr. 245–7 are all in iambic tetrameter catalectic and are most economically understood as part of a single scene, in which a series of personified cities (all three members of the Athenian Empire) appear onstage, one after another, and are briefly described. That these figures are somehow connected with the chorus of Cities is an obvious hypothesis, but they may not belong to it; cf. the four specialized, elaborately costumed bird-dancers who appear at Av. 268–93, just before the chorus arrives. Cf. also Ar. fr. 410 (from Nêsoi, and probably a description of one of the personified Islands as she/it enters the Theater). In fr. 246 (printing ὑµῖν; see n.) a group of Athenians are seemingly addressed, and in fr. 247 (n.) there may be two speakers. Fr. *244 scans as an iambic trimeter, but the theme is similar enough that it might alternatively be understood as an incomplete iambic tetrameter catalectic and thus as another verse from the same scene. Tenos (IACP #525; the fourth-largest of the Cyclades and among the most northerly of them) may have been an original member of the Delian League 139

Routinely mishandled by recent translators, including at Olson 2007. 426. I thank David Sansone for this correction. I would have been even more grateful, had he pointed the problem out when he read the manuscript of Broken Laughter before publication.

292

Eupolis

(i. e. among the various “islanders” mentioned but not fully catalogued at Hdt. 8.46 (a list of Greek forces at the Battle of Salamis)) and appears in the Tribute Lists from 450/49 BCE to 416/5 BCE (IG I3 263.IV.19 and 289.I.29, respectively). It was assessed ten talents of tribute in 425/4 BCE (IG I3 71.I.73) and was still an active member of the Empire in 413 BCE, when Tenian naval forces participated in the Sicilian Expedition (Th. 7.57.4). Nothing appears to be known of its behavior in the final portion of the war, except that a contingent of Tenian troops supported the Athenian oligarchs in 411 BCE (Th. 8.69). For Tenos’ relations with Athens in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, see Reger 1992; and for Tenos in this period more generally, Étienne 1990. For Tenos’ supposed reputation as a home for venomous creatures, cf. Hsch. τ 802 Τηνία· ἔχιδνα (“Tenian: a viper”); Plin. Nat. 4.65 (claiming that the place was also known as Ophioussa, “Serpent Island”; thus also St.Byz. p. 621.10–11 Meineke); Matthews 1996. 254. 2 σκορπίους ἔχεις τε. :: συκοφάντας For the comparison of sycophants to venomous creatures, cf. Ar. Th. 528–30 (adapting the proverb “Look for a scorpion under every stone!” to refer to politicians) with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; Pl. 885 (a magical ring imagined bearing the inscription “[protection] against a sycophant’s bite”); [D.] 25.52 πορεύεται διὰ τῆς ἀγορᾶς, ὥσπερ ἔχις ἢ σκορπίος ἠρκὼς τὸ κέντρον (“he makes his way through the marketplace, just like a viper or a scorpion with its stinger raised”), 96 συκοφάντην καὶ πικρὸν καὶ ἔχιν τὴν φύσιν ἄνθρωπον (“a person who is a sycophant and bitter and a viper by nature“; said in what follows to be likely to bite); D.L. 6.51 (when Diogenes was asked which wild animals had the worst bite, he replied: “Of wild animals, the sycophant; of tame animals, the flatterer”); and for similar comparisons, e. g. Cratin. fr. 80; Anaxil. fr. 22.1–5; S. Ant. 531; E. Alc. 310; Men. Dysc. 480. For the sycophant, an alleged malicious abuser of the legal system better conceived as a creation of the collective social imagination than as unambiguously identifiable with any particular real individual or group of individuals, but in any case a standard Aristophanic villain, see Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 191; Christ 1998. 48–71 (both with further bibliography). For scorpions, see Keller 1909–1913 II.471–8; Beavis 1988. 21–34 (p. 21 “the most feared invertebrates in antiquity”), esp. 27–8. Raspe took the reference to be instead to the homonymous fish (the sculpin or bullhead), for which see Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 30.1. This appears to be the first attestation of ἔχις, which does not mean that the word was invented only now; whether ἐχῖνος (“hedgehog”; see fr. 453 n.) and feminine ἔχιδνα (also “viper”; already at Hes. Th. 297, 304) are cognates is disputed.

Πόλεις (fr. 246)

293

fr. 246 K.-A. (232 K.) αὕτη Χίος, καλὴ πόλις 〈 〉 πέµπει γὰρ ὑµῖν ναῦς µακρὰς ἄνδρας θ’ ὅταν δεήσῃ, καὶ τἄλλα πειθαρχεῖ καλῶς, ἄπληκτος ὥσπερ ἵππος VEΓ

2 ὑµῖν Σ

M

: ἡµῖν Σ

This is Chios, a lovely city 〈 〉 for she sends you war-ships and men whenever necessary, and she’s generally nice and obedient, like a horse that requires no blows RVEΓM

Σ Ar. Av. 880 VEΓ Χίοισιν ἥσθην· καὶ τοῦτο ἀφ’ ἱστορίας ἔλαβεν. ηὔχοντο γὰρ Ἀθηναῖοι κοινῇ ἐπὶ τῶν RVEΓM θυσιῶν ἑαυτοῖς τε καὶ Χίοις, ἐπειδὴ ἔπεµπον οἱ Χῖοι συµµάχους εἰς Ἀθήνας, ὅτε R χρεία πολέµου προσῆν. καθάπερ Θεόποµπος ἐν τῷ ιβʹ τῶν Φιλιππικῶν φησιν οὕτως VEΓ VEΓM (FGrH 115 F 104)· ――. λέγει δὲ περὶ τῆς Χίου καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Πόλεσιν· ―― VEΓ

I like the Chians: (The poet) took this as well from history. For the Athenians RVEΓM used to pray publicly at their sacrifices for themselves and the Chians, since the R Chians used to send allied troops to Athens when war created a need for them. Just as Theopompus says in Book 12 of the History of Philip, as follows (FGrH 115 F 104): VEΓ VEΓM ――. And Eupolis too discusses Chios in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. 〈xlkl〉 llkl | klkl

llkl llkl

〈kll〉

llkl | llkl kll llkl | klkl kll

Discussion Raspe 1832. 85–6; Herwerden 1855. 25; Cobet 1873. 235; Kock 1880 I.321; Whittaker 1935. 183; Schiassi 1944. 73–4; Wilson 1977. 282–3; Rosen 1998. 154–8; Olson 2007. 96 (B28) Citation context From a well-informed note on Peisetairos’ bomolochic comment “I like the Chians being added everywhere!” on the Priest’s reference to “the Cloudcuckooville-ians themselves and the Chians” in the prayer at Ar. Av. 879. Text There may be two speakers, with (B.)’s γάρ at the beginning of 2 meaning “(Yes), for …” (Denniston 1950. 73–4). In 2, ὑµῖν (ΣVEΓ) rather than ἡµῖν (ΣM) must represent what stood in the common ancestor of all these notes—which does not mean that ὑµῖν is correct

294

Eupolis

in the text of Eupolis, forms of ὑµεῖς and ἡµεῖς being routinely confused in transmission. Interpretation See frr. 245 n.; 247 n. The island of Chios (IACP #840) was settled by the Euboeans and was a major naval power already in 494 BCE, when it contributed 100 ships, each crewed by 40 picked men, to the Ionian fleet (Hdt. 6.15.1). Chios joined the Delian League early on (Hdt. 9.106.4), and after the League evolved into an Athenian empire, the island continued to furnish the Athenians with ships and, apparently, with their crews as well (Th. 1.116.2, 117.2; 2.56.2; 4.13.2, 129.2; 5.84.1; 6.43; 7.20.2). This was done in place of paying tribute, allowing the Chians to retain some nominal degree of independence (Th. 1.19; 2.9.5; 3.10.5; 6.85.2; 7.57.4; [Arist.] Ath. 24.2; see Gomme, Andrews and Dover 1970. 434–5)—although this fragment suggests that the average Athenian man on the street did not look at matters quite that way, and although in 425 BCE the Athenians found a newly constructed city wall suspicious and forced the Chians to pull it down (Th. 4.51). Chios finally revolted from the Empire in 412 BCE (Th. 8.17.1–2, 38.1–4; see in general Quinn 1969; Blechman 1993. 300–4; Piérart 1995) and remained in the Spartan camp until 394 BCE (D.S. 14.84.3). Th. 8.24.4 calls the Chians—also notorious for owning enormous numbers of slaves (see fr. 296 n.)—a prime example of the virtues and benefits of σωφροσύνη (cf. 3), ranking them immediately after the Spartans in that regard. For the place and its history in this period, see in general Barron 1986. For horsemanship (3) as an image for sexuality and in particular sexual dominance, e. g. Ar. V. 502 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Pax 899–902; Lys. 676; Henderson 1991 § 274–8; Griffith 2006. 324–6. Rosen 1998. 157–8 argues “Implicit in the metaphor … is the notion that both as a female choreut and as an allied city, [Chios] represents an element that requires domestication by a controlling and civilizing force”. But there is no sign of resistance here, and it might be better to say that Chios is presented as an ideal woman, offering the man or men in her life access to enormous resources, while nonetheless remaining completely submissive. If ὑµῖν is printed in 2, the speaker is addressing the Athenian people generally, as through their representative Dicaeopolis in the Assembly scene at the beginning of Aristophanes’ Acharnians (e. g. 102, 143), or perhaps in the form of the audience in the Theater (nominally consisting only of Athenians), as routinely in parabases (e. g. frr. 172.1; 392.2; Ar. Ach. 633; Nu. 589). If ἡµῖν is printed instead, both the speaker and the addressee(s) are Athenian. Meineke suggested that the fragment might be divided between two speakers, the second taking 2 (and presumably 3 as well).

Πόλεις (fr. 246)

295

1 καλὴ πόλις Cf. fr. 316.1 ὦ καλλίστη πόλι πασῶν (addressed to Athens) with n.; Ar. Pax 171 ἡ πόλις ἡ Χίων (“the city of the Chians”) with Olson 1998 ad loc. and on 250–1 (on the use of πόλις in the poetic sense “inhabited place”, as perhaps here). 2 γάρ See on Text. ναῦς µακράς Literally “long ships”, and thus “war-ships” and in this period specifically “triremes” (e. g. Ar. Eq. 1351, 1366; Av. 379; Hdt. 6.46.2; Th. 8.34.1), as opposed to merchant ships (fr. 99.7 with n.), which were broader across the beam and of a deeper draft and thus much slower, and which are referred to as “round ships” (e. g. Th. 2.97.1; X. HG 5.1.21; cf. Ar. fr. 892 στρογγυλοναύτας, “merchant seamen”). For triremes and fighting ships generally, see Morrison, Coates and Rankov 2000. 127–90. ἄνδρας i. e. “rowers to man them”. 3 τ(ὰ) ἄλλα is adverbial, as at e. g. Ar. Eq. 943; Pax 430, 934; Antiph. fr. 145.1. πειθαρχέω and its cognates are 5th-century vocabulary (first attested at A. Pers. 374 πειθάρχῳ φρενί) and are widely distributed in poetry (e. g. Cratin. fr. 143.2; S. Ant. 676 πειθαρχία; E. IA 1120; Ar. Ec. 762) and prose (e. g. Hdt. 5.91.1; Antipho Soph. 87 B 72 D.–K. ἀπειθαρχία; X. Mem. 3.5.21). καλῶς functions as little more than an intensifier, as in καλῶς ξανθίζετε (“Get them nice and brown!”) at Ar. Ach. 1047; δήλη ’στὶν καλῶς (“It’s absolutely clear”) at Ar. Lys. 919; and τὸν καλῶς εὐδαίµονα (“the man who’s really blessed”) at Theopomp. Com. fr. 35.2 and Cratin. Jun. fr. 4.1. Cf. the use of κακῶς with a verb of negative sense at e. g. Ar. Ach. 1152–3 κακῶς ἐξολέσειεν ὁ Ζεύς (“might Zeus utterly destroy them!”); Epicr. fr. 3.8 πεινῶντες κακῶς (“starving to death”). ἄπληκτος Literally “unstruck” (sc. because it does not need to be) with a whip or goad to make it move more rapidly; cf. Pl. Phdr. 253d–e, where the good horse to the right is ἄπληκτος, κελεύσµατι µόνον καὶ λόγῳ ἡνιοχεῖται (“in no need of being struck, but simply obeys [the charioteer’s] order and reason”), whereas the bad horse to the left µάστιγι µετὰ κέντρων µόγις ὑπείκων (“barely yields to the whip combined with goads”); Pi. O. 1.20–1 παρ’ Ἀλφεῷ σύτο δέµας / ἀκέντητον ἐν δρόµοισι παρέχων (“he sped beside the Alpheios, giving his limbs ungoaded in the race”; of Hieron’s horse Pherenikos taking the prize in the single-horse chariot race at Olympia) (both cited by Raspe); Asclep. AP 5.203.5 = HE 836 ἦν γὰρ ἀκέντητος τελεοδρόµος (“for she accomplished the course with no goading”; of the courtesan Lysidike “riding” her clients, although there the reference is to a spur (v. 2) and thus not to chariot-driving). For whips and whipping, cf. frr. 83 with n.; 467 with n. For the use of the κέντρον (〈 κεντέω, “sting, goad”, like κοντίλον in fr. 364; referred

296

Eupolis

to exceptionally as a πλῆκτρον at [E.] Rh. 766) to drive animals forward, in particular by charioteers (and not used in horse-back riding), e. g. Ar. Nu. 1297–1300; Il. 23.430; Pi. P. 4.236 (driving cattle); A. Ag. 1624 πρὸς κέντρα µὴ λάκτιζε (“Don’t kick against the goads!”; for the image, cf. E. Ba. 795; fr. 604; [A.] PV 322–3); Eu. 156–8; S. OT 809; El. 716; E. Hipp. 1194; HF 881–2; X. Cyr. 7.1.29; Anderson 1961. 88 with pl. 11.

fr. 247 K.-A. (233 K.) (Α) ἡ δ’ ὑστάτη ποῦ ’σθ’; (Β.) ἥδε Κύζικος πλέα στατήρων. (Α.) ἐν τῇδε τοίνυν τῇ πόλει φρουρῶν 〈ἐγὼ〉 ποτ’ αὐτὸς γυναῖκ’ ἐκίνουν κολλύβου καὶ παῖδα καὶ γέροντα, κἀξῆν ὅλην τὴν ἡµέραν τὸν κύσθον ἐκκορίζειν sic divisit Cobet   post 1 lac. stat. Meineke   2 〈ἐγὼ〉 add. Hermann    3 γυναῖκ’ ἐκίνουν κολλύβου Hermann : ἐκίνουν δὲ γυναῖκα κολύβου Σ   ἐβίνουν Dindorf   4 κἀξηνόδην Σ : corr. Hermann   κύσθον Hermann : σκύθον Σ

(A.) Where’s the last one? (B.) This is Cyzicus, full of big coins. (A.) Well, I myself once in this city, while on guard-duty, screwed a woman for half a cent, and a boy and an old man; and you could “de-bug” her cunt all day long V

Σ Ar. Pax 1176 εἰς κιναιδίαν διαβάλλεται, ὥστε µηδὲ τῶν ἀναγκαίων διὰ τὴν εὐρύτητα κρατεῖν δύνασθαι, ὡς καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Πόλεσιν· ―― He is attacked for sexually passivity, to the extent that he is not even able to control his sphincter, because it is enlarged, as Eupolis also (says) in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic.

llkl llk|l llkl llkl | klkl llkl | llkl llkl |

klkl kll ll〈kl〉 kll llkl kll llkl kll

Discussion Raspe 1832. 86–7; Meineke 1839 II.510; Cobet 1840. 189; Kock 1880 I.321; Deubner 1931. 301 n. 1; Whittaker 1935. 183; Schiassi 1944. 73–4; Edmonds 1957. 394–5; Grilli 1962. 121; Wilson 1977. 282–3; Rosen 1998. 160–3; Storey 2003. 228–9; Olson 2007. 96 (B29)

Πόλεις (fr. 247)

297

Citation context From a note on Ar. Pax 1176 βέβαπται βάµµα Κυζικηνικόν (“he’s been dyed a Cyzicene shade”, i. e. a rich yellow (see Interpretation); referring to a taxiarch who shits himself the moment battle begins). The note that follows in the same manuscript—not treated by Kassel–Austin as an adespoton fragment, presumably on the theory that it too originally cited the passage from Eupolis—takes a similar interpretive tack: τουτέστι κατασχηµονεῖ· οἱ γὰρ Κυζικηνοὶ ἐπὶ δειλίᾳ καὶ θηλύτητι ἐκωµῳδοῦντο (“This is to say that he behaves indecently; for the Cyzicenes were mocked in comedy for cowardice and effeminacy”). Text τοίνυν in 2 seems to mark 2–4 as a comment on or criticism of the characterization of Cyzicus in the second half of 1 (see Interpretation), and I accordingly adopt Cobet’s division of the lines between two speakers. 2 is metrically deficient, and Hermann’s 〈ἐγώ〉 is not easily improved upon. In 3, the paradosis is unmetrical and δέ is not wanted. Hermann’s transposition and correction of the spelling of κολλύβου restores both meter and sense. Interpretation See fr. 245 n. Cyzicus (IACP #747), the largest city on the island of the same name, was an 8th- or 7th-century BCE Milesian colony. It came under Persian control sometime after 547 BCE; joined the Delian League around 478 BCE; and appears in the Athenian Tribute Lists from 452/1 BCE to 418/17 BCE (IG I3 261.V.30 and 287.II.10, respectively), paying nine talents of tribute per year from 443/2 BCE on. Cyzicus revolted from the Empire in 411 BCE, but was subdued again shortly thereafter (Th. 8.107.1; X. HG 1.1.14–19). For the site itself (rich but ill-published), Hasluck 1910. The incident described in 2–3 is set at some indeterminate point in the past (2 ποτ’), and who the speaker—presumably an Athenian, but in any case certainly not a native Cyzicene—is supposed to have been on guard against and why is impossible to say. Greek women of all ages, but especially girls, frequently wore gold jewelry at festivals (cf. Ar. Ach. 257–8 with Olson 2002 ad loc.). Although Cyzicus is here said to be “full of coins” (1) rather than “covered with coins” or the like, this may be a hint at the costuming of the character. If so, perhaps Tenos’ costume was decorated with snakes and scorpions (cf. fr. 245.2) and Chios’ costume somehow referred to horses (fr. 246.3). Rosen 1998. 162 comments: “Allegorized as a woman on the stage, then, the city plays the role of the respected and valued, yet ultimately subordinate housewife. On the other hand, however, the fragment in the end undermines this rather polite portrayal of Kyzikos, as the speaker launches into the litany of sexual escapades that the city allegedly afforded him”. 1 πλέα στατήρων For the term στατήρ, see frr. 123; 270.2 n. For Cyzicene electrum staters, “the most important currency in the area from Troy

298

Eupolis

to Ionia, in the Propontis, in Bithynia and in the Black Sea regions” (Avram, IACP p. 986), in particular, e. g. IG I3 378.21; 383.108–9; X. An. 6.2.4; Lys. 12.11; 32.6; D. 34.23; [D.] 35.36; and see Head 1911. 522–3; von Fritze 1912; Eddy 1970; Laloux 1971, esp. 45–57; Bogaert 1977; Alföldi 1991. 129–34. 2–3 Cf. Ar. V. 236–9, where one of the old men who make up the chorus reminds another of how, when they were young, ἐν Βυζαντίῳ ξυνῆµεν / φρουροῦντ’ ἐγώ τε καὶ σύ· κᾆτα περιπατοῦντε νύκτωρ / τῆς ἀρτοπώλιδος λαθόντ’ ἐκλέψαµεν τὸν ὅλµον / κᾆθ’ ἥψοµεν τοῦ κορκόρου κατασχίσαντες αὐτόν (“we were together on guard in Byzantium, you and me; and then as we were making our rounds by night we stole the bread-woman’s mortar while she wasn’t looking; and then we chopped it up and cooked some pimpernel”). See 4 n.; and for guard-duty generally, fr. 268i with n.; Chionid. fr. 1; Ar. Av. 1367. 2 τοίνυν (typical of colloquial Attic; cf. fr. 122) marks the articulation of a logical consequence to the previous speaker’s words (Denniston 1950. 568–9, 572–3), here seemingly criticism of (B.)’s claim in 1 that Cyzicus is full of staters: (A.) had complete run of the city, at least sexually, and paid only a κόλλυβος for the privilege. 〈ἐγὼ〉 … αὐτός (if right) draws an emphatic contrast between the speaker and the addressee, “I myself (as opposed to you)”; cf. Ar. Ach. 736; V. 832–3; Av. 894; Pl. 965; and the similar use of of σὺ αὐτός at e. g. Ar. Nu. 221, 1454; V. 628; Pax 1215. 3–4 For prostitution—here clearly brothel prostitution performed by slaves, rather than the higher end of the market involving free “courtesans”—e. g. fr. 99.27 with n. (on homosexual brothel prostitution); Ar. Pax 165 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Xenarch. fr. 4; Philem. fr. 3; Lind 1988; Davidson 1997. 78–91; Graham 1998; Cohen 2003; Cohen 2006; Glazebrook 2011. 3 κινέω (literally “set in motion”; also e. g. fr. 104.2; Ar. Pax 341, 867; Lys. 1166; cf. fr. 99.27 κινητή̣ρ̣[ιον], “brothel”) appears to be a less openly offensive equivalent of the unambiguously vulgar βινέω (“fuck”; see fr. 385.2 n. with bibliography), although beta and kappa are confused so often in manuscripts that it is difficult to know what ought to be read at any particular point. If ἐκίνουν is correct here, (A.)’s expression is relatively banal in 3, setting up the real obscenity in 4. καὶ γέροντα comes as an amusing surprise at the end of the line, γυναῖκ(α) and παῖδα representing more conventional sexual tastes. A κόλλυβος (etymology uncertain; see Masson 1967. 108–10, identifying this as a non-Semitic loan-word; Beekes 2010 s. v., taking it to be pre-Greek) is a small fraction of an obol (cf. Ar. Pax 1200; fr. 3; Men. fr. 590; adesp. com. fr. 811; Call. fr. 191.2 ap. Poll. 9.72; Poll. 6.165; 7.170; Hsch. α 7058; κ 3348; τ 1385;

Πόλεις (fr. 247)

299

Phot. κ 891; Phot. κ 906 = Suda κ 1976 = Synag. κ 388). Whether these were real coins produced informally by money-changers (κολλυβισταί; cf. Lys. fr. 202; Poll. 7.170; Phot. κ 905 = Suda κ 1971 = Synag. κ 387) or similar individuals rather than by the Athenian state, or a kollybos is merely a tiny nominal amount (like a “half-cent” in the translation above), is disputed; cf. Svoronos 1912. 123–60; Tod 1945. 108–13; Kroll 1993. 24–5; Grandjean 1996; and more generally on the vexing problem of small change in societies in which coins are treated as a commodity, i. e. in which the concept of fiat coinage is either undeveloped or not yet fully understood, Sargent and Velde 2002. 4 ἔξεστι (“it is possible”) is first attested at A. Eu. 890, 899, but the imperfect form ἐξῆν is avoided by the tragic poets (only E. El. 1084). ὅλην τὴν ἡµέραν implies that the guard-duty (and sex) discussed in 2–3 took place at night, the speaker presumably being left free during the day to more systematically go about enjoying himself. Although ὅλην τὴν ἡµέραν, ὅλην τὴν νύκτα and variants thereof fit easily into iambic trimeter and are used constantly by the comic poets (ὅλην τὴν ἡµέραν at Ar. Pl. 1015; Philem. fr. 71.1; Men. Epitr. 270; cf. fr. 99.10 [τ]ὴν νύχθ’ ὅλην (iambic dimeter); Pherecr. fr. 253 † ὅλην τὴν νύκτα †; Ar. Nu. 75 ὅλην τὴν νύκτα; Ec. 1099 βινεῖν ὅλην τὴν νύκτα καὶ τὴν ἡµέραν, “to fuck all night and day”; Amphis fr. 20.4 ὅλην τὴν νύκτ᾽; Antiph. fr. 216.9 ἡµέραν καὶ νύχθ’ ὅλην; Eub. fr. 52.1–2 τὴν νύχθ’ ὅλην / τήν θ’ ἡµέραν; Philippid. fr. 20.2 ὅλην … τὴν ἡµέραν; Men. fr. 65.5 τὴν ἡµέραν ὅλην), as well as by prose authors (ὅλην τὴν ἡµέραν at e. g. Th. 7.38.3; X. HG 6.4.36; Aeschin. 1.52; Thphr. Char. 16.10; τὴν ἡµέραν ὅλην at e. g. Pl. Ap. 31a; ὅλην τὴν νύκτα at e. g. X. Cyr. 2.4.26), they are avoided by the tragedians, who seem to treat ὅλος in particular as a suspect vocabulary item.140 τὸν κύσθον ἐκκορίζειν is a climatic obscenity, capping 3. κύσθος (also attested at Ar. Ach. 782, 789; Lys. 1158; Ra. 430; see Henderson 1991 § 107, and cf. κυσθοκορώνη at adesp. com. fr. 377 and various compounds in κυσο- at Ar. fr. 358; adesp. com. frr. 186; 378; Hsch. κ 4737, 4739) is a primary obscenity (“cunt”). ἐκκορίζω (literally “rid of bedbugs (κόριδες)”) must accordingly have a colloquial sexual sense as well, perhaps simply via word-play on κόρη (“girl, maiden”; thus LSJ s. v.); cf. Ar. Pax 59 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Deubner 1931.

140

The word is absent from Aeschylus and is preserved in Euripides only at Ph. 1131 (see Mastronarde 1994 ad loc.); Cyc. 217 (satyr play); fr. 1041.2 (genre unknown). Sophocles is the exception, using forms of ὅλος at OT 1136–7 τρεῖς ὅλους / … ἑκµήνους χρόνους; Ph. 480 ἡµέρας … οὐχ ὅλης µιᾶς; OC 479. Note also Sositheus TrGF 99 F 2.6; adesp. tr. fr. 619.9 (= S. fr. 1026 N2). See also Willi 2003. 192.

300

Eupolis

fr. 248 K.-A. (234 K.) ἄσπουδος δ’ ἀνὴρ σπουδαρχίδου κακίων σπουδαρχίδου Meineke/Kock : σπουδᾶν Phot. Synag. : σπουδαίου Bekker

but a man who lacks zeal is worse than one who is over-zealous for office Phot. α 2989 = Synag. B α 2256 ἄσπουδος· ὁ µὴ σπουδαρχἰδης (Meineke : σπουδαῖος. οὕτως Ἀρχίδης codd.). Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ―― aspoudos: someone who is not zealous for office (thus Meineke : “someone who is not zealous. Thus Archides” codd.). Eupolis in Poleis: ――

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic. 〈xlk〉l llkl | llkl

kll

Discussion Raspe 1832. 91; Meineke 1839 II.518; Kock 1880 I.321–2; Storey 2003. 224 Citation context From the common source of Photius and Synagoge B generally referred to as Σ΄΄΄; de Borries identified the source behind the passage as Phryn. PS fr. 267. Text Photius and Synagoge B141 both offer ἄσπουδος· ὁ µὴ σπουδαῖος. οὕτως Ἀρχίδης. Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ἄσπουδος δ’ ἀνὴρ σπουδᾶν κακίων (“aspoudos: someone who is not zealous. Thus Archides. Eupolis in Poleis: ‘but a man who lacks zeal is worse at showing zeal’’’). Bekker corrected the text of Eupolis to ἄσπουδος δ’ ἀνὴρ σπουδαίου κακίων (“but a man who lacks zeal is worse than one who is zealous”), which makes better sense but is unmetrical. Meineke saw that the obscure οὕτως Ἀρχίδης in the gloss concealed a variant reading σπουδαρχἰδης, on which basis he wrote σπουδαρχίδου in place of the paradosis σπουδᾶν, allowing the line to scan as the end of an iambic tetrameter catalectic. Interpretation A defense offered by or on behalf of someone accused, like Lamachus at Ar. Ach. 595–7 (see Olson 2002 ad loc.), of excessive interest in holding public office, sc. for the personal advantages of pay, power, con-

141

Kassel–Austin had access only to Bekker’s edition of the Synagoge and accordingly misattribute his unsignaled emendation of the text to the manuscript itself.

Πόλεις (fr. 249)

301

nections, travel and the like that such positions brought. The meter may suggest an agôn (thus Storey). ἄσπουδος is not attested elsewhere. σπουδαρχίδης, on the other hand, is also found at Ar. Ach. 595 and is probably a colloquial term of abuse; cf. the similarly formed ἀρχογλυπτάδης (“office-hunter”; adesp. com. fr. 930); βοΐδης (“oxlike”, i. e. “docile, dim”; Men. fr. 470); Ἑρµοκοπίδης (“Herm-chopper”, referring to one of the unknown individuals who mutilated the Athenian herms on the eve of the Sicilian expedition; Ar. Lys. 1094); µισθαρχίδης (“the sort of person who takes pay to hold office”, a coinage based on σπουδαρχίδης two verses earlier?; Ar. Ach. 597); φθειροκοµίδης (“flea-bearer”; adesp. com. fr. 437); συκοτραγίδης (“fig-nibbler”, i. e. “miser”; Hippon. fr. 177; Archil. fr. 250); χρεωκοπίδης (“someone who cuts his debts”; Plu. Sol. 15.9, but presumably an Atticism), and invented comic patronymics like κλεπτίδης (Pherecr. fr. 252) and πανουργιππαρχίδης (Ar. Ach. 603). For σπουδάζω and cognates used of attempts to achieve political ends by underhanded means, cf. also Ar. Eq. 925–6, 1369–70 with Neil 1901 on 896–8; E. IA 337–42 (a detailed catalogue of ways a candidate could curry favor with voters). The most common word for “worse” is χείρων (e. g. fr. 392.4; Od. 21.325; Pi. N. 8.22; S. Ph. 456; E. Heracl. 328; Ar. V. 1049; Th. 6.18.7; X. Mem. 1.2.27), κακίων being confined before the very late 5th and 4th centuries BCE to poets (e. g. Od. 14.56; Archil. fr. 5.4; Thgn. 262; A. Th. 600; S. fr. 836; E. Heracl. 326; Hel. 419; Ar. Th. 532), who use it for metrical reasons, on the one hand, and to Ionian authors (e. g. Hdt. 1.109.2; 9.107.1;142 Hp. Epid. III 3.4 = 3.74.5 Littré), on the other; subsequently in Attic prose at e. g. And. 2.4; X. Cyr. 2.1.25; Pl. Lg. 904e.

fr. 249 K.-A. (235 K.) ἔστι δέ τις θήλεια Φιλόξενος ἐκ ∆ιοµείων GLhAld

ἔστι Σ

V

: ἔστιν Σ

But there is a certain female Philoxenos from Diomeia V

Σ Ar. V. 82 ὁ Φιλόξενος ἐκωµῳδεῖτο ὡς πόρνος. Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν· ――. καὶ Φρύνιχος Σατύροις (fr. 49) 142

Contrast 6.109.2, where in a specifically Athenian context Herodotus uses χείρων.

302

Eupolis

Philoxenus was mocked in comedy as a whore. Eupolis in Poleis: ――. Also Phrynichus in Satyroi (fr. 49)

Meter Dactylic hexameter.

lkk

ll

lk|k

lkk lkk ll

Discussion Raspe 1832. 105; Meineke 1839 II.514; van Leeuwen 1898. 115 (on Ar. Nu. 686); Edmonds 1957. 394–7; Storey 1995; Storey 2003. 224–5 Citation context Part of a scholion on Ar. V. 83–4 µὰ τὸν κύν’, ὦ Νικόστρατ’, οὐ φιλόξενος, / ἐπεὶ καταπύγων ἐστὶν ὅ γε Φιλόξενος (“No, by the dog, Nicostratus, he’s not philoxenos (‘fond of guests’), because Philoxenus is a faggot”; rejecting a supposed attempt by an audience member to identify Philocleon’s disease, which begins with philo-) and presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Text ΣV offers the unmetrical ἔστιν, which a late scribe or editor corrected to ἔστι (ΣGLhAld). Interpretation The combination of the meter and the epicizing ἔστι δέ τις at the beginning of the line (see below) suggests an oracle. Raspe noted that the oracle-monger Hierocles appears to have been among the characters in Poleis (fr. 231 with n.) and took him to be the speaker. Van Leeuwen suggested that there might be a deliberate obscurity in the language concealed by the need for modern printed texts to differentiate between upper- and lower-case letters; the sense might be either “a female Philoxenus” or “a guest-loving female”, with the unexpected demotic rather than a personal name at the end of the line serving to make clear that it is the former. The standard prosopographies combine as PA 14707 = PAA 941310: (1) the Φιλόξενος ἐκ ∆ιοµείων referred to in the comic fragments preserved by ΣV Ar. V. 82 and seemingly also at Ar. Nu. 686 (characterized as an effeminate) (2) Philoxenus the son of Eryxis and father of another Eryxis mentioned at Ar. Ra. 934 (mockingly characterized as “a brown horse-cock”, whatever that may mean), who was supposedly a pupil of Anaxagoras (Aeschin. Socr. SSR VI.A F 73 ap. Ath. 5.220b) and is described by other sources (e. g. Arist. EE 1231a15–17; Theophil. fr. 6, FHG iv.516 ap. Ath. 1.6b; Ael. VH 10.9) as a notorious glutton. Whether this is correct is impossible to say, but the name is common (at least twenty 5th-/4th-century examples in LGPN II). See in general Storey 1995; Stamma 2014. 264–5. Diomeia was a city deme of the tribe Aigeis that was located outside the city walls and included the sanctuary of Heracles at Cynosarges, but is otherwise not securely located; Athenaeus refers several

Πόλεις (fr. 250)

303

times to a famous 4th-century joke-telling circle known as “the Sixty” that met in the sanctuary (6.260a–b; 14.614d–e). Cf. Ar. Ach. 605 “bullshit artists from Diomeia” with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Traill 1975. 39. For the use of ἐκ + genitive in place of a proper demotic, cf. Ar. Th. 620; fr. 870; and in general Poultney 1936. 157–8. ἔστι δέ τις * at Il. 2.811; 11.711, 722; Od. 3.293; 4.844; hBacch. 8 (all of geographical features) and seemingly a sufficiently familiar feature of epic language to be taken over by Antimachus of Colophon (fr. 53.1 Wyss = fr. 131.1 Matthews) and Apollonius Rhodius (e. g. 1.936; 2.360) and to be used parodically at Hermipp. fr. 77.6 and Matro fr. 7.4.

fr. 250 K.-A. (236 K.) ὦ δέσποτα, καὶ τάδε νῦν ἄκουσον ἃν λέγω σοι ἃν Dobree : ἃ cod.

Master, hear now these words as well which I would address to you! A

Σ Heph. Enchiridion 15.3, p. 154.11–17 Consbruch ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε γὰρ καὶ τὰς ἰαµβικὰς ἐπιµιγνύουσι ταῖς κατειλεγµέναις συζυγίαις, τῇ τε ἰωνικῇ καὶ τῇ χοριαµβικῇ, πάλιν προσοδιακὸν καλοῦντες, ὥσπερ Εὔπολις ἐν ταῖς Πόλεσιν· ――. ἑφθηµιµερὲς γὰρ ἰαµβικὸν τῷ προσοδιακῷ τῷ καθαρῷ ἐπιµέµικται καὶ προσοδιακὸν ὁµοἰως καλεῖται

For there are occasions when they also mix iambs together with the combinations that have been listed, that is with ionic and choriambic, again referring to (the result) as a prosodiakon, as Eupolis does in his Poleis: ――. For an iambic line up to the hephthemimeral caesura has been mixed together with the pure prosodiakon, but (the result) is nonetheless called a prosodiakon Meter A comic dicolon (x D x ith) also attested inter alia at frr. 148 (where see n.); 317.

l

lkklkkl

k

lklkll

Discussion Raspe 1832. 106–11; Storey 2003. 221 Citation context From an ancient commentary on the metrician Hephaestion (2nd century CE?), here specifically on Hephaestion’s discussion at XV.3 (pp. 47–8 Consbruch) of ἀσυνάρτητοι στίχοι, i. e. lines made up of units from different metrical schemes separated by diaeresis, including what Hephaestion

304

Eupolis

calls the prosodiakon (“processional (meter)”), which on his analysis consists of a choriambic element (lkklkkl) combined with an ionic element (klklkll). The commentator seemingly analyzes fr. 250 as consisting of an initial iambic element (llrl rlk) combined with an ionic element (lklkll), treating this as an addition and expansion of Hephaestion’s discussion, despite the fact that in the immediately preceding section (at XV.2, p. 47.18–20 Consbruch) Hephaestion cited Cratin. fr. 360, which is in the same meter. Text Dobree’s ἃν (i. e. ἃ ἂν) for the paradosis ἃ is a matter of metrical necessity and converts λέγω from an indicative to a subjunctive. Interpretation The words are most easily understood as the beginning of a prayer, in which case καὶ τάδε νῦν … ἃν λέγω σοι serves as the pars epica, reminding the god that other requests have been put to him by the same petitioner in the past, sc. and granted, setting the current request in the context of an enduring relationship between the two parties and putting the god’s honor and implicitly also his self-interest (since thank-offerings are routinely made by human beings when such petitions are granted) on the line. The request presumably followed. If this is not a prayer but a remark addressed by a slave to a human master—thus Storey; cf. the use of ὦ δέσποτα at e. g. Ar. Eq. 960; Pl. Com. fr. 182.1—the form of a prayer is nonetheless invoked. Storey claims that archilochean meter “elsewhere in comedy belongs to the chorus”, but the evidence is less straightforward than he makes it out to be.143 Invoking a god as δέσποτα stresses his power and thus the reason for approaching him; cf. Barrett 1964 on E. Hipp. 88–9. The title is generally accompanied by the deity’s personal name (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 92 ὦ δέσποτ’ Ἀγυιεῦ; Ar. Nu. 264 ὦ δέσποτ’ ἄναξ, ἀµέτρητ’ Ἀήρ; V. 389 ὦ Λύκε δέσποτα, 875 ὦ δέσποτ’ ἄναξ γεῖτον Ἀγυιεῦ; Th. 988 κισσοφόρε Βακχεῖε / δέσποτ’ with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.) unless it is already obvious from context (e. g. Ar. Pax 398–9 ὦ δέσποτ’ addressed to Hermes, who is onstage)—as it must have been here. Demands such as ἄκουσον (cf. κλῦθι at e. g. Il. 1.37; 5.115; Od. 3.55; Thgn. 4; Pi. fr. 78.1; ἄκουσον at Bacch. 17.53; A. Ch. 500; ἐπάκουσον at Thgn. 1321; A. Ch. 725) are a standard means of attracting the god’s attention, another being to order him or her simply “Come!” (e. g. Cratin. fr. 118 (a parodic reference to Pericles); Ar. Th. 319 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.). See Ausfeld 1903. 516–17; Pulleyn 1997. 134–44.

143

Cratin. fr. 360 and Ar. V. 1519, 1528–37 are certainly choral; Diph. fr. 12 (not noted by Storey) is not. Who speaks Cratin. frr. 32; 62; Eup. frr. 148; 317 is unknown.

Πόλεις (fr. 251)

305

fr. 251 K.-A. (237 K.) VEΘBarb

Σ Ar. Ra. 970 (Θηραµένης) ὅτι δοκεῖ προσγεγράφθαι τῇ πολιτείᾳ, Ἅγνωνος αὐτὸν ποιησαµένου, ὡς Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν (Theramenes) He seems to have been added to the list of citizens, since Hagnon adopted him,144 according to Eupolis in Poleis

Discussion Raspe 1832. 104; Storey 2003. 227 Citation context A gloss on the words οὐ Χῖος ἀλλὰ Κεῖος (“not a Chian but a Keian”; Dionysus’ capping description of Theramenes as a man capable of getting out of any difficult situation) by a commentator who took the point to be that Theramenes was not actually an Athenian but from Ceos (thus also Plu. Nic. 2.1), and who offered the reference to Eupolis in partial support of that thesis.145 Interpretation Hagnon son of Nikias of the deme Steiria (PA 162 + 171; PAA 107380) was active in Athenian political and especially military affairs from at least ca. 440 BCE to 412/11 BCE, when he served as one of the probouloi appointed to manage the city after the disaster in Sicily (Lys. 12.65). This is the earliest reference to Theramenes (PA 7234; PAA 513930; see in general Davies 1971. 227–8), who otherwise comes to the attention of our sources only in 411 BCE, when as one of the city’s generals he took part in the overthrow of the democracy (Th. 8.68.4; Lys. 12.65; [Arist.] Ath. 33). By adroitly changing sides again and again, Theramenes survived until 404 BCE, when he was one of the Thirty Tyrants but was nonetheless put to death by an extremist faction within them led by Critias (X. HG 2.3.23–56; [Arist.] Ath. 37.1; D.S. 14.5.3). Theramenes is also mentioned in comedy at Ar. Ra. 541 (see Dover 1993 ad loc.); fr. 563; Philonid. fr. 6. For his career and subsequent evaluations of it, see Harding 1974. That Theramenes was Hagnon’s adopted rather than biological son is almost certainly a comic slander. Cf. Cratinus’ claim that Hagnon’s father Nikias

144 145

For this sense of the middle of ποιέω (garbled at Rusten 2011. 259 “when Agnon had made him one”), see LSJ s.v. A.III. For Ar. Ra. 970 “not a Chian but a Keian”, see Dover 1993 ad loc. Theramenes is described as a student of Prodicus of Ceos in a number of late sources (e. g. Ath. 5.220b; Plu. Mor. 836f; ΣVE Ar. Nu. 361), which may simply be an inference from the reference to the island in the line from Frogs.

306

Eupolis

worked as a porter (fr. 171.73–4), and Telecleides’ claim that Charicles (another member of the Thirty) was a supposititious child (fr. 44.1–2).

fr. 252 K.-A. (238 K.) Γ2 V∆

Σ Luc. Tim. 30 (p. 115.5–8 Rabe) (Ὑπερβόλῳ) Κρατῖνος δὲ ἐν Ὥραις (fr. 283) ὡς παρελθόντος νέου τῷ βήµατι µέµνηται καὶ παρ’ ἡλικίαν καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης Σφηξὶ (cf. 1007) καὶ Εὔπολις Πόλεσι (Hyperbolos) Cratinus in Hôrai (fr. 283) mentions him as approaching the speaker’s stand as a young man and at an inappropriate age, as do Aristophanes in Wasps (cf. 1007) and Eupolis in Poleis

Citation context From a richly informed biographical note—likely drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi—on Lucian’s reference to the personified Wealth’s fear of bumping into Cleon or Hyperbolos in Attica, which also preserves Polyzel. fr. 5; Pl. Com. fr. 185. Aristophanes mentions Hyperbolos’ deceptions at V. 1007, but makes no reference to his youth there or anywhere else in the play. Ar. Pax 680–1 describes Hyperbolos specifically as an orator on the Pnyx, although again without raising the issue of his age. Interpretation For Hyperbolos son of Antiphanes of the deme Perithoidai (PA 13910; PAA 902050), see general introduction to Marikas. That Hyperbolos served on the Council in 421 BCE seems likely from Pl. Com. fr. 182, so he must have been born in 451 BCE or earlier, and his father was supposedly alive and working in the state mint after 420 BCE (And. fr. 5 Blass), suggesting that Hyperbolos himself was still relatively young at that point. Cratinus’ Horai is undated, but can scarcely be any later than Poleis. Nothing else is known about the date of Hyperbolos’ birth, however, and Cratinus and Eupolis may both merely have referred to him as a νεανίσκος (fr. 367 n.), i. e. as supposedly too young to be involved in politics even if he was already in his 40s, like Lamachus at Ar. Ach. 601 with Olson 2002 ad loc. Hyperbolos was ostracized sometime around 416 BCE—which does not necessarily mean that Poleis dates before that, since this might be a retrospective remark. See in general Davies 1971. 517, with further bibliography.

Πόλεις (fr. 253)

307

fr. 253 K.-A. (239 K.) Areth.

Σ Pl. Ap. 20e (p. 421 Greene) Χαιρεφῶν οὗτος ὁ Σωκρατικὸς ἰσχνὸς ἦν καὶ ὠχρός, τὸ δὲ ἦθος συκοφάντης καὶ κόλαξ, πρὸς δὲ καὶ κλέπτης καὶ αὐχµηρός, τὴν δὲ περιουσίαν πένης. Εὔπολις µὲν οὖν ἐν Πόλεσι διὰ τὴν χροιὰν π ύ ξ ι ν ο ν αὐτὸν καλεῖ This Chaerephon the associate of Socrates was thin and pale, and as regards his character was an informer and a flatterer, as well as a thief and squalid, and a beggar as regards his property. Eupolis in Poleis, then, refers to him as m a d e o f b o x - w o o d on account of his color

Discussion Lorenzoni 1994. 150; Lorenzoni 1998. 72 Citation context From a richly informed note drawn from a source perhaps similar to the one that preserved frr. 386 (n.); 395, although the absence of any reference to Aristophanes’ Clouds raises the alternative possibility that this was originally a comment on that play. Mention of references to Chaerephon at Ar. Av. 1296, 1564 (as a bat); fr. 552 (an informer); Cratin. fr. 215 (squalid and poor); Eup. fr. 180 (a flatterer of Callias); Ar. frr. 295 (a thief); 584 (a “child of night”) follow, attesting more or less in order to the characterizations offered in the opening sentence. The original version of the note must have included the relevant portions of the texts of the comic poets, which have been stripped out by an epitomator. Additional echoes of Eupolis’ description of Chaerephon are preserved at – Philostr. VS I praef. (p. 4.7–9 Kayser) Χαιρεφῶν … ὃν ἡ κωµῳδία πύξινον ἐκάλει, ἐκεῖνος µὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ φροντισµάτων ἐνόσει τὸ αἷµα (“Chaerephon … whom comedy refers to as box-wood colored, for his thoughts made his blood sick”) – ΣRV Ar. V. 1408 (Χαιρεφῶντα) τὸν πύξινον (“(Chaerephon) the box-wood colored man”) – Eust. p. 1350.4 = IV.903.22–3 ὡς δέ τις τῶν παλαιῶν ὠχρὸς τὴν ὄψιν πύξινος ἐσκώπτετο διὰ τὸ τῆς χρόας ὁµοιοειδές, ἀναλεκτέον ἐξ ἱστορίας (“and that one of the ancients who was pallid in appearance was mocked as box-wood colored, because his skin had a similar appearance, can be gathered from history”; likely simply drawing on the Aristophanic scholia). Note also adesp. com. fr. 749. Interpretation Chaerephon of the deme Sphettos (PA 15203; PAA 976060; Nails 2002. 86–7) was a close associate of Socrates and inter alia the recipient of the Delphic oracle that declared that no one was wiser than Socrates, meaning that no one was actually wise at all. Chaerephon went into exile under

308

Eupolis

the Thirty and died sometime before Socrates’ trial in 399 BCE; his brother Chaerecrates accordingly spoke there on his behalf (Pl. Ap. 21a). Chaerephon’s pale complexion is remarked on also at Ar. Nu. 501–4; V. 1412–14 (called θάψινος ~ “yellow”, the color produced by a dye made from the Venetian sumac or European smoketree (Cotinus coggyrgia, Rhus cotinus)) and is likely the point of calling him “Bat” at Ar. Av. 1564 (cf. Ar. Av. 1296; fr. 584 with Delneri 2006. 113–15): he looked like he never went out in the sun.146 πύξινον The box—the English name is cognate with Greek πύξος via Latin buxus—is a small, slow-growing evergreen bush or shrub with closegrained, pale white wood used for fine work of all sorts (and today employed unstained to produce white chess pieces); cf. Thphr. HP 1.5.4–5; 5.3.1, 7; 5.5.2, 4; 5.7.8, and for small objects made of box-wood e. g. Ar. fr. 879; Archipp. fr. 13 (a salt cellar); Pl. Com. fr. 33 (a bed-frame); Anaxandr. fr. 14 (an artist’s palette) with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Record 1921; Warnock and Pendleton 1991. 108–10. The adjective is attested already in Homer (Il. 24.269; part of a mule-collar).

fr. 254 K.-A. (240 K.) ΕΓ

Σ Ar. Ach. 504 εἰς δὲ τὰ ∆ιονύσια ἐτέτακτο Ἀθήναζε κοµίζειν τὰς πόλεις τοὺς φόρους, ὡς Εὔπολίς φησιν ἐν Πόλεσιν

But the cities were required to bring their tribute to Athens at the Dionysia festival, as Eupolis says in Poleis Citation context A gloss on αὐτοὶ γάρ ἐσµεν (“we are alone”; addressed to the audience) at Ar. Ach. 504 and explaining that the Lenaia took place in the winter, sc. when travel by sea was difficult, and that visitors tended instead to be present for the City Dionysia (celebrated in April or so). Related—and more expansive—remarks to the same effect are offered at ΣRΕΓ Ach. 378 as part of an explanation of why Cleon supposedly attempted to prosecute Aristophanes in connection with Babylônioi: τῇ τῶν ∆ιονυσίων ἑορτῇ, ἥτις ἐν τῷ ἔαρι ἐπιτελεῖται, ἐν ᾧ ἔφερον τοὺς φόρους οἱ σύµµαχοι. …. τὰ δὲ Λήναια ἐν τῷ µετοπώρῳ ἤγετο, ἐν οἷς οὐ παρῆσαν οἱ ξένοι (“the Dionysia festival, which is 146

At Ar. Nu. 103–4 everyone in the Phrontisterion, including Socrates and Chaerephon, is said to be pale (τοὺς ὠχριῶντας … / ὧν ὁ κακοδαίµων Σωκράτης καὶ Χαιρεφῶν), i. e. from lack of sunlight (cf. Nu. 119–20, 184–6). But Chaerephon’s pallor is patently something peculiar to himself.

Πόλεις (fr. 255)

309

celebrated in the spring, when the allies used to bring their tribute … whereas the Lenaia was held in the fall, and the foreigners did not attend”). Interpretation The tribute paid by Athens’ subject-allies was due at the time of the City Dionysia festival each year (Ar. Ach. 505–6 with Olson 2002 ad loc., 643–4; adesp. com. fr. *348 ap. Phot. η 248), and according to Isoc. 8.82 ἐψηφίσαντο τὸ περιγιγνόµενον τῶν πόρων ἀργύριον διελόντες κατὰ τάλαντον εἰς τὴν ὀρχήστραν τοῖς ∆ιονυσίοις εἰσφέρειν ἐπειδὰν πλῆρες ᾖ τὸ θέατρον (“they passed a decree to the effect that they were to divide up the money derived from the tribute into talents and bring it into the orchestra at the Dionysia when the Theater was full”). See Raubitschek 1941. 356–62 (arguing that this display was a new policy proposed by Cleon in the early 420s BCE); Goldhill 1990. 101–4.

fr. 255 K.-A. (adesp. com. 763 K.) Phot. δ 161 δ έ κ α τ ο ὐ β ο λ ο ῦ· διὰ τὸ µικρὸν εἶναι Ἀσωπόδωρον. Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν t e n f o r a n o b o l: because Asopodorus was tiny. Eupolis in Poleis

Meter Probably iambic trimeter e. g. 〈xlkl〉 r|lkl 〈xlkl〉 Discussion Storey 2003. 226 Citation context An isolated lexicographic entry, connected somehow to Symmachus’ note on Ar. Av. 17 (cited and discussed in Interpretation). Hsch. δ 569 δέκα τοὐβολοῦ· 〈ἐπὶ〉 οὐδενὸς ἀξίου. βέλτιον δὲ εἰς µικρότητα τίθεσθαι αὐτό (“ten per obol: 〈in reference to〉 what is worth nothing. It is better used, however, in reference to tininess”) and App.Prov. i.93 δέκα τοὐβολοῦ· ἐπί τῶν µηδενὸς ἀξίων, ἐπειδὴ τὰ δέκα τοὐβολοῦ πιπρασκόµενα πάνυ ἐστὶν εὐτελῆ (“ten per obol: in reference to items worth nothing, since items sold at ten per obol are very inexpensive”; = the source of adesp. com. fr. 763 K., the passage of Photius being unknown in Kaibel’s time) seem to be additional versions of the same original. Interpretation According to Symmachus on Ar. Av. 17 (probably drawing on Didymus, and through Didymus on a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi; preserved by ΣVEΓM), Asopodorus (PA 2671; PAA 223810) was also mocked by Telecleides (fr. 50) for his diminutive stature. Whether this Asopodorus is to be identified with the homonymous tamias of Athena of 411 BCE (PA 2672; PAA 223825)

310

Eupolis

and/or with the man prosecuted in a lost speech of Lysias (PAA 2762; PAA 223815; Lys. or. XXV Carey) is impossible to say. Symmachus’ further attempt to explain Aristophanes’ reference to Peisetairos’ jackdaw as “the son of Tharreleides” by identifying the latter with Asopodorus may merely be a bad deduction from the limited evidence at his disposal; see Dunbar 1995 ad loc. But Suda θ 52 (s. v. Θαρρελείδης) adds on Symmachus’ authority that Asopodorus’ brother was Didymachias, an otherwise unattested name that Meineke proposed emending to Didymias, establishing a link between this fragment and fr. 306 (n.). For the use of τοῦ (ὀ)βολοῦ (gen. of price), cf. e. g. fr. 198; Ar. Eq. 649 τὰς ἀφύας ὠνοῖντο πολλὰς τοὐβολοῦ (“they’re selling large quantities of smallfry for an obol”), 662 ἑκατὸν τοὐβολοῦ (“a hundred for an obol”), 945 τοῖσι πολλοῖς τοὐβολοῦ (“many for an obol”; glossed τοῖς εὐώνοις, “cheap”, by ΣVEΓΘM ~ Suda τ 1137); Av. 1079 τοὺς σπίνους πωλεῖ καθ’ ἑπτὰ τοὐβολου (“he sells the chaffinches at seven for an obol”); Timocl. fr. 20.3 ὀκτὼ τοὐβόλου (“eight for an obol”); Poultney 1936. 104.

fr. 256 K.-A. (241 K.) Harp. p. 26.14–15 = Α 94 Keaney µνηµονεύουσι δὲ οἱ κωµικοὶ πολλάκις τῶν ἀ µ ο ρ γ ί ν ω ν , ὡς καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης Λυσιστράτῃ (150)147 καὶ Εὔπολις Πόλεσιν But the comic poets often mention amorgina,148 as do both Aristophanes in Lysistrata (150) and Eupolis in Poleis

Discussion Raspe 1832. 88; Kock 1880 I.322–3; Edmonds 1957. 395 n. d Citation context A note on Aeschin. 1.97 (translation offered under Interpretation), lemmatized ἀµοργός there, although the word in Aeschines is actually ἀµοργινά. Interpretation At Ar. Lys. 149–52, light amorgina tunics (χιτώνια) are worn by women who hope to convince their husbands to have sex; cf. Antiph. fr. 151.1 ἦν χιτὼν ἀµόργινος (“there was an amorginos tunic”); Aeschin. 1.97 (a woman “who knows how to produce amorgina and take them to market” listed among the skilled income-producing slaves belonging to Timarchus); [Pl.] Ep. 147 148

Taken by Keaney to be a reference to Lys. 735, although the word there is ἀµοργίς. Not “the people of Amorgos”, as in Rusten 2011. 260.

Πόλεις (fr. 257)

311

363a (expensive amorgina contrasted with Sicilian linen garments); Clearch. fr. 19 Wehrli ap. Ath. 6.255e (a purple blanket with an amorginos wrapper in a context of extraordinary luxury); Moer. α 90 ἀµόργινον Ἀττικοί· λεπτὸν ὕφασµα Ἕλληνες (“Attic-speakers [use] amorginon; Greeks generally [use] ‘a light bit of weaving’”). Amorgina tunics also appear frequently in lists of women’s dedications in sanctuaries (e. g. at Brauron in IG II2 1514.10, 22; 1516.39). At Ar. Lys. 739–9, the noun appears in the form ἀµοργίς, hence presumably Poll. 7.74 ὁ δὲ ἀµόργινος χιτὼν καὶ ἀµοργὶς ἐκαλεῖτο (“The amorginos tunic was also called an amorgis”).149 The meaning of the adjective (cognate with ἀµέργω, “pull, pluck, squeeze”?) is obscure. Paus.Gr. α 92 glosses it ὅµοιος βύσσῳ (“similar to linen”; cf. α 93 ἀµοργίς· κυρίως ἡ λινοκαλάµη, “amorgis: properly flax-stalk”; Harp. p. 26.13 = Α 94 Keaney ἀµοργός· ἔστι παραπλήσιόν τι βύσσῳ, “amorgos: it’s something like linen”); Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 184.14 seems to regard it as a color term (τὸ δ’ ἀµόργινος χιτὼν χρώµατος ἴδιον, “but the amorginos chitôn has a particular hue”); and some modern scholars have understood it to be a specific local variety of flax from the island of Amorgos (e. g. Raspe; Rogers 1911 on Ar. Lys. 150). See in general Richter 1929, who takes the reference to be to silk; Cleland 2005. 93–4, 107.

fr. 257 K.-A. (16 Dem., 394 K.) Phot. α 1437 ἀ ν α γ χ ί π π ο υ ς· τοὺς ἀναγκαστικοὺς ἱππέας. Εὔπολις Πόλεσι. καὶ ἀναγχιππεῖν τὸ µετ’ ἀνάγκης ἱππεύειν a n a n c h i p p o u s : cavalrymen who serve under duress. Eupolis in Poleis. And ananchippein is to do cavalry service under duress Suda α 1844 ἀ ν α γ χ ι π π ε ῖ ν· ἀντὶ τοῦ µετὰ ἀνάγκης ἱππεύειν. Εὔπολις a n a n c h i p p e i n : in place of “to do cavalry service under duress.” Eupolis

Citation context The entry in the Suda appears to be an abbreviated version of the one in Photius, suggesting that both go back to the common source generally referred to as Σ΄΄ and that only ἀναγχίππους is to be assigned to Eupolis. 149

Cratin. fr. 103 (preserved at Hsch. β 1273) may also contain the word in this form (thus Meineke for the paradosis ἀµοργόν), but is too obscure to be of much use.

312

Eupolis

Kock and earlier editors—who lacked access to the Photius passage—gave him ἀναγχιππεῖν rather than ἀναγχίππους. Interpretation X. Eq.Mag. 1.9–12 makes it clear that the two commanders of the Athenian state cavalry (the ἵππαρχοι, hipparchs) had the legal authority to require service as knights from individuals who were rich and healthy enough to serve, and also that they might be forced to go to court to make some eligible individuals do their duty, both because keeping a war-horse was expensive and because bribery was thought to keep some names off the list, discouraging other men from cooperating voluntarily.150 For more on the hipparchs, the selection of cavalrymen, and cavalry horses, see frr. 201; 293 with n. (on the κατάστασις, a loan granted by the state to allow the purchase of a horse); 343 (on the scrutiny of cavalry horses); [Arist.] Ath. 49.2; 61.4; Bugh 1988. 52–74, esp. 53–5. ἀναγχίππους The word is attested nowhere else, which does not mean that Eupolis coined it (despite Sarati 1996. 117).

fr. 258 K.-A. (242 K.) Poll. 2.77 ἡ δ’ ἐν τοῖς τράγοις δυσωδία, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ ἐν ταῖς µασχάλαις, κινάβρα καλεῖται. καὶ γ ρ ά σ ο ς δ’ εἴρηται ἀλλαχοῦ τε καὶ ἐν Πόλεσιν Εὐπόλιδος The foul smell characteristic of billy-goats, as also that of armpits, is called kinabra. But g r a s o s as well is used both elsewhere and in Eupolis’ Poleis

Citation context From a collection of words having to do with the nose and the sense of smell. Similar material, likely going back ultimately to the same source, is preserved at – Suda κ 1626 κινάβρα· … ἡ δυσωδία τῶν µασχαλῶν ἢ τῶν αἰγῶν (“kinabra: … the foul smell of armpits or of billy-goats”) – EM p. 515.1–2 κινάβρας· ἔστι κυρίως ἡ τῶν τράγων δυσωδία· λέγεται καὶ ἁπλῶς ἡ δυσωδία (“kinabras: this is properly the foul smell of billy-goats; but a foul smell generally is also referred to thus”). Note also – Hsch. γ 904 γράσος· δυσοσµία (“grasos: a stench”) 150

For a brief list of some of the legitimate grounds for exemption from service, see X. Eq.Mag. 9.5.

Πόλεις (fr. 258)

313

– Hsch. κ 2710 κινάβρα· δυσωδία τῶν τράγων (“kinabra: a foul smell produced by billy-goats”) – Phot. γ 201 γράσον· τὴν δυσωδίαν τῶν µασχαλῶν (“grason: the foul smell of armpits”) – Suda γ 426 γράσος· ἡ δυσοσµία τῶν τράγων. καὶ γράσων ἄνθρωπος ὁ δύσοσµος (“grasos: the stench of billy-goats. And a person who stinks is a grasôn”) and the passages from Phrynichus and the Antiatticist discussed in Interpretation. Interpretation Pollux or his source takes a permissive attitude toward κινάβρα, allowing the word to be used of both the stink of male goats and human body odor. Phryn. PS p. 60.11–13 is stricter: γρασός· διαφέρει κινάβρας. γρασὸς µὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων δυσωδία, κίναβρα δὲ ἡ τῶν αἰγῶν καὶ τράγων (“grasos is different from kinabra; for grasos is the foul smell of human beings, whereas kinabra is that of sheep and billy-goats”).151 κινάβρα (etymology uncertain) is attested in the classical period only at Ar. Pl. 294 αἰγῶν τε κιναβρώντων (“and of stinking goats”; glossed at Suda κ 1627 κιναβρώντων αἰγῶν· τῶν δυσοσµίαν ποιούντων ἐκ τῶν µασχαλῶν, “kinabrôtôn aigôn: those that produce a stench from their armpits”). But the word is used repeatedly by Lucian of both human beings and goats (Bis Acc. 10; DMar. 1.5; DMeretr. 7.3), suggesting that he thought it had a good Attic pedigree. For γράσος (etymology again uncertain), cf. [Arist.] Pr. 879a23; Plu. Mor. 180c; and the cognate γράσων (someone with an overpowering body odor; Ath. 13.585d–e). For the idea, cf. Ar. Ach. 852–3 ὄζων κακὸν τῶν µασχαλῶν / πατρὸς Τραγασαίου (“whose armpits have the nasty smell of his father from Billy-goatville”) with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Pax 813 τραγοµάσχαλοι (“whose armpits smell like billy-goats”).

151

Cf. Antiatt. p. 87.20–1, although the concern there appears to be that γρᾶσος (sic) is sometimes wrongly used in place of τράγος (γρᾶσος οὔ φασι δεῖν λέγειν· οὐδ’ ἀπόζειν γράσου ἀλλὰ τράγου, “they say one ought not to say grasos, and also not ‘to smell of a grasos’ but ‘of a tragos’”).

314

Προσπάλτιοι (Prospaltioi) (“Men of Prospalta”)

Testimonia test. i E

Σ Ar. Nu. 541 οὐδὲ πρεσβύτης ὁ λέγων· ὡς Εὔπολις ἐν τοῖς Προσπαλτίοις and no old man who’s speaking: as Eupolis (does) in Prospaltioi

Context From a note on Ar. Nu. 541–2 οὐδὲ πρεσβύτης ὁ λέγων τἄπη τῇ βακτηρίᾳ / τύπτει τὸν παρόντ’, ἀφανίζων πονηρὰ σκώµµατα (“and no old man who’s speaking the lines strikes the bystander with his staff as a way of concealing bad jokes”; part of a tongue-in-cheek catalogue of the nasty features Aristophanes’ comedies do not include—almost all of them, however, found in Clouds itself).152 This information—that Prospaltioi included an old man who told bad jokes and hit another person with a stick, not that the reference in the revised Clouds is specifically to that passage (which would put a terminus ante quem for Prospaltioi in the early 410s BCE)—seems specific enough to be believable, although ΣEM on the same lines identifies the remark as directed instead at Hermippus (= test. 6) or the actor “Simermon” (a combination of two variant readings, Ἕρµωνα and Σίµωνα), while ΣRV claims that the target is the actor Hermon (PAA 422025; Stephanis #910).

test. *ii Et.Gen. AB = Suda δ 1515 ἐκωµῳδοῦντο … Θυµοιτάδαι καὶ Προσπάλτιοι ὡς δικαστικοί The men of Thymoitas and Prospalta were mocked in comedy as litigious

Context From a note on the word ∆ρυαχαρνεῦ (“Oak-Acharnian”; = adesp. com. fr. 498) that offers as parallels mocking characterizations of several other demes (including Upper and Lower Potamos, whose demesmen formed the 152

For the figure of the old man in Aristophanes’ comedies, see Byl 1977 (with passing attention to ΣE Ar. Nu. 541 at p. 52).

Προσπάλτιοι (Introduction)

315

chorus for a comedy by Strattis); traced by Erbse to Paus.Gr. δ 27. Phot. δ 762 also preserves the first part of the note, but omits Θυµοιτάδαι κτλ. As Prospaltians are nowhere else referred to in what survives of Attic comedy, this reference has not unreasonably been connected with Eupolis’ comedy, although there is no positive evidence to that effect.

Introduction Discussion Bergk 1838. 357; Meineke 1839 I.141–2; Fritzsche ap. Töppel 1846. 62 n.; Meineke 1847 I.200–1; Wilamowitz 1870. 31; Kock 1880 I.323, 325; van Leeuwen 1888. 412; Kaibel 1907 p. 1235.6–16; Geissler 1925. 45 + 1969. xiv; Schiassi 1944. 27–9, 36–43; Schiassi 1955; Schwarze 1971. 115–22; Luppe 1975. 201; Bowie 1988. 185; Storey 1990. 14–15; Storey 2003. 230–46; Wright 2007. 428; Storey 2011. 192–5 Title The location of the deme Prospalta (part of the inland trittys of the tribe Akamantis, with a bouleutic quote of 5) at Enneapyrgi west of Kalyvia Kouvaras is known from a number of grave-markers (IG II2 7306; 7311; 7315). Paus. 1.31.1 reports the existence of a sanctuary of Demeter and Kore there. Enough names of Prospaltians survive in inscriptions to show that it was a modestly significant place, even if we know nothing more about it.153 See in general Meyer 1957. For comedies named after the members of individual demes, cf. Aristophanes’ Acharnians, Strattis’ Potamioi, Antiphanes’ Thôrikioi, Philippides’ Lakaidai and Menander’s Halieis; and see in general Whitehead 1986. 328–38. Content Despite the survival of two papyri—both assigned to Prospaltioi only by conjecture—nothing can be said about the plot of the play except that heroes were somehow made to stand in for Athenian citizens and “Eupolis himself” apparently explained why this was so (fr. 259a with n.), along with what little can be extracted from fr. 260 (n.) about the situation in the individual scene from which that passage comes. What role Prospaltian litigiousness (test. *ii) played in the action is impossible to say, although the obvious assumption must be that the chorus initially appeared onstage eager to pursue a legal case against someone (e. g. the hero, in the same way the initial desire 153

Storey 2003. 239 speculates about possible reasons for the choice of Prospalta in particular—was it e. g. Eupolis’ home-deme? or the site of a notorious recent incident?—but (unsurprisingly, and wisely) reaches no firm conclusion.

316

Eupolis

of the “oak-Acharnian” chorus in Aristophanes’ play of 425 BCE is to stone Dicaeopolis to death, until they are eventually talked around to his point of view). Fr. 263 suggests that a poet—likely a representative of the so-called “New Music” (for which, see fr. 366 n.)—took part in the action. Date Prospaltioi referred to Aspasia as “Helen” (fr. 267), thus apparently giving her the blame for the war with Sparta, and Goossens 1935b maintained that the play assumed the political and military situation in Athens shortly after the outbreak of hostilities and indeed featured Pericles (who died in 429 BCE) as a speaking character. Luppe, taking Goossens’ thesis for granted, restored and translated fr. 259.3–5 (n.) to make Prospaltioi Eupolis’ first play. But Goossens’ arguments are too tenuous to carry much conviction,154 and the lines need not have read as Luppe thinks they did. The comedy is accordingly better treated as undated.

Fragments fr. 259 K.-A. (POxy. 2813 = CGFPR 96) POxy. 2813 consists of eighteen scraps of papyrus from a commentary on Eupolis (named in 15, 17) found in Oxyrhynchus in Egypt and dated by Lobel, the original editor, to the late 2nd or 3rd century CE. The script is semi-cursive of a common sort, with alternative forms of certain letters, such as êta, kappa and beta, and only cursive epsilon. No marginal signs are offered to help the reader distinguish lemma from commentary, although extra space seems occasionally to be included between the two. The assignment to Prospaltioi is based on what appears to be a mention of the identity of the chorus in 13. Four of the eighteen fragments of POxy. 2813 were associated with one another by Lobel as POxy. 2813 fr. 1a–d. This combined fragment—far and away the largest and most important of the group—preserves portions of two columns of text, perhaps from an introductory discussion to the play and/or summarizing material from the parabasis: – fr. 1a contains portions of the left-hand side of col. I (= Eup. fr. 258.2–16 K.-A.)

154

Cf. Storey 2003. 231 “the evidence is slender indeed”—although he then goes on to accept an early date on the basis of fr. 259.3–4.

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

317

– frr. 1b and 1c contain additional small portions of the left-hand side of col. I from further down in the text (= Eup. fr. 258.18–26 K.-A. and fr. 258.21–4 K.-A,. respectively); – fr. 1d contains portions of the right-hand side of col. I (= Eup. fr. 258.1–40), including the top of the column, and of the left-hand side of col. II (= Eup. fr. 258.41–83 K.-A.), again including the top of the column. The vertical relationship between fr. 1a–c and fr. 1d—i. e. the question of which partial lines in fr. 1a–c line up with which partial lines in fr. 1d—is fixed by the cross-fibers. There is no evidence, on the other hand, for where fr. 1b and fr. 1c belong horizontally in relation to fr. 1a—i. e. for where those fragments stand in the partial lines they preserve—and Lobel concedes that fr. 1c might actually belong to the left of fr. 1b rather than to its right, where editors (following the editio princeps) routinely place it. Fortunately the point is of little consequence for the discussion that follows. Lobel argued that there was no physical evidence for the vertical relationship between POxy. 2813 fr. 1a–c and fr. 1d—i. e. for the size of the gap between the preserved left-hand and right-hand portions of col. I—but offered a plausible conjecture in 4 that would bring fr. 1a very close to fr. 1d and that suggests a line-width of about 30 letters there. In fact, POxy. 2813 fr. 1a and POxy. 2813 fr. 1d seem to join at 2, 6 and 7, and in 6 in particular fr. 1a appears to preserve a trace of the left-hand lower tail of the lambda a trace of whose right-hand lower tail is preserved in fr. 1d.155 Because the letters are not aligned in a regular fashion, and because individual lines differ in length—the copyist seems to make an effort to finish individual words if physically possible—it is nonetheless in most places impossible to know exactly how much is missing from the text. Despite the implication of the continuous numbering in Austin 1973 (taken over in Kassel–Austin’s edition of the text, and referred to throughout here for the reader’s convenience), we do not know how many lines of the play are lost between the final preserved line of col. I (= Eup. fr. 258.40 K.-A.) and the top of col. II (= Eup. fr. 258.41 K.-A.). Nor is there any physical evidence for the relationship between the various other fragments of the papyrus—many of which (most notably POxy. 2813 frr. 3–4, 10–11 and 13–15) preserve little more than a few unhelpful letters—except that if POxy. 2813 fr. 1 represents the beginning of the text, all the rest must come after it. Lemmata are generally difficult to distinguish or to separate from the commentary that treats them,

155

In the glass frame in which it is preserved, fr. 1a thus stands about 1” too high, and about 1.5” too far to the left.

318

Eupolis

and the division into individual fragments adopted here accordingly requires a number of arbitrary choices, the guiding purpose of which has been to keep seemingly closely associated material together. Discussion Lobel 1971. 45–54 (editio princeps); Luppe 1973. 326–7; Austin 1973. 105–11; Luppe 1975. 200–3; Trojahn 2002. 102–8, 163–4; Storey 2003. 232–3; Storey 2011. 195

From POxy. 2813 fr. 1a and 1d fr. 259a = POxy. 2813 fr. 1a col. I.2–16 + fr. 1d col. I.1–19 = Eup. fr. 259.1–19 K.-A. ]ωσπ̣ [ 4 ]ανην προ ] ̣δη α|σ̣ ἀπεστάλησαν δεησόµενοι δη]µ̣ηγορῆ̣ [σα]ι̣ πρὸς αὐτοῦ νέον ἀρ]χ[ο]µ(έν)ου γράφ[ειν] κωµω⟨ι⟩δίαν κ(αὶ) ταῦτα 5    ]αυτ(ων) οντο . [  3  ]ε̣ιν βιασάµ(εν)οι η           ]ο̣ µ(ὲν) τοὺς πο̣|λ̣{ε̣}ί̣τ̣ας µὴ γράφειν ἥ]ρ̣ωας δ̣ι ̣ ̣|π̣ ρο[ 4 ]ων παλι           ]οσαυτ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ο̣τ̣[ 4 ]τ̣ους ἥρωας             ]δ̣(ὲ) τ(ῶν) πολ{ε}ιτ(ῶν) ἑκ̣ασ[τ . ] π[ρ̣]οσφυῶς 10          ] . πων̣αδ̣ . αγα[ ~6 ]ο̣ι πρέσβεις                     ] . µ̣[ ]ο . [ 2 ] . [ ]σ̣              ]χ̣[ . ] . [] . σ̣ ι ̣ δ(ὲ) λ̣ο̣ ̣[ ]ρ̣[ ]ωφω̣ [              ] ̣εχθη .  χορὸς δ(ὲ) Πρ̣[οσπ]αλτίων̣ ]ραιει δ(ὲ) ηχθηι . [  ]αι µ(ὲν) υπ . [ 15 ]ει .  Εὐπόλιδος[̣ ]α̣µα [                  ] . θ̣ υσ̣  . [ ]σθαι εκ . [                                           ]  ̣δ’ Εὐπολ[ι                 ]φα[ 2 ]υσ[ ]ς δ’ ἔνιοι ] . σδ(ια)π . [ ]λυφανου .   

2–4 suppl. Lobel   3–4 fort. νέ[αν]   5 [ιζ΄ ἐν]αὐτ(ῶν) ὄντος Luppe   7 suppl. Lobel   9 suppl. Lobel   13 suppl. Lobel   14 [πλῆθος .  ἐν Πει]ραιεῖ δ(ὲ) ἤχθη ι . [ Luppe : [παραγίνεται ἀνδ]ρ(ῶν) αἰεὶ δ(ὲ) ηχθηι . [ Lobel   18 φά[νο]υς Lobel : [Ἀριστο]φά[νο]υς Storey

 

]ωσπ̣ [ 4 ]ανην προ ] ̣δη ασ̣ they were dispatched to [ ask to offer a po]litical argument from his hand as he

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

5

10

15

319

was just starting to write a comedy, and at that    ]αυτ(ων) οντο . [  3  ]ε̣ιν forcing η           ]ο̣ on the one hand, not to write the citizens he]roes δ̣ι ̣ π̣ ρο[ 4 ]ων παλι           ]οσαυτ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ο̣τ[̣  3  ]the heroes             ]but each(?) of the citizens fittingly          ] . πων̣αδ̣ . αγα[ 6 ]ο̣ι ambassadors                     ] . µ̣[ ]ο . [ 2 ] . [ ]σ̣              ]χ̣[ . ] . [] . σ̣ ι ̣ δ(ὲ) λ̣ο̣ι[̣ ]ρ̣[ ]ωφω̣ [              ] ̣εχθη. But a chorus of Prospaltians ]ραιει but was celebrated(?) . [  ]αι on the one hand by(?)[ ]ει .  of Eupolis[ ]α̣µα [                  ] . θ̣υσ̣  . [ ]to be  .  .  . -ed from[                                           ]  ̣but Eupolis                 ]φα[ 2 ]υσ[ ]ς but some ] . σδ(ια)π . [ ]λυφανου . 

Interpretation The first secure candidate for a lemma is γελωτ᾿ in 24 (= fr. 259b), although the text of 16–23 is so badly damaged that others might be concealed there. Fr. 259a, from the top of the surviving portion of col. I, refers to the chorus (13) and to Eupolis himself (15, 17), and appears to begin with a narrative describing the origins or inspiration of the play (2–10), followed after a few badly damaged lines by a description of the chorus (13). If this is a hypothesis—which seems to have been the opinion of Lobel—the lemmata that follow must come from the very beginning of the comedy, which was then self-consciously metatheatrical (esp. 32–6 with nn.). An alternative possibility is that this is commentary on the parabasis, in which Aristophanic choruses routinely discuss their poet and even speak for him (as at e. g. Ach. 628–64; Eq. 507–50; V. 1015–59) or attempt to explain their particular identity to the audience (e. g. V. 1071–1121; cf. Eup. fr. 172). What is said about “Eupolis” would then be part of the poet’s own mythic self-creation and perhaps only tangentially related to events in the real world. In 2, we are told that a group “was sent” (ἀπεστάλησαν). These individuals are presumably identical with the ambassadors (πρέσβεις) mentioned in 10, and also with the men who apply force (βιασάµ(εν)οι) in 5. But who sent them, and thus who is behind the unfriendly request in 2–3 (as restored) is obscure. The other figure mentioned in the opening lines of the preserved portion of the text is a comic poet (3–4), who must have been named earlier, given the oblique reference to him in 3–5. In light of the repeated mention of Eupolis

320

Eupolis

below (15, 17), the obvious assumption is that he is the man in question here as well. Lobel noted that almost the only verb that can be restored for the papyrus’ ]µ̣ηγορη̣[ 2 ]ι̣ in 3 is a form of δηµηγορέω, and he accordingly proposed reading in 2–3 δεη[σόµενοι δη]µ̣ηγορῆ̣[σα]ι̣ πρὸς αὐτοῦ, “to ask of him that he offer a political argument” vel sim. (awkward, but better than assuming that some fourth party is being asked to do something on Eupolis’ behalf).156 If so, the point is that the ambassadors—better put, the individuals who sent them—aspired to use Eupolis’ comedy as a forum to express their own point of view on matters of public concern. βιασάµ(εν)οι in 5 seems to suggest that the poet/Eupolis tried to resist the demands being made on him, which apparently had to do with restricting how he portrayed his fellow citizens (6 µ(ὲν) τοὺς πολ̣{ε̣}ί̣τ̣ας µὴ γράφειν), on the one hand, and with heroes (8 τ̣ους ἥρωας; cf. Austin’s conjecture in 7), on the other.157 The δέ-clause (?) in 9 may or may not balance the µέν-clause that begins in 6. If it does, this likely has something to do with the action Eupolis was being forced into (e. g. finding a hero matching each citizen and mocking the hero instead of the person?). In the description of the poet in 3–4, Lobel restored νέ[ον ἀρ]χ[ο]µ(έν) ου γράφ[ειν] κωµῳδίαν, and his conjecture—accepted by all subsequent editors—has hardened into a general conviction that that Prospaltioi must have been Eupolis’ first play, the text being understood in the sense “who was just beginning to write comedy”.158 Lobel’s conjecture, however, is just as easily taken to mean “as he was just beginning to write a comedy”,159 the point being that this was an obvious moment for outside pressure to be applied to shape its content. Whatever followed 4 κ(αὶ) ταῦτα (“and … at that!”) will thus have made clear why this was precisely the right play—or perhaps precisely the wrong play—to meet the ambassadors’ request. On this interpretation, fr. 259 offers no evidence for the date of Prospaltioi and might even be taken to suggest that Eupolis already had a well-established reputation at the time the

156

157

158 159

Thus seemingly Luppe 1973. 327 “um (ihn) zu bitten, ein Rede zu halten für diesen (Eupolis)”; Rusten 2011. 260 “in order to ask [someone] to speak on behalf of him”. Storey 2011. 197 deals with the problem by adding a lacuna in the text where one is not found in the Greek. For Attic heroes, see in general Kearns 1989 and more generally fr. 259m n. Comedies entitled Hêrôes were written by Chionides (supposedly), Crates, Aristophanes, Timocles and Philemon. Thus Storey 2011. 197 (better than Rusten 2011. 260 “who had just recently begun to write comedy”, as if this were a perfect participle). Cf. Luppe 1973. 327 “der erst jüngst eine Komödie zu schreiben begann”.

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

321

play was staged, since only then would someone expect to be able to affect public opinion by hijacking his poetic voice. In 13, the position of δέ suggests that ] ε̣ χθη (doubtless the final letters of an aorist passive verb) is to be taken not with χορὸς … Πρ̣[οσπ]αλτίω[ν] but with whatever came before. Lobel compared the hypothesis to S. Ai. παραγίνεται δὲ χορὸς Σαλαµινίων ναυτῶν and conjectured [παραγίνεται ἀνδ]ρ(ῶν) in 13–14. But this section of the text is generally obscure, and if something like Luppe’s [ἐν Πει]ραιεῖ δ(ὲ) ἤχθη (“but it was celebrated in Piraeus”) is right instead, a religious festival might be in question, e. g. a festival of Bendis (cf. Planeaux 2000–2001).160

From POxy. 2813 frr. 1b and 1d fr. 259b = Eup. fr. 259.24 K.-A. γέλωτ’ laughter161 (acc.) Meter Unknown.

kl Context POxy. 2813 fr. 1b.24–6 + fr. 1d col. I.24–30 = Eup. fr. 259.24–31 Κ.-A. ] καὶ ]γελωτ’ 25 ]γελωτ . [ ]ιµην ]φειδε[ ] . οσ ]µ̣εαπο ]ειηθη ]ν̣π̣ρ[̣ ] .  30 ] . ασω ] . τ̣αιπροε Interpretation γελωτ’ in 24 (from POxy. 2813 fr. 1d) comes from the very end of the line, and although the precise horizontal relationship between ]γελωτ . [ in 25 (from the non-joining POxy. 2813 fr. 1b) and ]ιµην at the end of that line 160

161

Luppe himself thought the reference was to a performance of Eupolis’ play in the Piraeus theater (for which, see Paga 2010. 360–1, with further references). Kassel–Austin note, however, that this would be an unexampled use of the verb. Not “a joke” (Rusten 2011. 261).

322

Eupolis

(again from POxy. 2813 fr. 1d) cannot be determined, the repetition of the word suggests text followed by commentary. If ]ιµην at the end of 25 represents the verbal ending [-ο]ίµην, the first-person singular in the commentary on the next secure lemma (fr. 259c) has emerged already here. Nothing can be made of the material that follows in 26–31.

From POxy. 2813 fr. 1d fr. 259c = Eup. fr. 259.32 K.-A. [µη]δενί [εἰπεῖν µη]δενί suppl. Lobel ex 34 µηδενὶ [ε]ἰπεῖν

to no one Meter Unknown.

lkx Context POxy. 2813 fr. 1d col. I.32–40 = Eup. fr. 259.32–40 Κ.-A. µη]δενί γελοίως ]τι ἠρώτησέ µε ] µηδενὶ [ε]ἰ̣πεῖν ὅτι εσ[ 35 ]´ . σ̣  . ος κωµωδία[ ] .  . [ . ] σ̣ τον χο(ρὸν) διδάσκει ] .  . σ̣ υ̣κο̣φαντ̣ε̣ῖ .  (ἔστι) δ(ὲ) [ ] .  κλ̣οιὸν ἀπ’ ὀβελίσκου [ ] . η θε̣ρµ[ ] . ουµη 40 ] σ̣ επει 34 suppl. Austin

35

40

to no one. Humorously ]τι he asked me to say to no-one that εσ[ ]´ . σ̣  . ος comedy[ ] . .[ . ] στον trains a chorus ] . . is/was an informer. But there is ] . a collar (acc.) from a stake ] . η warm[ ] . ουµη ]σ̣ επε

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

323

Interpretation The apparent echo of 32 [µη]δενί in 34 µηδενὶ [ε]ἰ̣πεῖν, together with the extra letter-space left between ]δενί and γελοίως, suggest a transition from lemma to commentary at the end of 32. Although Lobel restored [εἰπεῖν µη]δενί in the text of Eupolis, [ε]ἰ̣πεῖν in 34 might just as well be paraphrase. How much of the material in 35–40 refers to this lemma—which is to say, at what point in the text another lemma must be recognized or assumed—is impossible to say, although 37–8 in particular might easily be taken as moving on to a new subject. Two persons are involved, the speaker (who was asked to keep quiet about something) and another individual (who made the request). The staging of comedies is in question (36), so presumably the subject is a dispute over public credit or blame for a production—i. e. the play under discussion in fr. 259a, in which case the speaker is the poet/Eupolis and the other individual is the man who dispatched the mysterious ambassadors? For the κλοιός mentioned in 38, cf. fr. 172.16 with n., where a “collar” is part of a punishment for bad behavior, as perhaps also here (sc. if the speaker refuses to do what he is told? or if his sycophantic opponent gets what he deserves?). An ὀβελίσκος is normally a spit used for roasting meat (see Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 794–6), which is difficult sense here; perhaps the reference is instead to a similarly shaped piece of metal driven into the ground to help restrain someone bound in a collar and chain. fr. 259d = Eup. fr. 259.42 K.-A. ]γάζει [ὀρ]γάζει Kassel–Austin, cf. fr. 266 : fort. [αὐ]γάζει vel [ἐρ]γάζει

he/she/it is working(?) Meter Unknown.

ll Context POxy. 2813 fr. 1d col. II.1–27 = Eup. fr. 259.41–61 Κ.-A. γάζει η κωµωδ̣[ λαµβάνειν αυ[ µ(έν)ους η ο[ 45 δοµ(εν)ον τρ[ τας ὄψεις [ πειων µη[

324

Eupolis

50

55

60

65

το ἆθλον̣ [ βοὸς τικο̣ . [ εν τοῖς κακ . [ περὶ ταδε̣[  .  . κατα̣[ ]θαικ . [ ]δηµ . [ ]λοµα[ ]αλειν[ ]κ̣ουει . [ ]µ(εν)ος [ έφυγε δ(ιὰ)  . [ βουλεύειν [ κιθαρωδὸς̣ [ κ(αὶ) µετοικο̣ . [ ξενον κ(αὶ) προ[στάτην στάταις ἐ̣χ . [ πολ{ε}ίτης ̣[ στάτου σπ[ κοῦσί µοι κο̣[

πρόπροπροδο-

62–6 suppl. Lobel   66–7 supplevi

For translation, see Interpretation. Interpretation From the top of col. II. -γάζει—presumably the end of a third-person singular verb—is followed by an empty space equivalent to at least two letters, as after lemmata in 32 (fr. 259c), 78 (fr. 259g) and 122 (fr. 259m), and before a lemma at 125 (fr. 259n), and Kassel–Austin’s typography makes it clear that they consider the word the end of a lemma. If so, some of what follows in 42–51 is likely from the commentary on the passage, with other portions of lemmata mixed in, even if no coherent sense can be extracted from what is preserved: 42 η κωµῳδί[α], “comedy” or “the comedy” (hinting again at the metatheatrical character of the action? cf. 48) 42–3 [λαµ]βάνειν (suppl. Lobel), “to be taking” 44 µ(έν)ους (a masculine accusative plural middle-passive participle) 45 δόµ(εν)ον (a masculine accusative singular or neuter nominative or accusative singular middle-passive participle?) 46 τας ὄψεις, “appearances” or “the appearances” 48 το ἆθλον̣, “prize” or “the prize” (sc. at the dramatic contest?)

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

325

49 βοός, “of a cow” 50 εν τοῖς κακ ̣[ “in(?) the bad(?)” 51 π̣ ερὶ ταδ̣ε̣, “about”, “about these things” or “about the δ̣ε̣” Little can be made out of 52–7, but a few complete words or parts of words emerge again in 58–61: 58 ]µ(εν)ος (a masculine nominative singular middle-passive participle?) 59 έφυγε δ(ιά), “he/she/it escaped through” 60 βουλεύειν, “to be taking counsel” 61 κιθαρῳδός, “citharode”.162 62–6 (and presumably 67 as well) appear to belong to a connected discussion of an Athenian law that allowed resident aliens (“metics”), including freed slaves, to pursue a case in court only if they had a citizen προστάτης (“protector”) (Lex.Rhet. AB I p. 201.13–16 ~ Harp. p. 53.12–15 = Α 218 Keaney; cf. Arist. Pol. 1275a7–14; [Arist.] Ath. 58.3 with Rhodes 1981 ad loc.; Whitehead 1977. 89–92, with further bibliography; Zelnick-Abramowitz 2005. 248–62; Kamen 2013. 47–8, 51): and metic [                   reprsentative and pro[tector           protectors (dat.) us[ed(?) citizen (nom.) [                       of a protector σπ[ they seem to me κο̣[163 62–3 [πρό]ξενον κ(αὶ) προ[στάτην] would scan as part of an iambic trimeter (e. g. 〈xlkl x〉|lkl llkl), which as a lemma might then be glossed in what follows. This would require taking 62 κ(αὶ) µετοικ . [ (lkl) either as part of the same lemma, which must then have consisted of most of two full verses, or as part of the preceding note. But the commentary might also go back as far as 59–61, in which case it was perhaps the citharode in 61 who lacked citizen status (and see fr. 259f n.). fr. 259e = Eup. fr. 259.68 K.-A. τῆς γῆς µ(ὲν) ἄχθο[ς] suppl. Lobel ex 68–9 [ἄ]χθος

a burden, on the one hand, on the earth 162 163

For citharodes (who competed in Athens at the Panathenaic festival), see Power 2010, esp. 425–34, 475–89, 491–507. 67 has dropped out of Rusten 2011. 261.

326

Eupolis

Meter Iambic?

llklx Context POxy. 2813 fr. 1d col. II.28–31 = Eup. fr. 259.68–71 Κ.-A. τῆς γῆς µ(ὲν) ἄχθο[ς] [ἄχθος µ(ὲν) ἐπεὶ κα ̣[ 70 κουφότης δ(ὲ) ἐπεὶ  . [ ἀλλὰ κοῦφοι κ(αὶ) φ[ 68 suppl. Lobel   69 fort. καµ̣[ατηροί]

70

a burden, on the one hand, on the earth den, on the one hand, since κα[ but lightness, since [ but light and φ[164

a bur-

Interpretation The echo of 68 ἄχθο[ς] in 68–9 [ἄ]χθος makes it clear that the former is part of a lemma, the latter commentary on it. 68–71 show that the individuals in question (note the plural in 71)—presumably including Syrakosios and Exekestos (fr. 258f)—were characterized as “a burden on the earth” (i. e. useless, empty weight), on the one hand, but also paradoxically as “light” (i. e. insubstantial and insignificant), on the other. For the image “a burden on the earth”, cf. Il. 18.104 ἐτώσιον ἄχθος ἀρούρης; Od. 20.379 αὔτως ἄχθος ἀρούρης; Pl. Tht. 176d γῆς ἄλλως ἄχθη (all cited by Lobel); Men. fr. *113 K.-T. περιττὸν ἄχθος ὄντα γῆς, ὡς εἶπέ τις (“being an extraneous burden on the earth, as someone put it”, leaving no doubt that the expression was semi-proverbial). fr. 259f = POxy. 2813 fr. 1d col. II.32–7 = Eup. fr. 259.72–7 K.-A.

75

Συρακόσιον ηλ̣[ είην τούτους [ τις Ἐξήκεστον ̣[ ταλου κοµίζω . [ π(αρα)γενόµ(εν)ον̣ τ̣α̣υ[ νειν δοκεῖ µο̣ι [̣

74–5 fort. [βα]τάλου

Syrakosios (acc.) ηλ̣[ είην these men (acc.) [ 164

For “but lightweights and Syrakosios” (as if 71–2 were continuous text) in Storey 2011. 201 read “but lightweights and … Syrakosios”.

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

75

327

someone(?) Exekestos (acc.) [ ταλου I gather/convey [ being present (masc. acc. sing. or neut. nom./acc. sing.) τ̣α̣υ[ he/she/it seems to me(?) to [

Meter Unknown. Interpretation The personal names Syrakosios and Exekestos must be drawn from the text of Eupolis. How much of what follows is commentary and how much is text165 is uncertain. For Syrakosios (PAA 853435), a contemporary politician, see fr. 220.1 n.166 Exekestos (PAA 388245; Stephanis #243) is otherwise unknown, and the name is common (about 20 other 5th-/4th-century examples in LGPN II). Lobel compared the references to a citharode in 61 and to legal arrangements involving metics in 62–6, along with the claim at Ar. Av. 11, 764, 1527 that the citharode Exekestides (PAA 388087; Stephanis #842) was a foreigner, implicitly suggesting that Exekestos and Exekestides were the same man. Austin 1973 compares adesp. com. fr. 337 ap. Hsch. ε 3839 Ἐξήκεστος· ἡταιρηκώς. ὅθεν καὶ τοὺς πρωκτοὺς ὁµωνύµως Ἐξηκέστους ἔλεγον (“Exekestos: a man who had been prostituted. As a consequence of which, they used to call assholes by the same name, ‘Exekestoi’”). fr. 259g = Eup. fr. 259.78 K.-A. µηδ’ ὕθλει Don’t talk nonsense! Meter Unknown.

lll Context POxy. 2813 fr. 1d col. II.38–9 = Eup. fr. 259.78–9 Κ.-A. 78 µηδ’ ὕθλει µὴ φ[λυάρει πεια κλωγµός  . [ 78 suppl. Lobel

165 166

75 ταλου κοµίζω (klkll) would scan as part of an iambic trimeter. That “429 is rather early for him” (Storey 2003. 233) is better treated as further evidence against that date for the play than as a reason to treat this as an ethnic (“Syracusan”).

328

Eupolis 78

Don’t talk nonsense! πεια clucking  . [

Don’t babble!

Interpretation µηδ’ appears to be set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, which combined with the extra space left between ὕθλει and µἠ in 78, and the echo of µηδ’ in µἠ, suggests that µηδ’ ὕθλει is a lemma, µὴ φ[λυάρει] commentary on it. For Lobel’s supplement, cf. ΣRVEMN Ar. Nu. 783 ὑθλεῖς·RM ἀντὶ τοῦR διόλουE φλυαρεῖς.RVENM ὕθλος γὰρ ὁ φλύαροςRV; [Hdn.] Epimerismoi p. 139.6 ὕθλος ἡ φλυαρία, καὶ ὑθλοµυθῶ τὸ φλυαρῶ. If 79 κλωγµός ̣[ is part of a new lemma (fr. 259h), -πεια (= e. g. [ἀνθρώ]πεια) at the beginning of the line might either go along with it or be the end of the note here. ὑθλέω and its cognates (etymology uncertain) are attested elsewhere in the classical period only in comedy (also Ephipp. fr. 19.1) and in 4th-century prose (Pl. Tht. 176b; Lys. 221d; R. 336d; D. 35.25), and are patently colloquial vocabulary. ὕθλος is eventually picked up Lucian as an Atticism (e. g. Tim. 42). fr. 259h = Eup. fr. 259.79 K.-A. κλωγµός clucking Meter Unknown.

lx Context POxy. 2813 fr. 1d col. II.39–43 = Eup. fr. 259.79–83 Κ.-A. πεια κλωγµός  . [ [ἀν80 θρώπων γ[ γλώττης [ τ̣ραγικὸς η̣[ ]δ .  . παδ̣[ 79–81 cf. Hsch. κ 3060 κλωγµός· ὁ διὰ τῆς γλώττης περὶ τὸν οὐρανίσκον ψόφος   79 suppl. Lobel

80

πεια clucking  . [ human beings γ[ of a tongue [ tragic (masc. nom. sing.) η̣̣[ ]δ .  . παδ̣[

of

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

329

Interpretation See fr. 259g n. 79–81 likely represent commentary on κλωγµός (〈 onomatopoeic κλώζω, and apparently an Atticism; for the formation, cf. fr. 166 n.), referring to a sound used inter alia by theater audiences to express their disapproval of a performance or performer:167 – D. 21.226 οἱ θεώµενοι τοῖς ∆ιονυσίοις εἰσιόντ’ εἰς τὸ θέατρον τοῦτον ἐσυρίττετε καὶ ἐκλώζετε (“when this man entered the Theater, the spectators at the Dionysia festivals used to whistle and klôzein at him”) – Plu. Mor. 813e ἡ … ἔκπτωσις οὐ φέρει συριγµὸν οὐδὲ χλευασµὸν οὐδὲ κλωγµόν (in political life, as opposed to the actor’s life onstage, “a mistake does not produce (merely) whistling, mockery or klôgmos”) – Alciphro 3.35.3 ἵνα, κἄν τι λάθωµεν ἀποσφαλέντες, µὴ λάβῃ χώραν τὰ ἀστικὰ µειράκια κλῴζειν ἢ συρίττειν (“in order that, even if we accidentally slip up, the city boys may not get an opportunity klôzein or to whistle”; an aspiring comic actor worries about his reception at the next festival) – Poll. 4.122 ἐποίουν δὲ τοῦτο, ὁπότε τινὰ ἐκβάλοιεν, ἐφ’ οὗ καὶ τὸ κλώζειν καὶ τὸ συρίττειν (“they used to do this”—sc. stamp their feet in the Theater—“whenever they drove someone out, for which (one can) also (use) the terms klôzein and ‘to whistle’”) – Harp. p. 108.3–5 = Ε 24 Keaney = Phot. ε 431 = Suda ε 485 κλωσµὸν ἔλεγον τὸν γιγνόµενον ἐν τοῖς στόµασι ψόφον, ᾧ πρὸς τὰς ἐκβολὰς ἐχρῶντο τῶν ἀκροαµάτων ὧν οὐχ ἡδέως ἤκουον (“they used the term klôsmos for the orally-produced sound they used to drive offstage performances they did not enjoy listening to”) – Hsch. κ 3060 κλωγµός· ὁ διὰ τῆς γλώττης περὶ τὸν οὐρανίσκον ψόφος, ὃν λάκησίν τινές φασιν, οἷον οἱ ὀνηλάται ποιοῦνται κυρίως (“klôgmos: the sound produced by the tongue on the roof of the mouth, which some authorities call a lakêsis, properly the sort that donkey-drivers make”) – Hsch. κ 3063 κλώζειν· τὸ ἐκβαλεῖν ἐκ τῶν θεάτρων· κλωγµοὺς γὰρ ἔλεγον κατὰ µίµησιν τῶν γινοµένων ἐν τοῖς στόµασι ψόφων, οὓς πρὸς τὰς ἐκβολὰς ἐχρῶντο τῶν ποιητῶν (“klôzein: to throw someone out of the theaters; for they used the word klôgmos in imitation of the sounds produced in their mouths that they used to throw out poets”) – Phot. ε 397 ἐκκεκλωσµένος· ἐκβεβληµένος· κλωγµὸς γὰρ ὁ διὰ τῆς γλώττης ψόφος, ᾧ τοὺς φαύλως ἀγωνιζοµένους ἐκ τῶν θεάτρων ἐξέβαλον

167

Treated at X. Eq. 9.10–11 along with a ποππυσµός (a kissing sound) as a pair of standard verbal signals to be used for training horses. Cratin. fr. 171.14–15 κατέπιν’ ἀκόναις / κλωγµὸν πολὺν αἰνετὸς ὑ[µῖν] (of Cronus swallowing his children) is obscure.

330

Eupolis

(“ekkeklôsmenos: thrown out; because a klôgmos is the sound made by the tongue by means of which they threw bad contestants out of the theaters”) – Phot. κ 803 κλώζειν· ἐκβάλλειν τῇ γλώσσῃ ἠχοῦντα· καὶ κλωγµὸν τὴν φωνὴν ἔλεγον ταύτην· ὑποσύροντες γὰρ τὴν γλῶτταν καὶ πλήσσοντες τὸν οὐρανίσκον ποιὸν ἦχον ἀπετέλουν (“klôzein: to throw someone out by making a sound with one’s tongue; and they used to call this noise a klôgmos, because by drawing down their tongue and striking the roof of their mouth they used to produce a sort of sound”) – Eust. p. 154.17–18 = I.237.1–2 κλώζεσθαι λέγονται καὶ ἀποσυρίττεσθαι οἱ ἐν θεάτροις νικώµενοι καὶ κλωγµὸν πάσχειν (“people in the Theater are said klôzesthai and to be whistled off and to suffer a klôgmos when they are defeated”) – Eust. p. 1504.29–30 = i.175.44–5 κλωγµὸς δὲ κατὰ τοὺς παλαιοὺς, ὁ ἐν θεάτρῳ διὰ στόµατος πρὸς τὸν οὐρανίσκον ἀποτελούµενός φασι ψόφος (“Among the ancients, they say, a klôgmos was the sound produced in the Theater orally against the roof of one’s mouth”). 82 may be commentary on a new lemma, e. g. the name of a tragic poet or actor mocked along with Syrakosios and Exekestos.

From POxy. 2813 frr. 2–4 Nothing can be said of this material (the physical relationship of which to the other fragments of the papyrus is unknown) except that there appears to be a reference to a sacrificial victim (ἱερεῖον) in fr. 259.85168 and to comedy or someone mocked in comedy ([κ]ωµωιδ[) in fr. 259.87 (both from POxy. 2813 fr. 2).

From POxy. 2813 fr. 5 The physical relationship of this fragment to the other fragments of the papyrus is unknown, as is whether it in fact represents commentary on Prospaltioi.

168

Cf. fr. 259.89 ]ερµατ(ων), i. e. δερµάτ(ων), “skins”?

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

331

fr. 259i = Eup. fr. 259.106–7 [εὐ]ρύκρειο̣[ν] [εὖ οἶ]δ’ ὅτι τι . [ 1 suppl. Lobel   2 suppl. Lobel ex 108 [ε]ὖ̣ οἶδ’ ὅτι

wide-ruling I am well aware that τι . [ Meter Unknown.

lllx llkx Context POxy. 2813 fr. 5.4–7 = Eup. fr. 259.106–9 Κ.-A. 106 [εὐ]ρύκρειο̣[ν] [εὖ οἶ]δ’ ὅτι τι . [ [ε]ὖ̣ οἶδ’ ὅτι π̣ [ ] ἔχθραν πα̣[ 107 suppl. Lobel ex 108 106

wide-ruling I am [well] aware that τι . [ I am well aware that π̣ [ enmity (acc.) πα̣[

Interpretation It is unclear whether these are two separate lemmata—the first of which must then have been provided with only a very short gloss—or fragments of a single, longer lemma. The echo of 107 [εὖ οἶ]δ’ ὅτι in 108 [ε]ὖ οἶδ’ ὅτι, at any rate, leaves no doubt that the former is a lemma, the latter commentary on it. I follow Austin 1973 in treating 110 as a fragment of a new lemma. If the next three lines instead continue the note, 110 likely represents part of the commentator’s paraphrase of what the speaker (“I”) claims to be well aware that the addressee (“you”) does, with the speaker (or the poet himself) returning as the subject of the verb in 111. [εὐ]ρύκρειο̣[ν] (or [εὐ]ρὺ κρεῖο̣[ν]) is likely a parody of the Homeric line-end formula εὐρὺ κρείων Ἀγαµέµνων (e. g. Il. 1.102; Od. 3.248)169 and thus 169

Thus Lobel (“presumably in a quotation or parody”), citing as a parallel Cratin. fr. 355, where the words κρείων ∆ιοµήδης, however, seem to belong to Antimachus rather than Cratinus.

332

Eupolis

mocking praise of whoever is being addressed. κρ must then make position, so that the word scans lllx. For [εὖ οἶ]δ’ ὅτι, cf. e. g. Ar. Pax 953, 1296; Lys. 764; Alex. fr. 253.2. fr. 259j = Eup. fr. 259.110 ]ω̣ βόσκεις ]ω̣ you nourish Meter Unknown.

lll Context POxy. 2813 fr. 5.8–10 = Eup. fr. 259.110–13 Κ.-A. 110 ]ω̣ βόσκεις [ κ]ωµωδεῖ θ . [ ]ξε δ(ὲ) ἵνα κακῶς ε̣ρ[ ]ν ὡς Φρύγα. µὰ ∆ί . [ 110 ]ω̣ you nourish by/with(?) he makes fun θ . [ but he/she/it …ξε in order that badly ε̣ρ[ ]ν as a Phrygian. (No,) by Zeus Interpretation βόσκεις is followed by a space equivalent to one or two letters, suggesting that this is the end of a lemma and that what follows is commentary on it, explaining how the poet or character is mocking (111 [κ]ωµωδεῖ) the individual being addressed. ὡς Φρύγα (“as a Phrygian”) sets up the reference to the Great Mother in 115 and is presumably intended to communicate inter alia that the individual in question is “slavish”, as in the reference to the otherwise unknown but allegedly Phrygian Spintharos at Ar. Av. 762 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; cf. Hermipp. fr. 63.18 “slaves from Phrygia”. fr. 259k = POxy. 2813 fr. 5.11–16 = Eup. fr. 259.113–18

115

]ν ὡς Φρύγα. µὰ ∆ί . [ ]ς̣ Εὐάνδρου τοῦ α[ or ]ς̣ εὐάνδρου τοῦ α[ ]ς̣ Μᾶτερ Μεγάλα [ ]ε̣ς αὐληταὶ ἐν ταῖς [

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

333

ἀρ]χόµ(εν)οι ἀνακρούεσ[θαι ]θει ξυ̣µµαιν . [ 114 Εὐάνδρου τοῦ Ἀ[ρκάδος] Lobel

115

]ν as a Phrygian. (No,) by Zeus ]ς̣ of Euandros the α[ or ]ς̣ of the α .  .  .  rich in men ]ς̣ Great Mother! (voc.) [ ]ε̣ς pipe-players in the (fem. pl.) [ be]ginning to strike [up (music) ]θει join in madness(?)[

Meter Unknown. Interpretation The extra space before 113 µὰ ∆ί(α) is most naturally taken to indicate a transition from commentary to a new lemma. For the oath itself (“(No), by Zeus”; not simply “by Zeus”, as if in affirmation, as in Rusten 2011. 262), see fr. 270.2 n. Whether 114 contains a personal name (Εὐάνδρου; seven other 5th-/4thcentury examples in LGPN II) or a high-style adjective (εὐάνδρου; e. g. Ar. Nu. 300 (lyric); Pi. P. 1.40 εὔανδρόν τε χώραν; Bacch. 9.17; A. Eu. 1031; E. Tr. 229 εὔανδρὸν … γᾶν (lyric)), is impossible to say, although there are other hints that this section of the play contained attacks on well-known individuals (esp. fr. 259m; and cf. fr. 259j n. on ὡς Φρύγα (commentary)). In any case, the word is likely drawn from the text. According to D.H. 1.33.4, the Arcadians brought various musical instruments to Italy, hence Lobel’s conjecture in 114, making this the name of their king (cf. D.H. 1.31.1). The vocative170 Μᾶτερ Μεγάλα marks this as a prayer or imprecation, and the Doric alphas for the expected Μῆτερ Μεγάλη add high-style coloring, as at Ar. Th. 124 (mock-tragic lyric),171 suggesting that these words too (llkkl) are drawn from a poetic text (presumably Prospaltioi itself). The “Great Mother” is the Phrygian goddess Cybele (esp. Pi. fr. *80 [δέσπ]οιν[αν] Κυβέ[λαν] µατ[έρα], “mistress Mother Cybele”; Ar. Av. 874–7 (Ιε.) στρουθῷ µεγάλῃ µητρὶ θεῶν / καὶ ἀνθρώπων—/ (Πε.) δέσποινα Κυβέλη στρουθέ, µῆτερ Κλεοκρίτου, “(Priest) To the great ostrich Mother of Gods and Men— (Peisetairos) Mistress Ostrich Cybele, mother of Cleocritus”; E. Ba. 78–9 µατρὸς µεγάλας ὄργια Κυβέλας, “rites of the Great Mother Cybele”; cf. E. Hipp. 143–4; fr. 472.13), whose worship penetrated Greece beginning in the 170 171

Not nominative (“the Great Mother”), as in Rusten 2011. 262. Cf. Lobel 1971. 52 “a quotation, or parody, of a non-Attic character speaking”.

334

Eupolis

7th/6th c. BCE, when she was assimilated to figures such as Rhea and Demeter. The worship of Cybele included ecstatic dancing to the accompaniment of the αὐλός (“pipe”) and the τύµπανον (“drum”) (E. Ba. 124–9; Diog. Ath. TrGF 45 F 1; cf. Ar. fr. 578 “the Phrygian, the pipe-player, Sabazios”, of another Phrygian deity closely associated with Cybele; Pl. Cri. 54d; Euthd. 277d), hence presumably the reference in the commentary here to pipe-players and (cultic) madness (118 ξυ̣µµαιν . [ from ξυµµαίνοµαι?). See Gantz 1993. 147–8; Parker 1996. 160, 194; Roller 1999, esp. 172–3; Lindner, LIMC VIII.1 p. 736; Allan 2004. 140–6; Munn 2006 (all with further bibliography). fr. 259l = POxy. 2813 fr. 5.17–19 = Eup. fr. 259.119–21 120

]ρ̣ο ̣ . [ ]ν̣ φαῦλον  . [] .  . ρ̣ . [ ] . υβ̣[ ] φ̣λαῦρο̣ν̣ κακὸν̣[ ] ἐπίπονον οὗ γ’ ε̣[

120

]ρ̣ο ̣ . [ ]ν̣ mean  . [] .  . ρ̣ . [ ] . υβ[ ] base, bad [ wearisome, of which in fact ε̣[

Interpretation 119–21 may simply continue the commentary on whatever lemma or cluster of lemmata is in question in fr. 259k. But the string of synonyms in 120–1 is easily understood instead as glossing φαῦλον (which would then be part of another lemma) and whatever else is concealed in 119. Kassel–Austin compare the commentary on the lemma πονηρ〈ότ〉ατος at Epich. fr. 98.34 ὁ µ(ὲν) [τὸν ἐπί]πονον σηµαίνει. fr. 259m = Eup. fr. 259.122 ] . κράτης ]-crates or ] Crates Meter Unknown.

kl Context POxy. 2813 fr. 5.20–3 = Eup. fr. 259.122–5 Κ.-A. ] . κράτης τοιχωρυχο[ ο]υσιν ἔνδον µετ’ ὀφέω[ν ] ἥρωες ζωγραφοῦνται α̣ . [ 125 ]ες κἀπικήκαστον ε̣[ 123 suppl. Lobel

124 οἱ] ἥρωεϲ Lobel

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

125

335

] . crates .  burglar ο]υσιν inside with snakes heroes are depicted α̣ ̣ . [ ]ες and reviled ε̣[

Interpretation The empty space equivalent to several letters that follows 122 ] . κράτης—a personal name, perhaps complete (numerous 5th-/4th-century examples in LGPN II, including the comic poet)—suggests that this is the end of a lemma, and that what follows is commentary on it. A τοιχωρύχος is literally a “wall-digger” and thus, in a society in which most structures were made of mud-brick, a “burglar”. The word functions as a simple form of abuse at e. g. Ar. Nu. 1327; Amips. fr. 23; Men. fr. 657, as perhaps here. ἔνδον µετ’ ὀφέω[ν] Snakes (123) are chthonic creatures and were therefore often associated with heroes (e. g. Kekrops at fr. 159 with n.; Asclepius at Ar. Pl. 733–4, 741; Sophocles/Dexion at S. test. 69 (although see Connolly 1998 for cautions about the historicity of the tradition); Kychreus of Salamis at Paus. 1.36.1) and similar figures (e. g. Hecate at Ar. fr. 515.1–2); see Mitropoulou 1977. Given the limited amount of information we have about Eupolis’ play, there is little choice but to associate the depictions of heroes (sc. in wall-paintings or the like) mentioned in 124 with the heroes referred to at 7–8 (fr. 259a; standing in somehow for Athenian citizens?). But how the various ideas preserved in this section of the commentary fit together is unclear.172 For heroes and hero cult in this period generally, see Boehringer 2001, esp. 47–131; Ekroth 2002; Currie 2005. 31–200; Ekroth 2007. fr. 259n = Eup. fr. 259.125 κἀπικήκαστον ε̣[ and reviled173 ε̣[ Meter Iambic trimeter? e. g. 〈xlkl x〉|lkl

172 173

kl〈kl〉

Storey 2011. 203 “inside the heroes are depicted with serpents” begs the issue by ignoring the lacuna. Not a superlative (Storey 2011. 203 “most reproachable”, apparently misunderstanding the significance of the ending in -ιστος in the gloss in Phot. = Eust. ἐπονείδιστος, which is 〈 ὀνειδίζω).

336

Eupolis

Context POxy. 2813 fr. 5.23–6 = Eup. fr. 259.125–8 Κ.-A. 125 ]ες κἀπικήκαστον ε̣[ Σθενέ]βοια Προίτου τοῦ Κορι[νθίου ]ν̣ αὐτ(ὴν) λέγει οὗτος σ[ ] . [ ]νοντα αρ . [ 125

]ες and reviled ε̣[ Stheneboia (nom.) (the wife) of Proitos of Corinth ]ν̣ this man says that she σ[ ] . [ ]νοντα αρ . [

Interpretation The empty space equivalent to several letters that follows 125 ]ες suggests that this is the end of a section of commentary, and that what follows is a new lemma. The two-termination adjective ἐπικήκαστος—here presumably feminine accusative and referring to Stheneboia—is attested elsewhere only at Phot. ε 1579 = Eust. p. 1402.53 = i.37.16–17 ἐπικήκαστον· ἐπονείδιστον, καταγέλαστον (“epikêkaston: reproached, mocked”; probably from Paus.Gr. or Ael. Dion.), which may be originally a gloss on this verse. For cognates, cf. Call. fr. 656 κηκάδι σὺν γλώσσῃ (“with an abusive tongue”); Lyc. 545 κηκασµοῖσιν, 692 κηκασµόν, 1386 κηκάσῃ; [Hdn.] Epimerismoi p. 65.9–10 κηκάζω τὸ λοιδορῶ· κηκασµὸς ἡ λοιδορία; Hsch. ε 4371 ἐπεκεκήκαστο· ἐπωνείδιστο; κ 2482 κηκάδδει· λοιδορεῖ, χλευάζει; Phot. κ 658 κηκάζειν· κακολογεῖν; Suda κ 1499 κηκάς· ὁ λοίδορος. καὶ κηκασµός. Stheneboia, the wife of Proitos of Argos or Tiryns—not elsewhere of Corinth (which is instead where Bellerophontes came from), as the commentator or scribe here would have it—attempted to seduce her husband’s guest Bellerophontes and then, when Bellerophontes rejected her, accused him of rape. In the Euripidean tragedy that bore his name, Bellerophontes punished Stheneboia by luring her onto Pegasus’ back and then throwing her down from the sky to her death. The story is told by Glaucus at Il. 6.160–5, where Proitos’ wife is however referred to as Anteia; cf. also Hes. fr. 129.16–25; Ar. V. 111–12, 1074 (parodies of E. fr. 663 and 665, respectively, from Stheneboia); Ra. 1043, 1049 (Stheneboia as one of Euripides’ notorious “whores”); [Apollod.] Bib. 2.25–6, 30; Gantz 1993. 311–16, esp. 313–15; Cropp in Collard, Cropp and Lee 1995. 79–97 (on Euripides’ play);174 Ganshow, LIMC VII.1 pp. 811–12. 174

Cropp 1995. 83 puts Stheneboia before Prospaltioi (which he dates to 429 BCE, following the modern scholarly consensus) on the basis of this reference. This is a bold move—there is no mention in the commentary of Euripides—but might be right; the parodies in Aristophanes’ Wasps show only that the tragedy belongs

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

337

From POxy. 2813 fr. 8 The physical relationship of this fragment to the other fragments of the papyrus is unknown, as is whether it in fact represents commentary on Prospaltioi. fr. 259o = Eup. fr. 259.143 [ἐ]β̣άστασε supplevi

he/she weighed Meter Unknown.

klkx Context POxy. 2813 fr. 8.1–4 = Eup. fr. 259.141–4 Κ.-A. 141 ]είλετο ουχο [ ]αφήµ(εν)ος ε̣[ .]τω  ̣[ ἐ]β̣άστασε[ ]ινα παντ[ Interpretation βαστάζω is poetic vocabulary (see fr. 326.4 n.), making this likely part of a lemma. Some of the material above the word in 141–2—note the extra letter-spaces between ]είλετο and ουχο in 141, seemingly marking a transition from lemma to commentary or vice versa—or below it in 144 might accordingly come from the lemma as well.

From POxy. 2813 fr. 9 The physical relationship of this fragment to the other fragments of the papyrus is unknown, as is whether it in fact represents commentary on Prospaltioi.

before 422 BCE. Despite Storey 2003. 231, the metrical evidence collected in Cropp and Fick 1985 does not show that the play is “probably to be dated c.430 (see Cropp and Fick 1985:70)”. In fact, there is no metrical evidence for the date of the play (Cropp and Fick 1985. 90 “None”) and Cropp and Fick 1985. 70 date it only to 455–422 BCE, i. e. to anytime from the beginning of Euripides’ career to the date of Wasps.

338

Eupolis

fr. 259n = Eup. fr. 259.146 ]ν̣ τὸν Ὑβάδην [ ]ν̣ the man (acc. sing.) from the deme Hybadai Meter Unknown.

klkl? Context POxy. 2813 fr. 9.2–4 = Eup. fr. 259.145–7 Κ.-A. 145 ] ̣χ̣ην χαλινο ̣[ ]ν̣ τὸν Ὑβάδην [ ]ἀν(τὶ τοῦ) οὐκ ἔπεισεν̣[ 145

] ̣χ̣ην χαλινο ̣[ ]ν̣ (masc. acc.) from the deme Hybadai [ in place of “he did not persuade”

Interpretation Hybadai was an Attic deme belonging to the tribe Leontis (Lys. fr. 261 ap. Harp. p. 295.14–15 = Υ 2 Keaney; Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 pp. 66.24; 252.7–8 ~ St.Byz. p. 644.19–21; Phot. υ 8 = Suda υ 9 = EM p. 774.22; cf. Traill 1975. 46 “Little evidence for location; trittys assignment tentative from prytany lists”). τὸν Ὑβάδην—presumably giving the demotic of a man whose name has been lost from the text—is therefore likely from Eupolis, particularly since there is at least one extra letter-space after Ὑβάδην (likely marking a transition from lemma to commentary or vice versa) and since 147 is certainly part of a gloss. The material in 145 might accordingly also be part of the lemma, and some form of the verb χαλινόω (“bridle”, and thus figuratively “curb, restrain”) would make sense as a term to be glossed ἔπεισεν̣.

From POxy. 2813 fr. 12 The physical relationship of this fragment to the other fragments of the papyrus is unknown, as is whether it in fact represents commentary on Prospaltioi. fr. 259o = Eup. fr. 259.156 Ἀνάγυρον Anagyros (acc.)

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 260)

339

Meter Unknown. kklx? Context POxy. 2813 fr. 12.2–5 = Eup. fr. 259.155–8 Κ.-A. 155 ] . ανται κ(αὶ) [ ]Ἀνάγυρον[ ]εχόντ(ων) του[ ] .  . ις αιτια . [ 155

] . ανται and [ ]Anagyros (acc.)[ ]having (gen. pl.) του[ ] .  . ις cause(?) . [

Interpretation Anagyros was the name of an Attic deme belonging to the tribe Erechtheis; of its eponymous hero; of a foul-smelling plant that supposedly grew in the place; and of a lost Aristophanic comedy (frr. 41–66). Cf. Ar. Lys. 68 (playing on the proverb ἀνάγυρον κινεῖν, “to stir up trouble”); Hsch. α 4249; Phot. α 1432–3; Suda α 1842–3; Eliot 1962. 35–46; Traill 1975. 38; Kearns 1989. 148.

fr. 260 K.-A. (PSI 1213 = CGFPR *97) col. i

5

10

col. ii (Α.) ἐ]γὼ δ’ ἵν’ εἰσὶν οἱ καλ̣ο[ ] . . ~4 . . σδε χρηστῶν µ̣ . [ ε]ἰ̣ µὴ ποοίην ηνω .  .  .  . [ >―― (Β.) βα̣δίζεθ’ ὑµεῖς ὡς τάχ̣ιστ’ ε[ καὶ φράζεθ’ οἷα τἀνθ̣άδ’ ἐστὶ̣[

]κι ] . [ ]ερω ]δες ]ν χορόν ]ηι δέος ]ψειεν ἄν ] . βον ] . εθη ] . αρη

340

Eupolis 15

20

25

30

Προσπαλτίοισιν ἢ στρατιὰν̣[ πέµπειν κελεύετ’ ἢ κοµίζεσθ[ ἵνα µὴ καθῆσθαι φῶσ’ ἀναλίσκ[ ὡς οὗτος οὐδέν, ὡς ἔοικε, πείσετ[αι . >―― (Γ.) ἀλλ’ ἐρχόµεσθ’· ἀτάρ, τὸ δεῖνα, χρὴ [ πόσ’ ἄττα σοι πέµπωσιν. (Β.) εξεστι[ εἰ δεῖ γε τοῦτον ἐν κύκλῳ π ̣[ ἀλλ’, ὦγάθ’, ἔτι καὶ νῦν πιθοῦ πά[σῃ τέχνῃ .  ὁρᾷς̣ ̣ παρὰ̣ {ι} ῥείθροισιν ὅταν η[  3  ]δ[ ἢν µέν τις εἴκῃ τοῖς λόγοις, ἐκσῴζε[ται, ὁ δ’ ἀντιτείνων αὐτόπρεµνος οἴχε[ται.  αὕτως δὲ ναός—(Α.) ἀπό µ’ ὀλεῖ̣ς, ἄνθρωπ[ε, σύ .  >―― (Β.) ἅ̣νθ̣ρωπος ο̣ὗτος ̣ νοῦν ἔχοντα̣ς ̣ [ (Α.) ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ δυνάτ’· εἰ γὰρ πιθοίµ̣[η]ν̣[ τίν’ ἂν τ[  3  ]χν̣ην ε .  .  .  .  . [ >―― µέγα στένοι µέντ̣ἂν ακ[ (Γ.) ἡ̣ µεῖς δὲ ναῶν ναυτίλο[

10 [ἐ]γὼ Norsa–Vitelli   καλ̣ο[ legi : κακο[ὶ] Norsa–Vitelli   12 [ε]ἰ̣ Norsa– Vitelli   13 ἐστ[ὶ πράγµατα] Koerte : ἐστ[ὶ τὰ πράγµατα] Norsa–Vitelli : ἔστ᾽, [ἔπειτα δὲ] Fraenkel : ἐστ[ί· καὶ ταχὺ] Kassel   15 [ὑµεῖς ταχὺ] Norsa–Vitelli : [καὶ χρήµατα] Schmid : στρατείαν [σύµµαχον] Eitrem : [ὑµῖν ταχὺ] Koerte : στρατείαν [εἰς ἀγρούς] Luppe   16 κοµίζεσθ᾽ [οἴκαδε] Norsa–Vitelli : κοµίζεσθ᾽ [εἰς πόλιν] Goossens : κοµίζεσθ᾽ [ἐνθάδε] Austin   17 ἀναλίσκ[ειν τε πᾶν] Norsa–Vitelli : ἀναλίσκ[εις λόγους] Eitrem : ἀναλίσκ[ειν τ᾽ ἔπη] Schiassi   18 πείσετ[αι] Norsa– Vitelli   19 ἐρχόµεσθ’ Norsa–Vitelli : ερχοµεσθα (scriptio plena) pap.   χρὴ [σκοπεῖν] Norsa–Vitelli : [µαθεῖν] Stephanopoulos : fort. [λέγειν]   20 ἔξεστι[ν δέ σοι] Norsa–Vitelli : ἕξ ἐστι [ἄξια] Page   21 πε̣[ριστρέφειν] Norsa–Vitelli    22 πά[σῃ τέχνῃ] Goossens : πα[ρηγόρῳ] Norsa–Vitelli : πα[ραινέσει] Fraenkel    23 ὅταν ἦ[ι που] δ[ικῶν] Norsa–Vitelli   24–6 suppl. Norsa–Vitelli   25 αυτοπρυµνος pap.   28 δυνάτ’· εἰ Norsa–Vitelli : δυναταει (scriptio plena) pap. πιθοίµ[ην σοι τάδε] Norsa–Vitelli   29 τίν’ ἂν τ[έ]χν̣ην Norsa–Vitelli   “fort. ἐυ̣σ̣χ̣ηµ̣ ̣[” Kassel–Austin   30 ᾽Ακ[αµαντίδης λεώς] Goossens : ἀκ[ούσας ἡ πόλις] Austin : vel ἀν̣[?   31 ἡ̣̣µεῖς] fort. ὑ̣µεῖς   ναυτίλο[ισι προσφερεῖς] Norsa– Vitelli : ναυτίλο[ισι σέλµασι] Pieters

col. i ]κι ]ερω ]δες

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 260)

]ν chorus (acc.) ]ηι fear (nom./acc.) ] I/he/she/it would ] . βον ] . εθη ] . αρη

5

10

15

20

25

30

col. ii (Α.) But, where the good(?) are … ]  .   .   .   .  σδε of the good/useful (pl.) µ̣ . [ unless I do  .  .  .  (Β.) You (pl.) go as quickly as you can ε[ and describe what the situation here is like  .  .  .  urge (pl.) him/them either to undertake to send an army  .  .  .  to the Prospaltians or to convey  .  .  .  so that they can’t say I’m/we’re sitting idly about, wasting  .  .  .  since this fellow is apparently not going to be convinced. (C.) Alright, we’re on our way. But—uh—it’s necessary  .  .  .  precisely what amount they should send you.175— (Β.) εξεστι[ If it’s actually necessary to  .  .  .  this fellow in a circle. But, my good sir, now at any rate obey by all means. You see that beside streams, whenever  .  .  .  if someone yields to arguments, he stays safe; but he who resists, perishes root and branch. Likewise in the case of a ship— (A.) You’ll be the death of me, sir. (B.) This person … sensible men (acc.)176  .  .  .  But they’re (neut.) impossible; for if I were persuaded  .  .  .  what would τ[ . ]χ . ην ε .  .  .  .  . [ would be quite upset ακ[ (C.) But we  .  .  .  sailors of ships  .  .  . 

Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xlkl xlkl 〈xlkl xlkl

175 176

341

xlk〉l xl〉kl

Neither merely “what they are to send you” (Storey 2011. 207) nor “what sort of things they should send” (Rusten 2011. 263, as if the text read ποῖ᾽ rather than πόσ’). Storey 2011. 207, apparently taking the Greek to represent ἔχοντα σ[, translates “things that make sense”. But the idiom seems to be consistently used only of sensible persons, not of what they might believe.

342

Eupolis

5

10

15

20

25

30

〈xlkl 〈xlkl 〈xlkl 〈xlkl 〈xlkl 〈xlkl 〈xlkl

klkl 〈xl〉kl llkl klkl llkl llkl llkl rlkl llkl llkl klkl llkl llkr klrl llkl klkl llkl llkl llkl klkl klkl llkl

xlkl xlk〉l xlkl xl〉kl xlkl x〉lkl xlkl x〉lkl xlkl xlk〉l xlkl xl〉kl xlkl xl〉kl klkl 〈xlkl〉 l〈lkl xlkl〉 ll〈kl xlkl〉 l|lkl x〈lkl〉 k|lkl 〈xlkl〉 k|lrl 〈xlkl〉 k|lkl l〈lkl〉 l|lkrl 〈klkl〉 k|lkl klkl klk|l l〈lkl〉 llk|l ll〈kl〉 k|lkl x〈lkl〉 l|lkl k〈lkl〉 llr|l 〈klkl〉 l|lkl llkl l|lkl klkl k|rkl llkl k|lkl x〈lkl〉 r|lrl llkl x〈lkl xlkl〉 llk〈l xlkl〉 l|lkl 〈xlkl〉

Discussion Norsa and Vitelli 1933 (editio princeps); Koerte 1935. 263; Norsa and Vitelli 1935. 111–15; Goossens 1935a; Goossens 1935b; Goossens 1936. 516; Wüst 1939. 4–5; Schiassi 1944. 41–3; Galiano 1946. 132–3; Schmid 1946. 114–15; Schiassi 1955. 301–6; Gomme 1956. 76; Edmonds 1957. 398–401 with 399 nn. c–h; Pieters 1964. 190; Schwarze 1971. 115–20; Αustin 1973. 111–13; Luppe 1975. 201–3; Stephanopoulos 1983. 45; Storey 2003. 233–8, 244–6 Citation context A single, large papyrus scrap from a luxury edition dated by Norsa and Vitelli, the original editors, to the first century CE. The assignment

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 260)

343

to Propaltioi is based on the mention in 15 of Prospaltians (referred to nowhere else in comedy except at fr. 259.13); the original editors were uncertain of the identification, which is now generally taken for granted. POxy. 4301 (= adesp. com. fr. 1151), which mentions Cleonymus (cf. fr. 352 with n.) and Demaratus (cf. Th. 6.105.2) and is thus almost certainly from a play dating to the 420s or early 410s BCE, was apparently produced by the same scribe, although that text includes indications of change of speaker and is accordingly most likely from a different comedy. Text A handful of paragraphoi and dicola marking change of speaker have been added to the papyrus by a second hand. These indications are not necessarily accurate or complete, and likely represent nothing more than guesses by a reader. Precisely how the lines are to be divided among the various speakers is accordingly a matter of dispute (discussion of individual points under Interpretation); the assignment of 27–31 is particularly problematic. The line-numbers offered here are those of Austin 1973 (taken over in Kassel–Austin);177 Norsa–Vitelli 1935 did not number (and indeed did not even print) the remains of col. i. Interpretation Seemingly a conversation among three parties:178 (A.), who has stubbornly set his mind on a course of action (articulated in 10–12?) of which (B.) disapproves, as seemingly does (C.) as well (27 with n.); (B.), who has been arguing with (A.) before this (18, cf. 26) and continues to do so in 22–6, but who momentarily breaks off the conversation with him to issue orders to (C.) in 13–18; and (C.), who is consistently referred to in the plural by himself and others (13–14, 16, 19, 31?), and who is thus perhaps the coryphaeus but at least represents some group. 15 Προσπαλτίοισιν is too far removed from 14 φράζεθ’ to be comfortably taken with it, and is better taken with 16 πέµπειν. In that case, the point is not that (C.) is to deliver his report to the Prospaltians, but that he is to seek aid or support for them, and the simplest (and thus most likely) hypothesis is that he is a Prospaltian himself. 177

178

I also retain the identification of Speakers (A.), (B.) and (C.) from Austin 1973 (not printed in Kassel–Austin, who simply offer “( ? )” at a number of likely points in the text). Storey 2003. 234–6 reverses the identification of the first two speakers, so that his (A.) is Austin’s (B.) and vice versa. Storey 2011. 193 in his initial discussion of the play maintains the designations in Storey 2003, but then at Storey 2011. 205, 207 reverses course again to follow Austin 1973. Rusten 2011. 263 reduces the conversation to two speakers, which makes for far more difficult sense.

344

Eupolis

(B.) has been charged by another party (D.) with a responsibility that requires (A.)’s cooperation and that (A.)’s intransigence—for which (A.) feels he has good reason (12, 28–9)—has so far made it impossible to fulfill (17–18). (B.) therefore sends (C.) to report to (D.) on the situation and to ask (D.) to pursue an alternative plan—better put, to choose one of two different alternative plans—described in 15–17. That (D.) has the ability to dispatch troops and seemingly funds as well (15–16) suggests that he is a general or more likely represents some public decision-making body. Why (B.) wants (D.) to do this is unclear from what little of the text survives (although see below), except that this will apparently offer a way to work around (A.)’s resistance, and the implication of 22–6 is that (B.)’s willingness to appeal to (D.) increases the pressure on (A.) considerably: (A.) must cooperate (i. e. yield to persuasion) or risk ruining himself. Goossens 1935b. 335–40 (followed in different ways by Schmid and Schwarze) argued that (A.) was Pericles, that (B.) was Cleon, and that the situation presupposed in 15–16 is that in Athens in the early years of the Peloponnesian War: the choice is between sending an army to confront the Peloponnesian troops ravaging the Attic countryside—what (B.) would like to see happen—and Pericles’ policy of withdrawing the rural population within the city’s walls (cf. Th. 2.13.2 τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν ἐσκοµίζεσθαι, 14.1 ἐσεκοµίζοντο ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ τὴν ἄλλην κατασκευὴν ᾗ κατ’ οἶκον ἐχρῶντο, 18.4 οἱ γὰρ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐσεκοµίζοντο ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ); the Prospaltians—like the Acharnians in Aristophanes’ comedy of 425 BCE— are ready to fight, even if Pericles insists that they abandon their farms for the common good. On this interpretation, the money (B.) seemingly requests along with troops is presumably intended to bribe a Spartan king or general, as King Pleistoanax was supposedly bribed by Pericles to withdraw an army from Attica in 445 BCE (Plu. Per. 22.2; cf. Ar. Nu. 859 with Dover 1968 ad loc.). But the specification that (A.) must be Pericles requires a huge imaginative leap for which there is no solid evidence in the text, particularly since (B.) focusses not on the larger political and social situation, but on the need for his interlocutor to yield to good arguments and on the personal consequences of behaving foolishly (esp. 23–6).179

179

Sensible further remarks on the weaknesses in Goossen’s thesis at Storey 2003. 236–7. Schiassi argued on even more tenuous grounds that (A.) was instead a Heracles-Cleon figure.

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 260)

345

If (C.) is the coryphaeus speaking for the chorus,180 the Prospaltians are sent offstage by (B.) at 13, even if they seem not in fact to have exited by the end of the fragment (assuming that 31 is spoken by (C.); see below). Schwarze 1971. 118 argued that (B.)’s order must have been carried out by someone else. But perhaps this was instead a play like Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae, in which the chorus marches out of the orchestra during the parodos and is absent from the action for over 160 lines (Ec. 311–477). Alternatively, Storey 2003. 235 suggests a subsidiary chorus, like the jurors’ sons sent off supposedly to fetch Cleon at Ar. V. 409–10. In any case, this scene may well come from near the beginning of the comedy, setting up the problem the rest of the plot will work to resolve. 10–11 [ἐ]γὼ δ(έ) must be in emphatic contrast to some action expected or anticipated from another party (i. e. (B.)?); e. g. “[You do what you must;] but I for my part …”. Cf. frr. 124; 326.3; 347 with n. χρηστῶν Here perhaps specifically a term of political and social evaluation, as in fr. 129.3 (n.); compare οἱ καλ̣ο[ in 10. 13–17 Addressed to (C.). 13 βαδίζεθ’ ὑµεῖς For the verb (colloquial), see fr. 299.2 n. The pronoun merely adds a bit of liveliness to the request, as at e. g. Ar. V. 348; Ra. 174, 1524; Men. Pk. 526. ὡς τ̣ά[χι]στ̣(α) A common stipulation in requests to others to do or fetch something (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 119; Ar. Ach. 1094; A. Supp. 949; S. El. 1487; E. Cyc. 191; X. Cyr. 4.5.16; cf. Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.27). 14 τὰ (ἐ)νθάδ(ε) is used in the same sense at e. g. S. El. 1436; E. Cyc. 598; HF 617; Men. Sam. 433. 15–17 πόσ’ ἄττα ϲοι πέµπωσιν in 20 (n.) patently picks up on ἢ στρατιὰν̣ xlkl / πέµπειν, making it clear that the end of 15 included a second, neuter plural object of the infinitive. Schmid’s χρήµατα (“money”) is an obvious candidate, in which case the question means “How many men or how much money?”. κοµίζεσθ[lkl] must then be an option of a different sort, sc. should (D.) be unwilling to supply troops and funds, as he/it/they should, and only this option need be associated with the ἵνα-clause: if (D.) does not want to take positive action in support of (B.) and the Prospaltians, (D.) should call him/them home so as to avoid putting him/them in an impossible situation. For στρατιά, see fr. 402 n. For καθῆσθαι in the sense “sit (idle)”, see fr. 3 n.; LSJ s. v. 3. 180

Despite Storey 2003. 236, however, the word χορόν at the end of 4 does not show “that the chorus is present at this point”, although (as argued above) this is a reasonable hypothesis in any case.

346

Eupolis

Given the reference to the impossibility of convincing (A.) in 18, the object of ἀναλίσκ[ was more likely “words” (cf. Ar. Lys. 467 πόλλ’ ἀναλώσας ἔπη; Th. 1131 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; S. Ai. 1049; E. Med. 325), so that the verb means “waste”, than money (e. g. Ar. Eq. 913; Pl. 248), in which case the word would mean “spend”. 18 οὐδέν is an internal accusative with πείσετ[αι], as at Ar. Eq. 712 σοὶ µὲν οὐδὲν πείσεται (“he’ll pay no attention to you”). ὡς ἔοικε A common, presumably colloquial interjection (e. g. Ar. Ach. 240; Lys. 1106; Cratin. Jun. fr. 1.3; Amphis fr. 41.1; Anaxandr. fr. 40.11; Eub. fr. 72.2; S. Ai. 1139; E. Med. 522; And. 1.137; X. Smp. 4.49). 19 ἀλλ(ά) is assentient; “the first speaker usually speaks in the imperative, the second usually in the future indicative, but sometimes in the present … as though he had forestalled the command” (Denniston 1950. 17). ἐρχόµεσθ(α) is used similarly of a movement anticipated but not actually yet underway at e. g. Ar. V. 153; Lys. 935; Pl. Com. fr. 71.3. For ἀτάρ (seemingly colloquial in tone), see fr. 56 n. For τὸ δεῖνα, see fr. 261.1 n. 20 For πόσ’ ἄττα, picking up on something previously mentioned (sc. in 16, where see n.) and soliciting more detailed information about it, e. g. Ar. V. 530 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Ra. 55, 173; Arist. EN 1133a21–2; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 153.5; and see LSJ s. v. ποῖος II on the use of such forms rather than the expected ὁπ- in indirect questions. For ἄττα, see fr. 226.2 n. 21 τοῦτον might be either the subject or the object of the infinitive that presumably filled out the line, but seems more likely to be the object, since (B.) is interested in his own purposes with the money (D.) will send him. ἐν κύκλῳ is “in a circle” and thus, if the action in question is static (e. g. “guarding, standing about”) means “on all sides” or “from every side” (e. g. Ar. Ach. 998; V. 132; S. Ai. 723; Ph. 356), whereas if movement is involved, it means “progressing from one point to the next, rotating about” (e. g. fr. 108.1; Ar. V. 924; Pl. 679; Metag. fr. 6.11). γε “denotes that the speaker … is not concerned with what might or might not be true apart from the qualification laid down in the subordinate clause” (Denniston 1950. 141). 22 Cf. Ar. Ra. 1235 ἀλλ’, ὦγάθ’, ἔτι καὶ νῦν πρίω πάσῃ τέχνῃ. ὦγαθ(έ) is frequently used in expostulations (e. g. Ar. Eq. 160; V. 1145; Metag. fr. 2.1; Thugenid. fr. 1; Anaxandr. fr. 4.1; Clearch. Com. fr. 4.2; X. Mem. 2.3.16; Pl. Ap. 24d) and has neither friendly nor unfriendly connotations (Dickey 1996. 119, 139); presumably colloquial. ἔτι καὶ νῦν appears in desperate or final appeals also at e. g. Il. 9.259; Hdt. 8.22.2; Th. 6.40.1; And. 1.122; Pl. Cri. 44b.

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 260)

347

πά[σῃ τέχνῃ] (literally “by every means”, i. e. “no matter what, at all events, at all costs”) is used “to add urgency or insistence to an imperative” (Dover on Ar. Ra. 1235, quoted above) or a similar request (e. g. Ar. Eq. 592–3; Th. 65 with Austin–Olson ad loc.; Lys. 19.11; X. An. 4.5.16). 23–6 Adapted from S. Ant. 712–17 (Haemon offers advice to his father Creon) ὁρᾷς παρὰ ῥείθροισι χειµάρροις ὅσα / δένδρων ὑπείκει, κλῶνας ὡς ἐκσῴζεται, / τὰ δ’ ἀντιτείνοντ’ αὐτόπρεµν’ ἀπόλλυται. / αὔτως δὲ ναὸς ὅστις ἐν κράτει πόδα / τείνας ὑπείκει µηδέν, ὑπτίοις κάτω / στρέψας τὸ λοιπὸν σέλµασιν ναυτίλλεται (“You see that any trees beside torrent streams that yield181 preserve their branches, whereas those that resist perish root and branch. Likewise in the case of a ship, whoever stretches his sheet tight and yields not at all sails thereafter turned over, with his rowing benches the wrong way around”), although (A.) cuts (B.) off in 26 before he can get more than a few words into the second image in 26. After the first three words in 23, which cue the quotation, (B.) strips out many of the most important elements of the vehicle, replacing them with words and images appropriate to the tenor (“non felicemente”: Norsa and Vitelli 1935. 112). In particular, the Sophoclean trees are gone, their place having been taken by two men, one of whom yields to arguments—as (A.) refuses to do—and thus saves not just his branches but himself, while the other resists and is destroyed—which is what (A) can expect, if he will not begin to behave more reasonably. 23 παρὰ ῥείθροισιν is thus left stranded; did one not know the lines from Antigone, the words would make no sense. 25–6 αὐτόπρεµνος οἴχε[ται.] / αὕτως δὲ ναός then returns to a faithful version of the Sophoclean exemplar before (A.) interrupts. The same passage of Antigone is reworked into praise of drinking at Antiph. fr. 228.3–7, where the words after δένδρων in Ant. 713 are replaced by ἀεὶ τὴν νύκτα καὶ τὴν ἡµέραν / βρέχεται, µέγεθος καὶ κάλλος οἷα γίγνεται (“that stay moist all day and all night long, how large and beautiful they grow”), while Ant. 714 is split at the caesura and additional material spliced in,182 yielding τὰ δ’ ἀντιτείνονθ’ οἱονεὶ δίψαν τινὰ / ἢ ξηρασίαν ἔχοντ’ αὐτόπρεµν’ ἀπόλλυται (“whereas those that resist, having some sort of thirst or dryness, as it were, perish root and branch”). See in general Sarati 1996. 125–6. 25 Austin 1973. 113 compares E. fr. 654.2 ὁ µὴ ἀντιτείνων τοῖς λόγοις σοφώτερος.

181

182

Scarcely “yield to the wind” (Rusten 2011. 263 n. 48): the point is that the water has risen rapidly and covered the trees, and its force is such that they will either have their branches torn away or be ripped out of the ground completely. Naber deleted these words, which are in any case transmitted by Athenaeus.

348

Eupolis

26 ἀπό µ’ ὀλεῖς A colloquial expression of exasperation with the behavior of another person, equivalent to a curse (~ “Damn you!”); cf. fr. 79 ἐξαπολεῖς µε; Pherecr. fr. 113.20 οἴµ’ ὡς ἀπολεῖς µ’; Ar. Ach. 470 ἀπολεῖς µ’; V. 849, 1202 ἀπολεῖς µε, 1449 οἴµ’ ὡς ἀπολεῖς µε; Th. 1073 ἀπολεῖς µ’, ὦ γραῦ; Pl. Com. fr. 208.1 οἴµοι τάλας, ἀπολεῖς µ’; Alex. fr. 177.15 ἀπολεῖ µ᾽ οὑτοσί; Men. Dysc. 412 ἀπολεῖς; Theognet. fr. 1.1 ἄνθρωπ’, ἀπολεῖς µε; Agathon TrGF 39 F 13.1. For the tmesis, cf. Ar. Pl. 65 ἀπό σ’ ὀλῶ κακὸν κακῶς; and see Bruhn 1963 § 63. ἄνθρωπ[ε] is an essentially neutral form of address, particularly when used for someone one does not know (~ “sir”). Here, however, it is patently hostile in tone, as at e. g. Ar. Ach. 818; Nu. 1495; Theognet. fr. 1.1 (quoted above). Cf. Dickey 1996. 150–4; Collard 2005. 369; Finglass 2011 on S. Ai. 791. 27 Addressed to a third party, presumably (C.), if (A.) is the speaker and (C.) has not already exited (cf. 19), otherwise the world at large, i. e. the audience. Forms of ἅνθρωπος οὗτος routinely express frustration, surprise, contempt, indignation or the like (e. g. Ar. Ach. 576; Nu. 492; V. 495; Ec. 811; Pl. 68; Alex. fr. 177.3–4; And. 1.135; Pl. Smp. 221d). νοῦν ἔχοντας For νοῦν ἔχω in the colloquial sense “be sensible”, e. g. Ar. Nu. 835; Th. 291; S. Tr. 553; E. Andr. 944; Ba. 252; fr. 256.1; X. Mem. 3.12.7. What followed might have been something like “fails to heed”, if (B.) is the speaker, or “abuses”, if (A.)’s rant continues. 28 ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ δυνατ(ά) “But these are impossible (arguments/ requests)”—note that δυνάτ’ is an adjective, not an elided form of δύναται— sc. “to accept”; cf. fr. 76.1 ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ δυνατόν ἐστιν; Thgn. 626 τοῦτο γὰρ οὐ δυνατόν. 30 Cf. Ar. Ach. 162 ὑποστένοι µέντἂν ὁ θρανίτης λεώς; E. Cyc. 198 τἂν µεγάλα γ’ ἡ Τροία στένοι (both cited by Kassel–Austin).183 For the identity of the speaker, see on µέντ̣(οι) below. µέγα is adverbial; cf. e. g. Cratin. fr. 102.2 καυχᾶσθαι µέγα (“to boast loudly”); Ar. Nu. 393 µέγα βροντᾶν (“to thunder loudly”); V. 618 µέγα  … κατέπαρδεν (“it farts loudly”), 963 λέξον µέγα (“speak loudly!”); Sannyr. fr. 8.4 ἀνακράγοι … ἂν … µέγα (“he would shout loudly”).

183

Schmid 1946. 115 calls the expression “hochtragisch”, but is able to cite only Cyclops (satyr play, and thus not tragedy at all) as a parallel. Despite Storey 2003. 244, Rau 1967. 186 does not argue that both Eupolis and Aristophanes were echoing a nowlost tragic examplar, but merely claims that the Aristophanic passage has “Leicht trag. Affektion” (“a light tragic coloring”).

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 261)

349

µέντ̣(οι) + potential optative expresses lively surprise or, more likely here, indignation (Denniston 1950. 402). This might thus be a reaction by (B.) or (C.) to whatever (A.) said in 29. But it is just as easily understood as a further development of the thesis put forward in the preceding two verses via addition of a fresh perspective on the action: (A.) is concerned about how someone else (e. g. the city as a whole; thus Austin) might react, were he to give in to (B.). 31 seemingly picks up on 26 αὕτως δὲ ναός, and in the absence of other information is most easily taken to represent a claim by the speaker to be practicing (or at least endorsing) the sort of prudent behavior called for in the balance of the Sophocles passage quoted there (23–6 n.). Either ἡµεῖς δέ or ὑµεῖς δέ might be the reading in the papyrus; whatever the correct text is, the words mark an emphatic shift of subject—“but we/you”, in contrast to someone else. If ἡµεῖς is printed, the remark seems out of place in the mouth of (A.), who elsewhere refers to himself (10, 12, 26, 28) and is addressed and referred to by others (18, 21–3, perhaps 27) exclusively in the singular. If ὑµεῖς is printed instead, this might be (A.) addressing (B.) and (C.) collectively or (C.) alone; (B.) addressing (C.); or (C.) addressing (A.) and (B.) collectively.

fr. 261 K.-A. (244 K.) (Α.) τὸ δεῖν᾿, ἀκούεις; (Β.) Ἡράκλεις, τοῦτ’ ἔστι σοι τὸ σκῶµµ’ ἀσελγὲς καὶ Μεγαρικὸν καὶ σφόδρα ψυχρόν. † σέλας ὁρᾷς † τὰ παιδία 1 τὸ δεῖν᾿ (vel ὁ δεῖν᾿) Meineke : τὸ δεινῆς cod. : τὸ ante lac. pos. Heylbut   οὐ δεῖν᾿ 2 ἀκούειν; Herwerden   2 καὶ om. Σ Ar.   3 σέλας cod. : γελᾶς, i. e. γελᾷς Anon. ed. Ald. : γελᾷ 〈γάρ, ὡς〉 Cobet

(A.) Uh … are you listening? (B.) Heracles! This joke of yours is offensive and Megarian and extraordinarily clumsy. † flash you see † the boys Anon. in Arist. EN IV.6, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca XX p. 186.10–15 Heylbut Μυρτίλος ἐν Τιτανόπασι (fr. 1)· 〈 … Εὔπολις ἐν Προσπαλτίοις·〉 ――. διασύρονται γὰρ οἱ Μεγαρεῖς ἐν κωµῳδίᾳ, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἀντιποιοῦνται αὐτῆς ὡς παρ’ αὐτοῖς πρῶτον εὑρεθείσης, εἴ γε καὶ Σουσαρίων ὁ κατάρξας κωµῳδίας Μεγαρεύς. ὡς φορτικοὶ τοίνυν καὶ ψυχροὶ διαβάλλονται, καὶ πορφυρίδι χρώµενοι ἐν τῇ παρόδῳ Myrtilus in Titanopanes (fr. 1): 〈 … Eupolis in Prospaltioi:〉 ――. For the Megarians are disparaged in comedy, since they lay claim to it, on the ground that it was invented by

350

Eupolis

them, if in fact Sousarion, the first man to stage comedies, was Megarian. They are accordingly criticized as pedestrian and clumsy, and as using a purple robe in the parodos V

Σ Ar. V. 57 Μεγαρόθεν· ἢ ὡς ποιητῶν ὄντων τινῶν ἀπὸ Μεγαρίδος ἀµούσων καὶ ἀφυῶς σκωπτόντων ἢ ὡς τῶν Μεγαρέων γελώντων καὶ ἄλλως φορτικῶς γελοιαζόντων. Εὔπολις Προσπαλτίοις (v. 2)· ―― from Megara: either meaning that certain poets from Megara were lacking in talent and made dull jokes, or that the Megarians laugh and joke in a generally tiresome fashion. Eupolis in Prospaltioi (v. 2): ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lkl llkl klkl l|lkr llkl kl†kkkl † klkl Discussion Fritzsche 1836. 131; Bergk 1838. 359–60; Cobet 1858. 160; Meineke 1839 II.521–3; Wilamowitz 1875. 328; Kock 1880 I.323–4; Luebke 1883. 47; Körte 1905. 414–16; Schiassi 1944. 36–41; Schiassi 1955. 299–301; Edmonds 1957. 399 n. a; Ostuni 1980; Storey 2003. 238, 242; Olson 2007. 67–8 (A22); Storey 2011. 207 Citation context The richly informed anonymous note on Aristotle that cites these verses (= com. dor. test. 7) assigns them to Myrtilus, and then goes on to quote Ar. V. 57 µηδ’ αὖ γέλωτα Μεγαρόθεν κεκλεµµένον (“nor, moreover, laughter stolen from Megara”) and Ecphantid. fr. 3 (quoted in Interpretation). That the much shorter scholion to Ar. V. 57 (= com. dor. test. 8) also cites the second verse of the fragment leaves little doubt that both notes go back to the same lost source, while making it clear that the fragment of Myrtilus and the reference to Eupolis’ Prospaltioi have dropped out of the text of the commentator on Aristotle, as a result of which these verses are assigned to the wrong poet there. Text In 1, the paradosis τὸ δεινῆς is patently garbled, and the easiest correction is Meineke’s τὸ δεῖν᾿, which is colloquial (see Interpretation) and must have confused a copyist, who wrote δεινῆς so as to make the word dependent on ἀκούεις (“Do you hear a terrible (voice)?” vel sim.; thus the text of Heylbut, the editor of the standard edition of the Aristotle commentary, who took τό to be the final word before the lacuna rather than the first word after it). The scholion to Aristophanes, which preserves only 2, has dropped the second καί so as to take σφόδρα with Μεγαρικόν.

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 261)

351

In 3, the unmetrical and nonsensical σέλας ὁρᾷς τὰ παιδία is transmitted. Kassel–Austin, adopting a conjecture drawn from the Aldine edition of the Aristotle commentary, print † γελᾶς (i. e. γελᾷς) ὁρᾷς τὰ παιδία (“You mock the boys, you see” vel sim.),184 which scans but has little else to recommend it. Cobet’s γελᾷ 〈γάρ, ὡς〉 ὁρᾷς, τὰ παιδία (“for the boys”, sc. in the audience, “are laughing, as you see”; cf. Ar. Nu. 539 τοῖς παιδίοις ἵν’ ᾖ γέλως, “so that the boys would laugh”; referring to ostentatious display of the stage phallus) is better, particularly if one assumes with Wilamowitz a change of speaker and the sense “(No), for …” (Denniston 1950. 74–5). But the common colloquial use of ὁρᾷς in reproach (see Interpretation) counts against the interpretation. In any case, all this takes us very far from the text as it has been passed down to us, and it seems better to concede that we do not know what Eupolis wrote. Ecphantid. fr. 3, quoted a few lines further on in the Aristotle commentary, is also irreparably corrupt. Interpretation (A.) has told a joke or the like; (B.)’s failure to react prompts (A.)’s question; and (B.) at last registers his shocked disgust. Koerte, by contrast, took ἀκούεις; in 1 to mean “Did you hear (it)?” and (comparing Ar. Ra. 9–10) argued that (A.)’s “punchline” was a fart. The material cited in the commentary to Aristotle is the only substantial evidence that comedy was performed in Megara in the 5th century BCE, as [Aristotle] implies at Po. 1448a31–2, although the scene with the Megarian at Ar. Ach. 729–817 (esp. 738 “But I’ve got a certain Megarian trick”, referring to the ridiculous device of dressing the two girls up as piglets to sell them) might reasonably be taken to suggest Athenian awareness of—and disdain for—such a tradition. For Megarian comedy, see Wilamowitz 1875; Breitholtz 1960. 31–82, esp. 34–74; Kerkhof 2001. 13–38, esp. 17–24; Olson 2007. 2–6; and on the question of the origins of the comic genre generally, Rusten 2006; Green 2007. 1 τὸ δεῖν(α) A colloquial conversational space-filler, used here as at e. g. fr. 260.19; Ar. Pax 879–80 τὸ δεῖν’, εἰς Ἴσθµια / σκηνὴν ἐµαυτοῦ τῷ πέει καταλαµβάνω (“Uh … I’m securing a tent-site for my penis for the Isthmian games”; Trygaeus’ slave, caught handling Holiday’s rear end, tries to explain his behavior); Av. 648 ἀτάρ, τὸ δεῖνα, δεῦρ’ ἐπανάκρουσαι πάλιν (“But … uh … reverse course in this direction!”; Peisetairos abruptly realizes that life in Birdland requires wings); Lys. 921 καίτοι, τὸ δεῖνα, ψίαθός ἐστ’ ἐξοιστέα (“Although … uh … I have to bring out a mat”; Myrrhine tries to come up with another missing item so as to keep Kinesias waiting); Henioch. fr. 4.3 184

γελάω + accusative is not used to mean “cause someone to laugh”.

352

Eupolis

Παύσωνι φῂς τὸ δεῖνα προσλελαληκέναι; (“With Pauson you say you’ve … uh … chatted?”); Men. Sam. 547 τὸ δεῖνα· µικρόν, ὦ τᾶν—οἴχεται (“Uh …; just a minute, sir—he’s gone!”; Demeas is deserted by Niceratus), and probably at fr. 260.19 as well. Cf. Moorhouse 1963. 23; Lowe 1973. 101; Chadwick 1996. 209–10; López Eire 1996. 114–16. Ἡράκλεις Oaths by Heracles are used routinely in comedy (seemingly only by men) to mark shock, surprise or horror in response to something unexpected (e. g. Ar. Ach. 284, 1018; V. 420; Av. 93; Pl. 374; Pl. Com. fr. 131 with Pirrotta 2009 ad loc.; Anaxandr. fr. 12.2 with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Eub. fr. 89.5), in this case (A.)’s awful joke. 2–3 The reproachful terms used to describe the joke follow an ascending trajectory from ἀσελγές (three syllables) to Μεγαρικόν (four syllables) to σφόδρα / ψυχρόν (four syllables with emphasis added via enjambment). 2 τὸ σκῶµµ’ ἀσελγές Cf. frr. 172.15 σκῶµµα … ἀσελγές with n. (on σκῶµµα); 345 n. (on the adjective). Μεγαρικόν For the form of the adjective, see fr. 66 n. σφόδρα Colloquial; see fr. 384.2 n. 3 ψυχρόν Literally “frigid”, a term of aesthetic disapprobation defined by Aristotle (in reference to rhetoric) as the result of an excessive reliance on compound words, odd vocabulary, peculiar epithets and strained metaphors (Rh. 1405b34–6b14; cf. Theophil. fr. 4.4), suggesting that what is in question here is a bad pun, as at Timocl. fr. 19.3–6; X. Smp. 6.7; Thphr. Char. 2.4 with Diggle 2004 ad loc. For other charges of “frigidity” of various sorts, cf. Ar. Th. 170 (of the tragic poet Theognis) with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc., 848 (of Euripides’ Palamedes); Alex. fr. 184.3 (of Araros) with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; adesp. com. fr. 442 ψυχροκοµψεύµατα (“frigid-refinities”); X. Cyr. 8.4.22–3 (humor); Pl. Euthd. 284e (argumentative style); Lg. 802d (musical style); and see in general Van Hook 1917; Gutzwiller 1969. 16–26. Parenthetic ὁρᾷς (or ὁρᾶτε) points “(often reproachfully) at a proof or illustration of something that the speaker has been saying or expecting” (Stevens 1976. 36–7; cf. Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 9.8).

fr. 262 K.-A. (243 K.) µήτηρ τις αὐτῷ Θρᾷττα ταινιόπωλις ἦν ἦν Schweighäuser : τὴν Ath.

His mother was some Thracian ribbon-seller

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 262)

353

Ath. 7.326a ὅταν δ’ Εὔπολις ἐν Προσπαλτίοις λέγῃ· ――, ἐπὶ τῶν ὑφασµάτων λέγει καὶ τῶν ζωνῶν, αἷς αἱ γυναῖκες περιδέονται But when Eupolis in Prospaltioi says: ――, he is referring to tapestries and belts that women wrap around themselves

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

l|lk|l

rlkl

Discussion Bergk 1838. 357–8; Meineke 1839 I.142; Kock 1880 I.323; Schiassi 1944. 41; Storey 2003. 242; Olson 2007. 200 (E6) Citation context From the end of the discussion of “ribbon-fish” (ταινίαι) in the long, alphabetically organized catalogue of fish-names that makes up much of Athenaeus Book 7 and that seems to be drawn mostly from Dorion. Text ἦν (Schweighäuser), which fills out the end of the trimeter, was converted into τὴν (taken to be governing ἐπὶ τῶν ὑφασµάτων … καὶ τῶν ζωνῶν) in the manuscript tradition of Athenaeus. Interpretation The man referred to here—presumably a prominent politician—is mocked via an attack on his mother, who is said to be both a Thracian (meaning that her son’s claim to Athenian citizenship is illegitimate; cf. frr. 61 n.; 298.3 n.; Ar. Ach. 704–5 (Cephisodemus as a Scythian) with Olson 2002 on Ach. 273 (on Thracian slaves); Ra. 678–82 (Cleophon as a Thracian)) and as a street-vendor (suggesting very low social status; cf. in general fr. 384.4–5 n.). Cf. Ar. Nu. 552, 555 = Marikas test. i (Hyperbolos attacked onstage inter alia via nasty caricatures of his mother); Ar. Ach. 478 (Euripides’ mother mocked as a vegetable-vendor); Pl. Com. fr. 61 (Cleophon’s mother was a Thracian); D. 18.129–30 (Aeschines’ mother was a low-class prostitute); Aeschin. 2.78, 180; 3.172 (Demosthenes’ mother was a Scythian); and see in general Henderson 1987b. 112–13; Hunter 1994. 111–16.185 For the shame of being reduced specifically to ribbon-vending—clearly a marginal occupation—see D. 57.30–1, where the speaker responds to an attack on his Athenian citizenship that included the observation that his mother sold ribbons and had worked as a wetnurse (for which occupation, see fr. 455 n.), and acknowledges that “we do not live in the way we would like”. For the reality of women’s outside-of-the-house labor in Athens, to the extent that it can be recovered from literary and archaeological sources, see Brock 1994; 185

Hermipp. frr. 9–10 are often held to similarly refer insultingly to Hyperbolos’ mother.

354

Eupolis

Kosmopoulou 2001. For slanders concerning the supposed foreign origins of prominent persons generally, see fr. 61 n. ταινιόπωλις The word is attested elsewhere only at D. 57.34, but is of a common sort (e. g. γελγόπωλις (Cratin. fr. 51), ἀρτόπωλις (Ar. V. 238), λαχανόπωλις (Ar. V. 497), ἰσχαδόπωλις (Ar. Lys. 564), ἀλφιτόπωλις (Ar. Ec. 686), µυρόπωλις (Ar. Ec. 841), λεκιθόπωλις (Ar. Pl. 427)), attesting indirectly to the complexity of Athenian economic life (cf. Silver 2009, esp. 246–8). ταινίαι (probably cognate with τείνω, “stretch”) are ribbons worn about one’s head for celebratory occasions of all sorts (Bacch. 17.105–7 (part of the costume of divine female dancers); Pl. Smp. 212e (worn by Alcibiades during a wild evening out)), especially in the event of a victory (Ar. Ra. 392–3; Eub. fr. 2.3; X. Smp. 5.9), but also used as funerary goods to mark tombs (Ar. Ec. 1032; fr. 205.1; Alex. fr. 147 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.).

fr. 263 K.-A. (245 K.) τί; κατακροᾶσθέ µου τὰ µουσοδονήµατα; τί; Goossens : ΤΙ tantum codd. : ἢ Austin   κατακροᾶσθέ “H.C.” : ΚΑΤΑΚΡΟΑΣΘΑΙ VR M Priscian. : ΚΑΤΑΚΡΟΑΣΕΑΙ Priscian. : κατακροᾶται Scaliger

What? Did you (pl.) listen carefully to my musi-commotions? Priscian. Instit. Gramm. 18.225 (Grammatici Latini III p. 320.4–8) Attici “κατακροᾶσθαι τούτου” καὶ “τοῦτον”. Εὔπολις Προσπαλτίοις· ――. nostri “audio” quidem accusativo adiungunt, “ausculto” vero tam dativo quam accusativo Attic authors (say) “Listen carefully to this (gen.)!” or “to this (acc.)!”. Eupolis in Prospaltioi: ――. Our authors, in fact, connect audio (“I hear”) with the accusative, ausculto (“I heed”) with the dative as well as the accusative

Meter Iambic trimeter.

krkl

klk|l

rlkl

Discussion Bergk 1838. 360; Meineke 1839 II.523–4; Kock 1880 I.324; Goossens 1935b. 346–7; Storey 2003. 243 Citation context From a discussion of Latin and Greek verbs that take two cases, with the Greek material apparently drawn from a now-lost Atticist lexicon; see in general Sonnino 2014 with bibliography.

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 263)

355

Text This is the punctuation of the line proposed by Goossens and adopted by Kassel–Austin (seemingly with misgivings, given the mention of Austin’s conjecture ἦ—i. e. ΤΙ analyzed as a misread Η—in the apparatus). Meineke and Kock opted for a single question mark at the end of the line, taking τί in the sense “Why?”. Priscian apparently read infinitive κατακροᾶσθαι, an aural error for κατακροᾶσθε (a correction by “H. C.”—probably Henry Cotton, a sub-librarian at the Bodleian at the time—printed in the 1820 Oxford revision of Johannes Scapula’s 1580 Lexicon Graecolatinum novum). Interpretation Addressed to a group (hence plural κατακροᾶσθε), presumably by a dithyrambic poet (see below). The question is more open than it would have been with a form of οὐ (“Did you listen?”, not “Didn’t you listen?”, which would imply that the addressees could reasonably be expected to have done so). κατακροᾶσθε The verb (modelled on καθοράω, “observe”) is attested nowhere else before the Roman period and thus suggests an interest in linguistic innovation (cf. below on µουσοδονήµατα). The prefix is intensifying (LSJ s. v. κατά E.V), “listen closely, intently”. For the simplex, see fr. 102.7 with n. For τί; alone, accompanied by no particle or verb, as an expression of puzzlement introducing an incredulous question (~ “What in the world?”; cf. colloquial English “What?”, as in “What? Are you crazy?”), cf. Ar. Ach. 750; Av. 1569, 1604, 1641. τί δ’; is used in a similar way at Ar. Ra. 73; Ec. 135, 525, 762,186 as is τί δέ; at Ar. Nu. 481; Ra. 798; Pl. 1150, at all which points simple τί; is possible and ought perhaps to be printed (and see frr. 99.103 with n.; 234 with n.). µουσοδονήµατα is attested nowhere else and appears to be a parody of high-style dithyrambic coinages, like Aristophanes’ ὑφαντοδόνητος (Av. 942; lyric, a dithyrambic poet modifying Pindar), ἀεροδόνητος (Av. 1385; the dithyrambic poet Cinesias is speaking), πτεροδόνητος (Av. 1390; the dithyrambic poet Cinesias is speaking) and οἰστροδόνητος (Ar. Th. 324; lyric; also attested at A. Supp. 573); cf. A. Supp. 16 οἰστρόδονος; [A.] PV 788 πολύδονος; Sarati 1996. 117. For δονέω (properly “shake”; poetic vocabulary) used of the production of music, cf. Ar. Av. 1183 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; Pi. P. 10.39; N. 7.81.

186

τί δ’; at Ar. Av. 23 (thus Wilson 2007) is merely a bad conjecture by Dindorf.

356

Eupolis

fr. 264 K.-A. (247 et 343 K.) ὅτι χωλός ἐστι τὴν ἑτέραν χεῖρ’ εὖ σφόδρα A

ἐστι  … εὖ σφόδρα Poll. : ἐστι  …, οὐ λέγεις Suda κ 2671 Σ Ar. : εἶ σὺ  … σφόδρα FS Suda κ 2670 : σὺ σφόδρα (ἐστι om.) Suda χ 425 Zenob. : ἐστι (εὖ σφόδρα om.) Poll.     ἑτέραν om. Suda κ 2670, χ 425 Zenob.

that he’s really quite crippled in his one hand Poll. 4.188 Εὔπολις δὲ καὶ τὸν τὴν χεῖρα πεπηρωµένον χωλὸν εἴρηκεν· ――. οὗ τὸ ἐναντίον ἐπὶ ποδὸς Ἀριστοφάνης (Av. 1379) κυλλόν· ―― But Eupolis also refers to someone with a disabled hand as chôlos: ――. As opposed to which, Aristophanes (Av. 1379) (uses) kyllos in reference to a foot: ―― Zenob. Ath. 2.37 κυλλοὺς δὲ Ἀττικοὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χειρῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ποδῶν ὁµοίως λέγουσι, καὶ χωλοὺς τοὺς χεῖρα πεπηρωµένους, ὡς καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Προσπαλτίοις (Miller : προσπλατείοις cod.)· ―― But Attic authors use kyllos indiscriminately in reference to hands and feet, and chôlos for those who have a disabled hand, as Eupolis (does) in Prospaltioi (thus Miller : prosplateioi cod.): ―― Suda κ 2670 κυλλός· ὁ πεπηρωµένος. κυλλοὺς δὲ Ἀττικοὶ καλοῦσιν ἐπὶ ποδῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χειρῶν ὁµοίως, καὶ χωλοὺς τοὺς χεῖρα πεπηρωµένους. Εὔπολις· ―― kyllos: a disabled person. But Attic authors use kyllos indiscriminately in reference to feet and hands, and (they call) those who have a disabled hand chôloi. Eupolis: ―― Suda κ 2671 κυλλός· ὁ πεπηρωµένος οὐ µόνον πόδα ἀλλὰ καὶ χεῖρα ὁµοίως. καὶ χωλὸς καὶ ἐπὶ ποδὸς καὶ ἐπὶ χειρός … τὸ µὲν κυλλὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ ποδὸς ἔτασσον, ὡς ὁ ποιητής (Il. 21.331)· ――, τὸ δὲ χωλὸν ἐπὶ τῆς χειρός, ὡς Εὔπολις· ―― kyllos: not only someone who has a disabled foot, but likewise also someone with a disabled hand. Chôlos too (is used) in reference both to a foot and a hand … They applied kyllos to the foot, as the poet (does) (Il. 21.331): ――, but chôlos to the hand, as Eupolis (does): ―― Suda χ 425 χωλός· καὶ ἐπὶ ποδὸς καὶ ἐπὶ χειρός. Εὔπολις· ――. καὶ κυλλοὺς οἱ Ἀττικοὶ ἐπὶ ποδῶν καὶ χειρῶν ὁµοίως

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 264)

357

chôlos: in reference to both the foot and the hand. Eupolis: ――. Attic authors also use kylloi indiscriminately in reference to feet and hands RVEΓ

Σ Ar. Av. 1379 ὅτι πολλάκις τὸ µὲν κυλλὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ ποδὸς ἔτασσον, ὡς ὁ ποιητὴς (Il. 21.331)· ――, τὸ δὲ χωλὸν ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς, ὡς Εὔπολις· ―― They often applied kyllos to the foot, as the poet (does) (Il. 21.331): ――, but chôlos to the hand, as Eupolis (does): ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl

k|lrl

llkl

Discussion Kock 1880 I.325; Nauck 1894. 73–4; Gerhard 1909. 200; Degani 1984. 97 n. 97; Storey 2003. 243 Citation context All this material appears to go back to a single source, which Erbse (noting Eust. p. 206.42–3 = I.315.16–17 ὅτι δὲ τὸ χωλὸν καὶ ἐπὶ χειρὸς τίθεται, ῥητορικοῦ λεξικοῦ ἔστι παρασηµείωσις, “That chôlos is also applied to a hand is an observation made in a rhetorical lexicon”) identified as Aelius Dionysius (κ 43; χ 23). Hsch. κ 4519 κυλλός· χωλός must be from the same source. The play-title is preserved only by Zenobius. Text εὖ (i. e. ΕΥ) is preserved only in Pollux, and appears to have been corrupted into σύ (i. e. ΣΥ) in the common ancestor of the other witnesses to the fragment, creating a problem with the third-person singular verb ἐστι. In response to this difficulty, (1) the common source of Suda κ 2671 and Σ Ar. emended to οὐ λέγεις; while of the other three witnesses, whose affiliation is apparent from the fact that they all omit ἑτέραν, (2a) Suda κ 2670 wrote εἶ σὺ … σφόδρα, while (2b) the common source of Suda χ 425 and Zenobius dropped the offending verb and retained σὺ σφόδρα. Kock dealt with the problem unhelpfully by positing the existence of two different fragments: fr. 247 K. ὅτι χωλὸς τὴν χεῖρα σὺ σφόδρα (anapests; = the text offered by Suda χ 425 and Zenob.), which he assigned to Prospaltioi, and fr. 343 K. ὅτι χωλός ἐστι τὴν ἑτέραν χεῖρ’ οὐ λέγεις (iambic trimeter; = a combination of the readings offered by Pollux, on the one hand, and Suda κ 2671 and Σ Ar., on the other), which he included among the fragments preserved without play-title. See the discussion in Nauck. Kassel–Austin note that a change of speaker might be inserted before εὖ σφόδρα, but that there is no compelling reason to do so. Interpretation A description of a male character (note masculine χωλός), dependent on some preceding construction (ὅτι). Gerhard (followed by Degani) took this to be a mocking reference to a miser, whose hand is twisted because he wraps it tight around his money, although it might just as well refer to a

358

Eupolis

person soliciting a gift, e. g. a politician (cf. Ar. Eq. 1082–3 τὴν τούτου χεῖρ’ ἐποίησεν / Κυλλήνην ὀρθῶς, ὁτιή φησ’ “ἔµβαλε κυλλῇ”, “(The god) was right to refer to this guy’s hand as Kyllênê, because he says ‘Put something in my twisted hand (kyllê)’”) or a god (Ar. Ec. 782–3 with Dunbar 1995 on Av. 518–19). Kassel–Austin appear to feel that Gerhard’s interpretation is unlikely (“sed vide ne obstent verba τὴν ἑτέραν”), but the nature of their objection is unclear. Sommerstein 2001. 247 takes the person in question to be the seer Diopeithes (PA 4309; PAA 363105), who is presented at Ar. Eq. 1085 as having a crooked—i. e. deformed?—hand (or better interpreted as a reference to his eternal readiness to reach out for gifts?). For physical disability in the ancient world and the treatment of it in comedy in particular, see fr. 298 n. As Aelius Dionysius—garbled in various ways by the late sources that preserve his words—appear to have insisted, χωλός (etymology uncertain) is a generic term meaning “crippled, disabled” which most often refers to the feet or legs (e. g. Ar. Ach. 429, of Bellerophon after his fall from Pegasus’ back; Timocl. fr. 6.15, of someone who resembles Philoctetes, i. e. with a bad foot), but need not necessarily do so (note Hippon. fr. 180 χειρόχωλον,187 defined at Poll. 2.152 as meaning “someone with a maimed hand”), hence the occasional specification “in regard to the feet/legs” vel sim. (e. g. Ar. Th. 24 χωλὸς εἶναι τὼ σκέλει; Il. 2.217 (quoted below); E. Cyc. 637–9; Hdt. 4.161.1). τὴν ἑτέραν χεῖρ’ is probably “his one hand” (sc. as opposed to the one that is not crippled; see LSJ s. v. ἕτερος I.1) rather than “his other hand” (sc. as opposed to the one previously discussed; thus Storey 2011. 209); cf. Il. 2.217 χωλὸς δ’ ἕτερον πόδα (“and crippled in one foot”; of Thersites); 12.452 χειρὶ λαβὼν ἑτέρῃ (“taking it in one hand”).188 For εὖ σφόδρα adding emphasis to an idea with a negative valence (here χωλός ἐστι), cf. Philem. fr. 78.4 τοῖς νοσοῦσιν εὖ σφόδρα (“those who are really sick”). For similar combinations of εὖ with another adverb in a sense roughly comparable to English “good and …” or “really well” (neither implying anything morally “good” or otherwise commendable about the situation), e. g. εὖ µάλα (e. g. Cratin. fr. 303.1; Ar. fr. 46), εὖ πάνυ (Xenarch. fr. 7.10; Men. Dysc. 878 (Blake)); see Thesleff 1954 § 366, and compare the common morally neutral use of εὖ alone at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 165.1 (“good and hard”); Ar. Nu. 1108 εὖ µοι

187 188

Miscited at Beekes 2010 s. v. χωλός as χωλόχειρος (unattested). Cf. also Ar. Ec. 161–2 οὐκ ἂν προβαίην τὸν πόδα / τὸν ἕτερον (“I wouldn’t advance either foot”, i. e. “I wouldn’t take a single step forward”) with Ussher 1973 ad loc. LSJ s. v. ἕτερος IV.1.a notes that the sense “the left hand” is mostly confined to the dative τῇ ἑτέρῃ (χειρί).

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 265)

359

στοµώσεις αὐτόν (“really sharpen him up for me!”); Ephipp. fr. 14.6–10,189 as well as χρηστῶς πάνυ at Men. Georg. 48 διέκοψε τὸ σκέλος χρηστῶς πάνυ (“he really gashed his leg good”; cited by Kassel–Austin).

fr. 265 K.-A. (246 K.) πάντα γὰρ τυχὼν ἄπει VRO

ἄπει Putsch : ΑΠΙ Priscian.

M

D

: ΑΙΠ Priscian. : ΠΙ Priscian.

for after you’re completely successful, you’ll leave Priscian. Instit. Gramm. 18.190 (Grammatici Latini III p. 297.18–21) “Impetro illam rem” dicimus, sicut ut Attici. Eupolis ἐν ∆ήµοις (fr. 125)· ――. Idem Προσπαλτίοις· ―― We say “I obtain that object (acc.)”, just as Attic authors do. Eupolis in Dêmoi (fr. 125): ――. The same author in Prospaltioi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xlkl x〉|lkl

klkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.523 Citation context From a discussion of Latin and Greek verbs that take two cases, with the Greek material apparently drawn from a now-lost Atticist lexicon; see in general Sonnino 2014 with bibliography. Text ἄπει is Putsch’s correction of the paradosis ΑΠΙ/ΑΙΠ/ΠΙ, which was garbled in various ways by scribes who knew little or no Greek. Interpretation An explanation (hence γάρ) of some preceding remark, addressed to a male character (hence masculine τυχών). Cf. in general Ar. V. 1462–4 πολλοῦ δ᾿ ἐπαίνου … / … / τυχὼν ἄπεισιν (“after obtaining much praise, he goes away”). πάντα … τυχών For the use of the accusative of neuter adjectives or pronouns with τύγχανω and similar verbs, cf. fr. 125 οὐδὲν ἀτυχήσεις ἐµοῦ with n.; E. Ph. 1666 οὐ γὰρ ἂν τύχοις τάδε (cited by Kassel–Austin); LSJ s. v. B.II.2.b, although some of the examples offered there may be simple cases of

189

Probably also Ar. fr. 82 εὖ γ’ ἐξεκολύµβησ’ οὑπιβάτης, ὡς ἐξοίσων ἐπίγυον (“The marine really leapt into the sea, as if he was going to carry a stern cable ashore!”).

360

Eupolis

attraction of the relative, e. g. E. Med. 758 τυχοῦσ᾿ ἃ βούλοµαι; Jebb 1883 on S. OT 1298 (“not as an acc. directly governed by the vb., but rather as a species of cognate or adverbial accus.”); Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.350; Bruhn 1899 § 40.

fr. 266 K.-A. (248 K.) ἢ πηλὸν ὀργάζειν τινά Lh

EΓ

V

πηλὸν ὀργάζειν Σ : πηλὸς ὀργάζειν Σ : πηλὸς ὀργάζει Σ

or to be working some mud190 VEΓ

Σ Ar. Av. 839 (ὄργασον) ἀντὶ τοῦ µάλαξον. Εὔπολις Προσπαλτίοις· ―― (work!) In place of “soften!”. Eupolis in Prospaltioi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter. e. g. 〈xlkl〉 llk|l Discussion Kock 1880 I.325

llkl

Citation context A gloss on Ar. Av. 839 πηλὸν ἀποδὺς ὄργασον (“Take off your clothes and work some mud!”; among Peisetairos’ suggestions for how Euelpides can occupy his time while his partner is preparing a sacrifice for the new gods of Cloudcuckooville); taken over at Suda ο 507, but without the citation of Eupolis. The verb was clearly regarded as difficult, and the note must be drawn from some lost lexicographer; cf. – Phryn. PS p. 93.2 ὀργάζειν πηλόν· τὸ διαβρέχειν. οὕτω γὰρ τὸ ὑγραίνειν οἱ ἀρχαῖοι (“to work mud: to get it wet. For this is how the ancients (said) ‘to moisten’”) – Poll. 7.165 ὀργάζειν, µαλάττειν. λέγεται δὲ καὶ πηλὸν ὀργάζειν (“to work, to soften. And the expression ‘to work mud’ is also used”) – Didym. In Demosthenem Commenta 14.7–15 ἔλεγον ὀργᾶν τὸ πρὸς ὁτιο(ῦν) ὁρµὴν εἰς ἑτοιµότητα ἔχον, καθάπερ κἀν τῶι βίῳ φαµ(ὲν) ὀργάσαι τὸν πηλὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ π(αρα)σκευάσαι πρὸς τὰς ἀλοιφάς. Σοφοκλῆς ἐν [Ποιµ]έσιν (fr. *510)· ――. κ(αὶ) Αἰσχύ[λ]ος (fr. 53a) ἐπὶ τῶν πρὸ τῆς

190

Or (with τινα taken as the subject of the infinitive rather than as modifying πηλόν) “or that someone is working mud”.

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 266)

361

Καδµείας νεκρῶν τ[ῶ]ν πρὸς τὴν ταφὴν ἑτοίµως ἐχόντων· ―― (“They used to use orgaô to refer to that which contains a ready impulse toward anything whatsoever, just as also in our life we say ‘to work the mud’ in reference to preparing it for application. Sophocles in Poimenes (fr. *510): ―― [quoted in Interpretation]. Also Aeschylus (fr. 53a) in reference to the corpses ready for burial before the Cadmeia: ――”) – Phot. α 808, a long note that begins with Cratin. fr. 374 ἀκοῦσαι ὀργῶ (“I’m eager to hear”); discusses various other senses of ὀργάω (supposedly in the sense “soak” at Archil. fr. 277); moves on to ὀργάζω in A. fr. 435a (“meaning ‘to beat out and soften [metal] by striking it’”191) and S. fr. 25; and then notes καὶ Ἡρόδοτος δὲ ἐν τετάρτῳ (4.64.2) ἀντὶ τοῦ µαλάξας τῷ ὀργάσας κέχρηται. οὐκοῦν ἐπεὶ τὸ µαλάξαι καὶ βρέξαι σηµαίνει ἡ φωνή κτλ (“and Herodotus as well in Book 4 (4.64.2) uses orgasas, ‘working’, in place of malaxas, ‘softening’. So since the verb means ‘to soften and to soak’ etc.”). Parallel material, likely all drawn ultimately from the same source or restricted set of sources, is preserved at – Erot. fr. 10 ὀργασµός· µαλαγµός. µέµνηται τῆς λέξεως καὶ Σοφοκλῆς ἐν Πανδώρᾳ λέγων (fr. *482)· ――. καὶ Ἀττικοὶ δὲ ἰδίως λέγουσι ὀργάσαι τὸ τὰ ὑγρὰ τοῖς ξηροῖς µεῖξαι καὶ ἀναφυρᾶσαι καὶ οἷον πηλὸν ποιεῖν (“orgasm: a softening. Sophocles as well mentions the word in Pandôra (fr. *482): ―― [quoted in Interpretation below]. And Attic authors as well use orgasai in a distinctive way to mean to mix wet substances with dry ones and to knead them together and to produce something like mud”) – Hsch. ο 1095 ὀργάζειν· δεύειν. µαλάσσειν (“to be working: to be moistening; to be softening”) – Hsch. ο 1109 ὀργάσαι· ἑτοιµάσαι. καὶ τὸν πηλὸν ὀργάσαι φασίν, ὅ ἐστιν ἑτοιµάσαι, φυρᾶσαι, βρέξαι, ἀναδεῦσαι (“to work: to prepare. They also say ‘to work mud’, which is to prepare, to knead, to soak, to moisten”; traced to Diogenianus by Latte) – Hsch. ο 1110 = Phot. ο 434 = Suda ο 506 = Tim. 313 Bonelli ὀργάσας· µαλάξας (“working: softening”) – Hsch. ω 307 = Tim. 464 Bonelli ὠργασµένος· µεµαλαγµένος (“worked: softened”; cf. Pl. Tht. 194c) – Et.Gen. AB = EM p. 629.33–4 (etc.) = Comanus fr. 18 Dyck ὀργάσαι τὸ πηλοποιῆσαι ἐστὶ καὶ ὑγρῷ ξηρὸν µίξαι (“to work is to produce mud and

191

Cf. LSJ s. v. ἐξελαύνω III, a sense otherwise attested in the classical period only in Herodotus.

362

Eupolis

to mix a dry substance with a wet one”), followed by fr. 787 (quoted under Interpretation) and Ar. Av. 839. Note also [Hdn.] Philet. 127 ὀργάσαι καὶ µάξαι διαφέρει· ὀργάσαι µὲν γὰρ ἐπὶ πηλοῦ ἐρεῖς, ἐπὶ µάζης δὲ τὸ µάξαι (“orgasai and madzai are different; for you are to use orgasai in reference to mud, but madzai in reference to barley-cake”). Text πηλὸς ὀργάζειν in ΣEΓ is nonsense, and πηλὸς ὀργάζει in ΣV appears to be an awkward attempt to correct it. πηλὸν ὀργάζειν (assigned to Ruhnken by Kassel–Austin, but according to Holwerda found already in ΣLh, and thus to be attributed to Triclinius or one of his sources) must be right instead. Interpretation One item in a list of alternative activities. The scholion clearly understands Eupolis to be using πηλὸν ὀργάζειν in much the same way as Aristophanes used πηλὸν  … ὄργασον in Birds; cf. S. frr. *482 καὶ πρῶτον ἄρχου πηλὸν ὀργάζειν χεροῖν (“and first of all begin to mix mud with your hands!”; taken by Hemsterhuis to be Athena’s instructions to Prometheus, sc. as he sets out to manufacture human beings, but by Pearson 1917 II.136 to refer to Hephaestus forming Pandora); 787 θέλοιµι πηλὸν ὀργάσαι (“I would like to mix mud”); Hdt. 2.36.3 φυρῶσι τὸ µὲν σταῖς τοῖσι ποσί, τὸν δὲ πηλὸν τῇσι χερσί (“they knead their dough with their feet, but their mud with their hands”; among the “upside-down” practices of the Egyptians). But Sophocles also uses πηλὸν ὀργάσαι to mean “to set wine-lees in motion” (frr. 510 ἔµισ[γ’] ὅσον δὴ̣ [π]ηλὸν ὀργάσαι, “he/she mixed it enough to set the lees in motion”; 787 θέλοιµι πηλὸν ὀργάσαι, “I’d like to set the lees in motion”; for this sense of the noun, cf. S. fr. 783; Hsch. π 2191 πηλός· οἶνος, “mud: wine”; LSJ s. v. πηλός II), and Eupolis may have meant this instead. τινά might either modify πηλόν (as in the translation offered here) or be the subject of the infinitive ὀργάζειν (thus “or for someone to knead” in Storey 2011. 209). But the latter is more difficult sense, in that it requires taking the two accusatives separately when the default assumption must be that they go together. Unlike βόρβορος (“slime”), which is disgusting (see Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 259), πηλός (no etymology; perhaps substrate vocabulary) has no particular emotional valence and is often employed as a term for the wet clay used to produce and mortar together sun-dried brick (also e. g. Ar. Av. 1143; Ec. 310 πηλοφοροῦντες, “mortar-carriers”, i. e. “hod-carriers”; fr. 63 “chaffless πηλός”, i. e. unfit for brickmaking), for potter’s mud (e. g. Ar. Av. 686 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; A. fr. 369), and the like (note esp. Pl. Tht. 147a πηλὸς ὁ τῶν χυτρέων καὶ πηλὸς ὁ τῶν ἰπνοπλαθῶν καὶ πηλὸς ὁ τῶν πλινθουργῶν, “potters’ clay and oven-makers’ clay and brick-makers’ clay”).

Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 267)

363

ὀργάζειν (cognate with ἔργον, “deed”, and ἔρδω, “do”, as well as with English “work”, German Werk, wirken) is Attic-Ionic vocabulary (in Ionic at Hdt. 4.64.2 (of working skin soft); Hp. Mul. 206 = 8.398.18, 400.21 Littré).

fr. 267 K.-A. (249 K.) TW

Σ Pl. Mx. 235e (pp. 182–3 Greene) Κρατῖνος (fr. *259) δὲ † Ὀµφάλῃ τύραννον αὐτὴν καλεῖ χείρων † Εὔπολις Φίλοις (fr. 294)· ἐν δὲ Προσπαλτίοις Ἑλένην αὐτὴν καλεῖ But Cratinus (fr. *259) † in Omphalê calls her tyrannos worse † Eupolis in Philoi (fr. 294); whereas in Prospaltioi he calls her Helen

Discussion Goossens 1935b. 344–6; Schwarze 1971. 122; Storey 2003. 243; Wright 2007. 428 Citation context From a richly informed biographical note on Aspasia— seemingly much condensed in the form in which it has come down to us—that also includes a reference to fr. 110 (n.); presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Another version of the same material, but without reference to this fragment, is preserved at Harp. p. 67.2–10 = Α 249 Keaney. Kassel–Austin take the initial part of the scholion to be a reference to Cratin. fr. *259 (from Cheirones), although Cratinus Iunior in fact seems to have written an Omphalê (frr. 4–5). Interpretation Sometime in the mid-440s BCE, the Athenian statesman Pericles (PA 11811; PAA 772645) divorced his wife—the mother of his sons Xanthippos (PA 11170; PAA 730515) and Paralos (PA 11612; PAA 765275)—and began to live with Aspasia the daughter of Axiochos of Miletus (PAA 222330; Nails 2002. 58–62). Whether Aspasia was a free person is an open question, although her son Pericles II was at least eventually treated as legitimate (cf. fr. 110 n.) and she herself is said elsewhere in Σ Pl. (citing at this point Aeschines Socraticus and—assuming that Dindorf’s correction of the text is correct—Call. Com. fr. *21, from Pedêtai) to have married the Athenian politician Lysikles (PA 9417; PAA 614815) after Pericles’ death in 429 BCE, all of which suggests that she was not a slave. The reference to Aspasia as “Helen” is most naturally taken to mean that Eupolis identified her not just as a beautiful seductress but as the cause of the Peloponnesian War, much as Dicaeopolis at Ar. Ach. 526–39 claims that the conflict had its roots in Pericles’ anger over two prostitutes who belonged to Aspasia and were supposedly kidnapped by Megarians (showing that she could still be mentioned onstage after Pericles’ death). Cf. [fr. *101.7] with n. and Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros, where if Dionysus/Paris

364

Eupolis

somehow represents Pericles (thus the fragmentary hypothesis = test. i.44–8), Helen (test. i.21, 29, 38) may similarly represent Aspasia. For Aspasia, see in general Davies 1971. 458–9; Henry 1995; Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 526–7. For Helen, see in general Gantz 1993. 564–7, 571–6, 663–4; Blondell 2010 (with bibliography).

365

Ταξίαρχοι (Taxiarchoi) (“Taxiarchs”)

Testimonia test. i V

Σ Ar. Pax 348 ~ Suda φ 604 ἀγαθὸς ἐγένετο στρατηγός. καὶ ἐν τοῖς Ταξιάρχοις δὲ φέρεται ὡς ἐπίπονος  … καὶ ∆ιόνυσος (Meineke : ∆ιονύσιος Σ) ἐν Ταξιάρχοις παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι µανθάνων παρὰ τῷ Φορµίωνι τοὺς τῶν στρατηγῶν (στρατηγιῶν Meineke : στρατειῶν Kaibel) καὶ πολέµων νόµους φησίν (fr. 274): ―― (Phormio) was a good general. And in the Taxiarchoi it is also reported that he was long-suffering … Also Dionysus (thus Meineke : “Dionysius” Σ) in Eupolis’ Taxiarchoi, while learning the customs of generals (“generalships” Meineke : “campaigns” Kaibel) and of wars at Phormio’s side, says (fr. 274): ――

Citation context See fr. 274 n. Related material is preserved at Suda σ 1097 στιβάδες Φορµίωνος· ἐπὶ τῶν εὐτελῶν. στρατηγὸς δὲ ἦν ὁ Φορµίων· στιβάδες δέ, ἐπεὶ οἱ στρατιῶται χαµευνοῦσι. λιτὸς δὲ ἦν καὶ πολεµικός (“camp-beds of Phormio: referring to inexpensive items. Phormio was a general; and ‘campbeds’ because soldiers sleep on the ground. He was frugal and war-like”).

test. ii Poll. 9.102 ἐν γοῦν Ταξιάρχοις … τοῦ Φορµίωνος εἰπόντος· (fr. 269.1) ―― In Taxiarchoi, for example, after Phormio said: (fr. 269.1) ――

Citation context See fr. 269 n.

test. dub. iii A polychrome painting in white-ground technique on a fragmentary unglazed domestic water-pitcher (Agora Inv. 23985) from a well-dump in the Athenian Agora north of the Nymphaeum (City grid Q 15) dating to shortly

366

Eupolis

after 400 BCE depicts two grotesquely fat figures (perhaps padded comic actors) facing one other with an unidentifiable object—Crosby 1955. 81 suggests that it might be a dog—between them. The names of the figures are given as [∆ι]όνυσος (“Dionysus”) and Φορ[, which was restored Φορ[µίων] (“Phormio”) in the original publication. If this is correct, these are almost certainly the characters in this play. But the second name might just as easily be Φόρ[κυς] (thus already Crosby 1955. 82 n. 49), referring to another minor deity, the “old man of the Sea” (e. g. Od. 1.72 Φόρκυνος θυγάτηρ, ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτοιο µέδοντος; 13.96; Hes. Th. 237 with West 1966 ad loc.). Cf. Crosby 1955. 81–2 with pl. 34c (the original publication); Webster 1960. 261–3; Webster 1978. 33–4; Handley 1982. 24–5; Storey 2003. 249 fig. 5; Csapo 2010 fig. 1.11 (but note that the illustration is of the Piet de Jong watercolor representation of the pot, not of the pot itself).

Introduction Discussion Bergk 1838. 360–1; Meineke 1839 I.142–5, II.524; Wilamowitz 1870. 32–5; Wilamowitz 1880. 66–7; Kock 1880 I.325–6; Kaibel 1907 pp. 1231.55– 1232.2; Geissler 1925. 32 + 1969. xii; Norwood 1931. 197–8; Schiassi 1944. 45–50; Schmid 1946. 115–16; Gomme 1956. 236; Handley 1982. 24–5; Bowie 1988. 185; Storey 1991. 1–3; Storey 2003. 246–60; Storey 2011. 208–10 Title We know of no other comedies entitled Taxiarchoi, but for choruses called after and thus presumably made up of participants in various aspects of Athenian public life, cf. Crates’ Rhêtores (“Orators”, i. e. “Politicians”), Telecleides’ Prytaneis (“Prytanic Officers”), Plato Comicus’ Presbeis (“Ambassadors”) and Leucon’s Presbeis (“Ambassadors”), while for choruses of soldiers and the like, cf. Pherecrates’ Automoloi (“Deserters”) and Hermippus’ Stratiôtai (“Soldiers”). Taxiarchs—the title of the play must preserve the identity of the chorus, even if in contemporary Athens there were actually only ten at a time—were tribal hoplite commanders, who were elected each year along with the city’s generals ([Arist.] Ath. 61.2 with Rhodes 1981 ad loc.). Taxiarchs’ duties included assisting the generals in compiling lists (κατάλογοι) of men from their individual tribes who were eligible for hoplite service; selecting those to be summoned for any particular expedition; considering requests for exemption from the draft-list and adjusting it if necessary; appointing lochagoi (“company-commanders” vel sim.); producing a list of no-shows when the general or generals mustered the troops before a campaign; and apparently putting the men in order on the battlefield itself. Cf. Ar. Pax 444, 1172–81;

Ταξίαρχοι (Introduction)

367

Av. 353; A. fr. 182.1; the Oath of Plataea (Rhodes–Osborne #88.25; inscribed mid-4th century BCE); Lys. 3.45; 13.79; 15.5; [Arist.] Ath. 61.3; Poll. 8.115; Christ 2001. 400–3, 407–8; Crowley 2012. 28–32. That there were not enough real Athenian taxiarchs at one time to fill out a comic chorus seems unlikely to have bothered the original audience; cf. Phrynichus Comicus’ Mousai (“Muses”, of whom there ought properly to have been only nine: Od. 24.60; Hes. Th. 60–1, 76–9, 916–17; see Harvey 2000. 106–8; Stamma 2014. 190–1). Alternatively, Taxiarchoi might mean “Taxiarchs and their Associates” or the like, like e. g. Cratinus’ Archilochoi (“Archilochuses = Archilochus and Other Blame Poets?”) or Telecleides’ Hesiodoi (“Hesiods = Hesiod and Other Early Hexameter Poets?”). Content We know from the test. i–ii that the god Dionysus and the Athenian general Phormio were characters in Taxiarchoi, and that at some point Phormio instructed Dionysus in matters having to do with war (test. i); fr. 274 (mentioning soldier’s beds) is supposedly drawn from this section of the play. Frr. 275 (someone describes a simple diet that includes items typically consumed by soldiers in the field) and 276 (one character tells another how to hold a shield in order to defend himself) have also been connected with the Dionysus-Phormio scene, although all that can really be said is that they touch on a similar theme. Nor does the fact that Phormio seems to be speaking in fr. 268d show that his interlocutor is Dionysus, and to insist that he must be is to fall into the trap of attempting to force every fragment we have of a lost play into the one scene about which we have a bit of general information. The combination of a chorus of taxiarchs (see on Title), a general and a new recruit suggests a marshalling site192 or a military camp as setting, and the reference in fr. 272 to the arrival of a male figure anticipating regular baths, i. e. a luxurious life, makes it clear that not everyone in the play was—at least initially—an advocate of the rough military lifestyle with which Phormio was traditionally associated. That the problematic character in question was Dionysus is a reasonable guess, given the contrast between his traditional finery and the need to go dirty (sc. now that he has become a soldier?) lamented in fr. 280. But Dionysus need not have been the only would-be or unhappy soldier in the play, and all we really know is that he appeared somewhere in the action, not that he played a leading role in the play.193 So too in fr. 269, 192

193

The Lykeion (located just outside the city walls to the east) is referred to as a marshaling spot for hoplites at Ar. Pax 353–6 (see Olson 1998 on 356); X. HG 1.1.33). But the precise spot chosen may well have varied depending on the circumstances. Why Dionysus should have chosen to become a soldier is unclear, and some of the humor of the play might have depended on precisely this absurdity (viz. Who

368

Eupolis

the fact that one of the characters discussing lunch is Phormio and the other speaker plays the fool, as Dionysus often does in Aristophanes’ Frogs, does not show show that Dionysus is the second speaker, although he might be. The reference in fr. 273 to a woman(?) to be auctioned off also makes it clear how little we know of what went on onstage in Eupolis’ comedy. Perhaps she is a member of Dionysus’ entourage (like the Bacchae in the eponymous Euripidean play), although this too risks trying to force the fragments of Taxiarchoi into a pre-conceived notion of a “standard Dionysiac plot”, and the individual ordering the sale is in any case unlikely to be Phormio (see n. ad loc.). The idea (first put forward in Wilson 1974) that Taxiarchoi included a rowing-scene that served as a precedent and perhaps a model for a similar scene at the beginning of Aristophanes’ Frogs in 405 BCE is based on fr. 268n (cf. fr. 268o) and is now treated as a critical commonplace (e. g. Luppe 1980. 118; Handley 1982. 24; Sommerstein 1985. 149 on Ar. Pax 348; Dover 1993. 39; Slater 2002. 186; Storey 2003. 248 “A comedy about Dionysus joining the navy”). But it finds very little support in the text of Eupolis (see n. ad loc.), and everything else—including the identity of the chorus, taxiarchs being responsible for recruiting and organizing foot-soldiers rather than rowers—suggests that the play focussed on the hoplite experience rather than military experience generally. That the Archidamian War served as a basic background to Taxiarchoi seems obvious, although the attitude the play adopted toward the hostilities is not apparent from what is preserved for us. Not every comedy that treated the war with Sparta, after all, need have been as deeply disgruntled with it as Aristophanes’ plays from the second half of the 420s BCE at least pretend to be. Nor need Dionysus always emerge unambiguously triumphant in comedies of the early Peloponnesian War period in which he plays a part (pace Bowie), as is apparent from the hypothesis of Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros (test. i.40–4),

could make a worse hoplite?); cf. Orth 2014. 72–3 on Aristomenes’ Dionysos askêtês (“Dionysus the athlete”). Wilamowitz connected Dionysus’ motivation with the claim at Androtion FGrH 324 F 8 (preserved by ΣV Ar. Pax 347, along with fr. 274; cf. Paus. 1.23.10) that Phormio was released from an unpaid fine that prevented him from participating in Athenian public life (i. e. because it rendered him ἄτιµος) via a payment of 100 minas † τοῦ ∆ιονυσίου. But the text is corrupt and obscure precisely at the point where Dionysus(?) enters the story, and the connections Wilamowitz alleges are tenuous. Storey 2003. 260 offers a series of extravagant suggestions about the plot of Taxiarchoi as a whole, none of them more than guess-work.

Ταξίαρχοι (Introduction)

369

which describes the god being carried out in bonds at the end of the action, trailed by his satyrs, who promise not to desert him in his difficulties.194 Phormio son of Asopios of the tribe Paianeia (PA 14958; PAA 963060), also mentioned in Astrateutoi (fr. 44), served as one of Athens’ generals in 440/39 BCE in the campaign against Samos (Th. 1.117.2; SEG X 39.11–12) and again in 439/8 BCE with an expedition of thirty ships sent to Acarnania (Th. 1.64.2). He was similarly elected to the post of general several times at the beginning of the Archidamian War (Th. 1.64.2; 2.69.1). Phormio’s greatest successes came in two successive defeats of much larger Peloponnesian fleets in the Corinthian Gulf in summer 429 BCE (Th. 2.83–92; cf. Ar. Eq. 559–64; Paus. 10.11.6; Lech 2009), but he campaigned on land as well (e. g. Th. 1.64.2). The male semi-chorus in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata (411 BCE) describe him as an old-fashioned hero like Myronides, τραχὺς … µελάµπυγός τε τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἅπασιν (“rough and dark-rumped to all his enemies”; Lys. 801–4); this is patently intended as praise, but given the old men’s own general nastiness and aggressive hostility to anyone who opposes them, it is difficult to know what the audience in the Theater was expected to make of the characterization. That Phormio was a prominent—perhaps beloved (cf. Cooper 1976), perhaps merely notorious—figure in Athens in the 420s BCE is apparent from the fact that Aristophanes also mentioned him in Babylonians (fr. 88) in 426 BCE and in the original Clouds I (fr. 397) in 423 BCE. Note also adesp. com. fr. 957 Φορµίων τρεῖς 〈ἀργυροῦς〉 στήσειν ἔφη / τρίποδας, ἔπειτ’ ἔθηκεν ἕνα µολύβδινον (“Phormio said that he would set up three 〈silver〉 tripods; then he dedicated one—made of lead”). See in general Westlake 1968. 43–59 (with passing reference to Taxiarchoi on p. 58). The final mention of Phormio in Thucydides is a reference to his return to Athens from a campaign in Acarnania in spring 428 BCE (2.103), at which point he must have been in his fifties or even older. The Acarnanians’ request that summer that the Athenians send them Phormio’s son or kinsman (Th. 3.7.1) can reasonably be taken to suggest that he was, if not dead by that time, at least no longer capable or willing to serve in the field.195 He is certainly

194 195

Cf. Storey 2003. 257–60, although the argument is colored by his attempt to put the play in the mid-410s rather than the early 420s BCE. See on Date. Meier 1852. 102 hypothesized that the depth of the Acarnanian affection for Phormio could perhaps be seen in the fact that at least one of them gave his son the Athenian’s name (known through a homonymous grandson granted Athenian citizenship in 338/7 BCE: PA 14961; PAA 962940). But Osborne 1983. 44 notes that the name Phormio is occasionally found elsewhere in the region, making this a possible but not a necessary connection.

370

Eupolis

spoken of as a figure from the past at Ar. Pax 346–7b (quoted at fr. 274 n.) in 420 BCE. See further on Date. Other 5th-/early 4th-century comedies in which Dionysus seemed to have played a part include Magnes’ Dionysos I and II, Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros and Dionysoi, Hermippus’ Phormophoroi, Aristophanes’ Babylônioi, Dionysos nauagos and Frogs, Aristomenes’ Dionysos askêtês, Demetrius Comicus’ Dionysou [gonai], Polyzelus’ Dionysou gonai, and perhaps Cratinus’ Satyroi, Phrynichus Comicus’ Kômastai and Satyroi, Ameipsias’ Kômastai (see Orth 2013. 250–1), Diocles’ Bakchai and Lysippus’ Bakchai and Thyrsokomos. But what little can be known (or hypothesized) about the plot of Eupolis’ play also recalls what may have been a standard type of satyr play plot, in which the chorus decide to take up an activity for which they rapidly prove to be utterly ill-suited, as in Aeschylus’ Thêoroi ê Isthmiastai (and see in general O’Sullivan and Collard 2013. 32–3). The following have also been assigned to Taxiarchoi: frr. 343 (Wilamowitz, guessing wildly, as with the other fragments); 353 (Luppe); 376 (Kaibel); 481 (Wilamowitz); 486 (Wilamowitz). Kassel 1966. 12 suggested that A. fr. **61a τί δ’ ἀσπίδι ξύνθηµα καὶ καρχησίῳ; (“What does a shield have to do with a drinking-cup?”) might be assigned to Eupolis’ play as well. Date The only solid evidence for the date of Taxiarchoi is the appearance of Phormio as a kômôidoumenos.196 We know of no other deceased contemporary 196

The play’s other kômôidoumenos, Opountios (fr. 282 with n.), was also mentioned in Aristophanes’ Birds (414 BCE) and in a play called Atalantai, which Kassel–Austin take to be a reference to Callias’ comedy by that name (fr. *4) and which must thus belong to the 430s BCE or earlier. Storey 2003. 247 argues that this Atalantai might be by Strattis and thus belong several decades later, closer to the time of Birds, when Storey prefers to date Taxiarchoi as well. But Strattis’ comedy is referred to as singular Atalantos or Atalantê eight of the nine times it is cited, and Opountios’ nose must have remained hooked—apparently the starting point of all the comic attacks—throughout his political or social career, which may easily have spanned several decades. Storey 2003. 247 also attempts to downdate Opountios by identifying him with the Opountios (PAA 748445) who was a candidate for ostracism in a year Storey takes to be around 416 BCE (i. e. the year of the ostracism of Hyperbolos), arguing that “As the kômôdoumenos and the candidate for ostracism are the only Opountioi in LGPN II, they should be the same person” and concluding that this Opountios accordingly “seems to be a kômôdoumenos of the 410s and the only secure dates for him are the mid-410s”. The archaeological context for the ostraka, however, places them unambiguously in the 480s or 470s BCE (see fr. 282 n.), meaning that (a) these must be two separate individuals and (b) the only evidence putting the younger man in the 410s is the mention in Birds.

Ταξίαρχοι (Introduction)

371

figure brought onstage as a character in a late 5th-century comedy unless he is explicitly hauled out of the Underworld, like the Athenian politicians in Dêmoi and Solon in Cratinus’ Cheirônes (fr. 246), or unless another character visits the Underworld to speak with him, as Dionysus visits Euripides and Aeschylus in Aristophanes’ Frogs (cf. Nicopho’s Ex Haidou Aniôn, “Coming up from Hades” with Pellegrino 2013. 55). Perhaps Dionysus went to the Underworld to see Phormio (as Kock, comparing Frogs, hypothesized), or perhaps Phormio was somehow conjured up from the dead. That there is no positive evidence to support either thesis in what little survives of the play does not make them impossible, but it does confine such theses to the realm of fantasy. The simpler and therefore preferable conclusion is accordingly that Taxiarchoi was staged before Phormio’s death likely in the early 420s BCE near the beginning of Eupolis’ career.197

197

Storey further cites as grounds for dating Taxiarchoi to the mid-410s BCE what an ancient scholar alleges is a reference to Sophocles’ Tereus in fr. 268b, combined with an allusion to that play at Ar. Av. 100–1 (414 BCE). But the Birds reference is a terminus ante quem for the Tereus, which is generally put in the early 420s BCE (Fitzpatrick 2001. 90 n. 3; Sommerstein, Fitzpatrick and Talboy 2006. 157–9 (giving undue deference to Storey’s dating); Milo 2008. 13–19, esp. 19, with further references), and as such is no more suggestive of the original date of performance than is the extended parody of Euripides’ Telephus (438 BCE) in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae (411 BCE). (For the possibility that POxy. 5093 col. iv.14–22 puts Tereus precisely in 431 BCE, see Luppe 2010; Luppe 2012.) Finally, Storey argues that because Taxiarchoi mentioned some unknown person as a lôpodytês (fr. 268l), and because Aristophanes mentioned the lôpodytês Orestes at Ach. 1166–8 and Av. 712, 1491, Taxiarchoi likely belongs in the mid-410s BCE. But there is no logical connection between the references to Orestes and Eupolis’ lôpodytês, and even if there were, one could just as easily argue that Taxiarchoi belonged around the date of Acharnians (425 BCE). More important, whoever the man targeted by Eupolis was, he was also mocked by Telecleides, whose career belongs firmly in the mid-440s to mid-420s BCE, meaning that fr. 268l argues for an early date for Taxiarchoi, not for a later one. At fr. 268.84 ξενοκ[, Lobel detected a mention of the tragic poet and dancer Xenocles son of Carcinus (PA 11222; PAA 732205) referred to at e. g. Ar. V. 1510–11. Even if Lobel’s thesis is correct, it does not allow us to date Taxiarchoi any more precisely within Eupolis’ lifetime. Handley 1982. 25 notes that an ostrakon cast against Cleophon (#601 or 602 Lang) and presumably dating to the mid-410s BCE (i. e. the last ostracism) was found in the same deposit as the Agora pot (test. iv), which—following Webster 1960. 261–3—he takes to be part of a set produced to celebrate a single dramatic victory and that contains a vase on which a seated man is depicted rowing a fish. Calling the ostrakon the “best guide to the date of the vases”, Handley suggests that

372

Fragments fr. 268 (POxy. 2740 = CGFPR 98) Fr. 268 as printed by Kassel–Austin consists of eleven papyrus fragments of a commentary on Eupolis found at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt and dated by Lobel, the original editor, to the 1st century CE. POxy. 2740 frr. 1–2 were found together, and due to a fortuitous overlap between fr. 268.16–17 and fr. 281 and mentions of Phormio in the commentary on fr. 268c and again in fr. 268d, are generally—and probably rightly—taken to treat Taxiarchoi. The other fragments of the papyrus (= fr. 268.56–176 K.-A.198) are in the same hand, but were found separately and may discuss a different play; Lobel accordingly declined to publish them together with frr. 1–2, confining them instead to an appendix. I nonetheless follow Austin 1973 and Kassel–Austin in discussing a few small scraps of what may provisionally be regarded as the text of a play by Eupolis (not necessarily Taxiarchoi) drawn from this material (fr. 268p–r).199 Austin 1973 (followed by Kassel–Austin in their edition) assigned the lines in POxy. 2740 continuous numbers, following the order of the individual fragments of the papyrus as printed by Lobel in the editio princeps. The physical relationship among the various fragments of the papyrus, and between POxy. 2740 fr. 1 (= Eup. fr. 268.1–21 K.-A.) and POxy. 2740 fr. 2 (= Eup. fr. 268.22–55 K.-A.) in particular, is actually unknown, and either POxy. 2740 fr. 1 or POxy. 2740 fr. 2 might have come first in the commentary. As noted above, the

198 199

Phormio was brought back from the dead in Eupolis’ play, putting it in the mid-410s BCE. Storey 2003. 260 develops Handley’s hypothesis further, suggesting that the pot with the man on the fish may also be an illustration of Taxiarchoi that depicts Dionysus’ triumphant return from an expedition to Sicily at the end of the action. But Webster was merely speculating and in any case observed that if a single play was in question, the other pots in the set suggest that it featured a chorus of fish-men and the characters Tyro, Pelias and Neleus—none of which matches what we know of Taxiarchoi. Perhaps more to the point, Crosby 1955. 76 identified the material from the well-deposit in which the Agora pot was found as produced over the course of several decades in the late 5th and early 4th centuries and then all merely swept up and dumped together. The date of the ostrakon accordingly has no bearing on that of the pot even if the latter does somehow recall Eupolis’ play. Not “fr. 267.56–171” (Storey 2011. 214). Storey 2011 and Rusten 2011—not unreasonably—ignore this material. Austin 1973 renumbered the POxy. 2740 appendix fragments, converting Lobel’s appendix frr. 1–9 into Austin’s POxy. 2740 *frr. 3–11.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 268)

373

relationship of POxy. 2740 frr. 1–2 to the more exiguous scraps of papyrus that preserve fr. 268p–r is even more uncertain. In addition, Kassel–Austin’s continuous numbering obscures the existence of a considerable gap between the two columns of text in POxy. 2740 fr. 2. POxy. 2740 fr. 2 col. I (= Eup. fr. 268.22–44 K.-A.) originally contained at least 26 lines of text (although the first seven are so badly damaged as to be almost entirely illegible), along with a lower margin. POxy. 2740 fr. 2 col. II (= Eup. fr. 268.45–55) contains only 11 lines of text (the first three badly damaged), ending at the same lower margin. At least 15 lines of text, equivalent to perhaps 3–4 lemmata plus notes, are thus missing between the bottom of col. I and the point at which the text preserved for us resumes in col. II. Left-hand margins of the columns or evidence of them have been preserved in many places and allow lemmata and commentary to be provisionally distinguished, in that (a) paragraphoi extending from the margin a letter or two into the text are frequently used to indicate lines in which lemmata or portions of commentary end, and (b) lines that begin with lemma text have often been made to extend one letter further to the left than those that begin with commentary text.200 In addition, a letter-space is sometimes left blank within a line between the end of a lemma and the beginning of the commentary that follows. Although no complete lines of the papyrus are preserved, a number can be restored with sufficient confidence to show that lines set to the left that begin with lemma material consist of 19–20 letters or letter spaces (see esp. 17, 18, 48, 52, 54), while lines that begin with commentary material consist of 17–18 letters or letter spaces (see esp. 50). Lobel presented the text of the papyrus with no substantial independent consideration of the text of Eupolis, a task first taken up in Austin 1973. Important additional improvements and observations were offered by Luppe 1980 (working backward through POxy. fr. 1 and fr. 2 col. I, but largely ignoring fr. 2 col. II). Kassel–Austin’s edition represented the first systematic effort to make sense of the individual lines of Eupolis, which are printed together on p. 458 of their edition after the presentation of the papyrus itself. Although I introduce a new reference system for the fragments designed to neutralize some of the unwanted implications of Austin’s count (while nonetheless referring to it throughout for the reader’s convenience), I follow previous editors and 200

The issue is occasionally complicated by examples of Maas’ Law, according to which lines of writing tend to move left down the column; see Turner and Parsons 1987. 5; Johnson 2004. 91–3.

374

Eupolis

commentators in retaining the order in which the material was presented in the editio princeps, although with the cautions noted above. My count of the fragments of Eupolis in the papyrus differs from that of Kassel–Austin p. 458, in that I include frr. 268i, 268k and 268p–r. In addition, I retain fr. 268n where it stands in the papyrus, between frr. 268m and 268o, rather than moving it to after fr. 268o, as they do (sorting by meter, as throughout their edition). Discussion Lobel 1968. 49–54, 102–7 (editio princeps); Luppe 1971. 118–19; Austin 1973. 113–18; Wilson 1974; Wilson 1976a; Luppe 1980; Slater 2002. 186–7; Trojahn 2002. 109–16, 168–9; Storey 2003. 256–7

From POxy. 2740 fr. 1 fr. 268a = fr. 268.5 K.-A. ]δειν εστ[ [ἰ]δεῖν Luppe

to … is/will be(?) Meter Unknown.

ll Context POxy. 2740 fr. 1.4–6 = fr. 268.4–6 K.-A. δελεγ[ >―― 5 δεινεστ[ >―― περισ[ Interpretation Paragraphoi between 4 and 5, on the one hand, and between 5 and 6, on the other, together with the fact that 5 δεινεστ is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark 4 and 6 as commentary and 5 as lemma. ]δεινεστ] Likely an infinitive (e. g. ἰδεῖν (Luppe) or ᾄδειν) followed by ἐστι/ἔσται; cf. Ar. Ec. 678 ῥαψῳδεῖν ἔσται; Men. Dysc. 77 συνιδεῖν ἐστι.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 268)

375

fr. 268b = fr. 268.7–8 K.-A. = S. fr. 595b.7–8 τοῦτ᾿ οὐ Σοφοκλέο[υς l

k]ρ̣εις νιν ἐς φ̣θόρ[ον]

τοῦτ᾿ οὐ Austin : [ποιη]τοῦ τοῦ Luppe   Σοφοκλέο[υς] suppl. Lobel   ]ρ̣εις vel ]φ̣εις leg. Luppe : [προ]θ̣είς Lobel : [ἀ]φ̣είς Austin : fort. φθέρεις   νιν] fort. νυν ἐς φθόρ[ον] scripsi : εἰς φθόρ[ον] Austin : εἰς φθορ[άν] Lobel

This isn’t from Sophocles … him to hell Meter Iambic trimeter. llkr l|〈lk〉l

klkl

Context POxy. 2740 fr. 1.7–11 = fr. 268.7–11 K.-A. τοῦτ᾿ οὐ Σοφοκλέο[υς ρ̣εις νιν εἰς φθόρ[ ]µενται τὰ δ᾿ ἀλλα[χόθεν 10 ]Σοφοκλέους ἐσ[τί ἐκ] ]Τηρέως δοκῶ [ 7 suppl. Austin   9 suppl. Luppe   10 suppl. Lobel

10

This isn’t from Sophocles ρε̣ ις νιν ἐς φ̣ θόρ[ον ]µενται, but what follows (is) from elsewhere ]belongs to Sophocles; from ]Tereus, in my opinion

Interpretation A paragraphos between 6 and 7 marks the beginning of a lemma, and 7 τουτου and 8 ρ̣εις are set slightly to the left of the material in 6, showing that at least the beginning of 8 is also drawn from Eupolis. 10–11 are certainly commentary—note the echo of 7 Σοφοκλέο[υς] in 10 Σοφοκλέους, as well as the emergence of the commentator’s own voice in 12 δοκῶ—and 9 as restored here (following Luppe) must be as well. An empty letter-space after 11 δοκῶ appears to mark the end of the note. τοῦτ᾿ οὐ Σοφοκλέο[υς] Thus Austin 1973, comparing Men. Asp. 427 Εὐριπίδου τοῦτ᾿ ἐστι, for the ambiguous 7 τουτου Σοφοκλεο[ .  For the reception of Sophocles in comedy, e. g. frr. 41.2 with n.; *260.23–5 with n.; Ar. Ra. 76–82; Phryn. Com. fr. 32; Olson 2007. 176.

376

Eupolis

-εις is likely a verbal ending with νιν as its object. Lobel took the partially preserved letter before ε to be θ and suggested [προ]θ̣είς.201 But the connecting tail expected with θ is absent, and rho seems more likely. The use of νιν for the expected αὐτόν/αὐτήν is tragic style (e. g. A. Th. 415; S. Ai. 82; E. Med. 1285 (lyric); attested in comedy only at Ar. Ach. 775 (a Megarian speaking what is supposed to be his local dialect); Th. 104/5 (the tragic poet Agathon is performing); Theopomp. Com. fr. 4.2 (dithyrambic style, but the text is disputed); Eub. fr. 107.1 (obscure, and the text is again disputed)); perhaps to be connected with the speaker’s previously expressed concern about whether a word or line is from Sophocles. Alternatively, this might simply be a scribal error for νυν. ἐς φθόρ[ον]202 (cf. A. Th. 252 οὐκ ἐς φθόρον; with Hutchinson 1985 ad loc.; Ag. 1267 ἴτ᾿ ἐς φθόρον; Epich. fr. 154.2 ἄπαγ’ ἐς τὸν φθόρον), a frozen expression, seems to be a more elevated equivalent of the colloquial ἐς κόρακας (fr. 359 with n.), and like it “comes dangerously near ‘go to hell’” (Fraenkel 1950. 585). The speaker thus remains in an elevated register. fr. 268c = 268.12 K.-A. ]ος λόγω e. g. [πέ]ος Luppe : [πλῆθ]ος Austin

]ος two words Meter Unknown. Context POxy. 2740 fr. 1.12–13 = fr. 268.12–13 K.-A. 12 ος· άρκετόν. λόγω[ ἀν] τὶ τοῦ ἀµφότεροι̣[ 12–13 λόγω[ τώδ(ε)· ἀν]|τὶ τοῦ ἀµφότεροι ̣, [δυικῶς] suppl. Luppe 12

201

202

ος: sufficient. two words [ in] place of “both” (nom.)

Adopted by Austin 1973. Kassel–Austin withdraw the conjecture, but nonetheless print ]είς rather than ]εις. Storey 2011. 210–13 prints προ] ̣είς and translates “abandoning”, as if the text read [ἀ]φ̣είς (Austin). Not φθορ[άν], as in Lobel and in Austin 1973.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 268)

377

Interpretation A paragraphos between 11 and 12 marks the beginning of a lemma, while another between 12 and 13 marks the beginning of a section of commentary; 12 ος is also set slightly to the left of the material above and below it. ἀρκετός (first attested in the New Testament and Josephus) is not classical vocabulary, while a form of προσαρκέω (tragic vocabulary: S. OT 12; fr. 524.2; E. Hec. 862) would contract to e. g. dual προσαρκεῖτον. Luppe 1980. 41 accordingly argued that 12 was the remains of one short gloss ]ος· ἀρκετόν (] os: sufficient”), while 12–13 λόγω[   ἀν]τὶ τοῦ ἀµφότεροι̣ (“two words: in place of ‘both’”; the papyrus λογω had already been taken for a dual by Lobel) was a second, with the two divided by what he took to be a larger than usual amount of space between -τον and λόγω. There is room for only about four letters between λογω and [ἀν-]at the end of 12. fr. 268d = 268.13–15 K.-A. [οὐ]κ̣ οἶσθ᾿ Ἄρη µοι τ̣οὔνο̣[µ l]α l

k l

[οὐ]κ̣ suppl. Lobel   τ̣οὔνο̣[µ]α suppl. Lobel : τ̣οὔνο̣[µ᾿ ἆρ]α Handley : τ̣οὔνο̣[µ᾿, ὦ νεανί]α Luppe

Are you unaware that my name is Ares? or: You’re unaware that my name is Ares! Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

l|lk〈l〉

x〈lkl〉

Context POxy. 2740 fr. 1.13–16 = fr. 268.13–16 K.-A. [οὐκ̣ οἶσθ᾿ Ἄρη µοι τ̣οὔνο̣[µ 15 α Ἄρης ὁ Φορµίω[ν ἐπεκαλεῖτο κό̣[ 15 suppl. Lobel

15

Are you unaware that my name is Ares? Phormio was nicknamed “Ares”. ko[

Interpretation A paragraphos between 13 and 14, together with the fact that 15 κ̣ is set slightly to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a lemma. That the speaker is Phormio is an obvious conclusion

378

Eupolis

from the commentary in 15–16, the information offered there perhaps being nothing more than a simple deduction from the text of Eupolis itself. If Phormio’s interlocutor is Dionysus, who has up to this point been in disguise (as when he first comes to Hades’ house in Aristophanes’ Frogs) and has now identified himself by name, one might imagine that Phormio responded with a mocking claim to be the god of war. [οὐ]κ̣ οἶσθ(α) often introduces astonished questions (e. g. Ar. Av. 609, 1641; Diph. fr. 76.2–3), but also simple statements of fact (e. g. Ar. Eq. 1337; Av. 1278; Alex. fr. 15.11–12),203 here perhaps a boast. Ἄρη µοι τ̣οὔνο̣[µ(α)] For nicknames in general, see Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 35. In this case, the point must be Phormio’s enormous bellicosity; cf. Ar. Pl. 328 βλέπειν γὰρ ἄντικρυς δόξεις µ’ Ἄρη (“You’ll think I look exactly like Ares”, sc. “because I’m so aggressive”). For Ares, see Gantz 1993. 78–81. There is room for 4–5 letters between ο̣[ at the end of 14 and α at the beginning of 15, meaning that τ̣οὔνο̣[µ l]α rather than τ̣οὔνο̣[µ]α is necessary. Luppe 1980. 40 suggested that the line might be filled out e. g. [ὦ γυναικί]α (“you sissy”), which seems too long for the space available (thus already Luppe himself), or [ὦ νεανί]α (“aber diese Anrede wäre recht blass”). fr. 268e = 268.16 K.-A. κό̣[κκυ πρῶ]τ̣οι right away Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic.

[llkl

klk|r

llk]l

kll

Context POxy. 2740 fr. 1.16–18 = fr. 268.16–18 K.-A. 16 πεκαλεῖτο κό̣κ̣[κυ πρῶ>―― τοι ἀντὶ τοῦ πρὶν [ εἰπεῖν κόκκυ. ηδυστρ[ 17 suppl. Tsantsanoglou 16

203

nicknamed. right away: in place of “before you can say kokku”. ηδυστρ[

At e. g. Ephipp. fr. 2.1–2 and Philetaer. fr. 6.1–3 either punctuation would do.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 628)

379

Interpretation = the final two words of fr. 281, where see n. The line seems more likely to have been spoken by Phormio’s interlocutor than by Phormio himself. An extra letter-space between [ἐ]πεκαλεῖτο and κό̣[ in 16, together with a paragraphos between 16 and 17, mark κό̣κ̣[ as the beginning of a new lemma. fr. 268f = 268.18–20 K.-A.204 ἡδὺ στρ[k

l x]θαι γε µήν ἐστι̣[ cck l]αµισθον

στρ[ατεύεσ]θαι suppl. Luppe : fort. στρ[ατηγεῖ]σθαι ἐστι[ν φέροντ]α µισθόν suppl. Luppe : fort. ἄµισθον

γε µήν Luppe : πλ η ̣ ν leg. Lobel

It’s nice, in fact, to … wage Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic. ll〈kl x〉lkl | ll〈kl〉

kll

Context POxy. 2740 fr. 1.18–21 = fr. 268.18–21 K.-A. κόκκυ. ἡδὺ στρ[ >―― θαι γε µήν ἐστι̣[ 20 αµισθον[ ἀ]ντ[ὶ τοῦ π̣ ο̣φ[ 20 ἀ]ντ[ὶ τοῦ] suppl. Lobel   20–1 [ἀ]π̣ ο̣φ[έρειν] Luppe : fort. [ἀ]π̣ ο̣φ[εύγειν]

20

kokku. It’s nice στρ[ θαι in fact is [ α wage : in place of π̣ ο̣φ[

Interpretation Seemingly praise of the soldier’s life (contrast fr. 268e = 281). An extra letter-space between κόκκυ and ἡδύ in 18, together with a paragraphos between 18 and 19, mark the beginning of a new lemma, and 19–20

204

Storey 2011. 212–13 prints the text as it appears in Kassel–Austin, but translates “It is pleasant to serve in the army 〈and earn a〉 wage: instead of receive”, which apparently represents an attempt to render Luppe’s conjecture into English. Rusten 2011. 265 prints his translation of the end of 2 “it (he?) is [ … ] a wage” in plain text, as it this were part of the commentary, and his translation of the gloss “[an expression used] instea[d of]” in bold, as if this were part of the fragment of Eupolis.

380

Eupolis

are set slightly to the left of the material above and below, making it clear that the quotation of Eupolis continued at least through αµισθον[ .  Luppe (who proposed [φέροντ]α µισθόν, “making a wage”, in the second half of the line) suggested that 21 ]π̣ οφ ̣ [might be supplemented [ἀ]π̣ οφ ̣ [έρειν]. [ἀ]π̣ ο̣φ[εύγειν] is also possible. ἡδύ κτλ For the expression, cf. in general Phryn. Com. fr. 60 ἡδὺ δ’ ἀποτηγανίζειν ἄνευ συµβολῶν with Stamma 2014 ad loc.; Sophil. fr. 5.1–2 ἡδύ γε µετ’ ἀνδρῶν ἐστιν Ἑλλήνων ἀεὶ / συνάγειν; Men. fr. 870 ἡδύ γ’ ἀποθνῄσκειν ὅτῳ ζῆν µὴ παρέσθ’ ὡς βούλεται. στρ[k l l]θαι Luppe’s στρ[ατεύεσ]θαι (“to be serving as a soldier”) fits the space on the papyrus (6–7 letters) and the apparent context, and is printed by Kassel–Austin, who nonetheless decline to adopt his ἐστι[ν φέροντ]α µισθόν in the second half of the verse (although see on ἐστι̣[ below). With στρ[ατηγεῖ]σθαι instead, the point is darker: “Being a general is nice”, sc. since it brings opportunities for enriching oneself and the like; cf. below on αµισθον. γε µήν See Denniston 1950. 347–50. Thus Luppe for the baffling πλ ̣ην read by Lobel, although the combination of particles almost always stands second in its clause, which cannot be the case if ἡδὺ στρ[k l l]θαι is all taken together. ἐστι̣[ Kassel–Austin print ἐστι[ν],205 although there is no way of knowing what followed except that there were consonants that served to lengthen the iota. αµισθον Soldiers and sailors both received a µισθός (“wage”; e. g. Ar. Ach. 159–60; Eq. 1066; for the noun itself, cf. fr. 470 n.), and either that word in the accusative singular (Luppe) or the adjective ἄµισθον (“without a wage, unpaid”; thus something like “Serving in the army is nice, even without pay!” or “Being a general is nice, even without pay!”, with Phormio as speaker; see above) might have stood in the original text.

From POxy. 2740 fr. 2 Despite the impression created by the continuous numbering in Kassel–Austin, the relationship between the material commented on in POxy. 2740 frr. 1 and 2 is obscure and there is no positive reason to think that these fragments are part of the same scene as fr. 268a–f. 205

Presumably a remnant of an abandoned initial intention to print Luppe’s ἐστὶ[ν φέροντ]α µισθόν.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 628)

381

fr. 268g = 268.25–8 K.-A. (A.) ἕστηκας ηδ[ x l k] ̣ι ̣.  (B.) ξύνθηµα ν[ l x l ]ασον καὶ γνω[k l x] πλησίον 1 ἤδ[η] suppl. Luppe   ν[ῦν] suppl. Luppe : “ν[ύξ]” suppl. Handley   2 [ταχέως φρ]άσον suppl. Luppe : [τουτὶ φρ]άσον suppl. Handley   γνώ[σοµ᾽ ὅστις ἐστὶ] suppl. Luppe : γνώ[σοµαι. οὐδεὶς] πλησίον; suppl. Austin

(A.) You’re standing … (B.) a password ν[ … and know(?) … nearby (masc. acc. sing. or neut. nom. or acc. sing.) Meter Iambic trimeter. llkl 〈xlk〉l 〈xl〉kl l|l〈kl

llk〈l〉 x〉lkl

Context POxy. 2740 fr. 2 col. I.8–13 = fr. 268.25–30 K.-A. ]ος ἕστηκας ηδ[ ] ̣ι ̣ : ξύνθηµα ν[ ]ασον καὶ γνω[ ] π̣ λησίον ἀν[τὶ τοῦ] ] . ωι πλησίον  . [ 30 ]ντο συνθηµα[ 28 suppl. Lobel   29 [ἐν] τ̣ῷ πλησίον ὤ̣ [ν] suppl. Luppe

30

]ος you’re standing ηδ[ ] . ι̣ : a password ν[ ]ασον and know(?)[ ] nearby: in place of ] . ωι nearby  . [ ]ντο a password [

Interpretation The echoes of 26 ξύνθηµα in 30 σύνθηµα and of 28 π̣ λησίον in 29 πλησίον make it clear that everything from 26 ξύνθηµα to 28 π̣ λησίον is a single lemma glossed in what follows. The dicolon in 26 is likely intended to mark change of speaker, suggesting that 25 ἕστηκας κτλ (preceded in any case by an extra letter-space serving to mark the transition from commentary to text or vice versa) is also part of the lemma (thus tentatively Luppe 1980. 46, followed by Kassel–Austin). As the comment that follows seems otherwise to be confined to discussing 26 ξύνθηµα κτλ, the alternative is to take ἕστηκας ηδ[ as part of the gloss on a separate lemma in the preceding lines (thus Lobel

382

Eupolis

and Austin 1973). There is room for 9–10 letters between 25 ἕστηκας ηδ] and 26 α̣ι ̣ : ξύνθηµα ν[; for 8–9 letters between 26 ξύνθηµα ν[ and 27 ]άσον; and for 9–10 letters between 27 γνω[ and 28 ]π̣ λησίον (i. e. ~ three syllables in each case, assuming that all these words are drawn from Eupolis). ἕστηκας Used in the sense “stand about lazily” at e. g. Ar. Ach. 484 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Pax 256 ἕστηκας ἀργός;; Ec. 879–80 ἕστηκα … / ἀργός; Eub. fr. 14.1–2; Alex. fr. 153.15; Men. Mis. CGFPR 147.6; fr. 315.1; cf. Headlam 1922 on Herod. 5.40. ξύνθηµα/σύνθηµα —in a military context probably “password” (thus Luppe 1980. 45; cf. [E.] Rh. 521, 572 οἶσθα σύνθηµα στρατοῦ with Liapis 2012 ad loc. and on 12)—is attested in various senses in tragedy (e. g. A. fr. **61a; S. Tr. 158; E. Ph. 1140) and prose (Hdt. 5.74.2; Th. 4.67.4; X. HG 2.1.2; Pl. Grg. 492c), but nowhere else in comedy. ξύν- is the old form of the preposition (see Threatte 1980. 553–4), presumably used by Eupolis for metrical reasons but glossed by the commentator with the common σύν-. ]ασον is perhaps the end of a second-person singular aorist active imperative. Kassel–Austin print Luppe’s [φρ]άσον, which would have to mean “declare a password!”, i. e. “invent one and share it with me!”, although the verb normally takes as its object something already articulated or known— hence “Nenne mir die Parole” (Luppe 1980. 45) and “Tell the password” (Storey 2011. 213206), despite the absence of a definite article in the Greek. γνω[ Likely a form of γιγνώσκω (e. g. to fit the gap in the meter γνώσοµαι or γνώσεται). ]τ̣ωι πλησίον in the commentary in 29 suggests that Eupolis used π̣ λησίον adverbially with a definite article (LSJ s. v. A.II.2) to mean “to the [man] next to you” (a reasonable candidate for someone to whom one might offer a password) or “[in] the [area] nearby” ([ἐν] τ̣ῷ πλησίον ὤ̣ [ν] Luppe). fr. 268h = 268.31–2 K.-A. νὴ τὸν ∆ί᾿ ἀλ[λ x

l k] καὶ µισῶ γε πρ̣[ός]

ἀλ[λ ] suppl. Lobel   πρ̣[ός] suppl. Handley

But of course … and I hate him/it as well! Meter Iambic trimeter. llkl 〈xlk〉|l 206

klkl

Although in the Greek Storey prints only ]ασον.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 268)

383

Context POxy. 2740 fr. 2 col. I.14–18 = fr. 268.31–5 K.-A. ] νὴ τὸν ∆ί᾿ ἀλ[λ ] καὶ µισῶ γε πρ̣[ός] ]ν Φορµίωνα ι̣ . [] ]τε πρώτην ελ̣[ 35 ] φ̣υλακήν εἶτ᾿ οὐ 33–4 [τὸ]ν Φορµίωνα λ̣ε[̣ γει . 207 / τήν] τε πρώτην· ἐλ̣[λείπει τὸ] φυλακήν suppl. Luppe

35

] But of course ] and I hate him/it as well! ]ν Phormio (acc.) ι̣ . [] ]τε first (fem. acc. sing.) ελ̣[ ] guard/watch. In that case, not[

Interpretation 31 νὴ τὸν ∆ί᾿ (certainly a lemma) is preceded by an extra letter-space marking the transition from the previous section of commentary. 33–5 might be either commentary or a mix of commentary and lemmata. Luppe 1980. 44, noting a larger than normal space between πρώτην and ελ̣[ in 34, suggested restoring 33–4 [τὸ]ν Φορµίωνα λ̣ε̣[γει] (“he is referring to Phormio”, i. e. as the person the speaker hates) and 34–5 [τήν] τε πρώτην· ἐλ̣[λείπει τὸ] φυλακήν (“and the first”—thus a lemma = fr. 268i, not part of the commentary—“the word ‘watch’ has been omitted”). I adopt his division here, but what is preserved in the papyrus is in any case enough to make it clear that Phormio is involved in the action, if only as a subject of discussion, and to suggest that some aspect of standing night-watch is in question. νὴ τὸν ∆ί᾿ ἀλ[λ Cf. line-initial νὴ τὸν ∆ί’ ἀλλ(ά) at Ar. V. 912; Av. 954; Lys. 609; Th. 259; Pl. 202,208 and see in general fr. 270.2 n. The oath and the particle are not to be divided by a comma (as in Lobel, Austin 1973 and Kassel–Austin) as if these were two separate ideas (“Yes by Zeus, but …”; thus Storey 2011. 215, who nonetheless omits the comma; cf. Rusten 2011. 265 “by Zeus! but”), but are to be taken closely together (“but of course”; cf. Denniston 1950. 16 “Agreement is presented as self-evident and inevitable”).

207 208

The apparatus of Kassel–Austin mistakenly offers λ̣ε|̣ γει, as if the final three letters were preserved in the papyrus. The punctuation of the lines varies in Wilson 2007 in a seemingly random fashion, with a comma at e. g. Nu. 652 but no comma at e. g. V. 912.

384

Eupolis

For καί … γε πρ̣[ός] (“and … as well”)209 adding emphasis to µισῶ, cf. Ar. Pax 19 νὴ τὸν ∆ί’ ἐς κόρακάς γε, καὶ σαυτόν γε πρός; E. Ph. 610 καὶ κατακτενῶ γε πρός with Mastronarde 1994 ad loc.; Pl. Euthd. 294a καὶ σύ γε πρός; Grg. 469b καὶ ἐλεινόν γε πρός; Meno 90e καὶ ἀµαθία γε πρός; Denniston 1950. 157–8. The verb is probably an amusing expansion on another, nominally different sentiment expressed in the first half of the line (e. g. “But of course I loathe Phormio, by Zeus—and I hate him too”). For the pronounced tendency of µισέω to take a definite object (sc. rather than to be used absolutely), see fr. 385.1 n. and cf. Konstan 2006. 185–200 (on hatred); Orth 2014 on Aristomen. fr. 3. fr. 268i = 268.34 K.-A. [τήν] τε πρώτην suppl. Luppe

and [the] first (watch) Meter Iambic trimeter. e. g. 〈x〉lkl

l|〈lkl

xlkl〉

Context See fr. 268h n. Interpretation Kassel–Austin’s typography makes it clear that (following Luppe) they regard [τήν] τε πρώτην as drawn from the text of Eupolis, although it is missing from their edition of the individual fragments on p. 458. For picket-duty generally, see Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 2. There are five watches per night at [E.] Rh. 538–45, where the scholiast cites Stesichorus (fr. 297 Finglass) and Simonides (PMG 644) to the same effect, although Poll. 1.70 speaks of only three watches. There may well have been no standard number, but there was in any case always a first watch. See in general fr. 247.2–3 n. fr. 268j = 268.35–7 K.-A. εἶτ᾿ οὐ [k

l]µ̣ον δῆτ᾿ ἐ̣γὼ πορ[l k l]ς;

πόρ[νης ἔρηµο]ς suppl. Luppe (iamb. tetram.) : fort. πόρ[ρω k η]ς

In that case, not … I in fact …? 209

Rusten 2011. 265 “and I hate at least” misses the idiom, as does Storey 2011. 215 “and I hate”.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 268)

Meter Iambic trimeter. ll〈kl〉 l|lkl

385

x〈lkl〉

Context POxy. 2740 fr. 2 col. I.18–23 = fr. 268.35–40 K.-A. 35 ] φ̣υλακήν εἶτ᾿ οὐ ]µ̣̣ον δῆτ᾿ ἐ̣γὼ πορ]ς; ἀντὶ τοῦ χωρὶς ]ης. ἁπλῶς ὅπερ οἱ Ἀττικ]οὶ ἀτεχνῶς λέ40 γουσι] 37–8 suppl. Austin   38–40 suppl. Luppe 35

40

] guard/watch. In that case, not[ ]µ̣̣ον in fact I πορ]ς; in place of “apart from ]ης. haplôs: which Attic authors say atechnôs

Interpretation There is room for 8–9 letters between 35 οὐ and 36 ]µ̣ον, as also between 36 πορ and 37 ]ς. Kassel–Austin—apparently influenced by Luppe’s πόρ[νης ἔρηµο]ς, which cannot be fit into the end of an iambic trimeter210—present this as the end of one iambic trimeter line and the beginning of the next: εἶτ᾿ οὐ [k l]µ̣ον δῆτ᾿ ̣γω / πορ[l k l x]ς. It might be easier to imagine a single line with penthemimeral caesura. 37 ἀντί is set off from what precedes it by an empty letter-space or two and must accordingly be the beginning of the commentary on the preceding lemma. Austin’s χω[ρίς] in 37–8 takes the genitive, which might be concealed in 38 ]ης and be a gloss on 36–7 πόρ[ρω] followed by genitive ending in [-η]ς, as at e. g. Ar. V. 192 πόρρω τέχνης. In that case, 38–40 ἁπλῶς κτλ must be a separate note, the lemma for which is ἁπλῶς (= fr. 268k; thus Austin 1973; Luppe 1980. 44). εἶτ᾿ οὐ Cf. elsewhere in comedy line-initial εἶτ’ οὐ/οὐκ/οὐχ (e. g. Ar. V. 52; Ra. 21, 76; Pl. Com. fr. 1), εἶτ’ οὐχί (e. g. Ar. Lys. 608; Amphis fr. 17.1; Alex. fr. 264.3), εἶτ’ οὐδέ (Ar. Ec. 335) and εἶτ’ οὐκέτι (Men. Asp. 219). δῆτ᾿ adds emphasis to what must be a surprised or indignant question (see Denniston 1950. 271–2, esp. 272 on the coordination with εἶτ(α)), and 210

Luppe 1980. 44 himself thought of iambic tetrameter catalectic (εἶτ’ οὐ[k l]µ̣ον δῆτ᾿ ἐγω πόρ[νης ἔρηµο]ς [l l]).

386

Eupolis

is to be taken with the emphatic ἐγώ (as at e. g. Ar. Pax 725 πῶς δῆτ’ ἐγὼ καταβήσοµαι;, “How shall I get down?” (in contrast to the dung-beetle, who is staying in heaven); Av. 1689–90 βούλεσθε δῆτ’ ἐγὼ τέως / ὀπτῶ τὰ κρέα ταυτὶ µένων;, “Do you want me to stay here and roast this meat for a while?” (followed by ὑµεῖς δ’ ἴτε, “But you go!”); Philyll. fr. 7.1 βούλεσθε δῆτ’ ἐγὼ φράσω τίς εἰµ’ ἐγώ, “Do you want me to tell you who I am?”; Pl. Plt. 272b βούλει δῆτα ἐγώ σοι τρόπον τινὰ διακρίνω, “Do you want me to distinguish them somehow?” (sc. “since you are unable to do so”)). 268k = 268.38 K.-A. ἁπλῶς simply Meter Consistent with iambic trimeter

kl Context See fr. 268j n. Interpretation Kassel–Austin’s typography makes it clear that they regard this word as drawn from the text of Eupolis, although it is missing from their edition of the individual fragments on p. 458. Although ἁπλῶς (kl) is attested occasionally in comedy (e. g. Ar. V. 537; Anaxil. fr. 22.23), ἀτεχνῶς (kkl) is normally used instead (cf. fr. 304 n.; Moer. α 94 ἀτεχνῶς Ἀττικοί· ἁπλῶς κοινόν, “atechnôs: Attic speakers; haplôs is the koinê”; [Hdn.] Philet. 243 ἀτεχνῶς· οὕτω λέγουσιν οἱ Ἀττικοὶ περισπωµένως· σηµαίνει τὸ ἁπλῶς, “atechnôs: Attic speakers pronounce it thus, with a circumflex; it means haplôs”; ΣRVEBarb Ar. Pl. 109 ἀτεχνῶς· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἁπλῶς, “atechnôs: in place of haplôs”). That an anapaest cannot stand at the end of an iambic trimeter line may explain Eupolis’ choice of the word here (as at Ar. Ach. 873). fr. 268l = 268.40–1 K.-A.

x l]ς ἐγὼ κλαίειν [k l x l]ο̣νι [ὡ]ς suppl. Luppe   [λέγω … ]ώ̣νι suppl. Luppe : [λέγων Ἰάσ]ό̣νι suppl. Handley

I … to(? dat. sing.) … to wail Meter Consistent with iambic trimeter. 〈xl〉kl ll〈kl xl〉kl

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 268)

387

Context POxy. 2740 fr. 2 col. I.23–6 = fr. 268.40–4 K.-A. 40 γουσι ]ς ἐγὼ κλ̣α̣ί̣ειν ]ο̣νι τούτου µνη[µονεύει] κ̣α̣ὶ̣ Τηλεκλεί[δης (fr. 73)] ὡς λωπο[δύτου]211 suppl. Lobel 40

say ]ς I to wail ] to(? dat. sing.): Telecleides (fr. 73) also mentions this man as a clothesmugger

Interpretation That a personal name is concealed somewhere in the line from Eupolis is apparent from the commentary in 41–4. The mention of the man, whoever he was, by two comic poets either shows that he was in the public eye and could be amusingly accused of being a common criminal (perhaps via a glancing allusion to some notorious personal fact or event twisted in a malicious direction, e. g. that the individual in question had several times left parties late at night wearing someone else’s robe) or suggests that the reference was to a generic villain like Aristophanes’ Orestes (Ach. 1166–8 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Av. 712). For the λωποδύτης, a mugger who specialized in stripping his victims of their clothing, see Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 497; Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 816–18. ἐγώ is emphatic, distinguishing the speaker’s attitude from that of someone else. The use of forms of κλαίειν (literally “to wail”, but by extension often ~ “to go to hell”) in imprecations is typical of colloquial Attic (e. g. frr. 99.110 with n.; 222.1 κλαύσεται with n.; Ar. Ach. 1131 κλάειν κελεύων Λάµαχον; Eq. 433 κλάειν σε µακρὰ κελεύων; V. 584 (quoted below) with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Pax 255 κλαύσει µακρά; Th. 211–12 τοῦτον µὲν µακρὰ / κλαίειν κέλευ’; fr. 212 κλαέτω). There is room for 8–9 letters between κλαίειν and ]ο̣νι, and as ] ο̣νι is most easily taken to be the end of a third-declension noun in the dative singular, this might be the name of the person for whom the speaker wishes the worst (hence the supplements of Luppe and Handley); cf. Ar. V. 584 κλαίειν 211

The Kassel–Austin text is somewhat misleading: [δύτου] is a supplement by Lobel and must be placed within square brackets, and this passage represents a “fr. novum” of Telecleides rather than of POxy. 2740.

388

Eupolis

ἡµεῖς µακρὰ τὴν κεφαλὴν εἰπόντες τῇ διαθήκῃ (~ “we tell the document-seal to go to hell”); Av. 692 Προδίκῳ παρ’ ἐµοῦ κλάειν εἴπητε (“tell Prodicus from me to go to hell!”); Pl. 62 κλάειν ἔγωγέ σοι λέγω (“I tell you to go to hell”); Pl. Com. fr. 189.19 ἑφθῇ κλαίειν ἀγόρευω (“I urge the stewed one to go to hell!”). fr. 268m = fr. 268.48 K.-A. γὰρ ̣ οὐκ ἐπίσ̣ τ̣αµ̣α[ι] for I don’t know how Meter Iambic trimeter. e. g. 〈xlkl xl〉k|l

klkl

Context POxy. 2740 fr. 2 col. II.4–6 = fr. 268.48–50 K.-A. >―― γὰρ ̣ οὐκ ἐπίσ̣ τ̣αµ̣α̣[ι παρὰ >―― τὸ πεζῇ βαδίζω, [νεῖν 50 γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταµα[ι 48–50 suppl. Lobel   49 πεζῇ Lobel : πεζη pap.

50

for I don’t know how: alluding to the saying “I go by foot, for I don’t know how to swim”

Interpretation A paragraphos between 47 and 48, together with the fact that 48 γ̣ὰρ is set a letter-space or two to the left of the material above and below it, mark the beginning of a lemma, while another paragraphos between 48 and 49 marks the beginning of a section of commentary. γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταµαι * at Ar. V. 989 οὐ δῆτα· κιθαρίζειν γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταµαι (“No indeed; for I don’t know how to play the kithara”; Philocleon explains why he is unwilling to acquit Labes/Laches); Av. 1432 τί γὰρ πάθω; σκάπτειν γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταµαι (“Yes, because what’s to become of me (otherwise)? for I don’t know how to dig”; an informer explains his choice of career). The scholia vetera on both passages comment παρὰ τὴν παροιµίαν “πεζῇ βαδίζω· νεῖν γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταµαι” (“Alluding to the proverb ‘I go by foot; for I don’t know how to swim’”), hence Lobel’s supplement of 48–50.212 212

Austin conjectured [νεῖν] γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταµαι (“loqueretur Bacchus nandi imperitus”) in the text of Eupolis, hence the claim at Storey 2003. 256 that Taxiarchoi included

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 268)

389

fr. 268n = 268.50–2 K.-A. [οὐ] παύσει ῥαίνων ἡµ[ᾶς] [οὑκ]213 πρῴρας; suppl. Lobel

Stop sprinkling us, you on the bow! Meter Anapaests. e. g. 〈y〉lll | llll lll〈y ytyt〉 Context POxy. 2740 fr. 2 col. II.6–9 = fr. 268.50–3 K.-A. 50 γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταµα[ι οὐ >―― παύσει ῥαίνων ἡµ[ᾶς, οὑκ πρῴρας; εἰώθασι λ[έγειν· >―― “ὁ ἐκ πρώρας, µὴ ῥ[αῖνε”. οὐκ 50–3 suppl. Lobel   53 πρώρας pap. : πρῴρας Lobel

for I don’t know how. Stop sprinkling us, you on the bow! They are accustomed to say: “You in the bow, don’t get (us) wet!” οὐκ Interpretation A paragraphos between 50 and 51, together with the fact that 51–2 are set slightly to the left of the material above and below, mark the lemma, while another paragraphos between 52 and 53, together with an extra letter space between πρῴρας and εἰώθασι in 52, mark the commentary.

213

“a character unable to swim”. Some specific deficiency in training was patently at issue, but the parallels from Aristophanes show that almost any verb might have stood in the text. Kassel–Austin p. 458 omit the square brackets around οὐ and οὑκ, both of which must be restored from ὁ ἐκ πρώιραϲ, µὴ ῥ[αῖνε] (“bow-officer, don’t sprinkle (us)!”) in the comment at 53, as well as the brackets around the last two letters of Lobel’s ἡµ[ᾶς], for which there is no authority in the papyrus, although the conjecture is obviously correct.

390

Eupolis

Comparison of lemma and commentary allowed Lobel to restore much of the text of both. Anapaests in the middle of a series of iambic trimeters come as a surprise. Lobel took [ἡµ]ᾶς to refer to the chorus, which would help explain the shift. Whether water was for some reason nominally being thrown around onstage, poured down from the roof, or the like is impossible to know. But the commentary seems to treat this remark as a proverb, which must in that case mean something like “If you’re nominally in charge of the situation, pay attention to what you’re doing!” [οὐ] παύσει; For οὐ + second-person future indicative in a question as equivalent to an imperative, cf. frr. 268o; 273.1–2 n. ῥαίνων The verb can be used of sprinkling with anything (e. g. with dust at Il. 11.282; with praise at Pi. I. 6.21). But this can scarcely be a reference to splashing other rowers with sea-water, sc. when the oar is handled badly, since one does not row from the bow (πρῴρα),214 and ὁ (ἐ)κ πρῴρας215— nominative for vocative (e. g. fr. 60; Ar. Ach. 155; Ra. 521; Ec. 734; Svennung 1958. 216), hence the comma at the end of the first line—ought instead to be equivalent to ὁ πρῳράτης (~ ὁ πρῳρεύς), “the bow-officer”, whose job was to keep an eye out forward (i. e. to supervise a group of individuals charged with that duty; see Morrison 1984, esp. 55–6) and to offer advice and guidance to the helmsman in the stern. Cf. Ar. Eq. 543 πρῳρατεῦσαι καὶ τοὺς ἀνέµους διαθρῆσαι (“to serve as bow-officer and keep an eye on the winds”, the penultimate step on the ladder of dramatic/nautical responsibilities, in order: rower, rudderman, prôreus and finally helmsman); [X.] Ath. 1.2 (in a list of important, mostly skilled positions having to do with the fleet); X. Oec. 8.14 τὸν δὲ τοῦ κυβερνήτου διάκονον, ὃς πρῳρεὺς τῆς νεὼς καλεῖται (“the servant of the helmsman, who is called the prôreus of the ship”); An. 5.8.20 οὐχ ὁρᾶτε ὅτι καὶ νεύµατος µόνον ἕνεκα χαλεπαίνει µὲν πρῳρεὺς τοῖς ἐν πρῴρᾳ, 214

215

Despite Wilson 1974. 251 (“The spraying is presumably the result of incompetent use of the oar, and the people being splashed by the water are behind the inept rower in the boat”), who ignores the implications of ὁ (ἐ)κ πρῴρας. For the distinction, cf. Hsch. π 834 πα〈ρ〉εξειρεσίαν· τὸ κατὰ τὴν πρῷραν πρὸ τῶν κωπῶν· ὡσεὶ λέγοι τις, πάρεξ τῆς εἰρεσίας (“pa〈r〉exeiresian: the area in the prow in front of the oars; as if one were to say ‘outside the oarage’”). For this use of ἐκ + genitive (“the one from the bow”, i. e. “the bow-man, bow-officer”), see Poultney 1936. 162, 168. ἐκ + genitive is occasionally used in expressions equivalent to English “to the right” (e. g. Ar. Eq. 639), “at the end” (Ar. Nu. 539) or “to the rear, behind” (Ar. Ec. 482). But it does not appear to be used to indicate the direction in which something lies but where he/it is not actually located (thus here supposedly “toward the bow”).

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 268)

391

χαλεπαίνει δὲ κυβερνήτης τοῖς ἐν πρύµνῃ; (in bad weather, “Don’t you see that a prôreus gets angry with the men in the bow merely on account of a nod of a head, while the helmsman in the stern gets angry (for the same reason)?”); Arist. Pol. 1253b27–9 τῶν δ’ ὀργάνων τὰ µὲν ἄψυχα, τὰ δὲ ἔµψυχα, οἷον τῷ κυβερνήτῃ ὁ µὲν οἴαξ ἄψυχον, ὁ δὲ πρῳρεὺς ἔµψυχον (“some tools are sentient, while others are not; in the case of a helmsman, for example, the rudder is insentient, whereas the prôreus is sentient”), 1276b21–4 τῶν δὲ πλωτήρων καίπερ ἀνοµοίων ὄντων τὴν δύναµιν (ὁ µὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἐρέτης, ὁ δὲ κυβερνήτης, ὁ δὲ πρῳρεύς, ὁ δ’ ἄλλην τιν’ ἔχων τοιαύτην ἐπωνυµίαν) (“although sailors have various functions—for one is a rower, another a helmsman, another a prôreus, and another has a different name of this type”). The bow-officer was not responsible for the state of the sea or even for the angle the helmsman took through it. He was nonetheless the obvious person to blame, even if in jest, when a blast of spray came up because the ship hit a wave wrong or got foul of the wind, which may be the point of the saying. fr. 268o = 268.53–4 K.-A. [οὐκ] ἐκτενεῖς οὖν τὸν σ[κελί]σκον; l

k l

Stretch out your little leg then! Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

l|lkl

x〈lkl〉

Context POxy. 2740 fr. 2 col. II.9–11 = fr. 268.53–6 K.-A. “ὁ ἐκ πρώρας, µὴ ῥ[αῖνε”. οὐκ >―― ἐκτενεῖς οὖν τὸν σ[κελί55 σκον; ἀντὶ τοῦ τὸ σκ[έλος216 >――

55

“You in the bow, don’t get (us) wet!” Stretch out your little leg then! In place of “your skelos (leg)”

Interpretation A paragraphos between 53 and 54, together with the fact that 54–5 are set slightly to the left of the material above and below, mark the be216

Despite Lobel in his text (but not in his diplomatic transcription on p. 52), Austin 1973 and Kassel–Austin, the kappa—on which the restoration σ[κελί]σκον depends—is clearly visible on the papyrus.

392

Eupolis

ginning of the lemma, while another paragraphos between 55 and 56, together with an extra letter space between -σκον; and ἀντὶ in 55, mark the beginning of the commentary. A third paragraphos below 56 marks the beginning of the next lemma at the end of the line (now lost). Cf. Ar. Ra. 201 οὔκουν προβαλεῖ τὼ χεῖρε κἀκτενεῖς; (“Put your hands in front of you and extend them!”; Charon orders Dionysus to begin rowing). When the object of ἐκτείνω is a limb, it means “extend” (e. g. Ar. Ra. 201 (quoted above); X. Cyn. 5.10; Hp. Epid. V 23 = 5.222.13 Littré) and thus “stretch” (X. An. 5.8.15). Wilson 1974. 251 compares Ar. Ra. 202–3 ἀντιβὰς / ἐλᾷς προθύµως (“Put your feet against (the stretchers) and row vigorously!”; Dionysus gets further orders from Charon). But here the point might just as well be that the addressee is to stand up and take a break from whatever activity he has been engaging in. [οὐκ] ἐκτενεῖς; = imperative; cf. frr. 268n; 273.1–2 n. οὖν marks the order as a consequence of some preceding observation or remark. σ[κελί]σκον Attested elsewhere only at Ar. Ec. 1167. For the diminutive ending (here mocking?), which is typical of comedy and presumably drawn from colloquial language, cf. fr. 458 n.

From POxy. 2740 add. fr. 1 (= *fr. 3 K.-A.) Despite the impression created by the continuous numbering in Kassel–Austin, the relationship between the material commented on in POxy. 2740 *fr. 3 K.-A. and the other portions of the papyrus is obscure. fr. 268p = 268.90–1 K.-A. 90

πέπληκτ[ τἀπαρίστ[ερ

1 vel πέπληκτ[αι] vel [ἐ]πέπληκτ[ο]   2 vel τἀπαρίστ[ερα] vel τἀπαρίστ[ερον] 90

he/she/it has/had been struck the objects on the left

Meter Consistent with iambic trimeter.

kl klklk

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 268)

393

Context POxy. 2740 add. fr. 1 col. I.1–17 = fr. 268.76–92 K.-A. κακη[ γραψ[ >―― δετη̣[ δεσφ̣[ 80 των δεδρα[ τωιτη[ ωσοδ̣ε̣[ >―― ξενοκ[ 85 τοιδε[ ποιη[ οδ̣ερ[ τωνδε [   . . . ιε̣ιρη[ >―― 90 πέπληκτ[ >―― τἀπαρίστ[ερ χροτητ[ Interpretation None of the material in 76–89 is set left, but paragraphoi nonetheless stand between 77 and 78 and between 83 and 84, suggesting divisions between lemma and commentary. Paragraphoi between 89 and 90 and between 90 and 91, together with the fact that 90 and 91 are both set slightly to the left of the material in 89 above and 92 below, show that 90 and 91 are two separate lemmata, the first of which must have been followed by a very short note. At 84 ξενοκ[, Lobel detected a reference to the tragic poet Xenocles son of Carcinus (PA 11222; PAA 732205; TrGF 33). Austin suggested that 92 χροτητ[ might conceal [ψυ]χρότητ[ (literally “frigidity”, a negative aesthetic judgment; cf. fr. 261.3 with n.) that would represent a gloss on 91 “left-handed” in the sense “the wrong way around, clumsy” (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 155.12; Ephipp. fr. 23.2; Men. fr. 236.2; Theognet. fr. 1.7; adesp. com. fr. 1017.68; cf. fr. 318 n.).

394

Eupolis

fr. 268q = 268.93–4 K.-A. τῷ µ[ κο ̣[ . ]σαι[ 2 fort. κόµ[ι]σαι vel κοµ[ί]σαι

Meter Unknown. Context POxy. 2740 add. fr. 1.18–28 = fr. 268.93–5 K.-A. >―― τῷ µ[  κο . [ . ]σαι[  >―― 95 ν[ Interpretation A paragraphos between 92 and 93, together with the fact that 93–4 are set slightly to the left of the material in 91 above and 95 below, mark 93–4 as part of a lemma, while a second paragraphos between 94 and 95 marks the beginning of the commentary on it (including 95).

From POxy. 2740 add. fr. 4 (= *fr. 6 K.-A.) Despite the impression created by the continuous numbering in Kassel– Austin, the relationship between the material commented on in POxy. 2740 *fr. 6 Kassel–Austin and the other portions of the papyrus is obscure. fr. 268r = 268.117 K.-A.

x l [ἂν] ἄχθοιτ᾿, εἰ [δ]ι̣αστρέφ[οιτο] l suppl. Lobel

he/she would be annoyed, if he/she got a squint Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xl〉kl l|lkl

klk〈l〉

Context POxy. 2740 add. fr. 4.5–7 = fr. 268.116–18 K.-A. ]ηδηµο̣.αγνωσε[ ]ἄχθοιτ᾿, εἰ [  ]̣ ι̣αστρέφ[ ].οφω̣ [].οναν̣ψ̣[  

 

 

 

 

 

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 269)

395

Interpretation 117 is likely part of a lemma or at least a paraphrase of something in the text of Eupolis. ἄχθοιτ(ο) For the verb, see fr. 49 n. [δ]ι̣αστρέφ[οιτο For the verb, see fr. 298.3 n.

fr. 269 K.-A. (250 K.) (Φο.) οὔκουν περιγράψεις ὅσον ἐναριστᾶν κύκλον; (Β.) τί δ’ ἔστιν; εἰς ὤµιλλαν ἀριστήσοµεν; ἢ κόψοµεν τὴν µᾶζαν ὥσπερ ὄρτυγα; 1 οὔκουν Cobet : οὐκοῦν codd.

(Phormio) Draw a circle big enough to have lunch in, won’t you? (B.) What’s going on? Are we going to play eis ômillan for lunch? Or are we going to smack our barley-cake like a quail? Poll. 9.102–3 εἰ µὲν οὖν κύκλου περιγραφέντος ἀφιέντες ἀστράγαλον ἐστοχάζοντο τοῦ µεῖναι τὸν βληθέντα ἐν τῷ κύκλῳ, ταύτην εἰς ὤµιλλαν τὴν παιδιὰν ὠνόµαζον. καίτοι µε οὐ λέληθεν ὅτι καὶ ὄρτυγα ἐνιστάντες τῷ περιγραπτῷ κύκλῳ, ὁ µὲν ἔκοπτε τὸν ὄρτυγα τῷ δακτύλῳ, ὁ δὲ πρὸς τὴν πληγὴν ἐνδοὺς ἀνεχαίτισεν ἔξω τοῦ κύκλου, καὶ ἥττητο ὁ τοῦ ὄρτυγος δεσπότης. ἐν γοῦν Ταξιάρχοις (= test. ii) Εὔπολις τοῦ Φορµίωνος εἰπόντος (v. 1)· ――, ἀποκρίνεται (vv. 2–3)· ―― If then, after a circle was drawn, they would toss a knucklebone and aim to have it stay inside the circle after it was thrown, they used to call this game eis ômillan. Nor has it moreover escaped my notice that they also used to stand a quail in the circle that had been drawn, and one man would strike the quail with his finger, and it would respond to the blow by wobbling outside of the circle, in which case the owner of the quail lost. In Taxiarchoi (= test. ii), for example, after Phormio said (v. 1): ――, Eupolis responds (vv. 2–3): ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llrl l|rkl llkl klkl llk|l llkl llkl llk|l klkl Discussion Meineke 1839 I.144; Meineke 1847 I.202; Cobet 1858. 111; Schiassi 1944. 48; Wilson 1974. 251; Storey 2003. 253; Storey 2011. 208–9

396

Eupolis

Citation context Closely related material is found in the sources that preserve fr. 314, where see n. Text 1 is an impatient question equivalent to a command, and Cobet’s οὔκουν rather than the paradosis οὐκοῦν is therefore wanted. Interpretation Pollux reports that the first speaker is Phormio, who seems to be the straight man. Since the second speaker, by contrast, is playing the fool (bomolochos), scholars since Meineke have taken him to be Dionysus, which might or might not be correct.217 Cf. the interactions between Socrates and the buffoonish Strepsiades at Ar. Nu. 255–7, 497–500. Phormio’s call for creation of a circle would seem to imply that someone or something is to be kept or driven into it (as in the game εἰς ὤµιλλαν, referenced in 2) or out of it (as in the game ὀρτυγοκοπία, referenced in 3). Hdt. 7.60.2, where a circle is drawn around a group of 10,000 men and used as a crude means of estimating the size of the Persian invasion force, is a possible parallel in a military context. But the fact that (B.) returns to the topic of lunch twice (2 ἀριστήσοµεν, 3 κόψοµεν τὴν µᾶζαν) suggests that a meal is actually in question, i. e. that Phormio has not said “big enough to have lunch in” merely as a way of indicating the amount of space to be marked out for some other activity; and (B.)’s use of two opposed models for the use of the circle in 2–3 may mean that he is genuinely confused about the point of what he is being asked to do. Kaibel suggested that Phormio was ordering Dionysus to arrange the chorus for a meal,218 but περιγράφω κύκλον ought to mean “draw a circle” not “place (someone) in a circle”.219 1 οὔκουν περιγράψεις; For a form of οὐ + second-person future as equivalent to an imperative, see fr. 273.1–2 n.; Barrett 1964 on E. Hipp. 331–2, and cf. (with οὔκουν) e. g. Crates Com. fr. 16.10; Ar. Nu. 1253–4; Pax 261; Anaxandr. fr. 49. For the lively force of οὔκουν, see Denniston 1950. 431–2. As parallels for the use of ὅσον + infinitive, Kassel–Austin cite Th. 1.2.2 (drawn from van Leeuwen 1898 on Ar. Nu. 434, who offers further parallels); cf. also e. g. Th. 3.49.4; Pl. R. 416e δέχεσθαι µισθὸν … τοσοῦτον ὅσον µήτε περιεῖναι αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν µήτε ἐνδεῖν (“to receive a large enough wage 217 218 219

Pollux’ “(Eupolis) responds” is a careless way of saying “Eupolis (has his character) respond”. Cf. fr. 113 with n. Hence presumably “mark us off a circle so we can all have breakfast in it” at Rusten 2011. 266, which otherwise bears only a limited resemblance to the Greek. Storey 2003. 253 (cf. Storey 2011. 208–9) identifies this as a “technical command”, i. e. a technical expression from military life, supposedly meaning to “mark off one’s position at rest”; but there is no other evidence to support this interpretation of the words.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 269)

397

that they have more than enough for a year and are not in need”); Min. 320c; and cf. Ar. Nu. 1252 οὐχ ὅσον γ’ ἔµ’ εἰδέναι (“not as far as I know”). 1–2 ἐναριστᾶν, ἀριστήσοµεν For ἄριστον (“morning meal”, but in the classical period “brunch” or “lunch”), see fr. 374 n. The compound ἐναριστάω is attested only here and at Hp. Vict. III 68 = 6.600.20 Littré (but in a different sense) and is probably a nonce-formation, like ἐναποπατέω (Ar. Pax 1228), ἐγκατακλίνω (Ar. Av. 122), ἐναποτίνω (Ar. Av. 38), ἐγκατακρούω (Ar. Ra. 330) and ἐναπονίπτω, ἐνεξεµέω and ἐνεκπλύνω at Polyzel. fr. 4 (all making the sense of a straightforward verb more complex by adding ἐν- as a prefix), on the one hand, and like ἐγκορδυλέω (Ar. Nu. 10) and ἐγκοισυρόοµαι (Ar. Nu. 48) (the simplex also an innovation), on the other. For the simplex, also e. g. Ar. V. 435; Canthar. fr. 10.2; Arar. fr. 11; Antiph. fr. 216.25. 2 τί δ’ ἔστιν; expresses at least nominally baffled surprise. * at e. g. Ar. Ach. 178; V. 836, 1297; Pax 1211; Th. 202, 582; Ec. 157; Pl. 970; Pl. Com. fr. 182.2 τί δ’ ἔστι;; A. Th. 803 τί δ’ ἔστι;; S. Ai. 1318; El. 1112; E. Med. 63; Tr. 712. εἰς ὤµιλλαν ἀριστήσοµεν; presumably means “Are we going to gamble for individual items of food?”, although (B.) is being ridiculous, meaning that there is no need to try to identify exactly what he is imagining. For what little is known or can be surmised about the game εἰς ὤµιλλαν, see fr. 314 n. 3 τὴν µᾶζαν For barley-cake220 (simple, basic food), see frr. 21 n.; 172.12 with n.; 370 n.; 380 n.; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 145.7; Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 1; Olson–Sens 1999 on Matro fr. 1.92; Pellegrino 2013 on Nicopho fr. 6.1. The definite article marks this as a typical item; no specific barley-cake is in question. κόψοµεν … ὥσπερ ὄρτυγα For the game of “quail-tapping” (ὀρτυγοκοπία)—doubtless more fun for the human participants than for the bird—cf. Ar. Av. 1297–9 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; fr. 253, Pl. Com. fr. 116 with Pirrotta 2009 ad loc.; Poll. 9.107–9 (offering slightly different details than at 9.102, where he quotes this fragment); Campagner 2005. 82–3. For quail generally, see fr. 226 n. κόπτω is perhaps used as a figurative verb meaning “eat” at Chionid. fr. 6, where Meineke 1839 II.8 compared the use of παίειν at Ar. Ach. 835, of σποδεῖν at Ar. Pax 1306/7 and Pherecr. fr. 61 (obscure), and of κοπετός in fr. 375 (also obscure); see also Kindstrand 1983. 105–6. But (B.)’s remark does not require this extended sense in order to be funny.

220

Not “dough” (Rusten 2011. 266).

398

Eupolis

fr. 270 K.-A. (252 K.) (Α.) ὅτ’ ἦν µέντοι νεώτερος, κρόκης πέντε στατῆρας εἶχε. (Β.) ναὶ µὰ τὸν ∆ία, νῦν δὲ ῥύπου γε δύο τάλαντα ῥᾳδίως (A.) When it was newer, however, it contained five statêres of woof-thread. (B.) Yes, by Zeus; whereas now (it contains) two talents of dirt at least221 Poll. 9.58 ἔστι µέντοι καὶ νόµισµα στατήρ … Εὔπολις δ’ ἐν µὲν ∆ήµοις τὸ νόµισµα δηλοῖ λέγων (fr. 123)· ――. ἐν δὲ Ταξιάρχοις τὴν ῥοπὴν λέγει· ―― A statêr is nonetheless also a coin … But Eupolis in Dêmoi, on the one hand, makes it clear that it is a coin, when he says (fr. 123): ――. In Taxiarchoi, on the other hand, he refers to a unit of weight: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xl〉kl | llkl

llkl llkl

klkl llk|l klkl k|rkl klkl

Discussion Grotius 1626. 504–5; Meineke 1839 I.144, II.529; Cobet 1856. 107 = 1858. 155; Kock 1880 I.327; Nauck 1894. 71; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Tammaro 1990–1993. 134–5; Storey 2003. 255–6; Storey 2011. 209 Citation context Along with fr. 123 (cited immediately before it), part of an extended discussion of the word στατήρ embedded in a larger treatment of vocabulary having to do with terms for coins and units of weight that also includes fr. 165; related material appears at Poll. 4.173–5. Phot. σ 506 στατῆρα· καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ὁλκῆς λέγουσι. καὶ τὸν σταθµὸν ἁπλῶς (“statêra: they also use the word in reference to weighing. Also a weight pure and simple”) may go back to the same source. Cf. also Philox. Gramm. fr. *598 = Oros fr. 151; Orion p. 148.25–6.

221

πέντε στατῆρας and δύο τάλαντα are both units of weight rather than of price or value (thus already Pollux). Had Eupolis meant “five staters’ worth of woof-thread” and “two talents worth of dirt” (thus Storey 2011. 217; see also on 3 below), he would have written the metrically indifferent κρόκην / πέντε στατήρων and ῥύπον γε δύο ταλάντων; cf. fr. 160.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 270)

399

Text The division of the lines between two speakers was first adopted by Grotius, and is supported by the fact that in comic dialogue δέ … γε normally marks a lively response to another speaker and is not delayed as long as it would have to be here, if this were a single speech (Denniston 1950. 153–4). Kock gave (A.) all of 1–2 and (B.) only 3. But the rhetorical function of ναὶ µὰ τὸν ∆ία has already been fulfilled for (A.) by µέντοι, and the oath makes better sense as a sarcastic response to the preceding assertion. (B.)’s remark is bomolochic, and (A.) may accordingly be engaged in dialogue in the first instance not with him but with a third character. For Meineke’s attempt to join this fragment to fr. 280, see n. there. Interpretation Meineke thought that the object under discussion was a tribôn (rough robe; see fr. 298.6 n.), although the point would seem to be that it is a luxury item that has aged and fallen on hard times (sc. like its owner?). Kock suggested that the garment, whatever it was, belonged to Phormio—although it could have belonged to anyone. 1–2 µέντοι might be either adversative (see Denniston 1950. 404–6), as in the translation offered here, or assentient (“in fact, certainly”; see Denniston 1950. 399–401). In either case, (A.) is responding to and perhaps echoing something said by the previous speaker. 1 νεώτερος When used of persons, νέος means “young” (LSJ s. v. I; e. g. Pherecr. fr. 156.3 ἐγὼ γὰρ … ἡνίκ’ ἦν νεώτερος, “for I, when I was younger”; Ar. Nu. 1391 τῶν νεωτέρων, “the younger men”; V. 1101 οἱ νεώτεροι, “the younger men”), whereas when used of objects, it means “fresh, freshly produced” (LSJ s. v. II; e. g. Ar. Nu. 1370 (songs); Pax 916 (wine); Av. 1038 (laws); cf. fr. 21 νεόκοπον κάρδοπον, “a fresh-cut kneading trough”). καινός, by contrast, means “novel” (e. g. frr. 56; 60.1; Pherecr. fr. 84.2; Ar. Nu. 480; Metag. fr. 15.2). Cobet was thus wrong to claim that the latter adjective would have been needed here if the reference was to a garment.222 κρόκης “woof-thread”, i. e. the soft thread drawn through the fixed, stiff warp-threads in the weaving process; cf. frr. 242 n.; 344 n.; Hdt. 2.35.2; Arist. Pol. 1265b20; Crowfoot 1936/7.223 The more woof-thread used, the thicker, warmer and more expensive the garment; cf. Ar. Nu. 53–5; V. 1145–9; Hes. Op. 538. When a fuller washed and trimmed a garment (for the details of the fulling process, see Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 1127–8, with bibliography),

222 223

Kock followed Cobet in this, and therefore took Phormio to be the subject of ἦν in 1, but the garment to be the subject of εἶχε in 2, which is difficult sense. Storey 2011. 216 mistakes the word for κρόκος and accordingly translates “saffron dye”.

400

Eupolis

the κρόκη was raised and trimmed, and thus as time passed the amount of it gradually decreased, hence the image in E. fr. 282.11–12 ὅταν δὲ προσπέσῃ γῆρας πικρόν, / τρίβωνες ἐκβαλόντες οἴχονται κρόκας (“but whenever bitter old age falls upon them, they disappear (like) tribônes losing their woofthreads”; of athletes). 2 στατήρ (cognate with ἵστηµι in the sense “put on a scale, weigh”) was used in Athens as a generic term for gold—i. e. electrum—coins produced by other states or cities (LSJ s. v. II; cf. frr. 99.87; 123; 162.2 n.; 247.1 with n.). The evidence that the word referred in addition to a particular unit of weight (LSJ s. v. I) is otherwise primarily inscriptional (IG I3 387.42 and 400.32, 38, 46 (temple inventories from Eleusis); 1411–12 and 1415 (official measures of weight from the Athenian Agora)); cf. [Arist.] Ath. 10.2; Lang, in Lang and Crosby 1964. 2–5. εἶχε For the verb in this sense, cf. Ar. Pl. 715 ὀπὰς γὰρ εἶχεν οὐκ ὀλίγας (“for it contained numerous holes”; of a robe); Philonid. fr. 9 τὰ καταχύσµατα / αὐτοῖσιν ὄξος οὐκ ἔχει (“the sauces for them contained no vinegar”); Diph. fr. 42.35–6 ὄξος ἡ φακῆ / οὐκ εἶχε (“the bean soup contained no vinegar”); LSJ s. v. ἔχω A.I.12a “of Measure or Value” (although all the references there are much later). ναὶ µὰ τὸν ∆ία Cf. fr. 99.110 ναὶ µὰ ∆ία. * at Men. Asp. 167; Dysc. 437. ναὶ µὰ τὸν ∆ί(α) (lklkk, with elision lklk), ναὶ µὰ ∆ί(α) (lkkk, with elision lkk; also e. g. Epich. fr. 71; Ar. Ach. 88; Eq. 280), νὴ τὸν ∆ί(α) (llkk, with elision llk; e. g. fr. 268h with n.; Pherecr. fr. 157.1; Ar. Nu. 483; Antiph. fr. 177.3) and νὴ ∆ί(α) (lkk, with elision lk; e. g. fr. 192dd = fr. 192.130; Ar. Eq. 27; Antiph. fr. 69.8) are metrically convenient variants224 of a bland, colloquial oath common in comedy and in prose authors (e. g. X. Mem. 2.6.4; 4.3.3, 8.5; Pl. Phd. 60c; Cra. 408b; Is. 3.24).225 In comedy, at least, when µὰ τὸν ∆ί(α) (klkk, with elision klk) or µὰ ∆ί(α) (kkk, with elision kk) are not accompanied by ναί, the sense is always negative (“(No), by Zeus”), even when

224

225

νὴ τὸν ∆ιόνυσον (llkklx; e. g. Ar. Nu. 519; V. 1474; Av. 171) is probably to be thought of as part of the same system. ναὶ τόν + divinity is used in Attic only by dialect speakers (Ar. Ach. 730, 742, 774, 779, 798; Lys. 206, 988). Simple oaths such as these, simply using the god’s name, are absent from the tragic poets except in satyr play (e. g. S. fr. 314.118 µὰ ∆̣ί̣α;̣ E. Cyc. 9 οὐ µὰ ∆ί’, 154 οὐ µὰ ∆ί’, 586 ναὶ µὰ ∆ί’), although more complex oaths employing the same introductory particles abound (e. g. A. Ag. 1432 µὰ τὴν τέλειον τῆς ἐµῆς παιδὸς ∆ίκην; S. El. 1239 µὰ τὰν Ἄρτεµιν τὰν ἀεὶ ἀδµήταν; fr. 957.2 νὴ τοὺς ἐν Ἄργει καὶ κατὰ Σπάρτην θεούς; E. Med. 1059 µὰ τοὺς παρ’ Ἅιδηι νερτέρους ἀλάστορας; Ph. 1006 µὰ τὸν µετ’ ἄστρων Ζῆν’ Ἄρη τε φοίνιον).

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 271)

401

no form of οὐ/µή is present (e. g. Ar. Eq. 336, 1382; Nu. 330; V. 173; Philem. fr. 45.4; Men. Mis. 133; Pk. 310; cf. fr. 259.113).226 See in general Werres 1936, esp. 4–5; Sommerstein and Torrance 2014. 80–3. 3 δέ … γε See on Text. ῥύπου The word (etymology uncertain) and its cognates are attested already in Homer (e. g. Od. 19.72; not in the Iliad) and are widespread in comedy (e. g. fr. 329.2 with n.; Pherecr. frr. 199; 262; Telecl. fr. 3; Ar. Lys. 279; Pl. 266; Anaxandr. fr. 35.6), but are sufficiently undignified to be avoided almost entirely in lyric and the tragic poets (in satyr play at A. fr. 82; otherwise only at S. fr. 858.2 (genre unknown)). τάλαντα Also a unit of weight at e. g. Ar. V. 1147 (below); Av. 154; Hdt. 1.14.2, 50.3; IG II2 1480.21; more often a unit of money = 6000 drachmas, as at fr. 168 (n.). For the seemingly colloquial use of ῥᾳδίως (“easily”) in the sense “at least”, cf. Ar. V. 1147 ἐρίων τάλαντον καταπέπωκε ῥᾳδίως (“it’s consumed at least a talent of wool”; of an enormously thick garment); X. Oec. 2.3; Is. 8.35; D. 27.31; Dik 2014. 603–4.

fr. 271 K.-A. (253 K.) δίδου µασᾶσθαι Ναξίας ἀµυγδάλας οἶνόν τε πίνειν Ναξίων ἀπ’ ἀµπέλων 1 δίδου codd. : ἐδίδου Kock   Ναξίας Ath. : µ᾿ ἀξίας [Ammon.]

Offer Naxian almonds to chew on and wine from Naxian vines to drink! Ath. 2.52b–c ὅτι αἱ Νάξιαι ἀµυγδάλαι διὰ µνήµης ἦσαν τοῖς παλαιοῖς· καὶ γίνονται ὄντως ἐν Νάξῳ τῇ νήσῳ διάφοροι, ὡς ἐµαυτόν, φησί, πείθω. Φρύνιχος (fr. 73)· ―― … ἐπακτικώτατα

226

Cf. µὰ τὸν Ποσειδῶ (klkll; the shorter µὰ Ποσειδῶ is not attested), which is restricted to the same colloquial register and similarly adds force to a negative assertion or request (E. Cyc. 262; Ar. Eq. 338, 409; V. 163; Lys. 1165; Ec. 748; Pl. Smp. 214d), νὴ τὸν Ποσειδῶ (llkll) being used in affirmations (as seemingly in fr. 286). In Aristophanes, at least, µὰ τὸν Ἀπόλλω (kkkll; e. g. Ar. Ach. 59; Eq. 14; Ra. 951) and µὰ τὸν ∆ιόνυσον (klkklx; Nu. 108; Pax 109; Ec. 344) behave in the same way; cf. E. Ph. 1006 µὰ τὸν … Ζῆν’; IA 948–9 µὰ τὸν … / Νηρέα (the only µὰ τόν oaths in tragedy).

402

Eupolis

δὲ πρὸς πότον τὰ ἀµύγδαλα προεσθιόµενα. Εὔπολις· ――. ἦν δέ τις ἄµπελος Ναξία καλουµένη Naxian almonds were mentioned by the ancient authorities; and I am convinced, (Athenaeus) says, that those produced on the island of Naxos are in fact particularly good. Phrynichus (fr. 73): ―― … Almonds are particularly conducive to drinking when eaten ahead of time. Eupolis: ――. And there was a variety of grapevine called Naxian [Ammon.] Diff. 33 ἀµυγδαλῆ καὶ ἀµυγδάλη διαφέρουσιν. ἀµυγδαλῆ µὲν γὰρ περισπωµένως τὸ δένδρον δηλοῖ· ἀµυγδάλη δὲ παροξυτόνως τὸν καρπόν, καθὰ καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Ταξιάρχοις φησί· (v. 1) ―― amugdalê and amugdálê are different. For amugdalê with a circumflex on the final syllable means the tree, whereas amugdálê with an acute on the second syllable from the end is the fruit, just as Eupolis in fact says in Taxiarchoi (v. 1): ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lkl klkl llkl l|lkl klkl Discussion Meineke 1830. 56; Meineke 1839 I.144; Kock 1880 I.327; Schiassi 1944. 48; Storey 2003. 255; Storey 2011. 208 Citation context The quotation in Athenaeus (preserved only in the Epitome, which routinely omits play-titles) comes from a section on almonds (2.52b–3b) that contains mostly grammatical material and makes up part of a much longer treatment of fruits and nuts of all sorts. The material in [Ammon.] is traced to Pamphilus (fr. 1 Schmidt) at both Ath. 2.52f–3a (quoting fr. 79) and Lex. Syn. α 16 Palmieri (without reference to Eupolis). Further fragments of the same note seem to be preserved in Phot. α 1286 (quoting fr. 230, where see Citation context). Text Kock’s ἐδίδου (“you offered”) in 1 is possible but unnecessary. µ᾿ ἀξίας in 1 in [Ammon.] (which preserves only the first verse of the fragment) is a simple error (Μ/µ for Ν/ν), which was then resolved in such a way that a common adjective drove out a rarer one and an accusative subject was simultaneously generated for µασᾶσθαι. The comma traditionally placed at the end of 1 is unnecessary. Interpretation A request or order directed to a single individual. A dative specifying to whom the offer is to be made is expected with δίδου (e. g. Cratin. fr. 349.1; Ar. Ach. 1054; Pax 1016) and might just as easily have been e. g. ἡµῖν or αὐτοῖς as µοι. The repeated, emphatic reference to Naxos serves to distinguish

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 271)

403

commodities produced there from similar items imported from elsewhere: the speaker wants specifically Naxian almonds and wine from Naxian vines. Naxos (IACP #507), the largest of the Cycladic islands, was the first member of the Delian League to rebel against Athenian domination, and was besieged and forcefully subjugated probably in the early 460s BCE; see Th. 1.98.4 with Hornblower 1997. 151–2, including further bibliography on 149; Rutishauser 2012. 89–91. Naxos is associated with Dionysus already at hBacch. 2 (in a catalogue of places where the god was supposedly born); cf. Call. fr. 75.41 (ἐς ∆ιονυσιάδα meaning “to Naxos”); D.S. 5.52 (according to a local account, Dionysus was brought up by nymphs there after Semele’s death); Plin. Nat. 4.67 Dionysiada a vinearum fertilitate (Naxos called “Dionysias, on account of the fertility of its vineyards”); Plu. Thes. 20 (identifying Naxos with the mysterious island referred to as Dia by Homer, where Theseus abandoned Ariadne and Dionysus took her as his wife);227 Andriscus FGrH 500 F 3 and Aglaosthenes FGrH 499 F *4 (on Naxian cults of “Gentle” Dionysus); Hiller van Gaertringen 1900. Meineke accordingly took this to be Dionysus asking for his favorite food and drink, although the words might just as easily belong to someone else asking the god for local specialty goods to which he might be expected to have access. The simultaneous mention of nuts and wine, at any rate, suggests a symposium (or at least plans for a symposium). 1 δίδου is properly “offer!” rather than “give!”228 (δός; e. g. Ar. Ach. 1054 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Hermipp. fr. 44 τήνδε νῦν µή µοι δίδου, / ἐκ δὲ τοῦ κέρατος αὖ µοι δὸς πιεῖν, “Don’t offer me this (cup) now, but allow me to drink again from the horn!”; E. Med. 617, 961; Or. 642–3). The imperative is therefore better taken as governing the accusatives (as elsewhere in comedy), with the infinitives understood as epexegetic (“almonds to chew on and wine to drink”), rather than as governing the infinitives that in turn take accusative objects (“to chew on almonds and drink wine”).229 µασᾶσθαι The verb (etymology uncertain) is first attested here; in Aristophanes (e. g. Eq. 717; V. 780; Pax 1310); and at Hp. Epid. VII 11 = 5.386.9,

227

228 229

E. g. Od. 11.321–5; Hes. Th. 947–9. The identification of Dia with Naxos also seems to be the point of a learned allusion at Call. fr. 67.13–14 (cf. Harder 2012 ad loc.) and is generally taken for granted in modern scholarship (e. g. Hedreen 2011. 496). For the story of Theseus, Ariadne and Dionysus, see Webster 1966. As in Storey 2011. 216 and Rusten 2011. 266. Rusten 2011. 266 mixes the two constructions (“give me some Naxian almonds to eat and let me drink some wine from Naxian vines”) to no obvious purpose. δός occasionally takes an infinitive in comedy (Ar. Ach. 882; Pax 709; Ra. 755; Hermipp. fr. 44.2 (above); Men. Sam. 446; cf. e. g. E. Med. 1402–3; Ph. 615), but δίδου does not.

404

Eupolis

10 Littré (the only non-Attic attestation from the classical period), and is thereafter restricted to comedy (e. g. Antiph. fr. 216.16; Ephipp. fr. 8.5; Philippid. fr. 29.2) and prose (e. g. Arist. PA 690b27; Thphr. HP 4.8.4). For speculative discussion of the word and its connection to the name Maisôn (associated with the comic glutton), see Dohm 1964. 14–15. Ναξίας ἀµυγδάλας Cf. Phryn. Com. fr. 73 τοὺς δὲ γοµφίους / ἅπαντας ἐξέκοψεν, ὥστ’ / οὐκ ἂν δυναίµην Ναξίαν / ἀµυγδάλην κατᾶξαι (“He knocked out all my molars, so that I wouldn’t be able to crack a Naxian almond”; quoted by Athenaeus immediately before this fragment). The almond was “a widely grown nut tree in the Mediterranean basin … and probably one of the earliest, fruit tree domesticants in Old World agriculture” (Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012. 147–9, quote at p. 147); mentioned in comedy also at e. g. Epich. fr. 148 (a list of foods; distinguished from κάρυα, “nuts”); Pherecr. fr. 158.1 (a catalogue of dainties?); Philyll. frr. 18 ἀµυγδάλια (a list of second-table dainties; distinguished from καρύδια, “little nuts”); 24 (distinguished from κάρυα, “nuts”); Antiph. fr. 138.2 (symposium dainties); Diph. fr. 80.1 (a catalogue of dainties); Men. fr. 83.1 (an after-meal snack?); cf. fr. 79 (the tree) with n. Substrate (i. e. pre-Greek) vocabulary. 2 οἶνον … Ναξίων ἀπ’ ἀµπέλων A high-style flourish in place of the more straightforward οἶνον Νάξιον. For Naxian wine (not among the most commonly listed fine varieties), cf. Archil. fr. 290 (supposedly comparing it to nectar).

fr. 272 K.-A. (256 K.) ὅστις πύελον ἥκεις ἔχων καὶ χαλκίον ὥσπερ λεχὼ στρατιῶτις ἐξ Ἰωνίας L

F

C

AB

1 καὶ χαλκίον Poll. : καὶ χαλκίων Poll. : καὶ χαλκεῖον Poll. : om. Poll.    2 om. FAB CL Poll.    στρατιῶτις Jungermann : στρατιώτης Poll.

whoever you are, who have come with a bathtub and a bronze cauldron, just like a new mother from Ionia joining the ranks Poll. 10.63 πύελον δ’ ὁµοίως ἐν Ταξιάρχοις· ――. καὶ γὰρ τὸ χαλκίον ἕν τι τῶν λουτρῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ λέβης καὶ τρίπους ὁ ἐµπυριβήτης

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 272)

405

And likewise a bathing-tub in Taxiarchoi: ――. For in fact a chalkion is a particular item of equipment in bathing-establishments, just like a lebês (“cauldron”) and a tripous empyribêtês (“tripod placed on the fire”)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkr llkl | llkl llkl rlk|l klkl Discussion Bentley 1824. 47; Meineke 1839 I.144, II.530; Kock 1880 I.328; Norwood 1931. 197; Schiassi 1944. 47; Wilson 1974. 251; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 253–4; Storey 2011. 208 Citation context From a brief catalogue of equipment used in a bathhouse, located within a larger discussion of σκεύη (cf. fr. 307 n.) of all sorts. Fr. 305 is preserved immediately before this (as evidence for the word κατάχυτλον, “bowl (for pouring water)”). Text The variants at the end of 1 likely reflect an ambiguously abbreviated exemplar, but Poll.L’s χαλκίον must be right in any case. In 2, Bethe reports that the reading in Pollux is στρατιώτης, and Meineke 1839 II.530 assigns the emendation στρατιῶτις (printed without comment by Kassel–Austin) to Jungermann. Interpretation The use of a second-person verb in an indirect question marks this not as a simple characterization of the individual (a man) addressed, but as a reproach: either his identity is unknown and he is behaving badly (~ colloquial English “whoever you are, who”), or his identity is known but his behavior shows that he misestimates his position in the world (~ colloquial English “whoever you think you are, who”); cf. Ar. Ach. 304, 492; Eq. 311–12; Nu. 135; Th. 883, 888; Pl. 1124; frr. 23; 715. The point of the comparison in 2 is that new mothers from Ionia do not normally present themselves in military camps,230 but that if one did, the mere fact of her being there would complete her resemblance to the addressee, who must similarly have arrived nominally ready to serve as a soldier but with unreasonable expectations about the realities of day-to-day life in the field. That bathing is in question in these verses does not mean that it was the only point at issue, since the speaker might easily have continued with a long list of apparent misconceptions and mis-

230

LSJ s. v. στρατιῶτις (followed by Rusten 2011. 266) takes the reference to be to a soldier’s wife (sc. who has followed him on campaign?), an odd image that takes no account of the meaning of λεχώ.

406

Eupolis

preparations on the addressee’s part. For the unlikelihood of getting regular baths in the course of a campaign, cf. [D.] 50.35. Ionians were notoriously dedicated to luxury and sensual pleasure (e. g. fr. 247 with n.; Call. Com. fr. 8 ἡ τρυφερὰ καὶ καλλιτράπεζος Ἰωνία, “pampered Ionia with its fine dinner tables”; Cratin. fr. 460; Ar. Pax 932–3 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Th. 163; fr. 556; Pl. Com. fr. 71.14 with Pirrotta 2009 ad loc.; Men. fr. 351.10; Chrysipp. SVF III.196, xvii fr. 2; Hsch. ι 1200; cf. Goebel 1915. 105–7), but a new mother—rather than simply a woman—from there is a strikingly specific object of comparison. Presumably women who had just given birth were notoriously pampered creatures and were inter alia encouraged to bathe whenever they wanted, and the point is that the addressee’s taste for an easy life makes him resemble not just a new mother but one from Ionia to boot, with ἐξ Ἰωνίας accordingly reserved for the end of 2 as a punchline. For “Ionian” as an insulting form of address, cf. Ar. Ach. 104 with Olson 2002 ad loc. Meineke took the individual addressed to be Dionysus, who arrived in Phormio’s camp prepared for a far more luxurious life than the general regarded as appropriate (cf. frr. 274 with n.; 275 with n.; 280.1 with n.). Kaibel thought that Phormio’s servant rather than Phormio himself might be speaking (sc. to a slave belonging to Dionysus, like Xanthias in his role as the god’s baggage-bearer in Aristophanes’ Frogs?; cf. fr. 285). Doubtless Dionysus’ slave rather than Dionysus himself would have carried the bathtub and cauldron, or led the donkey that had the gear tied up on its back. But in the absence of any evidence, such hypotheses can be multiplied endlessly—perhaps another common soldier (a gatekeeper?) rather than Phormio is badgering Dionysus, or perhaps the lines are from a separate scene in which a pair of unknown characters argued about their expectations for life in camp and about whether they ought to side with Phormio or Dionysus, etc.—without rendering us any wiser. 1 πύελον “a tub” (used at Od. 19.553 for feeding grain to geese), in the 5th century specifically “a bathtub” (e. g. Crates Com. fr. 17.5; Ar. Eq. 1060 τὰς πυέλους … ἐν βαλανείῳ (“the tubs in the bathhouse”); Pax 843; Hp. Acut. 18 = 2.366.3 Littré; cf. Hermipp. Hist. fr. 40, FHG iii.45 πύελον χαλκῆν κεκραµένην ὕδατι θερµῷ (literally “a bronze tub mixed with warm water”, i. e. “with a mixture of hot and cold water”)). Timaeus FGrH 566 F 50 claims that such tubs were invented by the Sybarites along with piss-pots (cf. fr. 385.5 n.), which shows only that they could be treated as a mark of luxury, as this fragment too attests. See Cook 1959; and on bathing and bathhouses generally, frr. 280 n.; 490 n. ἥκεις ἔχων i. e. “you are here with”, as at e. g. E. Andr. 1050; Supp. 634; Ar. Eq. 1320; V. 243; Pax 312; Lys. 985; Pl. 269; Pl. Com. fr. 212; Dionys. Com.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 273)

407

fr. 2.37; Alex. fr. 263.2; misleadingly called “Prose use” (better “colloquial”; see Collard 1975 on E. Supp. 634) at LSJ s. v. ἔχω A.I.6. A χαλκίον can be any vessel made of bronze (cf. fr. 415). But such vessels are several times said to be heated, i. e. over a fire (fr. 99.41–2 with n.; Ar. fr. 345; IG I3 421.96 χ̣α̣λκίον θερµαντέρι[ον], “a bronze vessel for heating water”, with Amyx 1958. 218–19, who observes that the price of 25 drachmas 2 obols second-hand suggests a vessel of considerable size (i. e. large enough to heat the water for a bath); 1456.14–15 χαλκίον θερµ/αντήριον; cf. Antiatt. p. 99.21–2 θερµαίνεσθαι· οὐ µόνον τὸ ὕδωρ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ λεβήτιον ἢ χαλκίον (“to be warmed: (used) not only of the water, but also of the basin or bronze vessel”), and here the reference is most likely to a cauldron for heating the water to be poured into the bathtub. Pollux’ λέβης and τρίπους ὁ ἐµπυριβήτης are thus probably different terms for the same item, not different items associated with a bathhouse. 2 A λεχώ (cognate with λέχος, “bed”) is a woman who just given birth231 (e. g. E. El. 652, 654; Ar. Ec. 530 with Ussher 1973 ad loc.; Hp. Superf. 8 = 8.482.4 Littré; Thphr. Char. 16.9; IG V 713–14). στρατιῶτις is to be taken closely together with λεχώ (cf. Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.271–2) and thus functions as an adjective, as at A. Ag. 47; Th. 1.116.1; IG I3 21.10.

fr. 273 K.-A. (258 K.) οὐ θᾶττον αὐτὴν δεῦρό µοι τῶν τοξοτῶν ἀγαγὼν ἀποκηρύξει τις, ὅ τι ἂν ἀλφάνῃ; 2 ἀγαγὼν scripsi : ἄγων codd.

One of the bowmen bring her here quickly and auction her off for whatever price she might fetch! Phot. α 1065 = Suda α 1446 = Synag. B α 955 ἀλφάνει· εὑρίσκει … Εὔπολις Ταξιάρχαις· ―― alphanei: finds … Eupolis in Taxiarchai: ――

231

Not “near to childbirth” or “about to have a baby” (Wilson and Rusten 2011. 266, respectively, perhaps thinking of the old adage about boiling water and tearing up sheets).

408

Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|lkl llkl rlrl llk|r klkl Discussion Toup 1790 I.31–2; Meineke 1839 II.531; Bothe 1855. 189; Kock 1880 I.329; Norwood 1931. 197; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Kassel–Austin 1986. 461; Storey 2003. 254–5; Storey 2011. 208 Citation context From a note on the verb ἀλφάνω, drawn from the common source of Photius, the Suda and the Synagoge generally referred to as Σ΄, and also citing Men. fr. 263; Ar. fr. 339; Il. 21.79. A much-condensed version of the same material appears at Hsch. α 3323. For the confusion regarding the play’s title and its possible implications, see fr. 278 n. Text Although Pl. Com. fr. 129 has ἀπεκήρυξ’ ἐκφέρων, the aorist participle is expected, as at Men. fr. 422 † ἀπεκήρυξεν αὐτὴν ἀγαγών † (“he took her and auctioned her off”), and the error is so easy (ΑΓΩΝ written for ΑΓΑΓΩΝ via haplography) that there is little reason not to emend the paradosis ἄγων to ἀγαγών. Interpretation An order (cast in question form, as often; see below) regarding a previously referenced girl or woman now to be sold at auction. Cf. Ar. fr. 339 οἴµοι κακοδαίµων τῆς τόθ’ ἡµέρας, ὅτε / εἶπέν µ’ ὁ κῆρυξ· οὗτος ἀλφάνει (“Miserable me, alas for that day long ago, when the herald said about me: ‘This fellow finds [a price(?)]’”; also quoted here by Phot. = Suda = Synag., and seemingly a slave’s lament). Kock suggested that the person being sold might have been brought onstage by Dionysus (cf. Pentheus’ threats against the chorus of Bacchants at E. Ba. 511–14; but why only one woman here?), while Kaibel proposed that the reference (whether mocking or confused) was to the effeminately dressed Dionysus (see frr. 272 with n.; 280.1 with n.) himself.232 ἀγαγών, at any rate, shows that a person—or at least a creature that can move under its own power—rather than an inanimate object is in question, since for an object λαβών is used (frr. 167; 300.1; contrast e. g. fr. 172.16 ἐξαγαγών; Ar. Ach. 91; V. 170 (a donkey); Pax 882; Av. 658; Th. 1120; Ra. 617; Men. Dysc. 359–60). Whoever this is, moreover, she/“she” is not Athenian, or at least not thought to be Athenian, because no Athenian could be sold as a slave in Athens. Elsewhere, bowmen are consistently depicted as under the authority of the prytaneis, who use them to control meetings of the Assembly (Ar. Ach. 232

Cf. Bothe 1855. 189, who took the reference to be to the στρατιῶτις—actually, however, a man—in fr. 272.2.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 273)

409

54, where the order is actually issued by the Assembly herald; Ec. 143, 258; Pl. Prt. 319c) and the Council (Ar. Eq. 665) or to enforce their will or that of other public decision-making bodies elsewhere in the city (Ar. Th. 923, 930–1; cf. Lys. 433, 441, 445, 449, where in the scrambled political situation of 412/11 BCE a troop of bowmen is controlled by the Proboulos; IG I3 45.14–17).233 That bowmen also assisted the Eleven (who were certainly accompanied and assisted by public slaves: e. g. X. HG 2.3.54–5; D.S. 13.102.1) in making arrests is often taken for granted, although there is no specific evidence to that effect. But there is no indication elsewhere that generals too controlled bowmen, so the speaker here is unlikely to be Phormio (pace Kock, followed by Norwood). 1–2 οὐ … / … ἀποκηρύξει; οὐ + interrogative future indicative is equivalent to an imperative and appears to be an Attic colloquialism (see fr. 334.1 n., and cf. frr. 171.2; 268.50–1, 53–4; 269.1); θᾶττον adds a note of urgency, as at e. g. Il. 4.64; hMerc. 212; Ar. V. 180; Pax 727. The specific combination is confined to comedy (also Cratin. fr. 129; Ar. Nu. 1253; Pax 1126; Av. 1324; Men. Pk. 526; Sam. 677–8, 719–20), but (1) cf. the use of similar adverbial expressions at e. g. fr. 334 οὐ πάνυ ταχὺ / … τοῦτ’ ἀναβαλεῖ;; S. Ai. 985–6 οὐχ ὅσον τάχος / δῆτ’ αὐτὸν ἄξεις δεῦρο;; E. Cyc. 241–2 οὔκουν κοπίδας ὡς τάχιστ’ ἰὼν / θήξεις;; Hipp. 1065 οὐκ εἶ πατρῴας ἐκτὸς ὡς τάχιστα γῆς;; Andr. 1067–8 οὐχ ὅσον τάχος / χωρήσεταί τις;, and (2) note that the point is that all three actions the speaker envisions (“Get over here!”, “Take her!” and “Put her up for sale!”) are to be done rapidly, not just the last one. δεῦρο has quasi-verbal force (“[Get over] here!”), as at e. g. E. Heracl. 48; [E.] Rh. 680; see Fraenkel 1950 on A. Ag. 22; Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 239–40. µοι is an ethical dative, indicating the speaker’s interest in the action (~ “please!”); cf. fr. 1.2; Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.423. τῶν τοξοτῶν Supposedly sometime around 450 BCE, the Athenian state purchased 300 Scythian archers (And. 3.5; Aeschin. 2.173; replacements must have been obtained on a regular basis thereafter), who carried not just their native bows but whips for crowd-control purposes (Ar. Th. 933 with Austin– Olson 2004 ad loc.), and who served as something like a limited-purpose security force. See in general Hall 1989. 44–5; Hunter 1994. 145–7; MacDowell 1995. 270–3; Bäbler 2005; Braund 2006. 2 For τις + imperative or the equivalent used in orders to slaves or similar figures (insignificant enough as persons that no individual name is required), e. g. Cratin. fr. 271.2; Ar. Ach. 805, 1096; Nu. 1490; Pax 1149; Pl. Com. frr. 10; 177; Chrysipp. Com. fr. 1.1; cf. fr. 99.42–3 with n.; Svennung 1958. 220–1.

233

Poll. 8.131–2 adds that bowmen maintained order in the lawcourts as well.

410

Eupolis

ἀποκηρύξει The verb means “auction off”, as at Lys. 17.7; D. 23.201; cf. [Ammon.] Diff. 268 = Herennius Philo α 9 = Ptol. Gramm. ap. Heylbut 1887 p. 397.20–1 κηρῦξαι µὲν καὶ ἀποκηρῦξαι λέγουσιν ἐπὶ το〈ῦ〉 ὑπὸ κήρυκα ἀποδόσθαι τι (“they say kêruxai and apokêruxai in reference to using a herald to offer something for sale”), citing Men. fr. 422 (quoted in Text); Harp. p. 46.19 = Α 188 Keaney, citing Pl. Com. fr. 129; Poll. 10.18. ἀλφάνῃ For the verb (“bring in, earn”, and thus “fetch (money)”), e. g. Od. 15.452–3 ὕµιν µυρίον ὦνον / ἄλφοι (“he would fetch you an enormous price”; of a boy to be sold into slavery); Ar. fr. 339 (quoted above); E. Med. 297; fr. 326.2; Homeric παρθένοι ἀλφεσίβοιαι (“girls who bring in cattle”, sc. as dowry).

fr. 274 K.-A. (254 K.) ὡς οὐκέτ’ ἂν φάγοιµι 〈l x l k l〉 〈x l k l x〉 στιβάδας ἐξ ὅτου ᾽φυγον 1 φάγοιµι Suda : φύγοιµι Σ   2 ἐξ ὅτου] ἐξότου Suda : ἐξόσου Σ   ᾿φυγον] φύγον Suda : φάγον, i. e. ᾽φάγον Σ

that I could no longer eat 〈l x l k l〉 〈x l k l x〉 since I/they fled camp-beds V

Σ Ar. Pax 348 ~ Suda φ 604 ἀναγράφεται ὁ Φορµίων δυσὶ ναυµαχίαις νικῆσαι Λακεδαιµονίους στρατηγήσας. λιτὸς δὲ οὗτος καὶ στρατιωτικός. διὸ καὶ “στιβάδας” εἶπε Φορµίωνος. οἱ γὰρ τὰ πολεµικὰ ἐξασκησάµενοι ὑπὸ γυµνασίων καὶ πόνων εἰώθασι χαµαικοιτεῖν. καὶ (= test. i) ∆ιόνυσος (Meineke : ∆ιονύσιος Σ) ἐν Ταξιάρχοις παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι µανθάνων παρὰ τῷ Φορµίωνι τοὺς τῶν στρατηγῶν (στρατηγιῶν Meineke : στρατειῶν Kaibel) καὶ πολέµων νόµους φησίν: ―― Phormio is recorded as defeating the Spartans in two naval battles while serving as general. He was frugal and martial, which is why (Aristophanes) said “stibadas” of Phormio; for those who prepare themselves for war by means of exercise and hard work tend to sleep on the ground. Also (= test. i) Dionysus (thus Meineke : “Dionysius” Σ) in Eupolis’ Taxiarchoi, while learning in Phormio’s company about the customs of generals (“generalships” Meineke : “campaigns” Kaibel) and of wars, says: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl klk|〈l xlkl xlkl x〉|rkl klkl

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 274)

411

Both ὡς οὐκέτ’ ἂν φάγοιµι and στιβάδας ἐξ ὅτου ᾽φύγον scan as iambic trimeter, and both can accommodate an appropriate caesura, but something is patently missing in between. The division of words adopted by Meineke and Kock (ὡς οὐκέτ’ ἂν / φάγοιµι 〈l x〉 | στιβάδας κτλ) makes the lacuna as short as possible, but at the price of putting ἄν in an unusual position (although cf. e. g. Ar. V. 510–11 ἀλλ’ ἥδιον ἂν / δικίδιον σµικρὸν φάγοιµ’ ἄν). Kassel–Austin simply print the words with an obel between φάγοιµι and στιβάδας, which understates the difficulties posed by the text.234 If φάγοιµι is the main verb, one would expect not aorist ἔφυγον but a present or perfect (as at e. g. S. Ant. 1092–3 (pres.); Tr. 326–7 (perf.); E. Or. 39–40 (perf.)), since the main action has to do with the present and the future rather than the past. A lacuna of the length posited here, however, makes that less of a consideration than it might otherwise be. Discussion Meineke 1830. 55–6; Bergk 1838. 361; Meineke 1839 I.143–4, II.526–8; Meineke 1847 I.203; Cobet 1858. 154–5; Kock 1880 I.327–8; Schiassi 1944. 48–9; Storey 2003. 252; Storey 2011. 209 Citation context A gloss on Ar. Pax 346–7b πολλὰ γὰρ ἀνεσχόµην / πράγµατά τε καὶ στιβάδας, / ἃς ἔλαχε Φορµίων (“for I put up with both troubles and camp-beds, which Phormio got as his lot”), also preserved at Suda φ 604 as part of a biographical note on Phormio that includes in addition Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 392. Kassel–Austin include ΣRV Ar. Pax 348 ἀγαθὸς ἐγένετο στρατηγός. καὶ ἐν τοῖς Ταξιάρχοις δὲ φέρεται ὡς ἐπίπονος (“(Phormio) was a good general. And also in the Taxiarchoi it is reported that he was hard-working”; likewise incorporated into Suda φ 604) in the citation context for this fragment. But the note makes no contribution to the establishment of the text of Eupolis and is here treated instead as test. i to the play as a whole. Text φάγοιµι/φύγοιµι and φύγον/φάγον (i. e. ᾿φυγον/᾽φάγον) were likely variants in whatever source the Suda and the scholion drew upon, with one reading preserved in the text and the other noted by means of a superlinear alpha or upsilon. στιβάδας ἐξ ὅτου ᾽φύγον/᾽φάγον is best treated as a unit, and as one does not eat στιβάδας (unless one is a goat), a form of φεύγω is wanted there. Whether φάγοιµι (Suda) or φύγοιµι (Σ Ar.) should be printed in the first half of the line is more difficult to say. But the witnesses agree on varying the

234

Kassel–Austin collect a number of conjectures designed to mend the lines, many of them dependent on Dindorf’s false report that Σ offers στιβάδος (gen. sing.) rather than στιβάδας (acc. pl.). Add φύγοιµι 〈ταύτας〉 στιβάδας.

412

Eupolis

verb rather than using the same one twice, and I accordingly follow previous editors in printing φάγοιµι there. When aphaeresis occurs, the accentuation of neither word is affected (Koster 1962. 28), hence ᾿φυγον with no accent. Interpretation According to Σ Ar. ~ Suda, Dionysus spoke these words while learning about military affairs in Phormio’s company (µανθάνων παρὰ τῷ Φορµίωνι). What eating (φάγοιµι) has to do with the situation is unclear, although fr. 275 suggests that a soldier’s diet was a topic in the play. στιβάδες (cognate with στείβω, “tread (on), trample”; cf. fr. 445 n. on στοιβήν) are rough, improvised beds made of thin branches and covered by green stuff, animal skins or the like,235 which are associated with rural settings and the lives of the poor and of soldiers on campaign (e. g. Cratin. fr. 68 (merely a notice that the word was used in Drapetides); Ar. Pax 347a (part of a soldier’s life; quoted in Citation context); Pl. 540–1 (bedding for the poor), 662–3 (bedding for an overnight visit to a temple); Men. Dysc. 420–1, 943 (preparations for a rustic sacrifice and feast); Od. 14.49–51 (the couch Eumaios produces for his anonymous visitor; the word στιβάς itself is not used); Alcmaeonis fr. 2.1–2, p. 33 Bernabé (a funerary bed; context uncertain); E. Tr. 507 (where a slave sleeps); Hel. 797–8 (a suppliant’s temporary sitting/sleeping place); X. HG 7.1.16, 2.22 (used by soldiers on campaign); Cyr. 5.2.15 (used by soldiers on campaign); Pl. R. 372b (part of life in the simple rustic city); Theoc. 7.67–8; 9.9–10; 13.34–5 (in idyllic rustic scenes); Hsch. σ 1843; Verpoorten 1962, esp. 151–7 (although with wide-ranging, unlikely suggestions regarding the fundamental significance of στιβάδες as part of a semi-initiatory “éducation de guerrier”); Topper 2009. 9–12, with further bibliography. ἐξ ὅτου sc. χρόνου.

fr. 275 K.-A. (255 K.) ἐπιφαγεῖν µηδὲν ἄλλ’ ἢ κρόµµυον λέποντα καὶ τρεῖς ἁλµάδας ACE

2 λέποντα Meineke : βλέποντα Ath.

to eat nothing else, except an onion one peels and three brined olives 235

“Reed mats” (Rusten 2011. 267) and “sleeping mats” (Storey 2011. 219) are both wrong, the former more egregiously so.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 275)

413

Ath. 4.170c–d ἐπεσθίειν εἴρηκε Τηλεκλείδης Πρυτάνεσιν (fr. 27.3) οὕτως· ――. ἐπιφαγεῖν δ’ Εὔπολις Ταξιάρχοις· ―― Telecleides used the term epesthiein in Prytaneis (fr. 27.3) as follows: ――. And Eupolis in Taxiarchoi (used) epiphagein: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xl〉kr l|lk|l llkl klkl l|lkl 〈xlkl〉 Meineke in his edition of Athenaeus (followed by Kaibel in his) printed these verses as trochaic tetrameters (ἐπιφαγεῖν / µηδὲν ἄλλ’ ἢ κρόµµυον λέποντα καὶ τρεῖς ἁλµάδας), which is possible but unnecessary, particularly given that the division into iambic trimeters adopted above (and by all previous editors of Eupolis, including Meineke 1839) puts the caesurae in standard locations. Discussion Bergk 1838. 360; Meineke 1839 I.144, II.526; Kock 1880 I.328; Schiassi 1944. 48; Wilson 1974. 251; Arnott 1996. 170; Storey 2003. 255; Storey 2011. 208 Citation context Parallel material, perhaps to be traced to the same source, is preserved at Poll. 6.39 ἐπιφαγεῖν—οὕτω δ’ ἔλεγον τὸ ἐπὶ τῷ ἄρτῳ ὄψον ἐπεσθίειν (“epiphagein—this is how they referred to eating opson in addition to the bread”); Phot. ε 1784 ἐπιφαγεῖν· τὸ προσόψηµά φασιν (“epiphagein: they say this in regard to supplemental opson”). Text The paradosis βλέποντα (corrected by Meineke) is an example of a rare word corrupted into a much more common but inappropriate one. Interpretation Aorist λέψαντα is metrically no different from present λέποντα and could have been written in its place, were the point that the onion was to be first stripped of its husk and then eaten as we would eat an apple or a pear.236 The present participle, however, makes it clear that the process of disassembling the onion accompanies the process of eating it, i. e. that it is to be stripped apart layer by layer and consumed more like an artichoke or a bag of potato chips.

236

Cf. Rusten 2011. 267 “Eat nothing else on the side but an onion he’s peeled, and three salted olives”. “Α peeled onion” (Storey 2011. 219) is apparently intended as a broad translation of the same sense. “A peeling onion” (Olson 2006. 321) is in origin a typographical error for “peeling an onion” (miscorrected by the author), but is any case wrong.

414

Eupolis

If Pollux 6.39 (quoted in Citation context) is in fact referring to this passage, the onion and olives are to be eaten as opson along with the bread or barley-cake that will make up the bulk of the meal. But the verb is sometimes used instead in reference to eating after one drinks (e. g. Telecl. fr. 27.3; Hp. Int. 20 = 7.216.7 Littré; [Arist.] Pr. 868b29), in which case water (sc. rather than wine) was likely in question; contrast Il. 11.630 ἐπὶ δὲ κρόµυον ποτῷ ὄψον (“and an onion as well, as opson for the wine”; quoted appreciatively at X. Smp. 4.7) and note the use of onions and olives as a snack accompanying wine in Ar. Ec. 306–8 (quoted below). Onions (for which, see in general fr. 327.2 n.) can endure rough handling and are therefore stereotypical soldier’s food (Ar. Ach. 550 σκορόδων, ἐλαῶν, κροµµύων ἐν δικτύοις (“garlic, olives, onions in mesh-bags”; among the supplies purchased by soldiers preparing for a campaign), 1099 ἅλας θυµίτας οἶσε, παῖ, καὶ κρόµµυα (“Fetch thyme-flavored salt, slave, and onions!”; Lamachus packs his bag for a campaign); Eq. 600 σκόροδα καὶ κρόµµυα (“garlic and onions”; supplies purchased by the Knights’ horses before boarding transport ships); Pax 529 κροµµυοξυρεγµίας (“onion-vinegar-belch”; produced by soldiers), 1128–9 κράνους ἀπηλλαγµένος / τυροῦ τε καὶ κροµµύων (“set free from helmet, cheese and onions”; a happy consequence of peace). Meineke therefore took this to be part of Phormio’s description of camp life to Dionysus, while Kock suggested that it was instead a complaint from the god about the same. But this might be a description of the unsophisticated diet typical of any simple place and time; cf. Ar. Ec. 306–8 ἐν ἀσκιδίῳ φέρων πιεῖν ἅµα τ’ ἄρτον αὖον καὶ δύο κροµµύω καὶ τρεῖς … ἐλάας (“bringing something to drink in a little wineskin, and a dry bit of bread along with it and two onions and three olives”; provisions taken as a snack to a meeting of the Assembly in the past, before the introduction of pay for attendance). 1 ἐπιφαγεῖν (ἐπ)έφαγον supplies the aorist of (ἐπ)εσθίω. The compound is too undignified for tragedy or other elevated genres, being restricted to comedy (also Pherecr. fr. 167.2; Aristomen. fr. 6; Epich. fr. 40.6), prose (e. g. X. Mem. 3.14.3; Arist. HA 612a24) and satyr play (E. fr. 907).237 2 λέποντα The normal sense of the verb appears to be “strip the skin/ hull/crust” from something (fr. 99.8 with n.; Il. 1.236; Pl. Com. fr. 12; Antiph. fr. 133.3; Timocl. fr. 31.3; Apollod. Car. fr. 5.10; Nic. fr. 82; Phryn. PS p. 87.17); cf. the cognates λέπος (“rind, husk”; e. g. Alex. fr. 268.7), λεπτός (literally 237

The simplex is also rare in tragedy (A. Supp. 226; fr. 253; S. fr. 897; E. fr. 472.38), with the majority of the attestions in the tragic poets coming from satyr play or what is likely satyr play (A. fr. 28; S. frr. 563.2; 671; E. Cyc. 233, 336; Astydam. II TrGF 60 F 4.3; cf. E. Cyc. 341 κατεσθίων, 440 καταφαγεῖν).

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 276)

415

“peeled, husked”, and thus by extension “delicate”), λεπίζω (“peel”), λεπύχανον (Theopomp. Com. fr. 34.3 κροµµύου λεπυχάνῳ, “an onion-skin”), λοπίς (“[fish-] scale”; e. g. Ar. V. 790) and λοπάς (“stewing pan”; see fr. 5 n.); and see Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 50.3. τρεῖς is perhaps to be understood as a round number (~ “a handful”), as in κόκκυγές γε τρεῖς (“three cuckoos”, i. e. “a flock of cuckoos”) at Ar. Ach. 598 and in words like τρισµακάριος (literally “thrice-blessed”, i. e. “much-blessed”); and cf. Thesleff 1954 § 323. ἁλµάδας sc. ἐλάας, “brined (olives)”, as at Ar. fr. 148.2, where they are described as more firm (στιφράς) than δρυπεπεῖς ἐλᾶαι, i. e. than olives that have been allowed to ripe fully on the tree; mentioned also at Hermipp. fr. 75.2; Ar. fr. 408.2–3, and see above on λέποντα. For olives and olive oil generally, see fr. 338.2 n.; Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012. 116–21; Warnock 2007.

fr. 276 K.-A. (257 K.) οὔκ, ἢν φυλάττῃ γ’ ὧδ’ ἔχων τὴν ἀσπίδα ἢν φυλάττῃ γ’ ὧδ’ Suda : ῆν· φυλάττη δ’ Phot.

Not if you stay on guard, holding your shield like this Phot. p. 658.14, 19–21 = Suda ω 14 ὧδε … τὸ δὲ οὕτως ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις δηλοῖ· Εὔπολις Ταξιάρχοις· ―― hôde … But in most cases it has the sense “thus”; Eupolis in Taxiarchoi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

l|lkl

llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.144, II.528; Kock 1880 I.328; Schiassi 1944. 47; Storey 2003. 253 Citation context A richly informed lexicographic note, citing also Cratin. fr. 59, Ar. fr. 362 and Plato (without reference to any specific passage) for ὧδε in the sense “hither”, and drawn from the common source of Photius and the Suda generally referred to as Σ΄΄. Text The text as preserved in Photius is confused and unmetrical, and I report it in the apparatus only because it is unclear from Kassel–Austin whether the reading is φυλάττη δ’ ὧδ’ or φυλάττη δ’.

416

Eupolis

For the question of whether a comma (omitted by Kassel–Austin) should be placed after οὔκ, see Interpretation. Interpretation The addressee (a man; note masculine ἔχων) has apparently put forward some worried objection to a plan involving hoplite combat (“But they’ll hurt me if I try to do that” vel sim.; cf. fr. 281 with n.), and the speaker reassures him by demonstrating how to use his shield to defend himself. The position of the caesura and presence of the particle γ(ε) place the emphasis on the need for vigilance, which is then defined in the second half of the line as involving how one holds one’s shield. Cf. the similar use of οὔκ, ἤν (…) γ(ε) to counter an objection at Ar. V. 1256 οὔκ, ἢν ξυνῇς γ’ ἀνδράσι καλοῖς τε κἀγαθοῖς (“Not if you hang out with men from the upper class”); Ec. 668 οὔκ, ἢν οἴκοι γε καθεύδῃς (“Not if you sleep at home”), 1078 οὔκ, ἢν ἑτέρα γε γραῦς ἔτ’ αἰσχίων φανῇ (“Not if an even uglier old woman appears); Pl. 221 οὔκ, ἤν γε πλουτήσωσιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς πάλιν (“Not if they’re rich again from the start!”),238 as well as the stage action at Ar. V. 1168–73, where Bdelycleon tries to instruct Philocleon in walking in a sophisticated fashion. Meineke and Kock suggested that the speaker was Phormio modeling for Dionysus how to handle himself in battle. The average ancient Greek male was shorter and lighter than the average modern European or American male; shields were heavy and difficult to handle in any case; and the 5th-century city offered its soldiers no official training in how to fight (X. Mem. 3.12.5; cf. fr. 340 on the peripoloi, adding Sommerstein 1997 to the bibliography cited there; and see in general Schwartz 2013), although family members, tribal unit commanders and the like must have offered informal instruction of the sort that takes place onstage here. If the addressee was in fact Dionysus, he doubtless made an amusingly complete hash of the lesson, much as Philocleon does with his symposium-training in the second half of Aristophanes’ Wasps (above). φυλάττῃ Aorist middle φυλάξῃ would have done just as well metrically, and the use of the present must be deliberate (“stay on guard, remain vigilant”, not simply “protect yourself”). ὧδ’ ἔχων τὴν ἀσπίδα The Greek hoplite shield was circular and about a meter in diameter; constructed of wood with a bronze band about the edge and generally with bronze plating covering its surface; and normally decorated with a device of some sort (cf. fr. 394 n.). For the shield itself and how it was

238

Wilson 2007 punctuates these passages inconsistently, offering sometimes οὔκ, ἤν and sometimes οὐκ ἤν. οὔκ clearly goes with an unexpressed apodosis, however, so adding the comma makes the syntax clearer.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 277)

417

used not only for defensive purposes, but also to help shove back the enemy line—at least on the now-standard reconstruction of how battle functioned— see Snodgrass 1967. 53–8; Krentz 1985; Hanson 1989. 65–71, 83–8, 135–84; Anderson 1991. 15–25; Hanson 1991b. 67–74; Schwartz 2009. 32–54; Matthew 2009; Viggiano and van Wees 2013. 57–60; Schwartz 2013.

fr. 277 K.-A. (259 K.) ἐγὼ δέ γε στίξω σε βελόναισιν τρισίν But I’ll mark you with three needles Poll. 10.136 καὶ βελόνης δὲ τοὔνοµα ἐν Εὐπόλιδος Ταξιάρχοις· ―― And also the noun belonê (is found) in Eupolis’ Taxiarchoi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl

llk|r

llkl

Discussion Bothe 1855. 189; Kock 1880 I.329; Gildersleeve 1908; Headlam 1922. 257; Schiassi 1944. 48; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 252 Citation context From a collection of vocabulary having to do with the care of clothing. Hermipp. fr. 50 (βελονίδες) follows. The same fragment of Hermippus is cited at Poll. 7.199 in the course of a discussion of sellers (-πῶλαι/-πώλιδες) of various commodities, including at 7.197 βελονοπῶλαι and βελονοπώλιδες, suggesting that all this material (presumably including a reference to Ar. Pl. 175 as well) was found together in Pollux’ source, which may thus have been the original, uncondensed version of Phryn. Ecl. 63 (quoted in Interpretation). Interpretation Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Eq. 365 ἐγὼ δέ γ’ ἐξέλξω σε τῆς πυγῆς θύραζε κύβδα (“But I’ll drag you outside by the ass with your head down!”), a capping remark from an exchange of threats between two characters. But Ar. Ra. 575 ἐγὼ δέ γ’ εἰς τὸ βάραθρον ἐµβάλοιµί σε (“But I would throw you into the ravine!”), from a catalogue of threats made by two characters against a third, is an equally viable parallel. Put another way, while ἐγώ is patently emphatic, it is unclear whether σε is as well (as in Knights) or is merely intended to capture and hold the addressee’s attention (as in Frogs). The threat perhaps refers to tattooing, which might be applied to runaway slaves to make future attempts at desertion more difficult; cf. frr. 172.14 n.;

418

Eupolis

192.92 n. Hemsterhuis thought that a taxiarch might threaten a soldier attempting to desert in this way—although it is difficult to believe that the body of a free citizen could ever be violated in so aggressive a fashion, this is only a threat—while Bothe suggested that Phormio was speaking to Dionysus, who had had enough of military life and was preparing to run away. It is easier to assume that the threat was aimed at a real slave (like e. g. Xanthias, who accompanies Dionysus on his journey to the Underworld in Aristophanes’ Frogs), in which case “tattoo” perhaps means simply “beat black and blue”, as at Ar. V. 1296 (and cf. Hsch. σ 1851 στίγµατα· πληγαί, “tattoos: blows”). Why the addressee is threatened with precisely three needles—or perhaps simply “a number of needles” (cf. fr. 275.2 n.)—is obscure. Gildersleeve thought the reference was to a brand of ∆ (for δραπέτης), with each side of the letter = a red-hot needle burnt into the flesh; but tattooing rather than branding is in question. Headlam suggested that “three needles” meant “tattooed in three colours”; but nothing else suggests that ancient tattooing involved any color other than blue-black, and it remains unclear why being tattooed in three colors would be worse than being tattooed in one. Perhaps this is a capping remark (cf. the long series of threats at Ar. Eq. 278–302, 364–81): the previous speaker has threatened the addressee with three of another item (cf. Dicaeopolis’ three thongs at Ar. Ach. 723–4) or has offered him three of something good or proposed making him τρισµακάριος, or the addressee has threatened the speaker in a related manner, and the speaker here matches the offer in a minatory fashion. Or perhaps “with three needles” is merely an emphatic way of saying “thoroughly”, i. e. “not with one needle but with three”. δέ γε is common “in retorts and lively rejoinders” (Denniston 1950. 153). βελόναισιν That the noun (etymology uncertain) is attested here, in Hermippus and in the compound βελονοπώλης (“belonê-seller”) at Ar. Pl. 175 leaves no doubt that it was well-established colloquial late 5th-century vocabulary. Phryn. Ecl. 63 accordingly endorses it, while disowning ῥαφίς (βελόνη καὶ βελονοπώλης ἀρχαῖα, ἡ δὲ ῥαφὶς τί ἐστιν οὐκ ἄν τις γνοίη, “belonê and belonopôlês are archaic terms, whereas no one would know what a rhaphis is”).239 ῥαφίς (〈 ῥάπτω, “sew, stitch”) in the sense “needle”, by contrast, is first attested in Archipp. fr. 40.1 and Hippocrates (e. g. Morb. II 66 = 7.100.14 Littré ὥσπερ ῥαφὶς κεντέειν δοκέει, “it seems to prick like a rhaphis”), and as a fishname at Epich. fr. 45 (and cf. Speusipp. fr. 19 Tarán, who identifies the ῥαφίς and the βελόνη; Strömberg 1943. 36–7); used specifically of a tattooing-needle

239

Antiatt. p. 113.14 ῥαπίδα (ῥαφίδα Lobeck)· τὴν βελόνην. Ἐπίχαρµος (fr. 139) (“rhapis (rhaphis Lobeck): a belonê. Epicharmus (fr. 139)”) is perhaps intended as a response.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 278)

419

at Herod. 5.65–6 κέλευσον ἐλθεῖν τὸν στίκτην / ἔχοντα ῥαφίδας καὶ µέλαν (“Tell the tattooer to come with needles and ink!”; punishment of a slave).

fr. 278 K.-A. (17 Dem.) (A.) τίς ἐνεβρόντησέ µοι; (B.) ὦ µόχθηρε, τίς ἐπάταξέ σε; (A.) Who smote me with thunder? (B.) You miserable creature, who struck you? Phot. ε 867 ἐνεβρόντησεν· ἐπάταξεν. Εὔπολις Ταξιάρχαις (v. 1)· ――. εἶτα ἐπιφέρει (v. 2)· ―― he/she smote with thunder: he/she struck. Eupolis in Taxiarchai (v. 1): ――. Then he goes on (v. 2): ――

Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlkl xl〉k|r 〈klk〉l llk|r

llkl klkl

Discussion Schiassi 1944. 47; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 254 Citation context An isolated lexicographic gloss. That Photius has got the title of Eupolis’ play wrong in the same way as in frr. 273 (from Photius = Suda = Synagogê) and 279 (from Photius = Suda), but not the other two times he cites the play (frr. 276, from Photius = Suda; 281), may suggest that all three notes containing the error go back to the same source. Text Some ancient grammarians distinguished between an unambiguously abusive µοχθηρός (“bad”; e. g. fr. 60.1; Ar. Ach. 165; Pl. Com. fr. 180) and a less overtly hostile µόχθηρος (“miserable”; e. g. Ar. Av. 493) (thus Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 197.19–21; cf. πονηρός vs. πόνηρος). Here a “rough, jocular compassion” (Dover 1993 on Ar. Ra. 1175) seems more likely to be intended, and I print the word proparoxytone (vs. oxytone in Demianczuk and Kassel–Austin). Interpretation If (B.)’s τίς ἐπάταξέ σε; represented a pointedly more prosaic rendering of the sentiment expressed in (A.)’s extravagant τίς ἐνεβρόντησέ µοι;, one would expect (B.) to respond ὅστις κτλ; (“(You ask) who hit you?”;240 e. g. Ar. Ach. 594–5; Av. 299, 960; Men. Pk. 827). Assuming that Photius is 240

Thus Rusten 2011. 267 “you mean, who pummeled you?”

420

Eupolis

correct, therefore, in claiming that 2 came more or less directly after 1 in the text, 2 is most likely a separate question addressed to (A.) and referring to the same basic fact: that some as yet unidentified party has hit him hard enough to temporarily addle his senses. The definite form is nonetheless sometimes retained in such situations (cf. Kühner–Gerth 1898 ii.517; Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 1.2), as perhaps here. Kaibel took (A.) to be Dionysus, who had been punched and staggered, but was pretending to have been blasted by lightning, and (B.) to be Phormio. 1 ἐνεβρόντησε To be ἐµβρόντητος is literally to be “thundered on” and thus by an easy extension of meaning to be “stunned by lightning, knocked silly”.241 For the colloquial pejorative use of the word and its cognates to mean “senseless” vel sim., cf. Ophelio fr. 3 “an embrontêtos book by Plato”; Philem. fr. 45.3; Men. Dysc. 441; Pk. 523 ἐµβρόντητος; Sam. 411; D. 18.243; [Pl.] Alc. II 140c “fools and embrontêtoi” (cf. fr. 172.7–8 n.); Hp. Vict. 35 = 6.518.3–4 Littré “some call them madmen, others embrontêtoi”; Poll. 5.120, 121; Phot. ε 710 = Suda ε 965 = Synag. ε 331 (from the common source generally referred to as Σ΄) ἐµβρόντητος· καρδιόπληκτος, µαινόµενος, ἔκφρων (“embrontêtos: struck to the heart, maddened, out of one’s mind”); picked up later, presumably as a Atticism, at Luc. Tim. 1; DDeor. 15.1; Taillardat 1965 § 474 (and cf. § 698). For the idea that being struck by lightning is a punishment from Zeus for perjury, e. g. Ar. Nu. 395–7; Antiph. fr. 230.4; E. Ba. 26–31; and see in general fr. 99.30–2 n.; Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 323a. But all the speaker need be saying is that someone or something has knocked him temporarily silly. 2 ὦ µόχθηρε See Text; fr. 60.1 ὦ µοχθηρός with n. ἐπάταξε According to Phryn. Ecl. 146, the Athenians used this verb (the present and imperfect tenses of which are generally supplied by τύπτω) to mean not just “strike” but specifically “slap the side of the face” (τὴν γνάθον πλατείᾳ τῇ χειρὶ πλῆξαι ἐπὶ κόρρης; cf. e. g. Ar. Lys. 635 πατάξαι τῆσδε γραὸς τὴν γνάθον; Ra. 149–50 πατρὸς γνάθον / ἐπάταξεν), although it seems to have the more general sense “batter” also at e. g. Ar. V. 1254.

241

Note esp. X. HG 4.7.7, where the fatalities resulting from a lightning strike are divided between men who were actually hit by the bolt (οἱ µέν τινες πληγέντες), sc. and burned, and other who died from the shock (οἱ δὲ καὶ ἐµβροντηθέντες). When applied to a person, tragic κεραύνιος refers to someone who has actually been struck by lightning (S. Ant. 1139; E. Ba. 6; cf. E. Supp. 496), and the word is thus not merely a high-style synonym of ἐµβρόντητος.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 279)

421

fr. 279 K.-A. (261 K.) ὄνος ἀκροᾷ σάλπιγγος ἀκροᾷ Suda : ἀκροᾶται Phot. (cf. Apost. = Prov. Cois.)

you’re a donkey heeding a trumpet242 Phot. ο 356 = Suda ο 384 ―― · Εὔπολις Ταξιάρχαις ――: Eupolis in Taxiarchai

Meter Iambic trimeter. e. g. krkl llk|〈l

xlkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.530; Kock 1880 I.329; Schiassi 1944. 48; Storey 2003. 254 Citation context From the common source of Photius and the Suda generally referred to as Σ΄΄ (which got the title of Eupolis’ play slightly wrong; cf. fr. 278 with n.). A similar phrase, but without the reference to Eupolis, is preserved at Apost. 12.83 = Proverbia Coisliniana 364 Gaisford ὄνος ἀκροᾶται σάλπιγγος· ὁµοία τῇ προτέρᾳ (“a donkey heeds a trumpet: like the previous (proverb)”; referring back to the beginning of Apost. 12.82 ὄνος λύρας· ἀκούων κινεῖ τὰ ὦτα· ἐπὶ τῶν ἀπαιδεύτων· ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν συγκαταθεµένων µηδὲ ἐπαινούντων [sic], “a donkey and a lyre: when (a donkey) hears it, it moves its ears. In reference to those who are uneducated, or to those who agree with (someone/ something) but don’t praise (him/it)”, which is traced by Erbse to Paus.Gr. ο 19, whence the material from Photius = Suda may ultimately come as well (and see Interpretation). Text ἀκροᾶται in Phot. (cf. Apost. = Prov. Cois.) represents assimilation to the standard form of the proverb. Interpretation A reproach addressed to single individual. For the figure, in which the subject of the verb is assimilated to the person or thing with which he is compared as he carries out the action, cf. Orth 2014 on Diocl. Com. fr. 6 ἅλλεται δ’ ὑφ’ ἡδονῆς / κεστρεύς (“he leaps in joy like/as a mullet”), citing inter alia Pl. Com. fr. 207.2 Χείρων ἐξέθρεψας Περικλέα (“you brought up 242

Rusten 2011. 267 and Storey 2011. 219 both translate “The ass hears the trumpet”, but (1) the verb is deponent and (2) there are no definite articles in the Greek.

422

Eupolis

Pericles like/as Cheiron”); Theopomp. Com. fr. 41.2 τέττιξ κελαδεῖ (“she sings like/as a cicada”). Phot. ο 355 = Suda ο 391, citing Men. fr. 418 for the words ὄνος λύρας (also Mis. 696) and identified by Erbse as Paus.Gr. ο 19, comments: ἡ δ᾿ ὅλη παροιµία· ὄνος λύρας ἤκουε καὶ σάλπιγγος ὗς· λέγεται δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν µὴ συγκατατιθεµένων µηδὲ ἐπαινούντων (“The complete proverb: ‘A donkey was hearing a lyre and a pig a trumpet’; it is said in reference to those who do not agree with (someone/something) nor even praise (him/it)”).243 Precisely how the gloss in Photius = Suda ought to read is unclear.244 But the crucial points are in any case that (1) the proverb refers metaphorically to uncomprehending or unresponsive stupidity or boorishness, and (2) Eupolis has condensed it in such a way that culture, as represented by the lyre (cf. Ar. V. 959 κιθαρίζειν γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταται, “for he doesn’t know how to play the kithara”, with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.), is taken out of the equation, and the stress placed instead on martial valor—actually a lack of it—as represented by the trumpet (below). Meineke suggested that the reference might be to Dionysus as an cowardly and incompetent soldier. ὄνος For donkeys—common figures in proverbs of all sorts (e. g. [Epich.] fr. 279.5 “a donkey is most attractive to a donkey”; Crates Com. fr. 38 “a donkey among bees”; Cratin. fr. 56 “the donkey is rained upon”; Pherecr. fr. 16 “an Antronian donkey”; Ar. Ra. 159 “a donkey celebrating the Mysteries”; V. 191 and fr. 199.2 “about a donkey’s shadow”; Philem. fr. 158 “a donkey to bran”; Men. fr. 296.8 “a donkey among monkeys”; see Griffith 2006. 227–8, although without reference to the donkey and the lyre)—see frr. 195.2 n.; 321 n.; 379 n.; 416 n.; Olck 1907. 644–50; Padgett 2000; Griffith 2006; Gregory 2007; Tosi 2012. 224–9; Kitchell 2014. 57–9. ἀκροᾷ The verb (deponent) and its cognates are absent from tragedy and lyric, but common in comedy (e. g. fr. 102.7; Pherecr. fr. 204; Ar. Nu. 1343; V. 655) and prose (e. g. Th. 6.17.4; And. 1.9; Pl. Ap. 37d), and it seems to be identified as an Atticism at Phryn. PS p. 38.6; Antiatt. p. 77.22. σάλπιγγος The σάλπιγξ (Latin tuba) consisted of a long, straight tube ending in a tulip-shaped bell; cf. Krentz 1990. 110–14; West 1992a. 118–21; Ziolkowski 1999. Trumpets were blown as public signals of all sorts (e. g. to 243 244

Cf. Cratin. fr. 247 ὄνοι δ’ ἀπωτέρω κάθηνται τῆς λύρας (“Donkeys sit further from the lyre”). The text printed here is that of Adler and Theodoridis. But Apost. 12.82 (quoted in Citation context) omits the awkward µή, and one would expect the point to be (as there) that a “donkey” hears a “lyre” but fails to react, i. e. that it takes in something good but does not respond appropriately.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 280)

423

begin the Choes drinking contest at Ar. Ach. 1000–1; to convene the Areopagus court at A. Eu. 567–9; to start a chariot race at S. El. 711), but especially as a summons to soldiers to begin hoplite battle (e. g. Ar. Ra. 1042; Il. 18.219; A. Pers. 395 with Garvie 2009 ad loc.; E. Heracl. 831; Th. 6.69.2; Achae. TrGF 20 F 37.3; X. An. 3.4.4; Demad. fr. 87.12 de Falco πολεµίας σάλπιγγος; and see Krentz 1990. 115–16).

fr. 280 K.-A. (251 K.) ἀντὶ ποικίλου πιναρὸν ἔχοντ’ ἀλουσίᾳ κάρα τε καὶ τρίβωνα AF

S

2 ἀλουσίᾳ Poll. : ἀλουσίᾳ λουτίαν245 Poll. : ἀλουτίᾳ Stephanus

in place of an embroidered robe having a head filthy from lack of washing and a peasant’s robe as well246 Poll. 7.168 ἀλουσίαν δὲ Εὔπολις ἐν Ταξιάρχοις· ―― And Eupolis uses alousia (“failure to bathe”) in Taxiarchoi: ――

Meter Herwerden, followed by Kassel–Austin, took this to be iambic dimeter (as in fr. 386), with a bacchiac in the final foot of the third line. 〈xlk〉l klkl

krkl | klkl klkl | kll Alternatively, these might be the remains of three iambic trimeters (thus Meineke and Kaibel), the second lacking a normal penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura (undesirable but far from impossible).247

245 246 247

I take this to be the significance of Bethe’s enigmatic ἀ. λουτίαν (unhelpfully reprinted by Kassel–Austin). Rusten 2011. 267 “it used to be so beautiful, but now it’s filthy—he hasn’t bathed, both head and cloak” bears only a tangential relationship to the Greek. Meineke went further, welding fr. 280 onto the beginning of fr. 270 (with elided τρίβων᾿ in place of the paradosis τρίβωνα). Among other difficulties, this requires

424

Eupolis

〈xlkl

xlk〉|l klkl krkl | klkl | klkl klk〈l xlkl xlkl〉 Or these might be iambic tetrameters catalectic (thus Luppe), like fr. 281, although this requires positing a lacuna in the first line, making it a solution of last resort. e. g. 〈xlkl xlkl x〉lkl kl〈l〉 or 〈xlkl xlk〉l klkl 〈kll〉

krkl

klkl | klkl

kll

Discussion Lobeck 1820. 507; Meineke 1830 II.529; Cobet 1856. 107 = 1858. 155; Herwerden 1872. 56; Kock 1880 I.326–7; Luppe 1980. 46 n. 20; Storey 1991. 2–3; Storey 2003. 247–8, 255 Citation context From a collection of words having to do with bathhouses and bathing. Fr. 490 is cited a few lines earlier. Cf. Hsch. α 3258 ἀλουσία· τὸ µὴ λούεσθαι. καὶ ἀλουτεῖν ὁµοίως (“alousia: not to wash oneself. Also aloutein in the same sense”; presumably drawn from the same source). Text Stephanus (followed by Lobeck, Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) printed ἀλουτίᾳ in 2 for the divided reading ἀλουσίᾳ Poll.AF : ἀλουσίᾳ λουτίαν Poll.S, but there appears to be little reason to make the change; cf. fr. 70 ἀπρασία (cognate with ἄπρατος); Ar. Th. 904 ἀφασία (cognate with ἄφατος); Aristopho fr. 12.9; Alex. fr. 201.6 with Arnott 1996 ad loc., citing Kühner–Blass 1892 ii.275 to the effect that “a tau-sound generally turns into a sigma before -ία” (translated); adesp. com. fr. 859.3;248 E. Or. 225–6 (quoted under Interpretation). Interpretation A high-style lament—note not just the vocabulary (for which, see individual nn. below) but also the elaborately interlaced word-order249—for someone no longer able to dress beautifully and keep his250 hair clean, but instead reduced to filth and rough peasant clothing. Perhaps part of an abuse-

248 249

250

an awkward shift from accusative here to nominative (ὅτ’ ἦν µέντοι νεώτερος κτλ) there, and subsequent editors have declined to adopt the proposal. In Aristopho, Alexis and the adespoton fragment, Kassel–Austin decline to adopt Lobeck’s change, despite having done so in the case of Eupolis here. Cobet insisted that a τρίβων could not be πιναρός, and treated this as evidence that the verses were “depravata … et mutilata”. But surely this slight absurdity is merely another part of the parody of elevated style, hence the presence of τρίβωνα only at the very end of 3. Νοte masculine ἔχοντ(α).

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 280)

425

song; cf. frr. 99.1–20; 386 with n.; E. El. 184–5 σκέψαι µου πιναρὰν κόµαν / καὶ τρύχη τάδ’ ἐµῶν πέπλων (“Βehold my filthy hair and these tatters of which my clothes consist!”; Electra describes herself); Or. 225–6 ὦ βοστρύχων πινῶδες ἀθλίων κάρα, / ὡς ἠγρίωσαι διὰ µακρᾶς ἀλουσίας (“O filthy head of wretched locks, how you have grown savage from lengthy lack of bathing!”; Electra describes Orestes). At 7.47, Pollux reports τὸ δὲ ποικίλον ∆ιονύσου χιτὼν βακχικός (“But Dionysus’ poikilon is a Bacchic chitôn”, i. e. an inner garment), adding at 4.116 (in reference to stage-costume) ὁ δὲ κροκωτὸς ἱµάτιον· ∆ιόνυσος δ’ αὐτῷ ἐχρῆτο (“But the krokôtos is a himation”, i. e. an outer garment; “Dionysus used it”). Kassel–Austin compare Cratin. fr. 40.2 θύρσον, κροκωτόν, ποικίλον, καρχήσιον, in what appears to be a list of items carried or worn by Dionysus, implicitly suggesting that this fragment too represents a description of the god (thus already Kock). Given Pollux’ comment at 7.47, this is probably right, since substantive ποικίλον is nowhere else treated tout court as the name of a garment. There is nonetheless a problem with Pollux’ information, since in this fragment the poikilon is replaced (3) by a τρίβων, meaning that it must be a himation, whereas a κροκωτός is elsewhere a chitôn.251 And even if Dionysus is the individual being described, the significance of the lament is unclear, since there is no obvious direct connection between impoverishment as imagined here and the soldier’s life to which the god is, on the traditional reading of the fragments, introduced elsewhere in the course of the play.

251

Cf. Ar. Th. 253 (the κροκωτός is underclothing, the outfit being completed by the addition of an outer garment at 261); Ra. 46 (Dionysus disguised as Heracles wears a lion-skin rather than the expected ποικιλὸν ἱµάτιον over his κροκωτὸς (χιτών)); Callixeinus of Rhodes FGrH 627 F 2 ap. Ath. 5.198c (a statue of Dionysus in the Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus wears a purple χιτών covered by a diaphanous κροκωτός, i. e. a two-layer inner garment, with a purple himation on top). LSJ s. v. κροκωτός 2, having first correctly observed “(sc. χιτών)”, then proceeds to get matters backwards (“worn by Dionysus (or at his festivals) over the χιτών, Cratin. 38 [= fr. 40 K.-A.], Ar. Ra. 46”). Nor does there seem to be any evidence suggesting that anyone other than Dionysus ever wore a κροκωτός at one of the god’s festivals. LSJ’s citation of Ar. Th. 138 at the beginning of the note as evidence that the κροκωτός was “worn by gay women” is also misleading, since the line refers to Agathon (while perhaps simultaneously adapting A. fr. 61, apparently of Dionysus again), although Inlaw will eventually put on a similar item of clothing in order to blend in with the women attending the Thesmophoria festival. The 1996 Supplement to LSJ s. v. κροκωτός deals with the by-then embarrassing phrase “gay women” (replaced by “women on special occasions”), but passes over the other blunders.

426

Eupolis

Unlike many ancient peoples, the Greeks bathed on a regular basis and regarded it as disgusting not to do so; cf. frr. 272 n.; 329 n.; 490 n.; Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 17–18 (with further bibliography); Aristopho fr. 12.9 φθεῖρας δὲ καὶ τρίβωνα τήν τ’ ἀλουσίαν (“fleas and a peasant’s robe and the lack of washing”; from a description of the miserable ascetic 4th-century Pythagorean lifestyle); Alex. fr. 201.6 (another description of the Pythagorean lifestyle that includes ἀλουσία). 1 ποικίλου The adjective often has the extended meaning “dappled, multi-hued” (e. g. Ar. Av. 777; Anaxipp. fr. 1.34) and thus “elaborate, diverse” (e. g. Alex. fr. 89.2), but the root sense appears to be “embroidered” (e. g. Anacr. PMG 358.3 and Sapph. fr. 39.2 (of leather goods, far more likely adorned with needlework than dyed multiple shades); Alex. fr. 329 (a ποικιλεύς/ποικιλτής is an “embroiderer”); Hsch. β 496 βελονοποικίλτης· ὁ τῇ ῥαφίδι ὕφη ποιῶν καὶ ζωγραφῶν, “belonopoikiltês: someone who makes a web with a sewing-needle and produces images”); π 2717 ποικίλον ἱµάτιον· ζωγραφητόν, “a poikilos robe: one with images on it”; σ 1851 ~ Phot. σ 555 ~ Suda σ 1104 ~ Synag. σ 228 στίγµατα· πληγαί. ποικίλµατα, “tattoos: blows, poikilmata”; Phot. κ 237 = Suda κ 513 κατάγραπτος· ποικίλος, “written all over: poikilos”; cf. Hermipp. fr. 63.23 Καρχηδὼν δάπιδας καὶ ποικίλα προσκεφάλαια, probably “Carthaginian rugs and embroidered pillows”; Headlam 1922 on Herod. 5.67). 2 πιναρόν 〈 πίνος, “filth”. Poetic vocabulary, here probably paratragic; cf. Cratin. fr. 388 ἐρίων πιναρῶν πόκον (“a tuft of filthy wool”); E. El. 184 (quoted above; lyric);252 cognate vocabulary at Cratin. fr. 455 εὐπινής; S. Ai. 381 κακοπινέστατον; OC 1597 δυσπινεῖς; Ar. Ach. 426 δυσπινῆ (Euripides speaking in tragic style). For ἔχω in the sense “wear”, see fr. 298.6 n.; Ar. Pl. 1199 ἔχουσα … ποικίλα. ἀλουσίᾳ In addition to the passages cited from comedy at the end of the initial note on this fragment, the word appears (in the form ἀλουσίη) in Herodotus (3.52.3) and Hippocrates (e. g. Morb. II 71 = 7.108.20 Littré), and must thus be Attic-Ionic vocabulary. 3 κάρα Elevated poetic vocabulary (a useful metrical alternative for κεφαλή) found already in Homer in the form κάρη (e. g. Il. 6.509), as well as in lyric and epinician (e. g. Stesich. fr. 180.1; Pi. P. 10.46), and extremely common in tragedy (e. g. A. Ch. 428; S. Ai. 308; El. 99; E. Med. 1141; Heracl. 539; [E.] Rh. 716), but attested elsewhere in comedy only at Cratin. fr. 105.7 (Eupolideans); 252

Storey 1991. 1–3 (cf. Storey 2003. 247–8) argues for a specific allusion to Electra (410s BCE) in this fragment. But the relative chronology is impossible, and given that Euripides’ use of the word is not strikingly innovative in any case, this is no basis on which to attempt to down-date Taxiarchoi.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 281)

427

Sannyrio fr. 3 (parody of elevated style; plural); Ar. Ach. 1218 (an iambic song); Th. 1102 (= E. fr. 124.6); Eub. fr. 56.6 (elevated style). The second alpha is long. For the τρίβων, a stereotypical poor man’s outer garment, see fr. 298.6 n.

fr. 281 K.-A. = fr. 268.16–17 ἐν ταῖσι γὰρ µάχαισιν ἀποθνῄσκουσι κόκκυ πρῶτοι ἀποθνῄσκουσι Kassel–Austin : ἀποθνῄσκουσιν Phot.   κόκκυ POxy. 2740 : κόκκην Phot.

for in the battles they die right away Phot. κ 867 κόκκην· ἀντὶ τοῦ ταχέως. Εὔπολις Ταξιάρχοις· ―― kokkên: in place of “quickly”. Eupolis in Taxiarchoi: ―― POxy. 2740 fr. 1.16 (= fr. 268.16–17) κό̣[κκυ πρῶ]τ̣οι ἀντὶ τοῦ πρὶν [εἰπεῖν] κόκκυ253 κό̣[κκυ πρῶ]τ̣οι suppl. Lobel   [εἰπεῖν] suppl. Tsantsanoglou kok[ku prô]toi in place of “before [you can say] kokku”

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic.

llkl

klk|r

llkl

kll

Discussion Tsantsanoglou 1984. 121; Kassel–Austin 1986. 464–5; Storey 2003. 257 Citation context The gloss in Photius is a standard one (see below), but the reference to Taxiarchoi comes from somewhere else, raising the possibility of a connection (presumably at a lexicographic remove or two) between the POxy. commentary and Photius’ source. Closely related material on the meaning of κόκκυ is preserved at – Antiatt. p. 105.22 κόκκυ· οὐδὲ κόκκυ. ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐδὲ βραχύ (“kokku: ‘and not kokku’. In place of ‘and not briefly’”)

253

Garbled at Storey 2011. 212 “Cuckoo first: instead of saying ‘cuckoo before’”.

428

Eupolis

– Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 506.19 ~ Hsch. κ 3292 κόκκυ· τὸ ἐλάχιστον (“kokku: the least bit”) – Suda κ 1916 κόκκυ· Ἀττικῶς ἀντὶ τοῦ ταχύ (“kokku: Attic in place of ‘quickly’”) – EM p. 524.52 κόκκυ· Ἀττικοὶ τὸ ταχύ (“kokku: Attic authors in the sense ‘quickly’”) 9 – ΣRVM ΓM Ar. Av. 505 (κόκκυ) ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ ὀλίγον (“(kokku) or in place of ‘a little’”). Text Photius’ κόκκην is otherwise unattested and metrically impossible, if the line is iambic tetrameter catalectic (as it otherwise seems to be). Tsantsanoglou proposed retaining the reading and emending to 〈y〉 ἐν γὰρ ταῖσι µάχαισιν / ἀποθνῄσκουσιν κόκκην πρῶτοι (anapaests).254 Kassel–Austin note instead that all the other verses in fr. 268 quoted in the vicinity of this one in POxy. 2740 are iambic, and deal with the fact that the upsilon in κόκκυ (drawn from the commentary rather than the lemma, which is lacunose at this point) is similarly guaranteed long at Ar. Av. 505; Ra. 1384,255 by not unreasonably suggesting that some vowels in such quasi-words may have had no fixed length. The upsilon is at any rate guaranteed short in the aorist form of the cognate verb κοκκύζω at Ar. Ra. 1380 καὶ µὴ µεθῆσθον, πρὶν ἂν ἐγὼ σφῷν κοκκύσω and in the perfect form at Ar. Ec. 31 ἡµῶν προσιόντων δεύτερον κεκόκκυκεν.256 Why Kassel–Austin chose to present this fragment separately, rather than together with the other verses probably drawn from the same scene culled from POxy. 2740, is unclear. I retain their arrangement for simplicity’s sake. Interpretation Probably a bomolochic response to something another character has just said (e. g. “Brave men are rarely wounded in battle”), with γάρ in the sense “(Yes/No), for …” (Denniston 1950. 73–4); ἐν ταῖσι … µάχαισιν taken over from the other speaker; and κόκκυ πρῶτοι reserved for the end as a punch-line. Cf. Ephipp. fr. 2 “(Heracles) Aren’t you aware, by the gods, that I’m a Tirynthian Argive? They always fight all their battles drunk. (B.) Which

254

255 256

Tsantsanoglou argues that a decisive point in favor of κόκκην is “the double attestation” in Photius, by which he means only that the form of the word in the lemma is the same as that in the quotation, which is unsurprising and does not actually amount to two separate data points. As likely also in S. fr. 791 κοκκυβόας ὄρνις. So too in Aesop. Prov. 119 〈ε〉ἰ µὴ ἀλέκτωρ κοκκύσῃ, τὰς ὥρας ἀγνοοῦµεν, and cf. Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 525.10 τὸ δὲ κόκκυγος συστέλλουσι καὶ ἐκτείνουσιν (“they both contract and extend the form kokkugos”). A κοκκύµηλον is a “stonefruit” (〈 κόκκος), i. e. a plum or the like; the source of the upsilon (short) is unclear.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 282)

429

is why they always run away!”. Phormio appears to have been a character in the section of Taxiarchoi partially preserved in POxy. 2740 fr. 1 (= Eup. fr. 268.1–21); the identity of his interlocutor (or interlocutors) is unclear. For the terrible moment when two battle-lines collided, immediately producing casualties, see Hanson 2009. 152–70.257 ἐν ταῖσι γὰρ µάχαισιν For the word order (a matter of metrical necessity, like the Ionic forms of the dative plural in -σι, for which, cf. fr. 172.10), cf. Eub. fr. 74.1 ἐν τῷ γὰρ αὐτῷ; Nausicr. fr. 2.1 ἐν τῇ γὰρ Ἀττικῇ; Men. Mis. 178 [ἐν τῷ γὰ]ρ οἴκῳ; S. Ant. 661 ἐν τοῖς γὰρ οἰκείοισιν; E. Ion 370 ἐν τοῖς γὰρ αὑτοῦ δώµασιν; frr. 401.3 ἔν τε τοῖσι γὰρ καλοῖς; 641.2 ἐν τῷ γὰρ ὄλβῳ; and on postponement of the particle, see in general Dover 1985. 338–40 = 1987. 61–3. κόκκυ is the call of the cuckoo at Hes. Op. 486 (and cf. Ar. Av. 505 below), whence the bird’s name, but the rooster’s crow in Attic, at least in the comic poets (Cratin. fr. 344; Ar. Ec. 31; Pl. Com. fr. 231; Heraclid. Com. fr. 1.1–2; cf. Phryn. PS p. 35.14–15 (a more complete version of the note at Hsch. α 1763); Antiatt. p. 101.4–5, citing Diphilus’ Plinthophoros (i. e. fr. 66.2, preserved complete only by Eustathius)). But the word seems to have a colloquial sense ~ “Now!” at Ar. Av. 505–7 (Πε.) χὠπόθ’ ὁ κόκκυξ εἴποι “κόκκυ,” τότ’ ἂν οἱ Φοίνικες ἅπαντες / τοὺς πυροὺς ἂν καὶ τὰς κριθὰς ἐν τοῖς πεδίοις ἐθέριζον. / (Ευ.) τοῦτ’ ἄρ’ ἐκεῖν’ ἦν τοὔπος ἀληθῶς· “κόκκυ, ψωλοὶ πεδίονδε.” (“(Peis.) And whenever the cuckoo would say ‘Kokku!’, then all the Phoenicians would begin to harvest their wheat and barley in the fields. (Eu.) That’s obviously the famous saying: ‘Kokku, circumcised, off to the field!’”) and Ra. 1434 (∆ι.) κόκκυ. (Αι. Ευ.) µεθεῖται (“(Dionysus) Kokku! (Aeschylus and Euripides) It’s released”, as they drop a fragment of their poetry into the scale-pan to be weighed). Here the word functions as an intensifier with πρῶτοι, “now-first”, i. e. “the very first”.

fr. 282 K.-A. (260 K.) VE

Σ Ar. Av. 1294 ∆ίδυµος (Hypomnemata Aristophanous fr. 42, p. 255 Schmidt)· ὡς τοιούτου τὴν ὄψιν ὄντος µνηµονεύει αὐτοῦ καὶ µέγα ῥύγχος ἔχοντος καὶ ὁ τὰς Ἀταλάντας γράψας (Call. Com. fr. *4) καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Ταξιάρχοις

257

Storey argues that “fr. 281 implies combat on land”, which is not true—ἐν ταῖσι … µάχαισιν could just as well refer to naval battle—even if everything else we know of the play does in fact suggest that it was concerned exclusively with the hoplite experience (nullifying Storey’s larger point, which is that Dionysus “appears to be learning more than naval expertise” [my emphasis]).

430

Eupolis

Didymus (Hypomnemata Aristophanous fr. 42, p. 255 Schmidt): The author of Atalantai (Call. Com. fr. *4) describes him as looking like this and as having a large beak, as does Eupolis in Taxiarchoi

Discussion Storey 2003. 247, 257 Citation context A gloss on Ar. Av. 1294 Ὀπουντίῳ δ’ ὀφθαλµὸν οὐκ ἔχων Κόραξ (“One-eyed Raven [was the name given to] Opountios”; 414 BCE) drawn from Didymus’ commentary (1st century BCE) on Aristophanes, which was itself an assemblage of earlier material, here including what must be a list of kômôidoumenoi. The material from Symmachus (ca. 100 CE) that follows in the scholion (discussing the reference to Lycurgus as “Ibis” in Av. 1296) is likely to be traced to Didymus as well, and thus once again back to other, now-lost Hellenistic sources. Interpretation Opountios is PAA 748440. The only other reference to him is at Ar. Av. 153–4 (“I wouldn’t become Opountios for a talent of gold”), where ΣVEΓM claims that he was one-eyed (merely a deduction from Av. 1294) and a συκοφάντης … πονηρός (probably a guess based on a disparaging characterization of him offered somewhere in a comedy). The name is borne by only one other Athenian, a candidate for ostracism in the 480s or 470s BCE (PAA 748445, from the deme Oa; three ostraka found in the Kerameikos as part of the grosser Kerameikosfund that includes numerous votes cast against Megacles son of Hippocrates, Callias, Themistocles and Cimon).258 This man is likely a relative from an earlier generation (see introductory n. to Taxiarchoi on Date), and the name suggests family connections to the city of Opous in Lokris, mention of which sets up the joke at Av. 153–4. The obvious conclusion is that the older Opountios was the father or great-uncle of the man mentioned by Callias (assuming Callias was the author of Atalantai), Aristophanes and Eupolis, who was also involved in politics and thus worth taking repeated on-stage swipes at in the 420s and 410s BCE, and perhaps a bit earlier as well. Ravens were known for pecking out the eyes of their victims (cf. Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 582–4; Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 92–3; and see in general Schmidt 2002), and “a raven without an eye” might accordingly be equivalent to colloquial English “without a nickel in his pocket”. But the texts cited by Didymus 258

For the ostraka—part of a single great deposit of about 9000 sherds from the Kerameikos excavated in the mid-1960s—and the date of the first Opountios in particular, see Willemsen 1968. 28–9; Thomsen 1972. 92–108, esp. 92–3; Brenne 2002. 40–3, 65. For the ostracism procedure and its social function, see Rhodes 1981. 268–71; Martin 1989; Brenne 1994; Kosmin 2015.

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 283)

431

seem to support the notion that Aristophanes took the image one step further and that Opountios either had only one eye or squinted so badly that it seemed funny to pretend that he was actually disfigured. The basic sense of ῥύγχος (perhaps cognate with ῥέγκω/ῥέγχω, “snore”) is “nostrils, nose”. But the word appears to be used properly only in reference to animals, and is thus either “snout” (as at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 107 ῥύγχος … ὑός; Ar. Ach. 744) or “beak” (as at e. g. Ar. Av. 672, 1138). Callias and Eupolis might have meant either, but the fundamental point is that Opountios not only was missing an eye or the like but had a strikingly large nose as well. Cf. the similarly abusive Cratin. fr. 486 with Olson–Seaburg 2017 ad loc.; Hermipp. fr. 74.2–3 αἱµορυγχιᾶν (“to have a bloody nose”).

fr. 283 K.-A. (263 K.) Poll. 7.106 χαλκεύειν δὲ καὶ τὸ σιδηρεύειν ἔλεγον καὶ χαλκέας τοὺς τὸν σίδηρον ἐργαζοµένους. σ ι δ η ρ ῖ τ ι ν δὲ τ έ χ ν η ν ἐν Ταξιάρχοις Εὔπολις εἴρηκε τὴν Ξανθίου τοῦ σιδηρέως, οὗ ἐπὶ τῆς εἰκόνος ἐπιγέγραπται σιδηρόφυσα They referred to working iron as chalkeuein (lit. “to work bronze”) and to those who work iron as chalkeis (lit. “bronze-workers”). But Eupolis in Taxiarchoi calls the trade of Xanthias the iron-worker, upon whose statue an iron-worker’s bellows are inscribed, a ferric trade

Meter σιδηρῖτιν τέχνην scans klllkl and may be part of an iambic trimeter (e. g. 〈xlkl xl〉kl llkl, as in Aeschylus (see Citation context)), and the fact that both Pollux and Hesychius (see Citation context) have the words in the accusative can reasonably be treated as evidence that Eupolis used them that way. Discussion Meineke 1839 II.531; Storey 2003. 257 Citation context From the beginning of a list of words associated with smithing, within a larger treatment of vocabulary having to do with mining, metal and the like. Hsch. σ 596 σιδηρῖτιν τέχνην· τὴν πολεµικήν. ἄλλοι δὲ τὴν Ξανθίου φασίν, ἤγουν τὴν χαλκευτικήν (“iron trade: the trade of war. But others say it is the trade of Xanthias, i. e. the bronze-working trade”) is an abbreviated version of the same material, and was used by Lobel to restore A. fr. **78a.67–8 ὡς οὐδέ̣ν εἰµι τὴν σιδηρῖτι[ν τέχνην] / γύννις δ’ ἄναλκις (“that I am nothing in the iron trade, but a defenseless sissy”; a vicious rumor), the only other 5th-century attestation of the adjective.

432

Eupolis

Interpretation Xanthias the iron-worker (PAA 730220 add.) is otherwise unknown, but the reference to his statue, i. e. his grave-marker, suggests that he was relatively well-to-do. Whether the grave-marker was already in place in Eupolis’ time (meaning that Xanthias was dead by the final quarter of the 5th century and that Taxiarchoi mentioned the bellows carved on it) or the reference is a product of Hellenistic attempts to gather information about 5th-century kômôidoumenoi is unclear. Meineke suggested that Xanthias must have been brought onstage in Eupolis’ play, but all we know is that he was mentioned. The name is often borne by Aristophanic slaves (e. g. Ach. 243; Nu. 1485) and occasionally by real 5th- and 4th-century Athenians (e. g. IG I3 1150.11 (a war casualty in 446 BCE) = PAA 730170). For bronze- and ironworking in and around the Athenian Agora, see Mattusch 1977, esp. 357–8 (a mid-4th-century ironworks, perhaps an armorer’s shop). For iron-working generally, see Rickard 1939; Treister 1996. 213–37. For bellows, see Papadopoulos 1992, esp. 206–8 (with bibliography); Betancourt and Muhly 2006. σιδηρίτης—σιδηρῖτις is the feminine form of the adjective—is attested before this only at A. fr. **78a.67 (quoted in Citation context; tentatively assigned to the satyr play Theôroi ê Isthmiastai) and at Pi. N. 5.19 σιδαρίταν ἐπαινῆσαι πόλεµον. Eupolis may thus be echoing—and twisting—Aeschylus by converting a figurative sense of the phrase (~ “warfare”) to a literal one (“iron-smithing”). For the formation of the adjective, cf. e. g. ἀργυρίτης (〈 ἄργυρος, “silver”), χαλκίτης (〈 χαλκός, “bronze”), ὑαλίτης (〈 ὕαλος, “glass”).

fr. 284 K.-A. (262 K.) Synag. B α 123 ἀ γ κ υ ρ ί σ α ς · κάµψας τὸν πόδα· σχῆµα δέ ἐστι παλαιστρικόν. Εὔπολις Ταξιάρχοις a n k y r i s a s : bending one’s foot; this is a wrestling move. Eupolis in Taxiarchoi

Discussion Bergk 1838. 365–6; Meineke 1839 II.528–9; Fritzsche 1857/58. 6; Kock 1880 I.329–30 Citation context In origin a note on Ar. Eq. 262–3 διαβαλών, ἀγκυρίσας, / εἶτ’ ἀποστρέψας τὸν ὦµον (“you grab/slander him and catch his foot, then twist his shoulder about”; the Paphlagonian’s treatment of any decent citizen who falls into his clutches); cf. ΣVEΓΘM ~ Suda α 261. Hsch. α 582 (quoted in Text) is likely drawn from the same source, and cf. Antiatt. p. 81.4–6 (also quoted in Text).

Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 285)

433

Text Hsch. α 582 ἀγκύρισµα· σχῆµα τῶν ἐν πάλῃ (“ankyrisma: a wrestling move”; cf. Suda α 261 ἀγκύρισµα· εἶδος παλαίσµατος) may suggest that the word originally attributed to Eupolis and glossed “this is a wrestling move” was ἀγκύρισµα. Hermann (ap. Meineke), on the other hand, noted Antiatt. p. 81.4–6 ἀγκυρίσαι· ἐπὶ τοῦ παλαίσµατος. ἀγκυρίσας ἔρρηξεν, Ἀριστοφάνης Ἱππεῦσιν (“ankyrisai: in reference to wrestling. ‘He caught his foot and broke him’, Aristophanes in Knights”) and took the phrase ἀγκυρίσας ἔρρηξεν (not actually in Knights) to be drawn from Taxiarchoi (= fr. 262 K.). Interpretation An ἄγκυρα is an “anchor” (e. g. Thgn. 459; E. fr. 774.4; Anaxandr. fr. 12.1 with Millis 2015 ad loc.), and an ἀγκύρισµα (lit. “anchoring”) is likely a heel-hook intended to trip one’s opponent; cf. Poll. 3.155; Poliakoff 1986. 1. Eupolis may well have used the cognate noun or verb metaphorically.

fr. 285 K.-A. (264 K.) Poll. 10.17 τὸν µέντοι σκευοφόρον ἐν Ταξιάρχοις Εὔπολις σ κ ε υ ο φ ο ρ ι ώ τ η ν παίζων ἐκάλεσεν Eupolis in Taxiarchoi, however, playfully referred to a porter (skeuophoros) as a skeuophoriôtês

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.145, II.530; Kassel–Austin 1986. 466; Tammaro 1990–1993. 136 Citation context From a discussion of words for porters and porters’ poles (σκευοφόρια or ἀνάφορα) in the course of the long catalogue of words cognate with or otherwise related to σκεύη (“gear, equipment” vel sim.; see frr. 191 σκευάρι(α) with n.; 307 with n.) that makes up Pollux Book 10. Interpretation Pollux attests that σκευοφοριώτης—attested nowhere else and presumably a nonce-word (cf. Sarati 1996. 117)—in place of the expected σκευοφόρος (e. g. Ar. Ra. 497; Th. 2.79.5) involves word-play (παίζων). Meineke suggested that this might be a pun on Dionysus’ epithet εἰραφιώτης (hHom. 1.2, 17, 20); Kassel–Austin connect the word with fr. 272 (n.), where someone (Dionysus?) is attacked by another character for having come (to a military mustering point?) with excess luggage; and Tammaro proposed that the point was that if Dionysus was εἰραφιώτης, the slave forced to carry his gear might be called a σκευοφοριώτης. But the joke might just as easily involve the far more common στρατιώτης (“soldier”, thus e. g. “X is not a στρατιώτης but a

434

Eupolis

σκευοφοριώτης!”) or simply the unexpected use of the—high-style?—suffix; cf. the similarly eccentric ἀγγελιώτης (hMerc. 296), βακχιώτης (S. OC 678 (lyric)), µηχανιώτης (hMerc. 436), σπαργανιώτης (hMerc. 301), and see in general Schwyzer 1939. 500. For porters, see frr. 200 with n.; 291 with n. In a military context, the word can be expected to refer specifically to a member of the army’s baggage train.

435

Ὑβριστοδίκαι (Hybristodikai) (“Obstructers of Justice”)

Introduction Discussion Meineke 1839 I.145; Kock 1880 I.330; Kaibel 1907 p. 1231.12–13; Schmid 1946. 114 n. 3; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Bicknell 1988; Storey 2003. 261–2; Storey 2011. 221 Title We know of no other comedy entitled Hybristodikai. According to Pollux 8.126, οἱ δὲ ναυτοδίκαι, οὗτοι ἦσαν οἱ τὰς τῆς ξενίας δίκας εἰσάγοντες. ὑβριστοδίκαι δὲ ἐκαλοῦντο, εἴ τι χρὴ Κρατερῷ (FGrH 342 F 4b) πιστεύειν τῷ τὰ ψηφίσµατα συναγόντι, οἱ µὴ βουλόµενοι τὰς δίκας εἰσαγαγεῖν· ἐπεπόλασε δὲ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐν Σικελίᾳ (“As for the nautodikai, these were the men who prosecuted the cases of xenia (‘falsely claiming to be an Athenian citizen’). Whereas hybristodikai, if we can place any confidence in Craterus (FGrH 342 F 4b), who collected decrees, was the term for individuals unwilling to prosecute the lawsuits; something of this sort was prevalent in Sicily”); cf. Hsch. υ 36 ὑβριστοδίκαι· οἱ µὴ θέλοντες εἰσάγειν τὰς δίκας παρὰ Ἀττικοῖς (“hybristodikai: individuals who do not wish to prosecute the lawsuits in Attic authors”) and Phot. υ 10 ὑβριστοδίκαι· ἐπὶ (οἱ ἐπὶ codd. : οἱ del. Alberti) τῶν µὴ ἐθελόντων εἰσάγειν τὰς δίκας (“hybristodikai: in reference to individuals who do not wish to prosecute the lawsuits”) (both drawing on the same source, taken by Theodoridis to be Diogenianus).259 The reference to hybris (for which, cf. fr. 99.108 n.) makes it clear that this behavior is conceived as abusive—i. e. not simply the free choice that a man who felt he had been wronged had in regard to whether or not to pursue the matter in court—meaning that the individuals in question occupied an office that allowed them to decide whether a case would move forward, and chose to obstruct the proper course of justice. Harp. p. 211.9–212.1 = Ν 5 Keaney (= Crater. FGrH 342 F 4a), citing Lys. 17.5, 8 and Ar. fr. 237 (cf. also Cratin. fr. 251), shows that Craterus commented on the word ναυτοδίκαι in connection with Athenian laws regarding citizenship, and Pollux’ presentation of the material (= Crater. FGrH 342 F 4b) suggests that Craterus offered ὑβριστοδίκαι as part of his gloss on the term: the ναυτοδίκαι prosecuted cases against individuals who had allegedly laid false claim to 259

Storey 2003. 261–2 takes Pollux to be expressing a lack of confidence in Craterus’ judgment and thus in his definition of ὑβριστοδίκαι, and he accordingly proposes translating instead “those who get their way with violence, vigilantes”. But Pollux is merely identifying his source; cf. 5.42 εἰ χρή τι πιστεύειν τοῖς ποιηταῖς; Th. 1.10.3.

436

Eupolis

Athenian citizenship, and ὑβριστοδίκαι was the term used for ναυτοδίκαι who failed to fulfil their duties.260 The title—presumably preserving the identity of the chorus or supposed chorus—thus refers to people who engage in habitual behavior of a specialized disreputable sort, like Kolakes (“Toadies”) and perhaps Callias’ Scholazontes (“Men of Leisure, Loungers”) and Ameipsias’ Apokottabizontes (“Cottabus-players”); for another political title, cf. Telecleides’ Prytaneis (“Prytaneis”), although nothing suggests that the chorus of that play was made up of specifically bad Prytaneis. Content The only evidence for the existence of this play comes from a passing reference in Photius’ Library (190, p. 151a5–14; vol. III pp. 64–5 Henry) drawn from Ptolemy son of Hephaestion, i. e. Ptolemaeus Chennos (ca. 100 BCE): ὅτι τελευτήσαντος ∆ηµητρίου τοῦ Σκηψίου τὸ βιβλίον Τέλλιδος πρὸς τῇ κεφαλῇ αὐτοῦ εὑρέθη· τὰς δὲ Κολυµβώσας Ἀλκµάνους πρὸς τῇ κεφαλῇ Τυρονίχου τοῦ Χαλκιδέως εὑρεθῆναί φασι, τοὺς δ’ Ὑβριστοδίκας Εὐπόλιδος πρὸς τῇ Ἐφιάλτου, τοὺς δὲ Εὐνείδας Κρατίνου πρὸς τῇ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ βασιλέως Μακεδόνων, τὰ δ’ Ἔργα καὶ τὰς Ἡµέρας Ἡσιόδου πρὸς τῇ τοῦ Σελεύκου τοῦ Νικάτορος κεφαλῇ (“When Demetrius of Scepsis died, Tellis’ book was found by his head. And they say that the Kolymbôsai of Alcman(?) were found by the head of Tyronichus of Chalkis, and the Hybristodikai of Eupolis by the head of Ephialtes, and the Euneidai (test. ii) of Cratinus by the head of

260

Hence the definite article (not “unwilling to prosecute lawsuits” but “unwilling to prosecute the lawsuits”). Storey 2003. 262 objects that the hybristodikai cannot be public officials, because “in the fifth century it was the individual citizen (ὁ βουλόµενος) who brought people and cases to court”. But (1) Craterus specifically refers to the nautodikai as “prosecuting cases” (dikas eisagontes); (2) the citizenship law which Harpocration tells us Craterus was discussing, and thus the procedure it involved, seems to belong to the second half of the 5th century BCE (Harrison 1971. 23–4); (3) even if the law and thus the inscription belongs later, this has no implications for the definition of hybristodikai, because the word is tied to the 5th century, and thus to the specifics of 5th-century legal procedure, only by the title of Eupolis’ play—which is almost certainly spurious (see Content). What Pollux’ reference to Sicily is supposed to mean is difficult to say; Kock thought that it must have something to do with the content of the play (the authenticity of which he did not question), while Edmonds 1957. 406–7 nn. 5 and d suggested writing 〈µετὰ τὰ〉 ἐν Σικελίᾳ (“〈after the events〉 in Sicily”, referring to the Sicilian campaign in 415–413 BCE and thus identifying an approximate date for the play. Craterus seems to have been interested in and to have cited almost exclusively Attic inscriptional material, but he did occasionally digress (e. g. FGrH 342 F 12.2–3). Or perhaps these words come from some other source altogether.

Ὑβριστοδίκαι (Introduction)

437

Alexander the king of Macedon261, and the Works and Days of Hesiod by the head of Seleucus Nikator”). Schmid compared test. 35 σκώπτειν … δικαστὰς τοὺς κακῶς δικάζοντας (“to mock … jurors who reached bad decisions”), but this is a different sort of judicial misbehavior and is not said specifically in regard to Eupolis in any case. The complete absence of fragments of the play is suspicious; Tellis and Tyronichus262 of Chalkis are otherwise unknown, as are the Kolymbôsai (“Female Divers”) of Alcman263, and no obvious candidate presents himself for the Ephialtes associated with Eupolis,264 undermining any confidence one might otherwise be tempted to put in Ptolemy’s account. Schmid and Kaibel were thus probably right to maintain that Eupolis did not actually write a play entitled Hybristodikai and that the title was sheer invention on Ptolemy’s part.

261

262

263 264

Storey 2003. 261 omits τοῦ βασιλέως Μακεδόνων from the Greek and then expresses puzzlement about who this Alexander might be. Storey 2011. 222–3 includes τοῦ βασιλέως Μακεδόνων in his Greek text, but once again omits it from his translation. Storey 2003. 261 and 2011. 222–3 prints and translates Meineke’s Τυννίχου. But Tynnichos of Chalkis was the author of an allegedly well-known but today obscure paean cited at Pl. Ion 534d (= PMG 707), whereas the other individuals described as having died with a poet’s work by their head all appear to be political leaders, making the emendation unappealing. Or whoever Photius’ Ἀλκµάνους is supposed to refer to; the genitive of “Alcman” ought to be Ἀλκµᾶνος. See Meineke 1839 I.101. Edmonds 1957. 407 n. c notes that the name is borne by the slave mentioned in test. 5 (n.) who supposedly tried to steal some of Eupolis’ plays and was baffled by his dog Augeas. That text too is obscure, but it is not impossible that some—now untraceable—connection existed between the two traditions.

438

Φίλοι (Philoi) (“Friends”)

Introduction Discussion Wilamowitz 1870. 48–51; Müller-Strübing 1890. 545–6; Geissler 1924. 34–5 + 1969. xiii; Kaibel 1907 p. 1235.16–18; Schiassi 1944. 27–33; Schmid 1946. 117; Schiassi 1955. 298; Schwarze 1971. 122–4; Storey 2003. 263–6; Storey 2011. 223–5; Rusten 2011. 268 Title We know of no other comedy entitled Philoi. Wilamowitz 1870. 49 took “friends” to mean “pederastic suitors”; compared Autolykos I and II; and argued for a chorus of aspiring lovers of the beautiful Demos son of Pyrilampes (PA 3573; PAA 317910; cf. Ar. V. 98 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.), a hypothesis for which there is not a shred of substantial evidence; cf. Zelle 1892. 31. The more obvious conclusion is that the chorus was in fact made up of “friends”, sc. of the central character or characters, like the philoi of Cratinus who made up the chorus of Pytinê (test. ii.6), the philoi of Bdelycleon who make up the chorus of old jurors in Aristophanes’ Wasps (esp. 317), and the ἄνδρες φίλοι καὶ δηµόται (“friends and demesmen”) of Blepyrus who make up the chorus of farmers in Aristophanes’ Wealth (esp. 254). Or “friends” might mean “political allies”, as at e. g. X. HG 6.5.48; IG I3 67.4 (partially restored), making this a title formally similar to Dêmoi and Poleis. Friends (philoi) are distinguished a number of times in comedy, as in other contemporary sources, from relatives, on the one hand, and from demesmen, on the other (fr. 99.24–5 with n.; Eq. 320; Nu. 1128, 1209; Ec. 1024–5; Men. Asp. 117–18), the point apparently being that friends are made rather than born—and can be lost. In practical terms, a friend is a person one can count on for assistance in times of trouble or to share whatever windfalls one comes into (e. g. Ar. Eq. 94, 473; Av. 133–4; Ec. 528–31; Pl. 239–40, 345, 398, 782–3, 829–31, 834–6 (the majority of the passages from this play colored by the cynical attitude adopted by most of its characters); Antiph. frr. 208.1; 226.3–4; note Ar. Th. 1027 ἄφιλον = “with no one to help me”). But the relationship is not a simple matter of coldly calculated expediency, for a friend—the word is in fact routinely used in the plural in the sense “group of friends, circle of friends”—is also a person about whom one speaks no evil (Telecl. fr. 44.4–5) and whom one can potentially embarrass (fr. 99.25); to whom one can complain when life is going badly (Ar. Ach. 690–1); to whom one can also tell the truth (Ar. Ach. 513), and who may occasionally offer unsolicited advice in turn (Ar. V. 1430–1); whom one can bore from time to time, e. g. by practicing

Φίλοι (Introduction)

439

a courtroom speech on him (Ar. Eq. 349); and who will come to one’s funeral and remember one affectionately and wistfully after one passes or moves away (Ar. Ra. 83–4; fr. 649; Antiph. fr. 54.1). See in general Konstan 1997. 53–92 (although with no attention to the comic evidence and an emphasis instead on tragedy and especially Aristotle). Crates’ Geitones (“Neighbors”) and Aristomenes’ Boêthoi (“Helpers”), and perhaps Philonides’ Philetairos (“Friendly Companion”), are thus further potential parallels for the title. The other activity in which friends routinely engage in comedy is group dining (e. g. fr. 374; Cratin. fr. 62.2; Pherecr. fr. 162.1, 13; Ar. Pax 1131–2; Av. 129–32; Ec. 348–9; Eub. frr. 72.3–4; 117.5–6), and one might accordingly (with Schwarze 1971. 124) alternatively compare the choruses of Kolakes and of Aristophanes’ Daitalês (“Banqueters”; see test. ii.3–4). Content Obscure; cf. Storey 2003. 263 “the great mystery play among the remains of Eupolis … it is easier to reject the theories of others than to say with any confidence what this comedy was about”. Storey 2003. 264, 265–6 nonetheless attempts to use fr. 293 to argue that the action featured a wealthy old man who attempted to enter the cavalry despite not having learned to ride, and who was thus presumably forced to take lessons (like Dionysus in Taxiarchoi supposedly learning to row). But the content of the fragment (n.) does not support this conclusion. Date Unknown. The reference to Aspasia in fr. 294 seems most at home in the 420s BCE, before she had time to fade from popular memory, but fr. 110.2 shows that Eupolis might have referred to her in retrospect at any point. So too, although Autolykos’ victory in the boy’s pancration in 422 BCE (see Autolykos I and II introductory n.) must have brought particular attention to his father Lykon at that time (frr. 232; 295 with n.), there is no reason to think that the family was obscure either in the decade before that date or in the one after it. Müller-Strübing took Philoi to be an alternative title for Autolykos II, which would put the play after 421 BCE. That there is no positive evidence for the thesis does not make it impossible. The following have also been assigned to Philoi: frr. 346; 357; 373 (all wild guesses by Wilamowitz).

440

Fragments fr. 286 K.-A. (265 K.) νὴ τὸν Ποσειδῶ † οὐδέποτ’ ἴσχει ἡ θύρα † EΓ

Lh

οὐδέποτ’ Σ : 〈γε〉 οὐδέποτ’, i. e. 〈γ᾿〉 οὐδέποτ’ Triclinius (= Σ ) : κοὐδέποτ’ Elmsley E Γ ἴσχει ἡ Σ : ἡ om. Σ : ἴσχει 〈γ᾿〉 ἡ vel -ποτε 〈γ᾿〉 ἴσχει Elmsley : -ποτ᾿ ἴσχεν ἡ Porson

Yes, by Poseidon, † the door never restrains † EΓ

Σ Ar. Ach. 127 τοὺς δὲ ξενίζειν· παροιµία ἐπὶ τῶν πολλοὺς ξένους ὑποδεχοµένων (Bentley : ἀποδεΓ χοµένων codd.) “οὐδέποτ’ ἴσχει ἡ θύρα”. µέµνηται (δὲ add. Σ : ταύτης add. Triklinios) καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Φίλοις· ――. καὶ Καλλίµαχος ἐν Ἑκάλῃ (fr. 231)· ――. καὶ Πίνδαρος (N. 9.2)· ―― but that they entertain: “the door never restrains” is a proverb referring to those who Γ entertain (thus Bentley : “who accept” codd.) many guests. (“But” added by Σ ) Eupolis as well mentions (“this (proverb)” added by Triklinios) in Philoi: ――. Also Callimachus in Hecale (fr. 231). ――. Also Pindar (N. 9.2): ――

Meter Iambic trimeter. llkl l|†lkkll†lkl Discussion Meineke 1839 II.535; Wilamowitz 1870. 50; Müller-Strübing 1890. 545–6; Schiassi 1944. 31; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 265 Citation context A well-informed gloss on Ar. Ach. 127 τοὺς δὲ ξενίζειν οὐδέποτέ γ’ ἴσχει θύρα; (“Does a door never restrain these people from entertaining?”; the text of the second half of the line is disputed). The proverb is also preserved in a closely related note, but without the citations, at Greg. Cypr. 4.76 οὐδέποτ’ ἴσχει ἡ θύρα· ἐπὶ τῶν πάντας ὑποδεχοµένων καὶ ξενιζόντω (“the door never restrains: in reference to those who entertain and host everyone”). Text The text transmitted by ΣE scans as an iambic trimeter (ΣΓ omits the definite article ἡ), but features hiatus between (1) Ποσειδῶ and οὐδέποτ’ and (2) ἴσχει and ἡ. Triklinios (= ΣLh) removed the first instance of hiatus via his usual expedient of inserting γ(ε) into the text; cf. Ar. Ec. 748 µὰ τὸν Ποσειδῶ γ’ οὐδέποτ’. Elmsley suggested instead κοὐδέποτ’ ἴσχει 〈γ᾿〉 ἡ θύρα and later κοὐδέποτε 〈γ᾿〉 ἴσχει θύρα, to avoid a split anapaest. Neither Callimachus nor Pindar uses the phrase οὐδέποτ’ ἴσχει ἡ θύρα—both merely refer to hospitality, although Pindar does say πεπταµέναιν ξείνων ἕνεκεν ταῖν θύραιν (“with doors outspread on account of guests”)—and it is not impossible that the second

Φίλοι (fr. 287)

441

half of the line was imposed on Eupolis from above in the note via a copyist’s mistake that drove out whatever cognate remark originally stood in the text. Interpretation Probably a response to something said by another character, as normally in Aristophanes with oaths by Poseidon (see below). One would expect the proverb to refer to over-eager guests (~ “no door can keep them out”), like the kolakes of fr. 172, rather than to overly generous hosts (who control the door rather than the other way around). Meineke’s observation that the line “somehow illustrates the title of the play” is thus fair enough, although who spoke the words and in what specific connection is impossible to say (despite Wilamowitz, who thought that the reference must be to visits by Demos’ lovers; Kaibel, who believed that the house in question was Lykon’s (cf. fr. 295); and Storey (echoing Müller-Strübing), who claims that the reference should be “to an actual door in the play”, despite the proverbial character of the phrase, making this too merely a guess). In any case, this ought to be criticism rather than praise: someone wants in and is behaving like a pest. In Aristophanes, νὴ τὸν Ποσειδῶ or its negative equivalent µὰ τὸν Ποσειδῶ is the standard oath when the space to be filled extends from the head of the line to the penthemimeral caesura (e. g. Ach. 560; Eq. 1201; Nu. 83; Lys. 403, 1165; Th. 86; Ec. 339 (all in responses to another character)). The oath is also attested once in satyr play (E. Cyc. 262*), once in Plato (Smp. 214d), once in oratory (Aeschin. 1.73), a handful of times in Menander (esp. Sam. 363*) and once in Lucian (DMeretr. 14.2), but is never found in tragedy, all of which combines to make it clear that it was regarded as simple, colloquial language; cf. Dover 1985. 328–32, 341 = 1987. 48–53, 63–4 “it is reasonable to postulate that Attic conversation also was punctuated by oaths, that this ingredient in comic language was drawn from life” (quote from p. 341 = 64). See fr. 270.2 n. θύρα is from an old Indo-European root; cognate not just with e. g. English “door” and German “Tur”, but with Latin foris as well.

fr. 287 K.-A. (266 K.) οὐ δεινὰ ταῦτα † δὲ Ἀργείας φέρειν σχιστὰς ἐνεργεῖν † θF

G

1 ταῦτα δὲ [Ammon.] : ταῦτοι δὲ [Ammon.] : ταῦτ᾿ εἰσὶν Sym. : ταῦτα δ᾿ ἐστὶν Meineke : ταῦτα δή ᾿στιν Herwerden : ταῦτ᾿ ἐνθάδ᾿ Blaydes : fort. ταῦτα, δέσποτ’,    φέρειν codd. : φορεῖν Herwerden   Ἀργείας del. Edmonds (“gloss on σχιστάς”)    2 σχιστὰς ἐνεργεῖν [Ammon.] : σχιστὰς ἐνεγχεῖν Ptol. : ἢ ἐνεργεῖν σχιστὰς Sym. : σχιστὰς Ἐνέργη Wilamowitz

442

Eupolis

Isn’t this terrible † but to be bringing Argives to be effecting schistai † [Ammon.] Diff. 458 ~ Ptol. Gramm. ap. Heylbut 1887 p. 406.16–17

σχισταὶ τὰ ὑποδήµατα. Εὔπολις Φίλοις· ―― (Εὔπολις … φέρειν om. Ptol.). σχιστὸς δὲ ἀρσενικῶς χιτὼν γυναικεῖος Schistai are footwear. Eupolis in Philoi: ―― (Eupolis … end of v. 1 omitted by Ptol.). Whereas a schistos in the masculine is a chitôn worn by women

Meter Iambic trimeter. llkl k|†kl llkl llkl l†|〈lkl xlkl〉 Discussion Meineke 1839 II.532; Herwerden 1855. 26; Cobet 1856. 108; Kock 1880 I.331; Edmonds 1957. 407 n. f; Storey 2003. 26 Citation context Apollod. Com. fr. 12 follows. Valckenaer 1822 ad loc. seems to suggest that at least the first three words are also found in Cyril. Related material, but without reference to Eupolis, is preserved at – Poll. 7.54 ὁ δὲ σχιστὸς χιτὼν περόναις κατὰ τοὺς ὤµους διεῖρτο καὶ πόρπῃ κατὰ τὰ στέρνα ἐνῆπτο (“But the schistos chitôn was fastened at the shoulders with pins and attached at the breast with a brooch”) – Poll. 7.85 σχισταὶ πολυτελὲς ὑπόδηµα καὶ θρυπτικόν· ταύτας δὲ καὶ λεπτοσχιδεῖς ὠνόµαζον (“schistai are an expensive, effeminate type of footwear; they also called them leptoschideis”) – Hsch. σ 3034 σχι〈σ〉τός· χιτών τις ποιὸς γυναικεῖος, κατὰ τὸ στῆθος πόρπῃ συνεχόµενος (“schi〈s〉tos: a particular sort of chitôn worn by women, held together at the breast with a brooch”) – Phot. σ 912 σχιστὸς χιτών· κατὰ τὸ µέσον πόρπῃ συνεχόµενος (“schistos chitôn: held together in the middle with a brooch”; tentatively traced by Theodoridis to Diogenianus) See also Interpretation on Ἀργείαι. Text The first verse is preserved only in [Ammonius] and in the still-unedited portion of the Lexicon Symeonis (here dependent on [Ammonius]), and the text is problematic throughout. On the simplest interpretation of the paradosis, δεινά is predicative of ταῦτα (lit. “aren’t these things awful?”, i. e. “isn’t it awful?”), and Ἀργείας φέρειν and σχιστὰς ἐνεργεῖν stand in apposition to this, as in many of the parallels cited in Interpretation, as two separate items in a list. Alternatively, ταῦτα might conceal ταύτας, to be taken either with Ἀργείας (“these Argive [noun]”) or as the accusative subject of φέρειν

Φίλοι (fr. 287)

443

(“these women”). δὲ might be scriptio plena (thus δ᾿ Ἀργείας), but in any case lk or the equivalent is needed between ταῦτα and Ἀργείας to fill out the line. Meineke suggested ταῦτα δ᾿ ἐστίν (* at Antiph. fr. 69.14); cf. Herwerden’s ταῦτα δή ᾿στιν (no parallels in comedy or tragedy).265 But this puts the particle very late in the line to no obvious purpose, and one might consider instead e. g. δέσποτ’ (* at Ar. Eq. 960; Amphis fr. 27.4, and commonly used by comic slaves to address or refer to their master; cf. fr. 250 n.), with the error to be traced to the fact that the word was abbreviated δέσπτ vel sim. in the exemplar and miscopied. Regardless of whether the paradosis φέρειν (“to be bringing, carrying”) or Herwerden’s φορεῖν (“to be wearing”, seemingly more appropriate if clothing or shoes are the object; cf. fr. 158.2 n.) is printed in 1, the switch to aorist ἐνεγχεῖν (“to bring, carry”) in 2 in Ptolemy’s version of the text seems odd. Kassel–Austin accordingly adopt [Ammonius’] ἐνεργεῖν, although the verb (“operate, execute, effect”) is not attested elsewhere in Attic before Aristotle and the sense remains obscure. Edmonds comments “there is certainly an obscene joke” (sc. because anything “split” must on some level be a vagina?; thus Henderson 1991 § 196) and posits a para prosdokian joke connected with the “split dance” mentioned at Poll. 4.105.266 Perhaps the word is simply a corrupt, intrusive gloss on φέρειν. Interpretation A condemnation of someone for the effeminate or expensive way he/she/they dress, i. e. for what that style of dress and/or footwear supposedly reveals about his/her/their true character. If δέσποτ’, were correct (in place of the metrically deficient paradosis † δὲ †), the speaker would be a slave addressing his master. 1 οὐ δεινὰ ταῦτα Similar expressions at e. g. fr. 111.1* οὐ δεινόν + infin.; Ar. Ach. 770* οὐ δεινά; θᾶσθε· τοῦδε τᾶς ἀπιστίας, 1079* οὐ δεινά + infin.; Eq. 875* οὐ δεινόν + infin.; V. 417 ταῦτα δῆτ’ οὐ δεινά;, 1368* οὐ δεινά + infin.; Av. 27* οὐ δεινόν + infin.; Th. 705 ταῦτα δῆτ’ οὐ δεινὰ πράγµατ’ ἐστὶ καὶ περαιτέρω;; Ec. 400 οὐ δεινόν + infin.; Antiph. fr. 217.1* οὐ δεινόν + infin.; Lys. 11.6 πῶς οὖν οὐ δεινόν + infin.; Pl. Smp. 177a οὐ δεινόν + infin.; Is. 6.58 πῶς οὐ δεινόν + infin. Ἀργείαι are mentioned also at Herod. 7.60; Poll. 7.88 (in a catalogue of shoe and sandal types called after their supposed place of origin) and at Hsch. α 7014 Ἀργεῖαι· ὑποδήµατα πολυτελῆ γυναικεῖα (“Argives: expensive

265 266

Blaydes ταῦτ᾿ ἐνθάδ᾿ is not impossible, but is further from the paradosis and again finds no parallels in comedy or tragedy. Storey—presumably simply drawing on Edmonds—offers the same suggestions, but without explaining his reasoning.

444

Eupolis

women’s footwear”), both of which may be references to this passage. The obvious conclusion is that these are in fact specialized footwear of a nominally “Argive” character, like the Λακωνικαί (“Laconians”) Philocleon is asked to put on at Ar. V. 1157–67 (cf. Ar. Th. 142; Ec. 74, 269, 345, 508, 542, which passages combine to make it clear that these were distinctly male shoes; Stone 1984. 236–7) and the Περσικαί (“Persians”) worn by women at Ar. Lys. 229–30; Ec. 319 (cf. Stone 1984. 238–9). 2 σχιστάς Poll. 7.85 (quoted in Citation context) claims that another word for such footwear was λεπτοσχιδεῖς (literally “light-splits”), which is probably a reference to Cephisod. fr. 4.1–2 (quoted at Poll. 7.87) σανδάλια δὲ τῶν λεπτοσχιδῶν, / ἔφ’ οἷς τὰ χρυσᾶ ταῦτ’ ἔπεστιν ἄνθεµα (“little sandals of the leptoschideis variety, which have these gold tassels on them”). Nothing else is known of schistai beyond Pollux’ further claim that they were “expensive and effeminate”, although the descriptions of the schistos chitôn offered by the lexicographers (see Citation context) suggest that the sandals too somehow consisted of two separate parts that had to be artfully bound together. For sandals generally, see fr. 312 n.

fr. 288 K.-A. (adesp. fr. 591 K.) οὐδεὶς γὰρ οἶδεν. ἐν Κέῳ τίς ἡµέρα; For no one knows. What day (is it) on Ceos? Phot. ε 972 ἐν Κέῳ τίς ἡµέρα;· Εὔπολις Φίλοις· ――. οὐχ ἑστᾶσι γὰρ παρ’ αὐτοῖς αἱ ἡµέραι, ἀλλ’ ἕκαστος ὡς βούλεται ἄγει What day (is it) on Ceos?: Eupolis in Philoi: ――. For the days are not in a fixed order there, but everyone reckons them as he likes

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

k|lkl

klkl

Discussion Tsantsanoglou 1984. 143 Citation context Traced by Theodoridis to Diogenianus. Very similar material, but without specific reference to Eupolis, is preserved at Hsch. ε 3156 = App. Prov. 2.61 (Prov. Bodl. 365 Gaisford) ἐν Κέῳ τίς ἡµέρα;· παροιµία ἐπὶ τῶν οὐκ ἀγνώστων (App. Prov./Prov. Bodl. : εὐγνώστων Hsch.)· οὐδεὶς γὰρ οἶδεν ἐν Κέῳ τίς ἡµέρα. ὅτι οὐχ ἑστᾶσιν αἱ ἡµέραι, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἕκαστοι θέλουσιν ἄγουσιν. ὅθεν

Φίλοι (fr. 288)

445

λέγεται· σεαυτῷ νουµηνίαν κηρύσσεις (“What day (is it) on Ceos?: A proverb referring to things that are unknown (thus App. Prov./Prov. Bodl.: ‘well-known’ in Hsch.); for no one knows what day (it is) on Ceos. For the days are not in a fixed order there, but they all reckon them as they wish. Whence the saying: ‘You’ll announce the new moon for yourself’”; see in general Gow 1965 on Macho 121ff.; West 1978 on Hes. Op. 768). Crusius 1883. 48, commenting on the entry in the App. Prov., already recognized that the line now known from the “new Photius” to be drawn from Eupolis was a comic fragment, although he proposed assigning it to Diphilus on the basis of Zenob. Att. 1.50 (Miller 1868. 354) ἐν Κέῳ τίς ἡµέρα;· ἔθος ἦν παρὰ τοῖς Κείοις τοὺς ἐπιβαίνοντας τῶν ἀρχῶν παρέχειν ἄριστον τῷ δήµῳ. εἴ ποτε οὖν πολλοὶ ἦσαν ἄρχοντες, διενέµοντο πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἡµέρας. ἠρώτων οὖν οἱ ἀπαντῶντες ἀλλήλους τίς ἡµέρα· ὅθεν ἡ παροιµία ἐκράτησεν ἐπὶ τῶν δειπνιζόντων. µέµνηται ταύτης ∆ίφιλος ἐν τῇ Λευκαδίᾳ (fr. 52) (“What day (is it) on Ceos?: The Ceans had a custom that individuals entering office provided lunch for the people. If, therefore, there were ever a number of people taking over office, they divided up the days among them. People who met one another therefore asked what day (it was); whence the proverb came into being in reference to individuals having dinner. Diphilus mentions it in his Leukadia (fr. 52)”). Text The line is traditionally printed without punctuation, as if it meant “for no one knows what day (it is) on Ceos” (cf. Ar. Ec. 368 οἶδεν τί πρωκτὸς βούλεται χεζητιῶν, where οἶδεν ὅ τι πρωκτὸς βούλεται χεζητιῶν would do just as well, as at Ec. 989 οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅ τι λέγεις; D. 23.203 οὐδεὶς οἶδεν ἀνθρώπων τίς ἐστιν (“no one knows who in the world he is”)). In that case, however, one would expect ὅς τις, and since ἐν Κέῳ τίς ἡµέρα; is treated as a fixed, independent proverbial phrase at Crates fr. 32.5 παῖ’ ἐκεῖνον, ἄγχ’ ἐκεῖνον. ἐν Κέῳ τίς ἡµέρα; (“Hit him! Choke him! What day (is it) on Ceos?”; obscure) and apparently at Diph. fr. 52 (quoted in Citation context) as well, it is easier to place a full stop at the caesura. Interpretation An explanation (γάρ) of a previous remark, followed by a proverb that perhaps means “it’s all up for grabs” or the like, although the various authorities who cite and gloss it (see Citation context) appear to be doing little more than guessing. The island of Ceos (modern Kea), the birthplace of the poets Simonides and Bacchylides, is one of the Cyclades and the closest of the group to Athens.267 There were four cities on Ceos in the classical 267

Storey 2003. 265 pointed to the mention of Chios in fr. 296 (also proverbial) and suggested that this hinted at “an Ionian theme”, which is much further than the evidence can be pressed.

446

Eupolis

period, and as joint members of the Athenian Empire they were assessed the considerable sum of 10 talents of annual tribute in 425/4 BCE (IG I3 71.I.69 (6 talents actually paid in 417/6 and 416/5 BCE: IG I3 288.10; 289.13). See in general IACP pp. 747–51 (§ 491–4).

fr. 289 K.-A. (267 K.) ῥέγκειν δὲ τοὺς ὅλµους 〈 k 〉. οἴµοι τῶν κακῶν 〈ἄν〉 Meineke : 〈ἅµ᾿〉 Bothe

and the pipes be wheezing … Alas for my troubles! Phot. ο 234 ὅλµοι καὶ ὑφόλµια· ἐπὶ αὐλῶν. Εὔπολις Φίλοις· ―― holmoi and hypholmia: in reference to pipes. Eupolis in Philoi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter. llkl ll〈k〉|l

llkl

Discussion Herwerden 1855. 27; Kock 1880 I.331; Edmonds 1957. 407 n. g; West 1992a. 85 Citation context Other traces of the same original note, presumably drawn from an (Atticist?) lexicographer, are preserved at – Poll. 4.70 τῶν δ’ ἄλλων αὐλῶν τὰ µέρη γλῶττα καὶ τρυπήµατα καὶ βόµβυκες καὶ ὅλµοι καὶ ὑφόλµια (“the parts of other pipes are a reed, bore-holes, bombykes, holmoi and hypholmia”) – Hsch. υ 908 ὑφόλµιον· µέρος τι τοῦ αὐλοῦ πρὸς τῷ στόµατι ἢ αἱ γλωττίδες (“hypholmion: a part of a pipe near the mouth, or the mouthpieces”; traced by Hansen–Cunningham to Diogenianus) – Phot. υ 322 ὑφόλµιον· ἀπὸ268 τῶν αὐλῶν. Φερεκράτης (fr. 276) (“hypholmion: from pipes. Pherecrates (fr. 276)”) Text A one-syllable word containing a short vowel and ending in a consonant (or a second, elided vowel) is missing in the middle of the line and must go

268

Better ἐπί, as at Phot. ο 234.

Φίλοι (fr. 289)

447

with ῥέγκειν δὲ τοὺς ὅλµους, since οἴµοι always stands first in its clause.269 Meineke’s 〈ἄν〉, which would make the action described in the first half of the line unreal or iterative (“would be wheezing”), is not easily improved upon; see Interpretation. Interpretation A complaint, perhaps about the buzzing/droning of the pipes, but alternatively (if Meineke’s conjecture is correct) about the fact that they are not droning or not likely to be droning, whereas the speaker wishes that they were. ῥέγκειν (onomatopoeic; perhaps cognate with ῥύγχος, “snout”) is generally “to snore” (e. g. A. Eu. 53; Ar. Eq. 104; Nu. 5, 11) or “breathe with difficulty, wheeze” (e. g. [E.] Rh. 785 (of the choking gasps of dying men); Hp. Aph. 6.51 = 4.576.7 Littré). Here the word serves as a description of the sound the pipes produce, like Dicaeopolis’ unflattering comparison of them to wasps at Ar. Ach. 864 and the Scythian’s more appreciative βοµβο (i. e. βόµβος, “buzzing” vel sim.) at Ar. Th. 1176; cf. Taillardat 1965 § 789; West 1992a. 105 (neither with reference to this fragment). τοὺς ὅλµους West, comparing Ptol. Harm. p. 9.3, takes a holmos (used of any mortar-like—i. e. round and hollow—object; see Palmer 1946. 54–5) to be the bulb occasionally visible near the mouthpiece of pipes in vase-paintings, and a hypholmion to be the cup into which the reed was fitted. Adjusting the position or number of these parts of the instrument must have allowed the musician to modify its pitch, hence the complaint registered here, the pipe-sections standing via synecdoche for the pipe as a whole. Further bibliography on the problem of precisely what a holmos is at Solomon 2000. 13 n. 63. οἴµοι τῶν κακῶν οἴµοι (Homeric ὤ µοι) is attested in inscriptions already in the late 6th century BCE (e. g. IG I3 1267.1 (“c. a. 530–520 ?”); SIG3 11a = SGDI 3044 (found at Delphi, but commemorating a man from Selinous); IG I3 1248.1 = CEG 49 (Attica; restored)) and is exclusively poetic (in comedy also at e. g. Cratin. fr. 195.3; Pherecr. fr. 118; Hermipp. frr. 13 (paratragic); 51.1; Ar. Ach. 67 οἴµοι τῶν δραχµῶν; Nu. 1476 οἴµοι παρανοίας; Pl. 389 οἴµοι τῶν κακῶν*; Archipp. fr. 37.1; Pl. Com. fr. 208.1; Antiph. fr. 257.1; in tragedy at e. g. A. Ch. 875; S. El. 1179; Tr. 971; E. Heracl. 224 οἴµοι κακῶν; Hipp. 1454; Andr. 394 οἴµοι κακῶν τῶνδ’, 846; Hec. 1255; fr. 759a.1609 οἴµοι κακῶν σῶν; note also Emped. 31 B 139.1 D.–K.). See in general Labiano Ilundain 2000. 251–70. For

269

Kassel–Austin include Herwerden’s ἰώ µοι τῶν κακῶν (cf. Ar. Th. 1047 ἰώ µοι µοίρας (paratragic)) in their apparatus, but this produces medial caesura and is thus not to be considered if other options are available.

448

Eupolis

the exclamatory genitive, see Poultney 1936. 125, and cf. Labiano Ilundain 2000. 257.

fr. 290 K.-A. (270 K.) εὐφρανῶ δὲ νώ but I’ll make us both happy Apollon. Dysc. Grammatici Graeci II 1.1 p. 85.12–22 = pp. 470–2 Brandenburg αἱ δυϊκαὶ … εὐθείας µὲν καὶ αἰτιατικῆς κοινῶς νῷ, σφῷ· Ἀττικαὶ δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν πτώσεων νὼ καὶ σφώ … γενικῆς καὶ δοτικῆς νῶιν 〈καὶ〉 σφῶιν. µονοσυλλάβως Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ (fr. 201)· νὼ … ἱππεύοµεν. καὶ ἔτι ἐν Φίλοις· ―― The duals … of the nominative and the accusative are both nôi, sphôi; but the Attic forms of the same cases are nô and sphô … Of the genitive and the dative (the forms are) nôin 〈and〉 sphôin. Eupolis (pronounces them) monosyllabically in Marikas (fr. 201): given that … horsemen. And furthermore in Philoi: ―― r

Oros, On Orthography (Lex. Mess. fol. 281 20–6 ap. Rabe 1892. 407) ~ fr. B 108 Alpers νώ χωρὶς τοῦ ι, ἡ εὐθεῖα χωρὶς ὁµοίως τῇ αἰτιατικῇ· ὡς καὶ τὸ σφώ … Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ (fr. 201)· ――. καὶ ἐπὶ αἰτιατικῆς ὁ αὐτὸς ἐν Φίλοις. νῷν ἔχει τὸ ι ὡς καὶ τὸ σφῷν nô without the iota, the nominative without (it) just like the accusative; as also sphô … Eupolis in Marikas (fr. 201): ――. Also the same author in the accusative in Philoi. nôin has the iota, as sphôin does as well

Meter Iambic trimeter. e. g. 〈xlkl xlk〉|l

klkl

Citation context From Apollonius Dyscolus’ Pronouns, and seemingly taken over more or less direct from him by Oros in his study of iota subscript. Interpretation A promise, presumably in contrast to a threat posed by someone or something else. εὐφρανῶ 〈 εὔφρων, “cheerful”; already attested + acc. of the person cheered in Homer (e. g. Il. 7.297 Τρῶας ἐϋφρανέω καὶ Τρῳάδας ἑλκεσιπέπλους; cf. in the classical period e. g. E. Med. 1058 εὐφρανοῦσί σε; IA 654 σέ γ’ εὐφρανῶ; Agathon TrGF 39 F 12.1 οὐχί σ’ εὐφρανῶ). The nominative/accusative first-person dual νώ is attested already in Homer (e. g. Il. 5.219; Od. 15.475; some witnesses offer νῴ vel sim., and see below) and is used by the 5th-century Attic poets as a metrical expedient in place of disyllabic ἡµεῖς/ἡµᾶς (e. g. Ar. Eq. 72; Av. 13; Ra. 642; S. El. 75; OT 1504;

Φίλοι (fr. 291)

449

E. El. 1347; Hel. 981; Or. 50;270 also found occasionally in Plato, e. g. Phdr. 259a, 278b). Cf. monosyllabic genitive/dative νῷν at e. g. A. Ch. 234; E. Med. 871; Andr. 752; Ba. 194, recalling disyllabic epic νῶϊν (sometimes also accusative, as if with nu-moveable; see Janko 1992 on Il. 13.326–7) at e. g. Il. 8.374; Od. 15.168; [Hes.] Sc. 350.

fr. 291 K.-A. (271 K.) τί µισθοῖ; ποῖ; πόση τις ἡ φορά; What are you hiring for? To where? Precisely how much is the pay? Poll. 7.133 τὸ δὲ ἔργον αὐτῶν φορά, καὶ ὁ µισθὸς κόµιστρον· εἴποι δ’ ἄν τις αὐτὸν καὶ φέρτρον καὶ φορεῖον. Ἀριστοφάνης δ’ ἐν τοῖς Ἥρωσι δοκεῖ τὸ κόµιστρον κατὰ τὸ νῦν ἔθος εἰρηκέναι τὴν φοράν, ὅταν εἴπῃ (fr. 312)· ――. τούτῳ δ’ ἂν ἐοίκοι καὶ τὸ ἐν τοῖς Φίλοις Εὐπόλιδος· ―― The work they do is phora, and the wage is a komistron; although one could also call it a phertron or a phoreion. But Aristophanes in his Hêroes seems to refer to the komistron as a phora, in the modern fashion, when he says (fr. 312): ――. To this one might also compare the passage in the Philoi of Eupolis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xl〉kl l|lkl

klkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.534; Nauck 1848b. 520; Kock 1880 I.332 Citation context From the end of a collection of words of all sorts having to do with porters and bearers (Poll. 7.130–3). Interpretation A porter interrogates a potential employer before accepting an assignment. At Ar. Ra. 12–15, porter-scenes are treated as a comic stockin-trade, although only Phrynichus, Lycis and Ameipsias are named, Eupolis being by then long dead. Ar. Ra. 172–4, where Dionysus attempts and fails to hire a corpse to carry his baggage to the Underworld, rings a change on the theme, as all three questions asked here are answered in one way or another:

270

LSJ s. v. ἐγώ III fails to note the use of νώ in the dramatic poets, assigning it only to Plato, although noting νῷν at S. Ant. 3. Storey 2003. 26 and 2011. 225 translates “you both”, which is incorrect.

450

Eupolis

(∆ι.) ἄνθρωπε, βούλει σκευάρι’ εἰς Ἅιδου φέρειν; / (Νε.) πόσ’ ἄττα; (∆ι.) ταυτί. (Νε.) δύο δραχµὰς µισθὸν τελεῖς; / (∆ι.) µὰ ∆ί’, ἀλλ’ ἔλαττον. (Νε.) ὑπάγεθ’ ὑµεῖς τῆς ὁδοῦ (“(Dionysus) Sir, are you willing to carry some bags to Hades? (Corpse) How many exactly? (Dionysus) These here. (Corpse) Are you going to pay two drachmas? (Dionysus) No, by Zeus; less. (Corpse) [to the men carrying him] You—get a move on down the road!”). Porters hauling goods of all sorts from one place to another must have been ubiquitous in Athens (and other cities as well); cf. fr. 200 with n.; Hermipp. Phormophoroi (“Basket-bearers”, i. e. “Porters” or perhaps “Stevedores”); Ar. Ach. 211–13 with Olson 2002 ad loc. (peasant-farmers carrying baskets of charcoal into the city from the countryside); fr. 830 θυλακοφορεῖν (“to carry sacks”, referring to miners transporting ore); Aristomenes’ Hylophoroi (“Wood-carriers”, i. e. men who delivered carpentry material or fuel); Diphilus’ Plinthophoros (“The Brick-carrier”, a man who moved fired bricks from the kiln-yard to construction sites); Men. fr. 326 (a reference to a slave porter who picks up freelance jobs and pays his master a daily sum); Broughton 1938. 57 (evidence for porters’ guilds in Asia Minor in the Roman period); Wright 1971 (on porters—mostly mutes—in Roman comedy); Robert 1977. 90–1 (again on porters’ guilds in Asia Minor in the Roman period). For the transport-poles used to carry goods, Ar. Ach. 860 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Ra. 8; Ec. 833; frr. 571; 886; Phryn. PS p. 15.9–10; cf. Pl. Com. fr. 50. The middle of µισθόω is “hire (a person), rent (a thing)”, sc. for one’s own use (e. g. Ar. V. 52; Av. 1152; Ra. 167; Stratt. fr. 1.3–4; Men. Dysc. 264; Hdt. 1.24.2; Th. 4.52.2; 6.90.3; contrast the active at Ar. Lys. 958 µίσθωσόν µοί τινα τίτθην, “Hire a nurse for me!”). µισθοῖ must accordingly be second-person singular (pace Storey 2011. 225 “What does he have to hire?” [sic]), with τί as accusative of respect. LSJ s. v. I seems to imply that in the present and imperfect the verb is attested only in the active, but cf. e. g. Alex. fr. 259.5–6 µισθούµενον / εἰς ἑστίασιν; Hdt. 3.131.2 δηµοσίῃ µισθοῦνται; 5.62.2 τὸν νηὸν µισθοῦνται τὸν ἐν ∆ελφοῖσι; X. HG 2.4.43 ξένους µισθοῦσθαι τοὺς Ἐλευσῖνι; Pl. Prt. 347d µισθούµενοι ἀλλοτρίαν φωνὴν τὴν τῶν αὐλῶν; Isoc. 27.19 τὰ µὲν τῶν ξενιτευοµένων στρατόπεδα µισθοῦνται. For µισθός (“wage”), see fr. 470 n. ποῖ; i. e. “Where (will I need to carry the load) to?”, distance, change in elevation and the like all presumably being among the factors taken into account when a price was negotiated. πόση τις; For the colloquial use of τις/τι after forms of πόσος and ποῖος, seemingly serving to sharpen the question or observation, e. g. Ar. Eq. 1339; Nu. 765; Ra. 55 πόσος τις;; S. Ant. 42; fr. 314.301; E. Heracl. 674 πόσον τι;; Ph. 842 πόση τις; X. Mem. 3.6.5 πόσαι τινές εἰσι;; Pl. Tht. 198c πόσος τις; D. 27.33 πόσον τινά.

Φίλοι (fr. 292)

451

ἡ φορά Lit. “the carrying” (LSJ s. v. I.1) and thus, via a modest extension of meaning, “the transport-charge”, as seemingly also in Ar. fr. 312 (cited just before this in Pollux) ὀβολῶν δεουσῶν τεττάρων καὶ τῆς φορᾶς (“four obols being lacking plus the transport-charge”).271

fr. 292 K.-A. (272 K.) τήνδ᾿ αὐτὸς ἐκκανάξει but he himself will noisily drain this (cup) Poll. 10.85–6 τὰ µέντοι κάναστρα φελλώδεις τινὲς πινακίσκοι εἶναι δοκοῦσιν, ἀφ’ ὧν καὶ τὸ ἐκκενῶσαι ἢ ἐκπιεῖν κανάξαι λέγουσι καὶ ἐκκανάξαι, ὡς καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν τοῖς Φίλοις· ―― kanastra, in fact, appear to be a type of miniature platter made of cork, from (the name of) which they also use the verbs kanaxai and ekkanaxai to mean “to empty out” or “to drink dry”, as Eupolis in fact (does) in his Philoi: ――

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic. 〈xlkl xlkl〉 | llkl

kll

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.534; Kock 1880 I.332 Citation context From a discussion of words for cooking implements and vessels. Hsch. ε 1423 ἐκκανάξειν· ἐκκενώσειν, ἀπὸ τοῦ κανοῦ272. θορυβήσειν (“ekkanaxein: to be going to empty out, from the word kanoun. To be going to cause a disturbance”; traced by Latte to Diogenianus) and Phot. ε 388 ἐκκανάξαι· ἐκκενῶσαι (“ekkanaxai: to empty out”) must go back to the same source. For the κάναστρον, cf. Nicopho fr. 25; Amyx 1958. 266–8. Text τὴν δ᾿ (printed by Kassel–Austin) would also do. Interpretation An item in a list describing how the subject (a man) will handle a number of drinking cups (e. g. “〈he’ll offer one to X,〉 but …”). Perhaps 271

272

LSJ includes fr. 291 and Ar. fr. 312 as s. v. φορά I.2.c, a subcategory of the larger sense “what is brought in, payment” (generally referring to tribute payments, installments on loans, and the like). But given that this is specifically a cartage fee, one would expect that sense of φέρω to be to the fore. Better καν〈άστρ〉ου (cf. Pollux)?

452

Eupolis

from a debate, given the meter (cf. frr. 192.2–151 with n.; 384 with n.; 385 with n.). τήν sc. κύλικα, as in fr. 354 (n.). ἐκκανάξει Despite Pollux, the verb appears to be cognate with καναχή (“noise”; cf. Cratin. frr. 198.2; 279, and Hesychius’ θορυβήσειν), so that with the prefix ἐκ- it means “drain noisily” (as in Eupolis); with the prefix ἐν- it means “fill noisily” (as at Ar. Eq. 105–6 ἄκρατον ἐγκάναξόν µοι πολὺν / σπονδήν, “noisily fill (the cup with) a big libation of unmixed wine for me!”; E. Cyc. 152 ἐγκάναξον, ὡς ἀναµνησθῶ πιών, “noisily fill (my cup), so that I can drink and remember it!”; thus Valckenaer for the paradosis ἐκπάταξον; cf. Theoc. 9.27); and with the prefix δια- it means “pass noisily through” (as at E. Cyc. 158 µῶν τὸν λάρυγγα διεκάναξέ σου καλῶς;, “It gurgled nicely down your throat, didn’t it?”). Two of the compounds are eventually picked up at Ael. Ep. 4 τρεῖς ἁδρὰς ἐξεκάναξα κύλικας (“I noisily drained three substantial cups”) and Alciphr. 2.34.3 ἐγκανάξας κύλικα εὐµεγέθη … ὤρεγον (“I noisily filled a massive cup and held it out”), presumably as perceived Atticisms.

fr. 293 K.-A. (268 K.) οὐκ ἐσωφρόνησας, ὦ πρεσβῦτα, τὴν κατάστασιν τήνδε λαµβάνων ἄφνω πρὶν καὶ µαθεῖν τὴν ἱππικήν 2 τήνδε codd. : τῆσδε Kock

You acted intemperately, old man, by accepting this katastasis immediately, before you even learned to ride Harp. p. 170.7–16 = Κ 23 Keaney κατάστασις· Λυσίας (16.6)· ψηφίσασθαι δὲ τοὺς φυλάρχους ἀπενεγκεῖν τοὺς ἱππεύσαντας, ἵνα τὰς καταστάσεις ἀναπράξητε παρ’ αὐτῶν. ἔοικεν ἀργύριον εἶναι ὅπερ οἱ κατασταθέντες ἱππεῖς ἐλάµβανον ἐκ τοῦ δηµοσίου ἐπὶ τῇ καταστάσει, ὥσπερ αὐτὸς ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς ὑποσηµαίνει. παρεµφαίνει τοῦτο καὶ Εὔπολις Φίλοις· ――. ἔτι δὲ σαφέστερον λέγεται ἐν τῷ Σύρφακι Πλάτωνος (fr. 181). ἀπεδίδοτο δὲ τὸ ἀργύριον ὑπὸ τῶν ἱππευσάντων, ὅτε ἀντ’ αὐτῶν ἕτεροι καθίσταντο· ἀπῄτουν δὲ αὐτὸ οἱ φύλαρχοι katastasis: Lysias (16.6): “and to vote that the phylarchs turn in a list of those who served as knights, so that you can demand repayment of the katastaseis from them”. This appears to be money that those who were appointed knights used to get from the public treasury to establish them, as the orator himself indicates in what follows. Eupolis in Philoi as well suggests this: ――. And the point is made even more clearly in Plato’s Syrphax (fr. 181). The money was paid back by those who served as knights when other men were appointed in their place; the phylarchs requested it

Φίλοι (fr. 293)

453

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

lklk lklk

lkll lklk lkl lkll | lkll lkl

Discussion Kock 1880 I.331; Böchk 1886 I.319; Kaibel ap. K.–A.; Storey 2003. 264 Citation context An isolated lexicographic entry from an Atticist source. Phot. κ 365 = Suda κ 788 preserve an abridged version of the same material (omitting the title of Eupolis’ play) drawn from the Epitome of Harpocration. Text Kock’s τῆσδε (dependent on 1 τὴν κατάστασιν) for the paradosis τήνδε in 2 is designed to give the demonstrative a point by making the content of the fragment sexual: the addressee plans to “ride” the girl or woman he has undertaken to support (cf. Ar. V. 501 κελητίσαι273). As Kaibel saw (see Interpretation), however, this is unnecessary, for κατάστασις here stands in for some other undertaking that must have been identified in the preceding verses. Interpretation Old men are routinely the central characters in Aristophanic comedies, and Storey 2003. 264 attempted to reconstruct some of the action of Philoi on the basis of this fragment, arguing that the πρεσβύτης in question might have unwisely accepted the cavalry katastasis (for which, below) and accordingly have been forced to learn to ride; cf. Strepsiades’ discouraged comments after he proves intellectually incapable of coping with life in the Phronisterion at Ar. Nu. 791–3, on the one hand, and his testy exchange with the Chorus after the disaster with Pheidippides at Ar. Nu. 1452–61, on the other. As Kaibel observed, however, “Given that an old man could not be enrolled among the knights, the poet is obviously speaking metaphorically”, which must be the point of the otherwise problematic τήνδε (see on Text): the addressee must thus have accepted support for some major—and expensive?— undertaking (or one that is portrayed as such) before bothering to ensure that he had the skills necessary to carry it out. This might nonetheless be the central character in the play, and White 1912 § 245 notes that in Aristophanes trochaic tetrameter catalectic is “frequently employed when the chorus enters in haste in the parode” (e. g. Ach. 234–6, 238–40 and Eq. 242–83, in both of which passages they are upset about the behavior of a central character in the play). But even if the parallel is apt, we have no way of knowing whether Eupolis’ old man was successful in his undertaking, despite suffering a 273

Thus Kock; in fact, the speaker wants the woman to “ride” him. For the image generally, cf. Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 900.

454

Eupolis

temporary set-back; and this might in any case be mockery of different sort, like Philocleon’s abusive treatment of the Breadseller and an anonymous Complainant at Ar. V. 1399–1411, 1427–40. The actual κατάστασις was “establishment (money)”, i. e. a loan made by the Athenian state to an individual cavalryman to help him buy a horse. As Harpocration and the material quoted there makes clear, the κατάστασις had to be repaid when a man left the cavalry and was replaced by someone else; depreciation in the animal’s value was apparently treated as the owner’s problem, not the state’s. This is the earliest known reference to the institution; see in general Sauppe 1896. 238–44; Anderson 1961. 136–9; Fornara 1973 (arguing that the hostility of the knights toward the Paphlagonian mentioned at Ar. Eq. 225–6 is to be understand as a response to the historical Cleon’s attempt to interfere with grants of κατάστασις); Kroll 1977. 97–100 (discussing a number of 4th-century BCE lead tablets found in a well in the Agora, most likely near the site of the Hipparcheion, that seem to represent valuations of cavalry horses intended to ensure that only the appropriate amount was returned to anyone who had his mount killed or disabled in combat); Bugh 1982. 308–11; Bugh 1988. 53, 56–8, 66–7; Spence 1993. 272–86, esp. 279–80; Worley 1994. 70–2, 74; and cf. fr. 343 n. (on the inspection of cavalry horses to determine their eligibility for σῖτος, the state fodder grant). 1 οὐκ ἐσωφρόνησας For σωφροσύνη (“self-control, temperance, prudent self-interest”), cf. Ar. Eq. 545 (σωφρονικῶς opposed to ἀνοήτως, “senselessly”); Nu. 962 (a supposed hallmark of Athenian society in the time of the Just Argument); V. 1405 σωφρονεῖν ἄν µοι δοκεῖς (“you would seem to me to be acting sophrôn”; of prudent, sensible behavior); Lys. 1093 (self-protection in a potentially dangerous situation); Men. fr. 818 (a quality a man wants to see in his son); and see in general North 1966; Rademaker 2005. ὦ πρεσβῦτα need not be pejorative (e. g. Ar. fr. 148.1; see in general Dickey 1996. 82–4), but here the sense appears to be “old (and as a consequence mentally defective)”, as at Ar. Nu. 493; V. 1309. Tragedy uses πρέσβυ instead, generally in a respectful manner (e. g. A. Supp. 602; S. OT 1013; E. Med. 1013; in comedy only at Ar. Ach. 1228 (in a passage that echoes Archilochus); Th. 146 (paratragic; see Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.); Strato Com. fr. 1.38 (parody of elevated style)). 2 ἄφνω Late 5th-/4th-century Attic vocabulary (e. g. Amphis fr. 37.2; A. fr. *195.4; E. Med. 1205; Th. 2.90.4; D. 21.41; etymology uncertain). ἐξαίφνης (perhaps cognate) is more common in all periods and genres (e. g. Cratin. fr. 171.41; Ar. Nu. 387; Il. 17.738; Pi. O. 9.52; E. Hipp. 434; [A.] PV 1077; Th. 8.102.1; X. An. 6.5.7).

Φίλοι (fr. 294)

455

For πρὶν καί + infin. (not used thus in tragedy or lyric), e. g. Ar. Av. 1034; Antiph. fr. 189.4; Th. 4.128.1; D. 21.162. τὴν ἱππικήν sc. τέχνην (cf. Ar. Pl. 905), “horsemanship, riding”, as at e. g. Ar. Nu. 107; V. 1429; X. Cyr. 1.4.5; Pl. La. 182a. For adjectives in -ικός (exploding in popularity in the late 5th century), see fr. 350 n.

fr. 294 K.-A. (274 K.) TW

Σ Pl. Mx. 235e (pp. 182–3 Greene) Κρατῖνος δὲ † Ὀµφάλῃ τύραννον αὐτὴν καλεῖ χείρων † Εὔπολις Φίλοις· ἐν δὲ Προσπαλτίοις (fr. 267) Ἑλένην αὐτὴν καλεῖ sic Σ : τύραννον αὐτὴν καλεῖ Χείρωσιν, Ὀµφάλην Bergk : Ὀµφάλην αὐτὴν καλεῖ Χείρωσιν, τύραννον δὲ Meineke : Ὀµφάλη τύραννον αὐτὴν καλεῖ, Χείρωνα Schwarze : fort. Ὀµφάλην 〈καὶ〉 τύραννον αὐτὴν καλεῖ Χείρωσιν, 〈 … 〉 χείρων Σ : ∆ηιάνειραν Jacobs : Ἥραν Meineke But Cratinus (fr. 259) † in Omphalê calls her tyrannos worse † Eupolis in Philoi; whereas in Prospaltioi (fr. 267) he calls her Helen

Discussion Bergk 1838. 238; Meineke 1847 I.206; Edmonds 1957. 409 n. c; Schiassi 1955. 297–8; Schwarze 1971. 57–9, 122–3; Storey 2003. 265; Storey 2011. 227 Citation context From a richly informed biographical note on Aspasia that also includes a reference to fr. 110; presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Text See fr. 267 n. If Meineke’s correction of the paradosis is correct, we have no idea what Eupolis called Aspasia in Philoi, unless τύραννον has somehow been transposed to where it now stands in the text and a particle lost (a thesis too complicated to be taken seriously); the suggestions of Jacobs and Meineke—the latter driven by an attempt to connect this reference with fr. 438 (Eupolis called Hera βοῶπις) and Plu. Per. 24—are little more than shots in the dark. Alternatively, Schwarz 1971. 59 suggested that Cratinus may have called Aspasia “Omphale the tyrant”, and that Eupolis called her “Cheiron”, i. e. “Pericles’ teacher” (sc. in rhetoric; cf. Call. Com. fr. *21). Interpretation For Pericles’ Milesian mistress Aspasia (PAA 222330), see fr. 267 n. Kassel–Austin identify the beginning of the citation context here with Cratinus fr. *259. But Aspasia is there called Hera, and the reference in the scholion to Plato ought probably to have been given a separate number.

456

Eupolis

fr. 295 K.-A. (273 K.) Areth.

Σ Pl. Ap. 23e (p. 422 Greene) Εὔπολις δ᾿ ἐν Φίλοις καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικὶ Ῥοδίᾳ κωµῳδεῖ αὐτόν And Eupolis in Philoi also makes fun of (Lykon) in connection with his wife Rhodia

Discussion Sommerstein 1980b. 398–9 = Sommerstein 2009. 52; Storey 2003. 265; Sommerstein 2009. 66 Citation context From a biographical note on Socrates’ accuser Lykon—perhaps a different man, despite PA and PAA—that also preserves fr. 61; Cratin. fr. 214; Ar. V. 1301; Metag. fr. 10, and that is presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. ΣRΓ Ar. Lys. 270 (quoting fr. 232) may well be dependent on the same source. Interpretation For Lykon (PA 9271; PAA 611820) the father of Autolykos (the name-character of two of Eupolis’ plays), see fr. 61 n. That Lykon was mocked for the allegedly shameless behavior of his wife is apparent from fr. 232 (n.) and Ar. Lys. 270. As a free woman and not a priestess, she would never have been named onstage (see in general Sommerstein 1980b = 2009. 43–69),274 however, and Rhodia is in any case not a personal name but an ethnic (“the woman from Rhodes”; attested elsewhere as a name in Attica only for a metic (PAA 800840) in the late 4th century). The reference to her name here and in ΣRΓ Ar. Lys. 270 (citing fr. 232) must accordingly be an ancient scholarly mistake probably dependent on fr. 58 (where see n.); if the “Rhodian woman” referred to there was in fact Lykon’s wife, part of the joke may have been that, like her husband (fr. 61 with n.), she was supposedly a foreigner. Cf. Storey 2003. 91.

274

Essential general background to the issue is presented by Schaps 1977. Storey 2003. 91 suggests that this objection might be vitiated if Lykon’s wife was addressed by name onstage by the character playing her husband (like Praxagora at Ar. Ec. 520) or by another female character (like various women at e. g. Ar. Lys. 6, 70). But this misses the point, which is that Lykon’s wife was a real person, not a fictional character, and that naming her in any way onstage would have been grossly insulting to the male members of her family in a way that even the relatively unrestrained “free speech” of comedy seemingly did not allow.

Φίλοι (fr. 296)

457

fr. 296 K.-A. (269 K.) Ath. 6.266e–f Νικόλαος δ’ ὁ περιπατητικὸς (FGrH 90 F 95) καὶ Ποσειδώνιος ὁ στωικὸς (FGrH 87 F 38 = fr. 51 Edelstein–Kidd) ἐν ταῖς ἱστορίαις ἑκάτερος τοὺς Χίους φασὶν ἐξανδραποδισθέντας ὑπὸ Μιθριδάτου τοῦ Καππάδοκος παραδοθῆναι τοῖς ἰδίοις δούλοις δεδεµένους, ἵν’ εἰς τὴν Κόλχων γῆν κατοικισθῶσιν· οὕτως αὐτοῖς ἀληθῶς τὸ δαιµόνιον ἐµήνισε πρώτοις χρησαµένοις ὠνητοῖς ἀνδραπόδοις … µήποτ’ οὖν διὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἡ παροιµία Χ ῖ ο ς δ ε σ π ό τ η ν ὠνήσατο, ᾗ κέχρηται Εὔπολις ἐν Φίλοις Nicolaus the Peripatetic (FGrH 90 F 95) and Posidonius the Stoic (FGrH 87 F 38 = fr. 51 Edelstein–Kidd) both claim in their Histories that the Chians were deprived of their freedom by Mithridates of Cappadocia and turned over in chains to their own slaves to be resettled in Colchian territory. There can thus be no doubt that the divine power was angry at them for being the first people to rely on slaves who were bought … Perhaps, then, this is the origin of the proverb “A C h i a n purchased a m a s t e r ”, which Eupolis uses in Philoi

Meter Χῖος δεσπότην can be accommodated in iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlk〉 l l|lkl 〈xlkl〉. If ὠνήσατο were accepted as part of the quotation, the word would fill out the end of the line: 〈xlk〉l l|lkl llkl; but see Text. Discussion Lobeck 1820. 138; Meineke 1839 II.533; Cobet 1856. 108–10; Cobet 1858. 156; Herwerden 1882. 73; Edmonds 1957. 408 n. 1, 409 n. a Citation context From a long, complex discussion of slavery at the end of Book 6 of Athenaeus certainly colored in part by Posidonius’ discussion of the 2nd-century BCE slave wars in Sicily (for which, see Verbrugghe 1975). Text Lobeck noted that ὠνήσατο is not a classical form (ἐπρίατο being expected; e. g. fr. 385.1 with n.; Ar. Eq. 44; Pax 1200; Archipp. fr. 21; And. 1.133; contrast the imperfect ἐωνούµην at fr. 197, and cf. Ael. Dion. ε 59; Phryn. Ecl. 108; Lautensach 1911. 32–3), at least in Attic, and Herwerden observed that verbs are often omitted in proverbs (e. g. µὴ παιδὶ µάχαιραν, “Don’t (give) a knife to a child!”; cf. fr. 133 with n.) and suggested that only Χῖος δεσπότην belonged to Eupolis, ὠνήσατο having been supplied by Athenaeus’ source or perhaps by Athenaeus himself. Interpretation The events to which Nicolaus and Posidonius (and so Athenaeus) refer took place in the first half of the 1st century BCE and can accordingly have no connection with the origins of Eupolis’ proverb (not attested elsewhere; see Strömberg 1954. 39). This must in any case be a paradox—a man acquires a slave in order to tell him what to do, but the slave turns the tables—and may well be connected with the claim that Chians

458

Eupolis

were archetypal slave-owners (supported at Ath. 6.265b by a reference to Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 122a, showing that the idea was already current in the 4th century BCE). What verb should be supplied is unclear, although the fact that it is left unexpressed might hint at an obscenity (e. g. ἐβινήσατο, “fucked”). If the joke is more complicated than this—and thus even harder for us to understand—perhaps Chian wine (e. g. Hermipp. fr. 77.5; Ar. Ec. 1139; fr. 225.3) or the knucklebone throw known as a “Chian” (fr. 372 n.; Stratt. fr. 24 with Orth 2009 ad loc.) is involved. For Chios (IACP #840) and its political and military relations with Athens, see fr. 246 n. For the “Ionian theme” in Philoi hypothesized by Storey 2003. 265, see fr. 288 n.

fr. 297 K.-A. (275 K.) [Hdn.] Philet. 75 ἀ ν α κ ο γ χ υ λ ί σ α σ θ α ι, οὐχὶ ἀναγαργαρίσασθαι· Εὔπολις ἐν Φίλοις ἀνακογχυλίσασθαι [Hdn.] : fort. ἀνακογχυλιάσασθαι a n a k o n k y l i s a s t h a i (“to gargle”), not anagargarisasthai. Eupolis in Philoi K

Harp. ap. Keaney 1967. 209 ἀ ν α κ ο γ χ υ λ ί σ α σ θ α ι · ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐν τῷ βίῳ λεγοµένου ἀναγαργυρίσασθαι· Εὔπολις ἐν Φίλοις ἀνακογχυλίσασθαι Harp. : fort. ἀνακογχυλιάσασθαι a n a k o n k y l i s a s t h a i (“to gargle”): referring to what is currently termed anagargurisasthai. Eupolis in Philoi

Discussion Kock 1880 I.333; Edmonds 1957. 408–9 Citation context Similar material, but with no reference to Eupolis, is preserved at Herennius Philo, Περὶ κυριολεξίας 7 ἀνακογχυλίσας οὐκ ἀναγαργαρίσας, which is merely an epitome of the original work, from which the note in [Hdn.] likely derives. Keaney 1967. 209 (followed by Kassel–Austin) takes the entry in Harpocration to go back to [Hdn.], but there is no good reason why it should not go back direct to Herennius Philo as well, and I accordingly print these as two separate testimonia to the text of Eupolis. Poll. 6.25 ὃ µέντοι ἀναγαργαρίσασθαι οἱ νῦν λέγουσιν, ἀνακογχυλίσασθαι ἔλεγον, τὸ ἀνακλύσασθαι τὴν φάρυγγα (“for what people today term anagargarisasthai, they used to use the word anakonkylisasthai, meaning to slosh water about

Φίλοι (fr. 297)

459

in one’s throat”; Pl. Com. fr. 220 follows) also offers the unexpected spelling -ίσασθαι and is likely another fragment of the same material. See also Text, and cf. Hsch. α 4365 ἀνακογχυλιάσαι· ἀναγαργαρίσαι ~ Phot. α 1520 = Suda α 1907 ἀνακογχυλιάσαι· ἀναγαργαρίσασθαι (originally a gloss on Pl. Smp. 185d–e? (quoted in Text)). Text Pl. Com. fr. 220 ἀνακογχυλιαστὸν ἐχθοδοπόν τι σκευάσω and Pl. Smp. 185d–e ὕδατι ἀνακογχυλίασον suggest that the proper form of the verb may be ἀνακογχυλιάζω rather than ἀνακογχυλίζω. Et.Sym. I p. 3.9–11 Lasserre–Livadaras offers ἀνακογχυλίσαι ὕδωρ καὶ ὕδατι, οἷον· ὕδωρ µοί τις δότω ἀνακογχυλίσαι, καὶ πάλιν· ἀνακογχύλισον ὕδατι (Pl. Smp. 185d) (“to gargle water and with water, for example: ‘someone give me water to gargle!’; and again: ‘gargle with water!’ (Pl. Smp. 185d)”). Kock integrated the first—otherwise unknown—quotation with the word cited by [Herodian]/Harpocration to produce continuous fragments of two iambic trimeter lines, which he then assigned to Eupolis: 〈xlkl xl〉 ὕδωρ µοί τις δότω / ἀνακογχυλίσασθαι 〈|lkl xlkl〉 (“Someone bring me water to gargle!”; offered by Edmonds in the form 〈xlkl xl〉 ὕδωρ µοί τις δότω / ἀνακογχυλίσαι 〈xlkl xlkl〉). But this is merely a shot in the dark. Interpretation Both -κογχυλ- and -γαργαρ- are onomatopoeic with intensive reduplication; cf. βάρβαρος; Schwyzer 1939. 423. ἀναγαργαρίζω is common in the medical writers (e. g. Hp. Morb. II 26 = 7.42.6, 10 Littré; Aff. 4 = 6.212.5 Littré; Diocles Med. fr. 183a.31 van der Eijk), but seems to be attested elsewhere only at Chrysipp. SVF III.200, xxviii fr. 10.

460

Χρυσοῦν γένος (Chrysoun genos) (“The Golden Race”)

Introduction Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 145–6 n. 10; Bergk 1838. 361–4; Meineke 1839 I.145–6, II.535–46; Meineke 1847. 206–10; Wilamowitz 1870. 52–4; MüllerStrübing 1873. 164–6; Gilbert 1877. 131–3; Kock 1880 I.333–9; Zielinski 1885. 33–4, 57–8; Kaibel 1907 p. 1232.11–26; Hoffmann 1910. 35–6; Geissler 1925. 35 + 1969. xiii; Norwood 1931. 198–9; Zielinski 1931. 43–4; Schiassi 1944. 58–65; Schmid 1946. 116; Edmonds 1957. 410–17; Luppe 1972. 75 n. 91; Storey 1990. 17–18; Ruffell 2000. 490–2; Sidwell 1993. 381–5, esp. 382–3; Sidwell 1994. 108–12; Storey 2003. 266–77 Title The title is otherwise unknown, but is most naturally taken to refer somehow to the χρυσοῦν γένος of men described by Hesiod (Op. 109–26) who existed in the time of Cronus and “lived like gods, with a heart free of care”; had no need to work, since the earth produced everything for them of its own accord; passed their time instead in feasting; never grew old and died easily, as if falling asleep; and were ultimately transformed into underground deities, who guard modern people and bestow wealth upon them. Content Eupolis’ plays are generally called after their choruses, otherwise seemingly after the central character (Autolykos I and II; Marikas); for a quasi-Hesiodic Golden Race as chorus, cf. Cratinus’ Ploutoi (esp. fr. 171.11–12) and (a more distant parallel) Aristophanes’ Clouds (esp. 1115–30).275 Fr. 299 (n.) might be set in a world in which burdensome household chores are taken care of automatically, with no human effort required (cf. Hes. Op. 117–18). But the fact that Athenaeus does not include Chrysoun genos in his extended catalogue of Golden Age comedies at 6.267e–70a suggests that it was a different sort of play (thus Wilamowitz 1870. 54 n. 44), and none of the other fragments is obviously set anywhere other than in the real contemporary world. The praise of Athens in fr. 316.1–2, 4–5 (from the parabasis) is patently sarcastic, and Welcker suggested that the Golden Age nominally in question was the actually less-than-golden period of Cleon’s political dominance. The limited evidence cannot be pushed so far,276 but it is nonetheless tempting to think 275 276

Bergk (followed by Edmonds), comparing fr. 314 (n.), took the chorus of Eupolis’ play to be made up instead of Cyclopes; but the source appears to be corrupt. Ruffell’s reconstruction of the play as “the principal example of the automatist utopia being inverted” (quote from p. 490) is particularly overconfident.

Χρυσοῦν γένος (Introduction)

461

that there must have been some pointed contrast between the perfect, lost world to which the title alludes and contemporary times. A rhapsode (fr. 309) and a citharode (fr. 311; cf. fr. 303) took part in the action; someone realized that he was in trouble and was likely to be beaten (fr. 304); and someone was waiting for another character, but ultimately decided to enter a house regardless of whether the other individual did as well. Beyond that, the action is opaque.277 The following have also been assigned to Chrysoun genos: frr. 331 (Bergk); 361 (Meineke). Date The reference to Cleon in power in fr. 316.1 dates the play to before his death in late 422 BCE. Geissler thought the characterization could only have been offered after the victory at Pylos in 425 BCE, putting the play in 424–422 BCE, and fr. 316.1 might then reasonably be understood, like Ar. Eq. 313, to refer to the reassessment of the tribute in 425/4 BCE (Meritt, Wade-Gery and McGregor 1950. 70–89), in which Cleon likely played a leading role. But Cleon had taken a leading role in the Mytilenean Debate already in 427 BCE, and Aristophanes seems to have mounted a vigorous attack on him in Babylonians a year later (cf. Ar. Ach. 6 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Bab. test. iv.3), so this may be over-fine. Storey 1990. 18 argues for assigning the play specifically to Lenaea 426 BCE on the ground that ψαµµοκοσιογάργαρα (the number of Dicaeopolis’ woes) at Ar. Ach. 3 is an attempt to one-up ψαµµακοσίους (referring to the number of people in the audience) in fr. 308. But this is very weak evidence, particularly given the lack of any obvious thematic connection between the two passages. For discussion, see also Neri 1994/5. The mentions of other kômôidoumenoi at frr. 298.4 (the ugly Archestratus); 303 (the citharode Alcaeus); 306 (the small and nasty Didymias); 318 (the clumsy Pantacles); 319 (the sacred exegete Lampon) do not allow for a more precise dating of the play.

277

Frr. 301 (the speaker or an unidentified group of persons were performing a sacrifice inside) and 307 (the speaker reports a failure to find certain equipment in a house) may or may not be describing action that actually went on in the course of the play.

462

Fragments fr. 298 K.-A. (276 K.)

5

(Α.) δωδέκατος ὁ τυφλός, τρίτος ὁ τὴν κάλην ἔχων, ὁ στιγµατίας τέταρτός ἐστιν ἐπὶ δέκα, πέµπτος δ’ ὁ πυρρός, ἕκτος ὁ διεστραµµένος. χοὖτοι µέν εἰσ’ ἑκκαίδεκ’ εἰς Ἀρχέστρατον, εἰς τὸν δὲ φαλακρὸν ἑπτακαίδεκ’—(Β.) ἴσχε δή. (Α.) ὄγδοος ὁ τὸν τρίβων᾿ ἔχων

1 δωδέκατος Runkel : δέκατος cod.   κάλην Emperius : καλὴν cod. : κωλῆν Meineke   3 πυρρός Runkel : πύργος cod. : πηρός Cobet : γρυπός Tammaro    5 εἰς scripsi : ἐς cod.   τὸν δὲ Runkel : δὲ τὸν cod.

5

(A.) The blind man is twelfth; the one with the hump is thirteenth; the tattooed guy is fourteenth and the red-head is fifteenth; the cross-eyed fellow is sixteenth. These men in fact make sixteen up to Archestratus, but seventeen up to the bald guy. (B.) Now hold on! (A.) The guy wearing a rough cloak is eighteenth B

Porph. in Σ Il. 10.252–3 (Quaestionum Homericarum ad Iliadem pertinentium p. 148.4– 22 Schrader) ἔθος ἔχειν τοὺς ποιητὰς τῷ ἀπηρτισµένῳ χρῆσθαι ἀριθµῷ, ὁτὲ µὲν τὰ ἐπιτρέχοντα τοῖς ἀριθµοῖς περιγράφοντας ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὁλοσχερεῖ καὶ ἀπηρτισµένῳ χρῆσθαι … ὁτὲ δὲ τὸν προκείµενον περιγράφουσι, τῷ ἐπιτρέχοντι ἀρκούµενοι, οἷον· κατὰ µὲν φίλα τέκνα ἔπεφνε θάλλοντα ἥβᾳ δώδεκ᾿, αὐτὸν δὲ τρίτον (Pi. fr. 171), ἀντὶ τοῦ τρίτον καὶ δέκατον· καί· τετράτῳ δ’ αὐτὸς πεδάθη, φησὶν ὁ Πίνδαρος (fr. 135.2), ἀντὶ τοῦ τετάρτῳ καὶ δεκάτῳ. ἡ δὲ γυνὴ τέταρτον ἔτος ἡβώοι, πέµπτῳ δὲ γαµοῖτο (Hes. Op. 698), ἀντὶ τοῦ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτῳ καὶ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ· Εὔπολίς τε Χρυσῷ γένει· ――. ὁτὲ δὲ ἔξω προστιθέασιν, ἵνα τὸν πλήρη ἀριθµὸν εἴπωσιν κτλ. The poets habitually use an even number, sometimes cancelling the digits that come afterward in order to use one that is approximate and even  … But at other times they cancel the initial digit, being satisfied with the one that comes afterward, as for example: “he killed twelve dear children flourishing with youth, and him as third” (Pi. fr. 171),

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 298)

463

rather than “thirteenth”. And “but he himself was brought down by the fourth”, says Pindar (fr. 135.2), instead of “fourteenth”. “Let your wife attain her fourth-year puberty, and let her marry in her fifth” (Hes. Op. 698), rather than “in her fourteenth year and her fifteenth (year)”.278 And Eupolis in Chrysoun genos: ――. But at other times they reckon inclusively, so that they can express the entire number etc.

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

lrkr l|lrl llkl klrl klk|l krkl llkl k|lkr llkl llkl llk|l llkl llkr k|lkl klkl lrkl klkl 〈xlkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839. 537–8; Meineke 1847. 206; Cobet 1876. 416; Kock 1880 I.333–4; Crusius 1892; Hoffmann 1910. 36; Schiassi 1944. 62; Schmid 1946. 116; Edmonds 1957. 410–11; Wilson 1977. 280–1; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Tammaro 1988; Storey 1990. 18; Treu 1999. 135 n. 249; Storey 2003. 271–3, 274–5 Citation context Part of a long note on Il. 10.252–3 παροίχωκεν δὲ πλέων νὺξ / τῶν δύο µοιράων, τριτάτη δ’ ἔτι µοῖρα λέλειπται (“the night has advanced more than two portions, and the third portion is still remaining”; Odysseus urging Diomedes into action) primarily concerned with the “silly question” (Hainsworth 1993 ad loc.) of how more than two-thirds of the night could have passed, if one-third was still remaining. The first verse of Pi. fr. 135 (needed to make sense of Porphyry’s comment) is preserved at Σ Pi. O. 1.127: πέφνε δὲ τρεῖς καὶ δέκ᾿ ἄνδρας (“he killed thirteen men”). For the rhetorical device (ἀπαρτιλογία) to which the first half of Porphyry’s note refers, cf. Harp. p. 42.16–17 = Α 172 Keaney (citing Herodotus and Lysias; quoted from the Epitome of Harpocration at Suda α 2929 = Synag. B α 1622).

278

Thus Poll. 1.58 ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ Ἡσίοδος “ἡ δὲ γυνὴ τέτορ’ ἡβώοι”—quoting the usual, metrical version of the text, rather than Porphyry’s unmetrical τέταρτον ἔτος ἡβώοι—τετταρακαίδεκα ἔτη λέγει, προσαριθµουµένων τῶν δέκα (“But when Hesiod says ‘Let your wife tetor’ hêbôoi, he means ‘fourteen years’, the ‘ten’ being added to the number”). But what Hesiod seems to mean is “let her be four years post-puberty, and let her marry in the fifth”; see West 1978 ad loc.

464

Eupolis

Text This is Runkel’s division of speakers (accepted also by Kassel–Austin). Kaibel proposed instead giving 1–4 to (A.); 5 εἰς … ἑπτακαίδεκ’ to (B.); and ἴσχε δή κτλ to (A.). On that division of the lines, (B.) would interrupt with his own entry #17, and (A.) would tell him to stop and continue the catalogue. But the δέ-clause does not seem witty enough for a bomolochic interjection, and such remarks are routinely ignored in any case rather than being incorporated into the discussion, as here.279 In 1, Runkel’s δωδέκατος for the paradosis δέκατος is required by the logic of the fragment (since “thirteenth” and “fourteenth” follow) and fortuitously also produces a complete trimeter. Further on in 1, Emperius’ κάλην for the paradosis καλήν is merely a matter of altering an accent, manuscripts having no authority in such matters. For Meineke’s κωλῆν (“haunch”), cf. fr. 54 n. In 3, Kassel–Austin retain the paradosis ὁ πύργος, “the tower”, presumably meaning “the man who is too tall”. But (1) the word is not used elsewhere in this figurative sense, nor (2) is physical height treated as a source of embarrassment or even inconvenience. Runkel’s πυρρός is the obvious correction, red hair being a sign of northern origins and thus of originally slavish status, matching στιγµατίας in 2. Cobet’s πηρός (“maimed”; cf. διεστραµµένος in the second half of the line with n.) is also possible, but is further from the paradosis. Tammaro suggests γρυπός (“hook-nosed”), which is palaeographically easy but does not seem like enough of a disfigurement to match the others in the catalogue. Kassel–Austin place a half stop at the end of 3 and full stops at the end of 4 and of 5, leaving εἰς τόν κτλ in 5 and ὄγδοος κτλ in 6 with no construction. It seems better to place a full stop at the end of 3, a comma at the end of 4 (thus Meineke 1847, albeit with a half stop rather than a full stop at the end of 3), and a dash after ἑπτακαίδεκ’ in 5 (showing that (A.) is interrupted and then continues in 6). The ordinary Attic εἰς rather than the poetic (and metrically indifferent) ἐς (printed by Kassel–Austin) is wanted in 5; see Willi 2003. 234–5. Runkel’s τὸν δὲ for the paradosis δὲ τὸν (the more typical position for the particle, and thus probably an unthinking miscorrection by a scribe) is a matter of metrical necessity. 279

Kaibel also suggested emending 4–5 to (B.) ἐς δ᾿ Ἀρχέστρατον / τὸν φαλακρόν 〈εἰσιν〉 ἑπτακαίδεκ’. (A.) ἴσχε δή, which is pointless, given that the text is both metrical and comprehensible as transmitted. Storey 2003. 271 claims to print Kassel–Austin’s text, but actually offers a different division of speakers, with 4 assigned to (B.) along with ἴσχε δή in 5.

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 298)

465

The lack of an ordinary penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura in 6 suggests that the lacuna ought perhaps to be placed elsewhere in the line, e. g. ὄγδοος ὁ τὸν τρίβωνα |〈l xl〉 ἔχων Interpretation (A.) is offering a catalogue of unattractive men; some were born the way they are (1, 3), one may have been good-looking once but is no longer (5), and some are repulsive as much for social as for physical reasons (2, 6). Cobet (comparing Poleis frr. 245–7) took this to be a description of the individual members of the chorus (which would make the title of the play deeply ironic), while Crusius (comparing fr. 308 and Ar. V. 74–84) thought the reference was to persons in the audience. Kaibel pointed out that the latter thesis in particular sits badly with the lack of deictics in the text, and suggested that this might instead be a list of potential—horrifyingly inappropriate—nominees for the office of general, a man named Archestratus (PAA 211225) having held the office around 433/2 BCE (Th. 1.57). The reference to Archestratus as a member of the group in 4 (n.), at any rate, shows that these are supposed to be real persons referred to via descriptions of their appearance; they might all be e. g. members of his systematically ugly—and very large—family (adesp. com. fr. 827). Why (B.) expresses shock, horror or the like in 5 is unclear; perhaps he cannot stand the sheer ugliness of the individuals he is being forced to examine, or the number of them has become overwhelming. But he fails to keep (A.) from continuing with his catalogue in any case, suggesting that this is in the first instance merely the poet’s way of breaking up (A.)’s list so as to lend it variety and produce something closer to real conversation. In that case, it is tempting to hypothesize that the verse preceding 1 included a similar interruption by (B.). For physical disability in antiquity, see Dasen 1993. 205–13; Garland 1995, esp. 11–16, 18–44, 76–8; Grmek and Gourevitch 1998. 197–222; the essays collected in Breitwieser 2012, and cf. fr. 264. 1 δωδέκατος LSJ s. v. δυώδεκα is somewhat misleading. Early epic uses both δυώδεκα (e. g. Il. 1.493 δυωδεκάτη; Od. 9.204; Hes. Op. 774 δυωδεκάτη; in late 4th-century epic parody at Matro fr. 1.60 = SH 534.60) and δώδεκα (e. g. Il. 1.425 δωδεκάτῃ; Od. 4.636; Hes. fr. 35.7; [Hes.] Sc. 162) metri gratia, as does Pindar (δυώδεκα at e. g. N. 4.28; δώδεκα at e. g. P. 5.33). In the late 5th century, however, δυώδεκα is almost entirely confined to Herodotus (e. g. 1.16.1; 2.4.1), and δώδεκα is the standard Attic form; cf. Threatte 1996. 420 for inscriptional evidence supporting this conclusion. δυωκαίδεκα (cf. ἑκκαίδεκα and ἑπτακαίδεκα below) is not attested until well into the Roman period. ὁ τυφλός Like English “blind”, the adjective is occasionally used of individuals who merely see very poorly (Ar. Pl. 747; Antiph. fr. 159.7).

466

Eupolis

ὁ τὴν κάλην ἔχων Presumably a reference to a hunchback (i. e. someone who suffers from kyphoscoliosis). According to Ael. Dion. κ 6 and Phryn. PS p. 81.18–19 (cf. Philox. Gramm. fr. 9), κάλη was the Attic form of the word, as opposed to Ionic κήλη. 2 ὁ στιγµατίας For tattooing, marking the individual in question as a barbarian or as a slave or former slave who tried to run away and was recaptured, see frr. 172.14 n.; 277 n., and cf. fr. 467 n. (on µαστιγίας, another hostile term for a slave or supposed slave). τέταρτος … ἐπὶ δέκα Elsewhere, this system of numbering seems to be used exclusively to designate days of the month in the second “decade” between what we would call the 13th and the 19th (e. g. IG I3 377.7 (407/6 BCE?) ἑβδόµει ἐπὶ δέκα; Th. 4.118.12 τετράδα ἐπὶ δέκα; D. 19.57 ἐνάτῃ ἐπὶ δέκα, 58 τρίτῃ ἐπὶ δέκα; Aeschin. 2.61 τὴν µὲν τῇ ὀγδόῃ ἐπὶ δέκα, τὴν δὲ τῇ ἐνάτῃ [ἐπὶ δέκα]; 3.68 τῇ ὀγδόῃ καὶ ἐνάτῃ ἐπὶ δέκα; Men. fr. 412.2–3 ἕκτην ἐπὶ δέκα / Βοηδροµιῶνος);280 see Threatte 1996. 441–2. 3 ὁ πυρρός I.e. “the Thracian” (esp. Xenoph. 21 B 16.2 D.–K.; Hp. Aer. 20 = 2.74.15 Littré πυρρὸν δὲ τὸ γένος ἐστὶ τὸ Σκυθικὸν διὰ τὸ ψύχος, “the Scythian race is blond on account of the cold”), and thus “the slave” or “quondam slave” (cf. fr. 262 n.; the Menandrian slave-name Πυρρίας; and the common Aristophanic slave-name Ξανθίας (e. g. Ach. 243 with Olson 2002 ad loc. and on 704–5; Vlassopoulos 2010. 123; Lewis 2011. 99–101). For the color itself, see Pl. Ti. 68c (defined as a mixture of ξανθός, “yellow”, and φαιός, “gray”); Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 32.4. ὁ διεστραµµένος Lit. “the twisted one” (cf. fr. 99.1–2 with n., 8, 11). The parallels at Ar. Eq. 175 and Av. 177, in both of which a character has been asked to look in two different directions at once and responds by expressing concern that διαστραφήσοµαι (lit. “I’m going to twist myself”), and at [Arist.] Pr. 958a18–20 (cf. also fr. 268r; Hp. Aer. 14 = 2.60.3–4 Littré καὶ ἐκ διεστραµµένων στρεβλοί, “and [children] with their eyes out of alignment from parents suffering from the same condition”; Epid. V 40 = 5.232.3–4 Littré διεστραµµένα ἔχων τὰ ὄµµατα, “with his eyes out of alignment”), suggest that the reference is specifically to strabismus, a condition in which one or both eyes deviate out of proper binocular alignment, producing crossed eyes, wall eyes or the like; cf. fr. 195.2 στρεβλός with n. But deformity of some other physical type might conceivably be in question instead, as at X. Cyn. 7.4 βαρεῖαι πλησµοναὶ τῶν σκυλακίων διαστρέφουσι τὰ σκέλη (“over-feeding deforms the puppies’

280

But note also A. Ag. 1605, where the text is disputed.

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 298)

467

legs”); Pl. Grg. 524c κατεαγότα εἴ του ἦν µέλη ἢ διεστραµµένα (“if someone’s limbs were broken or deformed”). 4–5 ἑκκαίδεκ(α), ἑπτακαίδεκ(α) For compound forms such as these, see Threatte 1996. 420–2, and cf. above on δωδέκατος. 4 For (καὶ) … µέν, cf. fr. 108.1, and see Denniston 1950. 390–1 (but shedding little specific light on this fragment). εἰς Ἀρχέστρατον “up to Archestratus” (PAA 211047), i. e. “including Archestratus”, who must then be one of the men already listed and presumably ὁ διεστραµµένος in 3. According to Prov. Bodl. 550 (~ Zenob. vulg. 4.59; parallel material at Hsch. κ 3681), a certain Corydeus and his sons were mocked in comedy for being ugly (adesp. com. fr. 827) and one of the sons was named Archestratus; the most economical interpretation of the evidence is that this is the same man (and see introductory note). The name is very common (about 50 additional 5th-/4th-century examples in LGPN II), and whether Eupolis’ Archestratus is to be identified with any of the other known individuals from this period who bore it (for some of the more likely candidates, see Davies 1971. 346–7; Storey 2003. 274–5) is impossible to say. Polemon fr. 84 also notes that the seer Archestratus (otherwise unknown) was extremely thin. 5 τὸν δὲ φαλακρόν Meineke 1839 II.538 hypothesized an allusion to Eupolis’ dramatic rival Aristophanes (cf. fr. 89.2 with n.), but nothing else suggests that this is a catalogue of poets, and baldness was presumably no rarer in the ancient world than it is in the modern one in any case; cf. Ar. Nu. 540 (bald men as a standard target of mockery in comedy); Pax 767 (bald men as an identifiable sub-group within the audience). For baldness as signally unattractive, e. g. Pl. R. 495e–6a; Herod. 6.59 with Headlam 1922 ad loc., citing Plu. Mor. 607a. The adjective (first attested at Anacr. PMG 394b; cognate with the obscure φάλος, “helmet ornament”) is also attested in the form φάλανθος and is likely of pre-Greek origin. ἴσχε Also used absolutely in the sense “Hold on!, Wait!, Stop!” at Antiph. fr. 85.2; A. Ch. 1052; S. fr. 314.101; Hdt. 3.36.1; [E.] Rh. 687; Sopat. fr. 7.1. For δή adding emphasis to an imperative, see Denniston 1950. 216–18, who observes that it “appears to have been mainly colloquial in the fifth and fourth centuries” (p. 216) and that it generally has an emotional character (pp. 214–15). 6 ὁ τὸν τρίβων(α) ἔχων A τρίβων (cognate with τρίβω, “grind”, i. e. “wear out”) is a poor man’s outer garment, worn e. g. by someone dirty and impoverished at fr. 280.3 (and cf. fr. 270 with n.); by the chorus of rural peasant charcoal-burners at Ar. Ach. 184; by the old juryman Philocleon at Ar. V. 1131–2 (where he is told to exchange it for a more luxurious chlaina); by Pythagorean ascetics at Aristopho frr. 9.3; 12.9; by an impoverished philoso-

468

Eupolis

pher at Phoenicid. fr. 4.17; and by Socrates himself at Pl. Smp. 219b. See Stone 1984. 162–3. For ἔχω in the sense “wear”, e. g. frr. 77.2; 172.16; 204; 280.2; 350 with n. (and add to the references there e. g. Cratin. fr. 32.2; Antiph. fr. 115.2; Hdt. 1.195.1; X. Cyr. 1.4.26).

fr. 299 K.-A. (277 K.) λοιπὸς γὰρ οὐδείς· † τροφαλὶς ἐκείνη † ἐφ’ ὕδωρ βαδίζει σκῖρον ἠµφιεσµένη 1 〈ἡ〉 τροφαλὶς Meineke ; 〈πλὴν〉 τροφαλὶς Dindorf : fort. 〈καὶ〉 τροφαλὶς vel 〈χἠ〉 τροφαλὶς ἐκείνη Σ : ἐκεινηὶ Meineke

for no one’s left; † that chunk of fresh cheese † is going to fetch water wearing a rind VΓ

Σ Ar. V. 925 τὸ σκῖρον ἐξεδήδοκεν: σκῖρον τὸ ῥυπῶδες τὸ ἐπὶ τῶν τυρῶν. Εὔπολις Χρυσῷ γένει· ――. ἀπὸ τούτου καὶ τὰ λίαν προσεχόµενα ἐνεσκιρῶσθαι λέγεται he’s eaten off the rind: Rind is the dirty part on cheeses. Eupolis in Chrysoun genos: ――. As a consequence, whatever clings too closely is said to have turned into rind EM p. 718.4–5 σκίρον δὲ τὸν ἀειδῆ ῥῦπον καὶ Κρατῖνος (fr. 491) λέγει, καὶ Εὔπολις ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐν τῷ τυρῷ ῥύπου Cratinus (fr. 491) too refers to unpleasant dirt as skiron, as does Eupolis in reference to the dirty part on a cheese Phot. τ 506 τροφαλίς· τυρός· οὕτως Εὔπολις trophalis: cheese; thus Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter (but see on text). llkl l|† kkkkll †

rlkl

l|lk|l

klkl

Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 146 n. 10; Meineke 1839. 538–9; Kock 1880 I.334; Zielinski 1885. 66; Edmonds 1957. 411; Ruffell 2000. 490; Storey 2003. 269 Citation context ΣVΓ Ar. V. and EM likely represent two different versions of the same material, σκῖρον τὸ ῥυπῶδες τὸ ἐπὶ τῶν τυρῶν being the former’s

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 299)

469

version of the latter’s σκίρον δὲ τὸν ἀειδῆ ῥῦπον καὶ Κρατῖνος λέγει. Phot. τ 506, by contrast, is very similar to Synag. τ 268 τροφαλίς· τυρός; Suda τ 1059 τροφαλίς· τυρός. ἁρπάσας ὁ κύων τροφαλίδα τυροῦ Σικελὴν κατεδήδοκε (~ Ar. V. 837–8); and EM p. 769.25 τροφαλίς· σηµαίνει τὸν τυρόν (presumably not a gloss on Aristophanes, since the crucial word τυρός is already in the text there). Text Line 1 is metrically deficient. Kassel–Austin print Meineke’s 〈ἡ〉 τροφαλὶς ἐκεινηί, which might be right, although it requires that the trophalis be visible onstage, which sits oddly with the preceding claim that everyone is gone. For ἐκεινηί scanning klkl, cf. Ar. Av. 298. The definite article is not obligatory with the demonstrative; cf. fr. 302 n. Alternatively, Meineke proposed restoring the lines as iambic tetrameter: 〈x l k l〉 λοιπὸς γὰρ οὐδείς· 〈ἡ〉 τροφαλὶς ἐκείνη ἐφ’ ὕδωρ βαδίζει σκῖρον ἠµφιεσµένη 〈k l l〉 Interpretation An explanation of a preceding remark (γάρ) but otherwise obscure. The description of the cheese as “clothed in” a rind would be more appropriate for a woman; the image perhaps depends in part on the fact that its “flesh” is as pale and white as hers would be. For similarly mixed descriptions, e. g. Eub. frr. 43.1 τήν τ’ εὐπρόσωπον λοπάδα (“and the fair-faced pan”); 64.1–2 παρθένου Βοιωτίας / Κωπᾷδος (“a Copaic Boeotian maiden”; of an eel); 75.10 µεµαγµένη δὲ ∆ήµητρος κόρη (“and a kneaded daughter of Demeter”; of a barley-cake). But rind is not, on the face of it, an attractive item of clothing (cf. Cratin. fr. 491, cited by the EM), which suggests that the trophalis is doing a slave-girl’s work (cf. below on 2 ἐφ’ ὕδωρ)281 and is appropriately—i. e. badly—dressed. In that case, the other individuals in question are most likely other slaves (or enslaved food-items). For animate food and other household equipment replacing slaves in a magical, ideal world, cf. Crates fr. 16. 1 A τροφαλίς is some common unit of cheese (e. g. Ar. V. 838 τροφαλίδα τυροῦ Σικελικήν, “a Sicilian trophalis of cheese”; Antiph. fr. 51 τροφαλίδας τε λινοσάρκους, µανθάνεις; τυρὸν λέγω, “Linen-fleshed trophalides, do you understand? I mean cheese”, presumably referring to linen wrappers rather than to the texture of the cheese itself; Alex. fr. 178.12 (diminutive); Arist. HA 522a15, 31; Hermias fr. 2, FHG ii. 80).282 ΣR Ar. V. 838 defines it as κυρίως ὁ

281 282

Thus seemingly already Meineke 1839 II.539. Note also the punning Ar. fr. 955 ψελλός ἐστι καὶ καλεῖ / τὴν ἄρκτον ἄρτον, τὴν δὲ Τυρὼ Τροφαλίδα, / τὸ δ’ ἄστυ σῦκα (“He’s inarticulate”—Kassel–Austin retain the paradosis ψελλόν, but the nominative seems called for—“and calls an arktos (‘bear’) an artos (‘bread’), Tyro Trophalis (‘Chunk of Fresh Cheese’, playing on

470

Eupolis

κύκλος τοῦ τροχοῦ (“properly a circle of a wheel”, i. e. “a round wheel”), while ΣΓ* Ar. V. 838 suggests τὸν ἐπιµήκη τυρόν (“a very long cheese”) or alternatively τροχὸν τυροῦ Σικελικοῦ (“a wheel of Sicilian cheese”); both appear to be guessing. The word is cognate with τρέφω (“curdle”; thus e. g. Philox. Gramm. fr. *282 τροφαλίς· … παρὰ τὸ τρέφω, τὸ πήσσω (“trophalis: … from ‘curdle, clot’”); Phryn. PS p. 113.5–6 τροφαλὶς τυροῦ· εἴρηται ἀπὸ τοῦ θρέψαι, ὅ ἐστι πῆξαι (“a trophalis of cheese: derived from ‘to curdle’, which is ‘to clot’”) and is identified as an Atticism at Moer. τ 24, hence presumably its presence in Phrynichus (above) and at Luc. Lex. 13. The word itself does not obviously mean anything more than “a curdled mass”, sc. of fresh, soft cheese, regardless of the shape; cf. Erot. p. 85.12 τρόφαλιν τὸν πεπηγότα τυρόν (“a trophalis is clotted cheese”); Apollon. p. 130.14–15 τροφαλὶς τὸ πεπηγµένον γάλα (“a trophalis is clotted milk”); Hsch. τ 1281 τράφαλλος· ὁ χλωρὸς τυρός (“traphallos: ‘green’ cheese”), 1573 τρυφαλίδες· τὰ τµήµατα τοῦ ἁπαλοῦ τυροῦ (“tryphalides: slices of soft cheese”); Demont 1978. 358. 2 “To fetch water”283 is the most obvious translation of ἐφ’ ὕδωρ; cf. X. Cyr. 5.3.49 ἴτω τις ἐφ’ ὕδωρ, ξύλα τις σχισάτω (“Let someone fetch water! And let someone else split wood!”); Aen. Tact. 18.20; Nymphis FGrH 432 F 5b ap. Ath. 14.620a βαδίζοντα ἐφ’ ὕδωρ; and the similar use of ἐπί + acc. at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 87.2 ἐπὶ βόεια νοστήσω κρέα; Ar. Pax 1040 ἐπὶ σπλάγχν’ εἶµι καὶ θυλήµατα; Th. 728 ἴωµεν ἐπὶ τὰς κληµατίδας; frr. 417 ᾖ(α) ἐπὶ ξύλα; 480.1 βαδίζειν … ἐπὶ τὸν δεσπότην; 610.2 εἶµ᾿ ἐπὶ ξύλα; E. fr. 740.2, and cf. Epicharmus’ title Ἡρακλῆς ὁ ἐπὶ τὸν ζωστῆρα (“Heracles in pursuit of the belt”). For drawing water (sc. from a well)—routine, heavy work normally performed by women (as here) or slaves—cf. Ar. Lys. 327–32 with Henderson 1987a ad loc.; E. El. 107–9; Men. Dysc. 190–1. Alternatively, the phrase might mean “toward water, in the direction of water” vel sim. (thus Kock and Storey 2011. 231), in which case the point is perhaps that the cheese is about to be washed or immersed in brine for short-term storage or shipping, like modern

283

tyros, ‘cheese’), and an astu (‘city’) syka (‘figs’)”). The mythical Tyro (for whom, see in general Gantz 1993. 172) ἐπ’ Ἐνιπῆος πωλέσκετο καλὰ ῥέεθρα (“used to frequent the lovely streams of the Enipus”, Od. 11.235–40), not unlike the trophalis (Trophalis?) heading toward water in this fragment; but it seems unwise to push the connection further. Thus also Edmonds, although in his note he states that the cheese is being washed, and thus seemingly takes the words in a different way (below).

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 300)

471

mozzarella or feta. If so, it too is leaving the scene, just as everyone (or everything) else has already done.284 βαδίζει The verb is exceedingly common in comedy (e. g. frr. 99.107; 260.13; Cratin. fr. 45; Pherecr. fr. 88.1; Phryn. Com. fr. 62.2; Ar. Ach. 394 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Eq. 1217; Nu. 128) and in Attic prose (e. g. And. 1.38; X. Mem. 1.6.6; Pl. Euthphr. 15b; only once in Thucydides, in the compound διαβαδίζω at 6.101.3) but rare in tragedy (e. g. E. Ph. 544 with Mastronarde 1994 ad loc.), and thus appears to be colloquial. σκῖρον ἠµφιεσµένη Cf. fr. 357 δέρριν ἠµφιεσµένη* with n. A σκῖρον is literally “a hard part” and thus in the case of cheese “rind”, i. e. the crust or shell that forms on the outside of a cheese as it dries (generally edible, but rely on your own taste and judgment).

fr. 300 K.-A. (278 K.) ἔπειθ’ ὁ κουρεὺς τὰς µαχαιρίδας λαβὼν ὑπὸ τῆς ὑπήνης κατακερεῖ τὴν εἰσφοράν 2 ὑπὸ Poll. : ἀπὸ Bothe

Then the barber will take his machairides and (holding them) beneath his beard will crop short his contribution Poll. 10.140 ἐν δὲ Χρυσῷ γένει Εὐπόλιδος· ―― And in Eupolis’ Chrysoun genos: ―― Phot. µ 151 µαχαιρίδες· αἱ κουρικαὶ µάχαιραι. οὕτως Εὔπολις machairides: barber’s shears. Thus Eupolis

284

The term was also used in the lawcourts of the man charged with ensuring that the proper amount of water was in the water-clock or klepsydra (Poll. 8.113 ἐπιµελητὴς δέ τις κληρωτὸς ἐγίνετο, ὃς καὶ ἐκαλεῖτο ὁ ἐφ’ ὕδωρ, ὁ παραφυλάττων τὴν ἰσότητα τῆς κλεψύδρας, “there was a certain alloted official, who was called ‘the man in charge of the water’, who ensured that the klepsydra was kept equal”).

472

Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lkl klkl rlkl l|rkl llkl Discussion Meineke 1839 II. 539; Müller-Strübing 1873. 165–6; Gilbert 1877. 132–3; Kock 1880 I.334; Schiassi 1944. 63–4; Mattingly 1968. 452; Storey 2003. 273–4 Citation context The quotation of the fragment in Pollux is part of a brief discussion of barber’s tools within a larger treatment of professional equipment (σκεύη) of all sorts. Cratin. fr. 39 is cited immediately before this (for the term µάχαιραι κουρίδες, “shearing knives, shears”), Ar. Th. 219–20 immediately afterward (for the words ξυρόν, “razor”, and ξυροδόχη, “razor case”). The entry in Photius likely goes back to the same source, as does Poll. 2.32 καὶ µαχαιρίδας, ἃς καὶ κουρίδας ὠνόµαζον (“and machairides, which they also referred to as barber’s (shears)”). Related material is preserved in various Atticist lexicographers at – Ptol. Ascal. p. 402.10–11 = [Ammon.] Diff. 306 µαχαίρας µὲν ὁµοίως ἡµῖν λέγουσιν οἱ Ἀττικοί, µαχαιρίδας δὲ τὰς τῶν κουρέων (“Attic-speakers say machairai (‘knives’) just as we do, but refer to barbers’ tools as machairides”) – Moer. µ 10 µαχαιρίδες· αἱ µάχαιραι τῶν κουρέων Ἀττικοί· µάχαιραι κοινόν (“machairides: the knives used by barbers, (thus) Attic-speakers; machairai (is) the common term”) – [Hdn.] Philet. 108 µαχαιρίδες καὶ µάχαιραι· µαχαιρίδες µὲν γὰρ αἱ τῶν κουρέων, µάχαιραι δὲ αἱ τῶν µαγείρων (“machairides and machairai: for machairides are barbers’ tools, whereas machairai are butchers’ tools”). Text The paradosis ὑπό yields difficult sense (see Interpretation below), and Bothe’s ἀπό might be right. Interpretation A threat or prediction; Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Eq. 923–6 δώσεις ἐµοὶ καλὴν δίκην, / ἰπούµενος ταῖς εἰσφοραῖς. / ἐγὼ γὰρ εἰς τοὺς πλουσίους / σπεύσω σ’ ὅπως ἂν ἐγγραφῇς (“You’ll pay me a nice penalty, squeezed by eisphorai! For I’ll do my best to get you enrolled among the wealthy”; the Paphlagonian menaces the Sausage-seller). ἔπει(τα) suggests that this is part of a narrative in naive style, while τὴν εἰσφοράν appears to be an aprosdokêton punchline. The mention of an εἰσφορά (see below) makes it clear that this is a coded discussion of public life, although who is having his beard trimmed, whom the barber represents and what he is up to—seizing the revenues for the state (thus Müller-Strübing and Kaibel, taking the barber to stand for Cleon)? or stealing them for himself (thus Meineke)?—is

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 300)

473

all unclear.285 Cf. the dreams of the two slaves at Ar. V. 31–45, which feature a similar mix of scenes from daily life with political imagery, and which use ἔπειτα (19, 34) and εἶτα (39, 44) as a basic structuring device. For the colloquial use of ἔπειτα, see López Eire 1996. 206–9. ὁ κουρεύς For barbers and barbershops, see fr. 194 n. For nouns of this type, see Perpillou 1973 §§ 344–50. τὰς µαχαιρίδας At Cratin. fr. 39, µάχαιραι κουρίδες are used to shear both sheep and shepherds, while at Ar. Ach. 849 Cratinus is mocked for having his hair cut “adulterer style” µιᾷ µαχαίρᾳ (lit. “with a single knife”). µαχαιρίδες are thus presumably spring shears, made of a single, U-shaped piece of metal with two overlapping blades (contrast the normal modern pivot scissors, which consist of two separate pieces of metal linked in the middle); also in a list of barber’s equipment at Luc. Ind. 29 (presumably as a learned Atticism), along with a razor and a mirror (and see Citation context).286 ὑπὸ τῆς ὑπήνης If the paradosis text is right, this must refer to the position of the shears just before the barber attacks the beard with them (cf. Poultney 1936. 197–8)—although what follows makes it clear that it is

285

286

Meineke compared Cratin. fr. 223.3 and tentatively identified Eupolis’ barber with the Dionysius he took to be concealed there in the corrupt ∆ιονυσοκουρώνων, while simultaneously suggesting “In verbis ὑπὸ τῆς ὑπήνης acumen inesse suspicor hodie fortasse inexplicabile” (“I suspect that the words ‘beneath his beard’ contain some point that is today incapable of explication”). Edmonds apparently believes that the man being shaved is Alcibiades because he is having his moustache trimmed, an extravagant conclusion (and cf. in any case Millis 1997). At Ar. Eq. 411–12, the Sausage-seller describes how as a boy he endured countless punches (κόνδυλοι, literally “knuckles”) “and blows from machairides” (µαχαιρίδων τε πληγάς). Translators and editors, seemingly anticipating the mention of thefts of meat in the Sausage-seller’s continuing account of his youthful misadventures at Eq. 417–20, routinely take this as a reference to butchers’ knives (e. g. Ribbeck 1867. 93 translates “Messerschlägen”; Neil 1901. 63 glosses the word (in the singular) “a small cook’s or carver’s knife”; Sommerstein 1981. 51 translates “slashes of butchers’ knives”; and Henderson 1998. 283 translates “knife slashes”). But the context suggests fast, summary blows of a sort judged appropriate to discipline an underaged trouble-maker, not an assault with a deadly weapon; and since the lexicographers (quoted in Citation context) agree in any case that µαχαιρίδες was the Attic word for “shears” rather than “butchers’ knives”, what the Sausage-seller presumably means is that he hung about the barbers’ shops with everyone else (see fr. 194 n.), and that the proprietors occasionally struck him with the standard tool of their trade to drive him away, sc. for verbal insolence, an attempt to filch something from one of the customers or the like.

474

Eupolis

not actually hair that is cut. Bothe’s ἀπό would mean “from his beard”. The lexicographers (Hsch. υ 539 and Phot. υ 161 = Suda υ 427 ~ Synag. υ 104, all clearly going back to a single source) report that ὑπήνη (no etymology) is properly the word for a moustache (also βύσταξ/µύσταξ, whence the English word) as opposed to a beard (γένειον or πώγων). The distinction is maintained at Eub. fr. 98.2–3 and seemingly in Eup. fr. 99.82 (n.), but ὑπήνη more often seems to be used in the extended sense “facial hair” (e. g. Ar. V. 476/7; Lys. 1072; Pl. Com. fr. 130), as here. κατακερεῖ For verbs of this sort, see Lindblad 1922. 119–21. τὴν εἰσφοράν An eisphora was an extraordinary tax levied on wealthy individuals, however defined, including metics, and designed to deal with some substantial, unexpected need for state funds. The device is first attested in 428 BCE as a means of meeting expenses associated with the campaign at Mitylene (Th. 3.19.1); whether it was older than this, and whether it was assessed in proportion to an individual’s wealth or was merely a flat sum required from everyone affected, is unclear. Cf. Ar. Eq. 923–6 (levied only on “the wealthy”); Lys. 654; Antiph. fr. 202.3–4; e. g. Antipho 1.2.12; Lys. 12.20; 18.7; 19.29; 21.3; X. Oec. 2.6; and see in general Thomsen 1964; Mattingly 1968. 450–6; Christ 2007, esp. 53–60, with further bibliography.

fr. 301 K.-A. (281 K.) οὔκ, ἀλλ’ ἔθυον δέλφακ᾿ ἔνδον θἠστίᾳ καὶ µάλα καλήν A

1 οὐκ ἀλλ’ ἔθυον Meineke : † ουκαλλευθιον † Ath.    δέλφακ᾿ ἔνδον Kock : † A δελφακαωδον † Ath. : δέλφακ᾿ ᾠδὸν Meineke : δέλφακα νωδὸν Meineke   θἠστίᾳ A Meineke : † θηστια † Ath.

No, instead they were/I was sacrificing a sow inside to Hestia, quite a nice one Ath. 14.657a θηλυκῶς δὲ Νικοχάρης (fr. 22) ἔφη· ――. καὶ Εὔπολις Χρυσῷ Γένει· ――. καὶ Πλάτων Ἰοῖ (fr. 56)· ――. Θεόποµπος Πηνελόπῃ (fr. 49)· ―― But Nicochares (fr. 22) used (the word delphax, “pig”) as a feminine: ――. Also Eupolis in Chrysoun genos: ――. And Plato in Io (fr. 56): ――. Theopompus in Pênelopê (fr. 49): ――

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 301)

475

Ath. 9.374f–5a ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν θηλειῶν τοὔνοµα τάττει Ἀριστοφάνης Ταγηνισταῖς (fr. 520.6)· ――. καὶ ἐν Ἀχαρνεῦσιν (786–8)· ――. καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Χρυσῷ Γένει. καὶ Ἱππῶναξ (fr. 136) δ’ ἔφη· ―― Aristophanes includes the noun among the feminines in Tagênistai (fr. 520.6): ――. And in Acharnians (786–8): ――. Also Eupolis in Chrysoun genos. And Hipponax (fr. 136) as well said: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|lk|l llkl lrkl 〈xlkl xlkl〉 Discussion Meineke 1839 II.540–1; Meineke 1847. 208; Herwerden 1872. 79; Kock 1880 I.335; Allen 1933. 202 Citation context Ath. 9.374d–5a (also preserving Epich. fr. 99 and Anaxil. fr. 12, both cited for the treatment of δέλφαξ as masculine) and 14.657a (also preserving Pl. Com. fr. 119; S. fr. 671 (satyr play); Cratin. fr. 155, all cited for the treatment of δέλφαξ as masculine) are likely two separate, unattributed extracts from a single grammarian, although the fragment of Chrysoun genos is the only material referenced in both. Text The A-scribe of Athenaeus (or the copyist of the exemplar on which he was dependent) was unable to make sense of much of this fragment, and he therefore simply transcribed the letters he saw before him. Kassel–Austin print the text as corrected by Meineke, accepting his δέλφακ᾿ ᾠδόν (“a tuneful sow”, ᾠδός—here taken to be adjectival—being a contracted form of ἀοιδός also attested at e. g. E. fr. 955g; Pl. Com. fr. 191; Pl. Phdr. 262d) and comparing Ar. Ec. 739–40, where ἡ κιθαρῳδὸς … / πολλάκις ἀναστήσασά µ’ εἰς ἐκκλησίαν (lit. “the female citharode who often gets me up for the Assembly”) apparently refers to the noise produced first thing in the morning by a grain-mill287 (for which, cf. also Pherecr. fr. 10.3–4). This has the advantage of being very close to the paradosis † δελφακαωδον †, but is so obscure as to be difficult to accept. Meineke’s alternative emendation, δέλφακα νωδόν (“a toothless sow”), would presumably refer to a suckling piglet (cf. Pherecr. fr. 33 οὐ γαλαθηνὸν ἄρ’ ὗν 287

ΣR offers the gloss ἡ ἀλετρίς (“the female slave charged with grinding grain”), which Musurus emended to ἡ ἀλεκτορίς (“the hen”, although hens do not crow). Ussher 1973 ad loc. argues that Chremylus brings “a real live rooster” onstage (the point then being that its crowing wakes him in the morning; cf. Pl. Com. fr. 191 τὸν ἀλεκτρυόνα τὸν ᾠδὸν ἀποπνίξασά µου, “after strangling my singing rooster”), but fails to explain why the feminine is used.

476

Eupolis

θύειν µέλλεις;, “Aren’t you about to sacrifice a suckling pig?”; Henioch. fr. 2.2 ὁ δ’ ἴσως γαλαθηνὸν τέθυκε τὸν χοῖρον λαβών, “perhaps he’s taken the suckling pig and sacrificed it”; Polemon fr. 86 θύουσι δὲ καὶ τοὺς γαλαθηνοὺς ὀρθαγορίσκους, “they also sacrifice suckling porkers”; Allen 1933; Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 386–7b (on piglets as sacrificial victims)), although (1) the adjective is elsewhere consistently used only of people who have lost their teeth, sc. from old age (Ar. Ach. 715; Pl. 266; Poll. 2.96, citing Phryn. Com. fr. 85 and Eub. fr. 144; cf. Ar. V. 165 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Pherecr. fr. 79); (2) a δέλφαξ is properly a mature pig, as distinguished from a δελφάκιον or χοῖρος (“piglet”; note esp. Ar. Ach. 786 νέα γάρ ἐστιν· ἀλλὰ δελφακουµένα, “Because she’s young; but once she’s become a delphax …” (of a supposed “piglet”)); and (3) piglets—unlike e. g. human babies—already have teeth when they are born. I accordingly print Kock’s δέλφακ᾿ ἔνδον (cf. Ar. Pl. 819–20 καὶ νῦν ὁ δεσπότης µὲν ἔνδον βουθυτεῖ / ὗν, “and now my master is sacrificing a pig inside the house (complex)”; Men. Pk. 995–6 ὁ δ’ [ … ] / µάγειρος ἔνδον ἐστί· τὴν ὗν θυέτω, “The cook is inside (the house complex); let him sacrifice the pig!”), which is only slightly further from the paradosis but much easier sense.288 δελφακίδιον (an unattested but unproblematic form) would scan, but would require that καλήν in 2 be corrected to καλόν, removing the one reasonably secure point in regard to the text, viz. that Eupolis used δέλφαξ as a feminine. Interpretation Rejecting a hypothesis advanced by another speaker, perhaps about the content and character of the sacrifice in question or some other sacrifice the speaker might have been attending, or perhaps about some entirely different phenomenon for which this is the correct explanation (e. g. “Were you at the market?”, sc. “and thus out of my sight because you were there?”). The imperfect ἔθυον treats the sacrifice as underway rather than completed, so it may simply have been background action to whatever was actually at the center of the discussion. For a possible context, cf. Hsch. ε 6393 Ἑστίᾳ θύοµεν· ἦσάν τινες θυσίαι, ἀφ’ ὧν οὐχ οἷόν τε ἦν µεταδοῦναι ἢ ἐξενεγκεῖν (“We are sacrificing to Hestia: there were certain sacrifices, portions of which could not be shared or brought out of the house”). 1 καὶ µάλα καλήν suggests a boast or perhaps a defensive response (there was nothing wrong with the offering, whatever the other party may believe or have implied, or it was at least as good as the one the speaker missed elsewhere). For µάλα serving to intensify an adjective, cf. fr. 109.1 µάλα καλήν τε κἀγαθήν with n.

288

Solutions to the problem involving a trisyllabic adjective require a split anapaest and must thus be rejected out of hand.

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 302)

477

οὔκ, ἀλλ’ Cf. e. g. fr. 195.2; Ar. Ach. 108*, 1114*; Eq. 888; Antiph. fr. 74.13*; Ephipp. fr. 15.12*; Alex. fr. 7.2*. δέλφακ(α) For pigs (domesticated already in the Neolithic period; see e. g. Halstead 1992, esp. 32–5, 42, 44–5, 47) and pork, e. g. Pherecr. fr. 113.16 πλευρὰ δελφάκει’ ἐπεξανθισµένα (“nicely-browned pork-ribs”); Ar. Lys. 1061– 2 καὶ δελφάκιον ἦν τί µοι, / καὶ τοῦτο τέθυχ’, ὥστε γίγνεσθ’ ἁπαλὰ καὶ καλά (“and I had a piglet, which I’ve sacrificed to produce fine, tender portions”); fr. 236 δελφακίων ἁπαλῶν κωλαῖ (“hams of tender piglets”); Theopomp. Com. fr. 49 καὶ τὴν ἱερὰν σφάττουσιν ἡµῶν δέλφακα (“and they slaughter our sacred pig”); Epicr. fr. 6.4–5 δελφάκων … κρέα / κάλλιστ’ … πυρὸς ἀκµαῖς ἠνθισµένα (“lovely pork browned by the flame’s tips”); Eub. fr. 6.9–10 † ὀπτὰ δελφάκι᾽ / ἁλίπαστα τρία (“three roasted piglets sprinkled with salt”); Boyd 1985; Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 24–5; Kitchell 2014. 150–3. ἔνδον See fr. 157.1 n. on Text. (τ)ῇ (Ἑ)στίᾳ Hestia, the eldest daughter of Cronus and Rhea and thus the sister of Zeus and Hera (Hes. Th. 454), was the goddess of the hearth (ἑστία); cf. Gantz 1993. 73–4; hAphr. 21–32 with Olson 2012 ad loc.). At Ar. V. 844, Philocleon brings fencing material of some sort onstage from his house and refers to it as the family’s χοιροκοµεῖον Ἑστίας (“piglet-pen of Hestia”), while at Antiph. fr. 183.1–2 a mention of dry-roasted pork hams is met with the response ἀστεῖόν γε, νὴ τὴν Ἑστίαν, / ἄριστον (“A sophisticated lunch, by Hestia!”). 2 καὶ µάλα is emphatic rather than additive (e. g. Ar. Th. 644 καὶ µάλ’ εὔχρων; Ra. 410 καὶ µάλ’ εὐπροσώπου; Epicr. fr. 10.33 καὶ µάλα πρᾴως; Alex. fr. 172.3–4 καὶ µάλα / ἡδὐς γ᾽; Men. Epitr. 385 ἀλεκτρυών τις καὶ µάλα στριφνός; Denniston 1950. 317–18; Thesleff 1954 §§ 41, 43), and thus does not coordinate καλήν with another adjective that stood after δέλφακ᾿ in 1.

fr. 302 K.-A. (279 K.) (Α.) ὁρῶ. (Β.) θεῶ νῦν τήνδε Μαριανδυνίαν (A.) I’m looking. (B.) Now notice Mariandynia here! St.Byz. µ 71 Billerbeck Μαριανδυνία· χώρα (τοῦ Πόντου add. Meineke). Εὔπολις Χρυσῷ γένει· ―― Mariandynia: a place (“in the Black Sea region” added by Meineke). Eupolis in Chrysoun genos: ――

478

Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl

l|lk|r

llkl

Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 146 n. 10; Edmonds 1957. 413; Ruffell 2000. 491–2; Storey 2003. 270 Citation context An isolated geographic gloss. Interpretation Mariandynia was very far from Athens289 (see below)—contrast the otherwise superficially similar Ar. Nu. 92–3 (Στ.) ὁρᾷς τὸ θύριον τοῦτο καὶ τᾠκίδιον; / (Φε.) ὁρῶ (“(St.) Do you this little door and the small house? (Ph.) I see (them)”)—and Fritzsche accordingly compared Ar. Eq. 162–75, where the Sausage-seller is asked to look out at the audience (162–3 δευρὶ βλέπε. / τὰς στίχας ὁρᾷς τὰς τῶνδε τῶν λαῶν;, “Look over here. Do you see the rows of these people here?”); responds ὁρῶ (163 “I see (them)”); and is then told to climb up onto his chopping block to look even further away, first out to the islands (170–1 (Οι.) κάτιδε τὰς νήσους ἁπάσας ἐν κύκλῳ. / (Αλ.) καθορῶ, “(Slave) Observe all the island in a circle. (Sausage-seller) I’m observing them”) and then as far as Caria and Carthage (173–4 (Οι.) ἔτι νῦν τὸν ὀφθαλµὸν παράβαλ’ εἰς Καρίαν / τὸν δεξιόν, τὸν δ’ ἕτερον εἰς Καρχηδόνα, “(Slave) Now cast your right eye even further aside, to Caria, and your other one to Carthage”). But Mariandynia might instead be represented on a map, as at Ar. Nu. 206–17, where Strepsiades is able to view “the circumference of the entire earth” (206), including Athens (206–7 ὁρᾷς; / αἵδε µὲν Ἀθῆναι, “Do you see? This is Athens”), Euboia (211 ἡ δέ γ’ Εὔβοι’, ὡς ὁρᾷς, “And Euboia, as you see, …”) and Sparta (214 αὑτηί, “Here it is”). Or the place might be represented somehow onstage, like the various individual cities that apparently made up the chorus in Poleis (esp. fr. 247.1 ἥδε Κύζικος, “This is Cyzicus”); or the identification might be a joke or allusion, with (B.) seeing someone or something who/which merely resembles Mariandynia (sc. by being enslaved?; cf. below). θεάοµαι seems generally to refer to a more concentrated and critical form of viewing than ὁράω, i. e. “notice; inspect, examine; watch (as a θεατἠς, audience member)” vs. simply “see”: e. g. Magnes fr. 2.1; Hermipp. fr. 37; Ar. Nu. 370; V. 578, 1215; Pax 906; Th. 234, 797; Pl. Com. fr. 199.3–4 τοὺς ἐκπλέοντάς εἰσπλέοντάς τ’ ὄψεται, / χὠπόταν ἅµιλλ’ ᾖ τῶν νεῶν θεάσεται (“(Your tomb) will see the merchants as they sail in and sail out, and whenever there’s a boat contest, it will watch”); and cf. fr. 205.1 n.

289

Ruffell notes that it was directly next to Paphlagonia (cf. Str. 12.541, 544), however, and suggests a connection of some sort with Aristophanes’ Knights.

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 303)

479

τήνδε Μαριανδυνίαν The definitive article is routinely omitted with demonstratives in comedy not only with proper names (as here) but elsewhere as well (e. g. Ar. Ach. 983 λαβὲ τήνδε φιλοτησίαν; Eq. 568 τήνδ’ ἐκόσµησαν πόλιν, 1166 φέρω σοι τήνδε µαζίσκην; V. 1132 τηνδὶ δὲ χλαῖναν ἀναβαλοῦ; Av. 921 τήνδ’ ἐγὼ κλῄζω πόλιν; Ra. 1128 ἥκω γὰρ εἰς γῆν τήνδε; Philyll. fr. 6.1–2 τήνδ’ … / δίδωµι τιµήν). Μαριανδυνία was the area on the southern coast of the Black Sea around the city of Heracleia Pontica (fr. 235 n.). The indigenous population, the Mariandynoi, were still free in 480 BCE, when they supplied Xerxes with troops (Hdt. 7.72.2), but were later enslaved by the Heracleians, allegedly via some form of voluntary surrender that in any case yielded a helot-like arrangement (Pl. Lg. 776d; Posid. FGrH 87 F 8 = fr. 60 Edelstein–Kidd; Str. 12.542; Asheri 1972. 11–31, esp. 17–23; Burstein 1976. 28–30). For other early mentions of the Mariandynoi, see Pherecr. fr. 74.3 (characterized as barbarians); Hdt. 1.28 (among the peoples subject to Croesus); 3.90.2 (among the peoples subject to the Persian Empire); X. An. 6.2.1.

fr. 303 K.-A. (280 K.) ὦλκαῖε Σικελιῶτα Πελοποννήσιε O Sicilian Peloponnesian Alcaeus R

Σ Ar. Th. 162 Ἀλκαίου τοῦ κιθαρῳδοῦ, οὗ καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Χρυσῷ Γένει µέµνηται· ―― Alcaeus the citharode, whom Eupolis too mentions in Chrysoun genos: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

rlk|r

llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.249, II. 540; Meineke 1847. 207; Bergk 1886 II.290; Storey 2003. 275 Citation context From a well-informed report of a scholarly dispute about the proper reading at Ar. Th. 162, where Aristophanes of Byzantium (fr. 397) argued for κἀλκαῖος rather than κἀχαῖος, and Didymus (sc. in his Hypomnemata Aristophanous; fr. 66, p. 260 Schmidt) rejected this on the ground that Alcaeus’ poetry was too obscure to be mentioned there (a claim rightly rejected by Σ), but at another point noted that κἀλκαῖος could stand, provided the reference was taken to be to the citharode mentioned by Eupolis rather than to the 7th-/ 6th-c.

480

Eupolis

BCE lyric poet. For sloppiness or incoherence of this sort as seemingly typical of Didymus’ work, see West 1970. Interpretation The citharode Alcaeus is Stephanis #131. Meineke suggested (1) that the reference at Eratosthenes fr. 6 Strecker (ap. Hsch. α 3086)—an author to whom Didymus must have had access—to a kômôidoumenos named Alcaeus might be to the same man, and thus possibly to the same passage of Eupolis; and (2) that this thesis would find further support at Hsch. ε 3840 Ἐξηκεστιδαλκίδαι (= adesp. com. fr. 338)· παρὰ τὸν Ἐξηκεστίδην καὶ Ἀλκίδην τοὺς κιθαρῳδούς (“Exêkestidalkidai: with reference to the citharodes Execestides and Alcides”), were Ἀλκίδην there emended to Ἀλκαῖον. Be all that as it may, it is unclear how Alcaeus can be simultaneously from Sicily and the Peloponnese. Meineke 1847, comparing fr. 311, suggested that he was Sicilian but spent time in the Peloponnese, whereas Bergk proposed the opposite. Either thesis might be correct, or the joke might be more complicated than we are in a position to understand, e. g. that Alcaeus was originally from Sicily but performed in what was taken to be a Peloponnesian style. Bergk also argued that St.Byz. p. 568.13–14 Meineke ἔστι καὶ ἄλλη Σικελία κατὰ τὴν Πελοπόννησον (“there is also another Sicily in the Peloponnese”) represented a false conclusion based on this fragment. For iambic trimeter lines consisting of only three words, here with a rising 3/4/5 structure, cf. frr. 109.2; 330.2 (both including a monosyllabic enclitic as a fourth element); and see in general Marcovich 1984 (with examples from comedy tabulated on pp. 190–3). This line apparently falls into Marcovich’s “satiric” category (pp. 178–9).

fr. 304 K.-A. (282 K.) ἀτεχνῶς µὲν οὖν, τὸ λεγόµενον, σκύτη βλέπει simply put then, as the saying goes, “he looks whips” Zenob. vulg. 6.2 σκύτη βλέπει· µέµνηται αὐτῆς Εὔπολις ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει. φησὶ γάρ· ――. εἴρηται δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς ὑποψιαστικῶς διακειµένοις πρὸς τὰ µέλλοντα κακά “he looks whips”: Eupolis mentions this (proverb) in Chrysoun genos. For he says: ――. It is used in reference to those who have suspicions regarding impending troubles

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl | krkl | klkl

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 304)

481

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.146, II.541; Müller-Strübing 1873. 165; Kock 1880 I.335. Citation context Suda ζ 73 claims that Zenobius’ collection of proverbs was an epitome of earlier collections by Didymus and Tarrhaios, i. e. Lucillus of Tarrha; Didymus, at least, was certainly drawing on older scholarship on comedy. Related material, but without reference to Eupolis, is preserved at Macar. 6.70 σκύτη βλέπει· ἐπὶ τῶν ὑφορωµένων πείσεσθαί τι κακὸν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο σκυθρωπῶν (“he looks whips: in reference to those who suspect they are going to suffer something bad and who scowl on that account”); ΣR Ar. V. 643 σκύτη βλέπειν· … καὶ τοῦτο, φασίν, παροιµία, ἐπὶ τῶν ἐγγιζόντων κακῷ τινι (“to look whips: this too, they say, is a proverb, in reference to those who are close to trouble of some kind”); ΣVΓ Ar. V. 643 σκύτη βλέπειν· … παροιµία δὲ ἐλέγετο, ἐπὶ τῶν δειλιώντων (“to look whips: … said to be a proverb, in reference to those who act like cowards”); ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 669 (lacunose). Interpretation Meineke (followed by Müller-Strübing), comparing Ar. Pax 669 ὁ νοῦς γὰρ ἡµῶν ἦν τότ’ ἐν τοῖς σκύτεσιν (“for our attention was at that point in the leather market”; explaining the Assembly’s rejection of peace initiatives in the aftermath of the victory at Pylos) took the mention of leather to suggest a reference to Cleon (cf. fr. 418 n.). But this is unnecessary, and the image could be applied to anyone who saw trouble coming. ἀτεχνῶς is almost entirely restricted to comedy (also e. g. Chionid. fr. 1.2; Pherecr. fr. 107; Ar. Nu. 408; Philem. fr. 147.2) and Plato (e. g. Ap. 17d; Cra. 395e; Tht. 151c), and is thus presumably colloquial; cf. fr. 268.38 n.; Dover 1987. 232–3. The word is used to add emphasis to τὸ λεγόµενον also at Pl. La. 187b; Euthd. 292e. µὲν οὖν is likely transitional, moving on to the next point at hand (Denniston 1950. 471–3), as at e. g. Ar. Nu. 66. σκύτη βλέπει I.e. “sees a whipping coming”; cf. fr. 332.2 βλέπων ἀπιστίαν with n.; Ar. V. 643 ἦ µὴν ἐγώ σε τήµερον σκύτη βλέπειν ποιήσω (“I’ll certainly make you look whips today”; addressed to a free character by his opponent in an argument); Ath. 13.568e (of a boy punished by his father); Taillardat 1965 § 626. For whips and whipping, cf. frr. 418 n.; 467 n. τὸ λεγόµενον An Attic colloquialism (e. g. Mnesim. fr. 9.1; Men. frr. 296.8; 405.1; adesp. com. fr. 78.2; Th. 7.87.6; Pl. Phd. 101c; Tht. 153d, 165b; Sph. 241d; Smp. 217e; Euthd. 298c; Grg. 447a; and see in general Headlam 1922 on Herod. 2.45).

482

Eupolis

fr. 305 K.-A. (283 K.) ἀλλ’, ὦ φίλε Ζεῦ, κατάχυτλον τὴν ῥῖν’ ἔχεις ἔχεις Poll. : ἔχει Fritzsche

But, dear Zeus, you’ve got a katachytlos nose! Poll. 10.63 καὶ µέντοι τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ βαλανείῳ σκευῶν ὀνόµατα ἀσάµινθος, πύελος, κρουνός, ἀρύταινα, ἀρύβαλλος, κατάχυτλον … Εὐπόλιδος δ’ ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει· ―― And in fact the names of the vessels used in a bathhouse are a bathtub, a tub, a font, a ladle, an oil-flask, a katachytlon … And Eupolis in Chrysoun genos: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

l|rkl

llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.144, II.541–2; Fritzsche 1857/58. 6; Edmonds 1957. 413; Sarati 1996. 109–10 Citation context From a brief catalogue of equipment used in a bathhouse located within the larger discussion of σκεύη (cf. fr. 307 n.) of all sorts that makes up Book 10 of Pollux. Fr. 272 follows (as evidence for the word πύελος, “tub”). Hsch. κ 1526 κατάχυτλον· τὸ βαλανευτικὸν σκαφίον (“katachytlon: a bowl used in a bathhouse”) and Phot. κ 400 κατάχυτλον· σκεῦός τι (“katachytlon: a piece of equipment”) are likely to be traced to the same original source. Text Fritzsche’s ἔχει is possible but unnecessary. Interpretation Probably not a compliment, although it is unclear whether the reference is to the shape of the addressee’s nose or the fact that something (mucus? blood?) is running out of it (both suggestions offered by Meineke). Contrast the superficially similar Philetaer. fr. 5.1 ὡς τακερόν, ὦ Ζεῦ, καὶ µαλακὸν τὸ βλέµµ’ ἔχει (“Zeus, what a tender, soft look she has!”). Nothing in the fragment itself suggests a reference to a bathhouse. But κατάχλυτος is a sufficiently rare word—attested outside of the lexicographers only at Pherecr. fr. 113.19 (quoted below)—to suggest that the common source of Pollux, Hesychius and Photius may have imported the idea from the nowlost original context in Eupolis. ὦ φίλε Ζεῦ might be direct address of the god, sc. as a character in the play, as at Thgn. 373 Ζεῦ φίλε; adesp. com. fr. 1000.28 Ζεῦ φίλ’; carm. pop. PMG 854.1–2, ὦ φίλε / Ζεῦ; cf. ὦ φίλ’ Ἑρµῆ at Ar. Nu. 1478; Pax 416, 718 (addressed in the first case to a herm onstage, in the latter two cases to the god himself).

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 306)

483

But more likely this is an oath (thus also Edmonds), like ὦ Ζεῦ φίλτατε at Ar. Ec. 378 and Philem. fr. 74.7; ὦ φίλ᾿ Ἄπολλον at Ar. Eq. 1270 (used instead as an invocation at A. Th. 159); and Ἡράκλεις φίλε at Alex. fr. 173.3. κατάχυτλον τὴν ῥῖν’ ἔχεις A χύτλον (cognate with χέω) is anything that is poured (cf. Ar. V. 1213 ὑγρὸν χύτλασον σεαυτὸν ἐν τοῖς στρώµασιν, “Pour yourself out like liquid in the bed-clothes!”), while a κατάχυσµα is a sauce applied to cooked or roasting food (e. g. Ar. Av. 535, 1637; Pl. Com. fr. 189.9; Philon. fr. 9.1; Archestr. fr. 57.8) or a welcome gift dumped over a newly acquired slave (Ar. Pl. 789–90; D. 45.74) or a bridal pair (Theopomp. Com. fr. 15.1–2) entering the house for the first time. At Pherecr. fr. 113.19 ἐν καταχύτλοις λεκάναισι (“in katachytloi basins”; used to hold gruel), κατάχυτλος must be an adjective meaning either “suitable for pouring” (and thus substantivally “a pouring vessel”, as the lexicographers insist) or “poured out”, i. e. “broad, over-long” vel sim. (which would suit the use of the word here to describe an unattractive nose). For the idiomatic use of the definite article, signaling that the object in question belongs specifically to the subject of the main verb, where English would use an indefinite article (as in the translation), e. g. frr. 86; 159; 368 τὸ σῶµ’ ἔχουσι λεῖον (“they’ve got a smooth body”); Cratin. fr. 202 〈ἆρ᾿〉 ἀραχνίων µεστὴν ἔχεις τὴν γαστέρα; (“Have you got a belly full of spiders’ webs?”); Pherecr. fr. 75.2 ξηρὰν ἔχουσα τὴν φάρυγα (“having a dry throat”); 169.2 τὸ µέτωπον εἰ θέρµην ἔχουσα τυγχάνω (“if I happen to have a warm forehead”); Ar. Ach. 990 καλὸν ἔχουσα τὸ πρόσωπον (“having a pretty face”); Pl. 1018 τάς γε χεῖρας παγκάλας ἔχειν µ’ ἔφη (“he said I had lovely hands”); fr. 134 καὶ µὴν ὑπόστιφρόν γε τὴν φωνὴν ἔχεις (“you’ve actually got a rather harsh voice”); Nicostr. Com. fr. 33.2 βλοσυράν γε τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχεις (“you’ve got a virile soul”).

fr. 306 K.-A. (284 K.) (Α.) τί γάρ ἐστ’ ἐκεῖνος; (Β.) ἀποπάτηµ’ ἀλώπεκος ἀποπάτηµ’ Et.Gen. etc. : ἀποτράγηµ’ Ath.

(Α.) Well, what’s that man? (B.) Fox-dung Et.Gen. A = Suda α 3468 = Synag. B α 1932 (cf. Phot. α 2602) ἀποπάτηµα· αὐτὸ τὸ σκύβαλον. Εὔπολις Χρυσῷ γένει· ―― apopatêma: identical with skybalon (“dung”). Eupolis in Chrysoun genos: ――

484

Eupolis

Ath. 14.658d τὸ γὰρ λείψανον τῶν τραγηµάτων καὶ τρωξίµων ἀποτράγηµα εἴρηκεν Εὔπολις· σκώπτων γὰρ ∆ιδυµίαν τινὰ ἀποτράγηµα αὐτὸν εἴρηκεν ἀλώπεκος ἤτοι ὡς µικρὸν τὸ σῶµα ἢ ὡς κακοήθη καὶ πανοῦργον, ὥς φησιν ὁ Ἀσκαλωνίτης ∆ωρόθεος Because Eupolis refers to what is left over from snacks and dainties as an apotragêma; for he makes fun of a certain Didymias by referring to him as a fox’s apotragêma, meaning either that he is physically tiny or that he is nasty and unscrupulous, according to Dorotheus of Ascalon

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl

k|rkl

klkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.542–3; Kock 1880 I.335–6; Edmonds 1957. 413; Rapke 1974. 332 Citation context Et.Gen. etc. is drawn from the common lexicographic source generally referred to as Σ΄; Cratin. fr. 53 follows. Phot. α 2602 must originally have been the same note, but everything after Εὔπολις has been lost. Athenaeus, by contrast, traces his material direct to the 1st-c. BCE/1st-c. CE grammarian Dorotheus of Ascalon (RE Dorotheus (20)) and thus presumably to Dorotheus’ Λέξεων συναγωγή (“Collection of words”) or Ἀττικαὶ λέξεις (“Attic glossary”). Text Either ἀποπάτηµ’ (Et.Gen. etc.) or ἀποτράγηµ’ (Ath.) would do metrically. But the latter is not obviously funny, whereas the former is, and the reading in Athenaeus presumably originated as a majuscule error in his source (Γ written or read for Τ), after which the text was miscorrected. Interpretation The first speaker requests further information about someone already referred to (ἐκεῖνος), and the second speaker offers a—most likely unexpected—reply. At Ar. Av. 17, a certain Tharreleides (PA 6583; PAA 501030) is referred to as father of a jackdaw. Whatever that may mean, Suda θ 52 (cf. ΣVEΓ) appears to assert that the Roman-era commentator Symmachus identified the son of this Tharreleides with a man named Asopodorus (PA 2672; PAA 223810), and that Asopodorus and his brother Didymachias ἐπὶ σµικρότητι διεβέβληντο τοῦ σώµατος (“were slandered for being physically small”); ΣVEΓ adds a reference to Telecl. fr. 50, but mentions only Asopodorus. The name Didymachias is otherwise unattested, and Meineke proposed emending to ∆ιδυµίας and associating the diminutive individual mentioned by Symmachus with the Didymias whom Eupolis called “fox-dung” (PAA 323582). Progressive γάρ, part of a request for additional information but not for an explanation (Denniston 1950. 82–5; cf. e. g. Ar. Nu. 191; Av. 1501; Alex. fr. 15.9).

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 307)

485

ἀποπάτηµ’ ἀλώπεκος Patently an insult, even if the exact point is unclear (cf. in general Henderson 1991 § 417). The word-order puts the emphasis on the second term (“fox-dung”), and Rapke suggested that the joke may be that Didymias was from the deme Alopeke. ἀποπατέω (lit. “step away”, sc. from others so as to have a bit of privacy as one defecates) and cognates are common in late 5th-/early 4th-c. comedy (e. g. Cratin. fr. 53.1; Ar. Ach. 81; Ec. 326) and in medical writers (e. g. Hp. Art. 48 = 4.212.11 Littré; Prorrh. II 4 = 9.16.11 Littré; Morb. II 46 = 7.64.13 Littré), but absent from more dignified genres. σκύβαλον (offered by Et.Gen. etc. as an equivalent term) is first attested in the 4th c. BCE at Diocles Med. fr. 124.2 van der Eijk. In the case of domestic animals, there were different words for different types of dung (e. g. βόλιτον for cow-dung; οἰσπώτη for sheep-dung; ὀνίδες for donkey-dung; σφυράδες for goat-dung (cf. fr. 15 with n.)), inter alia, one assumes, because they could be used for different purposes. Likely there was no such similarly specialized term for fox-dung. For the fox, see Keller 1909–1913 I.88–9; Kitchell 2014. 70–2. For its reputation for cunning and treachery (perhaps part of the point here), cf. Ar. Pax 1067–8 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Th. 1133 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; Taillardat 1967 § 405.

fr. 307 K.-A. (285 K.) καὶ σκεῦος οὐδὲν ηὗρον ἐν τᾠκήµατι and I/they found no gear in the house/room AI

Σ Heph. Enchiridion 2.1, p. 107.1–14 Consbruch ἡ συναλοιφὴ κατὰ τρόπους ἑπτὰ γίνεται, ἁπλοῦς µὲν τρεῖς, ἔκθλιψιν … κρᾶσιν … συναίρεσιν … συνθέτους δὲ τέσσαρας, ἔκθλιψιν κρᾶσιν … ἔκθλιψιν συναίρεσιν … ἔκθλιψιν κρᾶσιν συναίρεσιν ὡς παρ᾿ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει· ―― Synaloiphê occurs in seven ways, three (of them) simple: elision … crasis … (and) synaeresis … four (of them) compound: elision-crasis … elision-synaeresis … (and) elision-crasis-synaeresis, as in Eupolis in Chrysoun genos: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl

k|lk|l

llkl

Citation context From a discussion of the difference between synaloiphê (the elimination of hiatus between words via one of the means described) and synekphônêsis/synizêsis (the reduction of two syllabic vowels to one within a word), expanding on Hephaestion’s less detailed treatment of the former

486

Eupolis

phenomenon at p. 10.1–5 Consbruch. On the analysis offered here, τᾠκήµατι represents elision-crasis-synaeresis because -ῷ in the original τῷ οἰκήµατι is simultaneously elided and combined with οἰ-, with the result then simplified into ᾠ-. Interpretation A report of a failed search; καί coordinates this action with another one described in the immediately preceding verse or verses. σκεῦος is “gear, equipment, stuff” of any sort, including household furnishings (e. g. frr. 161.1 with n.; 191 σκευάρι(α) with n.; Pl. R. 596b), vessels and cookware (e. g. Ar. V. 939; Ec. 728; Eub. fr. 30.1) and tools (e. g. Ar. Pax 552); specifically distinguished from the house in which such goods are kept at Ar. Th. 401–2; Lys. 19.31; Arist. EN 1175a25; cf. fr. 285 n.; X. Mem. 2.4.2. τῷ (οἰ)κήµατι At fr. 48.2, the noun clearly means “(small) house” rather than “room” (e. g. Lys. fr. 279.28), but either sense is possible here.

fr. 308 K.-A. (286 K.) ἀριθµεῖν θεατὰς ψαµµακοσίους spectators sand-hundreds in number ΕΓ

Σ Ar. Ach. 3 ψαµµοκοσιογάργαρα· οἷον πολλὰ καὶ ἀναρίθµητα. τὸ γὰρ ψαµµοκόσια καθ’ ἑαυτὸ ἐπὶ πλήθους ἐτίθετο, παρὰ µὲν Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ Γένει οὕτως· ――, παρὰ τὸ ἑξακοσίους 〈ἢ〉 ἑπτακοσίους ἀπὸ τῆς ψάµµου ἀριθµητικῶς γεγενηµένον. καὶ τὰ γάργαρα δὲ ἐπὶ πλήθους psammokosiogargara: i. e. many and numberless. Because psammokosia is used by itself in reference to a crowd, on the one hand in Eupolis in Chrysoun genos as follows: ――, being formed like a number from psammos (“sand”) on the model of hexakosioi (“600”) 〈or〉 heptakosioi (“700”). And gargara is also used in reference to a crowd RΕ

Σ Ar. Ach. 3 (ψαµµακοσιογάργαρα) ἀπὸ δύο λέξεων τὸ σύνθετον ἐγένετο δηλουσῶν πολλά. σύγκειται γὰρ ἀπό τε τῆς ψάµµου καὶ τῶν γαργάρων … καὶ Εὔπολις ἐπεσηµήνατο τὴν λέξιν εἰπὼν ――. δύναται γὰρ ἐγκεῖσθαι τῇ λέξει τὸ -κόσια, ἥτις ἐστὶ κατάληξις τῶν µετὰ τὸν ἑκατὸν ἀριθµῶν µέχρι τῶν χιλίων (psammakosiogargara) The compound was formed from two words that mean “many”; because it is a compound of psammos and gargara … Eupolis also gave his approval to the word when he said ――; for -kosia, which is the ending of the numbers after 100 up to 1000, can be included in the word

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 308)

487

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl

l|lrk l〈lkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.543; Kock 1880 I.336; Crusius 1892; Storey 1990. 18; Platter 2007. 49–50 Citation context Two separate, richly informed scholia, drawing ultimately at least in part on the same source, to which Hsch. ψ 59 ψαµµακοσιογάργαρα· πολλὰ ἀναρίθµητα, ἀπὸ τῆς ψάµµου καὶ τῶν γαργάρων (“psammakosiogargara: many, numberless; from psammos (‘sand’) and gargara”) and Macrobius 5.20.11–13 are to be traced as well. The scholia have been taken over in combined form at Suda ψ 22 (not an independent witness to the tradition). Interpretation Presumably a reference to the audience, and associated on that ground with fr. 298 (n.) by Crusius. For the idea, cf. Cratin. fr. 392 Λέρνη θεατῶν (“a Lerna of spectators”, which includes the sense “100-headed”); Ar. V. 1010b/11a ὦ µυριάδες ἀναρίθµητοι (“O countless millions!”); Luc. Nigr. 18 ἐν θεάτρῳ µυριάνδρῳ (“in a theater of a million men”). ἀριθµεῖν is best understood as an epexegetic infinitive with ψαµµακοσίους (lit. “sand-hundred to count”, i. e. “to be counted”). θεατάς See fr. 205.1 n. ψαµµακόσιος is not attested elsewhere in the classical period except as one element in the compound adjective at Ar. Ach. 3 (for the second element in which, most attestations of which are preserved in one of these two scholia, see Olson 2002 ad loc.). But Athenaeus’ characters use the adjective several times (3.113d; 6.230c; 15.671a), as did Varro “frequently” in his Menippean satires, according to Macrobius 5.20.13 (Varro fr. 585 Buecheler; cf. fr. 528 Romani ψαµµακόσιοι, non qui in urbe inter nundinum calumniarentur), all of which suggests that it was taken for an Atticism. For the numberlessness of the sand (a traditional image), e. g. Ar. Lys. 1260–1 (the men who made up the invading Persian army “were not less than the sand”); Il. 2.800; 9.385; Pi. O. 2.98; Hdt. 1.47.3 (the oracle offers as evidence of its omniscience the fact that “I know the number of the sand and the measure of the sea”); Catullus 7.3–4 (Lesbia asked for as many kisses as the number of the Libyan sand); cf. McCartney 1960. 81–2 (accompanied by a survey of many other similar images); Taillardat 1965 § 659. For the etymology of ψάµµος (disputed; cf. ἄµµος), see Deroy 1956. 183.

488

Eupolis

fr. 309 K.-A. (294 K.) τίς ὁ φῶνος, ὦ ῥαψῳδέ; VΓ2

τίς ὁ φῶνος Nauck : τισοφῶνος Σ

s

: τι σοφωνος (ὸν ) Σ

E

What’s/Who’s the phônos, rhapsode? VEΓ2

Σ Ar. Av. 42 τόνδε τὸν βάδον: ἐν παιδιᾷ παρεσχηµάτισται … οἱ κωµικοὶ παίζειν εἰώθασι τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὡς Εὔπολις Χρυσῷ γένει· ―― this walking: (The word) has been falsely derived for a joke … The comic poets have a tendency to make such jokes, for example Eupolis in Chrysoun genos: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl

llk|〈l

xlkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.543–4; Nauck 1847. 151; Nauck 1848a. 207 n. 36; Fritzsche ap. Toeppel 1851. 7–8; Storey 2003. 274 Citation context A note on the hapax legomenon βάδον (where βάδισις might be expected). Text The VE-scribes were baffled by the letters in their exemplar, which were correctly articulated by Nauck, comparing Theognostus (cited under Interpretation). Interpretation The analysis offered in the scholion suggests that just as βάδος stands in for βάδισις in Aristophanes, so φῶνος ought to stand in for φώνησις (“speaking”) in Eupolis, in which case the rhapsode is being asked to explain (i. e. to justify) the style in which he or someone else is speaking, or perhaps for φωνή (cf. the similarly unexpected hapax κράγος for κραυγή at Ar. Eq. 487; thus Schmidt), in which case he is being asked to explain what he or someone else has said. The Byzantine grammarian Theognostus, in a discussion of disyllabic words in -ωνος (An.Ox. II p. 66.17), on the other hand, says in passing φῶνος ὁ µεγαλόφωνος (“phônos: someone with a loud voice”), almost certainly in reference to this fragment, in which case the rhapsode is being asked to identify a third party. Given that φῶνος is attested nowhere else, it is impossible to know which explanation (if any of them) is correct. Fritzsche compared the Scythian’s πωνη for φωνή at Ar. Th. 1085–6 and took the speaker for a barbarian with a weak control of Greek; cf. fr. 310 n. For rhapsodes, see fr. 483 n.

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 310)

489

fr. 310 K.-A. (287 K.) εἰ µή τις αὐτὴν κατακλιεῖ unless someone will lock up her/it Choerob. Grammatici Graeci IV.2 p. 168.24–30 σηµειοῦται δὲ τὸ ἐκχεῶ δευτέρου µέλλοντος, οἷον καὶ τὸ κατακλιεῖ παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει, οἷον· ――· γέγονε δὲ τὸ κατακλιεῖ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· ἔστι κλείω, τούτου ὁ δεύτερος ἀόριστος ἔκλιον διὰ τοῦ ι, τῆς παραληγούσης συσταλείσης, ὥσπερ λείπω ἔλιπον, πείθω ἔπιθον, καὶ λοιπὸν ἐκεῖθεν κατακλιῶ ὁ δεύτερος µέλλων καὶ κατακλιεῖ τὸ τρίτον πρόσωπον ekcheô (“I will pour out”) is an exceptional form of the second future, as is katakliei in Eupolis in Chrysoun genos, as in: ――. katakliei comes about in the following fashion: there is (the verb) kleiô (“I lock”); the second aorist of this is eklion with iôta, with the penultimate syllable contracted, like leipô elipon (“I leave, I left”), peithô epithon (“I persuade, I persuaded”); and then from there katakliô (is the) second future and katakliei is the third person (of that) Exc. gramm. An.Ox. IV p. 195.28–31 κλείω, ὁ δεύτερος ἀόριστος ἔκλιον διὰ τοῦ ι, ὡς τὸ ἔπιθον· ὁ µέλλων δεύτερος κλιῶ, ὡς καὶ τὸ χεῶ, ὡς τὸ ―― παρ᾿ Εὐπόλιδι, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀσφαλιεῖ kleiô (“I lock”), the second aorist (is) eklion with iôta, like epithon (“I persuaded”); the second future (is) kliô, like cheô as well, for example ―― in Eupolis, in place of asphaliei (“will secure, close”)

Meter Iambic trimeter. e. g. llkl l|rkll

〈xlkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.544; Meineke 1847. 209; Schiassi 1944. 61 Citation context From Choeroboscus’ commentary on Theodosius (the version in An.Ox. is condensed and rearranged), discussing the second (i. e. contract) future, which he takes to be formed from the second aorist. The unusual form ἐκχεῶ appears at Joel 3:1–2 LXX (“I will pour out a portion of my spirit on all flesh”), which is quoted at Acts 2:17–18 and is probably the ultimate source of Choeroboscus’ interest in that verb. Interpretation The use of εἰ µή + future indicative suggests a threat, warning or the like. For menacing τις, cf. Ar. Ra. 552, 554; Bond 1981 on E. HF 747–8 (“The tone seems colloquial”). The future active indicative of κλείω is normally κλῄσω/κλείσω (X. An. 6.6.13; Thphr. fr. 4.36 Wimmer; cf. Luc. DMeretr. 12.2; Herm. 13; Philox. Gramm. frr. *76; *516.1), and Meineke 1839 suggested that the speaker is a barbarian

490

Eupolis

who means to say “will close (the door, θύραν)” but gets the verb wrong; cf. fr. 309 n. For κατά-compounds of this sort, see Lindblad 1922. 95–6.

fr. 311 K.-A. (293 K.) ὦ Καλαβρὲ † κιθαραοιδότατε καλαβρὲ Γ : καλαυρεν V : κατάλαβρ᾿ ὦ Meineke, Kustero praeeunte : fort. καλαβρὲ 〈καὶ〉

O Kalabre † exceptional citharode VΓ

Σ Ar. V. 1278 κιθαραοιδότατον· τῇ λέξει καὶ Εὔπολις κέχρηται ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει· ―― kitharaoidotaton: Eupolis in Chrysoun genos also uses the word: ――

Meter Paeonics? See Text. lkkk†kkklkkk Discussion Edmonds 1957. 417 Citation context A scholion on Ar. V. 1278, where the reference is to the citharode Arignotus son of Automenes (PA 1612; PAA 162000; Stephanis #301; cf. Ar. Eq. 1278–9). Text These appear to be paeonics; if so, a long syllable is missing between Καλαβρέ and κιθαραοιδότατε. Meineke suggested ὦ κατάλαβρ᾿ ὦ κιθαραοιδότατε (“O Katalabre! O exceptional citharode!”). It might be easier to read καλαβρὲ 〈καὶ〉 (an easy omission before κιθαραοιδότατε). Interpretation The kithara was a seven-stringed lyre; see Maas and Snyder 1989. 53–78; West 1992. 50–6; Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 120–2 (with further bibliography). For citharodes, who sang along with the instrument rather than simply playing it (as κιθαρισταί did), and who competed in Athens at the Panathenaic festival but not at the City Dionysia or the Lenaea, e. g. fr. 259.61; Pherecr. fr. 6.1; Ar. Ra. 1282 κιθαρῳδικῶν νόµων; Hdt. 1.23 (of Arion, for the details of whose performance-style see Hdt 1.24.5); Hp. Carn. 18 = 8.608.12–15 Littré; Pl. Grg. 502a; and see in general Power 2010, esp. 425–34, 475–89, 491–507. Edmonds compares fr. 303, although Alcaeus is there associated with Sicily, not Calabria. A Καλαβρός was someone from Bruttium (the “heel” of the Italian “boot”), but also by extension, according to Hsch. κ 382 (originally a gloss on this

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 312)

491

verse?), a βάρβαρος (referring to the indigenous pre-Greek population?), which is presumably the sense intended here. κιθαραοιδότατε κιθαρῳδός is properly an adjective (sc. ἀνήρ; cf. fr. 192kk n.), but not one that would be expected to produce a superlative; cf. the similarly odd αὐτότατος (“the very one”, 〈 αὐτός) at Ar. Pl. 83; βασιλεύτατος at e. g. Il. 9.69; Schwyzer 1939 ii.176; Thesleff 1955 § 6–8 (an “elative superlative”, i. e. one that expresses “a high degree of a certain quality without reference to a range of comparison”). That there is a connection between this verse and Ar. V. 1278 (the only other attestation of the form) seems likely, although what it is is impossible to say. Perhaps both comic poets were mocking Arignotus (see Citation context)—who must have been in the public eye in the mid-420s BCE, given the references to him in both Aristophanes’ Knights and Wasps—for his (self-referential?) use of the word in a recent performance in Athens.

fr. 312 K.-A. (295 K.) τοῦ ∆ιὸς τὸ σάνδαλον the sandal of Zeus Phot. τ 399 = Suda τ 815 ―― · ἐπὶ τῶν ὡς µέγα δή τι 〈 … 〉 (lac. indic. Theodoridis)· Εὔπολις Χρυσῷ γένει ――: in reference to items 〈 … 〉 (lac. marked by Theodoridis) as something big. Eupolis in Chrysoun genos Poll. 7.86 τὸ σάνδαλον Εὔπολις ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει καὶ σχεδὸν ἅπαντες οἱ κωµικοί Eupolis (uses the word) sandalon (“sandal”) in Chrysoun genos, as do nearly all the comic poets

Meter Iambic trimeter. e. g. 〈xlkl x〉|lkl

klkl

Citation context Traced by Erbse to Paus.Gr. τ 42. Interpretation A sandal is normally a small and trivial item (although cf. fr. 287 n.), and if the lexicographers are to be believed, “the sandal of Zeus” is a way of describing something that turns out to be much larger than expected. If there is a specific reference, it is presumably to the sandals of the enormous chryselephantine statue of Zeus at Olympia produced by Pheidias in the mid430s BCE (Paus. 5.11.1–9, with a brief mention of the statue’s gold sandals at

492

Eupolis

5.11.1), for which see Liegle 1952. 114–332; Richter 1966b; Lapatin 2001. 72–85. For similar uses of ∆ιός to indicate the extraordinary size, quality or the like of an otherwise unremarkable object, cf. Ar. Ra. 100 αἰθέρα ∆ιὸς δωµάτιον (“the upper air, bedroom of Zeus”); Ephipp. fr. 13.6 ∆ιὸς ἐγκέφαλος (“brain of Zeus”; a delicacy also referred to as βασιλέως ἐγκέφαλος, “brain of the King”290); E. Cyc. 136 ∆ιὸς γάλα (v.l.) (“milk of Zeus”); Diogen. 3.2 (= adesp. com. fr. 546 K.) ἀρχαιότερα τῆς διφθέρας λέγεις ∆ιός (“you’re referring to things older than Zeus’ leather mantle”). Despite Pollux, σάνδαλον (first attested in the form σάµβαλον at Sapph. fr. 110.2; pre-Greek or a loan word, see Hawkins 2013. 154–5) is not in fact particularly common in what we have of the comic poets (also only Crates Com. fr. 17.7); cf. the diminutives σανδάλιον at Cratin. fr. 139; Cephisod. fr. 4.1; Theopomp. Com. fr. 45; Antiph. fr. 188.2, and σανδαλίσκον at Ar. Ra. 405.

fr. 313 K.-A. (CGFPR 99) καὶ ̣ αρα̣ ̣ ̣ ησ ̣ ̣ µ̣᾿ ἦλθες ἐξυρηµένος σαβύττους 1 καικ̣ vel καιχ̣ vel καιζ̣   καὶ καρατµὴς Edmonds   ὡς 〈ἔ〉µ᾿ ed. pr.

and [illegible/damaged] you came with your sabyttoi shaved Gloss. POxy. 1803.56–9 σαβύττους (σάβυττος)· κουρᾶς εἶδός τι. Εὔπολις ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει· ―― sabyttous (sabyttos): a particular type of haircut. Eupolis in Chrysoun genos: ――

Meter Trochaic dimeter?

lkl[x] l[k]ll lklk lkll Discussion Hunt in Grenfell and Hunt 1922. 165–6 Citation context A single sheet belonging to a 6th-century CE glossary of words from Attic prose and comedy, alphabetized by first letter only. Related material is preserved at 290

Cf. modern Greek melitzanes Imam (“eggplants of the Imam”).

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 313)

493

– Hsch. β 1353 βύττος· γυναικὸς αἰδοῖον (“byttos: female genitals”) – Hsch. σ 15 σάβυττος· εἶδος ξυρήσεως εἰς καλλωπισµόν· πότερον δὲ τοῦ πώγωνος ἢ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἄδηλον. τινὲς δὲ τὸ γυναικεῖον (“sabyttos: a type of shave intended to beautify; whether of the beard or of the head is unclear. But some (say) the female genitals”) – Phot. σ 8 σαβύττης· ξυρήσεως εἶδος (“sabyttês: a type of shave”) – Phot. σ 10 σάβυττος· τὸ γυναικεῖον αἰδοῖον· ἀπὸ τοῦ σάττεσθαι καὶ βύεσθαι, ὡς καὶ σάθη (“sabyttos: the female genitals; from sattesthai (‘to be stuffed’) and byesthai (‘to be stuffed full, stopped’), like sathê”) – Phot. σ 74 = Suda σ 110 σάραβον· τὸ γυναικεῖον αἰδοῖον οἱ κωµικοὶ (= adesp. com. fr. 536) καλοῦσι· καὶ σά{κ}ταν· καὶ σάβυτταν· καὶ σέλινον· καὶ ταῦρον καὶ ἕτερα πολλά (“sarabon: the comic poets (= adesp. com. fr. 536) call the female genitals (by this term); also sa{k}tas, sabytta, selinon, tauron and many other (terms)”) Text Edmond’s καρατµὴς fits both the meter and the letter traces in 1, but the word is unattested and ought to mean “decapitated” (not “with your hair cut”). But a form of κάρα or a cognate (as already suggested and printed in the editio princeps) is a reasonable guess to help fill the gap. Interpretation For σάβυττος (attested nowhere else outside of the lexicographers; etymology uncertain), cf. in addition to the words mentioned in Citation context σάκανδρος (“cunt”; Ar. Lys. 824), σαβαρίχην (Telecl. fr. 70 ap. Phot. σ 4, glossing τὸ γυναικεῖον αἰδοῖον, “the female genitals”; cf. Hsch. σ 10, where the gloss is missing but the lemma is identical); Henderson 1991 §§ 187–8. The POxy. glossary claims that the reference here is to the style in which the individual has his hair or beard cut (cf. Hsch. σ 15), and Kassel– Austin cite as parallels Ar. Ach. 849 ἀποκεκαρµένος µοιχόν (“with his hair cut adulterer-style”); Th. 838 σκάφιον ἀποκεκαρµένην (“with her hair cut bowlstyle”); Ec. 724 κατωνάκην τὸν χοῖρον ἀποτετιλµένας (“with their pussies plucked fleece-style”); Hermipp. fr. 13 σύµβολον κεκαρµένος (“with my hair cut symbolon-style”); S. fr. 473 χειρόµακτρον ἐκκεκαρµένος (“with his hair cut short like a hand-towel”); and cf. Av. 806 σκάφιον ἀποτετιλµένῳ (“with its head plucked bowl-style”). In all these cases, the accusative is singular, so that the sense of 2 (where it is plural) is unlikely to be “shaved like vaginas”. But Kassel–Austin also cite Ar. Lys. 151 δέλτα παρατετιλµέναι (“with their (pubic) triangles plucked”), and add Pherecr. fr. 113.29 τὰ ῥόδα κεκαρµέναι (“with their roses”—i. e. their pussies—“shaved”); Ar. Ach. 119 πρωκτὸν ἐξυρηµένε (“with your asshole shaved”); and see in general Bain 1982. 78–9 on female pubic depilation. What “shaved in respect to your vaginas” might mean when addressed to a man, and in particular why the plural rather than the singular

494

Eupolis

is used, is unclear (someone in female costume, like Agathon or In-law in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae?), but presumably the joke was set up by a preceding remark.

fr. 314 K.-A. (288 K.) † ἔπειτ’ εἴσειµι ἐνθάδε µείνας εἰς ὤµιλλαν κἂν µὴ µετίῃ 1 ἔπειτ’ εἴσειµ’ ἐνθάδε Σ : ἐπείσειµ’ ἐνθάδε Phot. : ἐπεισέµεθα δὲ Suda : ἔπειτ’ εἶµ’ ἐνθάδε Runkel : ἐπί τ᾿ εἴσειµ’ ἐνθάδε Bergk : εἶτ᾿ vel κἄπειτ’ εἴσειµ’ ἐνθάδε Meineke : εἶτ’ εἴσειµ’ 〈 〉 ἐνθάδε Kaibel   2 µετίῃ codd. : µεθίῃ Erbse

I’ll wait here and then go in to an ômilla even if he/she/it doesn’t come after me Areth. (B)

Σ Pl. Lys. 206e (p. 457 Greene) ἡ δὲ ὤµιλλά ἐστιν ὅταν περιγράψαντες κύκλον ἐπιρρίπτωσιν ἀστραγάλους ἤ τι ἄλλο, ὡς τῇ µὲν ἐντὸς βολῇ νικώντων, τῇ δὲ ἐκτὸς ἡττωµένων. Εὔπολις Χρυσῷ γένει µεταφέρων ἐπὶ τὴν ἐν κύκλῳ (Meineke : ἐκ κυκλώπων cod.) κατάκλισιν τοὔνοµα οὕτω φησίν· ―― An ômilla is when they sketch out a circle and thrοw knucklebones or something else on it, in such a way that they win with a throw inside, but lose with one outside. Eupolis in Chrysoun genos, using the word as an image to refer to lying down in a circle (thus Meineke : “from Cyclopes” cod.), says the following: ―― Phot. (z) inedit. = Suda ω 92 ὤµιλλα· παιδιά τις, ἐν ᾗ ὁ εἰς τὸν κύκλον βαλὼν κάρυον, ὥστε ἐµµεῖναι, νικᾷ. Εὔπολις Χρυσῷ γένει· ―― ômilla: a game in which the one who throws a nut into the circle, in such a way that it stays inside, wins. Eupolis in Chrysoun genos: ――

Meter Uncertain (anapaestic? glyconic?); see Text.

klllklkkll llllllkkl Discussion Bergk 1838. 363; Meineke 1839 I.146, II.540; Meineke 1847. 207; Kock 1880 I.336; Schiassi 1944. 60–1; Edmonds 1957. 415; Gelzer 1960. 279; Taillardat 1967. 161; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 271

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 314)

495

Citation context Similar material is preserved at Poll. 9.102–3 (citing fr. 269) and Hsch. ω 194, both likely drawing on the same source, which Erbse took to be Aelius Dionysius (ω 6) and Taillardat took to be Suetonius On games (fr. 1, pp. 67–8), but which apparently goes back in any case to Pamphilus (Taillardat 1967. 41). Note also CGFPR 342.31 (ὤµιλλα in an alphabetically organized list of comic words). εἰς τὸν κύκλον in Phot. = Suda confirms that ἐκ κυκλώπων in Σ Pl. is corrupt, and thus removes any mention of the Cyclopes in the sources for the play (thus already Meineke 1839 I.146). Text If 2 is sound, these are anapaests (†klll lrll / llll llrl) and 1 must be corrupt, hence the suggestions of Bergk and Meineke; Gelzer took this to be part of an anapaestic pnigos. Alternatively, 1 might be aeolic xlxllkkll (reading elided εἴσειµ’ for the paradosis εἴσειµι), in which case the problem is in 2. In 2, Erbse’s µεθίῃ (“even if he/she/it doesn’t let me go”, i. e. “throw me”) for the paradosis µετίῃ renders the image more consistent; but the text is too obscure to warrant such intervention. Interpretation Assuming that Meineke’s emendation of the problematic paradosis ἐκ κυκλώπων is correct, the “lying down in a circle” to which Σ Pl. claims the speaker metaphorically refers is presumably the arrangement of guests at a dinner party or symposium, which the speaker (A.) tells another party (B.) that he (note masculine µείνας) intends to join even if a third party (C.) refuses to accompany him. On the most economical interpretation of the fragment, the failure of (C.) to act must also be the motivation for (A.)’s current hesitation: if (C.) does not make an appearance, (A.) will be forced to act alone. Perhaps part of the point of the image is that there is a risk of being thrown out, sc. because the speaker does not really belong in the group; cf. fr. 172.12–16. Nothing else is known of ὤµιλλα (etymology uncertain; also mentioned in fr. 269.2), which must be a simple gambling game like ἀρτιασµός (“odds or evens”; cf. Ar. Pl. 816–17, 1055–9; Pl. Lys. 206e) and τρόπα (defined by Suetonius, preserved at ΣAreth. (B) Pl. Lys. 206e (p. 457 Greene) and citing Cratin. fr. 180, as “throwing something into a hole from a distance”, as in modern beer pong) (both also mentioned at Poll. 9.102–3).

496

Eupolis

fr. 315 K.-A. (289 K.) αὐτόµατοι δ’ ἀγαθοὶ δειλῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασιν but good men go of their own accord to cowards’ feasts Zenob. Ath. 1.15 (vulg. 2.19) αὐτόµατοι δ’ ἀγαθοὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἵενται· οὕτως Βακχυλίδης (sic Zenob. cod. Athous, cf. Ath. 5.178b : Ἡράκλειτος codd. alii : Ἡσίοδος Schneidewin) ἐχρήσατο τῇ παροιµίᾳ, ὡς Ἡρακλέους ἐπιφοιτήσαντος ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν Κήϋκος τοῦ Τραχινίου καὶ οὕτως εἰπόντος. Εὔπολις δὲ ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει ἑτέρως φησὶν ἔχειν τὴν παροιµίαν· ――. καὶ ὁ Πλάτων ἐν τῷ Συµποσίῳ οὕτως αὐτῇ ἐχρήσατο but good men are sent of their own accord to cowards’ feasts: Bacchylides (thus Zenob. cod. Athous, cf. Ath. 5.178b : “Heracleitus” Zenob. other codd. : “Hesiod” Schneidewin) used the proverb in this form, as when Heracles visited the house of Ceyx of Trachis and spoke thus. But Eupolis in Chrysoun genos says that the proverb was different: ――. Plato in the Symposium (174b) also used it in this form T

Σ Pl. Smp. 174b (p. 56 Greene = 7, p. 97 Cufalo) (Ἀγάθων’ ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασιν αὐτόµατοι δ’ ἀγαθοί). παροιµία ――. ταύτην δὲ λέγουσιν εἰρῆσθαι ἐπὶ Ἡρακλεῖ, † ὣ ὅτε ἑστιῶντο τῷ Κήϋκι ξένους ἐπέστη. † Κρατῖνος δὲ ἐν Πυλαίᾳ (fr. 182) µεταλλάξας αὐτὴν ἀναγράφει οὕτως·—. καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει (Χρυσογένει cod.) (good men go of their own accord to Agathon’s feasts): (There is) a proverb ――. They say that this was pronounced in reference to Heracles, † [corrupt] when they were feasting to Ceyx guests he stood upon. † But Cratinus in Pylaia (fr. 182) altered it and writes it out as follows: ――. Also Eupolis in Chrysoun genos (Chrysogenos cod.) Ath. 5.178b Βακχυλίδης (fr. 4.21–5) δὲ περὶ τοῦ Ἡρακλέους λέγων ὡς ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὸν τοῦ Κήυκος οἶκόν φησιν· ἔστη δ’ ἐπὶ λάινον οὐδόν, τοὶ δὲ θοίνας ἔντυον, ὧδέ τ’ ἔφα· αὐτόµατοι δ’ ἀγαθῶν δαῖτας εὐόχθους ἐπέρχονται δίκαιοι φῶτες. αἱ δὲ παροιµίαι ἣ µέν φησιν· αὐτόµατοι δ’ ἀγαθοὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασιν ([Hes.] fr. 264* M.-W. = fr. 203 Most), ἣ δέ· ―― When Bacchylides (fr. 4.21–5) describes how Heracles came to Ceyx’s house, he says: He stood at the stone threshold, and they were preparing a feast; and he said the following: Of their own accord just men

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 315)

497

come to the rich meals of good men. One proverb says: but good men go of their own accord to good men’s feasts ([Hes.] fr. 264* M.-W. = fr. 203 Most), whereas another (says): ――

Meter Dactylic hexameter.

lkk lkk l|l lkk lkk ll Discussion Meineke 1839 I.146 Citation context Athenaeus’ remarks are a comment on Pl. Smp. 174b–c, in the context of a larger discussion of Il. 2.408 αὐτόµατος δέ οἱ ἦλθε βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Μενέλαος (“But Menelaos good at the war-cry came to him of his own accord”, of Menelaos’ attendance at the feast in Agamemnon’s tent even though Agamemnon has not explicitly invited him). Cf. also Phot. α 3236 αὐτόµατοι δ’ ἀγαθοί· παροιµία τριχῶς λεγοµένη· αὐτόµατοι δ’ ἀγαθοὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασιν. ἡ δέ· αὐτόµατοι κακοὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας. Πλάτων ἐν Συµποσίῳ (174b) τῇ πρώτῃ κέχρηται, Κρατῖνος δὲ ἐν Πυλαίᾳ (fr. 182) τῇ δευτέρᾳ· οἵδ’ αὖθ’ ἡµεῖς, ὡς ὁ παλαιὸς / λόγος, αὐτοµάτους ἀγαθοὺς ἰέναι / κοµψῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτα θεατῶν (“good men of their own accord: a proverb said in three ways: ‘but good men go of their own accord to feasts of good men’. And this: ‘bad men go of their own accord to good men’s feasts’. Plato in the Symposium (174b) uses the first, whereas Cratinus in Pylaia (fr. 182) uses the second: ‘we here again, as the ancient saying goes, that good men of their own accord go to a feast of clever audience-members’”); Lelli 2006. 129–30. As all four sources reference Plato’s dialogue and overlap in various ways, they likely derive from a single learned early note on the same passage. Ath. 1.8a (preserved in the Epitome only) appears to have originally been another allusion to the same proverb. Suda ζ 73 claims that Zenobius’ collection of proverbs was an epitome of earlier collections by Didymus and Tarrhaios, i. e. Lucillus of Tarrha; Didymus, at least, was certainly drawing on older scholarship on comedy. Related material, although without reference to Eupolis or his variant of the saying, is preserved at Zenob. 2.46 = Diogen. 1.60 etc. Interpretation In comedy, dactylic hexameters are used mainly for riddles, oracles and mock-epic; see in general White 1912 §§ 356–66. Eupolis’ δειλῶν must be a mocking reversal of the usual ἀγαθῶν (see below). But who is being made fun of, why and in what context is impossible to say (although cf. fr. 314 with n.). Meineke suggested that Lampon (cf. fr. 319) playing prophet was the speaker.

498

Eupolis

The proverb in the form αὐτόµατοι δ’ ἀγαθοὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασιν— which seems to be how Plato’s Socrates knows it, although he mockingly converts ἀγαθῶν into Ἀγάθων’ and produces a heavily resolved iambic trimeter (rlrl k|rkl rlrl) out of the hexameter—was assigned by Schneidewin (reading Ἡσίοδος for the paradosis Ἡράκλειτος in the manuscripts of Zenobius known to him) to the pseudo-Hesiodic Wedding of Ceyx (fr. 263 M.-W. = fr. 202 Most). The Athos codex of Zenobius, however, reads “Bacchylides”, which Athenaeus shows must be right, meaning that Ἡράκλειτος in the other Zenobius manuscripts must be a clumsy error under the influence of Ἡρακλέους a few words later on. Cratinus (fr. 182.1–2) calls this a παλαιὸς / λόγος, while Socrates simply refers to it as a παροιµία. Although Bacchylides knows and adapts the saying in connection with a visit to Ceyx (the king of Trachis, in central Greece) by Heracles, therefore, and although [Hesiod] wrote about Heracles and Ceyx in dactylic hexameters, there is no substantial reason to trace the verse to [Hesiod] in particular, as opposed to identifying it as a line of free-floating wisdom literature variously adapted by a wide range of 5th-century authors. See also Fuhrmann 1953; Spyridonidou-Skarsouli 1995. 338–41. According to [Hes.] fr. 263 M.-W. = fr. 202 Most—expressly assigned by the ancient source to the Wedding of Ceyx—Heracles’ departure from the Argo was discussed in that poem, likely placing the encounter with Ceyx early in the hero’s career (cf. D.S. 4.32).291 That Heracles and Deianeira settled with Ceyx near the end of Heracles’ life, after the death of the centaur Nessus and Heracles’ accidental killing of a young cupbearer (D.S. 4.36; Paus. 1.32.6; [Apollod.] Bib. 2.150) is thus probably the consequence of the personal link established earlier, when the hero blundered uninvited into the king’s wedding celebration. For subsequent events involving Ceyx, Heracles’ arch-enemy Eurystheus and Heracles’ children, see Hecat. FGrH 1 F 30; D.S. 4.57; Paus. 1.32.6; [Apollod.] Bib. 2.150). For the story of Ceyx in general, see Wilamowitz 1883. 417–19 n. 2; Kroll 1921.

291

At [Hes.] Sc. 353–5, Heracles is said to be on his way to Ceyx when he fights and kills Cycnus, and the most economical hypothesis is that this event too was taken to belong to the immediately post-Argo period of the hero’s career. For the encounter with Cycnus and the ancient sources for it, see Gantz 1993. 421–2.

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 316)

499

fr. 316 K.-A. (290–291–292 K.) ὦ καλλίστη πόλι πασῶν ὅσας Κλέων ἐφορᾷ, ὡς εὐδαίµων πρότερόν τ’ ἦσθα, νῦν δὲ µᾶλλον ἔσῃ ἔδει πρῶτον µὲν ὑπάρχειν πάντων ἰσηγορίαν πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἄν τις ὁµιλῶν χαίροι τοιᾷδε πόλει, 5

ἵν’ ἔξεστιν πάνυ λεπτῷ κακῷ τε τὴν ἰδέαν

2 πρότερόν τ’ ἦσθα Heph. : ΓΡΩΤΕΡΩΝ ΤΕΣΕΑ Priscian.   δὲ Heph. : ΤΕ Priscian. ἔσῃ Heph. : ΕΣΕΙ Priscian.   2–3 ἔσει, / εἰ δεῖ Bergk   3 πρῶτον Aldine : ΤΡΩΤΩΝ Priscian.   ἰσηγορίαν Aldine : ΣΗΓΟΡΙΑΝ Priscian.   4 πῶς οὖν οὐκ Priscian. : (Β.) οὐκοῦν πῶς Fritzsche   ὁµιλῶν χαίροι Scaliger : ΟΜΙΛΟΝ ΧΑΙΡΙ Priscian.

O fairest city of all, however many Cleon surveys, how fortunate you were before, and now you will be more so First, everyone ought to have had an equal right to speak How would anyone not be happy to associate with such a city, 5

where an utterly thin and ugly man can

Priscian. De metr. Ter. 26 (Grammatici Latini III p. 429.1–10) Hephaestion quoque metricus ostendit comicum epionicum spondeos paribus locis habens iambicarum (-orum codd.) συζυγιῶν, id est coniugationum, ut est apud Eupolin in fabula quae dicitur Χρυσοῦν γένος (vv. 1–2): ――. idem (vv. 3–5): ――. hi omnes locis paribus spondeos habent The metrician Hephaestion also illustrates a comic epionicum that has spondees with matching sections of iambic syzygies, i. e. of combinations, as is the case in Eupolis in the play called Chrysoun genos (vv. 1–2): ――. The same author (vv. 3–5): ――. All these (verses) have spondees with matching sections Heph. Enchiridion 16.4, p. 57.11–17 Consbruch τάχα δὲ καὶ τὸ κωµικόν [τὸ] καλούµενον ἐπιωνικὸν πολυσχηµάτιστον συνέθεσαν· µάλιστα δ’ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀταξία πολλή, ἡ τοὺς σπονδείους ἐπ’ ἀρτίου χώρας ἔχουσα τῶν ἰαµβικῶν συζυγιῶν, οἷον παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει (vv. 1–2)· ―― But perhaps they also composed the comic verse known as an epiônikon as a polyschematist. In this (verse) there is a particularly substantial degree of disorder, as it involves spondees in a position matching the iambic syzygies, for example in Eupolis in Chrysoun genos (vv. 1–2): ―― Σ metr. Pi. O. 13 γίνεται δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιωνικοῖς ἡ ἀταξία, ὡς ἐν τῷ (v. 1)· ―― There is disorder in the epiônika, as in the line (v. 1): ――

500

Eupolis

Meter  xlxlkkll

xlklkkl; see West 1982. 97. llllkkll | klklkkl llllkkll k|lklkkl klllkkll | llklkkl llllkkll | llklkkl klllkkll | klklkkl Hephaestion apparently analyzed xlxlkkll as llllrll (“spondees”), and saw this as balanced by klklkkl (“iambic syzygies”, i. e. sycopated iambs of some sort). Both elements of the line are actually aeolic. Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 145–6 n. 10; Bergk 1838. 361; Meineke 1839 II.535–6; Gilbert 1877. 131–2; Kock 1880 I.337; Hoffmann 1910. 36; Whittaker 1935. 189; Schiassi 1944. 59–60, 62–3; Ruffell 2000. 491; Storey 2003. 269–71, 273; Olson 2007. 212 (E18) Citation context Hephaestion’s metrical treatise, originally in 48 books, survives only in a severely epitomized version, the Encheiridion (“Handbook”), on which the metrical scholion to Pindar appears to be drawing. Priscian probably had access to a more complete version of Hephaestion, which he here translates into Latin (thus Meineke), although Keil thought he was drawing instead on Heliodorus. Text The scribes who produced our copies of Priscian (and probably the scribe who produced the common exemplar of these copies as well) had only a vague understanding of Greek, and most of the variants recorded in the apparatus are crude majuscule errors and the like. In 2, Priscian’s τε is an easy error for Hephaestion’s δὲ after τ’ a few words earlier in the line. For ἔσῃ (Heph.) vs. ΕΣΕΙ i. e. ἔσει (Priscian.) at the end of 2, see Arnott 2001; Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 38.1 (with further references). -ῃ appears to be the proper 5th-century form, which is gradually replaced over the course of the 4th century by -ει. Bergk’s ἔσει, / εἰ δεῖ in 2–3 is designed to allow the two verses to be taken together. Fritzsche proposed (Β.) οὐκοῦν πῶς in place of the paradosis πῶς οὖν οὐκ in 4. But the change of speaker is not wanted in the parabasis and the combination οὐκοῦν πῶς is not attested elsewhere before the Roman period. Interpretation Direct address of the city, i. e. of the audience, from the parabasis proper. See Whittaker 1935. 189. The tone in 1–2, and perhaps throughout, is sarcastic. Priscian not only separates 3–5 (for which he is the only witness, and which he seems to regard as a unit) from 1–2, but attributes the verses only to

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 316)

501

Eupolis rather than explicitly to Chrysoun genos. 3–5 might therefore be from another play (meaning that they should probably have been given a separate fragment-number), and the reference in 5 is not necessarily to Cleon. The political ascendancy of Cleon son of Cleaenetus (PA 8674; PAA 579130; mentioned also in frr. 211; 331; fr. dub. 497) lasted from late 428 BCE or so, after the death of Pericles, until his own death in battle at Amphipolis in summer 422 BCE (cf. Ar. Eq. 128–37, where the Paphlagonian is the third in the series of implicitly post-Periclean “sellers” of this and that, after Eucrates and Lysicles), although after his unexpected victory over the Spartans at Pylos in 425 BCE (fr. 331 n.) he must have been particularly influential. For Cleon’s family and career, see in general Davies 1971. 318–20; Connor 1971. 91–101, 128–34; Bourriot 1982; Lind 1990; Spence 1995 (with particular attention to the evidence of Thucydides). 1–2 The first verse treats the intrinsic character of the city, the second its situation (which has and will again match its intrinsic character, but does not do so at the moment). 1 Cf. fr. 330 with n.; Ar. Eq. 159 ὦ τῶν Ἀθηνῶν ταγὲ τῶν εὐδαιµόνων (“O marshaller of fortunate Athens!”; addressed to the Sausage-seller as he is being recruited for politics); adesp. com. fr. 100 τὴν λαµπροτάτην πόλεων πασῶν ὁπόσας ὁ Ζεὺς ἀναφαίνει (“the most brilliant of all cities, however many Zeus puts on display”; said of Athens, according to Ath. 1.20b); Men. Rh. περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν p. 383.3–4 Spengel πόλεως, ἣν µόνην καλλίστην πόλεων ὁ ἥλιος ἐφορᾷ (“a city, which is the single fairest one of the cities the sun oversees”) (all cited by Kassel–Austin). ὦ καλλίστη πόλι Extravagant if generic praise; Kassel–Austin compare Pi. P. 9.69 καλλίσταν πόλιν (“fairest city”; of Cyrene); 12.1 καλλίστα βροτεᾶν πολίων (“fairest of mortal cities”; of Aetna), and note fr. 246.1 καλὴ πόλις (of Chios); Hdt. 6.24.2 πόλιν καλλίστην (of Zankle). πασῶν ὅσας Κλέων ἐφορᾷ A glancing reference to the Empire and thus probably to the tribute in particular (see the introduction to the play on Date). Kassel–Austin compare the description of the Paphlagonian (~ Cleon) at Ar. Eq. 75 ἐφορᾷ γὰρ αὐτὸς πάντ’ (“for he himself surveys everything”), on the one hand, and that of the Sun-god at Od. 11.109; 12.323 (cf. Il. 3.277; Thgn. 1184) ὃς πάντ’ ἐφορᾷ καὶ πάντ’ ἐπακούει (“who surveys all and overhears all”), on the other. But similar language is also used of Zeus (Od. 13.214 ἀνθρώπους ἐφορᾷ καὶ τείνυται, ὅς τις ἁµάρτῃ; Sol. fr. 13.17 Ζεὺς πάντων ἐφορᾷ τέλος; S. El. 175 Ζεύς, ὃς ἐφορᾷ πάντα καὶ κρατύνει, 824 (Zeus and Helios together) with Finglass 2007. 294 on El. 659), to whom Cleon might just as easily be compared. For ἐφοράω in the sense “oversee, supervise”, cf. the Spartan office of ἔφορος (“ephor”, lit. “overseer”) and the related term ἐπίσκοπος (of divine

502

Eupolis

guardians of cities and the like at e. g. Ar. Eq. 1173, 1186 (in both cases the cognate verb); Sol. fr. 4.3; Pi. O. 14.4; A. Th. 272; E. IT 1414). 2 The point (filled out in the lost lines that followed) was presumably that Athens was happy in the past when it did not have to put up with Cleon, and will be in the future when it is rid of him; the present is by contrast not so pleasant. Storey 2003. 270 compares Ar. Eq. 973–6 ἥδιστον φάος ἡµέρας / … / … / ἢν Κλέων ἀπόληται (“it will be a very lovely day, if Cleon perishes”). εὐδαίµων “Favored by a divine power” or “divine powers”, and thus by extension “blessed, happy”; see in general de Heer 1969, esp. 54, 99–100. Also used of cities, lands and the like at e. g. Ar. Eq. 159 (quoted at 1); Av. 144–5, 906 (the Poet is speaking); Ec. 1112 (of Attica); hHom. 11.5; Eumel. fr. 8.1, p. 111 Bernabé; Pi. P. 4.276–7 with Braswell 1988 ad loc.; E. Andr. 873; Hec. 443; El. 1289 (of Athens); fr. 515.2; S. OC 282. For µᾶλλον + simple adjective as equivalent to a comparative (here εὐδαιµονεστέρα), e. g. Ar. V. 1105 µᾶλλον ὀξύθυµόν ἐστιν οὐδὲ δυσκολώτερον, 1267; Pl. 747 µᾶλλον … τυφλόν; E. Alc. 182 σώφρων … µᾶλλον; fr. 286.8 µᾶλλόν εἰσ’ εὐδαίµονες. Comparative and superlative forms of εὐδαίµων are in any case first attested only in the late 5th century (comparative first at Ar. Pax 864; superlative at Hdt. 2.161.2) and are otherwise almost entirely prosaic. 3 ἔδει indicates an unfulfilled obligation, like ἔχρην at e. g. Ar. Pax 135; Lys. 574 (in a similar context); cf. fr. 99.27; Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.204–5; Fraenkel 1912. 96 (identifying this as a typical formula for introducing a new political program). πρῶτον µέν suggests that what follows in the rest of the line was originally only the first item in a list, as at e. g. fr. 384.4 with n.; Ar. Ach. 637; Nu. 963; Anaxandr. fr. 55.4; Alex. fr. 173.1; E. Med. 536; Th. 1.115.5. πάντων might be either “belonging to all (citizens)”—πᾶσι (dependent on ὑπάρχειν) would have been clearer, but cannot be made to fit into the meter—or “regarding all matters”. The seeming parallel in 5 (n.) argues for the former, but the latter is easier, and the dative describing who should have exercised this right must have come in the next line. Kock argued that πάντων was to be taken with πρῶτον, but the hyperbaton is difficult. ἰσηγορία (“an equal right to speak”, sc. for all citizens without regard to wealth, family or personal connections, or the like)—roughly equivalent in sense to παρρησία (“the freedom to say whatever one wants”, sc. about matters of public concern), although ἰσηγορία emphasizes how one speaks (as a peer) rather than what one is allowed to say—was fundamental to the ancient concept of democracy and to the Athenians’ understanding of their own democracy in particular (e. g. E. Supp. 438–41 with Collard 1975 ad loc.; Hdt. 5.78; D. 21.124; [D.] 60.28; Plb. 2.38.6; cf. Nicostr. Com. fr. 30; Raaflaub

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 316)

503

1980; Mastronarde 1994 on E. Ph. 391–5; Raaflaub 2004, esp. 46–9; Carter 2004, esp. 199–202, 217–19; Wallace 2004; Balot 2004). The word is first attested here, at Hdt. 5.78 (of what the Athenians acquired by freeing themselves from the Peisistratid tyranny) and at [X.] Ath. 1.12 (cynically, in reference to Athenian slaves and metics). 4–5 Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Ra. 1458 πῶς οὖν τις ἂν σώσειε τοιαύτην πόλιν; (“How then could one save such a city?”). If these lines as well are from Chrysoun genos and the tone is still sarcastic, the underlying notion might be that like naturally associates with like (cf. fr. 315, Eupolis’ twist on the normal form of the proverb notwithstanding), and thus that no one would in fact choose to associate with a city where “an utterly thin and ugly man”— probably not Cleon himself, since in all the other comic attacks on him, he is never described in such terms—was allowed to engage in whatever allegedly outrageous activity was described in the verses that followed (e. g. taking a leading part in Athenian politics). But if the verses are from elsewhere or the tone has changed, the reference might be instead to a city where an utterly thin and ugly man can e. g. be described as what he is. 4 Resumptive οὖν suggests that τοιᾷδε refers back to something said in the preceding line or lines, and that what follows in 5 merely expands the characterization of the city in question (doubtless Athens) further; cf. fr. 111 n. 5 For the use of πάνυ (Attic-Ionic vocabulary) in comedy, Dover 1985. 332–5 = 1987. 53–7; and see in general Thesleff 1954 § 71–2 (on the word as an intensifier with adjectives and adverbs); Collard 2005. 366. Contrast the use of πάνυ after the word it emphasizes rather than before it in frr. 166; 243. λεπτῷ is literally “thin” (e. g. Cratin. fr. 205, of a slice of sausage), and by extension either “subtle” (e. g. Ar. Ach. 445; Nu. 359; E. Med. 529) or “scrawny” (e. g. Hermipp. fr. 36.3; Ar. Ec. 539; fr. 209.1 (Reisig); cf. X. Smp. 2.17). The generally sarcastic tone initially allows for the possibility that the first extended meaning is in question, but κακῷ τε τὴν ἰδέαν rapidly makes it clear that none of this is praise. The opposite of λεπτός is παχύς, “thick, fat” (e. g. X. Smp. 2.17; Eq. 1.3; Pl. Cra. 389b) and thus “prosperous” (e. g. Ar. V. 287 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.). The social prejudice expressed is thus similar to that on even more open display in fr. 384.4–8: the individual in question is too insignificant to deserve to be involved in public affairs, despite the general political principle articulated in 3. See in general Diggle 2004. 473. For the use of τὴν ἰδέαν, e. g. Ar. Av. 1000; Pl. 559; And. 1.100; Th. 6.4.5.

504

Eupolis

fr. 317 K.-A. ἄρκτους, ἐλάφους, ἐλέφαντας, ὕστριχας, χελώνας bears, deer, elephants, porcupines, tortoises/turtles Phot. α 2824 ἄρκτος· τὸ θηρίον, σὺν τῷ τ. Εὔπολις Χρυσῷ γένει· ―― arktos (bear): the animal, with the tau. Eupolis in Chrysoun genos: ――

Meter A comic dicolon (x D x ith) attested inter alia also at frr. 148 with n.; 250 with n. See Parker 1997. 260–1, who calls this an archilochean.

l

lkklkkl

k

lklkll

Discussion Tsantsanoglou 1984. 122; Storey 2003. 269 Citation context Phryn. PS p. 31.18 has ἀπαρκτίας· µετὰ τοῦ τ, οὐκ ἀπαρκίας (“aparktias (north wind): with the tau, not aparkias”), and Theodoridis compared the more complete version of that note preserved at Phot. α 2265 ἀπαρκτίας· οὕτως χρὴ λέγειν µετὰ τοῦ τ καὶ οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοι ἀπαρκίαν· καὶ γὰρ ἄρκτον λέγεις. Στράττις εἴρηκεν (fr. 78) (“aparktias (north wind): one ought to say it thus, with the tau, and not as some people do, aparkias; for in fact you say arktos (bear). Stattis uses the word (fr. 78)”) and concluded that Phot. α 2824 was drawn from Phrynichus as well. Cf. – [Hdn.] Philet. 314  ἄρκτος σὺν τῷ τ· καὶ ἀπαρκτίας ἄνεµος (“arktos with the tau; also aparktias, a wind”) – Et.Gen. AB α 969 ἀπαρκτίαις· ταῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ἄρκτου † πνοαῖς· Λυκόφρων (27)· ―― (“aparktiais: the † blasts from the arktos: Lycophron (27): ――”) Aelius Dionysius (α 173 ap. Phot. α 2826 = Synag. B α 2127; cf. Hsch. α 5811) took a different view: ἄρκτον οὐχὶ ἄρκον· (Cratin. fr. 144) ――· τὸν µέντοι ἄνεµον ἄνευ τοῦ τ, ὡς ἡµεῖς, ἀπαρκίαν διὰ τὸ εὔφωνον, καὶ τὴν πνοὰν ἄρκιον· (A. fr. 127) ―― (“arktos (bear), not arkos: (Cratin. fr. 144) ――. The wind, however, (should be pronounced) aparkias without the tau, as we do, for the sake of euphony, and its blast (should be pronounced) arkion: (A. fr. 127) ――”). See further Orth 2009. 279. Interpretation An asyndetic, wildly mixed, and most likely accidentally alphabetical list of wild animals, large and small, common and rare, edible and inedible, fast and slow, warm-blooded and cold-blooded, dangerous and unthreatening. All are four-legged and—assuming that tortoises rather than turtles are in question—terrestrial, and larger and rarer animals come in the first half of the verse, smaller and more common ones in the second half.

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 317)

505

The meter suggests a special moment in the play and/or direct address of the audience; perhaps a list of the earth’s various inhabitants when the world was new, i. e. in the Golden Age? Kassel–Austin compare the even more diverse S. fr. 111 γέρανοι, χελῶναι, γλαῦκες, ἰκτῖνοι, λαγοί (“cranes, tortoises/turtles, owls, kites, hares”, i. e. birds, reptiles and mammals). Storey offers the shotin-the-dark suggestion that this might be part of “an animal–human theme”. ἄρκτους Bears (Keller 1887. 106–28; Keller 1909–1913 I.175–81; Kitchell 2014. 12–14) are included repeatedly in catalogues of terrible wild creatures in early epic poetry (Od. 11.611; hAphr. 71; hDion. 46; hHerm. 223), but were apparently found in Greece in the historical period only in the northern mountains; see Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 68 (mention of a bear-skin). ἐλάφους For deer of all types, see Keller 1887. 73–101; Keller 1909–1913 I.277–9; Kitchell 2014. 44–6. ἐλέφαντας Ivory was a common luxury material in the Mycenean world (in the Linear B tablets at e. g. PY 249 in the form e-re-pa; see in general Poursat 1977; Krzyszkowska 1988) and is mentioned repeatedly in early epic (e. g. Il. 4.141; Od. 4.73; 8.404; [Hes.] Sc. 141; cf. in later periods Alc. fr. 350.1; Anacr. PMG 388.11; Pi. N. 7.78; Ar. Av. 219; Pl. Com. fr. 230.1; Theopomp. Com. fr. 26; D. 27.10, etc.). In the classical period it seems to have been imported into Greece from Ethiopia via Egypt (Hdt. 3.97.3, 114) or Libya (Hermipp. fr. 63.15). Elephants themselves—mentioned also in comedy at Antiph. fr. 82.4 (their enormous appetite)—are first referred to at Hdt. 4.191.4 in a catalogue of Libyan fauna; Ctesias discussed them as well (FGrH 688 F 45b). Herds were apparently widespead in Syria into the early 1st millennium BCE, whence most of the Mycenean supply of ivory, but were eventually hunted into extinction there; see Miller 1986 and in general Keller 1909–1913 I.372–83; Scullard 1974, esp. 32–63; Kitchell 2014. 64–7. ἐλέφας is a loan-word of uncertain origin (probably Semitic); see Masson 1967. 80–3; West 1992b. ὕστριχας For porcupines, see in general Keller 1909–1913 I.207–9; Kitchell 2014. 153–4. Aristotle twice notes that the creature hibernates like a bear (HA 579a29–30, 600a27–8) and passes on the old story about its ability to hurl its spines (HA 623a33). The ὕστριξ lent its name to a barbed whip used to torture slaves at Ar. Pax 746; Ra. 619. χελώνας The word is used (like German Schildkröte) for both tortoises and turtles (e. g. fr. 150 with n.; Crates Com. fr. 32.2 ποντιὰς χελώνη, “seachelônê”; Arist. HA 540a29–30 χελώνη καὶ ἡ θαλαττία καὶ ἡ χερσαία, “both the marine and the terrestrial chelônê”). For the animal itself, see in general Keller 1909–1913 II.247–59; Dumoulin 1994; Kitchell 2014. 186–8. There appears to be no evidence that the Greeks ate sea-turtles, although it is difficult to believe that the idea never occurred to anyone (cf. Davidson 2002. 219–20).

506

Eupolis

fr. 318 K.-A. (296 K.) Παντακλῆς σκαιός Παντακλῆς Kock : Παντακλέης codd.

clumsy Pantacles VEΘBarb

Σ Ar. Ra. 1036 διαβάλλει τὸν Παντακλέα ὡς ἀµαθῆ ἐν τῷ ὁπλίζεσθαι. µέµνηται δὲ τούτου καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει· ―― He disparages Pantacles for not understanding how to wear military equipment. And Eupolis as well mentions this man in Chrysoun genos: ――

Meter Probably iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlkl x〉|lkl or dimeter, e. g. 〈x〉lkl ll〈Ckl〉

ll〈Ckl〉

Discussion Kock 1880 I.338; Storey 1990. 18; Storey 2003. 275–6 Citation context A gloss on Ar. Ra. 1036–8, where Dionysus reports that Pantacles, when participating in a procession recently, first put on his helmet and only afterward tried to attach the crest; presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Text -κλῆς is the normal 5th-century nominative ending of names of this sort (Threatte 1996. 181–91, esp. 186–8), and -κλέης appears to be used in comedy only when metrically necessary (e. g. Cratin. fr. 323; Phryn. Com. fr. 32.1; Ar. Ach. 530; contrast e. g. Ar. V. 60; Phryn. Com. fr. 24), hence Kock’s emendation (which takes for granted that this is iambic verse of some sort). Despite Storey 2003. 276, there is no reason to think that σκαιός is intrusive. Interpretation Perhaps from an iambic abuse song, like fr. 99.1–22 (n.), and thus iambic dimeter rather than trimeter. Pantacles is PAA 764230. The name is not particularly rare (18 other 5th-/ th 4 -century examples in LGPN II) and is borne e. g. by a tamias of Athena in 428/7 BCE (PAA 764225) and a dithyrambic poet from the second half of the 5th century (PAA 764235), either of whom might—or might not—be the man referred to here. Despite Storey, the reference in Aristophanes’ Frogs (405 BCE) to a specific recent act of clumsiness on Pantacles’ part does not create

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 319)

507

a chronological problem with the mention in Chrysoun genos in the mid- to late 420s; some people are born that way, and he was likely one of them.292 For σκαιός (literally “left, left-handed”) in the sense “clumsy, stupid”, see LSJ s. v. III, and add e. g. Alcm. PMG 16.2 (showing that the meaning is not confined to the 5th century) and from comedy e. g. Ar. Th. 1130; Anaxandr. fr. 62.2 with Millis 2015 ad loc. (with extensive references and bibliography); Ephipp. fr. 23.1; Men. Epitr. 918; Sam. 428; and cf. fr. 268p n.

fr. 319 K.-A. (297 K.) Λάµπων οὑξηγητής οὑξηγητής Ruhnken : οὐξητητής cod.

Lampon the exegete Antiatt. p. 96.18–21 ἐξηγητής· Εὔπολις Χρυσῷ γένει· ―― · µάντις γὰρ ἦν καὶ χρησµοὺς ἐξηγεῖτο exegete: Eupolis in Chrysoun genos: ――; for (Lampon) was a seer and explicated prophecies

Meter Anapaests or dactylic hexameter.

llllll Discussion Oliver 1950. 24–5; Storey 2003. 276 Citation context An isolated lexicographic entry. The same passage of Eupolis is probably referred to at ΣE Ar. Nu. 332 Λάµπωνα … τὸν µάντιν, ὃν καὶ ἐξηγητὴν ἐκάλουν (“the seer Lampon, whom they also referred to as an exegete”). Text The paradosis οὐξητητής is a simple majuscule error (Τ for Γ). Ruhnken also added the rough breathing. 292

Storey 2003. 276 calls this “the least satisfactory explanation”—despite the fact that it explains all the evidence in an easy, economical fashion, which would seemingly mark it as the most satisfactory explanation. Storey 2003. 275 also misrepresents the function of γοῦν at Ra. 1036–8 καὶ µὴν οὐ Παντακλέα γε / ἐδίδαξεν ὅµως τὸν σκαιότατον. πρῴην γοῦν, ἡνίκ’ ἔπεµπεν κτλ: the particle shows not that what follows is an explanation of τὸν σκαιότατον (i. e. of why Pantacles is described as such), but that this is a specific instance supporting the claim that Homer failed to teach “Pantacles at any rate” proper military procedure.

508

Eupolis

Interpretation Lampon (PA 8996; PAA 601665) was one of the founders of the Panhellenic colony of Thurii in Southern Italy in 444/3 BCE (cf. Ar. Nu. 332 with ΣEM); proposed a decree concerning first-fruit offerings at Eleusis in the mid-430s? BCE (IG I3 78.47, 60 = I.Eleusis 28);293 was among the delegates who swore to the peace treaty with Sparta in 421 BCE (Th. 5.19.2, 24.1); is mentioned as still active in 414 BCE at Ar. Av. 521 (with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.), 988; and is attacked at adesp. com. fr. 1105.98–103 (apparently late 5th-century; attributed by some to Eupolis) as a pederast who has systematically extorted money out of cities. He is also referred to at Cratin. frr. 62 (a glutton); 125; Call. Com. fr. 20; Lysipp. fr. 6; and see Storey 1988. 380; Flower 2008. 123–4. The ἐξηγηταί (“exegetes, expounders”) were religious authorities with whom private individuals might consult to find out what a dubious situation potentially touching on matters of divine law meant and thus what sort of response was necessary or advisable; cf. IG I3 131.9–10 (ca. 440–432? BCE); 137.4 (ca. 422–416 BCE); Is. 8.39 with Wyse 1904 ad loc.; Pl. Euthphr. 4c, 9a (etc.); Lg. 775a; D. 47.68; Thphr. Char. 16.6 with Diggle 2004 ad loc.; Jacoby 1949. 8–51 (with a full collection of literary and epigraphic sources); Oliver 1950, esp. 18–52 (arguing independently, against the view put forward by Jacoby, that official Athenian exegetes were introduced only at the very end of the 5th century); Bloch 1953 (refuting Oliver); Clinton 1974. 89–93; Garland 1984. 82–3, 114–15; Parker 1996. 49 n. 26, 53, 295–6; and note Hdt. 3.31.3 ἐξηγηταὶ τῶν πατρίων θεσµῶν (“expounders of the ancestral laws” in Persia). ἐξηγηταί are to be distinguished from µάντεις (“seers”; cf. fr. 225.1 n.), on the one hand, and from χρησµολόγοι (“oracle-mongers”; see fr. 231 n.), on the other, although there is no reason why an individual man might not have taken on two or more of these roles.

fr. 320 K.-A. (298 K.) Ath. 9.408e–f ἡ πλείων δὲ χρῆσις κ α τ ὰ χ ε ι ρ ὸ ς ὕ δ ω ρ εἴωθε λέγειν, ὡς Εὔπολις ἐν Χρυσῷ Γένει καὶ Ἀµειψίας Σφενδόνῃ (fr. 20) Ἀλκαῖός τε ἐν Ἱερῷ Γάµῳ (fr. 16). πλεῖστον δ’ ἐστὶ τοῦτο. Φιλύλλιος δὲ ἐν Αὔγῃ κατὰ χειρῶν εἴρηκεν οὕτως (fr. 3)· ――. Μένανδρος Ὑδρίᾳ (fr. 360)· ―― The general usage was to say “ w a t e r o v e r t h e h a n d ” , like Eupolis in Chrysoun genos, Amipsias in Sphendonê (fr. 20) and Alcaeus in Hieros gamos (fr. 16). This is the

293

For the date, see Cavanaugh 1996. 21–7; Clinton 2008. 52–3.

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 320)

509

most general (usage). But Philyllios in Augê says “over the hands”, as follows (fr. 3): ――. Menander in Hydria (fr. 360): ――

Meter κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ scans e. g. iambs, anapaests or dactyls.

kklkkl and could be accommodated in

Citation context From a discussion of χέρνιβον and cognate vocabulary. Ar.Byz. fr. 368 (treating the alleged difference between κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ, “(water) over the hand”, and ἀπονίψασθαι, “to wash up [after the meal]”; from his Regarding Callimachus’ Tablets) follows, and Slater 1986. 135 suggests that all this material is drawn from some unknown authority attempting to refute Aristophanes’ views, perhaps Polemon (cited at Ath. 9.410c–d in a very similar connection). Interpretation Moer. κ 52 (κατὰ χειρός Ἀττικοί· κατὰ χειρῶν ὕδωρ Ἕλληνες (“Attic authors [say] ‘over the hand’; Greeks generally [say] ‘water over the hands’”); cf. Oros frr. B 37; 83) identifies κατὰ χειρὸς (ὕδωρ) as an Atticism, and the surviving evidence supports Aristophanes of Byzantium’s claim that it referred specifically to hand-washing before a meal rather than after one (Ar. V. 1216 ὕδωρ κατὰ χειρός; Av. 464 κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ φερέτω ταχύ τις; fr. 516.1 φέρε, παῖ, ταχέως κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ; Clearch. Com. fr. 4.1 λάβ’ ὕδωρ κατὰ χειρός; Nicostr. Com. fr. 26.2 κατὰ χειρὸς … εἰληφότας; Alex. fr. 263.2 κατὰ χειρὸς ἐδόθη; Arched. fr. 2.3 δίδου κατὰ χειρός; cf. Telecl. fr. 1.2 εἰρήνη … ἦν ὥσπερ ὕδωρ κατὰ χειρός). Washing-water was poured “over the hand” or “hands” from a pitcher into a catch-basin, as already in Homer (e. g. Od. 1.136–8); cf. fr. 129 n. The point of the singular is presumably that guests at a banquet reclined on their left side and could thus use only their right hand to take food from the common serving vessels, so that it alone was washed before the meal. But both hands were used to eat, and both were accordingly washed after dinner “on simple practical grounds” (Orth 2013. 17 on Alc. Com. fr. 16, although he takes the pre-dinner washing to have a primarily religious rather than hygienic significance; cf. Philyll. fr. 3.3 κατὰ χειρῶν ἑκάστῃ; Antiph. fr. 280 κατὰ χειρῶν τ’ εἴχοµεν; Philox. PMG 836b.40 νίπτρ’ ἔδοσαν κατὰ χειρῶν; Totaro 1998. 180 on Amips. fr. 20).294 Homeric banqueters, by contrast, sit up to eat, and both their hands are therefore washed before the meal as well (e. g. Od. 1.146).

294

Note, however, that in all these cases multiple diners seem to be in question, rendering the sense of the plural less obvious. Men. fr. 360 presumably refers to after-dinner handwashing as well, but too little context is preserved to be certain.

510

Eupolis

fr. 321 K.-A. (299 K.) VΓ

Σ Ar. V. 1310 ὁ δὲ ἀ χ υ ρ ὸ ς παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει, ὅπου καὶ τὸ Πλάτωνος παράκειται ἐξ Ἀδώνιδος (fr. 6) ἀχυρὸς codd. : ἀχυρµὸς Meineke Masculine a c h u r o s is attested in Eupolis in Chrysoun genos, where the passage of Plato from Adônis (fr. 6) is also cited

Meter Unknown. The upsilon in ἀχυρός is apparently long; see Text. Discussion Meineke 1839 II.545; Meineke 1847. 209 Citation context A gloss on Ar. V. 1310 κλητῆρί τ’ εἰς ἀχυρὸν ἀποδεδρακότι (“a donkey that’s run off to bran”; identified by ΣVΓ as an allusion to the proverb ὄνος εἰς ἀχυρῶνα ἀπέδρα, “a donkey runs off to a bran-heap”, referring to those who unexpectedly get something good and enjoy it enthusiastically; see in general fr. 279 n.) from a source with access not just to the text of Eupolis but to notes or a commentary on it as well, where the passages from both Aristophanes and Plato seem to have been cited. Text The upsilon in neuter plural ἄχυρα (“bran”) is short at Ar. fr. 78 and Philem. fr. 158, and Meineke 1847 accordingly proposed ἀχυρµός here in the belief that that form of the word was also required at Ar. fr. 234. Βut ἀχυρµός is unattested and is instead an invention of Dindorf intended to correct the cognate metrical problem at Ar. V. 1310, and it seems easier to assume that the upsilon in masculine ἀχυρός is long. Interpretation ἀχυρός (substrate vocabulary) is a general term for anything separated from grain kernels during processing, including straw (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 172; Hermipp. fr. 48.6; Ar. fr. 234; Hdt. 4.72.2) and bran (in addition to Ar. V. 1310, e. g. Ar. Ach. 508; Antiph. fr. 225.2; Philem. fr. 158); see in general Chadwick 1996. 56–9.

fr. 322 K.-A. (300 K.) Poll. 9.25–6 ὁ µὲν µεγάλης πόλεως πολίτης µεγαλοπολίτης ἂν λέγοιτο, ὁ δὲ µικρᾶς µικροπολίτης, ὅθεν καὶ Ἀριστοφάνει (fr. 854) εἴρηται τὸ µικροπολιτικόν, ὁ δὲ νέας νεαπολίτης κατὰ

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 323)

511

Πλάτωνα, καὶ κατ’ Ἐπίχαρµον λέγοντα ἐν Ἁρπαγαῖς (fr. 12) νέοικος, καὶ κατ’ Εὔπολιν λέγοντα ἐν Χρυσῷ Γένει ν ε ο κ ά τ ο ι κ ο ς A citizen of a large city would be called a megalopolitês; a (citizen) of a small (city) a mikropolitês, whence the word mikropolitikon as well is used in Aristophanes (fr. 854); a (citizen) of a new (city) a neapolitês in Plato (fr. 278), and as Epicharmus says in Harpagai (fr. 12) a neoikos, and as Eupolis says in Chrysoun genos a n e o k a t o i k o s

Citation context From a long catalogue of words having to do in one way or another with cities. Interpretation A κάτοικος is an “inhabitant” (Arist. Oec. 1352a33; Plb. 5.65.10), and—despite Pollux—a νεοκάτοικος (a hapax legomenon and presumably a nonce-word; cf. Sarati 1996. 117) is more likely a “new inhabitant of a place” than an “inhabitant of a new place” (thus already LSJ s. v.), making the word an elaborate equivalent of the more directly insulting ξένος (for which, see fr. 61 n.). See in general Casevitz 1985. 161–76, esp. 163.

fr. 323 K.-A. (301 K.) Ath. 9.406c π ι σ ο ῦ δὲ τοῦ ὀσπρίου µνηµονεύει καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Χρυσῷ γένει Eupolis in Chrysoun genos also mentions the pulse-variety (known as) p i s o s

Citation context Part of a brief discussion of πίσοι, which also includes a reference to Phaenias of Eresos fr. 48 Wehrli. A longer treatment of lentils (another pulse crop) follows. Meter The iota in πίσος is short (thus Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 205.28– 32; cf. Ar. fr. 22, most naturally taken as a single corrupt iambic trimeter). Interpretation ὄσπριον is a generic term for all types of grain legume or pulse crops (i. e. legumes harvested for the dried beans only), and the πίσος (also mentioned in comedy at Ar. fr. 22; Alex. fr. 328 [neuter] with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; cf. Ar. Eq. 1171 ἔτνος γε πίσινον; Thphr. HP 8.1.1, 3.1, 5.2) is likely the pea, “among the oldest grain legumes of the Old World” (Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012. 82–7; quote at p. 82). See also Dalby 2003. 252–3. For legumes generally, see Flint-Hamilton 1999, with further bibliography and references to archaeological material (p. 381 on peas in particular).

512

Eupolis

fr. 324 K.-A. (302 K.) Harp. p. 273.8–11 = Σ 16 Keaney σ ι π ύ α · Λυσίας ἐν τῷ Περὶ Ἡµικληρίου τῶν Μακαρτάτου Χρηµάτων (fr. 218 Carey). σιτηρὸν ἀγγεῖόν ἐστιν ἡ σιπύα, ἔστι δὲ πολλάκις παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις κωµικοῖς· Εὔπολις Χρυσῷ γένει, Ἀριστοφάνης Τελµισεῦσιν (fr. 555) s i p y a : Lysias in his On the Half-Inheritance of the Property of Makartatos (fr. 218 Carey). A sipya is a vessel used for grain and is often found in the poets of Old Comedy: Eupolis in Chrysoun genos, Aristophanes in Telmisês (fr. 555)

Citation context From a note on a rare word in Lysias; taken over from the Epitome of Harpocration at Phot. σ 232. The name of the Aristophanic play is actually Telemêssês. Text Despite Harpocration, the normal Attic form of the word is σιπύη; see in general Lobeck 1820. 301–2. Interpretation A σιπύη is a storage vessel for dry goods, specfically associated with barley-meal at Ar. Pl. 806 ἡ µὲν σιπύη µεστή ’στι λευκῶν ἀλφίτων (“the sipyê is full of white barley-meal”; among the indications that Wealth has taken up residence in Chremylus’ house), with baked loaves of bread at Call. fr. 251.1 (= Hec. fr. 35.1 Hollis), and with πανσπερµία (a mix of dry seeds) at Alciphr. 2.11. Cf. Pherecr. fr. 151 ἆρ’ ἀράχνι’ ὥσπερ ταῖς σιπύαισι ταῖς κεναῖς; (“Spider-webs, like for empty sipyai?”); Ar. Eq. 1296 (used to store something edible); Leon. AP 6.302.2 = HE 2192 (holding something both mice and men would eat); Gal. XIX p. 138.2–3 Kühn σιπύϊδα· … κεραµεοῦν τι σκεῦος εἰς ὃ ἄλφιτον ἐµβάλλεται (“sipyis: a ceramic vessel into which barley-meal is put”); Hsch. σ 711 σιπύη· σιτηρὸν ἀγγεῖον. ἀρτοθήκη (“sipyê: a container for grain. A breadbox”); Suda σ 471; Lex.Rhet. AB I p. 303.32–3; Amyx 1958. 195–7, discussing IG I3 422.2, 6, 17; 425.16 (the Dêmiopratai). Most likely a Semitic loan-word (Masson 1967. 44–5).

fr. 325 K.-A. (18 Dem.) v

Lex. Mess. fol. 283 5–6 [ᾠδ]ὴ σὺν τῷ ι, παρ᾿ ὃ (παρῶ cod.) καὶ τὸ Ὠ ι δ ε ῖ ο ν (-αῖον cod.). Εὔπολις ἐ[ν Χρ]υσῷ γένει [ôid]ê with the iota, compare also Ô i d e i o n. Eupolis i[n Chr]ysoun genos

Χρυσοῦν γένος (fr. 325)

513

Citation context An entry in a fragmentary lexicon (µ to ω only) concerned with whether adscript iota ought to be written with certain words. Ar. fr. 155 and Pl. Com. fr. 97 follow. Similar material, but with no mention of Eupolis, is preserved at An.Ox. III p. 281.1 ὠδή· µετὰ τοῦ ι, παρὰ τὸ ᾄδω, ἀοιδὴ καὶ ᾠδή (attributed to Choeroboscus). Text The corrections and supplements of the text are from Rabe 1892. 412 (the editio princeps), with a better report of the manuscript readings at Rabe 1895. 151. Interpretation The Odeion (lit. ‘Place for song’), a part of the Periclean building program (cf. Cratin. fr. 73), was a large, rectilinear building with a roof supported by internal columns that abutted the east side of the Theater of Dionysus (cf. And. 1.38). It served inter alia as a performance hall for musical events associated with the Panathenaea (Plu. Per. 13. 11), an exhibition hall for the proagôn before dramatic competitions (ΣVΓ; ΣgVxLS Aeschin. 3.67 = #145 Dilts), and a lawcourt (Ar. V. 1109; [D.] 59.52). See in general Travlos 1971. 387–91; Miller 1997. 218–42, although note that all references to the building as recalling a Persian tent date to the Roman period and are thus most naturally taken as referring not to the Periclean structure—burned when Sulla sacked the city—but to the 1st-century BCE Odeion erected by Ariobarzanes II Philopator to replace it (IG II2 3426).

515

Bibliography Adkins 1976: A. W. H. Adkins, “POLU PRAGMOSUNE and ‘Minding One’s Own Business: A Study in Greek Social and Political Values”, CP 71: 301–27 Alföldi 1991: Maria R. Alföldi, “Zur Gründung von Kyzikos”, in Studien zum antiken Kleinasien, Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet (Asia Minor Studien 3: Bonn), pp. 129–38 Alfonsi 1962: Luigi Alfonsi, “Da Alcmane a Cratino”, Aegyptus 42: 141–2 Allan 2004: William Allan, “Religious Syncretism: The New Gods of Greek Tragedy”, HSCP 102: 113–55 Allen 1933: T. W. Allen, “Miscellanea–X”, CQ 27: 200–2 Alpers 1981: Klaus Alpers, Das attizistische Lexikon des Oros: Untersuchung und kritische Ausgabe der Fragmente (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 4: Berlin and New York) Amyx 1958: D. A. Amyx, “The Attic Stelai: Part III. Vases and Other Containers”, Hesperia 27: 163–254 Anderson 1961: J. K. Anderson, Ancient Greek Horsemanship (Berkeley and Los Angeles) Anderson 1991: J. K. Anderson, “The men and their equipment. Hoplite weapons and offensive arms”, in Hanson 1991a, pp. 15–37 Andrianou 2009: Dimitra Andrianou, The Furniture and Furnishings of Ancient Greek Houses and Tombs (Cambridge and New York) Antonsen-Resch 2004: Andrea Antonsen-Resch, Von Gnathon zu Saturio: Die Parasitenfigur und das Verhältnis der römischen Komödie zur griechischen (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 74: Berlin and New York) Arnott 1990: W. Geoffrey Arnott, “αὐλητρίδα πεζήν”, Glotta 68: 91–2 Arnott 1996: W. Geoffrey Arnott, Alexis: The Fragments. A Commentary (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 31: Cambridge) Arnott 2001: W. Geoffrey Arnott, “Some Orthographical Problems in the Papyri of Later Greek Comedy II: –ΕΙ or –Η(Ι) as the Ending of the Second Person Singular Middle and Passive in the Present and Other Tenses of Verbs in -Ω”, ZPE 135: 36–40 Arnott 2007: W. Geoffrey Arnott, Birds in the ancient world from A to Z (London and New York) Asheri 1972: David Asheri, Über die Frühgeschichte von Herakleia Pontike (Forschungen an der Nordküste Kleinasiens Band I; Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Denkschriften, 106. Band: Graz, Vienna and Cologne) Atkinson 1992: J. E. Atkinson, “Curbing the Comedians: Cleon versus Aristophanes and Syracosius’ Decree”, CQ NS 42: 56–64 Ausfeld 1903: Carolus Ausfeld, De graecorum praecationibus quaestiones (Diss. Giessen: Leipzig) Austin 1973: Colin Austin (ed.), Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta in Papyris Reperta (Berlin) Austin–Olson 2004: Colin Austin and S. Douglas Olson (eds.), Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae (Oxford)

516

Bibliography

Bäbler 2005: Balbina Bäbler, “Bobbies or Boobies? The Scythian Police Force in Classical Athens”, in Braund 2005, pp. 114–22 Bagnall 1981: R. S. Bagnall (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papyrology (American Studies in Papyrology 23: Chico) Bain 1982: D. M. Bain, “κατωνἀκτην τὸν χοῖρον ἀποτετιλµἐνας (Aristophanes, Ekklesiazusai 724)”, LCM 7: 7–10 Bakewell and Sickinger 2003: Geoffrey W. Bakewell and James P. Sickinger (eds.), Gestures: Essays in Ancient History, Literature, and Philosophy Presented to Alan L. Boegehold on the Occasion of His Retirement and Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Oxford) Baldwin 1971: Barry Baldwin, “Notes on Hyperbolus”, Acta Classica 14: 151–6 Balot 2004: Ryan K. Balot, “Free Speech, Courage, and Democratic Deliberation”, in Sluiter and Rosen 2004, pp. 233–59 Barrett 1964: W. S. Barrett (ed.), Euripides: Hippolytus (Oxford) Barron 1986: J. P. Barron, “Chios in the Athenian Empire”, in Boardman–VaphopoulouRichardson 1986, pp. 89–103 Bassi 2003: Karen Bassi, “The Semantics of Manliness in Ancient Greece”, in Rosen and Sluiter 2003, pp. 25–58 Beavis 1988: Ian C. Beavis, Insects and Other Invertebrates in Antiquity (Exeter) Bedigian and Harlan 1986: Dorothea Bedigian and Jack R. Harlan, “Evidence for Cultivation of Sesame in the Ancient World”, Economic Botany 40: 137–54 Behr 1981: Charles A. Behr (trans.), P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works Vol. II Orations XVII–LIII (Leiden) Belardinelli et al. 1998: Anna Maria Belardinelli, Olimpia Imperio, Giuseppe Mastromarco, Matteo Pellegrino and Piero Totaro, Tessere: Frammenti della commedia greca (studi e commenti 12: Bari) Bell 1989: David Bell, “The Horse Race (κέλης) in Ancient Greece from the Pre-classical Period to the First Century B.C.”, Stadion 15: 167–90 Bentley 1824: Richard Bentley, Epistles to Tiberius Hemsterhuis, in David Ruhnken, Elogium Tiberii Hemsterhusii, Accedunt Duae Richardi Bentleji Epistolae ad Hemsterhusium (Amsterdam) Bergk 1838: Theodorus Bergk, Commentationum de reliquiis comoediae Atticae antiquae libri duo (Leipzig) Bergk 1886: Theodor Bergk, Kleine philologische Schriften (ed. Rudolf Peppmüller: Halle) Berndt-Ersöz 2008: Susanne Berndt-Ersöz, “The Chronology and Historical Context of Midas”, Historia 57: 1–37 Beta 1995: Simone Beta, “Le donne di Callia (Eupoli, fr. 174 Kassel-Austin)”, QUCC 51: 93–8 Beta 2004: Simone Beta, Il linguagio nelle commedie di Aristofane: Parola positiva e parola negativa nella commedia antica (Bollettino dei Classici, Supplemento 21/22: Rome) Betancourt and Muhly 2006: Philip P. Betancourt and James D. Muhly, “The Pot Bellows”, Hesperia Supplement 36: 125–32 Bicknell 1988: P. J. Bicknell, “Ephialtes’ death in bed”, LCM 13: 114–15 Biles–Olson 2015: Zachary Biles and S. Douglas Olson (eds.), Aristophanes: Wasps (Oxford)

Bibliography

517

Blamire 1989: A. Blamire, Plutarch, Life of Cimon (BICS Supplement 56, Classical Handbook 2: London) Blank 1985: David L. Blank, “Socratics versus Sophists on Payment for Teaching”, CA 4: 1–49 Blechman 1993: Bruno Blechmann, “Sparta und seine Freunde im Dekeleischen Krieg”, ZPE 96: 297–308 Bloch 1953: Herbert Bloch, “The Exegetes of Athens and the Prytaneion Decree”, AJP 74: 407–18 Blondell 2010: Ruby Blondell, “Refractions of Homer’s Helen in Archaic Lyric”, AJP 131: 349–91 Boardman 1970: John Boardman, Greek Gems and Finger Rings. Early Bronze Age to Late Classical (London) Boardman–Vaphopoulou-Richardson 1986: John Boardman and C. E. VaphopoulouRichardson (eds.), Chios: A Conference at the Homereion in Chios 1984 (Oxford) Böchk 1886: August Böckh, Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener3 (2 vols.: Berlin) Bodel and Dimitrova 2015: John Bodel and Nora Dimitrova (eds.), Ancient Documents and Their Contexts: First American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy (2011) (Brill Studies in Greek and Latin Epigraphy 5: Boston and Leiden) Boedeker and Sider 2001: Deborah Boedeker and David Sider (eds.), The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire (Oxford and New York) Boehringer 2001: David Boehringer, Heroenkulte in Griechenland von der geometrischen bis zur classischen Zeit (Klio Beihefte NF 3: Berlin) Bogaert 1977: Raymond Bogaert, “Le cours du statère de Cyzique à Athènes aux Ve et IVe siècles avant J.C. État de la question”, RBN 123: 17–39 Bölte 1921: Bölte, “Keiriadai”, RE XI.1 pp. 114.52–115.7 Bond 1981: Godfrey W. Bond (ed.), Euripides: Heracles (Oxford) Boon 1991: George C. Boon, “’Tonsor Humanus’: Razor and Toilet-Knife in Antiquity”, Britannia 22: 21–32 Bothe 1844: F. H. Bothe, Die griechischen Komiker. Eine Beurtheilung der neuesten Ausgabe ihrer Fragmente (Leipzig) Bourriot 1982: F. Bourriot, “La Famille et le milieu social de Cléon”, Historia 31: 404–35 Bowie 1988: E. L. Bowie, “Who is Dicaeopolis?”, JHS 108: 183–5 Boyd 1985: Kenneth G. Boyd, “A Contemporary Perspective on the ‘Pens’ at Knossos”, AJA 89: 314–16 Braswell 1988: Bruce Karl Braswell, A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar (Texte und Kommentare 14: Berlin and New York) Braund 1994: David Braund, “The Luxuries of Athenian Democracy”, G&R 41: 41–8 Braund 2005: David Braund (ed.), Scythians and Greeks (Exeter) Braund 2006: David Braund, “In Search of the Creator of Athens’ Scythian ArcherPolice: Speusis and the ‘Eurymedon Vase’”, ZPE 156: 109–13 Breitholtz 1960: Lennart Breitholz, Die dorische Farce im griechischen Mutterland vor dem 5. Jahrhundert: Hypothese oder Realität? (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia X: Uppsala)

518

Bibliography

Breitwieser 2012: Rupert Breitwieser (ed.), Behinderungen und Beeintrachtigungen / Disability and Impairment in Antiquity (Studies in Early Medicine 2, BAR International Series 2359: Oxford) Bremer 1969: J. M. Bremer, Hamartia: Tragic Error in the Poetics of Aristotle and in Greek Tragedy (Amsterdam) Brenne 1994: Stefan Brenne, “Ostraka and the Process of Ostrakophoria”, in Coulson and Palagia 1994, pp. 13–24 Brenne 2002: Stefan Brenne, “Die Ostraka (487 – ca. 416 v. Chr.) als Testimonien (T 1)”, in Siewert 2002, pp. 36–166 Brock 1994: Roger Brock, “The Labour of Women in Classical Athens”, CQ NS 44: 336–46 Broughton 1938: T. R. S. Broughton, “A Greek Inscription from Tarsus”, AJA 42: 55–7 Brown 1992: P. G. McG. Brown, “Menander, Fragments 745 and 746 K-T, Menander’s Kolax and Parasites and Flatterers in Greek Comedy”, ZPE 92: 91–107 Bruhn 1899: E. Bruhn, Sophokles erklärt von F. W. Schneidewin und A. Nauck Vol. VIII Anhang (Berlin) Brun 2000: Jean-Pierre Brun, “The Production of Perfumes in Antiquity: The Cases of Delos and Paestum”, AJA 104: 277–308 Bubelis 2010: William Bubelis, “The Sacred Triremes and the ‘Tamiai’ at Athens”, Historia 59: 385–411 Bugh 1982: Glenn R. Bugh, “Andocides, Aeschines, and the Three Hundred Athenian Cavalrymen”, Phoenix 36: 306–12 Bugh 1988: Glenn Richard Bugh, The Horsemen of Attica (Princeton) Bugh 1990: Glenn Richard Bugh, “The Theseia in Late Hellenistic Athens”, ZPE 83: 20–37 Bundrick 2008: Sheramy D. Bundrick, “The Fabric of the City: Imagining Textile Production in Classical Athens”, Hesperia 77: 283–334 Bundrick 2014: Sheramy D. Bundrick, “Selling Sacrifice on Classical Athenian Vases”, Hesperia 83: 653–708 Burnet 1914: John Burnet, Greek Philosophy Part I Thales to Plato (London) Burstein 1976: Stanley Mayer Burstein, Outpost of Hellenism: The Emergence of Heraclea on the Black Sea (University of California Publications, Classical Studies Vol. 14: Berkeley, Los Angeles and London) Busolt–Swoboda 1926: Georg Busolt and Heinrich Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft IV.1.1.2: Munich) Butz 2015: Patricia A. Butz, “The Stoichedon Arrangement of the New Marathon Stele from the Villa of Herodes Atticus at Kynouria”, in Bodel and Dimitrova 2015, pp. 82–97 Byl 1977: Simon Byl, “Le Viellard dan les comédies d’Aristophane”, AC 46: 52–73 Cairns and Knox 2004: D. L. Cairns and R. A. Knox (eds.), Law, Rhetoric and Comedy in Classical Athens. Essays in honour of Douglas M. MacDowell (Oakville Conn.) Calhoun 1930: G. M. Calhoun, “Risk in Sea Loans in Ancient Athens”, Journal of Economic and Business History 2: 561–84 Campagner 2001: Roberto Campagner, Lessico Agonistico di Aristofane (Lessici 3: Pisa and Rome)

Bibliography

519

Campagner 2005: Roberto Campagner, “Giochi d’azzardo in Aristofane”, QUCC NS 81: 81–9 Carey 2000: Christopher Carey, “Old Comedy and the Sophists”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 419–36 Carter 2004: D. M. Carter, “Citizen Attribute, Negative Right: A Conceptual Difference between Ancient and Modern Ideas of Freedom of Speech”, in Sluiter and Rosen 2004, pp. 197–220 Cartledge 1979: Paul Cartledge, Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History 1300–362 BC (States and Cities of Ancient Greece: London, Boston and Henley) Cartledge 1991: Paul Cartledge, “Richard Talbert’s Revision of the Spartan–Helot Struggle: A Reply”, Historia 40: 379–81 Casevitz 1985: Michel Casevitz, Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en grec ancien (Études et Commentaires 97: Paris) Cassio 1985a: Albio Cesare Cassio, Commedia e partecipazione (Forme materiali e ideologie del mondo antico 24: Naples) Cassio 1985b: Albio Cesare Cassio, “Old Persian Marīka-, Eupolis Marikas and Aristophanes Knights”, CQ NS 35: 38–42 Cataudello 1975: Quintino Cataudello, “Eupoli, Menandro, Archiloco nel commentario al Maricante del POxyrh. XXXV, 2741”, Sileno 1: 273–9 Cavanaugh 1996: Maureen B. Cavanaugh, Eleusis and Athens: Documents in Finance, Religion and Politics in the Fifth Century B.C. (American Classical Studies 35: Atlanta) Chadwick 1996: J. Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek (Oxford) Chantraine 1933: P. Chantraine, La Formation des Noms en Grec Ancien (Paris) Chantry 1999: M. Chantry (ed.), Scholia Vetera in Aristophanis Ranas (Scholia in Aristoa phanem Pars III Fasc. I : Groningen) Chapouthier 1941: Fernand Chapouthier, “La vaiselle commune et la vie de tous les jours à l’époque minoenne”, REG 43: 5–15 Christ 1998: Matthew R. Christ, The Litigious Athenian (Baltimore and London) Christ 2001: Matthew R. Christ, “Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens”, CQ NS 51: 398–422 Christ 2007: Matthew R. Christ, “The Evolution of the Eisphora in Classical Athens”, CQ NS 57: 53–69 Christensen 1984 [1990]: K. A. Christensen, “The Theseion: A Slave Refuge”, AJAH 9: 23–32 Christesen 2012: P. Christesen, “Athletics and Social Order in Sparta in the Classical Period”, CA 31: 193–255 Clark 1983: Louise Clark, “Notes on Small Textile Frames Pictured on Greek Vases”, AJA 87: 91–6 Cleland 2005: Liza Cleland, The Brauron Clothing Catalogues: Text, Analysis, Glossary and Translation (BAR International Series 1428: Oxford) Clinton 1974: Kevin Clinton, The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society NS 64.3: Philadephia)

520

Bibliography

Clinton 2008: Kevin Clinton, Eleusis: The Inscriptions on Stone. Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme Volume II: Commentary (The Archaeological Society at Athens Library 259: Athens) Cobet 1840: Carolus Gabriel Cobet, Observationes criticae in Platonis comici reliquias (Amsterdam) Cobet 1856: C. G. Cobet, “Variae Lectiones”, Mnemosyne 5: 81–112, 181–204, 233–72, 379–418 Cobet 1858: C. G. Cobet, Novae Lectiones quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores graecos (Leiden) Cobet 1873: C. G. Cobet, “Miscellanea philologica et critica”, Mnemosyne II.1: 209–36 Cohen 2000: Beth Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art (Leiden, Boston and Cologne) Cohen 2003: Edward E. Cohen, “Athenian Prostitution as a Liberal Profession”, in Bakewell and Sickinger 2003, pp. 214–36 Cohen 2006: Edward E. Cohen, “Free and Unfree Sexual Work: An Economic Analysis of Athenian Prostitution,” in Faraone and McClure 2006, pp. 95–124 Collard 1975: Christopher Collard (ed.), Euripides: Supplices (Groningen) Collard 2005: Christopher Collard, “Colloquial Language in Tragedy: A Supplement to the Work of P. T. Stevens”, CQ NS 55: 350–86 Collard, Cropp and Lee 1995: C. Collard, M. J. Cropp and K. H. Lee (eds.), Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays Vol. I (Warminster) Colvin 1999: Stephen Colvin, Dialect in Aristophanes: The Politics of Language in Ancient Greek Literature (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Connolly 1998: Andrew Connolly, “Was Sophocles Heroised as Dexion?”, JHS 118: 1–21 Connor 1971: W. Robert Connor, The New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens (Princeton) Cook 1959: J. M. Cook, “Bath-Tubs in Ancient Greece”, G&R 6: 31–41 Cooper 1976: Guy L. Cooper III, “Thucydides 2.88.2 and the Sources of the Popularity of Phormio”, TAPA 106: 97–9 Corner 2013: Sean Corner, “The Politics of the Parasite”, Phoenix 67: 43–80, 223–36 Coulson and Palagia 1994: William Coulsen and Olga Palagia (eds.), The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy (Oxbow Monograph 37: Oxford) Craik 1990: E. M. Craik (ed.), Owls to Athens (Festschrift K. J. Dover: Oxford) Crosby 1955: Margaret Crosby, “Five Comic Scenes from Athens”, Hesperia 24: 76–84 Crowfoot 1936/7: Grace M. Crowfoot, “Of the Warp-weighted Loom”, ABSA 37: 36–47 Crowley 2012: Jason Crowley, The Psychology of the Athenian Hoplite: The Culture of Combat in Classical Athens (Cambridge) Crusius 1883: Otto Crucius, Analecta critica ad paroemiographos Graecos (Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum Supplement II: Leipzig) Crusius 1892: O. Crucius, “Eupolis fr. 276 K.”, Philologus 51: 663 Crusius 1910: Otto Crucius, Paroemiographica: Textgeschichtliches zur alten Dichtung und Religion (Sitzungsberichte der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse 1910.1: Munich), reprinted in Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum Supplementum (Hildesheim, 1961) Csapo 2010: Eric Csapo, Actors and Icons of the Ancient Theater (Malden Mass., Oxford and Chichester)

Bibliography

521

Csapo and Miller 1991: E. Csapo and M. C. Miller, “The ‘Kottabos-Toast’ and an Inscribed Red-Figured Cup”, Hesperia 60: 367–82 Csapo and Miller 2007: Eric Csapo and Margaret C. Miller (eds.), The Origins of Theater in Ancient Greece and Beyond: From Ritual to Drama (Cambridge) Csapo and Slater 1994: Eric Csapo and William J. Slater, The Context of Ancient Drama (Ann Arbor) Cummings 2001: Michael Cummings, “The Early Greek Paraclausithyron and Gnesippus”, Scholia 10: 38–53 Cummings 2006: Michael Cummings, “Paraclausithyric Parodies in Lysistrata and Vespae”, Acta Classica 49: 89–111 Currie 2005: Bruno Currie, Pindar and the Cult of Heroes (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Curtis 1991: Robert I. Curtis, Garum and salsamenta: production and commerce in materia medica (Studies in Ancient Medicine: Leiden) D’Agostino 1957: Vittorio D’Agostino, “Sui Κόλακες di Eupoli”, Euphrosyne 1: 67–78 Dain 1931: Alphonse Dain, “Inscriptions attiques trouvées dan les fouilles sous-marines de Mahdia”, REG 44: 290–303 Dalby 2003: Andrew Dalby, Food in the Ancient World from A to Z (London and New York) Dasen 1993: Véronique Dasen, Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology: Oxford) Davidson 1997: James Davidson, Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens (New York) Davidson 2000: James Davidson, “Gnesippus Paigniagraphos: The Comic Poets and the Erotic Muse”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 41–64 Davidson 2002: Alan Davidson, Mediterranean Seafood: A Comprehensive Guide with 3 Recipes (Berkeley and Toronto) Davies 1971: J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C. (Oxford) Davies 1991: Malcolm Davies (ed.), Sophocles: Trachinae (Oxford) Davies and Finglass 2014: M. Davies and P. J. Finglass (eds.), Stesichorus: The Poems (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 54: Cambridge) Dawe 1982: R. D. Dawe (ed.), Sophocles: Oedipus Rex (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics: Cambridge, New York and Melbourne) Degani 1984: Enzo Degani, Studi su Ipponatte (studi e commenti 2: Bari) de Heer 1969: C. de Heer, ΜΑΚΑΡ – ΕΥ∆ΑΙΜΩΝ – ΟΛΒΙΟΣ – ΕΥΤΥΧΗΣ. A Sudy of th the Semantic Field Denoting Happines (sic) in Ancient Greece to the End of the 5 Century B.C. (Amsterdam) del Corso 2006: Lucio del Corso, “Lo ‘stile severo’ nei P.Oxy.: una lista”, Aegyptus 86: 81–106 Delneri 2006: Francesca Delneri, I culti misterici stranieri nei frammenti della commedia attica antica (Eikasmos Studi 13: Bologna) Delvaux 1996: Georges Delvaux, “Panétius, le pseudo-Théopompe, une source des Vies parallèles des Grecs de Plutarque”, AC 65: 107–17 Demont 1978: Paul Demont, “Remarques sur le sens de τρέφω”, REG 91: 358–84 2 Denniston 1950: J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (rev. K. J. Dover: Oxford)

522

Bibliography

Derow and Parker 2003: Peter Derow and Robert Parker (eds.), Herodotus and his World (Oxford and New York) Deroy 1956: Louis Deroy, “La valeur du suffixe préhellénique -nth- d’après quelques noms grecs en -νθος”, Glotta 35: 171–95 de Ste. Croix 1974: G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, “Ancient Greek and Roman Maritime Loans”, in Edey and Yamey 1974, pp. 41–59 Deubner 1931: Ludwig Deubner, “Ein griechischer Hochzeitsspruch”, Hermes 48: 299–304 Dickey 1996: Eleanor Dickey, Greek Forms of Address (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Dietrich 1975: B. C. Dietrich, “The Dorian Hyacinthia: A Survival from the Bronze Age”, Kadmos 14: 133–42 Diggle 2004: James Diggle (ed.), Theophrastus: Characters (Cambridge Classical Commentaries 43: Cambridge) Dignas and Trampedach 2008: Beate Dignas and Kai Trampedach (eds.), Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus (Cambridge Mass. and London) Dik 2014: Helma Dik, “‘Most likely to succeed’: Degree Adverbs Specifying Probability in Classical Greek”, GRBS 54: 599–616 Dillery 2005: John Dillery, “Chresmologues and Manteis: Independent Diviners and the Problem of Authority”, in Johnston and Struck 2008, pp. 167–231 Dittmar 1912: Heinrich Dittmar, Aischines von Sphettos: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte der Sokratiker (Philologische Untersuchungen 21: Berlin) Dobree 1820: Peter Paul Dobree, Richardi Porsoni Notae in Aristophanem … et Collationem Appendicem add. P.P.D. (Cambridge) Dobrov 1998: Gregory W. Dobrov (ed.), The City as Comedy: Society and Representation in Athenian Drama (Chapel Hill) Dodds 1959: E. R. Dodds (ed.), Plato: Gorgias. A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford) Dohm 1964: Hans Dohm, Mageiros: Die Rolle des Kochs in der griechische-römischen Komödie (Zetemata 32: Munich) Dorati 1995: Marco Dorati, “Platone ed Eupoli (Protagora 314c-316)”, QUCC 50: 87–103 Dover 1968: K. J. Dover (ed.), Aristophanes: Clouds (Oxford) Dover 1974: K. J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford) Dover 1985: K. J. Dover, “Some Types of Abnormal Word-Order in Attic Comedy”, CQ NS 35: 324–43 Dover 1987: K. J. Dover, Greek and the Greeks: Collected Papers Vol. I: Language, Poetry, Drama (Oxford and New York) Dover 1993: K. J. Dover (ed.), Aristophanes: Frogs (Oxford) Ducat 1990: J. Ducat, Les Hilotes (BCH Supplement XX: Athens and Paris) Dumoulin 1994: Dorothee Dumoulin, Antike Schildkröten (Würzburg) Dunbar 1995: Nan Dunbar (ed.), Aristophanes: Birds (Oxford)

Bibliography

523

Eck, Galsterer and Wolff 1980: Werner Eck, Hartmut Galsterer and Hartmut Wolff (eds.), Studien zur antiken Socialgeschichte. Festschrift F. Vittinghof (Kölner historische Abhandlungen 28: Cologne and Vienna) Eddy 1970: Samuel K. Eddy, “The Value of the Cyzicene Stater at Athens in the Fifth Century”, ANSMN 16: 13–22 Edey and Yamey 1974: Harold C. Edey and B. S. Yamey (eds.), Debits, Credits, Finance and Profits (London) Ehrenberg 1947: Victor Ehrenberg, “Polypragmosune: A Study in Greek Politics”, JHS 67: 46–67 Ekroth 2002: Gunnel Ekroth, The sacrificial rituals of Greek hero-cults in the Archaic to the early Hellenistic periods (Kernos Supplément 12: Liège) Ekroth 2007: Gunnel Ekroth, “Heroes and Hero-Cult”, in Ogden 2007, pp. 100–14 Eliot 1962: C. W. J. Eliot, Coastal Demes of Attica. A Study of the Policy of Kleisthenes (Phoenix Supplement 5: Toronto) Emonds 1941: Hilarius Emonds, Zweite Auflage im Altertum (Klassisch-Philologische Studien 14: Leipzig) Erçiyas 2007: Deniz Burcu Erçiyas, “Heracleia Pontica – Amastris”, in Grammenos and Petropoulos 2007, pp. 1403–31 Étienne 1990: Roland Étienne, Ténos II: Ténos et les Cyclades du milieu du IVe siècle av. J.-C. au milieu du IIIe siècle ap. J.-C. (Bibliothéque des écoles françaises d’Athénes et de Rome 263 bis: Athens and Paris) Evans 1993: J. A. S. Evans, “Herodotus and the Battle of Marathon”, Historia 42: 279–307 Faraone and McClure 2006: Christopher A. Faraone and Laura K. McClure (eds.), Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World (Madison) Fehling 1969: Detlev Fehling, Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias (Berlin) Figuera 2008: Thomas Figuera, “Colonisation in the Classical Period”, in Tsetskhladze 2008, pp. 427–523 Finglass 2007: P. J. Finglass (ed.), Sophocles: Electra (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 44: Cambridge) Finglass 2011: P. J. Finglass (ed.), Sophocles: Ajax (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 48: Cambridge) Finglass and Kelly 2015: P. J. Finglass and Adrian Kelly (eds.), Stesichorus in Context (Cambridge) Fisher 2001: Nick Fisher, Aeschines: Against Timarchos (Clarendon Ancient History Series: Oxford and New York) Fitzpatrick 2001: David Fitzpatrick, “Sophocles’ Tereus”, CQ NS 51: 90–101 Flint-Hamilton 1999: Kimberly B. Flint-Hamilton, “Legumes in Ancient Greece and Rome: Food, Medicine, or Poison?”, Hesperia 68: 371–85 Flower 2008a: Michael Attyah Flower, The Seer in Ancient Greece (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London) Flower 2008b: Michael Flower, “The Iamidae: A Mantic Family and its Public Image”, in Dignas and Trampedach 2008, pp. 187–206 Fontenrose 1978: Joseph Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Operations (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London)

524

Bibliography

Forbes 1964: R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology Vol. IV (Leiden) Fornara 1973: Charles W. Fornara, “Cleon’s Attack Against the Cavalry”, CQ NS 23: 24 Fowler 2013: Robert L. Fowler, Early Greek Mythography Vol. II Commentary (Oxford) Fraenkel 1912: Eduard Fraenkel, De media et nova comoedia quaestiones selectae (Diss. Göttingen) Fraenkel 1950: Eduard Fraenkel (ed.), Aeschylus: Agamemnon (3 vols.: Oxford) Fritzsche 1835: Franciscus Volkmarus Fritzsche, Quaestiones Aristophaneae I (Leipzig) Fritzsche 1836: Franciscus Volkmarus Fritzsche, “Commentatio de duabus personis aristophaneis”, Acta Societatis Graecae 1: 125–58 Fritzsche 1845: Franc. Volcm. Fritzschius (ed.), Aristophanis Ranae (Turici) Fritzsche 1855: F. V. Fritzsche, Fragmenta Eupolideo versu conscripta = Index lectionum in Academia Rostochiensi (Rostock) Fritzsche 1857/58: F. V. Fritzschius, De comoediae graecae fragmentis = Index lectionum in Academia Rostochiensi (Rostock) Fuhrmann 1953: François Fuhrmann, “A propos d’un passage de Plutarque (Moralia 616 C)”, REG 66: 89–94 Gabrielsen 1994: Vincent Gabrielsen, Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations (Baltimore and London) Galiano 1946: Manuel F. Galiano, “Los papiros de comedias griegas descubiertos en los ultimos años”, Arbor 6.16: 131–50 Gantz 1993: Timothy Gantz, Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources (Baltimore and London) Garland 1984: R. S. J. Garland, “Religious Authority in Archaic and Classical Athens”, ABSA 79: 75–123 Garland 1995: Robert Garland, The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World (London) Garvie 2009: A. F. Garvie (ed.), Aeschylus Persae (Oxford) nd Geissler 1925: Paul Geissler, Chronologie der altattischen Komödie (Berlin; 2 ed. with Appendix, Dublin and Zurich, 1969) Gelzer 1960: Thomas Gelzer, Der Epirrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes: Untersuchungen zur Struktur der attischen alten Komödie (Zetemata Heft 23: Munich) Gerhard 1909: Gustav Adolf Gerhard, Phoinix von Kolophon. Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig and Berlin) Gilbert 1877: Gustav Gilbert, Beiträge zur innern Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter des peloponnesischen Krieges (Leipzig) Gildersleeve 1908: B. L. Gildersleeve, “ΠΑΡΑΠΛΗΡΩΜΑ. Eupolis ap. Poll. 10, 136 (I, 530 Mein. I, 329 K.)”, AJP 29: 112 Glazebrook 2011: Allison Glazebrook, “Porneion: Prostitution in Athenian Civic Space”, in Glazebrook and Henry 2011, pp. 34–59 Glazebrook and Henry 2011: Allison Glazebrook and Madeleine M. Henry (eds.), Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, 800 BCE–200 CE (Madison) Goebel 1915: Maximilianus Goebel, Ethnica Pars Prima: De Graecarum Civitatum Proprietatibus Proverbio Notatis (Diss. Breslau) Goldhill 1990: Simon Goldhill, “The Great Dionysia and Civic Ideology”, in Winkler and Zeitlin 1990, pp. 97–129

Bibliography

525

Gomme 1956: A. W. Gomme, A historical commentary on Thucydides Vol. II (Oxford) Gomme, Andrews and Dover 1970: A. W. Gomme, A. Andrewes and K. J. Dover, A historical commentary on Thucydides Vol. IV (Oxford) Goossens 1935a: Roger Goossens, “Papyrus littéraires et documents”, CE 10: 374–80 Goossens 1935b: Roger Goossens, “Un nouveau fragment des Προσπάλτιοι d’Eupolis”, Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes III.9: 333–49 Goossens 1936: Roger Goossens, “Notes sur quelques papyrus littéraires”, CE 11: 508–16 Goossens 1942: Roger Goossens, “Une allusion à Cimon dan le Πολιτικός d’Antiphon”, AC 11: 91–2 Gow 1938: A. S. F. Gow, “The Adoniazusae of Theocritus”, JHS 58: 180–204 Gow 1952: A. S. F. Gow (ed.), Theocritus Vol. II (Oxford) Gow 1965: A. S. F. Gow (ed.), Machon. The Fragments (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 1: Cambridge) Gow–Page 1965: A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page (eds.), The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams Vol. II Commentary and Indexes (Cambridge) Graham 1998: A. J. Graham, “The Woman at the Window: Observations on the ‘Stele from the Harbour’ of Thasos”, JHS 118: 22–40 Grammenos and Petropoulos 2007: D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos, Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea (Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece 4: Thessaloniki) Grandjean 1996: Catherine Grandjean, “Le kappa de l’inscription IG VI, 1532 et les fractions du chalque in Messénie à l’époque hellénistique”, REG 109: 689–95 Green 2007: J. Richard Green, “Let’s Hear it for the Fat Man: Padded Dancers and the Prehistory of Drama”, in Csapo and Miller 2007, pp. 96–107 Gregory 2007: Justina Gregory, “Donkeys and the Equine Hierarchy in Archaic Greek Literature”, CJ 102: 193–212 Greifenhagen 1975: Adolf Greifenhagen, “ΦΙΛΟΠΟΤΗΣ”, Gymnasium 82: 26–32, pll. XI–XII Grenfell and Hunt 1922: Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Vol. XV (London) Gribble 1999: David Gribble, Alcibiades and Athens: A Study in Literary Presentation (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Griffith 2006: Mark Griffith, “Horsepower and Donkeywork: Equids and the Ancient Greek Imagination”, CP 101: 185–246, 307–58 Griffith 2007: Robert Drew Griffith, “Maza, ‘Barley-Cake’”, Glotta 83: 83–8 Griffith and Marks 2011: R. Drew Griffith and Robert B. Marks, “A Fool by any Other Name: Greek ἀλαζών and Akkadian aluzinnu”, Phoenix 65: 23–38 Grilli 1962: Alberto Grilli, “Varia Graeca”, Acme 15: 121–36 Grmek and Gourevitch 1998: Mirko Grmek and Danielle Gourevitch, Les maladies dans l’art antique (Penser la médecine: Paris) Grotius 1626: Hugo Grotius, Excerpta ex tragoediis et comoediis Graecis (Paris) Gustafson 1997: W. Mark Gustafson, “Inscripta in Fronte: Penal Tattooing in Late Antiquity”, CA 16: 79–105 Gutzwiller 1969: Kurt Gutzwiller, ψυχρός und ὄγκος (Diss. Basel: Zurich)

526

Bibliography

Hainsworth 1993: Bryan Hainsworth, The Iliad: a commentary Vol. III: books 9–12 (Cambridge) Hall 1989: E. M. Hall, “The Archer Scene in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae”, Philologus 133: 38–54 Halliwell 1984: Stephen Halliwell, “Ancient Interpretations of ὀνοµαστὶ κωµῳδεῖν in Aristophanes”, CQ 34: 83–8 Halliwell 1991a: Stephen Halliwell, “Comic Satire and Freedom of Speech in Classical Athens”, JHS 111: 48–70 Halliwell 1991b: Stephen Halliwell, “The Uses of Laughter in Greek Culture”, CQ NS 41: 279–96 Halliwell 2008: Stephen Halliwell, Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity (Cambridge and New York) Halstead 1992: Paul Halstead, “Dimini and the ‘DMP’: Faunal Remains and Animal Exploitation in Late Neolithic Thessaly”, ABSA 87: 29–59 Hammond 1967: N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus: The geography, the ancient remains, the history and the topography of Epirus and adjacent areas (Oxford) Hammond 2000: N. G. L. Hammond, “The Ethne in Epirus and Upper Macedonia”, ABSA 95: 345–52 Hamp 1982: Eric P. Hamp, “Two Roots *Hobhel-”, Glotta 60: 227–30 Handley 1965: E. W. Handley (ed.), The Dyskolos of Menander (Cambridge Mass.) Handley 1982: E. W. Handley, “Aristophanes’ Rivals”, PCA 79: 23–5 Hanson 1991a: Victor Davis Hanson (ed.), Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience (London) Hanson 1991b: Victor Davis Hanson, “Hoplite technology in phalanx battle”, in Hanson 1991a, pp. 63–84 Hanson 2009: Victor Davis Hanson, The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical 2 Greece (Berkeley) Harder 2012: Annette Harder (ed.), Callimachus: Aetia (2 vols.: Oxford and New York) Harding 1974: Philip Harding, “The Theramenes Myth”, Phoenix 28: 101–11 Harris 1989: William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge Mass. and London) Harrison 1971: A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens II Procedure (Oxford) Harvey 1976: F. D. Harvey, “The Maritime Loan in Eupolis’ Marikas (P. Oxy. 2741)”, ZPE 23: 231–3 Harvey 2000: David Harvey, “Phrynichos and his Muses”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 91–134 Harvey and Wilkins 2000: David Harvey and John Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy (London) Hasluck 1910: F. W. Hasluck, Cyzicus: Being some Account of the History and Antiquities of that City, and of the District Adjacent to it, with the Towns of Apollonia ad Rhyndacum, Miletupolis, Hadrianutherae, Priapus, Zeleia, etc. (Cambridge) Hatch 1908: William Henry Paine Hatch, “The Use of ΑΛΙΤΗΡΙΟΣ, ΑΛΙΤΡΟΣ, ΑΡΑΙΟΣ, ΕΝΑΓΗΣ, ΕΝΘΥΜΙΟΣ, ΠΑΛΑΜΝΑΙΟΣ, and ΠΡΟΣΤΡΟΠΑΙΟΣ: A Study in Greek Lexicography”, HSCP 19: 157–86 Hawkins 2013: Shane Hawkins, Studies in the Language of Hipponax (Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft Band 14: Bremen)

Bibliography

527 2

Head 1911: Barclay V. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics (Oxford) Headlam 1899: W. Headlam, “Critical Notes”, CR 13: 3–8 Headlam 1922: Walter Headlam (ed.), Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments (ed. A. D. Knox: Cambridge) Heath 1990: Malcolm Heath, “Aristophanes and His Rivals”, G&R 37: 143–58 Hecker 1850: Alphonse Hecker, “Epistolae criticae”, Philologus 5: 414–512 Hedreen 2011: Guy Hedreen, “Bild, Mythos, and Ritual: Choral Dance in Theseus’ Cretan Adventure on the François Vase”, Hesperia 80: 491–510 Heinimann 1961: Felix Heinimann, “Eine vorplatonische Theorie der τέχνη”, MH 18: 105–30 Henderson 1987a: Jeffrey Henderson (ed.), Aristophanes Lysistrata (Oxford) Henderson 1987b: Jeffrey Henderson, “Older Women in Attic Old Comedy”, TAPA 117: 105–29 Henderson 1991: Jeffrey Henderson, The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic 2 Comedy (New York and Oxford) Henderson 1998: Jeffrey Henderson (ed. and transl.), Aristophanes: Acharnians, Knights (Loeb Classical Library 178: Cambridge Mass. and London) Henry 1995: Madeleine M. Henry, Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus and Her Biographical Tradition (New York and Oxford) Hermann 1796: Gottfried Hermann, De metris poetarum Graecorum et Romanorum libri III (Leipzig) Hermann 1816: Gottfried Hermann, Elementa Doctrinae Metricae (Leipzig) Herwerden 1855: Henricus van Herwerden, Observationes criticae in fragmenta comicorum Graecorum (Leiden) Herwerden 1864: Henricus van Herwerden, Nova Addenda critica ad Meinekii Opus, quod inscribitur Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum (Leiden) Herwerden 1872: Henricus van Herwerden, Studia critica in poetas scenicos Graecorum (Amsterdam) Herwerden 1882: H. van Herwerden, “Ad Comicos Graecos”, Mnemosyne II.10: 67–95 Herwerden 1886: H. van Herwerden, “De fragmentis comicorum graecorum commentatio altera”, Mnemosyne II.14: 158–96 Heylbut 1887: G. Heylbut, “Ptolemaeus περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεων”, Hermes 22: 388–410 Hiller van Gaertringen 1900: F. Hiller van Gaertringen, “Dionysosinschrift aus Naxos”, Hermes 35: 339–40 Hodkinson 1988: Stephen Hodkinson, “Animal husbandry in the Greek polis”, in Whittaker 1988, pp. 35–74 Hoepfner 1966: Wolfram Hoepfner, Herakleia Pontike—Eregli: Eine baugeschichtliche Untersuchung (Forschungen an der Nordküste Kleinasiens Band II Teil 1; Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Denkschriften, 89. Band: Graz, Vienna and Cologne) Hoffmann 1910: Waldemarus Hoffmann, Ad antiquae Atticae comoediae historiam symbolae (Diss. Berlin)

528

Bibliography

Hofstetter 1978: Josef Hofstetter, Die Griechen in Persien: Prosopographie der Griechen im persischen Reich vor Alexander (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Iran, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran Ergänzungsband 5: Berlin) Holloway 1971: R. Ross Holloway, “An Archaic Hoard from Crete and the Early Aeginetan Coinage”, ANS Museum Notes 17: 1–21 Hopkinson 1984: N. Hopkinson (ed.), Callimachus: Hymn to Demeter (Cambridge) Hopper 1961: R. J. Hopper, “The Mines and Miners of Ancient Athens”, G&R 8: 138–51 Hordern 2003: J. H. Hordern, “Gnesippus and the Rivals of Aristophanes”, CQ NS 53: 608–13 Hornblower 1997: Simon Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides Vol. 1 Books I–III (Oxford) Howland 1958: Richard Hubbard Howland, The Athenian Agora IV Greek Lamps and their Survivals (Princeton) Hunter 1994: Virginia J. Hunter, Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420–320 B.C. (Princeton) Hutchinson 1985: G. O. Hutchinson (ed.), Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas (Oxford) Hutchinson 2001: G. O. Hutchinson, Greek Lyric Poetry: A Commentary on Selected Larger Pieces (Oxford) Imperio 1998: Olimpia Imperio, “Callia”, in Belardinelli et al. 1998, pp. 195–254 Inwood 2001: Brad Inwood, The Poem of Empedocles: A text and translation (Phoenix Supplement XXXIX = Phoenix Presocratics Vol. III: Toronto, Buffalo and London) Iordanov 1993: Stéphan Iordanov, “Doulopolis. Sur l’origine d’une image mythologique”, Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 19: 173–90 Isaac 1986: Benjamin Isaac, The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest (Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society Vol. X: Leiden) Jacobs 1809: Christian Friedrich Wilhelm Jacobs, Additamenta animadversionum in Athenaei Deipnosophistas (Jena) Jacobson 2015: David T. Jacobson, “Vocative οὗτος in Greek Drama”, CP 110: 193–214 Jacoby 1949: Felix Jacoby, Atthis (Oxford) Jacoby 1954: Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker III.b A Commentary on the Ancient Historians of Athens (Leiden) Janko 1992: Richard Janko, The Iliad: a commentary Vol. IV: books 13–16 (Cambridge) Jebb 1883: Richard C. Jebb (ed.), Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments Part I The Oedipus Tyrannus (Cambridge) Jenkins and Williams 1985: Ian Jenkins and Dyfri Williams, “Sprang Hair Nets: Their Manufacture and Use in Ancient Greece”, AJA 89: 411–18 Johnson 2004: W. A. Johnson, Book-rolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus (Toronto) Johnston 2008: Sarah Iles Johnston, Ancient Greek Religion (Blackwell Ancient Religions: Malden Mass., Oxford and Chichester) Johnston and Struck 2008: Sarah Iles Johnston and Peter T. Struck (eds.), Mantikê: Studies in Ancient Divination (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 155: Leiden and Boston) Jones 1987: C. P. Jones, “Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-Roman Antiquity”, JRS 77: 139–55

Bibliography

529

Jordan 1975: Borimir Jordan, The Athenian Navy in the Classical Period: A Study of Athenian Naval Administration and Military Organization in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. (University of California Publications, Classical Studies Vol. 13: Berkeley, Los Angeles and London) Jung 2006: M. Jung, Marathon und Plataiai: Zwei Perserschlachten als 〉〉lieux de mémoire〈〈 im antiken Griechenland (Hypomnemata Band 164: Göttingen) Kagan and Viggiano 2013: Donald Kagan and Gregory F. Viggiano (eds.), Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece (Princeton and Oxford) Kaibel 1907: Georg Kaibel, “Eupolis”, RE VI.1 pp. 1229–35 Kamen 2013: Deborah Kamen, Status in Classical Athens (Princeton and Oxford) Kannicht 1969: Richard Kannicht (ed.), Euripides: Helena Band II Kommentar (Heidelberg) Kassel 1966: Rudolf Kassel, “Kritische und exegetische Kleinigkeiten II”, RhM 109: 1–12 Keaney 1967: John J. Keaney, “New Fragments of Greek Authors in Codex Marc. Gr. 444”, TAPA 98: 205–19 Kearns 1989: Emily Kearns, The Heroes of Attica (BICS Supplement 57: London) Keller 1887: Otto Keller, Thiere des classischen Alterthums in culturgeschichtlicher Beziehung (Innsbruck)

Keller 1909–1913: Otto Keller, Die Antike Tierwelt (2 vols.: Leipzig) Kerkhof 2001: Rainer Kerkhof, Dorische Posse, Epicharm und Attische Komödie (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 147: Munich and Leipzig) Kidd 1997: Douglas Kidd (ed.), Aratus: Phaenomena (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 34: Cambridge) Kidd 2014: Stephen E. Kidd, Nonsense and Meaning in Ancient Greek Comedy (Cambridge) Kindstrand 1983: J. F. Kindstrand, “ΘΥΡΟΚΟΠΟΣ. A Study of the Greek Compounds with -κόπος, -κοπία and -κοπέω in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods”, AC 52: 86–109 Kitchell 2014: Kenneth F. Kitchell, Jr., Animals in the Ancient World from A to Z (The Ancient World from A to Z: London and New York) Körte 1905: Alfred Körte, “Zu Didymos’ Demosthenes-Commentar”, RhM 60: 388–416 Koerte 1935: Alfred Koerte, “Literarische Texte mit Ausschluss der christlichen”, APF 11: 200–83 Konstan 1997: David Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World (Key Themes in Ancient History: Cambridge) Konstan 2006: David Konstan, The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature (Robson Classical Lectures: Toronto, Buffalo and London) Konstantakos 2005: Ionnis M. Konstantakos, “Aspects of the Figure of the ἄγροικος in Ancient Comedy”, RhM 148: 1–26 Kosmin 2015: Paul J. Kosmin, “A Phenomenology of Democracy: Ostracism as Political Ritual”, CA 34: 121–62 Kosmopoulou 2001: Angeliki Kosmopoulou, “‘Working Women’: Female Professionals on Classical Attic Gravestones”, ABSA 96: 281–319 Koster 1962: A. J. Koster, A Practical Guide for the Writing of the Greek Accents (Leiden) Koumanoudes 1976: Stephanos N. Koumanoudes, “ΘΗΣΕΩΣ ΣΗΚΟΣ”, AE: 194–216 Krentz 1985: Peter Krentz, “The Nature of Hoplite Battle”, CA 4: 50–61

530

Bibliography

Krentz 1991: Peter Krentz, “The Salpinx in Greek Warfare”, in Hanson 1991a, pp. 110–20 Krentz 2010: Peter Krentz, The Battle of Marathon (New Haven) Kroll 1921: Wilhelm Kroll, “Keyx”, RE XI.1 pp. 372–4 Kroll 1977: John H. Kroll, “An Archive of the Athenian Cavalry”, Hesperia 46: 83–140 Kroll 1993: John H. Kroll, The Athenian Agora XXVI The Greek Coins (Princeton) Kroll and Waggoner 1984: John H. Kroll and Nancy M. Waggoner, “Dating the Earliest Coins of Athens, Corinth and Aegina”, AJA 88: 325–40 Kron 1976: Uta Kron, Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen: Geschichte, Mythos, Kult und Dartellungen (MDAI(A) Beiheft 5: Berlin) Krzyszkowska 1988: O. H. Krzyszkowska, “Ivory in the Aegean Bronze Age: Elephant Tusk or Hippopotamus Ivory?”, ABSA 83: 209–34 Kugelmeier 1996: Christoph Kugelmeier, Reflexe früher und zeitgenössischer Lyrik in der Alten attischen Komödie (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Band 80: Stuttgart and Leipzig) Kühner–Blass 1890, 1892: Raphael Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen 3 Sprache i Elementar- und Formenlehre (rev. F. Blass) (2 vols.: Hannover) Kühner–Gerth 1898: Raphael Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen 3 Sprache ii Satzlehre (rev. Bernhard Gerth) (2 vols.: Hannover) Labiano Ilundain 2000: Juan Miguel Labiano Ilundain, Estudio de las Interjecciones en las Comedias de Aristófanes (Classical and Byzantine Monographs XLVIII: Amsterdam) Lagóstena Barrios 2001: Lázaro Lagóstena Barrios, La producción de salsas y conservas de pescado en la Hispania Romana (II a.C. – VI d.C.) (Biblioteca de la Universitat de Barcelona: Barcelona) Laloux 1971: Monique Laloux, “La circulation des monnaies d’électrum de Cyzique”, RBN 117: 31–69 2 Lambert 1993: S. D. Lambert, The Phratries of Attica (Michigan Monographs in Classical Antiquity: Ann Arbor) Lang 1957: Mabel L. Lang, “Herodotus and the Abacus”, Hesperia 26: 271–88 Lang 1968: Mabel L. Lang, “Abaci from the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 37: 241–3 Lang 1990: Mabel L. Lang, The Athenian Agora XXV Ostraka (Princeton) Lang and Crosby 1964: Mabel Lang and Margaret Crosby, The Athenian Agora X Weights, Measures and Tokens (Princeton) Lapatin 2001: Kenneth D. S. Lapatin, Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford) Laronde 1987: André Laronde, Cyrène et la Libye hellénistique : LIBYKAI HISTORIAI de l’époque républicaine au principat d’Auguste (Études d’antiquités africaines: Paris) Latte 1913: Kurt Latte, De saltationibus Graecorum capita quinque (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten XIII.3: Giessen) Latte 1934: Kurt Latte, “Τέµενος”, RE II 5A pp. 435–7 Latte 1968: Kurt Latte, Kleine Schriften zu Religion, Recht, Literatur und Sprache der Griechen und Römer (Munich) Lattimore 1975: Steven Lattimore, “The Chlamys of Daochos I”, AJA 79: 87–8 Lautensach 1899: Otto Lautensach, Grammatische Studien zu den griechischen Tragikern und Komikern: Augment und Reduplikation (Hannover and Leipzig)

Bibliography

531

Lautensach 1911: Otto Lautensach, Die Aoriste bei den attischen Tragikern und Komikern (Forschungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik 1: Göttingen) Lawall 2000: Mark L. Lawall, “Graffiti, Wine Selling, and the Reuse of Amphoras in the Athenian Agora, ca. 430 to 400 B.C.”, Hesperia 69: 3–90 Lech 2009: Marcel Lysgaard Lech, “The Knights’ Eleven OARS: In Praise of Phormio? Aristophanes’ Knights 546–7”, CJ 105: 19–26 Lech 2012: Marcel Lysgaard Lech, “Eupolis and the λῆρος of the Poets: A Note on Eupolis 205 K-A”, CJ 107: 283–9 Lehrs 1902: Karl Lehrs, Kleine Schriften (Königsberg) Lejeune 1940: Michel Lejeune, “Sur l’accentuation attique de χαµᾶζε”, 3&" 42: 227–33 Lelli 2006: Emanuele Lelli, Volpe e leone. Il proverbio nella poesia greca (Alceo, Cratino, Callimaco) (Filologia e critica 93: Rome) Lewis 1995: Sian Lewis, “Barbers’ shops and perfume shops: ‘symposia without wine’”, in Powell 1995, pp. 432–41 Lewis 2011: David Lewis, “Near Eastern Slaves in Classical Attica and the Slave Trade with Persian Territories”, CQ NS 61: 91–113 Liapis 2012: Vayos Liapis (ed.), A Commentary on the Rhesus Attributed to Euripides (Oxford) Liegle 1952: Josef Liegle, Der Zeus des Phidias (Berlin) Lind 1988: Hermann Lind, “Ein Hetärenhaus am Heiligen Tor? Der Athener Bau Z und die bei Isaios (6, 20f.) erwahnte Synoikia Euktemons”, MH 45: 158–69 Lind 1990: Hermann Lind, Der Gerber Kleon in den ‘Rittern’ des Aristophanes. Studien zur Demagogenkomödie (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 51: Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York and Paris) Lindblad 1922: Waldemar Lindblad, Die Bedeutungsentwicklung des Präfixes ΚΑΤΑ in Kompositis. Eine semasiologische Untersuchung (Helsinki) Lissarrague 1990a: François Lissarrague, The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet: Images of Wine and Ritual (Princeton; originally published in French in 1987) Lissarrague 1990b: François Lissarrague, “Around the Krater: An Aspect of Banquet Imagery”, in Murray 1990, pp. 196–209 Littman 1970: Robert T. Littman, “The Loves of Alcibiades”, TAPA 101: 263–76 Lloyd-Jones 1963: Hugh Lloyd-Jones, “The Seal of Posidippus”, JHS 83: 75–99 Lobeck 1820: Chr. August. Lobeck (ed.), Phrynichi Eclogae Nominum et Verborum Atticorum (Leipzig) Lobel 1968: E. Lobel (ed.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Vol. XXXV (Graeco-Roman Memoirs No. 50: London) Lobel 1971: E. Lobel (ed.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Vol. XXXVII (Graeco-Roman Memoirs No. 53: London) Lomas Salmonte 1991: Francisco Javier Lomas Salmonte, “Cádiz en la Antigüedad”, in Lomas Salmonte, Javier and Sánchez Saus 1991, pp. 15–146 Lomas Salmonte, Javier and Sánchez Saus 1991: Francisco Javier Lomas Salmonte, Francisco Javier and Rafael Sánchez Saus (eds.), Historia de Cádiz. Entre la leyenda y el olvido (Cádiz) López Eire 1996: Antonio López Eire, La Lengua coloquial de la Comedia aristofánica (Murcia)

532

Bibliography

Lorenzoni 1994: Alberta Lorenzoni, “Eustazio: paura ‘verde’ e oro ‘pallido’ (Ar. Pax 1176, Eup. fr. 253 K.-A., Com. adesp. frr. 390 e 1380a E.)”, Eikasmos 5: 139–63 Lorenzoni 1998: Alberta Lorenzoni, “Marginalia comica II”, Eikasmos 9: 69–79 Lowe 1973: J. C. B. Lowe, “Notes on Menander”, BICS 20: 94–103 Luebke 1883: Hermannus Luebke, Observationes Criticae in Historiam Veteris Graecorum Comoediae (Diss. Berlin) Luppe 1971: Wolfgang Luppe, review of Lobel 1968, Gnomon 43: 113–23 Luppe 1972: Wolfgang Luppe, “Die Zahl der Konkurrenten an den komischen Agonen zur Zeit des peloponnesischen Krieges”, Philologus 116: 53–75 Luppe 1973: Wolfgang Luppe, review of Lobel 1971, Gnomon 45: 321–30 Luppe 1975: Wolfgang Luppe, review of Austin 1973, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 227: 179–206 Luppe 1977: Wolfgang Luppe, “Ruckseitentitel auf Papyrusrollen”, ZPE 27: 89–99 Luppe 1980: Wolfgang Luppe, “Der Kommentar zu den ‘Taxiarchoi’ des Eupolis P. Oxy. 2740 (Nr. 98 Austin)”, APF 27: 37–47 Luppe 2010: Wolfgang Luppe, “Aufführungsdatum und Plazierung von Sophokles’ Τηρεύς”, APF 56: 41–2 Luppe 2012: Wolfgang Luppe, “Zur Datierung von Euripides’ Μήδεια-Dramen”, APF 58: 216–17 Luraghi 2002: Nino Luraghi, “Becoming Messenian”, JHS 122: 45–69 Luraghi 2008: Nino Luraghi, The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory (Cambridge and New York) Luraghi and Alcock 2003: Nino Luraghi and Susan E. Alcock (eds.), Helots and Their Masters in Laconia and Messenia: Histories, Ideologies, Structures (Hellenic Studies 4: Cambridge Mass. and London) Maas and Snyder 1989: Martha Maas and Jane McIntosh Snyder, Stringed Instruments of Ancient Greece (New Haven and London) Maass 1914: Ernst Maass, “Der Marikas des Eupolis”, in Festgabe Hugo Blümner (Zurich), pp. 267–73 MacDowell 1962: Douglas MacDowell (ed.), Andokides: On the Mysteries (Oxford) MacDowell 1990a: D. M. MacDowell (ed.), Demosthenes: Against Meidias (Oration 21) (Oxford) MacDowell 1990b: D. M. MacDowell, “The Meaning of ἀλαζών”, in Craik 1990, pp. 287–92 MacDowell 1995: D. M. MacDowell, Aristophanes and Athens (Oxford) MacLachlan 1993: Bonnie MacLachlan, The Age of Grace: Charis in Early Greek Poetry (Princeton) Marcovich 1984: Miroslav Marcovich, Three-Word Trimeter in Greek Tragedy (Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 158: Königstein/Ts.) Marshall and van Willigenburg 2004: C. W. Marshall and Stephanie van Willigenburg, “Judging Athenian Dramatic Competitions”, JHS 124: 90–107 Martin 1994: Alain Martin, “L’Ostracisme athénien”, REG 102: 124–43 Martorelli 2014: Luca Martorelli (ed.), Greco antico nell’occidente carolingio (Spudasmata 159: Hildesheim, Zurich and New York) Marx 1929: Fridericus Marx, “Phalangarii”, RhM 78: 329–36

Bibliography

533

Masson 1967: Émilia Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en Grec (Paris) Mastronarde 1994: Donald J. Mastronarde (ed.), Euripides: Phoenissae (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 29: Cambridge) Matthaiou 2003: A. P. Matthaiou, “᾿Αθηναίοισι τεταγµένοισι ἐν τεµένει ῾Ηρακλέους”, in Derow and Parker 2003, pp. 190–202 Matthew 2009: Christopher A. Matthew, “When Push Comes to Shove: What Was the ‘Othismos’ of Hoplite Combat?”, Historia 58: 395–415 Matthews 1996: Victor J. Matthews, Antimachus of Colophon: Text and Commentary (Mnemosyne Supplement 155: Leiden, New York and Cologne) Mattingly 1968: Harold B. Mattingly, “Athenian Finance in the Peloponnesian War”, BCH 92: 450–85 3 Mattingly 2002: Harold B. Mattingly, “The Athenian Decree for Chalcis (IG 1 .40)”, CQ NS 52: 377–9 Mattusch 1977: Carol C. Mattusch, “Bronze- and Ironworking in the Area of the Athenian Agora”, Hesperia 46: 340–79 Mawet 1983: Francine Mawet, “La formation nominale dans l’Assemblée des Femmes d’Aristophane”, Glotta 61: 182–92 McCartney 1960: Eugene S. McCartney, “Vivid Ways of Indicating Uncountable Numbers”, CP 55: 79–89 McGready 1968: A. G. McGready, “Egyptian Words in the Greek Vocabulary”, Glotta 46: 247–54 McInerney 2010: Jeremy McInerney, The Cattle of the Sun: Cows and Culture in the World of the Ancient Greeks (Princeton and Oxford) McNamee 1981: K. McNamee, “Greek Literary Papyri Revised by Two or More Hands”, in Bagnall 1981, pp. 79–91 McNamee 1992: Kathleen McNamee, Sigla and Select Marginalia in Greek Literary Papyri (Papyrologica Bruxellensia 26: Brussels) McNamee 2007: Kathleen McNamee, Annotations in Greek and Latin Texts from Egypt (American Studies in Papyrology 45: Oxford) Mee and Renard 2007: C. Mee and J. Renard (eds.), Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford) Meier 1852: Moritz Hermann Eduard Meier, Commentatio Epigraphica (Halle) Meineke 1830: Augustus Meineke, Quaestionum scenicarum specimen tertium (Berlin) Mellink 1943: Machteld J. Mellink, Hyakinthos (Utrecht) Meritt, Wade-Gery and McGregor 1950: Benjamin Dean Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery and Malcolm Francis McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists Vol. III (American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Princeton) Meyer 1899: Eduard Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte Vol. II Zur Geschichte des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Halle) Meyer 1957: Ernst Meyer, “Prospalta”, RE XXIII.1 pp. 878–80 Mikalson 1972: Jon D. Mikalson, “The Noumenia and Epimenia in Athens”, HThR 65: 291–6 Miller 1986: Robert Miller, “Elephants, Ivory, and Charcoal: An Ecological Perspective”, BASOR 264: 29–43

534

Bibliography

Miller 1997: M. C. Miller, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural Receptivity (Cambridge) Millett 1991: Paul Millett, Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens (Cambridge) Millis 1997: Benjamin W. Millis, “Antiphanes fr. 46 K-A and the Problem of Spartan Moustaches”, CQ NS 47: 574–8 Millis 2015: Benjamin W. Millis (ed.), Anaxandrides (Fragmenta Comica Band 17: Heidelberg) Milo 2008: Daniela Milo, Il Tereo di Sofocle (Bibliotheca Antiqua II: Naples) Mitropoulou 1977: Elpis Mitropoulou, Deities and Heroes in the Form of Snakes (Athens) Moorhouse 1963: A. C. Moorhouse, “The Origin and Use of Ο, Η, ΤΟ ∆ΕΙΝΑ”, CQ NS 13: 19–25 Moorhouse 1965: A. C. Moorhouse, “A Use of οὐδείς and µηδείς”, CQ NS 15: 31–40 Moorhouse 1982: A. C. Moorhouse, The Syntax of Sophocles (Mnemosyne Supplement 75: Leiden) Morelli 2004: Federico Morelli, “Il λαχανόσπερµον, il ῥαφανέλαιον, e i sesamo: olii e oleaginose fantasma”, ZPE 149: 138–42 Morgan 1986: J. D. Morgan, “Μαρικᾶς”, CQ NS 36: 529–32 Morris 1985: Sarah P. Morris, “ΛΑΣΑΝΑ: A Contribution to the Ancient Greek Kitchen”, Hesperia 54: 393–409 Morrison 1984: J. S. Morrison, “Hyperesia in Naval Contexts in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC”, JHS 104: 48–59 Morrison, Coates and Rankov 2000: John S. Morrison, John F. Coates and Boris Rankov, The Athenian Trireme: the History and Reconstruction of an Ancient Greek Warship (Cambridge) Moussy 1969: Claude Moussy, Recherches sur ΤΡΕΦΩ et les verbes grecs signifiant 〈〈nourrir〉〉 (Études et commentaires LXX: Paris) Mülke 1996: Christoph Mülke, “ποίων δὲ κακῶν οὐκ αἴτιός ἐστι: Euripides’ Aiolos und der Geschwisterinzest im klassischen Athen”, ZPE 114: 37–55 Mueller 1832: K. O. Mueller, “Was für eine Art Drama waren ‘die Heloten’?”, RhM 3: 488–90 Mueller 1847: Karl Otfried Mueller, Kleine deutsche Schriften über Religion, Kunst, Sprache und Literature, Leben und Geschichte des Alterthums Vol. I (ed. Eduard Müller: Breslau) Müller-Strübing 1873: Hermann Müller-Strübing, Aristophanes und die historische Kritik (Leipzig) Müller-Strübing 1890: Hermann Müller-Strübing, “Die letzten Aufführungen und das Ende des alten Kratinos”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 36: 513–49 Munn 2003: Mary Lou Zimmermann Munn, “Corinthian Trade with the Punic West in the Classical Period”, Corinth 20: 195–217 Munn 2006: Mark Munn, The Mother of the Gods, Athens and the Tyranny of Asia. A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion (Berkeley) Muñoz Vicente, de Frutos Reyes and Berriatua Hernández 1988: A. Munoz Vicente, G. de Frutos Reyes and N. Berriatua Hernández, “Contribución a los orígenes y difusión comercial de la industria pesquera y conservera gaditana a través de las re-

Bibliography

535

cientes aportaciones de las factorías de salazones de la Bahía de Cádiz”, in Actas del Congreso Internacional “El Estrecho de Gibraltar I,” Ceuta 1987 (Madrid), pp. 487–508 Murray 1990: Oswyn Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A symposium on the Symposion (Oxford) Musolesi 1978–1979: Claudio Musolesi, “Eupol. Fr. 179 K.”, MCr 13–14: 211–13 Naber 1880: S. A. Naber, “Ad Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum”, Mnemosyne II.8: 21–55 Naiden 2013: Fred Naiden, Smoke Signals for the Gods: Greek Sacrifice from the Archaic through Roman Periods (Oxford and New York) Nails 2002: Debra Nails, The People of Plato: a Prosopography of Plato and other Socratics (Indianapolis) Napolitano 2001: Michele Napolitano, “Un caso di probabile λόγος ἀγγελικός paratragico nei Κόλακες di Eupoli”, SemRom 1: 289–98 Napolitano 2005: Michele Napolitano, “Callia, Alcibiade, Nicia: i Kolakes di Eupoli come commedia politica”, SemRom 8: 45–66 Napolitano 2012: Michele Napolitano, I Kolakes di Eupoli: Introduzione, Traduzione, Commento (Studia Comica 4: Mainz) Nauck 1847: Augustus Nauck, “Parerga critica”, Philologus 2: 144–60 Nauck 1848a: Augustus Nauck (ed.), Aristophanis Byzantii Grammatici Alexandrini Fragmenta (Halle) Nauck 1848b: August Nauck, review of Bekker (ed.), Iulii Pollucis Onomastikon, in Halle allgemeine Literatur-zeitung, Band I (Januar bis Juni), pp. 517–20 Nauck 1894: A. Nauck, “Bemerkungen zu Kock Comicorum Atticorum fragm.”, Mélanges Gréco-Romains 6: 53–180 Nayar and Mehra 1970: N. M. Nayar and K. L. Mehra, “Sesame: Its Uses, Botany, Cytogenetics, and Origin”, Economic Botany 24: 20–31 Neil 1901: Robert Alexander Neil (ed.), The Knights of Aristophanes (Cambridge) Neri 1994/5: Camillo Neri, “Le Dionisie del 424”, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Bari 37/38: 261–88 Nesselrath 1985: Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, Lukians Parasitendialog: Untersuchung und Kommentar (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 22: Berlin and New York) Nicolson 1891: Frank W. Nicholson, “Greek and Roman Barbers”, HSCP 2: 41–56 Norsa and Vitelli 1933: Medea Norsa and G. Vitelli, “Frammento di Commedia”, Bulletin de la Societe Royale d’archeologie d’Alexandrie 28: 137–42 Norsa and Vitelli 1935: Medea Norsa and G. Vitelli, Papiri Greci e Latini Vol. XI (Pubblicazioni della Societa Italiana per la ricerca dei Papiri greci e latini in Egitto: Florence) North 1966: Helen F. North, Sophrosyne: Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature (Ithaca) Norwood 1931: Gilbert Norwood, Greek Comedy (London) Ogden 2007: Daniel Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion (Blackwell’s Companions to the Ancient World: Oxford) Olck 1907: Olck, “Esel”, RE VI.1 pp. 626–76 Oliver 1950: James H. Oliver, The Athenian Expounders of the Sacred and Ancestral Law (Baltimore)

536

Bibliography

Olson 1988: S. Douglas Olson, “The ‘Love Duet’ in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae”, CQ NS 38: 328–30 Olson 1991: S. Douglas Olson, “Firewood and Charcoal in Classical Athens”, Hesperia 60: 411–20 Olson 1996: “Aristophanes, Equites 947–59 and the Athenian Public Seal”, ZPE 113: 253–4 Olson 1998: S. Douglas Olson (ed.), Aristophanes: Peace (Oxford and New York) Olson 2002: S. Douglas Olson (ed.), Aristophanes: Acharnians (Oxford and New York) Olson 2006: S. Douglas Olson (ed.), Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters Books III.106e–V (Loeb Classical Library 208: Cambridge Mass. and London) Olson 2007: S. Douglas Olson (ed.), Broken Laughter: Select Fragments of Greek Comedy (Oxford and New York) Olson 2012: S. Douglas Olson (ed.), The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Related Texts (Texte und Kommentare 39: Berlin and Boston) Olson–Sens 1999: S. Douglas Olson and Alexander Sens (eds.), Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century BCE (American Classical Studies 44: Atlanta) Olson–Sens 2000: S. Douglas Olson and Alexander Sens (eds.), Archestratos of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE (Oxford) Orth 2009: Christian Orth (ed.), Strattis. Die Fragmente. Ein Kommentar (Studia Comica 2: Berlin) Orth 2013: Christian Orth (ed.), Alkaios—Apollophanes: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica Band 9.1: Heidelberg) Orth 2014: Christian Orth (ed.), Aristomenes—Metagenes: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica Band 9.2: Heidelberg) Orth 2015: Christian Orth (ed.), Nicochares—Xenophon: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica Band 9.3: Heidelberg) Osborne 1983: M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens Vol. III (Verhandlingen van de koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Lettern en schone Kunsten van Belgie; Klasse der Lettern Jaargang 45 Nr 109: Brussels) Ostuni 1980: Giuseppe A. Ostuni, “Eupoli, Prospaltii, fr. 244 Kock”, Annali Della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia della Università di Bari 23: 95–7 O’Sullivan 1992: Neil O’Sullivan, Alcidamas, Aristophanes and the Beginnings of Greek Stylistic Theory (Hermes Einzelschriften 60: Stuttgart) O’Sullivan 2001: Lara O’Sullivan, “Philochorus, Pollux and the Nomophulakes of Demetrius of Phalerum”, JHS 121: 51–62 O’Sullivan and Collard 2013: Patrick O’Sullivan and Christopher Collard (eds.), Euripides’ Cyclops and Major Fragments of Greek Satyric Drama (Aris and Phillips Classical Texts: Oxford) Padgett 2000: J. Michael Padgett, “The Stable Hands of Dionysos: Satyrs and Donkeys as Symbols of Social Marginalization in Attic Vase Painting”, in Cohen 2000, pp. 143–70 Paga 2010: Jessica Paga, “Deme Theaters in Attica and the Trittys System”, Hesperia 79: 351–84

Bibliography

537

Palmer 1946: L. R. Palmer, “Mortar and Lathe. Notes on Homer Λ 145–147 and Euripides Bacchae 1065–1067”, Eranos 44: 54–61 Papadopoulos 1992: John K. Papadopoulos, “ΛAΣANA, Tuyeres, and Kiln Firing Supports”, Hesperia 61: 203–21 Papazarkadas 2011: Nikolaos Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Parker 1983: Robert Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in early Greek Religion (Oxford) Parker 1996: Robert Parker, Athenian Religion: A History (Oxford) Parker 1997: L. P. E. Parker, The Songs of Aristophanes (Oxford) Parker 2005: Robert Parker, Polytheism and Society in Athens (Oxford) Pauw 1739: J. C. de Pauw (ed.), Phrynichi Eclogae nominum et verborum Atticorum (Utrecht) Pawlak 1996: Anna Pawlak, “‘Elementi di dramma nel Protagora di Platone”, Eos 84: 277–83 Payton 1991: Robert Payton, “The Uluburun Writing-Board Set”, Anatolian Studies 41: 99–106 Pearl 1940: O. M. Pearl, “Varia Papyrologica”, TAPA 71: 372–90 Pearson 1917: A. C. Pearson (ed.), The Fragments of Sophocles (2 vols.: Cambridge) Peck 1970: A. L. Peek (ed. and trans.), Aristotle: Historia Animalium Vol. II (Loeb Classical Library 438: Cambridge Mass. and London) Pellegrino 2013: Matteo Pellegrino (ed.), Nicofonte: Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento (Fragmenta Comica Band 15: Mainz) Peppler 1916: Charles W. Peppler, “The Suffix -µα in Aristophanes”, AJP 37: 459–65 Pernerstorfer 2010: Matthias Johannes Pernerstorfer, “Zum Begriffspaar κόλαξ und παράσιτος: H.-G. Nesselraths These und P. G. McG. Browns Kritik”, Hermes 138: 361–9 Perpillou 1973: Jean-Louis Perpillou, Les substantifs grecs en -εὐς (Études et commentaires 80: Paris) Perusino 1981: Franca Perusino, “Aristofane e il Maricante di Eupoli: Un caso di contaminatio nella commedia attica del V secolo”, RFIC 109: 407–13 Petersen 1910: Walter Petersen, Greek Diminutives in -ion: a study in semantics (Weimar) Petersen 1939: Leiva Petersen, Zur Geschichte der Personifikation in griechischer Dichtung und bildender Kunst (Würzburg-Aumühle) Petrovic 2007: Andrej Petrovic, Kommentar zu den simonideischen Versinschriften (Mnemosyne Supplement 282: Leiden and Boston) Pfeiffer 1968: Rudolf Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford) Piérart 1995: Marcel Piérart, “Chios entre Athènes et Sparta. La contribution des exilés de Chios à l’effort de guerre lacédémonien pendant la Guerre du Péloponnèse. IG V 1, 1 + (SEG XXXIX 370)”, BCH 119: 253–82 Pierson 1759: Johannes Piersonus (ed.), Moeridis Atticistae Lexicon Atticum (Leiden) Pieters 1964: J. Th. M. F. Pieters, review of Edmonds 1957, Mnemosyne IV.17: 184–91 Pirrotta 2009: Serena Pirrotta (ed.), Plato comicus. Die fragmentarischen Komödien: Ein Kommentar (Studia Comica 1: Berlin)

538

Bibliography

Pivetti 1982: Anita Pivetti, “Note ai frammenti degli adulatori di Eupoli”, Rend. Acc. Nap. NS 57: 247–57 Planeaux 2000–2001: Christopher Planeaux, “The Date of Bendis’ Entry into Attica”, CJ 96: 165–92 Platter 2007: Charles Platter, Aristophanes and the Carnival of Genres (Arethusa Books: Baltimore) Poliakoff 1986: Michael Baron Poliakoff, Studies in the Terminology of the Greek Combat 2 Sports (Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie Heft 146: Frankfurt am Main) Ponsich 1988: Michel Ponsich, Aceite de oliva y salazones de pescado: Factores geo-economicos de Betica y Tingitania (Madrid) Ponsich and Tarradell 1965: Michel Ponsich and Miguel Tarradell, Garum et industries antiques de salaison dans la Méditerranné occidentale (Université de Bordeaux et Casa de Velásquez, Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études Hispaniques 36: Paris) Porson 1812: Richard Porson, Adversaria: Notae et Emendationes in Poetas Graecos (Cambridge) Porson 1823: Richard Porson (ed.), Photii Lexicon (Leipzig) Poultney 1936: James Wilson Poultney, The Syntax of the Genitive Case in Aristophanes (Baltimore) Poursat 1977: Jean-Claude Poursat, Les ivoires mycéniens : essai sur la formation d’un art Mycénien (Bibliotheque des Écoles Françaises d’Athenes et de Rome 230: Paris) Powell 1995: Anton Powell (ed.), The Greek World (London and New York) Power 2010: Timothy Power, The Culture of Kitharôidia (Hellenic Studies: Washington D.C.) Prauscello 2006: Lucia Prauscello, “Looking For the ‘Other’ Gnesippus: Some Notes on Eupolis Fragment 148 K‐A”, CP 101: 52–66 Pritchett–Pippin 1956: W. K. Pritchett and Anne Pippin, “The Attic Stelai: Part II”, Hesperia 25: 178–328 Pulleyn 1997: Simon Pulleyn, Prayer in Greek Religion (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Quinn 1969: T. J. Quinn, “Political Groups at Chios: 412 B.C.”, Historia 18: 22–30 Raaflaub 1980: Kurt Raaflaub, “Des freien Bürgers Recht der freien Rede. Ein Beitrag zur Begriffs- und Sozialgeschichte der athenischen Demokratie”, in Eck, Galsterer and Wolff 1980, pp. 7–57 Raaflaub 2004: Kurt A. Raaflaub, “Aristocracy and Freedom of Speech in the GrecoRoman World”, in Sluiter and Rosen 2004, pp. 41–61 Rabe 1892: Hugo Rabe, “Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto”, RhM 47: 404–13 Rabe 1895: Hugo Rabe, “Nachtrag zum Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto”, RhM 50: 148–52 Rademaker 2005: Adriaan Rademaker, Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-Restraint: Polysemy and Persuasive Use of an Ancient Greek Value Term (Mnemosyne Supplement 259: Leiden and Boston) Ramirez Delgado 1982: Juan Ramon Ramirez Delgado, Los primitivos nucleos de asentamiento en la ciudad de Cádiz (Cádiz) Rapke 1974: T. T. Rapke, “The Demotic of Kallias Didymiou”, AC 43: 332–3

Bibliography

539

Raspe 1832: Gust. Carol. Henr. Raspe, De Eupolidis ∆ΗΜΟΙΣ ac ΠΟΛΕΣΙΝ (Leipzig) Raubitschek 1941: A. E. Raubitschek, “Two Notes on Isocrates”, TAPA 72: 356–64 Record 1921: Samuel J. Record, “Boxwoods of Commerce”, Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 48: 297–306 Reed 2004: C. M. Reed, Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World (Cambridge) Reger 1992: Gary Reger, “Athens and Tenos in the Early Hellenistic Age”, CQ NS 42: 365–83 Reitzenstein 1890/1891: Ricardus Reitzenstein, “Inedita Poetarum Graecorum Fragmenta”, Index Lectionum in Academia Rostochiensi II: 3–18 Renehan 1976: Robert Renehan, Studies in Greek Texts: Critical Observations to Homer, Plato, Euripides, Aristophanes and other Authors (Hypomnemata Heft 43: Göttingen) Rhodes 1981: P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford) Ribbeck 1861: W. Ribbeck, De usu parodiae apud comicos Atheniensium (Berlin) Ribbeck 1867: W. Ribbeck (ed.), Aristophanes, Ritter (Berlin) Ribbeck 1882: O. Ribbeck, Alazon: Ein Beitrag zur antiken Ethologie (Leipzig) Richardson 1974: N. J. Richardson (ed.), The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford) Richter 1929: Gisela M. A. Richter, “Silk in Greece”, AJA 33: 27–33 Richter 1966a: G. M. A. Richter, The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans (London) Richter 1966b: Gisela M. A. Richter, “The Pheidian Zeus at Olympia”, Hesperia 35: 166–70 Rickard 1939: T. A. Rickard, “The Primitive Smelting of Iron”, AJA 43: 85–101 Rijksbaron 1984: Albert Rijksbaron, The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction (Amsterdam) Robert 1977: Louis Robert, “Documents d’Asie Mineur”, BCH 101: 43–132 Robinson 1939: David M. Robinson, “Note: The Greek Chlamys Not Rectangular”, G&R 8: 190 Robinson 1960: E. S. G. Robinson, “Some Problems in the Later Fifth-Century Coinage of Athens”, ANSMN 9: 1–15 Rogers 1911: Benjamin Bickley Rogers (ed.), The Comedies of Aristophanes VII The Lysistrata (London) Roisman 2006: Joseph Roisman, The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Ancient Athens (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London) Roller 1983: Lynn E. Roller, “The Legend of Midas”, CA 2: 299–313 Roller 1999: Lynn E. Roller, In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anatolian Cybele (Berkeley) Rose 1942: H. J. Rose, “Persae 419”, CR 56: 71 Rosen 1998: Ralph M. Rosen, “The Gendered Polis in Eupolis’ Cities”, in Dobrov 1998, pp. 149–76 Rosen 2007: Ralph M. Rosen, Making Mockery: The Poetics of Ancient Satire (Oxford) Rosen and Sluiter 2003: Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter (eds.), Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity (Mnemosyne Supplement 238: Leiden and Boston)

540

Bibliography

Rosivach 1987: Vincent J. Rosivach, “Autochthony and the Athenians”, CQ NS 37: 294–306 Rosivach 1994: Vincent J. Rosivach, The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century Athens (American Classical Studies 34: Atlanta) Rosivach 2005: Vincent J. Rosivach, “How Safe Was Travel Abroad? Some Evidence from Athenian Vases”, Historia 54: 343 Roy 2007: Roy, James, “The Consumption of Dog-Meat in Classical Greece,” in Mee and Renard 2007, pp. 342–53 Ruffell 2000: Ian Ruffell, “The World Turned Upside Down: Utopia and Utopianism in the Fragments of Old Comedy”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 473–506 Rusten 2006: Jeffrey Rusten, “Who ‘Invented’ Comedy? The Ancient Candidates for the Origins of Comedy and the Visual Evidence”, AJP 127: 37–66 Rusten 2011: Jeffrey Rusten (ed.), The Birth of Comedy: Texts, Documents, and Art from Athenian Comic Competitions, 486–280 (Baltimore) Rutherford 1881: W. Gunion Rutherford, The New Phrynichus, being a Revised Text of the Ecloga of the Grammarian Phrynichus (London) Rutherford 2001: Ian Rutherford, “The New Simonides: Toward a Commentary”, in Boedeker and Sider 2001, pp. 33–54 Rutherford 2013: Ian Rutherford, State Pilgrims and Sacred Observers in Ancient Greece: A Study of Theôria and Theôroi (Oxford) Rutishauser 2012: Brian Rutishauser, Athens and the Cyclades: Economic Strategies 540–314 BC (Oxford) Sansone 2011: David Sansone, “Eupolis, fr. 245 K.-A. (POLEIS)”, RhM 154: 232–4 Sarati 1996: Elena Sarati, “In margine al testo di Eupoli: Note di lingua e di stile”, Aevum Antiquum 9: 107–33 Sargent and Velde 2002: Thomas J. Sargent and François R. Velde, The Big Problem of Small Change (Princeton and Oxford) Sauppe 1896: Hermann Sauppe, Ausgewaehlte Schriften (Berlin) Schaps 1977: David Schaps, “The Woman Least Mentioned: Etiquette and Women’s Names”, CQ NS 27: 323–30 Schein 2013: Seth L. Schein (ed.), Sophocles: Philoctetes (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics: Cambridge and New York) Schiassi 1944: Giuseppe Schiassi, De Eupolidis comici poetae fragmentis (Pubblicazioni straordinarie della Accademia delle Scienze, Bologna, Classe di Scienze morali: Bologna) Schiassi 1955: Giuseppe Schiassi, “I Prospaltii di Eupoli”, PP 10: 295–306 Schmid 1946: Wilhelm Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur I.4 Die griechische Literatur zur Zeit der attischen Hegemonie nach dem Eingreifen der Sophostik (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft VII: Munich) Schmidt 2002: Gudrun Schmidt, Rabe und Krähe in der Antike: Studien zur archäologischen und literarischen Überlieferung (Wiesbaden) Schorn 2004: Stefan Schorn, Satyros aus Kallatis: Sammlung der Fragmente mit Kommentar (Basel) Schwartz 2009: Adam Schwartz, Reinstating the Hoplite: Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece (Historia Einzelschiften 207: Stuttgart)

Bibliography

541

Schwartz 2013: Adam Schwartz, “Large Weapons, Small Greeks: The Practical Limitations of Hoplite Weapons and Equipment”, in Kagan and Viggiano 2013, pp. 157–75 Schwarze 1971: Joachim Schwarze, Die Beurteilung des Perikles durch die attische Komödie und ihre historische und historiographische Bedeutung (Zetemata Heft 51: Munich) Schweighäuser 1803: Ioannes Schweighäuser, Animadversiones in Athenaei Deiposophistas Vol. IV (Strasbourg) Schwyzer 1939: Eduard Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik I Allgemeiner Teil: Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion; II Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik (Munich) Scullard 1974: H. H. Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life: Ithaca) Shapiro 1990: H. Alan Shapiro, “Oracle-mongers in Peisistratid Athens”, Kernos 3: 335–45 Shipley 1987: Graham Shipley, A History of Samos 800–188 BC (Oxford) Sider–Brunschön 2007: David Sider and Carl Wolfram Brunschön (eds.), Theophrastus of Eresus: On Weather Signs (Leiden and Boston) Sidwell 1993: Keith Sidwell, “Authorial Colloboration? Aristophanes’ Knights and Eupolis”, GRBS 34: 365–89 Sidwell 1994: Keith Sidwell, “Aristophanes’ Acharnians and Eupolis”, C&M 45: 71–115 Siewert 2002: Peter Siewert (ed.), Ostrakismos-Testimonien I (Historia Einzelschriften 155: Stuttgart) Silver 2009: Morris Silver, “Must Frequently Performed Economic Services Have Distinctive Names? A Probe of Finley’s Hypothesis”, Historia 58: 246–56 Slater 1972: W. J. Slater, “Simonides’ House”, Phoenix 26: 232–40 Slater 1986: William J. Slater (ed.), Aristophanis Byzantii Fragmente (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 6: Berlin and New York) Slater 2002: Niall W. Slater, Spectator Politics: Metatheatre and Performance in Aristophanes (Philadelphia) Slings 1992: S. R. Slings, “Written and Spoken Language: An Exercise in the Pragmatics of the Greek Sentence”, CP 87: 95–109 Sluiter and Rosen 2004: Ineke Sluiter and Ralph M. Rosen (eds.), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity (Mnemosyne Supplement 254: Leiden and Boston) Smith 1989: Nicholas D. Smith, “Diviners and Divination in Aristophanic Comedy”, CA 8: 140–58 Snodgrass 1967: A. M. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Ithaca) Snyder and Kippel 2003: Lynn M. Snyder and Walter E. Kippel, “From Lerna to Kastro: further thoughts on dogs as food in ancient Greece; perceptions, prejudices and reinvestigations”, in BSA Studies 9 Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, pp. 221–31 Solomon 2000: Jon Solomon, Ptolemy Harmonics. Translation and Commentary (Mnemosyne Supplement 203: Leiden, Boston and Cologne) Sommerstein 1980a: Alan H. Sommerstein, “Notes on Aristophanes’ Knights”, CQ NS 30: 46–56

542

Bibliography

Sommerstein 1980b: Alan H. Sommerstein, “The Naming of Women in Greek and Roman Comedy”, QS 11: 393–418; reprinted in Sommerstein 2009, pp. 43–69 (with additional notes) Sommerstein 1981: Alan H. Sommerstein (ed.), Aristophanes: Knights (The Comedies of Aristophanes 2: Warminster) Sommerstein 1985: Alan H. Sommerstein (ed.), Aristophanes: Peace (The Comedies of Aristophanes 5: Warminster) Sommerstein 1986: Alan H. Sommerstein, “The Decree of Syrakosios”, CQ NS 36: 101–8 Sommerstein 1993: Alan H. Sommerstein (ed.), Tragedy, comedy and the polis: papers from the Greek Drama Conference, Nottingham, 18–20 July 1990 (Bari) Sommerstein 1997: Alan H. Sommerstein, “Response”, in Sommerstein and Atherton 2007, pp. 53–64 Sommerstein 2000: Alan H. Sommerstein, “Platon, Eupolis and the ‘demagogue-comedy’”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 437–51 Sommerstein 2001: Alan H. Sommerstein (ed.), Aristophanes: Wealth (The Comedies of Aristophanes 11: Warminster) Sommerstein 2004: “Comedy and the unspeakable”, in Cairns and Knox 2004, pp. 205–22 Sommerstein 2009: Alan H. Sommerstein, Talking about Laughter and other studies in Greek Comedy (Oxford) Sommerstein 2013: Alan H. Sommerstein (ed.), Menander: Samia (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics: Cambridge) Sommerstein and Atherton 2007: Alan H. Sommerstein and Catherine Atherton (eds.), Education in Greek Fiction (Nottingham Classical Lecture Series 4: Bari) Sommerstein, Fitzpatrick and Talboy 2006: A. H. Sommerstein, D. Fitzpatrick and T. Talboy, Sophocles: Selected Fragmentary Plays Vol. I (Aris and Philips Classical Texts: Oxford) Sommerstein and Torrance 2014: Alan H. Sommerstein and Isabelle C. Torrance, Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece (Berlin) Sonnino 1997: Maurizio Sonnino, “Una presunta scena di morte nel Maricante di Eupoli (fr. 209 K.–A.)”, Eikasmos 8: 43–60 Sonnino 1999: Maurizio Sonnino, “Short Notes on Two Comic Fragments (Callias fr. 18 K.–A.; Theopompus Comicus fr. 64 K.–A.”, Phoenix 53: 330–5 Sonnino 2006: Maurizio Sonnino, “L’identificazione del rivale del demagogo nel Maricante di Eupoli: ‘P. Oxy.’ 2741 (= Eup. fr. 192 K.–A.) rr. 100–5”, ZPE 156: 39–51 Sonnino 2007: Maurizio Sonnino, “Per un’analisi del lessico medico nei frammenti della commedia: Eupoli Maricante P.Oxy. 2741 (= fr. 192 K.–A.), rr. 7–12, 92–5”, ZPE 159: 29–42 Sonnino 2014: Maurizio Sonnino, “I frammenti della commedia greca citati da Prisciano e la fonte del lessico sintattico del libro XVIII dell’ Ars”, in Martorelli 2014, pp. 163–204 Sparkes 1995: Brian Sparkes, “A pretty kettle of fish”, in Wilkins, Harvey and Dobson 1995, pp. 150–61 Spence 1993: I. G. Spence, The Cavalry of Classical Greece: A Social and Military History with Particular Reference to Athens (Oxford)

Bibliography

543

Spence 1995: I. G. Spence, “Thucydides, Woodhead, and Kleon”, Mnemosyne IV.48: 411–37 Spiegelberg 1921: W. Spiegelberg, “ΨΑΓ∆ΑΝ, ΨΑΓ∆ΑΣ, ΣΑΓ∆ΑΣ”, Hermes 56: 232–3 Spyridonidou-Skarsouli 1995: Maria Spyridonidou-Skarsouli (ed.), Der erste Teil der fünften Athos-Sammlung griechischer Sprichwörter (Texte und Kommentare 18: Berlin and New York) Srebrny 1922: Stephanus Srebrny, “Comica”, in Charisteria Casimiro de Morawski septuagenario oblata am amicis, collegis discipulis (Cracow), pp. 77–87 Srebrny 1939: Stefan Srebrny, “Eupolis über Syrakosios”, AJPhO 6: 271–4 Srebrny 1948–1949: Stephanus Srebrny, “Quaestiunculae comicae”, Eos 43: 48–60 Stadter 1989: Philip A. Stadter, A Commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles (Chapel Hill and London) Stamires 1958: George A. Stamires, “ΘΕΡΜΑΘΣΤΙΣ, etc.”, Hesperia 27: 324–7 Stamma 2014: Felice Stamma (ed.), Frinico: Introduzione, Traduzione et Commento (Fragmenta Comica Band 7: Heidelberg) Steinhauer 2999: Steinhauer, “Στήλη πεσόντων τῆς ᾿Ερεχθηίδος”, Horos 21: 679–92 Stephanis 1988: I. E. Stephanis, ∆ιονυσιακοι Τεχνιται· Συµβολες στην Προσωπογραφια του Θεατρου και της Μουσικης των Αρχαιων Ελληνων (Heraklion) Stephanopoulos 1983: Th. K. Stephanopoulos, “Marginalia Comica”, ZPE 52: 45–7 Stevens 1971: P. T. Stevens (ed.), Euripides: Andromache (Oxford) Stevens 1976: P. T. Stevens, Colloquial Expressions in Euripides (Hermes Einzelschriften 38: Wiesbaden) Stinton 1975: T. C. W. Stinton, “Hamartia in Aristotle and Greek Tragedy”, CQ NS 25: 221–54 Stone 1984: L. M. Stone, Costume in Aristophanic Comedy (Salem) Storey 1988: Ian C. Storey, “The Date of Kallias’ Pedetai”, Hermes 116: 379–83 Storey 1990: Ian C. Storey, “Dating and Re-Dating Eupolis”, Phoenix 44: 1–30 Storey 1991: Ian C. Storey, “Four Notes on Eupolis”, Prudentia 23.2: 1–12 Storey 1993: Ian C. Storey, “Notus est omnibus Eupolis?”, in Sommerstein 1993, pp. 373–96 Storey 1995: Ian C. Storey, “Philoxenos … of Doubtful Gender”, JHS 115: 182–4 Storey 2003: Ian C. Storey, Eupolis: Poet of Old Comedy (Oxford) Storey 2011: Ian C. Storey (ed. and trans.), Fragments of Old Comedy Vol. II Diopeithes to Pherecrates (Loeb Classical Library 514: Cambridge Mass. and London) Storey 2015: Ian C. Storey, review of Napolitano 2012, Gnomon 87: 12–15 Strauss 1983: Barry S. Strauss, “Åegospotami Reexamined”, AJP 104: 24–35 Strömberg 1943: Reinhold Strömberg, Studien zur Etymologie und Bildung der griechischen Fischnamen (Göteborgs Högskolas Arsskrift XLIX: Göteborg) Strömberg 1954: Reinhold Strömberg, Greek Proverbs: A Collection of Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases which are Not Listed by the Ancient and Byzantine Paroemiographers (Götesborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-Samhälles Handlingar, Sjätte Földen. Ser. A. Band 4.8: Göteborg) Struve 1841: Ernestus Aug. Struve, De Eupolidis Maricante sive de Aristophane Accusatore et Eupolide Plagii Reo (Kiel)

544

Bibliography

Svennung 1958: J. Svennung, Anredeformen: Vergleichende Forschungen zur indirekten Anrede in der dritten Person und zum Nominativ für den Vokativ (Uppsala and Wiesbaden) Svoronos 1912: J. N. Svoronos, “Οἱ κόλλυβοι”, JIAN 14: 123–60 Taillardat 1956: Jean Taillardat, “Le groupe familier grec: κινδάνω, (σ)κίνδαρος, ὀστρακίνδα, κίνδυνος”, REA 58: 189–94 2 Taillardat 1965: Jean Taillardat, Les images d’Aristophane: études de langues et de style (Paris) Taillardat 1967: Jean Taillardat (ed.), Suétone περὶ Βλασφηµίων, περὶ Παιδίων (Extraits Byzantins) (Nouvelle Collection de Textes et Documents: Paris) Talbert 1989: Richard J. A. Talbert, “The Role of the Helots in the Class Struggle at Sparta”, Historia 38: 22–40 Tammaro 1973–1974a: Vinicio Tammaro, “Note ad Eupoli”, MCr 8/9: 180–90 Tammaro 1973–1974b: Vinicio Tammaro, “Note a P. Oxy. 2741”, MCr 8/9: 219–21 Tammaro 1975–1977: Vinicio Tammaro, “Note a Frammenti Comici Papiracei”, MCr 10/12: 95–102 Tammaro 1988: Vinicio Tammaro, “Eupol. fr. 298,3 K.–A.”, ZPE 72: 34 Tammaro 1990–1993: Vinicio Tammaro, “Note Eupolidee”, MCr 25–8: 123–38 Tarbell 1906: F. B. Tarbell, “The Form of the Chlamys”, CP 1: 283–9 Taylor 2002: Martha C. Taylor, “Implicating the Demos: A Reading of Thucydides on the Rise of the Four Hundred”, JHS 122: 91–108 Tell 2009: Håkan Tell, “Wisdom for Sale? The Sophists and Money”, CP 104: 13–33 Telò 2005: Mario Telò, review of Storey 2003, JHS 125: 166–7 Thesleff 1954: Holger Thesleff, Studies on Intensification in Early and Classical Greek (Helsinki) Thesleff 1955: Holger Thesleff, Studies on the Greek Superlative (Copenhagen and Helsinki) Thompson 1936: D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, A glossary of Greek birds (Oxford) Thompson 1947: D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, A glossary of Greek fishes (Oxford) Thompson 1949: Homer A. Thompson, “An Archaic Gravestone from the Athenian Agora”, Hesperia Supplement 8: 373–7 Thomsen 1964: Rudi Thomsen, Eisphora. A study of direct taxation in ancient Athens (Humanitas 3: Copenhagen) Thomsen 1972: Rudi Thomsen, The Origin of Ostracism: A Synthesis (Copenhagen) Threatte 1996: Leslie Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions Volume II: Morphology (Berlin and New York) Tichy 1977: E. Tichy, “Griech. ἀλειτηρός, νηλειτής und die Entwicklung der Wortsippe ἀλείτης”, Glotta 55: 160–77 Tod 1945: Marcus N. Tod, “Epigraphical Notes on Greek Coinage”, NC VI.5: 108–16 Todd 2007: S. C. Todd, A Commentary on Lysias, Speeches 1–11 (Oxford) Töppel 1846: Joachim Töppel, De Eupolidis Adulatoribus Commentatio (Leipzig) Töppel 1851: Joachim Töppel, “De fragmentis comicorum Graecorum quaestiones criticae I”, Programm des Gymnasiums zu Neubrandenburg, pp. 3–16 (Neubrandenburg) Topper 2009: Kathryn Topper, “Primitive Life and the Construction of the Sympotic past in Athenian Vase Painting”, AJA 113: 3–26

Bibliography

545

Topper 2012: Kathryn Topper, The Imagery of the Athenian Symposium (Cambridge) Tosi 2012: Renzo Tosi, Dizionario delle sentenze latine e greche (Milan) Toup 1790: Jo(nathan) Toup, Emendationes in Suidam et Hesychium et alios lexicographos Graecos (2 vols.: Oxford) Traill 1975: John A. Traill, The Political Organization of Attica: A Study of the Demes, Trittyes, and Phylae, and their Representation in the Athenian Council (Hesperia Supplement XIV: Princeton) Travlos 1971: Ioannes N. Travlos, Bildlexicon zur Topographie des antiken Athen (Tübingen; English translation, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, New York and Washington 1971) Treister 1996: Michail Yu. Treister, The Role of Metals in Ancient Greek History (Mnemosyne Supplement 156: Leiden, New York and Cologne) Treu 1999: Martina Treu, Undici cori comici. Aggressività, Derisione e Tecniche Drammatiche in Aristofane (Genoa) Trevett 2000: Jeremy Trevett, “Was There a Decree of Syrakosios?”, CQ NS 50: 598–600 Trojahn 2002: Silke Trojahn, Die auf Papyri erhaltenen Kommentare zur Alten Komödie (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 175: Leipzig) Tsantsanoglou 1984: K. Tsantsanoglou, New Fragments of Greek Literature from the Lexicon of Photius (Athens) Tsetskhladze 2008: Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas Vol. 2 (Mnemosyne Supplement 193: Leiden and Boston) 2 Turner and Parsons 1987: E. G. Turner, Greek manuscripts of the ancient world  (BICS Supplement 46, revised and enlarged by Peter Parsons: London) Tylawsky 2002: Elizabeth Ivory Tylawsky, Saturio’s Inheritance: The Greek Ancestry of the Roman Comic Parasite (Artists and Issues in the Theater 9: New York, etc.) Ussher 1973: R. G. Ussher (ed.), Aristophanes: Ecclesiazusae (Oxford) Valckenaer 1822: Ludovicus Casparus Valckenaer (ed.), Ammonius de Differentia Adfinium Vocabulorum (Leipzig) Van Hook 1917: LaRue Van Hook, “Ψυχρότης ἢ τὸ Ψυχρόν”, CP 12: 68–76 van Leeuwen 1888: J. van Leeuwen, “Quaestiones ad historiam scenicam pertinentes”, Mnemosyne II.16: 399–438 van Leeuwen 1898: J. van Leeuwen (ed.), Aristophanis Nubes (Leiden) van Leeuwen 1900: J. van Leeuwen (ed.), Aristophanis Equites (Leiden) Verbrugghe 1975: Gerald P. Verbrugghe, “Narrative Pattern in Posidonius’ ‘History’”, Historia 24: 189–204 Verdejo Manchado 2014: Javier Verdejo Manchado, “The verb (ἀν)οιγ- ‘to open’: a new proposal of etymological reconstruction”, Glotta 90: 269–79 Verpoorten 1962: J. M. Verpoorten, “La ‘stibas’ ou l’image de la brousse dan la société grecque”, Revue de l’histoire des religions 162: 147–60 Vickers 1984 [1990]: Michael Vickers, “Demus’s Gold Phiale”, AJAH 9: 48–53 Viggiano and van Wees 2013: Gregory F. Viggiano and Hans van Wees, “The Arms, Armor and Iconography of Early Greek Hoplite Warfare”, in Kagan and Viggiano 2013, pp. 57–73

546

Bibliography

Villing and Pemberton 2010: A. Villing and E. G. Pemberton, “Mortaria from ancient Corinth. Form and function”, Hesperia 79: 555−638 Vlassopoulos 2010: Kostas Vlassopoulos, “Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History”, ZPE 175: 113–31 von Fritze 1912: H. von Fritze, “Die Electronprägung von Kyzikos: Eine chronologische Studie”, Nomisma 7: 1–38, pll. I–III Vos 1955: H. Vos, “Ἀλιταίνω, ήλιτόµηνος und ἀπτοεπής”, Glotta 34: 287–95 Wallace 2004: Robert W. Wallace, “The Power to Speak—and Not to Listen—in Ancient Athens”, in Sluiter and Rosen 2004, pp. 221–32 Walsh 1984: John Walsh, “The Dramatic Dates of Plato’s Protagoras and the Lesson of Arete”, CQ NS 34: 101–6 Wankel 1974: H. Wankel, “Die Rolle der griechischen und lateinischen Epigraphik bei der Erklärung literarischer Texte”, ZPE 15: 79–97 Wankel 1976: Hermann Wankel, Demosthenes Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz (Heidelberg) Wankel 1984: Hermann Wankel, “Thukydides 6,55,1 and Α∆ΙΚΙΑ”, ZPE 57: 43–51 Warnock 2007: Peter Warnock, Identification of Ancient Olive Oil Processing Methods Based on Olive Remains (BAR International Series 1635: Oxford) Warnock and Pendleton 1991: Peter Warnock and Michael Pendleton, “The Wood of the Ulu Burun Diptych”, Anatolian Studies 41: 107–10 Waterhouse and Hope-Simpson 1961: Helen Waterhouse and R. Hope-Simpson, “Prehistoric Laconia: Part II”, ABSA 56: 114–75 Webster 1960: T. B. L. Webster, “Greek Dramatic Monuments from the Athenian Agora and Pnyx”, Hesperia 29: 254–84 Webster 1966: T. B. L. Webster, “The Myth of Ariadne from Homer to Catullus”, G&R 13: 22–31 3 Webster 1978: T. B. L. Webster, Monuments Illustrating Old and Middle Comedy (rev. J. R. Green; BICS Supplement 39: London) Werres 1936: Joseph Werres, Die Beteuerungsformeln in der attischen Komödie (Diss. Bonn) West 1935: Allen Brown West, “Prosopographical Notes on the Treaty between Athens and Haliai”, AJP 56: 72–6 West 1966: M. L. West (ed.), Hesiod: Theogony (Oxford) West 1970: S. West, “Chalcenteric Negligence”, CQ NS 20: 288–96 West 1978: M. L. West (ed.), Hesiod: Works & Days (Oxford) West 1982: M. L. West, Greek Metre (Oxford) West 1992a: M. L. West, Ancient Greek Music (Oxford and New York) West 1992b: M. L. West, “Elephant”, Glotta 70: 125–8 West 1993: M. L. West, “Simonides Redivivus”, ZPE 98: 1–14 Westlake 1941: H. D. Westlake, “Nicias in Thucydides”, CQ 35: 58–65 Westlake 1968: H. D. Westlake, Individuals in Thucydides (Cambridge) White 1912: John Williams White, The verse of Greek comedy (London) Whitehead 1977: David Whitehead, The Ideology of the Athenian Metic (Cambridge Philological Society Supplementary Volume 4: Cambridge)

Bibliography

547

Whitley 1994: James Whitley, “The Monuments that Stood before Marathon: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Archaic Athens”, AJA 98: 213–30 Whittaker 1935: M. Whittaker, “The Comic Fragments in Their Relation to the Structure of Old Attic Comedy”, CQ 29: 181–91 Whittaker 1988: C. R. Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge Philological Society Supplementary Volume 14: Cambridge) Wilamowitz 1870: Udalricus de Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Observationes Criticae in Comoediam Graecam Selectae (Berlin) Wilamowitz 1875: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, “Die Megarische Komödie”, Hermes 9: 319–42 Wilamowitz 1880: Udalricus de Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aus Kydathen (Philologische Untersuchungen 1: Berlin) Wilamowitz 1883: U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, “Phaethon”, Hermes 18: 396–434 Wilamowitz 1900: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Die Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyriker (Berlin) Wilamowitz 1921: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Griechische Verskunft (Berlin) Wilamowitz 1927: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (ed.), Aristophanes Lysistrate (Berlin) Wilkins 2000: John Wilkins, The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy (Oxford) Wilkins, Harvey and Dobson 1995: John Wilkins, David Harvey and Michael J. Dobson (eds.), Food in Antiquity (Exeter) Willemsen 1968: F. Willemsen, “Die Ausgrabung im Kerameikos”, ArchDelt (Chronika) 23: 24–32 Willi 2003: Andreas Willi, The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Wilson 1974: A. M. Wilson, “A Eupolidean Precedent for the Rowing Scene in Aristophanes’ Frogs?”, CQ NS 24: 250–2 Wilson 1976a: Allan M. Wilson, “Addendum to ‘A Eupolidean Precedent for the Rowing Scene in Aristophanes’ Frogs?’”, CQ NS 26: 318 Wilson 1976b: N. G. Wilson, review of Austin 1973, in CR NS 26: 13–15 Wilson 1977: Allan M. Wilson, “The Individualized Chorus in Old Comedy”, CQ NS 27: 278–83 Wilson 2007: N. G. Wilson (ed.), Aristophanis Fabulae (Oxford Classical Texts, 2 vols.: Oxford) Winkler 1990: John J. Winkler, The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece (New York and London) Winkler and Zeitlin 1990: John J. Winkler and Froma I. Zeitlin (eds.), Nothing to do with Dionysos? (Princeton) 2 Woodhead 1949: A. G. Woodhead, “I.G., I , 95, and the Ostracism of Hyperbolus”, Hesperia 18: 78–83 Woodhead 1954: A. G. Woodhead, “Peisander”, AJP 75: 131–46 Woodward 1906–7: E. S. Foster and A. M. Woodward, “Laconia: II. Topography”, ABSA 13: 219–67

548

Bibliography

Worley 1994: Leslie J. Worley, Hippeis: The Cavalry of Ancient Greece (Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford) Wright 1971: John Wright, “Plautus Bacchides, 525”, CQ NS 21: 440–1 Wright 2007: Matthew Wright, “Comedy and the Trojan War”, CQ NS 57: 412–31 Wüst 1939: Ernst Wüst, “Griechische Komödie”, Bursians Jahresberichte 263: 1–99 Wycherley 1957: R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora III Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia (Princeton) Wyse 1904: William Wyse (ed.), The Speeches of Isaeus with Critical and Explanatory Notes (Cambridge) Zelle 1892: Joannes Zelle, De comoediarum Graecarum saeculo quinto ante christum natum actarum temporibus definiendis dissertatio inauguralis (Diss. Halle) Zelnick-Abramowitz 2005: R. Zelnick-Abramowitz, Not Wholly Free: The Concept of Manumission and the Status of Manumitted Slaves in the Ancient Greek World (Mnemosyne Supplement 266: Leiden and Boston) Zielinski 1885: Th. Zielinski, “Die Märchenkomödie in Athen”, in Jahresbericht der St. Annen-Schule (Saint Petersburg), pp. 1–72 Zielinski 1931: Thaddaeus Zielinski (ed.), Iresione Tomus 1: Dissertationes ad comoediam et tragoediam spectantes continens (Eus Supplementa 2: Lviv) Zimmermann 2011: Bernhard Zimmermann (ed.), Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike Band I Die Literatur der archaischen und klassischen Zeit (Munich) Ziolkowski 1999: John Ziolkowski, “The Invention of the Tuba (Trumpet)”, CW 92: 367–73 Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: Daniel Zohary, Maria Hopf and Ehud Weiss, Domestication 4 of Plants in the Old World  (Oxford)

549

Indices Index locorum A. Pers. 65–6: 216 AB I p. 296.6–7: 117 Acts 2:17–18: 489 Ael. Dion. α 146: 76 Ael. Dion. α 167: 272 Ael. Dion. κ 43: 357 Ael. Dion. σ 36: 191 Ael. Dion. χ 23: 357 Ael. Dion. ω 6: 495 Aeschin. 1.97: 310 [Ammon.] Diff. 306: 472 [Ammon.] Diff. 33: 265 [And.] 4.13: 76 An.Ox. II pp. 231.25–232.1: 224 An.Ox. III p. 281.1: 513 Antiatt. p. 79.20–1: 63 Antiatt. p. 81.4–6: 432 Antiatt. p. 82.19: 265 Antiatt. p. 82.32: 23 Antiatt. p. 105.22: 427 Antiatt. p. 106.30–2: 282 Antiatt. p. 106.33: 110 Apost. 12.83: 421 App.Prov. 1.93: 309 App.Prov. 2.61: 444–5 Ar. Equites: 126–8, 162 Ar. Eq. 188–9: 217 Ar. Eq. 424, 483–4: 54 n. 24 Ar. Av. 17: 484 Ar. Av. 1467: 249 Ar. Ranae: 368 Ar. fr. 496: 54 n. 24 Ar. fr. 558: 54 n. 24 Ar.Byz. fr. 368: 509 [Arist.] Ath. 50.2: 113 Ath. 4.169a: 30 Ath. 6.236e: 32 Ath. 9.408b–d: 77 Ath. 13.574d–f: 81 Ath. 15.691c: 208

Callias Atalantai: 370 n. 196 Chamaeleon On Drunkenness: 49 Comanus fr. 18 Dyck: 361–2 Crater. FGrH 342 F 4–b: 435–6 D.L. 9.53: 79 Didymus Comic Vocabulary fr. 14, pp. 38–9 Schmidt: 236 Didymus Comic Vocabulary fr. 5, p. 34 Schmidt = On Proverbs fr. 4, pp. 397–8 Schmidt: 25 Didymus In Demosthenem Commenta 14.7–15: 360–1 Dorion On Fish: 41, 56, 99, 353 EM p. 83.9–11: 224 EM p. 118.39–40: 59 EM pp. 133.57–134.1: 272 EM p. 137.28–31: 63 EM p. 366.18: 288 EM pp. 391.53–392.2: 280 EM p. 515.1–2: 312 EM p. 524.52: 428 EM p. 529.45–7: 74 EM p. 629.33–4: 361–2 EM p. 644.12–14: 225 EM p. 697.27–8: 105 EM p. 769.25: 469 EM p. 819.41: 214 Eratosth. fr. 6 Strecker: 480 Erot. fr. 10: 361 Et.Gen. AB α 969: 504 Et.Gen. A α 1064: 249 Euripides Stheneboia: 336–7 n. 174 Eust. p. 1350.4 = IV.903.22–3: 307 Eust. p. 1402.53 = i.37.16–17: 336 Greg. Cypr. 4.76: 440 Harp. p. 67.2–10 = Α 249 Keaney: 363 Harp. p. 128.8–10 = Ε 109 Keaney: 58, 59 Harp. pp. 247.14–248.3 = Π 61 Keaney: 116

550

Indices

[Hes.] fr. 263 M.-W. = fr. 202 Most: 498 Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 152.15–16: 198 Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 506.19: 428 [Hdn.] Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 451.33–5: 114 [Hdn.] Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 636.26–7: 206 [Hdn.] Philet. 108: 472 [Hdn.] Philet. 127: 362 [Hdn.] Philet. 191: 110 [Hdn.] Philet. 314: 504 Hdt. 1.94.6: 59 Hdt. 6.109.2: 301 Herennius Philo Περὶ κυριολεξίας 7: 458 Hermippus Artopôlides: 122 Hp. Salubr. 4 = 6.76.15–17 Littré: 23 Hsch. α 582: 432 Hsch. α 3258: 424 Hsch. α 3323: 408 Hsch. α 3647–8: 224 Hsch. α 3823: 265 Hsch. α 4365: 459 Hsch. α 5089: 277 Hsch. α 5816: 58 Hsch. α 6412: 261 Hsch. α 6412: 262 Hsch. α 6441: 249 Hsch. α 6445: 249 Hsch. α 6908: 272 Hsch. β 638: 22 Hsch. β 1353: 493 Hsch. γ 25: 198 Hsch. γ 904: 312 Hsch. δ 569: 309 Hsch. ε 1423: 451 Hsch. ε 1506: 50 Hsch. ε 2811: 59 Hsch. ε 3156: 444–5 Hsch. ε 3315: 286 Hsch. ε 3332: 222 Hsch. ε 3840: 480 Hsch. η 156: 23 Hsch. θ 685: 283

Hsch. κ 495: 21 Hsch. κ 1526: 482 Hsch. κ 2710: 313 Hsch. κ 3292: 428 Hsch. κ 3558: 14 n. 3 Hsch. κ 3612: 73 Hsch. κ 3886–7: 53 Hsch. λ 352: 283 Hsch. λ 726: 111 Hsch. λ 1041: 25 Hsch. λ 1211: 280 Hsch. ο 332: 236 Hsch. ο 1095: 361 Hsch. ο 1109: 361 Hsch. ο 1110: 361 Hsch. ο 1970: 225 Hsch. π 660: 73 Hsch. π 1208: 112 Hsch. π 1211: 112 Hsch. π 1215: 113 Hsch. σ 15: 493 Hsch. σ 24: 208 Hsch. σ 225: 73 Hsch. σ 596: 431 Hsch. σ 1252: 197 Hsch. σ 3034: 442 Hsch. υ 908: 446 Hsch. χ 343: 21 Hsch. ψ 1: 208 Hsch. ψ 59: 487 Hsch. ψ 309: 214 Hsch. ψ 310: 214 Hsch. ω 194: 495 Hsch. ω 307: 361 Iatrocles περὶ Πλακοὐντων: 105 3 IG I 40.64–6: 268 Il. 2.408: 497 Il. 2.603: 206 Joel 3:1–2 LXX: 489 Lex. Rhet. 204 Naoumides: 283 Lex .Rhet. AB I p. 245.6–10: 280 Lys. 7.7: 289 Macar. 6.70: 481 Macrob. 5.20.11–13: 487 Moer. α 128: 200

Index locorum Moer. µ 10: 472 Moer. τ 3: 26 Od. 21.421–2: 142 Orion p. 148.25–6: 398 Oros ap. EM p. 658.36–7: 112 Oros fr. 151: 398 Oros fr. A 6a: 276 Oros fr. A 6b: 276 Pamphilus fr. 1 Schmidt: 265, 402 Paus.Gr. γ 14: 99 Paus.Gr. δ 27: 315 Paus.Gr. µ 19: 197 Paus.Gr. ο 19: 421 Paus.Gr. τ 5: 286 Paus.Gr. τ 42: 491 Paus.Gr. χ 13: 194 Philoch. FGrH 328 F 61: 194 Philostr. VS I praef. (p. 4.7–9 Kayser): 307 Philox. Gramm. fr. *598: 398 Phot. α 808: 361 Phot. α 1192: 224 Phot. α 1286: 402 Phot. α 1380: 200 Phot. α 1511: 74 Phot. α 1520: 459 Phot. α 2265: 504 Phot. α 2269: 58 Phot. α 2531: 261 Phot. α 2531: 262 Phot. α 2784: 63 Phot. α 2824: 504 Phot. α 3236: 497 Phot. γ 4: 198 Phot. γ 201: 313 Phot. γ 234: 99 Phot. δ 729: 221 Phot. δ 762: 315 Phot. ε 78: 50 Phot. ε 388: 451 Phot. ε 1027: 223 Phot. ε 1579: 336 Phot. ε 1784: 413 Phot. ε 2205: 280 Phot. κ 365: 453

551

Phot. κ 400: 482 Phot. κ 945: 14 n. 3 Phot. λ 106: 283 Phot. λ 314: 25 Phot. λ 376: 280 Phot. λ 377: 280 Phot. ο 126: 236 Phot. ο 127: 236 Phot. ο 434: 361 Phot. ο 715: 225 Phot. π 519: 112–13 Phot. π 524: 113 Phot. π 707: 74 Phot. π 765: 116 Phot. σ 8: 493 Phot. σ 10: 493 Phot. σ 13: 208 Phot. σ 28: 74 Phot. σ 74: 493 Phot. σ 498: 226 Phot. σ 506: 398 Phot. σ 912: 442 Phot. τ 3: 26 Phot. τ 23: 286 Phot. τ 36: 219 Phot. υ 322: 446 Phot. Bibl. 190, p. 151a5–14, vol. III pp. 64–5 Henry: 436 Phryn. Ecl. 63: 417 Phryn. PS p. 22.10–11: 73 Phryn. PS p. 31.18: 504 Phryn. PS p. 34.7–8: 272 Phryn. PS p. 40.13–14: 76 Phryn. PS p. 88.2–3: 282 Phryn. PS p. 93.2: 360 Phryn. PS p. 108.4: 191 Phryn. PS p. 112.11: 26 Phryn. PS fr. *3: 221 Phryn. PS fr. *257: 63 Phryn. PS fr. *258: 63 Phryn. PS fr. 267: 300 Pl. Criti. 111d: 289 Plato Protagoras: 36 Plato Prt. 341 c–e: 38 Pl. Smp. 174b–c: 497

552 Plb. 4.72.1: 59 Plu. Alc. 8.3: 76 Plu. Nic. 8.2: 183 [Plu.] Par. Alex. 1.34 (CPG I.326): 25 Poll. 2.32: 472 Poll. 2.51: 191 Poll. 3.61: 288 Poll. 3.86: 62 Poll. 3.143: 67 Poll. 3.145: 67 Poll. 4.70: 446 Poll. 4.173–5: 398 Poll. 6.13: 23 Poll. 6.21–2: 236 Poll. 6.25: 458 Poll. 6.39: 413 Poll. 7.46: 222 Poll. 6.48: 198 Poll. 6.94: 73 Poll. 7.54: 442 Poll. 7.85: 442 Poll. 7.103–4: 62 Poll. 7.130: 200 Poll. 7.165: 360 Poll. 7.173: 286 Poll. 7.199: 417 Poll. 8.116: 219 Poll. 9.102–3: 495 Poll. 10.18–19: 58 Poll. 10.125: 286 Proverbia Coisliniana 364 Gaisford: 421 Ptol. Ascal. p. 402.10–11: 472 Rhianus, Thessalika: 285 RΕΓ Σ Ar. Ach. 378: 308 VEΓΘM Σ Ar. Eq. 262–3: 432 E Σ Ar. Nu. 756: 63 R Σ Ar. V. 643: 481 VΓ Σ Ar. V. 643: 481 RV Σ Ar. V. 1408: 307 RV Σ Ar. Pax 395: 191 VΓ Σ Ar. Pax 669: 481 V Σ Ar. Pax 1178: 236 RVM9ΓM Σ Ar. Av. 505: 428 RVENeapM Σ Ar. Av. 1467: 249 RΓ Σ Ar. Lys. 196: 226

Indices RΓ

Σ Ar. Lys. 270: 456 RΓ Σ Ar. Lys. 490: 191 R Σ Ar. Lys. 835: 194 B Σ E. Alc. 447: 113 ΓCVOΩ∆ Σ Luc. JTr. 25, p. 66.10–14 Rabe: 69 V∆ Σ Luc. JTr. 48, p. 83.25–7: 29 Areth. Σ Pl. Ap. 23e: 269 Σ Pl. R. 404c: 23 O Σ Th. 2.4.4: 288 ABCFM Σ Th. 4.78.2: 288 S. Ant. 712–17: 347 Satyrus fr. 20 Schorn: 81 St.Byz. δ 117: 221 St.Byz. θ 36: 222–3 St.Byz. p. 568.13–14 Meineke: 480 Stesimbr. FGrH 107: 242 Strattis Atalantos or Atalantê: 370 n. 196 Suda α 261: 432 Suda α 732: 236 Suda α 1665: 265 Suda α 1907: 459 Suda α 3246: 283 Suda α 3367: 261, 262 Suda α 3789: 63 Suda γ 426: 313 Suda δ 1423: 221 Suda ε 1194: 59 Suda ε 2510: 59 Suda ε 2511: 59 Suda ε 2687: 288 Suda ε 3511: 280 Suda κ 788: 453 Suda κ 1626: 312 Suda κ 1916: 428 Suda κ 2079: 74 Suda λ 156: 71 Suda λ 555: 25 Suda λ 651: 280 Suda λ 653: 280 Suda µ 1261: 108 Suda ο 506: 361 Suda ο 507: 360 Suda ο 1018: 225 Suda π 1297: 116 Suda σ 110: 493

Index verborum Suda σ 1097: 365 Suda τ 11: 118 Suda τ 59: 219 Suda τ 1059: 469 Suda φ 8: 118 Suda ψ 22: 487 Sueton. On games (fr. 1, pp. 67–8): 495 Sueton. περὶ βλασφηµιῶν 2.46: 99 Synag. α 385: 224 Synag. ε 757: 288 Synag. ε 946: 280 Synag. λ 131: 280 Synag. τ 14: 286 Synag. τ 268: 469 Synag. B α 1636a: 58

553

Synag. B α 1870: 261, 262 Synag. B α 2085: 63 Synag. B α 2086: 63 Th. 7.75.4: 76 Theognost. 982: 22 Theognost. Can. 84.9 Alpers: 214 [Thphr.] Weather Signs 10: 212–13 Thgn. 302: 118 Thom. Mag. p. 55.10–13: 65 Tim. 313 Bonelli: 361 Tim. 464 Bonelli: 361 Tryphon fr. 19 Velsen: 24, 99 X. Oec. 9.6–7: 61 X. Vect. 3.9: 155 Zenob. 6.13: 111

Index verborum ἀγαθά: 97 ἄγκυρα: 433 ἀγοραίος: 174 ἀγροί: 66 ἄγροικος: 247 ἄεισµα: 18 αἱρέοµαι: 237 ἀκόλουθος and ἀκολουθέω: 89 ἄκουε δή: 60 ἀκροάοµαι: 422 ἀλαζών and ἀλαζονεύοµαι: 46 ἀλιτήριος: 46, 47 ἀλλ’ οὖν: 207 ἄλλυδις ἄλλος: 93 ἁλµάδες: 415 ἀλουσία: 426 ἀλφάνω: 410 ἁµαρτία: 222 ἁµαρτωλία: 222 ἀµέλει + future: 247 ἀµελής: 244 ἄν, repeated: 244 ἀναγαργαρίζω: 459 ἀνακογχυλίζω and ἀνακογχυλιάζω: 459 ἄναξ: 268 ἀνδρεῖος: 72

ἄνδρες in direct address: 204 ἀνδρικῶς and ἀνδρικός: 72 ἀνέρρω: 278 ἀνήρ, pleonastic: 174, 281–2 ἄνθρωπε: 348 ἅνθρωπος οὗτος expressing exasperation: 348 ἀνοίγνυµι: 276–7 ἀντιβολία: 76 –αξ: 92 ἁπαξάπας: 140 ἀπαρτιλογία: 463 ἁπλήγιος: 279 ἄπληκτος: 295–6 ἁπλῶς: 386 ἀπὸ κοινοῦ: 160 ἀπό µ’ ὀλεῖς: 348 ἀποκηρύττω: 410 ἀποκοιµάοµαι: 244–5 ἀποκρίνοµαι: 262 ἀπολιβάζω: 249, 251 ἀποπάτηµα and ἀποπατέω: 485 ἀπώµοτος: 273 ἀργαλέα ἀργαλέον: 254 Ἀργείαι: 443–4 ἀργύρια: 64

554

Indices

ἀργύριον: 63 ἀργυρίς: 64 ἀρτιασµός: 495 ἄρτυµα: 23 ἀσκέω: 68 ἀσκητικῶς: 67 ἀτεχνῶς: 386, 481 ἄττα and ἅττα: 258 αὐθηµερινός: 212–13 αὐλή: 75 αὐτοκάρδαλος and αὐτοκάβδαλος: 176–7 ἄφνω: 454 ἀφυπνίζοµαι: 211 ἀχυρός: 510 βαδίζω: 471 βάραθρον: 94–5 βατίς: 100 βελόνη: 418 βέλτιστε and βέλτιστος: 268 βῆµα: 240 βλέφαρα: 212 βοῦς: 66 βροτός: 97 γῆς ἄχθος: 326 γρασός: 313 γυµνάζω: 83 γυναῖκες: 83 δαίµων compounds: 116 δάµαρ: 83 δέλτοι: 136 δέλφαξ: 476 δέσποτα in invocation: 304 δή adding emphasis to an imperative: 467 –δης, abusive terms in: 301 δίαιτα: 88 διαστρέφω: 466 δίφρος: 233 δοκέω: 92, 190 δονέω: 355 δωδέκατος, δυώδεκα and δυώδεκα: 465 ἔγωγε in emphatic response to a question: 258 ἔδει: 502

εἰλίποδες: 101 εἰς vs. ἐς: 464 εἰς δἰκην: 173 εἰσάγω: 29 εἰσφορά: 474 εἶτα: 92 ἐκ + genitive in place of a demotic: 303 ἐκδανείζω: 156 ἐκεῖνος with a personal name: 247 ἐκκανάσσω: 452 ἐκφατνίσµατα: 178 ἐλέφας: 505 ἐµβρόντητος: 420 ἐν- as prefix: 397 ἔναγχος: 186 ἐναριστάω: 397 ἔνδοθι: 44 ἐνδοµενία: 59 ἔνδον: 44 ἐνίοτε: 244 ἐξαίφνης: 454 ἐξαλείφω: 137 ἐξηγηταί: 508 ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ: 187–8 ἔπειτα: 473 ἐπεσθίω: 414 ἐπί + accusative: 470 ἐπί + genitive meaning “during”: 42 ἐπὶ δέκα system of numbering: 466 ἐπικήκαστος: 336 ἔπιπλα: 58–9, 61 ἐπίσκοπος: 501–2 ἐπιτήδειος: 288 ἐπωφελέω: 152 ἔρρω: 278 ἐρυγγάνω and ἐρεύγοµαι: 209 ἐς φθόρον: 376 ἔστι δέ τις: 303 ἔσχατος: 138 ἔτι καὶ νῦν: 346 εὖ + adverb: 358–9 εὖ σφόδρα adding emphasis: 358–9 εὐδαίµων: 502 εὐθύ + genitive: 195 εὐτελής: 205

Index verborum εὐφραινω: 448 ἐφάπαξ and εἰσάπαξ: 114 ἐφοράω: 501 ἔχις: 292 ἔχρην: 502 ἔχω: in sense “wear”: 468 in sense “contain”: 400 ζειά: 115 ἤδη πώποτε: 258 ἥδυσµα: 23 ἠλίθιος: 91 θάψινος: 308 θεάοµαι: 478 θεατής: 212 θέατρον: 167 –θεν: 54 θερισµός: 224 θέρµαυστρις: 233 Θετταλικὰ πτερά: 223 θρόνος: 233 θυµαίνω: 214–15 θυµηδία: 100 θυννίς: 55 θύρα: 441 θύραζε: 93 –ί as deictic suffix: 74 ἰαµβύκη: 18–19 ίας as noun ending: 94 ἰδού: 69–70 –ίζω, verbs in: 222–3 ἱππεύω: 204 ἰσηγορία: 502–3 ἵστηµι in sense “stand about lazily”: 382 ἴσχε used absolutely: 467 καί … γε πρός: 384 κακίων and χείρων: 301 κακῶς as intensifier: 295 Καλαβρός: 490–1 καλαθίσκος: 287 κάλη/κήλη: 466 καλλαβίδες: 106 καλλι- adjectives: 21 κάλλιστος: 501 καλλιχέλωνος: 21

καλῶς as intensifier: 295 καλῶς φρονεῖς: 238 κάννα: 233–4 κἄπειτα: 258 κάρα: 426–7 κάραβος: 100 κατὰ χειρός: 509 καταγελάω: 158 κατακροάοµαι: 355 κατάστασις: 454 κατάχυσµα: 483 κατάχυτλος: 483 κάτοικος: 511 κεκρύφαλος: 79 κέλης: 68 κέντρον: 295–6 κέρδος: 165 κιβωτός: 234 κίθαρα: 490 κιθαρῳδός: 490–1 κινάβρα: 313 κίναιδος: 108 κινέω and βινέω: 298 κλαίω: 387–8 κλῆς vs. κλέης in names: 506 κλισµός: 233 κλοιός: 323 κλωγµός: 329 κλῳός/κλοιός: 95 κνέφαλ(λ)ον: 79–80, 132 κνῖσα: 118 κοιλιοδαίµων: 116 κόκκυ: 427–8, 429 κόλαξ: 34, 91–2 κόλλυβος: 298–9 κοµµάτιον: 103 κοµψός: 88 κόρδαξ: 127 κορέω: 73–4 κόρηµα: 73–4, 75 κοχώνη: 54 κρατευταί: 112 κρέα and κρέας: 43 κρόκη: 399–400 κροκωτός: 425

555

556

Indices

κρούω and κρούµατα: 196 κυδάω: 149 κυκάω: 156 κύπτω: 159–60 κύσθος: 299 κυψέλη: 260 κυψελίς: 260 λάβραξ: 57 λαγώς: 24, 100 Λακωνικαί: 444 λάσανα: 284 λαφυγµός: 72 λαφύσσω: 72 λέγω µή: 206 λεπτός: 503 λεπτοσχιδεῖς: 444 λέπω: 414–15 λέσχη: 167 λευκὴ ἡµέρα: 110–11 λεχώ: 407 λῆρος: 213 λογιστής: 281 λύχνον: 234 λωποδύτης: 387 –µα, nouns in: 75 µᾶζα: 93, 397 µᾶλλον + simple adjective as equivalent to comparative: 502 µάντεις: 508 Μαραθῶνι: 270 µασάοµαι: 403–4 µαχαιρίδες: 473 µεταλαµβάνω: 90 µετέωρα: 46 µέχρι and µέχρις: 54 µῆλον: 107 µισθόω: 450 µνᾶ: 70 µόλις: 278 µόνος adding pathos: 245 µόσχος: 113 µοχθηρός and µόχθηρος: 419 µυττωτός: 120 ναὶ µὰ τὸν ∆ία et sim.: 400–1 ναῦς µακρά: 295

ναυτοδίκαι: 435–6 νεοκάτοικος: 511 νέος: 399 νὴ τὸν Ποσειδῶ and µὰ τὸν Ποσειδῶ: 441 νιν for expected αὐτόν/αὐτήν: 376 νόσηµα: 134–5 νοῦν ἔχω: 348 νυκτερινός: 18 νώ: 448–9 νωδός: 475–6 ξύλον: 166 ξύµπας/σύµπας and ξυνάπας/συνάπας: 140 ξύνειµι in sense “have sex with”: 158–9 ξυνῆλιξ: 187 ξύνθηµα/σύνθηµα: 382 ὀβελίσκος: 323 οἴµοι: 447 οἰνόπτης: 236, 237 οἰσυουργός: 170 ὅλµος: 447 ὅλος: 299 ὀνίνηµι: 457 ὁρᾷς, parenthetic: 352 ὁράω: 166, 183, 186, 478 ὀργάζω: 360–2, 363 ὀρτυγοκοπία: 396, 397 ὅσον + infinitive: 396–7 οὐ + second-person future equivalent to imperative: 396 οὐ δεινά and οὐ δεινόν: 443 οὐδέν ἐσµεν et sim.: 278 οὐκ οἶσθα: 378 οὖν … δῆτα: 256 οὐσία: 271 οὗτος as form of address: 159, 250 ὀφείλω: 266–7 ὀφλισκάνω: 225 ὀψωνέω and ὄψον: 42 παῖς + genitive: 254 παῖς ἀκόλουθος: 89 πάνυ: 503 παραπλήσιος: 61 παράσιτος: 85

Index verborum πάροικος: 117 παρρησία: 502–3 πάσῃ τέχνῃ: 347 πατάσσω: 420 παχύς: 503 πεζός: 113 πειθαρχέω: 295 πέµπω of troubles „sent“ by deities: 215 περιγράφω κύκλον: 396 περίστατος: 117 περίτµηµα: 144 περιτρέχω: 241 περσέπτολις: 216 Περσικαί: 444 πεφυτευµένη (γῆ): 289 πηλός: 362 πηνίον: 287 πιναρός: 426 πίσος: 511 πλούταξ: 91–2 ποικίλον: 425 ποικίλος: 426 πολλοῦ used adverbially: 136 πολύ + superlative: 97 πολυπράγµων: 279 πόντιος: 20 πορθέω: 64–5 πρᾶσις: 265 πρεσβύτης: 454 πρὶν καί + infinitive: 455 πρόβατον: 66 προδοσία: 174 πρόθυρον: 152–3 πρός vs. εἰς: 251 προσκεφάλαιον: 232 προστάτης: 325 πρῴρα and πρῳράζω: 151 πρῳράτης ~ πρῳρεύς: 390–1 πύελος: 406 πύξινος and πύξος: 308 πῦρ: 103 πυρρός: 466 –πωλις, nouns in: 354 πώποτε: 277 ῥᾳδίως in sense „at least“: 401

557

ῥέγκω: 447 ῥύπος: 401 σάβυττος: 493 σάλπιγξ: 422–3 σαµβύκη: 18–19 σάνδαλον: 492 σησαµίς: 106–7 σιδηρίτης: 432 σίδηρος: 103 σιπύη: 512 σκαιός: 507 σκευάρια and σκεῦος: 120, 486 σκευοφοριώτης and σκευοφόρος: 433 σκέψοµαι as future of ὁράω: 166 σκῖρον: 471 σκῶµµα: 94 σπουδάζω and cognates: 301 σπουδαρχίδης: 301 σταµνίον, στάµνος and σταµνάριον: 226 στατήρ: 400 στιβάς: 412 στιγµατίας: 94 συγγράφω: 61 συµπάροικος: 117–18 σφραγίς: 209 σχισταί: 444 σωφροσύνη: 454 τὰ πολλά used adverbially: 89 ταγηνίας: 26 τάγηνον or τήγανον: 26 ταινιόπωλις: 354 τάλαντον: 401 ταµίας: 219 τάριχος: 199 τειχίον: 240 τέµενος: 19–20 τέως: 140 τηλία: 218 τί δ’ ἔστιν;: 397 τί ληρεῖς: 83 τί τὸ κακόν;: 147 τί;: 355 τις + imperative: 409 τις, menacing: 489

558

Indices

τις/τι after forms of πόσος and ποῖος: 450 τὸ δεῖνα: 351–2 τὸ λεγόµενον: 481 τοίνυν: 298 τρέφω: 257–8 τρίβων: 399, 467–8 τρίγωνος: 19 τριχίδες: 42 τρόπα: 495 τροφαλίς: 469–70 τρυβλίον: 232 τρύπηµα: 143 τύλη: 79–80, 232–3 τυφλός: 465 ὑθλέω: 328 ὑλακτέω: 240–1 ὑπεύθυνος: 281 ὑπήνη: 474 ὑποτροιάζω and ὑποτροπιάζω: 134 ὕστριξ: 505 φάτνη: 178 φειδωλός: 42 φέρ’ ἴδω: 153 φθέγγοµαι: 137 φίλος: 438–9 φορά: 451 φορέω: 52 φρενοβλαβής: 188 φροῦδος: 78 φῦλον + genitive: 201–2

φῶνος: 488 χαλκίον: 407 χαλκός: 103 χαµᾶθεν and χαµόθεν: 47 Χάριτες: 105, 106 χέζω: 284 χειρόνιπτρον: 78 χελώνη: 505 χρέµπτοµαι: 107 χρησµολόγος: 268, 508 χρησµῳδός: 268 χρυσίον: 64 χρυσίς: 64 χρύσοφρυς: 57 χύτλον: 483 χύτρα: 233 χωλός: 358 ψάγδαν: 209 ψαµµακόσιος: 487 ψίαθος: 234 ψιλή (γῆ): 289 ψυχρός and ψυχρότης: 352, 393 ψῶζα: 215 ψώρα: 215 ὦγαθέ: 346 ᾠδός: 475 ὤµιλλα: 495 ὠνέοµαι: 197 ὡς as preposition + accusative: 256 ὡς ἔοικε: 346 ὡς τάχιστα: 345

Index rerum et personarum Abdera: 44 Acropolis: 194 Adeimantos son of Leukolophides: 253 adulterers and adultery: 17, 18, 158 Aegina: 21 Aeschylus, Persians 65–6 (parody of): 216 agôn: 206 Agora: 90–1, 432 Aischrion of Byzantium: 25

Akestor: 93–4 Alcaeus (citharode): 480 Alcaeus (lyric poet): 479 Alcibiades: 28, 32–3, 35, 76, 81–2, 126, 186, 253, 473 Alcibiades II son of Alcibiades: 76 Alcman of Sparta: 17 Kolymbôsai: 437 Alcmeonids: 153

Index rerum et personarum almond: 404 amorgina tunic: 310–11 Amphoteros: 256 Amyclae: 14 Amynias son of Pronapes: 247 Anagyros: 339 Andromeda: 122, 127 antepirrhema: 87 Apollo: 214, 266 archers or bowmen, in Athens: 408–9 Archestratus: 465, 467 Archilochus: 179–80 Ares: 378 Arignotus: 491 Ariobarzanes II Philopator: 513 Asopodorus: 309–10, 484 Aspasia the daughter of Axiochos of Miletus: 169, 363–4, 439, 455 audience: 16, 87, 88, 167, 203, 211, 212, 281, 294, 329, 348, 351, 465, 478, 487 Autolykos son of Lykon: 439, 456 baldness: 467 barber and barbershops: 189, 472 barley and barley-cake: 93, 231, 397 basket and basketry: 170, 287 bathing and bathhouses: 426, 482 bathtub: 406 bear: 505 beards and moustaches: 474, 493 Bellerophontes: 336 belly as a god: 116 bomolochic interjection: 464 bomolochic response: 82, 291, 396, 428 bottomry loans: 155–6 bow-officer, on trireme: 390–1 box and box-wood: 308 branding (supposed), of slaves: 94 bronze-working: 432 brothel: 298 Bruttium: 490 Callias II son of Hipponicus: 243 Callias III son of Hipponicus II: 28–9, 30, 31–3, 35, 36–7, 41, 47, 51, 56, 63–4, 69–70, 71, 74, 76, 106, 111, 115, 185 cauldron: 407

559

cavalry: 204, 312, 454 Ceos: 445–6 Ceyx: 498 Chaerephon of the deme Sphettos: 34–5, 307–8 chair: 231, 233 Chaones: 285 cheese: 469–70 cheese, rind: 471 Chios: 294, 458 chlamys: 223 Cimon: 242–3 citharode: 325, 490 City Dionysia: 309 Cleon son of Cleaenetus: 122, 126, 127, 162, 184, 185, 186, 220, 239, 309, 344, 460, 461, 472, 481, 501, 503 cock-fighting: 218 coins: 21, 63–4, 298–9, 400 coins, worn by women as jewelry: 297 colloquialism: 18, 23, 46, 60–1, 70, 72, 74, 83, 89, 111, 136, 147, 153, 156, 162, 186, 188, 195, 213, 226, 232, 237, 244, 247, 251, 258, 265, 268, 276–7, 284, 298, 299, 301, 328, 345, 346, 348, 351–2, 352, 387–8, 392, 401, 407, 409, 418, 420, 441, 450, 467, 471, 473, 481, 485 colonies, Athenian: 251 cook: 56, 70, 90 cookpot: 233 Corinth and Corinthians: 173, 200 Corydeus: 467 crawfish, langoustine or Norway lobster: 100 Cybele: 333–4 Cyclopes: 495 Cycnus: 498 Cyrene: 205 Cyzicus: 297–8 dactylic hexameter, in comedy: 497 dance: 106 deer: 505 definite article signalling that object belongs to subject of main verb: 483

560

Indices

Demeter Chloê: 194 democracy: 502–3 demonstrative without definite article: 469, 479 Demos son of Pyrilampes: 257, 260, 438 Didymias and Didymachias: 484 Didymus (commentator): 14, 25, 236, 239, 309, 430, 479–80, 497 dinner parties: 17, 70, 79, 90, 100, 231, 495, 509 Diocles, King of Eleusis: 171 Diomeia: 302–3 Dionysus: 367–8, 378, 403, 406, 408, 412, 414, 418, 420, 422, 433 in comedy: 370 Diopeithes: 358 dithyrambic coinage: 355 dog: 95, 239, 240, 366 Dog days: 51 Dog-star: 51–2 donkeys and donkey-drivers: 148, 154, 158, 193, 422, 510 Doric dialect: 14 dual: 232 dung: 485 Egyptian loan-words: 209 einkorn (“single grain”) wheat: 115 elephant: 505 Eleven, the: 409 Elpinike sister of Cimon: 243 Ephialtes: 437 epirrhema: 87, 96 Euboea: 268 Euripides, Heracleidae: 12 Eurystheus: 498 excessive drinking, eulogies of: 244 exclamatory genitive: 448 execution of public enemies in Athens: 95 Exekestides: 327 Exekestos: 327 eyelids: 212 Famine-Dorians: 25 fawn and lion, image of: 133 figura etymologica: 71

fire: 103 forecourt: 152–3 fox: 485 friends: 438–9 fruit: 107 fulling: 399–400 Gadeira: 199–200 gambling and gambling games: 218, 257, 396–7, 495 Gê Kourotrophos: 194 generals: 237, 366, 380, 409, 465 gilthead: 57 glue: 144 Gnesippus: 13, 15, 16–17, 18 goad for animal: 295 goat: 313 gold jewelry: 297 Golden Age and Golden Age comedies: 460, 505 Graces: 105, 106 grain legumes: 511 Great Mother: 333–4 Hagnon son of Nikias: 305 hair-cut: 493 hare: 24, 100 harp: 18, 19 Helen of Troy: 363–4 helots: 11–12, 19, 20, 22, 25 Heracleia Pontica: 275, 479 Heracles: 344, 352, 498 Hermippus, Artopôlides: 122, 126, 218 Hermocrates of Phocaea: 31 hero and hero cult: 53, 171, 335 Herodicus of Babylon: 28 Hestia: 477 Hierocles: 268, 302 himation: 89–90 hipparch: 247, 312 Hipparete daughter of Hipponicus II: 76 Hipponicus II son of Callias II: 29, 35, 41, 47, 56, 76 Homer, echoes of in comedy: 21 horse and horsemanship: 66, 68, 83, 178, 204, 247, 294, 295–6, 312, 454, 455 hunchback: 466

Index rerum et personarum Hyacinthia: 14 Hyakinthos: 266 Hybadai: 338 hybris: 263, 435 hydria: 232 Hyperbolos: 122, 126, 185, 186, 195, 199, 218, 219–20, 232, 306 Ialysos: 25 iambic abuse song: 424–5, 506 incest, brother-sister: 243–4 Ionians: 45, 79, 406 iron-working: 432 ivory: 505 judges and judging procedures at Athenian dramatic competitions: 141, 281 Kamiros: 25 Kekrops: 53 Knidos: 25 kopis: 14 Kytinion: 25 lamp: 234 Lampon: 497, 508 laughter, hostile: 158 legumes: 511 lightning, being struck by as punishment: 420 Lindos: 25 literacy: 217 loan-words: Eastern: 167 Egyptian: 209 non-Semitic: 298–9 Semitic: 70, 233–4, 505, 512 Lykon and Lykon’s wife: 269, 439, 456 lyre: 490 lyric and elegiac poetry, informal performances of: 17 manliness: 72 Marathon: 270–1 Mardones: 285 Mariandynia and Mariandynoi: 478–9 Marpsias, toady of Callias: 34–5, 109 Megara and Megarian comedy: 25, 171, 351, 376

561

Melanthius, tragic poet: 34–5, 108 merchant ship: 295 messenger speech: 63–4, 71, 78 Messenia: 11 metic: 149, 325, 474, 503 Midas, King of Phrygia: 148, 189 Miletus: 287 Miltiades: 242, 271 mining and miners: 35, 36, 185, 431 mixing bowl: 232 mock-patronymics: 254, 301 mothers of politicians, attacks on: 353 Naxos: 403, 404 New-moon day: 227 Nicias: 126, 127, 128, 183, 184, 185–6, 256 nicknames: 378 oath: 171, 352, 400–1, 441, 483 occupations, terms for: 170–1 Odeion: 513 Oineus: 94–5 old men in comedy: 453, 454, 476 olives and olive oil: 415 onion: 413, 414 Opountios: 370, 430 oracle monger: 268 oracles: 302 Orestes: Aristophanic mugger: 371, 387 toady of Callias: 34–5, 109 oxen: 66 Paiones: 285 Panathenaic festival: 490, 513 Pantacles: 506 parabasis: 16, 87, 96, 100, 103, 106, 210–11, 261 parabasis proper: 87, 500 paraclausithyron: 18, 153 Paralos son of Pericles: 28, 36, 169, 363 paratragedy: 38, 64, 65, 71, 78, 83, 238, 254, 267–8, 348, 426, 447, 454 parodos: 103, 216, 345 pea: 511 peafowl: 259–60 Peisander: 128, 158, 192, 193

562

Indices

perfume and perfume stands: 209, 247–8 Pericles: 81–2, 169, 220, 243, 316, 344, 363–4, 455, 501, 513 Pericles II son of Pericles: 169, 170, 171 Persian king: 126 Pherecrates, Agrioi: 29 Philinos: 250 Philoxenus of Diomeia: 302 Philoxenus son of Eryxis: 302 Phorcys: 366 Phormio son of Asopios: 43, 367, 368, 369–70, 377–8, 380, 383, 396, 399, 412, 414, 418, 420, 429 Phrygia: 199, 332, 333–4 Phrynichus (comic poet): 127 physical disability: 358, 464, 465, 466–7 picket-duty: 384 pig: 475–6, 477 pillow: 79–80, 232–3 pipe (musical instrument): 447 plague, Athenian: 214 Plataea, Battle of: 12 Plato Comicus, Hyperbolos: 126 pnigos: 495 Polygnotus: 243 porcupine: 505 pork: 477 porters: 201, 433–4, 449–50 Porthaon: 254 Poseidon: 20, 441 prayer: 304, 333 proagôn: 513 Prodicus: 253 prologue: 74, 203, 210 prophetic present for future: 193 Prospalta: 315 prostitutes and courtesans: 82, 101, 112–13, 143, 234, 298 Protagoras of Abdera: 28–9, 36–9, 46, 47, 51, 71, 79, 117 proverbs: 24–5, 148, 326, 388, 390, 422, 440–1, 444–5, 481, 496–7, 510 omission of verb in: 457 prytaneis: 408–9

Ptolemy son of Hephaestion, i.e. Ptolemaeus Chennos: 436–7 Pylos: 12 Pyrilampes son of Antiphon: 259–60 quail and quail-fighting: 218, 257 quail-tapping: 397 ram as sacrificial victim: 195 raven: 430 ray or skate: 100 Rhodian tripolis: 25 ribbon and ribbon-vending: 353–4 rower: 390 sacred law, expounders of: 508 sacrifice: 195, 476 saltfish: 199–200 Samos and Samian Revolt: 43 sand, numberlessness of as trope: 487 school and school-teachers: 135–6 sea-bass: 57 seal-ring: 208–9 seer: 256, 467, 508 Seleucus of Alexandria: 25 Seriphos: 289 sesame: 107 sex: 82, 83, 108, 143, 158, 195, 269, 294 shackles or chains: 103 shears and scissors: 473 sheep and goats: 66 shield: 416–17 shoes and sandals: 443–4, 491–2 sickness as metaphor: 134 sieve, for flour: 218 Simon: 275 Simonides of Ceos: 17–18 Sirius: 51–2 skillet: 26 Slave City: 221 slaves and slavery: 11–12, 35, 56, 61, 70, 74, 89, 94, 95, 127, 149, 154, 158, 170, 185, 189, 196, 199, 201, 221, 263–4, 294, 298, 304, 325, 332, 408, 409, 418, 433, 443, 457–8, 464, 469, 470, 475, 479, 503, 505 sleep, imagery of: 212, 301 snake: 53, 335

Index rerum et personarum Socrates: 35, 36, 46, 498 Sophocles: Antigone 712–17: 347 in comedy: 375 Tereus: 371, 375 Sparta and Spartans: 11, 14, 19, 20, 22, 160, 172, 242–3, 344 speaker’s stand: 240 spices: 23 spits (for roasting meat) and spit-rests: 112, 323 sprang: 79 Stesichorus of Himera: 17 Stheneboia: 336 Stilbides: 256 stocks: 95 storage chest: 234 strabismus: 466 Strattis, Atalantos or Atalantê: 370 Sun-god: 501 sweeping, domestic: 74, 231 sycophant: 292 Symmachus (commentator): 107, 309–10, 430, 484 symposia: 17, 18–19, 51, 70, 79, 100, 112–13, 231, 239, 403, 404, 495 synaloiphê: 485 synekphônêsis/synizêsis: 485 Syrakosios and Syrakosios’ Decree: 239–40 Taenarum: 12, 20 tattoo and tattooing: 94, 154, 417–19, 466 taxiarch: 366–7, 418 Tellis: 437 Tenos: 291–2 Teos: 44 Tharreleides: 484 Theramenes: 305 Theseion and Theseus: 242, 263–4

563

Thracians: 285, 353, 466 three as round number: 415 three-word trimeter: 480 tortoise or turtle: 21, 505 transport-poles: 450 treachery and conspiracy, in Athenian political discourse: 187 tribute: 309 trireme, sacred: 219 trireme and trierarch: 150, 219, 295, 390–1 tuna: 55 Tyronichus of Chalkis: 437 washing-water: 509 water-clock, in Athenian courts: 471 water, drawing of: 470 weaving: 287, 399–400 whips and whipping: 480–1 for horse: 295 wicker-work: 170 women: clothing accessories: 79 described as heifers or colts: 113 doing manual labor: 470 taboo on naming onstage: 456 wood-gathering: 154 wrestling: 433 writing tablets: 136 Xanthias the iron-worker: 432 Xanthippos son of Pericles: 28, 36, 169, 363 Xenocles son of Carcinus: 371, 393 Xenophon: 185 Zeus: as character in play: 482 in genitive to indicate extraordinary size or like: 492 language used of: 501 statue of at Olympia: 491–2

564

Indices

Index fontium Ael. VH 12.30: fr. 202 Ael. fr. 107: fr. *179 Ael. fr. 109: frr. 187; [190] Agora Inv. 23985: Ταξίαρχοι test. iii [Ammon.] Diff. 33: fr. 271.1 [Ammon.] Diff. 458: fr. 287 Anon. in Arist. EN IV.6, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca XX p. 186.10–15 Heylbut: fr. 261 Antiatt. p. 79.10: fr. 213 Antiatt. p. 96.17: fr. 185 Antiatt. p. 96.18–21: fr. 319 Antiatt. p. 99.11–12: fr. 215 Antiatt. p. 111.5: fr. 216 Apollon. Dysc. Grammatici Graeci II 1.1 p. 85.12–22 = pp. 470–2 Brandenburg: frr. 201; 290 Aristid. 28.91: fr. 205 Ar. Nu. 551–9: Μαρικᾶς test. i Ath. 1.22f: fr. 158 Ath. 2.52b–c: fr. 271 Ath. 3.100b: fr. 187 Ath. 4.138e: fr. 147 Ath. 4.170c–d: fr. 275 Ath. 5.178b: fr. 315 Ath. 6.236e–7a: fr. 172 Ath. 6.266e–f: fr. 296 Ath. 7.286b: fr. 174 Ath. 7.326a: fr. 262 Ath. 7.328a–b: fr. 160 Ath. 7.328e: fr. 156 Ath. 9.374f–5a: fr. 301 Ath. 9.392e: fr. 226 Ath. 9.400a–b: fr. 174 Ath. 9.400c: fr. 153 Ath. 9.406c: fr. 323 Ath. 9.408e–f: fr. 320 Ath. 10.425a–b: fr. 219 Ath. 12.535a–b: fr. 171 Ath. 14.629f: fr. 176 Ath. 14.638e: fr. 148 Ath. 14.646f: fr. 176

Ath. 14.657a: fr. 301 Ath. 15.690e: fr. 204 Ath. 15.691b–c: fr. 204 Choerob. Grammatici Graeci IV.2 p. 168.24–30: fr. 310 Choerob. Grammatici Graeci IV.2 p. 238.30–5: fr. 163 Choerob. An.Ox. II p. 295.12–15: Μαρικᾶς test. v Dio Chrysostom or. 32.6: fr. 234 D.L. 9.50: fr. 157a EM p. 221.42–4: Μαρικᾶς test. v EM p. 718.4–5: fr. 299 Epim. Hom. ω 21: fr. 197 Erot. η 4: fr. 152 Erot. µ 4: fr. 191 Erot. ψ 2: fr. 204 Erot. fr. 17 (pp. 103.22–104.6 Nachmanson): fr. 159 Et.Gen. A s. v. ἀπόπατος: fr. 306 Et.Gen. AB s. v. Γαριµᾶς: Μαρικᾶς test. v Et.Gen. AB s. v. ∆ρυαχαρνεῦ: Προσπάλτιοι test. *ii Et.Gen. AB s. v. ἐπιτήδειος: fr. 243 Et.Gen. A s. v. στρεβλόν: fr. 195.2 Eust. p. 300.22–3 = I.464.23–6: fr. *203 Eust. p. 764.10–11 = II.763.5–6: fr. 174 Eust. p. 1406.27 = i.43.5: fr. 168 Eust. p. 1547.51–4 = i.233.22–5: fr. 157b Exc. gramm. An.Ox. IV p. 195.28–31: fr. 310 Galen caus. procatarct. 38 (CMG Suppl. II p. 10.29–32): fr. 158 Harp. p. 26.14–15 = Α 94 Keaney: fr. 256 Harp. pp. 46.22–47.2 = Α 189 Keaney: fr. 228 Harp. p. 170.7–16 = Κ 23 Keaney: fr. 293 Harp. p. 194.7–9, 12–14 = Λ 24 Keaney: fr. 239 Harp. p. 247.10–13 = Π 60 Keaney: fr. 188

Index fontium Harp. p. 273.8–11 = Σ 16 Keaney: fr. 324 Harp. p. 286.15–16 = Τ 2 Keaney: fr. 210 Harp.K ap. Keaney 1967. 209: fr. 297 Heph. Enchiridion 16.4, p. 57.11–17 Consbruch: fr. 316 Heph. Enchiridion 13.2, p. 41.4–6 Consbruch: fr. 173 Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 443.15–17: fr. 214 [Hdn.] Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 917.1–5: fr. 149 [Hdn.] Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 933.1–4: fr. 151 [Hdn.] Philet. 75: fr. 297 Herodicus ap. Ath. 5.218b–c: Κόλακες test. ii Herodicus ap. Ath. 11.506f: Κόλακες test. ii Hsch. γ 1013: fr. 174 Hsch. δ 2258: fr. 212 Hsch. κ 1300: fr. 168 Hsch. µ 283: Μαρικᾶς test. v Hyp. Ar. Ach. I.32–4: Νουµηνίαι test. i Hyp. Ar. Pax III.39–42: Κόλακες test. i Lex. Mess. fol. 283v5–6: fr. 325 Liban. fr. 50 β 2.13–15 (XI p. 643.11–13 Foerster): Κόλακες test. *viii Max. Tyr. 14.7 (14.156–60, p. 124.1–5 Trapp): Κόλακες test. iv Moer. λ 20: fr. 240 Oros, On Orthography (Lex. Mess. fol. 281r20–6 ap. Rabe 1892. 407) ~ fr. B 108 Alpers: frr. 201; 290 Philostr. VS 2.25.3 (p. 110.26–32 Kayser): Κόλακες test. *v Phot. α 1065: fr. 273 Phot. α 1286: fr. 230 Phot. α 1437: fr. 257 Phot. α 1905: fr. 236 Phot. α 1936: fr. 237 Phot. α 2083: fr. 168 Phot. α 2441: fr. 238 Phot. α 2602: fr. 306 Phot. α 2758: fr. 234 Phot. α 2824: fr. 317

565

Phot. α 2989: fr. 248 Phot. α 3105: fr. 194 Phot. δ 161: fr. 255 Phot. ε 867: fr. 278 Phot. ε 972: fr. 288 Phot. ε 1754: fr. 243 Phot. κ 867: fr. 281 Phot. λ 218: fr. 182 Phot. µ 151: fr. 300.1 Phot. µ 451: fr. 198 Phot. ο 234: fr. 289 Phot. ο 356: fr. 279 Phot. ο 690: fr. 233 Phot. π 517: fr. 184 Phot. σ 615: fr. 195.2 Phot. τ 399: fr. 312 Phot. τ 506: fr. 299 Phot. p. 654.21–2: fr. *244 Phot. p. 657.2–5: fr. 206 Phot. p. 658.14, 19–21: fr. 276 Phot. (z) s. v. ψάγδας ap. Tsantsanoglou 1984. 119–20: fr. 204 Phot. (z) inedit. s. v. ὤµιλλα: fr. 314 Phryn. PS p. 28.9–11: fr. *164 Phryn. Ecl. 109: Κόλακες [test. vii] Phryn. Ecl. 310: fr. 161 Plu. Mor. 50d: fr. 175 Plu. Mor. 698f–9a: fr. 158 Plu. Mor. 778d: fr. 175 Plu. Mor. 1047d: fr. 158 Plu. Cim. 15.3: fr. 221 Plu. Nic. 4.3: fr. 193 Poll. 2.77: fr. 258 Poll. 3.109: fr. 172.9 Poll. 4.188: fr. 264 Poll. 6.92: fr. 169 Poll. 6.159: frr. 189; 193.5 Poll. 7.13: fr. 229 Poll. 7.29: fr. 242 Poll. 7.86: fr. 312 Poll. 7.106: fr. 283 Poll. 7.133: fr. 291 Poll. 7.168: fr. 280 Poll. 7.192: fr. 170 Poll. 9.25: fr. 322

566

Indices

Poll. 9.37: fr. 189 Poll. 9.58: fr. 270 Poll. 9.59: fr. 165 Poll. 9.74: fr. 150 Poll. 9.89: fr. 162 Poll. 9.102–3: Ταξίαρχοι test. ii; fr. 269 Poll. 10.10: fr. 161 Poll. 10.17: fr. 285 Poll. 10.28: fr. 167 Poll. 10.39: fr. 170 Poll. 10.63: frr. 272; 305 Poll. 10.73: fr. 217 Poll. 10.85–6: fr. 292 Poll. 10.90: fr. 169 Poll. 10.96–7: fr. 183 Poll. 10.98: fr. 155 Poll. 10.136: fr. 277 Poll. 10.140: fr. 300 Poll. 10.192: fr. 218 Porph. in ΣB Il. 10.252–3 (Quaestionum Homericarum ad Iliadem pertinentium p. 148.4–22 Schrader): fr. 298 POxy. 1803.56–9: fr. 313 POxy. 2740: frr. 268; 281 POxy. 2741: frr. 192; 193 POxy. 2813: fr. 259 Priscian. De metr. Ter. 26 (Grammatici Latini III p. 429.1–10): fr. 316 Priscian. Instit. Gramm. 18.190 (Grammatici Latini III p. 297.18–21): fr. 265 Priscian. Instit. Gramm. 18.225 (Grammatici Latini III p. 320.4–8): fr. 263 PSI 1213: fr. 260 Ptol. Gramm. ap. Heylbut 1887 p. 406.16–17: fr. 287 Quint. Inst. Orat. 1.10.18: fr. 208 ΣAB Ael. Arist. III p. 515.14–15: fr. 221 ΣM A. Pers. 65: fr. 207 ΣΕΓ Ar. Ach. 3: fr. 308 ΣRΕ Ar. Ach. 3: fr. 308 ΣEΓ Ar. Ach. 127: fr. 286 ΣΕΓ Ar. Ach. 504: fr. 254 ΣVEΓθM Ar. Eq. 1225: Εἵλωτες test. dub. i

ΣVNMAMatr Ar. Nu. 52: fr. 166 ΣRVE Ar. Nu. 351: fr. 235 ΣE Ar. Nu. 541: Προσπάλτιοι test. i ΣEM Ar. Nu. 549: Μαρικᾶς test. ii; fr. 211 ΣE Ar. Nu. 553: fr. 211 ΣRVENp Ar. Nu. 553: Μαρικᾶς test. iii ΣVEMatr Ar. Nu. 587: fr. 219.2–3 ΣVEM Ar. Nu. 691: fr. 222 ΣV Ar. V. 57: fr. 261.2 ΣV Ar. V. 82: fr. 249 ΣV Ar. V. 98: fr. 227 ΣVΓ Ar. V. 925: fr. 299 ΣVΓ Ar. V. 1271: fr. 222 ΣVΓ Ar. V. 1278: fr. 311 ΣVΓ Ar. V. 1310: fr. 321 ΣV Ar. Pax 348: Ταξίαρχοι test. i; fr. 274 ΣRVΓ Ar. Pax 803: fr. 178 ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 1031: fr. 225 ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 1046: fr. 231 ΣV Ar. Pax 1176: fr. 247 ΣVEΓ2 Ar. Av. 42: fr. 309 ΣVM9ΓM Ar. Av. 283: Κόλακες test. iii ΣVEΓ Ar. Av. 839: fr. 266 ΣRVEΓ Ar. Av. 876: fr. 177 ΣVEΓM Ar. Av. 880: fr. 246 ΣVE Ar. Av. 1294: fr. 282 ΣRVEΓM Ar. Av. 1297: fr. 220 ΣRVEΓ Ar. Av. 1379: fr. 264 ΣRVEΓ Ar. Av. 1556: fr. 195 ΣRΓ Ar. Lys. 270: fr. 232 ΣRΓ Ar. Lys. 490: fr. 195 ΣR Ar. Lys. 1189: Κόλακες test. ix ΣR Ar. Th. 162: fr. 303 ΣVMEV57 Ar. Ra. 415: fr. 181 ΣRVEθBarbV57 Ar. Ra. 570: Μαρικᾶς test. iv ΣVEΘBarb Ar. Ra. 970: fr. 251 ΣVEΘBarb Ar. Ra. 1036: fr. 318 ΣRVEΘ Ar. Ra. 1513: fr. 224 ΣREΘBarbV57 Ar. Pl. 718: fr. 245 ΣV Ar. Pl. 718: fr. 245 ΣVEΘBarb Ar. Pl. 1037: fr. 209 ΣAI Heph. Enchiridion 2.1, p. 107.1–14 Consbruch: fr. 307 ΣA Heph. Enchiridion 15.3, p. 154.11–17 Consbruch: fr. 250

Index fontium RH

Hp. Epid. V 7 = 5. 208.2–3 Littré: fr. 159 Σ Lex. Cyrill.: fr. 186 ΣΓ2V∆ Luc. Tim. 30 (p. 115.5 Rabe): fr. 252 ΣV∆ Luc. JTr. 48 (p. 83.16–20, 25–7 Rabe): Κόλακες test. *vi Σ metr. Pi. O. 13: fr. 316 ΣAreth. Pl. Ap. 20e (p. 421 Greene): frr. 180; 253 ΣAreth. Pl. Ap. 23e (p. 422 Greene): fr. 295 ΣTW Pl. Mx. 235e (pp. 182–3 Greene): frr. 267; 294 ΣAreth. (B) Pl. Lys. 206e (p. 457 Greene): fr. 314 ΣT Pl. Phd. 60b (p. 8 Greene): fr. 194 ΣT Pl. Smp. 174b (p. 56 Greene): fr. 315 ΣT Pl. Sph. 239c (p. 43 Greene): fr. 194 Σ Plu. Mor. 182b: fr. 240 ΣLRM S. OC 1600: fr. 196 St.Byz. γ 11: fr. 199 St.Byz. µ 66: fr. 241 St.Byz. µ 71: fr. 302 Suda α 1446: fr. 273 Suda α 1785: fr. 200 Suda α 2282: fr. 236 Suda α 2434: fr. 237 Suda α 3227: fr. 238 Suda α 3468: fr. 306 Suda α 3672: fr. 234 Σ

Suda δ 1515: Προσπάλτιοι test. *ii Suda κ 2670: fr. 264 Suda κ 2671: fr. 264 Suda λ 322: fr. 182 Suda µ 1050: fr. 198 Suda µ 1470: fr. 174 Suda ο 384: fr. 279 Suda τ 815: fr. 312 Suda φ 604: Ταξίαρχοι test. i; fr. 274 Suda χ 425: fr. 264 Suda ψ 128: fr. 206 Suda ω 14: fr. 276 Suda ω 92: fr. 314 Synag. B α 123: fr. 284 Synag. B α 955: fr. 273 Synag. B α 1338: fr. 236 Synag. B α 1381: fr. 237 Synag. B α 1797: fr. 238 Synag. B α 1890: fr. 223 Synag. B α 1932: fr. 306 Synag. B α 2068: fr. 234 Synag. B α 2256: fr. 248 Synag. B α 2357: fr. 194 Zenob. Ath. 1.15 (vulg. 2.19): fr. 315 Zenob. Ath. 2.37: fr. 264 Zenob. Ath. 3.61: fr. 154 Zenob. vulg. 6.2: fr. 304

567